P-47 Thunderbolt: your opinions please...

[rotornut]

A friend of mine and I had a discussion about the Thunderbolt. He couldn't say enough good things about it. I've always thought it was a very ordinary fighter and that there were better machines such as the P-51. However, Jane's gives it a very good rating in Aircraft of World War II. Can I please have some learned opinions about the plane.

[EyesFront]

He's probably been reading Flight Journal. They did a piece a year or two ago, ostensibly applying a range of criteria to determine the most successful fighter of World War 2, and I'm pretty sure the P47 came out on top. I'll try to remember to dig out the issue when I get home...

Of course it all depends what you mean by 'better', which all depends on the relative weightings you choose to give to factors like:

range
firepower
handling
manoeuvrability
high level performance
low level performance
climb rate
diving speed
survivability
versatility
pilot comfort and visibility
maintainability
combat record
years in service

Certainly the P47 scores pretty highly in most of these categories, but your thinking on whether the P51 or the P47 is better simply depends on the weightings you choose to apply. For example, some might argue that any liquid cooled fighter is fatally flawed on survivability alone...

Or you might just decide that the P51 looks and sounds better... :)

[Synthetic]

I have it said-

If you want to get the girl, fly a P51.

If you want to get home, fly a P47.

[EyesFront]

In the August 2003 issue, Flight Journal asked test pilot 'Corky' Meyer to choose the best fighter of WW2. It's a long article, which I'm not going to repeat here, but his ranking for the European theatre was:

1. P47
2. FW190
3. Spitfire/Seafire
4. P51
5. Yak1/Yak9
6. Bf109
7. P38

In his conclusion, he provides some stats for the P47, P51 and P38 and points out that "the P47 flew twice as many sorties, dropped 2,010% more bomb tonnage, destroyed 62% of the enemy's aircraft in the air and 75% on the ground and suffered only 58% of the losses per sortie of the P51"

For the Pacific theatre his rating was more predictable (as a renowned Grumman test pilot):

1. Hellcat
2. F4U Corsair
3. Zero

Not sure this counts as a 'learned opinion' but I hope it helps!

It's interesting that you rate the P51 as the better fighter. What criteria are you applying?

[innuendo]

I think there has to be a certain amount of "Horses for courses", at the time they were needed, in the equation. The RAF did not need much bomb carrying capability during up to the Battle of Britain and so the Spitfire and Hurricane were what they needed at the time, ( apart from the fact that is what they had that worked at the time).
The Mustang excelled in long range escort and was more a fighter than a bomber. Probably did a lot to help the effectiveness of the daylight bombing effort.
No doubt the Thunderbolt was lot more effective against ground targets, its carrying capacity was probably one of the design aims. Seems to have been a great all rounder though.
I think it is hard to select a "Best" when the designs were probably done with a different purpose at different times.

[PLovett]

I may well be wrong but I thought the P47 had the best air to air stats of any European theatre fighter.

Please don't ask me to justify the comment. I think I read it somewhere in a magazine.:8

Perhaps it had something to do with the enormous amount of damage it could take and still get back home. :confused:

[rotornut]

It's interesting that you rate the P51 as the better fighter. What criteria are you applying?

I suppose it's because the P-51 gets so much publicity in the WWII documentaries - you know they always show the Mustangs escorting the
B-17s. In any case, thanks for the replies, folks.

[Brewster Buffalo]

The question you might want think about if the P-51 hadn't been available would the USAAF have been forced to abandon the daylight bombing campaign over Germany through an unacceptable level of losses?

Remember the P-51 could do the P-47's job but not the other way around due to the latter's comparative lack of range...

[Load Toad]

These questions seem to me to be pretty pointless; when you get to 'very bloody good fighters' then arguing which is 'best' comes down to what situation, flown by who and when.

If you argued that a Spitfire is more of a point defence dogfighter and you are looking at '40 / '41 it is easily the best. Or are you talking about the much modified later Marks?

A Fw190 - excellent but again - several modifications and different equipments for different tasks - like wise an Me109 - a third of which were written off taxing....

A P-51 - superlative long range escort but a liquid cooled engine - not good for ground attack work. I understand that the USAF stipulated P-51's for the bomber escort role following analysis of various results of the various fighters used....?

