P-38 LIGHTNING WORLD WAR II FILM "ANGEL IN OVERALLS" 31894

[Bleipriester]

There is a ranking that Hunt says is biased:

If we rank the six planes by "Lethality Points" this would be the result:
Me 162 - 145 Points
Bf/Me 109 - 115 Points
P-47 - 80 Points
Fw 190 - 76 Points
P-38 - 75 Points
P-51 - 60 points

Bf-109 vs P-38 – Comparison – BVR – Dogfight

Me 162 was first introduce in Jan 45. Retired in March 45. Wasn't around long enough to even be rated.

ME-109 was around throughout the whole war. It was king until June 1943 when the P-38J was introduced. And it quickly became less deadly by December 1943 as the P-51B began making the scene. I have to agree with out pilots of the time. The Big 3 after Dec 1943 were 2% better than the 109. Making it one of the most important fighters in WWII but certainly not the deadliest overall.

P-47, until the P-47N, was too short ranged. It was still longer ranged than all but the P-38 and the P-51. It made it's name in ground attack which it was ideally suited. Deadly? you betcha. I would place that at the top of the list hands down.

Fw 190 should be an also mention in the deadliness when you mention the P-47. It could have been a fantastic ground attack but never got the chance. By the time it became at it's deadliest, Germany was fighting for it's existance. So the P-47 gets the nod.

P-51 was deadly in an air to air against other fighters. It lacked the ruggedness to go on the deck. One hit in it's radiator and it was not going to make it home. If you are only using Fighter to Fighter, the P-51 would get the nod. But for anything else, it wouldn't.

The P-38 was the jack of all trades. Late in 43, the J-25 was introduced. A J-25 could even turn inside a Zero, out climb anything other than a V-2 or a ME-163. It was a bit slower with only a 433 mph top end but it was still faster than anything the Axis had in prop planes. It could easily pull out of a compression dive. The Luftwaffe had a rude awakening. They tried to dive to get away from it and quickly learned that when they pulled out of the dive, the 38s guns were firing on them. The reason the early versions were so bad was the fact that the War Department would not allow it to be upgraded since they needed it so bad. The good thing about the introduction of the p-51B/C was it bought time to finally do the upgrades to make the bird great. And the training was not up to par with the training for the 51 and 47. Also (and this goes for the P-47 as well) the garbage gas that the Brits were using until the middle of 43 was a disaster for high compression engines. The 47 had a really bad pinging and the 38 was blowing heads and valves. In the middle of 43, AAF was providing the fuel, the 110/145 didn't need the octane booster that would seperate at cold temperatures.

The war would not have ended any sooner had the P-51B/C/D/H not been introduced and they allowed the mods to be done to the P-38. But we would have lost fewer 38 pilots for sure in ETO.

There is a ranking that Hunt says is biased:



Bf-109 vs P-38 – Comparison – BVR – Dogfight

The info you gave was for the G and older P-38s. The tipoff was the top speed of 443. The J model had a top speed of only 433. And there were more Js built than all the others put together except for the L model. The older 38s were only in the war for a year and a half before the hot rods started showing up. Talk about showing bias.

P-38 only performed against Japanese planes.

You left out the North African Campaign as well at Italy where the P-51 wasn't available and the P-47 didn't have the range. Until the P-38 was tranferred from the ETO to the MTO, they couldn't take the fight to the airfields of the Luftwaffe and the bombers went unescorted to the oil fields of Romania. The P-51 wasn't really a huge factor until Feb of 1944 when they finally arrived in numbers to the ETO. Even the bomber escort in the ETO in 1944 went something like this.

Somewhere over the French coast, the P-47 would meet the bombers until halfway through France where they would be met by P-38s which took them into Germany. At that point, the P-51 would pickup the bombers. No fighter had the fuel to escort the bombers the whole way. When the P-47 pealed off, they didn't go straight home. They dropped down and picked up targets of opportunity. The same with the P-38s. At about the time the P-51 met with the bombers, another group of P-38s would be launched to meet the bombers just this side of Germany. They stayed with the bombers until they were relieved by the P-47s. At that point, the P-38 dropped to the ground and hit targets of opportunity or tangled with enemy fighters. At some point, all the AAF fighters would be saturating the French area with fighters after the bombers hit the French Coast.

Before Feb 1944, the fighters stayed with the bombers which was extremely rough on their range. None of the big 3 liked to be flying at 220 mph. It was gas guzzling. And they would have to spool up to take on the incoming fighters. Starting in Feb 1944, they released the fighters who took it to the enemy ahead of the bombers. There were many large groups of enemy fighters amassed that were broken up by AAF fighters even before they could reach the bombers. The Bombers were now getting through at a higher rate. And it didn't matter which one of the big 3 were "Escorting" at that point. It was a team effort even in the ETO where the bulk of the P-51s were stationed. AFter the great fighter sweeps that began after Feb 1944, the AAF fighters were able to penetrate even farther in. After D-Day, the AAF fighters ruled the skies and soon were operating from France. Even the short ranged Spits and Hurricanes were able to operate effectively under those conditions. But without the P-38 operating by itself during the time that the Luftwaffe Fighters out numbered it over 11 to 1, none of this would have been possible.

The reason the P-38 was more affective in the PTO was that the training and tactics were much better and allowed the P-38 to be flown near it's full capability. There was almost no real training on the P-38 until it was sent into combat until late 1943 when the Piggy Back version was introduced. We lost a hell of a lot of P-38s because the pilots were ill trained. You can thank the Generals in Europe for that.

