What was the best - or most significant - fighter-bomber of the war? (1 Viewer)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

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.

The most accurate weapons that any of these aircraft carried by a very large margin were their cannon and/or machine guns.

Cheers

Steve
 
Not that again.

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

Its well known that a Typhoon fell out of the sky if someone fired a BB gun at it. Whereas the P 47 could keep on flying missing 12 cylinders, a wing and the tail and in fact could loop the loop in that condition :lol:

The P 47 wouldnt be my favourite for the role because it is dragging that big blower around, about half a ton of it iirc. Not the fault of the plane it just wasnt ideal for mud plugging. If it has to be a round engined plane for the job then I would go for the Hellcat. It could lift a big load from a small field and was more resistant to damage than either the P 47 or Corsair. There was quite a big thread a while back that had stats to show iirc that the Hellcat was around 1.5 times more likely to survive a hit by AAA than a Corsair. The oil cooler on the Corsair was I think the culprit.
 
For the ETO, I think the P-47 wins hands down. The fighter-bomber role is what it is known for! But the PTO is a different story. The F-4U of course is somewhere on the list. The P-40, although not the best, was used to great success. The P-38 also deserves a good mention with its excellent payload, range, and twin engine reliability
 
As None of the Allied fighters started their development as a Fighter Bombers save the A-36, it seems the discussion is more "Which airframe adapted to the role of CAS better than the others in the discussion - while still retaining fighter versus fighter capability at low to medium altitudes?"

I tend to remove the A-36 from the equation for two reasons - one they were a stop gap Modification to keep the NAA P-51 production line open, and two - it did not have 1000 pound shackles. Having said that it was by far the most accurate bomb delivery system of the high performance single engine aircraft discussed so far.

I also have a tendency to remove the P-51B/D, the FW 190D, the Ta 152, the P-40, the Tempest and the Typhoon from immediate consideration because of the Relative vulnerabilty of the coolant system when compared to the FW 190G, the P-47, the F6 and the F4U.

But I am reminded that the combined firepower of the Typhoon's 4x20mm plus accuracy of the rocket battery draws comparison with the FW 190G capability against armored vehicles, while sacrificing the ammunition advantage of the P-47. I do not have the statistics to back it up but I believe the Typhoon would be more efficient in ground destruction than any of the air cooled Piston engine airframes except the FW 190G.

I would tend to favor the Typhoon/FW 190G - and invite you to pick one.
 
For the ETO, I think the P-47 wins hands down. The fighter-bomber role is what it is known for! But the PTO is a different story. The F-4U of course is somewhere on the list. The P-40, although not the best, was used to great success. The P-38 also deserves a good mention with its excellent payload, range, and twin engine reliability

It would be hard to make the argument that the P-47's claim to its niche in WWII was as a Fighter Bomber. It certainly had success as such with 9th AF but the 8th AF role as escort fighter certainly was its primary mission, and the 9th AF Jugs were almost totally devoted to supporting 8th AF mission to destroy Luftwaffe before they were given back to 9th AF operational control in May 1944. Interestingly (and statistically) the P-38 suffered the highest 8th AF loss rate per aircraft destroyed on the ground in the ETO. I have never found any data on loss per sortie for air-ground attack role.
 
DG I have to ask a question at this point....is there any data to support this notion that liquid cooled aircraft were in some way more vulnerable to (I assume) ground fire. I have to admit,Ive never heard of it before this.....
 
There is little doubt the liquid cooled engine was more vulnerable. How much more vulnerable is certainly open to debate. 5% or 50% ;)

In the CBI theater the P-38 actually had the lowest loss for ground attacks but since there were usually only 2 squadrons (?) operating for a considerable period of time that might not be enough for a valid statistical basis.

Small changes can make big differences, like the F6F vs F4U comparison. Both big tough airplanes powered by essentially the same engine that needed the same amount of oil cooling yet the placement of the oil cooler/s made one more vulnerable than the other. Placement of radiators might make one plane more vulnerable than the other. Do strafing planes get hit more often near the nose or the tail ( how well do ground gunners lead the aircraft?) Is a chin radiator more vulnerable or less than one positioned further back?
Some liquid engines ran better ( or longer) with a holed radiator than others. Just like some P-47s returning with cylinders missing and pumping out oil, is there enough reserve capacity to give the plane a chance of returning (short distance) with a holed radiator?
 
