Best Single Engine Fighter-Bomber (WW2)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

AvisQueMetallum

Recruit
3
0
Jul 4, 2018
In my opinion, it's the Fw-190 series and its derivatives mostly because of their various roles (Ta-152 interceptors, D-series fighters). I would like to see another opinion, as there are many other candidates for best single-engine fighter-bomber.
 
I would go with the P-47N which was really a medium bomber in the shape of a fighter. It could carry 2,500 lbs of bombs from Ie Shima to Kyushu, about 600 miles each way. When it shed its bombload, the P-47N was pure fighter, with a top speed of 465 MPH. The catch is that the P-47N was really only in combat for about 2 months in the summer of 1945. Earlier model P-47s could carry similar loads but not as far or as fast.

Second place I would rank the F4U-1D. The 1D was a fighter-bomber optimized version of the F4U-1. It carried a slightly smaller bomb load regularly than the P-47, but was designed to work from shorter and less prepared airfields. Secondly, the Corsair could do true dive-bombing by leaving its landing gear extended during the dive. The F4U-4 which was gradually replacing the F4U-1D at the end of the war was the Marines main fighter-bomber in Korea, generally carrying a heavier load than on comparable missions during WWII. A 2,000 lb. bombload was common for Corsairs in Korea but was exceptional in WWII. (The F-51D also regularly carried 2,000 lb bomb loads in Korea but in WWII usually flew with 1,000 lb load.)
 
Any fighter with an R-2800 radial engine.....

With all sincerity though, I do have a question for those who are truly in the know concerning the P-47 Thunderbolt. Did the type really accumulate more than a half-million combat missions during WWII, or was this purely an exaggeration that developed over the years? That would be close to ten times the action sorties flown by either the Hellcat or Corsair, both beginning their combat careers during the same year and were manufactured in decent numbers enough (though each a few thousand less copies than the Thunderbolt). For the 10,000 or so Jugs that finally made it overseas, that would amount to about 50 combat missions per air frame. Is this even possible? If it is than it would truly be America's "king of the fighter-bombers" by sheer numbers alone.

From Republic P-47D-30-RA Thunderbolt :

Of the 15,683 P-47s built, about two-thirds reached overseas commands. A total of 5,222 were lost-1,723 in accidents not related to combat. The Jug flew more than half a million missions and dropped more than 132 thousand tons of bombs. Thunderbolts were lost at the exceptionally low rate of 0.7 per cent per mission and Jug pilots achieved an aerial kill ratio of 4.6:1. In the European Theater, P-47 pilots destroyed more than 7,000 enemy aircraft, more than half of them in air-to-air combat. They destroyed the remainder on very dangerous ground attack missions.
 
From American Combat Planes by Ray Wagner, statistics from ETO only, for American-operated aircraft.

Aircraft Combat Sorties
P-47 423,435
P-51 213,873
P-38 129,849
P-40 67,059
P-39 30,547
Spitfire 28,981
A-36 23,373
Beaufighter 6,706
P-61 3,637

Note the Spitfire, operated by the USA, flew more combat missions than the A-36 did. Not surprising since we only made a few A-36s.
 

Great stuff Greg, much appreciated.
 
The Typhoon wasn't great as a fighter... good (especially in the low-altitude interceptor role), but not great.
By 1944 it was used almost exclusively as a ground-attack aircraft, usually with an escort of a better fighter type.

As a ground attack aircraft I would consider it on a par with the P-47 & F4U - if not a tad better (except for that whole "can't operate from a ship at sea" weakness that it shared with the P-47).


My personal favorite of the Hawker stable is the Sea Fury/Fury (great at ground attack and really good as a fighter) - but alas it only entered operational service over a month after the Japanese surrender.
 

I suspect that using fighters to escort loaded fighter-bombers was pretty common, with all types. After all, if they have to pickle their bombs or rockets, the strike mission has just been defeated.
 
They built 3,268 Typhoons versus 15,678 P-47 Thunderbolts and 14,609 F4U Corsairs (not all during the war). I'm not saying ALL the P-47s were deployed to the ETO, but I also doubt if all 3,268 Typhoons got into battle, either. We KNOW some lost their tails in testing. Very few F4Us got into the ETO.


We know the P-47, in the ETO, flew 423,435 combat sorties, dropped 113,963 tons of ordnance while shooting down 3,082 aircraft and destroying another 3,202 on the ground. That's 6,284 enemy aircraft accounted for by P-47s. Data from American Combat Planes by Ray Wagner.


The F4U flew 64,051 combat sorties, delivered 15,621 tons of bombs, and shot down or destroyed on the ground 2,140 enemy aircraft (1,662 fighters and 478 bombers). Data from Naval Combat Statistics - World War II.


By any standard, the P-47 did more for the war effort, by LONG SHOT, than the F4U did.


Unfortunately, for the RAF, I only have Bomber Command statistics for tonnage dropped, and Typhoons don't show up there. Interestingly enough, the P-51 DOES show up, with 6 total sorties for Bomber Command (no tonnage dropped)! Go figure. I've never seen a summary of Typhoon-delivered ordnance, but they started doing quite well after some issues were fixed, including the tail strength and the engine.


