PDA

View Full Version : P-47 as escort fighter



jugent
10-23-2005, 04:43 PM
First the USAF flew their bombers to Germany unescorted with high losses.

The first a/c that escorted them almost to Berlin was the P-47. Then they got the P-38.
At last the most common fighter escort was the P-51.

The P-47 was not good for escort, it was a mudmover, but it was the only plane at that time that got the range.

Heinz Knoke didnt rated the P-47 as a good fighter.
He wrote that once he had eleven P-47:s chasing him and he escaped.

He rated the Spit as the allieds Nhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif 1 fighter.

Every pilot that shoot down a spit was threated with respect, he wrote.

In this game the P-47 as well as the P-38:s are superior to the P-51, I think.
The P-47 has become the favourite.

Jonny Jonsson wrote in his book that the bomber-crews where relieved when they come back over Holland because there the Spit took over the escort, and the spit was regarded as the best escort fighter, but it had not the range for longrange escort. But Jonny Jonsson was a spitjockey so he advocated the a/c he knew.

I want to see that Maddox shall upgrade the spit and the P-51 so that they will be the first choise for fighter-pilots.

danjama
10-23-2005, 04:47 PM
Ill take either of those over a P47 any day! But then again, if those 2 werent available, i would take a Jug or even a P38! I guess the game has it right eh?

HayateAce
10-23-2005, 04:59 PM
We're just lucky you two dweebs are ex-WW2 fighter pilots.

VW-IceFire
10-23-2005, 05:04 PM
I think I have to complete disagree (respectfully of course).

The P-47 was not designed as a mudmover. This reputation was given to it later in its career but it was never meant to drop bombs on the enemy.

The P-47 was designed as a fighter and was based on some earlier work by Servesky and Republic which produced some designs that had potential but were ultimately flawed.

The key to the design by Republic was that the P-47 was meant to be powerful, fast, and strong. In terms of power, the P-47 had at the time one of the largest engines available installed in it (the 2000hp R-2800). It was also armed essentially from the start with 6 and 8 .50cal machine guns. This was felt to be overwhelming firepower and well above what was necessary at the time (consider the P-40's at the time were armed with only two .50 cals and 4 .30cals). It was also meant to be fast with the powerful engine and complicated turbosupercharger. The P-47 in this way keeps with most of the top three USAAF fighters in that its altitude performance was exceptional. This was mostly based around the "continental defense" ideas that had emerged about intercepting bombers at very high altitudes. It was also designed with what I say is typical of American engineering at the time in that it was overengineered to be stronger than it needed to be.

I'm sure some of the guys more familiar with the engineering of the P-47 can point out the various articles and details but it was well ahead of its contemporaries in terms of what it was designed to be able to deal with.

The P-47 wasn't really meant to be an escort fighter but it wasn't all that bad in the role either. The P-47 at the time of its deployment had a greater range than the Spitfire. The Spitfire with its great manueverability was much better at fighting the close in escort battles but it didn't have the range until much later on and even then it never truly was able to fly great distances.

During the heyday of the Luftwaffe's reign of the skies during 1943 fighting against the USAAF bombing campaign during the day it was the P-47 fighter groups that went in at 20,000, 25,000 and even 30,000 feet and they had no problems fighting the Luftwaffe. If one were to draw on stats, it was definately a plane that was survivable in combat in that it had one of the lowest loss ratios of fighters in the theater.

The P-38 in the ETO proved to be no real replacement and it was the P-51 that re-equipped most of the 8th's bomber escort groups (with the noteable exception of the 56th FG which used P-47s from the start of their deployment in the ETO right to the last day).

In terms of in-game...what you see about the P-47 being a favorite is in very select and specific circles. In the right hands with the right team flying them the P-47 is extremely capable as a fighter. I have seen a variety of groups use them and do very well.

But its not the best fighter to be had when it comes to other roles. As best fighters in the game go, if you want to choose one from the Western Allies that is the do everything in combat type of plane then its the Spitfire.

