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

[Shortround6]

By April 30th 1944 the 4th fighter group of the 8th AF has a score of 500 E/A claimed destroyed, 222 of those in April alone, the 355th Ftr. Grp, h/as 153 claims as of that date and the newly operational 352nd Group ans 140 E/A claimed by the end of of April.

On May 8th the 352nd fighter group claims 27 E/A for the loss of one P-51.

Now either the tactical fighter planes have beaten the crap out of the luftwaffe well before D-day or there is something wrong with the story that the P-51s just showed up in time to steal the glory of the other airplanes and only fought an already defeated Luftwaffe.
The other aircraft did make a significant contribution but the Mustangs were in some hard fighting in the winter and spring of 1944.

 

[Stig1207]

That is the obvious thing to do if you have the aircraft to do it. The Luftwaffe didn't have the planes or pilots to execute that strategy, to meet all attacks with similar numbers all around the air space Germany controlled would need thousands of fighters and pilots and all the other "stuff".

I don't remember whom of the senior German officials said it nor the exact quote, but the gist was that the Jagwaffe needed 4 fighters for every US heavy bomber if they were to defeat the American day bombing campaign. This was in mid '43, when the 8th AF raids consisted of around 200 machines and before there were any long range escorts.

 

[pbehn]

I don't remember whom of the senior German officials said it nor the exact quote, but the gist was that the Jagwaffe needed 4 fighters for every US heavy bomber if they were to defeat the American day bombing campaign. This was in mid '43, when the 8th AF raids consisted of around 200 machines and before there were any long range escorts.

Its a fair calculation if you want to stop an attack along all the coast Germany had to defend.

 

[pbehn]

====================================

Göring in long rant about how he cant even bomb Glasgow precedes this:
Galland replies immdiatey after:

Galland:
"I must say, in a Mustang - thats how you can do it."
ORIGINAL: (In einer Mustang! - muss man, dann auch sagen.)

Erhard Milch:
"The Mustang is in another class altogether"
ORIGINAL: (Der Mustang liegt in einer anderen Klasse.)
====================================

RLM stenographic records, 23rd May 1944, 11am.
(35mm microfilm from IWM London, Vol 64, Frame 6965)

You gotta have some sympathy for Galland. Having to explain why a Me 109 cant fly from France to Glasgow and back to the man who had been in charge of German aviation since 1933.

 

[Dimlee]

Was any aircraft designed as long range escort? The P-51 certainly wasn't. The Mosquito wasn't designed as a night fighter either. The B-24 and Wellington weren't designed for maritime recon or all the other roles they were crowbarred into. The war threw up roles that had not been previously considered, one of those was bomber escort.

In the USSR, they were. Several aircraft were designed according to the concept of "Istrebitel Soprovozhdeniya"(literally, escort fighter)
Some were modifications of existing twin-engined aircraft: DI-8(ANT-46), Mi-3(ANT-21) and Mi-3D(ANT-21bis) by Tupolev and DB-3SS by Ilyushin.
Designed as escort fighters from scratch: G-38(LK-2) by Grokhovsky, DG-56(LK-3) by Grigorovich, TIS by Polikarpov, Gr-1(IDS) by Grushin, IS by Kurbala, MiG-5 (DIS-200, DIS-2AM37) by Mikoyan and Gurevich.
DB-3SS was built in very small numbers (allegedly, according to some authors). Gr-1 was a mockup only. Others - several prototypes.

Wiki says that Tairov made his Ta-3 (Ta-1, OKO-6) as an escort fighter. But I failed to find any confirmation of that. According to Russian language sources, it was designed as a fighter-shturmovik - a combination of the interceptor and the "tank buster".

 

[Stig1207]

Its a fair calculation if you want to stop an attack along all the coast Germany had to defend.

To stop an attack being the salient point; inflicting such heavy losses that the bombers were prevented from fulfilling their mission. With the number of fighters available the defenders could inflict heavy losses on the 8th airforce, but the bombers still got through and bombed their targets.

 

[NevadaK]

To stop an attack being the salient point; inflicting such heavy losses that the bombers were prevented from fulfilling their mission. With the number of fighters available the defenders could inflict heavy losses on the 8th airforce, but the bombers still got through and bombed their targets.

Yes, the bombers did get through but the loss rate was unsustainable and led to the suspension of strategic bombing until the arrival of long range escort fighters.

 

[NevadaK]

Having followed this thread from the beginning, I don't recall any discussion regarding what makes a good escort fighter. Here are my thoughts put together from a bunch of other threads and readings:

1. Endurance (not just range, but the ability to fly escort patterns, how long can it remain engaged in combat)
2. Endurance after Engaging the Enemy (I don't think this is thought about much, but if an aircraft relies on drop tanks for endurance how much capacity does it have to fight and return after they have been dropped)
3. Speed to Engage (The ability to gain a tactical position and put the enemy at a disadvantage, This isn't maximum WEP speed but how rapidly can the plane move efficiently to engage an enemy prior to the enemy attacking the bomber stream)
4. Tactical Advantage at Altitude (Does the plane perform better than the opponent at the altitude of engagement, bomber stream level and above)
5. Tactical Advantage Below Altitude (Does the aircraft perform better than the opponent at lower levels as conflicts tended to lose altitude during engagement)
6. Ability to Return to Engagement (How long does it take a given aircraft to return to the altitude and location of the bomber stream)

Those are just my thoughts on this. I'm sure some of you have a better way to think about it. As for the P-47, P-51, Yak-9DD debate I'm sure there are arguments for each to be considered best.

 

[SaparotRob]

I have a question regarding the best of the best.
Which aircraft was the most comfortable? How many hours in a cramped cockpit can a pilot take and not lose the edge? Which "smallest possible airframe with the largest possible engine" was the least pain inflicting?
We talk hp to weight ratio, range, time to altitude, etc but how effective is the pilot after a 350 mile trip just to get to battle?
The Japanese ace Saburo Sakai was nearly shot down after attacking planes he thought didn't have rear facing guns. I always thought that had to come from fatigue.
Then again they probably all sucked.

 

[NevadaK]

I have a question regarding the best of the best.
Which aircraft was the most comfortable? How many hours in a cramped cockpit can a pilot take and not lose the edge? Which "smallest possible airframe with the largest possible engine" was the least pain inflicting?
We talk hp to weight ratio, range, time to altitude, etc but how effective is the pilot after a 350 mile trip just to get to battle?
The Japanese ace Saburo Sakai was nearly shot down after attacking planes he thought didn't have rear facing guns. I always thought that had to come from fatigue.
Then again they probably all sucked.

Greetings SaparotRob,

I think that is a great comment. Here is a link to a discussion regarding the 1944 Joint Fighter Conference. It is worth scrolling through and some of the ratings are surprising. For instance, the P-47 wins for most comfortable cockpit but finishes well down in best overall cockpit. FWIW, I haven't read the entire report, but several excerpts and summations.

REPORT OF JOINT FIGHTER CONFERENCE

 

[fubar57]

To paraphrase a myth or not, it was said that if a P-47 pilot wanted to avoid enemy gun-fire he would unbuckle his seat harness and run around the cockpit

 

[SaparotRob]

Thanks NevadaK, that was eye opening. I guess the P-47N was the best. The P51-D, however, was the one that was one on the scene when it counted.

 

[Stig1207]

Yes, the bombers did get through but the loss rate was unsustainable and led to the suspension of strategic bombing until the arrival of long range escort fighters.

Agreed, but that is from the American viewpoint, and why the P-51 was crucial to the day bombing campaign. However, for the Germans the bombers getting through was 'unsustainable', they needed to deter the bombers from getting through and bombing; but they never had enough fighters to do that, even before the bombers had escort all the way to the target.

 

[drgondog]

Having followed this thread from the beginning, I don't recall any discussion regarding what makes a good escort fighter. Here are my thoughts put together from a bunch of other threads and readings:

1. Endurance (not just range, but the ability to fly escort patterns, how long can it remain engaged in combat)
2. Endurance after Engaging the Enemy (I don't think this is thought about much, but if an aircraft relies on drop tanks for endurance how much capacity does it have to fight and return after they have been dropped)
3. Speed to Engage (The ability to gain a tactical position and put the enemy at a disadvantage, This isn't maximum WEP speed but how rapidly can the plane move efficiently to engage an enemy prior to the enemy attacking the bomber stream)
4. Tactical Advantage at Altitude (Does the plane perform better than the opponent at the altitude of engagement, bomber stream level and above)
5. Tactical Advantage Below Altitude (Does the aircraft perform better than the opponent at lower levels as conflicts tended to lose altitude during engagement)
6. Ability to Return to Engagement (How long does it take a given aircraft to return to the altitude and location of the bomber stream)

Those are just my thoughts on this. I'm sure some of you have a better way to think about it. As for the P-47, P-51, Yak-9DD debate I'm sure there are arguments for each to be considered best.

Good summary - That said IMO a 'good escort fighter' should have the attributes listed save tactical advantage at altitudes. A Great escort fighter has all the attributes you listed. Parity in performance at extended range still yields a good to very good escort firghter.

In this discussion the P-47N and P-47D and P-38J-25/L merit conversation with the P-51B/D. Only the P-82 changed the dynamics by placing a second pilot available to fly extremely long range missions post VE Day.

There was no material difference in endurance bewteen a P-51D, P-47N and P-38L combat radius or time in cockpit.

 

[Zipper730]

In this discussion the P-47N and P-47D and P-38J-25/L merit conversation with the P-51B/D.

Agreed

There was no material difference in endurance bewteen a P-51D, P-47N and P-38L combat radius or time in cockpit.

From what I remember the P-47N had more range than all of them...

 

[Deleted member 68059]

The other aircraft did make a significant contribution but the Mustangs were in some hard fighting in the winter and spring of 1944.

On the 25th Feb 1944, it was reported that the the percentage of P51s flying escort in relation to the total fighter escort force over Europe was 15%. - and that despite that relatively small number they were securing HALF the total kills from escort fighters on the same missions.

One can if of a cynical mindset say "well of couse, because Doolittle ordered the Mustangs to go forwards to sweep the fighters away"

To which you could say, "yes, and why did he pick the P51s to go on those forward sweeps in the first place?"

and on and on and on ....

I think at a certain point you have to realise these were not stupid men, and if the 47 and 38 were slowly withdrawn from service and replaced by 51`s,
it certainly wasnt because they got bored that day and decided to "mix it up" for fun, its because it was more likely to suceed in the role it was needed
for than the other (available) options.

Annoyingly these stats were in one of the giant microfilm rolls that you can order from AFHRA, of about 2000 pages and I cant sodding find it I only
managed to post it here because last year I made a Tweet with the stats and the date (but not the microfilm reel# or frame # - so annoyed !)

EDIT:

Realised that there was a modern paper written which had a table of roughly similar data. This seems to have used
a book as a reference which I do not have, so I cant vouch for it personally.

"Ethell, Jeffery. P-51 Mustang. Osceola, WI: Motorbooks International Publishers"

Amazon product ASIN 0710600704
View: https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0710600704/ (probably this ?)

 

[Zipper730]

Wow the P-51 was really racking up some serious kills

 

[pbehn]

Wow the P-51 was really racking up some serious kills

True but the stats in percentages dont say that, probably more of a reflection of how things were progressing and tactics used by both sides.

 

[pbehn]

I have a question regarding the best of the best.
Which aircraft was the most comfortable? How many hours in a cramped cockpit can a pilot take and not lose the edge? Which "smallest possible airframe with the largest possible engine" was the least pain inflicting?
We talk hp to weight ratio, range, time to altitude, etc but how effective is the pilot after a 350 mile trip just to get to battle?
The Japanese ace Saburo Sakai was nearly shot down after attacking planes he thought didn't have rear facing guns. I always thought that had to come from fatigue.
Then again they probably all sucked.

I think the biggest factors in "comfort" were cabin pressure and temperature, some were so extreme it went way beyond "comfort" into the dangerously unbearable.

 

[pbehn]

To stop an attack being the salient point; inflicting such heavy losses that the bombers were prevented from fulfilling their mission. With the number of fighters available the defenders could inflict heavy losses on the 8th airforce, but the bombers still got through and bombed their targets.

But you cant need 200-300 miles to do it. If you surrender the first 50-100 miles of you lose a massive amount of industry, ports transport etc that cant be put elsewhere. To win Germany had to confront and stop attacks on or near the coast, had to protect its u boats and win the battle of the Atlantic. Also it had to strike back hitting the USA bombers at home in East Anglia, this was never even a remote possibility.