Hub Zemke on P-38,P-47, P-51

[:FI:Up-n-at-'em]

thought you all might find this interesting...

Hubert "Hub" Zemke P-38, P-47 & P-51 fighter group commander:

I was fortunate enough to have flown the P-51, P-47 and P-38 in combat and to have led fighter groups with all three.

P-51- By far the best air-to-air fighter aircraft of the three below 25,000 feet. Avery good long-range radius of action for the type of work we did in Europe. The acceleration from slow cruise to maximum performance was excellant compared to the competition.

It's rate of roll was good and it maneuvered easily to a learned hand. Dive and acceleration were rapid. Visibility in all directions was very ample for need. As an instrument aircraft it was a bit touchy. It could be overactive in turbulence.

On armament it carried sufficient machine guns. Why I say this is that after viewing numerous combat films where pilots often fired at extreme range or overdeflected, I came to the conclusion that one fought for a combat position of 10 degrees or less deflection. At close range-250 yards or less- there is no doubt what could happen when the trigger was depressed. It was a matter of ducking the flying pieces after that. This was drilled into the skulls of all pilots.

P-47-- A rugged beast with a sound radial engine to pull you along. Heavy in firepower that chewed up the opponent at close ranges. Best suited and likewise adopted in the ground support role, as everything in the armament arsenal was hung on its sturdy wings.

Accelerated poorly and climbed not too much better from a slow airspeed. Once a good high cruising speed was attained, the P-47 could pretty well stand up and fight with the competition.

Strangely rate of roll and maneuverability was good at high speeds. In fact, the aircraft had many a forgiving feature and reliability. With its high altitude supercharger its performance at altitude-above 24,000 to 25,000-- appeared superior to theother two US Army Air Corps fighters in the theater. At high altitude this fighter's level speed, better climb and more solid response to control reflected the tactics that the 56th Fighter Group developed early in combat.

it should not be overlooked here that the P-47--once it gained altitude--could exceed any of the contenders in speed of entering a dive with a very goo "zoom" recovery to altitude again.

Naturally a fighter pilot endeavors to fight his aircraft from the strength of his machine's performance rather than from itsweaknesses. With this in mind, I repeatedly impressed upon the 56th's fighter pilots that our tactics were to "hit and recover, hit and recover." If one couldn't get the opponent by an altitude of 15,000 feet, then break off and recover to altitude again.

In this respect it was stressed that the element leader, who initiated the attack, pressed in viciously. If he missed his attack, it was his responsibility to set up his wingman to press through for a cleanup kill on the dive. If the wingman's follow-through failed, a zoom recovery by the element leader to give high cover and a position for a second attack often resulted.

This one, two punch tactic was continued into refinement of the entire group's tactical employment, wherein thefirst or lead squadron was designated the Assault or Strike squadron, thesecond designated Support or Follow Through squadron which flew a bit higher, and the third which flew still higher,became the Reserve or High Cover squadron.

Though the 56th recieved criticism for this conservative policy of not bouncing below 15,000 feet, until the introduction of the paddle blade propeller and water injection to the R-2800 engine there was considerable effort to refine tactics and coordination of theentire group formation. The tactics worked.

About the highest engagement I recall was just over 35,000 feet. Here the P-47 still performed fairly well while the enemy (Me109s) had dropped off considerably. In about one turn with the group, the opponents were falling off in spins or split-S-ing for denser air mass. Then enemy fell into the trap of being overhauled by the superior diving speed of the P-47. The P-51 and P-38 also employed these tacticsbut to a lesser degree in dive performance to the P-47.

As an instrument flying platform the P-47 proved to be better than the P-51 but probably not as good as the P-38. Though not equipped for icing conditions, with carburetor heat the engine pulled the bulk through.

As to firepower, the eight .50 caliber machine guns were ample proof of a real punch eitherin aerial combat or on a strafing run. Once dive bombing was learned, the P-47 consistently came up with flying colors.

P-38--Though this aircraft had virtues, for me it was the poorest of the three US Army fighters in the European Theater. The fact that the extreme cold at altitude affected its performance hardly endears the machine. The turbosuperchargers were controlled by an pil regulato. At altitude the oil had a tendancy to congeal, which cause serious problems. On two occasions I recall, when entering combat with enemy single seaters it was a case of life and death to get away and survive, though I had startedwith the advantage.

On both occasions the engines either cut out completely or overran rpm limitations as the throttles were cut or advanced. It was enough just to regulate the engines and control the aircraft without entering combat.

The second serious limiting factor that detracted form the P-38's combat capability wasits steep diving restriction--estimated at about 375 mph. A common tactic of the Luftwaffe single seaters was to split-S for the clouds or the deck. Oftentimes their head-on attacks on the bomber formations saw them roll over and dive for the deck to confuse and outdistance the flexible machine gunners. P-38s had little chance to persue. When on defense, it can be easily understood that a dive tosafety was the best maneuver for longevity.

Another factor to degrade theP-38's combat capability was the identification factor. The eyes of a pilot often picked up specks in thedistance that could not be immediately indentified as friend or foe. These were reported in as "bogies." Appropriate tactical maneuvers were taken to prevent bogies fromhaving the advantage of a subsequent attack. In the case of the P-38 the twin booms and slab elevator gave this aircraft's identity away- as far as the eye could see.

It was also necessary for the P-38 pilot to do much more weaving to look down over the two engines that lay on each side of the cockpit. A better cockpit heating system could have been provided as my feet always froze at altitude.

Taken alone, the above statements would conclude that the P-38 had no outstanding features... it did! As a gun platform, it was sterady as a shooting stand. With two engines there was no torque. With a little trim for buildup of speed (in a dive) a pilot could ride directly into a target.

As to the armament installation, I have seen no better. Four machine guns and one cannon in a tight pocket directly in front of the pilot. This armament being so closely aligned ti the sight of plane of the gunsight required no convergence of fire as necessitated in fighters having their guns placed in the wings.

Though the P-38 had a wheel instead of the provebial stick, this was no handicap- controls were light and response was excellant.

Relative load carrying capacity, the aircraft could take off with just about anything. I've taken off with a thousand pound bomb under each wing and cruised with ease. On fuel consumption, the P-38 enabled us to cruise out to combat areas deep in Germany without the anguish of not having enough "petrol"to return home.

A tricycle landing gearmade it much easier for a junior pilot to "spike the kite" on the runway and chalk up another landing. This was also an advantage in taxiing- a large engine and cowling did not deterfrom forward vision.

[:FI:Heloego]

Tanx!

[Deathsledge]

yep, nice read, thx for sharing sir

[:FI:Snoop Baron]

Good post m8! Thanks!

Snoop