Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.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.
The Russians used their Thunderbolts for air defence of strategic targets in their rear areas.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 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.
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 JohnsonThe Thunderbolt really didn't roll all that well but against a new Spitfire IX, it was just a little better.
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.As for diving performance, remember that the US chose to go with the Mustang in Europe because it had fewer problems with compressibility.
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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.Why did the Japanese develop Floatplane Fighters such as A6M2-N and N1K? They knew their capability for building airfields was not so good.
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.That really is a great story. Thanks for quoting it again. Pity you left out the ending.
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.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.
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.The Spitfire pilot was breaking this rule. Perhaps a smarter pilot would not have fought this way.
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.Some of this opinion might depend on what the German was flying and the tactical situation.
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).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?
Surprisingly, there isn't as much difference in maneuverability between Thunderbolt and Mustang as one might expect from the sizes of the aircraft.
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.
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)
I'm pretty sure that was supposed to be the A5M4 Claude1) 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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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
Except in the BoB where the turn and burn beat off the boom and zoom.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.
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).Except in the BoB where the turn and burn beat off the boom and zoom.