Finally! Vindicated!...

Started a new book by Willi Heilmann an FW-190 pilot. Thought maybe they could shed light on the Allied fighter issue. Here are a couple of paragraphs of him assessing the Allied air power:<?xml:namespace prefix = o /><o:p></o:p>
August 3, 1944. The enemy fighter defense was particularly strong that day. But the most dreaded opponent, the fast, well armed Spitfire was not in evidence. Not a single Tempest which was 50 mph faster was to be seen. The V1 had lifted a great weight off our mind. <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 /><st1:country-region w:st="on">England</st1:country-region> must have thrown in practically all her fighter strength on the defensive against the German pilotless aircraft in <st1:place w:st="on">Southern England</st1:place>. <o:p></o:p>
The Americans were far easier game. Unless they were in enormous superiority they lacked the Englishman’s bulldog persistence. Mustangs and Lightnings were in any case no match for the Focke – provided it was flown by an able pilot.<o:p></o:p>
Only the Thunderbolt at great height was something of a headache. It has a high altitude engine with a turbo-supercharger which gave it tremendous performance. Nor could one dive away from this Thunderbolt; its enormous weight combined with powerful engines allowed it to dive like a stone and to overtake the German machines in the shortest possible time.
<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Was this not exactly what I have been saying all along? The gratuituous “Oh, the thunderbolt was a great bomber and an ok fighter”…I have heard over and over. Humph...great bomber indeed!. I have been mocked for saying the Germans couldn’t touch the Jugs because of their high altitude tactics. But now, vindicated by a German pilot virtually claim for claim. He even points out the inexperience of the American pilots early on in the war were not as effective against the Luftwaffe veterans, yet because of the Jug’s untouchable advantages, it compensated for US rookie pilots. He even talks about the problems with not being able to escape a diving jug because even if you have a distance on it, it can still overtake you. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
I told you folks that the Jug was not moved over to tactical air because it was not the air superiority fighter anymore. It was strategic. It was an even more dominant ground attack aircraft because it could take a beating and could carry a lot of ordinance. The Mustangs (he was talking about the P-51Bs since it was early August) did not replace the Jug because of its prowess. This is why the <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">US</st1:country-region></st1:place> 8<SUP>th</SUP> air 54<SUP>th</SUP> group aces refused to give them up. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Those of you who have spoken ill of my beloved Jug may PM me an apology. I don’t want to embarrass you in public.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Evidently it was not such a horrible aircraft even though Republic Aviation didn’t make it!

I will keep you posted if more apologies are in order...

 

And then some...

I read ahead to the Bodenplatte mission. This Willi Heilman was the #2 ETO ace behind Adolph Galland. I now know why he respected the Thunderbolt as a threat even being such a veteran. Both the #1 and #2 pilots in the ETO were shot down by P-47s flown by the tactical air groups. He describes his crash landing. The Jug hit him from high up and he never saw it. It bloodied him up and he saved it from corkscrewing it into the ground.

According to him, they German pilots had a codeword for when Thunderbolts were spotted. It was "Indians!". They had to have spotters because of the high altitude operation of the Jug made them so vulnerable. This was the case with him. I am surprised to find that he was not very impressed with the P-51 other than it hunted in packs. This is quite a shock to an American who had been fed that it was the cat's meow for decades.

He also has the utmost respect for the Spitfire. He said in a dogfight it had no equal. He said it oval ended wings give it a turn radius no other aircraft could match. It was the ultimate dogfight enemy.

Ok, so I concede, the British were better fighter pilots, the best fighter pilots of WWII. The American pilots were simply saved by the Jug. Their policy of rotating out pilots after 200 mission hours was stupid it kept relative rookies in the cockpits. The Jug was the only thing that could equalize this constant inexperience as long as the tactics were followed correctly. It also saved many young pilots when they did something stupid by being able to take some hits.

How about then, lets put some RAF pilots in the Jug. Now what do we have? Replace those Tempests with Jugs. Let them them serve as high cover and the Spitfires take the low altitude patrol. I think that would really work well. Since the T-bolt loses much of its advantages when it goes down to low altitude, you have an excellent 1-2 punch. Let the Spits tangle with the Germans and get all they can until the Germans break off to go home and refuel. Then let the Jugs run them down and finish off what the Spits left. How about that?

