Best Single Engine Fighter-Bomber (WW2)

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

There's a great deal of difference between a fighter-bomber and a scouting bomber that was successful at defending it's fleet when their back was against the wall - as much as I love the SBD, by the way.

And I know I've said this many times before, but the SBD was the right aircraft in the right place at the right time. The alternatives to the SBD were the Brewster SBN/SB2A which were in the SBD's service timeline. There was the Curtiss SBC, a predecessor to the SBD and the Curtiss SBC2 which came after...neither of which had the abilities or qualities of the Douglas.

So for the sake of thread's continuity, I'd say let the SBD stay on the sidelines for this conversation. :lol:
 
GrauGeist said:
There's a great deal of difference between a fighter-bomber and a scouting bomber that was successful at defending it's fleet when their back was against the wall - as much as I love the SBD, by the way.

And I know I've said this many times before, but the SBD was the right aircraft in the right place at the right time. The alternatives to the SBD were the Brewster SBN/SB2A which were in the SBD's service timeline. There was the Curtiss SBC, a predecessor to the SBD and the Curtiss SBC2 which came after...neither of which had the abilities or qualities of the Douglas.

So for the sake of thread's continuity, I'd say let the SBD stay on the sidelines for this conversation. :lol:
Click to expand...
Agreed. I just liked the thought exercise of looking at this from another angle. That the other angle involved the SBD in Cornsnings post made me like said thought exercise that much more.:rolleyes:
 
michael rauls said:
Agreed. I just liked the thought exercise of looking at this from another angle. That the other angle involved the SBD in Cornsnings post made me like said thought exercise that much more.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Just imagine if the USN replaced the SBD by 1941 with the Brewster Buccaneer (or SBN) like they did with the Curtiss SOC before the U.S. was pulled into the war.

We wouldn't be singing the praises of the SBD, but lamenting about how bad the USN got it's ass handed to it. Many of the IJN's ships early in the war were sunk by the SBD as well as USN ships being protected by the SBD's aggressive CAP/interception. None of this could have been achieved by the alternatives.
 
Truth is when it comes to discussing the -bomber end
of the fighter bomber I have to admit that I haven't done
enough research. I would normally tend to lean towards
aircraft that were radial engine because of the greater
resilience. However, versions of the P-40 had excellent
protection for important engine components and I am
going to guess the same is true for the Tempest / Typhoon...?

You know all the fighter-bomber talk has me thinking that
I should add the -bomber area to the AIRCRAFT PERFORMANCE
post when I finally find a spot to post them.
Wow, this could get involve and there goes another 10 years
of research ahead.o_O;):)
 
Last edited:
Conslaw said:
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.
Click to expand...

From AHT:
P-47N combat radius with 2,000 lb bomb load: 300 miles
P-51D: combat radius with 2,000 bomb load: 350 miles
Both with full internal fuel.

That said, I would still prefer the P-47N.
 
CORSNING said:
Truth is when it comes to discussing the -bomber end
of the fighter bomber I have to admit that I haven't done
enough research. I would normally tend to lean towards
aircraft that were radial engine because of the greater
resilience. However, versions of the P-40 had excellent
protection for important engine components and I am
going guess the same is true for the Tempest / Typhoon...?

You know all the fighter-bomber talk has me thinking that
I should add the -bomber area to the AIRCRAFT PERFORMANCE
post when I finally find a spot to post them.
Wow, this could get involve and there goes another 10 years
of research ahead.o_O;):)
Click to expand...


Things get a weird when trying to compare fighter bombers.
Bomb and weapons loads vary. P-47s for instance often traded ammo for the .50 cal guns for underwing stores. The 425 rpg often became 267 rpg. that saved about 380lbs total. It was possible to take out one gun form each wing but I don't know if this was done in combat areas. The P-47, in the later versions (Ds not Ns) was rated at 2500lbs, 1000lbs under each wing and 500lbs under the fuselage but considering the size of some of the drop tanks used under the fuselage it was a space issue (ground clearance) than weight on that station/rack.

