Quote from Nick: " I’d rather be in a diesel powered tank than a gas one if hit, although I do not think it really made much more of a difference than is the common wisdom. Ammunition stowage -often poor on Russian-designed tanks into modern day- is probably the biggest worry. Not what the engines were using…"
Having spent some years in tin boxes I have to agree with Nick that I would certainly choose a diesel powered vehicle over one using gasoline.Although in truth it really makes no practical difference at all. The true danger in any tank is one’s munitions being hit. Wet stowage being very helpful but not invincible did little to comfort us “Tread heads”. Soviet designed tanks had very poor munition stowage both in layout, and protection. This compounded their other glaring shortcomings. The T-72 in particular was the highest Soviet achievement in death trap designs. Frankly, it would be difficult to prevent a soviet tank from blowing up. I also agree on the burning diesel point, such types of terms, and their frequent use tends to detract from the rest of the post.
This was one of their key problems in the Gulf War. The T-72’s ringed ammo around the turret almost inexplicably making them crematoriums and furnaces.
I also sell diesel-powered equipment/vehicles for a living, so no one is going to badmouth my beloved diesel technologies :mrgreen: …
Aside from being a very good “thoroughbred” fighter, it was also a bit curvy and seductively gorgeous. 
Some interesting links on the Lightening:
From the first link above, one 8th AF pilot compares the P-38(L) to the P-51D. Capt Heiden writes:
…
“The P-51 was a new airplane and we were eager to fly it and were happy with it. It was so easy and comfortable to fly. The P-38 had kept us on our toes and constantly busy–far more critical to fly. You never could relax with it. We were disappointed with the 51’s rate of climb and concerned with the reverse stick, especially if fuel was in the fuselage tank, the rash of rough engines from fouled plugs, and cracked heads which dumped the coolant. With the 38 you could be at altitude before landfall over the continent, but with the 51 you still had a lot of climbing yet to do. The 38 was an interceptor and if both engines (were healthy), you could outclimb any other airplane, and that’s what wins dog fights. When you are in a dog fight below tree tops, it is way more comfortable in a 38 with its power and stall characteristics and, for that matter at any altitude.”
…
“Aug 43, 8thAF has retrieved some Bomber Gps and has several original Spitfire/P-47 FGs. Two P-38 FGs, 1-P-51 FG that will not be operational till late Oct and have to workout tactics and maintenance problems, which all are severe. Highly inadequate supply of A/C.”
“Nov. 43, P-38Hs and P-51Bs beginning ops, find themselves in a climate environment none had experienced before and a superior opponent with 10 times the numbers. Forced to take the bombers to, over and withdraw them. Lucky to get half of what they had to the target after aborts/early returns. Sometimes as few as four fighters made it to target under attack continuously going and coming. Five minutes of METO power was planned into the profile. Meaning that if you fought over five minutes you wouldn’t make it home. Remember, you were being bounced continuously.”
“Feb 11, 44, 357thFG goes on Ops (P-51). 4thFG converts to P-51s. 2-weeks later and other groups are converting by end of Feb. Now fighter groups don’t have to go the whole to, over, and from target. The escort is now Penetration, Target, and Withdrawal, each leg is assigned to only one FG. and many operational problems are being resolved. Internal fuel on P-38s has been greatly increased with Wing and Leading edge tanks. P-47s are starting to get external fuel tanks.”
“The last half of 43 brought horrendous losses, had forced German manufacturing underground and had forced Germany to go to synthetic oil. This had increased the cost of war exponentially to the Germans.”
“Feb 44 we went back to Schwienfurt with acceptable loses. March 3rd the 20th & 55thFGs went to Berlin–Bombers were recalled. March, April, and May brought vicious battles, often with heavy loses. However, Germany were throwing their valuable flight instructors and 100hr students in to the battle. The Luftwaffe was at last starting to die.”
“The 8th was, at last, being flooded with Mustangs and well trained pilots. The Mustang was a delight to fly, easier to maintain cheaper to build and train pilots for, and had long legs. In those respects you can rightfully call it better, but it could not do anything better than a P-38J-25 or L. Just remember who took the war to the enemy and held on under inconceivable odds. Enough of the crap.”
