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

michael rauls said:

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.

Click to expand...

Over the course of the battle the most decisive engagement for either side was a "bounce", dogfights became less and less decisive as the numbers involved increased.

This may open yet another nasty can of worms, but I am not convinced that a superiority of fighter aircraft is the reason for the British victory in the Battle of Britain. The tactical situation, fighting at extreme limits of range, fighting over home turf, and of course having the ability to replace aircraft losses all had much greater effect.
I believe the differences between the Me 109E and Spitfire Mk.I/Mk.II were so small that one could have been swapped for the other without affecting results to any great extent.

- Ivan.

Ivan1GFP said:

This may open yet another nasty can of worms, but I am not convinced that a superiority of fighter aircraft is the reason for the British victory in the Battle of Britain. The tactical situation, fighting at extreme limits of range, fighting over home turf, and of course having the ability to replace aircraft losses all had much greater effect.
I believe the differences between the Me 109E and Spitfire Mk.I/Mk.II were so small that one could have been swapped for the other without affecting results to any great extent.

- Ivan.

Click to expand...

Perfectly true, the biggest deciding factor was probably the Chain home radar and its use through the sector stations control system, but possibly also having Dowding and Park in charge.

ThomasP said:

There was no way to ensure a Boom position prior to the advent of effective radar.

Click to expand...

Unless you were strictly operating offensively, and entering the contested airspace with speed and altitude every time

Ivan1GFP said:

I believe the differences between the Me 109E and Spitfire Mk.I/Mk.II were so small that one could have been swapped for the other without affecting results to any great extent.

Click to expand...

Performance-wise I'd agree, and in fact I think each side from a performance and armament perspective would have been better off with each others' fighters (Spitfire/109).

That said, I think where the Spitfire made a material difference for the British during the battle was the ease with which it was flown. I don't think I've come across a pilot who thought the Spitfire wasn't the easier aircraft to fly and get a lot out of.

An important factor when you're throwing pilots into combat with the training that was available in 1940.

CORSNING said:

Michael,
Always be open to those like Francis H. Dean, Peter Caygill, Eric M. Brown
and Erik Pilawskii (when he doesn't let his bias opinion take over). There
are several true historians out there that will not "go-with-the-flow", but
they will dig deeper to try to give you the whole truth.

An extreme example is the publishing of the North American P-51D 's
maximum speed of 437 mph./25,000 ft. The only official document that
I have seen that lists that figure as the P-51D's maximum speed is a
United Kingdom Data Card, and that lists that speed at 24,500 ft. A USAAF
test of aircraft No. 44-15342 being flown by Major E. W. Leach and Captain
D. Gentile produced a maximum velocity of a P-51D-15 as being 442 mph.
at 26,000 ft. using 67"Hg. boost at 3,000 rpm. with one bomb rack on each
wing. These wing racks were more streamline than those installed on earlier
model Mustangs, but when removed the P-51D still gained about 6 mph.

The P-51B,C&D/K were cleared for 72-75"Hg very soon after the introduction
of the P-51D/K in June 1944. This made all the Merlin Mustangs true 445-455
mph. vehicles at their full throttle height.

Click to expand...

Resp:
Whether intentional or as a result of leaving the exterior unpainted, ETO Mustangs gained a few MPH. Another reason ground crews waxed the aircraft prior to next day's mission was the belief that it would also gain a few additional MPH. Psychological or real?

michael rauls said:

At the risk of stateing the obvious these two planes are very different approaches to fighter design. I think which would win would depend on the peramiters of the fight.
High altitude high speed clash I would say the P47 would have an advantage. Lower to mid altitude turning fight my money is definitely on the Spitfire.

Click to expand...

Resp:
Francis Gabreski flew both the Spitfire and the P-47, and he preferred the P-47. Keep in mind that he only flew the Spitfire (and likely one, poss two Mks) for a relatively short time compared to the P-47. No kills in the Spit and 28 in the Thunderbolt might have something to do w it.

Hey Snowygrouch,

re your post#97

While I agree with your assessment as to the cause of decrease in production, I disagree with the potential production ability even without the effects of the heavy loss of the supply chain.

Note that in terms of actual/potential production years I am using 4 years each for the US and SU (i.e. 1942-1945, and 7 years each for the UK and Germany (i.e. 1939-1945).

The combined population of the the 3 primary Allied countries was upwards of 350,000,000.
The combined access to natural resources of the 3 primary Allied countries was ~(something ridiculous)
The combined production of aircraft of the 3 primary Allied countries was upwards of 500,000 if you just count the number produced from the time they entered the war.

The German population was ~80,000,000(?) in 1939 including gains pre-war by invasion/annexation/recovery of lands.
The German access to natural resources at the height of its success was 25% (of the something ridiculous) of the Allies (per US assessment post-war).
The German wartime production of aircraft was ~120,000, but if the growth in production had not been affected by the Allies efforts, it would probably not have exceeded ~200,000 (if the increase had continued at the same ~rate).

I agree that the German industrial complex managed an amazing output under the circumstances (potentially ~33% more production per man-year than the Allies), but just based on the numbers above they never really had chance.

Hey Clayton Magnet,

re your post#104: "Unless you were strictly operating offensively, and entering the contested airspace with speed and altitude every time"

I think I covered part of that in my post#96 under item#2, i.e. "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." But even if you start out as you state above you can not guarantee surprise, and without surprise you can not guarantee that the enemy aircraft will not be able to upset your Boom and Zoom tactic. If they see you soon enough they will turn into you for a head on shot, or generate enough angle off that if you want to get a reasonable shot you will have to maneuver some, and if you maneuver you lose speed.

Navalwarrior said:

Resp:
Whether intentional or as a result of leaving the exterior unpainted, ETO Mustangs gained a few MPH. Another reason ground crews waxed the aircraft prior to next day's mission was the belief that it would also gain a few additional MPH. Psychological or real?

Click to expand...

Actually, both the Brits and NAA performed extensive testing to determine how much finishing wing surface of the Mustang 'as deleivered" in all versions with 400 grit sandpaper and wax - had zero to insignificant benefit. The primary reason is that the Mustang Wing production surface treatment of filling/sanding rivet and sheet join imperfections, then priming and painting rendered the wing to a better condition than say a production Spit as delivered - then waxed.

fliger747 said:

I worked with an explosives guy years ago and he had been a Thunderbolt pilot in Europe. He got hit in the engine by a 37mm round strafing a train. When he got back to base he mentioned to the crew chief "she was missing". Crew chief came back later... "yep, missing a jug".

Click to expand...

Lmao, I can picture the mechanic rehearsing the coolest way to say that to the pilot... battle damage pics-wise so many similarities between the old and new Thunderbolts...

wuzak said:

Because of the big mutha engine?

And besides, aint 8 x 0.50" enough?

Click to expand...

While I'm not sure where DerGiLLster hails from, are you asking Americans if one can have enough guns? (No.)
Glad this thread was brought back!