Best Heavy Fighter

[J.A.W.]

Indeed, A-A,
& while both expensive USAAF turbo-charged heavy-fighters were optimised for the hi-alt role,
the purty pony got their upstairs gig (& the stats show it was better than them on the deck too)..

AFAIK - the VVS `47s didn't see combat, but I do wonder if they ever attempted an
intercept on the RAF's nosy PRU Spitfires wandering about over the iron curtain post-war..

[J.A.W.]

From 'Tank Buster vs Combat Vehicle P.67 re Battle of the Bulge..

"During the period 16-27 Dec' the 9th AF flew a total of 4,860 sorties against all kinds of ground targets. The recorded claims of their P-47 groups totalled 479 tanks & other AFVs & 1,356 motor
vehicles destroyed or damaged.

During the same period the LW achieved more than 1,600 sorties by day, but it is not known if any of these involved the use of airborne anti-tank weapons."


& P.68, re losses to A2G heavy fighters..

"There was no gradual decline of these losses until the last month of fighting; even in Feb' 1945,
just 2 months before the end, 150 P-47s & 57 Typhoons were lost."

The Germans also tried night A2G attacks.. P.68.

"...attempts were made to attack Allied armour, motor vehicles, HQs & dumps at night by Ju 87D-7
night-attack bombers usually working in pairs, while NSGr 20 operated at night with FW 190G-2 fighter-bombers, but this was hardly 'tank busting'."

& P.46 -47,

"...the most suitable fighter types had also been narrowed down, & thanks to its inherent stability & rugged construction the P-47 was a clear favourite."

"Of the 18 FGs under the 9th AF on 5 June `44, no less than 13 were equipped with the P-47
Thunderbolt, by then already established as the most powerful contemporary American fighter-bomber."

[save]

Best way of disabling a tank is to deny it repairs and supply. Capturing enemy territory denies them reclaiming broken down tanks, forcing them to destruct them themselves.

[J.A.W.]

Yes, & tricks were employed by the Germans under A2G attack too..

From 'T-B vs C-V' P.65,

"...an order issued on 4th August `44 by 12th SS HJ to drivers of all vehicles who had to be on the move in daylight: 'If your vehicle is attacked by JABOs, drop a smoke candle (Rauchkorper)
close to the vehicle.
 When the pilot thinks he has hit the target he usually sheers off.
Never drop the smoke candle before the 1st burst of fire, or the e/a will notice the trick...in
future every vehicle is to equipped with 2 smoke candles."

[Jabberwock]

AFAIK - the VVS `47s didn't see combat,

The P-47 may not have seen air combat with the VVS, but it did with the  Fleet Naval Aviation's Baltic and Northern arms. They used it for long-range high-altitude recon, level bombing, shallow-angle dive bombing, bomber escort and straffing naval targets.

[J.A.W.]

& does anyone know if there is any recorded P-47 vs LW A2A combat - in Soviet service?

Or P-47 A2A combat  - in RAF service against the forces of Nippon?

Or Soviet P-47 intercept (& was/is it even possible - flight plan-wise) attempts
on RAF PRU Spitfire XIX - over the iron curtain - snooping flights?

[Saxman]

With Soviet records being as scarce and unreliable as they are, I don't think there's any way to know for sure. Not unless the Luftwaffe recorded encounters with them.

[J.A.W.]

Yeah,
 -it'd be interesting to know if the LW had recorded evidence of Soviet P-47 or P-63 use in combat..

& true - the Stalin regime was rather scathing/begrudging in acknowledgement of gifts..

Maybe its coz they dipped out on getting that hot little filly - Merlin Mustang.. l.o.l...

[Ack-Ack]

Don't believe any of the Soviet Thunderbolts saw combat action with any of the air defense squadrons.

ack-ack

[MiloMorai]

Here is a document.. http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/German_Fuel_Consumption.pdf

It lists late war LW fuel particulars, types ( A3, B4, C3 & J2) & usage..

When the Allies did a post VE-day inventory they found fairly large stocks of av-gas,
- as well as planes.

The link is only an estimate of Luftwaffe fuel consumption done during the war. There is no mention of large stocks of avgas post war.

Estimated Luftwaffe fuel consumption for March 1945 > 23,500tons; production was virtually nil.

In July, 1939, an official German review of the fuel situation showed that Hitler hand only:

480,000 tons of aviation gasoline, enough for 3.1 months of war. (this is with less a/c than the Germans had when the war ended in Europe)

That is ~5 times what was on hand when the war ended in Europe.

jaw, do try to post some data of what quantities were actually captured & assessed by the Allies, post VE-day..

[J.A.W.]

At this point  - it is only from memory, I read about the British finding fairly large quantities of av-gas ( as well as thousands of aircraft) in their sector of occupation - suitable for many LW ops at their `45 level of serviceable combat aircraft deployment.. but the actual full USSBS may well also hold that data too - if you choose to reference it - m.m..

In any case - both already posted fuel data sets confirm that - contingent to the war situation,
the LW was - not in fact - substantially constrained from combat ops - primarily due to fuel shortage.. 

[Jabberwock]

Yeah,
 -it'd be interesting to know if the LW had recorded evidence of Soviet P-47 or P-63 use in combat..

& true - the Stalin regime was rather scathing/begrudging in acknowledgement of gifts..

Maybe its coz they dipped out on getting that hot little filly - Merlin Mustang.. l.o.l...

More a case of not wanting it, rather than wanting and not getting.

The Soviets tested the P-51A (actually Mustang Is) in August 1942 and the P-51B in late 1944 and decided they could do without either.

The few ex-RAF Allison-powered P-51s they got were mostly used as trainers. Three aircraft served on the front lines, but never encountered any enemy aircraft.

The Soviet view on both the Allison and Merlin-powered versions wasn't particularly favourable. They felt the Mustang I was oversized and underpowered and too slow in the climb. Similarly the P-51B was considered overweight, slow in the climb and poor in horizontal manuverability. Its positive qualities (high speed, good medium altitude manuverability, decent firepower and long range) were seen as unneeded given the characteristics of the East front air war.

At low altitudes, they felt their own aircraft and the more recent German types were better close in fighters and they didn't see the need for the P-51's fighter-bomber capabilities, as they had the IL-2 for ground attack.

[J.A.W.]

Really? AFAIR, the Soviets specifically demanded Merlin Mustangs & were denied them..

None to spare.. & Curtiss Le May would've had a bloody fit - if Stalin gottem before him..

[MiloMorai]

At this point  - it is only from memory, I read about the British finding fairly large quantities of av-gas ( as well as thousands of aircraft) in their sector of occupation - suitable for many LW ops at their `45 level of serviceable combat aircraft deployment.. but the actual full USSBS may well also hold that data too - if you choose to reference it - m.m..

In any case - both already posted fuel data sets confirm that - contingent to the war situation,
the LW was - not in fact - substantially constrained from combat ops - primarily due to fuel shortage.. 

memory Doesn't matter how much fuel there was if it isn't at the bases where it is needed.

How many of those 1000s were actually capable of flight?

Yup that is why a/c were towed to the take off position and engines were shut down after landing and the a/c then towed to dispersal.

[J.A.W.]

Well m.m., many thousands of LW aircraft..

& according to 'Tank Busters vs Combat Vehicles' P.68:

"...the RAF Disarmament Teams alone 'neutralised'4,810...& 12,800 aero engines..."

& if trawling your memory gives you googly eyes, I suggest you seek appropriate assessment..