Only one fighter

[davparlr]

Originally Posted by renrich

Dav, I think your observations about the F4H are probably right on. I have a good friend in Texas who originally was a F100 driver but wound up flying 150 missions as a FAC. (How that happened is another story) He said that bombing results by the F4s were uniformly somewhat poor as compared to say the F105s.

Interesting. One of my classmates at pilot training was orginally assigned to an F-100, but before he could qualify, the aircraft was removed from service. He got a OV-10 and was shot down in the same action as Bat 21. In fact his name is mentioned in the book. He was captured. I recognized him when he got off the C-141 at Clark when they were released.

[Jank]

"If you want to have an 'honest discussion' why question my integrity Jank?"

I frankly did not know about your working nearly 20 years doing research on the 355th FG. That's why.

"OK J - prove it. Prove that the P-47 with 8 50s was more effective (or efficient) than the F4U-4 with six 50s"

Again, I think you are being silly. Again, Would you accept the premise that six .50's are more effective than four .50's? Bill, dead is dead but a miss is not a hit. 1/3 more bullets unleashed on your target means significantly more things on and around the target getting hit. That's proof enough for me. I am sorry I do not have a statistical analysis of six gun versus eight gun fighters for you.


"And you fact base is?? for either the bomb load or the same wing or the same structure.?" (Here you are taking issue with my claim that the P-47M is designed to handle a 4,200lb bomb load.)

Republic Aviation - Models P-47N and P-47M, Description, Performance & Dimensions: Chapter 4 "Fuel, Oil, Capacities, Armament and Weights" P-47M - Total Bomb Load (U.S. Units) (a) Wings: 2-1,600lb (b) Belly: 1-1,000lb

"You haven't proved same (unmodified) wing yet" (In reference to my claim that the M and D had the same wing and wing to fuselage structure.)

You are correct. I have not and frankly do not feel the need to do so. If you want to reject my claim, that is fine. We can agree to disagree. I suspect that you know my claim is true. The P-47M had the same wing as the D.

"For us math challenged that would appear to be a bomb load of 3200?"

The centerline has 1,000lbs as well. Do you have some data on the planes and circumstances where they could not carry maximum wing and centerline loads together? The P-47N has a total bomb load capacity according to this publication of 3,700lbs. (1,600lbs under each wing and 500lbs under the centerline) In fact, the P-47N often exceeded this. See the picture below of a P-47N loaded with 2,500lbs of bombs and 1,400lbs of rockets. (For us math challenged, that's 200lbs more than the design maximum) I'm sure you will insist that the M and D versions were different in this regard though.



I asked you the following,"I did not know that 4x20mm Corsairs saw combat. Do you know how many outfitted in this fashion saw combat?"

You gave examples that were all post WWII. I'm sorry, I thought we were talking with respect to WWII. My bad. So we have eight .50's vs. six .50's for Thunderbolts and Corsairs that saw combat in WWII?

"Why does your 'presumption' have weight over published facts?" (here you are referring to my assertion that the Thunderbolt was more survivable than the Corsair based on the published facts concerning the Hellcat and Corsair)

What published facts are you referring to? Do you know of published facts indicating that the Corsair or Hellcat for that matter was more survivable than the Thunderbolt? And am I thus giving more weight to my presumption than these published facts? My presumption is consistent with the published facts that I have seen on the oil cooler layouts, relative superior survivability of the Hellcat over the Corsair and there being no basis for concluding that the Thunderbolt would have been less vulnerable than the Hellcat. Are you aware of such a basis for concluding the opposite?

I asked for your opinion as to whether the F4U was more or less survivable than the P-47 and you responded, "My OPINION, as I have stated it before - as contrasted with OPINIONS to the contrary, is the the F4U was just as 'survivable'."

Upon what is this opinion based? I hope you are not presuming in the absence of "published facts." Of course not. So please do share the "statistical data" and "published facts" that support that thesis.

I am perplexed by the following. "You made the case that the F6F was more survivable and "F6F was slightly superior to the F4U in combat" - QED why would Navy choose to labor on with the F4U?

Below is your statement in its entirety since you like to 'edit'.

The difference in survivability between the Corsair and Hellcat was so striking that the US Navy itself concluded that, "The F6F was slightly superior to the F4U in combat, apparently chiefly because of its greater ability to survive damage."

In short, the far and away superior performance of the Corsair could not overcome the effect of this inferior attribute."

