Hawker Typhoon vs P-47D Thunderbolt

[1015jim]

Hi

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

cheers

jerry

X2. I must go with the radial.

Edited April 17, 2015 by 1015jim

[Roland Pulfrew]

It would have been a hot-rod but I suspect that prop bade flicker would have been a real problem for the pilot.

Not to mention the prop shaft going straight through the pilot!?!!?

[Work In Progress]

Not to mention the prop shaft going straight through the pilot!?!!?

Very funny, but as I am sure you know it was between his legs in exactly the same way as the P-39 and P-63

[Paramedic]

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.

I know 56th FG tried this, I believe it was David Schillings idea. It was not a success. I could get a source on this for you if you want to.

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.

The P-51 had the range over the P-47 but that was it. Not really any other advantages. And with ther P-47N you can argue about the range..

Oh, it was cheaper as well I guess..

[noelh]

The unfortunate reality was that neither the P47 or the Typhoon was particularly effective when it came to destroying enemy armour. This was proved after a survey of destroyed armour in Normandy after the battle moved on. Soft skins yes, tanks no. At the time though even the Americans recognised that rocket firing Typhoons were more effective against armour so they called for them during the Falaise battle rather than P47s. But only effective compared to P47s. Very few tanks were knocked by Tiffies.

The main effect of Typhoons was the Germans feared them above the actual ability to destroy armour. Stories of crews abandoning tanks when Tiffies appeared are well founded. But in reality they were safer staying in the tanks.

But think about it, rockets and 20mm cannon over bombs and .50s. Which would you choose? There's an online computer sim right now. The Tiffie always comes out ahead on missions, for exactly the same reason in WW2.

[Master Zen]

P-47: Better plane with worse weapons

Typhoon: Worse plane with better weapons

Can we call it a draw?

P.S. Typhoon was the better looking of the two

P.S.2. Personally prefer the bigger and badder Il-2

[Paramedic]

P.S. Typhoon was the better looking of the two

I beg to differ..

(I like them both.)

The unfortunate reality was that neither the P47 or the Typhoon was particularly effective when it came to destroying enemy armour. This was proved after a survey of destroyed armour in Normandy after the battle moved on. Soft skins yes, tanks no. At the time though even the Americans recognised that rocket firing Typhoons were more effective against armour so they called for them during the Falaise battle rather than P47s. But only effective compared to P47s. Very few tanks were knocked by Tiffies.

It is arguble.. Define then what was effective (in the air) to destroy enemy armour?

Most of us know about this, and the chance for the average pilot to hit a tank square on with a rocket but still the rocket firing Typhoons and bomb (and later napalm) dropping Thunderbolts did knock out tanks but more importantly they broke up and stopped armoured attacks by fear alone. That, I would say, made them effective right there.

Have a look at the Mortain counter offensive.

I have the numbers from the after battle analysis somehwere here. Both from Op Lüttich and the Falaise. There were tanks knocked out by Typhoons and Thunderbolts. We know in hindsight that they were not as effective at knocking them out as once believed but it DID happen and sometimes people pointing out the lesser effectivness than believe make it sound as if it never happens. It did.

I can dig up the numbers from those reports if needed.

[old thumper]

As far as knocking out German tanks from the air is concerned I will point out that Allied tanks had far more trouble in knocking out the Tiger and Panther than they did in knocking out the older Panzer IV. For that reason even if relatively small amounts of the newer and more powerful German tanks were destroyed by aircraft it was still a valuable contribution.

[dfqweofekwpeweiop4]

I read somewhere that the Typhoon's best weapons for destroying vehicles were it's cannons, I suspect though, that these vehicles wouldn't be Tigers or Panthers. I know that roughly 5% of German tank losses in Normandy were from shots fired by Allied tanks, most German tanks were either lost to air attack, or were abandoned after running out of petrol or being immobilised. Perhaps in quite a few cases a mix of these things happened, maybe a tank lost it's tracks to a bomb or rocket near miss or hit and the crew jumped out. Same result as destroyed as far as the Germans are concerned if the Allies then capture the immobilised vehicle.

thanks

Mike

[Giorgio N]

The P-51 had the range over the P-47 but that was it. Not really any other advantages. And with ther P-47N you can argue about the range..

Oh, it was cheaper as well I guess..

I'm not going to enter in a P-47 Vs. P-51 discussion, as this is outside the scope of this thread, however I should mention that there were other advantages the P-51 had over the Jug in the post-war years. Now the cost may or may not be an issue, since there were plenty of airframes of both types available and already paid for. One advantage of the Mustang was however that overall it was easier to maintain than the Thunderbolt. The P-47 may have been more robust but always suffered from a worse accident rate compared to the Mustang and the turbocharger system in particular gave plenty of headaches to ground crews. None of this may seem important in wartime, when the attrition rate is high anyway and replacements come quickly, but it was a totally different story in peacetime when each aircraft was expected to serve for years.

Many air forces received both types after the war and pretty much in all of them the Mustang was the preferred of the two types.The Italian Air Force was among these air forces, and while the Mustang here is still remembered with affection, every time the Thunderbolt is mentioned it's always some story of unreliable machines and too many accidents.

[-Neu-]

As far as knocking out German tanks from the air is concerned I will point out that Allied tanks had far more trouble in knocking out the Tiger and Panther than they did in knocking out the older Panzer IV. For that reason even if relatively small amounts of the newer and more powerful German tanks were destroyed by aircraft it was still a valuable contribution.

But remember that the Tiger and Panther were quite rare on the battlefield. I'm sure others might have accurate numbers, but there were less than 140 Tigers total in the theatre. These were separated into three battalions of an authorized strength of 50 tanks.

I read somewhere that the Typhoon's best weapons for destroying vehicles were it's cannons, I suspect though, that these vehicles wouldn't be Tigers or Panthers. I know that roughly 5% of German tank losses in Normandy were from shots fired by Allied tanks, most German tanks were either lost to air attack, or were abandoned after running out of petrol or being immobilised. Perhaps in quite a few cases a mix of these things happened, maybe a tank lost it's tracks to a bomb or rocket near miss or hit and the crew jumped out. Same result as destroyed as far as the Germans are concerned if the Allies then capture the immobilised vehicle.

thanks

Mike

I think if you focus on how many were directly destroyed, then yes, the contribution of the tactical fighter force wasn't great. Of the 132 Tigers lost (from 140 in Normandy that were there or eventually deployed during the campaign), only 48 were destroyed in ground combat and 22 or so from air attack. The rest were abandoned or destroyed by their crews. Furthermore a large proportion of those tanks destroyed by air attack occurred as a result from strikes from large bombers, not tactical aircraft like the Typhoon and P-47.

However, that is such a narrow perspective on the conflict. In reality, airpower was one of the decisive factors that enabled the allied victory. Probably the most effective aspect of allied attacks was the disruption of German logistics and transportation systems. German tanks were quite unreliable, especially with their drive systems which had numerous problems. The allied Transportation plan (bombing marshalling yards and bridges) effectively ended any rail transportation from Paris to the front. Thus German tanks would drive an inordinate distance to the front, which added to their road wear. Over 20% of one Tank Battalion's combat strength (10 tanks) broke down during the movement between Paris and Normandy, and was not available for over a month after the unit's arrival. Spares and other consumables were in short supply, leading to more breakdowns that reduced their combat effectiveness. That's an absolutely vital contribution. It might not look as sexy (to use an inopportune term) as actually destroying a vehicle, but its no less critical

Also, the threat of air attack also altered the operational employment of forces. The 501 SS tank battalion transit from Beauvais to its staging area south of Caen required seven days for a distance of just over 200km. The fear of air attacks pushed tanks to only drive at night, which greatly increased the units' travel time. Once at the front, the units' difficulties with air attack forced more changes, most notably the dispersal of heavy tank battalions. They were rarely constituted in their proper doctrinal formations that emphasized mass and combat power at a decisive point. The units were used as a mobile reserve to blunt and allied breakthroughs. While generally effective at this role, the dispersal greatly limited their combat power, thus many engagements were fought to a bloody draw, rather than a decisive counterattack where the German units would be able to exploit an transitory opportunity. A good example is that of Villiers-Bocage on June 13th, the famed battle where Michael Wittman destroyed over 40 vehicles in the space of 30 minutes. Despite his success, the largely SS battlegroup was repulsed in their counter attack and lost six tiger tanks. That might not sound like that much, but it represented 15% of the entire heavy tank force deployed at that stage of the conflict.

Anyway my point is to say that while air power's contribution may have been limited in actually destroying tanks, it was critical for reducing the Wehrmacht's combat power. Limiting one's focus to how many kills one aircraft achieved over another really diminishes the profound effect these aviators had on deciding the outcome of the conflict.

[old thumper]

But remember that the Tiger and Panther were quite rare on the battlefield. I'm sure others might have accurate numbers, but there were less than 140 Tigers total in the theatre. These were separated into three battalions of an authorized strength of 50 tanks.

Yes I was aware that the number of Tigers, Panthers and there derivatives was very small. The point I was trying to make was that even if a small number were knocked out of the battle by air attack (and not exclusively air attack by Typhoons) then this still would have been a useful contribution as ground forces had such a problem dealing with them. Like you so rightly pointed out a small number of Tigers were capable of causing a great deal of destruction as in Villiers Bocage.

As an aside, naval gunfire was also a major help to the Allies. I have seen pictures of Tiger tanks having been thrown about like toys after being hit by heavy naval guns.

[JohnT]

Interesting question whether the P-47 was better at ground attack than the Typhoon or vice versa. I suspect there was not much in it either way and had I been on the ground at the receiving end the finer points of the difference would seem rather academic!!!!

My late father was in the RM and saw the aftermath of the Falaise Gap and he remarked that it was one thing that stood out for him. He recalled seeing Typhoons in the distance constantly going at ground targets. The constant air cover from Allied air forces made a huge contribution to the fighting.

Imagine being a German soldier in France and no air cover, constant air attack and a shortage of first rank tanks. So what does your experience tell you who is going to lose this war then? Must have hit morale and it's a wonder they kept on for as long as they did

[dfqweofekwpeweiop4]

But remember that the Tiger and Panther were quite rare on the battlefield. I'm sure others might have accurate numbers, but there were less than 140 Tigers total in the theatre. These were separated into three battalions of an authorized strength of 50 tanks.

I think if you focus on how many were directly destroyed, then yes, the contribution of the tactical fighter force wasn't great. Of the 132 Tigers lost (from 140 in Normandy that were there or eventually deployed during the campaign), only 48 were destroyed in ground combat and 22 or so from air attack. The rest were abandoned or destroyed by their crews. Furthermore a large proportion of those tanks destroyed by air attack occurred as a result from strikes from large bombers, not tactical aircraft like the Typhoon and P-47.

However, that is such a narrow perspective on the conflict. In reality, airpower was one of the decisive factors that enabled the allied victory. Probably the most effective aspect of allied attacks was the disruption of German logistics and transportation systems. German tanks were quite unreliable, especially with their drive systems which had numerous problems. The allied Transportation plan (bombing marshalling yards and bridges) effectively ended any rail transportation from Paris to the front. Thus German tanks would drive an inordinate distance to the front, which added to their road wear. Over 20% of one Tank Battalion's combat strength (10 tanks) broke down during the movement between Paris and Normandy, and was not available for over a month after the unit's arrival. Spares and other consumables were in short supply, leading to more breakdowns that reduced their combat effectiveness. That's an absolutely vital contribution. It might not look as sexy (to use an inopportune term) as actually destroying a vehicle, but its no less critical

Also, the threat of air attack also altered the operational employment of forces. The 501 SS tank battalion transit from Beauvais to its staging area south of Caen required seven days for a distance of just over 200km. The fear of air attacks pushed tanks to only drive at night, which greatly increased the units' travel time. Once at the front, the units' difficulties with air attack forced more changes, most notably the dispersal of heavy tank battalions. They were rarely constituted in their proper doctrinal formations that emphasized mass and combat power at a decisive point. The units were used as a mobile reserve to blunt and allied breakthroughs. While generally effective at this role, the dispersal greatly limited their combat power, thus many engagements were fought to a bloody draw, rather than a decisive counterattack where the German units would be able to exploit an transitory opportunity. A good example is that of Villiers-Bocage on June 13th, the famed battle where Michael Wittman destroyed over 40 vehicles in the space of 30 minutes. Despite his success, the largely SS battlegroup was repulsed in their counter attack and lost six tiger tanks. That might not sound like that much, but it represented 15% of the entire heavy tank force deployed at that stage of the conflict.

Anyway my point is to say that while air power's contribution may have been limited in actually destroying tanks, it was critical for reducing the Wehrmacht's combat power. Limiting one's focus to how many kills one aircraft achieved over another really diminishes the profound effect these aviators had on deciding the outcome of the conflict.

I think if you re-read what I said, you'll see that I did say that air power destroyed (or caused them to be crippled/abandoned) more German Vehicles than ground combat. So therefore, air power had a major influence on the outcome of he Normandy campaign.

thanks

Mike

[lampie]

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.

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.

56th FG flew a few missions carrying 1000lb bombs and utilising a P-38 droopsnoot fitted with a Norden bombsight and a "borrowed" bomb aimer.

Same principle as a bombing raid, when the lead aircraft drops so does everyone else.

[Giorgio N]

Imagine being a German soldier in France and no air cover, constant air attack and a shortage of first rank tanks. So what does your experience tell you who is going to lose this war then? Must have hit morale and it's a wonder they kept on for as long as they did

As I wrote before, the constant presence of allied aircrafts making every movement difficult was, according to interviews with German soldiers, what they feared most on the Western front. At the same time however the same soldiers mentioned how the pace of operations from the Allied forces in France and beyond was not particularly intensive and once the danger of being strafed was avoided, they felt much better fighting the Anglo-American forces than the Soviets. Soviets that were considered much tougher opponents.

German soldiers realised soon how the Allied stopped at any sign of strong resistance and called in air support. This often gave them time to retreat in good order. They also noticed how the Allied rarely fought at night, something that allowed much better rest than the constant harassment from enemy soldiers sustained on the Eastern front.

Considering all these aspects, and adding that the Allied campaign was not really conducted in a particularly imaginative way, it's not really surprising that the Germans kept going for so long.

[Giorgio N]

As an aside, naval gunfire was also a major help to the Allies. I have seen pictures of Tiger tanks having been thrown about like toys after being hit by heavy naval guns.

A few years ago I saw an interesting discussion on the effect of naval gunfire against tanks in Normandy on a naval forum I used to follow. To be honest, while the proponents of the big naval guns were enthusiastic, I was not impressed by the overall results as the total number of tanks destroyed was not really high. It should also be kept in mind that most heavy guns were used against coastal defence bunkers rather than to provide support to the troops. This was often left to the destroyers with their smaller guns and there were cases of ships attacking point targets on request from ground troops.

Where the naval guns were really important was in denying the use of coastal roads more than else, with an important effect on the logistics. As Neu has IMHO already described very well the importance of the disruption of logistic lines in the destruction of the German combat capability, there's no need to add more on this.

PS I remember having also read the number of taks destroyed on the production lines by heavy bombers, and again the figures were risible, more so compared to the tonnage dropped on such production lines.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

I'd guess the four Hispanos would tip it in favour of the Typhoon.....These would have a fair chance of penetrating the deck of most AFVs whereas the .50cal rounds of the Thunderbolt would be effective against only soft-skins or light armour.

As Master Zen said though, the Il-2 is the real bad boy on this particular block.

[old thumper]

A few years ago I saw an interesting discussion on the effect of naval gunfire against tanks in Normandy on a naval forum I used to follow. To be honest, while the proponents of the big naval guns were enthusiastic, I was not impressed by the overall results as the total number of tanks destroyed was not really high. It should also be kept in mind that most heavy guns were used against coastal defence bunkers rather than to provide support to the troops. This was often left to the destroyers with their smaller guns and there were cases of ships attacking point targets on request from ground troops.

Where the naval guns were really important was in denying the use of coastal roads more than else, with an important effect on the logistics. As Neu has IMHO already described very well the importance of the disruption of logistic lines in the destruction of the German combat capability, there's no need to add more on this.

PS I remember having also read the number of taks destroyed on the production lines by heavy bombers, and again the figures were risible, more so compared to the tonnage dropped on such production lines.

HMS Rodney was credited with destroying a group of five Tiger Tanks in Normandy, 5 Tigers was quite a chunk out of the total Tiger force considering it's size.

Plunging fire from 16 inch guns was pretty effective against tanks, remember the shells weighed well over 2000 lbs and they were pretty accurately aimed.

Going back to the original question, the Hispano canon and Browning machine guns that armed these aircraft surely had their separate advantages depending on the target, as would rockets vs bombs.

Just because I am British and I like the Typhoon more than the P47 my vote goes with the Typhoon.

[Col.]

Normally I'd shy away from commenting on such discussions but my vote goes to the Typhoon; firstly 'cause I'm British and therefore biased that way and secondly 'cause of images I've seen with Typhoons operating (just) over the Falaise Gap and some reports of the destruction wreaked there.

Now don't get me wrong, warfare and the death of men is never something that I feel must be glorified, the horrors that occurred within those 8 days must have left a lasting effect on everyone involved - I've read accounts by pilots who tell of the smell of death penetrating the cockpit several thousand feet up while flying over The Gap and 'Jonnie' Johnstone's description in Wing Leader of witnessing the destruction at ground level is a sobering one - but as a child I was aware of the Typhoon as an effective ground attack machine long before the P-47 and first loves are hard to forget. That'll be why there's 3 Typhoon kits in my stash and no P-47s. I may even get round to building at least one of them some day

[old thumper]

I remember a story that a bloke I once worked with told me. The gist of what I was told was that when he was about 18 years old he was sent to fight in Europe. I think he said this was towards the end of the war and possibly somewhere in the Netherlands, he told me that the Germans were mostly retreating and that the first thing he saw that really troubled him was when their advance was stopped by a stubborn group of German soldiers that were occupying a piece of high ground. Apparently this position had been attacked before on at least one occasion unsuccessfully and that he and those he was with were asking themselves if they would see the next day, before they were due to attack he witnessed a large number of Typhoons come in and attack the German position. What he told me next was that even from the distance he was at he could see the that the death and destruction caused by the Typhoons was total. He finished the story by saying that when he and his comrades arrived at the position there was scarcely a person alive and that the whole area was devastated, the whole place was a mass of dead bodies, body parts, burning tanks and vehicles, wrecked guns and equipment. What shook him the most was that most of the soldiers were even younger than he was, I think he told me this was the SS Hitlerjugend.

Edited May 3, 2015 by old thumper

[dfqweofekwpeweiop4]

HMS Rodney was credited with destroying a group of five Tiger Tanks in Normandy, 5 Tigers was quite a chunk out of the total Tiger force considering it's size.

Plunging fire from 16 inch guns was pretty effective against tanks, remember the shells weighed well over 2000 lbs and they were pretty accurately aimed.

Going back to the original question, the Hispano canon and Browning machine guns that armed these aircraft surely had their separate advantages depending on the target, as would rockets vs bombs.

Just because I am British and I like the Typhoon more than the P47 my vote goes with the Typhoon.

Actually the British 16 inch AP round was just over 2000lb in weight, they were very light compared to the standard IJN or USN 16 inch shells which were around 2200lbs or the super heavy 16 inch shells used by the North Carolina, South Dakota and Iowa classes, which were a whopping 2700lbs, not sure about the weight of the HE round, which is what they would have been using for shore bombardments.

The German tanks like the Panther and Tiger had about an inch of armour on their tops, which explains why it would have been difficult for 50cal bullets to damage them. It would be interesting to know how thick the steel was on the engine decking, perhaps 20mm rounds could go through that and damage the engine? Obviously a direct hit from anything large like a 500lb bomb or a battleship shell, would just demolish the tank, regardless of it's armour. A hit from a rocket on the top, rear or side would also mean the end of the tank. Does anyone know how much armour a British 3 inch rocket could penetrate? I'm wondering if they would penetrate a Panther or Tiger's front armour.

Normally I'd shy away from commenting on such discussions but my vote goes to the Typhoon; firstly 'cause I'm British and therefore biased that way and secondly 'cause of images I've seen with Typhoons operating (just) over the Falaise Gap and some reports of the destruction wreaked there.

Now don't get me wrong, warfare and the death of men is never something that I feel must be glorified, the horrors that occurred within those 8 days must have left a lasting effect on everyone involved - I've read accounts by pilots who tell of the smell of death penetrating the cockpit several thousand feet up while flying over The Gap and 'Jonnie' Johnstone's description in Wing Leader of witnessing the destruction at ground level is a sobering one - but as a child I was aware of the Typhoon as an effective ground attack machine long before the P-47 and first loves are hard to forget. That'll be why there's 3 Typhoon kits in my stash and no P-47s. I may even get round to building at least one of them some day

I still wouldn't like to say which was best! However if you start saying which do you like best, well I've got 2 built Typhoons but I've got at least 12 built and unbuilt Thunderbolts, does that answer that one? Also look at my Avatar!

Someone mentioned the IL-2, which is a tangent to the op's question. The IL-2 was a dedicated ground attack aircraft built for a tactical air force, so it should have been pretty good at it! The Typhoon and Thunderbolt weren't as we all know, designed as ground attack aircraft but were found to be very effective, so the RAF and USAAF didn't really need a dedicated ground attack aircraft. So I'm not going to argue that the IL-2 was the best ground attacked however, what I will say is the Typhoon and Thunderbolt, once their ordnance was dropped or fired, were still fighters and if attacked, could mix it with the German fighters, something which the IL-2 could not.

Just another quick point and also a bit of a tangent. The Fw190 was another fighter that made an excellent ground attack aircraft, particularly with the F model. The F model had extra armour to protect against AA fire and could carry a wide variety of weapons, from heavy cannon, bombs and rockets. If the allies hadn't got air superiority over Normandy, there's a good chance we'd be discussing the Fw190F, vs the Typhoon and P-47 as a ground attacker!

thanks

Mike

[Sgt.Squarehead]

The concusssion from a direct hit by a 60lb HE rocket would knock out the crew of any AFV regardless of whether the armour was penetrated......Apparently they were able to penetrate the deck of most AFVs:

http://www.wwiiequipment.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=98:airborne-rockets-used-by-the-british-during-wwii&catid=44:gunsrockets&Itemid=60

It's occured to me, after browsing the current GB, that the P-38 might be worth a mention in this thread, they could pack some pretty heavy ordnance too.

[old thumper]

Quote from MikeMX

The German tanks like the Panther and Tiger had about an inch of armour on their tops, which explains why it would have been difficult for 50cal bullets to damage them. It would be interesting to know how thick the steel was on the engine decking, perhaps 20mm rounds could go through that and damage the engine? Obviously a direct hit from anything large like a 500lb bomb or a battleship shell, would just demolish the tank, regardless of it's armour. A hit from a rocket on the top, rear or side would also mean the end of the tank. Does anyone know how much armour a British 3 inch rocket could penetrate? I'm wondering if they would penetrate a Panther or Tiger's front armour.

Reply

The P-47s 50 calibre armament may well of been advantageous compared to the Typhoons heavier canon armament in many circumstances. These circumstances would have included when a heavier round was not required to destroy a target and when the number of rounds carried by the aircraft and rate of fire was more crucial.

Edited May 3, 2015 by old thumper

[davidelvy]

Apparently pilots found that if their shot landed just in front of a tank it would bounce off a road surface and penetrate the hull from below. I'm not sure how much evidence there is for this but it is mentioned in Wilfred Duncan-Smith's "Spitfire Into Battle", though he put it down to luck rather than judgement.