Which would you rather fly if your life depended..

[bolillo_loco]

from the book "Fighter units & pilots of the 8th air force"  september 1942 - may 1945
volume 1 day to day operations fighter group histories by Kent D. Miller isbn 0764312413

the book has great info and breaks down losses and kills, probables, damaged in the air and on the ground. it doesnt list however how the aircraft were lost. it does list each known aircraft loss and how it was lost, but doesnt provide a chart breaking the losses down to what caused each loss. I will list kills by type and losses by type, however the losses are by all causes. in going over the losses listed, regardless of type of aircraft flown, flak is the main reason why aircraft were lost, mechanical failure looks like it took as many aircraft as did the german fighters regardless of type of aircraft flown. spins and crashes also took quite a number of aircraft as well as collisions with both friendly and enemy aircraft, and a few just simply ran out of gas.

20th fighter group

flew the P-38 from august 1943 till july 1944 and the P-51 from july 1944 till the end of the war.

P-38 92 aircraft lost 87.6 air victories
P-51 53 aircraft lost 123 air victories

victories in the air and losses by month

november 43 - 1 - 5 lost
december - 1 - 2 lost
january 44 - 19 - 15 lost
february - 24 - 20 lost
march - 10 - 9 lost
april - 12.6 - 11 lost
may - 4 - 10 lost
june -  5 - 14 lost
july - 14 - 7 lost
august - 35 - 15 lost
september - 7 - 1 lost
october - 0 - 5 lost
november - 28.5 - 8 lost
december - 6 - 3 lost
january 45 - 19.5 - 2 lost
february - 19 - 11 lost
march - 0 - 3 lost
april - 5 - 4 lost

210.6 air victories and 145 losses

55th fighter group

flew the P-38 from september 1943 till july 1944 and the P-51 from july 1944 till wars end

P-38 87 aircraft lost 102 air victories
P-51 98 aircraft lost 200.5 air victories

victories in the air and losses by month

october 43 - 0 - 1 loss
november - 23 - 14 lost
december - 4 - 7 lost
january 44 - 13 - 13 lost
february - 8 - 5 lost
march - 3 - 8 lost
april - 7 - 11 lost
may - 7 - 9 lost
june - 15 - 16 lost
july - 27 - 8 lost
august - 7 - 17 lost
september - 72 - 12 lost
october - 2 - 5 lost
november - 18.5 - 10 lost
december - 26 - 6 lost
january 45 - 14 - 6 lost
february - 25 - 14 lost
march - 11 - 12 lost
april - 20 - 12 lost
may - 0 - 0 lost

302 air victories 186 losses

364th fighter group

flew the P-38 february 1944 till september 1944 and the P-51 from july 1944 till wars end

P-38 57 aircraft lost 37 air victories
P-51 81 aircraft lost 225 air victories

victories in the air and losses by month

february 44 - 0 - 1 loss
march - 13 - 16 lost
april - 2 - 17 lost
may - 15 - 18 lost
june - 7 - 3 lost
july - 0 - 3 lost
august - 28 - 12 lost
sepember - 26 - 12 lost
october - 9 - 11 lost
november - 40 - 11 lost
december - 87.5 - 10 lost
january 45 - 8 - 3 lost
february - 12 - 9 lost
march - 2.5 - 5 lost
april - 12 - 7 lost
may - 0 - 0 lost

262 victories in the air 138 losses

479th fighter group

flew the P-38 from may 1944 till october 1944 and the P-51 from september 13th 1944 till wars end

P-38 39 aircraft lost 52 air victories
P-51 38 aircraft lost 103 air victories

victories in the air and losses by month

may 44 - 0 - 0 lost
june - 1 - 12 lost
july - 4 - 12 lost
august - 19 - 12 lost
september - 42 - 6 lost
october - 4 - 6 lost
november - 5 - 3 lost
december - 42 - 10 lost
january 45 - 2 - 1 lost
february - 20 - 5 lost
march - 4 - 3 lost
april 12 - 7 lost
may 0 - 0 lost

155 air victories 77 losses

[HoHun]

Hi Bolillo,

Thanks for the data!

Victory to loss ratios:

364th FG: P-38 1.3,  P-51 5.0
20th FG: P-38 0.95, P-51 2.3
55 th FG: P-38 1.2, P-51 2.0
364th FG: P-38 0.65, P-51 2.8
479th FG: P-38 1.3, P-51 2.7

That seems to decide the case P-38 vs. P-51 pretty clearly in favour of the P-51.

