pinehilljoe
Staff Sergeant
It may have been a Turkey Shoot if A6Ms crossed the channel, facing an integrated weapons system like the TF-58 with its CIC
Effectiveness of the P-38 (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter tomo pauk
- Start date
pinehilljoe
Staff Sergeant
drgondog Your are right, a good warrior isn't always a good bureaucrat for a post War era, , FADM Nimitz is an example.
Last edited:
drgondog
Major
Don't know if my 'suspicions' that the story doesn't make sense, is 'Right', but that's my story and I'm sticking to it. Another factoid is that if he felt his career was doomed, why stick around another 15+ years?
Geoffrey Sinclair
Staff Sergeant
- 1,278
- Sep 30, 2021
The "built as" F-4/5
100 F-4 December 1941 to February 1942, during P-38E production
20 F-4A March 1942, during P-38F production
180 F-5A in batches between June 1942 and March 1943, during P-38G production
200 F-5A September to December 1943, during P-38J production.
Spitfire PR.IV production June 1941 to February 1943, plus conversions.
According to the RAF Census as of end February 1943 there were 135 Spitfire PR.IV in Britain (53 in operational units) and 40 overseas (33 Middle East), all cause losses were 87 home, 33 overseas, 2 in transit. As of end June 1944 it was 62 Britain, 2 operational, 43 overseas, 32 Middle East, with 126 lost at home, 61 overseas.
According to AIR 8/511, 512, 513, Spitfire PR aircraft began being flown out to Gibraltar week ending 20 March 1942, with 53 sent and received by week ending 26 February 1943, which of course is less than the census figures. 38 had been sent on to Malta of which 2 had not arrived.
Spitfire IV operated a lot out of Malta, which could be hard to get out of and back into and easy to be lost on the ground.
So what were the percentage losses of the reconnaissance aircraft, and what qualifies for them for "doom prone" and "die like flies"?
Tac/R aircraft have the problem of cruising at lower altitudes, end February 1943 the RAF had lost 87 Mustang I, again all causes, end June 1944 it was 252 Mustang I, 33 Ia, and 4 II.
The P-38 units in the MTO and later ETO enabled long range bomber operations but as the 15th Air Force figures showed had trouble converting sightings of enemy aircraft into combats. One USAAF list for the MTO comes close to 3,600 claims in the air, the 1st, 14th and 82nd logged 410, 409 and 549 claims, the 31st (Spitfire/P-51) 570.5 claims, the 325th (P-40/47/51) 522 claims, the 52nd (Spitfire/P-51) 399 claims. The P-38 units accounted for around half the claims in 1942 and 1943, down to 32% in 1944.
The USAAF Statistical Digest, which has different numbers of claims, thinks 1,327 USAAF fighters were lost to enemy aircraft.
The Luftwaffe had no twin engine day fighters in the west opposing the 8th Air Force until August 1943, night fighter units were used into 1944, in September 1943 there were around 150 twin engine day fighters, that doubled in October and hovered about there for the rest of 1943, just in time for all US raids to be escorted. Many Luftwaffe units were flying Bf110, which had not had much of an upgrade since 1940 when it was in trouble against Hurricane I and Spitfire I. The 8th Air Force fighters claimed 1,948 Fw190, 2,535.5 Bf109, 185 Bf110, 40 Me210 and 40 Me410, 9th Air Force day fighter claims were 912.67 Fw190, 1,068.22 Bf109, 58.5 Bf110, 4 Me210 and 26 Me410. Not a lot of German twin engine fighters, even if you assume all Ju88 claims were for fighters.
100 F-4 December 1941 to February 1942, during P-38E production
20 F-4A March 1942, during P-38F production
180 F-5A in batches between June 1942 and March 1943, during P-38G production
200 F-5A September to December 1943, during P-38J production.
Spitfire PR.IV production June 1941 to February 1943, plus conversions.
