Interceptor vs Escort.

ricardo · 08-01-2005, 03:05 PM

The first source is a SUMMARY OF LOSSES TO ALL CAUSES IN ETO (including accidents, combat losses, unknown):

P-47---------------1,043
P-38-----------------451
P-51---------------2,201

And the other source states the actual combat losses in the ETO (doesn't mention non-combat losses or unknown) were:

P-47--------3077
P-51--------2520
P-38--------1758

Definitively there is wide range of losses: P-47 (at least 1043 to 3077 or more), P-51 (at least 2,201 to 2520 or more) and P-38 (at least 451 to 1758 or more).

My point of view:

If the first source is right, then anyone can easily say that only 200 out of 450 P-38s were actually lost due to air to air combat. The other 251 were lost due to accidents, flak, unknown. But wait!! don't you think that 200 is too little??

FLYBOYJ · 08-01-2005, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ricardo

The first source is a SUMMARY OF LOSSES TO ALL CAUSES IN ETO (including accidents, combat losses, unknown):

P-47---------------1,043
P-38-----------------451
P-51---------------2,201

And the other source states the actual combat losses in the ETO (doesn't mention non-combat losses or unknown) were:

P-47--------3077
P-51--------2520
P-38--------1758

Definitively there is wide range of losses: P-47 (at least 1043 to 3077 or more), P-51 (at least 2,201 to 2520 or more) and P-38 (at least 451 to 1758 or more).

My point of view:

If the first source is right, then anyone can easily say that only 200 out of 450 P-38s were actually lost due to air to air combat. The other 251 were lost due to accidents, flak, unknown. But wait!! don't you think that 200 is too little??

Actually I do - I know that wmaxt posted data to show that the P-38 had the best survival rate if damaged (2nd engine obviously), but I would agree that 200 is too few. Match that with the P-38 air-to-air kills it gives the P-38 an 8 to 1 ETO kill ratio, and even though I am a P-38 fan, I know that is wrong!

wmaxt · 08-01-2005, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ricardo

The first source is a SUMMARY OF LOSSES TO ALL CAUSES IN ETO (including accidents, combat losses, unknown):

P-47---------------1,043
P-38-----------------451
P-51---------------2,201

And the other source states the actual combat losses in the ETO (doesn't mention non-combat losses or unknown) were:

P-47--------3077
P-51--------2520
P-38--------1758

Definitively there is wide range of losses: P-47 (at least 1043 to 3077 or more), P-51 (at least 2,201 to 2520 or more) and P-38 (at least 451 to 1758 or more).

My point of view:

If the first source is right, then anyone can easily say that only 200 out of 450 P-38s were actually lost due to air to air combat. The other 251 were lost due to accidents, flak, unknown. But wait!! don't you think that 200 is too little??

One thing about the numbers the AAF statistics branch claims 5,320 fighters lost in the ETO from all causes which is in the middle of the two sets of numbers shown above.
Secondly, I agree that the 8th losses page says Summary of all losses, however the paragraph above mentions returned aircraft that had to be written off were not always listed and these numbers are the right magnitude for that catagory while the second, larger, set would seem to fit the ALL losses catagory. I have seen the same/similar numbers in those very catagories.
Third, the numbers do match those I have seen elsewhere so I'm sure I'm using them correctly and they are close if not exactly correct.
Lastly, I have submitted a request to the records branch of the AAF stats. staff for information to confirm/modify these numbers.

In the METO the ratio works out to 5.32:1 Axis airplane, In the ETO defending the home front with a few more planes and more experianced pilots the 3.92:1 is probably correct. Another thing is the mission mix is about the same in the two theaters.

I think the P-38 was the best AAF fighter (until maybe the P-47M/N and the F4U-4) in the war but It has to stand on it's own record. I would like to expose that record in spite of the crud that has floated around for 60 years, not add anything that does not belong.

wmaxt

wmaxt · 08-01-2005, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

Actually I do - I know that wmaxt posted data to show that the P-38 had the best survival rate if damaged (2nd engine obviously), but I would agree that 200 is too few. Match that with the P-38 air-to-air kills it gives the P-38 an 8 to 1 ETO kill ratio, and even though I am a P-38 fan, I know that is wrong!

One thought I had on P-38 surviveability is the layout of the P-38 Everything is redundant. It was also spread out. It might have been easier to hit something but to hit enough critacle stuff was much harder.
A number came home with 1 boom and the elevator shreadded.
Lots came home from as far as 600mi on one engine.
At least Two came home after collisions with Bf-109s.
Phone/power poles were almost standard strikes
1 even came home on 1 engine with a Halifax rudder, flat to the aitstream on the other wing (the good engine was between the bad one and the rudder) after a collision.

wmaxt

FLYBOYJ · 08-01-2005, 04:30 PM

I posted a story on another link about an engineer I used to work with who flew P-38s in the MTO during the war. Long story short (the long one is on the other link) he got jumped by an ME-110 who blasted away at his P-38, shooting out an engine and filling the cockpit full of holes. In his panic he grabbed the yoke and fired off the guns point blank and exploded the -110 right in front of him as the -110 over shot. He flew his P-38 across the Med back to his base where it was scrapped.

lesofprimus · 08-01-2005, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Everything is redundant. It was also spread out. It might have been easier to hit something but to hit enough critacle stuff was much harder.

