# Which was harder to shoot down, a P-47D or a FW 190A?



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Aug 13, 2008)

What's your thoughts on the matter? 

I'm really not sure.


----------



## <simon> (Aug 14, 2008)

Jug all the way!!!


----------



## Njaco (Aug 14, 2008)

I would say that is only half of the equation - the type of aircraft. The second part would be what type of pilot.


----------



## KrazyKraut (Aug 14, 2008)

You mean as in "could absorb the most damage"? If not I agree with Njaco.


----------



## timshatz (Aug 14, 2008)

Go with the P47, just because of the size of the thing. More room to pound on it. It was huge.

Also two different design philosophies went into the manufacture of both fighters. No to sure about Republic's perspective, the the FW was designed to get the most out of the smallest package (with a radial engine, a different part of the equation). The 190 was a ground breaking aircraft, so much so that they brought captured versions back to the US and their design influenced the design of the F8F (or so I've been told).


----------



## HoHun (Aug 14, 2008)

Hi Welch,

Here is a comparison I prepared a couple of years back ...

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

---cut-----------------------------

I've to say that after having spent quite some time comparing cutaway drawings of both types, I'm really suprised how similar they were in their general layout. (For example, both avoid the use of wing tanks which would increase the vulnerable area markedly.)

The differences I see are:

- stronger front spar in Fw 190
- full monocoque construction of Fw 190 centre section
- oil cooler ahead of engine in Fw 190, on both sides below engine in P-47
- armoured cowl ring to protect oil cooler in Fw 190
- large oil tank aft of engine in P-47
- exhaust ducts running from engine to rear fuselage in P-47
- intake ducts running between front and radar fuselage in P-47
- turbo supercharger in rear fuselage in P-47
- push-rod control system in Fw 190, control cable system in P-47

The advantages of the Fw 190 are:

- stronger wing centre section
- no turbo supercharger system to be hit
- push-rods are reportely less vulnerable to damage than control cables

The advantages of the P-47D are:

- lateral protection of fuel tanks due to metal sheet air ducts.
- engine probably more survivable due to larger oil reserves and superior materials

Points with a neutral balance are:

- P-47 supercharging system: The turbo itself probably is hard to destroy. Hits elsewhere might affect ducting and reduce available power, but the engine will survive. The ducts additionally provide some kind of double skin that can protect the fuel tanks.

- Oil system: The Fw 190 oil reservoir isn't positioned well, but it's small and armoured. The P-47 oil system is larger and unarmoured, but positioned better.

My conclusion is that both aircraft were probably fairly equal in their ability to survive damage - and certainly better than most of their contemporaries


----------



## drgondog (Aug 14, 2008)

curious regarding conclusions on spar.

Spar strength would be a function of cap size and web depth - primarily designed to take bending loads from lift/G's and also landing loads.

Manuever loads should dominate for both and I suspect that the design Limit was 8G and Ultimate ~12G for both at nominal gross weight.

Jug much heavier - Higher total loads at 8G on the wing spar design. Spar should be somewhere between 50-60% stronger for the primary wing spar, near 25% chord.

What am I missing?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 14, 2008)

HoHun said:


> Hi Welch,
> 
> Here is a comparison I prepared a couple of years back ...
> 
> ...



Cut away drawings aren't going to tell you much unless they were drawn by someone who was very intimate with the airframe in question - the only way to compare structural strength is to physically compare them side by side, review the construction and materials and actually do the stress analysis, sometimes "bigger or beefier" doesn't mean stronger - I have also found a great majority of the cut away drawings grossly out of scale with regards to internal components on many aircraft. 

Control cables vs pushrods - it depends - with control rods you have a greater chance of over stressing the airframe because of the direct positive control. At the same time, depending on location and stresses placed on a control rod, it could catastrophically fail if it received minimum exterior damage (a dent). Again I say this in general terms.

Control cables - sure they could be shot away but then we started seeing redundant systems to compensate for that - I don't know what the P-47 had but I would guess there was something engineered into the aircraft to allow it to fly straight and level should cables to any of the control surfaces be rendered inoperative.


----------



## HoHun (Aug 14, 2008)

Hi Flyboyj,

>Cut away drawings aren't going to tell you much unless they were drawn by someone who was very intimate with the airframe in question

Well, then just ignore the quantitative point I listed and concentrate on the rest, which is entirely qualitative  I think cut-away drawings are quite useful in telling me the general arrangement of the major components I listed.

Re-reading my list, I wonder for example what would happen should the exhaust tubes to the turbo supercharger be pierced ...

>Control cables vs pushrods - it depends 

Well, I wrote "reportedly" there ... I remember reading repeatedly about pushrods being superior, but I'd not be able to conveniently find quotes (which might have expressed opinions anyway). You know how difficult it is to find actual operational survivability data ...

>I would guess there was something engineered into the aircraft to allow it to fly straight and level should cables to any of the control surfaces be rendered inoperative.

Are you thinking of trim? I'm not sure how effective it would be with control lines severed. It certainly would depend on the aircraft type. Allegedly, the B-17 would do well with (some) control lines severed because it could be flown by the electrical autopilot whose actuators were close to the control surfaces, providing a good measure of redundancy.

With regard to fighters, one typical line that stuck to my mind was "The stick went slack in my hands, and I bailed out". However, losing elevator control would be much more serious than for example losing rudder control - I think it was not uncommon for aircraft of the day to come back with rudder "flapping in the breeze". Another typical line that stuck in my mind 

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 14, 2008)

HoHun said:


> Hi Flyboyj,
> 
> Well, then just ignore the quantitative point I listed and concentrate on the rest, which is entirely qualitative  I think cut-away drawings are quite useful in telling me the general arrangement of the major components I listed.


That about all they are good for is giving an idea were certain components are located. BTW - I've seen an Fw 190A and P-47 up close - just by outward apparances the P-47 seems twice as robust.[/quote]


HoHun said:


> Re-reading my list, I wonder for example what would happen should the exhaust tubes to the turbo supercharger be pierced ...


You would not make higher manifold pressures.



HoHun said:


> Well, I wrote "reportedly" there ... I remember reading repeatedly about pushrods being superior, but I'd not be able to conveniently find quotes (which might have expressed opinions anyway). You know how difficult it is to find actual operational survivability data ...


True - I'm basing my points on aircraft I have worked on. I actually find push rod control systems easier to maintain.



HoHun said:


> Are you thinking of trim? I'm not sure how effective it would be with control lines severed. It certainly would depend on the aircraft type. Allegedly, the B-17 would do well with (some) control lines severed because it could be flown by the electrical autopilot whose actuators were close to the control surfaces, providing a good measure of redundancy.


Trim would work, also the natural balance of the control surface to maintain a neutral position if no trim device is installed.


HoHun said:


> With regard to fighters, one typical line that stuck to my mind was "The stick went slack in my hands, and I bailed out". However, losing elevator control would be much more serious than for example losing rudder control - I think it was not uncommon for aircraft of the day to come back with rudder "flapping in the breeze". Another typical line that stuck in my mind


Agree....


----------



## HoHun (Aug 14, 2008)

Hi Flyboyj,

>That about all they are good for is giving an idea were certain components are located. 

Well, that covers about 8 out of the 9 points I listed ... the last point might be better checked by engineering drawings, but so far no-one has volunteered any.

>You would not make higher manifold pressures.

Hm, I'm not sure we can ignore the effects of the hot gases on the rest of other components. It seems the gas jets from leaking stub exhausts have caused engine failures in Reno racers, so there is a certain destructive potential to the exhaust gas ...

>Trim would work, also the natural balance of the control surface to maintain a neutral position if no trim device is installed.

I believe a neutral position would not necessary mean stable flight ... many of the fighters weren't too stable to begin with anyway as they were meant to be manoeuvrable. Maybe it would work, but off-hand I can't recall any pilot reports actually demonstrating that (except for the flapping rudder, of course). Maybe mention of one aileron shot off, but not of no aileron or no elevator control.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 14, 2008)

HoHun said:


> Hi Flyboyj,Well, that covers about 8 out of the 9 points I listed ... the last point might be better checked by engineering drawings, but so far no-one has volunteered any.


I doubt that's going to happen...



HoHun said:


> Hm, I'm not sure we can ignore the effects of the hot gases on the rest of other components. It seems the gas jets from leaking stub exhausts have caused engine failures in Reno racers, so there is a certain destructive potential to the exhaust gas ...


True, again it depends where and how big of a hole you're talking about.



HoHun said:


> I believe a neutral position would not necessary mean stable flight ... many of the fighters weren't too stable to begin with anyway as they were meant to be manoeuvrable. Maybe it would work, but off-hand I can't recall any pilot reports actually demonstrating that (except for the flapping rudder, of course). Maybe mention of one aileron shot off, but not of no aileron or no elevator control.


Stable enough to get the canopy open and jump!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 14, 2008)

I have to go with Other here.

Both are world class fighters. I think it comes down to the pilot.

I don't think anyone here will know which could take more damage. Besides if I recall the Fw 190 was a bit more maneuverable than the P-47 but the P-47 might be a bit more robust.

In the end it comes down to the pilots behind the stick.


----------



## HoHun (Aug 14, 2008)

Hi Flyboyj,

>I doubt that's going to happen...

Hehe, you never know what Micdrow might pull out of his hat  It's not like we never see any engineering drawings posted, after all.

>Stable enough to get the canopy open and jump!

LOL! Good point, and not unimportant for the pilot personally!

By the way, one so far unmentioned consideration is that a bigger target will take more hits, everything else being equal ... bigger is not always better.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Bigxiko (Aug 14, 2008)

i said it depends on the conditions in which they were putted down...
but i think they are both "equally hard to kill"


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Aug 14, 2008)

> You mean as in "could absorb the most damage"?



Yeah. I was thinking they were both pretty close in strength, but that they probably had some advantages over the other, like armor and stuff. At any rate, they were both the work horse fighters of the gritty groundwork they were put to.


----------



## delcyros (Aug 15, 2008)

Sheer size helps absorbing damage.
And of course, it all depends on the kind of damage inflicted. For a vis a vis comparison, are those airframes going to face 0.5cal BMG or 20mm mine rounds for comparison reasons?


----------



## Erich (Aug 15, 2008)

as the war developed so did the LW ammo in the He and HEI range. The P-47 was vaporized just like the P-51, so much for heavier construction. I would say before May of 44 the Jug was probably the harder craft to bring down


----------



## Freebird (Aug 15, 2008)

Are there any records of a P-47 vs FW190 engagements?


----------



## drgondog (Aug 15, 2008)

freebird said:


> Are there any records of a P-47 vs FW190 engagements?



Tons alex - all written by the winners. More surviving winners flying P-47s which always makes the anecdotal recounts suspect?


----------



## Njaco (Aug 15, 2008)

Wasn't the highest scoring American ace in the ETO flying Jugs? Gabreski or Johnson? I think that would say alot for its combat ability.


----------



## Erich (Aug 15, 2008)

well true to a point the Mustang was introduced later, Gabby was the high scorer of the 56th fg which never changed from the Jug like many 8th AF units .......... did


----------



## JugBR (Aug 16, 2008)

Which was harder to shoot down, a P-47D or a FW 190A? 
The P-47´s 

Which is more valuable today, a P-47D or a FW 190A? 
The Fw 190´s

how many jugs (besides me) still alive ?

how many fw´s still alive ?

--------------------------------------------

i didnt understood why make a comparsion of a plane from the middle of the war and another from the end of the war. isnt that unfair ?

wasnt better a comparsion between the fw190a4 and the p47c for example ?


----------



## ScOoTeR1992 (Aug 16, 2008)

hay wasn't there an episode on the History channel one night i recall a P-47 Vs a FW 190 the 'jug' absorbed all the rounds the 190 hit it with cannon rounds through the engine and all he flew back to England and he landed it safely as well


----------



## KrazyKraut (Aug 16, 2008)

JugBR said:


> Which is more valuable today, a P-47D or a FW 190A?
> The Fw 190´s
> 
> how many jugs (besides me) still alive ?
> ...


Which has a lot to do with who won the war, not with which was easier to shoot down.


----------



## Soren (Aug 16, 2008)

Again history is written by the victors, it takes time for the truth to come out, that's how it is and has been with all wars.

The Jug 190 were probably roughly just as hard to shoot down, but size is usually a good thing when you're talking about absorbing damage, and the Jug was the larger of the two. But as an equalizer the Jug wasn't anywhere as maneuveable as the Fw-190, so in a match up it was the Jug which would have to be good at absorbing damage.


----------



## machine shop tom (Aug 16, 2008)

Here's a good page featuring Robert S. Johnson:

Robert S. Johnson

From an interview with Military History:

"MH: Pilots generally swear by their aircraft. Günther Rall and Erich Hartmann praised the Messerschmitt Bf-109, Erich Rudorffer and Johannes Steinhoff the Me-262, and Buddy Haydon the P-51 Mustang. I have to say after seeing all of the old photos of the various Thunderbolts and others that were shot up, I can't imagine any other plane absorbing that much damage and still flying. What is your opinion of your aircraft? 

Johnson: This is very similar to the German debate. As far as the 109, all of the German pilots loved that plane, but the FW-190 was harder to shoot down. Just like the controversy over the P-51 and P-47. The P-47 was faster; it just did not have the climb and range the Mustang did. But it had speed, roll, dive and the necessary ruggedness thatallowed it to do such a great job in the Ninth Air Force. As far as aerial kills go, we met and beat the best the Luftwaffe had when we first got there. It was the P-47 groups that pushed them back, as I said before. The P-51s had the advantage of longer range, and they were able to hit even the training schools, hitting boys just learning to fly. As the war dragged on, many of the old German veterans had been killed--so much of the experience was gone. As far as the 109 versus 190 argument, the 109 had the liquid-cooled engine whereas the 190 had an air-cooled radial engine, much like ours. One hit in the cooling system of a Messerschmitt and he was going down. Also, none of the German fighters were as rugged as a P-47. When I was badly shot up on June 26, 1943, I had twenty-one 20mm cannon shells in that airplane, and more than 200 7.92mm machine-gun bullets. One nicked my nose and another entered my right leg, where the bullet split in half. I still have those two little pieces, by the way; they went in just under the skin. I had been hurt worse playing football and boxing. However, I had never been that scared, I'll tell you that. I was always scared--that was what made me move quick. "Hub" Zemke liked the P-51 because it had great range, but he put one in a dive and when he pulled out he ripped the wings off that airplane--that was how he became a POW. Adolf Galland, who was a very good friend of mine and who I had known since 1949, flew the Me-262 and loved it, but he still swore by the 109, although it was still easier to shoot down."


----------



## KrazyKraut (Aug 16, 2008)

That incident is legendary, some others are also impressive. But obviously you won't hear as much of incidents where P-47s were brought down by a few 20mm rounds hitting the sweet spots: They don't make for nice stories.

Rudel also had a nice story about his Schlacht-Fw 190 btw. I'll try to dig it up.


----------



## machine shop tom (Aug 16, 2008)

I think this bears a post of it's own:

"I had twenty-one 20mm cannon shells in that airplane, and more than 200 7.92mm machine-gun bullets."

This was not a load for his weapons. These are hits from enemy fire.

Holy crap!

tom


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 16, 2008)

And somthing else not usually mentioned on that story:

Structural integrity of the P-47 why Oleg is wrong! - Topic Powered by eve community


> Lt. Robert S Johnson. Lawton, OK. 61st Fighter Squadron. P-47C 41-6235 HV-P "Half Pint". Detail shot of damage to canopy area
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Blue Yonder (Aug 16, 2008)

The Thunderbolt could definately take more damage, although sometimes it was more luck than actual design. My cousin's grandfather was a Liberator pilot and remembers seeing a Thunderbolt take a barrage from another fighter and he thought that the pilot died, but he performed an inverted immelman and flew away. He wasn't sure what happened to the pilot or if the plane survived but he said that in any other plane the pilot's body probably would have been riddled with bullets. I would believe that the P-47 would be better than the FW-190.
Speaking of 190's did anyone remember seeing the video about them raising one near Norway?
If not, here's the clip:


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nnc0C71vbtA_

The music is not to my taste, but it's good footage.


----------



## Erich (Aug 16, 2008)

had Johnsons Jug received the later HE I Minengeschoss he never would of been able to write up his details, twenty 2cm rounds would of vaporized his a/c

just a thought to ponder


----------



## Gnomey (Aug 16, 2008)

Certainly as Erich says the ammunition type would of been key but then again they would of vapourised a FW-190 as easily as they would a P-47. Looking a lighter calibre rounds (and non-minegeschoss 20mm rounds) then I would say the P-47 can take slightly more damage but there isn't much between them. Both were very good aircraft when it comes down to surviving taking enemy hits.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 16, 2008)

Wasn't the Fw-190A-4 (which Johnson would have likely faced) armmed with MG-FF/M outer wing cannons, which contained mostly Minengeschoss rounds?

Although the wing root MG-151/20's would have had mixed belting, wouldn't there be some Minengeschoss in them as well?


----------



## Erich (Aug 16, 2008)

not in 1943, only in the spring and in summer of 44 did the round become almost standard for the Mauser 2cm's


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 16, 2008)

But the MG-FF/M did, right? (by '44 it wasn't the MG-FF and FF/M mostly phased out)


----------



## patriot66 (Aug 17, 2008)

Check out these photos of the P-47 Razorback being restored by The Fighter Collection at Duxford and tell me you would not rather fly one in battle than a skinny little Fw-190 !


----------



## machine shop tom (Aug 17, 2008)

A fighter is impacted by 21 20mm explosive rounds (and 100s of 8mm machine gun rounds to boot) and some one is nit-picking the type of rounds used?

Sheesh! Ya gotta look at the WHOLE picture to understand what's going on. 

If Johnson's P-47 was painted titty pink, ya think he might have been harder to hit?

tom


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 17, 2008)

Well it does make a big difference when the standard HE round carried 3.6 g of filler, and the HE(M) shell carries 18 g. (the later HE(XM) carrying 25 g)


----------



## machine shop tom (Aug 17, 2008)

Erich said:


> not in 1943, only in the spring and in summer of 44 did the round become almost standard for the Mauser 2cm's




I found this while looking around.

"20x80RB

The German Luftwaffe decided in the late 1930s to adopt a light cannon to equip its fighters and selected the Oerlikon FF, which they made under licence as the MG-FF. However, they made some changes to the gun and ammunition, including lengthening the cartridge case. During 1940 they introduced the "Minengeschoss" (mine shell), which was made by drawing the projectile body in the same way as a cartridge case rather than drilling a cavity for explosives. This enabled very thin projectile walls to be made, doubling their HE/I capacity while also reducing their weight. The recoil characteristics were different, causing the gun to be modified and subsequently given the designation "MG-FFM"

From here:

An introduction to collecting 20 mm cannon cartridges The 20 mm automatic cannon first saw service during World War 1 but achieved its

Perhaps the round in question was indeed used against Johnson?

tom


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 17, 2008)

As I've been mentioning, on the MG-FF/M almost exclusively Mine Shells (with some older HE-tracers mixed in). But the belting on the MG-151/20's (in the wing roots, and carrying much more ammo -250 rpg opposed to 60 rpg of the FF's) was different. (I believe the Mine Shells were also introduced later in the MG-151, and in any case mixed belting was more common in this as well, except later in the war with interceptors which had mostly HE mine shells -now with the improved HE(XM) iirc)

And another note is, again the HE(XM) round with a further ~45% increase in explosive content at 25 g compared to the earlier 18 g.


