Best (Allied) Fighter-Bomber of WW2

[Wuzak]

Taken from an old discussion, but now with poll.

I guess half the battle in this discussion is determining what precisely is a fighter bomber?

For the purposes of this poll I am considering fighters that were pressed into service as ground support/attack aircraft, whilst maintaing their core duty as fighter aircraft.

The Nominees are:

1. Hawker Typhoon

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

2. Republic P-47 Thunderbolt

http://www.aviation-history.com/republic/p47-16a.jpg

3. Lockheed P-38 Lightning

http://airdic.com/UserFiles/tomcat/1(860).jpg

4. Vought F4U Corsair

http://www.indyairshow.com/images/participants/fighters/corsair.jpg

5. de Havilland Mosquito FBVI

(Only allowed 4 images!)

6. Other

[Wuzak]

Mosquito FB VI

http://www.vicflintham.co.uk/content/post-war-military-aircraft/mos/mos06.jpg

[Red Admiral]

Hawker Tempest II. Can do all that the Typhoon does, only better. In addition you've probably got the best fighter of WWII below 20,000ft.

[ickysdad]

Of course I also like the P-47 But you can't go wrong with either the Tempest, P-47 , P-38 or F4U.

[Corsarius]

I'm being different and throwing down for the Beaufighter.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/37/Beaufighter_(AWM_OG0001).jpg/300px-Beaufighter_(AWM_OG0001).jpg

In my opinion, a FANTASTIC fighter-bomber.
The singles in this thread are more fighter than bomber, and the twins are more bomber than fighter (with the P-38, as always, the exception).

[Double T]

Every one of these contestants should garner votes.
In the ground-attack role, radial-engined fighters were at an advantage. My crew-chief in P-47s said he saw them limping home with engine-cylinders shot-off, and the remaining pistons flailing about in the air. That P-38 and Mossie have two engines, so the redundancy would likely get them back home to base.
I'll vote for the P-47 Thunderbolt AND the F4U Corsair.
If allowed only one vote... the P-47.

Tim

[Ricky]

I'm tempted to join Corsarius and vote for the Beau - a heavy punch (4 cannon, 6 machine guns) plus a nice variety of external stores, including a torpedo. Plus it had the radial engine advantage and twin-engine reliability.

Mind you, for cost-effectiveness a single-engined design is better. In that case, I'd plump for the Typhoon, on the argument that cannon are a better all-round weapon than machineguns (runs for cover). Just don't try to ditch it in the sea!

[scotty]

I've always had a soft spot for the Hurri IID / IVD, but as I've just finished reading Bob Braham's biography again I'm gonna go with the Beaufighter

[ERYN]

Hi, its a so nice and good site ever. Its a really great and fantastic post here in this site. So, thank you for the sharing of your ideas and thoughts to all of us.

[Lightning]

Hi ERYN,

Hi, its a so nice and good site ever. Its a really great and fantastic post here in this site. So, thank you for the sharing of your ideas and thoughts to all of us.

Welcome, and thanks for the kind words. Now its your turn to share your ideas and thoughts with us. Don't be shy. We all will enjoy hearing from you.

Regards,

Lightning

P.S.
Did you vote for your favorite fighter bomber?

[Groggy]

Hi ERYN,



Welcome, and thanks for the kind words. Now its your turn to share your ideas and thoughts with us. Don't be shy. We all will enjoy hearing from you.

Regards,

Lightning

P.S.
Did you vote for your favorite fighter bomber?

Hawker Tempest? Rechlin test pilots considered it the best piston engine aircraft they had tested.

[Red Admiral]

Hawker Tempest? Rechlin test pilots considered it the best piston engine aircraft they had tested.

I think so too. You've got probably the best low level fighter of WWII, but it's robust enough to mount heavy armament, lot's of bombs/rockets and have a half decent range. Only thing better would be the Hawker Fury.

[PMN1]

The standard load on a Typhoon was two 1,000lbers or 8 RP's, was any attempt made at increasing this load in the same way the Corsair took increasing loads?

[Johnny .45]

Hmm...I never agreed with the idea of there actually being a "best" plane at anything. Although some had better performance than others, that didn't necessarily dictate the actual success rate it achieved, and the rate PER A/C and the TOTAL contribution the type made were largely dependent on how they were deployed, and who was in charge, etc.
That said, I also wish there were more choices. You never heard ME say this, but it seems like the P-51 ought to be on the list too! I probably wouldn't vote for it, but it still ought to be there if the P-38 and P-47 are. And there's no doubt it made an effective fighter-bomber, just not the best. I've never been a real fan of the Mustang, but that's more because it's such an obvious choice and I never like to "go with the crowd" than because it doesn't have merit. I've came to my OWN independent conclusion that the P-51 WAS indeed the best all-around fighter of the war. It may not have been THE best at everything, but it scored well up the list in just about every imaginable category. If the USAAF or even the Allies as a whole had been forced to depend on one fighter type alone, I think the Mustang is the only plane that actually COULD do all of the jobs there was to do. It was a compromise, but not one that sacrificed much in any one category. So I have to give the P-51 credit for that.
But, as for the poll and the best FB of the war, my vote goes to the P-47 without much hesitation. There wasn't much it was lacking in that role, and it is undoubtedly where it really shines. The air-cooled engine was much ruggeder than a liquid cooled engine, the airframe was very strong, and I suspect that all that ductwork inside the fuselage was part of why it was so resistant to enemy fire. It was very thin metal, but it was enough to slow a bullet or detonate a cannon shell before it reached anything vital, and we've all most likely heard tales of the mighty R-2800 and it's adamant refusal to die, even after suffering catastrophic damage that would have wrecked any liquid cooled engine in moments.
It's huge size and power meant that it was very capable in terms of hauling heavy weapon and fuel loads, kind of like how modern fighters evolved bigger and bigger with every generation (in most cases) to give them larger fuel fractions and more ordnance options. If a lightweight Spitfire (late-model) could carry a 500lb bomb that was 1/10th of it's own empty weight, it makes sense that a plane twice it's weight (but with the same size pilot and radio, etc) could easily carry twice the bomb load, and often more. The landing gear and structure were already stressed to cope with the heavy weight of the plane itself, so a pair of 500lb-er's hanging under the plane didn't stress the plane or effect performance as much as a single bomb would a smaller plane.
The gun armament, in my own opinion, was ideal for ground strafing. There is still heated debate over whether the .50cal or 20mm was king of WWII aircraft guns, but for your general-purpose ground strafing, I think the .50 was the ideal gun. For air combat, the explosive cannon shells were usually superior, since it was essential to do the maximum damage to the enemy plane in the shortest time. But a ground target is relatively stationary, so it is much easier to line up an hit it with a good burst...and with eight .50cals, it put a lot of lead on target, spread evenly over a large area. I don't remember exactly, but I think the AN/M2 fired at like 700-800RPM, which is something like 13 rounds a second. Times that by 8 guns, you get 104 rounds per one-second-burst. I remember being bored one day, and just for the hell of it I drew a cluster of 104 "bullet holes" (one dot=one hole). Quite impressive for one second of fire, especially when you consider that they are 700-grain API rounds, not "powerful" 150-grain .30-06 bullets. Considering the whallop my M1903A3 gives the target (and my shoulder!), I'd rather not be on the receiving end of a P-47 strafing run. Although, to be honest I wouldn't want to be strafed by a Spitfire Mk II with "only" .303 Brownings, either!
Anyway, the .50cal is capable of dealing with MOST ground targets, especially in that kind of volume. An experienced pilot could even destroy armored targets, shooting from the right angles, or by using the "ricochet into the belly" trick. In some ways bigger planes like the B-25 and A-26 armed with the eight-gun solid noses were even more effective, since there was no convergence issues, but it seems like it could be useful to a pilot to be able to choose the tightness of his pattern...shoot from the zeroed-in range, and get a nice tight pattern, or from a bit closer and get a "shotgun effect". It only takes one .50cal bullet to kill or maim an infantryman, so if your hitting a dispersed target, you might as well spread out the hits a little. No sense in putting all 104 rounds into a single man! The 20mm was certainly effective as a strafing weapon, and the British used it to good effect in their Mk IIC "Hurri-bombers" in North Africa, destroying lots of enemy armor, and the blast effect and fragments were good on "soft" targets too. But for shooting-up enemy supply columns, or hitting ground positions, the .50cal seems a better weapon, with a better ammo supply.
And the P-47 could fight back as a fighter, too. Sure, so could the P-38, but the Mosquito was too big, more like a small bomber, and the Typhoon was only good at lower altitudes. It is useful to have a FB that can go up and fight as a fighter at 30,000ft, or blast enemy ground forces. The P-38 was at even more of a disadvantage at low altitudes than the Thunderbolt, and it's four-.50cal, one 20mm gun mix was better at "sniping" or cutting up enemy fighters. The "brute-force" eight-gun approach was more effective for shooting up a supply convoy.
In any case, those are the reasons that I vote for the P-47, although like most of these debates it's kind of pointless. It's not that the P-47 was far more capable than any other the others, just that it had the fewest DIS-advantages in the low-level mission. It seemed to fit the role like it was made for it. Even though it probably didn't NEED to lug around that whole turbo-charger system 95% of the time, it was nice to know that it could fight as a FIGHTER-bomber, all the way from 50ft up to 35,000ft, not just a bomber that could also fly fast and strafe targets on the ground.
That's my 2 bucks on the subject, anyway. I'd rather fly the P-38 myself, but there's no real reason for that, just that I like the P-38 a lot. If I had to rate them all, in an arbitrary kind of way, I'd say:

#1.) The P-47D (or better yet, 'P-47N') Thunderbolt, radial, rugged, big, powerful, heavy .50cal armament. Excellent performance at high level, decent at low levels. Probably more fighter than bomber, but it is always spoken of with respect as an attack plane. Like the P-38, it was no joke as a fighter, but it really shone as a FB.

#2.) The Hawker Typhoon (or Tempest), inline H-24 liquid-cooled engine, vulnerable, unreliable but powerful. Large airplane, good weapons-load, heavy 4-gun 20mm armament with large ammo supply. Exceptional low-altitude performance, but lacking at higher levels. Lacking in range as well.

#3.) The P-38 Lightning, #3 on the list, even though it would be my second choice after the Thunder-Jug. No, it doesn't make much sense, but there ya have it! Twin-engines for safety, good load-carrying capacity (approx. 1/2 again what the others could handle...2x 2,000lb bombs!) Very long-range, excellent high-level performance. "Buzz-saw" armament with both HMG's and a 20mm cannon. At a disadvantage against enemy fighters at low levels, more so than the P-47 or Typhoon. It's unfortunate that the P-38 seems caught in a corner compared to the other US types...it was an excellent fighter, AND an excellent FB, but it is overshadowed by the P-51 and the P-47. Kind of odd how both of the US's turbo-charged types ended up being the FB-kings, while the supercharged Mustang is remembered as the high-altitude wonderkind.

#4.) Tough call, but I'm going to take the Mosquito as #4 over the Corsair...the Mosquito was more bomber than fighter, while the Corsair really shined the most at air combat. Since this isn't about the best FIGHTER or the best BOMBER, but the the best FIGHTER-BOMBER, I think this is the right choice. As a fighter, the Mossie was lacking (except the NF versions), but as a fast-bomber it was one of the most important planes of the entire war. It was a terror to enemy shipping, and it had heavier armament than the Typhoon even, with 4x 20mm's and 4x .303 MG's (although I'd prefer 4x .50cals, like the P-61...like a P-47 with 4 of the HMG's replaced with cannon!). And the .303 Browning wasn't a BAD gun...it seems odd to us Americans with our big ol' .50's, but there are certain targets that don't need such powerful guns, and the .303's are far lighter and hold more ammo. For tough targets, use the cannon, and for ground strafing "soft" targets, I suppose a .303 works almost as well as a .50 does, as long as the cannon's are there if you need 'em. The Mossie had a decent bomb load (although it seems as if it could have carried more, being as big as it is), and for attack-versatility it was outstanding...bombs, torpedoes, rockets, depth charges, 6-pounder cannons, cameras, flares, you name it, the Mossie carried it. Although that's not JUST the FB version, so that might be a bit unfair.

#5.) The F4U Corsair...a perfectly good plane, capable as a FB, but it was more important as a fighter than a FB. It had lot's of speed but could be tricky to fly, especially the earlier ones. Obviously, it gained a lot of capability by the time the last versions were made (like the F4U-7, etc), but it's only fair to stick with the WWII ones. As a fighter it was very capable, but it was just that...a fighter with attack capabilities. I suppose on paper the Corsair is a better choice as a fighter-bomber than the Thunderbolt...they used the same engine, both were rugged as hell, and the fact that the whole P-47 was designed as a high-altitude fighter around a big-ass turbocharger seems to lean towards the F4U as a better attack plane. Part of the reason that everyone votes for the P-47 may be that it is most famous as a FB...but part of the reason it was devoted to ground attack by the end of the war is that the Army had other more capable planes to use as fighters, so they took the less capable ones like the P-38 and P-47 and used them as attack planes. (Not a LOT less capable, so please don't kill me, P-38 and -47 fans!) But the Navy/Marines in the Pacific had only the Hellcat and Corsair, plus they were limited by the small space on carriers and the supply difficulties of working off of small, remote air strips. So it was a lot wiser to use a single type that could do both missions equally well, since they couldn't easily use one type as a fighter and one as a FB. But as an attack plane, the six .50cals's just didn't have the punch of the eight the P-47 carried. I imagine that it seemed pretty much the same to those on the receiving end, but that's 130% of the Corsairs volume of fire from the P-47.

#6.) Other...there were many, many types of craft used in WWII, and most of them made a valuable contribution, even the "outdated" ones in many cases. Like the Swordfish that wrecked the Italian Navy at Taranto and crippled the Bismarck, or the obsolete TBD Devastators that were massacred at Midway, but were directly responsible for the final victory by drawing the defending Zeroes off. There were many old and uncommon types that no-one speaks much about, but performed great feats, and there were ultra-capable planes that didn't actually do much in the long run. I know it's not as a FB, but to me the F4F Wildcat probably deserves more credit than the Hellcat does. It was facing a superior opponent, yet held on and even won at times for well over a year. The Hellcat might "have the numbers" on paper, but it's less impressive to see it racking up victories by the hundreds over inferior Japanese types than it is to see a few Wildcats holding their own against the whole IJN.
In any case, the whole debate is always interesting, but rarely has much to do with any actual measure of merit. That's why I choose my favorite planes for all sorts of reasons, absolute performance being way down on the list of important things. Let's say the Spitfire Mk II was totally obsolete by the end of the war, with it's carburetor and RCMG's. It was much slower than 1945 fighters, and lacked the protection or power, but it will always be THE classic Spitfire to me, as the one that helped win the Battle of Britain. Of course, the Hurricane holds a similar place in my heart...it was obsolete by the time the war started, and yet somehow made very valuable contributions. I always saw the Wildcat as the USN's Hurricane, in a way. Except we didn't have a USN Spitfire equivalent to help out! But if nothing else, the Hurricane should be remembered both for it's gallant fight in 1941, and for the fact that Hurricanes destroyed more enemy planes than ALL OTHER English types combined. And that includes the Spitfire!

[Lightning]

Hi Johnny .45,

I've came to my OWN independent conclusion that the P-51 WAS indeed the best all-around fighter of the war. It may not have been THE best at everything, but it scored well up the list in just about every imaginable category. If the USAAF or even the Allies as a whole had been forced to depend on one fighter type alone, I think the Mustang is the only plane that actually COULD do all of the jobs there was to do.

I have to disagree with you about the P-51 being all-around fighter of the war. Actually, the P-51 gained its well-deserved fame mainly for one role: that of long-range fighter escort.

As a fighter-bomber, it was not all that good. It could only carry a moderate bombload. Its armament of six (P-51B/C only four) .50 cal guns could not be considered as being "heavy," and it was made even less effective because of the need to converge wing guns.

The Mustang was also very vulnerable to ground fire because of its liquid cooling system. Even a well-placed small-arms bullet could bring it down.

As far as its greatest asset--range--was concerned, that went out the window when the plane was loaded up with its heavier bombloads.

As a photo-recon fighter, the Mustang was ok, but not great. It could not carry an impressive array of cameras, and those it could carry were not that efficiently located.

Of course, I am a bit biased, but my choice for the best "all-around" fighter--the best choice if only one fighter was available with which to fight the war--is the P-38 Lightning.

It was an excellent fighter-bomber. It could carry far-greater bombloads than the P-51, and it could carry them further. It's battery of guns, which included a 20 mm cannon and four .50 cal machine guns, all concentrated in the nose, were effective from the muzzles out to their maximum range, without the need for convergence. It, too, had liquid-cooled engines, but two engines had to be knocked out compared to the P-51's one.

As a long-range escort, the P-38 was a close second to the Mustang, and then not in all cases. On long, over-water missions, the Lightning was preferred over the P-51 because of its two-engine reliability.

No fighter in WWII was the equal of the Lightning when it came to the photo-recon role. Its combination of speed, high altitude, range, twin-engine reliability, and nose-mounted versatile camera array were matched by no other fighter--least-of-all the Mustang.

Then there were roles for which the P-38 was suited that the P-51 could not perform at all. The Lightning demonstrated its ability to carry and launch torpedoes. It was used as a flying ambulance. It was used as a pathfinder aircraft for bombing-through-overcast (BTO) missions. It was used as a strategic bomber in its "Droopsnoot" version.

There are those who will argue whether the Lightning was, or was not, the best fighter-bomber of the war, but as to being the most versatile fighter, the P-38 stands alone at the top.

Regards,

Lightning

[Johnny .45]

I'd have to admit that the P-38 is my personal favorite, or as close as I have to a "favorite" fighter, but I still can't agree with you entirely. Like I said, the Mustang was by no means perfect in all roles, but it was capable in all roles. I resisted favoring the Mustang for a long time just because it is overrated by so many people, but after a lot of thought, I figured that it could do all the jobs at least decently.
I suppose there are several fighters that COULD have won the war, but the question is "at what cost?". Maybe the war could have been won using any one of the "Great Planes", but not as efficiently, and at a higher loss rate. But tactics can make up for a lot, as the Wildcat vs the Zero proved...let's say, the US MAYBE could have won the Pacific War using their brains and the F4F, but it would have been difficult, and the losses much higher. I'd have to limit the ETO competition to the P-51 and P-38, since they were the only ones who had the long-range capacity, but a P-51 can do just about anything a P-38 can, plus a bit more. The P-51 might be more vulnerable to ground fire, but that's offset by the P-38's disadvantage in dogfights. I mean, we're talking a small difference, but I'd still have to say that I'd choose the P-51. (as my one-fighter-type, not the one I'd choose to fly myself!)
I don't think I've ever heard of a P-38 carrying a torpedo OPERATIONALLY. The fact that it COULD doesn't really help it in the "Best Fighter" category, since it never did so any more than the Mustang did...let the Beaufighters and Avengers do their jobs, let the fighters do theirs.
I dunno, I guess the whole question is pointless, and even if I'm right that the Mustang was the best at the most things, it wasn't by an awful lot. It was downright beaten by the P-38 (and others) in many areas, and I guess any planes disadvantages can be overcome with tactics, etc. If the USAAF had been stuck with the P-47 in the ETO, I'll bet they could have made it work, one way or another. Let's say the Russians put many types that we considered "unsatisfactory" to good use, although a lot of those types were really only doomed because they didn't have the high-altitude capabilities that the ETO demanded. Lot's of planes are a bit unfairly judged simply because they couldn't reach altitude, yet are really quite excellent planes in other respects. Like the P-51A, or the P-39. I guess it helped that the Russians didn't seem to mind taking losses as much as we did! As long as they were hurting the enemy.
And it would depend on exactly how you define "the War"...one has to consider the other theatres besides the ETO. The P-38 was at a definite disadvantage at lower altitudes, while the P-51 was much less so. Most operations in MTO, and CBI were at lower heights than ETO. The P-38 shone the most as a fighter at over 25,000ft, but the Mustang was just as good at these heights, and was better than the Lightning at lower altitudes.
And of course, if you define "the only fighter' strictly, that means that we're including the Navy too. Obviously neither the P-38 nor the P-51 are anything NEAR ideal for carrier-born operations, but they'd do that better than a Hellcat could escort bombers to Berlin. If it came to flying from a flat-top, it seems that the large twin would be a pain-in-the-ass, and would be hard to fit aboard ship, or onto the elevators, etc. Not to mention that a Lightning must use more fuel for the same range than a single-engine type. You get the same range from either plane, but the P-38 has to carry more total fuel load to do it. And supplies are limited onboard a carrier, or on a island strip.
Of course, the twin is a nice thing to have while you're over water, since loosing an engine isn't always fatal, but I have to assume that the P-51 would adapt to carrier flight better.
So, the P-51 is a better dogfighter is close combat. It's a better escort fighter than the P-38, which does it's best as an aggressor, hunting enemies and making dive-and-climb attacks, not "tied-down" to a bomber formation. It has high-altitude performance as good as the P-38, and better down low. It has slightly better range for less total fuel useage. It would fit into a carrier better than a P-38, and even used less metals, etc to build. It had a better roll rate (although not as good sustained turn), and didn't have the issues with compressibility that the Lightning had. Of course, the Lightning DID have many advantages, but it went both ways.
But, it's not worth the debate since it's over and done with, and it's far better to have BOTH types to work with. And, like I said, the P-38 is my personal favorite. If I was a pilot in WWII, I'd choose it for a lot of reasons, even besides the fact that she was such a looker! And Mustang fans annoy me usually, so I hate to write so much to defend it. But that's my honest conclusion, that despite all the advantages you listed, and even if I was inaccurate in saying that the P-51 was the ONLY type who could do it all, I still say that it could do most things a bit more efficiently than the P-38 can. We could have won the war flying P-47's, but more pilots would have died, and we would have had to improvise with tactics, and even strategy in the long run.
But, the Lightning is STILL my favorite, from a sentimental standpoint.

Johnny .45

[Johnny .45]

Hmm...I just was thinking...since this thread is about the "best fighter-bomber" maybe what you said is appropriate. The Lightning WAS a far better FB than the Mustang. But what I said was that the Mustang was the best all around FIGHTER of the war...the P-38 was a better FB, but the Mustang was a better fighter. And that's more important...a fighter can take over a limited bomber role, but it doesn't go the other way. A bomber can't be used as a fighter, not really. So to choose a single fighter type since it's a better FB wouldn't be wise...I'd rather just use Mosquitos, or a dedicated ground attack type like the Il-2 for FB duties, and let the Mustangs be pure fighters. To choose an inferior fighter just because it makes a better bomber...I dunno.
Of course, the P-38 isn't THAT much an inferior fighter, but it was only good at certain types of air combat...dive and climb mostly.
So that's my real point in choosing the Mustang...a fighter can be used to do other jobs in an inefficient way, but other planes can't make good fighter. To choose one fighter for the whole war, then choose a FIGHTER.

Johnny .45

[Lightning]

Hi Johnny,

I don't think I've ever heard of a P-38 carrying a torpedo OPERATIONALLY. The fact that it COULD doesn't really help it in the "Best Fighter" category, since it never did so....

If you are evaluating an airplane, you have to take into account everything it can do. Whether it is ever called upon to do it, is beside the point. The Avro Lancaster never dropped an atomic bomb, but it sure could have, and the ability alone made for a formidable threat towards the end of the war.


The P-38 was at a definite disadvantage at lower altitudes, while the P-51 was much less so. Most operations in MTO, and CBI were at lower heights than ETO. The P-38 shone the most as a fighter at over 25,000ft, but the Mustang was just as good at these heights, and was better than the Lightning at lower altitudes.

Actually, the Lightning was very good at low altitude. Quoting famous Vietnam-War ace Robin Olds, who flew P-38s in WWII, "The P-38 was a marvelous airplane. You could whip anything down low."

At low altitude, the compressibility problem was non-existent. At lower speeds, the use of maneuvering flaps and asymetrical engine thrust made it competetive with the single-engine fighters--and superior to some. It was even said to give a Zero a hard time in a dogfight under these conditions.

In the following roles, the P-38 was superior to the P-51:

Fighter bomber

Dive bomber

Interceptor

Photo-recon

Nightfighter (P-38M)

Stike fighter and anti-shipping attack plane

In the following roles, the P-38 was effective whereas the P-51 could not carry them out at all:

Strategic bombing ("Droopsnoot"). (One modification equipped a P-38 to control radio-guided bombs by a "bombardier" using electronic equipment mounted in a transparent nose.)

Pathfinder and radar "bomb-through-overcast (BTO) aircraft.

Flying ambulance and personnel transport

Torpedo bomber (two torpedoes)

Of course the P-51 was superior to the P-38 in some roles, but there is not one which it could do that a P-38 could not. The only one in which it could come close would have been as a carrier fighter, but there is no reason to believe that the Lightning could not have been adapted to that also.

The P-51's main claim to fame was as an escort fighter, which it was the best. That was the role which most needed to be performed during the bombing campaign in the ETO. When you disregard that role, the P-38 and P-47 were more instrumental in the overall destruction of the Axis war machine

The P-38 had range competitive with the P-51. It could carry far greater loads. It had superior firepower and gun location. It was less vulnerable to ground fire. It had two-engine reliability over water and rough terrain. It had a higher service ceiling. It was superior in sustained climb. It accelerated faster.

I have to stand by my assertion that the P-38 was far more versatile than the Mustang, and was therefore more able to take the fight to the enemy if only one type was available with which to fight the war.

Regards,

Lightning

[Ricky]

When put like that, the only real advantage a P-51 had was price.

[Johnny .45]

LOL, alright, you win. It's not like I needed a lot of convincing to like the P-38 better in any case...I'm far happier to vote for the Lightning than for the Mustang. I guess the dreaded P-51 Propaganda Club finally got to me after all ;)
So it probably IS a better fighter than the Mustang, and definitely a better fighter-bomber, which is what this whole thread was about anyway. I can't say that the P-38 isn't without it's disadvantages in certain areas, but I guess it's advantages more than make up for it.
Speaking of which, what do you mean by "range competitive with the P-51"? I thought the Mustang was the first fighter that could actually make it all the way to Berlin and back? I know the P-38 was in much demand as an escort, but there weren't many of them in theater, and the ones that were had all those reliability issues. That and the first pilots to try cruising at altitude ended up with frostbite! Or so I hear, anyway.
If it didn't have that much range, than that does have to be taken into account in measuring it's overall value. It depends on how much importance one attributes to long-range bomber escorts in the long run. Some people would say that was THE most important role of the war, and even if the Mustang was only a winner in that category, it would still place it high in the lists. IF it was the only plane capable of escorting bombers that far, that is...if you're right and the P-38 had the same reach, then that changes things. And it also depends on how important you consider the bombing campaign
I had also been under the impression that it wasn't entirely successful in fighting off the single-engined German types, mostly due to it's slow-ish rate of roll, and the Mustang did better at that. But I suppose that might just be the PPC's insipid influence talking!
As for low level fighting...that's the first time I've ever heard the P-38 described as a superior low-altitude fighter. I thought that in terms of power and speed, the P-38 didn't come into it's own until you got up to higher levels, where the turbo really came into play. It was faster at 25,000ft than at 5,000ft, right? It could turn very tightly, but it took a better than average pilot to use the whole "feather one prop into the turn" trick, and the rate of roll was still kind of sluggish.
Maybe I'm wrong, and I'm just full of a lot of misconceptions. It wouldn't be the first time, and I won't be so optimistic as to hope it might be the last either. On the whole, I can't honestly argue that I think the P-51 is a better plane, but the P-38 wasn't exactly top of the class in everything. Just pretty close!
I actually just read last night that even by late 1944, when the Mustang was well into the game, that in a poll of fighter pilot trainees the P-38 was STILL the "most hoped-for mount" of the majority of students. She certainly has "The Look" about her!

Johnny .45

[Ricky]

When put like that, the only real advantage a P-51 had was price.

Ah, and it relatively easier to fly...

[Lightning]

Hi Johnny,

Speaking of which, what do you mean by "range competitive with the P-51"? I thought the Mustang was the first fighter that could actually make it all the way to Berlin and back?

Actually, the P-38 was the first Allied escort fighter over Berlin. On March 4, 1944, P-38s were tasked to escort the heavies to Berlin. The weather turned bad, and the bombers were recalled, but the Lightnings, when they didn't see the bombers at the rendevous point, proceeded to Berlin anyway.

The next day, P-51s escorted the bombers to Berlin and therefore got all the credit for being the first, but the P-38s beat them by one day.

By the way, in the Pacific, the P-38 is credited with flying the longest-range fighter mission of the war.


