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

[FLYBOYJ]

Yep! But I think a P-38 driver just wearing that set up in their "inadequately heated" P-38 should be plenty warm....

 

[renrich]

There were quite number of times the waist gunners and the radio gunner ( while they still used the radio gun) were hospitalized for frostbite.

 

[lesofprimus]

This is true, due to shorted out wires and whatnot, or if they had to unplug to help a crewmember...

 

[Soren]

German pilots were kept warm using electrically heated suits as-well (All the way out into the gloves), however short circuits were rare it seems.

 

[renrich]

Yes, the electric suits in the heavy bombers did have malfunctions but sometimes it was just a case of trying to operate too high and when the weather was exceptionally cold. That breeze blowing through the radio gunner's position out through the waist gunner's openings was mighty stiff.

 

[HaWk3r T3mP3sT]

Its a very hard decision to chose between the P-38 Lightning and the P-51 Mustang because they were both great but in different areas. But I finally decided to go with the P-51 Mustang purely because of the supercharger 12 cyclinder engine and its great maneuverability.

 

[Screaming Eagle]

I voted for the mustang. because it was a great all round fighter, it is my fave warplane and it had nitrous!

 

[Dragontech64]

I do not see how there can be an argument here. The mustang wins easily. Yes, although it wasn't used in the pacific, it could match the German fighters, that the lightnings avoided becuase they were inferior. As a question, the mustang is the better fighter, and although Yamamoto's betty was shot down, it was a bomber!

HUH??? Mustang not used in the Pacific? - Lightnings avoiding German fighters? Since when? The Lightning was not used as much in the ETO due to limitations in colder climates, and poor cockpit heating in early models, but they were used to great effect in the Med againsts the Germans and Italians before the 8th started their work in Europe. And the Mustang was used extensively for escorting B-29s over Japan. In their element BOTH are excellent planes. I'd much rather have the advantage of two engines over all that water in the South Pacific. I'd be very happy with the warmer cockpit of a 'stang in Europe, but I would not refuse either in the opposite place. Over-all, I'll take the Lightning, excelled in the desert and dominated the Pacific, and later varients still did well in Europe. Not to mention the ONLY truly successful fighter in Aleutians.

 

[Dragontech64]

Another point to mention, people have often mentioned in this post that the P-38's "larger" profile was a disadvantage. Profile, meaning the image as seen frfom the side, on a P-38 actually is SMALLER than a P-47 or P-51. It's largest, most visable shape was the plan-view, ie: from above or below. See P-38 Profile for more on this. At a distance, were target aquisition begins, the side or front view of a P-38 makes a very slim image. The plan view would far more telling from the ground or at large altitude differences. True, pilots would try to have an altitude advantage, but as both sides were trying to get the high ground, I think this would be less difinative, so this shape (dis?)advantage would mostly count from AA gunners. THe stats are the stats as far as kill rato, loss ratios, performance etc but those numbers are not the whole story. As has been mentioned here before, statistics can be made to say anything you want. I had a good friend who was a proffessor of statistical mathmatics at McGill University,who also voiced that same sentiment, and I think he'd know. The fact is, BOTH are excellent fighters-bombers and which is better often comes down to personal preferance. Personally, the scarecity of the Lightning today makes me like it all the more, but watching 6 Mustangs doing acrobatics over Manchester New Hampshire in the 80's left a lasting impression of its grace and beauty.

 

[renrich]

The P38 was large in plan view but slim in profile but one handicap was that it was easy to identify for what it was. The 109 and P51 looked somewhat alike and the P47 and FW could be confused but he P38 was instantly identifiable. It also presented a target with a lot of vital spots. Two engines, two turbochargers, two radiators with liquid coolant. Of course it is not the same as the P38 could come home on one engine but the reason that Lindberg chose a single engined Ryan to cross the Atlantic was that he knew that having two engines doubled the chance of having an engine failure. It was said that the P38 had two engines so it could come home on one.

