Luftwaffe accounts of "The Forked Tailed Devil

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Originally posted by leitwolf
I think your argument just reinforced the assessment of the P-38 being an 'adequate' fighter, the keywords being "when flown by capable pilots". Replace the word "P-38" in your text with Me-109 and voila, you can use it everytime someone writes about the drawbacks of the Messerschmitt.

When you are fighting a strategic war, individual skill and kill #s are good for propaganda shows, the outcome of the war, however, is not related to individuals - as demonstrated by the insane numbers the top LW pilots got (in arguably obsolete 109s) and still lost the war.
The top american ace flew P-38s so it must've been 'good enough' for the job in his hands but in a strategic sense, the P-38 was not the best. Here's why:

P-51 $50,985
P-47 $83,000
P-38 $134,284

a plane with less than half the production cost and roughly the same performance is simply the better strategic fighter.
Add up the fact that using your own words you need 'capable pilots' the P-38 goes further down on the list.
I'm a fanboi of the 38 but i dont see why anyone can argue the fact that the P38 in the sum of all traits is only an average fighter.

The pilots I listed earlier were exceptional pilots. A capable pilot is one who is TRAINED to fly the P-38, PROPERLY trained. Not the replacements the P-38 groups in the 8th got, who were single engine pilots trained to fly the P-47 or the P-51. The segment from Zemke's book was an EXCELLENT example. The result of Zemke in a P-38, especially as a leader, were exactly what you'd expect from putting a good P-47 pilot in a P-38, a plane he disliked and knew little about before he went into combat in it. Zemke in the P-38 was a total failure. The RIGHT thing to do there would have been to put Jack Ilfrey or Robin Olds in that P-38. You would have had a pilot who not only like the plane, but knew how to fly it, and even more critical, had the knowledge and confidence to teach his men to fly it. No, you misunderstood "capable pilot". Capable pilot is more along the lines of Stan Richardson or Art Heiden, or Richard Loenhert, a pilot properly trained to fly the P-38, who knew and liked the plane and could hold his own. It didn't need to be an ace like Olds or Ilfrey, just a properly trained pilot actually fully qualified in the P-38, as compared to a single engine pilot with a 5 minute cockpit orientation session and a 15 minute familiarity flight, who know nothing of how to fly the P-38 or manage the engines, who had never even really read the pilots manual.

That segment of Zemke's book is EXACTLY why the 8th AF was deep in trouble for a long time, extremely poor management and leadership. The truth is, both the P-38 and the P-47 were used as scapegoats for the failures brought on by poor management in the 8th AF. First, the 8th AF decided they didn't need escorts with range, so they sent the P-38 to the Med and North Africa. Then they blamed the lack of range of the P-47 for the lack of fighter escorts for the bombers. Despite the fact they sent the planes with the greatest range out of the theater, and never bothered to push development of the drop tanks on the P-47s. Then, when the bombers were blasted out of the sky, they brought two green P-38 units from the states, rushed them to operational status before they were ready, and sent them on deep penetration raids with 1/3 as many planes as they needed and no experience, forcing them to stick with the bombers, and fly the entire mission alone. So then, when they had too few P-38's with nothing but green pilots, it was the P-38's fault, shifting the B.S. scapegoat status from the P-47 to the P-38. They never bothered to get FOUR P-38 groups operational and some experienced pilots and commanders for those groups. They had the capability, the pilots were there, and the planes could have been. Even when the first P-51 groups arrived it wasn't much better. But Doolittle changed fighter tactics completely, and they got some range for the P-47. Suddenly you have a lot of planes and new tactics, then it all worked so they didn't need a third scapegoat, otherwise it would have been the fault of the P-51. The truth is, the P-51 didn't save the day, Doolittle did. By gathering enough planes and pilots to do the job that needed doing, and applying the tactics that needed to be applied. Any of the three fighters the U.S. had could have done the job, given what they were given in 1944.


