PDA

View Full Version : Frank Hurlbut, P-38 Ace



249th_Harrier
12-14-2004, 11:39 AM
http://historynet.com/ahi/blhurlbut/index.html
http://www.82ndfightergroup.com/82history.htm

Hurlbut flew in the 96th fighter squadron in the P-38-equipped 82nd Fighter Group. Flying long range medium-altitude escorts, fighter sweeps, and ground attack missions. Most of the air to air action occurred mid 1943 to mid 1944, when the Luftwaffe was at its peak, staffed with experienced pilots in the latest German aircraft. Most missions were taking the attack to the enemy, who could mass aircraft at the point of attack and outnumber the attackers. Yet in spite of this the 82nd gave much better than they took. Total tally for the 82nd fighter group was over 500 planes. Total pilots lost were ~90, including pilots lost on jabo missions. This is the true measure of how the p-38 was the most potent air-to-air weapon of its day. It is a shame that IL2/AEP/PF does not reflect this.

249th_Harrier
12-14-2004, 11:39 AM
http://historynet.com/ahi/blhurlbut/index.html
http://www.82ndfightergroup.com/82history.htm

Hurlbut flew in the 96th fighter squadron in the P-38-equipped 82nd Fighter Group. Flying long range medium-altitude escorts, fighter sweeps, and ground attack missions. Most of the air to air action occurred mid 1943 to mid 1944, when the Luftwaffe was at its peak, staffed with experienced pilots in the latest German aircraft. Most missions were taking the attack to the enemy, who could mass aircraft at the point of attack and outnumber the attackers. Yet in spite of this the 82nd gave much better than they took. Total tally for the 82nd fighter group was over 500 planes. Total pilots lost were ~90, including pilots lost on jabo missions. This is the true measure of how the p-38 was the most potent air-to-air weapon of its day. It is a shame that IL2/AEP/PF does not reflect this.

FatBoyHK
12-14-2004, 12:38 PM
it is difficult, many factors are impossible to be simulated in a fair way, such as reliability, durability, the situation of the war itself, pilot's desire to keep their life, so on so on.... The consequence is that we can see a striking comparison between, for example, KI and Lightning, in this game..... it is sad, but it is a very difficult problem, and you can't find a solution that would please everyone

Korolov
12-14-2004, 01:27 PM
Nice read. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Gibbage1
12-14-2004, 01:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 249th_Harrier:
This is the true measure of how the p-38 was the most potent air-to-air weapon of its day. It is a shame that IL2/AEP/PF does not reflect this. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There are many factors in WWII not presen in IL2. The P-38 can be a very DEVISTATING weapon if used in proper teamwork, as in WWII.

There are a few "issues" with the P-38 such as stall's, toque, early compressability and others that should be addressed, but other then that I think the P-38 we have is very accurate.

The key to US aircraft was NOT manuverability. We are talking an aircraft 3x the weight of its target and much MUCH greater range and endurance. The key was there ruggedness, range, payload, speed and many other factors. All those play well into teamwork.

I love the P-38 simply because its the only twin engine aircraft that could dance with the single engine fighters of the day, and thats a testimate to its design.

woofiedog
12-14-2004, 02:30 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gifHello Gibbage1... Been working on anything new lately?
Haven't see you to much on the forum?
Well Good to see you around!

woofiedog
12-14-2004, 02:32 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gifExcellent Posting 249th_Harrier!
Thank's

249th_Harrier
12-14-2004, 02:36 PM
The 82nd had a lot of cards stacked against them: they Luftwaffe pilots had more experience, more numbers, the advantage of fighting a defensive battle. In spite of this the 82nd more than held their own. There is no way they could have accomplished this with an aircraft with inferior air-to-air combat capability. Putting aside engineering numbers and looking at the historical record of what was accomplished with this machine, it just doesn't square with the mediocre performance of the AEP p-38. I don't mean to denigrate 1C or IL2/AEP, which is an amazing product.

PBNA-Boosher
12-14-2004, 08:00 PM
The performance of the PF+FB+AEP P-38's are pretty much spot on. I don't know what anyone has told you, but the P-38 is NOT a turn and burn fighter, nor is it in any way a boom and zoom fighter. the P-38 is an energy fighter.

