MOST OVERRATED AIRCRAFT OF WWII

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

For anybody who wants to really explore some of the P-38 engine problems I suggest this magazine/article.

TMV1N2

It is a 7-8page article (my paper copy of the magazine is in storage) and has the same author as "Vees for Victory" using, in part, information NOT in the book.

I would say that the P-38 was of strategic importance during the war, It might be, for the US, the fighter plane (not bomber or transport) that allowed the US to switch from a defensive posture to an offensive posture. So in that sense it was of strategic importance. Not that it was a fighter escort for long range strategic bombing.
I am not saying it was a better fighter or escort than the P-51B/D but it was earlier in timing and it was better at air to air combat than the P-39 and P-40. It was often tasked with flying top cover for those aircraft it areas where ranges allowed all three to be used. It allowed offensive operations in areas that were beyond the range of P-39/P-40.
This time period also meant the P-38 Pilots were often up against Axis forces that had not suffered as much attrition as Pilots in 1944 faced. Granted Axis pilots had better planes in 1944/45 than P-38s faced in late 1942 and 43.

With P-47s not going into action until April of 1943 the P-38 was the premier American fighter for most 1942 and early 1943 and was the fighter plane that often decided what actions could take-place and where. AS in allowing the US to under take the Torch Landings (or at least have a fighter that stood a chance of equaling the German fighters in NA. It helped cover the Sicilian landings from bases in North Africa. It's long range missions in the Pacific and the India/China/southwest asia areas also allowed the projection of power well beyond what the P-39/P-40 and early P-47 could do.
 

There was not a single; P-38 involved in the Torch landings...not one. It was all carrier planes. Sicily was carrier planes and cover from Malta (all Spits).Its contribution in NA was limited. P-40s, Spits and Hurricames were the main ones.
 
I dont accept the argument that the P38 was junk because the P51 was better, for a long time it wasnt there.
 
LisaM said:
There was not a single; P-38 involved in the Torch landings...not one. It was all carrier planes. Sicily was carrier planes and cover from Malta (all Spits).Its contribution in NA was limited. P-40s, Spits and Hurricames were the main ones.
Click to expand...

Very true on first sentence. , however, on the 8th of November 42, the first day of the landings ground personnel of the 1st fighter group go ashore.
Nov 14th sees the 1st and 14th fighter groups transfer from England to NA.
Nov 16th sees the 14th fighter group declared operational.
Nov 18th sees the first mission and on the 21st P-38s escort A-20s on a raid to Bizerte, five enemy planes claimed for 5 P-38s lost.
in Dec the 82nd Fighter group (80 aircraft) flies from England to North Africa, claiming 2 Ju 88s on the way.

The importance of the P-38 to the Torch landings, or perhaps it is better wording to say to "Operation Torch" was that it gave the American forces a fighter plane, available in numbers (three fighter groups in 4-6 weeks) capable of fighting the Germans on a one for one basis. Reinforcements were routinely flown from England and it is almost 1200 miles from Plymouth to Casablanca in a straight line (over the tip of Breast and over Spain east of Portugal).
Trying to reinforce or bring 200+ more P-40s and /or P-39s to North Africa in 2-6 weeks after the first landings instead of using P-38s would be quite trick. The USS Ranger (the largest US Carrier in the Atlantic at the time) could carry 70+ P-40s at a time and did Bring P-40 replacements to NA in Feb of 1943. But took well over a week one way. Ranger used it's regular carrier planes to cover the actual landings.
AS for Sicily. The Three P-38 fighter groups in NA had been doing ground attack missions on Sicilian targets before the landings and continue after the invasion as bomber escorts and ground attack.
Granted 3 fighter groups is not a large number of aircraft in overall scheme of things but they were there and doing things other aircraft could not do. You can only base so many planes on Malta and the P40s and P-39s didn't have the range to fly missions from North African bases over Sicily so for the Americans it was P-38s or nothing (reverse lend-lease Beaufighters?) over Sicily until they could establish air fields on Sicily.

Sorry, this attempt to discredit the P-38 doesn't seem to hold up either. The P-38 offering strategic options to operation planners that the two other main US Army fighters did not at the time.
 
