SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
I got wasted in a European theatre.
The Fork-Tailed Devil..History of the P-38
- Thread starter P38 Pilot
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I ask bc there was substantial dissatisfaction with the performance of P-38s versus German SE fighters, whereas in the pacific the P-38 was universally lauded. Correct me if I'm wrong on any points.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
You do realize that the KI-43 and A6M were far more agile than the Bf109 and Fw190, right?
The Lightning in British service was not the same as the P-38 in USAAF service.
I do realize that and also recognize that dogfighting was an obsolete art. The zero was not outfought by turning.
ThomasP
Chief Master Sergeant
FWIW
Dogfighting was not yet an obsolete art in WWII, and to a degree is still believed a necessary option in today's air warfare environment. Regardless of how much one side or the other might like to avoid visual range ACM, it will not always be possible - too much depends on the mission parameters.
After action reports by the pilots of all nationalities often describe dogfighting up until the last day(s) of WWII. Dogfighting skills were considered invaluable by the US during the Korean war, and the concepts and training were brought back during the second-half of the Vietnam war after the USN & USAF higher-ups realized they were still needed. Visual ACM is still taught as an important part of pilot training today, and one of the reasons the F-22 was selected over the F-23 was the superior ACM abilities of the F-22. (The F-23 was faster, had a better super-cruise, and was more stealthy.)
Having said the above.
No(?) WWII twin-engine fighter was able to maneuver with any of the mainstream single-engine fighters - except sometimes in climb and/or dive speeds and/or acceleration. Roll-rate for the twin-engine airframe and turn-rate will be lower at normal combat speeds. Even after the later P-38 models got boosted ailerons most single-engine fighters would out-roll it at normal ACM speeds (ie 150-300 mph) - despite stories to the contrary. (Try finding an actual after-action report - written at the time by the P-38 pilot or by a German pilot - where he says that the P-38 easily out-rolled a Bf109 or Fw190.)
In the PTO the A6M, and to a lesser degree the Ki-43, had issues with the ailerons stiffening up (greatly reducing the roll-rate) - particularly at higher speeds of 300 mph plus. In the ETO the early Bf109 (thru the E model?) had this issue as well, though not to the same degree as the Japanese aircraft. The A6M was widely considered to be the best rolling aircraft below about 200 mph, while the Fw190 was widely considered to be the best rolling aircraft (that saw action in large numbers) at speeds above about 200 mph - at least until the later-war period (mid-1944 and later).
In the PTO, the P-38 was about 50-60 mph faster than the A6M and Ki-43. If the P-38 pilot kept his speed up and managed to avoid turning fights, he could often make high-speed passes and extend away after each pass - even in level flight. In the ETO, the Bf109 and Fw190 were more-or-less as fast as the P-38. After the later P-38s got boosted ailerons they could handily out-roll the A6M and Ki-43 at higher speeds. Also, while the range of the P-38 was useful in the ETO (particularly for bomber escort) - the long over-water flights in the PTO lent greater importance to its range and the second engine - allowing a greater operational flexibility than the then available single-engine aircraft. The range advantage was largely superseded late-war by single-engine aircraft such as the P-47, P-51, F6F, and F4U.
In the later-war PTO the speed advantage of the P-38 was reduced re the Ki-44, Ki-61, Ki-44, Ki-64, etc, so the same tactics were often not available, but by then the numerical superiority and the strategic/tactical advantage of the Allies hides the near parity in airframe performance.
Dogfighting was not yet an obsolete art in WWII, and to a degree is still believed a necessary option in today's air warfare environment. Regardless of how much one side or the other might like to avoid visual range ACM, it will not always be possible - too much depends on the mission parameters.
After action reports by the pilots of all nationalities often describe dogfighting up until the last day(s) of WWII. Dogfighting skills were considered invaluable by the US during the Korean war, and the concepts and training were brought back during the second-half of the Vietnam war after the USN & USAF higher-ups realized they were still needed. Visual ACM is still taught as an important part of pilot training today, and one of the reasons the F-22 was selected over the F-23 was the superior ACM abilities of the F-22. (The F-23 was faster, had a better super-cruise, and was more stealthy.)
Having said the above.
No(?) WWII twin-engine fighter was able to maneuver with any of the mainstream single-engine fighters - except sometimes in climb and/or dive speeds and/or acceleration. Roll-rate for the twin-engine airframe and turn-rate will be lower at normal combat speeds. Even after the later P-38 models got boosted ailerons most single-engine fighters would out-roll it at normal ACM speeds (ie 150-300 mph) - despite stories to the contrary. (Try finding an actual after-action report - written at the time by the P-38 pilot or by a German pilot - where he says that the P-38 easily out-rolled a Bf109 or Fw190.)
