Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: senna on September 15, 2002, 02:53:49 AM
-
Just was wondering what you guys think. Theres some posts recently about the P-51 so I thought this post up. Do you think the ruggedness of the P-47s made the more important difference in the AirWar over Europe or do you feel the Mustangs and their long range capability really made the difference ?
-
I think there are several USAAF and RAF aircraft that are essentially interchangeable with the P-47.
I know of no USAAF or RAF fighter that could do the job of the P-51 (though there were some US and UK trials of fueled up Spitfires that might have done so had the Merlin P-51 not become available).
Based on that I'd say that the P-51 made more of a difference as it was the only fighter able to do so.
The job the P-47s were doing were also being done by Typhoons, P-38s, Spitfires, Mosquitoes, and yes, P-51s at the same time. It was a cooperative effort. Most of the fighters (all?) had a higher loss rate doing that job than did the P-47, but they could still do it.
-
Hum, thats sorta what I was thinking also but I think the loss rate of the P-51 would have been much higher if it not for the success of the jug and its own combat record.
-
If you stick to the P47 and P51, I think the P47 "cleared the way" for the P51. Or, you could say did the "dirty work".
-
I sort of remember a quote from the 8th AF commander or someone of close status basically to the effect that "If it can be said that the P38 struck the Luftwaffe at its innards and the P51 delivered the cou-de-grace(oh sp!), then it was the P47 that broke its back."
Lonz
(with no disrespect to the contribution made by our British allies)
-
You can look at it this way. The USAAF met a very battle-hardened, disciplined, and skilled LW in 1943. They themselves were getting what they needed to know in small part from the experienced RAF, and largely from combat new to them. Their ride was the P-47. The early 8 AF FG's beat the LW in the P-47. The Pony came along in large numbers in mid-early 44 and gave the 8AF the range needed to escort their bombers. They fought a good LW as well, but nothing like the P-47 equiped groups faced in mid-late 43. The P-47 was then relagated to Air to ground duty but they still met the LW in the air on occasion.
To answer the question senna posed.... I believe Bob Johnson would agree that the P-47's ruggedness did:). However, the difference really was the determination of the early USAAF group commanders, namely Hub Zemke, that took the P-47, his pilots, and learned how to exploit the LW's weaknesses and his own AC's strengths. Thats what beat the LW. Attrition soon set in with the LW. They just couldnt keep up with the losses they took.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
I think there are several USAAF and RAF aircraft that are essentially interchangeable with the P-47.
I know of no USAAF or RAF fighter that could do the job of the P-51 (though there were some US and UK trials of fueled up Spitfires that might have done so had the Merlin P-51 not become available).
Based on that I'd say that the P-51 made more of a difference as it was the only fighter able to do so.
The job the P-47s were doing were also being done by Typhoons, P-38s, Spitfires, Mosquitoes, and yes, P-51s at the same time. It was a cooperative effort. Most of the fighters (all?) had a higher loss rate doing that job than did the P-47, but they could still do it.
I think you might be forgetting that the P-47 beat the heck out of the Jagdwaffe in the escort role, tore them up real good. P-51 got all the publicity, but the majority of the escort sorties were flown by Jugs and the majority of the killing was done by Jugs. They were the leaders in the slaughter of the Jagdwaffe in the West during 1943 and 1944.
Typhoons didn't have the high altitude performance to do that job.
Spitfires didn't have the range or speed.
Mosquitos didn't have the maneuverability or speed.
P-38 is the only one that comes close, but if you consider reliability and cost (including maintenance), the Jug was far superior.
Merlin Mustangs did the escort job better, but by the time those were in service in large numbers, Jugs had already established dominance. They were already clobbering the Hun. The Merlin Mustangs just let them do it a little further East.
-
When the subject of the P-47 in the ETO comes up, I always think of the daily mission summaries which read something like, "...the bombers were escorted by 40 P-38s, 40 P-51s and 300 P-47s."
The P-47 was a good fighter, but most importantly it was available in significant numbers at a time when neither the P-38 nor the P-51 were.
-
Whats it matter if P47 clobbered LW fighters while escorting, only to have tens or hundreds of B17s shot down when the P47s ran low on fuel?
-
From mid-1941 to mid-1944, JG 26 and JG 2 were the only Luftwaffe day fighter units defending France. For the first two of those years, JG 1 was the only day fighter unit defending the Reich.
Most Luftwaffe losses between mid-1941 and mid-1943 incurred on the Eastern Front. Starting in late 1943 the number of losses in the West increased sharply. Half of these losses were day fighters.
This is when the western allies escalated their bombing campaign. At the end of 1943 and the beginning of 1944, the new P-51B's began arriving in England in force. For the first few months of the year, the Mustangs were settling in and having their systems perfected. But by March, the Mustangs had decisively taken control.
The P-47 and Spitfire, neither of which had a very long range. The rule-of-thumb for fighter ranges was that they could go as far as Aachen, which was about 250 miles from their bases in England, before they had to turn around. Most of the bombers' targets were between 400 and 700 miles from England. This meant that bombers could only be escorted into northern France, and the very western fringe of Germany.
The P-51B had a 425 gallons internal gasoline tank capacity. Its engine used about half the gasoline of other American fighters. Its range was 1080 miles and could be extended to 2600 miles with drop-tanks. The p51b was superior to all other allied aircraft at the time. .
Most important was the p51bs superiority over the German fighters, the most important of which were the FW-190 and the Me-109. The Mustang was 50 mph faster than the Germans up to 28,000 ft., beyond which it was much faster than the FW-190 and still substantially faster than the Me-109.
Before the beginning of 1944, the bombers had no escort to targets deep in german territory. The P-51 changed this. For example, on January 11, 1944, the Eighth Air Force launched its first deep penetration of Germany with P-51 coverage. The bombers' targets were the cities of Oschersleben and Halberstadt. There were only 49 Mustangs covering a force of around 220 bombers. The bombers suffered heavy casualties but they were able to inflict substantial damage the factories.
The most significant thing about the battle was the performance of the P-51's. The bombers were attacking two different cities and the Mustang force had to divide into two groups. The Luftwaffe came out in force to defend their factories. During the ensuing battle, the 49 P-51's shot down 15 enemy planes without suffering a single loss. Major Howard, the group's leader, was credited with four kills within minutes.
Air superiority had been won not by bombing the enemy's factories into oblivion; instead, it was won by the long-range fighter, using the bomber formations as bait to entice the Luftwaffe to fight.
With the greater numbers of the P-51 , the German fighters that came up to attack the bombers quickly met their match.
Sturmbock unit losses increased dratically. They reached a point where 3 190s were lost to every 1 b17 they killed. And no it wasnt bomber gunners getting those kills. It was the escort fighters.
The p47 and p38 just didnt have the effect on the lw that the p51 did. You may have yourfavorite ac but the p51 as shown by any measure was the aircraft that took it to the lw.
The 38 btw the way was hardly a plane feared by the the lw. Its effect on the eto was minimal. Well behind that of the 51 the jug and the typhoon.
On Black Thursday (second schweinfurt raid) the bombers lost near 27% of its force to the lw.