On the whole, I can't honestly argue that I think the P-51 is a better plane, but the P-38 wasn't exactly top of the class in everything. Just pretty close!

No warplane--fighter, bomber, or otherwise--was top of the class in everything. The point I have been making here is that, even though the P-51 et al were high-up in several classes, the P-38 was high-up in more classes overall.

Regards,

Lightning

[Sid447]

.......The Mossie had a decent bomb load (although it seems as if it could have carried more, being as big as it is)

Didn't the FB VI version later carry 2 x 500lb bombs internally? Or alternatively 8 x 60lb rockets?
That seems adequate in comparison to being capable of a decent turn of speed comparable with most single-engine fighters at similar low (below 20,000') altitudes.
For ground attack or anti-shipping Ops (which implies decent low-level performance and range) it'd be a difficult choice between the Beaufighter and the FB VI imo.
(Would have been nice if they had fitted the later marks of Beaufighter with twin Centaurus power).
Though these were more attack aircraft, like the brilliant Douglas A-20 and A-26's.

For the purpose of this thread, ........the under-rated Tempest.

[Wuzak]

Didn't the FB VI version later carry 2 x 500lb bombs internally? Or alternatively 8 x 60lb rockets?

The FBVI introduced the strengthened wing which hard hard points for a ingle 500lb bomb under each outer wing panel. Internally the bomb bay space was compromised by the cannon installation, so the standard bomber version's 4 x 500lb load was cut back to only 2 x 500lb load. With the outer wing hard points the FB could still hold a 4 x 500lb bomb load.

The strenthened wing was also put into service in bomber, night fighter and reconaissance models. The wing was also capable of carrying external fuel tanks, which was useful in increasing the range of all models.

A little later the rocket projectile was being put into service, and a set of 8 RPs was fitted to the FB, 4 under each wing. I'm not sure if the wing was specifically designed to take these.

I have seen a photo of a B Mk IX fitted with RPs under the wing, which would have been an unusual load out for a bomber version.

[flying kiwi]

I'll go with the Tempest. It's a shame the Centaurus version didn't see service.

[Lightning]

Hi flying kiwi,

I'll go with the Tempest. It's a shame the Centaurus version didn't see service.

Although the tempest was a wonderful low/medium altitude fighter, I really don't think it was a fighter-bomber in the same class as the P-38, P-47, F4U, or the Mosquito FBVI.

When it came to ordnance-carrying ability, the weights and combinations of rockets and bombs carried by the P-38 and F4U were far greater than those of the Tempest while the P-47 carried a marginally greater load. The FBVI, surprisingly, carried pretty much the same bombload as the Tempest, but it made up for this by more potent gun armament concentrated in the nose.

Regards,

Lightning

[flying kiwi]

I think the Tempest was probably the best fighter low down, with the possible exception of some of the Russian fighters, so that, even if it carried less ordnance, it could potentially use it and then fight its way out with a greater chance of success than the others. There will always be different ways of classifying what is best, but if I had to use bombs or rockets on a target defended by FW190s, I'd rather go in flying a Tempest. My preference would have been even stronger if the Mk II had been available during the war.

[Lightning]

Hi flying kiwi,

I think the Tempest was probably the best fighter low down, with the possible exception of some of the Russian fighters, so that, even if it carried less ordnance, it could potentially use it and then fight its way out with a greater chance of success than the others. There will always be different ways of classifying what is best, but if I had to use bombs or rockets on a target defended by FW190s, I'd rather go in flying a Tempest. My preference would have been even stronger if the Mk II had been available during the war.

I can see your point--up to a point. What you say makes a lot of sense, but it addresses the ability of the airplane to escape being shot down--not on its ability to destroy the target, which is, after all, the mission of a fighter-bomber. And the mission always comes first.

Regards,

Lightning

[flying kiwi]

Are you aware of any reliable statistics about the percentage of targets destroyed by each of these planes? As far as I'm aware, the Hawker fighters during the war were excellent stable gun platforms. How did the others compare, especially in bumpy air low down?

[Ricky]

Hi flying kiwi,



I can see your point--up to a point. What you say makes a lot of sense, but it addresses the ability of the airplane to escape being shot down--not on its ability to destroy the target, which is, after all, the mission of a fighter-bomber. And the mission always comes first.

Regards,

Lightning

But then, you have to have some survivability otherwise you can't even get to the stage where you can drop your bombs. It always has to be a payoff between effectiveness at hitting the target and managing to stay flying long enough to do so - and ideally to do so again tomorrow.

[Flo]

I think you're being a little harsh on the Tempest, Lightning. (I know, I would say that, wouldn't I? ;))
Although the F4U could carry terrific loads, it usually went in with just two 1000lbers, the same as the Hawker. Admittedly they often mixed the loadout with 4 x half inch rockets, but that was more a difference in strike doctrine than a limitation on the (Brit) airframe.
P-47s often carried 2500lb loads, but they were almost always made up of 500lb bombs and extra fuel. A Tempest with a center line tank and two 1000lb bombs was carrying a similar package. Add in the heavy aircraft armament (4 x 20mm, back to that mg vs cannon debate, again :rolleyes:;)) and I'd say the Hawker was actually heavier armed than USMC, RNZAF, RN & USAAF attack aircraft on a typical mission.