The point is that the role of the Me 109 wasn´t to take down as many fighters as possible during anti-bomber missions. It was enough when the fighters were busy with the 109 while the Fw 190 targeted the bombers. The Germans lacked of planes and fuel. Sometimes, no interception missions took place at all. Not enough aircraft could be gathered for proper interception missions. The American bomber fleet consisted of three forces with together about 1100 large bombers that were targeting Germany almost every day. Although their losses were incredible they managed to replace the bombers to keep up the pressure. In addition, the Brits also came on a daily bases.
Many German planes were bound in the eastern front were the Soviets fielded many thousands of aircraft.
Being vastly outnumbered, the Germans could not prevent allied air superiority. Under this circumstances, even if your 1:1 ration is true, it cannot be used to determine a plane´s capability.

The P-38 had a 1 to 1 rate from the beginning of 1942 until December of 1943. It ended up with a 3 to one rate in the ETO by the end.

We had this already, you see the P-38 in the comparison has flaps. It´s less agile, slower (although climbs faster) and most important the Me 109 were upgraded too.

We can read how the P-38 is rated:
Lockheed P-38 Lightning - Wikipedia

I have no idea (and neither do you) who wrote up the ETO on that page. But from the same page

In the ETO, P-38s made 130,000 sorties with a loss of 1.3% overall, comparing favorably with ETO P-51s, which posted a 1.1% loss, considering that the P-38s were vastly outnumbered and suffered from poorly thought-out tactics. The majority of the P-38 sorties were made in the period prior to Allied air superiority in Europe, when pilots fought against a very determined and skilled enemy.[97] Lieutenant Colonel Mark Hubbard, a vocal critic of the aircraft, rated it the third best Allied fighter in Europe.[98] The Lightning's greatest virtues were long range, heavy payload, high speed, fast climb and concentrated firepower. The P-38 was a formidable fighter, interceptor and attack aircraft.

Considering your 1:1 ratio, not much happened with all these planes. The loss rates are not logic.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The point is that the role of the Me 109 wasn´t to take down as many fighters as possible during anti-bomber missions. It was enough when the fighters were busy with the 109 while the Fw 190 targeted the bombers. The Germans lacked of planes and fuel. Sometimes, no interception missions took place at all. Not enough aircraft could be gathered for proper interception missions. The American bomber fleet consisted of three forces with together about 1100 large bombers that were targeting Germany almost every day. Although their losses were incredible they managed to replace the bombers to keep up the pressure. In addition, the Brits also came on a daily bases.
Many German planes were bound in the eastern front were the Soviets fielded many thousands of aircraft.
Being vastly outnumbered, the Germans could not prevent allied air superiority. Under this circumstances, even if your 1:1 ration is true, it cannot be used to determine a plane´s capability.

The ME262 would have shot down a lot of bombers and could take on any Allied fighter and win, if it wasn't for the stupid German commander-in-chief that wanted most of them to be made into bombers.

If they started manufacturing them a bit earlier and in larger numbers, and used them for what they were designed, the war could have lasted much longer.

I completely agree. Had it been introduced as soon as it could have been, it might have extended the war a few months and may got a more favorable surrender terms.

I think a couple of years even. They could have stopped the allied bombings of factories. They even had air-to-air and air-to-ground guided missile prototypes.

I think the fighter sweeps in early 44 would not have allowed the 262 much of a breath. Most were killed on landing where they were most vulnerable. By the time (even if the 262 were introduced in late 43 in large numbers) the allies would still have had the big 3 fighters hunting them down. It would have just taken longer.

A large number of Me 262 in 1943 could have been the pointer. The D-Day operations were close to be canceled after the first alert messages (we are not considering Rommel´s possible treason here, when his forces were extra late to participate in the battles). On the other hand, this would have decreased the number of new Me 109.
These R4M aa missiles were not guided and exploded in a determined distance.
But there was a guided AA missile in development but Hitler favored the V-weapons. The Wasserfall missile was controlled remotely with a joystick and camera. The missile was supposed to create a big bang in a bomber formation. This was really a good idea compared to the V-weapons that had little impact on the war development. 10000 of these, maybe more, instead of Vs would have ended the bomber raids.

Wasserfall - Wikipedia

The opening paragraph says it all on your own cite.

The Wasserfall Ferngelenkte FlaRakete (Waterfall Remote-Controlled A-A Rocket),[1]:77 was a German guided surface-to-air missile project of World War II. The Wasserfall required considerable development work, which was not completed before the end of the war.

While it was a good idea, it was just too late to have anything to do with the outcome for at least a year. The Vunder Veapons was just too little too late. Just like the 262. They made over 1000 262s but fielded only about 300 due to the lack of qualified pilots. The fact is, the delay in trying to make it a bomber and not building a 2 seat trainer version pretty well killed the program. Even if all were to go right I am quite sure Hitler would have found a way to screw it up royally.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

There is a ranking that Hunt says is biased:

If we rank the six planes by "Lethality Points" this would be the result:
Me 162 - 145 Points
Bf/Me 109 - 115 Points
P-47 - 80 Points
Fw 190 - 76 Points
P-38 - 75 Points
P-51 - 60 points

Bf-109 vs P-38 – Comparison – BVR – Dogfight

Me 162 was first introduce in Jan 45. Retired in March 45. Wasn't around long enough to even be rated.

ME-109 was around throughout the whole war. It was king until June 1943 when the P-38J was introduced. And it quickly became less deadly by December 1943 as the P-51B began making the scene. I have to agree with out pilots of the time. The Big 3 after Dec 1943 were 2% better than the 109. Making it one of the most important fighters in WWII but certainly not the deadliest overall.

P-47, until the P-47N, was too short ranged. It was still longer ranged than all but the P-38 and the P-51. It made it's name in ground attack which it was ideally suited. Deadly? you betcha. I would place that at the top of the list hands down.

Fw 190 should be an also mention in the deadliness when you mention the P-47. It could have been a fantastic ground attack but never got the chance. By the time it became at it's deadliest, Germany was fighting for it's existance. So the P-47 gets the nod.

