Top Ten Twin-Engine Fighters of World War II

[Jagdflieger]

First of all, take a look at the the information below. You may be surprised to see that the Bf 110 performed as well as the other three main fighters. Yet no one ever mentions that the Bf 109 got absolutely BATTERED in the Battle of Britain...View attachment 662508

Too many people still think that the Battle of Britain was this scenario of fighters swirling around in the skies of southern England carrying out 'knightly jousts'. That is totally incorrect. Most fighter victories involved one pilot sneaking up on another and shooting them out of the sky, and then heading off before they get clobbered. One notable exception to this was Gerhard Schöpfel of JG 26 on 18th August when he came upon 501 Squadron unseen from behind and knocked down four of them in quick succession. But the principle was still the same. Go examine the victories of the likes of Galland and Mölders, and you will see the same thing: Advantage - get in - clobber - get out.

'...This flaw was exposed during the Battle of Britain, when some Bf 110-equipped units were withdrawn from the battle after very heavy losses and redeployed as night fighters, a role to which the aircraft was well suited.' Which Bf 110 units were withdrawn from the Battle? Bf 110 units were gradually withdrawn from the Channel Front in October due to the Luftwaffe's change of direction to night bombing, when daylight escort was obviously no longer needed. The last major daylight escort was by Zerstörergeschwader 26 on 7th October 1940.
And not all of those withdrawn were deployed as nightfighters immediately. Go check out the historical path of ZG 26 and ZG 76, for example.
As you probably know, the first nightfighter force was set up in June 1940 under Wolfgang Falck following dusk incursions by RAF bombers in early 1940, and as these incursions increased, so the nightfighter force was increased (cf. John J. Vasco & Peter D. Cornwell, 'Zerstörer, The Messerschmitt 110 and its units in 1940).

As for this: '...And this is confirmed by hundreds of books and articles by all kind of authors and researchers - incl. my father and some of his surviving Luftwaffe Flieger mates.
Two of them later serving in Bf 110 night-fighter units....' Perhaps you could mention some (not the hundreds, obviously) of these books and articles that that you say confirm your assertion. But please, not the myths and falsehoods that were published from the 1960s onwards (and that still perpetuate in the mind of many even to this day). And perhaps the names of the authors and researchers. Let me guess: these books/articles said the Bf 110 in the Battle of Britain needed Bf 109 escort -hilarious! Did not happen, apart from the Bf 110 fighter-bombers of Erprobungsgruppe 210, who were classed as bombers, and therefore were given escort to the target in order to unload their payload safely. And on a lot of occasions, their escort came from the Bf 110 unit, Zerstörergewschwader 26!

Hi John Vasco

Thanks for the info, but I have my own interpretation towards such stats.

The Bf 110 was a total fail investment and an outdated idea by 1940 and the Luftwaffe suffered for it - I for my part got enough sound information from my father and
other pilots who flew this aircraft. That doesn't imply that I would know everything - and there is always new information's to gather and inspect. That is the exiting part in
this hobby, isn't it?

Regards
Jagdflieger

 

[John Vasco]

Hi John Vasco

Thanks for the info, but I have my own interpretation towards such stats.

The Bf 110 was a total fail investment and an outdated idea by 1940 and the Luftwaffe suffered for it - I for my part got enough sound information from my father and
other pilots who flew this aircraft. That doesn't imply that I would know everything - and there is always new information's to gather and inspect. That is the exiting part in
this hobby, isn't it?

Regards
Jagdflieger

Well, quick reply as I'll be away from my PC for the next few minutes.

Anyone can interpret anything the way they like - the problem is that they often stray from FACTS.

I'll just throw in a few names of pilots that I interviewed and drew my information from. You may know the names, or wish to look them up: Wolfgang Schenck (he flew the 110 from the start of the war into the Russian campaign, before going on to fly the Fw190 fighter-bomber, the Me262 fighter-bomber [40 missions] and ended the war as the last Inspector of Jet Fighters of the Third Reich); Wolfgang Falck, and Hans-Joachim Jabs. Between them, they knew quite a bit about the 110.

By the way, Falck wrote the introduction to the book I mentioned earlier.

