# What was the best - or most significant - fighter-bomber of the war?



## CobberKane (Aug 17, 2012)

Interdiction was the unrecognised air campaign of the Second World War. In all theatres the fighter bomber, barely considered as a concept before the outbreak of hostilities, became vital to the success of ground forces. Against armour, infantry and everything that moved, from the Pacific to the ETO, Mediterranean and Western Front, the fighter bomber made a vital contribution, always a compromise, required to deliver a heavy payload and still defend itself against the dedicated fighters of the enemy. Some designs excelled in ground attack potential at the expense of air to air potency, others attempted to retain parity with opposition fighters but still pack enough ordinance to take out enemy armour and infrastructure in the teeth of concentrated AA.
So what was the best fighter bomber of the war, firstly in historical contribution, secondly in outright potency?


----------



## evangilder (Aug 17, 2012)

I think it Europe, The P-47, with 8 50 cals and the capability to carry bombs, rockets and other ordinance packed a powerful punch. For an aircraft that performed both duties, not necessarily at the same time, you can't beat the versatility of the Mosquito. The Mosquito was probably one of the most versatile aircraft of the war.


----------



## CobberKane (Aug 17, 2012)

evangilder said:


> I think it Europe, The P-47, with 8 50 cals and the capability to carry bombs, rockets and other ordinance packed a powerful punch. For an aircraft that performed both duties, not necessarily at the same time, you can't beat the versatility of the Mosquito. The Mosquito was probably one of the most versatile aircraft of the war.



Yes, the Mosquito wa amazingly adaptable, but I think in the fighter-bomber role it excelled as a bomber at the expense of being a fighter. In a low altitude dogfight against a single engine fighter it would have been at a significant disadvantage. The P-40 certainly proved itself and excellent fighter bomber, well able to defend itself against the 190s and 109s it faced and excepionally resistant to battle damage, but its vaunted firepower was a bit exaggerated compared to aircraft like the RAF's Typhoon.


----------



## norab (Aug 17, 2012)

I vote for the P-47 also


----------



## riacrato (Aug 17, 2012)

Quite a few candidates but for me it's the Fw 190 A/F/G-lineage with the Typhoon/Tempest as a second.


----------



## stona (Aug 17, 2012)

Best? For the Western Allies pick between the Typhoon and P-47, ask any German soldier in Normandy. For the Germans the Fw 190 ask any Russian advancing into Germany or any Allied soldier in an Italian beach head.

Most significant? One of the Allied ones,not because they were particularly effective but because there were so many of them.

I don't know if one of the Soviet aircraft should be included,I don't know enough about them.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## davebender (Aug 17, 2012)

"Best" and "Significant" aren't the same thing. 

Hawker Tempest may have been the best but not many made it into combat (aside from intercepting V1 cruise missiles).

Hawker Hurricane was marginal as a fighter aircraft (even during 1940). However the RAF did a fine job converting it into a ground attack aircraft and the Hurricane was produced in very large numbers. 

Me-110 with 3cm Mk101 / Mk103 cannon was an outstanding ground attack aircraft. However most Me-110s were produced as night fighter aicraft. The number of ground attack Me-110s were too small to have a significant impact on the war.

Fw-190F/G was good and over 6,600 were produced. They had a significant effect.

P-47 and P-51 were poor ground attack aircraft but they are History Channel favorites. I guess that makes them significant.


----------



## Thorlifter (Aug 17, 2012)

I think in the ETO, the P-47 will receive most of the votes, with a couple exceptions. (FW 190, Typhoon/Tempest, etc)

What about the PTO? Due to the distances involved, "my complete guess" is you didn't have near as many sorties with fighters carrying bombs as in the ETO. I'd have to go with my beloved Corsair.

Another plane to consider.....what about the Beaufighter?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 17, 2012)

Best - or most significant - P-47


----------



## davparlr (Aug 17, 2012)

Gotta throw in the F4U in the pile of one of the best.


----------



## Gixxerman (Aug 17, 2012)

davebender said:


> Hawker Hurricane was marginal as a fighter aircraft (even during 1940).



Dave where do you get this stuff from?
You obviously study this stuff so must know that is a very inaccurate statement.
Considering the BoB and all.
......or are you just trolling? (in which case sorry for biting)

Fighter bombers?
I think it's best to offer a few from each as pilots applications influence 'best' so much.
USA - P47, P51.
UK - Typhoon/Tempest.....and the Mossie for it's pin-point attacks.
Germany - Fw 190, Me 110, Ju87G
Russia - Il 2, Il 2, Il 2


----------



## renrich (Aug 17, 2012)

Corsair. Compared to P47-better performer at low altitude, better dive bomber, could operate from much shorter fields, carry bigger load ( up to 4000 pounds), almost as rugged, better fighter up to 25000 feet. First action by P47, March, 1943. First action by F4U, February, 1943. Corsair could operate from carrier as well as landbased. Corsair was still in action as premier air to ground FB in Korea. Corsair picked at fighter conference, 1944 as best FB.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Gixxerman (Aug 17, 2012)

Indeed, good call renrich, bit of a ETO-skew to my choices, the F 4 Corsair definitely should be a part of this and the F8 Bearcat too I guess.
I'm afraid I don't know enough about Japan's planes in this arena.


----------



## stona (Aug 17, 2012)

Gixxerman said:


> Dave where do you get this stuff from?
> You obviously study this stuff so must know that is a very inaccurate statement.
> Considering the BoB and all.
> ......or are you just trolling? (in which case sorry for biting)



He got the "large numbers" right though. Not far off 15,000. Even subtracting the 3,000 or so that went to the Soviets that's a good number.

Steve


----------



## davebender (Aug 17, 2012)

> Corsair. Compared to P47-better performer at low altitude, better dive bomber, could operate from much shorter fields


I agree. If we consider only American made aircraft the F4U easily beats the contenders. 

Unfortunately the U.S. Army Air Corps built the Evansville, Indiana plant to produce P-47s rather then F4Us. Otherwise F4Us might have been providing CAS in Europe.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 17, 2012)

Gixxerman said:


> Fighter bombers?
> I think it's best to offer a few from each as pilots applications influence 'best' so much.
> USA - P47, P51.
> UK - Typhoon/Tempest.....and the Mossie for it's pin-point attacks.
> ...



I would note that the Ju87G, good as it was for ground attack was not a fighter bomber. 
Same goes for the Russian Il-2. After dropping the bomb load neither the JU87 or the IL-2 would revert back to a fighter type aircraft, even a poor one.

Soviet fighters were handicapped by small engines and small airframes in the fighter bomber role. 0ne 20mm cannon and 1-2 MGs or two 20mm cannon are not great strafing armament and a pair of 100kg bombs isn't really a first class bomb load. 
The Japanese had a similar problem for most of the war. Low powered engines prevented a 1st class gun armament or bomb load. A single 250kg bomb under the Zero (replacing drop tank) or a pair of 250kg bombs under the Ki 43 pretty much cover the max capabilities of most Japanese fighters. Even the Ki 84 maxed at a pair of 250kg bombs. 

Bomb load alone isn't the only consideration, toughness and accuracy of delivery also count but good comparisons of the last is hard to come by. anecdotes don't really count for much except to cover generalities. 

I would also try to separate out "strike" fighters from fighter bombers. Good as the Beaufighter may have been against ships it wasn't used against land targets that often using bombs in the ETO or MTO was it? 
It did have a powerful gun armament but again how good a daylight fighter was it once the ordnance (bombs or rockets) was gone?


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 17, 2012)

In the ETO, Fw 190 series; excellent fighter capable of carrying a good payload, ditto for my Pacific choice, the F4U.


----------



## Gixxerman (Aug 17, 2012)

Shortround6 said:


> I would note that the Ju87G, good as it was for ground attack was not a fighter bomber.
> Same goes for the Russian Il-2.



Yes indeed, my bad, apologies.


----------



## renrich (Aug 17, 2012)

The F8F was not a good fighter bomber which is the reason it was replaced by Corsairs prior to the Korean War. It could not carry the load of the Corsair. The F8F was conceived as a fleet defense fighter which would operate from small decks.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 17, 2012)

In the pacific, great work was done with the lowly p-40. i like it because using it as an FB did not divert better fighters away from other more critical roles. they were "expendable"......


----------



## gjs238 (Aug 17, 2012)

Didn't some folks refer to the P-40 as the B-40?


----------



## fastmongrel (Aug 17, 2012)

P 40 for me. Tough as old boots and available in numbers when needed.


----------



## DonL (Aug 17, 2012)

> The P-40 certainly proved itself and excellent fighter bomber, well able to defend itself against the 190s and 109s it faced and excepionally resistant to battle damage



Is this dreaming or do you have some facts for this claim?

The FW 190G, Typhoon/Tempest, P47 and the F4U-4 are realy close and I don't make a decision.
The only thing I want to add is, that the FW 190, 190 D-9, Ta 152 and the F4U-1-4 were the best multi role singled engine fighter/fighter bomber of the WWII.
This two a/c's were the most versatile single engined a/c's of WWII, were the F4U had the advantage !


----------



## CobberKane (Aug 17, 2012)

davebender said:


> "Best" and "Significant" aren't the same thing.
> 
> Hawker Tempest may have been the best but not many made it into combat (aside from intercepting V1 cruise missiles).
> 
> ...



'Best' and 'most significant' certainly are different criteria, and I used them deliberately. Any discussion of the 'best' of any aircrft typre without qualification will probably confine candidates to the last year or so of the war, due to rapid advances in technology. 'Most significant' re-introduces ealier aircraft that may have been superceeded but had proven themselves pre-eminent in the early or mid-war periods. Hence, the Tempest is better than the Typhoon, but the Typhoon is more significant than the Tempest.
I'm not sure how you would support the assertion that the P-47 was a 'poor' ground attack aircraft. Looking at the ability to put hurt on enemy ground assets I would rate the my top contenders thus:

1 Tempest/Typhoon
2 P-47/F4U
5 Fw190F

And in the air to air role:

1 Tempest 
2 P47/F4U/Fw190F
3 Typhoon

And finally significance:

1 P47/Typhoon
2 F4F/Fw190F
3 Tempest

The outright best withitout qualification? The Tempest.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## VBF-13 (Aug 17, 2012)

CobberKane said:


> Interdiction was the unrecognised air campaign of the Second World War. In all theatres the fighter bomber, barely considered as a concept before the outbreak of hostilities, became vital to the success of ground forces. Against armour, infantry and everything that moved, from the Pacific to the ETO, Mediterranean and Western Front, the fighter bomber made a vital contribution, always a compromise, required to deliver a heavy payload and still defend itself against the dedicated fighters of the enemy. Some designs excelled in ground attack potential at the expense of air to air potency, others attempted to retain parity with opposition fighters but still pack enough ordinance to take out enemy armour and infrastructure in the teeth of concentrated AA.
> So what was the best fighter bomber of the war, firstly in historical contribution, secondly in outright potency?


In terms of both contribution and potency the VBF Squadrons didn't exactly do too badly with the F6Fs.


----------



## mhuxt (Aug 17, 2012)

I'm going to go way off-topic here, so apologies mods, please don't smite me with the ban stick.

The P-47 gets a lot of mentions in this thread, and there's been reference to its having been built in Evansville, Indiana.

Back in a previous lifetime, I did a long consulting project very close to Evansville, and flew in and out of the airport there. That field must have echoed with the roar of Thunderbolts through many long years of the war, as American industry threw itself into the task at hand.

Much as I tried, the only trace I could find of a P-47 there was a single throttle box in the airport terminal. Gone, all gone, as if it had never been.

Ah, don't get me going, I'll turn into an old fart.

I now return you to your regularly-scheduled thread.


----------



## wuzak (Aug 17, 2012)

davebender said:


> Unfortunately the U.S. Army Air Corps built the Evansville, Indiana plant to produce P-47s rather then F4Us. Otherwise F4Us might have been providing CAS in Europe.



I would guess that the P-47s from that plant were expected to do a fighter role, and not a fighter-bomber/CAS role.


----------



## wuzak (Aug 17, 2012)

CobberKane said:


> Looking at the ability to put hurt on enemy ground assets I would rate the my top contenders thus:
> 
> 1 Tempest/Typhoon
> 2 P-47/F4U
> ...



What about the Mosquito FB.VI?

Perhaps not as good as a CAS aircraft as those listed above, but could, and did, "put a hurt" on German ground assets. Granted they usually weren't troops or tanks, but Gestapo headquarters, bridges, mobile v1 launchers and such like.

Or is it really CAS aircraft that you are after?


----------



## parsifal (Aug 17, 2012)

On the axis side Fw190 is probably the best, but Me109 is probably the most significant. it was pretty good at the task, and available in large numbers,


----------



## GregP (Aug 17, 2012)

I'm afraid I don't understand some earlier replies. 

The P-47 was excellent at ground attack, with heavy armament and quite able to sustain a lot of battle damage and still make it home. In the ETO, it was the best American ground attack fighter of the single engine variety. We built 12,500 P-47's or so, and MOST wound up in the ETO, probably 8,500 or so.

The British built about 1,700 Tempests. Though a good aircraft, I'd take the cumulative damage from 8,500 P-47's any day over the cumulative damage from 1,700 Tempests .... good thing the two are not in a contest, huh? In air-to-air, the difference could well be the pilot, with a slight advantage to the Tempest at lower altitudes. Good thing they never fought since I really LIKE the Tempest ... when the Sabre was running well.

Let's just say that if you had to attack with ONE aircraft, and if you had surprise, I'd fly a Tempest. If you did NOT have surprise, give me a P-47 any day of the week.

The Ta-152 was a footnote at best and nothing in the war. They only delivered 43 of them, never more than about 25 operational at any one time, and they collectively almost had no effect on the war at all. They DID achieve anywhere from 4 to 7 air-to-air victories at the expense of four losses. Hardly the stuff of legend. Beats me why everyone is so taken with it, given the actual war record. Even the P-40 had a better war record! For that matter, so did the Brewster Buffalo. Lord, please forgive me for saying that, but it is true.

In the PTO, the best American ground attack fighter of the single engine variety was the Corsair, as amply stated already. Nothing wrong with the Hellcat but, individually at least, Corsairs were a bit better at it.


----------



## Milosh (Aug 17, 2012)

The Tempest was more of an air superiority fighter than a fighter bomber. It occasionally attacked ground targets when on armed recon missions using its 4 cannons. The Typhoon was the fighter-bomber.

Did the Ta152H ever carry bombs? Not that I know of.


----------



## wuzak (Aug 17, 2012)

GregP said:


> I'd take the cumulative damage from 8,500 P-47's any day over the cumulative damage from 1,700 Tempests ....



That describes the difference between _the best_ and _the most significant_.

The P-47 being the most significant, the Tempest being, arguably, the best.


----------



## CobberKane (Aug 18, 2012)

wuzak said:


> What about the Mosquito FB.VI?
> 
> Perhaps not as good as a CAS aircraft as those listed above, but could, and did, "put a hurt" on German ground assets. Granted they usually weren't troops or tanks, but Gestapo headquarters, bridges, mobile v1 launchers and such like.
> 
> Or is it really CAS aircraft that you are after?



I didn’t include the Mossie because I didn’t think it would really be able to hold its own against single engine interceptors. It terms of plastering ground targets it would have ruled the roost of course, but I tend to think of it more as a ground attack aircraft with at least some capacity as a fighter rather than a bon fide fighter-bomber, though I know it was classed as such.
Parsifal, was the 109 really more significant than the 190? The 190F took a terrific toll on USSR ground forces and armour.
DonL – Sorry, that was a typo – I meant the “the P-47 (not P 40) was well able to defend itself against the 109 and 190…” that said, the P40 deserves a mention for its service as a fighter bomber – generally outclassed in a dogfight, but still dangerous.
GregP, I agree that the P47 was more significant than the Tempest if only because of numbers, though I’d suggest the Tempest’s superiority as a low to mid altitude fighter was maybe a bit more pronounced than you suggest. What about the significance of the P47 v the Typhoon? There were a lot more Tiffies built than Tempests, and post D-Day they were used almost exclusively in the fighter bomber role, whereas I think a good proportion of P 47s were still doing escort duty. Also, I believe the pace of operations with the RAF Typhoon squadrons was incredible.


----------



## Timppa (Aug 18, 2012)

CobberKane said:


> There were a lot more Tiffies built than Tempests, and post D-Day they were used almost exclusively in the fighter bomber role, whereas I think a good proportion of P 47s were still doing escort duty. Also, I believe the pace of operations with the RAF Typhoon squadrons was incredible.



The French even made a memorial to the Typhoon pilots:








Quite unique for a single aircraft type.
Typhoon memorial in Normandy - NAPIER POWER HERITAGE


----------



## wuzak (Aug 18, 2012)

CobberKane said:


> I didn’t include the Mossie because I didn’t think it would really be able to hold its own against single engine interceptors.



I would say that the FB.VI could "hold its own" against s/e fighters, but no more than that. The Typhoon, Thunderbolt, Fw 190, et al, could do more than that, of course, and be more competitive air to air.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 18, 2012)

The problem i have with proffering the very best fighters that a nation produces as also the best and most significant fighter bomber is that those airframes diverted to fighter bomber duties are not going to be as available for their primary mission.....fighter. surely using air frames that no longer quite cut the mustard as a fighter in an almost as crucial role of fighter bomber is the best way of using resources. 

An example of this might be the soviet I-16. it had pretty much reached obsolesecence by 1941, but found new life as a fighter bomber 1942-3. Not great at either role, but a useful adaptation of resources just the same. Every I-16 able to be used in the FB role released a more capable type from fb duties to fighter duties.


----------



## CobberKane (Aug 18, 2012)

wuzak said:


> I would say that the FB.VI could "hold its own" against s/e fighters, but no more than that. The Typhoon, Thunderbolt, Fw 190, et al, could do more than that, of course, and be more competitive air to air.


 And, of course, the FB.VI was at least fast enough to make make interception an issue so a lot of the time it didn't have to fight. I guess it all depends where you draw the line; did the Mossie tend far enough to the 'bomber' side of 'fighter bomber' so as to drop out of the catagory? If so, it can't have been by much, and it was an awesome aircraft any way you look at it. The P51 may have gone too far in the other direction - too much fighter and not enough bomber, maybe.
One area where the Mosquito would have gained points was the survivability of it's twin engine design - lose one merlin and you still have another in reserve. I guess this would have been particularly important for aircraft with liquid cooled engines that could disabled even by small arms fire. The P 38 hasn't been mentioned so far and it also had an engine up its sleeve, so to speak.
The P 51 is often mentioned as being particularly vulnerable to small calibur ground fire due to it's liquid cooled engine, yet I've never heard the same critisism leveled at the Typhoon or Tempest - something to do with the positioning of the radiator, perhaps?


----------



## Rick65 (Aug 18, 2012)

For ground attack the Typhoon had a big advantage over the Tempest and P 47 because of it's ability to carry rockets to supplement it's guns. Though the success (and accuracy) of rocket attacks is debated, they offered an option other than guns or bombs and the Typhoon and Hurricane were the single engined planes that used them most in the ETO. Was the Tempest even equipped to carry them during the war?


----------



## wuzak (Aug 18, 2012)

CobberKane said:


> I guess this would have been particularly important for aircraft with liquid cooled engines that could disabled even by small arms fire.



Not that again.

That, to me, is just an example of the overexaggeration of the vulnerability of liquid cooled engines to battle damage.


----------



## wuzak (Aug 18, 2012)

CobberKane said:


> The P 51 is often mentioned as being particularly vulnerable to small calibur ground fire due to it's liquid cooled engine, yet I've never heard the same critisism leveled at the Typhoon or Tempest - something to do with the positioning of the radiator, perhaps?



The Typhoon, at least, had some armour added around the engine and radiator for use in ground attack.


----------



## stona (Aug 18, 2012)

Rick65 said:


> For ground attack the Typhoon had a big advantage over the Tempest and P 47 because of it's ability to carry rockets to supplement it's guns. Though the success (and accuracy) of rocket attacks is debated, they offered an option other than guns or bombs and the Typhoon and Hurricane were the single engined planes that used them most in the ETO.



The most accurate weapons that any of these aircraft carried by a very large margin were their cannon and/or machine guns.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## fastmongrel (Aug 18, 2012)

wuzak said:


> Not that again.
> 
> That, to me, is just an example of the overexaggeration of the vulnerability of liquid cooled engines to battle damage.



Its well known that a Typhoon fell out of the sky if someone fired a BB gun at it. Whereas the P 47 could keep on flying missing 12 cylinders, a wing and the tail and in fact could loop the loop in that condition 

The P 47 wouldnt be my favourite for the role because it is dragging that big blower around, about half a ton of it iirc. Not the fault of the plane it just wasnt ideal for mud plugging. If it has to be a round engined plane for the job then I would go for the Hellcat. It could lift a big load from a small field and was more resistant to damage than either the P 47 or Corsair. There was quite a big thread a while back that had stats to show iirc that the Hellcat was around 1.5 times more likely to survive a hit by AAA than a Corsair. The oil cooler on the Corsair was I think the culprit.


----------



## NiceShotAustin (Aug 18, 2012)

For the ETO, I think the P-47 wins hands down. The fighter-bomber role is what it is known for! But the PTO is a different story. The F-4U of course is somewhere on the list. The P-40, although not the best, was used to great success. The P-38 also deserves a good mention with its excellent payload, range, and twin engine reliability


----------



## drgondog (Aug 18, 2012)

As None of the Allied fighters started their development as a Fighter Bombers save the A-36, it seems the discussion is more "Which airframe adapted to the role of CAS better than the others in the discussion - while still retaining fighter versus fighter capability at low to medium altitudes?"

I tend to remove the A-36 from the equation for two reasons - one they were a stop gap Modification to keep the NAA P-51 production line open, and two - it did not have 1000 pound shackles. Having said that it was by far the most accurate bomb delivery system of the high performance single engine aircraft discussed so far.

I also have a tendency to remove the P-51B/D, the FW 190D, the Ta 152, the P-40, the Tempest and the Typhoon from immediate consideration because of the Relative vulnerabilty of the coolant system when compared to the FW 190G, the P-47, the F6 and the F4U.

But I am reminded that the combined firepower of the Typhoon's 4x20mm plus accuracy of the rocket battery draws comparison with the FW 190G capability against armored vehicles, while sacrificing the ammunition advantage of the P-47. I do not have the statistics to back it up but I believe the Typhoon would be more efficient in ground destruction than any of the air cooled Piston engine airframes except the FW 190G.

I would tend to favor the Typhoon/FW 190G - and invite you to pick one.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 18, 2012)

NiceShotAustin said:


> For the ETO, I think the P-47 wins hands down. The fighter-bomber role is what it is known for! But the PTO is a different story. The F-4U of course is somewhere on the list. The P-40, although not the best, was used to great success. The P-38 also deserves a good mention with its excellent payload, range, and twin engine reliability



It would be hard to make the argument that the P-47's claim to its niche in WWII was as a Fighter Bomber. It certainly had success as such with 9th AF but the 8th AF role as escort fighter certainly was its primary mission, and the 9th AF Jugs were almost totally devoted to supporting 8th AF mission to destroy Luftwaffe before they were given back to 9th AF operational control in May 1944. Interestingly (and statistically) the P-38 suffered the highest 8th AF loss rate per aircraft destroyed on the ground in the ETO. I have never found any data on loss per sortie for air-ground attack role.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 18, 2012)

DG I have to ask a question at this point....is there any data to support this notion that liquid cooled aircraft were in some way more vulnerable to (I assume) ground fire. I have to admit,Ive never heard of it before this.....


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 18, 2012)

There is little doubt the liquid cooled engine was more vulnerable. How much more vulnerable is certainly open to debate. 5% or 50% 

In the CBI theater the P-38 actually had the lowest loss for ground attacks but since there were usually only 2 squadrons (?) operating for a considerable period of time that might not be enough for a valid statistical basis. 

Small changes can make big differences, like the F6F vs F4U comparison. Both big tough airplanes powered by essentially the same engine that needed the same amount of oil cooling yet the placement of the oil cooler/s made one more vulnerable than the other. Placement of radiators might make one plane more vulnerable than the other. Do strafing planes get hit more often near the nose or the tail ( how well do ground gunners lead the aircraft?) Is a chin radiator more vulnerable or less than one positioned further back? 
Some liquid engines ran better ( or longer) with a holed radiator than others. Just like some P-47s returning with cylinders missing and pumping out oil, is there enough reserve capacity to give the plane a chance of returning (short distance) with a holed radiator?


----------



## NiceShotAustin (Aug 18, 2012)

drgondog said:


> It would be hard to make the argument that the P-47's claim to its niche in WWII was as a Fighter Bomber. It certainly had success as such with 9th AF but the 8th AF role as escort fighter certainly was its primary mission, and the 9th AF Jugs were almost totally devoted to supporting 8th AF mission to destroy Luftwaffe before they were given back to 9th AF operational control in May 1944. *Interestingly (and statistically) the P-38 suffered the highest 8th AF loss rate per aircraft destroyed on the ground in the ETO. *I have never found any data on loss per sortie for air-ground attack role.


I'm not saying that the P-47's "niche" was that of a fighter-bomber, but I will argue that it is the role that it is most known for and did the most successfully. As for the P-38, the models used in the ETO were far from the sturdiest. The wing roots were vulnerable and there were still some bugs to be worked out with the twin Allisons. The later model P-38s rectified those issues, but they were never used in the ETO. On top of that, a lot of the bombing missions assigned to the P-38 in the ETO weren't necessarily the the most well thought out (ever heard about the attack on Ploiești?). It really was a great fighter-bomber (specifically the L variant), especially in the PTO



parsifal said:


> DG I have to ask a question at this point....is there any data to support this notion that liquid cooled aircraft were in some way more vulnerable to (I assume) ground fire. *I have to admit,Ive never heard of it before this.....


In liquid cooled engines, if a pipe directing the liquid coolant is raptured, it can be catastrophic for the engine as it will overheat. Radials don't have such an issue as there is plenty of air in the... well... air to cool the engine, even if the aircraft is hit. Of course, there are several other big factors, but this is the one that I'm most aware of


----------



## VBF-13 (Aug 18, 2012)

GregP said:


> In the PTO, the best American ground attack fighter of the single engine variety was the Corsair, as amply stated already. Nothing wrong with the Hellcat but, individually at least, Corsairs were a bit better at it.


Well, if we're talking about land targets, I think we can say the Corsairs did the most damage for us. At least, in Okinawa. I don't know whether I'd say that's a rating on their bombing-fighting aspect, though. There, I'd think, the Hellcats easily rate with them. Let's add one other dimension we've been neglecting. I know when the Corsairs hit those land bases in Okinawa, they were deployed with full-compliments of rockets under their wings, whenever possible. And, yes, they did pretty good with those.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 18, 2012)

parsifal said:


> DG I have to ask a question at this point....is there any data to support this notion that liquid cooled aircraft were in some way more vulnerable to (I assume) ground fire. I have to admit,Ive never heard of it before this.....



Short answer "I don't know".

Overall the Mustang destroyed more German aircraft on the ground per loss of strafing aircraft than the P-47 and far less than the P-38J-10 through J-25s used by ETO Lightning FG's. 

However, I see no way to a.) gather all fighter aircraft statistics on a mission by Mission basis, b.) parse the action reports and macrs to gather loss data as function of low level action, c.) separate losses due to loss of control versus suffer battle damage, d.) make judgements regarding cause of loss (Coolant loss, engine damage, catastrophic failure, fuel leak, pilot wounds, etc.

So, I don't know how to provide clear objective basis to make the case one way or the other.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 18, 2012)

NiceShotAustin said:


> As for the P-38, the models used in the ETO were far from the sturdiest. The wing roots were vulnerable and there were still some bugs to be worked out with the twin Allisons. The later model P-38s rectified those issues, but they were never used in the ETO. On top of that, a lot of the bombing missions assigned to the P-38 in the ETO weren't necessarily the the most well thought out (ever heard about the attack on Ploiești?). It really was a great fighter-bomber (specifically the L variant), especially in the PTO



What models (The Sturdy ones) are you assuming were not used in ETO? The ground strafing of airfields, marshalling yards, rail and barge traffic started when Doolittle told 8th FC to 'go sic em' in February 1944. The P-38 inventory for the 20th, 55th and soon to be operational 354th had P-38J-10s and continuously upgraded until they transitioned to Mustangs in July. The last 8th AF P-38 FG was the 479th. Its sister group the 474th went to 9th AF. Both had J-25s in late July and the 474th ultimately had P-38L-1's. Were they 'Sturdy' or 'Weak' in your opinion.

Given this, the P-38 had the worst record of a.) destruction of German aircraft per fighter lost in the air, and b.) the destruction of German aircraft on the ground.

The latter environment was the most hazardous light flak concentration fighter encountered in WWII. Why did the single engine Mustang achieve far superior ratios?

The 8th AF P-38 destroyed ~161 a/c for the loss of ~ 109 P-38s while strafing at low altituded
The 8th AF P-47 destroyed ~740 a/c for the loss of ~ 200 P-47s " " " " "
The 8th AF P-51 destroyed ~ 3204 a/c for the loss of 569.

By contrast the 8th AF Mustangs destroyed 3315 air for the loss of 322 in air combat. 
the P-47 destroyed 1562 for loss of 214
the P-38 destroyed 281 for loss of 101.


----------



## buffnut453 (Aug 18, 2012)

P-51 is a smaller target? Loss of one engine at low level can be challenging to control for high-powered twins? P-38 had vital systems in a more vulnerable location? P-38s flew against better-defended targets? Essentially, there are all sorts of variables.


----------



## wuzak (Aug 18, 2012)

NiceShotAustin said:


> In liquid cooled engines, if a pipe directing the liquid coolant is raptured, it can be catastrophic for the engine as it will overheat. Radials don't have such an issue as there is plenty of air in the... well... air to cool the engine, even if the aircraft is hit. Of course, there are several other big factors, but this is the one that I'm most aware of



That's the conventional wisdom, but I'm not so sure coolant lines are so easy to rupture. Radiators and header tanks would probably be more vulnerable, but even so I doubt they are as vulnerable as proponents of air cooled engines suggest.


----------



## wuzak (Aug 18, 2012)

fastmongrel said:


> The P 47 wouldnt be my favourite for the role because it is dragging that big blower around, about half a ton of it iirc.



Ballast!

I wonder if it were feasible that P-47's being used in the ground attack role would have their turbos removed? 

At the altitudes CAS missions were flown I doubt that the turbo gave too much advantage over a single stage R-2800. For the P-47 it had to remain to maintain the weight balance, though.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 18, 2012)

wuzak said:


> That's the conventional wisdom, *but I'm not so sure coolant lines are so easy to rupture*. Radiators and header tanks would probably be more vulnerable, but even so I doubt they are as vulnerable as proponents of air cooled engines suggest.


Don't kid yourself. A small caliber round can ruin your whole day and also consider rubber products 60 years ago weren't as resilient as those produced today (braided PRC)


----------



## wuzak (Aug 18, 2012)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Don't kid yourself. A small caliber round can ruin your whole day and also consider rubber products 60 years ago weren't as resilient as those produced today (braided PRC)



How much of the coolant lines were rubber hose? How much were actually steel?

How much of it was completely unprotected? ie exposed.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 18, 2012)

Coolant lines, even if steel offer scant protection. In an old book I have the penetration tables of the US .30-06 1906 round. MV 2700fps, 150 grain bullet, lead core cupronickel jacket. NOT AP. I think we can assume that most aircraft MGs would fire rounds not too much different, AP rounds of course should do better. 

At 400yds at sea level it would penetrate 1/4 in of low grade steel. At 200yds it would penetrate .26in into a 1/2 in plate of low grade steel. At 400yds it will penetrate just under 18in worth of 1in thick oak or yellow pine boards. Or 4.8 in of hard coal (held between 1in boards. Or 1 1/2 in of brick. 
Granted the coolant lines are inside the aircraft and piercing the skin and some structure may destabilize the bullet and cause it to hit sideways instead of end on, but no "soft" steel (bendable) steel tubing is really going to stand up to rifle caliber bullet hits. Let alone and tubes/pipes made up of lesser materials.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 18, 2012)

I confess i dont know about this issue, and am really just thinking aloud.....I would think the chances of hitting a radiator or line so as to immediately seize the engine are not that high. In the outback, i dont know how many times ive hit a radiator line with a sharp rock, punctured the radiator or one of the lines. ive also put conrods through the water jacket once or twice. Puncturing the coolant lines or the radiator is a serious threat to the engine, but it seldom causes an immediate seizure. Depending on just how hot the engine is, and how hard its working, you might get 30 mins or an hour before the whole thing seizes. its bad, but its not as bad as a burst oil line. If oil pressure drops, youve literally got seconds before the whole engine seizes. i am sure that would apply equally to Radials as it does water cooled engines.

With that in mind, it then gets down to how many oil and coolant lines are in each generic type. are there more exposed lines in a radial or a water cooled engine?


----------



## wuzak (Aug 18, 2012)

And how well do bullets penetrate round steel when not hitting on the centreline?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 18, 2012)

wuzak said:


> How much of the coolant lines were rubber hose? How much were actually steel?
> 
> How much of it was completely unprotected? ie exposed.


----------



## wuzak (Aug 18, 2012)

FLYBOYJ said:


>



The black ones, at least, seem to be oil lines?


----------



## wuzak (Aug 18, 2012)




----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 18, 2012)

wuzak said:


> The black ones, at least, seem to be oil lines?


Hard to say as I don't know who manufactured those hoses on that P-38. Many times fluid lines are color coded, and maked, sometimes on modern restorations they are just made "pretty" on the outside.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 18, 2012)

wuzak said:


> And how well do bullets penetrate round steel when not hitting on the centreline?


Depends on the size of the bullet and tube. Welded steel tubing was made from mild steel (4130/ 4140) and was pretty durable and easily welded and repaired.


----------



## wuzak (Aug 19, 2012)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Hard to say as I don't know who manufactured those hoses on that P-38. Many times fluid lines are color coded, and maked, sometimes on modern restorations they are just made "pretty" on the outside.



I just suggested that beause they appear to be heading to and from the oil coolers, which are mounted under the front of the engine.

The green one just under the top of the opening seems to be the coolant hose. And it appears to have a tortuous path through to the back, heading for the rear mounted radiators.


----------



## wuzak (Aug 19, 2012)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Depends on the size of the bullet and tube. Welded steel tubing was made from mild steel (4130/ 4140) and was pretty durable and easily welded and repaired.



And offset from centreline.


----------



## CobberKane (Aug 19, 2012)

Rick65 said:


> For ground attack the Typhoon had a big advantage over the Tempest and P 47 because of it's ability to carry rockets to supplement it's guns. Though the success (and accuracy) of rocket attacks is debated, they offered an option other than guns or bombs and the Typhoon and Hurricane were the single engined planes that used them most in the ETO. Was the Tempest even equipped to carry them during the war?


 
Really?? I've seen plenty of pics of P-47s with those rocket-in- a- tube set ups the USAAF used, though I believe it ussually carried bombs. The Tempest regularly carried rockets and used them in the same way the Typhoon did. In fact there was nothing a Typhoon could do that a Tempest couldn't do, and most things the Tempest did better. 
I do think the P47 is getting a little over-hyped hare at the expense of the Typhoon. That's not to say the P47 wasn't a terrific fighter bomber - it was - but the Tiffie had some advantages too. The P47 was probably tougher (it was tougher than just about anything) and better air to air, but the Typhoon had a much more firepower and I think it would have been faster down low as well. And although it arrived too late to really have an impact, I think the Tempest was probably the best of the lot


----------



## CobberKane (Aug 19, 2012)

parsifal said:


> I confess i dont know about this issue, and am really just thinking aloud.....I would think the chances of hitting a radiator or line so as to immediately seize the engine are not that high. In the outback, i dont know how many times ive hit a radiator line with a sharp rock, punctured the radiator or one of the lines. ive also put conrods through the water jacket once or twice. Puncturing the coolant lines or the radiator is a serious threat to the engine, but it seldom causes an immediate seizure. Depending on just how hot the engine is, and how hard its working, you might get 30 mins or an hour before the whole thing seizes. its bad, but its not as bad as a burst oil line. If oil pressure drops, youve literally got seconds before the whole engine seizes. i am sure that would apply equally to Radials as it does water cooled engines.
> 
> With that in mind, it then gets down to how many oil and coolant lines are in each generic type. are there more exposed lines in a radial or a water cooled engine?



Why is everyone talking about radiators and coolant lines? They might be the most vulnerable part of a liquid cooled engine, but the last time I pulled and engine apart the water jacket ran right around the block, which was made of cast aluminium. I would have thought that any .50 hitting an aluminium engine block would have very likely breached the coolant channels, even without thinking what a 20mm would have done. In contrast many radial engines could continue to operate even after similar punisment had removed entire cylinders.
Liquid cooled ingines have some advantages over air cooled engines. Water is far more dense than air and more effective as a coolant, so a liquid cooled motor can achieve a similar cooling outcome to an air cooled motor by putting a radiator out into the airstream instead of the whole engine. The trade off is increased complexity and vulnerability to battle damage. After all, enemy fire can deprive the liquid cooled motor of water/glycol, but it can hardly deprive the air cooled motor of air.


----------



## wuzak (Aug 19, 2012)

double post


----------



## wuzak (Aug 19, 2012)

CobberKane said:


> In contrast many radial engines could continue to operate even after similar punisment had removed entire cylinders.



The more I hear that the more it sounds like an urban myth.

Do you have any examples of it happening?




CobberKane said:


> Why is everyone talking about radiators and coolant lines? They might be the most vulnerable part of a liquid cooled engine, but the last time I pulled and engine apart the water jacket ran right around the block, which was made of cast aluminium. I would have thought that any .50 hitting an aluminium engine block would have very likely breached the coolant channels, even without thinking what a 20mm would have done.



Dan Whitney, _Vees for Victory_, has a picture of an Allison V-1710, from a P-40, that was shot full of holes and managed to enable the plane to return to base. 

Just because you lose coolant doesn't mean the engine stops immediately.





CobberKane said:


> After all, enemy fire can deprive the liquid cooled motor of water/glycol, but it can hardly deprive the air cooled motor of air.



You certainly can deprive an air-cooled motor of air. If the control mechanism is damaged and the cowl flaps disabled in the closed position it could mean that full power cannot be used. Damage the cowling itself and disrupt the airflow and the cooling won't be as efficient.

There were also many air cooled installations that were marginal for coling at the best of times. Throw in some blockage, damage to the cooling fins and that could tip them over the edge.


Lop off a cylinder and you will pump all your oil to atmosphere and you'll be on borrowd time. That is providing the rest of th eengine isn't damaged by the cylinder removal.


----------



## CobberKane (Aug 19, 2012)

wuzak said:


> The more I hear that the more it sounds like an urban myth.
> 
> Do you have any examples of it happening?
> 
> ...


