Best Single Engine Fighter-Bomber (WW2)

Glider · Sep 23, 2018

michael rauls said:
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.

To all intents and purposes the P40 didn't operate from the UK over German held territory. A number of UK based squadrons were equipped with P40 in the low level tactical recce role and some squadrons did fly a few missions and then stopped until equipped with either Mustangs or Recce Spits, but most squadrons didn't fly any offensive missions until reequipped, as the P40 wasn't up to the job.
Examples include 239 squadron which was equipped with P40's and hurricanes but didn't start offensive missions until 1942 when it was equipped with Mustangs. Some missions were flown over the North Sea to look for downed pilots.

I am not aware of any offensive sweeps being flown by P40's. If they did, it was probably similar to the P39, a handful of missions before it was stopped. 26 squadron were possible contenders, as they did start to fly missions in October 1941 but there were replaced by Mustangs by Jan 1942

MIflyer · Sep 23, 2018

A friend of mine who was with the 9th PRS in India told me that they found that the A-36A could actually haul a larger bombload out of the short jungle strips in Burma than than could the P-47. Of course they only had a few A-36A's there.

I recall reading that the last P-40 shot down in Europe went down in early 1945, in northern Italy.

Greyman · Sep 24, 2018

Forgot about an additional bit - another thing that gets mentioned is the sighting view directly over the nose -- a valuable asset for strafing. The Mustang (Merlin), Typhoon, and Kittyhawk (Merlin) beat out their Allison brethren, the Spitfire and Thunderbolt in this respect.

(For what it's worth the Hurricane and Hellcat's view trounce all the above mentioned.)

michael rauls · Sep 24, 2018

Greyman said:
Forgot about an additional bit - another thing that gets mentioned is the sighting view directly over the nose -- a valuable asset for strafing. The Mustang (Merlin), Typhoon, and Kittyhawk (Merlin) beat out their Allison brethren, the Spitfire and Thunderbolt in this respect.

(For what it's worth the Hurricane and Hellcat's view trounce all the above mentioned.)

Verry interesting. I hadn't ever thought about that as it relates ro ground attack but it would be important. One of those many things that are important but don't show up when looking at performance stats. Another important quality that doesn't show up in performance stats is docile handling characteristics or lack thereof. From what ive read it seems like some types lost about as many aircraft to crashes as enemy action.

MIflyer · Sep 24, 2018

For the view over the nose the P-39 beats all others. Pilots who flew them in combat said that. Non-pilots also do not realize how valuable it can be to have the ability to look past the leading edge of the wing. My own airplane is good in that respect. The P-39 appears to beat all the others in that respect, too.

The P-38 was not good in that respect because even though the slim nose helped the pilot see straight ahead, the two engines blocked the view so badly that in some recon units like the 9th PRS they were experimenting with periscopes or other techniques to enable the pilot to find the target he was photographing.

Greyman · Sep 24, 2018

The view directly over the P-39's nose was very good, about the same as the Hellcat and Hurricane. However, the way the cockpit/sighting arrangement was set up - when the pilot was aiming through the sight, the nose wasn't the problem the bottom of the sight was, and the view was restricted to just over 4.5 degrees.

This being ever so slightly better than the Mustang (Merlin), Typhoon, and Kittyhawk (Merlin).

All this is with the Airacobra I with the "ST.1.A." sight (N-2A sight?) - so things could have improved along the line. I know 601 Squadron worked on modifications to improve the sighting arrangement.

warbird51 · Sep 24, 2018

My choice, the P-47. My late father had a neighbor who was assigned to the 357 FG of the 9th Air Force in the middle of 1944. After being there for a few weeks, they came asking for volunteers to go to a P-47 group. He was the only volunteer. His buddies thought he was crazy leaving the P-51's. He said if we're going to be doing ground attack, he wanted to be in the Thunderbolt. In his den he had 3 pictures of bellied in P-47's at his home field that he had been flying. He said if he had been in Mustangs, he would have been a POW.

ssnider · Sep 24, 2018

OK so why is the FW 190 F and G being totally dismissed?

dedalos · Sep 24, 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.
It
Cheers

Steve

Your statements for the Fw 190 in fighter bomber role are totaly inaccurate. It was not late. It bombed britain from late 1942 and from early 1943 was operating effectively both on North Africa and on the eastern front.
It was not few. Thousands F,G models were constructed and many A and D models were used for bombing too.
It was very effective. On channel front forced the british to make a lot of effort to check their hit and run tactics. Actually british were forced to develope special versions of their fighters to check these attacks. In tunisia operated until the final day and in italy operated until mid 1944 against impossible oods. On the eastern front flew missions until the ve day , were very difficult for the soviets to intercept them, and scored many succeses against both ground and air targets.
On which sources you base your claim?

Elvis · Sep 25, 2018

Another vote for the P-47.

P-39 Expert · Sep 25, 2018

I vote P-38. Range, armament, load and the spare engine made for great ground attack. Didn't like it so much as a fighter, but F/B was tops in my book.

KiwiBiggles · Sep 25, 2018

P-39 Expert said:
I vote P-38. Range, armament, load and the spare engine made for great ground attack. Didn't like it so much as a fighter, but F/B was tops in my book.

Remarkable. The self-styled P-39 expert proposes a twin-engined fighter as the best single-engined fighter-bomber of the war.

P-39 Expert · Sep 25, 2018

Mostly bomber.

