[KOREAN-WAR-L:11401] Re: Shooting Star to Mustang

["Love Shack" <Home@DanSources.com>]

Title: [KOREAN-WAR-L:11394] Re: Shooting Star to Mustang

Hi Jim:

WOW..wonderful information.

In WW2 the sortie loss rate was just about as high for all planes involved in ground attack. 

Some worse then others but not by much.  Each plane had a achilies heal.

The Typhoon and Tempest seemed to be the most rugged better

suited (by mistake) for ground attack then any US fighter.

 

Even the highly touted Il-2 Sturmovic was shot down in mass qualtities on the Russian front.

The Il-2 and 10 series did not fair well at all in Korea which were purpose built ground attack aircraft.

Even our own Skyraider, Corsair and Invaders suffered horribly.

 

One thing that was evident, Jets were faster, required less trim adjustment,

guns were in the nose which eliminated convergence issues, batter constructed and generally more

rugged then the Props.  Aside from maybe the engines.  I believe the F84 had a terrible problem with flameouts.

 

Typically, the next generation of fighter relegated the less valued aircraft as ground attack.

 

Dan Fahey

 

 

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Jim Givens

To: KOREAN-WAR-L@listproc.cc.ku.edu

Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 8:10 PM

Subject: [KOREAN-WAR-L:11394] Re: Shooting Star to Mustang

(My apologies to the list for the late response, but I've just finally gotten my ISP problems resolved, and I'm reading the January archive.)

Dan,

I've been reading General Stratemeyer's Korean War diary, and it has some interesting information about the F-47 and the Korean War.

On 4 May 1951, General Stratemeyer, commander of FEAF, sent the following message to General Twining, USAF Vice Chief of Staff:

"Are there available anywhere in ZI or its possessions F-47 aircraft that could be made available to FEAF?  It is understood that there are some 25 in National Guard squadron in Hawaii.  Even this number would be gratefully received.  Info here also indicates some 429 in service with Air National Guard in ZI and 721 in storage.  Small arms fire and both light and heavy flak have increased tremendously along enemy MSRs and at main bridges in Korea as well as around their supply areas and airdromes.  All here know that F-47 can take it.  Our fighter losses to enemy ground fire during past 33 days total 25 F-51s, 13 F-80s and 2 F-84s.  Loss rate of F-51 to ground fire per sortie is just under 100% greater than the loss rate of F-80 and almost 6 times greater than the F-84 loss rate during the same period"

On 11 May 1951, General Vandenberg, USAF Chief of Staff, replied to General Stratemeyer as follows:

"This answers your AX 7149 of 4 May requesting F-47 a/c to replace F-51s in FEAF.  After considering the availability of F-47, the spare parts situation, and the complications which result from an introduction of an additional fighter type in FEAF, we fail to see any appreciable results to be gained by the substitution.  It is probably true that the F-47 would confirm its WW II reputation and prove somewhat less vulnerable than the F-51 to small arms fire and light flak.  I believe, however, that the disparity between the F-47 and your jet types would be almost as great as the present disparity between the F-51s and jets. ..  The only real solution to your problem is the replacement of F-51s with jet types.  You are familiar with the F-80 situation and realize that beginning in December we must meet your attrition in F-80s with F-84s.  This replacement will continue to include the replacement of F-51s by jet types as soon as it is physically possible to do so...  I am sure in my own mind that your suggestion of using F-47s in place of F-51s would require a complete substitution from the CCTS in the ZI thru to pipeline to your theater, is not a solution." 

(omitted sections discuss aerial combat differences between F-47 and F-51, USAF budget and production problems, and suggest using more of the F-80s in Japan in Korea instead)

(ZI - Zone of the Interior, i.e., the United States)
(CCTS - Combat Crew Training School)

Quotations are from The Three Wars of Lt. Gen. George E. Stratemeyer:  His Korean War Diary.  Edited by William T. Y'Blood.  Air Force History and Museums Program, 1999.  Available from the U.S. Government Printing Office.  The 4 May 1951 message is on pages 501-502.  The 11 May 1951 message is on pages 509-510.

I think the explanation above speaks for itself.  The USAF was phasing out prop-driven aircraft in favor of jets and was not interested in re-introducing and supporting a second prop-driven fighter type.

Jim Givens

To: <KOREAN-WAR-L@listproc.cc.ku.edu>
Subject: Re: Shooting Star to Mustang
From: "Love Shack" <Home@DanSources.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 17:54:06 -0500
Organization: DanSources Technical Services, Inc.
References: <35.41e80415.2d23950e@aol.com> <000f01c3cf54$01497660$6401a8c0@winme>
Reply-to: KOREAN-WAR-L@listproc.cc.ku.edu
Sender: owner-KOREAN-WAR-L@listproc.cc.ku.edu

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Happy New Years all...
 
When the USA decided on the Mustang.
I am having a Discussion with the P47 Revisionsists.
One argument wahy the Thunderbolt was not used in Korea
 
I believe the following considerations was made to use Mustangs
 instead of the Thunderbolt
 
Availablility, still being produced in Australia, well at least until 1949.
Parts availability, Lower Maintenance and Sustainment Costs
Used less gas, Could takeoff from the Short and Rough Fields
Longer Loitering capability, Better Dogfighting Capability
More pilots trained on the Mustang.
 
Please help
Dan