LisaM said:
There was not a single; P-38 involved in the Torch landings...not one. It was all carrier planes. Sicily was carrier planes and cover from Malta (all Spits).Its contribution in NA was limited. P-40s, Spits and Hurricames were the main ones.
Click to expand...
It seems to me that you're simply arguing for the sake of an argument.

Operation Torch does not refer only to the landing, it encompases the entire invasion: 8th of November through the 16th of November, 1942.

Now, as for the P-38F fighters that PARTICIPATED in Opertion Torch, they were transferred from England in late October to Tarfouri. These were elements of the 8th AF being transferred to the 12th AF.

One of the first incidents of a P-38 being downed by enemy action that come to mind, would be on 27 November, when Lt. Elliot (48 FS, 14 FG) received damage to his aircraft during strafing attacks against Axis targets in Kasserine pass. Because of the late hour, failing engine and no navigational aids, he (and his wingman) set down in a dry lake bed and hitched a ride back to base. Sadly, Lt. Elliot was killed a few days later (5 December) during an encounter by Bf109s of Jg51.

There's plenty of other incidents up or down the invasion/post-invasion timeline, but the fact remains, P-38s were in North Africa during Operation Torch.
 
The P-38 was operational in ETO before being yanked to support North Africa campaign and operational in December 1943 in MTO getting its first victories in December 1942. The P-38 carried the major escort load in the MTO until the introduction, in short timeframe, of first the P-47D, then the P-51B/C in April 1944. The P-38 after June 1944 was relegated to Penetration and Withdrawal escort for long range penetrations to Austria, Czechoslovakia and Germany where the P-51B/D took over.

The P-38 of the 1st FG got first air VC of 8th AF on 8-14-42, moved to Algeria in November 1942, thence to Tunisia, Sardinia and Italy. The 14th started Ops in Algeria in October 1942, operated as a two squadron FG until withdrawn to re-organize with the 3rd FS and back in ops in May 1943. The 82nd FG was combat operational in December 1942 based in Algeria, thence to Tunesia after Sicily campaign, then Italy.

While the comment about TORCH, above, are strictly true as the landings, fighting and surrender of Vichy forces was over quickly. The P-38s were on the way in November after the surrender and setting up early in the Tunisia ops.

Between August 1942 and October 1942, two squadrons arrive at Guadalcanal and have first combat encounter at the end of December, 1942.
 



The P-38s were not operational during 'Torch'. This has nothing to do with the aircraft's capabilities in any case.

They were operational shortly thereafter and did their bit. There were never many of them compared to other types but they could and did do things the others could not.

Cheers

Steve
 
The problem with the P-38s in North Africa, is that they had a steep learning curve. The first ones deployed were the F model, soon to be replaced by the P-38G. Before this, there really hadn't been a "baptism of fire".

The Axis, particularly the Luftwaffe, operated at lower altitudes (below 12,000 feet) in this theater, which saw the P-38 at a disadvantage. When the Luftwaffe realized this, they developed a tactic where they would "bait" the Lightnings down and engage them. The Allied response to this, was to "split" the P-38 flights, part of the group would go down to engage and the other half would remain as top cover to prevent a "bounce". This of tactic of course, was learned the hard way.

So this tends to paint the P-38 as a failure to some people, however any aircraft will have strong and weak points.
 

Here's another account showing the strong and weak points of the P-38 - From Wackypedia...