P-51 was deadly in an air to air against other fighters. It lacked the ruggedness to go on the deck. One hit in it's radiator and it was not going to make it home. If you are only using Fighter to Fighter, the P-51 would get the nod. But for anything else, it wouldn't.

The P-38 was the jack of all trades. Late in 43, the J-25 was introduced. A J-25 could even turn inside a Zero, out climb anything other than a V-2 or a ME-163. It was a bit slower with only a 433 mph top end but it was still faster than anything the Axis had in prop planes. It could easily pull out of a compression dive. The Luftwaffe had a rude awakening. They tried to dive to get away from it and quickly learned that when they pulled out of the dive, the 38s guns were firing on them. The reason the early versions were so bad was the fact that the War Department would not allow it to be upgraded since they needed it so bad. The good thing about the introduction of the p-51B/C was it bought time to finally do the upgrades to make the bird great. And the training was not up to par with the training for the 51 and 47. Also (and this goes for the P-47 as well) the garbage gas that the Brits were using until the middle of 43 was a disaster for high compression engines. The 47 had a really bad pinging and the 38 was blowing heads and valves. In the middle of 43, AAF was providing the fuel, the 110/145 didn't need the octane booster that would seperate at cold temperatures.

The war would not have ended any sooner had the P-51B/C/D/H not been introduced and they allowed the mods to be done to the P-38. But we would have lost fewer 38 pilots for sure in ETO.

There is a ranking that Hunt says is biased:



Bf-109 vs P-38 – Comparison – BVR – Dogfight

The info you gave was for the G and older P-38s. The tipoff was the top speed of 443. The J model had a top speed of only 433. And there were more Js built than all the others put together except for the L model. The older 38s were only in the war for a year and a half before the hot rods started showing up. Talk about showing bias.

You left out the North African Campaign as well at Italy where the P-51 wasn't available and the P-47 didn't have the range. Until the P-38 was tranferred from the ETO to the MTO, they couldn't take the fight to the airfields of the Luftwaffe and the bombers went unescorted to the oil fields of Romania. The P-51 wasn't really a huge factor until Feb of 1944 when they finally arrived in numbers to the ETO. Even the bomber escort in the ETO in 1944 went something like this.

Somewhere over the French coast, the P-47 would meet the bombers until halfway through France where they would be met by P-38s which took them into Germany. At that point, the P-51 would pickup the bombers. No fighter had the fuel to escort the bombers the whole way. When the P-47 pealed off, they didn't go straight home. They dropped down and picked up targets of opportunity. The same with the P-38s. At about the time the P-51 met with the bombers, another group of P-38s would be launched to meet the bombers just this side of Germany. They stayed with the bombers until they were relieved by the P-47s. At that point, the P-38 dropped to the ground and hit targets of opportunity or tangled with enemy fighters. At some point, all the AAF fighters would be saturating the French area with fighters after the bombers hit the French Coast.

Before Feb 1944, the fighters stayed with the bombers which was extremely rough on their range. None of the big 3 liked to be flying at 220 mph. It was gas guzzling. And they would have to spool up to take on the incoming fighters. Starting in Feb 1944, they released the fighters who took it to the enemy ahead of the bombers. There were many large groups of enemy fighters amassed that were broken up by AAF fighters even before they could reach the bombers. The Bombers were now getting through at a higher rate. And it didn't matter which one of the big 3 were "Escorting" at that point. It was a team effort even in the ETO where the bulk of the P-51s were stationed. AFter the great fighter sweeps that began after Feb 1944, the AAF fighters were able to penetrate even farther in. After D-Day, the AAF fighters ruled the skies and soon were operating from France. Even the short ranged Spits and Hurricanes were able to operate effectively under those conditions. But without the P-38 operating by itself during the time that the Luftwaffe Fighters out numbered it over 11 to 1, none of this would have been possible.

The reason the P-38 was more affective in the PTO was that the training and tactics were much better and allowed the P-38 to be flown near it's full capability. There was almost no real training on the P-38 until it was sent into combat until late 1943 when the Piggy Back version was introduced. We lost a hell of a lot of P-38s because the pilots were ill trained. You can thank the Generals in Europe for that.

The point is that the role of the Me 109 wasn´t to take down as many fighters as possible during anti-bomber missions. It was enough when the fighters were busy with the 109 while the Fw 190 targeted the bombers. The Germans lacked of planes and fuel. Sometimes, no interception missions took place at all. Not enough aircraft could be gathered for proper interception missions. The American bomber fleet consisted of three forces with together about 1100 large bombers that were targeting Germany almost every day. Although their losses were incredible they managed to replace the bombers to keep up the pressure. In addition, the Brits also came on a daily bases.
Many German planes were bound in the eastern front were the Soviets fielded many thousands of aircraft.
Being vastly outnumbered, the Germans could not prevent allied air superiority. Under this circumstances, even if your 1:1 ration is true, it cannot be used to determine a plane´s capability.

The P-38 had a 1 to 1 rate from the beginning of 1942 until December of 1943. It ended up with a 3 to one rate in the ETO by the end.

We had this already, you see the P-38 in the comparison has flaps. It´s less agile, slower (although climbs faster) and most important the Me 109 were upgraded too.

We can read how the P-38 is rated:
Lockheed P-38 Lightning - Wikipedia

I have no idea (and neither do you) who wrote up the ETO on that page. But from the same page

In the ETO, P-38s made 130,000 sorties with a loss of 1.3% overall, comparing favorably with ETO P-51s, which posted a 1.1% loss, considering that the P-38s were vastly outnumbered and suffered from poorly thought-out tactics. The majority of the P-38 sorties were made in the period prior to Allied air superiority in Europe, when pilots fought against a very determined and skilled enemy.[97] Lieutenant Colonel Mark Hubbard, a vocal critic of the aircraft, rated it the third best Allied fighter in Europe.[98] The Lightning's greatest virtues were long range, heavy payload, high speed, fast climb and concentrated firepower. The P-38 was a formidable fighter, interceptor and attack aircraft.

Considering your 1:1 ratio, not much happened with all these planes. The loss rates are not logic.

When it was outnumbered by over 11 to 1 and still got a 1 to 1 kill rate, that means something was right about it. It ended with a 3 to one kill rate anyway. In the end, the P-38 was not used as a fighter in the ETO. It was almost exclusively used as a ground attack which it was at least as good as a P-47 at. The Assembly line was producing many more P-51s than P-38s at that point since the P-38 costs almost twice as much and required at least twice as long to produce. The P-47 and the 38 were not needed as fighters. They were need as ground attack birds.

 

[Bleipriester]

The ME262 would have shot down a lot of bombers and could take on any Allied fighter and win, if it wasn't for the stupid German commander-in-chief that wanted most of them to be made into bombers.

If they started manufacturing them a bit earlier and in larger numbers, and used them for what they were designed, the war could have lasted much longer.

I completely agree. Had it been introduced as soon as it could have been, it might have extended the war a few months and may got a more favorable surrender terms.

I think a couple of years even. They could have stopped the allied bombings of factories. They even had air-to-air and air-to-ground guided missile prototypes.

I think the fighter sweeps in early 44 would not have allowed the 262 much of a breath. Most were killed on landing where they were most vulnerable. By the time (even if the 262 were introduced in late 43 in large numbers) the allies would still have had the big 3 fighters hunting them down. It would have just taken longer.

A large number of Me 262 in 1943 could have been the pointer. The D-Day operations were close to be canceled after the first alert messages (we are not considering Rommel´s possible treason here, when his forces were extra late to participate in the battles). On the other hand, this would have decreased the number of new Me 109.
These R4M aa missiles were not guided and exploded in a determined distance.
But there was a guided AA missile in development but Hitler favored the V-weapons. The Wasserfall missile was controlled remotely with a joystick and camera. The missile was supposed to create a big bang in a bomber formation. This was really a good idea compared to the V-weapons that had little impact on the war development. 10000 of these, maybe more, instead of Vs would have ended the bomber raids.

Wasserfall - Wikipedia

The opening paragraph says it all on your own cite.

The Wasserfall Ferngelenkte FlaRakete (Waterfall Remote-Controlled A-A Rocket),[1]:77 was a German guided surface-to-air missile project of World War II. The Wasserfall required considerable development work, which was not completed before the end of the war.

While it was a good idea, it was just too late to have anything to do with the outcome for at least a year. The Vunder Veapons was just too little too late. Just like the 262. They made over 1000 262s but fielded only about 300 due to the lack of qualified pilots. The fact is, the delay in trying to make it a bomber and not building a 2 seat trainer version pretty well killed the program. Even if all were to go right I am quite sure Hitler would have found a way to screw it up royally.

Hitler caused this delay. There was no lack of qualified pilots. The Me 262 was not a beast.
As for the Wasserfall it was made in 1943 and could have been ready in 1943 but Hitler dedicated no resources but all into the V. His doctor pumped a lot of strange stuff into him each day. V is for Vergeltung by the way.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

AFter that, all the bad habits were out of it and it was the best fighter in the world barring none.

It was a very good aircraft. But the best? That is highly debatable. ....

In fact, the P-47 Thunderbolt actually shot down more German planes than either the P-38 or the P-51

Your info is incorrect. The P-47 had 3752 air-to-air kills, while the P-51 had 4950.

Check yourself, before you wreck yourself!

 

[Bleipriester]

There is a ranking that Hunt says is biased:

If we rank the six planes by "Lethality Points" this would be the result:
Me 162 - 145 Points
Bf/Me 109 - 115 Points
P-47 - 80 Points
Fw 190 - 76 Points
P-38 - 75 Points
P-51 - 60 points

Bf-109 vs P-38 – Comparison – BVR – Dogfight

Me 162 was first introduce in Jan 45. Retired in March 45. Wasn't around long enough to even be rated.

ME-109 was around throughout the whole war. It was king until June 1943 when the P-38J was introduced. And it quickly became less deadly by December 1943 as the P-51B began making the scene. I have to agree with out pilots of the time. The Big 3 after Dec 1943 were 2% better than the 109. Making it one of the most important fighters in WWII but certainly not the deadliest overall.

P-47, until the P-47N, was too short ranged. It was still longer ranged than all but the P-38 and the P-51. It made it's name in ground attack which it was ideally suited. Deadly? you betcha. I would place that at the top of the list hands down.

Fw 190 should be an also mention in the deadliness when you mention the P-47. It could have been a fantastic ground attack but never got the chance. By the time it became at it's deadliest, Germany was fighting for it's existance. So the P-47 gets the nod.

P-51 was deadly in an air to air against other fighters. It lacked the ruggedness to go on the deck. One hit in it's radiator and it was not going to make it home. If you are only using Fighter to Fighter, the P-51 would get the nod. But for anything else, it wouldn't.

The P-38 was the jack of all trades. Late in 43, the J-25 was introduced. A J-25 could even turn inside a Zero, out climb anything other than a V-2 or a ME-163. It was a bit slower with only a 433 mph top end but it was still faster than anything the Axis had in prop planes. It could easily pull out of a compression dive. The Luftwaffe had a rude awakening. They tried to dive to get away from it and quickly learned that when they pulled out of the dive, the 38s guns were firing on them. The reason the early versions were so bad was the fact that the War Department would not allow it to be upgraded since they needed it so bad. The good thing about the introduction of the p-51B/C was it bought time to finally do the upgrades to make the bird great. And the training was not up to par with the training for the 51 and 47. Also (and this goes for the P-47 as well) the garbage gas that the Brits were using until the middle of 43 was a disaster for high compression engines. The 47 had a really bad pinging and the 38 was blowing heads and valves. In the middle of 43, AAF was providing the fuel, the 110/145 didn't need the octane booster that would seperate at cold temperatures.

