P-38 or P-47 for Strafing

GrauGeist said:

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

Click to expand...

Or the -G and -H models with a 75mm potshotting while four or more fifties were hosing you down ... and then come the parafrags.

Thumpalumpacus said:

Or the -G and -H models with a 75mm potshotting while four or more fifties were hosing you down ... and then come the parafrags.

Click to expand...

The 75mm wasn't as successful as hoped as it was hand loaded which proved difficult during flight.
Not to say it was useless.

Reluctant Poster said:

The 75mm wasn't as successful as hoped as it was hand loaded which proved difficult during flight.
Not to say it was useless.

B-25 75mm - Search Videos

www.bing.com

Click to expand...

Agreed, iirc they could only get one and sometimes two shots off in a pass.

Many of the B-25 crews removed the cannon and packed an extra .50 MG (or two) in the hole.

Paul (Micdrow) has an excellent thread about all the weapon configurations aboard the Mitchell in the "B-25 weapons" thread.

Beaufighters from 455 & 489 squadrons from the Coastal Command Langham Strike Wing in action off Borkum in 1944.

A good thread, chaps. I'll just add a couple of notes:

First, very (very) few internet queries realize that there was no such thing as THE P-38 or THE P-47 or THE 109 or etc etc. Obviously they all came in different flavors & capabilities.
As secretary of the American Fighter Aces Assn I new lots of P-38 guys, and almost without exception they loved the airplane. HOWEVER, some distinguished between the early models (up to F or G) and the later models, particularly the J and L.

Secondly, it's little realized but in researching the 15th AF history, I found that the three P-38 groups scored almost no aerial victories after August 44 (when Ploesti was captured). The Lightnings were largely removed from bomber escort in favor of bombing & strafing.

However, comma: one of the most illuminating documents was a postwar letter from Col. Obie Taylor who rebuilt the 14FG after N Africa. He said that the 38 required about 50 percent more training than a single-engine fighter "but thereafter the P-38 pilot should be nearly unbeatable."

Barrett said:

However, comma: one of the most illuminating documents was a postwar letter from Col. Obie Taylor who rebuilt the 14FG after N Africa. He said that the 38 required about 50 percent more training than a single-engine fighter "but thereafter the P-38 pilot should be nearly unbeatable."

Click to expand...

I remember reading that in your book

EwenS said:

Beaufighters from 455 & 489 squadrons from the Coastal Command Langham Strike Wing in action off Borkum in 1944.

View attachment 677253

Click to expand...

Those planes have just as much chance of hitting each other or colliding than hitting those ships, either way the men on any vessel being attacked would be in for a terrifying experience.

Gentlemen:
(My thoughts in bold)

The following is from:
Effectiveness of Third Phase tactical air operations in the European Theater, 5 May 1944 – 6 May 1945

Prepared by the Army Air Force Evaluation Board in the European Theater of Operations, August 1945

(Descriptions of P-47 and P-38 from Part 16 of the paper)

P-47: This airplane, although originally designed for high altitude combat, proved outstandingly successful for close-in air operations. Its bomb carrying capacity, ease of maintenance and operation, and ability to withstand AA fire due to structural strength and its radial air-cooled engine, have established its superiority to either of the other types for this role. The fire power of its eight .50 caliber guns was deadly against all but heavily armored targets. Although downward visibility is restricted, high aileron efficiency and strength permit the wing to be rocked sharply for inspection of the immediate terrain. A high rate of acceleration in the dive and efficient zoom enable the pilot to enter the dive-bombing run at altitudes above the light flak (6,000 to 8,000 feet), diving at an angle between 2 5 and 40 degrees, to release his bombs between 3500 and 1500 feet. This method of attack was found to produce the best bombing results while carrying the aircraft through the flak and small arms zone with minimum exposure. The P-47 could also be equipped to use AR and HVAR rockets. Several groups of the Ninth Air Force were thus equipped and employed this weapon with considerable success on armor and other well-protected targets against which their .50 caliber guns were comparatively ineffective. Due to its weight, the P-47 mushed badly on pullouts, necessitating firing from longer ranges during ground-strafing attacks. The resulting inaccuracy was compensated for by the heavy volume of fire power. Ammunition expenditure was correspondingly high. In spite of its size, its speed made it a difficult target for flak.

P-38: The P-38 also proved its value in close cooperation missions. Its four .50 caliber and one 20 mm. gun mounted close to the longitudinal axis of the airplane and the excellent forward visibility, make for firing accuracy in air combat or ground strafing. High speed on the "deck" and the comparative silence of approach often achieved surprise in low-level attacks and it was much feared by enemy ground troops on this 'account. The P-38 carried a heavier bomb load to a longer distance than the P-47 (see Table 29 at end of post) Moreover, due to the excellent clearance provided by the tricycle landing gear it can carry the 1,000 pound bomb with ease. This landing gear, plus good forward vision for the pilot, permitted take-off from rough and narrow runways under cross-wind conditions without difficulty. The principal disadvantages of this aircraft were: (a) its vulnerability to flak; (b) poor downward visibility to the side. The inline liquid-cooled engines and dual supercharger installation were highly vulnerable and could be knocked out with a small caliber gun fire or by small fragments of self-destroying AA fire. Direct hits by 13 mm, 20 mm, or 37 mm explosives in the engines or coolant radiators often resulted in fire, necessitating bailing out. However, good single engine performance brought home many badly damaged P-38's which would have otherwise been lost. The structure of the aircraft is very strong.

A disadvantage inherent in the P-47 for ground strafing was that, due to the limited forward visibility caused by the radial engine, the target had to be approached in at least a 10-degree dive. It was therefore necessary to commence firing at comparatively long range in order to deliver an effective burst. This disadvantage did not exist in the case of the P-38. The disposition of the four .50 caliber guns in the nose provides an excellent concentration of fire at all ranges. The effectiveness of a strafing pass was greatly increased by employing a small amount of flaps and depressing the nose.

(From the standpoint of the pilot, the P-47 certainly seemed to give the pilot a greater chance of survival. Support for that statement can be found in "IX Air Force Service Command in Operation Overlord, D-15 to D+90", selected data summarized below)

For the time frame May 22, 1944 to September 4, 1944, Ninth Air Force P-47 flew 69,066 sorties with 553 Thunderbolts lost or written off, a loss rate of .8 aircraft for 100 sorties. The P-38 flew 14,149 sorties with 195 Lightnings lost or written off, a loss rate of 1.38 aircraft lost per 100 sorties.

(Now, I did not find anything on the type of missions flown by each aircraft, nor how far over the lines the aircraft ranged. Mission type, target type, and distance flown would probably have a role in the number of aircraft lost.)

(On the receiving end, the view of the P-38 as a ground attack machine was a little different.)

Verbatim replies from Generalleutnant Fritz BAYERLEIN, to questions from H", 12th Army Group (4 May 1945)

Q. 7. TECHNICAL QUESTIONS. a)

b: was there any difference in ground forces reaction to P-47' s, P-38' s, P-51's spitfires and typhoons?

A. 7. a) Difference in effect:

i) Lightning: unpleasant for ground troops because of its quiet, almost noiseless approach, its maneuverability and speed, its heavy armament and bombs, exact aiming and hitting. Particularly effective against tanks. Direct or near hits destroy the tank.

ii) Thunderbolt: Armament and bombs, noiser, easier to identify from the ground, also very maneuverable and fast. Otherwise, same effect as Lightning, probably lighter bombs. (I, myself, was hit by Thunderbolts five times.) Direct or close bomb hits destroy the tank. Weapons penetrate all tank armor except that of the "Koenigstiger.

iii) Spitfires and Mustangs have not impressed me particularly in their effect.
Source:
"A Crack German Panzer Division and What Allied Air Power Did To It Between D-Day and V-Day"

Headquarters, Air P/W Interrogation Detachment, Military Intelligence Service, May 26. 1945.
Appendix I, page 6

And another view

SOURCE: An 18-year old native of VIENNA who had just finished his
ground training but had had his transfer to a school continuously deferred until his capture in Southern France about 21 September 1944.

When asked about tactical operations,

» Very successful, especially against small targets. The Lightnings (P-38) are particularly feared. Even if no damage is suffered the sudden appearance of the planes causes such panic and resultant disorganization and delay that the effort can be considered worthwhile for that reason alone. The frequency of these attacks and the complete absence of the GAF caused many of the soldiers to wonder about the veracity of their propaganda, which has been seriously doubted ever since the V-l (flying bomb) failed to live up to expectations."

