Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
If you look in the "Timeline" section of the Wiki article below of Big Week, the ratio of P-47 to (P-51 + P38) is around 7 to 2, claims and losses also given. People can debate which was the better escort but what cant be debated is that Big Week and other later operations couldnt have gone ahead on that schedule without the P-47. Like the Hurricane its contribution to pilot training and ground crew command training cant be overlooked, if you wait for the arrival of the P-51 and P-38 to start learning it is way too late. For example the first mission of P-47s was a screw up because of radios, the next mission was a month later, there was time at the beginning of 1943 there wasnt at the end.Thanks gents. I thought it must have done well and it obviously did. I was wondering too as to how much of a danger it was to the Luftwaffe
in Western Europe. I'm also assuming casualties were high for it's ground attack role so it must have been able to hold up in air to air fights.
To separate Claims from Victory Credits VIII FC - use USAF Study 85 as a base for Dr. Frank Olynyk/USAFHRC running totals.According to the 8th Air Force its P-47 units lost 749 on operations, wrote off another 176 as war weary, out of 1,043 inventory losses, but the 1943 figures are operational losses only, so there are more non combat losses. No all war figures for kill claims, the P-47 units would account for most of the 178 fighters lost on operations in 1943 and also most of the 451 kills claimed, figures from the USAAF Statistical Digest. In 1944 the 8th Air Force P-47 units had 396 MIA, 135 Cat E and 37 unknown cause losses on operations, claiming 1,147 kills in the air, from the 8th Air force report for the year.
According to the 9th Air Force its P-47 units lost 1,457 aircraft on operations (743 flak, 195 enemy aircraft, 519 other cause), plus another 653 non operations salvage losses, 91 to second line and 12 to other causes, while claiming 1,127.5 kills.
That would be incorrect. It was a marvelous fighter at bomber altitudes and short to medium range until summer 1944. The LW wasn't 'worn down' in 1943, but was crushed in Jan-May 1944 timeframe by P-51B, not P-51Ds as you said because only a handfull were operational before Overlord.It was the most numerous fighter with top notch performance during the toughest time that the Luftwaffe was worn down.. As others have already shown. It was THE fighter that did the hard work!
It was not the P-51 and especially not the P-51Ds..! Though they sure did their part later on.
That would be incorrect. The major limiting factor to combat radius (i.e get home after forced to drop extenals) was the 305 gallons of internal fuel in the P-47 through -23. The -25 with bubble canopy and 370 gallons internal fuel emerged in VIII FC ops in May with full squadron deployment late June 1944. By that time two of the P-38 FGs were in transition toP-51B/D, the third in July and the 4th in September - leaving all LR escort to P-51B/D in ETO.And the P-47 could have escorted much further, much earlier - had they been given the tools (external tanks) earlier.. And they did once they got them. They just guzzled more fuel than P-51s while doing it.
Well, yes - it was.And try to find any pilot that flew P-47s and converted to P-51s, downtalk the Jug. i have yet to.. The P-47s have several pros over the P-51s, but without proper external tanks - the chance to meet the enemy and get some glory, the P-51s easier did that.. And that is basically the reason many were happy to convert. Not that the P-51 was better..
Which it was not..
Cheaper to buy, cheaper to fly, easier to maintain, faster and more maueverable, longer range and wider envlope of top performance from SL to 29,000 feet (for P-51B vs both the P-47 and P-38). Usually combat leaders like those features. Someday read what Hub Zemke had to say regarding why he thought the Mustang was the best of the Big 3 - all of which he flew in combat.And there is another big reason to switch many 8th AF FGs. You got three Mustangs for the price of two P-47s.. The bean counters will love that, especially since the P-51 can go the same escort work for cheaper - but basically have the same performance.
What is incorrect?That would be incorrect. It was a marvelous fighter at bomber altitudes and short to medium range until summer 1944.
Well, yes - it was.
The biggest single issue regarding the role of the P-47D as LR escort as the lack of anticipation that more fuel ad longer range would be key. The P-47D required extensive mid-fuselage modification to put the 70 gal auxilery tank under the cockpit, then modify the wings first for plumbing and wing pylons (D-15) and then P-47N mod to add even more fuel with wing tanks.
