The Lockheed P-38 may have been good for a twin-engined WW2 fighter, but was it really a waste of resources…since there was not much it could do - that the P-51 couldn’t do better, for 1/2 the price?
:rolleyes:
Sounds like the benefit of hindsight. Yes, if we could all go back in a time machine the ideal thing to do would be to take P-51’s and put Merlin-sourced engines in them. But the P-51 was created by an American design team for the RAF after the war began, and the insertion of the Merlin engine for testing was something of a fluke, IIRC. I might also mention that versions of the P-51 also were severally limited with the cruder versions of the Allison engine, though always had excellent low level performance and were actually the USAAF’s first real dive-bomber (the A-36 Apache)…
“Not much it could do?” JAW, you’re making absurd statements here. What couldn’t it do? It did everything as the primary photo recon aircraft, fighter-bomber, and air superiority fighter until the end of the war. Was it costly? Yes. Was it perfect? No. Was it effective? Yes! But the twin engined design made it pilot favorite for long ocean patrols and was the highest scoring USAAF fighter against Japan for that reason as it was envisioned as a long range patrol fighter over the seas bordering North America, not necessarily an air superiority fighter over Europe. You also seem to ignore that the teething problems of the earlier P-38’s were worked out with improved cooling, turbochargers, pilot HVAC comfort, and power in its most numerous later versions. What’s more, it was available and on the shelf at the beginning of the war for the USAAF, not much else was aside from the P-39 (which you love 
) and the P-40 Warhawk with some Spitfires pawned from Britain…
Aside from all this, you seem to have a penchant for starting inflammatory threads seeking arguments along nationalistic lines rather than discussing history. It’s getting a bit tiresome. Almost like you’re re-fighting arguments from other boards?
Not much the P-38 could do BETTER than the P-51, 'cept maybe dig a bigger hole in the ground…& this thread is surely on a clear technical comparison level, since they were produced, procured & operated by the same nation & same AF…No politics to bring up…so how is it ‘inflammatory’? & No need to personalise things at all…
The major problem with the P-38 was fundamental, & could not be ‘worked out’- a poor high speed airframe that limited its performance envelope substantially…being speed limited to ~ 100mph less than the top European air war fighters, & while this didn’t matter so much against the generally much slower Nippon opposition, it was a major reason that the P-38 was phased out of service quickly post-war,& even replaced as the USAAF twin engined fighter by the P-82 [twin] Mustang…
Wrong. Again you’re referring to the first generation models up to the G/H variants. The P-38J/L rectified this, but the USAAF fighter units in Britain had already changed over to the P-51. You’ve probably also read that the P-38’s overall loss to sortie ratio wasn’t much greater than the P-51…
…it was a major reason that the P-38 was phased out of service quickly post-war,& even replaced as the USAAF twin engined fighter by the P-82 [twin] Mustang…
They were replaced because piston-engined aircraft were obsolete in the jet age, and the USAF already had numerous F-51’s, and P-47’s left over for USANG units stateside. There were no need for multiple types but the P-38L served until 1949 in the USAF, and into the 60’s in Third World air forces…
Do feel free to check the primary sources…USAAF evaluations are frank about the P-38s insurmountable limitations including the lame V-max/vne, airframe modification did limit them them going out of control, but also limited the vne speed, as I stated…& the USAAF used the P-82 post-war since it had the long-range & performance that the early jets & P-38 didn’t…
UN forces still utilized prop jobs in Korea, but not P-38s…
The P-38 was produced, procured & operated the same nation, true; but not the same AF, they were an ARMY aircraft. The US ARMY Air Force fought WWII (along with the Navy and Marines and our allies, of course), and it would be over 40 years before the US won another war (and then the AF was under direct command of the Army -again). And politics certainly did play into the mix, mostly pre Pearl Harbor. Money, production facilities, manpower resources were all greatly influenced by “Politics”, why was the USSR given so many P-39/63’s and few P-51’s and P-38’s (and no B-29’s and few other “long range” Allied Aircraft. There were certainly an abundance of B-17’s and B-24’s by late ‘44.
It was the USAAF 8th AF that used the P-51 so effectively…the B-17s & B-24s couldn’t face the LW alone & live…
…but the Soviets had no need of those heavy bombers, they thought them wasteful! [at the time, although, later for the A-bomb they did copy seized/captured B-29s]
The Soviets didn`t want P-38s, but they did want P-51s - & were denied them, so maybe Larry Bell & GM did have some kind of political kick-back racket going down…& Lockheed learned it from them to use post-war …who knows?
Those were dated criticisms prior to the arrival of the P-38J and L, which were largely never flown out of Britain by the USAAF in fighter squadrons, though they were used as dive-bombers and ground attack aircraft in Normandy. In late 1943, dive flaps were affixed addressing the problems. They did serve in Italy and flew into Germany-Austria until the end of the war…
UN forces still utilized prop jobs in Korea, but not P-38s…
The aircraft left USAF service in 1949, so they would have been gone for Korea. The USAF did indeed put many of its obsolete “sloppy seconds” in Korea while the newer stuff initially went to SAC. Perhaps it was a shame as the concentrated firepower and agility made the P-38J/L a fine tactical support aircraft. The F-51’s cooling system was vulnerable to ground fire whereas the twin-boom Lightenings might have had greater survivability…
The Soviets did have a few diesel-powered strategic bombers and mounted some largely symbolic raids on Germany before abandoning strategic bombing. Again, they concentrated on tactical air forces in direct support of armies and left the expensive bomber campaigns to the West. The Soviet fight was far more existential and they didn’t have the time for esoteric, Italian bomber theorists - as like the Third Reich - their resources were limited.
