Talk:Lockheed P-38 Lightning

Noted pilots

In my opinion, some of the sections under noted pilots are too long and go out of scope, particularly the Charles Lindbergh and Antoine de Saint-Exupéry sections. The first paragraph of Lindbergh's section has nothing to do with the P-38 at all! Should we trim those sections, and how much should they be trimmed if so? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:06, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

There are pilots who got high scores on the P-38 and are associated with it. There are also a few pilots who are associated with the P-38 for other reasons. For the former it is sufficient to cover where and when they flew and what they achieved. For the latter, a bit of context to establish what they may be better known for is valid. That said, if they have a Wikipedia article then full details are a click away and so trimming to the essence can be performed. I would avoid subsectioning as unnecessary and adding clutter to the contents list at top of page. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:46, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Anti-P-38 Writing?

In the Operational History section on Africa and Italy, too much of the section is focused on losses and shortcomings of this fighter. I'm not saying we shouldn't report the poor showing there, but I'm not sure we need to keep hammering the point home... 173.73.128.63 (talk) 20:50, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

The material you are discussing was even more "anti" when it was introduced by User:Gian piero milanetti in November 2019. I reorganized the pros and cons to make it more readable, and less of an attack on the P-38. The main point is that American fighter tactics were completely idiotic until Feb 1943—it was not the fault of the P-38. All that to say I'm not in favor of a further reduction of the negative facts. Binksternet (talk) 23:35, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Typo?

Version says: "The 474th operated out of bases in France, Belgium, and Germany in primarily the ground-attack missions until November–December 1945."

As the war ended on 8. May 1945 in Europe, does this refer to a post war stay on the air-bases or is this a typo? 2003:E5:3F0C:7000:F892:7195:60E0:777F (talk) 21:48, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Comparison about 50s planes

Can you please published about the comparison of Lockheed P-38 Lightning 2 and North American Aviation P-51D Mustang , I would be grateful to you . Archangel Oxcart (talk) 15:46, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

The Forked Tailed devil myth

The earliest public source for this a LIFE magazine article from AUG 44 adn it merits a single line. LIFE Magazine was strongly propagandised during WWII (which can clearly be seen from the edition to which I provided a link: https://books.google.com.au/books?id=RVAEAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA51&dq=gabelschwanz+teufel&pg=PA51&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=gabelschwanz%20teufel&f=false

The myth has simply been repeated through various publications and by various authors.

There are no contemporary Luftwaffe sources on this nor any mentioned verification in memoirs of Luftwaffe fighter pilots many of the most prominent of whom deride the P-38. This belongs with 'Whispering Death') Beaufighter) and Whistling Death'(F-4U) from the Pacific in the boneyard of unsupported claims.

A first source is needed to make this claim not the repetition of a myth no matter how many times it has been done. If it cannot be verified through an earlier source and preferably a German one, then it should not be repeated or the language should be softened to say 'allegedly nicknamed'

The credibility of Wikipedia depends on verified first (if possible) sources not people reporting on rumours or wartime propaganda. The multiplication of anecdotes does not equal data. Completeaerogeek (talk) 02:50, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

While the Life article mentions the name, it is your original research that takes that as being propaganda. That is not acceptable on wikipedia. You've been editing for 12 years, hopefully you already know this. You also should know the absence of evidence is not evidence, and making that argument is both a logical fallacy and original research.

Your original edit contained "The article rings as typical jingoistic patter of the times." which was massive red flag.

"In reality the P-38 gave seasoned Luftwaffe pilots little trouble" is unsupported with a source.

None of the current edit should stay in the article.

Please abide by WP:BRD, stop edit warring, remove your edit, and seek consensus before adding anything similar. (Hohum ^@) 09:19, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for contacting me. The person putting the Forked Tailed Devil information in, has used a spurious source. It is non-referenced web page. No primary source, no verification or evidentiary support. This has long been known as wartime propaganda. There are np contemporary credible sources from German or Allied wartime documents that verify that the Luftwaffe pilots used this name. Further a word search on Google shows versions of this phrase to be plagiarised across multiple sources without attribution. if they can supply a primary German source I will retract my edit.

This is the plagiarised text: from this source:http://raf-112-squadron.org/82nd_fg.html

On April 5, 1943, 26 P-38Fs of the 82nd Fighter Group claimed the destruction of 31 enemy aircraft as against the loss of six Lightnings. In these air battles, mixed success was obtained Because of the tactics of the enemy, the Lightnings were forced to fight at lower altitudes of 15,000 feet, and in battles against fighters it was not entirely successful. The twin engines restricted maneuverability to some extent and the Lightning had a wheel control instead of the conventional stick, which may also have restricted maneuverability. Nevertheless, the Lightning was effective against bombers and had a sensational zoom climb that could rarely be matched. It wreaked great havoc among Rommel's air transport well out to sea, earning for itself the German nickname "der Gabelschwanz Teufel"--the Fork-Tailed Devil. Completeaerogeek (talk) 22:31, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't see any propaganda here. What I see instead is boosterism in the media. The assertion was first published as an editorial teaser ("Coming Next Month") by Popular Science in their August 1943 issue, the magazine available Friday July 30 or Monday August 2, and the assertion quickly appeared in other American media sources: in Life magazine on August 16, 1943, written by career journalist William P. Gray, as promised in Popular Science in September by science writer Andrew R. Boone, and in a Oldsmobile/General Motors advertisement carried by the Army, Navy, Air Force Journal & Register in November 1943. Plenty more appearances in 1944 and 1945. The word "propaganda" carries an organized air, but I don't see this assertion coming off that way. It pops up organically. Binksternet (talk) 23:43, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Boosterism is propaganda. The repetition of an unverified story is a folk tale, not data.

propaganda

noun

1.

information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view.

The media in Allied countries was tightly controlled during WWII and cannot be consider objective, government censorship offices existed even in the US. The fact that a story spread amongst wartime biased publications is not unusual.

What we are lacking is a primary source. Find me the German source for this claim or ANY German verification and and I will leave it be.

The source used is not appropriate and the claim should be removed as it is directly contradicted by German sources such as Galland in the same Wiki article!

Adolf Galland from his book The First and the Last saying exactly this.: General der Jagdflieger Adolf Galland was unimpressed with the P-38, declaring "it had similar shortcomings in combat to our Bf 110, our fighters were clearly superior to it."

Not exactly a Forked Tailed Devil... Completeaerogeek (talk) 02:50, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

The source used for the claim of the Forked Tailed Devil is not a legitimate source. It is a web page without any specific source or APA citation or any verification.

Any source for this claim would have to be at least contemporary with the LIFE article. It would have to be a primary source predating August 1943.

Better still it would have to come from German sources, yet in the same article the Luftwaffe 'experten' such as Galland and Bauer deride the P-38. There are numerous contemporary Luftwaffe sources showing that the P-38 was not highly regarded much less 'der Gabelschwanz Teufel.'

It is a silly story. They certainly didn't give silly names to Spitfires and Mustangs that gave them much more grief.

This has been widely known in aviation historian circles at propaganda along with the Japanese allegedly naming using 'Whispering death' for the Bristol Beaufighter and 'Whistling death' for the F-4U.

If you actually ready the LIFE Magazine article, you will see how positively slanted it is as were most publications during WWII.

Poor sources such as blogs and personal web pages, unreferenced, have no place on Wiki. It damages its credibility. Completeaerogeek (talk) 02:37, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

The sourcing for the claim that "der Gabelschwanz Teufel" was a nickname for the P-38 in use by German forces during WW2 is wholly inadequate. We have irrefutable evidence that U.S. publicity material was making such a claim, but nothing of substance in the way of evidence to back the claim up. Publicity material - regardless of how it is described - should not be used to support such assertions. Any legitimate claim would have to be based on material derived from German primary sources, not Allied ones. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

We should tell the reader that the nickname appeared in American media stories beginning August 1943, and was repeated by more American writers throughout the war. But telling the reader that there is no German primary source for the nickname is not supported by a source saying that specifically. Telling them that is a violation of WP:No original research. This edit by Completeaerogeek was an egregious violation and cannot be entertained. Binksternet (talk) 15:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Note that the International Air Power Review article by David Donald used as a reference does mention the "der gabelschwanz Teufel" nickname - "Although Luftwaffe pilots stated that they would prefer to face the P-38 in combat rather than s Spitfire or P-47, the Lightning nevertheless gained their respect - and the nickname ..." (p. 140).Nigel Ish (talk) 18:32, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't strike me as a particularly good source. Not without some sort of explanation as to how the U.S. publicity machine came to know about this convenient 'nickname' so quickly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:55, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Since we don't have any source saying that the nickname was fabricated was made up at the moment, and someone who certainly passes muster as an RS saying that the nickname was used, this does not seem entirely logical. Please provide reliable sources. And we can hardly just use the statements by Galland and Bauer to say that the P-38 was useless when we have other comments by other German fighter aces (e.g. Stienhoff, Kaiser, etc) that praise characteristics of the P-38.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:45, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I said nothing whatsoever about what German fighter aces thought of the P-38. And we don't need to cite further sources to justify rejecting a source as unreliable. The simple fact of the matter is that the earliest verifiable evidence for this supposed 'nickname' comes from U.S. publicity, produced during wartime when they were in little position to know how the Luftwaffe referred to Allied aircraft in casual conversation. Given the clear reasons to doubt the validity of the 'nickname' claim, the correct procedure would be to simply omit any mention of it. It adds nothing of any real significance to the history of the aircraft. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:05, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

The point is that no Luftwaffe source bears this out and the majority of 'experten' had no concerns about the P-38. Even Steinhoff is no concerned about it even if he expresses admirations doe certain aspects.

The more important point is that the current reference is to a web page that contains no citations. There is NO publication I can find that cited a primary source. Unless someone can show a source earlier than the LIFE article which was clearly wartime propaganda as the entire intent of the article was to rehabilitate the P-38s image, the reference should be removed from this article as it is effectively unverified.

The credibility of a Wiki page is firmly founded on its citations. That is why I allowed my 2nd and 3rd year University students to use it as an information aggregator with the proviso that they sceptically explored the citations adn looked for primary sources. I can find 10 'reputable' WWI aircraft books that mention the 'forked tailed devil' but not one of them contains a primary source. This unverified nickname should be removed until it can be verified or flagged as 'citation needed' until a primary source can be found.

It should be held with a most suspicious view along with the 'Whispering/Whistling death' propaganda about the Japanese and the Beaufighter and Corsair. Completeaerogeek (talk) 02:56, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Interesting article, from Lockheed Martin no less. It gives the origin of the nickname: ... as the P-38 showed its versatility in North Africa, a lone hysterical German pilot surrendered to soldiers at an Allied camp near Tunisia, pointing up to the sky and repeating one phrase—“der Gableschwanz Teufl”—over and over. Once the phrase was translated, U.S. officials realized the focus of the pilot’s madness. The P-38 had been given a new nickname: the “fork-tailed devil.” [1] If this source is valid, it shows usage by a lone German pilot, picked up by the Lockheed publicity machine... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:30, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

That corporate PR piece from 2020 simply regurgitates William P. Gray's article in Life from August 16, 1943.

I agree with Nigel Ish that the absence of sources describing the nickname as fabricated leaves us to conclude that the sources asserting the nickname are what we must summarize for the reader. I don't mind saying that the story first appeared in American media so that we can avoid saying the story is absolutely verified. Binksternet (talk) 21:53, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Wording that makes the first verifiable source clear would probably be ok, though I'm unconvinced we need to say anything about it at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:58, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

The first verifiable source is a brief editorial teaser from Popular Science.[2] I would extend your suggestion to list the first two full articles, the ones in Life in mid-August 1943, and Popular Science two weeks later. Binksternet (talk) 23:37, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

The current reference is to a web page that contains no citations. There is NO publication I can find that cited a primary source. Unless someone can show a source earlier than the LIFE article which was clearly wartime propaganda as the entire intent of teh article was to rehabilitate the P-38s image, the reference should be removed from this article as it is effectively unverified.

The credibility of a Wiki page is firmly founded on its citations. That is why I allowed my 2nd and 3rd year University students to use it as an information aggregator with the proviso that they sceptically explored the citations adn looked for primary sources. I can find 10 'reputable' WWI aircraft books that mention the 'forked tailed devil' but not one of them contains a primary source. There is no Luftwaffe source for this myth and given the poor opinion of Luftwaffe 'experten' about the P-38 this attributed name should be removed until it can be verified or flagged as 'citation needed' until a primary source can be found.

It should be held with a most suspicious view along with the 'Whispering/Whistling death' propaganda about the Japanese and the Beaufighter and Corsair. Completeaerogeek (talk) 02:53, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is built on WP:SECONDARY sources, not primary. We only require primary sources if secondary ones are in conflict. If there was a suitable secondary source saying the fork-tailed devil nickname was invented by Americans as propaganda, then we would certainly convey this info to the reader. Instead, all we have are skeptical Wikipedia editors saying the nickname is unlikely to have come from a German pilot as asserted explicitly in Life magazine on August 16, 1943, by career journalist William P. Gray. Gray's assertion is enough for Wikipedia to mention it. But skeptical editors by themselves are not enough to remove it. Frankly, I'm skeptical as well, but we have policies to follow. Binksternet (talk) 04:06, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I can't tell you who has invented the term Gabelschwanzteufel. At least some contemporary Germans called it that, and maybe German soldiers carried the term to civilians (German Wiktionary - soldier slang -refers to it as a Wehrmacht nickname). I've learned to know two German eyewitness of the time who used that term, one being my father, still a child in 1945, the other being a soldier running for cover on an airfield with a Gabelschwanzteufel in his back. I'm German (I have no account on the English Wikipedia). Two links with articles where the term appears (September 2023): https://www.heimatjahrbuch-vulkaneifel.de/VT/hjb2015/hjb2015.121.htm, https://www.babenhaeuser-zeitung.de/homepage/babenhausen-umgebung/12-april-1944-starke-luftkaempfe-ueber-babenhausen-id40716.html. 2003:E5:3F10:6D00:783A:A363:BA0C:E4B4 (talk) 22:08, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Dubious or vague Statement in Lede

From the lede:

The P-38 was the only American -fighter aircraft in large-scale production throughout American involvement in the war, from the Attack on Pearl Harbor to Victory over Japan Day.

From Republic P-47 Thunderbolt variants:

[P-47B] an order for 773 production aircraft had been placed almost two years before on September 13, 1940.

[P-47N] The final P-47 rolled off the production line in December 1945.

Granted, the first is not specifically about production, but I doubt that Republic would just sit on that order for more than a year. --91.5.107.77 (talk) 09:47, 10 May 2024 (UTC)