If you were a WW2 fighter pilot which would you rather have? The P-51 was more multi purpose and fuel efficient. The P-47 was good as a ground attack aircraft, but had a shorter range. Watch the first story of each of their dogfights episodes. The P-47 was far more rugged than the P-51. The P-51 had 6 .50 Cal machine guns, and the P-47 had 8. I would take the P-47 all day over the P-51.
P-47
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=64KkHHpBHRs
P-51
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8k5BdmD25Nk

Also watch the last 2 minutes of each video.




[This message has been edited by WarAGle (edited 8/22/2014 6:05p).]

Jugs were best suited for close air support and they wound up in that role as the US Army rolled across France. Mustangs were the best air supremacy platform and became the fighter of choice for the USAAF pursuit outfits.

Apples and Oranges, depends on what your mission requirement was.

Agree with WBBQ. An interesting note, though. In the years shortly after the war the AF was transitioning to jets.

But in the interim, they chose to keep P-51s (later F-51s) and get rid of most of their P-47s, which were scrapped in large numbers, sold/given to other countries, or in small numbers given to ANG/AF Reserve units.

By the time the Korean war came along the AF had enough jets to fill the air superiority role but not enough to fill the air to ground role. F-80s and early F-84 models (straight wing) were used as bombers, but F-51s were also thrown into the fray.

F-47s, if we still had any, would have been much for suited for that mission. More bomb load, more guns for strafing, and most important - MUCH more survivable in that environment than the F-51.

The F-51 had a liquid cooled engine and could easily be brought down by a single bullet to the cooling system.

The F-47, with its radial engine, could take a lickin and keep on tickin.

[This message has been edited by NormanAg (edited 8/22/2014 6:23p).]

I have always felt that the P-51 was perhaps overly glamorized. Yes it did perform its role to perfection but so did other aircraft such as the Jug. Heck, even the P-39 Airacobra, with its under-powered engine, finally found its role as a ground attack platform.

As for the question, I would actually choose the T'bolt because I love jugs.

P-47 shot down more enemy planes than the P-51 and the B-24 was a better bomber than the B-17. But for whatever reason the 51 and the 17 get all the glory. I think it was most reporters were in England where those planes were based.

Agreed on the reporter thing.

Pretty sure we built more Jugs than Mustangs, and the Jug and P38 were in service longer than the Mustang (51 operational in '43 with USAAC) so Jug would have the advantage in total kills

Love the Jug but would choose "The Caddilac of The Skies" - she had great curves!

quote:

---

Pretty sure we built more Jugs than Mustangs, and the Jug and P38 were in service longer than the Mustang (51 operational in '43 with USAAC) so Jug would have the advantage in total kills

Love the Jug but would choose "The Caddilac of The Skies" - she had great curves!

---

You are correct. In fact at the end of the P-47 video he says it was the P-47 not the mustang that was the most widely produced American fighter of all time.

Very conflicted on this. Love both planes. They sound very different Mustang sounds fast. Jug sounds like a tank and you feel it.

Jug (along with the Typhoon and Lightning) pretty much was the difference in the success of the Normandy Landings/bridgehead break out.

Jug could make it home shot to pieces. Mustang? Not so often.

I will have to go with the P-47.

“The day I saw Mustangs over Berlin, I knew the jig was up.”

~ Hermann Goering

quote:

---

You are correct. In fact at the end of the P-47 video he says it was the P-47 not the mustang that was the most widely produced American fighter of all time.

---

Admit I didn't look at the vid last night before I posted - pregnant wife next to me while surfing texags means no radials or Merlin's In bed!

Always been a fan of the roar of a radial but a Merlin is hard to beat !

I've always thought the Corsairs were beautiful planes, but since that's not a choice I guess ill take the Mustang (if for no other reason than to have something to match my eventual 1967 Ford Mustang).

You had to bring up Corsairs......

I may be "mis-remembering", but I think the cost of the P-47 was almost twice that of the P-51.

quote:

---

posted 4:55p, 08/24/14

You had to bring up Corsairs......

---

exactly; hands down my favorite of WW2

A Spitfire!

Lots of P-47's and P-51's in the Pacific and CBI too.

Everyone always leaves out the Brit Typhoons and Tempests... Probably the most versatile fighter bombers of the war.

since we've introduced twin-booms and the Brits:

Nice fuselage.

The mossie ain't bad either.

My dad flew both - his choice was the Mustang hands down, as it was for all of his squadron mates I ever met.

P-47 = Earl Campbell
P-51 = Ricky Williams

Flown and love both. I'll post some pics later, both recent and from our unit WW2 brothers.

Have to agree with JR69. Almost all the WW2 vets that I've spoken with across the years, who flew both fighters, greatly favored the Mustang.

MXY-7 Ohka (Cherry Blossom) = David Ashe
Breda ba.88= entire 2014 teasip offense

P-38 Pilots that had to give them up for the P-47's didn't like the switch.

To compare flying the P-51with the P-47 is like comparing driving a Corvette to driving an MRAP.

quote:

---

MXY-7 Ohka (Cherry Blossom) = David Ashe
Breda ba.88= entire 2014 teasip offense

---

I'd say Ash= the TBD Devastator. Proven to be fragile on previous occasions but sent in and obliterated.

poor dude.

