Many have commented that other accounts are that the P38 wasnt successful in Europe despite this interview. 2 things, i think this vet was basically saying the Germans didnt like the P38...on their tail...due to its concentrated firepower...as he specifically said. They werent as good of dogfighters as other single engine fighters, but they could kill you very quickly. Thats how i interpreted his comments. Secondly overall it wasnt used well early on in Europe. While not the beet dogfighter, the top US aces flew it in the Pacific against very agile Japanese planes with good success. It could have escorted the bombers years before the P51 was available, but at the time US doctrine was heavy bombers carried enough armament they didnt need escorts. After the horrific losses of 1943 they realized that mistake. By then most of the P38 fleet was in the Pacific where US command couldn't get enough of them due to their range and engine redundancy over vast sections of ocean those missions flew over. And the P51 was already being delivrred to the Brits in Europe where it had the range, speed, and firepower of the P38 but was cheaper with one engine and the 2nd engine was less needed over continental Europe.
The big advantage in the Pacific was the ability to climb away from trouble. With better high altitude performance, two engines and a large wing area allowed for a higher rate of climb. That did not carry over into Europe, where dogfights were nearly at the service ceilings of all aircraft. Fights tended to descend. The P-38 could not manuever at as high of a mach number as FW 190s and Bf 109s could. Many dove into the earth, trying to catch the Luftwaffe fighters.
One of the other issues in Europe was that Lockheed had put superchargers on the engines, and the British had them taken off before delivery, since they didn't think they were needed. Hence the early deliveries had pretty poor performance, particularly at altitude.
the P-38 was a great aircraft, and Doolittle even had his own personal P-38 in ETO. Growling Sidewinder has great videos showing how to dogfight properly in a P-38 using Boom and Zoom tactics, as it was designed to do. When flown properly, it is devastating. Boom and Zoom requires pilot discipline, which many new pilots lacked. They had neither discipline (too aggressive) and lacked the understanding of Boom and Zoom tactics. The natural instinct of a human in a dogfight is to turn fight, but this is wrong and must be overcome. But skilled pilots had no issue making good use of the P-38. the issues with the P-38 with the following. 1) the turbochargers lacked an intercooler, limiting engine performance to lower manifold pressures than other engine installations due to injecting hot air into the engines. When you compress the air it heats up. But the P-38 Allison engines still had more HP at altitude than Merlin engines. Greg's Automobiles has an excellent video showing this specifically with primary source data. 2) the P-38 had complex engine controls, and the USAAF told lockheed to change them and to copy those of the NAA P-51. Lockheed refused. These complex controls made teh plane difficult to fly by inexperienced pilots, and often resulted in engine failures. When advancing the throttles to full in combat, the pilots had to follow a complex procedure, and this slowed down reactions and resulted in new pilots panicking when jumped by enemy fighters, and blowing an engine trying to advance the throttles suddenly and not getting the procedure right. This could have easily been fixed by changing the engine controls, but was never done. 3) the cockpit didn't do well in winter due to the cold, and not having direct heat form the firewall inherently warming the cockpit, and heat had to be ducted into the cockpit. But the cold weather was great for the engines due to that lack of an intercooler. by starting with colder air, the compressed air going into the intake wasn't as hot as it would have been in summer, meaning more HP. But this in no way hurt its performance, just affected the pilot. 4) the P-38 had issues with leaking pipes for the carburetor and turbochargers, robbing performance, but this was addressed and fixed. 5) the airplane was 2x as expensive as a P-51. required more raw material, and more time to manufacture and maintain. in a war of logistics, this was never going to do well.
This man is remarkable, a hero in every sense. And beside all of the accolades, I am very glad that he made it home to America. Doctor George Whitehead
the P-38 was a great aircraft, and Doolittle even had his own personal P-38 in ETO. it was Very fast at higher altitudes, going well over 400mph, and could reach 44,000ft altitude. And the engines were far higher performing at altitude than the Merlin. Growling Sidewinder has great videos showing how to dogfight properly in a P-38 using Boom and Zoom tactics, as it was designed to do. When flown properly, it is devastating. Boom and Zoom requires pilot discipline, which many new pilots lacked. They had neither discipline (too aggressive) and lacked the understanding of Boom and Zoom tactics. The natural instinct of a human in a dogfight is to turn fight, but this is wrong and must be overcome. But skilled pilots had no issue making good use of the P-38. the issues with the P-38 with the following. 1) the turbochargers lacked an intercooler, limiting engine performance to lower manifold pressures than other engine installations due to injecting hot air into the engines. When you compress the air it heats up. But the P-38 Allison engines still had more HP at altitude than Merlin engines. Greg's Automobiles has an excellent video showing this specifically with primary source data. 2) the P-38 had complex engine controls, and the USAAF told lockheed to change them and to copy those of the NAA P-51. Lockheed refused. These complex controls made teh plane difficult to fly by inexperienced pilots, and often resulted in engine failures. When advancing the throttles to full in combat, the pilots had to follow a complex procedure, and this slowed down reactions and resulted in new pilots panicking when jumped by enemy fighters, and blowing an engine trying to advance the throttles suddenly and not getting the procedure right. This could have easily been fixed by changing the engine controls, but was never done. 3) the cockpit didn't do well in winter due to the cold, and not having direct heat form the firewall inherently warming the cockpit, and heat had to be ducted into the cockpit. But the cold weather was great for the engines due to that lack of an intercooler. by starting with colder air, the compressed air going into the intake wasn't as hot as it would have been in summer, meaning more HP. But this in no way hurt its performance, just affected the pilot. 4) the P-38 had issues with leaking pipes for the carburetor and turbochargers, robbing performance, but this was addressed and fixed. 5) the airplane was 2x as expensive as a P-51. required more raw material, and more time to manufacture and maintain. in a war of logistics, this was never going to do well. in the Pacific it did well as a fighter, ground attacker, and more.
@@paulhicks6667 "Boom and zoom could be a very hazardous tactic in a P38. " this is 100% false. you clearly don't know what Boom and Zoom is and how it works. P-38 was optimized for Boom and Zoom, especially against German fighters, especially at higher altitudes. "The P38 was retired from the bomber escort role in the ETO specifically because it could not match either the Bf109 or FW190 in a high altitude, maximum speed dive." this is a lie. There was no need for the P-38 to chase fighters in a prolonged dive, especially doing escort. yes it could get into compressibility, but the German fighters also had a habit of tearing off their wings in high speed dives. But escort fighters shouldn't be chasing german fighters to the ground either. The P-38 had a Mach limit of 0.68, but the Thunderbolt also was limited to 0.71, basically the same speed, and yet it was considered an excellent diving plane and german fighters were unable to outrun the Thunderbolt or P-38 in a dive. the difference of P-38 in ETO vs PTO had nothing to do with high altitude performance. It was about early P-38s having issues that were fixed later, and the cold cockpits more than anything. All of the same flaws of teh P-38 existed in the PTO same as ETO.
Listening to a P-38 fighter pilot describe combat experiences is a treat. My father was a general machinist for Lockheed for 30 years, so I am a bit partial to the fork-tailed devil. I try to imagine the devastating destructive power of four .50 calls and a .20mm situated within a small circle but I can’t.
Dad, that built the P-38 told a story about how one day he got to see them test fire to 50 Cal on a test bed. He said the target was a 2 inch thick oak wall made of planks. He said it took only seconds for an entire ammo belt to run through the guns and when it was over, the wooden wall was splinters!
Yeah, from my readings the P38 often came out on the wrong end of these fighter v fighter confrontation, but all LW and Regia Aeronautica pilots mentioned that the firepower coming out of the P38's nose was to be avoided at all costs-no head on attacks, ever.
The P-38 always had turbochargers. The Castrated Lightning 1 which for the Armee de le Air 143 version of the Atlanta was delivered without the standard turbochargers and counter-rotating propellers delivered a sum total of 3 aircraft and the original name of Atlanta became changed to Lightning and the name stuck just as the Apache became known as Mustang for the Allison powered Mustangs delivered to the UK. The export versions became the P 332 1 and the P 322 II used for training the Version I retained the 2. 30 cal and 2 50 armament. The Version II was re-engined with a later variant of the Allison unarmed and used for training. The turbochargers on the P-38 and the B-17 were in short supply
British Required that the happily Few, P38s' they had foisted on them NOT have counter-rotating props. Just too much of a logistical nightmare for Very liitle, arguably No, performance advantage. At least not with a comptent pilot.
I'm not one to disagree with someone who was actually in combat and flew the P-38 against the Germans. What I will say is that his experience isn't typical of those I've seen, read and heard elsewhere. It is true that, in the early war, the P-38 was a marvelous ground attack aircraft. Once it had been modified for the deserts of North Africa, it performed quite well against ground targets and was decent, if unspectacular, against German and Italian aircraft- so long as the fights were down low. Drawbacks included it being readily identifiable by the enemy at long ranges due to its twin-boom configuration. It wasn't much of a dogfighter, as a single-engine plane could easily outturn it. It was better than the P-40s currently in service, but that is damning with faint praise at best. Once the battle moved to Europe, it became clear that the P-38 had other issues as well. It was a cold airplane to fly, and a frozen pilot isn't much of a combat pilot. The engines didn't perform well at 30,000 feet or higher. Maneuverability was still a problem.
One account I read was when the Germans first encountered the P 38 in North Africa it took them by surprise and you’re correct about performing at low altitudes, but it was also a pre war design based on pre war ideas. I read too the Germans were discouraged from taking a P38 head for obvious reasons.😂
@@JefferyHagen Trying to think of the other fighter planes in use on the Allied side in 1942-43 in Africa. You had the Hurricane (6 small caliber MGs to 12 small caliber MGs- I don't think the 4x20mm cannon variant was in use yet), the Spitfire (8x small caliber MGs- same with the cannon-armed variant). You had the P-40B and maybe C model (B had 4x .50 cals and the C I think had 6x 50 cals). By contrast, the BF109 at the time had 2x 20mm and 4 small caliber MGs, so it had a heavier armament than all of the Allied fighters- until the P-38.