Yes. And? Let's revisit the Naval Aviation Combat Statistics, WWII:

From the report itself at page 58:

Thus comparisons are valid between the carrier F6F and F4U totals because they generally operated from the same ships during the same periods.
...
Certain tentative conclusions may be reached from these two tables:

(a) The F6F was slightly superior to the F4U in combat, apparently chiefly because of its greater ability to survive damage.

Page 79, Note (e) to Table 29

The F6F appears to have had considerable advantage over the F4U when flown under the same conditions. Receiving about the same number of hits per sortie in comparable operations, the F6F had a far lower rate of loss per plane hit.

Now, as I stated, "The difference in survivability between the Corsair and Hellcat was so striking that the US Navy itself concluded that, "The F6F was slightly superior to the F4U in combat, apparently chiefly because of its greater ability to survive damage."

In short, the far and away superior performance of the Corsair could not overcome the effect of this inferior attribute."

I stand by that statement.

[JoeB]

Originally Posted by drgondog

The AU-1, F4U-4B, F4U-4C, F4U-4P and F4U-5N logged combat in Korea between 1950 and 1953.[citation needed] On 10 September 1952, a MiG-15 made the mistake of getting into a turning contest with a Corsair piloted by Captain Jesse G. Folmar, with Folmar shooting the MiG down with his four 20 millimeter cannon.

Among 20mm Corsairs a relatively small number of F4U-1C's saw combat in WWII.

In Korea the relative use of 20mm and .50 cal Corsairs is roughly indicated by losses, all causes, USN and USMC combined. From the Opnav document "Korean Area Aircraft Losses- July 1953 and Campaign to Date". All -5 variants and AU-1's had 20mm
F4U-4 (.50 cal): 310
F4U-4B (20mm): 178
F4U-4P (.50): 1
F4U-5: 29
F4U-5N: 46
F4U-5NL: 29
F4U-5P: 5
AU-1: 22

Folmar's plane was a -4B, his wingman's a -4. They were sometimes mixed together in Marine units at that point in the war.

Joe

[Jank]

davparlr, I seem to have the same copy as Renrich. I can't find an edition but mine is copyrighted 1998.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Jank

"If you want to have an 'honest discussion' why question my integrity Jank?"

I frankly did not know about your working nearly 20 years doing research on the 355th FG. That's why.

Actually 5 years before the book and 20 years correcting some of my assumptions and digging into far more operational details...

But it was your first act before getting facts Jank - it is your pattern.. Fire, ready, aim.


"OK J - prove it. Prove that the P-47 with 8 50s was more effective (or efficient) than the F4U-4 with six 50s"

Again, I think you are being silly. Again, Would you accept the premise that six .50's are more effective than four .50's? Bill, dead is dead but a miss is not a hit. 1/3 more bullets unleashed on your target means significantly more things on and around the target getting hit. That's proof enough for me. I am sorry I do not have a statistical analysis of six gun versus eight gun fighters for you.

A statistical proof would show and conclude that extra two .50's actually enabled the P-47 to destroy more troops, trains, trucks, goats, donkeys and other light and heavily armored vehicles, that both the P-47 and F4U were likely to encounter. So, I'm sure you have at hand the conclusive proof that the extra 50s made a difference? What I think you would have to show is a.) that most missions used all the respective ammo and b.) that the extra two guns made the difference on the targets. It might even come down to which bird is the most stable as a gun platform to keep the rounds on target.


"And you fact base is?? for either the bomb load or the same wing or the same structure.?" (Here you are taking issue with my claim that the P-47M is designed to handle a 4,200lb bomb load.)

Republic Aviation - Models P-47N and P-47M, Description, Performance & Dimensions: Chapter 4 "Fuel, Oil, Capacities, Armament and Weights" Total Bomb Load (U.S. Units) (a) Wings: 2-1,600lb (b) Belly: 1-1,000lb

And your proof that that load carrying capability per each rack is used simultaneously is?? this is third time I actually asked if you had ONE example of the P-47 actually carrying 4,000 (or 4200) pound of bombs. And you have not produced that example. I can accept an example, but let me give you an illustration. The mission might require a 75 gallon tank and a 1000 pound bomb on centerline. The mission might require a 75 gallon cl tank and two 1,000 pound bombs - but the airplane may not actually be spec'd to carry max capacity for each load bearing rack. I am prepared to be wrong but none of the Google searches are indicating more than 2600 pound bomb load.

Unfortunately for this discussion you seem reluctant to produce the factual circumstances that surround the ACTUAL mission of any P-47 carrying a 4,000 pound bomb load. Rockets don't count in this discussion Jank. unless you think 2x 140 pounds for two extra rockests over an F4U means anything in this discussion??

"You haven't proved same (unmodified) wing yet" (In reference to my claim that the M and D had the same wing and wing to fuselage structure.)

You are correct. I have not and frankly do not feel the need to do so. If you want to reject my claim, that is fine. We can agree to disagree. I suspect that you know my claim is true. The P-47M had the same wing as the D.[I}

I know the P-47M was constructed from a P-47D-25. I don't know what mods were performed. You do not know either... your claim of 'unmodified' remains a claim.

I asked you the following,"I did not know that 4x20mm Corsairs saw combat. Do you know how many outfitted in this fashion saw combat?"

You gave examples that were all post WWII. I'm sorry, I thought we were talking with respect to WWII. My bad. So we have eight .50's vs. six .50's for Thunderbolts and Corsairs that saw combat in WWII?

F4U-1C: This variant was in production in 1943, but was only introduced in combat during 1945, most notably in the Okinawa campaign. Intended for ground-attack as well as fighter missions, the F4U-1C was similar to the F4U-1A but its armament was replaced by four 20 mm (0.79") AN/M2 cannons, each containing 231 rounds[15] of ammunition. The variant was very rare as only 200 were built. This was due to the fact that pilots preferred the standard armament of six .50 calibre machine guns since they were already more than powerful enough to destroy most Japanese aircraft, and had more ammunition and a better firing rate.[16] The weight of the Hispano cannons and their ammunition affected the flight performance, especially its agility, but the aircraft was found to be especially potent in the ground attack role.

Does this work for you?

But, as a strict matter of fact the discussion on this thread was 'pick an airframe and go with it. The P-47 stopped in October of 1945 - the F4U did not.

"Why does your 'presumption' have weight over published facts?" (here you are referring to my assertion that the Thunderbolt was more survivable than the Corsair based on the published facts concerning the Hellcat and Corsair)

What published facts are you referring to? Facts that you are not producing.. as in published - but you keep postulating and presuming and assuming points that are NOT facts Do you know of published facts indicating that the Corsair or Hellcat for that matter was more survivable than the Thunderbolt?

Nope but I am NOT stating that they are - you ARE stating that the P-47 IS more survivavble - once again these are FACTS that are NOT in evidence

I asked for your opinion as to whether the F4U was more or less survivable than the P-47 and you responded, "My OPINION, as I have stated it before - as contrasted with OPINIONS to the contrary, is the the F4U was just as 'survivable'." I have no evidence (and neither do you) to the contrary.

Upon what is this opinion based? I hope you are not presuming in the absence of "published facts." Of course not. So please do share the "statistical data" and "published facts" that support that thesis.

Opinions are often subjective. Mine for example would ask the question "how many oil cooler failures to flak were there? And your answer would be?? Another question I might ask is how many actual downings were due to an oil cooler failure - all causes?" And your answer would be? Would they be opinion or fact? How do they add to the total of combat losses, to accidents? how do each of the respective categories (ie air, flak, mechanical, unkown) stack up between Corsair and P-47? Do you know? Of course not! Neither do I - so I state an OPINION. You reach for "Oil Cooler" and wave that flag!

So the statistics seem to be derived based on 1.5x as many F6Fs returning to base after being hit by flak per your quote below:

"41% of carrier based F4U's actually hit by AA fire became losses versus 26% of carrier based F6F's that were actually hit by AA fire in 1945."

Back to the question of "were they attacking same target profiles? and because the question between us is about the P-47 - then how do the flak losses compare to the respective threat environments.

What the Report cites is that F6F vs F4U for Okinawa survived more often when hit. The sample size was carrier based Okinawa campaign only. I have found no data concering the mission profiles - for example was Corsair sent on missions that had a lot of 20mm flak and above, while F6F strafing and bombing close air support subject to small arms fire? I have no real problem accepting F6F more survivable as carrier aircraft in Okinawa campaign - but still have questions on the data.

How does that series of missions relate to strafing German troops or shooting up airfields? In the latter mission, until March/April 1945 that was dominant P-51 rather than 47 for example.

Now, as I stated, "The difference in survivability between the Corsair and Hellcat was so striking that the US Navy itself concluded that, "The F6F was slightly superior to the F4U in combat, apparently chiefly because of its greater ability to survive damage."

In short, the far and away superior performance of the Corsair could not overcome the effect of this inferior attribute."

I stand by that statement.

Stand on whatever you want to stand on. Somehow the USN decided that the 'less survivable' fighter should continue production while they killed "the better one" - Why? - I stand by my statement.

Back to the P-47 vs F4U, what basis of comparison do you have between the Corsair and P-47 for survivabilty...?? because of different threat environment, terrain, mission distances, etc...how do you compare? I'll concede the WWII oil cooler issue as a point of vulnerability - but how does that factor into overall survivabiliy factors such as air to air combat?

-but if you have statistics that break out losses in ground support/airfield attack roles for both fighters at least that is a start - I don't have them - therefore my OPINION is OPINION, but I suspect you don't either.

PS your link didn't show a 4,000 pound bomb load, or even a 3,000 pound load - keep searchin'

[renrich]

There were 200 F4U1Cs produced during WW2 and they were armed with 4-20mm cannon. I don't know how effective that armament variation was.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by renrich

There were 200 F4U1Cs produced during WW2 and they were armed with 4-20mm cannon. I don't know how effective that armament variation was.

Rich - anecdotally (don't have the metrics), our 20mm had a fair amount of jams relative to M2 .50. The Brits also had more proportionate jamming with their 20's but apparently less than ours.

The combination of jams and less need for really heavy firepower represented by 20mm over .50 led the Navy to conclude to use .50 for most applications. However before Korea the Navy started specifying 20mm for future guns and the F4U-5 was first of new bacth to roll out of Factory since F4U-1C - (IIRC)

[Jank]

drgndog,

I understand that you still require proof that eight .50's were more effective than six .50's but I think we're beating a dead horse here. As I indicated, 1/3more bullets unleashed on your target means significantly more things on and around your target getting hit. If this premise requires proof or needs further clarification, read the preceding sentence again.

"And your proof that that load carrying capability per each rack is used simultaneously is?? ... Unfortunately for this discussion you seem reluctant to produce the factual circumstances that surround the ACTUAL mission of any P-47 carrying a 4,000 pound bomb load."

I think were getting off track here. My previous post (#79) states:

As for ordinance load, the P-47D could have handled 4,000lb loads too. Just becauase it didn't doesn't mean it couldn't. At the point in time before F4U's carried such loads, it would have been an error to assert that it could not have been done because it had not been done. The weight differential between an empty and fully laden P-47D was about 7,000lbs. ... I can not stress enough that the fact that the F4U actually did carry 4,000lb ordinance loads and the P-47D didn't is not conclusive on the issue of whether the P-47D could have carried such loads.

I never said that the P-47D could carry 4,000lbs of bombs. I said "ordinance load". I did say that the P-47M and P-47D had maximum bomb loads by design of 4,200lbs and 3,700lbs respectively. The only way that the P-47D and P-47M could carry such bomb loads would be through the carrying of 1,600 pounders under each wing with a 1,000 pounder under the fuselage. I understand that 1,600lb aerial bombs did exist in the allied arsenal. I do not think P-47's ever carried these bombs but can see no reason why a pylon stressed for 1,600 lbs could not handle it.

The problem with the P-47D and M are that they can't handle two 1,000lb bombs under the fuselage. The Corsair gets to 4,000lbs with a 1,000 pounder under each wing and two 1,000 pounders under the fuselage.

I can see that your hackles are raised again at my claim that the P-47M bomb load was applicable to the P-47D. I have not come across "proof" for you that the P-47D and M were cut from the same cloth, or airframe as it were. I have seen documentary proof of this myself in the past but am not going to try to pass of my recollection to you as proof. We will have to agree to disagree on this one as well.

As to proof that on the P-47, all bomb stations could be occupied to maximum capacty simultanously, I provided a picture of a P-47 with 1,700lbs of ordinance under each wing and a 500lb bomb under the fuselage. Remember that the bomb stations themselves were designed to handle 1,600lbs. Obviously, I do not have a picture of a P-47 carrying a 1,600lb bomb under each wing. I do not think air force fighters carried such bombs as it was a naval device as I recollect. At any rate, I do not see how 1,000lbs on each pylon and 700lbs situated on either side and a 500lb bomb under the fuselage would tend to show that the P-47N could not fuilfil its design maximum in bomb load. That ordinance load is actually 200lbs greater than the design maximum.

The P-47M and P-47N Are similar in that the design maximum bomb load is the same for the wings but 500lbs greater for the underbelly. Admnittedly, I am engaging in a leap or perhaps step of logic in assuming that the P-47M would be able to handle maximum loads on all stations as well. That coupled with my existing knowkedge that the P-47M and P-47D were formed from the same airframe is how I arrive at the presumption that the P-47D could have handled such ordinance loads.

