Hardest plane to take down in WW2?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Compared to the P-47, the Il-2 was alot easier to hit too, slow and low agility (even by jug standards)

Another thing is that even without a turbo it still had an integral single-stage supercharger for low-alt use, so atleast it would have some boost preassure. So it wouldn't be normaly aspirated, though altitude performance would be as bad as the P-40 or P-39...
And the prototypes used fabric control surfaces, but balloning problems made them switch to dural. The tips of the alerons were made progressively blunter as the speed of the 'bolt increased, to deal with compressibillity problems.

Despite some of the volnerabillities of the P-38 it was able to get home with a surprisig amount of damage, albeit it couldn't obsorb as much damage and usualy ended up with loss of an engine and chunks of the airframe, usualy irreparable. In one instance in the PTO I remember reading about a pilot who had gotten in a dogfight (Zeros IIRC) and sored at least one kill and then (iirc) debris from a kill impacted on the tail of the a/c, completely tearing off a boom! He lost the turbo for the engine and lost control, but astonishingly he managed to regain control (before he'd even realized fully what had happened) and landed the plane safely at base, though the P-38 was totaled and was scrapped.
 
Drgndog,

I see what you're saying and it is HIGHLY valid, but maybe you're looking at this too closely?
Why couldn't one simply count the total number of sortie losses against total production numbers for any airplane and use the percentage to answer the question?
...and by "sortie losses" I mean a plane is no longer usable, other than as a source for parts.




Elvis
 
lesofprimus said:
Remember the Egon Mayer vs Robert Johnson story??? The P-47 is a rugged bitch...
Click to expand...
Doubtful it was Johnson's P-47 that was attacked by Egon Meyer. The LW pilot was either Lt. Waldemar Radener or Fw. Wilhelm Mayer.

Not that rugged, for no mention of the 5 P-47s lost during this combat.
 

Elvis - here are the factors that we might want to consider..

Would you look at the total number of sorties flown by B-17's in ETO versus the number of sorties of a C-47 and ratio out the losses... and maybe conclude that the C-47 was tougher than the B-17? So, the mission is an important factor.

Would you look at the number of tactical ground support missions flown by 9th AF and compare the number of missions by 8th AF P-51s against enemy airfields and conclude that one was tougher than the other based on loss to sortie ratios?

You might, but one factor here is not just the simple fact that ALL airfields were heavily defended but you then ask how many passes were made in which to give the gunners another shot - contrasted with shoot as you go but don't come back for a typical low level sortie by P-47s. So, threat environment and tactics applied are added to mission.

You might ask yourself if the airfields and island defenses in the PTO was as formidable as ETO if you wish to compare F6F to say, Jug or P-38.

Operational losses such as engine failures and crashes on take off - might be higher in PTO than ETO because of hot days and full loads, rather than standard or better days for lift as would be encountered during cool or very cold days. Icing in Europe, T-Storms in Pacific

Instrument flying conditions over ETO versus Africa? or Alaska?

These are environmental factors that could skew the results but lesser impotance I think..

Even in my somewhat whimsical example of building every attack unit mission with four each F4U, F6F and P-47 - you should rotate lead and trail on every mission - the first guy across a heavily defended target usually survived better than the trail flight.
 
Read thru almost whole topic and I have question about a "fact" that was metioned here few times, does anyone have any proof that USAAF stated that F4U was thougher than P-47 after some kind of post-war test?
 
lesofprimus said:
Doubtful??? Evidence to back that up Al???
Click to expand...
Mayer was based in Brittany with III./JG2. Any claims that day were made by JG,2 by I and II Gruppes and from JG26.

The German records indicate that the following pilots made claims for P-47s over Western Europe on this date:

26.06.43 Hptm. Wilhelm-F. Galland Stab II./JG 26 P-47 N. Neufchâtel:
8.000 m. 18.52

26.06.43 Ofw. Adolf Glunz 4./JG 26 P-47 N. Neufchâtel: 7.000 m. 18.54

26.06.43 Ltn. Heinz Hoppe 4./JG 26 P-47 Neufchâtel: 7.000 m. 18.55

26.06.43 Fw. Günther Scholz 5./JG 26 P-47 20 km. N. Neufchâtel: 2.500
m. 19.00

26.06.43 Ofw. Kurt Goltzsch 5./JG 2 P-47 QC 2: 5.550 m. [15 km. N.W.
Cayeux] 19.03

26.06.43 Hptm. Wilhelm-F. Galland Stab II./JG 26 P-47 10 km. N.W.
Dieppe: 7-8.000 m. 19.04

26.06.43 Ltn. Waldemar Radener 4./JG 26 P-47 10-12 km. N.N.W. Le
Tréport: 400 m. 19.04

26.06.43 Fw. Peter Crump 5./JG 26 P-47 15-20 km. N.W. Somme Estuary:
300 m. 19.10

26.06.43 Ltn. Heinz Hoppe 4./JG 26 P-47 10 km. N.W. Somme Estuary:
100-0 m. 19.10.

According to the description of the area where the battle was fought, the LW pilot could be Lt. Waldemar Radener of II./JG26. Note also the altitude the battle was fought.

Fw. Wilhelm Mayer had a combat with a P-47 that day but made no claim.
 
marshall said:
Read thru almost whole topic and I have question about a "fact" that was metioned here few times, does anyone have any proof that USAAF stated that F4U was thougher than P-47 after some kind of post-war test?
Click to expand...

None that I am aware of.. for that matter no 'proof' that any single aircraft was tougher than another, although much anecdotal evidence is available in form of photos of damaged returned aircraft.

The closest I have seen to a serious attempt of 'proving' that one aircraft was tougher than another was the USN report that Jank and Crumpp and others cited for the Okinawa (?) campaign, discussing F6F and F4U battle damage. It concluded that the F6F was more survivable based on the study data.
 
And the P-47 was probably at least as tough as the F6F but with the performance of the F4U and even better at altitude due to the turbo. And as said, the Jug wouldn't be running on carborator induction alone if a turbo was lost, it would be using the integeral single-stage supercharger.

Plus, if you want to add ability to escape/evade an enemy, the Jug had one of the fastest diving speeds, and accelerations, of any WWII prop a/c. So it could out-dive almost any attacker if things went sour in combat. Just hit the deck and run!
 
AL Schlageter said:
Doubtful it was Johnson's P-47 that was attacked by Egon Meyer. The LW pilot was either Lt. Waldemar Radener or Fw. Wilhelm Mayer.

Not that rugged, for no mention of the 5 P-47s lost during this combat.
Click to expand...

VIII Bomber Command # 68: 1st Bomb-Wing
11 Group Ramrod 108/I
Airfield VILLACOUBLAY Matford POISSY (o)
18.29 T: 124/12 B-17s: 5 lost
Heavy-Bomber Support:
US VIII FC 4th FG 48 P-47 Thunderbolt 18.25-19.55 Ramrod 108 2 - 0 - 1 Me 109G No casualty H-BS: Poissy

Claim 26.06.43 Lt. D.W. Beeson 4th FG 334th Sqn. 1 - 0 - 0 Me 109G 19.10 ca: Dieppe
Claim 26.06.43 Lt. R.C. Care 4th FG 334th Sqn. 1 - 0 - 0 Me 109G 19.10 ca: Dieppe
Claim 26.06.43 Lt. D.B. Leaf 4th FG 334th Sqn. 0 - 0 - 1 Me 109G 19.10 ca: Dieppe

US VIII FC 56th FG 48 P-47 Thunderbolt 18.12-19.38 Ramrod 108 2 - 1 - 1 FW 190 5 Cat.Em Fighters H-BS: Poissy

Cat.Em 26.06.43 Capt. Robert H. Wetherbee: KIA 56th FG HQ Flt. P-47 C-2 HV- FW 190s: Forges
Cat.Em 26.06.43 Capt. Merle C. Eby: KIA 56th FG 61st Sqn. P-47 C-2 HV- FW 190s: Forges
Cat.Em 26.06.43 2/Lt. Louis T. Barron: KIA 56th FG 61st Sqn. P-47 C-2 HV- FW 190s: Forges
Cat.Em 26.06.43 Capt. Roger B. Dyar: KIA 56th FG 61st Sqn. P-47 C-2 41-6534 UN-D FW 190s: Forges
Cat.Em 26.06.43 1/Lt. Ralph A. Johnson: ASR 56th FG 62nd Sqn. P-47 C-2 LM- FW 190s: Forges

Cat.E 26.06.43 1/Lt. Justus D. Foster: OK 56th FG 61st Sqn. P-47 C-2 HV- Battle-damage: C-L Hawkinge

These are the 56FG looses, including Cat E - interesting that Johnson's badly shot up Bolt survived the scrap yard

One of the 47 claims was from JG2 but four from Stab II./JG26 and II./JG 26.

Based on the markings (if accurate) of the Staffeln leader I suspect Wilhem Mayer, but Crump and Radener and Hoppe were all awarded P-47 scores.

I can't find any solid proof that Egon Mayer's Stab/JG2 was in this fight

Above info extracted from Les Butler/Tony Woods website

Regards,

Bill
 
Originally Posted by lesofprimus
Remember the Egon Mayer vs Robert Johnson story??? The P-47 is a rugged bitch...

YouTube - Dogfights: " Thunderbolt " 1/5
YouTube - Dogfights: " Thunderbolt " 2/5
Click to expand...

Did Egon Meyer's Fw-190 have a yellow nose? I've never seen that paint scheme on a 190 before... Except for the "yellow-nosed Fw 190s" that were actually missidentified Romainian IAR 80's.

Also Mayer must have been out of 20mm rounds, 'cause the P-47 is tough, but still won't take a barrage of 20mm be it HE or AP. The 'Bolt can, however, withstand hundreds of .30 cal rounds with out detriment, inless control linkedges are damaged or the engine is hit head-on. (though head-on would not be a good plan of attack aganst a jug, like a Zero charging a Wildcat head-on...)

I've got to wonder though, why Johnson didn't try to clean the oil off the wind-screen, it wouldn't have been too hard from his position, and coult have helped alot, maby even getting some accurate shots off on Mayer...


I wonder where the Dogfights historians got their info on this and how they came to the conclusion it was Mayer, maby the description of markings?
 
drgondog said:
I can't find any solid proof that Egon Mayer's Stab/JG2 was in this fight
Click to expand...
It would be Stab III./JG 2.

III./JG 2 Gruppenkommandeure
Hptm Egon Mayer, 1.11.42 - 1.7.43

JG 2 Geschwaderkommodoren
Maj Egon Mayer, 1.7.43 - 2.3.44

III./JG 2 was based at Vannes-Meucon.
 
drgondog said:
But how do we (or anybody) truly have a basis to either judge or compare against equally legendary airframes?
Click to expand...

one can't, but as long as it's kept in good spirit and form, such debates can be amusing if nothing else.

Myself, i'd have to go conservative and base my list on reputation with a smattering of ancedotal accounts backing it up. As such I don't see anything "controversial" about nominating the P-47 as having the greatest "potential" for absorbing punishment in the fighter/fighter bomber catagory with the FW-190F being my alternate choice. I was impressed by the latter's armor placement for the ground attack role.

The Stormavik usually gets the nod for ground attack aircraft.

Medium bombers: I've read that the B-26 was very tough, more so than the Mitchell which also usually gets kudoes for being durable. It did help though facing weaker armed Japanese aircraft. The Wellington's basic structure was reputed to be very tough but faced cannon armed 110's and 109's early on and suffered for it as did other British 2E types.

Heavy is usually fairly easy. The B-17's shadow looms large here and even though ancedotal, the numerous pictures of flak/cannon damaged Fortresses returning from the ETO are impressive to say the least. The B-29 is supposed to have been tougher but i'm not sure if RL bore that out.
 
Several, if not all, models of the IL-2 had very vulnerable oil coolers, so it would probably be the P-47 for this too...

The B-24, structurally speaking, could probably obsorb more damage than the B-17 (and more weight for weight than the B-29) but it had worse forward defences, and more importantly had leak-prone fuel lines and there were few B-24's that didn't reek of gas fumes...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

P
Cool plane names
Replies
4
Views
687
Greyman
G
German WW2 seaplane bases
Replies
1
Views
591
Dimlee
A
Perun: Building the Worst WW2 Air Force
Replies
13
Views
1K
pinehilljoe
SMGs in ww2 with much smaller cartridges?
2 3
Replies
53
Views
2K
Admiral Beez
A
WW2 Fantasy Aircraft
2 3 4
Replies
62
Views
2K
Zmauky
Z
Menu
Log in
Register