Finally! Vindicated!...

I suspect that a P47N vs Spit 14 would be closer than you both appreciate. In basic terms a P47 clearly had the advantage in a dive but the Spit had the advantage in the climb.
A P47 was faster but the Spit accelerated more quickly which was equally important in a dogfight where energy and speed are lost in manoevering.
A P47 could roll faster but the Spit could turn faster which tends to even things up. I admit to not knowing the impact of the larger heavier wing of the P47N on its roll rate, but suspect it would still be better than the Spitfire.
Both were well armed but in range of course its no contest, P47 by a long way.

At altitude the P47 could escape by diving whenever it wanted so must be considered to have a slight edge, but if fighting at lower altitude the Spit would have the advantage. You pays your money and takes your choice.

 

The Tempest V was assigned that role. Keep digging!
Here we go again!!!!
As far as I'm aware no Tempest V's saw any action in the Burma theater during WW2
Where's your source for that outlandish statement.



Well, I don't know if they had N models, but the argument still stands
No it doesn't.
you made a claim that the RAF replaced the Spitfire XIV with the P-47N and now you are stating that you don't know if the RAF had the P-47N in service or not.
Your claim is therefore proven to have no basis in fact.

and for a plane you think is so unimpressive (don't even try it!).
Remember the days when you used to argue that the Spit was the cat's meow and the Jug was a bomber but not a fighter? Those were the days, were they not?
I actually don't have a problem with the P-47, I consider it an excellent aircraft, and as I have stated to you before, I consider it the best Allied fighter-bomber of WW2.
What I do have a problem with is some of your claims on behalf of the P-47, they seem to have no basis in reality.

 

Redcoat, you are going straight to hell for that one. Jimbo is our expert on all things to do with air support (as long as you only include Jugs and you discount any suggestion that they didn't win the war single handedly:mellow, and as such how can you even doubt his word. After all, he substantiates everything he posts with...... well, his posts! (And possibly 'a' book although we've never seen it, and it must be a massive one!).

 

Here we go again!!!!
As far as I'm aware no Tempest V's saw any action in the Burma theater during WW2
Where's your source for that outlandish statement.
I did say they did. Where's your source for that outlandish accusation? I said that the Tempest was the GA replacement for the Hurricane. The point you obviously missed was that the Tempest would not have to be replaced by the Jug unless they really liked the Jug for some reason which "again" flies in the face of your disdain for it.

No it doesn't.
you made a claim that the RAF replaced the Spitfire XIV with the P-47N and now you are stating that you don't know if the RAF had the P-47N in service or not.
Your claim is therefore proven to have no basis in fact.
I admitted I might be wrong on the N models, but being so surprized you were actually found right on something, you can't seem to let it go. Act like you have been right before. Act like you will be right again. This kind of behavior is not very flattering of yourself.

But that was not the original argument. I just made that statement from reading the assessment statements on the N model. But that argument would have worked in your favor. It was not in your best interest to expose my error. Now it is even stranger and more revealing of your overconfidence in the Spitfire XIV being replaced by the P-47D. Why replace the Spits with Ds? After all they had Tempests so it was not them that were being replaced. Because they were better for the PTO service. You should have quit while you were ahead.

I actually don't have a problem with the P-47, I consider it an excellent aircraft, and as I have stated to you before, I consider it the best Allied fighter-bomber of WW2.
What I do have a problem with is some of your claims on behalf of the P-47, they seem to have no basis in reality.
Yawn. What gratuitiy. I consider the Spitfire one of the top ten fighters in the Allied arsonal in WWII. Your claims on the XIV seem to have no basis in reality. How does the shoe fit on the other foot?

But as an aside, I am just curious how you think the Spitfire could have dealt with the Jug (asside from the fact the Spitfire was made in "England")? That's non-sequitur to me. It can't catch it. It can't go as high as as the Jug and doesn't perform near as well at high altitudes (the Jug's performance strength was a 'huge' supercharger), it doesn't have the defense against the Jug, and if the Jug was in a situation where the Spitfire has a slight advantage (like low-altitude dogfighting) all it needs to do throttle up, drop the nose and leave the Spit pilot wondering where the h*** it went. Be glad, Jugs were your allies. Since the RAF pilots swore the FW190 planes were better, yet the Jugs had a field day on them when the German pilots were even more experienced than the British pilots and the US pilots were rookies, and turned themselves into the veteran pilots (by continually surviving) and the Germans into rookies (by continually killing the vets). You may love your Spit, but you have to understand that the Jug was a machine of heavy destruction. It found no interest in getting into elegant turning dogfights. That's a stupid way to fight if you have other options which the Jug did. It would have no problem downing a Spit as you didn't even need the wall of lead the Jug burped out to bring down a Spit. Spits were vulnerable to light arms hits. It got speed by reduced weight. You rarely if ever see pictures of them with whole sections chewed out, rudders blown off, elevators chewed, four foot holes in the wings, hundreds of bullet holes, cylinders shot off and the still make it back flying for 4 hours. There are entire galleries dedicated to young pilots standing beside their Jugs with hundreds of bullet and cannon holes, entire sections missing, grinning getting their picture taken back at the air field.

