Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Without a doubt it was great dogfighter it just did not have the legs needed to give the Allies the knockout blow needed to KO the LW that was done by the P51 which makes the 51 the labourers favourite sledgehammer or if you prefer the woodsmans favourite chainsaw
The Beaufighter wasn't fast enough, it had too much drag no matter what you stuffed in it for an engine. It also was the nearly size of some peoples medium bombers. dog fighting wasn't it's suit.
The Whirlwind was too small. It couldn't hold enough fuel inside to get back from a long range mission. It's how much fuel you have aftervthe drop tanks are gone that determine mission range/radius.
The Merlin got worse fuel mileage than the Allison. Switching to Merlins, depending on models of engines being compared and cruise conditions might have shortened the P-38s range from 8-30%
Without a doubt it was great dogfighter it just did not have the legs needed to give the Allies the knockout blow needed to KO the LW that was done by the P51
The need for huge numbers of fighter escorts was only realised towards the end of 1943 and the game was over before the end of 1944.
It was recognized in 1942, the first P-38 Group in the ETO was the 78th FG but had its 38's stripped and sent to North Africa as higher priority. The P-47C already had longer range than the Spit V and the 4th FG was the first to convert.
As a joint venture instead of the RAF challenging the Luftwaffe in France Belgium Holland the USAAF challenged them over Germany.
Strictly speaking the combined RAF and 8th/9th AF challenged over France, Belgium, Holland through the advent of 20th and 55th FG P-38s in the fall of 1943, which immediately went into central Germany while the 47s barely made it to Munster, Frankfurt, etc and the RAF Spits 150 miles shorter than that
Producing the Mustang in UK in place of the spitfire is a nice idea but it is a completely different plane. The Mustang was designed from the very start for production on its designers production lines, to produce it in the UK would take an age to arrange when in fact there were only months available.
Good point but since all Mustang I, II, III and IV's were produced in the US it would have been easier for NAA to tool up in US - which they did with Dallas Plant.
There were two dedicated facilities for the mustang but they didnt actually produce many planes.
Compared to what? about the same number as the P-47 (more - if you include Australian licensed Mustangs) and 5000 more than the P-38 so what would your definition of 'many' be? So the Mustang - all sources - was the largest production US fighter
The Mustang I was held up for lack of Allison engines. After the Merlin engined MkII was developed it was quickly uprated to the mk III but these changes even in dedicated factories cost production. The British put a lot into the Mustang versions I,II, and III. They commisioned it but it wasnt allowed to fly because engines wernt made available. They provided the merlin engine. They provided a gunsight The British Mk II manufactured as the Sperry K14.
Not sure where you are headed with this. RAF first to modify Mk II experimentally with Rolls Merlin, NAA redesigned the P-51 to accomodate the Packard merlin - which Packard also building in large quantities for Lancaster on license from Rolls. Had the RAF wished to alter priorities the RAF could have directed Packard to modify and produce. True on both gunsight genesis as well as G-Suit.
The aerodynamics of the Mustang used the Meredith effect (Meredith was British) to achieve its high speed at altitude which acording to its designer had much more effect than the laminar flow wing.
The designer Edgar Schmued made no such claim. What was stated by Kindleburger and Atwood made such 'variations on a theme' - but simply, while the Meridith effect was in fact a contemplated design feature, no substantiation of claims from 35 to 150 pounds of net thrust were ever tested and validated. What IS a fact is that the net drag of the design was the lowest of any fighter during WWII. The laminar flow wing was proven to have far less drag than conventional NACA 5 digit type airfoils on the Spit, 109 and 190 for example.
The British realised the qualities of the Mustang in all its variants and ordered it. It is hardly a problem of the British that Americas need was greater than ours and so it was used for bomber escort, with P47 used for ground attack. Mustang squadrons in the RAF had to change back to spitfires due to lack of planes and Mustangs supplied to the RAF were used for bomber escort after all we were all on the same side.
True
Perhaps a better question would be if the US had adopted P 51A (and hence B/C,D) production over P40 as soon as the P 51A was available the the war would have finished MUCH sooner, if the Mustang was so obviously brilliant why did the USA order N.A. to fit dive brakes and use it as a dive bomber in mid 1943?
Because procurement for fighter aircraft ran out in early 1942 but USAAF had a 'pocket' of funding for dive bombers and wished NAA to continue producing the P-51
Please dont forget that in 1944 Britain was faced with the V1 threat at which the tempest and spitfire were much more suited than the Mustang III, we still had to defend our island which contained at the time a huge amount of American assets. If the V1 was able to target an airfied for example the game would have changed in a heartbeat.
Just curious why the P-51B was less suited to attack V-1s. It was still faster than the Spit on the deck and IIRC faster than any variant of the Tempest?
PS I use the Mustang designation purely to irritate, it may be an American icon but without the British and some very dedicated and brilliant American designers it would still be a "might have been".
Well, RAF fighters shot down more Luftwaffe aircraft in the ETO than USAAF fighters did, so I'm not sure where this notion of a "knockout blow" comes from. If you look at a chart of Luftwaffe loss rates they accelerated throughout the war. Their peak was during the Normandy campaign. Luftwaffe quality started to decline following the heavy pilot losses during the BoB.
There was no "knockout blow". There was steady attrition, from the summer of 1940 onwards it was always more than the Luftwaffe could replace without reducing quality.
Hop - What was the RAF victory credit total in ETO?
I believe it's 10,736.5
And the total from April 1943 through May 1945?
Charley Fox DFC bar who flew Spits V XI XIV and Mustangs stated to us one day , " It was not hard in a dogfight to win with a Spit over a Mustang but then the P51 pilot would say lets try this over Berlin". I believe if push came to shove it would not take long for the US to get the jigs and drawings to the UK .
a quote from Right of the Line in ref to daylight bombing
"Less helpful was the continuing disposition to find ways to resume daylight bombing when there was only one way to make it effective - the introduction of true long range fighters to protect the bombers. Churchill had already percieved the necccessity, but Portal firmly set his face against it . A long range fighter he believed would never hold its own aginst a short range fighter it was a attitude as Churchill said "closed many doors"
They didn't want a long range fighter because they thought it was an impossibility , and thats why the switch to night bombing. Can tou imagine the havoc caused by 2 TAF if they had the ability to chase down the LW rather then allowing LW to pick and choose when to fightI think the point is that the RAF were not after a long range escort/air superiority fighter. If they were the MkXIV Spitfire could have been modified for additional tankage, plus extra options for drop tanks, more quickly than a production line for Mustangs could be set up and start producing. The USAAF modified a Spitfire to give it much longer range, and the XVIII was basically a longer range XIV.
Also, as far as the XIV goes the standard armament was 2 x 20mm + 2 x .50s, but they could equally have been ordered with 4 x 20mm cannon. I believe some, but not many, were.
So, if the RAF wanted a longer range Spitfire it could have been made. When the RAF went to NAA they weren't after a long range escort a/c - they were after more P-40s.
Why the split? We were fighting in the ETO from 1939....
Cheers
John
If one wants to think of a prize fight analogy then the British and Russians tired the Luftwaffe out in the early rounds with body shots and jabs and then the US delivered the "knock-out" blow near the end.
It is a quick assessment of transition from being the single point of fighter on fighter engagements in the ETO. The same question could be asked of the MTO although the USAAF was engaged 4-6 months earlier in Africa and the Med.
During the start up of 8th AF ops in August 1942, only the RAF and a very limited 4th and 31st FG (in Spits) were available for any cross Channel Ops. In Mid 1943 there were three P-47 FG engaged over France, Belgium and Holland. In second half of 1943 the 8th and fledgling 9th AF were engaging on the German border and RAF was getting fewer engagements.
It was only during and after the Invasion that RAF once again had excellent opportuinties over previous hunting grounds because the LW contested over France..
After traction in gaining access to Europe based airfields, RAF once again was able to extend range to engage and Operation Market Garden was an opportunity for RAF to engage LuftFlotte Reich instead of perpetual skirmishes with LF3 (JG26 and JG2)
So - out of the total of 10K+ what is the breakout of pre-1943 and post Jan1 - 1943?
Second - strictly for knowledge - what is the same total 'arrangement' for MTO to wrap up air war against Germany?
Last question - are there any BC credits in the 10K+ number. God knows, nobody would include 8th/15th AF bomber claims in aggragate for US - at least not until parsing 10:1
I hardely think so Shortround....The USA did not deliver the knock out blow to the Nazi's. You helped, but, did not 'win' the WW2 for the allies.
Hollywood has spun such a fabric of woppers that a lot of American's sincerely believe that John Wayne won WW2 single handed...
Cheers
John
I don't believe that was what I was trying to say or even implied.
Just like many a prize fight, a "punch" that may end things in a late round may not be anywhere near as conclusive if delivered earlier in the fight. The grind of the earlier years (rounds) wore the Germans down to where the "knock out" blow could be delivered.
And at a lower cost than if the grind hadn't occurred.
I believe I was trying to say it was a team effort and credit should go all.
Politics or timing?
First test shot wasn't until July 16th of 1945. Just a little late for the war against Germany.