Best Fighter Plane Of The War?

Originally posted by adamcotton@Aug 24 2005, 11:15 AM
Hi all,

The Japanese fighters, as is widely known, derived their agility from their light weight. They lacked armour, self sealing fuel tanks, even a parachute for the pilot! Their construction was light; one well placed burst of even .303 in machine gun fire was usually enough to turn them into a crumpling wreck or an instant fireball...

What is not as often realised is that the Japenese fighters engines' produced a lot less power than those of the allies; the Army's principal fighter of the mid-war years - the "Oscar" - suffered, for instance (particularly at altitude) from a poor climb performance. The same was true of the "Zero" (or "Navy "O"). Even the venerable Hawker Hurricane could both out-climb and out-dive the "Zero" and the "Oscar" - at least according to Terrence Kelly (see "Hurricane & Spitfire Pilots At War) who flew the type in action against both in 1942. As a result, RAF pilots employed the same "dive and slash" attacks as the Americans did, and as the Luftwaffe had attempted to do against their more agile RAF opponents in 1940.
[post=38082]Quoted post[/post]

The Japanese fighters lack of protection reflected the Samurai tradition that was still strong in Japan in WW II. Danger was treated with contempt and less importance was placed on the individual than in Western culture. In the case of the Zero this resulted in a light, maneouverable fighter with a range of almost 2,000 miles. A real advantage on the vast Pacific battlefield.

The A6M2 Zero had a 950 hp engine but weighed only 3,704 lbs empty. This gave it a greater thrust to weight ratio than any Allied fighter it faced early in the war and a much greater intial climb rate. In the hands of an experienced pilot, as many Japanese were at the start of the war, the Zero was a dangerous weapon.

 

I'd go for the Spitfire as the best interceptor over the whole war. By 1944, the Allies had more need of ground attack & long range escorts than interceptors & the P47 & Typhoon were superior to the Spitfire at the former & the P51D at the latter. However, the Spitfire was the best at the fighter's main task of gaining air superiority. Other aircraft bettered it for short periods of the war but over the whole period, the Spitfire comes top for me. The Me262 was the best at the end of the war but wasn't available for most of it. The FW190A was better than the Spitfire V but was then countered by the Spitfire IX. The Zero was very good but the Spitfire could master it once the Allies had realised the correct tactics to use against it.

 

Originally posted by adamcotton@Aug 24 2005, 05:50 PM
Hi Morse,

This debate on the P-39 seems somehow very emotive! I certainly don't want to "wrong foot" anyone; after all, we are all just having fun here. But I do apologize if my remarks come across as arrogance. It's simply that as someone who spends a great deal of time researching and writing (and earning a supplemental income in the process, so I have to be as sure as I can be of my facts), questioning everything is now second nature to me - even if it does mean treading on the toes of a few sacred cows from time to time....

So, if I may be permitted to return to the subject of the P-39 for one last airing, I promise I'll then shut up about it!!

First off, let me state that, as a pilot myself, I have the profoundest respect for the abilities and judgement of Yeager, and fully acknowledge that he is a far more skilled and experienced pilot (as is Eric Brown for that matter) than I could ever hope to be in my wildest dreams......

Also, in defence of the P-39, I have no doubt whatsoever that any enemy fighter unfortunate enough to find itself in the firing line of its huge 37mm cannon would have, quite literally, been cannon fodder with a very few seconds. It's destructive power was awesome! Also, low down - if it had well harmonized aeilerons - it would have been a delight to fly, as its wings were on the short side and therefore its roll rate quite high.

However, I cannot believe that the RAF, at a time in 1941 when they were still relatively short of good fighter aircraft, would have dismissed it - first from the air to air role, then from the ground attack role also - if it had any merit in either area of operations. Plainly, it wasn't suited to the day fighter war in western Europe and the RAF, by then with more than 18 months hard worn experience in that arena, was best fitted to make that judgement.

Another accomplished test pilot - in fact, the subject of my next article, George Welch - flew the P-39 in New Guinea in early 1943, and he despised it, referring to it disparigingly as "The Iron Dog"! (derived from the consensus "absolute dog" it became above 12.000 feet). Even more alarming, as far as Welch was concerned, was its very limited radius of action. Welch repeatedly requested a transfer to a P-38 squadron, and eventually got it!

I think one may here draw an analogy with the Me 110 which, prior to its baptism of fire, was seen the cream of the Luftwaffe's fighter force, an all conquering destroyer, the folly of which was highlighted only during the Battle of Britain. If one takes the P-39's merits in isolation, principally its heavy armament - like the Me110 - it might easily be seen to posess potential it really didn't have. Welch and most of the P-39s pilots saw the folly of its design concept all to clearly when they had to take it into battle; so did the RAF. I am not wiser or smarter than Yeager or Eric Brown, I simply have the benefit of a hindsight they did not possess.

Personally, when one considers the weight of the P-39 cannon, lubrication systems, gearing, elongated crankshaft, fuselage strengthening, plus the weight of a fully retractable tricycle undercarriage, the only wonder left for me to ponder is how, at the same time as the P-40, P-51, and P-47 were being designed, Bell ever thought their product was anywhere in the same league...
[post=38081]Quoted post[/post]


Thought you might like to see this film. its the training film for the P39!

P39

 

Morse,

Thanks very much for the video. Fascinating stuff. After watching it, even I want to go out and fly a P-39!

Seriously though, what strikes me most is how beautifully engineered American warplanes were - such a stark contrast to their axis adversaries, or even allies in some cases! However, there was a saying in Russian aviation circles in WW2 : "The best is the enemy of good enough"!. I think the Russian, Japanese, and to an extent the British design philosophy exempliifies that notion....

If one considers the relative merits of the F-86 Sabre and Mig15 in career, then one is presented with a striking example of the differences in philosophy. The F-86 was the "cadillac of the skies", like its predecessor the P-51. The Mig 15 was more akin to a souped up Mini Cooper - but so much more nifty!

By the way, regarding the early B-17 raids by the RAF: I never claimed to be certain of the nomenclature of the bombers in 41/2, just that they were underarmed. My expertise revolves more aroun the day fighter war in Europe, but I think we both reached the same conclusion ultimately...

 

If one considers the relative merits of the F-86 Sabre and Mig15 in career, then one is presented with a striking example of the differences in philosophy. The F-86 was the "cadillac of the skies", like its predecessor the P-51. The Mig 15 was more akin to a souped up Mini Cooper - but so much more nifty!


The ironic thing is that both were powered by the same engine!

 

Originally posted by adamcotton@Aug 22 2005, 05:27 PM

By the way, during my eulogy to the Spitfire yesterday I forgot to mention that it had the highest limiting mach number of any fighter of WW2 - courtesy of Mitchell's beautifully thing elliptical wing (which incidentally he didn't personally design) As the recce versions were even cleaner aerodynamically than the fighter variants, it was decided that a Spit PR XI be used during a series of trials at Farnborough in the Spring of 1944 to explore handling as aircraft dived at speeds close to the sound barrier. On one such dive from 40,500ft, pilot Sqn/Ldr Marty Martinale reached a true airspeed (ie indicated airspeed corrected for instrument, position and temperature error) of 606 mph, or .89 mach!

American 2nd Lieutenant Raymond Hurtienne ingenously claimed to have actually "broken" the sound barrier in a dive from 35,000 feet in his P-47 in 1944,
clocking over 750mph.....certainly a TAS of 750mph at 25- 35,000 feet would have been supersonic flight, but the fact remains no prop driven aircraft could ever go through mach 1 because the prop itself acts as a huge aerodynamic brake....



You are correct in that it is impossible for a prop driven aircraft to break the speed of sound due to the prop acting as a brake, in fact one of the reasons Sqn/Ldr Martinale reached such a high speed in his Spitfire was that the pressure wave smashed his prop, allowing him to reach a higher speed before pulling out of his dive and gliding safely down.

 

Best aircraft of WW2,

1939. Spitfire Mk I, a contender for the best fighter.

1945. Spitfire Mk 14, in my view and many others the best piston engined fighter of WW2

It has to be the Spitfire

 

Dont like planes... gimme a tank any day!

Not a fighter, but my favourite plane is the Stuka. Sheer ugliness and as aerodynamic as a brick. But you gotta dig those gull wings!

Sorry for that.

 

I think you have to narrow it down to the US planes because, the Spits were defense fighters only, and the German prop fighters were dominated by all front line US units.

I read an excerpt from Hub Zemke’s book where he led a squadron in all three, the P-47, P-38, and the P-51. He didn’t have an absolute favorite but the excerpt described the advantages that each one had over the other. This is why there is such a religious debate over which was better. It seems to come down to where and how it is used, as well as strengths and weaknesses in the pilots themselves as well as the groups’ tactics. So depending on what you compare, you come up with a different answer even amongst the three. I wish I could find it and post it here because it was quite a factual comparison by a man that had no favorite one.

That being said, I would vote for the P-47 Thunderbolt. The British Tempest had some similar capabilities but was not quite as durable as the P-47 and had a reputation for the empennage breaking off under stress. The T-Bolt could do things that most planes couldn’t. For instance:

1) Fighter Bomber – Ground attack had a bomb load of 2500 lbs and a lot of munitions firepower that worked as well as bombs.
2) One of the fastest propeller driven planes in WWII. The P-47N model could go 467 mph. The big four-bladed paddle props changed the plane considerably.
3) Difficult to shoot down, even with flak. No plane in WWII was more survivable. It had heavy armor around the pilot to project him.
4) Could shoot down anything the Germans had including ME-262, assuming it had the altitude. Before I get lambasted for making that statement, let me explain. The way it could take down ME-262’s was in the tactics. Since it had the best high altitude performance of any plane so nothing could come up and get it. It could accelerate to 700 mph in a controlled dive and pull out. That would quickly overtake the ME-262 running full throttle (540 mph?) in no time. The ME-262 was fragile. It could not withstand hits. Its defense was its speed.
5) 8 “Ma Duces”. The eight 50 cal high velocity, incendiary rounds made it the most destructive aircraft in the air, which could saw a tank in half. Few pilots got the chance to bail out when jumped by a T-Bolt.
6) It could roll out of a bombing run and turn and dominate any fighters sent to “take out the bomber” it.
7) Had the best roll rate of any WWII aircraft.
8) Could evade and disengage any enemy it chose to, simply by diving away. The Germans used this tactic two but could easily be run down by the P-47.
9) Had stall characteristics as good as the P-51
10) Accounts of having two “cylinder jugs” shot off and still flying for over an hour to return to base.
11) Climbing power. When the big props were added to take advantage of the huge engine, it could out climb a Spitfire IX.
12) Nothing could out dive it, not even approach its ability to dive. The fact that it was heavy allowed it superior speed in a dive over any aircraft jet or prop. (7 .5 tons).
13) No other plane had its power. You can do a lot with power. The problem with power is the increased weight from bigger engines. The P-47 used this as an advantage since it was so large a fighter. It could have a much stronger airframe and as stated before could carry the 8 - 50 cals with more ammo.
14) P-47 could do it all, ground support, bomb, strafe, escort bombers, dominate in a dogfight with 109s and 190s, without a significant change in configuration.

The problem main with the P-51 was that it was vulnerable to small arms fire and very fragile. If its cooling system was hit it was on the ground within 15 minutes. Also it was not has powerful as the Double Wasp engine so it could not carry as many 50 cals.

The P-47’s main weakness was the fact that it was not quite as maneuverable as the FW-190 at low altitudes, though some of the pilots that fought in them questioned that. It didn’t have the range of the P-51, but was close enough to escort the bombers across Germany with drop tanks. The tactics of the P-47 were not to have simple dogfights like the Mustangs and the Spits, but rather to out climb and out dive the enemy

Most of the pilots that flew both the P-51 and the P-47, preferred the P-47 because of its survivability. In fact, Zemke’s raiders in the 56th stayed with it throughout the war even when offered upgrades to the P-51’s. The modern A-10 in the USAF is the successor to the T-Bolt and is called the “Thunderbolt II”.


Here are some of its accomplishments:

546,000 combat sorties with a combat loss rate of only 0.7 percent.
132,000 tons of bombs dropped
11,878 Enemy planes destroyed; 1/2 in the air; 1/2 on the ground
160,000 military vehicles destroyed
9,000 enemy locomotives destroyed
More victories than any other American aircraft in W.W.II

 

Added Poll and moved to the war in the air, please take the time to vote

Gnomey

 

Originally posted by jimbotosome@Aug 27 2005, 04:19 AM
I think you have to narrow it down to the US planes because, the Spits were defense fighters only,
Rubbish, the Spitfire was used as an offensive fighter on many fronts, the only role it didn't do was a long range escort fighter, and thats only because the RAF had no requirement for such an aircraft.

and the German prop fighters were dominated by all front line US units.
Are you trying to claim that a FW 190D-9 was outclassed by the P-51 or P-47
The only allied aircraft that could take on a D-9 on equal terms was a Spitfire Mk 14.
The only reason US fighters dominated late war German fighters was due to numbers and the better training of the majority of US pilots.

 

Originally posted by redcoat@Aug 30 2005, 05:06 PM

Are you trying to claim that a FW 190D-9 was outclassed by the P-51 or P-47
The only allied aircraft that could take on a D-9 on equal terms was a Spitfire Mk 14.
The only reason US fighters dominated late war German fighters was due to numbers and the better training of the majority of US pilots.
[post=38409]Quoted post[/post]

Hi Redcoat. That's not what I would conclude from my research and that's not what others concluded that actually flew both. First of all to get an 11:1 kill ratio, it takes more than just skilled pilots. Germans had more fighter experience than did the allied pilots (including the Brits) at the start of 1942. The Germans had the numbers during this period as well.

The P-51D could out fly any WWII plane assuming pilots are equal. The P-47D could out fight any plane based on the tactics it was allowed to use by virtue of its ridiculous power for a fighter. The only thing that could get them (quasi-consistently) is 20mm AAA when it dove down on a field or at the 88s to take them out. Other than inexperienced pilots, and the occasional jumping, few P-47s were shot down by German fighters of any sort. The reason is that when the four-bladed paddle props were added to it, it could even out climb the Mk14s which was the Spits primary advantage. If the FW190 climbed much above 23000 feet its engine began lose power and eventually stall. It was not supercharged. That alone gave the P51s and P47s a tremendous advantage. No plane has a stall angle of attack of the P-51D. A favorite tactic when a German plane was on its tail was to pull the stick up until one or the other would stall. Of course this would be the German plane. Once the German fighter stalled, the P-51 pilot would drop the nose and pull the combat flaps (nice feature!) and be behind the German plane in a perfect kill position.

The P-15D had a two stage super-charger on its Packard Merlin engines which gave it superior performance, not just at higher altitudes but also at lower altitudes. But because the Merlin was liquid cooled, it was very vulnerable to any kind of fire including small arms fire.

No prop plane in WWII except the RAF Tempest was as fast as the P-47N model (467mph). The Pratt & Whitney Double Wasp engine had so much horsepower that a 7.5 ton plane could out fly the lighter weight 190s. The only chance you had to shoot down a P-47 was to jump it blind or hit it with AAA when it dove on the field. Only 887 were ever lost to a combination of AAA, fighters, rookie mistakes, training accidents and mechanical failures.

The P-47 pilots in books that I read said that the German pilots never got it. They used the dive away method to escape a dog fight but never realized how much faster a P-47 was in a dive since it was so heavy but strong enough to pull out of compressibility (~720 mph, just before the speed of sound, depending on temperature and pressure). It was so fast in a dive that it could run down the 262s if it had altitude.

The coup de grace is the fact that it had eight "Ma Duce" 50 caliber machine guns that used incendiary rounds. It was far and away the most destructive fighter in WWII. No others could fire as many such heavy high velocity rounds. These rounds could cut through the tops of the heaviest armor the Germans had on their tanks.

Not even the B-17s could take as much a beating as the P-47s. There are accounts in Bob Fortier’s book on the Thunderbolt where young German pilots seeing the Jug decimating another plane in the formation and bail out just from the horror of the destructive power of the 50s ripping planes to shreds.

The three blade prop version that was introduced into the ETO in 1942 was where most of the kills against the P-47 came from. The British pilots claimed that the Jug would be decimated and felt sorry for the US pilots assigned this new plane. There are accounts of Bob Johnson where he jumped a Spit Mk 9 and dog fought it when he was a rookie. (This was encouraged for skill development and both sides loved the sport) It could out dive the Mk 9 and run away but when it tried to climb to recover lost altitude the Spit would catch it. When the four blade “paddle-prop” was added the climbing advantage of a Spit 14 was challenged by the same pilot and the Spit could not longer catch it.

You should read some books on the T-Bolt lest you think I am just a P-47 fanatic. “Zemke’s wolf pack” which was a squadron in the 56th fighter group had at one time three of the top four US aces in the ETO and all four were aces in the group. Hub Zemke was the one who flew commander on P-47s P-51s and P-38s. When the P-51D models were offered, his group tried them but switched back because of the P-47s advantages, the main one being survivability.

Look, I know everyone has their favorite airplanes. It’s a lot like a religious war, which religion is better. As a matter of fact, I find the FW-190 one of the most beautiful planes ever developed. There may be references where a P-51D pilot prefers it over the P-47, having flown both, but I have never read such an article. I have read several opinions by pilots of both that preferred the P-47 because of its armor, faster speed, and heavy firepower.

Here is a story about the P-47 in 9th Air TAC. It gives you an understanding of the devastation its 8 -50s would cause even heavy armor because it was such a heavy high velocity round (I have heard .50 cal rounds were around $1 a piece in WWII). It was used as like a war bond drive or motivation propaganda but it is very interesting just the same:

http://www.skylighters.org/ixtac/index2.html

On Jan 1, 1945, Hitler sent 600 planes to bomb the forward air bases in support of the ground troops (9th Air Force). His force managed to destroy almost 200 planes on the ground. The Ninth had primarily only P-47Ds as were the best tank killers. The remaining 9th’s P-47Ds (those not destroyed on the ground) destroyed approximately 50% of these 600 planes in the air with a loss of about 5. It was the ETO’s equivalent of the Marianas Turkey Shoot. Several years ago, the History Channel had a show where it rated the planes for different periods. It picked best of breed. The B-17 was picked as the best bomber, no surprise there, but they picked the P-47 as the best fighter. I found this most peculiar why the ugliest plane was considered the best. Near where I live in the US there is an air museum at one of the airports I would shoot approaches and practice landings at. I stopped at the museum there one time and they had a P-47D on display (Hun Hunter XIV was the nose art). I was flabbergasted at the size of the thing. It was huge. I couldn’t believe a WWII fighter was that big (they now have two of them there). Now I know how it could carry such a large engine and so much ordinance (the most the P-51D could handle was 6 - 50s which is still respectable) and could take a beating and still fly. I was so impressed that I thought I would read up on some fighters and bought several books on the T-Bolt.

Like I said, I don’t mean to sound like a zealot for a single airplane but you have a tall mountain to climb to find anything that matches the devastation of a P-47, fighter or bomber. I could carry more than a B-17 on three trips which it could just about make in the same amount of time. The US has a plane nowadays called the A-10 Warthog. It is known for its indestructibility, heavy armor, massive Vulcan canon and is used for ground support. It is knicknamed the Thunderbolt II because of the storied history of its predecessor. It is made by Fairchild-Republic which is pretty much the same company that made the P-47 (Republic). I personally always thought the P-51D was the king but it simply wasn’t. It might be the prettiest and have the most beautiful sounding engine, but it has to tip it’s hat to the Jug (short for Juggernaut).

Hey, who doesn't love a Spit? The Spit won the war in 1940 (sorry hurricane fans!). It gets a place at the head of the table as well. But the Spit had weaknesses that kept it in Britian and over the channel. It was a tad slow (mostly because of the long wings and the heavy drag coefficent they created), a bit under armed, not very rugged, and an unimpressive roll rate. In 1940, nothing could top it. But the fact of the matter is that it was used as an interceptor and for that it was an excellent plane. It had its moment in the sun but that moment wasn't in 1945. Still, if it weren't for the mighty Spit, there would have never have been any of the US planes in the ETO in the first place.

 

a bit under armed,[/quote] 4x20mm under armed?

I thought it was the P-51 which couldn't do certain manoeuvres for fear of it breaking up, not the Spitfire ?[/quote] and an unimpressive roll rate[/quote]. still better than a P-47 or P-51
here's a few quotes you might like

William Dunn (US fighter ace who flew Spitfires, P-51s, Hurricanes, and P-47s): "Now, if I had to make the choice of one fighter aircraft above all the others - one that I'd rather have tied to the seat of my pants in any tactical situation - it would be, without any doubt, the world's greatest propeller driven flying machine - the magnificent and immortal Spitfire."

Eric Brown (RN test pilot and holder of the world record for number of types of aircraft flown): "I have flown both for many hours, and would choose the Spitfire [over the Mustang] if given a choice in a fight to the death."