 

Hey What's the book and how much? Hard cover? I'd like to read it.

 

I've always heard that pilots who flew P51s wish they were flying P47s instead. The P51 had range but that was it.

 

It's not the 'Jug' as an aircraft that I have ever had issue with. But you belief that it, or even close support could have won the war on its own. Vindicated? I don't think so.

 

Well the air war had very little to do with the victory anyway. Sadly the bombing campaign was for the most part a total waste of lives bombing factories that would be up and running as soon as the bombers left. Factories back in WW2 were just too hard to take out even when directly hit.

 

Whats with th P47 fixation. At the risk of encouragment.

Its very easy to design a weopen that does one thing well unfortunatly fighter aircraft need to do a lot of things well. Very easy to make a big lump of an aircraft and stick a huge engine in it, oh look it dives really fast. Fighters like most weopen systems need to verstile, they need to be a balance and a compromise. Its need to work at all altitudes, for example its needs to be unstable enough to be manourvrable but stable enough for novices. Its much harder to design and make something that can do everything to reasonable standard thna it is to make something that can do one thing well and the rest not at all.

The P47 is like a heavyweight boxer it needs to take out its opponant with one shattering punch (not an unreasonable fighter tactic, one quite US school of thinking) otherwise its stuffed. it works on one tactic only, if placed in another situation its at a disadvantage you cant build a stratagy based on one tactic your enemy will learn it and you will suffer.

It was a different age then, cost and ease of manufacture is a major part of WW2. Its very easy to forget this 60 years alter, but its useless to make any weopen now matter how good if you cant field enough numbers or it costs in materials is prohibitive. I hate to think wat the material investment is in a P47.

Im sure the aircraft is built to do a specific job and as such is probobly very good but personaly from a desgin interst point of view its lazy , crude and uninteresting.

Kev

 

Whats with th P47 fixation. At the risk of encouragment.

Its very easy to design a weopen that does one thing well unfortunatly fighter aircraft need to do a lot of things well. Very easy to make a big lump of an aircraft and stick a huge engine in it, oh look it dives really fast. Fighters like most weopen systems need to verstile, they need to be a balance and a compromise. Its need to work at all altitudes, for example its needs to be unstable enough to be manourvrable but stable enough for novices. Its much harder to design and make something that can do everything to reasonable standard thna it is to make something that can do one thing well and the rest not at all.

The P47 is like a heavyweight boxer it needs to take out its opponant with one shattering punch (not an unreasonable fighter tactic, one quite US school of thinking) otherwise its stuffed. it works on one tactic only, if placed in another situation its at a disadvantage you cant build a stratagy based on one tactic your enemy will learn it and you will suffer.

It was a different age then, cost and ease of manufacture is a major part of WW2. Its very easy to forget this 60 years alter, but its useless to make any weopen now matter how good if you cant field enough numbers or it costs in materials is prohibitive. I hate to think wat the material investment is in a P47.

Im sure the aircraft is built to do a specific job and as such is probobly very good but personaly from a desgin interst point of view its lazy , crude and uninteresting.

Kev

I'm outta here. I can hear the dive bomber making its approach!! :elkgrin:

 

He also has the utmost respect for the Spitfire. He said in a dogfight it had no equal. He said it oval ended wings give it a turn radius no other aircraft could match. It was the ultimate dogfight enemy.
I understand from reading several different biography's that the turning circle od the Spit was dependant on the pilot and how much G he could withstand before blacking out. The tightest turn was made by Bader, who did not have the problem of all his blood pooling in his lower limbs, for obvious reasons.

Ok, so I concede, the British were better fighter pilots, the best fighter pilots of WWII. The American pilots were simply saved by the Jug.
Glad you recognise our superiority. And why would we need the Jug when we had the Mk IVX Spit? Finesse over grunt any day of the week. This is where the Yanks fall down every time, they consider quantity to be better than quality. Yeah, that's why a 4-man SAS patrol rescued an entire Yank Brigade in Afghanistan is it?