-
The P-47 and Spitfire, neither of which had a very long range. The rule-of-thumb for fighter ranges was that they could go as far as Aachen, which was about 250 miles from their bases in England, before they had to turn around. Most of the bombers' targets were between 400 and 700 miles from England. This meant that bombers could only be escorted into northern France, and the very western fringe of Germany
wotan--
For the Bigweek campaign in the spring of 44, the USAAF sent over three times more the amount of P-47 airframes as they did either the pony or the lightening, combined. P-47's could go to Berlin at this point of the war. Range was not as much of a problem as it was in October 43. The pony was inherantly better for endurance however. The P-47 was opted for ground support not because it was inferior to the P-51B, but because the P-51B couldn't handle the ground work as well. Not only was it a fine escort fighter, but it was tough enough with its big PW radial to better handle the AAA and ground fire from ground support work.
This is when the western allies escalated their bombing campaign. At the end of 1943 and the beginning of 1944, the new P-51B's began arriving in England in force. For the first few months of the year, the Mustangs were settling in and having their systems perfected. But by March, the Mustangs had decisively taken control.
That's not true. The P-47 was still the mainstay escort fighter at this point in the war. Was later on in 44 before the pony was operationalized in the FG's to the extent that it was the 8 AF's main ride.
The P-47 was a 430 MPH fighter at 25K. Much faster in 1943/early 1944 than the contemporary LW fighter.
BTW-- what unit was the highest scoring Allied unit in WW2, and what was their ride?
Destroyed more enemy aircraft than any other 8th AF fighter Group.
Had more fighter aces than any other Fighter Group
Top Scoring fighter aces Francis Gabreski, and Robert Johnson flew with the 56th Fighter Group
First USAAF group to fly P-47
Only 8AF Group to fly P-47 throughout the War
link for allied aces tallied kills http://www.acepilots.com/usaaf_eto_aces.html#top
-
http://cpcug.org/user/billb/mustang.html
-
Sorry guys but the P38 brought the war to berlin.
At the time the LW was at full strength but the lightning could outturn any lw plane .
But there where some probs like a lw fighter could out dive and escape, wrong feul and pilots with not to much experience on the more advanced "skunkworks" lightning.
Also tactics had to be refined
At the time the mustang was there the Lw was weak and outnumbered and got basicly ganged by hordes of stangs.
No P47 ever reached berlin.
Yes who made USA top ace nr 1 and 2
it's the lightning in the hands of an experienced pilot it's the meanest thing the americans brought to the theatre.
-
aces? The top Croatia Ace had more kills then the top American but Croatia had little impact on the war.
Yeah right bug the p38 took it to the lw in ww2 :rolleyes:
-
Yes Luftwabble and i think u won this now
congrats
fact stays p38 was first fighter over berlin
take it .
-
Originally posted by Guppy
When the subject of the P-47 in the ETO comes up, I always think of the daily mission summaries which read something like, "...the bombers were escorted by 40 P-38s, 40 P-51s and 300 P-47s."
The P-47 was a good fighter, but most importantly it was available in significant numbers at a time when neither the P-38 nor the P-51 were.
The reason the P-38 was not available in numbers was that they were sent to North Africa and the Mediterranian, by the 8th AF staff, who erroneously felt unescorted daylight bombing was feasible. Actually, the P-47 would have been a better choice than the P-38 for MOST missions in North Africa and the Mediterranian.
However, that does not discount at all the magnificent job the P-47 was able to do for the 8th AF.
Read Bodies new book when it comes out in October, you'll see what REALLY went on behind the scenes. When you do buy it and read it, send Bodie a letter of thanks, and maybe we'll get the next volume.
-
Originally posted by fdiron
Whats it matter if P47 clobbered LW fighters while escorting, only to have tens or hundreds of B17s shot down when the P47s ran low on fuel?
It was definitely the fault of the 8th AF that the P-47 lacked range. They failed to get the P-47 set up with drop tanks (especially large capacity drop tanks), basically because they were so convinced that unescorted daylight bombing was feasible. Had they done their job, and brought the P-38s back from North Africa, bomber losses would not have been so heavy.
-
The Jug destroyed the LW. The Pony kept it down.
-
It took until mid-1944 for 8th Fighter Command to re-equip its main strength with P-51s. In 1943 and early 1944, the bulk of the fighter force was made up of P-47s, and half or more of the long-range escorts were P-38s.
I agree that 8th AF would have been better off retaining its P-38s instead of handing them off to 12th AF, but I still don't think that would have allowed them to dispense with P-47s. P-38 production wasn't sufficient to meet the needs of the ETO, MTO and SWPA groups, and a lot of desperate shuffling had to take place to keep everything together (a P-38F-15 was still flying combat missions with 15th AF in mid-May, 1944!).
Also, having more P-38s would only lead to even more engine problems over Europe, further straining logistics and maintenance. On the plus side, though, an earlier introduction to combat might mean that the problems would actually be fixed in time to do some good.
-
Originally posted by Guppy
It took until mid-1944 for 8th Fighter Command to re-equip its main strength with P-51s. In 1943 and early 1944, the bulk of the fighter force was made up of P-47s, and half or more of the long-range escorts were P-38s.
I agree that 8th AF would have been better off retaining its P-38s instead of handing them off to 12th AF, but I still don't think that would have allowed them to dispense with P-47s. P-38 production wasn't sufficient to meet the needs of the ETO, MTO and SWPA groups, and a lot of desperate shuffling had to take place to keep everything together (a P-38F-15 was still flying combat missions with 15th AF in mid-May, 1944!).
Also, having more P-38s would only lead to even more engine problems over Europe, further straining logistics and maintenance. On the plus side, though, an earlier introduction to combat might mean that the problems would actually be fixed in time to do some good.
There is no doubt that the P-47 was absolutely essential. Had the 8th AF just gotten their act together and equipped the P-47 with the right drop tanks range would not have been an issue. The P-47 could never have been replaced, unless there had been a few thousand more P-38s, or some other competent fighter, such as the P-51, or the F4U. The P-51 was not a world beater, there were just plenty of them and they arrived at the right time.
Regarding P-38 engines, by the time the P-51 arrived in substantial numbers, the P-38 engine problems (mostly poor pilot training and dishwater gasoline) were solved, with improved fuel, and more automatic engine controls.
When the P-51 arrived, it brought plenty of problems of its own. Cracked heads dumped coolant, and siezed engines, resulting in the loss of the plane, massive amounts of fouled plugs, nasty spins caused by the 85 gallon tank behind the pilot, and a host of other issues. The idea that the P-51 arrived with no bugs and ready to fight, with some sort of near perfect reliability, performance, and maintenance record is nothing more than an 8th AF myth to cover for previous gross incompetence of their command staff.
The problem of low P-38 production is sort of funny. There were nearly 10,000 P-38s built and deployed, more than most fighters in WWII. And that still wasn't enough. There must have been an incredible demand for a plane that was supposedly so incapable of defeating its enemies (a 4:1 or better kill ratio in combat vs. the Luftwaffe). The fault for there not being 20,000 P-38s instead of 10,000 must be laid squarely at the feet of the War Production Board and the USAAF. Being for the most part of the war the most sought after fighter plane, the P-38 was never really second sourced. Although there was a plant near here supposedly producing them, Consolidated Vultee of Nashville Tennessee never actually built more than 113 P-38s. Lockheed in Burbank was saddled with the extra production of B-17s when Boeing couldn't build enough (had Lockheed been building more P-38s instead, and the 8th AF used them for escorts the demand for B-17s might have been easier to satisfy).
Regarding the solving of P-38 problems, the USAAF and the War Production Board held up the installation of many of the "problem solvers" Lockheed came up with. Not to mention they tied up Lockheed engineers with stupid projects that the USAAF did a very poor job of managing (yes, the USAAF managed engineering projects, not the aircraft company or its engineers). The P-38 engine issues were actually solved in 1943, not mid to late 1944. The reason those upgrades weren't on P-38s in combat in mid 1943, instead of early 1944 is simply incompetence on the part of USAAF command staff and the War Production Board. Even the dive flaps were ready by spring of 1943. Had second source production been in place when it should have, in 1942, by mid 1943, you would have seen 460 MPH P-38s with automatic engine controls and dive flaps in combat. Lockheed was continually denied permission to stop production in order to upgrade the P-38 ( most often, the proposed production stoppage was for less than one week).
In all honesty, the P-51 equalled the P-38 in numbers deployed by April 20th, 1944, a couple months before mid 1944. The majority of historians say the Luftwaffe was finished as a major force by April. While they continued to do damage, to both fighters and bombers, they were no longer an insurmountable obstacle.
The biggest changes that produced measurable results were the release of fighters from close escort, and the tactic of having the P-47s escort the bombers to and from the German frontier, and having the long range escorts only flying escort while deep in Germany. It allowed the long range escorts more fuel to fight with, and less time to fly. Being able to fly directly to the point where the P-47s were released, do the deep penetration escort, and then be released to return to base as soon as the P-47s were available for the return leg, the long range squadrons had as much as 24% more fuel, and as much as two hours less flying time. It was much more a matter of the change in tactics, combined with the introduction of MORE fighters than it was any one particular fighter. Had the new fighters been P-47s with the necessary range, or P-38J-10-Los, the result would have been the same.
Remember that long range high altitude escort over the enemies homeland was a totally new concept (at least to the 8th AF) when a single unit equipped with P-38s was suddenly thrust into the job in October 1943, fresh from training in the U.S. (less than 30 days deployed), with no experienced leadership, and facing 10:1 or worse odds when the P-47s had to turn around. And still bomber losses dropped immediately. Looks to me like they did well for a bunch of green rookie kids in a supposedly incapable plane. Imagine if they'd been there in June, with three other groups, all at once, with shiny new P-38K-5-Lo fighters.
-
Yeah, the engine problems were fixed in the end, but that happened just as the Lightnings were being phased out of 8th Fighter Command. I agree that early second-sourcing would seem to either solve or expedite the solution of a lot of the type's problems.
When discussing P-38 production numbers, don't forget that 10-15% of all Lightnings produced were converted to photo-recon F-4s and F-5s.
Regarding morale, leadership and such in the ETO P-38 Groups, here's a couple of quotes from MTO Lightning pilots who ferried old hand-me-down P-38Hs (which were being replaced by P-38Js) from England to North Africa to replace their Groups' even older P-38F/G models.
2nd Lt. Charles L. Hoffman (94th FS, 1st FG):
"The 55th had been flying P-38s for several months and were constantly getting their butts kicked. After talking with their pilots for a short time, we understood why. They were flying at power settings that guzzled fuel at an incredible rate. They were cruising at 38 to 40 inches manifold pressure and 2,600 RPM. We used that kind of power for climbing. Our cruise power was closer to 30 inches and 2,000 RPM. When we got to our target area, we would have plenty of fuel should we make contact with the enemy. They were so short of fuel that, at times, they had to desert friendly planes that were greatly outnumbered by the enemy. With drop tanks, they were running short of fuel after less than two hours of flight. They couldn’t believe we were flying missions that were more than six hours."
Capt. Tom Maloney (27th FS, 1st FG):
"I would like to comment briefly on the plane we flew, the Lockheed P-38 Lightning fighter. Many aviation writers tend to downplay the effectiveness of the P-38 because of the various troubles and lack of success endured by the three Eighth Air Force fighter groups flying the P-38 out of England. I was fortunate to be given some insight into their problem when I was sent to England along with five squadronmates to bring back three-month-old P-38s from a group that was getting the latest model. As it was, this group’s old P-38s were newer models than what we had! I was reunited there with many of my Class 43-G classmates who had been assigned to this group before it was shipped overseas. These pilots were scared to death. They had many engine failures, suffered from a lack of leadership, and suffered especially from a lack of combat experience. The entire group had started combat with no experience, and the pilots gained it only as they went. By contrast, I was fortunate to be sent to one of the very first units to fly the P-38 in combat, so when we went on missions, the 27th Fighter Squadron was composed of experienced pilots with fifty or more missions, as well as new pilots with few to no missions."
-
The back of the Luftwaffe had been broken by June 6, 1944. Had it not been, the landings in Normandy would have been a lot bloodier than they were.
The Mustang had not been on station in the ETO for a long enough period, or in sufficient numbers, to have accomplished that feat by D-Day.
The P-38 and P-47, especially the latter, encountered the cream of the Luftwaffe during the furious air-battles of 1943. By the summer of 1944, the Luftwaffe was a shadow of it's former self. The new pilots coming out of Luftwaffe training schools were barely fit to take off and land their aircraft in late 1944.
The P-51 was a fine aircraft, but it is often given too much credit for its role in the destruction of the Luftwaffe.
Regards, Shuckins
-
If you have questions about the significance of the p47 in the defeat of the hun you should go to your best video rental joint and rent an old documentary tittled "Thunderbolt" .
-
"Do you think the ruggedness of the P-47s made the more important difference in the AirWar over Europe or do you feel the Mustangs and their long range capability really made the difference ?"
This is a tough question. The Jug was available in more numbers and for a longer time, so its total impact was more then of the Mustang.
Yet, in the Crusial period between spring and late autumn 1944, the Mustang was the key for hitting the Reich in its inner quarters. The range was less of a problem for other planes when airfields had been secured on the European mainland in the autumn of 1944.
I think I'd put my money on the Mustang.
Before it was even doing its job, its to-be existance was already affecting the whole campaign. The Allies KNEW that they would be able to provide good escort all the way to Berlin and back. They KNEW they were about to get a fine plane for it, so they did not have to worry about converting other planes for the task, etc.
(Supermarine equipped some Spitfires with a large fuselage tank, thereby equaling the range of the Mustang, but due to the existance of the Mustang for the job, the type was not put into production)
The P38 does not belong as an answer to this question, and since so many are crossing that line, I miss the absence of other items, such as the RAF and their planes.
The fact remains that the RAF threw more bombs than the USAF did, so the biggest name in the contest "biggest contribution to the allied victory in the EAW" would most likely be the Lancaster!
-
But P-47's were going all the way into deep Germany in the spring of 44. For Bigweek, the 8AF sent on average 300+ jugs a day deep into Germany. As opposed to much less (about 40 mustangs) of other escort fighters.