I'll post more later. In the meantime, I would welcome you posting the names of those books, and researchers/authors that you say you use as reference. And also those pilots you mentioned. I'm always avid for further knowledge on the Bf 110.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Besides dog-fighting against fighters for which it wasn't built -sure

would you out-rule that an
A-20 couldn't perform a recon mission? maybe even better?
A-20 couldn't perform a bombing attack? maybe even better?
A-20 couldn't perform a strafing raid on an airfield? maybe even better?
A-20 couldn't perform a ship/naval attack? maybe even better?
A-20 couldn't perform a supply drop, transport? even far better?
A-20 couldn't perform an medi/evac? even far better?
A-20 couldn't sneak up and shot down e.g. any of the following aircraft's?
A5M, D3A (Val),Ki-32 (Mary) etc.

I said none of that. But -- ignoring the P-38's main role when saying the A-20 could replace it is like saying that trucks can do everything cargo ships can do, except float, so trucks could replace ships anyway. It's unsound logic.

But tell me please, since I wouldn't know, did the P-38 have any impact or was it a necessity once the Hellcat/Corsair/P-51 and P-47 arrived in the PTO? or the latter 2

For the Americans, of course it was superseded in instances by later planes. That's kinda what happens with the march of technology. But what does the USAAF have in 1942? It's not like any enemies will give us breathing space to develop those planes.

plus Spitfires, Tempest, Typhoon and Mossies around in the ETO?

Irrelevant, since the Brits didn't like the neutered P-38s offered them, for good reason.

The A-20's and it's variants were still a necessity in both theaters.

Right -- in the proper role. They sure couldn't pull off the fighter-interceptor and fighter escort missions that the -38 did. It's a silly point arguing that the A-20 could replace the -38.

The Hellcat had a kill ratio of 19 to 1, what was the P-38 kill ratio? in the PTO? and even the Wildcat was used to result in 15 or more USN air-aces.

No one, myself included, is arguing that the P-38 was the best American fighter, which renders this point a strawman.

No doubt the P-38 was of great assistance and value in the PTO between 1941 - 1943, but then.....as I mentioned before, if one got enough $$ and industrial capacity
one can field as many aircraft's as one likes, needed or not.

And we Americans could, so there's that. We didn't need to press A20s into service as escorts, or (ye gods!) shooting down Yamamoto.

As for the ETO and more information on the P-38 please see: I think it's very informative

Lockheed P-38 Lightning

Regards
Jagdflieger

The very first sentence in your link: "What would become one of the best fighters in World War II was created more by happenstance than by design.". I've added the emphasis.

Now, you think the A-20 could replace it? That's crazy-talk. The A-20 was one hell of an airplane which could, as you point out, perform a variety of missions with aplomb, but there's no way it could replace the P-38 in the latter's role of a fighter/fighter-bomber.

 

[SaparotRob]

Hey Jagdflieger, now you know why I rarely, if ever, say one plane is better than another here.

 

[Jagdflieger]

Well, quick reply as I'll be away from my PC for the next few minutes.

Anyone can interpret anything the way they like - the problem is that they often stray from FACTS.

I'll just throw in a few names of pilots that I interviewed and drew my information from. You may know the names, or wish to look them up: Wolfgang Schenck (he flew the 110 from the start of the war into the Russian campaign, before going on to fly the Fw190 fighter-bomber, the Me262 fighter-bomber [40 missions] and ended the war as the last Inspector of Jet Fighters of the Third Reich); Wolfgang Falck, and Hans-Joachim Jabs. Between them, they knew quite a bit about the 110.

By the way, Falck wrote the introduction to the book I mentioned earlier.

I'll post more later. In the meantime, I would welcome you posting the names of those books, and researchers/authors that you say you use as reference. And also those pilots you mentioned. I'm always avid for further knowledge on the Bf 110.

Hi John Vasco,

wow - must have been very interesting to talk with these persons. I envy you for that,

The persons my father introduced me to and who flew the Bf 110 where Walter Witt, Hans Ihle, (SKG 210/JG2) Edwin Eberhardinger (SKG 210/JG2) and Bruno Stolle - all reunited later
in the new Luftwaffe Fuerstenfeld Bruck and Lager Lechfeld Jabo G 32. Walter Witt often referred to Georg Greiner who I however never met.
A very close buddy to Edwin was Priller (who he never referred to as "Pips" but Sepp, who off course I "unfortunatly" never got to meet. My father was very close to Steinhoff and
Bruno Stolle also knew Barkhorn, Rall and Galland (the latter only briefly in France and somewhere around the last weeks of the war).

