You think 51 better than the 38 huh?

[Hajo]

If you check records the highest scoring Pilots in the ETO flew the 51 or the Jug.  The only recorded 6 kill sortie in the USAF was flown in a P47.  I forget the gentlemans name right now.  

Now....believe me I think the P38 is the most beautiful fighter of the war but it did not perform that well in the ETO.  It's best record was in the PAC....and P51s and Jugs came to the PAC after the 38 was  relegated to PAC duty.  Contrary to popular belief it had more then enough range in the ETO.  It flew in the PAC because it had long range.  It's inherant design faults just about put it at it's limit with the L Model.  Whereas the Jug could be further developed from the D to M and N Models.

It was a fine aircraft but in all honesty probably would be ranked 4th in success to American fighters.  And in no particular order the P51, P47, and F4U had better kill success to failure.  BTW   of all the Jug Sorties flew in WWII....their failure ( loss rtb etc.) was a whopping .07%.  And they flew over 500K sorties!

P38 a fine fighter but would more then likely rank no more then number 4 of the American Fighters of WWII.  P51, P47 and F4U kills/deaths, survivability and multi role capabilities (especially the Jug) plus total kills ground and air, and destruction of infrastructure....you'd have to agree by the facts that the P38 would rank no higher then #4 on the list of American Fighters.

I love them all.....and play with the P47 most....and am impartial.  Just stating some facts that I've gathered through the years studying these fine aircraft.  Most of what I've read comes from Books by W. Bodie.  And in archival information.

Again...it's a fine aircraft!  And the success anyone has flying a fighter is to make your opponent fight your fight.  If anything doesn't want to turn with the P38 it doesn't have to....and if it's faster...can egress and come back with impunity and all the 38 can do is get out of the way.  Same can be said for most aircraft.  But when you're comparing it with aircraft such as the P51 and Jug....even F4U with superior speed co alt combat choice is theirs.  If those pilots fall into a turn fight with a 38 at lower speeds their choice, and probably their demise.

Also you mention the MTO where most 2ndline aircraft were relegated such as the P40, the Hurricane,and various Italian fighters of which only the 205 was a threat to anything.  LW fighters were in the MTO in good numbers up until they lost north Africa.....then their aircraft were pulled north in defense of the Reich , Ploesti comes to mind  etc.  P38s were based in Italy for some time but they were phased out eventually by P51s and P47s also.
P51s were then used for long range escort and the P47s were used for ground attack roll.

[WilldCrd]

REAL sim pilots fly P40's!!
nuff said

[Widewing]

Originally posted by Hajo
If you check records the highest scoring Pilots in the ETO flew the 51 or the Jug.  The only recorded 6 kill sortie in the USAF was flown in a P47.  I forget the gentlemans name right now.  

Now....believe me I think the P38 is the most beautiful fighter of the war but it did not perform that well in the ETO.  It's best record was in the PAC....and P51s and Jugs came to the PAC after the 38 was  relegated to PAC duty.  Contrary to popular belief it had more then enough range in the ETO.  It flew in the PAC because it had long range.  It's inherant design faults just about put it at it's limit with the L Model.  Whereas the Jug could be further developed from the D to M and N Models.

It was a fine aircraft but in all honesty probably would be ranked 4th in success to American fighters.  And in no particular order the P51, P47, and F4U had better kill success to failure.  BTW   of all the Jug Sorties flew in WWII....their failure ( loss rtb etc.) was a whopping .07%.  And they flew over 500K sorties!

P38 a fine fighter but would more then likely rank no more then number 4 of the American Fighters of WWII.  P51, P47 and F4U kills/deaths, survivability and multi role capabilities (especially the Jug) plus total kills ground and air, and destruction of infrastructure....you'd have to agree by the facts that the P38 would rank no higher then #4 on the list of American Fighters.

I love them all.....and play with the P47 most....and am impartial.  Just stating some facts that I've gathered through the years studying these fine aircraft.  Most of what I've read comes from Books by W. Bodie.  And in archival information.

Again...it's a fine aircraft!  And the success anyone has flying a fighter is to make your opponent fight your fight.  If anything doesn't want to turn with the P38 it doesn't have to....and if it's faster...can egress and come back with impunity and all the 38 can do is get out of the way.  Same can be said for most aircraft.  But when you're comparing it with aircraft such as the P51 and Jug....even F4U with superior speed co alt combat choice is theirs.  If those pilots fall into a turn fight with a 38 at lower speeds their choice, and probably their demise.

Also you mention the MTO where most 2ndline aircraft were relegated such as the P40, the Hurricane,and various Italian fighters of which only the 205 was a threat to anything.  LW fighters were in the MTO in good numbers up until they lost north Africa.....then their aircraft were pulled north in defense of the Reich , Ploesti comes to mind  etc.  P38s were based in Italy for some time but they were phased out eventually by P51s and P47s also.
P51s were then used for long range escort and the P47s were used for ground attack roll.

I suggest you pull out Bodie's books again and have another look. By the way, I know Bodie, inasmuch as we were co-writers (sharing a byline) for several years. So, quote him carefully.

Furthermore, in the 15th AF, P-38 groups were not replaced by P-51s. It was the P-47 groups that were replaced by the Mustangs. As of January 1945, there were four P-51 groups and three P-38 groups and zero P-47 groups. Furthermore, the P-38 groups in the MTO were also flying missions into Germany, but did not suffer the problems encountered by 8th AF groups. Why? In the MTO, American fighters used fuel refined by Amercian fuel companies. In Britain, the Americans used British fuel. Doolittle traced engine problems to fuel formulations not compatible with the Allisons. He then ordered fuel specially blended for P-38 groups. Like magic, engine failures dropped to comparable levels with the Merlins in the Mustangs. Doolittle's biggest gripe with the P-38s (and P-47s) was that they strained the logistic system, thus all 8th AF units were to receive the P-51. Open revolt by the 56th resulted in them being assigned the P-47M, which needed more debugging than the P-38s did. P-38s were not replaced because they could not perform the mission as well as P-51s. P-38s bore the brunt of early deep escort in the fall and winter of 1943-44.

In the ETO, P-38s suffered their highest losses when they, along with one or two early P-51 groups, flew all of the deep penetration escort missions, where their 80 or so fighters faced 200 to 300 Luftwaffe fighters. And still, they killed more than they lost. I personally know two pilots (from the 20th and 55th groups) who flew those early missions. I know what they faced.

Finally, the highest scoring fighter per loss (in frontline service) was the F6F Hellcat, generating a 19/1 kill to loss ratio. If we use kill vs losses, one could claim that the F6F was the best fighter in the war. So, we have to be careful how we apply statistics, lest we distort reality. Statistics without context will always lead to incorrect conclusions.

Was the P-38 the best American fighter of WWII? No, there were several that were better. But, not in late 1943, early 1944 when the P-38s cut bomber losses by 50%. There could have been a better P-38 in the field in 1944, but the WPB decided that what was being built was good enough. Meanwhile, by middle 1944, Lockheed was gearing down on P-38s and tooling up for the best American fighter designed and flown during WWII; the P-80A Shooting Star.

My regards,

Widewing

[detch01]

Wide - a quick question if you don't mind...

I've heard (can't remember the source) that one of the problems the early ETO P38 pilots faced was a lack of detailed training in the aircraft - the USAAC essentially took single-engine fighter pilots, dropped them into the P38 for a quick conversion and then fired them off at the LW. Is this true?



Cheers and thx,

asw

[Hoarach]

Asw I actually read something similar to that.

[Widewing]

Originally posted by detch01
Wide - a quick question if you don't mind...

I've heard (can't remember the source) that one of the problems the early ETO P38 pilots faced was a lack of detailed training in the aircraft - the USAAC essentially took single-engine fighter pilots, dropped them into the P38 for a quick conversion and then fired them off at the LW. Is this true?



Cheers and thx,

asw

That is correct. Most pilots assigned to 8th AF P-38 groups (especially replacements) hadn't flown a P-38 stateside prior to their assignment. Only a small percentage of ETO P-38 jocks were fortunate enough to go through a P-38 RTU before being shipped overseas.

Meanwhile, the 8th established "Clobber College" in Britain for pilots assigned to P-51s.

One of the P-38's greatest faults was its complex systems and controls. We do not have to deal with this in the game, but the P-38 was not a pilot friendly fighter and usually required as much as 100 hours before a pilot was truly proficient in the Lightning. On the other hand, P-51 pilots attained the same level of proficiency in about 25 hours. Mustangs were a lot easier to fly and manage, an important factor when you're new to combat.

My regards,

Widewing

[Hajo]

Widewing.....not finding a fault at all with what you stated.  IT's true in many instances that the P47 was replaced by the P51.  And so were the Mustangs used to replace the P38.  By in large though numbers of kills, failure rate on missions etc. success would go with the radial engined aircraft.  They just could take a beating.

Read my post on the subject in another thread.  From a book written by A.Galland, Henz Bar etc. a sort of after action report on WWII American Aircraft.  Heinz Bar was interrogated as to what his opinion of Allied Fighters were.  He should know a bit about that he shot down 240 aircraft.

Chapter numbers, and pages listed in the post.

His opinion was that the P51 was the best fighter.  Although he didn't face the F4U.  He did however face the fighters listed in his interrogation. He regarded the P38 highly.....he respected it's performance at 20K or under.

BTW I get lots of info from Bodies Books.  None better. He covers development , production runs etc.  Numbers bogle the mnd.

Again by looking at the numbers....the aircraft they fought....their performance and sortie availability, my personal choice would be other then the P38.  Although I think it's the most beautiful fighter of the USAAF, In my opinion....better performance and success were found elsewhere. Also   over 15,600 P47s were made....... 12,602 of them being D models the largest sub-type of any fighter in history. Total deliveries of Hellcats exceded the amount of P38s produced also. Over 12,000 F6Fs were produced. Number of F4Us produced until 1952 btw was 12,571.  Total number of P38s produced close to 9,900 I believe.  The F4U, P51 and P47 served for a time after the war.....P51 s and F4Us in Korea.  P47s in the ANG and various foreign countries chiefly in South America.  I don't know what happened to the 38 after the war.( P51s' produced 15,586 btw)

I think by the total numbers produced of the above aircraft the numbers alone might tell someone what the war dept. thought about each aircraft. Or the Brass of the Army Air Corps.  All were produced in higher numbers then the 38 and served longer.  

BTW...I also have Bodies book Thunderbolt....another great read.  I had to get the paperback addition for the P38 when it was republished.  Couldn't find a hardcover print anywhere.

Again   everyone has their favorite.  P38 was in the right place at the right time and got the first  ETO kill.  A Condor. But by some accounts didn't perform as well as the P51, P47 and the F4U.  Again numbers can be interpeted many ways.. I Like good discussions

BTW...I didn't quote Bodie on anything.  Just looked at number of fighters produced, what variant, numbers produced of that variant and where they were produced.

[Hajo]

Squire....the P38 served earlier then that.  A P38E on Dec 7 1941 minutes after war declared shot down an FW 200C near Iceland.

[Squire]

The biggest reason for the P-51 being chosen over the P-38 and P-47 in the 8th AAF was the range issue. There were others, but the P-51Bs range sealed the deal when the 8th AAF knew it was going with a policy of escorting its heavies "all the way" from England.  That and the Allisons reputation for being troublesome at high alts esp in the winter, but thats been covered here.

In the P-38s favor, one must remember that is served from 1942-45 as a front line fighter, unlike many other US types, that were replaced: F4F, P-39, P-40.

In the Pacific, its record was every bit as good as any of the Navy types.

The whole thing about British fuel, I have seen that posted before, myslef I have never seen anything conclusive. I will say that I find it odd that the RAF flew Allison P-40s in several marks in 1941-43, and apparently did not have any issues with their gas. I will admitt though its possible there was something "off putting" about Brit fuel with the P-38s engines, I really don't know.

[Widewing]

Originally posted by Hajo
Squire....the P38 served earlier then that.  A P38E on Dec 7 1941 minutes after war declared shot down an FW 200C near Iceland.

That event occured on August 14, 1942. It involved P-38Fs of the 27th FS retained in Iceland for air defense (from those flown to Britain in operation Bolero). They were assisted by a P-40 from the 33rd FS. This was the first shootdown of a German aircraft by American aircraft.

There were no P-38s stationed outside CONUS on December 7, 1941.

My regards,

Widewing

[Guppy35]

Originally posted by Widewing
That is correct. Most pilots assigned to 8th AF P-38 groups (especially replacements) hadn't flown a P-38 stateside prior to their assignment. Only a small percentage of ETO P-38 jocks were fortunate enough to go through a P-38 RTU before being shipped overseas.

Meanwhile, the 8th established "Clobber College" in Britain for pilots assigned to P-51s.

One of the P-38's greatest faults was its complex systems and controls. We do not have to deal with this in the game, but the P-38 was not a pilot friendly fighter and usually required as much as 100 hours before a pilot was truly proficient in the Lightning. On the other hand, P-51 pilots attained the same level of proficiency in about 25 hours. Mustangs were a lot easier to fly and manage, an important factor when you're new to combat.

My regards,

Widewing

It's interesting to read in the group histories how the guys trained on 38s did not want to give them up for the 51 while the guys who were single engined trained were much more receptive.

I know I've seen it specifically referenced in the 479th wartime history and in the 370th wartime history.

The 474th FG with the 9th AF sure held on to them til the end and obviously the 1st, 14th and 82nd FGs in the MTO did great work with the 38 right til the end vs the Luftwaffe.

[pluck]

Originally posted by Guppy35
It's interesting to read in the group histories how the guys trained on 38s did not want to give them up for the 51 while the guys who were single engined trained were much more receptive.
 

funny, i was talking with my g/f, might as well be wife, about planes.  he was a pilot in vietnam, flew both helicopters and planes.  he has many, many interesting accounts of the war and aviation in general, though many he does not share as well.  anyhow, a close relative of his flew 38's during the war and said the same thing.  in his relatives opinon, he hated the 51's, and thought the 38's were a much better plane.  unfortunately he is no longer with us.  i'll have to check to see which squadron he flew with.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Originally posted by Squire
The biggest reason for the P-51 being chosen over the P-38 and P-47 in the 8th AAF was the range issue. There were others, but the P-51Bs range sealed the deal when the 8th AAF knew it was going with a policy of escorting its heavies "all the way" from England.  That and the Allisons reputation for being troublesome at high alts esp in the winter, but thats been covered here.

In the P-38s favor, one must remember that is served from 1942-45 as a front line fighter, unlike many other US types, that were replaced: F4F, P-39, P-40.

In the Pacific, its record was every bit as good as any of the Navy types.

The whole thing about British fuel, I have seen that posted before, myslef I have never seen anything conclusive. I will say that I find it odd that the RAF flew Allison P-40s in several marks in 1941-43, and apparently did not have any issues with their gas. I will admitt though its possible there was something "off putting" about Brit fuel with the P-38s engines, I really don't know.

No, the P-38 had MORE range than the P-51. PERIOD. First Allied fighters over Berlin? P-38's, on consecutive missions, the 55th FG on one, and the 20th FG on the other, before a P-51 ever graced the skies of Berlin. Weeks before a P-51 went to Berlin.

Early on, some units had range issues. Not because of the planes, but because the pilots used the wrong power settings. Besides excessive fuel consumption, the wrong settings also wrecked the engines. It took instruction by Lockheed test pilot Tony Levier to get the pilots properly trained. They went from landing on fumes, or worse, to returning to base with over an hour's worth of fuel left. He also instructed the pilots and crews on adusting the fuel and turbo systems to improve performance and reliability, and get rid of a nasty surge they had.

The Allison in the P-40 cannot be compared to the Allison in the P-38, as the entire intake system was different, including the manifold and the intercooler (the P-40 didn't even have an intercooler, of either type). The P-38 required better fuel, including a need for higher octane that the P-40, and the British fuel often lacted the high octane, and the additives fell out of suspension in the intake tract of the P-38.

[PonyDriver]

P-51 only good at running

*snicker*

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Originally posted by Hajo

Again by looking at the numbers....the aircraft they fought....their performance and sortie availability, my personal choice would be other then the P38.  Although I think it's the most beautiful fighter of the USAAF, In my opinion....better performance and success were found elsewhere. Also   over 15,600 P47s were made....... 12,602 of them being D models the largest sub-type of any fighter in history. Total deliveries of Hellcats exceded the amount of P38s produced also. Over 12,000 F6Fs were produced. Number of F4Us produced until 1952 btw was 12,571.  Total number of P38s produced close to 9,900 I believe.  The F4U, P51 and P47 served for a time after the war.....P51 s and F4Us in Korea.  P47s in the ANG and various foreign countries chiefly in South America.  I don't know what happened to the 38 after the war.( P51s' produced 15,586 btw)

I think by the total numbers produced of the above aircraft the numbers alone might tell someone what the war dept. thought about each aircraft. Or the Brass of the Army Air Corps.  All were produced in higher numbers then the 38 and served longer.  

 

The P-38 was never adequately second sourced. Consolidated Vultee of Nashville Tennessee contracted to build at least 1000, and never made more than 113. They simply could not get set up to build the P-38. In the mean time, Lockheed was building, of all things, B-17's. Consolidated Vultee could have built plenty of B-17's, and Lockheed, had they been able to use the production capacity they spent on B-17's to produce P-38's, could have produced about twice as many P-38's.

Pay particular attention to what Widewing said about "Lockheed had a better P-38 in late 43/ early 44, but the War Production Board declined". The reason? The P-38 was not adequately second sourced. Lockheed would have needed less than two weeks to retool to produce the P-38K. However, the War Production Board needed and wanted P-38's so badly that they would not tolerate a production stoppage of less than two weeks.

Had the P-38 been adequately second sourced, or had the B-17's built by Lockheed been built somewhere else, say Consolidated Vultee of Nashville for example, and Lockheed been able to devote their production capacity to the P-38, then a two week production stoppage would not have been necessary. There would have been plenty of P-38's, and production would have only been slowed in sections of the plant, so the P-38K could have entered service in late 1943 or early 1944. Fighter Groups, and even entire Air Forces, would not have had to fight for P-38's, or take War Weary hand me downs, but instead would have had a fully adequate supply of not only new P-38's, but even better P-38's than they ever got, even in limited supply.

In this case, using numbers produced as a measure of demand does not even begin to offer the truth, but rather hides the truth, as the P-38 was in such high demand that no production stoppages were considered, allowed, or tolerated. In fact, when the contract was cancelled, Lockheed was as much as 5000 P-38's behind schedule, as they were scheduled to produce at least that many more, and the contract was for a standing order of all that could be produced as soon as they could be produced.