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

Dan Fahey said:

The P-47 was not that much more rugged than the P-51.
A hell of a lot of them were shot down.

The only issue with ruggedness with the Mustang was getting hit in the radiator.
Then again had about 15 minutes to get out.
If the Thunderbolt got hit in the oil cooler or reservoir it would be in flames.
You had to get out.

Click to expand...

Resp:
From everything I've read, the P-47 was a lot more rugged than the P-51. The US 8th AF lost a lot of P-47s in air-to-air engagements in the beginning for several reasons; outdated training, lack of experience . . . due to coming into the war late. Tactics took time to develope. There are many stories of P-47 pilots returning to base with aircraft so badly damaged . . . the aircraft were written off. The P-51 gave a pilot, especially an experienced pilot, significantly better manuverabilty against the Luftwaffe. Range brought them into areas the P-47 couldn't tread until the Allies bases advanced across Europe.

BiffF15 said:

I've heard the same thing, IE the P47N had an autopilot. It would be interesting to see it's capabilities but expect it was nothing more than altitude & attitude hold (surprisingly enough exactly what the F-15A-D has).

Click to expand...

Indeed it had.

Navalwarrior said:

Resp:
From everything I've read, the P-47 was a lot more rugged than the P-51. The US 8th AF lost a lot of P-47s in air-to-air engagements in the beginning for several reasons; outdated training, lack of experience . . . due to coming into the war late. Tactics took time to develope. There are many stories of P-47 pilots returning to base with aircraft so badly damaged . . . the aircraft were written off. The P-51 gave a pilot, especially an experienced pilot, significantly better manuverabilty against the Luftwaffe. Range brought them into areas the P-47 couldn't tread until the Allies bases advanced across Europe.

Click to expand...

NO it was not a lot more rugged than the Mustang.
It had critical faults such as bursting into flames being hit in the engine and hitting the Oil Cooler and Tank.
May have been able to escape small arms fire but the Germans were tossing 20mm, 30mm and 40mm AAA.
All the German planes had 20mm cannon that would make short work of any fighter.

The only thing going for the Thunderbolt was a fast dive with a decent Mach number, decent zoom, great roll.
But pathetic Climb, Fuel Economy and Needed a slight dive to get to decent level speed.
It was not a very aerodynamic plane.

They were not that well protected with lots of oil lines going to the Turbo, tank and cooler.
Hit any of them the Turbo overheated and oil flaming.
Corsair had the same problem.

When the P51 B/C/D arrived the Luftwaffe was at its peak and the Thunderbolt could not get to the fight.
Had to wait until the Bombers returned where they picked up the escort.
Or they lead them out with the Mustangs picking them up.

For all the Performance of the M had - Thunderbolt it fought under 20k Feet.
It really never was flown as an high altitude fighter at the time.
Then again the M's 2800 P&W was very problematic only in combat a couple months.
Still the Mustang was faster, better climb more maneuverable.

It was not until the P72 with the P&W 4360 or the Hemi Chrysler V16 that the Thunderbolt came alive.

Now if the Thunderbolt like the N model which used twice the fuel of a Mustang they could shoot down a few planes.
Short-Medium range the Thunderbolt was great.

Dan Fahey said:

NO it was not a lot more rugged than the Mustang.
It had critical faults such as bursting into flames being hit in the engine and hitting the Oil Cooler and Tank.
May have been able to escape small arms fire but the Germans were tossing 20mm, 30mm and 40mm AAA.
All the German planes had 20mm cannon that would make short work of any fighter.

The only thing going for the Thunderbolt was a fast dive with a decent Mach number, decent zoom, great roll.
But pathetic Climb, Fuel Economy and Needed a slight dive to get for level speed.
It was not a very aerodynamic plane.

They were not that well protected with lots of oil lines going to the Turbo, tank and cooler.
Hit any of them the Turbo overheated and oil flaming.
Corsair had the same problem.

When the P51 B/C/D arrived the Luftwaffe was at its peak and the Thunderbolt could not get to the fight.
Had to wait until the Bombers returned where they picked up the escort.
Or they lead them out with the Mustangs picking them up.

For all the Performance of the M had - Thunderbolt it fought under 20k Feet.
It really never was flown as an high altitude fighter at the time.
Then again the M's 2800 P&W was very problematic only in combat a couple months.
Still the Mustang was faster, better climb more maneuverable.

It was not until the P72 with the P&W 4360 or the Hemi Chrysler V16 that the Thunderbolt came alive.

Now if the Thunderbolt like the N model which used twice the fuel of a Mustang they could shoot down a few planes.
Short-Medium range the Thunderbolt was great.

Click to expand...

Agree. And then it didn't get into combat until May '43, and then with no provision for mounting drop tanks. Could barely get to the coast of France before it had to turn around.

First drop tanks were in August, one small 75 gallon belly tank at first, then 110 gallon tanks. The P-38H would be arriving in October and the P-51B in December. Air superiority achieved after Big Week in February. P-47 was used as escort about 6 months and then only out to about 375 miles.

A really big expensive fighter that was fast but couldn't do much else. Still better than a P-38 at keeping the pilot alive. Good at ground attack though.

Dan Fahey said:

NO it was not a lot more rugged than the Mustang.
It had critical faults such as bursting into flames being hit in the engine and hitting the Oil Cooler and Tank.
May have been able to escape small arms fire but the Germans were tossing 20mm, 30mm and 40mm AAA.
All the German planes had 20mm cannon that would make short work of any fighter.

The only thing going for the Thunderbolt was a fast dive with a decent Mach number, decent zoom, great roll.
But pathetic Climb, Fuel Economy and Needed a slight dive to get for level speed.
It was not a very aerodynamic plane.

They were not that well protected with lots of oil lines going to the Turbo, tank and cooler.
Hit any of them the Turbo overheated and oil flaming.
Corsair had the same problem.

When the P51 B/C/D arrived the Luftwaffe was at its peak and the Thunderbolt could not get to the fight.
Had to wait until the Bombers returned where they picked up the escort.
Or they lead them out with the Mustangs picking them up.

For all the Performance of the M had - Thunderbolt it fought under 20k Feet.
It really never was flown as an high altitude fighter at the time.
Then again the M's 2800 P&W was very problematic only in combat a couple months.
Still the Mustang was faster, better climb more maneuverable.

It was not until the P72 with the P&W 4360 or the Hemi Chrysler V16 that the Thunderbolt came alive.

Now if the Thunderbolt like the N model which used twice the fuel of a Mustang they could shoot down a few planes.
Short-Medium range the Thunderbolt was great.

Click to expand...

Resp:
We agree to disagree.

Dan Fahey said:

NO it was not a lot more rugged than the Mustang.
It had critical faults such as bursting into flames being hit in the engine and hitting the Oil Cooler and Tank.
May have been able to escape small arms fire but the Germans were tossing 20mm, 30mm and 40mm AAA.
All the German planes had 20mm cannon that would make short work of any fighter.

The only thing going for the Thunderbolt was a fast dive with a decent Mach number, decent zoom, great roll.
But pathetic Climb, Fuel Economy and Needed a slight dive to get for level speed.
It was not a very aerodynamic plane.

They were not that well protected with lots of oil lines going to the Turbo, tank and cooler.
Hit any of them the Turbo overheated and oil flaming.
Corsair had the same problem.

When the P51 B/C/D arrived the Luftwaffe was at its peak and the Thunderbolt could not get to the fight.
Had to wait until the Bombers returned where they picked up the escort.
Or they lead them out with the Mustangs picking them up.

For all the Performance of the M had - Thunderbolt it fought under 20k Feet.
It really never was flown as an high altitude fighter at the time.
Then again the M's 2800 P&W was very problematic only in combat a couple months.
Still the Mustang was faster, better climb more maneuverable.

It was not until the P72 with the P&W 4360 or the Hemi Chrysler V16 that the Thunderbolt came alive.

Now if the Thunderbolt like the N model which used twice the fuel of a Mustang they could shoot down a few planes.
Short-Medium range the Thunderbolt was great.

Click to expand...

Poor climb was only an issue with the very early p47s. Once they got the " proper" propeler on them it had a climb of 3000 to 3500 fpm depending on the exact model, what source you want to believe etc.
This is equal to or in excess of many planes commonly given credit for a good or excellent climb rate i.e. p51, A6m etc.
The word alot is subjective so what constitutes being alot more rugged than the p51 is up individual interpretation of what constitutes " alot". However, don't think anyone would argue that the p47 was not to some degree more rugged so in this aspect it holds an edge. That doesn't make it a better plane of course but it does mean it was to some degree better in some aspects.
You say the only thing going for the Thunderbolt was fast dive, a good mach number, a decient zoom climb( actually it was great), and a great roll rate............well that only thing you listed is 4 things and 4 pretty important ones at that.
Kinda like saying the only thing the Mustang had going for it was speed, moaenuverability, climb, range, low cost, ease of pilot training, good dive, good cockpit visability, an excellent gun sight,decent load carrying capacity, and armament, so meh.
Also the range of the p47 being short is well.........sort of.........if your compairing to the p51 or p38( but the p51 and the p38 were exceptional in this regard) and looking at early models. The range progressed as the war went on until they were going all the way to Berlin.
You can put a time stamp so to speek on almost any plane and make it come out looking unreservedly poor.
For example one could say as another poster noted here that air suppirriority was achieved durring big week( although some may disagree)..... Well the vast majority of those kills were not by Mustangs but by cutting off the time line at this point we would fail to recognize the huge difference the p51 made in the final year and a half of the war.

michael rauls said:

Poor climb was only an issue with the very early p47s. Once they got the " proper" propeler on them it had a climb of 3000 to 3500 fpm depending on the exact model, what source you want to believe etc.
This is equal to or in excess of many planes commonly given credit for a good or excellent climb rate i.e. p51, A6m etc.
The word alot is subjective so what constitutes being alot more rugged than the p51 is up individual interpretation of what constitutes " alot". However, don't think anyone would argue that the p47 was not to some degree more rugged so in this aspect it holds an edge. That doesn't make it a better plane of course but it does mean it was to some degree better in some aspects.
You say the only thing going for the Thunderbolt was fast dive, a good mach number, a decient zoom climb( actually it was great), and a great roll rate............well that only thing you listed is 4 things and 4 pretty important ones at that.
Kinda like saying the only thing the Mustang had going for it was speed, moaenuverability, climb, range, low cost, ease of pilot training, good dive, good cockpit visability, an excellent gun sight,decent load carrying capacity, and armament, so meh.
Also the range of the p47 being short is well.........sort of.........if your compairing to the p51 or p38( but the p51 and the p38 were exceptional in this regard) and looking at early models. The range progressed as the war went on until they were going all the way to Berlin.
You can put a time stamp so to speek on almost any plane and make it come out looking unreservedly poor.
For example one could say as another poster noted here that air suppirriority was achieved durring big week( although some may disagree)..... Well the vast majority of those kills were not by Mustangs but by cutting off the time line at this point we would fail to recognize the huge difference the p51 made in the final year and a half of the war.

Click to expand...

Resp:
I am a major P-51 fan. From the misunderstood Allison variants to the Merlin P-51B/C and D/K. Part of the problem/issue with the P-47 falls on USAAC/USAAF prohibition against manufacturers (that made fighters for their Air Corps) making them drop tanks capable (no external fuel stores) that put the P47 at a major disadvantage until @ March/April 1944 when wing pylon Thunderbolt began to appear in England. There were many other improvements, namely an improved propeller. I could go on, but you seemed to be pretty well versed on the P-47. So I won't try to out do you. I have great respect for the 78th FG who flew with ferry tank fitted on the P-47s centerline . . . just to get about 10 min more flying time before turning home. Most of the tanks would not release when the pilot attempted to release them prior to meeting the enemy. Most of the pilots knew of the possibility . . . but flew with them anyway . . . in an attempt to protect their B-17s/B-24s. The 56th FG's Zemkie realized early that in order to survive/win . . . tactics required adjustments . . . with strict adherence. The US did not fly combat with the Merlin Mustang until Dec 1943, and it certainly didn't supplant the P-47 until well into 1944. Name a fighter the USAAF (8th, ?) could have used before the Merlin P-51 in the ETO?
If the P-38 hadn't been forwarded to the Med in early 1943 would/could Lockheed have satisfactory addressed its high altitude issues? We will never know.

