Best Fighter-Bomber

[Romantic Technofreak]

I wonder why there wasn´t a fighter-bomber comparison yet. Here my candidates:

1.The Republic P-47 Thunderbolt:

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/p47-8.jpg

2. The Hawker Typhoon:

http://www.aviation-history.com/hawker/typhoon1.jpg

3. The Focke-Wulf FW 190 F series, especially the F-8:

http://rafiger.de/Homepage/FBMuseum/Info-SG4/SchwarzeE/FW-190F8-Original.jpg

4. The Yakovlev Yak-9B:

http://www.internetelite.ru/aircrafts/yak-9b-gor1p151-4.jpg

Add more if you like! Somebody could say something to the Typhoon/Tempest problem. And in my backhead, I thought the Yak-9B was the standard Soviet fighter-bomber, but during the looking for the picture I saw that the production was very limited, thus the aircraft not deserving to be mentioned here. Any comment welcome!

[Crusader]

The F4U, for me. Sorry, I'm from a Marine family, so I gotta go with the home team, that and what ole Lucky Lindy dropped with one.
http://users.bigpond.net.au/CharlesEAW/pix/Corsair.jpg

[ickysdad]

The P-47 for me.

[GregP]

I'm a bit torn here. The candidates for me are the P-47 and the Typhoon / Tempest. Of the two, I think the P-47 was more rugged with an engine that could take a beating and still bring you home. In a pinch, I think the P-47 was a better air-to-air fighter than the Typhoon / Tempest, and the ruggedness combined with thye air-to-air makes me lean toward the P-47.

Still, the Typhoon / Tempest were hard-hitting, very capable aircraft.

[B-24WillowRun]

This is a bit hard. I would say the P-47 could ran and gun with the best of them, the latter modles when they were able to escourt and then be cut loose and raise hell. But the call of the sea would say the F4U or the F6F. Both of them had power and could fly on the deck. Marines have stories of Coursairs being so low the brass was still hot as it fell on them [:p]

Just a thought but why not a P-38? [B)] They were very capable and in the years before the USAAF was P-47 crazy in production and after were still great! So that is my bit now please absorb, digest, and I have no doubt you will say differently [:X]

[Romantic Technofreak]

It looks like I opened another difficult topic. What I would like to know is if there are objective criteria to underline the arguments: These could be

- possible bomb load

- bombing and shooting accuracy

- strength and distribution of armour

- loss ratio per number of sorties

- kill ratio too, these airplanes are still fighters

- participation in concrete and maybe crucial actions

O.K., if there is no further answer, I have to admit that these questions may be too difficult for our knowledge right now.

[B-24WillowRun]

Well with the questions posed the F6F comes to mind. It had the teath, and was ruged to bring the pilot home. Served in all major operations once it was in combat. Was produced in quantity, that is an important part. The Yak-9B was impressive but it came latter and I think not as well liked as the Yak-3 or the Il-2 for the roll. Now what wbout the Ki-43? I am reading about it now and will try to get back to you all.[8)]

[Ricky]

I'm a big fan of the Hawker Typhoon.

This is possibly just patriotism!
However, having 4 x 20mm cannon surely gives it an edge over 6 x .5in machineguns for both straffing and dogfighting (yes, I know we've done this argument before...)

The Typhoon did have the slight defect of a tail that would occaisionally drop off[xx(], but that was largely cured by a judicious application of fuselage strengthening panels.

[B-24WillowRun]

Ok so the Typhoon is in, but the production run was smaller then thee others. Granted that was largly due to the long development proplums. Compressibility also came into play. As for the cannon, I still like 2x20mm and 4x.5inch as a good mix. Some F6F's used this mix. I know I will get a lot of people jumping, but so what [:p] I am a bit miffet that the USAAC would not use more cammons. The P-38 showed it could be a good thing they flew against the A6M and the bf 109 that both used cannons and the Spits did as well. But for reasons I have not totally found explained American designers with few exceptions shun cannon. :(

[Lightning]

Hello all:

Well I'm back in the air, but now over Germany. Its good to be back in the forums.

First of all, I'd like to compliment Romantic Technofreak on his great introduction of this topic. The photos are a nice touch.

Now for my entry: The Lockheed P-38L.

As for bomb load, it was unmatched among the true fighters of WW11. Four thousand lbs and more could be carried on its "hard points". It could also "mix-and-match" its ordnance between bombs, rockets, and napalm in an array not available to other fighters of the period.

The firepower of its four 50's and one 20mm was devastating, and their effectiveness was greatly increased by the fact that they were concentrated in the nose. Unlike with wing-mounted guns, the "beaten zone" remained concentrated on the target all the way from maximum range to point-blank range at pullup.

Although not thought of in the traditional sense of fighter-bomber operations, the employment of the P-38 as a tactical bomber cannot be overlooked. In this roll, one Lightning in the "Droop-snoot" configuration carried a bombardier using the Nordon bombsight. This aircraft would lead a whole formation of heavily loaded P-38s. When the lead aircraft dropped his bombs, the others would drop theirs. The effect was the same as having a very large bomber dropping a heavy, well-aimed salvo of large bombs on the target.

The P-38 was a true fighter and scored heavily against the best enemy fighters in all theaters of the war. Its roll as a fighter-bomber was carried out with distinction as were all the other tasks performed by this most veratile of fighters.

