Thunderbolts and Mustangs versus the Jagdwaffe (split topic)
 

Good fiscal reasons to choose the Mustang over either types, especially if weighed against performance (bang for buck).

You could, on average, have two P-51s against one P-38 or P-47. The Mustang might have been less able to absorb damage, but since Allied pilots weren't an issue in 1944, you could always win the numbers game by producing the cheapest high performance fighter.

Well, Mustang was not only cheaper but also superior in performance.

That seems to be arguable.

The late P-47s and P-38 matched or surpassed the P-51 in certain areas, but the overall sum clearly points towards the P-51.

However IMHO it was the P-47 which took on the brunt of the Luftwaffe and broke its back, the P-51 got the leftovers. The numbers game might show something different, but in 1943 the quality and quantity was more or less equal between the opponents, the same can not be said of 1944.

The USAAF could probably have done the same without the P-51.

However in the first post I did write:

I am afraid we are going off topic, so perhaps you can edit the thread to a separate topic?

What areas? Certainly Thunderbolt was superior to Mustang as a ground attack aircraft but I think we do not discuss that role. RAF rejected T-bolt as an escort aircraft and send it overseas instead. Having in mind L-L terms I do not think that price was a decisive factor for Britons.

Well, there were two breaking points on ETO - the Big Week and Normandy. Neither of them can be considered a pure T-bolt show.

You are looking in decisive moments, I am looking at daily grinding.

In 1943 the Jagdwaffe still had a strong force in the West with pilots of equal or superior quality, this force was pitted against the Thunderbolt and not the Mustang. Once the Mustang entered the picture in the spring of 1944 (Big Week), much attrition had already taken place, many experienced air crew had been replaced by far less experienced nachwuchs.

1943 misses a climactic moment like Big Week.

Ruy
A closer look at the ETO operations during 1943 should reveal a significant role of RAF fighters. Also I do not think that results of combats between T-bolts and Germans were in the former's favour. Then we should consider condition of Luftwaffe in 1944 an effect of training system collapse rather than direct result of one type's operations.

But if the training system collapsed in 1944 , it was due to the steady attrition of 1943 and although I agree that said attrition cannot be attributed to the Thunderbolt alone (or more precise USAAF alone), it can also be said that it cannot be attributed to only the western allies.

However the discussion was Thunderbolts (and Lightnings) versus the Mustang, and if the Mustang REALLY made the difference. Even during Big Week the Thunderbolt still filled the bulk of the VIII. AF FGs.

When the Mustang took over as the most numerable fighter, the Jagdwaffe had already lost its grip in the West (daytime). Although like you said this is attributable to more than just a single operational type, when you look at US fighter types it was the Thunderbolt (and Lightning) which took the relatively fresh Bull by the horns and it was the Mustang which took over when said beast was already bleeding to death.

It may be simplistic a view, but that's why I wrote leftovers.

1943 is fighting for supremacy, 1944 is mopping up, 1945 is kicking a dead horse.

One thing that hasn’t been mentioned is the effect that 8th AF DOCTRINE had on the defeat of the LW. Doctrine probably more effect than the relative performance of P-38, P-47 and P-51. When the 8th fighter command was handcuffed by orders requiring them to provide escort they could not be successful. When Doolittle changed from a “defensive” mode to an “offensive” mode (find the LW and destroy him wherever he is), the same aircraft, and same pilots were much more effective in destroying the LW, not just preventing interceptions.

Doctrine matters; sometimes it’s not as interesting as maximum speed, turning radius and rates of fire, but it has a fundamental effect on the use of weapons.

So, Ruy, in your terms 1943 was developing the tools, 1944 was developing the doctrine and late 1944 -1945 was using the right tools while applying the doctrine.

I didn't miss out on the doctrine.

Said doctrine was impossible to implement without the numbers required to do so, something that only came to be in late 1943 at best. Lets assume that we are all aware of the same variables and developments.

Only in 1943 do we find a matching pair fighting for supremacy, technology, numbers and quality are roughly even between the Jagdwaffe and the USAAF.

This changes in the winter of 1943/44, you might attribute many factors, ranging from new allied types to new allied tactics to simply overwhelming numbers.

Again, I see these variables like any other enthusiast in our field however, and I am guilty of not attempting to quantify my take of events, it is 1943 that essentially forms the main attritional stage in the Battle over the Reich. It is 1943 that the Jagdwaffe loses air superiority and its essentially the Thunderbolt that does the hard work in gaining said superiority.

Certainly 800 Mustangs could do the work better than 600 Thunderbolts, but that's a mute point.

Again, look at the force disposition during Big Week.

Bottom line, as you indirectly mention, if it wasn't about the aircraft but the men and their aggressive tactics (not to forget numbers) etc, the Mustang did not really make the difference that's often attributed. The same work could have been done with Thunderbolts.

But now I am starting to argue for the sake of argument, so I'll leave it at that. Must be careful not to step outside the lines as a moderator.

