P-47D "Jug" Thunderbolt vs Spitfire(any variations)

[Clayton Magnet]

But interception and classic dogfighting is not how the majority of air combat occurred in the ETO or even the PTO and CBI for that matter.

Perhaps the Americans were not intercepting very much, but everyone they were fighting was. The vast majority of air combat over Europe initiated with somebody intercepting somebody else. The P-47 was never really used as a defensive fighter, and its combat record is all the better as a result.

 

[Kevin J]

Perhaps the Americans were not intercepting very much, but everyone they were fighting was. The vast majority of air combat over Europe initiated with somebody intercepting somebody else. The P-47 was never really used as a defensive fighter, and its combat record is all the better as a result.

The Russians used their Thunderbolts for air defence of strategic targets in their rear areas.

 

[windswords]

I believe that the difference in attributes of the fighter aircraft flown by the Japanese as compared to the Allies is much less important than other relative aspects of their air forces and infrastructure. The Japanese simply did not have the training programs, aircraft production, airfield construction, or anything else needed to sustain the kind of war they got into.

Fairly early in the war, before the Americans (as well as the British/Australians) achieved numerical, logistical and training superiority over the Japanese they developed tactics to negate the superior turn and climb of Japanese fighters. For the Flying Tigers, they had this advantage in tactics right out of the box in the battles over Rangoon. For the rest of the USAAF and USN those tactics were paying dividends well before 1943 when the tide began to turn for the Allies in terms of those things you mentioned.

The Thunderbolt really didn't roll all that well but against a new Spitfire IX, it was just a little better.

On what do you base this on? "We were at 5,000 feet, the Spitfire skidding around hard and coming in on my tail. No use turning; he'd whip right inside me as if I were a truck loaded with cement, and snap out in firing position. Well, I had a few tricks, too. The P-47 was faster, and I threw the ship into a roll. Right here I had him. The Jug could out roll any plane in the air, bar none. With my speed, roll was my only advantage, and I made full use of the manner in which the Thunderbolt could whirl. I kicked the Jug into a wicked left roll, horizon spinning crazily, once, twice, into a third. As he turned to the left to follow, I tramped down on the right rudder, banged the stick over to the right. Around and around we went, left, right, left, right. I could whip through better than two rolls before the Spitfire even completed his first. And this killed his ability to turn inside me. I just refused to turn. Every time he tried to follow me in a roll, I flashed away to the opposite side, opening the gap between our two planes". Robert S Johnson

I don't believe that somehow Johnson's piloting skills were the reason he could roll the Thunderbolt so well. Even an aviation cadet knows how to roll an airplane. Either the plane rolls well or it doesn't. Of course the pilot has to to have good reflexes - but he wouldn't be a fighter pilot if he didn't. You know what made Johnson one of the best? He knew how to hit his target. Robert Johnson would go on to shoot down 28 (revised down to 27 after the war) German fighters, with 6 probables and 4 more damaged. After the war, Luftwaffe records indicated that Johnson might have shot down as many as 32 German fighters. Johnson flew 91 combat missions. On those missions, he encountered German fighters 43 times. In 36 of the 43 encounters, Johnson fired his guns at the enemy. A result of those 36 instances where he fired on German aircraft, 37 of those aircraft were hit; with as few as 27 or as many as 32 going down.

The most important thing Johnson said about combat flying is this: "First rule in this kind of a fight: don't fight the way your opponent fights best".

The Luftwaffe pilots also had respect for the rolling abilities of the Thunderbolt:

"When I was transferred to a squadron for home defense against heavy four engined bombers with their fighter escorts, I finally met the P-47 and, later, the P-51. My recollections of these two aircraft are not happy ones. There were so many of them, it was hard to get at the bombers and during the last year of the war, American fighters were all around us. ...The P-47 wasn't so bad because we could out turn and out climb it, *initially*. But that big American fighter could roll with deceiving speed and when it came down on you in a long dive, there was no way you could get away from it. It must have a huge brick into it, somewhere. In addition to inflicting tremendous punishment, it could absorb an incredible amount of firepower and still fly."