"this is third time I actually asked if you had ONE example of the P-47 actually carrying 4,000 (or 4200) pound of bombs. And you have not produced that example. ... Unfortunately for this discussion you seem reluctant to produce the factual circumstances that surround the ACTUAL mission of any P-47 carrying a 4,000 pound bomb load."

I never said I either had or could produce an example or actual situation where the P-47 actually carried 4,000lb bomb loads. Again, I can not stress enough that the fact that the F4U actually did carry 4,000lb ordinance loads and the P-47D didn't is not conclusive on the issue of whether the P-47D could have carried such loads. Back to my previous post (#79) At the point in time before F4U's carried such loads, it would have been an error to assert that it could not have been done because it had not been done. Do you see the error in that logic? I undrstand that you are not willing to accept as a conclusive fact that it could have been done but conversely, that in and of itself is not a basis for concluding the opposite either.

"I know the P-47M was constructed from a P-47D-25. I don't know what mods were performed. You do not know either... your claim of 'unmodified' remains a claim."

No, it was not. But that is neither here nor there. Yes, for you and others who read this thread (assuming there are others) it is just a claim.

"Why does your 'presumption' have weight over published facts?"

Now this is curious. In post #77, you said, "I would have picked the F4U over the P-47 (and P-51) simply because the a/c was as good or better than both in about 75% of the air to air criteria up to 25,000 feet (where ETO was fought) and superior on the deck - plus as good air to ground as P-47 with added advantage of being a better defensive fighter on the deck."

Now you have been very thorough in criticizing me for making the statement that the P-47 was more survivable than the Corsair. I said, It is based on the presumption that the Thunderbolt was at least as survivable as the Hellcat. Remember that statistically speaking, Corsair drivers were more than 50% more likely not to bring their planes back after taking AA hits and that this was apparently due to the more vulnerable oil cooling arrangement of the Corsair. The Hellcat and the P-47 share the same oil cooler setup. I am aware of no studies but first person accounts of Thunderbolts continuing to fly with horrific damage abound in relation to such accounts involving Hellcats. I am quite comfortable in this presumption.

To that, you stated, "Jank - what statistical basis do you have on 'survivability' between the P-47D and the F4U? I've seen the USN discussions between the F6F and F4U but missed the comparison between either and the P-47?"

So now I ask you what statistical basis do you have that the Corsair 'would have done far better air to ground' than the Thunderbolt. In order to prevail on this point, you will need to provide evidence not just that it would have done just better but far better.

In addition, I asked for your opinion as to whether the F4U was more or less survivable than the P-47 and you responded, "My OPINION, as I have stated it before - as contrasted with OPINIONS to the contrary, is the the F4U was just as 'survivable'." Can you provide the statistical basis for this opinion? Is it just a presumption? On what is it based? Did you flip a coin and it ended up standing on edge? What basis of comparison do you have between the Corsair and P-47 for survivabilty...?? because of different threat environment, terrain, mission distances, etc...how do you compare?

"Somehow the USN decided that the 'less survivable' fighter should continue production while they killed "the better one" - Why? - I stand by my statement."

I do not have an answer for you but if I had to guess, it would be because the Corsair airframe had more evolution left. We were entering the jet age and the Hellcat was about 60-70mph slower. The Navy may have decided to shift more emphasis on offensive capabilities rendering the Hellcat no longer superior by virtue of its survivability. Perhaps the anticipated missions had changed in such a way that the Hellcat's edge in survivability was no longer an issue. I don't know either. Why are you asking me? I do not have to provide you with an answer to say that it is a fact that the Navy issued that very conclusion and that there is no reason why it should not be accepted for what it is, the USN's own determination. Like you, I think the oil cooler was the culprit.

One more thing. You said, " All of the 355FG P-47 awards were diving chasing attacks with very little turning."

Do you have some evidence of this? I have reread a bunch of 355th FG P-47 encounters. In order to prevail on this, you will need to show (1) All of the attacks were diving chasing and (2) All of the attacks had very little turning.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Jank

drgndog,

"And your proof that that load carrying capability per each rack is used simultaneously is?? ... Unfortunately for this discussion you seem reluctant to produce the factual circumstances that surround the ACTUAL mission of any P-47 carrying a 4,000 pound bomb load."

I think were getting off track here. My previous post (#79) states:

"As for ordinance load, the P-47D could have handled 4,000lb loads too. Just becauase it didn't doesn't mean it couldn't. At the point in time before F4U's carried such loads, it would have been an error to assert that it could not have been done because it had not been done. The weight differential between an empty and fully laden P-47D was about 7,000lbs. ... I can not stress enough that the fact that the F4U actually did carry 4,000lb ordinance loads and the P-47D didn't is not conclusive on the issue of whether the P-47D could have carried such loads."

