Talk:Republic P-47 Thunderbolt

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).

Could it also be that the Spitfire was involved in generally more intense fighter v fighter campaigns than the P-47, such as the Battle of Britain and Malta? I have no stats to support this, just musing. That said, the armament of German types late in the war would have made a significant difference to the damage inflicted, at which point the P-47s robust construction would have been extremely valuable. It probably saved a lot of people from having to bail out, or worse, ditch in the Channel. In either case, survivability was mathematical. Flanker235 (talk) 09:04, 7 May 2013 (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)

OK. Couldn't find my copy of "Thunderbolt". Ordered another from Amazon. Got it. Read it again as ordered by Flanker and I stand by what I wrote. I'm going to quote from Robert S. Johnson's "Thunderbolt" starting in the middle of a paragraph on page 240 to the end of the paragraph; "Never again did a Focke-Wulf FW-190 or a Messerschmitt Me-109 outclimb me in the Thunderbolt. The new prop was worth 1,000 horsepower more, and then some. Later I had the opportunity to mix it up with a Spitfire 9B, the same model fighter that flashed past me in a climb. This time the tables were reversed; I was astonished as we both poured the coal to our fighters, and the Thunderbolt just ran away from the Spit." BTW, I believe that crack about the roll rate of the P-47 being similar to a 747 is the typical bashing US WWII equipment gets in Wikipedia.Al Cook USA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.32.4.78 (talk) 15:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Here is a quote about the mock dogfight with a Spitfire from that very book:

"We flew together in formation, and then I decided to see just what this airplane had to its credit.

I opened the throttle full and the Thunderbolt forged ahead. A moment later exhaust smoke poured from the Spit as the pilot came after me. He couldn't make it; the big Jug had a definite speed advantage. I grinned happily; I'd heard so much about this airplane that I really wanted to show off the Thunderbolt to her pilot. The Jug kept pulling away from the Spitfire; suddenly I hauled back on the stick and lifted the nose. The Thunderbolt zoomed upward, soaring into the cloud-flecked sky. I looked out and back; the Spit was straining to match me, and barely able to hold his position.

But my advantage was only the zoom—once in steady climb, he had me. I gaped as smoke poured from the exhausts and the Spitfire shot past me as if I were standing still. Could that plane climb! He tore upward in a climb I couldn't match in the Jug. Now it was his turn; the broad elliptical wings rolled, swung around, and the Spit screamed in, hell-bent on chewing me up. This was going to be fun. I knew he could turn inside the heavy Thunderbolt; if I attempted to hold a tight turn the Spitfire would slip right inside me.

I knew, also, that he could easily outclimb my fighter. I stayed out of those sucker traps. First rule in this kind of a fight: don't fight the way your opponent fights best. No sharp turns; don't climb; keep him at your own level.

We were at 5,000 feet, the Spitfire skidding around hard and coming in on my tail. No use turning; he'd whip right inside me as if I were a truck loaded with cement, and snap out in firing position. Well, I had a few tricks, too. The P-47 was faster, and I threw the ship into a roll. Right here I had him. The Jug could outroll any plane in the air, bar none. With my speed, roll was my only advantage, and I made full use of the manner in which the Thunderbolt could whirl. I kicked the Jug into a wicked left roll, horizon spinning crazily, once, twice, into a third. As he turned to the left to follow, I tramped down on the right rudder, banged the stick over to the right. Around and around we went, left, right, left, right. I could whip through better than two rolls before the Spitfire even completed his first. And this killed his ability to turn inside me. I just refused to turn. Every time he tried to follow me in a roll, I flashed away to the opposite side, opening the gap between our two planes.

Then I played the trump. The Spitfire was clawing wildly through the air, trying to follow me in a roll, when I dropped the nose. The Thunderbolt howled and ran for earth. Barely had the Spitfire started to follow—and I was a long way ahead of him by now—when I jerked back on the stick and threw the Jug into a zoom climb. In a straight or turning climb, the British ship had the advantage. But coming out of a dive, there's not a British or a German fighter that can come close to a Thunderbolt rushing upward in a zoom. Before the Spit pilot knew what had happened, I was high above him, the Thunderbolt hammering around. And that was it—for in the next few moments the Spitfire flier was amazed to see a less maneuverable, slower-climbing Thunderbolt rushing straight at him, eight guns pointed ominously at his cockpit..."

As for your quote from Johnson that "The new prop was worth 1,000 horsepower more, and then some", there is no doubt that the new prop would have been a significant confidence boost for fighter pilots: a very important attribute but not a lot of use in a clinical discussion. It would be far more helpful and relevant to provide the actual time to altitude figures so readers can see and decide for themselves - and this time, let's make sure we compare apples with apples. You need to separate the technical from the emotional.

In simple power to weight terms, even with the paddle prop, the Thunderbolt would still have been at a significant disadvantage against a Spitfire.

I made no comparisons with the B747, so it's of little relevance to the debate. If you think Wikipedia bashes US equipment then you might also consider your level of objectivity as a contributory factor. I have not bashed the Thunderbolt or any other US equipment. If questioning a few less than objective components of the article is interpreted as bashing then please excuse me for having an opinion and the information to back it up.

I would also question the quote about Fw-190s or Bf-109s never outclimbing him again. There are no examples provided. It's not that I don't believe Johnson, I just think he is being quoted out of context. He had already developed tactics for ensuring that out-and-out climb was not a factor in his missions. However, I would certainly question anyone who says the P-47 had a better rate of climb than any piston engined German fighter. I can demonstrate that it is not the case.

As a bit of light reading, you might like to peruse some of these references, the veracity of each you may decide for yourself:

http://www.chuckhawks.com/p47.htm

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitv.html

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit9.html

Here is an RAF report on an earlier P-47C, dated March 1943:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47c-afdu.html

It is useful to note that the RAF was quite complementary of the P-47, particularly in reference to it's excellent handling. They note that it is very light on the controls for such a heavy aircraft.

In pure straight line speed terms, in level flight, there was no contest. The P-47 was the fastest of the three types. The climb performance of both types of Spitfire was at least equal to any comparable variant of P-47. The MkIX was far superior.

If you look here and scroll about ¼ of the way down the page:

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit9.html

you will see some of the MkIXs time-to-altitude figures, which are substantially better even than the P-47M:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47.html

Of course the P-47M could be more appropriately compared to the 2050hp Griffon-powered MkXIV, at which point it becomes downright unfair.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/wade-comp-perf-chart1.jpgFlanker235 (talk) 12:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Somebody wrote "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!" ". With all due respect to Blakeslee which I consider one of the gratest american fighter pilots, I think this man had a wrong impression of the P-47, he was an ex Eagle used to fly with the superb Spitfire and then transfered to the huge P-47, he sure disliked it at first sight and was pledging to go back ti the Spit, he was very happy that his group was given the new P-51s. Besides, he only had the occasion to fly on P-47Cs and early Ds so nhe didn't see what the new propeller was like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.144.169.205 (talk) 14:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe he did and maybe he didn't. Lack of climbing ability was one of the P-47s very few weaknesses. As has been said time and again, pilots used tactics which avoided the need to climb. If its climbing ability had been as good as some are trying to make out here, it would be reasonable to expect them to use tactics more in the vein of the Spitfire or Bf-109. Since our opinion of what Blakeslee may or may not have meant by his comments is not terribly relevant in a reference article and since I have provided numerous references to show that Blakeslee's comments were largely justified, perhaps we can put this to bed at last.Flanker235 (talk) 23:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

"The new prop was worth 1,000 horsepower more, and then some" - in that case either the original propeller was of such abysmal efficiency that it was only delivering around half of the around 2,000hp produced by the engine, or else the new propeller miraculously found an additional 1,000hp from somewhere/nowhere to add to that produced by the 2,000hp of the engine and which therefore qualifies it as the one exception to contravene the known laws of physics. It would mean the propeller had an efficiency of over 100%.

A propeller converts engine power to thrust. It doesn't create power.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.55.0 (talk) 11:00, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

It's not a straight phrase but an idiomatic one. Saying giving it a new propeller was as effective as (a touch of hyperbole) giving it a more powerful engine. Compare with "one volunteer is worth ten pressed men" or "[insert name of energy drink] gives you wings" GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:32, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I keep seeing references to P-47 less than stellar but all those reference are early P-47 and not the latter ones.

In regards to HP, of course you don't get more HP from a better prop, what you do get is more efficient use of the HP you do have. So, in a pilots verbiage he is simply conveying what it felt like not a claim to more hp and to argue that is bizarre. 4 paddle blades making the most of its 2000 hp vs another aircraft with 2500 hp that was not as efficient would be where the rubber meets the road. The V-1710 was arguably a better engine than the Merlin but it lacked the developed 2 stage super charger the Merlin had (V is For Victory). As a result of design approach and engine intent, the Merlin got more out of its CI than most of the 1710 versions. Develop the 1710 along the identical lines of a Merlin and it was the better engine. Both had outstanding service records.

Highly like the P-47 could do what the Hellcats (and P-40) did to a Zero, out turn it at higher speeds.

All of this argues against what any good fighter pilot knows (and was stated) you don't flight to the best of your opponents flight characteristics, you do to your own. So no, you won't do a low speed turn contest with a Spit any more than you would a Zero.

F-4 Phantoms could dog fight with a Mig 21, you had to know how. The P-47 like the P-40 is an underappreciated aircraft and it is well to note that. As good as the Mosquitoes was, it was a killer for anyone other than a skilled and trained pilot. P-38 the same, Richard Bong did not get 40 kills on luck. It was poorly used in the European Theater and it was highly prized and used right in the Pacific where Lindbergh taught pilots how to max out its range. Fly it wrong and the range was ho hum. fly it right and it had long long long legs (the Turbo being one key to engine efficiency the Merlin did not have). The P-51 was not a pure dog fighter either, but using its capabilities to the max it cold and did beat everything in the air. So did a P-40 which could take on a FW-190 at medium and low altitude on an equal footing.

Fight your bird wrong (Spit trying to low speed turn with a zero) and you are toast. Fight it right and you can beat an near peer.

Most expensive?

The first sentence is interesting but leaves at least one question to be answered: What was the cost of the Thunderbolt? I find it interesting that the cost effective American industry matched the generally "maybe-individually-better-but-not-so-easy-and-cheap-to-produce" creatures of the German industry... How much cheaper was a FW-152 (43 built) or a Me 309 (4 built) than a P-47 (15000+ built)? Perhaps compare also with the Hawker Tornado from UK, 1 unit built (plus 3 prototypes). Should be a rather expensive bird... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.79.28.67 (talk) 22:04, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Most produced US fighter, or second most?

The article makes this statement:

A total of 15,686 Thunderbolts of all types were built, making it second most produced American fighter of all time—after the 16,766 P-51 Mustangs.

There are four concerns here: how many P-47s were built, how many P-51s were built, whether the number of A-36 Apaches should be added to the number of P-51 Mustangs, and whether post-war production is counted.

I have seen most book sources saying that about 14–15 thousand Mustangs were built. Binksternet (talk) 17:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

• Thunderbolt: "American factories turned out more than 15,500 of these aircraft for the Army Air Forces." Mustang: "production eventually exceeded 14,500".
• XP-51 (NA 73): 50 US + 620 UK = 670
• P-51 (NA 83): 150
• A-36A (NA 97): 500
• P-51A (NA-91): 260 US + 50 UK
• P-51B (NA 102 and NA 104): 1,988
• P-51C (NA 103 and NA 111): 1,750
• Merlin Mustangs (model D onward)
• P-51D (NA 109, 111, 122, 124: 7,956, broken down as 6502 built in California and 1,454 built in Texas, all sent to the USAAF. Add to this 1,728 more sent to the RAF. ([http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=513 Nearly 8,000 D types, per USAF.)
• Mustang Mk 20 through 23 built in Australia: 120
• P-51F: 3
• P-51G: 2
• P-51H: 555, the final ones built in 1946 (1,444 more canceled)
• XP-51J: 2
• P-51K: 905
• P-51M: 1

Using the most detailed source, I count about 5,370 Allison-engined Mustang/Apaches and about 11,270 Merlin-powered Mustangs. All told, there were about 16,640 of the basic airframe made, including A-36s and 1946. Binksternet (talk) 17:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC) (Added info. Binksternet (talk) 19:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC))

Taxiing

Because the pilot had difficulty seeing over the cowling while taxiing, I believe the procedure was to zig-zag on the ground to be able to see, just like with the Fokker DR1 triplane, then when taking off, to lock the rear wheel. I have seen movies of a ground crew member lying on the wing while taxiing, perhaps this was also to help the pilot steer on the ground. 2602:306:CEDF:1580:DCE7:BBD4:2D66:66F5 (talk) 07:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

This was very common practice in WWII and not unique to the P-47. Any tail dragger with a big engine would suffer the same problem. Flanker235 (talk) 11:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I think we understand there's a missing "not" in that sentence. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

D'oh! Yes, thank you! Duly altered. Flanker235 (talk) 09:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Designer

The P-47 Thunderbolts base and final model was solely designed by Alexander Kartveli. If there was certain participation of Seversky at all, please add them with references. Because I couldn't find any myself and there most likely won't be anything but maybe advisory role. Possibly something in relation to the early prototypes. Added additional citations. TheMightyGeneral (talk) 12:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC) "Sorry, didn't see this discussion before making a reversion; will revert back to the last edit. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:28, 20 August 2012 (UTC),

Okay I yet still have to insist leaving my last edit with Kartveli beeing the actual designer of that aircraft unless you can provide any source that mentions Seversky beeing directly involved in designing it. I also took my time to edit your change a little to fit it better, yet again because the P-47 was a total unique design by exterior and interor changes made by Kartveli, which had little to do with the P-35, so I made it as replacement if you see any connection there. Thank you TheMightyGeneral (talk) 23:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Ground Attack role section

Again, the impartiality of this article must be called into question. German soldiers may have shouted "Actung! Jabos!" but that does not mean that all the fighter bombers attacking them were P-47s. There were plenty of rocket-firing Hawker Typhoons and MkIX Spitfires from the RAF and any number of other types which were used to great effect by the allies in battles such as the Falaise Pocket. The implication seems to to be that while the P-47 performed this role exceptionally well, it was the only type doing it.

Optimum circumstances rarely existed for .50 cal AP rounds to penetrate turrets and the whole passage starts to sound like an attempt to make it the norm. In most cases during WWII, hard targets like tanks were far more likely to fall to rockets than machine guns. The quote from Guderian could refer to any or all allied fighter types engaged in ground attack. In this article, it seems to have been selected to refer solely to the P-47. In any event, it is not a very valuable entry because it lacks a specific reference to the P-47.

The tactics used by P-47 pilots were used by many other pilots as well and the success of the weapon dropped is more indicative of the weapon than the aircraft which dropped it.

This article is starting to resemble a mash up of Boy's Own and Commando Cody. Much of the referencing is irrelevant or not impartial and some of these passages need extensive revision.Flanker235 (talk) 02:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Reduced greatly. Binksternet (talk) 02:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's better. The essential points are still there.Flanker235 (talk) 04:51, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

+++Disagree! The deck armor on all german AFVs was fairly light and presented a large target. For example, the *deck armor* of Sd.Kfz. 171 (panther Ausf "A, D and G") was only 16mm thick! and yes, the .50 caliber could penetrate this armor. Sorry! Page 86 “Germany’s Panther Tank” by Thomas L. Jentz. Radiators could not really be armored. And yeas eight .50 caliber machine guns, plus rockets and bombs made the P47 exceptionally capable of destroying German AFVs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.185.150.210 (talk) 17:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

None of this is relevant to the issue I raised. If you want to talk about guns, go to the relevant section, in this case the article about the .50 BMG. This was about how the article was written, not the technical merits of the weapons carried. This is especially the case when there were plenty of other aircraft capable of fulfilling that role, some with heavier cal armament. The article, as it now stands, is relevant and does not digress into sections which could be better covered elsewhere. Flanker235 (talk) 12:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

One 16mm example does not merit changing the article from "lightly" armored to all armored. Binksternet (talk) 18:31, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd also suggest that the engine deck of any tank is only a large target if directly overhead and not approached obliquely. More importantly is - what do sources say? If they say the P-47's guns (not bombs or rockets) were effective against tanks then we can say that. At the moment we seem to be getting something along the lines of "P-47 had 0.5 inch guns" + "0.5 inch can go through x mm armour" + "such-and-such tank had x mm armour" = P-47 was effective against such-and-such tank" GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:49, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Another problem with the addition is that the cited book does not discuss the P-47.

You should know we discussed this previously at Talk:Republic_P-47_Thunderbolt/Archive_1#Aircraft_vs_tanks. Binksternet (talk) 18:49, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I just figured out that the IP address from back then is the same little Ohio town as the IP address now. Binksternet (talk) 18:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

+++ Neither your smugness, nor disparaging attitude, are pertinent - you are wrong.

As to my location, since you seem to think it undermines my credibility: I am a retired naval officer, and I am also a professional engineer. My BS is from the U.S. Naval Academy, and I have advanced degrees in both engineering and mathematics. Oh, and I have seen first hand what an M2, M3, and a GAU-19 can do.

I selected the 45.5-metric ton German Sd.Kfz. 171 Pz. Kpfw. V Panther as an example, because it was arguably the pinnacle of WWII German tanks, with the exception of the very rare Tiger I and II. The panther outweighed almost every allied and German tank by roughly 50-100%. The panther’s predecessor was the Pz. Kpfw. IV, which weighed ~23-tons, the American M4 Sherman weighed ~30 tons as did the Soviet T-34. These were the most common tanks in WWII. So much for the Panther being "lightly armored."

The German Sd.Kfz. 161 Pz. Kpfw. IV (Ausf A, through G models), had 12mm engine deck (upper hull) armor. http://www.achtungpanzer.com/panzerkampfwagen-iv.htm The Panzerkampfwagen IV was also the most numerous German tank of WWII and was in service throughout the war. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_tanks_in_World_War_II#Panzer_IV

The German Sd.Kfz. 142 Sturmgeschuetz III (Ausf A, through G models), also had 16mm engine deck armor. “Panzer tracts No .8 Sturmgeschuetz", by Thomas L. Jentz, and H. L. Doyle, pages 23, and 34-35. It was the most numerous German AFV of WWII in service from 1940-1945. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmgeschütz_III

The M2 machinegun firing AP ammunition could penetrate 3/4" (19.05mm) or armor plate up to 500 yards, which was more than sufficient to penetrate the rear deck armor of almost all German (and most allied) tanks except for the very rare tiger I and II. From a dive, with gravity *accelerating the round faster*, and also with concentration of guns, the .50 caliber AP round probably enjoyed even greater terminal velocity and hence penetration.

German General Guderian, the chief proponent of tank warfare in Germany and the Inspector General of Panzer Troops was absolutely correct when he stated in 1944: “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.