[Ricky]

Welcome Back Lightning!

You missed the 'twin engine reliability' arguament!

Only one problem that I can immediately think of for the P-38:
quote:The firepower of its four 50's and one 20mm was devastating, and their effectiveness was greatly increased by the fact that they were concentrated in the nose. Unlike with wing-mounted guns, the "beaten zone" remained concentrated on the target all the way from maximum range to point-blank range at pullup.

Very good, unless you're straffing a troop concentration, or something similar. Dispersed target straffing needs a wide spread of fire...

[B-24WillowRun]

Lightening nice to see you on. The P-38L would be good but can it get the bombing done with out the lead Droop Nose? Thoug that is a nice modle, but to lay prone for that long must not have been fun. What were the production and mission numbers? How effective was the P-38L?[B)]

[Romantic Technofreak]

I thought saying thank you to Lightning for his applause by providing an appropriate picture:

http://www.aerofiles.com/lock-p38g.jpg

Actually it is a "G", not a "L". A fighter-bomber picture of the P-38 is hard to find. I hope the things under the wings are bombs and not drop tanks...[8)]

Aerofiles also has the "droop snot" in its archives:

http://www.aerofiles.com/lock-p38Lsnoot.jpg

[Lightning]

Thanks for the "Welcome home", Guys.

Thank you, Romantic Technofreak, for the great P-38 photos! I keep going back to your post to enjoy them. Yes, they are drop tanks on the "G", but they just as easily could have been 1000 pounders.

More to "Ricky" and "B-24 WillowRun later"

Best Regards,
Lightning

[B-24WillowRun]

WEll that P-38 is a nice shot. The "Drop Snot" is a good shot. If you want P-38s with bombs try www.p38.com I think that is the site. I do not have my files open yet. But they have some nice shots. [:p]

Her is a question, of this discussion if we were to pick say ten aircraft that met the ouline that RT set about production, mission, and what not and then try to talk about them against each other. It might let us focus this a little, but by no means be a limit. Our talks about the P-38 could be a starting point?

But I have a question on the P-38, it seems that it was good a a lot of things but was getting pushed out of the fighter roll it was made for and even some of the others very quickly. While it survived in the PTO longer because of its range I gess. But what do the rest of you think? [B)]

[Lightning]

Greetings to Ricky,

In reply to your comment on the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of concentrated fire against troop concentrations, let me say that concentrated fire is always preferable. To disperse the pattern is to disperse the destructive power.

The machine gun/cannon armament of WW11 aircraft was not really all that desirable for attacking unmounted troops. They were far more vulnerable to fragmentation bombs, anti-personell bombs, rockets, and napalm, all of which were used by the best fighterbombers of that time.

The guns were far more effective against road convoys, light armor, rolling stock (especially locomotives), ammo dumps, coastal shipping, etc. In short, anything that could be destroyed by penetration, detonation, ignition, or just by being torn apart by multiple hits, was far more vulnerable to cocentrated fire than to dispersed fire.

Wing-mounted guns only achieve maximum accuracy and concentration at one point-- the range at which they are set to converge. Targets that are closer than, or beyond this range are less effectively engaged.

[Ricky]

True.
I stand corrected.
;)

[Lightning]

Hello B-24 WillowRun,

The bombardier in the "Droopsnoot" P-38 did not lie prone. He had a seat, his own oxygen supply, and even a relief tube!...all the comforts of home. The only drawback was that, in such cramped quarters, he couldn't wear a parachute. Oh well, you can't have everything.

As to whether the formation would be effective without the lead aircraft, it would be a situation comparable to that in which the bombardier of a heavy bomber was incapacitated. Accuracy would be almost nil. In this case, the aircraft of the formation would at least have the option of reverting to the fighterbomber roll or returning to base (sans bombs, of course).

Regarding P-38L production numbers, of a total of 10,036 P-38s produced, 3924 were "L"s. This equates to 39.1%. There were more "L"s produced than any other variant.

As to effectiveness as a fighterbomber, the P-38 was devastating. It was instrumental in the arial subjugation of the island of Pantelleria between North africa and Sicily. (See "Opperation Corkscrew.")

The P-38 played a major roll in the air-to-ground war in Italy where it was used extensively by the 12th and 15th air forces. The landings at Salerno were covered by Lightnings.

During the last part of the war in the ETO, when long-range escort fighters were less needed, the P-38 did major damage to the enemy on the ground when it was shifted to the ground-attack roll.

And, although not thought of as being a classic fighterbomber operation, P-38s carried out a strategic bombing attack on the oil refineries at Ploiesti. By some accounts, they affected oil production by at least as much as the much-more-widely heralded B-24 raids that followed.

The same level of effectiveness as a fighterbomber was achieved in the Pacific at the same time that the Lightning was devastating the enemy in the air. The P-38 could do it all.

[Ricky]

Right - now lets try and find a bad point...

How well did the Lightning soak up ground fire compared to a P-47 or an Il-10?

Being a bigger target, would it be hit more often by ground fire?
What were the loss rates like for the Lightnings in ground attack.

I ask in the full knowledge that they will be better than the Typhoon, flying over NW Europe...

[Lightning]

There is no doubt that the big radial, air-cooled engine of the P-47 could absorb more damage than any contemporary liquid-cooled engine with all its plumbing. Either of the P-38's Allisons was more susceptible to ground fire than the P-47's Pratt & Whittney, but remember: the P-38 had two. Barring an explosion or uncontrollable fire, the loss of one engine would allow the Lightning to keep flying; the Thunderbolt would be doomed.

On the other hand, that big P&W provided great frontal protection for the P-47 pilot. The guns in the nose of the P-38 provided some, but not nearly as much.

As to which fighter could take more overall damage, I don,t know. The P-47 had a well-deserved reputation for ruggedness, but the P-38 was not a delicate airplane by any means.

When you look at the total sqare footage occupied by these aircraft, the P-38 is not that much bigger than the P-47. There was a lot of empty air between those twin booms; a considerable amount of ground fire that was "right on target" could pass harmlessly between them.

You can get a better idea of the relative sizes of these two planes by comparing their weights (empty weight) rather than their wingspans.

I don't have the numbers on the respective loss rates of the P-38 vs the P-47 during ground-attack operations. They would be very interesting.

I will say this, however: Both the P-38 and the P-47 were far more potent ground-attack fighters than the highly touted P-51. They were also far more rugged.

[Ricky]

I agree with that - the P-51 was far more fighter than fighter-bomber.

[B-24WillowRun]

Lightening, thanks for the help clearing up some of the P-38 issues I had with the bomber type. Would you have the sourse or more info about the P-38 Polesti mision? I am trying to read about the b-24 raids and have never read about the use of P-38s.

As for the P-51 dose it just have the good press like the B-17? It seems i have always read and heard about that pane and not that much until I went loking of the P-47. Maybe it is a loks thing. The clean inline Mustang or that big round radial Jug! [:I]

[Romantic Technofreak]

I was very astonished seeing the Lightning coming up here, especially with those very good arguments its mentor Lightning states. But here is somebody else than Crusader who favours the Corsair, also with very good arguments:

http://home.att.net/~historyzone/F4U-4.html

[B-24WillowRun]

RT -the P-38 was used in the role and did well.
How about the Yak-9 [8D]

[Lightning]

Hello RomanticTechnofreak,

I read with interest the F4U-4 link you cited earlier. I agree with many, but not all, of its assertions.

First of all, it seems to be more of a fighter-vs-fighter comparison between the F4U-4 and the P-51D than a case study in fighterbomber characteristics. (I personally would choose the Mustang.)

He then goes on to state that the F4U-4 was "the greatest load carrying fighter" of the war. He later qualifies this statement by saying it was the "premier load-carrying single engine fighter." I suspect that this qualification was in deference to the P-38. I also strongly question the assertion that the F4U-4 could carry 6000lbs of ordnance!

He says at another point "Even the USAAF admitted that the F4U was a more rugged airframe than the...P-47..." I suspect that this was in reference to the beefed-up structure required for carrier landings. This does not automatically translate to a greater ability to absorb battle damage. In this regard, the Thunderbolt's reputation speaks for itself and is not threatened by that of the Corsair.

[GregP]

I read the Corsair link and must disagree with many of the contentions of the piece. The author is comapring the F4U-4 with the P-51B or D. Given the late time in the war, he should have used the P-51H.

Speed and climb went to the P-51H. Roll rate was about even with a slight advantage to the Corsair. Armament was the same for air-to-air role, and the Mustang was never intended for the air-to-ground role.

If the author is going to use a late-model Corsair, he should have used a late-model Mustang, too.

However, he has many good points. The Corsair in the F4U-4 version was a formidable opponent for ANY aircraft it came up against, and was outright lethal to most.

I say the P-47N, the P-51H, the F4U-4, the Spitfire XIV, and the late-model Yak-3s were all formidable fighters. Of course, the Fw-190D-9 and the Bf-109K were also quite formidable. Somewhat unexpected, the Bf-109K was pretty darned fast in its own right, and had a rate of climb second to none.

Also as stated in the link, the P-38 was right in there, especially the P-38L (which the Corsair article neglected to mention).

If jet engines had not been developed, I have no doubt that there would have been an operational piston engined fighter in the 500 - 550 mph speed range. It well might have been a development of one of these familiar thoroughbreds, and may well have been a Corsair of some type.

[Lightning]

Hi GregP,

Good comments well stated.

[Ricky]

This month's 'Flypast' magazine has an article about F-51s in Korea.
I would highly recommend it, although it is a bit short!
It mostly discusses their ground-attack exploits (generally with napalm & rockets) but also several dogfights with Yak 3s.
These were highly respected, as they could out-turn & out-climb the Mustangs. However, better speed and better pilot experiance told for the F-51.

[Crusader]

quote:Originally posted by Lightning

Hello RomanticTechnofreak,

He then goes on to state that the F4U-4 was "the greatest load carrying fighter" of the war. He later qualifies this statement by saying it was the "premier load-carrying single engine fighter." I suspect that this qualification was in deference to the P-38. I also strongly question the assertion that the F4U-4 could carry 6000lbs of ordnance!



He may be referencing Charles A. Lindberghs bombing run of 4,000 lbs.

[JoeB]

"It mostly discusses their ground-attack exploits (generally with napalm & rockets) but also several dogfights with Yak 3s."

