Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: YUCCA on September 10, 2003, 01:03:02 PM
-
Now read Rip Collins' words. Rip (back then Lieutenant
Collins) was a WW II fighter pilot from the class of
44-C, Aloe Field, Victoria, Texas. Rip was assigned to
the 35th Fighter Group in the Pacific (there is a link
to the 35th at the end of this article), and flew both
the P-47 and P-51 in combat in the Pacific. He is a
big fan of the P-47, and took me to task for choosing
the P-51 over the P-47 in my article "Best Fighter
Planes of WW II." In that he is not alone, but he was
the only correspondent who actually flew both in
combat, so his words carry a lot of weight. At one
point he wrote to me that he could give me a dozen
reasons why the P-47 was superior to the P-51.
Naturally, I asked him to do just that. After reading
his reasons, I asked him if I could use his material
(with credit) in an article about the P-47, and he
kindly consented. From now on you are reading Rip's
words.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sure, fighter pilots are a different cut of guys.
I guess we got spoiled because we were considered the
"cream of the crop." In most cases, not all, but most,
if you were going into the USAAC, USAAF, USAF, or
whatever name it was called at the time, the majority
of us young bucks wanted fighters (1055) and not
multiengine (bombers, transports, surveillance,
rescue, etc.). I've seen the disappointment at "wash
out" time, when the primary and basic flight
instruction group was split up prior to advanced
training. The men that couldn't cut it went on to
multiengine advanced training bases, while the "cream"
went on to single engine bases to fly the AT-6 Texan
(advanced fighter trainer).
It is not unusual to favor your own aircraft. In fact,
it is a bit common. We probably all look at this in a
different way, and in a different light. And if you
didn't get to fly both the Jug and the Mustang, you
were at a decided disadvantage. Here are my dozen
reasons why the T-bolt was the superior fighter of the
two.
1. The Republic Thunderbolt had a radial engine that
could take hits and keep on running. I know of an
actual case where a Jug brought a pilot back from
Borneo after 8 hours in the air. The pilot landed with
the master cylinder and three other cylinders blown
out of commission. But the Jug kept chugging along,
running well enough to bring its pilot back safely to
his base at Morotai. I was there.
2. The Jug's radial engine was air cooled, instead of
liquid cooled with a radiator system, like the
Mustang's V-12. This is significant because one small
caliber hit on an aluminum cooling line in a Mustang
would let the coolant leak out, and when the coolant
was gone, the engine seized, and the show was over.
I took a small caliber hit in a coolant tube over
Formosa (Taiwan). When I landed back at base, my crew
chief said, "Lieutenant, did you know you got hit?" I
replied, "No." He continued, "You took a small caliber
shell in the coolant tube on the right side of the
engine. I'd give you between 10 and 15 minutes flying
time remaining." I had just flown from Formosa, over
nothing but the Pacific Ocean, to our fighter strip on
Okinawa.
3. The P-47 could fly higher than the P-51. With its
huge turbocharger, it could climb to over 40,000 feet.
You could just look down at your enemy in a stall and
smile.
4. The Jug could out dive the Mustang. As a matter of
fact, it could out dive any enemy fighter, and at 7.5
tons loaded, it dove fast! I have personally been in a
dive at what we called the "state of compressibility,"
at nearly 700 mph indicated air speed. I was scared to
death, but with a tiny bit of throttle, I pulled it
out at about 2,000-foot altitude, literally screaming
through the sky.
5. The Thunderbolt had eight .50's. The Mustang had
six. That's 33 1/3% more firepower. This made a major
difference.
6. The later model Thunderbolt's could carry and
deliver 2,500 pounds of bombs. (One 1,000-lb. bomb on
each wing, and one 500 lb. bomb under the belly.) This
was a maximum load and you had to use water injection
to get airborne. But it would do this with sufficient
runway. I have done this myself.
In addition to being a first class fighter, it was
also a superb fighter-bomber and ground level strafer.
Jugs practically wiped out the German and Italian
railroads. I have strafed Japanese trains, troops,
ships, gunboats, warships, airfields, ammo dumps,
hangers, antiaircraft installations, you name it. I
felt secure in my P-47.
7. The P-47 was larger and much stronger, in case of a
crash landing. The Jug was built like a machined tool.
Mustangs had a lot of sheet metal stamped out parts,
and were more lightweight in construction. One example
was the throttle arm. You can see the difference. What
does all this mean? The safety of the fighter pilot.
8. The Thunderbolt had no "scoop" under the bottom.
You can imagine what happens during a crash landing if
your wheels would not come down (due to damage or
mechanical trouble). On landing, it could make the
P-51 nose over in the dirt as the scoop drags into the
earth. In water (and I flew over the Pacific Ocean
most of my 92 combat missions), it could cause trouble
in a crash landing because the air scoop would be the
first part of the aircraft to hit the water. Instead
of a smooth belly landing, anything might happen.
9. The Thunderbolt had a much larger, roomier cockpit.
You were comfortable in the big Jug cockpit. In my
Mustang, my shoulders almost scraped the sides on the
right and left. I was cramped in with all my "gear." I
could not move around like I could in the P-47. I
found the ability to move a little bit very desirable,
especially on seven and eight hour missions.
10. The Mustang went from 1,150-horse power Allison
engines to the Packard built Rolls-Royce Merlin engine
that had 1,590 hp. The Thunderbolt started out with a
2,000 hp Pratt & Whitney engine, and ended up with
2,800 war emergency hp with water injection. That's
close to twice the power.
11. The Jug had a very wide landing gear. This made it
easy to land just about anywhere, with no tendency to
ground loop. Many times we had to land on rice paddies
and irregular ground. When you set the Thunderbolt
down, it was down. In the Far East, England, Africa,
and Italy, this helped you get down and walk away from
it. To me, that was very important for the safety of
the pilot.
12. The Jug's record against all opposing aircraft is
remarkable. The ratio of kills to losses was
unmistakably a winner. Thunderbolt pilots destroyed a
total of 11,874 enemy aircraft, over 9,000 trains, and
160,000 vehicles.
