"The case for the P-47 Thunderbolt being the greatest fighter of the Second World War " (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter NVSMITH
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The above statement seems to be referring to a "myth", dispelled here:
(I am sorry if someone else has made reference to this matter elsewhere in this thread)
P-47 Thunderbolt Pt. 6 Range, Deceit and Treachery.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCLa078v69k
For example, the producer of the video makes the point that P47's would have been able to escort bombers all the way to Schweinfurt in October 1943, (paraphrasing - and from 14.30 in the video) had the "bureaucratic nonsense....."(the producers exact words) not stood in the way of the fitment of the already developed 200 gallon drop tanks.
@21.20 of the video an example is shown of a P47 fitted with dual 108g(paper) wing tanks and a 150g(metal) belly tank.
According to the producer this configuration was available as from November 1943 and provided a range of about 450/475 statute miles((dependent on the figures/settings used in the range charts) - enough to reach Berlin.
@25.30, using an official 8th A.F. document "Tactical Development" a range of in excess of 500 miles is shown.
P.S. The P47 has long been my favourite WW2 piston engined fighter.
If the forum ArmchairGeneral had not met an untimely demise a few years ago, I could have pointed to much material there about this matter, especially dealing with the "lack of range" myth.
Unfortunately, I am unable to access this material.
Thanks to the producer of the referenced video for providing confirming material.
Last edited:
Deleted member 68059
Staff Sergeant
- 1,056
- Dec 28, 2015
The video is full of serious fundamental factual errors which has been thoroughly debunked already on this forum.
Could you point me to these discussions please?
The producer seems to have a lot of adherents e.g.:
I am not sure how qualified the above contributor is to make such statements, but G'sA&A has a strong following.
P.S. I have your book, but have not had time to read it yet.
Last edited:
Deleted member 68059
Staff Sergeant
- 1,056
- Dec 28, 2015
Good question, I dont have the link to hand... try searching for the video title and that might work. There was quite a bit of
discussion on it so should be possible to find.
IIRC the key points were that he has not really understood fuel tank pressurisation, which means you cannot use ANY
drop tank for high altitude flight because the fuel boils (its a really REALLY big technical job making drop tanks which work
for high altitudes, its not just a bucket with a straw). He was also using a document from something like 1938
to prove what policy was in 1943 (dates from memory).
Yes Greg has a lot of fans and does a great job making videos which are a lot of fun to watch, but for reasons which
frustrate many of us seems to insist in including enough serious errors to render them of little use as
historical reference works.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
If I'm not mistaken, they had to improvise a glass tube to make the cobbled drop tanks to work on the early ETO P-47s?
(going by memory here)
(going by memory here)
Partly indicated by my post count, I am unable to spend as much time here as I would like, for similar reasons as to why I have not started to properly read your book.
If anyone could point me to discussions about the video produced by G's A&A about Thunderbolt range(or associated material) I would appreciate it.
In earlier readings I have seen reference to the "glass tube" that you refer to, but I just can't remember exactly where, and if it was related to the P47, or not.
EDIT: There is a reference to P47 "glass elbow device" fittings in this post #120:
P-47: Range, Deceit and Treachery
This was the period in which Plans and Materiel Command were striving for solutions for long-range escort - without any notion that a single engine fighter would/could achieve the range requirements and all development thinking was dedicated to multi engine escorts. The P-61 and YB-40 emerged...
ww2aircraft.net
(I tried to link directly to that specific post - for some reason I cannot - annoying)
Last edited:
Deleted member 68059
Staff Sergeant
- 1,056
- Dec 28, 2015
Think its this thread, the stuff on why he`s got it wrong on the tanks is mostly on page 6 >
Re-reading that page Greg had factored in the P-47`s being on the schweinfurt raid flying without
drop tanks. In fact they HAD droptanks but they were only part-filled, this appears to have
been due to tank pressurisation issues.
P-47: Range, Deceit and Treachery
If you are laboring under the assumption that Doolittle 'plotted' against Republic to cast the P-47D in an unfavorable light, 'say it isn't so'. Until the P-47D-25 entered limited combat operations in Mid May 1944, in limited quantities below squadron level strength, it was flying in mixed...
ww2aircraft.net
Last edited:
Thank you.Think its this thread >
P-47: Range, Deceit and Treachery
If you are laboring under the assumption that Doolittle 'plotted' against Republic to cast the P-47D in an unfavorable light, 'say it isn't so'. Until the P-47D-25 entered limited combat operations in Mid May 1944, in limited quantities below squadron level strength, it was flying in mixed...
I will try to devote time to read it properly.
That's a lot of fuel to fly just 450-475 miles, as soon as they get into combat the three tanks have to be jettisoned, how much is left to fight, fly home with reserve?.
@18.50 in the video, he makes the clear distinction between "200 gallon" tanks that could not be used at "altitude", and those that can -"fully tested up to 30,000 feet".
Deleted member 68059
Staff Sergeant
- 1,056
- Dec 28, 2015
The stuff thats wrong is all in the thread discussed in depth. He thinks the correct pressurised tanks were all ready sitting in a warehouse all ready to be flown
for the P-47 but that a grand conspiracy stopped it. I actually posted documents from the USAAF`s own history showing they were not able to be fully filled.
Are you able to succinctly post that material again, or link directly to it?
Thanks.
Deleted member 68059
Staff Sergeant
- 1,056
- Dec 28, 2015
Its all in the thread I took time out of my day to dig out for you, which you have just demonstrated you didnt even read.
If you have a look at post #308 of this thread above, you will see my comment responding to GrauGeist at post #306, which clearly shows that I did read it:
It is rather a long thread, with reference to a number of long documents that I also attempted to read, one of over 300 pages IIRC.
I am sorry, between looking after my very sick mother who is 99 years old on April 11 and trying to re-look at the video I referenced and the 2 threads, that my ability to absorb information to your demanding standard has not been met.
Incidentally, here is an indication of the lengths I am prepared to go to to help other members of an internet forum where I have been a moderator of for over 12 months, even when I am not likely to benefit directly from my help to others:
I will not trouble you again.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
Last edited:
It is all in the comments to Gregs video and in that thread and elsewhere stated many time. Greg only ever notices "Great video Greg" and replies, anything saying he is wrong is ignored. The range of a fighter is dictated by its internal fuel. Take off is always on he main tank and range is calculated as how much fuel is left after 15-20 minutes combat. Adding 400 gallons of fuel in tanks just takes you to a place you cant fight back from. When in contact with the bombers the cruise speed is that which allows you to engage any attacker while the ground speed is that of the bombers themselves, so you may cruise at 250-300 MPH circling the formation but you may only be doing 150 MPH to or from the target.
Deleted member 68059
Staff Sergeant
- 1,056
- Dec 28, 2015
Yes, it was an interception in the Pacific, which is an exception to bomber escort in Europe.