The Pony was a better escort fighter than the jug, no doubt about it. But it was summer 44 before it started to show up in the ETO in strength. The Jug FG's already did the hard job...beating the bulk of the experienced LW pilots.
-
I can see this thread is getting full of a bunch of bull. If the P47 and P38 were good escort fighters, bomber crews wouldnt have been screaming for escort.
Just because the P38 or P47 could theoretically fly all the way from England to Berlin does not mean that it always did. Combat uses up alot of fuel.
You can hollar and hoot how the P47 and P38 won the air war in the ETO, but it wasnt until the P51 came on the scene that bombers could safely attack their targets.
The P51 had ~10,000 victories in the ETO. Many more than either the P38 or P47.
-
Originally posted by fdiron
I can see this thread is getting full of a bunch of bull. If the P47 and P38 were good escort fighters, bomber crews wouldnt have been screaming for escort.
Just because the P38 or P47 could theoretically fly all the way from England to Berlin does not mean that it always did. Combat uses up alot of fuel.
You can hollar and hoot how the P47 and P38 won the air war in the ETO, but it wasnt until the P51 came on the scene that bombers could safely attack their targets.
The P51 had ~10,000 victories in the ETO. Many more than either the P38 or P47.
FDIron, it's time for you to get back in your space ship now.
The bombers never safely attacked their targets. They were losing 17s and 24s right up to the end. If what you're trying to say is that the bombers had no escort all the way to target until the 51 arrived, you're simply wrong. By the time of Bigweek, in February, 1944, the 8th AF was well into its shuttle system of escort, in which a given fighter group would fly directly to a spot along the bomber route, and be responsible for escort in that zone until the bombers had passed. The 47s had their pressurized 108 gallon tanks by then. The problem was solved. And then the glitzy 51s happened on the scene and cleaned up on all the German learner-pilots who were still trying hard to figure out how to make their airplanes fly straight.
We aren't hollering and hooting about how the P47 broke the Luftwaffe's back. That's a plain fact.
- oldman
-
Weren't P-38's routinely being flown across the Atlantic to England as early as 1943? No lack of range there. And wasn't the range of the Lightning exceeding that of the Mustang by 1945? Have no sources handy to verify.
Anybody out there know for certain?
Regards, Shuckins
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
It was definitely the fault of the 8th AF that the P-47 lacked range. They failed to get the P-47 set up with drop tanks (especially large capacity drop tanks), basically because they were so convinced that unescorted daylight bombing was feasible. Had they done their job, and brought the P-38s back from North Africa, bomber losses would not have been so heavy.
That was our buddy Hap Arnold, who wouldn't even let them design bomb shackles on fighters for fear someone might find a way to use them to hold drop tanks. He was impressivly stubborn about NOT allowing drop tanks to prevent the temptation of using fighters to escort bombers.
After the charred bodies of enough air crew were laid at his feet he finally relented, then he bacame a major advocate of escorted bombers.
We had our share of stupidly stubborn generals.
-
Originally posted by Samm
If you have questions about the significance of the p47 in the defeat of the hun you should go to your best video rental joint and rent an old documentary tittled "Thunderbolt" .
That's a new documentary, produced by the History Channel using some of the film shot at Hap Arnold's insistance during the last few weeks of the war. Something like 80 hours of footage, but Arnold decided after the war it was too much for the public.
I have a copy of it. Sits next to Gun Camera Footage, How Not to Land on a CV(N), How to fly the P38, and the 8th AF 50th reunion. Just watched it last night, in fact :)
-
Originally posted by H. Godwineson
Weren't P-38's routinely being flown across the Atlantic to England as early as 1943? No lack of range there. And wasn't the range of the Lightning exceeding that of the Mustang by 1945? Have no sources handy to verify.
Anybody out there know for certain?
Regards, Shuckins
The 38 could fly just this side of forever, but it took a special touch. It has some really squirly handling characteristics in the earlier models. AFIK, most pilots preferred the 47 (and 51 when it came out). By then Lockheed had pretty much resolved the high speed handling problems and compressability issues, but the machine's reputation was already sealed. It didn't help that the fuel used in North Africa was frequently sub-standard, and the Lightning wasn't very tolerant of poor fuel.
The P38 had an easier time in the pacific. Most of those machines had the 'fixes' identified in North Africa, and the fuel supply was better controlled.
Again, AFIK, the pilots who learned how to work with the 38s quirks wouldn't give it up for anything, and it sure was a pretty airplane. My dad loved watcthing them fly.
They were expensive to operate, though. Each engine needed several separate parts. Twin engine meant twice the maintenance, etc. Like a lot of the things Kelly Johnson did the 38 was ahead of its time; maybe too far.
For a lot of reasons the 47 took over quite a bit of the 38s escort duty, and was then supplanted by the 51. You can argue all day that the 51 walked into an arena the others had already softened up (and to an extent this is true) but the 51 was still a very nice aircraft.
-
Capt. Virgil Hilts,
Glad to see you finally got out of the cooler! :D
Hope nobody else has already used that line!
Regards, Shuckins
-
Yak , Migg and Lagg is what broke LW back.
-
Originally posted by fd ski
Yak , Migg and Lagg is what broke LW back.
Herman Goring broke the LWs back. Hitler didn't help any, and throwing their best and brightest into a meat grinder rather than a training academy sealed their fate.
You have to wonder, though, how long the war would have lasted if Hitler hadn't opened two fronts... :eek:
-
Originally posted by fd ski
Yak , Migg and Lagg is what broke LW back.
ya your right..
but the Jug broke its femur!
-
One table giving 1944 sortie and loss totals for all combat aircraft has been found in the US archives. Its loss numbers are only about one-third of Groehler's, and probably include only total losses and writeoffs resulting from combat, a more common definition of the term. The data:
1944 - All Combat Types
Total West / Eastern Front / West/East
Sorties / 182,004 / 342,483 / 0.53
Losses / 9768 / 2406 / 4.06
Losses/Sortie / 0.0537 / 0.00703 / 7.66
4.06 times as many aircraft were lost in combat in the West than were lost in the East, a ratio reasonably close to Groehler's 3.41 for all "losses". The most chilling statistic for the JG 26 pilots appears in the sortie data. An airplane flying a combat mission in the West was 7.66 times more likely to be destroyed than one on a similar mission in the East. It is clear that the burden of sacrifice was borne by the Luftwaffe aircrew on the Western Front and over the Reich, not on the Eastern Front.
Luftwaffe Aircraft Losses By Theatre (http://www.butler98.freeserve.co.uk/thtrlosses.htm)
[list=1]
- During the period in question, a constant 21-24% of the Luftwaffe's day fighters were based in the East - but only 12-14% of the Luftwaffe day fighter "losses" occurred in this theater.
- During this period, a constant 75-78% of the day fighters were based in the West. The turnover was enormous: 14,720 aircraft were "lost", while operational strength averaged 1364.
- During this period, 2294 day fighters were "lost" in the East; the ratio of western "losses" to eastern "losses" was thus 14,720/2294 = 6.4 to one.