But, the big factor, above all else, it saved pilots
in great numbers. Ask most fighter pilots who flew
both in active combat and they will tell you that,
given a choice to fly either one in combat, it would
be the Juggernaut hands down.
Now one last thing: the P-51 Mustang was a superb
fighter. I am fully aware of that! But, considering
that I flew about every kind of mission the Pentagon
could dream up, and a few they didn't know about, I
will rate that 8 tons of destruction first as long as
I live, and no one can change my mind. I was there.
Just simply walk up to one of them and see for
yourself.
The dictionary defines "juggernaut" as: "any large,
overpowering, destructive force or object." That was
the P-47 of World War II.
-
He obviously didn't had any experience with the P38.
So he just didn't knew it.
:)
-
I think the author asumes that the only competition is the mustang. That's his first mistake.
Regardless of any advantages the P47 has over the P51, when you consider cost of construction the P51 is a far better deal and that cost difference should be considered in each comparison. Pilots were relatively cheap back then.
-
The Thunderbolt started out with a
2,000 hp Pratt & Whitney engine, and ended up with
2,800 war emergency hp with water injection. That's
close to twice the power.
LOL
-
funked1 read closer. He mean't twice the HP of the pony.
-
Doesn't really matter what he was comparing to, because the P-51D was running with around 2000hp for the last year of the war in Europe.
-
When those criteria are deciding for a fighter, a B-52 would beat them all i think (it would win at least in 8/10 points)
niklas
-
aren't 1 and 2 more or less the same?
-
Fighting at the japanese front he confronted relatively slow planes, things may change fighting 190s or 109s.
-
Well considering the hgihest scoring american fighter group flew jugs in the ETO.......
-
Sorry, but as a fighter I can think of multiple aircraft that were almost certainly better than the P-47.
The role of a fighter is to shoot down enemy fighters, bombers and escort friendly bombers.
All other tasks are tertiary. If you are weighting them evenly then you'll find the Lancaster and B-29 vying for the top fighter of WWII.
-
It was typed by a wwii vet:)
-
"my own is allways best"? ;)
-
I think the Spitfire was better than anything the US fielded as far as a pure fighter. As Gabreski told our squad once, "It was a FIGHTER FIGHTER."
:D
-
Originally posted by YUCCA
It was typed by a wwii vet:)
And what did he fly?
Being a WWII vet does not make him an unerring source. It does mean many things, but not everything.
-
Can't you read? P51 and p47.
-
Hmm.
I didn't read the first post.
I assumed that he was comparing more than just the P-51 and P-47 to arrive at what the best fighter of WWII was. If he was only comparing those two then he wasn't really deciding what the best fighter of WWII was.
I seem to recall that Cpt. Eric Brown thought the F4U-4, Fw190D-9, and Spitfire Mk XIVe were the best piston fighters of WWII and he flew quite a few more than just the P-51 and P-47.
-
I always get a kick out of the arm chair aces that read comments from a real life WW2 pilot that is talking from his combat experience in whatever plane and then dismiss the WW2 vets comments out of hand.
ack-ack
-
I think the best wwII fighter was the spitfire and all its versions, even though Im not a real big spitfire fan (I fly them now and then though). Too bad the British didnt put bigger fuel tanks in them.
-
Probably the Spitfire given it's lengh of service. But I think the Tempest is up there - a real beast of plane.
-
262 ;)
-
Not that you can compare my experience with that vet :D , but i agree.... the jug is a better fighter in MA than the pony, at least in my hands.
Nice story btw
-
horses for couses ....different roles...cannot compare...best fighter of WWII is late mk spits no doubt, out run or out turn anything..but in AH we have to expect a little bias ( understandably) towards the USAF and USNAVY planes...
-
Really nice story! he named all the great things of the jug! ofcourse there are many disadvantages on the jug compared to the pony :)
like he said: "10. The Mustang went from 1,150-horse power Allison
engines to the Packard built Rolls-Royce Merlin engine
that had 1,590 hp. The Thunderbolt started out with a
2,000 hp Pratt & Whitney engine, and ended up with
2,800 war emergency hp with water injection. That's
close to twice the power."
This is true, but the Jug was much heavier.:rolleyes:
and: "12. The Jug's record against all opposing aircraft is
remarkable. The ratio of kills to losses was
unmistakably a winner. Thunderbolt pilots destroyed a
total of 11,874 enemy aircraft, over 9,000 trains, and
160,000 vehicles."
This is true too, but America started flying with the jugs and kept on troughout the war, they were manufactured in large numbers.
as was the P51 but they came later on and flew in much smaller numbers.
And he doesn't mention the manoeuvrability or dogfights of the Jug vs P51 so he just says things so that it would look like the jug was better.
which I think too:D
nice story Yucca!
-
Yucca,
Excellent post, to Mr Collins. Its a shame tho with the way these silk scraffed numbskulls try and pick everything apart.
-
thanks :)
-
Originally posted by MrCoffee
I think the best wwII fighter was the spitfire and all its versions, even though Im not a real big spitfire fan (I fly them now and then though). Too bad the British didnt put bigger fuel tanks in them.
If you read the original post, he was not comparing the Jug as the best fighter in WW2. All the pilot was saying that from his experience in both aircraft that it was his opinion that out of the two aircraft, the P-47 was a far better plane than the P-51. Now who's gonna know more, an arm chair ace or someone that actually flew both planes to their limits in combat?
BTW- If you really want to know what the best fighter plane was, that one is very easy. Everyone knows that it was the twin-engined scourge of the skies, the P-38 Lightning :)
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
I always get a kick out of the arm chair aces that read comments from a real life WW2 pilot that is talking from his combat experience in whatever plane and then dismiss the WW2 vets comments out of hand.
Ain't that the truth?
Thanks for posting the article, Yucca, it's good stuff.