If your primary mission is air-to-air, i.e. bomber escort, then choosing theJug gives you an instant handicap. The 352nd Fighter Group that is featured in the beginning of the P-51 video in the OP was my dad"s unit. The Group flew P-47s for almosta year and P-51s for about a year before the war ended. They were the third highest scoring group in the European Theater with something over 500 aerial victories. While it would be too tedious to tally all the data for the entire group, I have it for my dad"s squadron - the 487th FS. The 487th scored 245 aerial victories in that two year period, 42 of them in P-47s and 203 in P-51s. Some of that is undoubtedly due to attrition of experienced German pilots, but not nearly all of it.



The 487th had 21 Aces, the Group had 52 total. Half of those include aircraft destroyed on the ground. The Group had 4 "Aces in a Day", 3 of them from the 487th.Don Bryan was the 4th. All of them did it flying Mustangs. Twelve different pilots from the 352nd shot down jets - 11 Me262s and an Arado - all flying P-51s. Of the 52 Aces in the 352nd FG, only two were P-47 Aces.



Certainly there were outstanding pilots who got the most out of the Jug - Francis "Gabby" Gabreski and Hubert Zemke come to mind. But all of our pilots were not of the same caliber or as experienced.



FWIW, the Mustang was no slouch air-to-ground. And the sound of a Merlin engine in a Mustang is a sound like no other.



It would be interesting to take the data I have and analyze it farther, but far too tedious for an old retiree such as me - I have too much golf to play and too many quail and pheasants to chase.



Source: The History of the 352nd FG - The Bluenose B a s t a r d s of Bodney



(Edited so many times because I hate this new format!)

quote:

---

P-47 shot down more enemy planes than the P-51 and the B-24 was a better bomber than the B-17. But for whatever reason the 51 and the 17 get all the glory. I think it was most reporters were in England where those planes were based.

---

This is simply not true. Official USAAF records are incomplete, but show 3752 total air-to-air victories for the P-47 and 4950 for theP-51 in the European Theater and 5954 in all theaters of the war. The F6F Hellcat shot down over 5100 in the Pacific Theater and the P-38 Lightning ranks third overall with over 3900 in all theaters.

Does anyone know how the Lutftwaffe experten felt about the P-47 vs. the P-51?

(I suspect their view might be something like this: "Ja, the P-47 is easier to shoot at and hit but much harder to bring down; the P-51 is easier to shoot down, but only if you can get it in your gun sight and keep it there. That's much harder")

Eric Hartmann considered Hans-Joachim Marseille the better fighter pilot because he was a true marksman and because the vast majority of Marseille's kills were against British pilots. Hartmanns were almost all Russian.

Hartmann himself shot down 4 P-51's in one mission in an Me-109G.

Gunther Rall actually flew Spitfires, P-51s and P-47's. His take is very interesting.
He considered the Spitfire the most dangerous opponent and said the LA-7 a very note worthy opponent. Had great respect for the P-47. Said you could not out run it in a dive and it took great deal of punishment. However, he absolutely loved the P-51. He said it woud do anything that you wanted it to do and it would stay in the air for 7 hours.

http://www.historynet.com/aviation-history-interview-with-world-war-ii-luftwaffe-ace-gunther-rall.htm

Love looking at all these old warbirds.

quote:

---

Agree with WBBQ. An interesting note, though. In the years shortly after the war the AF was transitioning to jets.

But in the interim, they chose to keep P-51s (later F-51s) and get rid of most of their P-47s, which were scrapped in large numbers, sold/given to other countries, or in small numbers given to ANG/AF Reserve units.

By the time the Korean war came along the AF had enough jets to fill the air superiority role but not enough to fill the air to ground role. F-80s and early F-84 models (straight wing) were used as bombers, but F-51s were also thrown into the fray.

F-47s, if we still had any, would have been much for suited for that mission. More bomb load, more guns for strafing, and most important - MUCH more survivable in that environment than the F-51.

The F-51 had a liquid cooled engine and could easily be brought down by a single bullet to the cooling system.

The F-47, with its radial engine, could take a lickin and keep on tickin.

[This message has been edited by NormanAg (edited 8/22/2014 6:23p).]

---

This ^^^ is the only correct answer. All about the mission requirement. This guy nailed it.

quote:

---

quote:

---

P-47 shot down more enemy planes than the P-51 and the B-24 was a better bomber than the B-17. But for whatever reason the 51 and the 17 get all the glory. I think it was most reporters were in England where those planes were based.

---

This is simply not true. Official USAAF records are incomplete, but show 3752 total air-to-air victories for the P-47 and 4950 for theP-51 in the European Theater and 5954 in all theaters of the war. The F6F Hellcat shot down over 5100 in the Pacific Theater and the P-38 Lightning ranks third overall with over 3900 in all theaters.

---

The 51's gave us the ability to escort the big boys all the way to and back to from targets in Germany. Goring in 1944, when we saw the 51's in the air over Berlin said " The war is surely lost for Germany". This is why the 51 was the rock star, it allowed the US to truly implement its strategic air doctrine. Plus the 51 was just a hot looking bird and still is.

That said the 47 was the A-10 of its day beating crap out of the German army and bustin' German air while sitting on the ground and in air to air it could out run anything in a dive. Both aircraft were outstanding in their rolls. One was not "better" than the other.