Why didn't P-51H's and P-47N's serve in Korea?

Well folks – when North Korean forces attacked the Republic of Korea on Sunday, June 25, 1950, the United States Air Force had to act quickly and turned to the North American F-51 Mustang to fly close-support missions against the communist forces, because

– the P-51D (by then designated F-51D) was available in fair numbers stored in Japan – leftovers from the first years of Occupation – these aircraft actually were destined for salvage/scrapping, but were quickly made flyable again and put into action over Korea, both as fighter-bombers and as Tac Recon ships (RF-51D’s).
– the USAF theater commander, Lt. Gen. George Stratemeyer, requested that F-47s be sent. But, due to the shortage of spare parts, budget limitations and logistical complications, his request was denied (actually it was decided that the USAF didn’t need ‚another obsolete aircraft type’ in this theatre, this because of a nearly complete focus by the Air Force on strategic nuclear bombing in the post-World War II years, and the transition to jet-powered aircraft).

The Mustang was one of the best fighter planes of World War II because of its range, speed, and maneuverability. Rendered obsolete by the latest jet-powered fighters, the F-51 gained a new life during the Korean War as one of the Air Force’s principal ground attack aircraft. The Mustang had better range and payload than the jet-powered Lockheed F-80C Shooting Star and could be operated from rough airstrips close to the front. As a result, a small number of Mustangs were retrieved from storage in Japan and more F-51s were shipped from Air National Guard units in the U.S. By August 11, 1950, six fighter units had transitioned from F-80s to F-51s. Many pilots were not excited about the change. The historian of the 8th Fighter-Bomber Group, the last of the six units to complete the conversion, wrote that “A lot of pilots had seen vivid demonstrations of why the F-51 was not a ground-support fighter in the last war, and weren’t exactly intrigued by the thought of playing guinea pig to prove the same thing over again.”

For World War II Thunderbolt pilots who flew the F-51 in Korea, the F-47 was definitely the better plane for ground attack. The F-51 was derisively nicknamed “Spam Can” and left many pilots in Korea wishing they were flying the Thunderbolt instead. Colonel Bill Meyers, who flew Thunderbolts in World War II, admits that every time he took off on a mission in Korea in his Mustang, he would pray, “Please, God, make this a Thunderbolt.”

HTH
Martin

With 8 .50 cal. guns, two 500-lb. bombs, and ten 5-inch rockets I’d have to agree with you…..

and with the R-2800 Engine you could fly back home with two or three pistons blown off…………. 🙂

With 8 .50 cal. guns, two 500-lb. bombs, and ten 5-inch rockets I’d have to agree with you…..

I, myself have never understood why the Mustang was used instead of the Thunderbolt. I have to think it would have saved more than a few lives…..

Hell, the P-40 was a more durable bird than the Mustang, and a better ground-attack bird to boot, although much shorter ranged and slower.

Well, unfortunately most of the WWII fighters were scrapped by the beginning of the Korean War. Yet, almost any radial engined fighter would have been better for the role than the Mustang……….besides the P-47N Thunderbolt was a “devastating” close air support machine! 😮

I, myself have never understood why the Mustang was used instead of the Thunderbolt. I have to think it would have saved more than a few lives…..

Hell, the P-40 was a more durable bird than the Mustang, and a better ground-attack bird to boot, although much shorter ranged and slower.

One reason why the “H” Mustang wasn’t used: There weren’t that many of them. They only made 555 and that probably wasn’t enough to do the job without having the “D” also in theater…trying to ease maintenance/suppy issues.

That is very true and I agree. Yet, the P-51D was hardly ideal for a close air support missions and took heavy losses over Korea. 😮 On the otherhand the USN/USMC did much better with Corsairs and Skyraiders. Which, gets back to why wouldn’t the USAF would use P-47N Thunderbolts if they had them available???? :rolleyes:

One reason why the “H” Mustang wasn’t used: There weren’t that many of them. They only made 555 and that probably wasn’t enough to do the job without having the “D” also in theater…trying to ease maintenance/suppy issues.

At the end of the conflict ANG units were to be allocated P51 aircraft if west of the Mississpippi and P-47 if to the east although some units had the wrong type. The F-47N was used by fifteen units and the F-47D by ten. I think that this is the reason why the P-47 was not used in Korea. They were all out of service by 1955.

Well, the Korea War ended July 27th, 1953 and clearly the P-47N was a much better ground attack aircraft than the P-51D…………….with the Mustang having very high losses to ground fire!

At the end of the conflict ANG units were to be allocated P51 aircraft if west of the Mississpippi and P-47 if to the east although some units had the wrong type. The F-47N was used by fifteen units and the F-47D by ten. I think that this is the reason why the P-47 was not used in Korea. They were all out of service by 1955.

P-51H-1 was a supreme lightweight dogfighter with low wing loadings and the power to disengage from a fight if necessary. They never saw combat and 370 were produced by VJ-Day. Those that were still in ANG service were replaced in 1952-53 by the more numerous F-51 D that was a fighter bomber which was the type used in Korea with such good results.