I'll have to check that out, always interested in KW air combat. But the opponents were Yak-9P's (the all metal postwar version of the Yak-9), although it's true 2 out of 8 official F-51 Yak kills in Korea are listed as Yak-3's by the USAF, the rest -9's. Interestinly the 2 F-51 Yak-3 kills occured 1 Nov 1950 and there's actually an account from a Soviet advisor to the NK's confirming two losses (B-26's claimed a third Yak that day never officiall credited), of Yak-9's.

Joe

[GregP]

One last parting shot. Many Americans assume we always had the best pilots; not necessarily so.

The Japanese had many great aces. So did the Germans, who had the most by far. The Italians also had some great aces, as did about 40 other countries.

In Korea, we had some good, if not great pilots. So did the Soviet Union. They also had a very good jet fighter, the MiG-15. The pilots consigned to the Yak-3 and Yak-9 were not necessarily bad, they were assigned, and the Yak-3/9 were VERY good aircraft.

I'd bet they were pretty good, with WWII experience.

And, both sides had heros. WE did, and I'd bet THEY did, too.

Doesn't make it right, but it DOES make things a bit clearer. Joe McConnell had 16 victories, but several Soviet pilots also had some pretty good scores.

To deny the facts is not logical. Also, many are probably good friends today, assuming they survived.

My point is simple ... the victor is not always the REAL winner. Neither are they always right or wrong. They simply win the conflict. History reflects on the situation.

[Corsarius]

Hear Hear Greg!

Hi everyone, I'm back as my computer seems to be working tonight. I hate not being able to be on my favourite forum (and trade some historical blows with my favourite sparring partners!)

I'll give my vote to the P-38. I like it as a ground attack 'fighter'. However, I think the real prize goes to the Typhoon/tempest. Great planes, and the tempest would have been pretty good in a scrap air-to-air as well. Of course, having the equivalent of a naval broadside under your wings as 'standard payload' does wonders for ground attack as well.... From the TV show 'rommel' it seems that the RAF pilot who shot up his staff car (who is still alive and was able to give an interview) flew a "tiffy".

OTOH (and ever-controversial) I'll give my REAL vote to the mighty Me-262 schwalbe. Heavy cannon armament of 4*30mm in a central (and thus easily aimed from) position, and 'wikingshiff' racks under the nose for deployment of stores, fuel, or ordinance. Now I know that everyone knows how I feel about Jet and other technologies during the war, but I think that the germans fell onto a good thing here, even with hitler's insistance of it having to carry bombs. We ARE going for fighter-bomber here, though, and not dedicated ground attack, so the Schwalbe gets the money for my 'fantasy football' airforce in the fighter-bomber role

Now we just have to figure out how to make the entire squadron serviceable at one time without flaming out the engines.....

[JoeB]

"One last parting shot. Many Americans assume we always had the best pilots; not necessarily so.

The Japanese had many great aces. So did the Germans, who had the most by far. The Italians also had some great aces, as did about 40 other countries.

In Korea, we had some good, if not great pilots. So did the Soviet Union. They also had a very good jet fighter, the MiG-15. The pilots consigned to the Yak-3 and Yak-9 were not necessarily bad, they were assigned, and the Yak-3/9 were VERY good aircraft."

It's a point though anybody reasonably objective, even though American, wouldn't say we *always* had the best pilots.

On other aces scores though (doesn't this sputter on acepilots forum in slow motion?) you simply can't take the scores of all air forces at all times and compare them as if equally accurate; they simply weren't.

The accuracy of most Japanese claims was not comparable to most German claims. At times Japanese claims were accurate (early in the war *some* cases) but usually very overstated. German claims tended to be quite accurate for most of WWII but seriously deteriorated toward the end. US claims varied quite a bit in accuracy too over the war, generally opposite trend to Germany's. The side with the upper hand tends to claim more accurately, all things equal (though nothing's ever entirely equal and that would be considered at best a reasonably good rule of thumb with numerous exceptions).

The Japanese claims in WWII have a second layer of problem: they didn't officially collect them on the same basis as most Western AF's. Nishiszawa is mentioned a lot but see the analysis of his claims in Sakaida's book on Saburo Sakai (not the famous earlier one but one comparing the claims to actual Allied records). He doesn't list anything like the number of *claims* mentioned for Nishizawa, and many of them are group claims, and many don't check out in Allied records.

The Soviets in Korea are a stark example of the inadvisability of comparing raw ace scores apples/apples. Analysis of the score of the leading Soviet ace, Nikolai Sutyagin, shows at most 5 of his 21 victories could have happened, and all 5 are cases of multiple Soviet/Chinese claims and a single US loss with no way to prove it was Sutyagin and it's unlikely it was him rather than any other claimant all 5 times. See the article on acepilots saying 12, and my analysis, with primary sources footnoted, in a thread there.

Whereas the US ace claims in Korea were much closer to the real losses they inflicted, though still overclaimed somewhat. It's harder to do kill by kill analysis for US aces because after the fall of 1951 many of their victims were Chinese and NK and day by day accounts of their losses are not public AFAIK. But overall MiG losses are fairly well known for all three Communist AF's and amounted to around 75% of US confirmed victories. UN air-air losses were 10-15% of total Communist claimed victories, therefore this is a reasonable estimate of the claim accuracy of the average pilot.

Thus while the truism "all AF's and pilots overclaim (in the guns era anyway)" the degree was highly variable. We cannot assume either all ace scores are valid or that all should be discounted by similar factors. Thus while what you say is commonsense (why would one country always have all the best pilots?, probably not) assessing that accurately quantitatively is quite difficult, and hasn't been done for many or most aces even after a long time.