The war would not have ended any sooner had the P-51B/C/D/H not been introduced and they allowed the mods to be done to the P-38. But we would have lost fewer 38 pilots for sure in ETO.

There is a ranking that Hunt says is biased:



Bf-109 vs P-38 – Comparison – BVR – Dogfight

The info you gave was for the G and older P-38s. The tipoff was the top speed of 443. The J model had a top speed of only 433. And there were more Js built than all the others put together except for the L model. The older 38s were only in the war for a year and a half before the hot rods started showing up. Talk about showing bias.

The point is that the role of the Me 109 wasn´t to take down as many fighters as possible during anti-bomber missions. It was enough when the fighters were busy with the 109 while the Fw 190 targeted the bombers. The Germans lacked of planes and fuel. Sometimes, no interception missions took place at all. Not enough aircraft could be gathered for proper interception missions. The American bomber fleet consisted of three forces with together about 1100 large bombers that were targeting Germany almost every day. Although their losses were incredible they managed to replace the bombers to keep up the pressure. In addition, the Brits also came on a daily bases.
Many German planes were bound in the eastern front were the Soviets fielded many thousands of aircraft.
Being vastly outnumbered, the Germans could not prevent allied air superiority. Under this circumstances, even if your 1:1 ration is true, it cannot be used to determine a plane´s capability.

The P-38 had a 1 to 1 rate from the beginning of 1942 until December of 1943. It ended up with a 3 to one rate in the ETO by the end.

We had this already, you see the P-38 in the comparison has flaps. It´s less agile, slower (although climbs faster) and most important the Me 109 were upgraded too.

We can read how the P-38 is rated:
Lockheed P-38 Lightning - Wikipedia

I have no idea (and neither do you) who wrote up the ETO on that page. But from the same page

In the ETO, P-38s made 130,000 sorties with a loss of 1.3% overall, comparing favorably with ETO P-51s, which posted a 1.1% loss, considering that the P-38s were vastly outnumbered and suffered from poorly thought-out tactics. The majority of the P-38 sorties were made in the period prior to Allied air superiority in Europe, when pilots fought against a very determined and skilled enemy.[97] Lieutenant Colonel Mark Hubbard, a vocal critic of the aircraft, rated it the third best Allied fighter in Europe.[98] The Lightning's greatest virtues were long range, heavy payload, high speed, fast climb and concentrated firepower. The P-38 was a formidable fighter, interceptor and attack aircraft.

Considering your 1:1 ratio, not much happened with all these planes. The loss rates are not logic.

When it was outnumbered by over 11 to 1 and still got a 1 to 1 kill rate, that means something was right about it. It ended with a 3 to one kill rate anyway. In the end, the P-38 was not used as a fighter in the ETO. It was almost exclusively used as a ground attack which it was at least as good as a P-47 at. The Assembly line was producing many more P-51s than P-38s at that point since the P-38 costs almost twice as much and required at least twice as long to produce. The P-47 and the 38 were not needed as fighters. They were need as ground attack birds.

You cannot score a 3:1 ratio while attacking ground targets. If the P-38 were that a great fighter if would not have been used as ground attack plane.

WWII aircraft losses:

Germany: Total 76,875 aircraft, of which 40,000 were total losses and the remainder significantly damaged.

Japan: from 35,000 to 50,000 total losses, with about 20,000 lost operationally.

Italy: Total losses were 5,272 aircraft, of which 3,269 were lost in combat

Soviet Union: Total of 124,700 aircraft.

United States: Total losses were nearly 95,000, including 52,951 operational losses (38,418 in Europe and 14,533 in the Pacific)

United Kingdom: United Kingdom: Europe 42,010

Equipment losses in World War II - Wikipedia

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Me 162 was first introduce in Jan 45. Retired in March 45. Wasn't around long enough to even be rated.

ME-109 was around throughout the whole war. It was king until June 1943 when the P-38J was introduced. And it quickly became less deadly by December 1943 as the P-51B began making the scene. I have to agree with out pilots of the time. The Big 3 after Dec 1943 were 2% better than the 109. Making it one of the most important fighters in WWII but certainly not the deadliest overall.

P-47, until the P-47N, was too short ranged. It was still longer ranged than all but the P-38 and the P-51. It made it's name in ground attack which it was ideally suited. Deadly? you betcha. I would place that at the top of the list hands down.

Fw 190 should be an also mention in the deadliness when you mention the P-47. It could have been a fantastic ground attack but never got the chance. By the time it became at it's deadliest, Germany was fighting for it's existance. So the P-47 gets the nod.

P-51 was deadly in an air to air against other fighters. It lacked the ruggedness to go on the deck. One hit in it's radiator and it was not going to make it home. If you are only using Fighter to Fighter, the P-51 would get the nod. But for anything else, it wouldn't.

The P-38 was the jack of all trades. Late in 43, the J-25 was introduced. A J-25 could even turn inside a Zero, out climb anything other than a V-2 or a ME-163. It was a bit slower with only a 433 mph top end but it was still faster than anything the Axis had in prop planes. It could easily pull out of a compression dive. The Luftwaffe had a rude awakening. They tried to dive to get away from it and quickly learned that when they pulled out of the dive, the 38s guns were firing on them. The reason the early versions were so bad was the fact that the War Department would not allow it to be upgraded since they needed it so bad. The good thing about the introduction of the p-51B/C was it bought time to finally do the upgrades to make the bird great. And the training was not up to par with the training for the 51 and 47. Also (and this goes for the P-47 as well) the garbage gas that the Brits were using until the middle of 43 was a disaster for high compression engines. The 47 had a really bad pinging and the 38 was blowing heads and valves. In the middle of 43, AAF was providing the fuel, the 110/145 didn't need the octane booster that would seperate at cold temperatures.

