Night bombers interception in Western Europe in 1944

(WalterM140) wrote in message ...
Someone posted over on the WWII board that Galland, I believe, said that the
P-38 was the best allied fighter.


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.

Someone posted over on the WWII board that Galland, I believe, said that
the
P-38 was the best allied fighter.


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.




You're right about Galland. There was another high scoring German ace who
spoke well of the P-38.

The P-38 was the first "energy" fighter. The top two Americans aces of the war
did fly the thing, after all.

P-38's didn't have to dogfight with the Germans any more than it did the
Japanese. The idea was to keep the Germans from massing and to keep the
ME-110's out of the game.

If the range was shorter than the Mustang, it was still adequate. Also, for a
long time, there -were- no Mustangs.

Walt

WalterM140 wrote:

Someone posted over on the WWII board that Galland, I believe, said that
the
P-38 was the best allied fighter.


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.



You're right about Galland. There was another high scoring German ace who
spoke well of the P-38.


OTOH, McFarland and Newton quote the Luftwaffe advice re the three US fighters they
were facing over Germany. IIRR it was alongthe lines of "If P-51s, avoid always.
If P-47s engage at low and medium altitudes, but avoid at high altitudes. Engage
the P-38 anywhere, anytime." Which is odd, because at low/medium altitudes the
P-38 was arguably superior to both the ME-109 and FW-190. It could out-turn either
at slow speed, could probably out-sustain climb the FW-190A if not the ME-109, and
didn't suffer from compressibility in the dive at those altitudes. Roll
acceleration was bad, especially compared to the FW-190, but visibility and
firepower were good to excellent.

Galland had one of the toughest fights of his life against a P-38 flown by an ace,
andwas lucky to get away unscathed, but that was the pilot more than the a/c.

The P-38 was the first "energy" fighter. The top two Americans aces of the war
did fly the thing, after all.

And the results would likely have been the same if they'd flown the Corsair, P-47
or P-51.

P-38's didn't have to dogfight with the Germans any more than it did the
Japanese. The idea was to keep the Germans from massing and to keep the
ME-110's out of the game.

True, the type of fighter was less relevant than the range of the fighter.

If the range was shorter than the Mustang, it was still adequate.

Until the P-38J with LE tanks came in, the range was substantially the same as the
P-47.

Also, for a
long time, there -were- no Mustangs.

And no long-range P-38s, either. At least, not at ETO bomber escort altitudes.
Drop tanks that you can't draw fuel from above 20,000 feet or so aren't much use in
the ETO escort business.

Guy

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

Mike Williamson wrote:

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.

Slightly less, I'll buy. Comparable or longer, no.

As a quick exercise, look up the first Allied fighter escort mission
to appear over Berlin...

Uh huh, and these were J models with 410 gal. internal. (205 per engine),
vs. the P-51B/D's (with aft tank) 289 gallons and lower drag.

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.

snip

Depends on the unit. The 55th and 20th at Nuthampstead and King's Cliffe
were well west, but then so was the 4th at Debden and the 78th at Duxford,
whether flying P-47s or P-51s. The 479th was at Wattisham, forward of the
4th and 78th, as were the 364th at Honington and the 55th after it moved
to Wormingford. The 56th was just about the most forward fighter unit
when they were at Halesworth, but moved south and a bit west to Boxted in
1944.

Guy