RJ's account of that particular fight is disputed (by multiple first hand sources), so its not the best source to use.
Personally, I think the ruggedness of the P-47 is often OVERSTATED, not understated. Yet, it still had the lowest loss rate of the USAAF's single seat fighters in the ETO and MTO.
Yes, I agree that the Sabre V on the Tempest/Typhoon was more vulnerable to ground fire and other damage, but even the mighty R-2800 could be brought down by a single RC round in the right/wrong place.
The Sabre V was also more prone to mechanical failure than the R-2800, which I think is the major ace in the hole for the P-47.
It comes down to personal preference.
Above 20,000 ft there is no comparison, the P-47 is better on account of its turbocharger.
But, below 15,000 feet do you prefer the P-47 which is more rugged/survivable fighter against damage, particularly ground fire, but more vulnerable when it comes to combating enemy fighters? Or do you want the Tempest V, which is more competitive against enemy fighters at lower altitudes but more inclined to burst into flames if it runs into enemy fire or expire from its own engine troubles.
To me, it depends on the general combat situation you're in. If you're fighting for control of local airspace above the battle ground (al la MTO 1941-1944, CBI 1941-1945, Russia threater 1941-1945), I'd want a Tempest V.
If I was escorting bombers deep into enemy territory (ETO 1942-1945, PTO 1943-1945) I'd want a P-47.
My personal preference is for the Tempest V, I just like Hawker aircraft.
But, if you were a general conducting a war, think on this:
The P-47 can do all the jobs the Tempest V can do, and do them acceptably well. BUT, the Tempest V cannot do the long-range/high alt job that the P-47 could do.
Great Points, I totally agree!
Just curious though, who has argued against Robert Johnson's story of his encounter that day?
Last edited:
