Your Favorite Attack Aircraft of WW2, all sides welcome (1 Viewer)

Which attack aircraft?

  • He 129

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • He 123

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Val

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • B25 variants

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Stuka

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Mosquito

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • IL 2

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Other

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    7

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

yeah the mossie is more of an attack aircraft than the P-38 and F4U, the P-38 and F4U are, as pD said, fighters used in the attack role, they're not dedicated, purpose built attack aircraft..........
 
Which is what I mean when I say "Purpose built" aircraft. I agree that there were some great fighters used in the support role, but they were fighter-bombers. The attack aircraft were usually designed to do their job specifically after their capabilities had been discovered, or needed. Case and point, the JU-87 definately is not a fighter, as it really cant hope to survive long in a dog fight. By the same token, it is also not a level bomber meant to spend time over a target area, but rather smaller and harder targets. Its a given that some of the attack aircraft (such as the B25 and the Mossie) were originally meant for different tasks, but once their abilities in the fighter bomber role were realized, there was pretty much no turning back. Once again, they still did opperate the recon and bomber Mossies and the Bomber B25s, but on a much lower scale than the attack aircraft versions (at least that is my impression).
 
the lancaster kicks ass said:
yeah the mossie is more of an attack aircraft than the P-38 and F4U, the P-38 and F4U are, as pD said, fighters used in the attack role, they're not dedicated, purpose built attack aircraft..........

I adderssed two points there, the first was that the P-38 was every bit as, if not more capable than the F4U.

The second was that the Fighter/bombers didn't fit here because, in my opinion, they were not as dedicated to the attack roll as say the B-25.

The Mossie is on the list but it was really more of a light bomber, photo/reece, or path finder/night fighter whereas planes like the B-25 or esp the A-26 were most/all used as low level strafing/ground attack. The attack planes had more firepower forward than other aircraft used for similar roles.

wmaxt
 
Hey, can anyone get a picture of a B25 doing a strafing run on enemy ships or fortifications? One with the 75mm doing damage would be the cream of the crop! Still, I'll settle for the normal pics of the .50 tracers ripping into an enemy frieghter.
 
plan_D said:
Why no British aircraft in that list, NAVAIR? You mention the P-51D as a contender yet try to pass off the Typhoon IB as inferior because extra loading is less than the P-38 and P-47. Why would the P-51D be above an aircraft than can carry more equipment plus four 20mm cannon, did you forget about them?

And no Mosquito? Which could carry a whole host of equipment, more than most of those you listed. Again, while having four 20mm cannon.

And then there's the Hurricane IID which with it's two Vickers-S 40mm cannon packed more than enough punch as a ground attack aircraft.

When we examine the Typhoon IB, NAVAIR, we find it can carry eight "6 rockets, fire them off and still be capable of destroying most of the armour and support of the Wehrmacht with it's four 20s ...while being a more than capable fighter on the low.

20mm Hispanos will not kill tanks... Especially with explosive rounds. After the rockets are fired (which were wildly inaccurate), only soft targets were at risk. And those were at risk from .50 cal too. The big tank killers were aerial bombs, but even those had to land within several feet of a tank to disable it. Analysis of abandoned German armor showed that very few were disabled by aerial gunnery. There was a lot of wishful thinking, but the reality was that tanks were largely immune to 20mm gunfire. They suffered damage to external fittings and equipment, but the armor was not penetrated on any of the medium tanks and assault guns inspected.

The Typhoon was considered a failure as a fighter. Considering that the original Ministry specification called for an interceptor... It was fast down low, but suffered from poor climb rate, and miserable performance at medium altitudes, and got worse as it went higher. Maneuerability was so-so, with a very poor rate of roll and only average turn radius. Even though the Typhoon's rear fuselage was reinforced after several catastrophic failures, it was still viewed as weak under heavy loads. Sidney Camm's facination with thick airfoils produced a fighter with a very low critical Mach limit, one didn't dare dive from high altitudes in a Tiffie. It found its nitch as a bomb truck. It was an excellent attack fighter, but limited in how much ordnance it could carry. Nearly every design flaw of the Typhoon was fixed by the Tempest. Although the Tempest was still a bit of a dog up high. One thing not improved was the highly vulnerable radiator location.

As to comparing the P-51 to the Typhoon... The P-51 could do what the Typhoon could do and do it for three times as long. It had tremendous loiter time. Tiffies burned gas like Hawker owned stock in British Petroleum.

Compare ordnance loads.

P-51D: Two 1,000 lb bombs AND six 5 inch HVAR rockets. 2,080 rounds of .50 cal API.
Typhoon: Two 1,000 lb bombs OR eight 6" rockets. 578 rounds of 20mm.

Both were liquid cooled and thus more vulnerable to ground fire than the P-47. As fighters there's no comparison. The P-51D was superior in virtually every area of measured performance, although the Tiffie was about 5 mph faster on the deck.

Don't underestimate the P-47. More than any other fighter, it was the P-47 that crushed the Luftwaffe in the ETO. The P-38 bloodied their nose, the P-51 kicked dirt on the corpse, but the P-47 killed off the experts, and left the Luftwaffe badly depleted. As the Mustang took over most of the escort duties in middle 1944, the P-47s excelled at taking the fight down to ground level. There were a lot more squadrons flying the Jug than flying the Typhoon. P-47s served in large numbers in every theater of the war, from France to Italy, to the SWPA and PTO to China.

By the way, the late mark Spitfires performed well supporting the ground war. Granted, only 1,000 lb of bombs could be carried, but the Spits were far better air to air than the Typhoon, thus they could hit the enemy targets and then utterly control the air space over the battlefield. As an air superiority fighter, few aircraft were in the same league as the Spit XIV. Personally, my favorite is the clipped-wing Spit XII.

I didn't list the Mosquito because it was included in the poll list. Great aircraft. Very effective if not intercepted. Was probably the best anti-shipping type in the ETO/MTO. Beaufighters were also very effective. Even the USAAF used them. However, they were not very able to defend themselves, whereas the fighter types could switch from attack to air superiority instantly. Nonetheless, I would take the Mossie over the B-25 any day.

Now, the Hurricane Mk.IID was effective in the North African desert against 1941-42 armor and transport. However, it was a pig. Slow, poor climber and very limited ammo load. Almost defenseless when not provided with fighter cover. No provision for external ordnance. Sorry, but the Hurri IID wouldn't make the cut for the Junior Varsity team, much less the big leagues. It was purely a stop-gap airplane, and adaptation of an otherwise obsolete aircraft.

By the end of the war, the USN had removed many of the attack squadrons from carriers and replaced them with fighters. They did this because the fighters were capable of hauling as much ordnance and dropping it with equal precision. Moreover, once the ordnance was delivered you had a first rate fighter able to beat off the enemy. Even the USAAF recognized that light attack was best handled by fighters. The only new, non-fighters added to the Navy's inventory immediately after the war were the Douglas Skyraider and the Martin Mauler, both dedicated attack aircraft, modeled more on fighters than on dive bombers or torpedo bombers. F4Us were still the primary attack plane when the Korean War broke out, while the F-51D filled the same role for the Air Force. Both were replaced by new jet types, but were still effective right until their replacements arrived.

To conclude; the Typhoon was an excellent attack fighter. However, it could do nothing that the P-38L, P-47D, P-47N, P-51D, Fw 190F-8, F6F-5, F4U-1C, F4U-1D and F4U-4 could do, and all save the Focke Wulf were superior as fighters to boot. Now, if you want to talk about the Tempest Mk.V, then you have a solid basis for argument.

My regards,

Navair
 
The Typhoon was considered a failure in its INITIAL role; that of a fast, high altitude bomber interceptor and destroyer. However, despite the fact that it failed to meet its design brief, the RAF couldn't ignor the potential of a fighter that could crack 400 mph below 20,000 feet. The idea that the Tyffie went from failed fighter to ground attack fighter is simpified n the extreeme. It actually enjoyed a very sucessful period in 1943 when it was used according to its strenghts of speed and firepower.

It found sucess as a low level fighter by late 1942 , once Napier fixed the reliability problems in the Sabre. It was the only British fightere which could meet the Fw-190 on even terms at low altitude. Pilots like Johnny Baldwin were sucessful above 20,000 feet in the Typhoon, but this was the exception not the rule.

The Typhoon was less of a sucess than it should of been because it was casting about for a mission in the 1941- mid 42 period. The RAF should of used it as a low level fast intruder and fighter, as many of the squadron commanders wanted. Instead, it was dispersed all over the UK to defend against 'tip and run' attacks by low level Fw-190s.
 
NAVAIR said:
The Typhoon was considered a failure as a fighter.
As to comparing the P-51 to the Typhoon... The P-51 could do what the Typhoon could do and do it for three times as long. It had tremendous loiter time. Tiffies burned gas like Hawker owned stock in British Petroleum.