Fuel could be traded for bomb load, this might depend on length of field and situation.
Late P-40s were rated for 2,500lb of bombs in manual, 1000lbs under each wing and 500lbs under the fuselage but the pilots manual doesn't list an gross weight high enough to cover that in the take-off and climb charts. There are combat records of them using a pair of 1000lb bombs in Italy but the range from airbase to target was under 60 miles (if that).
I am not sure the P-40 had any extra protection for the engine components or if it was just a bit lucky. Most AA gunners didn't use enough lead and most aircraft that came back had more hits in the rear of the aircraft than the front. Putting radiators behind the pilot may have been putting them in harms way?? Open to correction on that.

I am probably going to get dislike notes for this but the Typhoon developed late as a fighter bomber. It could carry 500lbs fairly soon and the rockets but 1000lbs took a long time to show up and needed modifications to the aircraft. British squadrons tended to specialize in either rockets or bombs and not switch back and forth on different days. This is due to both the different attack profile/technique to use the different weapons the labor to dismount and remount the rocket rails.
On the other hand the P-47 was late to the rocket game, and those triple clusters in the photos were not as effective as the British rockets.
The triple clusters were supposed to be able to be used on the P-38, P-39, P-40, P-47, P-51, A-20 and A-36 aircraft. Which aircraft actually used them in action I don't know. This was an Army Air force rocket and the Navy and Marines never used them (unless the Marines 'borrowed' some in the pacific?).

Trying to get good information of speed of planes (and range/radius) when carrying certain underwing/fuselage loads is going to be hard.
 
Ho Michael Rauls. From Wiki:
The Spitfire was one of only a few foreign aircraft to see service with the USAAF, equipping four groups in England and the Mediterranean. Spitfires were briefly flown by the US Navy after the Normandy landings to support cruisers and battleships bombarding land targets. Around 600 Spitfires in different version served in the U.S. Army Air Force and Navy.

United States Army Air Forces.
Fighter Groups[edit]
Each Fighter group was composed of three squadrons of 16 fighters. Initially USAAF used Mk. V and in August 1943 MTO units received Mk.IX and XVIII planes.
Photo Recce Groups
Alongside American-built F-5 Lightning and F-6 Mustang reconnaissance planes some Spitfire PR.XI planes were operated in Europe and the Mediterranean.
United States Navy
  • Cruiser Scouting Squadron Seven (VCS-7)[10]
In May 1944 VCS-7 Cruiser Support Squadron trained to fly Spitfire Vbs instead their floatplanes, extremely vulnerable to flak guns and enemy fighters to be found in D-Day. They were based on Royal Naval Air Station Lee-on-Solent. VCS-7 flew around 200 sorties with Spitfires, from D-Day landings to the capture of the port of Cherbourg, which made naval fire support no longer needed.

Looks like we used Spitfires in small numbers from around September 1942 until mid-1944 for a few Fighter Groups, and Spitfires from mid-1943 alonside (mid-1944) the F-6 version of the P-51. We phased them out in mid-1944 except maybe for the 14th Photo Recoinnaissance Squadron. They used the F-4 Lightning at first and got Spitfire Vs in July 1943. Looks like they flew Spitfires until July 1945, after which they turned in their aircraft and returned to the USA.
 
GregP said:
Ho Michael Rauls. From Wiki:
The Spitfire was one of only a few foreign aircraft to see service with the USAAF, equipping four groups in England and the Mediterranean. Spitfires were briefly flown by the US Navy after the Normandy landings to support cruisers and battleships bombarding land targets. Around 600 Spitfires in different version served in the U.S. Army Air Force and Navy.

