P-38 Lightning vs P-51 Mustang: Which was the Better Fighter?

[renrich]

The sortie/loss ratio of the 51 was 85 versus 74 for the 38. To me the negatives on the P38s were: Easy to identify, big target with a lot of vulnerable spots to hit, poor initial rate of roll, early cockpit heater problems, early engine turbocharger problems, early compressibility problems, high initial cost, high cost of maintenance and operation(two engines to fuel), steep pilot learning curve. The positives were good overall performance, long range and good armament system.

[kool kitty89]

The latter is probably a situation in which they were flying J's and no dive issues were prevalent or at low to medium where they performed well - and the natural aggressiveness of the US pilot was not tempered.

This is not the case, high-alt, early in the war, long-range, and he did go into a compressibility dive while trying to help an outnumbered lone Mustang (probably a P-51A) and barely recovered! (w/out dive-flaps)

Watch: YouTube - DOGFIGHTS, P38 LIGHTNING VS ME 109

And on the % loss, it was mentioned earlier on one of the first few pages, this is the % of craft lost per sortie, not how much damage they did, and these numbers are virtually the same, if not lower for the P-38. As for the number of a/c ground kills, perhaps the P-51 just attacked more airfields than the T-bolt or Lightning. Do you have a comparison of other ground-kills or figures, or amount of ordinance delivered to targets?

And on that 262 story with the almost gliding Mustang, here it is: "Bolt from Above" - Robert Winks - P51D Mustang - Me262 Jet


And renrich, once the Lightning got boosted ailerons, almost nothing could roll faster, especially at high-speed.
It's really too bad that the P-39K was overlooked, the only difference from the L model was the props, and the performance difference (as with the Paddle-prop P-47s) was astounding! It would have only taken 2-3 weeks longer to start production than did the L model, but this was somehow unacceptable to the war production board so it was refused...

Also the P-38 was more fuel efficient than the P-47, and technically, one engine could be turned-off, prop feathered and fuel cross-fed to the running engine to increase range and fuel-efficiency even more.

And of the ease of identification, this would only be true for the plan view, plus this can sometimes be an advantage to ward-off friendly-fire, though it would certainly be a disadvantage against enemy ground implacements...

[kool kitty89]

Though I think the Lightning was probably best suited to the PTO, due to long-range and 2 engines, plus she was quite a match for Japanese a/c, and could even out-turn a Zero in certain circumstances. Se could effectively dogfight Zeros and other Japanese planes while the Jug and many other planes had to resort to dive and zoom tactics.

There were also several ways to recover from compressibility w/out dive-flaps, unfortunately most pilots didn't know this. One of the best is to drop to idle, switch props to flat-pitch (to break) and lower maneuvering flaps to increase lift and counter pitch-down and even regain some elevator control. (lower flaps to combat position) Rolling back and forth and sliding with rudder would also help slow to recover.

[renrich]

In 1944, 28 test and combat pilots rated the P38L on maneuverability, two rated it good, ten said fair, while the rest rated it poor. In best all around fighter above 25,000 ft the P38L came in 6th, behind P47D, P51D, F4U1D, F6F5,F4U4. In best all around fighter below 25,000 feet, it was not even mentioned. In worst cockpit, P38L came in first. It did come in in third place in best ailerons at 350 mph. It did not seem to be well liked by those pilots.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by renrich

In 1944, 28 test and combat pilots rated the P38L on maneuverability, two rated it good, ten said fair, while the rest rated it poor. In best all around fighter above 25,000 ft the P38L came in 6th, behind P47D, P51D, F4U1D, F6F5,F4U4. In best all around fighter below 25,000 feet, it was not even mentioned. In worst cockpit, P38L came in first. It did come in in third place in best ailerons at 350 mph. It did not seem to be well liked by those pilots.

I think its because you were dealing with dedicated single engine pilots or very low time twin engine pilots.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by plan_D

What are you talking about looma? Zemke was US 56th FG CO.

As I was reading the thread I didn't see this one answered.

Hub took over the 479th FG August 12, 1944 when it still had P-38s until transition in mid to late September. When he went down in the T-Storm my father, who was then 355FG Exec, was approached to take over the 479th but declined because he was about to go home after end of his first tour.

Robin Olds flew with 479th, liked the 38, liked the 51 better - and he flew P-38J before the transition to 51D's. Olds was one of a very select group that had five or more kills in both the 38 and the 51. Others like Landers (and Jeffrey 4-P38/10-P51) came close with 4 (P-3 and 4.5 (P-51) to go with his six P-40 scores.

I don't know about Jeffrey but Landers preferred the 51 also. Both of them focused on ETO combat when making the remarks.

I'm doing some research on 8th AF ops to take a real look at P-47, P-51 and P-38 statistics but not ready yet. So far, for 8th AF however P-38 had by far the lowest air to air victory ratio of the three fighters.

[kool kitty89]

The Maneuverabillity depends on the Model too, w/out the boosted ailerons initial roll was slow, and they got stiff at high speeds iirc.

Still I think I'd rather be in a P-47 than either plane... Asside from the speed and Ruggedness, she also had one of the most comfortable cockpits of any WWII fighter, with heat, A.C., and a well padded seat.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by drgondog

Robin Olds flew with 479th, liked the 38, liked the 51 better - and he flew P-38J before the transition to 51D's. Olds was one of a very select group that had five or more kills in both the 38 and the 51. Others like Landers (and Jeffrey 4-P38/10-P51) came close with 4 (P-3 and 4.5 (P-51) to go with his six P-40 scores.

Great infor Bill - here's something for ya.....

For the benefit of the newer guys, I'll repeat an earlier post.

I had a former neighbor named Mike Alba. He flew P-38s and P-51 in the ETO during WW2 with the 338th FS, 55th FG. He perfered the P-38 despite the heating and other reported problems. He said the P-38 was far more stable as an aircraft and gun platform when compared to the P-51, but the P-51 was a lot more maneuverable. Later in the war his squadron took on many ground sorties and they suffered many losses, he told me that they wished at that point they kept their P-38s....

He scored 3 kills, all in the P-51.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

Great infor Bill - here's something for ya.....

For the benefit of the newer guys, I'll repeat an earlier post.

I had a former neighbor named Mike Alba. He flew P-38s and P-51 in the ETO during WW2 with the 338th FS, 55th FG. He perfered the P-38 despite the heating and other reported problems. He said the P-38 was far more stable as an aircraft and gun platform when compared to the P-51, but the P-51 was a lot more maneuverable. Later in the war his squadron took on many ground sorties and they suffered many losses, he told me that they wished at that point they kept their P-38s....

He scored 3 kills, all in the P-51.

Joe - Zemke had same observations about stability and gun platform as Alba.

I'm not quite finished yet but my research is showing a much lower ratio of German a/c destroyed on the ground per P-38 loss to flak... which suprised me. Of course not all flak losses due to strafing airfields - particularly post D-Day till end of August...

The Mustang has a far higher air to air ratio, but again what does that tell us about the relative merits.

All the statistics are interesting but..I'm not finished yet. I went back into the 8th AF units and started breaking out everything by month, a/c, unit and type a/c... only the 357 and 56 have no real changes from my prior stuff because they didn't change equipment - but the other 13 did.

[FLYBOYJ]

Always great info Bil!

[SoD Stitch]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

Great infor Bill - here's something for ya.....

For the benefit of the newer guys, I'll repeat an earlier post.

I had a former neighbor named Mike Alba. He flew P-38s and P-51 in the ETO during WW2 with the 338th FS, 55th FG. He perfered the P-38 despite the heating and other reported problems. He said the P-38 was far more stable as an aircraft and gun platform when compared to the P-51, but the P-51 was a lot more maneuverable. Later in the war his squadron took on many ground sorties and they suffered many losses, he told me that they wished at that point they kept their P-38s....

He scored 3 kills, all in the P-51.

And on a technical note . . . .

Flyboy, is that the armored headrest I see by Mike's right arm? I've never seen a good picture of the armored headrest before.

[FLYBOYJ]

Originally Posted by SoD Stitch

Flyboy, is that the armored headrest I see by Mike's right arm? I've never seen a good picture of the armored headrest before.

Yes....

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by FLYBOYJ

Always great info Bil!

I just finished the study on the 20th, 55th, 364th and 479th as they were only P-38 groups to convert to Mustangs. Some really suprising results statistically. I used USAF 85 and Kent Miller's "Fighter Units and pilots of 8th AF. They don't correlate 100% on awards but are pretty close, particularly on air awards.

Ther is judgement on Cause of Loss. If a guy went down for unknown reasons near an air battle - I assigned air to air. If he hit the ground strafing an airfield I assigned 'flak' to differentiate from an engine prob, etc.. so possibly the air to air and air to ground Losses are slightly overstated for both the 51 and the 38 - meaning the ratios will be conservative (lower)

The first P-38 units converted to Mustangs from late July (20, 55 and 364) to late September (479). The longest span of combat ops was 55th FG from Sep 43 through Jul 44. The shortest was May 44 through Sept 28 44... and it was best performer (I suspect Zemke was the difference)

Here is the aggragate result
P-38
awards = 278.6 air, 133 ground ----
losses = 101.0 air, 106 ground ----

P-38 award to Loss Ratio = 2.75:1 air, 1.26:1 ground

When these guys converted to Mustangs to finish the war

P-51
awards = 661.5 air, 790 ground
losses = 44 air, 119 ground

P-51 ratios (from converted P-38 groups) = 15:1 air, 6.63:1 ground.

I suspect the ridiculous air ratios of the new Mustang drivers had a lot to do with rapidly shrinking LW quality - while the early 38 drivers had their hands full with Allisons and Messerschmidts..

Some interesting and puzzling 'stuff'
1. In general the Ops/Acc losses in P-38 groups are slightly less than the flak losses while strafing.
2. In general the Ops/Acc losses in P-51 groups are slightly more than the flak losses - implying that maybe that second engine was useful.
3. When the Mustang Groups were going wild destroying a/c on the ground in March and April 1944, the P-38 groups were barely scoring - but losing a lot of guys to flak. The 55th only scored 7-5 through July! while losing 25 to flak.
4. The 479th was head and shoulders above the other 3 in holding its own in the P-38 with only 4 losses air to air in getting its 52 awards - just barely improving in the Mustang.
5. As near as I can tell the P-38s shot down 5.4% of total 8AF FC while losing 16% of losses air to air.. This had a lot more to do with Doolitle's decision than 2x price.

I wish the MTO data was better - it is clear that the P-38 was much better in MTO than ETO.

I am in process of dissecting the P-47 ratios in a similar manner plus making some corrections and will post when complete.

[kool kitty89]

But for those ground "awards" are you just counting a/c, 'cause there was a hell of alot more than that they hit elswhere. I'd immagine that if ground vehicles, rail cars, buildings, etc were included the results would be different...

How about comparing amount of ordinance delivered?

Still I think the P-47 was probably the best Fighter-Bomber the USAAF, and perhaps all the allied forces, had...

Short of that, either the P-38, Allison-engined Mustang (A-36/P-51A), or maby the P-39 though bombload was somewhat low as was range, the P-63 would have been an excelent Fighter-Bomber, but it never saw USAAF service. (apart from the target role in training)

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by kool kitty89

But for those ground "awards" are you just counting a/c, 'cause there was a hell of alot more than that they hit elswhere. I'd immagine that if ground vehicles, rail cars, buildings, etc were included the results would be different...

True - which make this type comparison difficult. But, at the end of the day, if a 38 group is coming home on the deck it just means they hit trains etc, more than airfields.. but thinking it through the losses to flak are less impressive if you are NOT hitting airfields

How about comparing amount of ordinance delivered?

Kool - I luv ya man biut it is a LOT of research to just get to types of losses per Fighter group. I don't have a research grant to go for ordnance. BTW - the only time that is even important for 8th AF FC is Normandy campaign.

Still I think the P-47 was probably the best Fighter-Bomber the USAAF, and perhaps all the allied forces, had...

But the role in 8th AF was 'protect the bombers'

Short of that, either the P-38, Allison-engined Mustang (A-36/P-51A), or maybe the P-39 though bombload was somewhat low as was range, the P-63 would have been an excellent Fighter-Bomber (in comparison to P-51A), but it never saw USAAF service. (apart from the target role in training)

This whole exercise on my part is to sort out relative air to air ratios between the different fighter groups (which I have) but also withing type (which I am working on).

The 38 was a relative dog air to air at high altitude, because it could not follow the German in a dive (until J arrived), for the 8th but still EXTREMELY important for protection of bombers because they were so easy to spot the LW often avoided them. They did such a much better job in the MTO because the 12th and 15th FC did so much more starfing proportionately than the 8th, and they were engaging more in altitudes that weren't compromising their performance.