# Most Devastating Attacker



## Soundbreaker Welch? (May 17, 2007)

Which of these was best?


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (May 17, 2007)

Ok it's up. And while it can seem suprising I didn't add the P-38, well it already won the prize for best two engine fighter on here, and I wanted to limit the results. I didn't include the Apache A-36 either. Not many would vote for it.

Sorry Comiso, but If I included the bombers the list would get too long. It's already longer than I had originally planned.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 17, 2007)

By attacker are we limiting ourselves to air to air or ground attack??? Cause a fighter cant compare to the ordinance a fighter-bomber can... Kinda one sided...


----------



## Thorlifter (May 17, 2007)

Ahhh Haaa. I get the first vote. Gotta go with my beloved Corsair. Fast, tough, versitile, wide variety of ordinance, plus......I like that plane the best. So there!!!


----------



## syscom3 (May 17, 2007)

Eight .50's beats six .50's in any fight!

P47 is the best!


----------



## k9kiwi (May 17, 2007)

Mine went to the Hawker Typhoon MK IB .

Reason over the Tempest was simply based on numbers of aircraft that saw operational service between the two types.

Typhoon MK IB

4 x 20mm cannon.

8 x 60 lb rockets.

THAT is going to make your eyes water when it hits you.


----------



## Sgt. Pappy (May 18, 2007)

The F4U-4 is IMO the best overall fighter-bomber in addition to the best overall prop-driven fighter of WWII. 

It was (unlike the glass-nosed Tempests and Typhoons) radial-engined, ensuring its toughness, it could take-off from a carrier, it could still climb better than any Jug, Typhoon or P-51, it also had 8x 5" HVAR's, it had 3 hardpoints for bombs and/or drop tanks, its wing loading was one of the lightest of all high performance American planes, and it was fast... VERY fast. 

The F4U-4 Corsair gets my vote!


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (May 18, 2007)

So do you think I should have included two engine, two seat aircraft? 

Does anybody want a new poll with a P-38, Mossie, Sturmovik, B-25, Avenger, Ju 88, Hesnchel, ect in it? Or is too redudant to other polls the Warbird Forum already has? 

We have already a best bomber poll and threads, but some think that one has way too many kinds of bombers. Too hard to compare a Mossie to a Superfortress.


----------



## trackend (May 18, 2007)

I still Like the Beaufighter but for single engined Ill go for a tooled up Tiffy or Corsair.


----------



## Gnomey (May 18, 2007)

Typhoon for me.


----------



## Lucky13 (May 18, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> Eight .50's beats six .50's in any fight!
> 
> P47 is the best!



I agree with you syscom3. But, can you carry as much ammo with 8 guns compared to 6? I know that you get more hitting power with more guns, but who'd run out of ammo first?
I'm stuck between several on the list.....


----------



## tippe69 (May 18, 2007)

How about a single seater Il-2?


----------



## Erich (May 18, 2007)

in what role ? ground attack-strafer, bomber killer ?

Fw 190A-8/R8 or how about JG 7 Me 262A-1a with the effective R4M rockets ?


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (May 18, 2007)

That's another thing I was uncertain. I guess it's more a poll about destructive firepower of small fighter/bombers. Which was the best for destroying things on air and ground double quick? 

The FW-190 A-8 was devastating on bombers, and the FW 190 F-8 was devastating on ground troops. So I included both types. 

The Typhoon, with a firepower like a destroyer, could hit anything flying or rolling with a blast.

But if everybody would like a new poll, I'll do one and include the two engine bombers, jets, and more.


----------



## Jank (May 18, 2007)

_"But, can you carry as much ammo with 8 guns compared to 6? I know that you get more hitting power with more guns, but who'd run out of ammo first?"_

Yes. Each gun of the P-47 has a separate capacity for a maximum of 425 rounds.

The Corsair, as I recall, has 400 per gun except for the two outboard ones which are 375.


----------



## Lucky13 (May 18, 2007)

Cheers Jank!


----------



## Njaco (May 18, 2007)

> from syscom3...Eight .50's beats six .50's in any fight!



How many rounds of .50 would it take to take out another single engine aircraft as opposed to 20mm cannon or rockets?

My pick was split between Typhoon and Tempest because of their firepower.


----------



## syscom3 (May 18, 2007)

Njaco said:


> How many rounds of .50 would it take to take out another single engine aircraft as opposed to 20mm cannon or rockets?
> 
> My pick was split between Typhoon and Tempest because of their firepower.



How about a 2-3 second burst if the range is right.


----------



## Jank (May 19, 2007)

Here's a ground attack "Juggernaut." Two 1,000lb bombs, one 500lb bomb, ten HVAR rockets and eight .50 cal machine guns.






.
.
.
.
.


----------



## Lucky13 (May 19, 2007)

Now, THAT will give you a serious headache.....


----------



## Njaco (May 19, 2007)

Anybody know what the payload for a fully equipped P-47 is as opposed to one for a Typhoon / Tempest?


----------



## Jank (May 20, 2007)

That particular aircraft I posted above is "Glory Gal", a P-47N that operated off of LeShima in 1945. It has 2,500lbs of bombs and a 1,400lb load of rockets.


----------



## Lucky13 (May 20, 2007)

After a lot of thinking I think that I'll go with the P-47. She could take a good payload, take good beating and still bring the pilot home.
Off topic though....my alltime favorite ground attack machine will always be the Douglas Skyraider. She could carry everything including the toilet and the kitchen sink...


----------



## Jank (May 20, 2007)

I always thought it would be interesting to see the havoc that an A-26 could unleash with 16 .50's.

- 8 in the nose
- 6 in the wings
- 2 in the top turret locked forward


----------



## Lucky13 (May 20, 2007)

Or the B-25 with its 14 .50's.... 8 in the nose, 4 in the gunpods on the side and 2 in the top turret.


----------



## Joe2 (May 21, 2007)

P-47, followed closely by the Typhoon.