Who cares this is about Attack Aircraft. No where did the title of the thread say anything about The Best Fighter Aircraft of WW2.
 
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
NAVAIR said:
The Typhoon was considered a failure as a fighter.
As to comparing the P-51 to the Typhoon... The P-51 could do what the Typhoon could do and do it for three times as long. It had tremendous loiter time. Tiffies burned gas like Hawker owned stock in British Petroleum.

Who cares this is about Attack Aircraft. No where did the title of the thread say anything about The Best Fighter Aircraft of WW2.

:evil4:
 
'nuff said ... Thanks, lads.
 
Navair said:
Now, the Hurricane Mk.IID was effective in the North African desert against 1941-42 armor and transport. However, it was a pig. Slow, poor climber and very limited ammo load. Almost defenseless when not provided with fighter cover. No provision for external ordnance. Sorry, but the Hurri IID wouldn't make the cut for the Junior Varsity team, much less the big leagues. It was purely a stop-gap airplane, and adaptation of an otherwise obsolete aircraft.

The Primary function of the IID was, as you're aware, to tank bust, she did not have to be brilliantly nimble as fighter escort could be provided, no, she couldn't carry external ordinance, with two 40mm cannon you don't need it, two 40mm cannon were ripping open german armour like they were sardine cans, you say she has a low ammo count, compare her with the P-47 for example, the .50cals with do nothing against tanks so we can rule those out, as you said the rockets are very innacurate so we can rule allot of those out, leaving you 2x1,000lb bombs, now, assuming you kill one tank with each bomb which is in itself quite unlikely, you've killed two tanks on your sortie, the IID's 40mm had 15 rpg, say you use 3 rpg to kill one tank (relitively slow ROF and you have .303s to assist aiming) that's 5 tanks in your sortie (again assuming maximum kills), to me, that's the better attack aircraft, this thread is for attack aircraft, the ability to fight your way home makes it a fighter-bomber, attack aircraft are designed to be used with fighter cover...........
 
the lancaster kicks ass said:
with two 40mm cannon you don't need it, two 40mm cannon were ripping open german armour like they were sardine cans

Do you wish to specify which armour? I doubt they would do much against a Panther, Tiger, or King Tiger.
 
The penetration figures for the Vickers S gun on the Hurricane IID and IV are a little hazy. 50-55mm penteration is the figure given in some British documents, but neither range nor striking angle are noted. If we take this as the figure for a 90 degree strike, then a 60 degree angle of impact will reslt in about 40 mm and a 30 degree angle strike should give about 20mm penetration. You have to add a little more because of aircraft foward motion obviously, but it would be no more than a few mms at most.

Say you set you Hurricane in a shalow 10-20 degree diving attack at 450 kph (280 mph) on the rear quarter of a German tank, firing rounds from about 400-500m out. The Vickers S class fired at about 100 rpm, so the plane travels about 125 m between each shot. That gives you time for 3 shots (375 m traveled) . Converegence would have to be set somewhere in the middle distance (250-300m) for the majority of shots to be effective.

Armour thicknesses for various German tanks are as follows (taken from the achtungpanzer website):

P III Ausf N

Top; 10mm turret, 16mm upper hull top, 18mm lower hull top
Rear; 30mm turret, Rear upper/rear lower 17mm

P IV Ausf G

Top; 10mm turret, 12mm upper hull top, 10mm lower hull top
Rear; 30mm turret, Rear upper 20mm, rear lower 20mm

P V

Top; 16mm turret, 40mm upper hull top, 30mm lower hull top
Rear; 45mm turret, 40mm lower hull

P VI

Top; 25mm turret, 25mm upper and lower hull
Rear; 80mm rear turret and hull


So if we take a figure of 40mm (60 degree angle of impact) as a rough guide to the penetration capabilities of the 40mm S class, then all German tanks are vulnerable to attack on the upper turret and hull surfaces, with the exception of the Panther in some areas, which has thicker upper hull surfaces.

Attacks from the rear quarter would easily destroy a P III or P IV, but have a little more trouble with the rear armour of the Panther and be ineffective against the Tiger. The Tiger is invulnerable to rear quater attacks, while the Panther would require either point blank or vertical shots to overcome the 40-45mm of armour on the rear deck.

Still, attacks from the air with a Hurricance armed with 40mms stands a reasonable chance of penetrating the armour of any tank, given a shot in the right place.
 
