Can some of the explanation for the P-38's greater success in the Pacific be attributed to poorer Japanese pilots?

[Shortround6]

MC 202 was well matched against a P-38F, G or H

well, it was certainly better than the MC 200, well matched?

There are not a lot of tests for these middle P-38s however we have two things going on.
Usually US tests generally cut the power after 5 minutes or a bit more while climbing so climb rates at low altitude reflect actual combat capabilities. Climb rates from tests at higher altitudes do not. Allison powered planes were tested at 2600rpm after 5 minutes.
If you were in combat the only thing that prevented you from using 2800-3000rpm for climbing was the engine temp and for the P-38 the carb intake temperature. If you were cruising at 20,000ft the 5 minute time limit disappeared, your 5 minute time limited starts when you open the throttle.

There was quite a bit of dispute about the carb temperature limits on the P-38. Officially it was supposed to be 45 degrees C which severally limited the power on the pre/J versions.
However in testing they were running well into the 50 degree range, in fact Kelsey was running 70 degrees at Lockheed with no apparent problems. In fact he reported the following
""I finally succeeded in reaching limiting carburetor air temperature at altitude. I got excessive roughness, cutting out, and backfires at 190 and 200 degrees F [88 and 93 degrees C]. at about 25,000 feet"… one intercooler was actually blown up"
Kelsey was known to push things.
Some pilots, much like the P-40 pilots, removed/modified the throttle stopped and used much higher boost settings in combat when needed.

"small numbers of MC 205 available by April 1943"

Old book says first operational use (or first allied note) of the type was on July 1943 when escorting torpedo planes attacking naval forces off Pantelleria.
On Sept 8th 1943 the Aeronautica had 66 on strength of which 35 were serviceable. limited production continued after the surrender. Total production was 262 MC 205Vs.

Chances of a P-38 formation engaging MC 205s was rather remote. Many US pilots could finish their tour without ever seeing an MC 205 (or any of the other "05" types)

Yes there were over 4 times as many 202s.

 

[GrauGeist]

yeah I know this was done, there were at least dozens of others. But thousands of Anglo-American-Commonwealth pilots were sent back to home units, sometimes as formal instructors, sometimes just as pilots integrated into newly formed units (but often assigned as flight or squadron leaders etc.) where their experience would inevitably be shared. I'm not saying the Japanese didn't do it but i think the scale of the Anglo-Americans was greater by an order of magnitude. And it payed dividends.

US, Australian and British fighter pilots in the more remote Theaters such as the SW Pacific, China, and the Western Desert / Med were often almost tragically under-trained, with very little training on type. I know for example that both US and Australian air units fighting in Darwin and then into Papua lost more than half of their aircraft just making it up into the battle area, mainly because they were so unfamiliar with the type (and with high performance aircraft in general) they were constantly crashing on takeoffs and landings.

These guys were going up against 'strak' units like Tinian air group and JG. 27 and were suffering accordingly. But this changed very quickly, particularly with the US units. The workup that P-38 pilots got in the pacific in the OTU was part of this. USAAF pilots in particular in early 1942 were very well trained as pilots, but very inexperienced on type and with appropriate tactics (USN were better). By the time USAAF fighter groups made it to MTO just about six months later however, I know that both British and German aces expressed their surprise, even shock at how well trained the pilot were, how familiar they were with their aircraft, and how disciplined they were etc.. I know that US Spitfire and P-40 pilots for example were carefully integrated with experienced British units initially, then after flying a few weeks of combat, experienced US pilots were lent to the other arriving units and so on. This also applied to ground crew who quickly reached such a high level of proficiency that they were able to get captured Axis aircraft flying (and therefore usable as training aids) within weeks or even days.

All that kind of stuff makes a very big difference!

My comments about experienced Japanese pilots being rotated back for flight school instructor duties was in response to this comment:

The best of the returning American pilots were asked to be flight instructors, thus imparting their hard-won experience to subsequent new pilots. The Japanese had no such system (to my knowledge). Therefore newly-trained American pilots started off with a large advantage over newly-trained Japanese pilots.

 

[tomo pauk]

well, it was certainly better than the MC 200, well matched?

"small numbers of MC 205 available by April 1943"

Old book says first operational use (or first allied note) of the type was on July 1943 when escorting torpedo planes attacking naval forces off Pantelleria.
On Sept 8th 1943 the Aeronautica had 66 on strength of which 35 were serviceable. limited production continued after the surrender. Total production was 262 MC 205Vs.

Chances of a P-38 formation engaging MC 205s was rather remote. Many US pilots could finish their tour without ever seeing an MC 205 (or any of the other "05" types)

Yes there were over 4 times as many 202s.

MC.202 was the best performer among the DB-601A powered fighters that saw service.
Under 20000 ft, it was very competitive against the Allied fighters, like the P-40F, P-38G, or the non-trop Spitfire V. It was much better than the P-40E, Hurricane or a tropicalised Spit V; the air filter as used on DB 601/605s seem to be less of an issue wrt. speed loss.
Main Italian problem with MC.202 (or other V12-powered fighters) was that they were unable to produce enough of them.

 

[Shortround6]

MC.202 was the best performer among the DB-601A powered fighters that saw service.
Under 20000 ft, it was very competitive against the Allied fighters, like the P-40F, P-38G, or the non-trop Spitfire V. It was much better than the P-40E, Hurricane or a tropicalised Spit V; the air filter as used on DB 601/605s seem to be less of an issue wrt. speed loss.
Main Italian problem with MC.202 (or other V12-powered fighters) was that they were unable to produce enough of them.

That is true, but do you want 500 (or even 750) MC 202s for your air force or 500 P-38 F/G/H.
Assuming equal pilots and/or training. Most US pilots in NA were green. Italian pilots were not. They had the usual mix. Veterans to newbies.
Most P-38 drivers were newbies.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Well the 5 series planes were available in small numbers, but they do seem to show up in the battles, even some of the rarer ones. This is because even though in terms of overall production numbers were tiny, and they were only available in the tens or maybe dozens, vs. hundreds of the MC 202s, when they did become available it was during the heaviest fighting, and they were in the mix during the key battles when the overall scale of the combats while intense, were fairly small compared to say NW Europe (with a few score to a couple of hundred aircraft on each side).

MC 202s were available in fairly large numbers and definitely took a bite out of Allied aircraft. They did about as well as the Bf 109s IMO.

So to get into the details a little, with a few examples, I got Mediterranean Air War volume IV down off the shelf.

On 29 July 1943 Re 2005's from 362 Sq engaged B-26s from the 17th and 319th bomb groups on a mission against Aquino airfield, which were escorted by P-38s of the 14th FG. Both sides made victory claims but only one Re 2005 was damaged.

A larger, more typical encounter involving P-38s took place on 25 May 1943 - during three raids a total of 90 x B-17s and 44 x B-24s were sent against rather heavily defended targets in Sicily, escorted by P-38s from the 1st FG where they encountered large numbers of both German fighters (Bf 109G-6 from JG. 27 and 53) and Italian fighters. The Germans claimed 5 x P-38s and 5 x B-17s, with another 4 x B-17s claimed by German flak. The Italians claimed 1 x P-38 and 14 x heavy bombers. The American P-38 pilots claimed 11 x Bf 109s killed and 6 probable, and 5 x MC 202 probable or damaged. Actual losses were 3 x P-38s shot down by enemy aircraft, 3 x P-38 shot down by flak, 2 x B-26B, 1 B-17 lost, 2 x B-17 crash landed, and 2 x B-24s crash landed with KiA on board. The Germans lost 1 Bf 109G-6 from JG 27 and the Italians lost one MC 202. There were at least 3 different MC 202 squadrons involved in that battle, and 2 with at least some MC 205 (72 and 88 sq 1 St CT) which made claims.

On June 8 1943 there was another big battle mainly US P-4Fs from the 79th FG vs Italian fighters - two MC 205s (from 88 Sqn) and 3 x MC 202s were apparently shot down for no US losses.

On June 9 1943 another big series of air battles, this time P-38s from 1st FG escorting a large number of B-24s from 98 BG, as well as US Spitfires from 31st and 52nd FG and P-40s from 79th FG. They faced German Bf 109 pilots from JG 27 and 53, and Italians from 363 and 150 sq flying BF 109G, and from 72, 151, 153 and 374 sqns flying MC 202s and MC 205s. US casualties were 1 x B-24 shot down, 1 B-24 crash landed with WiA and 2 x Spitfires. Germans lost 1 x Bf 109G-6 to B-24s and 1 x Fw 190A-5 "to P-40s", Italians lost 2 x MC 202, one Bf 109G and 1 MC 205. Both of the US Spitfires lost were apparently shot down by the Italians.

On June 15 1943 there was another big dust up over Sicily. P-38Gs fro the 1st, 14th and 82nd FGs were engaged, escorting medium bombers. P-40s from the 325th FG were also engaged. They faced German Bf 109Gs from JG 27 and 53, and Italian MC 202s from 12, 35, 151, 363 and 364 sqns. Losses were 4 x P-38s from 82nd and 14th FG, 1 x P-40 from 325th FG, and 5 x B-26s and 2 x B-25s crash-landed. German losses were 1 x Bf 109G-6 and two Ju 88s lost from recon, Italians lost 2 x MC 202.


On page 158-159 of the book Shores gives available strength of Axis single engined fighters on July 9-10 1943 (right before the Husky Invasion) as (from JG 3, 27, 51, 53 and 77) as 177 x Bf 109G (if I'm counting right) and 42 x Fw 190 serviceable (with another 50% or so in various states of repair) and 35 x MC 202, 22 x MC 205, 10 x RE 2005, 6 x Bf 109G and 4 x Dewoitine D.520, plus 5 x MC 200 and 15 x CR 42 (these last two types as fighter-bombers) available in Sicily, with about another 100 (mostly MC 202 and Bf 109) in various states of repair.

So of the 73 front line fighters available to the Italians in Sicily at that time, 32 of them (43%) were the 5 series. (I did not count the 4 x D.520 as although they were better than the MC 200 but were only used as point defense as I understand it)

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Italian fighter numbers were way down at this point due to two months of heavy battering (both to the fighter squadrons and to their bases, and they lost a lot on the ground). Germans too but not quite as much. But for the Italians this was at least as much due to logistics as actual losses. The MC 202s and 205s did not take very heavy losses in air combat usually at this point, I'd say a little less than the P-38s did in this period.

 

[tomo pauk]

That is true, but do you want 500 (or even 750) MC 202s for your air force or 500 P-38 F/G/H.
Assuming equal pilots and/or training. Most US pilots in NA were green. Italian pilots were not. They had the usual mix. Veterans to newbies.
Most P-38 drivers were newbies.

P-38F and P-38H cannot be lumped into same category. Difference is comparable to MC.202 and 205.
500 MC.202s will have an edge over 500 P-38F, and probably P-38G - better dive, better roll, smaller to see and as a target to hit, no distinctive shape, less blind spots. Granted, most of the advantages stem from one being a small 1-engined fighter vs. another being much bigger 2-engined job.
500 MC.205s will have the similar edge over 500 P-38Hs.

P-38s will be more useful if/when long range is required, and as a bomber buster or a fighter-bomber.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

P-38F and P-38H cannot be lumped into same category. Difference is comparable to MC.202 and 205.
500 MC.202s will have an edge over 500 P-38F, and probably P-38G - better dive, better roll, smaller to see and as a target to hit, no distinctive shape, less blind spots. Granted, most of the advantages stem from one being a small 1-engined fighter vs. another being much bigger 2-engined job.
500 MC.205s will have the similar edge over 500 P-38Hs.

P-38s will be more useful if/when long range is required, and as a bomber buster or a fighter-bomber.

And as the problems are ironed out and the enhancements put into place. I think a P-38J is a bit of a problem for an MC 205 probably in a lot of circumstances. It's a good bit faster at altitude for one thing. Better climb too apparently.

 

[Shortround6]

P-38F and P-38H cannot be lumped into same category. Difference is comparable to MC.202 and 205.
500 MC.202s will have an edge over 500 P-38F, and probably P-38G - better dive, better roll, smaller to see and as a target to hit, no distinctive shape, less blind spots. Granted, most of the advantages stem from one being a small 1-engined fighter vs. another being much bigger 2-engined job.
500 MC.205s will have the similar edge over 500 P-38Hs.

P-38s will be more useful if/when long range is required, and as a bomber buster or a fighter-bomber.

The compressibility issue doesn't happen unless things start at over 20,000ft.
Now what is interesting is that the P-38 was the best option the US had available.
For speed among the early US Army fighters only the P-47C could out run a P-38G at all altitudes.
The P-51 could out run the P-38 down low (crossed over at about 16,000ft)
The P-51A could it from about 15,000 to 20,000ft but only by about 10mph at best altitude.
and the groundhog D could do it right around 13,000ft by a few mph (get the P-38 ground crew to polish the wing)

The P-38G had the best climb of any of the early Army fighters. The P-38G will make it to 25,000ft before most of the others have made it to 20,000 so the difference is not small.

We have been over the turn performance. But the P-38, especially with a new pilot may be a little suspect here.

P-38F (let alone the G) will out accelerate any of early fighter (not a surprise based on it's climb) but while 5 of the US fighters are grouped fairly close the P-40E is out performed by over 80%. P-40 K will do a bit better,

Dive is tough to evaluate. The P-38 has a low ultimate dive speed limit. Trouble is it can get there in a hurry. Similar in it's ability to accelerate it has the best dive acceleration of the US fighters in the initial portion of the dive.

Basically in NA or Italy from the end of 1942 to mid 1943, if the P-38s won't do it, nothing else the US has will do the job either.

Going back to the start of the thread. The same applies to the Pacific.
The P-38 may not be all conquering but it was the best shot the Americans had at the time.

P-38 also had over 4 times the fire power of a MC 202 unless it was one of the very small number that had 20mm cannon.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Basically in NA or Italy from the end of 1942 to mid 1943, if the P-38s won't do it, nothing else the US has will do the job either.

I'm not so sure about that. US P-40F and Spitfire units seem to have done a bit better than P-38 units did in the MTO, both in terms of losses inflicted and losses taken.

Going back to the start of the thread. The same applies to the Pacific.
The P-38 may not be all conquering but it was the best shot the Americans had at the time.

The P-38 was in a much more ideal environment for that design type in the Pacific

P-38 also had over 4 times the fire power of a MC 202 unless it was one of the very small number that had 20mm cannon.

The Hurricane IIC had much more firepower than an MC 202 but they were dead meat against them.

 

[PAT303]

US, Australian and British fighter pilots in the more remote Theaters such as the SW Pacific, China, and the Western Desert / Med were often almost tragically under-trained, with very little training on type. I know for example that both US and Australian air units fighting in Darwin and then into Papua lost more than half of their aircraft just making it up into the battle area, mainly because they were so unfamiliar with the type (and with high performance aircraft in general) they were constantly crashing on takeoffs and landings.

Out of all the first air wing RAAF pilots over Darwin only about 5 had combat experience, people talk about the 26 Spitfires lost in combat but don't know about the other 91 that were lost in non combat operations, many after hitting tree's.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Out of all the first air wing RAAF pilots over Darwin only about 5 had combat experience, people talk about the 26 Spitfires lost in combat but don't know about the other 91 that were lost in non combat operations, many after hitting tree's.

Yep, it was the same with the first P-40 units (both USAF and RAAF)

 

[GregP]

I'm not so sure about that. US P-40F and Spitfire units seem to have done a bit better than P-38 units did in the MTO, both in terms of losses inflicted and losses taken.



The P-38 was in a much more ideal environment for that design type in the Pacific



The Hurricane IIC had much more firepower than an MC 202 but they were dead meat against them.

None of the P-40s have the range to go where the P-38 went; they're a non-starter except for short-range missions.

The P-38 was not in a much more ideal environment in the Pacific. At 20,000 feet the temperature has little to do with the temperature at sea level. But, by the time the P-38 got to the PTO, the crews (flight and maintenance) had some training and experience behind them and the engine issues had been worked out. If the Pacific had ended earlier than Europe and the experienced Pacific P-38 crews had been transferred to Europe, they'de have performed like the veterans they were. It might be useful to recall that the two top-scoring U.S. Aces both flew P-38s.

The Hurricane wasn't dead meat" against anyone. It did get outperformed sometimes, sure, but also gave pretty well, too. Your statements sound like you almost arrogantly dismiss the Hurricane. Yes, the M.C. 202 out-performed the Hurricane, but the Hurricane still knocked out an impressive list of ground equipment and still fought the M.C. 202s, and didn't do too badly. You might remember that we won the war in North Africa with Hurricanes, P-38s and P-40s, none of which seem to impress you.

At some point, almost all fighters and fighter-pilots get outperformed in an encounter. They don't just give up and die, they do their best to fight back and escape to fight another day. A lot of them succeed and some don't. A pilot in a Fiat CR.42 wasn't automatic dead meat if he encountered a P-51, either. He was a lot more maneuverable and could usually escape and evade.

 

[GrauGeist]

The only thing that was "dead meat" against Allied fighters in the MTO, were Ju52s, He111s and Me323s...

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

None of the P-40s have the range to go where the P-38 went; they're a non-starter except for short-range missions.

P-40 was a medium ranged fighter by MTO standards, it had about twice the range of a Spitfire, Hurricane, Bf 109 or MC 202. The P-38 was a long range fighter and that ended up being to a large extent what they used them for.

The P-38 was not in a much more ideal environment in the Pacific. At 20,000 feet the temperature has little to do with the temperature at sea level. But, by the time the P-38 got to the PTO, the crews (flight and maintenance) had some training and experience behind them and the engine issues had been worked out. If the Pacific had ended earlier than Europe and the experienced Pacific P-38 crews had been transferred to Europe, they'de have performed like the veterans they were. It might be useful to recall that the two top-scoring U.S. Aces both flew P-38s.

What I meant was tactical environment. The Japanese fighters were much slower and had relatively poor higher altitude performance.

I don't by any means forget that the top scoring USAAF pilots flew the P-38 in the Pacific. I don't know who the top scoring P-38 pilots in the MTO were or how many claims they had but I would be amazed if they were anywhere near comparable.

The Hurricane wasn't dead meat" against anyone. It did get outperformed sometimes, sure, but also gave pretty well, too. Your statements sound like you almost arrogantly dismiss the Hurricane.

I'm not "arrogantly" dismissing anything - I'm just pointing out the facts based on the operational history. To be honest, I think people rather "arrogantly" dismiss the Italian planes, pilots, and units in WW2. The Hurricane was a good fighter and held the line for a good while in the Western Desert. They could handle Bf 110, MC 200, Fiat G.50, and CR 32 / 42. But Hurricane units suffered grotesque losses against both Bf 109s and MC 202s... which is why the Hurricane was moved out of the fighter role and into pretty much exclusively fighter bomber missions by ~ mid 1943, the period we were discussing. Other allied units did as well frankly, but they found ways to make some other aircraft types work in the fighter / air superiority and / or escort role, while the Hurricane proved not to be as adaptable in that environment (I think partly due to trouble with the tropical filters they were using).

Yes, the M.C. 202 out-performed the Hurricane, but the Hurricane still knocked out an impressive list of ground equipment and still fought the M.C. 202s, and didn't do too badly.

I would say that the Hurricane did poorly against the MC 202, in most of the (many) encounters they had. My point was that heavy firepower of the Hurricane wasn't much help.

Both the Bf 109F and the MC 202 were far less heavily armed than the Hurricane but they definitely had a significant advantage in outcomes, based on the day to day operational histories. I can definitely post some examples if needed. The losses were alarming. Sometimes P-40 and Spitfire units also had severe losses during engagements with MC 202 but less often, and they were able to inflict more losses against them.

My point is that the MC 202 was an excellent fighter and not to be dismissed, it had it's limitations but it definitely put a dent in the Allied forces. The very heavily armed Hurricane MK IIC wasn't much use against it in spite of having much greater firepower.

You might remember that we won the war in North Africa with Hurricanes, P-38s and P-40s, none of which seem to impress you.

I don't know what gives you that impression. Anyway, it's false, I'm well aware and suitably impressed. I am a big fan of the Desert Air Force and I think they prevailed against the Axis air forces due to a combination of improving tactics, better strategy, and learning to make the aircraft they had work. With the Hurricane by early 1942 that increasingly meant relegation to use as a fighter bomber - still a very important role.

I think you are filling in the blanks a little here with some feelings or maybe associations with other posters because I never wrote anything like disparaging Allied efforts over all. I'm just putting things into what is (as far as I am aware), accurate context. I could of course be unaware of some data, wouldn't be the first time. But I have read a lot about this Theater and stand by my statements, until proven otherwise.

At some point, almost all fighters and fighter-pilots get outperformed in an encounter. They don't just give up and die, they do their best to fight back and escape to fight another day. A lot of them succeed and some don't. A pilot in a Fiat CR.42 wasn't automatic dead meat if he encountered a P-51, either. He was a lot more maneuverable and could usually escape and evade.

My point is simply that the Hurricane was a poor match against the MC 202, and to the original offshoot that this sprang from, that the MC 202 was no slouch or easy victim for the P-38, which Shortround6 was implying.

The CR 42 could survive in an emergency, but like the Hurricane by 1943 (in fact earlier) it had been relegated to use as a fighter bomber because it could not contend with front line enemy fighters.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

I don't by any means forget that the top scoring USAAF pilots flew the P-38 in the Pacific. I don't know who the top scoring P-38 pilots in the MTO were or how many claims they had but I would be amazed if they were anywhere near comparable.

According to Stanaway in "P-38 Lighning Aces of the ETO-MTO"
12th AF William Sloan 12 claims
15th AF Michael Brezas 12
8th & 9th AF James Morris 7.33

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

According to Stanaway in "P-38 Lighning Aces of the ETO-MTO"
12th AF William Sloan 12 claims
15th AF Michael Brezas 12
8th & 9th AF James Morris 7.33

So yeah, about 1/3 of the top scores in the Pacific, which is about what I would have figured.

I looked these guys up. Here is Virginia born William Sloan's Air Force Cross citation:

"The President of the United States of America, authorized by Title 10, Section 8742, United States Code, takes pleasure in presenting the Air Force Cross to Lieutenant Colonel (Air Corps), [then First Lieutenant William J. "Dixie" Sloan (ASN: 0-496090), United States Army Air Forces, for extraordinary heroism in military operations against an armed enemy of the United States as Pilot of a P-38 aircraft in the 96th Fighter Squadron, 82d Fighter Group, TWELFTH Air Force, in the North African Theater of Operations on 5 July 1943. On that date, Colonel Sloan led a flight of fighter aircraft escorting thirty-six B-25 bombers in an attack on Gerbini Airdrome. The formation encountered intense anti-aircraft fire in the target area and was attacked by ten enemy fighters. Colonel Sloan shot down two of the enemy fighters and was conspicuous in driving the remaining hostile fighters away from the bombers, all of which returned safely. Through his extraordinary heroism, superb airmanship, and aggressiveness in the face of the enemy, Colonel Sloan reflected the highest credit upon himself and the United States Air Force."

I looked up this July 5, 1943 engagement in MAW IV. It was a wild day! I won't go through all the claims except to say there were a lot, but I'll list the losses. RAF, USAAF, Luftwaffe and RA were heavily involved and all took losses.

The British lost 3 x Spitfire Mk V and 1 x Mosquito Mk II shot down, plus 1 x Spit V crash landed and 1 x Spitfire Mk IX crash landed.
The USAAF lost 3 x B-17Fs and 2 x B-25Cs (both said 'hit by flak') and 1 x P-38 damaged with pilot WiA.
The Luftwaffe lost 4 x Bf 109G-6, 1 x Bf 109G-4, and 2 x Fw 190A5 shot down, plus 2 damaged (one with pilot WiA). About 20 aircraft destroyed on the ground by bombs.
The Italians lost 5 x MC 202 shot down plus one crash landed.

Sloan claimed a Bf 109 and an Re-2001, both around 13:30. The latter (and maybe both of them) was probably a MC 202. I would say both of his claims are plausible. So interesting data point.

Unfortunately it doesn't give the model of P-38 he was flying but my guess would be an H or a J at that point.

I looked up Massachusetts born Michael Brezas' Silver Star citation:

"First Lieutenant (Air Corps) Michael Brezas (ASN: 0-813118), United States Army Air Forces, was awarded the Silver Star for gallantry in action against the enemy as a P-38 Fighter Pilot of the 48th Fighter Squadron, 14th Fighter Group, FIFTEENTH Air Force, in action against the enemy in aerial combat in the ETO His gallant actions and dedicated devotion to duty, without regard for his own life, were in keeping with the highest traditions of military service and reflect great credit upon himself, his unit, and the United States Army Air Forces."

Unfortunately they don't give a date, but the citation was issued in 1944. MAW does have an index by pilot name but I couldn't find Brezas in there so he was probably active past June 1944 which is as far as Volume IV goes.

Here is the Distinguished Service Cross citation for Ohio Born James Madison Morris:

"The President of the United States of America, authorized by Act of Congress July 9, 1918, takes pleasure in presenting the Distinguished Service Cross to Captain (Air Corps) James Madison Morris (ASN: 0-730573), United States Army Air Forces, for extraordinary heroism in connection with military operations against an armed enemy while serving as Pilot of a P-38 Fighter Airplane in the 77th Fighter Squadron, 20th Fighter Group, EIGHTH Air Force, in action with the enemy, 8 February 1944. On that date Captain Morris was Pilot of a P-38 Fighter airplane on a bomber escort mission to Frankfort, Germany. While on this mission Captain Morris attacked and destroyed an ME-109 fighter. Very shortly thereafter he observed a moving train below him and immediately went down to attack it. As he proceeded homeward, he saw, in the vicinity of Sedan, two FW-190 Fighters taking off from an airdrome. Without thought of the danger of engaging the enemy at low altitude over his own airdrome, Captain Morris unhesitatingly attacked and destroyed one of the fighters and proceeded immediately to attack and destroy another FW-190 which had appeared over the field. With his fuel supply dangerously low, and in an area well defended by light anti-aircraft guns, Captain Morris set course for his base. Soon thereafter he sighted an enemy ME-109 flying above and ahead of him. With full knowledge that with his rapidly dwindling fuel supply any deviation from course would seriously jeopardize his chance for safe return to his base, and unmindful of his unfavorable position, Captain Morris courageously flew into attack and succeeded in seriously damaging the enemy aircraft. By his extraordinary flying skill and intrepidity Captain Morris rendered distinguished and valorous service to our nation."

