Talk:Republic P-47 Thunderbolt

WikiProject Military history

(Rated B-Class)

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. Additional information... This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (general topics): Military aviation task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): World War II task force

Suggestion

The information about earlier Aircraft from the same maufacturer should be move to the appropriate pages.

• I think a case can be made for leaving them there.

Not one of the early Seversky aircraft is interesting enough to be worth a separate entry, and they have an evolutionary sequence that leads almost directly to the P-47. In fact, at a casual glance the P-43 can be confused with the P-47.

However, although a number of my writings have been ported to the Wikipedia, I maintain a hands-off attitude towards how it is done, and so whatever you think is wisest is fine.

Article move

I request moving this article to follow the standard aircraft naming convention used for most other US airplanes --Denniss 09:51, 2005 May 7 (UTC)

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. Republic P-47 and P-47 Thunderbolt have been swapped, leaving the article at the latter and some history at the former. P-47 remains a redirect]]. violet/riga (t) 14:34, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

How many aircraft kills did the P-47 have? - Disastermanx

Early Seversky aircraft, P-35 and P-35A

Nice section - except it's all about Mr Seversky, and not about the P-35 or P-35A. Perhaps this should be moved to Seversky's biography, and replaced by information on the P-35? Guapovia 16:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Tone Slightly Informal?

At least, the initial part seems a bit too colloquial. A good read, but not really "encyclopediaish", if that's a word. The content is accurate, just informal. Guapovia 16:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Jug

I think it ought to be pointed out that the nickname "Jug" for the P-47 was possibly an abreviation of "Juggernaut" due to the plane's then unprecedented size.

It wasn't. It was due to its rotund shape. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 23:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Whatever the reason for the monkier, it is, to the best of my knowledge, an abbreviation of Juggernaut. 85.210.49.160 06:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should improve your knowledge then. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 08:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I took "Juggernaut" and moved it down to the section where the British first came into contact with the P-47. My reference for this move is Air Force Fifty, a book put out by the Air Force Association (no single author listed). Binksternet 02:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Another instance of "Jug" being short for "juggernaut" showed up today, inadequately supported by a blog site. I deleted this edit, but there's no mention of the nickname's beginnings as being related to the rotund shape anywhere in the article as of this time. Anybody got a solid source? Best would be a "Jug" reference from before the fighter got to England. Binksternet (talk) 19:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The nickname "Jug" was given to the plane by the 56th FG, 8th AF when they received their planes in late 1942/early 1943 as cited in Cory Graff's book "P-47 Thunderbolt At War", the P47 Thunderbolt Pilot's Association and the History Channel documentary "Thunderbolt" as well as their series "Dogfights". - 20:25, 31 May 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.243.226.76 (talk)

Varible Pitch Constant Speed Prop for P-47

My impression is that the constant speed varible pitch prop was not introduced in this airplane until later in the C model and then all D models.

I remember notes from pilots reporting that the Razorback "D" model could climb like a scared cat.

Overall I think this is an excellent article.

John Cook

Using the phrase "constant speed variable pitch prop" is a very cumbersome way of describing a very basic piece of equipment on WWII airplanes. The phrase is actually quite redundant; all constant speed props are of variable pitch. The P-47 came right from the drawing board with a constant speed prop, as did all of the other American WWII fighters. The great increase in climb performance in the P-47Ds & subsequent Jugs was realized due to improvements in blade design--those ships had what became know as "paddle-bladed" props. As the name indicates, the blades were much wider (like a paddle or boat oar) & allowed the prop to more efficiently harness engine horsepower to develop more thrust, giving vastly improved climb performance. This widening of the prop blades assumed almost comical proportions on some of the props seen on later "D" models, & some of the P-47Ns, but boy they could climb!!! 192.100.70.210 10:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)CBsHellcat

Bio

I pulled this bit:

De Seversky was born in 1894 in Georgia, and became a naval aviator in the Tsar's forces in World War I. He lost a leg early in the conflict, but returned to the air with an artificial leg and claimed 13 "kills" in combat.

After the October Revolution in 1917, De Seversky was sent to the United States as part of a 1918 military mission. Having no confidence in the new regime, he decided to stay in America, and became an aeronautical engineer in employ of the United States Army Air Corps (USAAC), where he worked closely with the air warfare pioneer General Billy Mitchell. De Seversky obtained American citizenship in 1927.

In 1931, De Seversky founded the "Seversky Aircraft Company" at Farmingdale on Long Island, in New York state. The company was very small, with De Seversky acting as president, designer, and chief test pilot, but he also hired a fellow Russian expatriate named Alexander Kartveli as a design engineer. Kartveli was an original designer with many innovative ideas, and would eventually become chief designer when De Seversky became more preoccupied with the business aspects of running a company.

