# Your Favorite Attack Aircraft of WW2, all sides welcome



## MacArther (Oct 26, 2005)

Which ones do you guys like? I personally favor the Dautless and the B25H. Gotta love the 8 50s in the nose ALONG with the 75mm cannon. Tell your reasons no matter what you chose.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 26, 2005)

You know, I have no idea! Id love to say HS-123, I love it, but I like all attack planes...aahhh!


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 26, 2005)

It is a hard choice, I like the Typhoon, the Mossie, the JU-88, the Havoc, the HS-129 and the IL-2. However I will say HS-129.


----------



## MacArther (Oct 26, 2005)

ey, CC, you admins need any help with anything???


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 26, 2005)

I went for Hs-123 in the end 8)


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 26, 2005)

HS-129 looks meaner.


----------



## JCS (Oct 26, 2005)

My favorites are the Ju87G, Il2 and, Hs129. I ended up voting for the Il2 in the poll


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 26, 2005)

MacArther said:


> ey, CC, you admins need any help with anything???



Nope we're coping...No offence but if we were looking for new staff members wed knock on the door of more senior members first...Offer appreciated though... (Hope im not jumping th gun  )


Maybe Gnomey, but the Hs-123 was the forerunner of the Stuka and introduced the whole dive bombing concept (In Germany at least) plus I love the later types of biplanes.


----------



## MacArther (Oct 26, 2005)

Eh, hard subject to choose between all those cool planes.


----------



## mosquitoman (Oct 26, 2005)

Has to be the Mossie MkXVIII
It's got a 57mm anti-tank gun in the nose! Along with 4x.303 and a bomb bay that can carry a cookie


----------



## Erich (Oct 26, 2005)

now you've got me looking CC  the Hs 123 and this is right off the top of my head served in the night ground attack role over the Ost front till wars end with sub nachtschlact gruppen


----------



## Glider (Oct 26, 2005)

I have always liked the Boston. No specific reason but it was one of the first US aircraft to be used in any numbers from quite early on in the war. It was still effective up to the end, was used in all theaters and was never found wanting. Despite this it doesn't often get the credit it deserves.


----------



## syscom3 (Oct 26, 2005)

B25 strafer without the 75mm cannon.

For single engine, I suppose the Typhoon is a good pick.


----------



## book1182 (Oct 26, 2005)

No question about it. The typhoon is the best of them all. Not only did it care cannons but could also care a very heavy bomb or rockets. I think it is also the best of them all because it could also defend itself if it had to.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Oct 26, 2005)

Typhoon for me  

4x 20mm Hispanos

2000lb bombload

8 60lb SAPHE single rockets or 4 sets of paired rockets.

It probably wasn't as versatile as the P-38 and it didn't have the load carring capacity of the F4U-4, but it was fast down low, rugged in attack and looks more menacing than any other strike aircraft out there.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 26, 2005)

B-25 WITH A 75! Typhoon for a single engine!


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Oct 26, 2005)

And why isn't the P47 Jug on there?

I also think the Ju88 with it's 75mm is a contender as is the FW190.

Weren't radial Tempests used in ground attack sometimes?


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 26, 2005)

Since the Fw-190A isnt on the poll, I voted for the Ju-87G.... I just adore those 37mm....... Even if Rudel only actually scored 50% of what he claimed destroyed, he still destroyed over 250 Russian Tanks..


----------



## Jabberwocky (Oct 26, 2005)

schwarzpanzer said:


> And why isn't the P47 Jug on there?
> 
> I also think the Ju88 with it's 75mm is a contender as is the FW190.
> 
> Weren't radial Tempests used in ground attack sometimes?



Tempest doesn't have a radial engine. The Sabre was a 24 cylinder H-form engine. Visualize it as 2 horizontally opposed 12 cylinder engines (each with 6 cylinders on each side of the crankshafts) one above the other, with the crankshafts coupled together through gear reduction onto a common propeller shaft.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 26, 2005)

The Il-2 was basically the A-10 of its day, heavily armed and armored it could carry a nice payload as well.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 26, 2005)

Wasnt the Dauntless a Torpedo Bomber or am I thinking of a different USN aircraft?


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 26, 2005)

I would have Voted for the Stuka but the IL 2 could do the same things but it was faster and better protected.


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 26, 2005)

> Wasnt the Dauntless a Torpedo Bomber or am I thinking of a different USN aircraft?


Different.... Dauntless was the Navy Divebomber....


> I would have Voted for the Stuka but the IL 2 could do the same things but it was faster and better protected.


Yup, but this isnt best, this is favorite.... I like the look of those 2 cannon hangin under the wings, and the sound they make...


----------



## Wildcat (Oct 26, 2005)

Dauntless was a dive bomber, Devestator was a torpedo bomber.

My favourite is the Beaufighter! Had a shit load of cannon, machine guns and could carry rockets, bombs and torpedoes. The Japs gave it the nick name of "whispering death".


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Oct 27, 2005)

Sorry to be pedantic, but it was Silent death actually, my grandad loved that plane.

It had silent sleeve-valve engines, though so do did others in WW2.




Jabberwocky said:


> Tempest doesn't have a radial engine. The Sabre was a 24 cylinder H-form engine.



I'll try again... was it the Napier?

It may have been the Typhoon?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 27, 2005)

Erich said:


> now you've got me looking CC  the Hs 123 and this is right off the top of my head served in the night ground attack role over the Ost front till wars end with sub nachtschlact gruppen



Interesting! I always though it was phased out in '43 in North Africa, but staying till wars end wouldnt surprise me, it was an effective platform...



Jabberwocky said:


> Tempest doesn't have a radial engine. The Sabre was a 24 cylinder H-form engine. Visualize it as 2 horizontally opposed 12 cylinder engines (each with 6 cylinders on each side of the crankshafts) one above the other, with the crankshafts coupled together through gear reduction onto a common propeller shaft.



The Tempest II had a radial but that didnt see service till post war...


----------



## wmaxt (Oct 27, 2005)

It's a hard call but a B-25 with

8 - .50s in the nose
4 - .50s outside the cockpit
2 - .50s in the top turret 
All slaved to the pilot AND

3,000lbs of bombs.

At the very least I don't want to be in front of it!

wmaxt


----------



## MacArther (Oct 27, 2005)

yes, and dont forget the optional 75mm, all this added up to a world of hurt for the people on the wrong side of the gun barrels.


----------



## wmaxt (Oct 27, 2005)

MacArther said:


> yes, and dont forget the optional 75mm, all this added up to a world of hurt for the people on the wrong side of the gun barrels.



The 75 was another matter, my uncle once told me they had to tighten the rivets in the planes with the 75s every 18/20 sorties. They also didn't have much of a firing rate or much amo - I think I'd rather have the .50s.

BTW: there is an H model in the New England Muesum of Flight at Bradly Int. Airport.

wmaxt


----------



## P38 Pilot (Oct 27, 2005)

I voted for the B-25. Although the proper name is A-25. I like with the 75mm gun on including the pilot controllable 8 .50 calibers in the nose!

That could tear some ass....


----------



## wmaxt (Oct 27, 2005)

P38 Pilot said:


> I voted for the B-25. Although the proper name is A-25. I like with the 75mm gun on including the pilot controllable 8 .50 calibers in the nose!
> 
> That could tear some ass....



I don't belive the B-25 gunships ever changed their desigination - partialy because the normaly retained full use of their bombay.

The 75, 6 gun and 8 gun (in the nose) retained the cheek guns so they had a lot of firepower. 

I read once that there is at least 1 B-25 pilot that is an ace by shooting down 5 Japanese aircraft in the air.  

wmaxt


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 27, 2005)

It wasn't the only one with a 75 in the nose. The HS-129 had one fitted aswell amoung others...


----------



## book1182 (Oct 27, 2005)

I like your idea with the 75mm gun on the B-25 but why are you also forgetting that the Boston/Havoc also carried one and preformed the same roll in the pacific as the B-25.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 28, 2005)

There was two different planes the B-25 Maurader and the A-20.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 28, 2005)

mmmm, favourite attack plane, i'd proberly say mossie or tiffy.........


----------



## book1182 (Oct 28, 2005)

102first_hussars said:


> There was two different planes the B-25 Maurader and the A-20.



You mean the B-26 Maurader or the B-25 Mittchel??? The Maurader was used more in ETO as a medium bomber. I was pointing out that the A-20 should also be considered just as good as the B-25 if they were basing it on the 75mm gun that it carried; since they both did.


----------



## wmaxt (Oct 28, 2005)

book1182 said:


> 102first_hussars said:
> 
> 
> > There was two different planes the B-25 Maurader and the A-20.
> ...



The 75s were more numerous and successful in the B-25s, which had factory installations, I belive. Without auto load the 75 really wasn't that practicle in a plane anyway, thats why the later planes like the A-26 went back to the guns.

wmaxt


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 28, 2005)

book1182 said:


> 102first_hussars said:
> 
> 
> > There was two different planes the B-25 Maurader and the A-20.
> ...



Yeah my error I was just pointinng out another error about someone saying that the B-25 and the A-20 were the same plane.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Oct 28, 2005)

> read once that there is at least 1 B-25 pilot that is an ace by shooting down 5 Japanese aircraft in the air.


Wow! It takes skill for a pilot in a medium bomber to shoot down 5 jap planes.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 28, 2005)

If theyre fighters, then it is remarkable! 8) I suspect that they were probably bombers and suchlike though.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Oct 28, 2005)

Yeah! A bomber doesnt have the manuveriblilty or accuracy that a fighter has and when bringing down fighters, thats one hell of a pilot!


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 29, 2005)

I love the Typhoon they made a name for themselves during the Normandy landings.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 29, 2005)

whereas the mossie made a name for itself just about everywhere.......


----------



## P38 Pilot (Oct 29, 2005)

If the B-25 wasnt up there, i would have voted for the Mossie. She was a very elegant aircraft that packed a punch!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 29, 2005)

So was the Hs-123...


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 29, 2005)

and the HS-129  ........


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 29, 2005)

and the mossie  .......


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 29, 2005)

and the JU-88  ...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 29, 2005)

and the...ummm... tiffy  ...............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 29, 2005)

And the P.108A


----------



## 102first_hussars (Oct 29, 2005)

And Mackenzie King and Churchhills Drinking Problem.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 30, 2005)

no...just no.....


and if CC get's the P.108A i get the lanc!


----------



## plan_D (Oct 30, 2005)

I voted Mosquito because the term 'attack' can be spread among many air-to-ground assault missions and the Mosquito did them all. From anti-tank to anti-ship, from anti-submarine to anti-factory the Mosquito did them all, and not only that, it did them all well if not the best. 

And I believe dive-bombing was introduced in Germany by an American aircraft the F2F? Someone feel free to correct me, but I believe it was Udet that performed an aerial display in a Grumman F2F which convinced Hitler and the Luftwaffe staff of the possibilities of dive bombing. Now that is being technical, although I believe several different aircraft carried on the doctrine into the Spanish Civil War. 

And the Beaufighter was nicknamed "Whispering Death" like wmaxt said, not "Silent Death" as schwarz stated.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Oct 30, 2005)

> and if CC get's the P.108A i get the lanc!


Well if you guys do that then i get the P-38L Lightning or the B-25!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 30, 2005)

But the difference is that the P-38L, B-25 and P.108A were attack aircraft...the Lancaster was a heavy bomber...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 30, 2005)

hey, she went on fast, low level accurate strikes


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 30, 2005)

But its didnt have big ass guns or rockets


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 30, 2005)

May not have big ass guns but it still had a big ass...


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Oct 30, 2005)

*PlanD:*



> I voted Mosquito because the term 'attack' can be spread among many air-to-ground assault missions and the Mosquito did them all. From anti-tank to anti-ship, from anti-submarine to anti-factory the Mosquito did them all, and not only that, it did them all well if not the best.



Good point, but didn't the Ju88 do the same? Didn't they suffer from being a 'Jack of all trades'?



> And I believe dive-bombing was introduced in Germany by an American aircraft the F2F? Someone feel free to correct me, but I believe it was Udet that performed an aerial display in a Grumman F2F which convinced Hitler and the Luftwaffe staff of the possibilities of dive bombing.



Sounds familiar.



> And the Beaufighter was nicknamed "Whispering Death" like wmaxt said, not "Silent Death" as schwarz stated.



My grandad was there PlanD, his buddies and captured Japs called it silent death, that's why I got a little shirty, sorry.  

It may have been called whispering death also, but I reckon that's post WW2?


A question; What ammo did the Mosquito's 57mm use?

(Ju87 used precious tungsten in it's APCR)


----------



## plan_D (Oct 30, 2005)

No, it was during the war, the Beaufighter was nicknamed "Whispering Death" - there's even a book called *Whispering Death* who was a navigator in the Beaufighter. I think he would know. 

The Ju-88 was as, if not more, versatile as the Mosquito. They were both good at all the jobs they did. The Mosquito being the most precise medium bomber of the war, an effective maritime attack aircraft, most successful night-fighter, second most useful PR platform (behind the Spitfire) amongst many other things. The Mosquito was one of the finest aircraft of the war without a doubt. 

Ask yourself that question. Do you think the Ju-88 or Mosquito suffered? Do you think they couldn't do the jobs required of them? Do you think they were hampered in anyway? Or do you think they were extremely useful, versatile and pivotal for the sides they fought for?


----------



## Sal Monella (Oct 31, 2005)

How can you forget to include the Douglas A-26 Invader?

16 forward firing .50 caliber machine guns. Eight in the nose, six in the wings and two in the dorsal turret. Plus an internal bombay that can carry 4,000lbs of bombs and the ability to carry another 2,000lbs under the wings.

That's a BADASS airplane.


----------



## trackend (Oct 31, 2005)

I still like the Tiff but the Beufighter is close


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 31, 2005)

Nice clip Track! Love the sound of those engines!


----------



## trackend (Oct 31, 2005)

Cheers FBJ I have managed to get hold of some various clips so I shall post em on my thread.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 31, 2005)

Super!! Nothing like a little Napier in the morning!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 31, 2005)

Gnomey said:


> May not have big ass guns but it still had a big ass...



hey


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 31, 2005)

What the truth can't hurt.

Cool video Lee!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 31, 2005)

where's the big ass on the lanc?


----------



## Gnomey (Oct 31, 2005)

In the rear? It is not small anyway.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 31, 2005)

Now from that angle we have a good looking plane...


----------



## Aggie08 (Nov 2, 2005)

> I read once that there is at least 1 B-25 pilot that is an ace by shooting down 5 Japanese aircraft in the air.



Holy crap, imagine having all that firepower aimed at you... bet that they didn't have any idea what hit them. Fragile anyways, and I guess anything is considered fragile when eleventy billion .50's are firin on ya!


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 2, 2005)

> Now from that angle we have a good looking plane...


Thats right, Lanc, u just got one....


----------



## Erich (Nov 2, 2005)

ah testing a special, new insulated pair of Buddist underwear..........nice and thick for the chilly winter morning sitting on the hard cold floors in the temple.

ah student note that I have the iron balls


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 2, 2005)

the lanc's beautiful from all angles!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 2, 2005)

Unless you can see the nose...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 3, 2005)

the nose is one of the most beautiful parts!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 3, 2005)

In the same way that the arse is one of the elephants more beautiful parts....


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 3, 2005)

Damn....


----------



## Erich (Nov 3, 2005)

Lanc I was thinking that Gnomeys wonderful lancaster shot typlified what my siggy's crew would of loved to have seen on a dark night ....... 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 4, 2005)

hey  

and just look at how graceful she is!


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 4, 2005)

That last shot is just what a Luftwaffe Night Fighter pilot would want to see...
One lanc down.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 4, 2005)

Nice pic there Gnomey! 8)


----------



## NAVAIR (Nov 5, 2005)

There's a lot of viable candidates that didn't make the list, probably because some were not dedicated attack aircraft. Here's a few with some load-outs (not all combinations are listed).

A-26: Up to 6,000 lb of bombs.
P-47D/N: 2,500 lb of bombs, plus ten 5" rockets.
F4U-1/4: Up to 4,000 lb of bombs (only when operating from shore bases), although the usual load would be 2,000 lb plus six 5" rockets.
P-38L: Up to 4,000 lb of bombs or 2,000 lb and ten 5" rockets.
P-51D: 2,000 lb and six 5" rockets.
F6F-5: A maximum of 3,000 lb when centerline rack was used. Normally 2,000 lb and six 5" rockets.
Fw 190F series: As much as 1,800 kilos, or one 1,000 kilo and four 50 kilo bombs on wing racks. Could also carry air-to-ground rockets.
Bf 110G: Two 500 kilo bombs and four 50 kilo bombs.
SB2C: 2,000 lb, with 1,000 lb internally, 1,000 lb under wings.
TBM-3: 2,000 lb internally and six 5" rockets.
Pe-2: 1,000 kilos.

If we examine the Typhoon Ib, we see it can carry 2,000 lb of bombs OR eight 6" rockets. That's substantially less than the P-47D-30 or the P-38L. F4Us were so effective in the attack role that the type was still flying combat missions with the USN ten years after its introduction.

If it were included in the poll, I'd have voted for the F4U-4. Not only was it one of the very best attack aircraft of the war, it was also one of the best air-to-air propeller driven fighters ever built, with unmatched versatility. Only a few fighters were faster, fewer still could out-climb it or match its acceleration. None deemed as competitors could operate from sea and land.

My regards,

Navair


----------



## P38 Pilot (Nov 5, 2005)

> P-38L: Up to 4,000 lb of bombs or 2,000 lb and ten 5" rockets.


That's my bird there!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 5, 2005)

Except it was 5,200lbs as a max.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Nov 5, 2005)

I know, but the P-38L could put a world of hurt on the enemy!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 5, 2005)

Hell yeah


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 5, 2005)

Or some 14 rockets..Or a couple of torps...


----------



## trackend (Nov 5, 2005)

That looks incredible with all those rockets racked up what a punch from a relatively small aircraft


----------



## mosquitoman (Nov 5, 2005)

You're forgetting 2 planes in that lot
deHavilland Mosquito FBVI: 4x20mm cannon, up to 4,000lbs of bombs in the bomb bay and either 8 rockets or 1,000lbs of bombs on the wings
Bristol Beaufighter MkVIc: 4x20mm cannon, 6x 0.303 machine guns and either a torpedo, 8 rockets or 1,000 pounds of bombs


----------



## plan_D (Nov 5, 2005)

Why no British aircraft in that list, NAVAIR? You mention the P-51D as a contender yet try to pass off the Typhoon IB as inferior because extra loading is less than the P-38 and P-47. Why would the P-51D be above an aircraft than can carry more equipment plus four 20mm cannon, did you forget about them?

And no Mosquito? Which could carry a whole host of equipment, more than most of those you listed. Again, while having four 20mm cannon. 

And then there's the Hurricane IID which with it's two Vickers-S 40mm cannon packed more than enough punch as a ground attack aircraft. 

When we examine the Typhoon IB, NAVAIR, we find it can carry eight "6 rockets, fire them off and still be capable of destroying most of the armour and support of the Wehrmacht with it's four 20s ...while being a more than capable fighter on the low.


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 5, 2005)

Valid points right there...


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 5, 2005)

Good points pD and nice pics CC.


----------



## MacArther (Nov 6, 2005)

This has definately been my most successful forum thingi to date (mind just relapsed into forgetfullness mode). As for the attack subject, yeah, I did leave some out, but mostly because I was looking for ATTACK planes, *not* fighter-bombers.


----------



## plan_D (Nov 6, 2005)

So, if a fighter-bomber isn't an attack plane, what aircraft were attack? Only those with *A*ttack prefix?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 6, 2005)

trackend said:


> That looks incredible with all those rockets racked up what a punch from a relatively small aircraft



Yes it does, but the 14 rocket slvo was never actually used in combat, the 10 rocket "Christmas Tree" format was more common.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 6, 2005)

Well I would go with the Me-262A-2 Sturmvogel, A-26 Invader, or the Typhoon.


----------



## wmaxt (Nov 6, 2005)

NAVAIR said:


> If it were included in the poll, I'd have voted for the F4U-4. Not only was it one of the very best attack aircraft of the war, it was also one of the best air-to-air propeller driven fighters ever built, with unmatched versatility. Only a few fighters were faster, fewer still could out-climb it or match its acceleration. None deemed as competitors could operate from sea and land.
> 
> My regards,
> 
> Navair



I will stick with the P-38L I feel it was a little more versatile Compared to the F4U-4 it was also

Able to match it in a climb
Accelerated faster.
Carried as much
With differential Throttls very close in maneuverability
About 3 miles an hour slower
Much greater range 
Was more controlable at the edges of the flight envelope

I feel mission would be the deciding factor of which aircraft to use, their capabilities were so close and each had an advantage or two over the other.

I also felt that planes like the A-20 and B-25 are more appropriate in this forum as they were more often dedicated in this role and were more effective even if the differences were not that great. A P-38 or F4U with 3,000/4,000lbs (or more) of bombs and the guns is still quite effective at ground attack.

PlanD,

The Mossie is up there for choosing, but I think most people decided like I did that this was for the more dedicated attack planes.

wmaxt


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 6, 2005)

I agree with you, between the P-38 and the F4U-4 I would go with the P-38. In my opinion more versatile also in the ground attack role.


----------



## plan_D (Nov 6, 2005)

And what makes the P-38 and F4U more dedicated than the Mosquito? They are both fighters used as attack aircraft, the Mosquito was a bomber used as an attack aircraft.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 7, 2005)

yeah the mossie is more of an attack aircraft than the P-38 and F4U, the P-38 and F4U are, as pD said, fighters used in the attack role, they're not dedicated, purpose built attack aircraft..........


----------



## MacArther (Nov 7, 2005)

Which is what I mean when I say "*Purpose built*" aircraft. I agree that there were some great fighters used in the support role, _but_ they were fighter-*bombers*. The attack aircraft were usually designed to do their job specifically after their capabilities had been discovered, or needed. Case and point, the JU-87 definately is not a fighter, as it really cant hope to survive long in a dog fight. By the same token, it is also not a level bomber meant to spend time over a target area, but rather smaller and harder targets. Its a given that some of the attack aircraft (such as the B25 and the Mossie) were originally meant for different tasks, but once their abilities in the fighter bomber role were realized, there was pretty much no turning back. Once again, they still did opperate the recon and bomber Mossies and the Bomber B25s, but on a much lower scale than the attack aircraft versions (at least that is my impression).


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 7, 2005)

I agree, I like the P-38 better. But we do not need to get into this discussion again. It will just drag out.


----------



## wmaxt (Nov 7, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> yeah the mossie is more of an attack aircraft than the P-38 and F4U, the P-38 and F4U are, as pD said, fighters used in the attack role, they're not dedicated, purpose built attack aircraft..........



