bendel boy wrote:


Going from memory, Galland said the reverse - that the P-38 was seen
as easy meat, and that it reinforced the lessons of the Bf 110.

Even with drop tanks it didn't have the eventual range of the P-51,
and, as found in the Pacific war area, it didn't have the agility to
dogfight - it had to rely on 'dive & climb' tactics. Against the Bf
109 that may not have been as profitable.


The P-38 was the first long range fighter the US produced, and had
comparable or longer range than the P-51 throughout the entire war.
As a quick exercise, look up the first Allied fighter escort mission
to appear over Berlin... Also look up the airfield locations, and
you'll note that a -38 had to fly quite a bit farther to fly
a round trip to Berlin than a -51 did.

As far as "dogfighting," no allied aircraft had the agility to
"dogfight" (in this case, engage in a fight in which turning ability
is a primary factor in performance) consistently with early war
Japanese aircraft, nor did they need to. As early as December of
1941, AVG P-40s in China successfully employed climb and dive
tactics, in an aircraft which markedly inferior to the P-38 in
that regard. The first British Spitfires to attempt to engage
in a WWI-style turning fight with the Japanese discovered that
their aircraft didn't come out well in such a contest, and also
adopted tactics which suited their aircraft better. Note that
the aircraft with the better performance (climb and speed) can
dictate the type of fight- the slower climbing "dogfighter"
gets to be on the receiving end of high speed diving passes...

Mike Williamson