How was Haven supposed to fight the SL (Detweiler Plan)?

kzt wrote:

ThinksMarkedly wrote:And on that note, going back to the original topic: how does OB figure in the MAlign plans? They reveal a technology and, once the cat is out of the bag, a series of counters become possible. Did it do more harm than good?

The leadership is so invested in their plan and so wrapped in their twisted world it's hard to tell how this was supposed to work. It's like:
1) We steal underwear
2) umm...
3) Profit!

Or, to quote a comment one drill sgt once made to me, "Have you noticed it's awful dark and smelly? Maybe you should pull your head out of your ass!"

This is the reality of humanities "leaders":
EGO
PRIDE
ARROGANCE
HUBRIS

Reminds me of the Myth that Before the P51 Mustang came around, allied fighters could not escort bombers to Berlin(even though the much maligned Spitfire was over Berlin photographing in 43' and so was the P38). This is an abject LIE told in late 43' 1944 repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly, ad naseum and then written into the tactical journals in 45' because the eggs and brass, who were all part of the bomber mafia just threw away several HUNDRED bombers/CREW trying to do daylight bombing after the UK already told the USAAF eggs and braid fools it was beyond STUPID. Why stupid? Brits already had their ASS handed to them in 1942 trying moronic daylight bombing... without fighter escort. USAAF went so far as to make moronic SUPER fortresses... which were so damned slow it made everyone a sitting duck.

Of course if you read the tactical journals and have both the P51/P47 flight manuals in hand along with the memo for how they made said criteria for how much range said fighters had... you would see the blatant lies and comparing apples and oranges to cover their arrogant ARROGANT asses pretending bombers could be fortresses.

The short(long) story is that
1) Bomber mafia held all the top positions in USAAF.

2) Invested their careers into developing big bombers to do the job

3) Had gone so far as to BAN the development of external fuel drop tanks with USAAF funds in early 1939... This is not a joke. Memo is on file. Genius eh?

4) Drop tanks were designed by Lockheed for their Electra for the Brits giving it more range for submarine patrols in 42' and could have been used on ANY allied fighter as it used same system. Republic Aviation had developed a 200gallon conformal drop tank and had it tested to 30,000ft at the SAME TIME as the P47 was developed to purposefully give it MUCH more range and less drag(Same thing the Brits did for their Spitfire--> seems to have been developed at same time)

5) Republic published the range numbers of P47 in their flight manual WITH the drop tank(s). This was early 1943 remember before the P51 even showed up with Merlin engine which was the whole claim by the USAAF for why no escort fighters. The P47 range was enough to just reach edge of Berlin even with super conservative reserve for damage, wind, combat, warmup, formation, taxing. All the bombing in 43' and most of 44' bombing did not even reach Berlin. The USAAF when covering their arses due to the idiotic moronic CYA bull puckey, they refused to acknowledge the existence of the drop tanks some of which were SITTING in the UK. For sure the drop tanks the Lockheed Electra was flying around with were already in use. WHY? USAAF spouted reasons for why daylight bombing raids did not have fighter escorts and why such heavy loss of life instead of admitting abject ARROGANCE, EGO, that the bomber was king and did not need fighter escorts.

6) P47 crew got so pissed off, because they knew via their flight manuals the range their planes went WITH a big external fuel tank(all the way to Berlin and past) at the Brass for NOT having external tanks they went to the Brits to make them Shitty Crappy paper tanks. These crappy tanks which get praised in the history annals could not go above 15,000ft without collapsing which means to use them you had to fly LOW and SLOW making them targets which caused more fighters to be used to protect the fighters on long escort missions. These crappy tanks caused everyone to burn more fuel, caused lots of drag, unlike the already developed P47 conformal fuel tank.