The Spit is one of the most commonly flown types on most of the air quake servers and still very common on the more full switch servers as well. Its not the best at everything and it has its faults but its very capable and this is yet again where I disagree.

The P-47 is a favorite but only to some...many scoff and disregard it and its performance in-game matches reality fairly closely in relation to the competition (specific accuracy is different but relative accuracy I think is fairly well preserved).

As for the P-51...its much the same as the P-47 being well liked by certain groups although I see many more P-51's than P-47s flying about.

Von_Rat
10-23-2005, 05:26 PM
I want to see that Maddox shall upgrade the spit and the P-51 so that they will be the first choise for fighter-pilots.



lol the spit is already the first choice for fighter pilots. in 4.01 all you saw on warclouds was spits, with only a occaisional us plane

danjama
10-23-2005, 05:43 PM
Hey Hayate, First of all STFU! Second, what warranted that response!? Idiot!

Hydra444
10-23-2005, 06:13 PM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
I think I have to complete disagree (respectfully of course).

The P-47 was not designed as a mudmover. This reputation was given to it later in its career but it was never meant to drop bombs on the enemy.

The P-47 was designed as a fighter and was based on some earlier work by Servesky and Republic which produced some designs that had potential but were ultimately flawed.

The key to the design by Republic was that the P-47 was meant to be powerful, fast, and strong. In terms of power, the P-47 had at the time one of the largest engines available installed in it (the 2000hp R-2800). It was also armed essentially from the start with 6 and 8 .50cal machine guns. This was felt to be overwhelming firepower and well above what was necessary at the time (consider the P-40's at the time were armed with only two .50 cals and 4 .30cals). It was also meant to be fast with the powerful engine and complicated turbosupercharger. The P-47 in this way keeps with most of the top three USAAF fighters in that its altitude performance was exceptional. This was mostly based around the "continental defense" ideas that had emerged about intercepting bombers at very high altitudes. It was also designed with what I say is typical of American engineering at the time in that it was overengineered to be stronger than it needed to be.

I'm sure some of the guys more familiar with the engineering of the P-47 can point out the various articles and details but it was well ahead of its contemporaries in terms of what it was designed to be able to deal with.

The P-47 wasn't really meant to be an escort fighter but it wasn't all that bad in the role either. The P-47 at the time of its deployment had a greater range than the Spitfire. The Spitfire with its great manueverability was much better at fighting the close in escort battles but it didn't have the range until much later on and even then it never truly was able to fly great distances.

During the heyday of the Luftwaffe's reign of the skies during 1943 fighting against the USAAF bombing campaign during the day it was the P-47 fighter groups that went in at 20,000, 25,000 and even 30,000 feet and they had no problems fighting the Luftwaffe. If one were to draw on stats, it was definately a plane that was survivable in combat in that it had one of the lowest loss ratios of fighters in the theater.

The P-38 in the ETO proved to be no real replacement and it was the P-51 that re-equipped most of the 8th's bomber escort groups (with the noteable exception of the 56th FG which used P-47s from the start of their deployment in the ETO right to the last day).

In terms of in-game...what you see about the P-47 being a favorite is in very select and specific circles. In the right hands with the right team flying them the P-47 is extremely capable as a fighter. I have seen a variety of groups use them and do very well.

But its not the best fighter to be had when it comes to other roles. As best fighters in the game go, if you want to choose one from the Western Allies that is the do everything in combat type of plane then its the Spitfire.

The Spit is one of the most commonly flown types on most of the air quake servers and still very common on the more full switch servers as well. Its not the best at everything and it has its faults but its very capable and this is yet again where I disagree.

The P-47 is a favorite but only to some...many scoff and disregard it and its performance in-game matches reality fairly closely in relation to the competition (specific accuracy is different but relative accuracy I think is fairly well preserved).

As for the P-51...its much the same as the P-47 being well liked by certain groups although I see many more P-51's than P-47s flying about.

That pretty much explains it to me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Nothing more to say past that http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Bearcat99
10-23-2005, 06:29 PM
Originally posted by jugent:
The P-47 was not good for escort, it was a mudmover, but it was the only plane at that time that got the range.

Heinz Knoke didnt rated the P-47 as a good fighter.
He wrote that once he had eleven P-47:s chasing him and he escaped.

He rated the Spit as the allieds Nhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif 1 fighter.

Every pilot that shoot down a spit was threated with respect, he wrote.

In this game the P-47 as well as the P-38:s are superior to the P-51, I think.
The P-47 has become the favourite.

Jonny Jonsson wrote in his book that the bomber-crews where relieved when they come back over Holland because there the Spit took over the escort, and the spit was regarded as the best escort fighter, but it had not the range for longrange escort. But Jonny Jonsson was a spitjockey so he advocated the a/c he knew.

I want to see that Maddox shall upgrade the spit and the P-51 so that they will be the first choise for fighter-pilots.

The Jug,Spit,51 & 38 are the best ever AFAIC in this sim.... The reason why pilots were glad when they got back over Holland was not because the Spits were waiting for them but because they knew they were out of enemy airspace.... The only reason the Jug was not as good an escort was because it dont have the range.... The P-51 was designed from the ground up as a long range escort fighter.... and it was it's range that made it the ideal escort... The Spitfire.. as good as it was didnt have the legs to go the Germany and back.... The Jug could take a licking and keep on ticking.... it had none of the glass jaw features of the 51.... or the Spit for that matter... The Spit could handle a knife fight in the sky like a pro.. but again... for escort duty.... he P-51 was king. Prticularly towards the end of the war when the Allies were going deeper and deeper into Germany.

geetarman
10-23-2005, 07:04 PM
Originally posted by jugent:
First the USAF flew their bombers to Germany unescorted with high losses.

The first a/c that escorted them almost to Berlin was the P-47. Then they got the P-38.
At last the most common fighter escort was the P-51.

The P-47 was not good for escort, it was a mudmover, but it was the only plane at that time that got the range.

Heinz Knoke didnt rated the P-47 as a good fighter.
He wrote that once he had eleven P-47:s chasing him and he escaped.

He rated the Spit as the allieds Nhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif 1 fighter.

Every pilot that shoot down a spit was threated with respect, he wrote.

In this game the P-47 as well as the P-38:s are superior to the P-51, I think.
The P-47 has become the favourite.

Jonny Jonsson wrote in his book that the bomber-crews where relieved when they come back over Holland because there the Spit took over the escort, and the spit was regarded as the best escort fighter, but it had not the range for longrange escort. But Jonny Jonsson was a spitjockey so he advocated the a/c he knew.

I want to see that Maddox shall upgrade the spit and the P-51 so that they will be the first choise for fighter-pilots.

You have an odd understanding of history pal

danjama
10-23-2005, 07:46 PM
I didnt really see anything overly wrong about his post. Maybe im reading it wrong?

tigertalon
10-23-2005, 08:27 PM
Originally posted by jugent:
I want to see that Maddox shall upgrade the spit and the P-51 so that they will be the first choise for fighter-pilots.

MAN, R U SERIOUS???

Spitfire is a killing machine, many would call it a noob plane, being almost as fast as mustang, dives almost as Anton, climbs almost as K4, turns almost as Ki43, can take almost as much damage as a Jug, rolls almost like J8A, runs with oil leak almost like P39, bleeds almost as much E during turns as the RollerCoaster in Disneyland does, has firepower almost as Dora, overheats almost like Me321, has the altitude performance almost like Ta152... So what do you want more?

SpitIX or VIII we have in game is at least on a par with any axis fighter.