So, I'd easily give the nod to the P-47 until some actual statistics show me the Typhoon did anywhere near as well. I've seen many glowing reports, but no Typhoon summary … that does not mean there isn't one. I hope there IS. If so, please someone let us know. Sorry, let ME know.

In case it isn't obvious, these are ETO numbers for the P-47. The F4U is mostly PTO numbers.


Cheers.
 
Last edited:
Mustangs were used on occasion by 'Master Bombers' during Bomber Command raids.

The role of the Master Bomber was to ensure the 'heavies' dropped their bombs in the right place. He would be over the target area for the whole raid. The Master Bomber would check on the fall of the TIs (Target Indicator Flares). He would then tell the following bomber crews where to bomb in relation to the TI's. The Master Bomber would also keep an eye out for crews who started to bomb to early. If the target needed more TI's, again it would be down to the Master Bomber to call up the Back Markers to drop fresh flares.
 
I know, I'm a little off topic here, but what about the Douglas
SBDs used as scout/cover for the USN in the Pacific. They
just happened to help substantially in turning the tide of the
war in the PTO at MIdway and many other areas......Just a thought.
 
The SDB had 52,687 Action Sorties (Combat), dropped 15,621 tons of bombs on targets, and accounted for 138 aerial victories (31 bombers and 107 fighters).

I think we need to realize that the ETO was over ground and the PTO was over water. Large numbers of aircraft could launch from ground bases, but only a carrier contingent could launch from a carrier. Very many planes did not make it back to base in the ETO and were recoverd when weather improved, etc. If they didn't make it back to base in the PTO, they were almost 100% lost at sea. So, we should expect a LOT fewer sorties and tons of bombs dropped, leading to fewwer enemy aircraft shot down by virtue of many fewer opportunities for carrier aircraft over waeter in the absence of radar.

By way of example, numbers not quoted here ... but I could do so ... the sorties flown, bombs dropped, and plane shot down during Midway were not all that impressive by sheer numbers, but it resulted in loss of superiority by the Japanese for the rest of the war and eliminated their carrier strength for the rest of the war.

Not quite sure how to "score" that action, but it had strategic implications WAY beyond any single ETO mission. The SDB carried the day, and very significantly affected the PTO war outcome.

But I don't think it makes the SDB a better fighter/bomber than the P-47 by any stretch of the imagination.
 
Last edited:
But I don't think it makes the SDB a better fighter/bomber than the P-47 by any stretch of the imagination.[/QUOTE]

Probably not, but then again there were many gray areas in the war.
And like you said Greg, Midway was a game changer. How many other aircraft
used during the war as a defensive fighter and attack aircraft can claim that.

Not trying to change the subject, just trying to expand the thought level of
it.
 
The Typhoon gets my vote and it was a pretty good fighter at low/medium level. In Europe Typhoons often escorted other GA aircraft and were used to escort Mosquito's by the RAF. Top cover was normally other types in particular Spit XIV but that was pretty standard across the 2nd TAF.

The Tempest was my first choice but I didn't pick it as during WW2 they were not armed with rockets only bombs and rockets do add to the flexibility of the aircraft. As a fighter the Tempest didn't have to fear anyone at low to medium altitude.
 
I would vote the Fw190F. The 190A as a fighter was outclassed after 1942, but served very decently in the ground attack role. Carried usually 700kgr load but was capable for more. It was smaller than the american r2800 fighters, so smaller target for the flak. Had relatively strong structure, decent armor. Good mixture of hmg and cannons .Very easy to be serviced. Ability to operate from very bad airfields.Easy production. Cheap.Automatic engine controls which lowered the pilots work load. Decent roll at low/medium speeds.Cluster bobms. The F9 sub vertion , with up to 2200 ps and wide blade propellers and D9s serving as fighter bombers could defend themselfs at low altitude in aerial combat .
As a value for money choice i believe it was the best for all the countries except America. How many other countries could afford to produce a 6000kgr turbosupercharged fighter and then use it as a fighter bomber?
 
swampyankee said:
I suspect that using fighters to escort loaded fighter-bombers was pretty common, with all types. After all, if they have to pickle their bombs or rockets, the strike mission has just been defeated.
Click to expand...

This is very true. It was quite common to see divisions of F6Fs flying top cover for bomb and rocket carrying F4Us.
 
Just a question on the Spitfires in US service. Do you know how late in the war they were still being used in combat by the US?
 
I hadn't really thought about that angle till I read your post. Is a dive bomber a ground attack aircraft? Do you measure a ground attack aircraft( or any other aircraft for that matter) by it's capabilities or by it's impact. I don't know the answer to those questions( not sure there is a write answer to them) but any opportunity to shoehorn the SBD into a conversation I'm in favor of.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

A
Heaviest armed Japanese single seat, single engine fighter?
2 3
Replies
41
Views
4K
MIflyer
M
A
Best WW2 Seafire vs. best A6M Zero
Replies
9
Views
1K
Shortround6
S
A
Worst liquid-cooled, V12-powered, single-engine, single-seat, monoplane, retractable undercarriage fighters of WW2?
2 3
Replies
56
Views
5K
yulzari
S
WW2 aero engine fuel consumption comparison
Replies
19
Views
3K
ThomasP
T
Best piston engined fighter of 1945?
7 8 9
Replies
168
Views
17K
PAT303
P
Menu
Log in
Register