The early Seversky aircraft, such as the Seversky P-35 and its relatives, were important steps on the way to the development of the P-47.

It belongs on De Seversky's bio page, not here. More severe copyediting to come... - Emt147 ^Burninate! 05:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Some clownboat put the maximum speed for the P-47D at 467MPH, 32,500 feet. This is made especially obvious since the original metric velocity of 685KM/H remains unchanged...reverted to 426MPH. I'm pretty sure the top speed for the P-47N is 467MPH, 32,500 feet, but this is not mentioned in the P-47N's section at all, despite the fact that it DOES mention an uprated engine. dreddnott 07:14, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I must say I've never heard that epithet before.

Found images of XP-47H

I was looking for some more photographs to add to the P-47 site and found these images of the XP-47H. It was indeed a strange looking aircraft.
http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/061020-F-1234P-028.jpg
http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/061020-F-1234P-029.jpg
http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/061020-F-1234P-030.jpg
I thought about adding the image to the page since it looks so different than the other models but since I could only find a blurb of information about it; it's not very significant and would not contribute much to the page if I did. I added this so other enthusiast of the P-47 can take a look and see what the aircraft looked like.
--Signaleer 07:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Aircraft vs tanks

U.S. aircraft equipped with .50 caliber M2 and M3 machine guns could penetrate the turret roof and rear hull (engine deck) armor of 96.2% of German tanks and assault guns produced in WWII assuming they did not attack at very shallow angles. Only the Tiger I and II had thick enough armor on their turret roofs, and hulls to defeat the M2 AP round, but even then there was the vulnerability of rounds entering through radiator grills and destroying radiators/ and then striking the top of tank engines (gasoline carburetors). How recupable this damage is, and its effect is always another question -short of a complete brew up, a tank that was recovered could probably be put back in service.

“Report by Hauptmann Hanemann commander of Panzer-Abteilung 2105 for the period 3-17 September 1944: By Limbourg, the abteilung was scattered over an 8-km-wide area… singly or in pairs, the Panthers were shot up by the “Jabos” (fighter bombers)…” page 193, Panzer Truppen 2 by Thomas Jentz.

“On 28 June 1944, [General Heinz] Guderion [Inspector General of Panzer Troops] reported on experiences in opposing the Allied Landing in Normandy … Soon the troops will demand protective armor shields be mounted over the rear decks [of tanks] because of the success of fighter-bomber attacks.” Page 147, “Germany’s Panther Tank” by Thomas L. Jentz.

Serious issues in this section with no particular order:

1) Please post a name or initials and stop deleting people’s posts in this discussion

2) By 1944 the M3 variant of the .50 caliber machine gun was replacing the M2 and the M3 almost doubled the RoF to between 1,000 and 1,200 rounds per minute per weapon.

3) No one has addressed the effect of gravity on machine gun rounds fired from aircraft at altitude - clearly the round is going to pick up substantial velocity As fired from altitude - ergo I am certain the V_final is going to be greater than V_initial meaning the .50 cal penetration should be considered as at least equal to its maximum rated penetration.

4) I do not have a verifiable penetration data for the .50 caliber M2 AP round – I have seen quotes ranging from 16mm to 25mm.

5) A late war P47 with eight .50 cal M3 aircraft machine guns is going to put 133-160 rounds per second on target.

6) All variants of the Sturmgeschuetz III (SD.Kfz.142/1/2) and had 10mm of armor on the turret roof and 16mm of armor on the rear engine deck per “Panzer Tracts No. 8 Sturmgeschuetz” by Thomas L. Jentz and Hilary Doyle – This is within the penetration capability of M2 AP rounds fired from a .50 cal M3 aircraft machine gun. Also note that the Stug III had the longest product run (throughout WWII) and was produced in greater numbers than any other tracked AFV of the Heer (~10,000).

7) All variants of the Pz III (SD.Kfz.141) had 10mm of armor on the turret roof 10mm of armor on the rear engine deck per Page 279, “Panzer Truppen 1” by Thomas L. Jentz - This is within the penetration capability of M2 AP rounds fired from a .50 cal M3 aircraft machine gun.

8) All variants of the Pz IV (SD.Kfz.161/1/2) had 10mm of armor on the turret roof 10-11mm of armor on the rear engine deck per Page 280, “Panzer Truppen 1” by Thomas L. Jentz - This is within the penetration capability of M2 AP rounds fired from a .50 cal M3 aircraft machine gun.

9) All variants of the Panther (SD.Kfz.171) had 16mm of armor on the turret roof and 16mm of armor on the rear engine deck per Page 86, “Germany’s Panther Tank” by Thomas L. Jentz - This is within the penetration capability of M2 AP rounds fired from a .50 cal M3 aircraft machine gun.