Writer Jerry Scutts, quoting German pilots in his book "JG 54": "The Jagflieger had to keep a wary eye out for enemy fighters, particularly Spitfires, a type JG 54's pilots had developed a particular aversion to...Pilot reflections do not, surprisingly enough, reflect over-much respect for the Mustang or Lightning, both of which the Germans reckoned their Fockes were equal to - unless they were met in substantial numbers."

Gordon Levitt, Israeli fighter pilot, comparing the Spitfire, Mustang, and Avia S-199 (Jumo-engined Bf 109), all of which the Israelis flew: "Despite the pros and cons, the Spitfire was everyone's first choice."

Karl Stein, Luftwaffe Fw 190 pilot (who served mainly on the Eastern front): "English and American aircraft appeared on the scene in those closing days of the European war. Spitfires were the most feared, then Mustangs..."

USAAF 31st FG War Diary (when transferring from Spitfires to P-51s): "Although pilots think that the P-51 is the best American fighter, they think the Spitfire VIII is the best fighter in the air."

USAAF pilot Charles McCorkle (who flew both in combat), reporting on a mock combat between a Spitfire and Mustang in 1944: "Now we could see which was the better aircraft...a Mustang and a Spit took off for a scheduled 'combat', flown by two top young flight commanders. When the fighters returned, the pilots had to agree that the Spitfire had won the joust. The Spit could easily outclimb, outaccelerate, and outmaneuver its opponent..."

Author Francis K. Mason, talking about fighter development during the early war years, when Britain stood alone, in "Royal Air Force Fighters of World War Two, Volume One: "It was [Britain's] fighters that won the admiration of the world, above all her incomparable Spitfire. It was this agony of survival that lent urgency to fighter design and gave Britain a two-year lead, a lead that was not seriously challenged by America until 1947."

ps, thanks to the poster, robert, who found some of the quotes I've used

 

Originally posted by redcoat+Sep 1 2005, 05:32 PM-->(redcoat @ Sep 1 2005, 05:32 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>Sorry, but no US fighter got anything near that kill to loss rate rate in the ETO/MTO.
The highest figure is for the P-51, which had 4,950 air kills for the loss of 2,520 P-51s in air combat, a 1.96: 1 kill ratio.
[/b]
The P-47 destroyed 11,874 planes and lost only a total of 887 aircraft to all types of destruction, weather, training accidents, AAA. If you conservatively say half were from air to air combat (on both sides) that still leaves about a 12 to 1 ratio. Since German pilots had to fight until they died and American pilots went stateside after only 200 hours, the fact that they would average only 100 hours of fighting time as pilots during an engagement, and somehow not be decimated by the more vetern and skilled German pilots is a miraculous statement and quite a testament to the Jug. This is true even considering that the P-47 fought through the entire war from 1943 on and considering that it had the anemic three blade prop through much of 1943, nothing can boast such a record. The fact of the matter is that you simply could not shoot down a Jug. The pilot had armor from all angles, the fuselage could take a pounding and still maintain control, and the engine could have cylinder heads shot off and still get you home. They were like flying tanks. They could outrun you, out climb, out dive, they could go up to 42,000 feet and wait for you and jump you. One burst and they would pretty much saw your fuselage in half. The P-47J was about 60 mph faster than the Spit Mk 14 being clocked at 504 mph on Aug 4 1944. A Mk 14 had a top speed of only 440 mph. The Spit’s speed was only this good because it was so light. Light weight meant it couldn’t take a beating. You red line a Spit in a dive (red line refers to the Vne or V never exceed on the airspeed indicator in aircraft, not engine RPMs) and they will be digging your corpse out of the ground.

The P-51 had an 11:1 kill ratio as well. Here is a link describing the plane. You must be thinking of the early Mustangs that had the Allison engine that were supplied to the Brits. The Allison engine actually made more horsepower than the Merlin even the American built Packard Merlin that the Spit IX and P-51s had, but the Allison engine didn’t have a supercharger developed for it. Korean war models used the Allison engines because they had better output and once the superchargers were developed for them, they were even faster than the Merlin versions. There was a reason why the US quit using the Spit in 1943, they had developed better planes. I know you hate the sound of that but it is a fact. They made the Merlin engine, they could have made the whole Spit if they wanted. The Mustang was better built because it had the first laminar wings.

Here is a link on the P-51 history. As you can see, the opinion of the Mustang deviates quite a bit from yours. Goering himself said "When I saw Mustangs over Berlin, I knew the jig was up.".
http://www.olympicflightmuseum.com/aircraf...51d_mustang.htm

Originally posted by redcoat@Sep 1 2005, 05:32 PM
Indeed, that why the Spitfire which was the main USAAF fighter in NW Europe in this early period has the second highest kill to loss ratio of any US crewed fighter in the ETO/MTO with a kill ratio of 1.34 to 1.
The Spitfire was slower than the P-47B and until the Mk XIV it simply could not climb to the same altitudes. Most of the Eighth Air Force use P-47s from its initial deployment until the P-51 came along. Most in the Eighth switched to the P-51 because it had more range with drop tanks and could stay and fight longer than could the P-47. The Spitfire had no range. It wasn’t built to go into Germany. This is why it was confined primarily to the channel patrol and chasing buzz bombs. It had cap guns for armament 4 - .303s and 2 - 20 mm cannons were simply not impressive when it got to the latter parts of the war where bigger engines allowed heavier airframes. The Spit didn’t have the structure to carry the big 50s. The Jug could carry 8 of these heavy hitters and 10 HVAC rockets at the same time. The later models could also carry 2500 pounds of bombs. At 2800 horsepower, it was simply a high speed flying tank. It was designed to destroy anything, planes, tanks, artillery, you name it.

Here is a good link on the Jug:
http://www.aviation-history.com/republic/p47.html
But, I would advise you read some of the books of the people that fought in them. It blows your mind the things that things the Jug could do. Describing them sounds like exaggeration or hyperbole. One time Bob Johnson (read in the book Thunderbolt!) was jumped in formation by German planes diving on his group. His plane was shot up by a group of eight 190s. He dove away and got free from them but it had shot off two cylinder heads off the engine, he was virtually blinded by the hot oil coming back into the cockpit, his canopy was shot up so that it would only go back. He got ready to jump but could not get out with his parachute on because the canopy would only come back about the width of his body. He was losing altitude and coasting back toward the channel with the engine idling and smoking. An FW 190 spots him and comes to finish him off. The 190 slowly get behind him and starts shooting. He can hear the rounds tearing through the tail and hitting his armor plate behind his seat. The FW190 had pretty weak guns, 20 mm and 30 cals like the Spit. The pilot of the 190 pulls up beside him staring at the shot up smoking plane, shaking his head. He then slides back behind and starts firing again. He does this four different times each time looking in amazement that this thing is unaffected. He finally had run out of ammo, pulls up beside Johnson, salutes, and flies away. Johnson is only about 1000 feet above the channel and he calls Channel Rescue to tell them where he is because he is going to ditch in the channel since he is running out of altitude. He is too low to make contact. He figures that he will try the engine to see if it will climb enough to get him to where he can call out. He guns the engine and it begins to climb. The thing still had climbing power with two of the eighteen cylinders shot off. He decides to try to climb enough to fly back. The fighter gets him all the way back to his base. There are pictures of this plane in his book. He stopped counting holes at around 100 figuring it was useless, that there were simply too many. His rudder assembly and elevator were shot off. You can try to one up the stats on the Jug all you want but there is no statistic to compare to survivability. Living is the name of the game. Killing the enemy is the second part of the game. The Jug excelled all other fighters on these two. We can talk about how maneuverable the Spit is. That’s good for air shows. But it was the Jug that took out the Panzers and Luftwaffe. It was the devastation of the Jug that kept German fighters from being around to attack the massive ship formations of the D-Day invasion.

