Which was harder to shoot down, a P-47D or a FW 190A?
- Thread starter Soundbreaker Welch?
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
The Fw 190 was not designed mainly as a bomber killer.
Besides the P-47 had ben intended as an interceptor anyway. (though it had a faily low climb rate for one)
Besides the P-47 had ben intended as an interceptor anyway. (though it had a faily low climb rate for one)
Kurfürst
Staff Sergeant
I wonder about the MX-Geschoss. I have seen drawings, but I am not sure, if it was used operationally, or was just in development stage.. any info on that Tony?
drgondog
Major
Say what?
LMAO - that and Joe's (I think) cat - WTF? about summarize my perpetual confusion... over classic comments like above - although he was right about the design spec for the 47.
Oreo
Senior Airman
Based on what little I know about it, I had to go with the P-47. I do know it could take a lot of abuse, like when Robert Johnson came home with over 200 bullet holes in his plane (including severed rudder cables) and landed it. His account tells how at the end, the Fw 190 attacking him was able to attack at will because he could barely keep the plane level, let alone maneuver. Its cannon shells were evidently all gone, but it attacked with the two MG's coming in slow and level behind until (I think) all its ammo was gone. Johnson seemed to indicate it was an A-6 or earlier which had the 8-mm guns over the engine rather than 13mm. Been a while since I read his book, maybe that incident has been mentioned on the thread already-- I didn't have time to read everything anyone said. It seems Johnson seemed to think, toward the end, of the Fw 190 as a piece of cake to kill, but then it's quite possible he rarely encountered a truly experienced pilot.
kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
If he encountered the 109's at high altitude (~25,000 ft) they would be well above their best performance envelope, while near the P-47's best. (similar case with the P-51)
Burmese Bandit
Senior Airman
- 474
- Dec 5, 2008
The P-47 was tougher.
OK, so let's consider the situation. You are in a 190 and suddenly, worst case scenario, an enemy pounces on your ass from above.
You roll and dive. If your reflexes and TA are better than him, you survive. If in spite of this, he hits you, your chances are about 50/50.
Now in a p-47 you cannot roll as fast, but you can dive much faster, equal evasive chances. If you are hit, chances of survival are 70/30 in your favour.
Bottom line - the 47 wins!
OK, so let's consider the situation. You are in a 190 and suddenly, worst case scenario, an enemy pounces on your ass from above.
You roll and dive. If your reflexes and TA are better than him, you survive. If in spite of this, he hits you, your chances are about 50/50.
Now in a p-47 you cannot roll as fast, but you can dive much faster, equal evasive chances. If you are hit, chances of survival are 70/30 in your favour.
Bottom line - the 47 wins!
KrazyKraut
Banned
- 337
- Apr 21, 2008
Chances are 99/1 those numbers are purely made up.
Hi Burmese,
>Now in a p-47 you cannot roll as fast, but you can dive much faster, equal evasive chances. If you are hit, chances of survival are 70/30 in your favour.
Interesting approach
If you're talking about probabilities, you should however take not only the damage resistance and evasive ability, but also the firepower of the two types into account:
Fw 190A-8: 5.5 MW firepower
P-47D: 2.3 MW firepower
(Firepower measured in total muzzle power, or the sum of kinetic and chemical energy of the projectiles per unit of time)
With regard to your comparison, that means that the odds of the Fw 190A-8 going down to being hit by the P-47D is only half of that of the P-47 being hit by the Focke-Wulf (assuming your underlying assumption is that their damage resistance is equal).
Looking at your numbers, I could imagine they are intended as follows:
1st burst kill ratio against ...
Fw 190A: 25%, P-47D: 25%
2nd burst kill ratio against ...
Fw 190A: 25%, P-47D: 5% (due to better evasive capabilities)
However, as modified by the firepower ratio of roughly 2:1, this would become for example:
1st burst kill ratio against ...
Fw 190A: 25%, P-47D: 50%
2nd burst kill ratio against ...
Fw 190A: 25%, P-47D: 10%
So the odds are 50/50 for the Fw 190, but only 40% survival, 60% defeat for the P-47.
(I'm aware that yours was just a simple thought experiment, but I think it was a good example for the influence of quantified factors. I certainly don't consider the resulting figures to be the final word on the topic!
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
>Now in a p-47 you cannot roll as fast, but you can dive much faster, equal evasive chances. If you are hit, chances of survival are 70/30 in your favour.
Interesting approach
If you're talking about probabilities, you should however take not only the damage resistance and evasive ability, but also the firepower of the two types into account:
Fw 190A-8: 5.5 MW firepower
P-47D: 2.3 MW firepower
(Firepower measured in total muzzle power, or the sum of kinetic and chemical energy of the projectiles per unit of time)
With regard to your comparison, that means that the odds of the Fw 190A-8 going down to being hit by the P-47D is only half of that of the P-47 being hit by the Focke-Wulf (assuming your underlying assumption is that their damage resistance is equal).
Looking at your numbers, I could imagine they are intended as follows:
1st burst kill ratio against ...
Fw 190A: 25%, P-47D: 25%
2nd burst kill ratio against ...
Fw 190A: 25%, P-47D: 5% (due to better evasive capabilities)
However, as modified by the firepower ratio of roughly 2:1, this would become for example:
1st burst kill ratio against ...
Fw 190A: 25%, P-47D: 50%
2nd burst kill ratio against ...
Fw 190A: 25%, P-47D: 10%
So the odds are 50/50 for the Fw 190, but only 40% survival, 60% defeat for the P-47.
(I'm aware that yours was just a simple thought experiment, but I think it was a good example for the influence of quantified factors. I certainly don't consider the resulting figures to be the final word on the topic!
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
Burmese Bandit
Senior Airman
- 474
- Dec 5, 2008
Thanks Henning! Though to be honest when I was thinking of the p-47 escaping in a power dive my imagination was running more on the lines of a 109 diving on the 47's ass. In 1944 the general rule for the Wurger was that it had to save itself to attack the B-17s, and the boys who were allowed to mix it up with the mustangs and thuds were the 109s. Or at least that's AFAIK.
Burmese Bandit
Senior Airman
- 474
- Dec 5, 2008
'...(assuming your underlying assumption is that their damage resistance is equal)...'
Just noticed that. AFAIK the Thud was far tougher. Can Henning or some of the other great guys (I mean it) on this forum have data on this?
Just noticed that. AFAIK the Thud was far tougher. Can Henning or some of the other great guys (I mean it) on this forum have data on this?
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
The Thud, I believe was the F105. The nickname for the P47 was Jug but it was a tough airplane. Interestingly, my major reference, " America's 100000," states that the P47 did not have a good rate of roll. Bob Johnson, in his book, said the Jug rolled well. Much better than the Spit. In a mock dogfight with a Spit he used that superior roll rate to evade. I wonder about that.
Burmese Bandit
Senior Airman
- 474
- Dec 5, 2008
*hits self on head*
You're right - the P-47 was the JUG short for Juggernaught....
Was Johnson's JUG the lightened version with the 2800 hp R-2800 and only four machine guns, capable of a max 504 mph???
You're right - the P-47 was the JUG short for Juggernaught....
Was Johnson's JUG the lightened version with the 2800 hp R-2800 and only four machine guns, capable of a max 504 mph???
Messy1
Master Sergeant
I had to go with the P-47.
Hi Burmese,
>AFAIK the Thud was far tougher. Can Henning or some of the other great guys (I mean it) on this forum have data on this?
Hard to find any data on that, but I see no reason why the Fw 190 wouldn't be just as tough as the P-47. This post is my attempt at a rational comparison:
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/polls/harder-shoot-down-p-47d-fw-190a-14508.html#post386892
Besides firepower, there is also the aspect of target size to take into an account - a larger aircraft will get hit more easily.
Considering that the P-47 and the Fw 190A have the same general proportions, we can approximate their relative target size by comparing the wing areas: 27.9 m^2 vs. 18.3 m^2. This means the Fw 190A will be hit only by roughly 2/3 of the projectiles that will strike the P-47 in a similar situation.
Modified comparison:
1st burst kill ratio against ...
Fw 190A: 17%, P-47D: 50%
2nd burst kill ratio against ...
Fw 190A: 17%, P-47D: 10%
We're at 34% "shot down" for the Fw 190 vs. 60% "shot down" for the P-47 now. (Quite obviously, that's over-simplified
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
>AFAIK the Thud was far tougher. Can Henning or some of the other great guys (I mean it) on this forum have data on this?
