P-38 Question

[renrich]

Thanks for the correction, I did mean the top ace in the ETO flew the Jug. But isn't it amazing that the P47 (at least in the popular media) doesn't get the adulation that the P51 or maybe even the P38 gets. I find those stats very significant. My vote for the best all around fighter in WW2 would go to the Corsair but when one considers the caliber of LW pilot the Jug drivers faced in 1943 and early 44 before the P51 took over the deep escort function. When you consider that as the war continued the Jug was used more in the ground attack role and that was more dangerous than flying escort, to see the loss rate of the Jug versus the other ac in the ETO, it speaks volumes.

[Marshall_Stack]

There have been three ideas posted here that never occurred to me but seem logical.

1.) If the XP-38 didn't crash it its cross-country jaunt, Lockheed may have found and corrected some of its faults earlier on.

2.) Although the P-38 pilots have more victories in the PTO, this may be due to the fact that it had more range than other AAF fighters and hence more opportunities.

3.) The loss ratio of the P-47 in the ETO is lower than other AAF airplanes even though it was used heavily for ground attack (where most of the AAF pilots were lost).


Good posts....

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by Marshall_Stack

1.) If the XP-38 didn't crash it its cross-country jaunt, Lockheed may have found and corrected some of its faults earlier on.

Some sources say the P38 program was set back by nearly one year because of that stunt.

2.) Although the P-38 pilots have more victories in the PTO, this may be due to the fact that it had more range than other AAF fighters and hence more opportunities.

It was also used far more effectively than its main combatants.

[renrich]

It would seem to me that the P38(and Corsair) had such a huge performance edge over the Japanese ac in the Pacific at least until right at the end, that they were almost invulnerable, unless surprised or handled poorly.

[Marshall_Stack]

Originally Posted by renrich

It would seem to me that the P38(and Corsair) had such a huge performance edge over the Japanese ac in the Pacific at least until right at the end, that they were almost invulnerable, unless surprised or handled poorly.

Or unless caught low and slow....

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by renrich

It would seem to me that the P38(and Corsair) had such a huge performance edge over the Japanese ac in the Pacific at least until right at the end, that they were almost invulnerable, unless surprised or handled poorly.

The P38's had the range and just as importantly, the twin engine design that brought more than a few pilots home.

[renrich]

The salient point about ac design is that in the end, they are all compromises. If you pick up a lttle in one area, you give away in another. By having two engines the P38 did have the advantage of being able to come home on one. But, two engines gave twice the probability of having engine trouble, especially in high performance fighter engines and your opponent had twice as much vulnerable area to shoot at. There was also twice as much maintenance to two engines. Having said that it does seem that the P38 was by far the most successful twin engined fighter design in WW2.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by renrich

The salient point about ac design is that in the end, they are all compromises. If you pick up a lttle in one area, you give away in another. By having two engines the P38 did have the advantage of being able to come home on one. But, two engines gave twice the probability of having engine trouble, especially in high performance fighter engines and your opponent had twice as much vulnerable area to shoot at. There was also twice as much maintenance to two engines. Having said that it does seem that the P38 was by far the most successful twin engined fighter design in WW2.

The P-38 also bumped into a drag limitation at lower speeds than either the 51 or 47 which limited to incremental top speed improvements at altitude which is why the top speed of all the models was pretty close to each other -but imroved climb and acceleration with each increase in Hp.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by renrich

Thanks for the correction, I did mean the top ace in the ETO flew the Jug. But isn't it amazing that the P47 (at least in the popular media) doesn't get the adulation that the P51 or maybe even the P38 gets. I find those stats very significant. My vote for the best all around fighter in WW2 would go to the Corsair but when one considers the caliber of LW pilot the Jug drivers faced in 1943 and early 44 before the P51 took over the deep escort function. When you consider that as the war continued the Jug was used more in the ground attack role and that was more dangerous than flying escort, to see the loss rate of the Jug versus the other ac in the ETO, it speaks volumes.

I think everybody who flew the Jug throughout their combat career had a special place in their hearts. The ones that transitioned to Mustangs loved it because it had the performance and range to take the fight over Germany on equal or better terms and the 47s were left to fly the shorter legs until the end of the war.

It is an interesting note that the 56th was right at the top of air to air ratios versus the LW. Discounting losses to flak and mechanical problems it was close to 12:1 which topped the 354th and 357th and 352nd FG in Mustangs.

Before starting a flame war on ratios I want to emphasize that is a breakdown from Kent Miller's 8th Fighter Command volumes and attributing all 'unknown' losses to air to air to add to the definite air to air losses... and associating only USAF 85 air victory credit AWARDS (not claims). Just use it as a rule of thumb and generate your own if the above is not palatable to your taste.

As a contrast, using the same approach (i.e. add "unknown" to definite air to air losses), the 355th FG was around 8:1 total and 9:1 with the Mustang - ditto the 4th.

