P-38 Lightning vs P-51 Mustang: Which was the Better Fighter?
- Thread starter Soundbreaker Welch?
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
syscom3
Pacific Historian
I would still want the P51 to go air-to-air with the fighters.
The P38 to go after bombers, and for ground attack missions.
And of course in the PTO, the P38 for any mission over water.
The P38 to go after bombers, and for ground attack missions.
And of course in the PTO, the P38 for any mission over water.
loomaluftwaffe
Tech Sergeant
- 1,840
- Dec 20, 2005
I think that the Mustang is overrated
lesofprimus
Brigadier General
Well, there are several Aces that would disagree with u, including Hub Zemke, who rated the -51 AND the -47 better than the -38, and he flew em all...JohnnyL said:
loomaluftwaffe
Tech Sergeant
- 1,840
- Dec 20, 2005
it would probably been his favorite planes cause he gets to paint more victory bars on the rudder, i read on another post about the P-38 being the favorite target
loomaluftwaffe
Tech Sergeant
- 1,840
- Dec 20, 2005
oh, mybad 
lesofprimus
Brigadier General
The location of his usage was not a consideration, it was about airplane performance and combat worthiness... Did the compressability issue only happen in the ETO???
No....
Was the poor visibility only an issue in the ETO???
No...
Was the easily identifiable profile and issue only in the ETO????
NO...
What are the pilots in the PTO supposed to compare the P-38 to???? The Warhawk??? The Aircobra???
Ur whole argument is hogwash, and it starts right here pal....
and another thing...
U need to spend some time here and read some of the older posts and educate urself pal, cause ur obviously just another opinioned P-38 fan cause it looked cool with its double booms....
No....
Was the poor visibility only an issue in the ETO???
No...
Was the easily identifiable profile and issue only in the ETO????
NO...
What are the pilots in the PTO supposed to compare the P-38 to???? The Warhawk??? The Aircobra???
Ur whole argument is hogwash, and it starts right here pal....
U think every Second John could do it??? How bout every cowboy with Captains bars??? There were a select few pilots whose mastery of the -38 was of such a high level that they could make it do what they wanted...
and another thing...
A lead rake??? More like a tombstone.... U have any idea how many pilots died holding that steering wheel in their hands as the plane passes 425 mph strainght down into the ground???
U need to spend some time here and read some of the older posts and educate urself pal, cause ur obviously just another opinioned P-38 fan cause it looked cool with its double booms....
I voted for the P-38 because I think overall it was a better aircraft and I think the P-51 was overated.
Now having said that. Both had qualities over the other that made either one better and the P-51 probably has the edge due to the fact that a novice pilot would be able to fly the P-51 easier and make things happen with it quicker than they could with a P-38.
The P-51D was better suited for what it was up against than the P-38 because it was easier to fly.
Now having said that. Both had qualities over the other that made either one better and the P-51 probably has the edge due to the fact that a novice pilot would be able to fly the P-51 easier and make things happen with it quicker than they could with a P-38.
The P-51D was better suited for what it was up against than the P-38 because it was easier to fly.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
Agree 200%
Tony LeVier and a former co-worker Joe Melicki (who flew the P-38 in the MTO) said the same thing. There was also folklore around Lockheed (In the Burbank days) that the P-38s top speed was actually much faster than advertised and was kept a but suppressed because it was so easy to slip the aircraft into a terminal coffin.lesofprimus said:
wmaxt
Staff Sergeant
There is a lot of truth there! It took an experienced pilot to get the most out of the P-38, then it was really remarkable. For a new 20 hr pilot the Mustang was great. While the P-38 actually did better in the ETO than the P-51, at least in the 8th the P-38s win/loss rate and aircraft return rates were both better than the P-51. The P-51s niche was high altitude escort in the ETO where team work enabled it to do the job. Together with large numbers of aircraft built in two factories, the more plentiful P-51 became the prime escort fighter simplifying maintenance, training, inventories and mission planning.
The really sad thing about the P-38 and compressability is that by retarding the throttles and going to flat pitch on the props it would stay just shy of the critical speed and remain in control of the pilot.
I read that Zemke's problem with the P-38 was its cold cockpit, not its performance. Preddy's diary "The P-38 flies wonderfully, The P-47 an excellent flying plane .... getting tired of the P-47, the P-51 is a good flying ship". Sidney Woods states the P-51 was just a super P-40 and not in the same class as the P-38. Sidney flew in both the ETO and the PTO and felt that he would have shot more German aircraft down if he had a P-38.
Of course those are opinions, everybody has them and they cover the whole range from hate to love.
wmaxt
The really sad thing about the P-38 and compressability is that by retarding the throttles and going to flat pitch on the props it would stay just shy of the critical speed and remain in control of the pilot.
