P-38 or Mosquito?

yes but when you sit there for 15 mins waiting for a pic to load it becomes a problem................

Hmm....


I've got the problem figured out...

Your internet service sucks.

We all figured that out way back

plan_D said:

No. Any planes armed with bombs can dive bomb a ship, this is called dive bombing. It is not an anti-shipping role, and 'could of' isn't a did, so the Lightning does not have anti-shipping to its role.

Click to expand...

Hmmm... It carried torpedos... that's anti-shipping to me!

Seriously the P-38 did lots of anti-shipping duty, mostly using rockets and guns, but also using bombs and even torpedos.

The P-38 was the more capable plane, carrying up to 4,000 lbs of bombs, and being by far the more capable fighter. The mossie excelled at night, where a two+ man crew is needed, and dogfighting does not happen.

=S=

Lunatic

The P-38 could actually carry up to 5,200lbs of bombs...which for a fighter is damned good.

cheddar cheese said:

The P-38 could actually carry up to 5,200lbs of bombs...which for a fighter is damned good.

Click to expand...

Yes, the F4U was also shown (by Lindberg) to be able to carry 4000 lbs of bombs. But for practical purposes, 2 x 2000 lbs bombs was the max reasonable payload for the P-38, and 2 or 3 x 1,000 pound bombs was the max for the F4U (more commonly 2 x 500's + 8 x 5" HVAR's).

The same is true for the heavy bombers. Yes we see payloads up in the 20,000 pound range for the B-29 and Lancaster, and as much as about 15,000 lbs for the B-17, but in truth half these payloads or even less were much more the norm. Maximum payloads were very rarely carried except for special missions.

=S=

Lunatic

the lancaster had a max. payload of 22,000lbs with modification but the normall load was 10,000lbs consisting of 6x1,000lb bombs and a cookie, it wasn't uncommon for B-17s to carry only 2,000lbs...........

but they normally carried 6,000lbs.

While the P-38 was a very good aircraft, I feel that the view of it as a 'great' aircraft is somewhat misplaced!
Why ???
Well in the ETO/MTO if you use the measure of 'kill to loss' ratio as a guide, the P-38 actually comes out as the worst of the 4 fighters used by the 8th Airforce .

The P-51 comes out top destroying 4,950 enemy aircraft in the air for 2,520 losses.
Next is the Spitfire, followed by the P-47.
The P-38 comes in last shooting down 1,771 enemy.
aircraft for a loss of 1,758.

In fact the performance of the P-38 was so poor in the ETO/MTO that all four 8th AF Fighter Groups that had flown the P-38 during early 1944 (the 20th, 55th, 364th, and 479th FGs) had transitioned to the P-51 by October 1944. There were no P-38 FGs in the 8th AF after that date, and the only FG in the 9th AF using the P-38 by V-E day was the 474th FG.

While I agree with you for the most part, you have to take into consideration that the P-38 was the trickiest of those four to fly and get used to; landing and takeoff accidents must be counted too...


Just because it had 1,758 losses doesn't mean 1,758 were shot down...



It's kinda the same for the Bf-109, over 1/3 (11,000 ) of the 33,000-some built were lost in landing and take off accidents due to the narrow track landing gear...

cheddar cheese said:

The Mossie was actually designed as a fighter bomber (I think).

Click to expand...

No, the Mosquito was originally designed as an unarmed light bomber.

Ah ok, thanks.

redcoat said:

While the P-38 was a very good aircraft, I feel that the view of it as a 'great' aircraft is somewhat misplaced!
Why ???
Well in the ETO/MTO if you use the measure of 'kill to loss' ratio as a guide, the P-38 actually comes out as the worst of the 4 fighters used by the 8th Airforce .

The P-51 comes out top destroying 4,950 enemy aircraft in the air for 2,520 losses.
Next is the Spitfire, followed by the P-47.
The P-38 comes in last shooting down 1,771 enemy.
aircraft for a loss of 1,758.

In fact the performance of the P-38 was so poor in the ETO/MTO that all four 8th AF Fighter Groups that had flown the P-38 during early 1944 (the 20th, 55th, 364th, and 479th FGs) had transitioned to the P-51 by October 1944. There were no P-38 FGs in the 8th AF after that date, and the only FG in the 9th AF using the P-38 by V-E day was the 474th FG.

Click to expand...

There were a lot of reasons for this. Early on the P-38 was the long range Allied fighter. There were realtively few of them compared to the P-47 which often numbered as much as 700. German pilots would sit out of range of the P-47 and when the P-47's turned back the P-38's would continue and get pounced. Also pilots typically had only 20 or fewer hours in the P-38 before taking it into combat, and it was a very different plane from the P-40 or P-39 with which they had experiance.