In the PTO the A6M, and to a lesser degree the Ki-43, had issues with the ailerons stiffening up (greatly reducing the roll-rate) - particularly at higher speeds of 300 mph plus. In the ETO the early Bf109 (thru the E model?) had this issue as well, though not to the same degree as the Japanese aircraft. The A6M was widely considered to be the best rolling aircraft below about 200 mph, while the Fw190 was widely considered to be the best rolling aircraft (that saw action in large numbers) at speeds above about 200 mph - at least until the later-war period (mid-1944 and later).
In the PTO, the P-38 was about 50-60 mph faster than the A6M and Ki-43. If the P-38 pilot kept his speed up and managed to avoid turning fights, he could often make high-speed passes and extend away after each pass - even in level flight. In the ETO, the Bf109 and Fw190 were more-or-less as fast as the P-38. After the later P-38s got boosted ailerons they could handily out-roll the A6M and Ki-43 at higher speeds. Also, while the range of the P-38 was useful in the ETO (particularly for bomber escort) - the long over-water flights in the PTO lent greater importance to its range and the second engine - allowing a greater operational flexibility than the then available single-engine aircraft. The range advantage was largely superseded late-war by single-engine aircraft such as the P-47, P-51, F6F, and F4U.
In the later-war PTO the speed advantage of the P-38 was reduced re the Ki-44, Ki-61, Ki-44, Ki-64, etc, so the same tactics were often not available, but by then the numerical superiority and the strategic/tactical advantage of the Allies hides the near parity in airframe performance.
Last edited:
ThomasP
Came across this article about the P-38 in the PTO when it was first introduced.
FWIW
Eagledad
Came across this article about the P-38 in the PTO when it was first introduced.
Lockheed P-38 Lightning - Icon of the Pacific War in the Air
Next up in the How Great series is the P-38. “P-38 Lightning Might Have Been the Best Fighter of World War II” and “P-38 Lightning WWII’s twin engine wonder” or even “Unsung Hero of WW II” read headlines of articles on my computer homepage. Whatever deficiencies might have been evident in the...
rldunn.com
FWIW
Eagledad
P-38 was certainly not shining against the German oppostion, however a look at the big picture might've been good.
At least one benefit can be acknowledged: every German fighter that is trying to kill a P-38 is one less German fighter that attacks a B-17/-24. So perhaps if two groups (~100 fighters) are deployed during the 1st Schweinfurt (Aug 1943), Americans might've lost, say, 20 P-38s and 30 bombers (instead of 60 bombers) plus 40-70 heavily damaged (instead of 58-95), with Germans loosing extra 10 fighters? Cuts the American crew losses by 200+ (from almost 570 MIA+POW), and makes the material losses far easier to sustain. Also less crew members that are hurt by gunfire.
Germans also receive more bombs on their assets.
Another video about P-38.
The origin of the "fork-tailed devil" myth is mentioned.
View: https://youtu.be/VHjRk_1VbWk?si=zec6YFm7LZjCn59i
The origin of the "fork-tailed devil" myth is mentioned.
View: https://youtu.be/VHjRk_1VbWk?si=zec6YFm7LZjCn59i
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
I can't watch the video, but the origin of the myth is Caidin's nonsense, I assume?
Greg Boeser
2nd Lieutenant
War propaganda was a big part of news reporting during the war. Caidin may have just accepted what was "common knowledge" at the time, or merely continued in the tradition of heroic myth-making.
Greg Boeser
2nd Lieutenant
This reminds me of an ode to the M4 Sherman I read, which stood in direct opposition to the armored commanders' opinion that they were undergunned death traps.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
He embellished it, claiming Germans in North Africa were terrified of it.
However, before that "encounter", my Uncle Jimmy was referring to it as the "Forktailed Devil" in his letters to his sister (my Grandmother) in 1942 while training on it.
So it was pre-devilled.
Greg Boeser
2nd Lieutenant
It was originally slated for the ETO. 1st, 14th, 82nd and, 78th FG. But they were diverted to North Africa. The first three as operational groups, the last (78th) was stripped of its planes and pilots to replace losses in the first three. It would rebuild with P-47s before becoming operational in England. By the time the 20th and 55th FGs made it to England in the fall of 1943 the P-51 groups were on their way.
Grand Theft Lightning.
Greg Boeser
2nd Lieutenant
There is science here. The 78th FG Lightnings came first. Then, when they were gone came the Thunderbolts to fill the vacuum.
Which Armored commander would this be? I don't think the the M4 Sherman was ever considered a "undergunned death trap" - or was it?
