Best USAAF fighter for escort missions over Japan

[parsifal]

The elephant in the room on this debate is of course the fact that thje most successful CAS aircraft were in fact inlines, and not radials. Coming to mind are the IL-2, the Ju87 and the RAFs Typhoon. The US of course used the P- 40. Are all these aircraft inherently unsuited to CAS because they are using in line engines. I think not. If not, why is the mustang all of a sudden the exception, and somehow more vulnerable???? Methinks this whole issue is an overblown beat up with an agenda stuck on its backside.

 

[GregP]

Parsifal, expanding rod warheads weren't used in WWII ... but you know that. The concept originated in 1952. I worked on the US Navy Standard Missile program and wish they HAD been there in WWII! The expanding rod warhead is a great option, isn't it?

Any list of the most successful CAS aircraft of WWII would surely include the P-47, which IS a radial. The F6F and F4U are also excellent CAS aircraft with radials. The only reason they don't really stand out is that land was so scarce in the Pacific. It's hard to attack ground targets if you can't find any. The only reason the Il-2 is in the running at all is the armor bathtub protecting the liquid system, engine, fuel, and pilot. Nobody else in the world would have given up the performance that option cost the Il-2, and nobody else has ever since and likely never will again.

The Ju-87 was quite successful when it had surprise or the Luftwaffe had at least local air superiority. Without it, the Ju-87 was NOT a good option. Recall it was withdrawn from the BOB.

Can't argue with the Typhoon, a great CAS aircraft. But the P-47 was right there with it along with it's radial. The P-47 flew 423,435 sorties with a loss rate of only 0.73% and will forever be respected in the U as a ground attack specialist.

I saw one claim that the loss rate for the Typhoon was 7.0%, but I don't believe that. I also can't find any decent Typhoon numbers from what I'd call a reliable source for sorties, losses, and victories. It CAN'T be a secret! I'll find it and it will show the Typhoon to be a sound performer. Offhand I'd say the Typhoon was one of the best-armed of all the ground attackers, and was definitely NOT what one wanted to see coming at you if you were a ground soldier, even if you were in a tank. You might be safe in a flak tower ...

 

[Shortround6]

The P-40's engine was just as vulnerable to ground fire as the P-51, P-38, Spitfire or any liquid cooled engine. Impacts to the engine, the radiator(s) or oil cooler(s) meant the pilot was in trouble and had a limited window to find a place to put 'er down.

The P-40 had a slight advantage in that ALL the vulnerable engine stuff was grouped in the front of the fuselage which reduced the target area, it was also thought that most anti aircraft gunners didn't use enough lead while aiming and tended to hit further back on the plane. Of course planes that were hit in the nose, regardless of engine type, tended not to come back as often as planes hit from behind the cockpit to the tail anyway.
P-38s had stuff allover the the place but then the p-38 had to be hit in both booms (at least the later ones) to take them out.

 

[Milosh]

There is one problem with the Typhoon > its engine. Going thru the loss list, the number of losses listed as engine related was staggering.

 

[drgondog]

Pilots who flew them, in both WWII and Korea, call bs on that.

They might but they would be hard pressed to prove it... The NK and CPA both had formidable AAA along Soviet doctrine and far better and denser than Japanese flak. Survivors have better experiences than the KIA..

 

[parsifal]

There is one problem with the Typhoon > its engine. Going thru the loss list, the number of losses listed as engine related was staggering.

That does not sound good. I dont suppose if the list goes further as to reasons....specifically if the engine failures were due to flak damage, or was the engine just unreliable.

 

[parsifal]

Parsifal, expanding rod warheads weren't used in WWII ... but you know that. The concept originated in 1952. I worked on the US Navy Standard Missile program and wish they HAD been there in WWII! The expanding rod warhead is a great option, isn't it?

Any list of the most successful CAS aircraft of WWII would surely include the P-47, which IS a radial. The F6F and F4U are also excellent CAS aircraft with radials. The only reason they don't really stand out is that land was so scarce in the Pacific. It's hard to attack ground targets if you can't find any. The only reason the Il-2 is in the running at all is the armor bathtub protecting the liquid system, engine, fuel, and pilot. Nobody else in the world would have given up the performance that option cost the Il-2, and nobody else has ever since and likely never will again.

The Ju-87 was quite successful when it had surprise or the Luftwaffe had at least local air superiority. Without it, the Ju-87 was NOT a good option. Recall it was withdrawn from the BOB.