@ I believe the Japanese had the same philosophy as the Germans as far as their gun layout. The Zero had two cannons ant two machine guns, right? I’m 59 so I really don’t know anyone who talks about this stuff anymore except on TH-cam. I’m a little rusty.😂 I read the book The Forktailed Devil but that was forty years ago.🙄
@@JefferyHagen You have an excellent memory for an "old geezer". I can say that because I've got two years on you, and I admit guilt myself. In the case of the Japanese, though, the motivation was different. Their pilots demanded maneuverability and range, because they had been trained in WW1-style dogfighting (and were damned good at it) and that required a very light airframe. The Zero could have carried more powerful weaponry, but performance would have suffered. The Germans, I think, must have thought their fighters were adequately armed for the time because they regularly increased it as more powerful engines and sturdier airframes became available.
the P-38 was a great aircraft, and Doolittle even had his own personal P-38 in ETO. it was Very fast at higher altitudes, going well over 400mph, and could reach 44,000ft altitude. And the engines were far higher performing at altitude than the Merlin. Growling Sidewinder has great videos showing how to dogfight properly in a P-38 using Boom and Zoom tactics, as it was designed to do. When flown properly, it is devastating. Boom and Zoom requires pilot discipline, which many new pilots lacked. They had neither discipline (too aggressive) and lacked the understanding of Boom and Zoom tactics. The natural instinct of a human in a dogfight is to turn fight, but this is wrong and must be overcome. But skilled pilots had no issue making good use of the P-38. the issues with the P-38 with the following. 1) the turbochargers lacked an intercooler, limiting engine performance to lower manifold pressures than other engine installations due to injecting hot air into the engines. When you compress the air it heats up. But the P-38 Allison engines still had more HP at altitude than Merlin engines. Greg's Automobiles has an excellent video showing this specifically with primary source data. 2) the P-38 had complex engine controls, and the USAAF told lockheed to change them and to copy those of the NAA P-51. Lockheed refused. These complex controls made teh plane difficult to fly by inexperienced pilots, and often resulted in engine failures. When advancing the throttles to full in combat, the pilots had to follow a complex procedure, and this slowed down reactions and resulted in new pilots panicking when jumped by enemy fighters, and blowing an engine trying to advance the throttles suddenly and not getting the procedure right. This could have easily been fixed by changing the engine controls, but was never done. 3) the cockpit didn't do well in winter due to the cold, and not having direct heat form the firewall inherently warming the cockpit, and heat had to be ducted into the cockpit. But the cold weather was great for the engines due to that lack of an intercooler. by starting with colder air, the compressed air going into the intake wasn't as hot as it would have been in summer, meaning more HP. But this in no way hurt its performance, just affected the pilot. 4) the P-38 had issues with leaking pipes for the carburetor and turbochargers, robbing performance, but this was addressed and fixed. 5) the airplane was 2x as expensive as a P-51. required more raw material, and more time to manufacture and maintain. in a war of logistics, this was never going to do well. in the Pacific it did well as a fighter, ground attacker, and more.
I heard reports that the major advantage of the P38 was it’s ability to make a climbing right turn, that would cause the single engined German fighter to fall of once the speed dropped and engine torque caused them to spin opposite. Obviously the P38 had to maintain enough lead to avoid being shot in the process!🤷🏻♂️
Any German pilot who claims not to have been afraid when any allied plane was on his tail firing, is a liar. It was a significant emotional event, irrespective of whether they were using eight Browning .303 that bounced off your armour, or 4 50 calibre and a 20mm cannon tearing gaping holes in your aircraft. P-38s shot also down Fw200 Condors, not just German fighters. Only armchair warriors know no fear.
German pilots called the P-38 Der Gabelschwanz Teufel (the fork tailed devil) for its lethality. Unfortunately, almost as many P-38s were shot down as the number of kills they racked up as it was a pretty big target. My dad flew in one in the Pacific Theater. He wasn't a pilot but went on a ride as passenger in one of the radar equipped ones. They flew so close to the ocean that it sent up big sprays of water and damaged the propellers. He and the pilot spent some time in the brig for that one.
Say that nickname in German a couple times and ask yourself how catchy it sounds. The “fork tailed devil” thing was a bit of nonsense put about by an American propaganda writer. The Germans did not invent clumsy, scary nicknames for Allied aircraft. Especially ones they didn’t rate, like the P38.
My father built P-38 in Los Angles/Burbank at the Skunk Works. His job, because he was kind of short, was to install the armor plate behind the pilot's seat and to install the cockpit gauges. He said women did all the riveting of the plane's metal skin.
There is a Luftwaffe pilot l think Eberhardt Boremski , 99 confirmed victories including 18 P38,s, 9 P47 & 11 P51. He didn't think much of them at all.
Did he think much about the fact that not a single German fighter in the entirety of WW2 was capable of doing what the USAAF aircraft had to do? So much ignorance and stupidity in these pissing matches about what aircraft were superior to another. German fighters couldn’t even have made it to battle had they been put in the roles that the allies were in, nonetheless won them. Germany’s elite aircraft and pilots is what you guys talk about, yet most of them died and the Luftwaffe was reduced to a bunch of cadets mostly stuck on the ground as the allies turned Nazi Germany into smoldering ashes.
You might want to check your breakdown. Except for a Spitfire, a Hurricane, and 2 Blenheim bombers, everything else was Russian aircraft on the Eastern front plus 2 Soviet-flown P40s and an A-20 Havoc flying as a RAF "Boston." . He shot-down absolutely none of the aircraft you list, although he is credited with 104 kills, not 99.
@@jayxer7902You might want to ask yourself how the f*ck they didn't instantly win the war then. The Germans had terrible fuel, the fact that they were still somewhat evenly matched against America fighters makes no sense if their planes were dogshit like you say lmao.
@richardfabacher3705 You are totally correct Richard. I did mention l thought it was Eberhard Boremski. Wrong name it was Heinrich Bartels, 99 confirmed victories. These included 9 Spitfires, 13 Hurricanes, 9 P40, 16 P38, 10 P47, 11 P51, plus others. US Historian David Zabecki audited him and confirmed the victories.
The P38 failed as a Bomber Escort for a couple of different reasons. Engine problems at high altitude, especially in the European Theatre, and the fact that as a twin-engine fighter it simply couldn’t turn with the Bf-109 or the FW-190.
Wow! Four .50 cal machine guns and a 20mm canon. That's a lot of firepower. I thought the P-51 Mustang with 6 .50 cal guns was the original tank buster.
The FW-190 had a lot of firepower with 30mm cannons, 20mm canons, and MGs. The P-38 was about middling. The Hawker Typhoon had 4 20mm cannons. BTW, the P-38 was not used as a "tank killer". Generally, it's job was to fly cover missions for the P-40s in North Africa, Sicily, and Italy. If you flew a P-38 over Northern Europe then it was a great way to be lost due to fighter action or compressibility (sonic forces in a dive). If used properly the P-47 could do the job. The biggest issues with the P-47 was the 8th AF refused to put the correct fuel tank on the fighter and it took the USAF a little too long to put a correct propeller on the aircraft.
@@Easy-Eight Recall that the P-38 was around a long time before the Thunderbolt and Mustang, Tempest, etc, and the Spitfire was packing an incredibly wimpy .303 machine guns. The armament was very formidable at the time, and as noted, it all went on the target, rather than what usually happened with wing-mounted guns, unless you were the perfect distance away, you lost half the firepower due to convergence/divergence.
@@brettbuck7362 The P-38 didn't start getting to Pacific Units until Guadalcanal in 1943. The British Spitfire Mark V was running two 20 mm cannons in 1942 with machine guns, better than the USA. The *Typhoon* was operating in 1942 against raids made by the FW-190. The Typhoon was an imperfect aircraft but that's a whole other subject. The Tempest was a new aircraft evolved from the typhoon. The P-38 had range, speed, and altitude going for in in the Pacific. You had best look at the deployment schedules. Remember, Lockheed was corrupt. Kelly Johnson admitted they put the P-38 on slow production in 1941 and early 1942 so more "Hudson" anti-submarine aircraft could be built. Why? Lockheed wanted the cash because the Hudson was not lend lease.
Strange, the loss ratios and the testimony by Adolf Galland didn't say anything good about the P-38. The aircraft had a high loss rate and Galland said a fight with P-38s was like eating grapes, you could just pick them off. Galland said the aircraft had the same short comings as the Bf-110. Generally, the P-38 received far worse than it gave out over Europe and the Mediterranean. Yes, the P-38 was effective against Japan but a pokey Japanese Zero was over 80 MPH slower than a P-38.
@@dzzyfilms Galland? He's been dead since the mid 1990s. Galland wrote the book called "The First and the Last" about his time as one of the leading aces of the Luftwaffe. He had 104 kills and many of them against the P-38. Galland said the tail was very vulnerable to 20 mm cannon fire (one 20 mm strike on the booms any place back of the radiators would cause the whole assembly to tear off). Also, aerodynamics (compressibility) was a huge problem until the P-38L. Last, the P-38 had the USAAF highest loss rate of 1.35% over 129,000 missions.
No other air force motivated their pilots to overclaim as much as the Luftwaffe. They did so for propaganda purposes. Often all the units kills would be attributed to the ace, as it looked good in the press report. After the war, most German officers played up their role in the war to sell an autobiography, so his stories should be taken with a grain or two of salt. While Galland may be one of the more reliable German pilots, he still fitted into the system of overclaiming.