"After 347 sorties with no enemy contact, the 1st, 14th and 82nd Fighter Groups were transferred to the 12th Air Force in North Africa as part of the force being built up for Operation Torch. On 19 November 1942, Lightnings escorted a group of B-17 Flying Fortress bombers on a raid over Tunis. On 5 April 1943, 26 P-38Fs of the 82nd claimed 31 enemy aircraft destroyed, helping to establish air superiority in the area, and earning it the German nickname "der Gabelschwanz Teufel" – the Fork-Tailed Devil. The P-38 remained active in the Mediterranean for the rest of the war. It was in this theatre that the P-38 suffered its heaviest losses in the air. On 25 August 1943, 13 P-38s were shot down in a single sortie by Jagdgeschwader 53 Bf 109s without achieving a single kill. On 2 September 10 P-38s were shot down, in return for a single kill, the 67-victory ace Franz Schiess (who was also the leading "Lightning" killer in the Luftwaffe with 17 destroyed). Kurt Bühligen, third highest scoring German pilot on the Western front with 112 victories, recalled later: "The P-38 fighter (and the B-24) were easy to burn. Once in Africa we were six and met eight P-38s and shot down seven. One sees a great distance in Africa and our observers and flak people called in sightings and we could get altitude first and they were low and slow." General der Jagdflieger Adolf Galland was unimpressed with the P-38, declaring, "it had similar shortcomings in combat to our Bf 110, our fighters were clearly superior to it."

So like any other fighter of the war, the P-38 had it's triumphs and tragedies. Again I'll point out that this was a state of the art aircraft when it was first developed and no more than a handful was ever planned to be built. It revealed compressibility and gave a prelude to challenges to be faced for later trans and super sonic aircraft. It could be clearly shown that Lockheed DID LISTEN to those in the field and did recognize the limitations of the P-38F and G. Some issues were addressed on the P-38H but as earlier stated, when the P-38J and L came along, the P-38 could compete with any front line fighter of the period. And I'll repeat myself, the fact that the P-38J made it's appearance a little more than a year and a half after the war started showed the commitment to improve this fighter. Unfortunately in the ETO the P-51B came along and changed everything.

I'll mention again my old friend, the late Ltc. Mike Alba who flew P-38s and P-51s with the 338FS, 55th FG. He pointed out they were both great planes but in some cases preferred the P-38.

Alba Michael Capt

Over-rated? Total nonsense!!!
 
Last edited:
I would note that the P-39 was available in less numbers on the North Western African front and even the P-40 was available at times in fewer numbers than the P-38 on the North Western African Front. And that is what matters to US planner,not how many British fighters were available. Even for allied planners it was how many planes could be gotten into the area in the shortest amount of time. They tried flying P-39s but lost 15 or more interned in Portugal.78 P-40Fs were flown off the escort carriers Chenango and Archer. 2 are lost and 17 suffer damage on landing. The remaining 30 or so P-40s are delivered on D+5 and 4 crack up.

You have units assigned to the Invasion force on paper and you have the ones that showed up over a period of time.

See this website for the tables of organization at the times in question.

The 489th Bombardment Squadron on Corsica

Nobody knew how long French resistance would last or how fast the Germans would react.
And if the Germans were shooting down green pilots in P-38s I wouldn't hold out a lot of hope for Green pilots in P-39s and P-40s.
 
The P-38 seems to have been roughly 3 different airplanes.

The early models in combat are the E,F and G, and here it is important to note how fast the different models came along and how long it took to deploy American aircraft in general in order to get feed back from combat.
The P-38 E was first delivered in Oct of 1941 and 210 were built.
The F (with Maneuver flap) was coming off the production line in March of 1942 and 527 are built. A small group of F-4 recon planes arrive in Australia in April 42. 25 P-38Es are sent to Alaska at the end of May 1942, June and July see the crossing of the Atlantic by P-38s by air.
June 42 sees the production line switch from the F to the G model. 1082 G models will be built.
August 9th 1942 see the first victory's by P-38s. Those E models in Alaska shoot down 2 Japanese flying boats. Not a lot of worthwhile combat information from that encounter.
August also sees the first P-38s show up on Guadalcanal and the end of the month sees the 1st fighter group declared "operational" in England.
Sept 1942 sees the P-38s in England gaining 'experience' by flying fighter sweeps over France and the low countries but the Luftwaffe refuses to come out and play. 14th of Sept is when the plans are made to transfer 4 P-38 groups to operation Torch. Please note that this is before a single air to air combat takes place in Europe. Plans change and only 3 groups actual go.

We now get to the 2nd and 3rd P-38s.
March 43, sees the P-38H replace the G on the production lines deliveries start in April, The Tunisian campaign is winding down.
Here is were things get a bit interesting. The Lockheed model number for the P-38H is model 422-81-20 while the model number for the P-38J is model 422-81-14. Why does the later plane have an earlier model number? Could it be that Lockheed was fully aware of the inter-cooler problem and was working on a solution? Could it be that the H was interim model to be produced while the engine installation on the J was sorted out, most especially from the parts/components supply stand point?
Please remember that at this time Generals in the Pacific, South East Asia, the Mediterranean and in England were screaming for every P-38 they could get their hands on.
The J went into production in Sept of 1943, Before the P-38 groups that had gone to the Mediterranean came back to England to support the Bomber campaign.
For a period of time H and J models were intermingled on the production lines. Lockheed being greedy and using up old parts or the inter-cooler supplier (outside contractor) unable to deliver the required number of units?
Please remember that contracts could be modified, adjusted or canceled with new ones written to supersede old ones.
US army was responsible for the delivery of engines, props, turbos, turbo-controllers and other parts (generators?) to the Lockheed factory.
The J is in production (planning/drawing started much earlier) the same month the first production P-51B shows up in England and roughly at the time when P-47s start getting 108 gallon drop tanks in numbers.

more later.
 
"US army was responsible for the delivery of engines, props, turbos, turbo-controllers and other parts (generators?) to the Lockheed factory."

Also known as "GFE," Government Furnished Equipment and ALL aircraft manufactured during WW2 had many critical components supplied as "GFE".
 
Rau was concerned about seeing inexperienced pilots perform no maneuvers after the bounce call on the radio, he supposed this was because they were struggling with the cockpit workload involved with transitioning from cruise to combat (and there can be little question that he was correct on this score), and he was correct to write the memo. His concerns were valid. What is wrong with the memo, or wrong with talking about it on these forums?

It seems like the P-38 was a good aeroplane with a few great characteristics, and like every single other plane it had its flaws that were gradually corrected if possible as the war continued. I wouldn't call it overrated, but I would also never say it was "the most strategically important American fighter of World War II." (I realize it wasn't actually said here, someone cribbed it from a webpage)

 
I don't think there is anything wrong with talking abut it but one has to remember that no one man's opinion/report is the 100% gospel.

His concerns were certainly valid. Wither his solutions were the only ones may be subject to debate.

The US put a fair amount of effort into multi engine training, however for many types of aircraft it wasn't enough (and the training varied during the war or didn't stay constant) and training on small/low powered twins that didn't have all the systems of larger aircraft (fixed pitch props on the trainer, no supercharger so no boost gauges or boost management) isn't a substitute for at least some minimum number of training hours in the actual combat type. All too often P-38 "training" consisted of "class room" (even if under the wing of the aircraft) and a few rides crammed in behind the pilot and trying to peer over his shoulder/s while certain techniques were demonstrated before the new pilot was turned loose on his own. This might be OK if the new pilot in question was actually a combat veteran in another type of fighter. It probably was not satisfactory training for pilots coming from training programs to active squadrons.
 
Yes, I must confess I was not too familiar with the training received by pilots in the P-38 pipeline. I have now read a little about it in this thread and in the other Colonel Rau memo thread I found on here. I can see how their training would have contributed to the issues Rau wrote about.
 
There's nothing wrong with talking about his memo, as long as one knows to put it into perspective and also knows a little bit about flying a twin engine aircraft. While his condemnation of the P-38 got much attention, on the other side of the world the same aircraft wrestled air superiority away from the Japanese. The 5th AF had inexperienced pilots as well, were the 8th AF inexperienced pilots even more inexperienced???
Agree...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

T
Early records of UK preparation for WWII
Replies
3
Views
697
yulzari
Aircraft in Battle of Păuliș? Hungary vs Romania 1944
Replies
0
Views
424
CHen10
WWI Aces Flying WWII Planes
Replies
15
Views
936
tyrodtom
T
M
Mission 760 WWII
Replies
1
Views
552
Snautzer01
G
Ditching qualities of WW2 Aircraft
Replies
14
Views
2K
ThomasP
T
Menu
Log in
Register