Could the later model P38 establish complete control of air over Germany without P51

[NiceShotAustin]

The biggest problems the P-38 faced in the ETO was the very poor training pilots received for twin engines aircraft, and the poor initial roll rate and compressibility problems encountered by the P-38 models the 8th air force used.

Quoting former 20th FG Capt. Arthur Heiden in regards to the training:
"The quality of multi-engine training during World War II bordered on the ridiculous. I am convinced that with training methods now in use we could take most of civilian private pilots who might be about to fly the Aztec or Cessna 310, and in ten hours, have a more confident pilot than the ones who flew off to war in the P-38. A P-38 pilot usually got his training in two ways. The first way, of course, was twin-engine advanced training in Curtiss AT-9s, which had the unhappy feature of having propellers you couldn't feather. After sixty hours of this, the student received ten hours of AT-6 gunnery, although he might get his gunnery training in the AT-9, since AT-6s were in short supply."

"At this point he had his chance to fly the RP-322 for another twenty hours. The 322, as you know, was the British version of the airplane, and they came with assorted equipment and things on them that nobody could predict. Upon graduation from the RP-322 he was assigned to a P-38 Replacement Training Unit (RTU) or an Operational Training Unit (OTU) for 100 hours or more of fighter training. A second way to get into the P-38 was to transition from single engine fighters. In this event, someone probably took him up in a multi-engine transport or bomber and demonstrated engine shutdown a couple of times after skimming the tech order, a blindfold check, and then Ignoring the check list (not for real fighter pilots!), he blasted off. More than one neophyte has described his first "launch" in a P-38 as being hit in the ass with a snow shovel."

"Either method of training, probably, made little difference as neither guy knew that much about multi-engine operations and procedures. True, he had been warned about the magic number of 120 miles per hour his Vme (editor:Vmca) or single-engine control speed. He had swam in glue during a couple of prop featherings while in formation with his instructor. He was, also, warned never to turn into a dead engine, never put down the gear until he had made the field, and never to go around with one caged. That was about it until shortly thereafter the old Allison time bomb blew up, and he was in business the hard way. Right on takeoff. "Some people lucked out if the runway was long enough. Some overshot or undershot and they bent the whole thing. Some tried a single-engine go-around anyway, usually with horrible results. Such happenings would make a son of a bitch out of any saint."

After listing a multitude of issues encountered by the P-38 models used in the ETO, many involving complaints with the Allisons at high altitude, initial roll rate, and compressibility, Heiden went on to say:
"Every one of these problems was solved with the introduction of the P-38L."

Capt. Heiden made some further interesting observations:
"The P-51 was a new airplane and we were eager to fly it and were happy with it. It was so easy and comfortable to fly. The P-38 had kept us on our toes and constantly busy--far more critical to fly. You never could relax with it. We were disappointed with the 51's rate of climb and concerned with the reverse stick, especially if fuel was in the fuselage tank, the rash of rough engines from fouled plugs, and cracked heads which dumped the coolant. With the 38 you could be at altitude before landfall over the continent, but with the 51 you still had a lot of climbing yet to do. The 38 was an interceptor and if both engines (were healthy), you could outclimb any other airplane, and that's what wins dog fights. When you are in a dog fight below tree tops, it is way more comfortable in a 38 with its power and stall characteristics and, for that matter at any altitude."

"The 8th was, at last, being flooded with Mustangs and well trained pilots. The Mustang was a delight to fly, easier to maintain cheaper to build and train pilots for, and had long legs. In those respects you can rightfully call it better, but it could not do anything better than a P-38J-25 or L. Just remember who took the war to the enemy and held on under inconceivable odds. Enough of the crap."

I will admit, my opinion is far from non-biased. I am definitely a P-38 fan. But, let me re-quote Heiden again: "In those respects you can rightfully call it (P-51) better". For what was wanted in the ETO, the P-51 was definitely the better choice than even the late model P-38s, and that's coming from a P-38 fanboy such as myself. But, there is no doubt in my mind that the P-38 could've very well done the P-51's job. After all, which USAF aircraft held the long-range bomber escort role when the Luftwaffe was at its peak with superior numbers and skill?

 

[drgondog]

The biggest problems the P-38 faced in the ETO was the very poor training pilots received for twin engines aircraft, and the poor initial roll rate and compressibility problems encountered by the P-38 models the 8th air force used.

This is true, but add a couple of issues in the air to air role. It was easy to spot - and recognize - and the first guy who sees the other first has a tactical advantage. It had an advantage in climb rate but a.) because of poor roll and high wing loading it was at a disadvantage in manuevering fight before manuever flaps and dive brkae/flap and boosted ailerons were equipped in the J-25 and above, and b.) limited in pursuit because of the extreme conversion to compressibility at .62M and above. More important to this discussion is that none of the critical mods were in ETO until post D-Day.

After listing a multitude of issues encountered by the P-38 models used in the ETO, many involving complaints with the Allisons at high altitude, initial roll rate, and compressibility, Heiden went on to say:

"Every one of these problems was solved with the introduction of the P-38L."

Unfortunately no P-38L's were ever used by the 20th, 55th or 364th and I have not found an L with the 479th - The 9th AF 474th probably got the P-38L, but only after August/September 1944. Most of the P-38L's went to PTO, some MTO.

Capt. Heiden made some further interesting observations:
"The P-51 was a new airplane and we were eager to fly it and were happy with it. It was so easy and comfortable to fly. The P-38 had kept us on our toes and constantly busy--far more critical to fly. You never could relax with it. We were disappointed with the 51's rate of climb and concerned with the reverse stick, especially if fuel was in the fuselage tank, the rash of rough engines from fouled plugs, and cracked heads which dumped the coolant. With the 38 you could be at altitude before landfall over the continent, but with the 51 you still had a lot of climbing yet to do.

At best this is true for Mustang groups based on coast of England. Non factor for 355th, 361st, 4th, or even 20th and 55th (former P-38 groups), and not a factor as far as a.) being at proper 25-28K escort altitude over Belgium/Holland/west central France, b.) being at escort altitude at R/V or c.) as being a range factor - as the Mustang always out-legged the P-38 in the 8th AF

The 38 was an interceptor and if both engines (were healthy), you could outclimb any other airplane, and that's what wins dog fights. When you are in a dog fight below tree tops, it is way more comfortable in a 38 with its power and stall characteristics and, for that matter at any altitude."

Mustangs had a far higher air to air (and air to ground) ratio of victory credits to respective losses - the 109 could outclimb a 51 and the Mustang clobbered it, so hard to understand the advantage cited as being the essential and critically important point of superiority. Reflect on F-86 versus MiG for example.

"The 8th was, at last, being flooded with Mustangs and well trained pilots. The Mustang was a delight to fly, easier to maintain cheaper to build and train pilots for, and had long legs. In those respects you can rightfully call it better, but it could not do anything better than a P-38J-25 or L. Just remember who took the war to the enemy and held on under inconceivable odds. Enough of the crap."

The P-38 was important as a morale booster from October through December 1943 when the 20th and 55th were the only 8th AF long range escort. "taking the war to the enemy and holding on under inconceivable odds" in that timeframe can possibly be dramatic - but true for those two months. Having said that, the same is true for the 354th FG from December 1943 through mid Feb when the 357th joined the long range escort.

What you may not be aware of is that those combat 'inexperienced pilots' in the Mustangs shot down more German fighters during the six day Feb 20-25, 1944) Big Week than all the P-38 credits from October 1943 through the end of Big Week.

I will admit, my opinion is far from non-biased. I am definitely a P-38 fan. But, let me re-quote Heiden again: "In those respects you can rightfully call it (P-51) better". For what was wanted in the ETO, the P-51 was definitely the better choice than even the late model P-38s, and that's coming from a P-38 fanboy such as myself. But, there is no doubt in my mind that the P-38 could've very well done the P-51's job. After all, which USAF aircraft held the long-range bomber escort role when the Luftwaffe was at its peak with superior numbers and skill?

