The P-38J and L in the European theater.

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Didn't it need bigger carriers? Like the Midway class?
 
This was the entire quote..."Originally conceived as a carrier-based fighter for the new Midway class of aircraft carriers, the design contained several flaws (including heavy weight and high landing speed) that prevented the Navy from accepting the plane for carrier use. Instead, the plane was delivered to USMC units, but the F7F materialized too late to see any action in WWII".....
 
It did see service with USMC as a night fighter squadron - either Guam or Okinawa, I had a friend who flew them as well as F4U in night fighter role - Korea. He also commanded the first A4 nuc equipped squadron post Korea, Col Don Barrel Fenton RIP. Great friend and hunting buddy.
 
Nice theory.

Falls apart with a closer look at the aircraft listed.

The First combat of the Boulton Paul Defiant came after they had decided that armor and fuel system protection was needed by ANY first line combat aircraft( not just fighters), The Defiant never got more and/or better guns or more/better ammo. It got a better engine but the Merlin XX wasn't even a gleam in Rolls-Royce's eye when the Defiant was designed and ordered into mass production.

The F2A is a real howler, you do realize that out of 509 Buffaloes built only about 30 were built after Pearl Harbor and 20 of them were for the Netherlands East Indies? Basicly production during Dec 41-April 42 was cleaning out the factory spaces/completing contracts.
Next to no changes were ever made to the Buffalo as a result of combat experience with early models. One Reason the Finns got the Buffaloes they did was that the US Navy decided they didn't want the F2A-1 after getting the first 11 or so and allowed Finland to take the rest of the Production run while the Navy replaced them with F2A-2s later in the production queue. The Navy also sent most of the original 11 F2A-1s back to the factory to converted to F2A-2s. This was well before any Finnish B-239 fired any guns in anger.

The whole "later models were redesigned/modified as a result of combat experience" for the P-38 needs a rethink. You are not taking into account the lag time between when orders were placed and planes were delivered let alone saw combat. As of Oct 31st 1941 there were 1000 P-38s on order (including British?) while only 80 had been completed.
The P-38G was first delivered in June of 1942 which is 4 months or less from the first operational use of the F-4 recon plane/s from Australia, the combat flap wa was being installed back in Feb of 1942. Please note that the first combat claim of the P-38 was for two Japanese flying boats on Aug 9th 1942. 6 months after combat flaps start being fitted to all new P-38s (the F model) . The First P-38Hs were built in March of 1943. They don't get into action for several more months

Many other aircraft show similar stories. A continual race to provide improved models before combat experiences could really be integrated into the designs.
For the US especially waiting to react to enemy developments could mean months of combat against against a superior enemy. They were aiming for performance in excess of what they thought the enemy could come up with in the future.
 
Shortround6 said:
For the US especially waiting to react to enemy developments could mean months of combat against against a superior enemy. They were aiming for performance in excess of what they thought the enemy could come up with in the future.
Click to expand...
Exactly what happened on the British side. The well known Spitfire numbers MkV and Mk IX were stop gap models rushed into production to meet an urgent need the planned development to meet anticipated enemy development actually had lower marque numbers for more advanced designs.
 

You completely missed my point. The Defiant was a bad design (or a bad spec or both). It got canceled as the result of miserable combat performance which highlighted the major flaws of the design (or the spec).

The F2A is a real howler, you do realize that out of 509 Buffaloes built only about 30 were built after Pearl Harbor and 20 of them were for the
Click to expand...

Again, missed the point, but your factual information is off as well. Most of the Buffaloes were used (unsuccessfully) by the British in the CBI. In your little summary you also seem to have forgotten about the USMC F2As used at Midway among other places.

But that is again, beside the point. What I was referring to (I thought it was obvious) was that combat experienced demonstrated that the F2A was unsuitable - whether in Rangoon, Singapore or Midway. But mainly RAF combat experience. I didn't mean literally every case meant the plane got more guns or etc.. That tended to be reserved for the most successful designs.

This is what I was saying earlier:

"very often aircraft made it through all the testing and acceptance phases, got into combat and were found to be extremely unsuitable for the intended mission when faced with actual enemy aircraft. Example I cited above such as the Defiant, the F2A and Me 110 were either quickly phased out or given a new mission (Me 110 converted to night fighter) or like the Ki-43, they were 'sent back to the drawing board' with fairly significant changes made."