7) Fighter data between fighter types were never updated in official correspondance post early 1944, so if you look at "stats" in say Janes or even today on Wikipedia, everyone would believe that the P51 was longer ranged and faster than the P47. Of course new fuel came in, in early 44' allowing the exhaust turbine on P47 to become MUCH more useful as well as allowing 2800Hp instead of its original 2000. Result? P47 was king at 25,000ft and above in 1943 and throughout the war in terms of Speed, sustained speed on military power, dive, spin. Naturally the Eggs and braid compared their range numbers using P51 in 1944 and P47 data in 1943 when making their now often printed and copied range comparison graph. Not only that but their P51 data used less much less reserve fuel, combat fuel, taxi fuel, warm up fuel, etc by a LARGE margin.

8) Therefore P51 got the escort missions in 1944 when daylight bomber missions resumed and its later fame as the escort fighter, even though it was the INFERIOR high altitude escort fighter, but superior low level fighter, which is really funny as the P47 ended the war as the LONGEST ranged escort fighter by a significant margin, but got assigned the ground pounding duties in all the FLAK where it was inferior in terms of as a fighter. True, due to radial engine and MUCH beefier construction, more ammo, ability to carry more bombs, P47 was SUPERIOR for ground pounding in the FLAK, CAS operations.

PS: Only thing that could have saved the Eggs and Braids asses was the fact that fuel efficiency of the P51 was superior. Of course the P47 still ended the war with the lowest loss ratio, highest reliability of any allied fighter type in the war even though it had GROUND POUNDING attack duties in all the FLAK instead of cushy, Escort duties at 30,000ft who occasionally attacked ground targets on the way back home. That is the reality of designing the P47 fighter around 2000+ HP ending the war with 2800HP and a fighter designed around an engine initially of 1200HP(P51 Mustang) and ending the war with 1700HP. Same reason the Japanese and Germans lost the air war irregardless of aircrew. Their engines were vastly inferior which means they had to cut massive corners regarding armor be it in reducing structural safety margin, range/speed or armor over systems, fuel capacity, or payload. P47 did not have to cut any of those corners. The much praised P51 and other fighters did. The only injustice done to the P47 was it never got a nose cone making its low altitude performance as a fighter, poor. And why it was never bought to be used on the racing circuit post WWII even though it was faster than the P51 at altitude(racing is done down low). Nose cone R&D was done in early 42' but would have delayed some production so was never given a nose cone. You will note the RENO air racer Rare Bear(also a radial) along with all other radials racing at RENO have nose cones for this reason. Tempests Sea Furies have them.

PPS: Because of the bomber mafia covering THEIR ASSES during the war and post war, P47's were scrapped, sold, but NOT put in the national guard, so when Korean war came around, the P51's were put into service again and showed how piss poor they were at CAS, and why Corsairs actually did most of the work.

This is the reality of "leaders":
EGO
PRIDE
ARROGANCE
HUBRIS

Whether the P-51 or P-47 was better at altitude is somewhat immaterial, if massed flights of either over Berlin are better than what the Germans could put up. However the P-51 was not a good ground attack aircraft (despite being used for good effect), because a water cooled engine will self-destruct if coolant is lost; the P-47's air cooled engine could shrug off a lot more damage.

The problem for the P-38 in Europe was that it was turbocharged, instead of supercharged; with the resultant loss of performance at high altitude.

There are many things wrong with the arrogant bomber command, which began with the prewar idea that the bombers could always get through. It is interesting to compare the B-17 to another plane with the same bomb load; the lighter and faster Mosquito which had a much smaller crew. However the much smaller losses suffered by the Mosquito might reflect the different way that they were used.

Relax wrote:Reminds me of the Myth that Before the P51 Mustang came around, allied fighters could not escort bombers to Berlin(even though the much maligned Spitfire was over Berlin photographing in 43' and so was the P38).

But when the bombers were escorted by Spitfires those had to turn back well before Berlin. I serously doubt the RAF pilots would have been abandoning their change to tangle with Luftwaffe fighters over Berlin if it had been possible.