He forgot to mention that the 51 not only out accelerated the 38 in a dive but it could out dive its opponents - which the P-38 could never do in the ETO. The 51 was faster at all operational altitudes. It out rolled the P-38J throughout and even the P-38L w/boosted ailerons until 335mph, and didn't lose much after that It had far more range on internal fuel which meant the half range after dropping tanks prematurely was greater.

And, roll the drums - it was half to cost in purchase and about half the cost to operate and maintain. Reverse drums - the P-38 could do more things well when considering fighter bomber, night fighter capability - but if you compared the best P-38 to the P-51H and P-82, well...

My points earlier were a.) if the USAAF ONLY had the P-38 as the escort option and committed to it in the ETO rather than send them to Africa and MTO, then in my opinion it could have done well in the ETO prior to D-Day, but b.) that didn't happen and the P-38 build up in the ETO was far too slow to make much difference over deep targets in Germany - relative to the 51 - before the Invasion.

It very clearly did not compete against the FW 190 and Me 109 as well as the Mustang during WWII. Even in the MTO, the arrival of the Mustang in May 1944 - with less than a year in operations - it was only ~ 400 credits short of the combined P-38 operations from November 1942 to EOW.

In any case or consideration the P-38 was not as good an air superiority fighter as the 51 - but, in great enough numbers, it could win air superiority..

If you consider Zemke as credible as Capt Heiden relative to the merits of the P-47 vs P-38 and P-51 - look to page 188 Zemke's Wolfpack

"While not having the firepower of the P-47 and P-38, it was superior on nearly every other account. The P-51 couldn't outclimb a 109 or outroll a 190 but it could out run and out dive them at every altitude and usually out turn them too"

 

[eagledad]

Hello,

From my studies, the 8th AF did not use any P-38L's in the fighter role. However, the 367th, 370th and 474th all used some P-38L's in the 9th, and as Dragondog said, the L's were also used by the 1st, 14th, and 82nd fighter groups in the MTO.

I do not believe that any fighter group in the ETO/MTO was completely equipped with P-38L's, but all flew a mixture of J's and L's.

Eagledad

 

[NiceShotAustin]

Let me restate myself: For what was wanted in the ETO, the P-51 was definitely the better choice than even the late model P-38s. Both planes had advantages over eachother. The P-51s had a better roll rate, high speed pitch, smaller size, level top speed, dive speed, and lower production cost/maintenance (the most important advantage of all). The P-38 on the other hand had better firepower, armor, low speed maneuverability, acceleration, climb rate, and two engines to help get you back home. For what was needed in the bomber escort role in the ETO, the P-51 almost seemed custom tailored for the job and rightfully was used as the bomber escort. But, if I recall correctly, the subject is "Could the later model P38 establish complete control of air over Germany without P51?". The simple answer is definitely. As I said, which plane held the role of long range bomber escort while the Luftwaffe was at its peak? But I should add, the P-38 wouldn't do it as effectively as the P-51. The P-51s were more numerous, and were far easier to train for. Those are the two big reasons the P-51 was superior to the P-38 in the discussed role. Greater numbers and better prepared pilots will often show better statistics and results than even a superior fighter with few numbers (an example of that would be the ME-262). Whether each side of the argument will admit it, both the P-51s and the late model P-38s were completely capable of fighting a 109 or 190. The P-38 had a number of areas it performed better than the P-51, and vice versa. But it's the logistics and other not-so-glamorous details that made the P-51 the better plane for the job, not because it could do "X" better than the P-38

 

[Milosh]

Why all this P-51 talk? The thread is suppose to be about NO P-51s.

 

[tomo pauk]

Hi, Bill (drgondog), just a small nitpick: P-38 did have maneuver setting, 8 deg, for it's flaps as early as 1942 (in P-38F-15 subtype). Per ATH.

 

[drgondog]

Hi, Bill (drgondog), just a small nitpick: P-38 did have maneuver setting, 8 deg, for it's flaps as early as 1942 (in P-38F-15 subtype). Per ATH.

