Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: WhiteHawk on September 24, 2003, 10:42:58 AM
-
In response the the '12 best things about the jug'.
If you were headed deep into Germany. (assume within the range of the p-47, p51, and p38). Which would you rather be flying in a escort roll? After escort, you were ordered to release and strafe anything that moved on the way home.
Remember, you are not here to rack up perk points, you have to protexct the bomber formation, and then wreak as much havoc as possible and still get home alive. Assume the bombers are flying at 18k. You will be defending agains 190a8, and 109g-6 and 110 formation destroyers.
I think I would take the p47.
Would anybody take a spitfire mk5 or mk9?
ohhh, this makes me hungry for AH2:)
-
P38, defineitely
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
You will be defending agains 190a8, and 109g-6 and 110 formation destroyers.
I think I would take the p47.
Would anybody take a spitfire mk5 or mk9?
Given that it seems to be mid 44 then I'll have the Spit MkXIV or the Tempest.
-
P-47 D-15.. all the perks of the D-11 with the bigger prop and wing hard points for extra fuel!!
-
Spit XVI or Tempest.
-
Originally posted by Seeker
Spit XIV Tempest.
Hmmm, I wonder why We dont hear of these 2 supereior sim planes clearing the way for bomber formations during 1944 air war? Its always 'the p51? Obviously the most popular buff escort for the media and historians.
Was it just the long range capacity? Or the highperformance of the pony at high alt and highspeed combat?
Did the spit14 and the Tempest escort lancs into germany?
How did they perform?
Can u justify your decision?
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
assume within the range of the p-47, p51, and p38
For my own survability, P38. Better accel than P51 and P47, and two engines.
For a better survability of the scorted buffs, P51.
Spits would have a very hard time trying to catch fast german interceptors.
-
Originally posted by MANDOBLE
Spits would have a very hard time trying to catch fast german interceptors.
XIV wouldnt.
-
Considering I've never flown a real plane, and my only experience has been AH. My thought process is as follows
In The MA: P-51 Just because there are so many assorted contacts including other 51's !.
In real life I'd probably take the P-47, it seems to out perform the LW planes in at least 1-2 aspects, i.e. fighting a 109, roll and it can turn inside most of them, except for the F4 and g2, I'd then use the p-47's speed and High speed manueverability. Vs a 190 it'll be close but I'd still choose the p-47 over the 51.
So in the end the P-47... she just looks so powerful, and who wouldn't want 8x.50cals on the wing to blast an enemy if ya get a chance..
-
tempest or p51...p51 is all you americans ever hear about because its a american plane...
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
In response the the '12 best things about the jug'.
If you were headed deep into Germany. (assume within the range of the p-47, p51, and p38). Which would you rather be flying in a escort roll? After escort, you were ordered to release and strafe anything that moved on the way home.
Remember, you are not here to rack up perk points, you have to protexct the bomber formation, and then wreak as much havoc as possible and still get home alive. Assume the bombers are flying at 18k. You will be defending agains 190a8, and 109g-6 and 110 formation destroyers.
I think I would take the p47.
Would anybody take a spitfire mk5 or mk9?
Given the parameters you specify I would say the P-47 because of its survivability. It obviously was a good enough match for the German fighters--especially those occupied with Bombers. After that I'd say P-38 because of the twin engines to get you home if one gets hit (P-51 engine gets hit, you likely going down).
If it was simply skinning Heinz off of the butts of some fat old bombers, there isn't a dog in the bunch. It's the post escort part of your question that makes me say Jug.
One wonders how many Spit-escorted missions there would have been if they could have increased the range without affecting performance adversely. US pilots who flew Spits rarely, if ever, got over the planes. Obviously it was an amazing aircraft in a pissing contest, but from what I have read I would rather strafe in a Jug.
One also wonders if the Jug had the range of the P-51 if the Pony would ever have become the marvel it is perceived as having been. I mean, some might argue that the P-47 shouldered the toughest part of the fight against the better German pilots and came out on top. Its record is pretty glowing.
Sakai
-
I would have to say the 51. Cause I would probably chicken out of the ground straffing, and being that much faster than any other plane is always helpful staying alive.
-
Jug without a doubt. Spit Mkwhatever would be "nice" but I wouldn't feel at all safe. Wouldn't even consider the Tempest based on how tough it's modeled in AH.
-
Hi Whitehawk,
>Which would you rather be flying in a escort roll?
P-51. It's the only one of the three you named that has full high Mach manoeuvrability. And its laminar flow profile means that it gains turn rate at medium to high altitude, too.
The P-47 may have the survivability, but we haven't talked about susceptibility yet. It means that a bigger, less manoeuvrable target will be hit more often ... :-)
The P-38 is Mach limited and has a poor search view, and its thick chord wings make it lose turn rate at operational altitudes. It's not as fast as the P-51 down low, and if coming home alive is a priority, I'd prefer the faster plane.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
as a B-17 gunner said once....
"send us through fighters and flak
and all that other crap
and one other item
AN ESCORT OF P-38'S!!!"
part of a song that a gunner of a B-17 wrote.....
i was reading a book about the bloody 100th the otehr day and they crew of the 17's overall agreed that the 38's pilots were the most agressive and protective...
so i'd take a 38
-
I'd take a 38, two engines (warplane engines were pushed very hard, prone to failure), easily identified (wont be mistaken for a 109 like a 51 or a 190 like a jug, which could happen with excited b17 gunners, remember, no red icons!). Also, may not be quite as fast, but better climb rate and higher ceiling. P38 was also the only US fighter designed from the start with a bubble canopy. so up until 47D and 51D, still would have a visibility advantage. and low level attack having 2 engines is an obvious advantage. As tough as jug was, 1 oil cooler hit or propeller damage you're gonna have to ditch or jump.
-
Originally posted by vorticon
tempest or p51...p51 is all you americans ever hear about because its a american plane...
Regale us vorticon..Can u post some stats or comments about the performance of the tempest in this vital role?
Does it perform well at high altitudes?
What was the main escort fighter for the Brits?
How is its range?
Ground attack survivablility?
I choose the p47 simply because of the flight sims I have flown that have offered a career choice. (EAW, CFS1) to name acupple.
That is as educated as I can get. The Jugs numbers are outstanding as far as survivability. (I wil find the numbers later),
Even though it doesnt rack up the kills, it does force the nme to either break from attack or die. At high altitude, and I remeber,
I think it was Francis Gabreski, saying, "The p47 could corkscrew up and up and the nme could not follow." This is far removed from any of the flight sims I have flown, but I have to believe a
WW2 fighter pilot who survived a good part of the Air war in Europe over the modelers of cyber airplanes.
Combine this with the diving ability and the P47 could 'disengage at will."
So for my decision, the Jug could force the nme to break off attack from the bomber forms, or could drag the nme away from the formations, completing the first part (escort) of thier mission.
As far as ground attack, the Jugs performance is well documented. Awesome firepower in just its 8x .50s'. Survivablility second to none.
I have heard that the p38 wasnt very competitive in the European air war, and I am curios as to why?
were there any p38 aces in europe?
If so, then who?
Maybe the 109's were the answer to the p38?
-
spitmk14 for me:D
-
Believe you fellas are forgetting a big factor. A spitfire cannont operate under military power for very long and still have fuel to return to base.
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
I have heard that the p38 wasnt very competitive in the European air war, and I am curios as to why?
were there any p38 aces in europe?
If so, then who?
Maybe the 109's were the answer to the p38?
No, there is a good reason why the Germans refered to the P-38 as "The Forked tailed devil". The main reason that I understand is that they p-38's alisons didn't operate as well in the cold air (expecially at high alt in europe), plus I have also read that the aircraft upkeep by ground crews wasn't all that hot in europe.
heres some quotes from a web site
"The P-38 would eventually begin to have problems operating in the ETO. With the introduction of the P-38 J, accidents and engine problems begin to rise significantly. The 'J' model had the ability to produce 1600 hp at war emergency power (WEP). Stateside testing encountered no problems, but it was a different story in Britain. Many problems were a result of inexperienced pilots, and the problems coincided with the arrival of these pilots to the battlefield. These problems would take time to correct, but General Doolittle did not want to wait for these problems to be worked out, and decided to phase out the P-38 in favor of the P-51 and the P-47."
"In combat, experienced pilots flying the P-38 were able to cope with the best German fighters. Being outnumbered, and usually limited to escorting duties, the P-38s scored over 2,500 kills at the loss of about 1,750 P-38s. These losses included losses of all types, which not only included combat, but also accidents and mechanical problems. A more realistic kill ratio was 2:1, but that was mostly when flying outnumbered. The P-38s flew 130,000 sorties at a loss of 1.3% (1.3 lost P-38s for every 100 missions flown). This could be compared to B-17, which at times was about 25%."
"The P-38s were also hard to maintain. Very tight cowled engines made it difficult to ground crews perform maintenance. Landing gear shocks would leak when it got very cold. Turbochargers would freeze up at high altitudes. To make matters worse, the turbochargers only had two settings, low (not enough to sustain high altitude flight) and high (more likely to blow up). There were instances of pilots flying much lower just to warm up, and in the process, exposed themselves to AA fire."
http://p-38online.com/arrival.html
also i have read about the tactics abserved by B-17 gunners (note: most pilots don't tend to tell their tactics they just tell about the kill in bio's). Basically the way the lightnings got a 190 or 109 off their tail was to pull up into a stall and have a wing man hang way way back, when the stall was at its peak the P-38 due to not haveing any torque would hang strait up; while the 109 or 190 fell to the left (usually) then the wing man would come by and slash the german fighter in one pass (while its in the stall) and if there were two or more german fighters; all that was needed to hit all of them, while in the stall was a little rudder...... this tactic was observed by gunners up until mid april 45 so they must have figured out how to fool the luftwaffe.
hope that awnsers your questions
-
P-47 Thunderbolt. It had the lowest loss to sortie ratio of any fighter in the ETO. Why? It was built like the proverbial brick outhouse (unlike the examples modeled in AH) and had the most durable engine installed in any Allied fighter.
Fly any other fighter and your chances of not getting home goes up by nearly 50%. Sounds rediculous?
In the ETO, all causes loss rate per sortie by type:
P-47 - 0.7%
P-51 - 1.2%
P-38 - 1.7%
Remember, by mid-summer of 1944, the bulk of P-47s were involved in close support and interdiction with the balance flying deep penetration escort and strafing everything in sight on the way back. The percentage of P-47s coming home with battle damage was three times higher than the P-51, but they suffered little more than half the loss rate. What that means is a far lower percentage of Mustangs made it home after suffering battle damage.
P-38 losses reflect the severe engine reliability problems encountered in late '43 through mid '44. The loss of an engine over Germany meant that your chances of not getting home increased by a factor of 4. Of course, the loss of an engine in any other fighter meant an a nearly automatic visit in luft stalag.
I'd take the Jug every time if getting home was the sole criteria.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
Did the spit14 and the Tempest escort lancs into germany?
How did they perform?
Can u justify your decision?
RAF Lancs flew mostly at night............... the US took their own escorts.........
P51 had range.
The Tempest was actually used mostly as a strike aircraft plus it was fairly expensive beside the P51.
Choice offerred was that of the pilot............would have been a strange pilot to turn down speed/performance and firepower over range.
The General would have chosen range over every thing. Hence the P51.
Spits escorted every thing.......
Given that you have your theoretical mission in a ground attack mode on the way back then I would go for the Tempest.
-
If I'm flying out of England on bomber escort to Germany, then I want a P51, even with the ground strafing.
If I'm based on the continent, post D-Day then I want a Spit XIV, although it might be that in an escort role, the FIX with a 90 gallon drop tank was the way to go. Quoting F/L Terry Spencer's Diary from 41 Squadron when they were fed up with chasing V-1s in Spit XIIs.
August 7, 1944: "Rumored that we are to get XIV's shortly. Bloody good show if we can go to France with an XIV Wing. Otherwise I'd rather have IXs and come off Doodlebugging"
(The IXs were at that point being used to escort Lancs and Halifaxes on daylight raids.)
And if I'm based out of Italy, flying north to Germany, then I think I want a 38 as they seemed to have better luck with the 38 flying with the 15th AF
Dan/Slack
-
out of those planes listed, i think id have to go with the jug as well, survivability plus its overall a pretty good fighter, id definetly go with the jug.:D
-
It wasn't on the list, but I'll sign up for a Mosquito NF.Mk XXX to defend the Lancaster and Halifax streams.
I think it'd give me pretty good odds. Not only is it faster than any of the German nightfighters, but the vast majority of contacts the Germans pick up on radar will be Lancs or Halibags whereas all hostile contacts I pick up will be German nightfighters.
Enjoy your flights in the sun boys. I'll see you at the end of the war. Maybe.
-
Hi Nod,
>No, there is a good reason why the Germans refered to the P-38 as "The Forked tailed devil".
Until someone comes up with an authentic Luftwaffe WW2 quote, I consider that a myth. The vast majority of German pilots writes about the P-38 as "Lightning", some just call it "P-38", but I've not even found a single mention of the infamous "Gabelschwanzteufel".
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
High Escort? Spitfire Mk IX or XIV, depending on what model is in service.
Return home cruising at 30K, better high alt performance than the Luftwaffles:D
-
jug.
-
Tempest.
But I like Karnak's idea too.
-
So far the tally is
P47....8
p38...4
p51...3.5 (halfs go to the 'id take a xxx or a xxxx' guys.)
spits...2.5
tempests...2.5
And 1 daredevil wants to try a mossie:eek:
Thanks for the response this si pretty interesting
Still curios as to who were the p38 aces in Europe? If any.
-
P-51D definately. High speed, long range, great visibility.
And the only very vulnerable part on the mustang was the radiator. I have pictures of a pilot actually standing in the hole that a flak shell made in the wing of his P51.
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
So far the tally is
Ah. Well, if we're keeping score, guess I should vote.
P-47, no question about it. It was the plane that won the air war in Europe. Beyond that, the original question in this thread was what plane would we like to fly if our lives depended on it (not which plane was the "best" fighter). I want one that will bring me back, and I don't think there's much argument about which plane was most survivable.
- oldman
-
Jug ofcourse, even if my life wouldn't depend on it...
-
It was interesting in AW2, they had events on Sunday I think. And you were given but one life. One time it was, more or less, a
free for all, and the allied side was almost 100% p51, and the axis side was nearly 100% 190d-9. (not incuding the buffs for either side) It was long time ago, but distincly remember being shocked at not seeing even 1 spit9 for the allies considering the large number of spit9's that populated the MA.
(the Jug was never flown in AW due to the rediculous undermodeling job)
-
From Oldman:
"P-47, no question about it. It was the plane that won the air war in Europe."
When the P47 entered the fray, the air war in Europe had been going on for almost 4 years. The Germans had lost their edge, - the first time they met an organized and up to date airforce (only half their size or so though) they lost, and after that things just got worse for the LW.
When the Jug entered the fray, the LW had also been fighting more than a year on the eastern front, - loosing their ground gradually, for the masses of Russian planes were way beyond the potency of the former mighty Luftwaffe.
If any plane was to be credited for winning the air war in Europe, I'd put my money on the Spitfire. It was there when the tide shifted, - it had been there for 3 years and the LW had fallen back in that time.
Were it a bomber, the Lancaster might be a candidate, - after all, the RAF dropped more bombs on Germany than the USAAF....
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
Regale us vorticon..Can u post some stats or comments about the performance of the tempest in this vital role?
Does it perform well at high altitudes?
What was the main escort fighter for the Brits?
How is its range?
Ground attack survivablility?
I choose the p47 simply because of the flight sims I have flown that have offered a career choice. (EAW, CFS1) to name acupple.
That is as educated as I can get. The Jugs numbers are outstanding as far as survivability. (I wil find the numbers later),
Even though it doesnt rack up the kills, it does force the nme to either break from attack or die. At high altitude, and I remeber,
I think it was Francis Gabreski, saying, "The p47 could corkscrew up and up and the nme could not follow." This is far removed from any of the flight sims I have flown, but I have to believe a
WW2 fighter pilot who survived a good part of the Air war in Europe over the modelers of cyber airplanes.
Combine this with the diving ability and the P47 could 'disengage at will."
So for my decision, the Jug could force the nme to break off attack from the bomber forms, or could drag the nme away from the formations, completing the first part (escort) of thier mission.
