P-38 or P-47 for Strafing

[Piper106]

I am trying to figure out whether the P-38 or the P-47 would have been the better strafer / ground support airplane after the P-51 takes over air defense / bomber escort tasks . .

I have read the same articles you have about the toughness of the R-2800, coming home with cylinders shot off, but the P-47 is still a single engine airplane. If that R-2800 stops, within a couple of minutes the pilot becomes a foot soldier. Lose an engine on the P-38 and you still have an engine to fly home.

Assume that the allies have reasonable air superiority, and our P-38/P-47 strafer being bounced by enemy fighters while flying low and slow supporting the troops is not a significant concern.

I think the P-38 is the better choice, but that is just a feeling.

Piper106

 

[Capt. Vick]

To misquote my flight instructor said: Yes, it is true that the 2nd engine on the P-38 will get you to the crash site!

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

If the -38 loses the engine with the generator on it, that could be a serious issue, because your props are now pretty much set in the last position.

 

[GrauGeist]

The P-38 was just as vulnerable to ground fire as the P-47, though the second engine does give it a certain edge.
They both could deliver bombs and HVARs on ground targets, but the P-47 has the edge over the P-38 in terms of firepower.

But I would tend to favor the P-47 not only for it's eight fifties, but also for it's survivability.
Not many airplanes can strafe the hell out of enemy troops, fly through an Olive orchard and proceed to fly over a hundred miles back to base.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

If the -38 loses the engine with the generator on it, that could be a serious issue, because your props are now pretty much set in the last position.

Only on the earlier models

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Only on the earlier models

Thanks for the correction.

 

[Shortround6]

In the CBI theater a few P-38s managed to make it back over 600 miles after losing an engine.

Now maybe all the 2nd engine did was get the P-38 to the crash site but the pilots may have preferred the crash site to be 300 miles away from enemy territory rather than 300 miles inside of enemy territory

 

[FLYBOYJ]

For what it's worth...

I've mentioned this on here many times -

An old neighbor flew P-38s and P-51s in the ETO. He had love for both aircraft. He did have 300 hours (IIRC) in twins before transitioning into the P-38 so never had issues flying the plane. He did say it was cold. He did say he'd rather be in a P-38 shooting up ground targets than in a P-51. He never mentioned if he flew the P-47.

Michael Alba | American Air Museum

www.americanairmuseum.com

 

[33k in the air]

There was one example of a P-38J or L which was modified into a super strafer, with 8 x .50-cal in the nose and a Douglas twin .50-cal gun pod under each wing, bringing the total firepower to 12 x .50-cal MGs.

Presumably the experiment had issues, as it was never used operationally, as far as I recall.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

There was one example of a P-38J or L which was modified into a super strafer, with 8 x .50-cal in the nose and a Douglas twin .50-cal gun pod under each wing, bringing the total firepower to 12 x .50-cal MGs.

Presumably the experiment had issues, as it was never used operationally, as far as I recall.

Another P-38L was modified after the war as a "super strafer," with eight .50 in (12.7 mm) machine guns in the nose and a pod under each wing with two .50 in (12.7 mm) guns, for a total of 12 machine guns. Nothing came of this conversion either.

Lockheed P-38 Lightning

The Lockheed P-38 Lightning is a World War II American fighter aircraft. Developed to a United States Army Air Corps requirement, the P-38 had distinctive twin booms and a single, central nacelle containing the cockpit and armament. Named "fork-tailed devil" (der Gabelschwanz-Teufel) by the...

military-history.fandom.com

From the same page:

After the war, a P-38L was experimentally fitted with armament of three .60 in (15.2 mm) machine guns. The .60 in (15.2 mm) caliber cartridge had been developed early in the war for an infantry anti-tank rifle, a type of weapon developed by a number of nations in the 1930s when tanks were lighter but, by 1942, the idea of taking on a tank with a large-caliber rifle was no longer considered to be practical.

The cartridge was not abandoned, with the Americans designing a derivative of the German 15 mm (.59 in) MG 151 cannon around it and designating the weapon the "T17". Although 300 of these guns were built and over six million .60 in (15.2 mm) rounds manufactured, some problems with the weapon were never resolved, and the T17 never saw operational service. The cartridge was expanded and reshaped to fit 20 mm projectiles and became a standard U.S. ammunition after the war. The T17-armed P-38L did not go beyond unsuccessful trials.

 

[GrauGeist]

The kings of the "super strafers" goes to the B-25 and B-26 (with a nod to the A-26B).
They ranged up to as many as 18 foreward-firing .50MGs.

 

[PAT303]

I think the B 25 and Mozzie teste with 6 pounder/75mm cannons were the ultimate straffers, the Mozzie with four hispano/four .303 browings were good too on shipping, The P47 was big enough for 6 hispano's or two .50's and two 37mm's, that would have been a cool machine.

 

[EwenS]

The Mosquito FB.XVIII Tse Tse with the 6pdr anti tank gun and Molins auto loader attracts much attention but the truth is that only 17 were built, in batches of 2-3, between Sept 1943 and Jan 1945 and one of those went to the USN at Pax River in April 1945 for trials. So they were rare beasts among the 7,700+ Mosquitos built.

Initial operations were by a "Special Flight" of 618 squadron attached to 248 Beaufighter squadron. That flight was later absorbed into 248 after it converted to Mosquitos, which continued to use the type until late 1944. A small number were then issued to 254 squadron in April 1945 to operate alongside their Beaufighters.

The squadrons never had more than about 4 of these aircraft on charge at any one time.

Mosquito Production - Search Results

Production, conversion and service information for the de Havilland Mosquito

www.mossie.org

Amazon product ASIN 8389450453
View: https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/8389450453/
The ultimate punch in the Mossie was the FB.VI with 4x20mm cannon, 4x.303" and 8x3" RP as used by the Coastal Command Banff Strike Wing.

 

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

Looking at the various reports it seems the 18 Mosquito XVIII were HJ732 (the prototype), HX902, HX903, HX904, MM424, MM425, NT220, NT224, NT225, PZ251, PZ252, PZ300, PZ301, PZ346, PZ467, PZ468, PZ469, PZ470. There is plenty of disagreement about the numbers, the Ministry of Aircraft Production says 16 built, but it ignores any sent direct to experimental work. The serial registers have HJ732 with XVIII written over the top of VI, consider NT220 a mark VI and have PZ346 as a conversion.

Production of 18 would probably be 1 in Aug-43, 3 in Sep-43, 1 in Jan-44, 1 in Feb-44, 2 in May-44, 1 in Jun-44, 2 in Jul-44, 3 in Aug-44, 1 in Sep-44, 1 in Oct-44, 1 in Nov-44, 1 in Jan-45. The Ministry of Aircraft Production omitting one of the first 4 aircraft, given the RAF reports it had 2 XVIII in squadrons, one with the Controller of Research and Development and 1 had been lost by end November 1943, though it classifies one of the XVIII as a conversion. MAP also omits NX220 sent to the Royal Aircraft Establishment.

Looking at the number of RAF serials allocated to De Havilland for mark VI HJ732 needs to be counted as a mark XVIII to have the mark VI official total agree with the number of serials allocated or be treated as a mark VI sent to experimental work and omitted from the MAP count.

The Serial Registers report PZ467 being sent to the US and that it was at Dorval on 27 April 1945.

Edited to change the production figure for September 1943 to 2. The card for HJ732 states it was converted, confirming the census report.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

According to The Rand Corporation Study "Aircraft Vulnerability in World War II" you were better off in a P-47:

"The difference in the damage and loss which arose from the type of aircraft used for each mission is decidedly more marked than in the case of the heavy bombers. Three principal types of fighters were used - the P-47, P-38, and P-51, the latter two having liquid cooled engines, the former air-cooled. Throughout the war the P-47 showed itself more capable of sustaining damage and returning than either of the other two types. Roughly 8 out of 10 P-47s that were hit returned as contrasted with 7 out of 10 P-38s and 6 out of 10 P-51s."

A table follows with supporting data

"The above illustrates the durability of the P-47 but also shows that it operated on shorter missions than the other two types, which would tend to reduce its loss rate somewhat. A rough measure of the degree of exposure to enemy action is given by the number of claims against enemy aircraft. While the loss rate for the P-51 was 3 times that of the P-47 per 1000 sorties, its claim rate was 3 times that of the P-47. In contrast the P-38 loss rate was about the same as that for the P-51 but its claim rate was lower than either of the other types."

" Because of the limited ability of fighters to continue when damaged, distance becomes an important factor. Holed oil or coolant systems would allow roughly 10-20 minutes flight time - if friendly territory were within this distance, the fighter was only damaged - otherwise it was lost. The liquid cooled P-51's had the longest range and were used for bomber escort on the deepest penetrations This fact no doubt contributes to type's higher loss rate since combat far from friendly territory resulting in damage is more liker to prevent return"

 

[stona]

The kings of the "super strafers" goes to the B-25 and B-26 (with a nod to the A-26B).
They ranged up to as many as 18 foreward-firing .50MGs.

Surely any WW2 era super-strafer would have to be lifting cannon armament?

As Monroe pointed out at the Patuxent conference:

"Of course, you have other advantages of the 20 [in addition to pure 'gun horsepower' over the .50]. You have the much greater penetration of armor. the 20 will go through 3/4 inch of armor at 500 yards, while the .50 cal will go through only .43. I addition to that you have one more great advantage - that is, you can have longer and more frequent bursts without damage to the gun with the 20 than you can have from the .50 cal. That is important for the strafing airplane, because they are burning up their barrels and ruining their guns on one flight. Sometimes it is long before that one flight is over."

Give me something with four 20mm cannons over something with six or eight .50 calibre machine guns any day, assuming you want ne to go strafing. In fact, give me something with 20mm cannons any day...period.

 

[Glider]

I think the often overlooked Beaufighter should get a mention if we are looking at strafing. 4 x 20mm and 4 x 0.5 would knock the stuffing out of any target.

 

[DrumBob]

IMO, it's the P-47, because of its toughness and ability to get the pilot home after it's been seriously damaged. The guy in my avatar is a good example of that.

 

[GrauGeist]

Pretty sure the Japanese were not really thrilled about having 10, 12, 14 or more .50 MGs raining down on them per pass...

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I think the often overlooked Beaufighter should get a mention if we are looking at strafing. 4 x 20mm and 4 x 0.5 would knock the stuffing out of any target.

I ran out of time this morning, but was wanting to post about the flak-suppression Beaufghters provided for Bismarck Sea and other operations. I wouldn't want to be anywhere near that cone of fire.