would you out-rule that an
A-20 couldn't perform a recon mission? maybe even better?
A-20 couldn't perform a bombing attack? maybe even better?
A-20 couldn't perform a strafing raid on an airfield? maybe even better?
A-20 couldn't perform a ship/naval attack? maybe even better?
A-20 couldn't perform a supply drop, transport? even far better?
A-20 couldn't perform an medi/evac? even far better?
A-20 couldn't sneak up and shot down e.g. any of the following aircraft's?
A5M, D3A (Val),Ki-32 (Mary) etc.
Well, in my opinion the A-20 could do many of those roles, or all of them.
The problem comes in with the "
maybe even better?" parts
The A-20 did a lot of recon, especially for the Russians. but it a lot slower than the P-38 even if it was nearly as fast as many of the 1942-43 Japanese fighters.
The A-20. especially early in the war was limited in range. Available tanks varied during the years so range varied. P-38s with drop tanks could out range A-20s most of the time.
A-20s could obviously perform bombing attacks. However the A-20 was limited to four 500lb bombs in the bomb bay and could not carry a 1000lb at all. It also could only carry four 250lbs inside the bomb bay. P-38s could only carry two bombs regardless of size (at least most of the way through 1944) and when carrying bombs either had 300 us gallons internal for short range or used one drop tank and one bomb for longer range. A-20s could (at times) carry more smaller bombs inside the bomb bay. So what is better? two 1000lbs bonbs close by or no 1000lbs in the A-20s or two 1000lb or four 500lb bombs or two 500lb bombs vs four 500lb bombs?
The strafing attack by A-20s is not going to come out in the A-20s favor. Most early ones had either four .30 cal guns or two .50 cal guns in the glass nose versions. The solid nose factory planes would hold six. 50 cal guns. Field modifications never held more than 6 guns and often only 4. The P-38 had the standard four .50s and one 20mm gun in every version.
The few A-20s that four 20mm guns had drum fed cannon with 60 rounds per drum and no way to change the drums in flight. That os for fouor guns in the nose or 4 guns in the belly pod which cut performance and blocked the bomb bay.
The A-20 could a did perform ship attacks. Usually the P-38s were flying top cover to keep the Japanese (Or Italian or?) fighter off the bombers. Lack of opportunity although the P-38 could have carried the heavier bombs if high command though they needed them.
Supply drop from an A-20???
well could hang a container from the bomb rack/s of the P-38. You might be able to put supply containers in an A-20 but the bomb bay was restricted in size and as noted the bomb racks limited what would fit. You might be able to drop a couple of bundles though the ventral gun hatch, assuming you can fit the gunner/package dropper and the bundles underneath the upper gun station.
Medi/vac? You can't put wounded in the nose/cockpit of an A-20, you can't put them in the bomb bay, you can only put them in the rear gunner compartment. Which makes it better than a P-38 put you are really pushing things. Putting more than couple of men in the rear compartment starts to mess up the CG.
P-38s didn't need to "sneak up" on old/obsolete Japanese aircraft. They could take on anything the Japanese had.
Now I have tried to keep things general, like not referencing P-38s in the last year of the war that could carry multiple bombs under each wing or Certain A-20s that could carry four 500lbs underwing in addition to the bomb bay. A-20s used the same engine from pretty much first to last (a few late ones got 1700hp engines) while P-38s went from about 1225hp in the first combat versions to 1600hp by mid 1944. However there were a number of things that A-20s could not do, like act as day fighters against German, Italian and Japanese single engine fighters.
Fly from England to North Africa for operation Torch.
Fly from North Africa to the Beaches over Sicily and do standing patrols to protect the beachheads. Not only were you not going to use A-20s but the Allies had no land based fighters that could do it (except for Beaufighters and Beaufighters vs 109s and 190s was not going to be be pretty).
Likewise P-38s offered more range in the southern Italian campaign.
The distances the P-38s could fly in the Pacific made them invaluable.
The P-38 may not have been the choice in the summer of 1944 and after but the planes that were the best choice in the last year of the war didn't exist for 2 years after Pearl Harbor
And the substitutes could not do what the P-38 could do.
If the P-39s, P-40s and Spitfires cannot support the Sicilian landings you are 100% dependent on carrier aircraft.