The best low-flying attack aircraft of WW2.

davparlr · Jan 30, 2020

GrauGeist said:
The A/B-26 Invader

Glider · Jan 30, 2020

GrauGeist said:
Not unusual at all.

The A-20, A-26 and B-25 were very active in the ETO and MTO assigned to the 8th, 9th and 12th Air Forces.

Correct but not normally in the low level attack role in the ETO and MTO. There were of course exceptions but they normally operated as a traditional medium bomber and the A26 which had the best performance of them all generally operated at medium altitude. This was despite the crews being originally trained in low level work.

Kevin J · Jan 30, 2020

O

Glider said:
Correct but not normally in the low level attack role in the ETO and MTO. There were of course exceptions but they normally operated as a traditional medium bomber and the A26 which had the best performance of them all generally operated at medium altitude. This was despite the crews being originally trained in low level work.

On the Eastern Front, the A-20 was their favourite torpedo bomber, and the B-25, their favourite long range bomber.

Gekko13 · Jan 30, 2020

Consolidated PB4Y flew low altitude anti-sub and anti-shipping missions for 20 years.

P-39 Expert · Jan 31, 2020

P-39. 37mm cannon and good low altitude performance in all versions.

fubar57 · Jan 31, 2020

P-39 Expert · Jan 31, 2020

fubar57 said:
LMAO

And why is that so funny? Most information (except recent) says that ground attack was all it was good for.

Kevin J · Jan 31, 2020

P-39 Expert said:
And why is that so funny? Most information (except recent) says that ground attack was all it was good for.

It's most successful use was as a battlefield air superiority fighter by the Soviets.

P-39 Expert · Jan 31, 2020

Kevin J said:
It's most successful use was as a battlefield air superiority fighter by the Soviets.

I guess my humor was lost on you.

fubar57 · Jan 31, 2020

P-39 Expert · Jan 31, 2020

fubar57 said:
View attachment 568285

Sorry to disappoint you.

Dimlee · Jan 31, 2020

fastmongrel said:
Your right it looks like only the Pe-2K with 1700hp M82 engines and the very late Pe-2L/M with 1650hp Klimov 107s could go faster than about 320mph. Still it seems to have been very robust and survivable much better than the IL-2 which was a sluggish bullet magnet.

Pe-2 with M-105F engine was probably the best among mass-produced series. So, 500 km/h can be assumed as a real limit for this aircraft.
Pe-2 with M-82 was faster but built in the numbers too small to have an impact.
As for survivability... It was agile (for a bomber) and dived fast but could hardly fly on one engine and was difficult in landing even undamaged. The pilot's skill was probably the main factor of the survivability.

fastmongrel · Jan 31, 2020

Dimlee said:
Pe-2 with M-105F engine was probably the best among mass-produced series. So, 500 km/h can be assumed as a real limit for this aircraft.
Pe-2 with M-82 was faster but built in the numbers too small to have an impact.
As for survivability... It was agile (for a bomber) and dived fast but could hardly fly on one engine and was difficult in landing even undamaged. The pilot's skill was probably the main factor of the survivability.

Not many twin engine aircraft could survive losing an engine if it happened at low level. The torque reaction from the still running engine and the drag from the stopped propeller until the pilot or engineer could feather it would make the plane spin. I believe losing an engine on a Mosquito below about 4,000 feet was a real nasty thing partly because of the power of the engines I wouldnt be surprised if it was the same for any powerful twin.

nuuumannn · Feb 3, 2020

Shortround6 said:
"Twin-engine two-seat day & night fighter/ground support"

Hm, that's interesting. I guess that is what the 'Field Force' possibly means, although I'm inclined to agree with your definition, SR. As mentioned, there is nothing else within the specification that states its role as a ground support aircraft. Here's the title and first paragraph:

"F.11/37 Twin-Engined Two-Seater Fighter (Replaces F.18/36) [a predecessor spec for a two-seat fighter, not proceeded with] Dated 26/5/37 File No.630893/RDA3 Issued to Boulton Paul
Requirements: Air Staff Operational requirement OR.50 requires a fighter capable of operating by day and night for home defence or with the Field Force. In order to obtain a striking power superior to the eight-gun machine-gun fighter, it will be necessary to provide four 20mm automatic guns. These guns are to be mounted in a power-operated turret."

Interestingly it was the Beaufighter (built to F.17/39) that eventually came out of Bristol researching F.11/37, which, as we know was a formidable ground attack aircraft, and not a terrible night fighter either, although the Beaufighter V turret fighter was a bit of a dead loss as it was slower than the Defiant it was intended on replacing as part of F.18/40.

mikemike · Feb 6, 2020

The A20, A26 and B25 operated very successfully in the low-level attack role in the PTO. This seems to have fooled the USAAF into thinking the A26 with its high performance could be operated in the same way over Europe. As far as I know, the first combat sorties of the A26 in Europe ended with the loss of 12 of 12 aircraft sortied. Whatever its speed, an A26 at low level would have made a nicely big and comparatively un-agile target for those 20mm quads. The B25 and B26 operated in Europe at medium altitudes; most B25 in Europe had glass noses and anyway they were outnumbered by the B26, which wasn't really seen much in the PTO after 1942, but had a fairly low loss rate in the ETO.

The best low-flying attack aircraft of WW2.

More options

davparlr

Senior Master Sergeant

Glider

Major

Kevin J

Banned

Gekko13

Recruit

P-39 Expert

Non-Expert

fubar57

General

P-39 Expert

Non-Expert

Kevin J

Banned

P-39 Expert

Non-Expert

fubar57

General

P-39 Expert

Non-Expert

Dimlee

Tech Sergeant

fastmongrel

1st Sergeant

nuuumannn

Major

mikemike

Airman

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads