What was the best - or most significant - fighter-bomber of the war?
- Thread starter CobberKane
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
tengu1979
Airman
I still think noone mentioned Fighter Bomber versions of the Mosquito and their daring low level raids.....
Unlike its older cousin the Typhoon, the Tempest did not have a substantial record as a fighter-bomber; 33 Squadron carried out 2 dive bombing missions on the 3rd and 4th of May 1945, otherwise the Tempest was used a fighter not a fighter-bomber. The very low number of sorties flown with bombs means that there is very little data that can show whether or not the Tempest was the best or most significant fighter-bomber of WW 2.
Page 111 of:
From 2 TAF Volume 3
OldSkeptic
Senior Airman
- 509
- May 17, 2010
Yep, one the reasons (against Dowding's wishes it should be said) that the Defiant was kept was in case of invasions where it 'would be ideal' for bombing/straffing the invading Germans.
Total nonsense of course. But I used as another example of people trying to get some further use out of obsolescent/obsolete single engined planes.
The P-47 was a hot ship at high altitude, but definitely not at its best low down, but it wasn't designed for that.
And as for the Spit, its is a definitional thing, which of them was a a 'true fighter' after they dropped their ordinance, competitive with whatever fighter opposition might be around. Short list.
in the ETO Mustang obviously, Spit, 109, the non ground attack optimised 190s (the ones that were armoured up, etc were not competitive in the western theatre at least).
The Tempest was not used much to carry bombs, but it did a heck of a lot of ground attack straffing, which is a major task for any fighter/bomber and if the war had carried on then the Typhoon would have been replaced by it.
But I'll stand by my definition of 'significant' and pick the 109 (with the 110 as an honourable mention, it following the obsolescent re-use rule), the first, by any definition, has to 'significant'.
Probably a daunting task, but would be nice to quantify an answer.
It seems easier to compare bomb loads, rocket loads, machine gun firepower, cannon fire power, loiter time/range, etc...
But which fighter/bomber destroyed the most locomotives, performed the most strafing missions, provided the most ground support, etc, etc.
It seems easier to compare bomb loads, rocket loads, machine gun firepower, cannon fire power, loiter time/range, etc...
But which fighter/bomber destroyed the most locomotives, performed the most strafing missions, provided the most ground support, etc, etc.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The P-47 was a beast...when it wasn't challenging the Luftwaffe or protecting bomber streams, it was scouring the European countryside. It could absorbe damage that would be fatal to most other aircraft and still stay in the fight.
That being said, it's loadout was impressive for a single engined fighter and it was more than capable of turning to fight after dropping it's load. At lower altitudes it was not at a disadvantage as some might imply, it simply required different tactics, which the P-47 pilots were aware of.
So the "seven ton milk bottle" would certainly be a front runner for the "fighter-bomber" award...
That being said, it's loadout was impressive for a single engined fighter and it was more than capable of turning to fight after dropping it's load. At lower altitudes it was not at a disadvantage as some might imply, it simply required different tactics, which the P-47 pilots were aware of.
So the "seven ton milk bottle" would certainly be a front runner for the "fighter-bomber" award...
By the time P-47 started to do low level work, bombing strafing in 1944-45, it have had the uprated engine and better prop. Those two additions enabled it to 'advance' from poor to acceptable, for low level work. It also acquired capability to lug weaponry under the wings, the fuselage tank was of increased capacity, and belly shack still was able to lug the drop tank. What P-47 have had vs. 109, Spit of P-51, was it's ruggedness and punch. Against 109 and Spit, it have had the combat radius.
We do not have many claims when Axis fighters pounced the low-flying FB P-47s.
Ilyushin IL-2 Sturmovik
Airman
It's so obvious..... The Hawker Typhoon then, Ilyushin IL-2 Sturmovik
a fighter carrying bombs is obviously disadvantaged, sure wheen it has dropped its bombs a spit can fight but if engaged by a 109 it must drop them which is end of mission. Typhoons were escorted by spitfires on bombing raids. Personally I think cannon were more effective than bombs or rockets and the typhoon had 4 of them.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Cannon or MGs were only effective against personnel, trains, soft-skinned AFVs, but the bombs were better suited for bridges, bunkers, gun emplacements, up-armored AFVs and other hard targets.
