P38 (vs P47 and P51)

[jollyjack]

Found this article somewhere on a ww2 forum .. food for discussion?

 

=======================================================

 

What was the P-38 Lightning's only weakness during WW2?

 

For the cost of one P-38 you could purchase two Mustangs, which would consume half the fuel, fly as far, and be better in the air-to-air combat. The plumbing of the P-38 was a sheer nightmare, and it was extremely finicky on the fuel it consumed. Moreover, while counter-rotating engines and propellers make sense engineering-wise, they make no sense logistics-wise - it means they need special spares and the parts cannot be changed engine by engine. In addition, P-38 was too complex aircraft for an average aviator - it needed a really good and experienced pilot to fly successfully.

Given to the less than stellar performance of P-38 at the European theatre of operations in the 8th and 9th air forces (kill-to-loss ratio 0.7 to 1), USAAF decided to replace P-38 by P-47 and P-51. This most likely was a correct decision - the kill-to-loss ratio of the 20th Fighter Group went from 1.1 to 5.0 after transitioning to Mustang.

=======================================================

 

[cardboard_killer]

What more is there to say? It was a pre-war design to catch and destroy fast bombers at high altitude, a threat which never materialized for any allied country, even Great Britain. If I were to rank USAAF designs, it would come in tied with the P-40, above the P-39, but below the P-51 or P-47. It had its advantages, which when used properly made it a serviceable WW2 fighter. Basically, there was no such thing as a great twin prop fighter.

[jollyjack]

Beaufighter?

[cardboard_killer]

Well, it did wipe out all the beaus so maybe.

[MaxPower]

Discussing air to air kills over time during world war 2 and comparing them to fighter design quality is a little tricky.  When the 20th Fighter Group transitioned to the P-51, it was already July 1944 and the Luftwaffe was in bad shape by then as far as I know.  The Germans lost 17% of their fighter force in September 1943, and 42% in October according to a google result I just searched.  Experts in the forum may have a more deft command of statistics like these.  However, after the Luftwaffe was on its heels, they had to start thinking of new roles for their air superiority fighters.  Many allied aircraft saw an increase in attack missions.  In these roles, I think the P-38 would start to shine again because of its concentrated armament and enormous bomb load.  In its late war incarnation it was a 3000 horsepower aircraft.  As we know, the P-47 was also very good in this role despite being designed as a high altitude fighter.

Edited October 7, 2024 by MaxPower

[cardboard_killer]

The P-47 was the preferred ground attack plane in 44-45 due to the radial engine (survivability). The P-38s were transitioned away from low level bombing in late 44, in the ETO. Twin engine prop planes were just never going to be as maneuverable as single engine fighters. That's okay if they have a speed advantage (or are only going after bombers), but the P-38s weren't that fast compared to German and Italian fighters, only against bombers and most of the Japanese planes.

 

However, it was the P-40, Hurricane II, and to a lesser extent, the Spitfire V and the P-38 that shot the LW out of the sky in Africa and Italy. By the time the P-51s and P-47s arrived, the LW was in a fatal spiral, dangerous in encounters, but woefully unable to establish air superiority on the battlefield.

[Bremspropeller]

On 10/6/2024 at 9:25 AM, jollyjack said:

Given to the less than stellar performance of P-38 at the European theatre of operations in the 8th and 9th air forces (kill-to-loss ratio 0.7 to 1), USAAF decided to replace P-38 by P-47 and P-51.

 

The less than stellar performance came from multiple factors. Many of those were resolved or about to be resolved during the arrival of the P-51 in large quantities. Mostly because of the experience gained through trial and error with the P-38 and earlier P-47s. That also included design-features on the -38. A mid'44 P-38 was a much better airplane than a mid'43 P-38 and by the time the -38 reached it's potential, it had been relegated to 9th AF or the PTO altogether.

 

The allies would have won the war with the P-38 in little additional time. Mostly because of strategic realities, not because aircraft xyz would win them the war.

[MOVSTAR]

The P-38 Lightning, although endowed with impressive technical characteristics and a good cruising speed, did indeed suffer from several weaknesses that affected its combat effectiveness, particularly in the European theater.

[TempestV]

The Final Word from a YouTube God (with Heretics/Unbelievers in the forum comments)

😁

 

Edited January 3 by TempestV

[LukeFF]

Eric Brown said it best about the P-38:

 

"We had found out that the Bf 109 and the FW 190 could fight up to a Mach of 0.75, three-quarters the speed of sound. We checked the Lightning and it couldn't fly in combat faster than 0.68. So, it was useless. We told Doolittle that all it was good for was photoreconnaissance and had to be withdrawn from escort duties. And the funny thing is that the Americans had great difficulty understanding this because the Lightning had the two top aces in the Far East." 

[cardboard_killer]

The ironic thing is that the RAF leaders didn't like US fighters before 1944 because they could not operate at high altitude against bombers, something the P-38 was designed to do. Because even that late, the RAF was worried that the Germans would bomb them out of the war, just like they were failing to do to the Germans.