SoD Stitch
Banned
Excellent post, Flyboy; couldn't have said it better myself . . .
P-38 Question
- Thread starter Marshall_Stack
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
Actually the stats I posted show that the P38 had one loss for every 74 combat sorties. The P51 had one loss for every 85 combat sorties. The P47 had one loss for every 138 combat sorties. These stats are incredible to me given the time when the P47 was in service and the way it was used. Simply put, if you were a fighter pilot in the ETO in the AAF in 1943,44,45, and wanted to survive you would be wise to fly a P47. Given that the top ace for the US flew P47s, seems like the Jug and the PW R2800 deserve a lot of credit.
SoD Stitch
Banned
Incorrect; the top ace for the US was Maj. Richard Bong of the USAAF, who (surprise!) flew P-38's in the PTO. He is credited with 40 "kills", all of which were acheived in the -38.
I think what you meant to say is that Gabreski was the top-scoring ace in the ETO
Late P-38's had AN/APS-13 which was fitted to a number of a/c types late in the war, P-51's and P-47's too. It didn't work that well, high false alarm rate, one more gadget to break. It had been removed from surviving piston fighters (and early jets it was sometimes fitted to) by the time of the Korean War and new fighters at that time no longer had it.
The British used tail warning radars first but ran into the other natural problem with them: German night fighters used passive receivers which could often detect the bombers' warning radars outside the range the warning radar could detect the night fighter. Active tail warning radars are always a potential two edged sword that way.
On P-38 the classic debate for 8th AF
. Stats above in the Aleutians show P-38E's less effective air-air than P-39D's and P-40E/K's. In such a small sample that could be part be luck as was suggested, but hard to argue the P-38 was a lot *more* effective air combat machine in that situation. Likewise in some combats in New Guinea where all three of those planes fought together the (pre-J model) P-38's results in terms of ratio weren't that much different. The P-38 was ultimately a far more effective plane in the Pacific than the P-39 or P-40, (or P-47 until the 'N'), mainly because it reached much further. The range of bomber missions and amphibious ops was often set by the reach of *P-38* cover, they then saw the bulk of the action and did most of the destruction of enemy a/c. P-39's and P-40's sat idle more and more as they couldn't reach where the action was, and the Japanese weren't attacking US bases as much anymore. The P-38 was also superior in pure air combat to 39 and 40, using its speed, and more so in later models, but not necessarily way more when compared directly fighting alongside each other.In ETO/MTO I think it's pretty clear the P-38 was on the whole a less effective air-air fighter than either the P-47 or P-51 (I'm talking overall as it was in history, not best version of one v best of another on paper). It's hard to find cases of P-38 and 47/51 units doing the same missions where the latter didn't do better against German fighters (8th AF, 9th when they occasionally faced enemy fighters P-38 groups took some big losses P-47 groups seemed to avoid, 15th same story). Specific cases could be argued to be fuel or weather or group leadership etc., but it seems a pretty consistent pattern. On ratio ETO/MTO is a huge war, can't summarize in a post like the Aleutians
, but I'd say from anecdotes of two sided accounting of P-38's v German fighters it's unlikely the P-38 had a real ratio >1 until perhaps some time in 1944, and perhaps not overall. The blanket stats quoted usually include non-air combat losses but are of course based on claims not real German losses so aren't very useful to determine pure air combat effectivness, and they are of only limited use to compare P-38 to 47/51 because they often didn't fly the same missions in the same time periods. Those stats tend to make the P-38 look worse than it was I think, but again just can't conclude much from them IMO.Joe
syscom3
Pacific Historian
One thing we can give credit to the P38 for operations in the ETO:
Once it started doing missions over Germany, every single multi engined aircraft of the LW was very vulnerable and risked being shot down.
Once it started doing missions over Germany, every single multi engined aircraft of the LW was very vulnerable and risked being shot down.
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
Thanks for the correction, I did mean the top ace in the ETO flew the Jug. But isn't it amazing that the P47 (at least in the popular media) doesn't get the adulation that the P51 or maybe even the P38 gets. I find those stats very significant. My vote for the best all around fighter in WW2 would go to the Corsair but when one considers the caliber of LW pilot the Jug drivers faced in 1943 and early 44 before the P51 took over the deep escort function. When you consider that as the war continued the Jug was used more in the ground attack role and that was more dangerous than flying escort, to see the loss rate of the Jug versus the other ac in the ETO, it speaks volumes.
- Thread starter
- #47
Marshall_Stack
Senior Airman
There have been three ideas posted here that never occurred to me but seem logical.
1.) If the XP-38 didn't crash it its cross-country jaunt, Lockheed may have found and corrected some of its faults earlier on.
2.) Although the P-38 pilots have more victories in the PTO, this may be due to the fact that it had more range than other AAF fighters and hence more opportunities.
3.) The loss ratio of the P-47 in the ETO is lower than other AAF airplanes even though it was used heavily for ground attack (where most of the AAF pilots were lost).
Good posts....
1.) If the XP-38 didn't crash it its cross-country jaunt, Lockheed may have found and corrected some of its faults earlier on.
2.) Although the P-38 pilots have more victories in the PTO, this may be due to the fact that it had more range than other AAF fighters and hence more opportunities.
3.) The loss ratio of the P-47 in the ETO is lower than other AAF airplanes even though it was used heavily for ground attack (where most of the AAF pilots were lost).
Good posts....
syscom3
Pacific Historian
Some sources say the P38 program was set back by nearly one year because of that stunt.
It was also used far more effectively than its main combatants.
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
It would seem to me that the P38(and Corsair) had such a huge performance edge over the Japanese ac in the Pacific at least until right at the end, that they were almost invulnerable, unless surprised or handled poorly.
- Thread starter
- #50
Marshall_Stack
Senior Airman
Or unless caught low and slow....
syscom3
Pacific Historian
The P38's had the range and just as importantly, the twin engine design that brought more than a few pilots home.
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
The salient point about ac design is that in the end, they are all compromises. If you pick up a lttle in one area, you give away in another. By having two engines the P38 did have the advantage of being able to come home on one. But, two engines gave twice the probability of having engine trouble, especially in high performance fighter engines and your opponent had twice as much vulnerable area to shoot at. There was also twice as much maintenance to two engines. Having said that it does seem that the P38 was by far the most successful twin engined fighter design in WW2.
drgondog
Major
The P-38 also bumped into a drag limitation at lower speeds than either the 51 or 47 which limited to incremental top speed improvements at altitude which is why the top speed of all the models was pretty close to each other -but imroved climb and acceleration with each increase in Hp.
drgondog
Major
I think everybody who flew the Jug throughout their combat career had a special place in their hearts. The ones that transitioned to Mustangs loved it because it had the performance and range to take the fight over Germany on equal or better terms and the 47s were left to fly the shorter legs until the end of the war.
It is an interesting note that the 56th was right at the top of air to air ratios versus the LW. Discounting losses to flak and mechanical problems it was close to 12:1 which topped the 354th and 357th and 352nd FG in Mustangs.
Before starting a flame war on ratios I want to emphasize that is a breakdown from Kent Miller's 8th Fighter Command volumes and attributing all 'unknown' losses to air to air to add to the definite air to air losses... and associating only USAF 85 air victory credit AWARDS (not claims). Just use it as a rule of thumb and generate your own if the above is not palatable to your taste.
As a contrast, using the same approach (i.e. add "unknown" to definite air to air losses), the 355th FG was around 8:1 total and 9:1 with the Mustang - ditto the 4th.
Having said that - none of the 8th or 9th or 12th or 15th P-47 records were close to the 56FG (or the other Mustang groups). The 56th was unique.
syscom3
Pacific Historian
drgondog
Major
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
All true, although the Navy and Marine pilots flew plenty of miles in blue water conditions with one engine which, of course, is why the Navy insisted on using air cooled radial engines because of their dependability and robustness. Lindberg chose a single engined ac to fly the Atlantic in because a twin engine ac of those days could not remain aloft on one engine for long, unlike the P38, and he knew the probability of engine failure with two engines was twice that of an ac with one engine. When I was flying light ac and flew over a big lake I always noted the engine started sounding peculiar.
I've had in mind to get the Miller books for a long time, but want them cheap
I just bought v.2 pretty cheap on Ebay, will continue to work on 1. In addition to works like that, many more specific books give the actual air combat, unknown, non-air combat losses, of course. I was just referring to the big blanket stats often quoted which do not separate those out, but are often quoted.
Also by 'claims' I meant official awards. I should be more careful to always say 'credits' or 'awards' to avoid that ambiguity. But official awards are still the 'official claims' in some sense by one side, not what the other side recorded having lost, which is still usually less, sometimes a lot less. As rule of thumb it's probably reasonable to assume the (German losses/US awards) ratio was the same for P-38 units on average and P-51 units on average flying in the same numbered AF at the same time (subject to perhaps some caution still). But it's demonstrably not a valid assumption when the comparisons go further afield. For example P-40 units 'official' victories in the Pacific ca. 1942 (when there wasn't necessarily even a well defined official process) and 8th AF P-51 victories in 1945. The earlier awards clearly exceeded the opponent's recorded losses to a much greater degree. Even say P-38 awards in 12th AF in 1943 I would not compare directly to late war awards in terms of actual German a/c destroyed.
Back to Aleutians, some other sources, including the USAAF's own official chronology, give claims for those combats sometimes higher than the official victories I outlined in comparison to Japanese recorded losses, the chrono perhaps gives unfiltered claims submitted. The overall ratio of 16 official credits to 9 Rufe's actually destroyed is pretty good by general WWII standards and good for early war USAAF, the 11th AF was apparently relatively strict. A related interesting fact is a couple of 11th AF pilots were later P-38 aces with the 5th AF, which recognized Aleutian P-39 claims of theirs the 11th had not, but as we see even the official 11th awards already exceeded the Rufe losses.
Joe
syscom3
Pacific Historian
Not true. Just because you have two engines does not mean you have 1/2 the chance of returning home. The P38 could fly home on one engine, while the F6F and F4U were in the drink when the engine quit. Simultaneous engine failures were (and still are) quite rare.
The P38's abilty to fly fast and go extremely long distances meant it was uniquely suited for the environment in which it fought.
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
Sys, I think you mis understood my statement. I was saying that it was true that many pilots made it home because of two engines on the P38. my next statement was that twin engined ac of Lindberg's 1927 flight could not remain in the air long on a single engine, UNLIKE THE P38, which unless my knowledge of the English language fails me that the P38 could remain in the air for a long time on one engine.
