"Why the P-47 Thunderbolt, a World War II Beast of the Airways, Ruled the Skies" Smithsonian Magazine (1 Viewer)

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

I have just found this thread.

In tests in '42 and '43, it was found that the Fw-190 was superior to the P-47 below 15,000ft, and that the P-47 was superior above 20,000ft. Let's put American troops ashore in France in early 1943. The Fw-190s bomb and strafe the hell out of them, and the P-47s are sent to intercept. Combat take place in conditions that suit the Fw-190.

Sending Fw 190s against the Allied forces above NW France is just what Allies want. Suddenly, values of Spitfires and Typhoons skyrocket as their short range is of no concern anymore.
 
Last edited:
I'm just revisiting this thread today, and reading the comment I posted at the beginning of it.
I obviously (obvious to me) made one BIG glaring error in my original wording.
But I posted it, so I take responsibility for it.

I said "I posted this P47/B17 comparison on another forum",
when in fact I should have said "I found it on another forum/copied it from another forum".
Sorry, a simple word flub.

I remember coming across this comparison, but it's been years, and I don't remember exactly where.
I visited dozens of sites gathering P47 information.
I guess I would have found it while doing research for one of the P47 kits I have published.

Not only did I not write this this, (although I think I did amend some of the comments),
but I never data checked any of it at the time.
So whatever "facts" are incorrect, are completely on me.

I did actually say "it was not entirely correct and only meant as a fun comparison".
But many of you have taken it very seriously and scolded me for posting it.
lol its too funny how people constantly argue the merits of one WW2 vehicle over another. Its a never ending argument.
Which is probably why I saved it in the first place. (I like to rock the boat).


Yes, I'm a huge fan of the P-47, so any chance to poke jabs at B-17s is in my interest.
Personally, I think the B-24 outweighs and outpunches the B-17 in so many ways, but never gets the credit.

In fact, I think the Lancaster outclasses them all and is the supreme bomber of WW2.
Chew on that.

Oh wait, this is a P-47 thread...never mind.

I don't offer a model of a B-17, but this is one of my P-47 paper kits:


View: https://youtu.be/lDnD_M25BXM?si=sP7aLNHGGfEAVoU8
 
Flying high where there was no enemy in WW2 and in sorties of up to 800 bombers?
That doesn't compare to the danger and losses incurred by the Lancasters over Europe.

While I agree, the B-29 was more modern and higher tech, it served a different purpose and existed under different conditions.
The Lancaster is still considered the top dog if we're talking about precision and area night-time area bombing, flying through flak,
with a higher payload capacity than the B-29, and carrying more specialized bombs, like the 22000lb Grand Slam (don't bring the nuke into this).

Plus "dam-busters".
Plus "prettier".
Plus "dambusters - the movie"
Plus top dog for three years of WW2, B-29 only 1 year.

I've stood under two Lancasters (and been inside one).
I've stood under two B-29s.
Both give me chills.

And I don't care what anyone says, the B-24 is the clear winner when it comes to USAF bombers of WW2.

Yeah yeah, I'm just having fun. I know, B-24s, B-25s, B-17s, Lancs, B-29s, all had their purpose and importance, and all suffered way too many losses. Including crew.
 
Wait a minute…

IMG_7208.jpeg
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back