Energy fighting requires high speeds, long extension away from a bandit, and accurate gunnery. Use the .50's to line up your 20mm shots. Against Fw-190's, where the advantage is yours, use the P-38's incredible climb abilities to get away. (DON'T try this against 109's, extend far away)

When in a team situation, ONLY then do I advise light booming and zooming, but remember, ENERGY fighting is the 38's style. Use it how it was built to be used.

VFA-195 Snacky
12-14-2004, 09:09 PM
"There are a few "issues" with the P-38 such as stall's, toque, early compressability and others that should be addressed, but other then that I think the P-38 we have is very accurate. "

I couldn't agree more Gib, now when can we expect it to be fixed? That is the real question. I think we P38 guys have been quite patient so far.

VFA-195 Snacky
12-16-2004, 08:44 AM
I don't disagree with it being an E fighter, BUT it was not as limited as you may think.

"It was a marveleous aircraft! It was the best aircraft I flew in the war by far. I never flew the P-51, its been one of my life regrets, but I flew just about everything else there was. I liked the P-38s rate of climb, its speed, the way it handled, and its firepower directly out the nose. The P-38 would turn with almost anything, in fact it would out turn the P-47, out climb it, and out maneuver it. The P-38 was one of the great aircraft of WWII."...Charles MacDonald, P-38 Ace

"On my first confrontation with the P-38, I was astonished to find an American aircraft that could outrun, outclimb, and outdive our Zero which we thought was the most superior fighter plane in the world. The Lightning's great speed, its sensational high altitude performance, and especially its ability to dive and climb much faster than the Zero presented insuperable problems for our fliers. The P-38 pilots, flying at great height, chose when and where they wanted to fight with disastrous results for our own men. The P-38 boded ill for the future and destroyed the morale of the Zero fighter Pilot."...Saburo Sakai, Japanese Ace

Nobody suggests the P38 should be a turn and burner, but it certainly isn't restricted to fighting in a straight line.

Personally for me the P38 can hold it's own against any plane in FB right now, but if only the Torque issue (yes a dead horse) was corrected then it would be a great airplane to fly.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PBNA-Boosher:
The performance of the PF+FB+AEP P-38's are pretty much spot on. I don't know what anyone has told you, but the P-38 is NOT a turn and burn fighter, nor is it in any way a boom and zoom fighter. the P-38 is an energy fighter.

Energy fighting requires high speeds, long extension away from a bandit, and accurate gunnery. Use the .50's to line up your 20mm shots. Against Fw-190's, where the advantage is yours, use the P-38's incredible climb abilities to get away. (DON'T try this against 109's, extend far away)

When in a team situation, ONLY then do I advise light booming and zooming, but remember, ENERGY fighting is the 38's style. Use it how it was built to be used. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

VW-IceFire
12-16-2004, 11:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 249th_Harrier:
The 82nd had a lot of cards stacked against them: they Luftwaffe pilots had more experience, more numbers, the advantage of fighting a defensive battle. In spite of this the 82nd more than held their own. There is no way they could have accomplished this with an aircraft with inferior air-to-air combat capability. Putting aside engineering numbers and looking at the historical record of what was accomplished with this machine, it just doesn't square with the mediocre performance of the AEP p-38. I don't mean to denigrate 1C or IL2/AEP, which is an amazing product. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Keep in mind, the 82nd flew as a group in a co-ordinated effort to beat the enemy. Take planes like the P-38, FW190, P-47 out and you need to have a team to back you up. These are powerful, fast, dangerous fighters, but you cannot compete in a 1 VS 1 environment. Their power is in endurance, firepower, speed.

Conversely, a small, manuverable, short range fighter, although still heavily reliant on a team environment to survive, can operate on its own against a single larger, heavier, faster plane by catching them when they are most vulnerable and because the smaller and more manuverable fighter can gain a possible advantage with no repurcussions that bigger fighter has no choice but to run.

I feel there isn't much wrong with the P-38 based on what I've read. Its team tactics that are required. I've seen them and been involved with them...then the P-38 shines very brightly.

Korolov
12-16-2004, 11:28 AM
Icefire hit the nail on the head. The odds of success increase greatly with the introduction of more of the plane types - it gives the enemy someone else to shoot at. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Daiichidoku
12-16-2004, 12:33 PM
Wonder if his squadmates ever called him "haul @ss" in a play on his surname