What was the best - or most significant - fighter-bomber of the war?

[gjs238]

Didn't some folks refer to the P-40 as the B-40?

 

[fastmongrel]

P 40 for me. Tough as old boots and available in numbers when needed.

 

[DonL]

The P-40 certainly proved itself and excellent fighter bomber, well able to defend itself against the 190s and 109s it faced and excepionally resistant to battle damage

Is this dreaming or do you have some facts for this claim?

The FW 190G, Typhoon/Tempest, P47 and the F4U-4 are realy close and I don't make a decision.
The only thing I want to add is, that the FW 190, 190 D-9, Ta 152 and the F4U-1-4 were the best multi role singled engine fighter/fighter bomber of the WWII.
This two a/c's were the most versatile single engined a/c's of WWII, were the F4U had the advantage !

 

[CobberKane]

"Best" and "Significant" aren't the same thing.

Hawker Tempest may have been the best but not many made it into combat (aside from intercepting V1 cruise missiles).

Hawker Hurricane was marginal as a fighter aircraft (even during 1940). However the RAF did a fine job converting it into a ground attack aircraft and the Hurricane was produced in very large numbers.

Me-110 with 3cm Mk101 / Mk103 cannon was an outstanding ground attack aircraft. However most Me-110s were produced as night fighter aicraft. The number of ground attack Me-110s were too small to have a significant impact on the war.

Fw-190F/G was good and over 6,600 were produced. They had a significant effect.

P-47 and P-51 were poor ground attack aircraft but they are History Channel favorites. I guess that makes them significant.

'Best' and 'most significant' certainly are different criteria, and I used them deliberately. Any discussion of the 'best' of any aircrft typre without qualification will probably confine candidates to the last year or so of the war, due to rapid advances in technology. 'Most significant' re-introduces ealier aircraft that may have been superceeded but had proven themselves pre-eminent in the early or mid-war periods. Hence, the Tempest is better than the Typhoon, but the Typhoon is more significant than the Tempest.
I'm not sure how you would support the assertion that the P-47 was a 'poor' ground attack aircraft. Looking at the ability to put hurt on enemy ground assets I would rate the my top contenders thus:

1 Tempest/Typhoon
2 P-47/F4U
5 Fw190F

And in the air to air role:

1 Tempest
2 P47/F4U/Fw190F
3 Typhoon

And finally significance:

1 P47/Typhoon
2 F4F/Fw190F
3 Tempest

The outright best withitout qualification? The Tempest.

 

[VBF-13]

Interdiction was the unrecognised air campaign of the Second World War. In all theatres the fighter bomber, barely considered as a concept before the outbreak of hostilities, became vital to the success of ground forces. Against armour, infantry and everything that moved, from the Pacific to the ETO, Mediterranean and Western Front, the fighter bomber made a vital contribution, always a compromise, required to deliver a heavy payload and still defend itself against the dedicated fighters of the enemy. Some designs excelled in ground attack potential at the expense of air to air potency, others attempted to retain parity with opposition fighters but still pack enough ordinance to take out enemy armour and infrastructure in the teeth of concentrated AA.
So what was the best fighter bomber of the war, firstly in historical contribution, secondly in outright potency?

In terms of both contribution and potency the VBF Squadrons didn't exactly do too badly with the F6Fs.

 

[mhuxt]

I'm going to go way off-topic here, so apologies mods, please don't smite me with the ban stick.

The P-47 gets a lot of mentions in this thread, and there's been reference to its having been built in Evansville, Indiana.

Back in a previous lifetime, I did a long consulting project very close to Evansville, and flew in and out of the airport there. That field must have echoed with the roar of Thunderbolts through many long years of the war, as American industry threw itself into the task at hand.

Much as I tried, the only trace I could find of a P-47 there was a single throttle box in the airport terminal. Gone, all gone, as if it had never been.

Ah, don't get me going, I'll turn into an old fart.

I now return you to your regularly-scheduled thread.

 

[wuzak]

Unfortunately the U.S. Army Air Corps built the Evansville, Indiana plant to produce P-47s rather then F4Us. Otherwise F4Us might have been providing CAS in Europe.

I would guess that the P-47s from that plant were expected to do a fighter role, and not a fighter-bomber/CAS role.

 

[wuzak]

Looking at the ability to put hurt on enemy ground assets I would rate the my top contenders thus:

1 Tempest/Typhoon
2 P-47/F4U
5 Fw190F

And in the air to air role:

1 Tempest
2 P47/F4U/Fw190F
3 Typhoon

And finally significance:

1 P47/Typhoon
2 F4F/Fw190F
3 Tempest

The outright best withitout qualification? The Tempest.

What about the Mosquito FB.VI?

Perhaps not as good as a CAS aircraft as those listed above, but could, and did, "put a hurt" on German ground assets. Granted they usually weren't troops or tanks, but Gestapo headquarters, bridges, mobile v1 launchers and such like.

Or is it really CAS aircraft that you are after?

 

[parsifal]

On the axis side Fw190 is probably the best, but Me109 is probably the most significant. it was pretty good at the task, and available in large numbers,

 

[GregP]

I'm afraid I don't understand some earlier replies.

The P-47 was excellent at ground attack, with heavy armament and quite able to sustain a lot of battle damage and still make it home. In the ETO, it was the best American ground attack fighter of the single engine variety. We built 12,500 P-47's or so, and MOST wound up in the ETO, probably 8,500 or so.

The British built about 1,700 Tempests. Though a good aircraft, I'd take the cumulative damage from 8,500 P-47's any day over the cumulative damage from 1,700 Tempests .... good thing the two are not in a contest, huh? In air-to-air, the difference could well be the pilot, with a slight advantage to the Tempest at lower altitudes. Good thing they never fought since I really LIKE the Tempest ... when the Sabre was running well.

Let's just say that if you had to attack with ONE aircraft, and if you had surprise, I'd fly a Tempest. If you did NOT have surprise, give me a P-47 any day of the week.

The Ta-152 was a footnote at best and nothing in the war. They only delivered 43 of them, never more than about 25 operational at any one time, and they collectively almost had no effect on the war at all. They DID achieve anywhere from 4 to 7 air-to-air victories at the expense of four losses. Hardly the stuff of legend. Beats me why everyone is so taken with it, given the actual war record. Even the P-40 had a better war record! For that matter, so did the Brewster Buffalo. Lord, please forgive me for saying that, but it is true.

In the PTO, the best American ground attack fighter of the single engine variety was the Corsair, as amply stated already. Nothing wrong with the Hellcat but, individually at least, Corsairs were a bit better at it.

 

[Milosh]

The Tempest was more of an air superiority fighter than a fighter bomber. It occasionally attacked ground targets when on armed recon missions using its 4 cannons. The Typhoon was the fighter-bomber.

Did the Ta152H ever carry bombs? Not that I know of.

 

[wuzak]

I'd take the cumulative damage from 8,500 P-47's any day over the cumulative damage from 1,700 Tempests ....

That describes the difference between the best and the most significant.

The P-47 being the most significant, the Tempest being, arguably, the best.

 

[CobberKane]

What about the Mosquito FB.VI?

Perhaps not as good as a CAS aircraft as those listed above, but could, and did, "put a hurt" on German ground assets. Granted they usually weren't troops or tanks, but Gestapo headquarters, bridges, mobile v1 launchers and such like.

Or is it really CAS aircraft that you are after?

I didn't include the Mossie because I didn't think it would really be able to hold its own against single engine interceptors. It terms of plastering ground targets it would have ruled the roost of course, but I tend to think of it more as a ground attack aircraft with at least some capacity as a fighter rather than a bon fide fighter-bomber, though I know it was classed as such.
Parsifal, was the 109 really more significant than the 190? The 190F took a terrific toll on USSR ground forces and armour.
DonL – Sorry, that was a typo – I meant the "the P-47 (not P 40) was well able to defend itself against the 109 and 190…" that said, the P40 deserves a mention for its service as a fighter bomber – generally outclassed in a dogfight, but still dangerous.
GregP, I agree that the P47 was more significant than the Tempest if only because of numbers, though I'd suggest the Tempest's superiority as a low to mid altitude fighter was maybe a bit more pronounced than you suggest. What about the significance of the P47 v the Typhoon? There were a lot more Tiffies built than Tempests, and post D-Day they were used almost exclusively in the fighter bomber role, whereas I think a good proportion of P 47s were still doing escort duty. Also, I believe the pace of operations with the RAF Typhoon squadrons was incredible.

 

[Timppa]

There were a lot more Tiffies built than Tempests, and post D-Day they were used almost exclusively in the fighter bomber role, whereas I think a good proportion of P 47s were still doing escort duty. Also, I believe the pace of operations with the RAF Typhoon squadrons was incredible.

The French even made a memorial to the Typhoon pilots:

Quite unique for a single aircraft type.
Typhoon memorial in Normandy - NAPIER POWER HERITAGE

 

[wuzak]

I didn't include the Mossie because I didn't think it would really be able to hold its own against single engine interceptors.

I would say that the FB.VI could "hold its own" against s/e fighters, but no more than that. The Typhoon, Thunderbolt, Fw 190, et al, could do more than that, of course, and be more competitive air to air.

 

[parsifal]

The problem i have with proffering the very best fighters that a nation produces as also the best and most significant fighter bomber is that those airframes diverted to fighter bomber duties are not going to be as available for their primary mission.....fighter. surely using air frames that no longer quite cut the mustard as a fighter in an almost as crucial role of fighter bomber is the best way of using resources.

An example of this might be the soviet I-16. it had pretty much reached obsolesecence by 1941, but found new life as a fighter bomber 1942-3. Not great at either role, but a useful adaptation of resources just the same. Every I-16 able to be used in the FB role released a more capable type from fb duties to fighter duties.

 

[CobberKane]

I would say that the FB.VI could "hold its own" against s/e fighters, but no more than that. The Typhoon, Thunderbolt, Fw 190, et al, could do more than that, of course, and be more competitive air to air.

And, of course, the FB.VI was at least fast enough to make make interception an issue so a lot of the time it didn't have to fight. I guess it all depends where you draw the line; did the Mossie tend far enough to the 'bomber' side of 'fighter bomber' so as to drop out of the catagory? If so, it can't have been by much, and it was an awesome aircraft any way you look at it. The P51 may have gone too far in the other direction - too much fighter and not enough bomber, maybe.
One area where the Mosquito would have gained points was the survivability of it's twin engine design - lose one merlin and you still have another in reserve. I guess this would have been particularly important for aircraft with liquid cooled engines that could disabled even by small arms fire. The P 38 hasn't been mentioned so far and it also had an engine up its sleeve, so to speak.
The P 51 is often mentioned as being particularly vulnerable to small calibur ground fire due to it's liquid cooled engine, yet I've never heard the same critisism leveled at the Typhoon or Tempest - something to do with the positioning of the radiator, perhaps?

 

[Rick65]

For ground attack the Typhoon had a big advantage over the Tempest and P 47 because of it's ability to carry rockets to supplement it's guns. Though the success (and accuracy) of rocket attacks is debated, they offered an option other than guns or bombs and the Typhoon and Hurricane were the single engined planes that used them most in the ETO. Was the Tempest even equipped to carry them during the war?

 

[wuzak]

I guess this would have been particularly important for aircraft with liquid cooled engines that could disabled even by small arms fire.

Not that again.

That, to me, is just an example of the overexaggeration of the vulnerability of liquid cooled engines to battle damage.

 

[wuzak]

The P 51 is often mentioned as being particularly vulnerable to small calibur ground fire due to it's liquid cooled engine, yet I've never heard the same critisism leveled at the Typhoon or Tempest - something to do with the positioning of the radiator, perhaps?

The Typhoon, at least, had some armour added around the engine and radiator for use in ground attack.