Obviously, two engines were no significant advantage for the P-38.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Rasker]

Originally posted by WhiteHawk

  Did the spit14 and the Tempest escort lancs into germany?
   

toward the end of 1944, the Brits began running their bombing raids in daylight, escorted by the late model Spits, as that was actually safer than trying to deal with the advanced German night-fighters. Who was it who said, "Air superiority disappears at sunset'?

[bolillo_loco]

the victory to loss ratio is not 5:1 for the mustangs of the 364th it is a bit less than half of that.

I really do not think this proves much of anything in favor of either plane. many of the 38 losses were early when 38 pilots found themselves facing a more experienced enemy who was numerically superior. when the mustangs finally did arrive it saw the americans with an advantage in numbers and pilot quality and with the arrival of the mustangs improved escort tactics were also employed.

when you look at the stats, you can see that each unit had a high scoring month or two that gave the decided edge to the mustang. this was later in the war when the luftwaffe was on the decline. so when you consider that with all the advantages that the mustang saw in combat over the 38 it should have more than just doubled the score if it was such a superior aircraft. and doubling the score of the 38s record in the eto isnt a great feat when one consideres just how many planes the 38 shot down in air to air combat.

I think that this isnt a question of 38 vs 51, but a case of proper tactics, better pilot training, leadership, american pilots facing more equal odds, and a decline in luftwaffe pilots.

as far as the second engine being an advantage or disadvantage it seems many pilots abandoned aircraft that may have made it back to base had they stayed with the aircraft. one can only imagine that since they were over land it was safer to take their chances of evasion or capture and bail out vs staying with a plane of unknown flying condition.  Pilots in the pacific flying the same aircraft with the same battle damage usually stayed with their aircraft because it was more dangerous to bail out in the pacific than to stick with a damaged aircraft and take your chances. the sharks, japanese, disease, insects, crocs, snakes, head hunters, or just being stranded in a jungle or the middle of the pacific ocean is a lot of incentive to stay with an aircraft as long as its flying. men in the eto and mto atleast stood a chance of evasion and if captured...well I am sure the germans were much safer than what the pilots in the pto faced.

[HoHun]

Hi Bolillo Loco,

>the victory to loss ratio is not 5:1 for the mustangs of the 364th it is a bit less than half of that.

I missed that bit while posting - you can see that I've quoted the 364th twice, once with the 5:1 and once with the values you described. The 5:1 is from the website I referred to above. Sorry if these figures are wrong!

>and doubling the score of the 38s record in the eto isnt a great feat when one consideres just how many planes the 38 shot down in air to air combat.

Pretty pessimistic way of looking at it :-)

But at least, the victory-to-loss ratio of around 1.0 should prove beyond doubt that it wasn't the P-38 that won the air war.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[BUG_EAF322]

many germans could escape the p38 with a simple dive

After they found out their 190 or 109 sukked against it in close combat.

It didn't stop the airwar either

[HoHun]

Hi Bug,

>many germans could escape the p38 with a simple dive

>After they found out their 190 or 109 sukked against it in close combat.

A victory-loss ratio of 1.0 is a clear indicator of mutual sucking.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[BUG_EAF322]

Considering their gangy type of fight yes indeed ur right.

[HoHun]

Hi Bug,

Actually, the USAAF were losing the war with a 1:1 ratio.

1) While their loss numbers are correct, their kill number is based on claims. Claims numbers are consistently too high in any air force.

2) They were losing twin-engined aircraft against single-engined aircraft.

3) They were losing their aircraft over enemy territory, so they lost 100% of the pilots who where shot down. The Germans were losing their aircraft over friendly territory, whih meant they only lost 30% to 50% of the pilots.

The situation is not unlike Vietnam, when the US fighters were lost at a 1:1 ratio, which was bad - and made even worse because they carried a crew of 2, compared to the MiGs' 1.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[mia389]

Originally posted by bolillo_loco
the victory to loss ratio is not 5:1 for the mustangs of the 364th it is a bit less than half of that.

I really do not think this proves much of anything in favor of either plane. many of the 38 losses were early when 38 pilots found themselves facing a more experienced enemy who was numerically superior. when the mustangs finally did arrive it saw the americans with an advantage in numbers and pilot quality and with the arrival of the mustangs improved escort tactics were also employed.

when you look at the stats, you can see that each unit had a high scoring month or two that gave the decided edge to the mustang. this was later in the war when the luftwaffe was on the decline. so when you consider that with all the advantages that the mustang saw in combat over the 38 it should have more than just doubled the score if it was such a superior aircraft. and doubling the score of the 38s record in the eto isnt a great feat when one consideres just how many planes the 38 shot down in air to air combat.