@@jacktattis Oh, I'm being attacked. However, if they are under 35 years of age then I've planted the seeds of doubt. They may change their minds. Me? I'm convinced the US military didn't have a European class single engine fighter until the Merlin engined P-51B and those didn't start arriving until very late '43 and early '44. I think a little different than most of the posters. The P-47 was an effective aircraft if used correctly and it had the correct Hamilton Standard propellor. The P-40, P-39, and P-47 were fairly "inexpensive" aircraft. The P-38 was twice as expensive as a P-40. However, at least you could take a P-38 into the "Grand Prix" fighter environment of Northern Europe. BTW, the USAAF was running second hand Spitfires in '42, '43, and early '44. Even the US military didn't believe the propaganda.
Hard to believe WWII ended 80 years ago. Probably in the next ten years all the vets from that war will have passed. Will miss these great American treasures and the tremendous sacrifices they made. It was an honor for the majority of Americans to serve your country. Draft dodgers, like Trump, can never understand this commitment and integrity.
...and the fact that due to their wooden construction, they were somewhat stealthy at low altitudes, too. Bet those Wurburg radar operators disliked the Mosquito, too. PS: also those ME-110 night fighter pilots totally feared Mosquito night fighters, by 1944. And last but not least, Dad knew fear too, since he flew Wellington's and Lancaster's RCAF at night, and his son is here, due to an injury Dad suffered in 1943, during the Ruhr campaign. 😀
1. Fork Tailed Devil was never used by the Luftwaffe, it was made up by the American Press as War Propaganda. 2. P-38 was actually the most preferred fighter by Luftwaffe Fighters to actually encounter over Western Europe, mostly because Bf109 and Fw190s held advantages over it without question. 3. Even Bf110 pilots who struggled against monoplane escort fighters could go toe to toe with P-38 Lightnings and actually claimed they often held the advantage of vs them. Unlike when they ran into P-47s, Spitfires and P-51s. Statistically the Bf110 had a positive kill score against the P-38 Lightning but slighting as both aircraft ended up being well matched. 4. P-38 was pulled from Western Europe from the "fighter' role for these reasons and ended up making a name for itself in the Pacific in which it's speed gave it a huge advantage in zoom/boom against Japanese fighters, whom's pilots were trained to dogfight and all P-38s had to do was 'Not' dogfight to win vs the Japanese. Issue is in Europe German fighters also played dirty, and often didn't dog fight taking any zoom/boom advantage the P--38 away. Basically this whole video is nonsense. Built off old WWII Propaganda, that P-38 pilots themselves believed because they were fed it to give them confidence when going up on missions. In reality like the German Bf110 it struggled vs monoplane fighters in Europe, of which were constantly upgraded so were able to out run and out climb, and out dive and out turn P-38 pilots. P-38 ended up getting relegated to a close air support aircraft in Europe, or other specialist roles, but no longer the hunter patrols or escorting bombers over the mainland. Any success it saw late in the war had more to do with poorly trained luftwaffe pilots, like during the Ardennes Offensive in 1944, but shooting down kids who had no training doesn't make it a "Forked Tailed Devil."
The P-38 was a very complex aircraft and most pilots were not sufficiently trained to get everything they could out of it. Eric Brown did not like it. But, and this is a big but, those who mastered the aircraft and became experts with it could use such things as asymmetric power settings to outmaneuver German fighters. The comments you mention made by Luftwaffe pilots are true, but based on the fact that they were flying against less experienced opponents. As the war progressed German pilot quality declined, American pilot training improved as pilots with combat experience became instructors. The P-38 just got better as the war progressed.
@@kellybreen5526 All aircraft got better as the war progressed. Bf109K was better than the P-51D but if the war lasted longer the P-51H would be entering service, but the war ended. (mind you the P-51D was better than most Bf109s including most G variations, and there are more P-51D variations than I can count with my fingers/toes similar to the Bf109G, as an arms race between the two became a reality.) That being said. I'm personally not crapping on the P-38. I like the aircraft, issue is it's mythology is ridiculously blown out of proportion to a point that propaganda became reality in the history books too often. Kind of like the story of a Grayhound knocking out a Tiger II. The way the story is told, sounds more like it knocked out a Panther, not a Tiger II, and honestly it's very unlikely it knocked out a Tiger II because it's primary gun would struggle even shooting it up the rear, it would have no problem knocking out a Panther by shooting it in the rear. Yet no one questions the story. I think it took down a Panther, but people keep saying Tiger 2. Despite how unlikely it is, there is no evidence but witness testimony and American G.I's at the time often mixed up German vehicles. P-38 fits in this category. There are two German history tubers, one who is entirely focused on aviation from Austria, and they've never been able to find any record of Germans using the phrase "Fork Tailed Devil" and according to what they could find it was entirely fabricated by US News Papers and eventually Propaganda. My first post is actually includes some things he mentioned, though most comes from some critical essays on the subject in general. P-38 wasn't a terrible plane. Like the Bf110 wasn't a terrible plane. Despite struggling vs monoplane fighters, the aircraft were loved by the pilots that flew them, and despite their uphill battle vs enemy fighters, they still wracked up some kills as well. Yet the Bf110 became known in the west as garbage yet the P-38 somehow earned the image of a "Wonder Weapon" similar to the P-51. Despite the P-38 and Bf110 having similar performance/outcomes in western Europe when used in the fighter role. Yet in Germany the Bf110 was just as loved as the P-38 by it's crew. So there are serious issues with propaganda weeding it's way into historical narrative. Similar to nonsense like 5 Shermans to kill a Tiger BS. Both the Bf110 and P-38 should be looked at honestly, neither are wonder weapons, neither are failures. But neither are great vs enemy fighters. P-38 was pushed into supporting roles, or long range patrols. Bf110 was turned into a bomber hunter, ground support, and eventually night fighter. But both were pushed out of the fighter and escort roles for the same reasons.
1. The Germans never called the P-38 the ‘Forked-Tailed Devil’, that’s a myth 2. The Germans did not fear the P-38. German fighters had far superior dive and climb performance, however early in the war the P-38 was faster and it the right hands could outmaneuver the German fighters. 3. The P-38 had a poor service history in the European Theater and was pulled out as a front line fighter because of its compressibility problems while in a dive. 4. The P-38 continued to excel as a fighter in the Pacific and as a reconnaissance platform in Europe.
Glad you said it, I can't stand it when i hear the bullshit parroted over and over "fork tailed Devil" or "Whistling Death" for the Corsair its freaking propaganda that never died.
per WWII US Bombers P38 had a 2.8 kill/loss ratio in NW Europe Ace in one day Dog fighting in a P-38 over Europe th-cam.com/video/Y-pq5VMwVm4/w-d-xo.html
@@nickdanger3802 P-38 Lightning vs Bf 109: North Africa, Sicily and Italy 1942-1943 By Ted Young, February 02, 2024 An analysis of claims versus losses, using newly available data, suggested that the P-38 pilots did not, in all likelihood, shoot down as many Bf 109s as claimed and that the Luftwaffe’s Bf 109 pilots established a victory-to-loss ratio of nearly three P-38s for every Bf 109 lost in combat.
@@viper2148 probably correct, WWII Bombers data is from 8th AF. experience levels and doctrine (stay with bombers) had much to do with it. still the best twin engine fighter of the war and third highest scoring US fighter flown by American pilots. click bait titles do it no justice.
I like the P-38. I really do. But the early versions that flew and escorted the US bomber fleets were dogs. No turbo charging. No interior heating, freezing the pilot. By the time the P-38 got the bugs out, it was replaced by the P-51. Now in the Pacific theater it really shined, with long range and 2 engines to deal with the vast expanses of the ocean. Now the real two-engine fighter/bomber the Germans fear was the Mosquito. They even tried to copy it.
When in the hands of a good pilot, like Dick Bong in the Pacific, it was deadly. Bong liked to take his ship up for a mechanical check- fully armed, he'd prowl about with one engine cut looking every bit as a sitting duck limping home for any nearby enemy to pounce on, when engaged he's fire up the "dead" engine and pass that misjudgment on to the attacker.
All US P-38's flown in combat had turbochargers. The British ordered some without turbocharging and some of those were eventually used by the US as training aircraft only. They also all had interior heating, it just never worked very well.
@@BeachsideHank Richard Bong must have been an incredible guy...read of him, years' ago, and met a dentist back in '80's who flew them in Europe, but claimed ignorance when asked, concerning those high altitude lubrication problems. Thanks.
False. All combat P-38 aircraft had turbochargers and cockpit heating. The 8th AF failed to operate the P-38 in accordance with the operating manual, and caused the cockpit heating be ineffective, the engines to have reliability issues, and fuel consumption to be excessive. Proven fact, covered in various documents, and reported by Lockheed test pilot Tony LeVier.
Pilots did not represent a political party. They represented and were members of an Air Force of a country. Therefore, you cannot say “a nazi pilot”. You have to say “a German pilot”. For a discrepancy like this in a historical documentary I’m giving you a thumb down.
LOL! Not really. Seriously, you have an American pilot talking for the Germans. From what I have read, German pilots were no more concerned about the P-38 than any other fighters. People often come up with theories about what the enemy thinks which they soon claim to be fact. Plenty of those out there for the SMLE rifle, 25 pounder field gun, and the whole US Marines "devil dog" fiction. Lots of American fanboys out there have a distorted image of this plane. It wasn't terrible, but it wasn't great. It was deemed not suitable for further use in Europe and gradually replaced. Ace Robin Olds hated it. It had the distinction of being the last US fighter shot down by a biplane (An Italian CR42 Falco being used for harassment by the Germans in Yugoslavia). It was also the US plane shot down in largest numbers by the Red Air Force ("friendly fire incident"). And, it was also the last plane shot down by a U-boat. (After German surrendered U-862 was turned over to the Japanese. The Japanese were forcing the crew to teach them how to use the vessel when P-38s attacked. The Japanese panicked, but the U-boat men manned the guns to save their own lives. The P-38 pilot was the only KIA.).When attacked from above, a P-38 could not quickly roll away to avoid the attack or pursue the enemy fighter. Research comparing the records of both sides for specific actions shows that 3 P-38s were lost for every Bf-109 actually shot down and that p-38 claims of Bf-109s shot down are inflated.