Actually my brainfart was worse than that as the G and F also had manuever flap settings.. the important aspect however was that roll rate reamined sluggish until J-25 with boosted ailerons.

 

[davparlr]

The P-38H would have been available in the fall of 1943 and since more P-38s were built than P-51s in 1943 and 1944, it is obvious that this version and the follow-on Js could be fielded in adequate quantities similar to the P-51B/C. However, other aircraft would have to replace it in regions where the aircraft were already used, which could hamper other operational areas. A better idea would be to build more P-38s.

The H and the J versions of the P-38 were competent performers relative to the Bf 109G and the Fw 190A-8, being faster and climbing better than either over entire performance envelope. If flown well, it would probably out turn both. It did have some performance problems, one of which is that I don't think these P-38 versions had fixed the high altitude problems, and another is that it had a slow roll rate, and worse, they also had a limited dive speed. The former was fixed in later models. By far, the biggest problem was the limited fuel available when external tanks are jettisoned. These versions only had 300 gallons of internal fuel feeding two powerful engines. The P-51B had about 190 gallons usable for one engine on a much cleaner aircraft. According to the Tactical Planning Characteristics and Performance Chart for the P-38J through dash 10, the max cruise range at 25k ft. is 600 miles on 300 gallons of gas, or, about the distance from Berlin to London. The plane would barely make it home if it was not engaged in combat until over Berlin (actually, probably not since it would use valuable gas in combat). If it was engaged before Berlin, it would have to turn back, leaving the Bomber stream to its fate.

My conclusion, the aircraft could be made available and they performed well. The high altitude problem had to be fixed pronto and more internal fuel was desperately needed. Without these changes, many P-38s and bombers would be lost until the summer of '44 when upgrade P-38s were available. Most likely more Luftwaffe aircraft would have been available on D day. With the P-38 versions fielded by the fall of '43, I believe the Western Front battles of '44 would be significantly different.

 

[chris mcmillin]

More to the point on a thread about P-38's.

Build more airframes and fix problems. Essentially the challenge is to optimize the good performance of a 1937 design by ironing out systems problems as well as aerodynamic problems.

Train pilots better. Seen over time by better training manuals and curriculum.
Heating of pilot, windshield and guns were a problem, fix it. Bleed off of hot turbos as well as manifold muffs?
Oil temperature, waste gate control problems, make it work by simplification. Farm out solution to another manufacturer, maybe?
Dive compressibility, fixed with dive flaps.
Turbo development, slowly worked out by GE.
Range, build more 175 gallon drops. Find more room for internal fuel, build more 250 gallon drops. Adopt Lindbergh range techniques for lean best economy power.

What happened in reality of the design was that the systems never caught up to the aerodynamics.
Good things; Power to weight was good, it was easy to fly, it went pretty fast up high, it did well enough down low, it had good firepower, roll rate was fixed with hyd boost, dive controllability was fixed with dive brakes.
Bad things; cold guns, frosted windshields, cold pilot, Rube Goldberg interface between throttle/prop/mixture in regard to controlling the wastegate with oil pressure/electricity/power lever position.
Military powers just relocated the airplane to climates where the temperature problems didn't cripple it's operation.

Just a general perspective, but trying to refer to the basics of the OP's question, could it be dominant, and how?

Chris...

 

[CobberKane]

I don't doubt for a moment that late models of the P-38 could have done the P 51's job had the latter not been available, as could the P-47. In fact, given American industrial might and resources, I suspect they could have won the European air war with Sopwith Camels. The thing is though, it was never going to happen (the 38 still being the USAAFs premier fighter at the end of the war, that is). Economic and enginering imperatives alway meant that the relatively light, single engined fighters were going to the the best choice in the air superiority role circa 1945. If the Lightning hadn't been supplanted by the Mustang, it would have been supplanted by something pretty similar.
In fact the whole idea of twin engined fighters matching single engine fighters during WWII in any area seems to be marginal. The P-38 closest but at it's relative best it was only ever 'as good' as the best single engined opposition in combat, with the drawback of all the extra costs of production. For a while it had the best range of any fighter in the ETO but it wasn't long before that advantage was pegged back. Maybe if the war had lasted a bit longer we would finally have seen a twin engined fighter that could have matched the single engined opposition in performance, range and economics, or at least been better in any of these areas to a degree that a defficiency in others was balanced. The de Haviland Hornet maybe?

 

[hurricane55]

Assuming P-40s and 47s were still used, it's highly possible, although it may delay the advance a few weeks to a few months, and bomber losses would be higher.

Also, if there was no P-51, other fighters like the P-47 would probably be produced in increased numbers, most likely the Lightning as well.

 

[wmaxt]

Dave, The P-38H's of the 1st fighter group flew 1,600 mi escorts with combat at the target area in the summer of 1943. This happens to be the same distance of the longest range mission by P-51s (it was by the 339th FG) in WW2. The trip from England to Allegria in 1942 by the 1st FG was 1,500mi. The lower CD of the earlier P-38s made them capable of almost as much range as the later P-38s with the leading edge tanks according to pilots.

According to General Doolittle commander of the 8th AF "The P-38 way not have been the best fighter of WW2, but concedes that this can probably be attributed to factors unrelated to the aircraft's capabilities. strategic and tactical doctrine proved to be a severe handicap to utilization of the type at the timethe first groups were deployed in northern Europe first in the fall of 1942 and again in 1943. The mode of operation left much to be desired. Early P-47Ds and P-51B/Cs would have fared poorly under the rules prevailing, but it is necessary to recognize that neither type was developed or mass produced until later. (Warren Bodies conversations with Doolittle) I encourage anyone who likes aviation to read his books as they have won acclaim as well researched and well written and cover the P-38 , P-47 and other subjects associated with aviation.

The range of P-38s in the ETO was increased after Tony LeVier demonstrated the proper throttle settings in the early spring of 1944 but this was never reflected in the 8ths planning of missions. Its also rarely mentioned that the first fighters over Berlin were P-38s of the 55th FG on March 3rd, 1944.

As to performance a well flown P-38 could easily out turn the Bf-109 or Fw-190 according to a number of German pilots. The issue was in the pilots hands, a good aggressive pilot that knew his aircraft was effective.

The second biggest issue for P-38s is recognition, In Donald Caldwell interviews with German pilots he was told that they could identify the P-38s from a distance and choose whether to attack them or bypass them so they were not feared as much as the P-47/P-51. They said they got into more fights with the P-51/P-47s because of their similarity to the Bf-109/Fw-190 they would be committed by the time they made positive id. Id also had some benefits in the MTO/PTO the P-38 flew close escort and according to one AAF report the P-38 turned in the best performance in escort by keeping loss rates low.

Major General Kepner commander of the 8th AF fighter command said that In his Opinion P-38s did a superior job, one that no other fighter available to the Allies was capable of performing in a period of feverish pre-invasion assaults on Germans industrial might. there can be no doubt that the crucial period for success or failure of strategic bombing in Europe - at least for daylight precision bombing - was in the year preceding June 6, 1944. ( This comes through Warren Bodie's book on the lightning).

Here is a very interesting site with info about pilot training, aircraft crash rates and loss records of the 8th AF. I encourage you all to take a look there is a lot of info either presented or attached through links that pertained to the ETO in '43 to '45.

http://www.taphilo.com/history/8thaf/8aflosses.shtml

Bill

 

[NiceShotAustin]

I don't doubt for a moment that late models of the P-38 could have done the P 51's job had the latter not been available, as could the P-47. In fact, given American industrial might and resources, I suspect they could have won the European air war with Sopwith Camels. The thing is though, it was never going to happen (the 38 still being the USAAFs premier fighter at the end of the war, that is). Economic and enginering imperatives alway meant that the relatively light, single engined fighters were going to the the best choice in the air superiority role circa 1945. If the Lightning hadn't been supplanted by the Mustang, it would have been supplanted by something pretty similar.
In fact the whole idea of twin engined fighters matching single engine fighters during WWII in any area seems to be marginal. The P-38 closest but at it's relative best it was only ever 'as good' as the best single engined opposition in combat, with the drawback of all the extra costs of production. For a while it had the best range of any fighter in the ETO but it wasn't long before that advantage was pegged back. Maybe if the war had lasted a bit longer we would finally have seen a twin engined fighter that could have matched the single engined opposition in performance, range and economics, or at least been better in any of these areas to a degree that a defficiency in others was balanced. The de Haviland Hornet maybe?

If the war had lasted longer, I think we definitely could've seen some big twins outperform the single engined fighters. The Hornet and F-7F are definitely some good examples of such. But let's not forget about how close the P-38 was to surpassing contemporary fighters by a considerable margin. The P-38-K out climbed (4,800 fpm on Military Power; expected to be 5000 fpm on WEP), outran (432 mph on Military power; expected to go 450+ mph on WEP), had longer legs (range expected to increase by 10-15%), and had a higher max altitude (48,000 feet) than any USAAF fighter at the time. It's a shame the War Production Board never let it enter production

 

[davparlr]

If the war had lasted longer, I think we definitely could've seen some big twins outperform the single engined fighters. The Hornet and F-7F are definitely some good examples of such. But let's not forget about how close the P-38 was to surpassing contemporary fighters by a considerable margin. The P-38-K out climbed (4,800 fpm on Military Power; expected to be 5000 fpm on WEP), outran (432 mph on Military power; expected to go 450+ mph on WEP), had longer legs (range expected to increase by 10-15%), and had a higher max altitude (48,000 feet) than any USAAF fighter at the time. It's a shame the War Production Board never let it enter production

I see where you got this information but I think it over estimates performance of this plane. In March, 1944, the USAAF tested a P-38J using 150 octane fuel. With this fuel, the engines produce 2000 hp at WEP or 200 hp more than the XP-38K at WEP. Performance of this aircraft showed a top speed of 420 mph at WEP and a climb rate of 4050 ft/min. The tested aircraft had a base weight of about 500 lbs over the G (the base aircraft of the K) and was also a bit heavy at test. However, it did have 400 more hp than the K. I don't think the K was going to hit 5000 ft/min at WEP nor make the 432 mph at WEP much less 450 mph. It should be noted that Lockheed estimates show a max airspeed of 431 at WEP and a rate of climb of 4640 ft/min. however, estimates are estimates and test are test. This test also shows a 100 ft/min ceiling of about 39k ft. which maybe a little low but not near 48k. I know there is an issue with P-38 performance but this is a test and carries much weight and, until more data is provided on the higher performance, must rule.

The same test show the P-51B capable of about 445 mph and a climb rate of about 4300 ft/min. 100 ft/min ceiling was shown as about 40,000 ft. The P-47N had a ceiling of 43k ft.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/150-grade-fuel.html

 

[NiceShotAustin]

I see where you got this information but I think it over estimates performance of this plane. In March, 1944, the USAAF tested a P-38J using 150 octane fuel. With this fuel, the engines produce 2000 hp at WEP or 200 hp more than the XP-38K at WEP. Performance of this aircraft showed a top speed of 420 mph at WEP and a climb rate of 4050 ft/min. The tested aircraft had a base weight of about 500 lbs over the G (the base aircraft of the K) and was also a bit heavy at test. However, it did have 400 more hp than the K. I don't think the K was going to hit 5000 ft/min at WEP nor make the 432 mph at WEP much less 450 mph. It should be noted that Lockheed estimates show a max airspeed of 431 at WEP and a rate of climb of 4640 ft/min. however, estimates are estimates and test are test. This test also shows a 100 ft/min ceiling of about 39k ft. which maybe a little low but not near 48k. I know there is an issue with P-38 performance but this is a test and carries much weight and, until more data is provided on the higher performance, must rule.

The same test show the P-51B capable of about 445 mph and a climb rate of about 4300 ft/min. 100 ft/min ceiling was shown as about 40,000 ft. The P-47N had a ceiling of 43k ft.

150 Grade Fuel

Interesting. Surprises me how low the J's top speed was as it seems that it's speed on standard fuel was 414 mph. I'm also surprised as to it's RoC. But as you said, tests are tests. And that also means that the K's WEP estimates are far from the law as they are just estimates. But, the K's military power performance was also found via testing, and Lockheed's testing results have proven to be accurate and reliable throughout history. Keep in mind, the K made use of broad chord props which really helped the P-47-D's performance, especially in climb rate. Have I flown the P-38-K? No, VERY few people have. But as you said, tests are tests and the P-38-K demonstrated the military power figures. Therefore, I'm inclined to believe the given military power ratings

 

[davparlr]

Interesting. Surprises me how low the J's top speed was as it seems that it's speed on standard fuel was 414 mph. I'm also surprised as to it's RoC. But as you said, tests are tests. And that also means that the K's WEP estimates are far from the law as they are just estimates. But, the K's military power performance was also found via testing, and Lockheed's testing results have proven to be accurate and reliable throughout history. Keep in mind, the K made use of broad chord props which really helped the P-47-D's performance, especially in climb rate. Have I flown the P-38-K? No, VERY few people have. But as you said, tests are tests and the P-38-K demonstrated the military power figures. Therefore, I'm inclined to believe the given military power ratings

I can't really argue with you as I have read others say the same. However, I would certainly like to see those performance test results.

 

[drgondog]

Dave, The P-38H's of the 1st fighter group flew 1,600 mi escorts with combat at the target area in the summer of 1943. This happens to be the same distance of the longest range mission by P-51s (it was by the 339th FG) in WW2. The trip from England to Allegria in 1942 by the 1st FG was 1,500mi. The lower CD of the earlier P-38s made them capable of almost as much range as the later P-38s with the leading edge tanks according to pilots.

Bill - what source for the mission length and mission profile? As to Mustang longest 'escort' range, I believe any of the Shuttle missions from East Anglia to Piryatin (4th, 352nd, 355th, 357th) were all at or greater than 1600 miles. With escort picked up at Ruhland below Berlin and Stettin NW Warsaw.. in the last one the route was the longest. My father led it and the track was east to Stettin, R/V with B-17s there, escort Stettin over Warsaw to the SE into Ukraine and split when 100 miles from Piryatin and Poltava. .

According to General Doolittle commander of the 8th AF "The P-38 way not have been the best fighter of WW2, but concedes that this can probably be attributed to factors unrelated to the aircraft's capabilities. strategic and tactical doctrine proved to be a severe handicap to utilization of the type at the timethe first groups were deployed in northern Europe first in the fall of 1942 and again in 1943. The mode of operation left much to be desired. Early P-47Ds and P-51B/Cs would have fared poorly under the rules prevailing, but it is necessary to recognize that neither type was developed or mass produced until later. (Warren Bodies conversations with Doolittle) I encourage anyone who likes aviation to read his books as they have won acclaim as well researched and well written and cover the P-38 , P-47 and other subjects associated with aviation.

What is really interesting is that Doolittle had vast experience under Spaatz in the 12th AF with P-38 Operations and yet his first major decision was to dump both the P47D and P-38J from the 8th AF as soon as Practible in favor of the "untested and troublesome P-51B/C". Why do you suppose this to be true?

I don't know if you have read Doolittle's or Eaker's autobiographies or DeWitt Copp's two volume set about US Army Air Corps. There are zero quotes expressed by any of them in favor of the P-38 over the P-51. In "Forged in Fire", Copp illustrates that Spaatz was an early and consistent supporter as 'his choice' for bomber escort in 1942 - despite inferior performance above 22,000 feet. Nor was the range of the P-38 judged superior to the P-51 all the way through the J series. It was only in the context of Ferry tanks did the P-38 reach parity for that profile. It still did not carry enough internal fuel to have as long a range if forced to drop external tanks in a fight.

The range of P-38s in the ETO was increased after Tony LeVier demonstrated the proper throttle settings in the early spring of 1944 but this was never reflected in the 8ths planning of missions. Its also rarely mentioned that the first fighters over Berlin were P-38s of the 55th FG on March 3rd, 1944.

True but requires a modification - the 55th never made R/V short of Berlin with an associated leg of escort to and from target - so they went there in high speed cruise, and back, without wasting fuel staying with bombers lumbering along at 200mph. It is an important point because the P-38 rarely performed target escort to Berlin or Magdeburg or Regensburg until the end of their service with 8th AF.

The second biggest issue for P-38s is recognition, In Donald Caldwell interviews with German pilots he was told that they could identify the P-38s from a distance and choose whether to attack them or bypass them so they were not feared as much as the P-47/P-51. They said they got into more fights with the P-51/P-47s because of their similarity to the Bf-109/Fw-190 they would be committed by the time they made positive id. Id also had some benefits in the MTO/PTO the P-38 flew close escort and according to one AAF report the P-38 turned in the best performance in escort by keeping loss rates low.

Report name, date, location for inspection? in other words, the documented source. Time relevant because even during BiG Week when the 15th was bombing German targets from the south, their P-38s were not able to fly escort short of the targets, only a sweep to and from say Schweinfurt. The 51s when they arrived in May had no such limitation.

Major General Kepner commander of the 8th AF fighter command said that In his Opinion P-38s did a superior job, one that no other fighter available to the Allies was capable of performing in a period of feverish pre-invasion assaults on Germans industrial might.

When and where did Kepner say that? Do you supose that he did Not consider the P-51 was 'available', or that he considered them inferior to the P-38? The P-38 was completely outperformed by not only the P-51 but also the P-47 in the ETO during Any period but most specifically during the crucial air battlles between Big Week and D-Day

You keep making the quotes with zero source other than referencing Bodie. Look at his Index and find the source of Bodie's "quotes" and trot 'em up.

there can be no doubt that the crucial period for success or failure of strategic bombing in Europe - at least for daylight precision bombing - was in the year preceding June 6, 1944. ( This comes through Warren Bodie's book on the lightning).

Doolittle, Spaatz and Eaker all agree on this point. However they don't point to the P-38 as the difference maker.


Here is a very interesting site with info about pilot training, aircraft crash rates and loss records of the 8th AF. I encourage you all to take a look there is a lot of info either presented or attached through links that pertained to the ETO in '43 to '45.

8th Air Force Combat Losses in World War II ETO Against the AXIS Powers

Bill

Bill - as spendid as the P-38 was in the PTO it did not achieve the same impact to the LW in the ETO. The thread asks the question "could the P-38 establish control of air over Germany? Yes, but at a higher cost to 8th BC, higher losses to 8th FC, lower losses of LW prior to D-Day and far more fighters and experienced pilots to fight the Allies over Normandy... or strip all the P-38s from all the theatres to try to match the numbers needed to achieve air supriority over Germany by 6 June.

The Mustang destroyed 1145 German fighters in the air between 1/1 and 6/6 1944. In the same timeframe the P-38 destroyed 135. Net advantage to P-51 pre D-Day was 1010 more German fighters still flying by D-Day, plus about 450 more pilots. Useful to German defense of Normandy? This does not even compare the 3:1 ration P-51-38 for ground destruction. Source USAF 85 for air to air and 8th AF VCB for ground credits.

 

[NiceShotAustin]

I can't really argue with you as I have read others say the same. However, I would certainly like to see those performance test results.

In all honesty, I don't think the "official" document has been published. I believe the main article most pull info from is Whatever Happened To The P-38K ?. Now don't get me wrong, I think that believing a single source (and others citing that single source) is naive, but considering ausairpower.com (which I find to be a pretty reliable site) has the same Military Power specs as the previous site without having said site in the references, I at least feel that the Military Power specs are plausible if not accurate