- oldman
-
this is the best fighter in WW2 at least these pilots didnt brag on how great they were , well i guess these pilots couldnt flying the MX7, Could be used in place of the auger diving p38s in ma .
http://www2.freepichosting.com/Images/79275/0.jpg
-
P-47 Reigns Supreme over P-51 Mustang
Don Whinnem B-17 Escort Mission
352nd FG ETO -
We were escorting B-17s. I was flying Al Marshall's
wing. We got into a mixup and got separated from the
Group. I looked over my left shoulder and saw
something coming in. I called , 'Al, there's a bandit
coming in at 7 o'clock high'.
We did a scissors. Al broke left, I broke right and
when I completed my circle it looked like Al was being
shot up by an ME109 I put the throttle to the
firewall, poured on the water injection and got on his
tail. When I got within 200 yards I started firing and
got strikes all over the plane. But as soon as he was
hit he broke up sharply, and only then did I see the
square wingtips and square tail. It was a P-51!
I called our Group Commander, Col. Joe Mason, a real
tiger, and said 'Sir,there are some P-51s in the
area'. He came back, real caustic, 'The hell they are.
They're 109s. Shoot the bastards down'. 'But sir, one
of them is a P-51 and I just shot it up pretty good'.
Silence.
Well, I located the P-51 again, and by this time he
knew we were 47s, so I pulled up alongside to take a
look. I didn't know it was Glenn Eagleston, but he
looked like he was hurting. There was nothing I could
do, so I left him and joined our formation.
I got part of the story later that day and the rest of
it 3 months later. It went all the way up to the 8th
Fighter Command Hqs......A p-47 had shot up a P-51.
Col Mason had to go up there and explain it to the
brass. But our story held up. The P-51 was 150 miles
off copurse, and his camera film showed him shooting
at a P-47.
The trouble was that an FW190 and a P-47 have the same
silhouette. You have to see the planview to see the
elliptical wings.
Three months later I crash landed near a 9th AF base,
and was taken to their hospital with a banged up nose
and forehead. Eagleton was stationed there and they
knew my name from the flap at Hqs, so he looked me up
and we drank beer at the club and flew the mission all
over again.
Eagleton swore he was shooting at a FW190, and even my
camera film looked like I was shooting at a 109 to our
Intelligence Officer. Glenn said the only thing that
saved him was the armor shield behind the cockpit..
The bullets came in over his shoulder, hit the
instrument panel, knocking most of them out.. When he
got to his base it was weathered in and he was forced
to bail out. His instruments were too shot up to try
it.
And that's how Don Whinnem shot down Glenn Eagleston -
something no German pilot was able to do. Glenn ended
up with 20 1/2 confirmed victories, tops in the 9th
AF. Whinnem was no slouch either. He didn't get credit
for that P-51, but he got enough 109s and 190s to make
him an Ace.
-
the top scoring aces of the ETO (Just for kicks :) :
Name Kills Medals Unit Plane
Francis "Gabby" Gabreski 28.0 DSC 56FG P-47
Robert S. Johnson 27.0 DSC 56FG P-47
David C. Schilling 22.5 DSC 56FG P-47
Fred J. Christensen 21.5 DSC 56FG P-47
Walker M. 'Bud' Mahurin 20.8 SS 56FG P-47
Duane W. Beeson 19.3 DSC 4FG P-47
Glenn E. Duncan 19.0 DFC 353FG P-47
Walter C. Beckham 18.0 - 353FG P-47
Col. Hubert 'Hub' Zemke 17.8 - 56FG P-47
Don Blakeslee 15.5 DFC 4FG P-51
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh look at all those 56FG JUGS! hehe
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
I think the Spitfire was better than anything the US fielded as far as a pure fighter. As Gabreski told our squad once, "It was a FIGHTER FIGHTER."
:D
On the same day, he told me the P-47 was the best Fighter AC he had flown abandoning the sabre, of course. So, he was boosting your ego maybe?:D
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
I always get a kick out of the arm chair aces that read comments from a real life WW2 pilot that is talking from his combat experience in whatever plane and then dismiss the WW2 vets comments out of hand.
ack-ack
The problem is that the vets' comments almost always contradict each other in some way, and often contradict scientific measurement of the abilities of the airplanes in question.
My favorite one is when they say something like "I never met an enemy plane that my XXXX couldn't handle."
Of course they didn't. If they did, they wouldn't be here to tell the story, would they? :)
-
Well, some of them like gabby became POW's :) But then again he ran outta gas, wasn't shot down lol :)
-
Actually Gabby struck his prop on the ground while vulching a Kraut airfield. :)
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
Actually Gabby struck his prop on the ground while vulching a Kraut airfield. :)
PC please it is base suppresion.
-
Top Scoring Aces Of the ETO
the top scoring aces of the ETO (Just for kicks :
Name Kills Medals Unit Plane
Francis "Gabby" Gabreski 28.0 DSC 56FG P-47
Robert S. Johnson 27.0 DSC 56FG P-47
David C. Schilling 22.5 DSC 56FG P-47
Fred J. Christensen 21.5 DSC 56FG P-47
Walker M. 'Bud' Mahurin 20.8 SS 56FG P-47
Duane W. Beeson 19.3 DSC 4FG P-47
Glenn E. Duncan 19.0 DFC 353FG P-47
Walter C. Beckham 18.0 - 353FG P-47
Col. Hubert 'Hub' Zemke 17.8 - 56FG P-47
Don Blakeslee 15.5 DFC 4FG P-51
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh look at all those 56FG JUGS! hehe
Please...where is Major Preddys name? I think this little 'cooking of the books' qualifies you as a liar.
-
Was copy and pasted lol. So dont get your freggin panties up in a bunch.
-
the list is incomplete. Initially Yucca posted the list on the squad list and I thought it looked odd until I realized it was supposed to be a list of top P-47 aces --for some reason there was a single P-51 in the list. For a more complete list of US ETO aces including the top P-51 boys like Preddy and Meyer, check here (http://www.acepilots.com/usaaf_eto_aces.html).
-
On that list there is one little misconception. It shows that Robin Olds had 12 kills in the P-51 when almost half of his kills were in the P-38 before the 479th switched over to the P-51.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by davidpt40
Please...where is Major Preddys name? I think this little 'cooking of the books' qualifies you as a liar.