----------



## Erich (Aug 17, 2008)

that is incorrect normal He was approved for firing with AP in the FF cannon, the Mauser with the MG 151/20 and with experimentation at first with ace pilots the HE and HE I Minengeschoss were used in 1944 as well as the dreaded 3cm weapon/rounds. this is accepted through the day fighters as well as night fighters

Minen rounds had gone through a large series of workmanship with many tests as early as 43 for ground attack as well as anti-bomber a/c, this was also the case even in lighter Fla(k) arms, but it was not until spring of 44 in the Fw 190A-7 that the Minen round was used in an almost everyday occurance first with JG 11, portions of JG 1 then of course Sturmstaaffel 1 and later the Sturmgruppen - 3 of them


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 17, 2008)

Then what is the "MG-FFM"?


----------



## Erich (Aug 17, 2008)

from a German manual aka WW 2, no name sorry, many pages missing


the FF/M replaced the older unit-cannon, the M means high capacity round such as AP, AP/I, HE and HE I and also with tracer


----------



## Soren (Aug 17, 2008)

We need more pictures of Johnsons a/c to assess the damage properly. From the looks of it his a/c was hit 21 times by 20mm rounds. Perhaps Johnson mistook some damage caused by 7.92mm incendiary rounds as that of 20mm fire, as a 7.92mm incendiary round would make roughly a 20mm hole in the fuselage.

His rear canopy seems to have been hit by a single 20mm round though.


----------



## machine shop tom (Aug 17, 2008)

Soren said:


> We need more pictures of Johnsons a/c to assess the damage properly. From the looks of it his a/c was hit 21 times by 20mm rounds. Perhaps Johnson mistook some damage caused by 7.92mm incendiary rounds as that of 20mm fire, as a 7.92mm incendiary round would make roughly a 20mm hole in the fuselage.
> 
> His rear canopy seems to have been hit by a single 20mm round though.



If I had to put money on someone's expertise in airplane damage, specifically from enemy rounds, I'd have to pick Johnson and his ground crew's over someone looking at two pictures 65 years later.

I have experience with FMJ 8mm Mauser rounds shot through junkyard car fenders. The hole left is smaller than a dime. The tracer aspect makes no difference in entrance hole.

tom


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 17, 2008)

The much smaller holes of the 7.92mm rounds are visible in stark contrast to 20mm damage. (small peppering of holes below the canopy)


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 17, 2008)

Many more pictures here: 8th Air Force Fighter Group - Littlefriends.co.uk

What amazes me is this:


> Lt. Robert S Johnson. Lawton, OK. 61st Fighter Squadron. P-47C 41-6235 HV-P "Half Pint". Well known photo but worth looking at again as contrary to popular belief, this a/c was not written of but repaired and issued to the 9th AF's 36th FG where it was finally lost on 18 August 1944.


----------



## machine shop tom (Aug 17, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> Many more pictures here: 8th Air Force Fighter Group - Littlefriends.co.uk
> 
> What amazes me is this:



I ran across that a while ago. I wonder if the new pilot to the plane ever got wind of what had previously happened to it.

If it had been a carrier plane, they would have shoved it overboard.

tom


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 17, 2008)

I wonder why it is so often sited that it was scrapped. Perhaps that was the initial decision but later it was decided that it could be repaired.


----------



## JugBR (Aug 18, 2008)

Soren said:


> Again history is written by the victors, it takes time for the truth to come out, that's how it is and has been with all wars.
> 
> The Jug 190 were probably roughly just as hard to shoot down, but size is usually a good thing when you're talking about absorbing damage, and the Jug was the larger of the two. But as an equalizer the Jug wasn't anywhere as maneuveable as the Fw-190, so in a match up it was the Jug which would have to be good at absorbing damage.



soren do you have some knowloge about fw-190´s missions that they where severely hited but wasnt shot down ?

i found a .cz site very interesting, theres some stats about "thunderbolt killers" of luftwaffe:

P-47 Thunderbolt Killers


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Aug 18, 2008)

wow, if you look on that site, you can see so how many spitfires were lost compared to Thunderbolts and Mustangs. Joseph Pips got 68 Spitfires, a terrible number for the RAF if you think about it, all from one man! 

The highest number of Mustangs lost to one Luftwaffe pilot is 12, Maj. Wilhelm Steinmann.

The highest number of Thunderbolts is 13, both Oblt. Wilhelm Hofmann and Maj. Theodor Weissenberger got 13.

Hptm. Franz "Nawratil" got 17 Lightnings, Oblt. Otto "Bruno" Kittel got 94 Sturmoviks.


----------



## Tony Williams (Aug 18, 2008)

On the subject of Luftwaffe 20mm ammunition:

Development of the Minengeschoss started in the 1930s - I have seen a drawing dated 1937. It was introduced into service in around May 1940 in the MG-FFM, which was first fitted to the Bf 109E-4. As already posted from an article on my website, the thin-walled M-Geschoss was much lighter than the traditional HE shells used in the earlier MG-FF used in the Bf 109E-3 (92g compared with c.134g), so even though the muzzle velocity was increased from 600 to around 700 m/s, it did not generate enough recoil to operate the MG-FF's mechanism. So the gun's reciprocating mechanism had to be lightened and probably the main recoil spring weakened, thus creating the MG-FFM. The MG-FFM was not able to fire to older ammunition, as this would have generated too much recoil and potentially damaged the mechanism. 

The problem with the Minengeschoss was that its design didn't allow for a tracer, so the old HE-T shell was modified with a light-alloy fuze to bring the weight down to c.117g, and loaded to achieve 585 m/s. It then matched the recoil kick of the Minengeschoss and could be used in the MG-FFM.

AP ammo was not used in the MG-FFM until much later.

Existing MG-FF guns were gradually modified to MG-FFM so they could all use the same ammo. Once that had been done, the gun was sometimes referred to as the MG-FF, which can cause confusion.

