Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Homer_J_Simpson
As I read various articles from day to day mentioning p-38 lightnings in the Pacific and Africa, I wonder why the p-38 performance in the Pacific was so much better than in Europe?

I've read various explanations over the years. Too bad a p-38 ace in the Pacific wasn't transferred to Europe to fly p-38 and give us an apples-apples comparison.

6 posted on 07/20/2013 6:35:18 AM PDT by fso301
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: fso301

The 109, 190, and 205 were better than the Zero. And the Japanese wasted their good pilots and were unable to replace them.


7 posted on 07/20/2013 7:17:00 AM PDT by PAR35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: fso301

Wiki has a good explanation under the P-38 Operational History European Theater:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_P-38_Lightning#Operational_history


9 posted on 07/20/2013 7:28:21 AM PDT by Rebelbase (Tagline: (optional, printed after your name on post):)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: fso301

One of the problems with the P-38 in Europe was that it suffered from an inferior heating-defrosting system. At high altitude during bomber escort missions, the canopy would fog/ice up and cause the pilot visual problems along with the distraction of trying to scrape it off.

Obviously, that was no problem in the Pacific.


12 posted on 07/20/2013 2:03:01 PM PDT by Zman516
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: fso301
As I read various articles from day to day mentioning p-38 lightnings in the Pacific and Africa, I wonder why the p-38 performance in the Pacific was so much better than in Europe?

They had more opportunities to perform in the other theaters

There were some biases that worked against the P-38 in England that played a role with its more limited use. The genesis of this might well lay with the first lot of P-38Es that were delivered to the R.A.F. in 1941. These first models did not have the counter rotating propellers or superchargers. This really took some of the fine handling characteristics away from the aircraft.

This British sentiment was bolstered by Major General James E Chaney who was commander on U. S. Army forces on the British Isles before the establishment of ETOUSA. He didn't like the thought of using the P-38 as a fighter either. When he found out that many of the fighter groups being assigned to England were to be fitted with the 38 and the P-39 he wrote Air Marshal Portal with his doubts of the use of the P-38 in England. He claimed that it was better suited as an interceptor to shoot down enemy bombers rather than an air superiority fighter.

Finally, there is a timing issue here as well. As Eaker was trying to equip his pursuit units he knew that the bulk of the P-38s being sent to Europe would end up going to the African/Med theater. He therefore requested that the P-47 be designated as his long range escort fighter (with drop tanks they could go a fair way but not quite as far as the P-38). So in a way, the P-38 was muscled out in England by a another very good aircraft. When the P-51 started showing up with the Merlin/RR engine, then there was even less room for the Lightning.

In doing a little bit of poking around concerning this question I ran across this dissertation by Bernard Boylan on the Air Force Historical Research Agency's website. I only skimmed it of course, but it looks like it is worth revisiting and reading in full.

Development of the Long-Range Escort Fighter

15 posted on 07/20/2013 11:48:36 PM PDT by CougarGA7 ("War is an outcome based activity" - Dr. Robert Citino)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson