P-38 Lightning vs P-51 Mustang: Which was the Better Fighter?

[FLYBOYJ]

Cheif, you're learning!

 

[Hunter368]

I think it sums up this way as I said in my earlier post.

The P-51 was a better for the younger pilots but once you had top notch pilot who could get the most out of the P-38 he could make that P-38 do things that the P-51 could only dream about.

Agreed 100% Chris,

Like we have said before an airforce is built around your average pilot in your airforce, not a few aces. Germany knows this well, they had perhaps the most experienced core of aces on the planet in WW2 and the world will never see another group of aces (that many) like that again. But still they lost. One by one even those elite aces cannot not take down the hordes without being picked off one by one. So many German aces died when the war was already lost, it was a shame.

My point being that the USAF needed a plane to do the job at hand. The plane needed to be long range, competitive in a dogfight, easy enough and cheap enough to make, but just as important as all that it needed to be easy enough to fly by your "average" pilot. Your average pilots needed to be able to fly this plane and be competitive (in a fight) when it reached the target, that was the P-51.

 

[wmaxt]

Adler, that's a great way of putting it!

Sys, Those 15 points are valid, however several of them apply only to pre-J models, the intercooler especially.
1) Engine Problems (compounded by British fuel)
2) Wing Intercooler
3) Compressability (any model could stay out of compressibility if throttles were closed and prop to flat pitch). J-25s and Ls had slats for compressibility ~5,000 planes.
4) insufficient Cockpit heat true but corrected in J-25s and Ls.
5) Aileron forces J-25 on corrected this.

There were almost 7,000 P-38J/L models so those limitations only applied to ~25% of the planes. I know you are fully aware of these but I thought that others might want to see the counterpoint to.

wmaxt

 

[syscom3]

Adler, that's a great way of putting it!

Sys, Those 15 points are valid, however several of them apply only to pre-J models, the intercooler especially.
1) Engine Problems (compounded by British fuel)
2) Wing Intercooler
3) Compressability (any model could stay out of compressibility if throttles were closed and prop to flat pitch). J-25s and Ls had slats for compressibility ~5,000 planes.
4) insufficient Cockpit heat true but corrected in J-25s and Ls.
5) Aileron forces J-25 on corrected this.

There were almost 7,000 P-38J/L models so those limitations only applied to ~25% of the planes. I know you are fully aware of these but I thought that others might want to see the counterpoint to.

wmaxt

Unfortunatly, these problems existed on the planes that made the first impression on the AAF and pilots.

By the time they were corrected, the P51's were available in quantity and it didnt have a fraction of those problems.

By middle 1944, it was also obvious that the P38 airframe was a dead end design and the P51's still had potential to evolve.

 

[wmaxt]

I would like to know the P38's kill ratio against the -109 and -190.

In early 1944, the German twin engined fighters were on its platter, and those were generally easy kills.

The majority of that stat is primarily in the winter/spring '43/'44 when the P-38 was doing escort primary job. Not only did it include 109's and 190s the percentage of the experienced "Old Hand" German pilots but they were flying with 5:1 odds in the German pilots favor. The first three months there were less than 100 escorts on some missions.

The 82nd FG has a great web page that details both losses and kills by pilot name, date and aircraft shot down. They indicate a very wide range of aircraft up to Me-262s Though most of those were probables because they were not seen to crash. The site is Official 82nd Fighter Group website .

wmaxt

 

[syscom3]

The majority of that stat is primarily in the winter/spring '43/'44 when the P-38 was doing escort primary job. Not only did it include 109's and 190s the percentage of the experienced "Old Hand" German pilots but they were flying with 5:1 odds in the German pilots favor. The first three months there were less than 100 escorts on some missions.

Those are the stats I'm wondering about. When the Luftwaffe still had lots of great pilots.

 

[wmaxt]

Unfortunatly, these problems existed on the planes that made the first impression on the AAF and pilots.

By the time they were corrected, the P51's were available in quantity and it didnt have a fraction of those problems.

By middle 1944, it was also obvious that the P38 airframe was a dead end design and the P51's still had potential to evolve.

Your right about first impressions. In this case quantity and timing counted for everything.

The early P-51 were called "Experimental" by some of their unit commanders because they did have some real problems, cracked heads, fouled plugs, etc. Another web page pointed out they had a 30% abort rate until about Feb. '44.

The P-38K was still an option and except for raw top speed still outperformed the P-51H. The P-51D was a dead end to - every part was redesigned for the P-51H, only the basic shape remained. Your right in a way, though, piston powered aircraft were a dead end after '44 and the operational introduction of the Me-262.

I know I'm quibbling over very minor points - I just had to, ya know?

wmaxt

 

[wmaxt]

Those are the stats I'm wondering about. When the Luftwaffe still had lots of great pilots.

Check out that link, the 82nd FG was in Italy but was flying through that period. I think you can get what you want there. I took a quick count once and came up with about 543 kills and 240 lost pilots about 70 of which were flying accidents. Also the 82nd was hitting G/A missions at least as often as escort so the raw loss rate is not indicitave of the ariel kill:loss ratio, I don't know if that exists anywhere.

wmaxt

 

[Soren]

Hmm.. I seem to have forgotten all about this thread...

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.

wmaxt, that was just another one of Galland's jokes, he's well known for his sarcastic remarks - and you would have known that if you studied the guy a little more.

My quotation and opinion still stands firmly.

 

[wmaxt]

Hmm.. I seem to have forgotten all about this thread...



wmaxt, that was just another one of Galland's jokes, he's well known for his sarcastic remarks - and you would have known that if you studied the guy a little more.

My quotation and opinion still stands firmly.

The statement was verified, Foss wouldn't put his name to it or to the later reporting where Galland asked the P-38 pilot how he was able to do it, unless it was verified. BTW: jokers don't have the color drain from their face or question the flight techniques required to make a P-38 capable of the maneuvers, as the book relates. Also it was reported that during the making of the film "Battle of Brittan" in 1969 where he was an adviser, that Galland stridently argued that the BoB was won by the Germans. He was dead serious. It was/is well known that Galland rarely admits to ever being caught short, though he was shot down several times. When confronted though often he would admit to the truth or at least the facts. Another item to be considered, Galland claimed that he shot down 8 P-38s, however a look through his score list shows many Spits and Hurricanes but not one P-38. The British aircraft can be explained because his major flight time was before he became General of Fighters. With no offical P-38 kills how would he know (yes, I know he flew "under cover" missions)? On top of that he is described as an "Apologist", "Self Serving" and a "Braggart" by many WWII historians. I have read several of his books and even own one of them so I'm not unfamiliar with his statements, both comments are in character for Adolf and his reaction makes me tend to belive the story was/is true.

By the way I don't belive Galland was a liar or anything else derogotory - he's a typical fighter pilot. I read once about a P-51 ace who went down in Italy, when asked what happened he replied "I ran out of gas!" everyone broke out in laughter. When he asked about it he was told every fighter pilot in the camp said the same thing!

I to, stand by my statements. Your certainly entitled to yours.

wmaxt

 

[Soren]

wmaxt, you might want to check Gallands score list again, he actually got confirmed P-38 kill. But despite this he shot down many more, not confirmed however because of the very strict confirmation policy of the LW. Because of the huge numerical disadvantage the LW suffered from 44-45 many a LW fighter pilots often found themselves completely alone against hordes of allied fighters - often succeeding in making it out of the engagement alive and even shooting a couple of allied fighters down in the process, however because these types of successes were achieved singlehandedly the kills could not be confirmed. (Unless the a/c was equipped with a gun-camera)

 

[redcoat]

The Lightning had a poor record in the ETO. It is credited with destroying 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!

 

[Hunter368]

The statement was verified, Foss wouldn't put his name to it or to the later reporting where Galland asked the P-38 pilot how he was able to do it, unless it was verified. BTW: jokers don't have the color drain from their face or question the flight techniques required to make a P-38 capable of the maneuvers, as the book relates. Also it was reported that during the making of the film "Battle of Brittan" in 1969 where he was an adviser, that Galland stridently argued that the BoB was won by the Germans. He was dead serious. It was/is well known that Galland rarely admits to ever being caught short, though he was shot down several times. When confronted though often he would admit to the truth or at least the facts. Another item to be considered, Galland claimed that he shot down 8 P-38s, however a look through his score list shows many Spits and Hurricanes but not one P-38. The British aircraft can be explained because his major flight time was before he became General of Fighters. With no offical P-38 kills how would he know (yes, I know he flew "under cover" missions)? On top of that he is described as an "Apologist", "Self Serving" and a "Braggart" by many WWII historians. I have read several of his books and even own one of them so I'm not unfamiliar with his statements, both comments are in character for Adolf and his reaction makes me tend to belive the story was/is true.

By the way I don't belive Galland was a liar or anything else derogotory - he's a typical fighter pilot. I read once about a P-51 ace who went down in Italy, when asked what happened he replied "I ran out of gas!" everyone broke out in laughter. When he asked about it he was told every fighter pilot in the camp said the same thing!

I to, stand by my statements. Your certainly entitled to yours.

wmaxt

Whether historians or anyone else want to call him self serving or braggart or whatever else he was one of the best pilots in WW2. You ask any German or British pilot (there were many) that befriended him after the war, he was a ace pilot by anyones standards and a gentlemen with a flare for life.

As far as Germans winning BoB.....well that depends of your point of view. Did the German win the Fighter vs Fighter war that Galland was involved most in, yes. Did the Germans win the whole Bob ? no Did the British win the Bob decisvly? no they more prevented the Germans from winning victory but did they do enough win to call it a victory for them, nope.

IMHO

 

[plan_D]

"Did the British win the Bob decisvly? no they more prevented the Germans from winning victory but did they do enough win to call it a victory for them, nope."

Hunter, I do not understand that last statement. I would be interested in hearing what a descisive victory for the RAF would have been in the Battle of Britain. Great Britain can, and will, call the Battle of Britain a victory. Our aim in the assault was to hold off the enemy, secure British air superiority over Britain and shoot down as much of the Luftwaffe as possible. That was achieved. The Germans never gained air superiority, never landed on the beach, and lost more planes than the RAF.

What would make a descisive victory, if the true victory wasn't one?

 

[Hunter368]

"Did the British win the Bob decisvly? no they more prevented the Germans from winning victory but did they do enough win to call it a victory for them, nope."

Hunter, I do not understand that last statement. I would be interested in hearing what a descisive victory for the RAF would have been in the Battle of Britain. Great Britain can, and will, call the Battle of Britain a victory. Our aim in the assault was to hold off the enemy, secure British air superiority over Britain and shoot down as much of the Luftwaffe as possible. That was achieved. The Germans never gained air superiority, never landed on the beach, and lost more planes than the RAF.

What would make a descisive victory, if the true victory wasn't one?

Sure I will explain more no problem PlanD,

The reason why I said that is the following points (which you might agree with 100%)

- German lost 2698 planes give or take a few, most were none fighters (1800 or so)

- UK lost 1547 (or so) planes most were fighters (if you have the exact number that would be great, I don't have it handy right now)

- Thats a 1.74 loss ratio in UK favor overall

- Thats 1.72 loss ratio in German's favor when talking single seat fighters. I know you are going to say that UK fighters were not trying to kill German fighters but I am just throwing out facts to think about is all.

- UK lost civilian dead 27,450 and further 32,138 wounded.

Now you could say for sure that UK did win the battle (considering everything you have said in your post, I agree) but to say they won a descisive victory might be more then I am willing to say.

For me to say descisive victory by UK it would of had to have been one more sided is all I am saying. Example would of been a descisive victory by German airforce over the Russian airforce in the opening stages of WW2. Or even Allied air victory over France in 44.

 

[plan_D]

The United Kingdom could not hope to achieve a victory like that gained by the Luftwaffe over the VVS in June, 1941. As the aim was always to destroy any hope of a German invasion.

The RAF didn't just defend it's airspace through standing patrols and interceptions. Remember that Bomber Command attacked captured airfields and various other tactical targets during the Battle of Britain. Also, the German invasion flotilla suffered very heavy loss at the hands of Bomber Command. While many combat vessels and supply vessels of the Kriegsmarine fell victim to British bombs.

2 Group, for example, continually attacked France and Holland throughout the battle. They also attacked ships in the Channel and North Sea. I shall try to give some more information on this in due time, but I would like to say don't just think about the British defensive actions during the battle. Even those were on the British favour - but the RAF also fought back across the Channel at this time. Which would add kills, and losses, to their count.

 

[Hunter368]

The United Kingdom could not hope to achieve a victory like that gained by the Luftwaffe over the VVS in June, 1941. As the aim was always to destroy any hope of a German invasion.

The RAF didn't just defend it's airspace through standing patrols and interceptions. Remember that Bomber Command attacked captured airfields and various other tactical targets during the Battle of Britain. Also, the German invasion flotilla suffered very heavy loss at the hands of Bomber Command. While many combat vessels and supply vessels of the Kriegsmarine fell victim to British bombs.

2 Group, for example, continually attacked France and Holland throughout the battle. They also attacked ships in the Channel and North Sea. I shall try to give some more information on this in due time, but I would like to say don't just think about the British defensive actions during the battle. Even those were on the British favour - but the RAF also fought back across the Channel at this time. Which would add kills, and losses, to their count.

Good points I just want to add that in my first post not only did I make typos but I said that UK could not call BoB a victory, which is wrong of me. Your have to excuse me for that I am sick as a dog and on 3 different meds right now. Not thinking 100% straight. Been off work for two days now.

But you do have good points and I would love to see those numbers that you are referring to.

 

[plan_D]

I have just read also that the Hurricane's Brownings were lined up straight to inflict the most damage over a wide area of the target plane rather than actually destroying it. The theory was that excessive damage to the airframe would allow the plane to fly home, but would take it out of action for days. This would, apparently, allow the Hurricanes to take more bombers out of action by damaging more bombers in one sortie than destroying less.

"...where as the Hurricanes eight Browning machine guns, were each directed to fire in a straight line producing a much wider spread across the surface area of the target, the aim was to inflict as much damage to the target as possible rather than achieve all out destruction. Obversely better if a target was destroyed but given the amount of damage a two second burst could achieve, perhaps to an engine or another part the airframe, it could ground a bomber for a few day's. Strategically it would mean fewer bombs reaching their targets."

If this were the case, then it would be a reason for the kill count not being higher. I believe that it would always be better to destroy the bomber though, this would bring the plane and crew down. Also, it's costing more resources for Germany to build new planes rather than just repair one. On top of that I don't think many RAF pilots would just aim to damage an enemy plane.

 

[Hunter368]

Yes I have heard that also. I have also read about one famous UK ace saying how he would rather strafe a bomber leave it smoking and damaged to fly home. Then when it landed full of wounded, bloody and dead crew it would demoralize the rest of German's pilots.

 

[syscom3]

Probably the opposite happened.

Instead of being demoralized, the aircrews wanted revenge and even the score.