The MG 151/20 used the same projectiles as the MG-FFM. Minengeschoss were used from the start (late 1940). There were two standard weights for them; c.92g for the M-Geschoss (fired at around 800 m/s) and c.117g for the HE-T and the later AP rounds (which were usually API or APHE) fired at around 720 m/s. 

There were some later more specialised rounds: the Brgr 44 incendiary (essentially a thick-walled M-Geschoss for better penetration into fuel tanks) which weighed 106g and was fired at 745 m/s, and the bigger MX-Geschoss (105g at 640 m/s) which contained more HE: it had a lower velocity because it was so long there was less space for propellant in the case. These were both specifically designed for anti-bomber use.

_Edit to add:_ Minengeschoss were used mixed with other ammo. A 1944 document I have lists the 20mm ammo mix for fighters as follows: 2x M-Geschoss, 2x HEI-T, 1x API


----------



## JugBR (Aug 18, 2008)

Soundbreaker Welch? said:


> wow, if you look on that site, you can see so how many spitfires were lost compared to Thunderbolts and Mustangs. Joseph Pips got 68 Spitfires, a terrible number for the RAF if you think about it, all from one man!
> 
> The highest number of Mustangs lost to one Luftwaffe pilot is 12, Maj. Wilhelm Steinmann.
> 
> ...



if you liked this site, take a look at this one:

Luftwaffe 39-45

this site have lots of features, like pilots confrots stories, medals, photos, best luftwaffe site i found. too bad for you is in portuguese but you can translate using google.

it worth to be visited, because you cant see that side of history in HC´s dogfights !


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 18, 2008)

Tony, 
That's what I'd thought on all of those subjects, although I wasn't sure if different belting mix for the 151/20's was used for interceptors/bomber destroyers.

It's just that Erich's statements seem to largely cotradict the timescale of development/testing and introduction of the Mine amunition.


----------



## B-17engineer (Aug 18, 2008)

It really all depends on the Plane's armament chasing you. Well a Bf-109 with a 30mm cannon.....the P-47 lost....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 18, 2008)

B-17engineer said:


> It really all depends on the Plane's armament chasing you. Well a Bf-109 with a 30mm cannon.....the P-47 lost....



It does not matter what kind of armament you have if the pilot can not get into a position to shoot the weapon. It really comes down to the pilot...


----------



## B-17engineer (Aug 18, 2008)

Whoops, didnt think of that.......


----------



## JugBR (Aug 18, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> It does not matter what kind of armament you have if the pilot can not get into a position to shoot the weapon. It really comes down to the pilot...



50% pilot, 50% the warbird

herr adler, did you know, in the first days of barbarossa, most of the russian aviators has around 15h of flight ? then you pick the low technology of the early soviet planes, like the polikarpovs instead the tops bf 109f´s and the expert luftwaffe aces and the result was almost like "throw meat to the lion"

also 1400 soviet planes was killed in the ground.

agree with you that a good machine is less eficient without a good pilot and vice versa. but a good pilot in a lousy machine have more chances than a lousy pilot in a good machine. by the reason you posted before.

regards


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 18, 2008)

And armament is a different part of the equasion than performance/capabilities of the aircraft and pilot skill. If you've got an ace pilot in an a/c eqivelent to the 190D-12/13/ Ta-151, P-51H, etc, but all you've got for an armament is rifle calibur machineguns they won't have much chance of shooting down a P-47. (not to mention the tough US Heavy bombers, or medium bombers or attack-bombers for that matter)

Of course, such an armament would'nt make sense, but I think you get the point.


----------



## Soren (Aug 19, 2008)

machine shop tom said:


> I have experience with FMJ 8mm Mauser rounds shot through junkyard car fenders. The hole left is smaller than a dime. The tracer aspect makes no difference in entrance hole.
> 
> tom



Who ever talked about tracer rounds ? I've shot plenty 8mm FMJ rounds as-well, tracers and AP rounds alike. However we're talking about incendiary rounds here Tom, NOT tracers! The incendiary round have s small explosive filler in the nose, which on impact explodes and creates a big flash, causing more surface damage and allowing the pilot to better observe hits.


----------



## Soren (Aug 19, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> The much smaller holes of the 7.92mm rounds are visible in stark contrast to 20mm damage. (small peppering of holes below the canopy)



When looking at the close up I don't see that much peppering KK, I only see one possible 7.92mm hole, and then damage caused by 20mm fire.

Seems like a 20mm HE round hit one of the canopy struts, tearing it apart, and then the tip continued through the fuselage.







On the below picture of the right side I can see some obvious 7.92mm damage though, one hit right above the "HV" designation and one hit on the lower right corner of the vertical stabilizer:


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 19, 2008)

You're right, I think there might be some 7.92mm hits in a more "peppered" fassion on the pic of the tail damage.


----------



## Tony Williams (Aug 19, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> Tony,
> That's what I'd thought on all of those subjects, although I wasn't sure if different belting mix for the 151/20's was used for interceptors/bomber destroyers.



Yes, they did vary the belting for different purposes. The bomber destroyers had 5x HEI-T, 5x M-Geschoss, 1x API


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 19, 2008)

Ok, thanks.


----------



## timshatz (Aug 19, 2008)

I saw a FW190 at the NASM (at least I think it was there). It is roughly the same size as the other European fighters of that time (Spit, ME109, Hurricane, ect). 

Have also seen the P47 over at the Reading Airshow. 

Having seen them both, the size differential is incredible. The P47 is really huge. Looks like it is about 2x the size of standard European fighters. You really have to see it to believe it. 

Not sure how it affects the discussion but I thought I'd throw that in there.


----------



## machine shop tom (Aug 19, 2008)

Soren said:


> Who ever talked about tracer rounds ? I've shot plenty 8mm FMJ rounds as-well, tracers and AP rounds alike. However we're talking about incendiary rounds here Tom, NOT tracers! The incendiary round have s small explosive filler in the nose, which on impact explodes and creates a big flash, causing more surface damage and allowing the pilot to better observe hits.



Sorry, Soren, my mistake.

tom


----------



## Erich (Aug 19, 2008)

well KK although Tony has immense resources I do not agree that in 1940-43 that the M round was standard equipment in the MG FF. through interviews of day/night fighter pilots not one has said when asked about the Minen rounds if they had them available before 1944...........so ......... ? obviously it was called something else just HE and HEI, yellow bodied


----------



## Soren (Aug 19, 2008)

machine shop tom said:


> Sorry, Soren, my mistake.
> 
> tom



No problem Tom.

Here's a cut away picture of a Luftwaffe 7.92mm incendiary round, the B.-V-Patronen:





I have original design drawings and specification sheets as-well if anyone is interested.


----------



## KrazyKraut (Aug 19, 2008)

Are there more pictures of Johnson's fighter? Because I can see only 1 of the 21 cannon hits and it'd be very useful to know where the other 20 went.

Btw: He was lucky he had a Razorback!


----------



## machine shop tom (Aug 19, 2008)

Here is a thought experiment. Let's say that Meyer's and Johnson's positions were reversed. How would Meyer's FW-190 have faired had Johnson's P-47 had raked him time and again with only 2 of Johnson's .50 machine guns working? Or, to be fair, with 2 .30 machine guns under the same circumstances. How would the FW-190 have held up with a similar amount of 20mm hits?

tom


----------



## KrazyKraut (Aug 20, 2008)

... now include that the Fw is about half the size and more maneouvarable, how many 20mm would've hit him in the first place?


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 20, 2008)

Johnson got hit with the 20mm when jumped while in formation. So while the size would matter, maneuverability would not in this circumstance.

P-47 Thunderbolt: Aviation Darwinism - The Cradle of Aviation Museum - The Cradle of Aviation Museum


> Refusing to break formation (after being chewed out for doing just that when he gained his first victory) Johnson repeatedly tried to warn his Group of attacking Fw 190’s. For some reason, no one heard his frantic radio calls. Johnson’s fighter was clobbered by German 20mm cannon shells.


----------



## machine shop tom (Aug 20, 2008)

KrazyKraut said:


> ... now include that the Fw is about half the size and more maneouvarable, how many 20mm would've hit him in the first place?



For my thought experiment we are considering that the FW-190 is flying straight and level as Johnson's was and has already incurred similar damage. 

tom


----------



## Soren (Aug 21, 2008)

KrazyKraut said:


> Are there more pictures of Johnson's fighter? Because I can see only 1 of the 21 cannon hits and it'd be very useful to know where the other 20 went.
> 
> Btw: He was lucky he had a Razorback!



I'm fairly certain they mistakingly counted quite a few holes caused by the very same rounds, cause it definitely doesn't look like it was hit by 21 20mm rounds. 

A single hit from a 20mm HE round can cause a lot of shrapnel damage, as evident by looking at the cockpit where one round most likely both mangled the struts while the tip of it continued through the fuselage. (Explaining the rectangular hole) 

I bet a LOT of shrapnel was generated when he was first hit in the engine, the 20mm projectiles hammering into the engine block and exploding into large flat pieces causing a lot of holes in the engine shield cover.

Seems like a single 20mm HE hit to the tail rudder as-well.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 21, 2008)

Perhaps the 21 would include non HE 20mm hits as well.


----------



## claidemore (Aug 23, 2008)

There's a story about Davy Crockett, who did a little shooting contest against another fella. They both fired two shots at marks on trees. The other fellas bullet holes were about an inch apart, but Davy had only one bullet hole on his mark, it looked like one shot missed the tree completely. So he pulled out his knife, dug into the tree, and sure enough there were two bullets in the same hole.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Aug 24, 2008)

If a person could do that from a plane, then he would perhaps be the best marksman there was.


----------



## Juha (Aug 24, 2008)

Hello
a bit off topic but those who has access to Sakaida's Genda's Blade can look on page 137 and see what Corsair could take and be still able to be flown home.

Juha


----------



## claidemore (Aug 24, 2008)

Soundbreaker Welch? said:


> If a person could do that from a plane, then he would perhaps be the best marksman there was.



hehe, yup, to do it by design would be pretty much impossible, but due to the uncertain vaugaries (or vauge uncertainties) of air combat, it could sure happen by accident.


----------



## fly boy (Aug 25, 2008)

p-47d because the repuplic team where issued with a large fast fighter and they made the 47 with the 190 it was bulit mainly for bomber attack


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 25, 2008)

The Fw 190 was not designed mainly as a bomber killer.

Besides the P-47 had ben intended as an interceptor anyway. (though it had a faily low climb rate for one)


----------



## Kurfürst (Aug 25, 2008)

Tony Williams said:


> There were some later more specialised rounds: the Brgr 44 incendiary (essentially a thick-walled M-Geschoss for better penetration into fuel tanks) which weighed 106g and was fired at 745 m/s, and the bigger MX-Geschoss (105g at 640 m/s) which contained more HE: it had a lower velocity because it was so long there was less space for propellant in the case. These were both specifically designed for anti-bomber use.



I wonder about the MX-Geschoss. I have seen drawings, but I am not sure, if it was used operationally, or was just in development stage.. any info on that Tony?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 25, 2008)

fly boy said:


> p-47d because the repuplic team where issued with a large fast fighter and they made the 47 with the 190 it was bulit mainly for bomber attack









Say what?


----------



## drgondog (Aug 26, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Say what?




LMAO - that and Joe's (I think) cat - WTF? about summarize my perpetual confusion... over classic comments like above - although he was right about the design spec for the 47.


----------



## Oreo (Aug 26, 2008)

Based on what little I know about it, I had to go with the P-47. I do know it could take a lot of abuse, like when Robert Johnson came home with over 200 bullet holes in his plane (including severed rudder cables) and landed it. His account tells how at the end, the Fw 190 attacking him was able to attack at will because he could barely keep the plane level, let alone maneuver. Its cannon shells were evidently all gone, but it attacked with the two MG's coming in slow and level behind until (I think) all its ammo was gone. Johnson seemed to indicate it was an A-6 or earlier which had the 8-mm guns over the engine rather than 13mm. Been a while since I read his book, maybe that incident has been mentioned on the thread already-- I didn't have time to read everything anyone said. It seems Johnson seemed to think, toward the end, of the Fw 190 as a piece of cake to kill, but then it's quite possible he rarely encountered a truly experienced pilot.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Aug 26, 2008)

If he encountered the 109's at high altitude (~25,000 ft) they would be well above their best performance envelope, while near the P-47's best. (similar case with the P-51)


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Dec 6, 2008)

The P-47 was tougher.

OK, so let's consider the situation. You are in a 190 and suddenly, worst case scenario, an enemy pounces on your ass from above. 

You roll and dive. If your reflexes and TA are better than him, you survive. If in spite of this, he hits you, your chances are about 50/50.

Now in a p-47 you cannot roll as fast, but you can dive much faster, equal evasive chances. If you are hit, chances of survival are 70/30 in your favour. 

Bottom line - the 47 wins!


----------



## KrazyKraut (Dec 7, 2008)

Chances are 99/1 those numbers are purely made up.


----------



## HoHun (Dec 7, 2008)

Hi Burmese,

>Now in a p-47 you cannot roll as fast, but you can dive much faster, equal evasive chances. If you are hit, chances of survival are 70/30 in your favour. 

Interesting approach 

If you're talking about probabilities, you should however take not only the damage resistance and evasive ability, but also the firepower of the two types into account:

Fw 190A-8: 5.5 MW firepower
P-47D: 2.3 MW firepower

(Firepower measured in total muzzle power, or the sum of kinetic and chemical energy of the projectiles per unit of time)

With regard to your comparison, that means that the odds of the Fw 190A-8 going down to being hit by the P-47D is only half of that of the P-47 being hit by the Focke-Wulf (assuming your underlying assumption is that their damage resistance is equal).

Looking at your numbers, I could imagine they are intended as follows:

1st burst kill ratio against ...

Fw 190A: 25%, P-47D: 25%

2nd burst kill ratio against ...

Fw 190A: 25%, P-47D: 5% (due to better evasive capabilities)

However, as modified by the firepower ratio of roughly 2:1, this would become for example:

1st burst kill ratio against ...

Fw 190A: 25%, P-47D: 50%

2nd burst kill ratio against ...

Fw 190A: 25%, P-47D: 10%

So the odds are 50/50 for the Fw 190, but only 40% survival, 60% defeat for the P-47.

(I'm aware that yours was just a simple thought experiment, but I think it was a good example for the influence of quantified factors. I certainly don't consider the resulting figures to be the final word on the topic! 

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Dec 8, 2008)

Thanks Henning! Though to be honest when I was thinking of the p-47 escaping in a power dive my imagination was running more on the lines of a 109 diving on the 47's ass. In 1944 the general rule for the Wurger was that it had to save itself to attack the B-17s, and the boys who were allowed to mix it up with the mustangs and thuds were the 109s. Or at least that's AFAIK.


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Dec 8, 2008)

'...(assuming your underlying assumption is that their damage resistance is equal)...'

Just noticed that. AFAIK the Thud was far tougher. Can Henning or some of the other great guys (I mean it) on this forum have data on this?


----------



## renrich (Dec 8, 2008)

The Thud, I believe was the F105. The nickname for the P47 was Jug but it was a tough airplane. Interestingly, my major reference, " America's 100000," states that the P47 did not have a good rate of roll. Bob Johnson, in his book, said the Jug rolled well. Much better than the Spit. In a mock dogfight with a Spit he used that superior roll rate to evade. I wonder about that.


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Dec 8, 2008)

*hits self on head*

You're right - the P-47 was the JUG short for Juggernaught....

Was Johnson's JUG the lightened version with the 2800 hp R-2800 and only four machine guns, capable of a max 504 mph???


----------



## Messy1 (Dec 8, 2008)

I had to go with the P-47.


----------



## HoHun (Dec 8, 2008)

Hi Burmese,

>AFAIK the Thud was far tougher. Can Henning or some of the other great guys (I mean it) on this forum have data on this?

Hard to find any data on that, but I see no reason why the Fw 190 wouldn't be just as tough as the P-47. This post is my attempt at a rational comparison:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/polls/harder-shoot-down-p-47d-fw-190a-14508.html#post386892

Besides firepower, there is also the aspect of target size to take into an account - a larger aircraft will get hit more easily.

Considering that the P-47 and the Fw 190A have the same general proportions, we can approximate their relative target size by comparing the wing areas: 27.9 m^2 vs. 18.3 m^2. This means the Fw 190A will be hit only by roughly 2/3 of the projectiles that will strike the P-47 in a similar situation.

Modified comparison:

1st burst kill ratio against ...

Fw 190A: 17%, P-47D: 50%

2nd burst kill ratio against ...

Fw 190A: 17%, P-47D: 10%

We're at 34% "shot down" for the Fw 190 vs. 60% "shot down" for the P-47 now. (Quite obviously, that's over-simplified 

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## HoHun (Dec 8, 2008)

Hi Burmese,

>Was Johnson's JUG the lightened version with the 2800 hp R-2800 and only four machine guns, capable of a max 504 mph???

Hm, I've heard various claims for this particular P-47 ... I certainly don't doubt that it was a very fast machine, but the airspeed indicators were subject to instrument errors that most combat pilots were not aware of. Just like the "supersonic dive" stories of the time, this occasionally lead to an overestimation of the actual true air speed, so I wouldn't take the 504 mph figure too literally.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## renrich (Dec 8, 2008)

Johnson was flying an early Jug not the lightened version. I am pretty sure it was a razor backed Jug but am certain it was early in the war from a P47 standpoint. He was sent back to the states when he accrued, I think his 26th kill, to raise war bond sales. The impressive thing about Johnson was that he was fighting relatively early, when there were still plenty of well trained LW pilots and most of his kills were single engined fighters. I saw a comparison once between his record and a LW ace, I think it was Moelders, and if Johnson had stayed in action as long as the LW guy, his kills would have been about the same, assuming the kill rate stayed the same. I don't believe that Johnson got many of the "easy kills" of the late war. I have his book but it is packed.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Dec 8, 2008)

The 500+ mph version was the XP-47J which had 6 (not 4) .50 Brownings and a lightened structure. This was a late war development with a tight engine cowling with cooling fan (like the Fw 190) and the 2800 hp engine. This model didn't enter production. The P-47M was the operational version with the 2800 hp -57C model engine (along with the long range P-47N), this was otherwise a "normal" P-47 in most respects. (though sometime 6x .50's were fitted, iirc the faster firing M3 model, similar on the P-47N)


"Jug" was not short for Juggernaut (an assumption made by the British), but rather to a refrence to the P-47's "milk jug" profile.


Robert S. Johnson was flying a P-47C Thundrbolt at the time of that infamous Fw 190 encounter. Republic XP-47J Thunderbolt


----------



## HoHun (Dec 8, 2008)

Hi Koolkitty,

>"Jug" was not short for Juggernaut (an assumption made by the British), but rather to a refrence to the P-47's "milk jug" profile.

Hm, is it really possible to prove it either way?

Online Etymology Dictionary

"Juggernaut" certainly had been a popular term in Britain at least since the early 1910s, judging from "Flight International":

Flight - Airline Industry news, aviation jobs airline recruitment

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## kool kitty89 (Dec 8, 2008)

I'm not sure if the misconception came from the British, but I'm almost positive the origin og the "Jug" nickname came from its shape.

Something else interesting is that, unlike many USAAF fighters the P-47 derived its name (Thunderbolt) from the US manufacturer rather than from the British (ie Buffalo, Warhawk, Lightning, Mustang). The only other operational USAAF fighter to have that was the Airacobra.


----------



## beaupower32 (Dec 8, 2008)

I would have to go with the P-47. Thing is a monster!


----------



## Timppa (Dec 9, 2008)

renrich said:


> Johnson was flying an early Jug not the lightened version. I am pretty sure it was a razor backed Jug but am certain it was early in the war from a P47 standpoint



Johnson's interview:_
"My crew sanded every joint smooth, and waxed it to a high gloss. Factory technical reps showed my crew chief, Pappy Gould, how to adjust the wastegates to keep the boost pressure higher than normal. My D-5, which I named Lucky, had water injection. I never used the water injection in combat. I didn't need it. From time to time I'd switch it on, push the throttle up to 72" of manifold pressure and the head rest would smack me from behind. I would let her run for a few minutes just for the fun of it."_

He estimated his speed as a little over 300 indicated at 32,000 feet. That would make 490+ mph TAS using the simple formula TAS=IAS*(1+0.02*MSL/1000).
I think he remembered his altitude incorrectly though.


----------



## renrich (Dec 9, 2008)

The title of this thread is about which AC is harder to shoot down, not which would win over the other. We are talking about shootdowns from flak, small arms fire, bomber defensive fire and damage during ACM. I would still go with the JUG. At the fighter conference, Jug was voted best armor and the R2800 was noted for it's resistance to battle damage.


----------



## HoHun (Dec 9, 2008)

Hi Renrich,

>We are talking about shootdowns from flak, small arms fire, bomber defensive fire and damage during ACM. 

Well, the professionals divide threats to survivability into susceptibility and vulnerability issues.

Being a substantially target does increase the susceptibility of the P-47, so it obviously needs decreased vulnerability to achieve the same survivability as the smaller Fw 190.

With regard to the fighter conference, the rating methods were not exactly scientific, and I don't think the pilots present there had the opportunity to vote for the Fw 190 

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## renrich (Dec 9, 2008)

My source shows the armor for an FW190A8 to be the armored windshield and armor behind the pilot and an armored cowling ring in front of the oil cooler for the engine. No armor for the fuel tanks. The P47 had the windshield armor, the pilot seat armor and armor running from the top of the main fuel tank back to the windshield. The two oil coolers were located underneath and slightly behind the engine. There are many anecdotes about how rugged the Jug was and how strong the air frame was. Haven't heard the same about the FW. If the Jug air frame was as strong as that of the Corsair and Hellcat, then it was strong indeed. If small size is an advantage, determining how likely one is to be shot down, then the late model A6Ms with some armor and ss tanks should have been almost invulnerable.


----------



## KrazyKraut (Dec 10, 2008)

The Fw had no turbocharger pipes running through its fuselage and had the advantages of the Schalenbauweise. But yeah when it comes to absorbing damage, the P-47 might take more damage. But the Fw was a much smaller target and more agile, so all in all, it's a tie imo.


----------



## HoHun (Dec 10, 2008)

Hi Renrich,

>There are many anecdotes about how rugged the Jug was and how strong the air frame was. Haven't heard the same about the FW. 

Anecdotes don't prove anything. However, I'm surprised that you're unaware of the the Fw 190's excellent reputation for ruggedness, which I'm sure was what inspired Soundbreaker Welch to open this thread in the first place.

>If small size is an advantage, determining how likely one is to be shot down, then the late model A6Ms with some armor and ss tanks should have been almost invulnerable.

In fact, the A6M was not a particular small fighter - with 21.4 m^2 wing aera, it's quite a bit bigger than the Fw 190.

Other than that, it's (painfully) obvious that smaller size is an advantage as long as everything else stays the same.

Changing too much of "everything else" can lead to nonsense conclusions, of course ... beware of that.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## renrich (Dec 10, 2008)

The A6M was roughly the same size as the FW190, both being relatively small fighters, especially compared to the fighters the Zeke competed against, the F6F, F4U and P38 but that did not seem to be an advantage for it. Is it possible that the small fighters with vital equipment squeezed into a smaller volume were more likely to be badly damaged when they took hits. I am not aware of a reputation for ruggedness for the FW other than the radial engine which equipped the earlier models was less susceptible to battle damage than the liquid cooled engines. Is it possible that I remember a thread where someone on this forum argued that the radial engine was just as susceptible to battle damage as a liquid cooled engine was? The ratio of losses versus sorties of the P47 was the lowest of any other widely used US fighters in the ETO. 423,435 sorties with 3077 losses. During the late war that would include very many air to ground missions where one could assume most of the missions included being shot at. Until someone shows me the loss ratios of the FW are better, I will stick with the Jug, large size and all.


----------



## HoHun (Dec 10, 2008)

Hi Renrich,

>Is it possible that I remember a thread where someone on this forum argued that the radial engine was just as susceptible to battle damage as a liquid cooled engine was?

You come into this with an admonishement to stay on topic, immediately switch to the off-topic A6M, then make two apples and orange comparisons in succession - and now you bring in a completely different topic in a clear flamebaiting attempt.

One more post like that, and you're on my ignore list.

Kind regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## renrich (Dec 11, 2008)

I agree that anecdotes don't prove much but anecdotes add to the reputation of an AC or whatever. An example is the B17 which had imnumerable anecdotes with pictures which told about it's ruggedness. I can't prove that the B17 was more rugged than the Condor or Liberator but it would certainly seem to be more survivable. Other AC with rugged reputations were the Wildcat, Hellcat, Corsair, Wellington and the one that seems to have the most exalted reputation for ruggedness of all fighters, the Jug. I am not aware of the FW190 having a similar reputation but my command of German is limited so I have perhaps missed reading accounts of how rugged it was.


----------



## fly boy (Dec 11, 2008)

one thing about the p-47D when I fly them in aces high and I know that this isn't the same but when I went up against 5 190s being used by pretty damn good pilots I shot them all down only loseing my rear landing gear and a gun and thats it.


----------



## KrazyKraut (Dec 11, 2008)




----------



## Njaco (Dec 11, 2008)

Wow, when I did that I lost my rudder and forward phaser!


----------

