Improve the P-47

[Col. Flashman]

Originally posted by Knegel
Hi,

what was the strengths of rhe P40E over the 109F4??

Greetings,

I didn't state that the P-40E had strengths over the 109-F4.
I stated that the R.A.F. didn't use Tactics that Exploited the P-40E's strengths in combat, which allowed the 109-F4's to exploit the P-40E's weaknesses.

The Power Dive, the ability of the P-40E to take Punishment & her six 50's were three of her greatest strengths. The R.A.F. did not use Tactics that exploited them & they suffered for it @ the hands of the 109-F4's.

And as I recollect, 109's were not very good in a full on Power Dive untill late war models arrived w/o the stabilizer supports, as they'd start shedding parts off their Empennage or hit Compressibility & six 50's would completely shred a 109 in short order, even the 109-F4, though the 109 cannon's would shred an P-40E as well, but not as quickly, as the P-40E's had superior Armour compared to 109's.

[Debonair]

Originally posted by Knegel
Hi,

what was the strengths of rhe P40E over the 109F4??

Greetings,

better shark mouth paint job potential for the Curtis

[Angus]

Originally posted by Col. Flashman
Yes, one in the same.
In the Med & N.A., the R.A.F. were still using the Lufbery Circle as their main Defensive Tactic against Bf-109's, so it's no wonder that they weren't having much success w/ the P-40, as they weren't taking advantages of her strengths & letting the 109's exploit her weaknesses.

nanananana. N-Africa didn't all happen in a month you know, and the Med was a conflict of some 5 years generally.
They ended up trying with almost anything in the book, and by the time things got intense down there, they had already learned from the Battle of Britain.
As for the 109F, it outperforms the P40's used at the time in almost any aspect. And was that a 6 x .50 cal P40?
I read somewhere that early on P40's had to be escorted by Hurricanes, and RAF pilots getting Spitfires after the P40's were absolutely delighted. Will try to dig some on this.
By the way, 109F does not have the stabilizer struts.

[Charge]

"as the P-40E's had superior Armour compared to 109's"

I didn't know this. What armour was better in P-40 than in 109?

-C+

[Widewing]

Originally posted by Angus
nanananana. N-Africa didn't all happen in a month you know, and the Med was a conflict of some 5 years generally.
They ended up trying with almost anything in the book, and by the time things got intense down there, they had already learned from the Battle of Britain.
As for the 109F, it outperforms the P40's used at the time in almost any aspect. And was that a 6 x .50 cal P40?
I read somewhere that early on P40's had to be escorted by Hurricanes, and RAF pilots getting Spitfires after the P40's were absolutely delighted. Will try to dig some on this.
By the way, 109F does not have the stabilizer struts.

Commonwealth P-40s (Tomahawks and later Kittyhawks) were generally used as fighter-bombers and spent the bulk of their time well below 12,000 feet. In February of 1943, 239 Wing and 7 SAAF Wing were equipped exclusively with Kittyhawks. These two Wings attacked several Luftwaffe airfields at Gabes, which were defended by JG77, who where flying both 109Fs and the latest 109G-2s. 14 Kittyhawks were shot down for ten 109s lost in aerial combat. It should be noted that the Kittyhawks were up against some of the best German fighter pilots in North Africa, including Heinz Bar and Ernst Reinert, who claimed 9 between them. On this particular day, the Kittyhawks didn't have high cover.

It was generally standard practice to provide Kittyhawks with high cover by Spitfires. Any fighter would be at a major disadvantage when restricted to low altitude by tactical requirements, as were the Commonwealth Kittyhawks. Adding to this was the issue of the Kittyhawks being inferior to to 109s in virtually every respect other than minimum turn radius and roll rate. P-40s required superb teamwork to effectively deal with the Luftwaffe. I say effectively, which means barely holding their own.

P-40s served in the MTO well into 1944 with the USAAF. Overall, they did better than one would expect. Several pilots became aces flying the P-40 in 1944, despite it being completely outclassed. This reflects more on the quality of the opposition pilots and the excellent team tactics used by the AAF, than on their generally obsolete P-40s. P-40s provided the bulk of the air cover over Anzio for months. They proved effective at engaging German fighters and fighter-bombers (190s) and claimed kills exceeded losses by about 4 to 1. Anyone can check on USAAF P-40 combat ops by reviewing Carter and Mueller's AAF combat chronology available in .pdf form here.

My regards,

Widewing

[Squire]

The AVG "Flying Tiger" tactics you speak of were only effective against the Japanese, flying slower a/c that could not dive as fast, like the Ki-43 and the Ki-27.

The leading P-40 aces in North Africa were the following (just P-40 kills):

CR Caldwell, RAAF, 20 kills on P-40s. Australian.