It would be hard to make the argument that the P-47's claim to its niche in WWII was as a Fighter Bomber. It certainly had success as such with 9th AF but the 8th AF role as escort fighter certainly was its primary mission, and the 9th AF Jugs were almost totally devoted to supporting 8th AF mission to destroy Luftwaffe before they were given back to 9th AF operational control in May 1944. *Interestingly (and statistically) the P-38 suffered the highest 8th AF loss rate per aircraft destroyed on the ground in the ETO. *I have never found any data on loss per sortie for air-ground attack role.
I'm not saying that the P-47's "niche" was that of a fighter-bomber, but I will argue that it is the role that it is most known for and did the most successfully. As for the P-38, the models used in the ETO were far from the sturdiest. The wing roots were vulnerable and there were still some bugs to be worked out with the twin Allisons. The later model P-38s rectified those issues, but they were never used in the ETO. On top of that, a lot of the bombing missions assigned to the P-38 in the ETO weren't necessarily the the most well thought out (ever heard about the attack on Ploiești?). It really was a great fighter-bomber (specifically the L variant), especially in the PTO

DG I have to ask a question at this point....is there any data to support this notion that liquid cooled aircraft were in some way more vulnerable to (I assume) ground fire. *I have to admit,Ive never heard of it before this.....
In liquid cooled engines, if a pipe directing the liquid coolant is raptured, it can be catastrophic for the engine as it will overheat. Radials don't have such an issue as there is plenty of air in the... well... air to cool the engine, even if the aircraft is hit. Of course, there are several other big factors, but this is the one that I'm most aware of
 
Last edited:
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.
Well, if we're talking about land targets, I think we can say the Corsairs did the most damage for us. At least, in Okinawa. I don't know whether I'd say that's a rating on their bombing-fighting aspect, though. There, I'd think, the Hellcats easily rate with them. Let's add one other dimension we've been neglecting. I know when the Corsairs hit those land bases in Okinawa, they were deployed with full-compliments of rockets under their wings, whenever possible. And, yes, they did pretty good with those.
 
DG I have to ask a question at this point....is there any data to support this notion that liquid cooled aircraft were in some way more vulnerable to (I assume) ground fire. I have to admit,Ive never heard of it before this.....

Short answer "I don't know".

Overall the Mustang destroyed more German aircraft on the ground per loss of strafing aircraft than the P-47 and far less than the P-38J-10 through J-25s used by ETO Lightning FG's.

However, I see no way to a.) gather all fighter aircraft statistics on a mission by Mission basis, b.) parse the action reports and macrs to gather loss data as function of low level action, c.) separate losses due to loss of control versus suffer battle damage, d.) make judgements regarding cause of loss (Coolant loss, engine damage, catastrophic failure, fuel leak, pilot wounds, etc.

So, I don't know how to provide clear objective basis to make the case one way or the other.
 
As for the P-38, the models used in the ETO were far from the sturdiest. The wing roots were vulnerable and there were still some bugs to be worked out with the twin Allisons. The later model P-38s rectified those issues, but they were never used in the ETO. On top of that, a lot of the bombing missions assigned to the P-38 in the ETO weren't necessarily the the most well thought out (ever heard about the attack on Ploiești?). It really was a great fighter-bomber (specifically the L variant), especially in the PTO

What models (The Sturdy ones) are you assuming were not used in ETO? The ground strafing of airfields, marshalling yards, rail and barge traffic started when Doolittle told 8th FC to 'go sic em' in February 1944. The P-38 inventory for the 20th, 55th and soon to be operational 354th had P-38J-10s and continuously upgraded until they transitioned to Mustangs in July. The last 8th AF P-38 FG was the 479th. Its sister group the 474th went to 9th AF. Both had J-25s in late July and the 474th ultimately had P-38L-1's. Were they 'Sturdy' or 'Weak' in your opinion.

Given this, the P-38 had the worst record of a.) destruction of German aircraft per fighter lost in the air, and b.) the destruction of German aircraft on the ground.

