That would be perfectly reasonable, as the Spitfire had been phased out, but you wouldnt phase them out until P-51s were there to replace them. 109 P-51s would have made no progress at all without the others, as with animals that hunt in packs, some do the chasing, some do the herding and some do the final kill.
Most Overrated aircraft of WWII.....? (5 Viewers)
- Thread starter Lucky13
- Start date
Deleted member 68059
Staff Sergeant
- 1,056
- Dec 28, 2015
Well yes that is true, you dont just instantly ditch everything else, but virually all units were switched over to 51s as soon as practicably possible.
Another interesting set of stats:
Fuel required top operate each aircraft type per hour (averaged over a mission) - US Gal/hour (sorry I have forgottten the source, but I think it was USSBS report)
B-29 = 600
B-24 = 320
B-17 = 248
PR Mosquito = 130
P-38 = 130
P-47 = 119
P51 = 65
There is no way I will disparage the P-51 in any way but you pee with the pot you have and the the P-47 was there when others werent. A massive amount of operational knowledge was gained with the P-47. Also when you look at the LW bases in Belgium and Netherlands many were already abandoned because of attacks by P-47s and others before the P-51 became active.
Last edited:
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
A top USAAF administrator in 1944 would have done as you say, No question.
However the argument was made that the P-47s didn't get extra fuel and range until after air superiority had already been won by the allies.
While not as efficient as the P-51s the P-47s certainly contributed to winning air superiority in the 2nd 1/2 of 1943 and the first 1/2 of 1944.
They were given more fuel and performance enhancements before air superiority was truly won.
They still weren't as good as P-51s.
Argument started when the poster claimed the P-47 was over rated because it could NOT do long range escort in 1943.
No allied fighter available in squadron/group numbers in 1943 (except for a few weeks in Dec?) could do long range escort either.
So if the P-47 was over rated because it couldn't do long range escort (in an 8th Air Force sense) then every other Allied fighter in service in 1943 is over rated because none of them could do that mission either.
I do appreciate the tables and charts.
33k in the air
Staff Sergeant
- 1,356
- Jan 31, 2021
Thanks for that post! Very interesting stuff.
33k in the air
Staff Sergeant
- 1,356
- Jan 31, 2021
How many of these documents are available online?
Are such reports available online in any systematic way? Or it is more split up among a multitude of websites?
drgondog
Major
A decent sample is on Spitfireperformance but mine were largely found in the microfilm of squadron histories obtained from USAFHRC over the course of 45 years. I think Dr. Frank Olynyk may have included the site of each victory credit in his many volumes on the subject. I have his data by VC by type AC by Theatre by date by Squadron/unit - but not specific location/time.
drgondog
Major
First, I agree that an oft overlooked fact of P-47C/D operations in ETO is that all of the P-51 Mustang FGs that converted from P-47 accelerated their results against the LW because a.) they had received significant combat experience in the P-47 against the LW, b.) retained a high % of their experienced fighter pilots because the LW chose to not aggressively engage the Patrols and Sweeps - which gradually increased confidence of the US pilots, and c.) a Major overlooked fact is the skill and experience of forming and flying 'large wing' excursions in really crappy weather.
OTOH, while a strafing attack was executed by the 55th FG prior to Doolittle's order to "Pursue in the air and on the ground" in January 1944, it was a freak occurrence (in November 1943). The 353rd FG had some limited claims Jan 14 and 21 and the 78th FG had first recorded VCs over France based airfield in early February, but the first two Significant airfield attack by 351/353rd FG (Feb 22 at Bonn) and 354FS/355FG on (March 8 was at Hosepe) Germany - both Flight level force, both on way back from Penetration Support. It was the last P-47 equipped mission by the 355th - and first loss to airfield flak for both FGs. Notably the top AAF ace Walter Beckham was lost on that 2/22 strafing attack to airfield flak.
My only point is that if any significant damage was obtained by strafing French/Belgium/Netherlands it was by RAF and to my knowledge neither JG 2 nor JG 26 abandoned any airfields due to AAF strafing by either P-47 or P-38.
My last observation is that dominance over LW, pre-D Day, was not achievable without the combined forces of 8th and 9th AF P-47, P-38 and P-51Bs - augmented by RAF Mustang III as required. The tactic of tasking the P-47 to Penetration and Withdrawal Support was crucial to permit P-38/P-51 to fly straight to deep Germany RV to initiate Target escort with maximum internal fuel for combat.
Deleted member 68059
Staff Sergeant
- 1,056
- Dec 28, 2015
I am sympathetic to this view and I understand it. However, I "think" that the following example regarding the Spitfire, might partly help explain. This is a letter written
by the head of Rolls Royce (Ernest Hives) on 17th Nov 1942 to Freeman. (so a year before what we were talking about above happened). (see my book pg 247).
It might "look" very odd why planes like the 47 were obviously being de-prioritised slighty before the actual operational results proved the worth of its competition, but, keep in mind
that planes (eg the Mustang in this case) had been evaluated and tested for a very long time before they entered the European theature in operational service.
The point I`m making is, that the planners etc, had formed their view that it was VERY highly probable that it would prove the best option long before it started
proving it in combat. So they would have already started shifting priority to the 51, way in advance. Otherwise, if operational stats came in proving that it WAS
indeed working as expected, there would have been a disastrously long time-lag before whatever new aircraft it was (in this case the 51) could be employed
with full backing, support and training. I think in war you had to make "educated bets" like that all the time, I dont think you could always wait until you had stats to match expectations with operational performance before you put your chips on the table.
Here, for example, you can see the British are already reckoning in 1942 that the Spitfire (unless something really drastic changed) would be totally outclassed
by the two-stage Mustang when it came into full use. I think this is far more likely the explanation for the 47 being edged out even before the 51 had
fully started service, much more likely than a certain series of YouTube videos on a conspiracy to pull the rug out from the 47 by cloak and dagger.
One popular YouTube creator cites the lack of drop tank development, but the fact is (see my last post) that the 47 consumes about double the fuel
per hour of operations that a Mustang does, its not difficult to understand why it was much more difficult to equip such an aircraft with
a realiable system of long-range tanks - I dont think they had the resources to create a long range P47 and P51 airfleet, and had to
make a "bet" in 1942/43 about where to put their money, and the P-51 got the backing. I dont view that as a conspiracy, but just
pragmatism in wartime planning. Anyway, thats my view on it essentially. P-47 a great plane, but I also dont think that the P-51
suceeded without merit, I think it was just a little bit better at what was needed, and thats about it.
Last edited:
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The P-47 was bound to have a higher rate of fuel consumption not only because it had an 18 cylinder engine and weighed nearly 3,000 pounds more than the P-51 empty, but it had all the aerodynamics of a dump truck...
SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
I'd like to have an award for "insightful".
I mean we should have an insightful award.
Last edited:
drgondog
Major
Thoughtful insight.. I devoted a lot of ink on this topic also.
Some points regarding the 'other side of the pond' thinking in 1942/mid 1943. The P-38 had very strong sponsorship within GHQ/Combat Command and was supported by Echols/Materiel Cmd CO. AAF-HQ flexed muscles within Requirements & Planning to successfully push the NAA/A-36, then the P-51A contracts as the Merlin experiment unfolded at R-R and NAA in Spring 1942. The AAF had just initiated the Combat Tank program to extend escort range (60, 75, 110 and 150 gal).
In August 1942, Eglin released the Report of "Tactical Employment of Mustang P-51' with summary comment "The subject aircraft is the best low altitude American fighter aircraft yet developed and should be used as the criterion of subsequent types. The P-51 Mustang is the best fighter tested by this command to date." So, in relatively quick order, the RAF received astonishing estimated Performance analysis for the Merlin/Mustang I airframe, The Packard Merlin V-1650-3 was undergoing (and failing) Bench testing at Wright Field, both projects for XP-51B/Mustang X were in high gear, AAF modified the P-51A contract to be able to shift to P-51B-1 - and 8th AF was initiating baby steps over France.
IMO, the most interesting timeframe was spring 1943 through July 1943 when the promise of the P-51B was delivered and the Chief of Air Defense who also had Allocation authority, and an acolyte of the P-38, directed ALL P-51Bs to TAC, NOT Strategic Air Forces. The B was being treated as just an extension of the A and suitable for tactical recon, attack and battlefield air superiority.
In early July - the 8th AF suffers increasing loss rate as deeper incursions past west Germany occurred. Eaker begs for P-51Bs and P-38s, Asst Secy War Lovett appeals to Arnold - and Arnold tasked Gen Barney Giles, his deputy, to solve the problem of long rang escort by end of 1943. Gen Echols studied direction was to kiss GM and hope the XP-75 turned into a Princess, while Giles was demanding more internal fuel for the P-51B, P-38J and P-47D by the end of 1943. At the same time the internal recommendation from Planning and Requirements favored the P-51B with acknowledgement that the P-38 was more ready for combat operations. The first prototype P-51B-1 with a SS 90 gal fuselage fuel tank was tested, along with external 75 gal combat tanks by AAF (after NAA) by flying from Muroc Field to Albuquerque, NM and 'fight for 20min (on MP). Roughly combat radius to Stettin, PL. The P-38J was next with LE fuel/relocation of intercooler - P-47 was deemed impossible to re-design fuselage or wing before end of 1943 and released forecast for production article P-47D-25 in Feb/Mar 1944. There were few structural issues to modify either the P-51B or the P38J and kits were ordered and delivered to ETO in quantity in November 1943.
Herein was the major problem between current P-47C/D airframes through P-47D-22. The center of the fuselage had to be re-designed to install the extra 70 gallons under the cockpit, as no kit modification was deemed feasible. Te modifications to the wings required Depot level assets and many weeks labor per wing mod to install pylon and internal plumbing to route combat tank fuel to the engine.
Eaker, Doolittle and Spaatz were aware of the issues in the September 1943 timeframe as P-47D limitations with belly tanks became fully known and the hoped for solution near term was the inbound P-38H then modified J, followed by operational P-51B in ETO. Arnold complied with Eaker/Spaatz plea and prioritized allocations of both P-38 and P-51B from other theatres.
The pissing contest between Spaatz and Leigh-Mallory over control of the ALLOCATION of P-51B to TAC had to be settled by Eisenhower/Arnold/Portal in December 1943 as the 354th FG became operational. The rest is history well hashed.
Last edited:
Thanks Bill informative as always. I would add that the experience gained by the planners controllers and everyone else down to the tea lady was also invaluable. This discussion started with the P-47 being called inadequate, the term is purely relative, the P-47 was inadequate for deep penetration escort in Germany but the P-51 was inadequate to escort a raid on Moscow. That doesnt mean useless, without all the lessons learned from mistakes, errors, panics and complete screw ups made with the P-47 all of the same mistakes errors panics and screw ups would have happened later.
As previously I was making a general point, not specifically about deep penetration raids into Germany. The web site I was referring to is here but it is a PDF format so hard to quote easily but for example
Chieveres in Belgium was bombed by 9th Marauders on 10 and 29 Nov 1 Dec 1943 23 Feb, 11 Apr and 13 Apr 1944 but also 2 Mar 1944 if they werent escorted by P-47s which is not stated they were certainly within P-47 escort range. On 2 Mar 1944 it was attacked by P-47s from the 8th on a low level strafing attack.
Gilze Rijen in Netherlands was bombed and strafed by P-47s on 23 Dec. 1943, then on 23, 25, 31 Jan then in February on 14th.
From the planes destroyed like Bf 210 and Ju 88 these were not day fighter bases but that doesnt mean the efforts were worthless or pointless.
I agree completely which is why I contested the "P-47 range was inadequate". The RAF received over 800 P-47s used mainly in Burma utilising the "cab rank" system where range is expressed as loiter time waiting to be called by ground control.
Coo-rectamundo! The presumption that the P-47 was "short-ranged" in 1943 is ignorant of the facts as they were at the time and is based entirely on someone looking through the good ole retrospectoscope. For a single-seat fighter to possess the range and combat radius of the Mustang on its debut in 1942 was extraordinary, that the P-38 and P-47 could go as far as they did when they did was extremely useful at the time and replacing them with the P-51, with its capabilities was just doing what anyone in that position would have done, but in no way does it diminish what the P-38 and P-47 achieved.
Also in my opinion range alone is almost useless, what is the point of flying to Berlin with machine guns? Unless you have a lot of bombers with you, you have a very expensive aircraft and more expensive pilot trading blows with every platoon that has a heavy Mauser. From the start of the war to the end the highest performing allied aircraft took pictures, true of the Spitfire, Mosquito but also the Mustang/P-51.
Shortround6
Lieutenant General
A lot of things are relative.
An early P-47 will fly about twice as far as a Spitfire on internal fuel at about the same speeds.
There is your "short" ranged P-47.
The hitch was that it needed about 3 times the fuel to go twice as far.
Next hitch is that to escort B-17s and B-24s in daylight you needed to fly further and faster and higher than the initial requirements which really screwed things up.
I would note that the P-40 no letter (and no self sealing fuel tanks) held 181 gallons of fuel for a pretty good range in 1940.
However that fuel load put it over designed gross weight and the plane had to fly under restrictions.
Normal fuel load for designed gross weight was 120 gallons.
Many US fighters had significantly longer range than many European fighters of 1937-41 simple to make it easy to deploy the planes from one US base to another.
Mustang may have been designed to hold about the same amount of fuel for the same basic engine but without (or with less) restrictions?
Some P-40s had center of gravity issues if the tank behind the pilot was full. P-36s and Hawk 75s even more so.
The Mustang certainly had less drag and could carry its 180-184 gallons in protected tanks. P-40s lost fuel capacity as tank protection increased.
P-39C carried 170 gallons which dropped to 120 gallons with protected tanks.
None of these aircraft were going to escort B-17s or B-24s, protected tanks or not as they lacked the superchargers needed for for accompanying turbo charged bombers.
An early P-47 will fly about twice as far as a Spitfire on internal fuel at about the same speeds.
There is your "short" ranged P-47.
The hitch was that it needed about 3 times the fuel to go twice as far.
Next hitch is that to escort B-17s and B-24s in daylight you needed to fly further and faster and higher than the initial requirements which really screwed things up.
I would note that the P-40 no letter (and no self sealing fuel tanks) held 181 gallons of fuel for a pretty good range in 1940.
However that fuel load put it over designed gross weight and the plane had to fly under restrictions.
Normal fuel load for designed gross weight was 120 gallons.
Many US fighters had significantly longer range than many European fighters of 1937-41 simple to make it easy to deploy the planes from one US base to another.
Mustang may have been designed to hold about the same amount of fuel for the same basic engine but without (or with less) restrictions?
Some P-40s had center of gravity issues if the tank behind the pilot was full. P-36s and Hawk 75s even more so.
The Mustang certainly had less drag and could carry its 180-184 gallons in protected tanks. P-40s lost fuel capacity as tank protection increased.
P-39C carried 170 gallons which dropped to 120 gallons with protected tanks.
None of these aircraft were going to escort B-17s or B-24s, protected tanks or not as they lacked the superchargers needed for for accompanying turbo charged bombers.
In my opinion, the most overrated (when reputation exceeds contribution) fighter airplane of WW2 was the Spitfire. It made its reputation and became a public legend during the Battle of Britain but its contribution to the war effort afterwards and eventual victory was very little.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
wow...really?
So the Spitfire being the first bomber escort and the first to engage the Luftwaffe on their own turf and the nemesis of the Bf109 is over-rated?
Interesting...
The Spitfire didn't see service in the Mediterranean theatre, Malta or Africa, until the middle of 1942. The RAF had been in combat against the Italian Air Force since June 1940 (East African campaign). The predominant fighter types of the British Commonwealth throughout the North African campaign would have been the P-40 and Hurricane.
