p51 vs p47

redcoat · 01-06-2005, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adolf Galland

More nosy: P-47
.

redcoat · 01-06-2005, 02:05 PM

[quote="wmaxt"]The P-38 was not a failure! As stated before it maintained in the ETO:

4/1 ratio in combat
Historians award 2,500+ kills
2 f/g accomplished a 4/5% bomber loss rate not bettered by 7 P-51 & 2 P-47 (long rangs escort) f/gs

Sorry but no

here's a post by robert a well known internet poster on all things aircraft

Quote:

The P-38 did not perform well in the ETO, statistically.
The P-38 was very successful in the Pacific, where it could use its superior speed and dive capabilities against the slower but more maneuverable Japanese fighters. When it encountered German fighters, who were both more agile and faster than the P-38, it was basically a failure. It was removed from escort duty as soon as possible; only one Fighter Group in the ETO (the 474th FG, 9th AF) was flying the P-38 by the time VE-Day rolled around. All four 8th AF fighter groups flying P-38s had been re-equipped with the P-51 as soon as it was possible to do so. It's worth noting that the P-38L, by far the best version of the Lightning, was used by only one P-38 FG in Europe, in limited numbers; that version could have held its own with the German fighters on a much more equal basis.

The Lightning had a mediocre record at best in the ETO. A four-to-one kill ratio? Official USAAF stats show otherwise. It destroyed 1,771 enemy aircraft for the loss of 1,758 P-38s, almost an even ratio, and its loss rate of 1.35% in the theater was by far the highest of any USAAF fighter, including the P-40 and P-39! For comparison, here are the ETO/MTO kill ratios and loss rates of the Mustang, Spitfire (USAAF Spits only), Thunderbolt,and Lightning:

Kill ratio - P-51, 1.96 to 1; Spitfire, 1.34 to 1; P-47, 1.00 to 1; P-38, 1.01 to 1.

Loss rate - P-51, 1.18%; Spitfire 0.66%; P-47, 0.73%; P-38, 1.35%.

The P-38's record is clearly inferior. It was quite effective as a ground attack aircraft; its 20,139 tons of bombs dropped was almost four times the P-51's total, although both pale beside the P-47's.

Why was the P-38 not successful in Europe? In a word, altitude. The P-38's Allison engines (often the superchargers) suffered repeated failures due to the cold at altitude, which severely compromised its ability to fight. The cockpit was inadequately heated, and aircraft suffered from the early onset of compressibility during high-speed dives.

Roger Freeman in The Mightly Eighth:

"[On February 4, 1944], nearly half the P-38s had been forced to 'abort' when once again extreme cold caused a spate of engine failures. Losses were often high in such circumstances, for the Luftwaffe were quick to exploit the situation if a P-38 was observed to have a feathered propellor. Because the likelihood of these troubles increased with altitude, Lightnings did not of choice operate above 30,000 ft. In consequence, Me 109 top cover which was usually around the 35,000 ft mark had been repeatedly bouncing the P-38s on nearly every mission."

Rene Francillon, in American Fighters of World War Two, Volume One, picks up the thought:

"...what at first appeared to be one of the strongest assets of the Lightning proved to be its demise, namely its twin-engined configuration. Although the P-38 could fly on one engine the Luftwaffe saw to it that such crippled aircraft would not return to base, whilst two engines doubled the possibility of engine troubles. Consequently the staff and fighter pilots preferred the P-47 and especially the P-51, and these they were able to receive in sufficient numbers to replace their P-38s."

As it was replaced as a fighter in the 8th AF by the P-51, it was replaced as a PR aircraft by the Spitfire Mk.XI, mainly because the F-5 (photo version of the P-38 ) was restricted to a 300-mile radius after mid-July 1943. The C/O of the 7th PG, Col. Homer Sanders, flew an F-5 in a mock dogfight against a Spitfire, and blew up a turbosupercharger trying (unsuccessfully) to get on its tail. Sanders went directly to Ira Eaker, the Commander of the 8th AF, to ask for Spitfires to replace his Lightnings, and the request was granted.

As for the claim that the P-38 could outmanuever a Spitfire, one must remember that the pilot who made the claim has a few details missing in his story, such as claiming the mock dogfight was against an ace RAF pilot (who doesn't show up on any list of RAF aces), and against a fighter version of the Spitfire Mk.XI (that also didn't exist)...He's also the guy who claims that in 1944 he shot down Adolf Galland while the latter was flying an Fw 190 - and that "Galland" went down with the aircraft. Use your own judgement about his credibility.

