P-47s Strafing German Airfields- Footage, Tactics, Lessons Learned, Guidelines, and Effectiveness
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 23 ก.ย. 2024
- In this information rich, deep dive video we address usage of the P-47 Thunderbolt as a airfield strafe attacked. The primary mission of the 8th air forces was the destruction of the German air force. The P-47 was the best suited US fighter bomber best suited for these strafing ground targets. We will cover the tactics and effectiveness of German airfield attacks and look at a compilation of fighter strafing attacks.
I wish I had a copy of my great uncle's gun camera footage. He flew the P-38 before transitioning to the P-51 and had some incredible footage of a lot of strafing. There must be thousands of hours of gun camera footage out in the world that are essentially lost media because they've never been archived and digitized
I was once hired to print some old negatives of sailing yachts. Terrific images.... but the lens that photographer used had problems, the negs were of low contrast and the overall sharpness was poor. The clips in this video probably represent the generally low quality of most gun footage. Be interesting to know more about why some WWII gun camera footage is so good while so much isn't.
One issue might be reusing developing chemicals. Even the fuzzy images here are very useful for after action and gunnery training, but few of these clips would've made it into a war movie back in the day.
With AI these could provide the 'foundation' for some terrific recreations. I remember a couple of things from May 25th, 1977. Star Wars of course, but also immediately recognizing some specific gun camera clips I'd seen numerous times before, as the basis of the space fighters battling in space.
The film would turn to dust if not stored properly
I know Hollywood lost a lot of the early films due to the film material combined with the lack of proper storage knowledge. Films like Wizard of Oz and its era got stored in salt mines or very controlled vaults. On the aircraft films poor vs good quality, this is an educated guess but the good stuff was meant for propaganda films back home. Good example is the Tarawa film which was done with good color film with the idea it would shown in theaters.
WW2 trivia:: the US military shot a ton of color early in the war. But theater owners complained about it, saying the customers would start demanding they show color films instead of B/W. Because of that much of the color was converted to B/W. Some color did survive as evidenced in the WW2 In Color series on History Ch.
@@LuvBorderCollies thanks for the information, I didn't know that about the theaters.
Not all of them were great shots but at least none of them shot in vertical format.
Thanks for another excellent video. This is great stuff.
😂
The adrenalin rush had to be off the chart when making a strafing run.
Your episodes are enjoyed and greatly appreciated Thanks ..!
I did most certainly find this video informative and worthy of my time.
I also think you're onto something, particularly with the gun camera clips
and your comments on them.
Excellent video as always. Marvelous attention to detail and primary sources!
Another well done and informative episode. Thank you!!!!
At about 08:57 in this video...
It almost looks like that pilot LANDED ON that Fw-190[?].
@8:57 - 9:00: the strafing on that Fw190 was personal!!!
I saw one of those veteran story videos from a P47 pilot, and I learned how the losses suffered got worse as they did more ground attacks into Germany, than when they were fighting the Germans in the air.
With all those AAA rounds going up, they do come back down. Getting hit by a falling 20mm round has got to be potentially lethal for exposed ground personnel.
There's a saying that making multiple attacks on a German airfield was not conducive to a long career.
They would most likely be using the minenschloß type round which is fused to explode after a certain distance.
@@Jezza_C_WT self destructing 20mm shells were apparently 'a thing'--Heck, I remember memoirs talking about the 'little white shellbursts' from 20mm and of course, even the 633 Squadron movie had used pyrotechnics to recreate those effects (pretty amazing for a 1964 movie).
Yup, light AA cannons self destructed when their tracer burnt out
@@nickmitsialis you can see self-destructing 20mm shells in some gun camera footage.
The guy at 12:01 wasn't strafing a horse he was strafing the cart it was pulling. At one point they were shooting up anything moving on the roads. It's not the only gun camera footage I have seen shooting up a horse and cart.
German army used horse-drawn supply wagons through out the war.
@@dzhang4459 Exactly my point as to why they shot it up. When Doolittle let the fighters free to go to the deck they hit anything that moved. I saw a piece of film even more graphic than this one where the cart was shattered and you can see the horse bolt and run as the fighter flew over.
"not the horses, no no not the horses..."
@@stlrockn They both good lucky it looks. Since they still hadn't lost their rear. Safe to say they weren't hit directly by the M2s. Shrapnel maybe...
War crimes
Excellent, informative video. Seeing the number of strikes that the aircraft often take without burning, really makes me question whether 20mm would have been a more effective armament for USAAF aircraft pressed into the ground attack role. I know that this is a complex topic that is often discussed, but this footage brought it once again to mind. I cant imagine pressing home an attack under AAA, getting good hits on target, and the enemy aircraft still being repairable.
Thank you for taking the time to go through all of the footage you make this video! This channel is underrated! History that deserves to be remembered!
Some of those passes were LOW!
Horses; "you just don't lead them as much..."🐿🚁
I've always been fascinated by gun camera footage , i could watch it for hours . Thanks . Great info . M
The gun camera clips with your commentary are great. Videos with just that would do well I garuntee it
Good to msee the number of subscriptions creeping up!
Outstanding presentation.
I remember hearing Chuck Yeager talking about strafing horse drawn wagons, wonder if that was him in the film clip.
It might be possible to match his combat log to the timestamp on the film clip you showed.
good research and video, it’s a topic I’ve always wondered about. Your video provides more interesting material on the subject.
I can imagine how terrifying it must have been to see a P 47 coming straight at you but 48 P 47s at one time in one raid? Nightmare fuel!
Once again, excellent use of primary source material in your presentation! Could you please research and present the accomplishments of the USAAF 9th AF in the ETO as well? Thanks!
Interesting, informative, and worthy of my time
12:00 one of the horses from an earlier table :(
I wonder if gun camera footage was ever used to "coach" a pilot for better results? ❤ The Channel 👍
Any plans on a video about 5th Air Force strafing and skip bombing tactics?
I assume the added danger of strafing an airdrome could feature into the difference in gunnery discipline we see compared with your train attack video. For example, one clip of an academically-less-than-perfect attack looked like a fighter taxiing, which could increase the hurry-up-and-adjust-and-you-better-darn-well-get-it rush, which increases spray throughout the aim adjustment. Dangerous, dangerous work...
I found this video interesting, informative and worthy of my time 🙂👍
This was Out”fricken”standing! I’ve always loved the history of World War II, especially European theater! Being a pilot, like most pilots, the P51 and the P38 are two favorite aircraft! Along with the Corsair! I was fortunate enough at the airport. I went to during aviation class in high school, there was a P51 & a Corsair! Getting my PPL in 10th grade, Occasionally, going to fly at the airport, I started out at. I listed in the military, after training Getting our orders to deploy. The gentleman, who know the sisters that taught us, knew “at the time” in 2006 that deployment to Iraq wasent in our favor. After literally a week of going over everything, I was so very fricking lucky to fly “for the first time” a P51 mustang! The power is amazing, it’s something you have to experience!
Luckily, we live in a time where you can actually pay to fly trainer aircraft and dogfight! Using paint rounds & basically laser tag dogfighting! If you’re a pilot, I suggest you to go for it, especially if you love history and or just interested in checking out your skills it’s fun as hell by the way!
Col Gabreski found out how not to strafe German airfields.
2:32 still thinking of that one Droop-Snoot loss
Where the opening strafing runs colorized or filmed in color (seems unlikely)?
Great video. Any idea of the cost effectiveness of straffing vs aerial combat? i.e. the kill:loss ratio. I imagine it was more risky, but necessary to maintain aerial superiority. It also risks your pilots but not theirs which could attrition your experienced pilots, similar with the home field advantage of the Battle of Britain.
09:04 four engined twin tailed bomber - captured / repaired lancaster ?
I think so.
A Ju 290 I believe
Would be interesting to analyze the Japanese strafing attacks on Pearl Harbor and Kaneohe
P-38 was a great ground attack plane, with a huge bomb load, a cannon and twin engine redundancy and center line gun firing. It also had better zoom and climb performance as low altitude, which could really help at getting back to a safe altitude quickly. The P-40 was also a decent ground attack plane. Better handling and sturdier than the P-51.
Beggars beleif how low some of those passes were!
Brown underpants me thinks
10:15 can't imagine the pilot's shock/fear in that moment
Good video, thank you 🙂
When it seems they are just randomly shooting, they are probably at the brink of sensory overload. Worried about getting shot down, coping with G-Forces, trying to keep the aircraft where they want it to go, and not flying into the ground, while trying to get a good sight picture on something as they are moving at around 400 mph. Most likely a tad difficult to do all that at once....
Has anyone seen documentation of the P-47 ammo loadout for ground attack vs escort missions? More than doubling the weight of the design ammunition load would have to reduce aircraft performance a bit below book values. Was ammunition always overloaded, or was it only for certain missions?
From AN 01-65BC-1A:
"Guns -- Eight .50 calibre guns, four in each wing are provided. Only six guns with ammunition are included in the design useful load." [...] "The maximum load is 425 rounds each. Desired loading with six guns is 267 rounds each, and with eight guns, 200 rounds each." [...]
5:45 How does pushing forward on the stick correct for bullet drop? I don't get it.
I think it may be related to the arc of the bullets being over the sight at the ranges they are shooting at, so you have to aim under the target to get the bullets on target? that or to account for closure to the target. confusing either way.
As you get closer to the target, there is less bullet drop to account for.
Good video. I think I'm ready to fly for the USAAF. I'm curious about anti aircraft shells and guns. German and Japanese production. Did the Allies target their production facilities? How much did they cost? Are there any accounts of shortages, running out?
I think we've all heard about the slave laborers in German munitions factories sabotaging the detonators. But after your recent video of Allied duds. I wondered did this really happen? (I would think the final inspections would not be done by slave laborers but by Germans. A sabotaged detonator being discovered would probably result in executions.)
A number of tri-motors that were not Ju-52s being attacked. Italian I think..
[~2:26]
I wish we could get a comparative analysis of overall *sortie* rates, between the P-38, the P-47, and the P-51, during the period covered by this loss-rate chart. Without knowing how many total missions each of these different types are involved in, their "relative" loss numbers are rendered almost meaningless as a point of comparison.
Same thing I was thinking at the previous showing of this chart on the train-strafing video. I get that the USAAF in the end favored the P-47 for ground strafing (of whatever specific type of target) due to its firepower and ruggedness. (Similar story with the USN/USMC keeping the Corsair on the carriers well into the Korean war! A whole 'nother discussion...) BUT... I still have a sneaking suspicion, that the relative qualities of the P-38 against ground targets, were/are being given short shrift? Maybe? Because there were far fewer of the P-38s in E.T.O. by this point? I guess? HOW MANY ? Is what I would like to know.
At the very least, I would think P-38s' central gun-grouping, should make it more effective for ground-strafing starting at much longer ranges than the "ideal" 400 yards cited in the train-busting vid? The particular point about no "convergence" issue with the Lightning, was not fully/directly addressed in the limited discussion about "optimal firing range". (You did make the generic statement about P-38 "Accuracy"... But didn't specify whether that modifies the particular 400-yd range guidance.) If the wing-mount guns of a P-40/-47/-51 are focused/tuned/harmonized (what is the right term for this?) to cross at 400 yards, then that will obviously be the most effective range. But while bullet drop (re. target-aiming) and velocity loss (re. penetration) become obviously detrimental at longer ranges, still the P-38 should have at least a marginally better factor of "versatility" on the range issue, simply due to the center-line gun configuration.
I highly enjoy all of your vids generally. So I hope my quibbling about some specific details therein, does not imply any undue broader criticism of either your vast research work, or your resulting presentations. Both aspects of your efforts are much admired and appreciated.
[Edited for a minor typo]
Regarding P-38 numbers, I thought the train-busting video had a chart showing numbers of each type in service in the theatre by month.
@@erickent3557 Oof. That would be exactly (or, well, at least PART of) what I was asking for. I must have missed it? I'll re-look, later this afternoon when I get some time.
Thanks.
THAT SAID : It still strikes me as more than a little silly in the first place, that this original USAAF document showing losses, doesn't at least have totals of each type in service for the same period in question, as simply another column on the same page. Why anybody ever thought merely listing type losses without corresponding sortie rates was usefully illustrative of anything for any purpose, other than parity replacement needs, is beyond me.
How did that get in there lol
Poor hus
horse werent the only civilian target allied fighters loved to strafe. Women and children too. I wonder how THAT footage didnt get in there. But yeah, poor hus.
@@MadCDeeJay wehraboo delusions
8:59, guessing that's roughly 7 - 8 feet off the ground ??!
Seems like some tall telegraph poles and wire would be a good deterrent or help funnel straffers into known avenues of approach along the axis of the runways. Probably something I'm missing because it would have been done if it was useful most likely.
Both sides did that in the form of barrage balloons. Large balloons anchored to the ground with thick cables. But on an airstrip they would be as dangerous to your own aircraft
Thanks!
Thanks for the kind channel donation. It is much appreciated.
Did many of these pilots have specific training for these very low level ground attacks? I know at the time there were some very basic analogue simulators or instruments, were any of these used? What about practice airfields with simple wooden targets? I am sure that many pilots would have benefitted from these sorts of training methods, but there often appears to have been little attention paid to the need to do additional training.
Based on previous train busting video, I assume "no, many of the pilots did not have specific training for very low level ground attacks." The previous video sounded like a particular squadron trained/practiced for it, put it into actual usage, then operationalized/distributed their learnings as official guidelines. Regarding basic gunnery, including air-to-ground gunnery, yes, pilots would have received that training, but not necessarily *specialized* low level attacks.
how far away are the targets on camera?
Your opener was strafing Japanese aifields , red roundels bit of a give away ????
It was actually a German base trying a new method of confusing Allied fighters. It was to make them think they'd flown WAY off course and demoralize them.
I assume he chose those videos because they are in color.
@@erickent3557 Well Ii did assume that but fun to pull a leg now and again , had seen that clip before on a gun camera item !!!
@@stevenbowman7766 Darn it, the humor buzzed right over my head!
@@erickent3557 British humour , very hard to pin in place sometimes ?
Does anyone know what focal length the lens and the film size used in the gun cameras? Some of the passes look extremely close or only the centre section of the frame was used. I do remember hearing about one of the very talented pilot was frequently claiming kills in dog fights on planes that were out of frame of the camera. I believe many of these kills were independently confirmed. The pilot was just very good at accounting for g-forces and future position of the enemy plane. These facts and the need for to be able to resolve useful information from the film when the plane and target were more than 600 feet a part, suggests the lenses used were a telephoto type. Hence why objects look closer than they actually were.
According to Google - 35mm on a 16mm gun camera.
I read that AA losses were particularly bad when the Germans used automatic radar controlled 20mm flak. Is it possible the Germans had something that sophisticated already?
Why are you asking? - a google search says "yes"
Did the Germans use wooden decoys or stuff like berms or fences to make strafing harder?
Berms were seen in some of the footage. Usually where one otmr two planes parked in a hexagon or stretched hexagon.
yes
Decoys, yes.
The Germans feared the P47 ground attacks. Not so much of the P-51 which was easy to shoot down compared to the P-47.
I doubt they were able to tell which type was attacking them while running for their lives.
Yes they could@dzhang4459
You can't hear the different engines and fuelsadge of plane.
@ 12:23 must of been a rookie pilot!
Interesting that some of the aircraft on the ground were Italian.
Poor horse
poor horse :(
@ 9 minutes.. Jesus kid. Pull up! 😮
I'm not a huge fan of the gun camera footage at the end of the last couple of videos. I feel like I have seen all this footage many times before.
What an odd thing to complain about. Only tiny selection of gun cam footage was saved and archived. What is he supposed to do? Make new ones?
That is really low flying.
Except that those are Japanese aircraft on those airfields.
WWII US Fighters
This is another video that the Ukrainian Armed Forces need to watch!.
9:03 a Lancaster!!!???