As far as ground attack, the Jugs performance is well documented. Awesome firepower in just its 8x .50s'. Survivablility second to none.
I have heard that the p38 wasnt very competitive in the European air war, and I am curios as to why?
were there any p38 aces in europe?
If so, then who?
Maybe the 109's were the answer to the p38?
The P-38 was not competititve in Europe because the early models (h and below) had two problems: the radiators in the leading edge weren't controllable as to airflow, and the turbochargers weren't matched to the engines properly.
The uncontrollable radiator airflow caused the engines to fail to heat up properly, and run at low temperatures at high altitudes. This caused engines to fail. Another effect was the complicated nature of the coolant flow, which caused leaks, and engine failures.
The turbo mismatch caused engine failures at high alt, also.
In the Pacific, the typical operating altitudes were lower, and these problems were not seen.
-
Hi Whitehawk,
>(the Jug was never flown in AW due to the rediculous undermodeling job)
The problem is that it was badly underpowered below 10000 ft. However, only few people realized that above 17000 ft, it was actually overmodelled! Right at "sweet spot" altitude, the Jug was highly competitive :-)
(At least, that's how it was in the 3.x versions. With 3.5/ME, it also gained good high-speed elevator/aileron control, making it a real killer. Still not a plane for the masses, though.)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
rshubert,
The other massive problem with the P-38 in Europe was the poor cockpit heating that caused pilots to basically freeze on long missions.
Remember this mission is 18,000FT over Europe against 109's and 190's.
What advantage would the P-38 have over those A/C at that alt? Maybe climb over the 190A plus horizontal turning. It would not be faster by any margin and could not dive away.
If my life depended on it in Europe it would be depending on the year.
1942- P-47C
1943- P-47D-5
1944- P-51B
1945- P-51D
I would say the Spit IX in 1942 but the Spit couldn't fly over Germany so the point is moot.
-
Originally posted by Angus
If any plane was to be credited for winning the air war in Europe, I'd put my money on the Spitfire. It was there when the tide shifted, - it had been there for 3 years and the LW had fallen back in that time.
Disagree. Spit couldn't carry the war to Germany. West front German losses didn't start getting serious until late fall of 1943, and it wasn't the spit that was causing them.
- oldman
-
Hi Angus,
>If any plane was to be credited for winning the air war in Europe, I'd put my money on the Spitfire. It was there when the tide shifted, - it had been there for 3 years and the LW had fallen back in that time.
Ironically, 3 years into the war, the Luftwaffe had the Focke-Wulf out that gave the Spits a very rough time :-)
But your point about attrition is excellent - the Luftwaffe wasn't defeated by a single type, but by years of continous losses, ranging from light to moderate mostly and only seldom to heavy.
The Luftwaffe still had considerable fighting strength in July 1944 (wasted by the move into unprepared and bombed-out airfields in France where the Allies held air superiority), they still inflicted serious losses on the bombers until the autumn of 1944, and they still had large reserves on 1/1/1945 when they wasted them in another operational blunder.
So which type won the air war? Hard to say!
The P-51 certainly was the fighter which held down the Luftwaffe once Allied air superiority had been established, and instead of picking a war-winning fighter, I'll just point out that this was more important for the big picture than many people seem to think! :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
With my life on the line and ground target to strafe. My plane of choice would most definately be the jug. It had the fire power speed radial engine and pilot protection. Anyone foolish enough to want to attack ground target in a water cooled aircraft deserves the long walk home after some farmer with a flint lock gets a lucky hit on hit on their cooling system.
Give me that big radial that will keep on turning with massive damage and still get me home.
-
P-47 (D-11 with Paddle Blade prop pls)
(http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/AWA1/401-500/walk414_P-47_Aungst/01.jpg):D
-
(http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/quarters/9485/Blownup.JPG)
Talking about survivability....The pilot walked away.
This unfortunate P-47 was the victim of a 500 pound bomb which fell from its fuselage shackle and exploded. The pilot, Lt. Hallberg had been unable to release the bomb and was forced to land with it. Somehow, the safetywire preventing the fusing vanes from turning had broken. The result was that the bomb had armed. As Hallberg taxied across the rutted field, the demolition bomb fell off and detonated. Amazingly, the Lt. Hallberg suffered only minor injuries and was flying again within days, albeit with the radio volume turned up considerably. If there was ever a testimony to the ruggedness of the Thunderbolt, this incident is proof positive.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Just a red x widewing
-
Spit XVI or Tempest.
-
Ta152H
-
P-47
I don't like the P-47 much in AH although I had some success in it. But based on the scenario I'd pick it every time. If I didn't have to strafe it would be the P-51.
-
@wadke
i thought the d11 was a razorback like in AH?
-
262 or dora
-
P-47 definately, throughout the entire war. Its recerd speaks for itself.
-
(http://home.satx.rr.com/pointblank/films/p-47a.jpg)
This may be the image that WW was trying to post. I have seen worst cases though. A bomb fell off the AC while it was either taxiing or on it takeoff roll. The Pilot survived.
-
Hi Widewing,
>This unfortunate P-47 was the victim of a 500 pound bomb which fell from its fuselage shackle and exploded.
I don't believe a 500 lbs bomb going off right below any aircraft would have left the pilot with any chance of survival.
The decisive factor was not the strength of the aircraft, but the delay between the bomb striking the ground and the explosives actually detonating.
I'd suggest that the pilot survived because the bomb went off way behind his aircraft.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Spit IX
-
This is not the correct picture. I have seen it and even have it somewhere on my HD.
The plane looked much worse, and yes, the pilot survived and flew a combat mission some days later. He had to tune the radio quite high though, - hearing damage!
-
I didnt think that the pic posted was the correct photo for the 500 lb bomb explosion. It has been a while since I have seen it, but I thought that the whole tail just aft of the cockpit was blown completely off.
-
Udet,
How would you get your Spit IX to Germany?? Or better yet how would you get it back?
And BTW,
Not for nothing but as long as we are talking about crazy durabilty there is only one fish story to tell really.
From the VMF-312 Checkerboards Squadron Webpage (the real squadron not AH).
On May 10th, one of the most unique fighter interceptions of the war took place. Captain Kenneth Reusser, callsign Ruby 6, was on patrol with 3 other Checkerboarders over the island of Okinawa. The following excerpt is from an article published in the May 1995 edition of Leatherneck. The author is Ray Schanamann, 1st Lt. of VMF-312.
…The pilots started their climb to altitude, prepared for another routine patrol. Instead, they received a transmission from "Handyman", the Air Defense Control Center.
"Ruby 6, this is Handyman, over."
"Handyman, Ruby 6, go ahead."
"Ruby 6, Handyman, We have a bogey approaching on course one eight zero, angels 25 (altitude 25,000 feet). Climb to angels 25, steer 270 buster (full speed), over."
"Handyman, Roger, course 270 angels 25, out."
The flight dropped their belly tanks, test fired their guns, put their props in full low pitch, and firewalled their throttles.
Klingman remembered, "We could see the vapor trails as the bogey made two complete circles over the harbor." The Marines had a good idea about the plane they were pursuing. For several days that week their squadron and others took turns trying to intercept a plane that followed the same flight plan. Intelligence believed the plane was on photo reconnaissance of the ships in the harbor, for use in planning kamikaze raids. The previous intercept attempts failed because the intruder, aware of the chase planes, kept climbing as he headed for home. With his initial altitude advantage he easily outran his pursuers. This time the Marines tried to close while climbing at their best speed. Captain Reusser said, "We were turning inside him to try and join up, but we were so far below him we had little chance of reaching him. I just pulled the nose up and held the trigger down, no aim, no accuracy, just trying to loop it up there. I saw a couple of glints, but I remember I didn't think anything of it at the time. He leveled off and headed back toward Japan."
The division kept climbing and stayed on the bogey's tail even though it didn't seem possible to overhaul him. Captain Jim Cox's plane fell back until he was about a thousand feet below the others-he couldn't coax another knot of speed out of the battle-weary Corsair. Reusser ordered Cox and 1st Lt. Frank Watson to return to orbit over Point Nan while he and Klingman continued the pursuit. Now they were at 38,000 feet, the service ceiling for the Corsair. The bogey was still about a mile ahead, and the chase continued.