Hard to find any data on that, but I see no reason why the Fw 190 wouldn't be just as tough as the P-47. This post is my attempt at a rational comparison:
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/polls/harder-shoot-down-p-47d-fw-190a-14508.html#post386892
Besides firepower, there is also the aspect of target size to take into an account - a larger aircraft will get hit more easily.
Considering that the P-47 and the Fw 190A have the same general proportions, we can approximate their relative target size by comparing the wing areas: 27.9 m^2 vs. 18.3 m^2. This means the Fw 190A will be hit only by roughly 2/3 of the projectiles that will strike the P-47 in a similar situation.
Modified comparison:
1st burst kill ratio against ...
Fw 190A: 17%, P-47D: 50%
2nd burst kill ratio against ...
Fw 190A: 17%, P-47D: 10%
We're at 34% "shot down" for the Fw 190 vs. 60% "shot down" for the P-47 now. (Quite obviously, that's over-simplified
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
Hi Burmese,
>Was Johnson's JUG the lightened version with the 2800 hp R-2800 and only four machine guns, capable of a max 504 mph???
Hm, I've heard various claims for this particular P-47 ... I certainly don't doubt that it was a very fast machine, but the airspeed indicators were subject to instrument errors that most combat pilots were not aware of. Just like the "supersonic dive" stories of the time, this occasionally lead to an overestimation of the actual true air speed, so I wouldn't take the 504 mph figure too literally.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
>Was Johnson's JUG the lightened version with the 2800 hp R-2800 and only four machine guns, capable of a max 504 mph???
Hm, I've heard various claims for this particular P-47 ... I certainly don't doubt that it was a very fast machine, but the airspeed indicators were subject to instrument errors that most combat pilots were not aware of. Just like the "supersonic dive" stories of the time, this occasionally lead to an overestimation of the actual true air speed, so I wouldn't take the 504 mph figure too literally.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
Johnson was flying an early Jug not the lightened version. I am pretty sure it was a razor backed Jug but am certain it was early in the war from a P47 standpoint. He was sent back to the states when he accrued, I think his 26th kill, to raise war bond sales. The impressive thing about Johnson was that he was fighting relatively early, when there were still plenty of well trained LW pilots and most of his kills were single engined fighters. I saw a comparison once between his record and a LW ace, I think it was Moelders, and if Johnson had stayed in action as long as the LW guy, his kills would have been about the same, assuming the kill rate stayed the same. I don't believe that Johnson got many of the "easy kills" of the late war. I have his book but it is packed.
kool kitty89
Senior Master Sergeant
The 500+ mph version was the XP-47J which had 6 (not 4) .50 Brownings and a lightened structure. This was a late war development with a tight engine cowling with cooling fan (like the Fw 190) and the 2800 hp engine. This model didn't enter production. The P-47M was the operational version with the 2800 hp -57C model engine (along with the long range P-47N), this was otherwise a "normal" P-47 in most respects. (though sometime 6x .50's were fitted, iirc the faster firing M3 model, similar on the P-47N)
"Jug" was not short for Juggernaut (an assumption made by the British), but rather to a refrence to the P-47's "milk jug" profile.
Robert S. Johnson was flying a P-47C Thundrbolt at the time of that infamous Fw 190 encounter. Republic XP-47J Thunderbolt
"Jug" was not short for Juggernaut (an assumption made by the British), but rather to a refrence to the P-47's "milk jug" profile.
Robert S. Johnson was flying a P-47C Thundrbolt at the time of that infamous Fw 190 encounter. Republic XP-47J Thunderbolt
Hi Koolkitty,
>"Jug" was not short for Juggernaut (an assumption made by the British), but rather to a refrence to the P-47's "milk jug" profile.
Hm, is it really possible to prove it either way?
Online Etymology Dictionary
"Juggernaut" certainly had been a popular term in Britain at least since the early 1910s, judging from "Flight International":
Flight - Airline Industry news, aviation jobs airline recruitment
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
>"Jug" was not short for Juggernaut (an assumption made by the British), but rather to a refrence to the P-47's "milk jug" profile.
Hm, is it really possible to prove it either way?
Online Etymology Dictionary
"Juggernaut" certainly had been a popular term in Britain at least since the early 1910s, judging from "Flight International":
Flight - Airline Industry news, aviation jobs airline recruitment
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
