Best Single Engine Fighter-Bomber (WW2)

stona · Sep 22, 2018

I'm only commenting on the ETO, so ignore the 'Corsair', I don't know enough about its use as a fighter bomber to make an informed judgement..

There are only two contenders, the P-47 and the Typhoon. The Fw 190 was used in this role, but proved ineffective, to few and too late.

There is little to choose between them as bombers, both missed far more than they hit, no matter what load they carried.

A comparison of rocketry is impossible as the British used these a lot, and effectively, whereas the Americans did not, in Europe, and the British rockets were a much better ground attack weapon.

The decision rests on their conventional armament, which was also by far their most effective weapon. It's why I'm gving it to the Typhoon, whose cannon armament was far more destructive than the machine guns of the P-47.

Cheers

Steve

michael rauls · Sep 22, 2018

stona said:
I'm only commenting on the ETO, so ignore the 'Corsair', I don't know enough about its use as a fighter bomber to make an informed judgement..

There are only two contenders, the P-47 and the Typhoon. The Fw 190 was used in this role, but proved ineffective, to few and too late.

There is little to choose between them as bombers, both missed far more than they hit, no matter what load they carried.

A comparison of rocketry is impossible as the British used these a lot, and effectively, whereas the Americans did not, in Europe, and the British rockets were a much better ground attack weapon.

The decision rests on their conventional armament, which was also by far their most effective weapon. It's why I'm gving it to the Typhoon, whose cannon armament was far more destructive than the machine guns of the P-47.

Cheers

Steve

Good point about the armament. The reason i gravitated to the F4u and Thunderbolt was that I was thinking in terms of survivability, especially the air cooled engine, and load carrying capacity.

CORSNING · Sep 22, 2018

michael rauls said:
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.

Michael, I found out about a year ago that the chair was just fine. It was backing off on the
alcohol that helps considerably......dammit, I fell out of my chair again...

michael rauls · Sep 22, 2018

CORSNING said:
Michael, I found out about a year ago that the chair was just fine. It was backing off on the
alcohol that helps considerably......dammit, I fell out of my chair again...

Hmmmm..........I'll have to consider that..........over another drink of course.

CORSNING · Sep 22, 2018

MIflyer said:
Best single engined fighter bomber of WWII?

That has to be the P-38!

It was the only one that carried a spare engine!

Clayton Magnet · Sep 22, 2018

See the other thread regarding it, but the survivability advantage of the air cooled engine is probably somewhat overblown. A liquid cooled engine with a coolant leak has a short window to get home, and an air cooled engine with a missing cylinder or oil leak also has a short window to get home.

GregP · Sep 22, 2018

There were a LOT more P-47s than Typhoons flitting about, so P-47s did more damage by far in general than Typhoons. As an individal airplane, it might depend upon the pilot. 4 cannons hits hard, but so does eight 50s.

The P-47 would haul more bombs, but not by a lot ... 2,500 lbs versus 2,000 lbs ... a 25% edge. That is not decisive unless the ordnance is on target.

It would have interesting to mount four 20s on the P-47. Maybe six. Too bad they didn't at least try.

R Leonard · Sep 22, 2018

The F4U was no better, and perhaps, worse, than the F6F in the fighter-bomber role in the Pacific.

Greyman · Sep 22, 2018

Interestingly as purely a fighter-bomber/ground-attack aircraft the British in India rated the Hurricane better than the Thunderbolt -- but the latter eventually came out on top due to it's greater range.

Also, I can't find it now for the life of me - but I read a joint US/British study on fighter-bombing in North Africa (and/or Italy, I can't recall) and the data showed the Mustang as the clear winner. The main drawback of the Thunderbolt being the low accuracy due to the large amount of sink/mushing, necessitating an earlier (ie: higher) release.

The Spitfire was rated very favourably as a fighter bomber, but the fact that the Mustang could carry 2 x 1000 meant that when crunching the numbers for effort vs. targets destroyed it beat the Spitfire hands down.