My preference for a diesel powered tank is that they require less maintenance, and get better mileage than the gas variety. (plus they sound better, a nice throaty Vroom.) For us in the cold war days, anti-tank munitions were very good at firing any fuel type one might use. (except perhaps the unobtainium powered MBT-70 ) And they were certainly well capable of lighting up any munitions they ran across on the way through the neighborhood. This as you pointed out was a primary weakness in the T-72 which needed its 2 part munitions to be stored around the turret ring so that its much vaunted self loader could do any good at all. (it was disarmingly good at loading parts of anyone getting too close to it, but only so-so with actual ammo) The Turret Ring where Turret, and Hull meet, is the place gunners are trained to place their fire. Do it right, and you get a “Jack-in-the-Box” (turret of your target flies straight up.)
Capt Heiden appears to have his fill of the er… ‘crap’…since he lists some of the P-51s advantages & then contradicts himself… I guess he didn’t do many vne/compressiblity dives in them either…
Thanks Nick’df for posting some of those Jadgwaffe ops stats, it shows how ‘invisible’ they were [not]…& even if doomed by Hitlers’s grandiose orders,-following them anyhow…
The Allies were embarrassed by the Ardennes offensive though, since they had convinced themselves that the Nazis were spent…& that complacency cost many needlessly lost lives…
Hitler spent his personal combat career in WW1 entirely on the Western front & that certainly affected his mindset, & as I posted earlier, the intensity of combat was tougher than in the East…
LOL Well, I guess you know more about them than the pilots who flew both versions. Specifically, where does he contradict himself? And if the P-38J had the diveflaps kit or was a late model production, then he probably did dive…
Thanks Nick’df for posting some of those Jadgwaffe ops stats, it shows how ‘invisible’ they were [not]…& even if doomed by Hitlers’s grandiose orders,-following them anyhow…
“Invisible” isn’t my term, it was coined by Heer troops! And to them, 170 sorties vs. 14,000 sorties IS invisible!
The Allies were embarrassed by the Ardennes offensive though, since they had convinced themselves that the Nazis were spent…& that complacency cost many needlessly lost lives…
Hitler spent his personal combat career in WW1 entirely on the Western front & that certainly affected his mindset, & as I posted earlier,
The Allies certainly were embarrassed. Hitler was making a desperate, completely irrational last gamble stall the Western Allies by cutting off their lines of supply and then turning East completely delusional of course…
…the intensity of combat was tougher than in the East…
Um, how do you measure the “intensity of combat?”
Well, I do know more about what vne means & what dive flaps do,- than you Nickdf, obviously…Maybe the Capt. has his reasons…“you can rightfully call it [the P-51] better, but it could not do anything better than the P-38…”, well thats a contradiction & he’s wrong too, the P-51 has a significantly better vne…say - he aint been on the Lockheed payroll - has he?..
By intensity…again, you gave a number for Allied op sorties flown on D-day…that is intensity…
The ratio of shoot downs achieved by the Jagdwaffe vs air combat losses…against the Soviet VVS compared to USAAF/RAF- throughout the war…, I posted those figures earlier…intensity…
I’d reckon the Allied soldiers being strafed by those jabos - [ those which did make it through] - were cursing their own flyboys for being ’ ínvisible’ too…
I’ll bet those troops in the Ardennes would 've preferred that those Tigers were over on the Ostfront like-wise…
P-51 air-to-air combat success vs any other US fighter, & against the toughest opposition, & just like the P-38, those USN Hellcats wouldn’t have gone so well over Germany as they did against Nippon airpower…
That is intensity…
Hub Zemke USAAF ace, flew all 3 NWE 8th AF fighters in combat [P-38, P-47, P-51]. He wrote of flying the P-38 , & he didn’t like the “…steep diving restriction”…overall…rated it “…poorest of the 3…”
& In the MTO, the top scoring USAAF Fighter Group was the 31st FG,…& did it flying P-38s? ah, alas no…they flew Spitfires, transitioning to P-51s…
Um, it doesn’t really seem that difficult. He basically says that the both aircraft were excellent and had their flaws and advantages but were relative equals performance-wise. But the P-51 series had the advantage of being cheaper and easier to learn to fly overall. Is it really that hard man?
