1938-41 fighter-bombers?

[tomo pauk]

Same drill as before: countries adopt a fighter-bomber idea a few years before it was wideaspread historically, perhaps instead of light bombers and/or dive bombers? Fighter-bomber could be defined as an aircraft designed 1st fighter, that can be easily modified to carry bombs and other ordnance to attack ground forces; once without external ordnance, it can hold his own against other fighters of the day; 1 or 2 engines.
What implementations might work better than the others? What countries could get ahead with design, production and use of FBs? A modification of historical fighters or a brand new airframe? If the doctrine or policy need to be changed in order to have FB in service, change that into doctrine/policy that favors the FBs instead of something else.

 

[stona]

I'm not sure what you are driving at. With a change of doctrine the RAF already had the Hurricane. The Spitfire had the bomb carrying capacity deleted when it was up-gunned to eight machine guns. Other than that it was the light bombers which were supposed to support ground forces, NOT close support, more like what we might call interdiction today.

Surely a fighter-bomber is exactly what it says on the tin? An aircraft designed as a fighter which can have a useful bomb load attached.

 

[wlewisiii]

Perhaps while the P-40 production is ramping up, keep the P-36 around rather than phasing it out. Hang a pair of wing mounted 250's or a 500 centerline and put 2 .50's in the nose.

 

[Glider]

For the RAF it's what they had with a few modifications brought forward. As Stona rightly said the RAF had the Hurricane plus the Whirlwind both of which could carry a decent payload. It's difficult to think of any other fighter in any airforce which could match these two.

 

[Shortround6]

Same drill as before: countries adopt a fighter-bomber idea a few years before it was wideaspread historically, perhaps instead of light bombers and/or dive bombers?

It was actually quite widespread in the early 30s. Of course the existing engines prevented the planes from carrying the warloads later planes could.
The P-26 could carry five 30lb bombs or two 100/116lblb bombs as an example. The He 51 could carry six 22lb bombs in an inside bomb bay/magazine.

And since There Ain't No Such Thing As Free Lunch, trying to build low powered fighter bombers means you have a shorter ranged plane than the light bombers and quite possibly shorter ranged and less war load than the dive bombers. The purpose built load carriers used large wings to lift the heavy loads with a given size engine.
Our Much Maligned Fairey Battle carried over twice the fuel load of a Hurricane for over twice the range for example.

Perhaps while the P-40 production is ramping up, keep the P-36 around rather than phasing it out. Hang a pair of wing mounted 250's or a 500 centerline and put 2 .50's in the nose.

Well. the P-40 production was ramping up quickly because it could and did use many of the same jigs and fixtures that the P-36. No Free Lunch again. More P-36s means fewer P-40s unless you can figure out how to make two planes at the same time on the same jigs and fixtures and using the same workers.

However the capability was there for the bombs. Curtiss was advertising export Hawk 75s with a 500lb bomb under the fuselage and up to five 30lb bombs (or three 50lb) under each wing.

 

[jetcal1]

Seems like the A-20 would fit that bill.

 

[Kevin J]

Seems like the A-20 would fit that bill.

Hmm, a fighter bomber eh? That sounds like a Fairey Fulmar, Blackburn Skua, Douglas Dauntless maybe even a Brewster Buccaneer or even God forbid a Curtiss Helldiver. Did anyone here say it had to be a single seater? Sounds like a job for a two seat single engined fighter to me. Possibly even Potez 633, Whirlwind?

 

[jetcal1]

Hmm, a fighter bomber eh? That sounds like a Fairey Fulmar, Blackburn Skua, Douglas Dauntless maybe even a Brewster Buccaneer or even God forbid a Curtiss Helldiver. Did anyone here say it had to be a single seater? Sounds like a job for a two seat single engined fighter to me. Possibly even Potez 633, Whirlwind?

Sure a Whirlwind would meet the requirement.

 

[Kevin J]

Sure a Whirlwind would meet the requirement.

Not used as a fighter bomber until late 42. Nice try. Same problem with IMAM Ro. 57.

 

[jetcal1]

Not used as a fighter bomber until late 42. Nice try. Same problem with IMAM Ro. 57.

I don't know, my F-14 went from 1974 to 1992 before we started using the air to ground capability that was inherently built into the airframe. The idea was there, the actual need or ability to implement had yet to come about.
Plus, I believe the RAF was using the A-20 in a ground attack role by the beginning of 1942 in Africa.

 

[Greg Boeser]

Export H-75s had wing racks for multiple small bombs. The Finns used them a couple of times before reassigning them to the fighter units.

 

[Kevin J]

I don't know, my F-14 went from 1974 to 1992 before we started using the air to ground capability that was inherently built into the airframe. The idea was there, the actual need or ability to implement had yet to come about.
Plus, I believe the RAF was using the A-20 in a ground attack role by the beginning of 1942 in Africa.

AFAIK, the only fighter bombers are the Bf 109E with DB 601N post BoB for high altitude bombing raids against England and the Hurricane IIb for bombing raids into France in 1941. The RAF P-40D/E was initially used in North Africa end 41 for air superiority, so no bombs. The USSR was certainly firing rockets from both the LaGG-3 and I-153 late 41 but can't recall when they started using them as fighter bombers. Warhawks and Wildcats dropped them in the Pacific late 41.

 

[tomo pauk]

Sure a Whirlwind would meet the requirement.

It certainly will per this thread & sub-forum the thread is in.

 

[pinsog]

AFAIK, the only fighter bombers are the Bf 109E with DB 601N post BoB for high altitude bombing raids against England and the Hurricane IIb for bombing raids into France in 1941. The RAF P-40D/E was initially used in North Africa end 41 for air superiority, so no bombs. The USSR was certainly firing rockets from both the LaGG-3 and I-153 late 41 but can't recall when they started using them as fighter bombers. Warhawks and Wildcats dropped them in the Pacific late 41.

Just to clarify, unless I misunderstand what you typed, he is saying 'what could have been an effective early fighter bomber?" He isn't asking what was historically used as an early fighter bomber. That is why the Whirlwind was mentioned up above.

I agree that the Whirlwind would be very hard to beat as an early fighter bomber. I would, if I was there, re arm it with 8 303's in the nose along with a large supply of ammo per gun instead of 4 20mm with only 60 rounds per gun. For anything unarmored including trucks, cars, planes and people it would be hard to beat 8 30's concentrated in the nose with a lot of ammo

 

[Shortround6]

I would, if I was there, re arm it with 8 303's in the nose along with a large supply of ammo per gun instead of 4 20mm with only 60 rounds per gun. For anything unarmored including trucks, cars, planes and people it would be hard to beat 8 30's concentrated in the nose with a lot of ammo

This assumes the army being strafed/bombed doesn't have much in the way of AA guns.

Six seconds of firing time (60rpg for the 20mm) will see a 300mph airplane cover about 1/2 mile. Repeat attacks or attacks in same area are going to meet a higher volume of AA fire than the first "surprise" attack.
The Germans were lucky in that most/all of the armies they attacked in 1939-41 didn't have much in the way of light AA guns while they had a pretty good outfit of such weapons for the time period.

20mm guns firing a fair amount of HE ammo may have a better effect than one might think against unprotected targets.

 

[Kevin J]

This assumes the army being strafed/bombed doesn't have much in the way of AA guns.

Six seconds of firing time (60rpg for the 20mm) will see a 300mph airplane cover about 1/2 mile. Repeat attacks or attacks in same area are going to meet a higher volume of AA fire than the first "surprise" attack.
The Germans were lucky in that most/all of the armies they attacked in 1939-41 didn't have much in the way of light AA guns while they had a pretty good outfit of such weapons for the time period.

20mm guns firing a fair amount of HE ammo may have a better effect than one might think against unprotected targets.

I remember reading about Typhoons attacking ground targets in flights of four, one pair at a time. The first pair would get away with it. The survival rate for the second pair was 50%, so there was always a shortage of Typhoon pilots.

 

[tomo pauk]

Some could-have-beens for purposes of the thread:
- P-36/40 with undercarriage modified to double as airbrake and extra protection for cooler(s)
- Hurricane with beard radiator (thus reducing the length of piping for coolant and oil), some protection for coolers, Merlin VIII
- Hurricane with Hercules engine
- pre-1940 twin, powered by two Mercury engines, size of Whirlwind
- if we have money to burn - a twin with two Merlin/DB 601/V-1710 engines; Potez 63 series with HS 12Y engines and better armament
- 1-seat Defiant, with bombs and 4 .303s or two Hispanos, otherwise modified as Hurricane above
- MB-2, bombed-up (ducks for cover)

 

[wlewisiii]

I wonder if the Airacuda could have been repurposed as a fighter bomber? Put a bomb bay like the A-20's in the fuselage while keeping the wing bays, replace the manned 37's with a fixed 20mm and 4 .50 M-2's cut the crew to one, maybe two. Replacing the V-1710 with R-2600's might be good too.

 

[wlewisiii]

Well. the P-40 production was ramping up quickly because it could and did use many of the same jigs and fixtures that the P-36. No Free Lunch again. More P-36s means fewer P-40s unless you can figure out how to make two planes at the same time on the same jigs and fixtures and using the same workers.

However the capability was there for the bombs. Curtiss was advertising export Hawk 75s with a 500lb bomb under the fuselage and up to five 30lb bombs (or three 50lb) under each wing.

I was thinking - and may well be misremembering - that the Army phased out the P-36's as soon as they got their hands on P-40's. My thought was rather than get rid of them, repurpose them so that even as the P-40's are increasing, we still get more use out of the P-36's that we had already bought.

 

[jetcal1]

I wonder if the Airacuda could have been repurposed as a fighter bomber? Put a bomb bay like the A-20's in the fuselage while keeping the wing bays, replace the manned 37's with a fixed 20mm and 4 .50 M-2's cut the crew to one, maybe two. Replacing the V-1710 with R-2600's might be good too.

To expand a bit on your ideas, add an ASV radar, keep the heavy cannon and go play at night in the Solomon's interdicting the Tokyo Express and other thin skinned surface combatants.