While we are widening our net, did anyone else read that Roger Freeman proved that ‘The Jug’ was a postwar nickname for the P-47?

P-47’s are referred to as Jug’s in two well known more or less first hand books, Robert S. Johnson’s (ace of the 56th FG) “Thunderbolt” and “1000 Destroyed: the Life and Times of the 4th Fighter Group”, a sort of oral history of that group. Ghost writers can insert stuff, and Freeman is perhaps the foremost expert on the 8th AF but…do you have a specific citiation from Freeman?

One possible myth is that *all* P-47 units referred to the plane as Jug; at least some didn’t, calling it Thunderbolt, T-bolt or just P-47.

A thread on warbirds.jp I googled referred to a Beaufighter in an Aussie museum with a plaque saying the Japanese called it “囁く死” which might be shō ku shi (Japanese pronunciations of Chinese characters are variable, but those two do mean “whisper” and “death”, with the grammatical particle ku in between). It potentially indicates some kind of J source research by that museum. The posters on that board however didn’t know any such source and called it a myth.

I’m skeptical about reverential nicknames for Allied planes by the Axis without specific wartime Axis sources that say so.

Joe

hello wha about William “Bill” Henry Isaac Atkinson, D.S.C., M.I.D, RCNVR

Interesting; the link above though lists his score as 3 confirmed, 1 shared (not sure what that means exactly) and 1 probable, w/ 11 FAA aces altogether. Sources seem to differ. I wonder if there’s an authoritative reference for FAA pilots’ scores like Frank Olynyk’s privately published lists for US pilots.

Joe

Cork would seem to have flown Corsairs but not scored any of his victories in a Corsair. Do we define “Hellcat or Corsair ace” as 5+ victories in type, some in type and 5+ total, or just 5+ total and flew one of those types in combat?

Another not mentioned in the archive link is Major R.C. Hay Royal Marines, credited with 3 JAAF fighters in the Meridian raids in January 1945 against the Pladjoe refinery in Sumatra, one of those three is half credit for a pair claimed with Sheppard, coincidentally, to add to 2 victories earlier in the war in Skua’s and Fulmars (source: Tillman, “Corsair”).

Per Tillman, Sheppard’s victories were a pair of Oscars claimed January 4 1945 in the raid on the Pangkalan Brandan refinery, a Tojo January 24 in Meridian One, half credit for a Tojo and an Oscar downed with Hay the 29th in Meridian Two, and a Judy claimed May 4th defending the task force. But Shores in “Air War Over Burma” lists the Jan 24th claim as only a probable, and the 29th’s claims a pair of Tojo’s.

Shores’ summary of total claims and losses in the Jan 45 combats: FAA claimed 9 Oscars for no loss Jan 4: two pilots of the independent 71st Chutai were killed, total plane losses unknown. January 24 FAA claimed 13 aircraft for the loss of 6 Corsairs a Hellcat and 2 Avengers, some to AA: the 87th Sentai (Tojo) lost 8 planes, the 21st (Nick) 2 pilots, 26th (Oscar) 3 pilots. January 29th the FAA claimed 9 a/c for the loss of 10 Avengers and a Firefly two of the Avengers to barrage balloons. The 87th Sentai lost 4 pilots and 33rd Sentai (Oscar) lost 2 (not incl claims and losses in the Japanese counterattack against the carriers).

Joe

Interesting that the F-86 was improved but the Mig-15 didn’t…

Of course at the time I am sure the US estimates were that the USSR was 20 years behind in design and manufacture… and don’t say it was the British engines as the US got their engine technology there too.

That’s interesting, I’ve read a fair number of US docs from the time, evaluating the MiG, and never saw a such a disparaging assessment. It it true that prior to the KW the US assumed the MiG-15 was similar or inferior to the F-86 in all respects. In reality it was superior in some respects as was immediately realized. However whole theme of thread: in fact F-86’s outscored MiG-15’s over 6 to 1 (reallly), probably 4:1 or more v Soviet pilots. Who can really say considering all the intangibles of “plane” that that was *all* due to pilots, rather than the F-86 also being a considerably superior *practical combat airplane*? People often assert the two planes were equal and all differences were other factors, but I don’t see how to prove that, and I doubt it.

Originally (before the end of WWII) the British were ahead of everyone else in jet engines, and the very first US ones were heavily influenced. But by the late 40’s in engines like the J47 (in the F-86) that was considerably less true. The J47 was not derived from British design or technology in anything like the direct way the RD-45F in early MiG’15’s (sometimes encountered in Korea) or even the more Sovietized VK-1 in the MiG-15bis (usually encountered in Korea), or the J42 in the F9F Panther for that matter, were. All three of those were the Nene or derived directly from it.

The J47 OTOH was two generations removed and quite different in concept than the centrifugal Whittle engines GE obtained licenses for in WWII and produced as the I-A then I-16 (the J33 in between, the F-80’s engine again had a centrifugal compressor, but contemporary J35 a mainly new GE design, axial flow compressor like the J47). This is somewhat related to the Mach issue rather than a total digression: the MiG’s centrifugal engine was fatter, hence its fuselage, hence wave drag contibuting to its inferior dive performance v. the thinner (axial flow engine) F-86. Improvements in the horizontal tail of the F-86E made supersonic dives routine, not any major change. The MiG had control issues too near Mach 1, but also just more drag.

The MiG’s engine, especially the VK-1, was a high performer and reliable for its time (probably more so in latter respect than the J47), and largely derived from the Nene. But not all high performance engines by then were closely tied to Brit designs.

Joe

…The myth about P-39 about being a tank buster or ground attack plane is a western myth, which has no basis in actual history. P-39 just happened to be a good plane in the correct place: the aerial combats of eastern front happened mostly in low to medium altitudes, where the P-39 was on its best. In the Pacific or European theatres aerial combats took place higher, and P-39 just didn’t like to be high, its performance dropped badly there. So eastern front, in Russian hands, P-39 finally found its niche and performed very well as a fighter.

After all, the highest scoring Allied fighter aces flew P-39.

Yes, P-39’s were fighters in Soviet use like any other fighters not especially ground attack planes. To be picky the highest claiming Soviet, Kozhedub, was consistently a Lavochkin pilot, although No. 2 Pokryshin claimed most of his victories in P-39’s, as well as a number of others near the top of the Soviet claims list. Besides pickiness this leads to a more important point, those are *claims* not real a/c destroyed, and of exceptional pilots in a large war. Still after 60+ years there isn’t full research into the accuracy of claims of every fighter force in every period of WWII, though more all the time. But in cases we do know claim accuracies varied a lot, so ace claims as a way of comparing WWII aircraft is generally a form of ‘skating on thin ice’, IMO.

It’s still hard to be certain how well Soviet P-39’s really did v. German fighters. But AFAIK from what evidence exists it’s doubtful the P-39 had an actually favorable (>1) fighter-fighter exchange ratio in Soviet hands. It is possible to say it was viewed generally positively by the Soviets compared to most of their own fighters even into 1944, though some of their later types (Yak-9 VK-105, La-5N, etc.) were clearly superior.

Joe

Many 262 kills were vs. Allied fighters.

Heinz Bar, probably the best Me262 Experten, claimed 18 daylight victories whilst flying the Me262, of which 16 were confirmed. Of those 18 claimed, only 2 were B-24’s and 3 were B-26’s. All the rest were fighters, 5 x P-51’s and 8 x P-47’s.

As often I think depends on what we mean by “kills”, recognized claims (by the claiming side) or planes really shot down. In general LW claiming accuracy at the 262’s heyday (large numbers of claims from late ’44, though first ones in mid ’44) was not good. Their previous system which had yielded quite accurate claims at times earlier in the war had deteriorated seriously.

Foreman/Harvey “Me 262 Combat Diary” give 616 claims (not all “confirmed”) by 262’s but reviewing the general comparisons of Allied losses to the claims incident by incident in the book the real kills must have been much lower. Especially against Allied fighters 262 claims seem to check out at a pretty low rate. For example the book gives around 85 claims against USAAF fighters (much smaller number against Brit and Soviet fighters, ie. bulk of 262 claims were against recon and bomber types), and a much smaller number check out per info in that book*. USAAF fighters downed in excess of 100 Me-262’s (losses ca. 3/4 of claims, typical of late war Allied *fighter* [not bomber!], claims). The actual ratio seems to have been highly in favor of the piston fighters. Now they had advantages of numbers and long range persistance (to hang around Me-262 fields waiting for them to return short of fuel) but fuel persistance was a technical virtue of piston planes in v. 1945 jets just playing to their strength; and more highly trained Allied pilots on average too of course by then. Ratio-wise RAF did similarly, didn’t have as many opportunities as USAAF.

On Bar per same source: 3/19/45 2 P-51’s claimed by Bar 2 total by jets, one possible loss to jets; 3/24 1 P-51 by Bar 3 by jets, ? losses to jets; 3/27 3 P-47’s by Bar, 5 by jets no losses to jets; 4/4 1 P-51 by Bar 2 by jets no losses to jets; 4/18 2 P-47’s by Bar 1 loss to jets; 4/19 2 P-51 by Bar, 2 total losses of USAAF not known to be to jets; 4/27; 2 P-47’s by Bar 5 by jets no losses to jets; 1 P-47 by Bar ? losses to jets.

*which is probably not complete, but also other books I know don’t detail many USAAF fighter losses to 262’s, doesn’t seem it was anything like 85.

Joe