B Drake, RAF, 13 kills on P-40s. British.

JF Edwards, RCAF, 12 kills on P-40s. Canadian.

AW Barr, RAAF, 11 kills on P-40s. Australian.

RH Gibbes, RAF, 10 kills on P-40s. British.

The RAF went into action in N. Africa in April 1941, a year and a half before the USAAF landed a/c in November 1942.

Leading USAAF P-40 aces in the MED (just P-40 kills):

Levi Chase, 10 kills, 60th FS

William Moymer, 8 kills, 33rd FG HQ

Roy Whittaker, 7 kills, 65th FS

Ralph Taylor, 6 kills, 317th FS

Robert Baseler, 5 kills, 325 fg HQ

[Wolfala]

Interesting doc. A-26's of the 7th AF in the pacific went against Japan in July 45.

[HoHun]

Hi Squire,

>The leading P-40 aces in North Africa were the following (just P-40 kills):

Interesting list :-) Considering the odds these pilots were fighting against, their kill numbers represent quite an achievement!

For comparison, here are the leading P-40 killers (ETO/MTO/North Africa, just P-40 kills):

Hans-Joachim Marseille: 101
Werner Schroer: 40
Heinz Bär: 36
Gustav-Siegfried Rödel: 28
Ernst-Wilhelm Reinert: 28
Hans-Arnold Stahlschmidt: 27
Otto Schulz: 26
Friedrich Körner: 24
Karl-Heinz Bendert: 22
Gerhard Homuth: 22
Günter Steinhausen: 19
Joachim Müncheberg: 18
Karl von Lieres u. Wilkau: 14
Jürgen Harder: 13
Willy Kientsch: 13
Heinz-Edgar Berres: 13
Anton Hackl: 12
Ludwig Franzisket: 12
Horst Reuter: 11
Rudolf Sinner: 11
Siegfried Freytag: 10

(I compiled this list from Tony Wood's Luftwaffe Claims List, West Front.)

Of course, one should be careful not to put too much significance into such lists.

Technically, the Me 109 certainly was superior in most respects, but they operated under quite different tactical circumstances than the P-40s, so kill numbers are an asymmetric affair in any case, even when you're just looking at the most successful pilots in both aircraft.

There were two interesting statements by P-40 pilots that highlighted their difficult situation: One pilot said (not verbatim) "our only chance lay in keeping a sharp lookout and relying on mutual support to keep the Messerschmitts off our backs". Another, asked whether the Me 109F was superior to the P-40, answered (again, not verbatim): "Hell, even the Me 109E would have been superior!" He qualified this statement with a description of the climb rate superiority of the Me 109, which meant that in most engagement the P-40 found itself in a defensive role and unable to move aggressively.

Given the chance, there is no doubt that the P-40 could be quite effective even with its dedicated low-altitude engine and its weight handicap. (The P-40F with a Merlin engine was a bit better at altitude, but its Packard-Merlin was not as powerful an engine as the contemporary Spitfire IX's. Compared to the Spitfire V, though, the P-40F had the advantage of a two-speed supercharger.)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Col. Flashman]

It's been documented that Luftwaffa Pilot claims have puzzled their Crew Chief's @ times, because during the Rearming after missions no Ammo expediture has been found & Kills have been claimed.
Now either there's something a-miss there or they Flew the kills into the ground or some other object in order to be able to make these claims.

[HoHun]

Hi Flashman,

>It's been documented that Luftwaffa Pilot claims have puzzled their Crew Chief's @ times, because during the Rearming after missions no Ammo expediture has been found & Kills have been claimed.

Let me guess: You've been reading Martin Caidin's book on the Me 109 :-)

Combat claims of course have to be read with care, but that's true for all air forces involved in the war. At least, we're comparing oranges and oranges - though we're actually talking about apples.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[Squire]

Oh, there is no doubt the Bf109F was by far the more dangerous fighter, I doubt any of the P-40 pilots would have disputed that. Of course you must judge all the aces on their accomplishments based on the circumstances in which they found themselves. There were great talents from all the combatants in the North African fighting, both allied and axis.

[HoHun]

Hi Squire,

>Oh, there is no doubt the Bf109F was by far the more dangerous fighter, I doubt any of the P-40 pilots would have disputed that. Of course you must judge all the aces on their accomplishments based on the circumstances in which they found themselves. There were great talents from all the combatants in the North African fighting, both allied and axis.

I absolutely agree! One might even argue that it was the greater accomplishment to devise tactics of mutual support in order to be able to complete one's missions in the face of the enemy's technical superiority than just lone-wolfing it in a better aircraft.

