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

[stona]

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.

And equally importantly the systems and communications to control "fighter-bombers" in this role were also pioneered in the desert.

If aircraft can't be got to the correct place at the correct time to do something useful then the whole concept fails as it did for the RAF's AASF in 1939/40.

Cheers

Steve

 

[vinnye]

Some extremely capable contenders already given good accounts. When accuracy really mattered it would have to be the Mosquito. Not as capable an outright fighter - but could turn the tables if not given repect.

 

[parsifal]

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.

As Has been previously pointed out, however, every first line fighter like a Corsair or Mosquito used in the FB role, is pne less airframe used in whatever these aircraft were built for. In the case of the Corsair for example it was only the lack of effective fighter opposition that allowed it to be used so extensively as a Fighter Bomber. If there had been more effective fighter opposition, the Corsairs would not have been available. It made sense to use less capable aircraft in the role, because inherently you need your best fighters to counter enemy fighters.

In the case of the CR42, it allowed the type a useful role long past the when aircraft could be used as a fighter. It was very effective in the ground attack role by all accounts, and contrary to the unsubstantiated claims made against it, there is no evidence that it could not survive in a hostile environment. It was a precursor to what we would now call COIN a/c, and that class of aircraft remains as relevant today as it was back then.

 

[Shortround6]

Some aircraft perform fairly well as CAS and have a decent survival rate (like the CR.42) because of their agility as ex fighters. They can be very difficult targets to shoot down, this does not mean they have enough performance to turn the tables and get firing solutions on their attackers. It means they can survive long enough to frustrate their attackers into giving up and going home, low fuel, one too many close encounters with tall trees building, hill sides, etc.

 

[parsifal]

i agree 100%, but during vietnam (i think), the US found that top shelf FBs were simply too expensive and precious to waste on many missions . biggest, fastest, bestest aint always whats required.

The germans reched similar conclusions during the war. HS123 for example as FW189 were found effective because of theur ruggedness and their cheapness. At keast some of the (intended) appeal of the HS129 was because it was supposed to use csast off engines from the French....didnt quite work that way, but that doesnt lessen the validity of the concept......

 

[stona]

i agree 100%, but during vietnam (i think), the US found that top shelf FBs were simply too expensive and precious to waste on many missions . biggest, fastest, bestest aint always whats required..

I assume you are thinking of the F-105 ?

Steve

 

[drgondog]

I assume you are thinking of the F-105 ?

Steve

Steve - you could make a claim that the F-105 was the single most formidable "Fighter Bomber". It was primarily designed to carry a 1.1MT weapon internally from Germany to nearly Moscow on a one way trip - and no one can argue biggest/fastest at the time - and have a hard time arguing against it today. We wasted half the force under Mcnamar's ROE but nothing else in the inventory until the F-117 could do the same mission in Vietnam.

 

[Timppa]

We wasted half the force under Mcnamar's ROE but nothing else in the inventory until the F-117 could do the same mission in Vietnam.

AFAIK F-4, A-7 and F-111 could, and did.

 

[stug3]

 

[parsifal]

On the contrary, the skyraider was exactly what i had in mind. by the 60's it definately was not the bigesst fastest or meanest airplane around. but it fill that CAS/COIN role like a glove

 

[drgondog]

Timppa - I stated S/e mission to Moscow from Germany. A4 wonderful but about half the range - and when considering total payload also way short of F-105. F-111 could do the same job and low altitude/all weather even better. F-4 no, A-7 no, A1E no.

I was being facetious on one hand because nobody thinks of F-105 in CAS (or F-117 or F-111) and neither was I, but couple the words Fighter Bomber and there was no parallel for the 105 before and during Vietnam. Long after Vietnam the F-105s were Still nigh unstoppable by F-4s and F-14s and F-15s and F-16s in Red Flag exercises at Nellis.

For CAS in a low/medium threat environment I would choose a Skyraider just like an A-10 or an A-7

 

[davparlr]

Long after Vietnam the F-105s were Still nigh unstoppable by F-4s and F-14s and F-15s and F-16s in Red Flag exercises at Nellis.

Was this on a nuke mission or other internal bomb bay weapons mission? I could certainly believe this in that the F-105 was greased lightening on the deck clean. I would have trouble believing this if external bombs were carried.

 

[iron man]

So there you have it folks...

The F-105 was definitely the best (or most significant) fighter bomber of WWII...

<ducks behind the adjacent berm to avoid the incoming fire>...

The "thud" was one hell of an aircraft but it was not designed for the role it was pushed into over Vietnam.

Survivability took a bit of a backseat as it evolved (Cooke-Craige production) and the butchers bill was paid in this regard when penetrating heavily defended (AAA) targets while loaded down with many tons of external stores.
Expediencies taken during production, particularly with regards to the fuel management system and primary (as well as secondary) hydraulics circuits, meant that battle damage from "fortuitous" AAA could quite easily leave you with an unflyable aircraft...many, many miles from friendly turf.
The effects of the high humidity levels on the electronic navigational aids also were proven contributors to the numerous aircraft which were lost to the "Cumulo-Granite" (CFIT: Controlled Flight Into Terrain) factor.

One heck of a machine, but probably wasted lugging iron bombs into the North.

Just my opinion.

 

[parsifal]

The F-105/Skyraider cmparison is meant to breath some reality into the wwii scenario. Its relatively easy to determine, or at least shortlist the best fighter bomber, from the point os view of performance. its going to be a Corsair, or a typhoon or FW190 or similar. its relatively easy I think to determine (or shortlist) the most significant simply by the numbers. But whats missing here is the critical issue of best use of resources. Was pushing a Corsair or a typhoon or a FW 19i0 the best usae of that airframe when it was used as a bomb truck? Perhaps it does, because the cost difference between a dog aircraft still suitable for FB duties and a dream hotshot a/c is probably not as great during the war, as it became after the war.

 

[drgondog]

Was this on a nuke mission or other internal bomb bay weapons mission? I could certainly believe this in that the F-105 was greased lightening on the deck clean. I would have trouble believing this if external bombs were carried.

Internal Dave. At one time Republic proposed a G before the Weasel two seater which stripped out the internal bomb bay, replaced with fuel and did away with over 4000 pounds - all for a couple of $Million including spares. Didn't intend to pirate the thread -

 

[Timppa]

Timppa - I stated S/e mission to Moscow from Germany. A4 wonderful but about half the range - and when considering total payload also way short of F-105. F-111 could do the same job and low altitude/all weather even better. F-4 no, A-7 no, A1E no.

You stated also Vietnam which I specifically answered. I did not mention A-4 or Able Dog, but the three types that actually made strikes deep into North Vietnam during Linebacker II.

I quote Frederick C. Blesse, M. Gen. USAF:

PacAF was a good assignment, and the two years I spent in Hawaii were gone with the speed of light. We accomplished a few things; most notably we got the F-111 and the A-7 into combat.

I had some of my ops planners working on how to get out of Vietnam when and if the time came, and the F-111 and A-7 became part of the solution. I was sure of one thing: if we kept all the tankers out there, we could never close up enough bases. We needed to keep the pressure on North Vietnam, which then was done with F-4s and F-105s using tankers for additional fuel every time we hit the target.

It seemed to me the F-111 and the A-7 were exactly what was needed. Both aircraft could strike targets around Hanoi without refueling, which meant that for the first time since the war began, we could actually strike with surprise. Those two kinds of aircraft could keep the pressure on North Vietnam while practically everything else in the theater went home.

 

[drgondog]

Timppa - two things. All USAF A7D missions were out of Korat which was much closer to Hanoi than Takhli, USN A7E's even closer from carriers. Second the 105s (i.e. were out of Takhli and Korat RTAFB) didn't use and did not need tankers even from from Takhli to - a.) go much faster, b.) carry more to the end of the chain in terms of bomb load, c.) lived in a much higher threat environment d.) loiter for 20 minutes and e.) were uncatchable by anything the VNAF or USAF or USSR had on way out of Downtown.

The F-111 had longer range and more capable in all weather/night ops but also would have been clobbered doing the same strike profile as the F-105. Also, like the A7D/E, it had later generation avionics and turbofan engine - and were also operationl four years after the last 105s came home. Had the F-105E (T-Stick) been produced in numbers greater than 60 it would have been one hell of an all weather, terrain following, accurate bombe delivering system - but it was never deployed to SE Asia. It's demonstrated CEP with iron bombs was close (but not equal) to the A7D/E.

Had the F-105G (before the Weasel designation) been acccepted by USAF (rejected by McNamara) it would have been even faster and lighter (6000 pounds), could carry 16,000 pounds of internal fuel and arguably more manueverable than the F-4E which still would have been able to outclimb (slightly) the F-105E. The primary limitation to the F-105 on the deck was not drag but stagnation Temp on the canopy resulting in a shell design with coolant in between.