If cost is the measure, then the F-15 is a failure and the F-16 is dramaticaly superior. And everyone knows that isn't true.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Just to discuss this a little further, let's look at Zemke's problems again:

On the same mission I experienced one of the P-38's known problems. We had just arrived above the B-24s we were to support when a small gaggle of Me 109s was seen below. Pressing the R/T button and giving my flight the order to follow me, an abrupt roll into a dive was made and as the speed built up the throttles retarded so as not to exceed the given dive limitations for the aircraft. To my astonishment both engines cut out. Thrusting the throttles open brought them to life again only to produce engine over-speeding. As I wrestled with the power settings the revolutions on one and then the other engine fluctuated wildly. All consideration of engaging the enemy in combat was given up as attempts were made to master the bucking Lightning. It took a great deal of sky and a much lower and warmer altitude to effect stability. What had happened was that the oil in the hydraulically controlled turbo-supercharger regulators had jellified in the low temperatures, the sluggish operation leading to imbalance. A not uncommon happening with P-38s in high-altitude operations over Europe. I wasn’t the only member of my group to fly home streaming blue smoke that day - the air was blue inside my cockpit too.

Now, let's give Zemke full credit for being a great P-47 pilot, trained and experienced in his plane of choice. An ace, several times over.

Now lets look at an average capable P-38 pilot, Richard Loenhert (Loenhert's plane is the green P-38J that Airmess did, called "California Cutie"), he was not an ace, and ended up with around 3-4 kills. However, Loenhert flew over 300 hours on ONE set of engines in a P-38J in HEAVY combat, survived combat, and shot down enemy planes, with the "less than stellar" P-38. Why? Because Loenhert knew how to fly a P-38, and what power settings to use. He knew that low RPM and relatively high boost kept his operating temperature safely high, and all he had to do to get full power was to run his RPM up and THEN go full throttle. He knew to keep his oil temperature in the proper range, and how to do it, by setting his oil cooler doors. He knew where to set his radiator doors. That is all BASIC pilot skills. Part of learning to fly, not part of being an ace. In general civil aviation they teach you to know your plane and its systems and know how to properly operate them. and when you don't properly manage those systems and have any sort of incident, they call it PILOT ERROR.

So we have Zemke, a great and well known ace, a great pilot by most any standard. Can't get anything out of a P-38 because BEFORE he ever flew it, he made up his mind it wasn't a good plane, and he never learned to properly manage the plane. Then we have Loenhert (or you can swap out Loenhert and put in Richardson, or Heiden, or a dozen other P-38 pilots I know), who was never an ace, or well known. But Loenhert not only doesn't blow the P-38 up or get in trouble, but flies it trouble free and gets victories. Why? Because Loenhert was properly trained to be a P-38 pilot. That is why I say all you need is a capable pilot, a man properly trained to fly a P-38.

That tells you why the 8th AF in general, and the fighter wing in particular, was in the shape it was in. There were some really stupid people who thought all you did was stick anyone who could fly in any plane and send him up. Worse than that, they were in command, giving orders, and deciding on tactics and missions. Qualified P-38 pilots were going to P-51 and P-47 units, and vice versa. Just plain dumb.

[Squire]

Not going to get too deep into this, but I will summarize a few points and then run for my water filled slit trench...

As usual there are two sides that are going a bit overboard in either praise or condemnation of the P-38 as a fighter, and its history, imho.

*Pacific service. It didnt outnumber the Japanese in any great way in 1942-43, and Japanese fighters were flown by experienced pilots in a/c that were capable. Ki-61, A6M5, ect. It also shot down many bomber and recce a/c and served very well, imho. You cant on one hand praise the F6F and F4U but then say the P-38 wasnt all that because it fought the Japanese.

*ETO service. It went to the Med because of Operation Torch (The US Invasion of Africa) and was needed there in 1942. 8th AF Bomber Command didnt seem to mind, because they were still pusuing a policy of long range bombing without escorts.

*There was no P-51 or P-47 in 1942, in either the Med or Pacific. There were USAAC P-40s and P-39s. Neither type was deemed as a top tier design, and the P-38 was seen as the best US type of that time.

*It served untill wars end in front line units, unlike the P-40 and P-39. If it was some sort of death trap, it would not have.

*It was more expensive, and harder to master than the P-51 and P-47, it did go through its share of development troubles. It did had a few characteristics, like compressibility, that were unfavorable.

Anyways, to me there is more to the history side of it than just cheerleading, I think it certainly had an interesting and varied career, and has to be remembered as one of the cornerstone US types especially in the first 2 years of the war.

[Angus]

Squire :

[Bruno]

Well, 22 victories in a 110 is nothing to sneeze at. I'll give the guy plenty of credit, even if you won't.

No its not, in fact that is better then 99% of all P-38 pilots. No one would claim the '110 was an 'above average aircraft'. In fact in was far less then 'adequate' especially as the war progressed. However, Dassow wasn't a 'fighter-pilot'. His training and experience in a twin engine 'Zerstörer' was wholly inadequate for combat in a single engine fighter.

Much has been written about bomber pilots and 110 pilots being converted to to fly single engine day-fighters. Off the top of my head in Norbert Hannig's book he talks about the difficulty in training bomber pilots to be fighter pilots. He mentions that they were technically excellent pilots able to navigate and fly in the tightest formation and able to coordinate their maneuvers etc...

IIRC at least one had Oak Leaves and the other 2 Iron Cross 1st class with 100s of combat sorties. However, Hannig states they were terrible 'fighter pilots'. All the habits of flying multi-engine aircraft could not be undone. Hannig explains to them that he doesn't think that would survive one sortie in air combat and to prove it he challenges them. The bomber pilot with Oak Leaves accepts and Hannig let's him pick the best Fw on the base. Hannig takes one that is a worn out trainer. Hannig tells him to climb to 3000 meters and if Hannig isn't locked on his tail within a few minutes then he just might have a chance surviving their first combat. Keeping it short, Hannig pwns him. They repeat it three times.

Hannig states that fresh recruits with no experience were easier to train. IIRC the 3 bomber pilots that Hannig was training thanked him and dropped returning to their bombers. The same thing can be read abou tin describing bomber pilots flying 262s.

Dassow's claim total may be impressive (and it certainly is) but he wasn't a fighter pilot and neither was most of Jagdgeschwader 6. Its you who threw out the phrases like: 'top Luftwaffe ace' and 'top Luftwaffe squadron'. I am just contrasting your exaggerations with the facts.

The OFFICIAL credits that P-38 pilots scored is more than testament enough to the capability of the plane. Forget the extra claims for Lowell, or anyone else for that matter. What they got officially credited with is more than enough to show the P-38 was an excellent plane when in capable hands.

Official credit does not mean 'set in stone'. As I said until there is a study that attempts to match claims with actual losses lets not pretend 'official credit' is the final word. If so hundred's of historians and authors are just wasting their time. Let's not pretend that you claim of '6 to 1' means anything as well. If you have ever done any research into claims and losses you would know how difficult it is matching up the data. As I said said in another thread it doesn't matter if one pilot claimed 20 and only got 15 in how his service is viewed. These things only matter to us 'geeks'. When you speak in absolutes and with your tendency to exaggerate this where the argument develops.

I don't care anything about Lowell's claims verses his 'stories'. Lowell is irrelevant to the discussion we are having.

The fact is, the P-38 was better than average, and better than simply adequate. It handled every task assigned to it well when flown by capable pilots. It was a good fighter, a good ground attack plane, a good fighter/bomber, a good escort fighter, a good interceptor, and even a good recon plane. Was it the very best at any of those tasks?

What do you define as the 'average'? Let's look at the USAAF's 3 main fighter types in the west: P-47, P-51 and P-38. Which one of those represents the average? Both the P-51 and P-47 were better then the P-38 in all the rolls you listed.

Do the same in the Pacific. Which US fighter (including the USN) represents the 'average'. The F6F by its combat record alone would be considered near the top. What about the F4U? Reportedly, the most feared aircraft by the Japanese. Again the P-38 was adequate but in no way superior to the other quality aircraft available to the US.

As Leitwolf articulated in fine fashion and as I have stated the P-38 was adequate. I am not sure why some one takes offense at this, after all it re-enforces the the idea that the top P-38 pilots were well above average, doesn't it?

Not bad for a plane designed in 1937,

This is some how unique to the P-38? When was the Spitfire design laid out, or the 109?

Dan

I guess that bias is based on the belief in the plane and the training they had in it to get the best out of it.

Sure, we all can understand the pilot who trained and fought in a particular aircraft having a love for it. For most us we can accept that for what it is. The true 'fanboi' is the one who takes every word that claims the greatness of their preferred ride as gospel and anything that doesn't uphold that is dismissed as heresy.

Look at the Capt'n.

'Zemke doesn't know anything...'

'...the 8th AF command were nothing but ill informed P-38 haters...'

When ever anything fails to uphold the image of the P-38s greatness he chimes in with why they are all wrong. We have seen this in others and when they have been LW folks they were dismissed out of hand or at worst called 'nazi lovers'.

Squire,

I think it certainly had an interesting and varied career, and has to be remembered as one of the cornerstone US types especially in the first 2 years of the war.

Sure it did. The question is whether or not is was 'above average' or whether it was adequate for the the time being. If it performed so well at all the tasks the Capt'n outlined then why were other aircraft being pursued to replace it.

It held its own, it had its 'time in the sun' but ultimately there were better aircraft in the US arsenal, not just in terms of performance and versatility but that were cheaper and less difficult to produce. Not to mention easier to train new pilots on.

[Angus]

The P38 ranks as a mid-war aircraft right?
In the Pacific theater it is there at the time of P40's, P39's, and F4F's. The enemy is at best the A6m2 and A6m3, later the A6M5 etc.
Well, the first P38 is the P38F. It was already capable of very much more than the others, - thinking of the role. Range, ordnance, speed, firepower. And over the vast areas of the Pacific, - a twin who can maintain altitude on one engine.
(Also, - I once "heard" that A6m's chasing the P38 at top speed would have to live with the P38 pulling away while also climbing 1500 feet more, - but I never found the backup. Could fit roughly though at at least some altitudes )
In the ETO it is the first allied aircraft to be able to go "deep" into enemy territory, and as well, AFAIK the first "properly" performing U.S. fighter.
On ground attacks and deep penetration missions the twin engine factor is also important.
But, - it has to tangle Axis fighters this time that are on pair or even better, - 190's, 109's, C202's,  -air to air.
Yet, - in the fall of 1942, give me a better offensive long-range/cross water strike/fighter aircraft, - in the world.
It's the role. It's a tool.

[Debonair]

I dont think the 38s were doing too much JaBo stuff unitl later on.
Maybe I'm wrong, but i never remember reading about Lightning Fighterbombers until around the time of the Sicily invasion...

[Guppy35]

Originally posted by Debonair
I dont think the 38s were doing too much JaBo stuff unitl later on.
Maybe I'm wrong, but i never remember reading about Lightning Fighterbombers until around the time of the Sicily invasion...

Looks like the 1st FG was training in their spare time to dive bomb starting in April-May 43 and dropped bombs first in June of 43.

39th FS in the Pacific was lugging bombs in their early 38s in November 42, Bob Farout, getting his well known Zero kill with a bomb at the end of November 42.

edited to add that the 82nd FG in the MTO flew their first dive-bombing mission April 14, 1943.

One more edit.  Looks like 54th FS flying 38Es and Fs in the Aleutians was doing ground attack and dive bombing February-March 1943 to start.

Image is of a 1st FG 38G and 500 pounder in June of 43

[Debonair]

Thats all new to me.

Thanks:O

[Ack-Ack]

Originally posted by Guppy35

Image is of a 1st FG 38G and 500 pounder in June of 43

Are those kill markings for 2 German and 3 Italian planes painted on the nose?  Not bad for an inferior aircraft...or maybe he just ran across 5 inferior Axis pilots.



ack-ack

[storch]

good point alt-alt, maybe he was loafing around at 107k with his dimly lit pals dropping in on guys eating a 7 course meal while on line.  

[68Hawk]

not sure what the two other odd markings are.  Could be Italian, but I see at least 5 swastikas on that nose.  Also, looks like 10 completed bombing missions, unless those are for targets destroyed.

[68Hawk]

oh yeah, not to open up a debate on smoking, but I really wouldn't reccomend it when you're rolling around a 1000lb bomb!

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Originally posted by 68Hawk
not sure what the two other odd markings are.  Could be Italian, but I see at least 5 swastikas on that nose.  Also, looks like 10 completed bombing missions, unless those are for targets destroyed.

I agree that there appear to be two swastikas, two wheel barrows, and three more swastikas. No idea what the wheelbarrows signify. I agree that it appears those bombs are markings to denote bombing missions.

[MiloMorai]

wheel barrows

possibly means gardening operations