P-51 Mustang vs P-47 Thunderbolt: Best US fighter in Europe?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 21 сен 2023
- Please consider supporting this channel raafdocumentary.com/support/
If you are looking for an aviation themed gift and want to support this channel, check out the Military Shop by using our affiliate link militaryshop.com.au/?ref=AMAHA and you can also use our coupon code AMAHA for a discount!
We are also affiliates with Airfix Models - please use our link prf.hn/l/meNMQn5
____________ Disclaimer ____________
Original footage and recreated scenes may not be 100% accurate to the event being described but has been used for dramatic effect. This is because there may not have been original footage of a particular event available, or copyright prevents us from showing it. Our aim is to be as historically true as we can be given the materials available.
Copyright disclaimer under fair dealing sections ss 40/103C, ss 41/103A,ss 42/103B of the Copyright Act which includes research, study, criticism, review, and reporting of news. Copyright remains with the respective owners. These videos are made for educational purposes only.
The Australian Military Aviation History Association is a not-for-profit association with the intent of recording, preserving and promoting Australian military aviation history. 
Кино
If you missed it, check out our previous comparison video, the F4U Corsair vs F6F Hellcat ruclips.net/video/cHVpuhr2UgA/видео.html
A twist that wasn't so much noted in this Mustang/Thunderbolt comparison is that the Thunderbolt was better at what the Mustang was designed for and the Merlin-licensed Mustang was better at what the Thunderbolt was designed for (which of course worked out fine).
@@bobh1208 And what was the Thunderbolt better than the P51 AT????
@@jacktattis Taking damage (air cooled) and diving away faster than any other prop fighter (survivability, which for some reason pilots like)... and, primarily, ground attack... and, curiously enough, in one late model, (with drop tanks on both), maximum range.
@@bobh1208 I’d suggest there are two kinds of survivability metrics: primary and secondary. Primary survivability would be things about aircraft performance that give you a marked advantage over the enemy. Turn rate, flying characteristics, engine performance at a given altitude, ease of flying, level speed, dive speed and rate of climb.
Examples of secondary survivability might be ability to take hits, protection for the pilot, vulnerability to fire, crash worthiness, ease of escape and how long it stays up when ditched.
When I look at like that, I suspect some of the P-47’s less desirable characteristics - like rate of climb, or lack of it - have been underplayed.
@@bobh1208By the way, the P-47’s much-vaunted dive speed came at the cost of controllability. Some never pulled out. This was the price of an older design. That’s why the P-47 VNE was 500 IAS and the P-51 VNE was 505 IAS. The new wing design on the Mustang was responsible for that.
My grandad flew both in Europe. He said he'd rather go up in a P47.....because of his desire to stay alive. He stayed alive until 1988.
Mustang pilots were statistically about three times more likely to engage in combat than P-47 pilots. It's really just a matter of range.
@@thethirdman225 Haha, Not much of a people person are you? Im sure you convinced this dudes hero Grandfather that he was wrong...Bravo.
The 51 was 3 times as likely to get shot down by groundfire and about 8 times as likely to be brought down by a single bullet to the bottom of the engine according to side by side tests after the war.
USAAF optimal caliber program.
A kindergarten level of research is showing almost everything you say incorrect .
The d25 did have 750 gallons of internal feul according to the pilots manual
47s were escorting to berlin and deepermonths before the d25 and 51s arrived .
The 47 flew 4 times as many operational hours in the first quarter of 44 and twice as many in the second quarter .
So the 51 didnt "ascend "until after dday.
Your "cope" of the 51 dealing with more german flak ignores the entire 9th airforce ,also why does the 47 have a better loss rate than the p40,p38,f4f,f6f,f4u,spitfire and hurricane all thoise planes didnt have to deal with the same level of german flak either but the 47 has the best loss rate of all of them .
Your "survivorship bias " nonsense is not the win you think it is , you saw a meme and now you think you have some trump card .
Survivorship bias was well understood in the second half of the war and easily controlled for ,you post the definition but you still cant see the fault .
Using pilot reports of the damage to both types of aircraft and controlling for survivorship bias statistically by factoring in loss rates makes the effect of the bias negligible.
in fact you're engaging in a type of survivorship bias called publication bias by only posting "facts" that support your claim without posting the whole story .
Half of the ground kills were claimed in a single month...april 1945 . These are abandoned aircraft with no fuel ,ammo or pilots being shot up over and over ,not well defended airfields .
I think you mean well, youre just misinformed.
@@sophiaalexander3149
*_"Haha, Not much of a people person are you? Im sure you convinced this dudes hero Grandfather that he was wrong...Bravo."_*
Yes, let's start with the personal attacks. Always makes for a reasonable conversation. How dare I disagree or even dare comment?
*_"The 51 was 3 times as likely to get shot down by groundfire and about 8 times as likely to be brought down by a single bullet to the bottom of the engine according to side by side tests after the war."_*
And yet, it's not reflected in the stats.
So let's have a look at some individual unit examples. The 355th FG was the most successful unit for ground attack. They lost 41 in air-to-air and 90 in a mix of ground attack and Flak, which are hard to sort out. On the other hand, they destroyed 493 ground targets for a loss of 86 with the P-51 and 8 for 4 with the P-47.
The 78th FG destroyed 152 with the P-47 for a loss of 51, giving a ratio of 3:1. For the P-51, they destroyed 190.5 for 32 lost for a W/L of 5.9.
For 56th FG, there were 320 destroyed for 50 lost - 6.4:1 K/D.
These figures are from historian and author James William Marshall.
78% of 8th Air Force ground kills were by P-51s, while 18% were by P-47s.
The 'one bullet and it's all over' argument is a hoax. Next thing you'll be telling me German riflemen aimed at the radiators! LOL! GA pilots were much more likely to fall victim to 1) enemy aircraft 2) Flak (20mm and above) or 3) collision. That's why it's the most dangerous mission.
*_"A kindergarten level of research is showing almost everything you say incorrect ."_*
And personal attacks are usually a sign of a weak argument. They don't work on me.
*_"The d25 did have 750 gallons of internal feul according to the pilots manual "_*
Totally wrong. The D-25 had an internal capacity of 305 gallons. No P-47 _ever_ carried 750 gallons internally. You tell me what page that was on in the pilot's manual because I don't believe you. If it could have carried that much fuel then it wouldn't even have needed drop tanks at all to get to Berlin and the argument is nonsense. But the USAAF planning makes a nonsense of what you're claiming.
*_"47s were escorting to berlin and deepermonths before the d25 and 51s arrived ."_*
No way. The P-47, when fitted with a 108 gallon drop tank - which is all most of them could carry in early 1944 - could not get past the Dutch border. A small number, maybe 20%, had been re-plumbed to carry drop tanks under the wings. This was a slow process that had to be done in the field by sweating, swearing crews cutting metal to do it. This was because Republic had failed to address Materiel Command's requirements for more internal fuel. Everyone else did it except Republic.
No P-47s went to Berlin until after D-Day. The first major USAAF raid on Berlin was on 6 March, 1944 and on that raid, no P-47 got past Magdeburg. All the escort work over Berlin was done by P-51s. No P-47 could get to Berlin until the late versions, like the -M, with 370 gallons internally. By then it was too late and US fighters based on the continent could already get to Berlin anyway.
*_"The 47 flew 4 times as many operational hours in the first quarter of 44 and twice as many in the second quarter ."_*
That's because there were twice as many of them. In fact, there were eight times as many at the end o 1943. And there were four times as many at the beginning of March. But let's not stop there. When the first P-51 Fighter Group became operational in December, 1943, there were eight P-47 groups and one, soon to be two, P-38 groups. During 'Big Week' the P-47 shot down about 250 German aircraft, while the P-51 got about 50. By March, the P-51 got around 250, compared to about 150 for the P-47. By April, when there were now four FGs operating the Mustang, the P-47 got 82, compared to 329 for the P-51. And it did this with half the number of aircraft. So, in fact, the P-51 was scoring at _eight times the rate_ of the P-47.
*_"So the 51 didnt "ascend "until after dday."_*
Rubbish.
*_"Your "cope" of the 51 dealing with more german flak ignores the entire 9th airforce ,also why does the 47 have a better loss rate than the p40,p38,f4f,f6f,f4u,spitfire and hurricane all thoise planes didnt have to deal with the same level of german flak either but the 47 has the best loss rate of all of them ."_*
You're going to need to provide some specific and/or anecdotal evidence of this. If you go back to the GA figures I gave earlier, the specific squadrons show remarkably similar loss rates. Yet you lump all those other types in as though they were all operating under the same conditions. You even included the F4F, F4U and F6F. Cute. I suppose you hoped I wouldn't notice...? How many F4Fs were flying GA missions over Germany in 1944?
You have totally chosen to ignore the concentration of Flak on German soil as the Wehrmacht contracted into Germany. All pilot memoirs from that era talk about it. And this was what the P-51 had to deal with, while all the others were doing shorter range stuff into Northern France, Holland and Belgium. The P-51, because of its range, went far deeper into German territory than any other type.
*_"Your "survivorship bias " nonsense is not the win you think it is , you saw a meme and now you think you have some trump card ."_*
Before you dismiss it because it doesn't suit your personal prejudices, you should actually find out what survivor bias is because you clearly don't know. You're happy to look at the P-51s that didn't get back and say 'Oh well, that was just a less survivable aircraft' without bothering to find out why. Your unwillingness to consider it suggests it actually _would be_ a trump card if you bothered to research it.
*_"Survivorship bias was well understood in the second half of the war and easily controlled for ,you post the definition but you still cant see the fault ."_*
Oh, ha, ha. Very funny. You reveal how little you understand this by edging to the original narrow definition involving the placement of armour plating. Survivor bias can involve anything from Darwin's Theory of Evolution to company failures. You need to research this.
*_"Using pilot reports of the damage to both types of aircraft and controlling for survivorship bias statistically by factoring in loss rates makes the effect of the bias negligible._*
*_in fact you're engaging in a type of survivorship bias called publication bias by only posting "facts" that support your claim without posting the whole story ."_*
This is a bluff. Show me the breakdown. Come on then, cough up. I don't believe you. You don't have the level of exhaustive information necessary to make that claim. You're bluffing. Come on: give me 'the whole story', as you put it.
*_"Half of the ground kills were claimed in a single month...april 1945 . These are abandoned aircraft with no fuel ,ammo or pilots being shot up over and over ,not well defended airfields ."_*
So what? Show me a reference for this.
*_"I think you mean well, youre just misinformed."_*
References show I'm better informed than you. Anyone who has done enough reading on this knows that there's no 'debate' about which was the better of the two. The P-47, good as it was, wasn't even in the same postcode as the P-51. And this comes from someone who thought the P-47 was _underrated_ and the P-51 _overrated_ until I researched it. The P-51 was just a much better aircraft and that's why the Eighth Air Force happily handed over its P-47 fleet to the Ninth Air Force for Ground Attack duties. The P-51 shot down 60% more German aircraft than the P-47 and destroyed 30% more ground targets in literally half the number of missions. (423,000 v 213,000).