With Thunderbolts and Mustangs over Europe - wasn't it a bit like with Hurricanes and Spitfires during BoB? The uglier did the job while the prettier got famous for it? ;)

Some members of the 4th FG assumed that the P-51B was superior, and attempted to test that theory when they tried to jump some P-47s from the 56th FG:

" 27 February 1944: At 1315 a Rolls-Royce tech representative held a briefing on the P-51. Blakeslee held a discussion on flying problems with the Mustang, which had been disappointingly numerous. A plague of mechanical gremlins diminished the pilots' enthusiasm for the highly touted fighter. Jim Goodson, Willard Millikan and George Carpenter had bounced the new paddle-bladed P-47s of the 56th and frustratedly reported that these Thunderbolts were a match for the Mustang upstairs and downstairs. This added to the air of uncertainty" (See ESCORT TO BERLIN, Garry Fry and Jeff Ethell).

The P-47M and P-47N had better performance, and both types probably would have been available sooner without the presence of the Merlin-engined P-51. What I mean is that the USAAF would have seriously pressured Republic to make those modifications.

The RAF used the Thunderbolt to escort their Liberators in the Far East. They tangled with Japanese fighters occasionally.

P-47 Thunderbolt v P-51 Mustang
 

Within the realms of aviation history there will always be a bias towards one type or another. If the P-47 was no good why did the 56FG do so well with the type? You can prove almost anything with statistics!

I recently saw a thread that said hardly any German tanks were knocked out by P-47's and other Allied ground attack aircraft, while ignoring the fact that if you shot up everything in sight, as the Allies did in Normandy, the tanks are too scared to deploy were they should have been. And if they didn't get re-supplied, with fuel, parts or replacement soldiers, they became totally ineffective. If a tank is not in the battle, due to lack of fuel or ammo etc, it does not matter whether it is knocked out or not! Many vehicles were just abandoned.

Having talked to several P-47 pilots of the 9th USAAF, I have a bias for the P-47 and can see why these pilots liked having a big fat radial engine for reliability rather than an inline! P-47 pilots of the 9th AF think that the 8th AF stole all the glory as there was more credability in shooting down enemy a/craft, than blowing up a whole train load of fuel or ammo, which had a greater impact on the war effort. The 9th AF boys maintain they faced the greater dangers low down from flak compared to the 8th AF escorts. It would be interesting to see who suffered the greatest losses, though the 8th AF airwar over Germany lasted longer than the 'D-Day to VE-Day' campaign of the 9th AF.

Finally, when you think that the P-47 first flew in early 1941, it makes you weep to think of all those brave RAF crews who flew Fairey Battles and other out of date types on missions less than a year before and never lived to see what the P-47 could do. You can only wonder what effect 500 P-47's would have had on the Battle of France!

My opinion is, that Mustang was clearly superior to T-bolt and Lightning. It's also backed up by datas. Normal P-51D was faster and much more turny than the others. Also duration was higher.
Also the US-Experts vote Mustang superior to P-47, P-38.

Also losses of Luftwaffe in Normandie were not that high, i had in mind for some years. Take i.e. June 1944 in France were LW lost ~800 planes and ~240 dead and missed personel losses.
http://feldgrau.slacker.se/wwiilexic...-m-fbottom.htm

Of course these losses were high, but not for breaking backbone.

Hello
I'm with Ruy in this. IMHO T'Bolts did much of the foundation laying work for the later success. P-47D was also faster than P-51D in high up, at least over 27000ft because its turbo. Of course it had its problems, for ex. rather low critical Mach number (reason for dive recovery flaps for it and for P-38) and both early C/Ds and Ms suffered engine reability problems during the early parts of their careers in UK because of bad corrosion protection for sea-transit and because of problems in engine electronics.

P51&P47, What happened to RAF Fighter Command ?
 

Gents,

Slightly off topic, but I could not help but reply to some of the above posts. Other than a brief mention of RAF Fighter Command it seems to me that ALL credit for the demise of the German fighter arm is accredited to the US 8th and 15th Airforce’s.

I am not a Fighter Command researcher, my field is Bomber Commands bitter and costly bomber campaign. ( stay there I here you say. :roll: ) However from the little I know I feel Fighter Commands contribution is too easily dismissed. The air-war, or more specifically the gradual attrition of German fighters over Northern Europe did not start with the arrival of the P51 or P47, I was under the obviously misguided assumption it started in 1941 with the fighter sweeps carried out by Fighter Command. I freely admit that the losses were not on the scale of those submitted by the US, nevertheless losses were suffered by the G.A, including a number of respected German pilots prior to the arrival of the P47 & P51.

RAF Fighter Commands daily sweeps MUST have had an impact on the Germans effectiveness and efficiency.

So come on chaps, credit were credit is due, Fighter Command was also there.

These are my opinions, so I expect the experts to "shoot me down in flames". Pardon the pun. :lol:

Smudger

Of course attrition of 1941 was a factor, but it is also clear that it did not strain the Jagdwaffe. They pretty much had the situation under control, or at worst simply avoided combat. RAF Fighter Command did not strain the german system...

If we mention Fighter Command in 1941/42, then we might as well say that attrition started with the Battle of France in 1940, which meant that the Luftwaffe could only replace their losses for the upcoming Battle of Britain, instead of building up their strength. The same happened again against the Soviet Union, the Luftwaffe having mainly replaced their Battle of Britain losses.