By intensity…again, you gave a number for Allied op sorties flown on D-day…that is intensity…
The ratio of shoot downs achieved by the Jagdwaffe vs air combat losses…against the Soviet VVS compared to USAAF/RAF- throughout the war…, I posted those figures earlier…intensity…
Um, what to aerial victories have to do with “intensity?” It’s about mission tempo, sorties, and attrition…
I’d reckon the Allied soldiers being strafed by those jabos - [ those which did make it through] - were cursing their own flyboys for being ’ ínvisible’ too…
I’ll bet those troops in the Ardennes would 've preferred that those Tigers were over on the Ostfront like-wise…
All points that really have nothing to do with the topic of whether the P-38 was any good or not!
P-51 air-to-air combat success vs any other US fighter, & against the toughest opposition, & just like the P-38, those USN Hellcats wouldn’t have gone so well over Germany as they did against Nippon airpower…
That is intensity…
No, not really. And why wouldn’t they have? The best German pilots were dying by the end of 1943 in an “intense” two front war. It often didn’t matter what they flew…
Well good for him. But if he switched out to a P-47, he never actually flew the improved, later versions of the P-38. And some units also flew P-38’s and P-47’s to the end of the war despite availability of the Mustang. The P-38 suffered higher loss rates in the Med because the experience with them came from the Pacific Theater where combat was at low and medium level, and the pilots assigned to the Lightnings were not properly trained for them initially. And the Spitfire couldn’t go near Germany on escort missions, the P-38 did…
One [only] 8th AF FG, the 56th, retained P-47s [to trial the hi-po M version],but all P-38 units were dropped [even the late J & L were not wanted]…all the others flew P-51s…
‘It didn’t matter what they flew’ - hardly…, The air-war, particularly over NWE - was a hot bed of high intensity technical development, where every performance edge was keenly sought…which is why the 8th AF dumped the also rans, inc P-38s, [& kept using Mosquitos for recon duties instead…]
& it did matter where they flew, since the Ostfront air-war was much less intense for the Jagdwaffe…P-39s instead of P-51s…
The RAF also chose Mustangs for long-range escort duties, not P-38s…
The 8th did, but other tactical units retained the and received upgraded P-38s. So what? What does that “prove”. The Eighth also turned down the P-51A…
‘It didn’t matter what they flew’ - hardly…, The air-war, particularly over NWE - was a hot bed of high intensity technical development, where every performance edge was keenly sought…which is why the 8th AF dumped the also rans, inc P-38s, [& kept using Mosquitos for recon duties instead…]
Who are you ‘quoting’? Me? From where?
The air war was a hotbed of technical development everywhere and Luftwaffe pilots were “avoiding combat” with certain later types of Soviet fighters by the end of 1944. The P-38L wasn’t an “also-ran”. The Eighth, and the USAAF in general, were guilty of not properly preparing pilots and they were also asking the Lightening to perform a mission for which it had never been envisioned initially. The Mosquitos were used at pathfinders and had a larger payload for bombs and markers, IIRC. The Eighth didn’t use Mustangs or 'Bolts for that either! The P-38 was harder to fly with more aeronautical nuances and required a good deal of pilot experience to get the most out of it.
Such categorical statements show you lack nuance and seem unable to grasp the big picture, and you’re just trying to “prove” something or “win” an argument rather than learning something, which is getting very old. The Lightening served in the Pacific Theater admirably and as a reflection of that a lot of the experiences were used to train and equip units in the Mediterranean and European Theaters where the fighting generally took place at higher altitudes and what worked in the PTO didn’t always work well on high endurance high level escort missions in the MTO and ETO.
