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

[Hunter368]

Originally Posted by Soren

As a fighter the P-51 is better than the P-38, despite what the service record might tell you.(Remember the tally includes ground-targets)

By German fighter pilots the P-38 was considered easy prey, eventhough in most engagements the German pilots were more concerned about blowing bombers out of the sky. (That was afterall the goal of the intercept)

Adolf Galland:
P-38s were not difficult to handle in combat. Many, many P-38 pilots are angry with me about this statement, but it's true.

PS: This isn't an attempt to bash the P-38, cause it was a good overall airplane, which it proved in the PTO, just not a particularly good fighter, esp. not in the ETO. - Unless flown by an expert pilot ofcourse..

Very true and good point, I said the samething earlier. Whether the P-51 or P-38 was better it was viewed by USAF brass that the P-51 was better. Perception is often as real or more important or just as relevant than reality is.

The P-38 were not looked upon by German pilots as a difficult opponent, they did think that the P-38 was inferior plane. German pilots respected the P-51 and feared it when it filled German airspace.

[wmaxt]

Originally Posted by Soren

By German fighter pilots the P-38 was considered easy prey, eventhough in most engagements the German pilots were more concerned about blowing bombers out of the sky. (That was afterall the goal of the intercept)

The P-38 had a 3:1 kill ratio in the 8th AF, and in air to air encounters 4:1 If 4 out of five encounters with P-38s resulted in a downed German aircraft that was a very missguided consideration!

Originally Posted by Soren

Adolf Galland:
P-38s were not difficult to handle in combat. Many, many P-38 pilots are angry with me about this statement, but it's true.

In the Book "Top Guns" authors Joe Foss and Mathew Brennan (both respected for their honesty) at a Pilots convention with Galland present were regaled with this story: "When I shook hands with German General Adolf Galland, I said did you ever shoot down a P-38?" "He said Ya, I shoot down eight." I asked him if any of his pilots told him about a fight in a long nosed Fw-190 in late '44, against a P-38 that wound up in a huge pit with water and two crashed P-38s in the bottom. I described what had happened and the strikes I got on the long nosed 190, then told him when I ran low on gas I had to leave, the german pilot waggled his wings and flew off in the other direction. I was using my hands and looking down as I talked and wasn't watching General Galland. When I looked up, he was pale white.

He said, "You son of a bit**! You dom neer keel me dat day!"

This was in front of a group of pilots and confirmed for the book.

Originally Posted by Soren

PS: This isn't an attempt to bash the P-38, cause it was a good overall airplane, which it proved in the PTO, just not a particularly good fighter, esp. not in the ETO. - Unless flown by an expert pilot ofcourse..

I respect your opinion. The record just doesn't support it. The P-51 had certain advantages in numbers, training, logistics and timing that allowed the AAF in Europe to dodge the political bullet - of why escorts weren't used sooner, while simplifying the mission profiles and planning.

BTW: In the 8th (the P-51 was primarily escort in the other commands to) the only aircraft with a high percentage of G/A missions was the P-38 from late April on. Around D-Day the others had some G/A missions but not nearly to the extent the P-38 did, also "Targets of opportunity" on the way home, including even cows, were much safer than dedicated G/A missions where the targets were picked because of their strategic value - and defended accordingly. One last thing the escort/target of opportunity missions also had the air-to-air encounters where those instances were much more rare on G/A missions.

Someone made the comment that the P-38 was alone in the pacific thats not correct.

Date yr - P-38 - P-47 - P-51
Dec '43 - 356 -- 391 -- 100
Apr '44 -- 414 -- 941 -- 293
Jul '44 --- 652 - 1,116 - 202
Dec '44 -- 694 - 895 --- 681
Mar '45 -- 895 - 887 --- 1,149
Jul '45 -- 1,156 - 1.226 - 1,557

As you can see they weren't even the majority class a fighter. The P-51 was low until late '44 but again had the plum scoring assignment of escort over Japan. The P-38s missions were still about 60/40-50/50 G/A/Escort missions for higher risk less opportunities.

My intent is not so much to declair the P-38 the very best ever, just to make sure its record and accomplishments are truly taken into account judge it from there!

wmaxt

[wmaxt]

Originally Posted by Hunter368

Very true and good point, I said the samething earlier. Whether the P-51 or P-38 was better it was viewed by USAF brass that the P-51 was better. Perception is often as real or more important or just as relevant than reality is.

The P-38 were not looked upon by German pilots as a difficult opponent, they did think that the P-38 was inferior plane. German pilots respected the P-51 and feared it when it filled German airspace.

