Attention: TDR Forum Junkies 
A buddy of mine's father in law wrote this ----------
Read and learn... ...
"I'm offering the suggestion that the P-38L (and later J models) was the
best all-around fighter aircraft of World War II, not based on the numbers
or book references, but on the views of two WWII pilots who flew the
aircraft--and others--in combat. One was my father-in-law, Elliott Dent
(who posted once to this group when he was visiting me) and Sidney Woods,
a WWII buddy of my father-in-law who fought in both Europe and the
Pacific. I'll refer to them as Elliott and Sidney.
Elliott flew P-40s in combat with the 49 FG before switching to P-38s.
He liked the P-40. His only complaint, and it was a major one, was that
the model he flew mostly, the N, was a pig at altitude.
The P-38, however, was a vast improvement. Things he cited as making the
P-38 superior to other WWII fighters:
First and foremost (although usually overlooked by nonpilots) was its
tricycle landing gear. WWII fighters had landing speeds too high for
conventional gear. There was always that critical point in landing when
speed had dropped such that the rudder was ineffective, yet the tail was
still in the air and trying to use wheel braking to control direction
would collapse a gear or lead to a ground loop. Exhausted pilots
returning from multi-hour combat missions didn't need the final challenge
of a fast landing in a tail-dragger. The P-38 floated in and planted
itself. If you came in a little fast, you could use the dive brakes to
slow down before your wheels touched. I'm sure everyone has seen the film
of that F4U landing at Guadalcanal that balloons and floats down the
runway forever. That sort of thing couldn't happen with a P-38.
Second, two engine reliability. Especially on long over-water flights,
the security of having a spare engine in case one quit, simply can't be
appreciated by a non-combat pilot. As much as he liked the P-40, Elliott
recalls that the tension of listening intently to the engine--what was
that noise? Was that a miss? Did it just stutter?--soaked his flight
suit with sweat. And many a compatriot who reported engine trouble and
broke out of formation was never heard from again.
Third, range. The P-38 could go where the action was, or trade range for
payload and carry a bomber's load. Only the P-51D and P-47N (which came
along very late in the war) were in its range playground.
Fourth, let's call steadyness. With engines turning in opposite
directions, the P-38 was stable in all maneuvers and could roll equally
well right or left. The big-engined, big-propped singles had torque and
P-factor problems that became increasingly pronounced as speed dropped, as
in a dog fight (which you shouldn't get into, of course, but sometimes you
do anyway). They always rolled faster one way than the other. The P-38
driver just rolled the way they couldn't to escape, On the ground this
made them genuinely dangerous to operate.
Fifth, firepower concentration and range. The P-38's nose gun arrangement
got rid of all the problems of wing guns, specifically the need to be
within a specific range for the fire to tell. Anywhere within 1,000 yards
would give you hits. Given the tendency for unexperienced pilots to open
fire too far away, the P-38 offered the greatest chance for strikes. Much
wing-gun fire was wasted, especially by low-combat time pilots who fired
at twice or three times nominal range. In head-on attacks, where it is
virtually impossible to hold your fire until you hit the "sweet spot"
where the wing guns converge, the P-38's advantage of pointing yourself at
the enemy and holding the trigger down was signficant.
Sixth, dive brakes. Any aircraft that could reach the vicinity of 400 mph
at 20,000 feet would have compressibilty problems in a dive. Only the
P-38J/L offered a solution.
Elliot was credited with six kills and five probables. Among other
medals, he was awarded the DSC, the DFC, the Air Medal, the Purple Heart.
He flew 251 combat missions.
He piloted the P-40 and P-38 in combat, the P-39 and P-51 stateside.
Sidney flew P-40s and P-38s with the 49FG. He participated in the Battle
of the Bismark Sea. He flew 112 combat missions with the 49th. After a
rest stateside, he went to the 4th FG in Europe. He flew 68 combat
missions in Europe in P-51s. I don't know what he may have flown
stateside.