According to the RAF Census as of end February 1943 there were 135 Spitfire PR.IV in Britain (53 in operational units) and 40 overseas (33 Middle East), all cause losses were 87 home, 33 overseas, 2 in transit. As of end June 1944 it was 62 Britain, 2 operational, 43 overseas, 32 Middle East, with 126 lost at home, 61 overseas.
According to AIR 8/511, 512, 513, Spitfire PR aircraft began being flown out to Gibraltar week ending 20 March 1942, with 53 sent and received by week ending 26 February 1943, which of course is less than the census figures. 38 had been sent on to Malta of which 2 had not arrived.
Spitfire IV operated a lot out of Malta, which could be hard to get out of and back into and easy to be lost on the ground.
So what were the percentage losses of the reconnaissance aircraft, and what qualifies for them for "doom prone" and "die like flies"?
Tac/R aircraft have the problem of cruising at lower altitudes, end February 1943 the RAF had lost 87 Mustang I, again all causes, end June 1944 it was 252 Mustang I, 33 Ia, and 4 II.
The P-38 units in the MTO and later ETO enabled long range bomber operations but as the 15th Air Force figures showed had trouble converting sightings of enemy aircraft into combats. One USAAF list for the MTO comes close to 3,600 claims in the air, the 1st, 14th and 82nd logged 410, 409 and 549 claims, the 31st (Spitfire/P-51) 570.5 claims, the 325th (P-40/47/51) 522 claims, the 52nd (Spitfire/P-51) 399 claims. The P-38 units accounted for around half the claims in 1942 and 1943, down to 32% in 1944.
The USAAF Statistical Digest, which has different numbers of claims, thinks 1,327 USAAF fighters were lost to enemy aircraft.
The Luftwaffe had no twin engine day fighters in the west opposing the 8th Air Force until August 1943, night fighter units were used into 1944, in September 1943 there were around 150 twin engine day fighters, that doubled in October and hovered about there for the rest of 1943, just in time for all US raids to be escorted. Many Luftwaffe units were flying Bf110, which had not had much of an upgrade since 1940 when it was in trouble against Hurricane I and Spitfire I. The 8th Air Force fighters claimed 1,948 Fw190, 2,535.5 Bf109, 185 Bf110, 40 Me210 and 40 Me410, 9th Air Force day fighter claims were 912.67 Fw190, 1,068.22 Bf109, 58.5 Bf110, 4 Me210 and 26 Me410. Not a lot of German twin engine fighters, even if you assume all Ju88 claims were for fighters.
Steamed_Banana
Staff Sergeant
- 1,146
- Sep 29, 2025
I think the whole legend about the 'glorified soft drink can' doesn't bear out for either aircraft. Both held up quite well to both US and British fighters (i.e. in Burma and India mainly) well through 1943 and into 1944. If you read the real operational histories, both A6M and Ki-43 routinely took fairly heavy battle damage and made it back to base, often after long flights.
Yes they were optimized for the Theaters they were used in, but I'm not sure what that really means. British and German and US aircraft all took heavy losses when flying into areas with strong integrated air defenses. It's not like they were immune to flak. The Japanese fighters weren't designed for Strategic bombing but neither were the Spitfire or the Bf 109. I suspect that a few units of A6M or Ki-43 with well trained pilots would have done quite well in the Middle East.
Anyway, that's speculative, but the point is 1942 was not the closing of the book for those fighter types in the actual events, historically. Quite to the contrary.
Last edited:
Steamed_Banana
Staff Sergeant
- 1,146
- Sep 29, 2025
And yet, both P-38 and F4U were quite important in the Pacific, even if they were relatively even on outcomes with A6Ms through 1943, they were still putting a dent in the enemy, and they were able to reach targets that no other Allied fighters really could at the time. The war was still on in 1944 and both still played important roles, and shot down large numbers of enemy aircraft as well as being used effectively as fighter bombers.
The P-51 also did take a long time to sort out, the early P-51A which everyone seems to have forgotten about, struggled in Burma and were being shot down right and left by Ki-43s. The A-36 did fairly well in Italy as a fighter bomber but certainly didn't exceed the F4U or P-38 in value to the Allied cause. The Mustang had several issues to sort out other than just the engine. The Merlin engined P-51B, as far as I know, didn't get into action until December 1943, and as good as the P-51B was, it still had fairly serious problems with guns jamming and egress from the cockpit, lack of a bubble canopy etc.. so they were still working out some issues. Rather like the intermediate variants of the F4U or the P-38
Or for that matter, the Spitfire. Steamed_Banana
Staff Sergeant
- 1,146
- Sep 29, 2025
Fleshing this out a little:
33rd FG had 137 'confirmed' victory claims flying P-40s in the Med (Nov 42- Feb 44), 57th FG had 144 victories with P-40s (Aug 42-Jan 44), 325th FG had 133 victories with P-40s (Apri 43- Oct 43), 324th FG had 66 victories with P-40s (March 43-July 44), 79th FG had 118 victories with P-40s (Dec 42- March 44), 99th FS / Tuskegee had 17 victories with the P-40, and the Free French GC II/5 had 8 victories with the P-40.
This is 623 victories for USAAF P-40s in the Med. The vast majority of these claims were for fighters, by the way (you can take a look at the 325th FG claims on their squadron website as an example). British / Commonwealth P-40 pilots claimed another 450 enemy aircraft. So that ads up to 1073.
P-38 pilots (1st FG, 14th FG, 82nd FG) claimed 1431 victories in the Med, (mostly in Italy)
P-51 pilots claimed 1063
US Spitfire units claimed 364
P-47 pilots claimed 263
F4F pilots claimed 26 (mostly Vichy French)
P-39 units claimed 25
And a US Mosquito night fighter unit claimed 1
I dont' know the claims by type in Theater for the British fighters flown by British units, maybe you have that?
The problem with the P-38 was that losses were bad enough that one whole fighter group (14th FG) had two squadrons almost completely 'reduced' and had to be pulled out of combat for three months. These were at the time using early P-38Fs which were IMO not suitable for the Theater. 1st and 82nd FG also took crippling losses initially. During the fighting in North Africa the role of the P-38 units was shifted so that they were mainly using P-38s to escort B-24s on long range missions, rather than fighting for air superiority over the front lines like the P-40 and Spitfire units (and later P-47s), though this gradually changed as the newer / better model P-38s started arriving.
One USAAF P-40 fighter group, the 33rd FG, was also briefly withdrawn due to heavy losses in 1943.
Not disagreeing with this but they did have Bf 110s and Ju-88C-6 operating in the Med, and in one incident a squadron of Ju-88C-6 actually shot down several (I think 5 or 6?) P-38s over the sea near Spain when the latter were being ferried to North Africa from England (during the day). I don't remember the date off hand but I could look it up. The P-38s were being ferried with minimal ammunition, I think 50 rounds, and were caught by surprise.
Last edited:
I don't see a nice ending facing a MkIX Spit or FW190A over the channel
The difference is all the Allied aircraft did eventually improved unlike the Japanese models, the A6M of 1945 was pretty much the same aircraft that flew in '43 and could rightly be called a glorified soft drink can.And yet, both P-38 and F4U were quite important in the Pacific, even if they were relatively even on outcomes with A6Ms through 1943, they were still putting a dent in the enemy, and they were able to reach targets that no other Allied fighters really could at the time. The war was still on in 1944 and both still played important roles, and shot down large numbers of enemy aircraft as well as being used effectively as fighter bombers.
The P-51 also did take a long time to sort out, the early P-51A which everyone seems to have forgotten about, struggled in Burma and were being shot down right and left by Ki-43s. The A-36 did fairly well in Italy as a fighter bomber but certainly didn't exceed the F4U or P-38 in value to the Allied cause. The Mustang had several issues to sort out other than just the engine. The Merlin engined P-51B, as far as I know, didn't get into action until December 1943, and as good as the P-51B was, it still had fairly serious problems with guns jamming and egress from the cockpit, lack of a bubble canopy etc.. so they were still working out some issues. Rather like the intermediate variants of the F4U or the P-38
GregP
Major
Not even close to be so.
The 1945 Allied aircraft were better, to be sure, but a well-flown A6M-5 was a dangerous opponent right up to the end of the war. If there WERE some A6Ms that were "meat on the table" so to speak, then they were almost surely flown by green, barely-trained IJN pilots who would have had the same fate even had they been flying late-model Spitfires.
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
All of the fighters and bombers were constantly evolving (mostly 
. Some evolved faster than others and some evolved further than others.
For the US the P-38F/G went into combat just a few months before the P-39 & P-40 peaked. The P-38 continued to evolve. The P-40 evolved only slightly in 1943. P-39 evolved by turning into the P-63 and that didn't really turn out so well.
P-47 goes into combat about 6 months after the P-38 and evolves. A Dec 1943 P-47 with paddle blades and water injection is a different beast than a May 1943 P-47.
P51B goes into combat Dec 1943, about 14 months after the P-38 and the P-51 evolves all through 1944 and beyond.
So when are we evaluating the effectiveness of the P-38 and against what?
Dec 1941 through Sept/Oct 1942 the P-38 is not in combat (in more than a tine handful) and so is not as good at the P-39/40.
From Oct/Nov 1942 to May of 1943 the P-38 was the best fighter the USAAC had and for several months after as there weren't very many P-47s around.
Now we get into the cross overs. In the fall of 1943 the P-38s are increasingly P-38Hs with the Js showing up in Dec which is just about the time that most P-47s are fitted with water injection the paddle blades. So which was better? A P-38H or a non-water injected P-47 with a skinny propeller? It was Jan 1944 that saw the refit program to equipe existing P-47s with underwing drop tanks.
P-38s were almost always in short supply in 1942-43 and much of 1944.
The US Spitfire squadrons in the Med did not get MK IXs/XVIIIs until Aug 1943. Which was better in May of 1943? a P-38H or a Spitfire Vc?
At what altitude and how far from base?
We can go over the Axis aircraft the same way.
The A6M evolved quite bit from 1942 to 1944, the Ki-43 less so.
The two Japanese fighters had good range and were designed as bomber escorts for use over China.
In someways they were better than the P-39/P-40. Against P-38s?
P-38s didn't roll good but they were fast, climbed very well (best climbing US fighters?) and they accelerated very well, here is one attribute that changed a lot.
A P-38F at 250mph at sea level was computed to accelerate at 2.30ft/sec/sec which was the best US early fighter. The P-38L with twin 1600hp WEP engines could accelerate at 4.13ft/sec/sec. which is the best late war US fighter acceleration.
Experience/training, tactical situations, numbers can all make differences. But from Oct 1942 to the summer/early fall of 1943 the P-38 was the best fighter the US Army had.
It could do things the P-39 and P-40 could not and there even fewer P-47s available than P-38s and the P-47s didn't have either the range or the climb. Early P-47s climbed like a P-40E.
. Some evolved faster than others and some evolved further than others. For the US the P-38F/G went into combat just a few months before the P-39 & P-40 peaked. The P-38 continued to evolve. The P-40 evolved only slightly in 1943. P-39 evolved by turning into the P-63 and that didn't really turn out so well.
P-47 goes into combat about 6 months after the P-38 and evolves. A Dec 1943 P-47 with paddle blades and water injection is a different beast than a May 1943 P-47.
P51B goes into combat Dec 1943, about 14 months after the P-38 and the P-51 evolves all through 1944 and beyond.
So when are we evaluating the effectiveness of the P-38 and against what?
Dec 1941 through Sept/Oct 1942 the P-38 is not in combat (in more than a tine handful) and so is not as good at the P-39/40.
From Oct/Nov 1942 to May of 1943 the P-38 was the best fighter the USAAC had and for several months after as there weren't very many P-47s around.
Now we get into the cross overs. In the fall of 1943 the P-38s are increasingly P-38Hs with the Js showing up in Dec which is just about the time that most P-47s are fitted with water injection the paddle blades. So which was better? A P-38H or a non-water injected P-47 with a skinny propeller? It was Jan 1944 that saw the refit program to equipe existing P-47s with underwing drop tanks.
P-38s were almost always in short supply in 1942-43 and much of 1944.
The US Spitfire squadrons in the Med did not get MK IXs/XVIIIs until Aug 1943. Which was better in May of 1943? a P-38H or a Spitfire Vc?
At what altitude and how far from base?
We can go over the Axis aircraft the same way.
The A6M evolved quite bit from 1942 to 1944, the Ki-43 less so.
The two Japanese fighters had good range and were designed as bomber escorts for use over China.
In someways they were better than the P-39/P-40. Against P-38s?
P-38s didn't roll good but they were fast, climbed very well (best climbing US fighters?) and they accelerated very well, here is one attribute that changed a lot.
A P-38F at 250mph at sea level was computed to accelerate at 2.30ft/sec/sec which was the best US early fighter. The P-38L with twin 1600hp WEP engines could accelerate at 4.13ft/sec/sec. which is the best late war US fighter acceleration.
Experience/training, tactical situations, numbers can all make differences. But from Oct 1942 to the summer/early fall of 1943 the P-38 was the best fighter the US Army had.
It could do things the P-39 and P-40 could not and there even fewer P-47s available than P-38s and the P-47s didn't have either the range or the climb. Early P-47s climbed like a P-40E.
Steamed_Banana
Staff Sergeant
- 1,146
- Sep 29, 2025
Ki-43s shot down a fair number of Spit VIIIs, (in Burma and India) though the latter did have an advantage, it wasn't anything super dramatic.
The only way a A6M was dangerous to any 1945 Allied fighter was if they were silly enough to get into a slow turning fight, even then a Spit 14, Tempest, FW190 etc could simply break away and re attack at their choosing. A A6M could neither dictate a fight or run away.
Pretty sure it was a 6-1 advantage to the spit
Steamed_Banana
Staff Sergeant
- 1,146
- Sep 29, 2025
Not sure what point you are trying to make but plenty of P-38s got shot down by both Ki-43s and A6Ms in 1943
Steamed_Banana
Staff Sergeant
- 1,146
- Sep 29, 2025
Steamed_Banana
Staff Sergeant
- 1,146
- Sep 29, 2025
One thing that the operational histories show, pure speed alone was not enough to guarantee success in air combat. If it was, P-38s and F4Us and even Spit Vs would have always beaten A6Ms, but that was a long way from being true.
The highest scoring P47 pilot in the Pacific was shot down by a Ki43 simply because he got low and slow and turned infront of it, having to wait for opponents to make mistakes to be successful is no way proving its abilities
Steamed_Banana
Staff Sergeant
- 1,146
- Sep 29, 2025
Ki-43 went from:
Ki-43-I Two blade variable pitch prop, no armor no self sealing tanks, Ha 25 940 hp with pair of exhaust stacks, single speed supercharger, typically two 7.7mm machine guns (sometimes one 7.7mm and one 12.7mm) and a periscope gunsight. 308 mph. This was only gradually replaced from mid 1942.
Ki-43-II Three bladed prop, Ha 115 1,130 hp engine with two stage supercharger, pilot armor, two 12.7mm machine guns, reflector gunsight, larger canopy. 330 mph This version appeared in later 1942.
Ki-43-III as the -II but Ha 115-II 1,230 hp engine with water methanol and individual exhaust stacks, better self sealing tanks. 358 mph. This version appeared in 1944.
Steamed_Banana
Staff Sergeant
- 1,146
- Sep 29, 2025
