Seeking thoughts/opinions: how good would the F-82 have been in the CAS role in World War II

[BarnOwlLover]

I know that a lot of you have probably seen the NAA images of the XP-82 with things like 4000 lbs worth of bombs, 25 HVARs, and the gun pod with 8 .50 MGs (the latter never used in combat, even in the Korean War). But in World War II, be it ETO or PTO, how good would the F-82 have been in the air support role, such as from 1944-45?

 

[mjfur]

I'd give it an Eleven.

 

[Frog]

Gimme rather an A-1.

 

[PAT303]

It's a huge target

 

[BarnOwlLover]

Mosquito was as big or bigger target than the F-82, and the Brits had no problem using the FB6 as an attack aircraft. So what's your point? The P-38 was also similar in size. Not to mention that though single seater aircraft, the P-47 and A-1 were huge aircraft as well. And A-20s and A-26s were used as attack aircraft, and those were as big or larger than the Mosquito.

IMO, only advantage of like a P-47 and the A-1 and the A-20 and A-26 is that they had radial engines, but unless you're talking small arms (rifle caliber MGs), most AA rendered radial engined aircraft just as vulnerable as liquid cooled ones.

Not to mention that the F-82 was insanely fast and very fast climbing, which itself provided a measure of defense once ordinance was dropped. And the excess or power enabled faster speed while carrying.

Of course, the same could apply to the DH Hornet.

 

[Shortround6]

You have two different environments for Attack aircraft. One is when you have air superiority/air supremacy and the other is when you don't.

You can use a lot of planes in different situations, doesn't mean they are the best. For instance you can use engines with two stage superchargers at ground level, or near to it, but why if you are designing the plane to begin with?

The faster you go at low level the harder it is for the AA guns, of course that also means that your plane has got less time to aim and adjust and plant bombs/rockets/gun fire on target and not just near it. A delicate balancing act.

 

[buffnut453]

Mosquito was as big or bigger target than the F-82, and the Brits had no problem using the FB6 as an attack aircraft.

Attack is not the same as CAS. Your original question asked about CAS. Is that still the purpose of the thread or are you expanding the question into any air-to-ground role?

 

[BarnOwlLover]

I guess any ground attack role. I thought that CAS covered it since aircraft well known for attack capability like the Typhoon were used for CAS among other things.

 

[PAT303]

guess any ground attack role. I thought that CAS covered it since aircraft well known for attack capability like the Typhoon were used for CAS among other things.

Your better off with two Typhoons than one F82

 

[BarnOwlLover]

The irony of being a bigger target is that you can usually take more damage. The Germans took Rheinmetall's development of the MK108 cannon a lot more seriously in 1943 when B-17s and B-24s became common in German skies and contributed to German air to air successes until Mustangs started to be used to escort 8th Air Force bombers (P-47s were too short ranged and there were never enough P-38s available in norther Europe, not to mention early P-38s often had turbocharger issues).

The MG151 20mm cannon that was lamented as being of limited effect against 4 engined heavies would've done well against things like say B-25s, B-26s, A-20s, A-26s and even Mosquitoes. And those smaller aircraft should've made smaller targets and had the speed and agility to better defend themselves (at least when not flying in formation).

Then you have to look at German AA. The German Army didn't have HMGs to bridge the gap between rifle caliber MGs and 20mm and larger Flak, and they didn't have a lot of single or twin barreled 20mm guns, mostly the big heavy quad mounts. That was a problem even when single seat fighters were being used for ground attack and CAS. And as pointed out in another thread, the USAAF and RAF used even P-51s and Spitfires that weren't assigned to bomber escort or interceptor duties for attack/CAS from June 6-June 20, 1944.

F-82s, if in service in 1945. would've seen such use in the Japanese home islands if they were invaded in '45-46. And yes, it's bigger than say a Tempest, or Typhoon, or a P-47 or P-51, and was overall comparable in size to a P-38. But a big, fast moving target, is very hard to shoot down. And it was probably as fast at low level as a Tempest II or a Hornet was, both of which were impressively fast at low altitudes.

 

[Shortround6]

Then you have to look at German AA. The German Army didn't have HMGs to bridge the gap between rifle caliber MGs and 20mm and larger Flak, and they didn't have a lot of single or twin barreled 20mm guns, mostly the big heavy quad mounts.

Actually the Germans had about zero twin barreled 20mm mounts. However they had crap load of single barrel weapons. Estimates are all over the place but get confused between the Flak 30, the Flak 38 and the quad mount (which used the same Flak 38 guns). One source claims 17,589 2cm guns in use in 1945. So that accounts for all the worn out guns and war losses. They had a lot the quad mounts and the quad mount had a fairly respectable rate of fire.

