Comments by "TheThirdMan" (@thethirdman225) on "Australian Military Aviation History"
channel.
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@slumzur
"It could with drop-tanks"
Okay.
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Sorry but this will be a long post.
This is a huge topic and not nearly as simple as you might think. There are several considerations and they're not always clear cut.
I will say one thing though: if you got your information from 'Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles', as so many people on YouTube have, then I urge you to reconsider. Greg's research was almost entirely technical, very light on history and basically setup to prove a bugbear of his. It would be hard to consider it impartial.
The problem with the P-47 wasn't drop tanks. It was internal fuel capacity. Drop tanks buy you range, of course, but you use half the fuel getting the other half there. I suspect that is still true today.
But in 1943, The USAAF's main focus was on coastal raids, which presented no problem. Their early raids over Germany did not incur unacceptable losses. As they moved into Germany, they had more mixed success but were still largely ahead. On paper, at least, it looked like bombers could defend themselves.
Of course the raid/s everyone wants to talk about are Schweinfurt and Regensburg. At that time there was no fighter in service that could have done the job of getting to Schweinfurt and back but that ignores one of the fundamental problems, at least with the first raid. The weather. Cloud cover over southern England and the Dutch coast meant that many of the escorts, including British Spitfires, never met up with the bombers and despite what they might have been able to do, they could do nothing to prevent the Luftwaffe's initial onslaught. Drop tanks would have made little-to-no difference to that. The next problem they faced was over the target and no fighter then in service could have done anything about that either, drop tanks or no drop tanks.
So let's have a look at the P-47 for a minute. Whatever else it was, the P-47 was thirsty. It's tanks carried about 370 gallons of internal fuel (the Mustang had about 200) and the centreline tank gave it an extra 108 gallons. That total of 478 gallons gave it enough range to reach the Dutch border. By early 1944, just before 'Big Week' and Operation 250 - the first American raid on Berlin - a small number of P-47s had been re-plumbed for underwing drop tanks, making 576 gallons possible. But this was less than 20% of the fleet and still didn't get them any further than just west of Magdeburg.
The 200 gallon 'Brisbane' tank Greg talks about - the clue is in the name - was not available in significant numbers and wouldn't have made a lot of difference if it had been, Three external tanks would have been a ridiculous drag penalty*. There were never more than 3,000 made and they were constructed in the Ford factory, in Brisbane, Australia. The only other tank was a hemispherical 200 gallon ferry tank which was unsuitable for combat. The claims in some quarters that Republic was told not to build drop tanks for the P-47 are ridiculous. If mechanics in the Pacific could design tank and get Ford, Australia to build it without getting approval then that claim can be consigned to the dustbin. I have my doubts that it is even true.
A major part of the problem was that Republic took its sweet time about making the plumbing changes a line modification and all those P-47s that flew in 'Big Week' were modified in the field by cutting metal. Hardly an ideal state of affairs. They hadn't done much to increase the internal capacity either and the P-47N arrived too late to have any effect. It is not a factor in this debate, in part because it was intended for the Pacific campaign. By then, the P-51 had largely replaced the P-47 in Europe.
The curious aspect of all this is that the USAAF high command were unaware of the potential of the P-51 and apparently, even less aware that Merlin-powered Mustangs had been rolling off the production lines for a considerable part of 1943. By summer, there were more than 1,300 of them and more than half were Merlin-powered. But communications were nothing like they are today, especially across the Atlantic and the depth and sophistication of the US industrial base - America's and the Allies' greatest asset - meant that it was not always clear what was going on.
Hap Arnold wrote a memo to his deputy Lt Gen Barney Giles and gave him six months to have a workable solution, without knowing that it was already underway. Part of the problem was that this was being handled by a civilian, a Mr Robert A. Lovett, who was then Assistant Secretary of State for War. He had apparently told Arnold of the P-51's range potential but Arnold had either forgotten or filed the information somewhere while got on with the war.
The idea that hundreds of American lives were sacrificed because of bullheaded 'doctrine' - a term so loaded we might as well call it 'communism' - is nonsense. It also doesn't prove that there was a campaign against the P-47. After all, they might have got away with Schweinfurt. But in cold analysis, it had to be attacked and the only available force was what they had. The raid couldn't wait for more of this or more of that.
