Wasn't the P-51 the best escort fighter of the war?

[Greyman]

For those that are interested I have found a complete copy of the report online:
Oil division final report. Oil division ...

Relevant bit on page 216.

Totals for all three 8th Air Force rows are:

Total tons of bombs dropped: 20,416​

Tons of bombs hitting plant: 2,276​

Per cent hits: 11.15​

 

[wuzak]

Relevant bit on page 216.

View attachment 572775
Totals for all three 8th Air Force rows are:

Total tons of bombs dropped: 20,416​

Tons of bombs hitting plant: 2,276​

Per cent hits: 11.15​

That chart illustrates the difficulty of precision daylight bombing over norther Europe.

Slightly less than 20% of bombs, by weight, in that chart were dropped using purely visual aiming. Just under 60% were dropped using instruments.

 

[wuzak]

The RAF daylight raids were precision bombsight employed attacks. The RAF use of 2 and 4K pounders exclusively where USAAF used everything from incendiaries to 2K but mostly 500 and 1K bombs. The damage assessment favored RAF use of heavier bombs

Not sure about the RAF using 2,000lb bombs, since they didn't have a 2,000 medium capacity bomb, but only the older 1,900lb GP bomb, which had a lower explosive to weight ratio.

They did have the 2,000lb high capacity bomb, but I don't believe that was used very much.

There was both a 4,000lb MC and 4,000lb HC bomb used by the RAF, the latter being more frequently used.

For oil targets the bomb load for a Lancaster would likely have been 1 x 4,000lb HC plus several 1,000lb MC bombs and/or incendiaries. I'm not sure if they used the 8,000lb HC bomb on oil targets.

Mosquitoes used either 1 x 4,000lb HC or 6 x 500lb MC in their attacks on oil installations.

For the USAAF I believe they used 250lb to 500lb bombs predominately. The extra number of bombs that could be carries would, in theory, increase the chances of hitting something viatl.

 

[michael rauls]

The comparison will be made at 25000ft, the altitude of the B-17 raids.

Speed at 25000ft:
P-47D with -63 or -59 engine (cleared for 70" on June 24, 1944): 439 miles true speed http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p47d-44-1-level.jpg
P-51 with -7 engine (cleared for 75" on April 29, 1944): 437 miles true speed http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/na-p51b-150grade-level.jpg
P-51 with -3 engine (no data available for 75"): 440 miles true speed with 67", possibly faster with 75" http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/fx953-level.jpg
(Note, the -7 engine was tuned for lower altitudes; at 25000ft the -3 engine is superior).
In this aspect, there is little to choose between the three airplanes; the difference in speed is not as great as allowable variation. Even weight change can cause a speed change of more than 3 miles.

Rate of Climb at 25000ft:
P-51, -3 engine, 67": slightly less than 2500 ft/min at 9200lbs of takeoff weight http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/fx953-climb.jpg
P-51, -7 engine, 75": 2350 ft/min at 9680lbs http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/na-p51b-150grade-climb.jpg
P-47, -63 engine, 70": 2400ft/min at 13600lbs http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p47d-44-1-climb.jpg
(Note, this entire part can only be used as reference, as I have made it very clear that the weight for the three airplanes are different. Further, such weights are impossible to achieve in combat, as it takes large quantities of fuel to fly to Berlin and back. In most cases the P-51 would fight with full internal fuel except an empty fuselage tank if fitted; the same can be said about the P-47. The actual rate of climb depends heavily on the fuel load at which the airplane enters combat.)

Range:
P-47D-25 and on: 2100 miles at 10000ft (no data available for 25000ft; knowing the P-47's performance, it is safe to say that the range at 25000ft is at least somewhat longer)
P-47D-23: 1850 miles at 10000ft, same as above
P-47D-1 thru P-47D-22: 1700 miles at 10000ft, same as above
P-51 with fuselage tank: 2600 miles at 10000ft (no data available for 25000ft) www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47-tactical-chart.jpg
P-51 without fuselage tank and with -3 engine: 2250 miles
P-51 without fuselage tank and with -7 engine: 2290 miles
(Note: the P-51 data included the values of 1800 miles and 1850 miles for the P-51D variant. It is relatively easy to see that the large external tank available to the P-51B and C variant was not included. Due to the similarity in data otherwise, the P-51D can be inferred to have a range of 2600 miles when equipped with the external tank.)

