How the P-51 Mustang Won the War 

I would love to have won that! Wow!

You are one lucky SOB! Now I see why Tom Cruise has a big shit-eatin' grin every time he's in that P-51.

Was it as fun as you hoped?

@@davidh6300 oh hell yes!

@@Menaceblue3 🤣🤣🤣

He's still with us. Got to fly with him a few weeks ago. He's about to turn 101 in January.

Wow!!

Definitely agree with you. Met him many years ago after watching a talk he did. He was probably in his 80s, but you could still see that "look" in his eyes. Ward... PLEASE do a segment on Bud. Currently he's the greatest living American ace.

A class act. I highly recommend his memoir, "To Fly And Fight." Bud will personally sign your copy if you buy from his website.

RIP Bud.

Check your quote brother.

Source?

@@BARelement I believe it's mentioned in Goering's interrogation after his capture

Goering knew he was screwed when three Mosquitoes roared overhead at chimney pot level in 1943 and put him off the air.

You might check out a story on George Cahill, also a togglier, story written by Paul Kengor August 16, 2018, CNS NEWS. Tough poistion

@@c123bthunderpig thanks, I'll check that out.

@@jhbuxton4 The truth is both P38's and P47's escorted bombers over Berlin before P51's ever did it, by a couple of weeks. Once the P38's and P47's were provided with the right kind of drop tanks they had the range to do it, it's just that at the beginning of the bombing campaign the general's that ran the USAAF thought the bombers could out run the German fighter's at the altitude and speed they could fly at with their turbo charged engine's, what they didn't count on was that shortly before the US entered the war the Germans developed, early warning radar networks which allowed their fighter's to already be at altitude and ahead of the bombers. Then when they realized they needed fighter escorts all the way to the targets it took months for the production of drop tanks to be increased to have ample supplies to send to Europe, before that every single one being made was sent to the Pacific where from day one they'd been requested. The extreme long range mission flown by P38's in the Pacific to kill Admiral Yamamoto happened 4 months before the unescorted "Black Thursday" mission on Schweinfert, that mission in the Pacific was longer than any bombing mission in Europe, proof that if the fighter's in Europe would have had the proper type of drop tanks those bombers never would have had to fly a single mission unescorted. Late in the war the "Bomber Mafia" Generals that ran the USAAF came up with the narrative that before the P51 fighter's didn't have the range to escort those early missions in Europe, they did that to cover their asses for the heavy losses and to keep from getting drug in front of a Congressional inquiry. It's a long standing myth that before the P51 the fighter's didn't have the range to escort the bombers on those early missions.

My father had just finished training as a navigator in a B-17, when they dropped the bombs on Japan. Didn't have to see action, so he considered himself lucky.

@@dukecraig2402 the problem with the P38's was their poorer performance above 2pprox. 22000 feet which meant that the Me-109's and FW 190's could attack from above and dive through the bomber formations. With the Merlin engines the P51's could go after the German aircraft.

Right?

That sound is truly glorious. You can't deny the raw screeching power of a jet engine in a fighter, but there is something symphonic in a Mustang at full military power performing a high speed pass.

@@jasonnordgren1844 being, well to put it bluntly, an aviation NUT🤣it's a sound you never forget and one I would recognize anywhere. Truly glorious as you say.

Merlin is good we all know that. But check out the sleeve valve Bristol Centaurus engine which made about 2x the power of a Merlin.

@@davidelliott5843 the British came up with alot of different engine designs during the war including the Napier Sabre that powered the Typhoon and Tempest. But the Merlin was the best aircraft engine of the war. The next best imo would be the Pratt and Whitney R-2800 radial.

Very well said!

Here, here.

Good comment. Someone has been listening to "Greg Airplanes.." The cost of one P47 could buy three P51s. The P51 was certainly the most promoted as "The Greatest. "

@@rconger384 Greg does first rate research. However, also have a copy of Roger Freeman's Mighty Eight War Diary on the shelf that gives the day by day chronology of 8th Air Force operations with daily statistics. Just look at what was done each day. The heavy lifting for the hardest part of the campaign was the P-47 finally equipped with adequate drop tanks. If the P-51 had never existed, the war would have come out the same with those escort missions simply flown by the P-47 and P-38. P-51 was a great airplane but not critical. Biggest advantage was it cost around 50K a copy while the P-47 and P-38 were both over 100k. And you always needed more airplanes.

Johnson was flat out wrong about the March 6, 1944 raid. No P-47s went to Berlin. This was Mission 250, if anyone wants to look it up. Jeffrey Ethell and Dr Alfred Price wrote an entire book on that mission, including all the escort planning and P-47s got no closer to Berlin than Magdeburg. The only American fighter over Berlin that day was the P-51.

Were the Merlin’s sold post war for hardly anything ? Like $100 per…..guys put them in boats, so the legend goes.

As was my dad

So was my Dad. What unit was he in?

@@stopspammandm 47th fighter squadron - the black and yellow striped 51's.

@@johnshallman508 That's the same sq as my Dad.

@@johnshallman508 If you don't mind giving me his name I'll look though my Dad's stuff to see if I can find anything.

I'll suggest a third. Avro Manchester minus 2 Vulture engines plus 4 Merlins = Avro Lancaster.

Why? Why wouldn’t bomber crews like the 47?

@@BARelement Wasn't the bomber crews it was the command. In the early years of the bombardment, bomber command forbade the use of droptanks because they were convinced that the "kill box" formations of the B-17 and B-24 could defend themselves from the German fighters. They invented the myth of fuel range after the fact to cover their asses from all the bomber crews that went down. None of the fighters including the 51 had the range to get into Germany without drop tanks, the 47 had the capability to get there far before but were prohibited from doing so. Greg does a great series about the 47 and goes into detail about the 47's range.

@@jdcole333 You mean the “Bomber mafia”??! If not then I’m confused.

@@BARelement Yeah, same thing. Not everyone knows it by that...I had originally typed that out but talked myself out of it.

@@BARelement The "Bomber Mafia" is the nickname of the general's that ran the USAAF and believed at the beginning of the bombing campaign in Europe that the bombers didn't need escorts.

That was especially true during the Korean War.

Source please and numbers P47 lost 2600+ doing G/A and other low level duties Source Eric Brown Testing for Combat

That's an internet furphy. Yes, radial engines were less vulnerable to ground fire but the idea that a liquid cooled engine was too vulnerable is ridiculous. There were plenty of successful ground attack aircraft that were fitted with liquid cooled engines. Look them up for yourself. Besides, the Mustang had armour around the radiator.

​@@thethirdman225 The P51 did not have armor plating around it's radiator, as per the pilots manual the only places it had armor plate was behind the pilots seat and headrest which was 7/16th inch thick, a 1/4th inch thick crescent shaped piece directly behind the top half of the prop spinner to protect the header tank and a 1/4th inch thick steel plate used for the firewall so an engine fire wouldn't burn through before a pilot could get out like aluminum or sheet steel would, it's not even really an armor plate to protect the pilot since he had the engine in front of him to absorb hits from frontal attacks, and if you want to include it as armor then also the front windscreen was 1/4th inch thick bullet proof armor grade plexiglass, but aside from the crescent shaped piece behind the prop spinner to protect the header tank there's no armor around the cooling system components especially the radiator and those long coolant pipes that go all the way from the radiator to the engine. And successful is a subjective term when you claim that there was successful ground attack aircraft that had liquid cooled engine's, none were as successful as the one's with air cooled engine's, the fact is they were mostly fighter's pressed into service as ground attack, like the Typhoon, which while my favorite RAF fighter of the war the reality is it was pressed into use as a ground attack aircraft because of it's engine issues at altitude rendering it pretty much ill suited for the typical high altitude engagements in aerial warfare over western Europe, the only truly successful liquid cooled engine ground attack aircraft was the IL-2 and because of the extensive amounts of armor required to protect its engine and cooling system was so heavy it could hardly fend for itself against other aircraft even after dropping external stores and required protection from enemy aircraft, even the Typhoon while not a high altitude aircraft could dogfight at lower altitudes once it'd dropped it's ordnance, so it's a trade off, you want a truly successful ground attack aircraft with a liquid cooled engine then you have to armor up it's cooling system to where it's lethargic, press a fighter design into the ground attack role with armor that's only really for the pilot and mostly to counter being shot from behind and you're going to lose a lot to ground fire, in the Pacific after just a short amount of time P51's were restricted from ground attack because they were flying into their own bullets flying up in front of them because of the ricochet prone coral soil that the Pacific islands are made of, that's why you don't see any films of them doing ground attack or hear about them doing it in the Pacific, in the Korean War as if the Army hadn't learned it's lesson just a few years before right away they assigned P51's ground attack mission's and like in the Pacific it wasn't long and they were restricted from doing it again because of their horrible loss number's, the reality is the P51 was a total failure at ground attack, just because some numbskulls who didn't know any better tried using it in that role doesn't mean it was suited for it, likewise the Typhoon wasn't really suited for it either and both for the same reason, their liquid cooled engine's, as much as I like the Typhoon the fact is there were Typhoon pilots who didn't make it back because of it's liquid cooled engine, if they'd have been flying ground attack in a radial engine plane there's some that would have, it's a no brainer, anything with a cooling system is going to be more prone to ground fire. Someone from over there keeps trolling P47's videos making all kinds of malarkey claims like the one where he compares the number of P47's shot down while flying ground attack to the number of Typhoons shot down flying ground attack as proof that the Typhoon was somehow a better ground attack aircraft, but he leaves out the part of the math where just around 3,600 Typhoons were built while over 15,000 P47's were built which needless to say means they flew a tremendous amount more ground attack mission's than the Typhoon, I hit him with the math comparing the number of ground attack mission's flown by both along with the number's lost and it showed that almost twice as many Typhoons were downed per the amount of mission's flown.

You think that the turbo and all its plumbing & induction tubes weren't vulnerable behind the Jug pilot? Without it the Juggernaut became a low level turkey. It also had a lower critical mach than the LW fighters. They installed a dive flap on it for a reason - to stop them finding smoking holes in the ground..

Did they have power assist on the T-33 controls?

@@ThumperE23 Yup. First-generation hydraulic boost for the ailerons. But it was also an extremely low-drag airframe.

Well said. All the video game kids commenting simply don't understand reality.

Not to mention the Mustang's low drag airframe allowing it to be far more fuel efficient than the Spit with the same engine.

A massive and incorrect oversimplification.

the Jug needed more internal fuel to extend range, just like any other fighter. the Jug didn't get redesigned with more internal fuel until the P-47D-25, which started being deployed in the ETO in spring/Summer of 1944, well after the P-51's cleared out the LW.

Great range? Yes great performance? not really about as good as the P47 with a better tactical Mach

BEAT ARMY SIR!!!

Don't click on that "prize" comment! This scam is doing the rounds, pretending to be from the uploader.

@@keevee09 That's been making the rounds on almost every RU-vid channel out there.

@@dukecraig2402 Yeah, most of us will be aware, especially those of us following quality channels like Ward's. Still, I throw the odd warning out there now and again for those that may not be aware and always report them to RU-vid. Never give a bloodsucker an even break.

four or 4.5 kills. Not an ace, despite Wiki disinformation.

They did but never saw any combat

I will rephrase that "they did not have air to air combat"

Sadly, he wasn't right.

@@slammerf16 OOOOH He was right !!! The mustang could do everything a shitfire could do but do it all day long !!! and shitfires never escorted bombers to Berlin they were too short legged to do the job !!!

@@wilburfinnigan2142 ahhh flying tractor is back . How little we missed you.

@@wilburfinnigan2142 AHHH Wilbur still sprouting nonsense No Mustang could dive to T/M 0.86+ No Mustang could climb at 4800+ ft/min No Mustang could get to 44000ft+ [ Merlin ] or 48000ft+ [ Griffon] No Mustang could roll at 150 degs/sec Spit Clipped wing No Mustang was a carrier plane [ Seafire ] And as I said all those years ago The Spitfires did not escort Your bombers TO Berlin that was your job not the RAF/Friends They did however escort your Bombers over France on some occasions

@@slammerf16 I Like that "How little we missed you"

Great comment, Marc! Thanks!

And the P47 only cleaned up what the Spitfire left

P47 Combat Debut April 43

@@jacktattis We have to give the Americans some credit for helping to cripple the German/Axis industrial complex and logistics to the point that they were so weak in the end of the war. Yes, the P-51 fought a weaker luftwaffe with shortages on materials and pilots, but the P-51 also escorted the bombers that made that possible. To compare the P-51 to a spitfire is like apples and oranges though. The spitfire is clearly a better fighter in a confined or defensive scenario.

Gross over simplification.

@@iCanHazTwentyLetters Not so from Nov 43 to Mar 44 the RAF unleashed the Spit IXs in Operation Pointblank to go after the enemy wherever they were with the result they got 2950 enemy all shot down and my friend the P51B only had its first combat Dec 43 So while the P51 was tip toeing around the sky the Spitfire was destroying the enemy .

It didn't really start out as an attack aircraft, that part of the story has gotten a bit distorted by people who don't know about the slight of hand trick that Lt Benjamin Kelsey pulled on Congress. First off to fully understand things you have to know that there's 2 timeline development stories involved here. One is the Merlin engine, contrary to the oversimplified version of things by people over the years the Merlin wasn't a "more powerful" engine than the Allison, it's just that after a certain point Rolls-Royce developed a 2 stage 2 speed high altitude supercharger for it, for high altitude performance with the Allison the P38 used a turbo for it's 2nd stage, so Allison had never designed a 2 stage 2 speed supercharger for their engine and weren't about to without funding from someone, without that type of supercharger or a turbo for a 2nd stage that limited the engine to only being able to make it's maximum power at lower altitudes. As of when the P51 was designed the version of the Merlin with a high altitude 2 stage 2 speed supercharger didn't exist yet, it was under development and wasn't even fielded until mid 1942, even the early Packard built Merlin's only had a single stage supercharger like the Allison so putting one of them in the P51 wouldn't have made any difference, and at the time of the P51's development the RAF wanted every single Merlin engine produced by both Rolls-Royce and Packard so the only engine available to go in the P51 for development was the Allison anyways. Now for the P51 timeline, the British knew from day one that the 2 stage supercharger version of the Merlin was eventually going to go in the P51 but until that version of the Merlin was being produced they weren't really interested in buying P51's, but Lt Benjamin Kelsey who was in charge of the US Army's development and procurement of aircraft knew that once the P51 was coupled with an engine with a high altitude supercharger it'd be a world class fighter, but the problem was North American didn't have a production line set up because the British were holding off their orders waiting for a high altitude engine for the airframe and the US Army at the time was out of money and Congress wouldn't allot them any more for fighter's, don't forget at this point the US wasn't in the war yet. So to get North American orders so they'd have the money to set up a production line Kelsey had Noth American fit 20mm guns on it and changed it's designation to A36, the "A" standing for attack which was a classification of aircraft that Congress would allot money to the Army to purchase them. It was never really intended to be an attack aircraft, adapting it to one was nothing more than a trick to get Congress to cough up money so North American could set up a production line.

@@dukecraig2402 And it's worth remembering that the British and French had placed large orders (the British taking over the French orders on the fall of France) for the Lockheed P38, but, it was initially ordered without the Supercharger, as they thought air battles would be below 20,000ft so the cost and complexity could be removed. As the Battle of Britain proved, 20,000 feet was a false ceiling and they cancelled the orders for the none supercharged plane (which they had requested!). So holding off orders, from a British perspective could be understood as a lesson learnt. Aside from that, I understand that the P38 suffered for a while, as producing and delivering the required superchargers took too long initially. However, It would have been a very interesting if the RAF had used the P38 in larger numbers. Would the Bomber command have moved to daytime operations?

@@hypergolic8468 I doubt the RAF would have moved to daytime operations as it gave them no great advantage. Early in the war, the RAF found out the hard way that unescorted bombers were hideously vulnerable. The USAAF came along later and learnt the same lesson. The RAF had a rethink and adopted night bombing. The USAAF had to rethink as well , but by that time it was possible to equip fighters with drop tanks, which is what they did after an operational pause. The RAF stayed on with the night bombing as they'd worked up the necessary accuracy using Oboe beam navigation and H2S group mapping radar, and the whole Pathfinder force. German nightfighters only improved throughout the war but Mosquito NF moved into a more offensive role by flying with the bomber stream and intercepting German NF. What I find interesting about the P38 is that it could possibly have been another light bomber alongside the Mosquitos or even flown fighter escort for Mosquito bomber versions. That would have been a fast bomber formation! That _might_ have tempted the RAF back to day operations because night flying for single seat aircraft was very hard work back in that era although they might have just told the pilots to get on with it. Also, by keeping the German defenses stretched both day and night, the Allies wore the Luftwaffe and German industry down much more quickly. But ultimately both airforces were wedded to the 4 engine heavy bomber concept which proved so ruinously expensive in blood and materiel.

@@dukecraig2402 No Duke That is not how it happened The British knew no such thing, the Merlin 61 was just out when Rolls Royce Test pilot was at Duxford testing planes not normally fitted with R/R The Wing Comd. Orde- Campbell suggested that he take a test flight in the Mustang Harker realised that with the New Merlin 61 the plane would have much better performance up high. He did the figures and put it to Rolls Royce, they eventually agreed and 5 airframes were found . The USAAF were always in the picture but had NO input into the fitting of the Merlin into the P51.

And it was the RAF Mustang 1A that had 20mm cannon

That's the b17 for ya

@@SnowMaverick I wonder how the ball turret gunner felt about it?

It’ll be part of the series, no doubt.

The Faster Corsair was post war

I think they were producing them for the Lancasters being built in Canada? Though I think Lancs used a variant without the high-altitude optimized two-stage supercharger.

Ford F Ranger Rolls Royce contracted PACKARD to build the Merlin in the USA in Sept 1940, while the Brits were getting their @$$'s kicked. same time frame as they were dealing on the P40 with NA Aviation when the mustang was born. What Packard built was the 20 series single stage version for the Brits which used them in 3,040 Mk BIII Lancasters built in England and 400 Mk X built in Canada. they were also used in the canadian built Mosquito, 1500 of them and 1200 Hyrrycanes also Canadian built. Packard building the Merlin had NOTHING to do with the Mustang BUT all about an off shore Shadow factory away from the war.,for the Brits !!! It was LATER when the Merlin 60 was developed ,late 1942 early 1943 with the 2 stage supercharger that Packard built the V1650-3 or -7 for the Mustang !! ! The Mustang got the Merlin engine because they were AVAILABLE in the USA !!!

@@jbepsilon What you are NOT understanding is MOST all Merlins built were NOT the 60 series 2 stage high altitude version that came into service late 1942 early 1943. Overal RR used three different superchargers on the Merlin. ALL merlins BEFORE the 20 series were simple SINGLE STAGE, about the time of the BOB the 20 series single stage 2 SPEED supercharger was developed anf in late 1942 early 1943 the 60 series 2 stage 2 speed high altitude merlin was developed. ALL merlins were NOT created equal !!! of the 20,000+ shitfires built only about 7,000 had the 60 series 2 stage supercharger,as was the case with the Mosquito, the Hurrycane and the Lancaster never did get the LATER 2 stage 60 series merlin engine. The cold har fact of history IF one does the research and not listen to the Brits lies, hypes and just plain Bull$hit !!!

@@jbepsilon No they were producing them for Rolls Royce in everything

@@wilburfinnigan2142 Wilbur the Packard had a lot more performance than the Allison Arses kicked not in the Battle of Britain in fact the Brits had just creamed the Luftwaffe without the Packard or the Mustang How about that ?

He is biased and ignores actual ww2 test figures

@jacktattis if you can prove your statement, I'm all ears buddy :)

@@The_Sly_Potato Sometime ago I post three tests all done circa 43/44 One at AFDU Duxford another at RAE Farnborough and another at Wright Field and my beef was about the T/M of the P47 Nothing else and those tests? 1.AFDU Duxford 3/21/1---- 3 RDM43 Rep. No. 66 P47C dive very fast but reaches its limit at 52Omph @ 10000ft and 450mph @ 20000ft AFDU did not have Machmeters 2.RAE Farnborough early 44 Capt Eric Brown Wings on My Sleeve Page 72-- P47 dive T/ M 0.71 [ 544.76 mph] RAE would do their Tests by going to the Planes Service ceiling 40000ft and put it into a 45 deg Dive When the plane was at the point when the pilot was losing control they would record that number Brown did it then and later He said Mach 0.73 [ 555 mph ] was a death dive 3. Wright Field Jun 1944 US Test pilots so no bias P47 indicated Limit Diving Speed ILDS 500MPH@ 10000ft Tests one and three I posted to Greg And test two he intimated that Brown was wrong and that he used a flawed application Now Brown was one of 40 test pilots at that facility and is recognised as one of the greatest test pilots In Gregs' video he said his figures were up near T/M 0.80 which is above the 598mph of the P51 The tests at AFDU and Wright Field are easy to find . They are both in WW2 Aircraft Performance one is an addendum to the main reports. Test three is in Browns book

@@The_Sly_Potato *_"if you can prove your statement, I'm all ears buddy :)"_* It's pretty easy to prove. Buddy. Greg uses calculated data that in a lot of cases has not yet been subjected to test flying. It says so in red ink at the bottom of the page. Buddy. On top of that, he's talking about optimum altitude and throttle settings. He's not talking about operational requirements which were anything but optimal and used up fuel greedily. Buddy. Greg is fooling only those who want to be fooled. There's nothing he says that can't easily be countered by anyone who can read. I'm far too well read to be sucked in by that nonsense. Range performance and theoretical or test data are almost irrelevant when it comes to the verdict of history and you don't need to make a 45 minute video on this nonsense to see it for what it is. Buddy.

Greg makes money by telling unread kids what they want to hear. Half truths without context or full disclosure. He refuses to acknowledge his mistakes and omissions.

I built that same model.

@@WardCarroll As much as I like fighter planes; my favorite plane to build, and one I want to ride in some day is the PBY Catalina...

how about the Merlin! and the DH Mosquito, Spitfire and Lancaster

The Allison had a host of problems and P-38 pilots/ground crew called it the Allison time bomb. P-40 Allisons caught fire and threw rods. The Allison required a redesigned intake manifold among many other things. They never did make a reliable high altitude V12.

No. Don't watch Greg's video about the P-47. He doesn't know what he's talking about. ALL of his information comes from technical data. He hasn't read enough operational history to draw the conclusions he does. In face, Greg is basically a liar. I had the debate with him and he backed down. Then he deleted my comments. Champion.