Source: Air power in the Mediterranean,
November 1942-February 1945.
Page 76

TABLE 29: CHARACTERISTICS OF FIGHTER AIRCRAFT
(as employed on air-ground cooperation missions)
Operating Indicated Aux.
Type Radius Speed Bomb Load Fuel
P-47 250 210 2 x 500 0
250 200 2 x 1000 0
360 200 2 x 500 108
P-38 260 230 2 x 500 0
250 220 2 x 1000 0
400 220 1 x 1000 165
So, which was the best straffer? Each aircraft had its advantages and disadvantages. The P-47 certainly seems to give its pilot the best chance for survival. Both aircraft carried potent armament and were highly effective in their jobs, though IMHO, the P-38's guns are underrated when compared to the P-47. The P-38 had a slightly greater or equal tactical radius when carrying bombs and travelled at a higher airspeed compared to the P-47. German soliders on the receiving end remembered the P-38. My conclusion, it depends on the type of target and its location.
FWIW

Eagledad

GrauGeist said:

Many of the B-25 crews removed the cannon and packed an extra .50 MG (or two) in the hole.

Paul (Micdrow) has an excellent thread about all the weapon configurations aboard the Mitchell in the "B-25 weapons" thread.

Click to expand...

I always wondered why a couple of 37-40mm auto cannons were never fitted to the medium bombers, the Ju88 got a cannon pack that would have been handy against ships. Luftwaffe Resource Center - Bombers - A Warbirds Resource Group Site

This proposal was just a bit of overkill.... and damaged the test aircraft.

B-25C with 37-mm Cannon
In December 1942, the Engineering Division of the Air Force Materiel Center directed that the possibility of fitting two 37-mm cannon into the B-25 be explored. In response, North American prepared a brief proposal which involved the installation of two 37-mm cannon in a deep "bathtub"-type fairing installed underneath the bomb bay. The aft section of the fairing carried a bay for a battery of parafrag bombs, the bay blending smoothly into the ventral turret. Additional armament was to have included a pair of fixed 0.50-inch machine guns in the nose, a 75-mm cannon in the nose tunnel, two fixed 0.50-inch machine guns in a module mounted underneath the forward hatch, and a pair 0.50-inch machine guns in both aft turrets.
B-25C 41-12800 was received by North American in February 1943 for use as a test aircraft for this project. Unfortunately, tests proved that structural damage from the blast of the 37-mm cannon was so severe that major structural changes to the airframe would have to be made before the concept could be made to work. The project was abandoned before any further conversions could be carried out.

Click to expand...

Several of these hit the SouthEast Pacific campaign - 8x .50mg & 1x20mm fixed forward-firing:

The P-61 turned out to be a savage ground attack platform, too.

It was put to use after D-Day, hitting German targets with it's four 20mm cannon along with the upper turret's four .50 MGs (those that hadn't had the turret removed).

So far no one has mentioned the A-20 Havoc. The A20G-1 (250 built) came with 4x20mm ans 2x0.5" in the nose. Not favoured by the USAAF due to the cannon jamming so later models replaced the cannon with 4x0.5". Most G-1 models went to the USSR.

PAT303 said:

I always wondered why a couple of 37-40mm auto cannons were never fitted to the medium bombers, the Ju88 got a cannon pack that would have been handy against ships. Luftwaffe Resource Center - Bombers - A Warbirds Resource Group Site

Click to expand...

The A-26 came with six different nose armament options:

6 x .50-cal MG
1 x 37mm cannon and 4 x .50-cal MG
1 x 37mm cannon and 2 x .50-cal MG
2 x 37mm cannon
1 x 75mm cannon and 2 x .50-cal MG
1 x 75mm cannon and 1 x 37mm cannon

As far as I'm aware, only the first option was used on operations.

33k in the air said:

The A-26 came with six different nose armament options:

6 x .50-cal MG
1 x 37mm cannon and 4 x .50-cal MG
1 x 37mm cannon and 2 x .50-cal MG
2 x 37mm cannon
1 x 75mm cannon and 2 x .50-cal MG
1 x 75mm cannon and 1 x 37mm cannon

As far as I'm aware, only the first option was used on operations.

Click to expand...

The A-26B-50 and subsequent blocks were built with an 8x0.5" nose armament. Some of these reached the 3rd BG in the Pacific in summer 1945. The Group moved to Okinawa on 6th Aug and this one was photographed on the 20th.

9th Air Force Report
Loss rate is per 1,000 sorties. Ac loss is all losses from all causes as a percentage of Unit Equipment. Sortie Rate is number during the month per Unit Equipment aircraft. The P-38 seem to have run into hostile fighters at a higher rate in August based on the kill claims.

Entire War
P-38 MIA 317, Category E 77, 19.5% Category E, loss rate 1.2%, non effective rate 6.4%
P-47 MIA 1,208 Category E 249, 17.1% Category E, loss rate 0.74%, non effective rate 5.5%

P-38 31,862 effective sorties 3,225,426 0.5 inch rounds fired, 4 machine guns average expenditure 101.2 rounds, 15.6 rounds of cannon, 345.3 pounds of bombs
P-47 190,450 effective sorties 55,487,266 0.5 inch rounds fired, 8 machine guns average expenditure 291.4 rounds, 295.7 pounds of bombs.

Ordnance dropped or jettisoned by P-38, numbers, not tonnage

2000 GP HE 57 On Target 1 Jettisoned
1000 GP HE 13,660 On Target 1,045 Jettisoned
1000 SAP HE 1,239 On Target 11 Jettisoned
500 GP HE 10,618 On Target 815 Jettisoned
260 Frag 242 On Target 12 Jettisoned
100 Frag 153 On Target 48 Jettisoned
1100 FB Incen 1,147 On Target 55 Jettisoned
750 FB Incen 6 On Target
500 FB Incen 478 On Target 47 Jettisoned
500 IB Incen 182 On Target 1 Jettisoned
350 FB Incen 20 On Target 1 Jettisoned

Comes to 11,000 short tons of bombs on target.

The P-47 heaviest HE bombs
1000 GP HE 8,987 On Target 563 Jettisoned
1000 SAP HE 260 On Target 36 Jettisoned
500 GP HE 167,981 On Target 9,630 Jettisoned

Overall 56,322 short tons of HE, Frag and Incendiary bombs on target., plus 13,783 rockets.

The 9th AF P-61 by the numbers is. Operations commenced in July 1944, peak month was September 1944 with 557 sorties dispatched, all up 2,919 sorties dispatched, 2,837 credit, 2,735 effective, with 67 of the aborts due to radio failure. 50 kill claims, consisting of 5 Do217, 3 Fw190, 4 He111, 1 He177, 5 Ju52, 3 Ju87, 9 Ju88, 12 Ju188, 7 Me110 and 1 Me410. First kill claims logged in August, peak month December 1944 with 23 claims. Expended 167,933 rounds of 20 mm, fired 273 rockets and jettisoned another 2, dropped 176 bombs amounting to 54.43 short tons and jettisoned another 5 of 1.55 short tons. No use of 0.5 inch machine guns. Bombing operations began in January 1945, with peak activity being 38.05 short tons dropped in March. Bombs dropped were six 1,000 pound GP, fourteen 500 pound GP, the rest were incendiary, thirteen 1,100 pound, forty four 500 pound FB, sixteen 500 pound IC, seventy nine 500 pound IB, two 280 pound and two 250 pound.

The 9th received 68 P-61 all up, 9 were MIA, 9 written off on operations, 10 written off not on operations, 9 were transferred, 2 were an "other loss". There appears to be an error in this table, either 4 fewer aircraft left the 9th or the end of war inventory is incorrect.

PAT303 said:

Those planes have just as much chance of hitting each other or colliding than hitting those ships, either way the men on any vessel being attacked would be in for a terrifying experience.

Click to expand...

Not with the very successful tactics that they used from mid-1943. Contrary to how it appears in the photo, it wasn't a free for all. Each flight was allocated a target ship. Everything was carefully choreographed to prevent air to air collisions. And the attack would generally be over in 2-4 minutes. The greatest danger was probably hitting the ship they were attacking, as happened to this Banff Wing Mosquito hitting a mast.

P-47 all the way

IIRC, the B-25s and Beaufighters had a fine few days in the Bismark Sea. No doubt the Japanese were dismayed when they showed up.

GrauGeist said:

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.

Click to expand...

Dave - I would argue the point about firepower. I want the 20mm but also (IMO) the four C/L 50s put more ammo on the aiming point. The analogy might be equivalent to I/C choke (P-47) with more pellets and F choke for P-38. I agree the P-38 relative vulnerability, due to a.) much larger target, and b.) hits in engine/coolant system had a real propensity to start a fire that the other engine wouldn't help with.