The Typhoon also had sink problems -- as well as some of the P-40's main drawback; difficult trim characteristics in a dive.

Clayton Magnet · Sep 22, 2018

As I understand, the Mustang 1A was much liked by the RAF, and would have packed a punch with its 4 Hispano's. And had great performance below 15000ft

Shortround6 · Sep 22, 2018

When comparing the P-47 to the Typhoon we have to be careful of timing.
The P-47 was NOT equipped with wing racks for either bombs or drop tanks until roughly 1 month after they began retrofitting the P-47s with paddle blade props and water injection. With the new prop blades and water injection the P-47 could outclimb the currant Fw 190 at low altitude. How long it took to refit all the planes in England I have no idea.

However the Typhoon also took quite a while to work it's way up to a pair of 1000lbs under the wings. It didn't seem to have much trouble with a pair of 500lb bombs (aside from getting a new tail wheel) but the use of 1000lb bombs seemed to call for a four bladed prop instead of the 3 blade (although faulty oil seals on the 4 blade kept the 3 blade in service for while) and they either built the later Typhoons or retrofitted the earlier ones with horizontal stabilizer from the Tempest to help the handling when carrying 1000lb bombs. Up to 780lbs of armor was fitted to the Typhoon (a lot around the radiator, engine and cockpit floor) which certainly helps servivablity as a low altitude bomber but doesn't do a whole lot for performance as fighter once the bombs are dropped and it tries to act like a fighter.
I am not a big fan of the .50 as some of you know but for ground attack their isn't much a 20mm can wreck that .50 won't given sufficient hits (there just weren't that many armoured vehicles that .50 cal proof that weren't 20mm proof) and the Typhoon was firing about 40 shells a second (with 140 rounds per gun) compared to the P-47 firing roughly 100 rounds a second and having at least 267 rounds per gun or roughly 4 times the ammo. (I will go with this less than 425rpg on the P-47 as an offset to the under wing loads)

Neither plane hit it's stride (2000lb load) as a fighter/bomber until the spring/summer of 1944 although the Typhoon was carrying the pair of 500lbs much earlier than anyone strapped a 500lb under the belly of the P-47.

yulzari · Sep 23, 2018

Greyman said:
Interestingly as purely a fighter-bomber/ground-attack aircraft the British in India rated the Hurricane better than the Thunderbolt -

It was particularly liked for the excellent accuracy of the 2x40mm cannons.

Timppa · Sep 23, 2018

stona said:
The Fw 190 was used in this role, but proved ineffective...

Really ?
During the Soviet summer offensive in 1944 in Karelian Isthmus, Gefechtsverband Kuhlmey had one staffel of Fw190F-8. With average strength of about 7 planes, it dropped more than 200 tons of bombs in about four weeks and was a significant help to crush the offensive. Average bomb load was 500 kg (1,100 lbs)/plane.

Reluctant Poster · Sep 23, 2018

GregP said:
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.

This is actually ETO and MTO combined. The P40, P39 and A36 never flew in the ETO

Reluctant Poster · Sep 23, 2018

michael rauls said:
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?

The 31st and 52nd fighter groups converted to P51s in April 1944

GrauGeist · Sep 23, 2018

Reluctant Poster said:
This is actually ETO and MTO combined. The P40, P39 and A36 never flew in the ETO

The P-40 was in the ETO - one of the first US aerial victories against Germany was a by a P-40 of the 33rd FS based in Iceland intercepting and downing an Fw200.
The one of many units that operated the P-40, RCAF 403 Sqn. operated them until replaced by Spitfires.
The P-40 was being used for tactical recon and fighter sweeps across the Channel during 1941 by both the RAF and RCAF.
The British also received P-39s in 1941, but it was found to be unsuitable for the altitudes involved in the Northern European air war - but they were there.

And the Eastern Front (which saw a great deal of action by the P-40 and P-39) is part of the ETO.

