P38 vs P47 vs 109 and 190

[Nikademus]

I disagree somewhat. Of course a large part of the Luftwaffe was fighting on the Eastern Front but the end result would have been the same. The western allies would have defeated the Luftwaffe even if it had been twice the size. You see, the problems were still the same: the western allies had better pilots and to a lesser extent better high altitude fighters.

Kris

Its not a matter of what the end result might have been. The Western Allies alone probably would eventually have clawed out air superiority just as its feasible to conjecture that without D-Day, Torch, or Husky, the Russians would have eventually clawed their way back to Berlin. Its a matter of time and casualties. In the airwar's case too, one also has to factor in the bomber force as well as the fighters. The Western Allies' job was achieving air superiority was made infinately easier by not having to try to eliminate the Luftwaffe's bomber forces in strength at the same time they were conducting their stragetic operations.

My point thus, was that when discussing the downfall of the Luftwaffe, one cannot discount the VVS's contribution. Without it......it would have been far more costly and time consuming for the Western Allies, regardless of what specific plane type is being forwarded.

 

[Civettone]

Like I said, I disagree "somewhat". Of course it would have been more difficult for the allies to gain air superiority if the entire LW was against them. But the end result would have been similar, especially as the allied fighter and bomber forces were expanding rapidly throughout 1944. At the end of the year by a factor of 3 compared to the beginning of the year.


Kris

 

[davebender]

more difficult for the allies to gain air superiority if the entire LW was against them

Could the western allies get ashore in Sicily and at Salerno if Luftwaffe units historically commiteed to Kursk were in the Med instead? I have my doubts.

 

[Civettone]

Oh yeah, don't get me wrong. I am saying that the allies would eventually get air superiority. Of course it would take a bit longer.

OTOH I wouldn't be surprised if aircraft production would actually be smaller if there was no Eastern Front.

Kris

 

[Soren]

I suspect that had there been no eastern front aircraft production might actually have been higher whilst the production of landbased machines was lower. Reason being that in such case much of the fighting in the west would've been undertaken in the air, everyone knowing that esp. because of the geographical situation who'ever had mastery of the skies also had all he cards in their hands.

 

[billswagger]

I was reading some very old post tonight and I began to notice a pattern. When asked about P38 vs P47 most people picked the P38 including the die hard German guys. Now, it is, as far as evreything I have ever read, generally accepted that the P47 broke the back off the Luftwaffe. BUT, when the same people are asked about P38 vs either a 109 or 190 it invariably comes back that the P38 will loose every time. From all the posts I read, a P38 couldnt shoot down a 109 or 190 if the German planes were out of gas, filled with concrete and the pilots were on vacation. Add to that was the reasoning that a P38 simply couldnt turn well enough to ever shoot down a 109 or 190. One wonders after reading the posts if a P38 EVER actually shot down a single engine German fighter. YET, history records the P47 crushed the Luftwaffe despite the fact that it cant outturn anything and it sure cant outclimg anything either, except for the zoom climb. (I know, the paddle blade prop to)

Anybody want to explain the alleged discrepensies here?

There are different reasons for the discrepancy, but the 38s usefulness also came down to pilot training and design factors, where other single engine fighters like the Jug just didn't have issues.

You have two engines, it takes a bit more consideration and experience to fly properly.

The 38 had a low mach number which made it horrible to dive with, and from all accounts it seems that BnZ was a popular tactic on both sides of the war. Not being able to dive away from an attack with out also losing control, is another reason the 38 was not as useful as a fighter.
It did follow the roll of the P-47 in ground support and attack missions.

Lastly, and less commonly known is not so much the turn rate, but it did have a poor roll inertia.
It could roll fast, but getting the plane to roll the opposite direction with in combination of maneuvers was difficult by comparison . A 109 pilot was quick to learn that a half roll to the right, and then a full roll to the left, and the 38 was not able to follow.

There are also reports of 38 pilots who mention the delay between moving the stick and the actual bank of the plane feels like an eternity with an enemy plane baring down on you.

Talking about turning ability is kind of sillly, considering that it all depends on the speeds these planes are traveling. There are also many 38 pilots who contended better against the better turning Japanese planes. I don't think turn ability was as much of an issue for the P-38, but i might say the biggest factor in Europe was trained pilots who could managed two engines.




