Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
vanir said:Whoa, makes perfect sense in every fashion but I had no idea the P38 was used as bomber escort.
From late 1943 you say? Anybody know a typical bomber flight configuration through the 8th's campaign?
Say, B-25's and I dunno, B-17F's in 1942
B-17G's and P51B's in 1943
B-17G's and P38's in late 1943
B-17G's and P51D's in 1944 onwards
???
Erich said:Gents I think we need to remember that in late 43 and early 44 in the 8th AF the Jug was the mainstay of the 8th AF fighter escorts and in fact there is more Jug combat footage than P-38 ETO footage available. Several 8th AF groups were never even equipped with the P-38. The 353rd fg with the Jug claimed they invented ground strafing. Of course that can be contended by the 9th AF 354th fg with the P-51 in December 43 who were blowing out Bf 110G's at a tremendous rate as well as Fw 190's and Bf 109G's, and then secondary hitting the deck and slaughtering everything in site. The 56th fg of the 8th flying the Jug all through the war would also argue this point with again high scoring claims.....
back in a few days
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:The P-38 was used more in the N. Afrika/MTO area of operations than in the ETO anyhow.
wmaxt said:DerAdlerIstGelandet said:The P-38 was used more in the N. Afrika/MTO area of operations than in the ETO anyhow.
No doubt. The P-38 was in the ETO when it was needed most and did the jobs it was asked to do effectively. The timing and effectiveness of the P-38 in the ETO have been ignored and missrepresented for far to long. I guess thats true to other aircraft too.
wmaxt
ricardo said:wmaxt said:DerAdlerIstGelandet said:The P-38 was used more in the N. Afrika/MTO area of operations than in the ETO anyhow.
No doubt. The P-38 was in the ETO when it was needed most and did the jobs it was asked to do effectively. The timing and effectiveness of the P-38 in the ETO have been ignored and missrepresented for far to long. I guess thats true to other aircraft too.
wmaxt
I think the P-38s enjoyed their "Indian Summer" during the North African Campaign. In the ETO it was a different story. The USAAF lost more P-38s than shot down enemies by P-38s.
ricardo said:Proof? well.... according to AVIATION magazine (Best WW2 fighter), the P-38 was in #7 position in the ETO (behind the P-47(#1), Fw190(#2), Spitfire(#3), P-51(#4), Yak-3 Yak-9(#5) and Bf109(#6). Statistics clearly shows that they lost more than twice of their P-38s than enemy aircraft shot down by P-38s. That's not success!!
ricardo said:There are so many sources telling their "truth", but no one of us can be 100% sure of which source is correct.
ricardo said:Do I have to believe that some sources claim that Kill ratios were 4:1 in favor of the P-38 against German aircraft?
ricardo said:But if another source claims that actually kill ratios were 2:1 in favor of German aircraft against P-38 then that's totally false.
ricardo said:On the other hand.... according to your trusty source the P-38s destroyed 1,771 German aircraft for the loss of 1,758 of their own. It brings me to the point to wonder how many of those 1,771 German aircraft were single engine fighters and how many were "easy picks".
ricardo said:Does that number (1,771) includes German aircraft destroyed on the ground?
ricardo said:I'm asking because we all know that USAAF used to count enemy aircraft destroyed on the ground as a confirmed "victory".
FLYBOYJ said:ricardo said:There are so many sources telling their "truth", but no one of us can be 100% sure of which source is correct.
That's right, and that's why you substantiate all claims, USAAF and Luftwaffe.....
ricardo said:Do I have to believe that some sources claim that Kill ratios were 4:1 in favor of the P-38 against German aircraft?
Yes - the Proven numbers show it - proven numbers substantiated from US AND Luftwaffle sources.....
ricardo said:But if another source claims that actually kill ratios were 2:1 in favor of German aircraft against P-38 then that's totally false.
Its false if it states 2 to 1 - do the math!
ricardo said:On the other hand.... according to your trusty source the P-38s destroyed 1,771 German aircraft for the loss of 1,758 of their own. It brings me to the point to wonder how many of those 1,771 German aircraft were single engine fighters and how many were "easy picks".
As stated, those losses INCLUDE ground fire and non-combat losses. A twin engine recip aircraft is natrually going to have a higher accident rate than single engine aircraft - that situation exists today in general aviation with pilots way more experienced than WW2 P-38 pilots. Easy picks? Give me a break! How many of the P-38 losses were "easy picks? A kill is a kill and by the way he Luftwaffe would purposely "gang up" on crippled P-38s so that blows you "easy picks" theory out of the water. This is documented by both USAAF and Luftwaffle sources.....
ricardo said:Does that number (1,771) includes German aircraft destroyed on the ground?
No - Air to Air Kills!
ricardo said:I'm asking because we all know that USAAF used to count enemy aircraft destroyed on the ground as a confirmed "victory".
And well aware of that - The USAAF did that in the ETO only - again those are air-to-air kills. If you want to count ground kills it will probably go to 8 to 1!
ricardo said:Okay, I'm at home right now, and guess what? I found the info. As a fact, it is not AVIATION... actually it is FLIGHT JOURNAL (august 2003). I go to page #36 at the bottom.
P-38:
Sorties = 129,820
bomb tonnage = 1,771
enemy aircraft destroyed on air = 749
enemy aircraft destroyed on ground = 1,951
combat losses = 1,758
loss rate per sortie = 1.7%
The 1,771 enemy aircraft shot down that you were talking about correspond to bomb tonnage dropped by the P-38s on the ETO.