HellToupee
10-23-2005, 08:37 PM
Ok let me see fast as a mustang? only if its climbing. Climb almost as a k4? well nothing is close to a k4 its even going faster in climb than rl at moment i belive. Turn like a ki43? then why are 109g2s outturning with ease and late 109s superior in a low speed turn fight. Roll like a j8a? clip wing supposed to be in 190 range thru much of the speeds. Overheat? well considering spitfire cannot do 110% throttle and wep it is no much differnt to many other fighters overheat wise. Firepower is good but blue planes are much stronger and recoil and gunshake is the worst. Take as much dammage as a p47 then why do single mg151 rounds dewing me, and after 2minutes with oil leak engine is sounding very sick and much less power.

WTE_Ibis
10-23-2005, 08:43 PM
Originally posted by tigertalon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jugent:
I want to see that Maddox shall upgrade the spit and the P-51 so that they will be the first choise for fighter-pilots.

MAN, R U SERIOUS???

Spitfire is a killing machine, many would call it a noob plane, being almost as fast as mustang, dives almost as Anton, climbs almost as K4, turns almost as Ki43, can take almost as much damage as a Jug, rolls almost like J8A, runs with oil leak almost like P39, bleeds almost as much E during turns as the RollerCoaster in Disneyland does, has firepower almost as Dora, overheats almost like Me321, has the altitude performance almost like Ta152... So what do you want more?

SpitIX or VIII we have in game is at least on a par with any axis fighter. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


So it flies as a Spit should. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


.

luftluuver
10-23-2005, 09:23 PM
First the USAF flew their bombers to Germany unescorted with high losses.

The first a/c that escorted them almost to Berlin was the P-47. Then they got the P-38.
At last the most common fighter escort was the P-51. The P-47 did? The first fighter that did escort to Berlin was the P-38 followed shortly afterwards by the P-51. The P-47 could only make to the Ruhr (that is part of Germany) and many bomber missions were flown there escorted by P-47s. In Aug 1943, the P-47s could reach a line running from Denmark to Strasbourg (a radius of ~375mi)

To help you, http://paul.rutgers.edu/~mcgrew/wwii/usaf/html/

p1ngu666
10-23-2005, 09:52 PM
the spits would probably show up in big numbers, and there performance in climb was much better than the p47s, and turn aswell.

incidently the p51 was designed as a low level army co op (ground attack,recon etc) plane http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Slater_51st
10-24-2005, 02:11 AM
Originally posted by jugent:
First the USAF flew their bombers to Germany unescorted with high losses.

The first a/c that escorted them almost to Berlin was the P-47. Then they got the P-38.
At last the most common fighter escort was the P-51.

The P-47 was not good for escort, it was a mudmover, but it was the only plane at that time that got the range.

Heinz Knoke didnt rated the P-47 as a good fighter.
He wrote that once he had eleven P-47:s chasing him and he escaped.

He rated the Spit as the allieds Nhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif 1 fighter.

Every pilot that shoot down a spit was threated with respect, he wrote.

In this game the P-47 as well as the P-38:s are superior to the P-51, I think.
The P-47 has become the favourite.

Jonny Jonsson wrote in his book that the bomber-crews where relieved when they come back over Holland because there the Spit took over the escort, and the spit was regarded as the best escort fighter, but it had not the range for longrange escort. But Jonny Jonsson was a spitjockey so he advocated the a/c he knew.

I want to see that Maddox shall upgrade the spit and the P-51 so that they will be the first choise for fighter-pilots.

Note, this only goes for the pilot quotes:

Ok, so Heinz Knoke rated the Spitfire as the best American fighter. I think Steinhoff said he was most afraid of the P-38, and didn't Rall have a pretty good scrape the P-47s of the 56th? What would he say?

And, Johnny Johnson was a Spitfire pilot. Johnny LOVED his Spitfire(read Wing Leader, he makes it very clear). I'm sure, if you ask any pilot who loved his plane why his nation did anything great, his plane will get the credit. I mean, the Spitfire won the BoB didn't it!?!

Ok, understand, this isn't to discredit these men, nor to undermine your post. It's just that pilot sayings don't mean much, they aren't cold hard data. Cold hard data is the only thing that will *maybe* make people, and *maybe* Oleg change their minds.

Me personally? I think the Jug was one of, if not THE best American fighter of WWII. Why? Faster, stronger, packed more of a punch(guns, bombs and rockets), than any other US prop fighter in WWII. It's maneuverability didn't hamper it when used properly(avoid T&B in other words). Didn't have the range of the P-51 or some others, but it was good at bringing pilots back and making Lufty pilots sorry they got up that morning.

In game, it's fast, it rolls very very well, dives pretty good, it's pretty tough if you don't take into account the glass-jaw R2800, plus it's **** sexy! Granted I don't carrying hard data or fancy spreadsheets, but I do know that I'm generally far more afraid of a P-47 than a P-51 in this game. P-51, I just need 1 lucky hit, P-47 can be a differnt story altogether http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

S! Slater

p1ngu666
10-24-2005, 08:17 AM
hm
IL2 compair says spit IX is abit faster at most alts, plus much better climb, turn etc.
vs D10, d22 is the same pretty much

D27 is better, much faster at low alt (30kph), but at mid alts, gap closerhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

jugent
10-25-2005, 03:50 PM
According to my knowledge of History, I have a master degree in social science.
The major subject was conflicting societies.
I have read many many books about Capitalism, Marxism, modern history, the history of conflicts, economy, warfare etc etc
Mein Kampf wasnt in any course because it was regarded as unscientific.

Daiichidoku
10-25-2005, 04:20 PM
luftluver~ bearcat said "almost" to berlin, not "to" berlin

jugs and spits contiued escort throughout the war, but relegated to raids on low countires/france etc with b 25s b 26s a 26s etc (not that a 26s needed it, esp by the time they came onto the scene)


pingu~ 51 was designed as said above, as a long range fighter...per a british request/order...as yanks found it superlative, they desired it also (and deffered british deliveries temporarily to eq usaf unitshttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif )...it was reclassified as an attacker so as to loophole congressional military spending, which had already reached its pursuit (fighter) $$$ limit....lots o $$$ left over for attackers though http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif



tigertalon~"overheats almost like a me-321" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif....actually, http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif cuz its sadly true in FB!


the 38 was by far the best US type (technical/operations difficulties notwithstanding, at least in ETO 43)...and would have supplanted 51s in post war service, but for the $$$ factor...38s could do everything better (turn, climb and accel), heavier weapony, better gun platform, lack of torque, carry far more (even TWO torpedoes!) had much better "stretchability", all while having twin engine safety...the 51 had better range/endurance on internal fuel, true...and a few mph faster at critical alt...but thats about it

Thijs_JG3
10-25-2005, 04:26 PM
Originally posted by Slater_51st:
.... "and didn't Rall have a pretty good scrape the P-47s of the 56th? What would he say?"



Rall flew most Allied planes(speaking in general therms, not every subveresion ofcource) during the war itselve( in Januar 1945 on the airfield of W¶rishofen). Of the Allied Fighters he flew he liked the P51 best. As one can read in the book Mein Flugbuch( Günther Rall, Mein Flugbuch( Dachau, Germany 2004) 214 )

VW-IceFire
10-25-2005, 05:03 PM
Originally posted by jugent:
According to my knowledge of History, I have a master degree in social science.
The major subject was conflicting societies.
I have read many many books about Capitalism, Marxism, modern history, the history of conflicts, economy, warfare etc etc
Mein Kampf wasnt in any course because it was regarded as unscientific.
No offense but you missed any of the good reads on European air warfare during the years of 1940-1945.

"The P-47 was not good for escort, it was a mudmover, but it was the only plane at that time that got the range."

