One very telling statistic is that the top ten p47 aces all survived the war in spite of facing the luftwaffe when they were strongest and the many ground attack missions.
It doesnt make any sence. Luftwaffe was weakest, thats why they survived. German aces didn't surive, because Luftwaffe was overwhelmed and full of weak pilots.
@@ondrejdobrota7344 While it's true that the peak of the Luftwaffe was prob some time in mid to late 42' Luftwaffe Attrition in 1943 was around 120% So clearly if any allied plane that entered in 1944 saw a much softer Luftwaffe than earlier planes and pilots. As well as vastly more airframes and pilots with experience compared to newly minted p47 pilots breaking trail in early 43.
In Robert S. Johnson's book "Thunderbolt" he writes that with "new belly tanks increased our range to such an extent that we flew escort missions all the way to Berlin". He then describes a March 6 1944 mission to Berlin.
Its also to cover up some Air Force big wig butts. Greg's covered this in detail, the 47s COULD have been doing escort missions over mainland Europe all the way in and back, but prewar and early war doctrine prevented it. The Thunderbolts were plumbed for drop tanks, but doctrine forbid their development and use. They felt the bombers could be self escorting and always get through. When they added escorts they covered their mistake by creating the myth of the Mustang as the only option. Saying they couldn't have escorted bombers before its arrival. The commanders in Australia flipped a wig, and immediately had Australian factories build a drop tank system for the Pacific P-47 air wings when they were delivered. They also requested extra fuel pumps to deal with high altitude pressurization issues. It was entirely possible, but the careerists had jobs to save.
absolutely the greatest ww2 plane content creator ive had the pleasure to learn from over the last 5 years. hes def my number one, WW2 bombers is my 2nd, 2 different types of content but both topo notch. ed nash is very good too, more humor in eds.
And Greg explained in detail the fake narrative about P-47's limited range over Europe. How come P-47s had the range over New Guinea and were incapable over Europe 0:36 . The truth of the Bombing Mafia is appalling.
Except for his "Bomber Mafia" claim regarding drop tank availability for the P-47. Those are complete bunk as the full historical document record amply shows.
The P-47 was the better multitool but also the most expensive tool. Once it was clear that cheaper alternatives that would do the job were avaliable they got more preferred.
How many German fighters were "gifted" an easy escape from P47's in 1943 due to the 8ths 18,000 ft restriction not allowing them to give chase and greatly hampering its ability to destroy aircraft until Jimmy Doolittle in Feb of '44. That would be an interesting deep dive if such documentation exist. Also if the 8 fifty cal's of the P47 led to higher german pilot attrition vs the p51's 4 and 6 gun arrangement as there is a big difference between a pilot killed in action and one that lands a damaged plane just to go back up the next day in a new plane.
That height and below would give the best performance from the struggling Me/Bf 109 and the Fw 190A engines, the P-47 and P-51’s significantly superior performance at very high altitude would be lost and the extra induction system weight would be a non productive disadvantage. Discouraging combat with the Fw 190 at its optimum altitude was insightful. Climbing back up more than 7,000 feet in the rarified upper atmosphere especially for a heavy P-47 would ruinously impact the marginal range of the fighters which already had to arrive and depart in relays to fully reach out as far as the deepest penetration bombing raids, they might well have needed to return directly.
@@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935 This may have sounded logical in 1940 but in practice it was a pretty terrible form of escort. I dont think there is any debate that the Doolittle doctrine of us fighters detaching and ranging out to attack German fighters was vastly more effective. And a better use of fuel....The question was how much more attrition would it have caused. What I hear you saying is that it's better to sacrifice B17's Rather than risk fighter planes engaging in a fair fight. And your assuming B17 were always at some altitude well above where german planes performed well. They werent.
@@MAYDAYSIMULATIONS The U.S. heavy bombers were all two stage turbo charger and engine rear supercharger with intercooling equipped. They nearly always flew at or above 25.000 feet in order to maximise their speed and minimise the overall performance of the enemy fighters. The most dangerous Luftwaffe single engined fighter was the heavily armed Fw 190A but it was uncompetitive against American fighters at that altitude having only a single stage two speed supercharger, its peak performance was much lower, about this quoted 18,000 feet or slightly lower. It is as simple as comparing power vs height graphs. At 25,000 feet a 190 could only engage the bombers, they struggled to climb above them in order to plan their attack and were easy meat for the P-47s and P-51s which were allowed to range ahead by General Jimmy Doolittle. 190s at 18,000 feet climbing to attack the protected bomber formation had missed the bus, creeping on up, ultimately at perhaps 500 feet per minute, far above their supercharger second speed’s _full throttle height_ they could only be a threat to a distant following bomber wave. 25,000 and above was higher than the P-51’s optimum height but the spread in the power output compared to that of the German fighters was vast. The advantage of the continuously variable speed turbocharger P-47 kept increasing with higher altitudes. Ranging American fighters were most effective attacking Luftwaffe formations at or above the bomber’s height, they were the threat and they were at a huge performance disadvantage at that height. A better insight can be gained by reading professional pilot study material, relevant here would be airframes and engines, flight planning, meteorology (weather) and (larger aircraft sophistication) performance.
The Jug (and P-38) would get caught in compressibility at .70 mach & take forever to pull out. As someone else mentioned, it then couldn't realistically get back to the bomber stream with enough fuel to be useful. Dive recovery flap Jugs weren't avail until late 1944 with the D-30 variant.
@@bobsakamanos4469 Republic and the royal airforce tested it up to mach .81 and .83 respectively. Otherwise everybody is just quoting a single Eric Brown interview where he spoke of tactical mach. Which isn't critical mach and is largely a product of how strong the pilot is. Which he admittedly stated that he couldn't produce much stick force, which is understandable he's tiny. Beyond that there is a mountain of pilot reports stating how the 47 could overtake both the 109 and 190. It was listed in this very video. As far as the logic of letting one fighter escape so you can get back up to altitude just to dive again and let the next guy go is exactly why close escort was so ineffective. Bud Anderson outlines this very well in an interview he did with the San Diego Air and space museum. Fantastic interview. Point is, high altitude high speed intercepts when the enemy gets to pick the time, direction, and altitude are extremely low probability intercepts and if you only have a few thousand feet to chase it doesn't work well....nor did it. The German planes would and could blow through the formation dive away and come up the next day. Again in this very video it showed pilots misjudged distances by a factor of 2 at 600yards how likely was a successful intercept from quadruple that when closing speeds could be 700mph.
The p47 did not have a fuel consumption or range problem. Even the early models could escort bombers all the way using nonstandard drop tanks that were maliciously banned by command wanting to prove B17 did not require escorts. This is meticulously proven in "P-47 Thunderbolt Pt. 6 Range, Deceit and Treachery.", one of the most heartbreaking videos about ww2 given the massive bomber losses.
That video is flawed. The p-47 did not have the internal fuel to do escort missions to Berlin and back. It doesn't even matter how many fuel tanks you strap to it. Also the tanks greg talk about is unprezured ferry tank that don't work at escort altitudes. With the D-25 and onwards the jug got enough internal fuel to do escort to Berlin and back, but by then P-51 had taken over the escort business almost completely.
_The p47 did not have a fuel consumption or range problem._ With no external load and in maximum air range cruise condition, how many air miles per gallon did the P-47D-25 achieve? How many did the P-38J achieve? How many did the P-51D achieve? Are you asserting there were no substantive differences in inherent fuel efficiency between the aircraft?
@@primmakinsofis614 All wwii piston engined planes had a fuel consumption problem. The question was did the airframe support the fuel needed and still retain a reasonable fighting capability. Obviously bigger planes took more gas so the mileage isn't the question, it's the combat range. The p51 generally went further but with a 200gal centerline drop tank 305 internal a p47 thirsty as it was had over 500 gals to work with providing a radius of 450 miles. This is right out of the manual. The 5th airforce did this on site in weeks not months and the 8th "chose" to twiddle there fingers and then blame it on the plane....Not all that surprising as the very individual that supported banning drop tanks on fighters was now the head of the 8th airforce.
@@MAYDAYSIMULATIONS Some aircraft designs are inherently more fuel efficient than others. In Col. IV cruise at 20,000 feet, the P-47D-25 achieved 2.67 air miles per gallon; the P-38J, 3.11; the P-51D, 5.16. A radius of 450 miles easily covers the Ruhr but is 100 miles short of Berlin and other distant targets. The 200 gallon metal belly tank entered service in Aug. 1943 on SWPA P-47s, a time when the 108 gallon paper tank was just coming into use on ETO P-47s. Metal 100 gallon tanks had been ordered from British manufacturers months earlier but steel shortages had delayed production, and prompted the British to suggest paper tanks as an alternative. The U.S. fighter range extension program had started in 1942 and looked at both combat capable drop tanks and increasing the internal fuel capacity. Republic was part of the problem. The P-38 had the plumbing and racks for wings tanks from the E onward; the P-51 inherited these traits from the A-36. The P-47 didn't get wing plumbing and racks until early 1944. Republic only added 65 gallons to the internal capacity of the P-47D compared to 85 gallons in the P-51 and 110 gallons in the P-38. The P-38 was supposed to have been the long-range for Europe but the groups were sent out of England to support North African operations, forcing a switch to the P-47.
I can think of the AN/APS-6 as used on the F6F-5N (maybe others). The radar had various modes (B-scope and O-scope) for long range search, and a G-scope for gunsight mode in which you'd see the enemy plane as a horizontal line, from the pilot's POV (so if it was above and to the right of the centre of the scope, it was the same from the pilot's point of view), and the range was determined by the length of the line (grew longer as the enemy got closer). When the line fit between two other lines in the centre of the scope, it meant the enemy plane was at the optimal firing range.
@ Airborne interception radar is totally different, ranging radar simply gave distance and integrated with the gyro gunsight or HUD to display the computed aiming point for hitting the enemy aircraft.
The P-47 turbo-supercharging was of course multi staged with exhaust gas and two way air intake ducting leading all the way back to the rear fuselage turbocharger stage and then the vital intercooling and its ducting added even more weight and more bulk.
If you read the accounts of WW2 fighter pilots, the real winners could get up very close and astern of the enemy aeroplane. Then they would fire a burst which would usually be decisive. Most other tactics didn't work.
Curious on the claim that the P-47N "almost closed the range gap with the Mustang". My understanding was that the P-47N was the longest-ranged single-engined fighter of the war.
Only by carrying an enormous amount of fuel. P-47N = 557 gallons internal + 440 gallons external = 920 miles combat radius P-51H = 260 gallons internal + 220 gallons external = 886 miles combat radius P-47N = 1,840 miles / 997 gallons = 1.85 air miles per gallon P-51H = 1,772 miles / 480 gallons = 3.69 air miles per gallon Logistically, the P-51 is by far the superior aircraft, able to fly 96% the distance of the P-47N while using less than half as much fuel. This is why the P-47 disappeared quickly after the war while the P-51 soldiered on into Korea.