Because of the thin air and limited power, maneuvers had to be limited to small, careful changes in direction or altitude; otherwise a stall or spin would result with small chance of recovery. At such an altitude bailing out would have meant freezing to death.
"As we got closer, Ken was firing, and I guess the bogey was firing at us. I had a few small bullet holes in the plane. My plane had no gun heaters and the guns were frozen, but I was pretty eager to get me a Jap plane. My plane was faster because it was a brand new so I went on ahead of Ken at max speed and streamlined as much as I could…"
"…We closed on the bogey until I was 20 or 30 feet behind him-I couldn't get any closer to him due to his prop wash. It held me back and kept me from running into him. I had to slowly climb above the airplane, and then I nosed over and ran into his tail with my prop. I only had enough extra speed to chew off some of his rudder and elevator before being blown away (from Nick's prop wash) Since he was still flying, I climbed above him for a second run. I nosed down and I pulled out too soon and only got some of his rudder and part of the top of the rear canopy. At this time I remember seeing the rear seat gunner frantically looking around and trying to operate his machine gun. I imagine at this altitude he was probably freezing to death. I realized that a third wasn't necessary, but I was even more determined so I climbed above him for my third run and chopped the right side of his elevator, and we both went into a spin. This run did the most damage to my plane, but I recovered after losing only about 1,000 feet. Ken was along side then, and we both observed the enemy plane in a spin with both wings coming off at about 15,000 feet."
Reusser had a bird's-eye view when Klingman first passes were made and related. "The Japanese gunner pounded on his machine gun to free it up, but it was frozen solid and so was mine. When Bob came down on the canopy with his prop, he tore the gun away from the mount and hit the gunner. His plane was full of bullet holes and shrapnel holes from fragments of the Nick."
Klingman had his kill but they were hundreds of miles from base and his plane shook and vibrated with the stick jumping in a large circle. Close to home at about 10,00 feet Bob ran out of fuel but felt he could still reach the strip even though Ken suggested he bail.
Pilots stood quietly at the upwind end of the runway. They watched the Corsair plunge silently in a steep glide: no engine roar, the prop windmilling slowly.
"Don't stretch the glide: don't be short.: they said almost prayerfully.
At the last possible second, Klingman raised the Corsair's nose and the plane slammed into the ground and bounced the few remaining feet onto the airstrip.
Watchers gasped as they saw the planes condition. The tips of all three blades jutted outward with 6 inches missing from each end and the blades pierced by bullets; each wing contained large holes, and pieces of the Nick were in the cowling. After extensive tests and a new propeller, the F4U Corsair Bob Klingman used in the downing of the Japanese Nick was returned to service!
Bob Klingman and Ken Reusser both received the Navy Cross for their actions.
Here is a picture of the airplane and pilot.
(http://www.f4ucorsair.com/vmf312/kilng.jpg)
-
Good story but was it a Nick??? I'm far from an expert on Japanese planes (maybe Brady can help out here) but the only Japanese aircraft that could that high and that fast was the Mitsubishi Ki-46 'Dinah'. Ceiling about 36.000 feet with top speed of close to 400 MPH.
A quick serach reveals that the Nick could reach about 30k and was considerably slower. I do not know if lightened (no armament?) reconnaisance versions existed.
-
I'm still trying to find my bottle of Jack... Only the P-47 will get you home.
(http://www.web-birds.com/8th/56/63rd/un-e.jpg)
-
I'll be happy to be killed by and die with the plane I like, thank you.
-
Originally posted by icemaw
Just a red x widewing
I see that. Odd tho, cause it worked earlier. Damn Geocities server!
Try this URL (http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/quarters/9485/Photo.html)
Scroll down to the picture of the wrecked P-47.
My regards,
Widewing
-
The Picture is found here:
http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_114_1063235782.jpg?PHPSESSID=38b2560f0b88c89cc5a567cce48ae8fe
-
Hi Icemaw,
>Anyone foolish enough to want to attack ground target in a water cooled aircraft deserves the long walk home after some farmer with a flint lock gets a lucky hit on hit on their cooling system.
It's not like the returning escort fighters really flew well-prepared strafing attacks against heavily defended targets.
They just roamed the countryside and shot up everything that looked like an easy target.
Not too much risk involved, really.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
Udet,
How would you get your Spit IX to Germany?? Or better yet how would you get it back?
QUOTE]
If my life depended on it, I'd be scared like shlt. Thus I'd resort to the most natural defensive/offensive tactic, that is, turning as tightly as possible.
That's why I want a Spit!
-
Udet-
suppose- Your scared and with good reason, your hard turning spit will not outrun your enemy, and you will be outnumbered soon because you are over enemy territory, with very limited range (if you could actually fly that far into the AOR.
If you are in a Pony or Jug, you dive away and have an excellent chance of just outrunning them to and accross the channel. Speed, durability rules the day in that situation.
vr
-
Originally posted by BlckMgk
Considering I've never flown a real plane, and my only experience has been AH. My thought process is as follows
In The MA: P-51 Just because there are so many assorted contacts including other 51's !.
In real life I'd probably take the P-47, it seems to out perform the LW planes in at least 1-2 aspects, i.e. fighting a 109, roll and it can turn inside most of them, except for the F4 and g2, I'd then use the p-47's speed and High speed manueverability. Vs a 190 it'll be close but I'd still choose the p-47 over the 51.
So in the end the P-47... she just looks so powerful, and who wouldn't want 8x.50cals on the wing to blast an enemy if ya get a chance..
well said and id agree.
but to be fair ill give my "for and against" thoughts like these reasons:
1) the P51 in the role you have described is to go down and straffe after the escort duties are complete.The P51 was a good fast fighter but its worst feature was the ease with which the radiator was hit and even a very small object (a single round of small caliber even) would cause catastrofic failure/damage to the radiator. It wasnt suited therefore to ground attack role unless it had an adaption like a trop filter to help protect its soft underside. Im not sure they did this, just guessing.If you had this conversion it would undoubtedly affect your high alt performance and so make the escort task more dangerous. You cant win with that one.
2) Distance to target would play a major factor though, Say the target was at the edge of the P47s range but within the others then this is where i would choose the aircraft with the best range which would be the P51 I believe? I realise the P38 used certain fuel burn techniques to increase range in the PAC theatre but they didnt do so well in Europe apparently, I think on tv once it said it had something to do with the different types of weather over Europe which affected its superchargers and so its performance or something.Id discount it on those grounds and......
3) ive read several times German Pilots saying they prefered to engage a P38 than any other types of american fighter and I tend to believe they werent just saying it to annoy some flight sim nerds some 60 years into the future :)
4) The P47 was well known to be one of the most rugged fighters of the war and could sustain severe battle damage compared to other types.If its my hide i want it surrounded with as much protection as i can get!!
5) the late versions of the P47s if flown well ( stress this again! IF FLOWN WELL :)) could i think be a match for most of the late LW prop aircraft it was likely to meet.So at worst you have a sort of even chance and you can always use that superior dive to evade if it gets too scarey.
6) P38s having the extra safety of a twin engines is a big plus. However it applies more over vast stretches of open sea like the PAC theatre than over a Land based war where the two forces are engaged in a battle line in close proximity. And it just wasnt as manouverable as the P51 or P47 in several areas at least not until it got power ailerons.Also you have to use that crazy YOKE!!! ewwww :)
7) P47s 8x.50 cals cannot go without another mention!!
so there you have it!. Id choose the P47.
If it was based on which id like to fly and think is best through a personal choice of the 3 types then the jug is the most American looking beast of an aircraft and you Americans should be more proud of this than the P51!! nothing else has that American over extravance look just like your huge cadillac cars or enormous buildings etc. It is a totally different concept in aircraft design compared to all European type planes of the time and you went against all the rules and built a HUGE heavy fighter that dwarfed the oppersitions designs yet you maintained an amazingly manouverable weapon. American aircraft designer: "we cant build what? whoopee nazies!! we'll build em twice as big again!" heheh.
