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

[Glider]

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.

Fair point

 

[bazsrs1]

I think a lot of people forget the beaufighter my grandfather flew in them as an observer with a coastal command unit very heavily armed aircraft that packed a lot of firepower

 

[drgondog]

Well - usually one would lay out several missions and ability for a particular aircraft to perform that mission.

For me CAS for a fighter bomber has at least five dimensions:
Payload
Ability to deliver the payload accurately
Range/Loiter capability
vulnerability to the typical anti aircraft threat for the mission
vulnerability to enemy air threat while in low altitude environment

For the 'fighter' component;
Speed
Range
Agility at all mission altitudes
firepower
ability to absorb battle damage

Considerations for this discussion;
Theatre by theatre achievement in the fighter bomber role in which the airplane in question performed both CAS AND air superiority mission.
For US aircraft only P-47, F6F, F4U and P-38.. I'm discounting the 51 because it just wasn't used in CAS very much simple because the P-38 and P-47 were dominating for AAF. Neither the P-40 nor P-39 matched any of the above except P-39 in anti armor role (marginal weapon)
For Axis only the FW 190 seem to meet the same standard as US and Commonwealth
For RAF/Commonwealth
Tempest and Typhoon. I discounted the Mossie, Hurricane and Beaufighter for multiple reasons but air to air combat against best Axis fighters highly questionable.

From here folks have a tendency to pick their favorites - but if we insert global presence in the role the one a/c that has to be in top two is the P-38. I waffled between the P-47 and 38 but favor the 38 because of range with full payload and corresponding loiter time as well as questionable/possible survivability of two engines. I also like the firepower of the 38 over the P-47.

If you pick PTO then I favor the F4U-1C because of internal fuel and armament advantage (and High/low air to air capability) over the F6F. 361 gallons internal fuel to 250 for F-6F (and 305 of P-47 until -25) delivers another 45 minutes of loiter.

If you pick ETO only I'm torn between Tempest, P-38 and P-47..

East Front - I like the FW 190G/F over the vaunted IL2 simply because CAS was the Only role it could perform
For USSR only the IL2

 

[fastmongrel]

I have often wondered if there was ever any thoughts of a specialist P38 ground pounder. Remove the turbos fit low level supercharger vanes and use the saved weight to fit extra armour. The P38 was a HAWG (Hauls A lot of Weapons and Gas) so should be able to carry a good lump of armour and still look after itself

 

[parsifal]

Tempest and Typhoon. I discounted the Mossie, Hurricane and Beaufighter for multiple reasons but air to air combat against best Axis fighters highly questionable.

Hi Dg

Have to respectfully disagree. In 1944 alone, the Mosquito was credited with over 600 fighter kills alone (I think all in 1944). Small change i know, and a lot of them were at night, but mosquito can legitmately add "fighter-killer" to its laurels, given that the force structure of the RAF maintained a force averaging 132 Mossies at the time. On that basis, the NFs of the RAF were average five kills for every aircraft in the force....every one of them was an ace that means. .

As fighter bombers, both the Beau and the mossie were highly survivable, I dont have any figures or statistics to throw at you, but the general consensus is that they had a low attrition rate. RAAF Beaus virtually replaced our entire light bomber force and flew countless missions at a very low loss rate, even compared to aircraft like the A-20.

I dont have a complete record for the beau, but it was used by Number 30 sqn until the nd of the war, as a long range fighter and strike airdcraft. I dont think the type had a particulalry high kill rate against the Japanese, but there was no hesitation to use it unescorted where other types needed escort over such heavily defended targets as Rabaul, lae and Gasmata. During the Battle of bismark Sea, the type showed its great versatility by undertaking strikes against the convoy, and also, with the same aircraft, undertking suppression operations of the nearby airfield at Lae. few types could undertkae such diverse missions in the same sortie.....

The fact that both the RAF and the RAAF virtually retireed all their light bombers for these "fighter bombers" is testament as to their capability. more bomber than fighter i will grant you, but survivable, and not without some considerable teeth to boot.

 

[drgondog]

Parsifal - my respect for the Mossie has few limits.

