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.
Not that again.
That, to me, is just an example of the overexaggeration of the vulnerability of liquid cooled engines to battle damage.
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
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 PTOIt 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.
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 ofDG 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.....
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.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.
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.....
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
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
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.
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)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)
How much of the coolant lines were rubber hose? How much were actually steel?
How much of it was completely unprotected? ie exposed.