Tactical thinkers like Mölders, Pokrishkin or Broadhurst might have been more influential than aces like Marseille. I'm currently not aware of who was the most important Allied fighter leader in North Africa, but I'm sure they had some good leadership, too :-)

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

[gripen]

I'm currently reading a book called "Flying American Combat Aircraft of WWII" edited by Robin Higham. It's a large collection of pilot's stories on those aircraft. The interesting part regarding this thread is a chapter written by Mark E. Bradley, who was involved with the developement of the P-47 right from the XP-47B (he was in the developement of the P-43 before that). He became Chief of Flight test after Kelsey and even flew combat missions with the P-47 in ETO and flew also the P-47N in the PTO while he was in the 5th AF.

Bradley was also deeply involved on range extension programs of the US fighters and actually the fuselage tank of the P-51 is sometimes called "Colonel Bradley's Tank" due to his input to this program. So here is what he says about the P-47:

"It is enough to say here that though the P-51 was allready equipped with wing tanks, we were able to bring about a further increase in it's droppable fuel capacity and resultant range by placing an additional ninety-gallon tank behind the pilot's seat. We had no such luck with the P-47.

There was no place to put more fuel in the P-47 except in droppable wing tanks. Earlier, Republic had developed what was called a "slipper tank", usable for ferrying only. Because it made the airplane unstable, it was not suitable for combat. In the end we used same pylon and tank arrangement utilized on the P-38. The first such installation was made, not at the factory and not at Wright Field, but in Africaby Col. Claire Bunch, an enterprising officer working for Jimmy Doolittle."

The book itself is very interesting read, there are practically all main types and several lesser known, but important types like the P-26, O-47, Vultee BT-13, C-54, CG-4A...

gripen

[mussie]

Originally posted by AquaShrimp

Basically anything to save weight would have been my goal.  Increasing internal fuel supply, and having stations for drop-tanks would be a necessity too.

From the If you could talk to a WWII Fighter Pilot Thread:

Excerpt From Widewing's Interview With Robert Johnson  

RSJ: Well, the enemy would stall first because the Jug's mass allowed to retain its, er...

CCJ: Energy?

RSJ: Yes, energy. The P-47's mass allowed it to retain its energy better and it stalled a few seconds after the enemy plane. The German would snap over and head down. Except, now I was right behind him and there was no getting away.

CCJ: Wouldn't he still be directly behind you?

RSJ: No. Pulling up so suddenly always caught them by surprise. The second or two that it took for them to react took care of that.

CCJ: Why did you roll?

RSJ: Because that killed my speed faster than the enemy if he didn't, which gained me the advantage of being to his rear as he zoomed up. If he rolled too, that also worked to my advantage because it killed his speed faster than mine.

As you can see the JUG's Weight was one of its strength's

[Knegel]

Originally posted by mussie


As you can see the JUG's Weight was one of its strength's

It always depends to the situation and pilotskill if weight is a advantage or a disadvantage.

Disadvantages of more weight:

Smaler range.
Smaler horizontal acceleration.
Smaler steady climb.
More bad sustained horizontal turn.
Slower deceleration.
Higher stallspeed.
More sideslip.
Higher structural forces(specialy while turning).


Advantages of more weight:

Better downward acceleration at medium to highspeed.
Smaler E-bleed at highspeed.

Less weight include many more advantages, but a good pilot of course can use the very important advantages of more weight(more inertia and more downward thrust) to his advantage.
 
btw, in the case of your example, RSJ seems to mix up some things. He claim that the P47 retain its energy better and stall some sec later. Thats maybe ok, cause the big inertia and relative high liftload and span load, but this implement that it also slow down less fast, and this slower deceleration is the reason for the later stall.
But then he goes on that he did roll to kill the speed faster than the enemy to get onto his tail. Thats also ok, but not in the same contex, cause if he slow faster down, he also will stall faster, specialy in a roll with its related problems.

And then its of course a advantage to be behind the enemy, but would he have been able to follow a upzoom, if he was more slow??

This extreme downslowing bring the P47 into bad trouble, cause it lose its inertia and since the climb of the P47 isnt that good at all, he would be in trouble(of course above 6500m alt the P47 own the sky anyway).

And then he say that if the enemy also slow down to stay behind the Jug, its also a advantage for him, but wouldnt this be the same situation like if he slow down to get behind the enemy??

If the Jug was able to follow the upzoom(or looping) of the faster oponent in front and to use the situation of a same fast enemy on his tail as advantage, the thrust, not the weight was the cause.  

The only moment when i would wish to have a more heavy plane is when i need to disengage in a dive(actually in real life it was the most wanted advantage to be able to disengage). In all other situations weight isnt a real help, though it also isnt always a disadvantage(specialy not while combat at highspeed).

Greetings,

Knegel