How good (or bad) was the P-38, really?

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

More Comments by P-38 pilots

Lt Col Mark Hubbard CO 20 FG said \"The P38 will out turn any enemy fighter in the air up to 20k .....when the enemy attacks we out turn him..\"

Major Herbert Johnson CO 77FS 20 FG \" We can definitely turn inside any German aircraft...Due to the beautiful stall characteristics of the P38.... If jumped o the deck, the best evasive manouvre is a tight level turn. you can turn much tighter without the danger of spinning in..........\

Captain Maurice McLary 55Fs/20 FG wrote \" anyone flying a P38 should have no fear of any enemy aircraft -even dog-fighting a single-engined fighter at a decent altitude. I consider anything below 20,000 a decent altitude for a P38 \"

Captain Merle B Nichols 79 FS/20 FG wrote \"We, with our type of aircraft like them below 25,000ft and if possible at 20,000 ft\"

Above from VIII Fighter Command At War \"Long Reach\" Official training document. (see Osprey reprint).

Col Oliver Taylor, commander of the 14th​ fighter group in Italy during the first half of 1944 had the following to say about the P-38 his group flew: (as recounted in "P-38 Lightning" by Jeff Ethell)

Bad Points:

Ease of Handling: It required at least twice as much flying time, perhaps more to achieve the level of skill which was necessary to realize the full capability of he ship compared with a single engine fighter. Only after about 150 to 200 hours could a man hope to be an expert but when he reached that point he could be unbeatable in a 38. (Italics added by me)

Vertical Dives: The 38 could not be controlled in a vertical dive if allowed to build up speed, and that happened awfully damned fast, with speed rapidly building up thereafter until something came apart. The (Axis) knew this well.

Distinctive silhouette: The (Axis), on seeing a lone plane off in the distance would generally leave it be unless he had absolutely nothing else in prospect at the moment. On seeing the unique P-38 silhouette, however, there would be no doubt at all and after it he would go knowing that it would not be a waste of time.

Good Points:

Stability: The plane could be turned into a tight turn, essentially right at the stall point, without snapping out or dropping. The counter rotating props eliminated any torque problems when passing through a range of speeds…..

Maneuverability: Generally we found that the 38 could out-maneuvered anything, friend or foe, between 18,000 and 31,000 feet (5490-9450 meters). Below 18,000 it was sort of a toss-up except that very near the ground we could run (the Axis) right into the dirt, since he apparently couldn't get quite such a fast pull-out response as we could.

Range: a 500 mile (800km) distant target was easily reached allowing for 30 to 45 minutes for possible diversions….

Single Engine Flight: The 38 was just as controllable turning into as away from a dead engine.

Engine Configuration: Aside from having another engine to bring you home in case one is lost, the two-engine arrangement provided exceptionally good visibility forward for the pilot and provided protection from flanking enemy fire , especially during low-level strafing runs.

Rugged Construction: The 38 could take a phenomenal amount of beating up and still make it home. One was hit by an ME-109, one wing of the 109 having slashed along the inside of the right boom, carrying away the inside cooler and slicing the horizontal stabilizer/elevator assembly in two. The 109 lost its wing and crashed. The 38 flew 300 miles (480km) on one engine to belly land …at base. (the pilot was Lt Thomas W Smith, 37th​ squadron; the mission took place on Jan 16, 1944. Something similar happen to Jack Ilfrey a pilot in the 20th​ Group on May 24, 1944)

Ease of Maintenance: …The general feeling seemed to be that both the P-38 and the Allison engines were very easy to maintain…..

Some German opinions, however I have no source for these so any corrections or sources would be appreciated.

Horst Petzschler of JG 3:
" ... The P-38 had its positive attributes which we respected. At higher altitudes it was faster and could out-turn both the Focke-Wulf 190 and the Messerschmitt 109. It was faster in a dive, but this was probably due to it being a heavier aircraft. Our instructors stressed that American pilots were well-trained and very aggressive ... Veteran pilots told us to exploit its weaknesses like the blind spot presented by its odd configuration below and behind its tail, which allowed us to sneak up on it. It was observed that when the P-38 went into an extremely steep dive at high speed it could not recover ... its biggest drawback was that it could be easily identified from long distances. It looked like our own Fw 189 Owl. Many Lightnings were left in their aluminum finish and this made them easily identifiable, but we figured this was done to increase their speed.
Leutnant Anton 'Toni' Hafner was one of the veteran pilots I flew with, scoring 204 aerial victories before he was killed in October 1944. Toni said that the P-38 was a hard fighter to combat and was equal to the Me 109 in maneuverability ... "

Willi Reschke of JG 301:
"... On 7 January 1945 ... we ran into three P-38 Lightnings east of Herzberg. We knew this type of escort fighter well from our days in Austria, but we had not yet encountered them in the Berlin area. There followed a brief dogfight and I hit one of the P-38s with a burst from my guns. The enemy fighter dived away immediately and disappeared. As the other P-38s were still in front we were unable to pursue the machine I had fired at. Actually this ended the engagement, for all we could do is admire the P-38s rate of climb. We simply couldn't keep up in our Fw 109 A-8s ..."

In May 1944, Horst Petzschler was shot down by a USAAF P-38 after a dramatic 15-minute chase from 24,000 feet down to the deck. (I make note of this only because of the circumstances). When Petzschler attacked a group B-17s, a trio of Lightnings latched onto his tail. He tried to escape using the best known advice; a steep high-speed dive. However, the P-38s stayed in hot pursuit all the way down, close enough to see their guns blazing as he looked back. After Petzschler pulled out of the dive and leveled off, the P-38s gradually gained on him despite the fact that his Daimler-Benz engine was working fine and "purring like a kitten" as he put it. As the tracers flashed past his cockpit, Petzschler's Me 109 was hit by gunfire in the wings and coolant system. His altitude was too low to bail out, so he crash-landed north of Berlin.

More to follow if I have time.

Eagledad

Some more information from German point of view

'The Luftwaffe fighter force.The view from the cockpit' by Adolf Galland et al, edited by david C. Isby ISBN 1-85367-327-7

under chapter 30 'GAF opinions of allied aircraft'

Interigation of Generalleutnant Galland,Generalfeldmarschel Milch,Oberstleutnant Bar,Generalmajor Hitschhold, and Leutnant Neuman at kaufbeuren Germany 2nd september 1945.

'The Lightning (P38) This aircraft was very fast and had a good rate of climb below 20,000 feet. Visibility backwards , downwards and over the engines was very poor.It was considered a good strafer due to its armament ,visibilty,speed and silent motors.Its main drawback were its vulnerability and lack of maneuverability.On the deck, it could out-run the me.109 and fw190.German fighters would always attack the P38s in preference to other allied escort fighters.'

'The thunderbolt (P47) This aircraft was exceptionally fast in a dive, but could be outdistanced at the start of the dive by the Me109.It would absorb many cannon hits and still fly.'

'The mustang (P51) This was the best American fighter because of its long range,climb and dive characteristics, fire power and maneuverability.It was very vulnerbale to cannon fire.It would break up during very violent dives and maneuvers.'

'The warhawk(P40) This aircraft was inferior as a modern fighter.The models with only 4x50 cal MGs were considered to be too lightly armed.It was slow and could not dive or climb.Its best quality was that it could outturn the me109 and fw190 below 12,000 feet.'

Great info Eagledad! I think was the main point to drive home;

"Bad Points:

Ease of Handling: It required at least twice as much flying time, perhaps more to achieve the level of skill which was necessary to realize the full capability of he ship compared with a single engine fighter. Only after about 150 to 200 hours could a man hope to be an expert but when he reached that point he could be unbeatable in a 38. (Italics added by me)"

Further comments

Hub Zemeke was CO of 56th​ FG and later the 474th​ FG CO. He flew the P-38. P-47 and P-51 in combat. His comments follow below

"Though this aircraft had some virtues, for me it was the poorest of the three US Army Air Corp fighters in the European Theater. The fact that the extreme cold at altitude affected its performance hardly endeared it to me. ….. The second factor that detracted from the combat capability of the P-38nwasthat it was limited to a maximum diving speed of 375mph indicated. ….. Now the above statements should not lead one to conclude that the P-38 had no good features, it did! As a gun platform it was as steady as a shooting stand. …."

Above from Mustang A Documentary History by Jeff Ethell pg 70.

Zemeke's favorite air to air fighter aircraft of the 3 according to the book was the P-51.

Robin Olds wrote

The P-38 was a wonderful fighter in many respects ….. It was fast, easy to fly … and would turn with the best of them, providing you had an exceedingly strong right arm, It was honest in most respects, giving ample stall warning under all flight conditions and easy to recover if you ignored it."

479th​ Fighter Group 'Riddle's Raiders' by John Stanaway pg 66.

Yet, as much as Old's loved the P-38 (being the first fighter he fought in), he loved the P-51 even more.

Finally, William Leverette, a P-38 ace with 11 victories (including claims for 7 Ju 87's in one mission) was not overly fond of the P-38, because he found it tiring to fly!

P-38 Lighting Aces of the ETO/MTO John Stanaway, pg 4 (Description of painting on cover)

Eagledad

Flyboy

Agree with you. It puts Art Heiden's comments on twin engine training and fighter pilot training for the P-38 in general in perspective. I believe both the 367th FG and 370th FG trained stateside in aircraft that were not P-38's. (367th on P-39's and 370th on P-47's) That is a pretty tough way for a pilot to build 250 hrs in a P-38 before combat.

NTGray said:

I have some questions about the P-38, and I'm inviting comments.

I've always considered the Lightning a super cool craft, both because of the way it looks and performs and because it was one of the earliest products of Kelly Johnson's team at Lockheed which would become known as the Skunk Works. It was the first combat airplane to achieve 400 mph in level flight. And even though it came out before the P-40 and the P-39, both of those planes ceased production in 1944, but the Lightning was good enough to be produced throughout the entire war.

But only fairly recently have I been reading much about its mediocre reputation in the European theater of operations. Seems that a lot of American and British pilots and generals didn't think highly of it, and some German pilots considered it an "easy kill" even though others counted it a worthy and dangerous foe. I know it was popular and successful in the Pacific theater, but now I'm wondering if any of that success was because the Japanese flying forces had already been gravely weakened by 1943 through loss of good pilots, even before the Great Marianas Turkey Shoot. (Perhaps the Turkey Shoot was the result of the deterioration of Japanese air power, rather than the cause of it, as has often been suggested?)

Anyway, how good (or bad) was the P-38, really?

Click to expand...

Just note that the report states the Fw190 being compared with here is de-rated (i.e boost lowered to ~1.3ata) - so once BMW got their engines sorted out the Fw190 would be about 15>20mph faster than the one tested here.

I think the biggest problem with the P38 is that by the time it was sorted out it didn't do anything the P51 and P47 were already doing, and they were established fighters.

PAT303 said:

I think the biggest problem with the P38 is that by the time it was sorted out it didn't do anything the P51 and P47 were already doing, and they were established fighters.

Click to expand...

Not necessarily true - the P-38's issues were continually addressed and improved. Later model P-38Js and Ls were great performers and in some areas out performed both the P-51 and P-47. It was more expensive to operate and required more pilot training but remained the premier AAF fighter in the PTO until the the Mustang started to arrive in numbers later in the war.

I thought Snowygrouch was going to beat me to it. HIs book makes clear (I've read it cover to cover) that the original P-38 models had a really poor intercooler design that was finally improved on the P-38J. In addition, it really needed the equivalent of the Fw 190's Kommandogerät as there were too many controls to be adjusted to properly control the engines, props and turbochargers.

FLYBOYJ said:

Not necessarily true - the P-38's issues were continually addressed and improved. Later model P-38Js and Ls were great performers and in some areas out performed both the P-51 and P-47. It was more expensive to operate and required more pilot training but remained the premier AAF fighter in the PTO until the the Mustang started to arrive in numbers later in the war.

Click to expand...

I agree with the basic premise. Warts and all, it was the 'best all round fighter' deployed by AAF through late 1943. The issues encountered in ETO were largely absent in Pacific and MTO based on lower altitude mission profile for most escort escort. Kelly Johnson put his finger on the two most important operational deficiencies - namely the intercooler design through H and the continued issues through J-15 which limited horsepower delivery to 1000+HP until solved - and they were inter-related with engine detonation, oil cooling and turbo.. The second issue that was introduced and never fully solved was the compressibility/controllability issues of the wing and wing/fuselage design. The Dive flap introduced by J-25 along with boosted ailerons finally introduced the 'reality to the potential' in late 1944 but only enabled full control in the .6M dive. It could not keep up with P-51/47 or Fw 190/Bf 109 in a dive.

Aeroweanie said:

I thought Snowygrouch was going to beat me to it. HIs book makes clear (I've read it cover to cover) that the original P-38 models had a really poor intercooler design that was finally improved on the P-38J. In addition, it really needed the equivalent of the Fw 190's Kommandogerät as there were too many controls to be adjusted to properly control the engines, props and turbochargers.

Click to expand...

I`d just like to clarify, there was nothing at all wrong with the original intercooler design. Its just that if you use the leading edge of the wing as your intercooler, you
leave yourself only an incredibly expensive and difficult route to increase its cooling capacity. Since this inevitably happened as everyones engines got progressively more powerful as time went, on, it was more a case than accidentally designed-in-obsolescence, than anything else. If you have the coolers in pods or just a traditional heat exchanger of some sort, its always a lot easier to make it deeper, or change the duct geometry or improve the exchanger fin density etc. It was just an extremely inflexible design, with no upgrade path - but it would have been fine at the engine outputs originally envisaged.

According the Vees for Victory the XP-38 had V-1710-11/15 engines that were rated at 1150hp for take-off and 1000hp at 25,000ft (misprint?)
The YP-38s though the P-38Es had V-1710-27/29s rated at 1150hp for take-off and 1150hp at 25,000ft. if the 1000hp at 25,000ft is correct then the problem of too small an intercooler may be starting to show up or perhaps Lockheed did allow for a bit of growth.
The P-38F & G had 1325hp engines for both take-off and at 25,000ft (officially) and here is where the not enough intercooling starts to show up. The engines may not have actually been able to reach the "official" rated power at altitude.
The P-38 H introduced the 1425hp engines and the intercooler really was inadequate.
AS noted by others the J model saw the change in intercooler design. Allowing for a 35-45% increase in power (and airflow requirements) may have required a very special crystal ball.
P-38 was being designed as 100/100 octane fuel was just being introduced. Believing that in just 2-3 years fuel would be available that would support a 30% increase in power output from the same sized engines turning the same rpm might have seemed a bit too far fetched.

1943 P-38 had plenty of faults (intercoolers, low mach number, cockpit heat, high maintenance, high cost etc) but it did have range. 1943 P-47 was probably a better, more survivable weapon with it's own faults (climb, turn) but it did not have range.

A word about 'European/British fuel'. It was the same fuel as used in every other allied aircraft. It was not drilled in Europe or England, it came across the Atlantic in tankers. It was used by the other three US turbocharged aircraft. Nothing wrong with the fuel.

P-38s in the ETO had a claim/loss ratio of 1:1. P-47s 4:1 and P-51s about the same. When groups traded in their Lightnings for Mustangs their kill/loss went up by four times instantly. But never mind, it was the fifth-best American fighter. It cost more than the others and did no better. Not a terrible flop, not too bad at all, just not really up to the myth.

As far as range is concerned, that's true. But the P-38 had a six-week advantage in deployment over the P-51B, during which time few long-range missions were carried out by the Eighth., recovering from second Schweinfurt. The impression you get of the P-38 holding the line on its own for a long time is wrong, check it.

Somewhere I have a spreadsheet comparing the group performances during Big Week. I think it's a fair comparison during a time three groups had P-38s and had time to work on the training and bugs. I'll post it later after I make some sense out of it.

In late 1942 and early 1943 the P-38 was the best US fighter. In early 1943 to mid 1943 the F4U and P-47 began to show up in enough numbers to challenge it and/or push it to 3rd place. Late 1943 P-38s (in service, not at the factory) were the ones with problems in Europe and P-47s were struggling with range. Late 1943 is when the F6Fs show up. Very late/early 1944 has the P-38Js (or not first model Js) show up with some problems fixed but it also is when the P-51Bs show up, P-47s are also getting better (new props, water injection, better/more drop tanks) spring/summer of 1944 has the later P-38Js showing up with even more of the problems solved but with the P-51Ds just barely appearing.
The F6F pretty much stagnated for quite a while, it also took a while for any big changes to happen to the F4U (like for the F4U-4 to show up).

While ranking of the top 5 didn't change from week to week there could have been quite a bit of shuffling for the bottom 4 places after the P-51s showed up depending on which month and which models you are comparing.

P-39 Expert said:

1943 P-38 had plenty of faults (intercoolers, low mach number, cockpit heat, high maintenance, high cost etc) but it did have range. 1943 P-47 was probably a better, more survivable weapon with it's own faults (climb, turn) but it did not have range.

Click to expand...

The P-47C and D had more combat radius than any P-39 model.

The P-47 and P-38 both out-turned P-39 above 25K (probably lower). In case you were unaware (highly probable) HP Available over HP Required is crucial at altitude - both the P-38 and P-47 were at full HP at 25K. The P-39 not so much. Additionally the combined high wing loading and low power at altitude made the difference between stall and top speed much lower than P-47 and P-38.

The low P-38 Critical Mach number was only important (vs P-39 or say Fw 190) in a dive, as the P-38 was a lot faster than any P-39 at all altitudes. The lack of heating was important flaw for P-38 - but irrelevant for P-39 because it didn't operate at P-38 ceilings.

Summary - for AAF Combat Doctrine, the P-39 served zero role other than short range low/medium altitude interceptor - or close air support. The P-40 was better at CAS and the P-39 never served the AAF as 'Interceptor' save for short period at Greenland. The 37mm, in the rare times it fired twice in succession, was effective against light armor. The guys I knew that flew the P-400 and -39 preferred the P-400 20mm.

In early1943 the AAF made a decision that for battlefield attack, the P-51 (A-36, P-51A, P-51B) were tasked and the P-38/F4 were tasked to perform Recon. The decision to replace the P-39 and P-40 in those roles was made in 1943 and both were scheduled for full retirement in early 1944.

K5083 said:

A word about 'European/British fuel'. It was the same fuel as used in every other allied aircraft. It was not drilled in Europe or England, it came across the Atlantic in tankers. It was used by the other three US turbocharged aircraft. Nothing wrong with the fuel.

P-38s in the ETO had a claim/loss ratio of 1:1. P-47s 4:1 and P-51s about the same. When groups traded in their Lightnings for Mustangs their kill/loss went up by four times instantly. But never mind, it was the fifth-best American fighter. It cost more than the others and did no better. Not a terrible flop, not too bad at all, just not really up to the myth.

Click to expand...

I did a lot of research on my first book on this specific topic and refined it for second book. I looked at ALL VIII FC MACRs as well as 8th AF VCB, USAF 85, and Olynyks data in order to mark transition from aircraft type (i.e 4th FG from Spitfire through 4/1/43, P-47 through Big Week and 2-27-44, P-51 thereafter).

The MACR's could ever be 100% definitive as several 'last seen' comments vs 'shot don by enemy fighters' exist - reducing the judgment to a.) was enemy aircraft likely encountered, or b.) no enemy encounter viewed in the area. Post VE Day pilot interviews atatched to MACRS cleared some up but in general I put these in "other (weather/mechanical) or 'lost in aerial combat. There was high correlation in Miller's Fighter Units and Pilots of the 8th AF running details.

That said the air to air VC results for VIII FC were:
P-38 266 VC, 101 Losses 2.6:1
P-47 1567 VC, 214 Losses 7.3:1
P-51 3341 VC, 324 Losses 10.3:1

I'm working on MTO and SWP/CBI where the source data is nowhere close to ETO - But the P-38 air to air ratio was significantly better. Given that F6F and F4U were excellent fighters - the P-38 was unmatched for LR escort and air dominance in SWP as land based fighter.

Recall that as good as the F4U and F6F were, they couldn't perform even as well as pre-P-38J in ETO escort role - just didn't have even the combat radius of the P-47.

K5083 said:

As far as range is concerned, that's true. But the P-38 had a six-week advantage in deployment over the P-51B, during which time few long-range missions were carried out by the Eighth., recovering from second Schweinfurt. The impression you get of the P-38 holding the line on its own for a long time is wrong, check it.

Somewhere I have a spreadsheet comparing the group performances during Big Week. I think it's a fair comparison during a time three groups had P-38s and had time to work on the training and bugs. I'll post it later after I make some sense out of it.

Click to expand...

the 364th wasn't operational until March 2nd, so only two P-38 FG, two P-51B (354/357) but 363rd got into ops on 2-24. In all nine -47 (incl. 9th AF) were in Big Week Full time.

I have old numbers for 2-20 through 2-25. Source VIII VCB and USAF 85. Both sources agree, including the error noted below.
P-38 8 VC
P-47 78 VC
P-51 64.5

The 0.5 credited to 354FG Bob Stephens on 24 Feb was theoretically shared with 20th FG, but full VC (Morris) was awarded to 20th FG on the 24th. So, 1.5 VC over 1.0 Me 110 was recorded. Error in reconciliation process between 8th and 9th AF.