P-47's in Korea

[michaelharadon]

Does anyone know why they weren't used in the ground attack role?

[mazdaP5]

Does anyone know why they weren't used in the ground attack role?

My understanding is that they were simply phased out of service in favor of the Mustang, having fewer types in service. Fewer parts, fewer types to know how to maintain etc.

[JohnB]

More to the point, there were simply more Mustangs (and trained Mustang squadrons) available....and as MazdaP5 says for logistics support, they only wanted one.

[daviemax]

This topic - in my experience and to my knowledge - has not been given careful research by anyone. Clearly there were a number of F-47's (as they had become) in AF and ANG service in 1950. The USAF still had some in inventory as evidenced by their use as atomic test targets and for transfer to foreign air forces. According to Arsenal of Air Power: USAF Inventory 1950-2009 by Ruehrmund and Bowie, a total of 577 F-47's were in use in 1950 - 79 in the regular AF and 477 in ANG units. This compares to 1,006 P-51's - 99 in regular AF and 907 in ANG units. Administratively both types would have had to be transferred back to regular AF units in order to serve in Korea. Since there were substantial numbers of F-47's available it appears quite mysterious why this obvious choice for ground attack was bypassed.

Hopefully other WIX-er's will have more information and perspective, but based on my B-17 research Arsenal of Airpower is a reasonably accurate reflection of the overall status of a given type, so the numbers presented should be considered factual.

Last edited by daviemax on Sun May 03, 2015 12:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[ALOHADAVE]

The topic has been researched. answered here>

"The F-47 was kept out of the Korean War for a variety of reasons, but the two most significant were the extreme budget limitations of the post-war years and the focus on strategic nuclear bombing."

link to the full report here
https://sobchak.wordpress.com/2012/04/24/article-why-the-u-s-air-force-did-not-use-the-f-47-thunderbolt-in-the-korean-war/

[daviemax]

Thanks very much AlohaDave. Nice article but I don't think this is the whole story. More to be done.

[Snake45]

I've often wondered this same thing myself.

Couple years ago I read a story by or about Dean Hess, who was asked the same question. IIRC he said that while the F-47 was tougher and could carry a bigger load, "There's no way I could have gotten into and out of the little valleys we had to work in a 47." (I'm paraphrasing here.) That was pretty eye-opening.

OTOH, the USN and USMC didn't seem to have much trouble doing good work with Corsairs and Skyraiders, both of which would seem to be more like 47s than 51s.

So, who knows?

[RyanShort1]

From a fuel standpoint wasn't the P-51 a lot less thirsty?

[Steve Nelson]

From what I've read, we had F-51s nearby in Japan, while all the F-47s were assigned to Stateside ANG units. The Mustangs were only used as a stopgap until the jets (F-80s and F-84s) could take over, which took about the same amount of time as it would have taken to get the Thunderbolts overseas and into combat.

SN

[daviemax]

From what I've read, we had F-51s nearby in Japan, while all the F-47s were assigned to Stateside ANG units. The Mustangs were only used as a stopgap until the jets (F-80s and F-84s) could take over, which took about the same amount of time as it would have taken to get the Thunderbolts overseas and into combat.

SN

[b]Reasonable theory but we need data. That is the core of my approach to this topic.

I think, as AlohaDave's post pointed out, that political, as well as material, forces were at work. The same AF that could keep B-17s and B-25s in service for years and years postwar could just as easily have kept P-47s in service. Yes, R-2800s used more fuel than V-1650s but in an age where the U.S. forces had the logistical power to fuel carrier battle groups and B-29 bombing raids the difference made by one fighter engine or another is relatively trivial. I think the answer lies in the depths of the politics within the USAF and real scholarship will be needed to reveal the true and full story.[b]

[Invader26]

The other reason is that P-51's were already stationed in Japan from where most early missions in Korea originated. You had a cadre of trained Mustang drivers and in addition the RAAF operated Mustangs in Japan/Korea joined by the SAAF. Jet's were the follow up USAF wise to the P-51 in theatre.

[quemerford]

According to the USAF Statistical Digest 5th Edition (FY49), the following USAF total of F-47s was:

31Mar49: 186 active/786 inactive
31Mar50: 79 active/758 inactive
30Jun50: 79 active/771 inactive.

So plenty of inactive (flyable reserve?) aircraft would have been available for service in Korea. Many WWII stored aircraft were brought back to flight status for Korea, so it does beg the question.

My thought is that these F-47s were slated for MAP nations and it was sensible to standardise on one interim type for service in Korea.

[ALOHADAVE]

Could and should have F-47s been activated and sent to Korea, Yes.
But also remember that at that time the conflict was not expected to last long.
The questions were what is available now? How soon can we get it there?
The F-47 was in its decline. The F-51 was available now, pilots loved the F-51, and the F-51 had other rolls as a bomber escort to fill until the jets arrived. Everybody at that time knew the jets were coming, so the initial reaction was stop gap filler using the F-51.
AlohaDave

[daviemax]

Could and should have F-47s been activated and sent to Korea, Yes.
But also remember that at that time the conflict was not expected to last long.
The questions were what is available now? How soon can we get it there?
The F-47 was in its decline. The F-51 was available now, pilots loved the F-51, and the F-51 had other rolls as a bomber escort to fill until the jets arrived. Everybody at that time knew the jets were coming, so the initial reaction was stop gap filler using the F-51.
AlohaDave

All reasonable points. It is easy to look at history in hindsight and see how different decisions could have/should have been made. There surely must have been voices in the command structure of the USAF that advocated for the F-47 to be deployed, and hopefully the archives will show the detail of that once properly researched. My theory is that Pentagon procurement politics played an active role in the decision to not send F-47's to Korea. But that has to be proven.