& it did matter where they flew, since the Ostfront air-war was much less intense for the Jagdwaffe…P-39s instead of P-51s…
The RAF also chose Mustangs for long-range escort duties, not P-38s…
What is the meaning of the word “intense?” Who cares what the RAF chose? They had little experience with the P-38 other than stripped down models and had a lot of experience with the Mustangs…
Learn some things - thats the idea… The RAF & USAAF/USN were certainly interested in doing that, & had a policy of swapping examples of their latest fighters for evaluation purposes…
The RAF selected the aircraft that best met their needs, & kept using the Allison engined Mustangs throughout the war in NWE…as well as the later Merlin high-altitude capable versions.
They certainly evaluated the P-38 & P-47, but preferred their own aircraft [& the Mustang, of course] for use in NWE where the air-fighting was most technically advanced & intense…
…although they did use P-47s to replace their obsolescent Hurricanes in the strike role against the [ lesser opposition of the] Japanese…
As for the ‘big picture’, well, you could have a check of the stats…, that’ll confirm the relative inadequacy of the P-38 vs its single-engined peers/opposition…
The RAF didn’t need new fighter types once the U.S. entered the war, they also didn’t generally need long range bomber escorts for daytime missions…
They certainly evaluated the P-38 & P-47, but preferred their own aircraft [& the Mustang, of course] for use in NWE where the air-fighting was most technically advanced & intense…
…although they did use P-47s to replace their obsolescent Hurricanes in the strike role against the [ lesser opposition of the] Japanese…
As for the ‘big picture’, well, you could have a check of the stats…, that’ll confirm the relative inadequacy of the P-38 vs its single-engined peers/opposition…
The RAF only evaluated the P-38 that was stripped of its turbocharger effectively removing any high altitude capability, IIRC. And check the PTO “stats,” it was the number one killer of Japanese aircraft for the USAAF and the third ranking U.S. aircraft for for kills overall…
A couple of corrections…
1, The RAF evaluated the new variants of US fighters as they became available, & sent British aircraft to Wright Field in return [such as the Meteor jet]. The early Lightnings were rejected due to deletion of their turbos & stayed in the US for training… & the newer variants, although tested, were not selected for British service…
2, The RAF did use their Merlin Mustangs for long range escort, & they sent Tempests & Spitfire XIVs to the continent after the invasion to replace them in the air superiority role, to facilitate this.
Lightning ranked 1st for loss ratio [worst, that is…] for both air-air & ground attack of 8th AF US fighters…
& are you SURE the B 17 crews didn’t claim more air-to-air victories than P-38?
Can you please provide some of the sources for your “Google-phu” argument’athon?
I could care less what the RAF used Mustangs for, they really used it in limited numbers anyways since they had domestic fighters like the Spitfire series and spent most of the major part of the war conducting night bomber missions. It’s not even relevant to this argument. They also didn’t need the P-38 for the reasons listed above, once the U.S. was in the war, they could concentrate on focusing the ‘motor pool’ to domestic types and simplify the supply chain…
And this has already been explained. The P-38’s were fighting the Luftwaffe at its high-water mark in a mission it wasn’t envisioned to fly and with teething problems along with inadequate pilot training and tactics --derived from successes in another theater where the fighting was a much lower levels. That’s why they suffered greater losses. The Mustang and Thunderbolt also suffered higher losses in 1943-to-early-44’ since the Luftwaffe’s best pilots were still alive and flying in numbers. Overall, loss rates were comparable to the P-51 and the P-38 is the third highest scoring aircraft overall for the USAAF. It’s also rated the “third best fighter” (Allied) even by many of its detractors…
The primary sources of Allied aircraft evaluation/comparisons are readily ‘google-able’, [see WW2 aircraft performance]- as are types/numbers/dates statistics of those used.
P-38 “rated 3rd best WW2 USAAF fighter” is fairly credible, but on published performance parameters -directly compared with contemporaries - it clearly is NOT the 3rd best Allied fighter…as the RAF, USN [& VVS] well knew…
It doesn’t really matter, though. The point was that it was a very good fighter that blossomed once the teething problems were worked out. The P-38 had weaknesses and its problems, but it was an effective American plane that has a bitter-sweet reputation that should be more on the sweet side…