On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 05:21:09 -0400, Cub Driver wrote:

And I'm not sure that the 38 was all that
effective defending bombers against 109s/190s on their home ground.

all the best -- Dan Ford (email: info AT danford.net)

see the Warbird's Forum at http://www.danford.net/index.htm
Vietnam | Flying Tigers | Pacific War | Brewster Buffalo | Piper Cub

Dan, the P-38s helped a great deal. Bomber losses dropped by 50% when escorted
by nothing more than two very under-strength P-38 Groups. Both the 20th and 55th
FGs suffered from large numbers of aborts due to engine problems, on some
missions as many as 30% of the P-38 force had to return to base with engine
failures. Yet, this tiny force (usually less than 60 fighters) did a great deal
to cut bomber losses to sustainable levels. As more P-51B/C Mustangs arrived,
the P-38s were able to share the "over target" escort duty, reducing the
terrible mismatch in numbers. By early 1944, the situation had reversed and the
Luftwaffe was finding itself badly out-numbered. Nonetheless, November and
December of 1943 were dangerous times to be flying the P-38 from Britain.

Ultimately, the P-38J, which was specifically engineered for tropical climates,
was unsuitable for high altitude duty over Europe in the dead of winter. It
wasn't until the Spring of 1944 that the P-38L rectified these deficiencies,
and by then the 8th Air Force was committed to the P-51. However, both the
9th and 15th Air Forces used the P-38L with good success. Unfortunately, the
P-38's development was mismanaged by Lockheed, the WPB and the USAAF.
It could have been a far more effective fighter at least a year sooner.

My regards,

Widewing
Widewing (C.C. Jordan)
http://www.worldwar2aviation.com
http://www.netaces.org
http://www.hitechcreations.com