- Thread starter
-
- #81
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
"Jank - in the ETO that would be true primarily for the P-47."
Agreed that it was a mandate for the P-47 but I believe it was nonetheless primarily true in the vast majority of Mustang encounters as well based on my reading of hundreds of encounter reports.
Jank - Good to chat.
in the 175 encounter reports I have for the 355th, there are six bona fide 'boom and zoom' encounters - and those were all within weeks of transitioning to the Mustang in March, 1944. Almost every encounter in which there were multiple claims the Mustang driver a.) got his second in a diving chase or b.) a deflection/turning chase. If you just read all of Mike William's repository of Mustang encounter reports you will get a similar sample... from a much greater cross section of groups and individual doctrines.
Having said that all of the 355FG P-47 awards were diving chasing attacks with very little turning.
Duane Beeson is the only one of the Mustang aces that articulated a high speed close (not necessarily a dive), shoot and keep your speed up, pass over and climb in a chandelle to clear tail. Having said that many other aces surely used that method depending on the situation.
What is the title of the 60 page report you referenced? I would like to obtain a copy.
The Long Reach - Deep Fighter Escort Tactics - VIII Fighter Command. Published May 29, 1944 with a several page forward by Kepner.
I don't think I implied that survivability was necessarily conclusive overall but comes much closer to being so with respect to the air to ground role. I threw it out as an additional factor I thought is important. I don't really disagree with you except with your assertion that the F4U was "as good air to ground as P-47 ". The P-47 has 1/3 more gun firepower, a greater ammo capacity, is just as stable of a gun platform and is more survivable. As for ordinance load, the P-47D could have handled 4,000lb loads too. Just becauase it didn't doesn't mean it couldn't.
While I don't disagree with that last statement, it (P47) didn't (carry 4,000 pound bomb loads, and the F4U did. On the other hand the F4U's (as limited as they were until Korea) also was equipped with 4 20mm which is heavier firepower although less ammo.
I suspect that it would be hard to prove that 6x 50 cal was less 'effective' in ground attack - dead is dead- although you can't argue the simple fact of 2 more 50's should be 'better'.
At the point in time before F4U's carried such loads, it would have been an error to assert that it could not have been done because it had not been done.
It would be an error to stipulate that because it Might be feasible that there weren't operational considerations prohibiting 2,000 pund bomb on each pylon for the P-47. I haven't seen such but one has to answer "why wasn't it done" when P-47s in the late PTO campaigns were striking similar or same Japanese targets for example at Okinawa, and certainly were flying tactical missions in ETO in April 1945. IIRC correctly all four Primary (51, 47 and F6F and F4U had pylons stressed for 1,000 pound bombs or 200 gal ferry tanks
Republic Aviation's own design specs for the P-47M, which had the exact same wing and fuselage structure with respect to load bearing, indicate a maximum bomb load of 4,200lbs The P-47N, which did often carry 3,900lbs of bombs and rockets actually had a maximum design bomb load that was slightly less at 3,700lbs. I have never come across Republic Aviation's design specs for the P-47D but there is no reason to assume that they would be any different than those for the P-47M.
How do you know that? From my perspective if either the Manual proposed that the wing pylon (and wing) were stressed for 2,000 pounds, or b.) the airframe structures analysis proposed that load I would be comfortable with it. Absent that I would doubt it (i.e wing structure, same wing, same fuse structure for 47N/M as 47D). They put one hell of a lot of fuel in the M wing - which sure changed some of the internal geometry - but I don't have access to the drawings either? I do know the P-47N was a modified D-25 but don't know what wing structure changes were made, if any. There are semantics involved here also because the 47D wing WAS stressed to carry 1,000 pounders plus 10 HVAR rockets which was a heavy total load - period... plus could carry a centerline bomb but ??? why didn't it?
I can not stress enough that the fact that the F4U actually did carry 4,000lb ordinance loads and the P-47D didn't is not conclusive on the issue of whether the P-47D could have carried such loads. Moreover, the survivability advantage of the Thunderbolt in the air to ground role is a far greater determinative factor of superiority in that role.
Jank - what statistical basis do you have on 'survivability' between the P-47D and the F4U? I've seen the USN discussions between the F6F and F4U but missed the comparison between either and the P-47?
The difference in survivability between the Corsair and Hellcat was so striking that the US Navy itself concluded that, "The F6F was slightly superior to the F4U in combat, apparently chiefly because of its greater ability to survive damage."
In short, the far and away superior performance of the Corsair could not overcome the effect of this inferior attribute.