A quick research shows that the various photo recon Spitfires were fairly modified. Early ones often stripped out the guns and ammo to save weight (adding speed and range), and certain later marks also reverted to that unarmed configuration. And by mid '40 most marks were modified with significant additional fuel tanks - greatly extending their range compared to their unmodified brethren.
Still, with a drop tank (when those were available) a mid-war Spitfire had just the combat range to reach Berlin and return.

However
1) If taking off from the closest point on the English coast that 885 km combat range (with drop tank) leaves only a couple minutes maximum of combat time over Berlin (795 km away) before the Spitfire would have to break off and turn for home.
2) That listed combat range is at its most economical cruise speed; which I believe is about 243 mph. But its range is much shorter if it's tied down escorting laden bombers with their more pedestrian cruising speed of 180 - 200 mph. There's are good technical reasons why the escort fighters eventually used all had significantly longer combat radius than needed to technically reach Berlin.

Just because some variants of a plane can make a single photo pass over a city doesn't mean that the combat variants can escort slow bombers there and back. Though what I don't know is how quickly a escort variant of the Spitfire, modified with those extra fuel tanks, could have been developed and built in numbers; nor do I know what those extra tanks did to its handling, maneuverability and survivability. The Marks of combat Spitfire they did build though would be basically incapable of bomber escort from the UK to Berlin. So, on the whole, the British probably were better off switching to night bombing than trying to use a fighter designed explicit as a short ranged interceptor as long range bomber escort.

Now, on the other hand, the P-38 did have the range to escort all the way to Berlin. And while it was a better fighter than the Me-110, the Battle of Britain shows that heavy twin engine fighters were at a serious disadvantage trying to survive against lighter more nimble single engine interceptors. So the Allies didn't have all that many P-38s and they weren't ideal fighters. Still they'd have been noticeably better than nothing and should have been used as extensively as possible to escort those early long range bombing raids.

And I don't dispute your arguments about the stupidity of refusing to allow USAAF fighters to be supplied with the drop tanks designed for them. That's virtually criminal.

tlb wrote:The problem for the P-38 in Europe was that it was turbocharged, instead of supercharged; with the resultant loss of performance at high altitude.

So many things wrong with that statement where do I start...

There is not one single engine in WWII that I am aware of that was not supercharged via the engine crankcase on its first stage. Not one. Several engines were also TURBOcharged, but only on their 2nd stage. Every single engine falls off at altitude. Turbocharged is superior at all altitudes, as it collects waste heat, quite superior at HIGH altitude in theory, but requires a large volume to do right(why P47 looks how it looks and why B17/B24/B29/B25 etc all look as they do with their large engine nacelles compared to Brit Bombers.

Why P39 failed. Not enough volume in fuselage for a turbocharger, well they tried one but its design was too compromised and small as a 2 stage supercharger was never developed for the Allison engine(they wanted one) as the USAAF had deemed the high altitude bomber king and fighters could not touch them. It is hereby degreed by the USAAF bomber command! This required efficiency at cruise which required: Turbocharging as it collects waste heat in exhaust gases and turns it into power. Turbocharging is superior and why all airliners had it.

In this case, only the 2nd stage of supercharging was powered by the turbochargers on the P38. P38 turbocharger did not have problems. The intercooler design on the air intake did. This lead to a couple Turbochargers blowing up(backpressure too high)(though usually the air intake blew up and was solved by better intercooling cooling solutions, along with temperature gauges so crew could hit redline without blowing things up and ultimately by superior knock fuel). Just because you have a turbo charger does not mean it was done entirely properly. For short ranges, turbochargers are heavier compared to just adding a gearbox to another supercharger stage which was done on the Merlin, and P&W2800 depending on aircraft in question(most notably naval fighters Corsair/Hellcat/Wildcat/Bearcat as USN did not want complexity).

