Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Yep...I think everyone is seeing what's going on.Wow that's some real interesting stuff in the "P-38 as a Bomber " thread,
so anyone who likes proper data related to this thread - best check it out.
What are your sources for the Pathfinder's performance?All the shortcomings of the "P-38 as a Bomber" are noted in yep, you guessed it - that specific thread. Go figure..
As I stated, Hypothetical!Whaaa?
The USAAF priority was the 'glamour' 8th AF, in the ETO, & only the best was good enough for them, ( not the P-38).
To state "fake" reports from Air Material Command is frankly, delusional.
In military terms what is a "glamour" airforce? Also please show how the this glamour force could demand the best. My unlce was a spotter US navy gunners during and after D Day. P38s were used near the allied fleet because whatever their strengths and weaknesses they were easy to tell from SE fighters.Whaaa?
The USAAF priority was the 'glamour' 8th AF, in the ETO, & only the best was good enough for them, ( not the P-38).
To state ( even as "hypothetical") "fake" reports from Air Material Command is frankly, delusional.
Edit: Clarified the issue of the stated "hypothetical" idea - as completely mentally deranged.
NoAre these posts submitted by grown men?
What is "the lions share"? Lions share of Carriers? Lions share of carrier based planes? Lions share of B29s? As I see it the USA sent resources to where they were most needed and suited.The 8th AF was the USAAF's 'main feature' - taking the 'lions share' of resources/publicity/wins & losses in the toughest fighting.
You are of course correct, pbehn - about the unmistakable appearance of the P-38,
& although Eisenhower went sight-seeing in a 2-seat P-51, other flying US Generals chose the P-38 for that reason, AFAIR.
This point you have made - does give lie to another of Sh-ter's bogus assumptions, since the LW also knew what Lightnings
looked like & could generally see them 1st, (P- 38's being big-as birds with blind-spots) & make the call to engage, or evade them.
Go to the threads marked basic and re-read the rules of this forum - a challenge to someone's commentsSure FBJ, I apologise for allowing G-G to dog me into a response that you think is.. me being an asshole.
& for those interested in the whole 'droop snoot' deal, SR6 has summarised it well, in the 'P-38 as Bomber' thread.
If you ever fully read that report you'll find it was prepared by pilots who had little multi engine experience. Col Rau (20th FG) prepared and equally damaging report in June, 1944. I think pilots of the 475th FG would disagree with many of the findings of both reports.Just read the report written by the USAAF Air Material Command listing the P-38's fundamental deficiencies.
Any modifications would have to be at the approval of the AAF. Lockheed developed the P-38K and it was discarded. A one piece blown canopy for the P-38 was not high on anyone's priority list. Kelly Johnson had several other mods he would have liked to see implemented (one of them a stick in lieu of a yoke) but the AAF had the final say.P-38 missed out on even a few basics like paddle-props & a blown bubble canopy.
IDIOT !!
You get 2 x P51 for the price of 1 x P38. So the question should be: Which is the better in a dogfight: 2 x P51 vs 1 x P38 - so P51 obviously wins.
Turning circle is the other key factor, which the P51 also wins. As to 'fightability' well only a pilot who has flown both knows that. And you wont get many of them on a Walt's forum.
The actual real answer is course: ME 109 (or perhaps Spifire) becasue they were not flown by fat overweight americans.
Sounds remarkably like something the "political officer" would approve of, eh?The actual real answer is course: ME 109 (or perhaps Spifire) becasue they were not flown by fat overweight americans.