----------



## Dragontech64 (May 22, 2007)

Gotta go with the Jug. Hauls a big load, comparable to the B-25, plus 8 .50's and could take a beating that would have downed just about any other aircraft save MAYBE the Hellcat. Plus, IMHO, beautiful, in its own way:


----------



## Hunter368 (May 22, 2007)

Erich said:


> in what role ? ground attack-strafer, bomber killer ?
> 
> Fw 190A-8/R8 or how about JG 7 Me 262A-1a with the effective R4M rockets ?



I agree Erich, the FW 190A-8/R8 was tough, durable and hit with more firepower then any other plane in this survey. It was better vs bombers or ground attack then anything else. Period.

ME 262 was too fragile (and not dependable enough) and not able to take damage as well as the FW190A-8/R8. IMO

The A-8 perhaps was not the best "dog fighter" with the extra armor and cannons but it packed a punch that few if any could match. If you were to remove that extra armor and cannons it would of been a good dog fighter also. It could chew up ground targets and bombers like crazy....it could also take damage well to.


----------



## comiso90 (May 22, 2007)

Dragontech64 said:


> Gotta go with the Jug. Hauls a big load, comparable to the B-25, plus 8 .50's and could take a beating that would have downed just about any other aircraft save MAYBE the Hellcat. Plus, IMHO, beautiful, in its own way:



Damn thats the ugliest P-47 paint job ever!

Looks like a target drone


----------



## Hunter368 (May 22, 2007)

comiso90 said:


> Damn thats the ugliest P-47 paint job ever!
> 
> Looks like a target drone



I agree....it is ugly and I like the P-47.


----------



## Jank (May 22, 2007)

_"I agree....it is ugly and I like the P-47."_

I agree as well.


----------



## Dragontech64 (May 22, 2007)

comiso90 said:


> Damn thats the ugliest P-47 paint job ever!
> 
> Looks like a target drone



LOL OK it IS a bit garrish, but that paint scheme did fly in combat (P-47D Tarheel Hal was flown by Lt. Davis of the 358th Fighter Group, 366th Fighters Squadron, 9th Air Force in Europe during WWII.), and I have to give credit to someone who'd fly this billboard into a fight.


----------



## Jank (May 23, 2007)

Gun bay on P-47. (no shortage of ammo here)
.




.
.
.


----------



## comiso90 (May 23, 2007)

Jank said:


> Gun bay on P-47. (no shortage of ammo here)
> .
> 
> 
> ...



I wish that pic was "scratch and sniff!"

wow.......


----------



## Lucky13 (May 23, 2007)

Scratch, sniff, taste and touch....


----------



## Njaco (May 23, 2007)

Heres a scratch and sniff -


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (May 25, 2007)

> Off topic though....my alltime favorite ground attack machine will always be the Douglas Skyraider. She could carry everything including the toilet and the kitchen sink...



Lol


----------



## mkloby (May 25, 2007)

comiso90 said:


> I wish that pic was "scratch and sniff!"
> 
> wow.......



I really wish that they'd make an air freshener called "AVGAS" or "JP-5"


----------



## comiso90 (May 26, 2007)

mkloby said:


> I really wish that they'd make an air freshener called "AVGAS" or "JP-5"



AVGAS with PRIST?

_The aroma is slighly heavier with a hint of oak and a deisel aftertaste._


----------



## Lucky13 (May 26, 2007)

LMAO!


----------



## Louis (May 26, 2007)

P47, u gotta love 10 rockets and 8 .50s with tons of ammo


----------



## drgondog (May 29, 2007)

I am a Mustang lover but feel that the F4U-4 was THE best fighter of WWII (except for me 262) - it would and could fight at any level as long as it kept its speed up and would have been superb in Europe as well as the Far East.

The 47 was a great airplane but a hog in acceleration and speed on the deck - definitely had to conserve energy against the more agile 109's, 190's, etc.

Both the Tempest and Typhoon were great but not as good in my opinion from the deck to 30,000 feet.

Fw190 series among the very best and maybe the Dora was as good (or better than the F4U-4/5) but not around long enough to prove it.

Tough - opinion based decision

Regards,

Bill


----------



## lesofprimus (May 29, 2007)

This aint about best fighter pal, its about most devastating attack.... Fighter ability has nothing to do with this poll....


----------



## timshatz (May 29, 2007)

Not a big fan of the P47. But I am a big fan of retirement pay. If I want to draw it, I'd go with the P47.


----------



## Cromwell (May 29, 2007)

I think that if you took the best features of the P47D or even better P47N and blended them with the Corsair, and the Tempest then you would have a really great ground attack plane.

I think that Air Cooled Radials are better than Radiator-cooled for ground attack.

The Corsair could lose the wing-crank, the poor forward view and the fabric covered surfaces which were even then anacronistic.

The Tempest could mix-it if necessary than the Jug or even perhaps the Corsair.


----------



## MacArther (May 30, 2007)

Its going to sound crazy, but for strafing and CAS, I would rather have the P-39 or P-63. Its pretty nimble when the heavy items are replaced with more compact and lighter units. Also, 4 .30 cals, 2 .50 cals, and a 37mm gun are not the kind of things that troops want to be introduced to. Yes, I'll admit, neither fighter had as much acclaim as say the P-47, and neither was going to out climb you at higher altittudes, but in strafing, that lead is gonna hurt. Once again, not 20mm, but you have enough ammo for those .30 cals to keep pouring it on for a while.


----------



## Rooikat (Jun 3, 2007)

definitely the typhoon


----------



## comiso90 (Jun 3, 2007)

Rooikat said:


> definitely the typhoon



Welcome to the forum

The Typhoon is a fantastic aircraft but why do u think that it the best at attack?

It is poor decorum to make a bold statement without justification.


----------



## mosquitoman (Jun 3, 2007)

4x20mm cannons can do a helluva lot of damage, could fight it's way out of anywhere. Only disadvantage it had would be flak damge to the engine- Napier Sabres cranked out the HP but a hit in the radiator and it would all be over


----------



## Negative Creep (Jun 5, 2007)

Wikipedia said:


> Although the rocket projectiles were inaccurate and took some considerable skill to aim properly and allow for the drop after firing, the sheer firepower of just one Typhoon was equivalent to a destroyer's broadside.
> 
> ..................
> 
> On 7 August, the German counter-attack at Mortain, threatening Patton's breakout from the beachhead, was repulsed by 2nd TAF Typhoons, some 81 vehicles destroyed or damaged. In the Vire area, where the British Army was under attack, Typhoons flew 294 sorties on one day, with 2,088 rockets and 80 tons of bombs dispatched. On 24 October 1944, No. 146 Wing of Typhoons attacked a building in Dordrecht where senior German 15th Army staff were meeting; 17 staff officers and 55 other officers were killed.



