[Larry]

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first flew in early 1941, it makes you weep to think of all those brave RAF crews who flew Fairey Battles and other out of date types on missions less than a year before and never lived to see what the P-47 could do.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!