10 THINGS YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THE P-47 THUNDERBOLT 

External tanks were not the answer to the P-47’s problems. Only internal fuel could have changed the situation. Internal fuel is what determines range. Drop tanks are only a Band-Aid solution and have their limitations. At the time of ‘Big Week’, only about 20% of the P-47 fleet had been modified to carry underwing tanks, a long, slow process, performed by crews in the field, that involved cutting metal. On 6 March, 1944, when the 8th Air Force conducted its first raid on Berlin, the vast majority of P-47s could not get beyond the Dutch border. Because they only had the 108 gallon centreline tank. The others, carrying two underwing 108 gallon tanks, could not get quite as far as Magdeburg. The old axiom that you use half the fuel in an external tank getting the other half there means that piling on more and more tanks eventually ends with the law of diminishing returns. At the beginning of 1944, Galland and Beppo Schmitt, who had recovered from his embarrassing performance in the Battle of Britain and become a decent officer, decided that the American escorts should be bounced early to force them to drop their tanks. Not such a huge problem if you’re only carrying one tank but a potential problem if you’re carrying two. So, once again, external fuel can only do so much. This was the product of what appears to be some rather poor planning at Republic. The problem of insufficient range was known as early as the beginning of 1943. The P-47C model - which was still by far the dominant model in terms of number at the beginning of 1944 - carried only 256 US gallons of internal fuel. It was not until the introduction of the D-25 in May, 1944, that the Thunderbolt had more than 300 gallons but even that wasn’t enough and by then the horse had bolted. The Mustang had 269 gallons and used about 30% less fuel. So the point is that Republic has a lot to answer for here.

No doubt about it.

Sent the Corsair instead to rep the air cooled crowd......

The P-47 wouldn’t have done significantly better. Both were out of date by then.

@@johnsaia9739 Why?

Damn really? I love it but I suppose it's just personal preference!

I’ve read far too much history to be fooled by him.

He was a US Citizen at the time and understood that Americans like to have all our servicemen have the chance to vigorously excercise their "Second Amendment Rights" on the enemy. LOL!

One of its problems was that it had too many guns and too much ammunition. That appeals to American gun heads but aircraft designers know that weight is always a major consideration in design. And it wasn’t just the weight of those extra guns and ammunition, it was the extra structural weight and components needed to support them. They’d have been better off with four 20mm cannon.

I was thinking the same...

Thanks

I agree!

Absolutely agree ! Thanks -

So do I. 100%! Facts! Republic Aviation rules!

@@richardmontana5864 Then why did it take Republic almost 18 months to increase the internal fuel tank capacity? Why did it take until the end of 1944 to make the plumbing for underwing tanks a line modification? The P-47C, which was still by far the dominant model of P-47 at the time of ‘Big Week’, had less internal fuel than the Mustang, which used 30% less (256 gallons v 269). This problem was never truly addressed. The P-47D-25 still had only 305 gallons and the line mod to add underwing tanks was not made until the -M model, which only flew in the last month of the war and had no impact.

Anyone who has bothered to read anything knows that Greg’s claims are mostly just navel gazing. I don’t know what he’s smoking but you can’t counter the verdict of history with charts, conjecture and a lot of ‘ifs’. There’s nothing he says that can’t easily be countered.

Yes

GEN Doolittle made that decision based on simple economics, cost to buy, cost to operate, fuel economy, etc. Doolittle also wanted to replace the B-24 entirely with the B-17.

@@alantoon5708 … the 8th AF had priority to get what it wanted. But then there’s production limits. If the 8th needed 100 bombers but only 75 B-17’s were available…

@@alantoon5708 Doolittle had no say in the choice of the P-51. Doolittle’s job was operations. There is a letter from Hap Arnold to his Chief of Staff, Lt Gen. Barney Giles, from October, 1943, demanding a solution in six months or else. Cost was no object, up to and _including developing an entirely new aircraft,_ as long as it was within six months. Giles was aware of range potential of the P-51 and at the time of that letter, there were already 1,350 of them ready to go. They were suitably modified and sent to England, arriving in December.

@@Idahoguy10157 And this was exactly the problem Eaker had been facing.

Skyraider wasn't a fighter.

Greg’s info is mostly charts and conjecture. It has little in the way of historical value.

In certain areas a bit better and in some not quite as good. The P-47 was easier to fly and was a bit faster along with 2 more M-2 .50 cals.

@@johnsaia9739 …. Fortunately in Korea the Corsair was there.

@@johnsaia9739 The extra two guns were unnecessary. In fact, they were an impediment, adding extra structural and equipment weight and complexity for no real gain. The standard armament of six .50 cals was easily enough for WWII. It poses the question why Republic didn’t opt for 4 x 20mm instead.

Glad you're enjoying the videos, what do you consider audio editing mistakes? I may agree or disagree.

@@hushkit6817 At 12:36 the voice audio gets doubled over.

Thanks for this - love to discuss in detail. You on Twitter?

@@hushkit6817 Negative, no Twitter for me. Any other ideas?

Yeah, he has impressive tenacity in the face of refutations.

@@anObtuseOcelot Greg has been challenged to a debate with historian James William ‘Bill’ Marshall, who posts as ‘drgondog’ and was banned from Greg’s channel for disagreeing with him. The debate is supposed to happen in April but my bet is that Greg will wave off, citing a dose of the vapours or something.

Greg is not a source on this. Charts and conjecture can’t counter the verdict of history, especially when he comes to so many ridiculous conclusions.

I have been cryogenically preserved since 2019 - how have the last few years been? Assuming nothing's happened.

@@hushkit6817 Outstanding! Now that you’re back I have some hope of conquering my crippling addiction to fast acting laxatives. Pray for me wont you. In any case, glad to see you producing regularly again.

What old false narrative? You mean Greg’s notorious hypotheses? There’s nothing he says that hasn’t been thoroughly discounted. I have done a lot of reading on this and there’s nothing in it. The P-47 was a good aircraft. It shot down over 3,000 German aircraft on the ETO so that verdict is already in. But it wasn’t in the same postcode as that P-51 when it came to impact on the air war. The more you read about this, the more obvious it is. RU-vid videos are produced for clicks and likes. Books are works of serious commitment and usually a determination to get the best available version of the truth.

What ‘false narrative’? That the P-51 was better? Well, it was. The P-47 was good but it wasn’t in the same postal area as the P-51 when it came to impact on the outcome of the air war. Greg has fooled a lot of people into believing their own BS.

Someone has been watching ‘Greg’s Airplanes and Automobiles’… Too bad everything he says is conjecture. Charts don't mean anything if historical evidence is to the contrary. So, which 'false narrative' are you referring to?

I want to eat Mushrooms and listen to these vidoes Reminds me of the 70s and 80s