The war would not have ended any sooner had the P-51B/C/D/H not been introduced and they allowed the mods to be done to the P-38. But we would have lost fewer 38 pilots for sure in ETO.

The info you gave was for the G and older P-38s. The tipoff was the top speed of 443. The J model had a top speed of only 433. And there were more Js built than all the others put together except for the L model. The older 38s were only in the war for a year and a half before the hot rods started showing up. Talk about showing bias.

The P-38 had a 1 to 1 rate from the beginning of 1942 until December of 1943. It ended up with a 3 to one rate in the ETO by the end.

We had this already, you see the P-38 in the comparison has flaps. It´s less agile, slower (although climbs faster) and most important the Me 109 were upgraded too.

We can read how the P-38 is rated:
Lockheed P-38 Lightning - Wikipedia

I have no idea (and neither do you) who wrote up the ETO on that page. But from the same page

In the ETO, P-38s made 130,000 sorties with a loss of 1.3% overall, comparing favorably with ETO P-51s, which posted a 1.1% loss, considering that the P-38s were vastly outnumbered and suffered from poorly thought-out tactics. The majority of the P-38 sorties were made in the period prior to Allied air superiority in Europe, when pilots fought against a very determined and skilled enemy.[97] Lieutenant Colonel Mark Hubbard, a vocal critic of the aircraft, rated it the third best Allied fighter in Europe.[98] The Lightning's greatest virtues were long range, heavy payload, high speed, fast climb and concentrated firepower. The P-38 was a formidable fighter, interceptor and attack aircraft.

Considering your 1:1 ratio, not much happened with all these planes. The loss rates are not logic.

When it was outnumbered by over 11 to 1 and still got a 1 to 1 kill rate, that means something was right about it. It ended with a 3 to one kill rate anyway. In the end, the P-38 was not used as a fighter in the ETO. It was almost exclusively used as a ground attack which it was at least as good as a P-47 at. The Assembly line was producing many more P-51s than P-38s at that point since the P-38 costs almost twice as much and required at least twice as long to produce. The P-47 and the 38 were not needed as fighters. They were need as ground attack birds.

You cannot score a 3:1 ratio while attacking ground targets. If the P-38 were that a great fighter if would not have been used as ground attack plane.

WWII aircraft losses:

Germany: Total 76,875 aircraft, of which 40,000 were total losses and the remainder significantly damaged.

Japan: from 35,000 to 50,000 total losses, with about 20,000 lost operationally.

Italy: Total losses were 5,272 aircraft, of which 3,269 were lost in combat

Soviet Union: Total of 124,700 aircraft.

United States: Total losses were nearly 95,000, including 52,951 operational losses (38,418 in Europe and 14,533 in the Pacific)

United Kingdom: United Kingdom: Europe 42,010

Equipment losses in World War II - Wikipedia

You seem to pick only one month out the over 4 years of the war. The P-47 and the P-51 weren't flying over Germany in 1942 and 1943. Outside of bombers, it was only the P-38. The P-38 was the first fighter to be over Berlin. Going that far, there isn't enough gas to do much on your way home. The P-38s were supposed to pick up bombers just inside of Germany but they aborted so the 38s went on to Berlin since they were almost there already. Now, how come your vaunted Luftwaffe allowed that? The next one of allied bird that was close to a fighter to do that was the Mossie. You just picked the last days of the war. Until the P-51D became the sole bomber escort (sometime in late 44), the P-38 spent much of it's time in the ETO as bomber escort as well as ground attack. Usually, on the same day. So did the P-47.

All you showed was that Germany had fewer to lose throughout the war and that is what defeated them. They couldn't sustain their losses.

 

[Bleipriester]

We had this already, you see the P-38 in the comparison has flaps. It´s less agile, slower (although climbs faster) and most important the Me 109 were upgraded too.

We can read how the P-38 is rated:
Lockheed P-38 Lightning - Wikipedia

I have no idea (and neither do you) who wrote up the ETO on that page. But from the same page

In the ETO, P-38s made 130,000 sorties with a loss of 1.3% overall, comparing favorably with ETO P-51s, which posted a 1.1% loss, considering that the P-38s were vastly outnumbered and suffered from poorly thought-out tactics. The majority of the P-38 sorties were made in the period prior to Allied air superiority in Europe, when pilots fought against a very determined and skilled enemy.[97] Lieutenant Colonel Mark Hubbard, a vocal critic of the aircraft, rated it the third best Allied fighter in Europe.[98] The Lightning's greatest virtues were long range, heavy payload, high speed, fast climb and concentrated firepower. The P-38 was a formidable fighter, interceptor and attack aircraft.

Considering your 1:1 ratio, not much happened with all these planes. The loss rates are not logic.

When it was outnumbered by over 11 to 1 and still got a 1 to 1 kill rate, that means something was right about it. It ended with a 3 to one kill rate anyway. In the end, the P-38 was not used as a fighter in the ETO. It was almost exclusively used as a ground attack which it was at least as good as a P-47 at. The Assembly line was producing many more P-51s than P-38s at that point since the P-38 costs almost twice as much and required at least twice as long to produce. The P-47 and the 38 were not needed as fighters. They were need as ground attack birds.

You cannot score a 3:1 ratio while attacking ground targets. If the P-38 were that a great fighter if would not have been used as ground attack plane.

WWII aircraft losses:

Germany: Total 76,875 aircraft, of which 40,000 were total losses and the remainder significantly damaged.

Japan: from 35,000 to 50,000 total losses, with about 20,000 lost operationally.

