Some opinions from P-38F pilots' experiences in the Med (from Shores' works):
It was a poor aircraft at altitude in the fighter versus fighter role, and was most uncomfortable for the pilot due to the extreme cold. However in my opinion the P-38 could out-perform any single-engined fighter at 10,000 feet or below, particularly in a right turn. Until we learned to fly the line-abreast and four-ship finger formation, the Germans had a distinct advantage. Being the first Americans in combat, basically the combat tactical formations had to be developed. The formations that we evolved withstood the test by learning the hard way – experience ...
The Bf 109G and the Focke-Wulf were the only two single-engined fighters I encountered, and were in my opinion the best single-engined airplanes in the war. However, the P-38 could easily outmanoeuvre them at low altitude, particularly in a turn to the right. The German fighter pilots were extremely aggressive and well-trained, they were superior to any of the American forces in the beginning.
Colonel Ervin C. Ethell
I flew the Lightning in the Tunisian campaign. As to the aircraft I would have preferred to fly, I think it was not as good as the Spitfire in fighting the Bf 109 and FW 190. I say this because the Luftwaffe in Tunisia was very experienced and highly qualified. ... The 109s and 190s would always be above us when we came into the target area and would dive through us firing as they came. The P-38 was difficult to whip into a fast turn and the guys with the biggest muscles in their legs could do the job best. Once you were able to turn into the 109s, they would roll over and go straight down and the P-38 could not follow because of the compressibility problem on the horizontal stabilizer and elevator. This meant the 109 and 190 were home free. Now the Spitfire and Kittyhawk could whip around into a turn very fast; being single-engined fighters, they were very manoeuvrable and could outturn the 109 and 190. Also they could dive straight down and pull out of the dive whenever they chose. The P-38 didn't have anything it could really do much better than the German fighters.
Once you were into a turn, you could hold your own at most altitudes. The speed was just about touch and go, firepower was excellent, and you never minded meeting them head-on, but performance-wise, the P-38 didn't have any one attribute that was outstanding.
Captain Ralph J. Watson
At the beginning of the campaign I preferred the Spitfire, although I had only three hours in the bird. I realized later the advantages of the P-38 which I flew on operations. These advantages were the longer range, twin-engined capability, and the real asset – firepower. ...
The 109 was the outstanding fighter in their inventory. The 20mm cannon gave them a great advantage at long range. Our P-38 cannon seldom worked (at least in my squadron). The turning rate was greater for the 109, so we did not try to turn with them. In a dive or a zoom we had a slight advantage. They almost always had the advantage of altitude.
Lieutenant Jack G. Walker
Of the fighter types available to the Allies I preferred to fly the P-38 Lightning. For the missions we were flying in support of long-range bombing raids and fighter sweeps across the Mediterranean, we needed range, speed, and reliability. The P-38 being a twin-engined aircraft with considerable range gave us the vehicle we needed. I flew the Spitfire some, and although it was ideal for short-range combat in the immediate vicinity of the airfield and was able to turn rapidly, it was too limited in range for our use.
The Kittyhawk was just about outdated by the time we were utilizing it in Tunisia. It, too, was limited in range and did not manoeuvre any better than the P-38 in turns. It did not have the acceleration and climb capabilities. ...
I considered the Bf 109 and FW 190 approximately equal to our own aircraft insofar as turn capability and armament, but we had greater range as well as higher concentration of firepower in a small area, i.e. four .50in plus one 20mm all firing straight forward in the nose of the P-38. I also flew against the Macchi 200 and we seemed to have a considerable advantage over those aircraft. I would compare that aircraft and that series of aircraft with our P-40.
Captain Ernest K. Osher
It was a poor aircraft at altitude in the fighter versus fighter role, and was most uncomfortable for the pilot due to the extreme cold. However in my opinion the P-38 could out-perform any single-engined fighter at 10,000 feet or below, particularly in a right turn. Until we learned to fly the line-abreast and four-ship finger formation, the Germans had a distinct advantage. Being the first Americans in combat, basically the combat tactical formations had to be developed. The formations that we evolved withstood the test by learning the hard way – experience ...
The Bf 109G and the Focke-Wulf were the only two single-engined fighters I encountered, and were in my opinion the best single-engined airplanes in the war. However, the P-38 could easily outmanoeuvre them at low altitude, particularly in a turn to the right. The German fighter pilots were extremely aggressive and well-trained, they were superior to any of the American forces in the beginning.
Colonel Ervin C. Ethell
I flew the Lightning in the Tunisian campaign. As to the aircraft I would have preferred to fly, I think it was not as good as the Spitfire in fighting the Bf 109 and FW 190. I say this because the Luftwaffe in Tunisia was very experienced and highly qualified. ... The 109s and 190s would always be above us when we came into the target area and would dive through us firing as they came. The P-38 was difficult to whip into a fast turn and the guys with the biggest muscles in their legs could do the job best. Once you were able to turn into the 109s, they would roll over and go straight down and the P-38 could not follow because of the compressibility problem on the horizontal stabilizer and elevator. This meant the 109 and 190 were home free. Now the Spitfire and Kittyhawk could whip around into a turn very fast; being single-engined fighters, they were very manoeuvrable and could outturn the 109 and 190. Also they could dive straight down and pull out of the dive whenever they chose. The P-38 didn't have anything it could really do much better than the German fighters.
Once you were into a turn, you could hold your own at most altitudes. The speed was just about touch and go, firepower was excellent, and you never minded meeting them head-on, but performance-wise, the P-38 didn't have any one attribute that was outstanding.
Captain Ralph J. Watson
At the beginning of the campaign I preferred the Spitfire, although I had only three hours in the bird. I realized later the advantages of the P-38 which I flew on operations. These advantages were the longer range, twin-engined capability, and the real asset – firepower. ...
The 109 was the outstanding fighter in their inventory. The 20mm cannon gave them a great advantage at long range. Our P-38 cannon seldom worked (at least in my squadron). The turning rate was greater for the 109, so we did not try to turn with them. In a dive or a zoom we had a slight advantage. They almost always had the advantage of altitude.
Lieutenant Jack G. Walker
Of the fighter types available to the Allies I preferred to fly the P-38 Lightning. For the missions we were flying in support of long-range bombing raids and fighter sweeps across the Mediterranean, we needed range, speed, and reliability. The P-38 being a twin-engined aircraft with considerable range gave us the vehicle we needed. I flew the Spitfire some, and although it was ideal for short-range combat in the immediate vicinity of the airfield and was able to turn rapidly, it was too limited in range for our use.
The Kittyhawk was just about outdated by the time we were utilizing it in Tunisia. It, too, was limited in range and did not manoeuvre any better than the P-38 in turns. It did not have the acceleration and climb capabilities. ...
I considered the Bf 109 and FW 190 approximately equal to our own aircraft insofar as turn capability and armament, but we had greater range as well as higher concentration of firepower in a small area, i.e. four .50in plus one 20mm all firing straight forward in the nose of the P-38. I also flew against the Macchi 200 and we seemed to have a considerable advantage over those aircraft. I would compare that aircraft and that series of aircraft with our P-40.
Captain Ernest K. Osher
Last edited: