Top Ten Twin-Engine Fighters of World War II

[Jagdflieger]

Well, in my opinion the A-20 could do many of those roles, or all of them.

The problem comes in with the "maybe even better?" parts

The A-20 did a lot of recon, especially for the Russians. but it a lot slower than the P-38 even if it was nearly as fast as many of the 1942-43 Japanese fighters.
The A-20. especially early in the war was limited in range. Available tanks varied during the years so range varied. P-38s with drop tanks could out range A-20s most of the time.

A-20s could obviously perform bombing attacks. However the A-20 was limited to four 500lb bombs in the bomb bay and could not carry a 1000lb at all. It also could only carry four 250lbs inside the bomb bay. P-38s could only carry two bombs regardless of size (at least most of the way through 1944) and when carrying bombs either had 300 us gallons internal for short range or used one drop tank and one bomb for longer range. A-20s could (at times) carry more smaller bombs inside the bomb bay. So what is better? two 1000lbs bonbs close by or no 1000lbs in the A-20s or two 1000lb or four 500lb bombs or two 500lb bombs vs four 500lb bombs?

The strafing attack by A-20s is not going to come out in the A-20s favor. Most early ones had either four .30 cal guns or two .50 cal guns in the glass nose versions. The solid nose factory planes would hold six. 50 cal guns. Field modifications never held more than 6 guns and often only 4. The P-38 had the standard four .50s and one 20mm gun in every version.
The few A-20s that four 20mm guns had drum fed cannon with 60 rounds per drum and no way to change the drums in flight. That os for fouor guns in the nose or 4 guns in the belly pod which cut performance and blocked the bomb bay.

The A-20 could a did perform ship attacks. Usually the P-38s were flying top cover to keep the Japanese (Or Italian or?) fighter off the bombers. Lack of opportunity although the P-38 could have carried the heavier bombs if high command though they needed them.

Supply drop from an A-20??? well could hang a container from the bomb rack/s of the P-38. You might be able to put supply containers in an A-20 but the bomb bay was restricted in size and as noted the bomb racks limited what would fit. You might be able to drop a couple of bundles though the ventral gun hatch, assuming you can fit the gunner/package dropper and the bundles underneath the upper gun station.

Medi/vac? You can't put wounded in the nose/cockpit of an A-20, you can't put them in the bomb bay, you can only put them in the rear gunner compartment. Which makes it better than a P-38 put you are really pushing things. Putting more than couple of men in the rear compartment starts to mess up the CG.

P-38s didn't need to "sneak up" on old/obsolete Japanese aircraft. They could take on anything the Japanese had.

Now I have tried to keep things general, like not referencing P-38s in the last year of the war that could carry multiple bombs under each wing or Certain A-20s that could carry four 500lbs underwing in addition to the bomb bay. A-20s used the same engine from pretty much first to last (a few late ones got 1700hp engines) while P-38s went from about 1225hp in the first combat versions to 1600hp by mid 1944. However there were a number of things that A-20s could not do, like act as day fighters against German, Italian and Japanese single engine fighters.

Fly from England to North Africa for operation Torch.
Fly from North Africa to the Beaches over Sicily and do standing patrols to protect the beachheads. Not only were you not going to use A-20s but the Allies had no land based fighters that could do it (except for Beaufighters and Beaufighters vs 109s and 190s was not going to be be pretty).
Likewise P-38s offered more range in the southern Italian campaign.
The distances the P-38s could fly in the Pacific made them invaluable.


The P-38 may not have been the choice in the summer of 1944 and after but the planes that were the best choice in the last year of the war didn't exist for 2 years after Pearl Harbor
And the substitutes could not do what the P-38 could do.
If the P-39s, P-40s and Spitfires cannot support the Sicilian landings you are 100% dependent on carrier aircraft.

Hi Shortround6 and drgondog,

Okay thanks a lot for all the informative information - especially regarding the A-20

I stuck to the A-20 due to the time frame Dec 1941- Dec 43 in regards to the PTO and ETO, since AFAIK a P-47, P-51 or A-26 didn't exist in numbers at the time.

