P-51 vs P-47 post war

[MikeGazdik]

Too lazy to look up the comparison. Are these ranges significantly different that the typical missions in WWII?

 

[tyrodtom]

During the most critical part of the Korean War, the first 3-4 months when S Korean forces were squeezed into the Puzan area, most of the missions were flown or staged from Itazuka AFB , Japan, on Kyushu island. Only about 250-300 miles from most of the action.

 

[michaelmaltby]

P-47's in action, ground targets, WW2:


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shsxuauQA3w

MM

 

[Timppa]

Loss comparison:

 

[drgondog]

Loss comparison:

Timppa - that is a good chart. It is misleading for the 8th AF because the P-47 was not strafing nearly as much as the P-51 due to range limitations. So far my statistics regarding loss to flak vs aircraft destroyed on the ground give almost a 2:1 ratio in favor of the Mustang - given a.) that precision regarding loss to flak or flak damage isimprecise looking at all the MACR's, and b.) the imprecision of actual ground destruction.

Several statements about 8th AF which are opinions based on facts are:

1.) P-47 sorties declined from 100% in August 1943 through January 1944, to 50% in May to 7% in April 1945 (if you add 354FG/9th AF this statement becomes true for December 6, 1943 forward). So the statistics have a very large percentage of 8th AF (dominant P-47) sorties between August 1943 to February 1944 in which no strafing was performed by the P-47 (or P-51 or P-38).

Ergo the P-47 'built up' a large pool of sorties in which flak was not a factor to provide loss statistics for the tables. The Mustang on the other hand attacked German airfields, and engaged in air combat, with far higher per sortie ratios than the P-47 from March through May 31st.

A similar table with victory credits per sortie would favor the Mustang by perhaps 2:1 for air to air and 5:1 for ground credits - leading to the correct conclusion that the Mustang was a superior choice considering effectiveness versus survivability.

2.) P-47 range covered far fewer airfields as targets, which were the dominant loss factor for both Mustangs and P-47s in the ETO. Therefore both exposure and sorties involving German airfields were far lower for P-47s after March 1944 as the P-51 assumed the long range primary role with strafing on return leg.
3.) The most nebulous, but true, statement is that the average duration of Mustang missions raised the probability of a mechanical failure or loss due to moderate damage because of longer missions.

So, when considering loss rates per sortie, one may not intuitively leap to fact based conclusion that the P-47 was tougher. Having said that I agree that is was able to take more punishment than the P-51 - just can't prove it for 8th AF operations.

Anecdotally more P-51 losses to ground fire (all targets including rail) occurred flying high percentage of CAS between June 7 and August 30 when all 8th AF ops reverted 100% to strategic support.

 

[Timppa]

It is misleading for the 8th AF because the P-47 was not strafing nearly as much as the P-51 due to range limitations.

You are ignoring the last column of this stat, planes hit vs. planes lost (per mission).
Note also the timeframe- August 1943- May 1944, not yet the time for easy strafing victories of abandoned German planes sitting in the airfields with no fuel. So I would ignore these victory ratios.

From another forum:

A study was conducted by the Rand Corporation in the early 1950's ,RM 402: Aircraft Vulnerability in WWII

If the aircraft was attacked and hit by enemy aircraft, of the aircraft hit:

49% of P-38's that were hit were lost
46% of P-51's that were hit were lost
46% of F4U's that were hit were lost
37% of P-47's were hit were lost
36% of F6F's that were hit were lost
25% of F4F/FM-2's that were hit were lost

When it came to being hit by AAA:

29% of P-51's that were hit were lost
26% of F4U's hit were lost
25% of P-38's hit were lost
25% of F6F's that were hit were lost
22% of F4F/FM-2's were lost
10% of P-47's that were hit were lost

 

[tyrodtom]

That a good illustration of how useless some statistics can be.
A hit can be anything from a single 7.93mm bullet thru the rudder, to a hundred or more hits anywhere, or a single 30mm thru the cockpit.
Each would have radically different results in the aircraft returning, but each is only treated as a hit.

 

[drgondog]

You are ignoring the last column of this stat, planes hit vs. planes lost (per mission).
Note also the timeframe- August 1943- May 1944, not yet the time for easy strafing victories of abandoned German planes sitting in the airfields with no fuel. So I would ignore these victory ratios.

Actually Timppa - the highest number of strafing losses occurred when those aircraft were sitting on Straubing, Eger, Landsberg, Oberphaffenhofen, etc in the March - April 1945 period when the flak concentrations were at their highest and pilots made repeated passes to attempt to get airplanes to burn for a credit. That analogy does work on a simple level - a lot more German) aircraft were destroyed in April than any two other months during the war. The victory to loss ratios were inflated over April-May 1944 - but your tables only extend through May 1944. When I have time I will look at those ratios for pre D-Day.

From another forum:

A study was conducted by the Rand Corporation in the early 1950's ,RM 402: Aircraft Vulnerability in WWII

If the aircraft was attacked and hit by enemy aircraft, of the aircraft hit:

49% of P-38's that were hit were lost versus how many lost due to unknown causes, including aircraft but not verifiable as to root cause?
46% of P-51's that were hit were lost
46% of F4U's that were hit were lost
37% of P-47's were hit were lost
36% of F6F's that were hit were lost
25% of F4F/FM-2's that were hit were lost

When it came to being hit by AAA:

29% of P-51's that were hit were lost Same comment as above - i.e how many P-51s seen to crash and speculatively either fla, mechanical or pilot error?
26% of F4U's hit were lost
25% of P-38's hit were lost
25% of F6F's that were hit were lost
22% of F4F/FM-2's were lost
10% of P-47's that were hit were lost

I wasn't ignoring the 'hit' ratio - I just didn't have an objective perspective to associate shrapnel vs 8mm vs 20mm damage. Further I have zero idea how the associative 'hit-lost' data was exacted in the many cases when for example glycol coolant boiled over for a Mustang (was it a hit or a leak) or a 'mechanical' failure of the engine due to unknown causes, or simply disappeared.

The info may have more meaning if for example, they cited the sample size and referenced detail reports regarding sources. MACR's and eyewitness reports are notoriously suspect when the dreaded phrase 'last seen' works its way into the report along with 'unknown' cause. I looked at, and examined carefully nearly 2000 MACRs for 8th FC and 354/363FG 9th FC...at least 20% presented issues regarding true cause of loss. I resolved the issue partially by lumping 'hit by flak over airfied, 'crashed near the airfield, 'seen to hit the trees on low level pass, 'crashed into german fighter on the ground, 'hit power line, 'etc into 'Lost while strafing because it was impossible to determine if hit by enemy fire or pilot error. So, I would submit to you that any report that gives a definitive statement of '29%' or '36' is simply nonsense.

 

[drgondog]

Another thing for you to question regarding the statistics as presented. The P-47 and P-38 were much larger aircraft - and were slower on the deck - and yet the Mustang was cited as nearly 2x number of combined Damaged/lost (46) to P-47 (24). Isn't that a little curious regarding the number damaged per sortie vs 'threat environment'. It is pretty clear that the P-47 was in a less severe threat environment given that they were a far fatter target and easier to hit - and yet were only 'hit' 2/3 of the times per sortie.

 

[CobberKane]

…and another thing; the P-47 ad P 51 were used primarily in the ETO, whereas the F4F, F3F and F4U were mainly in the Pacific. German fighters were generally more heavily armed than Japanese fighters,(think Bf109G v Ki-43, which I believe would have been the most common fighters in the respective air forces at the time) so a Mustang or Thunderbolt would likely sustain more damage when hit than a Corsair, Wildcat or Hellcat.
Interesting stats though, and the P-47 does seem to be the ship to be in when the bogeyman has you in his sights.

 

[riacrato]

No statistic is perfect, but no need to keep bashing on it I think everyone including the op knew he would want a grain of salt with that. Still I think it's very interesing, especially concerning the often quoted survivability bonus of a twin-engined aircraft.

 

[GregP]

The survivability in a twin is based on getting an engine hit ... not in having a critical system taken out.

If the P-38 has the elevator cables shot out and the pilot is not quite quick enough to recover with just the trim tab, then the second engine doesn't matter much. Likewise if the pilot burns most of the fuel out in a tank and then the full tank gets hit ... he may have two engines and still not make it home due to fuel exhaustion on the way. So I suppose the twin CAN be more survivable in combat, but not necessarily so.

In Naval aircraft, the most often-encountered issue was with with an engine or engine system on operational missions around the carrier, not combat mission issuess unless you are operating in actual wartime. In those operational cases, the second engine is a real bonus. In wartime it CAN be a real plus, but not necessarily. It depends on the damage caused by combat.

 

[Timppa]

That a good illustration of how useless some statistics can be.
A hit can be anything from a single 7.93mm bullet thru the rudder, to a hundred or more hits anywhere, or a single 30mm thru the cockpit.
Each would have radically different results in the aircraft returning, but each is only treated as a hit.

Do you have any reason to believe that planes "A" were usually damaged by different caliber hits than planes "B" ?

Another thing for you to question regarding the statistics as presented. The P-47 and P-38 were much larger aircraft - and were slower on the deck - and yet the Mustang was cited as nearly 2x number of combined Damaged/lost (46) to P-47 (24). Isn't that a little curious regarding the number damaged per sortie vs 'threat environment'. It is pretty clear that the P-47 was in a less severe threat environment given that they were a far fatter target and easier to hit - and yet were only 'hit' 2/3 of the times per sortie.

Well, you can also conclude that the P-47 was the more rugged airplane. In mid '44 most P-47's were in ground attack duties. 13 fighter groups in the 9th AF alone.

And for "less severe environment":

366th Fighter Group Casualties - July 24, 1944 through August 2, 1944:
July 24: Captain Vernon Taylor shot down by flak.
July 26: 1st Lt. Robert Ackerly. Hit by flak. Bailed out -- plane was on fire.
July 26: 1st Lt. John Englehart. Hit by flak. Bailed out.
July 27: 1st Lt. Charles Ray. Strafing with bombs on. Hit by flak --- crashed and burned. KIA.
July 27: Capt. Jack Engman. Hit by flak. Plane was on fire. Bailed out at 8,000 feet, but chute did not open. KIA.
July 27: 2nd Lt. Paul Bade. Hit by flak at low altitude. Tried to bail out, but was too low. KIA. Waved to wingman an instant before he crashed. I was that wingman.
July 28: 2nd Lt. Robert Jones. Shot down by flak. Injured in bailout.
July 28: 2nd Lt. Clinton Mendenhall. Hit by flak in his dive. Crashed in flames. KIA.
August 2: 1st Lt. Kenneth Roberts. Hit by flak over Vire. Crashed on edge of town. KIA.

I live in a world of death. I have watched my friends die in a variety of violent ways...

Sometimes it's just an engine failure on takeoff resulting in a violent explosion. There's not enough left to bury. Other times, it's the deadly flak that tears into a plane. If the pilot is lucky, the flak kills him. But usually he isn't, and he burns to death as his plane spins in. Fire is the worst. In early September one of my good friends crashed on the edge of our field. As he was pulled from the burning plane, the skin came off his arms. His face was almost burned away. He was still conscious and trying to talk. You can't imagine the horror.

So far, I have done my duty in this war. I have never aborted a mission or failed to dive on a target no matter how intense the flak. I have lived for my dreams for the future. But like everything else around me, my dreams are dying, too. In spite of everything, I may live through this war and return to Baton Rouge. But I am not the same person you said goodbye to on May 3. No one can go through this and not change. We are all casualties. In the meantime, we just go on. Some way, somehow, this will all have an ending. Whatever it is, I am ready for it.