More than any other type - including the Spitfire, which actually shot down more aircraft - it was the P-51 that wrecked the Luftwaffe.
@@sophiaalexander3149 You should do more research.
Instead, you deleted all your replies and ran away! Now _that_ is funny.😂
@thethirdman225 Delete replies ? That was me on my wife's account tiger. I didn't even know I was signed into it until she said something about it . You are not that intimidating for anyone to delete replies for , you give yourself too much credit .
You still don't understand survivorship bias do you ?
It's funny you tell people to do research on it and you don't understand how it works and how to control for it . There's videos on it and books on it .
The one bullet thing is not a myth , read the optimal caliber study. I've already cited this to you once, but you refuse to read it .
You say " destroyed more ground targets but thats not true , what you mean to say is planes on the ground or ground kills as far as ground targets it's he 47 by far, by a landslide .
And citing bill Marshall as a source has already got you proved wrong once , "maybe it was a typo"
You still don't understand loss rates either do you ? You should read a book on statistical analysis.
Citing bills small sample size against the USAAF huge studies and the p51 designer himself is not doing you any favors .
The p51 is overrated and the 47 underrated the p51 is legend or myth , and you keep repeating that legend or myth .
Reading bills book is not research .
Jabbing that you are not much of a people person is not a personal attack , it's just stating a fact, you know it , I know it ,the world knows it . I say meaner things to my closest friends at work every day .
You should do more
At first I thought you were young because of your lack of loss rate understanding , misuse of survivorship bias but it's clear now that you're old and retired.
Remember yesterday when you said " I have known about it for 40 years " ?
I know that was a lie , I know , you know how I know ? Because thats exactly what I used to say when I didn't know lol ,it's what everyone says ...and you djdnt awnser any of my questions .I'm not mad at you though bud , it's okay
You have a lot to respond to so I'm gonna give you a couple days before returning .
I do have a wife , job , youtube channel , home ,dogs that require my attention, too.
You ask for source material, but you know I can't link it . You won't read the material but yo
u demand I present it ...how ?
Bill Marshall disagrees with you on and general kenny and p47s in the pacific , you should really watch the debate or ...or...or ...wait for it ...wait for it ...do more resesrch like read kennys book or the free kenny PDF report Your favorite source got his ass handed to him and directly contradicts you .
Nicely done.
A serious thought for consideration:
The P-47 was in combat a year before the P-51 and had the unenviable task of going up against the Luftwaffe’s best pilots with inexperienced pilots.
A year later, Luftwaffe pilot quality was decreased while American pilots were better experienced when Mustang took over.
The P-47 was complex and expensive, the P-51 much less so.
And, the biggest advantage for me is this:
All top ten Aces who flew P-47’s survived the war. What other plane can boast of that record?
No the Luftwaffe was running out of experienced pilots when the P47 had its first combat April 43 Whereas the Spitfire and Hurricane had been fighting the best the Luftwaffe had from Oct 39
p47 Combat Debut April 43 P51B Dec 43
@@TheAneewAony yes and no. Was it the 56th FG that kept the P-47 for air superiority missions?
Phased out or just shuffled over to IX Tactical Air Command where they supported the allied drive across France and into Germany?
@@TheAneewAony Gee you will not make friends and the 9th Kept them
Allison engine P-51 entered RAF Service January 1942 (delivered from Oct 41)
The first P-47 combat mission took place 10 March 1943
While other squadrons transitioned from P-47s to P-51s, the fighter squadrons of the 56th Fighter Group were the only group that chose to retain their P-47s by preference over the P-51s,
If you read Hub Zemke's version of that, it's rather different from what all the P-47 fanbois say. Zemke had campaigned long and hard for the P-51 and high command agreed. Zemke was then called away and while he was away, the stand in commander was persuaded to accept new Thunderbolts instead. It had nothing to do with all the usual tropes cited by P-47 fanbois.
@@thethirdman225, That’s interesting. I know that Colonel Don Blakeslee, the commanding officer of the 4th Fighter Group, hated the P-47s and he pushed hard and persistently to have the 4th FG re-equipped with the P-51s.
@@SpreadEagled Blakeslee was one of a number of American pilots who cut his combat teeth flying Spitfires with Eagle squadron. He found the P-47 not to his liking, particularly it’s climb performance. I think he also associated his own performance on the Schweinfurt-Regensburg mission with the P-47, even if the aircraft itself was not the problem.
Basically, the story goes that Blakeslee and his 4th Fighter Group were supposed to meet the bombers about the time the crossed the Dutch coast. Unfortunately, the weather had thrown a curve ball and the bombers force found itself in cloud. The group leader elected to fly under the cloud and that put them several thousand feet below the altitude they were expected. As a result, Blakeslee couldn’t find them until the Luftwaffe was already attacking them and one bomber had been shot down.
But, even when you read about Blakeslee’s comments about the P-47, his real reason for wanting the P-51 was its range performance. Both Blakeslee and Zemke had flown all three American types and agreed that the P-51 was the aircraft they needed. Blakeslee famously told high command that the pilots would learn to fly them on the way to the target.
because they knew from experience i expect , the others will have just followed orders and flown into battle unaware how many pilots other planes tended to bring home compared to the 47s
@@rustysphotography They had little to fear. The P-51 was a superlative escort fighter. In a short time it would be outscoring the P-47 by a factor as high as eight to one.
Talk about "wing technolgy". A pilot on a P-47 sortie who had not fired a shot still with his full load of ammo took a large caliber cannon shell coming from the ground and ignited every round in the right wing even blowing the ammo tray doors up and all jagged. Yet,the wing stayed on and he made it back to base with the gear even coming down. Thats the glory of the "Thunderbolt". Unmatched!
What's that got to do with technology?
And a Spitfire XI having its prop and spinner depart got to 0.92 in the dive Bent the wings and glided back 20 miles to base with a profound bent wing. It was back in action next week.
The P-47 is perhaps the most masculine fighter aircraft in history. A huge radial engine with a turbo, heavy armor, and heavy armament, with rugged ground handling offering high flexibility for operational use.
I love both of these aircraft, but while the P-51 is beautiful because of its graceful, attractive lines in the same way an ocean liner (not a cruise liner, mind you) is beautiful, the P-47 is beautiful in the tough, functional way that an oil tanker is also beautiful.
I don't have a preference for either aircraft, just stating that as each one exceeded the other in particular roles, they're also beautiful in different ways.
Ground Handling it was too large too heavy and manoeuvred like a double decker Bus
Masculine like a Sumo wrestler.
During 1943 and early 1944, it was the P-47 that did the work of attrition and grinding down of the Luftwaffe. It was the Thunderbolt that "broke the back" of the Nazi air arm.
The Jug was absolutely NOT an also-ran. It was essential to air victory in the West.
This is straight from 'Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles'. It's simply not true.
The Luftwaffe probably peaked in 1940/41, by which time the RAF and other European air forces had taken a decent toll on the best pilots and it was all down hill from there. On top of that, plenty of German _Experten_ met their maker on the Eastern Front and in the Mediterranean.
The only time the USAAF sent fighters to smash the Luftwaffe in a battle of attrition was during 'Big Week' in February, 1944.
Greg is big on documents and charts and small on history. It doesn't take a lot of research to show he's full of it.
Read Williamson Murray's book, _'Luftwaffe: Strategy for defeat, 1933-1945'._ Murray goes _way_ further into this than Greg's piss and vinegar.
@@thethirdman225 It's not true? OK, it's not true.
@@lookythat2 You sound unconvinced.
Excellent content. You pointed out that the P47 and P51 were not adversaries but, in fact, were allies. Each very good at their job. They were both needed as weapons of war.
The whole comparison thing was a waste of time, the Allies won the war and it does not matter anymore !!!
@@wilburfinnigan2142 Of course it bloody matters For 70 years the US has exaggerated and those became the norm. It is now possible to expose them.
@@wilburfinnigan2142 Wilbur porkies told long enough and loud enough becomes facts You know that you have been doing it for 10 years
Wasn't there an old saying back then that went something like " If you want to impress your girl you fly a Mustang, if you want to live to see her again you fly the Thunderbolt.''
I wouldn't be surprised if that wasn't just another 'Ronsons' saying.
Give me the P-47 Thunderbolt every day of the week. Huge, sexy as hell, armored like a tank with tremendous firepower and more versatile than the Mustang.
And couldn't get to Berlin.
@@thethirdman225 It could with drop-tanks
@@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 RUclips 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.
Ironically, the P-51 was more versatile. It may not have carried the same payload as the P-47 but it was very effective in pretty much any role assigned to it.
@@thethirdman225And did go to Berlin. This is a common misconception...Its also commonly glossed over that in the pacific p47's were flying 6 hr missions. Far further than England to Berlin. Not that that was necessary with airfields in Normandy. And it's conveniently forgotten that the early p51b didn't have the fuel capacity of the p51D so it's really a game of dates not capability. But the 51 could do it far more cost effectively. It was a much cheaper plane and burned far fewer gallons of gas to cover the same distance
Each excelled in their roles, and they're both beautiful!
Congratulations on doing something that appears to be lacking on YT when discussing these two aircraft, being balanced and even handed! My only observation would be that quoting stats for aircraft that, as far as I am aware, did not see combat in the European Theatre i.e. P-51 H and P-47 N muddies the waters somewhat and I would argue is irrelevant to the discussion. Apart from that observation very well done 🙂.
I agree, the late war super props are just too much of a "what if?" for any sort of fair analysis. The P-47N looked to be what the P-47 really was meant to be. But the P-51H, Sea Fury, A-1 Skyraider, F2G, F8F, MB.5, KA-15, Spiteful, and many more would have been interesting to see significant data on in real combat. But it just never happened in WW2.
mark this whole comparison is bull$hit anyway, the Allies were NOT fighting each other they were on the same side killing the same enemy. the war is over 78 years and it doesn't matter !!! !
@@wilburfinnigan2142 those who fail to study history are doomed to repeat it.
I use WW2 aviation history to teach engineering, to design new airplanes, and to learn other lessons that can be applied to future programs.
@@wilburfinnigan2142 But Wilbur there were a few times when the USAAF shot down RAF planes or tried to. And had mock fights with Spitfires which they lost.
@@wilburfinnigan2142 Wilbur it does matter otherwise somewhere down the Track People will have forget about the Hurricane the P40 etc etc
Hub Zemke (commander of 56th) said he flew P-47s, P-38s, & P-51s, and when the altitude got to 30,000 ft or more, which is what Kartvelli designed it for, the Thunderbolt was superior to all of them. Roll-rates were actually very snappy for such a big plane.
56th top F/G of the USAAF with 112 operational planes 664.25 kills was beaten comprehensively by 3 RAF Hurricane Sqns totalling 48 planes that had 759.5 kills So the mighty 56th was beaten by 3 sqns of Hurricanes, that weighed less than half the P47, had 8x.303 and could only do 330mph. AND they fought the Germans at full strength, 3 years before the P47 was there .
