Hardest plane to take down in WW2?

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by marshall

Read thru almost whole topic and I have question about a "fact" that was metioned here few times, does anyone have any proof that USAAF stated that F4U was thougher than P-47 after some kind of post-war test?

None that I am aware of.. for that matter no 'proof' that any single aircraft was tougher than another, although much anecdotal evidence is available in form of photos of damaged returned aircraft.

The closest I have seen to a serious attempt of 'proving' that one aircraft was tougher than another was the USN report that Jank and Crumpp and others cited for the Okinawa (?) campaign, discussing F6F and F4U battle damage. It concluded that the F6F was more survivable based on the study data.

[kool kitty89]

And the P-47 was probably at least as tough as the F6F but with the performance of the F4U and even better at altitude due to the turbo. And as said, the Jug wouldn't be running on carborator induction alone if a turbo was lost, it would be using the integeral single-stage supercharger.

Plus, if you want to add ability to escape/evade an enemy, the Jug had one of the fastest diving speeds, and accelerations, of any WWII prop a/c. So it could out-dive almost any attacker if things went sour in combat. Just hit the deck and run!

[ThunderThud]

Originally Posted by lesofprimus

Remember the Egon Mayer vs Robert Johnson story??? The P-47 is a rugged bitch...

YouTube - Dogfights: " Thunderbolt " 1/5
YouTube - Dogfights: " Thunderbolt " 2/5

Now Thats what I'm Talkin Bout !

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by AL Schlageter

Doubtful it was Johnson's P-47 that was attacked by Egon Meyer. The LW pilot was either Lt. Waldemar Radener or Fw. Wilhelm Mayer.

Not that rugged, for no mention of the 5 P-47s lost during this combat.

VIII Bomber Command # 68: 1st Bomb-Wing
11 Group Ramrod 108/I
Airfield VILLACOUBLAY & Matford POISSY (o)
18.29 T: 124/12 B-17s: 5 lost
Heavy-Bomber Support:
US VIII FC 4th FG 48 P-47 Thunderbolt 18.25-19.55 Ramrod 108 2 - 0 - 1 Me 109G No casualty H-BS: Poissy

Claim 26.06.43 Lt. D.W. Beeson 4th FG 334th Sqn. 1 - 0 - 0 Me 109G 19.10 ca: Dieppe
Claim 26.06.43 Lt. R.C. Care 4th FG 334th Sqn. 1 - 0 - 0 Me 109G 19.10 ca: Dieppe
Claim 26.06.43 Lt. D.B. Leaf 4th FG 334th Sqn. 0 - 0 - 1 Me 109G 19.10 ca: Dieppe

US VIII FC 56th FG 48 P-47 Thunderbolt 18.12-19.38 Ramrod 108 2 - 1 - 1 FW 190 5 Cat.Em Fighters H-BS: Poissy

Cat.Em 26.06.43 Capt. Robert H. Wetherbee: KIA 56th FG HQ Flt. P-47 C-2 HV- FW 190s: Forges
Cat.Em 26.06.43 Capt. Merle C. Eby: KIA 56th FG 61st Sqn. P-47 C-2 HV- FW 190s: Forges
Cat.Em 26.06.43 2/Lt. Louis T. Barron: KIA 56th FG 61st Sqn. P-47 C-2 HV- FW 190s: Forges
Cat.Em 26.06.43 Capt. Roger B. Dyar: KIA 56th FG 61st Sqn. P-47 C-2 41-6534 UN-D FW 190s: Forges
Cat.Em 26.06.43 1/Lt. Ralph A. Johnson: ASR 56th FG 62nd Sqn. P-47 C-2 LM- FW 190s: Forges

Cat.E 26.06.43 1/Lt. Justus D. Foster: OK 56th FG 61st Sqn. P-47 C-2 HV- Battle-damage: C-L Hawkinge

These are the 56FG looses, including Cat E - interesting that Johnson's badly shot up Bolt survived the scrap yard

One of the 47 claims was from JG2 but four from Stab II./JG26 and II./JG 26.

Based on the markings (if accurate) of the Staffeln leader I suspect Wilhem Mayer, but Crump and Radener and Hoppe were all awarded P-47 scores.

I can't find any solid proof that Egon Mayer's Stab/JG2 was in this fight

Above info extracted from Les Butler/Tony Woods website

Regards,

Bill

[kool kitty89]

Originally Posted by lesofprimus
Remember the Egon Mayer vs Robert Johnson story??? The P-47 is a rugged bitch...

YouTube - Dogfights: " Thunderbolt " 1/5
YouTube - Dogfights: " Thunderbolt " 2/5

Did Egon Meyer's Fw-190 have a yellow nose? I've never seen that paint scheme on a 190 before... Except for the "yellow-nosed Fw 190s" that were actually missidentified Romainian IAR 80's.

Also Mayer must have been out of 20mm rounds, 'cause the P-47 is tough, but still won't take a barrage of 20mm be it HE or AP. The 'Bolt can, however, withstand hundreds of .30 cal rounds with out detriment, inless control linkedges are damaged or the engine is hit head-on. (though head-on would not be a good plan of attack aganst a jug, like a Zero charging a Wildcat head-on...)

