Lockheed P-38 Lightning & CAS

[Statisoris]

Hi All, I just started using close air support in a PBEM game and was wondering why the P-38 was not included in the force mix.

Has anyone read accounts of use P-38 missions on the western front? Were they overly rare and/or mostly used for bomber escort and CAP, combat air patrol duty.

I was thinking that the 23mm autocannon would be more effective as an anti-armor weapon than the .50 caliber guns on all the other fighters. Currently my aircraft never seem to hit the engine deck when firing on the German tanks and are pretty innefective against armor. In accounts I've read, US aircraft knocked out German tanks pretty often when strafing runs were on target.

[winkelried]

see the paragraph on the 370th fighter group.

[YankeeDog]

I think you either have a typo there, or mis-read something: I am not aware of a production variant that carried a 23mm cannon. One of the P-38 prototypes did have a 23mm cannon, but as far as I am aware the most common gun armament on the production models was 4 x 12.7mm MG, and one 20mm Hispano autocannon.

But anyway, the effectiveness of aircraft strafing runs against armor this is a topic that has been discussed here in depth as nauseam (if you search, you'll find numerous threads on the topic, some dating back to CMBO days). In brief, post-combat analysis by Allied investigators who cataloged German armor kills in the ETO suggests that very few full out tanks were actually knocked out by aircraft strafing runs (regardless of whether you're talking about .50 cal, 20mm or whatever other armament). Unarmored and light armored vehicles are another matter.

Further, contemporary evidence also suggests that F/Bs were not very effective at directly knocking out tanks in general -- while a rocket or bomb direct hit certainly could KO a tank, the weapons were not accurate enough to consistently produce direct hits on a target as small as a tank.

This is not to say that F/Bs were ineffective against armored columns. Rather, I think the evidence suggests that their effectiveness was primarily in damaging the logistics tail of the armored formations, and also in forcing the heavy armor itself to disperse and hide to avoid being a concentrated target to air attack (which would make bomb/rocket attacks much more likely to succeed). All this greatly reduced the German Armored formations' operational mobility, and in some cases may have caused some formations to abandon their armor entirely -- a tank battalion can't fight for very long if all of the fuel trucks are shot up and burning.

A secondary effect may have been non-catastrophic damage from bomb & rocket near misses -- damaged tracks, optics, which would also have the effect of slowing the armored units down and forcing them spend time in to refit & repair prior to combat.

I believe it was Guderian who said that a tank has two weapons: A gun, and an engine. A tank that can't move around freely is basically a very expensive pillbox.

At any rate, as a result of all this I don't lose much sleep over the lack of P-38s with 20mm cannons in the game. Actually, I don't lose much sleep over air support issues at all -- I think it's largely out of place at the CM scale, and therefore I avoid scenarios that include it.

[Aldaros]

There were seven P-38 groups in ETO during Normandy; four in the 8th Air Force (20th, 55th, 364th, and 479th Fighter Groups) and three in the 9th (367th, 370th, and 474th FGs). The three 9th Air Force groups were mostly used in an interdiction/ground-attack role. The four 8th Air Force groups were used as bomber escorts, and would only have engaged in ground targets while strafing on their way home. From a CMBN context, the 9th AF groups could appear during a battle, but none of the 8th AF groups would normally be seen (since their targets of opportunity would be far behind the front lines).

Relatively speaking, P-38s were rare in the ETO, and were largely phased out during the last year of the war; by mid-September 1944, all four 8th Air Force P-38 groups had transitioned to P-51s, and only the 474th was still flying P-38s at the end of the war.

The main advantage the P-38 had when strafing was that all five of its guns were in the nose; wing-mounted guns need to be boresighted so that the rounds converge at a specific range (e.g. 300 yards in front of the aircraft). This makes it much easier to hit targets at approximately that range, but makes it much harder to hit targets at significantly longer (or shorter) ranges. Since they were already tightly clustered, the P-38's guns could boresighted straight ahead, and therefore retained a close pattern at both short and long ranges. As YankeeDog notes, there is no evidence that the 20mm cannon was good at killing tanks.

[Aldaros]

I think you either have a typo there, or mis-read something: I am not aware of a production variant that carried a 23mm cannon. One of the P-38 prototypes did have a 23mm cannon, but as far as I am aware the most common gun armament on the production models was 4 x 12.7mm MG, and one 20mm Hispano autocannon.

Correct. All production P-38s had 20mm Hispano cannon (aside from the original YP-38s and P-38Ds, which had 37mm cannon, and the Lightning Is, which only had .30 caliber and .50 caliber machine guns). Only the original XP-38 prototype was supposed to carry a 23mm cannon, but I don't know if it was ever actually installed.

[Statisoris]

Thanks for the 23mm vs 20mm info, I think I saw the 23mm at a glance and misspoke. Sadness on 20mm not being more effective against tanks.

It seems I was totally mistaken on my other thoughts/wishes about the P-38. Haven't learned much about WWII air power details as I'm obsessed with everything on the ground.

[Sgt Schultz]

The Americans DID come up with a fairly decent tank killer in the P-40 Tomahawk.