Joe

PS Mr. Picky reiterates, the North Koreans did not use the Yak-3 in the Korean War. And all liquid cooled prop fighters encountered in daylight were North Korean. US pilots sometimes understandably id'ed Yak-9P's as -3's but Soviet sources are pretty definitive, no -3's.

[GregP]

I am aware of "overclaims." They happened in ALL air forces, as you stated.

I am also aware that the U.S.A. didn't send the numbers of F-86 Sabres to Korea that were claimed by the other side as shot down.

I know that we can account for most of the tail numbers on Sabres that we claim returned from Korea. The real losses were somewhere in the area of 110 to 150 Sabres lost to all causes. The otehr side claims over 900 shot down!

ANyway, my point was not to denegrate Americans pilots.imply meant that almost all the air forces produced some excellent, some better-than-average-some average, and some worse-than-average pilots. The air force with the best training probably produced the best quality pilots on average.

I think the pilots were the deciding factor in most battles, and the better aircraft were pretty well matched in most cases. Even the redoubtable Spitfire XIV suffered operational losses in air-to-air combat, despite its apparent superiority in almost all categoreies that a fighter can be grouped into.

I say this is because the opposing pilot was better, had a superior starting position, or was "lucky," not becasue of the Spitfire's superiority or lack thereof.

[JoeB]

"1. I am aware of "overclaims." They happened in ALL air forces, as you stated.

2. I know that we can account for most of the tail numbers on Sabres that we claim returned from Korea. The real losses were somewhere in the area of 110 to 150 Sabres lost to all causes. The otehr side claims over 900 shot down!"

1. Yes but the point being they didn't happen to the *same degree* in all AF's, the rate of overclaim varied very widely. Therefore comparisons of pilots explicitly or implicitly based on scores are very tricky, not only because pilots had different opportunities to score, but the accuracy of scores is often quite different. Again in the Korea case it's harder than it looks to compare a Sutyagin to a McConnell, the latter's score was probably a lot more real (though illustrating the problem we can't calculate it even as accurately as we can Sutyagin's).

2. We can narrow it down further. The official total of air combat losses was 78, listed by month not by plane. The Korwald data base includes 77 (by my hand count) and Thompsom & McClarens' excellent book MiG Alley lists 73. But they aren't all the same incidents (it can be seen the monthly totals in those two sources don't add up to the official table). Cross referencing and looking through quite a few primary sources (though still looking) I get 72 certain, 10 very probable, 11 somewhat possible, and 8 I've all but ruled out but open to new info. The rest are all well documented non combat losses and/or don't match Soviet claims of the same days in time and place. My single number estimate is 90. This includes a few planes (it is only a few contrary to some statements) damaged in air combat and never repaired but not written off right then.

Overall official UN air combat losses were around 150. Less precisely than the 90 I'd figure that to be around 175-180, but Communist claims are over 1400, and they seem to rise as more accounts become public. Anyway 10-15% claim accuracy, besides uncertainly Soviet accuracy may have more accurate than Chinese/NK (although not greatly obviously so where it can be compared).

Joe

[Corsarius]

Didn't we go through all this 'claim' business a few months ago?

I recall that there were times that claims have outstripped the number of aircraft of that type in the area. So what's new? No need for anyone to get their back up, it's just fighter pilots behaving like they always do. It's far more 'macho' to arrive home saying you've shot something down than saying you've sprayed all your ammo over the sky without hitting anything.

[Lightning]

There goes the "Fighter-Bomber" discussion. We always seem to drift off subject just when things are going good (grammar). Time to return to base, re-arm, and get back into the fray. There are a lot of targets-of-opportunity out there.

[Ricky]

I would argue that the 262 was just too fast to be an effective Jabo.
The faster you fly, the harder it is to aim effectively. Yes, a degree of speed is needed for sheer survival, but that should not be at the cost of accuracy.
How slow could the 262 go without stalling?

[JoeB]

"I recall that there were times that claims have outstripped the number of aircraft of that type in the area. So what's new? No need for anyone to get their back up, it's just fighter pilots behaving like they always do. "

Sorry to hijack the thread, my point is just that people tend to go along discussing nominal scores, then stop for a minute to acknowledge "everybody" overclaimed", then go right back to discussing nominal scores. The point is *not* that everybody overclaimed, but that official score accuracies varied a lot between AF's and situations, they can't be assumed to be all the same at some universal percentage. Therefore comparing scores unless of pilots flying side by side is difficult (for this reason among others) unless there's research on either the pilots actual score, or at least a general idea how accurate his AF's claims tended to be at the time he flew.

And since score accuracy varied a lot, it doesn't seem to be the product of some universal constant of fighter pilot exaggeration. There seem to be many factors beside universal "figher pilotness". For example the real standards of proof intel officers required to confirm claims is a very key factor (almost every AF *said* they needed absolute confirmation but some appeared in fact inclined to credit claims much more easily than others), and the overall situation of combat perhaps an even greater one. I think as I said there's a clear correlation between overclaiming and the real kill ratio, the guys on the short end of the real kill ratio tended to overclaim more.

Joe

[Romantic Technofreak]

Let me chime in here again with

First: Welcome back, Corsarius! I was already missing you, as well as Simon and Robert, which both don´t write since some time. Maybe they are just on holidays.