Even by the time of Mission 250, the P-47 couldn't get to Berlin.
I'm happy to provide any references if you want to look them up.
*If the 200 gallon 'Brisbane' tank had been on the centreline pylon and another 108 gallons under each wing, that would have basically equaled the total amount of fuel the P-51 carried, including external tanks, that got it to Berlin and back. 416 gallons of external fuel for the P-47 versus 417 gallons total for the P-51. And that's before we start counting the P-47's internal fuel.
3
-
"For the record, Zeros slaughtered Mk 8 Spitfires at first over Australia, Mk 1 Spitfires wouldn't have been a problem during the BOB."
No, that isn't true. For a start, the Zeros mostly fought against Mk VC Trop models over Northern Australia. They saw very few combats against the Mk VIII.
The introduction of the Spitfire into Australian service was necessary because the fighters we are using - the Kittyhawk and the Buffalo - could not compete with the Zero at altitude. In fact, the Buffalo was no competition for the Zero at all. Bu the biggest thing about the Spitfire was the propaganda value. Some of this was just contemporary racism but most of it was the glamour of the Spit, whose reputation had followed it everywhere it went after the Battle of Britain.
Secondly, I would argue that the contest was a lot closer and the exchange rate was about 1:1. The best source, by far, on this is 'Darwin Spitfires', by Anthony Cooper. It describes virtually all the combats that happened between the RAAF and the Japanese Navy and army (there was only one Army raid). While the RAAF ultimately made further incursions unprofitable for the Japanese, it was no thanks to the Spitfire, which was very unreliable suffering cannon stoppages and - worse - constant speed unit failures. There was really only one example of a Japanese fighter that kind of stereotypically folded up. That was a Ki-43, shot down by Flt Lt Tim Goldsmith in the only Army raid.
The RAAF also used outdated and frankly, foolish 'big wing' tactics, with which the RAF were also saddled after the political fallout of the Battle of Britain.
That said, there is little doubt that the Zeros gave the RAAF a hard time. Even at the end of 1943, Japanese pilots were still extremely well disciplined and deployed excellent tactics, like attacking out of the sun. Furthermore, the Zero was employed in a role that most would find surprising: high altitude. The bombers frequently came over at 25,000 feet and their escorts at least 3,000 feet higher. Their combat formation flying was exemplary, despite the lack of radios.
I strongly recommend you read 'Darwin Spitfires'.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
By the way, here's a bunch of other Hub Zemke quotes:
"The P-51 Mustang was the best fighter we ever had...It was the best fighter for the job."
"The Mustang was the best fighter anyone had ever designed."
“The Cadillac of the sky.”
'Well, we had P-47s that couldn’t go as far. P-51s could go much, much farther. I
requested one time for P-51s. And I was sent to the United States, and during my
absence, a man who became a general, a West Pointer, took my organization over and
was influenced to take these P-47s back. Therefore, when I came back to the unit, it was
determined in the program they’d keep them. The airplane that was really the combat
airplane was the P-51. I know it is. I later transferred—I don’t know whether you knew
this to another organization I was going to pick up organizations that were the lowest guys
on the tote board, bring their morale up—and it worked well—to an organization that was
getting P-51s. And they got them. They came right along the line. Good little
organization. Sure, you’ve got to have—you got to have a Ferrari if you want to win the
Grand Prix, don’t you?'
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
If anyone wants a real picture of what this was like, I recommend reading, 'Darwin Spitfires', by Anthony Cooper. It was remarkable how ineffective the Spitfires were, in no small part due to spectacular levels of unreliability and wing adherence to the 'big wing' policies of the RAF. The Zeros attacked out of the sun more often than the Spitfires did and the Japanese used much more effective three aircraft formations. They were highly disciplined and gave the Spitfires a very hard time. Ultimately, while it was assumed that there would be no contest, the two types achieved close to parity.
Much has been made of things like dogfighting, turn radius, top speeds and all that other guff but in fact, most combats were decided in the usual way: the victims rarely saw their attackers.
On that basis, I'd say the Zero was every bit as good as the 109 in combat and there's no difference you can put a postage stamp on, much less live on.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"But it drank alot of fuel at max boost."
The P-51 was 30% more fuel efficient than the P-47.
The P-47 could not have done the job in time. It was an older design and very much heavier, which had a direct impact on range performance. Until the arrival of the P-51, the USAAF couldn't raid Berlin. If you want to know more about this, read 'Big Week', by James Holland and 'Target Berlin', by Jeffrey Ethel and Dr Alfred Price. The latter book outlines the entire escort plan from take off to landing. It makes for very interesting reading. The only aircraft that could support the bombers over Berlin was the P-51.
Its efficiency was the result of a number of factors, the much-vaunted 'laminar flow wing' being only one of them. The radiator used the so-called Meredith Effect which had a significant effect on thrust, probably worth a couple of hundred horsepower. But the one thing that always gets overlook is the wing profile. The P-47 was a much more conventional profile with the point of maximum thickness at 30% chord. The P-51 wing had the point of maximum thickness at 38.9% chord. This doesn't sound like much until you start considering compressibility.
The further aft the shockwave develops, the less effect it has on the controllability of the aircraft and the lower the drag. So even though the Mustang wing was 16%, compared to 11% for the P-47, it was much more efficient.
This was also one of the major reasons the P-47 had a lowish tactical Mach number and suffered high speed control problems. Yes, they were largely corrected with some kind of dive flap but that's hardly an ideal solution because it's aerodynamically inefficient and adds weight and complexity. The Mustang had its own set of handling problems, mostly related to fuel distribution but it was seen by most pilots on both sides as the better combat aircraft.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@steveperreira5850
"Air cooled engine aircraft had way higher survivability, hence the P 47 aces surviving the war, and many of the too P51 aces were killed!"
Impossible to sheet home to any single cause. Non-starter.
"Plenty easy for mustang pilot rack up high scores in the latter year of the war facing mostly inexperienced German pilots, by then the P 47‘s were not doing long range escort, and they didn’t get so much of the turkey shoot."
Most Germans in 1943 were not fighting in Europe. The Eastern and Mediterranean theatres kept a lot of top pilots busy until it became obvious that daylight bombing was becoming the primary threat from the air. That really only started when the P-51 made all of Germany reachable by an escorted force.
"Nobody, nobody wants to go to war in a liquid called engine aircraft yes they are going to get fired on my ground fire and they are going to fly low."
Nonsense. Read 'Typhoon Warfare,' by Tom Hall. There were so many other hazards in ground attack missions, a hit in the cooling system represented a relatively small risk. You'd be more worried about a 37mm than a single hit through the radiator. You'd be more worried about misjudging height than anything else.
"I’ll try to sum it up with on positive note … The P 51 Mustang is the greatest fighter plane ever as long as no one is shooting at you and nobody is sneak attacking you. Too bad that isn’t reality."
Reality, as you so presumptuously call it, can probably best be defined by the German perspective. The pilot reports, their memoirs, the RLM records and frankly, the combat records, all talk of two types that gave them the biggest headaches: the British Mosquito and the P-51. They say it over and over again. They don't talk much about the P-47. Read Galland's book, 'The First and the Last'. Despite losing his brother 'Wutz' to a P-47 flown by Walker 'Bud' Mahurin, Galland doesn't say much about the Thunderbolt. There was an interview with German Experte Werner Schroer (114 victories) on 'The World at War' in which he described the arrival of the P-51. 'We had nothing of the same effort', he said. 'They really frightened us quite a bit'.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@richardmontana5864
"The P-47's combat loss per sortie was much lower than the P-51 and the P-38. Yet it flew more missions than both of those combined."
And the P-51 scored at more than twice the rate. It also scored 30% more ground kills when the Flak was thick enough you could walk on it.
Again, in literally half the number of missions. And its combat exchange rate was much better than the P-47.
P-47 Thunderbolt:
Sorties: 423,435
Combat Losses: 3,077
Air Kills: 3,082
Ground Kills: 3,202
Total: 6,284
Loss % per sortie: 0.73%
Combat exchange rate: 2.04
P-51 Mustang:
Sorties: 213,873
Combat losses: 2,520
Air Kills: 4,950
Ground Kills: 4,131
Total: 9,081
Loss % per sortie: 1.18%
Combat exchange rate: 3.60
The P-51 was a much better and more effective fighter than the P-47 and opened the way for complete strategic bombing coverage of Germany and, indeed, most of the Third Reich.
2
-
2
-
2