Luftwaffe Technical Intelligence on the P-47

[Broncazonk]

In early 1944, the P-47D-22-RE and P-47D-23-RE block aircraft began appearing in the ETO. Both blocks (and all future blocks) had larger/wider 4-blade paddle-props which vastly improved the P-47`s rate of climb.

Did Luftwaffe pilots specifically notice this sudden improvement? Did pilot after-action reports all of a sudden begin mentioning the P-47`s improved climb performance?

Quite a few P-47s ran out of gas over France prior to D-Day, and many of these aircraft were recovered intact. By early 1944, all of these P-47s had the new props so the technical personnel would have been aware. However, is there evidence that this intelligence was sent to the fighter units?

Thanks!

Bronc

[Kurfürst]

This is a transcript I saved from O. Lefebrve years ago, on a German tactical evaluation of a P 47 made by the Germans in June 44, pitting a Mustang, Fw 190A-8, 109G-6, 109G-6/AS against it.

They don’t seem to be impressed by its climb rate at all. Why would they, the P-47 was a six ton interceptor with undersized wings, and the machine was (unsurprisingly) gave a very sluggish impression at low medium altitudes.

"Die Thunderbolt, in bodennähe geflogen bis auf 2000m, macht einem ausserordenlich tragen und müden eindruck. Ihre Geschwindigkeitenwerte liegen unter denen der deutschen Jagdmaschinen. Dabei ist wassereinspritung nicht verwendet worden. (Ein neuer vergleich wird normals erflogen).
Bei dem gleinfalls geschlossenen start mit volleistung auf 3000m blieb sie weit hinter den leistungen der anderen 4 typen zurück. Auch bei einer steigung zwischen 8-9000m blieb sie hinter den Leistungen der Fw 190 zurück. Inder kurve in 4-6000m höhe war sie der normalen Bf 109 überlegen, im sturz etwas schneller als die Bf 109."

[Broncazonk]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

This is a transcript I saved from O. Lefebrve years ago, on a German tactical evaluation of a P 47 made by the Germans in June 44, pitting a Mustang, Fw 190A-8, 109G-6, 109G-6/AS against it.

They don’t seem to be impressed by its climb rate at all. Why would they, the P-47 was a six ton interceptor with undersized wings, and the machine was (unsurprisingly) gave a very sluggish impression at low medium altitudes.

"The Thunderbolt, flown close to the ground up to 2000m, makes an extremely worn and tired impression. Their speeds are below those of German fighters. Water injection was not used. (A new comparison will normally be flown). In the equally closed start with full power at 3000m, it lagged far behind the performance of the other 4 types. Even with an incline between 8-9000m, it lagged behind the performance of the Fw 190. In the curve at 4-6000m altitude it was superior to the normal Bf 109, in the fall it was a little faster than the Bf 109."

This quote raises an entirely different line of inquiry. Were the reports made by Luftwaffe Technical Intelligence written for morale and propaganda purposes (to raise the confidence) of fighter pilots? It would seem to me that they would want to write honest reports, but apparently this was not the case. Everyone, literally everyone, who fought against the P-47 said to NEVER enter a dive when in combat against it because it was so much faster in a dive.

Bronc

[Jukka Juutinen]

"Undersized wings"? Well, the normal maximum TO weight (internal fuel only) for the Fw 190A-8 was 4300 JG and its wing area was 18.3 sq.m. This gives a wing loading of a bit over 234 kg/sq.m. The wing loading for the P-47D with a comparable loading was a bit over 216 kg/sq.m. So I wonder which one had those "undersized wings".

The German evaluation is worthless since the power settings are not given.

[Adriano Baumgartner]

Kurfürst, just for curiosity, what is the NAME of the pilot who flew the P-47? I do ask that because it seems that then Hauptmann Egon Albrecht may have flown an earlier P-47C at Rechlin, around the end of 1942 or circa early or mid 1943 (do not have the correct date to inform, though).

I do not know know if you have read the lat Lt-Col Robert Samuel Johnson's "Thunderbolt" war memories? If so, you will remember that he made a test, with the P-47 equipped with the new propeller, against a Spitfire Mark IXb and let it behind (with the dust behind). This is a very interessant first hand account of a test, the results which certainly gave him a full confidence onto his "new" machine/bird.

I do have the book somewhere stored down here and will check the correct passage for you...

And surely, there must exist a report somewhere informing about the new propeller and also from the lots of pilots who were shot down either climbing or trying to dive and that lived another day, to tell the tale that the "Jug" was a "hard nut to crack".

IF you ever do find this LW report, please do share the number and contents with us. A friend of mine will be particularly interested. As you may know, the 1st Brazilian Fighter Squadron (1º GAVCa) was attached to the 350th F.G. and flew the "Jug" in operation on the Italian Theater of War.

Adriano

[Adriano Baumgartner]

OBS: sorry for the typpo on the double "know"

[Snautzer]

Hans Werner Lerche says it some what different. Not impressed low down but high up a good fighter with excellent dive capabilities.

[Broncazonk]

"The Thunderbolt, flown close to the ground up to 2000m, makes an extremely worn and tired impression. Their speeds are below those of German fighters. Water injection was not used. (A new comparison will normally be flown). In the equally closed start with full power at 3000m, it lagged far behind the performance of the other 4 types. Even with an incline between 8-9000m, it lagged behind the performance of the Fw 190. In the curve at 4-6000m altitude it was superior to the normal Bf 109, in the fall it was a little faster than the Bf 109."

*** Also this report was almost certainly based on the famous P-47D Serial# 42-75971 (T9+LK) that was recaptured in Gottingen, Germany. This was a D-16-RE Thunderbolt (42-75865/76118) and it had the original prop.

Let`s find a Luftwaffe report on the replacement large-diameter, paddle-props.

Bronc

[MW Giles]

This is the problem of testing captured enemy types against your own aircraft

1. Unless you are very lucky you are not likely to have the most up to date, straight off the production line, version. Yours could be 6months behind the curve

2. The one you get may have been damaged and require repair by your side using other captured parts and bodges

3. You do not want to damage/destroy the one you do have because you may not get another, therefore you are not going to fly it flat out as if your life depended upon it

4. Although your test pilot is very good he will not have tens or hundreds of hours in that particular plane and so be able to extract the maximum from it after only a few hours of driving it

5. There is no training on the optimum use of the aircraft etc. You are flying it as you think it is going to work best, not how the other side trains their pilots to drive it

6. You may not have large quantities of the right fuels and oils etc

Therefore you can get a good idea what the aircraft can do, but it might not be 100% of what the best enemy flyers can get from it

Martin

[Broncazonk]

During the P-38/47/51 WWII pilot (ace) interviews documented in the History Channel`s `Dogfights,` the matter of the Me 109`s right turning ability is mentioned time and time again. `The intelligence officer stressed to us that the Messerschmitt struggled in a right turn and was much more dangerous when turning left,` (or something to that effect) was stated in at least three interviews with American ace pilots. (It was apparently a formal briefing, and essentially a coaching session that they were getting.) And all of them credit that little piece information with saving their lives.

I`m wondering if the Luftwaffe had the same `official` focus in these matters..