WWII Fighter Combat Statistics

[tommayer]

The problem with watching a video, is that you're listening to someone's opinion.

Reading books from the source may not be as entertaining, but far will be far more accurate.

Disagree strongly. Just as easy to lie or shade truth or make silly pronouncements, unfounded opinion, in a book as in a video. Greg, the subject of this debate, seems to me hold strong opinions but to base them on original source material, as much as possible. That's the way good academic historians are supposed to do it. Whether mode of presentation is written or video has nothing to do with the validity of either opinion or research.

 

[tomo pauk]

Disagree strongly. Just as easy to lie or shade truth or make silly pronouncements, unfounded opinion, in a book as in a video. Greg, the subject of this debate, seems to me hold strong opinions but to base them on original source material, as much as possible. That's the way good academic historians are supposed to do it. Whether mode of presentation is written or video has nothing to do with the validity of either opinion or research.

Greg made a lot of good and very good videos. He is well above the average content creator on Youtube, IMO.
Unfortunately, the only feedback Greg accepts is praise of his work. Unlike for example Calum Douglas, who has no problems of assessing other people's remarks on his work and accordingly make changes if that is needed.

Expressing one's opinions on videos makes it far easier today for other people to criticize or praise, than it is the case with making assessments of a books that require a lot of money to start the ball rolling. It is not like that there are no mistakes, oversights of biases in the books, either.

 

[drgondog]

Agree that Greg accepts his own POV - I recently took him to task in his FW190D vs P-51D comparisons because he based his 190D performance only on published Performance Calcs and one published flight test - both without ETC 501 c/l rack. He did use published flight test data for the P-51B on Spitfireperformance.com using 150/130 octane fuel with racks. I pointed out that the D racks had half to drag and connected him to the D-15 report of June 1945 with D racks.

His response was that he had never seen an image of a 190D with ETC rack, so I sent 10. No response.

I made some suggestions to Douglas and pointed him to the sources - and he thanked me.

 

[drgondog]

Disagree strongly. Just as easy to lie or shade truth or make silly pronouncements, unfounded opinion, in a book as in a video. Greg, the subject of this debate, seems to me hold strong opinions but to base them on original source material, as much as possible. That's the way good academic historians are supposed to do it. Whether mode of presentation is written or video has nothing to do with the validity of either opinion or research.

While I agree your primary point, in the case of Greg, his sources are selective (in my experience). In particular, his video bovine fecal matter thesis that the 'bomber mafia' witheld combat tanks from P-47s in ETO was slander. Further, he went on to base the thesis on ridiculous 'range calculations' to 'prove that P-47 could have escorted all the way to Regensburg on August 17th.

That said - Overall, I have watched about six of his presentations and in general consider several to be good.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

Robert S Johnson in an interview and Greg both point out that the P-47 had decimated the highly experienced Luftwaffe pilots by the time the P-51 arrived on scene in significant numbers. This and the total losses were the primary reason that the Luftwaffe was powerless to interfere with the D-Day landings. Johnson pointed out that many of the P-51 victories were over low time pilots with little or no combat experience.

I have pointed this out before but will do so again. Before the arrival of the Merlin P-51 the P-47 had accomplished virtually nothing. According to the Statistical Digest the ETO fighter claims amounted to 451 to the end of 1943. Of these the P-47 contributed 414 with the rest divided among Spitfires, P-38s and P-51s. Note that up to the end of 1943 the P-47 was only serving in the ETO. To put this into persecutive the Luftwaffe had lost ~22,000 aircraft to operational causes up to the end of 1943. If you give the P-47 the benefit of the doubt and assume the claims are actual kills (I typically discount fighter claims at a ratio of 2:1) this places the P-47 contribution at a minuscule 2 percent. If any American fighter deserves credit for doing the "heavy lifting" it is the P40 and of course at lot of that was in RAF and Commonwealth AF service. The distruction of the Luftwaffe was a long drawn-out war of attrition starting with the Battle of France. I personally find these attempts to credit one aircraft (or air force) to be tiresome.

 

[SaparotRob]

As long as Greg is being discussed, has anyone seen his video on the Wright Brothers? He made a video responding to other YouTubers making a claim that the Wright weren't the first.
He disagreed.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

P-40 sure looks a lot better than the popular opinion would lead you to believe...

 

[GrauGeist]

As long as Greg is being discussed, has anyone seen his video on the Wright Brothers? He made a video responding to other YouTubers making a claim that the Wright weren't the first.
He disagreed.

The Wrights did make the first powered flight.

The claims by Dumont and Whitehead are full of more holes than a screen door.

 

[SaparotRob]

There's one (of many) great line he has that's something like:
"Look at this thing. Do you think it could fly?"
Yes , we are looking at it in hindsight. Which is precisely why anyone today could look at that thing and say "no".

 

[GrauGeist]

If you read the accounts of Whitehead's flights, he was supposedly floating all over the place like some magic entity - and yet, none of his designa or aircraft survive.

Dumont was said to have taken off under his own power and done all sorts of things with his aircraft that would have been difficult at the time for even a WWI fighter.

But then again, there's always going to be a certain fringe element that challenges any "first".

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

I think the stats in the OP are correct, at least for the aircraft I have unit histories for. I've actually seen these numbers before.

Two things which I think would be interesting to see, would be to add Commonwealth claims for these types, and also show the numbers of aircraft that made it to combat units in active Theaters.

It would be nice to get the Soviet numbers by type as well but that door has probably closed for another generation.

 

[Barrett]

Before the arrival of the Merlin P-51 the P-47 had accomplished virtually nothing. According to the Statistical Digest the ETO fighter claims amounted to 451 to the end of 1943. Of these the P-47 contributed 414 with the rest divided among Spitfires, P-38s and P-51s. Note that up to the end of 1943 the P-47 was only serving in the ETO.

Not to dispute the broader topic, but the 348th FG began operations at New Guinea in June 1943 (Neel Kearby etc)
The 325th in Italy converted from P-40s in October 43. Probably there were others.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

I think most of the 5 P-40 FG in the MTO converted to P-47s in late 1943 and in early 1944, the last probably being the 79th FG in Spring of 1944, but then rather quickly some units started converting to P-51 after that. Usually they had multiple types in operation in different squadrons at the same time.

 

[GregP]

I am reminded that the P-38 got to Europe with 4 basic flaws:

1) The early Allison had some intake issues that took about 7 - 9 months to fix.
2) The early gasoline the P-38s were using was not the same as the engine was jetted for at the factory. Again, this got fixed, but it took awhile,
3) The cockpit heater was extremely weak for the cold in Europe. A simple electfric heater fixed that.
4) The early crews had little to no actual combat experience, and were basically flying into engagements before the aircraft was configured for combat. Again, time fixed this.

The early P-47s likewise had some issues:

1) The early pencil propeller made it a terrible cimber. It wasn't until early 1944 that the Curtiss paddle-bladed propeller changed the character of the aircraft. By then. the P-51s were firmly established in the ETO. Similar to the P-38 problems in that once the P-51 was there, fixing the issue likely didn't change the mission assignments unless there was some compelling reason to do so.
2) The early turtledeck units were not the best for rearward visibility. It wasn't until the P-47D-25-RE that the bubble canopy was incorporated. They never made another turtledeck unit after that.
3) It wasn't widely publicized, but the P-47 could suffer from the same critical Mach issues the P-38 did. It wasn't until 1944 that the P-47 got Mach dive brakes. Yanks Air Museum has a P-47D with the WWII-issue dive brakes on it. Our P-38 also has the dive brakes installed. These went a long way to changing the likelihood of a pilot diving steeply after an opponent.

So, I wouldn't be too hard on the early P-47s that went over there. Saying they did almost nothing through 1943, when they actually contributed 414 of 451 claims is a bit disingenuous. It actually means that the P-47 contributed 91.8% of the claims. Does that mean all the other fighters were dogs and not worthy of mention? I don't think so. It rather means we were getting our collective feet wet in actual combat and it took some time to develop the skills and tactics to be successful at it. If I recall, the the Brits went into the war flying the Vic combat formation and it took some time for them to convert to the finger four formation with wingmen for each element leader. They learned that from the Germans, who developed it in Spain, unless I misremember.

Do the P-47 units get less forbearance in developing successful tactics? They did good work with what they had to work with, and developed the aircraft into a good weapon system as the war went on. But, as we see, it didn't happen overnight.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

The other main factor that I think gets left out of the discussion with the P-47 is that so many of them were being used down low, as fighter bombers etc. which they weren't actually designed for and weren't optimally configured for. That is a lot of airplane to be pushing around in that thick air near sea level. It was tough but it also made a big target for AAA.

It was still fast enough even down low to still keep it quite competitive with most enemy aircraft, but considering the problems with climb and that it wasn't the best turning plane, that made it far less of a beast compared to Luftwaffe fighters especially, than it was up high where it was designed to fight.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

I think the issue with P-38s was in part that many of the pilots weren't fully trained on twin engine flight operations.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

Before the arrival of the Merlin P-51 the P-47 had accomplished virtually nothing. According to the Statistical Digest the ETO fighter claims amounted to 451 to the end of 1943. Of these the P-47 contributed 414 with the rest divided among Spitfires, P-38s and P-51s. Note that up to the end of 1943 the P-47 was only serving in the ETO.

Not to dispute the broader topic, but the 348th FG began operations at New Guinea in June 1943 (Neel Kearby etc)
The 325th in Italy converted from P-40s in October 43. Probably there were others.

The 325th FG made its first claim on December 30th, 1943, so technically yes. The 57th FG had started conversion as well and actually made 2 claims on December 16th according to Jerry Scutts in P-47 Thunderbolt Aces of the Nineth and Fifteenth Air Forces. I was debating whether to confess this earlier, but you forced my hand! It doesn't materially affect my thesis, but any facts should not be ignored.
The other interesting thing about the P-47 is that the 56th FG was the only P-47 group to have success comparable to the highest scoring P-38 and P-51 fighter groups.
The figures I have found show the 56th with 664 claims, the 348th that you mentioned with 283, the 78th with 252, the 328th with 206 and the 325th with 154. The rest were below 130. I think Zemke's leadership had a lot to do with the 56ths success.

 

[drgondog]

I am reminded that the P-38 got to Europe with 4 basic flaws:

1) The early Allison had some intake issues that took about 7 - 9 months to fix.

Actually the changes to intake/Intercooling to J model created issues in overcooling the oil, but the primary issues were operational procedures to a.) cruise settings, an b.) ramping up RPM and Boost from those cruise settings. Air Tecnical Service screwed that one u. Lockheed and Allison knew what the problem was.

2) The early gasoline the P-38s were using was not the same as the engine was jetted for at the factory. Again, this got fixed, but it took awhile,
3) The cockpit heater was extremely weak for the cold in Europe. A simple electfric heater fixed that.

The addition of a second generator largely solved the cockpit heating problem -

4) The early crews had little to no actual combat experience, and were basically flying into engagements before the aircraft was configured for combat. Again, time fixed this.

The P-38H didn't have the same problems as the new J with re-design of cooling scheme - but the high altitude stress on cockpit and the incorrect cruise philosophy still blew up turbo and engines when going from low RPM and boost to High.

The early P-47s likewise had some issues:

1) The early pencil propeller made it a terrible cimber. It wasn't until early 1944 that the Curtiss paddle-bladed propeller changed the character of the aircraft. By then. the P-51s were firmly established in the ETO. Similar to the P-38 problems in that once the P-51 was there, fixing the issue likely didn't change the mission assignments unless there was some compelling reason to do so.

The early C/Ds were plagued with radio issues, no wing rack/plumbing, no water injection as primary issues. The internal wing modifications to provided structure for pylons, and internal plumbing from pylon to aux tank were long and labor intensive before the -15/-16s arrived in spring 1944. But the root cause was lack of internal fuel tankage necessary for R-2800 engined airframe to go long. Not solved until the D-25, then the P-47N.

2) The early turtledeck units were not the best for rearward visibility. It wasn't until the P-47D-25-RE that the bubble canopy was incorporated. They never made another turtledeck unit after that.
3) It wasn't widely publicized, but the P-47 could suffer from the same critical Mach issues the P-38 did. It wasn't until 1944 that the P-47 got Mach dive brakes. Yanks Air Museum has a P-47D with the WWII-issue dive brakes on it. Our P-38 also has the dive brakes installed. These went a long way to changing the likelihood of a pilot diving steeply after an opponent.

So, I wouldn't be too hard on the early P-47s that went over there. Saying they did almost nothing through 1943, when they actually contributed 414 of 451 claims is a bit disingenuous. It actually means that the P-47 contributed 91.8% of the claims. Does that mean all the other fighters were dogs and not worthy of mention? I don't think so. It rather means we were getting our collective feet wet in actual combat and it took some time to develop the skills and tactics to be successful at it. If I recall, the the Brits went into the war flying the Vic combat formation and it took some time for them to convert to the finger four formation with wingmen for each element leader. They learned that from the Germans, who developed it in Spain, unless I misremember.

Yes, but... Before December 1, 1943 there only existed One P-38 FG operational for 6 weeks, No P-51B operations, Seven P-47 FGs. The 4th, 56th 78th were operational eight months, 353rd four months, 352nd and 355th for three months. To me the more intersting number is for the month of December 1943. At that time 8 P-47 FGs were operational, One totally inexperienced P-51B group and One+ P-38 FG (20th began December 28). The victory credits were 78, 9 and 5 respectively for P-47 then P-51 and P-38.

In January 143, 43 and 32; In February 233, 89.5 32.5 and in March 175, 251 and 25. At end of March the 354th, 3554th, 4th and 357th FG were flying P-51B. The 56th, 78th, 352nd, 353rd, 356th, 359th, 362st FG were flying P-47s.

The April Victory Credits for the three P-38 and seven P-47 (352nd converted to Mustang) dropped precipitously with 23 and 82, while the P-51 totals for April went up 50% to 329.

P-51 vs P-47 = 329 to 82. 4X the impact with 0.5X the force.
P-51 vs P-38 = 329 to 23. 15X the impact with 1.4 X the force.

Then progressively lopsided for the rest of the war

Do the P-47 units get less forbearance in developing successful tactics? They did good work with what they had to work with, and developed the aircraft into a good weapon system as the war went on. But, as we see, it didn't happen overnight.

It performed very well for a high altitude interceptor converted to Mid range escort and fighter bomber. The Mustang performed well for a medium altitude Pusuit to Jack of all trades, including the most difficut - fight on equal terms or better over adversary's capital, at hgh or low altitude. .

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

The second generator for the P-38 came out with the J?

 

[Reluctant Poster]

The addition of a second generator largely solved the cockpit heating problem -

As I posted previously the cockpit heating was improved by using both engines to provide cockpit heat. Originally the starboard engine heated the cockpit while the port engine heated the armament or cameras. The intensifier tubes were enlarged as well. A plugin was also added for a heated flying suit.

I would like to also add that cockpit heating is a category thet the P-39 actually wins.