wuzak
Captain
Heard that claim on a video by Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles, though he seems to be quoting the Lockheed-Martin site.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I was recently told with utter incredulity that someone has been going around claiming that the P-38 captured 90% of all PR photos taken over WW2 europe.
Probably some young contract web developer hired to do the website with no clue how to access Lockheed's archives or even that such things exist. With all the mergers and reshuffles, could be a lot of those archives misplaced or discarded.I was recently told with utter incredulity that someone has been going around claiming that the P-38 captured 90% of all PR photos taken over WW2 europe.
Some digging found this was from Wikipedia, who in turn cite the Lockheed Martin website, who in turn (apparently not having used their own archives at all?)
cite four books for their official P-38 webpage.
Difficult to explain in short answer. Politics, Bureaucracies and incompetence played a role. Inexperience played a role. Lack of foresight played a role.I don't know why it is hard for P-38 fans to accept the fact that, though the P-38 thrived in the Pacific and in North Africa/Mediterranean, it did not thrive with the 8th Air Force over Western Europe. They also seem to resent that it just so happens that the P-51B was perfectly suited for the escort role the P-38H&J weren't.
It's also true that the commanders in the 8th Air Force could have taken measures to make both the P-38 and the P-47 more effective escorts earlier. The P-47 could have had droptanks earlier. General Kenney managed to get good droptanks to his Thunderbolts in New Guinea well before the P-47s in England got them. It also doesn't seem that the 8th Air Force had their "A-team" working to solve the engine performance and cabin heating problems that marred early P-38 operations in the theater.
From Wiki;Does anyone have more info on the P-38L, I think it was, which was modified into a superstrafer? The 20mm cannon was replaced by four .50-cal. MGs, bringing the total in the nose to eight. It also carried a Douglas gun pod under each wing.
There is a photo or two of this modification, but I've not come across any details on the project.
I dont know, but in order to clear up the P-38 PR percentage question, I`m trying to trawl some archives to find some post war "Historical Review" documents, which do exist for some other notable operational areas of the war. If they dont exist, it comes down to adding up mission stats from monthly reports, which would be months of work...and such recordsOut of curiosity, which plane was the Allied PR champ? I'm thinking Spitfire although perhaps the Mosquito might hold the title.
Joe - I'm shocked but suspect that WiKi is wrong. From all the operations details I have reviewed, for sure not even the J-25 went operational in VIII FC through September 1944 when 479th converted to P-51s. Robin remembers that one J-25 was on the base in mid September for familiarization but he stated that he didn't fly it (that one). IIRC The 474th flew the L in November 1944.From Wiki;
The P-38L was the most numerous variant of the Lightning, with 3,923 built, 113 by Consolidated-Vultee in their Nashville plant. It entered service with the USAAF in June 1944, in time to support the Allied invasion of France on D-Day. Lockheed production of the Lightning was distinguished by a suffix consisting of a production block number followed by "LO," for example "P-38L-1-LO", while Consolidated-Vultee production was distinguished by a block number followed by "VN," for example "P-38L-5-VN."
The P-38L was the first Lightning fitted with zero-length rocket launchers. Seven high velocity aircraft rockets (HVARs) on pylons beneath each wing, and later, five rockets on each wing on "Christmas tree" launch racks which added 1,365 lb (619 kg) to the aircraft. The P-38L also had strengthened stores pylons to allow carriage of 2,000 lb (900 kg) bombs or 300 US gal (1,100 l) drop tanks.
Were any engines other than Allison ever fitted to the P-38? I wonder what a pair of Rolls-Royce/Packard Merlins would have been like performance wise compared to the Allison's.
See this thread...Were any engines other than Allison ever fitted to the P-38? I wonder what a pair of Rolls-Royce/Packard Merlins would have been like performance wise compared to the Allison's.
I remember your comments about Robin with regards to this a few months ago.Joe - I'm shocked but suspect that WiKi is wrong. From all the operations details I have reviewed, for sure not even the J-25 went operational in VIII FC through September 1944 when 479th converted to P-51s. Robin remembers that one J-25 was on the base in mid September for familiarization but he stated that he didn't fly it (that one). IIRC The 474th flew the L in November 1944.
Calum, as always great information. It's quite obvious that this claim by LM is not true, my guess is some mis-informed intern in their PA department somewhere in Georgia or Fort Worth put this statement out. Now could it be said that the P-38 captured 90% of all USAAF PR photos taken over WW2 Europe?I was recently told with utter incredulity that someone has been going around claiming that the P-38 captured 90% of all PR photos taken over WW2 europe.
Some digging found this was from Wikipedia, who in turn cite the Lockheed Martin website, who in turn (apparently not having used their own archives at all?)
cite thre books and a LIFE Magazine article for their official P-38 webpage.
The P-38: When Lightning Strikes
A new American fighter, the P-38 Lightning, peeled down from the skies over Iceland on August14, 1942. True to its name, it was akin to a force of nature: fast, unforeseen, and immensely powerful.www.lockheedmartin.com
I began to have very serious doubts about the scholarly integrity of the webpage within the first few sentences:
"Within six months, as the P-38 showed its versatility in North Africa, a lone hysterical German pilot surrendered to soldiers at an Allied camp near Tunisia, pointing up to the sky and repeating one phrase—"der Gableschwanz Teufl"—over and over."
(this is total nonsense, as has been thoroughly proven to be so on this very forum).
Anyway... this webpage also says:
"P-38 ... as a reconnaissance aircraft, obtained 90 percent of the aerial film captured over Europe"
I found this statistically immensely unlikely, even if the F5 had five cameras fitted.
So I emailed the National Collection of Aerial Photography (incidentally here in Scotland, amazingly), who gave me the following information today:
"That amounts to 22,372 missions of which 18805 are RAF-flown, and 3567 are USAAF-flown. We do not have a frame count available for each sortie, so these figures can only give an indication of the split in effort...This includes missions flown from the UK, Allied-occupied Europe, Italy, Gibraltar and North Africa."
They have 5.5million frames, but state some were shredded, so as he says, these figures are only useful as a relative split. not absolute numbers.
Therefore, even if EVERY single USAAF mission used the P-38, and if ALL of those were the F5 with five cameras, and if ALL the RAF PR aircraft only had ONE camera,
thats still less than the RAF total number of frames taken (naturally this assumes for this very broad point that all aircraft took about the same number of
frames per mission, per camera, which I`m sure isnt true as you`ll have all sorts of different mission parameters).
For Lockheed`s website to be correct, we not only have to skew the data as above, but we then still have to somehow multiply the P-38 images taken
by NINE times.
I like many, strongly suspect that the truth is that the P-38 took 90% of all images over Europe as taken by the USAAF.
I also asked the National Collection of Aerial Photography about the USAAF split in PR aircraft used, who replied:
"At a superficial level, most US-flown sorties in Europe would have employed the F-4/F-5 variant of the P-38"
Lockheed cite the following sources for their webpage, sadly I do not have all of these so cannot say if indeed any of them
actually say 90% of ALL PR missions over Europe or just USAAF ? Can anyone come up with anything further.
Certainly from the response I had from NCAP, the Lockheed claim seems statistically very unlikely.
(These are the sources that Lockheed Martin used to write their webpage, of which I`ve only read Stanaways book)
View attachment 636422
No, except as noted for the XP-49.Were any engines other than Allison ever fitted to the P-38? I wonder what a pair of Rolls-Royce/Packard Merlins would have been like performance wise compared to the Allison's.
That would be doubtful even perhaps possible?Calum, as always great information. It's quite obvious that this claim by LM is not true, my guess is some mis-informed intern in their PA department somewhere in Georgia or Fort Worth put this statement out. Now could it be said that the P-38 captured 90% of all USAAF PR photos taken over WW2 Europe?
Calum, as always great information. It's quite obvious that this claim by LM is not true, my guess is some mis-informed intern in their PA department somewhere in Georgia or Fort Worth put this statement out. Now could it be said that the P-38 captured 90% of all USAAF PR photos taken over WW2 Europe?
Difficult to say, apart from the dedicated unarmed PR spitfires there were many converted fighters performing a similar role to the Mustangs which generally had a camera too. By October 1942 there were 5 Mosquito PR squadrons. What is impossible to believe is that the total effort by all RAF and USA types that werent P-38s amounted to just 10% of the total. It isnt supported by the history of RAF Medmenham (later Allied Central Interpretation Unit (ACIU)) RAF Medmenham - WikipediaOut of curiosity, which plane was the Allied PR champ? I'm thinking Spitfire although perhaps the Mosquito might hold the title.
Especially with the maneuvering flaps and boosted ailerons of the later P-38Ls, the P-38 was a very maneuverable plane in the hands of an expert. An expert could use differential thrust and could induce torque on either side. The workload of flying the plane in an ordinary fashion was hard enough for a low-hour pilot though, and the vast majority of pilots couldn't take advantage of the unique aspects of the plane.I remember a post on here somewhere where a P38 pilot did that in a mock dogfight with a Spitfire and almost flew into the ground.