A 20 mm cannon has the firepower of 3x 50 cals. The FW190 carried 4x 20 mm and 2x. 13mm . In essence, the Fw 190 had much better firepower than the p47s, also against fighters.
Your firing range logic would apply to any 50 cal US fighter. The Mustang would be worse as it had 6 guns with the P38 better as rounds didn’t converge.
The guns were mounted on rubber mounts similar to motor mounts on a car engine. This was to keep the plane from being shaken apart. Once these guns were firing they bounced around throwing lead all over the place. Go look at gun camera footage where tracers are being used. Also notice the jagged lines of the tracers as the camera shook. So the secret was to get close enough and have as many guns firing as possible because the guns were not accurate. But if you got too close you chanced being hit by parts shot off of the enemy plane.
Even with drop tanks the fact remains it burned 78% more fuel. Fuel was life blood durring the war and had to be used smartly. You have to remember people died because of lack of fuel. It was a persistant problem thru the entierty of the war.
Will look forward to the video on gun-ranging radar. Liked this video a lot. In deflection shooting, if the range estimate is off, the bullets will be nowhere close to the target, as well as being too dispersed, even if ballistic drop isn’t important.
Boy, I did enjoy this vid. I've always loved the p-47 (a love unrequited unfortunately) The P-51 gleaned much glory because its range could keep it in the fight at longer distances. But I read on another sight that the P-47 "could" had drop tanks early on but the head of the RAF, Portal, I think, said drop tanks wouldn't work. End of story for many months. Anyone know anything about this?
i suspect the P 47 was originally thought of as, and maybe designed to be, a bomber killer, not an escort. it also seems to have played the Hurricane to the P 51's Spitfire. essential, but unsung.
Which it's known today as the first multirole heavly slated attack plane... Huince why the a-10 got it's name the only other US aircraft to get the name thundbolt... As bioth are insaly good attackers as long as your not wanting them to rush over a target and level bomb bomb they rush home... But unblike the P-41 which was "just" great at dog fighting the A-10 is the king of it being capble of BVR if the enemy comes to them and the A-10 can dodge all their BVR missles... Also I would think the A-10 is much slower then the P-41 but the A-10 has much better manuverble espacly at low speeds... So yeah it could be the uSAF has always been absated with a single type of plane at a time despite needing all of them at a time... So it hates planes that are not that thing...
The early variants of the P-47 didn't have high rate of climb which was not that great for a bomber interceptor. The definitive variant P-47D however had much improved rate of climb, getting close to the P-51D and making it a great bomber interceptor.
Shooting guns is a Touch thing, all the addon's help but there is no time for most of that, you have to just know where and when to shoot. These guys engaged the enemy 20 - 40 times if they survived that long, a steep learning curve of what must be a very exhilarating and noisy moment with not a lot of time(s) to hone your skills.
The allied fighters had rate gyro gunsights by 1944, the target deflection lead was displayed assuming that the range was accurate, if it wasn’t it would miss too.
I'd be VERY skeptical taking a report from P-47 pilots that had never flown the P-51 (or P-38 for that matter) as gospel when it comes to "performing better ". At the time of the report both the 78th and 353rd had yet to even have experience with the P-51. Both groups transitioned to P-51s, I'd be curious to see what their opinions were then after gaining some experience. I'm guessing it would've been the same opinion as pilots from the 4th, 352nd, or the 354th (who started in P-51s, briefly went to P-47s then finished the war back in P-51s)....the mass majority of those pilots swear by the P-51 over the P-47.
I really love the P 47 but you can't fight physics. As powerful as it is, as well armed and resilient it, it had very little chance of outurning or outclimbing a 109 or 190. The kills it did get was probably down to already being up at altitude while the Luftwaffe fighters were climbing, and primarily after the bombers. Size matters too, the Jug being so big means it's an easier target to hit and more visible, contrast this to the 109 which for a WW2 fighter is a pretty small plane.
That's voodoo physics; the p47 could out climb and out turn fw190 under many conditions. It looks deceptively fat and heavy from the side due to massive air pipes to and from big turbo in the tail, and the exhaust was piped internally back to tail. So what if those pipes took a bullet? View p47 from the front or top, and in detail for various airscoops and it is sleek. The wings are thin and elliptical. It used new NACA findings to be much more aerodynamic than p38.
@wwiiusbombers You are the voice of wwiibombers so could you think of producing one video about unnecessary losses due to the Bombing Mafia decissions regarding P-47's tactics and external tanks? I think it would be great to hear you and Greg about two sides of the same coin. What do you think?
The 47 was a devastating platform. 8 50s, bombs and rockets. Could take incredible punishment and still fly. The 51 was water cooled , was easy to knock down. According to what I've read. But it handled better in dogfight
The P47 was very expensive. About $90,000 to the P51's $50,000 and I think 35,000 for the Hellcat. It was a more complicated plane to fly than other allison or merlin powered fighters, with prop, throttle, turbo and, later using fuel leaning for more range it would have been a higher work load for the pilot. Imo the simplicity of the P51 was one of its best qualities.
I have heard the story that the Polish pilots during the Battle of Britain were more effective than the British pilots because they were trained to fire at a shorter range.
That German fighters were able to escape from P-47's isn't relevant if the mission of the P-47 was to escort bombers, and the bombers made it to the target and home. This could mean that the German fighters were chased off and the P-47's remained close to the bombers.
Except that the Jug wasn't long range and bombers carried on into germany unprotected. Jug range only became long in mid-late 1944. Even then they never made it to Berlin.
@@bobsakamanos4469 I don't see how that applies, in fact, I see it the other way. If the P-47's were short-legged, they'd stay close to the bombers so as not to expend their limited fuel chasing fighters, taking them away from the bombers.
@@Tanker4202 unfortunately, they could only escort to approximately the german border until mid-1944 . Close bomber escort was not really effective to prevent a determined attack, which is why Zemke initiated the Zemke fan out later in 1944 although only more effective with the long range D-25 Jugs.
People fairly claim that the P47 was expensive to procure. How expensive was the aircraft of one includes loss rate data? If a Mustang, that might be 60% of the P47 purchase price, is lost in combat more than twice as much, the P47 might be better value for money. The fuel usage of the Mustang is superior, but the cost of training and wages for pilots are another consideration. The USAF would certainly have been better off with P47s over P51s in Korea. I really do wonder what was the real data with all factors considered, for the US fighters with the best value for money. Other than the Hellcat...
I'm curious as to how these combat stats compare to other American fighters. Your narrative seems to imply That the escape Frequency for German airplanes Stems mostly from faulty training.
P-47N also shed 3000lb of excess structure, thus losing the P-47's legendary durability, and could no longer sustain damage the way the B and D model P-47s had.
Check your sources. The empty weight on the N was 1000lbs heavier than the D. I listened to a pilot who flew both in the Pacific and his take was that the N could take more damage but not quite as maneuverable as the earlier models.
@@wlmac The final weight was more, but the structural portion was 3,000lb lighter. They added back in more fuel tanks, bigger engine, tail warning radar, etc. and you have no supporting evidence to claim the P-47N could take even MORE damage. Do you even know what makes the P-47D legendarily tough in the first place? Or what made the A6M legendarily weak? DO you even know the reason behind toughness and damage resistance of a given airplane? There is a VERY specific reason why a given plane is or is not damage resistance in combat. There is one primary reason, and one secondary reason for what makes a plane tough, or not. The P-47N/M was objectively less tough, less damage resistant, than the P-47B/D.
@@wlmac " You just told me you don't know what structural weight means with that diatribe." oh really? is that so? then do explain what you THINK I was talking about. Prove I don't know what I was talking about. Prove your own understanding and explain what contributes to the damage resistance of a given aircraft then?
How did the aviation gasoline get to the 8th Airforce? Even in 1943 the U-boats were slaughtering Atlantic transport vessels and their crews, The P-38s and P-47s drank more drowned civilian seamen.
I would think it's because it's a single engine heavy fighter something that is extremely rare then and since... So whill it had the firepower it would run out of ggun quickly for a WW2 fighter and it's far to heavy and under powered to catch late any WW2 German fighters if they wanted to just leave... Unlike the Mustang and even the P-38 where the german fighters would be stuck inbn combat till they are shot down or the US fighter had to leave... Don't get me wrong the P-47 is a great airframe it's just fat and "slow"...
The P47 had the mod of a paddle blade propellor. Robert Johnson said that prior to it when practicing v a Mk9 Spitfire that, once in a steady climb, the Spitfire would just race away. But after the paddle blade prop was installed he was able to catch and leave the Spitfire behind. In combat, Johnson said that no German fighter was able to escape him after that propeller was installed.
Love the 47, it was there when it was needed, the 56th fs was in bolts and had highest kill totals, zempke, Ganesh, Johnson to name a few, zempke only went down after his 51s wings folded, funny pilots lost ratios are never discussed
Lots of jugs were out of the fight when their turbos were hit, or when they were lured into a compressibility dive.... then they turned for home. Surviveable, but That didn't help bombers though.
One very telling statistic is that the top ten p47 aces all survived the war in spite of facing the luftwaffe when they were strongest and the many ground attack missions.
Very valid
It doesnt make any sence. Luftwaffe was weakest, thats why they survived. German aces didn't surive, because Luftwaffe was overwhelmed and full of weak pilots.
@@ondrejdobrota7344 While it's true that the peak of the Luftwaffe was prob some time in mid to late 42' Luftwaffe Attrition in 1943 was around 120% So clearly if any allied plane that entered in 1944 saw a much softer Luftwaffe than earlier planes and pilots. As well as vastly more airframes and pilots with experience compared to newly minted p47 pilots breaking trail in early 43.
In Robert S. Johnson's book "Thunderbolt" he writes that with "new belly tanks increased our range to such an extent that we flew escort missions all the way to Berlin". He then describes a March 6 1944 mission to Berlin.
The P-51 seems to get all the glory when in reality the P-47 was the real asskicker.
That is because the P-47 is ugly AF compared to the clean lines of the P-51
More as end of the war, extreme range was required and everything else was pushed to a secondary role.
As also noted in the video, a P-47 burned 78% more fuel per mission than the P-51.
Unfortunately, war often reduces to logistics.
Because the mustang is just so beautiful..
Its also to cover up some Air Force big wig butts. Greg's covered this in detail, the 47s COULD have been doing escort missions over mainland Europe all the way in and back, but prewar and early war doctrine prevented it. The Thunderbolts were plumbed for drop tanks, but doctrine forbid their development and use. They felt the bombers could be self escorting and always get through. When they added escorts they covered their mistake by creating the myth of the Mustang as the only option. Saying they couldn't have escorted bombers before its arrival.
The commanders in Australia flipped a wig, and immediately had Australian factories build a drop tank system for the Pacific P-47 air wings when they were delivered. They also requested extra fuel pumps to deal with high altitude pressurization issues. It was entirely possible, but the careerists had jobs to save.
Very much looking forward to your forward facing radar video!