United States Army Air Forces.
Fighter Groups[edit]
Each Fighter group was composed of three squadrons of 16 fighters. Initially USAAF used Mk. V and in August 1943 MTO units received Mk.IX and XVIII planes.
Photo Recce Groups
Alongside American-built F-5 Lightning and F-6 Mustang reconnaissance planes some Spitfire PR.XI planes were operated in Europe and the Mediterranean.
United States Navy
  • Cruiser Scouting Squadron Seven (VCS-7)[10]
In May 1944 VCS-7 Cruiser Support Squadron trained to fly Spitfire Vbs instead their floatplanes, extremely vulnerable to flak guns and enemy fighters to be found in D-Day. They were based on Royal Naval Air Station Lee-on-Solent. VCS-7 flew around 200 sorties with Spitfires, from D-Day landings to the capture of the port of Cherbourg, which made naval fire support no longer needed.

Looks like we used Spitfires in small numbers from around September 1942 until mid-1944 for a few Fighter Groups, and Spitfires from mid-1943 alonside (mid-1944) the F-6 version of the P-51. We phased them out in mid-1944 except maybe for the 14th Photo Recoinnaissance Squadron. They used the F-4 Lightning at first and got Spitfire Vs in July 1943. Looks like they flew Spitfires until July 1945, after which they turned in their aircraft and returned to the USA.
Click to expand...
Thank you so much for posting that. Sounds like we were using them up until VE day at least in the recon role.Something I've wondered about but for some reason I couldn't seem to dig up that information. Guess I probably didn't search hard enough for it.
This may be one of those far out what ifs but I've thought they were such a great fighter, especially compared to just about anything else in 1940 we(the U.S.) should have sought liscence to build and use Spitfires early on when we could see the war clouds gathering. I'm guessing the Brits would have granted permission?
Maybe a crazy thought but sometimes its fun to think what if.
 
Shortround6 said:
Things get a weird when trying to compare fighter bombers.
Bomb and weapons loads vary. P-47s for instance often traded ammo for the .50 cal guns for underwing stores. The 425 rpg often became 267 rpg. that saved about 380lbs total. It was possible to take out one gun form each wing but I don't know if this was done in combat areas. The P-47, in the later versions (Ds not Ns) was rated at 2500lbs, 1000lbs under each wing and 500lbs under the fuselage but considering the size of some of the drop tanks used under the fuselage it was a space issue (ground clearance) than weight on that station/rack.

Fuel could be traded for bomb load, this might depend on length of field and situation.
Late P-40s were rated for 2,500lb of bombs in manual, 1000lbs under each wing and 500lbs under the fuselage but the pilots manual doesn't list an gross weight high enough to cover that in the take-off and climb charts. There are combat records of them using a pair of 1000lb bombs in Italy but the range from airbase to target was under 60 miles (if that).
I am not sure the P-40 had any extra protection for the engine components or if it was just a bit lucky. Most AA gunners didn't use enough lead and most aircraft that came back had more hits in the rear of the aircraft than the front. Putting radiators behind the pilot may have been putting them in harms way?? Open to correction on that.

I am probably going to get dislike notes for this but the Typhoon developed late as a fighter bomber. It could carry 500lbs fairly soon and the rockets but 1000lbs took a long time to show up and needed modifications to the aircraft. British squadrons tended to specialize in either rockets or bombs and not switch back and forth on different days. This is due to both the different attack profile/technique to use the different weapons the labor to dismount and remount the rocket rails.
On the other hand the P-47 was late to the rocket game, and those triple clusters in the photos were not as effective as the British rockets.
The triple clusters were supposed to be able to be used on the P-38, P-39, P-40, P-47, P-51, A-20 and A-36 aircraft. Which aircraft actually used them in action I don't know. This was an Army Air force rocket and the Navy and Marines never used them (unless the Marines 'borrowed' some in the pacific?).

Trying to get good information of speed of planes (and range/radius) when carrying certain underwing/fuselage loads is going to be hard.
Click to expand...
I did read that two of the 50s were sometimes removed from from p47s to save wight ( i don't think the article mentioned if it was specifically to allow more ordinance for ground attack missions. It was a while ago I read it ). This was just some article on the internet so take it for what it's worth.
I know on Wikipedia it says all but the earliest baches of p40Ns had substantial additional armor. Enough to substantially degrade speed and climb performance as I recall. It would really be surprising if some of this additional armor wasn't used to protect the engine although it didn't mention engine armor specifically as I recall.
 
michael rauls said:
...should have sought liscence to build and use Spitfires early on when we could see the war clouds gathering...
Click to expand...
The U.S. had a large base of manufacturers to work with and had different requirements.

To start with, the U.S. always required their aircraft to have range, as the isolated nature of the U.S. meant that an enemy would have to come by sea...which is one of the reasons the U.S. had long-range bombers from the onset: to intercept an enemy fleet at sea.

In regards to U.S. operated foreign aircraft, they did operate quite a few.
Airspeed Oxford, Avro Anson, Avro Lancaster, Boulton-Paul Defiant, Bristol Beaufighter, deHavilland Mosquito, Supermarine Spitfire, Westland Lysander, etc.
 
michael rauls said:
This may be one of those far out what ifs but I've thought they were such a great fighter, especially compared to just about anything else in 1940 we(the U.S.) should have sought liscence to build and use Spitfires early on when we could see the war clouds gathering.
Click to expand...

You have several things going against this idea.
1. is the standard NIH thing. Overridden only in certain circumstances.
2. already mentioned the short range. There was a reason that P-39s and P-40s (and even P-36s) carried 160 US gallons or more of internal fuel (before self sealing) . It was for deploying the fighters around the US, not for combat.
3. The Spitfire was not designed to standard US structural strength specifications. There may have been ways around it but adopting a lower standard of strength for a foreign design was not going to go over well with US manufacturers.
4. Just like the problems the Packard had with RR drawings. Every drawing would have to be redone to US standard engineering practice.
It would probably take well over a year from the start of the project until you were actually getting fighters in quantity (not 1-5 a month) and you have to compare the Spitfire of the time to what the US designers were promising for the future. Please remember that over 700 P-47s were ordered in Sept of 1940 (end of BoB) . Now compare P-47B (on paper) to a Spitfire MK II or perhaps a MK V?) British have NOT sorted out the 20mm cannon yet (and the US has yet to screw it up).
They don't KNOW how far they can push 100/1?? fuel (they don't have the PN scale yet) and Merlins using 15lbs of boost or more are over a year away.
The Spitfire's abilities in 1942 are almost as unknown as the abilities of the US aircraft.

Please note that the early P-40s were just about as fast as a Spitfire I or II using an engine of about the same power. (P-40 was a lot heavier which killed climb and ceiling)
 
Shortround6 said:
You have several things going against this idea.
1. is the standard NIH thing. Overridden only in certain circumstances.
2. already mentioned the short range. There was a reason that P-39s and P-40s (and even P-36s) carried 160 US gallons or more of internal fuel (before self sealing) . It was for deploying the fighters around the US, not for combat.
3. The Spitfire was not designed to standard US structural strength specifications. There may have been ways around it but adopting a lower standard of strength for a foreign design was not going to go over well with US manufacturers.
4. Just like the problems the Packard had with RR drawings. Every drawing would have to be redone to US standard engineering practice.
It would probably take well over a year from the start of the project until you were actually getting fighters in quantity (not 1-5 a month) and you have to compare the Spitfire of the time to what the US designers were promising for the future. Please remember that over 700 P-47s were ordered in Sept of 1940 (end of BoB) . Now compare P-47B (on paper) to a Spitfire MK II or perhaps a MK V?) British have NOT sorted out the 20mm cannon yet (and the US has yet to screw it up).
They don't KNOW how far they can push 100/1?? fuel (they don't have the PN scale yet) and Merlins using 15lbs of boost or more are over a year away.
The Spitfire's abilities in 1942 are almost as unknown as the abilities of the US aircraft.

Please note that the early P-40s were just about as fast as a Spitfire I or II using an engine of about the same power. (P-40 was a lot heavier which killed climb and ceiling)
Click to expand...
Good points all. I figured the NIH thing and range were the most likely reasons. Lots of good aditional reasons you listed to consider.
 
GrauGeist said:
The U.S. had a large base of manufacturers to work with and had different requirements.

To start with, the U.S. always required their aircraft to have range, as the isolated nature of the U.S. meant that an enemy would have to come by sea...which is one of the reasons the U.S. had long-range bombers from the onset: to intercept an enemy fleet at sea.

In regards to U.S. operated foreign aircraft, they did operate quite a few.
Airspeed Oxford, Avro Anson, Avro Lancaster, Boulton-Paul Defiant, Bristol Beaufighter, deHavilland Mosquito, Supermarine Spitfire, Westland Lysander, etc.
Click to expand...
I just fell out of my chair(again) when I read that list of forieghn aircraft the US oparated. I was aware of the Spitfire and that was about it.
If I'm going to continue to hang around here I really am going to have to invest in a more stable chair.:)
 
Hi Michael Raula,

That is a subject that has been brought up MANY times in here by younger people, but younger people have very little idea of the prevalent attitudes of the time.

Before WWII started, we were VERY isolationist. We wanted little to nothing to do with the world markets and were quite self-sufficient in most ways. The people who commanded the government and military were of these attitudes in spades. This wasn't the case in WWI, when we bought some foreign aircraft, because aircraft were new and various countries had a better grasp of aerodynamics at times than others. As WWI ended and were went into the 20s, we wanted less and less to do with foreign markets, unless it was for things we couldn't or wouldn't make here.

When the great depression hit, we were VERY isolationist. This was in 1929, and we were still recovering from that when WWII broke out in 1939. There was NO WAY we were going to buy a foreign aircraft when we could make them here and provide jobs. We only decided to procure the Merlin here when the performance at high altitudes was something we needed and could not quickly have on our own. We only decided to BUILD the Merlin because the British asked us to, not becasue we wanted to.

Once it was being built, we naturally evaluated some for our own reasons. The Hooker supercharger was VERY good and when it became a 2-stage, the high-altitude performance versus the single-stage Allison (Allison was directed to build that way) could NOT be ignored. But the P-51 was in full production before we decided to get any for our own military services.

These attitudes continued through the war and past it. From before the start of WWII onward, the first foreign design I can recall that was license-built to US standards was the Martin B-57, which came out of the English Electric Canberra medium jet attack bomber. In airshows, it handled like a fighter and we obtained a license, but modified it for our own needs. Ours had tandem seating, not the Brititsh side-by-side seating and, of course, US engines and avionics. Unusually, a couple are still serving NASA.



It doesn't matter in the slightest what the desirability of building Spitfires or Mosquitoes might have been during WWII (the arguments mean nothing), it was NEVER going to be approved by the USAAC/F or the government administration. The "world view" is a relatively modern conception, and most counties STILL TODAY would MUCH rather make anything military themselves, if only to protect sources during wartime.

I think we should build a few Sukhoi jets in the U.S.A with our engines and avionics, but the likelihood is zero.
 
Last edited:
A lot of times I don't agree with Greg and in this case it more semi-agreement.
The US had gotten burned in WW I by having factories tooled up and making weapons/ammunition for foreign countries which meant that when the US finally declared war in 1917 there was little spare production capacity to be had. And to get anything at all into the hands of US troops meant adopting foreign designs because there wasn't enough time to design anything new or to even change over factories to an existing US design. Which is how the US wound up with more 1917 Enfield rifles (modified British P-13/14) than 1903 Springfields. Let alone machine guns and artillery (main US artillery piece was the British 18pdr rechambered/lined to take French 75mm ammunition).
This made the US military very leery of allowing too much US production to be devoted to foreign designs. If Foreign countries wanted to buy a standard (or slightly modified ) US design then fine. If these countries presented a design that the US thought their forces could use then that was also fine. (Packard deal for Merlins was something of a Back up for the Allison, as of Sept 1940 Allison had delivered under 450 engines and 223 were delivered in Sept, several hundred of the earlier ones had to be sent back to the factory to be reworked).
British had approached the US government and industry about making British tanks in the US.
It didn't take long for the US to decide thanks but no thanks. They counter proposed that the British could get US designed tanks with modifications, the most extreme being a new turret for the M3 medium that put the radio in the turret with the commander instead of the hull and did away with the machine cupola on top of the turret. From the turret ring down they were the same tank.
The US took the British 6pdr AT gun and adopted it pretty quick, they said no to producing just about any other type of British artillery except they got sucked into providing a barrel to fit into the 155mm howitzer carriage to take the British 4.5in ammo for long range work.

And so on, The US was pretty choosy about which foreign weapons and equipment it would produce or allow to be produced in US factories.

Some of this had to do with isolationism, some of it was wanting to make sure that should the US need to take over production of many of the factories should the US declare war the factories would be tooled up for weapons/equipment that meet US standards or could be modified with little loss of production.
With things like artillery once you start down a path the effects can last for years and years. Ever wonder why the US (the last country to hold out against the metric system) had 75mm guns instead of 3 in? or 155mm guns/ howitzers instead of 6in? and yet used 8 in howitzers and 3in AA guns and ...................

It dates back to WW I and which guns and ammo got adopted to expedite things when the US declared war.
 
Last edited:
GregP said:
Hi Michael Raula,

That is a subject that has been brought up MANY times in here by younger people, but younger people have very little idea of the prevalent attitudes of the time.

Before WWII started, we were VERY isolationist. We wanted little to nothing to do with the world markets and were quite self-sufficient in most ways. The people who commanded the governemtn and military were of these attitudes in spades. This wasn't the case in WWI, when we bought some foreign aircraft, becasue aircraft were new and various countries had a better grasp of aerodynamics at times than others. As WWI ended and were went into the 20s, we wanted less and elss to do with foreign markets, unless it was for things we couldn't ro wouldn't make here.

When the great depression hit, we were VEWRY isolationist. This was in 1929, and we were still recovering from taht when WWII broke out in 1939. There was NO WAY we were going to buy a goreign aircraft when we could make them here and provide jobs. We only decided to procure the Merlin here when the performance at high altitudes was something we needed and could not quickly have on our own. We decided to BUILD the Merlin because the British asked us to, not becasue we wanted to.

Once it was being built, we naturally evaluated some for our own reasons. The Hooker supercharger was VERY good and when it became a 2-stage, the high-altitude performance versus the single-stage Allison (Allison was directed to build that way) could NOT be ignored. But the P-51 was in full production before we decided to get any for our own military services.

These attitudes continued through the war and past it. From before the start of WWII onward, the first foreign design I can recall that was built to US standards was the Martin B-57, which came out of the English Electric Canberra medium jet attack bomber. In airshows, it handled like a fighter and we obtained a license, but modified it for our own needs. Ours had tandem seating, not the Brititsh side-by-side seating and, of course, US engines and avionics. Unusually, a couple are still serving NASA.



It doesn't matter in the slightest what the desirability of building Spitfires might have been during WWII (the arguments mean nothing), it was NEVER going to be approved by the USAAC/F or the government administration. The "world view" is a relatively modern conception, and most counties STILL TODAY would MUCH rather make anything military themselves, if only to protect sources during wartime.

I think we should build a few Sukhoi jets in the U.S.A with our engines and avionics, but the likelihood is zero.
Click to expand...

Certainly what you say about the attitudes of times is true. My grandfather used to tell me alot about how things were.
(What I wouldn't give to here him tell another one of his stories right now). It was more one of those fun to think " what if" kinda things but it does seem in a vacuum, absent NIH , isolationist attitudes, etc. the idea had some merit but yes , to many reasons it wasnt going to happen on the real-world.
 
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
yulzari
S
WW2 aero engine fuel consumption comparison
Replies
19
Views
3K
ThomasP
T
herman1rg
Best piston engined fighter of 1945?
7 8 9
Replies
168
Views
17K
PAT303
P
Back