Single 37mm in the prop hub, facilitated by the mid-engine design.

Many design issues led to it being given to the Russians, who used it until the Sturmovich Il2 came along.

The twin 37mm variant of the Stuka also had success in the tank killer role on the Eastern Front. Even better gun than the Ami 37mm.

The issue with the 20mm used by Allied air forces in WW2 is that the version used was a low velocity, short barrel type. It was not the AA 20mm you may think of. The mass and recoil issues made the high velocity variant a non-starter for prop planes.

Don't expect tank kills from aircraft. Celebrate if it happens.

-

http://www.criticalpast.com/video/65675060186_B-25-Mitchell-bomber-planes_5th-Air-Force_7th-Air-Force_Japanese-targets_B-25-fire-canon

Edit ... the above link, at around 1:38 shows what you would call REAL CAS(although these weren't used for cas).

-

[JonS]

The Americans DID come up with a fairly decent tank killer in the P-40 Tomahawk.

Single 37mm in the prop hub, facilitated by the mid-engine design.

Many design issues led to it being given to the Russians, who used it until the Sturmovich Il2 came along.

I think you mean the P-39 Aircobra?

The twin 37mm variant of the Stuka also had success in the tank killer role on the Eastern Front. Even better gun than the Ami 37mm.

Cutting through the mythology that's built up around one is tough.

The Brits came up with a moderately decent conversion of the Hurricane - the IID - for use in North Africa, but they only ever had maybe two squadrons operating. They suffered proportionately very high casualties (which isn't surprising) and lacked the support, mass, and maintenance to be much more than a temporary trial.

[Sgt Schultz]

durr yes the aircobra.. my bad. Reisling and groggery do not mix.

[MikeyD]

I remember back when the US was looking for an cheaper alternative to the A-10 (early 1980s?) congress, in its wisdom, mandated that the old Mustang also be evaluated for the ground attack role. That's right, the prop-driven, liquid cooled engine right in front of the pilot Mustang. I guess congress was inspired by Argentine use of the Pucara ground attack aircraft in the Falklands war. Needless to say, Mustang met zero of the Pentagon's ground attack requirements.

[LukeFF]

While the P-39 was indeed sent to the Eastern Front, Soviet pilot memoirs are adamant that they were not primarily used in the ground attack role.

This discussion also makes me wonder what type of role the Il-2 will play once CM returns to the Eastern Front.

[argie]

I remember back when the US was looking for an cheaper alternative to the A-10 (early 1980s?) congress, in its wisdom, mandated that the old Mustang also be evaluated for the ground attack role. That's right, the prop-driven, liquid cooled engine right in front of the pilot Mustang. I guess congress was inspired by Argentine use of the Pucara ground attack aircraft in the Falklands war. Needless to say, Mustang met zero of the Pentagon's ground attack requirements.

I think you are a bit confused: wasn't the Congress who asked for the Piper Enforcer, neither it had anything to do with it.

It was an old little war on effective CAS at low cost to complement the A-10. At the time, the idea from the Pentagon was to have low cost CAS directly on FEBA, maybe the sucesor of the Piper Enforcer, which was more than anything a demo, plus a refurbished A-7, the F, for BAI. The ones never liked it (as they didn't like the Warthog, but they have to keep it despite wanting to ditch it every time they could) was the USAF. As there are buying procedures that are tailor made for some contractor, there are also requirements tailor made to not being meet.

All this started with a study on CAS, by the USAF itself, which determined that the best CAS was a turboprop, simple, robust plane capable of being loitering most of the time over the troops.

If you read the history of the OV-10, you'll know why the USAF don't like to do CAS, much less with turboprops and the struggle to even have the A-10 running, a plane that made for a lot of it cost in its lifespan.

[argie]

On the Pucará on Malvinas, though I doubt it impressed the study I mentioned, the operational rate was abysmal, but it was interesting looking to it through the glass of the very poor logistic, infernal, mud ridden airfield in which it operated, and impressive survival rate when hit (IIRC, only 3 were actually shot down, all the other losses being on the ground). No other combat plane could have operated in such conditions and it was an eye opener on how useful could be that kind of plane in direct use and contact with front troops, in a better (or at least, planned) situation.

IIRC, one was flying after receiving a Sidewinder impact in lethal range and had to be shoot down with 30mm cannon from a Harrier. And it isn't an armored planed.

[argie]

The Brits came up with a moderately decent conversion of the Hurricane - the IID - for use in North Africa, but they only ever had maybe two squadrons operating. They suffered proportionately very high casualties (which isn't surprising) and lacked the support, mass, and maintenance to be much more than a temporary trial.

A temporary trial that helped to develop the CAS doctrine for the Allies. It has its downs, and it was very bad at beginning, plus changed a lot ongoing, but the (solid) foundations were made there.

[StellarRat]

Just so we have everything straight...prop driven aircraft are very vulnerable to radar directed AA and guided missiles. This is just a reality of they modern world. They are simply too slow vs. modern AA weapons. On a battlefield where they enemy has limited AA capability they will perform well, but the US Airforce plans for worst case scenarios when looking for weapons. Hence, the US Airforce's rejection of the Pucara look alike. Next gen of ground support aircraft will probably be drones.