But don't overlook the obvious fact that by your low-class reply you risk qualifying as a love muffin.
Clearly, the list is incomplete. However, I see no evidence that there was any intent to deceive.
Besides, Beeson flew the P-47 and P-51
Zemke flew the P-47, then the P-38 and finally the P-51.
Preddy scored well, but he was far from the top of the list in the raw talent department. In fact, during his 7 month combat tour with the 49th FG in the SWPA, he did miserably. Guys who flew with him prior to his mid-air wreck thought him sub-par. He certainly got it together, but he suffered thru a prolonged period of development as a fighter pilot. On the other end of the scale, we have Robert Johnson, of whom Zemke said; "Johnson was the most talented fighter pilot I ever saw, and I saw most of them."
In their massive reference work "Fighter Aces," aviation historians Raymond Tolliver and Trevor Constable compared Johnson's record with that of two German aces. Werner Molders was the first ace to score 100 aerial victories and Erich Hartmann is the top scoring ace of all time with 352.
The authors noted that Johnson "emerges impressively from this comparison." He downed 28 planes in 91 sorties, while Molders took 142 sorties to do the same, and Hartmann, 194.
After the war, Luftwaffe historians indicated that Johnson may have shot down as many as 32 German fighters. Johnson flew 91 combat missions. On those missions, he encountered German fighters 43 times. In 36 of the 43 encounters, Johnson fired his guns at the enemy. A result of those 36 missions where he fired on German fighters, 37 aircraft were hit; with as few as 27 or as many as 32 going down. I knew Bob Johnson and had many long conversations with him.
I also knew Gabreski, although not very well. He lived just a few minutes from my home, and I often bumped into him shopping or on the road where his vanity license plate "T Bolt" gave him away.
Gabby was a highly skilled fighter pilot, but he needed 26 missions in the Spitfire and 193 more in the P-47 to exceed Johnson's score by one.
In my opinion, the two most talented fighter pilots in the USAAF were Johnson and George Welch.
As to the best USAAF fighter of WWII, I lean towards the P-47 too. Above 25,000 feet (and that's where the bulk of combat took place prior to D-Day), the P-47 was superior to the Mustang. Below 25k and lower, the P-51 had an increasing edge. But, understand that the P-47 was DESIGNED for high altitude combat, with a critical altitude of 32,000 feet. Up there, the Luftwaffe had nothing to compare with the Jug until very late in the war. 32k was far above the Mustang's best altitude as well.
As a fighter-bomber, the Jug was superior to the P-51 in lifting ability, strafing and durability (by a lot in the last category). Even in the area of range the P-47 would eventually out-class the P-51D with the ultra long-range P-47N (it had a combat radius 150 miles greater than the Mustang). As a demonstration of the P-47N's range, one was flown from Republic field on Long Island to Eglin Field in Florida, whereupon it turned around and flew back again, all non-stop.
The P-38 first took the war to the Luftwaffe in the west, and the P-51 delivered the death blow. However, it was the P-47 that broke the back of the Luftwaffe. It was 700+ Jugs flying as far as the Rhine that literally drove the Luftwaffe back into the relative safety of Germany.
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Widewing
As a demonstration of the P-47N's range, one was flown from Republic field on Long Island to Eglin Field in Florida, whereupon it turned around and flew back again, all non-stop.
I remember reading something like that in the Bodie book. Unfortunately it's still packed up in a box from my move so I can't check it... as I recall though the P-47 flew down to florida, engaged in mock combat with a P-38, then flew back to New York all in one sortie. That feat was probably equalled more than a few times out in the western Pacific in 1945.
-
What are you talking about Widewing? That data has obviously been altered to make the P-47 look like a much better fighter.
And what was the point of your big long post? I think you just wanted to tell everyone about how you lived by a P-47 pilot.
-
The data is easy to verify and no matter how you want to deny it, Widewing's data has always been 100% spot on. And as for the pilot thing, I'm sure he was just proving the point that while G.Preddy might have been a good stick, he was hardly the best one by far or even up in the top #5. Of course we all know that the #1 and #2 slots are occupied by P-38 pilots.
ack-ack
-
I don't like P-47's.
(edit : it was "i dont like jugs" but just realised how bad that looked. :D)
-
while G.Preddy might have been a good stick, he was hardly the best one by far or even up in the top #5.
He had 26.5 kills. The data was for the top scoring aces of the European Theatre of Operations. That would put him in the #3 position right under Johnson.
-
What a dramatic difference between the two operational theaters. In the ETO, the P-51 and P-47 were flown by the majority of the aces for the USAAF, while in the PTO, the majority of the USAAF aces flew the P-38 (20) with the P-40 in distant second with 8 aces. There were only 3 P-51 and 2 P-47 aces (to be fair, the top P-47 ace had 22 kills, while the top P-51 ace only had 18.25 kills, of which 10 of them were in the P-40 with the AVG before the pilot transitioned to the P-51 with the USAAF)
Of course I don't have to point out that the two top US aces of all time flew that weird plane with two engines.
ack-ack
-
These lists of top scoring pilots and their mounts has nothing to do with which was the best plane. The top scoring ace with US fighter was Alexander Pokryshkin, with 59 victories, 48 of those in P-39. Does this make the Airacobra the best American fighter ?. Does Hartmanns 352 kills mean that the Bf109 was about ten times better than any US plane ?
-
Concerning the figures, The Best WW2 Fighter is this (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=93194)
:p
-
Originally posted by davidpt40
What are you talking about Widewing? That data has obviously been altered to make the P-47 look like a much better fighter.
And what was the point of your big long post? I think you just wanted to tell everyone about how you lived by a P-47 pilot.
Sigh....
I suppose that you didn't consider that the list was taken from some incomplete source. You could have corrected it without calling the fellow a liar. Bad form.
David, I have been writing about WWII aviation and interviewing pilots for 20 years. I can count many of them as friends, including several of the surviving AVG pilots and ground crew. That said, my career in Naval Aviation resulted in over 2,300 hours of flight time and 332 traps. Having been around the block several times, I always find it amusing at the slings and arrows fired by guys who haven't even gotten out of the driveway yet.