Walter Wolfrum

So yes the P-47 is not a "turn and burn" type of fighter. So don't use it that way. That's how the Americans turned the tables on the Japanese in the Pacific. And why the P-47 had so many aces in Europe.

As for diving performance, remember that the US chose to go with the Mustang in Europe because it had fewer problems with compressibility.

The 51s replaced the 47s (in the 8th and 15th Air Forces only) for 2 reasons: 1) Range - although later models with 3 drop tanks the 47 could go all the way to Berlin and back(and cover 80% of Germany), it took much less gas for a 51 to do the same and it could go further. 2) The 47s were shipped to the 9th and 12th Air Force for use as tactical aircraft since they were much better suited for that role than the Mustang or its predecessor the A-36 Apache. By the end of the war in the Pacific, P-47N's with wing tanks were escorting B-29 bombers all the way to Japan and back and still maintained their ground attack capabilities. The P-47N had a longer range than the P-51D. They were also equipped with some nice features for 8 hour long missions: auto pilot, arm rests and fold away rudder pedals so you coy could stretch your legs. After the P-51 was introduced to the 8th (and 15th) Air Force, production at Republic Aviation's plants in the US increased as they needed P-47's more than ever in the 9th and 12th Air Forces.

If I had to pick an airplane for point defense and interception I would not hesitate to take the Spitfire. It was the best interceptor of the war. For most other types of missions I would favor the P-47, including escort, if the target was in range.

 

[windswords]

A very excellent video on the P-47 is "P-47 Thunderbolt Pt. 1 Design and Speed" by the YouTube channel Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles. It is quite well done and informative.

 

[Ivan1GFP]

Fairly early in the war, before the Americans (as well as the British/Australians) achieved numerical, logistical and training superiority over the Japanese they developed tactics to negate the superior turn and climb of Japanese fighters. For the Flying Tigers, they had this advantage in tactics right out of the box in the battles over Rangoon. For the rest of the USAAF and USN those tactics were paying dividends well before 1943 when the tide began to turn for the Allies in terms of those things you mentioned.

Hello Windswords,
First of all, early in the war, the Japanese would have been flying the Ki 27, early Ki 43 and the A6M2. None of these has the greatly superior climb performance of later Japanese fighters. Initial impressions were that they had great climbing ability but much of that was a superior zoom climb (as in BnZ, at least in A6M2). Actual flight testing of the A6M2 captured in the Aleutians put the initial climb rate below 3000 Feet/minute. The test results are pretty well documented. I don't believe all of the results should be taken at face value, but they ate at least an indication of relative performance.
As for the Flying Tigers, most of the Japanese fighters they encountered were either Ki 27 or early Ki 43. Both are very slow aircraft.
As for the when the issues of replacements and such became an issue, I would say this became apparent much earlier than you may be thinking. Look at what happened after the Battle of Coral Sea. Look at which carriers were not available at Midway as a result.
Now one could say that the US repaired one more carrier because they made an extraordinary effort, but why were the Japanese down two carriers?

Why did the Japanese develop Floatplane Fighters such as A6M2-N and N1K?
They knew their capability for building airfields was not so good.
US never had a need for a Floatplane Fighter because of their ability to quickly construct a useable airfield if needed.

On what do you base this on? "We were at 5,000 feet, the Spitfire skidding around hard and coming in on my tail. No use turning; he'd whip right inside me as if I were a truck loaded with cement, and snap out in firing position. Well, I had a few tricks, too. The P-47 was faster, and I threw the ship into a roll. Right here I had him. The Jug could out roll any plane in the air, bar none. With my speed, roll was my only advantage, and I made full use of the manner in which the Thunderbolt could whirl. I kicked the Jug into a wicked left roll, horizon spinning crazily, once, twice, into a third. As he turned to the left to follow, I tramped down on the right rudder, banged the stick over to the right. Around and around we went, left, right, left, right. I could whip through better than two rolls before the Spitfire even completed his first. And this killed his ability to turn inside me. I just refused to turn. Every time he tried to follow me in a roll, I flashed away to the opposite side, opening the gap between our two planes". Robert S Johnson

That really is a great story. Thanks for quoting it again. Pity you left out the ending.
I base the roll rate comparison on data from America's Hundred Thousand, NACA Report 868, and RAE 1231.
Now keep in mind that by the time the Thunderbolt was flying in Europe, the FW 190A was definitely in service and from this anecdote, we might be led to believe the Thunderbolt has a superior roll rate, but that would not be credible.
More in a bit.....