 

Hey What's the book and how much? Hard cover? I'd like to read it.
Its called
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr><td align="center" width="80"> </td><td width="8">
</td></tr></tbody></table> Alert In The West: A Luftwaffe Pilot On The Western Front

It's about $11.00 at Amazon.

 

I understand from reading several different biography's that the turning circle od the Spit was dependant on the pilot and how much G he could withstand before blacking out. The tightest turn was made by Bader, who did not have the problem of all his blood pooling in his lower limbs, for obvious reasons.


Glad you recognise our superiority. And why would we need the Jug when we had the Mk IVX Spit? Finesse over grunt any day of the week. This is where the Yanks fall down every time, they consider quantity to be better than quality. Yeah, that's why a 4-man SAS patrol rescued an entire Yank Brigade in Afghanistan is it?
Not a grunt at all. The P-47 has some advantages over the spit. The spit was not the best fighter in WWII (IMHO) It was just the best dogfighter.

Dogfighting is where you go close in where you can kill your enemy and be killed by your enemy. This was not the tactic of a Jug. They tried this early on and had very little success for it. The Jugs usage as an air dominant fighter had nothing to do with mixing up like a Spitfire could do.

The Spitfire was limited to that type of fighting, because that's where it excelled. It would be stupid to try the Jug tactics just as the Jug would be stupid to try the Spitfire tactics.

The Jug was designed as a high altitude interceptor. It was basically a supercharger ducting with an airplane built around it. Its tactics were to stay high (up to 46,500 feet) where the Germans can't come. Patrol up there looking for unwary fighters below (high altitude planes are extremely hard to see in the air). When enemy planes were spotted a group of two would pick one fighter go into a barrel roll into an upside down dive (to get perfect seperation between aircraft) and start in at 600 mph rapidly closing in an enemy that either never saw it or tried to dive away (which is equally as useless). With 8 - 50 caliber machine guns that fired twice as fast as the Ma Duce 50s used on tanks, it threw out a large blanket of lead to the hapless pilot below. Even if the pilot managed to manuever, the Jug would blow past and the wingman would now be in position to take his shot as well. Very few German pilots got to bail when hit by a jug because of the enormous firepower it carried would shread the cockpit.

Of course when the Jug has gone past, his kinectic energy and powerful engine and excellent climb rate will rush him back up to altitude faster than the enemy could pursue, so he just simply got a free shot a the Germans and there was nothing they could do about it.

By contrast, the Spitfire pilot must fight his way out of an engagement. He had to have manueverability and he had to be skilled. But then again he is a different type of fighter. This is why Spitfires, Lightnings and Mustangs were called "Bandits" to the Germans and the Jugs were called "Indians". Why? Obviously it is because the Spitfire, Lightnings and Mustangs were one kind threat and the Thunderbolt was a completely different threat. And you needed to know quickly what type of threat you have approaching or it would be too late. If a Jug got position on you, if you didnt see it, you were a gonner, but if you did see it, you are simply in dire straits and have a good chance of not getting that schnapes they liked after their missions. Even if you manage to get past the first one, the wingman is following in spaced sequenc on the same path ready to have a go at you too.

Jugs were extremley hard to shoot down. You had to catch them at low altitude and hope you either got a lucky shot on the pilot through the window or had enough ammo to enventually tear this flying tank down to where it would go down. The Jug had an armor bathtub around the pilot so you had to shoot through the bullet proof glass. You could blow a couple of cyclinder heads off the Jugs engine and it would still keep running and get him home. The Jug was so strong that crash landing were rarely fatal. If you hit something or corkscrewed in, then sure, you are a goner, but the Jug claimed few lives of its pilots and why it was so popular with pilots.


By saying the Spit was the best dogfighter, I don't mean it is the best fighter in the war. But the German planes were limited and had to use conventional tactics to fight dog fights so that's what they feared about the Spits is that they could not handle its manueverability. It was the worst fighter to engage. But you didn't engage a Jug, it engaged you.

The numbers I had read were that less than 900 Jugs of the 13000+ built were ever shot down by enemy aircraft. Every Jug pilot book say the same thing almost as though it was a Jug pilot mantra, "our only true enemy is flak".