So far I have seen several guys criticize the pilot mentioned in the first post as not knowing what he's talking about. That from a bunch of PC pilots! It's beyond laughable.
Now, who were the top aces and what did they fly?
Top 65 U.S. Aces:
Name/#kills/Plane type(s)
Richard I. Bong 40 P-38
Thomas B. McGuire Jr. 38 P-38
David McCampbell 34 F6F
Francis S. Gabreski 28 P-47
Robert S. Johnson 28 P-47
Charles H. MacDonald 27 P-38
George E. Preddy Jr. 26.83 P-47/P-51
Joseph Jacob Foss 26 F4F
Lance C. Wade 25 Spitfire
Robert Murray Hanson 25 F4U
Gregory Boyington 24 F4U
John C. Meyer 24 P-47/P-51
Cecil E. Harris 24 F6F
Eugene A. Valencia 23 F6F
Ray S. Wetmore 22.59 P-47/P-51
David C. Schilling 22.5 P-47
Gerald R. Johnson 22 P-40/P-47/P-38
Jay T. Robbins 22 P-38
Neel E. Kearby 22 P-47
Fred J. Christensen 21.5 P-47
John J. Voll 21 P-38/P-51
Kenneth A. Walsh 21 F6F
Walker M. Mahurin 20.75 P-47
Donald N. Aldrich 20 F4U
Robert B. Westbrook 20 P-38
Thomas J. Lynch 20 P-38
Dominic S. Gentile 19.83 P-47/P-51
Duane W. Beeson 19.33 P-47/P-51
Alexander Vraciu 19 F6F
Cornelius N. Nooy 19 F6F
Glenn E. Duncan 19 P-47
John L. Smith 19 F4F
Patrick D. Fleming 19 F6F
Glenn T. Eagleston 18.5 P-47/P-51
Charles H. Older 18.5 P-40/P-51
Leonard K. Carson 18.5 P-47
Marion Eugene Carl 18.5 F4F/F4U
Wilbur J. Thomas 18.5 F4U
Herschel H. Green 18 P-47/P-51
John C. Herbst 18 P-47/P-51
Walter C. Beckham 18 P-47
Hubert Zemke 17.75 P-38/P-47/P-51
John B. England 17.5 P-51
William N. Reed 17.5 F6F
David L. Hill 17.25 P-40/P-51
John F. Thornell Jr. 17.25 P-51
Henry William Brown 17.2 P-51?
Charles R. Stimpson 17 F4F/F6F
Gerald W. Johnson 17 P-47
Ira C. Kepford 17 F4U
James S. Varnell Jr. 17 P-51
Robert W. Foy 17 P-51
Ralph K. Hofer 16.5 P-47/P-51
John T. Godfrey 16.33 P-47/P-51
Clarence E. Anderson 16.25 P-51
Bill Harris 16 P-38
Douglas Baker 16 F6F
George S. Welch 16 P-38/P-39/P-40
William D. Dunham 16 P-47
William T. Whisner 15.5 P-51
Donald J.M. Blakeslee 15.5 P-47/P-51
Donald M. Beerbower 15.5 P-51
James E. Swett 15.5 F4F/F4U
Richard A. Peterson 15.5 P-51
Robert H. Neale 15.5 P-40
My regards,
Widewing
-
Roger that. I was just a bit perturbed to see the highest scoring P-51 pilot left out of a list of aces in the ETO.
And I noticed at least one error your data Widewing. According to my sources, Gregory Boyington was credited with at least 26 kills.
Then you have to take into account the confounders- The P51 was introduced quite a bit later than the P47. There were less German aircraft flying, tactics were changing, and some pilots already had kills from flying previous model aircraft.
The only real way to get an accurate outlook is to look at the air to air missions of P47s and P51s at a time when they were both in service.
-
Top 65 U.S. Aces:
Name/#kills/Plane type(s)
Richard I. Bong 40 P-38
Thomas B. McGuire Jr. 38 P-38
David McCampbell 34 F6F
Francis S. Gabreski 28 P-47
Robert S. Johnson 28 P-47
Wow, I do believe that this is the first time that I've seen this guy mentioned. I certainly have never heard of him and yet he's #3 flying the F6F exclusively?
Good stuff Widewing
Learning stuff every day.
-
Hi guys,
Wrong approach everyone! :-)
I agree that Rip Collins' points aren't entirely conclusive, but we shouldn't really get into mud-slugging here.
Instead, we should think of some good questions for Rip that Yucca might forward to him! I'd imagine Rip would appreciate the interest and perhaps provide more insights on the P-47 vs. P-51 comparison (if we're lucky :-)
Yucca, thanks for the comparison! Though Rip didn't convince me (yet), it's always highly interesting to hear the opinion of a veteran!
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by davidpt40
The only real way to get an accurate outlook is to look at the air to air missions of P47s and P51s at a time when they were both in service.
Difficult to do. In ETO, the P51B didn't really come into play in any numbers until the very end of the critical period October 43 - April 44. I'm with those who say that, by then, the outcome of the air war had been decided by the p47 groups.
- oldman
-
Hm... I don't know if many P-47 pilots of the 8th AF ever flew V-1650-3 powered P-51B, mostly they flew V-1650-7 powered P-51D. With V-1650-3 the P-51B compares very favourably with P-47D at high altitude.
About "outcome of the Air War" it should be noted that despite all those P-47 groups the 8th AF suffered untolerable losses until fighters which were up to the task arrived.
gripen
-
I was copy and pasting the top JUG ACES. I accidently copied a 51.
-
Originally posted by davidpt40
Roger that. I was just a bit perturbed to see the highest scoring P-51 pilot left out of a list of aces in the ETO.
And I noticed at least one error your data Widewing. According to my sources, Gregory Boyington was credited with at least 26 kills.
