Best Heavy Fighter

[J.A.W.]

Well, just because exposing foolishly delusional ideas & emotionally bound fantasies to a reality check can be a buzz harshing, dirty job, it don't mean it aint needful..

[J.A.W.]

Funny thing about being convinced..

The Soviet VVS accepted P-47s, but found the idea of using them as..

A. a substitute for their light fighters in the low level tactical A2A role

Or,

B, a substitute for their Sturmovik in the tactical strike role.

As quite unconvincing..

They kept them for their high altitude interceptor units.

I wonder if they were ever used to try & intercept RAF PRU Spitfires snooping
around after VE day?

[bozon]

They kept them for their high altitude interceptor units.

That is what they acquired them for in the first place. For close support you need a slow expendable plane like the IL2. They built thousands of those, so why waste your few best high alt fighters?

There are two things that made the P-51 such a success: one is the large fuel tank connected to a relatively fuel-efficient engine, and the other is a modest price tag. True the rest of the package was a decent fighter, but it was generally not better than a late model Spit or P-47 as a pure fighter at high altitudes.

To be a success and get the kills, one needs to reach the enemy. P-47s could barely, even though the one fighter group that kept their Jugs is the most successful one in the 9th air force. F6F ruled the pacific not because it was a better fighter than the F4U - it did it by being there when the big battles happened, while the F4U was still not qualified for deck operations. By the time the F4U did and was slowly rolling out the production line, Grumman has already broke every production rate record in order to fill the navy with F6Fs. At their peak, Grumman produced over 300 F6Fs a month - that is enough to fully equip a new squadron every two days...

Now, this thread is about the best "heavy fighter". I always thought that term referred to heavily armed twin engine fighters meant to destroy bombers while still able to dogfight. For example: 110, Whirlwind, Beaufighter, P-38, Mosquito. It seems that most people here thinks it means the best JABO. In any case, the P-51 is neither. Sending the P-51 to do ground attack is a folly, just as it was to send the Spitfires to do this mission. They simply ran out of planes to fight in the air, while there was still a fight to be won on the ground. Many good pilots lots their lives because of that, but perhaps they saved lives on the ground, so in the grand cynical scheme it was worth it. "The best" tool in a war sometimes just means "available", "cheapest", or "expendable".

[-ammo-]

That is what they acquired them for in the first place. For close support you need a slow expendable plane like the IL2. They built thousands of those, so why waste your few best high alt fighters?

There are two things that made the P-51 such a success: one is the large fuel tank connected to a relatively fuel-efficient engine, and the other is a modest price tag. True the rest of the package was a decent fighter, but it was generally not better than a late model Spit or P-47 as a pure fighter at high altitudes.

To be a success and get the kills, one needs to reach the enemy. P-47s could barely, even though the one fighter group that kept their Jugs is the most successful one in the 9th air force. F6F ruled the pacific not because it was a better fighter than the F4U - it did it by being there when the big battles happened, while the F4U was still not qualified for deck operations. By the time the F4U did and was slowly rolling out the production line, Grumman has already broke every production rate record in order to fill the navy with F6Fs. At their peak, Grumman produced over 300 F6Fs a month - that is enough to fully equip a new squadron every two days...

Now, this thread is about the best "heavy fighter". I always thought that term referred to heavily armed twin engine fighters meant to destroy bombers while still able to dogfight. For example: 110, Whirlwind, Beaufighter, P-38, Mosquito. It seems that most people here thinks it means the best JABO. In any case, the P-51 is neither. Sending the P-51 to do ground attack is a folly, just as it was to send the Spitfires to do this mission. They simply ran out of planes to fight in the air, while there was still a fight to be won on the ground. Many good pilots lots their lives because of that, but perhaps they saved lives on the ground, so in the grand cynical scheme it was worth it. "The best" tool in a war sometimes just means "available", "cheapest", or "expendable".

