- Thread starter
-
- #401
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I'm curious which of these were better in the air to air role and why.
The Bolt would have carrier capability too if they outfitted it with arrestor gear and strengthened landing gear- and if they could find a carrier with a big enough landing deck! So I don't think it matters here. Besides, the Bolt has a thousand mile greater range.
There has never been a vessel long enough to launch a P-47 of any variety with a full load of fuel to take advantage of the range differential - so that would be a spurious argument.
Now about maneuverability below 25K feet. In Europe the Bolt faced planes that were more maneuverable - the Me-109 and FW-190 - and blew them out of the sky.
Of significant importance is that the P-47C and D below -25 simply didn't engage many Fw 190s and me 109s re: Mustang because they didn't have the range and the M was a nightmare reliability wise for the 56th FG. True the 9th AF did engage and engage near the deck. I don't have the numbers but would speculate that their air to air ratio was no better than half of their brthren in the 8th AF - which started most of their fights at altitude and was able to trade altitude for speed - unlike the low level Jugs.
Even the 8th AF jugs were far below the air to air ratio of the Mustang over Europe.
Most of that combat took place below 25000 ft, especially later in the war when the Bolts were relegated to low level ground attack. If they faced enemy fighter opposition down on the deck they had to fend for themselves. There were no Mustangs flying top cover for them. In the Pacific practically every Japanese fighter they faced were more maneuverable than the Bolts. I don't remember combat pilots complaining that their mounts were not maneuverable enough against the Japanese.
Simply because the survivors of air combat did not engage in the Japanese fighter strike zone - and the ones in Europe against a pilot of equal skill in an Fw 190 or Me 109 below 15,000 feet was in deep trouble also given no tactical advantage in the encounter. The Jug was out rolled by the Fw 190 below 350mph and the Fw 190 was about as fast - the 109 out climbed (by far) and out turned below 25,000 feet.
By the time the 9th AF was heavily engaged in low level support - May/June 1944 - much of the LW experienced pilots were lost - so the skill factor of the opposition was very spotty.
Most of us agree that the maneuver vs.energy fighter debate was was won by the energy fighter. Why are we all of a sudden giving so much credence to the Corsairs greater maneuverability? Of more importance should be speed, armor, armament, and overall toughness. Not to mention the greater roll rate and dive speed of the Bolt. So yes the Corsair has some advantages but the advantages of the Bolt are more important when it comes to air to air combat - as it was practiced in WWII, not as it's played in modern combat simulation games.
Debatable - that is why there are contrary opinions to your own