<!--QuoteBegin-redcoat@Sep 1 2005, 05:32 PM
Sorry but the Spitfire XIV which actually entered service in January 1944, five months before the P-51D was faster than the Mustang, had a better rate of roll and tighter turning circle, had a higher service ceiling, and could climb better. It was superior to the P-51D in EVERY combat category except range, and the only way that came into play in a dogfight is if the P-51 could fly around long enough for the Spit to run out of fuel! Wow, where did you read that stuff? What are you going to tell me next that the Spitfire was a better bomber than the B-17? The Spitfire was not used to destroy the ETO Luftwaffe for a reason. It was a backyard plane. It could not take a beating and that is why it was not used for escort roles. It was a fragile plane. The Jug on the other hand could take quite a beating and get its pilots back. That’s why so few were ever shot down even since they fought the brunt of the German Air Force including the Abbeville Boys. This is why the Luftwaffe was not to be found on D-Day. In fact after the Jug had destroyed the German Air Force, it was used as a ground support aircraft too. Can you imagine a Spitfire in a ground attack? I mean, if the German commander has his Luger handy he could bring it down by simply hitting the cooling system. The Spit was simply not built for a slugging it out with stout airplanes.

Here is a quote from one of your own RAF pilots that flew the Spit but whose group converted to the P-47. Keep in mind he is dealing with the three bladed T-Bolts. The four blade “paddle” props were the ones that took the plane up and over its adversaries. It dominated by using superior tactics taking advantage of the huge engine and massive airframe and destructive fire power:

<snip>
One day in January 1943 General Hunter, the Commander of the 8th Fighter Command, came to visit us at Debden. He said he had a 'surprise' for us we were soon to re-equip with the very latest American fighter, the P-47 Thunderbolt. As he spoke we heard an unusual engine note outside and one of the new fighters landed and taxied up beside one of our Spitfires. We went outside to look it over. It was huge: the wing tip of the P-47 came higher than the cockpit of the Spitfire. When we strapped into a Spitfire we felt snug and part of the aircraft; the Thunderbolt cockpit, on the other hand, was so large that we felt if we slipped off the Goddamned seat we would break a leg! We were horrified at the thought of going to war in such a machine: we had enough trouble with the Focke Wulfs 190's in our nimble Spitfire Vs; now this lumbering seven-ton monster seemed infinitely worse, a true 'air inferiority fighter'. Initial mock dog-fights between Thunderbolts and Spitfires seemed to confirm these feelings; we lost four Thunderbolt pilots in rapid succession, spinning in from low level while trying to match Spitfires in turns. In the end our headquarters issued an order banning mock dog fighting in Thunderbolts below 8,000 feet.

Gradually, however, we learnt how to fight in the Thunderbolt. At high altitude she was a 'hot ship' and very fast in the dive; the technique was not to 'mix it' with the enemy but to pounce on him from above, make one quick pass and get back up to altitude; if anyone tried to escape from a Thunderbolt by diving, we had him cold. Even more important, at last we had a fighter with the range to penetrate deeply into enemy territory--where the action was. So, reluctantly, we had to give up our beautiful little Spitfires and convert to the new juggernauts. The war was moving on and we had to move with it.

The change to the Thunderbolt might have been necessary militarily, but my heart remained with the Spitfire. Even now, thirty years after I flew them on operations, the mere sound or sight of a Spitfire brings me a deep feeling of nostalgia and many pleasant memories. She was such a gentle little aeroplane, without a trace of viciousness. She was a dream to handle in the air. I feel genuinely sorry for the modern fighter pilot who has never had the chance to get his hands on a Spitfire; he will never know what real flying was like.
<end snip>

As you can see, Spit lovers that flew both learned the difference between graceful flying dogfighter and the life-saving enemy-defeating destruction of a juggernaut. The Spit didn’t dominate the Luftwaffe, the T-Bolt did. It was so rugged that it kept people alive during the phase where they could learn to fly it and develop its dominant tactics. You couldn’t get to a P-47 and if you ever did, you couldn’t destroy it. This is why in all totals (as you can see training and skills development cost a lot in the P-47), ground attack, AAA, bomber escorts, and mechanical failures only 887 of these planes were ever lost. That’s less than “seven tenths” of a percent were ever brought down by the enemy no matter how they did it. No other plane can boast that. Especially not one that was both a fighter and a bomber. You seem to have the same problem the German pilots did. They never really realized how dangerous, fast and destructive the Jug was. Unfortunately for them, not knowing this most of the time cost them their lives not just their plane. Rarely can you bail when hit by a Jug, unless it was a deflection shot (shot of a distance bent by the wind).

Hey no one ever said the Spit was a piece of crap. It had its place and stayed in it. But when you go downtown Berlin, or any of the cities that had intense flak, you better not be in a Spit.

 

Originally posted by jimbotosome@Sep 2 2005, 03:24 AM
The P-47 destroyed 11,874 planes and lost only a total of 887 aircraft to all types of destruction, weather, training accidents, AAA. If you conservatively say half were from air to air combat (on both sides) that still leaves about a 12 to 1 ratio.
Amazing figures!, too amazing to be honest in my view, considering that according to the official USAAF figures for Europe the highest scoring fighter was the P-51 which was credited with,
Sorties: 213,873
Bomb tonnage: 5,668
Lost in combat 2,520
E/A kills: 4,950
Ground kills: 4,131.
Even if you add ground kills to the air kills that still leaves the P-51 with only a 3.60:1 ratio









. Light weight meant it couldn’t take a beating. You red line a Spit in a dive (red line refers to the Vne or V never exceed on the airspeed indicator in aircraft, not engine RPMs) and they will be digging your corpse out of the ground.
Odd then that a Spitfire has the highest Mach speed of any piston engined aircraft with 0.89
There was a reason why the US quit using the Spit in 1943, they had developed better planes.
Actually they wanted planes with longer range, also Spitfires didn't have 'made in the USA' stamped on them, which the top brass found annoying.


It had cap guns for armament 4 - .303s and 2 - 20 mm cannons were simply not impressive when it got to the latter parts of the war where bigger engines allowed heavier airframes.
I'm sorry, but I find your description of a 20mm cannon as a 'cap gun' just silly, especially as the post war US jets later changed to 20mm from .50

ps I will do some digging on the P-47, those figures are amazing if true

 

Done some digging B)

Here's what I've found.


The USAAF figures for the P-47 in the ETO/MTO are as follows:

Enemy aircraft destroyed in air: 3,082
Eenemy aircraft destroyed on ground: 3,202
P-47s lost in combat: 3,077

In addition, the P-47 was credited with 697 air-to-air kills in the Pacific. I don't have Pacific ground kills, or Pacific losses.

This would give it a little under 7,000 enemy aircraft destroyed in the air and on the ground, plus ground kills of Japanese aircraft

ps, Don't get me wrong, if it was a poll on what was the best fighter-bomber of ww2, the P-47 would get my vote, but if you try and tell me the P-47 was a better fighter than the Spitfire.
Sorry, no sale

 

Originally posted by redcoat+Sep 2 2005, 04:28 AM-->(redcoat @ Sep 2 2005, 04:28 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'>Amazing figures!, too amazing to be honest in my view, considering that according to the official USAAF figures for Europe the highest scoring fighter was the P-51 which was credited with, [/b]
We are all subject to the dubious nature of published info. I find one place where they claim the Spit Mk 14’s top speed was 405 mph and another that says 440. I am not sure what “official USAAF” figures are and how someone could affirm that that is what they are. Some places you see the P-51D at 450 mph sometime at 420 mph. Which is right? Even statistics can be misleading. For instance if the best Mustang pilots were all relative “rookies” in combat, do its kills reflect the plane or the pilot? It is my belief as a pilot that the pilot is far more important than the planes. But that is true, only to a point. The ultimate to me is a good pilot, good tactics, and a good plane. The rest just seems like pissing contests. Numbers can easily misrepresent, considering all the factors, how something is used, where it is used, when it is used, what it costs to use it, what it is up against. You know what Benjamin Disraeli said “There are lies, damn lies, and statistics”.

Originally posted by redcoat@Sep 2 2005, 04:28 AM
Odd then that a Spitfire has the highest Mach speed of any piston engined aircraft with 0.89
The mach number and the max speed are too different things. The mach number changes with altitude. The as the altitude drops so does the relative mach number because the speed of sound is higher at lower altitudes (denser air). So, no plane has a single “Mach number”. Mach numbers are different at different altitudes, temperature and pressures and also depending on the shape of the plane. But, what is important concerning the mach number, is how fast your mach number drops as you lose altitude. This is important because of compressibility which often happened on the P-47s and P-38s because they could dive so fast (they were both heavier than dog crap). The heavier a plane, the faster it accelerates in a dive. The engine may get it to the fastest speed faster, but it gets there so fast, even with the throttle closed that even max speed is often irrelevant. Now consider compressibility from the dive. Compressibility is when the localized air flowing over the wing approaches super-sonic speeds and it tends to “lock” the elevator in place (the elevator is an upside down wing that controls the pitch). This means you can’t raise the nose to decrease airspeed and the aircraft will inevitable reach terminal velocity (the speed at which a falling object can fall no faster) assuming it doesn’t corkscrew into the ground first. To the best of my knowledge (I may be wrong) the P-47 and P-38s were the only planes that could pull out of a terminal velocity dive. No plane could out dive a P-47. Seven and one half tons drops “mondo” fast.

Originally posted by redcoat@Sep 2 2005, 04:28 AM
Actually they wanted planes with longer range, also Spitfires didn't have 'made in the USA' stamped on them, which the top brass found annoying.
The P-47 has about the same range as the Spit when they started using them. The P-47 was later fit with drop tanks that allowed them to go to Berlin. Its heavier wing-load capability allowed it take advantage of two external tanks. The Mustang could carry a lot (relatively speaking) because it had laminar wings, though it couldn’t carry near what a Jug could. The “made in the USA” thing, sounds a little cynical. I would believe that the only desire for “made in USA” would be because that the British production capacity was maxed out. It was not better to have to ferry planes from the States. I do believe that if the Brits had the capacity to make the Jugs, we would have bought them there because of the cost savings of having to ferry them over. But that is just speculation on my behalf. They did certainly have their hands full just making their own equipment.

<!--QuoteBegin-redcoat@Sep 2 2005, 04:28 AM
I'm sorry, but I find your description of a 20mm cannon as a 'cap gun' just silly, especially as the post war US jets later changed to 20mm from .50The F86 Super Saber which fought in the Korean war still had 50s. The reason that the USAF moved toward canons is because at higher rates of speed of modern aircraft, they needed a higher rate of fire. You couldn’t accomplish this with a .50. The .50 was already a high velocity round but it was not fast enough for mach jets. The US went to a 6 barreled rotating canon called the “M61 Vulcan”. The Europeans went for heavier canons moving to the 30mm for more hitting power, they believed the 20mm was simply too weak. The US decided that using rounds in the new design would wear out the barrels (too much friction) and create a feed reliability problem. This necessitated the move to canons. The US also believed that the rate of fire was more important than hitting power so unlike the Europeans and the Russians, they chose to stay with 20mm. Of course this was not simply the same canon as the WWII versions. Canon technology has certainly evolved but it is still relatively weak and its high rate of fire compensates. It was simply an engineering tradeoff. The history has been poor on the M61s because they suffer from the poor ballistic capability of the 20s, the fact that the projectile loses energy quickly, and its killing power and accuracy are marginal compared to the larger caliber 30s. Fortunately air-to-air missiles reduced the importance of a dogfight weapon.

The reason I brought up the .50s is because the P-47s tactics were to climb and dive and stay out of the range of the enemies guns. To do this you need something that can kill from greater distances since it typically dives on lower aircraft. So, I am not really trying to dig up trivial differences in ammo combinations, there is actually a point to my statement. The Spits had success with their armament because they fought close in, a Spit “mixed it up”. A P-47 could not turn like the more agile planes. It could out run them and catch them from behind but it couldn’t out turn them, so why expose yourself to the enemies strength? {A side note: Though some P-47 pilots claimed the Jug in actuality could turn with a FW 190, the directives said to not do it. Incidentally the books said not to do a split-S (a Split S is a common maneuver in where you roll upside down and do a half-loop which changes the direction suddenly) maneuver below 10000 feet but the Jug when dive bombing and strafing AAA the pilots would ignore that directive and the plane handled the maneuver magnificently and made it incredibly difficult for ground fire to lead them.} When a plane is turning some distance ahead of you turns sharper than you are capable, it is no big deal because you have the angles on him and use a much shorter turn, whereas if you are right up on him in a “dogfight” then his sharper turning rate will quickly put him behind you, which is not good. The P-47s could simply dive away when the enemy plane got too close and the Germans never got a clean shot at them and had to maneuver hard just to evade their leading rounds which could kill from a distance. When you are shooting downwards, you have much greater range because your round velocity doesn’t drop off as fast, especially compared to a canon. A bullet round is more aerodynamic and is spinning since barrels are rifled. The high velocity rounds of the .50s were primo at that. This is why the Americans were in love with their 50s and they were willing to pay $1 a round in 1944. It makes good long term sense. How many planes does it take to compensate for all the 50 rounds ever spent? In addition they were incendiary rounds which would act like tracers when striking the enemy aircraft and would detonate rounds and fuel in the vicinity burning through the metal.

I don’t doubt that the Germans were terrified of the Spit (who wouldn’t be). I am sure they were thinking in terms of the Spit when they planned the ME 262. But they never found an equalizer for the P-47 and its fighting tactics. The 40 miles per hour faster top end speed of the ME-262 was just not enough to escape a dive of the Jugs. This is why the Jugs were the only plane that could shoot down an ME 262 without having to catch it landing. If you figure that ME 262 was flying level (or climbing) at about 450 mph (you can’t run engines wide open, especially jets), then dive speed of the Jugs was significant. Since the later model Jugs had water injection to cool the engines, they could run them wide open for a lot longer period then the 262s. This is another advantage it had. What most fighter aficionados don’t realize is that speed and agility were not everything and sometimes were not even significant.

Here is a quote from Hub Zemke leader of the Eighth’s best fighter squadron (56th):

<snip>
Almost as soon as they set up shop in their new quarters, they began to hear from RAF pilots that the P-47 just can’t hope to cut it with the “Jerry fighters”. Even members of the Eagle Squadron (soon to be flying the P-47 as well) were quick to tell the pilots of the 56th that; “if our Spitfire Mk.V’s couldn’t deal with the Focke Wulf 190, how can you expect to handle them in that huge P-47?” Little did they know that not only could the Thunderbolt handle the Fw 190, it would chase them from the sky over western Europe.
<end snip>

The P-47 had the largest learning curve without a doubt. It was a dangerous plane if you were a rookie or simply new to it, as you saw with the comments of General Hunter over Fighter Command the other day. The Spitfire was a very graceful and forgiving plane. I would put the Spit and the P-51s on even keel but the P-47 was a different kind of air superiority fighter. It had a good deal more impunity than either the Spit or P-51. If I am in an air show or have to dogfight a FW-190, I would want either a Mustang or a Spit. I don’t know if the Mustang has as good of top end performance (the numbers say they are equal) but it certainly had the best overall performance because of its two-stage supercharger. But if they had had a super-charger ready for the Allison engines, the Mustang would have probably have been able to outrun the P-47-J or N models.

But if I had to survive the war and had to destroy the enemy in his land, I would want a Jug. The ability to exploit my strengths by tactics that the other cannot counter was the unequivocal advantage of the P-47. If it dove in formations, each timing the dive for proper separation, then even if you somehow managed to evade the lead attacker, you still had at least 7 others coming in succession behind it. And if by some miracle you escaped that you are frustrated because you can’t catch it to get in a fair fight utilizing your strengths of maneuverability. The Jugs often got 4 and 5 planes on a single pass. The P-47 killed a lot of planes on the ground. It could attack airfields since it could risk getting hit by AAA. The P-51s did the same thing (have gun will travel) but they suffered quite a few more losses because they could be taken out more easily with liquid cooled engines which are vulnerable to single hits. The only sure way to take down a jug would be to hit the pilot in the head. Its like the policeman wearing a bullet proof vest. It won’t prevent him from dying if the criminal shoots him in the head, but it makes him a harder target. The Jugs had armor all around and below the pilot. Your only chance was shooting from above or if he was too low you could shoot through the glass. Since the Jug had a high ceiling like the Spit, the Germans got few chances to jump the Jug. According to what I read, when the Jugs got jumped, it was flying lower to cover the bombers. The Germans would send in one gaggle of 109s and 190s to draw the Jugs away and then attack the bombers with the ME 262s if the Jugs took the bait. Since the Jugs could dive so fast, the 109s and 190s couldn't get away and would have prohibitive losses but the US would also lose a few bombers too. Of course with attritian of the Luftwaffe, they were not able to keep that practice up for very long.

Another advantage was that the rugged frame of the P-47 could take a direct hit from trees, poles in dives, and I even remember reading about an approach that was too low and the gear tore through a roof of a womans bathroom (which she was in it) without slowing it down enough to stall it, and the plane was landed safely(Bob Fortier’s P-47 book I think). That’s a ridiculously strong airframe and gear. Heck these days gear are so light that you can crumple them from coming in with too much airspeed. If a Mustang or a Spit did that, the would probably have their wings or gear sheered off (like normal airplanes) but would definitely be slowed down below the stall speed resulting in nosing into the ground. I had studied WWII aircraft for years as a kid and never really heard or read much about the P-47s (it was always about the P-51s and P-38s and the occasional Spit story), but when I saw one in person, I thought, “that’s simply too large to be an effective flying machine”. That’s what peaked my curiosity and so I dug into it I found that it was the single most underrated weapon in WWII. Even the German army claimed it was “the most terrible weapon” in the US arsenal. The Jug blew up more tanks than any single tank model did on the Western front. Not too shabby for a high altitude fighter.

 

Originally posted by redcoat@Sep 2 2005, 01:26 PM
Done some digging B)

Here's what I've found.


The USAAF figures for the P-47 in the ETO/MTO are as follows:

Enemy aircraft destroyed in air: 3,082
Eenemy aircraft destroyed on ground: 3,202
P-47s lost in combat: 3,077

In addition, the P-47 was credited with 697 air-to-air kills in the Pacific. I don't have Pacific ground kills, or Pacific losses.

This would give it a little under 7,000 enemy aircraft destroyed in the air and on the ground, plus ground kills of Japanese aircraft

ps, Don't get me wrong, if it was a poll on what was the best fighter-bomber of ww2, the P-47 would get my vote, but if you try and tell me the P-47 was a better fighter than the Spitfire.
Sorry, no sale
[post=38507]Quoted post[/post]
Hi redcoat,

Your numbers sounded a bit dubious so I did a little research on the numbers too. Most of the numbers I read had claims of the P-47’s kill ratio from 6:1 to 11:1. The number of aircraft destroyed by the P47 was close to 12,000, I remember reading that in the T-Bolt books. I have then loaned out so I can't give you title, page and paragraph numbers...I hate to quote without specific facts. It's not that I would intentionally decieve you but sometimes people just remember things wrong. But as to the 11-12 thousand destroyed, I see that in various places on the web as well. But the number lost are all over the chart. The number I believe I read in the books were 887. The reason the numbers are all over the chart is that the factors are numerous and the specifics to nail then down are not listed. But looking at the USAAF site I think you were referring to I don’t see the same numbers you got at all. For instance, the US only lost 1691 fighters in the ETO from air-to-air during WWII. That includes, P-38s, P-51s, P-47s, Spits, and lest we forget P-40s. That’s no where near the numbers you posted for the P-47 of destroyed in the air. There were only 5,324 fighters lost by the US during the entire war in the ETO (where most of the fighting was done). If you consider the that the Mustang lost over 4000, then that would put the number of the Jug at around 1000 which is close to the number I had read of 887 in some of the books where the Thunderbolt was being highlighted. My main point is that I was not exaggerating the details.

