"The case for the P-47 Thunderbolt being the greatest fighter of the Second World War "

SplitRz said:

Thats an interesting assertion. I know its canon that its the case regarding the P47. But has anyone ever actually analysed which aircraft delivered 'the best odds on getting back'?

How can it be quantified, given it was also undertaking some of the most hazardous missions? Was its loss rate per sortie measurably superior to types undertaking the same missions, like say for ground attack, Hawker Typhoons? Or for bomber escort, P38s or P51s?

Click to expand...

Your point and questions are valid. What appears to be true is that the P-47 loss per sortie is lower than P-51.

What is not baked into the data are three important silos of data.
1.) Number of escort sorties in which no enemy contact was made.
2.) Average radius of each sortie into enemy airspace. The reason this is important is that the distance to return to friendly territory with a damaged ship is important.
3.) Average threat environment for each sortie. For example, this factor IMO is higher for CAS than for escort on a sortie by sortie basis.

Losses to ground fire were not entirely random. Some squadrons units groups developed methods for working over and silencing a targets AA fire and obviously some were better at it than others.

pbehn said:

The Canadian Lancaster still flying is named after Pilot officer Andrew Mynarski, when their Lancaster was hit and in flames, he tried to free the trapped rear gunner, but couldnt. He eventually jumped but was too low and although he survived the landing he died later. The trapped rear gunner Pilot officer Pat Brophy survived the crash and his account of events allowed Mynarski to be awarded a V.C

Click to expand...

That generation was beyond brave.

Reluctant Poster said:

One fact that gets glossed over in the Robert Johnson story is that 4 of his 56th FG mates died at the hands of the Luftwaffe that day. I think Johnson's survival owed a great deal to luck.

Click to expand...

And the FW190 being out of cannon ammunition.

Ninth Air Force Operations 16 October 1943 to 8 May 1945, loss rates are MIA + CAT E per 1,000 credit sorties, that is sorties that came within range of the enemy. Note the hours are for all combat sorties, so the averages here are slightly higher than actual hours on credit sorties. The simplest survival measure is the ratio of MIA to category E, then the ratio of damaged to lost, but as already noted that has to be tempered by how far from base the aircraft was, hence the hours per sortie. Next are the threats, the claims give an idea of exposure to enemy aircraft, the bomb tonnage to flak. The notes make it clear there are plenty of uncertainties when it comes to cause of loss. Claims are the sum of destroyed+probable+damaged.

The Air Force lost 2347 tactical aircraft, and 742 were written off as the result of battle damage (Category E) in the full period of operations. Of every 1000 aircraft entering enemy territory 7.7 were lost or received damage resulting in salvage. Of every 100 aircraft losses or write offs for battle damage 47 were charged to flak, 13 to enemy aircraft and 40 to crash landings, accidents the result of enemy action, combinations of flak and enemy aircraft or losses with reason unknown. Bombers had a slightly lower, reconnaissance a considerably lower, and fighters a slightly higher loss rate than the air force average.

For every aircraft lost or salvaged for battle damage six received battle damage requiring major repairs or replacements. The ratio of flak loss to flak damage was one to 12.
(a) Category "A" describes aircraft repairable by the nearest convenient combat unit.
(b) Category "AC" describes aircraft repairable on site by an Air Service Command unit or equivalent.
(c) Category "B" describes aircraft to be collected by a salvage organisation and dispatched for repair to an Air Service Command or equivalent.
(d) Category "E" describes aircraft damaged beyond economical repair. Aircraft which crash in friendly territory are considered to be damaged Category "E", not lost.

P-47

P-51

Battle Losses

Battle Damage

PAT303 said:

View attachment 718231
View attachment 718232
You have to wonder how some got back, looking at the photo's both were hit on the guns, the Browning(s) are missing from the Spit and the outboard .50 on the P51, maybe they absorbed most of the impact?.

Click to expand...

It is survivor bias, the ones that got parts blown off so it couldnt fly didnt get back to have a picture taken.

pbehn said:

It is survivor bias, the ones that got parts blown off so it couldnt fly didnt get back to have a picture taken.

Click to expand...

I was wondering more about why they got back, like both were hit on the guns which could have absorbed the impact, but yes survivor bias is a known thing.

SplitRz said:

Indeed! Ramrods, Rhubarbs, Ramrods and Circuses - not to mention the Dieppe raid etc.

Click to expand...

Too Costly but necessary for morale.

gruad said:

Too Costly but necessary for morale.

Click to expand...

Not for the pilots that had to perform these costly missions.

Frog said:

Not for the pilots that had to perform these costly missions.

Click to expand...

Not even for their commanders and colleagues.