Title: A Fighter Pilot's Story

 

[michaelmaltby]

Great link, Timppa thanks. A Must Read. Patton could NEVER have broken loose on the endrun throughout France without the P-47's serving as his Jabo's.

MM

 

[drgondog]

Well, you can also conclude that the P-47 was the more rugged airplane. In mid '44 most P-47's were in ground attack duties. 13 fighter groups in the 9th AF alone.

On May 1, which is within the bandwidth of the statistics there were six 9th AF P-47 groups operational, two P-51 groups and one P-38 Group - three more P-47 Groups by D-Day. There were six 8th AF P-47 Groups, four P-51 Groups and three P-38 Groups operational. The number of strafing credits for 8th were P-47 (217); for the P-51 (473) despite having ~ 65% fewer sorties from February 1944 when strafing credits were awarded, through May 31, 1944

And for "less severe environment":

I believe we were discussing Pre Invasion statistics tables? Go dig up the airfield/rail strafing losses pre-Invasion for 8th AF P-51 vs P-47 and I believe we can still say the P-47 operated with far fewer sorties while strafing prior to the Invasion.

Title: A Fighter Pilot's Story

In the same timeframe as the first strafing credits, February 1944 through May 31, 1944 the air victory credits looked like this:
P-47 (619); P-51 (1099). As an example, the February air victory credits for the 354 and 357FG's were 91 in contrast to 239 for all twelve of the combined 8th and 9th AF P-47 Groups. In March, the air victory credits for the 4th, 354, 355, 357 FG's were P-51 (254) to P-47 (176), in April P-51 (323) to P-47 (85), in May P-51 (431) to P-47 (119). The Mustang 'crossed over' in the number of air victory credits compared to ALL of the 8th and 9th AF P-47 FG's combined at the end of May, 1944 - despite the P-47 operational status of March 1943 through November 1943 when no Mustang groups were operational in the 8th AF and the 9th AF was rapidly building up its strength and flew many escort missions with the 8th AF until May, 1944.

Note - the 56th FG were credited with 55 of the May, 1944 119 air victory credits and zero ground scores - nearly half of all 14 combined 8th and 9th AF P-47 air victory credits in May.

 

[p47thunderboltking]

True - they also werent as good as the P-51 for they were slower and less maneuverable with 4 50 cals.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

True - they also werent as good as the P-51 for they were slower and less maneuverable with 4 50 cals.

4 50 caliber machine guns IN EACH WING!!!!!!

 

[tomo pauk]

True - they also werent as good as the P-51 for they were slower and less maneuverable with 4 50 cals.

How come P-47 was slower and less maneuverable?

 

[drgondog]

BTW Timppa - I believe the P-47 was more rugged than the P-51. Simply, I agree with you even as I look at the Stats and question the sampling by the authors responsible for them.

My assertions earlier were that the P-51 was more Effective in destruction of German aircraft in the air and on the ground in the ETO in the context of victory credits per loss for each category "air to air" and "air to ground".

 

[bobbysocks]

there is a thread on here ( still looking for the link ) of photos of beat up 47s that made it back to base. some were shot to $#!T, others had leading edges and props bent up after hitting trees...wing tips and tails tore off...the plane could take a hell of a lot of damage. so as far as survivabilty..if i had to strafe an airfield i would feel safer in a 47 than a 51. even though its slower and a larger target it will take more of a licking and keep on ticking. i would "suspect" ( maybe erroneously) that the corsair cold take simular punishment. where the 51 had the advantage was it could attack LW bases deep in germany and catch fighters being rearmed and fueled between sorties...or catching them returning to base.

copuld have sworn there was a thread about damaged 47 only but guess my mind is playing tricks on me again. this must be ther thread i was thinking about. there are a lot of 47s in here....

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aircraft-pictures/battle-damaged-aircraft-ww2-15431.html