 

[drgondog]

Also you had the speed to actually force the enemy to hang around. A P-51 Mustang couldn't outrun you let alone any of the Pacific Theatre aircraft. Also someone mentioned interestingly enough that as a pure fighter in sufficient quantities to be useful, it came after the P-38 Lightning had done all the hard work in the European Theatre and also later in the war the P-51 Mustangs would have been rarely seriously challenged due to fuel shortages for German Aircraft which would have severely affected the training of their pilots as well.
.

Consider another point of view. First the 51D and B were faster than All of the other USAAF and USN and JAF and JNAF fighters with the exception of the P-47N above 30,000 feet - then consider the P-51H which was 900 pounds lighter than the D and better in every manuever aspect than either the 51D or P-38 or P-47N with exception of Dive and Roll for 47N and Roll for the 38L. It was in production and delivered to USAAF units stateside in March 1945.

The P-38F and J fought hard but the high altitude issues w/superchargers leading to 'blown' Allisons, no heated cockpit and 'instant' compressibility due to lack of dive brakes made it easy for the 109 and 190 to evade it - so it was inefective as a long range escort until the 38L's were delivered in June 1944. By that time the 51s had decimated the Luftwaffe in the Target areas and the long range P-47Ds were now making Target escort missions with the Mustangs.

The fuel shortages were largely the result of Mustangs enabling repeated attacks on the German Petroleum industry and the combination of Mustangs and P-38s on Ploesti in the May1944-November 1944 timeframe. Two P-38 Groups remained in 8th at the beginning of that campaign but were not a major factor against the Luftwaffe over Germany.

Dragontech made some excellent points also but I believe the 'question' was about which one you would want to fly fighter versus fighter and the 51 easily gets my vote - although defeating a P-38L with a P-51D isn't a slam dunk

Regards,

Bill

 

[syscom3]

...It was said that the P38 had two engines so it could come home on one.

Incorrect.

The P38 had two engines because of its origional mission requirements , which was to be a bomber interceptor, required two engines to get the rate of climb necessary to meet contract specs.

 

[renrich]

Syscom, that quote was from some pilots in the ETO who were being facetious because of the engine problems the P38s had early on. It was not meant to be serious. Of course you are right about the 2 engines needed to meet the Army specs.

 

[Aussie1001]

Was it not true however even with the upgraded Alisons that it still had not reached it's full potential. Say if the P38 was given the british Rolls Royce Merlin that was in pretty much every british fighter and in some cases bomber for most of the war. Was it not true that the Alison was inadequet due to cooling systems ?

 

[drgondog]

Was it not true however even with the upgraded Alisons that it still had not reached it's full potential. Say if the P38 was given the british Rolls Royce Merlin that was in pretty much every british fighter and in some cases bomber for most of the war. Was it not true that the Alison was inadequet due to cooling systems ?

Actually, the primary engine failure was supercharger failing due to oil freezing as I recall. The L model solved the high altitude cold issues and the compressibility/dive issues (underwing dive brakes).

The Merlins would have given the 38 more reliability but very little addional speed

 

[SoD Stitch]

Was it not true however even with the upgraded Alisons that it still had not reached it's full potential. Say if the P38 was given the british Rolls Royce Merlin that was in pretty much every british fighter and in some cases bomber for most of the war. Was it not true that the Alison was inadequet due to cooling systems ?

There are quite a few people who have pointed out that the Lightning might have been a world-beater if only it had had Merlins installed in place of the "tempermental" Allisons; such a proposal was put forward, but quickly shot down since all Merlin production was going to much-needed Spifires and Mosquitos (Rolls-Royce Merlins in the UK) and P-51B's (Packard Merlins in the US). At that time, there was no excess production capacity of Merlins for the P-38, though some suspect there was a bias in favor of the Mustang and against the Lightning for installing Merlins in the US (from The Lockheed P-38 Lightning: The Definitive Story of Lockheed's P-38 Fighter, by Warren M. Bodie). The Allison was inadequate, from a technical point of view, due to it's single-speed turbo-supercharger; the Merlin had a two-speed supercharger, which performed better at higher altitudes. The P-38 performed better at low- to medium-altitudes.

All in all, however, I would have to choose the P-38; at low- to medium-altitude, it could actually turn inside a Mustang at lower airspeeds (< 300 kts), and most Luftwaffe fighters. Plus, it had devastating firepower up front, with four (4) 0.50 cals and a 20mm Hispano-Suiza cannon up front. Every other fighter with wing-mounted guns had to be "harmonized", meaning the guns had to be aimed to converge out in front of the fighter somewhere for maximum effectiveness (usually about 1000 yards out); not so the P-38. The close grouping of the nose armament meant that the bullets always stayed together, whether the target was 100 feet away, or a mile away. I'll put my money on the -38.

And, finally, the P-38 was in service with the US a full three years before the first P-51A entered USAAF service and, at that time (1942), the in-service P-38 was actually faster than the in-service P-51 (until 1943 when the Merlin-engined p-51B began to appear).

 

[kool kitty89]

The Merlins weren't really practical since they required an extensive redesign of the nacelles and boom arrangement, this required new toolin and other additions to the assembly line, and thus would have stopped production for several months! In addition it wasn't nearly as easy to reverse rotation on a Merlin, opposed to a V-1710 in which the crankshaft simply had to be installed backwards.

Many of the reliabillity problems of the P-38 were adressed in the J model, chin radiator and intercooler improved cooling, reliabillity, power rating, and damage resistance. Late J models included dive-recovery flaps to deal with compressibility, as well as hydrolicly boosted ailerons which gave the plane the best roll-rate of all USAAF fighters!

The K model was another improvement, offering better performance than any other lightning and smoked the best service P-51's and P-47's in all categories in fly-offs. The already unmatched 4,700+ ft/min of the P-38 was increased to ~5,000 ft/min with 1,800 hp WEP. The main improvement of this craft was the "high activity" Paddle Props similar to those wich the P-47's had been improved with. The craft exceeded 430 mph at ~30,000 in early tests on the test muel. Over 450 mph was projected in the final version. The craft topped out at 45,000 ft on a very hot day, and max ceiling was expected to be 48,000 ft! The increased efficiency of the new props gave a 10-15% increase in the already outstanding range!
see:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITRLk9b9AcY
This also shows that the P-38 pilots were anything but afraid of Me 109s!

I also like that the P-47 and P-38 have the related Thunderbolt and Lightning names. If the P-47 was a choice the decission would be tougher, but with this pair, it's easy: the P-38!

And don't forget that the P-38 performed significantly better and more reliably on the higher grade American fuel used in the PTO, and remember that the P-38 shot down more planes then any other USAAF fighter, and only lost out to the Navy's Hellcat and Corsair iirc.
I also rember a case where several P-38's engaged a group of Japanese fighters (Zeros i think) and after shredding an enemy plane one of the P-38s was impacted with a mass of weckedge. A whole boom and half the tail was repped off and he lost control, amazingly he managed to regain control of the Lightning (before fully realizing what had happened) and was able to RTB and land safely, though the Lightning had to be scrapped...

 

[renrich]

I might be a little skeptical that the P38 was the only AC in history to score a kill without engine power. In the ETO the sorties/loss ratio of the P38 was nothing to brag about, being the worst of all US fighters engaged. Wonder why that was what with having the extra engine to come home on. I would bet the kill/loss ratio of the P38 was not as good as the 51 or 47. Out of every 74 sorties, one P38 was lost. Since the Jug's sortie to loss ratio was 138 to one, it sounds like you had almost twice as good a chance to come home with a plane that had only one engine.

 

[kool kitty89]

Maby it was just the only recorded kill...

In fact, I remember thet one of the P-51's Me-262 kills was in the same situation. He say the jet (far below) dropped tanks and dove to the target an blasted the 262 full of incendiary rounds, but forgot to switch to internal fuel. The only difference is that the P-51's props were still spinning until after he'd shot-down the jet and until then he hadn't even realized what he'd done.

So maby this was the only kill with engines at full stop...

And on the sortie, kill to loss ratio, many were lost in ground attack missions,(which resulted in few ariel kills) and many were lost early-on before adequate twin-engine training had been available to fighter pilots. Rember this was losses to all causes, and the P-47 was a much better choice for the Ground-attack role due to the radial engine and high damage resitance. I'd bet the Mustang's losses would have been even worse had they been posted to grount attack. (the A-36 was also failrly volnerable, though not so much as the Merlin-Mustangs as seen in the Horrible loss rate to ground fire in Korea)

Even so, if you compare the actual Victories to Lightnings shot-down were realitively high (at least 2:1) and if you compare the %loss of the P-51 to the P-38 per sortie, they were about the same. (and this was with all the pilot problems and poor tactics of the P-38 used early on, plus the Air-ground losses later on) Plus rember the P-38 served most air combat duty early in the war in the ETO, where they were badly outnumbered and the Germans still held air superiorety.

Just watch that video I posted, just 2 P-38s on a long-range mission, attacking 20-40 Me 109's!

 

[drgondog]

And on the sortie, kill to loss ratio, many were lost in ground attack missions,(which resulted in few ariel kills) and many were lost early-on before adequate twin-engine training had been available to fighter pilots. Rember this was losses to all causes, and the P-47 was a much better choice for the Ground-attack role due to the radial engine and high damage resitance. I'd bet the Mustang's losses would have been even worse had they been posted to grount attack. (the A-36 was also failrly volnerable, though not so much as the Merlin-Mustangs as seen in the Horrible loss rate to ground fire in Korea)

The P-47 would have surely done better than P-51 in the role of Fighter Bomber but Korea was a different threat environment. A-36's and the replacement P-51A's flew a long distinguished career with 27th and 86th in NA and Italy - then went to P-40s and P-47s as the attrition on the A-36/P-51A was no longer replaceable.

NKA regimental TO&E was geared to ground-air defense even more than Wermacht and Korea was more like flying the Mountains of Italy where the flak battery might have an altitude advantage on you.

I have no idea what the statistics were, sorties vs loss to flak, and don't think anyone else does either on the A-36. The air award to sortie ratio for both the P-47 and P-38 was far lower in the ETO than the Mustang. Another factor in P-51 'vulnerability' was the fact that Mustangs also destroyed far more a/c on the ground in the ETO - in the face of the toughest flak defenses against low level attack anywhere. The Mustang destroyed approximately the same enemy a/c in the air as the P-47 and P-38 Combined and ditto for ground scores in fewer sorties. The P-38 in the ETO didn't 'convert' to 9th AF until the 8th got all future priority from June/July forward...just when the J was coming in theatre... even the 354th FG had to convert to P-47s in November so that rest of 8th could migrate over

Even so, if you compare the actual Victories to Lightnings shot-down were realitively high (at least 2:1) and if you compare the %loss of the P-51 to the P-38 per sortie, they were about the same.

What numbers do you have on this? My own research on 8th AF is that the P-51 was close to 7:1 air to air (not including operational losses - just a furball) and the P-38 was close to 2:1 and the P-47 was closer to 3.5 to 1.. but extremely difficult to carve out unless you look solely at 8th AF before D-Day to get relative mission comparisons.

(and this was with all the pilot problems and poor tactics of the P-38 used early on, plus the Air-ground losses later on) Plus rember the P-38 served most air combat duty early in the war in the ETO, where they were badly outnumbered and the Germans still held air superiorety.

While this was true - IMHO the real issue of P-38 against Fw 190 and Me 109 in ETO was the high altitude performance issue where the 38 jocks couldn't even follow a 109 or 190 in a dive, where the signature of the 38 was such that it was easily spotted - and either engaged because of situational superiority or leave the fight if otherwise? It hurt aggressiveness

Just watch that video I posted, just 2 P-38s on a long-range mission, attacking 20-40 Me 109's!

The latter is probably a situation in which they were flying J's and no dive issues were prevalent or at low to medium where they performed well - and the natural aggressiveness of the US pilot was not tempered.