PDA

View Full Version : Johnson and Eder on P47



XyZspineZyX
08-14-2003, 05:23 PM
Interviewed Robert Johnson, second highest scoring american ace in Europe, said on 190 and p47:" generally we couldn't outurn them in the P.47. We could out-spiral climb them and outdive them AFTER WE GOT THE BIG PADDLE PROP ON THEM IN EARLY 1944". " I didn't engage in a lot of turning or manuevering. I used the dive and zoom back up"


Georg-Peter Eder, A high scoring ace that fought and lived through all of WWII with J.G. 2 and J.G 26 and had around a hundred kills said this about a fight in a 109 g6 against a thunderbolt in July 1943: "his left wing came off almost at once and i watched him go down". and " I was able to turn tighter and was gaining, i pulled whithin eighty yards of the 47 ahead of me and opened fire. I hit him quickly and two of the others got one each so that in a minute and a half three of the P.47s went down" After this Eder called for a split S escape and his group got away from the remaining P47s with one loss out of their four. It was ten on four when he started and seven on three when he decided to make his escape.

Just thought this was interesting, In the same book, called The Aces Talk by Edward Sims. It tells about how after the first two heavy bombing raids on Berlin in early 1944, the luftwaffe was pretty much finished. The third heavy bomb run on Berlin saw not one loss from fighter attacks!, after losing around 130 on the first two.

The germans were beaten by sheer numbers. My friend Pete, who flew heaby bombers and fighters in Europe says he was glad he didn't have to fly the german fighters, He said they were built out of scrap. Germany didn't have the marerials to buld them how they wanted.

It doesn't seem like the P47 should do anything but be used for zoom and boom and then of course only if it has a good alt advantage. The P47 and P51 won by sheer numbers and attrition, coupled with the fact that by the time they came around germany had no pilots left or materials to build their planes.
So Boom and zoom in your p47. If the roll and turning are not good enough, it must mean you are trying to use it for something even the great historical aces that flew it did not recommend. Johnson said things also about how it was the pilot that made the most difference. If you are careful you should be able to shoot down a 190D with an I-16. So it really is dumb to complain about this or that plane aside from pointing out documented and proven differences in performance. I guess I will stop whining then.

Thanks for your time


Jumoschwanz

XyZspineZyX
08-14-2003, 05:23 PM
Interviewed Robert Johnson, second highest scoring american ace in Europe, said on 190 and p47:" generally we couldn't outurn them in the P.47. We could out-spiral climb them and outdive them AFTER WE GOT THE BIG PADDLE PROP ON THEM IN EARLY 1944". " I didn't engage in a lot of turning or manuevering. I used the dive and zoom back up"


Georg-Peter Eder, A high scoring ace that fought and lived through all of WWII with J.G. 2 and J.G 26 and had around a hundred kills said this about a fight in a 109 g6 against a thunderbolt in July 1943: "his left wing came off almost at once and i watched him go down". and " I was able to turn tighter and was gaining, i pulled whithin eighty yards of the 47 ahead of me and opened fire. I hit him quickly and two of the others got one each so that in a minute and a half three of the P.47s went down" After this Eder called for a split S escape and his group got away from the remaining P47s with one loss out of their four. It was ten on four when he started and seven on three when he decided to make his escape.

Just thought this was interesting, In the same book, called The Aces Talk by Edward Sims. It tells about how after the first two heavy bombing raids on Berlin in early 1944, the luftwaffe was pretty much finished. The third heavy bomb run on Berlin saw not one loss from fighter attacks!, after losing around 130 on the first two.

The germans were beaten by sheer numbers. My friend Pete, who flew heaby bombers and fighters in Europe says he was glad he didn't have to fly the german fighters, He said they were built out of scrap. Germany didn't have the marerials to buld them how they wanted.

It doesn't seem like the P47 should do anything but be used for zoom and boom and then of course only if it has a good alt advantage. The P47 and P51 won by sheer numbers and attrition, coupled with the fact that by the time they came around germany had no pilots left or materials to build their planes.
So Boom and zoom in your p47. If the roll and turning are not good enough, it must mean you are trying to use it for something even the great historical aces that flew it did not recommend. Johnson said things also about how it was the pilot that made the most difference. If you are careful you should be able to shoot down a 190D with an I-16. So it really is dumb to complain about this or that plane aside from pointing out documented and proven differences in performance. I guess I will stop whining then.