It was actually an 8th AF unit - the 56 Fighter Group.  They did well in the P-47 throughout the entire war.  At the end of hostilities, the 56 FG distinguished itself by destroying more enemy (Axis) aircraft in the ETO than any other Allied unit in the 8th AF; 677 AC destroyed in Air-to-Air combat.  The final kill made by a 56 FG pilot was a ME-262 beloging to the famed JG 7.  The 56 FG also produced 39 aces - all in P-47s

[MiloMorai]

It was actually an 8th AF unit - the 56 Fighter Group.  They did well in the P-47 throughout the entire war.  At the end of hostilities, the 56 FG distinguished itself by destroying more enemy (Axis) aircraft in the ETO than any other Allied unit in the 8th AF; 677 AC destroyed in Air-to-Air combat.  The final kill made by a 56 FG pilot was a ME-262 beloging to the famed JG 7.  The 56 FG also produced 39 aces - all in P-47s

Only because the P-47 had a head start. In the last 18 months in the ETO the P-51 score more than the P-47.

[-ammo-]

There is no head start - the accomplishment is enemy AC destroyed.  Just so happens it was done by a unit that flew the P-47 until the end.

[MiloMorai]

There is no head start - the accomplishment is enemy AC destroyed.  Just so happens it was done by a unit that flew the P-47 until the end.

P-47s had years head start.

The first P-47 combat mission took place 10 March 1943 when the 4th FG took their aircraft on a fighter sweep over France.

The first American P-51 mission was in late Dec 1943.

So if Dec 1943 comes before Mar 1943, the P-47s had a head start.

[-ammo-]

So you understand why the 56 FG accomplishment is outstanding.  The 56th FG arrived in England in January 1943.  The 4th FG was already tyhere, and they received their P-47's before the the 56th.  The 4th was made up of the "Eagle Squadrons".   Also, the 78th FG arrived about the same timke.  So, the 56th FG was one of the frist three U.S. fighter groups in the UK. Additionally, the 4th and the 78th began operations BEFORE the 56th.  The 78th and the 4th both transitioned to the P-51 later while the 56th kep the Jug.  So, the 56th, compared to the 4th and the 78th, still has the distinguishment of the Group that scored the most A2A kills in the ETO. 

Yes,  the P-51 equiped units did well, and together account for more kills from Fall 1944 until the end.  But that makes sense, right?  They had the opportunity given their daily missions (all P-47 units except the 56th FG were in the 9th AF - totally different mission set).  That does not take away the legitimacy of the 56th FG's accomplishment and does say much to the effectiveness of the P-47 in the A2A role.

[bozon]

It was actually an 8th AF unit - the 56 Fighter Group.

I was referring to the 56th. 9th AF is a typo.

[GScholz]

Happy to see I'm not the only one effing up these things...   

[Randy1]

I am surprised a fully loaded P51 climbs well in AH.  I would have thought the wing angle of attack to lift that much weight would produce a lot of drag.  The 47 has a better weight lifting wing than the 51 I would think.

I also noted some internet sources(not traceable) suggested the P51 load-out was 2000#s of bombs OR rockets, not both.  If that was factual, in AH should not take out a hanger.

[-ammo-]

I am surprised a fully loaded P51 climbs well in AH.  I would have thought the wing angle of attack to lift that much weight would produce a lot of drag.  The 47 has a better weight lifting wing than the 51 I would think.

I also noted some internet sources(not traceable) suggested the P51 load-out was 2000#s of bombs OR rockets, not both.  If that was factual, in AH should not take out a hanger.

Well, the P-51 holds a special place in HiTech's heart

[Shifty]

In the last 18 months in the ETO the P-51 score more than the P-47.

There's a reason for that. More P-51s flying escort missions than P-47s. P-51s replaced P-47 and P-38 units and still couldn't wrestle the lead away.

[Zoney]

P-47s had years head start.

The first P-47 combat mission took place 10 March 1943 when the 4th FG took their aircraft on a fighter sweep over France.

The first American P-51 mission was in late Dec 1943.

So if Dec 1943 comes before Mar 1943, the P-47s had a head start.

So, exactly how many "years" is it from March of 1943 and December of 1943?

I'm just askin'.

[Ardy123]

The p-51 was not what I consider a heavy fighter, its a long range escort fighter. In a pure fighter role, its not even that good (compared to a spitfire), it just has range like no other fighter.

I would consider the p-47/me410/mossy more akin to a heavy fighter.