Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
That unrecoverable dive thing would have been a big negative for me (yes the did eventually resolve that problem but...).
One thing that I am curious about...
The P-47 and the P-51 get their rep points because they could go toe to to with the best the Germans could come up with.
|
I'm sorry, but I can't answer your Hellcat questions. It's most likely what the press, authors, historians, Hollywood and the like chose to promote after the war. The Hellcat was a fine aircraft. All one has to do is turn on America's most widely known military history channel, and all they seem to talk about is the 8th AF and June 6th, 1944 D-day.
While it's not as widely publicized and even more rarely talked about on internet forums, which I've personally participated in forums discussing this subject and all of WWII aircraft's flight models on this subject since the late 90s, both the P-47 and P-51 had irrecoverable dive issues, but most either don't know about it, won't discuss it, or choose to ignore it. Later model P-47s got dive recovery flaps just like the later model P-38s did, and they never did remedy the Mustang's dive issues, though many fixes were tired and temporary dive limitations were imposed.
Much of the P-38's bad wrap and misinformation that's been bandied about the internet for the past 15 years and throughout books for an even longer time can be traced to the 8th Air Force.
The P-38 did fine against all German aircraft. All one has to do is to look at the 15th Air Force fighting in the Mediterranean. There, the Lightning shot down more German aircraft than both the Mustang and Thunderbolt. In fact, I believe that the Lightning shot down some 7 times more aircraft than did the Thunderbolt. This should come as no shock because the main mission was high altitude long range bomber escort, which was a task all models of the P-47 were very poorly suited for prior to the N model, which only served in the Pacific Theater very late in the war.
While it can be argued that the Mustang came along much later, it's still just misinformation. Yes it's true that it came along later. However, when the Mustang came along, it came along in great numbers. Much greater than anything Lockheed could put out. Moreover, once the Mustangs were on the scene, the Lightnings were relegated to staying with the bombers while the Mustangs ranged far ahead of the formations to shoot the Germans down while they were most vulnerable, climbing out and getting into formation to attack the bombers. Prior to the Mustangs showing up, the P-38 crews were handling this task just as well as the Mustang crews.
In the Pacific, there were some 14 P-47s for every P-38, yet the Thunderbolts showing was abysmal. Lightning crews outscored Thunderbolt crews by a landslide, which should come as no shock because the Lightning crews flew and aircraft that put them in contact with enemy aircraft, while the Thunderbolt crews simply lacked the range. I can't remember if I read it in "Kirby's Thunderbolts" or where it was, but I do recall reading about one C.O. of a P-47 crew being so tired of missing out on the action due to the Jug's very short range that he had his ground crew strap on one of Lockheed's 310 gallon tanks under one wing, another Lockheed 165 gallon tank under the other wing, and they had still another 75 gallon drop tank slung under the center-line, which they kept on the aircraft during the action. The P-38 did better in the Pacific for several reasons, but the main one was the fact that it could get to where the enemy was because it had range, it’s undercarriage was far more stout than the weak P-47s, notoriously weak, and P-51s. Moreover, in the Pacific, the Japanese were chased all over, which meant operating from short rough primitive fields that were formerly Japanese. The P-38 had no problems with this as its take off and landing was roughly half that of it’s two stable mates.
Hub Zemke is often quoted as saying, "When the 479th FG, 8th AF replaced the Lightning with the Mustang, out kills went up and our losses to enemy action and mechanical failure went down." If Hub Zemke ever said that, he was dead wrong on each account. The Mustang suffered mechanical failures far more frequently than did the Lightning. The only time the 479th did better with the Mustang was during the month of November of 44, but nearly every fighter group in the 8th achieved the same. By then the 8th was rather powerful, and I believe that the Luftwaffe massed a large group of fighters. The irony of Hub Zemke quote is that he was lost in a Mustang shortly after taking over the 479th. I don't even think he was lost to enemy action. He was diving his Mustang when the wing came off... The Mustang had serious issues in high speed power dives just like all of the upper end WWII fighters. Dives had to be made within the flight envelope of the particular model and load out.
If you look at all the statistical records and compile them, the safety of WWII Army Air Corps aircraft is P-47, P-38, and the P-51 is last. The Mustang was the least safest aircraft to fly or at least it suffered from the most losses per sortie, and remember, most P-51 missions few at a time when America possessed primitive air strips on the continent of Europe, which was a luxury many P-47 and P-38 sorties never had. Even in the Pacific, Mustangs benefited from B-29 escort for navigation, radio navigation, and they largely flew out of Okinawa unlike the 47 and 38 that saw service throughout the Pacific theaters operating under much more primitive conditions.
Lastly, I feel that too many people get wrapped up in X aircraft shot down Y enemy and therefore it’s the best. That means very little. Two of the most important factors were:
1. The personnel that flew, serviced, and commanded were key
2. How much of a chance they had for enemy action.
For example, the venerable P-40 shot down more enemy aircraft than the P-38, P-47, and P-51 combined in the CBI. The reason is simple, the P-40 crews actually encountered enemy aircraft on their missions, while the USAAF’s big three flew virtually unopposed by enemy aircraft.
Two of the 8th AF P-38 units were simply deadbeats. Poor command is the most likely culprit. Once they switched to p-51s, they did no better.
The 356th FG of the 8th AF was always called the hard luck squadron. They had a very poor showing. It boils down to command once again. This squadron, much like all the 8th AF P-38 squadrons were tied to the bombers, thus they had little chance to score victories.
As far as what I’d like to fly and where?
P-38 for the 15th Air Force. They did well, losses were low, and most of all they were mainly based in Italy, and I love both Italian food, and the way Italian women look.
That’s my rant. Cheers!
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Buuutttt.... can't I have three or four of them, daddy?"
