P-38 vs Spit XIV

[Wotan]

Look, I don't have time to go looking for quotes from books that include Galland's quotes. You can read just as well as I. You CLAIM that Galland was not a liar, only Lowell was. Galland is well known as a Luftwaffe apologist and a self promoter prone to embillishment at best, and not known for telling the truth unless forced to.

Lowell has lied about a lot of stuff as pointed out by Milo's cross post...

Galland didn't lie about his opinion of the P-38. He didn't lie about being in combat with P-38s. He never mentions flying a D-9, let alone being in combat with P-38s. The reason why is it didn't happen. As a matter of fact even your hero Widewing (in that quote Guppy provided) says:

P-38's were rarely encountered in the ETO. I doubt if Galland ever faced them himself.

His opinion about the P-38 isn't his alone either. Many in the LW weren't to impressed with it.

Cap'n Crunch lecturing folks on bias is a joke...

Milo you see Kurfürst was right:

Nice flamethread, Milo.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

I'd expect nothing less than the above response from you Wotan, by starting out with name calling, and bringing absolutely nothing else to the thread, you've proven the "flame thread" quote more than anyone.

Congratulations. You've fulfilled your own self prophecy.

[Wotan]

Kweassa do you have access to Galland's 'The First and the Last'?

If you can read german I would suggest trying to find a copy of the original German first edition. The English translations are sometimes poorly done...

Anyway you will see his opinion of the P-38 and its consistant with the linked interview TimRas provided.

[Kweassa]

It's kinda difficult to grab hold of books from foreign publications in my country, Wotan.

 Anyways, from what I gathered between the links Guppy and TimRas posted (thanks, guys..), and Milo's informative posts on Lowell's "claims" and the counter argument to it... my impression is that Galland didn't really know what he is talking about, and he's basically dealing out the general impressions that high-ranking LW officials had at that time.

 If the Lowell-Galland encounter did not happen...
 and it is doubtful that Galland ever combated P-38s...
 (and it's not surprising, since technically this guy was not a mere "pilot" any more)..
 and his comments on the comparison between the 110 and the P-38.... hmm..

 My assumption is that Galland misjudged, or did not have much knowledge on the P-38 itself, and just basically assumed that the development of the P-38 was the USAAF's version of a "destroyer-fighter", a heavy, well-armed two engine fighter which was designed for long range escort.. which as a result ended up as a fighter which required its own escorts, as the ill-judgement during the course of BoB has proven to the 110. The impression I get from his interview which TimRas posted, is that Galland is imagining the P-38 to be something akin to the Me110...

 Sounds like he was dealing loose opinions on some of what his pilots might say.. like, go to the front, share a round of drinks, discuss the USAAF... someone would mention a P-38.. others would say this and that... and Galland would just assume things based on their comments and stuff.

 At least, that's the impression I got.

 
 (Although I still didn't see where exactly Galland "lied" about stuff in all the linked articles... as opposed to Lowell, with blatant exaggerations IMO, if, the counter article Milo posted has any kind of credibility.)

[Wotan]

Well Galland wasn't speaking about the  relative performance between the 110 and the P-38.

From The First and the Last:

The bombers of the Eighth AAF were escorted by P-38 Lightnings. This was a twin-engine long-distance fighter which had similar shortcomings in combat as our ME-110. Our fighters were clearly superior to it'

He was referring to the concept of a large twin-engined long-range (escort) fighter and its ability to cover / protect bombers..

As was proven in the ETO by both the Western Allies, and the Germans, this type of concept wasn't up to the task. There may have been varying degrees of reasons but as the P-51 and P-47 (especially later in the war) demonstrated these were clearly superior to the the P-38 in combating the LW and protecting the bombers.

No doubt the P-38 fanbois will dispute this, what else is new. However, as I said Galland isn't the only LW expert who held this belief. The fanbois will call Galland and those others liars or apologists and quote folks like Steinhoff (see Interview )

WWII:  Please describe your humorous encounter with a  Lockheed P-38 pilot named Widen in Italy in 1944.