KiwiBiggles · Sep 25, 2018

My point was that it is only under extreme circumstances that the P-38 could be considered a single-engined aircraft.

warbird51 · Sep 25, 2018

KiwiBiggles said:
My point was that it is only under extreme circumstances that the P-38 could be considered a single-engined aircraft.

Are you sure???

Reluctant Poster · Sep 25, 2018

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.

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.)

The P-47 also required a bomber sized airfield. The following link illustrates the problems they had on Ie Shima taking off from a runway that wasn't 5000 feet long.
~318thFighterGroup.IeShima.html
The temporary fighter airfields in Normandy had to be 5000 feet to accommodate the P47s. Only an air force with the logistical backing of the US could afford such an extravagance. Imagine trying to build these large airfields on the Eastern front. Range is not a primary requirement for a fighter bomber. By the time you've flown 600 miles the battle is often over. Airfields should be as close as possible for fast response time. The USAF keeps trying to kill off the A10 so that they can play knights of the sky with "proper" fighters, but one of the keys to the A10s longevity is the fact that it can get to the trouble quickly due it's forward basing capability.
In general the P-47 was a logistical drain with it's airfield requirements, large appetite for fuel and complex turbocharger system to maintain. It is ironic that the USAAC's infatuation with the turbocharger resulted in ground attack aircraft that lugged around a lot of unnecessary weight while the high level role they were designed for ended up primarily in the hands of a simple supercharged engine.
The P-47 wasn't a very good fighter at the altitudes the fighter bombers operated at. It may have done 465 mph at 30,000 feet, but it was slower than a P51D at low level.

Reluctant Poster · Sep 25, 2018

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.

4th Fighter Group. Volunteer pilots of the three Eagle squadrons transferred in September 1942 to USAAF to create this FG. 4th FG fought escorting bombers and dogfighting Luftwaffe fighters over France and the English Channel. In early 1943 it began transition to P-47 Thunderbolts.

334th Fighter Squadron 1941–43. Former RAF 71st Squadron.

335th Fighter Squadron 1942–43. Former RAF 121st Squadron.

336th Fighter Squadron 1942–43. Former RAF 133rd Squadron.

31st Fighter Group. Fought in Dieppe, North Africa and Italy. In March 1944 P-51B Mustangs started to replace Spitfire IX.

2d Fighter Squadron

4th Fighter Squadron

5th Fighter Squadron

52d Fighter Group. Fought in North Africa and Italy. It was assigned to protect the allied fleet from air attacks off Anzio beachhead. In April 1944 P-51B Mustangs started to replace Spitfire IX.

307th Fighter Squadron

308th Fighter Squadron

309th Fighter Squadron

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.

7th Photographic Reconnaissance Group.

13th Photographic Reconnaissance Squadron 1943

14th Photographic Reconnaissance Squadron 1943–45

68th Photographic Reconnaissance Group. North Africa and the Mediterranean until mid-1944.

16th Reconnaissance Squadron

111th Tactical Reconnaissance Squadron

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.

The Spitfire Vs were for training. Spitfire XIs were used for the actual PR sorties. Here is great short film featuring a pilot of the 14th PR squadron

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ie3SrjLlcUY

Shortround6 · Sep 25, 2018

Reluctant Poster said:
In general the P-47 was a logistical drain with it's airfield requirements, large appetite for fuel and complex turbocharger system to maintain. It is ironic that the USAAC's infatuation with the turbocharger resulted in ground attack aircraft that lugged around a lot of unnecessary weight while the high level role they were designed for ended up primarily in the hands of a simple supercharged engine.
The P-47 wasn't a very good fighter at the altitudes the fighter bombers operated at. It may have done 465 mph at 30,000 feet, but it was slower than a P51D at low level.

Most anything was slower than a P-51D at low level. Hawker Tempest might be the common exception.

The thing with the P-47 was that you couldn't take the turbo back out. The supercharger on the engine was only good for about 52.5in at 3000ft In a B-26 and pressure dropped quickly, 48in at 5000ft and down to about 43in at 8,000ft.

That "simple" supercharger in the Mustang wasn't so simple either. Two stages with a liquid intercooler(aftercooler). It weighed about 200lbs more than the supercharger in the Merlin powere P-40 and that doesn't count the weight of the intercooler radiator or the coolant. SO a Mustang being used as a fighter bomber was hauling around 250-300lbs of needless weight.

The USAAC's infatuation with turbo chargers was due to both the US superchargers before the war and for the first year or two not being very good superchargers and the fact that the turbo/intercooler works better with the existing fuels than a single stage supercharger would.

nuuumannn · Sep 25, 2018

Good work dedalos, the Luftwaffe standardised on the Fw 190F as its premier ground attack aircraft after it became apparent the Ju 87 was unsuitable in certain environments, being too slow and vulnerable. By August 1944, almost all the Schlactgeshwader were equipped with the 'F, with only one being equipped with the Ju 87G.

Shortround6 · Sep 25, 2018

I would note that the British were bench testing the two stage Merlin in April of 1941, The XP-47 first flew on May 6th 1941.

Best Single Engine Fighter-Bomber (WW2)

Captain

1st Lieutenant

Tech Sergeant

Tech Sergeant

1st Lieutenant

Tech Sergeant

Airman

Attachments

Airman

Senior Airman

Chief Master Sergeant

Non-Expert

Senior Airman

Non-Expert

Senior Airman

Airman

Tech Sergeant

Tech Sergeant

Major General

Major

Major General

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads