home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: sci.military
- Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!hubcap!ncrcae!ncrhub2!ciss!law7!military
- From: "Charles K. Scott" <Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu>
- Subject: Re: Worst Allied WW2 Fighters
- Message-ID: <C017Cp.3q3@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>
- Sender: military@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM (Sci.Military Login)
- Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
- References: <BzM9uB.MFD@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>
- Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 17:31:36 GMT
- Approved: military@law7.daytonoh.ncr.com
- Lines: 24
-
-
- From "Charles K. Scott" <Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu>
-
- In article <BzzCrI.L5@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>
- Gary Coffman <emory!ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu> writes:
-
- > It could take incredible punishment and keep flying.
- > It's primary role, however, was not as a bomber interceptor, but as
- > a bomber escort fighter.
-
- While it's true that the P-47 was initially used as a bomber escort
- fighter, that wasn't what the Thunderbolt was designed for. This was
- establised a year ago in a flury of postings. Emmanuel Gustin was
- correct in saying that the big fighter was designed as a high altitude
- bomber interceptor, that's how the concept developed. You are correct
- in saying that it was never used in that fashion and had to adapt to
- the ETO concept of fighter escort. That it was able to do this so
- effectively is due to the inherent structural integrity of the design,
- the firepower, the decline of the German pilot skills and conversely
- the improvement of American pilot skills and fighting techniques, but
- not to it's design intent.
-
- Corky Scott
-
-