10) The Tiger (SD.Kfz.181) had 25mm of armor on the turret roof and 25mm of armor on rear engine deck per “Panzer Tracts No. 6 Schwere Panzercampfwagen” by Thomas L. Jentz and Hilary Doyle – This *may be* within the penetration capability of M2 AP rounds fired from a .50 cal M3 aircraft machine gun.

11) The Tiger II (SD.Kfz.182) had 40mm of armor on the turret roof and 40mm of armor on rear engine deck per “Panzer Tracts No. 6 Schwere Panzercampfwagen” by Thomas L. Jentz and Hilary Doyle – This is probably not within the penetration capability of M2 AP rounds fired from a .50 cal M3 aircraft machine gun.

12) Note that Tiger I, and Tiger II production amounted to only 3.8% of German WWII tank production (1,900 out of ~50,000 tanks and AFVs) – ergo 96.2% of German tanks could have their roof and engine decks penetrated by M2 AP rounds fired from a .50 cal M3 aircraft machine guns. Hits produced in very shallow dives, and from very low altitudes would be much more likely to ricochet harmlessly, rather than penetrate.

13) Armor per se is not the only factor in this discussion as all tanks have substantial openings for radiators etc. on the rear engine deck that cannot be armored. The Tiger I and II were no different in this respect and an aircraft strafing with six, or eight .50 cal M3 machine guns is very likely to fire rounds that penetrating the into the engine compartment through the radiator openings. Note that German tanks in WWII, including the Tiger I and II, were gasoline powered with carburetors on top of the engine. Also, a ground attack flight is likely to have two to four attacking aircraft.

GAB — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.88.228.225 (talk) 15:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The P-47 destroyed thousands of tanks, locomotives, and parked aircraft, and tens of thousands of trucks and other vehicles [citation needed].

That is a myth. While airpower was very effective at destroying soft vehicles like trucks locomotives, thus "killing" the logictics and separating tanks from the needed gas, spare parts, repair crews and equiqment, airpower was lousy at directly killing tanks (see for example Tony Williams' book "Rapid Fire"). From the time the P-47 reached the ETO until the end of the war there were not even 1000 tanks destryoed by the whole airpower of the allied forces so how could the P-47s kill "thousands" of tanks? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.202.49.148 (talk • contribs)

Apparently Mr. Williams have never heard of the Il-2 - anon

The Eastern front was not part of the ETO - the western allies European Theatre of Operations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.137.3 (talk) 20:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The idea of machine gun bullets bouncing up through the floor of tanks does not pass the common sense test. Here are some reasons why.

- The best US .50 cal AP round of the day, the M2 AP round, when fired from the M2 HB, could penetrate only 19mm of RHA under optimal conditions (i.e., 0 degree angle of impact, direct fire. at 500m). The M8 API was even worse, at just 16mm penetration.

- HOWEVER, the P47 was armed NOT with the M2 HB, but the M2 Aircraft Basic, with a barrel 7 inches shorter and a lower muzzle velocity. Meaning worse penetration performance from these rounds.

- Ground attack fighters almost always attacked from the flanks (for sound tactical reasons involving survival) - which meant the bullets would have to penetrate the roadwheels en route to their ricochet. See the overlapping design of the Pzkw V's roadwheels, or the close-set road wheels of the Pzkw4. This would quadruple, quintiple - or more - the armor that would need to be penetrated to pull off this trick

- Ricochets off hard surfaces almost always come off the surface at a much more shallow angle than that with which they strike (that's a phenomenom that's been essential to gunnery since the early 19th century). So . . . a fighter in a 30 degree dive will have bullets ricocheting at about 20 degrees or less, which means a strike on the bottom hull at about a 70 degree angle of incidence from the perpendicular. Even the most casual observe should realize it isn't going to penetrate armor plate at this angle, especially since it couldn't first even penetrate asphalt at a better angle with higher velocity.

- It should be obvious also that the act of ricocheting does two other things: 1) It reduces bullet velocity significantly, and 2) it distorts the bullets shape. Both of these points radically reduce the penetrating capability of the 'bounching bullets.'

- All of this combines to make it clear that a bouncing bullet could not even penetrate the 10mm armor thickness of the hull bottom of a Pzkw IV under the conditions inherent to the myth (plus the thickness of the road wheels). And it certainly wouldn't penetrate the bottom 16mm armor of the Pzkw III and Pzkw V.

- Finally, I have yet to find any single ground source that verifies such an occurance. No ground-validated BDA. No Ordnance materiel vulnerability survey. No Ordnance technical report. Nothing. All we have are unsubstantiated claims which all trace back to pilots - who, by the way - were in pretty poor positions to discern something so subtle. Footnote 28 is merely the warmed over uncited comment made in the original WWII USAAF post war history - totally lacking substantiation. And footnote 30 merely repeats the same claim, this time disingenously linking a comment from LTG Collins to it, which comment did not support the bouncing bullet myth.