I never said that the P-47D could carry 4,000lbs of bombs.

Actually I think you did on page 5 - which is what started my probe on this subject..

"And as I pointed out, the P-47M was designed to handle a 4,200lb bomb load. The P-47M and D would have been indistinguishable in that regard."

"

I said "ordinance load".

Actually you have said both in different combinations - mostly not the same - and have yet to prove even a total ordnance load of bombs and rockets to support what you have said so far

I did say that the P-47M and P-47D had maximum bomb loads by design of 4,200lbs and 3,700lbs respectively. The only way that the P-47D and P-47M could carry such bomb loads would be through the carrying of 1,600 pounders under each wing with a 1,000 pounder under the fuselage. I understand that 1,600lb aerial bombs did exist in the allied arsenal. I do not think P-47's ever carried these bombs but can see no reason why a pylon stressed for 1,600 lbs could not handle it.

Interesting speculation but what official document have you seen that claims it will do it - and safely as an operational load? You continue to dance around this

The problem with the P-47D and M are that they can't handle two 1,000lb bombs under the fuselage. The Corsair gets to 4,000lbs with a 1,000 pounder under each wing and two 1,000 pounders under the fuselage.

I can see that your hackles are raised again at my claim that the P-47M bomb load was applicable to the P-47D. I have not come across "proof" for you that the P-47D and M were cut from the same cloth, or airframe as it were.

My hackles are not raised - they are merely amused to this point. You seem so desparate to make the P-47 the most durable, heaviest load carrier, longest range, Luftwaffe destroyer that struck fear in all hearts.

"this is third time I actually asked if you had ONE example of the P-47 actually carrying 4,000 (or 4200) pound of bombs. And you have not produced that example. ... Unfortunately for this discussion you seem reluctant to produce the factual circumstances that surround the ACTUAL mission of any P-47 carrying a 4,000 pound bomb load."

I never said I either had or could produce an example or actual situation where the P-47 actually carried 4,000lb bomb loads.

See above

"I know the P-47M was constructed from a P-47D-25. I don't know what mods were performed. You do not know either... your claim of 'unmodified' remains a claim."

No, it was not. But that is neither here nor there. Yes, for you and others who read this thread (assuming there are others) it is just a claim.

To that, you stated, "Jank - what statistical basis do you have on 'survivability' between the P-47D and the F4U? I've seen the USN discussions between the F6F and F4U but missed the comparison between either and the P-47?"


"Somehow the USN decided that the 'less survivable' fighter should continue production while they killed "the better one" - Why? - I stand by my statement."

One more thing. You said, " All of the 355FG P-47 awards were diving chasing attacks with very little turning."

Do you have some evidence of this? I have reread a bunch of 355th FG P-47 encounters. In order to prevail on this, you will need to show (1) All of the attacks were diving chasing and (2) All of the attacks had very little turning.

Tell you what I would like to propose. I would like to ask Eric to be middleman because he is close enough to my library of both Encounter reports and my combat film. I have nowhere close to the same coverage on the 51 fights as I do on the Jug kills for the 355th.

Lets say you and I make an 'interesting' (substantial) wager on this subject using the film I have on hand that are at least 50% of all the 355th FG kills in P-47s. They include as I recall most or all of Norm Olson's kills, Burroughs, Elder, Szaniawski, Gresham plus one or two others.

Since the actaul attitude is difficuly to judge in all cases it will be impossible to detect if the final coup d'gras is in level or diving flight but it is easy to see the deflection.

I will stipulate that it is not a turning fight unless there is some representation of a Lufberry in which the target is acquired, overtaken, pull nose through and shoot at or about the same altitude.

All of the film is identified as to date, group/squadron, enemy a/c and 355th pilot scoring the kill. You can match them to the ones that Mike Williams has on his website for verification.

The ground rules are place the funds in an irrevocable escrow and we will negotiate who you wish to be a second witness. All negotiations start off line.

If you wish to continue overloading your canary ass with your alligator mouth I am pleased to respond.

Are you up to it?

[Jank]

"I never said that the P-47D could carry 4,000lbs of bombs."

Actually I think you did on page 5 - which is what started my probe on this subject..

I am afraid you are mistaken. I said that the P-47D could carry a 4,000lb ordinance load. I also mentioned the bomb load for the P-47M as evidence that the P-47D could carry such an ordinance load.

post #79 -

As for ordinance load, the P-47D could have handled 4,000lb loads too.

I can not stress enough that the fact that the F4U actually did carry 4,000lb ordinance loads and the P-47D didn't is not conclusive on the issue of whether the P-47D could have carried such loads.

post #88 -

And as I pointed out, the P-47M was designed to handle a 4,200lb bomb load. The P-47M and D would have been indistinguishable in that regard.

The P-47M and N were designed to handle bomb loads under each pylon of 1,600lbs. I have never seen the Republic Aviation design spec fpr the P-47D but the M is obviously instructive here.

post #98 - This is the post where I said that I never had said that the P-47D could carry 4,000lbs of bombs. Which is true. I had never said that. I know how strongly you feel about proving things so I look forward to your next post.

"Actually you have ... yet to prove even a total ordnance load of bombs and rockets to support what you have said so far"

"Interesting speculation but what official document have you seen that claims it will do it - and safely as an operational load? You continue to dance around this"

Have you ever heard that saying about leading horse to water?

From my last and a previous post. (This is hardly dancing around the issue as I squarely address your concern about my lack of proof)

You are correct. I have not and frankly do not feel the need to do so. If you want to reject my claim, that is fine. We can agree to disagree. I suspect that you know my claim is true. The P-47M had the same wing as the D.

I have not come across "proof" for you that the P-47D and M were cut from the same cloth, or airframe as it were. I have seen documentary proof of this myself in the past but am not going to try to pass of my recollection to you as proof. We will have to agree to disagree on this one as well.

The only way that the P-47D and P-47M could carry such bomb loads would be through the carrying of 1,600 pounders under each wing with a 1,000 pounder under the fuselage. I understand that 1,600lb aerial bombs did exist in the allied arsenal. I do not think P-47's ever carried these bombs but can see no reason why a pylon stressed for 1,600 lbs could not handle it.

The P-47M and P-47N Are similar in that the design maximum bomb load is the same for the wings but 500lbs greater for the underbelly. Admittedly, I am engaging in a leap or perhaps step of logic in assuming that the P-47M would be able to handle maximum loads on all stations as well. That coupled with my existing knowledge that the P-47M and P-47D were formed from the same airframe is how I arrive at the presumption that the P-47D could have handled such ordinance loads.

I never said I either had or could produce an example or actual situation where the P-47 actually carried 4,000lb bomb loads.

"You seem so desperate to make the P-47 the most durable, heaviest load carrier, longest range, Luftwaffe destroyer that struck fear in all hearts."

All I can say is that this comment is quite lame. Let's try to suppress the personal attacks. What do you say?

I was hoping you could respond to the following points I raised in my last post:

Now you have been very thorough in criticizing me for making the statement that the P-47 was more survivable than the Corsair. I said, It is based on the presumption that the Thunderbolt was at least as survivable as the Hellcat. Remember that statistically speaking, Corsair drivers were more than 50% more likely not to bring their planes back after taking AA hits and that this was apparently due to the more vulnerable oil cooling arrangement of the Corsair. The Hellcat and the P-47 share the same oil cooler setup. I am aware of no studies but first person accounts of Thunderbolts continuing to fly with horrific damage abound in relation to such accounts involving Hellcats. I am quite comfortable in this presumption.

To that, you stated,"Jank - what statistical basis do you have on 'survivability' between the P-47D and the F4U? I've seen the USN discussions between the F6F and F4U but missed the comparison between either and the P-47?"

So now I ask you what statistical basis do you have that the Corsair 'would have done far better air to ground' than the Thunderbolt. In order to prevail on this point, you will need to provide evidence not just that it would have done just better but far better.

In addition, I asked for your opinion as to whether the F4U was more or less survivable than the P-47 and you responded, "My OPINION, as I have stated it before - as contrasted with OPINIONS to the contrary, is the the F4U was just as 'survivable'." Can you provide the statistical basis for this opinion? Is it just a presumption? On what is it based? Did you flip a coin and it ended up standing on edge? What basis of comparison do you have between the Corsair and P-47 for survivabilty...?? because of different threat environment, terrain, mission distances, etc...how do you compare?

Lastly, you stated, "All of the 355FG P-47 awards were diving chasing attacks with very little turning."

In order to prevail on this claim, you will need to show (1) All of the attacks were diving chasing and (2) All of the attacks had very little turning. As such, even one such deviation from the aforementioned prongs will cause your claim to fail.

I have an alternative idea for a proposal. While it has none of the fanfare, pomp and circumstance of your proposal, it is very clean and efficient. If I produce one such shoot down that does not satisfy both prongs, you lose.