F-82s, if in service in 1945. would've seen such use in the Japanese home islands if they were invaded in '45-46. And yes, it's bigger than say a Tempest, or Typhoon, or a P-47 or P-51, and was overall comparable in size to a P-38. But a big, fast moving target, is very hard to shoot down

Japan on the other had was using the 25mm Hotchkiss gun, which had several problems, in what ever mount it was used on.
The Japanese also used the 13.2mm Hotchkiss in both single and twin mounts and while the 13.2 mm round was fully the equal of the American .50 cal the gun was crap as an AA weapon.
So was the American .50 cal when we really look at it which makes the 13.2mm Hotchkiss even worse.
You need good mounts to make an AA weapon effective and the US habit of sprinkling .50 cal guns all over the place that could be pointed up in the sky turned out to be not very effective when you figure out how many rounds fired for each aircraft shot down.
The Japanese guns were slow firing and used small box magazines were really lowered the effective rate of fire. The 25mm gun mounts also vibrated and were slow in train and elevation at least the twin and triples.

The other big difference in AA defense was that the Germans built over 20,000 3.7cm AA guns during WW II.
The Japanese built a few hundred Vickers 2pdr pom poms and a smaller amount of 40mm Bofors guns.

The Japanese could shoot down aircraft, just not anywhere near enough.

 

[PAT303]

The irony of being a bigger target is that you can usually take more damage.

How well does the F 82 fly with one engine out?, how structurally sound will it be if say a few 20mm or a 37mm shell hits the centre section?.

 

[buffnut453]

I guess any ground attack role. I thought that CAS covered it since aircraft well known for attack capability like the Typhoon were used for CAS among other things.

Well, there are differences. You cited the Mosquito as an example of a large aircraft that the Brits used and yet the Mossie never flew CAS sorties. CAS is a very different task from ground attack with different performance requirements. If we're going to explore options for comparison against the F-82, it would be best to agree on an actual role.

 

[MIflyer]

In the ETO the USAAF hoped to be able to replace the P-47 with the A-26 for CAS. They found that while the A-26 was just at fast at lower altitudes than the P-47 and could carry a much larger weapons load, it was so much bigger that it was more likely to get hit by the very capable German AAA. The P-82 would have had the same problem.

 

[PAT303]

You cited the Mosquito as an example of a large aircraft that the Brits used and yet the Mossie was never flew CAS sorties.

As we all know the Beaufighter and Mosquito was used against shipping with the Typhoon Hurricane and Spitfire the CAS role, the Brits used the best plane for the job, the F-82 doesn't fit either roll IMHO.

 

[GrauGeist]

The USAAF also used P-61s in the ground attack role.

 

[ThomasP]

It seems like pretty much any airplane was used/tried for GA/CAS if there was a need for GA/CAS and/or if the users had nothing better to do with the airframe.

The one advantage the P-82 would have (over most aircraft) is ROA and/or loiter time over/near the target

 

[BarnOwlLover]

How well does the F 82 fly with one engine out?, how structurally sound will it be if say a few 20mm or a 37mm shell hits the centre section?.

It few very well on one engine (a common occurrence on the Allison powered versions). The F-82 was intended to replicate (like the Hornet) the P-38s single engine flight characteristics. And the F-82 (as far as I know) was built to the same structural standards the P-51H (which was basic British load standards), so interpret that as you will. However, 7.33G at 9500 lbs for the P-51H was stronger than the P-51D at the same weight (about 6.7G) and for sure 10,200 lbs (6.3G).

The thing missing here is that I haven't been able to find is 100% reliable data for the loading and weight data. And being based on the P-51H's design doesn't mean copy. There were significant differences. What is known is that F-82s were used in the Korean War for attack missions and apparently did well. Though designed for it, the P-51H never was used for either attack, interceptor, or escort missions in anger in World War II--due to not being deployed in time--or afterwards due to the small number built and most were issued to USAFR or ANG interceptor units until replaced by F-80s and F-86s.

 

[BarnOwlLover]

Well, there are differences. You cited the Mosquito as an example of a large aircraft that the Brits used and yet the Mossie never flew CAS sorties. CAS is a very different task from ground attack with different performance requirements. If we're going to explore options for comparison against the F-82, it would be best to agree on an actual role.

How about either role (CAS or ground attack). It doesn't help that I've read that attack aircraft were often also used for CAS (such as Fw-190s, Stukas, Il-2s/-10s, P-47s, etc).

 

[BarnOwlLover]

In the ETO the USAAF hoped to be able to replace the P-47 with the A-26 for CAS. They found that while the A-26 was just at fast at lower altitudes than the P-47 and could carry a much larger weapons load, it was so much bigger that it was more likely to get hit by the very capable German AAA. The P-82 would have had the same problem.

P-38s in the ETO were used for attack missions (such as one of the first uses of naplam in World War II, against I think a German fuel storage post). And dimensionally, the P-38 and F-82 were similar (P-38 had a 37'10" length and a 52' span, Merlin F-82 was 38'3" and 51'3").

As far as smaller aircraft, you do have the trade off of where a P-47 might be harder to hit than a A-26, it'd take fewer hits from 20mm flak and 37mm shells to knock down a P-47 while the A-26 would probably take more damage.

And there's also, though, the issue of crew. You lose an A-26 on an attack mission, you'd lose 2-3 crew. Lose a P-47, you lose just one. Also, though designed to be used by 2 pilots, F-82s only needed one (and the NF variants had one pilot and a radar operator).