@18tangles There is something to be said of "weight of fire". Those eight 50's poured out powerful rounds at a rate cannons couldn't hope to equal. Of course, they aren't cannons and couldn't penetrate heavy stuff... but they were more than adequate for the tasks they were asked to do.
When the Korean War started the Air Force ground attack close air support fighter was the F-51 Mustang. Which had the disadvantage of a liquid cooled engine compared to the Air cooled radial engine of the Thunderbolt.
Nice! VHS recordings are the best! Video was taken seriously back then and educational series were the best! never tainted with liberal PC politics like youll find everywhere in todays media..
John, Unless you're ultra-naive -- in other words under 30! --, the reality is that you CAN'T get away from the politics on cable TV anymore! They don't even DO programs like this anymore. Half the documentaries that still get produced are also edited like music videos with fast cuts and disorienting camera movement/shaky cam. It's a fresh breath of air being able to see old-style documentaries on the web like this!
While the rugged, powerful Thunderbolt was unquestionably one of military history's great aircraft, it is sobering to consider that more than HALF of all P-47s produced during World War Two were lost --- most in combat, but many in training accidents. Although good in the ground attack role, the Jug was vulnerable to German flak, which claimed a high number. Also, the P-47's high landing speed made it unsuited and even treacherous to set down on shorter, wartime airfields, particularly those used by the RAF, in Britain, which further contributed to attrition. In evenly matched combat with Focke-Wulf-190 D-9s or Messerschmitt-109G-14s, the American fighter was at a disadvantage.
The P-47 was not at a disadvantage vs. the D-9 or late Gs/K-4 109s since it didn't fought them, the P-51 did. By that time, mid-late '44 the, the Jugs were tasked with ground attack duty. And the late german planes were piss poor unless you got the few good samples. The Dora had equivalent performance _if_ the airframe wasn't out of rig, the surface finish was in filled and polished shape, and the engines actually performed to their calculated ratings. None of that happened, not in any significant numbers, due to several reasons. A shortage of materials (like Vanadium, Nickel, Chromium, Molybdenum), a sabotage prone slave workforce or at least under-qualified for task at hand. That's beside the fact that the LW was in decline since late '42 after Stalingrad, Operation Mars/the soviet Rzev counter-attack and the battle for Caucas due to lack of fuel.
Loss rates are ordinarily high in the ground attack role. If the P-47 got assigned to ground attack, that probably meant its loss rates per sortie were lower than for other types in the same role. If you fly low and attack ground targets a lot you're going to lose a lot of airplanes. Fortunately for the Jugs, the Luftwaffe was getting so shot up by 1944 and losing so many experienced pilots that there weren't many chances for it to engage the Allies in evenly matched combat. Even the Me-262 couldn't win against overwhelming Allied numbers as it had to land eventually and then became vulnerable to inferior prop fighters on final approach. The Germans were still flying, or trying to fly, the Junkers Ju 87 to the end of the war. The P-47 was probably about as effective for ground attack and could defend itself against enemy fighters, which the Ju 87 could not do.
