Why was the P-38 considered king shit in the PTO but dog

>>33199842
because the UK got gimped versions without superchargers and counter rotating props and we never sent the variant we had outside of the night interceptor near the end of the war. They were needed more in the pacific until the corsair came into it's own. Also expensive plane.

>>33199842
Because the AAF's footprint was much smaller in the Pacific, island hopping doesn't work as well with land based aircraft, it was a carrier based conflict. Add to that the fact that the United States considered the defeat of Germany it's #1 military priority, that said, the European Theatre tended to get most of the newest aircraft, weapons, and equipment first.

>>33199842
Because there was better alternatives.

>>33199842
In the Pacific, it didn't have to contend with heavy ground fire or jets.

>>33200278
>imply jets were just swarming around the ETO at all times, or were a problem for prop fighters.

Go back to warthunder, kid

>>33200142
>>33200197
>>33200231
>can't read

>>33200278
but the P38 was only around early-ish in the ETO and was crap from the get go and then dropped where as it was highly successful through all iterations against the japs through the war

>>33200312
You've never actually read a history book, or any pilot memoir, have you?

>>33199842
They weren't too bad in Europe, pretty sure they performed well in Italy.

Longer range and two engines were better and safer for the Pacific theater, where operational ranges were generally longer. But the P-38 served in many roles in all theaters in the war. The Germans called it the "fork tailed devil." As I recall it was the only US fighter that was in production from the beginning of the war to the end.

When I was growing up there was an elderly gentleman who went to the same church as me. He flew P-38s in the Mediterranean theater until the end of the war

>>33200567
>they performed well in Italy.
>against the Italian Air Forces
not exactly a sterling recommendation there, Wynona.

>>33200911

>implying Italians didn't have good planes

>>33200736
>Longer range and two engines were better and safer for the Pacific theater, where operational ranges were generally longer.

This right here. Lots of water to fly over and not much land available in the Pacific Theater. Not really a problem in Europe.

>>33199842
Mostly because the Mustang has an amazing PR machine. Also, because of the engunes being on booms separated from the pilot meant it had issues heating the cockpit. Not fun in European winters, but not really an issue in the South Pacific. Also, also, as >>3320014 Said, it wqs a comparatively expensive aircraft to produce.

>>33200911
The Italian Air Force, while small, was something the Italians could legitimately be proud of. It was one of two bright spots for Italy during the war.

File: Republic_P-47N_Thunderbolt.jpg (10KB, 300x235px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 300x235px

>inlines