Can't argue with the Typhoon, a great CAS aircraft. But the P-47 was right there with it along with it's radial. The P-47 flew 423,435 sorties with a loss rate of only 0.73% and will forever be respected in the U as a ground attack specialist.

I saw one claim that the loss rate for the Typhoon was 7.0%, but I don't believe that. I also can't find any decent Typhoon numbers from what I'd call a reliable source for sorties, losses, and victories. It CAN'T be a secret! I'll find it and it will show the Typhoon to be a sound performer. Offhand I'd say the Typhoon was one of the best-armed of all the ground attackers, and was definitely NOT what one wanted to see coming at you if you were a ground soldier, even if you were in a tank. You might be safe in a flak tower ...

im impressed that you worked on the US Standard Missile. Its a marvellous weapon, I can tell you....very reliable and accurate. Yes I knew that it wasnt ther for WWII, but the point is that flak generally obliterates an aircraft if it hits. problem for WWII flak was that it was not all that accurate. But if it hits you, you arent going to feel comfortable just because youve got a radial between your knees.

I think that where Radials would make a difference, or might make a difference, is in situations of low level attack, where small arms and/or light flak might get multiple small caliber hits into you, and the probability of hitting a coolant line goes up exponentially. and lets face it, Hellcats and Corsairs are more likely to face that kinda flak than a dewdicated HAA system such as the Mustang would face. not saying that the F6F or the F4U were not great CAS aircraft...they were.

The advantages of the JU87 was that it was accurate. and sure, it could not survive in western european skies after 1940, but in other TOs, it actually never sustained a particularly or unusually heavy loss rate, compared to its contemporaries. The Sturmovik was built like Brick outhouse, at least around its pilot, and whilst its engine was not so protected and it did suffer heavy losses, it did not suffer an especially heavy loss rate because of that. all Russian air ops cost lots of aircraft, right up until the end of the war

 

[drgondog]

The real problem with any discussion regarding vulnerability to ground fire - is the impossibility of isolating the threat environment and massaging the data. Loss per sortie is 'interesting' but has no objective criteria relating to the threat.

An example to ponder is 8th AF statics re: Loss due to type activity such as 'Strafing'. The P-47s in the 8th were credited with destroying 740 German aircraft for the loss of 200 while 'strafing', the P-51 destroyed 3200 for loss of 569, the P-38 destroyed 161 for the loss of 109.

Ok - Analyze and conclude!

The P-47 ratio of strafing credit to strafing loss is 3.7; The P-51 ratio is 5.62. The P-38 is 1.47.
Are we to conclude that the P-47 was less vulnerable to airfield flak when the ratio of credit to loss is 2/3 that of the Mustang? Are we to draw a conclusion that if the P-47 was less vulnerable, was it less efficient with 8 .50 Caliber vs 4 and 6? Were the P-51s strafing higher density/less well defended targets? Is the P-51 'more survivable' because it destroyed more for lower percent loss?

How can a twin engine, liquid coolant, heavier firepower fighter like the P-38 be so pitiful an airfield strafe compared to single engine Mustang? Does Size matter? Do two liquid cooled engines represent 2x probability of an engine fire (nullifying advantage of the other engine).

How do we factor in the evolution of strafing aircraft as the 8th moved from P-47/P-38 to Mustang in 1944?

With two engines why is the P-38 ratio of destruction credits to strafing losses (1.47 to 5.69) absurdly low in comparison to the P-51?

Apply the same questions to Korea but examine the ratios of the 354FG versus the array of 9th AF P-47s in ground support role? Is there a corollary? If so, why - if not, why not?

I suggest that the questions, the threat environment, the time phased loss to mission data, etc all have to be addressed before 'BS' flags are thrown.

 

[Shortround6]

A problem comparing ground attack aircraft losses from flak is you have to figure in the strength of the flak defenses. The density of types of flak weapons. This changed from army to army and in each army from year to year. In the case of the Japanese many Pacific bases were defended by navy weapons.
Many nations depended on 6.5-8mm machine guns to protect the field armies in 1939 with only a small quantity of heavier guns. And even the 6.5-8mm machine guns were not too liberally distributed.

British had four single .303 Bren guns per battalion mounted on trucks as dedicated AA in 1939/40. There were a few AA tripods issued to the companies for them to use their "normal" guns on.

Germans had

early in the war in addition to the 20mm and 37mm guns. the scale of issue went way up during the war for some armies.

 

[drgondog]

SR - agree, which amplifies the point I made earlier about looking to the AAA threat environment (both institutionally and specifically for different targets).. in addition, different doctrines and disciplines surfaced over time. North Vietnam is a very specific example of maximizing anti-aircraft threats via disciplined infantry shooting rifles and crew served weaponry en masse to compliment 23, 37, 57, 85 and 122MM radar guided AAA at all US aircraft entering that particular area. In addition the BARLOCK radar complex coordinated airspeed and heading data to all the gun laying radars in the target area.

Even the Germans, as formidable as they were had many different threat environments ranging from airfield flak in 1944-45 to 'soft' regions with few military assets to front line infantry/armor with significant capability.. IMO airfield flak was the most difficult threat for US fighters over infantry/armor defenses because of the high central concentration.

In Korea, the threat was more akin to German infantry/field defenses with the introduction of infantry being trained to shoot rifle/automatic rifles at low flying aircraft - as a precursor to Vietnam type defenses.

 

[RpR]

Ican accept that, but just how much difference between a water cooled and an air cooled enine is there in loss statistics. A cannon shot into the crank case of a radial is just as likley to penetrate or crack the housing in either type of engine. For rifle calibre hits, a crank case failure is unlikley, and in that scenario I can see a greater likelihood of a failure there. . but what percentage of the surface are of the plane is devoted to the colling system in an inline engine. We need statistics to determine that

When it comes to actual heavy flak verses infantry small arms fire they are related but in many ways very different.
That difference is what made the Mustang a poor choice of ground attack as the pilot in the magazine Mustangs article said were susceptible "even to" simple small arms fire.

At the same time, and this is reading from years past, to my best memory, one P-47 pilot who checked his badly damaged aircraft after he landed found one cylinder totally missing, that is the type of heavy flak damage that a Mustang would never return from.
The Russian ground attack aircraft with water-cooled engines were heavily armored which the Mustang was not.
I do not know how heavily armored the Stuka dive-bomber was but it was replaced by the FW190.

The FW 190 was chosen for the dedicated ground attack role over the 109 because of its tougher radial engine.

This is from some one quoting a quote so I cannot give the original source:

"The direct fuel injection and engine management system of the BMW radial used in the 190 was a superb example of German engineering. The robust design and elegant simplicity were amazing. The Kommandogerat was a hydraulic computer that managed throttle, supercharger, prop-pitch and fuel mixture. Its hydraulic fluid reservoir was fed from a tank that was built from heavy welded up plate and also served as a portion of the engine mount and brake fluid supply. It sat behind the big radial and was nearly bullet proof. It would have taken a direct hit from an AP round to pierce it. One would almost have had to shoot it from the side to damage it and from that angle it was only about 2 inches thick. From the front the engine and cowling provided some protection and in the ground attack F8 models that cowling was heavy armor plate. Cooling for the BMW engine used a ingenious design that kept airflow more even across all cylinders without the need for drag inducing cowl flaps. "

Using this aircraft as an example, plus the fact total cooling cannot be denied on a radial engine, shows in an abstract form, why radial engines are superior as far as ground fire goes.

 

[GrauGeist]

While this isn't flak damage, this is still damage that would be catastrophic to most other types and goes to show how rugged the P-47 was.

This P-47D (44-21054, 364th FS, 350th FG, 12th AF) flew through tree-tops during a strafing run in Italy, 1 April 1945. It flew over 120 miles back to base, safely landing.

 

[drgondog]

One is reminded that one bullet through the head of a P-47 pilot is every bit as effective a bullet destroying a coolant line. Ditto to any oil cooler, etc, etc..

The problem with the discussion are those pesky facts.

For the ETO - Why was the indestructible P-47 less effective (defined as number aircraft destroyed compared to strafing aircraft lost) at airfield strafing than the P-51? Why was the lost rate for the P-38 three times higher, with twin engines, than the P-51? Same argument and questions that should arise for Korea airpower when comparing 'survivability' between AD/F4U vs P-51

I am Not saying the P-51 is better at CAS, but ask those of you that believe the P-47 is 'far superior' relative to vulnerability than the P-51 to trot out your own set of facts - or help draw supporting conclusions for your POV based on the Facts I presented above?

And let's add another variable - the P-51 was strafing Loooooong way from home compared to the Jug.. when hit, the 51 had to fly farther to safety - sometimes twice as far. How do you want to address the distance required to travel to return to base in your equations?