A much more credible source, John Cunningham's navigator, C.F. Rawnsley, tells the following story in his book Night Fighter:

"We were to share this vast aerodrome with several other squadrons. One of them was a U.S Army fighter squadron, equipped with twin engined Lightnings....

"...The trouble came to a head after an American test pilot had been on a visit to the the aerodrome and had given a snorting display of aerobatics.* Rather carried away by national pride , some of the American pilots made a boast in the Mess that night about the relative merits of the Lightning and the Spitfire. It was a foolish thing to do. The Lightning was a fine aircraft and it was doing a first-class job of work, but it could hardly be expected to out-turn a single-engined interceptor like the Spitfire. But the challenge had been made.

"The next morning the entire station was out watching the two aircraft as they took off and climbed into position. Cautiously they circled for a while; and then they turned in and rushed at each other. As we had expected, within a few seconds, the Spitfire was sitting firmly on the tail of the Lightning. The American pilot put up a magnificent show, and did everything but turn his aircraft inside out; but nothing he could do could shake off the tenacious Spitfire. Finally the twin-engined Lightning broke off the match and came spiralling in to land."

* This would have been Lockheed test pilot Tony Levier, who went to England in early 1944 to fly demonstrations for P-38 pilots on how to best utilize the aircraft.

I've read of another, similar challenge where a P-38 and Spitfire dueled, and the Spitfire had completed two firing passes before the P-38 had its undercarriage up. I don't remember the source, unfortunately.

The wing loading (weight vs. wing area) of the P-38L was 63.1 (lbs per square foot). The Spitfire Mk. XIV was 35.0. I'm sure about few things in life. However, these things I'm pretty sure of:

I'll never escort Jennifer Connelly to the Oscars.

I'll never play centerfield for the Cincinnati Reds.

I'll never play guitar for U2.

The P-38 couldn't outmanuver the Spitfire.

Thanks to robert

wmaxt · 01-06-2005, 02:54 PM

[quote="redcoat"]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wmaxt

The P-38 was not a failure! As stated before it maintained in the ETO:

4/1 ratio in combat
Historians award 2,500+ kills
2 f/g accomplished a 4/5% bomber loss rate not bettered by 7 P-51 & 2 P-47 (long rangs escort) f/gs

Sorry but no

here's a post by robert a well known internet poster on all things aircraft

Quote:

The P-38 did not perform well in the ETO, statistically.
The P-38 was very successful in the Pacific, where it could use its superior speed and dive capabilities against the slower but more maneuverable Japanese fighters. When it encountered German fighters, who were both more agile and faster than the P-38, it was basically a failure. It was removed from escort duty as soon as possible; only one Fighter Group in the ETO (the 474th FG, 9th AF) was flying the P-38 by the time VE-Day rolled around. All four 8th AF fighter groups flying P-38s had been re-equipped with the P-51 as soon as it was possible to do so. It's worth noting that the P-38L, by far the best version of the Lightning, was used by only one P-38 FG in Europe, in limited numbers; that version could have held its own with the German fighters on a much more equal basis.

The Lightning had a mediocre record at best in the ETO. A four-to-one kill ratio? Official USAAF stats show otherwise. It destroyed 1,771 enemy aircraft for the loss of 1,758 P-38s, almost an even ratio, and its loss rate of 1.35% in the theater was by far the highest of any USAAF fighter, including the P-40 and P-39! For comparison, here are the ETO/MTO kill ratios and loss rates of the Mustang, Spitfire (USAAF Spits only), Thunderbolt,and Lightning:

Kill ratio - P-51, 1.96 to 1; Spitfire, 1.34 to 1; P-47, 1.00 to 1; P-38, 1.01 to 1.

Loss rate - P-51, 1.18%; Spitfire 0.66%; P-47, 0.73%; P-38, 1.35%.

The P-38's record is clearly inferior. It was quite effective as a ground attack aircraft; its 20,139 tons of bombs dropped was almost four times the P-51's total, although both pale beside the P-47's.