Steinhoff: This is a good story. I was test-flying an Me-109 with my aide near our base at Foggia. This was before I had been exiled from Germany, during my first tour as Kommodore of JG.77. Well, we were attacked at low level by a flight of P-38 Lightnings, about 100 American fighters in all, but the two of us figured, why not attack? We turned into them, and I flew through their formation going in the opposite direction, getting good strikes on a couple of them. I poured a good burst into this P-38 and the pilot rolled over, and I saw him bail out. I had this on gun camera also. Well, he was picked up and made a POW, and I invited him to my tent for a drink and dinner, as well as to spend the night. We drank some of the local wine... and drank and drank. I thought to myself, "What am I going to do with this guy?" Well, it was long after midnight, so I lay down in my tent and stretched my legs so I could reach his head. He woke up and said, "Don't worry, I won't run away, you have my word as an officer and a gentleman. Besides, you got me too drunk." We slept, and he kept his word, and I never placed a guard on him.  

WWII: So you subdued your opponent with alcohol?

Steinhoff: Yes, that's right, and it worked very well, you know. He was a very likable man, and I was very pleased to have the victory, but as I told him, I was even more pleased to see him uninjured and safe.

WWII: Of all the Allied fighters you encountered, which was the most difficult to handle with a good pilot at the controls?

Steinhoff: The Lightning. It was fast, low profiled and a fantastic fighter, and a real danger when it was above you. It was only vulnerable if you were behind it, a little below and closing fast, or turning into it, but on the attack it was a tremendous aircraft. One shot me down from long range in 1944. That would be the one, although the P-51 [Mustang] was deadly because of the long range, and it could cover any air base in Europe. This made things difficult, especially later when flying the jets.

They site Steinhoff as proof positive of the P-38s prowess.

[Squire]

I have read many "anecdotal" comments re the P-38 series, both from Allied and Axis pilots, it seems that there was a wide range of opinion on the type from both camps. I must say, it looks like it depends on what part of the war and what encounter they are talking about. I put less emphasis on these anyways, as its only one peice of the answer. Its not possible to make sweeping judgements on a fighter a/c based on what one pilot says (good or bad). The reasons are many.  

I think the P-38 is one of the more controversial Allied types that flew in WW2, thats becoming clear. Also the opinion of it amongst allied pilots varyied quite a bit between the ETO and the PTO. Another example is the P-39 Airacobra, for all the "bad press" it got, the Soviets seemed to be very fond of it, again, different circumstances, and different pilots. Its interesting to see how different certain groups all saw the same a/c sometimes.

[Ack-Ack]

Originally posted by Wotan
Well Galland wasn't speaking about the  relative performance between the 110 and the P-38.

From The First and the Last:



He was referring to the concept of a large twin-engined long-range (escort) fighter and its ability to cover / protect bombers..

As was proven in the ETO by both the Western Allies, and the Germans, this type of concept wasn't up to the task. There may have been varying degrees of reasons but as the P-51 and P-47 (especially later in the war) demonstrated these were clearly superior to the the P-38 in combating the LW and protecting the bombers.

 

Where does it say that the P-38 was a failure as a bomber escort?  Any failures can be directly attributed to the tactics the 8th AAF high command forced on the various fighter groups that plagued all units of the 8th, not just the P-38 units.  

And the fact that Galland thought the P-38 was like an US version of the bf110 just shows how little he knew about the plane.   But then, as I think +Tiff or Savage pointed out, a lot of pilot's perception of the plane is created not by the plane itself but rather how the other guy flew it.  

If I was a LW pilot that encountered one of the first P-38s that had a pilot that wasn't properly trained in the P-38 (a big problem when the P-38 was first introduced) and was easily able to shoot it down, I'd be inclinded to say that the P-38 was a far inferior plane than the Kraut plane I few.  But then if I happened to cross paths with lets say, Olds, Ethel or even Lowell and got my bellybutton handed back to me,  then I'm pretty sure that those guys would then be inclined to say, "damn, that Kraut plane isn't all that hot."