The latter environment was the most hazardous light flak concentration fighter encountered in WWII. Why did the single engine Mustang achieve far superior ratios?

The 8th AF P-38 destroyed ~161 a/c for the loss of ~ 109 P-38s while strafing at low altituded
The 8th AF P-47 destroyed ~740 a/c for the loss of ~ 200 P-47s " " " " "
The 8th AF P-51 destroyed ~ 3204 a/c for the loss of 569.

By contrast the 8th AF Mustangs destroyed 3315 air for the loss of 322 in air combat.
the P-47 destroyed 1562 for loss of 214
the P-38 destroyed 281 for loss of 101.
 
Last edited:
P-51 is a smaller target? Loss of one engine at low level can be challenging to control for high-powered twins? P-38 had vital systems in a more vulnerable location? P-38s flew against better-defended targets? Essentially, there are all sorts of variables.
 
In liquid cooled engines, if a pipe directing the liquid coolant is raptured, it can be catastrophic for the engine as it will overheat. Radials don't have such an issue as there is plenty of air in the... well... air to cool the engine, even if the aircraft is hit. Of course, there are several other big factors, but this is the one that I'm most aware of

That's the conventional wisdom, but I'm not so sure coolant lines are so easy to rupture. Radiators and header tanks would probably be more vulnerable, but even so I doubt they are as vulnerable as proponents of air cooled engines suggest.
 
The P 47 wouldnt be my favourite for the role because it is dragging that big blower around, about half a ton of it iirc.

Ballast!

I wonder if it were feasible that P-47's being used in the ground attack role would have their turbos removed?

At the altitudes CAS missions were flown I doubt that the turbo gave too much advantage over a single stage R-2800. For the P-47 it had to remain to maintain the weight balance, though.
 
That's the conventional wisdom, but I'm not so sure coolant lines are so easy to rupture. Radiators and header tanks would probably be more vulnerable, but even so I doubt they are as vulnerable as proponents of air cooled engines suggest.
Don't kid yourself. A small caliber round can ruin your whole day and also consider rubber products 60 years ago weren't as resilient as those produced today (braided PRC)
 
Don't kid yourself. A small caliber round can ruin your whole day and also consider rubber products 60 years ago weren't as resilient as those produced today (braided PRC)

How much of the coolant lines were rubber hose? How much were actually steel?

How much of it was completely unprotected? ie exposed.
 
Coolant lines, even if steel offer scant protection. In an old book I have the penetration tables of the US .30-06 1906 round. MV 2700fps, 150 grain bullet, lead core cupronickel jacket. NOT AP. I think we can assume that most aircraft MGs would fire rounds not too much different, AP rounds of course should do better.

At 400yds at sea level it would penetrate 1/4 in of low grade steel. At 200yds it would penetrate .26in into a 1/2 in plate of low grade steel. At 400yds it will penetrate just under 18in worth of 1in thick oak or yellow pine boards. Or 4.8 in of hard coal (held between 1in boards. Or 1 1/2 in of brick.
Granted the coolant lines are inside the aircraft and piercing the skin and some structure may destabilize the bullet and cause it to hit sideways instead of end on, but no "soft" steel (bendable) steel tubing is really going to stand up to rifle caliber bullet hits. Let alone and tubes/pipes made up of lesser materials.
 
I confess i dont know about this issue, and am really just thinking aloud.....I would think the chances of hitting a radiator or line so as to immediately seize the engine are not that high. In the outback, i dont know how many times ive hit a radiator line with a sharp rock, punctured the radiator or one of the lines. ive also put conrods through the water jacket once or twice. Puncturing the coolant lines or the radiator is a serious threat to the engine, but it seldom causes an immediate seizure. Depending on just how hot the engine is, and how hard its working, you might get 30 mins or an hour before the whole thing seizes. its bad, but its not as bad as a burst oil line. If oil pressure drops, youve literally got seconds before the whole engine seizes. i am sure that would apply equally to Radials as it does water cooled engines.

With that in mind, it then gets down to how many oil and coolant lines are in each generic type. are there more exposed lines in a radial or a water cooled engine?
 
How much of the coolant lines were rubber hose? How much were actually steel?

How much of it was completely unprotected? ie exposed.

p38engine.jpg
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back