Why was the P-38 not successful in Europe? In a word, altitude. The P-38's Allison engines (often the superchargers) suffered repeated failures due to the cold at altitude, which severely compromised its ability to fight. The cockpit was inadequately heated, and aircraft suffered from the early onset of compressibility during high-speed dives.

Roger Freeman in The Mightly Eighth:

"[On February 4, 1944], nearly half the P-38s had been forced to 'abort' when once again extreme cold caused a spate of engine failures. Losses were often high in such circumstances, for the Luftwaffe were quick to exploit the situation if a P-38 was observed to have a feathered propellor. Because the likelihood of these troubles increased with altitude, Lightnings did not of choice operate above 30,000 ft. In consequence, Me 109 top cover which was usually around the 35,000 ft mark had been repeatedly bouncing the P-38s on nearly every mission."

Rene Francillon, in American Fighters of World War Two, Volume One, picks up the thought:

"...what at first appeared to be one of the strongest assets of the Lightning proved to be its demise, namely its twin-engined configuration. Although the P-38 could fly on one engine the Luftwaffe saw to it that such crippled aircraft would not return to base, whilst two engines doubled the possibility of engine troubles. Consequently the staff and fighter pilots preferred the P-47 and especially the P-51, and these they were able to receive in sufficient numbers to replace their P-38s."

As it was replaced as a fighter in the 8th AF by the P-51, it was replaced as a PR aircraft by the Spitfire Mk.XI, mainly because the F-5 (photo version of the P-38 ) was restricted to a 300-mile radius after mid-July 1943. The C/O of the 7th PG, Col. Homer Sanders, flew an F-5 in a mock dogfight against a Spitfire, and blew up a turbosupercharger trying (unsuccessfully) to get on its tail. Sanders went directly to Ira Eaker, the Commander of the 8th AF, to ask for Spitfires to replace his Lightnings, and the request was granted.

As for the claim that the P-38 could outmanuever a Spitfire, one must remember that the pilot who made the claim has a few details missing in his story, such as claiming the mock dogfight was against an ace RAF pilot (who doesn't show up on any list of RAF aces), and against a fighter version of the Spitfire Mk.XI (that also didn't exist)...He's also the guy who claims that in 1944 he shot down Adolf Galland while the latter was flying an Fw 190 - and that "Galland" went down with the aircraft. Use your own judgement about his credibility.

A much more credible source, John Cunningham's navigator, C.F. Rawnsley, tells the following story in his book Night Fighter:

"We were to share this vast aerodrome with several other squadrons. One of them was a U.S Army fighter squadron, equipped with twin engined Lightnings....

"...The trouble came to a head after an American test pilot had been on a visit to the the aerodrome and had given a snorting display of aerobatics.* Rather carried away by national pride , some of the American pilots made a boast in the Mess that night about the relative merits of the Lightning and the Spitfire. It was a foolish thing to do. The Lightning was a fine aircraft and it was doing a first-class job of work, but it could hardly be expected to out-turn a single-engined interceptor like the Spitfire. But the challenge had been made.

"The next morning the entire station was out watching the two aircraft as they took off and climbed into position. Cautiously they circled for a while; and then they turned in and rushed at each other. As we had expected, within a few seconds, the Spitfire was sitting firmly on the tail of the Lightning. The American pilot put up a magnificent show, and did everything but turn his aircraft inside out; but nothing he could do could shake off the tenacious Spitfire. Finally the twin-engined Lightning broke off the match and came spiralling in to land."

* This would have been Lockheed test pilot Tony Levier, who went to England in early 1944 to fly demonstrations for P-38 pilots on how to best utilize the aircraft.

I've read of another, similar challenge where a P-38 and Spitfire dueled, and the Spitfire had completed two firing passes before the P-38 had its undercarriage up. I don't remember the source, unfortunately.

The wing loading (weight vs. wing area) of the P-38L was 63.1 (lbs per square foot). The Spitfire Mk. XIV was 35.0. I'm sure about few things in life. However, these things I'm pretty sure of:

I'll never escort Jennifer Connelly to the Oscars.

I'll never play centerfield for the Cincinnati Reds.

I'll never play guitar for U2.

The P-38 couldn't outmanuver the Spitfire.

Thanks to robert

Sorry Yes! The data you have is good in and of itself. It does not tell the whole story though. The facts I related are also true as is the 1/4 Fighter to aircraft ratio. The 1/1.1 ratio is to ALL causes Training, combat, ground fire weather ect. Don't forget it was also fighting the cream of the germans in odds that were 10/1 and worse.

The 1771 number is politicaly motivated but use it if you like the P-38 had enough scores to best all other American fighters anyway (608 MTO 5730+ PTO). Try the websites I gave for a more balanced view.

The story of the P-38 vs Spit XIV is true the Spit could not get away The Spit XIV was equal in almost all respects except range to the P-38L.

The P-38 history is interesting because you can find information on both good and not so good historys. Art Heiden contacted Martin Caiden because of the repeatedly wrong data out there on the P-38. Art also has a web site out there.

If only accepting the bad about the P-38 helps you to justify your aircraft - ok.

I will maintain my position.

wmaxt · 01-06-2005, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by plan_D

wmaxt, it was a Spitfire Mk. IX not a XIV. The P-38 got 1.1:1 kill ratio, not 4:1 in the ETO.

No it was a XIV. and Fighter to fighter was 1/4 the 1.1/1 ratio is loss to kill ratio not the same. Check out the following web site:

http://yarchive.net/mil/p38.html

It's a little reading but it relates both the Spit story and the kill ratio.

The Spit XIV was the equal of the P-38L in all but range and payload. The pilot made the difference when maneouvering.

wmaxt · 01-06-2005, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adolf Galland

i think that the 2 aircraft have different their role, so its performance are different:
Speed: Depending he model
Range: P-51(obviously)
Performance above 15,000 ft: P-51
Performance below 15,000 ft: P-47
Ground Attack: P-47
Manuverablilty: P-51(takes it 2 do a full loop 360 degrees at 15000 ft:15 seconds, P-47: 19 seconds)
firepower: P-47
Pay-load: P-47
Easy-to-control: P-51
More nosy: P-47
Wasting more fuel Per hour: P-47
Better Dogfighter: P-51
Faster Climb Rate: P-51
gun easier 2 jam: P-51
ummm...i think i wrote 2 much here... anyway in my opinion i think the P-51 is gonta gun down a P-47 first...

Seems like a pretty good comparison

cheddar cheese · 01-06-2005, 04:09 PM

Yep but the P-47 Gets my vote, I love the damn thing

Amazing story BTW Evan

evangilder · 01-06-2005, 04:18 PM

Yes, I thought so too! It was part of my presentation last month and it definitely raised a few eyebrows. I am sure though that for every story like that, there were many that were not so lucky.

lesofprimus · 01-06-2005, 04:29 PM

Quote:

there were many that were not so lucky.

Amen Brother.... Amen........

redcoat · 01-06-2005, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wmaxt

[http://yarchive.net/mil/p38.html

It's a little reading but it relates both the Spit story and the kill ratio.

Unfortunately for your case it refers to a Spitfire XV............

There was no XV mark Spitfire

as for the 4 to 1 ratio.... if you want to believe it, that's OK with me......

Just don't expect me too

lesofprimus · 01-06-2005, 04:43 PM

There was a Seafire Mk XV tho.....

lesofprimus · 01-06-2005, 06:01 PM

Quote:

As for the claim that the P-38 could outmanuever a Spitfire, one must remember that the pilot who made the claim has a few details missing in his story, such as claiming the mock dogfight was against an ace RAF pilot (who doesn't show up on any list of RAF aces), and against a fighter version of the Spitfire Mk.XI (that also didn't exist)...He's also the guy who claims that in 1944 he shot down Adolf Galland while the latter was flying an Fw 190 - and that "Galland" went down with the aircraft. Use your own judgement about his credibility

I have the book in front of me, Top Guns, by Joe Foss and Matthew Brennan... The story is called "Big John" and it is about a Colonel John H. Lowell..... Credited with 16.5 kills, 9 Probables, 11 damaged...

I will type all this by hand....

The Group, 364th FG, had just recieved P-38L's just before the P-51's arrived...
"On a day that we were "stood down", General Eisenhower arranged for one of the top English aces Wing Commander Donaldson, to come to Honnington and show slides of English Spitfires....

S/Ldr. Edward Mortlock (Teddy) Donaldson, a Cranwell graduate took over Command of No 151 Squadron flying Hurricane's in November 1939. He shot down 5½ enemy aero planes up until August 1940. He survived the war ending up as an air Commodore with C.B, C.B.E.,D.S.O. and A.F.C.