You can disagree all you want Wotan but the simple fact is, in capable hands, the P-38 was a match for anything the LW could throw at it.  

Now this will get your leiderhosen all bunched up...why is that US pilots that were in the PTO and then transfered to the ETO had increased success?   Could it be the opposition was easier in Euro?



ack-ack

[Kurfürst]

Originally posted by Guppy35
Go here:

http://yarchive.net/mil/p38.html

An interesting debate.  Widewing (C.C. Jordan) comments on Galland and his views of the 38

I looked briefly into - it`s so dang long - but well, finished it with mixed feelings. He has some good info on the Lighting, but only basic on the other aircraft he compares it. It`s a text written by a fan, and sometimes it`s more like wishful thinking rather than a critical view of the pros and lackings.

Did he put together the 'forked tailed devil' article somewhere for it`s very similiar reading with claims of 700+ speed etc.




Otherwise, this thread is a storm in a glass of water, stirred up by Milo.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Originally posted by Kurfürst
I looked briefly into - it`s so dang long - but well, finished it with mixed feelings. He has some good info on the Lighting, but only basic on the other aircraft he compares it. It`s a text written by a fan, and sometimes it`s more like wishful thinking rather than a critical view of the pros and lackings.

Did he put together the 'forked tailed devil' article somewhere for it`s very similiar reading with claims of 700+ speed etc.




Otherwise, this thread is a storm in a glass of water, stirred up by Milo.

Well, as I warned everyone, the "cdb" in that thread has been found out as a fraud on two seperate occaisions, as Widewing (known in the thread as C.C. Jordan) explains within the thread. At one point, the guy claimed to be George Culleers (he spelled it wrong) and he also claimed to be Elliot Dent, or a relative of Elliot Dent at one time or another.

With respect to what Widewing wrote in that thread, to the best of my knowledge, it is factual and correct. The data he posts is direct from Lockheed, as furnished by noted author and former Lockheed engineer Warren Bodie, who also founded the Split S Society. Warren has at times furnished me with the same data. He does have access to both the Lockheed archives and the USAF archives. Warren also wrote that book with the input and blessings of Kelly Johnson and some of the other Lockheed staff and test pilots, including Tony Levier. Kelly Johnson was as critical as anyone of the P-38, and the constraints placed upon it, both by the original bid specifications and by the USAAC and War Production Board later.

As far as there being more facts and data regarding the P-38 than other planes, well, it was of course a thread ABOUT the P-38.

As far as anyone in that thread having anything to do with Martin Caiden's book "The Forked Tail Devil" I do not know, but I do not think so. Captain Art Heiden was the one who inspired Caiden to write the book. But it was not authored by Art. There is a section, I believe it is at the end, where Art says some nice things about the book, but I am not convinced he was truly satisfied. Art wanted a book, and he got it, and was polite and glad to have it. I would not say that Art felt it was the gospel by any stretch.

I do think Widewing did quote Art Heiden in that thread, it's been a while since I read it. What Art says there is fact. I have known Art since around 2000, although I do not swap emails with him nearly so often anymore. What Art and Stan say on Widewing's site is factual as well. Neither will hesitate to tell you what was wrong with the P-38, and what its shortcomings were.

Bodie is a far better source for both the P-38 and the P-47 than just about anyone else. And Bodie is just as quick to criticize Lockheed and the P-38 as he is to praise them.

[Wotan]

Now this will get your leiderhosen all bunched up...why is that US pilots that were in the PTO and then transfered to the ETO had increased success? Could it be the opposition was easier in Euro?

More opportunity to score under air superiority (or damn near). It is also easier to fly escort and engage bomber destroyers because you then have freedom of action. The LW's primary objective post '43 in the west was to hit the bombers. Its completely different then free hunting or loose escort.

Die Amerikaner kamen immer in die Masse

The P-38 was nothing special.