Dan Fahey said:

It was not until the P72 with the P&W 4360 or the Hemi Chrysler V16 that the Thunderbolt came alive.

Click to expand...

Both were late and no more than 2 airframes flew with either engine. and the Chrysler engine was no longer needed.

Please try checking out the Performance of a P-47D with the 2nd water injection modification before jumping to rash conclusions.
2535hp on 100/130 fuel, 64in of Manifold pressure.

BTW some sources say the first flight of the P-47H with Chrysler engine was on July 26, 1945 which is way too late for it to have any influence on anything.
P-47Ns were already in action in the Pacific.

Some sources claim it only got up to 414mph and that is without military equipment like guns. Seems to me that is a lot deader than a bog stock P-47C.

Navalwarrior said:

Resp:
We agree to disagree.

Click to expand...

I think the rest of the forum agrees with you as well...

michael rauls said:

Poor climb was only an issue with the very early p47s. Once they got the " proper" propeler on them it had a climb of 3000 to 3500 fpm depending on the exact model, what source you want to believe etc.
This is equal to or in excess of many planes commonly given credit for a good or excellent climb rate i.e. p51, A6m etc.
The word alot is subjective so what constitutes being alot more rugged than the p51 is up individual interpretation of what constitutes " alot". However, don't think anyone would argue that the p47 was not to some degree more rugged so in this aspect it holds an edge. That doesn't make it a better plane of course but it does mean it was to some degree better in some aspects.
You say the only thing going for the Thunderbolt was fast dive, a good mach number, a decient zoom climb( actually it was great), and a great roll rate............well that only thing you listed is 4 things and 4 pretty important ones at that.
Kinda like saying the only thing the Mustang had going for it was speed, moaenuverability, climb, range, low cost, ease of pilot training, good dive, good cockpit visability, an excellent gun sight,decent load carrying capacity, and armament, so meh.
Also the range of the p47 being short is well.........sort of.........if your compairing to the p51 or p38( but the p51 and the p38 were exceptional in this regard) and looking at early models. The range progressed as the war went on until they were going all the way to Berlin.
You can put a time stamp so to speek on almost any plane and make it come out looking unreservedly poor.
For example one could say as another poster noted here that air suppirriority was achieved durring big week( although some may disagree)..... Well the vast majority of those kills were not by Mustangs but by cutting off the time line at this point we would fail to recognize the huge difference the p51 made in the final year and a half of the war.

Click to expand...

Not amatter of BELIEF....Matter of Facts
The Paddle Prop P-47 never got to 3000 fpm
It did improve from 2500 fpm to 2800 fpm.
The M- Model best was 3500 fpm but that was with a 2800 Water Methanol injection.
After it was used up was just as fast as a normal P47.

P-47 cost twice as much to build, maintain and fly.
The only country willing take them was General Chennault for Taiwan.
There they battled the Chinese over Que Moy Islands.
They Claimed a Mig but several were shot down.

Shortround6 said:

Both were late and no more than 2 airframes flew with either engine. and the Chrysler engine was no longer needed.

Please try checking out the Performance of a P-47D with the 2nd water injection modification before jumping to rash conclusions.
2535hp on 100/130 fuel, 64in of Manifold pressure.

BTW some sources say the first flight of the P-47H with Chrysler engine was on July 26, 1945 which is way too late for it to have any influence on anything.
P-47Ns were already in action in the Pacific.

Some sources claim it only got up to 414mph and that is without military equipment like guns. Seems to me that is a lot deader than a bog stock P-47C.

Click to expand...

YEAH both were late entries..
The Pilot test reports on the P-72 were very happy about the performance.
Jet engines were already taking over.