It did most of the dirty work for you (if not all of it in Europe early on) and took the brunt of the ground attack work toward the end of the War.The P51 has a MERLIN engine which as a Brit im proud of but the P47 had an all american design. For me if the hurricane was all British made and the spitfire was British made but with an American engine that made it suddenly more capable, Id say hats off to the Americans for making a good engine but it would invalidate the Spit for me as an all British aircraft and so the hurri would win. (just example ;)) Funny my favourite British aircraft is the 'Fairey Swordfish', favourite LW type is the 190 and fav US type is the P47, I think i got a thing for radial engined planes!
good fun post :)
-
Originally posted by NOD2000
No, there is a good reason why the Germans refered to the P-38 as "The Forked tailed devil". The main reason that I understand is that they p-38's alisons didn't operate as well in the cold air (expecially at high alt in europe), plus I have also read that the aircraft upkeep by ground crews wasn't all that hot in europe.
the name forked tailed devils was given to the P38 by the crews of the ju52 transport aircraft trying to resupply Germans in Afrika. They were severely maulled by the P38s when they lost thier fighter escorts due to their lack of range. Similar thing happened to US forces later when they had B17/B24s with P47 escorts.
So the name WAS NOT given to the P38 by fighter pilots.
Like i said in above post there are several accounts of german pilots saying they prefered to engage P38s as they were easier to fight which to me suggests they didnt perform as well.
-
Originally posted by HoHun
They just roamed the countryside and shot up everything that looked like an easy target.
Not too much risk involved, really.
HoHun....am I grabbing a big hook here, or are you serious?
- oldman
-
Originally posted by NOD2000
No, there is a good reason why the Germans refered to the P-38 as "The Forked tailed devil".
Except they didn't. That was invention of an American front lines journalist, who claimed that the German ground pounders called the P-38s with that name, when the planes were making ground attacks.
"The Forked tailed devil" is just a myth.
-
I cant remeber the name, but the Germans had a p-38 looking plane early in the war. I think It may have been a Focke wulfe
189??? But I am not sure.
-
Hi Oldman,
>HoHun....am I grabbing a big hook here, or are you serious?
I'm serious.
It might be interesting to have a look at the escort fighters' orders to see whether they were assigned military targets to attack on their way back.
But whatever their orders were, there can be no doubt that in 1944 and '45, large numbers of Tieffliegern swarmed over Germany, attacking "targets of opportunity" virtually at random.
For escort fighters without heavy ordnance, returning in small units, "targets of opportunity" meant easy - read "undefended" - targets.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Whatever the fek the germans called the lightning.
They all cried out " SHEISSE" when they saw one incoming.
Like litle whiny babys,
-
Originally posted by HoHun
I'm serious.
Well, er, HoHun, I haven't done an analysis, but I'll bet that if I did, it would turn out that the US lost nearly as many fighters to ground fire as to air-to-air combat. If not more. Shooting staff cars is one thing, of course, but strafing airfields is quite another.
- oldman
-
Hi Oldman,
>Well, er, HoHun, I haven't done an analysis, but I'll bet that if I did, it would turn out that the US lost nearly as many fighters to ground fire as to air-to-air combat.
You might actually be right, but only for the entire USAAF. The 8th Air Force was waging a strategic air war, and they couldn't allow their fighter strength to be depleted by spontaneous attacks on well-defended targets.
"Target of opportunity" implies that the pilot personally decides whether an opportunity presents itself or whether the risk is too great.
With their lives on the line, I'm sure the fighter pilots had similar ideas about preservation of fighter strength as the 8th Air Force top brass :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
When the 9th AF was stood up, they took the role of Air-to-ground. They also escorted tactical bomber raids and then as HoHun stated, straffed whatever they could find on the way home. Once that policy was made (to allow the USAAF hunt at will, without restriction) then it was all she wrote. This effort helpped the allied advance immensely, and depleted German war resources at an astounding rate. Prior to the 9th AF standing up, some of the 8 AF unit CC's were given permission to go to the deck after their escort duty was over. They straffed targets of oppertunity as well.
-
Originally posted by BUG_EAF322
Whatever the fek the germans called the lightning.
They all cried out " SHEISSE" when they saw one incoming.
Like litle whiny babys,
Rite :) Galland actually said it was the easiest to shoot down of all American fighters.
But sure it wasn't fun to be on the receiving end of its firepower. Like any other aircraft too.
-
And still they lost 2 planes for 1 lightning.
strange.
-
Tally at this point. (Prolly the final tally is)
p-47 13
p51 5.5
spits 4.5
p38 4
tempest 3.5
mossie 1
TA152 1
262 1
D9 1
Tnx for yuor vote
-
Depends on luck, pilot, conditions
-
gimme one of the souped-up Fw190D9s in JV44. I'll take it over any allied plane, anytime.
And the Ta152H would be my 2nd take. F4U4 the third.
-
Originally posted by HoHun
It's not like the returning escort fighters really flew well-prepared strafing attacks against heavily defended targets.
They just roamed the countryside and shot up everything that looked like an easy target.
Not too much risk involved, really.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun) [/B]
I'm late to the party, but I beg to differ on this one HoHun.
"In the air and on the ground" was what Doolittle's directive was when he took over. If the Luftwaffe didn't come up to fight, the fighters went down and hit the airfields. That's why 8th AF was giving credit for ground kills, to encourage the practice of hitting the Luftwaffe anywhere.
The list of 8th AF flyers, including Aces that went down to ground fire while attacking airfields is long. The list of 8th Aces that went down in air combat is one that I can recall, Kidd Hofer.
Off the top of my head, Duane Beeson, Johnny Godfrey, Gabby Gabreski, Glen Duncan, Walt Beckham, Pierce McKennon, Sid Woods, and many other Aces went down to flak while on airfield runs. They knew the risk but were following through on what Doolittle wanted. "In the air and on the ground"
That meant hitting airfields if the Luftwaffe wasn't flying, not "easy targets". And the 51 drivers were right there along with the Jugs and 38s, knowing the risk.
Dan/Slack
-
Hi Guppy,
>"In the air and on the ground" was what Doolittle's directive was when he took over. If the Luftwaffe didn't come up to fight, the fighters went down and hit the airfields. That's why 8th AF was giving credit for ground kills, to encourage the practice of hitting the Luftwaffe anywhere.
True. My question is, though, whether these were escort fighters returning from routine missions, or whether they were sent out specially to attack these targets (as I suspect).
Even if they were returning from routine missions, attacks on airfields had to rely on good unit cohesion - typical tactics for attacking airfields relied on 3 squadrons working in close cooperation.
For fighters who came home in smaller units, it was "targets of opportunity" again, and as thousands of targets of this kind were hit, I consider this the rule rather than the exception.
(Doolittle's strategy emphasizes my point about "holding the Luftwaffe down" in the unrelated discussion about which type won the war, by the way :-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Tempest!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!..maybe the P-51"D" but i rather take the tempest..
-
Originally posted by HoHun
True. My question is, though, whether these were escort fighters returning from routine missions, or whether they were sent out specially to attack these targets (as I suspect).
Some of each (i.e. some of the people Guppy named were 9th AF guys on ground attack missions, and some were 8th AF escort pilots who hit the deck on the way home). Clearly from early 1944 on, though, the 8th had orders to do ground attack after the bombers had passed through their escort area and the fighters were released to go home. Your original point, though, seemed to be that 8th AF strafing was a relatively risk-free occupation, which it clearly was not.
- oldman
-
I'd take the Spitfire MK9 over any other plane within it's time. During that period, there wasn't the air superiority as there was for the late model US planes, and diving and running wasn't always an option. Also, while it was in service it was one of the faster planes in the air.
Also, for those not believing that the Spitfires escorted bomber groups, our Aces High squadron name "416 Lynx" is taken from a WWII RCAF squadron who often escorted US bombers and did it quite successfully. They didn't always have the range of the US planes, but they were still great escorts (a real tribute to the plane considering it was designed primarily a defensive fighter).
-
while it may not have had the most kills, one thing is for sure the lynx trainer was never shot down nor was one crashed by even the worst pilot cadet. it had to be the safest one.
-
Hi Oldman,
>Your original point, though, seemed to be that 8th AF strafing was a relatively risk-free occupation, which it clearly was not.
Ocasionally, fighters were shot up even in the cruise if they returned home at low altitude - and that was the recommended way to return home if you were travelling alone or as a pair. "Risk-free" indeed has to be considered "relative" to all other activities in a war.
My original point was that once the 8th Air Force fighters were released, they picked "relatively" easy targets to strafe, and I still maintain that.
This point is of interest for the escort fighter discussion because an exaggeration of the dangers of strafing leads to neglecting the main job of the escort - air-to-air fighting. I'm confident that when you look at the loss numbers, you're going see that the majority of escort fighter losses were to enemy aircraft, not to ground fire.
And that's why the P-51, a pure-bred air-to-air fighter with immaculate high-speed controllability and superior maneouvrability, is the better choice for an escort fighter.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Hi Bolilloloco
>one thing is for sure the lynx trainer was never shot down nor was one crashed by even the worst pilot cadet. it had to be the safest one.
It got even fewer miles per gallon than the P-47, though.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by HoHun
My original point was that once the 8th Air Force fighters were released, they picked "relatively" easy targets to strafe, and I still maintain that.
This point is of interest for the escort fighter discussion because an exaggeration of the dangers of strafing leads to neglecting the main job of the escort - air-to-air fighting. I'm confident that when you look at the loss numbers, you're going see that the majority of escort fighter losses were to enemy aircraft, not to ground fire.
And that's why the P-51, a pure-bred air-to-air fighter with immaculate high-speed controllability and superior maneouvrability, is the better choice for an escort fighter.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun) [/B]
Use the number of Aces lost to air combat vs ground fire HoHun and apply that to other pilots. There is no comparison. Also consider that there were stretches where the Luftwaffe just wasn't coming up so the fighter drivers went down to find them. Also keep in mind the 8th policy of avoiding equal credit for ground kills on aircraft. They promoted the idea of going down and hitting the Luftwaffe anywhere they could find them.
Remember that the Luftwaffe essentially kept it's planes on the ground from August-September 1944 trying to marshall enough forces for a major challenge to the 8th AF.
These were young, aggressive, think they'll live forever fighter pilots who wanted that kill marking below the cockpit rail. They weren't trained to avoid combat just cause it might be dangerous.
Dan/Slack
-
thinking to my life....no dubt
p38!!!!
more stabile at higth altitude, accelerate in less time than p-51 and jug, less view but more strong: 2 engine means i can fly without one....
:D :cool:
-
Hi Guppy,
>Use the number of Aces lost to air combat vs ground fire HoHun and apply that to other pilots.
How many aces did the 8th Air Force have, and how many were lost to ground fire? Complete statistics could indeed tell us something, but just dropping some names can't.
>Also keep in mind the 8th policy of avoiding equal credit for ground kills on aircraft.
My point is that the vast majority of targets attacked by the Tieffliegern were less dangerous than flak-protected aircraft. Any vehicle moving on the streets was Tiefflieger prey, including horse-drawn carts and bicycles. Thousands of such targets were hit - these were the low-risk "targets of opportunity" I'm talking about. By extraordinary bad luck, you might end up over a camouflaged military installation with flak guns ready and take a beating, but other than that - easy targets.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
P-47 ;)
-
Originally posted by bigjava
thinking to my life....no dubt
p38!!!!
more stabile at higth altitude, accelerate in less time than p-51 and jug, less view but more strong: 2 engine means i can fly without one....
:D :cool:
P-38 a more stable platform than the P-47 at high alt? I don't think so.
-
Originally posted by -ammo-
P-38 a more stable platform than the P-47 at high alt? I don't think so.
u made me dub i have tryed a p51 and a p38 over 25k and i prefer the p38.....
but now that u make me think i never tryed a p47 at 25k or more.
i have though the p-38 are gona be more stable platform than a p47 for 3 reason:
have already a neutral trimset
have 2 engine
have more "wings" area
but if i was wrong plz tell me the details
:)
-
Originally posted by bigjava
u made me dub i have tryed a p51 and a p38 over 25k and i prefer the p38.....
but now that u make me think i never tryed a p47 at 25k or more.
i have though the p-38 are gona be more stable platform than a p47 for 3 reason:
have already a neutral trimset
have 2 engine
have more "wings" area
but if i was wrong plz tell me the details
:)
I dont think any flight sim can accuratly describes a 'stable gun platform'. I have never seen a combat sim offer variable winds at altitudes. But, intuitively, I believe it all comes down to weight, primarily, with surface area opposing the winds offering some input as well. In real life, at high altitudes, wind gusts of 20-50mph are quite frequent. A spitty would have a harder time holding his sights than a jug, I would think. I also think the big span of a p38 would cause the pilot to fight the wind a bit more thatn the jug, but that is just a guess.
-
Hi Whitehawk,
>I dont think any flight sim can accuratly describes a 'stable gun platform'.
It's my impression that planes that were not considered "stable platforms" had some undesirable control characteristics, such as pronounced adverse yaw created by aileron application, very sensitive pitch control that could lead to pilot-induced oscillations, or maybe just high rotational inertia around any axis that would cause a delayed reaction to control inputs, which in turn would cause an uncoordinated flight status.
While at high air speeds most planes would appear quite stable anyway, these effects would be more pronounced at low indicated air speeds and high angles of attack - so they could be encountered at high altitude, too.
I'm not sure which one would be better at high altitude - the P-38 suffers from high rotational inertial in roll (and yaw), but it has a low stall speed so it's at a lower angle of attack at the same speed. On the other hand, its wing is not as effective at high altitude, so it may lose somewhat in comparison to the P-51 there. (I don't know how the P-47 compares in this regard.)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by bigjava
u made me dub i have tryed a p51 and a p38 over 25k and i prefer the p38.....
but now that u make me think i never tryed a p47 at 25k or more.
i have though the p-38 are gona be more stable platform than a p47 for 3 reason:
have already a neutral trimset
have 2 engine
have more "wings" area
but if i was wrong plz tell me the details
:)
You should give a P-47 a try at that alt. Hopefully you will find a fight up there. The AH P-47 really does well at those altitudes. Immels and chandelles are very easy and the AC doesn't like to drop a wing on you. The Pony, Spit9, and the P-38 perform really well at that altitude as well, but IMO, the P-47 is much less foirgiving when you are in dogfight (The Spit9 is extremely capable at that altitude too, but the speed edge belogs to the Jug).
-
i'll give p-47 a chance ;) tya Ammo
i'm going to try it asap at big altitude
-
Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Guppy,
>Use the number of Aces lost to air combat vs ground fire HoHun and apply that to other pilots.
How many aces did the 8th Air Force have, and how many were lost to ground fire? Complete statistics could indeed tell us something, but just dropping some names can't.
>Also keep in mind the 8th policy of avoiding equal credit for ground kills on aircraft.
My point is that the vast majority of targets attacked by the Tieffliegern were less dangerous than flak-protected aircraft. Any vehicle moving on the streets was Tiefflieger prey, including horse-drawn carts and bicycles. Thousands of such targets were hit - these were the low-risk "targets of opportunity" I'm talking about. By extraordinary bad luck, you might end up over a camouflaged military installation with flak guns ready and take a beating, but other than that - easy targets.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
The USAAF strategic bombing survey states that 60% of all losses were due to ground fire.
Ouch, that is a LOT of pilots shot down by those defenseless cows.
-
For survivability,The P-47.
-
F4U was more survivable than the P47. P47 was full of piping for its turbo charger.
-Source: Post war study conducted by the Air Corp.
-
Originally posted by davidpt40
F4U was more survivable than the P47. P47 was full of piping for its turbo charger.
-Source: Post war study conducted by the Air Corp.
Yes, an AAF commitee concluded that the F4U was slightly more survivable than the P-47, but there is considerable reason to question their conclusions based upon some possibly faulty assumptions refuted by Republic and analysis performed by the test group at Langley.
Reliability had little to do with the turbo ducting. Why? Because there was a valve in the system that diverted exhaust gasses to the turbo, which could be closed by the pilot should there be a leak. Pilots could also allow the system to divert more exhaust gas to the turbo should there be an associated pressure drop. If the pilot closed the bypass valve, the R-2800 still had a single-speed, single-stage supercharger that would provide for full military power up to about 12,000 feet. There was a danger of fire should the exhaust duct be holed within 2-3 feet of the collector ring. Usually the pilot would smell the exhaust gas and close the bypass valve, dumping the exhaust to ambient through the wastegate. Even with heavy damage to the system, fires were a rare occurrance. However, the risk of carbon monoxide poisoning was serious if the pilot goes off O2 and does not open the canopy to vent the cockpit.
In terms of airframe strength, both aircraft were over-engineered. Navy and Marine types who flew both the F4U and F6F generally agreed that the Hellcat was at least as rugged as the F4U. My personal experience with Grumman aircraft led me to conclude that they were incredibly strong. We flew a Grumman C1-A over 200 miles with the keel spar broken in two and a 5 foot by 18" gash in the belly, the tail being retained by the stringers and skin. We couldn't recover on the carrier because the tailhook A-frame was bolted to the keel spar. If we were to trap, the load on the A-frame would have pulled the aircraft apart. We nursed it to Sigonella Sicily and landed it safely. Trimming the planes was nearly impossible, largely because the entire tail was twisted about 5 degrees and the skin was wrinkled like Teddy Kennedy's booze swollen mug. We earned our flight pay that day.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Hi Rshubert,
>The USAAF strategic bombing survey states that 60% of all losses were due to ground fire.
Do you have more detailed data on that? (For example, a break-down by mission type?)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Hi David,
>Source: Post war study conducted by the Air Corp.
Do you have more details from that study? Sounds highly interesting!
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Hi again,
Here some relevant information from a site pointed out by Dune in another thread:
"By 1 August 1944 the 364th had become a P-51 Group.. The difference between the P-38 and the P-51 is shown in the ratio between enemy planes destroyed versus 364th pilots lost. The P-38 was flown approximately five months and had a ratio 1.3. The P-51 was flown approximately nine months and had a ratio of 5.0."
(from http://www.web-birds.com/8th/364/364.html)
I'd assume that includes all kind of losses.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by HoHun
Hi Rshubert,
>The USAAF strategic bombing survey states that 60% of all losses were due to ground fire.
Do you have more detailed data on that? (For example, a break-down by mission type?)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
I have never seen the detail report, only the 30-page (or so) summary. I would really like to see that detail report, myself. It would make for interesting reading.
shubie
-
from the book "Fighter units & pilots of the 8th air force" september 1942 - may 1945
volume 1 day to day operations fighter group histories by Kent D. Miller isbn 0764312413
the book has great info and breaks down losses and kills, probables, damaged in the air and on the ground. it doesnt list however how the aircraft were lost. it does list each known aircraft loss and how it was lost, but doesnt provide a chart breaking the losses down to what caused each loss. I will list kills by type and losses by type, however the losses are by all causes. in going over the losses listed, regardless of type of aircraft flown, flak is the main reason why aircraft were lost, mechanical failure looks like it took as many aircraft as did the german fighters regardless of type of aircraft flown. spins and crashes also took quite a number of aircraft as well as collisions with both friendly and enemy aircraft, and a few just simply ran out of gas.
20th fighter group
flew the P-38 from august 1943 till july 1944 and the P-51 from july 1944 till the end of the war.
P-38 92 aircraft lost 87.6 air victories
P-51 53 aircraft lost 123 air victories
victories in the air and losses by month
november 43 - 1 - 5 lost
december - 1 - 2 lost
january 44 - 19 - 15 lost
february - 24 - 20 lost
march - 10 - 9 lost
april - 12.6 - 11 lost
may - 4 - 10 lost
june - 5 - 14 lost
july - 14 - 7 lost
august - 35 - 15 lost
september - 7 - 1 lost
october - 0 - 5 lost
november - 28.5 - 8 lost
december - 6 - 3 lost
january 45 - 19.5 - 2 lost
february - 19 - 11 lost
march - 0 - 3 lost
april - 5 - 4 lost
210.6 air victories and 145 losses
55th fighter group
flew the P-38 from september 1943 till july 1944 and the P-51 from july 1944 till wars end
P-38 87 aircraft lost 102 air victories
P-51 98 aircraft lost 200.5 air victories
victories in the air and losses by month
october 43 - 0 - 1 loss
november - 23 - 14 lost
december - 4 - 7 lost
january 44 - 13 - 13 lost
february - 8 - 5 lost
march - 3 - 8 lost
april - 7 - 11 lost
may - 7 - 9 lost
june - 15 - 16 lost
july - 27 - 8 lost
august - 7 - 17 lost
september - 72 - 12 lost
october - 2 - 5 lost
november - 18.5 - 10 lost
december - 26 - 6 lost
january 45 - 14 - 6 lost
february - 25 - 14 lost
march - 11 - 12 lost
april - 20 - 12 lost
may - 0 - 0 lost
302 air victories 186 losses
364th fighter group
flew the P-38 february 1944 till september 1944 and the P-51 from july 1944 till wars end
P-38 57 aircraft lost 37 air victories
P-51 81 aircraft lost 225 air victories
victories in the air and losses by month
february 44 - 0 - 1 loss
march - 13 - 16 lost
april - 2 - 17 lost
may - 15 - 18 lost
june - 7 - 3 lost
july - 0 - 3 lost
august - 28 - 12 lost
sepember - 26 - 12 lost
october - 9 - 11 lost
november - 40 - 11 lost
december - 87.5 - 10 lost
january 45 - 8 - 3 lost
february - 12 - 9 lost
march - 2.5 - 5 lost
april - 12 - 7 lost
may - 0 - 0 lost
262 victories in the air 138 losses
479th fighter group
flew the P-38 from may 1944 till october 1944 and the P-51 from september 13th 1944 till wars end
P-38 39 aircraft lost 52 air victories
P-51 38 aircraft lost 103 air victories
victories in the air and losses by month
may 44 - 0 - 0 lost
june - 1 - 12 lost
july - 4 - 12 lost
august - 19 - 12 lost
september - 42 - 6 lost
october - 4 - 6 lost
november - 5 - 3 lost
december - 42 - 10 lost
january 45 - 2 - 1 lost
february - 20 - 5 lost
march - 4 - 3 lost
april 12 - 7 lost
may 0 - 0 lost
155 air victories 77 losses
-
Hi Bolillo,
Thanks for the data!
Victory to loss ratios:
364th FG: P-38 1.3, P-51 5.0
20th FG: P-38 0.95, P-51 2.3
55 th FG: P-38 1.2, P-51 2.0
364th FG: P-38 0.65, P-51 2.8
479th FG: P-38 1.3, P-51 2.7
That seems to decide the case P-38 vs. P-51 pretty clearly in favour of the P-51.
Obviously, two engines were no significant advantage for the P-38.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
Did the spit14 and the Tempest escort lancs into germany?
toward the end of 1944, the Brits began running their bombing raids in daylight, escorted by the late model Spits, as that was actually safer than trying to deal with the advanced German night-fighters. Who was it who said, "Air superiority disappears at sunset'?
-
the victory to loss ratio is not 5:1 for the mustangs of the 364th it is a bit less than half of that.
I really do not think this proves much of anything in favor of either plane. many of the 38 losses were early when 38 pilots found themselves facing a more experienced enemy who was numerically superior. when the mustangs finally did arrive it saw the americans with an advantage in numbers and pilot quality and with the arrival of the mustangs improved escort tactics were also employed.
when you look at the stats, you can see that each unit had a high scoring month or two that gave the decided edge to the mustang. this was later in the war when the luftwaffe was on the decline. so when you consider that with all the advantages that the mustang saw in combat over the 38 it should have more than just doubled the score if it was such a superior aircraft. and doubling the score of the 38s record in the eto isnt a great feat when one consideres just how many planes the 38 shot down in air to air combat.
I think that this isnt a question of 38 vs 51, but a case of proper tactics, better pilot training, leadership, american pilots facing more equal odds, and a decline in luftwaffe pilots.
as far as the second engine being an advantage or disadvantage it seems many pilots abandoned aircraft that may have made it back to base had they stayed with the aircraft. one can only imagine that since they were over land it was safer to take their chances of evasion or capture and bail out vs staying with a plane of unknown flying condition. Pilots in the pacific flying the same aircraft with the same battle damage usually stayed with their aircraft because it was more dangerous to bail out in the pacific than to stick with a damaged aircraft and take your chances. the sharks, japanese, disease, insects, crocs, snakes, head hunters, or just being stranded in a jungle or the middle of the pacific ocean is a lot of incentive to stay with an aircraft as long as its flying. men in the eto and mto atleast stood a chance of evasion and if captured...well I am sure the germans were much safer than what the pilots in the pto faced.