Lacking an on-site, on the ground verification of even a single incident of such an event, there is no reason to include it in this article. Recomment this section be rewritten to eliminate the bullets-through-a-tank's-bottom silliness. It's merely a recounting of a hoary old war story with no credibility. 71.41.26.194 (talk) 01:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC) Edited 71.41.26.194 (talk) 01:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The warning call of Achtung, Jabos was because of the personal damage a 50 caliber bullet could to a soldier on the ground, not because of its effectiveness against armored fighting vehicles. The only thing that the Thunderbolt could reliably do against a tank was drop a bomb or loose some rockets. Machine gun bullets weren't at all effective against hard targets. Binksternet (talk) 07:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Dude, the top armour of the Panzer IV is 10 mm. A .50 penetrates it like butter with a laser sabre. Anyday. --84.126.10.233 (talk) 10:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Du-u-ude, Danny S. Parker in To Win The Winter Sky writes about how the U.S. fighters would strafe German tank columns, go back to their base and report great amounts of damage. The Germans would not, however, suffer much damage at all to tanks, only to soft-skinned vehicles. Your butter and laser comment doesn't mesh with actual battle experience. Binksternet (talk) 14:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Plus the dud's mash-up of references needed major surgery. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC).

"3) No one has addressed the effect of gravity on machine gun rounds fired from aircraft at altitude - clearly the round is going to pick up substantial velocity As fired from altitude - ergo I am certain the Vfinal is going to be greater than Vinitial meaning the .50 cal penetration should be considered as at least equal to its maximum rated penetration."

I think someone here doesn't understand terminal velocity.Flanker235 (talk) 13:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Ruptured control surfaces???

"The fabric-covered control surfaces also tended to rupture at high altitudes due to the air trapped in them." Fabric-covered surfaces are vented with drain holes (go take a look at the bottom trailing edge of any fabric covered control surface on any production airplane--homebuilts don't count, though theirs should be vented also, sometimes they aren't) so as not to trap moisture. If the fabric surfaces were rupturing due to trapped air, all that needed to be done would be to open the vent holes, not change the production line (which is time-consuming & costly) to put metal skin on the surfaces. The Jug was losing fabric because of high-speed airloads during dives peculiar to the airframe (causing a phonomenon which has been described as "ballooning," but not because of trapped air) & the fix, which also increased severely deficient high-speed control effectiveness, was to make those production line changes to metal-covered surfaces.192.100.70.210 (talk) 11:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)CBsHellcat

The A-10 is NOT the modern day equivalent to the P-47

The A-10 was designed as a dedicated ground attack aircraft, the P-47 was made foremost as a fighter and performed ground attack very well. But dogfighting from the deck all the way up to 30,000ft was what it was there for, and thats something the A-10 could only dream of.

Saying the A-10 and 47 are the same only spreads ignorance and since the job of Wikipedia is to spread knowledge perhaps we could get this "Bzuk" character to allow an edit clearly stating that the A-10 is in fact NOT the modern day equivalent of the P-47.

If there is any WW2 "A-10" then its the Il-2 Sturmovik —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.97.76.213 (talk) 20:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

While the P-47 was not designed as a ground-attack aircraft, there were elements of its design that made it highly suitable to the role, such as its built-in toughness and survivability. There is no doubt that the P-47 was a success in this role due to these and other factors. The word "equivalent" has been changed, so hopefully we can move on from this issue. By the way, Bzuk is a well-respected editor within WP:AIR, and even though I sometimes disagree with him, he is a good researcher. - BillCJ (talk) 05:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Besides, the original statement was not even mine, I was merely reacting to an editor's arbitary and unattributed revisions, bringing them back to the former uncorrected state is the normal process. The rest is "water off a duck's back." FWiW Bzuk (talk) 11:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC).

For the same reason, I just changed the opening sentence regarding the size and weight, which used to read "(except for the Douglas Aircraft Company A-1 Skyraider, which was slightly heavier, and flew from the 1940s through 1970s)". The A-1 was definitely a ground attack aircraft by design while the P-47 was a fighter with good ground attack capabilities. -- Bdentremont (talk) 20:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Post war service in Cuba

One of the real combat uses that the Thunderbolt had after WWII was its role as ground attack airplane in the Cuban Air Force during the fight with Castro's guerrilla warefare groups. I think this should be included in the article as well.

Ammo load data missing, unit cost discrepancy

It would be nice if we could have the ammo load out per gun, as on the P-38 page and others. I don't have a source which states the ammo load, but IIRC from an episode of Wings it was 500 rounds per gun. Would someone please verify with a source and make the appropriate edit in the specs section? Also the current article states unit cost as $85,000 in 1945 dollars at the top of the article in the stat box and $83,000 in 1945 dollars in text at the bottom of the article. These numbers should obviously agree. Hardwarefreak (talk) 09:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Rotational speed of Turbosupercharger

The information of 60,000 revolutions per minute of the P-47's turbosupercharger was completely wrong, so I modified it. It´s very unlike that a first generation ball bearing equipped turbo charger of large diameter was capable of that speed. I've added a reference and link to a 1943 paper from General Electric explaining the operation of the turbosupercharger they produced for the vast majority of such equipped airplanes during WWII. Notice there's an information (just a curiosity) on that link citing the ball bearing rotation around its axle of 60,000 rpm. This number cannot be confused with turbosupercharger axle speed (21,300 rpm). Roberto R MOLA 12 February 2009 1432UTC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.62.205.240 (talk) 14:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

P-47 in Italia, error

In the italian book F-47D Thunderbolt of Nicola Malizia (IBN Editore) : It says 107 F-47D delivered between December 1950 and March 1951 divided in 2 stormi and 6 gruppi. 23 lost between January 1951 and August 1954, they were known Turandot name of an executioner of the French Revolution because of their high rate of accidents. http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:L%27amateur_d%27a%C3%A9roplanes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.133.45.96 (talk) 20:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

P-47N The statement "A total of 15,686 Thunderbolts of all types were built, making it second most produced American fighter of all times—after the 16,766 P-51 Mustangs." is incorrect. It should read 'A total of 15,686 Thunderbolts of all types were built, making it the most produced American fighter of all times. The P-51 Mustang at 15,486 was the second most produced.' These figures are from various sources and specifically the book 'America's Hundred-Thousand' by Francis H. Dean, ISBN 0-7643-0072-5 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.168.144.134 (talk) 15:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Can someone confirm these numbers from the source mentioned? cherkash (talk) 08:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Role

Quote from the article until a few seconds ago: "It had eight .50-caliber machine guns, four per wing. When fully loaded the P-47 could weigh up to eight tons. A modern-day counterpart in that role, the A-10 Thunderbolt II, takes its name from the P-47."

So now tell me, which part does the "in that role" refer to? --91.10.41.53 (talk) 16:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

From the sentence before that says proved especially adept at ground attack. MilborneOne (talk) 16:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

So it refer across three sentences, two of which make no mention of it? --91.10.41.53 (talk) 16:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I assume if you would have to anything about the issue, you would have, so this is a clear personal attack. --91.10.41.53 (talk) 16:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I assume if you would have to anything about the issue, you would have, so this is a clear personal attack. --91.10.41.53 (talk) 16:46, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

It is clear that the paragraph doesnt make sense as a result of past edits, rather then delete the comment it really needs to be edited to make sense. The fact that the A-10 is named for the P-47 is notable and should be mentioned. So please comment on a more sensible prose rather than each other, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 17:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that Bzuk edited in a non-sensical paragraph!

Now how about this:

The P-47 had eight .50-caliber machine guns, four per wing. When fully loaded the P-47 could weigh up to eight tons.

It was very effective in air combat but proved especially adept at ground attack. It A modern-day counterpart in that role, the A-10 Thunderbolt II, takes its name from the P-47.

--91.10.41.53 (talk) 17:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Other than the obvious copyediting needed:

The P-47 was very effective in air combat but proved especially adept at ground attack. Its modern-day counterpart in that role, the A-10 Thunderbolt II, takes its name from the P-47. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC).

What happened, why are you constructive all of a sudden? --91.10.41.53 (talk) 17:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

91 cut out the personal attacks any more comments on other editors and you may be blocked from editing. MilborneOne (talk) 17:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I see, only named users are allowed to make personal attacks! No wonder nobody wants to play with you anymore. --91.10.41.53 (talk) 17:40, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

One additional question: Am I allowed to fake other user's comments or is this also only allowed to named users? --91.10.41.53 (talk) 17:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Building up the lead section

Recent edits have focused, correctly, on the inadequacy of the lead paragraph. We need better quality writing that flows coherently, and we should put more of the plane's important features in the lead section. Points to include:

• Big and heavy for piston-engine fighter
• Major US fighter in WWII
• Also used by UK, France, USSR
• Only fighter used by Mexico and Brazil in WWII
• Great at high altitude combat
• Good at low altitude combat including ground attack
• Designed by ex-pat Russians: Seversky and Kartveli
• Heavily armed
• Rugged
• Powerful radial engine
• Comfort for pilot
• Good visibility from cockpit
• Drop tanks for range
• Jug nickname from shape
• A10 Thunderbolt borrowed name

These bits should all be in the lead section. Did I miss anything? Binksternet (talk) 18:15, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I think some of these aspects are not significant, I suggest:

• Major US fighter in World War II
• Big and heavy for piston-engine fighter
• Also used by other Allies
• Good at high altitude combat
• Great at low altitude ground attack
• Heavily armed
• Rugged
• A10 Thunderbolt borrowed name