@@jacktattis Major difference is the theatre where they were used. Hurricanes were used in the defense of Britain during the Battle of Britain. With the Germans being the attackers, one would expect greater german casualties especially as they have to fly over hostile territory to return. The Germans which fought the P-47s fought over German territory thus quite a few more would have been able to land rather than being shot down.
@@venutenneti7997 Possibly but the figures still stand
And yet Zemke is on record for stating that the P-51 was the superior fighter. He is the Only Group Leader that led the P-47, the P-38 and the P-51D into combat.
a three year head start was a factor perhaps? And FWIIW the tactrical deployment on every mission was essentialy 3 squadrons of 16 each - for all US ETO fighter missions. @@jacktattis
I would choose the P47 every time, more reliable machine
The air cooled radial had one advantage, dependable, no radiator to lose coolant! But it was huge!
Me too, P-47 every time!
@johnossendorf9979 it's the classic Ford vs Chevy! How many times can you shoot 400hp shot before it shits it self?!!
@johnossendorf9979 how many hits could it take?
The p47 I'm sure had more time to get them working better and optimized and improved
This was a very good comparison video, accurately showcasing the strengths and weaknesses of each aircraft. That the nod goes to the Mustang is understandable and correct. I always liked what Chief Naval Test Pilot and C.O. Captured Enemy Aircraft Flight Capt. Eric Brown, RN, said about the Mustang calling it easily the best American dogfighter though tricky to fly. When comparing it with the Spitfire, Capt. Brown said: "I would say the plusses to the Spitfire and the Mustang just about equate. If I were in a dogfight, I'd prefer to be flying the Spitfire. The problem was I wouldn't like to be in a dogfight near Berlin, because I could never get home to Britain in a Spitfire!"
In the first 3 months of operations, the Mustang shot down 3 times as many planes as the P-47, at a time when P-47s had a numerical advantage over P-51s. A large part of this was how the P-51s were used in fighter sweeps to directly attack the Luftwaffe in 1944. It was the P-51 that broke the Luftwaffe's back. The P-47 was a great aircraft and I like how the video correctly points out that Korean War pilots kept asking for the P-47 (then reclassified as the F-47) be brought over for ground support missions but were denied. The P-47 played an important role in grinding down the Luftwaffe in 1943, but the P-51's ability to reach Berlin and then strafe airfields deep in Germany on the way back home was what gained air supremacy. Both were great planes: The Jug would get you home with damage the Mustang could never survive, but the Mustang would take you to places and targets the Thunderbolt could never reach.
You can quote the source of that Eric Brown saying I have 5 of his books and not one mentions that.
Which aircraft supported the ground troops better and did more damage to the enemies ability to wage tactical ground warfare ? Hands down the P-47’s all models .
A-36
If you are destroying the Luftwaffe's aircraft where you find them as the 8th Air Force was doing from March 1944 onwards then statistically it is the P-51.
@@marktuffield6519 You are correct strategically, my sentence structure a little miss leading, I should have mentioned the P47 was loved by GROUND TROOPS giving them support by knocking out tanks, trains an infantrymen
In WW 2 ,fighters being at the top of the food chain ,the war was won by the P-47 ,not the P-51.
P-47 could fly higher,out dive,out zoom climb,and out roll your P-51. Also had 33 1/3 percent more firepower and carried more ammo than P-51 with a better gunnery system than P-51. When it comes to combat give me the P-47. It even looks better too.
Excellent video once again. Seeing 2 of some of some of my favorite World War 2 Aircraft being compared so thoroughly was fantastic. I did imagine that the nimble P-51 would win out against the rather bulky P-47 at the beginning of the video, but surprisingly, the Thunderbolt fulfilled many fighter and even bomber roles spectacularly and fulfilled the latter role, even better than the Mustang. The incredible quality of videos coming from this rather small, yet rapidly growing channel, never ceases to amaze me.
Keep up the good work.
A-36 was preferred by pilots over the P-47, and even Robert Johnson praised the A-36. At low altitude, the P-47 performance was sluggish, slow, and lackluster. Even a P-40 was superior to a P-47 below 15k ft in both speed and maneuverability.
P-47 was tough, but also cost as much as 2x P-51, and took more time for maintenance between missions, and used more fuel. WW2 was a logistics war, and P-47 was anti-logistics.
@@SoloRenegade The P-47 also had an inferior climb rate and relatively slow acceleration. As long as it was kept moving, it could perform. In fact, its biggest problems were the sheer bulk of the thing, caused by supercharger ducting and the fact that it hat too many guns for a single engine fighter.
@@thethirdman225 I agree
@@SoloRenegade excellent point on the cost of production.
The P-51 ended the war with 60% more kills in the ETO than the P-47 and 30% more ground kills.
Have a look at the kill rates for the P-51B in early 1944. It punched so far above its weight, it's hard to imagine how anyone thinks it was overrated.
And given the range problems of the Thunderbolt, it's not surprising it was handed over to the Ninth AF.
P47s we’re used earlier in the war against more experienced German pilots… by the time we had 51s escorting bombers they were going against mostly inexperienced German pilots
Wrong the RAF had Mustangs shooting up every thing that moved and shot down Germans 1 year before the P47 was even there.
@@jacktattishe said “by the time we had 51s ESCORTING BOMBERS”, the 51A was not used as a bomber escort. It was a marvelous aircraft at low altitudes, but was totally outclassed as a high-altitude bomber escort. So, who’s wrong?? It is absolute fact that 47s fought the Luftwaffe as escort fighters when it was stronger. The Merlin-powered 51s didn’t really supplant the 47 as escorts until around February ‘44.
@@JWZelch You are wrong the P51A was the RAF version with the Allison Great at low level puffed at 27000ft It was not used as a escort because the USAAF was not there yet.
It is an absolute fact that the RAF Mustang Hurricane Spitfire fought the Luftwaffe to their knees before the P47 was there after April 43
RAF Mustang Mar 42 Hurricane and Spitfire Oct 39
Can you please stay on topic, which is bomber escorts. You’re beloved British aircraft didn’t have the range to be effective bomber escorts. Why did the British bomb at night if the Hurricanes and Spitfires had “fought the Luftwaffe to their knees”?? Lmao.
And why are you even bringing Spits and Hurricanes into this conversation that is about the comparative effectiveness of neither of those planes. The British had some great aircraft and were tough people, but we’re not talking about them.
In addition to other good points, unlike P-51H, the M and N variants of Thunderbolt did see active service and combat during the war. These had incredible superior performance, and the N had longer range than any Mustang (besides the "twin").
Many pilots that flew the N considered it the ultimate prop fighter.
The N had all of the earlier Thunderbolt model's strong points, with improved roll, maneuverability, performance, AND range.
By late in the war, Axis and Allied pilots mostly agreed that "boom and zoom" was the definitive tactic. One German ace quipped "if you're dogfighting, you're doing something wrong."
The Thunderbolt could dogfight, and was supreme at boom and zoom. It was more durable, protected its pilot better, and it's sturdy air-cooled engine was less vulnerable.
I'd have to pick a late D, M, or N Thunderbolt over any other plane.
I don't see late war German fighters as superior to any of these.
This is not to say anything disparaging about the Mustang. Just that its "legend" sometimes seems to obscure the facts, causing it to overshadow in popular conscience other excellent aircraft that were at least as important, if not more, in the ultimate victory over the Axis.
Republic was simply too slow to extend the P-47's range. Even before the war, Materiel Command sent letters to all the manufacturers insisting on improved range performance. Lockheed, North American, Curtiss and Bell all addressed the problem. Republic did not. The same request was made before the first USAAF bombing raids were undertaken in Europe. Republic still failed to respond.
So whatever the P-47M/N's capabilities, they were simply too slow. I don't know what Republic thought they were doing. They seemed to think that building a technically impressive fighter was enough. But they were too focused on guns and simply not reading the room on what the USAAF needed. There is a pretty good argument that the October 1943 crisis was as much Republic's fault as anyone else's. That was why the US Eighth AF was happy to divest itself of the Thunderbolt.
And this was why, in early 1944, it was handed over wholesale to the 9th AF while the P-51 made strategic bombing possible all over Germany. It was the P-51 that took the war to the Germans and beat them.
@@thethirdman225 you should check out "Greg's planes and automotives" here on YT. The P47 almost from the start had drop tank capability and was hampered by the generals of the 8th airforce. Meanwhile in the Pacific off of Papua New Guinea the P47 was escorting bombers across the island and back which is basically the same distance they would need to fly from thier bases in England to Berlin and back. The P47 was always capable, but the bomber mafia was more effective at covering up thier mistakes than naval ordnance was at covering up the mistakes of the Mk 14 torpedo. The bomber mafia hyped up the P51 and its range and drop tanks but other fighters like the p47 and p38 could have done the job. Like mentioned the p47 was escorting bombers that distance in the Pacific already and the p38 killed admiral Yamamoto in April 43. The p51 is still a great plane and is IMHO better at escorting bombers and is cheaper to operate than the p47.
The difference in kill ratios between Europe and the Pacific can be partly explained by the relative performance of Axis planes. The main German fighters had top speeds around 400 mph. The most numerous Japanese Army and Navy fighters had top speeds ~ 350 mph. American fighters thus enjoyed a significant speed advantage in the Pacific, where a properly trained pilot would be able to convert their 40-70 mph speed advantage into positional advantage (provided they weren't taken by surprise). This also helps explain the success of the P-38 in the Pacific, in contrast to its very mixed record against German fighters.
In addition, by 1944 the USN fighters were able to operate in large numbers as part of very dense air defense systems over USN taskforces. They thus enjoyed the advantages that accrue to the defense, including huge force-multiplying advantages of radar and radar-guided interception. In contrast, fighters flying bomber support over Europe relied on their human eyes.
The P47 is like this ulgy fat guy how makes the hard job then comes a sweet girl which keeps all the attention, the P51.
Except for the price and fuel economy, there is nothing the Mustang can do the P47 cannot.
@@akritasdigenis4548 it could go higher, dive further, turn tighter and roll faster,
@@jacktattis Depends of which version of each airplane we are talking with, except for turning radius and climb rate.
Fact is P47 was "good enough" against german opponents and had much more ammos, bomb payload and survivability than P51 : it was definitely a more versatile aircraft.
For long range escort, yes, there is no debate : P51 was as efficient at half the price.
But if my goal was to stay alive at all costs, whatever the mission, there is nothing better than P47.
Speed is a big deal! Too much is said about maneuverability and not enough about speed. The Pacific theater proves it. Basically all of the Japanese fighters were more maneuverable than the American ones, but with superior speed, even a dummy can win the fight by slashing and running, turning back after a safe distance away and slash in again. The slower plane is a loser
@@akritasdigenis4548: The facts prove it, Thunderbolt pilot survived, many many mustang pilots perished…. It is so easy to shoot down a liquid cooled engine aircraft.
No doubt the P 51 Mustang is the best fighter aircraft ever as long as nobody is shooting at you and nobody ever jumps you.
And that is the fantasy world of P 51 Mustang fan boys.
The 47 was a highly engineered plane, and incorporated many cutting edge features for the time. Much time was spent on making sure each part was brought to its ultimate performance standard. The 51, especially after the introduction of the Packard, was developed for speed and lightness for range, many parts were simply stamped metal, and had vulnerable water-cooling areas as opposed to the rugged air-cooled 47. The ultimate reason for the 51's success was its ability to escort bombers to Germany AND back. A great plane, no doubt, and in the hands of an experienced pilot a match for the 109K and 190D in the hands of an experienced Luftwaffe pilots. German Aces didn't fear the 51, but they respected it... Ultimately,, it was USAAC fighter training and tactics that largely defeated the Luftwaffe in late 1943 and early 1944. The lack of fuel and pilots severely hampered the Luftwaffe as the War left 1944 and entered 1945. Fewer and fewer Luftwaffe Aces survived. The USAAC Bombing Campaign had 2 goals, destroy German Industrial Capacity, and deplete the Luftwaffe's ability to challenge in the air, especially as the Invasion of Europe loomed in the summer of 1944. On both counts it was successful.
The Luftwaffe never feared the P47 Once the P47 had committed itself to the chase in the dive it was finished. That rugged radial had more stamped parts than any in-line engine
@@jacktattis Well, first of all, no German plane could even keep up with the 47 in a dive so there goes that "theory". secondly, the Pratt & Whitney R-2800-59 did NOT have stamped components. Ridiculous. Let me guess, you play war games on your computer...but never actually read one book on the topic.
I would go for the P47 every time. Very tough aircraft indeed.
The P47 was a war plane made on Long Island. It took a licking and kept on ticking.
@@tirebiter1680 TIMEX 🙂 and so true, while 51 is sexy, 47 is the BEAST. Do you remember the TIMEX commercial where they finally found the failure? An ELEPHANT stood on the watch. PRICELESS. Yes, 47, could take all the hits and fly back home, 51, one bullet, GONE.
47 was the prize fighter and 51 had the GLASS JAW.
@@bobbycv64 That’s just internet exaggeration. Total BS. Against rifle caliber ammunition or proximity air burst, maybe. The P-47 was just as vulnerable to direct 20 and 30mm hits as the P-51. Two or three hits from a 20mm was enough. One hit from a 30mm would do it.
There’s a channel called ‘WWII US Bombers’ or something that has done videos on exactly this.
@@bobbycv64 This not like comparing a Dodge Ram to a Ford Pony car.
Please note that the P-47D has a turbo-supercharger (these days called a turbocharger) much like the P-38. Because of this, its overall performance with the R2800 engine was superior to the Merlin with its 2 speed, 2 stage, intercooled supercharger in the P-51D. Changes in the propeller (going from a Curtis Electric to the paddle bladed Hamilton Standard) on the P-47D also aided in boosting its performance. The one thing to partially explain the discrepancy in the kill/loss ratios is that with the entry of the P-51B, C, and D Mustangs in the ETO, they took over the primary escort roles from the P-47D. The Thunderbolt was relegated to ground attack, which considerably reduced the opportunities for air to air combat with German fighters.
It also begs the question if the Kill/Loss ratio includes results from the Far East and the CBI front. Mustangs were being used in considerable numbers in the Pacific, to escort B-29 bombers. They were also roaming China as well. The P-47D too was involved in the Pacific, and the CBI theatre of war. Thunderbolts were replacing Hurricanes in India, taking over their ground attack roles as well.
where was the p47 engine superior List of Ratios
D/W 2800 Allison Griffon Napier Merlin 61
Specific Power S/P 0.75 0.88 0.91 1.36 0.96
Power to Weight P/W 0.89 1.O5 1.03 1.29 0.96
aND aHHH nO dw2800 got to 45000ft the Merlin DID and the Griffon went to 49000ft MkXIX
No it was not superior to the Merlin. No US radial got to 45000ft No 2800 climbed at 5000ft/min
Packard. PACKARD. please keep in mind this was a Packard built and improved Merlin.
@@OPFlyFisher304 All improvements Rolls Royce not Packard .
Not only the engine, but also the propeller played very important rule in performance. The paddle proplellers and "cuffed" propellers helped a lot for both aircrafts.
The Props made not much difference at all, probably 450ft/min with the P47D. The P51D stayed at 3475ft/min and the best the P47D got was 3160 ft/min and they both used different props
@@jacktattis Hey dum dum The Mustang being 2,000# heavier than a $hitfire, with similar HP engine was over 30 MPH FASTER, and the wide bladed Hamilton prop was part of the reason along with the Mustang being cleaner, more aerodynamic, check out the prop blade difference when you see a Mustang and $shitfire together you will see !!!
@@wilburfinnigan2142No Hamilton prop got a mustang to 44500ft or fought a Ju86 at 45000ft and that is only the Merlin
The P-47s Achilles' heel was always its rate of climb. Even with the new propellers - and there were several different ones - the P-47 was uncompetitive in climb against the two main German types (the sub variants of the FW-190 were another matter). It makes sense: it might have had a very powerful engine but it was also very heavy. This wasn't a major factor in the ETO because, 1) the USAAF usually had air superiority and 2) they always had the advantage of altitude.
By the way, and not to be too obnoxious here, ‘aircraft’ is both singular and plural, RUclips notwithstanding. There is no such word as 'aircrafts' in this context.
Good video, great analysis.
I've always loved the P-51 but if I was flying in combat, pass the Jug.
Yes pass it on do not keep it
very good voice and annunciation , im very impressed with your video and voice over , captivating and not over done ......thank you
Just found this channel an hour ago and already, I'm binge watching it. Amazing content!
Great Video!
The top 10 P-47 aces survived the war.
I don't there's a lot that can be drawn from that, though I'd like to see the combat loss rates for both types.
@@thethirdman225 The loss rate for the P-47 would be around 0.7% per mission over the course of ~746,000 sorties, the P-51 would have a loss rate of 1.2% per mission over the course of ~214,000 sorties. (all during WW2 and presumably in all theaters).
@@adamtruong1759 The P-47 was rarely able to extend over German soil before the end of 1944. The P-51 spent a much higher percentage of its time in hostile airspace.
And using your statistics, which I assume are accurate, the P-51 managed to account for more enemy aircraft than the P-47 did despite flying only a third of the number of missions.
@@thethirdman225 I'm pretty sure the P-47 could reach Berlin by around the turn of 1944 the latest, mostly due to drop tanks as the Bubble canopies with extra internal fuel didn't make their debut until May-June -ish of the same year.
Also, keep in mind that pretty much all Allied fighter types had to endure the flak jungle that was Fortress Europe in ground attack missions, especially after D-day (tbh, flak was probably the most dangerous thing to Allied aircraft for most of '44 and '45 conflict wide). So, I personally see this as a win for the Jug.
@@adamtruong1759 By 1945, many would have been operating from bases on the Continent.
From what I understand is that for most of the war airplanes destroyed on the ground weren't counted as kills, maybe that would bring the P-47's total closer to the 51.
From January of 1944 Doolittle pronounced that aircraft destroyed on the ground counted towards "ace" status for the 8th Air Force. The P-47 D-25 arrived in mid-May and could match the escort combat radius of the P-51 B. From March the P-51 B/C was destroying aircraft in the air and on the ground, the P-47 D was performing well, but in regions more sparsely populated by German aircraft.
@@marktuffield6519 Who cares want bloody Doolittle claimed No other Airforce claimed ground kills. And the P47 was NOT good at G/A they lost 2000+ doing it.
@@jacktattis I imagine the Germans cared.
@@marktuffield6519 We and I mean RAF RAAF RCAF RNZAF SAAF RGAF RNAF never claimed ground kills and all those Airforces used British planes
@@jacktattis Yes, I appreciate that. However the original video is discussing the P-51 v the P-47 in respect of the European Theatre. From the later part of 1943 the US High Command was primarily concerned with the destruction of the German day fighter force and the German Luftwaffe in general as they felt it would be a threat to the invasion forces. My contention, others would no doubt disagree, is that this is done by VIII Fighter Command being freed up to go after German aircraft wherever they find them in the air and on the ground and to a large extent this work is carried out by the Mustang Squadrons from March 1944 onwards, as they have the range performance to do it. The P-47 only comes close to the range performance of the P-51 B/C from May of 1944, the invasion of course is on 6th June 1944. I am not denying the work done by the 9th Air Force, 2 TAF, or indeed RAF Bomber Command in the run up to the invasion but rather highlighting why I think in respect of the European Theatre and specifically North West Europe the P-51 is marginally more significant than the P-47, especially as it relates to the point raised by the OP.
Fantastic comperisons! Included all factors
Mustang for speed, manouverability, range, acceleration, turn radius, roll rate, dive speed, climb. Those are the combat metrics needed. The less manouverable P-47 had vulnerable turbo systems that when hit, the 47 could carry you home if not chased in its escape dive (Mcrit= .71), but it was out of the high altitude fight.
P-47 much more expensive to build, used over twice the fuel as P-51s for less range, less performance. No wonder they were scheduled for replacement in 1943.
First off, great video. I love these comparisons with detail. But one thing that gets ne is the the P-47 was recommended not to exceed Indicated speeds of 350MPH due to the ailerons becoming trim tabs. The aircraft has been said (D models mostly) to have reached 463 mph without alcohol/water injection. The pilots that did this found that you could manipulate the supercharger/turbo system to run at higher RPM than suggested (which later N models incorporated in design) to give the aircraft a boost in manifold pressure that would hold 72 inches HG well past 25000ft. The P-47 was very much a faster airplane above 27,000ft than the P-51 where it also has a substantially higher sustainable turn rate. And the Roll rate of a P-47 is just unquestionably higher at all flight regimes
Then put new motor in!
1. P47 Tactical Mach 0.72 P51 0.78
2 No P47D reached 463mph in any of the Tests in WW2 Aircraft Performance
3. P47 426mph @30000 ft puffed at 38000ft P51 437mph @ 25000 ft Still climbing at 100 ft/min @ 40900ft
4. Oct 44 Wright Field P47D-10
Climb Rate
S/L 3100 ft/min
6000ft 3120 ft/min
10000ft 3100 ft/min
16000ft 2900 ft/min
20000ft 2850 ft/min
26000ft 2200 ft/min
32000ft 450ft/min
Now if the S/C was 40000 ft this plane would be struggling to make it.
5. Turn Rate 990 ft radius at 4Gs P51 883ft . Wright Field Jun 44 Signed off by Brig Gen F.G Carrol
6. Roll rate same test 400mph @ 50lb stick force P47 63 deg/sec P51 78 deg/sec
Considering these tests were 26Jul 44 It did not allow much time for the P47 to catch up over Europe
@@jacktattis talking foolish again huh Jackie boy, RAF test say otherwise...
@@kenneth9874 No they do not
1.RAE Farnborough APRIL 1944 P47 T/M 0.72 Eric Brown Wings on my Sleeve
Farnborough were the only testing authority that had Mach-meters in WW2
2. AFDU Duxford Report no 66 AFDU 3/21/1
3 RDM 43 Dives P47C
520mph @ 10000ft
450mph @ 20000ft
If you have verifiable RAF tests show us. You see in Britain RAE and AFDU were the MAJOR Testing Authorities The RAF WERE not allowed to conduct their own tests and pass a plane
*_"And the Roll rate of a P-47 is just unquestionably higher at all flight regimes"_*
That simply isn't true.
