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

[stona]

Typhoon - had good range of weaponry - 20mm cannon and rockets - enough to give any tank crew nightmares!

You have hit on a very important point.

Despite the statistical inability of the Typhoon to hit anything smaller than a large building with its rockets they had a profound psychological effect on the people they were fired at which far exceeded any physical damage that they were likely to cause.

The same can be said of the napalm used by the USAAF 9th AF.

Cheers

Steve

 

[parsifal]

Thats what all airpower does. Statistically less than 5% of all losses can be attributed to airpower. its not just a problem with rockets. But being shot at by aircraft robs units of free manouvre, and this has a quite massive effect on the force effectiveness. the term is called force multipliers, and it affects ground forces profoundly

 

[drgondog]

The J variants were where most of these issues were solved. The Js were used in the ETO (I definitely should've re-worded "the P-38s used in the ETO we're far from the sturdiest"!), but how often were they used for ground support compared to Ds-Hs? I'd imagine there'd be less Js (and the rare Ls; in the ETO at least) available for ground attack than the Ds-Hs.

The reason I brought up Feb 1944 is that there was no 'strafing' per se for 8th AF until then. Ditto 9th as the 358th, 362nd (P-47D), and 363rd and 354th (P-51B)were barely operational. The 20th and 55th had all J's by that time but they deployed with late model H's and strated replaceing them in late December/early January with the J's. Short answer - zero D,E,F's and no H's that I am aware of per the Macrs'.

I don't have any statistics to back this up though. As for the aircraft count, they don't tell near the whole story. How many flak positions did each aircraft suppress? How much resistance did each aircraft encounter? I'm not saying the P-38 was better than the P-47 in the fighter-bomber role in the ETO (I honestly think the P-47 is the better choice in this area), but I think it's pretty safe to say that both the P-38 and P-47 were plenty better fighter-bombers than the P-51. But for what was needed by the USAAF in the PTO, the P-38 is very tough to beat (long range, very heavy payload for a fighter-bomber, nose mounted mgs/cannons, twin engines, etc)

As you say, you have no statistics to back up the speculation. The 354th hated the Jug and delighted to get their P-51s back in February 1945.

One of the issues in getting data is simply trying to find accurate information regarding the number of sorties for each category of aircraft actually engaged in low level flights over the continent.

As to the tactics of suppressing airfield flak, the two leading practitioners in the development of such tactics were Blakeslee (4th) and Kinnard (355th) and that was a process beginning in April, 1944 when it became obvious that strafing airfields was 'rough stuff'.

Another point you may appreciate is that the P-47 and P-38 were BIG targets compared to the P-51. If you shoot Sporting clays (or Dove versus Ducks over decoys) you will appreciate the difference in a regular clay target versus a battoue of half the diameter.

I am not articulating P-51 'best'. What I am saying is that there are no statistics that offer relatively close comparisons.

If I tried to dig deeper, I would try to narrow the sample size to compare 9th AF Ops (354 Mustangs versus 362 P-47s versus 374 P-38's) and see as they were under the same operational control. Then I would try to delve into ops reports seperating defined attacks on targets of opportunity (and losses) versus airfield attacks, versus CAS with bomb deliveries, presumably on bridges, marshalling yards and road/rail traffic to try to isolate the comparative defenses.

 

[VBF-13]

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.

I agree with you 100%!

Typhoon - had good range of weaponry - 20mm cannon and rockets - enough to give any tank crew nightmares!

Again, when we're adding rockets to this, that changes the equation, slightly. We're no longer rating these aircraft just on a bombing-fighting aspect. On the two aircraft I was comparing, the Corsair and the Hellcat, the rockets aspect was the reason, I'm convinced, the first went on to Korea, while the second was phased out. For some reason, and, I'm not quite sure I understand it, yet, the Corsair was the aircraft of choice, there, and probably just off the devastation it inflicted in Okinawa with those rockets. For some reason, I think, it just took to that weapon better. But, again, that's just a guess on my part.

 

[CobberKane]

I agree with you 100%!



Again, when we're adding rockets to this, that changes the equation, slightly. We're no longer rating these aircraft just on a bombing-fighting aspect. On the two aircraft I was comparing, the Corsair and the Hellcat, the rockets aspect was the reason, I'm convinced, the first went on to Korea, while the second was phased out. For some reason, and, I'm not quite sure I understand it, yet, the Corsair was the aircraft of choice, there, and probably just off the devastation it inflicted in Okinawa with those rockets. For some reason, I think, it just took to that weapon better. But, again, that's just a guess on my part.