Having said that, how many engagements with German fighters did the Mossie have in daylight - to demonstrate the one on one ability of say, a P-38 or F4U?

 

[pbehn]

A bomber is a bomber a fighter is a fighter, if the job is to bomb a target with precision then the mosquito does it, as a fighter it was in a bad place against German single engined fighters but hardly worse than a single engined fighter with its bombs on. It frequently didnt need to mix it with German defences, the job was done. For an outstanding single engined fighter Tempest/Typhoon P47 corsair and FW 190 were all great but when intercepted a single engined plane must drop its bombs so they need an escort, in that case a hurricane with 4 cannons and bombs is in the game.

 

[wiking85]

I think a lot of people forget the beaufighter my grandfather flew in them as an observer with a coastal command unit very heavily armed aircraft that packed a lot of firepower

I don't think it qualified as a fighter-bomber, but rather an ultra-heavy fighter/light bomber. It was significantly heavier than either the Mosquito or Me 410.


As an aside, I'm surprised that there has been no love for the Bf110. It was a superb fighter-bomber from 1940 through 1942 and made a significant impact in France and in Barbarossa, not to mention the Mediterranean. Its was more impactful as a night fighter later, so it gets overlooked as a Jabo, but it deserves honorable mention.

 

[parsifal]

Parsifal - my respect for the Mossie has few limits.

Having said that, how many engagements with German fighters did the Mossie have in daylight - to demonstrate the one on one ability of say, a P-38 or F4U?

Very few. I know of at least one, september 1944 when 418 sqn attacked an airfield in either southern Norway or Denmark, and claimed shot down two FW 190s, for no loss. Germans admitted to loss of one and one damaged, from memory.

I will check some sources tonite to see if there were any others.

But with respect, thats not the point. Mosquitoes, as i said in the last entry, were more bomber than fighter, but could undertake daylight missions with a high degree of survivability, usually with some escort, but also with quite a number unescorted. Its mission profile was uually Hi-Lo, which meant it was fast coming in loaded, and naturally fast going out unloaded....usually above 390 mph if there was a tail wind. The LW, by its own admission had a hard time catching them, and this is reflected in the low attrition rates for the Mosquito.

As I said, Mossies could lay claim to being a fighter killer, with more than 600 victories alone against day fighters. many of those were at night, as the germans in 1944 used many of their SE fighters at night as well as day. I dont have a breakdown of daylight victories, but i will have some squadron histories and the like at home that will give a bit of a snapshot here and there.

 

[GregP]

Deleted, not worth it ...

 

[Glider]

A thought about the most significant but definitely not the Best would be the much maligned Il 2.

If the RAF didn't have the Typhoon or the USAAF the P47/P38 then there were other aircraft that could do the task, not as well but the task would be done. If the Russians didn't have the Il 2 then they were out of options. Their fighters didn't carry a decent payload and they relied to a large degree on the Il 2.

 

[Shortround6]

No debating the IL-2 combat record or importance but it wasn't a fighter-bomber. Light bomber? Close air support? Strike aircraft? But even after it dumped it's load of bombs/rockets it ability to perform as even a pathetic fighter is subject to question.

 

[GrauGeist]

Some IL-2 types were successful at intecepting bombers, Stukas and the Hs129. While they could be dangerous to thier opponents, especially since defensive fire was nearly inneffective against the IL-2's armor, they were at risk against Luftwaffe true fighters (Bf109, Fw190).

So in a sense, the IL-2 is a "fighter" much like the Bf110 was a "fighter"...

 

[Shortround6]

Well, that is like saying an SBD is a "fighter" because the US Navy used them on occasion for anti-torpedo plane work (against Kates) and they actually shot down a few planes using the the forward guns. Or that the Martin B-26 Marauder was a "fighter" because a few of them shot down Ju 52s over the Med.

Look hard enough and you can find a number of aircraft types that managed to shoot down something in unusual circumstances. Doesn't mean they were really fighters.

Or try using the IL-2 against the Bf 110s

 

[parsifal]

The difference is more to do with doctrine than capability. The Russians did use their sturmoviks as fighters, on a regular basis, because that was consistent with their concept of air warfare. the SBD was used as a fighter as well, but more as an emergency expedient than a doctrinal conscious decision. By way of comment, the RN also used a divebomber as a fighter, but because the Skua was used mostly as a fighter....with some success, it is generally considered a fighter.

Soviet concept of air warfare after 1942 were not about achieving air superiority, in the sense of driving the Germans from the battlefield. The Russians acknowledged from their bitter exeriences earlier in the war, that they simply lacked the skills to do that, and furthermore the battle lines were far too extensive to achieve comprehensive front wide air supreiority. What they could, and did do, was to swamp the defences with numbers. After the Sturmoviks had unloaded their bombs, they were expected, if necessary, to remain over the target to cover other IL-2s, and really be there as targets. to the Soviets, the critical battle was what was happening on the groiund, not in the air. Unlike our pilots, or the LW aircrew for that matter, Soviet pilots, with an average flight training time of about 20-40 hours at the time of Kursk, were expendable resources. our guys, with 4 or 500 hours, were highly valuable assets, not to be wasted.

The name "sturmovik" gives a clue as to what these aircraft were intended to do. The name is usually referred to as "attack" in English, but in reality it is more accurate to refer to them as "storm" or "assault" aircraft. they are a variation to the mosquito, focussing on the mission rather than the secondary role of fighter. Both used means to achieve protection....the mosquito used speed and agility, the Sturmovik used armour protection.

There are more than one way to skin a cat. the contemporary American concept of tactical support is not the only way to run an air campaign.

 

[OldSkeptic]

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 'significance' it is a tie between the 109 (I'd pick that first) and the 110.

In the case of the 109 it was the first true single engined fighter bomber, in that once it dropped the bomb it was a pure (and good) fighter again.
In the case of the 110 it showed that a fast (though not competitive) fighter could carry bombs, deliver them with great accuracy at low level. Thus meaning the dive bomber (with all the speed sapping stuff) was obsolete.
Both the Germans did in 1940, way ahead of anyone else, though not in great numbers at that time.

It took until late 42/early 43 and Park fitting bombs to Spits before the western Allies had a true fighter bomber (with the DAF following shortly), though they had used many obsolescent aircraft in that light bomber/straffer/etc role (Defiant, Hurricane, etc, etc).

Many of what we called 'fighter combers' in WW2 weren't that at all. In that they were not really competitive fighters. The Hurricane, (by 41), the P-40, P-47, Typhoon were not competitive fighters (the P-47 was fine at high altitude of course because it was designed for that, but not so much down in the mud) at the times they became fighter bombers in any numbers.

Rather they were all single engines light bombers/straffers/CAS/etc and could only exist if air supremacy had been achieved in the areas they were operating in.

The Allies tended to use their obsolescent fighters for that role. Their only true single engined FBs were the Spits, Tempests and Merlin Mustangs.

 

[Aozora]

The Allies tended to use their obsolescent fighters for that role. Their only true single engined FBs were the Spits, Tempests and Merlin Mustangs.

The Tempest was never used as a fighter bomber during the war - you must mean the Typhoon. There's also the A-36, P-38, P-47, P-51, F4U and F6F-5 to consider if you're truly talking about the "Allies".

 

[Glider]

The Tempest was never used as a fighter bomber during the war - you must mean the Typhoon. There's also the A-36, P-38, P-47, P-51, F4U and F6F-5 to consider if you're truly talking about the "Allies".

I am pretty sure it was used as a fighter bomber. They were not equipped with rockets but were used as fighter bombers

 

[fastmongrel]

I am pretty sure it was used as a fighter bomber. They were not equipped with rockets but were used as fighter bombers

They were cleared for up to 2 x 1,000lb bombs.

 

[swampyankee]

"Best" and "most significant" are not, of course, completely coincident. I think one can make a case for the Corsair (F4U-4) being the best fighter-bomber (I'm not going to try -- the entire concept of "best" is too subjective), but I think there are other aircraft which were more significant in the fighter-bomber role, possibly including the Hurricane, P-47, Fw190, Typhoon, and others.