Night bombers interception in Western Europe in 1944

Mike Williamson wrote in message ...
Geoffrey Sinclair wrote:

The P-38 was the least effective of the USAAF fighters over Germany,
thanks to a combination of factors. Once the USAAF could deploy
escorts in numbers to the required targets then yes the Luftwaffe day
fighter force was in trouble. The engineering to provide the escorts
in numbers took most of 1943. Then the long range escorts appeared.


I would like to point out that the "least effective fighter" may
not be taking an overall view.

Would it help is I mentioned the implied late 1943 and early
1944 and on heavy bomber escort missions? The P-38
had real problems with both tactics and equipment in this
environment.

Most of the problems with P-38
operations were the result of early doctrine and poor training
of aircrew in multi-engine operations. They suffered through
comparatively high loss rates in early operations where their
writ was not to pursue the enemy, but to provide close escort,
much as the Luftwaffe fighter force was in the Battle of Britain.
Being unable to pursue an enemy limits your kill potential, but
they DID cause a significant drop in bomber losses.

The P-38s had cockpit heating problems with rally degraded
pilot performance, they also had problems with high speed
dives, the pilots were very wary of them, and the Luftwaffe
liked diving away from combat. It made it hard to use the
dive tactic.

Also, unlike the Pacific the P-38 was not significantly faster
than the fighters it was engaging.

The trouble with training is a limit on early deployment of
effective fighters.

In 1945, P-38s which were still flying escort missions under
the later doctrine (and in equal or superior numbers to the
defenders) had about the same results as their
brethren in -47s and -51s.

As far as I am aware the use of P-38s on heavy bomber escort
missions in 1945 was very limited, what sort of information do
you have on the mission.

The P-38 also proved highly successful
with 9AF on low level interdiction sorties.

Agreed.

Adding in its ability
to be adapted to do almost anything (how many P-51s were ever
fitted with a Norden bombsight or pathfinder blind bombing radar
system?) and the P-38 was highly successful in Europe.

As a fighter bomber clearly it worked well. Unfortunately the
requirement is for a high altitude long range escort fighter
in 1943.

It's
reputation suffered from engine problems (which were absolutely
unknown in the MTO, PTO, or even Alaskan theaters, and were
quite possibly due to fuel problems which admittedly affected
the turbosupercharged Allisons more than the Merlins) and
from the inevitable process of being the aircraft tasked with
proving that your current doctrine isn't working the way it
should.

And that meant the ability to put together a reliable escort force
was significantly reduced.

A poster noted that the use of P-38s in the photo-recon
role (F-4 and F-5) limited the number of armed fighter types
available, but strategically a squadron of long range high
speed photographers (particularly in the Pacific) was almost
certainly more valuable than another squadron of fighters -
unless they are your escort for the day, of course.

The poster was me, pointing out the reality of allocating scarce
resources instead of the cardboard cut out "bad guys" approach
to the history.


Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.