"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."
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?
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. I will also say there is no reason to believe that P-51 escorts attacking an advancing German threat would necesssarily be involved in twisty, turny fights (indicative of friendly mock combats) where Thunderbolts would not. Put differently, why is it that Mustang drivers would be required to chase down and outmanuever their prey while Thunderbolt drivers would not? Pehaps those daring Mustang pilots just liked the thrill of a good chase.
"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. 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.
"It would be an error to stipulate that because it Might be feasible that there weren't operational considerations prohibiting 2,000 pound bomb on each pylon for the P-47."
Who said anything about a 2,000lb bomb load under each pylon on the P-47? Moreover, the F4U's that carried 4,000lb bomb loads did so with 1,000lb under each wing and 2,000lb under the centerline. You might be correct that there may have been operational considerations. We do not know. It does not follow that therefore there
were operational considerations prohibiting it. Perhaps range and the need to carry fuel could have been such a consideration between AAF and Marine units operating from different locations. That might be an operational consideration. The P-47N's certainly carried 4,000lb ordinance loads.
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.
"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.
"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.
"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.
"They put one hell of a lot of fuel in the M wing"
I am afraid you are mistaken.
"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. Remember that statistically speaking, Corsair drivers were more than 50% more likely not to bring their planes back after taking AA hits and that this was apparently due to the more vulnerable oil cooling arrangement of the Corsair. The Hellcat and the P-47 share the same oil cooler setup. 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.
I am not sure why you want to see a "statistical basis" for that presumption. 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"?
In your earlier thread you stated, "
I believe the Corsair would have done as well and far better air to ground." (You were referring to the Corsair vs. Thunderbolt.) Tell me Bill. What statistical basis do you have on 'would have done far better air to ground' between the P-47D and the F4U? I've seen the Joint Fighter Conference Report stating that the Thunderbolt fared better than all other types in the ETO specifically including the P-38 but missed the comparison between the Corsair and the P-47.
What is your opinion on the survivability of the Thunderbolt vs. F4U Bill?
"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?
