Thumpalumpacus
Major
The fact that Rommel -- and other generals -- would be prioritized in no way supports the claim that Quesada personally planned and flew that mission.
P-38 or P-47 for Strafing
- Thread starter Piper106
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The fact that Rommel -- and other generals -- would be prioritized in no way supports the claim that Quesada personally planned and flew that mission.
drgondog
Major
To add to the point, one wonders how and why advance intelligence of Rommel's daily travel diary would be dispensed to Quesada. One also wonders who the other members of the 'team' would be? One wonders how four fighter pilots would accurately pick the route on a map, locate the road at the correct moment Rommel was traveling merrily on his way?
On the surface, the connective tissue between gathering real time info on a general who did not typically have a predictable travel schedule, convey to intelligence to Pete Quesada, and somehow he thinks 'this is my Yamamoto moment, picks up the phone from 9th AF FC - presumably to several pilots he trusts, sez meet me on the flight line at 0900, briefs them on the mission - and take off into the wind., only to arrive on time/on station to pluck the general, seems rather far fetched.
Maybe somebody had Quesada's logbook and or documents regarding the mission to sooth my rampant skepticism.
Reluctant Poster
Tech Sergeant
- 1,647
- Dec 6, 2006
Its not like Rommel was taking a flight like Yamamoto with a flight plan prepared well in advance , but rather visiting military bases. He visited several bases before the attack. I'm sure there would be flexibility in his schedule. Even something as simple as stopping for some roadside relief means he doesn't show up at the right time.
If Quesada had personally attacked Rommel it would have been splashed across the front page of every newspaper in the US. In fact the US did claim they got Rommel but it wasn't Quesada.
The Boy Who Got Rommel
By R. Douglas Nunes Field Marshal Erwin Rommel, the infamous “Desert Fox,” was appointed Commander-in-Chief of Army Group B on the Western Front and put in charge of strengthening the Normandy coastal defenses. In the months leading up to the Allies’ D-Day invasion, Rommel ordered the...
warfarehistorynetwork.com
Here's is a video recreating Rommel's journey that day:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6X6BTNi29vc
Note that they took a detour to get off the main road to avoid Jabos. The idea that after a full day of traveling to various bases and attending meeting and driving on country roads all the while avoiding Jabos they would arrive at a particular spot at a precise time is preposterous.
In my opinion:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bA-UPrK_x-k
Barrett
Senior Airman
Which would be the preferred strafer?
Idunno...
because we do not know if we're choosing between rounds on target
or
RTB
or trying to factor in both.
I shall state the obvious:
The P-38's armament was centered in the nose: four .50 cal. and a 20mm grouped close together for an unusually tight cone of fire.
The 47's armament (eight .50 cal.) was mounted in the wings, four to a side. A devastating battery when the rounds (800 rpm x 8) arrived on target--depending on range of harmonization. Short or long, of course, the dispersion thinned out.
The Jug's durability remains legendary. (I well remember the first time I saw a 47 wing unskinned--the spar looked like it came from a B-25.)
But as noted on this thread, the 38 had invaluable get-me-home insurance. One of my ace friends flew single-engine almost 700 miles over the Pacific to keep his feet dry.
Sidebar: I grew up behind radials, mostly Wrights, but gotta say there's no sweeter sound in aviation than twin Allisons really hauling the mail in a Lockheed airframe.
Idunno...
because we do not know if we're choosing between rounds on target
or
RTB
or trying to factor in both.
I shall state the obvious:
The P-38's armament was centered in the nose: four .50 cal. and a 20mm grouped close together for an unusually tight cone of fire.
The 47's armament (eight .50 cal.) was mounted in the wings, four to a side. A devastating battery when the rounds (800 rpm x 8) arrived on target--depending on range of harmonization. Short or long, of course, the dispersion thinned out.
The Jug's durability remains legendary. (I well remember the first time I saw a 47 wing unskinned--the spar looked like it came from a B-25.)
But as noted on this thread, the 38 had invaluable get-me-home insurance. One of my ace friends flew single-engine almost 700 miles over the Pacific to keep his feet dry.
Sidebar: I grew up behind radials, mostly Wrights, but gotta say there's no sweeter sound in aviation than twin Allisons really hauling the mail in a Lockheed airframe.
Glider
Captain
I have to go with the P47. The liquid cooled engines were far more likely to be knocked out by a hit to the radiators whereas you had a fighting chance of getting back with a direct hit to the engine of the P47. The P38 was less agile making it an easier target for the AA guns.
The additional guns of the P47 spread out over the wings is also an advantage. There was little the 20mm would take out that the 0.5 couldn't and the extra spread would also cover a bigger area, another plus.
The additional guns of the P47 spread out over the wings is also an advantage. There was little the 20mm would take out that the 0.5 couldn't and the extra spread would also cover a bigger area, another plus.
20mm's with API SAPI and HEI would be far more effective than the .50's, best thing about the P47 is it could take 4-6 easily with a lot of ammunition.
Clayton Magnet
Staff Sergeant
- 903
- Feb 16, 2013
Guns spread out over the wings is a distinct disadvantage for aerial gunnery. The concentration of fire from the P-38 would give it a firepower advantage over every other American fighter of the time.
Glider
Captain
For traditional aerial gunnery I agree. However we are talking about strafing which is a different requirement. If you are attacking troops on the ground you don't need a concentration of fire. The larger spread when firing at the ground is I believe a distinct advantage.
You need the concertation of fire against an aerial target to try and do sufficient amount of damage in one pass that you don't need to have a second go. A truck is likely to be destroyed by one pass of either aircraft and the P47 has a better chance of hitting other targets at the same time.
Howard Gibson
Senior Airman
You have missed an interesting option. How about lighting a fire under Hawker's and Napier's asses, and providing Typhoons and Tempests under reverse Lend Lease? The Thunderbolt's 4.85kg/s mass of fire goes up to 5.2 or 6.5kg/s, depending on which four Hispano cannons are being used. By 1944, the Napier Sabre engines were reliable, Typhoons and Tempests were rugged, and the Tempests were substantially faster at ground attack altitudes. Typhoons were faster than P-47Ds at low altitude.
Glider
Captain
Apologies I didn't make myself clear. My posting was to do with taking damage from ground fire. An LMG round through a radiator is almost certain to stop a liquid cooled engine. An LMG round would have to be very lucky to stop a radial.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
In air-to-air combat, centerline weapons have a distinct advantage, but in air-to-ground, area saturation would be more useful, as the targets were more often vehicles (trains, trucks, etc.) and infantry.
A friend of mine, who was with the 82nd Airborn at Normandy, said that of all the Allied aircraft conducting ground attack, it was the carnage created by Typhoons and P-47s that was the stuff of nightmares.
A friend of mine, who was with the 82nd Airborn at Normandy, said that of all the Allied aircraft conducting ground attack, it was the carnage created by Typhoons and P-47s that was the stuff of nightmares.
Clayton Magnet
Staff Sergeant
- 903
- Feb 16, 2013
An LMG round through the pilots ears is a sure way to stop ANY engine, whether it be round or in-line. But in all seriousness, where the liquid cooled engine is more vulnerable, the air cooled engine is not invulnerable. Radials relied on oil as a percentage of their cooling, so a hit in an oil line or cooler or tank will also eventually bring it down.
Howard Gibson
Senior Airman
Perhaps the real point is that, with the exception of the He100, not used by the allies in Normandy, radiators are small and hard to hit. Engines, pilots, oil coolers, ammunition, fuel tanks, control cables and primary structure are important too. The Lightnings had two radiators anyway.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Pretty sure the Allies (and the Luftwaffe) didn't use the He100.
Glider
Captain
Radiators are not that small and often have a surface area as big as the engine itself. Clearly there is room to differ, its just my belief that the P47 was more rugged and less likely to be hit in the first place.
Howard Gibson
Senior Airman
Engines are small and hard to hit too. A Tempest is less likelyto be hit than a P-47.
Glider
Captain
The Tempest has a socking great radiator, making it far more vulnerable.
Howard Gibson
Senior Airman
What happens if they hit the P-47's turbocharger?
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Plenty of instances where the P-47 took direct fire from air and ground elements and remained airworthy.
There were also instances where the P-47 accidently struck objects during ground attack missions and remained airworthy, like hitting telephone poles, a smokestack, treetops or even flying through an olive grove.
There were also instances where the P-47 accidently struck objects during ground attack missions and remained airworthy, like hitting telephone poles, a smokestack, treetops or even flying through an olive grove.
What's the frontal area of that radiator and Sabre compared to the ENORMOUS frontal area of the R2800?
The Germans themselves noted that the FW190 presented a larger target for air gunners than the Bf109 because of that increased frontal area.
Also, earlier you said that: "The liquid cooled engines were far more likely to be knocked out by a hit to the radiators"
I used to assume the same (and apologies to those who've read my tale before) until I was put right by a lovely old ex FAA chap called Blunden who flew in Korea. We were talking about the aircraft he flew during his service, and two that were mentioned were the Fairey Firefly and the Hawker Fury, both of which were operated by UK carriers there as part of the UN force.
We got to talking about the missions flown and I expressed surprise that the Fireflies were just as much involved in ground attack as the Furies. I asked why so, given the assumed vulnerability of liquid cooled engines compared to a radial. He told me that even by mid WW2, most RAF aircraft with liquid cooled engines had significant armouring protecting their radiators and cooling lines, and that the engines themselves were smaller and therefore less likely to be hit in the first place. He also pointed out that there were plenty of places on a radial which, if hit would have equally disastrous effects. He said that the upshot (if you'll excuse the pun) was that there didn't appear to be any overall difference in survivability deriving from the engine type.
I considered myself put right.
The last time this subject reared its head, one of the wise owls was going to see if they could trawl through 2nd Tac and USAF loss records to see if there was any significant difference in loss rates between P47s engaged in ground attack compared to other types like Typhoons flying similar missions. I don't think it was ever entirely resolved, but certainly nothing obvious in the P47's clear favour was demonstrated - which I think indicated that the whole 'P47 radial ruggedness' as a deal closing argument viz a viz ground attack, might have turned out to be a bit spurious in the scale of things.
Asa final note and one of happy coincidence, I was reading tonight about the progress being made to restore Typhoon RB396 back to flight. As part of the background history of the aircraft, even though it only flew operationally for e few months in 1945, it received ground fire damage on no less than 18 separate occasions, requiring temporary grounding to effect repairs. EIGHTEEN. ( a project well worth supporting BTW - hawkertyphoon.com )
That all together suggests to me that any issue of radiator vulnerability had been mitigated pretty well, and for any aircraft from mid war onwards equipped for ground attack missions, and difference between liquid or air cooled engines was probably negligible.