I don't KNOW - do you?

 

[Shortround6]

Something may filtered out by looking at the time periods. When were the 8th air force P-38s doing the airfield strafing and when were the P-47s doing it and when were the P-51s. If the P-38s were doing it earlier are some of the losses due to a learning curve (how do they strafe the airfield for minimum losses?). were the P-38s more likely to run into defending fighters if they were strafing months before the P-51s?
June of 1944 sees the start of a change over for the 8th Air Force with the P-38 and P-47 groups changing to the P-51.

The only way these combat records would be valid is if they are for the same theater for the same time period for the same length missions. and you might still have variables. Experience in the CBI and southeast Asia areas are about the opposite of the ETO but with only small numbers of P-38s used the sample may to small to be statistically valid.

 

[Milosh]

That does not sound good. I dont suppose if the list goes further as to reasons....specifically if the engine failures were due to flak damage, or was the engine just unreliable.

The loss list for the Typhoon and Tempest can be found in 'The Typhoon Tempest Story' Thomas Shores.

Losses due engine noted as: engine fire, engine failure, engine failure on take off.

From Nov 1 '41 to Oct 31 '42 out of the 50 losses, 11 were engine related (22%).

 

[OldSkeptic]

One is reminded that one bullet through the head of a P-47 pilot is every bit as effective a bullet destroying a coolant line. Ditto to any oil cooler, etc, etc..

The problem with the discussion are those pesky facts.

For the ETO - Why was the indestructible P-47 less effective (defined as number aircraft destroyed compared to strafing aircraft lost) at airfield strafing than the P-51? Why was the lost rate for the P-38 three times higher, with twin engines, than the P-51? Same argument and questions that should arise for Korea airpower when comparing 'survivability' between AD/F4U vs P-51

I am Not saying the P-51 is better at CAS, but ask those of you that believe the P-47 is 'far superior' relative to vulnerability than the P-51 to trot out your own set of facts - or help draw supporting conclusions for your POV based on the Facts I presented above?

And let's add another variable - the P-51 was strafing Loooooong way from home compared to the Jug.. when hit, the 51 had to fly farther to safety - sometimes twice as far. How do you want to address the distance required to travel to return to base in your equations?

I don't KNOW - do you?

Oh this has been to death so many time, with lots of misunderstandings all around. It was fortunate the P-47 was so tough .. it had to be. It was not the best plane for low level stuff at all. Heavy, slow, limited manoeuvrability, limited dive angles possible and the height you could pull out as it 'mushed' terribly. It was designed as a high altitude aircraft and at 30,000ft a hot ship indeed. But under 10,000ft not so good.

When you are faced with such flak that the Germans could put up you wanted something that could get in quick and get out quick and do all sorts of climbs and turns to survive. The Spits and Mustangs were much better at that sort of thing than the Jug, yes they could take less hits, but they got hit less often. The Tiffie was a bit of a mix, fast low down (good), but poorer manoeuvrability (not so good) and similar issues with dive angles (better than a jug though) and pull out height (it also mushed badly).

Trouble with the P-38 was it was big and easy to see and had similar issues with low level manoeuvrability (though fairly fast), it was a honking big target to spot and aim at.

Both the Mustang and Spit could pull much more G, hence tighter manoeuvres low down and do steeper dive angles and later pull outs. This all aided surprise which was the best weapon against low level flak.

You had 2 options, fast highly manoeuvrable planes or flying tanks like the Russians had. The best of the 'compromise designs' (ie like the P-47 and Typhoon) in the ETO was the ground attack 190s, fast low down, pretty tough and still manoeuvrable.

Also the Jug wasn't that tough in some senses. All that piping to the turbocharger (inc oil, etc) meant that a bullet through that resulted in (if the plane got back) complex repairs and maintenance (P-38 was even worse). They should have just pulled the turbo from it when they switched it to the ground attack role, reducing the vulnerability area, patching up the rear airframe is one thing, patching up the turbo/piping/etc was another... As many commentators have mentioned US designs like the Corsair (the later models that is) were fundamentally better 'compromise' designs (being more akin to the 190) for that sort of role.

 

[rinkol]

The real problem with any discussion regarding vulnerability to ground fire - is the impossibility of isolating the threat environment and massaging the data. Loss per sortie is 'interesting' but has no objective criteria relating to the threat.

An example to ponder is 8th AF statics re: Loss due to type activity such as 'Strafing'. The P-47s in the 8th were credited with destroying 740 German aircraft for the loss of 200 while 'strafing', the P-51 destroyed 3200 for loss of 569, the P-38 destroyed 161 for the loss of 109.

Ok - Analyze and conclude!

The P-47 ratio of strafing credit to strafing loss is 3.7; The P-51 ratio is 5.62. The P-38 is 1.47.
Are we to conclude that the P-47 was less vulnerable to airfield flak when the ratio of credit to loss is 2/3 that of the Mustang? Are we to draw a conclusion that if the P-47 was less vulnerable, was it less efficient with 8 .50 Caliber vs 4 and 6? Were the P-51s strafing higher density/less well defended targets? Is the P-51 'more survivable' because it destroyed more for lower percent loss?

How can a twin engine, liquid coolant, heavier firepower fighter like the P-38 be so pitiful an airfield strafe compared to single engine Mustang? Does Size matter? Do two liquid cooled engines represent 2x probability of an engine fire (nullifying advantage of the other engine).

How do we factor in the evolution of strafing aircraft as the 8th moved from P-47/P-38 to Mustang in 1944?

With two engines why is the P-38 ratio of destruction credits to strafing losses (1.47 to 5.69) absurdly low in comparison to the P-51?

Apply the same questions to Korea but examine the ratios of the 354FG versus the array of 9th AF P-47s in ground support role? Is there a corollary? If so, why - if not, why not?

I suggest that the questions, the threat environment, the time phased loss to mission data, etc all have to be addressed before 'BS' flags are thrown.

One factor was that the P-38 was a conspicuous target. It was larger than most single engined aircraft and the twin boom layout was a distinctive visual signature - the only other aircraft with such a layout was the FW 189 and this had significant physical differences and had its own operating niche.

 

[Garyt]

he P-47 ratio of strafing credit to strafing loss is 3.7; The P-51 ratio is 5.62. The P-38 is 1.47.
Are we to conclude that the P-47 was less vulnerable to airfield flak when the ratio of credit to loss is 2/3 that of the Mustang? Are we to draw a conclusion that if the P-47 was less vulnerable, was it less efficient with 8 .50 Caliber vs 4 and 6? Were the P-51s strafing higher density/less well defended targets? Is the P-51 'more survivable' because it destroyed more for lower percent loss?

Another thing to look at - the bigger the raid, the more targets in the air, and less of a chance of you being hit.

I would think as the war continued on, larger formations were more likely for the Allies. How this relates directly to the three planes I do not know.

I'm not big on placing a lot of trust in planes destroyed on ground vs aerial losses to determine the effectiveness of individual aircraft. It could be about as inaccurate as judging a planes value as a fighter strictly upon it's air to air ratio.

 

[RpR]

Both the Mustang and Spit could pull much more G, hence tighter manoeuvres low down and do steeper dive angles and later pull outs. This all aided surprise which was the best weapon against low level flak.

Here is an article that does not say x,y, or z is better but does say how it was done in one area.

Allied Strafing in World War II: A Cockpit View of Air to Ground Battle - William B. Colgan - Google Books


Beyond the P-51's vulnerable engine here is why the P-47 was a much better plane for ground attack and other things, from this site: The Republic P-47 "Thunderbolt"

In the entire history of military aviation, there has never been an airplane that could match the P-47 Thunderbolt for ruggedness and dependability. The pilots who flew it into combat called it "The Unbreakable" and "The plane that can do anything." They were not far from wrong.

P-47's often came back from combat shot full of holes, their wings and control surfaces in tatters. On one occasion a Thunderbolt pilot, Lieutenant Chetwood, hit a steel pole after strafing a train over Occupied France. The collision sliced four feet off one of his wings--yet he was able to fly back safely to his base in England.

 

[eWildcat]

the P-47 [...] Heavy, slow, limited manoeuvrability, limited dive angles possible and the height you could pull out as it 'mushed' terribly.

Because of its weight/power ratio at low altitude, the P-47 didn't accelerate as well as many other fighters at low altitude. However it doesn't mean it was slow. Its maximum speed at low altitude was decent for the time (330 to 350 mph, depending on version). Besides, a difference of 20 mph, give or take, with the fastest fighters at low altitude won't change much regarding vulnerability to flak.
As for limited maneuverability, it wasn't a great turner, no doubt, but it was a good roller, which is a real advantage in combat (though an often overlooked one).