The channel "Greg's Airplanes and Automobiles" did a great multi part series on the P-47 if anyone is interested
++++ this , I really enjoy Greg's P47 series
@@ammarchetta That’s a great channel, I concur.
absolutely the greatest ww2 plane content creator ive had the pleasure to learn from over the last 5 years. hes def my number one, WW2 bombers is my 2nd, 2 different types of content but both topo notch. ed nash is very good too, more humor in eds.
And Greg explained in detail the fake narrative about P-47's limited range over Europe. How come P-47s had the range over New Guinea and were incapable over Europe 0:36 .
The truth of the Bombing Mafia is appalling.
Except for his "Bomber Mafia" claim regarding drop tank availability for the P-47. Those are complete bunk as the full historical document record amply shows.
The P-47 was the better multitool but also the most expensive tool. Once it was clear that cheaper alternatives that would do the job were avaliable they got more preferred.
How many German fighters were "gifted" an easy escape from P47's in 1943 due to the 8ths 18,000 ft restriction not allowing them to give chase and greatly hampering its ability to destroy aircraft until Jimmy Doolittle in Feb of '44. That would be an interesting deep dive if such documentation exist. Also if the 8 fifty cal's of the P47 led to higher german pilot attrition vs the p51's 4 and 6 gun arrangement as there is a big difference between a pilot killed in action and one that lands a damaged plane just to go back up the next day in a new plane.
That height and below would give the best performance from the struggling Me/Bf 109 and the Fw 190A engines, the P-47 and P-51’s significantly superior performance at very high altitude would be lost and the extra induction system weight would be a non productive disadvantage. Discouraging combat with the Fw 190 at its optimum altitude was insightful.
Climbing back up more than 7,000 feet in the rarified upper atmosphere especially for a heavy P-47 would ruinously impact the marginal range of the fighters which already had to arrive and depart in relays to fully reach out as far as the deepest penetration bombing raids, they might well have needed to return directly.
@@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935 This may have sounded logical in 1940 but in practice it was a pretty terrible form of escort. I dont think there is any debate that the Doolittle doctrine of us fighters detaching and ranging out to attack German fighters was vastly more effective. And a better use of fuel....The question was how much more attrition would it have caused. What I hear you saying is that it's better to sacrifice B17's Rather than risk fighter planes engaging in a fair fight. And your assuming B17 were always at some altitude well above where german planes performed well. They werent.
@@MAYDAYSIMULATIONS The U.S. heavy bombers were all two stage turbo charger and engine rear supercharger with intercooling equipped. They nearly always flew at or above 25.000 feet in order to maximise their speed and minimise the overall performance of the enemy fighters. The most dangerous Luftwaffe single engined fighter was the heavily armed Fw 190A but it was uncompetitive against American fighters at that altitude having only a single stage two speed supercharger, its peak performance was much lower, about this quoted 18,000 feet or slightly lower.
It is as simple as comparing power vs height graphs. At 25,000 feet a 190 could only engage the bombers, they struggled to climb above them in order to plan their attack and were easy meat for the P-47s and P-51s which were allowed to range ahead by General Jimmy Doolittle. 190s at 18,000 feet climbing to attack the protected bomber formation had missed the bus, creeping on up, ultimately at perhaps 500 feet per minute, far above their supercharger second speed’s _full throttle height_ they could only be a threat to a distant following bomber wave. 25,000 and above was higher than the P-51’s optimum height but the spread in the power output compared to that of the German fighters was vast. The advantage of the continuously variable speed turbocharger P-47 kept increasing with higher altitudes.
Ranging American fighters were most effective attacking Luftwaffe formations at or above the bomber’s height, they were the threat and they were at a huge performance disadvantage at that height.
A better insight can be gained by reading professional pilot study material, relevant here would be airframes and engines, flight planning, meteorology (weather) and (larger aircraft sophistication) performance.
The Jug (and P-38) would get caught in compressibility at .70 mach & take forever to pull out. As someone else mentioned, it then couldn't realistically get back to the bomber stream with enough fuel to be useful. Dive recovery flap Jugs weren't avail until late 1944 with the D-30 variant.
@@bobsakamanos4469 Republic and the royal airforce tested it up to mach .81 and .83 respectively. Otherwise everybody is just quoting a single Eric Brown interview where he spoke of tactical mach. Which isn't critical mach and is largely a product of how strong the pilot is. Which he admittedly stated that he couldn't produce much stick force, which is understandable he's tiny. Beyond that there is a mountain of pilot reports stating how the 47 could overtake both the 109 and 190. It was listed in this very video. As far as the logic of letting one fighter escape so you can get back up to altitude just to dive again and let the next guy go is exactly why close escort was so ineffective. Bud Anderson outlines this very well in an interview he did with the San Diego Air and space museum. Fantastic interview. Point is, high altitude high speed intercepts when the enemy gets to pick the time, direction, and altitude are extremely low probability intercepts and if you only have a few thousand feet to chase it doesn't work well....nor did it. The German planes would and could blow through the formation dive away and come up the next day. Again in this very video it showed pilots misjudged distances by a factor of 2 at 600yards how likely was a successful intercept from quadruple that when closing speeds could be 700mph.
The p47 did not have a fuel consumption or range problem. Even the early models could escort bombers all the way using nonstandard drop tanks that were maliciously banned by command wanting to prove B17 did not require escorts. This is meticulously proven in "P-47 Thunderbolt Pt. 6 Range, Deceit and Treachery.", one of the most heartbreaking videos about ww2 given the massive bomber losses.
That video is flawed. The p-47 did not have the internal fuel to do escort missions to Berlin and back. It doesn't even matter how many fuel tanks you strap to it. Also the tanks greg talk about is unprezured ferry tank that don't work at escort altitudes. With the D-25 and onwards the jug got enough internal fuel to do escort to Berlin and back, but by then P-51 had taken over the escort business almost completely.
@@emilrydstrm3944 ruclips.net/video/I7aGC6Sp8zQ/видео.htmlsi=_8mbk5s11ta4AHKS
_The p47 did not have a fuel consumption or range problem._
With no external load and in maximum air range cruise condition, how many air miles per gallon did the P-47D-25 achieve? How many did the P-38J achieve? How many did the P-51D achieve?
Are you asserting there were no substantive differences in inherent fuel efficiency between the aircraft?
@@primmakinsofis614 All wwii piston engined planes had a fuel consumption problem. The question was did the airframe support the fuel needed and still retain a reasonable fighting capability. Obviously bigger planes took more gas so the mileage isn't the question, it's the combat range. The p51 generally went further but with a 200gal centerline drop tank 305 internal a p47 thirsty as it was had over 500 gals to work with providing a radius of 450 miles. This is right out of the manual. The 5th airforce did this on site in weeks not months and the 8th "chose" to twiddle there fingers and then blame it on the plane....Not all that surprising as the very individual that supported banning drop tanks on fighters was now the head of the 8th airforce.
@@MAYDAYSIMULATIONS Some aircraft designs are inherently more fuel efficient than others. In Col. IV cruise at 20,000 feet, the P-47D-25 achieved 2.67 air miles per gallon; the P-38J, 3.11; the P-51D, 5.16.
A radius of 450 miles easily covers the Ruhr but is 100 miles short of Berlin and other distant targets.
The 200 gallon metal belly tank entered service in Aug. 1943 on SWPA P-47s, a time when the 108 gallon paper tank was just coming into use on ETO P-47s. Metal 100 gallon tanks had been ordered from British manufacturers months earlier but steel shortages had delayed production, and prompted the British to suggest paper tanks as an alternative.
The U.S. fighter range extension program had started in 1942 and looked at both combat capable drop tanks and increasing the internal fuel capacity.
Republic was part of the problem. The P-38 had the plumbing and racks for wings tanks from the E onward; the P-51 inherited these traits from the A-36. The P-47 didn't get wing plumbing and racks until early 1944. Republic only added 65 gallons to the internal capacity of the P-47D compared to 85 gallons in the P-51 and 110 gallons in the P-38.
The P-38 was supposed to have been the long-range for Europe but the groups were sent out of England to support North African operations, forcing a switch to the P-47.
I had no idea that forward ranging radar was even a thing in WW2. I learn a lot from these videos.
No Ship! I'll be looking forward to that video. 🐿
I think it featured in the immediate post war fighters, it was in the black plastic slight bulge on the top of the F-86’s nose air intake.
It was a recommendation that wasn't implemented during WWII. Some US fighters late in the war had tail warning radar.
I can think of the AN/APS-6 as used on the F6F-5N (maybe others). The radar had various modes (B-scope and O-scope) for long range search, and a G-scope for gunsight mode in which you'd see the enemy plane as a horizontal line, from the pilot's POV (so if it was above and to the right of the centre of the scope, it was the same from the pilot's point of view), and the range was determined by the length of the line (grew longer as the enemy got closer). When the line fit between two other lines in the centre of the scope, it meant the enemy plane was at the optimal firing range.
@ Airborne interception radar is totally different, ranging radar simply gave distance and integrated with the gyro gunsight or HUD to display the computed aiming point for hitting the enemy aircraft.
P-47Ns outranged P-51s. Seems that the range estimation errors was likely common to all USAAF pilots and gunners.
A lot of the P-47s trade-offs were to accommodate the turbocharger for high altitude performance.
The P-47 turbo-supercharging was of course multi staged with exhaust gas and two way air intake ducting leading all the way back to the rear fuselage turbocharger stage and then the vital intercooling and its ducting added even more weight and more bulk.
👍Gabby Gabreski likes this video.
He had issues with distances too, like altitude... a correlation?
He had 28 kills.
Excellent as always.
Another outstanding video!
I really enjoyed this - Thank you!
If you read the accounts of WW2 fighter pilots, the real winners could get up very close and astern of the enemy aeroplane. Then they would fire a burst which would usually be decisive. Most other tactics didn't work.
You might consider adding "and Fighters" to the channel name as you cover them so much. This is not a criticism, I enjoy your videos.
Why are you criticizing him ? Do you not enjoy the videos ? (Just breaking your chops)
For the last year they all became fighter-bombers.
Curious on the claim that the P-47N "almost closed the range gap with the Mustang". My understanding was that the P-47N was the longest-ranged single-engined fighter of the war.
Only by carrying an enormous amount of fuel.
P-47N = 557 gallons internal + 440 gallons external = 920 miles combat radius
P-51H = 260 gallons internal + 220 gallons external = 886 miles combat radius
P-47N = 1,840 miles / 997 gallons = 1.85 air miles per gallon
P-51H = 1,772 miles / 480 gallons = 3.69 air miles per gallon
Logistically, the P-51 is by far the superior aircraft, able to fly 96% the distance of the P-47N while using less than half as much fuel. This is why the P-47 disappeared quickly after the war while the P-51 soldiered on into Korea.
Too late to do any good.
A 20 mm cannon has the firepower of 3x 50 cals. The FW190 carried 4x 20 mm and 2x. 13mm . In essence, the Fw 190 had much better firepower than the p47s, also against fighters.
