P-38 or P-47 for Strafing (1 Viewer)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Seems like that Americans were not that convinced that the radial engines were resilient to the enemy fire. We can note that Grumman took serious efforts to both hide and protect the oil radiators on the F7F and F8F, while Vought did the similar when the AU-1 was born.
 
In air-to-air combat, centerline weapons have a distinct advantage,
I think it was Galland that said the nose mounted guns of the 109F were better for skilled pilots where's the wing mounted guns on the Spitfire were better for the average pilot, with nose mounted guns you either hit or missed compared to the greater leeway in error offered by wing guns.
 
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.
The top scoring P47 pilot in the pacific was shot down by a Ki43 armed with one 12.7mm HMG and one .303 LMG, the most feeble armament fitted to a fighter in any ones book, according to sources he took a bullet in his back.
 
I think it was Galland that said the nose mounted guns of the 109F were better for skilled pilots where's the wing mounted guns on the Spitfire were better for the average pilot, with nose mounted guns you either hit or missed compared to the greater leeway in error offered by wing guns.
Is this centre mounted armament versus wing mounted armament, or two excellent Hispano cannons versus one slow firing, low muzzle velocity MGFF?

They replaced the MGFF with a fairly good MG151/15 15mm cannon, and finally with an excellent MG151/20 20mm cannon, but just one.
 
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
Knew a guy who was a POW in WWII. He was a -38 pilot strafing some Germans in a valley. Lost an engine and couldn't climb out of the valley so he had to come back and land near the very Germans he'd been starting. Got his ass kicked.
 
I think it was Johnson that was famously shot up returning home from a mission that was hit in the turbocharger or ducting which caused a loss in boost which allowed him to be caught by Mayer, he was very lucky Mayer only had 8mm LMG ammunition left.
That story was a Caiden fantasy. Egon Meyer was nowhere close to 56th Fg on that day. Bob Johnson may have been involved in a little embellishment also. His P-47 was repaired and returned to service.
 
That story was a Caiden fantasy. Egon Meyer was nowhere close to 56th Fg on that day. Bob Johnson may have been involved in a little embellishment also. His P-47 was repaired and returned to service.
Would like to know more.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back