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
NAVAIR said:
The Typhoon was considered a failure as a fighter.
As to comparing the P-51 to the Typhoon... The P-51 could do what the Typhoon could do and do it for three times as long. It had tremendous loiter time. Tiffies burned gas like Hawker owned stock in British Petroleum.

Who cares this is about Attack Aircraft. No where did the title of the thread say anything about The Best Fighter Aircraft of WW2.

If you have a comment within the context of my post, that's fine. But, cutting and pasting to distort the context isn't.

Loiter time over the battlefield is of great importance. P-51s had 3 times the on-station time of the Typhoon. That means that they can be positioned to respond to enemy ground movement much faster.

My regards,

Navair
 
NAVAIR said:
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
NAVAIR said:
The Typhoon was considered a failure as a fighter.
As to comparing the P-51 to the Typhoon... The P-51 could do what the Typhoon could do and do it for three times as long. It had tremendous loiter time. Tiffies burned gas like Hawker owned stock in British Petroleum.

Who cares this is about Attack Aircraft. No where did the title of the thread say anything about The Best Fighter Aircraft of WW2.

If you have a comment within the context of my post, that's fine. But, cutting and pasting to distort the context isn't.

Loiter time over the battlefield is of great importance. P-51s had 3 times the on-station time of the Typhoon. That means that they can be positioned to respond to enemy ground movement much faster.

My regards,

Navair

Although used as a ground attack aircraft in WW2 and Korea, I knew pilots who flew in both conflicts and they didn't have high regards of the Mustang in that role due to vulnerability to ground fire. Mike Alva (Col. USAF Ret.) told me when his unit started conducting sweeps in the Mustang he lost half his squadron...

I had a college instructor who flew the -51 in Korea; he said the same thing and preferred the F-80
 
the lancaster kicks ass said:
Navair said:
Now, the Hurricane Mk.IID was effective in the North African desert against 1941-42 armor and transport. However, it was a pig. Slow, poor climber and very limited ammo load. Almost defenseless when not provided with fighter cover. No provision for external ordnance. Sorry, but the Hurri IID wouldn't make the cut for the Junior Varsity team, much less the big leagues. It was purely a stop-gap airplane, and adaptation of an otherwise obsolete aircraft.

The Primary function of the IID was, as you're aware, to tank bust, she did not have to be brilliantly nimble as fighter escort could be provided, no, she couldn't carry external ordinance, with two 40mm cannon you don't need it, two 40mm cannon were ripping open german armour like they were sardine cans, you say she has a low ammo count, compare her with the P-47 for example, the .50cals with do nothing against tanks so we can rule those out, as you said the rockets are very innacurate so we can rule allot of those out, leaving you 2x1,000lb bombs, now, assuming you kill one tank with each bomb which is in itself quite unlikely, you've killed two tanks on your sortie, the IID's 40mm had 15 rpg, say you use 3 rpg to kill one tank (relitively slow ROF and you have .303s to assist aiming) that's 5 tanks in your sortie (again assuming maximum kills), to me, that's the better attack aircraft, this thread is for attack aircraft, the ability to fight your way home makes it a fighter-bomber, attack aircraft are designed to be used with fighter cover...........

You have pidgeon-holed the role of attack aircraft as tank busting. That was a minor part of the overall function. Attack means much more than that. It includes interdiction of supplies and material. It includes disrupting rear echelon. It includes attacking command and control. It includes dislodging ground troops. It includes isolating enemy groups and formations. It includes destroying motor and rail transport. It also includes other important facets. When we look at the Hurricane Mk.IID, we see that it is of limited utility. Moreover, the tripleA defenses of the Africa Corps were miniscule compared to what the Germans could field in the summer of 1944.

So, if bolting on a pair of Vickers guns makes a fighter into an attack plane, then hanging bombs and rockets on a fighter does too. However, bombs and rockets allow for varied capability, the Hurricane Mk.IID was a one role aircraft. I didn't imply these planes were not effective, I implied that they were small potatos compared to what came later, and they were.

There were many aircraft armed with large caliber cannon. The Ju 87G-1 was effective with two PaK36 guns in under-wing pods. However, it also could carry bombs. Versions of the Me 410 were armed with a 50mm BK5 gun. It also could carry bombs. As mentioned in the poll, we have the HS 129, which had several cannon configurations and the IL-2 was very effective against all types of battlefield targets. The Typhoon was in the original poll. The Typhoon is a fighter-bomber. Thus, should we not include all fighter-bombers or is this one special?

My regards,

Navair
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back