Second: I am going to create another topic to discuss Corsarius´ suggestion for the Me 262´s suitability as fighter-bomber.

Third: I think I can state, for me still surprising, the Lightning gets the most votes as best fighter-bomber, although not every question is discussed unanimously, especially the maneuverability at low altitudes. But this would have been too much request.

Forth: Of course in such a thread everything can be discussed. But I recommend to create a thread of its own for a very different theme. If anybody has anything on his mind he wants to discuss (go ahead, JoeB!), he should not be afraid to open another topic.

Fifth: A little, little, little correction, Greg:)[}:)];):

quote:and the Mustang was never intended for the air-to-ground role

May I state that the first incarnation of this airplane was the A-36 ground attacker? Or am I not allowed to say this because "Mustang" is reserved to the P-51, while the A-36 has to be called "Apache"?:D

[cpm]

Hi all,
I'm new to all of this, but for what it's worth, my vote for best fighter-bomber of WWII would have to be the P-47, with the F4U a very close second and the Mosquito third (range, versatility, precision attacks, twin engined safety, etc.)

CPM
Brisbane
Australia

[Ricky]

The Mosquito is anm interesting choice.
I *think* they were fitted with rockets for anti-submarine work - did they ever do dedicated ground-attack / fighter-bomber?

One definate advantage of single-engine over twin-engine is pilot protection. anything fired at the front of a P-47, or a Tiffy, will be absorbed into the engine. It won't help the engine, but the pilot survives.
Anything shot at the nose of a P-38, or a Mossie, chances are the pilot gets hit.

The engine provides armour protection for no extra weight!

[Lightning]

Welcome, cpm;

I would disagree with the inclusion of the Mosquito in the fighterbomber discussion. It was a fantastic airplane, but it just was not a fighter (unless you want to include night fighters). It would be more appropriately compared with attack aircraft such as the A-20 or the A-26.

Ricky's comments about pilot protection in single-engine planes are well taken. I addressed this same issue in my post of July 2.

I still can't seem to convince my friend RomanticTechnofreak that the Lightning was a great fighterbomber. Its extensive record, in every theater of the war, just can't be ignored. Whether it was the best, is a valid point of dicussion, but its place among the best is well earned and richly deserved.

As to the Mustang's initial intended purpose, it was first designed as a replacement for the P-40. The British, at first, wanted more P-40s. North American said they could provide a more modern fighter in a short time. The British accepted, and the Mustang design was completed in about 100 days! As a sidelight to this, it should be mentioned that Curtis had already done a large amount of research on this design in order to replace its obsolescent P-40. When the decision was made to go with North American, Curtis was instructed to turn over its work product to them. This was instrumental in making the 100-day deadline possible.

[Romantic Technofreak]

Dear Lightning, sometimes I maybe am not capable to express myself correctly, but you surely convinced me that the Lightning really was the best fighter-bomber of WWII. Although I have to admit that this is really new for me. In the German discussion, the Lightning doesn´t play a big role, say only somebody mentions its superiority. But there are still questions remaining. So I suggest to draw the fighter-bomber discussion to a (temporary) close and discuss the Lightning´s qualities in another topic.:)

Welcome here, CPM, and thanks for your contribution. But I have to say you leave your favour for the single-engined airplanes without arguments, and I also cannot accept the Mosquito as fighter-bomber. A fighter-bomber is a fighter used as bomber, while the Mosquito was designed for the bomber role from the beginning and became only a nightfighter when it was found out to be more suitable for this role than Blenheim and Boston, which also started their career as bombers. I also never heard anything about the Mosquito being used for close support to ground operations, which is the fighter-bomber´s destination. In its offensive role, the Mosquito always was a strategical airplane, not a tactical one. Correct me, if you know more.[8D]

[GregP]

OK, back to topic. The Me-262 would have been an abysmal fighter bomber.

Why? Simple.

It used early jet engines and so had little to no weight-carrying capability once basic armament, ammunition, fuel, and pilot wewre accounted for.

The Me-262A-1a had no capability to carry bombs. The Me-262A-2 could carry 500 kg. Big deal. A Cessna 172 can carry almost that much. The Me-262B was a 2-seat night fighter.

I submit that any aircraft aspiring to be a fighter bomber, especially the best one in WWII, had best be capable of much more than the Me-262 in any variant.

The P-38 J could carry 1,452 kg of bombs and no one defends it. The Republic P-47N could carry 1,135 kg. The Tempest could carry 907 kg.

EVERYTHING could carry more bombs than the Me-262.

Interceptor? Yes! Fighter Bomber? Naw ... never. One of the NEW Me-262's with the modern turbojets maybe, but NOT the WWII version. It was barely able to keep running for a mission, was not effective at bombing to any degree, and had somehwat "interesting" aerodynamics when pushed into higher speeds than intended. Plus, there was no decent bombsite that it was ever fitted with.

Gotta' do better than the 262 ...

[Corsarius]

Well Greg, You know that I selected this mostly to rock your boat, but you must admit that the Sturmvogel led the way for new fighter bombers.

Besides, it's not necessarrily the payload that is always what matters. Look at today. You have the F-117 (why it uses old century-series numbers is beyond me... F-19 in today's working) which carries a fairly limited payload but is one of the great 'fighter bombers' of our time. Then you have the Panavia Tornado. HUUUUGGGE payload, and yes it is great, but is it as good as the nighthawk? hmmmm....

