This is how we get nowhere, it is one of the few explanations Greg has given in the comments. I have read one of his followers recommending his videos to people who fly P-47s today, it is fanboy nonsense. Now you are not interested in dissecting his figures, so when it is pointed out they are wrong, they still remain right? Youtube works by being provocative and telling people what they want to hear. Thats why you get videos with "Coward" "Stupid" and "Duped" in the opening image. Conspiracy nonsense always sells well, people still write about Monroe and Presley. One of his sources for Bomber Mafia is "wikipedia" which also points to this book, published in 2021 https://onlineshop.oxfam.org.uk/the...p.ds&msclkid=ae5f34d4ec0e1b3a37bf50e1c68c85fa
"The case for the P-47 Thunderbolt being the greatest fighter of the Second World War "
- Thread starter NVSMITH
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
And I gave two polite warnings so far to EVERYONE to please knock it off with the snide comments and insults.
Last edited:
drgondog
Major
I think, of the three, that only Steinhoff had any experience against the P-38 - in the MTO and he was impressed. I had a chance to spend time with Rall, Galland and Krupinski in either a Phoenix of Tuscon AFAA reunion in early 80's. IIRC Rall remembered that an F-5 was at Rechlin when he was there recovering loss of humb/damaged hand and running the familiarization program. I don't think he flew it but he definitely had words regarding his impressions of Allied fighters that he did fly including the LA -5, P-51B, P-47D-10, Spit IX, Tempest and Typhoon.
Although each had admirable qualities, particularly LA-5 and Spit IX in climb and turn vs Bf 109 and FW 190, he considered the Mustang the best Allied fighter because it combined excellent climb (not Best), excellent Turn (not Best), Best top speed - but particularly excellent overall performance combined with range and handling.
That reunion was the second time I was able to see and talk to Galland, who was kind enough to write me a letter regarding impact Mustang made to LW operations - and permit publishing it in Angels, Bulldogs and Dragons when you were editor at Champlin. What I remember most was the absolute charm and pixe'ish sense of humor, and self deprecating humility of both those great fghter pilots. I met Steinhoff when I was with dad at the 76 Paris airshow and Jim Brooks who was there to bring dad into an informal meeting with German Fighter Aces to talk about some formal association with AFAA. IIRC Steinhoff, Rall and Hartmann were senior LW Generals at the time IIRC, and Hartmann was there but I didn't have any conversations with him. Steinhoff was ultimate gentleman but somewhat more reserved.
Last edited:
drgondog
Major
In fairness to the P-47, The Available HP vs HP Required of the R-2800's grew faster than the P-51B/D 1650-3 to 1650-7. Combined with paddle props, W/I and HP growth it became a respectable manuever fighter in low and medium altitudes, culminating in P47M
True. I'm looking at it from a timeframe of 1943 to mid 44.
What an experience, thanks for sharing.
You might have noted that I have not made any reference to Gladwell's book, even though, prima facie, it would possibly fit in well with the "bomber mafia" discussion.
I have seen the criticisms.
I have not read it so I cannot comment.
And there is nothing wrong with an individual wikipedia page, provided that it is well referenced.
They are often convenient, and can provide consistency between multiple pages of related subjects, making comparisons a bit easier e.g. comparing similar types of aircraft from different manufacturers, or classes of ships.
drgondog
Major
You missed the memo once again from post #475
To repeat:
"
Too much to dissemble here, but:
1. P-47M/N. First YP-47M - installed R-2800-14W, then changed to turbo'd -57 version. Otherwise P-47D-27 fuselage and wing. Hot rod which went to 56th beginning late December 1944, major issues with engine harness lingering through March 1945 - and precluded full combat ops until April 1945. Combat radius same as P-47D-25 & Subs ~ 550 mi. The P-47N major distinctions were twofold - plug/insert in each wing to extend span to 42 feet from 40 feet w/squared tips. Major wing mods to install additional fuel, wider tread/stronger tires, reinforced spars and stringers. Source P-47 drawing package Aero Libraries
The first delivered September 1944 - First deployment April 1945. Source - Individual Aircraft Record Cards via USAFHRC, Maxwell AFB, Group and Squadron histories contained in Olynyk's Stars and Bars, Maurer's Air Force Unit histories, Freeman, Bodie.
2. The Defined AAF Combat Radius for the P-47N was 1000 mi with 550 gal internal plus 2x220gal external. It could carry more but limited to both tire integrity questions and length of takeoff run- exceeding most runways save operational bomber bases. AAF Published Combat Radius Tables - source Wright Patterson Field 1945
3. The Defined AAF Combat Radius of the P-47M was 600 mi with 370 internal plus 2x150 gal external. Very slightly less than P-47D-25 due to more fuel consumption for C series engine. AAF Published Combat Radius Tables - source Wright Patterson Field 1945. Also published by Dean in "America's One Hundred Thousand"
Contrary to opinion of those without technical acumen, there IS a law of diminishing returns for continuous additions of fuel - both for internal and significantly for external stores. The P-47D had the ABILITYto mount C/L plus two pylon external tanks. The result was a combination of significant drag issues due to the extenal stores as well as Induced Drag for increased weight of combined airframe and external stores. At optimal cruise settings for optimal range, the airspeed for 3 store config was 20+mph at higher angle of attack (than 2 store 150s), and 70mph below clean (except for pylons) airframe. The net result was questionable increase in combat radius but a substantial increase to hazardous take offs due to the gross weight overload. Not to mention extremely high operations cost compared to Merlin equipped P-51.
The first action to improve range via wing strengthening was the P-47D-6 and D-10-RE in delivered in July/Aug timeframe. Several 'special' D-5s were modified with attach points on the wing and plumbing - similar to P-51 type pylons and used with 165 gal Lockheed Ferry tanks in August 1943. Source - P-47 Drawing Package Aero Library, Freeman, Bodie, P-47 Individual Aircraft Records via USAF HRC
The first factory pylon installation was not completed until late October and reached ETO in March/April with P-47D-15-RE. Source - P-47 Drawing Package Aero Library, Freeman, Bodie, P-47 IARC's
In parallel, beginning ~ December 1943, BAD1 Burtonwood began modifying C's and D's to Republic specs for wing srengthening and plumbing in attempt to accelerate wing pylon introduction into combat ops. They began dribbling into VIII FC in Febuary 1944 strengthened for up to 2x150gal tanks. Those were capable of 425 mi Combat Radius. That said, group level strength of Depot mods plus arriving P-47D-15/-16 was insufficient for a full group mission with all mission P-47s capable of Celle/Hanover. The FIRST LR escort with full P-47D-25 (with 370 vs 305 gal internal fuel) capability was a rare excursion to Leipzig on July 7, 1944. Sources - 8th AF Operational Summaries via USAFHRC, Roger Freeman "Mighty Eighth War Manual", 8th AF Victory Credits June 1945 citing location of VCs by pilot and unit and date, as well as Missing Aircrew Records citing date, unit, engine serial no., etc., and location of MIA aircraft and crews.
By that time, Doolitle/Spaatz had already started conversion of the P-38J to P-51B/D and shipment to 9th and 15th AF FG's. The conversion to P-51Bs from P-47D started w/4th & 355th in February, then 352nd in April, and 359/361 in May, 1944. Too many sources to name but Freeman's Mighty Eighth is a start, Miller's ighter Units and Pilots of the Eighth AF, Marshall's "Our Might Always - History of the 355th FG and Marshall/Frd "P-51B Mustang; North merican's Bastard Stepchild that Saved Eighth AF" for a couple.
For the record, what Arnold did was order the development of the sealed combat tanks by Materiel Command in February 1942 at the end of the Fighter Conference. Multiple sources again - but start with Boylon's USAF STUDY 136 Development of Long Range Fighter
The stated aims of the "Bomber Mafia" changes with the author and the era of publication. Originally the bomber mafia were like other branches of the services competing for funds to set up a strategic force of bombers. Since WW2 in the Pacific was ended by the two atomic bombs I dont see how it can be argued that they didnt have a point. If the "Bomber Mafia" had not succeeded in getting a strategic bomber force those that won, the Navy and Army would have been forced to fight for every square mile of Japan. Even in Europe, while strategic bombing didnt force a surrender it was the only way for the UK and later USA to significantly harm German war efforts. There is no reason for any bomber mafia to be ideologically opposed to an escort fighter, until 1941/42 no such fighter existed, while what became the B-17, the Boeing model 299 was from 1934. The modern day "take " on the bomber mafia is that they were bent on the destruction of their own crews and some manufacturers for their own personal gain.
I'm sorry, but my post about the P47 N was in reply to Pat 303.
He asked "did it ever go to war"?
