Best Fighter Plane Of The War?

[redcoat]

[quote=jimbotosome]So in truth all you have is your own assumption on what happened. But you have no evidence to back it up. Your book doesn't say they did NOT engage them[quote].

Here's what my book ( The Battle of the Airfields, by Norman Franks) says about the 388th FS when it returned to Metz;
"The Group's returning aircraft arrived too late to intervene. As they came back over their field, all they could see was burning aircraft and trucks"
Why would a well respected aviation author wish to lie about something like this ????

Originally Posted by redcoat

.
The first production P-47N's only came off the line in December 44, and these were sent to the Pacific. A small number were sent to Europe in March 45, but saw little if any combat.

Originally Posted by jimbotosome

You are also assuming that the first ones were not delivered to the Ninth (its amazing the number of assumptions you make in your accusations of me making assumptions)

Again, its not an assumption both the book " The Mighty Eighth, War Manual, by Roger A. Freeman and This web-site
Http://www.rwebs.net/ghostsqd/p-47.htm
state that the only M/N models of the P-47 to see service in Europe did so with the 56 FG of the 8th Air Force.

Originally Posted by jimbotosome

But whether or not they flew 467 mph or 433 mph is of no consequence, they could have easily have caught the Germans. I am surprised that you don't assume since both of our books said they turned around and returned that they didn't engage them. Why would it even mention an immediate turn around since they didn't enumerate any of the other planes en route to intercept them? I don't think both books would have published the same drivel of trivia.

You are quite right it doesn't matter what speed they could go, because as my source states they were too late

jimbotosomeThe RAF 4th FG began using P-47s in early 1943.

You are mistaken. There is no RAF 4th FG. The unit you are referring to in error is the 4th FG of the USAAF

Originally Posted by jimbotosome

In addition the M model was used "primarily" to chase down V1 rockets because "the Tempests and Spitfires" were usually not fast enough to catch the 400 mph flying bombs from behind before they got to the populated areas.

Only around 130 M models were built and they only served with the 56 FG Group of the 8th Air Force,entering operational service on the 14 January 45. ( though due to unexplained engine failures, the M model was grounded for short periods in February and March, the fault was found to be that the engines had received incorrect corrosion treatment), source 'The Mighty Eighth' by Roger A. Freeman.

If the British didn't use them more, then it was to their hurt. It is possible that they preferred slower planes because they didn't have enough skilled pilots to handle the Jug. It was not for a plane for beginners

I have at no point, insulted the USAAF in any way , so I would be grateful if you cut out the insults about the RAF

[sokka]

nm

[GUMALANGI]

If the British didn’t use them more, then it was to their hurt. It is possible that they preferred slower planes because they didn’t have enough skilled pilots to handle the Jug. It was not for a plane for beginners.

This rather too much i guess,.. am not brits nor western,.. Battle of Britain,.... ... RAF, Against much much superior number,.. and somehow technological disadvantage (latest Bf109F and FW 190) combined with highly trained pilots and crew, managed to survived and won the battle.

By late 43,. it was the opposite to the Luftwaffe,.. and they lost.

[jimbotosome]

Again, its not an assumption both the book " The Mighty Eighth, War Manual, by Roger A. Freeman and This web-site
Http://www.rwebs.net/ghostsqd/p-47.htm
state that the only M/N models of the P-47 to see service in Europe did so with the 56 FG of the 8th Air Force.

I have already conceded that they probably used P-47Ds but would have still been able to catch them. The reason that the P-47M models were only with the 56 FG of the Eighth is because it was not a Fighter/Bomber but rather just a Fighter and the 56th preferred the Jug over the Mustang. The Ninth used Fighter/Bombers exclusively since it was a tactical unit and could not use the M since it had no bomb racks.

You are mistaken. There is no RAF 4th FG. The unit you are referring to in error is the 4th FG of the USAAF

I think you are a tad off the mark. The 4th FG were mostly Americans volunteers but it was RAF and was formed in 1940. They flew Spitfires until April 1943 where they switched to the Jug until February 1944 where they switched to Mustangs. They were the top scoring fighter group in the ETO.

I have at no point, insulted the USAAF in any way , so I would be grateful if you cut out the insults about the RAF

That was in no way an insult. The US lost around 1700 Jugs crashing during training and landing accidents. This was not an easy plane to fly. It was too powerful and had a very heavy rate of descent. The RAF had a lot fewer pilots. My point was that the RAF may have assumed that potential losses like that were prohibitive. Again, I didn’t insult the RAF, and I have no desire to insult the RAF. I would be grateful if you would remove the chip from your shoulder.

[redcoat]

Originally posted by jimbotosome@Sep 26 2005, 08:32 PM

I think you are a tad off the mark. The 4th FG were mostly Americans volunteers but it was RAF and was formed in 1940. They flew Spitfires until April 1943 where they switched to the Jug until February 1944 where they switched to Mustangs. They were the top scoring fighter group in the ETO.

No.
The 3 Eagle Squadrons in Fighter Command the 71, 121, and 133, were not part of a unified command while with the RAF.
It was only after their transfer to the USAAF on 29 September 1942, that the Eagle Squadrons were incorporated into the Fourth Fighter Group, USAAF as the 334th(71), 335th(121), and 336th(133)."



http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/es.html

[adamcotton]

I find these fantastic claims for for the P-47 and P-51 faintly ridiculous; and the derogatory comments on the Spitfire frankly annoying!!!

Let's get one thing clear: the P-47 and P-51 were superb combat aircraft without which the USAAF could not have prosecuted its daylight bombing campaign. BUT - the figures for kill/loss ratios need to be put into perspective....

The USAAF was very willing to accept is pilots' word that a "kill" had been scored. One P-51 pilot, Bill Whisner (I think) was credited with 5 confirmed kills in one mission under circumstances that, had RAF criterion been applied, would have resulted in his being credited with only 1! The RAF had very strict guidelines and awarded "kills" on a "Destroyed: unequivocal", "Destroyed: equivocal" and "Damaged" basis - the first two being widely known as "Destroyed" and "Probable". In each case, the cine gun camera had to record the action and/or an independent witness had to corroborate it. Its therefore hardly surprising that the kill/loss ratio figures for the P-47 and 51 appear so inordinately high - the fact is the figures, however unwittingly, bely the truth. The RAF had it right. The USAAF had it wrong.

Also, what is this nonsense that the Spitfire operated only out of England and over the Channel? The Spitfire, in just about every version, was deployed in every theatre of war, and very successfully too. It even went to sea in its navalised version. It didn't have the range of the American fighters, but it certainly exhibited their durability and toughness on numerous occasions. And contemporary versions of the Spitfire could always outclimb both the Mustang and P-47, and ALL version outmanouvere them!

Nuff said!!

[spidge]

A few examples of the travelling Spitfire.

The first overseas deployment of Spitfires took place in March when 15 Spitfires, carrying 90 gallon fuel pods, took off from the flight deck of HMS Eagle bound for Malta. Subsequent deliveries of Spitfires turned the Battle for Malta in the RAF's favour. One Spitfire, suffering fuel failure, became the first non hooked aircraft to land upon an aircraft carrier! 126 Squadron (Malta) were the first to carry 250lb bombs, using them in operations over Sicily. 145 Squadron were the first to receive Spitfires in the desert in April. One Spitfire, stripped of armour,carrying only 2 machine guns, Merlin engine fine tuned and fitted with a 4 blade propeller, climbed to over 42,000 feet to shoot down a JU-86p Recce aircraft. Following this, JU86p's were shot down at heights of 45,000 and 50,000 feet.

The Carrier version of the Spitfire was the Seafire. First in action in November during the Allied invasion of Morocco and Algeria, a Seafire from 801 Squadron, HMS Furious, shot down a Dewoitine 520. The US forces also used Spitfire 5B's during these landings. The Germans sent the FW190 to the western Desert in November, and in December Spitfire Mk9s were attached to 145 Squadron to counteract them.

145 Squadron, consisting of Poles, shot down more enemy aircraft in the first 2 months, with Spitfire Mk9's, than any other Polish Units in the whole year! In February 72 Squadron arrived in North Africa with Spitfire Mk9s. By this time most of the Squadrons in 11 Group had Mk9 Spitfires and operations over France and the Low Countries continued with Spitfires escorting Bostons of 2 Group, mounting fighter sweeps and undertaking shipping recce flights. The Mk11, with a Griffin engine, came into service with 41 Squadron in February.

Following the raid on Dieppe, Air Sea Rescue received Spitfire Mk2's equipped with the ability to drop dinghy, food and medicine packs to ditched aircrews. Fully armed, it was able to defend itself and await the arrival of the rescue seaplane which it would then see safely home. In May Britain gave 140 Mk5's to Russia and by the end of the war this had been added to by 1200 Mk 9s. Nearly 50 went to Portugal and some to Turkey in the same year. It was a PR version of the Spitfire Mk9 of 542 Squadron that brought back those famous images of the Ruhr Dams in full flood, following the Dambusters raid of 617 Squadron.

Both Spitfires and Seafires took part in the invasion of Sicily, a Spitfire of 72 Squadron being the first to land there on 11 July. The 25th July saw Spitfires of 322 Wing shoot down 21JU-52s and 4 Bf109s in the space of only 10 minutes. During the landings at Salerno, much of the combat overhead was carried out by Seafire's and in 5 days, the Fleet Air Arm lost 60, mostly due to carrier landing accidents. 3 Spitfire Squadrons were also based near Darwin, Australia. 607, 615 and 136 Squadrons were there to counter Japanese raids. The Zero was at an advantage in the dog fight but was slower than the Spitfire. 615 got its first victory with a Dinah Recce plane being shot down over the Burma frontline. On 31 December, 136 Squadron intercepted Japanese Bombers and fighters, shooting down 12 planes for the loss of 1 Spitfire.

In the New Year there were 6 Squadrons of Spitfires in the Far East, 2 had Mk5c's and 4 had Mk8s. The Mk8 considered to be superior to the Zero. In March the 5c's had been replaced with Mk8's, now a total of 7 Squadrons with Mk8. During the siege of Imphal, which lasted 80 days, the Japanese only managed to down 3 transport aircraft, thanks to the defending Spitfires.

In the Far East there were 21 Squadrons of Spitfires, including 9 Squadrons of the Indian Air Force. 2 Squadrons of Seafires formed part of the British Pacific Fleet. Seafires covered the landings at Rangoon and Penang and the oil fields in Sumatra. Due to the absence of any Japanese aircraft, Seafires also strafed ground positions. No Seafires were lost to combat, but some got lost in landing accidents. April 1st saw Seafires shoot down 3 Japanese Kamikaze Zeros. The last Seafires to see action were on 15 August when, escorting US Avengers, their Mk3s shot down 8 Zeros without loss.

[Gnomey]

Nice information spidge.

[jimbotosome]

Unbelievable. Ok people, you win.

Let me see if I can summarize the manifold inferences on what I have seen posted in this thread at least as it appears to me, yet another “dumb American”, just so you will know I have understood the loftier things that are not superficially constrained by statistics:

“Sure all four bladed Jugs could go 440 mph even in 1943 and late models varied between approaching and exceeding 500 mph in straight and level flight whereas the Spitfires in 1943 could go an astonishing 357 mph with late models XIV maxing out at 446 mph.”
”Yes, the Spitfire was very fragile and had limited range whereas the Jug could take a severe beating and still come home and had decent range”
“Yes the Jug destroyed the Luftwaffe with its range and virtual invincibility by D-Day”.
“Yes the Jug could run down and catch even the fastest jets in shallow dives”
“Yes, Hitler’s Bodenplatte attack was aimed to stop the devastating Jug bombers that were chewing up his armor, supply and fast fighters send to stop them and warranted shooting the works for the hopes of stopping this deadly menace”
“Yes the Jug had more firepower than any other fighter in the war”
“Yes the Jug could carry a ton and a half of bombs and rockets”
“Yes the Jug shot down more airplanes than any allied plane in the ETO”
“Yes the Jug could escort bombers deep into Berlin.”
“Yes the Jug using the dive and climb tactics were immune to all enemy planes as long as the Jug pilots were aware of the presence of these planes”
“Yes American pilots flying the Jugs were the least experienced throughout the war because of the program that let them go home after 200 sorties and cycled in new pilots”
“Yes the American pilots flew the dangerous sorties of diving on the heavily defended German airfields.”
“Yes, nothing could escape a Jug by the most popular escape maneuver of diving away”
“Yes the Jug could pull out of compressibility without its tail ripping off”
“Yes, a 7.5 ton Jug with the 4 blade props could out climb even the daunted Spitfire XIV”
“Yes a relatively inexperienced USAAF Jug pilot shot down Adolf Galland in his ME-262 by chasing him down, the highest-kill ETO pilot who had more kills of Spitfires than any other pilot in the war”

BUT!!!

“The Jug was NOT made in Britain.”
“Even though the Merlin engines in the P-51s and the earlier Spitfires were made by Packard in the US and produced much less horsepower than the supercharged Allisons, the Allisons were not British design therefore the additional horsepower would not have been beneficial to combat aircraft so there was no need to pursue the design of a supercharger into these planes until late in the war when they were no longer needed.”
“The Jug was NOT flown by RAF pilots therefore highly underutilized and not worthy of consideration”
“The Jug’s kills were not valid because RAF pilots assisted them by chasing the German planes into the sights of the US pilot’s gun and quickly instructing the US pilot over the radio when to pull the trigger to get the kill. And even though the Spitfire’s didn’t have the range to actually help the Jugs deep into France and Germany, they did strictly by the skill of the RAF pilot make the fuel demands of no consequence to the overstated success of the Jug at eliminating the Luftwaffe's capacity to mount an attack by May 1944”
“The Jug’s bombs and rockets were not manufactured in British factories and therefore had a diminished capacity to kill and destroy.”
“The Jug’s kills were not valid because the USAAF had no integrity like the RAF did and counted the fact that rounds were missing from the Jug’s guns storage as a “kill per round” credit.
“In Bodenplatte they did go after the American Jugs but they thought these were RAF Spitfires behind the US lines and the need to sucker punch the RAF was much more important than losing virtually their entire Luftwaffe. In addition, if they had been Spitfire or Jugs as long as they were flown by RAF pilots, then not one parked plane would have been hit and not one Luftwaffe plane could have escaped.”
“Yes the Mustang too, was faster and more maneuverable than the Spitfire XIV with the Spitfire XIV flying a Griffon engine and the Mustang flying the older Merlin engines but the Griffon was made in Britain and therefore the lower speed of the Spitfire was compensation for better production quality of the Griffon over the Merlin”
“Yes the Luftwaffe was erased by D-Day but it was instead the “precise” British night bombing where they would save a bomb or two on the way back, drop low on the dangerous airfields and being great RAF pilots would drop the spare bombs in the perfect spot to blow up all the planes, give credit for the kills to Jug pilots, and prevent disaster when those planes didn’t climb in the morning and shoot down they RAF’s pesky little US brothers flying Jugs. In addition, the ignorant USAAF generals didn’t understand that a target is much easier to bomb when you can’t see it at night so the daylight raids had little impact on destroying Germany’s war making capacity because the bombers didn’t have the benefit of a blackout to help zero in on the target like the night bombing did”
“Ike being too stupid for words, didn’t realize that had he only consulted Monty, he would have understood that the American war factories that could have built 2 Spitfires to each Jug would have kept them from ever losing a pilot due to plane even though the RAF considered their Spitfires inferior to German fighters and the American pilots considered their Jugs to be much far superior to the German planes and foolishly proved it by successful practice, they would have all been better off taking Monty’s advice and getting rid of foolish confidence in their equipment and become more apprehensive than aggressive”
“No British historian has ever written a book praising the Jug therefore it cannot possibly be a superior plane”.
“The successes that the Jugs did have, which are, without question, greatly overstated and exaggerated, were primarily because the American’s took off from RAF fields, no other reason.”
“The Jug was not pretty so it could not have possibly been dangerous. The Star and Stripes insignia would have been better served to have been replaced by a Bullseye insignia in that the German pilots would have thought it had an RAF pilot in it and bailed out before engaging them”
“Adolf Galland, upon seeing the Jug pilot that put him out of the war, realizing he could not outrun it with his ME-262, naturally assumed it was top secret a Spitfire XX model which must be a new secret weapon of the Brits, upon seeing this and believing he had an RAF pilot catching him from behind, passed out giving the “lucky” US pilot time to close his eyes and shoot hoping his plane was pointing at the ME-262”.
“The M model Jugs were not used “specifically” to chase down V1s. This is wrong everywhere and why it is only properly refuted here. A 490 mph airplane was simply not needed since no V1 could ever escape a Spitfire patrol”.

Now I did paraphrase some of the statements according to my “normally non-American” ability to actually read between the lines, and I think I captured the essence of what some of you seem to actually mean. It’s obvious from so many statements that the reputation for arrogance and cockiness of the British have in the States is so unfounded and perhaps hypocritical and that Americans were indeed such a big hindrance of Britain’s success in single-handedly winning WWII. But the brave Brits somehow managed even though they were weighed down with the pesky Yank kid brothers tagging along, constantly in the way, thwarting progress, and the wonderful British leadership somehow got around the gross incompetence of the American generals and poorly designed equipment they were taxed with using. I wonder how much quicker the ETO campaign would be if only the US had only been smart enough to perhaps serve as barracks servants shining RAF boots and washing their planes”, and stay out of the “real” war so Britain could function as the indomitable force that could have quickly done away with the Germans and then had enough time to eliminate Japan without the US getting in the way there either. If only.

So, even though you might not agree with my interpretation of some of the points, did I at least illustrate my epiphany of the humility that we lowly Americans need to understand and practice about our dubious contributions to world history? After all, we have only been around 230 years so how useful could we have actually been?

So why don't we talk about equipment that was common to all Allies, like the Shermans, or the M7s, or would that lead to lectures of how the British used them so much better and how they were wasted being used in the US fronts, in the hands of incompetent American soldiers, or despite what you have heard about the D-Day beaches, Operation Lüttich, the Metz, the Ardennes Offensive, the British always bore the brunt of the German armies. Hey, I know a good stumper for the WWII Quiz. “Name something positive the US did in WWII to had a net benefit to the war's outcome?”, though it might be a while before I can post that question if at all since I would first have to research such an obscure fact assuming it even exists and run the risk of another exaggeration in the process.

[adamcotton]

Dear Jimbotosome,

At the risk of sounding anti-American, I feel I cannot let some of your last remarks pass without comment. Also, you are plainly mistaken about some of the information you present as fact....

As an example: the P-47 did NOT have the range to escort the American heavies deep into Berlin, certainly not from bases in England. The Americans only raided Berlin for the first time on 6 March, 1944, and the only fighters that accompanied them all the way there and back were (Merlin engined) P-51 Mustangs, which had entered service in January that year. Prior to that, the main Amercian escort fighters had been the P-38 Lighning and P-47 Thunderbolt, both of which - even when fitted with auxillary fuel tanks - lacked the range to go with the bombers all the way into Germany, and consequently used to turn for home at the German border, leaving the bombers to fend for themselves. American escort pilots of the pre P-51 period are on record as stating that they could see the German fighters in the distance, waiting for them to turn for home before pouncing on their charges...

Also, it was not ONLY American pilots who dived to attack heavily defended airfields. You should try reading "Wing Leader" by leading British ace James Edgar "Johnnie Johnson (Chatto & Windus, 1956), or "The Big Show" by Pierre Clostermann (Flammarion, 1948, and recently re-issued). Both these men were Spitfire pilots, and their tales of shooting up Luftwaffe airfields (as well as tanks, trains, ammunition dumps, etc), make compelling reading!!!

I doin't think any British person seriously believes that the war could have been won without the industrial might and manpower of the US, but if any people are arrogant it was, and is, the Americans. And let us not forget that the USAAF naively believed they could send bombers unescorted in daylight all the way to Germany and back despite RAF advice to the contrary. And the Americann fighter units did adopt RAF practices in terms of formations flown, etc. That was simple common sense.

Statistics never tell the whole story, agreed. But some facts are indisputable. The P-47 was a great aircraft, but it wasn't the wonder machine you make it out to be. A