Navalwarrior said:

Resp:
I am a major P-51 fan. From the misunderstood Allison variants to the Merlin P-51B/C and D/K. Part of the problem/issue with the P-47 falls on USAAC/USAAF prohibition against manufacturers (that made fighters for their Air Corps) making them drop tanks capable (no external fuel stores) that put the P47 at a major disadvantage until @ March/April 1944 when wing pylon Thunderbolt began to appear in England. There were many other improvements, namely an improved propeller. I could go on, but you seemed to be pretty well versed on the P-47. So I won't try to out do you. I have great respect for the 78th FG who flew with ferry tank fitted on the P-47s centerline . . . just to get about 10 min more flying time before turning home. Most of the tanks would not release when the pilot attempted to release them prior to meeting the enemy. Most of the pilots knew of the possibility . . . but flew with them anyway . . . in an attempt to protect their B-17s/B-24s. The 56th FG's Zemkie realized early that in order to survive/win . . . tactics required adjustments . . . with strict adherence. The US did not fly combat with the Merlin Mustang until Dec 1943, and it certainly didn't supplant the P-47 until well into 1944. Name a fighter the USAAF (8th, ?) could have used before the Merlin P-51 in the ETO?
If the P-38 hadn't been forwarded to the Med in early 1943 would/could Lockheed have satisfactory addressed its high altitude issues? We will never know.

Click to expand...

Certainly did supplant the Thunderbolt almost right away.
Mustangs and Lightnings (that could make it) went all the way into Germany.
Thunderbolts escorted them to the edge of their range.
Landed and Fueled up to receive the remaining bombers.

Michael mentioned Big Week so I went looking up fighter numbers, the much suspect Wiki has this which I condensed to the missions they had listed with fighet claims:

Sunday
20 February 1944
escorted by 94 P-38 Lightnings, 668 Eighth and Ninth Air Force P-47 Thunderbolts and 73 Eighth and Ninth Air Force P-51 Mustangs
Total losses included 74 Bf 110s, Fw 190s and Bf 109s and a further 29 damaged

Monday
21 February 1944
Escort for Mission 228 is provided by 69 P-38s, 542 Eighth and Ninth Air Force P-47s and 68 Eighth and Ninth Air Force P-51s
P-38s claim 0-1-0 Luftwaffe aircraft
P-47s claim 19-3-14 Luftwaffe aircraft
P-51s claim 14-1-4 Luftwaffe aircraft

Tuesday
22 February 1944
escorted by 67 P-38s, 535 Eighth and Ninth Air Force P-47s, and 57 Eighth and Ninth Air Force P-51s
P-38s claim 1 Luftwaffe aircraft
P-47s claim 39-6-15 Luftwaffe aircraft
P-51s claim 19-1-10 Luftwaffe aircraft

Thursday
24 February 1944
Escort is provided by 81 P-38s, 94 P-47s and 22 P-51s
P-51s claim a single German aircraft on the ground

Friday
25 February 1944
Escort is provided by 73 P-38s, 687 Eighth and Ninth Air Force P-47s and 139 Eighth and Ninth Air Force P-51s
P-38s claim 1-2-0 Luftwaffe aircraft
P-47s claim 13-2-10 Luftwaffe aircraft
P-51s claim 12-0-3 Luftwaffe aircraft

Not sure if these are correct numbers, would love to see actual data but looking at this, a few things come to mind.
1. The P-38 was not getting it done kill wise.
2. Even thought the Thunderbolt outnumbered the Mustang sometimes almost 10 to 1, kills don't seem to be that far apart.

Again being Wiki these numbers are suspect so as I said, would love to see some vetted data on this.

Peter Gunn said:

Michael mentioned Big Week so I went looking up fighter numbers, the much suspect Wiki has this which I condensed to the missions they had listed with fighet claims:

Sunday
20 February 1944
escorted by 94 P-38 Lightnings, 668 Eighth and Ninth Air Force P-47 Thunderbolts and 73 Eighth and Ninth Air Force P-51 Mustangs
Total losses included 74 Bf 110s, Fw 190s and Bf 109s and a further 29 damaged

Monday
21 February 1944
Escort for Mission 228 is provided by 69 P-38s, 542 Eighth and Ninth Air Force P-47s and 68 Eighth and Ninth Air Force P-51s
P-38s claim 0-1-0 Luftwaffe aircraft
P-47s claim 19-3-14 Luftwaffe aircraft
P-51s claim 14-1-4 Luftwaffe aircraft

Tuesday
22 February 1944
escorted by 67 P-38s, 535 Eighth and Ninth Air Force P-47s, and 57 Eighth and Ninth Air Force P-51s
P-38s claim 1 Luftwaffe aircraft
P-47s claim 39-6-15 Luftwaffe aircraft
P-51s claim 19-1-10 Luftwaffe aircraft

Thursday
24 February 1944
Escort is provided by 81 P-38s, 94 P-47s and 22 P-51s
P-51s claim a single German aircraft on the ground

Friday
25 February 1944
Escort is provided by 73 P-38s, 687 Eighth and Ninth Air Force P-47s and 139 Eighth and Ninth Air Force P-51s
P-38s claim 1-2-0 Luftwaffe aircraft
P-47s claim 13-2-10 Luftwaffe aircraft
P-51s claim 12-0-3 Luftwaffe aircraft

Not sure if these are correct numbers, would love to see actual data but looking at this, a few things come to mind.
1. The P-38 was not getting it done kill wise.
2. Even thought the Thunderbolt outnumbered the Mustang sometimes almost 10 to 1, kills don't seem to be that far apart.

Again being Wiki these numbers are suspect so as I said, would love to see some vetted data on this.

Click to expand...

Resp:
Sure looks like P-47s are in the majority; in more ways than one. Never mind the ratio, they were getting more kills. Again, name a US made single engine fighter in 1943 that could have supplanted the P-47. What pilot was worried about the cost to make an aircraft? The US 5th USAAF General (Kenney?) agreed to take -5 and -6
P-47D variants (since he was told all P-38s would go to the 8th AF) that were not drop tank capable. Within 60 days of the P-47s arrival, his P-47s were flying long range missions. He tasked his engineers to build a single 200 gallon flat belly drop tank, and to plum/make a centerline rack for these tanks. All in less than 60 days! Handling was a chore with these less than aerodynamic tanks. The tanks were made by Ford Motor Co of Australia. Gen Eaker had placed an order (so he thought) with British industry, only that he failed to follow up until it was months too late. And in so doing, he cancelled a US request for drop tanks for his P-47s! Just shows you how getting creative . . . gets thing done!

Hello Peter Gunn

It certainly looks like the P-38 wasn't getting the job done when one looks at the claims. However, to score claims, one must be in the area of action. It appears that at least one group (the 20th) was assigned target support, which I understand means joining the bombers 3 to 5 minutes before they bombed, and then escorting them back to England after coming off the target. Thus, they would not be involved in combat with the initial German interception, and would be themselves relieved about the time the refueled and rearmed German interceptors were attacking the homeward bound bombers.
Please see
Missions 001 - 025

for Big Week mission reports for the 20th FG.

To summarize, it appears that at least half of the P-38 force was placed in an area, where German fighters were less likely to be encountered (not that they would not be encountered). This may be one reason that the P-38 did not make as many claims.

Just my 2 cents worth.

Eagledad

I've also read that at least some of the time when there was a mix of escorts the p38s were assigned close escort duty( to stick right by the bombers) while other types were given wider latitude.
This is probably the right call as you want the most effective high altitude aircraft to have more leeway on a high altitude escort mission and that would be Mustangs and Thunderbolts but may be another reason for a comparatively poor showing by the p38s in this theater.

Yes,

If you read the Briefing notes for Mission 25 you will find that the 20th FG was assigned as close escort with the 354th FG flying top cover. Under those conditions it becomes difficult to run up any significant scores if you are a P-38 jockey.

Eagledad

The chart below is in mid final draft format, extracted from flight test data supplied by both Mike Williams and Kurfurst. There are still errors on the chart including labels. i.e. the Bf 109G-6 curves are for a DB605AS, the P-47D is a D-10 w/R2800-63 w/WI @56" and correct through the -16 series as far as Hp although the succeeding P-47D grew in weight. The plots for both the P-38J-15 and P-47D-10 for speed and climb are optimistic as the only test flights are at ~97% full combat load out (internal) Gross Weight. The P-51 is with full load out including full internal 269 gallons. ALL performance plots are shown without wing racks. The Bf 109 is the least affected with the Schlob 503, next is the Single C/L rack for the P-47D, next is the P-51B, then Fw 190A w/ETC 501, then last the P-38 J with twin pylons. With Wing Rack mods the P-47D was worst of all.