I don't agree with you. Not all changes were done in the factory for one thing.

More generally, the P-38s most serious teething problems (dive compressability, cockpit heating etc.) were continuously being complained about in the field - Lockheed tended to deny the problems and even sent Charles Lindburgh among others to smooth things over with pilots and teach them better combat techniques. But the fixes came later.

S
 
Last edited:

Sounds like an interesting guy.

Seems like the F7F would have been better in the ETO than the P-38.

S
 

I have read a ton of AVG stuff and I don't think they actually liked it - from what I gather it didn't have self sealing tanks or armor for one thing.

S
 
Schweik said:
I have read a ton of AVG stuff and I don't think they actually liked it - from what I gather it didn't have self sealing tanks or armor for one thing.

S
Click to expand...
Read more accounts from the AVG then, they most certainly did like it.
It was fast, it had a remarkable rate of climb and had one one of the highest operating ceilings of any Allied type at the time.
And after it was replaced by newer types, it remained in service as a high-speed photo recon ship.
Also of note: Col. Scott took a famous photo of Mount Everest from a P-43.

In regards to self-sealing tanks and armor, few pre-war American fighters possesed those features.
 
The Defiant and the Me110 were not used for the purpose they were designed for. The Defiant was supposed to intercept unescorted bombers, used in the presence of S/E fighters its performance is debatable one squadron did badly, one did quite well. The 110 was not intended to attack an integrated defence system, even at the end of the BoB the Germans were still unsure of what they were attacking. Without RADR the 110 would have been attacking the RAF on the ground or taking off as they had previously. Both sides were also presented with a new need, that of a dedicated night fighter.
 
Schweik said:
You completely missed my point. The Defiant was a bad design (or a bad spec or both). It got canceled as the result of miserable combat performance which highlighted the major flaws of the design (or the spec).
Click to expand...

How about really reading about some of these aircraft. The Defiant was NOT canceled (unfortunately) after initial combat results. Production continued into 1942 although the roles had been changed.




How about rereading what I wrote? I was talking about production and modifications as per your 5 step plan. Production of the Buffalo, in whatever form, had essentially ended before any of that combat experience (by anybody) was gained. The existing planes were used, but nobody had any plans to build any more even before it saw action. Why did the Marines have the F2A? Because the Navy was dumping them as fast as possible. They didn't need combat experience to tell them the Buffalo was not up to the job.




I don't agree with you. Not all changes were done in the factory for one thing.
Click to expand...

If not done in the factory you have two basic avenues. Refit or repair centers (using factory supplied parts in most cases) or true field modifications which pretty much consist of ripping things out. You don't change engines or wing shapes or other major parts in the Field.


Do you have any proof that Lockheed was denying the problems?
BTW long range flying techniques might be a bit different than actual "combat" techniques.
Lockheed could only do so much. For instance it did take way to long to get a second generator in the P-38 ( many twin engine planes in a number of air forces only got one generator for far too long). However Lockheed could NOT buy and install the 2nd the generator on their own unless the USAAF not only approved but authorised the change. The generators had to come from somewhere (allocated for generator production) The engines were supplied to Lockheed by the government, as were the props, the guns and some of the other equipement. Lockheed had to build what the contract/s called for. They could not introduce changes on their own, contracts could be changed (and were) but it took both sides to agree.
BTW, it is well known that the USAAF was ignoring both Lockheed and Allison recommendations when it came to cruising the P-38. Somehow that tends to get glossed over. Blaming Lockheed for the USAAF ignoring their recommendations is twisting things.
 
Schweik said:
Sure but if it was as simple as putting more horsepower in the Fairey Firefly and the Helldiver would have been great planes, and the Fairey Spearfish and the Douglas Skypirate would have been legends...

S
Click to expand...

The Helldiver after some bugs were worked out served until the 1950s by the Americans. And yes fitting a more powerful engine was one of the bugs worked out. The last service use was by the Italians in 1959, not bad for a so called dud airplane.
 
Schweik said:
Well he flew 50 sorties and shot down a Ki 51 bomber so presumably he was getting into more than fuel efficiency
Click to expand...
As I saw it on TV he had to fly the aircraft on a lot of sorties because what he was proposing was considered to be dangerous extreme lean mixtures on cruise.
 