I read that Zemke's problem with the P-38 was its cold cockpit, not its performance. Preddy's diary "The P-38 flies wonderfully, The P-47 an excellent flying plane .... getting tired of the P-47, the P-51 is a good flying ship". Sidney Woods states the P-51 was just a super P-40 and not in the same class as the P-38. Sidney flew in both the ETO and the PTO and felt that he would have shot more German aircraft down if he had a P-38.
Of course those are opinions, everybody has them and they cover the whole range from hate to love.
wmaxt
wmaxt said:
My thoughts exactly.
wmaxt
Staff Sergeant
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
The funny/sad thing about it all, and in spite of it actually being the better fighter with the better record, it was considered a failure in Europe by many people.
Just think what could have been if the P-38K had been produced by two or three factories starting in Spring '43 and better twin engine training!wmaxt
As a fighter the P-51 is better than the P-38, despite what the service record might tell you.(Remember the tally includes ground-targets)
By German fighter pilots the P-38 was considered easy prey, eventhough in most engagements the German pilots were more concerned about blowing bombers out of the sky. (That was afterall the goal of the intercept)
Adolf Galland:
P-38s were not difficult to handle in combat. Many, many P-38 pilots are angry with me about this statement, but it's true.
PS: This isn't an attempt to bash the P-38, cause it was a good overall airplane, which it proved in the PTO, just not a particularly good fighter, esp. not in the ETO. - Unless flown by an expert pilot ofcourse..
By German fighter pilots the P-38 was considered easy prey, eventhough in most engagements the German pilots were more concerned about blowing bombers out of the sky. (That was afterall the goal of the intercept)
Adolf Galland:
P-38s were not difficult to handle in combat. Many, many P-38 pilots are angry with me about this statement, but it's true.
PS: This isn't an attempt to bash the P-38, cause it was a good overall airplane, which it proved in the PTO, just not a particularly good fighter, esp. not in the ETO. - Unless flown by an expert pilot ofcourse..
Soren said:
Very true and good point, I said the samething earlier. Whether the P-51 or P-38 was better it was viewed by USAF brass that the P-51 was better. Perception is often as real or more important or just as relevant than reality is.
The P-38 were not looked upon by German pilots as a difficult opponent, they did think that the P-38 was inferior plane. German pilots respected the P-51 and feared it when it filled German airspace.
wmaxt
Staff Sergeant
Soren said:
The P-38 had a 3:1 kill ratio in the 8th AF, and in air to air encounters 4:1 If 4 out of five encounters with P-38s resulted in a downed German aircraft that was a very missguided consideration!
Soren said:
In the Book "Top Guns" authors Joe Foss and Mathew Brennan (both respected for their honesty) at a Pilots convention with Galland present were regaled with this story: "When I shook hands with German General Adolf Galland, I said did you ever shoot down a P-38?" "He said Ya, I shoot down eight." I asked him if any of his pilots told him about a fight in a long nosed Fw-190 in late '44, against a P-38 that wound up in a huge pit with water and two crashed P-38s in the bottom. I described what had happened and the strikes I got on the long nosed 190, then told him when I ran low on gas I had to leave, the german pilot waggled his wings and flew off in the other direction. I was using my hands and looking down as I talked and wasn't watching General Galland. When I looked up, he was pale white.
He said, "You son of a bit**! You dom neer keel me dat day!"
This was in front of a group of pilots and confirmed for the book.
Soren said:
I respect your opinion. The record just doesn't support it. The P-51 had certain advantages in numbers, training, logistics and timing that allowed the AAF in Europe to dodge the political bullet - of why escorts weren't used sooner, while simplifying the mission profiles and planning.
BTW: In the 8th (the P-51 was primarily escort in the other commands to) the only aircraft with a high percentage of G/A missions was the P-38 from late April on. Around D-Day the others had some G/A missions but not nearly to the extent the P-38 did, also "Targets of opportunity" on the way home, including even cows, were much safer than dedicated G/A missions where the targets were picked because of their strategic value - and defended accordingly. One last thing the escort/target of opportunity missions also had the air-to-air encounters where those instances were much more rare on G/A missions.
Someone made the comment that the P-38 was alone in the pacific thats not correct.
Date yr - P-38 - P-47 - P-51
Dec '43 - 356 -- 391 -- 100
Apr '44 -- 414 -- 941 -- 293
Jul '44 --- 652 - 1,116 - 202
Dec '44 -- 694 - 895 --- 681
Mar '45 -- 895 - 887 --- 1,149
Jul '45 -- 1,156 - 1.226 - 1,557
As you can see they weren't even the majority class a fighter. The P-51 was low until late '44 but again had the plum scoring assignment of escort over Japan. The P-38s missions were still about 60/40-50/50 G/A/Escort missions for higher risk less opportunities.