I'm an American and know most of our equipment was not that good. I do know what everybody loved. They loved our trucks, those lowly GM, Studebaker, and Fords. They loved our Jeeps. They loved our 100 octane gasoline, the Germans, Japanese, and Italians ran 80. The British loved our carrier aircraft. Last, *EVERYBODY* loved our Spam.
@@Easy-Eight US equipment was not always the top performers, but it could be made in quantity and as Stalin said, 'Quantity has a quality all of itself.'. With that said, the German pilots in 1943 were far more seasoned than most US pilots. As US pilots gained more experience they could fly their aircraft to their maximum capability-and German losses mounted in 1944 and 1945.
per WWII US Bombers P38 had a 2.8 kill/loss ratio in NW Europe Ace in one day Dog fighting in a P-38 over Europe th-cam.com/video/Y-pq5VMwVm4/w-d-xo.html
the P-38 was a great aircraft, and Doolittle even had his own personal P-38 in ETO. it was Very fast at higher altitudes, going well over 400mph, and could reach 44,000ft altitude. And the engines were far higher performing at altitude than the Merlin. Growling Sidewinder has great videos showing how to dogfight properly in a P-38 using Boom and Zoom tactics, as it was designed to do. When flown properly, it is devastating. Boom and Zoom requires pilot discipline, which many new pilots lacked. They had neither discipline (too aggressive) and lacked the understanding of Boom and Zoom tactics. The natural instinct of a human in a dogfight is to turn fight, but this is wrong and must be overcome. But skilled pilots had no issue making good use of the P-38. the issues with the P-38 with the following. 1) the turbochargers lacked an intercooler, limiting engine performance to lower manifold pressures than other engine installations due to injecting hot air into the engines. When you compress the air it heats up. But the P-38 Allison engines still had more HP at altitude than Merlin engines. Greg's Automobiles has an excellent video showing this specifically with primary source data. 2) the P-38 had complex engine controls, and the USAAF told lockheed to change them and to copy those of the NAA P-51. Lockheed refused. These complex controls made teh plane difficult to fly by inexperienced pilots, and often resulted in engine failures. When advancing the throttles to full in combat, the pilots had to follow a complex procedure, and this slowed down reactions and resulted in new pilots panicking when jumped by enemy fighters, and blowing an engine trying to advance the throttles suddenly and not getting the procedure right. This could have easily been fixed by changing the engine controls, but was never done. 3) the cockpit didn't do well in winter due to the cold, and not having direct heat form the firewall inherently warming the cockpit, and heat had to be ducted into the cockpit. But the cold weather was great for the engines due to that lack of an intercooler. by starting with colder air, the compressed air going into the intake wasn't as hot as it would have been in summer, meaning more HP. But this in no way hurt its performance, just affected the pilot. 4) the P-38 had issues with leaking pipes for the carburetor and turbochargers, robbing performance, but this was addressed and fixed. 5) the airplane was 2x as expensive as a P-51. required more raw material, and more time to manufacture and maintain. in a war of logistics, this was never going to do well. in the Pacific it did well as a fighter, ground attacker, and more.
Clickbait fake news. German fighter pilots did not fear the P-38, unless they were attacked by surprise from behind. All the top German aces that fought on the Western Front put the P-38 well behind the P-51, P-47, and the Spitfire.
there were no dive brakes, and they flight controls never froze. the P-38 was a great aircraft, and Doolittle even had his own personal P-38 in ETO. it was Very fast at higher altitudes, going well over 400mph, and could reach 44,000ft altitude. And the engines were far higher performing at altitude than the Merlin. Growling Sidewinder has great videos showing how to dogfight properly in a P-38 using Boom and Zoom tactics, as it was designed to do. When flown properly, it is devastating. Boom and Zoom requires pilot discipline, which many new pilots lacked. They had neither discipline (too aggressive) and lacked the understanding of Boom and Zoom tactics. The natural instinct of a human in a dogfight is to turn fight, but this is wrong and must be overcome. But skilled pilots had no issue making good use of the P-38. the issues with the P-38 with the following. 1) the turbochargers lacked an intercooler, limiting engine performance to lower manifold pressures than other engine installations due to injecting hot air into the engines. When you compress the air it heats up. But the P-38 Allison engines still had more HP at altitude than Merlin engines. Greg's Automobiles has an excellent video showing this specifically with primary source data. 2) the P-38 had complex engine controls, and the USAAF told lockheed to change them and to copy those of the NAA P-51. Lockheed refused. These complex controls made teh plane difficult to fly by inexperienced pilots, and often resulted in engine failures. When advancing the throttles to full in combat, the pilots had to follow a complex procedure, and this slowed down reactions and resulted in new pilots panicking when jumped by enemy fighters, and blowing an engine trying to advance the throttles suddenly and not getting the procedure right. This could have easily been fixed by changing the engine controls, but was never done. 3) the cockpit didn't do well in winter due to the cold, and not having direct heat form the firewall inherently warming the cockpit, and heat had to be ducted into the cockpit. But the cold weather was great for the engines due to that lack of an intercooler. by starting with colder air, the compressed air going into the intake wasn't as hot as it would have been in summer, meaning more HP. But this in no way hurt its performance, just affected the pilot. 4) the P-38 had issues with leaking pipes for the carburetor and turbochargers, robbing performance, but this was addressed and fixed. 5) the airplane was 2x as expensive as a P-51. required more raw material, and more time to manufacture and maintain. in a war of logistics, this was never going to do well. in the Pacific it did well as a fighter, ground attacker, and more.
per WWII US Bombers P38 had a 2.8 kill/loss ratio in NW Europe Ace in one day Dog fighting in a P-38 over Europe th-cam.com/video/Y-pq5VMwVm4/w-d-xo.html
They didn't "fear" the P-38. The P-38 performed so poorly in the ETO that Doolittle removed it completely. The high altitude reliability issues issues were never solved
Yes they were solved Lockheed sent 500 kits to England to upgrade the plane in the field but the RAF accidentally shot the cargo planes down. After that Lockheed never replenished the kits and focused on jets as the P47 and P51 were in service and plentiful.
@@michaelpabian1672 No, it was never solved. The main problem was the superchargers at high altitude. The P-38 was completely removed from the ETO by Doolittle, save some recon. Sent to the MTO and PTO. Doolittle despised the aircraft
The P-38K resolved all the issues the aircraft had, but was only used in the Pacific. The P-51 Mustang was better than anything the Luftwaffe had and was far cheaper than the P-38.
@@TheAneewAony The P-38 had a Turbocharger, not a supercharger. They had no significant engine problems after the K model and the other issues with cockpit heating, heavy ailerons, wing vibration and compressibility were all resolved. It was removed from the ETO because of earlier reliability issues and because it was far more expensive than the P-51, which could perform bomber escort even better than the Lightning or Thunderbolt.
@@heyfitzpablum It's was called a turbo-supercharger. The problems with the K model continued due to the high octane fuels' high lead content effect on the turbo-superchargers. The issues were never resolved. The type was withdrawn from the ETO. Price was never a consideration when Doolittle removed the P-38 from the ETO. Yes, the P-51 was superior to the P-47 as well.
Many have commented that other accounts are that the P38 wasnt successful in Europe despite this interview. 2 things, i think this vet was basically saying the Germans didnt like the P38...on their tail...due to its concentrated firepower...as he specifically said. They werent as good of dogfighters as other single engine fighters, but they could kill you very quickly. Thats how i interpreted his comments.
Secondly overall it wasnt used well early on in Europe. While not the beet dogfighter, the top US aces flew it in the Pacific against very agile Japanese planes with good success.
It could have escorted the bombers years before the P51 was available, but at the time US doctrine was heavy bombers carried enough armament they didnt need escorts. After the horrific losses of 1943 they realized that mistake. By then most of the P38 fleet was in the Pacific where US command couldn't get enough of them due to their range and engine redundancy over vast sections of ocean those missions flew over. And the P51 was already being delivrred to the Brits in Europe where it had the range, speed, and firepower of the P38 but was cheaper with one engine and the 2nd engine was less needed over continental Europe.
The big advantage in the Pacific was the ability to climb away from trouble. With better high altitude performance, two engines and a large wing area allowed for a higher rate of climb. That did not carry over into Europe, where dogfights were nearly at the service ceilings of all aircraft. Fights tended to descend. The P-38 could not manuever at as high of a mach number as FW 190s and Bf 109s could. Many dove into the earth, trying to catch the Luftwaffe fighters.
I think your comment is correct, it was well put!!
One of the other issues in Europe was that Lockheed had put superchargers on the engines, and the British had them taken off before delivery, since they didn't think they were needed. Hence the early deliveries had pretty poor performance, particularly at altitude.
the P-38 was a great aircraft, and Doolittle even had his own personal P-38 in ETO.
Growling Sidewinder has great videos showing how to dogfight properly in a P-38 using Boom and Zoom tactics, as it was designed to do. When flown properly, it is devastating. Boom and Zoom requires pilot discipline, which many new pilots lacked. They had neither discipline (too aggressive) and lacked the understanding of Boom and Zoom tactics. The natural instinct of a human in a dogfight is to turn fight, but this is wrong and must be overcome. But skilled pilots had no issue making good use of the P-38.
the issues with the P-38 with the following.