I adderssed two points there, the first was that the P-38 was every bit as, if not more capable than the F4U.

The second was that the Fighter/bombers didn't fit here because, in my opinion, they were not as dedicated to the attack roll as say the B-25.

The Mossie is on the list but it was really more of a light bomber, photo/reece, or path finder/night fighter whereas planes like the B-25 or esp the A-26 were most/all used as low level strafing/ground attack. The attack planes had more firepower forward than other aircraft used for similar roles. 

wmaxt


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 8, 2005)

> the first was that the P-38 was every bit as, if not more capable than the F4U.



when did i say it wasn't?


----------



## MacArther (Nov 9, 2005)

Hey, can anyone get a picture of a B25 doing a strafing run on enemy ships or fortifications? One with the 75mm doing damage would be the cream of the crop! Still, I'll settle for the normal pics of the .50 tracers ripping into an enemy frieghter.


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 9, 2005)

Dude, try searching our Picture database... Theres loads of em...


----------



## NAVAIR (Nov 9, 2005)

plan_D said:


> Why no British aircraft in that list, NAVAIR? You mention the P-51D as a contender yet try to pass off the Typhoon IB as inferior because extra loading is less than the P-38 and P-47. Why would the P-51D be above an aircraft than can carry more equipment plus four 20mm cannon, did you forget about them?
> 
> And no Mosquito? Which could carry a whole host of equipment, more than most of those you listed. Again, while having four 20mm cannon.
> 
> ...



20mm Hispanos will not kill tanks... Especially with explosive rounds. After the rockets are fired (which were wildly inaccurate), only soft targets were at risk. And those were at risk from .50 cal too. The big tank killers were aerial bombs, but even those had to land within several feet of a tank to disable it. Analysis of abandoned German armor showed that very few were disabled by aerial gunnery. There was a lot of wishful thinking, but the reality was that tanks were largely immune to 20mm gunfire. They suffered damage to external fittings and equipment, but the armor was not penetrated on any of the medium tanks and assault guns inspected.

The Typhoon was considered a failure as a fighter. Considering that the original Ministry specification called for an interceptor... It was fast down low, but suffered from poor climb rate, and miserable performance at medium altitudes, and got worse as it went higher. Maneuerability was so-so, with a very poor rate of roll and only average turn radius. Even though the Typhoon's rear fuselage was reinforced after several catastrophic failures, it was still viewed as weak under heavy loads. Sidney Camm's facination with thick airfoils produced a fighter with a very low critical Mach limit, one didn't dare dive from high altitudes in a Tiffie. It found its nitch as a bomb truck. It was an excellent attack fighter, but limited in how much ordnance it could carry. Nearly every design flaw of the Typhoon was fixed by the Tempest. Although the Tempest was still a bit of a dog up high. One thing not improved was the highly vulnerable radiator location. 

As to comparing the P-51 to the Typhoon... The P-51 could do what the Typhoon could do and do it for three times as long. It had tremendous loiter time. Tiffies burned gas like Hawker owned stock in British Petroleum. 

Compare ordnance loads.

P-51D: Two 1,000 lb bombs AND six 5 inch HVAR rockets. 2,080 rounds of .50 cal API.
Typhoon: Two 1,000 lb bombs OR eight 6" rockets. 578 rounds of 20mm.

Both were liquid cooled and thus more vulnerable to ground fire than the P-47. As fighters there's no comparison. The P-51D was superior in virtually every area of measured performance, although the Tiffie was about 5 mph faster on the deck.

Don't underestimate the P-47. More than any other fighter, it was the P-47 that crushed the Luftwaffe in the ETO. The P-38 bloodied their nose, the P-51 kicked dirt on the corpse, but the P-47 killed off the experts, and left the Luftwaffe badly depleted. As the Mustang took over most of the escort duties in middle 1944, the P-47s excelled at taking the fight down to ground level. There were a lot more squadrons flying the Jug than flying the Typhoon. P-47s served in large numbers in every theater of the war, from France to Italy, to the SWPA and PTO to China.

By the way, the late mark Spitfires performed well supporting the ground war. Granted, only 1,000 lb of bombs could be carried, but the Spits were far better air to air than the Typhoon, thus they could hit the enemy targets and then utterly control the air space over the battlefield. As an air superiority fighter, few aircraft were in the same league as the Spit XIV. Personally, my favorite is the clipped-wing Spit XII.

I didn't list the Mosquito because it was included in the poll list. Great aircraft. Very effective if not intercepted. Was probably the best anti-shipping type in the ETO/MTO. Beaufighters were also very effective. Even the USAAF used them. However, they were not very able to defend themselves, whereas the fighter types could switch from attack to air superiority instantly. Nonetheless, I would take the Mossie over the B-25 any day.

Now, the Hurricane Mk.IID was effective in the North African desert against 1941-42 armor and transport. However, it was a pig. Slow, poor climber and very limited ammo load. Almost defenseless when not provided with fighter cover. No provision for external ordnance. Sorry, but the Hurri IID wouldn't make the cut for the Junior Varsity team, much less the big leagues. It was purely a stop-gap airplane, and adaptation of an otherwise obsolete aircraft.

By the end of the war, the USN had removed many of the attack squadrons from carriers and replaced them with fighters. They did this because the fighters were capable of hauling as much ordnance and dropping it with equal precision. Moreover, once the ordnance was delivered you had a first rate fighter able to beat off the enemy. Even the USAAF recognized that light attack was best handled by fighters. The only new, non-fighters added to the Navy's inventory immediately after the war were the Douglas Skyraider and the Martin Mauler, both dedicated attack aircraft, modeled more on fighters than on dive bombers or torpedo bombers. F4Us were still the primary attack plane when the Korean War broke out, while the F-51D filled the same role for the Air Force. Both were replaced by new jet types, but were still effective right until their replacements arrived.

To conclude; the Typhoon was an excellent attack fighter. However, it could do nothing that the P-38L, P-47D, P-47N, P-51D, Fw 190F-8, F6F-5, F4U-1C, F4U-1D and F4U-4 could do, and all save the Focke Wulf were superior as fighters to boot. Now, if you want to talk about the Tempest Mk.V, then you have a solid basis for argument. 

My regards,

Navair


----------



## Jabberwocky (Nov 10, 2005)

The Typhoon was considered a failure in its INITIAL role; that of a fast, high altitude bomber interceptor and destroyer. However, despite the fact that it failed to meet its design brief, the RAF couldn't ignor the potential of a fighter that could crack 400 mph below 20,000 feet. The idea that the Tyffie went from failed fighter to ground attack fighter is simpified n the extreeme. It actually enjoyed a very sucessful period in 1943 when it was used according to its strenghts of speed and firepower.

It found sucess as a low level fighter by late 1942 , once Napier fixed the reliability problems in the Sabre. It was the only British fightere which could meet the Fw-190 on even terms at low altitude. Pilots like Johnny Baldwin were sucessful above 20,000 feet in the Typhoon, but this was the exception not the rule.

The Typhoon was less of a sucess than it should of been because it was casting about for a mission in the 1941- mid 42 period. The RAF should of used it as a low level fast intruder and fighter, as many of the squadron commanders wanted. Instead, it was dispersed all over the UK to defend against 'tip and run' attacks by low level Fw-190s.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 10, 2005)

NAVAIR said:


> The Typhoon was considered a failure as a fighter.
> As to comparing the P-51 to the Typhoon... The P-51 could do what the Typhoon could do and do it for three times as long. It had tremendous loiter time. Tiffies burned gas like Hawker owned stock in British Petroleum.



Who cares this is about Attack Aircraft. No where did the title of the thread say anything about *The Best Fighter Aircraft of WW2.*


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 10, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> NAVAIR said:
> 
> 
> > The Typhoon was considered a failure as a fighter.
> ...