Getting the gearing for 2nd stage of supercharging is a major problem as this will now entirely depend on what altitude the gearing is set at. Partially solved by adding a 3rd stage late in 45 on Merlin Engine, but never saw action... In fact, if you read up on Spits(most noticeable), you will note all these different configurations based on the supercharger gearing, intake sizing etc. Some they entirely left out the 2nd stage supercharger. Said planes based on gearing would be great down low but suck up high. So, if you based your "argument" on these spits, you would conclude that 2nd stage supercharger sucks and so does the Merlin Engine. They did this because of fixed gearing design. On a turbocharger, you do not have this problem to as great of an extent as you have an exhaust gate, RPM change, etc and yes a turbocharger will also have gearing ultimately as well. Also, if octane rating increases(it did), then a turbocharger can get MORE benefit with ever increasing altitude. So, if fuel keeps increasing in octane rating, as had happened for previous decade and why USAAF planners were not dumb in this projection, then the turbosupercharger would be INCREASING in its efficiency, power density, compared to the 2 stage supercharger. Ultimately leading to compound turbocharging as being the most efficient method where the turbocharger ties to the crankshaft and the crankshaft ties to the superchargers. P72 Superbolt was going to have this and was projected to be superior to 1st generation turbine based fighters. Here the USAAF were not wrong either. OF course this was a dead end tech and compound turbocharging only saw service in post war airliners and then barely due to changing times.

P38's problems were multitude, but its final nail is that it suffered greatly due to compressibility due to 1) thick wing section and 2) center cockpit section with not enough shallow taper creating high pressure gradient and thus inducing lateral compression which was 3) compounded by fuselages outbound of center cockpit making a poor airfoil choice MUCH worse. Result? P38 was essentially a rocket down low, but with low range because if it flew up high and at max power hit its coffin corner at ~440mph true. Ergo, why the P38 did not get engine/propeller upgrades past its initial dose. The extra power would place the airplane in its coffin corner before USING all of its new power. So even though it got dive brakes(limited its speed) and powered ailerons, you can't fix bad.

P38, looked cool, but was ultimately a dog for anything other than LONG raids, and booming and zooming. This was ok, as at least 80% of all air to air kills in WWII were booming and zooming. but...

Jonathan_S wrote:

Relax wrote:Reminds me of the Myth that Before the P51 Mustang came around, allied fighters could not escort bombers to Berlin(even though the much maligned Spitfire was over Berlin photographing in 43' and so was the P38).

But when the bombers were escorted by Spitfires those had to turn back well before Berlin. I serously doubt the RAF pilots would have been abandoning their change to tangle with Luftwaffe fighters over Berlin if it had been possible.

A quick research shows that the various photo recon Spitfires were fairly modified. Early ones often stripped out the guns and ammo to save weight (adding speed and range), and certain later marks also reverted to that unarmed configuration. And by mid '40 most marks were modified with significant additional fuel tanks - greatly extending their range compared to their unmodified brethren.
Still, with a drop tank (when those were available) a mid-war Spitfire had just the combat range to reach Berlin and return.

However
1) If taking off from the closest point on the English coast that 885 km combat range (with drop tank) leaves only a couple minutes maximum of combat time over Berlin (795 km away) before the Spitfire would have to break off and turn for home.
2) That listed combat range is at its most economical cruise speed; which I believe is about 243 mph. But its range is much shorter if it's tied down escorting laden bombers with their more pedestrian cruising speed of 180 - 200 mph.

Actually, the reason is varied, and also a bit mundane.

Ultimately the problem was the airfields in the UK limiting the amount of payload a fighter could get into the air and therefore it made ZERO practical sense to put LARGE tanks on the Spitfire, and why large tanks were not developed, as the airfields it was operating out of(majority of them), their runways were too short and often grass which severely hammpered their ability to get airborne. Crashing gloriously at the end of your own runway is not confidence inspiring to ... anyone. The undercarriage/wing combo left MUCH to be desired on the Spit and did not have wider landing gear until 1944 and never had greater internal fuel. You will note those with the wider landing gear ALSO had the much larger fuel belly, slipper conformal tanks. Internal fuel matters as you have to drop the tanks to fight and thus your ability to reach home is determined by internal fuel and why all escort duties fell to P47/P51.

