Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbnews!cbnews!military
From: fiddler@Eng.Sun.COM (Steve Hix)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Air-to-air refueling
Message-ID: <1990Nov21.221654.20431@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 21 Nov 90 22:16:54 GMT
References: <1990Nov16.054115.23709@cbnews.att.com> <1990Nov20.021615.27073@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 31
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: fiddler@Eng.Sun.COM (Steve Hix)

> From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Nur Iskandar Taib)
> 
> I suppose so.. but I'll bet the 8th air force desparately
> wanted added range beyond what drop tanks provided its 
> P-47s and P-38s early in the bomber offensive against Ger-
> many! The germans would wait just beyond the range of the 
> fighter escort. The P-51 solved this problem. 

Both P-47s and P-51s, with drop tanks, had the range to escort
bombers all the way in and back to German targets.  The later
P-47s with the bubble canopy were in perpetual contest with the
P-51D as highest-scoring American fighter type.

The P-38 with drop tanks had the range, but were not considered
competitive against later Luftwaffe fighters.  Most P-38s were
assigned to North Africa and Italy anyway.

It's not that the P-38J-LO wasn't all that good...it's mostly
that earlier variants couldn't turn with the Germans, and being
as big as they were, could be spotted from quite a bit further
out than single-engined fighters.  This last was a real disadvantage.

--
------------
  The only drawback with morning is that it comes 
    at such an inconvenient time of day.
------------