If the general consent it that P-40, Wildcat, Hellcat and P-39 weren't enough to handle the Japanese fighters and therefore the P-38 was needed - I can accept that
If the general consent is that P-40, Tomahawk, Hurricanes, Spitfires, Mosquitos, Typhoon and Beaufighters, couldn't handle the Luftwaffe and the Italians
and therefore needed the P-38 - I can accept that too.

Regards
Jagdflieger

 

[Snautzer01]

to handle the Jap fighters

Regards
Jagdflieger

We are not in 1940-1945. It is Japanese fighters to us, not in that battle please.

 

[Jagdflieger]

What does any of this have to do with the A-20 replacing the P-38? That was your claim. And dragging single-engined fighters into a thread about twin-engined fighters is also some shifting of the goal.

Can you, or can you not, address my point rebutting this silly claim that the A-20 could have replaced the P-38? That's my only guff here. It's a dumb claim that shouldn't even have gotten this much attention.

I never said replace - you brought that particular wording up

I said / wrote, that the A-20 could do the same job, Besides dog-fighting against fighters for which it wasn't built -sure
And that the P-40, P-39 and Wildcat were responsible to take care of the Japanese fighters so that the A-20 can fulfill its mission.

And as I have already replied to others, if the general consent is that the P-38 was still needed - I can accept that.

Regards
Jagdflieger

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I never said replace - you brought that particular wording up

I said / wrote, that the A-20 could do the same job, Besides dog-fighting against fighters for which it wasn't built -sure

Here's what you wrote:

"An A-20G could have done the same job, and just as a lucky and skilled Luftwaffe pilot in a Bf 110 downing a Spitfire, an A-20G could have (maybe even did?) down a Zero."

There's no way any A-20 of any mark could have filled the role of the P-38, lucky kills aside.

 

[pbehn]

The USA produced over 10,000 P-38s, Germany produced just over 6,000 Bf 110s. The USA operated more than 100 Beaufighters and more than 100 Mosquitos on reverse lend lease which is more than the 90 Bf 210s Germany produced for itself before reverting to Bf110 production.

 

[drgondog]

I never said replace - you brought that particular wording up

I said / wrote, that the A-20 could do the same job, Besides dog-fighting against fighters for which it wasn't built -sure
And that the P-40, P-39 and Wildcat were responsible to take care of the Japanese fighters so that the A-20 can fulfill its mission.

And as I have already replied to others, if the general consent is that the P-38 was still needed - I can accept that.

Regards
Jagdflieger

No, it couldn't do the same job as the P-38.

 

[Shortround6]

I will note that the P-38 had a very good climb rate which is advantage for a fighter. Obviously the rate of climbed a bit from model to model.
The Early Bf 110 was not bad (since it was a bit earlier in time than the P-38) but the early 110s could hold their own or outclimb the MK I Hurricane.
The Hurricane could outturn the 110 but it couldn't do it for long before being forced to descend.

The 110 had some cards to play in 1940, it just couldn't play the same ones as some of the single seat fighters. Unfortunately for the Germans, some of those cards were removed from the deck by bad tactical orders. (close escort).
If the 110 (and the 109s) slowed down to the speed of the bombers they lost the energy state they needed to keep their edge. The 110s took longer to get up to combat speeds.

There is a lot of stuff that goes into air to air combat aside from top speed and a few other simple things.

The Mosquito usually could not climb for crap. Since climb rate is an indicator (just an indicator not a guarantee) it probably means the Mosquito has no business getting into a turning fight. Keep the speed up, use short turns to throw off the enemy aim and look to disengage.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

There is a lot of stuff that goes into air to air combat aside from top speed and a few other simple things.

Acceleration

 

[Shortround6]

Acceleration

I tend to put a lot of stock in rate of climb, could be wrong but I figure a plane with a high rate of climb has a a low power loading which should (but not always) translate into high acceleration.
Finding actual measured acceleration is often difficult.

Top speed is about the worst as some very heavy but streamline planes can have high speed but crappy climb and crappy acceleration.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I tend to put a lot of stock in rate of climb, could be wrong but I figure a plane with a high rate of climb has a a low power loading which should (but not always) translate into high acceleration.
Finding actual measured acceleration is often difficult.