He is not in the MAW IV book which is a little baffling, but this bio says he was actually active in England with the 77th FS, 20th FG from 1943, before being shot down and made POW on July 7, 1944.

 

[Shortround6]

an H or a J at that point.

The H is supposed to have been completed on March of 1943, however the first delivery was supposed to have been in April. Rolled out the door and accepted by the AAF are not always the same thing, a few days or few weeks difference is not uncommon.

Getting from California to combat theaters was a whole different story.

Aug 1943 saw the 20th and 55th Fighter groups fly to England, the 20th had P-38H-5s.
Oct 15th 1943 saw the 55th fighter group go operational in England with P-38H's. The 343rd sqd, had P-38H-1s.

In Aug 1943 ten P-38Js are completed in Lockheeds experimental shops.
Sept 1943 is supposed to have been the start of official construction of P-38Js (by contract, not modifications).

It is quite possible that William Sloan was flying a P-38G. It may have been an H.

A few more notes.
Sept 1943. All of the 55th fighter group and it's P-38s are now in the UK.

Sept 5th 1943.
There are less than 250 P-38s in the Med theatre. Replacements are not making up for losses. 60 were lost in Aug and 24 in the first week of Sept (I know the dates doesn't quit match unless the 5th was the end of a week)

Sept 1943 there were 212 P-38s in SW Pacific. The number goes down in the following months due to attrition and there is little replacement as the new P-38s are being sent elsewhere.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

The H is supposed to have been completed on March of 1943, however the first delivery was supposed to have been in April. Rolled out the door and accepted by the AAF are not always the same thing, a few days or few weeks difference is not uncommon.

Getting from California to combat theaters was a whole different story.

Aug 1943 saw the 20th and 55th Fighter groups fly to England, the 20th had P-38H-5s.
Oct 15th 1943 saw the 55th fighter group go operational in England with P-38H's. The 343rd sqd, had P-38H-1s.

In Aug 1943 ten P-38Js are completed in Lockheeds experimental shops.
Sept 1943 is supposed to have been the start of official construction of P-38Js (by contract, not modifications).

It is quite possible that William Sloan was flying a P-38G. It may have been an H.

A few more notes.
Sept 1943. All of the 55th fighter group and it's P-38s are now in the UK.

Sept 5th 1943.
There are less than 250 P-38s in the Med theatre. Replacements are not making up for losses. 60 were lost in Aug and 24 in the first week of Sept (I know the dates doesn't quit match unless the 5th was the end of a week)

Sept 1943 there were 212 P-38s in SW Pacific. The number goes down in the following months due to attrition and there is little replacement as the new P-38s are being sent elsewhere.

Thanks, I was very over-optimistic there on how quickly the improved P-38 models were coming out. Reading up on it now it seems like most of the missions prior to Sicily (June 43) were actually flown by P-38F, with a few G.

I'm also a little surprised that there were almost as many P-38s active in the Pacific by September 43 as in the MTO. I guess that is attributable to Kenney making strident demands for them as he loved the type.

I know that attrition was a problem in the MTO, and one of the P-38 groups - 14th FG - was temporarily disbanded after they got slaughtered (attrition overtaking replacement)... and 1st FG also had problems. I think they got aircraft and pilots from the 14th when it was briefly disbanded. The problem was not just combat losses but also maintenance, logistics and dealing with the local desert conditions.

 

[Shortround6]

Kennedy wanted to replace all P-39s with P-38s but he couldn't get them.

Spaatz Liked the P-38 in Sicily.

In Aug 1943 the Med theatre is told it will get no more P-38s until October because they are needed in the UK for bomber escort (nobody knows how good the P-51s will do)

Rightly or wrongly for most of 1943 the P-38 is considered the best US fighter (P-47 only shows up about 1/2 through) and P-38s are assigned accordingly, No P-38s in Europe during late 1942 and 2/3rd of 1943 because they are needed in NA.