WI the Introduction of the P-51 Was Delayed Four Months?

Anaxagoras

Banned
What would be the impact if, due to technical or administrative mishaps, the introduction of the P-51 Mustang was delayed for four months? So, instead of entering combat in the winter of 1943-44, they did not enter combat until the spring of 1944.
 
Last edited:
Probably not as big an effect as many would think. During Big Week in February 1944, P-47s far outnumbered P-51s flying escort, on some days by almost 10:1. This just means fighter groups that got the P-51 will soldier on with P-47s and P-38s for a few months longer. Allied bomber and fighter formations might take heavier casualties and the Germans might take slightly less but the overall effect is still the same.
 
Given that the Mustang entered service in January 1942... :)

I assume you meant with the US 8th Air Force?
 
Plenty would've depended on target choice. If USAF rastricts them to the targets in Ruhr, where the P-47s with 2 x 150 gal drop tanks can provide escort, the USAF bomber losses will be low, and LW losses will be high. If USAF sends bombers more than 450 miles away from UK, the P-38s will be used for 'target escort', and P-38J have had several issues (some were technical, some were due the training) when flying at high altitudes during the European winter; the USAF losses would've been a bith higher, LW a bit lower. Does not change anyting on the greater picture, though.
 
Ideally, the US would begin a second source for the P-38 earlier than in our timeline. Possibly, the the Vultee plant in Nashville plant would switch from producing A-31 Vengeance to the P-38 sometime in 1943.
 

jahenders

Banned
Given that the Mustang entered service in January 1942... :)

I assume you meant with the US 8th Air Force?

Exactly. As far as the 8th Air Force, it had already been delayed (in a sense) for a couple years because the AF didn't see enough merit in the original version to buy more than a couple and didn't push improving it (re-engining, etc.).

So, you'd have have P-47s doing all they could with drop tanks and P-38s beyond that range.

Bomber losses would be slightly higher, but not substantially so. One of the biggest long-term impacts would be far less P-51s built and less use of them, so the Mustang may not make nearly as much a name for itself as IOTL, so the P-47s and P-38s might be (relatively) more famous.
 
It is interesting that it did not take much of engineering for the P-47 to acquire increase in internal fuel, from 305 to 370 gals, that combined with 2 x 150 gal drop tanks enabled it to have combat range of 600 miles (at 25000 ft, 310 mph true air speed for cruise). However, such improved P-47 arrived at the ETO after P-51s made their presence felt.

The second source for the P-38 would've been great, not just for greater availability, but also for easier introduction of modifications needed. Perhaps cancel the P-63 already in 1942, so Bell license produces the P-38 from mid 1943 on.
Granted, that si too late for this thread/POD.
 
Why not just cancel the Consolidated A-31 sooner? That was what was being made in the Nashville plant that became the eventual source of the P-38? Most of the production of the A-31 for the last year or more was "make work" to keep the plant busy so the work force remained intact. The Bell P-63 was in greater demand than the A-31.

It is interesting that it did not take much of engineering for the P-47 to acquire increase in internal fuel, from 305 to 370 gals, that combined with 2 x 150 gal drop tanks enabled it to have combat range of 600 miles (at 25000 ft, 310 mph true air speed for cruise). However, such improved P-47 arrived at the ETO after P-51s made their presence felt.

The second source for the P-38 would've been great, not just for greater availability, but also for easier introduction of modifications needed. Perhaps cancel the P-63 already in 1942, so Bell license produces the P-38 from mid 1943 on.
Granted, that si too late for this thread/POD.
 
Exactly. As far as the 8th Air Force, it had already been delayed (in a sense) for a couple years because the AF didn't see enough merit in the original version to buy more than a couple and didn't push improving it (re-engining, etc.).

So, you'd have have P-47s doing all they could with drop tanks and P-38s beyond that range.

Bomber losses would be slightly higher, but not substantially so. One of the biggest long-term impacts would be far less P-51s built and less use of them, so the Mustang may not make nearly as much a name for itself as IOTL, so the P-47s and P-38s might be (relatively) more famous.

Ironically, that might be a good thing in the later years of the war and in Korea. ITTL more units with P-47s than P-51s means later on more units doing ground attack with P-47s (air cooled engine) instead of P-51s (liquid cooled engine). In Korea maybe you will have some F-47 equipped units (OTL there were still a few in the ANG) doing ground attack instead of F-51s doing ground attack. I read a remark by one pilot who flew P-47s in WWII and then F-51s in Korea and he said that every time he strapped into his Mustang he prayed for it to turn into a Thunderbolt.
 

jahenders

Banned
Ironically, that might be a good thing in the later years of the war and in Korea. ITTL more units with P-47s than P-51s means later on more units doing ground attack with P-47s (air cooled engine) instead of P-51s (liquid cooled engine). In Korea maybe you will have some F-47 equipped units (OTL there were still a few in the ANG) doing ground attack instead of F-51s doing ground attack. I read a remark by one pilot who flew P-47s in WWII and then F-51s in Korea and he said that every time he strapped into his Mustang he prayed for it to turn into a Thunderbolt.

Great quote. If doing ground attack, the P-47 was definitely a better choice as even the chief designer of the P-51 agreed. Unfortunately, in the late 40s/early 50s the AF was fixated on general nuclear war and the only missions seen for fighter aircraft during a nuclear war were air defense and bomber escort. The P-51 was arguably better at these two roles, so the P-47 was sacrificed. The AF then learned that it (still) had to do ground attack and the P-51 was the best of poor options.
 
In 1945 and later, the best P-47 is no worse in air defense than the best P-51, and P-47N can make longer range escort than P-51H.

Why not just cancel the Consolidated A-31 sooner? That was what was being made in the Nashville plant that became the eventual source of the P-38? Most of the production of the A-31 for the last year or more was "make work" to keep the plant busy so the work force remained intact. The Bell P-63 was in greater demand than the A-31.

Oh, I agree that it would've been a great thing for the Allied war effort if the P-38 is produced also from alternative source(s) (like P-47 and F4U, that started from 3 sources initially), and Nashville plant looks as a good start.
The P-63 was in no demand from USAF, they sent most of them to the SU, and token numbers to French. Having NAA and Allison installing a 2-stage V-1710 on the P-51 for trial in late 1942 would've hopefully convinced USAF to have such a fighter (if not the P-38) produced at Bell, rather than P-63.
 

jahenders

Banned
In 1945 and later, the best P-47 is no worse in air defense than the best P-51, and P-47N can make longer range escort than P-51H.

I wouldn't disagree with that, but it's not how the AF saw it. Part of the reason given was maintainability and supply of spare parts.

Obviously, if the P-51 was delayed (an additional) 4 months, its variants would likely also be delayed (or some cancelled). So, it's possible a delay would have led the AF to keep the P-47 instead of the P-51 for Korea
 
The supply of spare parts should'be been a non-issue for P-47, especially with the engine still in production, unlike the Packard Merlin :) There was one fighter that USAF quckly discarded after the ww2, the P-38.
I've read many times that reason why P-51 was used in Korea was beacause the manufacturer was at the West Coast - Inglewood, California. Hence in the Western part of the USA, USAF and ANG units were outfitted mostly, if not exclusively with P-51, and this is where from they were sent in Asia. Conversely, the P-47 was produced in the East, and most if not all units on the Eastern part of the USA were outfitted with it?
 
The supply of spare parts should'be been a non-issue for P-47, especially with the engine still in production, unlike the Packard Merlin :) There was one fighter that USAF quckly discarded after the ww2, the P-38.
I've read many times that reason why P-51 was used in Korea was beacause the manufacturer was at the West Coast - Inglewood, California. Hence in the Western part of the USA, USAF and ANG units were outfitted mostly, if not exclusively with P-51, and this is where from they were sent in Asia. Conversely, the P-47 was produced in the East, and most if not all units on the Eastern part of the USA were outfitted with it?

You may be right, I know the Michigan ANG had some F-47s. We also had F-51s in theater from the start I believe. I have an article on this somewhere, I'll have to dig it up.
 

jahenders

Banned
It's not entirely clear why, but the AF had about 5,300 of each in late 45. By 50 they were down to 577 F-47s and 907 F-51s and really only used the F-51s in Korea.

Following is the best data I could find, from https://sobchak.wordpress.com/2012/...t-use-the-f-47-thunderbolt-in-the-korean-war/

"With the Air Force’s post-war fighter aircraft functioning almost exclusively as bomber escorts and air defenders, the Mustang was the fighter of choice during the transition to an all-jet force. During World War II, the Mustang was the premier long-range bomber escort. The Thunderbolt was limited in the long-range escort role by its notorious thirst for fuel, although Republic engineers did develop the F-47N, a long-range version of the Thunderbolt designed to escort B-29s in the Pacific. The N-model could fly 800 miles on internal fuel and as much as 2000 miles with external tanks, but it achieved this with a high fuel bill. The F-47N was similar to earlier models of the Jug in fuel consumption, burning 100 gallons an hour when cruising and as much as 300 gallons per hour at full power. The Mustang burned 120 gallons per hour at full power and as little as 64 gallons per hour at lower settings. (21)

As for the air defense role, Thunderbolt chronicler Warren Bodie acknowledges that the Jug “never was a good interceptor.” (22) The F-47 could not boast a great rate of climb, though with wide paddle blades and engine power boosted with water injection, late-model F-47Ds could reach 20,000 feet in nine minutes. The F-47N took 14.2 minutes to reach 25,000 feet, while the F-51D climbed to 30,000 feet in 13 minutes. The F-47D had a top speed of 428 miles per hour at 30,000 feet compared to the F-51D’s 437 miles per hour at 25,000 feet. The F-47N was able to achieve an impressive 467 miles per hour, but the F-51H was faster still, with a top speed of 487 miles per hour. Thunderbolt pilots in World War II were able to defeat their opponents through teamwork and careful exploitation of the Jug’s strengths–especially its diving speed, zoom climbing ability, and heavy firepower. Maneuverability was less critical against lumbering bombers but the F-47 could not match the F-51’s all-around ability in air-to-air engagements against enemy fighters. An exceptional Thunderbolt pilot like Robert S. Johnson might claim he could beat a Mustang “anytime I wanted to, and I did, many times,” (23) but Jug pilots often lost to the more agile Mustangs in mock dogfights.

Years of lean budgets and the neglect of tactical air power meant that by 1950 there were simply not enough Thunderbolts and associated spare parts left to support long-term combat operations. During World War II, 15,683 Thunderbolts were produced–more than any other American fighter. Of this total, an estimated one third were destroyed in combat, a third were scrapped after the war, and the remaining third went into storage, served with the Air National Guard, or were sold to foreign governments. Late-model F-47Ds and F-47Ns remained in service with a few active-duty Air Force units until the late 1940s, and the Air National Guard did not retire its last Thunderbolts until 1955. When the Korean War began, there were 1,167 F-47s on hand, but most of these were in storage–only 265 Thunderbolts were active in ANG units and they were all considered second-line aircraft. (24) Additionally, the rapid demobilization after World War II affected the supply system and the availability of spares for the Thunderbolts throughout the post-war years. For instance, the 23rd Fighter Group stationed on Guam in 1947 had pilots who had not accumulated the required night time flying hours because their Jugs lacked functioning flight instruments. The group’s historian noted “the installation of these instruments is contemplated in the near future, depending of course, upon Tech Supply.” (25) Historian Kenneth P. Werrell was told the F-47 was not used in Korea primarily because of the lack of spare parts. (26)"​
 
I'm not sure where from is that fuel consumption for the Merlin Mustang drawn from. The data table for the P-51B-1 notes 194 gallons per hour (S/C in second gear) and 204 gph (S/C in 1st gear), war emergency power. Granted, the P-47D will consume 315 gph when making 2300 HP, war emergency. What P-47 lacked in 1943 was the wing drop tank facility.
As for fighter in intercepting role, the P-47 will bring an extra pair of Brownings to the fray (+33%) and 3400-4000 rds of ammo vs. 1750-1820 rds for the P-51D to H; P-51B/C was still weaker than this. Longer firing time comes also handy on long range missions.

table V-1650-3 P-51B.JPG
 

jahenders

Banned
I'm not sure where from is that fuel consumption for the Merlin Mustang drawn from. The data table for the P-51B-1 notes 194 gallons per hour (S/C in second gear) and 204 gph (S/C in 1st gear), war emergency power. Granted, the P-47D will consume 315 gph when making 2300 HP, war emergency. What P-47 lacked in 1943 was the wing drop tank facility.
As for fighter in intercepting role, the P-47 will bring an extra pair of Brownings to the fray (+33%) and 3400-4000 rds of ammo vs. 1750-1820 rds for the P-51D to H; P-51B/C was still weaker than this. Longer firing time comes also handy on long range missions.
View attachment 276502

Many considered the P-47 inferior to the P-51 in general "time to intercept" due to a longer time to reach altitude (F-47N 14.2 min to 25K feet; F-51D 13 min to 30K) and top speed (F-47N 467 mph, F-51H 487 mph). The P-51 was also generally considered more agile/maneuverable in air-to-air engagements against enemy fighters.
 
Many considered the P-47 inferior to the P-51 in general "time to intercept" due to a longer time to reach altitude (F-47N 14.2 min to 25K feet; F-51D 13 min to 30K) and top speed (F-47N 467 mph, F-51H 487 mph). The P-51 was also generally considered more agile/maneuverable in air-to-air engagements against enemy fighters.

Do they talk about maneuverability at specific altitudes. In Fire in the Sky, Bergerud claims the P-47 was quite nimble at high altitudes (like 25,000 feet) due to the raw power in the engine.
 
Top