I don't believe that somehow Johnson's piloting skills were the reason he could roll the Thunderbolt so well. Even an aviation cadet knows how to roll an airplane. Either the plane rolls well or it doesn't. Of course the pilot has to to have good reflexes - but he wouldn't be a fighter pilot if he didn't. You know what made Johnson one of the best? He knew how to hit his target. Robert Johnson would go on to shoot down 28 (revised down to 27 after the war) German fighters, with 6 probables and 4 more damaged. After the war, Luftwaffe records indicated that Johnson might have shot down as many as 32 German fighters. Johnson flew 91 combat missions. On those missions, he encountered German fighters 43 times. In 36 of the 43 encounters, Johnson fired his guns at the enemy. A result of those 36 instances where he fired on German aircraft, 37 of those aircraft were hit; with as few as 27 or as many as 32 going down.

Things are not quite so simple. First of all, one of the things that differs between pilots is muscular strength.
The testing that is typically done is done with a certain amount of control force applied to all the aircraft.
If Johnson happens to be a bit stronger than your average pilot, perhaps he could get some better results.
Another issue that I found in the book Warbird Buyer's Guide (and that someone also posted in this thread) is that the Thunderbolt doesn't lose as much of its rolling performance under G load as some other aircraft.
There is also reaction time. If you are following someone, you need to SEE when your target has changed direction and then respond to it. Back in Physics class many years ago, I worked out an experiment to test reaction time without a stop watch. I would imagine that reflexes get a bit slower as the pilot is pulling G and on the edge of graying out.

The most important thing Johnson said about combat flying is this: "First rule in this kind of a fight: don't fight the way your opponent fights best".

The Spitfire pilot was breaking this rule. Perhaps a smarter pilot would not have fought this way.

The Luftwaffe pilots also had respect for the rolling abilities of the Thunderbolt:

"When I was transferred to a squadron for home defense against heavy four engined bombers with their fighter escorts, I finally met the P-47 and, later, the P-51. My recollections of these two aircraft are not happy ones. There were so many of them, it was hard to get at the bombers and during the last year of the war, American fighters were all around us. ...The P-47 wasn't so bad because we could out turn and out climb it, *initially*. But that big American fighter could roll with deceiving speed and when it came down on you in a long dive, there was no way you could get away from it. It must have a huge brick into it, somewhere. In addition to inflicting tremendous punishment, it could absorb an incredible amount of firepower and still fly."

Walter Wolfrum

Some of this opinion might depend on what the German was flying and the tactical situation.
In the right hands, some of the late war German fighters were great performers, but there were not a lot of those "right hands" left alive by the time those planes came out.
Surprisingly, there isn't as much difference in maneuverability between Thunderbolt and Mustang as one might expect from the sizes of the aircraft.

The 51s replaced the 47s (in the 8th and 15th Air Forces only) for 2 reasons: 1) Range - although later models with 3 drop tanks the 47 could go all the way to Berlin and back(and cover 80% of Germany), it took much less gas for a 51 to do the same and it could go further. 2) The 47s were shipped to the 9th and 12th Air Force for use as tactical aircraft since they were much better suited for that role than the Mustang or its predecessor the A-36 Apache.

There were more reasons than that according to what I have read.

- Ivan.

 

[windswords]

Perhaps the Americans were not intercepting very much, but everyone they were fighting was. The vast majority of air combat over Europe initiated with somebody intercepting somebody else. The P-47 was never really used as a defensive fighter, and its combat record is all the better as a result.

I was not clear in my OP. When I mention intercepting it was in reference to being a defensive point interceptor, as in protecting a city or industrial target and scrambling and climbing to altitude to meet the enemy aircraft. Obviously P-47's intercepted German or Japanese fighters who were in many cases intercepting attacking bombers. But of course they were already at altitude. Sorry I was not clear.

