P-38 vs P-51

[Barrett]

In my years with the fighter aces assn. there was lots of opportunity to talk Mustang v Lightning. The 38 guys distinguished between the J/L and predecessors, but overall it was hard to find a Lightning guy who didn't adore the bird. Those who flew both, including (maybe especially) Robin Olds said they always loved the 38 but favored the 51 because it could go where the Swastikas grew. One exception was a 55th FG pilot who made ace in the 51 but always called it "the funny plane" because of that aft CG with the fuselage tank.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

The 496th was usually the first stop for inbound ETO replacements. I have two 'suspicions'. The first is that the 'in type' hours for the P-38 pilots were far lower than the P-51, compounding multi-engine complexity in comparison to AT-6 to P-40 or AT-6 to P-51. Some multi engine training in 1943 did proceed from AT-6 to C-45 'variants' but a C-45/B-25 is a long way from realistic P-38 prep.

If you read the paper it states quite clearly that the P-51 pilots had no hours on type.

"Replacement pilots arrived with previous time in type (P-38 or P-51) and completed a ground school course. P-38 pilots also received flight instruction."
In other words the P-51 hours were attributable to pilots who had not flown the type before.
P47 and P51 pilots were typically not trained in their operational aircraft until they arrived overseas whereas P38 pilots did get some time in their actual aircraft.

According to Army Air Forces Historical Study No 61 "Combat Crew and Unit Training in the AAF" (attached)
"No P-47 or P-51 transition training was, however, ever given in the training command."

The flaws of the P-38 are described by P-38 ace John Tilley in this link:
Secrets of a P-38 Ace. John Tilley's electrifying story

It appears that it was difficult to learn to fly. When an air force is expanding as rapidly as the AAF was in WWII, that was a major flaw. People glibly state that additional training was all that was needed for the P38 (and the B26) but the fact is that the Germans and the Japanese weren't waiting around for the Americans to get up to speed. When you're hemorrhaging heavy bombers at an unsustainable rate over Germany the lives of a few fighter pilots are small potatoes. They are expendable as any other solider.

 

[drgondog]

Makes sense that little P-51 time was available for replacement pilots in 1944. Those P-51s in Stateside OTU trained as a group and deployed primarily to CBI and Pacific, the rest were in huge demand for combat operations - far exceeding supply. I know my father did all fighter transition in P-40N/F at Sarasota, and when he arrived in England, he did 5 touch and go's in a P-51B at 496th FTU (late May 1944) before reporting to 355th FG.

The reason that most Mustang Fighter Groups set up 'Clobber College' at their bases were a.) more unit specific training in tower & comm, b.) element/flight take-off and formation assembly, c.) check out for bombing/strafing. Additionally, nearly all the replacement crews were woefully deficient in IFR for ETO flight conditions.

Stateside Training and Service Command were always way behind the curve for ETO conditions. Ditto Material Command and Proving Ground testing before deployment.

All this said, it makes the P-38 accident statistics even more focused on the complexity of operation compared to single engine fighter.

 

[bobbysocks]

Of course they did; this is where the P38 shined

True enough, but this is why rookies didn't lead missions, or even flights or sections. By the time they had the responsibility for navigation, they also had experience. I've had enough over water flying experience so I'd take a 550 mile bomber escort to Truk with combat probability only in the target area over the same mission to Berlin @ -40C with 400 miles each way over defended territory ANY DAY.



Naturally, the Lightning was the answer to Gen Kenny's dreams because it fit the situation, even with its teething problems, while it performed like a cantankerous prima donna in the early days over frozen Europe.


Ditto, ditto, and ditto again!
Cheers,
Wes

You are a braver man than I Gunga Din. If I am in a SE ac and said engine craps out, I want my ever loving butt over terra firma...even if it's frozen. I don't know about the reliability of military today. Biff could attest to that, but in WW2 there was a more than fair chance of having an issue. Each squadron took off with 2 or 3 spares to cover aborts. Mind you each squadron put 16 ac in the air. So 2 or 3 to cover 16 is a better than 10 to 20% chance of planes having problems. My dad had less than 50 missions and had to abort at least 3 times...that I know of. One time he had fouled plugs and the engine ran too rough. He was able to return to base, which was the closest base to the coast. But the 2 other times he was forced down in France. The radio shorted and filled the cockpit with smoke on one mission and I do not know the details about the second abort. But I do know on both of those he wasn't able to make it back across the channel to England. He would have had to bail out or ditch her in if he was over water and THAT he was not to keen on doing. He was part of a couple air/sea rescues which left him less than confident. One was on an Aprodite mission against the sub pens on Helgoland in the Frisian Islands. There was no enemy resistance for the fighters...so it wasn't flak or enemy fire that brought the pilot down. So he had mechanical issues over the North Sea. It became a comedy of errors with no less than 30 US aircraft involved. They droped dingys and a huge life boat from air/sea rescue ac but to no avail. All the king's fighters and all the king's ships couldn't bring that pilot home again. No one wanted to ditch in the sea. They would ride that prey til she gave her last gasp of life before taking a dunk. And that was a "compressed area (North Sea over Germany/English channel)...not the wide expanse of the Pacific. They didn't have all the ELTs then that they do now. So a ditch in the sea especially in the PTO could leave you lost forever. Currents can take you many miles away in a very short time. I would rather end up in taking my chances with Sgt. Schultz at Stalag luft X than be floating in the South Pacific hoping someone...US or Jap gets me before the Sharks or dehydration. If you feel comfortable back then sitting in a dingy waiting for someone to find you, God love you. For me, I take option A, over freaking cold ass land. Just my preference.

P39 expert. The 357th FG which my dad belonged to started off in 39s. The only one of the group that had anything nice to say about the 39 was Yeager and I really doubt he would have traded in anything to fly that in combat. Most of the boys hated the plane. From the "flat spins and augering in" as the song goes most to a T were happy to be flying anything else, especially when they ended up in Mustangs. Read the Poltava Affair about the Frantic missions to see how the Ruskies used and abused the 39.

Biff your comments about landing and taking off between the 2 planes holds true. You can find a lot of pictures of mustangs ( and spits ) nose in the pavement because brakes were applied too soon. On take off you had to bring the power up slowly on the 51 because the torque would skid you off to the left if you firewalled it.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

You are a braver man than I Gunga Din. If I am in a SE ac and said engine craps out, I want my ever loving butt over terra firma...even if it's frozen.

In the case of single engine a/c, I agree with you; I don't fancy joining the Polar Bear Club via a North Sea dunking any more than the next guy. But we are talking about the P38 here, and given its issues in ETO, I'd opt for the Pacific if I had a choice, despite the navigation concerns, which I don't find that daunting.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[michael rauls]

I'd like to expand on something Mr. Tillman said about about p38 pilots differentiating between the early and later models(the J25 and L).
The later model p38s, at least as represented by the 474th, the only unit to fly the p38 in the European theater to VE day, seem to have been quite successful. The 474th achieved a slightly better than 4 to 1 kill loss ratio with the 38 and when one considers there usual mission profile with the 9th( loaded with ordinance on the way in) that's pretty impressive. As good as the p51 under thebsame conditions? No, the Mustang was still more successful by a comfortable margin but it should be enough to dispel the often heard trope that even the later model p38s couldn't have got the job done.

 

[drgondog]

I'd like to expand on something Mr. Tillman said about about p38 pilots differentiating between the early and later models(the J25 and L).
The later model p38s, at least as represented by the 474th, the only unit to fly the p38 in the European theater to VE day, seem to have been quite successful. The 474th achieved a slightly better than 4 to 1 kill loss ratio with the 38 and when one considers there usual mission profile with the 9th( loaded with ordinance on the way in) that's pretty impressive. As good as the p51 under thebsame conditions? No, the Mustang was still more successful by a comfortable margin but it should be enough to dispel the often heard trope that even the later model p38s couldn't have got the job done.

Michael - the issues in the ETO were related primarily to extreme high altitude cold affecting the intercooler/aftercooler and the oil cooler and GE Turbosuperchargers. Secondary issues but important were that Army Air Force Service command doctrine for cruise management pointed to both low RPM and Boost and really too low cruise speed for margin of safety when attacked. Both of those problems were more or less solved by April 1944 but by the time the 367th and 474th went operational, the 9th AF was out of long range escort game and the 9th AF from late May through EOW were out of high altitude mission requirements. The outfit that did extremely well from May through end of September was the 8th AF 479th FG. Under Zemke's leadership they were scoring as well as the P-51 and P-47. (BTW Zemke opined that of the 3 he flew combat in, the Mustang was the best air supremacy fighter).

 

[michael rauls]

Michael - the issues in the ETO were related primarily to extreme high altitude cold affecting the intercooler/aftercooler and the oil cooler and GE Turbosuperchargers. Secondary issues but important were that Army Air Force Service command doctrine for cruise management pointed to both low RPM and Boost and really too low cruise speed for margin of safety when attacked. Both of those problems were more or less solved by April 1944 but by the time the 367th and 474th went operational, the 9th AF was out of long range escort game and the 9th AF from late May through EOW were out of high altitude mission requirements. The outfit that did extremely well from May through end of September was the 8th AF 479th FG. Under Zemke's leadership they were scoring as well as the P-51 and P-47. (BTW Zemke opined that of the 3 he flew combat in, the Mustang was the best air supremacy fighter).

Certainly agree with all of that. I guess that's kind of the crux of the matter, by the time the issues with the p38 we're at least for the most part solved the bad impression had been made and the discision had been made to go with the p51 for air superiority as it probably should have been anyway(at least for the most part, can think of a few situations where it would be good to keep a few p47s/ p38s around) had been made. Hey better ( except climb)performance at half the cost and apparently a lower non combat related loss rate also.
It's just that I hear/ read alot of people assert that the the p47/ p38 combination, even the with the J25/ L series, just couldn't get it done in the European theater.
Could they have done as well as the Mustang if they had been chosesn to remain the dominant escort fighters? No I think the p51 still does better by a comfortable margin but I also think the dismissive comments I sometimes hear/ read about the p47/ p38 in Europe don't stack up against the actual numbers.
I guess the simples way to put it is, if youve got a 4 to 1 kill ratio against the enemy and your massively outproducing him on top of it then the outcome is inevitable. Not as good as a 8 to 1 ratio(Mustang) but still ends in the same way albiet certainly at more cost.

 

[BiffF15]

Certainly agree with all of that. I guess that's kind of the crux of the matter, by the time the issues with the p38 we're at least for the most part solved the bad impression had been made and the discision had been made to go with the p51 for air superiority as it probably should have been anyway(at least for the most part, can think of a few situations where it would be good to keep a few p47s/ p38s around) had been made. Hey better ( except climb)performance at half the cost and apparently a lower non combat related loss rate also.
It's just that I hear/ read alot of people assert that the the p47/ p38 combination, even the with the J25/ L series, just couldn't get it done in the European theater.
Could they have done as well as the Mustang if they had been chosesn to remain the dominant escort fighters? No I think the p51 still does better by a comfortable margin but I also think the dismissive comments I sometimes hear/ read about the p47/ p38 in Europe don't stack up against the actual numbers.
I guess the simples way to put it is, if youve got a 4 to 1 kill ratio against the enemy and your massively outproducing him on top of it then the outcome is inevitable. Not as good as a 8 to 1 ratio(Mustang) but still ends in the same way albiet certainly at more cost.

Michael,

I agree. However when the Mustangs are at an 8 to 1 ratio, a 4 point advantage, think about how many more bomber crews survived because 4 less aircraft were airborne, or flying two or three times a day. It adds up.

Cheers,
Biff

 

[Reluctant Poster]

Certainly agree with all of that. I guess that's kind of the crux of the matter, by the time the issues with the p38 we're at least for the most part solved the bad impression had been made and the discision had been made to go with the p51 for air superiority as it probably should have been anyway(at least for the most part, can think of a few situations where it would be good to keep a few p47s/ p38s around) had been made. Hey better ( except climb)performance at half the cost and apparently a lower non combat related loss rate also.
It's just that I hear/ read alot of people assert that the the p47/ p38 combination, even the with the J25/ L series, just couldn't get it done in the European theater.
Could they have done as well as the Mustang if they had been chosesn to remain the dominant escort fighters? No I think the p51 still does better by a comfortable margin but I also think the dismissive comments I sometimes hear/ read about the p47/ p38 in Europe don't stack up against the actual numbers.
I guess the simples way to put it is, if youve got a 4 to 1 kill ratio against the enemy and your massively outproducing him on top of it then the outcome is inevitable. Not as good as a 8 to 1 ratio(Mustang) but still ends in the same way albiet certainly at more cost.