The main reason why my father new most of the top brass in the new Luftwaffe was due to being a very close friend to the former defense minister Franz Josef Strauss. and whilst being stationed at Koeln/Wahn he got to fly him on weekends to Bavaria - he was also the one who taught him how to fly in order to get his PPL.

As for books - oh my god, dozens and most likely the same ones that you have also read. By the way in another forum I had for some years a very good and fruitfull exchange on Luftwaffe matters with a very knowledgeable person by the forum name of Erich, but lost track of him some years ago - do you happen to know him? I think he mentioned Oregon
as his home state.
Last I heard from him was I think about 3-4 years ago when he sadly mentioned cancer. He was also involved in writting or publishing books on Luftwaffe matters.

When I mentioned about 10 years ago in that forum that all this dogfight stories during the BoB, according to my father are a load of bull - I didn't have an easy time there, especially
not after I forwarded that many kill claims are bogus or where "attributed" via an internally known procedure. After a year of opposing discussions even with Erich, he then helped out with his "new" research results backing my previous forwarding, quite a pleasent turn in events.

Regards
Jagdflieger

 

[Jagdflieger]

Hey Jagdflieger, now you know why I rarely, if ever, say one plane is better than another here.

I never claimed that I was smart

Regards
Jagdflieger

 

[SaparotRob]

I never claimed that I was smart

Regards
Jagdflieger

Welcome to my world.

 

[GrauGeist]

I had for some years a very good and fruitfull exchange on Luftwaffe matters with a very knowledgeable person by the forum name of Erich, but lost track of him some years ago - do you happen to know him? I think he mentioned Oregon
as his home state.
Last I heard from him was I think about 3-4 years ago when he sadly mentioned cancer. He was also involved in writting or publishing books on Luftwaffe matters

Erich is a long-standing member of this forum and he's active on Facebook.

He just grumbled about the weather in a post over there

 

[pbehn]

Perceptions change and things can be presented in many ways. You could say that the inferior Bf110 was withdrawn from the Battle of Britain to do a secondary role as a night fighter. Or you could say that the Bf 110 was transferred to do the really and important job of stopping Germany being bombed while the Bf 109 was retained to perform a gesture politics role tossing small bombs randomly in the area of London. British public opinion quickly shifted from massive admiration for the RAF in the Battle of Britain to "what are you doing about it" during the night time Blitz. Fighting at night has different demands than by day, which is why different planes were good at it, that doesnt make it at all unimportant.

 

[Jagdflieger]

Erich is a long-standing member of this forum and he's active on Facebook.

He just grumbled about the weather in a post over there

Hi Graugeist, thanks a lot

I just checked Erich on this forum after your info - last post December - so everything okay with him? Still busy with his new found love "Stugs"?

Regards
Jagdflieger

 

[Jagdflieger]

.....British public opinion quickly shifted from massive admiration for the RAF in the Battle of Britain to "what are you doing about it" during the night time Blitz.....

Interesting - first time I am being made aware of that issue

Regards
Jagdflieger

 

[Jagdflieger]

Now, you think the A-20 could replace it? That's crazy-talk. The A-20 was one hell of an airplane which could, as you point out, perform a variety of missions with aplomb, but there's no way it could replace the P-38 in the latter's role of a fighter/fighter-bomber.

It's a matter of perspective or (view of angle)?

You might well be viewing this from the US side - everything in abundance never mind the $$ so lets build aircraft's that we might not even need.
My view is from the German side - nothing in abundance - no big $$ - so lets take what we have

As such the P-40, P-39 and Wildcats take care of the fighter so that the A-20 gets its mission accomplished - which it could do just as well, maybe even better then a P-38
Maybe my mistake to view or judge it from that angle - next time I will be more considered.

Regards
Jagdflieger

 

[John Vasco]

Hi John Vasco,

wow - must have been very interesting to talk with these persons. I envy you for that,

The persons my father introduced me to and who flew the Bf 110 where Walter Witt, Hans Ihle, (SKG 200/JG2) Edwin Eberhardinger (SKG 200/JG2) and Bruno Stolle - all reunited later
in the new Luftwaffe Fuerstenfeld Bruck and Lager Lechfeld Jabo G 32. Walter Witt often referred to Georg Greiner who I however never met.
A very close buddy to Edwin was Priller (who he never referred to as "Pips" but Sepp, who off course I "unfortunatly" never got to meet. My father was very close to Steinhoff and
Bruno Stolle also knew Barkhorn, Rall and Galland (the latter only briefly in France and somewhere around the last weeks of the war).

