![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Geoffrey Sinclair wrote:
The P-38 was the least effective of the USAAF fighters over Germany, thanks to a combination of factors. Once the USAAF could deploy escorts in numbers to the required targets then yes the Luftwaffe day fighter force was in trouble. The engineering to provide the escorts in numbers took most of 1943. Then the long range escorts appeared. I would like to point out that the "least effective fighter" may not be taking an overall view. Most of the problems with P-38 operations were the result of early doctrine and poor training of aircrew in multi-engine operations. They suffered through comparatively high loss rates in early operations where their writ was not to pursue the enemy, but to provide close escort, much as the Luftwaffe fighter force was in the Battle of Britain. Being unable to pursue an enemy limits your kill potential, but they DID cause a significant drop in bomber losses. In 1945, P-38s which were still flying escort missions under the later doctrine (and in equal or superior numbers to the defenders) had about the same results as their brethren in -47s and -51s. The P-38 also proved highly successful with 9AF on low level interdiction sorties. Adding in its ability to be adapted to do almost anything (how many P-51s were ever fitted with a Norden bombsight or pathfinder blind bombing radar system?) and the P-38 was highly successful in Europe. It's reputation suffered from engine problems (which were absolutely unknown in the MTO, PTO, or even Alaskan theaters, and were quite possibly due to fuel problems which admittedly affected the turbosupercharged Allisons more than the Merlins) and from the inevitable process of being the aircraft tasked with proving that your current doctrine isn't working the way it should. A poster noted that the use of P-38s in the photo-recon role (F-4 and F-5) limited the number of armed fighter types available, but strategically a squadron of long range high speed photographers (particularly in the Pacific) was almost certainly more valuable than another squadron of fighters - unless they are your escort for the day, of course. Mike a (perhaps overly enthusiastic) fan of the P-38 and most things Lockheed 55th Electronic Combat Group EC-130H Compass Call*; "In Jam, No One Can Hear You Scream" |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
regaining night currency but not alone | Teacherjh | Instrument Flight Rules | 11 | May 28th 04 02:08 PM |
Did the Germans have the Norden bombsight? | Cub Driver | Military Aviation | 106 | May 12th 04 07:18 AM |
Why was the Fokker D VII A Good Plane? | Matthew G. Saroff | Military Aviation | 111 | May 4th 04 05:34 PM |
Night of the bombers - the most daring special mission of Finnishbombers in WW2 | Jukka O. Kauppinen | Military Aviation | 4 | March 22nd 04 11:19 PM |
Why did Britain win the BoB? | Grantland | Military Aviation | 79 | October 15th 03 03:34 PM |