I've got to wonder though, why Johnson didn't try to clean the oil off the wind-screen, it wouldn't have been too hard from his position, and coult have helped alot, maby even getting some accurate shots off on Mayer...


I wonder where the Dogfights historians got their info on this and how they came to the conclusion it was Mayer, maby the description of markings?

[kool kitty89]

How about the Tempest II (centaurus Radial engine). How tough was it?

[AL Schlageter]

Originally Posted by drgondog

I can't find any solid proof that Egon Mayer's Stab/JG2 was in this fight

It would be Stab III./JG 2.

III./JG 2 Gruppenkommandeure
Hptm Egon Mayer, 1.11.42 - 1.7.43

JG 2 Geschwaderkommodoren
Maj Egon Mayer, 1.7.43 - 2.3.44

III./JG 2 was based at Vannes-Meucon.

[Nikademus]

Originally Posted by drgondog

But how do we (or anybody) truly have a basis to either judge or compare against equally legendary airframes?

one can't, but as long as it's kept in good spirit and form, such debates can be amusing if nothing else.

Myself, i'd have to go conservative and base my list on reputation with a smattering of ancedotal accounts backing it up. As such I don't see anything "controversial" about nominating the P-47 as having the greatest "potential" for absorbing punishment in the fighter/fighter bomber catagory with the FW-190F being my alternate choice. I was impressed by the latter's armor placement for the ground attack role.

The Stormavik usually gets the nod for ground attack aircraft.

Medium bombers: I've read that the B-26 was very tough, more so than the Mitchell which also usually gets kudoes for being durable. It did help though facing weaker armed Japanese aircraft. The Wellington's basic structure was reputed to be very tough but faced cannon armed 110's and 109's early on and suffered for it as did other British 2E types.

Heavy is usually fairly easy. The B-17's shadow looms large here and even though ancedotal, the numerous pictures of flak/cannon damaged Fortresses returning from the ETO are impressive to say the least. The B-29 is supposed to have been tougher but i'm not sure if RL bore that out.

['Lil'tyger]

fighter:P-47..ground attack:IL-2..bomber:B-24..carrier:GRUMMAN HELLCAT...

[kool kitty89]

Several, if not all, models of the IL-2 had very vulnerable oil coolers, so it would probably be the P-47 for this too...

The B-24, structurally speaking, could probably obsorb more damage than the B-17 (and more weight for weight than the B-29) but it had worse forward defences, and more importantly had leak-prone fuel lines and there were few B-24's that didn't reek of gas fumes...

['Lil'tyger]

fighter:P-47..ground attack:IL-2..bomber:B-24..carrier:F6F..

[Nikademus]

Originally Posted by kool kitty89

Several, if not all, models of the IL-2 had very vulnerable oil coolers, so it would probably be the P-47 for this too...

The B-24, structurally speaking, could probably obsorb more damage than the B-17 (and more weight for weight than the B-29) but it had worse forward defences, and more importantly had leak-prone fuel lines and there were few B-24's that didn't reek of gas fumes...

Interesting. I've read the opposite. The B-24 could carry a bigger load thanx to it's Davis Wing, but was less durable than the Fortress and the Luftwaffe pilots soon discovered this and tended to focus on Liberators when in company with the higher flying Fortresses.

[kool kitty89]

That was said earlier on the thread, but from what the % losses of each craft were posted it seem to be much less than the B-17, but still noticeable. I think it might have been that the B-24s went down more conspicuously and more were claimed as kills by the LW, just speculation. The same number of wounded B-17s may have lated sucumbed to damage after being attacked while the B-24s might have just burst into flames or exploded with all those gas fumes around. If this is true, the B-17 would still be better since it would give the crew more time to escape alive...

The B-24 was faster than the B-17 though...

[Nikademus]

Originally Posted by kool kitty89

That was said earlier on the thread, but from what the % losses of each craft were posted it seem to be much less than the B-17, but still noticeable. I think it might have been that the B-24s went down more conspicuously and more were claimed as kills by the LW, just speculation. The same number of wounded B-17s may have lated sucumbed to damage after being attacked while the B-24s might have just burst into flames or exploded with all those gas fumes around. If this is true, the B-17 would still be better since it would give the crew more time to escape alive...

The B-24 was faster than the B-17 though...

I think too the estimate might be influenced by the fact that the Fortress was there from the start and outnumbered the Liberators most of the time. From what i've read of the design specs, the Fortress was of a more conventional low wing design that contributed to tremendous structural strength. This quality is mentioned time and again.

The Liberator on the other hand (from multiple sources including Bergerud, Neillands and Miller) state the plane was less durable due to production techniques that saved time + the Davis wing was less durable though it allowed the B-24 sport it's greater range and canaverous bomb bay.

[HoHun]

Originally Posted by Nikademus

I think too the estimate might be influenced by the fact that the Fortress was there from the start and outnumbered the Liberators most of the time.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/avi...tml#post293977 (Hardest plane to take down in WW2?)