The RAF should have kept their Lightning and Cobra contracts but given them to the Kiwis and Aussies for use in the Pacific.

It wasn't just the Brits that thought the P-38 wasn't suitable for the European theatre....

P-38G Tactical Trials

Though remember reading (Boscombe Down report read years ago and available on the net somewhere, no doubt) that the altitudes fighter to fighter combat was taking place in the ETO was too high to get the best out of the P-38 they trialed and it's other main problem was the limited max speed.

There were most likely NZ and Oz test pilots there (at Boscombe) who agreed and felt there waas no need for them in the PTO (?)

Of interest....
The P-38 Lightning

XBe02Drvr said:

Yes, the later Lightnings might have been useful to them, but the Lightnings they bought were a non starter for all the reasons pointed out earlier in this and other threads. And what mission would it have fulfilled? The 322 was no night fighter, so bomber escort was out. With no protection it wasn't really suited to low altitude rhubarbs over Europe or against the Afrika Korps. It might have made a good combat trainer if there were actual combat-worthy P38s to send pilots to. But no joy there either.
Cheers,
Wes

Click to expand...

I guess I should check and make sure I know which thread I'm on before I post. I clicked on an alert obviously without reading the thread title closely and thought I was posting on the " RAF fields proper p38" thread........................nevermind

Kevin J said:

As far as I can see, the war in the Pacific was primarily a Navy and Marine Corps affair. The Italians reckoned that every carrier cost the equivalent of 1000 fighters. Us Brits dealt with the main naval effort in the Atlantic, and Indian oceans, leaving the Americans free to concentrate in the Pacific. The Americans had 114 carriers in WW2 which except for a dozen of so Bogue class escort carriers permanently operating in the mid Atlantic left about 100 to operate in the Pacific. That is a lot of expensive kit you're talking about. Yes, Ranger and Wasp made temporary forays into the North Atlantic, and a handful of other escort carriers made forays into the Mediterranean for Operation Torch and the invasion of Southern France, but that was it. To me, it looks like the Americans assigned one third of their resources to the Pacific overall, but most of their carrier fleet.

Click to expand...

The USAAF and US Army might tend to disagree.

Macandy said:

The Japanese were a regional threat, the Germans a global strategic threat.
Using just 10% of its resources, the US was able to hold and drive back the Japanese.
Once the war in Europe ended and the USA was able to devote unlimited resources to the Pacific, they quickly crushed Japan.

Click to expand...

How do you get that?
The Japanese owned most of China even after the Surrender.
Also interesting that the Allies left in Place Japanese Garrisons in much of the country as the local Police.

Macandy said:

The USAAF and US Army might tend to disagree.

Click to expand...

My mistake, 162 aircraft carriers, battleships, cruisers, destroyers, seaplane tenders, submarines. Maybe 10% of the combat troops. Definitely 50% of resources.

Shortround6 said:

The Army was operating the P-38 in direct conflict with the way that both Allison and Lockheed said it should be flown. Both companies recommended that for cruising low rpm and high boost should be used (and run in lean condition) however the army was running them at high rpm and low boost in order to have faster response if bounced (they thought).
In actual fact it took awhile for the turbos to spin up to combat rpm and running at low boost, even if the engine was at high rpm meant the turbos were running at near idle.
Power response from low rpm, high boost with a constant speed prop was certainly no worse than the reverse.
It took Lindbergh in the Pacific and Tony Levier in Europe to convince the squadron pilots to fly the planes the way the manuals said to fly them.

Click to expand...

Operating at high RPM/low boost had several negative impacts. First, it's like operating your car in low gear-fuel economy is hurt-especially when also run rich. 2nd-by operating at high RPM/low load at high altitude, in really cold air, means you're running lots of really cold air through the engine, causing it to run cold and prevent the oil/coolant from coming up to temperature, leading to engine failures. And finally, operating at low boost at high altitude, the intake air is not heated from compression through the turbocharger/supercharger system sufficiently to get to normal operating temperatures. This leads to the fuel not atomizing properly and leads to gas dropping out of the air-fuel mixture in the intake, in turn causing uneven distribution to the cylinders, causing some to run leaner than others. Running rich under those conditions should also tend to cause fuel dilution of the oil-not sure how much of an issue that was.

IdahoRenegade said:

Running rich under those conditions should also tend to cause fuel dilution of the oil-not sure how much of an issue that was.

Click to expand...

More so with an aircooled engine than a properly operated liquid cooled one, as the greater range of cylinder temps, hence expansion tolerances, on an aircooled makes for looser cylinder/ring/piston fit and more blowby, especially when running rich. Now run your Allison/Merlin/Daimler with cylinder temps too cool and mixture too rich and your piston and ring clearances are too loose due to subnormal expansion. At least that's what old Mr. Hamm (former 8th AF mechanic on Merlins and R2800s) taught us in mech school. I've personally never had the pleasure of working on a liquid cooled aircraft engine. I can always wish.

ThomasP said:

but I would be interested to hear your ideas on the viability of US early-war support of the Commonwealth in the PTO.

Click to expand...

I think this is essentially providing the answer to why the British Airacobra and Lightning orders didn't go to the Pacific nations - the USA needed the equipment and decided to use it themselves. From 1940 through to the end of 1941/beginning of 1942 if these aircraft went to Australia and New Zealand they wouldn't have been used for anything other than training at any rate. Both the Kiwi and Aussie personnel at that point were being channelled into the war in Europe and that's what their resources were being focussed on. New Zealand and Australia in particular provided significant resources for the Empire Air Training Scheme - it had to do something with all those Avro Ansons and Fairey Battles. Neither country were very resource rich in terms of up-to-date military assets, so if these P-39s and P-38s arrived sooner, they would have been impressed for training, training, training...

Once shooting in the Pacific starts, both Australia and New Zealand governments made agreements with the USA for the supply of modern weaponry for its air forces. Both countries resupplied with P-40Es from British contracts, the RNZAF in particular receiving its first in April 1942, which were used for training only - remembering that there were no modern fighter type aircraft in the pre-Pacific War RNZAF, although there were Kiwi pilots with the RAF squadrons in Singapore and Malaya flying Hurricanes and Buffaloes, which is where some of the Kiwi squadron pilots came from after the fall of Singapore. 14 Sqn RNZAF comprised personnel that had returned from flying Buffaloes with 488 (New Zealand) Sqn, RAF, and was formed at Ohakea in April 1942 with the P-40E.

The RNZAF did quite well with the P-40, between April 1943, when the first RNZAF combat squadrons went to Guadalcanal and late into 1944, Kiwi pilots claimed 99 Japanese aircraft destroyed in air combat, with 14 probables. When the Corsairs entered RNZAF service in 1944, they were used for ground attack only and they were from USN stocks, along with Dauntlesses, Avengers and PV-1 Venturas.

Throughout the Pacific conflict the RNZAF operated within the jurisdiction of the US armed forces, providing support to US led offensives and there was quite a lot of co-operation between the two countries' units, particularly when supplied with the same equipment. I can't speak for the RAAF, perhaps someone with better knowledge of the Aussie air force can chip in, but the Kiwis worked directly with the US units.

This is a piccie of an RAF supplied P-40E here in New Zealand, with its RAF roundel still visible aside from its RNZAF markings. It was literally a 'barn find', but was known about before it was retrieved. It'll be restored to flying condition and eventually sold, and despite its appearance is substantially complete.

NZ3043 i

NZ3043 ii

I forgot to add that the P-40 in the pictures is a former 14 Squadron RNZAF example, with the squadron codes HQ...