----------



## plan_D (Nov 10, 2005)

'nuff said ... Thanks, lads.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 11, 2005)

Anytime.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 11, 2005)

Navair said:


> Now, the Hurricane Mk.IID was effective in the North African desert against 1941-42 armor and transport. However, it was a pig. Slow, poor climber and very limited ammo load. Almost defenseless when not provided with fighter cover. No provision for external ordnance. Sorry, but the Hurri IID wouldn't make the cut for the Junior Varsity team, much less the big leagues. It was purely a stop-gap airplane, and adaptation of an otherwise obsolete aircraft.



The Primary function of the IID was, as you're aware, to tank bust, she did not have to be brilliantly nimble as fighter escort could be provided, no, she couldn't carry external ordinance, with two 40mm cannon you don't need it, two 40mm cannon were ripping open german armour like they were sardine cans, you say she has a low ammo count, compare her with the P-47 for example, the .50cals with do nothing against tanks so we can rule those out, as you said the rockets are very innacurate so we can rule allot of those out, leaving you 2x1,000lb bombs, now, assuming you kill one tank with each bomb which is in itself quite unlikely, you've killed two tanks on your sortie, the IID's 40mm had 15 rpg, say you use 3 rpg to kill one tank (relitively slow ROF and you have .303s to assist aiming) that's 5 tanks in your sortie (again assuming maximum kills), to me, that's the better attack aircraft, this thread is for attack aircraft, the ability to fight your way home makes it a fighter-bomber, attack aircraft are designed to be used with fighter cover...........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 11, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> with two 40mm cannon you don't need it, two 40mm cannon were ripping open german armour like they were sardine cans



Do you wish to specify which armour? I doubt they would do much against a Panther, Tiger, or King Tiger.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Nov 11, 2005)

The penetration figures for the Vickers S gun on the Hurricane IID and IV are a little hazy. 50-55mm penteration is the figure given in some British documents, but neither range nor striking angle are noted. If we take this as the figure for a 90 degree strike, then a 60 degree angle of impact will reslt in about 40 mm and a 30 degree angle strike should give about 20mm penetration. You have to add a little more because of aircraft foward motion obviously, but it would be no more than a few mms at most.

Say you set you Hurricane in a shalow 10-20 degree diving attack at 450 kph (280 mph) on the rear quarter of a German tank, firing rounds from about 400-500m out. The Vickers S class fired at about 100 rpm, so the plane travels about 125 m between each shot. That gives you time for 3 shots (375 m traveled) . Converegence would have to be set somewhere in the middle distance (250-300m) for the majority of shots to be effective.

Armour thicknesses for various German tanks are as follows (taken from the achtungpanzer website):

P III Ausf N

Top; 10mm turret, 16mm upper hull top, 18mm lower hull top
Rear; 30mm turret, Rear upper/rear lower 17mm

P IV Ausf G

Top; 10mm turret, 12mm upper hull top, 10mm lower hull top 
Rear; 30mm turret, Rear upper 20mm, rear lower 20mm

P V 

Top; 16mm turret, 40mm upper hull top, 30mm lower hull top
Rear; 45mm turret, 40mm lower hull

P VI 

Top; 25mm turret, 25mm upper and lower hull
Rear; 80mm rear turret and hull


So if we take a figure of 40mm (60 degree angle of impact) as a rough guide to the penetration capabilities of the 40mm S class, then all German tanks are vulnerable to attack on the upper turret and hull surfaces, with the exception of the Panther in some areas, which has thicker upper hull surfaces.

Attacks from the rear quarter would easily destroy a P III or P IV, but have a little more trouble with the rear armour of the Panther and be ineffective against the Tiger. The Tiger is invulnerable to rear quater attacks, while the Panther would require either point blank or vertical shots to overcome the 40-45mm of armour on the rear deck. 

Still, attacks from the air with a Hurricance armed with 40mms stands a reasonable chance of penetrating the armour of any tank, given a shot in the right place.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 12, 2005)

Yes but not like butter.


----------



## NAVAIR (Nov 12, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> NAVAIR said:
> 
> 
> > The Typhoon was considered a failure as a fighter.
> ...



If you have a comment within the context of my post, that's fine. But, cutting and pasting to distort the context isn't.

Loiter time over the battlefield is of great importance. P-51s had 3 times the on-station time of the Typhoon. That means that they can be positioned to respond to enemy ground movement much faster.

My regards,

Navair


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 12, 2005)

NAVAIR said:


> DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
> 
> 
> > NAVAIR said:
> ...



Although used as a ground attack aircraft in WW2 and Korea, I knew pilots who flew in both conflicts and they didn't have high regards of the Mustang in that role due to vulnerability to ground fire. Mike Alva (Col. USAF Ret.) told me when his unit started conducting sweeps in the Mustang he lost half his squadron...

I had a college instructor who flew the -51 in Korea; he said the same thing and preferred the F-80


----------



## NAVAIR (Nov 12, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> Navair said:
> 
> 
> > Now, the Hurricane Mk.IID was effective in the North African desert against 1941-42 armor and transport. However, it was a pig. Slow, poor climber and very limited ammo load. Almost defenseless when not provided with fighter cover. No provision for external ordnance. Sorry, but the Hurri IID wouldn't make the cut for the Junior Varsity team, much less the big leagues. It was purely a stop-gap airplane, and adaptation of an otherwise obsolete aircraft.
> ...



You have pidgeon-holed the role of attack aircraft as tank busting. That was a minor part of the overall function. Attack means much more than that. It includes interdiction of supplies and material. It includes disrupting rear echelon. It includes attacking command and control. It includes dislodging ground troops. It includes isolating enemy groups and formations. It includes destroying motor and rail transport. It also includes other important facets. When we look at the Hurricane Mk.IID, we see that it is of limited utility. Moreover, the tripleA defenses of the Africa Corps were miniscule compared to what the Germans could field in the summer of 1944.

So, if bolting on a pair of Vickers guns makes a fighter into an attack plane, then hanging bombs and rockets on a fighter does too. However, bombs and rockets allow for varied capability, the Hurricane Mk.IID was a one role aircraft. I didn't imply these planes were not effective, I implied that they were small potatos compared to what came later, and they were.

There were many aircraft armed with large caliber cannon. The Ju 87G-1 was effective with two PaK36 guns in under-wing pods. However, it also could carry bombs. Versions of the Me 410 were armed with a 50mm BK5 gun. It also could carry bombs. As mentioned in the poll, we have the HS 129, which had several cannon configurations and the IL-2 was very effective against all types of battlefield targets. The Typhoon was in the original poll. The Typhoon is a fighter-bomber. Thus, should we not include all fighter-bombers or is this one special?

My regards,

Navair


----------



## CharlesBronson (Nov 12, 2005)

> There were many aircraft armed with large caliber cannon. The Ju 87G-1 was effective with two PaK36 guns in under-wing pods. However, it also could carry bombs.



The underwing canons in the Ju-87 Gustav was not the infantry Pak 36 but the army antiaircraft gun 3,7 cm Flak 18.







The case in the Pak 36 is 250 mmm long and it is rimmed. The case of the 37mm Flak was 263 mm long and rimmles, more suitable for automatic fire.

BK 3,7 ( Flak 18 ) 37mm Anti-Tank Cannon
Weight of weapon: 272 kg (600 lb)
Length of weapon: 3626 mm (11 ft, 10.75 in)
Length of barrel: 2112 mm (6 ft, 11.75 in)
Muzzle Velocity: 795-860 m/sec (2610-2820 fps) 1170 m/s ( Panzergranate 40)
Rate of Fire: 150 rds/min
Weight of the complete round: 3.22 lb (AP-T, tungsten-carbide core), 3.12 lb (HE-T)

------


I going to vote for the FW-190F...but is not in the poll, so I go for the HS-129 B-2 with 37 mm gun.


----------



## NAVAIR (Nov 12, 2005)

FLYBOYJ said:


> NAVAIR said:
> 
> 
> > DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
> ...



I agree, the P-51 (F-51) was vunerable to ground fire. But, that's all that was available that could reach the combat area from Japan and remain on station for an extended period. F-80s had virtually no loiter time. 

When interviewed, captured Chinese and North Korean soldiers pointed to the AD-4 as the most terrifying allied aircraft. It carried an enormous load of bombs and rockets and would loiter over the battlefield for hours. Of all the aircraft utilized for close support and interdiction in Korea, none was as feared by the communists as the Skyraider. Known to the enemy troops as the "Blue Plane", the sight of a flight of Skyraiders sent a wave of terror through the ranks.





My regards,

Navair


----------



## NAVAIR (Nov 12, 2005)

CharlesBronson said:


> > There were many aircraft armed with large caliber cannon. The Ju 87G-1 was effective with two PaK36 guns in under-wing pods. However, it also could carry bombs.
> 
> 
> 
> The underwing canons in the Ju-87 Gustav was not the infantry Pak 36 but the army antiaircraft gun 3,7 cm Flak 18.



Of course you are correct. Faulty memory on my part. I was thinking Pak 36 when it should have been Flak 36, and the Flak 18.

Thanks for correcting that.

My regards,

Navair


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 12, 2005)

NAVAIR said:


> FLYBOYJ said:
> 
> 
> > NAVAIR said:
> ...



My brother was in Viet Nam 67-69 with the 82nd Airborne. He told me when he called in airstrikes it was always a relief when he and the guys he was with heard recip engines....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 12, 2005)

> You have pidgeon-holed the role of attack aircraft as tank busting



i have done nothing of the sort, i was talking about the hurricane Mk.IID, a tank buster, that is why i only spoke if it busting tanks, however it's ability to bust tanks makes it a better attack aircraft than the fighter bombers people are listing, simply because it is an attack aircraft not a fighter bomber..........


----------



## plan_D (Nov 12, 2005)

This subject is wide-open, anything that could fly and carry guns could be an attack aircraft in NAVAIRs scope. The P-51, nor the P-47 could handle themselves on the deck compared to their German opponents. 

The Mosquito could carry more ordance than your list, NAVAIR, and it didn't need to fight it's way out. It was too fast for the German fighters - that was it's sole purpose, to be in and out before the enemy could react. 

The P-51D had loiter time, but if it got caught by the enemy then it would be in it deep. The P-47 would have to rely on it's solid build to smash it's way out, as it was only a real dogfighter high up. 

The Spitfire could even be included, after all, the Spitfire 21 would maul any fighters in the area and go down to perform interdiction against the ground with it's four Hispano 20mm.


----------



## mosquitoman (Nov 13, 2005)

By the end of the war, all combat aircraft with the exception of heavy bombers could be classed as attack aircraft so it depends what the attack job is. If it is knocking out a bridge, tank busting, trains, artillery emplacements, airfields etc. Each jo has different requirements


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 13, 2005)

NAVAIR said:


> DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
> 
> 
> > NAVAIR said:
> ...



No I just call it like I see it. If the kitchens too hot, get out.

I understand what you were trying to post but dont talk about an aircraft fighter qualities in a ground attack thread. The debate is how it did as a ground attack. That is what you said: The Typhoon was a failure as a fighter. I responded that this is not a fighter thread. Again I call it like I see it!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 13, 2005)

to be honest i wouldn't call fighter-bombers attack aircraft simply because they're fighter-bombers noty attack aircraft! the IL-2 is an attack aircraft, the tiffy is a fighter bomber, the Hs-129 is an attack aircraft, the P-47 is a fighter bomber, that's just the way i see it........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 13, 2005)

I would pretty much agree with you on that.


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 13, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I would pretty much agree with you on that.


Me too.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Nov 16, 2005)

A picture just to make my point about the HS-129.

Rudolf-Heinz Ruffer checking his 23th tank kill mark in the tail of his Henschel Hs-129 B-2.






Ruffer was promoted to Hauptmann and eventually destroyed more than 80 russian tanks before being finally killed by the soviet AAA in 16th July 1944.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 16, 2005)

The Henschel was a good design and a good aircraft it just had shitty engines. If they had put some DB's in there she would have been great.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 16, 2005)

Or Jumo's. Either way it would have worked.


----------



## NAVAIR (Nov 17, 2005)

plan_D said:


> This subject is wide-open, anything that could fly and carry guns could be an attack aircraft in NAVAIRs scope. The P-51, nor the P-47 could handle themselves on the deck compared to their German opponents.
> 
> The Mosquito could carry more ordance than your list, NAVAIR, and it didn't need to fight it's way out. It was too fast for the German fighters - that was it's sole purpose, to be in and out before the enemy could react.
> 
> ...



This might be more productive if you weren't completely wrong....

P-51s were poor performers on the deck??!! Geez, someone should have told the Luftwaffe as they were of the opposite opinion. P-51C/Mustang III: 368 mph at sea level with 67 in/HG and 397 mph at 75 in/Hg or 25lb boost for Brits (150 octane avgas used after 5/44). P-51Ds were extremely potent down low... Please, do some research before posting nonsense. Take a look at how fast the Mustang was:






Much more data is available at http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/mustangtest.html

Mosquitos were 40-70 mph slower than the P-51D on the deck... Again, do some research. Typical of the FB Mk.IV: 312 mph (unloaded) at sea level, 378 mph at 13,200 feet. Fast for a bomber, but slow by fighter standards. Let's look at the late-war NF Mk.30: 338 mph at sea level, 424 mph at 26,500 feet. To avoid interception, Mosquitos had to fly high. Down low they were not difficult to chase down.

Invest in some reliable sources, because virtually everything you stated is incorrect.

As to the Spitfire F Mk.21, only 150 were built and they didn't deploy until about 30 days before the surrender. Might as well reference the P-47M, which was built in similar numbers and offered better performance than the Spitfire F Mk.21..... Oh, and it deployed before that model Spitfire did.

My regards,

Navair


----------



## plan_D (Nov 18, 2005)

The Spitfire 21 didn't deploy 30 days before the surrender. It looks like you need to research ...or learn the calender. They deployed to 91st Sqdn in January 1945. January to May isn't 30 days. 

And, I never said the P-51 was slow on the deck. Point out where I said the P-51 was slow on the deck. Go on...

It's all well and good that you've spent years reading up on aviation of World War II and how they performed. And discussed with your fellow historians in some university lounge about what coffee to drink, then about aircraft, then about the young new girl called Mariah that you'd "Oh so love to take to Starbucks to write a haiku with over maple nut crunch coffee while wearing a beret," - all nice ...but if you can't read someones post. Then why? 

Again, where did I say the P-51 was slow? At any altitude?

And after you've read that, remember ...calm down, you'll live longer.


----------



## NAVAIR (Nov 18, 2005)

plan_D said:


> The Spitfire 21 didn't deploy 30 days before the surrender. It looks like you need to research ...or learn the calender. They deployed to 91st Sqdn in January 1945. January to May isn't 30 days.
> 
> And, I never said the P-51 was slow on the deck. Point out where I said the P-51 was slow on the deck. Go on...



First operational sortie for the Spitfire F Mk.21 was April 10, 1945. Read the 91st squad ops sheet below. Go towards the bottom... first operational sortie for Spit F Mk.21 was? That's right, 4/10/45. Who needs a calender when you have the record in front of you? Research, Research!






You said, "The P-51, nor the P-47 could handle themselves on the deck compared to their German opponents."

And....

"The P-51D had loiter time, but if it got caught by the enemy then it would be in it deep." 

First statement is baloney. Second statement is subjective.... Any aircraft caught low and slow would be in trouble. Mustangs were fast enough and handled well enough to be among the toughest to beat, even if caught under less than ideal circumstances. Also consider that P-51s usually operated in squadron strength... Anything German encountered was in deep bandini.

My regards,

Navair


----------



## plan_D (Nov 18, 2005)

Now you need to learn the English language then. You stated that the Spitfire 21 didn't "*deploy*" until 30 days before the German surrender. Deploy means to be put into operational service, which it did in January 1945. So, you used the wrong word didn't you? You should have said the Spitfire 21 didn't go on an operational sortie until around 30 days before the surrender. And I've read that piece before. 

The P-47 was never known to be good on the deck. We are comparing these "attack" (which, the aircraft you're talking about are not) aircraft with German opponents that would be defending. Who's going to win at a few hundred feet above the ground a P-47 or Fw-190? 

And, of course, the P-51 is operating in squadron strength. Safety in numbers, can't leave home without it.

By the way, the last post was better. At least you were attacking something I actually said.


----------



## NAVAIR (Nov 18, 2005)

plan_D said:


> Now you need to learn the English language then. You stated that the Spitfire 21 didn't "*deploy*" until 30 days before the German surrender. Deploy means to be put into operational service, which it did in January 1945. So, you used the wrong word didn't you? You should have said the Spitfire 21 didn't go on an operational sortie until around 30 days before the surrender. And I've read that piece before.
> 
> The P-47 was never known to be good on the deck. We are comparing these "attack" (which, the aircraft you're talking about are not) aircraft with German opponents that would be defending. Who's going to win at a few hundred feet above the ground a P-47 or Fw-190?
> 
> ...



From the DOD's Military Leadership Handbook...

Deployment:

(1) Act of positioning combat assets, battalions and smaller units in width or depth, or both, to increase readiness for impending or contemplated action. Postioning of units declared combat ready.

(2) In naval usage, the change from a cruising approach or contact disposition to a disposition for battle. Structuring naval forces for immediate engagement.

(3) In a strategic sense, the relocation of land naval and air forces to desired areas of operation. 

(4) Designated location of troops and/or military units as indicated in a troop or jump-off schedule. 

So, within the context of the above, both of us can find something to support an argument. I concur that use of the term "deployment" may too ambiguous. But the fact remains that Spitfire F Mk.21s were a non-factor in WWII. As for me, I'd rather be flying a Spitfire LF Mk.XVI or LF Mk.IX for low level attack missions, those things were monsters down in the tree tops.

At the risk of drifting even further off topic, I will briefly discuss the P-47-190 match-up. 

As to the P-47 not being good on the deck... I disagree. In a fight between the typical Fw 190 of the 1944-45 period and and its counterpart P-47, I'd pick the Thunderbolt. This means the Fw 190A-8 vs the P-47D-28. Deck speeds are similar (351 mph for P-47, 355 for 190). Acceleration and climb are also similar. However, the 190 rolls faster. It needs to because the P-47 has a slightly lower wing loading at 47-48 lb per sq/ft vs 49-50 lb per sq/ft. Plus, the P-47 has a very useful flap system that has a maneuver setting that really aids in turning. on the other hand, the 190's flaps generate lots of drag and little gain in lift by comparison. The fact is that the P-47 can turn tighter circles and scrub speed faster while doing so, which tightens the turn even more. If we could find a 190A-3, then I might concede an edge to the 190, but A-3s were long since used up.

Bf 109s (say a G-6 or G-14 model) would be a greater threat than the 190. Better turn, climb and acceleration than both the P-47 and the 190.

Probably the best way to verify this would be via a simulation. However, you would have to have one with a correct physics model. Warbirds doesn't. Neither does IL-2/FB. Too gamy. The best flight physics in a combat sim can be found in Aces High. NASA Engineers from Dryden think so. In Aces High, the P-47D (either a -25 or a -40) holds the edge over the 190A-8. Not by a huge margin though, so the better pilot can still prevail.

So, I would say that the P-47D was able to match the 190 down low, and was better should the fight deteriorate into a turning contest. If we use the P-47M, the 190 is hopelessly out-classed. Nonetheless, while the P-47M was a much bigger factor than the Spit21s (it equipped the entire 56th FG), it was still a very minor player in the ETO (destroyed about 200 aircraft in air and ground combined).

My regards,

Navair


----------



## book1182 (Nov 18, 2005)

OK you two wimps, break it up!!! Let's get back to the aircraft. No body has said anything about the FW-190F. I think this was the ground attack version of a the very successful fighter. I would have loved to been in one of those. It would have to be up there with the Typhoon in the category of aircraft that could also dog fight.

What do you all think?


----------



## Erich (Nov 18, 2005)

how about a Fw 190A-8/R8 to throw another curve........ ?


----------



## pbfoot (Nov 18, 2005)

the ju 87 had the most effect on the war overall


----------



## book1182 (Nov 18, 2005)

I disagree with you on the JU-87. It just didn't have the survivability of the fighter-bombers. It was shot out of the skies of England and they tried to operate them at night in Russia. Doesn't sound like I plane I would want to fly in.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Nov 18, 2005)

I agree the JU-87 had an influence during 1940 and the Russian campaign,
but it was quickly obsolete.

I am at a cross between the IL-2 sturmovik and the Typhoon.


----------



## Erich (Nov 18, 2005)

Ju 87 obsolete ? hardly not with the 10th Panzerstaffels running around destroying T-34's and Stalin's on the Ost front well into 1945. The NSG's fitted with D-3's and D-5's were a thorn in the side of the Allied ground troops flesh as they progressed into the Reich. so much so that Patton insisted the US P-61 squadrons 422nd and 425th do all they could to bring them down and clear the front lines of communication


----------



## pbfoot (Nov 18, 2005)

ask the poles french belgians dutch greeks yugoslavians and russians i think the ju87 was something they remember its a ground attack aircraft top cover was some elses job


----------



## NAVAIR (Nov 18, 2005)

book1182 said:


> Let's get back to the aircraft. No body has said anything about the FW-190F. I think this was the ground attack version of a the very successful fighter. I would have loved to been in one of those. It would have to be up there with the Typhoon in the category of aircraft that could also dog fight.
> 
> What do you all think?



I did mention the 190F, but it got lost in other debates.

"Fw 190F series: As much as 1,800 kilos, or one 1,000 kilo and four 50 kilo bombs on wing racks. Could also carry air-to-ground rockets."

My regards,

Navair


----------



## plan_D (Nov 19, 2005)

The Spitfire F.XII was also a neat little performer down low, to put it lightly. Surely there were some earlier Fw-190s in service during 1944-1945? A-4s, A-5s, A-6s or even a few A-9s?


----------



## P38 Pilot (Nov 19, 2005)

Erich said:


> Ju 87 obsolete ? hardly not with the 10th Panzerstaffels running around destroying T-34's and Stalin's on the Ost front well into 1945. The NSG's fitted with D-3's and D-5's were a thorn in the side of the Allied ground troops flesh as they progressed into the Reich. so much so that Patton insisted the US P-61 squadrons 422nd and 425th do all they could to bring them down and clear the front lines of communication



I agree. The JU-87 was not obselete. It just couldnt defend itself against more superior aircraft. The JU-87 was the ultimate aircraft of choice during the Blitzkrieg of 1939-1942. Feared by the sirens it made while diving and would definetly blow the hell out of a tank especially those in the Eastern Front.


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 19, 2005)

I would put the P47 and Typhoon well above the JU87 in any catagory.


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 19, 2005)

The late model Stuka, the ones left in service, served a very specific niche, and filled it quite nicely.... 

This vid clip is the last thing many, MANY Russian tankers ever heard...


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 19, 2005)

Les, I would agree with you on the niche role.

However, to be fair, for the years 1938-1940, it was a good airplane. After that, it had better fly when no enemy fighters were near by.


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 19, 2005)

> However, to be fair, for the years 1938-1940, it was a good airplane. After that, it had better fly when no enemy fighters were near by.


And I would agree 100% with that... Same thing could be said of the Il-2 Sturmovik, armour or no armour....


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 19, 2005)

The speed in which aviation evolved in WW2 for all sides, when you ask a rhetorical question "the best plane in what role", you need to specify what year.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 19, 2005)

i thought we'd eliminated fighter-bombers from this thread on account of the fact they're not dedicated attack aircraft??

and nice video too les.......


----------



## NAVAIR (Nov 19, 2005)

plan_D said:


> The Spitfire F.XII was also a neat little performer down low, to put it lightly. Surely there were some earlier Fw-190s in service during 1944-1945? A-4s, A-5s, A-6s or even a few A-9s?



The Mk.XII was quite the low-level monster....







My regards,

Navair


----------



## syscom3 (Nov 19, 2005)

Ok, Im going for broke and saying the A20 Havoc was the best all around attack plane of WW2.

The Stuka, as usefull it might have been, didnt come to compare to the A20.

The B25 and A26 were more in the genre of Medium bombers.


----------



## plan_D (Nov 20, 2005)

Oh, NAVAIR, I like you again... but I'm still drunk from last night...but the XIIs....lovely...and, yes, they were monsters down low.


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 20, 2005)

Gentlemen, if I may make a reminder, this is about FAVORITE attack Aircraft, not BEST...

The Ju-87G is my FAVORITE attack aircraft.... It is NOT the best....


----------



## P38 Pilot (Nov 20, 2005)

In my opinion, the Ju-87 was a great attack aircraft. Even in the odds of being shot down by fighters, it was a Tank's worst enemy.

I voted for the B-25 Mitchelle for my favorite. Which could carry a 75mm that could tear up anything!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 20, 2005)

My favorite attack plane would have to be the Hs-129. Yes it was very underpowered but you give it some DB's or some Jumos as someone else stated and she wuold have been awesome! I also really like the P-47 and the Fw-190F.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 20, 2005)

lesofprimus said:


> Gentlemen, if I may make a reminder, this is about FAVORITE attack Aircraft, not BEST...
> 
> The Ju-87G is my FAVORITE attack aircraft.... It is NOT the best....



Exactly, if it was best I wouldnt have voted Hs-123...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 20, 2005)

The Hs-123 was actually not a bad aircraft. It was just outclassed early in the war.


----------



## Erich (Nov 20, 2005)

just do not forget the 10th Pz staffeln of several SG's on the Ost front euipped with the Ju 87G-1 still operable and destroying Soviet armor, something the A-20 did not acheive or any other craft for that matter on a consistant basis. I still go back and refer the D-3 and D-5 varinats in the night skies giving Patton and the Allies so much teething troubles.

From one of Nick Beales articles ....


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Nov 20, 2005)

The stuka was an impressive aircraft indeed, but i think id much rather fly the Hs-123 in the attack role. It's engine noise alone sounded like a machine gun supposedly, and was enough to scatter polish and russian soldiers. With its two nose mounted light machine guns, mg17s, and iron bombs, cluster bombs or 20mm underwing guns was very effective. As late as 1943 there were calls to reinstate production. The Hs-129, i love that sinister looking thing. With big cannon mounted optionally, 20mm and machine guns in the nose, and that sinister, evil looking armoured fueslage. With some more powerful engines it could have been a superb aircraft, DB-605 or -603, or a jumo-222 would have turned a good, underpowered aircraft into potentially the most capable aircraft out there for the job at the time.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 20, 2005)

I really like the Ju-87 dont take me wrong. As an attack plane it was very good however it was pretty easy to shoot down.


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 20, 2005)

I dont reall many attack birds being difficult to shoot down... Some are easier than others, but if ur in the wrong place at the wrong time, Stuka or Sturmovik, Beaufighter or Hs-129, ur dead meat...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 20, 2005)

Agreed Les however some such as the Typhoon, Fw-190F and the P-47 were harder to shoot down because they were fighters also. I would prefer to fly those.


----------



## SUperflanker37 (Nov 20, 2005)

Dive bombing definitly, the Stuka was excellent at that.. I was also playing Fighter Ace 2, and I'm a huge fan of the IL-2. Dive bomb, then unload the rockets, then make strafing passes until the AA starts tearing you up. Of course.. 3/4 of all my runs on that ended up getting me shot down.. so I wouldn't recommend strafing a TON heehee.

The B-25 of course was an excellent bomber, and great for attack, but a bit heavier. I like something where you can get away fast after unloading your stuff, like a good fighter-bomber.


----------



## Erich (Nov 20, 2005)

the Ju 87D's were moved over to the NSG's for the prime reason of low speed characteristics and the ease of blasting them by soviet AAA. The Soviet a/c were not much of a threat it appears to the SG's on the Ost front. AAA was the biggest problems and just plain stupid accidents. the Fw 190 with cannons and panzerblitz rockets could aslo serve in the fighter capacity which the Stuka could not. US and RAF Mossie's had a problem with slowing down to almost a stall to hit the Ju 87 at night, the Ju's platform had been proven with early war triumphs in the dive bombing role and they were used again as harrassement a/c over the Allied front lines, flying usually in threes and then banking over and plowing up forward positions in in the spring of 45 on the west front with almost the nightly haze of burning fires the NSG Ju's could escape


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 20, 2005)

Oh boy another flight simmer here.....  

Welcome to the site.


----------



## SUperflanker37 (Nov 20, 2005)

Well if the best attack craft nowadays (in my opinion) is the A-10, then I suppose sensibly it's father the P-47 would be the best attack craft in its day.
If loaded right it could make for a good tank buster right?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 20, 2005)

You are correct in saying that it would make a pretty fine tank buster. I would not say though that it was the best tank buster. There were other aircraft that were just as effective at busting tanks or even better at busting tanks. The P-47 in my opinion though is the best fighter bomber or atleast tied with the Fw-190F-8.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Nov 20, 2005)

I have a question: Could the P-38L or P-47D be classified as Attack aircraft? Because if you think about, they could carry heavy bomb loads, rockets, and were being used in European Theater as Low flying Air Supporters for troops calling in.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 20, 2005)

Well lets see here P38. The P-47 was a fighterbomber. Is that not an attack aircraft also?


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 20, 2005)

> some such as the Typhoon, Fw-190F and the P-47 were harder to shoot down because they were fighters also. I would prefer to fly those.


Yep, and I agree 100%...


----------



## P38 Pilot (Nov 20, 2005)

Oh yeah, whoops. I guess the P-38L is also out of the question.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 20, 2005)

What do you mean out of the question?


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 20, 2005)

LMFAOROFL......


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 20, 2005)

Im confused.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Nov 20, 2005)

A Stuka with vertical shooters...? that is weird.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 20, 2005)

It is, is it not?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 21, 2005)

personally as i've said before i wouldn't count fighter-bombers in this thread, they can attack but on that basis so could almost any aircraft, if you ask me this should just be for dedicated attack aircraft like the IL-2 and -87.........


----------



## Erich (Nov 21, 2005)

agreed my young apprentice ! 8) 

yes I noticed the SM mentioned but it cannot be right as there is no place to put it. The rearward firing mg 81 Zwilling has been termed this before when the rear gunner/radio operator shot his rounds in the belly of an Allied machine and it was put down in the after action report


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 23, 2005)

That makes sence Erich. Where would you mount the SM.


----------