It should also be noted that the USAAF as part of the basing deal with the UK put runways as the biggest need for improvement. Also, the UK installed the newer runways for the USAAF first before even their own. Yes, there were Spits based on hardened runways, but they were few. You have to remember paved runways never existed and those that did, were SHORT. It wasn't until 43' that meaningful number of "paved" runways were in operation and even many of these were short. So, who do you give this SHORT runways to? Bombers? No. Fighters? Yes. Which fighters?

Fighters which were designed and built for escort. So, while the Spitfire could have done the escort their ability to get said payload off the ground was severely compromised and its ability to get home was severely compromised even though by late war standard for fuel reserves, it could have, but NO ONE knew it at the time. So, the Brits get a pass by not using the Spitfire although they NEVER had external fuel tanks until the USA planes showed and then everyone in the UK got busy real quick making drop tanks of various forms while the USAAF was busy putting fingers in ears and saying "NONONONONONONONONONOOOOOOOOOO"

tlb wrote:The problem for the P-38 in Europe was that it was turbocharged, instead of supercharged; with the resultant loss of performance at high altitude.

Relax wrote:So many things wrong with that statement where do I start...

There is not one single engine in WWII that I am aware of that was not supercharged via the engine crankcase on its first stage. Not one. Several engines were also TURBOcharged, but only on their 2nd stage. Every single engine falls off at altitude. Turbocharged is superior at all altitudes, as it collects waste heat, quite superior at HIGH altitude in theory, but requires a large volume to do right(why P47 looks how it looks and why B17/B24/B29/B25 etc all look as they do with their large engine nacelles compared to Brit Bombers.

Why P39 failed. Not enough volume in fuselage for a turbocharger, well they tried one but its design was too compromised and small as a 2 stage supercharger was never developed for the Allison engine(they wanted one) as the USAAF had deemed the high altitude bomber king and fighters could not touch them. It is hereby degreed by the USAAF bomber command! This required efficiency at cruise which required: Turbocharging as it collects waste heat in exhaust gases and turns it into power. Turbocharging is superior and why all airliners had it.

In this case, only the 2nd stage of supercharging was powered by the turbochargers on the P38. P38 turbocharger did not have problems. The intercooler design on the air intake did. This lead to a couple Turbochargers blowing up(backpressure too high)(though usually the air intake blew up and was solved by better intercooling cooling solutions, along with temperature gauges so crew could hit redline without blowing things up and ultimately by superior knock fuel). Just because you have a turbo charger does not mean it was done entirely properly. For short ranges, turbochargers are heavier compared to just adding a gearbox to another supercharger stage which was done on the Merlin, and P&W2800 depending on aircraft in question(most notably naval fighters Corsair/Hellcat/Wildcat/Bearcat as USN did not want complexity).

Getting the gearing for 2nd stage of supercharging is a major problem as this will now entirely depend on what altitude the gearing is set at. Partially solved by adding a 3rd stage late in 45 on Merlin Engine, but never saw action... In fact, if you read up on Spits(most noticeable), you will note all these different configurations based on the supercharger gearing, intake sizing etc. Some they entirely left out the 2nd stage supercharger. Said planes based on gearing would be great down low but suck up high. So, if you based your "argument" on these spits, you would conclude that 2nd stage supercharger sucks and so does the Merlin Engine. They did this because of fixed gearing design. On a turbocharger, you do not have this problem to as great of an extent as you have an exhaust gate, RPM change, etc and yes a turbocharger will also have gearing ultimately as well. Also, if octane rating increases(it did), then a turbocharger can get MORE benefit with ever increasing altitude. So, if fuel keeps increasing in octane rating, as had happened for previous decade and why USAAF planners were not dumb in this projection, then the turbosupercharger would be INCREASING in its efficiency, power density, compared to the 2 stage supercharger. Ultimately leading to compound turbocharging as being the most efficient method where the turbocharger ties to the crankshaft and the crankshaft ties to the superchargers. P72 Superbolt was going to have this and was projected to be superior to 1st generation turbine based fighters. Here the USAAF were not wrong either. OF course this was a dead end tech and compound turbocharging only saw service in post war airliners and then barely due to changing times.

