What was the best Multi-Role aircraft of WWII?

[B-17engineer]

It's simple question just curious about what you guys are thinking...if this has been discussed before I'm sorry .

My personal opinion is the Mosquito but the Ju-88 was also a pretty good airplane.....The Mossie could be used as a night-fighter, light/medium bomber, or a recon plane.

 

[Clay_Allison]

Gonna go with the P-38. Better fighter than any other multirole, plus capable of night fighter conversion and a really decent bomb load.

 

[Nightwitch]

Possibly the U-2. It was a trainer, night bomber, liaison aircraft, reconnaissance aircraft, mail carrier, and medevac plane.

 

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

I love flying the P-38 in Il Sturmovik. It's very fast and can keep up speed well with it's two engines.

Oh yeah, it's just a game.

Umm, I agree that fighters like the P-38 or the British Mosquito did a good job of doing almost any kind of mission.

The Ju-88 also deserves a mention, since it was also capable of many differant missions, including attacking daylight bombers. It didn't do as well when the allies had fighters on hand, but agains't bombers it was as lethal as the smaller German fighters.

 

[parsifal]

the various roles that I can think of (in broad category) are:
A) Land Based
1) Day fighter (LR)
2) Day Fighter (SR)
3) Night fighter
4) Close Support
5) Recce
6) Tactical or Medium Bomber
7) Heavy or Strategic Bomber
8) Transport
9) Maritime Strike
10) Maritme Recce

B) Carrier Based
11) Fighter
12) Torpedo Bomber
13) DiveBomber

C) Support
14) Liason/Communication
15) Trainer

I think thats about it. Obviously there is no single aircraft that can cover all these roles. Moreover the time frame of the aircraft is important....a B-17 does not compare technologically with a B-29, however for its time I think the B-17 was a more revolutionary aircraft than its later cousin

I think in weighing up best, one has to consider a vast range of variable.....its not that easy

 

[Vincenzo]

i ever thinked that a multirole plane is a plane can do more roles but for true in WWII this is not common, example the mosquitoes can bomber, fighter bomber, recon but not with same plane but with 3 different planes, same for Ju 88 the bomber can't do the fighter.

 

[GrauGeist]

A good multi-role aircraft candidate would be the Douglas SBD...

It could operate from carriers and land bases, it could deploy bombs or torpedoes. It was fairly well armed and could put up a fight against enemy fighters and successfully attacked enemy bombers and torpedo aircraft.

It was also used for scout/observation duties as well as liason assigments.

 

[davebender]

3) Night fighter
The most successful night fighter of WWII.

4) Close Support
The dive brakes help in this role.

5) Recce
The Ju-88 was used extensively for this role.

6) Tactical or Medium Bomber
Compares well with most other medium bombers.

9) Maritime Strike
10) Maritme Recce
These two normally go together. The Ju-88 could carry 2 aerial torpedoes. I assume it could also carry the Hs-293 radio guided glide bomb.

http://www.econ.yale.edu/growth_pdf/cdp905.pdf
Like the Me-109 fighter, the Ju-88 was inexpensive to produce. By 1942 the price per aircraft dropped to about 150,000 marks. About $60,000 (assuming 2.5 marks per dollar).

 

[Waynos]

Vincenzo, what you are describing is 'swing role' rather than multi role, this class of aircraft is exemplefied today by the F-18, Typhoon and Gripen where the same plane can switch seamlessly between the fighter and bomber mission without any modification. I'm not sure this existed at all before the F-18.

As for the best multi role of WW2, while the Ju-88 is an extremely strong contender I think the Mosquito probably shades it as it was faster and better armed in the roles that the Ju-88 also did. Was the Ju-88 really the most successful night fighter of WW2? How did it fare when it came up against Mossie NF's?

 

[Watanbe]

The JU-88 was the best in terms of the fact that it shot down the most bombers and was very successful in that role, but the Mossie was the best NF in my opinion if I was trying to hunt down any NF the Mossie is the one I would want to do it in!

I think the Mossie is the better multirole plane as well, although they are both brilliant aircraft! The Mossie had great range and speed and was a better proposition when getting into a tangle with single engined fighters! It only takes 2 crew to man it, in comparison with 3-4 in the Junkers!

They are both amongst my favourite aircraft of the war! They are both beautiful lookers as well

 

[Watanbe]

Don't forget also the Mosquite was a largely wooden construction so it didnt require pressure metal! This also meant that tradesman skilled in woodworking techniques were able to be utilized for the war effort! Once again freeing up metal workers!

Just something else to consider but probably getting a little off-topic!

 

[davebender]

Was the Ju-88 really the most successful night fighter of WW2? How did it fare when it came up against Mossie NF's?

This mission is of little concern as it was rare for a WWII era night fighter to engage an enemy night fighter.

 

[parsifal]

This mission is of little concern as it was rare for a WWII era night fighter to engage an enemy night fighter.

I would have to differ with that.....the Brits developed a whole subset of technology and tactics to hit back at the German NFs. There were a wide range of tactics employed, including hovering around German airfields, but the most spectacular was the use of the various marks of Serrate passive detection. Basically the idea was to allow the german Night Fighter to close to about 1000 yards astern , tracking the progress of the fighter with the device mentioned. Once the Fighter was at that range, the Mossie would open the throttle, do a half roll and a sweeping turn. The German radar was narrow beamed, and at 400 Knots , could not hope to keep pace with the Mossie anyway.

Ther would be several seconds of "blindness" for both aircraft, but the Mossie, with its higher definition and wider scan radar (almost out to 180 degrees, as compaared to something like 60 degrees for the germans, and a maximum range of 15 miles, compared to roughly 6 miles for the german, the odds were firmly stacked in favour of the Mossies. The idea was to get behind the Ju 88 where he was radar blind, and relying on his re3ar gunner, and visual contact, as opposed to 4 x 20mm and radar assisted interception.

One of the great myths of WWII was that the Night Fighter victories of the germans were "bloodless" victories. Not true, especially after July 1944 when AI IX radar was released for operations over the continent

 

[delcyros]

I fully agree that the nf actions were not bloodless, but I differ with the description of tactics used there.
The most common Mosquito nightfighter was the NF XII/XIII NF XVII, driven either by Merlin 21 (1290 hp max) or later by Merlin 23 (1390 hp max). They were unable to hit 400 Kts at any altitude and struggled to hit 300 kts at altitude with the additional equipment (even the 1945 high altitude NF XXX had an all out level speed of only 345/323 Kts in FS/MS gear). That beeing said they are fast, nevertheless.
You also describe more like an acceleration contest than a top speed contest. Weight and power counts in this kind of maneuvre, not top speed. The Ju-88G1 had BMW engines rated to 1500 hp, some even had Jumo-213A engines rated to 1750 hp each, but these are also heavier than the Mosquito NF12. With powercurves in relation to altitude You might be able to find an answer.
Note also that in the latter stage of war almost all LW nightifghter were fitted with rear warning radar as standart fit (Bf-110G4 excluded).

btw, even if it would hardly qualify due to it´s post war appearence, I would vote for the DH Hornet.

 

[davebender]

Only during the final year of the war. By that point in time Germany was producing night fighters with the performance to handle Mosquito intruders.

 

[Vincenzo]

Vincenzo, what you are describing is 'swing role' rather than multi role, this class of aircraft is exemplefied today by the F-18, Typhoon and Gripen where the same plane can switch seamlessly between the fighter and bomber mission without any modification. I'm not sure this existed at all before the F-18.

so i think there is a language trouble, italian "multiruolo" it's swing role and not multi role, i think some swing role capacity have also the old F-4 can go for fighter and attack mission very good (for its time)

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I think it comes down to two different aircraft.

The Mossie and the Ju 88. No other aircraft was more versatile than those two aircraft. Fact is fact. Which one of those is the best is up for debate, and I think it depends on the role being performed. The P-38 is a very very close 3rd.

 

[Nightwitch]

What about the Peshka? That was a twin-engine bomber that flew the light/medium bomber role, the dive bomber role, the reconnaissance role, the night fighter role, the anti-shipping role, and the heavy fighter role. It's right up there with the Mosquito and the Ju-88 in terms of the different things it did.

 

[drgondog]

What about the Peshka? That was a twin-engine bomber that flew the light/medium bomber role, the dive bomber role, the reconnaissance role, the night fighter role, the anti-shipping role, and the heavy fighter role. It's right up there with the Mosquito and the Ju-88 in terms of the different things it did.

So, how many were sold for export or delivered as a superior choice to the Mossie, the B-25.

Would it have been better than even the P-61 or F7F or the P-38J had other a/c not been better in the individual roles?

Would the LW have picked it over the JU-88/188 if it had a choice? Or Do 217?

To me the Peshka was a medium performing twin that was pressed into a lot of roles - not because there weren't superior choices but because it was available and flexible.. and it did a good job.

 

[Lucky13]

Peshka? Is that the Pe-2? The '88 or the Mossie? That's like between a rock and a hard place me think. The Mossie did some pretty wellknown precision bombing attacks, how well did the '88 perform there?