Bombs and rockets were both hopelessly inaccurate, but the rockets had an unquantifiable and important psychological effect on the enemy. It's one of two reasons why I'd give the 2nd TAF Typhoons the edge over the 8th AF P-47s. The 8th AF wasn't sold on rockets and its fighter-bombers were no more accurate than anyone else's at dropping bombs.
Secondly the Typhoon's 20mm cannon was a better air to ground weapon than the P-47s machine guns. Air to ground weapons since WW2 are almost exclusively cannon and there's a reason for that
Cheers
Steve
Bombs and rockets were both hopelessly inaccurate, but the rockets had an unquantifiable and important psychological effect on the enemy. It's one of two reasons why I'd give the 2nd TAF Typhoons the edge over the 8th AF P-47s. The 8th AF wasn't sold on rockets and its fighter-bombers were no more accurate than anyone else's at dropping bombs.
Secondly the Typhoon's 20mm cannon was a better air to ground weapon than the P-47s machine guns. Air to ground weapons since WW2 are almost exclusively cannon and there's a reason for that
Cheers
Steve
Steve that's what I meant in a way. A Bomb is obviously more effective when it hits the target, a lot of them didnt. Was there ever any thought given to fitting air brakes to the typhoon or spitfire?
parsifal
Colonel
i would have to seriously question that, though I agree that in the WWII context bombs and rockets werent very accurate. The difference between then and now, is that now, the delivery systems are far more accurate, as well as the ordinance itself. Bombs now hit with around 90% accuracy....its when they dont hit the target, or cause unwanted collateral damage that they make headlines. We have bombs for just about every task....taking out runways, busting bunkers, bombs to specifically kill the personnel and not the infrastucture, so called smart bombs...the list is endless. Rockets, even unguided rockets, which are attractive because they are as cheap as chips, are these days far more accurate than their WWII cousins...perhaps a 40-50% hit rate.
This is why today, a single squadron of F-111s or A-10s or Buccaneers are a very dangerous thing, whereas in WWII a squadron of Typhoons might hit a tank if they were lucky.
Moreover, the suppression effect of airborne warfare is pretty universal, not just for rocket equipped aircraft. WWII aircraft accounted statistically for less than 3% of overall battlefield casualties, yet without the advantage of CAS, an army was pretty well doomed to defeat. The most overwhelming advantage that WWII CAS provided was the pinning effect on the ground troops, as accounts by the Germans in 1944 repeatedly show. If a tank, a vehicle, or personnel were caught in the open, in daylight, they stood a much higher chance of being roasted than if they would normally suffer, (again as the Germans found when forced to move to the Normandy beacheads). So, inevitably when subjewcted to air attack, most troops will hunker down stay put, not engage properly, and then be defeated by the land assault. Its called a multiplying effect....you probably are familiar with the term, but worth mentioning just the same. It has been estimated that during the Normandy campaign, CAS about doubled the firepower ratings for allied ground formations engaging opposing german troops, which is an enormous advantage. They got this advantage because the german formations spent so much time being pinned and immoobilised, making them vulnerable to defeat in detail
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Agreed.
The point of having to "keep your head down" and making strategic moves under the cover of darkness seriously restricts ground mobility and the ability to keep the battle line fluid.
So even if the GA is not scoring a high ratio of hits, they are holding the enemy's lines static and/or preventing much needed supplies, reinforcements or even tactical retreats.
The point of having to "keep your head down" and making strategic moves under the cover of darkness seriously restricts ground mobility and the ability to keep the battle line fluid.
So even if the GA is not scoring a high ratio of hits, they are holding the enemy's lines static and/or preventing much needed supplies, reinforcements or even tactical retreats.
GingahNinja
Airman 1st Class
Breaking it down by country.
Germany: Do-217 series - Russia: Il-2m (variant with the rear gunner) - Britain: Hawker Typhoon/Mosquito - USA: P-47 - Japan: A6M series
Germany: Do-217 series - Russia: Il-2m (variant with the rear gunner) - Britain: Hawker Typhoon/Mosquito - USA: P-47 - Japan: A6M series