- During this period, a constant 43-46% of all of the Luftwaffe's operational aircraft were based in the East. It should be noted that these included entire categories (for example, battlefield recce, battle planes, dive bombers) that were used exclusively in the East, because they couldn't survive in the West..
- During this period, a total of 8600 operational aircraft were "lost" in the East, while 27,060 were "lost" in the West; the ratio of western "losses" to eastern "losses" was thus 27,060/8600 = 3.41 to one.
[/list=1]
The eastern front tied up the a considerable amount of resources but the bombing campaign by the western allies is what broke the lw. No one can seriously believe that the p38 was the plane, or could have been the plane, to do this.
fdiron said
The P51 had ~10,000 victories in the ETO. Many more than either the P38 or P47.
I have read this as well. Its pretty clear to me that the p51 was the plane. According to Butler the lw in the west was able be maintain an average operational dayfighter strength of 1364 while 14,720 aircraft were "lost".
Quantity has a quality of its own.........
-
Originally posted by Puck
That's a new documentary, produced by the History Channel using some of the film shot at Hap Arnold's insistance during the last few weeks of the war. Something like 80 hours of footage, but Arnold decided after the war it was too much for the public.
I have a copy of it. Sits next to Gun Camera Footage, How Not to Land on a CV(N), How to fly the P38, and the 8th AF 50th reunion. Just watched it last night, in fact :)
No "Thunderbolt" was made in 1947 by William Wyler, three years after he made "Memphis Belle", it has an introduction by James Stewart .
-
Originally posted by Samm
No "Thunderbolt" was made in 1947 by William Wyler, three years after he made "Memphis Belle", it has an introduction by James Stewart .
Ah! There are two documentarys named Thunderbolt, and I was thinking of the wrong one.
Silly me :)
-
Originally posted by Puck
...You have to wonder, though, how long the war would have lasted if Hitler hadn't opened two fronts...
w/out the ETO's eastern front, Stalin's eastern ambitions (as evidenced by his entry into PTO concurrent w/ conclusion of ETO) may have aided put down the imperial japanese much more swiftly - from vladivostok to tokyo is only slightly longer than london to berlin, but the topic of this thread is
Do you think the ruggedness of the P-47s made the more important difference in the AirWar over Europe or do you feel the Mustangs and their long range capability really made the difference ?
key phrase being "AirWar over Europe", which does not include the very important role the Jug played in tactical support for ground troops. Mustang wins
-
Originally posted by fd ski
Yak , Migg and Lagg is what broke LW back.
wrong:) see wotan's post.
-
Originally posted by -ammo-
wrong:) see wotan's post.
Ya Im back on the other side of the fence again...
The jug broke the LWs back!
and the pony held it down!
-
"The P51 had ~10,000 victories in the ETO."
Huh?...that must include 'ground kills'
Daff
-
From what I've been told by actual fighter pilots from the 1st, 20th, 55th, and 475th, the P-38 had no handling vices other than compressibility in a dive from above 25,000 feet. The closest other characteristic that might be termed a vice was that it tended to float a little on landing. The twin engine layout allowed it to have zero net torque, it had a very low stall speed with gentle stall departure (if it even departed, you had to be in an extremely tight turn to actually depart) and relatively easy recovery. It had a short take off run, was easy to land, and generally a pleasure to fly.
If you violated the takeoff procedure, you could lose an engine on takeoff, and if you were not prepared or trained, that could kill you.
The only significant changes to the airframe that modified handling characteristics made between the F model and the end of production of the L model was the addition of the dive flaps. That and a change to the fillet radius where the wing attached to the center nacelle only affected the dive characteristics.
The P-38 was a big plane, but if handled properly, could turn with most anything, had an excellent climb rate, and great acceleration. Using differential throttle application, you could turn a P-38 extremely tight.
With a 4:1 kill to loss ratio in combat against the Luftwaffe, it was more than capable as a fighter, and an escort fighter, and did a great job of ground interdiction.
The P-38 was not known for engine problems in North Africa, and had a tremendous record in both North Africa and the Mediterranian.
The proper throttle setting for range on the P-38 was 1600 RPM, 50+ inches of manifold pressure, and mixture to auto lean. The P-38 had no equal in range at any time in World War II, among Allied fighters. The P-38 was the FIRST Allied fighter over Berlin, by itself, even the bombers had turned back.
The P-38 did well in the Pacific because General Kenney loved the plane, had confidence in it, and instilled that confidence in his men. The 8th AF was lead by bomber command staff, and when it came to fighter operations, until Doolittle came along, they were totally incompetent.
The P-38 could and did operate at altitudes in excess of 28,000 feet over the Pacific regularly, and it's just as cold at 28,000 feet over New Guinea as it is at 28,000 feet over Regensburg. The cold weather thing is pure B.S. The P-38 did have cockpit heating problems, but the improper operation of the plane was the problem with regards to mechanical failure.
The problem with cold weather operation in Europe was that pilots were running the Allisons at 2000 RPM, 20 inches of manifold pressure, and mixture in auto rich. The oil and coolant were so cold they almost congealed, and sometimes did. The cylinder head temperatures dropped so low that the gauges didn't even register. Anyone with common sense knew this could not work, but it was procedure, and that was that. It not only wasted precious fuel, it caused turbochargers to overspeed because the regulators froze, it caused engines to stall and backfire when the throttles were advanced, it caused plugs to foul constantly, resulting in rough engines and premature returns.
The minute some intelligent pilot ran his manifold pressure up to 50 inches, and switched his mixture to auto lean, the problem stopped. Even after this was discovered, the 8th did a poor job of getting the information out.
Another problem was the poor quality British Petroleum fuel. It had the tel anti knock compound blended poorly, right before the fuel was loaded in the plane. The early P-38 (pre J models)had a bizarre intercooler, which was actually a corrugated metal duct that went from the carb to the wingtip and back. In these, the tel dropped out of the fuel, and cuased detonation. In the J and later models, the intercooler was a regular core type, with a door that controlled temperature. When pilots left the door open at cruise, the tel dropped out due to excessive cooling. When Doolittle arranged to have Shell (his former employer) deliver good quality fuel to Britain, these problems stopped.
The oil coolers also had doors, and when left open at cruise, they would chill the oil, which caused the same problems as low temperature brought on by using the wrong cruise settings.
Lockheed had already solved this problem in 1943, back in the early spring, but once again, they were not allowed to stop production for a few days to make the changes, until late in 1943 at a model change. They had automatic engine temperature controls ready for the G models, but they didn't appear until the J model.
It was quite common for pilots to file an early return report claiming mechanical problems, and for the maintenance crew to file a report stating the plane had no such problems.
-
The secret to the success of the P-51 is easy to see. Now, don't get me wrong, the P-51 is a fine aircraft, with several great attributes, and some vices no one wants to talk about. The truth about the P-51 is really more impressive than the bogus legend.
The P-47 was escorting the bombers to the limit of its range, and releasing them to the P-51 and the P-38. The P-47 had great numerical superiority to the Luftwaffe, and wisely the Luftwaffe was wont to engage the P-47 when they could wait and face a third as many (or less) P-38s and P-51s over their own territory. Eventually, the Luftwaffe was FORCED to attack the bombers while the P-47 was escorting them en masse, but it was not by choice that they did it.
Once the P-51 reached an equal level of deployment to the P-38, the P-38 and the P-47 began to spend most of their time on ground interdiction missions, while the P-51 faced an already broken Luftwaffe, short on pilots and fuel, without enough fuel or experienced pilots to train new pilots. The Luftwaffe was dying off, severely damaged by the P-47, and the early missions of P-38s and ever increasing numbers of P-51s. The P-51, reaching deployment levels equal to the P-38 in April of 1944, spent the next year facing a Luftwaffe that was already in decline, and sinking faster every day.
The P-51's claim to being the plane that broke the Luftwaffe's back just doesn't fly. The P-51 is to the P-38 and the P-47 what the Spitfire is to the Hurricane in the Battle of Britain.
-
The P-47, while not without its own problems, was tough, reliable, powerful, and an excellent platform for both air to air and air to ground combat. Flown properly, it could and did defeat the very best the Luftwaffe had to offer, in planes and pilots. Had the 8th AF put the 108 gallon and larger drop tanks on the P-47 when they should have, the P-51, and possibly the P-38, would quite possibly have been also rans. The P-47 gave far more than it took, and deserves far more credit than it gets. While everyone thinks Bodie is only a P-38 fan, you should read his book on the P-47, and his newest book on the 8th AF. Bodie gives the credit where it's due.
-
The P47 had a drop-tank called a 'paper' drop tank that supposedly leaked horribly. It wasnt until the aluminum drop tanks showed up that the P47 had any range at all.
-
You guys are all assuming that the Air War was won in the air.
The contribution that the P47 made to the destruction of Germany's logistics chain is incalculable. From late '44 when P47 units started moving to forward European bases, it started to become impossible for the Germans to move anything on the ground during daylight hours.
Groundpounding isn't glamourous, so the methods and effects are no where near as documented as air-to-air combat.
My point is, isn't it better to stop an aircraft from taking off to attack the bombers, rather than have to maybe knock it down before it gets there or possibly after it's already done it's job?
Isn't it better to shoot up the supply train or truck convoy carrying ammunition for AAA of all calibres than let the guns fire at bomber aircraft?
That is the effect the P47 had on the European airwar. It was MUCH tougher than the Typhoon, and arguably had better success in the Ground Attack role. There were also a lot more P47s than Typhoons on the job.
palef
-
10,000 Kills?????
Please tell me someone has documents to back this up.
-
"The P47 had a drop-tank called a 'paper' drop tank that supposedly leaked horribly. It wasnt until the aluminum drop tanks showed up that the P47 had any range at all."
Erhh..leakage had nothing to do with it; The papertanks (British made) were only 75 or 90 gallon (Cant remember which), but the main difference between the US 150 gallon tanks was that the British tanks were available!.
Blame US logistics and praise the British for at least providing 1/2 hours extra cover to the bombers, through their 'leaky' drop tanks.
Daff
-
Originally posted by fdiron
The P47 had a drop-tank called a 'paper' drop tank that supposedly leaked horribly. It wasnt until the aluminum drop tanks showed up that the P47 had any range at all.
As far as I can remember, that is completely incorrect. The problem with the P-47 and drop tanks was that they had difficulty getting them pressurized, and without the necessary pressure, they could not getthe fuel back out of the tanks and into the fuel system, rendering the tanks useless. All the planes used the "paper" tanks, they were cheaper and easier to manufacture. The problem was that if you had to abort, they would almost always burst when you tried to land, creating a hazardous condition, so even if you only flew for ten minutes, you had to jettison two nearly full 128 gallon drop tanks, wasting all of that precious fuel.
-
Your ALL WRONG! The P-39 Airacobra WON THE WAR!!
(packing up belongins and running with a Histeracle laugh)
Just kidding..
My input on this topic, The P47 was and is the most rugged and durable aircraft of the ETO. That HUGE Radial engine in the front saved a lot of lives. I think the P47 had one of the greatest impacts to the war and yes the P51 got all the Glory. For the US. Kind of view the P47/P51 contraversy like the Battle of Britian. The Spitfire got all the Glory and the Hurricane did all the work.
I am not saying the P51 was a bad plane.. it was a great plane but it was not the greatest plane of WWII nor was anyother plane of WWII, they all made major contributions to the war and to add to that it wasnt all the plane.. it was the pilot.
To side with the P47 a little bit, one may wonder why the 56th fought so hard to keep their beloved P47 because the were the most familier with it, the knew its strengths and weakness, and they knew that out of all the Planes in the US arsenal, the jug with its radial engine gave them the best chances of making it home. The radial was far superior to the inline for ruggedness.
I would have to say the only Inline fighter that came close to survivablity was the P38--its dual inlines gave them a backup if one was hit.
As for the P-38, Captain Virgil Hilts had a good point. The P47 would of been GREAT performer in the Mediteranian theatre if it was sent in numbers alongside the P38 and it would of been interesting if that did happen. The P38 was great plane also, I don't know how many stories I have read that the P38 brought the pilot home save do its twin engine concept. I think that is part of the reason why the US Navy made the F7F Tigercat a twing.. what made the F7F great is not only was it a twin but it was a radial also...another topic for another day.
For groundpounding the P47 was the alltime champ with the P38 in second. WOuld place the Typhoon and tempest next and the 51 towards the end.
As for dogfighting for the US anyway, during the early days of the war the P47 was the workhorse and at the top . Later on with the P51 beeing the lead but the later P47D models, P47 M and N stayed on the P51 heals. THe Late year P38s were an amazing plane in itself.
OVerall they all played a very important role and they were all great in their own way. BUT.. not beeing biased.(snicker),. for the time it existed.. the P47 was the greatest aircraft when it comes down to the math and its accomplishments.
Cheers
Gorf
56th Fighter Group
:)
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
10,000 Kills?????
Please tell me someone has documents to back this up.
The most commonly encountered figures seem to be 4 950 credited aerial victories and 4 131 "ground kills" in the ETO, totalling 9 081.
-
". The problem with the P-47 and drop tanks was that they had difficulty getting them pressurized"
That was with the 200 gallon ferry tanks, as they weren't designed for flying high altitude.
They (The 56th FG) also had problems jettisoning them, so they had a full tank they couldnt get rid and couldnt use the fuel from.
Daff
-
Originally posted by Daff
". The problem with the P-47 and drop tanks was that they had difficulty getting them pressurized"
That was with the 200 gallon ferry tanks, as they weren't designed for flying high altitude.
They (The 56th FG) also had problems jettisoning them, so they had a full tank they couldnt get rid and couldnt use the fuel from.
Daff
Best I can remember, the problems also applied to the 108 and 128 gallon drop tanks on the P-47. The 8th AF didn't even bother to attempt to solve the rpoblems or acquire an adequate supply of drop tanks until it was more than apparent that the bombers couldn't do the job without escort. So, when they finally did get the drop tanks, they still had to iron out the problems that should have been fixed long before they were desperately in need of those tanks.
