La Rouge Beret
Donor
As the title says what would happen if the P-38 was used in the Korean conflict as a fighter-bomber? Would we see P-38's as a COIN aircraft in Vietnam?
WI P-38 used in Korea?
- Thread starter La Rouge Beret
- Start date
- Status
NothingNow
Banned
Honestly, the Lightinings were just sort of worn out by the 50s, and were really outclassed by everything else. Where as the Corsairs were both older warbirds and new build airframes, and still in good condition. The main issues the Lightnings would be facing are really related to Pilot fatigue, airframe fatigue and how big it was compared to the Corsair, Mustang, Sea Furies and Skyraiders, and how comparatively vulnerable it was. Quite simply, the Migs would eat a Lightning for lunch while a Corsair or anything else might have a chance to evade.
The P-38 went out of production and out of service after WWII. It was not an easy aircraft to fly and had a slow learning curve, requiring, by some accounts, 200 hours before combat proficiency was achieved. The P-38, in post-war Italian service, had an unenviable rate of operational losses and fatalities. Mustangs and Thunderbolts continued in ANG service post-war while the Lightning did not. This meant that there were neither aircraft nor pilots ready for combat in Korea. Maintaining proficiency inter-war would have been impractical and fairly pointless.
In light of events, I wonder why they didn't choose the Thunderbolt over the Mustang for Korean service. The Spad and the A-26 made it to Nam, but the effort to supply the Invaders was interesting. Both were easier to maintain and fly, and featured somewhat continuous service.
In light of events, I wonder why they didn't choose the Thunderbolt over the Mustang for Korean service. The Spad and the A-26 made it to Nam, but the effort to supply the Invaders was interesting. Both were easier to maintain and fly, and featured somewhat continuous service.
La Rouge Beret
Donor
Just Leo,
That's quite interesting regarding the assorted issues that would preclude the P-38 being used in Korea. I have always wondered about the Thunderbolt myself, as I feel that is an excellent airframe - well armoured fast and a great bomb load. How about the Mosquito or its successor the Hornet?
That's quite interesting regarding the assorted issues that would preclude the P-38 being used in Korea. I have always wondered about the Thunderbolt myself, as I feel that is an excellent airframe - well armoured fast and a great bomb load. How about the Mosquito or its successor the Hornet?
The plywood construction and age mitigated against longer-term use of the Mossie, and the Hornet, never produced in great quantity, was used up in Malaya. The weather wasn't kind to it's structure. The poor homely Bristol Brigand only saw service as replacement because of it's all-metal structure.
I have no recall of the P-61 (F-61) being used in Korea. Twin-Mustangs fulfilled the early night fighter role and the Widow was probably too long in the tooth for the TAC role by that time. Any more info?
I have no recall of the P-61 (F-61) being used in Korea. Twin-Mustangs fulfilled the early night fighter role and the Widow was probably too long in the tooth for the TAC role by that time. Any more info?
Markus
Banned
The P-38 was designed as a high-altitude fighter and its two turbosupercharged engines made the plane very expensive. 97.000$ vs. 51.000 for a P-51. Operating costs were higher too, so the Lighting was pashed out really fast. The best WW2 fighter for 1960´s COIN would be a Corsair; one engine, a radial, no turbo and a large payload.
Here's the link to the front page of my gallery: http://wolfman-053.deviantart.com/
Check the USAF WhIff and SVNAF sections, and be prepared to do a lot of digging in the USAF WhIff section.
misread the number. Oops. Sorry.
Based on what I have read, pilot fatigue would not be an issue, though the P-38 did require a good deal of time to master being a twin engine plane with dual turbos. The P-38 actually was well suited for endurance missions. It was easy to land, and take off, due to its tricycle landing gear. Due to its opposite rotating props, it was had no P factor/propeller torque. This also made take offs easier. The cockpit was roomy. With the P-38L, the cockpit heater issues were resolved. Further, the P-38 was more maneuverable than the Mustang, Corsair, or the T-Bolt.
That said, despite the tremendously effective weapons suite and load carrying capacity, the P-38 would probably not have been a good choice for a ground pounder. The P-38 was very vulnerable to ground fire. This was not just because the engines liquid cooled with the associated cooling systems were inherently more vulnerable than air cooled but also because the plumbing associated with the turbocharger housed in the booms was vulnerable.
As Markus noted, most damning of all was the cost. The Lightning with its twin engines and GE turbochargers cost almost twice as a Mustang to buy and, iirc, 60-70% more to operate. The turbocharger was one of the reasons the P-47 also cost more than the Mustang. Lacking a turbo, I imagine the Corsair cost was probably comparable to Mustang--but the Corsair was a much more rugged aircraft both because of the radial engine and because it was built to land on carriers.
Last edited:
Although the P-47 probably would have been better suited for the sort of missions flown by prop fighters in Korea than the P-51 (sturdier, bigger payload), the reason it wasn't used in Korea was administrative convenience- the Mustang was the primary prop fighter retained in active service by the USAF, and as such, there was already an infrastructure in place to support it in Japan and Korea. Furthermore, IIRC, reserve & ANG fighter squadrons west of the Mississippi were primarily equipped with P-51s, while those east of the Mississippi were mostly P-47 outfits, making the P-51 units the ones that would be easier to deploy as reinforcements.
There were Mustang pilots in Korea who'd flown Jugs in WW II; and almost to a man, they were screaming for F-47s. 176 F-51s were lost in Korea, mostly to ground fire, and they were being lost to damage in many cases, that a F-47 would've survived. Check the usenet group rec.models.scale: there's a thread there about the Thunderbolt in Korea and a link to an article about why the F-47 didn't go to Korea.
As for Black Widows, the one squadron in the Far East that was equipped with them had transitioned to the F-82 Twin Mustang a month before the balloon went up. F-82s had the first U.S. air-to-air kills in Korea, with Yak-9s being the victims. F-80s got four Il-10s an hour after that encounter. The Marines did fly F7F Tigercats in Korea from land bases, and did kill a few NKAF prop aircraft, but no MiGs.
FYI one Corsair driver in VMF-312 did shoot down a MiG-15, and an RN Sea Fury driver did the same.
As for Black Widows, the one squadron in the Far East that was equipped with them had transitioned to the F-82 Twin Mustang a month before the balloon went up. F-82s had the first U.S. air-to-air kills in Korea, with Yak-9s being the victims. F-80s got four Il-10s an hour after that encounter. The Marines did fly F7F Tigercats in Korea from land bases, and did kill a few NKAF prop aircraft, but no MiGs.
FYI one Corsair driver in VMF-312 did shoot down a MiG-15, and an RN Sea Fury driver did the same.
The rec.models.scale thread.
This leaves the question of how these pilots would have felt about the Corsair, which probably as rugged as the F-47/P-47 without the maintenance issues of the turbocharger.
Not sure myself, but the article in that thread mentions the Corsair, and how they were vulnerable to battle damage-the position of the oil cooler being singled out, and how Vought repositioned that in the AU-1 attack version (and presumably in the F4U-7 built for the French Navy). The AD Skyraider was considered the best prop attack bird in Korea, and the F-84 was felt to be the best attack jet in theater.
La Rouge Beret
Donor
I just read about the attributes of the AU-1 ground attack Corsair and I think that is an ideal aircraft for the role.
- Status