And the fact that Galland thought the P-38 was like an US version of the bf110 just shows how little he knew about the plane. But then, as I think +Tiff or Savage pointed out, a lot of pilot's perception of the plane is created not by the plane itself but rather how the other guy flew it.

That 'fact' isn't what Galland said. You need understand the 'context' and not jump to all sorts of silly conclusions. Much like Galland's statement about wanting Spitfires. Unless we understand the context we can  make up any meaning we want.

The long ranged twin engined escort fighter proved to be a failure on all sides. If it was such a resounding success why develop anything else?

OH thats right the USAAF hated the P-38...

The P-38 was the plane of choice for nachwuchs to engage by the LW.

It wasn't that great in North Africa. The 14th Fighter Group was temporarily withdrawn from battle at one point after being badly mauled.

It sure wasn't that great in WETO.

Add in the cost of the P-38:

Weighted by annual production, averaged costs derived from USAAF Statistical Digest:

P-38 - $114,351.30

P-47 - $98,335.40

P-51 - $55,109.75

You could get 2 P-51s for 1 P-38. Are you going to say the P-38 could have replaced the Mustang?

I'd be inclinded to say that the P-38 was a far inferior plane than the Kraut plane I few.

What 'plane have you flown'? You are talking AH, right?

but then if I happened to cross paths with lets say, Olds, Ethel or even Lowell and got my bellybutton handed back to me, then I'm pretty sure that those guys would then be inclined to say, "damn, that Kraut plane isn't all that hot."

Well the facts are most Ami combat stories include qualifiers like:

This boy was good...

In fact you have Ami pilots tripping all over each other to make claims they fought or beat the LW's best. See Lowell's fantasy about fighting Adi Galland.

See Guppy's account of the 'relatively low time 38 driver' who fought a real 'expert'...

Almost every Ami account is like that. I don't put much into these fish stories. I enjoy a good story but its the fanbois who eat this stuff up like prime rib and regurgitate it like its the word of God..

I am no fan of Galland, most of his post war writings and interviews are certainly self-serving. Shifting blame to others rather then accepting his own short comings and roll in the LW's defeat. Many a LW veteran are guilty of this.

But Lowell takes the cake...

Apparently to a point where some would speculate he's mentally ill:

The point is that Lowell consistently embellishes his stories to the point of disbelief and that many of his "facts" are repudiated by reliable historical sources. Much of what he says that can be checked turns out to be wrong. He is simply, in my opinion, not a credible source. One of Lowell's fellow aces has suggested that he was suffering from dementia or Alzheimer's when he gave the interview quoted in Top Guns, and I think that's a very real possibility.

Where does it say that the P-38 was a failure as a bomber escort? Any failures can be directly attributed to the tactics the 8th AAF high command forced on the various fighter groups that plagued all units of the 8th, not just the P-38 units.

Of course it wasn't the plane or the pilots it was their stupid leadership...

as I said:

No doubt the P-38 fanbois will dispute this, what else is new.

Much like the Cap'n's claim:

By the way, his actions were in direct conflict with his opinions. When the first P-38 group went operational, Galland immediately had to overhaul his fighter tactics for attacking the bombers.

He would have you believe that the LW had re-adapt its tactics simply because the P-38 was in theater. The fact is the reason tactics were adjusted (and they were adjusted many times) was because the allies now had a plane (it could have been any plane as long as it had range) with range to escort the bombers to and from target.

The LW's primary objective was the bombers, before the allies had a long range fighter the gruppen went after the bombers with abandon. With escort they had to adjust and assigned a gruppe to cover the bomber attackers. This changed many times through out the course of the war and wasn't a direct result of the P-38 alone.

Its all about  understanding context...

