Long Range Bomber Escort????

[Professor Brensec]

I can't help it. I have to start this topic to get an idea on the 'so called' lack of long range escorts for the USAAF in Europe.

I have just finished reading an analysis on this situation and have found that, according to this account at least, the capability to escort the bombers to ALL their targets existed from the outset.

It was due to General Eaker's (name - spelling??) belief in the bombers to defend themselves. Even in the face of the losses that often occurred. Apparently, he was given access to P38's, which were capable of escorting all the way to the targets and were certainly, at least a near match for the Bf109 etc.

It is mentioned that at this period during the war in Europe (say late '42 - mid early '44), the P38's had little else to do except for those that were designated for PR.

So why, if it's true, did this idiot allow the needless deaths thousands of flight crew?

When he was in command of the 8th Air Force, General Ira Eaker did not believe the bombers needed escort. He thought that the bombers' defensive armament would be protection enough. High rates of losses never deterred him from this belief. Accordingly, Eaker turned down the P-38 Lightnings provided him to protect his bombers. The P-38s, with enough range to escort the bombers to any of their targets, spent time in England with relatively little to do, and many were subsequently sent to Africa.

Thoughts?????

[HawkerTempest5]

I think most of the P-38s that were sent to the UK in the early years (1942/3) were needed in North Africa and the Italian theater and so were send there. Amongst some of the attempts to protect bombers were converted B-17s that carried no bomb load and had extra machine guns fitted. In 1943 a whole squadron of USAAF Spitfire IXs was lost after they exceded their range limit to stay with the bombers for just a little longer.

[Scorpiоn]

What source was this?

I find it hard to believe that after all these years no one could look at service records and put wo and two together.

[Meyekul]

I don't know if I buy this or not.  I thought a major reason for the design of the P-51 was the dire need for a long-range escourt?  

If it is true, I'd say the reason has something to do with the P-38s not being good enough to reliably stand against 109s.  Sending pilots up in inferior planes would just lead to more losses of aircraft and warm bodies.

[Felix/FFDS]

[quote]I don't know if I buy this or not.

[denishc]

 In truth, the majority of the P-38 production was always bound for the Pacific, where its long range was needed to cover the vast distances of that battlefield.
 Early in the Pacific war there weren't enough P-38s to go around and other aircraft, such as the P-47, had to fill in until production of P-38s cought up to demand.  Many Air Corps pilots in the Pacific, some who had flowen P-38s, were not happy with the P-47.  They felt that the P-47 was too large and ungainly to fly against the nimble Japanese fighters, like the Zero and Oscar.  These pilots eagerly waited for the return of their P-38s.
 

[Professor Brensec]

The source for the thread is this site:

http://www.flightjournal.com/plane_prof ... istory.asp

As for the need for a long range fighter. That's the question I wanted to address. Was one really needed?? Or was there one already available, but not used due to some idiot's over-estimation of the B17 (let's face it, when the Yanks arrived in England with thier B17's, they thought the British had been 'playing wars' until they got there - there are many accounts of American crew 'boasting about the 'invincibility' of the B17, not to mention the old "bomb in a pickle barrel").

This source, at least, calls into question the fact that there was not a fighter to do the job of escorting the B17's all the way to Germany.

My question is, Is it true that the P38 was available in numbers enough (as this article states), but was 'knocked back' as not required by Eaker???



I find this particular last paragraph very clear in what this bloke is saying (as I have suggested earlier in the thread).

Of the machines and weapons of war, some played a more important part than others, and indeed, a few played a very critical part. But it was a combination of all of them that resulted in victory. No single weapon system decided the outcome of the entire war. Many credit the Mustang with winning the war in Europe because it had the range to escort the bombers all the way to their targets in the heartland of Germany. But this capability was always there, even before the P-51 became available. The fact that long-range fighters were not used earlier was a tactical decision rather than because such fighters did not exist.

Whether it's true or not. Or maybe 'entirely true' is a better expression??????
If it is, even in the slightest, there is much to be answered for in terms of lives thrown away during raids such as the one at the ball bearing factory (forget city) where 60 odd B17's were lost, and I'm sure many, many others.

[Professor Brensec]

I think most of the P-38s that were sent to the UK in the early years (1942/3) were needed in North Africa and the Italian theater and so were send there. Amongst some of the attempts to protect bombers were converted B-17s that carried no bomb load and had extra machine guns fitted. In 1943 a whole squadron of USAAF Spitfire IXs was lost after they exceded their range limit to stay with the bombers for just a little longer.

The P-38s, with enough range to escort the bombers to any of their targets, spent time in England with relatively little to do, and many were subsequently sent to Africa.

"Subsequently sent to Africa, because this bloke didn't want them" ??????  

[Professor Brensec]

Personally, I don't know if this bloke knows what he's talking about, and whether he has 'physical documentation' to back up his assertions. However, this particular paragraph would appear to 'fly in the face of' accepted opinion also.
At least to my mind. What say you??

In numerous accounts about the development of the Allison-powered Mustang, it has been stated that its poor performance at high altitudes was a surprise and a disappointment to the British and to the USAAF as well. This simply is not so. The aircraft designers of that day had more than sufficient knowledge of powerplants, and they were capable of determining that the Allison engine and supercharger combination installed in the aircraft would have a drop in performance above 15,000 feet. Clear evidence of this is that two of the P-51s, ordered even before the flight of the first XP-51, were reserved for testing with a Packard-built Rolls Royce Merlin engine. They knew that the Allison-powered Mustangs would be low-Ievel fighters, while the Merlin-powered aircraft would be the high-altitude versions. By comparison, Mustangs with the Allison engine could outperform the Merlin-powered variants below 15,000 feet, but no writer has criticized the P-51B, -C, -D, or -K for having less performance at low altitudes. It has been claimed that the Merlin engine is what allowed the Mustang to reach its potential. If only high-altitude performance is considered, this would be true. But a more correct assessment would be that both the Allison and Merlin-powered versions performed very well at the altitudes where they were designed and intended to operate.