 

[windswords]

First of all, early in the war, the Japanese would have been flying the Ki 27, early Ki 43 and the A6M2. None of these has the greatly superior climb performance of later Japanese fighters. Initial impressions were that they had great climbing ability but much of that was a superior zoom climb (as in BnZ, at least in A6M2). Actual flight testing of the A6M2 captured in the Aleutians put the initial climb rate below 3000 Feet/minute. The test results are pretty well documented. I don't believe all of the results should be taken at face value, but they ate at least an indication of relative performance.
As for the Flying Tigers, most of the Japanese fighters they encountered were either Ki 27 or early Ki 43. Both are very slow aircraft.
As for the when the issues of replacements and such became an issue, I would say this became apparent much earlier than you may be thinking. Look at what happened after the Battle of Coral Sea. Look at which carriers were not available at Midway as a result.
Now one could say that the US repaired one more carrier because they made an extraordinary effort, but why were the Japanese down two carriers?

1) Doesn't matter what the Japanese had Ki-27, Ki-43 or the Zero (or even the A6M5 Claude which did take part in the early fighting even after Dec 7). ALL of these were better climbing and better turning fighters than anything the Americans, Dutch and British Commonwealth had. More importantly, they had range (Ki-43 and Zero).
2) The fact that American aircraft then were better in a zoom climb is exactly what we are talking about here. Boom and ZOOM.
3) The fact that the Japanese aircraft you mentioned were slower (as was the Zero also) does not negate the fact that they were better at turn and climb. A turning dogfight almost always bleeds off energy and is not done at the aircraft best rated speed at altitude.
4) Midway was 4 Japanese carriers against 3 American. It is certainly true that pilot attrition started even before the Battle of the Coral Sea, but it had not become severe yet. At one point AFTER Midway the Americans were down to one carrier in the Pacific, while the Japanese still had 3 or 4 available. The British "loaned" the HMS Victorious to the USN serving as USS Robin, in January 1943.

Why did the Japanese develop Floatplane Fighters such as A6M2-N and N1K? They knew their capability for building airfields was not so good.

Floatplane fighters were built because they needed planes to guard far flung islands that did not have airfields (they were not big enough, (such as the Aleutians) or the airfields were in the process of being built. That's why the number of floatplane fighters built were so low, just a few hundred - it was a specialized application for a narrowly defined mission - otherwise they would have built many more. Japans navy had a significant number of land based units that never flew from carriers, the most famous being the Tainan Kokutai of which Saburo Sakai and Hiroyoshi Nishizawa were members of. There were many other such units. Land based units like the Tainan Ku flew from air bases on larger islands in Solomons, Marianas, New Guinea, the Dutch East Indies, etc. To be sure those bases were not as big as the ones built by the Americans as their planes were bigger and heavier (especially the bombers) and needed larger bases. The Americans never needed floatplane fighters because after May 1942 they were on the offensive and didn't have to defend a large front that included those types of islands. The Americans often bypassed the smaller islands as they had no strategic value and took the ones that had enough land and the right location for air bases.

That really is a great story. Thanks for quoting it again. Pity you left out the ending.

The ending was Johnson went into a dive (after he picked up some distance rolling) and quickly converted to a zoom climb creating even more distance. Before the Spitfire could close the gap in a prolonged climb Johnson "hammered around" and dove on the other plane and for a few moments he had a firing solution, more than enough time for his 8 .50s to do their dirty work. I left that part out because the subject was roll.

Now keep in mind that by the time the Thunderbolt was flying in Europe, the FW 190A was definitely in service and from this anecdote, we might be led to believe the Thunderbolt has a superior roll rate, but that would not be credible.

Not sure why Johnson out rolling the Spitfire would be lead one to believe that. The FW was one of the best if not the best rolling aircraft of the war. As for the FW 190A series There is an interesting test of a captured FW A4 or A5 and a P-47D that has some interesting results but It would be off topic to go into.

The Spitfire pilot was breaking this rule. Perhaps a smarter pilot would not have fought this way.

I don't know what the Spitfire did to break that rule. He was on the tail of the Thunderbolt, he tried to line up for a shot. In that post I did not mention Johnsons dive and zoom climb. Perhaps he should not have followed the Thunderbolt in the dive and the zoom climb? Maybe, but who can blame him? He believed his plane could out climb the P-47 - and it could quite easily - in a sustained climb.