From the Wiki:

Boulton Paul Defiant - Wikipedia

The squadron lost a further five aircraft (to JG 26) on 28 August [1940], with nine crew killed, and effectively ended operations, withdrawing to RAF Duxford the following day.[27] With these losses, the Defiant—which had been intended from the start as a day and night fighter—was transferred to night operations instead. The type had proven unsuited to the demands of the day fighter when set against the likes of the Bf 109E, and was less capable than other RAF aircraft such as the Hurricane and the Spitfire.[27] By 31 August, over half the delivered Defiants had been shot down by Luftwaffe aircraft, a rate that was deemed to be unacceptable.[27]

Defiants had some luck initially especially when Bf 109 pilots still thought they were Hurricanes and came up slowly from behind, but once the Luftwaffe realized Defiants couldn't defend themselves from a frontal attack it became a lot easier to get them.

After that production did continue yes, for a little while as a night fighter and then... as a target tug. I gather it performed 'sterling service' as a target tug but that was a derailment of the original plan. Which was my point:

"Stage 3" was the point at which an aircraft was typically deemed either acceptable or unsuitable for the job it was intended for (as a day fighter- whether the enemy would escort their bombers was up to the enemy). Saying that the Defiant or any other aircraft lived up to it's spec-expectation is a bit off to me, because part of what a fighter had to be was versatile. The Defiant had a major flaw in that the turret couldn't fire forward - secondary to the more fundamental design fail of building a plane around a (admittedly very nice) powered gun turret. Pre-war planners couldn't predict how fast planes would need to fly - with the drag and weight of the turret and second crewman, it would never be able to catch front line fighters (or even many bombers - I think a Defiant would be challenged catching a 'clean' Ju 88). But that was often the case, and it's part of my point: pre-war planning or even mid-war, pre-deployment planning simply could not predict everything beforehand. Combat trials were crucial. If it was a really good (and / or lucky) design, only minor changes would be required (typically more -or less- guns, more armor or self sealing tanks, more fuel / hardpoints and so on). But in many cases the plane effectively got derailed by it's combat debut and was either cancelled or shunted into some other role.

Similarly to the Defiant, Bf 110 were intended as a Zerstorer or heavy fighter, but for the most part had to be used as a night fighter and later as a specialized heavy-bomber destroyer or weapons platform, that required it's own escort to survive. They did make improvements to the plane, aside from adding radar and more guns for night fighter versions they also put more powerful engines in it, but it wasn't enough to ever really make it viable as a day fighter. Of course this does also vary by Theater - Bf 110 lasted a bit longer in the 'heavy fighter' role in Russia where the opponent was more in disarray and seldom had even local air superiority until early 1943.

Ki-43 was initially deemed insufficiently maneuverable by IJA pilots, leading to the addition of combat flaps. Combat experience showed a tendancy to shed wings in a steep dive which was also addressed by structural strengthening. More powerful engine Some armor and self-sealing tanks were added later (a bit too much later)

As for the F2A, the US Navy cancelled their contract in 1941, shifting over to the F4F, but the British liked it and ordered another 170 of them, which they were still producing through the fall of 1941 - if they had done well in Singapore, Malaya and Burma, the British Purchasing Commisision would probably have ordered more. Seems like the main issue was really some kind of failure with the engine to perform properly at high altitude (overheating and oxygen starvation) which was never addressed, Brewster in fact "repurposing" some old DC 3 engines because they couldn't get enough ought of Wright.

Engine production was often the Achilles heel of new aircraft designs and it was extremely common for an engine which was anticipated in the design stage of the cycle to either not be available or to be flawed / underperforming when it came time to build a prototype or early production run, requiring a last minute switch to another engine (if that was even possible). This was quite often the reason for an aircraft to fail in what I called Stage 2 or 3.

S
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Effectiveness of the P-38
6 7 8
Replies
145
Views
12K
Thumpalumpacus
Paper comparing the flight performance of the P-40E Warhawk and the A6M2 Zero
Replies
8
Views
643
Ivan1GFP
I
617th squadron and the bunkers in Ijmuiden.
2
Replies
23
Views
624
DerAdlerIstGelandet
Why did the US ww2 fighters have 50 cals instead of 20mms like their european cousins
2 3 4
Replies
73
Views
7K
BarnOwlLover
The poor performance of the 343 Kokutai against USAAF fighters
2 3 4
Replies
60
Views
6K
GrauGeist
Menu
Log in
Register