I may have to go for the Typhoon or failing that the P-47. Ground attack was a pretty dangerous business, which would've suited the Jug's radial layout better, but although 8 50. cals would have been formidable, the Typhoon's cannons would be an ever worse prospect


----------



## drgondog (Jun 5, 2007)

I'm gonna cheat with Other;

The Enola Gay on one engine and co-pilot bails out- THE one ship with more 'devastation' than all the rest combined delivered in 5 to 10 seconds depending on whether only blast and shock wave is counted.

After that a furball and beauty contest depending on the mission(s) and survivability against the threats. If I have to survive playing in the Mud against other very good fighters I go with the F4U-4 or Tempest and maybe 47D-25 (NOT the N or M which in my opinion is fryed by too many good fighters on the deck). I don't pick the 51 because it was too vulnerable to the golden BB and it wouldn't carry the load.


At the end of the day I pick the F4U as it was at or near the Best as All Around Fighter , and simply Winner if part of the mission said "must also be 'devastating' in Naval Operations as well as Land. And here the Enola Gay wouldn't win either.


----------



## Erich (Jun 5, 2007)

interesting the Typhoon when the Fw 190F-8 with four 2cm and Panzerblitz rockets would equal about the same destruction on the ground


----------



## Vince_Flieger (Jun 10, 2007)

P-47 ~ fast, hard-hitting, suprisingly agile for its massive weight, and absorbs battle damage like a sponge!!

and although i think the mustang was one of the greatest prop-driven fighters ever and performed wonderfully as an attacker (apache with a merlin), overall i think the F4U Corsair was the best because it was also a supreme carrier fighter - especially the -4 model.


----------



## falcon from sweden (Jun 13, 2007)

The best single engined plan is the swedish j 11.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 13, 2007)

So much for reading the topic....

And no, the J 11 was NOT the best single engined plane...


----------



## falcon from sweden (Jun 13, 2007)

it was !!!!!


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 13, 2007)

J-11? The Italian Fiat C.R. 42??


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 13, 2007)

Freakin dumb @ss new members...


----------



## falcon from sweden (Jun 14, 2007)

yes, the C.R 42 

i have read i an swedish airplane magazine that a unknown C.R 42 has been found in the swedish mountains


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 14, 2007)

falcon from sweden please only post serious comments. It is better for you as well...\

The J-11 was no where near the best aircraft of WW2 and especially not in this thread about being the most devestating attacker...

Lets look at some of the facts of your aircraft:

A. It was a bi plane.

b. Maximum speed: 441 km/h (238 kt, 274 mph) at 20,000 ft (thats pretty damn slow)

c. Armament
Guns: First series : Breda SAFAT 7.7 mm (0.303 in) 
Later 2 × 12.7 mm (0.500 in) machine guns, 400 rounds/gun each. 
Two additional 12.7 mm machine-guns in underwing fairing on some. 
Bombs: 200 kg (440 lb) on two wing hardpoints 

*The Armament sucks dude!*


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 14, 2007)

Sorry for being slightly off topic here fellas. But if I'd choose the J-21 before any other Swedish bird. 1x20mm cannon and 4x13mm guns.







Twin engine would be the B-18. The only machine faster than these was the Mosquito. Writing from memory here.





And now back to relevant topic...


----------



## drgondog (Jun 14, 2007)

Lucky13 said:


> Twin engine would be the B-18. The only machine faster than these was the Mosquito. Writing from memory here.
> 
> And now back to relevant topic...



Faster than Ta154 or F7F or P-38L? What about A-26 on the deck? Gotta admit that is suprising that it's faster than even a P-61..

Regards,

Bill


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 14, 2007)

Sorry...I meant of the twin engines..... The S-18B could frequently hit 570 km/h and T-18B was good for 600 km/h if i remember correctly, I don't know what that makes in mph.....


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 14, 2007)

To get back on to the topic....I finally voted for the P-47 for already mentioned reasons....


----------



## drgondog (Jun 14, 2007)

Lucky13 said:


> Sorry...I meant of the twin engines..... The S-18B could frequently hit 570 km/h and T-18B was good for 600 km/h if i remember correctly, I don't know what that makes in mph.....



600 x .621 = 372mph - pretty fast, faster than A26 and P-61, but slower than Ta154 and P38 and F7F.

570kph = 354mph which is same as A26B, but slower than rest.

The F7F had a max speed of 460MPH, carried 4 - 20mm and 4 - 50's plus capable of carrying torpedoes. Deployed to Pacific before end of wwar to USMC. Helluva an airframe. Possibly should have been on list but it didn't fight, just like the P-51H.

I had not heard much about S18 - thx

Regards,

Bill


----------



## Lucky13 (Jun 14, 2007)

Thank you as well drgondog.... Well, I'm off to work now. Have a nice day/night folks.


----------



## Jank (Jun 14, 2007)

Of possible interest to some -

THE AIR WAR NOBODY TOLD YOU ABOUT
The Air War Nobody Told You About
.
.
.


----------



## mosquitoman (Jun 14, 2007)

Very good story


----------



## MacArther (Jun 15, 2007)

If this isn't limited to just fighters, then I would take the Hs-123, because it was nimble on the deck, and was a stable gun platform for strafing runs.


----------



## The Jug Rules! (Jun 15, 2007)

My name says it all...Big, Tough and with 8 .50 you can shred everything exept tanks.

One thing always bothered me about the Tiffy tho. How did it do so well in all that ground fire with that huge radiator out front...That thing was begging for a cannon shell...