Some of this opinion might depend on what the German was flying and the tactical situation.

You're grasping straws. He was a top pilot and I'm sure he flew some of the latest 109s or 190s that were available. The point of his quote was the Thunderbolt's excellent roll rate.

Before I forget, I forgot to address your earlier statement:

I am also not so sure that this argument was ever really settled nor will it ever be settled. If BnZ was the best game, then why did we replace older fighters such as the F-4 Phantom with much more agile but slower fighters such as F-16 and F-18?

I was only talking about fighter design in WWII. Things were different 20-30 years later and today what with missiles, stealth etc. One can't fight yesterdays battles today. As for your statement that it is not an either-or situation but a relative performance thing, I completely agree. All fighters are made up of strengths and weakenesses and sometimes compromises (what do I give up to get more range? What do I give up to get better climb? I was trying to simplify things (it's really easy to get lost in the minutiae). No fighter is entirely a TnB or a BnZ (well, maybe the Ki-43 LOL).

 

[Deleted member 68059]

Surprisingly, there isn't as much difference in maneuverability between Thunderbolt and Mustang as one might expect from the sizes of the aircraft.

AFDU report #66, states that in fact the P47 roll-rate was considerably better than the Mustang, and that rate of turn was almost identical, although the Mustang
was considerably faster in level flight at all altitudes below 27,000ft (23rd march 1943)

 

[Clayton Magnet]

I was not clear in my OP. When I mention intercepting it was in reference to being a defensive point interceptor, as in protecting a city or industrial target and scrambling and climbing to altitude to meet the enemy aircraft. Obviously P-47's intercepted German or Japanese fighters who were in many cases intercepting attacking bombers. But of course they were already at altitude. Sorry I was not clear.

I think you were clear in your original post, no need to apologize. I just pointed out that P-47's were not "Intercepting and dogfighting", but their opponents were. And their opponents were the other half of the total, so still quite important at that stage of the war. If the Luftwaffe had tried to use P-47's to counter strategic bombing raids, it would have been a challenge, to say the least. Not to say that the Thunderbolt wasn't an effective aircraft, it was, probably the best fighter of the war (arguably) above 30000ft.
But they, and the P-51's, operated almost exclusively in an offensive manner, only because local air superiority over their home bases was provided by, you guessed it, Spitfires.
To say that interceptors and dog fighters were a thing of the past is looking at the whole air situation with blinders on. What then was the impetus to develop the P-47M and P-51H? The USN also came to the conclusion that the Hellcat and Corsair, despite their many attributes, were lackluster as fleet defense fighters, and developed an interceptor/dogfighter as well.

 

[windswords]

AFDU report #66, states that in fact the P47 roll-rate was considerably better than the Mustang, and that rate of turn was almost identical, although the Mustang was considerably faster in level flight at all altitudes below 27,000ft (23rd march 1943)

That would line up with what I have read in statements from pilots of both sides in regards to roll. I do find it hard to believe that the the turn rate was almost identical, I would think that the Mustang was better.

Witold "Lanny" Lanowski was a Polish fighter pilot and ace who flew both Spitfires and Thunderbolts said that the P-47 could hold a turn - temporarily with a 109 or 190: "The Thunderbolt could turn quite well at speed but it was not safe to try to turn too far with a 190 or 109. It was best to go only a half circle, shoot, and then pull out; or three-quarters of a circle at the most". He stated he was able to do this even at altitudes of 5 to 10,000 feet. Now, I don't know about turn data for a Mustang. Was the P-51 worse, as good as, or better than a 109 or 190?

Another interesting tidbit: According to "Report 107 on Tactical Trials conducted by the AFDU at RAF Wittering in March 1944" they compared the P-51B (Mustang III) to the Sptfire Mk IX, the Spitfire had a better roll rate at all speeds and altitudes than the Mustang III.
But Chief Naval Test Pilot and C.O. Captured Enemy Aircraft Flight Capt. Eric Brown, CBE, DSC, AFC, RN, tested the Mustang at RAE Farnborough in March 1944 (note the date is the same but the location is different than the test above) and noted of the Mustang, "... It had a good rate-of-roll, better than the Spitfire, so I would say the pluses to the Spitfire and the Mustang just about equate". So what was the difference in roll rate? Was it because it was a different Spitfire (not a Mk IX) or a different Mustang (not a P-51B) or both? Confusing for sure!

 

[GrauGeist]

1) Doesn't matter what the Japanese had Ki-27, Ki-43 or the Zero (or even the A6M5 Claude which did take part in the early fighting even after Dec 7). ALL of these were better climbing and better turning fighters than anything the Americans, Dutch and British Commonwealth had. More importantly, they had range (Ki-43 and Zero).

I'm pretty sure that was supposed to be the A5M4 Claude

 

[Ivan1GFP]

1) Doesn't matter what the Japanese had Ki-27, Ki-43 or the Zero (or even the A6M5 Claude which did take part in the early fighting even after Dec 7). ALL of these were better climbing and better turning fighters than anything the Americans, Dutch and British Commonwealth had. More importantly, they had range (Ki-43 and Zero).
2) The fact that American aircraft then were better in a zoom climb is exactly what we are talking about here. Boom and ZOOM.
3) The fact that the Japanese aircraft you mentioned were slower (as was the Zero also) does not negate the fact that they were better at turn and climb. A turning dogfight almost always bleeds off energy and is not done at the aircraft best rated speed at altitude.
4) Midway was 4 Japanese carriers against 3 American. It is certainly true that pilot attrition started even before the Battle of the Coral Sea, but it had not become severe yet. At one point AFTER Midway the Americans were down to one carrier in the Pacific, while the Japanese still had 3 or 4 available. The British "loaned" the HMS Victorious to the USN serving as USS Robin, in January 1943.

Hello Windswords,
I think you got everything kinda backwards here:
1. MANY Allied fighters had a pretty comparable climb rate. At lower altitudes, a P-40E, P-39 in just about any model, F4F-3, Spitfire.... all would have been about the same.
2. The report states that the A6M2 had a very good zoom climb.
3. See Response #1. Note that not all aircraft bleed speed at the same rate while pulling the same G.
4. It should have been 5 or 6 Japanese carriers present at Midway instead of 4. Shokaku and Yorktown were both damaged at Coral Sea. Yorktown made it to Midway. Shokaku did not.
Zuikaku suffered no damage but had significant losses in aircraft and aircrew which could not be replaced in time which was an early indication of a lack of depth. Shokaku's air group had actually suffered relatively few losses.

Floatplane fighters were built because they needed planes to guard far flung islands that did not have airfields (they were not big enough, (such as the Aleutians) or the airfields were in the process of being built. That's why the number of floatplane fighters built were so low, just a few hundred - it was a specialized application for a narrowly defined mission - otherwise they would have built many more. Japans navy had a significant number of land based units that never flew from carriers, the most famous being the Tainan Kokutai of which Saburo Sakai and Hiroyoshi Nishizawa were members of. There were many other such units. Land based units like the Tainan Ku flew from air bases on larger islands in Solomons, Marianas, New Guinea, the Dutch East Indies, etc. To be sure those bases were not as big as the ones built by the Americans as their planes were bigger and heavier (especially the bombers) and needed larger bases. The Americans never needed floatplane fighters because after May 1942 they were on the offensive and didn't have to defend a large front that included those types of islands. The Americans often bypassed the smaller islands as they had no strategic value and took the ones that had enough land and the right location for air bases.

I believe your discussion supports the point I was making. "The airfields were in the process of being built" tended to be a rather long one for the Japanese. For Americans, it was a matter of landing CBs with a mess of bulldozers and then laying down a mess of PSP in a fairly short time. The Japanese didn't have the resources to do that kind of thing and knew it.
The actual production numbers of Floatplane Fighters is not really an indication of the importance of the concept.
Many very important Japanese aircraft only had a total production numbering in the hundreds which supports what I was stating earlier about a lack of production capacity.
Consider how much effort was spent on the N1K Kyofu and see if that matches up with the idea that a Floatplane Fighter was not important to them.

Not sure why Johnson out rolling the Spitfire would be lead one to believe that. The FW was one of the best if not the best rolling aircraft of the war. As for the FW 190A series There is an interesting test of a captured FW A4 or A5 and a P-47D that has some interesting results but It would be off topic to go into.

Johnson stated, "The Jug could out-roll any plane in the air, bare none." This was obviously not a true statement when it was made.

I don't know what the Spitfire did to break that rule. He was on the tail of the Thunderbolt, he tried to line up for a shot. In that post I did not mention Johnsons dive and zoom climb. Perhaps he should not have followed the Thunderbolt in the dive and the zoom climb? Maybe, but who can blame him? He believed his plane could out climb the P-47 - and it could quite easily - in a sustained climb.

After losing ground in trying to follow one series of rolls, the smart approach would be to break off and gain altitude to make high speed slashing passes at Thunderbolt. There was no way the Thunderbolt was going to gain altitude fast enough to follow the Spitfire up and if he tries, he makes a really nice target. Basically BnZ the Thunderbolt until he decides he wants to find someone else who wants to play. If Thunderbolt wants to leave, there isn't much you can do to stop him.

You're grasping straws. He was a top pilot and I'm sure he flew some of the latest 109s or 190s that were available. The point of his quote was the Thunderbolt's excellent roll rate.

No need to grasp at straws. You are not actually even reading your own quote. He didn't really say "excellent roll rate", you did.
I suppose something may have been lost in translating from German? I would certainly agree with the original quote: "Deceivingly fast" considering how big it was.

I was only talking about fighter design in WWII. Things were different 20-30 years later and today what with missiles, stealth etc. One can't fight yesterdays battles today. As for your statement that it is not an either-or situation but a relative performance thing, I completely agree. All fighters are made up of strengths and weakenesses and sometimes compromises (what do I give up to get more range? What do I give up to get better climb? I was trying to simplify things (it's really easy to get lost in the minutiae). No fighter is entirely a TnB or a BnZ (well, maybe the Ki-43 LOL).

Maybe we sort of agree here. I try to never make a statement that one aircraft is completely "better" than another. It may have certain characteristics that are better.
The problem with trying to simplify things is that way too much is lost without the details and often tactics may depend on some of those obscure details. Learning about them is what keeps things interesting.

- Ivan.

 

[Ivan1GFP]

Hello Windswords, Snowygrouch,
Perhaps the attached graphs might explain how folks can come to different conclusions with the same physical reality.
Note that at most practical speeds, the Thunderbolt is better than the Mustang but at high speeds, the Mustang beats a lot of other aircraft.

Spitfire versus Thunderbolt also makes for an interesting comparison.
It all depends on speed.

There is one curve on the NACA 868 graph that I find puzzling.
The roll rate for A6M is amazingly low but this doesn't match pilot reports and doesn't match videos I have timed with a stopwatch.

- Ivan.

 

[Greyman]

The Zero's line is 'force limits unknown' so is pretty much useless.

 

[CORSNING]

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/RAAF_Hap_Trials.pdf

Roll graph on here, Jeff

 

[ThomasP]

Hey windswords,

re: "Fighter design in WWII coalesced around two philosophies: "Turn and Burn" and "Boom and Zoom". For some reason we are still carrying on this argument today. It was settled in WWII. Boom and Zoom won, for the Americans at least. They were more than successful with it, as they achieved air supremacy over Germany and Japan."

Boom and Zoom only works great when you are in a position to Boom. Major problems affecting this were/are:

1. There was no way to ensure a Boom position prior to the advent of effective radar. The UK, US, Germany, and Japan, did studies/tests in the mid-late 1930s and all found that it was unlikely that CAP units (over land or sea) would intercept incoming attacks in time to stop a strike. And if the defending aircraft were not already airborne they would not normally have enough time to get into a position to Boom and Zoom. During most of the war the UK and US found that it was often not possible to intercept incoming aircraft even with radar. It was not until very late in the war that incoming attacks were able to be reliably intercepted, and it was as much due to relatively massive numbers of CAP aircraft as it was due to improved radar. Today of course you have to add in the effects of very sophisticated EW systems and stealth technology. When flying against a stealthy aircraft, if you do not have an IRST or similar system, it is quite possible that you will detect it with the naked eye before any electronic detection system.