FWiW Bzuk (talk)

I'm picturing a bigger lead which is why I put so much stuff into it. Something like three paragraphs rather than one. I would add to my previous list that the top two American aces in Europe flew the P-47. Binksternet (talk) 20:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I acknowledge and appreciate your removal of the Jug as a good dogfighter at low altitude. Binksternet (talk) 23:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Exceptional high altitude performance

The article could bear extra text describing the plane's performance at high altitude. We have this bit—"Optimized for high altitude work, the Thunderbolt had ...more wingspan, ...more wing area"—but there is nothing about how the Jug handled relative to other fighters in the very thin cold air at Angels 30. Some bits we could incorporate:

• "On the other hand, at altitudes above 25000 feet, when the engine turbo-supercharger came into its own, the P-47 could out-run both enemy types [the Bf 109 and the Fw 190]" The Air Fighters, Ashley Brown, Jonathan Reed. 1988. Page 17.
• "At heights above thirty thousand feet the P-47 could out-turn and outrun any Messerschmitt 109." Little friends: the fighter pilot experience in World War II England. Philip Kaplan, Andy Saunders. 1991. Page 139.
• "At altitude, above 20,000 ft, the P-47 was superior to the German fighters." Quoting Hub Zemke. P-47 Thunderbolt vs. Bf 109G/K: Europe 1943-45. Martin Bowman. 2008. Page 59. Same quote appears on page 11 in Target Berlin: Mission 250, 6 March 1944 by Jeffrey L. Ethell and Alfred Price.
• "On the other hand, it was very fast at high altitude..." The Illustrated encyclopedia of aviation. Volume 20, page 2376. 1979.
• "With its high altitude supercharger its performance at altitude—above 24,000 to 25,000—appeared superior to the other U.S. Army Air Corps fighters in the theater." Fighters of World War II, page 45. Jeffrey L. Ethell. 2001. Same phrasing in Ethell's earlier Fighter Command, written with Robert T. Sand.
• "Hubert 'Hub' Zemke brought his fighters over us at about thirty-two thousand feet, the P-47 being by far the best high-altitude fighter airplane in the war." The Mighty Eighth in WWII: A Memoir. J. Kemp McLaughlin. 2006. Page 59.

Some sources say the P-47 was 30 mph faster than its enemies in level flight at 30,000 ft. Its handling was better, relatively, at that height, not as sluggish as other fighters. Binksternet (talk) 19:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Probably worth noting, but to what extent? One to two verifiable sources should suffice. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC).

A paragraph, I should think. Binksternet (talk) 19:40, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Which sources? Which enemies? Might have been faster than a Bf-109F but probably not 30mph faster than a Fw-190D. Probably also worth noting, in reference to the quote about Zemke, that all he was doing was following good combat practice. There would be next to no combat at that altitude, since the enemy fighters would not be attempting to engage Zemke but chasing "Viermots" at lower altitudes instead. It was also smart tactics, not because of the P-47's altitude performance but because of its spectacular dive performance. I would also dispute the claim that the P-47 was "by far the best high-altitude fighter airplane in the war." While it was never available in the sort of numbers likely to make any difference, the Focke-Wulf Ta 152 would have made a formidable opponent, especially since it was nearly 50 mph faster.Flanker235 (talk) 03:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Top American aces in Europe

The Kirk and Young book Great weapons of World War II says, "The highest ranking American aces in Europe—Gabreski, Johnson, Zemke, Gentile and the rest—were Thunderbolt pilots." The New York Times wrote of Zemke that his "Wolfpack boasted 5 of the top 10 American air aces in Europe." The top two American aces in Europe were Gabreski and Johnson who flew only P-47s. Binksternet (talk) 19:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

That simply might reflect that the P-47 was in operation earlier than the P-51 which took over the role of escort fighter as the European air war was waning. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC).

Naturally, yes. More top aces does not mean the P-47 was the best fighter! Context is critical.

James A. Oleson analyzed a pile of WWII air combat statistics among aces, discounting fliers with few or no victories, and determined in his book In Their Own Words – the Final Chapter: True Stories from American Fighter Aces that the Thunderbolt ranks #4 among US-flown fighters in the number of aces it produced. The ranking is Hellcat, Mustang, Lightning, Thunderbolt, Warhawk, Corsair. Of course, the late-war Japanese pilots were easier to shoot down, giving the Hellcat high numbers.

Oleson says the highest average victory credit per American ace pilot in WWII goes to the Spitfire, surprisingly, with 7.97 average credits versus second place Thunderbolt with an average of 7.53 kills per ace. However, the Spitfire was getting its pilots killed (context is early war in Europe) while the rugged Thunderbolt was keeping them alive. American Spitfire aces suffered 24% deaths while American Thunderbolt aces suffered 8% deaths. Of all American aces, the lightest death rates were in the Warhawk (3%), the Hellcat (6%) and the Thunderbolt in third place with 8 percent. Binksternet (talk) 20:02, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Again, context is crucial, as the end of the conflict loomed, types like the Mustang were committed to low level missions where there was much more likelihood of ground fire bringing down the aircraft, given its "Achilles heel" of susceptible oil lubrication and water-cooled engine systems. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC).

Handling Characteristics

The article states the P47 was known to have a "very good" roll rate. This contradicts every other source I've read; other sources--and the flight models in various PC flight sims, not, I suppose that those are known for great accuracy--state that the P47 accelerated well, was very fast and had outstanding acceleration up above 30,000 feet, and accellerated really well in a dive, and was a very stable gun platform, but otherwise was in no way maneuverable. It rolled slowly ("about like a 747" according to at least one source), turned slowly (as one might expect from its extremely high wing loading), and its climb rate was mediocre until the new propeller design was added late in the war; the new propeller design improved its climb performance from poor to average.

Somewhere, I cannot remember where, I read that the P-47 became relatively nimble at very high altitude. Not more nimble, but more nimble than other fighters. Perhaps its roll rate at angels 30 turned out to be better than its competition. Binksternet (talk) 06:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Robert S. Johnson (27 kills-all fighters) mentions in his book "Thunderbolt" the excellent rate of roll of the P-47 and how it enabled him to shoot down more than one German fighter. He mentions in one passage that the enemy pilot probably thought he had turned inside him. Johnson was also full of praise about the new propeller, describing how he out climbed a Spitfire that had soundly beat him in an earlier encounter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.32.20.166 (talk) 15:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah. Some of the Allies thought that everything the US did in WWII was "late in the war". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.32.20.166 (talk) 15:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Johnson does NOT say the P-47 outclimbed the Spitfire in the simulated combat they had. Read it again. He says the reverse! Johnson was full of praise for the Spitfire's climbing ability, noting only that the P-47 was better in a zoom climb. On the subject of the P-47's climbing ability - or lack of it - no less an authority than Don Blakeslee had this to say, after someone pointed out that it was good in a dive, "Well it damn well ought to be able to dive - it sure as hell can't climb!" http://books.google.com.au/books?id=OJLst_R8ABEC&pg=PA13&lpg=PA13&dq=Blakeslee+P-47&source=bl&ots=QemHmNsM_I&sig=w0Z9qj8nae1Ofmq2N8_I3kHpwvA&hl=en&ei=wraKTrzcJ-iRiQfP6_2ABA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CEAQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=Blakeslee%20P-47&f=false As Blakeslee had spent some time on Spitfires, he'd be well qualified to comment.Flanker235 (talk) 00:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Far better than single eyewitness viewpoints which are necessarily limited in scope, and rife with personal interest and protection of one's stance, are measured histories of the aircraft written from collections of tests and stacks of eyewitness accounts. Blakeslee may well have been commenting on the P-47 rate of climb at low altitude. Hard tests are revealing: Above 20,000 feet, the P-47C tested in 1942 had a better rate of climb than the Spitfire VB tested in 1943.[1][2]. Binksternet (talk) 09:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

How does this prove my statement to be wrong? Blakeslee may have been commenting on low altitude performance or he may not have been. I don't know and neither do you. That's a zero sum game and proves nothing. Some of the Vb's were pretty clapped out by 1943 and many, including the test aircraft referred to in that document, had cropped supercharger impellers optimised for low altitude performance. It's top speed was at a paltry 5,900 feet! So unless you can come up with some very much better information, your comparison is not very relevant. If you are going to cherry pick, I suggest you stop comparing apples with oranges. Since I have quotes from both Blakeslee and Johnson saying either that the P-47's climb performance was not up to much or that the Spit's climb performance was superior in combat flying, I will be accepting their collective point of view over yours every time. It really doesn't matter what you think Blakeslee might have been talking about. These are two of America's most respected fighter pilots. Blakeslee had experience of both types. How much more qualified an opinion do you need?Flanker235 (talk) 06:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ It appears that the answer was already given in an earlier discussion:

• "On the other hand, at altitudes above 25000 feet, when the engine turbo-supercharger came into its own, the P-47 could out-run both enemy types [the Bf 109 and the Fw 190]" The Air Fighters, Ashley Brown, Jonathan Reed. 1988. Page 17.
• "At heights above thirty thousand feet the P-47 could out-turn and outrun any Messerschmitt 109." Little friends: the fighter pilot experience in World War II England. Philip Kaplan, Andy Saunders. 1991. Page 139.
• "At altitude, above 20,000 ft, the P-47 was superior to the German fighters." Quoting Hub Zemke. P-47 Thunderbolt vs. Bf 109G/K: Europe 1943-45. Martin Bowman. 2008. Page 59. Same quote appears on page 11 in Target Berlin: Mission 250, 6 March 1944 by Jeffrey L. Ethell and Alfred Price.
• "On the other hand, it was very fast at high altitude..." The Illustrated encyclopedia of aviation. Volume 20, page 2376. 1979.
• "With its high altitude supercharger its performance at altitude—above 24,000 to 25,000—appeared superior to the other U.S. Army Air Corps fighters in the theater." Fighters of World War II, page 45. Jeffrey L. Ethell. 2001. Same phrasing in Ethell's earlier Fighter Command, written with Robert T. Sand.
• "Hubert 'Hub' Zemke brought his fighters over us at about thirty-two thousand feet, the P-47 being by far the best high-altitude fighter airplane in the war." The Mighty Eighth in WWII: A Memoir. J. Kemp McLaughlin. 2006. Page 59. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC).

Okay, let me address this bit by bit because it sure doesn't answer the question.

• The P-47 may have been able to outrun both enemy types but which variants? The differences between a 190A and a 190D at altitude were very considerable so that sort of statement is not very meaningful.
• The P-47 may have been able to out turn and outrun a Bf-109 at above 30k but some are trying to claim that it could outrun and out turn all German types, which is nonsense.
• I have already questioned the Zemke quote and Jeff Ethell's use of it. I also have that book. This is a blanket statement and cannot possible cover all types. For a renowned historian like Ethell to use it, it would have to be qualified.
• "On the other hand, it was very fast at high altitude..." This is kind of clutching at straws... There are no terms of reference or datum points here.
• "Hubert 'Hub' Zemke brought his fighters over us at about thirty-two thousand feet, the P-47 being by far the best high-altitude fighter airplane in the war." I have already addressed this. It's bollocks. Superior to a Ta-152? Gimme a break... Far superior to a Spitfire XIV? No way...that's just meaningless and silly. But this was the opinion of one person in one obscure book which has been allowed to stand, yet I was criticised for quoting two outstanding US pilots who did not share your opinion.

Guys, let me make one thing clear: I came here to see the P-47 given credit for what it was good at. In my mind it has been dismissed as inferior to the P-51 and lacked the glamour and popularity of the P-38. But the one thing that's ringing through here is a concerted effort by some of you to elevate it to a position it did not and could not hold. So let me ask you something: Did the P-47 have any faults in your opinion or was it simply perfect? Both Blakeslee and Johnson sure didn't see it that way. They knew the foibles of their aircraft because their lives depended on it. That's why they developed the tactics they did - to compensate for what the Thunderbolt couldn't do. If your comments are to be believed then I would have expected a P-47 to be able to hold its own against a Bf-109 on its own terms. Johnson doesn't see it this way, saying instead, "First rule in this kind of a fight: don't fight the way your opponent fights best". I will take their opinions over yours every time.

Some here appear to be setting up cherry picked quotes to support their own unrealistic prejudices. That is not the same as objective historical research. Just because something might have happened, that doesn't mean it did just because you found a quote. Wikipedia does not exist for that purpose.Flanker235 (talk) 13:32, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

First of all, knock off the "you guys" nonsense. I have come to the party kinda late, but I am not in any way invested in the argument that is unfolding. If you keep to the topic, things will flow along nicely, start slagging people, and a very abrupt end to the discourse will result. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC). Just one of "the guys". FWiW, this forum is reserved for development of the article and it is appreciated that all discussions in the "string" stay on topic. Bzuk (talk) 14:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

How do I contact you?Flanker235 (talk) 14:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

You are doing just fine right now if the subject is the P-47, for anything else, use talk and if you want to email me off-wiki, go to the talk page, and on the left margin toolbar, you will find a hotlink to "Email this user". FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:17, 7 October 2011 (UTC).

I would suggest that this comment:

"Once paddle blade propellers were added to the P-47 in early 1944, climb performance improved significantly,[33] enabling the P-47 to match the climb performance of any German fighter at all altitudes"

be removed pending further investigation. Since the parameters for the claim that the P-47 could outclimb the Spitfire were based on a Spitfire model designed for low-level performance, the assumption was that this was representative of all models of Spitfire, which is a gross distortion. It would be natural to assume that comparisons with all models of German fighters would be spurious for the same reason. Certainly no variation among models is discussed. The power to weight figures for the P-47's claimed competitiveness do not stack up and the introduction of the paddle prop would have been evolutionary rather than revolutionary. I would also suggest that this comment:

Major Robert S. "Bob" Johnson described the experience of diving the big fighter by writing, "the Thunderbolt 'howled' and ran for the earth"

also be removed since it provides no information. It would also be difficult to accept it as impartial.Flanker235 (talk) 21:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)