![]() |
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 |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
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 |