P-47 - tough and capable of being a fighter / fighter bomber - but what about cost, ease of maintenance, availability?

[White Bear]

While at The Gathering of Mustangs last summer in Columbus I spent a little time with a WWII P47 pilot. As we were talking a B17 took off and made so much noise we had to wait. When the noise level dropped he said with much distain, “2 Thunderbolts could carry the same bomb load to Berlin as one of those, and we could fight our way home. Why we wasted so many good men in those pieces of sh*t I’ll never know”.

Although not strictly on thread it reminded me of the British controversy of Lancaster/Halifax/Sterling vs. more Mosquitoes.

Although I had seen many P47’s, I had never seen one flying. I was surprised at how quiet they were, given the size and power of its engine. I’ve heard stories of how Thunderbolts could out climb Spitfires, and no doubt given its weight, nothing could out accelerate it in a dive.

Both of those attributes would made it a formidable opponent in the cut and thrust of WWII aerial warfare.

Regards,
White Bear.

[Brian Abraham]

Would be interested to know if the P-47 ever did escort the bombers all the way to Berlin and back. The first to do so was the P-38 on 3/3/44 and the P-51 on 4/3/44. The first P-47 (D-25) capable of doing the task did not arrive in the ETO until May 44 when all 47's were about to be transferred to the 9th Air Force and used as tactical fighter-bombers. In any event
2 Thunderbolts could carry the same bomb load to Berlin as one of those
I would say the old fella was engaging in a little wishful thinking. Where would he hang the bombs, every station would have been needed for tanks. :ooh:
The 47 was originally designed as a high altitude bomber interceptor. Climb rate was poor, zoom capabilities poor, wide turning circle, mushed in high speed turns, when stalled invariable snapped into a vicious spin - but if and when it got something in its sights the eight .50's would be devastating. Had excellent altitude capability, formidable diving performance, incredible sturdiness and ability to absorb combat damage. The last three are probably the reasons it went into the tactical fighter-bombers role and excelled.

[Mike7777777]

Best WW2 fighter plane? An unanswerable question! What sort of fight? Low level dog fight? High altitude air superiority? Night fighting? Long range escort fighter?

As an example, consider the Zero vs P38. Low level dog fight, the Zero has the advantage, with high speed passes the advantage transfers to the P38.

FW190 with experienced Luftwaffe pilot was generally a match for P51, but a WW2 novice in a good 'plane would not (usually) catch an experienced WW2 pilot in an "average" 'plane. With equality of numbers, training, experience, fuel quality and radar support, FW190 would have defeated the USAAF daylight offensive, Probably.

If dogfighting is avoided and the ability to decline combat is permitted then the 262 wins on firepower and the ability to escape. Provided it doesn't run out of fuel and the engines continue to run.

P47 was exceptional at two things, high speed dives and getting home with bits missing, including engine cylinders.

The Pacific became a turkey shoot after the Americans avoided twisting, turning confrontations with the Zeros, so any comparisons with the European conflict are meaningless.

Overall best fighter 1939 -1945? Spitfire. But not at night, or over a long range; and don't sustain engine/coolant circuit damage.

[kms901]

An elderly friend of the family still hangs his head in shame, because, as an FW190 pilot,he was shot down by a P-47. I have heard it said that "nothing could out-dive a jug"

But they cost nearly twice as much to produce as a P-51.

[Flying Binghi]

But they cost nearly twice as much to produce as a P-51.

Cost... thats the bottom line ultimatly. I have seen it mentioned about the Sherman tank, that it was worked out it would cost the loss of two Shermans to get one Tiger tank - deemed acceptable.

[Brewster Buffalo]

5 minutes research has turned up the loss rate of the P-47 at 0.7% with over 15,500 produced.

The P-47N was about 1.7 tons heavier empty than the P-51D but had a MTOW about 4 tons greater.


The initial success of the Sherman led the US Army to believe that there was no urgent need for a new tank. Even with the appearance of the heavy Tiger and medium Panther tanks, the Army did not alter its position, believing both tanks would be fielded in relatively small numbers. The Tiger, a specialized heavy tank was never encountered in large numbers but the Panther was built in very large numbers and formed half the German tank strength in Normandy

I think the actual ratio of allied tanks lost to german ones was 5 to 1. :eek: