Evening star., 1942-10-06
U. S. Fighter Planes

U. 5. Fighter Planes
The report of the aviation sub
committee Of the House Military AZ
fairs Committee on the wartime per-
formance of American combat planes
represents the first attempt to OBJ
tain and present to the people a
well-rounded picture of the showing
made by our planes against those of
the enemy. There has been a press
ing need for some one to do this job.
Largely as a result of reports put
out by the Senate's Truman COM
mittee, the public has been led to
believe that Americana made fighter
planes were decidedly inferior to the
Japanese Zeros and the best of the
German fighters. In fact, in it's first
report on this subject, the Truman
committee said that the P-4O pur-
suit ship, which would constitute
half Of our output this year, was no
better than a good training plane.
Because Of this background, the
report of the House group-based on
testimony from men who have flown
and fought in American planes and
those responsible for their perform
ance In the airs especially grati-
flying. The first phase of the House
report deals with comparative losses.
From February l, the date on which
we began to keep accurate figures by
types of planes, through September
20, Army aircraft destroyed 279
enemy planes against losses of ia
planes 1t should be noted that this
does not reveal how many enemy
planes were destroyed by our bomb
ers and how many by our fighters,
nor does 1t disclose how many of the
enemy planes shot down were bomb
ers and how many were fighters. But
the totals, nonetheless, are impress
sive. The only specific figures by
types are those for August, in which
month our P39s destroyed nineteen
enemy planes with a loss of four
P-39s, while our P-40s were shooting
down eighteen enemy planes with
the loss OF only two P-4Os. Once
again, the total Of enemy planes
destroyed is not broken down into
types, but the box score, as it stands.
should dispose of the notion that
our fighter planes cannot match
those OF the enemy. In this con-
nection, it should also be borne in
mind that the P-4Os and the P-39s
are medium altitude fighters, de-
signed to function at maximum ef-
ticiency up to about $4,000 feet. We
nave two types Of high altitude
f1ghters-the P-38, which has been
getting into action on an effective
scale only recently, and the PAT,
Which is not believed to have been in
combat as yet. When these newer
planes are available in ADEQUATE
numbers for high altitude work, our
fighter plane record should be even
better.
This prospect should not lead to
undue OPTIMISM however, and the
House committee has sounded a
timely word of warning with respect
to future operations. Experience has
shown that the percentage of air
losses rises as the scope of aerial war
1are broadens. This is because risks
are increased as operations extend
deeper into the enemys territory
Thus, while the public Justly may
feel proud of the showing made by
American planes, it must be expected
that the ratio of American losses to
enemy losses will become less favor
able as larger air offensives are
undertaken. But once appropriate
allowance has been made for this
factor, there is no reason, on the
basis of the House committees re-
port, why the people of this country
should not await the air battles of
the future with confidence.