Italy: Total losses were 5,272 aircraft, of which 3,269 were lost in combat

Soviet Union: Total of 124,700 aircraft.

United States: Total losses were nearly 95,000, including 52,951 operational losses (38,418 in Europe and 14,533 in the Pacific)

United Kingdom: United Kingdom: Europe 42,010

Equipment losses in World War II - Wikipedia

You seem to pick only one month out the over 4 years of the war. The P-47 and the P-51 weren't flying over Germany in 1942 and 1943. Outside of bombers, it was only the P-38. The P-38 was the first fighter to be over Berlin. Going that far, there isn't enough gas to do much on your way home. The P-38s were supposed to pick up bombers just inside of Germany but they aborted so the 38s went on to Berlin since they were almost there already. Now, how come your vaunted Luftwaffe allowed that? The next one of allied bird that was close to a fighter to do that was the Mossie. You just picked the last days of the war. Until the P-51D became the sole bomber escort (sometime in late 44), the P-38 spent much of it's time in the ETO as bomber escort as well as ground attack. Usually, on the same day. So did the P-47.

All you showed was that Germany had fewer to lose throughout the war and that is what defeated them. They couldn't sustain their losses.

You are really a professional in what you do. But it is not aviation history.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I have no idea (and neither do you) who wrote up the ETO on that page. But from the same page

In the ETO, P-38s made 130,000 sorties with a loss of 1.3% overall, comparing favorably with ETO P-51s, which posted a 1.1% loss, considering that the P-38s were vastly outnumbered and suffered from poorly thought-out tactics. The majority of the P-38 sorties were made in the period prior to Allied air superiority in Europe, when pilots fought against a very determined and skilled enemy.[97] Lieutenant Colonel Mark Hubbard, a vocal critic of the aircraft, rated it the third best Allied fighter in Europe.[98] The Lightning's greatest virtues were long range, heavy payload, high speed, fast climb and concentrated firepower. The P-38 was a formidable fighter, interceptor and attack aircraft.

Considering your 1:1 ratio, not much happened with all these planes. The loss rates are not logic.

When it was outnumbered by over 11 to 1 and still got a 1 to 1 kill rate, that means something was right about it. It ended with a 3 to one kill rate anyway. In the end, the P-38 was not used as a fighter in the ETO. It was almost exclusively used as a ground attack which it was at least as good as a P-47 at. The Assembly line was producing many more P-51s than P-38s at that point since the P-38 costs almost twice as much and required at least twice as long to produce. The P-47 and the 38 were not needed as fighters. They were need as ground attack birds.

You cannot score a 3:1 ratio while attacking ground targets. If the P-38 were that a great fighter if would not have been used as ground attack plane.

WWII aircraft losses:

Germany: Total 76,875 aircraft, of which 40,000 were total losses and the remainder significantly damaged.

Japan: from 35,000 to 50,000 total losses, with about 20,000 lost operationally.

Italy: Total losses were 5,272 aircraft, of which 3,269 were lost in combat

Soviet Union: Total of 124,700 aircraft.

United States: Total losses were nearly 95,000, including 52,951 operational losses (38,418 in Europe and 14,533 in the Pacific)

United Kingdom: United Kingdom: Europe 42,010

Equipment losses in World War II - Wikipedia

You seem to pick only one month out the over 4 years of the war. The P-47 and the P-51 weren't flying over Germany in 1942 and 1943. Outside of bombers, it was only the P-38. The P-38 was the first fighter to be over Berlin. Going that far, there isn't enough gas to do much on your way home. The P-38s were supposed to pick up bombers just inside of Germany but they aborted so the 38s went on to Berlin since they were almost there already. Now, how come your vaunted Luftwaffe allowed that? The next one of allied bird that was close to a fighter to do that was the Mossie. You just picked the last days of the war. Until the P-51D became the sole bomber escort (sometime in late 44), the P-38 spent much of it's time in the ETO as bomber escort as well as ground attack. Usually, on the same day. So did the P-47.

All you showed was that Germany had fewer to lose throughout the war and that is what defeated them. They couldn't sustain their losses.

You are really a professional in what you do. But it is not aviation history.

Are you going to start sobbing now?

 

[Bleipriester]

Considering your 1:1 ratio, not much happened with all these planes. The loss rates are not logic.

When it was outnumbered by over 11 to 1 and still got a 1 to 1 kill rate, that means something was right about it. It ended with a 3 to one kill rate anyway. In the end, the P-38 was not used as a fighter in the ETO. It was almost exclusively used as a ground attack which it was at least as good as a P-47 at. The Assembly line was producing many more P-51s than P-38s at that point since the P-38 costs almost twice as much and required at least twice as long to produce. The P-47 and the 38 were not needed as fighters. They were need as ground attack birds.

You cannot score a 3:1 ratio while attacking ground targets. If the P-38 were that a great fighter if would not have been used as ground attack plane.

WWII aircraft losses:

Germany: Total 76,875 aircraft, of which 40,000 were total losses and the remainder significantly damaged.

Japan: from 35,000 to 50,000 total losses, with about 20,000 lost operationally.

Italy: Total losses were 5,272 aircraft, of which 3,269 were lost in combat

Soviet Union: Total of 124,700 aircraft.

United States: Total losses were nearly 95,000, including 52,951 operational losses (38,418 in Europe and 14,533 in the Pacific)

United Kingdom: United Kingdom: Europe 42,010

Equipment losses in World War II - Wikipedia

You seem to pick only one month out the over 4 years of the war. The P-47 and the P-51 weren't flying over Germany in 1942 and 1943. Outside of bombers, it was only the P-38. The P-38 was the first fighter to be over Berlin. Going that far, there isn't enough gas to do much on your way home. The P-38s were supposed to pick up bombers just inside of Germany but they aborted so the 38s went on to Berlin since they were almost there already. Now, how come your vaunted Luftwaffe allowed that? The next one of allied bird that was close to a fighter to do that was the Mossie. You just picked the last days of the war. Until the P-51D became the sole bomber escort (sometime in late 44), the P-38 spent much of it's time in the ETO as bomber escort as well as ground attack. Usually, on the same day. So did the P-47.

