Which U.S. Aircraft was the Most Dangerous to Fly?

[@TJ3]

Don't mind me - Just trying to give you guys a bonus video for December! 😀Consider supporting me on Patreon if you enjoyed this! ➡ Patreon.com/TJ3History

[@theodoresmith5272]

The different aircraft were asked to do different missions so how can you make it about just losses? The p38 was asked to use it range to go deep into Japanese air coverage because they were the only ones that could. They were fine if they had the energy advantage but as soon as they lost it, the Japanese had a huge advantage. Also, they were used in ground attacks on airfields that were well defended. Sure carrier aircraft hit ground targets, airfields, and ports just the same but not nearly at the frequency of the 1942-43 push to rabual. Same with the b17. It has to be one of the most dangerous planes to get into because of the missions they sent it into. How bad would the losses have been if we used other bombers? I remember a report of 12 zeros shooting down one b17, but the single b17 shoot down 4 zeros and left 4 more unflyable after that mission.

[@Boron121]

thanks

[@stcredzero]

It was the >stated policy< of the US Army Air Corps, that the B-17 would get the most dangerous strategic bombing missions, and that the B-24 would get the less dangerous strategic bombing missions,. (Source: WWII US Bombers channel.) This probably contributed to the lower per sortie loss rate for the B-24.

[@texanfournow]

My father, Lt. Commander John Lundy Parsons, was a Navy pilot in the Pacific theater during WW2. I have all his flight logs. He flew the Dauntless and the Avenger and at least ten other aircraft. Before he passed, I had a conversation with him about the planes that he flew. He made it very clear that his least favorite were Martins because of the (lack of) build quality. Bonus fact: My father's cousin, Navy Capt. William Sterling Parsons, was the weaponeer on the Enola Gay. He insisted on arming the bomb (Little Boy) only after the B-29 was in flight, as there had been several crashes of B-29s on Tinian in the weeks leading up to the mission. So after the Enola Gay was successfully in flight, he crawled into the bomb bay and carefully carried out the procedure that he had rehearsed the night before.

[@timcarter1164]

Thank you for that story. I love hearing little details about historical facts like that, pretty much straight from the source.

[@DGill48]

! ! ! wow ! !

[@isaacsilvas2285]

Finally one that isn’t capping about there grandpa or dad being a navy pilot thank You for actual detail

[@texanfournow]

@@isaacsilvas2285 You are more than welcome. My father was/is my hero. I am both a history and genealogy buff so I enjoy going down the proverbial rabbit holes!

[@omar_segura]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Sterling_Parsons

[@susanblackwood2323]

My father, as a young 20 year old, was a B-24 pilot in World War II. He also flew in Korea and two tours of Vietnam before retiring to the corporate world of aviation. He told me once that he also had a little over eight hours of flying time in the P 38. While stationed at Walla Walla army airfield during World War II, they had some P 38’s parked on the line outside of base operations. He asked the base ops officer if he could get checked out in one. The guy said sure, and took him out to the flight line, put him in the cockpit while he stood on the wing. They taxied it up and down the TAXI way for about 20 minutes at which time the base ops guy said “you’re good to go”. He said thereafter whenever they needed an extra P 38 to run passes on training the gunners in the B-24’s He got to go up and fly the P 38 making those passes helping to train the gunners on the bombers. He said it was a hell of an airplane. I can’t imagine the fun of being a 20 year-old and flying a P-38. It certainly was a different world back then.

[@dreamin47_]

My father also was a B24 pilot in the Pacific Theater, but he always said he wanted to try to fly the P38 just for its looks and performance.

[@chribm]

What a great story! Make sure you get that written down in a journal somewhere and pass it to your children. Don't let them forget.

[@JoshuaHistoryBuff]

Awesome story buddy thanks for sharing !

[@ethanhawx]

the golden era ...

[@SmokinLoon5150]

My own grandfather, the late Darrel "Bud" Gray from Charles City, Iowa, flew the B24D in the south Pacific up and down the "slot". He was with the 13th AF, 5th BG, 73rd Sqd "Bomber Barons". Though he flew the B24D in all 28 of his bombing missions and then the C87 (B24 chauffeur/cargo version) for another 4 months, he did ferry many B17's back and forth from Hawaii to the south PTO. He said the B24 was "always on edge", and that it was "pushed to the max at all times while heavy, and it wasn't forgiving at all." He said that the pilots would actually be fatigued after flying it. The B17 pretty much flew itself and was a dream to fly. On paper the B24 was a better bomber but if given a choice most pilots would rather fly the B17, no question. After his bombing missions were over he chauffeured General Millard Harmon around in a C87 for 4 months and eventually rotated home in Dec 1944. A few tid bits: all of his fighter escorts were RAAF P40's mostly with white tails (75th Sqd), he never saw a Japanese fighter, just lots of ack-ack. My grandpa's cousin was a certain Earl Hannum, from Floyd, Iowa. Earl was captured at Wake and eventually beheaded by the Japanese on the prisoner ship as it was sailing for Japan. Grandpa said Earl was scrappy and liked to fight and there was no way he was going to let the Japanese push him around, in my grandfather's mind that is why they made an example out of him. You can find Earl's info by doing a simple google search. Lastly, you can also find my gpa's wrecked bomber online too, he was the co-pilot on the B24D "Panzy" when it lost power and crashed on take off. No injuries, just some soiled underwear (direct quote from g'pa).

[@roberthultz9023]

As to the B24 guys being fatigued after a flight - the late, great Bob Stevens wrote that you could ID a Lib pilot by his over developed left arm "from horsing the yoke around..."

[@darwinskeeper421]

I'm not surprised that the Marauder had a fairly low combat loss rate. My understanding is that the name "Flying Coffin" was due to the high losses in training. The Marauder had a fairly high wing loading and vicious stall characteristics which made her a handful during takeoff and landing. This was particularly challenging when flown by cadet, leading to the joke about losing, "One a day in Tampa Bay." This high wing loading along with powerful engines and a sleek fuselage made her very fast and a safe airplane to fly in combat.

[@janmale7767]

It was conceptualised for a even more powerfull engine than the P&W R - 2800's it used,i think it was those engines they used on the B- 29 , look how that wen't reliability wise , so the Marauder had to make doo with a slightly less powerfull but reliable engine!

