The ETO's finest single engined ground attack aircraft

[CharlesBronson]

Typhoon or P-47, no doubt. In the East could be Il-2m of Ju-87D-5

[the lancaster kicks ass]

but erich's right, the tiffy and -47 are fighter-bombers, not dedicated ground attack platforms.........

[DAVIDICUS]

My question isn't limited to dedicated ground attack platforms. Just the best single engined ground pounder.

I like the P-47.

[Udet]

Only Germany and the USSR deployed aircraft designed exclusively for the purpose of ground attack.

The Luftwaffe had both the Henschel Hs129 and the Stuka -first as dive bomber, later as tank buster-. The soviet fellows launched their IL-2.

Later on the RAF and USAAF found some of their toys had good capabilities in the ground attack mode: P-47, Typhoon and Tempest.

The Germans also deployed some of their planes to perform ground attack tasks: the Bf110 in North Africa, equipped with 3 cm cannon and the very famous Fw190 Fs.

Perhaps the very best ones were the Fw190 and the P-47. Both had radial engines and could endure heavy damage and survive.

The soviets followed a similar path, and the several Yak versions, saw service conducting ground attack missions, sustaining prohibitive losses since the Yaks were extremely vulverable, even to rifle caliber guns.

The IL-2 is, no doubt, the most overrated and overinflated aircraft of the entire conflict.

It is simple: had Germany won the war, the obsolete tag would be belonging to the Shturmovik.

You do not know clumsy until you see footage of Il-2s in flight. Its nearly 1 ton of armor, while of good help against massed light caliber guns greeting it from the ground, turned out to be its own enemy.

Interception was easy, for we are talking about a single engine aircraft, and its massive armor was of very little help against the heavier guns and cannons of German fighters; flak crews also had an easy target to pull the trigger at.

If you are thinking of bringing up the argument of the rear gunner included on the late versions of the IL-2 i will have to tell you it was the same flawed idea as recorded on all planes that carried defensive armament.

If the four engine heavy bombers of the USAAF, with its massive size and massive defensive machine guns were extremely vulnerable to interception, think of the situation of an aircraft the same size of its interceptor, virtuallu uncapable of manouvering, fitted with only ONE defensive MG.

An aircraft that suffered horrific losses, as it is the case of the IL-2, is a true testimony of the actual capabilities of the plane -and of the pilots that flew it as well.-

I am confident when saying this: even if attacking ground targets from the air was a very difficult task i am convinced the Germans were the best at it.

Mr. Zetterling conducted interesting researches on the matter and discovered both the RAF and USAAF failed big time to destroy German armored units in France, prior to the D-Day landings.

Other than causing important delays on the arrival of panzer units to the critical points of the front, the damage they inflicted to German ground units was minimal.

They would claim numbers of panzers destroyed that did not even exist for the entire Normandy campaign of 1944.

[trackend]

Originally Posted by DAVIDICUS

Trackend,

Did you say that you had a book by Francis Gabreski that, "... gives an outline to the aircrafts development and performance ie climb rate, ceiling ect""

I am trying to find out what the climb rate was for the P-47D with paddle blade prop.

Does that book of yours address this?

Hi Dave The book is called Fighter Aircraft by Francis Crosby Published by Hermes House in 2003. Anness publishing Ltd Email info@anness.com

It doesn't mention anything about the paddle Prop all it says is according to this book is a total of 15,660 P-47's where produced out of which 12,602 were D models
Engine... Pratt & Whitney 2535hp R-2800-59 double wasp eighteen cylinder radial
Armament.....Eight 0.5 machine guns plus external bombs or rockets to a max of 2500lbs.
Wingspan 40ft 9in
Length 36ft 1in
Height 14ft 8in
Wing area 300sq ft
Weights empty 9950lb
Maximum take off 17,500lbs
Performance Max speed 433mph
Ceiling 41,000ft
Range 1900 miles with three drop tanks
Climb rate 3200ft per minute
It does also mention the P-47M but all it says is that was used to catch V1's as it had a speed of 470mph and air brakes fitted so it could decelerate once it had caught enemy aircraft (although personally im not sure the reason for the airbrakes is that accurate).
Sorry that's all the info I have Dave.

[KraziKanuK]

Udet,

do you think the Ju 87 could have been 'converted' to a fighter? Why I ask, you ask? Well there was plans to make the Il-2 into a fighter.

trackend,

I think your book is wrong about the 47M and V-1s. The Ms arrived in the ETO after the V-1 threat had been eliminated. 'The first P-47M was delivered in December 1944, and they were rushed to the 56th Fighter Group in Europe. However, engine problems delayed their use until the last few weeks of the war in Europe.'