1) the turbochargers lacked an intercooler, limiting engine performance to lower manifold pressures than other engine installations due to injecting hot air into the engines. When you compress the air it heats up. But the P-38 Allison engines still had more HP at altitude than Merlin engines. Greg's Automobiles has an excellent video showing this specifically with primary source data.
2) the P-38 had complex engine controls, and the USAAF told lockheed to change them and to copy those of the NAA P-51. Lockheed refused. These complex controls made teh plane difficult to fly by inexperienced pilots, and often resulted in engine failures. When advancing the throttles to full in combat, the pilots had to follow a complex procedure, and this slowed down reactions and resulted in new pilots panicking when jumped by enemy fighters, and blowing an engine trying to advance the throttles suddenly and not getting the procedure right. This could have easily been fixed by changing the engine controls, but was never done.
3) the cockpit didn't do well in winter due to the cold, and not having direct heat form the firewall inherently warming the cockpit, and heat had to be ducted into the cockpit. But the cold weather was great for the engines due to that lack of an intercooler. by starting with colder air, the compressed air going into the intake wasn't as hot as it would have been in summer, meaning more HP. But this in no way hurt its performance, just affected the pilot.
4) the P-38 had issues with leaking pipes for the carburetor and turbochargers, robbing performance, but this was addressed and fixed.
5) the airplane was 2x as expensive as a P-51. required more raw material, and more time to manufacture and maintain. in a war of logistics, this was never going to do well.
@SoloRenegade Thank you for this great in depth information.
What a pleasure to hear him speak. Thank you sir for your service to our country
The way he described the p38 and what the 190 did...and his high G turn ... Wow thank you sir!!
dude is 102 years old!
This man is remarkable, a hero in every sense. And beside all of the accolades, I am very glad that he made it home to America. Doctor George Whitehead
Great interview, love to hear from the vets who were actually in the middle of it.
the P-38 was a great aircraft, and Doolittle even had his own personal P-38 in ETO. it was Very fast at higher altitudes, going well over 400mph, and could reach 44,000ft altitude. And the engines were far higher performing at altitude than the Merlin.
Growling Sidewinder has great videos showing how to dogfight properly in a P-38 using Boom and Zoom tactics, as it was designed to do. When flown properly, it is devastating. Boom and Zoom requires pilot discipline, which many new pilots lacked. They had neither discipline (too aggressive) and lacked the understanding of Boom and Zoom tactics. The natural instinct of a human in a dogfight is to turn fight, but this is wrong and must be overcome. But skilled pilots had no issue making good use of the P-38.
the issues with the P-38 with the following.
1) the turbochargers lacked an intercooler, limiting engine performance to lower manifold pressures than other engine installations due to injecting hot air into the engines. When you compress the air it heats up. But the P-38 Allison engines still had more HP at altitude than Merlin engines. Greg's Automobiles has an excellent video showing this specifically with primary source data.
2) the P-38 had complex engine controls, and the USAAF told lockheed to change them and to copy those of the NAA P-51. Lockheed refused. These complex controls made teh plane difficult to fly by inexperienced pilots, and often resulted in engine failures. When advancing the throttles to full in combat, the pilots had to follow a complex procedure, and this slowed down reactions and resulted in new pilots panicking when jumped by enemy fighters, and blowing an engine trying to advance the throttles suddenly and not getting the procedure right. This could have easily been fixed by changing the engine controls, but was never done.
3) the cockpit didn't do well in winter due to the cold, and not having direct heat form the firewall inherently warming the cockpit, and heat had to be ducted into the cockpit. But the cold weather was great for the engines due to that lack of an intercooler. by starting with colder air, the compressed air going into the intake wasn't as hot as it would have been in summer, meaning more HP. But this in no way hurt its performance, just affected the pilot.
4) the P-38 had issues with leaking pipes for the carburetor and turbochargers, robbing performance, but this was addressed and fixed.
5) the airplane was 2x as expensive as a P-51. required more raw material, and more time to manufacture and maintain. in a war of logistics, this was never going to do well.
in the Pacific it did well as a fighter, ground attacker, and more.
@@paulhicks6667 "Boom and zoom could be a very hazardous tactic in a P38. "
this is 100% false. you clearly don't know what Boom and Zoom is and how it works. P-38 was optimized for Boom and Zoom, especially against German fighters, especially at higher altitudes.
"The P38 was retired from the bomber escort role in the ETO specifically because it could not match either the Bf109 or FW190 in a high altitude, maximum speed dive."
this is a lie. There was no need for the P-38 to chase fighters in a prolonged dive, especially doing escort. yes it could get into compressibility, but the German fighters also had a habit of tearing off their wings in high speed dives. But escort fighters shouldn't be chasing german fighters to the ground either.
The P-38 had a Mach limit of 0.68, but the Thunderbolt also was limited to 0.71, basically the same speed, and yet it was considered an excellent diving plane and german fighters were unable to outrun the Thunderbolt or P-38 in a dive.
the difference of P-38 in ETO vs PTO had nothing to do with high altitude performance. It was about early P-38s having issues that were fixed later, and the cold cockpits more than anything. All of the same flaws of teh P-38 existed in the PTO same as ETO.
Listening to a P-38 fighter pilot describe combat experiences is a treat. My father was a general machinist for Lockheed for 30 years, so I am a bit partial to the fork-tailed devil. I try to imagine the devastating destructive power of four .50 calls and a .20mm situated within a small circle but I can’t.
Dad, that built the P-38 told a story about how one day he got to see them test fire to 50 Cal on a test bed. He said the target was a 2 inch thick oak wall made of planks. He said it took only seconds for an entire ammo belt to run through the guns and when it was over, the wooden wall was splinters!
P-38 Lightning was a Straight Shooter Fighter with One 20mm Cannon & Four 50 cal. One of My Favorite WW2 Fighter.
Yeah, from my readings the P38 often came out on the wrong end of these fighter v fighter confrontation, but all LW and Regia Aeronautica pilots mentioned that the firepower coming out of the P38's nose was to be avoided at all costs-no head on attacks, ever.
@@nickmitsialis After WW2 All Fighters Stop Using Wing Mounted Guns & Cannons..
Indeed in jets , BUT the Skyraider still had 4 20mm,...
@@nickmitsialis Touche' (smile)
@@nickmitsialis a 1945 design, I guess, and Douglas made it light and able to carry wt. of a B-17, I have heard. Thanks.
Thank you for your service
The P-38 always had turbochargers. The Castrated Lightning 1 which for the Armee de le Air 143 version of the Atlanta was delivered without the standard turbochargers and counter-rotating propellers delivered a sum total of 3 aircraft and the original name of Atlanta became changed to Lightning and the name stuck just as the Apache became known as Mustang for the Allison powered Mustangs delivered to the UK. The export versions became the P 332 1 and the P 322 II used for training the Version I retained the 2. 30 cal and 2 50 armament. The Version II was re-engined with a later variant of the Allison unarmed and used for training.
The turbochargers on the P-38 and the B-17 were in short supply
@Renshen1957 I wish I could remember all the technical things half as well as do you! :)
British Required that the happily Few, P38s' they had foisted on them NOT have counter-rotating props.
Just too much of a logistical nightmare for Very liitle, arguably No, performance advantage. At least not with a comptent pilot.
I'm not one to disagree with someone who was actually in combat and flew the P-38 against the Germans. What I will say is that his experience isn't typical of those I've seen, read and heard elsewhere.
It is true that, in the early war, the P-38 was a marvelous ground attack aircraft. Once it had been modified for the deserts of North Africa, it performed quite well against ground targets and was decent, if unspectacular, against German and Italian aircraft- so long as the fights were down low. Drawbacks included it being readily identifiable by the enemy at long ranges due to its twin-boom configuration. It wasn't much of a dogfighter, as a single-engine plane could easily outturn it. It was better than the P-40s currently in service, but that is damning with faint praise at best. Once the battle moved to Europe, it became clear that the P-38 had other issues as well. It was a cold airplane to fly, and a frozen pilot isn't much of a combat pilot. The engines didn't perform well at 30,000 feet or higher. Maneuverability was still a problem.
One account I read was when the Germans first encountered the P 38 in North Africa it took them by surprise and you’re correct about performing at low altitudes, but it was also a pre war design based on pre war ideas. I read too the Germans were discouraged from taking a P38 head for obvious reasons.😂
@@JefferyHagen Trying to think of the other fighter planes in use on the Allied side in 1942-43 in Africa. You had the Hurricane (6 small caliber MGs to 12 small caliber MGs- I don't think the 4x20mm cannon variant was in use yet), the Spitfire (8x small caliber MGs- same with the cannon-armed variant). You had the P-40B and maybe C model (B had 4x .50 cals and the C I think had 6x 50 cals). By contrast, the BF109 at the time had 2x 20mm and 4 small caliber MGs, so it had a heavier armament than all of the Allied fighters- until the P-38.
@ I believe the Japanese had the same philosophy as the Germans as far as their gun layout. The Zero had two cannons ant two machine guns, right? I’m 59 so I really don’t know anyone who talks about this stuff anymore except on TH-cam. I’m a little rusty.😂 I read the book The Forktailed Devil but that was forty years ago.🙄
@@JefferyHagen You have an excellent memory for an "old geezer". I can say that because I've got two years on you, and I admit guilt myself.
In the case of the Japanese, though, the motivation was different. Their pilots demanded maneuverability and range, because they had been trained in WW1-style dogfighting (and were damned good at it) and that required a very light airframe. The Zero could have carried more powerful weaponry, but performance would have suffered. The Germans, I think, must have thought their fighters were adequately armed for the time because they regularly increased it as more powerful engines and sturdier airframes became available.
the P-38 was a great aircraft, and Doolittle even had his own personal P-38 in ETO. it was Very fast at higher altitudes, going well over 400mph, and could reach 44,000ft altitude. And the engines were far higher performing at altitude than the Merlin.
Growling Sidewinder has great videos showing how to dogfight properly in a P-38 using Boom and Zoom tactics, as it was designed to do. When flown properly, it is devastating. Boom and Zoom requires pilot discipline, which many new pilots lacked. They had neither discipline (too aggressive) and lacked the understanding of Boom and Zoom tactics. The natural instinct of a human in a dogfight is to turn fight, but this is wrong and must be overcome. But skilled pilots had no issue making good use of the P-38.
the issues with the P-38 with the following.
1) the turbochargers lacked an intercooler, limiting engine performance to lower manifold pressures than other engine installations due to injecting hot air into the engines. When you compress the air it heats up. But the P-38 Allison engines still had more HP at altitude than Merlin engines. Greg's Automobiles has an excellent video showing this specifically with primary source data.
2) the P-38 had complex engine controls, and the USAAF told lockheed to change them and to copy those of the NAA P-51. Lockheed refused. These complex controls made teh plane difficult to fly by inexperienced pilots, and often resulted in engine failures. When advancing the throttles to full in combat, the pilots had to follow a complex procedure, and this slowed down reactions and resulted in new pilots panicking when jumped by enemy fighters, and blowing an engine trying to advance the throttles suddenly and not getting the procedure right. This could have easily been fixed by changing the engine controls, but was never done.
3) the cockpit didn't do well in winter due to the cold, and not having direct heat form the firewall inherently warming the cockpit, and heat had to be ducted into the cockpit. But the cold weather was great for the engines due to that lack of an intercooler. by starting with colder air, the compressed air going into the intake wasn't as hot as it would have been in summer, meaning more HP. But this in no way hurt its performance, just affected the pilot.
4) the P-38 had issues with leaking pipes for the carburetor and turbochargers, robbing performance, but this was addressed and fixed.
5) the airplane was 2x as expensive as a P-51. required more raw material, and more time to manufacture and maintain. in a war of logistics, this was never going to do well.
in the Pacific it did well as a fighter, ground attacker, and more.
With the possible exception of the Corsair, the P-38 may arguably be the most underrated fighter plane of WWII
I heard reports that the major advantage of the P38 was it’s ability to make a climbing right turn, that would cause the single engined German fighter to fall of once the speed dropped and engine torque caused them to spin opposite. Obviously the P38 had to maintain enough lead to avoid being shot in the process!🤷🏻♂️
Any German pilot who claims not to have been afraid when any allied plane was on his tail firing, is a liar. It was a significant emotional event, irrespective of whether they were using eight Browning .303 that bounced off your armour, or 4 50 calibre and a 20mm cannon tearing gaping holes in your aircraft. P-38s shot also down Fw200 Condors, not just German fighters. Only armchair warriors know no fear.
I would imagine the Germans hated any plane that was shooting at them.
LOL😀
Goes both ways haha
God bless you.
Thank you for your service ! I'm here because of you .
Good job throwing away democracy in the last election
German pilots called the P-38 Der Gabelschwanz Teufel (the fork tailed devil) for its lethality. Unfortunately, almost as many P-38s were shot down as the number of kills they racked up as it was a pretty big target. My dad flew in one in the Pacific Theater. He wasn't a pilot but went on a ride as passenger in one of the radar equipped ones. They flew so close to the ocean that it sent up big sprays of water and damaged the propellers. He and the pilot spent some time in the brig for that one.
It was hopeless in Europe and was was incredibly easy prey for german pilots.
A junk Plane totally outclassed in Europe.
@@JohnJones-k9d Cover that edge, you might hurt yourself.
Say that nickname in German a couple times and ask yourself how catchy it sounds. The “fork tailed devil” thing was a bit of nonsense put about by an American propaganda writer. The Germans did not invent clumsy, scary nicknames for Allied aircraft. Especially ones they didn’t rate, like the P38.
My father built P-38 in Los Angles/Burbank at the Skunk Works. His job, because he was kind of short, was to install the armor plate behind the pilot's seat and to install the cockpit gauges. He said women did all the riveting of the plane's metal skin.
From jeeps to jets, men love in war whatever they survived in.
A great uncle of mine flew P-38s in the Pacific. I don't believe the Japanese like P-38s either.
Probably didn't like how fast they were, either.
this was a legend, German pilot didn't fear the P38
There is a Luftwaffe pilot l think Eberhardt Boremski , 99 confirmed victories including 18 P38,s, 9 P47 & 11 P51.
He didn't think much of them at all.
Did he think much about the fact that not a single German fighter in the entirety of WW2 was capable of doing what the USAAF aircraft had to do?
So much ignorance and stupidity in these pissing matches about what aircraft were superior to another. German fighters couldn’t even have made it to battle had they been put in the roles that the allies were in, nonetheless won them. Germany’s elite aircraft and pilots is what you guys talk about, yet most of them died and the Luftwaffe was reduced to a bunch of cadets mostly stuck on the ground as the allies turned Nazi Germany into smoldering ashes.
You might want to check your breakdown. Except for a Spitfire, a Hurricane, and 2 Blenheim bombers, everything else was Russian aircraft on the Eastern front plus 2 Soviet-flown P40s and an A-20 Havoc flying as a RAF "Boston." . He shot-down absolutely none of the aircraft you list, although he is credited with 104 kills, not 99.
@@jayxer7902You might want to ask yourself how the f*ck they didn't instantly win the war then. The Germans had terrible fuel, the fact that they were still somewhat evenly matched against America fighters makes no sense if their planes were dogshit like you say lmao.
@richardfabacher3705 You are totally correct Richard.
I did mention l thought it was Eberhard Boremski.
Wrong name it was Heinrich Bartels, 99 confirmed victories.
These included 9 Spitfires, 13 Hurricanes, 9 P40, 16 P38, 10 P47, 11 P51, plus others.
US Historian David Zabecki audited him and confirmed the victories.
The P38 failed as a Bomber Escort for a couple of different reasons. Engine problems at high altitude, especially in the European Theatre, and the fact that as a twin-engine fighter it simply couldn’t turn with the Bf-109 or the FW-190.
Wow! Four .50 cal machine guns and a 20mm canon. That's a lot of firepower. I thought the P-51 Mustang with 6 .50 cal guns was the original tank buster.
It’s a LOT of firepower!
The FW-190 had a lot of firepower with 30mm cannons, 20mm canons, and MGs. The P-38 was about middling. The Hawker Typhoon had 4 20mm cannons. BTW, the P-38 was not used as a "tank killer". Generally, it's job was to fly cover missions for the P-40s in North Africa, Sicily, and Italy. If you flew a P-38 over Northern Europe then it was a great way to be lost due to fighter action or compressibility (sonic forces in a dive). If used properly the P-47 could do the job. The biggest issues with the P-47 was the 8th AF refused to put the correct fuel tank on the fighter and it took the USAF a little too long to put a correct propeller on the aircraft.
The P-39 Airacobra and P-63 Kingcobra each had four .50 cal guns and one massive 37 mm cannon.
@@Easy-Eight Recall that the P-38 was around a long time before the Thunderbolt and Mustang, Tempest, etc, and the Spitfire was packing an incredibly wimpy .303 machine guns. The armament was very formidable at the time, and as noted, it all went on the target, rather than what usually happened with wing-mounted guns, unless you were the perfect distance away, you lost half the firepower due to convergence/divergence.
@@brettbuck7362 The P-38 didn't start getting to Pacific Units until Guadalcanal in 1943. The British Spitfire Mark V was running two 20 mm cannons in 1942 with machine guns, better than the USA. The *Typhoon* was operating in 1942 against raids made by the FW-190. The Typhoon was an imperfect aircraft but that's a whole other subject. The Tempest was a new aircraft evolved from the typhoon. The P-38 had range, speed, and altitude going for in in the Pacific. You had best look at the deployment schedules. Remember, Lockheed was corrupt. Kelly Johnson admitted they put the P-38 on slow production in 1941 and early 1942 so more "Hudson" anti-submarine aircraft could be built. Why? Lockheed wanted the cash because the Hudson was not lend lease.
I would think they feared them more than they feared Goering. Thank you! :)
P-38 Invasion Stripes
th-cam.com/video/V1fBnovQ4YE/w-d-xo.html
P-38 in the Pacific Pilot interview
th-cam.com/video/MwViS4SfQSg/w-d-xo.html
I assumed it would be about the P-38 pistol.
Strange, the loss ratios and the testimony by Adolf Galland didn't say anything good about the P-38. The aircraft had a high loss rate and Galland said a fight with P-38s was like eating grapes, you could just pick them off. Galland said the aircraft had the same short comings as the Bf-110. Generally, the P-38 received far worse than it gave out over Europe and the Mediterranean. Yes, the P-38 was effective against Japan but a pokey Japanese Zero was over 80 MPH slower than a P-38.
Interesting! He should sit down with Kunkle and ask about it, is that German vet still around?
@@dzzyfilms Galland? He's been dead since the mid 1990s. Galland wrote the book called "The First and the Last" about his time as one of the leading aces of the Luftwaffe. He had 104 kills and many of them against the P-38. Galland said the tail was very vulnerable to 20 mm cannon fire (one 20 mm strike on the booms any place back of the radiators would cause the whole assembly to tear off). Also, aerodynamics (compressibility) was a huge problem until the P-38L. Last, the P-38 had the USAAF highest loss rate of 1.35% over 129,000 missions.
@@Easy-Eight They will not believe you
No other air force motivated their pilots to overclaim as much as the Luftwaffe. They did so for propaganda purposes. Often all the units kills would be attributed to the ace, as it looked good in the press report. After the war, most German officers played up their role in the war to sell an autobiography, so his stories should be taken with a grain or two of salt. While Galland may be one of the more reliable German pilots, he still fitted into the system of overclaiming.