----------



## Cromwell (Jun 20, 2007)

I think the Typhoon was OK although I still worry about that engine and its valve stems (yes 60 years on and still worrying)

A P47 with 4 20mm cannon - now that would have been worth looking at


----------



## SoD Stitch (Jun 21, 2007)

drgondog said:


> Faster than Ta154 or F7F or P-38L? What about A-26 on the deck? Gotta admit that is suprising that it's faster than even a P-61..
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Bill



All wrong . . . fastest twin was the Do 335 . . . top speed in excess of 474 mph with a pretty heavy armament.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Jun 21, 2007)

Cromwell said:


> I think the Typhoon was OK although I still worry about that engine and its valve stems (yes 60 years on and still worrying)
> 
> A P47 with 4 20mm cannon - now that would have been worth looking at



Okay, how about an F4U-1C Corsair with four (4) 20mm Hispano-Suiza AN-M2C2 cannon?


----------



## blu3y4 (Jun 22, 2007)

did the shindin even see combat????


----------



## mosquitoman (Jun 22, 2007)

Nope, only 2 prototypes ever built to my knowledge


----------



## Gnomey (Jun 22, 2007)

mosquitoman said:


> Nope, only 2 prototypes ever built to my knowledge



Yep.

1945 Kyushu J7W1 Shinden
Kyushu J7W1 Shinden

The aircraft in the poll though is the Kawanishi N1K-J (not the Kyushu J7W1 Shinden - only 2 prototypes) which did see service.

Kawanishi N1K Shiden
Kawanishi N1K-J - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Jun 24, 2007)

You know Gnomey, that Shinden looks pretty cool.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 24, 2007)

And you are just a spamming prick!


----------



## comiso90 (Jun 24, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> And you are just a spamming prick!



Delete his links or you are helping him. Posting links to a website are "trackbacks" and helps the sites appear higher in google searches thus driving more people to the sites makeing him money.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 24, 2007)

Could call I did not think about it. Ill just delete his whole post.


----------



## DKoor (Jul 4, 2007)

Jeeepers.....I just luved the Brada Ba.65 option..... whoever put that on teh list gets my r0FL.....  bwahahahaha........

BTW 190D gets my vote........... I have few reasons and the biggest being the unexplained criteria.....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 5, 2007)

Unexplained criteria....?


----------



## DKoor (Jul 6, 2007)

I said that because if..... we are talking about pure ac armament then my vote goes to FW-190A8. Especially to those of them which were fitted with Mk108 wing cannons.
Tempest/P-47 being the close second.......... VERY tough decision.

But if we are talking about great performance fighters then I vote for D9.
I would most likely vote for boosted P-51D regarding this criteria if it was included in the list.


----------



## Soren (Jul 8, 2007)

What about the IL-2 ? Or Ju-87 Stuka ?

The FW-190 Anton series could be fitted with dual 20mm gun-pods which meant six 20mm cannons two 13mm guns - thats alot of firepower! Gun-pods with the Mk-103 was also available to the FW-190, this gun could knock out any Allied tank.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Jul 15, 2007)

You know, I don't think this site has many Japanese plane lovers.


----------



## Stupid (Jul 16, 2007)

the Il-2 and Ju87 are double seaters. although I think some Il-2 variants were single seat. I'd have to go with the P-47


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 16, 2007)

What does the Il-2 and Ju 87 being multiple crewmember aircraft have to do with being the best attacker or not?


----------



## Stupid (Jul 16, 2007)

Because it says single seat attack plane in the title. The Il-2 in my opinion is the best overall attack plane, but again it was double seat.


----------



## Marcel (Jul 16, 2007)

Stupid said:


> Because it says single seat attack plane in the title. The Il-2 in my opinion is the best overall attack plane, but again it was double seat.



 Haven't read the title for a long time


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Jul 16, 2007)

> The Il-2 in my opinion is the best overall attack plane, but again it was double seat.


Good point. Well, consider this more of a fighter/bomber evaluation.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 16, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> Eight .50's beats six .50's in any fight!
> 
> P47 is the best!



except for the one in which the six (or four) 50's are behind you..More German a/c were destroyed by those two combinations by far than the 'eight'


----------



## Soren (Jul 17, 2007)

Whoops ! Should've read the title more carefully ! 

The FW-190 A-8 then IMO.


*Single engine single seat* - repeat- *Single engine single seat* -repeat-*Single engine single seat* 

I shall never forget!


----------



## davparlr (Jul 18, 2007)

I debated the P-47 vs. F4U-4. Both were powerful and rugged air-to-ground attackers. However the F4U-4 had a load lifting capability (fuel, ammo, weapons, pilot) of 3215 lbs and the P-47N had a load lifting capability of 5300 lbs or over 2000 lbs more lifting power than the F4U-4. That's a lot of extra weapons. Therefore, my vote is the P-47(N) which should have been on the list if the F4U-4 was. So I voted for the P-47D.


----------



## Soren (Jul 18, 2007)

Hmm.. the F4U-4 is the closest to the FW-190 I think, 4x Hispano cannons available providing much more firepower than the 8x .50 cals on the P-47.

The FW-190 could carry 4,000 lbs worth of bombs, 6x 20mm cannons + 2x 13mm guns, or 4x 30mm Mk108's + 2x 20mm's 2x 13mm's, or 2x 30mm MK103's + 2x 20mm MG-151/20's 2x 13mm's. I don't know any other single seat single engined aircraft of that period able to carry this much firepower.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 18, 2007)

Stupid said:


> Because it says single seat attack plane in the title. The Il-2 in my opinion is the best overall attack plane, but again it was double seat.



Yeah I forgot the title of the poll again. Thanks...


----------



## davparlr (Jul 18, 2007)

Soren said:


> Hmm.. the F4U-4 is the closest to the FW-190 I think, 4x Hispano cannons available providing much more firepower than the 8x .50 cals on the P-47.
> 
> The FW-190 could carry 4,000 lbs worth of bombs, 6x 20mm cannons + 2x 13mm guns, or 4x 30mm Mk108's + 2x 20mm's 2x 13mm's, or 2x 30mm MK103's + 2x 20mm MG-151/20's 2x 13mm's. I don't know any other single seat single engined aircraft of that period able to carry this much firepower.