Would really like to know what test claims 4400' fpm for -51B. Performance was a lot closer between the models.
I will go and check for you it appears high for me too.
Very good documentary.
a great video.
P-51 to help get the women, P-47 to come home.
*_"P-51 to help get the women, P-47 to come home."_*
Not that old inverted snobbery again.
F4u corsair to get both
@@vozdelatalaya2041 Jesus…🙄
nOT IFYOU WEREDOING g/a
Haha. Clever response
Also, you might want to look at the Ace list. You'll find out that U. S. Aces in the E. T. O. Most of the top 10 flew Thunderbolts.
I think that may be a fallacy You tell us your sources ?????
Yet the Mustang produced more aces.
@@thethirdman225 It really helps when relatively new but well trained pilots and veterans get a relatively easy to use aircraft w/ good performance in large numbers, and are up against an air force whose pilot corps was utterly gutted for the past few years and is mainly made up of 18 year old pilots that haven't even finished proper training b/c attrition.
@@adamtruong1759 I can’t argue with that. The only thing I would add is that the USAAF rarely fought in conditions where they did not have air superiority. The key to that was altitude, the effect of which was two-fold. First of all, it meant plenty of kinetic energy and tactical initiative for the Americans and secondly, it masked the P-47’s biggest weakness which was its poor rate of climb (a problem which was partially - but only partially - addressed with the introduction of the paddle prop).
@@jacktattis He actually has a point, look up "aces of the 8th air force in WW2." Also, apparently a fair amount of said aces died to post-war pilot testing with jets.
The horse hokey about the mustang being particularity susceptible to cooling system damage was true of every liquid cooled aircraft of the war!
No on radial fan has come on here with irrefutable proof as to many liquid cooled engines being lost . We could also say the same for that great Turbo they targeted
Exactly. It's become an internet thing. Fighter pilots were taught to shoot at things like cockpits and fuel tanks. It didn't matter. It only took a couple of cannon hits to destroy a fighter, no matter which one it was.
@@jacktattis I have been crunching the numbers on this and there’s basically no difference. Yes: the P-51 suffered slightly higher casualties than the P-47 (1.18 to 0.73) but it also spent a lot more time in enemy territory than the P-47 did. In fact, the P-47 destroyed about 3,000 aircraft on the ground, while the P-51 destroyed around 4,000 - in half the number of sorties. These are USAAF figures.
The USAAF made no determination on how these aircraft were shot down, unlike the U.S. Navy. We know Johnny Godfrey was shot down by ground fire because there were witnesses but it isn’t recorded. There are, unfortunately, no figures for Flak, CFIT, collisions, pilot blackout or friendly fire. There aren’t even any figures for non-combat related losses. How anyone can determine the exchange rate for either the P-47 or P-51 is anyone’s guess.
The idea that the Mustang was some kind of liquid cooled death trap that could be brought down by a school kid with a slug gun is bollocks. And the more I look at the unadulterated USAAF figures, the more obvious it is that this is a BS argument.
@@thethirdman225 Unless you are counting the A36 then the P47 was in enemy territory from April 43 and as Doolittle did not demand P51s for the 8th until after Mar 44 , it means the P47 was still the main plane for two years while the P51 was only the main plane for one year. And France WAS enemy territory
@@jacktattis Not the point. I didn’t say the P-47 didn’t go into enemy territory. I said it didn’t go as deep into enemy territory as the P-51 did. Right from the off, the P-51 was flying deeper into Germany than the P-47 ever had before it. Take Mission 250, the first USAAF raid on Berlin. Most P-47s turned back at the Dutch border. Some - those which had been recently re-plumbed to carry two tanks - went on to a point just north west of Magdeburg. The Mustangs went all the way to Berlin.
Após terminarem seus treinamentos, nos USA , foi permitido aos pilotos Brasileiros, escolherem qualquer modelo de aeronave disponível.no inventário Americano. Após várias apresentações eles optaram , pelo P47 , por sua robustez, confiabilidade do motor Radial e porque, para missão de ataque ao solo, esse motor era um verdadeiro escudo!
Also, the cockpit was directly above the enormous 700lb turbocharger. The turbo acted as armour in certain circumstances.
@@davidwood2205 nO IT WAS NOT The turbo was 10 ft behind the Cockpit
@@davidwood2205 LOL!!
Components of the turbo system occupy most of the lower fuselage. So, maybe the turbo itself is not right below the pilot, but it still afforded the pilot extra protection. Case in point, a P-47 experienced a hung centerline 500lb bomb, and he had no choice but to land with the bomb. Upon roll out the bomb detonated. It totally destroyed the plane and the pilot walked away. Thanks to the turbo.
So calm down.
@@davidwood2205 LOL!!
The P-51 was better at the job they were both initially given, long range fighter escort, and was generally a better dogfighter, but the P-47 was more versatile and could take on other missions that the P-51 could not do well, such as light strike and CAS. As a pure fighter, the P-51 wins, but if you had to fight a war with only one of them as your fighter you would be a fool not to go with the P-47.
Well said.
The P51 was used by the RAF as a low level recon/GA, 2 years before the P47 was even in the area of operations. It even shot down the enemy over Dieppe before the P47 was there. The USAAF used the P51 as the A36 a first class G/A aircraft . The USAAF lost 2000+ P47 doing the G/A role. It was too large too cumbersome and could not change direction very quick down low. [ When the Eagle Sqn were transitioning from their Spitfires to P47s , they were challenged by the P47 pilots to mock fights After four were lost trying to turn with the Spitfire, they were told no more mock fights below 8000ft. ]
P-51 was a better fighter while P-47 was a better fighter-bomber. They had some overlaps but excelled at different roles.
@@jacktattis Damn Jack are you sick ???? Actually recognizing the attributes of the Allison Mustang ????
@@wilburfinnigan2142 G/day Wilbur First and foremost it is a liquid cooled engine and did a great job. Better than that block of rubbish the Radial
I don't think one was better than the other. They were good at different things BUT the Mustang was undoubtably the superior long range escort fighter, which is what the USAAF needed in '44, and it was much cheaper.
The only real main point of P51 is being much cheaper. Had i lived that time, i'd prefered the radial engine's fighter without hesitation.
@@akritasdigenis4548 absolutely. I would take the Jug over any ww2 plane. I was just saying both planes have their merits
@@akritasdigenis4548 P-51 was far cheaper, consumed half as much aluminum per aircraft, burned half as much fuel as the P-47, flew farther, faster, and was a superior dogfighter at pretty much all altitudes. The P-51 took nearly half as many maintenance hours between sorties. P-47 was slow to accelerate, slow to climb, and needed significantly more runway length to get airborne. The German test pilots hated the P-47, only praising it for it's high altitude performance and nothing else.
WW2 was won by logistics, and logistically the P-47 consumed more than twice as much as the P-51 in nearly every way, while offering less performance.
@@SoloRenegade That's true but :
1. if your goal is saving pilot's life at all cost, P47 is the only option. Considering the lost ratio, US would have saved many pilots if using only P47. They preferred saving money, that may sound from a strategic perspective.
2. If you only need 1 type of fighter for every missions, then again, P47 is the only way to go. P51, although a very good bank for the buck is overall for me inferior because he lacks versatility. If US had not built the P51, they still could use P47 but if they did'nt have P47, they'd have lacked something.
3. Both P51 and P47 saw they had room for developpement. The last P47 had about the same range, even higher and were on par with speed but with twice the firepower, bombing capacity and still keeping the top safety.
4. Dogfighting seems for me less relevant. After all, the F4 destroyed A6M in PTO (less speed, less climb, lower manoeuvrability), even before F6.
@@akritasdigenis4548 "if your goal is saving pilot's life at all cost, P47 is the only option."
this is war, not a lifesaving operation. the best way for a pilot to survive is to not get shot. a P-51 improves the Chances o fnot getting a bogey on your tail.
I want to win the war, logistics wins wars. Using the P-51 allows me to put 2x as many fighters in the skies over europe for the same cost and manpower, that is SIGNIFICANT.
"They preferred saving money, that may sound from a strategic perspective."
wrong is Logistics. and yes, saving money when funds are limited is critical to win a war without going broke yourself.
"If you only need 1 type of fighter for every missions, then again, P47 is the only way to go. "
wrong again. F4U wins this argument hands down, but the A-36 was also preferred by its pilots over the P-47, and was a superior ground attack aircraft to the P-47. And again, the P-51 could do so much more than the one-trick-pony that is the P-47. Th P-51 could still dogfight below 20k ft, unlike the P-47, and could defeat a P-47 in a dogfight at any altitude, and fly faster at any altitude, and fly farther at any altitude, and used less fuel, aluminum, maintenance downtime, and took less to time to manufacture, as well as being easier to ship/transport. P-47 did only one thing well, and that was high altitude escort above 20k ft, and it was such a massive pig that it couldn't help getting constantly shot, but managed to survive sometimes. Lots of P-47 pilots died and lots of P-47 aircraft were lost.
"Both P51 and P47 saw they had room for development. The last P47 had about the same range, even higher and were on par with speed but with twice the firepower, bombing capacity and still keeping the top safety. "
P-47 never had the same range. it closed the gap with the P-47N, but at the cost of burning twice the fuel per sortie than a P-51. that means for the same money and resources the US could send 2x as many mustangs on a sortie (build 2x as man mustangs for the price of a P-47, and send 2x as many mustangs for the fuel burned by a P-47, and the p-47 couldn't do ANYTHING more than the P-51 could do. Even the Germans and Japanese thought the P-47 was terrible and the P-51 formidable and amazing. The US gov did studies and found 6x 50cal was equivalent to 4x 20mm cannon, and that nothing in terms of effective firepower was achieved with more than 6x .50cal, and that 4x .50cal proved sufficient even. Once again, the P-47 was carrying around more weight than necessary and consumed more resources than necessary. The P-47 did have more bomb load capacity, but that is to be expected for such a massive airplane. Yet teh F4U carried even more bombload than a P-47, and could also use 20mm cannons, radar, dive bomb, napalm, rockets, etc.
"Dogfighting seems for me less relevant. After all, the F4 destroyed A6M in PTO (less speed, less climb, lower maneuverability), even before F6."
The F4F was an even match for the A6M, and even the Japanese pilots knew that. Dogfighting is about playing to your strengths and weaknesses. But most PTO dogfights occurred at low altitude, and at low altitude the P-47 sucked. Even the P-40 was faster and more maneuverable than a P-47 below 15k ft. In the US, stateside, pilots would dogfight each other for beers and bragging rights. The P-47 ALWAYS lost. F4F, F6F, F4U, P-40, P-39, P-51, P-38, etc. could all defeat the P-47 in dogfights, so the P-47 pilots simply stopped trying. The other pilots knew that a P-47 stood no chance of winning below 15k ft, so they would stay low and force the P-47 to come down to them and lose. The P-51 was a boom and Zoom master, and was a superior dogfighter at any altitude.
P-47 never set a speed record, never ran in air races. it was slow to accelerate, climbed like a pig, took significantly longer runways to get airborne, consumed significant fuel, required far more maintenance downtime between sorties, consumed large amounts of oil, etc.
You're clearly a biased and uneducated individual when it comes to the realities of war and aircraft design.
Two amazing aircraft competing against each other, yes please.
Please, review the '44 report comparing US fighters, Army and Navy, and make a video.
Horses for courses. If I wanted a high altitude long range fighter it would be the P51. If I wanted a robust ground attack aircraft that could also go nose to nose in air to air combat, I would choose the P47.
No switch them around
I wouldn't. Neither did the pilots. People like 'Hub' Zemke and Don Blakeslee both flew the P-47 and both wanted the P-51 because, in their own words, they knew it was the better aircraft for the job.
@@thethirdman225 And yet Gabreski was a P47 pilot through and through
@@jacktattis That’s nice.
The P-51 scored 30% more ground kills than the P-47 in half the number of missions.
It also scored 60% more air-to-air kills, again, in half the number of missions. The P-51 wrecked the Luftwaffe.
Wherever someone askes what the best plane/tank/ship/gun is, my first response is usually "well, what are you planning to do with it?" For example, if you need some fighter escort or a long-range patrol, the Mustang is your plane; if you're gonna pounce on a bomber formation or do some ground pound I would recommend the Thunderbolt.
Personally I prefer the power and durability of the P-47, but I cannot deny the P-51 is an effective (and sexy) plane in its own right.
I will just mention US planes In the ground pounding the P51 A36 was miles better than the P47 . 2000+ P47 were lost doing G/A there were nowhere near the losses of A36 or Mustangs in RAF service And the RAF planes had been doing it since May 42 P47 after April 44
@@jacktattis Alright, fair. Counterpoint -- they built over thirty times as many P-47 as they did A-36. The short version is your sample size skews the statistics out of proportion.
The long version: the A-36 was flown by only Americans and British. The P-47 was flown by: the Americans, the British, the Soviets, the Free French, plus a number were leased to some smaller countries during the war including China, Brazil and Mexico; even Germany and Italy when they could capture them.
The P-47 was built in such large numbers it was relatively easy to get replacements. Only one batch of A-36 were ever built, so when it was gone it was gone. By 1944 Attritional losses had relegated the A-36 to secondary theaters like the Mediterranean and China-Burma-India. 1944 Europe had the strongest AA defenses of the entire war. Of coure the loss rate is gonna be higher when you jump into the middle of the fray and every German is throwing everything and the kitchen sink at you. I promise, if you put the A-36 in the same situation as P-47 in 1944, their losses would be just as high (exactly why they were moved to the CBI theater).
And finally, the A-36 was literally just a P-51A with a small bomb rack and dive brakes attached, because Congress had already spent up its 1941 fighter plane budget and had to exploit a loophole to send more Mustangs to Africa.
@@pyronuke4768 No your statistics are faulty Those 20000 did not all serve
You have to go on the Groups that were doing it.
@@jacktattis after two hours of rabbit hole diving to figure out loss rates to AA for Thunderbolts and Mustangs (including the A-36 variant), double checking my sources and triple checking my math, this is what I found:
P-47 loss rate to AA: 12.75%, or roughly 1/2 of all Thunderbolt losses
Mustang loss rate (including A-36's) to AA: 7.01%, or roughly 2/5 of all Mustang losses
Total G/A sorties flown by P-47 in WW2: ~500,000
Total G/A sorties flown by P-51 and A-36 in WW2: ~220,00
*So while the Thunderbolt suffered more losses at the hands of AA, it also flew over twice as many air-to-ground sorties as the P-51 and A-36 combined.*
You put the numbers together and for the ground attack role you get one Mustang loss for every 163 sorties vs one Thunderbolt loss for every 251 sorties.
(Now the A-36 consists only of 4.1% of all Mustang A/G sorties flown and 6.97% of all Mustang losses. If you split them up into two separate aircraft then you get one P-51 loss for every 170 sorties and one A-36 loss for every 68 sorties.)
@@pyronuke4768 If I could make a couple of contextual remarks here…
The figures I have for sorties flown show the P-47 flying about 750,000 versus the Mustang at 218,000. I think that’s right. The P-51 shot down about 15% more aircraft _but it spent a lot more of its time over enemy territory than the P-47 did._ Added to that is the fact that Goering exploited the P-47s range problems by instructing his fighters not to attack the bombers until the fighters had gone home.
In short, if you do the maths, the Mustang was almost four times more likely to engage in combat than the P-47. This would easily account for the higher loss rate. In fact, if you extrapolate on that, the P-51 actually comes out better than your figures suggest.
US Bomber command at the beginning of WW2 had in writing that no fighter could have drop tanks to extend flight length. They believed a Bomber could defend itself. By early 1944 they realized their mistake. After the war the commanders wrote their memoirs to protect their errors.
It was USAAF doctrine that bombers could reach their targets unescorted. USAAF commander-in-chief General Henry H. (Hap) Arnold turned a deaf ear to not only the development of drop tanks for the P-47, but also to the reports of American Air-attaché Col. Tommy Hitchcock from England pleading the potential of a Merlin powered Mustang. It is noteworthy that both efforts proceeded without his blessing until the disastrous losses in the fall of 1943 threatened to end the daylight bombing campaign. You are right that after the war efforts to minimize the Mustangs contribution were made in official USAAF analyses of the campaign. Arnold only mentions the P-51 once in his autobiography.
@@IncogNito-gg6uh WWII is replete with tension between broad strategic desires and tactical realities. Eventually, most got it right in the end, but not without struggles and unfortunate loss of life...the marriage of the 51 and the Rolls Royce/Packard was a fortunate development, for sure...serendipitous in many ways.
The higher kill count of the Corsair and Hellcat in the pacific can be attributed to the fact that the japanese planes were easier to destroy as most were flimsy and lighter do to little or no armor plating.
It was attributable to all sorts of things. Those factors you mentioned just a small selection. Following the Battle of Midway, the quality of Japanese pilots took a serious hit. So many hot shot pilots had been burnt alive in their cockpits as the aircraft carriers blew up. Japanese pilot training did not have the luxury of being carried out in such controlled circumstances as the USN pilots did. So most of the replacements weren't up to much. Once the veterans ranks had thinned out, the overall quality became lower than that of the USN, in particular.
I love the looks of the p51 d and h obviously thr p47 was better in many ways.and safer and more durable
It wasn't necessarily 'safer'. That's just internet hooey.
the P51 only came in to its own when it had the mighty merlin
That's why the video intentionally ignores the earlier versions and states it is only discussing the Merlin equipped versions.
Which ignores the fact that in the TacR role the RAF liked the Allison engined Mustang for its speed and range at low level and retained them in service well into the latter part of 1944 wherever possible.
The merlin only came into it's own with American technology...
@@kenneth9874 Can you be more specific? Other than the American thin-wall bearing technology used under license by Vandervell I can't think of a direct transfer of engine technology to RR that made the Merlin a success. I seem to recall that Packard fitted the V-1650 with a pressure carburetor which was an improvement over Miss Shilling's orifice, but I think most would argue that by then the Merlin was already into its own as a very successful engine. Of what do you speak?
@@gort8203 let's see, there was the high octane fuel, the two speed 2stage intercooled supercharger pioneered by the f4, and the Stromberg pressure carb otherwise known as throttle body injection for starters
1:12 it is the R-2800-18W engine used on F4U-4, way different from the one on P-47D, closer to the P-47N but then again still very different.
Turbo superchargers on the P47's
zefkosta The F4U corsair used the Mechanical 2 stage supercharger the P47 used the TURBOcharger to feed the Mechanical supercharger in the P47 !!!
I live in England and was even born in Crewe where the RR engines were produced . I didn't really know anything about the Thunderbolt at all but have been researching ww2 fighter planes . If i had to choose i would be choosing a P47D every time . A boxer must take punches well not just move around fast and pack a punch . Seems like there P47D did its job very well and returned many pilot's home safely . My winner for all of WW2 , not just a choice between 2 American planes
Go and read further the P47 was put doing Ground Attack and lost 2400 Not easy to find and you have to do your own Maths Eric Brown Testing for Combat page 146
@@jacktattis i have autism and don't absorb words well .However i have other ways of taking information in and usually 3 xs faster than anyone else . I get answers others miss and its because of that i found myself learning about the P47d after already this year locating 3 ww2 crash sites that nobody found using black and white print . Already now started the process of getting the P47d recovered and the American pilot at last sent home . 2 months ago i woke up and set out with the goal of locating this crash and have found 2 more now recorded just to tell myself it's no fluke . I have already took into account the strafing because that move put it out of any chance to have the figures i should have and put it in the worst taktical place for its potential . It couldn't dogfight that low effectively bu sill destroyed a massive amount in its worst position . Eric Brown will definitely have tested the figures and turns . However i imagine the testing wont have had him sit in each cockpit while 50call rounds are tearing up the plane counting how many hits he and plane can absorb . Or how many hits the water cooled engine takes before it gave up and then testing hard impact belly landings . I imagine combat simulation is a little bit different than combat . Did you know every P47d fighter ace returned home . There is more to this story than ever was told , money , production costs , jobs created and off the shelf parts would be more important to the powers that be than safety and durability . Maybe the war needed a P51 to win with those factors being critical for the victory .Still doesn't make it the better plane
P-47 for me please. The P-51 is an average fighter with very good range. Highly overrated imho.
The P-47 pilots weren’t allowed to leave the bombers an go after the German fighters, after the P-51 arrived, they changed the rule. Without that, the P-47 kill score would have been even higher. Plus, all the damage it did on the ground with the 9th Air Force. There is a book called “Hell Hawks!” By Robert F Dorr an that is fantastic, I highly recommend.
@@xandyxcondax Agree!! Thank you!
It would depend on the mission and the variant flown. The P-47N was optimized to give it similar range to the P-51D, but wasn't that numerous. The P-47 was also a lot more expensive than the P-51. The P-38 was more expensive still.
@@kurtpena5462 yeah. Greg’s airplanes here in YT does a great analysis of the range of the P-47 and the myth that it had shorter range than the P-51. I suggest everyone interested, go check that out. The real factor limiting the range of the P-47, incredibly, was oil capacity. The other facts the previous poster pointed out also were a factor for it being retired from front line service, most notably cost of purchasing but also operating cost. And the bean counters after the war were really trying to cut military budget down.
@@crusader5989 That's pretty amazing. Indeed operating costs played a huge factor in armament selection.
I'm watching Greg's IL-2 video right now!
Just my subjective opinion, but the bubble canopy really improved the looks of the Thunderbolt, while with the Mustang, I think the earlier B and C models look better than the bubble canopy planes.
in a beauty contest the P-51 Mustang is the winner... but in a contest of survivability "The Jugg" is the winner
There are different kinds of survivability.
I honestly still think P-38 was the best American fighter in WW2, especially if you take in the count of 2 highest scoring ACEs of USAAF in WW2 are both P-38 pilots.