Thanks for your time


Jumoschwanz

XyZspineZyX
08-14-2003, 05:39 PM
that was THE lamest reasoning for not improving jug. you take one snippet of one sentence of one paragraph and make a broad general blanket statement that 109s are better than jugs and should always beat them but they lost to sheer numbers.lame. try turning that 109 at high speed. then watch a jug turn . EVERYONE got jumped in ww2. now lets take numbers and percentages of jug pilots that died vs 109 pilots.theres too many variables in each battle. who had alt. who was already engaged.ok he gets it. MOST USELESS THREAD OF THE DAY AWARD GOES HERE

www.fighterjocks.net (http://www.fighterjocks.net) home of the 11 time Champions Team AFJ. 6 Years Flying http://www.world-data-systems.com/aerofiles/albums/userpics/p47-22.jpg 47|FC=

XyZspineZyX
08-14-2003, 06:21 PM
some more specific comments from Robert Johnson:



"Johnson: This is very similar to the German debate. As far as the 109, all of the German pilots loved that plane, but the FW-190 was harder to shoot down. Just like the controversy over the P-51 and P-47. The P-47 was faster; it just did not have the climb and range the Mustang did. But it had speed, roll, dive and the necessary ruggedness that allowed it to do such a great job in the Ninth Air Force. As far as aerial kills go, we met and beat the best the Luftwaffe had when we first got there. It was the P-47 groups that pushed them back, as I said before. The P-51s had the advantage of longer range, and they were able to hit even the training schools, hitting boys just learning to fly. As the war dragged on, many of the old German veterans had been killed--so much of the experience was gone.

As far as the 109 versus 190 argument, the 109 had the liquid-cooled engine whereas the 190 had an air-cooled radial engine, much like ours. One hit in the cooling system of a Messerschmitt and he was going down. Also, none of the German fighters were as rugged as a P-47. When I was badly shot up on June 26, 1943, I had twenty-one 20mm cannon shells in that airplane, and more than 200 7.92mm machine-gun bullets. One nicked my nose and another entered my right leg, where the bullet split in half. I still have those two little pieces, by the way; they went in just under the skin. I had been hurt worse playing football and boxing. However, I had never been that scared, I'll tell you that. I was always scared--that was what made me move quick. "Hub" Zemke liked the P-51 because it had great range, but he put one in a dive and when he pulled out he ripped the wings off that airplane--that was how he became a POW. Adolf Galland, who was a very good friend of mine and who I had known since 1949, flew the Me-262 and loved it, but he still swore by the 109, although it was still easier to shoot down. "

XyZspineZyX
08-14-2003, 06:47 PM
I had thought Eder was flying a FW190 on that mission as he mentions earlier using both 20mm and 30mm cannons to shoot down the B-17 "Windy City Challenger" of 305th BG south of Paris.

What aircraft was 7./JG2 and Eder flying on 14 July 1943?


<center><img src= "http://www.luftwaffepics.com/LCBW4/FW190-A0-52.jpg" height=215 width=365>

<center>"We are now in a position of inferiority...There is no doubt in my mind, nor in the minds of my fighter pilots, that the FW190 is the best all-round fighter in the world today."

Sholto Douglas, 17 July 1942

XyZspineZyX
08-14-2003, 06:54 PM
maybe this will help?

http://www.luftwaffe.cz/eder.html

XyZspineZyX
08-14-2003, 07:38 PM
Salute

Individual accounts are great.

However, you need to put them in context with the actual combat figures.

And the actual figures for P-47's destroyed in combat versus claims by P-47 pilots and German losses show a big advantage to the P-47 versus German aircraft.

Let's look at 1943, a year when the Germans still had excellent pilots, and when the USAAF did not have big numbers at all.

During 1943, the primary American Fighter Groups used in escort missions for the B-17 were equipped with the P-47C and D, primarily the early D models. (comparable to the D-10) Yet they were able to fight very effectively against the Luftwaffe interceptors, at a time when the Luftwaffe had a quite favourable ratio of interceptors to escorts. The U.S.A.A.F only had 3 Fighter Groups during the summer of 1943, which were the 4th, 56th and 78th Fighter Groups, all equipped with P-47's. These Groups totalled approximately 150 fighter aircraft. The number of P-47 groups increased to 7 by November of 1943. That would be approximately 350 aircraft. Compare that to the number of interceptors available to the Germans.

From German Official Records:

Distribution of Authorized German Fighter Strength January 1943

NorthWest Europe (France, Belgium, Holland and Germany, does not include Mediterranean) : 1045 aircraft


While it is clear that not all these Luftwaffe fighters would be available for interception, it is also clear that the Germans were not outnumbered. Neither did they have the disadvantage of inferior pilots as they did later in the war. These were experienced well trained pilots.

Between the first missions of the P-47's on April 8th 1943, and November of 1943, the USAAF official records have the P-47's with a claimed record of 237 enemy aircraft shot down for a loss of 73 P-47's. Even if we accept that there was some overclaiming, we can still see that the P-47's are being successful in combat. And this is with models similar to the P-47D-10, without the paddle blade propellor or higher horsepower engine.

The P-47's remained the main escort aircraft through the rest of 1943, and into the first six months of 1944. The first P-51 Fighter Group did not arrive until mid December 1943, and there was only two P-51 Groups in February and March of 1944 when the intensity of combat between the USAAF escorts and the German interceptors was the highest. 85% of the USAAF escorts were P-47's during this period. Most of them were the early 'Razorback' D models, upgraded with water injection and paddle blade propellors.

The combats that were fought at this time occurred at the altitude that the B-17's bombed from. The B-17's normally flew at between 18,000 and 26,000 ft, depending on how deep within Europe their target was. The average was 24,000 ft. At these altitudes, the P-47's were very successful. It was not a case of the P-47 only performing well up at 35,000 ft. According to the records of the Fighter Groups involved, they inflicted more than 10 times the losses on the German escorts, as they suffered in return.

The leading USAAF Fighter pilots flew P-47's. Among those were Francis 'Gabby' Gabreski who scored 28 kills, and Robert Johnson who scored 27. Both of these pilots flew during the period March 1943 to May-July 1944, when the Luftwaffe was still very strong and when its pilots had the most experience. Both of these U.S. pilots were finished with combat by July, so they did not have the opportunity to shoot down the young poorly trained Luftwaffe pilots in late 1944 and 1945. A very large number of the U.S. Aces were P-47 pilots.

What do the German loss reports say?

Below are the monthly German loss reports for 1943. There are taken from the official Luftwaffe loss report records:


German Operational Aircraft Strength February 1943

Fighters: 1360

Others: 4014

Total: 5374


Distribution of Authorized German Fighter Strength January 1943 (note this is Authorized strength or Paper strength, not Operational strength)

Eastern Front: 445

Mediterranean: 280

NorthWest Europe: 1045


From this you can see 74% of German Fighter strength is cocentrated against the Western Allies.


German Monthly Aircraft Losses in 1943 by Front. First number is total Aircraft losses/Second number is Fighter losses

Month---------------Eastern---------------------Mediterranean------------------Northwest Europe

January--------------482--85------------------------282--124------------------------176--87

February------------318--63------------------------206--89--------------------------182--77

March---------------314--100----------------------308--140-------------------------256--140

April----------------238--67------------------------572--247-------------------------256--143

May-----------------331--110-----------------------333--97--------------------------331--183

June-----------------249--85------------------------235--131-------------------------313--157

July-----------------558--201-----------------------711--246-------------------------526--335

August-------------472--150-----------------------321--133-------------------------625--248

September---------338--99------------------------503--167-------------------------522--276

October------------279--94------------------------285--92---------------------------530--281

November---------194--45------------------------180--54---------------------------529--281

December---------Not Available


In January the German losses are slightly higher on the Eastern Front than both the Mediterranean and Northwest Europe combined. This reflects the continued attempted airlift to Stalingrad. But after that, losses versus the Western Allies become much more significant. Losses are very high during the close of the Tunisian Campaign, especially during the abortive attempted Air Supply phase. Even during the Kursk Offensive and subsequent Soviet Counter-Offensive, the losses are less than those suffered during the Sicily invasion. Meanwhile as the 8th Air Force Bombing Offensive begins in July of '43, the German losses in Northwest Europe begin to climb till they are largest portion of all losses. Notice especially the higher proportion of Fighters lost in Northwest Europe.


Total Aircraft Losses in 1943 by Front (excluding December)

Eastern Front

Fighters: 1099

Total: 3773

Mediterranean Front

Fighters: 1520

Total: 3936

Northwest Europe Front

Fighters: 2208

Total: 4246


Total German Aircraft losses inflicted in 1943, Western Allies vs Soviet Union

Western Allies: 8182

Soviet Union: 3773


German Monthly Fighter Pilot Casualties January to December 1943

January: 137

February: 115

March: 155

April: 206

May: 266

June: 246

July: 330

August: 333

September: 343

October: 339

November: 245

December: 252


Of these casualties, the majority have been inflicted by the Western Allies, and in particular the P-47 groups. By the second half of 1943, very few Jadgruppes were based close to the Channel, and generally they did not respond to RAF Fighter Sweeps or short range tactical bombing missions. They were held in reserve to combat the B-17 bombing missions.

All of these figures clearly show that the P-47 Groups had a great deal of success at a time when they were fighting at near parity with the Germans.

There is no way this could have occurred without the P-47 being capable of fighting German aircraft on relatively even terms.

RAF74 Buzzsaw

XyZspineZyX
08-15-2003, 01:44 AM
Bump on this one.

Figures speak for themselves

XyZspineZyX
08-15-2003, 02:32 AM
buzzsaw gets the award for BEST POST ON A THREAD IN LAST 3 MONTHS. that pretty much says it all. thank you buzzsaw. can ah get a WOOF WOOF ? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

www.fighterjocks.net (http://www.fighterjocks.net) home of the 11 time Champions Team AFJ. 6 Years Flying http://www.world-data-systems.com/aerofiles/albums/userpics/p47-22.jpg 47|FC=

XyZspineZyX
08-15-2003, 03:51 AM
RAF74BuzzsawXO, Sir I salute you, finest post I've seen in a while, your knowledge is enviable.

Regards

Rook

XyZspineZyX
08-15-2003, 05:53 AM
QUACK!

XyZspineZyX
08-15-2003, 06:46 AM
Jumoschwanz wrote:
-
-
-
- Interviewed Robert Johnson, second highest
- scoring american ace in Europe, said on 190 and
- p47:" generally we couldn't outurn them in the P.47.
- We could out-spiral climb them and outdive them
- AFTER WE GOT THE BIG PADDLE PROP ON THEM IN EARLY
- 1944". " I didn't engage in a lot of turning or
- manuevering. I used the dive and zoom back up"
-
-
-
- As long as we are quoting Johnson...
"This boy had never seen a Thunderbolt really roll; he
was convinced I'd turned inside him. At once the Me-109
straightened out and dove. They never learned!"

The paddle blade prop:

"At 8,00 feet I pulled into a steep climb. Normally she'd zoom quickly, then slow down, rapidly approaching a stall.
But now she soared up... Never again did a 109 or 190 outclimb me.

Against a 190:

"The FW jerked up steeply to the right. I threw the Jug into a roll... He put his fighter into a wicked turn, but I kept rolling, sticking like glue to his tail. He steepened the turn, but with the new prop the T-bolt never let go.
He flicked over and dove.... Again and again the Germans tried to break out of a tough position by diving. Never did they learn.

The T-bolt could always outdive a German fighter. It didn't need to out turn them, not with its roll rate. With the new props it was never outclimbed either by its main opponents.

XyZspineZyX
08-15-2003, 06:48 AM
Well informed post Buzzsaw, I cant see how they can dispute this one.

XyZspineZyX
08-15-2003, 10:12 AM
BOLILLO!!! holy cripes this board will never be safe again!!!....bolillo loco man. scourge of all boards !!! Salute !!!!

www.fighterjocks.net (http://www.fighterjocks.net) home of the 11 time Champions Team AFJ. 6 Years Flying http://www.world-data-systems.com/aerofiles/albums/userpics/p47-22.jpg 47|FC=

XyZspineZyX
08-15-2003, 10:29 AM
GoreChild wrote:
- Well informed post Buzzsaw, I cant see how they can
- dispute this one.
-
-
/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif most people gave up ,to discuss with patriotic americans.



http://www.bayern.de/Layout/wappen.gif

Bavaria is one of the oldest European states.
It dates back to about 500 A.D., when the Roman Empire was overcome by the onslaught of Germanic tribes. According to a widespread theory, the Bavarian tribe had descended from the Romans who remained in the country, the original Celtic population and the Germanic invaders.

Bavarian History : http://www.bayern.de/Bayern/Information/geschichteE.html#kap0

XyZspineZyX
08-15-2003, 10:57 AM
Buzzaw has the figures and i can see the point BUT

lets talk figures then: The Finnish Brewster B-239 had about 450 kills and under 20 were lost (some more in accidents but thats not combat then.)

That makes brewster superior to any plane the russians had to throw against it? NO It means better tactics and taking advantage on enemys weak points. So Brewster couldn't "be on equal terms" with LA-5 but using good tactics often defeated them and most other times got away without getting a personal patch of ground 6 feet under.

Also if those are total german fighter losses then you are not including all facts: there must have been a lot of german fighters shot down by AAA, bomber formations, lost to accidents shot by other types of fighters and killed on the ground.

Numbers and generalizations are blinding ppl. In 1943 german fighters had to combat hurris, spits, p47:s, p51:s B-17:s mosquitos, liberators and several other sorts of aircraft. In addition german air operations pretty much consisted of trying to shoot bombers down and that leaves them pretty open to attack from escort fighters: resulting in more fighter losses for germans. It is NOT normal dogfight. You just cannot use general air losses to prove some aircraft is "on equal terms" or good roll rate which I can see this going /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


-possu

ps I still believe that the roll rate IS too slow and the FW190 view is not right: the plane should fly so that its guns point into the front /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif Both issues have players as Don Quixote and Oleg as the Windmill /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
08-15-2003, 01:45 PM
I think the post was informative and it gave me some good hints with the P-47.