Sidney shot down two Japanese planes with the 49th and 10 with the 4th
(one of these on the ground, as the USAAF in the ETO counted aircraft
destroyed on the ground as kills. The USAAF in the PTO did not). Five of
the air kills were FW-190s. Among the medals awarded him that I know
about, were the Silver Star, the DFC, the Croix de Guerre and the Air
Medal.
Sidney described the Mustang as a super P-40. He did not consider it in
the same class with the P-38. He often said that the P-40 and P-51
represented pre-war air combat thinking, and that the P-38 represented the
future. That's a broad statement, and I can't recall his specific reasons
for making it, but it does give you a sense of his feeling for the
aircraft.
Sidney said that were he flying the P-38 in Europe he could have shot down
more planes than he did. On more than one occasion, for example, he noted
that while he was closing in to wing-gun range an FW would execute one of
its fabulous snap-rolls and split-S away. Had he been in a P-38 he could
have opened fire seconds earlier, gained strikes for certain, possibly
destroying the aircraft.
Sidney believed the poor showing of the P-38 in the ETO was the result of
AAF brass, who, pre-war were wedded to the unescorted heavy bomber
concept, and didn't dare admit, in the face of terrible bomber losses,
that they had a perfectly capable figher capable of escorting their
bombers from day one to the farthest target they ventured to--but they
chose not to use it. Instead, they mutually, if unconsciously, fixed on
every reason they could find to discount the P-38 as a capable fighter.
They could then say they had no choice but to go unescorted until the P-51
came along. Had they said, Yeah, we had a good escort fighter in the P-38
but decided not to use it, congressional committees would have been
demanding to know who screwed the pooch (his phrase).
As far as a combat type went, I recall Sidney talking about how it was
impossible to overshoot an aerial target in a dive with the P-38. If you
saw that you were overtaking faster than you liked, you popped the speed
brakes. Couldn't do that with any other plane. He also liked the low
speed maneuvering flaps, the hydraulicly boosted ailerons, and the overall
ruggedness of the airplane.
He felt that the AAF made a mistake in not standardizing the P-38 as "the"
fighter and having Republic and North American build it as well as
Lockheed. "
Read and learn... ...
"I'm offering the suggestion that the P-38L (and later J models) was the
best all-around fighter aircraft of World War II, not based on the numbers
or book references, but on the views of two WWII pilots who flew the
aircraft--and others--in combat. One was my father-in-law, Elliott Dent
(who posted once to this group when he was visiting me) and Sidney Woods,
a WWII buddy of my father-in-law who fought in both Europe and the
Pacific. I'll refer to them as Elliott and Sidney.
Elliott flew P-40s in combat with the 49 FG before switching to P-38s.
He liked the P-40. His only complaint, and it was a major one, was that
the model he flew mostly, the N, was a pig at altitude.
The P-38, however, was a vast improvement. Things he cited as making the
P-38 superior to other WWII fighters:
First and foremost (although usually overlooked by nonpilots) was its
tricycle landing gear. WWII fighters had landing speeds too high for
conventional gear. There was always that critical point in landing when
speed had dropped such that the rudder was ineffective, yet the tail was
still in the air and trying to use wheel braking to control direction
would collapse a gear or lead to a ground loop. Exhausted pilots
returning from multi-hour combat missions didn't need the final challenge
of a fast landing in a tail-dragger. The P-38 floated in and planted
itself. If you came in a little fast, you could use the dive brakes to
slow down before your wheels touched. I'm sure everyone has seen the film
of that F4U landing at Guadalcanal that balloons and floats down the
runway forever. That sort of thing couldn't happen with a P-38.
Second, two engine reliability. Especially on long over-water flights,
the security of having a spare engine in case one quit, simply can't be
appreciated by a non-combat pilot. As much as he liked the P-40, Elliott
recalls that the tension of listening intently to the engine--what was
that noise? Was that a miss? Did it just stutter?--soaked his flight
suit with sweat. And many a compatriot who reported engine trouble and
broke out of formation was never heard from again.
Third, range. The P-38 could go where the action was, or trade range for
payload and carry a bomber's load. Only the P-51D and P-47N (which came
along very late in the war) were in its range playground.