Having said that - none of the 8th or 9th or 12th or 15th P-47 records were close to the 56FG (or the other Mustang groups). The 56th was unique.

[syscom3]

[quote=renrich;267831]....By having two engines the P38 did have the advantage of being able to come home on one. But, two engines gave twice the probability of having engine trouble, especially in high performance fighter engines and your opponent had twice as much vulnerable area to shoot at. ....QUOTE]

Even in peacetime, you dont want to be over the vast ocean 1000 miles from any airbase.

In the PTO, more than a few pilots made it home because of the 2 engines.

[drgondog]

[quote=syscom3;267841][quote=renrich;267831]....By having two engines the P38 did have the advantage of being able to come home on one. But, two engines gave twice the probability of having engine trouble, especially in high performance fighter engines and your opponent had twice as much vulnerable area to shoot at. ....[quote]



[quote] Even in peacetime, you dont want to be over the vast ocean 1000 miles from any airbase.

In the PTO, more than a few pilots made it home because of the 2 engines[quote]

If I had been there and had a choice I would definitely picked the P-38 as fighter of choice - particularly after Lindberg made his contributions to fuel and engine management

[renrich]

All true, although the Navy and Marine pilots flew plenty of miles in blue water conditions with one engine which, of course, is why the Navy insisted on using air cooled radial engines because of their dependability and robustness. Lindberg chose a single engined ac to fly the Atlantic in because a twin engine ac of those days could not remain aloft on one engine for long, unlike the P38, and he knew the probability of engine failure with two engines was twice that of an ac with one engine. When I was flying light ac and flew over a big lake I always noted the engine started sounding peculiar.

[JoeB]

Originally Posted by drgondog

Before starting a flame war on ratios I want to emphasize that is a breakdown from Kent Miller's 8th Fighter Command volumes and attributing all 'unknown' losses to air to air to add to the definite air to air losses... and associating only USAF 85 air victory credit AWARDS (not claims). Just use it as a rule of thumb...

I've had in mind to get the Miller books for a long time, but want them cheap I just bought v.2 pretty cheap on Ebay, will continue to work on 1.

In addition to works like that, many more specific books give the actual air combat, unknown, non-air combat losses, of course. I was just referring to the big blanket stats often quoted which do not separate those out, but are often quoted.

Also by 'claims' I meant official awards. I should be more careful to always say 'credits' or 'awards' to avoid that ambiguity. But official awards are still the 'official claims' in some sense by one side, not what the other side recorded having lost, which is still usually less, sometimes a lot less. As rule of thumb it's probably reasonable to assume the (German losses/US awards) ratio was the same for P-38 units on average and P-51 units on average flying in the same numbered AF at the same time (subject to perhaps some caution still). But it's demonstrably not a valid assumption when the comparisons go further afield. For example P-40 units 'official' victories in the Pacific ca. 1942 (when there wasn't necessarily even a well defined official process) and 8th AF P-51 victories in 1945. The earlier awards clearly exceeded the opponent's recorded losses to a much greater degree. Even say P-38 awards in 12th AF in 1943 I would not compare directly to late war awards in terms of actual German a/c destroyed.

Back to Aleutians, some other sources, including the USAAF's own official chronology, give claims for those combats sometimes higher than the official victories I outlined in comparison to Japanese recorded losses, the chrono perhaps gives unfiltered claims submitted. The overall ratio of 16 official credits to 9 Rufe's actually destroyed is pretty good by general WWII standards and good for early war USAAF, the 11th AF was apparently relatively strict. A related interesting fact is a couple of 11th AF pilots were later P-38 aces with the 5th AF, which recognized Aleutian P-39 claims of theirs the 11th had not, but as we see even the official 11th awards already exceeded the Rufe losses.

Joe

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by renrich

All true, although the Navy and Marine pilots flew plenty of miles in blue water conditions with one engine which, of course, is why the Navy insisted on using air cooled radial engines because of their dependability and robustness. Lindberg chose a single engined ac to fly the Atlantic in because a twin engine ac of those days could not remain aloft on one engine for long, unlike the P38, and he knew the probability of engine failure with two engines was twice that of an ac with one engine. When I was flying light ac and flew over a big lake I always noted the engine started sounding peculiar.

Not true. Just because you have two engines does not mean you have 1/2 the chance of returning home. The P38 could fly home on one engine, while the F6F and F4U were in the drink when the engine quit. Simultaneous engine failures were (and still are) quite rare.

The P38's abilty to fly fast and go extremely long distances meant it was uniquely suited for the environment in which it fought.

[renrich]

Sys, I think you mis understood my statement. I was saying that it was true that many pilots made it home because of two engines on the P38. my next statement was that twin engined ac of Lindberg's 1927 flight could not remain in the air long on a single engine, UNLIKE THE P38, which unless my knowledge of the English language fails me that the P38 could remain in the air for a long time on one engine.