I will agree with that....

I honestly dont believe that there will ever be a surefire # for combat losses/non-combat losses.....

wmaxt · 08-01-2005, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

I posted a story on another link about an engineer I used to work with who flew P-38s in the MTO during the war. Long story short (the long one is on the other link) he got jumped by an ME-110 who blasted away at his P-38, shooting out an engine and filling the cockpit full of holes. In his panic he grabbed the yoke and fired off the guns point blank and exploded the -110 right in front of him as the -110 over shot. He flew his P-38 across the Med back to his base where it was scrapped.

P-38s were good for that. How did he rate the P-38 compared to others?

wmaxt

FLYBOYJ · 08-01-2005, 04:41 PM

He loved it, and what made it neat was he was working at Lockheed before the war and actually built the P-38 prototypes.

During this mission he told me the top canopy was blown away, most of the instument panel was gone, he could see through the floorboard and had no radio!

He did tell me he liked the P-40, but thought the -38 was the best fighter of WW2. In another thread I posted comments about my old neighbor who flew both -51s and -38s. He thought the -38 was a much better aircraft although was one of those "freezing" ETO pilots.

lesofprimus · 08-01-2005, 04:45 PM

There was also a compressability problem with the -38 in the ETO, diving from altitude would fog and ice up the windscreen and u were blind..

FLYBOYJ · 08-01-2005, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lesofprimus

There was also a compressability problem with the -38 in the ETO, diving from altitude would fog and ice up the windscreen and u were blind..

Yep - Mike Alba did mention that as well......

wmaxt · 08-01-2005, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

He loved it, and what made it neat was he was working at Lockheed before the war and actually built the P-38 prototypes.

During this mission he told me the top canopy was blown away, most of the instument panel was gone, he could see through the floorboard and had no radio!

He did tell me he liked the P-40, but thought the -38 was the best fighter of WW2. In another thread I posted comments about my old neighbor who flew both -51s and -38s. He thought the -38 was a much better aircraft although was one of those "freezing" ETO pilots.

I've been trying to see how many pilots were of that opinion. So far I've come across 2 that just didn't like the P-38. The vast majority I've come across so far, 15 or so, If they flew the P-38 and the others the thought the P-38 was best.

Many P-38 drivers complained about the cold. Why they never installed a hot/coolant heater is beyond me, two pipes through the mid wing maybe 12' of pipe max, it would have cleared the problem easily.

wmaxt

FLYBOYJ · 08-01-2005, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wmaxt

Many P-38 drivers complained about the cold. Why they never installed a hot/coolant heater is beyond me two pipes through the mid wing, maybe 12' of pipe max, it would have cleared the problem easily. wmaxt

Remember the plane was developed in Southern California. In Burbank summer temps are in the high 90s, in the winter you may see 40s. at night. I was told by some at Lockheed that some of the engineers choose to ignore the heat issue until it became a "hot potato."

wmaxt · 08-01-2005, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

Quote:

Originally Posted by wmaxt

Many P-38 drivers complained about the cold. Why they never installed a hot/coolant heater is beyond me two pipes through the mid wing, maybe 12' of pipe max, it would have cleared the problem easily. wmaxt

Remember the plane was developed in Southern California. In Burbank summer temps are in the high 90s, in the winter you may see 40s. at night. I was told by some at Lockheed that some of the engineers choose to ignore the heat issue until it became a "hot potato."

I wonder how many fingers, toes and pilots died because of that.

Les, your right on both counts, frosting and the numbers will never be fully right. Compressability was a problem but an experianced pilot could pull the throttles back, put the props in flat pitch and s-turn to keep the plane out of serious trouble.

wmaxt

lesofprimus · 08-01-2005, 05:09 PM

Quote:

but an experianced pilot could pull the throttles back, put the props in flat pitch and s-turn to keep the plane out of serious trouble.

Dont know if he would want to do that in a combat situation tho.... Bouncing from High Outta the Sun in the ETO was a problem for -38 pilots that never really got resolved, other than sendin them to the PTO...

FLYBOYJ · 08-01-2005, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wmaxt

Quote:

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

Quote:

Originally Posted by wmaxt

Many P-38 drivers complained about the cold. Why they never installed a hot/coolant heater is beyond me two pipes through the mid wing, maybe 12' of pipe max, it would have cleared the problem easily. wmaxt

Remember the plane was developed in Southern California. In Burbank summer temps are in the high 90s, in the winter you may see 40s. at night. I was told by some at Lockheed that some of the engineers choose to ignore the heat issue until it became a "hot potato."

I wonder how many fingers, toes and pilots died because of that.

Les, your right on both counts, frosting and the numbers will never be fully right. Compressability was a problem but an experianced pilot could pull the throttles back, put the props in flat pitch and s-turn to keep the plane out of serious trouble.

wmaxt

It seems they were more concerned with compressibility