My post from Freeman's book is comprehensive enough I believe, curtailed somewhat so that I could not be accused of "overquoting" and potentially in breach of forum rules.
Pages 73-83(first 3 lines only, for those who need to take accuracy far beyond what is reasonable) of his book details the development of the "N".
I was specifically responding to the earlier post by only reproducing the pages that started with the heading "The P47N in service" starting on page 83.
Nothing more, nothing less, and I am not attempting to write essays.
drgondog
Major
Gladwell's book is Not well sourced wth respect to documents, memos, citations, page numbers, etc. and is directly contrdictory to a large body of personal bios of Arnold, Spaatz, Eaker, Doolittle - as well as extremely well respected historians such as DeWitt Copp, Macfarland and Newton.
Wiki is a VERY poor reference with respect to performance comparisons. If you aren't looking at published flight test reports, citing aircraft conditions, gross weight at takeoff, issues encountered,data and charts presenting speed, altitude, Hp and MP as a function of altitude for ANY fundamental comparisons - then by definition you have no basis for rational comparisons of performance as function of comparable aircraft load out, engine performance, fuel used, or altitude comparisons.
Based on your many individual conclusions, I suspect you are neither technically inclined nor have the analytical assets to understand what you are reading and regurgitating on this forum.
What you have been confronted with on this forum is the deep historical knowledge of 8th and 9th and RAF operations history in ETO, a very broad and deep background of aero and mechanical engineering in flight mechanics, individual fighter histories and capabilities - including the modificatons made to bring US fighters into operational success But you come unarmed with anything but a passionate devotion to 'Greg' video.
Why NOT read some of the suggested references that are continually presented to you, and be intelligent about your choices of facts to argue your perspective?
So it did according to the sources above in April 1945, so it did go to war, for a few weeks?. Anyway enough from me, I don't want the thread locked.
Once again, I said that I had not referenced Gladwell's book because:
1: I have not read it(yet);
and,
2: I have seen the suggestions of controversy, so until I get around to reading it, I won't be commenting on it.
And if one wiki page says for example "first flight of aircraft abc was on such and such a date", and "first flight of aircraft abc was on another date", it might be possible to take that information on board and cross check it if deemed necessary with other sources.
Or type "A" is powered by such and such an engine, compared with type "B" with a different engine.
Convenient and easily seen, making comparisons easier if desired.
Secondly, of all the posters in this thread from where I started posting(page 16), I am the one who has provided most of the source material.....by a long way.
Furthermore, I have not resorted to using crude language such as "bovine.......material etc", etc., like you have, yet I am the one being cautioned.
Last edited:
Did you forget the reference I also made to the post war service of the "N" with the Chinese Nationalists in post 514?
Last edited:
Both the P51H and "late model" P47's were available to the Chinese Nationalists at very low prices(possibly at no charge at all according to Greg).
But according to Greg, the Chinese had a preference for the P47 as it was more resistant to battle damage, and the P51 was ultimately passed over partly because of this.
I did point this out before.
P.S. There is an excellent article that I posted at ArmchairGeneral possibly 10 years ago about the relative merits of the P51/P47 concentrating on the Korean War.
Unfortunately, as the ACG forum "died" a few years ago, I am no longer able to access it.
This:
[Article] Why the U.S. Air Force did not use the F-47 Thunderbolt in the Korean War
Gia’, perche’ il possente e robusto Thunderbolt della Republic non prese parte alla Guerra di Corea nel ruolo di caccia da appoggio tattico? E perche’ l’USAF preferi’ …
sobchak.wordpress.com
is a reduced version.
Here are two of the more illuminating paragraphs from that article:
Last edited:
And that is enough to be taken as being absolutely correct ? You keep saying you have references where others do not and yet one
statement according to a youtube video by a particular person is full proof.
This is the major problem with all this, and why it is simply a case of going on until everyone else is sick of bothering with facts that are either
not acknowledged or simply ignored due to being inconvenient - then all that remains is to make a triumphant post about being right all along.
So many knowledgable people who post here have seen it all before and are trying to help clarify things. Perhaps it would be prudent to
take real information for what it correctly is.
You might see that I backed up his statement with my post #536 above.
Last edited:
Furthermore, if you take issue with any of my sources, please contribute your own sources that back up your assertions or contradict mine.
Last edited:
Wrong! I cautioned everyone with two verbal warnings. I only singled you out after you ignored those two warnings and continued with your snide comments. If other members ignore those warnings, they will be singled out as well.
Understood?