There is very little to choose in the speed and rate of climb performance at 25000ft, any difference is more than likely made up for by the uncertainty of combat situations. The P-51 has an advantage in range, this is more pronounced if the fuselage tank is installed. P-51 has superior rate of turn and the P-47 has superior rate of roll at 25000ft, where the indicated airspeed is low. The P-51D equipped with the -7 engine substantially outruns the P-47 below that altitude; however this is not related to the discussion. The P-47 has a marked advantage in protection and firepower. For missions within the combat radius of the P-47 and altitude above 25000ft, the P-47 has slightly superior speed and possibly rate of climb; however, such a situation is unlikely to occur in Europe. In the Pacific, this role is filled by the P-47N (the only variant to out-range the P-51D). The P-51 is probably operationally more useful as an escort fighter than the P-47D due to the longer range, lower fuel expenditure and ease of maintenance.

P-51H and P-47N are, of course, not taken into consideration here because neither flew escort missions in WWII. The P-51H never saw combat and the P-47N attacked some ground targets near the end of the war.

P 47Ns flew numerous escort missions for B29s to Japan, flying out of Le Shima and I believe Saipan as well.

 

[The Basket]

Wasn't the Zero an escort fighter? For the time a very good one.

 

[Navalwarrior]

That chart illustrates the difficulty of precision daylight bombing over norther Europe.

Slightly less than 20% of bombs, by weight, in that chart were dropped using purely visual aiming. Just under 60% were dropped using instruments.

Resp:
Any calculation of 'aborted' missions? What I am aiming (no pun intended) for, did either Air Force continue to attempt a target when weather, etc affected their ability to effectively hit/damage an assigned target? From reading 8AF missions, alternate targets were a matter of routine procedure of most bombing missions.

 

[P-39 Expert]

The comparison will be made at 25000ft, the altitude of the B-17 raids.

Speed at 25000ft:
P-47D with -63 or -59 engine (cleared for 70" on June 24, 1944): 439 miles true speed http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p47d-44-1-level.jpg
P-51 with -7 engine (cleared for 75" on April 29, 1944): 437 miles true speed http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/na-p51b-150grade-level.jpg
P-51 with -3 engine (no data available for 75"): 440 miles true speed with 67", possibly faster with 75" http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/fx953-level.jpg
(Note, the -7 engine was tuned for lower altitudes; at 25000ft the -3 engine is superior).
In this aspect, there is little to choose between the three airplanes; the difference in speed is not as great as allowable variation. Even weight change can cause a speed change of more than 3 miles.

Rate of Climb at 25000ft:
P-51, -3 engine, 67": slightly less than 2500 ft/min at 9200lbs of takeoff weight http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/fx953-climb.jpg
P-51, -7 engine, 75": 2350 ft/min at 9680lbs http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/na-p51b-150grade-climb.jpg
P-47, -63 engine, 70": 2400ft/min at 13600lbs http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p47d-44-1-climb.jpg
(Note, this entire part can only be used as reference, as I have made it very clear that the weight for the three airplanes are different. Further, such weights are impossible to achieve in combat, as it takes large quantities of fuel to fly to Berlin and back. In most cases the P-51 would fight with full internal fuel except an empty fuselage tank if fitted; the same can be said about the P-47. The actual rate of climb depends heavily on the fuel load at which the airplane enters combat.)

Range:
P-47D-25 and on: 2100 miles at 10000ft (no data available for 25000ft; knowing the P-47's performance, it is safe to say that the range at 25000ft is at least somewhat longer)
P-47D-23: 1850 miles at 10000ft, same as above
P-47D-1 thru P-47D-22: 1700 miles at 10000ft, same as above
P-51 with fuselage tank: 2600 miles at 10000ft (no data available for 25000ft) www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47-tactical-chart.jpg
P-51 without fuselage tank and with -3 engine: 2250 miles
P-51 without fuselage tank and with -7 engine: 2290 miles
(Note: the P-51 data included the values of 1800 miles and 1850 miles for the P-51D variant. It is relatively easy to see that the large external tank available to the P-51B and C variant was not included. Due to the similarity in data otherwise, the P-51D can be inferred to have a range of 2600 miles when equipped with the external tank.)

