Which was harder to shoot down, a P-47D or a FW 190A?

Which plane was the hardest to shoot down?

  • Total voters
    92

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

I'm not sure if the misconception came from the British, but I'm almost positive the origin og the "Jug" nickname came from its shape.

Something else interesting is that, unlike many USAAF fighters the P-47 derived its name (Thunderbolt) from the US manufacturer rather than from the British (ie Buffalo, Warhawk, Lightning, Mustang). The only other operational USAAF fighter to have that was the Airacobra.
 
renrich said:
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
Click to expand...

Johnson's interview:
"My crew sanded every joint smooth, and waxed it to a high gloss. Factory technical reps showed my crew chief, Pappy Gould, how to adjust the wastegates to keep the boost pressure higher than normal. My D-5, which I named Lucky, had water injection. I never used the water injection in combat. I didn't need it. From time to time I'd switch it on, push the throttle up to 72" of manifold pressure and the head rest would smack me from behind. I would let her run for a few minutes just for the fun of it."

He estimated his speed as a little over 300 indicated at 32,000 feet. That would make 490+ mph TAS using the simple formula TAS=IAS*(1+0.02*MSL/1000).
I think he remembered his altitude incorrectly though.
 
The title of this thread is about which AC is harder to shoot down, not which would win over the other. We are talking about shootdowns from flak, small arms fire, bomber defensive fire and damage during ACM. I would still go with the JUG. At the fighter conference, Jug was voted best armor and the R2800 was noted for it's resistance to battle damage.
 
Hi Renrich,

>We are talking about shootdowns from flak, small arms fire, bomber defensive fire and damage during ACM.

Well, the professionals divide threats to survivability into susceptibility and vulnerability issues.

Being a substantially target does increase the susceptibility of the P-47, so it obviously needs decreased vulnerability to achieve the same survivability as the smaller Fw 190.

With regard to the fighter conference, the rating methods were not exactly scientific, and I don't think the pilots present there had the opportunity to vote for the Fw 190

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
 
My source shows the armor for an FW190A8 to be the armored windshield and armor behind the pilot and an armored cowling ring in front of the oil cooler for the engine. No armor for the fuel tanks. The P47 had the windshield armor, the pilot seat armor and armor running from the top of the main fuel tank back to the windshield. The two oil coolers were located underneath and slightly behind the engine. There are many anecdotes about how rugged the Jug was and how strong the air frame was. Haven't heard the same about the FW. If the Jug air frame was as strong as that of the Corsair and Hellcat, then it was strong indeed. If small size is an advantage, determining how likely one is to be shot down, then the late model A6Ms with some armor and ss tanks should have been almost invulnerable.
 
The Fw had no turbocharger pipes running through its fuselage and had the advantages of the Schalenbauweise. But yeah when it comes to absorbing damage, the P-47 might take more damage. But the Fw was a much smaller target and more agile, so all in all, it's a tie imo.
 
Hi Renrich,

>There are many anecdotes about how rugged the Jug was and how strong the air frame was. Haven't heard the same about the FW.

Anecdotes don't prove anything. However, I'm surprised that you're unaware of the the Fw 190's excellent reputation for ruggedness, which I'm sure was what inspired Soundbreaker Welch to open this thread in the first place.

>If small size is an advantage, determining how likely one is to be shot down, then the late model A6Ms with some armor and ss tanks should have been almost invulnerable.

In fact, the A6M was not a particular small fighter - with 21.4 m^2 wing aera, it's quite a bit bigger than the Fw 190.

Other than that, it's (painfully) obvious that smaller size is an advantage as long as everything else stays the same.

Changing too much of "everything else" can lead to nonsense conclusions, of course ... beware of that.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
 
The A6M was roughly the same size as the FW190, both being relatively small fighters, especially compared to the fighters the Zeke competed against, the F6F, F4U and P38 but that did not seem to be an advantage for it. Is it possible that the small fighters with vital equipment squeezed into a smaller volume were more likely to be badly damaged when they took hits. I am not aware of a reputation for ruggedness for the FW other than the radial engine which equipped the earlier models was less susceptible to battle damage than the liquid cooled engines. Is it possible that I remember a thread where someone on this forum argued that the radial engine was just as susceptible to battle damage as a liquid cooled engine was? The ratio of losses versus sorties of the P47 was the lowest of any other widely used US fighters in the ETO. 423,435 sorties with 3077 losses. During the late war that would include very many air to ground missions where one could assume most of the missions included being shot at. Until someone shows me the loss ratios of the FW are better, I will stick with the Jug, large size and all.
 
Hi Renrich,

>Is it possible that I remember a thread where someone on this forum argued that the radial engine was just as susceptible to battle damage as a liquid cooled engine was?

You come into this with an admonishement to stay on topic, immediately switch to the off-topic A6M, then make two apples and orange comparisons in succession - and now you bring in a completely different topic in a clear flamebaiting attempt.

One more post like that, and you're on my ignore list.

Kind regards,

Henning (HoHun)
 
I agree that anecdotes don't prove much but anecdotes add to the reputation of an AC or whatever. An example is the B17 which had imnumerable anecdotes with pictures which told about it's ruggedness. I can't prove that the B17 was more rugged than the Condor or Liberator but it would certainly seem to be more survivable. Other AC with rugged reputations were the Wildcat, Hellcat, Corsair, Wellington and the one that seems to have the most exalted reputation for ruggedness of all fighters, the Jug. I am not aware of the FW190 having a similar reputation but my command of German is limited so I have perhaps missed reading accounts of how rugged it was.
 
one thing about the p-47D when I fly them in aces high and I know that this isn't the same but when I went up against 5 190s being used by pretty damn good pilots I shot them all down only loseing my rear landing gear and a gun and thats it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

M
  • Poll
Which one is overall better between Ta-152H and P-47M/N?
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
_PabloSniper_
K
  • Poll
P-40F vs P-40M
Replies
1
Views
1K
mjfur
M
A
Best British single engined radial aircraft in WW2?
2
Replies
27
Views
3K
Shortround6
S
  • Poll
AH-4 Apache vs black hawk
2 3 4
Replies
76
Views
7K
Thumpalumpacus
  • Poll
Which was better
Replies
5
Views
1K
Supermarine-SpitfireMkXIV
Menu
Log in
Register