I take the point about the P40. No one actually tried mating the P40N to a merlin 61. The P40F only had a merlin 20. It might not have made it the best but it would have been a match for most of it's enemies. It was also in service before 1940 so design issue could have been ironed out.
"in the 175 encounter reports I have for the 355th, there are six bona fide 'boom and zoom' encounters -
Ineresting that you just happened to have all 175 encounter reports categorized on such a basis on short notice.Did you really go and read through all 175 after my post or do you want to have an honest discussion here?
If you want to have an 'honest discussion' why question my integrity Jank?
As a matter of simple fact I have - and I will explain it slowly for you. I have worked nearly 20 years doing research on the 355th FG. My encounter log in which I have categorized every day the 355th engaged the LW in the air, is about six years WIP. For the last several years I have been doing EXACTLY that and nearly finished. I have also been cross referencing the a/c shot down (FW, Me, etc) with times to correlate with the losses published in various sources including Tony Woods and Les Butler's published lists..
I should PUBLISH the results in less than six months..
What have you researched and published? or more succinctly, What have YOU been doing to substantiate YOUR Bulls**T??
I am not going to read through all of Mike Williams encounters for you (as you have done for me) but as I indicated, my recollection is far different.
RECOLLECTIONS are SIMPLE for the uninformed!! I suspect (do not know for sure) that your are quite comfortable in your 'recollections' since you won't do the research.
The Mustangs fought more 'twisty, turny' fights because they could - but they weren't nearly all that way. My comments and contradiction to YOUR (unsubstantiated) 'recollections' were that MOST of the fights were either climbing into a German formation and engaging the high escorts, level attacks (shallow climb or dive) and engaing as required or simple dive and bust with the rare dive, recover, dive that you will see (if you investigate) in your 'recollections'[/B]
"I suspect that it would be hard to prove that 6x 50 cal was less 'effective' in ground attack"
Oh, I don't think it requires proving do you? Would you accept the premise that six .50's are more effective than four .50's? Bill, dead is dead but a miss is not a hit.
OK J - prove it. Prove that the P-47 with 8 50s was more effective (or efficient) than the F4U-4 with six 50s
And as I pointed out, the P-47M was designed to handle a 4,200lb bomb load. The P-47M and D would have been indistinguishable in that regard.
And you fact base is?? for either the bomb load or the same wing or the same structure.?How many 'operational' examples can you substantiate a bomb load of 4,000 pounds, forget 4200?
"IIRC correctly all four Primary (51, 47 and F6F and F4U had pylons stressed for 1,000 pound bombs or 200 gal ferry tanks"
The P-47M and N were designed to handle bomb loads under each pylon of 1,600lbs. I have never seen the Republic Aviation design spec fpr the P-47D but the M is obviously instructive here.
You haven't proved same (unmodified) wing yet J
For us math challenged that would appear to be a bomb load of 3200? Do you have any inkling that more was carried on a cl for example? And that fact source would be where? A capacity for example for a 1000 pound rack at centerline doesn't mean the airframe can be safely operated with all three pylons fully loaded
"On the other hand the F4U's (as limited as they were until Korea) also was equipped with 4 20mm which is heavier firepower"
I did not know at 4x20mm Corsairs saw combat. Do you know how many outfitted in this fashion saw combat? I do think that 4 x 20mm's are probably a better set up than 8 x .50's.
from wikipedia
During the Korean War, the Corsair was used mostly in the close-support role. The AU-1 Corsair was a ground-attack version produced for the Korean War; its Pratt Whitney R-2800 engine, while supercharged, was not as highly "blown" as on the F4U
The AU-1, F4U-4B, F4U-4C, F4U-4P and F4U-5N logged combat in Korea between 1950 and 1953.[citation needed] On 10 September 1952, a MiG-15 made the mistake of getting into a turning contest with a Corsair piloted by Captain Jesse G. Folmar, with Folmar shooting the MiG down with his four 20 millimeter cannon. The MiG's wingmen quickly had their revenge, shooting down Folmar, though he bailed out and was swiftly rescued with little injury.
But I don't KNOW how many AU-1's, F4U-5 (or modified F4U-4's) were equipped with 20's instead of 50's but ALL F4U-5s were 20mm ships. I have to look at the AU-1 to be sure.
"How do you know that?" (with respect to the bomb load under each wing)
Because I own a copy of the Republic Aviation Performance and Specification Manual for both the P-47M and N.
As the discussion is either two 1600 pound bombs plus another one to bring it up to 4,000 - can you show (not tell) us where that spec is?
"They put one hell of a lot of fuel in the M wing"
I am afraid you are mistaken.