Glider · Sep 23, 2018

Greyman said:
Interestingly as purely a fighter-bomber/ground-attack aircraft the British in India rated the Hurricane better than the Thunderbolt -- but the latter eventually came out on top due to it's greater range.

The RAF much preferred the P47 over the Hurricane in India, it was the range, payload, survivability, speed and ability to defend itself against enemy fighter attack. The Hurricane had one advantage, it didn't 'mush' when pulling out of a dive enabling the pilot to release the payload at a lower altitude.

The Typhoon also had sink problems -- as well as some of the P-40's main drawback; difficult trim characteristics in a dive.

A problem that was resolved with practice.

Greyman · Sep 23, 2018

Glider said:
The RAF much preferred the P47 over the Hurricane in India, it was the range, payload, survivability, speed and ability to defend itself against enemy fighter attack.

I suppose 'the British' is a bit too broad of a term. AHQ India was concise on the matter; Hurricane V most preferred, then Hurricane IV, then Thunderbolt. However, owing to its long range, the Thunderbolt ended up being the fighter-bomber of choice. The Air Ministry declared the Thunderbolt "unsuitable for ground attack role" due to its relative unmaneuverability and slow initial rate of climb - and wanted the Far East Thunderbolts to reinforce the Spitfire Squadrons in the standard fighter/escort role. It was used for this role as well, of course, something the Hurricane IV and V had no hope of doing.

I don't think 1000-pound bombs were much of a factor during the Thunderbolt's time in India/Burma - due to supply and airfield/takeoff considerations.

Reluctant Poster · Sep 23, 2018

GrauGeist said:
The P-40 was in the ETO - one of the first US aerial victories against Germany was a by a P-40 of the 33rd FS based in Iceland intercepting and downing an Fw200.
The one of many units that operated the P-40, RCAF 403 Sqn. operated them until replaced by Spitfires.
The P-40 was being used for tactical recon and fighter sweeps across the Channel during 1941 by both the RAF and RCAF.
The British also received P-39s in 1941, but it was found to be unsuitable for the altitudes involved in the Northern European air war - but they were there.

And the Eastern Front (which saw a great deal of action by the P-40 and P-39) is part of the ETO.

The post I was responding to quoted stats for the USAAF so sorties by the RAF, RCAF and the USSR are not included. As you note the P40 did defend Iceland, however the vast majority of USAAF P40 and Spitfire sorties were flown in the MTO. People have assumed in the past that the numbers are for the ETO only resulting in double counting.

michael rauls · Sep 23, 2018

GrauGeist said:
The P-40 was in the ETO - one of the first US aerial victories against Germany was a by a P-40 of the 33rd FS based in Iceland intercepting and downing an Fw200.
The one of many units that operated the P-40, RCAF 403 Sqn. operated them until replaced by Spitfires.
The P-40 was being used for tactical recon and fighter sweeps across the Channel during 1941 by both the RAF and RCAF.
The British also received P-39s in 1941, but it was found to be unsuitable for the altitudes involved in the Northern European air war - but they were there.

And the Eastern Front (which saw a great deal of action by the P-40 and P-39) is part of the ETO.

Wow , didn't know p40s were ever flow out of Britain. On sweeps across the channel or otherwise.Thanks for the new info.
Just to add to the p40s in Europe theme here, there were 3 RAAF units still equipped partially or completely with P40s up until VE day. The 450th RAAF was the unit that flew p40s in front line service out of the northern tip of Italy( can't remember the name of the town right now) wirhin range of Berlin, right up until the end.

Best Single Engine Fighter-Bomber (WW2)

Major

Tech Sergeant

Tech Sergeant

Tech Sergeant

Tech Sergeant

Staff Sergeant

Major

Staff Sergeant

Tech Sergeant

Staff Sergeant

Major General

Tech Sergeant

Senior Airman

Tech Sergeant

Tech Sergeant

Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung

Captain

Tech Sergeant

Tech Sergeant

Tech Sergeant

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads