Interceptor vs Escort.

[vanir]

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
???

 

[wmaxt]

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
???

The first escorts were P-38s starting very late in October '43. The first P-51B/Cs started the last week in December '43 (354th FG 9th AF). P-38s were the dominant escort untill the D-Day preperations began in mid May '44. the P-51 reached 50% in late June '44. then the P-51s did the majority of the escort to the end of the war. P-47D-25s ( 4 groups the 356th, 353th, 78th, 56th) worked with the P-51s and the 474FG P-38s till the end of the war. The P-51 was never the only long range escort. After June '44 the P-38s went to the 9th AF and ground attack duties except for the 474th FG.

This was only in the ETO The P-38 was the prime escort everywhere else from early '43 until April '45 when long range P-47s/P-51s were escorting B-29s (P-38s also escorted B-29 but is rarely mentioned).

Politicaly if the admission that P-38 were available and able to escort 8th AF bombers in early/mid '43 were made, people like H. Arnold, C. Spatz and others would have been fired for sacrificing so many airmen unnecisarily. The official line was that there was no long range escort available until the P-51 arrived. The excuse they used was the problems the first P-38s had Frost bit pilots and engine problems plus the 8th never supported the P-38s properly, poor training, bad gas, small drop tanks (the ETO only used the 165gal drop tanks limiting the range some). In the end these were not nearly as bad as the AAF made it seem.

The bomber mix went from primarily +/- 600 B-17E/Fs in '43 to 1,000+ B-17Gs and B-24s in '45 covered by 175 P-38s in '43 to 1,000+ P-51/P-47/P-38s in '45. P-47s/Spitfires Always escorted from the channel to the western border of Germany where the shorter range aircraft had to return to base.

wmaxt

 

[Erich]

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

 

[Glider]

'The 353rd fg with the Jug claimed they invented ground strafing'.

I wonder what those RAF flights over occupied France and other occupied countries were for from 1941 on. Must have been navigation tests.

 

[wmaxt]

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

True enough, in the ETO the P-38 flew 130,000sorties the P-51 214,000 and the P-47 427,000. The Jugs on the whole outnumbered the P-51s by a factor of two the whole time. However, in reference to escorts, In the 8th AF though it was different, Until late June '44 the P-38 outnumbered the P-51. Escort wise in June '44 there were 4 FGs of P-38s in the 8th, 8 P-51 FGs and 4 P-47 groups. After July '44 the P-38s was phased into the 9th AF except for the 474th, while the 4FGs of P-47s remained escorting. The P-47 had such a high sortie rate for several reasons.
1. The short range leg from Britian to the German border (and back) was Always P-47 territory because of the short range of the earlier models and often Two sorties were made. These flights were not contested much by the Germans. It wasn't until the P-47-25s became available in the summer of '44 that they began long range escort.
2. ground attack is a much shorter mission and the majority of P-47s
were 9th AF and used for ground attack.
3. There were twice as many of them.

The Jug was an excellent aircraft and was very effective and I did not intentionaly lessen it's impact on the war, I was just answering a question about escorting when before June '44 the P-38 was the prime long range escort and like the Jug never gets credit for that.

wmaxt

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

The P-38 was used more in the N. Afrika/MTO area of operations than in the ETO anyhow.

 

[wmaxt]

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]

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.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

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.

Don't think so.....

I think it's been posted and PROVEN here before that the worse the P-38 did in the ETO was a 1.1 to 1 kill ratio. More liberal claims show a 4 to 1 kill ratio.

Reference: http://yarchive.net/mil/p38.html

 

[cheddar cheese]

I seriously doubt that claim.

 

[ricardo]

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!!

In the Pacific, it was a different story.... the P-38s were punishing japanese aircraft with almost impunity. They were very successful in the PTO.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

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!!

And that's not proof - AVIATION MAGAZINE? Who wrote the article? Go the the sources shown here - historians who tracked both Allied and Axis records. While I agree the P-38s performance in the ETO was less than stellar, your comments are wrong. See below for an accurate and honest assessment of the P-38.....

The Lightning had a mediocre record at best in the ETO. It destroyed 1,771 enemy aircraft for the loss of 1,758 P-38s, almost an even ratio, and its loss rate of 1.35% in the theater was by far the highest of any USAAF fighter, including the P-40 and P-39! For comparison, here are the ETO/MTO kill ratios and loss rates of the Mustang, Spitfire (USAAF Spits only), and Lightning:

Kill ratio: P-51, 1.96 to 1; Spitfire, 1.34 to 1; P-38, 1.01 to 1.

Loss rate: Spitfire 0.66%; P-51, 1.18%; P-38, 1.35%.

The P-38 had three major problems in the ETO:

1. Its Allison engines suffered severely reduced performance at high altitude, making it unsuitable for long-range escort work.

2. Its cockpit heating system was inadequate for the low temperatures encountered over Northern Europe in winter, often leaving pilots with frostbite.

3. With one engine out, the P-38 was a sitting duck for Luftwaffe fighters, meaning that the twin-engined configuration was a handicap, not a help.

"The extrememly low temperatures encountered at altitudes above 20,000 ft was the primary cause of engine trouble. At -50 degrees, lubricating oil became sluggish and the full application of full power, particularly in a climb, could cause piston rod bearings to break up with dire consequences. Above 22,000 ft the Allison engines would also begin to throw oil...Turbo-supercharger regulators also gave trouble, eventually traced to moisture from the vapor trail, gathering behind the engine exhaust stubs, getting into the balance lines and freezing.

"[On Febrary 4, 1944] nearly half the P-38s had been forced to abort when once again extreme cold forced a spate of engine failures. Losses were often high in such circumstances for the Luftwaffe were quick to exploit the situation when a P-38 was observed to have a feathered propeller. Because the likelihood of these troubles increased with altitude, Lightnings did not of choice operate above 30,000 ft. In consequence Me 109 top cover, which was usually around the 35,000 ft mark, had been repeatedly bouncing the P-38s on nearly every mission."

- from The Mighty Eighth by Roger Freeman

And to be fair I believe much of this is directed to earlier J models and the losses were for all losses, including those shot down by ground fire and those lost due to non-combat mishaps. Do the math - I think the air-to-air kill ratio might of come out to be 4 to 1!

Late L models would of proved a lot more effective.......

 

[ricardo]

There are so many sources telling their "truth", but no one of us can be 100% sure of which source is correct.

Do I have to believe that some sources claim that Kill ratios were 4:1 in favor of the P-38 against german aircraft?

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.

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".

Does that number (1,771) includes german aircraft destroyed on the ground?

I'm asking because we all know that USAAF used to count enemy aircraft destroyed on the ground as a confirmed "victory".

 

[wmaxt]

Flyboy is right,

The engine problems was often due to improper cruise tecniques they used a higher rpm setting and low boost caused low coolant temps. Also fuel was bad, to low octain for turbo charging. Lastly the early planes had intercooler problems limiting power available. With Proper tecniques Art Heiden flew over 300hrs in combat without a problem. Cocpit heat was roughly the same as outside. The support by the 8th was terrible. The J-15 on fixed the performance issues and the J-25/Ls fixed the heat (mostly).

Accoeding to the AAF 8th combat losses page only 451 P-38s failed to return to base (the remaining 1,307 were unfit for further flight using numbers that have been normaly accepted) remember the P-38 was also used extensively for ground attack too. 1,771 E/A - 451= 3.92:1 P-38.

Whatever else is said it must be remembered the bomber loss rate from fighters dropped from 5/6% to 1/2% at a time the escorts were outnumbered by 10:1 odds by more experianced German pilots, they still got the job done
wmaxt

 

[FLYBOYJ]

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.....

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.....

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!

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. 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.....

Does that number (1,771) includes German aircraft destroyed on the ground?

No - Air to Air Kills!

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!

 

[FLYBOYJ]

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.....

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.....

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!

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.....

Does that number (1,771) includes German aircraft destroyed on the ground?

No - Air to Air Kills!

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]

Okay, I see that you feel very confident of your sources. Well, you have your sources and I have my sources. Next step? we are going to compare... there must be at least one agreement between your sources and my sources. I don't have the sources that I'm talking about at hand, but I have it at home. I'm going to look for it and then I'll write here the numbers that I read.

See you in a couple of hours.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Agree!

 

[ricardo]

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.

I understand that combat losses does not include accidents... only aircraft lost due to enemy action.

P-51:
Sorties = 213,873
bomb tonnage = 5,668
enemy aircraft destroyed on air = 4,950
enemy aircraft destroyed on ground = 4,218
combat losses = 2,520
loss rate per sortie = 1.2%

P-47:
Sorties = 423,435
bomb tonnage = 113,913
enemy aircraft destroyed on air = 3,082
enemy aircraft destroyed on ground = 3,202
combat losses = 3,077
loss rate per sortie = 0.7%

Now, send me your comments.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

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.

I believe everything but the air-to-air kills, there should be one in front of that seven based on the previously posted comments from Roger Freeman, author of "The Mighty Eight." I believe its a typo error. I got family coming over tonight, but I am going to find some of my books on this subject as well as internet sources. I've seen those numbers before and it shows the P-38 had slightly more air-to-air kills than losses.