Thunderbolt vs Mustang

[timshatz]

Do we have casualty rates for the P-47 and P-51 during 1944?

Personally I think the F4U Corsair to be superior to the P-47 as a fighter-bomber. And it entered production just as early. Of course the U.S. Army Air Corps would need to admit that the USN produced a superior aircraft before adopting a version of their own.

I think the numbers on the P47 were actually close to, if not higher than, the P51 as they got a lot of the low and dirty work. Kind of skewed the numbers.

I remember somebody posting the numbers on this board, not long ago either.

 

[timshatz]

Do we have casualty rates for the P-47 and P-51 during 1944?

I think the numbers on the P47 were actually close to, if not higher than, the P51 as they got a lot of the low and dirty work. Kind of skewed the numbers.

I remember somebody posting the numbers on this board, not long ago either.

 

[drgondog]

I posted the air to air and air to ground 'awards to Losses ratio for only the 8th AF and the 51 was clearly superior to the 47 and way out in front of the 38 in both categories.

Only the 56th FG held its own against the Mustang average.

 

[Colin1]

...the 51 was clearly superior to the 47 and way out in front of the 38 in both categories.

Out of interest dr
does the casualty rate for P-47s break down into losses prior to hydromatic propeller blades and methanol-water injection, and after?

 

[drgondog]

Out of interest dr
does the casualty rate for P-47s break down into losses prior to hydromatic propeller blades and methanol-water injection, and after?

No Colin - and there is a certain subjective weighting to my statistics.

If an a/c went MIA and there were fighters present (and no surviving pilot) I assigned a value of MIA-Probably Air... and added those to MIA-Air to try for conservative losses in air to air combat.

If an a/c went MIA during strafing, or hit trees while strafing or bellied in when strafing - I assigned all of those to MIA-Strafing.

If a pilot bailed out or crash landed in Channel or England due to battle damage I assigned that to the appropriate enemy action (flak/fighters)

Mechanical Losses - unless accompanied by a MACR/POW returnee questionnaire are very difficult.. "engine lost power" could have a variety of causes that the pilot may not be able to pin down by the time he had to get out.

For my own research I have sub categories in Mechanical of Engine Failure (which could be due to coolant loss, mags, too long in water injection/max boost), System Failure (oxygen loss, Runaway throttle, fuel tank feed issue, landing gear failure, etc).

I separated Fuel and Accidents and Weather as separate categories from the rest as they result from pilot skill more than enemy action and mechanical causes beyond their control.

 

[Colin1]

I think I may finally have it
the following is not a scientific breakdown to nuts'n'bolts level of the merits of each aircraft vs each other; it is the opinion of a couple of pilots who flew them both in combat; given the choice, give me the latter any day.
I found this whilst I was actually foraging for something else but I had an idea one or two of you would find it interesting. It's a short piece, it reveals nothing new; enjoy and of course, fill out the subsequent posts with your thoughts, views and comments

 

[Colin1]

Plate 2

 

[Colin1]

Plate 3

 

[Colin1]

Plate 4

 

[Colin1]

Plate 5

 

[Colin1]

Plate 6

 

[billswagger]

having flown both. Which was a faster diver??

Also:

P-47 THUNDERBOLT

The second half of this article gives 12 reasons why the jug was superior to the mustang.....also coming from a vet who had the honor of flying both.


Bill

 

[Waynos]

According to RAE diving tests for all allied and German fighters the P-51D dived faster than anything except the Spitfire

 

[Colin1]

having flown both. Which was a faster diver??

The post wasn't designed to definitively prove anything, it is too short and generalised. It's an article I found whilst foraging and felt it might be of interest.

My non-scientific response would certainly favour the Mustang, eventually. In the initial part of the dive it's difficult to not see the Thunderbolt pulling away through sheer weight.

 

[Clay_Allison]

I have to break my own heart here and say overall the P-51 was better.

But the P-51 was not the ground attack workhorse that the Jug was. Its cooling system was vulnerable to ground fire and it didn't have nearly the survival rate per sortie that the P-47 had.

Taken as a fighter-bomber, the P-47 was probably the best dual purpose (fighter and ground attack) AC in the war. There may have been better ground attack planes, though I'm not convinced of that. There certainly was not another ground attack plane of that caliber that was as dangerous an opponent air-to-air.

 

[davebender]

There certainly was not another ground attack plane of that caliber that was as dangerous an opponent air-to-air.

I would prefer the F4U and Fw-190 over the P-47 in the fighter-bomber role. They were superior to the P-47 below 15,000 feet (i.e. where fighter-bombers operate).

 

[drgondog]

I would prefer the F4U and Fw-190 over the P-47 in the fighter-bomber role. They were superior to the P-47 below 15,000 feet (i.e. where fighter-bombers operate).

i would also prefer the Tempest over the P-47. One is also remined that the 354th FG (pioneer Mustang group) was delighted to regain the Mustang and replace the P-47 in the TAC role in February 45... so better resiliency was either not perceived or the other attributes of the Mustang were more desirable than damage survivability?

 

[drgondog]

I have to break my own heart here and say overall the P-51 was better.

But the P-51 was not the ground attack workhorse that the Jug was. Its cooling system was vulnerable to ground fire and it didn't have nearly the survival rate per sortie that the P-47 had.

Clay - that is a slippery statistic to deal with. The 47 had an overall loss rate per sortie that was lower than the 51 but there are no hard facts regarding meaningful mission profiles from which the statistics are derived.

My own research comparing P-47 vs P-38 vs P-51 in ETO, while useful is not conclusive. For the 8th AF there were fewer losses for the 51 per German aircraft destroyed than either the 47 or 38 - in fact the 38 had the highest loss to award ratio of the 3 for both air to air and strafing scores - but sortie info in mission profile is extremely hard to nail down.

 

[davebender]

No argument there. The Tempest was a fine fighter-bomber.

 

[Clay_Allison]

My own research comparing P-47 vs P-38 vs P-51 in ETO, while useful is not conclusive. For the 8th AF there were fewer losses for the 51 per German aircraft destroyed than either the 47 or 38 - in fact the 38 had the highest loss to award ratio of the 3 for both air to air and strafing scores - but sortie info in mission profile is extremely hard to nail down.

Everyone likes to compare losses per enemy AC destroyed, but the Jug was blowing up bridges, strafing trains, trucks, river barges, etc.

I would prefer the F4U and Fw-190 over the P-47 in the fighter-bomber role. They were superior to the P-47 below 15,000 feet (i.e. where fighter-bombers operate).

I don't really count the Fw-190 as a great fighter-bomber except for the dedicated Fw-190 F version. In that case I think it suffered as a fighter because of the extra armor, bomb racks, and rockets hung all over it.

I don't know what the F4U might have done in the ETO if given the chance. I'll admit that it was indeed better on the deck than the Bolt.