Lots of things have to be factored in before you choose the 'best', and not just bombload. I LIKE the P-38 and WILL defend it as a great fighter-bomber. I just think that the Sturmvogel showed the way to the future, that's all.

[Crusader]

quote:Originally posted by Corsarius


Besides, it's not necessarrily the payload that is always what matters. Look at today. You have the F-117 (why it uses old century-series numbers is beyond me... F-19 in today's working) which carries a fairly limited payload but is one of the great 'fighter bombers' of our time.



The F-117 is not a fighter-bomber by any stretch of the imagination. It has no a2a capability, nor was it ever designed to. It is a stealthy precision strike aircraft, pure and simple. The "F" designation was part of the Black-Ops nature of thew project, and has just been left as-is.

[B-24WillowRun]

It is beig refired to as an F/A-117 is mot eferances. But I am not ready to say if it is the official designation yet. But it should be or just A-117 :(

[Crusader]

quote:Originally posted by B-24WillowRun

It is beig refired to as an F/A-117 is mot eferances. But I am not ready to say if it is the official designation yet. But it should be or just A-117 :(


Really? I have never seen it referred to as anything but the F-117, and I think it is just common knowledge that it is not a fighter, so I doubt they will bother to change it.

[GregP]

Hi Corsarius! And welcome back.

I agree the Me-262 showed the way to the future, but not necessarily the way to fighter-bombers. Fighter-bombers were an evolutionary step from fighter-interceptors, usually with heavier cannon armament, more powerful turbojets that were optimized for lower-altitude operations, and more hardpoints on a stronger wing.

The 262 was the best JET fighter of WWII and was definitely the wave of the future since JETS were the wave of the future, but it could not survive in 400 mph flight against top-of-the-line piston fighters. If it wanted to survive, it needed to stay fast ... above 480 mph and preferrably above 500 mph.

Was it the overall best fighter-bomber of WWII? Not in my book.

It WAS the route to the future, but was insufficiently developed to be anything other than a high-speed interceptor ... a role for which it was probably the best-qualified aircraft of WWII, bar none except maybe the Me-263 Komet ... and I still give the nod to the 262 based on utility, range, endurance, and a host of other advantages over a rocket interceptor.

The 262 was NOT a dogfighter or a fighter-bomber of note, except to note that it LED to many later great fighter-bombers, and may thus be credited with being the "wave of the future."

Anyone out there may, of course, disagree ... and I expect them to do so. :)

OK, so let me have it!

[cpm]

Hi Ricky,

I believe Mossies were used for ground attack in the Burma theatre and RAAF Mossies were used for ground attack in the East Indies. Coastal Command Mossies were certainly used to attack shipping/u-boats/harbour installations, using guns, rockets, bombs, etc., while also tangling with Luftwaffe fighters and maritime recon aircraft.

I take your point about the benefit of an engine in front of the pilot, but it can be argued that fighters like the Spit or even the P-51 were quite "fragile" when taking ground fire from the front. I suppose it could be argued that the cannon/gun bay in front of the pilot would provide some form of protection (though I would agree not as much as a hefty rotary engine as per the "jug").

quote:Originally posted by Ricky

The Mosquito is anm interesting choice.
I *think* they were fitted with rockets for anti-submarine work - did they ever do dedicated ground-attack / fighter-bomber?

One definate advantage of single-engine over twin-engine is pilot protection. anything fired at the front of a P-47, or a Tiffy, will be absorbed into the engine. It won't help the engine, but the pilot survives.
Anything shot at the nose of a P-38, or a Mossie, chances are the pilot gets hit.

The engine provides armour protection for no extra weight!

[cpm]

Hi Lightning,

Thanks for the welcome, much appreciated. I'm not going to die in a ditch fighting for the Mossie as one of the best "Jabo's" of WWII, but I do think that it was more versatile than say the Me-262 and probably had a better fighter-fighter record than the Me-262. Coastal Command and other intruder Mossies certainly tangled with Luftwaffe fighters routinely. I would agree that it was not as agile in fighter-fighter combat as the Lightning.

One other aircraft that I believe needs to be up there with the best jabo's of WWII would have to be the FW-190.

quote:Originally posted by Lightning

Welcome, cpm;

I would disagree with the inclusion of the Mosquito in the fighterbomber discussion. It was a fantastic airplane, but it just was not a fighter (unless you want to include night fighters). It would be more appropriately compared with attack aircraft such as the A-20 or the A-26.

Ricky's comments about pilot protection in single-engine planes are well taken. I addressed this same issue in my post of July 2.

I still can't seem to convince my friend RomanticTechnofreak that the Lightning was a great fighterbomber. Its extensive record, in every theater of the war, just can't be ignored. Whether it was the best, is a valid point of dicussion, but its place among the best is well earned and richly deserved.

As to the Mustang's initial intended purpose, it was first designed as a replacement for the P-40. The British, at first, wanted more P-40s. North American said they could provide a more modern fighter in a short time. The British accepted, and the Mustang design was completed in about 100 days! As a sidelight to this, it should be mentioned that Curtis had already done a large amount of research on this design in order to replace its obsolescent P-40. When the decision was made to go with North American, Curtis was instructed to turn over its work product to them. This was instrumental in making the 100-day deadline possible.

[Eilif]

hey guys, im new here, just been flying target rabual in the p38f and g vs the ijn. i have had good luck turn fighting zeros in the f, but the g less so, not sure if it was the pilot i was fighting or not, probably both. Does anyone have a performance comparison between the f and g? all i have found is that there were some engine mods and a radio added to the g, havent seen anything about hp increase or anything like that. and yes i know i should be bzing these guys but my gunnery stinks and im not getting the opertunitys. aka getting jumped.


www.targetware.net

[Lightning]

Hi Eilif,

I'm not with my books right now, but when I get home, I'll see what I can dig up on the "-38F" vs the "-38G". I have the P-38 pilot's manual, but I,m not sure whether it covers the -38F. It may only be for the -38G and later.

I know that most of the main modifications on the models between the -38F and the -38H, inclusive, were upgrades on the engines-- more power, better cooling, etc.-- but the big changes came starting with the -38J.

I,ll get back to you on this.

Regards,
Lightning

[jimjim]

Most Allied fighters strafed ground targets but that does not mean they were effective fighter-bombers.
The P-47 is an example and it was often used as a bomber escort.
The P-38 wasn't successful as a high altitude bomber escort in the ETO because the cockpit was poorly heated. The Typhoon wasn't used as a bomber escort, it was designed to go fast at low altitudes. In the later part of WW2, the Typhoon was specifically used as a "fighter-bomber" and was extremely effective in that role - 20 mm cannons, rockets, et cetera were devastating to ground targets - the other fighters weren't designed to be efficient at low altitudes.

Regardless of the above, my uncle was a German AA gunner in WW2 and he was most impressed when P-38 attacked his station. He always believed, despite evidence to the contrary, the P-38s had guns that fired to their rear.

[simon]

Actually the Typhoon was designed as an interceptor, intended to succeed the Hurricane as Hawker's main aircraft in that role, it was only the type's dismal high altitude performance but good low level performance that meant it was instead used as low level fighter (vs the Fw190s raiding the English south coast at the time of its introduction) and later fighter-bomber.

The P-47 was by all accounts a good fighter-bomber, it combined as mentioned a heavy armament of 8 x .50cal HMGs, very good against infantry and soft skinned targets, the ability to carry an effective bombload, the ability to fire bazooka rockets from underwing hardpoints, and last but probably not least that huge radial engine capable of absorbing significant damage and continuing working.

"He always believed, despite evidence to the contrary, the P-38s had guns that fired to their rear."

I wonder what gave him this impression...? [?]

[MikeD]

Hi,

B-24Willowrun mentioned the Yak 9 as a possible candidate for a good fighter-bomber. Interestingly there was a version where a small bomb load was carried internally. Is this the only single seat fighter bomber with such an arrangement?

[Lightning]

In the face of overwhelming firepower and heavy ordnance, it may seem like its coming from all directions.

[jimjim]

The Dornier 335 was designed as a fighter-bomber; it could carry bombs internally.

[pmjwright]

Hi, new to this great forum, and wanted to read some shorter posts before tackling that huge "best fighter" topic!! First, a comment on this earlier post:

quote:From the TV show 'rommel' it seems that the RAF pilot who shot up his staff car (who is still alive and was able to give an interview) flew a "tiffy".

The attack on Rommel has also been claimed by a Jug, but the best claim is Charley Fox of 412 Sq RCAF in a Spitfire IX. German reports on the attack also state it was a Spitfire.

I find it fascinating how the fighter-bomber/ground attack/close air support role came into being through the war. And how so many aircraft designed for different roles performed so well in the role. When the war started, the role was filled by classic dive bombers: Stuka, SBD, Val etc. By the end, these a/c were largely obsolete, and the work was being done entirely by fighters.

Some, like Typhoon/Tempest and Jug, were designed as high-altitude interceptors but excelled due partly to limitations in that role and partly to their ruggedness and weapons loads. And so many other fighters were given or pressed into the role due to the needs of battle, and also to the surplus of interceptors once air superiority was achieved. Seems like just about every fighter in all theatres had bombs strapped to them at one time or another!

Spitfires started flying low-level Rhubarbs over France almost as soon as the BoB ended, and continued through to 45. They later played an important but largely-forgotten role in dive-bombing V-1 launch sites...P-40, a workhorse in all theatres...bomber escort Mustangs taking the fight right down to the airfields...190s...Hellcats...the list goes on and on.

Oops, this forum was on the "best". Though I think the Jug had more of an impact on the war, my choice is the Tempest. Amazing performance at low altitudes, rugged, excellent firepower and good bomb load. Fast enough in level flight to catch V-1s.

[Kutscha]

I have a hard time finding photos or the mentioning of WW2 Tempests with bombs or rockets fitted. Most photos show droptanks. The Tempest was used for local air superiority and armed recon, using its cannons on ground targets.

[pmjwright]

Rockets: Tempest Mk VI (left--post war) and Mk II (right).

[image=left]http://user.tninet.se/~qbc513r/arm20.jpg[/image=left]
[image=right]http://user.tninet.se/~qbc513r/arm21.jpg[/image=right]

You're right, I googled lots of pix with drop tanks, some clean, very few with rockets or bombs.

[Mark J]

Best fighter bomber of the war?

My money is with the FW 190-F & G.

Good dog-fighters, good speed, good bomb/rocket load and good armour.

cheers