[Udet]

Krazi:

The Stuka was designed for dive bombing and to keep up with the advance of panzer units (that is why it had a non retractable sound undercarriage so it could land on very rough terrain, to refuel, rearm and continue supporting the panzers). So it could not be converted to fighter. Not without making radical modifications to the original design; so had it

Had the IL-2 been converted to fighter, it is kind of easy to figure out the outcome of its engagements against German fighters.

The


The Stuka with its fixed undercarriage (meaning drag), had almost identical maximun speed to that of the IL-2 (which had a retractable undercarriage), does that tell you anything?

[Brunner]

Do you know that in the end of 1941 the Soviets tried to equip Sturmovik with the radial engine?
There was a single plane with M 82 engine (the same as in Su2 and La5), but its performance wasn't quite impressive...

Well, as for me, the performance of Sturmovik wasn't impressive at all, even with AM35/ AM38 engines

What is interesting about this particular Il2 is that it was the first Sturmovik with rear gunner armed with UBT 12.7mm machine gun.

I'm trying to find any pictures, sketches or whatever, of this weird Il2 but telling the truth I'll be extremely surprised if I succeed to find any...

[wmaxt]

Several ranking German Generals credited the P-47 in ground attack mode as a very significant part in the defeat of Germany.

I also heard of 1 German division surrendering to a P-47 squandron - the only time in history a ground unit surrendered to an airial unit alone in the history of warfare.

The spread of 8 x .50cal must be awesome especialy against troops.

[Gemhorse]

Yeah, that's what I thought, 8 x .50's would certainly be like a 'scythe through the wheatfields'....

The fact the Typhoons WERE inlines should give them extra points in terms of valuable services rendered......

Another thought, Mustangs were used from quite early in the War as 'Ground-attack', on account of the early variants being more suitable for low altitude work, in ETO & CBI, so how do they rate in this...they certainly went on to do excellent work at this way into Korea...??

Gemhorse

[DAVIDICUS]

Gemhorse,

You said: "The fact the Typhoons WERE inlines should give them extra points in terms of valuable services rendered...... "

I'm not sure I understand. An in-line with a closed liquid coolant system would be less preferable to a ground attack plane.

Wmaxt,

You said: "I also heard of 1 German division surrendering to a P-47 squandron - the only time in history a ground unit surrendered to an airial unit alone in the history of warfare.

Ha! That's a great story if true!

[Gemhorse]

Well, it's well documented the pre and post-D-Day work that the Typhoon Sqn.'s did, and as an inline, and therefore more vulnerable to ground-fire, it is consequential by the losses incurred by them as balanced against the damage they did...
They did clear the way to a large degree for the Invasion Forces, and helped keep them free of obstruction....this was the most notable aspect or feature of the Typhoons service, as the Tempest Sqn.'s tended to move in, the further into Germany the Allies went....For example, our RAF 486 [NZ] Sqn. started-off with Typhoons but changed to Tempests as the Allies moved on into Europe...

It's a close thing between the P-47 and Typhoon, both were excellent Ground-attack aircraft...but 4x 20mm's against select ground targets have gotta be more destructive [along with the ordinance carried] than 8 x .5's [and ordinance carried]....P-47's were deadly against troop concentrations, not really a Typhoons target, eh?, but against emplacements, vehicles etc., that was more the Typhoons speciality.....I must add also, a 20mm, 37mm or 40mm round isn't selective in damage to either a P-47 or a Typhoon, no matter what engine they have, but a P-47 has a distinct advantage in attacking troop concentrations because of the radial's ability to absorb small-arms fire.......

Gemhorse

[DAVIDICUS]

I would go for the P-47 for the following reasons:

1) Radial engine. When the bad guys are shooting back at you, it really is a tremendous advantage. In addition, I believe the P-47 airframe could take more damage.

2) I think that any most any target vulnerable to four 20mm's will be vulnerable to eight .50's and the P-47 carried more ammo to allow it longer firing time.

3) I believe the P-47 was a more stable platform for the delivery of gunfire, bombs and rockets. (My opinion)


At any rate, both were excellent ground attack planes.

[Gemhorse]

Yeah, I agree, they were both excellent aircraft, respectively...and I am not too familiar with the P-47's service but it's rep is excellent....good to see there is still a few flying, something that can't be said for the Typhoon unfortunately........

Gemhorse

[Concorde247]

The main reason there is only one Typhoon left is that after the war, the RAF decided that they didnt require that type of Aircraft anymore. and thought that the Tempest V, VI & II were better, so they were all melted down to make saucepans and suchlike!! I think it was a crime against the state personally!

The main failings that the Typhoon were the initial unreliability of its engine. and the elevator flutter that sometimes caused its tail feathers to come off. once those problems were ironed out i think that it was far more potent than the P47 which was a very good aircraft. as for the stability as a weapon platform, the Typhoon had far chunkier wings than the P47, so i think it would be more stable. watching the DVD on the Typhoon, when you see the Tanks & vehicles ripped apart in the falaise gap, in my mind, thats what swings my opinion in favour of the tiffy.