-
Hi Bolillo Loco,
>the victory to loss ratio is not 5:1 for the mustangs of the 364th it is a bit less than half of that.
I missed that bit while posting - you can see that I've quoted the 364th twice, once with the 5:1 and once with the values you described. The 5:1 is from the website I referred to above. Sorry if these figures are wrong!
>and doubling the score of the 38s record in the eto isnt a great feat when one consideres just how many planes the 38 shot down in air to air combat.
Pretty pessimistic way of looking at it :-)
But at least, the victory-to-loss ratio of around 1.0 should prove beyond doubt that it wasn't the P-38 that won the air war.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
many germans could escape the p38 with a simple dive
After they found out their 190 or 109 sukked against it in close combat.
It didn't stop the airwar either
-
Hi Bug,
>many germans could escape the p38 with a simple dive
>After they found out their 190 or 109 sukked against it in close combat.
A victory-loss ratio of 1.0 is a clear indicator of mutual sucking.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Considering their gangy type of fight yes indeed ur right.
-
Hi Bug,
Actually, the USAAF were losing the war with a 1:1 ratio.
1) While their loss numbers are correct, their kill number is based on claims. Claims numbers are consistently too high in any air force.
2) They were losing twin-engined aircraft against single-engined aircraft.
3) They were losing their aircraft over enemy territory, so they lost 100% of the pilots who where shot down. The Germans were losing their aircraft over friendly territory, whih meant they only lost 30% to 50% of the pilots.
The situation is not unlike Vietnam, when the US fighters were lost at a 1:1 ratio, which was bad - and made even worse because they carried a crew of 2, compared to the MiGs' 1.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Originally posted by bolillo_loco
the victory to loss ratio is not 5:1 for the mustangs of the 364th it is a bit less than half of that.
I really do not think this proves much of anything in favor of either plane. many of the 38 losses were early when 38 pilots found themselves facing a more experienced enemy who was numerically superior. when the mustangs finally did arrive it saw the americans with an advantage in numbers and pilot quality and with the arrival of the mustangs improved escort tactics were also employed.
when you look at the stats, you can see that each unit had a high scoring month or two that gave the decided edge to the mustang. this was later in the war when the luftwaffe was on the decline. so when you consider that with all the advantages that the mustang saw in combat over the 38 it should have more than just doubled the score if it was such a superior aircraft. and doubling the score of the 38s record in the eto isnt a great feat when one consideres just how many planes the 38 shot down in air to air combat.
I think that this isnt a question of 38 vs 51, but a case of proper tactics, better pilot training, leadership, american pilots facing more equal odds, and a decline in luftwaffe pilots.
as far as the second engine being an advantage or disadvantage it seems many pilots abandoned aircraft that may have made it back to base had they stayed with the aircraft. one can only imagine that since they were over land it was safer to take their chances of evasion or capture and bail out vs staying with a plane of unknown flying condition. Pilots in the pacific flying the same aircraft with the same battle damage usually stayed with their aircraft because it was more dangerous to bail out in the pacific than to stick with a damaged aircraft and take your chances. the sharks, japanese, disease, insects, crocs, snakes, head hunters, or just being stranded in a jungle or the middle of the pacific ocean is a lot of incentive to stay with an aircraft as long as its flying. men in the eto and mto atleast stood a chance of evasion and if captured...well I am sure the germans were much safer than what the pilots in the pto faced.
I know unexpeirenced pilots was a big loss for the P38 too. AKAK had a old training film that was very interesting.
My vote would be the P38 cause its my fav. plane to fly. I wouldnt fight with it I would just mess with the plane doing insane manuvers and stalls:eek:
-
If you mean what aircraft would I fly in combat if I wanted to live through the war?
In Europe the P-39.
Why? A 0.35 loss rate in combat per sortie for that type. The P47 had a 0.73, the P-38 had a .1.35, the P-51 a 1.18. The A-26 had a nice 0.58.
If you mean in a one on one, tell me what alt and what range I'll need first.
Top U.S. picks for me arn't in the game. I hold to the "In mass production" standard, not the "had to shoot at a bad guy" one.
-
Hi M.C. 202,
>If you mean what aircraft would I fly in combat if I wanted to live through the war?
Ah, beware of statistics! :-)
I'd bet that the pilots who flew P-39 had to fly a lot more missions since they were limited to rather short hops.
Let's say the typical P-39 mission was 1 hour, while the typical P-51 mission was 5 hours. Let's further assume pilots were rotated after equivalent flying hours: Then the P-39 would come out at 0.35 losses per flight hour, while the P-51 would emerge at just 0.24.
I don't know if that was the way it was done, it's just an example to illustrate the difficulties of analyzing numbers.
One assumption would be that the length of tours were designed so that all pilots had roughly equal chances of survival, which would make the point about plane choice rather irrelevant :-)
(That's not as absurd as it might appear - Bomber Command actually sent the most survivable bombers on the worst missions, and the death traps on milk runs. That seems to have evened out the survival chances quite well.)
By the way, are you sure that these P-39 numbers are for the ETO? As far as I know, the P-39 had a very short spell of service there, ended pretty quickly because its showing was extremely poor. If they terminated its career in anticipation of the losses, that could mean that the numbers are correct, but the comparison is misleading anyway.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Im still amazed that I cant find a single p-38 ace in the European theatre?? Anybode else. There must have been at least 1? Bong had 40+ in the pacific. Was the weather that important in the performance of the p38? In the latter stages of the war, there must have been at least 1 p38 pilot who took advantage of the hitler youth, last gasp luftwaffe pilots?
With further reasearch, I have counted 57 aces in the ETO and not a single one of them dedicated to the p-38?? This is amazing?
Anybody can find any p-38 ace in the ETO?
-
P-38L: The argument no one knew how to fly it still stands tough. Flying high performance singles over rugged terrain in the north east has taught me: "Ya know Wolf, maybe you should stick out the extra 80 bux per hour and get a twin."
Arguments for:
* Centerline fire guns
* Twin Engine Redundancy
* Excellent range/endurance (IF YOU FLY PER THE POH - not not MAX MIL POWER THE ENTIRE TIME - that is 35'/2500 for cruise at altitude.
* The V-1710 was in 60% of allied aircraft: why? Its dependable!
* If a 38 loses an engine, he is still combat effective and can get home.
* Excellent climb to altitude.
* Fowler flaps gave superior low speed handling below 150 ias.
Cons:
* The ETO pilots didn't know how to fly the 38 like PAC pilots.
* Water Cooling leaves engines vulnerable to small cal rounds.
* Heaviest fighter allies made - it performs like it when loaded.
Feel free to add to the list.
-
I'd prefer to fly a Ju-52 in Argentina :D
-
Hi there Hohun!
"Ah, beware of statistics! :-) "
Yep, if your head is in the oven, and your feet are in the icebox, statistics prove you are just fine overall.:rolleyes:
I have to admit I posted in part to pull the leg of the "UberBird" (your choice) fans.
"I'd bet that the pilots who flew P-39 had to fly a lot more missions since they were limited to rather short hops. "
Not given, but 30,547 total sorties listed. I thought it would include the Italian front.
"By the way, are you sure that these P-39 numbers are for the ETO? "
The chart is headed:
USAAF AIRCRAFT IN THE EUROPEAN THEATRE OF OPERATIONS 1942-45
My best,
M.C.202
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
Im still amazed that I cant find a single p-38 ace in the European theatre?? Anybode else. There must have been at least 1? Bong had 40+ in the pacific. Was the weather that important in the performance of the p38? In the latter stages of the war, there must have been at least 1 p38 pilot who took advantage of the hitler youth, last gasp luftwaffe pilots?
With further reasearch, I have counted 57 aces in the ETO and not a single one of them dedicated to the p-38?? This is amazing?
Anybody can find any p-38 ace in the ETO?
Jack Ilfrey was America's first ace against Germany, he flew the P-38F/G in North Africa. He added to his score with the P-51 later when he was assigned to the 79th FS or the 20th FG, 8th AF.
My regards,
Widewing
-
here is a list that saves me typing one.
http://p38assn.org/aces.htm