The main reason why my father new most of the top brass in the new Luftwaffe was due to being a very close friend to the former defense minister Franz Josef Strauss. and whilst being stationed at Koeln/Wahn he got to fly him on weekends to Bavaria - he was also the one who taught him how to fly in order to get his PPL.

As for books - oh my god, dozens and most likely the same ones that you have also read. By the way in another forum I had for some years a very good and fruitfull exchange on Luftwaffe matters with a very knowledgeable person by the forum name of Erich, but lost track of him some years ago - do you happen to know him? I think he mentioned Oregon
as his home state.
Last I heard from him was I think about 3-4 years ago when he sadly mentioned cancer. He was also involved in writting or publishing books on Luftwaffe matters.

When I mentioned about 10 years ago in that forum that all this dogfight stories during the BoB, according to my father are a load of bull - I didn't have an easy time there, especially
not after I forwarded that many kill claims are bogus or where "attributed" via an internally known procedure. After a year of opposing discussions even with Erich, he then helped out with his "new" research results backing my previous forwarding, quite a pleasent turn in events.

Regards
Jagdflieger

It was very interesting to meet them at the time and get their stories. I just did it, as part of the research I was doing, spending hundreds of £s every year getting across to Germany and meeting them. Some of their stories were funny; one or two harrowing.
Ernst Matthes
Gerhard Granz
Wilhelm Schaefer
Joachim Koepsell
among others, and a whole host of former members of Erprobungsgruppe 210.

The guy Erich you mention. What forum was that? Was it 12 O'Clock High? I'm still on there.

Yeah, what you say about dogfights is true. All those I spoke to said it was brutal, and they were lucky to get away alive sometimes. They all said one word: Advantage. If a pilot had the advantage over an opponent for a few seconds, then the other guy was in real trouble. So Werner Mölders was shot down in the Western Campaign in the Spring of 1940. The French pilot had the advantage ove him and knocked him and his 109 out of the sky. When he returned to his unit after recovering from his injuries in July '40, he got his damaged 109 back to France, and it was some weeks before he returned to action. Galland got his damaged 109 back to France on one occasion during the BoB. One of the biggest claimers (note I say 'claimers' - I'm not convinced of his total as Jagdgeschwader 2 were serial overclaimers) Helmut Wick was shot down into the Channel forever on 28th November 1940. Why? because Dundas of 609 had those few seconds advantage over him. You can fly the best aircraft, be a great pilot, but if you surrender the advantage to an opponent, you are in big trouble. That was the theme I heard time and time again during my interviews.

The guy I mentioned in a previous post, Wolfgang Schenck, also joined the new Luftwaffe in the 1950s. After the war he returned to South Africa and flew around 40,000 hours in light aircraft. Having got to know Wolfgang VERY well, I'm pretty sure he was flying contraband all over the place! He was an absolute mine of information. Photo attached of me and Wolfgang at a reunion.

I had contacts with many from the RAF side who flew in the BoB as well. They, like the Germans, were generous in the time they gave to me, and the information they provided. A couple of examples of correspondence I received is attached also. One from (Squadron Leader) John Thompson of 111 Squadron during the BoB, and the other from (Squadron Leader) John 'Baron' Worrall of 32 Squadron during the BoB. Both letter relate to their squadron's interception of the fighter-bomber unit, Erprobungsgruppe 210, following their bombing attack on Croydon airfield in the early evening of 15th August 1940.

I hope this explains a lot more for you.

I had wondered for a long time why F/Lt. Crossley had led 32 on this mission, not S/Ldr Worrall. All becomes perfectly clear in his letter!

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

It's a matter of perspective or (view of angle)?

You might well be viewing this from the US side - everything in abundance never mind the $$ so lets build aircraft's that we might not even need.
My view is from the German side - nothing in abundance - no big $$ - so lets take what we have

As such the P-40, P-39 and Wildcats take care of the fighter so that the A-20 gets its mission accomplished - which it could do just as well, maybe even better then a P-38
Maybe my mistake to view or judge it from that angle - next time I will be more considered.

Regards
Jagdflieger

What does any of this have to do with the A-20 replacing the P-38? That was your claim. And dragging single-engined fighters into a thread about twin-engined fighters is also some shifting of the goal.

Can you, or can you not, address my point rebutting this silly claim that the A-20 could have replaced the P-38? That's my only guff here. It's a dumb claim that shouldn't even have gotten this much attention.

 

[pbehn]

Interesting - first time I am being made aware of that issue

Regards
Jagdflieger

During the Blitz of 1940-41 two million homes were damaged or destroyed, 40,000 killed and over 100,000 injured, you think no one asked "what are you doing about it"? In fact things were in process to find a solution but it wasnt quick or easy, airborne RADAR, better planes and ground controlled intercept RADAR to work behind the Chain Home system meant that the RAF started to inflict losses by May 1941.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

It's a matter of perspective or (view of angle)?

You might well be viewing this from the US side - everything in abundance never mind the $$ so lets build aircraft's that we might not even need.
My view is from the German side - nothing in abundance - no big $$ - so lets take what we have

As such the P-40, P-39 and Wildcats take care of the fighter so that the A-20 gets its mission accomplished - which it could do just as well, maybe even better then a P-38
Maybe my mistake to view or judge it from that angle - next time I will be more considered.

Regards
Jagdflieger

I think you better look into the design spec on these aircraft - why the AAF ordered them and what their mission was - it wasn't a matter of just throwing money at aircraft manufacturers to build aircraft. This isn't "viewing this from the US side," this is fact! Each one of these aircraft were planned to fulfill a mission and when prototypes were flown they showed the required performance to fulfill the planned mission - if it was a matter of throwing money around to build aircraft you would of had the following fighters built....

P-41
P-44
P-46
P-48
P-49
P-50
P-53
P-54
P-55
P-56
P-57
P-58
P-60

And so on....

And there's a few more.

Shall we discuss bombers?

 

[drgondog]

It's a matter of perspective or (view of angle)?

You might well be viewing this from the US side - everything in abundance never mind the $$ so lets build aircraft's that we might not even need.
My view is from the German side - nothing in abundance - no big $$ - so lets take what we have

As such the P-40, P-39 and Wildcats take care of the fighter so that the A-20 gets its mission accomplished - which it could do just as well, maybe even better then a P-38
Maybe my mistake to view or judge it from that angle - next time I will be more considered.

Regards
Jagdflieger

Why do you cling to the A-20 comparison? Its purpose and primary mission was that of low to medium level battlefield attack and interdiction.

The guys that flew it - liked it, but given a choice would have preferred the same mission in the P-47 or P-38 - or, in the interdiction role, the B-26 and A-26.

Of all the roles and missions in which you compared the A-20 to P-38, only the P-70 was superior to P-38 in night fighter role - simply because the P-38M didn't go operational.

P-38 Speed, load capacity and range with near equivalent versatility versus slow (er) and altitude disadvantaged A-20 with internal bomb load.

When my father was CO of the 355th at Gablingen post VE day, the 355th had both A-20 and B-26 as base hacks. Looking over his logbook he flew the A-20 only to act as IP for other 355th fighter pilots who wanted twin engine time, but the majority of 'non P-51' time was in the B-26. From May through September 1945 he had 5 hours in the A-20K, 90 hours in the B-26 and 30 hours in P-51D.

 

[Shortround6]

would you out-rule that an
A-20 couldn't perform a recon mission? maybe even better?
A-20 couldn't perform a bombing attack? maybe even better?
A-20 couldn't perform a strafing raid on an airfield? maybe even better?
A-20 couldn't perform a ship/naval attack? maybe even better?
A-20 couldn't perform a supply drop, transport? even far better?
A-20 couldn't perform an medi/evac? even far better?
A-20 couldn't sneak up and shot down e.g. any of the following aircraft's?
A5M, D3A (Val),Ki-32 (Mary) etc.

Well, in my opinion the A-20 could do many of those roles, or all of them.

The problem comes in with the "maybe even better?" parts

The A-20 did a lot of recon, especially for the Russians. but it a lot slower than the P-38 even if it was nearly as fast as many of the 1942-43 Japanese fighters.
The A-20. especially early in the war was limited in range. Available tanks varied during the years so range varied. P-38s with drop tanks could out range A-20s most of the time.

A-20s could obviously perform bombing attacks. However the A-20 was limited to four 500lb bombs in the bomb bay and could not carry a 1000lb at all. It also could only carry four 250lbs inside the bomb bay. P-38s could only carry two bombs regardless of size (at least most of the way through 1944) and when carrying bombs either had 300 us gallons internal for short range or used one drop tank and one bomb for longer range. A-20s could (at times) carry more smaller bombs inside the bomb bay. So what is better? two 1000lbs bonbs close by or no 1000lbs in the A-20s or two 1000lb or four 500lb bombs or two 500lb bombs vs four 500lb bombs?