2. If you are not able/willing to leave the area, you will not be able to ensure the use of Boom and Zoom more than once, and possibly not at all. When the USN was testing its prototype XF2A and XF4F against the likes of the F3F it was found that after the first pass there was no other option for survival than to "leave the area". The speed advantage of the F2A and F4F prototypes was not enough to ensure the disengagement part of the Boom and Zoom tactic.

3. If you are outnumbered by your enemy you will not be able to guarantee the use of Boom and Zoom. The simple numbers game will ensure that your enemy will often be in position to force you into a Turn and Burn fight.

4. The three factors listed above plus the morale factor basically demand that whatever airplane you supply your pilots with should have a balance of capabilities. The F4F had a better than 1:1 kill ratio even in the early part of the war, but the pilots were not happy (understandably) with a 2:1 kill ratio. The USN pilots were somewhat demoralized by the fact that if they got into a 1 on 1 maneuver fight with a Zero or Oscar they basically had no chance other than to escape. This was true of the USAF pilots also.

In the early part of the Vietnam war (a war where the US pretty much always outnumbered the enemy) the USN and USAF F4 Phantoms always had better than 1:1 kill ratios, but again the pilots (understandably) were not happy about the 2.5-3:1 ratio. The USN initiated the Top Gun program which was oriented toward learning how to fight using all methods, while also focusing on dissimilar aircraft engagements. The kill ratios went up significantly. The post-Vietnam F-14 Tomcat was a result of this change in perception of what was necessary in an air superiority fighter, an aircraft which could match or outperform pretty much any potential enemy aircraft of the time in any regime.

Despite all the romantic aspects of the idea that superior quality of aircraft and tactical concepts won the air war in WWII, in reality it was a war of attrition. The Allies defeated the Germans by out-numbering, out-producing, and thereby out-killing them. The Japanese were defeated primarily by destroying their supply chain (use of the A-bomb being a probably needless option). If we had not been able to outproduce and had not outnumbered the Axis countries, the war would have followed a very different path. Both the Germans and the Japanese understood the merits of Boom and Zoom as well as the Americans. The Allies defeated the Axis by attrition - not by out-Booming and Zooming them.

 

[Deleted member 68059]

The Allies defeated the Germans by out-numbering, out-producing, and thereby out-killing them. The Japanese were defeated primarily by destroying their supply chain

Your post is a good one, but I would propose a slight edit - which is that there was in fact very little wrong with German aircraft production figures, which proceeded to go up and up as the war progressed, in fact the out-numbering was really due to the "supply chain" being attacked, exactly as you describe in Japan.

Fuel shortages are what did for the Luftwaffe primarily, the lack of German aircraft aloft was not due to the fact that aircraft were not coming out the factories (before someone chimes in with pilot attrition, the fue shortage cut training hours so much that the new recruits had absolutely no chance whatsoever - again the visible "shortage" was really at its source a supply-chain problem, not a pure production issue).

One major reason for the intensive Allied study of the German aviation fuel industry and distribution system was that they (the allies) once they found out the figures, were amazed that Germany had even been able to have an air-force at all, given the astonishingly tiny anount of fuel they had to work with - especially C3.

 

[michael rauls]

Think you guys are both right here. It was ultimately a war of attrition but at least from what I've read B n Z types had more success than turn and burn.

 

[Kevin J]

Think you guys are both right here. It was ultimately a war of attrition but at least from what I've read B n Z types had more success than turn and burn.

Except in the BoB where the turn and burn beat off the boom and zoom.

 

[michael rauls]

Except in the BoB where the turn and burn beat off the boom and zoom.

This may be controversial but here goes. I think even in the BOB BnZ proved to have greater efficacy. The Brits won the battle and thank God they did but just looking at the numbers both sides lost roughly the same number of aircraft( i think the Brits did come out slightly ahead).
But when you consider the fact that the Germans were fighting mostly a fighters while the British were fighting a mixed force of bombers and fighters yet the losses were close to equal that would seem to indicate that BnZ still comes out ahead in a vacuum of type effectiveness.