So, for instance,if I produced:

1st Lieutenant Vernon A. Burroughs, February 11, 1944:

I spotted an Me-109 flying behind us and at our altitude on our right. I was flying on the right and changed to the left to be in position for firing. I notified Major Szaniawski of the E/A and its position; he made a 30 degree turn to the right, then the E/A identified us and made a left diving turn, leaving Major Szaniawski a 45 degree deflection shot in the steep bank. I observed hits on the wings and fuselage and as the E/A passed under me, I did a vertical barrel roll and fired a long burst at 100 yard, closing to 25 yards and saw hits on the empennage. The E/A was smoking badly and was on fire.

Or, say I produced:

1st Lieutenant Jack J. Woertz,November 29, 1944:

We pulled back up to rejoin the bombers at 26,000ft when I spotted eight plus Me-109's. They were coming from SE.,4,000ft above us (flying at 30,000ft) and heading for the bombers at 2 o'clock. They passed over us and I believe were getting set to attack the big friends, when four P-47's of another group appeared in front of them. The E/A's jumped the P-47's. We were climbing all the time, and made two Lufberrys. I closed on the last E/A. He started to roll down, I followed, closed to about 600 yards and gave him a short squirt. I saw no strikes. I again opened fire at 350 yards, then closed to 200, where I gave him about a two second burst. I saw strikes on his canopy, left wing root, and fuselage. Hecht and Peery were with me in the Lufberry and all during the engagement.

One last note drgndog. I don't appreciate the tough guy behind the anonymous posting from the safety of my computer bullshit. You would never take this tone to my face. Trust me.

If you want to keep this discussion going, lets have some fun. I am going to ask you, again, to respond to my queries.

[Jank]

Of possible interest:

P-47 Thunderbolt: Aviation Darwinism - The Cradle of Aviation Museum - The Cradle of Aviation Museum

"Actual production P-47M fighters used the P-47D-30-RE as the basic airframe."

[helmitsmit]

I think we are all missing the point a little. Yes, load carrying ability is important but you need the air superiority first. In a fighter this best achiveved by speed, manoevourabilty and firepower. Therefore, I think the Corsair fills most of these requirements on average better then any other american fighter.

[Jank]

"I think the Corsair fills most of these requirements on average better then any other american fighter."

I agree. The side show going on above, however, is not inconsistent with that assertion.

Nowhere have I indicated that the P-47 should have been the basket that the government should have invested all of its eggs into.

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Jank

"[b]

Now you have been very thorough in criticizing me for making the statement that the P-47 was more survivable than the Corsair. I said, It is based on the presumption that the Thunderbolt was at least as survivable as the Hellcat. Remember that statistically speaking, Corsair drivers were more than 50% more likely not to bring their planes back after taking AA hits and that this was apparently due to the more vulnerable oil cooling arrangement of the Corsair. The Hellcat and the P-47 share the same oil cooler setup. I am aware of no studies but first person accounts of Thunderbolts continuing to fly with horrific damage abound in relation to such accounts involving Hellcats. I am quite comfortable in this presumption.

I stand by all my previous comments that you have no statistical or anecdotal evidence that the Thunderbolt took more battle damage than the F6F, and by extrapolation the F4U. You continue to make a 'logical' assumption with no logic.

In addition, I asked for your opinion as to whether the F4U was more or less survivable than the P-47 and you responded, "My OPINION, as I have stated it before - as contrasted with OPINIONS to the contrary, is the the F4U was just as 'survivable'." Can you provide the statistical basis for this opinion? Is it just a presumption? On what is it based? Did you flip a coin and it ended up standing on edge? What basis of comparison do you have between the Corsair and P-47 for survivabilty...?? because of different threat environment, terrain, mission distances, etc...how do you compare?

Yes I stated that opinion, and continue to a.) state it as an opinion, and b.) you can't prove otherwise., and c.) because you Assert and I merely express an opinion - where is burden of proof?

Lastly, you stated, "All of the 355FG P-47 awards were diving chasing attacks with very little turning."

In order to prevail on this claim, you will need to show (1) All of the attacks were diving chasing and (2) All of the attacks had very little turning. As such, even one such deviation from the aforementioned prongs will cause your claim to fail.

I didn't say 'ATTACKs" - Read it again. I said AWARDS. That means for you also, a Kill. Proceed on.

So, for instance,if I produced:

1st Lieutenant Vernon A. Burroughs, February 11, 1944:

I spotted an Me-109 flying behind us and at our altitude on