The ETO tally originally included ground targets the adjusted target count did not. The numbers I showed above were posted by Jank from the AAF Statistical Digest as were the losses I showed above but from the "Combat Losses of the 8th AF" page the P-38 shot down 3 German aircraft for each P-38 lost (it was 4:1 in A/A combat) by the 8th AF by contrast the P-51 the ratio was 2:1. The P-38 came home more than twice as often as the P-51. Do you really want to fly the P-51?

Your comment on revelency is astute, for more insite into this matter I recommend the book by Warren Bodie in it he has a discussion of the reasons of his (and it was his decision) decision to go with the Mustang. It was not based on performance, in Doolittle's own words "The P-38 was ahead of all but one or two fighters in WWII". Production quantities were the biggest single reason.

Your statement about fearing the P-51 because it filled their airspace is true. 4 out of 5 German aircraft that met a P-38 thought the P-38 was not easy, only the lucky German pilots got to walk home.

wmaxt

[syscom3]

Originally Posted by wmaxt

......
......again had the plum scoring assignment of escort over Japan. .....
...

By the time the P51 was escorting B29's over Japan in the spring of 1945, there hardly was a Japanese airforce around.

The P38 was the premier fighter of the PTO, simply because range was the most important factor.

In Europe, I dont think it was as good as some of you are making it out to be.

By the way, those P51 losses in the ETO, where they due to "all causes" or just air-to-air?

[Hunter368]

Originally Posted by wmaxt

The ETO tally originally included ground targets the adjusted target count did not. The numbers I showed above were posted by Jank from the AAF Statistical Digest as were the losses I showed above but from the "Combat Losses of the 8th AF" page the P-38 shot down 3 German aircraft for each P-38 lost (it was 4:1 in A/A combat) by the 8th AF by contrast the P-51 the ratio was 2:1. The P-38 came home more than twice as often as the P-51. Do you really want to fly the P-51?

Your comment on revelency is astute, for more insite into this matter I recommend the book by Warren Bodie in it he has a discussion of the reasons of his (and it was his decision) decision to go with the Mustang. It was not based on performance, in Doolittle's own words "The P-38 was ahead of all but one or two fighters in WWII". Production quantities were the biggest single reason.

Your statement about fearing the P-51 because it filled their airspace is true. 4 out of 5 German aircraft that met a P-38 thought the P-38 was not easy, only the lucky German pilots got to walk home.

wmaxt

If you look carefully at my post, I did not choose either plane as being better. They were both good planes for different choices. Then your comment about 4 out of 5 German planes....... Again I am just related what I know best and that is German pilots opinions on the matter. I will leave all the technical information to the numbers wizards around here (and there is a lot of them), they can produce those numbers all they want and better than I. But, like Erich on the different matters, I will tell you what German pilot's opinions are, that I know. They lived it, they fought the war, they know best. Remember the old saying those who cannot do....teach and use numbers and books to lie (not saying you are lying). Stats can lie as I am sure you know, believe what actually happened.

Having all the numbers and stats to back you up does you no good when you are at 30,000 and you see BF-109 flying at you. Then it comes down to just the pilots and the planes, no BS, no stats, no paper just man & machine vs man & machine. German testimony states that they considered P-38 not fit for operations in ETO and they were "easy" meat. Know if you think you know better than the actual pilots who flew vs the P-38 and accumulated at times scores of kills doing it.....well ok. Did P-38 shoot German planes? yes

I just state what I know and that is German testimony on the subject. I do not enter into any private opinions or crusade to "try" and prove one plane is the best of all time. That would be a waste of my time. We know you are a huge fan of the P-38 and that is fine. But what are you trying to prove? Yes the P-38 was a good plane, can't you leave it at that. Just seems you are trying your best to prove something to everyone for no reason. P-38 was good, so was the P-51.

Like you said the P-51 was chosen for a reason, cost. Ok I would ask you this when the P-38L cost $114,000 and the P-51 cost $54,000 (prices posted early on in thread) could the USA still produce as many P-38's as P-51's when considering cost and longer manufacturing times of the P-38? Remember how big a factor the USAF numbers in ETO played in their favor, what if they had half as many P-38 as they did P-51 in the air. What would of happened then?

I am not trying to argue with you over it b/c I don't get involved in trying to prove one plane better then the other. Both planes were good bottom line. Would you sooner trust your life based of real life facts or stats??? In this case facts and stats say different things in a sense. Your stats suggest the P-38 has better performance (you notice I did not say better) than the P-51. But the P-51 was picked to do the job instead of the P-38. The P-51, by many top USAF pilots who flew both planes, was picked to be the better fighter and for that matter picked as the best "all around fighter in WW2". I know I know we know that the P-51 was not the best but so many "experts" think it was. Then you add to the fact that German pilots who fought vs both planes think that the P-51 was the much better plane also. You have to start putting some stock into their experience and less stock into stats.

Like Dan said when USAF ace Hub Zemke (and other USAF aces) and German aces and pilots who fought or flew both planes say that the P-51 was better than the P-38. You, in my mind, have to believe those men, they are the experts. Stats lie all the time, numbers lie all the time. Believe the men who flew the planes and who fought vs the planes, they know better. I will end it there.

I hope you get some value from my post and do not just discount it. Food for thought.

[MacArther]

I would like to cite the fact that 4:1 or 3:1 return ratio would definately have something to do with the caliber of the pilots and the machines they were using. From this perspective, it would seem that the P38 was doing a pretty respectable job over Europe. Yes, in combat things will be different, but stats are meant to represent the MAJORITY of the instances NOT the smaller amount of instances. So yes, there were bad times for the P38, just as there were bad times for pretty much any fighter. But it would seem that the P38 was doing a better Air to Air job than the P51 was at the time.

[syscom3]

I would like to know the P38's kill ratio against the -109 and -190.

In early 1944, the German twin engined fighters were on its platter, and those were generally easy kills.

[Hunter368]

Originally Posted by syscom3

I would like to know the P38's kill ration against the -109 and -190.

In early 1944, the German twin engined fighters were on its platter, and those were generally easy kills.

I agree.

[Hunter368]

Originally Posted by MacArther

I would like to cite the fact that 4:1 or 3:1 return ratio would definately have something to do with the caliber of the pilots and the machines they were using. From this perspective, it would seem that the P38 was doing a pretty respectable job over Europe. Yes, in combat things will be different, but stats are meant to represent the MAJORITY of the instances NOT the smaller amount of instances. So yes, there were bad times for the P38, just as there were bad times for pretty much any fighter. But it would seem that the P38 was doing a better Air to Air job than the P51 was at the time.

Whether (big if) the P-38 "appeared" on paper (in kill to lost record) to be doing a better job or not, that kill to lost record is not the only determining factor whether a plane is to be used or not.

Example: If the P-38 costs twice as much as a P-51 to make and takes twice as long to manufacture and the P-38 achieves a better kill to lost record. Which plane is better? The P-51 does still a outstanding job......mmmmm

So if you could have 1000 P-51 or 500 P-38 what would you do?? I know what the Germans would of perferred to see.....the P-38. I know what the USAF choose to do in WW2. I know what I would of done.

Now do I know for a fact what manufacture times for both planes are? no But it would make sound sense if a plane has two engines and a much larger fuselage then it not only costs twice as much to make but also takes more time to make. But if anyone here can confirm the different times to make both planes then please share that information with us all. The prices for both were already provided (P-38L cost $114,000 and the P-51 cost $54,000).

Just more to think about.

[MacArther]

Eh, do we need time factoring in? By that time in the war, Germany was on the defensive, so more planes could be brought in from other theatres to back up the 500 or so P38s, along with the ones already in operation in that theatre. Personally, I think the P51 gets a little too much acclaim, yet our top scoring ace never sat in a Mustang. This may be a mute point, but the fact is that quality can be a good thing if the war no longer depends on making massive amounts of planes to stem the tide of iminent defeat.

[Hunter368]

Originally Posted by MacArther

Eh, do we need time factoring in? By that time in the war, Germany was on the defensive, so more planes could be brought in from other theatres to back up the 500 or so P38s, along with the ones already in operation in that theatre. Personally, I think the P51 gets a little too much acclaim, yet our top scoring ace never sat in a Mustang. This may be a mute point, but the fact is that quality can be a good thing if the war no longer depends on making massive amounts of planes to stem the tide of iminent defeat.

Yes I think time and cost is a factor (that is why the P-51 was picked). I do agree with you 100% that the P-51 does get too much acclaim, but it did do a good job.

Your top ace never sat in a P-51 true, and he did get almost all his kills in a P-38. But he was up against inferior opponents and planes. Just like the German aces on the Eastern front had it alittle easier with the Russians when compared to those poor Germans who had to fly vs the UK and USAF pilots. Bong killed as many Japanese I would say based on the fact that they were easiers kills (when compared to German pilots) and less b/c he flew a P-38. I am not saying Bong wasn't a good pilot, but do you actually think he would of been able to shoot down 40 Germans in the same amount of time? I think not.

[syscom3]

The P38 in the Pacific was a totally different warbird as compared to the P38 in the ETO.

Different strategy, different tactics, different foe, different planes.

[Chief]

It's like desiding between a Tiger Tank (P-38L) and a Sherman Tank (P-51D).

Tiger Tank-Heavy Tank
Pros: Heavy armor and armament.
Cons: Slow, broke down often do to heavy weight

Sherman Tank- Heavy Tank
Pros: Faster, lighter, Easier to maintain,
Cons: Thinner armor, lighter armed
Power vs. Preformance

P-38L Lightening Twin Engined Medium Fighter/Bomber (Excellent plane only for the expert pilot)
Pros: Heavy firepower, better turning at slower speeds, holds large fuel load, could hold a large Bomb load, underestimated.
Cons: Problematic, Hard to pilot, Cold/Cramped Cockpit, Hard to pull out of High speed dives, expensive
You get what you pay and train for.

P-51D Mustang single engine Escort Fighter ( Extremely good plane even to beginner pilots)
Pros: Fast, Well armed, holds small bomb load, Easy to Fly, Handles better at faster speeds, easier to maintain (Interchangeable parts do to abundance of aircraft), holds a Large Fuel load, relatively cheap to make.
Cons: Vulnerable behind the cockpit, gun range limited, Capabilties dependant on pilots weight, overestimated. (Don't know the mechanical problems.)
Plane for the Replacement, Pilot is deadly the moment he takes off.

Both planes are extremely good. The P-51D Mustang is a beginners plane (within reason of course. P-38L Lightening is ment for experienced pilots and aces.

It's based on your skills as an aviator. Still both planes contributed emensely and both tend to result in aces. But, it's the heart of an aviator makes the soul of an aircraft deadly. Personally, I say simple is better so I'll take the P-51.

[FLYBOYJ]

Good comparison but I could tell you the P-38 cockpit was far from being cramped.....

[JohnnyL]

Originally Posted by lesofprimus

The location of his usage was not a consideration, it was about airplane performance and combat worthiness... Did the compressability issue only happen in the ETO???

You think that the Lightning was the only aircraft that suffered from compressibility? Not by far.

Was the poor visibility only an issue in the ETO???

The lightning did have less-than-perfect visibility, but it wasn't poor, and it's visibility was by far better than the P-51B, the P-47C, or any spitfire. True, the B and C versions of the P-51 and P-47 were not the definitive versions, but they represented over a third of total production of each aircraft, not an insignificant amount.

Was the easily identifiable profile and issue only in the ETO????

You think that the Lightning was the only aircraft with an easily identifiable profile? How about that fat radiator hanging under the Mustang? One flies over my house every once in a while, and while my eyes aren't great, it's pretty damn obvious.

What are the pilots in the PTO supposed to compare the P-38 to???? The Warhawk??? The Aircobra???

The Hellcat, the mustang, the Jug, need I go on?

Ur whole argument is hogwash, and it starts right here pal....U think every Second John could do it??? How bout every cowboy with Captains bars???

The words you're searching for are "your," and "You," I believe.

It was far easier with a Lightning than other American aircraft to turn tight because the aircraft was not subjected to the massive tourque effects of single-engine aircraft, particularly at low speed. The throttle could be advanced far more quickly. Furthermore, MANY pilots reported the ability to out turn the zero and Hayabusa.

There were a select few pilots whose mastery of the -38 was of such a high level that they could make it do what they wanted...

What is a better definition of a "great" plane? How easy it was to be good with it, or how good it was in the hands of a master?

And the P-38 was not nearly as difficult to deal with as you seem to think it was. It simply was an unfamiliar aircraft to many pilots because they were not properly trained in twin-engine operations.

and another thing...A lead rake??? More like a tombstone.... U have any idea how many pilots died holding that steering wheel in their hands as the plane passes 425 mph strainght down into the ground???

You know how many spitfire pilots died because their wings twisted off at high speed due to ailerons that were too powerful? You know how many Bf-109 and A6M2/5 pilots died because they got going too fast in a dive and didn't have the sheer strength to pull out of it? Compressibility was EVERYONE'S problem, friend. It's just that the Lightning ran into the problem more often because of it's higher speed and better dive capability. Furthermore, the compressibility problem was more or less solved by early 1943.

U need to spend some time here and read some of the older posts and educate urself pal, cause ur obviously just another opinioned P-38 fan cause it looked cool with its double booms....

I spend my time reading first-hand accounts and technical information. The only real weakness that you've pointed out to me was it's less-than-superior visibility. And that was only in comparison to the two bubble-canopied american fighters.