The P-47 was STILL far superior for the ground attack than most other fighters. The durability of construction AND the layout of its air-cooled engine made it FAR better for ground attack than the P-51 and other liquid-cooled, piston-engined fighters. The US Navy knew this which is why they employed the SAME ENGINE that was used in the P-47 in their F4U, F6F, and F8F fighters! They were far more durable fighters and could take punishment the "prettier fighters" like the Spitfire and P-51 WISH they could. You could lose cylinders in their air-cooled engines and STILL get home. The layout of the cooling systems in several of the liquid-cooled engined fighters (half of which seemed to employ Merlin engines on the Allied side) meant that once your coolant was shot out, that's was it for the plane! You weren't coming back with an engine that no longer had coolant! (I am NOT saying the Rolls Royce Merlin engine was inferior to the P & W R2800 Double Wasp engine. I am just pointing out there was a vulnerability in the Merlin engine's liquid-cooled platform. It was subject to damage that would no incapacitate the R2800 because of the difference in cooling.) It was a point of pride in this documentary or another one like it about the P-47. An ex-fighter pilot of WWII admitted, "You wanted to take photos posed with the P-51 BUT when you actually went into combat, you wanted to fly in the P-47! [That plane was far more likely to get you home if you got shot up than a P-51]" They had the loss stats and anecdotes. The pilots knew these things back then... They really DIDN'T phase out the P-47 or P-38 in favor of the P-51, btw. They just shifted planes around into different roles, different theaters of operation, and, yes, they DID re-equip with P-51s in some cases in the European theater but mainly for economy reasons. Not because the P-51s were significantly better in performance, better in combat. The P-51s cost about HALF the price of a P-47 or P-38 to procure. THAT'S why they were brought into Europe as. There have been a bunch of myths about superior range and superior-this with the P-51. The later P-47s had at least as long of range as the P-51. The P-38J and L models could easily out-range any other fighters of World War II! The P-47 also had 8 machine guns split between the wings. Most other American types had 4, 6 machine guns in the wings tops. Only the P-38 probably had a more powerful bunch but its guns were clustered in its nose (a far better gun configuration and none of the divergence issues associated with wing-mounted guns) and it was one of the few American types flying with a cannon from its entry into the War. There's been a lot made of the performance characteristics of all these planes -- climb rates, range, roll, turn, and zoom-dive capability. Excepting turn rate and initial climb in the earlier P-47s (without the paddle-bladed propellers -- those paddle blades made a HUGE difference in the later marks), it had very good handling characteristics and was competitive once pilots understood the plane. It was a shame they didn't use the P-47 in Korea instead of the P-51. They made the mistake of using P-51s for ground attack solely because there more P-51s left in service and they were cheaper to operate. P-47s still would have been better in ground attack than the P-51 even then! More pilots would have survived ground attack with P-47s at any rate...
Honestly appreciated the 90's era commercials. Classic
The only thing better than the P-47 are the commercials. I'm transported back to my 20s........Thank You
@18tangles There is something to be said of "weight of fire". Those eight 50's poured out powerful rounds at a rate cannons couldn't hope to equal. Of course, they aren't cannons and couldn't penetrate heavy stuff... but they were more than adequate for the tasks they were asked to do.
When the Korean War started the Air Force ground attack close air support fighter was the F-51 Mustang. Which had the disadvantage of a liquid cooled engine compared to the
Air cooled radial engine of the Thunderbolt.
Un-edited, Not only a interesting video, but those old adds are great.
12:43 good video but when can I expect my VHS tape?
Nice! VHS recordings are the best! Video was taken seriously back then and educational series were the best! never tainted with liberal PC politics like youll find everywhere in todays media..
Somebody _had_ to squeeze a political comment in, didn't they.
John,
Unless you're ultra-naive -- in other words under 30! --, the reality is that you CAN'T get away from the politics on cable TV anymore!
They don't even DO programs like this anymore.
Half the documentaries that still get produced are also edited like music videos with fast cuts and disorienting camera movement/shaky cam.
It's a fresh breath of air being able to see old-style documentaries on the web like this!
While the rugged, powerful Thunderbolt was unquestionably one of military history's great aircraft, it is sobering to consider that more than HALF of all P-47s produced during World War Two were lost --- most in combat, but many in training accidents. Although good in the ground attack role, the Jug was vulnerable to German flak, which claimed a high number. Also, the P-47's high landing speed made it unsuited and even treacherous to set down on shorter, wartime airfields, particularly those used by the RAF, in Britain, which further contributed to attrition. In evenly matched combat with Focke-Wulf-190 D-9s or Messerschmitt-109G-14s, the American fighter was at a disadvantage.
The P-47 was not at a disadvantage vs. the D-9 or late Gs/K-4 109s since it didn't fought them, the P-51 did. By that time, mid-late '44 the, the Jugs were tasked with ground attack duty.
And the late german planes were piss poor unless you got the few good samples.
The Dora had equivalent performance _if_ the airframe wasn't out of rig, the surface finish was in filled and polished shape, and the engines actually performed to their calculated ratings.
None of that happened, not in any significant numbers, due to several reasons. A shortage of materials (like Vanadium, Nickel, Chromium, Molybdenum), a sabotage prone slave workforce or at least under-qualified for task at hand.
That's beside the fact that the LW was in decline since late '42 after Stalingrad, Operation Mars/the soviet Rzev counter-attack and the battle for Caucas due to lack of fuel.
Loss rates are ordinarily high in the ground attack role. If the P-47 got assigned to ground attack, that probably meant its loss rates per sortie were lower than for other types in the same role. If you fly low and attack ground targets a lot you're going to lose a lot of airplanes.
Fortunately for the Jugs, the Luftwaffe was getting so shot up by 1944 and losing so many experienced pilots that there weren't many chances for it to engage the Allies in evenly matched combat. Even the Me-262 couldn't win against overwhelming Allied numbers as it had to land eventually and then became vulnerable to inferior prop fighters on final approach.
The Germans were still flying, or trying to fly, the Junkers Ju 87 to the end of the war. The P-47 was probably about as effective for ground attack and could defend itself against enemy fighters, which the Ju 87 could not do.
The P-47 was STILL far superior for the ground attack than most other fighters.
The durability of construction AND the layout of its air-cooled engine made it FAR better for ground attack than the P-51 and other liquid-cooled, piston-engined fighters.
The US Navy knew this which is why they employed the SAME ENGINE that was used in the P-47 in their F4U, F6F, and F8F fighters!
They were far more durable fighters and could take punishment the "prettier fighters" like the Spitfire and P-51 WISH they could. You could lose cylinders in their air-cooled engines and STILL get home.
The layout of the cooling systems in several of the liquid-cooled engined fighters (half of which seemed to employ Merlin engines on the Allied side) meant that once your coolant was shot out, that's was it for the plane! You weren't coming back with an engine that no longer had coolant!
(I am NOT saying the Rolls Royce Merlin engine was inferior to the P & W R2800 Double Wasp engine. I am just pointing out there was a vulnerability in the Merlin engine's liquid-cooled platform. It was subject to damage that would no incapacitate the R2800 because of the difference in cooling.)
It was a point of pride in this documentary or another one like it about the P-47. An ex-fighter pilot of WWII admitted, "You wanted to take photos posed with the P-51 BUT when you actually went into combat, you wanted to fly in the P-47! [That plane was far more likely to get you home if you got shot up than a P-51]"
They had the loss stats and anecdotes. The pilots knew these things back then...
They really DIDN'T phase out the P-47 or P-38 in favor of the P-51, btw. They just shifted planes around into different roles, different theaters of operation, and, yes, they DID re-equip with P-51s in some cases in the European theater but mainly for economy reasons. Not because the P-51s were significantly better in performance, better in combat. The P-51s cost about HALF the price of a P-47 or P-38 to procure. THAT'S why they were brought into Europe as. There have been a bunch of myths about superior range and superior-this with the P-51. The later P-47s had at least as long of range as the P-51. The P-38J and L models could easily out-range any other fighters of World War II!
The P-47 also had 8 machine guns split between the wings. Most other American types had 4, 6 machine guns in the wings tops. Only the P-38 probably had a more powerful bunch but its guns were clustered in its nose (a far better gun configuration and none of the divergence issues associated with wing-mounted guns) and it was one of the few American types flying with a cannon from its entry into the War.
There's been a lot made of the performance characteristics of all these planes -- climb rates, range, roll, turn, and zoom-dive capability. Excepting turn rate and initial climb in the earlier P-47s (without the paddle-bladed propellers -- those paddle blades made a HUGE difference in the later marks), it had very good handling characteristics and was competitive once pilots understood the plane.
It was a shame they didn't use the P-47 in Korea instead of the P-51. They made the mistake of using P-51s for ground attack solely because there more P-51s left in service and they were cheaper to operate. P-47s still would have been better in ground attack than the P-51 even then! More pilots would have survived ground attack with P-47s at any rate...
What's with all these Aussie docs on planes?
Contains embedded commercial broadcast ads.
This is a Great planes documentary. Not Wings.
Just sayin'.
Free kill for *War Thunder* pilots