Twin Engine Day Fighters Europe/Africa Theaters (the bests).

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

davebender said:
Exactly where the Aegean air battle was taking place. Surely the RAF wasn't afraid to fight Me-109Gs @ 10,000 feet in the Mustang Uber fighter.
Click to expand...

No it just normal that nobody wanted be bounched by enemy fighters from above. Now there were exceptions, for ex J.E.J. writes that a CO of 91 Sqn, when it had Spit Mk XIIs , explained to him that their tactic was fly low and try to lure 190s to attack them and them beat them using superior low level performance of XII. J.E.J. thought that that wasn't a sound tactic.

Juha
 
davebender said:
Why should the USA get involved at all? Britain had all the assets necessary to make Operation Accolade work. They just need the right assets in the right place rather then sending an inadequate force and expecting the USA to bail them out.
Click to expand...

The Us was not a free agent in the war, neither were the british, as laid down by the joint chiefs and the various conferences held between the british and the Us in the war

They didnt have any obligation, beyond the general objectives beyond the objectives sets by the joint chiefs and the various military conferences held between the two major allied powers. There were many objectives raised in these conferences, one of which was the need to open a second front as soon as possible. This general objectives was interpreted differently by the two powers, the british in recognition of their limited manpower and resources wanted to pursue the objective by indirect means, and maintain constant and increasing pressure on the axis, the americans wanted to conserve resources for the big decisive king hit which eventually became the Overlord plan. There were strengths to both strategies. However both partners ignored sections of the atlantic charter with regard to Accolade and Hercules. the British had a primary committment to the invasion of italy, and placed this priority in jeopardy by the operations in the Aegean. The US had an obligation to maintain pressure on the axis, which their direct approach failed to do in the short term.

in the end, both partners honoured their committments as allies and did work together pretty well. Your approach smacks of the german approach....consult no-one, do what you like, in your own self interest. The german method was a proven failure, and stands in stark contrast to the Allied methodologies, which were slower, less spectacular, but ultimately saved lives and was successful.
 
Last edited:
davebender said:
No longer then it would take to assemble the rest of the Aegean amphibious invasion force.
Click to expand...

It might also be that they (the Allison Mustangs) were fully committed elsewhere, were out out of production and no more were coming. I believe that 2 squadrons were still using them in Europe in April of 1945? Not bad for a plane that went out of production almost 2 years earlier.
 
davebender said:
No longer then it would take to assemble the rest of the Aegean amphibious invasion force.
Click to expand...

IIRC almost all resources for the Aegean oper were already in MTO, so British were using resources already in the theater. And Mustang I/II was already out of production, RAF would have liked more Allison Mustangs for its TacRecon sqns, but NA had not any free capacity because USAAF wanted as many P-51Bs as possible. So Allison Mustangs were scare and precious resource to RAF which probably wanted to keep those left for the coming landing operations and following land campaigns in ETO, which were the main future operations.

Juha
 
Juha good summary, but this include all the old 110 variants with DB-601 engine.

Tomo the yardstick range of 38G with 2 150 drop tanks is very high, has over 10 hours of endurance at 180 mph tas, but flying so slowly in area with enemy fighters it's dangerous. Rodi is the nearest island, at example Coo it's a around 320 miles. Cruising at 330 mph at 12k (max continuous) the range is only 740 miles (with 40 gals of allowance for TO e climb) goingo on Coo put you are lucky and when flying on enemy island you are not engaged you dropped the tanks after 320 miles, without drop tank your range at max continuous is 360, need 320 for back you've around 7' minutes in max continues for combat (probably 6' in TO setting) and not reserve or just that going slowly to back.

Pre J are not able to got 410 mph clean the test give a G at 404 mph (22,6k) at 88% of weight and only 3 weapons (so also less drag) imho probably don't go over 395 mph with a full loaded and full weapon plane. P-38 climbed badest of 110G so probably the situation with 109G is badest. i never read that P-38 are so good in turning in original, the 109G has best WL and slats
 
Vincenzo said:
Juha good summary, but this include all the old 110 variants with DB-601 engine...
Click to expand...

Nikademus' numbers for Tunisia Campaign 1943 based on Shores et all. So should be 110Gs, of course tactical situations had big influence to results.

Tunisia campaign 1943

110 kills:

7 x P-38
1 x P-40
3 x Spitfire
1 x Beaufighter

110 losses:

5 to Spitfire
1 to Beaufighter
11 to P-38
1 to Kittyhawk
1 to Mosquito


Juha
 

There is no need for P-38 to fly at slow speed (for max endurance), if the objective is 250 miles away. With the 'yardstick' range of circa 1450 miles, even if we cut it at 1/4th (to allow for greater for greater cruising speed, so we will not cut it to 1/3rd), that's makes even the Coos an objective within reach. One thing is that only for the nearest 100 miles from the objective the pilot is to go on max continous, away from that he can use economical cruise to improve the mileage.

P-38H was clocked at 415 mph (chart from Vee's for victory, pg. 166); the P-38H is show to have 410 mph at the chart in the US 100 hundred book (indeed, the P-38G is barely above 400 mph there). So the speed is comparable with Gustav. The climb rate of P-38 is not an issue - the plane should be at 15000-20000 ft when near the LW forces, so the defender must be a good climber. The P-38, when deploying the Fowler flaps, was one of the best turners.
 
Here is a range chart for the P-38L

I don't imagine the earlier models would be that much different at cruising speeds. Just select the amount of fuel you think would be left after combat and the speed needed to get home. Cruising back from the Aegean could probably be done at a lower speed than cruising back to Britain over occupied Europe.

http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com/Images/P-38/38FOIC.gif
 
Juha said:
Nikademus' numbers for Tunisia Campaign 1943 based on Shores et all. So should be 110Gs, of course tactical situations had big influence to results.
Click to expand...

Yes Juha i thinked that the unit in MTO not get the G-2 so early but i'm in wrong they get it.
Tactical and lucky is the most for a good result.
 
davebender said:
What about the seven squadrons of Beaufighters? Surely they could have protected the British amphibious force from German dive bombers.
Click to expand...
39, 47, 144, 227 252 Squadrons were anti-shipping squadrons; 108 was a nightfighter squadron; 272 was a bombing and anti-shipping squadron. Just because an airframe has the word "fighter" in its title, doesn't mean that it was used (or suitable) as a day fighter.
Before you ask, 680 Squadron was also a P.R. squadron.
 
davebender said:
Why should the USA get involved at all? Britain had all the assets necessary to make Operation Accolade work. They just need the right assets in the right place rather then sending an inadequate force and expecting the USA to bail them out.
Click to expand...
Unlike today, during the war the word "Allies" meant exactly that; it's the sort of cooperation which saw Seafires (and Spitfires from Malta) flying top cover during the "Torch" landings.
 

i've the range chart for 38G i think it's available on line, the large battle were combat on Coo and Lero island, and actually allied not need long range fighters both the island had a airfield but putting this airfield as not usable because too near to enemy, Coo is the nearest to Cyprus around 320 miles (Leros around 350). The outward trip is not a trouble the plane has the drop tanks, ever putting the 38 were not intercept when flying on enemy island, arrived on Coo drop the tanks, you've all the internal fuel and start to combat or near to combat put 10 minutes on max continuos and 5 minutes on TO seting, the plane use over 60 gals of fuel, so you go back to max continuos for 100 miles, an other over 60 gals go, so you put in economical cruiser and you back to Cyprus (less of 60 gals) so it's all ok used ~180 gals on 300 on board w/o trouble the plane can x2 time on Coo. but if when you flying on enemy island (example Rodi that has 3 airfield) you get also a false interception? if you drop the tanks pratically is a mission kill.

As i told a tested G under weight and underarmed got 404 mph at 22.6k feet not hope that got over 400 mph full weight and full armed. the speed remain comparable maybe also a pair of mph best of G-6. The climb was for show difference in excess of power if 109 climb best is easy that accelerates better. On turn reading tactical trial around the web do not seem so almost for these P-38.
 