There is very little to choose in the speed and rate of climb performance at 25000ft, any difference is more than likely made up for by the uncertainty of combat situations. The P-51 has an advantage in range, this is more pronounced if the fuselage tank is installed. P-51 has superior rate of turn and the P-47 has superior rate of roll at 25000ft, where the indicated airspeed is low. The P-51D equipped with the -7 engine substantially outruns the P-47 below that altitude; however this is not related to the discussion. The P-47 has a marked advantage in protection and firepower. For missions within the combat radius of the P-47 and altitude above 25000ft, the P-47 has slightly superior speed and possibly rate of climb; however, such a situation is unlikely to occur in Europe. In the Pacific, this role is filled by the P-47N (the only variant to out-range the P-51D). The P-51 is probably operationally more useful as an escort fighter than the P-47D due to the longer range, lower fuel expenditure and ease of maintenance.

P-51H and P-47N are, of course, not taken into consideration here because neither flew escort missions in WWII. The P-51H never saw combat and the P-47N attacked some ground targets near the end of the war.

Agree with the speeds.

Climb is a different story. Climb (and maneuverability) was the Thunderbolt's Achilles heel. The chart you reference is using special fuel not available until the latter half of 1944 after air superiority had already been won in March-April. Those Thunderbolts that helped win air superiority could only climb at something less than 2000fpm at 25000'. This was still a fairly good rate of climb at that altitude but nowhere near the Mustang's 2500fpm. And at lower altitudes the climb rate was only around 2700fpm.

Most range maps give the P-47 a combat radius in Europe of 375-425 miles with a 110gallon drop tank after Feb '44. Prior to that only a 75 gallon drop tank was available from August '43 and absolutely no provision for any drop tank at all between combat debut in May '43 and August. Even with the 110gallon drop tank the 425 mile combat radius was still 100-150mi short of Berlin. This can be verified by the figures in the pilot's manual which indicate a 190 gallon per hour fuel usage at 25000' for normal (max continuous) and 95gph for most economical cruise. Carrying 305 gallons internally and 110 gallons in the drop tank less 45 gallons reserve for warmup, takeoff and climb to 5000' results in 370 gallons available for the mission. Deduct another 124 gallon reserve (92 combat and 32 landing) and now only 246 gallons is available. A 400 mile radius means an 800 mile mission at 285mph TAS means a 2.8 hour mission. 246 available gallons divided by 2.8 hours indicates 88 gallons per hour which is below the 95 gallons per hour in the pilot's manual. So the 400 mile combat radius was a very closely run thing. And well short of the P-51B/C.

So, the P-51B/C is about the same speed, much better climb and much better endurance than the P-47s that were available during the critical first half of 1944. And more maneuverable. Hope this helps.

 

[MikeMeech]

Not sure about the RAF using 2,000lb bombs, since they didn't have a 2,000 medium capacity bomb, but only the older 1,900lb GP bomb, which had a lower explosive to weight ratio.

They did have the 2,000lb high capacity bomb, but I don't believe that was used very much.

There was both a 4,000lb MC and 4,000lb HC bomb used by the RAF, the latter being more frequently used.

For oil targets the bomb load for a Lancaster would likely have been 1 x 4,000lb HC plus several 1,000lb MC bombs and/or incendiaries. I'm not sure if they used the 8,000lb HC bomb on oil targets.

Mosquitoes used either 1 x 4,000lb HC or 6 x 500lb MC in their attacks on oil installations.

For the USAAF I believe they used 250lb to 500lb bombs predominately. The extra number of bombs that could be carries would, in theory, increase the chances of hitting something viatl.

Hi

The book 'Bombs Gone' by MacBean & Hogben, p.135 includes the following details on bombs dropped by BC (all targets):

2,000 lb HC 28,633 used during the war.
2,000 lb AP exact numbers not known but under 10,000.
1,900 lb GP 2,141.
4,000 lb HC 68,000.
4,000 lb MC 21,000.
4,000 lb GP 217.
500 lb GP 531,334.
500 lb SAP 11,600.
500 lb MC 403,000.

'The Official Report by the British Bombing Survey Unit' (Cass reprint, p. 147), has the following detail on attacks on German Oil Installations:

VIIIth USAAF between May 1944 and April 1945 - 233 attacks, 71,042 tons of bombs.
XVth USAAF between May 1944 and April 1945 - 221 attacks, 48,378 tons.
RAF BC between June 1944 and April 1945 - 200 attacks, 93,641 tons.

Mike

 

[wuzak]

Hi

The book 'Bombs Gone' by MacBean & Hogben, p.135 includes the following details on bombs dropped by BC (all targets):

2,000 lb HC 28,633 used during the war.
2,000 lb AP exact numbers not known but under 10,000.
1,900 lb GP 2,141.
4,000 lb HC 68,000.
4,000 lb MC 21,000.
4,000 lb GP 217.
500 lb GP 531,334.
500 lb SAP 11,600.
500 lb MC 403,000.

'The Official Report by the British Bombing Survey Unit' (Cass reprint, p. 147), has the following detail on attacks on German Oil Installations:

VIIIth USAAF between May 1944 and April 1945 - 233 attacks, 71,042 tons of bombs.
XVth USAAF between May 1944 and April 1945 - 221 attacks, 48,378 tons.
RAF BC between June 1944 and April 1945 - 200 attacks, 93,641 tons.

Mike

Those numbers seem a little light - I thought the 4,000lb HC was dropped more than 90,000 times. It lacks the 1,000lb MC bomb, which was dropped in the hundreds of thousands, and the 500lb MC was surely in the millions.

http://www.wwiiequipment.com/index....category&id=43:bombs&Itemid=60&layout=default
Has 93,000+ 4,000lb MC bombs being used.
31,000+ 2,000lb HC
256,000+ 1,000lb MC
686,000+ 1,000lb GP/MC
1,700,000+ 500lb GP/MC

There were over 1M 500lb GP/MC bombs used in 1944 alone.

 

[wuzak]

Also, about 1,150 8,000lb HC bombs and 170 12,000lb HC bombs were used by the RAF during the war.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

Not sure about the RAF using 2,000lb bombs, since they didn't have a 2,000 medium capacity bomb, but only the older 1,900lb GP bomb, which had a lower explosive to weight ratio.

They did have the 2,000lb high capacity bomb, but I don't believe that was used very much.

There was both a 4,000lb MC and 4,000lb HC bomb used by the RAF, the latter being more frequently used.

For oil targets the bomb load for a Lancaster would likely have been 1 x 4,000lb HC plus several 1,000lb MC bombs and/or incendiaries. I'm not sure if they used the 8,000lb HC bomb on oil targets.

Mosquitoes used either 1 x 4,000lb HC or 6 x 500lb MC in their attacks on oil installations.

For the USAAF I believe they used 250lb to 500lb bombs predominately. The extra number of bombs that could be carries would, in theory, increase the chances of hitting something viatl.

Here are the relevant pages

 

[MikeMeech]

Those numbers seem a little light - I thought the 4,000lb HC was dropped more than 90,000 times. It lacks the 1,000lb MC bomb, which was dropped in the hundreds of thousands, and the 500lb MC was surely in the millions.

http://www.wwiiequipment.com/index....category&id=43:bombs&Itemid=60&layout=default
Has 93,000+ 4,000lb MC bombs being used.
31,000+ 2,000lb HC
256,000+ 1,000lb MC
686,000+ 1,000lb GP/MC
1,700,000+ 500lb GP/MC

There were over 1M 500lb GP/MC bombs used in 1944 alone.

Hi

The full list from the book is below, but note these are just Bomber Command figures, other Commands in Europe and other Theatres also dropped bombs especially the lighter ones:

Mike

 

[wuzak]

Hi

The full list from the book is below, but note these are just Bomber Command figures, other Commands in Europe and other Theatres also dropped bombs especially the lighter ones:

View attachment 572914

Mike

That makes sense in one way.