[@ericbrammer2245]

My Uncle flew these (and B-17's) and Loved that plane! It brought him home Every Time.

[@bobsakamanos4469]

Design flaws in the first versions such as wing angle of incidence. Subsequent versions were just fine. My father flew various versions of them while stationed as a MU test pilot and liked the Mk.III just fine.

[@Owen-mt4si]

@@darwinskeeper421 My grandfather flew B26 as well and his story, was a one early training flight he was on, his copilot did understand how to take off in the plane, he let the guy get too fast, then yelled at him, they both need to pull over 200lb of force on controls to get plane off the ground. What happened is the b26 was one of the first tricycle landing gear in the army air service. The gear had a design feature and a flaw. When nose gear was on ground the wing produced negative lift, it makes landing safer and is how modern gear works. But unlike modern planes if you get too fast on your take off run, you could not raise the nose to flight attitude, and just crash when you run out of runway. The rotate speed in b26 was no joke. Also earlier models had a shorter wing that made everything worse.

[@darwinskeeper421]

@@Owen-mt4si Thank you for bringing this up. I have never heard of the landing gear issue before, but it makes sense.

[@keithallver2450]

My Grandfather flew the F4F Wildcat. He loved that plane. He said it was rugged and durable and could take a lot of punishment.

[@TJ3]

It certainly was! It was a great aircraft. If the Japanese had not created such a perfect fighter to take it on, it may have seen a longer service time as well.

[@keithallver2450]

@@TJ3 My grandfather had a healthy respect for the A6M Zero, but he always said it was an overrated plane. Unlike the Wildcat, it was fragile, lacking armor and self-sealing fuel tanks. A half-second burst from .50-caliber machine guns was enough to set it ablaze

[@cambium0]

I've always felt good about the wildcat because of how it performed at Wake Island -- they did a lot of damage to the invading fleet (not enough, but a lot) before they were destroyed on the ground. Interestingly, the Taffy groups from the Charge of the Tin Can Sailors (battle off samar) all carried updated Wildcats because the Hellcat couldn't take off from the smaller flight decks.

[@enscroggs]

@@cambium0 These were the FM2 versions built by General Motors with upgraded engines and other improvements aimed at close air support rather than the plane-versus-plane fighter role. I'd assume the bad loss per sortie data mostly derives from 1941 to mid-1942. Although inferior to the Zero in most respects, the Wildcat helped win the fight for Guadalcanal. This may have been attributable to more combat experience and better anti-Zero tactics, but I think the degradation of the IJN's pilot quality was probably an equal factor in the Wildcat's success. Midway killed and crippled many Pearl Harbor veterans, and by January 1943 most of them were gone. Thanks to the IJN's mostly insane standards for its fighter pilots, the lack of good advanced trainers (they had nothing like the Texan to fill the gap between basic flight training and operational fighters), and the growing shortage of fuel, the Wildcat was bound to gain more success against the Zero as time went on.

[@cambium0]

@@enscroggs "aimed at close air support rather than the plane-versus-plane fighter role" yeah I guess that's another reason they weren't Hellcats as the Taffy carriers were meant to support amphibious operations.

[@IndieAuthorX]

That Superfortress they extracted from the ice and repaired, only to have it catch fire is the most Superfortress thing to happen.

[@bobsakamanos4469]

Poor maintenance check.

[@RichardKroboth]

The fire was from a gasoline powered heater for the crew, not an engine fire. That’s the same thing that killed Ricky Nelson several years ago when his plane caught fire.

[@bobsakamanos4469]

@@RichardKroboth hmmm... I'd read a report saying the cause was an electrical generator bolted to a bulkhead at the rear of the aircraft. The bracket had corroded over the years, IIRC. Tragic waste. Correction. It was a GPU with a faulty rigged fuel can to feed it.

[@Owen-mt4si]

@@IndieAuthorX The putt putt motor was used to start the main motors, actually it should of been shutdown when they started taxing the plane if they were following the book.

[@Happy11807]

MY DAD WAS A TOP NOTCH MECHANIC,WORKED ON THE 29’s Engine problems in 44,45! On the 29 Bases in New Mexico! Was scheduled to go to the Pacific in September,Atom Bomb changed that ,and He was discharged,That is probably the reason I am here Today,79 years later!

[@jakmarlin8233]

As an honorable mention, the P-38 had highest scoring American ace of the war. Dick Bong had 40 kills in the P-38. It was a very hard plane to fly compared to the single engine war birds. I guess Dick new the trick!

[@TJ3]

For those of you curious - here are my sources. These calculations and stats are obviously very difficult to calculate - but I tried to use sources that I thought were credible - primarily a very well put together table by Greg Pascal. Here is that and other sources: Source A: ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/usaaf-aircraft-losses.59030/ Source B: warfarehistorynetwork.com/boeing-b-17-flying-fortress-vs-the-consolidated-b-24-liberator/#:~:text=In%20the%20Eighth%20Air%20Force,a%20difference%20of%200.4%20percent Source C: www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/Museum-Exhibits/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/196275/martin-b-26g-marauder/#:~:text=The%20B%2D26%20began%20flying,one%2Dhalf%20of%20one%20percent

[@ronaldtillberry3253]

OK. So you swear by your sources. That's great. Now, what about the accounts of the crews on them who swore by these airplanes, saying they were the very thing that brought them home safely. B17s came back with parts of them shot away. Wildcat pilots preferred to fight zeros head-on because they would take more punishment than the lightly-armored zero could. The b29s helped seal the fate of the Japanese Empire by being the planes with the legs to carry their crews to mainland targets and back: it was a one-way trip for any other bomber in the Pacific. And even p38s dominated the zeros. A fairer assessment would be loss percentages of the enemy aircraft these planes faced. Look at the kill ratios of opponents. I think you will see a different picture. After all, the US was on the side that won the war - over both oceans.

[@Easy-Eight]

I know the Martlet (F4F) in British service had a low combat loss rate. There is something to be said for only fighting with long ranged JU88, JU87, or Condors. Also, I'd like to know the P-38's loss rate for the Pacific. Last, I own some quite old reference books and the PBY Catalina was semi hated in 1941, 1942, and 1943. It was seen as too pokey. When the B-24s were converted to the PB4Y-1 the tables turned. When the extremely heavy armed PB4Y-2 entered service it was used as a gunship.

