Hawker Typhoon vs P-47D Thunderbolt

[Slater]

Could these two aircraft be said to have been fairly evenly matched in terms of ground attack capabilities, or was one more effective than the other?

[gingerbob]

I bet the P-47 had a lower rate of losses on comparable missions. It could, I believe, also deliver somewhat more tonnage, though both were more-or-less limited to 1000 lb bombs as the max individual size. (P-47 could carry a 500 lb on the centerline as well.) All of this is off the top of my head, so I'm quite prepared to be shown to be wrong!

bob

[dfqweofekwpeweiop4]

I'm pretty sure the P-47's 3 hardpoints were rated for 1000lbs each but I've not heard of them carrying 3 1000lb bombs. What the P-47 could do is carry a mix of bombs, rockets and drop tanks if needed but rockets/bombs were hardly used in combination. Usually it would be drop tanks (or tank) plus bombs or rockets. So an advantage of the P-47 over the Typhoon is that fact that you can carry bombs or rockets and then a drop tank to extend range. Also the P-47's air cooled radial engine was more robust than the Typhoon's liquid cooled Sabre.

A plus for the Typhoon is it's fixed armament. It's 4 20mm cannons are more destructive than the P-47's 8 0.5 Mg's both in terms of armour piercing and explosive power. Obviously the P-47's will fire off far more rounds but they are less powerful. It would be interesting to compare low level performance, as the Typhoon had a decent low level performance but I'm not so sure about the P-47 (which was designed for high altitude work!).

thanks

Mike

[Jon Kunac-Tabinor]

The Typhoon could also carry drop tanks and RPs ( rockets) - this was a fairly common load for Typhoons operating in Europe in late 44 & 45 - although the load was reduced to 4 RPs ( 2 per wing).

I'm pretty sure that for your average German infantryman in 1944 or 45 being subjected to constant aerial attack, the phrase, "Zank Himmel, Wolfgang - zey are only Pee Vorty Sebens, unt zer acht 12.7 mm machineguns are not zo destructive as von might sink" would not have been an oft quoted remark!

Still - interesting to see how the Tiffie and the Jug square up.

Jonners

[Greenshirt]

I talked at length with a 9th AF P-47 pilot about 10 years ago who regularly flew short missions (15 mins) taking off with 3x1,000 bombs and 4 rockets. He had his diary, which showed all 96 missions and the details of each - load out, mission, vehicles destroyed, etc. He also had a sort paragraph that described what happened, sort of a record of his mission debriefs.

He'd take off and climb to 5,000 feet, acquire the target, roll over and fire rockets while on the bomb run. Bombs away at about 1,000 feet, pull out bottomed at treetop level (he remembers clipping trees!) and then return for rearm and refuel. The airfield was typically only a few miles from the front. Guns strictly for aim and self defense. He said it was tough keeping up with Patton's tanks, they moved airfields quite often.

Sadly he's gone and while his son has the diary, he does not plan to share it. His dad did not want that.

Tim

[tonyot]

Oh no not again,......I hate it when people compare the Tiffy and P-47 to try and determine which was the best Allied close support fighter of WW2, like a willy waving competition which always ends up pitting Brits against Yanks,.......especially when we all know that it was the Hurricane!!

Cheers

Tony

[gingerbob]

Unless anyone objected to being attacked, of course...

I've got no favorites in this fight, though I do have a friend who flew P-47s in 9AF. But there's a reason the RAF selected the Tempest II to replace the Typhoon (in theory).

bob

Edited March 25, 2015 by gingerbob

[Slater]

Well, I'd say the Typhoon wins in terms of overall aesthetics. What's not to love there?

[tonyot]

Unless anyone objected to being attacked, of course...

I've got no favorites in this fight, though I do have a friend who flew P-47s in 9AF. But there's a reason the RAF selected the Tempest II to replace the Typhoon (in theory).

bob

Hiya Bob,

But didn`t the P-51D replace the P-47 post war too? OK it did serve on with the National Guard but it was soon replaced by the regular air force. I have no favourites either, they were both excellent aircraft in their own way and both did well in RAF service too

Cheers

Tony

[Troy Smith]

Not sure if there was much difference in effectiveness.

the P-47 has the advantage of the radial engine, there are stories of P-47's returning with entire cylinders heads blown off and the engine still running, while Inline engines always had vulnerable cooling systems.

Also, neither was designed as a ground attack aircraft, the fighter-bomber was something that pretty much evolved during the war, with these two ending up performing very well in the role.

[wellsprop]

I don't think you can really compare them to be honest. The Typhoon was a failed interceptor that happened to be stunningly good at ground attack. It had it's issues though; notoriously unreliable engine and the tail had an irritating habit to fall off.

I don't know loads about the P-47 other than it had 8 .50's (not a patch on the Tiffies 4 20 mils), it carried a HUGE amount of ordnance, had a greater range and was tough as anything.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O86SCHNf-PI

Ok ok, I know it's American, but it's a really good series. Watch it from 8 mins, goes to show just how reliable and tugged the aircraft was. I read D-Day Plus One by Frank Holland, he wrote that he was flying about alone over the UK and the tail of the aircraft fell off for no apparent reason (ejecting him straight through the canopy as the aircraft flipped into a spin).

If were told I was about to be sent into enemy territory to fly a low level armed recce, I'd pick the P-47 because it could bring me home. Though I imagine the Tiffie is more suited to the closer in combat of the battle in Normandy (particularly Falaise) as it has the cannons.

Ben

[Giorgio N]

Hiya Bob,

But didn`t the P-51D replace the P-47 post war too? OK it did serve on with the National Guard but it was soon replaced by the regular air force. I have no favourites either, they were both excellent aircraft in their own way and both did well in RAF service too

Cheers

Tony

The Mustang didn't really replace the Thunderbolt, however a large number of Mustangs was retained in service while most Thunderbolts went into storage or were sold abroad, with only a small number serving with the ANG. The main reason was that the Mustang was overall a better fighter and, most important, it was a much better escort fighter for the bomber force. With the reduction in all forces at the end of the war and the projected arrival of jet fighters, it made sense to standardise on one single piston fighter type and for the reasons above it was decided to keep the Mustang. It's a choice that made sense in 1946, although many believe that having Thunderbolts instead of Mustangs in Korea would have saved several lives

[old thumper]

I think it was the Germans that were in the best position to decide which was the better of the two, I can't remember which of these aircraft they feared the most, can anyone help?

[brewerjerry]

Oh no not again,......I hate it when people compare the Tiffy and P-47 to try and determine which was the best Allied close support fighter of WW2, like a willy waving competition which always ends up pitting Brits against Yanks,.......especially when we all know that it was the Hurricane!!

Cheers

Tony

Hi

Now we all know that the hurricane and tiffie just copied the whirlwinds four 20mm cannon

and its ground straffing role

cheers

jerry

Edited March 26, 2015 by brewerjerry

[brewerjerry]

Hi

But seriously as a brit i would say tiffie,

but the best ground attack aircraft would have an air cooled radially ideally two

( so totally off topic = hs-129 )

cheers

jerry

[Edgar]

but the best ground attack aircraft would have an air cooled radially ideally two( so totally off topic = hs-129 )

Or Beaufighter

[JohnT]

From what I have read I would say its really too close to call between them. The differences are not that huge and both did the job very well indeed. Both types didn't survive the cessation of hostilities as better aircraft (not necessarily GA dedicated types) were in the works and as the war was over there was not the pressures of wartime production to keep older types being manufactured. I would not have liked to have been on the receiving end from either machine.

Edgar makes a good point - the Beau ( "whispering death") is a good contender too as the Japanese would testify to. Of course we then open the door to Stormoviks and Stukas but that's arguably straying away from the OP question!

[Edgar]

I think it was the Germans that were in the best position to decide which was the better of the two, I can't remember which of these aircraft they feared the most, can anyone help?

Typhoon pilots reported seeing tank crews baling out, and heading for cover.

[Giorgio N]

I think it was the Germans that were in the best position to decide which was the better of the two, I can't remember which of these aircraft they feared the most, can anyone help?

They made no difference for the ground troops, they were all called Jabos and no soldier could tell the difference between one and the other.

Of course it would have made difference for the Luftwaffe as the P-47 was a much tougher opponent in the air. However there wasn't much Luftwaffe at that point of the war.

Speaking of the German infantryman, all those who fought in the Western front after D-Day seem to agree that the continuous presence of fighter bombers was the most feared thing and nobody dared to move vehicles if there was any hint of the presence of Allied Jabos. At the same time, those who fought on both Eastern and Western fronts seem to agree that war in the West was some kind of holiday compared to war in the East !

From what I have read I would say its really too close to call between them. The differences are not that huge and both did the job very well indeed. Both types didn't survive the cessation of hostilities as better aircraft (not necessarily GA dedicated types) were in the works and as the war was over there was not the pressures of wartime production to keep older types being manufactured. I would not have liked to have been on the receiving end from either machine.

They were both successful as GA machines but at the same time it can't be denied that the P-47 was a better aircraft overall than the Typhoon. As others have said, the Typhoon was a failed interceptor that fortunately found a niche in the ground support role. The P-47 was a good fighter that also did well at ground attack.

Edgar makes a good point - the Beau ( "whispering death") is a good contender too as the Japanese would testify to. Of course we then open the door to Stormoviks and Stukas but that's arguably straying away from the OP question!

Good point ! Still we should not forget that while Typhoon and P-47 were in the same class (both fighters used in the GA role), the others were different type of machines. And all depended heavily on the presence of other aircrafts to provide air superiority so could or not have been used as successfully in the West

[Nigel Foster60]

You can just put yourself in the place of a German truck driver," thank gott I am not being attacked by a Tunderbolt / Typhoon. It would be much worse if it was a........"

[Phil32]

I'm amazed that no-one has mentioned the Corsair. Yes its a curveball, off the original topic and mostly Pacific, but (and I read it on this site!!)... an aircraft that could fight as well as a Mustang, aim a heavy attack load and was reputed to be able to take even more punishment than a Thunderbolt...?

[Serial Unfinisher]

A significant amount of ground attack was carried out by Thunderbolts after having escorted bombers to German cities. The Luftwaffe was ground out of existence as a fighting force by this method, along with Mustangs. Their range permitted this, and this was, arguably, a war-winning strategy.

I've heard that Thunderbolts were also used as level bombers, bombing from height, and constituting a more fuel-efficient way of delivering bombs than using a 4-engined plane. I've never seen any pictures of such aircraft though. If anyone has any, I'd love to see them.

It's always been a mystery to me why they never squeezed cannon or a Griffon engine into a Mustang.

[Giorgio N]

I'm amazed that no-one has mentioned the Corsair. Yes its a curveball, off the original topic and mostly Pacific, but (and I read it on this site!!)... an aircraft that could fight as well as a Mustang, aim a heavy attack load and was reputed to be able to take even more punishment than a Thunderbolt...?

Interestingly the same Corsair did not fare particularly better than the Mustang in Korea in terms of losses, so much that when Vought introduced the specific AU-1 ground attack variant they added quite a bit of extra armour.

It's always been a mystery to me why they never squeezed cannon or a Griffon engine into a Mustang.

The USAAF did not think much of the cannons. Not much because they did not see the advantages of the extra firepower, but mainly because the US made Hispano suffered from reliability issues and it was preferred to keep using the 0.5".

We should however not forget that a number of Allison powered variants did indeed use 20 mm cannons

[Work In Progress]

A significant amount of ground attack was carried out by Thunderbolts after having escorted bombers to German cities. The Luftwaffe was ground out of existence as a fighting force by this method, along with Mustangs. Their range permitted this, and this was, arguably, a war-winning strategy.

I've heard that Thunderbolts were also used as level bombers, bombing from height, and constituting a more fuel-efficient way of delivering bombs than using a 4-engined plane. I've never seen any pictures of such aircraft though. If anyone has any, I'd love to see them.

It's always been a mystery to me why they never squeezed cannon or a Griffon engine into a Mustang.

There's no way to aim the bombs, level-bombing from height in a P-47. The only way to get your ordnance into the right county would be to fly in close formation with conventional bombers, wait for them to pull the plug and drop yours when they drop theirs. Which would mean you were flying at the wrong height and airspeed to optimise your own combat radius.

And since you would be carrying bombs at the expense of fuel tanks you would be limited to very short range actions, much more the sort of mission at which low-level fighter-bomber operations make more sense because you can actually see what you are aiming at and have a good chance of hitting it.

The optimal Griffon Mustang (the RR proposal with the pilot repositioned ahead of the engine to preserve the centre of gravity and improve field of view) was proposed and mocked-up, but not built for flight, probably because the Griffon simply wasn't the best engine available for the particular role for which the Mustang was needed. Putting a Griffon into the Mustang would have reduced its ability to operate well into Germany from UK bases, at a time when it already had all the power to weight ratio it needed to do its job once it was there. Its Pacific usefulness also depended on having long legs.

It would have been a hot-rod but I suspect that prop bade flicker would have been a real problem for the pilot. Nice wiffer built by someone here. Actually this may be a model of the actual mock-up built which was made out of an old Allison Mustang.

Edited March 27, 2015 by Work In Progress

[Serial Unfinisher]

There's no way to aim the bombs, level-bombing from height in a P-47. The only way to get your ordnance into the right county would be to fly in close formation with conventional bombers, wait for them to pull the plug and drop yours when they drop theirs.

I heard that they bombed through cloud, on a radio beacon, and that the missions were, indeed, short-range, but I've never found any evidence to confirm this.