Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Marshall_Stack said:I meant the XP-67 having turbocharged Allisons whould have been nice.
Jank said:Wmaxt, Erich indicated that the P-47 was better than the P-38 at handling the late war, high performance German fighters.
What tactics would have aided the P-38 that were not used by the P-47? Both fighters, to be effective, needed to utilize boom 'n zoom team tactics and since most all ETO pilots cut their teeth on the P-47, those tactics were well known and widely employed.
Generally, the tactics of the Japs were inferior to those of the Germans who worked well together as a team. You make it seem as though the Japanese were high tacticians and that the piloting of the P-38 in the PTO reflected that and that when the Americans moved over to the ETO, the Americans were slogging along without the benefit of having honed their skills against a frankly superior foe.
Twitch said:Gun camera film of strafing runs has no validity of comparison in attacking bomber boxes. Opening fire at optimum range peering through your gunsight which tells where your guns are harmonized is what fighter pilots did everywhere.
It's basically a percentage issue. Yes, of course many Luftwaffe bombers were shot down in the BoB. However, it is clear that on average this took a lot of effort and many bullets - the RAF was desperate to get the Hispano cannon into service. The more powerful your armament, the shorter the burst of fire you need, and that helps enormously if you also have escort fighters to deal with - you don't want to be sitting behind your bomber pouring fire into it (and being a sitting duck yourself) for any longer than you have to.Every BoB bomber mentioned above was in actuality shot down by RAF fighters with little .303s even if some did limp home! That logic is like saying the Zertorers' massive armament wasn't effective against B-17s simply becaue some made it home damaged. Why would 8 fifties be less effective? Yes do look at gun camera footage and you'll see scads of twin engined A/C falling to the P-47's firepower. I have never met a P-47 pilot that ever mentioned he was poorly armed.
I suggest you read my post, where I explain about the various reasons why the actual fire hitting the target was not concentrated, regardless of what the harmonisation on the ground might have been. Those are two separate issues.Twitch said:You can disagree with the 3 foot square convergence pattern all you want by pilots and crewmen have acknowledged that basic setting for harmonization for me repeatedly over the years.
The entire basis of the original post was hypothetical: it raised the question of the ideal interceptor for the USA if it were subject to bomber attack - which we know was impossible. So if we are assuming a defence against such attacks, we have to assume the heavy bombers to carry it out.The Japanese were dealing with B-29s and Germans the B-24s and B-17s hence the heavy guns. The Germans and Japanese had NO equivilant that would have been a difficulty for the P-47 or any other fighter to shoot down. To invent fantasy heavies that didn't exist and couldn't be shot down is frivilous at least.
You really didn't read my post did you? if you had, you would have read the following: "I don't doubt that the P-47 could have shot heavy bombers down, it's just that on average they would have had to spend a very long time pouring shed-loads of ammo into them."Sorry but with all due respect, to state that the Jug could NOT shoot down a "heavy" bomber is just wrong, everyone knows it and contradicts all the gee-whiz stats anyhow.
Perhaps if the axis had heavy bombers as rugged as the allied types, then perhaps the theory of US Armourment as being inadequate would have been proven true.
red admiral said:Piaggio 108 was extremely rugged. Accounts of 100+ mg strikes with fin being shot to pieces but able to be repaired by next day.
The problem with machine guns is that they make holes. The sole advantage of the 0.5" is that it makes a larger hole than the 0.303" I'm sure the P-47 could shoot down enemy bombers, but probably not within a 3-second pass. Cannons make the job massively easier.
V-1710 said:..... They dived good, though.