Both the Mustang and P-38 were equipped with external bomb/fuel tank racks in 1942, added internal capacity (fuselage - P-51B), (Leading Edge - P-38J) in operations very late 1943. where Republic was struggling to deliver 6 months later.
I think it may be a good time for you to find out who you are talking to.What is incorrect?
No really. It does not have any real strenghts over the P-47s except range on internal fuel. But it does have drawbacks against it. Durability and firepower for a start.
And range was pretty good for the N. What makes the P-51 better you mean? (Hint, look at what the actual veterans say.)
P-51s having external tanks in 1942 is a moot point since there were no Merlin engined Mustangs in service then. They would not be able to do their job at bomber altitude.. And the p-38s we know how they fared..
You buy too much into the "P-51 best fighter roxxor" dude. There are pretty good sources out there if you are actually interested in learning something.
I love this dude clicking "Optimistic" as a reaction. Cool.. No arguments and no knowledge - but needs to feel cool. Yeah, really impressive. You are pretty sad.
I don't think you realize who you're arguing withWhat is incorrect?
No really. It does not have any real strenghts over the P-47s except range on internal fuel. But it does have drawbacks against it. Durability and firepower for a start.
And range was pretty good for the N. What makes the P-51 better you mean? (Hint, look at what the actual veterans say.)
P-51s having external tanks in 1942 is a moot point since there were no Merlin engined Mustangs in service then. They would not be able to do their job at bomber altitude.. And the p-38s we know how they fared..
You buy too much into the "P-51 best fighter roxxor" dude. There are pretty good sources out there if you are actually interested in learning something.
I love this dude clicking "Optimistic" as a reaction. Cool.. No arguments and no knowledge - but needs to feel cool. Yeah, really impressive. You are pretty sad.
Ya' hadda' go ruin it.I don't think you realize who you're arguing withParamedic there isn't much you're going to school him on ETO fighter/bomber ops, just sayin'.
As for sources "dude"...
Amazon product ASIN 1472839668
By the way, he's actually flown P-51s, and you?
"It was the most numerous fighter"What is incorrect?
For the moment, lets stick with ETO- neither the P-47M or N had much impact in ETO. So, Durability and Firepower are 'advantage P-47'. Durability important when strafing an airfield, or someone is shooting your ass off. That said firepower not much use unless you can get to the fight? You seem to take 'range wih internal fuel' lightly? That is the difference between P-47 drivers holding their peckers in their hands back around Brunswick and Stuttgart when the air battles were Berlin, Magdeburg, Merseburg, Regensburg, Posnan, Ruhland, Munich.No really. It does not have any real strenghts over the P-47s except range on internal fuel. But it does have drawbacks against it. Durability and firepower for a start.
And range was pretty good for the N. What makes the P-51 better you mean? (Hint, look at what the actual veterans say.)
Moot? The A-36 and P-51A were equipped with wing tanks and yes they did escort in CBI - but the discussion is ETO. The point is that when the P-51B arrived in ETO, the P-47D did NOT have wing racks or internal plumbing to move fuel from combat tanks to engine - which is why they sat on the sideline 'wishing and hoping' while the Mustang was getting the publicity. Ya gotta get to the fight, to fight.P-51s having external tanks in 1942 is a moot point since there were no Merlin engined Mustangs in service then. They would not be able to do their job at bomber altitude.. And the p-38s we know how they fared..
OH please point me in the right direction Sensai.You buy too much into the "P-51 best fighter roxxor" dude. There are pretty good sources out there if you are actually interested in learning something.
You have wandered into a Twilight Zone where just about everybody you try to match knowledge with, has you in their hip pocket. Bring your medic kit.I love this dude clicking "Optimistic" as a reaction. Cool.. No arguments and no knowledge - but needs to feel cool. Yeah, really impressive. You are pretty sad.
I researched and published quite a few statistical comparisons in "Our Might Always - History of the 355th FG in WWII" pages 337 - 339 in Combined Operations for VIII Fighter Command. I also added much data for "P-51B Mustang: North American's Bastard Stepchild that Saved the 8th AF"I know the P-47 was widely used in the ETO but I haven't been able to get info on how much damage P-47 units did to the Luftwaffe.
I have always seen reference to the P-51 but not the P-47.
Any info would be welcome.