drgondog
Major
Durability is nearly impossible to quantify based on the ops statistics on record. Similarly how does one measure and quantify avearge CEP for iron bombs?
Thunderbolt vs Mustang
- Thread starter Colin1
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Durability is nearly impossible to quantify based on the ops statistics on record. Similarly how does one measure and quantify avearge CEP for iron bombs?
davebender
1st Lieutenant
WWII Germany did not have all that many tanks and most of what they had were on the Russian front. However German infantry were very good at digging in. Hence the need for putting bombs on infantry bunkers, artillery positions, etc. The sort of mission the vulnerable Stuka dive bomber excelled at.
TheMustangRider
Senior Airman
But still the jug did a remarkable job in the ETO by giving the Germans a knockout punch destroying 3,700 enemy aircraft, 9,000 locomotives and 6,000 armor fighting vehicles during the war and given the fact that the jug was more rugged than the Stuka, I would feel more confident sitting in it than a Stuka.
What I mean is, in terms of the amount of tanks the Germans had! They were a lot more afraid of attack from typhoon, tempest and P47 than they were from Shermans!
drgondog
Major
and you know this how?
It is an assumption I am making! I should rephrase to moving German armourr, the airforce was a constant menace and could strike anytime, there was rarely any safety from it! Although I will admit its hard to make an assumption because the numbers claimed by Allied fighter bomber squadrons often doesn't compare to German losses!
drgondog
Major
I wasn't trying to be critical - and you quickly answered with the fact that it is impossible to match claims of tanks destroyed by airpower to the actual count.
I believe it is a fact that nobody in the German army was delighted with the presence of any allied fighter in their AoA. a 50 cal or 20mm is far more effective than infantry rifles... and usually have a shot at concentrations of soldiers away from cover.
No problem, I was hasty with my initial reply!
Did the Germans really have 9000 locomotives and 6000 AFVs where Jugs roamed? The 900 locomotives and 600 AFVs destroyed by the Jug seem to me as a more realistic number.
disclaimer: I still rate the P-47 as a top bird.
TheMustangRider
Senior Airman
On the other hand is hard to believe that with small numbers like 600 armor fighting and maybe that many tanks the Germans were able to hold on against the British, Soviets and Americans that had them surrounded for so long. Sure, the P-47 had restricted access to main European lands at the beginning of the conflict but in the latter part once the allies were advancing throughout the continent, Thunderbolts were pretty much all over central Europe.
Please, read my previous post carefully.
I don´t state that Germans didn´t HAVE 9000 locos and 6000 tanks, but that P-47 didn´t DESTROYED 9000 and 6000 of them respectively.
A small lesson in geography: the Central Europe spans between river Rhine and Ukraine in W-E axis, and Baltic sea and rivers Sava Danube in N-S axis. So, the Jugs were mostly flown above Western Europe and only partially above Central Europe.
I don´t state that Germans didn´t HAVE 9000 locos and 6000 tanks, but that P-47 didn´t DESTROYED 9000 and 6000 of them respectively.
A small lesson in geography: the Central Europe spans between river Rhine and Ukraine in W-E axis, and Baltic sea and rivers Sava Danube in N-S axis. So, the Jugs were mostly flown above Western Europe and only partially above Central Europe.
TheMustangRider
Senior Airman
tomo pauk, even though Jugs did not cover the entire continent because half of it was for the Soviets to play with, the Thunderbolt became the USAAF main ground attack fighter bomber after the introduction of the Mustang and they were very successful in the role, getting rid of German infantry for the allies all the way to Germany and even though you may or may not take the statistics I posted; I suppouse we can both agree in the accomplishments of the P-47.
drgondog
Major
The 8th and 15th AF Bomber Command had far too high claims and awards as noted in post WWII studies.. The Fighter command claims/awards were much closer to actual losses. 80% might be a useful match for fighter air to air claims.
Air to ground is almost impossible to match up because of lack of record keeping on LW side for battle damage/repair/salvage inventories that are not available to serious researchers..especially for 1945.
Over claiming was endemic to all air forces.
billswagger
Airman 1st Class
- 256
- Mar 12, 2009
Pilots favoring one plane over the other probably had a lot to do with what theater they were flying in. The P-51 was not a favored plane in the Pacific. while most pilots that flew over Europe seem to prefer the P-51.
BTW
here is a dive chart of the Thunderbolt going past 0.86M, directly from the RAE.
Table 3, column 5, 22 seconds into the dive.
BTW
here is a dive chart of the Thunderbolt going past 0.86M, directly from the RAE.
Table 3, column 5, 22 seconds into the dive.
drgondog
Major
Pilots favoring one plane over the other probably had a lot to do with what theater they were flying in. The P-51 was not a favored plane in the Pacific. while most pilots that flew over Europe seem to prefer the P-51.
BTW
here is a dive chart of the Thunderbolt going past 0.86M, directly from the RAE.
Table 3, column 5, 22 seconds into the dive.
Note at the bottom of the tables is the caveat that CIAS, while corrected for instrument and calibration error, does not make provision for Compressibility.
The aircraft in this discussion all started into compressibility effects at .55 Mach. The classic definition for the start of Compressibility is the point in which the total drag rise > .0020 as Velocity/Reynolds Number increases.
At least there is a Table for P-47 results and certainly no more suspect than those for the P-51 and me 262, etc.
Based on the published methods for calculating TAS for the Me 262, I am more inclined to believe the German test results, given the lack of sensor and instrument technology available in WWII
Hi, drgdong,
Is the 0,55 Mach figure a typo, or a true value when compressibilty becames notticed/important for our planes from the thred?
drgondog
Major
Tomo - it really is the lower threshold for the velocities over the top of the conventional (Clark Y, etc) airfoils start to reach temperature/density/pressure ratios approaching compressibility (i.e that point where the Drag rise > 0.0020 greater than the steady Cd below that particular Mach Number. Thereafter the drag rise is non-linear.
NACA defines Drag Divergence Mach Number as the point where d(CD)/d(M)= .10
(When the the rate of change of Drag Coefficient) with respect to change of Mach number is equal to or greater than 0.10)
Significant at that point (.55M) - not really - but a reference point for engineering 'alert' to start looking for instrumentation errors.
True 'transonic' is at the point where the velocities are high enough to initiate a shock wave on the surface of the wing (or other airframe part) and is the next stage of compressibility.
