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

[Greg Boeser]

Unless we're talking about the B-17.

That obsolete piece of crap?

 

[pbehn]

That obsolete piece of crap?

That wins a years subscription to "Hot Cars".

 

[Greg Boeser]

That wins a years subscription to "Hot Cars".

Woo hoo!!!

 

[pbehn]

Woo hoo!!!

It should keep you busy reading for 30 minutes.

 

[SaparotRob]

That obsolete piece of crap?

 

[Greg Boeser]

 

[PAT303]

That kind of depends on where you need the air superiority?

And at what ranges?

The Spitfire was fast and it turned well. the 1930s version had a bit of a problem with climb.
BTW the last P-35 was delivered before the 1st Spitfire squadron became operational.
The P-35A was not ordered by the USAAC, They were embargoed Swedish ordered aircraft and show up about 2 years late.
The YP-43 in limited production spanned the fall/winter of 1940/41 and production of the Spitfire II and V.

And we are back to range. The early P-35 was rated at 1050 miles. the P-35A was rated at 950 miles (?) and the YP-43 was rated at 800 miles.
Even if these were the "magic" levitate the plane to cruising altitude with full fuel ranges they still were going to out range the Spitfire.
First 70 something Spits had fixed pitch props and climbed like crap. P-35s had constant speed props which compensated for their low powered engines.


This is (and the rest of the post) is quite right. If we judge the "best" fighter as an air superiority fighter at a limited distance from it's own airfield then it is very hard to top the Spitfire.
Once we ask other things from it, like somewhat longer range, or ground attack things get a lot fuzzier.

P-47s wound up doing a lot things. And most of the time they just took standard P-47s of the time and hung stuff of the bottom and used them for whatever they were trying to do. No clipped wings, no extended wings, no low attitude engines, no high altitude engines. No extra armor packages.
Standard wing, standard engine (water injection added to existing ones, all production after a certain point had it). Same aircraft were doing everything, not saying the same squadrons did everything (different training/experience) but the same aircraft did.
View attachment 711434
Bombs, rockets and drop tank meant it could operate at a greater distance from the airfield in the ground attack role than the Spitfire.
Or carry a lot more "stuff" at the same distance. Does that make it "great"?

And from 1943 on very few planes could deal with a P-47 at over 30,000ft. Other planes got better but P-47s got better too.
P-47s used 3/4 different engine set ups.
Early P-47s
Early P-47s with water injection (and new props)
Later P-47s with new turbos, (and still with water injection)
Engines were pretty much the the same.

P-47M & N with new "C" series engines.

This "standardization" is one reason that they made so many P-47s. They improved them with dash numbers but they weren't swapping engines in and out or even changing guns (perhaps they should have?). They just made a crapload of them and sent overseas and let the squadrons get on with it.

But what type of Spitfire would we have had if it also had all these mods done?, like the P51 the Jug was modified to suit its environment, the Spits biggest flaw was its lack of range but it was and indeed addressed against the stubborn attitudes of higher command, as soon as the 60 series Merlins were available the range issue could have been solved, there's was no shortage of options at hand.

 

[PAT303]

.but none of them were present in 1940 when the entire world needed the Hurricane and the Spitfire to do what they did.

Or the 109 on the Axis side.

 

[PAT303]

And like I have said, there were no LF P-47s. Or HF P-47s.
P-47s did everything with the same engines and wings, right up until the P-47M.

Hypothetical, how would a P47 go head to head in a one on one dogfight after the merge with a 190A or MkIX LF at low altitude?, the Jug pilot would haul the big girl around only to find the other two already in a firing position, same for high altitude, at 30,000ft the Jug pilot would turn losing height only to once again look over his shoulder to see a TA152/Spit XIV bearing down on him from above, the P47 was a B&Z fighter which is fine if you are in a position to bounce your enemy but in a straight dogfight it's weight puts it at a serious disadvantage.

 

[SaparotRob]

No body shaming.

 

[PAT303]

I have a file with 63,324 German claims. The most-claimed victim was the Soviet Il-2 with 6,740 claims, or 10.6%. The second-most-claimed victim was the Spitfire with 4,997 claims (7.9%). Even allowing for overclaiming, being the second most-claimed victim means there were plenty of Spitfire fights when they didn't come out on top.

During the BoB both Spitfire and Hurricane pilots were instructed to attack bombers as their primary targets putting them at a distinct disadvantage to the 109's, as an example over Darwin 19 of the 26 Spits lost to A6M's were downed while they themselves were engaging a bomber, I bet the BoB was no different. No other fighters could equal the Spit and 109 in 1940, they were top dogs from day one and that's what puts them both at the top of the list for me.

 

[buffnut453]

There, there. The nasty man didn't mean it.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Hypothetical, how would a P47 go head to head in a one on one dogfight after the merge with a 190A or MkIX LF at low altitude?, the Jug pilot would haul the big girl around only to find the other two already in a firing position, same for high altitude, at 30,000ft the Jug pilot would turn losing height only to once again look over his shoulder to see a TA152/Spit XIV bearing down on him from above, the P47 was a B&Z fighter which is fine if you are in a position to bounce your enemy but in a straight dogfight it's weight puts it at a serious disadvantage.

If you want zoom after a dive, look no further than a paddle-blade T'bolt. Down low, fight vertical, up high, turn-fight.

 

[SplitRz]

"It better dive, because it sure as hell can't climb."
Don Blakeslee

I'm finding it very difficult to try and find objective assessments, preferably from German pilots, that extend beyond the P47s undoubtedly great dive speed and zoom climb, good rate of roll, good firepower and ability to absorb punishment. I know I read as a kid an account of a German pilot who said that whilst they respected the P47, it was an easier aircraft to counter than the P51 as its sheer size and weight meant that there were certain manoeuvres they knew that it struggled to perform.