No error. I am discounting 2 victories claimed by Boyington when he flew with the AVG. Why? Because AVG records do not show them. AVG pilots stated flatly that he didn't get them and this was backed up by Chennault himself. Boyington claimed to have left the AVG an ace with 5.5 kills. The fact was he only had 3.5. But then again, Boyington was notorious for stretching the truth. Especially when he was trying to get back into the Marine Corps after being dishonorably discharged from the AVG (because he quit during war-time).
My regards,
Widewing
-
Widewing,
A couple of things about Boyington.
1. He "quit" the AVG because they were forcing him into flying for the Army Air Corps. He was a Commisioned Marine and hated Channault.
2. The AVG was the Volenteer corps. How can you be dishonerable discharged? Also he had a dispute with the AVG over what he was paid for kills ($500 each was promised). So his number never matched the AVG but the Marines have honered that number until today.
Also his behavior on the ground is not to be mistaken for his skill in the air. Nobody ever doubted his ability as a fighter pilot.
Also
Ken Walsh 21 kills was a F4U pilot not a F6F pilot.
IMHO pilots like Bong, McGuire and McCampbell benifited greatly by getting most of there kills in 1944 or later. I give pilots like Joe Foss far more credit for scoring the majority of their kills when the Japanese could still put quality pilots in the air in numbers.
This point is proven by K/D of various A/C.
For instance the F6F had a 19 to 1 K/D. It's the best right? Wrong.
The FM-2 had a K/D of 32 to 1 while the F4F had a 6 to 1 K/D.
Why? Because the F4F faced far tougher oppsition despite facing lower performance Japanese aircraft.
I have the Navy Docs to prove it.
-
Originally posted by Kaz
Top 65 U.S. Aces:
Name/#kills/Plane type(s)
Richard I. Bong 40 P-38
Thomas B. McGuire Jr. 38 P-38
David McCampbell 34 F6F
Francis S. Gabreski 28 P-47
Robert S. Johnson 28 P-47
Wow, I do believe that this is the first time that I've seen this guy mentioned. I certainly have never heard of him and yet he's #3 flying the F6F exclusively?
Good stuff Widewing
Learning stuff every day.
McCampbell also holds the record for the most kills during a single sortie; 9.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
Widewing,
A couple of things about Boyington.
1. He "quit" the AVG because they were forcing him into flying for the Army Air Corps. He was a Commisioned Marine and hated Channault.
2. The AVG was the Volenteer corps. How can you be dishonerable discharged? Also he had a dispute with the AVG over what he was paid for kills ($500 each was promised). So his number never matched the AVG but the Marines have honered that number until today.
Also his behavior on the ground is not to be mistaken for his skill in the air. Nobody ever doubted his ability as a fighter pilot.
The reasons for Boyington quitting the AVG are well known and had nothing to do with flying for the USAAF. For starters, the USAAF didn't absorb the AVG until July 4, 1942. Boyington was doing check rides in repaired Tomahawks while his knees healed (he fell off a cliff during a drunken bender) and was annoyed that Chennault wouldn't let him back on combat status. So, in April of '42 he announced that he was leaving and talked his way onto a CNAC C-47 bound for India. Once it was known he had left, he was classified as a deserter and dishonorably discharged from the AVG (which was a unit in the Chinese Air Force).
Note that branches of the U.S. military are volunteer organizations. Yet, desertion will result in a dishonorable discharge and probably brig time.
Boyington hated Chennault because he was afraid of Chennault, both as his commander and because Chennault was a hell of a lot tougher than Boyington and Boyington knew it. Chennault didn't tolerate Boyington's drunkeness or rude behavior. He would not put up with Boyington's disregard for regulations and his habit of ignoring those in authority, both on the ground and in the air. In sum, Chennault did something that the Marine Corps never really managed to do; he held Boyington in complete check. Boyington could not deal with that, so he quit.
By the way, Bruce Gamble lowers Boyington's score even futher than I do. Bruce allows for just 23 kills, including only 3 with the AVG. Two additional kills credited to Boyington after the war are completely unsubstantiated.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by YUCCA
P-47 Reigns Supreme over P-51 Mustang
Don Whinnem B-17 Escort Mission
352nd FG ETO -
Great story ( I don't know the veracity; but I have a book that backs it up though not in detail).
Real life MA..... big; heavy; fast and in on a target fixed bandit; who WOULDN'T want to be in an eight gunned Jug?
But the Stang lived long enough to go up; didn't he?
And we all know what happens (would happen) next; don't we?
forgot to say thanks for the posts; Yucca>
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
IMHO pilots like Bong, McGuire and McCampbell benifited greatly by getting most of there kills in 1944 or later. I give pilots like Joe Foss far more credit for scoring the majority of their kills when the Japanese could still put quality pilots in the air in numbers.
From December 27, 1942 to November 5, 1943, Bong had already 21 kills, a little over half of his war time total.
ack-ack
-
McCampbell also holds the record for the most kills during a single sortie; 9.
U.S. record, FW190 pilot got 12 kills in a sortie.
-
Originally posted by davidpt40
U.S. record, FW190 pilot got 12 kills in a sortie.
McCampbell's record is also the Allied record. He shot down 9 fighters, with two more last seen spinning into an overcast on fire, so he very likely killed 11. He also damaged 2 more. Meanwhile, his wingman (Roy Rushing) shot down 6 fighters and damaged another 3.
(The Japanese force was a composite of IJN and JAAF fighters)
McCampbell was awarded the CMoH for this action, his wingman received the Navy Cross. Two guys took on about 40 Japanese fighters, killed at least 15, maybe 17 with 5 more damaged. Another F6F joined the fight mid way through the brawl (Albert Slack), and shot down 4 additional fighters for a total of 19 (maybe 21) kills. All three F6Fs returned undamaged.
This fight left McCampbell tied with Bong for top ace with 30 kills. McCampbell also holds the American record for the most kills in a single tour (34), both Bong and McGuire needed two tours to top his 34 kills. McCampbells VF-15 (he was the CAG) rotated back to CONUS in November of 1944. They had shot down 313 enemy aircraft in the air, destroyed another 317 on the ground and suffered just 21 losses. The losses break down as follows: 7 in aerial combat, 9 to triple A and 5 operational losses. In aerial combat, VF-15 holds the absolute Allied kill to loss record of 44.7/1, far ahead of their nearest rival.
My regards,
Widewing
-
I am glad we have you in this community widewing. Thx for all the great information!
-
Originally posted by -ammo-
I am glad we have you in this community widewing. Thx for all the great information!
Thanks Ammo!
By the way, in case anyone was wondering how hard McCampbell pushed it in the previously mentioned fight, he was at the limit.
Upon landing back on Essex, he ran out of gas as he taxied out of the wires. Later, his armorer found just two rounds remaining in his magazines.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Maybe you can answer this question too Widewing.
Some have said that those pilots that went from the ETO to the PTO had a tough time transitioning, while those from the PTO that went to the ETO didn't have this problem. This is in regards to air combat. What's your take on this?
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
I always get a kick out of the arm chair aces that read comments from a real life WW2 pilot that is talking from his combat experience in whatever plane and then dismiss the WW2 vets comments out of hand.
The thing is, if you read comments by
WW2 veterans, then a whole number
of different veterans will have different
opinions of what was best. Hence it
is reasonable for us in our arm chairs
to look at multiple sources and
consider all the evidence, not just
swallow the first quote we see.
Brown rated the F4U, for example.
Galland thought the P51 was superb.
In some ways all these might be
right in many ways as the plane that
fits the style of flying that an ace has
is probably better for that ace than
a plane that is of similar or slightly
better performance.
On a cost:effectiveness ratio, it
is telling that the USAAF decided to
end-of-line the P47 and continue
with the P51. This is not to say
the P51 was better, just that the
P47 wasn't seen as effective enough
compared to the P51 to justify the
cost post-war.
I'm more of a P51 than a P47 man.
It's just prettier.
-
Originally posted by YUCCA
the top scoring aces of the ETO (Just for kicks :) :
Were they all scored in that type
of aircraft, and over how many sorties?
It could be a damn lies and statistics
thing - ace shoots down more planes over more sorties - or it could represent something else. Hard to tell with those base figures.
-
Hi Aaron,
>Hence it
is reasonable for us in our arm chairs
to look at multiple sources and
consider all the evidence, not just
swallow the first quote we see.
Let me point out that Clausewitz* agrees with you :-)
He even suggests to take full advantage of hindsight to make up for lack of personal military genius.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
* Karl von Clausewitz, 1780 - 1831, Author of the classic text book "Vom Kriege" ('On War')
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Maybe you can answer this question too Widewing.
Some have said that those pilots that went from the ETO to the PTO had a tough time transitioning, while those from the PTO that went to the ETO didn't have this problem. This is in regards to air combat. What's your take on this?
ack-ack
This certainly appears to be true in many cases, with Preddy being but one example.
I suspect that it had a lot to do with the differing types of combat encountered in the theaters.
To be successful, even survive against the Japanese, you had to adopt the proven tactics of avoiding a turning fight. However, in the ETO, MTO and North Africa that wasn't a major issue as the P-38 could turn with anything the Luftwaffe was flying. Likewise the P-40 could mix it up fairly well down on the deck. Jugs proved more maneuverable at high altitude than any German ever expected. It goes without saying that the P-51 could hold its own in any type of fight.
Pilots coming from the SWPA to the ETO/MTO usually came from P-38 or P-40 outfits. Suddenly, they found themselves tackling fighters they could hang with in a genuine dogfight. Moreover, they had already honed their hit and run skills against the Japanese. P-38 pilots coming from the SWPA were far more skilled in their ride than the majority of their P-38 counterparts in Europe. Why? Simply because they hundreds of hours flying combat sorties, whereas the bulk of ETO P-38 pilots were trained for single-engine fighters and dumped in P-38 outfits with virtually zero familiarization prior to reporting for duty (more than 2/3 were expecting to fly the P-47). P-40 pilots from the SWPA found themselves in much faster machines, that could really rock and roll at high altitudes. They simply utilized their experience to good advantage.
Pilots transferring from the ETO to the Pacific had to learn what the SWPA pilots already knew about the Japanese fighters. As we all know, the tactics are completely different. Unlike the average AH player, they didn't have hundreds, maybe thousands of combat hours to draw lessons from. Most had far less than 200 hours in combat, and the majority had few encounters with the greatly depleted Luftwaffe (especially those transfering just after the surrender).
So by comparison, pilots transfering east to west had considerable combat experience under their belts, and could apply that experience immediately. However, those moving west to east had to new tactics to absorb, and generally had less combat experience.
Of course this is all based upon conjecture and simple analysis and to be taken only as a best guess.
My regards,
Widewing
-
There is one important point that hasn't been covered here yet...that I can see.
I remember reading that not ONE Jug ace was lost in combat in the ETO (killed). It was in an article on the same topic and reached the same conclusion...that jug was #1...think it had mig-3 as #2.
-
Hi Humble,
>think it had mig-3 as #2.
Pokryshkin probably would have disagreed, and he was a very successful MiG-3 pilot. The benefit of hindsight might bring out strengths of the MiG he missed, but ranking it the #2 fighter in Europe seems a bit optimistic anyway :-)
>I remember reading that not ONE Jug ace was lost in combat in the ETO (killed).
That's interesting! It also brings up an important point: What are the criteria for identifying the "best" fighter? So far, we've only talked about "good" fighters.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Well, if we're talking the best US plane, the top two US aces flew the p38.
I think we have a winner! ;)
-
There would be one downside for a US fighter pilot to convert to the ETO. He would not be faster than his opponent any more. Even find himself Boomed and Zoomed, bounced, outrun and outclimbed by the LW.
British pilots going to the PTO had an initial shock, -their Spitfires could not turn with the Zero's. However, outclimbing, outrolling, out-accelerating, outgunning and outrunning with a bigger difference than 70 mph, they found it to be not so much of a bother....
-
Actually Angus many Spits were lost to the Japanese in the early fighting. Many of them BoB veterens who were not expecting to be beaten at there own game.
The early mark Spits and Hurricanes did not have a significant performance advantage over the A6M2. In the case of the Hurricane they had no advantage at all.
-
Originally posted by Angus
There would be one downside for a US fighter pilot to convert to the ETO. He would not be faster than his opponent any more. Even find himself Boomed and Zoomed, bounced, outrun and outclimbed by the LW.
If we're talking A6Ms and Ki-43s as opposition, yes, but Allied pilots couldn't always rely on having that kind of speed advantage. Once the Ki-61s began arriving in 1943, the P-40 could well find itself outclassed in an engagement.
Originally posted by F4UDOA
Actually Angus many Spits were lost to the Japanese in the early fighting.
One interesting thing to note is that the first Spitfires sent to the Pacific seem to have had major reliability issues. When I was reading a history of No. 1 Wing (tropicalised Spitfire Vs in Australia), I was surprised at the sheer number of operational losses. One scramble ended with 10+ Spitfires lost to all causes; fortunately, going down fairly close to their airbase, the pilots were usually recovered.
-
Guppy,
It wasn't realiability as much as it was fuel. They were fighting in a much larger area than the English channel.
The A6M2 had the range of a Mustang so it could climb, fly in at high altitude, fight and fly back with no fear of running out of gas. At the same time the Spit pilots could not pursue the fight beyond base defense and if they did it would be a one way trip.
The Spit was very short legged which really hampered it in the PTO.
-
Early engagements in Burma seldom saw the a6m, - it was usually the P40 and Hurricane vs the Claude.
Hurricane IIB with 12 guns and a slipper tank was delivered to Burma, - but weigted up with those extras it was heavy and slow. I recall the tanks and 4 guns being removed to restore the planes qualities, - after that it was quite much faster than the Claude.
The Spitfire VII (or was it the VIII) was delivered to the far east at the prime time of the a6m. The opponent would have been the a6m3 presumably? Now that was quite a difference!
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
It wasn't realiability as much as it was fuel. They were fighting in a much larger area than the English channel.
Unfortunately I don't have the book available to me anymore, but "fuel starvation" and "engine failure" were definitely recorded as separate loss categories. There were quite a few cases of both.
The author was one of No 1 Wing's ground personnel, if I recall correctly, and his opinion was that the aircraft they received were in poor condition and nowhere near new. (Of course, when one reads what American mechanics were doing to keep planes in the air at the same time... nobody in that theatre really had it "good.")
-
Originally posted by Angus
Early engagements in Burma seldom saw the a6m, - it was usually the P40 and Hurricane vs the Claude.
Yes, but the Spitfire Vs assigned to Darwin in early 1943 met A6Ms escorting bombers.
The Spitfire VII (or was it the VIII) was delivered to the far east at the prime time of the a6m. The opponent would have been the a6m3 presumably? Now that was quite a difference!
Interesting quote from j-aircraft.com (http://www.j-aircraft.com/), attributed to Sgt. Masahiro Ikeda (64th Sentai, Burma 1944):
"We were encountering a serious problem by this time. Recent Spitfires seem to have adopted even more powerful engines and and their climb and speed had improved considerably. Chasing and shooting down these enemy fighters with our Hayabusa Mk IIs became increasingly difficult."
-
I thought the Jug was a fighter-bomber:confused:
-
Hi Guppy,
>The author was one of No 1 Wing's ground personnel, if I recall correctly, and his opinion was that the aircraft they received were in poor condition and nowhere near new.
From J. Helsdon Thomas' "Wings over Burma" (ground personnel 67 Squadron), I got a very similar impression for the Burma theatre.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by udet
I thought the Jug was a fighter-bomber:confused:
The P-47 was originally designed strictly as an air superiority fighter. It was quickly realized in 1944 that it performed in the air-to-ground role quite well.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Early engagements in Burma seldom saw the a6m, - it was usually the P40 and Hurricane vs the Claude.
Hurricane IIB with 12 guns and a slipper tank was delivered to Burma, - but weigted up with those extras it was heavy and slow. I recall the tanks and 4 guns being removed to restore the planes qualities, - after that it was quite much faster than the Claude.
What they faced was the Ki-27 Nate. Like the A5M Claude, it had fixed landing gear and just two 7.7mm popguns. However, the Claude was a Naval fighter and was not in service in Burma. In the Spring of 1942, the Ki-43 began appearing in ever increasing numbers.
Max speed for the Ki-27 was around 287 mph, 305 mph for early Ki-43s. Initially, the most common RAF fighter in Burma was the Brewster, and their primary bomber was the obsolete Blenheim.
See Dan Ford's book, "Flying Tigers: Claire Chennault and the American Volunteer Group" for details.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Yes, the Nate it was, - sorry, got them mixed up.
Hmm, the Blenheim I could do 285 mph, and the Brewster would crawl over to some 310-320 mph. A lightweight Hurricane II would top that. So in terms of sheer speed and armament, the Japanese were inferior to begin with. However they had a tactical advantage, and many times the numbers.
Hey Widewing, wasn't it you who has been taking interviews with many WW2 aces? Would love to see some of that if possible:)
-
Originally posted by -ammo-
The P-47 was originally designed strictly as an air superiority fighter. It was quickly realized in 1944 that it performed in the air-to-ground role quite well.
Air superiority against what? Maybe pre E models of the 109 :rofl
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
I always get a kick out of the arm chair aces that read comments from a real life WW2 pilot that is talking from his combat experience in whatever plane and then dismiss the WW2 vets comments out of hand.
ack-ack
same here ack ack its almost hilariously disrespectfull.
Can you imagine them saying that same thing to their faces after they have just described a fight in all its fearfull detail in person......
'er, yeah mr fighter pilot you may have BEEN there but i know im right, ive flown 3,000,000 hours on a computer sim'
lol they fail to mention that no two computer sims are alike, real pilots had real limits not least of which was bravery to actually try a ACM of any type.Computer sims are sims, they are never like the real life model totally or we'd all need supercomputers to run them just to model real airflow/movement etc. Corners are cut at every turn to make a sim yet these guys think they know better than the guys that flew the real planes!. amazing.