 
Response: You very well might loose all your oil - or as Gross's experience illustrates, you might not. The cooling system of a liguid cooled motor is pressurised so that the coolant doesn't boil away. If it is punctured you loose pressure and the boiling point for your coolant drops dramatically - ie your coolant turns to steam and dissappears. Oil in a sump is also pressurised, but even if damage causes deprerisation the oil is not going to evaporate. As long as enough remains in the sump to circulate the engine will run


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 19, 2012)

There are a few well documented instances of it happening. How often may well be another story and yes, time in the air is rather dependent on the oil supply. The photos of one or two P-47s with such damage show planes (fuselages) almost completely covered in oil. 
However, if just a few planes made it back with such damage it does show that a a hit (or hits) to the cylinder fins, cylinder head, valve assemblies are less likely to stop the engine. I would also note that as far as I know *ONLY* the R-2800 showed the ability to keep going with missing cylinders. Other radials may have done it but I have not heard of it but I certainly do not have the worlds experience. Some other radials may have been a lot more fragile than the R-2800. 

Damaged engines (or installations) are going to be very questionable about giving full, or near full, power. But "getting home" might only require 400-500hp from a 1500-2000hp engine. Maybe even less. 
I once got a car "home" over a distance of less than 2 miles after putting a rod through the side of the block. The hole was under/behind the exhaust manifold and things did get rather smoky  

on a lot of these damaged engines how successful the pilot was at getting back may depend on how far he had to go. 15min from base (friendly field) or over an hour?


----------



## wuzak (Aug 19, 2012)

Mr Gross is/was a lucky guy.

I certainly wouldn't depend on the engine continuing to run without a cylinder.


----------



## wuzak (Aug 19, 2012)

CobberKane said:


> Oil in a sump is also pressurised, but even if damage causes deprerisation the oil is not going to evaporate. As long as enough remains in the sump to circulate the engine will run



The oil disappearing is the issue. Some aircraft have bigger oil reserves than others, which may have helped the P-47 in that case.


----------



## Rick65 (Aug 19, 2012)

Cobber

"Tempest Mk. V was tested and cleared to carry 8 zero length 60 lb ground attack rockets. But it was never used operationally during the war. After the war, when used on Mk. IIs, the rockets were often mounted on zero length hooks."
The Hawker Tempest Page
I've seen photos of Tempest IIs (Centaurus) with rockets but not on the Sabre powered versions.
The ground attack rockets always make me think of the Typhoon and Beaufighter, Mosquito in an anti shipping role.

There is lots of footage of P47s shooting up various ground targets in the ETO but I haven't seen any where they used rockets - can any one provide a link?

There is a reference in "Angels 20" to author Ted Park's P47 making it home with fairly catastrophic engine damage. "The plane was fine except for a hole in the cowling. A piece of the cylinder head had blown right through it when the engine surged..... It's an indication of the Jug's legendary toughness that mine got me home that day even though a useless piston was slatting around in a ruptured cylinder , deep in its innards."


----------



## Kryten (Aug 19, 2012)

Tempest rarely carried bombs either, it was used in NW Europe on strafing missions with cannon and medium alt CAP, the Luftwaffe was a diminishing presence so they spent the majority of thier time attacking trains and vehicles, if you read some of the pilots bibliographies they recount many missions where strafing ground targets was the primary objective, Typhoon was employed almost exclusively in army support operations up to the end of the war!


----------



## stona (Aug 19, 2012)

Rick65 said:


> There is lots of footage of P47s shooting up various ground targets in the ETO but I haven't seen any where they used rockets - can any one provide a link?



Such footage may exist but would be most unusual.
In North West Europe the first P-47s to use rockets became operational in July 1944 but were only equipped to fire four 5" HVARs. Later this capacity was doubled but the USAAF in Europe (including Italy) never employed rockets on a large scale.
P-47s of the 9th AF fired 13,959 rockets during the war which may sound a lot but pales compared with the 222,515 fired by the RAF 2nd TAF.
The 9th AF preferred napalm.
Steve


----------



## NiceShotAustin (Aug 19, 2012)

drgondog said:


> What models (The Sturdy ones) are you assuming were not used in ETO? *The ground strafing of airfields, marshalling yards, rail and barge traffic started when Doolittle told 8th FC to 'go sic em' in February 1944. *The P-38 inventory for the 20th, 55th and soon to be operational 354th had P-38J-10s and continuously upgraded until they transitioned to Mustangs in July. *The last 8th AF P-38 FG was the 479th. Its sister group the 474th went to 9th AF. Both had J-25s in late July and the 474th ultimately had P-38L-1's. *Were they 'Sturdy' or 'Weak' in your opinion.
> 
> Given this, the P-38 had the worst record of a.) destruction of German aircraft per fighter lost in the air, and b.) the destruction of German aircraft on the ground.
> 
> ...


The J variants were where most of these issues were solved. The Js were used in the ETO (I definitely should've re-worded "the P-38s used in the ETO we're far from the sturdiest"!), but how often were they used for ground support compared to Ds-Hs? I'd imagine there'd be less Js (and the rare Ls; in the ETO at least) available for ground attack than the Ds-Hs. I don't have any statistics to back this up though. As for the aircraft count, they don't tell near the whole story. How many flak positions did each aircraft suppress? How much resistance did each aircraft encounter? I'm not saying the P-38 was better than the P-47 in the fighter-bomber role in the ETO (I honestly think the P-47 is the better choice in this area), but I think it's pretty safe to say that both the P-38 and P-47 were plenty better fighter-bombers than the P-51. But for what was needed by the USAAF in the PTO, the P-38 is very tough to beat (long range, very heavy payload for a fighter-bomber, nose mounted mgs/cannons, twin engines, etc)


----------



## vinnye (Aug 19, 2012)

Typhoon - had good range of weaponry - 20mm cannon and rockets - enough to give any tank crew nightmares!


----------



## CobberKane (Aug 19, 2012)

Rick65 said:


> Cobber
> 
> "Tempest Mk. V was tested and cleared to carry 8 zero length 60 lb ground attack rockets. But it was never used operationally during the war. After the war, when used on Mk. IIs, the rockets were often mounted on zero length hooks."
> The Hawker Tempest Page
> ...



Re the Tempest, I stand corrected. I guess with all those Typhoons tearing around the place there was no need to use the Temest to deliver ordinance, even though it could. You might even say this eliminates it as a candidate as the best F/B, as no matter how good it might have ben in the role, if it was rarely used as a fighter bomber I can cardly nominate it as the best.


----------



## stona (Aug 20, 2012)

vinnye said:


> Typhoon - had good range of weaponry - 20mm cannon and rockets - enough to give any tank crew nightmares!



You have hit on a very important point.

Despite the statistical inability of the Typhoon to hit anything smaller than a large building with its rockets they had a profound psychological effect on the people they were fired at which far exceeded any physical damage that they were likely to cause.

The same can be said of the napalm used by the USAAF 9th AF.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## parsifal (Aug 20, 2012)

Thats what all airpower does. Statistically less than 5% of all losses can be attributed to airpower. its not just a problem with rockets. But being shot at by aircraft robs units of free manouvre, and this has a quite massive effect on the force effectiveness. the term is called force multipliers, and it affects ground forces profoundly


----------



## drgondog (Aug 20, 2012)

NiceShotAustin said:


> The J variants were where most of these issues were solved. The Js were used in the ETO (I definitely should've re-worded "the P-38s used in the ETO we're far from the sturdiest"!), but how often were they used for ground support compared to Ds-Hs? I'd imagine there'd be less Js (and the rare Ls; in the ETO at least) available for ground attack than the Ds-Hs.
> 
> *The reason I brought up Feb 1944 is that there was no 'strafing' per se for 8th AF until then. Ditto 9th as the 358th, 362nd (P-47D), and 363rd and 354th (P-51B)were barely operational. The 20th and 55th had all J's by that time but they deployed with late model H's and strated replaceing them in late December/early January with the J's. Short answer - zero D,E,F's and no H's that I am aware of per the Macrs'.*
> 
> I don't have any statistics to back this up though. As for the aircraft count, they don't tell near the whole story. How many flak positions did each aircraft suppress? How much resistance did each aircraft encounter? I'm not saying the P-38 was better than the P-47 in the fighter-bomber role in the ETO (I honestly think the P-47 is the better choice in this area), but I think it's pretty safe to say that both the P-38 and P-47 were plenty better fighter-bombers than the P-51. But for what was needed by the USAAF in the PTO, the P-38 is very tough to beat (long range, very heavy payload for a fighter-bomber, nose mounted mgs/cannons, twin engines, etc)



As you say, you have no statistics to back up the speculation. The 354th hated the Jug and delighted to get their P-51s back in February 1945. 

One of the issues in getting data is simply trying to find accurate information regarding the number of sorties for each category of aircraft actually engaged in low level flights over the continent. 

As to the tactics of suppressing airfield flak, the two leading practitioners in the development of such tactics were Blakeslee (4th) and Kinnard (355th) and that was a process beginning in April, 1944 when it became obvious that strafing airfields was 'rough stuff'.

Another point you may appreciate is that the P-47 and P-38 were BIG targets compared to the P-51. If you shoot Sporting clays (or Dove versus Ducks over decoys) you will appreciate the difference in a regular clay target versus a battoue of half the diameter.

I am not articulating P-51 'best'. What I am saying is that there are no statistics that offer relatively close comparisons. 

If I tried to dig deeper, I would try to narrow the sample size to compare 9th AF Ops (354 Mustangs versus 362 P-47s versus 374 P-38's) and see as they were under the same operational control. Then I would try to delve into ops reports seperating defined attacks on targets of opportunity (and losses) versus airfield attacks, versus CAS with bomb deliveries, presumably on bridges, marshalling yards and road/rail traffic to try to isolate the comparative defenses.


----------



## VBF-13 (Aug 20, 2012)

VBF-13 said:


> Well, if we're talking about land targets, I think we can say the Corsairs did the most damage for us. At least, in Okinawa. I don't know whether I'd say that's a rating on their bombing-fighting aspect, though. There, I'd think, the Hellcats easily rate with them. Let's add one other dimension we've been neglecting. I know when the Corsairs hit those land bases in Okinawa, they were deployed with full-compliments of rockets under their wings, whenever possible. And, yes, they did pretty good with those.



I agree with you 100%! 



vinnye said:


> Typhoon - had good range of weaponry - 20mm cannon and rockets - enough to give any tank crew nightmares!



Again, when we're adding rockets to this, that changes the equation, slightly. We're no longer rating these aircraft just on a bombing-fighting aspect. On the two aircraft I was comparing, the Corsair and the Hellcat, the rockets aspect was the reason, I'm convinced, the first went on to Korea, while the second was phased out. For some reason, and, I'm not quite sure I understand it, yet, the Corsair was the aircraft of choice, there, and probably just off the devastation it inflicted in Okinawa with those rockets. For some reason, I think, it just took to that weapon better. But, again, that's just a guess on my part.


----------



## CobberKane (Aug 21, 2012)

VBF-13 said:


> I agree with you 100%!
> 
> 
> 
> Again, when we're adding rockets to this, that changes the equation, slightly. We're no longer rating these aircraft just on a bombing-fighting aspect. On the two aircraft I was comparing, the Corsair and the Hellcat, the rockets aspect was the reason, I'm convinced, the first went on to Korea, while the second was phased out. For some reason, and, I'm not quite sure I understand it, yet, the Corsair was the aircraft of choice, there, and probably just off the devastation it inflicted in Okinawa with those rockets. For some reason, I think, it just took to that weapon better. But, again, that's just a guess on my part.


 
I don't think we need to exclude any aircraft because it used rockets as well as bombs just because they are not included in term 'fighter bomber'. After all, 'fighter-bomber-rocketter' is a bit of a mouthful. If an aircraft was used to deliver ordinance an still retain competitive air to air capability it ranks as a fighter bomber to me.
I do think the USAAF trio of fighter bombers (P-47, P38, P-51) in the ETO were under-gunned compared to the RAF and Luftwaffe equivilents. Multi-cannon armament makes a much wider range of targets open to straffing. Maybe this wasn't such an issue in the PTO, where there was little armour to target.


----------



## stona (Aug 21, 2012)

CobberKane said:


> If an aircraft was used to deliver ordinance an still retain competitive air to air capability it ranks as a fighter bomber to me.



Indeed,me too. 

In the context of the WW2 RAF/USAAF was there any such thing as a Fighter bomber? These were all fighters pressed into what we now call a fighter bomber role. I wonder when the term fighter bomber,to describe an aircraft type,came into use.

Steve


----------



## VBF-13 (Aug 21, 2012)

CobberKane said:


> I don't think we need to exclude any aircraft because it used rockets as well as bombs just because they are not included in term 'fighter bomber'. After all, 'fighter-bomber-rocketter' is a bit of a mouthful. If an aircraft was used to deliver ordinance an still retain competitive air to air capability it ranks as a fighter bomber to me.


I'm telling you how I personally answered the question rating these aircraft. I brought rockets to our attention because I noticed they had been neglected and to point out that they changed the equation for me, slightly. Comparing the bombing-fighting capabilities of the Corsair and the Hellcat, those rate pretty much equal to me. Put rockets under their wings, and I like the Corsair. Simple as that.


----------



## CobberKane (Aug 22, 2012)

I guess in the literal sense of the term any fighter that had the capacity to drop bombs was a fighter bomber, but for the sake of brevity we might be well advised to stick to aircraft that were well suited to ground attack and often used in that role. The A6M2 dropped bombs from time to time but can you imagine it being used to attack the kind of heavily defended targets that were typical in Europe? The biggest danger to ground troops would have been falling pieces of Zero


----------



## VBF-13 (Aug 22, 2012)

The Zero had ground experience before the War, but, as you say, primarily as a fighter. From the PTO, I like the Corsair on the ground as the best "triple threat," if you will (fighting, bombing, "rocketing"). I'm sitting in the back of the room on your ETO aircraft, learning.

I know enough to know when I'm intellectually out-gunned.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 23, 2012)

> I guess in the literal sense of the term any fighter that had the capacity to drop bombs was a fighter bomber, but for the sake of brevity we might be well advised to stick to aircraft that were well suited to ground attack and often used in that role. The A6M2 dropped bombs from time to time but can you imagine it being used to attack the kind of heavily defended targets that were typical in Europe? The biggest danger to ground troops would have been falling pieces of Zero



I kinda agree that the A6M2 was a little light in the bomb carrying department to be really considered a "fighter bomber". However it did have the capacity to carry a large external fuel tank, so its potential to carry bombs was obviously there. Moreover, later marks of the Zero were specifically adapted to work as divebombers, carrying a respectable bomb load (250 or 500 lbs from memory), which in my book is another way of saying "fighter bomber".

but I dont agree that a zero operating in europe would be chopped out of the sky. There were other aircraft just as flimsy and just as vulnerable that operated in Europe in the FB role and didnt "fall out of the sky". A/C like the CR42 for example.

I actually think Zeroes operating on the eastern front would have been most welcome in the LW, with their additional range and manouverability


----------



## CobberKane (Aug 30, 2012)

parsifal said:


> I kinda agree that the A6M2 was a little light in the bomb carrying department to be really considered a "fighter bomber". However it did have the capacity to carry a large external fuel tank, so its potential to carry bombs was obviously there. Moreover, later marks of the Zero were specifically adapted to work as divebombers, carrying a respectable bomb load (250 or 500 lbs from memory), which in my book is another way of saying "fighter bomber".
> 
> but I dont agree that a zero operating in europe would be chopped out of the sky. There were other aircraft just as flimsy and just as vulnerable that operated in Europe in the FB role and didnt "fall out of the sky". A/C like the CR42 for example.
> 
> I actually think Zeroes operating on the eastern front would have been most welcome in the LW, with their additional range and manouverability


 
Was the CR 42 used on the ETO? I know it goit used a lot in the MTO, but the kind of firepower it faced there would have been a lot lighter. I was speculating as to what would have happened to Zeros doing the same work as, say, Typhoons in the Falaise pocket. The AA capacity built into the German ground units was pretty awesome. Those those quad 20mms were scary!
e


----------



## buffnut453 (Aug 30, 2012)

CR42s were used by the Regia Aeronautica during the Battle of Britain operating from airfields in Belgium. Does that count as the ETO?


----------



## CobberKane (Aug 31, 2012)

buffnut453 said:


> CR42s were used by the Regia Aeronautica during the Battle of Britain operating from airfields in Belgium. Does that count as the ETO?


 
Sure, but I'm thinking of the 'golden era' of the allied fighter bomber in the ETO as being the period from immediately before D-Day. I know the CR42 did better than might have been expected in the MTO but they were still very limited; even somewhat average fighters like the Hurricane and P-40 could engage or disengage with them at will, and they were too slow and lightly armed to be effective interceptors. Dropping small bombs against unarmoured qand relatively lightly defended targets they might have been OK, but over Normandy? If I was attacking a Wehrmacht armoured column with all that built in AA capacity I would want something that got in fast, hit hard and got out even faster - and could shake off a few licks in the process. Something like a P-47 or Typhoon. A CR42 or a Zero would spend far to much time in the firing zone and would lack the capacity to withstand even moderate damage. Having a tight turning cicle isn't going to be much use when you are straffing a train!


----------



## parsifal (Aug 31, 2012)

CR42s were used extensively on the eastern front by the hungarians. they were also deployed by the italians across southern europe right until the end. 


i dont agree that the allied opposition in the MTO was less intense in the MTO compared to NW Europe, provided the time frames are the same and we look at the density of the frontage. If we look at the MTO, the fights IMO tended to concentrate around certain points like Alamein and malta. CR42s were as at risk from allied action as the germans were in NW euope. possibly moreso actually....


----------



## CobberKane (Sep 1, 2012)

parsifal said:


> CR42s were used extensively on the eastern front by the hungarians. they were also deployed by the italians across southern europe right until the end.
> 
> 
> i dont agree that the allied opposition in the MTO was less intense in the MTO compared to NW Europe, provided the time frames are the same and we look at the density of the frontage. If we look at the MTO, the fights IMO tended to concentrate around certain points like Alamein and malta. CR42s were as at risk from allied action as the germans were in NW euope. possibly moreso actually....



Just to back up a little - are you saying that the Zero and CR 42 could have made decent fighter bombers in post D-Day Europe, doing the kind of work that was done ny Typhoons and P-47s?


----------



## parsifal (Sep 1, 2012)

no, but the typhoons and P-47s were not even introduced until the CR-42s and Zeroes had been in service for several years, and whilst retained in service for some years longer, were really obsolete from 1943 on. What were typhoons and p-47s doing in 1940?????

Zero sub type Mk VII was a purpose built dive bomber variant. Had no great success, except as a kamikaze but that was not the fault of the type. If the type had been given proper air cover decent pilots and some advanced FB weaponary (eg rockets) it would have been serviceable as a type, not the best because IMO it was too light, but quite able to at least survive in the ETO.


----------



## CobberKane (Sep 2, 2012)

parsifal said:


> no, but the typhoons and P-47s were not even introduced until the CR-42s and Zeroes had been in service for several years, and whilst retained in service for some years longer, were really obsolete from 1943 on. What were typhoons and p-47s doing in 1940?????
> 
> Zero sub type Mk VII was a purpose built dive bomber variant. Had no great success, except as a kamikaze but that was not the fault of the type. If the type had been given proper air cover decent pilots and some advanced FB weaponary (eg rockets) it would have been serviceable as a type, not the best because IMO it was too light, but quite able to at least survive in the ETO.



Thank God for that. The thing was, of course, that there where versions of th Zero comtemporary to the Typhoon and P 47 but by that time the pre-eminance of speed and durability over light weight and agility was pretty much established. I maintain that something like the A6M5 of 1944 would have been shot to bits doing ground attack the ETO of that time. 
Regarding the comparitive density of AA facing fighter bombers in the ETO vs MTO, the campaign in North Africa was highly fluid, involving rapid advances and retreats over thousands of kilometers, with a fraction of the ground frorces involved in the ETO, infrastructure consisting largely of dirt tracks and with the industrial bases of both protagonists situated on another continent. In comparison the invasion of Europe involved a war of attrition against an enemy with a modern road and rail infrastucture and accessable, direct overland access to an industrial base that peaked production in 1944, with supply lines constantly shortening as the Allies advanced. Do you really think a P40 attacking a convoy in Africa faced the same firepower as a Typhoon or P47 attacking a column in France?


----------



## CobberKane (Sep 2, 2012)

Sorry Shortround, looking back I note that you did talk about the MTO and ETO in contemporary timelines, so my comparison of a P40 in the MTO and a Typhoon in the ETP doesn't hold. The Allison engined P51 might be a good ETO comtemporary of the P40 in that case. Nonetheless I'd contend that the P40 in the MTO would have been involved in a far more fluid campaign than, say, the P51 on armed recce over Europe and therefore generaly not risking the same kind of AA reaction. Your thoughts?


----------



## Rick65 (Sep 2, 2012)

It is hard to argue that the P40 was the best or most significant fighter bomber of WW2. (and impossible for the Zero or CR42) However it can be argued that the P40's use in the Middle East served as a prototype for what followed in the ETO and the Pacific with more powerful and advanced fighter bombers such as the Typhoon and P47 continuing the dual use role pioneered by the P40. P40 units such as No 112 RAF were amongst the first to successfully carry bombs to supplement their guns in the ground attack role, as well as continuing their fighter role and escorting bombers.


----------



## gjs238 (Sep 2, 2012)

Did any aircraft have sights more conducive to this task?


----------



## stona (Sep 2, 2012)

Rick65 said:


> It is hard to argue that the P40 was the best or most significant fighter bomber of WW2. (and impossible for the Zero or CR42) However it can be argued that the P40's use in the Middle East served as a prototype for what followed in the ETO and the Pacific with more powerful and advanced fighter bombers such as the Typhoon and P47 continuing the dual use role pioneered by the P40. P40 units such as No 112 RAF were amongst the first to successfully carry bombs to supplement their guns in the ground attack role, as well as continuing their fighter role and escorting bombers.



And equally importantly the systems and communications to control "fighter-bombers" in this role were also pioneered in the desert.

If aircraft can't be got to the correct place at the correct time to do something useful then the whole concept fails as it did for the RAF's AASF in 1939/40.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## vinnye (Sep 5, 2012)

Some extremely capable contenders already given good accounts. When accuracy really mattered it would have to be the Mosquito. Not as capable an outright fighter - but could turn the tables if not given repect.


----------



## parsifal (Sep 6, 2012)

Rick65 said:


> It is hard to argue that the P40 was the best or most significant fighter bomber of WW2. (and impossible for the Zero or CR42) However it can be argued that the P40's use in the Middle East served as a prototype for what followed in the ETO and the Pacific with more powerful and advanced fighter bombers such as the Typhoon and P47 continuing the dual use role pioneered by the P40. P40 units such as No 112 RAF were amongst the first to successfully carry bombs to supplement their guns in the ground attack role, as well as continuing their fighter role and escorting bombers.




As Has been previously pointed out, however, every first line fighter like a Corsair or Mosquito used in the FB role, is pne less airframe used in whatever these aircraft were built for. In the case of the Corsair for example it was only the lack of effective fighter opposition that allowed it to be used so extensively as a Fighter Bomber. If there had been more effective fighter opposition, the Corsairs would not have been available. It made sense to use less capable aircraft in the role, because inherently you need your best fighters to counter enemy fighters. 

In the case of the CR42, it allowed the type a useful role long past the when aircraft could be used as a fighter. It was very effective in the ground attack role by all accounts, and contrary to the unsubstantiated claims made against it, there is no evidence that it could not survive in a hostile environment. It was a precursor to what we would now call COIN a/c, and that class of aircraft remains as relevant today as it was back then.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 6, 2012)

Some aircraft perform fairly well as CAS and have a decent survival rate (like the CR.42) because of their agility as ex fighters. They can be very difficult targets to shoot down, this does not mean they have enough performance to turn the tables and get firing solutions on their attackers. It means they can survive long enough to frustrate their attackers into giving up and going home, low fuel, one too many close encounters with tall trees building, hill sides, etc.


----------



## parsifal (Sep 7, 2012)

i agree 100%, but during vietnam (i think), the US found that top shelf FBs were simply too expensive and precious to waste on many missions . biggest, fastest, bestest aint always whats required.

The germans reched similar conclusions during the war. HS123 for example as FW189 were found effective because of theur ruggedness and their cheapness. At keast some of the (intended) appeal of the HS129 was because it was supposed to use csast off engines from the French....didnt quite work that way, but that doesnt lessen the validity of the concept......


----------



## stona (Sep 7, 2012)

parsifal said:


> i agree 100%, but during vietnam (i think), the US found that top shelf FBs were simply too expensive and precious to waste on many missions . biggest, fastest, bestest aint always whats required..



I assume you are thinking of the F-105 ?

Steve


----------



## drgondog (Sep 7, 2012)

stona said:


> I assume you are thinking of the F-105 ?
> 
> Steve



Steve - you could make a claim that the F-105 was the single most formidable "Fighter Bomber". It was primarily designed to carry a 1.1MT weapon internally from Germany to nearly Moscow on a one way trip - and no one can argue biggest/fastest at the time - and have a hard time arguing against it today. We wasted half the force under Mcnamar's ROE but nothing else in the inventory until the F-117 could do the same mission in Vietnam.


----------



## Timppa (Sep 7, 2012)

drgondog said:


> We wasted half the force under Mcnamar's ROE but nothing else in the inventory until the F-117 could do the same mission in Vietnam.



AFAIK F-4, A-7 and F-111 could, and did.


----------



## stug3 (Sep 7, 2012)




----------



## parsifal (Sep 7, 2012)

On the contrary, the skyraider was exactly what i had in mind. by the 60's it definately was not the bigesst fastest or meanest airplane around. but it fill that CAS/COIN role like a glove


----------



## drgondog (Sep 7, 2012)

Timppa - I stated S/e mission to Moscow from Germany. A4 wonderful but about half the range - and when considering total payload also way short of F-105. F-111 could do the same job and low altitude/all weather even better. F-4 no, A-7 no, A1E no.

I was being facetious on one hand because nobody thinks of F-105 in CAS (or F-117 or F-111) and neither was I, but couple the words Fighter Bomber and there was no parallel for the 105 before and during Vietnam. Long after Vietnam the F-105s were Still nigh unstoppable by F-4s and F-14s and F-15s and F-16s in Red Flag exercises at Nellis.

For CAS in a low/medium threat environment I would choose a Skyraider just like an A-10 or an A-7


----------



## davparlr (Sep 7, 2012)

drgondog said:


> Long after Vietnam the F-105s were Still nigh unstoppable by F-4s and F-14s and F-15s and F-16s in Red Flag exercises at Nellis.


 
Was this on a nuke mission or other internal bomb bay weapons mission? I could certainly believe this in that the F-105 was greased lightening on the deck clean. I would have trouble believing this if external bombs were carried.


----------



## iron man (Sep 8, 2012)

So there you have it folks...

The F-105 was definitely the best (or most significant) fighter bomber of WWII...

<ducks behind the adjacent berm to avoid the incoming fire>...

The "thud" was one hell of an aircraft but it was not designed for the role it was pushed into over Vietnam.

Survivability took a bit of a backseat as it evolved (Cooke-Craige production) and the butchers bill was paid in this regard when penetrating heavily defended (AAA) targets while loaded down with many tons of external stores. 
Expediencies taken during production, particularly with regards to the fuel management system and primary (as well as secondary) hydraulics circuits, meant that battle damage from "fortuitous" AAA could quite easily leave you with an unflyable aircraft...many, many miles from friendly turf.
The effects of the high humidity levels on the electronic navigational aids also were proven contributors to the numerous aircraft which were lost to the "Cumulo-Granite" (CFIT: Controlled Flight Into Terrain) factor.

One heck of a machine, but probably wasted lugging iron bombs into the North.

Just my opinion.


----------



## parsifal (Sep 8, 2012)

The F-105/Skyraider cmparison is meant to breath some reality into the wwii scenario. Its relatively easy to determine, or at least shortlist the best fighter bomber, from the point os view of performance. its going to be a Corsair, or a typhoon or FW190 or similar. its relatively easy I think to determine (or shortlist) the most significant simply by the numbers. But whats missing here is the critical issue of best use of resources. Was pushing a Corsair or a typhoon or a FW 19i0 the best usae of that airframe when it was used as a bomb truck? Perhaps it does, because the cost difference between a dog aircraft still suitable for FB duties and a dream hotshot a/c is probably not as great during the war, as it became after the war.


----------



## drgondog (Sep 8, 2012)

davparlr said:


> Was this on a nuke mission or other internal bomb bay weapons mission? I could certainly believe this in that the F-105 was greased lightening on the deck clean. I would have trouble believing this if external bombs were carried.



Internal Dave. At one time Republic proposed a G before the Weasel two seater which stripped out the internal bomb bay, replaced with fuel and did away with over 4000 pounds - all for a couple of $Million including spares. Didn't intend to pirate the thread -


----------



## Timppa (Sep 8, 2012)

drgondog said:


> Timppa - I stated S/e mission to Moscow from Germany. A4 wonderful but about half the range - and when considering total payload also way short of F-105. F-111 could do the same job and low altitude/all weather even better. F-4 no, A-7 no, A1E no.



You stated also Vietnam which I specifically answered. I did not mention A-4 or Able Dog, but the three types that actually made strikes deep into North Vietnam during Linebacker II.

I quote Frederick C. Blesse, M. Gen. USAF:



> PacAF was a good assignment, and the two years I spent in Hawaii were gone with the speed of light. We accomplished a few things; most notably we got the F-111 and the A-7 into combat.
> 
> I had some of my ops planners working on how to get out of Vietnam when and if the time came, and the F-111 and A-7 became part of the solution. I was sure of one thing: if we kept all the tankers out there, we could never close up enough bases. We needed to keep the pressure on North Vietnam, which then was done with F-4s and F-105s using tankers for additional fuel every time we hit the target.
> 
> It seemed to me the F-111 and the A-7 were exactly what was needed. Both aircraft could strike targets around Hanoi without refueling, which meant that for the first time since the war began, we could actually strike with surprise. Those two kinds of aircraft could keep the pressure on North Vietnam while practically everything else in the theater went home.


----------



## drgondog (Sep 10, 2012)

Timppa - two things. All USAF A7D missions were out of Korat which was much closer to Hanoi than Takhli, USN A7E's even closer from carriers. Second the 105s (i.e. were out of Takhli and Korat RTAFB) didn't use and did not need tankers even from from Takhli to - a.) go much faster, b.) carry more to the end of the chain in terms of bomb load, c.) lived in a much higher threat environment d.) loiter for 20 minutes and e.) were uncatchable by anything the VNAF or USAF or USSR had on way out of Downtown.

The F-111 had longer range and more capable in all weather/night ops but also would have been clobbered doing the same strike profile as the F-105. Also, like the A7D/E, it had later generation avionics and turbofan engine - and were also operationl four years after the last 105s came home. Had the F-105E (T-Stick) been produced in numbers greater than 60 it would have been one hell of an all weather, terrain following, accurate bombe delivering system - but it was never deployed to SE Asia. It's demonstrated CEP with iron bombs was close (but not equal) to the A7D/E.

Had the F-105G (before the Weasel designation) been acccepted by USAF (rejected by McNamara) it would have been even faster and lighter (6000 pounds), could carry 16,000 pounds of internal fuel and arguably more manueverable than the F-4E which still would have been able to outclimb (slightly) the F-105E. The primary limitation to the F-105 on the deck was not drag but stagnation Temp on the canopy resulting in a shell design with coolant in between.

I havenet researched the 388th and 36th TFW but IIRC the 355th TFW dropped 202,000 TONs of bombs in the 1965 through 1968 - and the collective F-105s dropped more than the B-52s as a contrast - and were dropping them on real targets up North in RP 6 versus jungle homes for monkeys, snakes and NVA shelters. With the introduction of the Weasel F-105F and G the loss rates went from 5+ % to around 1%. 

Next to Last - the use of tankers in 1966 was instructed by 7th AF and all the Elephant Walks (2 per day) in the 65/66/57 timeframe were geared around tanker schedules. The USAF tankers were there for F-4, F-100s, RB and EB66 and gave the F-105s an additional margin for error, often useful, when plans didn't quite meet expectations. This (Stupid) policy by 7th AF (as directed by SAC - which 'owned the KC-135's )resulted in the NVA having to defend Only against one morning and one afternoon strike thereby releasing much of the pressure on their assets.

Last - the A7's would have had a murderous loss rate had they been going to RP6 targets like Kep, Hanoi proper etc on the same daily schedule and ROE that the 65-68 Thuds were forced to obey.

General Blesse was one hell of a fighter pilot and leader. His combat experience in Vietnam was as 366TFW Kahuna and flying F4C's was over North Vietnam as MigCap he was certainly in a position to observe tactics - having said that he had zero F-105 time but had both A-7 and F-111 time, particularly leading the 474th. 

If you want to debate this, set up a thread and we can quit hijacking this one?


----------



## Glider (Sep 16, 2012)

parsifal said:


> The F-105/Skyraider cmparison is meant to breath some reality into the wwii scenario. Its relatively easy to determine, or at least shortlist the best fighter bomber, from the point os view of performance. its going to be a Corsair, or a typhoon or FW190 or similar. its relatively easy I think to determine (or shortlist) the most significant simply by the numbers. But whats missing here is the critical issue of best use of resources. Was pushing a Corsair or a typhoon or a FW 19i0 the best usae of that airframe when it was used as a bomb truck? Perhaps it does, because the cost difference between a dog aircraft still suitable for FB duties and a dream hotshot a/c is probably not as great during the war, as it became after the war.



Back to the topic I would go for the Typhoon of Fw 190 as the Typhoon wasn't a good fighter at any altitude and the GA mission fitted its strengths like a glove. The FW 190 was better as a fighter but not at altitude and the Lufwaffe needed a GA fighter as the Ju 87 and Hs 129couldn't live in the air if there was a serious threat to control of the air.
The Corsair was a better airframe capable of anything against anyone and as a result in WW2 didn't have to be a spaecialist GA.


----------



## Kryten (Sep 16, 2012)

Glider said:


> Back to the topic I would go for the Typhoon of Fw 190 as the Typhoon wasn't a good fighter at any altitude and the GA mission fitted its strengths like a glove. The FW 190 was better as a fighter but not at altitude and the Lufwaffe needed a GA fighter as the Ju 87 and Hs 129couldn't live in the air if there was a serious threat to control of the air.
> The Corsair was a better airframe capable of anything against anyone and as a result in WW2 didn't have to be a spaecialist GA.



Common misconception that, the Typhoon was actually a capable fighter down low, it fought the 190/109's on equal terms over the channel and france when used in the fighter role, its performance degraded signifigantly with altitude , Desmond Scott reffering to his typhoon becomming a carthorse over 15k ft.


----------



## parsifal (Sep 16, 2012)

Typhoon is a real contender in my book, but the german FW 190 f-8 is also a contender. What rules the FW 190 out in my book is that every FW 190 converted to ground attack was one less fighter for them. And in 1944 what the germans needed was fighters.

Soviets rate their Il2s as "assault" fighters, if it accepted that the sturmovik is a figfhter, of sorts, then its concentration of ability on the mission, must make it significant. That and the numbers. 

But I remain of the view that the best and most significant airframes in the FB role are those that dont detract from other missions, and that leads me to a/c being passed over in this discusion. Certainly the Typhoon seems to have a foot in both camps. it was a high performance aircraft even in 1944-5, but it also was not the best available pure fighter.

Other aircraft that fill the bill of "not quite top shelf" fighters, but still good a/c might bbe the P-40, the Beafighter, Hurricane, Me 109e, and possibly the Ki45. I know this takes the debate into a direction not really considered before, but I am loking at the issue more from the pov of effective use of resources....


----------



## Glider (Sep 17, 2012)

Kryten said:


> Common misconception that, the Typhoon was actually a capable fighter down low, it fought the 190/109's on equal terms over the channel and france when used in the fighter role, its performance degraded signifigantly with altitude , Desmond Scott reffering to his typhoon becomming a carthorse over 15k ft.



Fair point


----------



## bazsrs1 (Jan 20, 2014)

I think a lot of people forget the beaufighter my grandfather flew in them as an observer with a coastal command unit very heavily armed aircraft that packed a lot of firepower


----------



## drgondog (Jan 22, 2014)

Well - usually one would lay out several missions and ability for a particular aircraft to perform that mission.

For me CAS for a fighter bomber has at least five dimensions:
Payload
Ability to deliver the payload accurately
Range/Loiter capability
vulnerability to the typical anti aircraft threat for the mission
vulnerability to enemy air threat while in low altitude environment

For the 'fighter' component;
Speed
Range
Agility at all mission altitudes
firepower
ability to absorb battle damage

Considerations for this discussion;
Theatre by theatre achievement in the fighter bomber role in which the airplane in question performed both CAS AND air superiority mission.
For US aircraft only P-47, F6F, F4U and P-38.. I'm discounting the 51 because it just wasn't used in CAS very much simple because the P-38 and P-47 were dominating for AAF. Neither the P-40 nor P-39 matched any of the above except P-39 in anti armor role (marginal weapon)
For Axis only the FW 190 seem to meet the same standard as US and Commonwealth
For RAF/Commonwealth
Tempest and Typhoon. I discounted the Mossie, Hurricane and Beaufighter for multiple reasons but air to air combat against best Axis fighters highly questionable.

From here folks have a tendency to pick their favorites - but if we insert global presence in the role the one a/c that has to be in top two is the P-38. I waffled between the P-47 and 38 but favor the 38 because of range with full payload and corresponding loiter time as well as questionable/possible survivability of two engines. I also like the firepower of the 38 over the P-47.

If you pick PTO then I favor the F4U-1C because of internal fuel and armament advantage (and High/low air to air capability) over the F6F. 361 gallons internal fuel to 250 for F-6F (and 305 of P-47 until -25) delivers another 45 minutes of loiter.

If you pick ETO only I'm torn between Tempest, P-38 and P-47..

East Front - I like the FW 190G/F over the vaunted IL2 simply because CAS was the Only role it could perform 
For USSR only the IL2


----------



## fastmongrel (Jan 22, 2014)

I have often wondered if there was ever any thoughts of a specialist P38 ground pounder. Remove the turbos fit low level supercharger vanes and use the saved weight to fit extra armour. The P38 was a HAWG (Hauls A lot of Weapons and Gas) so should be able to carry a good lump of armour and still look after itself


----------



## parsifal (Jan 22, 2014)

> Tempest and Typhoon. I discounted the Mossie, Hurricane and Beaufighter for multiple reasons but air to air combat against best Axis fighters highly questionable.


 

Hi Dg

Have to respectfully disagree. In 1944 alone, the Mosquito was credited with over 600 fighter kills alone (I think all in 1944). Small change i know, and a lot of them were at night, but mosquito can legitmately add "fighter-killer" to its laurels, given that the force structure of the RAF maintained a force averaging 132 Mossies at the time. On that basis, the NFs of the RAF were average five kills for every aircraft in the force....every one of them was an ace that means. . 

As fighter bombers, both the Beau and the mossie were highly survivable, I dont have any figures or statistics to throw at you, but the general consensus is that they had a low attrition rate. RAAF Beaus virtually replaced our entire light bomber force and flew countless missions at a very low loss rate, even compared to aircraft like the A-20. 

I dont have a complete record for the beau, but it was used by Number 30 sqn until the nd of the war, as a long range fighter and strike airdcraft. I dont think the type had a particulalry high kill rate against the Japanese, but there was no hesitation to use it unescorted where other types needed escort over such heavily defended targets as Rabaul, lae and Gasmata. During the Battle of bismark Sea, the type showed its great versatility by undertaking strikes against the convoy, and also, with the same aircraft, undertking suppression operations of the nearby airfield at Lae. few types could undertkae such diverse missions in the same sortie.....

The fact that both the RAF and the RAAF virtually retireed all their light bombers for these "fighter bombers" is testament as to their capability. more bomber than fighter i will grant you, but survivable, and not without some considerable teeth to boot.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Jan 23, 2014)

Parsifal - my respect for the Mossie has few limits.

Having said that, how many engagements with German fighters did the Mossie have in daylight - to demonstrate the one on one ability of say, a P-38 or F4U?


----------



## pbehn (Jan 23, 2014)

A bomber is a bomber a fighter is a fighter, if the job is to bomb a target with precision then the mosquito does it, as a fighter it was in a bad place against German single engined fighters but hardly worse than a single engined fighter with its bombs on. It frequently didnt need to mix it with German defences, the job was done. For an outstanding single engined fighter Tempest/Typhoon P47 corsair and FW 190 were all great but when intercepted a single engined plane must drop its bombs so they need an escort, in that case a hurricane with 4 cannons and bombs is in the game.


----------



## wiking85 (Jan 23, 2014)

bazsrs1 said:


> I think a lot of people forget the beaufighter my grandfather flew in them as an observer with a coastal command unit very heavily armed aircraft that packed a lot of firepower



I don't think it qualified as a fighter-bomber, but rather an ultra-heavy fighter/light bomber. It was significantly heavier than either the Mosquito or Me 410.


As an aside, I'm surprised that there has been no love for the Bf110. It was a superb fighter-bomber from 1940 through 1942 and made a significant impact in France and in Barbarossa, not to mention the Mediterranean. Its was more impactful as a night fighter later, so it gets overlooked as a Jabo, but it deserves honorable mention.


----------



## parsifal (Jan 23, 2014)

drgondog said:


> Parsifal - my respect for the Mossie has few limits.
> 
> Having said that, how many engagements with German fighters did the Mossie have in daylight - to demonstrate the one on one ability of say, a P-38 or F4U?



Very few. I know of at least one, september 1944 when 418 sqn attacked an airfield in either southern Norway or Denmark, and claimed shot down two FW 190s, for no loss. Germans admitted to loss of one and one damaged, from memory.

I will check some sources tonite to see if there were any others.

But with respect, thats not the point. Mosquitoes, as i said in the last entry, were more bomber than fighter, but could undertake daylight missions with a high degree of survivability, usually with some escort, but also with quite a number unescorted. Its mission profile was uually Hi-Lo, which meant it was fast coming in loaded, and naturally fast going out unloaded....usually above 390 mph if there was a tail wind. The LW, by its own admission had a hard time catching them, and this is reflected in the low attrition rates for the Mosquito.

As I said, Mossies could lay claim to being a fighter killer, with more than 600 victories alone against day fighters. many of those were at night, as the germans in 1944 used many of their SE fighters at night as well as day. I dont have a breakdown of daylight victories, but i will have some squadron histories and the like at home that will give a bit of a snapshot here and there.


----------



## GregP (Jan 24, 2014)

Deleted, not worth it ...


----------



## Glider (Jan 24, 2014)

A thought about the most significant but definitely not the Best would be the much maligned Il 2.

If the RAF didn't have the Typhoon or the USAAF the P47/P38 then there were other aircraft that could do the task, not as well but the task would be done. If the Russians didn't have the Il 2 then they were out of options. Their fighters didn't carry a decent payload and they relied to a large degree on the Il 2.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 24, 2014)

No debating the IL-2 combat record or importance but it wasn't a *fighter*-bomber. Light bomber? Close air support? Strike aircraft? But even after it dumped it's load of bombs/rockets it ability to perform as even a pathetic fighter is subject to question.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 24, 2014)

Some IL-2 types were successful at intecepting bombers, Stukas and the Hs129. While they could be dangerous to thier opponents, especially since defensive fire was nearly inneffective against the IL-2's armor, they were at risk against Luftwaffe true fighters (Bf109, Fw190).

So in a sense, the IL-2 is a "fighter" much like the Bf110 was a "fighter"...


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 24, 2014)

Well, that is like saying an SBD is a "fighter" because the US Navy used them on occasion for anti-torpedo plane work (against Kates) and they actually shot down a few planes using the the forward guns. Or that the Martin B-26 Marauder was a "fighter" because a few of them shot down Ju 52s over the Med. 

Look hard enough and you can find a number of aircraft types that managed to shoot down _something_ in unusual circumstances. Doesn't mean they were really _fighters_.

Or try using the IL-2 against the Bf 110s


----------



## parsifal (Jan 24, 2014)

The difference is more to do with doctrine than capability. The Russians did use their sturmoviks as fighters, on a regular basis, because that was consistent with their concept of air warfare. the SBD was used as a fighter as well, but more as an emergency expedient than a doctrinal conscious decision. By way of comment, the RN also used a divebomber as a fighter, but because the Skua was used mostly as a fighter....with some success, it is generally considered a fighter.

Soviet concept of air warfare after 1942 were not about achieving air superiority, in the sense of driving the Germans from the battlefield. The Russians acknowledged from their bitter exeriences earlier in the war, that they simply lacked the skills to do that, and furthermore the battle lines were far too extensive to achieve comprehensive front wide air supreiority. What they could, and did do, was to swamp the defences with numbers. After the Sturmoviks had unloaded their bombs, they were expected, if necessary, to remain over the target to cover other IL-2s, and really be there as targets. to the Soviets, the critical battle was what was happening on the groiund, not in the air. Unlike our pilots, or the LW aircrew for that matter, Soviet pilots, with an average flight training time of about 20-40 hours at the time of Kursk, were expendable resources. our guys, with 4 or 500 hours, were highly valuable assets, not to be wasted. 

The name "sturmovik" gives a clue as to what these aircraft were intended to do. The name is usually referred to as "attack" in English, but in reality it is more accurate to refer to them as "storm" or "assault" aircraft. they are a variation to the mosquito, focussing on the mission rather than the secondary role of fighter. Both used means to achieve protection....the mosquito used speed and agility, the Sturmovik used armour protection.

There are more than one way to skin a cat. the contemporary American concept of tactical support is not the only way to run an air campaign.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## OldSkeptic (Jan 25, 2014)

CobberKane said:


> Interdiction was the unrecognised air campaign of the Second World War. In all theatres the fighter bomber, barely considered as a concept before the outbreak of hostilities, became vital to the success of ground forces. Against armour, infantry and everything that moved, from the Pacific to the ETO, Mediterranean and Western Front, the fighter bomber made a vital contribution, always a compromise, required to deliver a heavy payload and still defend itself against the dedicated fighters of the enemy. Some designs excelled in ground attack potential at the expense of air to air potency, others attempted to retain parity with opposition fighters but still pack enough ordinance to take out enemy armour and infrastructure in the teeth of concentrated AA.
> So what was the best fighter bomber of the war, firstly in historical contribution, secondly in outright potency?



In terms of 'significance' it is a tie between the 109 (I'd pick that first) and the 110. 

In the case of the 109 it was the first true single engined fighter bomber, in that once it dropped the bomb it was a pure (and good) fighter again.
In the case of the 110 it showed that a fast (though not competitive) fighter could carry bombs, deliver them with great accuracy at low level. Thus meaning the dive bomber (with all the speed sapping stuff) was obsolete.
Both the Germans did in 1940, way ahead of anyone else, though not in great numbers at that time.

It took until late 42/early 43 and Park fitting bombs to Spits before the western Allies had a true fighter bomber (with the DAF following shortly), though they had used many obsolescent aircraft in that light bomber/straffer/etc role (Defiant, Hurricane, etc, etc).

Many of what we called 'fighter combers' in WW2 weren't that at all. In that they were not really competitive fighters. The Hurricane, (by 41), the P-40, P-47, Typhoon were not competitive fighters (the P-47 was fine at high altitude of course because it was designed for that, but not so much down in the mud) at the times they became fighter bombers in any numbers.

Rather they were all single engines light bombers/straffers/CAS/etc and could only exist if air supremacy had been achieved in the areas they were operating in.

The Allies tended to use their obsolescent fighters for that role. Their only true single engined FBs were the Spits, Tempests and Merlin Mustangs.


----------



## Aozora (Jan 25, 2014)

OldSkeptic said:


> The Allies tended to use their obsolescent fighters for that role. Their only true single engined FBs were the Spits, Tempests and Merlin Mustangs.



The Tempest was never used as a fighter bomber during the war - you must mean the Typhoon. There's also the A-36, P-38, P-47, P-51, F4U and F6F-5 to consider if you're truly talking about the "Allies".


----------



## Glider (Jan 25, 2014)

Aozora said:


> The Tempest was never used as a fighter bomber during the war - you must mean the Typhoon. There's also the A-36, P-38, P-47, P-51, F4U and F6F-5 to consider if you're truly talking about the "Allies".



I am pretty sure it was used as a fighter bomber. They were not equipped with rockets but were used as fighter bombers


----------



## fastmongrel (Jan 25, 2014)

Glider said:


> I am pretty sure it was used as a fighter bomber. They were not equipped with rockets but were used as fighter bombers



They were cleared for up to 2 x 1,000lb bombs.


----------



## swampyankee (Jan 25, 2014)

"Best" and "most significant" are not, of course, completely coincident. I think one can make a case for the Corsair (F4U-4) being the best fighter-bomber (I'm not going to try -- the entire concept of "best" is too subjective), but I think there are other aircraft which were more significant in the fighter-bomber role, possibly including the Hurricane, P-47, Fw190, Typhoon, and others.


----------



## gjs238 (Jan 25, 2014)

swampyankee said:


> "Best" and "most significant" are not, of course, completely coincident. I think one can make a case for the Corsair (F4U-4) being the best fighter-bomber (I'm not going to try -- the entire concept of "best" is too subjective), but I think there are other aircraft which were more significant in the fighter-bomber role, possibly including the Hurricane, P-47, Fw190, Typhoon, and others.



Ahh, F4U fighter-bombers in Europe, what a great thought


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 25, 2014)

Per post #136, seem that Defiant was used as light bomber/strafer, the P-47 was not competitive once it dropped bombs, while Spit was among a few true single engined Allied FBs. 
One can learn something new every day.


----------



## tengu1979 (Jan 25, 2014)

I still think noone mentioned Fighter Bomber versions of the Mosquito and their daring low level raids.....


----------



## Aozora (Jan 25, 2014)

Glider said:


> I am pretty sure it was used as a fighter bomber. They were not equipped with rockets but were used as fighter bombers



Unlike its older cousin the Typhoon, the Tempest did not have a substantial record as a fighter-bomber; 33 Squadron carried out 2 dive bombing missions on the 3rd and 4th of May 1945, otherwise the Tempest was used a fighter not a fighter-bomber. The very low number of sorties flown with bombs means that there is very little data that can show whether or not the Tempest was the best or most significant fighter-bomber of WW 2. 







Page 111 of:






From 2 TAF Volume 3


----------



## OldSkeptic (Jan 25, 2014)

tomo pauk said:


> Per post #136, seem that Defiant was used as light bomber/strafer, the P-47 was not competitive once it dropped bombs, while Spit was among a few true single engined Allied FBs.
> One can learn something new every day.



Yep, one the reasons (against Dowding's wishes it should be said) that the Defiant was kept was in case of invasions where it 'would be ideal' for bombing/straffing the invading Germans.
Total nonsense of course. But I used as another example of people trying to get some further use out of obsolescent/obsolete single engined planes.

The P-47 was a hot ship at high altitude, but definitely not at its best low down, but it wasn't designed for that.

And as for the Spit, its is a definitional thing, which of them was a a 'true fighter' after they dropped their ordinance, competitive with whatever fighter opposition might be around. Short list.
in the ETO Mustang obviously, Spit, 109, the non ground attack optimised 190s (the ones that were armoured up, etc were not competitive in the western theatre at least).

The Tempest was not used much to carry bombs, but it did a heck of a lot of ground attack straffing, which is a major task for any fighter/bomber and if the war had carried on then the Typhoon would have been replaced by it.

But I'll stand by my definition of 'significant' and pick the 109 (with the 110 as an honourable mention, it following the obsolescent re-use rule), the first, by any definition, has to 'significant'.


----------



## gjs238 (Jan 25, 2014)

Probably a daunting task, but would be nice to quantify an answer.
It seems easier to compare bomb loads, rocket loads, machine gun firepower, cannon fire power, loiter time/range, etc...
But which fighter/bomber destroyed the most locomotives, performed the most strafing missions, provided the most ground support, etc, etc.


----------



## gjs238 (Jan 25, 2014)

Seems the P-47, within its range, did a great job escorting bombers, breaking the back of the Luftwaffe in the process.
On the return trips they strafed everything in sight.
Kind of difficult to interpret that as being a poor performer.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 25, 2014)

The P-47 was a beast...when it wasn't challenging the Luftwaffe or protecting bomber streams, it was scouring the European countryside. It could absorbe damage that would be fatal to most other aircraft and still stay in the fight.

That being said, it's loadout was impressive for a single engined fighter and it was more than capable of turning to fight after dropping it's load. At lower altitudes it was not at a disadvantage as some might imply, it simply required different tactics, which the P-47 pilots were aware of.

So the "seven ton milk bottle" would certainly be a front runner for the "fighter-bomber" award...


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 26, 2014)

OldSkeptic said:


> Yep, one the reasons (against Dowding's wishes it should be said) that the Defiant was kept was in case of invasions where it 'would be ideal' for bombing/straffing the invading Germans.
> Total nonsense of course. But I used as another example of people trying to get some further use out of obsolescent/obsolete single engined planes.
> 
> The P-47 was a hot ship at high altitude, but definitely not at its best low down, but it wasn't designed for that.
> ...



By the time P-47 started to do low level work, bombing strafing in 1944-45, it have had the uprated engine and better prop. Those two additions enabled it to 'advance' from poor to acceptable, for low level work. It also acquired capability to lug weaponry under the wings, the fuselage tank was of increased capacity, and belly shack still was able to lug the drop tank. What P-47 have had vs. 109, Spit of P-51, was it's ruggedness and punch. Against 109 and Spit, it have had the combat radius. 
We do not have many claims when Axis fighters pounced the low-flying FB P-47s.


----------



## Ilyushin IL-2 Sturmovik (Mar 8, 2014)

It's so obvious..... The Hawker Typhoon then, Ilyushin IL-2 Sturmovik


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 9, 2014)

What to clarify why?


----------



## pbehn (Mar 9, 2014)

a fighter carrying bombs is obviously disadvantaged, sure wheen it has dropped its bombs a spit can fight but if engaged by a 109 it must drop them which is end of mission. Typhoons were escorted by spitfires on bombing raids. Personally I think cannon were more effective than bombs or rockets and the typhoon had 4 of them.


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 9, 2014)

Cannon or MGs were only effective against personnel, trains, soft-skinned AFVs, but the bombs were better suited for bridges, bunkers, gun emplacements, up-armored AFVs and other hard targets.


----------



## Aozora (Mar 9, 2014)

The Spitfire as a bomber:










Tactics used by Spitfire IX units of 2 TAF:


















From pages 58-63:

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Mar 10, 2014)

pbehn said:


> a fighter carrying bombs is obviously disadvantaged, sure wheen it has dropped its bombs a spit can fight but if engaged by a 109 it must drop them which is end of mission. Typhoons were escorted by spitfires on bombing raids. Personally I think cannon were more effective than bombs or rockets and the typhoon had 4 of them.



Bombs and rockets were both hopelessly inaccurate, but the rockets had an unquantifiable _and important_ psychological effect on the enemy. It's one of two reasons why I'd give the 2nd TAF Typhoons the edge over the 8th AF P-47s. The 8th AF wasn't sold on rockets and its fighter-bombers were no more accurate than anyone else's at dropping bombs. 
Secondly the Typhoon's 20mm cannon was a better air to ground weapon than the P-47s machine guns. Air to ground weapons since WW2 are almost exclusively cannon and there's a reason for that 
Cheers
Steve


----------



## pbehn (Mar 10, 2014)

stona said:


> Bombs and rockets were both hopelessly inaccurate, but the rockets had an unquantifiable _and important_ psychological effect on the enemy. It's one of two reasons why I'd give the 2nd TAF Typhoons the edge over the 8th AF P-47s. The 8th AF wasn't sold on rockets and its fighter-bombers were no more accurate than anyone else's at dropping bombs.
> Secondly the Typhoon's 20mm cannon was a better air to ground weapon than the P-47s machine guns. Air to ground weapons since WW2 are almost exclusively cannon and there's a reason for that
> Cheers
> Steve



Steve that's what I meant in a way. A Bomb is obviously more effective when it hits the target, a lot of them didnt. Was there ever any thought given to fitting air brakes to the typhoon or spitfire?


----------



## parsifal (Mar 10, 2014)

> Air to ground weapons since WW2 are almost exclusively cannon and there's a reason for that




i would have to seriously question that, though I agree that in the WWII context bombs and rockets werent very accurate. The difference between then and now, is that now, the delivery systems are far more accurate, as well as the ordinance itself. Bombs now hit with around 90% accuracy....its when they dont hit the target, or cause unwanted collateral damage that they make headlines. We have bombs for just about every task....taking out runways, busting bunkers, bombs to specifically kill the personnel and not the infrastucture, so called smart bombs...the list is endless. Rockets, even unguided rockets, which are attractive because they are as cheap as chips, are these days far more accurate than their WWII cousins...perhaps a 40-50% hit rate.

This is why today, a single squadron of F-111s or A-10s or Buccaneers are a very dangerous thing, whereas in WWII a squadron of Typhoons might hit a tank if they were lucky.

Moreover, the suppression effect of airborne warfare is pretty universal, not just for rocket equipped aircraft. WWII aircraft accounted statistically for less than 3% of overall battlefield casualties, yet without the advantage of CAS, an army was pretty well doomed to defeat. The most overwhelming advantage that WWII CAS provided was the pinning effect on the ground troops, as accounts by the Germans in 1944 repeatedly show. If a tank, a vehicle, or personnel were caught in the open, in daylight, they stood a much higher chance of being roasted than if they would normally suffer, (again as the Germans found when forced to move to the Normandy beacheads). So, inevitably when subjewcted to air attack, most troops will hunker down stay put, not engage properly, and then be defeated by the land assault. Its called a multiplying effect....you probably are familiar with the term, but worth mentioning just the same. It has been estimated that during the Normandy campaign, CAS about doubled the firepower ratings for allied ground formations engaging opposing german troops, which is an enormous advantage. They got this advantage because the german formations spent so much time being pinned and immoobilised, making them vulnerable to defeat in detail


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 10, 2014)

Agreed.

The point of having to "keep your head down" and making strategic moves under the cover of darkness seriously restricts ground mobility and the ability to keep the battle line fluid.

So even if the GA is not scoring a high ratio of hits, they are holding the enemy's lines static and/or preventing much needed supplies, reinforcements or even tactical retreats.


----------



## GingahNinja (Mar 10, 2014)

Breaking it down by country.
Germany: Do-217 series - Russia: Il-2m (variant with the rear gunner) - Britain: Hawker Typhoon/Mosquito - USA: P-47 - Japan: A6M series


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 10, 2014)

I would disagree that Il-2 was a fighter bomber.


----------



## GrauGeist (Mar 10, 2014)

I'd say that the Hs129 or the Fw190F was a far more effective ground attack platform than the Do217...

And the Fw190F could at least make a showing of itself if pressed by enemy fighters.


----------



## stona (Mar 10, 2014)

By air to ground weapons I was referring to Machine guns and cannons, not other ordnance. I didn't make that obvious in my post.

SOME ordnance is delivered more accurately. Comparing bombers and fighter-bombers, which many do today, is not a fair comparison.

A Ju 87 in 1940 was just as capable of taking out a WW2 tank as an A-10 is today. To destroy a bridge P-47s would have to make less sorties than the F-16 with all it's attendant protection.
A B-52 might be able to do that it would have taken many B-17s to do, and it can do it at night, through cloud cover, but it is so vulnerable that it can only be used in theatres were opposition is negligible or absent. 

Other things don't change much either. A year before Operation Iraqi Freedom General Eric Shinseki told Congress that a field unit would normally have to wait 25 minutes for air support, about the same as the RAF achieved in the Western Desert in 1942 and four times as long as that achieved by the RAF during the Arab Revolt, Palestine, 1936-39 ! 
Of course many factors come into play. Operating in a very small theatre, close to home, the IAF had a response time of just 30 seconds during Operation Cast Lead (Gaza).

Also relevant to any measure of accuracy is who or what and where you are bombing. Indo-China is a good example. The US dropped about 8 million tons of bombs on the region between 1964 and 1975, but only 643,000 tons on North Vietnam. What they hit in the jungles of Laos, Cambodia and even South Vietnam is largely anyone's guess.

We like to think that we live in times of rapid progress but compared to 1939-45 nothing could be further from the truth. No front line fighter squadron in 1945 was operating any aircraft it had in 1939. In the current USAF inventory the average age of an aircraft is 38 years old, considerably older than most of the men and women who fly them.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Aozora (Mar 10, 2014)

pbehn said:


> Steve that's what I meant in a way. A Bomb is obviously more effective when it hits the target, a lot of them didnt. Was there ever any thought given to fitting air brakes to the typhoon or spitfire?



The Spitfire wasn't just being built as a fighter-bomber, so modifying the airframe or wings sufficiently to incorporate dive brakes would have completely disrupted the production lines for all versions. The Typhoon was a more likely candidate, but, fitting effective dive brakes retrospectively is rarely easy and seldom yields worthwhile results. The A-36, derived from the P-51, is one of the rare (possibly unique?) examples of dive brakes being successfully fitted to an existing fighter airframe, yet the dive brakes were rarely used on operations. 

Not forgetting that air brakes were fitted to later P-38s and P-47s; these were not dive brakes, but were used to stop these fighters getting into the subsonic buffet-zone while diving, and were not used to slow the aircraft sufficiently to promote bombing accuracy.


----------



## stona (Mar 10, 2014)

Bombing accuracy would not have improved much anyway. The Ju 87 was a purpose built dive bomber with built in systems to achieve reasonable accuracy. The crews were also highly trained in the art of dive bombing. They were not fighter pilots who had undergone a three week course covering dive-bombing and rocketry like the Typhoon pilots of the 2nd TAF.

Iron bombs are inherently inaccurate.

Here's a quote from a fighter-bomber pilot.

"The odds of unguided iron bombs hitting their target are not high. A bewildering number of fundamental errors infest the system. Our bombs impact point in relation to the target will be affected by unforeseen winds, natural ballistic bomb dispersion, inherent radar tracking inaccuracies, my limited ability to fly the jet precisely, target location uncertainty, map errors, computer setting time, my reaction time on the pickle button, the rotation of the earth and gravity."

Not WW2 but Vietnam, nearly thirty years later. Not much had changed. That pilot had been reduced to patrolling roads, railways and rivers looking for targets of opportunity. Given the expense of the aircraft and their operations and the size and elusiveness of the targets a less effective use of air power is difficult to imagine. There's a lesson there which still hasn't been learnt

Cheers

Steve


----------



## buffnut453 (Mar 10, 2014)

I don't think it's as much that the lesson hasn't been learned, more that the alternatives (financial, human and political) are still too costly to even consider.


----------



## pbehn (Mar 10, 2014)

Personally I think the greatest effect of the Typhoon was knocking out fuel bowsers for which cannon are deal. Taking out a tank isnt easy but if you cut its fuel its helplesss.


----------



## Friskykillface (Mar 24, 2014)

The BEST fighter/bomber of WWII? The Tempest was pretty nasty, but it would be too close to call. The P-47 was successful in that role as well. Along with some of the FW190's. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the Tempest and the P-47 carry more "ground ordinance" than the FW190? One of the MOST SIGNIFICANT would have to be, in my own biased opinion, the P-40. It was around early on in the war, easy to produce, there were LOTS of them! Functioned well enough in both the fighter and "bomber" (ground attack) role. Just by sheer numbers I think the P-40 deserves the "most significant" title. Not sure its reliable, but I read somewhere that there were a total of 11,998 P-40s built before they were discontinued. The way I see it, there were so many of them, they probably made more of a difference early in the war, (where I personally believe it mattered most) compared to the diferences the Tempest and P-47 made later on in the war. The P-40 was doing work on air and ground units earlier than the tempest and the P-47. Also dont forget how effective the P-40 was in the fighter and ground attack role in the Pacific.


----------



## stona (Mar 24, 2014)

Friskykillface said:


> The BEST fighter/bomber of WWII? The Tempest was pretty nasty,



But was designed, like the others, as an air superiority fighter. The difference is that this was the role in which it was deployed to Europe. It wasn't even cleared to carry bombs until too late in the war to be significant as a fighter bomber in any meaningful sense. It proved itself a decent ground attack aircraft post war during the Malayan "emergency" though one engine and a lot of jungle meant that it was soon replaced.
The Typhoon was a far more significant fighter bomber along with the P-47. 
Cheers
Steve


----------



## gjs238 (Mar 24, 2014)

GingahNinja said:


> Breaking it down by country.
> Germany: Do-217 series - Russia: Il-2m (variant with the rear gunner) - Britain: Hawker Typhoon/Mosquito - USA: P-47 - Japan: A6M series



No F4U?


----------