And if there is one steady attritional factor that's overlooked its the Eastern Front meat grinder, which from the start took a steady toll (the opening round always shocks me, although the gains were great during Barbarossa, so were the losses - leaving the Luftwaffe more or less punch drunk in the winter of 1941/42).

However when we discuss the Mustang we automatically focus on the Battle over Germany proper, when the Jagdwaffe could not avoid confrontation, but had to fight at any cost and when the german system was really put to the limit and over it...

Although serious historians will probably shudder at the thought of these childish type vs type discussions, howver I still persist that while the Thunderbolt did the real work (or as some might say, lay the foundation), the Mustang took the credits.

Too much credit is given to some of the advantages of the Mustang, apart from the economics of being able to buy two of them for the price of one competitor (would be interesting to compare manhours, which unlike the money is a real a factor in war economy).

Speed is relative, certainly when applying hit and run tactics. Also it is arguable which a/c proofed to be the superior weapons platform in the most common attack form - a high speed bounce.

But this discussion is practically meaningless without supporting figures, just a nice bar room conversation :)

P51 V P47
 

Ruy,

Yes your right, a good topic to discuss over a pint of beer.

Appreciate you comments, but tend to see the similarities between post-war hype of the precision daylight bombing by the US bomber formations versus the ‘area bombing’ attacks by RAF Bomber Command and the apparent brainwashing that the US fighters single-handed destroyed the German fighter forces in the west. :wink:

I do appreciate that the US fighters did a tremendous job ( especially the Jug, my own personal favourite) over Europe. I just think Fighter Command also did. :D

PS : I was under the misguided impression the US Fort and liberator gunners destroyed the German airforce, considering the over-claiming that went on.

On that note, I’m off down the pub. :shock:

Smudger

Hello Smudger Smith
at least I was not trying to ignore the contribution of RAF but I had time only for a short note as I was and I still am at work, so I concentrated only to some points not mentioned earlier in this tread, that's why I also left out the main weakness of the the P-47D as a escort fighter, range. Now back to work for a quarter of hour and then to our War Archive.

All the best
Juha

Wether type vs. type comparsions are childish nor useless. On the other side, of course the they tell only one point of the whole story.

If you read the german veterans especially Galland, the picture of Luftwaffes defeat is drawn by P-51. Only due the range and perfomance of P-51 the Luftwaffe get no break to revcover the suffered losses.

Just take a look on claims, losses and bombs dropped.

http://members.aol.com/forcountry/ww2/eak.htm

It can be seen, that P-51 had a much greater impact on air superiority.

First the range is a matter of temporary advantage, the Thunderbolt was playing catch up with the Mustang (the Lightning was already in the same ballpark or very near).

I don't doubt that the Mustang's record will look impressive, but if you take into account that during Big Week the Thunderbolt was still the most numerous US fighter type, I'd feel comfortable in adding that by the spring of 1944 the air war in the west had run its course. Sure, more pilots would die, more a/c would be built, but the matter had been decided before the impact of the Mustang could be felt.

Now I'd risk another statement. The loser loves to blame a wonder weapon. During the Battle of Britain it was the Spitfire, during the RVT it became the Mustang. Its easier to blame technology, since the Mustang was a world beater, all other considerations being secondary. The failure is aleviated by having to face (supposedly) superior technology.

Galland especially with his infamous Spitfire quote is the epitomy of this thought (taken out of context or not). If only we had something like a Spitfire, the Bf 109F was a retrogressive step, the Mustang was a wunderwaffe, Hitler messed up the Me 262 program...

So my main points are:
1. The main battle had been waged before the Mustang made its presence felt.
2. The Thunderbolt (and Lightning) could have done the same job if required, it might have taken a little longer that's all.

Of course this discussion becomes a bit of a generalization for the sake of focus and clearity. 1944 confuses the picture because of stepped up fighter production and en equally stepped up training program, yet the pilots manning these fighters do not have the same quality as only a year before, in essence the Luftwaffe is training cannon fodder, nothing more and nothing less...the Mustang had its place in history as it could pick the fruit of earlier labor.

So in the war over Germany, how much of a turning point is Big Week?

(sorry, I am leaving out RAF Bomber Command's strategic offensive completely).

Figures.?
 

Come on, these figures are not for real, more American propaganda. :cry:

Just look at the stat’s for the enemy aircraft claimed over Europe by the gunners of the B17, a staggering 6,659 and the B24 a further 2,617. Overall the gunners of the US bomber forces in Europe claimed a staggering 9,889 enemy fighters from 1942-1944. !!!!!! :o

You don’t need the P51 or P47, unbelievable. :shock:

Well, the thread developed nicely but went into few directions - I think a tree was a better sollution.

German training collapse - this was caused by several errors that were committed before the war and continued after the beginning. In effect Luftwaffe had no constant influx of pilots which led to the catastrophe. Another thing to blame is German training system which was simply bad and did not produce competent fighter pilots.

Big Week - indeed those were T-bolts which formed the bulk of USAAF fighter forces but those were still Mustangs overflying Berlin. Extraordinary range of the type caused no German aircraft was safe and able to attack from height advantage position. It also allowed to attack every strategic target in Germany - Schweinfurt disaster was simply not to repeat again, as Mustangs were able to extend fighter escort for whole duration of attack.
Of course we may say Big Week could not change events of the war but it must be remembered the air war was not a decisive factor here. German economy was simply unable to cope with demands and German planists did much too many errors to win the war. It was the Big Week where annihilation of Luftwaffe started, however. Look at a significant increase of claims since March 1944! And I would hardly call the pilots downed at the time - rookies!

1943 air superiority - it must be not forgotten that Germany already lost the air war in MTO. Plethora of types at the time but no T-bolts. Certainly appearance of USAAF on ETO changed ballance of forces but still it was not decisive factor in Germany's collapse. Luftwaffe was still able to control the situation and US pilots had no fun with Germans.

T-bolts with RAF - it was planned to have P-47 the main RAF escort fighter in ETO. Mustangs were considered some kind of stop gap deployed overseas. Burma was a secondary front for RAF, most modern and potent fighters going on ETO. So the rhetoric question - how it happenned Mustang was retained in Britain and T-bolt send far and away to replace Hurricanes?

Attacking ground targets - it was considered already during the war that tactical attack were much more demanding and dangerous for pilots rather than air combat (well, this could have been found during WWI). Mustang was not perfect at this due to exposed radiator which also caused forced landings extremally dangerous. Also clean aerodynamic lines caused Mustang to accelerate pretty fast, this being not an advantage during dive bombing!
T-bolt was much better suited for the task having a radial engine, by nature being much more damage resistant.
A problem itself is effectiveness of aircraft against ground targets, some researchers like Zetterling claim it was close to nil in Normandy.

RAF vs USAAF - for some reason a role of RAF remains forgotten and in shadow of spectacular USAAF actions. Nonetheless it seems those were RAF actions that were decisive during Normandy Campaign.

Eastern Front as a meat grinder - simply not true as prooven by statistics, I think on Don Caldwell site. Reason of German collapse on the East was not air war.

P-47 vs P-51 in dog fight - that happens that one of fighter pilots I have met had a dog fight with a T-bolt. He was flying a Mustang III at the time. When I asked him if it was a combat with live ammo, who would win it - he replied: me, with ease. I have to add that the pilot had to serve some punishment at 84 GSU for this action. Of course we cannot draw any conclusions from such a single incident but I would take some stories saying the opposite with some grain of salt.

56FG - not an ordinary unit, with considerable experience and some extraordinary airmen. Also it must be forgotten that somewhere in 1944 the unit was double sized. I am not sure if it was done with any other Fighter Group but definetelly must be taken into account when doing some stats.

Just short comments before sauna.
According to graphs in Dean's book P-47 D-25 (with paddle blades) at 14500lb was clearly better climber than P-51D at 10200lb from SL upwards.

The RAF opinion may be biased. T'Bolt wasn't like Spitfire, which many of the FC brass saw as the epitem of fighter design of the day. IIRC even in 4thFG, which had flown Spitfires up that time, there were many who first thought that P-47 was too big to be a good fighter.

IIRC Eastern Front was the main meat grinder for Jagdwaffe from 22.6.41 to very early 1943 but after that West and for a ½ year also MTO were the main area(s) of Jagdwaffe losses. But I don't have time to check this from my sources. Ruy, You can check this from Williamson Murray's Strategy of Defeat, there are some good graps on this.

56th has experience and some extraordinary airmen but so has 4thFG. But IIRC even the long time CO of 56th, Zemke said after war, that P-51 was better fighter than P-47 for 8th AAF. But I think that the main point of this discussion is not which was the better fighter but was the impact made by P-47 units underestimated and that made by P-51 units overestimated. IMHO the P-47 accomplishments are underestimated and to the other point, I think that P-51D was better fighter.

Juha

And no to sauna

So very conventional Franek, a bit disappointing...can find most of these statements on my bookshelves. :D

P-47 vs P-51
 

When I was growing up during WW II, all I wanted to be was a fighter pilot and fly either a p-38 or P-51. In my old age, having survived 50 years of flying off and on, I would now make the choice of flying P-47s rather than P-51s. This would be based on the chances of surviving the war and IIRC, there are statistics around that indicates the survival rate of P-47 aces is appreciably higher than that of P-51 aces.

IMHO, this is significant not only from a personal survival desire, but also real military considerations. An aircraft (and pilot) that survives combat longer is more valuable and in the final analysis, the mission and life cyle (no pun intended) cost can be less that a lower first cost aircraft. The other side of the coin is that by 1944, a number of fighters were effective flying machines, German, GB, USSR and USA. These designs all had areas of the performance envelope that they were better in and embodied trade offs to enhance certain combat characteristics over others. The probability of success in any specific encounter was as much the result of level of pilot training , proficiency, tactics, situational awareness, local conditions and relative energy state than the nationality or aircraft type.

Of the WWII fighter pilots, I have talked to, most seemed to believe the type he flew was the best. I believe to a certain degree, this is true, as follows. For a fighter pilot with a total flight time of 400-800 hours, the majority of combat being in a particular type, the plane he has flown is the best, for he understands the limitations and particular vices of that machine and how to deal with them. Be aware, no WWII fighter was viceless and could kill it’s pilot in an instant of low attention or poor airmanship. Pilots with more and varied experience might be able to step from one type to another and be instantly effective, but those are the exception.

Because of tradeoffs, a particular aircraft type might be best for a specific mission, all things being equal. But, in the real world this is almost never the case. A mission best suited to the characteristics of the P-51 might have those advantages nullified by poor tactics and crews of lesser experience or abilities and a well flown P-47 might have produced better results. But in the end, these two aircraft (along with several other types on both sides) were really close in capabilities and which one was better would depend on the mission, the pilot and the day. So, even with the very best technical data, there are no easy black and white answers, the devil is as usual, in the details.

Best regards,

Artie Bob

Excellent contribution, ArtieBob
I agreed with your main points. The most important thing is to use right tactics. Play the strong points of own mount and exploit the weaknesses of the enemy's a/c. One good example of that was the experiences of two experienced Spit sqns transferred to Far East after successful service against LW, one at Darwin against Zeros and the other in Burma against Ki-43s. In both cases the pilots didn't heed to the advices of the "locals" because they thought that if they were able to handle "Jerries in Bf 109s" they could take "Japs anytime" and as a result were roughly handed by the Japanese. Only after that they understood that the advice "Don't dogfight with Japanese" was true also with Spitfire pilots.

Juha

Well Ruy, it was conventional war with mostly conventional aircraft. Most of the recent myth breakers are coming from lack of knowledge. Just recently, on MustangsMustangs there was a discussion on obvious - Mustang dorsal fin fillet. ;)
Concerning P-47 vs P-51 - tactics and pilots point is valid but it is simply easier with a better aircraft. ;)

Hello Franek
P-47 vs P-51 of course You are right that better a/c made life easier. BTW, in the Dean's book there are results of a gallup taken from a small group of company test pilots and few military pilots. At least some P-38 fans deny the validity of this gallup in which P-38J/L done it poorly. I have no oppinion of its validy but among the results are
best fighter above 25 000ft: P-47D, P-51D, F4U-1...
best fighter below 25 000ft: P-51D, F4U-1D, F6F-5...

and one bit of info for You, according those graphs P-39N/Q was at 7 700lb a little bit better climber than P-47D-25 at 14 500lb up to appr. 24 000ft. This when they both used 100% normal power (1000hp at 14 000ft for N/Q and 1625hp at 6 500 - 25 000 ft for D-25), not military power.

Juha

Juha
And now note that P-51D was optimised for low altitudes, having similar settings as LF Spitfires. Simply there was no demand for performance at higher altitudes, hence the modification.
Weight is always an enemy of performance and some facts should be reconsidered by T-bolt fans. Next in line of piston army fighters was lightweight Mustang with reduced mass. Navy developed Bearcat, this being a significant mass reduction comparing to Hellcat. There was no line of development of heavy piston single engined fighter.
Additionally I think FAA considered Seafire an only naval fighter able to fight on equal terms with German fighters and no Hellcats nor Corsairs were emplyed in range of German fighters.
PS I always state Cobra is underestimated! ;)

Hello Franek
Yes the speed graphs show that P-51B was faster high up than D.
On lightweight versus heavy fighters. Yes, P-51H was in production at the end of WWII but so was P-47N, which was the equipment of four frontline FGs in Pacific when the war ended. And it was a real heavy weight. F8F was lightweight, cannot remember if the idea was to replace all F6Fs with it or not. Boeing was testflying at the end of the war a heavyweight carrier fighter (XF8B?), but I cannot remember what were the plans of the USN for it. Ah, my memory isn't working too well now. Clearly time to go to bed for me.

On P-39N/Q, yes the last P-39s (appr 2/3 of the production run) were not purely low level fighters.

Good Night
Juha

Hello again
while brushing my teeth I remembered again that I has one comment on US made carrier fighters. The FAA Hellcats had at least one brush with LW fighters. IIRC in early May 44 some Hellcats were escorting some Barracudas when they were jumped by Bf 109s and FW 190s, end results were 2 Hellcats loss but Hellcat jockeys got 3 confirmed. Now, I haven't check the real LW losses but at least some Hellcats operated within the range of LW fighters, and IIRC FAA Hellcats also flew some missions in Med, even during the Dragoon.

OK that's all
Juha

Juha
IIRC P-47N was considered a long range fighter bomber for invasion of Japan, therefore I would rather consider Skyraider next in line of development, hardly a fighter aircraft.
OTOH we should distinguish heavy fighters like Mosquito or Tigercat, tey are not in the same category as T-bolt. Purpose of heavy fighters was usually to carry heavy navigation and radar equipment as well as increase range and time of operations, hence most of them was flown at night and on maritime patrols.
P-39Q was still low level fighter comparing to other types in AAF inventory, though it had better altitude performance than average Soviet types.
FAA comment was based on Ethell IIRC. I think it was found by Americans that Seafire III was a best dog fighter of all available naval fighters. Will check it further if you like.

There you have your proof, perhaps the Seafire III scored high on paper and in certain areas of its performance envelope, no one would consider it a better allround naval combat plane compared to the Hellcat and Corsair.

What made the difference between Zeroes and Wildcats?

Its certainly wasn't performance.

It was tactics and...

...RUGGEDNESS.

The Hellcat and Corsair combined good performance with ruggedness, the best of two worlds. Eric Brown knew what he was talking about.

As has been pointed out before in this thread, the Thunderbolt might have looked like a groundpounder, but generally speaking these a/c didn't differ radically in performance. Different a/c probably dictated slightly different tactics, but I'll repeat it again if you like, the USAAF could have done the same job with the Thunderbolt as it did with the Mustang (the other way around...well that's is a different matter).

The USN/MC would have been hard pressed in their campaign if they had flown the inline narrow geared Seafire instead of the Wildcat, Hellcat and Corsair, to the extend that they'd probably lost more battles then they did.

Sure tactics would have been a factor, but unfortunately the Seafire simply wasn't as rugged...not in the tradition of the Grumman Ironworks, or Vought's Hawg.

Doesn't matter what a performance list tells you.

The RAF used Spitfires and Mosquitos in the Far East but their record vs. Japan was not very impressive, especially after we discount inflated pilot claims.

Because the Mustang and Spitfire were too flimsy for ground attack, and the Typhoon was a flop in its intended role as an escort fighter.

On the other hand, the Thunderbolt was excellent at both missions, and was immediately popular with the RAF pilots in the Far East. Not surprisingly, "versatility" was cited by them as the Thunderbolt's best asset. By that time, the USAAF had plenty of long range fighters in the skies over Burma and the RAF did not need their own.

The other alternative for the RAF was to replace every Hurricane with a combination of Mustangs, Spitfires, Typhoons -- and Tempests if available. That would be expensive, impractical, and probably impossible. When given a choice, it does not make sense to use four different aircraft when one type can meet the requirements.

8th Air Force pilots viewed that as a mistake. Maybe the Tac Recons, Jabos and Buzz Bomb chasers preferred more power at low level, but the escort pilots did not want a loss of power at high altitude.

If that were true, the Messerschmitt Bf 109 would not have stayed in production.

The Germans continued to upgrade it because the Focke Wulf 190 had poor performance above 20,000 feet -- the engine lost so much power that it was a sitting duck at 28,000 or more. I suppose the Dora 9 was somewhat improved -- and helped by the intentionally lowered performance of Merlin engines at high altitude. Besides, the P-51A was faster than P-51D at low altitude. The Allison engine was more durable and burned about 30% less fuel on cruise settings.

If the P-47N (or just the wings) project was started a year earlier, there was no need for Mustangs with Merlin engines.

The FAA considered the Seafire as "unsuitable for carrier operations".

The Seafire had very little successful contact with enemy fighters. The accident rate was disturbing, and range was poor. That is why the British wanted more Hellcats and Corsairs.

If weight is that important, then British and German fighters would have been easy meat for Japanese pilots.

Hello Franek
My recollection is that P-47N was needed as very long range fighter for Pacific, and also used as that, at least partly. Flying fighter sweeps over Japan and also over Korea. It had clearly longer range than P-51D. But of course it had also great load carrying capacity and so fighter-bomber potential.
Boeing XF8B-1 was single engined (R-4360 Wasp Manor) fighter/fighter bomber, maybe more later. It suffered the USAAF/USN deal in which USN cancelled/delayed it's contracts with Boeing and got patrol bombers from USAAF contracts. And USAAF got more resourses to its top-priority B-29 program. Plane was good but delayed and then USN prefered F7F Tigercat and jets were coming, so it was cancelled.
No need to check the Seafire III. I know it was excellent defensive fighter but IIRC it lacked range, and the capacity to be able work as escort fighter for strike a/c was very important to a carrier fighter. And it also lacked some ruggerness.
On F8F, I checked and yes it was designed as a Hellcat replacement. So it was designed as a main carrier fighter not as a FM-2 replacement for CVEs as I thought as an other possibility.

And now to skiing
Juha

Ruy
I think I will discuss all the Seafire related matters in a separate thread, just give me a few days. Nonetheless I feel obliged to note that I never claimed it was the best carrier aircraft, just only it was considered the only one able to fight German fighter aircraft on it's own terms, that Seafire remained in use on carriers well into 1950s and that it happenned a Spitfire(!) landed on a carrier without an arrester hook.
Corsairs and Hellcats never saw any significant use within range of German fighters and were never fully employed in ETO or MTO. Their successes in SWPA must be viewed in perspective of their opposition and also actual Japanese losses.
You also tend to show the aircraft were of similar performance, therefore it did not matter. But tell me when it matters? If Polish pilots scored against Germans in PZL P.11 does it mean those were aircraft comparable in performance? I suppose USAAF could have done what they did even with P-36 or P-40 but is this an argument P-51 was generally better than P-47? Sorry, performance figures are clear, it is just only most authors have no slightest idea what thery are telling about.

Six Nifty .50s

Inflated claims apply to other combatants as well. Having in mind there is no detailed log of what Japanese lost and a fact that I was unable to get an answer from the people supposed to be experts on how Japanese loss record system worked, I would put that question still open.
It is a fact however, that Spitifres and Mosquitoes experienced some problems due to overheating and this was a serious limiting factor.


That happens Spitfires were widely used in ground attack duties in Europe and I did not hear too many complaints. I may call a friendly pilot within few days and ask for his opinion.

Well, anyone would be happy when changing Mohawks or Hurricanes for a factory fresh Thunderbolts. This is not a fair argument.

RAF would have send Mustangs to Burma because they were destined for. They already send Buffaloes to SWPA although they found they were unsuitable for hot weather. But they found them unsuitable to ETO as well and they had to send something there. No composition was necessary, Japanese never had as strong anti aircraft artillery as Germans did.

Well, this is another question but in effect 8 AF was anyway chasing most Germans on low level - most of Normandy combats were.

I was discussing Allied approach!

Airmen of 309 Sqn had a different opinion about Allison Mustang, nonetheless I agree, it was a stunning low level aircraft. But by 1944 there were no jigs available and no production run was possible.

This aircraft was designed specifically for SWP and having increased weight had little chance with lighter German types.

Japanese had no powerful engines and this was their main problem. Anyway, by building extremally light designs, they were able to compensate this weakness. And weight is always an enemy of a good plane - it is basic engineering rule. Such aircraft like P-47 or B-17 were simply overdimensioned, thus overweighted, thus stronger than comparable designs - performance suffered.

Juha
P-47N had no clearly longer range than Mustang, it was almost the same. There was another important thing - engine. Merlin was optimised for European conditions and overheated, this caused a lot of problems. P-47 had enough performance to have a safety edge against Japanese fighters.

Hello Franek
my opinion that P-47N had clearly longer range than P-51D is based on a typical USAAF graph which shows ranges of various a/c with various loads on a certain mission. The mission in question consisted t/o, climb to operation altitude, flight to target area, higher powersetting cruising in target area, air combat using full power and return flight. Of course there is variables which might favour one a/c type over an other but in general these graphs give more realistic appraisment of the range characterists of a certain a/c than max still air range. And in that graph P-47N had clearly longer range than P-51D. I can give exact figures in the evening if You want.

Juha

Franek,

On the subject of comparing Naval types and AAF types I highly recommend you take a (second?) look at:

America's Hundred Thousand

Report of Joint Fighter Conference, NAS Patuxent River, MD 16-23 Ocdt. 1944

Duel in the Sky, World war II Naval Aircraft in Combat (edit: this book is mainly an example of "subjective reasoning when comparing a/c", but a such still an interesting contribution)

The second generation USN fighters were either close, equal or superior to their AAF equivalent, a good example is the Corsair in its various guises. The latter even managed to claim MiG(s) in the Korean war.

As for Japanese technology, your assessment is very conservative, to the point of being erroneous. Sure the early generation of Japanese fighters were built to a different standard due to their principle philosophy, but the second and third generation certainly was comparable. Also Japanese radials were good, not lagging far behind the rest, perhaps even superior to german radials. It doesn't help if your 87 Octane fuel is mixed with palm oil...

But this thread is indeed getting out of focus with these different branches.

The main argument still revolves around the basic fact if the Thunderbolt could have continued the job the Mustang took over with more or less the same level of success. Personally I think it could have, and to an extend (spring 1944) it certainly did.

And yes, although performance between types various in certain areas, most of these types were fairly close in combat conditions, close enough to let the tactical situation (incl. quality of pilots and quantity of a/c engaged) decide the issue.

The only CRITICAL issue in the discussion would be the Mustang's range, here the Thunderbolt was lagging in development. Yet, it did catch up, and if the situation had called for it, would have caught up sooner.

But lets agree to keep the Thunderbolt vs Mustang discussion here and continue any branch discussion in a new thread.

P-47 vs P-51
 

Dear Franek,

I would like to address some of the points in your post

1. Allison P-51s: “But by 1944 there were no jigs available and no production run was possible”. I cannot comment on the tooling being destroyed, but the engineering of V-1710 engines in Mustangs continued through the war. IIRC, the final development of the Mustang lineage, the P-82, did have V-1710 engines. Certainly, It was within the capability of WWII US aircraft industry to tool up quite rapidly for production changes. It should also be noted that the P-82 was also a heavier a/c than either the P-51 or P-47 in any version (BTW, a squadron was based near my home in the late 1940s and IMHO they were the most exciting piston fighter ever to see and hear make a low pass).