Top speed is about the worst as some very heavy but streamline planes can have high speed but crappy climb and crappy acceleration.

Agree

 

[Jagdflieger]

It was very interesting to meet them at the time and get their stories. I just did it, as part of the research I was doing, spending hundreds of £s every year getting across to Germany and meeting them. Some of their stories were funny; one or two harrowing.
Ernst Matthes
Gerhard Granz
Wilhelm Schaefer
Joachim Koepsell
among others, and a whole host of former members of Erprobungsgruppe 210.

The guy Erich you mention. What forum was that? Was it 12 O'Clock High? I'm still on there.

Yeah, what you say about dogfights is true. All those I spoke to said it was brutal, and they were lucky to get away alive sometimes. They all said one word: Advantage. If a pilot had the advantage over an opponent for a few seconds, then the other guy was in real trouble. So Werner Mölders was shot down in the Western Campaign in the Spring of 1940. The French pilot had the advantage ove him and knocked him and his 109 out of the sky. When he returned to his unit after recovering from his injuries in July '40, he got his damaged 109 back to France, and it was some weeks before he returned to action. Galland got his damaged 109 back to France on one occasion during the BoB. One of the biggest claimers (note I say 'claimers' - I'm not convinced of his total as Jagdgeschwader 2 were serial overclaimers) Helmut Wick was shot down into the Channel forever on 28th November 1940. Why? because Dundas of 609 had those few seconds advantage over him. You can fly the best aircraft, be a great pilot, but if you surrender the advantage to an opponent, you are in big trouble. That was the theme I heard time and time again during my interviews.

The guy I mentioned in a previous post, Wolfgang Schenck, also joined the new Luftwaffe in the 1950s. After the war he returned to South Africa and flew around 40,000 hours in light aircraft. Having got to know Wolfgang VERY well, I'm pretty sure he was flying contraband all over the place! He was an absolute mine of information. Photo attached of me and Wolfgang at a reunion.

I had contacts with many from the RAF side who flew in the BoB as well. They, like the Germans, were generous in the time they gave to me, and the information they provided. A couple of examples of correspondence I received is attached also. One from (Squadron Leader) John Thompson of 111 Squadron during the BoB, and the other from (Squadron Leader) John 'Baron' Worrall of 32 Squadron during the BoB. Both letter relate to their squadron's interception of the fighter-bomber unit, Erprobungsgruppe 210, following their bombing attack on Croydon airfield in the early evening of 15th August 1940.

I hope this explains a lot more for you.

View attachment 662527

View attachment 662529

View attachment 662531

View attachment 662532

I had wondered for a long time why F/Lt. Crossley had led 32 on this mission, not S/Ldr Worrall. All becomes perfectly clear in his letter!

Hi John Vasco

thanks a lot for posting these letters, indeed very interesting to read upon
Lovely photo - so who is the young chap standing next to you?

I guess you and I still got to talk to many veterans in just the right time. Most of the information I drew was in-between 1978 to 1985, therefore these man were around
60-70 years old. Memory hadn't failed or mislead them yet, even though some boasting or "exaggeration" (once they were amongst themselves) did occur.

Unfortunately I only got to meet one American USAAF and a remarkable British RAF veteran pilot (Scottish actually) whereby the latter got to fly a Corsair on a Brit. Carrier in the Mediterranean towards wars end. He always got to smile and shake his head when his three sons, their German friend, two French mates and me met for micro amour war-gaming
on weekends.
"Have you got words - we were killing each other and now the same guys are friends and getting their heads into war-gaming"

In regards to Walter Witt, I assume you won't be able to get much information - so see a bit in a paper clipping - that man had stern eagle eyes, promise you.

As for Erich - in case you haven't read, he also seems to appear at this Forum from time to time - the Forum I got to know him was histomil.com

Even though it doesn't belong into this thread; but most remarkable to me were the actual occurrences regarding their Luftwaffe flight-school period - and the later conducted
training at their respective assigned units, which explains a lot if not almost everything in regards to kills, attitude and overall performance of the Luftwaffe during WW2.

