Interceptor vs Escort.

[plan_D]

Yeah, I have 1:72 models of both the P-51 and P-38; there's quite a bit of extension on the wing span with the P-38. It's a bigger plane, a bigger target.

[cheddar cheese]

http://home.att.net/~ww2aircraft/Profiles.html Heres a report dedicated to the issue.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by 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.

I'll agree the P-38 was less than stellar in the ETO - some reasons for that lay with the aircraft (conditions that could of been corrected) however history is history. The FACT remains that the P-38 destroyed well over 1700 aircraft in AIR-TO-AIR combat over Europe.

[wmaxt]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

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.

This site shows the number of aircraft that did not return to Britain after their combat missions - these are the numbers that generate the 4:1 comes from http://www.taphilo.com/history/8thaf/8aflosses.shtml

This site has the Overall losses (those lost to all causes whearthe they returned or not) kills and sorties. http://www.ww2guide.com/fighters.shtml

In the Med 113 P-38s were lost for 608 kills for a 5.32:1 ratio against the same aircraft.

The bomb tonnage number is also wrong 1 P-38FG alone dropped 660,000lbs and the P-51 number is high the P-51s did minimal ground attack with bombs. P-51s did most of their ground attacks on the return from escorts.

This site has an article on the various sizes of US aircraft and some very good articles on the P-38 in general. http://home.att.net/~C.C.Jordan/index.html

wmaxt

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by wmaxt

This site shows the number of aircraft that did not return to Britain after their combat missions - these are the numbers that generate the 4:1 comes from http://www.taphilo.com/history/8thaf/8aflosses.shtml

In the Med 113 P-38s were lost for 608 kills for a 5.32:1 ratio against the same aircraft.

The bomb tonnage number is also wrong 1 P-38FG alone dropped 660,000lbs and the P-51 number is high the P-51s did minimal ground attack with bombs. P-51s did most of their ground attacks on the return from escorts.

This site has an article on the various sizes of US aircraft and some very good articles on the P-38 in general. http://home.att.net/~C.C.Jordan/index.html

wmaxt

Thanks wmaxt - I didn't have a lot of time this weekend to research this - I got family coming over and I'm supposed to fly later today - Correct me if I'm wrong, but the P-38 air-to-air kill ratio was still 1.01 to 1 or was the non-combat losses included in the P-38 losses?

[wmaxt]

Thanks wmaxt - I didn't have a lot of time this weekend to research this - I got family coming over and I'm supposed to fly later today - Correct me if I'm wrong, but the P-38 air-to-air kill ratio was still 1.01 to 1 or was the non-combat losses included in the P-38 losses?[/quote]

I added a web site above that shows the total losses/kills/sorties.

Ya, short form, if you use the Total kills 1771 (the Journal had a missprint) to 1758 (all even noncombattants) it's 1.01:1 if you use non returns (obviously shot down) it's 1771 to 451 or 3.92:1

The P-38 had 451 that did not return to Britain, the 1758 number is all p38s lost to all causes training, ferrying, collisions, aircraft that returned with damage to great to repair and including, I belive, the "Lost Squadron" in Greenland (ferry loss of aircraft assigned to the 8th). BTW the P-47 had a similar ratio of aircraft returned but unable to fly again if I 1,043 non returns and 3,077 total lost while the P-51 had 2,201 non returns for 2,520 total - if you got hit in a P-51 you went down.

If you look at all the numbers and leave the politics out of it the P-38 was the best by a fair margin.

People forget or don't realize the people in control of the 8th airforce controled the information about the ETO they Arnold, Eaker, Spaatz staked everything on unescorted bombers not using the P-38 to stop the carnage would be criminal unless the P-38 couldn't do it so they didn't support it. The only place the P-38 did badly is the ETO, they said it was the range, the cold, and the engines. In Alaska they had -50 on the ground and -70 at altitude and flew the same distances as in the ETO. There were very few aborts from cold cockpits or bad engines. In the PTO it was common for strike and top cover missions to be at 25/30k and -50 with distances up to 700 mi radii, very few aborts from engines or cold cocpits. Only in the ETO were there problems.

If you examine the problems of the P-38 in the ETO most are at least in part are operational ie running the engines to cool and congealing the oil in Alaska they ran 1700rpm 45"/hg saving engine life, fuel, warm oil, AND warm exaust kept the cockpits warmer (still not very good but tollerable). The other problems were lack of support ie. Octain was adjusted in the field before fueling BY HAND, sometimes in 55gal drums, if the TEL didn't mix you lost an engine. The 8th contended the P-51 had more range but they NEVER ordered the 300gal drop tanks for the P-38.

The P-38 still did the job.

Sorry If I got redundant

wmaxt

[FLYBOYJ]

I knew there was no way the P-38 shot down less than 1750 aircraft and had a least a 1 to 1 kill ratio with the Luftwaffle. Wmaxt, excellent information on the P-38 - I thought with 10+ years at Lockheed I was the P-38 authority, but you always come up with great information!

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Also you have to look at the fact that combat losses does not neccessarily mean it was shot down. The aircraft could have had mechanical problems on a mission and not returned to base. That is still a combat loss.

[wmaxt]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Also you have to look at the fact that combat losses does not neccessarily mean it was shot down. The aircraft could have had mechanical problems on a mission and not returned to base. That is still a combat loss.

Very True. The P-38 and P-47 had a large percentage of ground attack missions which, I think, account for the large number of aircraft that made it back from missions but were non reparable ie anti aircraft weposn, trees, poles tend to wrench airframes out of true when hit making them un repairable.

Also Adler, the numbers for total aircraft losses, kills, sorties for US fighters are at http://www.ww2guide.com/fighters.shtml There are a lot of other specs though the P-38 specs are still a mixture and not quite right. it shows ranges for the early J model no wing tanks and small drop tanks ETO configuration. For numbers of aircraft that did not return from missions go to http://www.taphilo.com/history/8thaf/8aflosses.shtml

Thanks, Flyboy have you seen this page in has several good articles. I like the F4U-4 article where he make a case for the Corsair against the P-51 but has several comments that run except for the P-38 the Corsair is ...
Http://home.att.net/C.C.Jordan/index.html

wmaxt

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Yeap I did not meantion AA. I bet you quite a bit did not return because of AA.

[wmaxt]

Originally Posted by DerAdlerIstGelandet

Yeap I did not meantion AA. I bet you quite a bit did not return because of AA.

I'm sure you are right, so the nonreturn of 451 is even better looking. The "if you are hit but still made it home" percentages are as follows:
P-38 - 75%
P-47 - 66%
P-51 - 13%

wmaxt

[ricardo]

Read carefully what this link ( http://www.taphilo.com/history/8thaf/8aflosses.shtml ) displays:

Other losses occurred too. Collisions, training accidents and so on. The table below summarizes all losses in the ETO during the war:

Aircraft Type Number Lost
B-17---------------4,754
B-24---------------2,112
P-47---------------1,043
P-38-----------------451
P-51---------------2,201
Total-------------10,561

On the other hand, this site ( http://www.ww2guide.com/fighters.shtml )tells another story:

Fighter Losses ETO

Type-------Combat Losses
P-47--------3077
P-51--------2520
P-38--------1758

These two sources does not complement each other, they are giving different numbers. One must be right and the other one must be wrong.

[FLYBOYJ]

Or one is including all Combat losses ground and air or air-to-air losses only.

NOTE - The top line is 8AF only.

[the lancaster kicks ass]

Originally Posted by ric

One must be right and the other one must be wrong.

or they could both be wrong, when checking stats it's best to get sources from several different media types to confirm data.......

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by the lancaster kicks ass

or they could both be wrong, when checking stats it's best to get sources from several different media types to confirm data.......

YEP!