All the info I have (limited) on the Fw-190 is a gross weight of about 10-11, 000 lbs and an empty weight of 7500 to 8000 lbs. giving a load lifting value of about 3000 lbs. If you are talking about Max weight, the P-47N has a max weight of 20700 lbs and an empty weight of 11000 lbs., giving a load lifting capability of 9700 lbs. I would doubt that the Fw-190, in any configuration, could get half that value, and, the F4U-4 capability is also much less. By the way, this is more lifting weight than the AD-1 (first version of the A-1), which is 7522.


----------



## Soren (Jul 18, 2007)

davparlr said:


> All the info I have (limited) on the Fw-190 is a gross weight of about 10-11, 000 lbs and an empty weight of 7500 to 8000 lbs. giving a load lifting value of about 3000 lbs. If you are talking about Max weight, the P-47N has a max weight of 20700 lbs and an empty weight of 11000 lbs., giving a load lifting capability of 9700 lbs. I would doubt that the Fw-190, in any configuration, could get half that value, and, the F4U-4 capability is also much less. By the way, this is more lifting weight than the AD-1 (first version of the A-1), which is 7522.



Davparlr, the FW-190 could carry a heavier bomb-load than the P-47 believe it or not, a 1,800 kg (4,000 lbs) bomb for example - the P-47 couldn't pull such a load.

You can't count from empty to gross weight..


----------



## davparlr (Jul 18, 2007)

Soren said:


> Davparlr, the FW-190 could carry a heavier bomb-load than the P-47 believe it or not, a 1,800 kg (4,000 lbs) bomb for example - the P-47 couldn't pull such a load.
> 
> You can't count from empty to gross weight..



I don’t understand this unless my data on Fw-190 weight is wrong. The best Fw-190A data I have, the A-3, had an empty weight of 6380 lbs. and a gross weight of 8751 lbs. leaving lifting weight of 2371 lbs. The D-9, with an empty weight of 7694 lbs and a gross weight of 10670, had a lifting weight of 2976. Now I don’t know how even the Germans can manage getting a pilot, fuel and 4000 lbs of bombs on board and not exceed the gross weight. Where is my data wrong? Are there other models MUCH more capable in lifting weight than the A-3 or the D-9?


----------



## eruddildner (Jul 19, 2007)




----------



## Hunter368 (Jul 19, 2007)

eruddildner said:


> Acne reports and articles
> Please read




Crap! delete! Spammer???


----------



## Gnomey (Jul 19, 2007)

Yeah that is a spammer, f*ck off retard.


----------



## renrich (Jul 19, 2007)

I would love to see the backup that shows an FW 190 with a 4000 lb bomb load. Anyway throw weight of 8 50 cal MGs on P47=12.72 lb/sec. Throw weight of 4-20mm cannon on F4U1C= 11.60 lb/sec. Throw weight of F6F5 with mix 2-20mm cannon, 4-50cal mg=12.16lb?sec. Not much to choose from there. There were 200 F4U1Cs made in WW2 and 297 F4U4Bs(also with 4-20mms) My reference shows both Corsair and P47 and Hellcat with a maximum bomb load of 2000 lbs but I am sure that was exceeded at times. I have read that Lindberg took off in a Corsair(probably an F4U1a) with a 1000 lb bomb under each wing and a 2000 lb bomb on the center line and delivered them to the Japanese. Because of much better performance at sea level, firepower, weapons load, maneuverability and dive brakes(if needed) my pick is the F4U4B.


----------



## davparlr (Jul 20, 2007)

renrich said:


> I would love to see the backup that shows an FW 190 with a 4000 lb bomb load. Anyway throw weight of 8 50 cal MGs on P47=12.72 lb/sec. Throw weight of 4-20mm cannon on F4U1C= 11.60 lb/sec. Throw weight of F6F5 with mix 2-20mm cannon, 4-50cal mg=12.16lb?sec. Not much to choose from there. There were 200 F4U1Cs made in WW2 and 297 F4U4Bs(also with 4-20mms) My reference shows both Corsair and P47 and Hellcat with a maximum bomb load of 2000 lbs but I am sure that was exceeded at times. I have read that Lindberg took off in a Corsair(probably an F4U1a) with a 1000 lb bomb under each wing and a 2000 lb bomb on the center line and delivered them to the Japanese.



This is reasonable. With a slightly reduced fuel load, this load could be below Max weight for the F4U-1.




> Because of much better performance at sea level, firepower, weapons load, maneuverability and dive brakes(if needed) my pick is the F4U4B.



P-47N was pretty equavalent in speed to the F4U-4 at sealevel (about 9 mph slower) but could carry a much greater load (5500 lbs for the P-47N at gross compared to the 3215 for the F4U-4, a whopping 9700 lbs at max for the P-47N compared to the 5465 for the F4U-4. So at similar fuel loaded, the P-47N could carry about 2300 lbs more ordinance than the F4U-4 at gross weight.)


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Jul 20, 2007)

Ha ha, that spammer was trying to scare us!


----------



## renrich (Jul 20, 2007)

Dav, my reference shows the P47N could make about 360 mph at sealevel and it had a lousy rate of climb, not much better than 1700 fpm up to 20000 ft. The 4 Corsair could touch 380 mph at sea level and it's rate of climb low was 3900fpm. I don't have all the load figures for the P47N in front of me but I have to believe in order to carry the large ordnance load claimed they had to not be carrying a full wing of fuel. They must have had to have a long runway also as the P47 was noted as a ground lover. I will still take the F4U4B for survivability, fire power, ordnance load, accuracy of bombing, short field capability in overload condition and besides it proved itself in two major wars and a lot of little ones.


----------



## Glider (Jul 21, 2007)

I would like to put forward the Tempest V as a strike aircraft. It certainly had the speed, performance and practical bombload of the other aircraft as well as a decent range. Plus its 4 x 20mm were far more powerful than fitted to any other single engined fighter of the time.
The Corsair fitted with 4 x 20mm wasn't a success for the simple reason the guns kept jamming which is why the normal load was 6 x HMG. Also I believe the normal payload on a mission was 2 x 1000lb no more than the Tempest. To talk about anything heavier is not really valid as it couldn't carry any more on a real mission.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 21, 2007)

Glider said:


> I would like to put forward the Tempest V as a strike aircraft. It certainly had the speed, performance and practical bombload of the other aircraft as well as a decent range. Plus its 4 x 20mm were far more powerful than fitted to any other single engined fighter of the time.
> The Corsair fitted with 4 x 20mm wasn't a success for the simple reason the guns kept jamming which is why the normal load was 6 x HMG. Also I believe the normal payload on a mission was 2 x 1000lb no more than the Tempest. To talk about anything heavier is not really valid as it couldn't carry any more on a real mission.



I don't have a problem with any choice you make, but curious where you discovered jamming problems in the F4U's 20mm cannon? Never heard a complaint from the many USMC pilots I know that flew that bird in Korea?

As to the 4x20's being 'far more powerful' - did they start making 4x 20mm more powerful than the armament in the Fw190A8's with either 4 x20's plus 2 x13mm, or 2 x 20s plus 2x30's plus 2 x13mm? or is there a case for saying 4x20's are more effective, much less 'far more powerful' than the 8x 50's in the P-47 - with a lot more ammo?? I would go with the 4 x20's as a bomber destroyer but would rather have the 8x 50's, particularly being able to select four or eight, for strafing.

Having said all the above, the Tempest was a great a/c


----------



## pbfoot (Jul 21, 2007)

I also read the US produced 20mm of WW2 were prone to perform poorly and am going through my stuff to try and locate a ref to back up my statement


----------



## Glider (Jul 21, 2007)

drgondog said:


> I don't have a problem with any choice you make, but curious where you discovered jamming problems in the F4U's 20mm cannon? Never heard a complaint from the many USMC pilots I know that flew that bird in Korea?
> 
> As to the 4x20's being 'far more powerful' - did they start making 4x 20mm more powerful than the armament in the Fw190A8's with either 4 x20's plus 2 x13mm, or 2 x 20s plus 2x30's plus 2 x13mm? or is there a case for saying 4x20's are more effective, much less 'far more powerful' than the 8x 50's in the P-47 - with a lot more ammo?? I would go with the 4 x20's as a bomber destroyer but would rather have the 8x 50's, particularly being able to select four or eight, for strafing.
> 
> Having said all the above, the Tempest was a great a/c




The 20mm I am talking about was the type produced for use in WW2. By Korea the US had finally learnt the lessons and applied the fix's required to make the US 20mm reliable.
In WW2 there were two main problems with the US 20mm. The gun itself was horribly unreliable and to make matters worse the ammunition was also very poor.
Before addressing these it should be noted that the US Navy estimated the British Hispano II to be three times more effective than the US .50. It should also be noted that the British Hispano V as fitted in the Tempest had a much greater rate of fire (up from 10rps to 12.5rps) over the MkII and the difference therefore would have been even greater. 

Back to the original point, first of all the reliability of the guns.
[In 'Guns of the Royal Air Force 1939-1945' by G.F. Wallace - who was there - there is an account of British tests of the British and US Hispanos which took place early in 1942. The British were unhappy with initial supplies of the American-made guns: "there were frequent misfeeds and lightly struck cap stoppages, and the life of several small components was very short" so a comparative test between one British and three American guns was set up. The intention was to fire 5,000 rounds from each gun without replacing any components. "The British gun fired the full programme but the performance of the American guns was so bad that in each case the trial had to be abandoned before the 5,000 rounds had been fired." The British gun experienced 19 stoppages in firing 5,012 rounds. The American guns experienced 67 stoppages out of 4,092, 97 out of 3,705 and 94 out of 2,610 respectively. 
The three different american figures came from three guns, each produced by a different manufacturer.

As to the ammunition, I can only say that on Malta they received a lot of 20mm ammunition made in the USA. This proved to be so unrliable that despite the desperate shortage of ammunition on the Island, all USA produced 20mm ammo was checked and destroyed. One batch was so bad a third of it was found to be faulty. This is a quote from Malta the Spitfire Years.

The following link covers this in a huge amount of detail, I strongly reccomend it
Modifications and Attempts at Standardization

As for comparing it to the FW190. I would say that the Tempest with its 4 x 20mm Hispano V was much better armed than the standard 4 x 20 and 2 x 13mm and whilst not as well armed as the version carrying 2 x 20 and 2 x 30, it would clearly out perform this heavily laden version of the 190 which lost a lot of performance.

Basic figs on the MG151 vs 0.5 M2 and the Hispano V as follows.

Rate of fire: Hispano V = 12.5 rps, 0.5 M2 = 13 rps, Mg151 = 12 rps
MV: Hispano V = 830 m/s, 0.5 M2 = 890 m/s, MG151 = 800m/s (HE/M shell)
Projectile weight: Hispano V = 130g, 0.5 M2 = 43g, MG151 = 92g


----------



## drgondog (Jul 21, 2007)

Glider said:


> As for comparing it to the FW190. I would say that the Tempest with its 4 x 20mm Hispano V was much better armed than the standard 4 x 20 and 2 x 13mm and whilst not as well armed as the version carrying 2 x 20 and 2 x 30, it would clearly out perform this heavily laden version of the 190 which lost a lot of performance.
> 
> *But doesn't the Me262 then become the most devastating of all - w/ 4 x 30's?*
> 
> ...



BTW one did not (more like 'difficult to') attain much more than an average of 500-550 rpm in sustained fire w/ ma duece - and still one helluva weapon. 

Begging the question - but Most Devastating Attacker against what?

If you are shooting up thin skin vehicles and troops why do we care about 4 x20's? or if we are attacking B-17's, why wouldn't we want the Me162, if we want to fight fighters and strafe and shoot up heavy bombers the only one that actully did all three was the Fw190 and the Me262 and P-47 and P-38 and F4U and F6F's (in pacific) although Japanes bombers did not compare to US and RAF - 

Tempest not in that mix primarily because the LW never gave the Tempest a 'heavy bomber mission' of any distinction to really shoot at, so do we drop into dreaded 'potential' discussion?

I confess to being bored easily when one or another focus an argument on who had the best .30 caliber, or 20mm or whatever so I'm more concerned about the range of missions you think the 'most devastating attacker' should be judged on? Could we agree that the number one and two fighters that carried the most standard firepower clusters were Fw190A8 and Me262A - then decide to disqualify them in favor of Tempest based on ??? I respect your opinion but wonder on the criteria.

So what are the ground rules you propose to define 'most devastating attacker'


----------



## davparlr (Jul 21, 2007)

renrich said:


> Dav, my reference shows the P47N could make about 360 mph at sealevel and it had a lousy rate of climb, not much better than 1700 fpm up to 20000 ft. The 4 Corsair could touch 380 mph at sea level and it's rate of climb low was 3900fpm.



Test data I have on the N was 364 mph at SL. It was a pretty good climber but not in league of the F4U-4. Climb at 20k was 2950. The F4U-4, per Navy test gave 374 mph at SL (10 mph better than the P-47N) and a climb of 4300 ft/min at 20k.



> I don't have all the load figures for the P47N in front of me but I have to believe in order to carry the large ordnance load claimed they had to not be carrying a full wing of fuel.



I calculated total lifting capability including pilot, weapons, and fuel, using the following data:

P-47N empty 11,000 lbs, gross 16,300, max 20,700
Delta weight to gross, 5,300 lbs, to max, 9,700 lbs.

F4U-4 empty 9205 lbs, gross 12,420, max 14,670.
Delta weight to gross 3215 lbs, to max 5465 lbs.

So, the P-47N can load a greater combination of fuel/weapons than the F4U-4 by 2085 lbs at gross, and 4235 lbs at max. Assuming the specific fuel consumption for the two aircraft is the same and the fuel load for a specified mission would be the same, the P-47N would be able to carry a significantly greater weapons load.




> They must have had to have a long runway also as the P47 was noted as a ground lover.



Of course, it’s a Republic aircraft. That’s what they do.




> I will still take the F4U4B for survivability



Survivability is debatable. Both aircraft has a reputation for great ruggedness.



> , fire power, ordnance load,



This is suspect with the load carrying advantage of the P-47N.



> accuracy of bombing,



I will accept your comment. I have no idea.



> short field capability in overload condition



Most definitely!




> and besides it proved itself in two major wars and a lot of little ones.



And this is why I selected the F4U-4/5 as the best piston power fighter ever. Although, in defense of the P-47, it never had the chance to continue and evolve since the AF quickly abandoned the prop fighters for jets, whereas, the Navy continued prop development due to the slow development of acceptable carrier based jet fighters. Had the AF selected the P-47 over the P-51 after the war, it would have had much better air-to-ground capability.

The F4U-4 was a bit faster at SL and could climb much better.

The P-47N could carry a significantly larger load and had much better range.

Both were proven ground attack aircraft.

Not much to choose from. You really couldn’t go wrong with either.


----------



## Glider (Jul 22, 2007)

drgondog said:


> BTW one did not (more like 'difficult to') attain much more than an average of 500-550 rpm in sustained fire w/ ma duece - and still one helluva weapon.
> 
> Begging the question - but Most Devastating Attacker against what?
> 
> ...



Hang on a minute. Your the one who asked

a) Where did I get the info re the jamming of the UA 20mm
b) did they start making 4x 20mm more powerful than the armament in the Fw190A8's with either 4 x20's plus 2 x13mm, or 2 x 20s plus 2x30's plus 2 x13mm? or is there a case for saying 4x20's are more effective, much less 'far more powerful' than the 8x 50's in the P-47 - with a lot more ammo?? 

All I did was address those questions. If the awnser bores you, then sorry, but don't ask the question.

As for criteria then I would go for the all round attacker. Both the FW190, P47 and Tempest are excellent against ground targets. Against heavy bombers then its the Fw190 and Tempest as they have the most firepower by a considerable margin. Every coutry that went up against heavy bombers upgraded their guns to 20mm as a minimum and often more. The 0.5 doesn't have the punch needed. Of the two the Tempest has my vote as it has heavy firepower without adding additional weight losing performance.


----------



## renrich (Jul 22, 2007)

Dav my reference shows F4U4 vmax at sea level with mil power as 360 mph while with combat power 380 mph. I am not sure but the graph appears to be from NAVAIR, F4U4, 3/1/46. What I was drawing my conclusion about survivability was some statistics that showed Corsair dropping twice the tonnage of bombs during WW2 than the Hellcat, yet only losing a little more than half as many ac to AAA during that war. I am not claiming that Corsair is more rugged than Jug or for that matter Hellcat but might be more survivable in air to ground because of better maneuverabilty, better climb and better acceleration down low.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 22, 2007)

Glider said:


> Hang on a minute. Your the one who asked
> 
> a) Where did I get the info re the jamming of the UA 20mm
> b) did they start making 4x 20mm more powerful than the armament in the Fw190A8's with either 4 x20's plus 2 x13mm, or 2 x 20s plus 2x30's plus 2 x13mm? or is there a case for saying 4x20's are more effective, much less 'far more powerful' than the 8x 50's in the P-47 - with a lot more ammo??
> ...



I'm bored because the thesis you use to demonstrate Tempest superiority over F4U-4C or -5 is on basis of 'better 20mm'.. the better 20mm is true but so what? and the original Tempest, Spit and P-38 had the same basic Hispano II did they not? And that Hispano II was the M2 in the F4U-4C.

I'm bored because the thesis of Tempest equality in bomb/rocket carrying capacity 'is essentially the same as F4U or P-47 'because a 'standard load was 'essentially the same'. Well, that is 80% correct as each often carried 2x1000 under each wing and 500 on C/L and always 10 x 5"HVAR vs 8 for Tempest.. and both actually capable of hanging a 2,000 pound bomb on C/L - but range with load was key for both so fuel tank was essential. I honestly don't know what the payload vs Range data looks like but would bet Large that both the 47 and F4U exceed the Tempest easily.

I'm bored because after you state that the Tempest with 4 x20mm was 'most powerful', I demurred by reminding you of 2 x20mm plus 2 x30mm plus 2 13mm in the A8 'might' be more powerful.. you then state ' well yeah but it was more vulnerable'..which it was, but that would put it in category of 'Most Devastating (second to Me262), but also more vulnerable than lesser Devastators' - for which we don't have a category. 

I'm bored because the P-47 and F4U actually did encounter and shoot down (easily) He177, Ju 88, He111, Do217s over Germany and Mavis Flying boats, plus Betty's, etc (pacific) with 50 cal but that doesn't meet your standards for bomber destroying? How many bombers did the Tempest destroy? 

And did the Tempest also have a Night Fighter version so that it could be 'Most Devastating Attacker at night? I'm not suggesting that the F4U is near as capable at night as the P-61, JU 88 or Mossie - but moreso than Tempest as it was used in that role and scored in both WWII and the Korean War.

So, actually I was intrigued with the use of the statistics you used to make your case.. and having said that, the Tempest was one helluva airplane.

Regards,

Bill


----------



## Glider (Jul 22, 2007)

I think in this lot you are trying to say
_Thanks Glider for replying to the questions that I raised and supplying information to back up your points. 
I agree that the Tempest has extra firepower but do not think this is valid as the USA were able to shoot down either Pre war bombers such as the Ju88, He111, Betty or flawed types such as the He177 with ease and don't think that the experience of the nations that fought the B17/B24/B29 is valid.
The US types do have the advantage of beter range payload but the Tempest is a hell of a plane'._

Incidently I also agree about the range payload comment and that the Tempest is a hell of a plane.

Regards


----------



## drgondog (Jul 22, 2007)

Glider said:


> I think in this lot you are trying to say
> _Thanks Glider for replying to the questions that I raised and supplying information to back up your points.
> I agree that the Tempest has extra firepower but do not think this is valid as the USA were able to shoot down either Pre war bombers such as the Ju88, He111, Betty or flawed types such as the He177 with ease and don't think that the experience of the nations that fought the B17/B24/B29 is valid.
> The US types do have the advantage of beter range payload but the Tempest is a hell of a plane'._
> ...



Lol - thanks again Glider, That is pretty much what I intended to say with one or two 'minor' tweaks'.. 

I was pointing out that the Tempest neither shot down the 'pre-war' designs, or the flawed designs, (but the Spit and Hurricane did quite well with 30 cal and 20 mm) or the modern designs.. and I am delighted to point out that the Me109K-4 with both 2x30mm as well as several mods of the Me109G with just single 30mm cannon and Mg151's were very effective against B-17s and B-24's so difficult to dismiss 6x .50 or 8x .50 as lethal anti bomber capability..

The He177 was certainly as modern as the B-17 and B-24 and Lancaster in speed, range and in case of Lancaster - defensive firepower 

Having said that I guess if killing modern designs is requisite then only the Me262/He219/Me110 against the Lanc, or the Shiden aginst the B-29 would classify as destructors of 'modern' designs as the rest were pre-WWII designs?

I believe I was quite happy to point out that a.) the Fw190A8 did have heavier firepower than the Tempest, and b.) it DID have a track record of shooting down modern, tough bombers... above paragraph being the exception if modern means say, post 1941 start of design

I failed to pint out that the Me110 with two upward firing 20mm (only two doing the shooting) in the Schrage Musik config did quite well against the Lancaster at night... 4x 20mm great, 2x 20mm just fine.

And yes I did learn something from you Glider (sincerely). I actually did not know of the issues the USN had in developing the 20mm as a reliable weapon until you so informed me - thank you and thanks for the debate.

And, yes the Tempest was a helluva airplane - so was the P-47, the F4U and the Fw190. I actually would be happy to fly any of them in combat (then).


----------



## davparlr (Jul 22, 2007)

renrich said:


> Dav my reference shows F4U4 vmax at sea level with mil power as 360 mph while with combat power 380 mph. I am not sure but the graph appears to be from NAVAIR, F4U4, 3/1/46.



Further researh supports this claim.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 22, 2007)

Glider said:


> I think in this lot you are trying to say
> _Thanks Glider for replying to the questions that I raised and supplying information to back up your points.
> I agree that the Tempest has extra firepower but do not think this is valid as the USA were able to shoot down either Pre war bombers such as the Ju88, He111, Betty or flawed types such as the He177 with ease and don't think that the experience of the nations that fought the B17/B24/B29 is valid.
> The US types do have the advantage of beter range payload but the Tempest is a hell of a plane'._
> ...



Glider Last but not least - I would fear no piston engine a/c in a tempest, a P-47, a F4u or Mustang at any altitude and would choose any of the first three as having the most firepower.. the Fw190D would fit that for me also


----------



## Soren (Jul 23, 2007)

Davparlr Renrich,

Look up the specs for the FW-190 G F series, which btw was the version I meant to point out.


----------



## renrich (Jul 23, 2007)

My reference shows the F series 190 with various combinations of guns, some with 2-7.9s and 2-20mms, some with a 30mm in gondolas under the wing, some with 13 mms instead of 7.9s, typical of German ac in WW2, an endless number of variations. The 3 could even carry a 3086 lb bomben torpedo but the more typical bomb load was a 1100 lb bomb on the centerline or some 550 lb bombs. The G190s were long range fighter bombers.


----------



## davparlr (Jul 25, 2007)

Soren said:


> Davparlr Renrich,
> 
> Look up the specs for the FW-190 G F series, which btw was the version I meant to point out.



Unfortunately I do not have data on this model. But looking up data on the internet, I found a site that indicated that the Fw-190G-1 had a upgraded landing gear that allowed a weapons load weight of 3968 lbs. However, it did not say that this is gross weight carrying capability. It is certainly Max weight capability (landing gear can hold no more). This would not come close to the Max loaded weight of the P-47N, which has max load carrying capability of 9700 lbs.


----------



## Cromwell (May 30, 2009)

*Hurricane IID*


I might be missing something here, but did any of you discuss the Hurricane 2D at all - with the 2 40mm S guns ?

To be honest, along with the Molins in the Tse-Tse Mosquito, I think the 40mm S gun was a Good Idea - it was certainly far more accurate than free-flight rockets most of which missed by a long way (although very spectacular)

It was probably more accurate than Bombs too - although less destructive power then bombs or rockets I guess.


----------