[JonS]

Hence, the US Airforce's rejection of the Pucara look alike.

Yeah. Instead they went with the AC-130

[Michael Emrys]

Yeah. Instead they went with the AC-130

Which was large enough to carry meaningful armament that could be fired from outside the range of light automatic ground fire, as well as countermeasure equipment against missiles and radar directed cannon. The proof being in the pudding, it is worth noting that very few Spectres have been shot down even though extensively used in several campaigns over the last four decades.

Michael

[JonS]

I wouldn't exactly call Grenada, Somalia, Haiti, Afghanistan, or Iraq (post "Mission Accomplished") 'high threat' environments for an a/c. I wouldn't even call them 'low threat' environments. Nevertheless, they've managed to achieve a loss rate of 13% of airframes to hostile action.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Yeah, I don't know where the idea that the US assumes heavy AA comes from. We just ordered another 16 AC-130s.

But the AC-130 has operated in environments with significant AA. 6 of the 8 AC-130s lost in combat were shot down over Laos or S. Vietnam. One other was shot down in the early phases of the 1991 Gulf War.

[argie]

Just so we have everything straight...prop driven aircraft are very vulnerable to radar directed AA and guided missiles. This is just a reality of they modern world. They are simply too slow vs. modern AA weapons. On a battlefield where they enemy has limited AA capability they will perform well, but the US Airforce plans for worst case scenarios when looking for weapons. Hence, the US Airforce's rejection of the Pucara look alike. Next gen of ground support aircraft will probably be drones.

All tests have demonstrated that speed isn't so important to survival. The barrier seems to be in the order of the 300/400 km/h. It makes helos vulnerable, but not so much prop driven planes.

They are more resilient to small arms fires, the primary treat in CAS, than heavily armored helos or jet planes, and have a very low signal on radar and very low IR signature (low heat in exhausts and negligible in the front), plus low flying capabilities comparable to helos.

The thing that tends to bias the studies is that most attack missions of jet planes are not properly CAS, but some kind of BAI. When considering similar missions, the casualty rate is pretty similar. The A-10 fly in almost the same envelope and the figures in survivability are more related to redundancy and armor than to avoiding actual small arms fire, plus simplicity, that makes it possible to patch them on the field and send them to fight another day.

[argie]

The AC-130 is the "ultimate" CAS plane, capable of loitering for hours, with all the sensors, weapons and, not only comms, but also liaisons officers on board.

But is big, expensive, and only can be used in a highly controlled environment, preferably by night.

The advantage of today OA-X planes is that they can be used as the trainers, OCU and operational aircraft all in one, for a flying cost of less than 1600 $ by flying hour.

Everytime a F-16 is sent on demand just to fire a burst of 20mm on a few "rebels", you are expending a few times that figure, plus a risk of capital (human and material) far higher. In CAS, planes are lost, no matters what is the menace level (low level flight, low speed maneuvering, and small arms fire are a constant that made for the real danger).

[MikeyD]

Hah! I just now stumbled on info about the US A-67 Dragon COIN aircraft, which first flew in 2006. From what little I can see it is indeed very much a modern day 'Mustang' for ground support! This is a big surprise. This is exactly the opposite of what you'd imagine the Pentagon would go for. Where are the bells & whistles? I'd bet the US Air Force will only see a token number but they'll turn out to be the mainstay of the Iraqi and Afghani airforces... unless this is one of those projects that simply dies quiet death.

(I like their idea of a "whole aircraft parachute" )

http://globaldownlink.com/A67Page.html

[sburke]

Hah! I just now stumbled on info about the US A-67 Dragon COIN aircraft, which first flew in 2006. From what little I can see it is indeed very much a modern day 'Mustang' for ground support! This is a big surprise. This is exactly the opposite of what you'd imagine the Pentagon would go for. Where are the bells & whistles? I'd bet the US Air Force will only see a token number but they'll turn out to be the mainstay of the Iraqi and Afghani airforces... unless this is one of those projects that simply dies quiet death.

(I like their idea of a "whole aircraft parachute" )

http://globaldownlink.com/A67Page.html

Check out the resume of their President.

http://globaldownlink.com/Management%20Bios.html

[Michael Emrys]

I'd bet the US Air Force will only see a token number but they'll turn out to be the mainstay of the Iraqi and Afghani airforces...

I'd bet you're right. It's too small and lightweight to be very attractive to our services. USAF, USN, and USMC would be looking for something with more load carrying capacity. 3700 lbs. ain't a whole lot. What they would be looking for is a replacement of something in the range of the A-1 to A-10. It's greatest advantage is that it should be relatively cheap, so smaller air forces can afford to buy a couple of wings of them.

Michael

[Kanonier Reichmann]

I'm surpised no one has mentioned the Douglas A-1 Skyraider? This wonderful (and forgotten) aircraft could carry 8,000 pounds of ordnance and could fly for 10 hours so it seems to tick most of the boxes yet was phased out in the early 1970's. Time to check the design blueprints again?

Regards

KR