2. P-47N: “ This aircraft was specifically designed for the SWP and having increased weight had little chance with lighter German types.” IIRC, by the beginning of 1945, the Eighth Air Force had made the decision to standardize on the P-47N as it’s long range escort fighter and some had been delivered to England in early 1945, but did not make it to squadron service prior to V-E day. I really do not believe the USAAF would have made that decision if the P-47 was of inferior performance, either in range or fighter to fighter combat. Not when P-51s were in great supply as well as flight and ground crews. Slightly off topic-one the main reasons I would have selected a P-47 would have been the R-2800 engine. By 1944, the same basic engine that was in the late P-47s had run a 100 hour test at 2800 HP and flash readings to 3800 HP. This was a stock engine, except for the size of the supercharger and the ADI system. What this meant in actual service was that although not “bulletproof”, the engine could absorb the stress of extended overboost and WEP with little effect on reliability.

3. Weight: “Such aircraft like P-47 or B-17 were simply overdimensioned, thus overweighted, thus stronger than comparable designs - performance suffered.” I really believe your opinion on that issue also needs to be questioned. EVERYTHING ELSE BEING EQUAL, it is true that lighter is better! But in the real world of aircraft design almost nothing is equal between two designs (unless they share some major components, like the engines, then they diverge). One must look at the design of the P-47, it was a lineal development of the P-35, XP-41, P-43 and XP-44. The growth in size was a result of the use of a turbo-supercharged R-2800 and specifications set by the Air Corps. This meant tradeoffs in some areas, but from everything I have been able to learn, the P-47 was really a pretty good handling machine and aerodynamically clean for a WWII piston fighter. If just being smaller and lighter were the only criteria, then the Caudron 714 should have been the best fighter of WWII, hands down. IMHO, neither the B-17 or P-47 were overweight, but had very sturdy, easy to maintain airframes that could accept severe combat damage and make it home with crew survival (In a war of attrition, not a performance parameter to be ignored). It would seem to me, the real criteria for evaluating if an aircraft is overweight is to compare the ratio of empty to loaded weight. I suspect the P-47 does not come off too bad in that parameter, otherwise it could not have the fuel carrying capacity for long range operation.
4. Other participants in this discussion: “Sorry, performance figures are clear, it is just only most authors have no slightest idea what thery are telling about.” My question is; does this statement refer to others who have contributed to this thread? If that was your intent, then I would like to ask, what is your background? Why would you be qualified to state that they (including me) might “have no slightest idea what they (sic) are talking about”? If you were not referring to the other TOCH participants, then my last question is moot.

Best regards,

Artie Bob

Greetings from the Zone of the Interior, U.S. of A.

Which performance figures?

Unless the authors personally engaged P-47s in combat, their opinions are unnecessary. Based on their practical experience, several German fighter pilots suggested the Thunderbolt was a more dangerous and troublesome opponent than the Mustang.

Some enemy pilots assumed that was true of the older Thunderbolt, because of its immense size, but they paid for that mistake with their lives.

I will not forget that many people once used the same excuse about German records. Certain Japanese loss reports have survived, and probably these are no less honest than their opponents. Like every other air force, RAAF Spitfire units inflated shootdowns substantially. One figure quoted amounted to about 7:1 overclaiming. I'll look into it more on next trip to the library.

One cannot escape common knowledge that liquid-cooling systems were easily knocked out with one bullet or shell splinter.

Another factor is that Spitfires and Merlin Mustangs had persistent structural problems, especially when put into high speed dives. Both planes showed an alarming tendency to shed their wings or tail on pullout. It was an adventure to plug all of the coolant leaks on the P-51B. In 1942, 36 Spitfires were under investigation for structural failures and in 24 cases the tail unit broke off in flight. By 1944, the Spitfire was often used as a fighter-bomber and another hazard was found in that the engine mounting U-frames would buckle in dive pullouts.

The A-36 at least had dive brakes to control descent, so these were safer to fly while vertical bombing. But otherwise, I cannot imagine why anyone would want to pilot a Mustang or Spitfire with a ground attack unit.

Well the main interest of Jagdwaffe (B-17s and B-24s) did not dive down to drop bombs from low altitude, so the German response is a relevant point.

The best part of the Merlin was the 2-stage supercharger attached to it; not the engine itself which was fragile. Main bearings were weak, and the carburettor was worthless until replaced with the American type.

On average the Allison lasted three times longer before rebuild, even though manifold pressure was often overboosted to about 20 lbs. -- not recommended by the manufacturer, but the engine held together reliably. Note that air racing teams flying P-51Ds installed Allison connecting rods to prevent their Merlins from blowing up. Without this modification, the Mustangs could not compete with the speedy Bearcats at Reno.

Not many air combats took place over towns inside Normandy. The Luftwaffe did not often penetrate the fighter cover surrounding that part of France -- at least not when the sun was shining.

Besides, the Luftwaffe was short of petrol by the autumn of 1943, so the Focke Wulfs and Messerschmitts usually did not bother with Allied fighter-bombers, medium bombers and their escorts, or other fighter patrols that were not tied to B-17s and B-24s. What little avgas remained on tap was needed for training.

It is widely believed by fighter pilots that in tens of thousands of engagements, the overwhelming majority of pilots shot down were hit by gunfire from another pilot who was not seen by the victim. Thus, I would challenge you to identify the number of combats in which a difference in 'maneuverability' made a difference in the outcome.