There is a video named 'German gun cam footage' (available at the 'Video's subforum here) that shows P-38 making a climbing left turn, at low level, and the pursuing LW fighter (don't remember what one it was) is loosing it, being unable to follow. The entries about the turning abilities from US 100 hundred book:
-it could perform fairly tight maneuvres
-some pilots used a combination of maneuver flap setting and differential throttle use allowed the P-38 to out-turn German fighters
-it's turning capabilities were not that good as Zeros ( ! - a comparison vs. the top turner is quite telling; even so the P-38 pilots were trying to make turning fight vs Japanese opposition as late as 1944-45)

Combat setting for flaps was to be used at under 250 mph IAS, unlike the automatic slats for 109 that were deploying at far lower speeds. The high rate of climb is crucial for a defender, the attacker is already at altitude and can put that into advantage. When defender lands to refuel rearm, attacker has the opportunity to make easy kills - as seen from long range fighter operations conducted by IJA/IJN and USAAF. or the 'Freijagd' operations during BoB.
In case defender wants to hunt the attackers over water, it needs to carry drop tank - RoC speed going down.

US fighters were conducting many escort missions vs. targets in continental Europe, some 400-600 miles away (so the defender has the opportunity to land once the fuel is to be used up). The campaign vs. islands 350 miles away is far easier task; a defender that is run out of fuel can only ditch. Of course, the Allies can go for the nearest island 1st.
 
beautifull video, but does not prove anything we do not know why the 190 did not follow the P-38.
What can did late P-38 it's not same can did early.
the long range escort were did with 3 fighter group taking the bomber stream in different stage of the mission and i think that were not P-38G that flying this mission.
So the defending flying over him airfield need drop tank? and can not landing?
The P-38G is sure a good TE fighters and probably the best USAAF fighters (US built) in the MTO at time but the small wing are not good for high altitude operations, tactical trial of F variant vs Fw 190 show that can outurn this only a speed to about 140 mph (or less, surely IAS), in low level low speed maybe a very dangerous opponent but still is not a L.
 
Will try to find it for you


The late P-38s were indeed better machines that early ones. Does that mean that the F/G/H were bad? Don't think so. As long as they don't try to play to the enemy's strengths, they are just fine - there is really no need to go low slow. For the 'island hoping', they were the best available ones, at least prior 1944. The wing was a compromise, only fault being somewhat a thick profile; the aspect ratio was god.
The P-38Hs were capable to escort bombers from 450-520 miles, I see no problems for the G to do the same - it carried same amount of fuel internally externally.
How dangerous it was? Zero was on paper far worse a performer that Spitfire V, yet the tactical advantage (flying high) posed many problems for the Spits over Darwin.

The defending fighter can choose:
-take off without drop tank - better performance, but cannot follow the attackers for any considerable distance; any Allied plane 50 miles away from coastline is rather safe
-take off with drop tank - the attackers can be bounced further away, the price to be payed is loss of the climb speed performance if the drop tank is attached

added: the most likely opposition the LW could field around Rhodes in 1943 would be the 109G-6. Prior Oct/Nov 1943, it's engine is not allowed for 1min rating (Notleistung), so the plane is capable for some 390-395 mph. If the gondola cannons are on board, the performance is further deteriorated; the extra cannons needed for destruction of likely Allied bombers taking part at the Operation.
 
Last edited:
there is a map that show escort radius of P-38 (H there were not G in England) as 520 miles with 2 drop tanks from november '43 (there were not P-38 in england before) enough for Berlin. i'm sure that G can did same this are a slow speed mission with low fuel flown. there is not doubt that P-38 can go to leros at slow speed fight and back to slow speed, and after some calculation, did in the previous post, can go fast in the 100 miles neares to Leros bu if they encounter enemy fighters over Rodi also in easy combat they can go to Leros and back? the trip per se is not so long but they need to fight on Leros and fly again on enemy islands in the back trip.
Zero is not bad on paper v/s Spit V, Spit has horizontal speed advantage not so high as it is commonly believed, a dive advantage and armour near all others is in favour of Zero.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

W
Twin engine Tornado
Replies
15
Views
869
wuzak
W
S
State-of-the-art Japanese fighters with western engines
Replies
9
Views
302
ThomasP
T
Airwar Over Europe?
Replies
2
Views
684
Canaus
C
1937-45: Doubling down on the 2-engined 'day fighters'
7 8 9
Replies
175
Views
9K
Admiral Beez
A
J
Where US fighters failed over Europe
2 3
Replies
47
Views
5K
Geoffrey Sinclair
G
Menu
Log in
Register