@@jacktattis Oh, I'm being attacked. However, if they are under 35 years of age then I've planted the seeds of doubt. They may change their minds. Me? I'm convinced the US military didn't have a European class single engine fighter until the Merlin engined P-51B and those didn't start arriving until very late '43 and early '44. I think a little different than most of the posters. The P-47 was an effective aircraft if used correctly and it had the correct Hamilton Standard propellor. The P-40, P-39, and P-47 were fairly "inexpensive" aircraft. The P-38 was twice as expensive as a P-40. However, at least you could take a P-38 into the "Grand Prix" fighter environment of Northern Europe. BTW, the USAAF was running second hand Spitfires in '42, '43, and early '44. Even the US military didn't believe the propaganda.
They feared the P51 far more.
So this vid isn't about a can opener?
😂😂
Where's Greg?
Hard to believe WWII ended 80 years ago. Probably in the next ten years all the vets from that war will have passed. Will miss these great American treasures and the tremendous sacrifices they made. It was an honor for the majority of Americans to serve your country. Draft dodgers, like Trump, can never understand this commitment and integrity.
The thumbnail shows a man in Wehrmacht uniform, not Luftwaffe.
It was but one of a number of American aircraft converting the Fatherland into sauerkraut.....
The Mosquito had four 303's and four 20mm cannons - the Germans didn't like them much either.
...and the fact that due to their wooden construction, they were somewhat stealthy at low altitudes, too. Bet those Wurburg radar operators disliked the Mosquito, too. PS: also those ME-110 night fighter pilots totally feared Mosquito night fighters, by 1944. And last but not least, Dad knew fear too, since he flew Wellington's and Lancaster's RCAF at night, and his son is here, due to an injury Dad suffered in 1943, during the Ruhr campaign. 😀
1. Fork Tailed Devil was never used by the Luftwaffe, it was made up by the American Press as War Propaganda.
2. P-38 was actually the most preferred fighter by Luftwaffe Fighters to actually encounter over Western Europe, mostly because Bf109 and Fw190s held advantages over it without question.
3. Even Bf110 pilots who struggled against monoplane escort fighters could go toe to toe with P-38 Lightnings and actually claimed they often held the advantage of vs them. Unlike when they ran into P-47s, Spitfires and P-51s. Statistically the Bf110 had a positive kill score against the P-38 Lightning but slighting as both aircraft ended up being well matched.
4. P-38 was pulled from Western Europe from the "fighter' role for these reasons and ended up making a name for itself in the Pacific in which it's speed gave it a huge advantage in zoom/boom against Japanese fighters, whom's pilots were trained to dogfight and all P-38s had to do was 'Not' dogfight to win vs the Japanese. Issue is in Europe German fighters also played dirty, and often didn't dog fight taking any zoom/boom advantage the P--38 away.
Basically this whole video is nonsense. Built off old WWII Propaganda, that P-38 pilots themselves believed because they were fed it to give them confidence when going up on missions. In reality like the German Bf110 it struggled vs monoplane fighters in Europe, of which were constantly upgraded so were able to out run and out climb, and out dive and out turn P-38 pilots. P-38 ended up getting relegated to a close air support aircraft in Europe, or other specialist roles, but no longer the hunter patrols or escorting bombers over the mainland. Any success it saw late in the war had more to do with poorly trained luftwaffe pilots, like during the Ardennes Offensive in 1944, but shooting down kids who had no training doesn't make it a "Forked Tailed Devil."
You still Lost.
@@TommyRobinson-ep5xq Doesn't refute anything. Nor am I German, my family was on the winning side. But I'm also not going to believe in myths.
The P-38 was a very complex aircraft and most pilots were not sufficiently trained to get everything they could out of it.
Eric Brown did not like it.
But, and this is a big but, those who mastered the aircraft and became experts with it could use such things as asymmetric power settings to outmaneuver German fighters.
The comments you mention made by Luftwaffe pilots are true, but based on the fact that they were flying against less experienced opponents.
As the war progressed German pilot quality declined, American pilot training improved as pilots with combat experience became instructors.
The P-38 just got better as the war progressed.
@@kellybreen5526 All aircraft got better as the war progressed. Bf109K was better than the P-51D but if the war lasted longer the P-51H would be entering service, but the war ended. (mind you the P-51D was better than most Bf109s including most G variations, and there are more P-51D variations than I can count with my fingers/toes similar to the Bf109G, as an arms race between the two became a reality.)
That being said. I'm personally not crapping on the P-38. I like the aircraft, issue is it's mythology is ridiculously blown out of proportion to a point that propaganda became reality in the history books too often.
Kind of like the story of a Grayhound knocking out a Tiger II. The way the story is told, sounds more like it knocked out a Panther, not a Tiger II, and honestly it's very unlikely it knocked out a Tiger II because it's primary gun would struggle even shooting it up the rear, it would have no problem knocking out a Panther by shooting it in the rear. Yet no one questions the story. I think it took down a Panther, but people keep saying Tiger 2. Despite how unlikely it is, there is no evidence but witness testimony and American G.I's at the time often mixed up German vehicles.
P-38 fits in this category. There are two German history tubers, one who is entirely focused on aviation from Austria, and they've never been able to find any record of Germans using the phrase "Fork Tailed Devil" and according to what they could find it was entirely fabricated by US News Papers and eventually Propaganda. My first post is actually includes some things he mentioned, though most comes from some critical essays on the subject in general.
P-38 wasn't a terrible plane. Like the Bf110 wasn't a terrible plane. Despite struggling vs monoplane fighters, the aircraft were loved by the pilots that flew them, and despite their uphill battle vs enemy fighters, they still wracked up some kills as well. Yet the Bf110 became known in the west as garbage yet the P-38 somehow earned the image of a "Wonder Weapon" similar to the P-51. Despite the P-38 and Bf110 having similar performance/outcomes in western Europe when used in the fighter role. Yet in Germany the Bf110 was just as loved as the P-38 by it's crew.
So there are serious issues with propaganda weeding it's way into historical narrative. Similar to nonsense like 5 Shermans to kill a Tiger BS. Both the Bf110 and P-38 should be looked at honestly, neither are wonder weapons, neither are failures. But neither are great vs enemy fighters. P-38 was pushed into supporting roles, or long range patrols. Bf110 was turned into a bomber hunter, ground support, and eventually night fighter. But both were pushed out of the fighter and escort roles for the same reasons.
Too many armchair non-historians changing what history says happened to fit their view of what should have happened. 😉😉
AI.... Artificial Ignorance.
Known as the twin tail devil
First time I hear about this !!
Can't find corroboraion....
Cannon armed
1. The Germans never called the P-38 the ‘Forked-Tailed Devil’, that’s a myth
2. The Germans did not fear the P-38. German fighters had far superior dive and climb performance, however early in the war the P-38 was faster and it the right hands could outmaneuver the German fighters.
3. The P-38 had a poor service history in the European Theater and was pulled out as a front line fighter because of its compressibility problems while in a dive.
4. The P-38 continued to excel as a fighter in the Pacific and as a reconnaissance platform in Europe.
Glad you said it, I can't stand it when i hear the bullshit parroted over and over "fork tailed Devil" or "Whistling Death" for the Corsair its freaking propaganda that never died.
@@scottlampkin180 It is a case of a Lie told long enough and loud enough becomes fact
per WWII US Bombers P38 had a 2.8 kill/loss ratio in NW Europe
Ace in one day
Dog fighting in a P-38 over Europe
th-cam.com/video/Y-pq5VMwVm4/w-d-xo.html
@@nickdanger3802 P-38 Lightning vs Bf 109: North Africa, Sicily and Italy 1942-1943
By Ted Young, February 02, 2024
An analysis of claims versus losses, using newly available data, suggested that the P-38 pilots did not, in all likelihood, shoot down as many Bf 109s as claimed and that the Luftwaffe’s Bf 109 pilots established a victory-to-loss ratio of nearly three P-38s for every Bf 109 lost in combat.
@@viper2148 probably correct, WWII Bombers data is from 8th AF.
experience levels and doctrine (stay with bombers) had much to do with it.
still the best twin engine fighter of the war and third highest scoring US fighter flown by American pilots. click bait titles do it no justice.
fork tailed devils
No they really didn't.
Click baity title. All pilots(nazi or not) fear enemy aircraft in firing position. P-38 or brewster buffalo.
I’ll do better next time, new to this TH-cam thing
I like the P-38. I really do. But the early versions that flew and escorted the US bomber fleets were dogs. No turbo charging. No interior heating, freezing the pilot. By the time the P-38 got the bugs out, it was replaced by the P-51. Now in the Pacific theater it really shined, with long range and 2 engines to deal with the vast expanses of the ocean. Now the real two-engine fighter/bomber the Germans fear was the Mosquito. They even tried to copy it.
When in the hands of a good pilot, like Dick Bong in the Pacific, it was deadly. Bong liked to take his ship up for a mechanical check- fully armed, he'd prowl about with one engine cut looking every bit as a sitting duck limping home for any nearby enemy to pounce on, when engaged he's fire up the "dead" engine and pass that misjudgment on to the attacker.
All US P-38's flown in combat had turbochargers. The British ordered some without turbocharging and some of those were eventually used by the US as training aircraft only. They also all had interior heating, it just never worked very well.
@@dogsbd nO THE bRITISH DID not ORDER P38S WITHOUT tURBO cHARGING
@@BeachsideHank Richard Bong must have been an incredible guy...read of him, years' ago, and met a dentist back in '80's who flew them in Europe, but claimed ignorance when asked, concerning those high altitude lubrication problems. Thanks.
False. All combat P-38 aircraft had turbochargers and cockpit heating. The 8th AF failed to operate the P-38 in accordance with the operating manual, and caused the cockpit heating be ineffective, the engines to have reliability issues, and fuel consumption to be excessive. Proven fact, covered in various documents, and reported by Lockheed test pilot Tony LeVier.