Regards
Jagdflieger

 

[Admiral Beez]

I thought you might enjoy this top 10 of twin-engined aircraft: Top Ten Twin-Engine Fighters of World War II

Gloster Meteor, Me 262, and of course the SNCASE SE 100.

 

[Escuadrilla Azul]

The Bf 110 in Russia and elsewhere was usually escorted by single engine fighters - whilst executing their ground attack missions - which doesn't out-rule the event of a Bf 110
engaging an adversary fighter aircraft, voluntarily (sneaking up if a good chance was given) but intentionally getting into a dog-fight with a single engine fighter plane?

Hi J Jagdflieger and wellcome to the forum.

In the eastern front the Bf 110 lingered as a fighter for long. Don't forget about JG 77 and JG 5 Eismer and its zërstorer staffels.

They were used both in offense and defence, performing Frei Jagd against the soviets well in to 1942 and dealing with s.e. fighters and making some aces in the process, like Theodor wWeissenberger and Felix María Brandis, amongst others.

BTW, in A History of the Mediterranean Air War (MAW) by Shores et al, I think in vol. 3, there is recorded a combat in north africa (either over Libia or Tunisia) were 4 Bf 110 were pited against 8 Spitfires and 2 from each side were shot down. Sure, was a 50% loss for the Bf 110s but it was also a 25% loss for the Spits. While I can't remember the exact date, place or vol for MAW I do remember very well the number and type of plane cos it struck me that what should had been a turkey shoot for the Spits (IIRC the Spits had height advantage or surprise with them) it wasn't onesided at all.

Maybe if some one have a copy of MAW could look for the details. I don't have mine with me.

 

[drgondog]

Hi J Jagdflieger and wellcome to the forum.

In the eastern front the Bf 110 lingered as a fighter for long. Don't forget about JG 77 and JG 5 Eismer and its zërstorer staffels.

They were used both in offense and defence, performing Frei Jagd against the soviets well in to 1942 and dealing with s.e. fighters and making some aces in the process, like Theodor wWeissenberger and Felix María Brandis, amongst others.

BTW, in A History of the Mediterranean Air War (MAW) by Shores et al, I think in vol. 3, there is recorded a combat in north africa (either over Libia or Tunisia) were 4 Bf 110 were pited against 8 Spitfires and 2 from each side were shot down. Sure, was a 50% loss for the Bf 110s but it was also a 25% loss for the Spits. While I can't remember the exact date, place or vol for MAW I do remember very well the number and type of plane cos it struck me that what should had been a turkey shoot for the Spits (IIRC the Spits had height advantage or surprise with them) it wasn't onesided at all.

Maybe if some one have a copy of MAW could look for the details. I don't have mine with me.

The Bf 110, 210 and 410 were helpless against the P-51B and the ZG units were forced to convert to Fw 190A-8 because there was no safe haven in the Reich.

 

[Howard Gibson]

Hi all,

I'm new here.

I thought you might enjoy this top 10 of twin-engined aircraft: Top Ten Twin-Engine Fighters of World War II

Look forward to chatting planes with you people

That was a cute article. It was wise of them to select the Mosquito as the best fighter, although they could have selected a photograph of a fighter version. There are photos of them out there you know.

"Twin engined fighter" is a pretty broad category. The Ju-88 was used effectively as a night-fighter, so it belongs on the list. Are these aircraft equivalent? The Westland Whirlwind and the Lockheed P-38 Lightning were single seat fighters. The Messerschmitt Bf-110s, Ju-88s and Mosquitos were bigger aircraft with room for radar and a radar operator.

I actually do not like top ten lists very much. Do the authors really know their subject? Note once again, the photo of the Mosquito, which appears to be a photo reconnaissance version with American markings. If I were presenting myself as an expert on twin engined fighter aircraft, I would get this detail right.

 

[GregP]

The chief test pilot commented that the Me 210 had "all the least desirable attributes an aeroplane could possess."
It cost Willi Messerschmitt his chair at the university.
Me 410 was a useful plane, but still wouldn't put it in top 10.

Me 110 night fighters shot down more enemy planes than all the other fighters combined. (OK, it had more time/opportunities) There were several day fighter aces against French and in North Africa. Yes, it's development didn't keep up with single engined fighters but it was still flying on V-E eve.

I'd put Me 110 right behind P-38, but only because Lightning successfully fought in more theaters.

Do 335 is napkinwaffe. Yes, prototypes flew in '45, but there aren't any combat successes. F7F Tigercat, F-82 Twin Mustang and DH Hornet fall in same category - prototypes flying but not in service.

Shot down more than Bf 109s combined? I don't think so; not even close. Perhaps you meant it shot down more airplanes than all other German night fighters combined. That is likely true.

The second pic was a Vickers Type 432. While it didn't perform as well as specified, it certainly LOOKED the part. Perhaps it needed only minor development and perhaps it WAS a flop. So little is known about it that it is hard to say for sure. See below:

I wouldn't pic a Mosquito or a Ju 88 to be in a list of best fighters ever. Great twin engine airplanes? Certainly. I might have added a few here and there, but it's tough to think of successful twin fighters after the P-38, the Beaufighter, the Whirlwind, and the He 219. There WERE a few "might have beens," including the Fw 187 with DB 601s, The P-38 with 2-stage Merlins that never flew, and a few others. The Whirlwind, it seems to me, never WAS developed into what it might have been, and I can lay the fault for that right at the feet of whoever picked the engines for it. The engine size and output was never ripe for development, but they made a pretty decent little fighter out of it anyway.

My favorite "might have been" would be the I.Ae.30 Nancu of 1948. It was solidly in the WWII technology block, with a pair of Merlins to boot, but flew after the war and wasn't produced apart from the prototype. Unfortunately, it came out right when jets were going faster easily ... faster than 460 mph, anyway. But, it had the firepower (6 * 20 mm cannons!), handling, and speed to be at the top of the piston twin fighter class. See below:

Definitely performed like a winner and never got the chance to try. That can be said about many prototypes. F-20 Tigershark, anyone? How about the F5D Skylancer? Or the Super Crusader? From WWII, I could pick the XP-72 as maybe the best real-life potential for a "might have been." 490 mph and 5,230 fpm climb from prototypes that never got the engine they intended for it.

R-4360 that was intended for a remote supercharger as the second-stage feeding the integral R-4360 supercharger.

Beautiful!

 

[Howard Gibson]

BTW, in A History of the Mediterranean Air War (MAW) by Shores et al, I think in vol. 3, there is recorded a combat in north africa (either over Libia or Tunisia) were 4 Bf 110 were pited against 8 Spitfires and 2 from each side were shot down. Sure, was a 50% loss for the Bf 110s but it was also a 25% loss for the Spits. While I can't remember the exact date, place or vol for MAW I do remember very well the number and type of plane cos it struck me that what should had been a turkey shoot for the Spits (IIRC the Spits had height advantage or surprise with them) it wasn't onesided at all.

Maybe the Bf-110s had tactical surprise. I would expect casualties in air combat to vary wildly from combat to combat. A single incident does not prove anything.

Most Spitfires in the desert had those big, ugly air filters below the nose, which took something like 20mph off the top speed. Maybe they were inferior.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I actually do not like top ten lists very much. Do the authors really know their subject? Note once again, the photo of the Mosquito, which appears to be a photo reconnaissance version with American markings. If I were presenting myself as an expert on twin engined fighter aircraft, I would get this detail right.

In my experience, whether it's "Top Ten Twin Fighters", or "Top Ten Rock Albums". or "Top Ten Shakespeare Plays", the intent is as much to spark discussion as anything else. Sure, there's egos involved, but even when the presenter is clearly biased, the discussion that follows, as is the case here, can be really informative ... so I don't mind 'em so much.

 

[SaparotRob]

As one YouTuber pointed out, all these top 10 lists are the same. The order is just shuffled.

 

[wlewisiii]

I suppose the way I look at it, the way to understand these lists is to look at them and think "would I come back from a mission in one of them?"

The one twin I'd want to go into combat in WWII would be a gun nose A-20C. All the others are good aircraft, but if I had the choice, that's the one I think I could get into, fly the missions and be most likely to come back home. I'm probably wrong but what the heck, that's what these threads are for.