According to statistics compiled by the USAAF (via Roger Freeman), from the the first appearance of the P-38 over Germany in October 1943 to the end of Big Week in February it took 28 P-38 sorties for each Luftwaffe fighter claimed, it took 27 P-47 sorties per claim, but only 8 P-51 sorties.

 

[michael rauls]

According to statistics compiled by the USAAF (via Roger Freeman), from the the first appearance of the P-38 over Germany in October 1943 to the end of Big Week in February it took 28 P-38 sorties for each Luftwaffe fighter claimed, it took 27 P-47 sorties per claim, but only 8 P-51 sorties.

Very interesting stats. They point out how successful the p51 was but also the dramatic difference between the effectiveness of the earlier model p38s( pre big week) and the J25/L series( post big week).
As far as the p47 I find those stats a head scratcher as I don't have the numbers here in front of me but to the best of my memory they really cleaned up during big week. Perhaps there were just many more of them.

 

[drgondog]

I don't believe that 200gal ferry tank was used in combat. In fact, the Thunderbolt was flying combat missions out of England with the 8th AF without drop tanks between April 30 and July 30 in 1943. No attachment points or any provision at all for external fuel on the new main escort fighter of the 8th AF bombing Germany from England. Then in August they got one 75 gallon belly tank and after that 108 gallon belly tanks became available.

Actually, on July 28th - the 4th FG used the 205 gallon tank operationally to catch 1./JG 3 and I./JG 26 from behind near Emmerich for a 9 for exchange.

 

[P-39 Expert]

Actually, on July 28th - the 4th FG used the 205 gallon tank operationally to catch 1./JG 3 and I./JG 26 from behind near Emmerich for a 9 for exchange.

Was that mission specific to the 205gal tank? Most sources I've read say no tanks for the P-47 until August, then just 75gal tanks.

 

[drgondog]

Was that mission specific to the 205gal tank? Most sources I've read say no tanks for the P-47 until August, then just 75gal tanks.

Ramrod on July 28th, 1943. Penetration escort.

 

[P-39 Expert]

Ramrod on July 28th, 1943. Penetration escort.

Not regular escort missions, right? Those udder tanks weren't used on a regular basis.

 

[drgondog]

Not regular escort missions, right? Those udder tanks weren't used on a regular basis.

They were 'regular' until the metal 75 and paper 110's were available, then ceased altogether. At best they were only useful until ~20,000 feet of altitude and maybe 100 gallons used. Hunter ordered them to be 'retained', fighter commanders said 'no thanks'. They were not pressurized or leak proof.

 

[Shortround6]

Since it could take around 90 gallons or so just to get a P-47 off the ground and up to around 25,000ft these tanks did give a nice boost (take off would have been done on internal tanks) and perhaps the initial cruise in was done at a bit lower altitude than normal/desired so the tanks would still feed. Crossing the French/Belgian/Dutch Coast with 25% or more fuel on board could extend the radius quite a bit.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

Very interesting stats. They point out how successful the p51 was but also the dramatic difference between the effectiveness of the earlier model p38s( pre big week) and the J25/L series( post big week).
As far as the p47 I find those stats a head scratcher as I don't have the numbers here in front of me but to the best of my memory they really cleaned up during big week. Perhaps there were just many more of them.

Correct. P-47s flew 12 times the number of sorties.

 

[special ed]

A brief comment , involving WW2 Naval aviators and the P-38. A friend who flew both F4U and F6F ( he was carrier based for the Hellcat) said one day at his land base, a P-38 landed. After much examination of each others planes, Herb and several other Navy types made a couple of circuits in the 38. He kept telling me "It had a wheel like a truck, but turned like a fighter."

 

[MiTasol]

Half on topic only but here is what McArthur had to say about the P-38 as a P-40 replacement in July 42
I thought I saved an interesting pilot report last night about P-38 pilots needing multiple days off after long range missions but seems I was too tired to put it in the right folder. I will try and find again.