The mosquito was feared mote
mosquito was far slower and far less maneuverable, and no good as an escort fighter.
Pilots did not represent a political party. They represented and were members of an Air Force of a country. Therefore, you cannot say “a nazi pilot”. You have to say “a German pilot”. For a discrepancy like this in a historical documentary I’m giving you a thumb down.
@kolezka161...thanks for your error-correction... my sentiments too.
LOL! Not really. Seriously, you have an American pilot talking for the Germans. From what I have read, German pilots were no more concerned about the P-38 than any other fighters. People often come up with theories about what the enemy thinks which they soon claim to be fact. Plenty of those out there for the SMLE rifle, 25 pounder field gun, and the whole US Marines "devil dog" fiction. Lots of American fanboys out there have a distorted image of this plane. It wasn't terrible, but it wasn't great. It was deemed not suitable for further use in Europe and gradually replaced. Ace Robin Olds hated it. It had the distinction of being the last US fighter shot down by a biplane (An Italian CR42 Falco being used for harassment by the Germans in Yugoslavia). It was also the US plane shot down in largest numbers by the Red Air Force ("friendly fire incident"). And, it was also the last plane shot down by a U-boat. (After German surrendered U-862 was turned over to the Japanese. The Japanese were forcing the crew to teach them how to use the vessel when P-38s attacked. The Japanese panicked, but the U-boat men manned the guns to save their own lives. The P-38 pilot was the only KIA.).When attacked from above, a P-38 could not quickly roll away to avoid the attack or pursue the enemy fighter. Research comparing the records of both sides for specific actions shows that 3 P-38s were lost for every Bf-109 actually shot down and that p-38 claims of Bf-109s shot down are inflated.
I'm an American and know most of our equipment was not that good. I do know what everybody loved. They loved our trucks, those lowly GM, Studebaker, and Fords. They loved our Jeeps. They loved our 100 octane gasoline, the Germans, Japanese, and Italians ran 80. The British loved our carrier aircraft. Last, *EVERYBODY* loved our Spam.
History is written by the winners 😮
@@Easy-Eight US equipment was not always the top performers, but it could be made in quantity and as Stalin said, 'Quantity has a quality all of itself.'. With that said, the German pilots in 1943 were far more seasoned than most US pilots. As US pilots gained more experience they could fly their aircraft to their maximum capability-and German losses mounted in 1944 and 1945.
per WWII US Bombers P38 had a 2.8 kill/loss ratio in NW Europe
Ace in one day
Dog fighting in a P-38 over Europe
th-cam.com/video/Y-pq5VMwVm4/w-d-xo.html
@@nickdanger3802 Old figures based on pilot claims, not recent research based on confirmations in enemy records. You go ahead and live in a fantasy.
Luftwaffe pilots didn’t fear the P38 at all. They of course respected the firepower but regarded it as the easiest Allied fighter to shoot down.
@@endo9913 Cope harder...
Good response - working on a more appropriate title
the P-38 was a great aircraft, and Doolittle even had his own personal P-38 in ETO. it was Very fast at higher altitudes, going well over 400mph, and could reach 44,000ft altitude. And the engines were far higher performing at altitude than the Merlin.
Growling Sidewinder has great videos showing how to dogfight properly in a P-38 using Boom and Zoom tactics, as it was designed to do. When flown properly, it is devastating. Boom and Zoom requires pilot discipline, which many new pilots lacked. They had neither discipline (too aggressive) and lacked the understanding of Boom and Zoom tactics. The natural instinct of a human in a dogfight is to turn fight, but this is wrong and must be overcome. But skilled pilots had no issue making good use of the P-38.
the issues with the P-38 with the following.
1) the turbochargers lacked an intercooler, limiting engine performance to lower manifold pressures than other engine installations due to injecting hot air into the engines. When you compress the air it heats up. But the P-38 Allison engines still had more HP at altitude than Merlin engines. Greg's Automobiles has an excellent video showing this specifically with primary source data.
2) the P-38 had complex engine controls, and the USAAF told lockheed to change them and to copy those of the NAA P-51. Lockheed refused. These complex controls made teh plane difficult to fly by inexperienced pilots, and often resulted in engine failures. When advancing the throttles to full in combat, the pilots had to follow a complex procedure, and this slowed down reactions and resulted in new pilots panicking when jumped by enemy fighters, and blowing an engine trying to advance the throttles suddenly and not getting the procedure right. This could have easily been fixed by changing the engine controls, but was never done.
3) the cockpit didn't do well in winter due to the cold, and not having direct heat form the firewall inherently warming the cockpit, and heat had to be ducted into the cockpit. But the cold weather was great for the engines due to that lack of an intercooler. by starting with colder air, the compressed air going into the intake wasn't as hot as it would have been in summer, meaning more HP. But this in no way hurt its performance, just affected the pilot.
4) the P-38 had issues with leaking pipes for the carburetor and turbochargers, robbing performance, but this was addressed and fixed.
5) the airplane was 2x as expensive as a P-51. required more raw material, and more time to manufacture and maintain. in a war of logistics, this was never going to do well.
in the Pacific it did well as a fighter, ground attacker, and more.
P38 failed in Europe ww2. The German pilots had a low opinion of them.
The Germans lost, and they couldn't replace anyone. American muscle 💪.
Clickbait fake news. German fighter pilots did not fear the P-38, unless they were attacked by surprise from behind. All the top German aces that fought on the Western Front put the P-38 well behind the P-51, P-47, and the Spitfire.
Great plane but they pulled them out eventually as the dive brakes froze in the colder climate of Europe
No P-38 ever had "dive brakes".
The P-38J-25-Lo and later models had electric dive recovery flaps, and they did not "freeze".
there were no dive brakes, and they flight controls never froze.
the P-38 was a great aircraft, and Doolittle even had his own personal P-38 in ETO. it was Very fast at higher altitudes, going well over 400mph, and could reach 44,000ft altitude. And the engines were far higher performing at altitude than the Merlin.
Growling Sidewinder has great videos showing how to dogfight properly in a P-38 using Boom and Zoom tactics, as it was designed to do. When flown properly, it is devastating. Boom and Zoom requires pilot discipline, which many new pilots lacked. They had neither discipline (too aggressive) and lacked the understanding of Boom and Zoom tactics. The natural instinct of a human in a dogfight is to turn fight, but this is wrong and must be overcome. But skilled pilots had no issue making good use of the P-38.
the issues with the P-38 with the following.
1) the turbochargers lacked an intercooler, limiting engine performance to lower manifold pressures than other engine installations due to injecting hot air into the engines. When you compress the air it heats up. But the P-38 Allison engines still had more HP at altitude than Merlin engines. Greg's Automobiles has an excellent video showing this specifically with primary source data.
2) the P-38 had complex engine controls, and the USAAF told lockheed to change them and to copy those of the NAA P-51. Lockheed refused. These complex controls made teh plane difficult to fly by inexperienced pilots, and often resulted in engine failures. When advancing the throttles to full in combat, the pilots had to follow a complex procedure, and this slowed down reactions and resulted in new pilots panicking when jumped by enemy fighters, and blowing an engine trying to advance the throttles suddenly and not getting the procedure right. This could have easily been fixed by changing the engine controls, but was never done.
3) the cockpit didn't do well in winter due to the cold, and not having direct heat form the firewall inherently warming the cockpit, and heat had to be ducted into the cockpit. But the cold weather was great for the engines due to that lack of an intercooler. by starting with colder air, the compressed air going into the intake wasn't as hot as it would have been in summer, meaning more HP. But this in no way hurt its performance, just affected the pilot.
4) the P-38 had issues with leaking pipes for the carburetor and turbochargers, robbing performance, but this was addressed and fixed.
5) the airplane was 2x as expensive as a P-51. required more raw material, and more time to manufacture and maintain. in a war of logistics, this was never going to do well.
in the Pacific it did well as a fighter, ground attacker, and more.
Butcher bird is starting it engine😂.P38 was prey in europe.
Only the Japanese feared the P38 the Germans used the p38 to train new pilots
per WWII US Bombers P38 had a 2.8 kill/loss ratio in NW Europe
Ace in one day
Dog fighting in a P-38 over Europe
th-cam.com/video/Y-pq5VMwVm4/w-d-xo.html
They didn't "fear" the P-38. The P-38 performed so poorly in the ETO that Doolittle removed it completely. The high altitude reliability issues issues were never solved
Yes they were solved Lockheed sent 500 kits to England to upgrade the plane in the field but the RAF accidentally shot the cargo planes down. After that Lockheed never replenished the kits and focused on jets as the P47 and P51 were in service and plentiful.
@@michaelpabian1672 No, it was never solved. The main problem was the superchargers at high altitude. The P-38 was completely removed from the ETO by Doolittle, save some recon. Sent to the MTO and PTO. Doolittle despised the aircraft
The P-38K resolved all the issues the aircraft had, but was only used in the Pacific. The P-51 Mustang was better than anything the Luftwaffe had and was far cheaper than the P-38.
@@TheAneewAony The P-38 had a Turbocharger, not a supercharger. They had no significant engine problems after the K model and the other issues with cockpit heating, heavy ailerons, wing vibration and compressibility were all resolved. It was removed from the ETO because of earlier reliability issues and because it was far more expensive than the P-51, which could perform bomber escort even better than the Lightning or Thunderbolt.
@@heyfitzpablum It's was called a turbo-supercharger. The problems with the K model continued due to the high octane fuels' high lead content effect on the turbo-superchargers. The issues were never resolved. The type was withdrawn from the ETO. Price was never a consideration when Doolittle removed the P-38 from the ETO. Yes, the P-51 was superior to the P-47 as well.