I havenet researched the 388th and 36th TFW but IIRC the 355th TFW dropped 202,000 TONs of bombs in the 1965 through 1968 - and the collective F-105s dropped more than the B-52s as a contrast - and were dropping them on real targets up North in RP 6 versus jungle homes for monkeys, snakes and NVA shelters. With the introduction of the Weasel F-105F and G the loss rates went from 5+ % to around 1%.

Next to Last - the use of tankers in 1966 was instructed by 7th AF and all the Elephant Walks (2 per day) in the 65/66/57 timeframe were geared around tanker schedules. The USAF tankers were there for F-4, F-100s, RB and EB66 and gave the F-105s an additional margin for error, often useful, when plans didn't quite meet expectations. This (Stupid) policy by 7th AF (as directed by SAC - which 'owned the KC-135's )resulted in the NVA having to defend Only against one morning and one afternoon strike thereby releasing much of the pressure on their assets.

Last - the A7's would have had a murderous loss rate had they been going to RP6 targets like Kep, Hanoi proper etc on the same daily schedule and ROE that the 65-68 Thuds were forced to obey.

General Blesse was one hell of a fighter pilot and leader. His combat experience in Vietnam was as 366TFW Kahuna and flying F4C's was over North Vietnam as MigCap he was certainly in a position to observe tactics - having said that he had zero F-105 time but had both A-7 and F-111 time, particularly leading the 474th.

If you want to debate this, set up a thread and we can quit hijacking this one?

 

[Glider]

The F-105/Skyraider cmparison is meant to breath some reality into the wwii scenario. Its relatively easy to determine, or at least shortlist the best fighter bomber, from the point os view of performance. its going to be a Corsair, or a typhoon or FW190 or similar. its relatively easy I think to determine (or shortlist) the most significant simply by the numbers. But whats missing here is the critical issue of best use of resources. Was pushing a Corsair or a typhoon or a FW 19i0 the best usae of that airframe when it was used as a bomb truck? Perhaps it does, because the cost difference between a dog aircraft still suitable for FB duties and a dream hotshot a/c is probably not as great during the war, as it became after the war.

Back to the topic I would go for the Typhoon of Fw 190 as the Typhoon wasn't a good fighter at any altitude and the GA mission fitted its strengths like a glove. The FW 190 was better as a fighter but not at altitude and the Lufwaffe needed a GA fighter as the Ju 87 and Hs 129couldn't live in the air if there was a serious threat to control of the air.
The Corsair was a better airframe capable of anything against anyone and as a result in WW2 didn't have to be a spaecialist GA.

 

[Kryten]

Back to the topic I would go for the Typhoon of Fw 190 as the Typhoon wasn't a good fighter at any altitude and the GA mission fitted its strengths like a glove. The FW 190 was better as a fighter but not at altitude and the Lufwaffe needed a GA fighter as the Ju 87 and Hs 129couldn't live in the air if there was a serious threat to control of the air.
The Corsair was a better airframe capable of anything against anyone and as a result in WW2 didn't have to be a spaecialist GA.

Common misconception that, the Typhoon was actually a capable fighter down low, it fought the 190/109's on equal terms over the channel and france when used in the fighter role, its performance degraded signifigantly with altitude , Desmond Scott reffering to his typhoon becomming a carthorse over 15k ft.

 

[parsifal]

Typhoon is a real contender in my book, but the german FW 190 f-8 is also a contender. What rules the FW 190 out in my book is that every FW 190 converted to ground attack was one less fighter for them. And in 1944 what the germans needed was fighters.

Soviets rate their Il2s as "assault" fighters, if it accepted that the sturmovik is a figfhter, of sorts, then its concentration of ability on the mission, must make it significant. That and the numbers.

But I remain of the view that the best and most significant airframes in the FB role are those that dont detract from other missions, and that leads me to a/c being passed over in this discusion. Certainly the Typhoon seems to have a foot in both camps. it was a high performance aircraft even in 1944-5, but it also was not the best available pure fighter.

Other aircraft that fill the bill of "not quite top shelf" fighters, but still good a/c might bbe the P-40, the Beafighter, Hurricane, Me 109e, and possibly the Ki45. I know this takes the debate into a direction not really considered before, but I am loking at the issue more from the pov of effective use of resources....