P38's problems were multitude, but its final nail is that it suffered greatly due to compressibility due to 1) thick wing section and 2) center cockpit section with not enough shallow taper creating high pressure gradient and thus inducing lateral compression which was 3) compounded by fuselages outbound of center cockpit making a poor airfoil choice MUCH worse. Result? P38 was essentially a rocket down low, but with low range because if it flew up high and at max power hit its coffin corner at ~440mph true. Ergo, why the P38 did not get engine/propeller upgrades past its initial dose. The extra power would place the airplane in its coffin corner before USING all of its new power. So even though it got dive brakes(limited its speed) and powered ailerons, you can't fix bad.

P38, looked cool, but was ultimately a dog for anything other than LONG raids, and booming and zooming. This was ok, as at least 80% of all air to air kills in WWII were booming and zooming. but...

This is what is in Wikipedia about the Allison V-12 engine:

The USAAC had earlier decided to concentrate on turbo-superchargers for high altitude boost, believing that further development of turbo-superchargers would allow their engines to outperform European rivals using displacement superchargers. Turbo-superchargers are powered by the engine exhaust and so do not draw power from the engine crankshaft, whereas displacement superchargers are coupled directly by shafts and gears to the engine crankshaft. Turbo-superchargers do increase the exhaust back-pressure and thus do cause a decrease in engine power, but the power increase due to increased induction pressures more than makes up for that decrease. Crankshaft-driven superchargers require an increase in directly driven percentage of engine power as altitude increases (the two-stage supercharger of the Merlin 60 series engines consumed some 230–280 hp (170–210 kW) at 30,000 ft (9,100 m). General Electric was the sole source for research and production of American turbo-superchargers during this period, from its four decades worth of steam turbine engineering experience.

Turbo-superchargers were indeed highly successful in U.S. bombers, which were exclusively powered by radial engines. The P-47 fighter had the same combination of radial engine (R-2800) and turbo-supercharger and was also successful, apart from its large bulk, which was caused by the need for the ductwork for the aft-mounted turbo-supercharger.

However, mating the turbocharger with the Allison V-1710 proved to be problematic. As a result, designers of the fighter planes that utilized the V-1710 were invariably forced to choose between the poor high-altitude performance of the V-1710 versus the increased problems brought on by addition of the turbo-supercharger. The fates of all of the V-1710 powered fighters of World War II would thus hinge on that choice.

*** snip ***

The P-38 was the only fighter to make it into combat during World War II with turbo-supercharged V-1710s. The operating conditions of the Western European air war – flying for long hours in intensely cold weather at 30,000 feet (9,100 m) – revealed several problems with these engines. These had a poor manifold fuel-air distribution and poor temperature regulation of the turbo-supercharger air, which resulted in frequent engine failures (detonation occurred as the result of persistent uneven fuel-air mixture across the cylinders caused by the poor manifold design). Specially formulated fuels were a necessity for the P-38 as were specific spark plugs needed for specific cylinders. The turbo-supercharger had additional problems with getting stuck in the freezing air in either high or low boost mode; the high boost mode could cause detonation in the engine, while the low boost mode would be manifested as power loss in one engine, resulting in sudden fishtailing in flight. These problems were aggravated by sub-optimal engine management techniques taught to many pilots during the first part of WWII, including a cruise setting that ran the engine at high RPM and low manifold pressure with a rich mixture. These settings can contribute to over-cooling of the engine, fuel condensation problems, accelerated mechanical wear, and the likelihood of components binding or "freezing up." Details of the failure patterns were described in a report by General Doolittle to General Spatz in January 1944. In March 1944, the first Allison engines appearing over Berlin belonged to a group of P-38Hs of 55th Fighter Group, engine troubles contributing to a reduction of the force to half strength over the target. It was too late to correct these problems in the production lines of Allison or GE, and as the numbers of Merlin-engined P-51 Mustangs based in England mounted up through the end of 1943 and into 1944, the P-38s were steadily withdrawn from Europe until October 1944 when they were no longer used for bomber escort duty with the Eighth Air Force. A few P-38s would remain in the European theater as the F-5 for photo reconnaissance.