I don't think we need to exclude any aircraft because it used rockets as well as bombs just because they are not included in term 'fighter bomber'. After all, 'fighter-bomber-rocketter' is a bit of a mouthful. If an aircraft was used to deliver ordinance an still retain competitive air to air capability it ranks as a fighter bomber to me.
I do think the USAAF trio of fighter bombers (P-47, P38, P-51) in the ETO were under-gunned compared to the RAF and Luftwaffe equivilents. Multi-cannon armament makes a much wider range of targets open to straffing. Maybe this wasn't such an issue in the PTO, where there was little armour to target.

 

[stona]

If an aircraft was used to deliver ordinance an still retain competitive air to air capability it ranks as a fighter bomber to me.

Indeed,me too.

In the context of the WW2 RAF/USAAF was there any such thing as a Fighter bomber? These were all fighters pressed into what we now call a fighter bomber role. I wonder when the term fighter bomber,to describe an aircraft type,came into use.

Steve

 

[VBF-13]

I don't think we need to exclude any aircraft because it used rockets as well as bombs just because they are not included in term 'fighter bomber'. After all, 'fighter-bomber-rocketter' is a bit of a mouthful. If an aircraft was used to deliver ordinance an still retain competitive air to air capability it ranks as a fighter bomber to me.

I'm telling you how I personally answered the question rating these aircraft. I brought rockets to our attention because I noticed they had been neglected and to point out that they changed the equation for me, slightly. Comparing the bombing-fighting capabilities of the Corsair and the Hellcat, those rate pretty much equal to me. Put rockets under their wings, and I like the Corsair. Simple as that.

 

[CobberKane]

I guess in the literal sense of the term any fighter that had the capacity to drop bombs was a fighter bomber, but for the sake of brevity we might be well advised to stick to aircraft that were well suited to ground attack and often used in that role. The A6M2 dropped bombs from time to time but can you imagine it being used to attack the kind of heavily defended targets that were typical in Europe? The biggest danger to ground troops would have been falling pieces of Zero

 

[VBF-13]

The Zero had ground experience before the War, but, as you say, primarily as a fighter. From the PTO, I like the Corsair on the ground as the best "triple threat," if you will (fighting, bombing, "rocketing"). I'm sitting in the back of the room on your ETO aircraft, learning.

I know enough to know when I'm intellectually out-gunned.

 

[parsifal]

I guess in the literal sense of the term any fighter that had the capacity to drop bombs was a fighter bomber, but for the sake of brevity we might be well advised to stick to aircraft that were well suited to ground attack and often used in that role. The A6M2 dropped bombs from time to time but can you imagine it being used to attack the kind of heavily defended targets that were typical in Europe? The biggest danger to ground troops would have been falling pieces of Zero

I kinda agree that the A6M2 was a little light in the bomb carrying department to be really considered a "fighter bomber". However it did have the capacity to carry a large external fuel tank, so its potential to carry bombs was obviously there. Moreover, later marks of the Zero were specifically adapted to work as divebombers, carrying a respectable bomb load (250 or 500 lbs from memory), which in my book is another way of saying "fighter bomber".

but I dont agree that a zero operating in europe would be chopped out of the sky. There were other aircraft just as flimsy and just as vulnerable that operated in Europe in the FB role and didnt "fall out of the sky". A/C like the CR42 for example.

I actually think Zeroes operating on the eastern front would have been most welcome in the LW, with their additional range and manouverability

 

[CobberKane]

I kinda agree that the A6M2 was a little light in the bomb carrying department to be really considered a "fighter bomber". However it did have the capacity to carry a large external fuel tank, so its potential to carry bombs was obviously there. Moreover, later marks of the Zero were specifically adapted to work as divebombers, carrying a respectable bomb load (250 or 500 lbs from memory), which in my book is another way of saying "fighter bomber".

but I dont agree that a zero operating in europe would be chopped out of the sky. There were other aircraft just as flimsy and just as vulnerable that operated in Europe in the FB role and didnt "fall out of the sky". A/C like the CR42 for example.

I actually think Zeroes operating on the eastern front would have been most welcome in the LW, with their additional range and manouverability

Was the CR 42 used on the ETO? I know it goit used a lot in the MTO, but the kind of firepower it faced there would have been a lot lighter. I was speculating as to what would have happened to Zeros doing the same work as, say, Typhoons in the Falaise pocket. The AA capacity built into the German ground units was pretty awesome. Those those quad 20mms were scary!
e

 

[buffnut453]

CR42s were used by the Regia Aeronautica during the Battle of Britain operating from airfields in Belgium. Does that count as the ETO?

 

[CobberKane]

CR42s were used by the Regia Aeronautica during the Battle of Britain operating from airfields in Belgium. Does that count as the ETO?