But P38 had 2 main problems : for European theater, you had to wait for the J version and at that time, the P47 could almost do the same job and was more rugged for 70% of the price. Still, P47 could dive better, which was a main factor against fast germans planes.
In the Pacific, there was no such problems, the hot weather helped much and for sure, 2 engines are better than 1 upon the ocean.
@@akritasdigenis4548 And P-51D could do the P-47 job better at 60% the price of P-47, consuming less fuel, requiring less maintenance, etc.
WW2 was won by logistics, not by specific aircraft. The US would have won WW2 even if it was stuck with only the P-38, F4F, P-40, and P-39 for the entire war.
@@SoloRenegade The fact US massively built P51 precisely sounds from a logistic perspective.
@@akritasdigenis4548 🤧
The Luftwaffe loved them they were easy meat
If I had to fly ground attack missions I would much prefer to be in a P 47 D. It was a much tougher machine. Its radial engine was also much more robust than the inline engine of the P 51 D. In addition, the P 47 had eight fifty cal machine guns versus the six fifty cal of P 51. Furthermore, it carried a much heavier bomb load than the P 51.
well my friend 2000+ were lost down low All the RAF Mustangs and the A36 never had those losses and the 1500 RAF Mustangs first combat Xmas 1941
The biggest problem in air to ground missions is not a bullet in the radiator but flying into the ground itself.
Not to mention that the pilots themselves would tell you that they didn't care as much about small arms fire as they did about a 37mm.
Great comparisons in the Hellcat v Corsair and the Mustang v the Thunderbolt. Have you covered the P-38 Lightning? Another remarkable plane that, I believe, shot down more Japanese planes than any other. I had some distinct advantages.
No the Hellcat shot down more Japanese planes
For perspective, 4,600 F-16's have been built
P-47's swept the skies of the most experienced Luftwaffe pilots. They were peerless at high altitude where they were designed to fight.
No they were not, good at 30000ft puffed at below 40000ft Spitfires still going at 42000/43000/44000 and puffed at 45700ft Absolute ceiling and that was just the Fighters .
*_"P-47's swept the skies of the most experienced Luftwaffe pilots. They were peerless at high altitude where they were designed to fight."_*
This is straight from 'Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles'. It's simply not true.
The Luftwaffe probably peaked in 1940/41 and it was all down hill from there. On top of that, plenty of German _Experten_ met their maker on the Eastern Front and in the Mediterranean.
The only time the USAAF sent fighters to smash the Luftwaffe in a battle of attrition was during 'Big Week' in February, 1944.
Greg is big on documents and charts and small on history. It doesn't take a lot of research to show he's full of it.
Read Williamson Murray's book, _'Luftwaffe: Strategy for defeat, 1933-1945'._ Murray goes _way_ further into this than Greg's piss and vinegar.
After a bit of research, I have found that the Allies in Western Europe shot down 451 aircraft by the end of 1943. The P-47 accounted for 414 of them. If you think that sounds like a lot, the Germans lost 22,000 aircraft up to the end of 1943. That means the P-47s contribution was about 2%.
So much for the P-47 decimating the Luftwaffe.
@@thethirdman225 The P51 ?????
@@jacktattis What about it?
The P47 was the beast, the P51 was the rapier!
Let’s not forget cost. The 51 was significantly cheaper than the 47, both of which were much cheaper than the 38
P-51 B & C models also had the Packard-built Rolls-Royce Merlins
Many pilots who flew multiple missons on P-47 Thunderbolts were reluctant to switch to P-51s.
The P-47, according to American fighter ace Robert Johnson, had a superb roll rate.
Bob Johnson said a lot of things.
*_"The P-47, according to American fighter ace Robert Johnson, had a superb roll rate."_*
Compared to what?
@@thethirdman225 Compared to whatever he had in his head at that moment. Wright Field found the P-51 to have a better rate of roll, and they're the representatives of the customer, not the vendor. The P-47 fans get terribly excited about Johnson's memoir.
@@Splattle101 Yeah, they sure do. It was also ghost written by Martin Caidin, whom I have found to be less than reliable. I read it about 50 years ago and found it very 'Boy's Own'. It's good reading if you're an impressionable kid. But Johnson was a pretty opinionated guy and Caidin was quite happy to run with the 'never let facts stand in the way of a good story' approach and these days, not much of that book stands up to scrutiny.
More correctly the P51 used various versions of the Packard Merlin after the allison was replaced. Kozak at autoweek has a shot snd and good write-up on the merlins.
Only two versions of the Packard v-1650-3 and V-1650-7
@@jacktattis And dummy add the V1650-9 & V1650-11 these had the water/methonal injection and higher boost used in the H model !!!
P51H not used in the ETO
I'm not gonna lie, I love the T-Bolt.
Food for thought:
The P-51 scored 60% more air kills and 30% more ground kills in half the number of missions as the P-47. It suffered only a marginally higher loss rate - 1.18 v 0.73 - but spent a much higher percentage of its time in hostile airspace. These are facts and come from the USAAF audits.
The P-51 was at least twice as effective as the P-47 and did not suffer excessive or exceptional casualties and the harder you look, the better the argument for the P-51 stacks up.
1.18% vs .73% is not marginally higher ,its almost twice as high .
Meaning in twice as many sorties the p47 took only 58% the losses of the p51 .
the 47 destroyed over 7000 enemy aircraft more than half in the air and 86000 rail cars ,9000 locamotives,6000 armored fighting vehicles and 9000 trucks .
The reason the 51 has more air to air was simply because it took over bomber escort duty on account it was much cheaper and more fuel efficient not because it was a better fighter . performance is very close with the 47 having better dive and roll rate .and much better survival rate .
the escorts p51s would go and strafe enemy airfields ahead and after bomber escort on orders of general Curtis lemay which the thunderbolts were not allowed to do when they were escorting ,they had to stay with the bombers .
Completly dif tactics and roles by the end of the war and your misunderstanding of statistics leads you to this silly conclusion.
Good vid.
I believe we would have done well over Europe without the Mustang if we had to. The Thunderbolt evolved into a formidable fighter at high altitude and down low as an attack aircraft.
The P47 had an excellent engine with a massive turbo-supercharger. This gave it surprising turn rate performance over 30,000 ft, in spite of it's heavy weight. But it drank alot of fuel at max boost. When Clair Chenault of the Flying Tigers saw it, he said, "Get that thing off of my airfield!" I believe the muscle plane was just too hard on the fuel reserves at the end of long supply chains to be popular in the Pacific after WW2. Though early jet aircraft were fuel thirsty, their jet fuel was easier to refine, and therefore less expensive. Thus, the Thunderbolt didn't serve in Korea. Insread we used Republic's F84. But that's a different story.
The Corsair (which used the same engine as the P47) Probably had better fuel mileage due to it's lighter weight, and superior aerodynamics. So it did see combat in Korea.
There were other factors as to why the Thunderbolt didn't serve after WW2. Perhaps that subject would make for a good video.
Again, good job on this doc. I enjoyed it.
Down low the P47 was lousy
@@jacktattis But fast and tough. Good team work will keep your tail clear most of the time. But yes, the FW-190s were also great down low. Tougher than 4 or 8 20mm cannon? No allied fighter was invincible. Industrial might, and strategic dominance won that war. Our enemy was intelligent, resourceful, and down right deadly. Fortunately, they weren't lead by a sane leader....
As far as I am aware the P47 was NOT in China
There was one, that Chenault checked out, but he was horrified by it's fuel consumption. The Flying Tigers didn't use them, as I believe I previously stated.
*_"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.
There were those pilots that flew their fighters if they survived most almost would say which ever plane they flew was their preferred plane but I rather have flown an air cooled aircraft over liquid cooled after that survivability. depended on the pilots abilities.
It depends on the mission ALWAYS. If you're escorting bombers above 20000 feet, you intend on staying at altitude, and you might get in the dog fight... P-51. But if you're going down to the deck, you don't want to be in a liquid cooled single engine fighter.
The 47 had good high altitude performance, and when coupled with its incredible dive rate was very effective. The 51 probably had the slight edge above 20,000 ft, but the reason it excelled was its range, and the ability to escort to Germany AND back...
P47 for survivability, P51 for dominance
P51 was the better fighter, but the P47 valued the pilot's life better.
Why wasn't the F-47 sent to Korea? It wasn't because the F-51 was better. You have to remember that the Korean War was the equivalent to one theater in WWII, and was actually only one theater of the Cold War. The USAF considered defending Europe against a possible Russian invasion to be their number 1 priority, and that is where the F-47s were stationed (other than the units in the United States.) At the beginning of the Korean War, F-51Ds were available to be shipped there immediately, so that's what went. The Air Force tried to replace them with jets as soon as they could, and although the F4U Corsair served as a ground-attack fighter the entire Korean conflict, the USAF replaced the F-51Ds with F-80 and F-84 jets as soon as the jets could be made available. (The F-51s were sent to the South Korean Air Force.) Getting experience fighting with jets was also a high priority to the USAF. (Also, the military industrial complex was building jets. It wouldn't have looked good - all these new jets sitting on the sidelines while F-51s and F-47s did all the heavy lifting.) The jets were harder to hit with anti-aircraft fire. What about the F-51H? I have heard reasons that the H model was too delicate, or that spares weren't available (which probably was a big factor). The biggest factor is that for the kind of war in Korea, entirely ground attack, the advantages of the H were pretty marginal, and maybe not even significant.
Honestly, don’t you think it’s pretty stupid to use a liquid cooled engine AirCrap for ground attack after we have all the experience from World War II that they get shot down so easily? The real truth is is the US Air Force brass are idiots.
From a technological and engineering point of view the P47 with its huge turbocharger and air cooled double wasp 2000hp engine is a more interesting fighter, and for those who think the p51 is more aerodynamic you have to remember that huge belly air intake to cool down the liquid from the liquid cooled engine than was a serious problem in case of an emergency landing.
That belly air intake utilised the Meredith Effect .
I have seen a P-51 that belly landed at Point Cook Air Base in 2008. There was no problem with the scoop, other than that it was badly damaged.
When Robin Olds entered combat in his P-38, he had OVER 650 hours with 150 in the P-38. The Germans weren't getting anywhere near this amount of training. Source: "Above the Reich", ch.2
By 1944, new pilots in the Luftwaffe had 110-120 hours and maybe 12-15 on front line fighters. It was very much like new pilots in the RAF during the Battle of Britain.
More important, probably, then the actual engine are the super chargers and or turbo superchargers of these engines. The REAL difference between the Alison and Merlin was the two stage superchargers optimized for higher altitudes developed by the British for their Merlin engines.
Quite true I think G/M did not back the Allison manufacturing their own
dbeasleyphx The real difference between the Allison and the Merlin is muddy, as all the early Merlins up through to 20 to 50 series was nil as the most merlins used during the war were single stage supercharged, ONLY the 60 series Merlin mid 1942 early 43 showed up with the NEW 2 stage superchargers, ALL merlins throughout their lives were NOT 2 stage supercharged, example of the 20,000=/- $hitfires made only 7,000 had the 2 stage supercharger, and the Hurrycane NEVER got the 2 stage Merlin !!! FYI the Brits andnRR did NOT invent the 2 stage supercharger , it was invented and patented in the USA in 1938. The first aircraft to use a 2 stage supercharger was the Grumman F4F-3 Wildcat with the PW R1820, and the PWV R2800 in the F4U corsair and the F6F Hellcat all before RR Had the 2 stage,
@@jacktattis WRONG !!!! The dummy in charge of UAAAC purchasing did NOT want the 2 stage supercharger, wrongly thinking IF they needed high altitude they would use the TURBOcharger, and he F'd up badly, and of course Allison made what the USAAC ordered, The USA knew about the 2 stage supercharger as Jesse Vincent at Packard was working on an air version of his M2500 Pt Boat engine and he had a 2 stage supercharger designed for it, and this was before RR showed up at Packard begging them to build the Merlin, which Packard did and the A2500 got shelved. Design features of that supercharger ended up on the Packard V1650-3 2 stage merlins. Remember Vincent designed the M2500 PT Boat engine that was supercharged, being delivered to the US Navy in 1938 !!!
@@jacktattis GM tried to develop a supercharger along the lines of the German superchargers but it wasn't successful. Calum E. Douglas, who wrote _'The Secret Horsepower Race',_ described it in his book and in one of his videos, with a photograph. The problem was that it was very cumbersome and added significantly to the length. The Germans ran their superchargers at 90 degrees to the axis of the engine, mostly to accommodate the cannon that was often fitted to fire through the propeller hub. The Allison ran on the same axis. I suspect this is where the silly rumour came from that the Allison was 'at least three feet longer and not as smooth' as the Merlin.
This design never made it into production. I'm not even sure it was ever flown.
@@wilburfinnigan2142 Britain paid you did not
Were there more "patrols" in the Pacific, giving a chance for ambush and hit and run?
The European fighters were on escort and were right above the German fields where they could rearm and refuel and go right back up.
If the fighters did their job they stayed with the bombers limiting their fighting capabilities. And the Zero was a lightly armored plane.
Please share thoughts in an academic manor without arrogant disparaging comments.
Despite the outcome I do believe we can all agree that America had the coolest looking airplanes in the war.
I don't. I think they had _some_ of the good looking ones.
German pilots tended to have better fighters than Japanese pilots. Both Germany and Japan failed to sustain enough pilot training through the war. The allies developed massive training efforts early in the war. The German 109 and 190 fighters had good upgrades with better engines throughout the war. The Japanese did have a small number of excellent late war fighters. Once the allies developed suitable tactics they were able to dominate the Japanese. Also the allies had plenty of good fighters after 1942. Later in the war in Europe P-47 fighters tended to do more risky ground attack missions with significant losses. P-51 Mustangs were easier to build and half the cost of the P-47. But the P-47 reached Europe long before the P-51 and played an important role in decimating the German airforce. The early model P-51s did not have the Packhard Merlin engines suitable for the European bomber escort role at high altitudes. Packard was building Rolls Royce Merlin engines for the British. Along with Wildcats and Corsairs US fighter pilots had some excellent aircraft built in large numbers. And plenty of fuel for training flights. While the Germans and Japanese both had oil shortages later in the war. And could not sustain high pilot standards. And with US daylight bombing the younger German fighters had to go directly into combat and sustained heavy losses.
Germany had more aces because they were fighting since 1939 and they didn't rotate their pilots, they flew until the end of the war or were killed. America rotated their pilots.
Actually p-51 mustang was the best escort fighter. But only because bombers were not flying at high altitude such as 10000m. They were flying at 6000m to cary more bombs and to bomb more precisely. Gunners of b17 were not equipped by pressurised cockpits and their guns froze on 10000m. Thats why p51 was the best.
But if to use bombers accordingly to high flight conception such as b29, then p-47N with long range capacity would be the best cause in 10000m he was 50km/h faster then p51 mustang, could easily outdive p51, and he was made for this conception and had no opponents.
P38 lighting was also equipped with turbocharger his payload was 2 time more then p47, big range, great climb rate, but 100km/h slower then p47 and its flight performance was improved only to the end of war like p47s range.
So, objectively, p-51 of course was the best escort and all around fighter. Cheap and low fuel consumption. Good performance without turbocharger. And nobody talk that p-51 had bigger cruise speed then p47 almost on 100km/h that is very important when you are under enemy's attack.
I wonder also why p47 maden for high alt fast flight were not equipped by laminare wings like p-51 !??
Greg of gregs planes and automobile s on RUclips has an exelent P47 video series as well as P51 v P47 with year month data.
Greg is NOT the be all and end all of the P47 Performance So do your own research WW2 Aircraft Performance is the best and its on here.
@@jacktattis will take gregs data over most RUclips.
@@treyriver5676 well goes to show you have no research skills
Sorry to say it but Greg is full of shit.
@@treyriver5676
*_"will take gregs data over most RUclips."_*
That's exactly the problem: Greg relies on data, where all things are equal and it's possible to live in a vacuum.
Greg is very long on nerdy charts and well short on historical fact and he's not hard to prove wrong.
But if you only get your information from RUclips then you're probably not nearly as well-informed as you might think.
There's this old fashioned thing called reading books...
Could one compare the mustang to todays f16, and the thunderbolt to an f18?
Using your own arguments, the P-47 is the better “overall” fighter-capable of performing a wider range of roles effectively.
I gotta go with the flying TANK, the Jug the P-47... The Mustang is pretty and could turn better but cannot take the punishment that the P-47 can take.. Plus the P-47 had 8 50 cals...lol.. I also prefer the radial engine of the P-47. The R-2800 baby. The Merlin was great too but the R-2800 was more robust and AIR-COOLED.. Yes, the 51 was a better Dogfighter but the Lightning was a TANK in the air and more versatile...
More Greg nonsense.
7 of the 10 top aces in Europe flew the p47. Not to mention the first 262 to be shot down in combat belongs to a p47
No, that was a manoeuvre kill. The credit for the first Me 262 to be shot down by gunfire belongs to five pilots from 401 Squadron RCAF flying Spit IXs.
Corsair came back in Korea. Air cooled.🦅
P-47, all day long. Very robust, very reliable, two more guns and it was not dependent on glycol.
When you can get 4000/5000ft above the enemy the glycol does not matter "He who has the height has the Fight" and the Spitfire was never beaten until the Fw Ta 152 and the Fw did not come down to fight It was to hit the Bombers
*_"Very robust, very reliable, two more guns and it was not dependent on glycol."_*
All this has been overstated. By all means have you preferences but the pilots and commanders - not to mention the Germans - would mostly have disagreed with you.
@@jacktattis The Ta-152 did virtually nothing (a Mixed bag of about 7 aerial claims and reliability issues second to none. The most overhyped fighter of the war ). And what FW190D out-climbed and outperformed a Spitfire?
@@paulbantick8266 What? More overhyped than the Ho-229?
@@thethirdman225From what I have read? Yes! And because unfortunately for history, the Ta152 entered service and saw some combat. The uberwaffe fanboys jump on that to justify their 'the best fighter...In the world' claim despite its terrible serviceability, lack of in-service performance data and a questionable combat history.
Next comes the Do335. Another aircraft that's touted as the fastest piston-engined fighter of the war despite that too having no in-service data. Worse still, only a few were delivered. none saw combat and it is 'thought' that only one or two of the trainer version actually saw any in-service flying time after delivery.
I must admit though, that in the Luftwaffe 1946 category. the Horten takes the laurels.
For the year of 1943 luftwaffe attrition was 140%. This is all before the p51 b was flying in any meaningful numbers.....So without discounting some very brave flying, of course the p51's enjoyed running up kills on far less experienced pilots. It's a real shame this is glossed over in nearly all recounts of these aircraft and the 51 is shown as a far better war plane than it actually was
P-51 Is like a racehorse or a Ferrari. Sleek. Sexy.
P-47 is like a workhorse or a 98' Toyota Camry. Can take a beating and keep on ticking
The 47 was more than a '98 Camry!!! It was like a De Tomaso Pantera, great speed and handling, rugged V8 and cool looks. Just not quite a Ferrari WITH range. It was all about range.
AGAIN, VERY WELL DONE. Facts and not OPINIONS. Yes, 51 was a Fighter, while 47 was MULTI-PURPOSE. I was watching the video and keep thinking about 47 as the Father of the AD-1 SkyRaider and there you go, you included this. Then the USAF appropriately named the A10 Thunderbolt 2 - WOW!!! - THANK YOU for your Facts.
This P-51 vulnerability thing has no basis in fact. In fact, it’s internet BS. If you look at the USAAF figures, you will find that the P-51 suffered only slightly higher casualties _but spent a lot more time in enemy airspace_ than the P-47 and scored around 30% more ground kills. That should tell you a lot. And in fact, its air to air K/D was twice that of the P-47. The harder you look at the USAAF figures, the clearer it becomes. The P-51 was substantially better than the P-47 in pretty much every department and no less survivable.
That's total B.S.!
@@richardmontana5864 That’s not an argument Richard and you know it.
@@richardmontana5864 Show us your proof Richard.
@@richardmontana5864 Come on Richard, chop, chop. Let’s see your figures. I’ll wait while you watch Greg’s videos again.
Dogfight to Dogfight the F4U was far superior to the P51 as tested by the navy head to head.
Apples and oranges comparison; P-51 was a Corvette...P-47 was a pickup truck..."There are lies, damn lies, and statistics."
Very good videos. I think the P47N was the deadliest fighter of WW2 the P47 was faster tougher and packed quad fifties in each wing. Yes the mustang had the range. Yea but what about ground attack. They were a deadly tag team. It beat Germany’s tag team the ME109-FW190.
Rubbish.
I've always felt the Mustang was the most beautiful plane to be ever produced.
👍
Neal Kirby had 22 victories,not 18.
They flew the P47 in the Pacific, right? Competed w P-38 in the race of aces.
Mustang destroy the Luftwaffe and Thunderbolt destroy the Wehrmecht , great combination.
No Spitfire destroys the Luftwaffe the Typhoon destroys everything else on land
Too bad the facts don’t bear it out.
Dogfighter=P51
Ground Attack = P47
P47 /P51 equal up high P51 down low as the A36 and the RAF Mustang
The paddle props helped the P47D and they were faster and again much tougher and had more hitting power. Zoom and boom that’s it if they are more maneuverable. The N and M were insane. Who cares the P51 could be downed by a single hit.
*_"Who cares the P51 could be downed by a single hit."_*
Then you may be interested to know that the P-51 accounted for 30% more ground targets than the P-47 in half the number of missions.
The P-47 loss rate was 0.73 while the P-51 was 1.18. But remember that the P-51 spent a higher percentage of its time in hostile airspace the P-47. A P-47 after a hit in the undercarriage, leaking fluid over Antwerp was a lot more likely to make it home to England than a P-51 with the same problem over Cottbus. So the P-47's reputation for toughness is at least partly influenced by survivor bias.
The P-51 shot down 1.6 times as many German aircraft as the P-47 in literally half the number of missions.
The P-51 _wrecked_ the Luftwaffe.