That is the bit that has me most wondering where you get your information from http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I don't believe it was until well into 1944 that the USAAF realized that the P-47 would do well to be adopted as a ground attack aircraft. Only then were the P-47s slowly transfered to the 9th Air Force (which was in early 1944 building on strength as a tactical airforce, ironically with P-51 Mustangs!).

Some of the first ground attacks were done with bombs and done against bridge targets that were deemed difficult to hit by B-17's. As the realization slowly dawned on just what tactical air power could do the P-47s were fitted with more bomb options, rockets, napalm, and they continued to increase with range. But most of this took place in 1944.

For at least a full year the P-47 was on strength with the 8th Air Force as a fighter only. Not only this but many 8th Air Force units operated P-47s as cutomized hot rods with all sorts of unauthorized but otherwise very effective modifications making them extremely fast and very capable fighters. I forget which USAAF ace it was that flew a D-5 that was largely known as one of the fastest propeller driven fighters (at high alt) around. Mind you these were all one-of modifications but distinctly aimed at making them better fighters.

Time for more reading on this particular bit of history http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Its riddled with all sorts of inconsistencies and plenty of small little details that you wouldn't otherwise expect. Its not the same as studying marxism or the rise of fascism in Europe or any of that sort of thing but its definately in the same sort of league. Any of my history professors on the subject were very interesting to listen to (particularly on the role of mechanized warfare in WWII and how much of it was really not mechanized - but thats another topic).

horseback
10-25-2005, 08:50 PM
Here's a description of a former Spitfire pilot who flew P-47s with the 56th FG after the RAF tried to put him behind a desk. I posted this earlier, but it bears repeating, and it compares and contrasts the two types:

EUROPE: WITOLD LANOWSKI

€œWhen I was flying Spitfires in the Polish Air Force in 1943 we occasionally met Thunderbolts and had friendly €˜fights.€ This was at low altitudes and we could out-climb and out-turn them€"it was easy to get on their tails. We laughed about them and said, €˜This is not a ighter, it is a flying barrel!€ At the time I would not have been very happy if someone had told me I would one day be flying a Thunderbolt on operations. That such a big aircraft could be considered a fighter was silly in my opinion.

€œIn autumn 1943 I was assigned to a desk job---to my disgust. By then I had completed 97 operational flights. There were many other experienced Polish pilots being similarly placed and many of us had no intention of being grounded if we could possibly help it. The question was resolved when the Americans invited us some of us to fly with them and eventually permission was obtained from Air Ministry for six of us to go on short-term loan to the 56th Fighter Group. It was reciprocal gesture of friendship that had begun in 1919 when American fighter pilots (the originators of the first Kosciuszko Fighter Squadron) flew in Poland in her defense against the Bolsheviks; and later, in 1941 and 1942 American Poles trained and flew in the Polish Air Force under British Command. Francis Gabreski was one of these American Polish pilots and later as a USAAF Lieutenant Colonel commanded the 61st Fighter Squadron in the 56th Group. So in May 1944, we went to Boxted and formed a Polish flight in Gabreski€s squadron. I was going to fly the Thunderbolt! But Thunderbolt or whatever, at least I was going to fight.

€œMy immediate reaction was amazement at the size of this single-seater. Climbing up the enormous fuselage and getting into the wide cockpit, it was hard to believe I was in a fighter. It was just like sitting in an armchair, I had space everywhere, fantastic visibility. (The pilot fitted like a hand in a glove in the other fighters I had flown€"in the French Caudron C714 the Perspex was a half-inch (12.7mm) from my shoulders and there was hardly room to turn my head.) At the same time there was satisfaction in being in such a large, powerful machine. I had laughed at it once but the Americans had shown what it could do: and in no time at all she gained my complete respect and admiration.

€œThere wasn€t any time for a conversion course. Everyone on the aerodrome was too busy. They said here is the aircraft, explained what is what, and off I went. All six of us were experienced and had flown many types of aircraft, so the Thunderbolt was one more and was no problem to fly once you knew where everything was in the cockpit. The Spitfire was relatively simple; the amount of clocks and gauges you had were negligible; the supercharger was automatic and from a simplicity angle piloting was easy. In comparison, the Thunderbolt was complicated, but in many ways easier to fly. When you took-off or landed the Thunderbolt never really swung and you could lock the tail wheel to keep it straight down the runway. The undercarriage was set very wide and, really, you had to be a bloody awful pilot to have an accident in a Thunderbolt --- if there was nothing mechanically wrong. With the Spitfire with its narrow track undercarriage take-off and landing required a lot more skill, especially in winter in snow and on the ____ (missing word-hb) it could be held on a steady course. Another thing that was good was the cockpit heating. We didn€t have this in the Spitfire which made it more difficult to be efficient if you were
half frozen.

€œThe biggest disadvantage of the Thunderbolt was its weight and we knew that we would have to fight in a different way to that in Spitfires. On the other hand it possessed the capacity to give an extra 400 hp by means of water injection, for use in an emergency, but only for a few minutes otherwise you blew your engine to pieces. I don€t think there was any aircraft at the time that would dive so fast as the Thunderbolt. First time I dived after an enemy plane I came up with him so quickly it was a bit of a shock. The Germans nearly always dived to escape: just flip over and down. So we could easily catch them with the superior speed of the Thunderbolt --- but it gained so quickly I am sure there must have been some collisions. Later models even had dive brakes. The Thunderbolt could turn quite well at speed but it was not safe to try to turn too far with a 190 or 109. It was best to go only a half circle, shoot, and then pull out; or three-quarters of a circle at the most. I had several engagements with German fighters at heights of between 5,000 and 10,000 ft. Dogfighting with them in a Thunderbolt needed care, it was not for the inexperienced. It was better to clear your tail, make a swift attack, then dive away. The only Thunderbolt pilot I saw hit and go down in a dogfight didn€
t check his tail. I shot the German off him but it was already too late. I considered the 190 a better aircraft than the Messerschmitt; it could give you a tougher fight. The problem was that in a mix-up you sometimes had difficulty at long range telling which was a P-47 and which was an Fw 190 as they both had
radial engines. In fact, I once mistakenly fired on another Thunderbolt. Luckily, I didn€t hit him.

€œThe most impressive thing about the Thunderbolt was the armament. There was no time for gunnery practices when I joined the 56th so I had no experience of what the heavy Browning machine guns would do in combat. The very first time I got on the tail of a Focke-Wulf and gave him a very short burst he absolutely exploded! It was fantastic! Nothing like this had ever happened in Spitfires due to the wide setting of the cannons (2) and machine guns (4), and small amount of rounds per cannon. Sometimes the enemy fighter would smoke but I had never seen one explode. The concentration and punch of bullets from those eight €˜Point-Fifties€ in the Thunderbolt was tremendous. You could see where you were hitting which you rarely saw with other fighters I flew. And if you saw where you were hitting all you had to do was pull your deflection, and there it was--- explosion! I have always believed the principal reason the Thunderbolt did so well in air fighting was its firepower.

€œI would say that there was very little difference between the flight behavior of the various Thunderbolt models I flew. The bubble hood gave a vast improvement in visibility, and the hood, being electrically operated, was simple to ease open a few inches, enabling you to get a breath of fresh air in the cockpit. Because the engine had a big appetite the cry was always for bigger tanks to carry more fuel. The first bubble hood P-47Ds were given to the leaders and we then had a problem because these aircraft had a bigger internal fuel tank. Some leaders would be busy chasing Germans and forget that they had more fuel than the other pilots.

€œI never had any real mechanical problems on my Thunderbolt; the standard of American engineering was very good and our mechanics were excellent. Another good thing was that Republic had a permanent representative on the aerodrome who was constantly interested in what we wanted improved or modified. Because the 56th was such a successful group --- and in my opinion a lot of this success was due to Hubert Zemke: he was the best leader of any nationality that I served with --- it often got new equipment to try out. We tested the rocket
tubes fitted under the wings. Nobody liked them. There was a story that when some fellow fired his rockets they did a 180? turn and came back at him! We were one of the first to try napalm --- I think it was Schilling who dropped
some on the field at Boxted to see what would happen.

€œNear the end of the war we got the very fast P-47M which we polished up to get extra speed. It had the very good gyroscopic gunsight only I must admit that we were not really happy about the change as we had become so used to the old
sight. Then there was the two-seat Thunderbolt which was fitted out with a radar set and had antenna sticking out form the wings. The idea was to try and find German aircraft in the air while we were over Germany. It wasn€t successful as the radar did not function very well and the aircraft was so much slower than the rest.

€œThe Thunderbolt was well known for the punishment it could take. I have seen one come back to Boxted with a top cylinder and piston blown completely off with a shell. No liquid cooled engine fighter could take such punishment (I had a friend who was shot down in a Spitfire by a single rifle bullet in the
cooling system --- on maneuvers in England!). Between 1935 and 1959 I flew more than forty different aircraft. The Thunderbolt wasn€t the best propeller driven type I flew but during the war I never felt safer than I did in a
Thunderbolt. It could take more and give more than any other single-seat fighter of its day.

€œTo make comparisons between the Thunderbolt and any other aircraft, such as the Spitfire, is not really justifiable in that its capacity and ability were totally different. Therefore it is somewhat unfair to make such comparisons. The Spitfire was a short range --- per one battle, aircraft --- Paris and back. The Thunderbolt was a long range (and with later models, a very long range) aircraft --- 2 to 3, or more, battles per mission --- Berlin and back. Even so, this exceptional aircraft demanded greater experience plus additional
training of its pilots to do it justice. But due to the progressive speed of the war itself and the demand so placed on the pilots, the US 8th Air Force had no option but to replace the Thunderbolts with the less demanding long range P-51 Mustang.

€œHowever, the 56th Fighter Group, on their own request, were permitted to keep the Thunderbolt. As the top scoring American Group*(in air-to-air combat) it seemed fitting they should retain the remarkable Thunderbolt that had helped to make them one of the most famous fighter units of the war.€

*354th €˜Pioneer Mustang€ FG of the 9th AF had higher air-to-air scores, despite n extended tour flying ground support missions in both P-51s and P-47s.---hb

cheers

horseback

BigKahuna_GS
10-26-2005, 12:48 AM
S!



Lanowski-The Spitfire was a short range --- per one battle, aircraft --- Paris and back. The Thunderbolt was a long range (and with later models, a very long range) aircraft --- 2 to 3, or more, battles per mission --- Berlin and back. Even so, this exceptional aircraft demanded greater experience plus additional training of its pilots to do it justice.


Horseback that has to be one of the most informative pilot accounts I have read. I saved it the first time you posted it and often refer to it. It all comes down to what Robert Johnson said- "Fight from your aircraft's strengths and dont conform to your enemys tactics".

The repeated historical P47 charectoristics are; superior dive acceleration/speed, good roll rate, devastating firepower and airframe/engine ruggedness.

I am not sure who said the Jug was "not" a good high altitude escort fighter but you might want to read the "Report of Joint Fighter Confrence" as 30 test pilots from the RAF, USN, USMC, & USAAF voted the P47 as "The Best Fighter above 25,000ft".

The P47 was an excellent high altitude escort fighter it just needed longer legs like the P51. Increased interanl fuel tanks and larger drop tanks were the short term fix. The P47N was the ultimate answer to increasing range.


___

Frequent_Flyer
10-26-2005, 07:18 AM
In relative terms the P-47 shot down more Luftwaffe ace's than the P-38 or P-51.