[@fishpants3877]

Fun Fact: A lot of people assume the atomic bomb project was the single biggest financial investment the Americans made during WW2. The B-29 was the biggest. The thing that delivered the bombs cost more than the bombs did.

[@dbrown3592]

Who assumes this? The B-29 cost is common knowledge.

[@darrendavies7290]

American make? The British make it on American soil same as the jet engine make a build in by the British so the American can copy

[@vvvci]

the magnesium used in the new Curtis-Wright motors would catch fire and not stop burning - they were so hot they would burn through the wing spar, destroying the entire aircraft... in a very short time It was the engines, not the airframe, the put the project so far behind schedule and so far over budget that Boeing wanted to CANCEL the whole thing!

[@davef.2329]

@@vvvci So were older Lawn-Boy lawnmowers. As a dumb teenager, I burned one down trying to weld the handle without first removing it from the deck.

[@ToddBrooks-o5m]

This is a well known fact . Try again dude .

[@GaryLaneUilleann]

Another statistic niche: WASP ferry operation crash rates would be pertinent since combat losses would be rare, losses would be due to mechanical and pilot error, revealing dangerous aircraft mostly due to manufacturing and design.

[@jackhouston357]

my dad was a B-17 tailgunner, 28 missions over germany

[@PvtPartzz]

3 extra missions just for the hell of it?

[@spooky2bricks]

The most dangerous U.S. aircraft to fly was the one with an ME-262 on its tail. All jokes aside, great video as always.

[@TJ3]

Thanks a ton!

[@Easy-Eight]

You ever hear an interview with Chuck Yeager? The ME-262 were dealt with by good tactics. The P-51 could outturn the Swallow; that's why every USAF aircraft had a radio. Also, the USAF just got brutal. They would swarm the Swallow and then another group would orbit the airfield. They would merely murder the ME-262 in a landing approach. Also, if one or two USAF aircraft were traded for an ME-262 it was considered a good day. As *Lenin* said, "Quantity takes on a quality all its own".

[@Easy-Eight]

@@paulhicks6667 You're 100% correct on the German wonder weapons. More people died in the slave labor assembling the V1 and V2 weapons than died in the attacks. For the opportunity cost of a V2 and V1 the Luftwaffe could have had a FW-190D or better aircraft. The King Tiger was almost impossible to drive across a regular European bridge. The much later M48 and M60 tanks were 10+ tons lighter than the German tanks. One BIG reason why Albert Speer was not shot in 1946 was he gave the allies a good briefing and by the time Germany got their act together in production in 1944 it was too late.

[@spooky2bricks]

@@Easy-Eight Perhaps you didn’t catch the “all jokes aside,” part of my comment. But Yes, very true assessments. I am well aware the ME-262 was indeed not the most deadly and invincible force of nature some portray it to be. It was nothing more than inconvenience to allied air operations at that stage of the war. While a fascinating preview into what was the future of air power, in reality its speed wouldn’t save it thanks to allied tactics. I was just making a light hearted joke, after all, wether its a Fokker Dr.1 or a Messerschmitt ME-262, a gun behind you is still a gun behind you.

[@paulogden7417]

@@Easy-Eight Amazing details, thanks!

[@Munakas-wq3gp]

The P38 required a lot of manual configuration to go from cruise to attack mode. So the pilots needed to do several steps, correctly, if they were surprised by enemy that took closer to a minute or risk losing their engines. In contrast the FW-190 had fully automatic cockpit that required little to no pilot adjustment in combat.

[@angeloftheabyss5265]

Look at your watch. Sit in your chair. Do nothing for a minute. Rethink your statement.

[@thomasgrzelak4477]

@@angeloftheabyss5265 Actually, the early model P-38 did require quite a number of pilot inputs when going from cruise to attack. I am not sure if it took a full minute, but it was definitely longer than what a single engine fighter pilot had to deal with. That could get you killed. Lockheed improved the controls later in the war. Still, it was one of the prettiest airplanes ever made, especially the early versions before they hung those ugly chin radiators on the engines.

[@The1trueJester]

Feeling so blessed that we got a bonus video! excellent job on this one. My mom once had a client whose father flew the dauntless. he said his dad told him if he flew a devastator he wouldn't have made it through the war. Keep up the good work TJ, stay awesome!

[@alanholloway1264]

Disagree on the the Wildcat. Captain Brown who ended up being a test pilot, flew the Wildcat in combat for the Royal Navy. He had a very high opinion of this aircraft

[@evanmiller2529]

The Wildcat was a pretty good plane for it's time though it was up against very well trained and experienced Japanese pilots who knew how to get the best out of their Zeros. The USN aviation tactics and doctrine was still developing after a very rapid expansion with many of the pilots lacking combat experience. This played a huge part in their overall poor showing early in the war.

[@Peter-y5y9i]

Early in the Pacific campaign, the Zero had few equals. I doubt many allied aircraft fared well at first. The Zero was never kept up to date, so it became less dangerous. Better tactics made a big difference as well. Still, statistics are what they are.

[@philiphumphrey1548]

One problem with the P38 was that with its elaborate turbochargers but without modern electronics to control them, it took time and various adjustments by the pilot to accelerate from 200 mph escorting bombers to 400 mph combat speed. Time which it did not always have when under attack.

[@ikekelly3157]

Complete speculation on your part, as the turbo-supers were exhaust driven and not mechanically driven like with the Merlin. Therefore, “electronics” would be for engine controls, which in fact were introduced incrementally from the H through the J/L models. Cruise settings for manifold/mercury pressure were no different than with single engine inline platforms, except that there were two engines. The difference in preparing for combat was pilot experience and platform training. ETO bomber escort at the same speed as the bombers would have been suicide. Escort duty speed was based on range/altitude and was much faster than the escorts, which is why combat film of fighter escorts show aircraft flying in diagonal sweeps back and forth above the bomber formation.

[@Owen-mt4si]

@@ikekelly3157 exhaust driven turbo superchargers could run away, they can work just like jet engines if you get unburnt fuel burning in them just right. There is a waste gate that regulates the speed, get too much carbon in that and it can ruin your day. Spitfires had a 2 stage barometer trigger super charger, the system was designed to switch back to low boost if it failed. The 38 was complicated and there were automatic systems to regulate turbo speed, and radiators and intercooler temperatures, failures of the system or inability to react properly to a failure can easily doom such a ship.

[@mattspeer3516]

Brewster Buffalo? Thought that would be a co-winner with the Devastator.

[@marcusbraman8535]

In five months of combat through the Battle of the Coral Sea, TBDs had suffered no inflight losses to enemy action. During the Battle of Midway, the TBDs attacked without fighter escort. I think that if TBM Avengers attacked under the same circumstances, their loses would have been nearly as bad.

[@oldcremona]

you are correct sir

[@patrickporter1864]

The Finns found the buffalo very good but then the stripped all the useless rubbish out of there aircraft and added extra guns. They had better trained pilots too.

[@jukkasarilo7573]

Brewster Buffalo in finnish hands was a good fighter. But obviously it depends, who you give them.

[@wlmac]

@@marcusbraman8535 Actually they fly their first mission in Midway and it was also a disaster like the TBD's. I think 1 out of 6 Avengers made it back to Midway Island.

[@reldoc]

My uncle’s squadron transitioned in theater from P39s to P38s in theater. The squadron leader and exec both died during training. He loved the second engine over water in the Pacific.

[@roberthultz9023]

Top scoring AAF fighter of the Pacific war and No #3 overall ( AAF : P51, P47, P38 ) so hardly a failure. Dangerous to fly? In training Hell yes. In combat ? Probably still a yes.

[@Owen-mt4si]

@@reldoc a 2nd engine is good, but the old joke is, "the 2nd engine is to fly you to your crash site" Statistically a 2nd engine isn't always safer. Engine out operations are more dangerous than most people think, the loss of one engine makes planes lose a lot more that 1/2 it's performance. Many twins can only climb at 100ft/min on one engine when they are new, loss of a engine could mean no climbing at all, also plane goes very asymmetrical so drag increases a lot. The 38 could kill you on takeoff with engine failure, props counter rotate, it makes the plane very stable and smooth, engine out on takeoff could put the plane on its back. Though I have seen a training video from world war II where they do aerobatics on one engine. Sometimes a 2nd engine saves your butt, but it is not a spare.

[@CA999]

My father claimed that the tail section of the P-38 lightning had a vulnerability that could cause the plane to explode when struck by machine gun fire. The vulnerability lied in some electrical layout in the tail section. Nonetheless as he was a teenager in World War Two in Brisbane Australia, he would often ride out to the air bases to watch fighter planes and the P-38 lightning was hus favourite to watch! He would recount these experiences when we built a 1/32 scale model of it when I was a child in the 1980s.

[@TJ3]

Interesting!

[@ChickenLittleFeatherPlucker]

Also heard that bailout from a P-38 was a very dangerous proposition as there was a good chance of hitting the tail section when exiting the P-38 in flight.

[@markvincent9098]

There was a P38 base next to the farm here in the UK. Dad became very friendly with the US pilots and joined the RAF himself later on, but he told me that the bail-out was always a concern. I can't really see that it would be much more dangerous than a conventional tail, but I think there was an idea that if you bailed out, you could be cut in two.

[@angeloftheabyss5265]

Yeah, that’s it, an exploding tail. I guess the US isn’t the only idiocracy.

[@tylertheanimator20]

I had an uncle who served as an SM1 on the USS Essex during World War II. He helped land the F6F Hellcat, SBD Dauntless, and TBF Avenger during the battles of Wake Island and Okinawa.

[@AdmRose]

The PBM Mariner also had a nasty reputation for randomly exploding. This is one of the prevailing theories of what happened to the PBM that went looking for Flight 19 in 1945.

[@scooter2099]

It's larger problem was that it was a 2 engine configuration on a frame that wasn't much smaller than the Sunderland. They had to fit high power developmental engines just to get acceptable performance. In some missions with high fuel load, they needed Rocket Assist just to get it off the ground. It was well known that it would drop like a brick on one engine. As with most solo LRR maritime aircraft, it was difficult to determine cause of loss, however it was strongly suspected that engine failure was probably the cause of most Mariner losses.

[@AdmRose]

@ I’ll take a Catalina any day.

[@RichardKroboth]

About the Flight 19 incident. My late father was on the other PBM. He said he prayed like crazy because the gas fumes were so high on his plane. Just praying that there wasn’t any errant spark in the fuselage. BTW the PBM had the nickname flying gas tank.

[@tractortalkwithgary1271]

I was surprised that the F4U Corsair didn’t make the list. It certainly earned its reputation as a fierce Zero killer in WW 2 , but Navy had named it the ensign killer for the early on problems with carrier landing Glad to see it didn’t make the list as it is my favorite WW2 fighter

[@SuperDiablo101]

My grandfather served on the uss Ticonderoga during wwii and when I was young I think he told me that the hell diver was dangerous because during a dive the flaps would for some reason would freeze up causing to smash into the ground I could be entirely wrong as it over 20 years ago since his passing but hheh don't call it "the bane of navy pilots" for nothing unless there was truth to it

[@FranceGuildieval]

I'm surprised you don't know that but the air that flows above the wings of a P-38 Lightning can achieve supersonic speed and make it stall. I read that a long time ago but I don't remember in which book.

[@michaelgill7248]

Yes I think he did mention the problem of compressibility.

[@bf-696]

@@michaelgill7248 He did. I expected that to be the major contributor to P-38 loses.

[@philiphumphrey1548]

If I remember correctly, the problem was eventually solved by adding dive brakes, so the P38 could be slowed to a safe Mach number and regain control. But it took them a long time to get round to it.

[@absolarix]

@@bf-696 Something else to consider with the P38 is the aircraft's incredible range. Charles Lindbergh got his hands on one and showed how it could be flown more efficiently. There are reports of pilots getting drowsy on long flights over the Pacific, and unintentionally flying into the ocean.

[@johncmitchell4941]

@@absolarix IIRC Lindy taught pilots to use more boost and less throttle on takeoff, which saved fuel & added range. Don't recall which planes he'd flown to develop the technique.

[@ronaldbyrne3320]

You’re right about the surprises on this list, numbers don’t lie. The bravery of those men who flew all these aircraft into combat is never in doubt.

[@douglasbuckland8280]

I believe that one of the issues with the P-38 was the complexity of 'fighting' with a twin engined machine. Once you had mastered it you were okay, but many guys trained on single engined machines them were assigned to P-38's without enough time in type prior to combat.

[@danc2014]

Flying with 2 engine was different but control if one failed was more difficult. The propeller rotations needed to be changed for better characteristics and made the loss rate drop. Why was he comparing fighters with bombers each fave a different roll and different risks.

[@RaymondCore-ts5jl]

At the State Fair of Texas in 1970, there was an ehibit of WWII Pacific aircraft. I met a P-38 Lightning who a veteran of that theater of war. Some of his remarks were about the difficulty of clearing that tail assembly and he described different tactics for bailing out safely though he had never had to bail out.

[@mkunes2502]

Brewster Buffalo. Seems like they had a 100% loss rate, at Midway.

[@joerobo682]

My father said the joke amongst the pilots and crews of the Army Air Corp. was the B-24 was designed and built by an undertaker in Baltimore.

[@leethorp2164]

I talked to a guy who was a B-24 instructor during WWII and he said that the training was just as dangerous as the front lines. They were churning out planes and crews like sausages at the time and he saw a lot of crashes. He claims he was in the latrine one day and the next thing he knew a propeller came flying into the building.

[@danielhaney9314]

I could've sworn that the F4U would've been on this list from the mass amount of accounts I've heard about from pacific theater pilots.

[@TJ3]

Yep - another case of the "widow maker" that was, in reality, safer than you might think!

[@timcarter1164]

​​​@@TJ3... Especially once they figured out how to land it, and got that stall strip installed on the wing. In my opinion, greatest warbird ever built.

[@JT-io9ii]

Id like to add the P-39 Aracobra. It wasnt well liked.. except by the Russians..

[@robertleyk4048]

The P 38 Lightning was used for bombing and reconnaissance missions in Europe, but never really got a chance to shine until some were transferred to the Pacific theatre. Charles Lindbergh found a way to extend the P 38 's flight distance by using a leaned out fuel technique. But the aircraft did have to be tweaked due to twin engine power, prop rotation balance, and barrel rolls etc. it was a new aircraft, and all new aircraft had/have to be "honed in".

[@robertleyk4048]

The P 38 Lightning also was under powered I. The beginning until they put on the "super chargers". But England (being their conservative selves, lol) went and bought some P38's without super chargers!!! That turned the plane into a "dog", and a lot were shot down. But the Pacific theatre got P 38's with the proper super chargers, and they kicked ass, bringing down Admiral Yamamoto's Betty bomber west of the Solomon islands.

[@bbb462cid]

Read many pilot anecdotes that relate the P-38's problem was the heater. Not pilot workload. I'll go with the guys that lived and fought in them from histories they recorded when the war was fresh in their memories, but always great to see content on the WW2 air war.

[@Owen-mt4si]

@@bbb462cid think the joke of the time was to call them ice wagons.

[@bbb462cid]

@@Owen-mt4si LOL imagine being at 35K feet in January over Germany in a P-38. On a cloudy day.

[@kevincalhoun9653]

This was hard to swallow. I trust your integrity. Well done!

[@tomscott1159]

P-38 had its flaws for sure. But I would also argue that it's unique capabilities would allow it to be dispatched on particularly difficult and dangerous missions over the Pacific covering very long distances and exposed to both fighter resistance and unpredictable weather. Those missions were unusually hard on men and machines.

[@etaoinbshrdlu]

Good overall analysis. As to the P-38, one additional cause of losses in Europe was very poor tactics. Flying close to the bombers, not free ranging to fight German fighters, was a calamity. In the Pacific the issue of tactics was also a contributor. The Lightning could not turn as well as the Zero. Trying that would get you killed. But you could fly higher, dive, kill, extend and zoom back to altitude, using energy based tactics and win a lot.

[@UPat5]

What was the Combat Loss Rate of the Bell P-39 Airacobra ?

[@Edam-Channel]

P38 loss rates are attributed to: 1. it had two critical engines (Kelly Johnson explained that arrangement gave the most stable gun platform) meaning if either engine failed on take-off, you were in serious trouble unless you knew how to handle it and reacted instantly 2. It was not a good turn fighter and inexperienced pilots would give in to the temptation to try and turn with the Zero 3. it often flew with drop tanks in the PTO for extended range and was a total dog in a fight if the pilot did not instantly dump the drop tank It was not a forgiving aircraft. These three factors above meant it was deadly to the enemy in the hands of an experienced pilot but dangerous for the pilot themselves in the hands of rookies.

[@Tubes12AX7k]

I thought I noticed that about the P-38, with two engines where the descending blade was on the outside of the propeller disc on either side. I thought they might have the descending blade on the inside.

[@charlesfinnigan3904]

Actually at the right altitude it could out turn the Bf109. But turning does not win air battles, (as british pilots quickly asserted when told that the spitfire could out turn the 190)the p-38 was faster and could go higher than the Zero and that wins air battles. But you are right early on some pilots did try to dog fight zeros in F4Fs and P-38 and it generally didn't go well. Once both aircraft were used properly their kill ratios went sky high.

[@bobmeador4465]

My dad flew in B-24s out of Dutch Harbor, and other Aleutian airfields, for the 11th Army Air Corps in 1942 and 1943. After returning from combat service in December of 1943 he served as an instructor at Ft. Bliss near El Paso, TX where he experienced all three heavy bombers in rigorous training. He is no longer around to dispute your opinion of the comparative dangers of the four engine bombers but I am certain he would object to your opinion in this specific matter. After surviving three crash landings in B-24s (two from combat damage, one of those in the Bering Sea, and one due to mechanical failure), Dad would insist that the B-24 was the most dangerous to fly. The Pratt and Whitney double Wasp engines were "borrowed" from the PBY, the twin tail was too often a failure point - and was proven, before mass production to be less capable than a single vertical stabilizer similar to the B-17, and the entire frame suffered from stress failures even in the YB models. What your evaluation does not consider is the flight environment most flown by these aircraft. Enemy fighters was certainly one of those factors, but more critical to the in-flight failures that caused "combat losses" was flight duration. For example, the B-17s flew well within their fuel capabilities in the 8th AAC missions over Europe, had excellent repair facilities in the UK, had time between missions to rest crews, retrain, repair or replace engines or complete aircraft, and properly brief crews - but they flew into a maelstrom of German fighters and AAA. European losses of B-17s were well over 95% of casualties were caused by enemy weapons. Those airframes were famous for bringing crews home! On the other side of the war, the new and less developed B-29 was introduced in China where maintaining the untested airframe and engines was just short of impossible. The B-29 was pulled and in 1944 introduced to the island hopping Pacific war to fly that same equipment at near it's maximum range on missions flying at extreme altitude. Enemy flack and fighters were a comparative inconvenience. The B-29 losses in WWII were primarily due to system failures caused by long duration missions stressing engines and airframes that were operating with too little turnaround time, inadequate repair facilities, and logistical failures that forced ground crews to return failed equipment to flight service without replacing critical repair parts. The B-29 Superfortress was probably the safest of the three, but experienced higher losses due to mission stress, mostly due to command decisions. (Yes, command - as in Curtis LeMay made bad choices that cost a lot of US lives.) In comparison, the B-24 (LB-30, PB4Y, C-87, C-109) was a compromise airframe with underpowered engines and pretty extreme limits in it's in flight capabilities. It was adequate at flying straight and level at altitude (15,000 to 25,000 feet, lower ceiling than the B-17 but slightly faster) it stunk at trying to avoid fighters. Any extreme stress on the airframe would cause pieces to break off. My father generously granted that the B-24 was best at falling to the ground in a semi-controlled fashion that allowed very good pilots a chance at crash landing with some survivors instead of a pancake that killed everyone. In spite of the obvious shortcomings, the B-24 was a major factor in winning WWII. My dad knew the differences between the three airframes, and recognizing that the B-24 was the most dangerous to it's crew, still had faith in it's ability to do the mission. I believe that his opinion, based on repeated personal experience, is credible and accurate.

[@daveanderson3805]

No Brewster Buffalo? As I understand it, that plane would have been really great. Back in 1918.

[@eigengrau_hund]

The Catalina was a nice looking machine.

[@lil2nerdy645]

The Devastator was definitely devastating... to its crews 💀

[@anderstroberg3704]

The P-38 was also notoriously hard to fly on one engine, as the props counterrotated in the wrong direction. The advice if you lost one engine was "Find somewhere straight ahead to land, don't try to turn".

[@M29WeaselDriver]

I’m surprised the Brewster Buffalo isn’t on here. The Finn’s made of Sodom great but no one else did.

[@pvtjohntowle4081]

You diss the SB2C Helldiver but "Despite its early challenges, the SB2C Helldiver proved to be highly effective in combat by 1944. The aircraft was particularly successful in attacks on Japanese carriers, battleships, and other vital infrastructure. It had a longer range, larger bomb capacity, and better bombing accuracy compared to the older SBD. As the war progressed and pilot training improved, the Helldiver’s loss rate decreased. Additionally, the aircraft's rugged design allowed it to absorb damage and still return to base more effectively than some other aircraft."

[@RichardKroboth]

I have to disagree on the statement about the SBDs bombing accuracy. The accounts I’ve read stated the Dauntless was very stable and was light on the controls when in a dive. It also took a lot of punishment and still got it’s crew back home.

[@timcarter1164]

Would be interested in knowing what number the Vought F4U Corsair would have fallen at. Anything called the Ensign Eliminator is probably pretty kinda high up on this list.

[@dberaupilot]

The sortie numbers for the Catalina, Wildcat and TBD seem really low? especially for the Catalina...

[@garydownes2111]

I was thinking the same tbh, is there a difference between operational & combat missions or something? patrol missions, downed aircrew retrieval, enemy shadowing, fleet reconnaissance etc.. I would have thought the Catalina would have more..

[@viper2148]

Okay, you really need to read up on F4F v A6M combat. By the end of the Battle for Guadalcanal on February 3rd, 1943, records show that Navy and Marine Corps aviators shot down 5.9 Zeros for every Wildcat lost. When the Japanese surrendered in September 1945, the Wildcat to Zero exchange ratio had increased to 6.9 to one. Yes, the Wildcat was much less maneuverable than the Zero, but the Wildcat had far superior high-altitude performance and dive characteristics, and it was a far, far more survivable aircraft. Watch 'A6M2 'Zero' vs F4F 'Wildcat' - An Unfair Fight in the Pacific?' by Military Aviation History

[@CineSparky]

I love the Wildcat, but I don't wanna fight against those zeroes.

[@TJ3]

Agreed!

[@Otokichi786]

OK hotshot, you're going to fly Dauntless dive bombers, instead.;)

[@Chiller11]

Losses were high in the earliest part of the war but I believe refined tactics including, but not limited to the, Thach Weave for the F4F Wildcat significantly improved the fighter’s kill ratio vis-a-vis the Zero.

[@Easy-Eight]

@@Otokichi786 Those early war aviators were a different breed of cat. At the Battle of Coral Sea a group of Dauntless attacked a Japanese formation and gave as good as they got. BTW, the USN really regretted shutting down the SBD line in 1944 but the C-47, A-20, and C-54 were more needed. The rotten SB2C was good enough. Anyway, the A1D Skyraider replaced it after the war.

[@w.reidripley1968]

​@@Otokichi786Was it not Vraicu who was in air to air combat against Zeros _in an SBD?_ Threw his plane around like a fighter with tail guns, and at least hit a Zero or two. He did come back from that fight, and went on to transfer to fighters and became an ace.

[@lloydryan7716]

Another great video. The research you do for your videos is outstanding. The animation is superb. I look forward to them.

[@scottrichards2044]

My dad was a recon pilot in the European theater in ww2 and one of the plains he flew was the p-38 lightning. At first the plain had a lot of problems but where fixed and was a real durable plain to fly. At the beginning of the p38 in the war most of the lose of plains where mechanical problems not from being shot down. There was a picture he had of his plain all shot up so bad that the mechanics couldn't believe he was able to fly it back home. Part of his tail rudders was so shot up it looked like a shark took a big bit out of it and the other side didn't have much of it either. They also counted over 350 holes in one of the engines and over 200 more through out the rest of the plain not counting the big pieces that where missing.

[@JoshuaHistoryBuff]

I am amazed at what your research uncovered about the B-24 loss rate being lower than the B-17s TJ! Putting the B-29 up as the heavy is dead on in my opinion!

[@ronaldshank8665]

Enjoyed your video. It wasn't mentioned B-29's that flew missions in the Pacific Theater had minimal options for landing if they suffered mechanical or enemy damage during a mission. I would like to know how many of the B-29's lost in the Pacific Theater vs the European Theater were due to "lost at sea".

[@warbirdflyerF4U]

Another awesome video TJ thank you for sharing 😊

[@TJ3]

Thanks for watching!

[@theganymedehypothesis4057]

As I read it, the 509 group that delivered the atom bombs had fuel injectors on their engines and had no problems with them. Sounds like all B29s should have had fuel injected engines.

[@Easy-Eight]

The 509th had the "Silver Plate" versions of the B-29. Basically, they were like "sniper" versions of the regular line. The crews were hand picked. The ground crews and air crews received better rations. That was the cause of some resentment on Saipan. The regular B-29 crews worked 24/7 and ate C-rations.

[@angeloftheabyss5265]

Yeah, that’s it, FUEL injection. What a DA.

[@Easy-Eight]

@@angeloftheabyss5265 hate to agree with you about the fuel injection. The big problem on the B-29s was the cooling. The silver plates were at least 10% lighter than the typical B-29s and flown by the bomber pilots. Technically the B-29 was not fixed until the "D" model and that was redesigned as the B-50.

[@james-id1ni]

The 509 th bomb group was based on Tinian.

[@aaronmeyn6926]

I was under the impression that the Brewster Buffalo had a worst casualty rate that the F4F Wildcat.

[@TJ3]

Not enough combat time to qualify for this study!

[@simunooi5306]

​@@TJ3 They didn't last long with the RAF and Dutch against the Japanese in the far east either.

[@Hawkeye2001]

How many losses were directly the result of enemy action, and what percent were the fault of the plane or crew. I've ready the "learning curve" was quite difficult with several types.

[@zephyer-gp1ju]

One of the problems with the Mariner was its tendency to leak fuel. Often called the flying gas station due to the amount of fuel it could carry. But with fuel leaks come fires. It is thought the Mariner sent to find six planes over the Bermuda Triangle, that disappeared, blew up and probably due to a fuel leak. I was privileged to meet a retired AF pilot. He joined the Air Corp just as the US entered the war and saw a lot of action. On a wall in his apartment he had a picture of every plane he flew. I think he flew every plane the US Army/Air Force had. He would point and talk about each one. He got to the P51 and he got a big smile and his eyes glazed over and he said, "That was the best one."

[@JUNKERS488]

Another great start for the weekend. TJ video is always a great start to a day. Another awesome video your still batting 1000 . Can't wait to see what the next one will be about. Have a great weekend TJ. Please Keep 'em Coming. We've got your six".

[@TJ3]

Thanks so much as always!!

[@tomperkins5657]

I was surprised at the losses of the B29. The B-29 also was deployed in the Korean War. However, it suffered staggerng losses against the Russian Mig and was quickliy pulled out of service.

[@Chiller11]

I was under the impression that low level nighttime incendiary B29 missions were begun along with Curtis LeMay assuming command in the Pacific. These missions entailed greater risk that the high altitude daylight missions and would explain at least some of the B29’s loss rate.

[@mkendallpk4321]

I agree.

[@WardenWolf]

Don't forget that the Avenger also suffered atrocious losses when used in a torpedo bombing role. The sole reason it wasn't worse is because it was also designed for and used in normal bombing. Being sent to drop torpedoes was usually a death sentence, no matter which aircraft you were in. The only exceptions were cases like Yamato and Musashi where they were so completely swarmed and overwhelmed there were virtually no losses.

[@SmokinLoon5150]

F4U Corsair. "It was very quirky and unforgiving, killed more aviators than you can shake a stick at." - direct quote from the late WW2 Naval Aviator Instructor Theodor "Ted" Davis. Sioux City, IA. My wife's grandfather. He flew them all (Navy aircraft), and said the F4F and F6F were excellent aircraft and preferred by their pilots. The F4U was known to be tricky and if the pilots assigned to them could get out of them they would especially to the F6F as it was every bit as capable but for more stable and forgiving.

[@4shink]

My father-in-law Lt William M Allen flew B-24 as a transit pilot and Catalina flying boats for SAR and courier duties. Once off the water the Catalina was said to be very stable but slow...he said the B-24 handled like a semi truck and landed like a brick...

[@mattfulmer4243]

Always makes my day whenever you post one of your excellent videos.

[@TJ3]

Very happy to hear that :)

[@casparcoaster1936]

b-29s took long hikes over water to sortie... loss rate might not have been as high over land... yes tbd was a disaster, but it kinda won Battle of Midway... wonderful vid, incredible graphica... many thanks!!

[@scottmurphy650]

My ex wife had a 2nd cousin who transitioned from SBD's to SB2C's. He too HATED every minute he had to fly it. The controls were very heavy, it was not maneuverable and STILL had some nasty habits even after the modifications.

[@vincent412l7]

You left of the F2A Brewster Buffalo and SB2U Vought Vindicator. Like the TBD, they were obsolete by the war's start, but they fought also at Midway.

[@guillaumepare9651]

For the P-38, I remember I've read somewhere that early on, pilots had to adjust on teh Pacifi theater. It's not a turn and fight. It's a boom and zoom type of plane. The comment was when pilots get used to that, things went much better. This and the fact that it had youth problems that were solved for the most part.

[@Foouurr]

love the war thunder footage

[@russpaulus9171]

What about non combat losses? Would that change the picture?

[@larrycable1948]

On the B29, while it was designed to bomb from high altitude, LeMay developed the firebombing technique that required the aircraft to bomb at lower altitudes at levels were Japanese Anti Air was more effective. When combined with the long flight time over water, it isn't surprising that the lose rate was higher.

[@Jorqell]

P-38 suffered from being easy to spot, easy to identify, and being too tightly packed: the booms were full of technology, and nearly any hit to them damaged something vital.

[@polywog9138]

Thank you TJ3 for another awesome video. Curious about where the F4U Corsair sits on the loss rate list.

[@DanielJMount]

On the B-17 vs. B-24 question, I completely understand that some simplification is needed for this context. But might a single loss rate percentage be too oversimplified? A decent percentage of B-17 losses happened in the first year of the European Air War, against a dominant Luftwaffe, and before the B-24 was in as wide of service. Which aircraft had a higher loss rate under similar conditions - let's say, a higher loss rate in the last 12 months of the European Air War? That might be a more apples to apples comparison. I always enjoy your videos and am thankful for the time and effort you put into preserving our history and conveying it to a new generation!

[@DawnOfTheDead991]

The B-24s came later when there was more allied fighter protection and the Germans AA defense were just getting overwhelmed. While the B-17s kicked off the strategic bombing campaign in 1942 when the Luftwaffe was strongest.

[@bluharris662]

I think one plane to consider would be the Brewster Buffalo although I know it didn’t last but a few missions

[@TazioRatnayeke]

Re: P38...... did the rotation of the props and the critical engine feature in your reaearch?

[@Yohann67]

#4, sorry the losses of the p38 would be more related to the greater training needed and failures due to intercoolers and other problems the Allisons had at very high alt.

[@bodieb.1239]

Really good and interesting video. I was a bit surprised on a few things. Never knew the B29 was such a crapper.

[@williamvolkmann8658]

Nothing wondered why when they do squadron flights they don't spread them out over several miles would make it much harder and it would be able to detect the pockets of flat guns a lot easier and avoid them by grouping then away from the flat gun patterns.

[@steveshoemaker6347]

Thank you TJ3 History and your excellent research...... Shoe🇺🇸

[@TJ3]

Thanks Shoe!

[@timf6916]

Great job, nice information

[@AndrewTryon]

Part of the P38's problem was how it was used. The P38 was designed as a high altitude bomber interceptor, not as a "dog" fighter

[@Cuccos19]

I missed the P-39 Airacobra in US hands here. As it was almost half of the AAF fighter numbers in the early stage of the Pacific Theater, and was much outclassed by the Zeros I would be curious about the loss rates of this type too.

[@TJ3]

The P-39 had a loss rate of 1.26%! Below that of the P-38, but certainly could have been higher if it saw the intense combat that the P-38 saw. There is certainly a case to be made that the P-39 would have had a higher loss rate in the same combat tenure.

[@alexzenz760]

Interestingly the sovjets like the p 39....

[@Otokichi786]

@@alexzenz760 Combat over the Eastern front was up to 15,000 feet, where fighter performance favored existing Soviet and "second line" Allied fighters. Bf-109 pilots could dictate the dogfight, but all the action was below their optimal performance envelope. A few hits from the P-39's 37mm cannon and the Axis pilot was speaking Russian.;)

[@alexzenz760]

@@Otokichi786 only ONE hit. IF the f.. 37 wouldn t jam

[@rbilleaud]

I think you meant the P-51 was "venerable" not "vulnerable". Two different meanings there. The P-38 was a great fighter, but a challenging plane to fly. Fewer Lightnings were lost to the enemy than to accidents on takeoff and landings.

[@sharkusvelarde]

What about the Brewster Buffalo? 😅

[@TJ3]

Haha I only considered aircraft with a certain minimum combat time!

[@stephenbarker5162]

​@@TJ3Am I not right in thinking the US did.not use it in combat due to its poor performance. Ironically with the Finnish Air force 18:34 fighting the Soviets it enjoyed great success. Just think of the loss rates you would be calculating on Russian aircraft.

[@RidgeRunner1952]

The P-38 was the ighter that had the range to fly cover for bombers in the early Pacific theater. That alone would set it apart from the other fighters.

[@larrycable1948]

They used two different trainers for the P38, the AT- and AT-10. Both were fixed props and neither were tricycle landing gear. They were sticking pilots into aircraft that didn't work like the ones they trained. Wonder why the lose rate was higher? I would also include the fact that in the SW Pacific, they were flying over long distances of either Jungle or open ocean during a time frame when the Japanese had air superiority.

[@stevekaczynski3793]

I don't know about dangerous to fly, but the tail assembly on the P-38 must have made it difficult to bail out. A pilot exiting the cockpit stood a good chance of colliding with that tail bar.

[@real_fjcalabrese]

The Soviet direct copy of the B-29, the Tupolev Tu-4, was loved by its pilots. They often cited its safety.

[@bradfordbroswtent.8450]

Love your videos. Maybe you could do this like a series, Next the UK, or maybe Germany or Japan as well.

[@RobertHettinger-b5x]

Good post 👍 I do agree with your findings

[@RabidMullet]

Higher P38 loss rate could have more to due with the types of missions flown vs. other aircraft like the B-26.

[@bf-696]

P-38 and B-29 were a surprise. The Devastator, not so much.

[@robinsparkes-u1l]

Great presentation

[@rileycpo]

What about the Brewster Buffalo or the P39? Where did they fall out at?

[@oldcremona]

The Devastator was designed in 1935 and entered service in 1937, that first all-metal monoplane to fly for the Navy. It's not really fair to compare it to later planes that came along during a period of rapid improvement in aircraft design.

[@sk43999]

The "problem" with the Devastator was that it was actually a very good plane when it entered service (particular when compared with the Buffalo and the Vindicator of the same vintage). The Buffalo was replaced by the Wildcat, the Vindicator by the Dauntless, but the Devastator had no replacement ready and was kept in service. Navy should probably have started the process of procuring a replacement a year earlier than it actually did.

[@ECF-270]

My father was a mechanic on B-26s and later B-29s. I recall him mentioning how he witnessed a B-29 coming into the base with an engine fire--and the unfortunate conclusion. Great video--as always! Quick question, if I may. Could you define "combat sortie"? My impression was that a flight of 10 aircraft would equal 10 sorties. With that in mind, the number of Wildcat sorties seemed low considering the number produced and its time in service.

[@TJ3]

Yes this is correct! And this is because there were far more FM-2 Wildcat sorties rather than the F4F Wildcat sorties on my table. This leads me to believe many of the mid-late war aircraft called Wildcats were FM-2 instead of original F4Fs.