There were also a lot of mechanical problems for the earlier P-38's, and it was not a plane that did well in cold weather, and there was no heating for the pilot - they froze thier asses off at 20,000 feet. Furthermore, in these earlier models the process of transitioning from cruise condition to combat condition was difficult and complicated. It went something like this (off the top of my head):

1) Reach under the seat and twist two sperate hard to get at fuel cocks to switch from external tanks to internal fuel tanks.
2) Jettison external fuel tanks
3) Switch each engine from full auto lean to full auto rich
4) Turn on the gun heaters and enable the guns
5) Turn on the lightbulb for the gunsite.

I think there were a couple more steps I cannot recall. The point is that it was not easy to do and it was noted that many pilots, when bounced, took no evasive action at all. Probably the pilot was too busy trying to reconfigure his plane to fly it. In the PTO the weather was usually warmer, and the combat altitudes lower, and the P-38 held the speed advantage to such a degree that it was doing the bouncing. Pilots also had more training in the plane before going into combat, and the scale of combat was generally much smaller, less than 100 fighters on each side, with a few exceptions like the Turkey Shoot.

About mid way through the P-38J series (the -25LE ??), most of these problems were resolved, but by then the P-51 had hit the scene. P-51's were a lot simpler to fly, had equal range, cost about half as much and were much easier to mass produce, were much easier and cheaper to maintain, and arrived in huge numbers. So the P-38J-25 was not going to redeem the P-38's rep no matter how good it was.

Finally, the P-51 was one hell of a plane. The key thing about the P-51 that most people don't realize is that this was a plane that CRUISED at 395 mph! FW's cruised at 280 mph or slower depending on model, and 109's at an even slower speed. This meant that, all other things being equal, at the point of engagement the P-51 had a huge initial advantge.

Here is a German Pilot quote for you to consider:

Hans Pichler, a German pilot, came in behind some P-38s and fired. The P-38 pilots applied full WEP power and Pichler described what then happened, "They disappeared leaving our mouths wide open. The five-minute chase caused my engine to seize. One of the connecting rods pushed itself through the cowling." Pichler felt that the P-38 was more maneuverable that his BF-109G-6 fighter. He did not look forward to engaging P-38s in combat.
http://p-38online.com/medovr.html

Click to expand...

When they were working right, in the hands of skilled pilots the P-38 was deadly.

Here's a good link on the P-38: http://home.att.net/~ww2aviation/P-38.html

=S=

Lunatic

P-51's were a lot simpler to fly, had equal range,

Click to expand...

Actually it was quite a bit less, about 100 miles for the P-51 (Without Droptanks) to about 1400 miles for the P-38L.

cheddar cheese said:

P-51's were a lot simpler to fly, had equal range,

Click to expand...

Actually it was quite a bit less, about 100 miles for the P-51 (Without Droptanks) to about 1400 miles for the P-38L.

Click to expand...

Yes but in reality the P-51 had sufficiently long range, and those figures are kinda mute because the P-38 carried much larger drop tanks, and these were rarely carried until they were empty.

Also, range with drop tanks is decieving. The P-38's models in the MTO had a practical range (one way) of about 950 miles on internal fuel, which is almost identical to the P-51D range of 950 miles on internal fuel. I suppose it is fair to consider the P-38L since by this time it was there, and it did have about a 1400 mile range on internal fuel, but to get this range the plane had to cruse way down at 230-250 mph, which was dangerous and most pilots would not do this until they were in very safe airspace. At higher speeds the P-38 fuel economy drops off sharply because it was not nearly as clean an airfoil as the P-51 and it had no radiator thrust to recapture cooling system drag. The P-51 on the otherhand, had a 950 mile range at about 360 mph, and a 900 mile range at 395 mph.

All things considered, they were of roughly equal range in practical terms.

=S=

Lunatic

I stand corrected 8)

all my sourses say the P-38J had a range on internal fuel of no more than 1,100 miles....................

the lancaster kicks ass said:

all my sourses say the P-38J had a range on internal fuel of no more than 1,100 miles....................

Click to expand...

Late mode J's (-25 and up) are the same as L's. But still, the range when flying accross the USA is not the same as the range after engaging the enemy and then wanting to return to base. By the time the P-38 had made it clear of enemy threats, and could power down to an economical cruise, it'd burned off enough fuel to have about an equal realistic combat range (for the return flight) as the P-51, which could economically cruise at speeds high enough to be safe even in enemy territory. So for practical purposes, while the Luftwaffe' was still somewhat of a threat to US planes over or near German lines, the P-51 had about equal range.

=S=

Lunatic

that's not the point i was trying to make..........................

Yes lanc, the J's could only go 1,100 miles, but the L's could go 1,400