Bill

 

[Civettone]

I suspect that had there been no eastern front aircraft production might actually have been higher whilst the production of landbased machines was lower. Reason being that in such case much of the fighting in the west would've been undertaken in the air, everyone knowing that esp. because of the geographical situation who'ever had mastery of the skies also had all he cards in their hands.

I think you have a point. It would mainly have been tank and artilley production which would have remained at a low level. my idea was that Hitler was reluctant to increase production because he didn't want to upset the civilian population by decreasing production of civilian products. Only when pushed he ordered an increase in production.
And it is quite possible that with Britain being the only enemy he would have ordered an increased production of aircraft, submarines and other attack ships.

The 38 had a low mach number which made it horrible to dive with, and from all accounts it seems that BnZ was a popular tactic on both sides of the war. Not being able to dive away from an attack with out also losing control, is another reason the 38 was not as useful as a fighter.

Compressibility was at around 460 mph so it could dive safely but simply not too steep.
Also the problem was mainly solved by adding special flaps. The interesting story is that these flaps were to be installed on operational P-38s in the field. But the C-54 carrying these flaps was accidentally shot down which caused a delay of some months. The last P-38Js got these modifications standard. Alsom, they got hydraulically powered controls and flaps which made the P-38 exceptionally controllable at high speeds. Suddenly the weakness of the P-38 turned into a strength.
But by then the P-51 had become the favorite of the USAAF in the ETO.

Kris

 

[fubar57]

Army Air Forces Statistical Digest, World War II has these numbers for aerial victories in the ETO: 6,098 by heavy bombers, 7,422 by fighters, and 103 by medium bombers.

 

[wuzak]

View attachment 347981

Army Air Forces Statistical Digest, World War II has these numbers for aerial victories in the ETO: 6,098 by heavy bombers, 7,422 by fighters, and 103 by medium bombers.

I still don't believe those for the heavy bombers.

 

[fubar57]

True, and that includes B-24s but it's probably closer than almost 10,000

 

[wuzak]

As for the P-38, it rolled very slowly, especially in the initial stages, except for the later models with power boosted ailerons - and then only when at high speed.

Diving for models without dive flaps was restricted to shallow angles, and when they got the dive flaps the limiting angle was 45°.

Climb was good, but the dive restrictions would make booming and zooming a problem, and the slow roll response made turning fights also difficult, even though it turned quite tightly once banked.

Spitfires could turn inside Zeroes provided speed was high enough. ie above 200 or 250mph IAS.

F4Fs were successful against Zeroes because of the tactics that were developed and employed in the USN and USMC.

 

[wuzak]

You do realise you are replying to posts that are 7 years old?

How about you go to the Improving the Bf 109 thread and check out the bits from the RAE tests on the Bf 109E conducted during 1940?

 

[fubar57]

No, they knew which planes were lost during which raids and where, keeping very good track of such things.

And which document do you have to support this.....other than your landlord?

 

[pbehn]

Thanks for the education shooter, now where is my $1000?

 

[pbehn]

You have to prove me wrong to get the money and I do not have to prove myself right to keep it.

Both myself and Stona proved you wrong, more spitfires were not lost to take of and landing accidents than to enemy action

 

[fubar57]

.....But seriously, there were several books published recently, ( Post internet?) one on Bomber guns and turrets IIRC with many stats in reference.......

And which document did you use to get the number of almost 10,000 shoot-downs for bomber crews?

 

[pbehn]

I have not seen those posts. I note that the very first Spit made crashed three times, was rebuilt twice and killed it's pilot the third time around. So that counts as three destroyed, one pilot killed. I still have not seen a single post with a link to the total number of planes lost to what causes.
Please furnish a post number and thread name with those numbers. The total lost in combat would also be nice to have along with those to "All Causes".

Read the thread you annoying fool, I am not chasing about after you again, I did that when I posted the losses in the first place.

 

[gjs238]

You do realise you are replying to posts that are 7 years old?

It's déjà vu all over again
- Yogi Berra

 

[BLine22]

Exactly correct! But those tactics were learned and developed by the Flying Tigers over China and brought home before the start of American involvement in the war. Those tactics were B&Z in nature and the RAF did not learn them in time to make a difference early in the war. Our tactics were every bit as bad in Europe early in the war, only the Germans and the USN were any different until later, say mid 1943?

The Flying Tigers flew no combat missions before the U.S. involvement in the the war. Chennault however, has been observing Japanese tactics since 1937.

 

[fubar57]

Wasn't the first mission on Dec. 19 '41?