You are absolutely correct - my 'recollection' of which one had the redesigned wing was faulty...from Wikipedia "The P-47N was the last Thunderbolt variant to be produced. Increased internal fuel capacity and drop tanks had done much to extend the Thunderbolt's range during its evolution, and the only other way to expand the fuel capacity was to put fuel tanks into the wings. Thus, a new wing was designed with two 50 US gallon (190 L) fuel tanks."
"Jank - what statistical basis do you have on 'survivability' between the P-47D and the F4U? I've seen the USN discussions between the F6F and F4U but missed the comparison between either and the P-47?"
It is based on the presumption that the Thunderbolt was at least as survivable as the Hellcat.
Why does your 'presumption' have weight over published facts?B]
I am aware of no studies but first person accounts of Thunderbolts continuing to fly with horrific damage abound in relation to such accounts involving Hellcats. I am quite comfortable in this presumption.
But your Fact base comparison between F6F and P-47 is what?
I am not sure why you want to see a "statistical basis" for that presumption.
Because you are either stating a 'fact' or an assumption' - I like facts better[/B]
A moment ago you were standing by the assertion that, "It would be an error to stipulate that because it Might be feasible, that there weren't operational considerations prohibiting 2,000 pund bomb on each pylon for the P-47."
Can you share the data that you have on these "operational considerations"?
Read my statement again and ask the question again. Having said that didn't you just state "1600 pound load for each pylon" for P-47M? based on Republic Specs.
It was a 'hypothetical' and so far you have failed the factory test, so the operational consideration (so far) isn't needed even if it existed
What is your opinion on the survivability of the Thunderbolt vs. F4U Bill?
My OPINION, as I have stated it before - as contrasted with OPINIONS to the contrary, is the the F4U was just as 'survivable'. ABSENT Facts, I will operate on the OPINION Jank
"And so the USN said - "Well, post war we want the inferior airplane because we are Squids and have a reputation to uphold - so we choose the worst of the two to carry into all future conflicts through Korea. We want the one whitch is far and away the inferior combat aircraft."
Works for me."
Now you are just being silly Bill. Conversely, do you think that the Navy had bogus statistics, or drew conslusions that were bogus or was basing that conclusion on political considerations? Maybe someone at Grumman paid them off? Corsair pilots liked to ditch their planes for fun?
Dav, as you know the F8F never even saw service in WW2. My list does not give percentages but breaks out this way-Best fighter below 25000 ft: P51D, F4U1D, F6F5, F4U4 and best fighter above 25000 ft: P47D, P51D,F4U1D,F6F5, F4U4, P38L.
Dav, I think your observations about the F4H are probably right on. I have a good friend in Texas who originally was a F100 driver but wound up flying 150 missions as a FAC. (How that happened is another story) He said that bombing results by the F4s were uniformly somewhat poor as compared to say the F105s.
Among 20mm Corsairs a relatively small number of F4U-1C's saw combat in WWII.The AU-1, F4U-4B, F4U-4C, F4U-4P and F4U-5N logged combat in Korea between 1950 and 1953.[citation needed] On 10 September 1952, a MiG-15 made the mistake of getting into a turning contest with a Corsair piloted by Captain Jesse G. Folmar, with Folmar shooting the MiG down with his four 20 millimeter cannon.
"If you want to have an 'honest discussion' why question my integrity Jank?"
I frankly did not know about your working nearly 20 years doing research on the 355th FG. That's why.
Actually 5 years before the book and 20 years correcting some of my assumptions and digging into far more operational details...
But it was your first act before getting facts Jank - it is your pattern.. Fire, ready, aim.
"OK J - prove it. Prove that the P-47 with 8 50s was more effective (or efficient) than the F4U-4 with six 50s"
Again, I think you are being silly. Again, Would you accept the premise that six .50's are more effective than four .50's? Bill, dead is dead but a miss is not a hit. 1/3 more bullets unleashed on your target means significantly more things on and around the target getting hit. That's proof enough for me. I am sorry I do not have a statistical analysis of six gun versus eight gun fighters for you.
A statistical proof would show and conclude that extra two .50's actually enabled the P-47 to destroy more troops, trains, trucks, goats, donkeys and other light and heavily armored vehicles, that both the P-47 and F4U were likely to encounter. So, I'm sure you have at hand the conclusive proof that the extra 50s made a difference? What I think you would have to show is a.) that most missions used all the respective ammo and b.) that the extra two guns made the difference on the targets. It might even come down to which bird is the most stable as a gun platform to keep the rounds on target.
"And you fact base is?? for either the bomb load or the same wing or the same structure.?" (Here you are taking issue with my claim that the P-47M is designed to handle a 4,200lb bomb load.)
