Interceptor vs Escort.

[ricardo]

Proof? well.... according to AVIATION magazine (Best WW2 fighter), the P-38 was in #7 position in the ETO (behind the P-47(#1), Fw190(#2), Spitfire(#3), P-51(#4), Yak-3 & Yak-9(#5) and Bf109(#6). Statistics clearly shows that they lost more than twice of their P-38s than enemy aircraft shot down by P-38s. That's not success!!

In the Pacific, it was a different story.... the P-38s were punishing japanese aircraft with almost impunity. They were very successful in the PTO.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by ricardo

Proof? well.... according to AVIATION magazine (Best WW2 fighter), the P-38 was in #7 position in the ETO (behind the P-47(#1), Fw190(#2), Spitfire(#3), P-51(#4), Yak-3 & Yak-9(#5) and Bf109(#6). Statistics clearly shows that they lost more than twice of their P-38s than enemy aircraft shot down by P-38s. That's not success!!

And that's not proof - AVIATION MAGAZINE? Who wrote the article? Go the the sources shown here - historians who tracked both Allied and Axis records. While I agree the P-38s performance in the ETO was less than stellar, your comments are wrong. See below for an accurate and honest assessment of the P-38.....

The Lightning had a mediocre record at best in the ETO. It destroyed 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! For comparison, here are the ETO/MTO kill ratios and loss rates of the Mustang, Spitfire (USAAF Spits only), and Lightning:

Kill ratio: P-51, 1.96 to 1; Spitfire, 1.34 to 1; P-38, 1.01 to 1.

Loss rate: Spitfire 0.66%; P-51, 1.18%; P-38, 1.35%.

The P-38 had three major problems in the ETO:

1. Its Allison engines suffered severely reduced performance at high altitude, making it unsuitable for long-range escort work.

2. Its cockpit heating system was inadequate for the low temperatures encountered over Northern Europe in winter, often leaving pilots with frostbite.

3. With one engine out, the P-38 was a sitting duck for Luftwaffe fighters, meaning that the twin-engined configuration was a handicap, not a help.

"The extrememly low temperatures encountered at altitudes above 20,000 ft was the primary cause of engine trouble. At -50 degrees, lubricating oil became sluggish and the full application of full power, particularly in a climb, could cause piston rod bearings to break up with dire consequences. Above 22,000 ft the Allison engines would also begin to throw oil...Turbo-supercharger regulators also gave trouble, eventually traced to moisture from the vapor trail, gathering behind the engine exhaust stubs, getting into the balance lines and freezing.

"[On Febrary 4, 1944] nearly half the P-38s had been forced to abort when once again extreme cold forced a spate of engine failures. Losses were often high in such circumstances for the Luftwaffe were quick to exploit the situation when a P-38 was observed to have a feathered propeller. Because the likelihood of these troubles increased with altitude, Lightnings did not of choice operate above 30,000 ft. In consequence Me 109 top cover, which was usually around the 35,000 ft mark, had been repeatedly bouncing the P-38s on nearly every mission."

- from The Mighty Eighth by Roger Freeman

And to be fair I believe much of this is directed to earlier J models and the losses were for all losses, including those shot down by ground fire and those lost due to non-combat mishaps. Do the math - I think the air-to-air kill ratio might of come out to be 4 to 1!

Late L models would of proved a lot more effective.......

[ricardo]

There are so many sources telling their "truth", but no one of us can be 100% sure of which source is correct.

Do I have to believe that some sources claim that Kill ratios were 4:1 in favor of the P-38 against german aircraft?

But if another source claims that actually kill ratios were 2:1 in favor of german aircraft against P-38 then that's totally false.

On the other hand.... according to your trusty source the P-38s destroyed 1,771 german aircraft for the loss of 1,758 of their own. It brings me to the point to wonder how many of those 1,771 german aircraft were single engine fighters and how many were "easy picks".

Does that number (1,771) includes german aircraft destroyed on the ground?

I'm asking because we all know that USAAF used to count enemy aircraft destroyed on the ground as a confirmed "victory".

[wmaxt]

Flyboy is right,

The engine problems was often due to improper cruise tecniques they used a higher rpm setting and low boost caused low coolant temps. Also fuel was bad, to low octain for turbo charging. Lastly the early planes had intercooler problems limiting power available. With Proper tecniques Art Heiden flew over 300hrs in combat without a problem. Cocpit heat was roughly the same as outside. The support by the 8th was terrible. The J-15 on fixed the performance issues and the J-25/Ls fixed the heat (mostly).

Accoeding to the AAF 8th combat losses page only 451 P-38s failed to return to base (the remaining 1,307 were unfit for further flight using numbers that have been normaly accepted) remember the P-38 was also used extensively for ground attack too. 1,771 E/A - 451= 3.92:1 P-38.

Whatever else is said it must be remembered the bomber loss rate from fighters dropped from 5/6% to 1/2% at a time the escorts were outnumbered by 10:1 odds by more experianced German pilots, they still got the job done
wmaxt

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by ricardo

There are so many sources telling their "truth", but no one of us can be 100% sure of which source is correct.

That's right, and that's why you substantiate all claims, USAAF and Luftwaffe.....

Originally Posted by ricardo

Do I have to believe that some sources claim that Kill ratios were 4:1 in favor of the P-38 against German aircraft?

Yes - the Proven numbers show it - proven numbers substantiated from US AND Luftwaffle sources.....

Originally Posted by ricardo

But if another source claims that actually kill ratios were 2:1 in favor of German aircraft against P-38 then that's totally false.

Its false if it states 2 to 1 - do the math!

Originally Posted by ricardo

On the other hand.... according to your trusty source the P-38s destroyed 1,771 German aircraft for the loss of 1,758 of their own. It brings me to the point to wonder how many of those 1,771 German aircraft were single engine fighters and how many were "easy picks".

As stated, those losses INCLUDE ground fire and non-combat losses. Easy picks? Give me a break! How many of the P-38 losses were "easy picks? A kill is a kill and by the way he Luftwaffe would purposely "gang up" on crippled P-38s so that blows you "easy picks" theory out of the water. This is documented by both USAAF and Luftwaffle sources.....

Originally Posted by ricardo

Does that number (1,771) includes German aircraft destroyed on the ground?

No - Air to Air Kills!

Originally Posted by ricardo

I'm asking because we all know that USAAF used to count enemy aircraft destroyed on the ground as a confirmed "victory".

And well aware of that - The USAAF did that in the ETO only - again those are air-to-air kills. If you want to count ground kills it will probably go to 8 to 1!

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

That's right, and that's why you substantiate all claims, USAAF and Luftwaffe.....

Yes - the Proven numbers show it - proven numbers substantiated from US AND Luftwaffle sources.....

Its false if it states 2 to 1 - do the math!

As stated, those losses INCLUDE ground fire and non-combat losses. A twin engine recip aircraft is natrually going to have a higher accident rate than single engine aircraft - that situation exists today in general aviation with pilots way more experienced than WW2 P-38 pilots. Easy picks? Give me a break! How many of the P-38 losses were "easy picks? A kill is a kill and by the way he Luftwaffe would purposely "gang up" on crippled P-38s so that blows you "easy picks" theory out of the water. This is documented by both USAAF and Luftwaffle sources.....

No - Air to Air Kills!

And well aware of that - The USAAF did that in the ETO only - again those are air-to-air kills. If you want to count ground kills it will probably go to 8 to 1!

[ricardo]

Okay, I see that you feel very confident of your sources. Well, you have your sources and I have my sources. Next step? we are going to compare... there must be at least one agreement between your sources and my sources. I don't have the sources that I'm talking about at hand, but I have it at home. I'm going to look for it and then I'll write here the numbers that I read.

See you in a couple of hours.

[FLYBOYJ]

Agree!

[ricardo]

Okay, I'm at home right now, and guess what? I found the info. As a fact, it is not AVIATION... actually it is FLIGHT JOURNAL (august 2003). I go to page #36 at the bottom.

P-38:
Sorties = 129,820
bomb tonnage = 1,771
enemy aircraft destroyed on air = 749
enemy aircraft destroyed on ground = 1,951
combat losses = 1,758
loss rate per sortie = 1.7%

The 1,771 enemy aircraft shot down that you were talking about correspond to bomb tonnage dropped by the P-38s on the ETO.

I understand that combat losses does not include accidents... only aircraft lost due to enemy action.

P-51:
Sorties = 213,873
bomb tonnage = 5,668
enemy aircraft destroyed on air = 4,950
enemy aircraft destroyed on ground = 4,218
combat losses = 2,520
loss rate per sortie = 1.2%

P-47:
Sorties = 423,435
bomb tonnage = 113,913
enemy aircraft destroyed on air = 3,082
enemy aircraft destroyed on ground = 3,202
combat losses = 3,077
loss rate per sortie = 0.7%

Now, send me your comments.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by ricardo

Okay, I'm at home right now, and guess what? I found the info. As a fact, it is not AVIATION... actually it is FLIGHT JOURNAL (august 2003). I go to page #36 at the bottom.

P-38:
Sorties = 129,820
bomb tonnage = 1,771
enemy aircraft destroyed on air = 749
enemy aircraft destroyed on ground = 1,951
combat losses = 1,758
loss rate per sortie = 1.7%

The 1,771 enemy aircraft shot down that you were talking about correspond to bomb tonnage dropped by the P-38s on the ETO.

I believe everything but the air-to-air kills, there should be one in front of that seven based on the previously posted comments from Roger Freeman, author of "The Mighty Eight." I believe its a typo error. I got family coming over tonight, but I am going to find some of my books on this subject as well as internet sources. I've seen those numbers before and it shows the P-38 had slightly more air-to-air kills than losses.

[vanir]

While everyone's looking up info, does anyone have the approximate flight distances of a round trip during the bombing campaign? I don't even know which field the 8th were stationed at but I'm doing up some missions on IL2.
I wanna see these aircraft go at it myself.

Also, not wanting to get into something out of my league here, but I thought the P38's twin-engine reliability was related to actually turning up at the combat zone.
There was always a percentage of aircraft, flying an appreciable distance to target not actually making it there due to simple navigation problems and engine troubles. Especially in the case of the latter I'd imagine this would be a little like rolling dice...don't get the snake-eyes whatever you do (like you get a choice). Probably be a little scary coming down over occupied Europe or in the midsts of something like a hundred seperate battlefields. Even ditching in the channel wouldn't be fun.
A P38 would certainly make you feel a little safer.

But combat reliability in the face of multiple cannon equipped enemy fighters I should think comes down more to not getting hit than anything else. And a one-engined P38 in combat is probably as good as a dead P38 anyway.

And yeah, a turbo-supercharged Allison isn't the best setup for cold northern Europe. European fighters used a centrifugal supercharger (which is like a mechanically driven turbocharger), more reliable when temperatures plummet. Conventional superchargers like those used on US engines are much less forgiving and prefer drag racing tracks to mountaineering. You need huge intercoolers for them when it's hot and you've gotta get out your engineering cap when it's cold.

[ricardo]

Maybe it is a type error, as you said... maybe not.

Anyway, the P-38 did a good job on the MTO and the PTO.

[lesofprimus]

One thing to keep in mind is the pure size difference of the P-38 verses say a P-51... The -38 was one hell of a big target inside ur gunsight...

With 2 engines, a very skilled pilot could make his plane do things a single engine plane could not...

[cheddar cheese]

The P-38 was not actually that bigger target as you may think...only the top views show any notable differences...

[lesofprimus]

I think that pic is misleading CC... U put both of em on the ground next to each other and the size difference is real visible.... The -47 is bigger than the -51 so its not so evident..