Your firing range logic would apply to any 50 cal US fighter. The Mustang would be worse as it had 6 guns with the P38 better as rounds didn’t converge.
The guns were mounted on rubber mounts similar to motor mounts on a car engine. This was to keep the plane from being shaken apart. Once these guns were firing they bounced around throwing lead all over the place. Go look at gun camera footage where tracers are being used. Also notice the jagged lines of the tracers as the camera shook. So the secret was to get close enough and have as many guns firing as possible because the guns were not accurate. But if you got too close you chanced being hit by parts shot off of the enemy plane.
Even with drop tanks the fact remains it burned 78% more fuel. Fuel was life blood durring the war and had to be used smartly. You have to remember people died because of lack of fuel. It was a persistant problem thru the entierty of the war.
Will look forward to the video on gun-ranging radar. Liked this video a lot.
In deflection shooting, if the range estimate is off, the bullets will be nowhere close to the target, as well as being too dispersed, even if ballistic drop isn’t important.
The most successful pilots in the USAAF were those that closed to effective range, regardless of the type of aircraft they were flying.
That's exactly what experienced Polish pilots done during the Battle of Britain (e.g. famous 303 FS)
I love this content
Very interesting!
Boy, I did enjoy this vid. I've always loved the p-47 (a love unrequited unfortunately)
The P-51 gleaned much glory because its range could keep it in the fight at longer distances. But I read on another sight that the P-47 "could" had drop tanks early on but the head of the RAF, Portal, I think, said drop tanks wouldn't work. End of story for many months.
Anyone know anything about this?
Range is based on internal fuel capacity. The Jug didn't have that until the D-25 version, mid-late 1944.
i suspect the P 47 was originally thought of as, and maybe designed to be, a bomber killer,
not an escort.
it also seems to have played the Hurricane to the P 51's Spitfire.
essential, but unsung.
Which it's known today as the first multirole heavly slated attack plane... Huince why the a-10 got it's name the only other US aircraft to get the name thundbolt... As bioth are insaly good attackers as long as your not wanting them to rush over a target and level bomb bomb they rush home... But unblike the P-41 which was "just" great at dog fighting the A-10 is the king of it being capble of BVR if the enemy comes to them and the A-10 can dodge all their BVR missles... Also I would think the A-10 is much slower then the P-41 but the A-10 has much better manuverble espacly at low speeds... So yeah it could be the uSAF has always been absated with a single type of plane at a time despite needing all of them at a time... So it hates planes that are not that thing...
The early variants of the P-47 didn't have high rate of climb which was not that great for a bomber interceptor. The definitive variant P-47D however had much improved rate of climb, getting close to the P-51D and making it a great bomber interceptor.
The P47's were actually faster at altitude than p51's....but the p51's were much cheaper to buy
Except the Hurricane was obsolete by fall of 1940.
P-47 was a tank.
Shooting guns is a Touch thing, all the addon's help but there is no time for most of that, you have to just know where and when to shoot. These guys engaged the enemy 20 - 40 times if they survived that long, a steep learning curve of what must be a very exhilarating and noisy moment with not a lot of time(s) to hone your skills.
The allied fighters had rate gyro gunsights by 1944, the target deflection lead was displayed assuming that the range was accurate, if it wasn’t it would miss too.
By any chance a video on thr P-47 VLR missions out of the Marianas and Ie Shima ? 318th operated with N models .
I'd be VERY skeptical taking a report from P-47 pilots that had never flown the P-51 (or P-38 for that matter) as gospel when it comes to "performing better ". At the time of the report both the 78th and 353rd had yet to even have experience with the P-51. Both groups transitioned to P-51s, I'd be curious to see what their opinions were then after gaining some experience. I'm guessing it would've been the same opinion as pilots from the 4th, 352nd, or the 354th (who started in P-51s, briefly went to P-47s then finished the war back in P-51s)....the mass majority of those pilots swear by the P-51 over the P-47.
I really love the P 47 but you can't fight physics. As powerful as it is, as well armed and resilient it, it had very little chance of outurning or outclimbing a 109 or 190. The kills it did get was probably down to already being up at altitude while the Luftwaffe fighters were climbing, and primarily after the bombers. Size matters too, the Jug being so big means it's an easier target to hit and more visible, contrast this to the 109 which for a WW2 fighter is a pretty small plane.
Neither did the wildcat, but..
That's voodoo physics; the p47 could out climb and out turn fw190 under many conditions. It looks deceptively fat and heavy from the side due to massive air pipes to and from big turbo in the tail, and the exhaust was piped internally back to tail. So what if those pipes took a bullet? View p47 from the front or top, and in detail for various airscoops and it is sleek. The wings are thin and elliptical. It used new NACA findings to be much more aerodynamic than p38.
@wwiiusbombers You are the voice of wwiibombers so could you think of producing one video about unnecessary losses due to the Bombing Mafia decissions regarding P-47's tactics and external tanks? I think it would be great to hear you and Greg about two sides of the same coin. What do you think?
The "Bomber Mafia" is bunk and is disproved by the full historical record. Greg cherry--picks massively to support his allegation.
The better skills that you would have to get within 300m would as important as dispersion.
The 47 was a devastating platform. 8 50s, bombs and rockets. Could take incredible punishment and still fly.
The 51 was water cooled , was easy to knock down.
According to what I've read. But it handled better in dogfight
The Jug turbo and all its plumbing was vulnerable. Once hit, it was out of the fight and tried to limp home.
@bobsakamanos4469 not according to what I've read.
@@FredHaferkamp Are you saying its turbo and all the plumbing/induction systems were armoured... they weren't.
@bobsakamanos4469 no I'm not saying that.
Allot of them were shot down, usually by flak. But they could take lots of damage to the wings engine etc.
@@FredHaferkamp that turbo system was monsterously huge. It took hits, and the jug had to abandon the high altitude fight.
For usa production cost hrs to build are irrelavent compare germany but was P-47 costly to build
The P47 was very expensive. About $90,000 to the P51's $50,000 and I think 35,000 for the Hellcat. It was a more complicated plane to fly than other allison or merlin powered fighters, with prop, throttle, turbo and, later using fuel leaning for more range it would have been a higher work load for the pilot. Imo the simplicity of the P51 was one of its best qualities.
The pay load was huge
I have heard the story that the Polish pilots during the Battle of Britain were more effective than the British pilots because they were trained to fire at a shorter range.
What percentage of fighters carried gun cameras?
If I had to do it, and I had a choice, I’d fly the Jug.
That German fighters were able to escape from P-47's isn't relevant if the mission of the P-47 was to escort bombers, and the bombers made it to the target and home.
This could mean that the German fighters were chased off and the P-47's remained close to the bombers.
Except that the Jug wasn't long range and bombers carried on into germany unprotected. Jug range only became long in mid-late 1944. Even then they never made it to Berlin.
@@bobsakamanos4469 I don't see how that applies, in fact, I see it the other way.
If the P-47's were short-legged, they'd stay close to the bombers so as not to expend their limited fuel chasing fighters, taking them away from the bombers.
@@Tanker4202 unfortunately, they could only escort to approximately the german border until mid-1944 . Close bomber escort was not really effective to prevent a determined attack, which is why Zemke initiated the Zemke fan out later in 1944 although only more effective with the long range D-25 Jugs.
People fairly claim that the P47 was expensive to procure. How expensive was the aircraft of one includes loss rate data? If a Mustang, that might be 60% of the P47 purchase price, is lost in combat more than twice as much, the P47 might be better value for money. The fuel usage of the Mustang is superior, but the cost of training and wages for pilots are another consideration. The USAF would certainly have been better off with P47s over P51s in Korea. I really do wonder what was the real data with all factors considered, for the US fighters with the best value for money. Other than the Hellcat...
I'm curious as to how these combat stats compare to other American fighters. Your narrative seems to imply That the escape Frequency for German airplanes Stems mostly from faulty training.
Was P-47 easy/ hard to fly trainning pilots in mind.
How was P47 acceleration
P-47N also shed 3000lb of excess structure, thus losing the P-47's legendary durability, and could no longer sustain damage the way the B and D model P-47s had.
Check your sources. The empty weight on the N was 1000lbs heavier than the D. I listened to a pilot who flew both in the Pacific and his take was that the N could take more damage but not quite as maneuverable as the earlier models.
@@wlmac The final weight was more, but the structural portion was 3,000lb lighter. They added back in more fuel tanks, bigger engine, tail warning radar, etc.
and you have no supporting evidence to claim the P-47N could take even MORE damage. Do you even know what makes the P-47D legendarily tough in the first place? Or what made the A6M legendarily weak? DO you even know the reason behind toughness and damage resistance of a given airplane? There is a VERY specific reason why a given plane is or is not damage resistance in combat. There is one primary reason, and one secondary reason for what makes a plane tough, or not.
The P-47N/M was objectively less tough, less damage resistant, than the P-47B/D.
@@SoloRenegade You just told me you don't know what structural weight means with that diatribe.
@@wlmac " You just told me you don't know what structural weight means with that diatribe."
oh really? is that so? then do explain what you THINK I was talking about. Prove I don't know what I was talking about.
Prove your own understanding and explain what contributes to the damage resistance of a given aircraft then?
Why were they worried about fuel consumption rates? We weren't Germany or Japan...WTF?
Combat radius.
How did the aviation gasoline get to the 8th Airforce? Even in 1943 the U-boats were slaughtering Atlantic transport vessels and their crews, The P-38s and P-47s drank more drowned civilian seamen.
High fuel consumption restricts range.
Kind of like the Hawker Hurricane being better British Spitfire.
LoL, not even close.
Better than 190D.
I would think it's because it's a single engine heavy fighter something that is extremely rare then and since... So whill it had the firepower it would run out of ggun quickly for a WW2 fighter and it's far to heavy and under powered to catch late any WW2 German fighters if they wanted to just leave... Unlike the Mustang and even the P-38 where the german fighters would be stuck inbn combat till they are shot down or the US fighter had to leave... Don't get me wrong the P-47 is a great airframe it's just fat and "slow"...
The P47 had the mod of a paddle blade propellor. Robert Johnson said that prior to it when practicing v a Mk9 Spitfire that, once in a steady climb, the Spitfire would just race away. But after the paddle blade prop was installed he was able to catch and leave the Spitfire behind.
In combat, Johnson said that no German fighter was able to escape him after that propeller was installed.
Its only low performance was in climbing.
@@ret7armyagreed. Once the paddle blade prop was installed it was a completely different plane
Love the 47, it was there when it was needed, the 56th fs was in bolts and had highest kill totals, zempke, Ganesh, Johnson to name a few, zempke only went down after his 51s wings folded, funny pilots lost ratios are never discussed
Gabreski,dam spell check
Lots of jugs were out of the fight when their turbos were hit, or when they were lured into a compressibility dive.... then they turned for home. Surviveable, but That didn't help bombers though.
@@bobsakamanos4469 Very insightful. Things don't work when they get shot. That literally goes for every combat plane ever😄
Remember Pearl Harbor !!!