Republic Aviation - Models P-47N and P-47M, Description, Performance Dimensions: Chapter 4 "Fuel, Oil, Capacities, Armament and Weights" Total Bomb Load (U.S. Units) (a) Wings: 2-1,600lb (b) Belly: 1-1,000lb
And your proof that that load carrying capability per each rack is used simultaneously is?? this is third time I actually asked if you had ONE example of the P-47 actually carrying 4,000 (or 4200) pound of bombs. And you have not produced that example. I can accept an example, but let me give you an illustration. The mission might require a 75 gallon tank and a 1000 pound bomb on centerline. The mission might require a 75 gallon cl tank and two 1,000 pound bombs - but the airplane may not actually be spec'd to carry max capacity for each load bearing rack. I am prepared to be wrong but none of the Google searches are indicating more than 2600 pound bomb load.
Unfortunately for this discussion you seem reluctant to produce the factual circumstances that surround the ACTUAL mission of any P-47 carrying a 4,000 pound bomb load. Rockets don't count in this discussion Jank. unless you think 2x 140 pounds for two extra rockests over an F4U means anything in this discussion??
"You haven't proved same (unmodified) wing yet" (In reference to my claim that the M and D had the same wing and wing to fuselage structure.)
You are correct. I have not and frankly do not feel the need to do so. If you want to reject my claim, that is fine. We can agree to disagree. I suspect that you know my claim is true. The P-47M had the same wing as the D.[I}
I know the P-47M was constructed from a P-47D-25. I don't know what mods were performed. You do not know either... your claim of 'unmodified' remains a claim.
I asked you the following,"I did not know that 4x20mm Corsairs saw combat. Do you know how many outfitted in this fashion saw combat?"
You gave examples that were all post WWII. I'm sorry, I thought we were talking with respect to WWII. My bad. So we have eight .50's vs. six .50's for Thunderbolts and Corsairs that saw combat in WWII?
F4U-1C: This variant was in production in 1943, but was only introduced in combat during 1945, most notably in the Okinawa campaign. Intended for ground-attack as well as fighter missions, the F4U-1C was similar to the F4U-1A but its armament was replaced by four 20 mm (0.79") AN/M2 cannons, each containing 231 rounds[15] of ammunition. The variant was very rare as only 200 were built. This was due to the fact that pilots preferred the standard armament of six .50 calibre machine guns since they were already more than powerful enough to destroy most Japanese aircraft, and had more ammunition and a better firing rate.[16] The weight of the Hispano cannons and their ammunition affected the flight performance, especially its agility, but the aircraft was found to be especially potent in the ground attack role.
Does this work for you?
But, as a strict matter of fact the discussion on this thread was 'pick an airframe and go with it. The P-47 stopped in October of 1945 - the F4U did not.
"Why does your 'presumption' have weight over published facts?" (here you are referring to my assertion that the Thunderbolt was more survivable than the Corsair based on the published facts concerning the Hellcat and Corsair)
What published facts are you referring to? Facts that you are not producing.. as in published - but you keep postulating and presuming and assuming points that are NOT facts Do you know of published facts indicating that the Corsair or Hellcat for that matter was more survivable than the Thunderbolt?
Nope but I am NOT stating that they are - you ARE stating that the P-47 IS more survivavble - once again these are FACTS that are NOT in evidence
I asked for your opinion as to whether the F4U was more or less survivable than the P-47 and you responded, "My OPINION, as I have stated it before - as contrasted with OPINIONS to the contrary, is the the F4U was just as 'survivable'." I have no evidence (and neither do you) to the contrary.
Upon what is this opinion based? I hope you are not presuming in the absence of "published facts." Of course not. So please do share the "statistical data" and "published facts" that support that thesis.
Opinions are often subjective. Mine for example would ask the question "how many oil cooler failures to flak were there? And your answer would be?? Another question I might ask is how many actual downings were due to an oil cooler failure - all causes?" And your answer would be? Would they be opinion or fact? How do they add to the total of combat losses, to accidents? how do each of the respective categories (ie air, flak, mechanical, unkown) stack up between Corsair and P-47? Do you know? Of course not! Neither do I - so I state an OPINION. You reach for "Oil Cooler" and wave that flag!
So the statistics seem to be derived based on 1.5x as many F6Fs returning to base after being hit by flak per your quote below:
"41% of carrier based F4U's actually hit by AA fire became losses versus 26% of carrier based F6F's that were actually hit by AA fire in 1945."
Back to the question of "were they attacking same target profiles? and because the question between us is about the P-47 - then how do the flak losses compare to the respective threat environments.
What the Report cites is that F6F vs F4U for Okinawa survived more often when hit. The sample size was carrier based Okinawa campaign only. I have found no data concering the mission profiles - for example was Corsair sent on missions that had a lot of 20mm flak and above, while F6F strafing and bombing close air support subject to small arms fire? I have no real problem accepting F6F more survivable as carrier aircraft in Okinawa campaign - but still have questions on the data.
How does that series of missions relate to strafing German troops or shooting up airfields? In the latter mission, until March/April 1945 that was dominant P-51 rather than 47 for example.
Now, as I stated, "The difference in survivability between the Corsair and Hellcat was so striking that the US Navy itself concluded that, "The F6F was slightly superior to the F4U in combat, apparently chiefly because of its greater ability to survive damage."
In short, the far and away superior performance of the Corsair could not overcome the effect of this inferior attribute."
I stand by that statement.
There were 200 F4U1Cs produced during WW2 and they were armed with 4-20mm cannon. I don't know how effective that armament variation was.
drgndog,
"And your proof that that load carrying capability per each rack is used simultaneously is?? ... Unfortunately for this discussion you seem reluctant to produce the factual circumstances that surround the ACTUAL mission of any P-47 carrying a 4,000 pound bomb load."
I think were getting off track here. My previous post (#79) states:
"As for ordinance load, the P-47D could have handled 4,000lb loads too. Just becauase it didn't doesn't mean it couldn't. At the point in time before F4U's carried such loads, it would have been an error to assert that it could not have been done because it had not been done. The weight differential between an empty and fully laden P-47D was about 7,000lbs. ... I can not stress enough that the fact that the F4U actually did carry 4,000lb ordinance loads and the P-47D didn't is not conclusive on the issue of whether the P-47D could have carried such loads."
I never said that the P-47D could carry 4,000lbs of bombs.
Actually I think you did on page 5 - which is what started my probe on this subject..
"And as I pointed out, the P-47M was designed to handle a 4,200lb bomb load. The P-47M and D would have been indistinguishable in that regard."
"
I said "ordinance load".
Actually you have said both in different combinations - mostly not the same - and have yet to prove even a total ordnance load of bombs and rockets to support what you have said so far
I did say that the P-47M and P-47D had maximum bomb loads by design of 4,200lbs and 3,700lbs respectively. The only way that the P-47D and P-47M could carry such bomb loads would be through the carrying of 1,600 pounders under each wing with a 1,000 pounder under the fuselage. I understand that 1,600lb aerial bombs did exist in the allied arsenal. I do not think P-47's ever carried these bombs but can see no reason why a pylon stressed for 1,600 lbs could not handle it.
Interesting speculation but what official document have you seen that claims it will do it - and safely as an operational load? You continue to dance around this
The problem with the P-47D and M are that they can't handle two 1,000lb bombs under the fuselage. The Corsair gets to 4,000lbs with a 1,000 pounder under each wing and two 1,000 pounders under the fuselage.
I can see that your hackles are raised again at my claim that the P-47M bomb load was applicable to the P-47D. I have not come across "proof" for you that the P-47D and M were cut from the same cloth, or airframe as it were.
My hackles are not raised - they are merely amused to this point. You seem so desparate to make the P-47 the most durable, heaviest load carrier, longest range, Luftwaffe destroyer that struck fear in all hearts.
"this is third time I actually asked if you had ONE example of the P-47 actually carrying 4,000 (or 4200) pound of bombs. And you have not produced that example. ... Unfortunately for this discussion you seem reluctant to produce the factual circumstances that surround the ACTUAL mission of any P-47 carrying a 4,000 pound bomb load."
I never said I either had or could produce an example or actual situation where the P-47 actually carried 4,000lb bomb loads.
See above
"I know the P-47M was constructed from a P-47D-25. I don't know what mods were performed. You do not know either... your claim of 'unmodified' remains a claim."
No, it was not. But that is neither here nor there. Yes, for you and others who read this thread (assuming there are others) it is just a claim.
To that, you stated, "Jank - what statistical basis do you have on 'survivability' between the P-47D and the F4U? I've seen the USN discussions between the F6F and F4U but missed the comparison between either and the P-47?"
"Somehow the USN decided that the 'less survivable' fighter should continue production while they killed "the better one" - Why? - I stand by my statement."
One more thing. You said, " All of the 355FG P-47 awards were diving chasing attacks with very little turning."
Do you have some evidence of this? I have reread a bunch of 355th FG P-47 encounters. In order to prevail on this, you will need to show (1) All of the attacks were diving chasing and (2) All of the attacks had very little turning.