I think that this isnt a question of 38 vs 51, but a case of proper tactics, better pilot training, leadership, american pilots facing more equal odds, and a decline in luftwaffe pilots.

as far as the second engine being an advantage or disadvantage it seems many pilots abandoned aircraft that may have made it back to base had they stayed with the aircraft. one can only imagine that since they were over land it was safer to take their chances of evasion or capture and bail out vs staying with a plane of unknown flying condition.  Pilots in the pacific flying the same aircraft with the same battle damage usually stayed with their aircraft because it was more dangerous to bail out in the pacific than to stick with a damaged aircraft and take your chances. the sharks, japanese, disease, insects, crocs, snakes, head hunters, or just being stranded in a jungle or the middle of the pacific ocean is a lot of incentive to stay with an aircraft as long as its flying. men in the eto and mto atleast stood a chance of evasion and if captured...well I am sure the germans were much safer than what the pilots in the pto faced.

I know unexpeirenced pilots was a big loss for the P38 too. AKAK had a old training film that was very interesting.

My vote would be the P38 cause its my fav. plane to fly. I wouldnt fight with it I would just mess with the plane doing insane manuvers and stalls:eek:

[M.C.202]

If you mean what aircraft would I fly in combat if I wanted to live through the war?

In Europe the P-39.
Why? A 0.35 loss rate in combat per sortie for that type. The P47 had a 0.73, the P-38 had a .1.35, the P-51 a 1.18. The A-26 had a nice 0.58.

If you mean in a one on one, tell me what alt and what range I'll need first.

Top U.S. picks for me arn't in the game. I hold to the "In mass production" standard, not the "had to shoot at a bad guy" one.

[HoHun]

Hi M.C. 202,

>If you mean what aircraft would I fly in combat if I wanted to live through the war?

Ah, beware of statistics! :-)

I'd bet that the pilots who flew P-39 had to fly a lot more missions since they were limited to rather short hops.

Let's say the typical P-39 mission was 1 hour, while the typical P-51 mission was 5 hours. Let's further assume pilots were rotated after equivalent flying hours: Then the P-39 would come out at 0.35 losses per flight hour, while the P-51 would emerge at just 0.24.

I don't know if that was the way it was done, it's just an example to illustrate the difficulties of analyzing numbers.

One assumption would be that the length of tours were designed so that all pilots had roughly equal chances of survival, which would make the point about plane choice rather irrelevant :-)

(That's not as absurd as it might appear - Bomber Command actually sent the most survivable bombers on the worst missions, and the death traps on milk runs. That seems to have evened out the survival chances quite well.)

By the way, are you sure that these P-39 numbers are for the ETO? As far as I know, the P-39 had a very short spell of service there, ended pretty quickly because its showing was extremely poor. If they terminated its career in anticipation of the losses, that could mean that the numbers are correct, but the comparison is misleading anyway.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[WhiteHawk]

Im still amazed that I cant find a single p-38 ace in the European theatre??  Anybode else.  There must have been at least 1?  Bong had 40+ in the pacific.  Was the weather that important in the performance of the p38?  In the latter stages of the war, there must have been at least 1 p38 pilot who took advantage of the hitler youth, last gasp luftwaffe pilots?  
 
  With further reasearch, I have counted 57 aces in the ETO and not a single one of them dedicated to the p-38??  This is amazing?
  Anybody can find any p-38 ace in the ETO?

[Wolfala]

P-38L: The argument no one knew how to fly it still stands tough. Flying high performance singles over rugged terrain in the north east has taught me: "Ya know Wolf, maybe you should stick out the extra 80 bux per hour and get a twin."

Arguments for:

* Centerline fire guns
* Twin Engine Redundancy
* Excellent range/endurance (IF YOU FLY PER THE POH - not not MAX MIL POWER THE ENTIRE TIME - that is 35'/2500 for cruise at altitude.
* The V-1710 was in 60% of allied aircraft: why? Its dependable!
* If a 38 loses an engine, he is still combat effective and can get home.
* Excellent climb to altitude.
* Fowler flaps gave superior low speed handling below 150 ias.

Cons:

* The ETO pilots didn't know how to fly the 38 like PAC pilots.
* Water Cooling leaves engines vulnerable to small cal rounds.
* Heaviest fighter allies made - it performs like it when loaded.

Feel free to add to the list.

[Glasses]

I'd prefer to fly a Ju-52 in Argentina