Whats more velnerable P-38 or P-47 in ground attack

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Okay I was actually trying to figure out what he meant about skid. Thanks.

 

[syscom3]

Are you sure about that? The turbo ducting went under the cockpit which provided a good "crush" zone to protect that part of the plane. I have never heard of it being specifically reinforced for belly landings.

Note - when I was at one of the Chino airshows back in the early 80's, they had their partially restored P47 out on the tarmac for everyone to inspect. They had the service panels on the fuselage removed and I took a look inside. I can verify that the interior on that plane is huge!

 

[wmaxt]

Both are very durable.

The P-38 is spread out more has a smaller frontal profile and a second engine.

The P-47 has a big radial engine up front but a lot of vulnerable ducting and the turbo on the bottom but will still be flyable.

The traditional numbers favor the P-47 but I'm finding the traditional numbers are not verifiable. I think I'd chose the plane that fit the target ie. Troops, and softer targets the P-47 and harder targets the P-38 with its more concentrated fire.

wmaxt

 

[syscom3]

Damage to the ducting would lower the efficiency for the turbo, but not stop it (unless the hole was big enough)

 

[wmaxt]

Damage to the ducting would lower the efficiency for the turbo, but not stop it (unless the hole was big enough)

Thats why I said it would still be flyable.

The total loss numbers for the planes are on the order of 1.3% for the P-38 and 1.1% for the P-47 using traditional numbers. I think it comes down to mission profile and limiting the number of passes on the target/s. That second pass ~tripples (guess) your chances of being hit.

wmaxt

 

[syscom3]

I would imagine the P38's concentrated firepower would have been better against the larger targets like trains.

 

[P38 Pilot]

P-38. But im biased like that Besides a P-38 can fly perfectly well on one engine.

I go for the P-38. But then, i have the username P38 Pilot!

The P-47 was great for low altitude. But i would rather fly the P-38! 8)

 

[book1182]

I would go with the P-38. There are many pictures with both planes with huge holes in the wings. But the P-38 would give you the double engines effect. I think the P-47 could take more damage since it was more compact. The P-38 looks a little frail and if a boom leading back to the tail took a big enough hit it might come apart.

Conclusion: P-38 in the engine category, P-47 in the airframe.

 

[syscom3]

The P38's airframe was solid. Many instances of the booms taking severe damage and holding up. The only weakness of the P38 was its liquid cooled Alisons.

 

[102first_hussars]

I would imagine the P38's concentrated firepower would have been better against the larger targets like trains.

Which is why it was used quite frequently against trains

 

[evangilder]

The ducting for the P-47 was just for ducting. The crumple zone that it provided for the pilots legs for wheels up landings was a bonus, but it was not designed for that purpose.

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

yes it was discussed on these forums a while back, the "skid" or re-enforced area under the P-47, but fact is the P-47's one engine could proberly take as much damage as the P-38's and still fly ...........

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

The ducting for the P-47 was just for ducting. The crumple zone that it provided for the pilots legs for wheels up landings was a bonus, but it was not designed for that purpose.

Yeap that is what I had allways known about it.

 

[cheddar cheese]

yes it was discussed on these forums a while back, the "skid" or re-enforced area under the P-47, but fact is the P-47's one engine could proberly take as much damage as the P-38's and still fly ...........

Yeah but if your engine gets hit in a P-47, you're flying home on a poorly engine, and if it fails, youve had it. With the P-38 You can get outta there and fly home reliably and safely on the one engine. Id rather have one good engine and one dead engine than just one poorly engine.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

yes it was discussed on these forums a while back, the "skid" or re-enforced area under the P-47, but fact is the P-47's one engine could proberly take as much damage as the P-38's and still fly ...........

Yeah but if your engine gets hit in a P-47, you're flying home on a poorly engine, and if it fails, youve had it. With the P-38 You can get outta there and fly home reliably and safely on the one engine. Id rather have one good engine and one dead engine than just one poorly engine.

And there's the trade off between the two. I would look at it from the standporint of what type of mission will be flown. One feathered P-38 Allison is better than one shot up P-47 Pratt and Whitney, but remember, glycol sucks, especially at 500 feet!!!

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Im still for the JUG!

 

[wmaxt]

I still decide by mission profile, If I'm shooting up flack towers, bunkers and tanks give me a P-38 ten rockets, napalm and my nose guns - 1 pass each target and I'm out of there.

If I'm hitting dispursed troops, a barracks or other spread out targets, give me the P-47 again the point being 1 pass and on to the next target.

Glycol or not, the 1st pass is almost a gimme, by the third you might plan on staying awhile to check out the native accomodations.

wmaxt

 

[Erich]

they are both dead meat to late war German light Fla. I would advise looking into some of the 9th AF Jug and Lightning mission reports and you will see in late 44 and 45 both a/c types had a great problem with 2cm Flakvierlings which formed the constitution of most of the Heer and W-SS ground units. Early war both US a/c types could take it in the shorts and fly home, but come Herbst 44 9th AF Jug groups were really hammered trying to take out MT's and German lines of communique. check the 404th fg as example and the Thundermonsters 405th fg for two

 

[syscom3]

What is "Herbst 44 "?

 

[Erich]

Autumn/Fall of 1944 sys ..........