Fourth, let's call steadyness. With engines turning in opposite
directions, the P-38 was stable in all maneuvers and could roll equally
well right or left. The big-engined, big-propped singles had torque and
P-factor problems that became increasingly pronounced as speed dropped, as
in a dog fight (which you shouldn't get into, of course, but sometimes you
do anyway). They always rolled faster one way than the other. The P-38
driver just rolled the way they couldn't to escape, On the ground this
made them genuinely dangerous to operate.
Fifth, firepower concentration and range. The P-38's nose gun arrangement
got rid of all the problems of wing guns, specifically the need to be
within a specific range for the fire to tell. Anywhere within 1,000 yards
would give you hits. Given the tendency for unexperienced pilots to open
fire too far away, the P-38 offered the greatest chance for strikes. Much
wing-gun fire was wasted, especially by low-combat time pilots who fired
at twice or three times nominal range. In head-on attacks, where it is
virtually impossible to hold your fire until you hit the "sweet spot"
where the wing guns converge, the P-38's advantage of pointing yourself at
the enemy and holding the trigger down was signficant.
Sixth, dive brakes. Any aircraft that could reach the vicinity of 400 mph
at 20,000 feet would have compressibilty problems in a dive. Only the
P-38J/L offered a solution.
Elliot was credited with six kills and five probables. Among other
medals, he was awarded the DSC, the DFC, the Air Medal, the Purple Heart.
He flew 251 combat missions.
He piloted the P-40 and P-38 in combat, the P-39 and P-51 stateside.
Sidney flew P-40s and P-38s with the 49FG. He participated in the Battle
of the Bismark Sea. He flew 112 combat missions with the 49th. After a
rest stateside, he went to the 4th FG in Europe. He flew 68 combat
missions in Europe in P-51s. I don't know what he may have flown
stateside.
Sidney shot down two Japanese planes with the 49th and 10 with the 4th
(one of these on the ground, as the USAAF in the ETO counted aircraft
destroyed on the ground as kills. The USAAF in the PTO did not). Five of
the air kills were FW-190s. Among the medals awarded him that I know
about, were the Silver Star, the DFC, the Croix de Guerre and the Air
Medal.
Sidney described the Mustang as a super P-40. He did not consider it in
the same class with the P-38. He often said that the P-40 and P-51
represented pre-war air combat thinking, and that the P-38 represented the
future. That's a broad statement, and I can't recall his specific reasons
for making it, but it does give you a sense of his feeling for the
aircraft.
Sidney said that were he flying the P-38 in Europe he could have shot down
more planes than he did. On more than one occasion, for example, he noted
that while he was closing in to wing-gun range an FW would execute one of
its fabulous snap-rolls and split-S away. Had he been in a P-38 he could
have opened fire seconds earlier, gained strikes for certain, possibly
destroying the aircraft.
Sidney believed the poor showing of the P-38 in the ETO was the result of
AAF brass, who, pre-war were wedded to the unescorted heavy bomber
concept, and didn't dare admit, in the face of terrible bomber losses,
that they had a perfectly capable figher capable of escorting their
bombers from day one to the farthest target they ventured to--but they
chose not to use it. Instead, they mutually, if unconsciously, fixed on
every reason they could find to discount the P-38 as a capable fighter.
They could then say they had no choice but to go unescorted until the P-51
came along. Had they said, Yeah, we had a good escort fighter in the P-38
but decided not to use it, congressional committees would have been
demanding to know who screwed the pooch (his phrase).
As far as a combat type went, I recall Sidney talking about how it was
impossible to overshoot an aerial target in a dive with the P-38. If you
saw that you were overtaking faster than you liked, you popped the speed
brakes. Couldn't do that with any other plane. He also liked the low
speed maneuvering flaps, the hydraulicly boosted ailerons, and the overall
ruggedness of the airplane.
He felt that the AAF made a mistake in not standardizing the P-38 as "the"
fighter and having Republic and North American build it as well as
Lockheed. "