Interestingly though, you seem to use Soviet decisions (such as not wanting the P-38) to validate your points regarding the supposed inferiority of the P-38 and the wastefulness of strategic bombing, then in turn, criticize the Soviets for their wasteful war of attrition and use of the P-39…
I think that every instance of a P-38 returning on one engine proves it was more survivable.
It wasn’t just Korea where the USAF didn’t have dedicated ground support aircraft, none of its aircraft in VN (with the exception of some Skyraiders they found somewhere) were CAS aircraft. The AF was forced by congress to develop the A-10 - an airplane they didn’t want and tried to get rid of quickly.
There was talk prior to the first Gulf War of the Army taking over the A-10’s but the AF couldn’t let that happen.
The last A-10 was delivered in 1984. How many A-10’s are still “on line”? The USAF has been slow to accept the world where their major role is to support ground operations.
Maybe modern weapons and aircraft can do CAS as well as the Thunderbolt II, us ground pounders have heard that from the AF before, but I don’t think it has been proven.
That’s why the U.S. Army became the biggest operator of aircraft in the world (helicopters), especially the AH-1 and AH-64 series…
A lot of Air Force pilots resented being sent to Korea piloting already outdated B-29’s, B-26’s, and the Mustang to a lessor extent. Though, I recall they had problems with North Koreans operating biplanes over forward air bases that even the F-51’s were too fast and powerful to line them up and shoot down…
The Soviets felt they only needed heavy bombers for sea crossings , of which there were none between Moscow & Berlin…, they did ask the USAAF to bomb the Nazi warships doing shore bombardments, but the 8th AF didn`t get into that… the RAF sorted most of them out…
P-38s [& Sturmoviks] were liquid cooled, just like P-51s, & Robin Olds ace on P-38s, P-51s, [& had victories in F-4s in Vietnam,] said something along the lines of, 'I often came back from Germany in the P-38 on one engine, but I ALWAYS got the P-51 home on one engine"…
The point about the P-38 which I must reiterate is, having a Vmax/vne [diving speed capability/limit] up to 100mph lower than other air-superority fighters in service [even the P-39!] was seen as a significant failing.
I have also read that when the Army found out how successful using Helicopters’s (at the start of the Korean War) were for evacuation of casualties it petitioned the AF to allow it to acquire more aircraft for that use - the AF refused.
The Army also ask the AF to “lend” it some choppers- again they refused.
How many men died due to interservice rivalry (actually petty power plays by bad leaders)?
Olds were (again) referring to the models up until the P-38H. The chances are he never flew the P-38J or L series Lightning, which had vastly improved engine reliability due to upgrades to cooling, turbos, and the addition of hydraulic dive flaps (most did eventually) as most fighter units had converted to the P-51 by the time the J was available. They did see significant action with the P-38L operating in an air supremacy and ground attack role prior to D-Day. I’d like to hear those pilots opinions of the aircraft. That’s like asking the opinion of a man who only flew the P-51A what he thought of Mustangs as a whole? not a very fair assessment, is it?..
The point about the P-38 which I must reiterate is, having a Vmax/vne [diving speed capability/limit] up to 100mph lower than other air-superority fighters in service [even the P-39!] was seen as a significant failing.
You’re just repeating the same myth over and over again! The problems were rectified in the most numerous produced variants of the plane and the P-38L was actually more maneuverable than most versions of either the Me109 or FW190…
There were a lot of bizarre grudges between the services which were once unified. I believe the USAF raised hell over the Army’s use of fixed wing turboprop planes such as the OV-1 needed for tactical recon and COIN operations in the 1960’s. I think things have gotten a bit better recently and that airmen and even sailors were conduction patrol operations along with soldiers in Iraq. Never mind that the patrolling they were conducting was often stupid and tantamount to driving around waiting to get bombed…
Merged with earlier discussion and pic thread on the P-38…
Nickdf just what is it about all the P-38s suffering from a lamely limited diving speed [vne/v-max] …that is so difficult to grasp?
NO P-38s [of any sub-type A-to-K] could go near matching the dive speeds of P-47, P-51,Bf 109,Fw 190 or even a humble P-39…let alone a Typhoon or Tempest…
The late production P-38s were fitted with aero-spoilers which limited them from going out of control…but it was a speed limiter, & did not allow them to go faster…
To the USAAF in NWE, the high-diving-speed-capable German fighters meant the P-38 was in combat under a serious handicap…
:lol:
NO P-38s [of any sub-type A-to-K] could go near matching the dive speeds of P-47, P-51,Bf 109,Fw 190 or even a humble P-39…let alone a Typhoon or Tempest…
The late production P-38s were fitted with aero-spoilers which limited them from going out of control…but it was a speed limiter, & did not allow them to go faster…
To the USAAF in NWE, the high-diving-speed-capable German fighters meant the P-38 was in combat under a serious handicap…
What you’re fundamentally misunderstanding was not that the P-38 was incapable of diving, but that it suffered from air compressibility problems locking the controls in a steep, fast dive. The P-38 was actually too capable at diving, the problem was controlling it. It wasn’t the only aircraft to have problems with this, the P-47 did as well. The instillation of the dive flaps allowed the P-38L Lightning to dive with the best of them. If you have comparable dive rates, please do share. The P-38 was used as a divebomber and tactical ground attack fighter-bomber and continued as an air superiority fighter from Italy…
Ah, now you are getting it , Nickdf, - çompressibility,- keep reading, 'cause that’s the point : unlike the P-38 - P-51s, Spitfires, Tempests & the Bf 109 & Fw 190 weren’t so limited in their dive vne/v-max [by compressibilty] & didn’t need spoilers…
Compare P-38 effectiveness on win/loss ratios…they’re not real good in the ETO…