Your single benefit of a sharp turn radius means very little, especially on the D+ models of Jugs which had combat flaps, which the Spitfire did not, which were used like the F-14s in Top Gun movie to force your enemy to suddenly appear in front of you. If the Mustang couldn't survive against the Jug, neither would the Spitfire (referring to incidents where the Mustangs groups mistook Jugs as FW190s, jump them only to get shot down by them until the Jug pilots realized they were friendlies).

You don't seriously think a Jug pilot would be stupid enough to get into a low altitude merry-go-round with a Spit do you? That would make about as much sense as a Spitfire pilot being foolish enough to chase after a disengaging Jug who didn't like his odds. Not only could he not catch him but he could never escape his wing man having at least one good burst at the Spitfire. God help him if it were a J, M, or N model. It's bad enough with a D. Like I said, just be glad the Spits didn't have to face Jugs or it would not be the FW-190s that they Spit pilots had in awe.

 

Redcoat, you are going straight to hell for that one. Jimbo is our expert on all things to do with air support (as long as you only include Jugs and you discount any suggestion that they didn't win the war single handedly:mellow, and as such how can you even doubt his word. After all, he substantiates everything he posts with...... well, his posts! (And possibly 'a' book although we've never seen it, and it must be a massive one!).

He's also some kind of expert on the German-Soviet war, and the US Civil War

 

I suspect that a P47N vs Spit 14 would be closer than you both appreciate. In basic terms a P47 clearly had the advantage in a dive but the Spit had the advantage in the climb.
A P47 was faster but the Spit accelerated more quickly which was equally important in a dogfight where energy and speed are lost in manoevering.
A P47 could roll faster but the Spit could turn faster which tends to even things up. I admit to not knowing the impact of the larger heavier wing of the P47N on its roll rate, but suspect it would still be better than the Spitfire.
Both were well armed but in range of course its no contest, P47 by a long way.

At altitude the P47 could escape by diving whenever it wanted so must be considered to have a slight edge, but if fighting at lower altitude the Spit would have the advantage. You pays your money and takes your choice.

Guys I think the easiest way is to repeat my previous posting. In air to air combat there was nothing between the P47N and the Spit XIV. Each had there own advantages and disadvantages and who wins is likely to be dependent on the tactical situation and/or the experience of the Pilots involved.

The RAF only used the P47D against the Japs and they replaced Hurricanes. Typhoons and Tempests were not used against the Japs they were only used in Europe. Tempest II was used post war in the Far East but that is a different story.

 

I did say they did. Where's your source for that outlandish accusation? I said that the Tempest was the GA replacement for the Hurricane.

the tempest was the replacement for the Typhoon, from which the first prototype was produced.

the tempest never saw service inthe far east, mainly Europe and the MKVI saw service inthe Middle east!

 

Now it is even stranger and more revealing of your overconfidence in the Spitfire XIV being replaced by the P-47D. Why replace the Spits with Ds? After all they had Tempests so it was not them that were being replaced. Because they were better for the PTO service

Do you even read anyone else posts, or do you just not understand simple facts?

In Burma the RAF replaced Hurricanes in ground attack role with the P-47D

No Spitfire XIV, no Tempest were replaced

So the evidence shows that maybe the RAF thought the P-47D was better than the Hurricane in the ground attack role in Burma. Anything else you claim is a bigger leap than Neil Armstrong's unless you can provide some evidence rather than just your love of the P-47.

Re your signature - how many combat troops, as opposed to administrative personnel, Wehrmacht civilian personnel and auxiliary workers were in Group Elstar?

 

the tempest was the replacement for the Typhoon, from which the first prototype was produced.

the tempest never saw service inthe far east, mainly Europe and the MKVI saw service inthe Middle east!
Could have sworn the Tempest V's main role was GA and the Hurricane's main role was as a fighter since it couldn't even carry as much ordinance as the Spitfire. I do also believe the Hurricane fought in the PTO as well. Something is amiss here people. None of you seem to explain the British late war purchase of Jugs, yet so many condescending words for it. That was my counterpoint.

 

The Tempest was designed as a fighter as it was realised fom an early stage that the Typhoon with its thick wing lacked performance at altitude. Hence the decision to fit it with the low flow laminer wing similar to the P51.
It was used as a GA plane as the Spit was more than capable of fulfilling the fighter role and had the ability to carry a heavy load of bombs ect.

Why use the P47 not the Typhoon/Tempest in the GA role. I don't know but it makes sence from a supply and spares position. There were loads of P47's in theatre with spares. Bringing out the Typhoon/Tempest would complicate the mainanence position for no real benefit.
A Typhoon was taken to Burma for trials and no difficulty was experienced in operating the aircraft.

 

The Tempest was designed as a fighter as it was realised fom an early stage that the Typhoon with its thick wing lacked performance at altitude. Hence the decision to fit it with the low flow laminer wing similar to the P51.
It was used as a GA plane as the Spit was more than capable of fulfilling the fighter role and had the ability to carry a heavy load of bombs ect.

Why use the P47 not the Typhoon/Tempest in the GA role. I don't know but it makes sence from a supply and spares position. There were loads of P47's in theatre with spares. Bringing out the Typhoon/Tempest would complicate the mainanence position for no real benefit.
A Typhoon was taken to Burma for trials and no difficulty was experienced in operating the aircraft.
I believe its about money, not complication. The Jugs were not a cheap aircraft. A P51 can do some ground attack and is half the price. But I am sure shipping the parts to a Tempest would be a lot cheaper that buying all new Jugs. The Tempest was not a slow aircraft, in fact it flew like a scalded dog. It was one of my favorite planes of the RAF.

 

Don't know. But you need both and they were deprived of whatever he had including himself, the chief administrator. Bad thinking in the idea that a staff is not a loss. Very bad assumption. Very bad. You need skilled persons are well as the grunts. The army depends on it.

You show yourself to be a very astute military mind Jimbo. I think you'll find that 'grunts' will probably disagree with you on that comment. Within the staff of an HQ you only really need a couple of skilled military minds. Most of the rest need to be skilled in moving paperwork, keeping records and indenting for stores. Important yes, but I wouldn't call them skilled. Every single grunt needs to be skilled in fieldcraft, weapon handling, low level tactics to mention but a few things. To call the infantryman 'unskilled' is very belittling of his many very real skills and could only come from someone who has never worn a uniform.:mellow:

 

I believe its about money, not complication. The Jugs were not a cheap aircraft. A P51 can do some ground attack and is half the price. But I am sure shipping the parts to a Tempest would be a lot cheaper that buying all new Jugs.

But how much would actually have been paid under Lend-Lease?

Re Group Elstar - as far as I can find it included few combat troops, and was the remains of the German administration in South West France that failed to move fast enough, making its capture a less impressive feat

 

You show yourself to be a very astute military mind Jimbo. I think you'll find that 'grunts' will probably disagree with you on that comment. Within the staff of an HQ you only really need a couple of skilled military minds. Most of the rest need to be skilled in moving paperwork, keeping records and indenting for stores. Important yes, but I wouldn't call them skilled. Every single grunt needs to be skilled in fieldcraft, weapon handling, low level tactics to mention but a few things. To call the infantryman 'unskilled' is very belittling of his many very real skills and could only come from someone who has never worn a uniform.:mellow:
given Jimbos propensity towards Air Power I'm not so sure he has much opinion about Ground Forces.

 

given Jimbos propensity towards Air Power I'm not so sure he has much opinion about Ground Forces.

If that statment was in fact true, he wouldn't have voiced his 'opinion' and I wouldn't have commented. It may be true that he has an opinion but a limited amount of information on which to base that opinion. It was however voiced with 'authority' and without any caveats. No "in my opinion', "I think", "maybe", "perhaps" or even an "in my limited experience". He just ploughed straight in with his opinion as the truth when putting somebody elses opinion down.

Go figure :mellow:

 

But how much would actually have been paid under Lend-Lease?



I think we only paid for the ones that we lost. The ones that survived were given back as part of the Lend.

 

For those interested there's a short film on Thunderbolts in Italy at
http://www.zenoswarbirdvideos.com