The P-38 had fewer engine failures in the Pacific Theater, where operating techniques were better developed (such as those recommended by Charles Lindbergh during his development work in the theater), and the Japanese did not operate at such high altitudes. Using the same P-38Gs which were proving difficult to maintain in England, Pacific-based pilots were able to use the aircraft to good advantage including, in April 1943, Operation Vengeance, the interception and downing of the Japanese bomber carrying Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto. New P-38 models with ever-increasing power from more advanced Allisons were eagerly accepted by Pacific air groups.

There is a very nice book by Graham White entitled Allied Aircraft Piston Engines of World War II.

tlb wrote:

tlb wrote:The problem for the P-38 in Europe was that it was turbocharged, instead of supercharged; with the resultant loss of performance at high altitude.

Relax wrote:So many things wrong with that statement where do I start...

This is what is in Wikipedia about the Allison V-12 engine:

This is why you NEVER quote wikipedia: Wiki is always wrong. The only question is HOW wrong.

Cutaway pictures of real Allison V1710 F engine on P38's start about 1/3 down. Note the name plates with blow ratio and impeller diameter Note the Impeller in line with the crankshaft... and nothing touching it other than a small air port from the turbosupercharger which is NOT shown.
http://usautoindustryworldwartwo.com/General%20Motors/allison.htm

More info here:https://www.456fis.org/ALLISSON_V-1710.htm

tlb wrote:The problem for the P-38 in Europe was that it was turbocharged, instead of supercharged; with the resultant loss of performance at high altitude.

Relax wrote:So many things wrong with that statement where do I start...

Relax wrote:This is why you NEVER quote wikipedia: Wiki is always wrong. The only question is HOW wrong.

Cutaway pictures of real Allison V1710 F engine on P38's start about 1/3 down. Note the name plates with blow ratio and impeller diameter Note the Impeller in line with the crankshaft... and nothing touching it other than a small air port from the turbosupercharger which is NOT shown.
http://usautoindustryworldwartwo.com/General%20Motors/allison.htm

More info here:https://www.456fis.org/ALLISSON_V-1710.htm

The material in the Graham White book matches the Wikipedia page. Unlike aviation engine development in Europe, engines in the US were developed for commercial applications; so things like turbo superchargers had to be bolted on after manufacture,
I went to that last page and found this:

The production Allison turned out to be the sturdy and reliable powerplant that its designers had striven for. The only thing that stood between the Allison and real greatness was its inability to deliver its power at sufficiently high altitudes. This was not the fault of its builders. It resulted from an early Army decision to rely on turbo supercharging to obtain adequate power at combat heights. Even this decision was not a technical error. A turbo supercharged Allison was as good a high-altitude engine as most. The trouble was that the wartime shortage of alloying materials, especially tungsten, made it impossible to make turbo superchargers for any but a small proportion of Allisons. Bomber engines got the priority.

The few turbo-supercharged Allisons that were made were allocated to P-38s, making the high-altitude performance of that plane its best feature. All 14,000 P-40s got gear-driven superchargers and, as a result, were never first-class fighter planes. Donaldson R. Berlin, the P-40 designer, has said that P-40s experimentally equipped with turbo-superchargers outperformed Spitfires and Messerschmitts and that if it had been given the engine it was designed for, the P-40 would have been the greatest fighter of its era. This may be to some extent the bias of a proud parent, but there is no doubt that the deletion of the turbo supercharger ruined the P-39.

Had Allison's engineers been able to put the effort into gear-driven superchargers that Pratt and Whitney and Rolls-Royce did, it might have been a different story. As it was, there can be little doubt that the V-1710 had more potential than was actually exploited.

Except for the puffery about good high altitude performance, that is saying the same as Wikipedia about turbo supercharging. Note that last line regretting the lack of a gear driven supercharger like the Merlin.

Here is an paragraph from the 44th Harmon Memorial Lecture on Military History:

In addition, technical problems—all fixable—reduced the P-38’s effectiveness over Europe: its cockpit heater was inadequate for winter operations over Germany and its intercoolers, the ducting that cooled the outflow from the turbo superchargers, were too efficient, reducing the air/fuel mixture to sludge in frigid, moist winter air at high altitudes. This led to blown engines deep in enemy territory when they were most needed, and twin-engined redundancy had little value in a dog fight. In consequence, the P-38 fought over northern Europe at a serious disadvantage: in 90 days of combat beginning 28 December 1943, the 20th Fighter Group, the most highly decorated P-38 group in the European theater, suffered 54 pilots lost to 52 kills awarded. There is bitter irony in the consideration that if the two groups of P-38s operating over Germany in December of 1943 had been deployed six months earlier, something entirely within the realm of the feasible, they would have been available for both Schweinfurt missions and would have fought in the warm skies of summer and early autumn. The problem was one of vision, not design.

Lets see, you choosing a book, instead of your OWN EYES... Brilliant, absolutely Brilliant.

And just what miracle of turbine manufacturing do think exists in WWII to pull the ~500Hp from exhaust gases. What percent do the best turbos get today again?

For Shits sake man, USE YOUR BRAIN!!!

Relax wrote:Lets see, you choosing a book, instead of your OWN EYES... Brilliant, absolutely Brilliant.

And just what miracle of turbine manufacturing do think exists in WWII to pull the ~500Hp from exhaust gases. What percent do the best turbos get today again?

For Shits sake man, USE YOUR BRAIN!!!

The one quote that I gave you is from the source the you picked: https://www.456fis.org/ALLISSON_V-1710.htm

The production Allison turned out to be the sturdy and reliable powerplant that its designers had striven for. The only thing that stood between the Allison and real greatness was its inability to deliver its power at sufficiently high altitudes. This was not the fault of its builders. It resulted from an early Army decision to rely on turbo supercharging to obtain adequate power at combat heights. Even this decision was not a technical error. A turbo supercharged Allison was as good a high-altitude engine as most. The trouble was that the wartime shortage of alloying materials, especially tungsten, made it impossible to make turbo superchargers for any but a small proportion of Allisons. Bomber engines got the priority.

The few turbo-supercharged Allisons that were made were allocated to P-38s, making the high-altitude performance of that plane its best feature. All 14,000 P-40s got gear-driven superchargers and, as a result, were never first-class fighter planes. Donaldson R. Berlin, the P-40 designer, has said that P-40s experimentally equipped with turbo-superchargers outperformed Spitfires and Messerschmitts and that if it had been given the engine it was designed for, the P-40 would have been the greatest fighter of its era. This may be to some extent the bias of a proud parent, but there is no doubt that the deletion of the turbo supercharger ruined the P-39.

Had Allison's engineers been able to put the effort into gear-driven superchargers that Pratt and Whitney and Rolls-Royce did, it might have been a different story. As it was, there can be little doubt that the V-1710 had more potential than was actually exploited.

Note the it says the P-30 superchagers were turbo driven, compared to the P-40 that used a gear driven supercharger.

Are you saying this is shit also?

in 90 days of combat beginning 28 December 1943, the 20th Fighter Group, the most highly decorated P-38 group in the European theater, suffered 54 pilots lost to 52 kills awarded.