All of my plots are extracted from AAF and LW flight test data, clean, to provide a common benchmark for comparisons. It may be interesting to note that the P-51D compared to P-51B-15 w/1650-7 at the same Gross Weight (i.e full internal fuel -269gal for P-51B @9600 lbs WITHOUT RACKs, 184 gal internal for P-51D @9600lbs WITH racks) The D outclimbed the B and was faster at all altitudes.

For all that express comparative performance beliefs based on Max Speed or Max ROC, note from the chart that 'It Depends' - also note the for the ETO battles for control of German skies what the comparisons are for 15-30K altitudes.

Loss Rate comparison - before getting giddy in comparing ETO combat losses wrt to P-51 vs P-47, ponder a bit on these thoughts; The oil cooler vulnerability of the P-47 was about the same as the F4U and the P-47 was also vulnerable to a hit to the turbo. The ranges flown and the range to return to base for a Mustang was 50% greater on the average when strafing heavily defended ground targets for both the P-47D and F4U (WWII and Korea). Yet the per sortie loss of the P-51D was about the same as F4U in Korea - in perhaps a more lethal flak environment in Korea.

Big Week comparisons: First - the number of P-47D FGs = 11, P-38J = 2, P-51B =2. Second, the experience levels of only four P-47D FG's was less than the most experienced (354th FG) Mustang Group. The least experienced FG in Big Week was the new 357th FG Mustang group with 9 days under its belt.

Feb 20 thru 25 - - P-38 9-2-5 for 4 losses; P-47 137.5-14-29 for 17 losses; P-51 66.5-8-32 for 9 losses. VC Sources Dr Frank Olynyk PhD which also is supported by USAF 85. Loss Source Freeman's Mighty Eighth War Diary. The last time the cumulative totals of all 8th and 9th AF P-47D in escort roles exceeded the P-51B was March 15, less than three weeks afterwards.

Note - the above comparison II as shown does not include Bf 109G-6AS @ 1.42ata. Shift the existing curve to inflect at 22,000 feet - 409mph - and for climb, move the curve to 3750fpm for the 109G-6AS at SL

eagledad said:

Yes,

If you read the Briefing notes for Mission 25 you will find that the 20th FG was assigned as close escort with the 354th FG flying top cover. Under those conditions it becomes difficult to run up any significant scores if you are a P-38 jockey.

Eagledad

Click to expand...

I wonder. First there weren't enough P-38 and P-51 groups to devote to escort of more than one BD or Task Force striking deep targets. Second, 'close escort' was defined then as being specifically assigned to one or two boxes of up to 10-12 BG. A 'normal' briefed plan for the three squadrons for Lead box would be one at or around the same altitude on the side where attacks were forecast, one flying high over the middle Box and one out in front. For the middle position (post D-Day when there were enough escorts to assign two+ to a single Task Force, then one squadron was high, one on one side and one 'roving' on the other side.

It would have been very strange for Two FGs (one P-51, one P-38 with total of six squadrons protecting less than an entire BD and certainly not concentrated into 'escort and high cover'. I wonder..

The 8th AF Field Orders for VIII FC (which included operational control of IX FC P-47s and P-51s) from Feb 20th to 25th were F.O. 245 through F.O. 251. The February 20th mission for 20th FG was ~#20 (interesting). According to 8th AF F.O. 226 the 20th never made R/V with 2BD for Brunswick target and 55th was also assigned to Brunswick for 1BD. The 354th and 357th P-51s were assigned to cover 1BD in Leipzig/Bernburg - way off to the east.

If this was the mission reference, the 354th could have been proceeding to R/V for 1st Task Force headed to Leipzig at an altitude higher than the B-24s headed to Brunswick on the same track but behind the 1TF.

Or this analysis is worthless..

EDIT - I re-read your post as mission 25, not 20 so I'll go with Worthless