My intent is not so much to declair the P-38 the very best ever, just to make sure its record and accomplishments are truly taken into account judge it from there!
wmaxt
wmaxt
Staff Sergeant
Hunter368 said:
The ETO tally originally included ground targets the adjusted target count did not. The numbers I showed above were posted by Jank from the AAF Statistical Digest as were the losses I showed above but from the "Combat Losses of the 8th AF" page the P-38 shot down 3 German aircraft for each P-38 lost (it was 4:1 in A/A combat) by the 8th AF by contrast the P-51 the ratio was 2:1. The P-38 came home more than twice as often as the P-51. Do you really want to fly the P-51?
Your comment on revelency is astute, for more insite into this matter I recommend the book by Warren Bodie in it he has a discussion of the reasons of his (and it was his decision) decision to go with the Mustang. It was not based on performance, in Doolittle's own words "The P-38 was ahead of all but one or two fighters in WWII". Production quantities were the biggest single reason.
Your statement about fearing the P-51 because it filled their airspace is true. 4 out of 5 German aircraft that met a P-38 thought the P-38 was not easy, only the lucky German pilots got to walk home.
wmaxt
syscom3
Pacific Historian
wmaxt said:
By the time the P51 was escorting B29's over Japan in the spring of 1945, there hardly was a Japanese airforce around.
The P38 was the premier fighter of the PTO, simply because range was the most important factor.
In Europe, I dont think it was as good as some of you are making it out to be.
By the way, those P51 losses in the ETO, where they due to "all causes" or just air-to-air?
wmaxt said:
If you look carefully at my post, I did not choose either plane as being better. They were both good planes for different choices. Then your comment about 4 out of 5 German planes....... Again I am just related what I know best and that is German pilots opinions on the matter. I will leave all the technical information to the numbers wizards around here (and there is a lot of them), they can produce those numbers all they want and better than I. But, like Erich on the different matters, I will tell you what German pilot's opinions are, that I know. They lived it, they fought the war, they know best. Remember the old saying those who cannot do....teach and use numbers and books to lie (not saying you are lying). Stats can lie as I am sure you know, believe what actually happened.
Having all the numbers and stats to back you up does you no good when you are at 30,000 and you see BF-109 flying at you. Then it comes down to just the pilots and the planes, no BS, no stats, no paper just man machine vs man machine. German testimony states that they considered P-38 not fit for operations in ETO and they were "easy" meat. Know if you think you know better than the actual pilots who flew vs the P-38 and accumulated at times scores of kills doing it.....well ok. Did P-38 shoot German planes? yes
I just state what I know and that is German testimony on the subject. I do not enter into any private opinions or crusade to "try" and prove one plane is the best of all time. That would be a waste of my time. We know you are a huge fan of the P-38 and that is fine. But what are you trying to prove? Yes the P-38 was a good plane, can't you leave it at that. Just seems you are trying your best to prove something to everyone for no reason. P-38 was good, so was the P-51.
Like you said the P-51 was chosen for a reason, cost. Ok I would ask you this when the P-38L cost $114,000 and the P-51 cost $54,000 (prices posted early on in thread) could the USA still produce as many P-38's as P-51's when considering cost and longer manufacturing times of the P-38? Remember how big a factor the USAF numbers in ETO played in their favor, what if they had half as many P-38 as they did P-51 in the air. What would of happened then?
I am not trying to argue with you over it b/c I don't get involved in trying to prove one plane better then the other. Both planes were good bottom line. Would you sooner trust your life based of real life facts or stats??? In this case facts and stats say different things in a sense. Your stats suggest the P-38 has better performance (you notice I did not say better) than the P-51. But the P-51 was picked to do the job instead of the P-38. The P-51, by many top USAF pilots who flew both planes, was picked to be the better fighter and for that matter picked as the best "all around fighter in WW2". I know I know we know that the P-51 was not the best but so many "experts" think it was.
Then you add to the fact that German pilots who fought vs both planes think that the P-51 was the much better plane also. You have to start putting some stock into their experience and less stock into stats. Like Dan said when USAF ace Hub Zemke (and other USAF aces) and German aces and pilots who fought or flew both planes say that the P-51 was better than the P-38. You, in my mind, have to believe those men, they are the experts. Stats lie all the time, numbers lie all the time. Believe the men who flew the planes and who fought vs the planes, they know better. I will end it there.
I hope you get some value from my post and do not just discount it. Food for thought.