This is a REAL PERSON..........

After the briefing, Donaldson said,
"If one of u bloody bastards has enough guts, Ill fly mock combat above ur field and show u how easily this Spit XIV can whip your best pilots ass..."

The entire group started clapping and hollered, "Big John, Big John!"
That was me, so I asked him, "What is your fuel load?"
He replied, "Half Petrol."
"What is your comabt load?"
He replied, "No ammo."

We agreed to cross over the field at 5,000 feet, then anything goes... I took off in a new P-38L.... I climbed very high, so when I dove down to cross the field, my speed would be close to 600 mph...... When Donaldson and I crossed, I zoomed straight up while watching him try and get on my tail... When he did a wing-over from loss of speed, I was several thousand feet above him, so I quickly got on his tail... Naturally, he turned into a full-power right lLufberry as I closed in... I frustrated that with my clover-leaf, and if we'd had "hot guns," he would have been shot down.

He came over the field with me on his tail and cut throttle, dropped flaps, and split-S'ed from about 1,000 feet... I followed him with the new flaps, banking only 45 degrees, below the tree tops... All I had to do was move over behind his Spit again.. He was apparently surprised...."

This story also explains about this::

Quote:

He's also the guy who claims that in 1944 he shot down Adolf Galland while the latter was flying an Fw 190 - and that "Galland" went down with the aircraft. Use your own judgement about his credibility.

The story does not included Galland being shot down... This dude is pumping misinformation out.....

"One of our last P-38 missions was a flight to protect bombers on a mission near Berlin.. We were flying Top Cover..... We were bounced by 16 long nose Fw-190's... A flight of 4 overflew us and slowed down... I looked up at a German plane... The pilot was looking down at me as he eased ahead and close above me into sure death, unless he could take violent evasive action.... He split S'ed and I followed him.. He nearly got out of sight because if the P-38's high-speed compressability problem... Finally he turned into me and I cut across to close with him...

"Then the fight started...."

He was a fantastic, wild, talented pilot who pulled all the tricks i had ever seen... But finally I got into a tight Lufberry with him and used my clover-leaf surprise to get a few strikes... None of them harmed his power unit....

When his methyl injection was gone, he dived to the deck and dropped into a tar pit that was 500 feet deep and big enough to turn a fighter in... I got a few more strikes on him... A portion of his vertical stabilizer and one wingtip flew off..... As I was getting low on fuel, I headed back to England... I looked back over my shoulder to see the Fw-190D going in the opposite direction, wagging his wings...."

A few years ago, the American Fighter Aces had thier annual reunion at Maxwell AFB in Alabama....

"Ace Gabreski saw me and called me over to his little group... He introduced me as the highest scoring P-38 Ace in Europe... Whn I shook hands with German General Adolf Galland, I said "Adolf, did u ever shoot down a P-38?"

He replied, "Yah I shoot down 8."

I proceeded to tell the group about this dogfight over the tar pit.. I was using my hands and looking down as I described this engagement... When I looked up, he was pale white...

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

Holy Mackeral!!! All the pilots that heard our conversation bellowed their surprise, including myself... Adolf wouldnt let me out of his sight..."

I think redcoat, tht u should be alittle most questionable on ur sources......

What a great book this is....... It has the personal stories of Bruce Morehead, SW Vejtasa, Jack Ilrey, Robert Lee Scott, Leslie Smith, Sam Silber, Alexander Vraciu, John Lowell, Jeff DeBlanc, Hub Zemke, James Percy, Tom Blackburn, Kenneth Dahlberg, James Swett, William Shomo, William Cullerton, John Galvin, and Edward Rector...

evangilder · 01-06-2005, 06:08 PM

Great story! I think I just found a new book to pick up on my next trip to the bookstore.

lesofprimus · 01-06-2005, 06:15 PM

Seriously man, this book is great.. Its a few years ago, but still a great read.... Many great stories.....

Pocket Books, Copyright 1991

Nonskimmer · 01-06-2005, 06:23 PM

Y'know something? I've seen this book at the base library here, and I just managed to flip through it. It does look like a great read. I'm definitely going to have to sign it out now, I think.

plan_D · 01-07-2005, 03:41 AM

From all the stories I've heard about the -38 - Spit encounter it was a Mk. IX.

And there was no Mk. XV Spitfire. It was a Seafire Mk. XV