All you showed was that Germany had fewer to lose throughout the war and that is what defeated them. They couldn't sustain their losses.

You are really a professional in what you do. But it is not aviation history.

Are you going to start sobbing now?

What crazy month with hundreds of thousands of aircraft losses is it that I picked?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

When it was outnumbered by over 11 to 1 and still got a 1 to 1 kill rate, that means something was right about it. It ended with a 3 to one kill rate anyway. In the end, the P-38 was not used as a fighter in the ETO. It was almost exclusively used as a ground attack which it was at least as good as a P-47 at. The Assembly line was producing many more P-51s than P-38s at that point since the P-38 costs almost twice as much and required at least twice as long to produce. The P-47 and the 38 were not needed as fighters. They were need as ground attack birds.

You cannot score a 3:1 ratio while attacking ground targets. If the P-38 were that a great fighter if would not have been used as ground attack plane.

WWII aircraft losses:

Germany: Total 76,875 aircraft, of which 40,000 were total losses and the remainder significantly damaged.

Japan: from 35,000 to 50,000 total losses, with about 20,000 lost operationally.

Italy: Total losses were 5,272 aircraft, of which 3,269 were lost in combat

Soviet Union: Total of 124,700 aircraft.

United States: Total losses were nearly 95,000, including 52,951 operational losses (38,418 in Europe and 14,533 in the Pacific)

United Kingdom: United Kingdom: Europe 42,010

Equipment losses in World War II - Wikipedia

You seem to pick only one month out the over 4 years of the war. The P-47 and the P-51 weren't flying over Germany in 1942 and 1943. Outside of bombers, it was only the P-38. The P-38 was the first fighter to be over Berlin. Going that far, there isn't enough gas to do much on your way home. The P-38s were supposed to pick up bombers just inside of Germany but they aborted so the 38s went on to Berlin since they were almost there already. Now, how come your vaunted Luftwaffe allowed that? The next one of allied bird that was close to a fighter to do that was the Mossie. You just picked the last days of the war. Until the P-51D became the sole bomber escort (sometime in late 44), the P-38 spent much of it's time in the ETO as bomber escort as well as ground attack. Usually, on the same day. So did the P-47.

All you showed was that Germany had fewer to lose throughout the war and that is what defeated them. They couldn't sustain their losses.

You are really a professional in what you do. But it is not aviation history.

Are you going to start sobbing now?

What crazy month with hundreds of thousands of aircraft losses is it that I picked?

Your posting has become erratic and nonsensical. It appears that somone gave you a boo boo.

 

[Bleipriester]

You cannot score a 3:1 ratio while attacking ground targets. If the P-38 were that a great fighter if would not have been used as ground attack plane.

WWII aircraft losses:

Germany: Total 76,875 aircraft, of which 40,000 were total losses and the remainder significantly damaged.

Japan: from 35,000 to 50,000 total losses, with about 20,000 lost operationally.

Italy: Total losses were 5,272 aircraft, of which 3,269 were lost in combat

Soviet Union: Total of 124,700 aircraft.

United States: Total losses were nearly 95,000, including 52,951 operational losses (38,418 in Europe and 14,533 in the Pacific)

United Kingdom: United Kingdom: Europe 42,010

Equipment losses in World War II - Wikipedia

You seem to pick only one month out the over 4 years of the war. The P-47 and the P-51 weren't flying over Germany in 1942 and 1943. Outside of bombers, it was only the P-38. The P-38 was the first fighter to be over Berlin. Going that far, there isn't enough gas to do much on your way home. The P-38s were supposed to pick up bombers just inside of Germany but they aborted so the 38s went on to Berlin since they were almost there already. Now, how come your vaunted Luftwaffe allowed that? The next one of allied bird that was close to a fighter to do that was the Mossie. You just picked the last days of the war. Until the P-51D became the sole bomber escort (sometime in late 44), the P-38 spent much of it's time in the ETO as bomber escort as well as ground attack. Usually, on the same day. So did the P-47.

All you showed was that Germany had fewer to lose throughout the war and that is what defeated them. They couldn't sustain their losses.

You are really a professional in what you do. But it is not aviation history.

Are you going to start sobbing now?

What crazy month with hundreds of thousands of aircraft losses is it that I picked?

Your posting has become erratic and nonsensical. It appears that somone gave you a boo boo.

How about answering a simple question, supremacy aviator?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

You seem to pick only one month out the over 4 years of the war. The P-47 and the P-51 weren't flying over Germany in 1942 and 1943. Outside of bombers, it was only the P-38. The P-38 was the first fighter to be over Berlin. Going that far, there isn't enough gas to do much on your way home. The P-38s were supposed to pick up bombers just inside of Germany but they aborted so the 38s went on to Berlin since they were almost there already. Now, how come your vaunted Luftwaffe allowed that? The next one of allied bird that was close to a fighter to do that was the Mossie. You just picked the last days of the war. Until the P-51D became the sole bomber escort (sometime in late 44), the P-38 spent much of it's time in the ETO as bomber escort as well as ground attack. Usually, on the same day. So did the P-47.

All you showed was that Germany had fewer to lose throughout the war and that is what defeated them. They couldn't sustain their losses.

You are really a professional in what you do. But it is not aviation history.

Are you going to start sobbing now?

What crazy month with hundreds of thousands of aircraft losses is it that I picked?

Your posting has become erratic and nonsensical. It appears that somone gave you a boo boo.

How about answering a simple question, supremacy aviator?

No Soup for You today

 

[Bleipriester]