The plain fact is the command staff of the 8th were just plain incompetent. The 5th AF was able to make drop tanks work on all their planes, even the P-47. They also had the foresight to do it before it was desperately needed. The 5th, the 9th and the 15th were all able to make drop tanks and even the P-38 work, and work well, against all enemies, in all situations, while the 8th, despite having choice and priority, couldn't make the drop tanks work in a timely manner, never really got the P-38 to work nearly as well as anyone else, and needed more fighters, more fuel ,and more pilots to achieve the same results as the other groups.
-
The most commonly encountered figures seem to be 4 950 credited aerial victories and 4 131 "ground kills" in the ETO, totalling 9 081.
Those ground kills didn't count in the PTO where the lightning was excellent as fighter
-
What do you mean ground kills dont count? There were airfield strikes all the time in the Pacific. In fact, I have hundreds of pictures taken from U.S. planes that show Japanese aircraft being strafed on the ground.
-
but they didn't count as air victory
-
56fg had over 1000 kills alone in the jug. The 4th FG boasted over 1000 kills as well, but alot of them were in the P-47.
I think if we were to find some source documents, I believe we would find that the P-51 did not surpass the jugs total number of kills in the ETO.
-
Didn't the acronym JABO, come from the Germans describing P-47 ground attacks?
-
Ok, I found some VERY interesting data on the P47:
546,000 combat sorties with a combat loss rate of only 0.7 percent.
132,000 tons of bombs dropped
135 million rounds of 50 cal. fired
1-1/2 million hours of combat
20 million gal of fuel consumed
11,878 Enemy planes destroyed; 1/2 in the air; 1/2 on the ground
160,000 military vehicles destroyed
9,000 enemy locomotives destroyed
More victories than any other American aircraft in W.W.II
From: http://www.p47millville.org/history_p-47_thunderbolt.html
The P47 may have 'broke the back of the Luftwaffe', but the Luftwaffe was demolishing U.S. bomber groups and bomber crews at the same time.
-
The p47 was instrumental in the victory in Italy .
-
The P47 may have 'broke the back of the Luftwaffe', but the Luftwaffe was demolishing U.S. bomber groups and bomber crews at the same time.
80-90% of bomber losses were due to ground AAA, mechanical problems and accidents.
-
Mino, you just made that figure up. It wasnt mechanical problems or Flak that brought the Strategic Bombing Campaign to a hault after Schweinfurt. It was German fighters.
-
You just have to look at Chuck Yeager himself. His Ace in a Day story... of the 5 he shot down, 1 was definetely so green he couldnt even trim his plane to fly straight, the other 4 he described as being easy to shoot down.
By the time the pony came in, the LW only had 3 kinds of pilots: Ubervets, 10hr flightschool pilots, and corpses.
I'd say the P-47 had much more impact in Europe due to its numbers, the 38 beat every other fighter in the Pacific.
The P-51 just picked up the pieces and ran down ;) an already defeated enemy air force.
-
Originally posted by fdiron
Ok, I found some VERY interesting data on the P47:
160,000 military vehicles destroyed
160,000 enemy vehicles? I guess they were counting cars, motorcycles, bicycles, wagons and maybe even pony rides at the carousel?
Sakai
-
jabo is short for jagdbomber. litteraly 'hunter-bomber' translates to fighter-bomber. generic term not specific to the Jug, but the Jug sure scarred the $hi+e outta the ground troops
-
1 was definetely so green he couldnt even trim his plane to fly straight,
???? more allied bs
the 109 only had elevator trim and the 190 had electrical trim. Yeager was shot down by a 190 and had to escape through spain before his "ace in a day". He ended up with 11.5 kills
As he closed in on one Bf-109, the pilot broke left and collided with his wingman; both bailed out, giving Yeager credit for two victories without firing a shot.
proxy kills?
-
Originally posted by fdiron
Mino, you just made that figure up. It wasnt mechanical problems or Flak that brought the Strategic Bombing Campaign to a hault after Schweinfurt. It was German fighters.
I had thought that at one time FdIron, but then I did some research as you should do also. :)
-
Wotan, in his story he said the plane he shot down was flying like a crab. The pilot did not know how to fly the thing. Considering how short on fuel the LW was at the time and the incredibly short amount of training the new LW pilots had in the time, its not surprising.
The P-51 did great things yes, but it did them onto an enemy that was already attritioned to the breaking point. Like someone said above, all it did was break its back.
Silly ponies.
-
Originally posted by senna
Just was wondering what you guys think. Theres some posts recently about the P-51 so I thought this post up. Do you think the ruggedness of the P-47s made the more important difference in the AirWar over Europe or do you feel the Mustangs and their long range capability really made the difference ? [No question, in my mind. The long range capabilities, along with manuverability and firepower, of the Pony is what allowed the BUFFs access to Germany, thereby making the greatest contribution./QUOTE]
-
could have been pilot injured, plane damaged or whatever.
the only trim on a 109 is elevator trim.
the rudder is trimmed on the ground. The guy might have been "sliping" to cause an overshot.
But theres to many ifs.
an Easy kill is an easy kill, but the lw were outnumbered so even an experten had a rough time.
I do not too much about Yeager but he was shot down when he only had 1 kill. Most guys in his situation (shot down behind enemy lines then avoided capture to escape back to england) didnt get to fly again.
Not all lw were easy kills :)
Maj. Wilhelm Steinmann 11+ mustang kills
Ofw. Heinrich Bartels 11 p51s 9 p47s and 14 p38s
on 26 January 1968, Bartels’ Bf 109 G-10 (WNr. 130 359) “Yellow 13” was found at Villip near Bad Godesberg. In the cockpit was the intact parachute...
Obstlt. Heinz Bär 10 p51s
Oblt. Wilhelm Hofmann 10 p51s 13 p47s and 5 b17s
Hofmann led a formation of eight Fw 190s from Drope on a Jabo mission in the Wesel-Bocholt area on 26 March 1945. The formation encountered USAAF B-26s near Münster and he led a bounce of the RAF Tempest fighter escort shooting down one for his 44th victory. However, during the ensuing confusion Hofmann went missing. It was later determined he had been shot down by his wingman and crashed between Hasselünne and Flechum. He had managed to bale out but was too low for his parachute to deploy.
-
"Ofw. Heinrich Bartels 11 p51s 9 p47s and 14 p38s
on 26 January 1968, Bartels’ Bf 109 G-10 (WNr. 130 359) “Yellow 13” was found at Villip near Bad Godesberg. In the cockpit was the intact parachute... "
Ofw. Bartels prepares to bail out of his stricken plane. As he jumps clear, he can't shake the nagging feeling that he's forgetting something. As he goes to pull his ripcord...
famous last words...."DOH!"
J_A_B
-
Originally posted by Gorf
I am not saying the P51 was a bad plane.. it was a great plane but it was not the greatest plane of WWII nor was anyother plane of WWII, they all made major contributions to the war and to add to that it wasnt all the plane.. it was the pilot.
Cheers
Gorf
56th Fighter Group
:)
wow you dont realise how good it is to hear that said by an American!
I whole heartedly agree with you there.
and by the way this is what Oberstleutnant Heinz Bar said of some fighters when interogated at kaufbeuren Germany on the 28th of august 1945.
'The mustang is the best escort fighter up to six thousand meters.The Thunderbolt is , as a fighter bomber, very efficient as it has a radial engine and long endurance.The Lightning is an old type aircraft but is efficient as an escort fighter over water because of its ability to fly on one engine.'
'The Tempest is a very good fighter but was not well known (by bar).The spitfire is fast and maneuverable, has a good climb and excellent armament but does not have long range.The typhoon is good as a ground attack aircraft because of its speed in horizontal flight.The allied tendancy towards heavy fighter aircraft is not good.R/T was considered as very good on all types of aircraft.'
not very in depth but gives an idea of what they thought.
-
As he closed in on one Bf-109, the pilot broke left and collided with his wingman; both bailed out, giving Yeager credit for two victories without firing a shot.
the British would not have crdited either of those as kills
-
Hazed wabble talker the lightning is an old design like the me 109
but i wouldn't compare the E with the G10 model
as don't to compare a D with a L model
for the rest stay ignorant about the lightning
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by H. Godwineson
Weren't P-38's routinely being flown across the Atlantic to England as early as 1943? No lack of range there. And wasn't the range of the Lightning exceeding that of the Mustang by 1945? Have no sources handy to verify.
Anybody out there know for certain?
Regards, Shuckins
Yes, I already mentioned the 38 was over Berlin before the 51 above.
P-38 had another hour plus in the air over the P-51....but it took buns of steel to sit in it that long. :)
Wor, out
-
Originally posted by Wotan
I have read this as well. Its pretty clear to me that the p51 was the plane. According to Butler the lw in the west was able be maintain an average operational dayfighter strength of 1364 while 14,720 aircraft were "lost".
Quantity has a quality of its own.........
The 38, as before said, wasn't produced in any quantities to have an impact in the ETO. As before said, only two P-38 figher groups were operating in 1943(Oct then Dec). Add to this the demand for the 38 in the PTO...and you have very minimal impact in the ETO with the forked tailed devil.
The 47 was the machine that broke the back of the LW. The 51 was still being rushed into production. The turning point was when Doolittle took command of the 8th AF and "set the fighters free." By June 44 it was all over. Only by husbanding a reserve could the LW make an impact on the airwar over Germany then.
Worr, out
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
The P-51's claim to being the plane that broke the Luftwaffe's back just doesn't fly.
I've never read any claim like this. This has most consistently been applied to the P-47D....and particularily after Doolittle set the fighters free.
Worr, out
-
Originally posted by fd ski
Yak , Migg and Lagg is what broke LW back.
I read somwhere that about 75% of the Luftwaffe's losses were on the Western front.
Can sombody verify this?
-
i can not verify that you read it somewhere
¦¬þ
-
I met a Pac theater P-38 pilot who is current with many other WW2 pilots. In conversation with this pilot he told me he knows Gunthar Rall pretty well and they meet up on occasion and when really pursuing Gunthar about his true feelings of the P-38 (he said Gunthar was very diplomatic and usually doesn't say anything negative about anything...or that was the gist I got), I was told that Gunthar Rall kinda looked at him as if telling a secret and said they saved the P-38s for their rookies to go after. That said to me right there the P-38s were not feared in any manner by the LW.
BTW, this same pilot told me P-38's could make "box turns" on Spitfires. What is a "box turn"?
-
Hmm, the impact on the war is surely bigger with the P-51. Because of the greater range off course.
If I had to choose in which plane between these two to fly and fight, I would most prolly choose the ugly P47 tho.
In RL it didnt have the touchy merlin, which could be easily critically damaged. It had a very reliable and rugged motor. This lead to the fact that most p47 were tuned up so the had very good performance. And the structural strength of the Jug is very high. AFAIK there was no Jug-Ace shot down. Not saying that I'm an ace (or would be) but I certainly would feel more comfortable in a 400MPH Tank than a 400MPH Fish.
If it was not for the west front, the jug may have been the "better" fighter FOR THE WEST-FRONT.
In the east the altitudes were very low, and AFIK at these alts the jug was a pig. The russians didnt like it either :)
-
Originally posted by Puke
BTW, this same pilot told me P-38's could make "box turns" on Spitfires. What is a "box turn"?
A box-turn is the following maneuver:
You throw a pink box out of the window, the persuing spit-pilot gets distracted, you turn at that moment the p38 upside down, split-s and run away.
It only works with sissy... Spits, because pilots of real planes dont usually have this affinity to pink stuff in general ;) :) ;)
:p
-
Originally posted by Purzel
AFAIK there was no Jug-Ace shot down.
Actually there were several P-47 aces shot down. Most notable was Hub Zemke, Gerald Johnson, Bud Mahurin and while he was not actually shot down, Francis Gabreski went down near a German airfiend.
-
Originally posted by -ammo-
Actually there were several P-47 aces shot down. Most notable was Hub Zemke, Gerald Johnson, Bud Mahurin and while he was not actually shot down, Francis Gabreski went down near a German airfiend.
according to his autobiography, 'Hub' Zemke, while on a mission in a P-51, lost control in bad weather & his plane came apart in the ensuing violent spin.
BTW - just came across this chart:
Fighter Losses ETO
Type -- Sorties ----- Combat Losses - Production
P-47 -- 423,435 ---- 3077 ---------------- 15,579
P-51 -- 213,873 ---- 2520 ---------------- 14,490
P-38 -- 129,849 ---- 1758 ------------------ 9,535
P-40 -- 67,059 ------ 553 ------------------ 13,738
P-39 -- 30,547 ------ 107 ------------------- 9,585
-
Yes that is true, however he was a 10+ P-47 ace at the time. He was asked to take command of a P-38 unit while he was commanding the 56 FG. This unit soon transitioned to the P-51. He was not actually shot down, but his wimpy P-51 cam apart in turbulance while flying in a cloud bank. If he had been in a P-47, his wings would have not folded and he would have brought his AC back to England.
-
according to the chart i posted the P-39 was the most effective USAAF plane in the ETO
-
Gabreski bought it strafin an airfield..spent last of war in prison camp
-
Interesting viewpoints.
Most of the arguments hinge on whether you believe a plane's effectiveness was due to the plane or the pilot.
As a number of posts illustrate, the P-38 (my personal favorite WWII fighter) wasn't as effective in the ETO as it should have been because the aircrews were poorly trained and the commanders had no faith in the bird. Any plane incompetently flown is easy meat, so, Gunther Rall notwithstanding, German estimates about the plane are based on the pilot not the aircraft.
The 56th was an exceptional outfit, both in the quality of its leadership and the talent of its pilots. In the hands of a good pilot, the P-47 was exceptionally effective. Once again, the pilot, not the aircraft being the difference.
The P-51 seemed to be the aircraft that the average fighter pilot could employ most effectively. Thus it probably contributed most to Allied success.
But, as others have pointed out, by the time it was flying in great numbers, it was the German pilots who were poorly trained and inexperienced and thus easy meat.
Dwarf
-
Jug vs p51 True Story (http://www.p47pilots.com/cfm_ThereIWas.cfm?pageMode=VIEW&storyid=12)
-
Jug's Rule :D That includes the other jugs as well!
-
Jugs are fun.