Even Steinhoff who gave praise to the P-38s attack capability had no qualms about turning head long into what he claims 'was at least 100 P-38s'. (I would chalk that claim up to being a 'fish story as well)

Kurfürst

Widewing is definitely a fan of the P-38 (and everything else American).  I am sure that is what you picked up on when  you read the link Guppy provided.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

You know, Wotan, you amuse the Hell out of me. Everyone who disagrees with you is a "fanboi".  They are also biased. Every account by an American pilot is a crock, and the account by the Germans are gospel. The next time you want to lecture anyone about bias, read some of your garbage first.

You are more full of crap than Galland or even Lowell could possibly dream of.

The P-38's record stands for itself. Combat loss to combat loss, its record against the Luftwaffe was 4:1 in its favor. At least. That's been backed up and correlated from both USAF and Luftwaffe records. Go look it up.

And I suppose you'll tell us next the P-38 did well in the Pacific because it was all low altitude, Japanese planes were hopelessly overmatched, and their pilots were totally incompetent.

The P-38 was no miracle, nor was it a wonder plane, but considering how well it did only a fool or an idiot would try to tell anyone it was a second rate fighter at best.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

You know, I should know better than to allow myself to stoop down to the level of responding to Wotan in a somewhat like manner. Everyone else here was pretty decent, but Wotan was just like he always is. Namecalling and baseless accusations are all he ever brings to anything. I find the idea of feeding useless trolls to be less than acceptable.

To the rest of you, continue on if you like, I'll waste no more time here, and I'll not bother to respond to the likes of Wotan again. There are actually intelligent people here to have reasonable discussions with, but he ain't one of them.

[Kurfürst]

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
The P-38's record stands for itself. Combat loss to combat loss, its record against the Luftwaffe was 4:1 in its favor. At least. That's been backed up and correlated from both USAF and Luftwaffe records. Go look it up..

Hmmm-hmmm. Let`s not get into the credibility of US claims. All US combat reports look the same to me : a handful of yanks meets a horde of germans, and then shots down 3/4 of them with only 1 loss on their side. Highly believable, especially

Take the 14th July 1944 incident when they met the Pumas.
15 Lightnings, they said they met '50-60 109&190s' and shot down about 15 of them. Their own losses were 5.

In reality, they shot down a single Messer, there were 32 109s they met (the only time I know 'we' were outnumbering 'them'), and no 190s...

Besides even if true - of which I mild doubts with such 'look it up yourself' reference - what`s so special about a fighter plane having 4:1 kill ratio ?

Hell, what did they met in combat :

fighters
bombers
light bombers/attack aircraft
recon planes
liason planes
transport planes
etc.

Now how many types of the above have equal chance of winning the fight against any fighter? Armed-to-the-teeth B-17s, even the B-29 failed in that...

Any fighter class aircraft can basically meet two types of aircraft : enemy fighters and cannon fodder. And there is far more encounters with the latter type. It`s not hard to build up a good success rate with those encounters, even if you`d have bad record against enemy fighters.

And I agree in Wotan that it`s nothing special. Basically, the same pre-war, twinengine dead-end fighter design like the Bf 110 and the many other 'heavy fighters' who`s name we don`t even know... pre war engines were too weak. The only way to achieve the desired performance/range was using two of them. And that`s is just bad for a fighter, hence Galland`s analogy with the Bf 110. Sluggishness due to the weight, size and inertia cannot be overcomed, no matter what tricks are used.

Oh and I am sure the 110 had rather positive record too (ask the Poles or Bomber Command). Still just a dead-end curiosity.

[Wotan]

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
You know, I should know better than to allow myself to stoop down to the level of responding to Wotan in a somewhat like manner. Everyone else here was pretty decent, but Wotan was just like he always is. Namecalling and baseless accusations are all he ever brings to anything. I find the idea of feeding useless trolls to be less than acceptable.

To the rest of you, continue on if you like, I'll waste no more time here, and I'll not bother to respond to the likes of Wotan again. There are actually intelligent people here to have reasonable discussions with, but he ain't one of them.

Name calling? You mean Cap'n Crunch? Isn't he a likable  Cereal Clown pedaling sugar coated flour to children at 6 dollars a box?

I think it fits fine.

Baseless accusations? Name one..?

First your 4 to 1 claim is crap just like Kurfurst points out.

Here's some from North Africa:

On 26 December 1942, 1st FG escorted B-17s, but lost two P-38s to German fighters while the German units sustained no losses.

On 2 January 1943, 27th FS/1st FG dispatched eight P-38s to escort B-17s, but these were bounced by 12 Bf 109s of ÍI./JG 51 and the C.O., Capt. Glenn, and Lt. H. K. Smith were both shot down - by Fw. Anton Hafner and Ofw. Otto Schulz - without German losses.

On 8 January 1943, eight P-38s of 49th FS/14th FG, along with some P-38s of 97th FS/82nd FG and P-40s of 58th FS/33rd FG clashed with II./JG 2. In their excellent "Fw 190 in North Africa" (pp. 71 - 72), Jessen & Arthy write: "In this slaughter, the 48th FS/14th FG suffered three aircraft destroyed and two damaged. 58th FS/33rd FG and 97th FS/82nd FG losses are unknown."

On 10 January 1943, 14th FG again dispatched eight P-38s on a mission, but these were attacked by Ofw Otto Schulz (II./JG 51) and his wingman, and one P-38 was lost without German losses.

On 11 January 1943, ten P-38s of 1st FG escorting B-17s again came across II./JG 51 and lost two more P-38s (one of them to Ofw. Otto Schulz) without German losses.

On 15 January 1943, eight P-38s of 48th FS/14th FG escorted bombers, while eight more from the 49th FS escorted other bombers. Both formations were attacked by Luftwaffe fighters. Capt. Fulmer was seen to crash into the sea, while Lt. Auton and Lt. Lawrence failed to return. Shores et al describe a third Lightning mission that same day ("Fighters over Tunisia", p. 153) : "Other P-38s escorted 18 B-26s . . . 12 Bf 109s of II./JG 51 attacked . . . records confirm the loss of two P-38s during this mission, the unit involved is not specified."

On 21 January 1943, another two P-38s were shot down out of a formation of ten 82nd FG P-38s.

On 23 January 1943, 16 P-38s of 48th FS/14th FG clashed with Bf 109s of II./JG 51 of about the same strength as the Americans, and the P-38 pilots Lt. Schottlekorb, Lt. Mark Shipman, Lt. Stuteville, Lt. Harley, Lt. Yates, and Lt. Soliday - a total of six Lightnings - were shot down without any German losses. Again Ofw. Otto Schulz - the Eastern Front veteran who started to emerge as a first class "Lightning killer" - was among the successful German pilots.

Here we can clearly see that II./JG 51 was the main reason why the 14th Fighter Group was so badly mauled that it had to be temporarily withdrawn from battle.

 At least ten, maybe over a dozen, of this unit's P-38s were shot down in only three of those examples above, all by II./JG 51 - which apparently sustained no own loss to P-38s during those days.

On 4 February 1943, ten P-38s of 1st FG escorted B-17s, and four P-38s were lost in combat with Bf 109s.

The P-38's record stands for itself. Combat loss to combat loss, its record against the Luftwaffe was 4:1 in its favor. At least. That's been backed up and correlated from both USAF and Luftwaffe records. Go look it up.

The thing I have looked it up (even Guppy's claim by Lt. Royal Madden 370th FG, July 31, 1944) and its crap. Just like Kurfürst says:

All US combat reports look the same to me : a handful of yanks meets a horde of Germans, and then shots down 3/4 of them with only 1 loss on their side. Highly believable, especially

Over claiming aside this thread is about the outrageous claims made by Lowell.

He claims to have fought Galland while Galland was flying a 190D-9. Do you think that is truth or embellishment?

Both you and AKAK claim Galland lied so prove it. Talk about baseless accusations...

[Ack-Ack]

Originally posted by Wotan



What 'plane have you flown'? You are talking AH, right?



 

I never said I flew a plane.  Don't know where you're getting that.


ack-ack