Here is the link I am referring to http://www.usaaf.net/digest/t159.htm. It does not break them down by fighter type, just airplane type, but I know that most of the P-47s losses came from AAA since they were used to dive on the airfields and on armor. Very few were actually shot down by enemy fire. Most of those were before the tactics were developed. The USAAF fighters destroyed 14,218 enemy aircraft and almost 60% of those were in the air. This would give a total kill ratio of 2.7 to 1 if you consider all aircraft types. Air to air, you get an overall kill ratio of 4.4:1 to one in air-to-air combat ratio. If very few of the 1691 fighters lost air-to-air were Jugs, and 11:1 kill ratio in the air is very plausible. But most air-to-air Jugs were lost before the air dominance tactics were developed and when the Germans had a significant numerical and skill advantage, I do remember reading that. In the second half of 1944, few Jugs were lost to enemy aircraft. Now that is mostly because there were a lot fewer aircraft and the skill ratio had equalized if not inverted. But then again, that’s the name of the game and it is no discredit that the Jug played the game so well.

Another thing to consider is that the Ira Eaker, who was over the Eighth Air Force (Strategic bombing) until James Doolittle took over on Jan 6, 1944. Doolittle reversed a group order by Eaker that the escort fighters were not allowed to chase the enemy attackers. Eaker had them staying in formation. I remember reading that in Doolittle’s book. Doolittle was shocked that such an order existed and once he realized it (on into 1944) he immediately reversed it. This changed the war. Now the Luftwaffe was going to be blown out of the sky. At first it puts the bombers are risk. But, in the long run it not only helped the bombers by removing the lion’s share of fighter intercepts, but is also destroyed the Luftwaffe so in 1944, not only had the advantages changed but the 1944 invasion was completely (except for two 109s that strafed the beach before being shot down) unopposed. They expected massive attacks of the vulnerable ships but none showed because the Eighth Air Force had so decimated the Luftwaffe by June. Imagine if Eaker had let the fighters run from the outset. I bet the US would have lost a lot fewer bombers. But AAA claimed most kills period. The Germans had scads of AAA guarding cities and strategic sites. It is astonishing how much flak they used.


The F6F hellcat has the record with a 19:1 kill ratio. The F4U Corsair had an 11:1 ratio. But, they were against Pacific aircraft and despite the praise I have seen for the Zero, it was a dog. It couldn’t even break the 400 mph mark. I don’t think those aircraft would have faired so well in the ETO.

I read something very interesting about the Jug while researching it. The more I find out about it the more I am impressed. It is certainly the best kept secret of WWII even from aircraft history buffs. Remember the J model and N models (the J was the only piston fighter to that broke the 500 mph barrier in WWII), had the Pratt and Whitney Double Wasp that put out 2800 horsepower? Before wars end, P&W had completed testing on a new variation of the Double Wasp engine that put out 3600 horsepower. That’s 33% more than the ones that were in the production models. It was too late in the war and production was being halted on fighters so it never was put into the production models. The tests had run it at 3600 hp for 250 hours without a single component failure. That’s a real beating. But imagine 800 more horses on something that goes over 500 miles per hour. Would that have made it faster than the ME-262? Of course an increase in airspeed is not linear with and increase in power, but just for jollies, let’s say it was close enough to approximate it. This would mean the P-47J model would have been capable of 691 mph (33% increase in speed). I doubt it would have done that, because of the problems that you have when you start to near the speed of sound. You have to have swept back wings to prevent the wind force from jamming against the leading edge of the wing. I am sure the drag coefficient of the Jug was also too large for that kind of performance boost. But the J model only needed a 7% increase in speed to match the ME-262. The P-47 would have been the first aircraft of any type that had to deal with compressibility in straight and level flight!

Here is a nice link I just found where you can read about the evolution and history of the P-47 if you are interested. http://www.cradleofaviation.org/history/aircraft/p-47/1.html

Jim

 

Originally posted by jimbotosome@Sep 3 2005, 02:09 AM
[Hi redcoat,

Your numbers sounded a bit dubious so I did a little research on the numbers too. Most of the numbers I read had claims of the P-47’s kill ratio from 6:1 to 11:1. The number of aircraft destroyed by the P47 was close to 12,000, I remember reading that in the T-Bolt books. I have then loaned out so I can't give you title, page and paragraph numbers...I hate to quote without specific facts. It's not that I would intentionally decieve you but sometimes people just remember things wrong. But as to the 11-12 thousand destroyed, I see that in various places on the web as well. But the number lost are all over the chart. The number I believe I read in the books were 887. The reason the numbers are all over the chart is that the factors are numerous and the specifics to nail then down are not listed. But looking at the USAAF site I think you were referring to I don’t see the same numbers you got at all. For instance, the US only lost 1691 fighters in the ETO from air-to-air during WWII. That includes, P-38s, P-51s, P-47s, Spits, and lest we forget P-40s. That’s no where near the numbers you posted for the P-47 of destroyed in the air.
The USAAF Statistical Digest tables on pages 167 and 168 show that the total number of enemy aircraft destroyed by all USAAF fighters in the ETO/MTO for the entire war was 18,882 (10,772 in the air and 8,160 on the ground), if you try and take into account the other claims made for the P-51 and P-38 there is no way that I can accept the 11-12 thousand figure for the P-47. As for my figure on the number of P-47's lost in combat, that figure includes losses to ground fire.
The figures I've got on ithe individual kill/loss ratio of USAAF fighters in the ETO/MTO come from Ray Wagner's American Combat Planes, Third Enlarged Edition

There were only 5,324 fighters lost by the US during the entire war in the ETO (where most of the fighting was done). If you consider the that the Mustang lost over 4000, then that would put the number of the Jug at around 1000 which is close to the number I had read of 887 in some of the books where the Thunderbolt was being highlighted. My main point is that I was not exaggerating the details.

Trouble is my figures include the MTO, so you can't use your figures in relation to it
I don't think you are exaggerating, its just that there are some very wonky figures going the rounds
The USAAF fighters destroyed 14,218 enemy aircraft and almost 60% of those were in the air. This would give a total kill ratio of 2.7 to 1 if you consider all aircraft types. Air to air, you get an overall kill ratio of 4.4:1 to one in air-to-air combat ratio. If very few of the 1691 fighters lost air-to-air were Jugs, and 11:1 kill ratio in the air is very plausible. But most air-to-air Jugs were lost before the air dominance tactics were developed and when the Germans had a significant numerical and skill advantage, I do remember reading that. In the second half of 1944, few Jugs were lost to enemy aircraft. Now that is mostly because there were a lot fewer aircraft and the skill ratio had equalized if not inverted. But then again, that’s the name of the game and it is no discredit that the Jug played the game so well.
There is another reason as well. By the end of the war in Europe, only one FG in the 8th USAAF airforce still used the P-47, all the rest used P-51's In the later period of the war the main job undertaken by the P-47 was ground attack

but is also destroyed the Luftwaffe so in 1944, not only had the advantages changed but the 1944 invasion was completely (except for two 109s that strafed the beach before being shot down) unopposed.
I agree with you, the P-47 deserves far more credit than the P-51 for gaining air superiority over the Luftwaffe before D-Day ( still doesn't mean it was a better fighter than the Spitfire though )
Also the two Luftwffe fighters weren't shot down, they both escaped.