Also, I didn't say the best British pilot was better than the best American or German pilot. I just meant that the British pilot on average had best experience in the war since he had been fighting for his life since 1939. He better be the best. In the US they say that Chuck Yeager is the best pilot we have produced (he flew P-51s) but at the end of his book, he addresses that. He says "some say I am the best US pilot ever. If that is true it would only be because I flew at every opporntunity to fly that I ever had. The best pilot is not some set of native skills but rather the one who has the most flying experience. There is no shortcut or tactic other than that".

Doolittle claims the same thing. It is also a truism in civilian avaiation. The best pilot is normally the one with the most experience.

 

I've always heard that pilots who flew P51s wish they were flying P47s instead. The P51 had range but that was it.
That is true if they had flown P-47s originally. But if they started out in P-51s they would probably not have that opinion. The T-Bolt just looks unimpressive a fighter because it is so large. If you are thinking dogfights then it would scare you away. The British pilots told the Jug pilots they were dead men because of the size of the plane. But they too were thinking dogfighting and that's not what the Jug was used for very often. I just could dogfight fairly well, but it would not survive dogfighting with a Spitfire and would do well to stay with what works with it. By the same token a Spitfire could not evade a diving Jug any better than the Germans could.

This was why I said they should have been used as a 1-2 punch by both the RAF and USAAF. That would be an absolute nightmare for a luftwaffe pilot. Fight like a dog with Spitfires and make it out alive, turning to go home, the Jugs start their passes at you. I wish I could simulate that. It would be quite an interesting experiment.

 

Diving from altitude was what the Jug did best however when you compare it's climb rate to the other fighters of the day, it isn't that great and so it could be caught in a climb. Boom and zoom was the best way to fight an engagement as the enemy doesn't know where you are. All fighters could do this (even the Spitfire), all it depends is that the attacker has the height. As the saying goes "If you are in a fair fight, you didn't plan it right". Height in air combat is key (as is coming out of the sun), he who is higher than his opponent is more likely to be the victor.

Climb Data (at sea level in feet per min):
P-47: 2,560
P-38: 3,300
P-51: 3,600 (low blower)/ 2,965 (high blower)
Tempest: 4,380
Typhoon: 3,840 (at 1,700ft)
Spitfire MKIX: 4,620 (Merlin 66)/ 4,390 (Merlin 70)
Spitfire MKXIV: 4,700
FW-190D-9: 3,329
From here: http://www.spitfireperformance.com/ (on the various pages for the aircraft).

As you can see the climb rate of the P-47 was significantly lower than it's contempories at sea level, and climb levels decrease as height increases and so the P-47 will have trouble climbing away from the others (although only one is German).

 

Diving from altitude was what the Jug did best however when you compare it's climb rate to the other fighters of the day, it isn't that great and so it could be caught in a climb. Boom and zoom was the best way to fight an engagement as the enemy doesn't know where you are. All fighters could do this (even the Spitfire), all it depends is that the attacker has the height. As the saying goes "If you are in a fair fight, you didn't plan it right". Height in air combat is key (as is coming out of the sun), he who is higher than his opponent is more likely to be the victor.

Climb Data (at sea level in feet per min):
P-47: 2,560
P-38: 3,300
P-51: 3,600 (low blower)/ 2,965 (high blower)
Tempest: 4,380
Typhoon: 3,840 (at 1,700ft)
Spitfire MKIX: 4,620 (Merlin 66)/ 4,390 (Merlin 70)
Spitfire MKXIV: 4,700
FW-190D-9: 3,329
From here: http://www.spitfireperformance.com/ (on the various pages for the aircraft).

As you can see the climb rate of the P-47 was significantly lower than it's contempories at sea level, and climb levels decrease as height increases and so the P-47 will have trouble climbing away from the others (although only one is German).
I don't know where you get your numbers but the initial climb rates of the US aircraft are much higher than your spitfire site lists them but the water injected Packard engine version of the P-51D had a climb rate of 5350 fpm @ 5000 feet.

Gnomey, you sort of cherry picked here. The "initial" climb rate on the P-47M is 4900 fpm. At 20000 feet its rate of climb was still 4400 fpm. No other plane could get to 30000 feet as fast as it could. So you can compare the worst version of the Jug to the best version of the Spitfire but all you do is skew numbers, you don't get a feel for true relative abilities.

But the other thing you overlooked is the principle of kinetic energy. When a plane as large as a Jug dives, it retains most of its kinetic energy. So when you pull up out of the dive you climb off of inertia alone. If you are flying level and have no kinetic energy you don't have a chance to catch him even if you have twice the climb rate if he is coming out of a dive. No one chased the Jugs because you would lose sight of the slowest one going back to altitude. If you were foolish enough to chase him (say one of the slower performers) then he would be back at altitude before you and now would be making a pass at your slow behind in a climb or else one of his buddies is working his high cover and you have bigger problems than the fact you can't keep up with him. You don't chase Jugs. In straight and level, they would out run everything execpt the ME-262s, in a shallow dive they simply out run anything. This is why very few Jugs were ever shot down by German aircraft. You have to get to them to shoot them down. The ones that were shot down mostly came from the early part of the war where they had not developed the techniques and had the three bladed props.

Robert Johnson, a US Jug ace in the 8th air 56th group, got his paddle prop modification to his jug and the next day got into a mock dog fight with a Spitfire IX that he had previously encountered who had out fought him. Much to his and the Spitfire IX pilots surprise, his Jug ran away from the Spit even in a climb. You can read that anecdote in his book.

But the thing you have to realize is that you don't have to dive down to the level of your enemy to destroy him when shooting 8 - 50 cals from above him. There is virtually no speed decay on bullets going down, they will quickly reach terminal velocity as they start out near there anyway.

You also only climb fast when you are dogfighting and have dropped down on the deck. The P-47 didn't fight like that. Why would he want to surrender his advantages?

To me it was like the American revolutionary war where the British believed you should march in rank and file and take turns killing each other's army until one side won. The Americans preferred the ambushes from the woods.

Always work your advantages.

 

It's not the 'Jug' as an aircraft that I have ever had issue with. But you belief that it, or even close support could have won the war on its own. Vindicated? I don't think so.
Specious argument. Never said such a thing as you well know. I said air power was the singular reason the Allies won. Without it they would have lost. I even spelled out that I didn't mean that armies were not necessary so that no one would stoop so low as to bring up such a cock-eyed and deliberate misrepresentation of what I said. Looks like I underestimated you pilot.

 

Well the air war had very little to do with the victory anyway. Sadly the bombing campaign was for the most part a total waste of lives bombing factories that would be up and running as soon as the bombers left. Factories back in WW2 were just too hard to take out even when directly hit.
:sign_what:

 

I don't know where you get your numbers but the initial climb rates of the US aircraft are much higher than your spitfire site lists them

Strange the link for the Thunderbolt figures seems to be Air Force Material Division performance tests at Wright Field - do you have better info?

Figures for the P47M are also a little selective -130 built and only arriving in 1945 does not make it a typical example

 

Specious argument. Never said such a thing as you well know. I said air power was the singular reason the Allies won. Without it they would have lost. I even spelled out that I didn't mean that armies were not necessary so that no one would stoop so low as to bring up such a cock-eyed and deliberate misrepresentation of what I said. Looks like I underestimated you pilot.

Not so, you have repeatedly upped the air power contribution and played down the importance of the man on the ground. Air power could not then and still cannot now win a war. Vietnam proved that without question, and places like Kuwait, Kosovo and Iraq have shown that no matter what you think you have done with your air power (and it's a hell of a lot more accurate and effective now than it was 60 years ago!) it's never what you find when you actually get your troops on the ground. Only then can you call in air power effectivley on actual threats and make your air advantage count.

If air superiority is a war winner, then the Falklands war is what proves the opposite case. The Argentinians could over fly the Islands from it's home bases, and did so with very marked success, but dispite this a smaller, seabourne invasion force 3000 miles from home with limited aircraft managed to win. The Harriers of the carrier force were outnumbered and unable to deter the Argentine attacks. Although they did score some kills they were never going to get air superiority off the Argentinians.

Air superiority and still unable to overcome a smaller far more disadvantaged force.

 

Not so, you have repeatedly upped the air power contribution and played down the importance of the man on the ground.

In fact he did claim that in the West, German armies were destroyed by the air. One has to wonder why so much GIs and Tommies were needed then.