The strafing attack by A-20s is not going to come out in the A-20s favor. Most early ones had either four .30 cal guns or two .50 cal guns in the glass nose versions. The solid nose factory planes would hold six. 50 cal guns. Field modifications never held more than 6 guns and often only 4. The P-38 had the standard four .50s and one 20mm gun in every version.
The few A-20s that four 20mm guns had drum fed cannon with 60 rounds per drum and no way to change the drums in flight. That os for fouor guns in the nose or 4 guns in the belly pod which cut performance and blocked the bomb bay.

The A-20 could a did perform ship attacks. Usually the P-38s were flying top cover to keep the Japanese (Or Italian or?) fighter off the bombers. Lack of opportunity although the P-38 could have carried the heavier bombs if high command though they needed them.

Supply drop from an A-20??? well could hang a container from the bomb rack/s of the P-38. You might be able to put supply containers in an A-20 but the bomb bay was restricted in size and as noted the bomb racks limited what would fit. You might be able to drop a couple of bundles though the ventral gun hatch, assuming you can fit the gunner/package dropper and the bundles underneath the upper gun station.

Medi/vac? You can't put wounded in the nose/cockpit of an A-20, you can't put them in the bomb bay, you can only put them in the rear gunner compartment. Which makes it better than a P-38 put you are really pushing things. Putting more than couple of men in the rear compartment starts to mess up the CG.

P-38s didn't need to "sneak up" on old/obsolete Japanese aircraft. They could take on anything the Japanese had.

Now I have tried to keep things general, like not referencing P-38s in the last year of the war that could carry multiple bombs under each wing or Certain A-20s that could carry four 500lbs underwing in addition to the bomb bay. A-20s used the same engine from pretty much first to last (a few late ones got 1700hp engines) while P-38s went from about 1225hp in the first combat versions to 1600hp by mid 1944. However there were a number of things that A-20s could not do, like act as day fighters against German, Italian and Japanese single engine fighters.

Fly from England to North Africa for operation Torch.
Fly from North Africa to the Beaches over Sicily and do standing patrols to protect the beachheads. Not only were you not going to use A-20s but the Allies had no land based fighters that could do it (except for Beaufighters and Beaufighters vs 109s and 190s was not going to be be pretty).
Likewise P-38s offered more range in the southern Italian campaign.
The distances the P-38s could fly in the Pacific made them invaluable.


The P-38 may not have been the choice in the summer of 1944 and after but the planes that were the best choice in the last year of the war didn't exist for 2 years after Pearl Harbor
And the substitutes could not do what the P-38 could do.
If the P-39s, P-40s and Spitfires cannot support the Sicilian landings you are 100% dependent on carrier aircraft.

 

[Shortround6]

It's a matter of perspective or (view of angle)?

You might well be viewing this from the US side - everything in abundance never mind the $$ so lets build aircraft's that we might not even need.
My view is from the German side - nothing in abundance - no big $$ - so lets take what we have

As such the P-40, P-39 and Wildcats take care of the fighter so that the A-20 gets its mission accomplished - which it could do just as well, maybe even better then a P-38
Maybe my mistake to view or judge it from that angle - next time I will be more considered.

Regards
Jagdflieger

OK, you do realize that the Americans only built 5/6 different fighters in large numbers for the AAF? and that was from the summer of 1940 til the summer of 1945.
And two of them didn't enter production until late 1942 and early 1943 and by mid 1944 the oldest two were out of production. So the Army was often only building 3 fighters at time.
the 6th was pretty much lend-lease for the Russians.

Yes the Navy had their own fighters but then they weren't stupid enough to small land based fighters on carriers. And again there was timing. The third of the high production fighters entered service almost 3 years after the first. Not quite everything in abundance.
In the first year of the war in the Pacific the P-40, P-39 and Wildcat were NOT taking the enemy fighters, they were holding their own but not much better.
The P-39 had several problems. Main one when escorting A-20s would be having to turn back too early. Which isn't getting the A-20s mission accomplished.

 

[GrauGeist]

Hi Graugeist, thanks a lot

I just checked Erich on this forum after your info - last post December - so everything okay with him? Still busy with his new found love "Stugs"?

Regards
Jagdflieger

He seems to be doing well - he just posted this the other day, so you see his sense of humor is as good as always!