These gave them counters - and as long as they weren't caught by them either at very high altitude or in the dive, P47s were not regarded as the primary threat or most challenging opponent. I'm going to have to dust off a load of books and see who it was that said that, and which period of the air campaign they were referring to.

 

[PAT303]

If you want zoom after a dive, look no further than a paddle-blade T'bolt. Down low, fight vertical, up high, turn-fight.

How are you going to boom and zoom a MkXIV or TA152 when they will happily fight you at 30,000ft?, how are you going to counter a 109G, FW190A or MkIX onwards down low, they are all faster, harder climbing and can out turn you?. I love the Jug but there was a reason Zemke's wolfpack's fought 2 plus 2.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

How are you going to boom and zoom a MkXIV or TA152 when they will happily fight you at 30,000ft?, how are you going to counter a 109G, FW190A or MkIX onwards down low, they are all faster, harder climbing and can out turn you?. I love the Jug but there was a reason Zemke's wolfpack's fought 2 plus 2.

I suggest you reread my second sentence that you quoted. I didn't write that BnZ in all circumstances was its strength, quite the opposite.

 

[WARSPITER]

"The Spitfire doesnt have the range of the Mustang", so what we have Mustangs.
The Mustang doesnt have the rate of climb of a Spitfire, so what? We have Spitfires.
They are both crap nightfighters!!!, so what we have Mosquitos.

It is an interesting and absorbing discussion about which was or wasn't the best overall fighter.in WW2, at the time there was great merit in having a range of aeroplanes and forces optimised to be good at most things but absolutely the best at one thing in particular. In the build up to D-Day, Eisenhower may have had concerns about the strength of the LW, he and all around him got cold sweats at the thought of the build up being photographed in detail.

That's the gist of it in a nutshell. Germany had to keep producing aircraft as losses mounted by the year. Large numbers
of aircraft for specific jobs became impossible.

US and British aircraft were the opposite the longer the war went. US - Escort plane ? Ok, we'll build thousands of Mustangs.
for that. Britain - Air superiority fighter ? Ok, we'll update and keep building thousands of Spitfires.

Both - got two heavy duty fighters that can be modified for the fighter bomber role - Ok - P-47 and Typhoon then.

Germany didn't have the time or resources to build a large airforce covering all categories of "best in show".

 

[Howard Gibson]

It's worth remembering that the Germans shot down a LOT of Spitfires. For most of the war, the Spitfire and the Bf 109 traded the title of "the best" back and forth, and the Spitfire was not always the top-rated fighter in the ETO. It was up near there, to be sure, but the Bf 109E and F matched up VERY evenly against contemporary model Spitfires, and outperformed them is a few areas for awhile. The British would naturally choose the Spitfire and the Germans would naturally choose the Bf 109.

I have a file with 63,324 German claims. The most-claimed victim was the Soviet Il-2 with 6,740 claims, or 10.6%. The second-most-claimed victim was the Spitfire with 4,997 claims (7.9%). Even allowing for overclaiming, being the second most-claimed victim means there were plenty of Spitfire fights when they didn't come out on top.

By the way, the total number of claimed P-51s was only 1,034 (1.6%). That doesn't mean much, but does give an indication. The P-51 was there for about 2 years, which is roughly 1/3 of the entire war. Coincidentally, the claims for P-51s are about 1/3 of the claims for Spitfires. Slightly less, but near enough.

Merlin Mustangs appeared in large numbers after most of the experienced Luftwaffe pilots had been killed. The Germans did not deploy two stage superchargers until the last few weeks of the war. Spitfires went up against a well equipped, battle hardened Luftwaffe fighting mostly at altitudes where they were effective.

 

[Shortround6]

modified for the fighter bomber role - Ok - P-47 and Typhoon then.

Thing here is that the modifications to the P-47 for the fighter bomber role was pretty much stick bomb racks underneath. As I said earlier, there was no low altitude engine. They did strengthen the wing for under wing loads but some of the existing P-47s were fitted for drop tanks after they were in England.

You could pull a dozen fighter bomber P-47s out of a ground attack squadron and give them to an escort fighter squadron and they could be flying fighter escort in just a couple of days, and vice versa.

And like a lot of aircraft, they didn't stay static for 2 years, like the summer of 1943 to the summer of 1945.
By the end of 1943/Jan 1944 many of the existing P-47s had been retro fitted with water injection and the paddle blade props and while they they might not beat an Fw 190 in climb below 15,000ft by much, they could beat them. Above 15,000ft things get worse for the FW 190. In the spring of 1944 they were refitting the water injection system with bigger jets to flow more water.

On July 4th 1944 the 56th fighter group on a dive bombing mission tangles with a group of 109s and claims 20 of them. Granted this is "claimed" and the 56th is about as expert as you can get with 38 aces in the group. I don't know if there were any P-47 losses that day. At this point in time the P-47s were good for about 2500-2600hp with water injection.

Many other aircraft, on both side, were improving so we do have to be careful with the combat reports.
late P-47s had dive flaps and early ones didn't so again, how it could be flown changed.

 

[wuzak]

Thing here is that the modifications to the P-47 for the fighter bomber role was pretty much stick bomb racks underneath. As I said earlier, there was no low altitude engine. They did strengthen the wing for under wing loads but some of the existing P-47s were fitted for drop tanks after they were in England.

It was a low altitude engine.

It used the turbocharger to be able to work at high altitude.