But then again, which other command could have drooped 25,000 of the 4,000lb HC bomb? Only a few aircraft could carry them - Wellington, Halifax (presumably), Lancaster (naturally) and the Mosquito (from 1944).

Or over 700,000 500lb MC bombs?

 

[tomo pauk]

...
But then again, which other command could have drooped 25,000 of the 4,000lb HC bomb? Only a few aircraft could carry them - Wellington, Halifax (presumably), Lancaster (naturally) and the Mosquito (from 1944).
...

Halifax certainly (even 8000 lb type), as well as Manchester.

 

[MikeMeech]

That makes sense in one way.

But then again, which other command could have drooped 25,000 of the 4,000lb HC bomb? Only a few aircraft could carry them - Wellington, Halifax (presumably), Lancaster (naturally) and the Mosquito (from 1944).

Or over 700,000 500lb MC bombs?

Hi

If it is of any use the previously mentioned book has this table on p. 48:

I don't know how much of the production of the smaller bombs were dropped by fighter-bombers in Northern Europe, North Africa, Italy and the Far East but there must have been a fair few. I think BC had a shortage of 1,000 lb bombs during 1944, it might have been down to use of this weapon by other formations? Then there were the larger bombers used in other Theatres which may have dropped some of the larger bombs and also bombs used on shipping strikes before other weapons were used more, but again I do not have the figures.

Mike

 

[grampi]

Agree with the speeds.

Climb is a different story. Climb (and maneuverability) was the Thunderbolt's Achilles heel. The chart you reference is using special fuel not available until the latter half of 1944 after air superiority had already been won in March-April. Those Thunderbolts that helped win air superiority could only climb at something less than 2000fpm at 25000'. This was still a fairly good rate of climb at that altitude but nowhere near the Mustang's 2500fpm. And at lower altitudes the climb rate was only around 2700fpm.

Most range maps give the P-47 a combat radius in Europe of 375-425 miles with a 110gallon drop tank after Feb '44. Prior to that only a 75 gallon drop tank was available from August '43 and absolutely no provision for any drop tank at all between combat debut in May '43 and August. Even with the 110gallon drop tank the 425 mile combat radius was still 100-150mi short of Berlin. This can be verified by the figures in the pilot's manual which indicate a 190 gallon per hour fuel usage at 25000' for normal (max continuous) and 95gph for most economical cruise. Carrying 305 gallons internally and 110 gallons in the drop tank less 45 gallons reserve for warmup, takeoff and climb to 5000' results in 370 gallons available for the mission. Deduct another 124 gallon reserve (92 combat and 32 landing) and now only 246 gallons is available. A 400 mile radius means an 800 mile mission at 285mph TAS means a 2.8 hour mission. 246 available gallons divided by 2.8 hours indicates 88 gallons per hour which is below the 95 gallons per hour in the pilot's manual. So the 400 mile combat radius was a very closely run thing. And well short of the P-51B/C.

So, the P-51B/C is about the same speed, much better climb and much better endurance than the P-47s that were available during the critical first half of 1944. And more maneuverable. Hope this helps.

I had read somewhere that if P-47 pilots had to go down on the deck during combat, they would just stay at low altitude for the rest of the mission because they would burn too much fuel climbing back up...

 

[grampi]

I had read somewhere that if P-47 pilots had to go down on the deck during combat, they would just stay at low altitude for the rest of the mission because they would burn too much fuel climbing back up...don't know how truth there is to this, but that's what I read...

 

[Reluctant Poster]

The Germans were very impressed with RAF night bombing capabilities

 

[Glider]

Relevant bit on page 216.

View attachment 572775
Totals for all three 8th Air Force rows are:

Total tons of bombs dropped: 20,416​

Tons of bombs hitting plant: 2,276​

Per cent hits: 11.15​

Its probably worth taking into account that the RAF probably needed 50 - 60% fewer missions to get the same volume of bombs onto the target an often forgotten statistic

 

[michael rauls]

Im astounded that they achieved 11% bombs on target. That actually seems quite good considering the technology of the time, the conditions, and constant "interference" by the Luftwaffe.