You are still wrong and are more than a bit of an ass to boot...173.88.239.176 (talk) 03:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't have anything against Beachwood, Ohio, or anybody who lives there. The point I was making was that the same argument we had last year was almost certainly started by the same guy—you. You did not gain consensus back then, and you have not altered your argument since then. The argument is still rife with something that every author and scholar is supposed to do: original research. Unfortunately for your position, Wikipedia has an iron-bound policy called WP:No original research. That means we include only previously published facts. We do not add A + B + C to get Z. Your scheme here is to insert original research in the form of a) the P-47 used 50 cal ammo, b) the 50 cal round has been known to penetrate 16mm armor in certain tests, c) at least one of Germany's armored vehicles had 16mm top armor, thus z) the P-47 was an effective armor killing machine. I'm sorry, but this is not what Wikipedia is for! Publish a book with your revelation and we'll see about putting in a bit about the assertion. Better still would be for you to find that the P-47 was actually observed to kill lots of German armor (which it wasn't.) Binksternet (talk) 04:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

+++

First, the P-47 could and *did* destroy German armored fighting vehicles, including tanks, according to the USAF Historical Study 70, “Tactical Operations of the Eighth Air Force 6 June 1944 to 8 May 1945”, and other historical documents. It is a point of fact that that this includes using .50 caliber M2 machine guns for all German AFVs up to the size of the as well as rockets and bombs.

Second, nothing in the section discusses the primary missions assigned to P-47s in the European or Pacific theaters, which goes a long way to explaining what targets pilots were, or were not ordered to attack, and in what priority. This is a critical omission.

Third, by what right do you have to discount Air Force historical documents, original pilot commentary, as well as comments from ground commanders (allied and German)? You are making circular arguments and dismissing original source material solely on the basis of your *expert opinion.* Seventy years after the fact you have deleted historical citations as “impossible” or “unlikely” based upon your *opinions*! German field commanders (Rommel, Rundstedt, Model, Manteufell, Guderian, etc.) clearly understood the threat that fighter bombers (of which the P-47 was arguably the finest American example) had in reducing their ability to deploy and maneuver armored forces.

Fourth, Just looking through this talk section shows plenty of “original research”. Your snarky comment: “Publish a book with your revelation and we'll see about putting in...” demonstrates you pig headed refusal to accept factual evidence that contradicts your arm chair *opinion*.

Fifth, it is pretty clear that the overwhelming majority of German AFVs could by very vulnerable to the AN/M2 AP cartridge, which could penetrate 19mm of armor plate. The Germans built 41151 tanks and self-propelled guns during WWII. http://www.achtungpanzer.com/panzer-statistics.htm 87.78% of these German AFVs right up to the end of WWII had engine deck armor of 16mm or less, which made them vulnerable to M2 AP ammunition:

German AFV Type:	Number produced:	Percentage of Total AFV production:
PzKpfw I	1563	3.8%
PzKpfw II	1924	4.7%
PzKpfw 35(t)	424	1.03%
PzKpfw 38(t)	1411	3.4%
PzKpfw III	5733	13.9%
Stug III/IV	10548	25.6%
PzKpfw IV	8544	20.8%
PzKpfw V Panther	5976	14.5%
Panzerjager V Jagdpanther	425	1.03%

Again, keep in mind that the PzKpfw V Panther was the pinnacle of mass produced German armor, and even then it was a minority compared to the PzKpfw IV and Stug III/IV, which formed the mainstay tank and assault guns of the Wermacht in 1944 and 1945.

The following German AFVs had engine deck armor greater than 16mm that could not be directly penetrated by M2 AP ammunition:

German AFV Type:	Number produced:	Percentage of Total AFV production:
PzKpfw VI Tiger	1355	3.3%
Tiger II Ausf. B "Konigstiger"	489	1.2%
Jagdpanzer VI Jagdtiger	85	0.2%
Panzerjager Ferdinand/Elephant	90	0.2%
Jagdpanzer 38(t) Hetzer	2584	6.3%

Pretty clear that the "invulnerable to .50 caliber AP" cartridge" German tanks were very much a minority of the much more numerous German AFVs like the Stugg IIs, PzKpfw IVs, and PzKpfw Vs present on European battle fields in 1944, and 1945.

Oh, BTW, I do not live in Beachwood, Ohio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.88.232.42 (talk) 18:43, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

This has gone way over time and is no longer of much relevance, if indeed it had any in the first place. Your point centres around the gun rather than the aircraft and refers mostly to ideal conditions. Since this weapon was carried by a variety of types apart from the P-47, your point would seem superfluous to needs as far as the context of this article is concerned. Flanker235 (talk) 12:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

P47 article on being largest, heaviest.

The P47 article states that this aircraft is the "Republic P-47 Thunderbolt was the largest, heaviest, and most expensive fighter aircraft in history to be powered by a single piston engine". This is incorrect as the Douglas A-1 Skyraider exceeds all the Thunderbolt figures. The Skyraider may be the big one. The reference is your article on the Douglas A-1 Skyraider.

Al — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.137.40.174 (talk) 11:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The A-1 was not a fighter. That said, the statement does seem a bit too much. I'm not sure it was all that expensive, if even the most expensive. - BilCat (talk) 13:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I on first reading I thought this sentence was saying this was a single cylinder engine. It might be better to say, "a single multi-piston engine" or at least, "a single, piston engine". 98.223.111.41 (talk) 14:24, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Roomy cockpit

Can't remember where I read it, but some wag remarked that the best way to evade enemy fighters in the P-47 was to unharness yourself and run around in the roomy cockpit. 50.202.81.2 (talk) 00:33, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Lore such as this is not significant enough to put it in the article. Binksternet (talk) 15:17, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Reference to Quentin Aanenson and his "Fighter Pilot's Story" should be made; he was a quintessential Thunderbolt pilot. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quentin_C._Aanenson

Alan D. Hyde — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.144.127.200 (talk) 12:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Vague assertion

"the P-47 was able to accompany bombers in raids all the way into Germany." Germany was a big country. This statement is meaningless without more detail : how far into Germany ? Rcbutcher (talk) 12:01, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Without tanks, May 1943: 175 miles (=Rotterdam, with fuel for combat); new model without tanks, from June 1943: 230 miles (Antwerp); with 1x75gal belly tank, from July 1943: 340 miles (Cologne); with 1x108gal belly tank, from August 1943: 375 miles (Bremen); with 1x150gal belly tank or 2x75gal wing tanks, from February 1944: 425 miles (Hanover); with 2x108gal wing tanks, from April 1944 (misprinted 'Feb 1944' in source): 475 miles (Hamburg, Frankfurt). (Richard Overy, The Bombing War: Europe 1939-1945, Allen Lane 2013, Penguin Books 2014, map p.xix.) Khamba Tendal (talk) 13:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

375 gals of fuel in P-47D-15 ?

Doesn't look right what the article claims, for D-15 I usually find wet wings but no change to internal fuel tanks. The 370 gals internal fuel are most often associated with D-25-RE. Does anyone have a manual or good book to check this? --Denniss (talk) 21:48, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

P-47N as image in infobox?

Given that the P-47D was by far the most produced variant, and that the design of the P-47N was vastly different, I think an image of the P-47D would be better in the infobox. Opinions? --KnightMove (talk) 12:25, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Seems a reasonable suggestion, do you have one to suggest that shows the aircraft clearly and airborne ? MilborneOne (talk) 12:53, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Good enough image of a P-47D?

I think the one illustrating the respective section is good enough. --KnightMove (talk) 13:02, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I think the only better P-47D images in commons are recent ones of rebuilt planes. The following category has fine images of bubble canopy P-47D

(Hohum ^@) 16:40, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

The P-47N may not be the most produced variant, but it is still a Thunderbolt, and as long as its a "Thud", its worthy of having its image on the infobox. - ZLEA (talk) 15:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

XP-47H Speed

This is reported as "490 mph" but the reference quoted - a website with no obvious references of its own - reports that it may not have happened at all and the Chrysler engine did not deliver the expected power. Furthermore, many of the sources I have looked up suggest that it did not achieve more than 414 mph. The second from last post in this thread quotes a number of sources: http://www.enginehistory.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=650&sid=b726628cae767f7dc6f3930a0df410ef which seem to indicate that there are discrepancies about the performance figures quoted in this article. I do not have any of these references myself. Flanker235 (talk) 21:16, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Removal

I'm going to remove the paraphrase from Ryan's "A Bridge Too Far", as the book describe solely a single instance of a P-47 & P-51 crash-landing, (and not multiple instances of crash-landings), as claimed. Therefore, I consider it to be inappropriate to describe the possible toughness of the "Jug".

Ryan Cornelius states:

From the ground, Staff Sergeant James Jones saw a P-47 aflame at about 1,500 feet. He expected the pilot to bale out but the plane came down, skidded across the drop zone and broke apart. The tail snapped off, the motor rolled away, and the cockpit came to rest on the field. Jones was sure the pilot was dead but, as he watched, the canopy slid back and 'a little tow-headed guy with no hat and a .45 under his arm ran towards us'- Jones remembers asking, 'Man, why in the devil didn't you jump?' The pilot grinned. 'Hell, I was afraid to,' he told Jones.

Furthermore:

Just after landing and assembling his gear, Staff Sergeant Russell O'Neal watched a P-51 fighter dive and strafe a hidden German position near field. After the plane made two passes over the machine-gun nest, it was hit; but the pilot was able to circle and make a safe belly landing. According to O'Neal, 'this guy jumped out and run up to me, shouting, "Give me a gun, quick! I know right where that s.o.b. is and I'm gonna get him". As O'Neal started after him, the pilot grabbed a gun and raced off towards the woods.

Please let me know if there are any concerns with my removal. Regards Dircovic (talk) 19:30, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Seems fair enough to remove it. I do wonder what is meant by "a little two-headed guy" though. (Hohum ^@) 23:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Concur with removal. As to "a little two-headed guy", it's probably a typo for tow-headed (whitish-blond) that crept in somewhere. - BilCat (talk) 06:08, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

It's indeed a typo, as BilCat kindly noted. I for one, I don't mind having anecdotal accounts, as long as they are properly attributed, unadulterated and without the impression that it could be the usual norm. That's the sole reason for the remove. Dircovic (talk) 09:42, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

After thinking about it, I could envisage a rewording smth like: "One witness to a crash-land was Staff Sergeant James Jones, a P-47 at about 1,500ft, engulfed in flames, with no sign of the pilot to bale out, crashed nearby. The plane skidded across the drop zone and broke apart, with tail and engine snapped off. He thought the pilot was dead, to his surprise, the canopy slid back and the pilot escaped and run towards the group. Jones remembered asking: "Man, why in the devil didn't you jump?" The pilot grinned. "Hell, I was afraid to"

What do you think? Regards Dircovic (talk) 09:52, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Republic P-47 Thunderbolt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111014112313/http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Aerospace/Fairchild/Aero25.htm to http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Aerospace/Fairchild/Aero25.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070324052854/http://www.museumofflight.org/Collection/Aircraft.asp?RecordKey=0D778AE9-8768-421A-A133-68393123B13A to http://www.museumofflight.org/Collection/Aircraft.asp?RecordKey=0D778AE9-8768-421A-A133-68393123B13A
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110712224724/http://www.howitflies.com/files/P-47-Thunderbolt-Pilot-Flight-Manual.pdf to http://www.howitflies.com/files/P-47-Thunderbolt-Pilot-Flight-Manual.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)