Sure, but I'm thinking of the 'golden era' of the allied fighter bomber in the ETO as being the period from immediately before D-Day. I know the CR42 did better than might have been expected in the MTO but they were still very limited; even somewhat average fighters like the Hurricane and P-40 could engage or disengage with them at will, and they were too slow and lightly armed to be effective interceptors. Dropping small bombs against unarmoured qand relatively lightly defended targets they might have been OK, but over Normandy? If I was attacking a Wehrmacht armoured column with all that built in AA capacity I would want something that got in fast, hit hard and got out even faster - and could shake off a few licks in the process. Something like a P-47 or Typhoon. A CR42 or a Zero would spend far to much time in the firing zone and would lack the capacity to withstand even moderate damage. Having a tight turning cicle isn't going to be much use when you are straffing a train!

 

[parsifal]

CR42s were used extensively on the eastern front by the hungarians. they were also deployed by the italians across southern europe right until the end.


i dont agree that the allied opposition in the MTO was less intense in the MTO compared to NW Europe, provided the time frames are the same and we look at the density of the frontage. If we look at the MTO, the fights IMO tended to concentrate around certain points like Alamein and malta. CR42s were as at risk from allied action as the germans were in NW euope. possibly moreso actually....

 

[CobberKane]

CR42s were used extensively on the eastern front by the hungarians. they were also deployed by the italians across southern europe right until the end.


i dont agree that the allied opposition in the MTO was less intense in the MTO compared to NW Europe, provided the time frames are the same and we look at the density of the frontage. If we look at the MTO, the fights IMO tended to concentrate around certain points like Alamein and malta. CR42s were as at risk from allied action as the germans were in NW euope. possibly moreso actually....

Just to back up a little - are you saying that the Zero and CR 42 could have made decent fighter bombers in post D-Day Europe, doing the kind of work that was done ny Typhoons and P-47s?

 

[parsifal]

no, but the typhoons and P-47s were not even introduced until the CR-42s and Zeroes had been in service for several years, and whilst retained in service for some years longer, were really obsolete from 1943 on. What were typhoons and p-47s doing in 1940?????

Zero sub type Mk VII was a purpose built dive bomber variant. Had no great success, except as a kamikaze but that was not the fault of the type. If the type had been given proper air cover decent pilots and some advanced FB weaponary (eg rockets) it would have been serviceable as a type, not the best because IMO it was too light, but quite able to at least survive in the ETO.

 

[CobberKane]

no, but the typhoons and P-47s were not even introduced until the CR-42s and Zeroes had been in service for several years, and whilst retained in service for some years longer, were really obsolete from 1943 on. What were typhoons and p-47s doing in 1940?????

Zero sub type Mk VII was a purpose built dive bomber variant. Had no great success, except as a kamikaze but that was not the fault of the type. If the type had been given proper air cover decent pilots and some advanced FB weaponary (eg rockets) it would have been serviceable as a type, not the best because IMO it was too light, but quite able to at least survive in the ETO.

Thank God for that. The thing was, of course, that there where versions of th Zero comtemporary to the Typhoon and P 47 but by that time the pre-eminance of speed and durability over light weight and agility was pretty much established. I maintain that something like the A6M5 of 1944 would have been shot to bits doing ground attack the ETO of that time.
Regarding the comparitive density of AA facing fighter bombers in the ETO vs MTO, the campaign in North Africa was highly fluid, involving rapid advances and retreats over thousands of kilometers, with a fraction of the ground frorces involved in the ETO, infrastructure consisting largely of dirt tracks and with the industrial bases of both protagonists situated on another continent. In comparison the invasion of Europe involved a war of attrition against an enemy with a modern road and rail infrastucture and accessable, direct overland access to an industrial base that peaked production in 1944, with supply lines constantly shortening as the Allies advanced. Do you really think a P40 attacking a convoy in Africa faced the same firepower as a Typhoon or P47 attacking a column in France?

 

[CobberKane]

Sorry Shortround, looking back I note that you did talk about the MTO and ETO in contemporary timelines, so my comparison of a P40 in the MTO and a Typhoon in the ETP doesn't hold. The Allison engined P51 might be a good ETO comtemporary of the P40 in that case. Nonetheless I'd contend that the P40 in the MTO would have been involved in a far more fluid campaign than, say, the P51 on armed recce over Europe and therefore generaly not risking the same kind of AA reaction. Your thoughts?

 

[Rick65]

It is hard to argue that the P40 was the best or most significant fighter bomber of WW2. (and impossible for the Zero or CR42) However it can be argued that the P40's use in the Middle East served as a prototype for what followed in the ETO and the Pacific with more powerful and advanced fighter bombers such as the Typhoon and P47 continuing the dual use role pioneered by the P40. P40 units such as No 112 RAF were amongst the first to successfully carry bombs to supplement their guns in the ground attack role, as well as continuing their fighter role and escorting bombers.

 

[gjs238]

Did any aircraft have sights more conducive to this task?