drgondog
Major
I was comparing P-39Q to P-40N - not P-47 - with respect to both internal fuel, and FTH performamce of their respective Allisons.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I was comparing P-39Q to P-40N - not P-47 - with respect to both internal fuel, and FTH performamce of their respective Allisons.The P-39Q would just about be the diametric opposite of any P-47. It was pretty quick down below 10,000ft, and just about useless over 15,000ft. How do you get "the same altitude performance" bit?
This is why a systematic mathematical approach always wins.Mathematically speaking, if you take the good points of a given aircraft and subtract them from it's numeric designator you are left with an also ran type of aircraft.
For instance - the P-47 has eight major advantages including tough, dive etc. Subtract these eight and you haven't got a lot left;
The equation then becomes 47 - 8 = 39. Thus proving that a P-47 would then be an also ran.
Simple really.
The P-47 didn't have the range to escort bombers to Berlin when European air superiority was still in question. It was soon relegated to ground attack. But it was a huge success.Combat radius of the P-47C and D until the use of the 205gal ferry tank at end of July 1943 was approx. 125-130 miles. Germany was reached on July 28 at end of Blitz eek.
No, the 75 gal tank in August and 110 gal in September extended combat radius to 230, then 275 miles. 375 miles was not attainable until external racks and feed for wing were introduced late March/April 1944
You understate the importance and value of the P-47D prior to introduction of 370 gal internal fuel. 'Very Short Range' is appropriate for Spitfire, never for P-47 excet in comparison with medium altitude Allison Mustangs and P-38 and Japanese A6M. The success of 8th AF was very much complimented by utilization of P-47 for medium range Penetration and Withdrawal escort, to enable the relatively few Mustang and Lightning Groups in 1st half 1944. At high altitude its performance (P-47D-11 w/WI and Paddle Blade introduced in combat Jan 1944) exeeded Bf 109G and Fw 190A in climb, speed, turn and dive.
It wasn't "relegated", it was the best U.S. aircraft for that role.The P-47 didn't have the range to escort bombers to Berlin when European air superiority was still in question. It was soon relegated to ground attack. But it was a huge success.
The P-47 didn't have the range to escort bombers to Berlin when European air superiority was still in question. It was soon relegated to ground attack. But it was a huge success.
Any turbocharged fighter plane that has been transferred from high altitude escort to ground attack has been relegated.It wasn't "relegated", it was the best U.S. aircraft for that role.
The P-51 took over the P-47's role as escort, allowing the P-47 to perform fighter-bomber missions.
True that P-47 did not have the range to provide target escort to Berlin before Overlord. That said, the 8th AF operated P-47 as escort through VE Day and somehow destroyed another 1200 German aircraft after D-Day - versus approx 250 by P-38. Would you say that it was 'ineffective' as escort fighter? How curious.The P-47 didn't have the range to escort bombers to Berlin when European air superiority was still in question. It was soon relegated to ground attack. But it was a huge success.
Probably because he's comparing the P-40N to the P-39, not the P-47.The P-39Q would just about be the diametric opposite of any P-47. It was pretty quick down below 10,000ft, and just about useless over 15,000ft. How do you get "the same altitude performance" bit?
Sorta like how the P-61 was "relegated" to ground attack during and after D-Day, then?Any turbocharged fighter plane that has been transferred from high altitude escort to ground attack has been relegated.
Is the second line LF 3 total correct?Q1 44 LF Reich 1296 total (1088 S/E), LF 3 364 total (364S/E);
Q2 44 LF Reich 908 total (608 S/E), LF 3 total 1300 (1300 S/E)
Which totals 2,531. What do the Luftwaffe loss figures cover? All losses on all combat operations? Or just any missing plus losses to enemy aircraft? The RAF German losses files has Luftflotte Reich losing 459 Bf109 and 175 Fw190 to enemy action in Q1/44, total 634, including destroyed on ground, plus another 98 Bf109 and 28 Fw190 on operations but not due to enemy action, grand total 760, for Q2/44 the figures are 587 Bf109, 268 Fw190 to enemy action, 74 Bf109, 44 Fw190 on operations but not due to enemy action, grand total 973. While Luftflotte 3 reported single engine fighter losses Q1/44 as 260 to enemy action (36 destroyed on ground) and in Q2/44 672 (138 on ground), with June 1944 losses to enemy action put at 495.Losses Q1 1944 for LF Reich 1094, (incl 789 S/E). Q1 losses for LF 3 159 (all S/E).
Losses Q2 1944 for LF Reich 1,165 (975 S/E). Q2 Losses for LF 3 113 (all S/E)
From what I can tell it took until sometime in 1943 before the Luftwaffe was graduating fighter pilots at a rate that would sustain the Battle of Britain loss rates. On top of that the Luftwaffe had been relying on winter lulls, but the USAAF stepped up its operations end 1943 and early 1944.The entire flight school process was fatally flawed in 1942 and never recovered to produce quality replacements in late 1943/1944.
According to the Richard Davis raid spreadsheets, Eighth Air Force November 1943, 6,416.8 tons of bombs dropped of which 3,517.1 were dropped visually, December 11,734.5 and 5,545,8, January 1944 11,679.2 and 5,444.8, if you want just the bombs dropped on Germany for the 3 months it was 5,383.5 and 1,483.8, 8,893.7 and 2,705 finally 8,287.8 and 2,053.4, so most of the effort was on targets in Germany. Interesting when you consider the bombs dropped to end September 1943, maximum in any month was 2,050.9. H2S aimed strikes began in September, H2X in November 1943. In the end 52% of the Eighth Air Force bombs were aimed visually, dropping to 42% for targets in Germany.No. the short/medium range targeting was more for training as 8th AF was rebuilding from Summer/Fall losses. Additionally, weather/cloud cover precluded any attempt at 'precicion' strikes.
Actually it is where you imagine we differ when it comes to the importance of well trained aircrew. Try and provide some evidence.This is where we differ, numerically only pilot quality and the numbers of good pilots matter. You cannot issue fighter planes to keen aggressive young men and expect anything except defeat. Giving fighter planes to such young men was tried by the LW and failed. The numbers of good pilots is what the fight is all about, not the number of planes.
Any book on the Battle of Britain would be a start.Actually it is where you imagine we differ when it comes to the importance of well trained aircrew. Try and provide some evidence.
It couldn't go far enough. Yes it was involved in the war and yes naturally it shot down some planes. It could not provide escort all the way to Berlin and back. And there were more P-47s in the 8thAF than P-38s, so naturally they would shoot down more planes.True that P-47 did not have the range to provide target escort to Berlin before Overlord. That said, the 8th AF operated P-47 as escort through VE Day and somehow destroyed another 1200 German aircraft after D-Day - versus approx 250 by P-38. Would you say that it was 'ineffective' as escort fighter? How curious.
If your yardstick for 'suitable/unsuitable' is range - and the P-47 was a.) far better fighter from 40,000 down and b.) had much greater range than P-39 - how could you advocate the P-39 for anything other than short range convoy escort, short range CAS or close range low to mdium altitude interceptor?It couldn't go far enough. Yes it was involved in the war and yes naturally it shot down some planes. It could not provide escort all the way to Berlin and back. And there were more P-47s in the 8thAF than P-38s, so naturally they would shoot down more planes.
P-47 was probably a better weapon than the P-38 with fewer faults and somewhat better survivability, but the P-38 had the range and the P-47 did not.
Range is the yardstick when comparing escort fighters. Why are you continually bringing up the P-39? I haven't mentioned it at all. Range/radius was about the same as a P-47 if both had a 110gal drop tank.