Naturally, twin engine attack aircraft like the Pe-2, Beaufighter, Lightning etc could carry heavier loads much further, but at a premium in terms of cost, complexity and additional maintenance. The Commonwealth airforces decided on the Tempest as the best tool for the job in Europe, even with Jugs and a number of other types available. I recon they got it right.

Just as an aside, most of the attack aircraft I've worked with over the last twenty years use 2 x 1000lb bombs as their standard loadout....

[Kutscha]

The Tempest was used an air superiority fighter over, and behind, the battle field. Now the Typhoon, that was the ordnance carrying a/c.

Did the Tempest attack ground targets? Yes but with its 20mm H-S cannons.

[flying kiwi]

You're right Kutscha. Although the Tempest could carry bombs and rockets, it seems that they never carried them in anger. However, I do think they were used for ground attack with their cannon at least as much as they were used for air superiority. If we're ruling the Tempest out in favour of planes that actually used bombs and rockets, my choice would be the F4U. They could carry pretty decent loads and also had a credible fighter performance, although this was mostly seen in the Pacific theatre.

[Flo]

The Tempest was used an air superiority fighter over, and behind, the battle field. Now the Typhoon, that was the ordnance carrying a/c.

Did the Tempest attack ground targets? Yes but with its 20mm H-S cannons.

Are you sure, Kutscha? The new fighter attacked flack positions in the Scheldt estuary in Sept. '44, a task poorly suited to small calibre cannons. Although employed extensively on 'Ranger' long range, medium level fighter sweeps (where 45gal drop tanks precluded the carrying of any offensive stores) 122 Wing accounted for " the record total of 484 German locomotives, 32 aircraft, 485 road vehicles, 118 barges and 650 railway trucks" in Feb '45.* Don't you think it might take a little more than four 20s to disable some of those targets? I know they never replaced the Bombphoon in the CAS role, but with the ability to carry the same heavy ordinance load comes the flexibility to tailor the weapon load to intended tasking. With even the once exclusively fighter Spitfires going in with bomb loads in late '44 and '45, is it so hard to believe the Tempests used all the options given to them to bring violence to the enemy?

*Source is the Hawker Tempest Page. My assumptions about Tempest loadouts are just that until I can get back to the UK and check paper records. :D

[Kutscha]

Flo, maybe I worded my post badly. :)

If the American M2 .50" can knock out locos, the much more powerful 20mm H-S cannons surely could.

There wasn't that many LW a/c around (some pilots never saw a German a/c on their tour) though the Tempest did claim 240 German a/c in its short operational life during WW2.

[Lightning]

Hi Ricky,

But then, you have to have some survivability otherwise you can't even get to the stage where you can drop your bombs. It always has to be a payoff between effectiveness at hitting the target and managing to stay flying long enough to do so - and ideally to do so again tomorrow.

But, in this case, flying kiwi was talking about the Tempest's being a good fighter bomber based on its abilities as a fighter. Once the ordnance was released, that was really important, but prior to release, if fully loaded, the Tempest (or any other fighter bomber) was a sitting duck for interceptors, so its abilities as a fighter were not really relevant until after the mission was accomplished.

It was common practice to provide fighter escort for fighter bombers en route to the target; they were not expected to defend themselves. If unescorted, the fighter bombers would release their ordnance upon being attacked. That in itself thwarted their mission before the first shot was fired, thereby making the interception a success; the interceptors didn't even need to engage the enemy after that and could leave the area if they so chose.

Regards,

Lightning

[Lightning]

Hi Flo,

I think you're being a little harsh on the Tempest, Lightning. (I know, I would say that, wouldn't I? ;))

Yes, you would. :D

No, I don't think I'm being harsh on the Tempest. In fact, I have very great respect for that airplane; it was a fantastic fighter. I just don't think it was as good a fighter bomber as the others discussed here.

Although the F4U could carry terrific loads, it usually went in with just two 1000lbers, the same as the Hawker. Admittedly they often mixed the loadout with 4 x half inch rockets, but that was more a difference in strike doctrine than a limitation on the (Brit) airframe.

As I said in an earlier posting in this thread, when evaluating an aircraft, you should not rely only on what it usually did but on what it was capable of doing. As a fighter bomber, the F4U was the only single-engine fighter that approached the P-38 in its ability to carry heavy loads of mixed ordnance. Maybe it (the F4U) normally carried two 1000 pounders, but it could, and did carry much heavier loads on more than a few occasions.

P-47s often carried 2500lb loads, but they were almost always made up of 500lb bombs and extra fuel. A Tempest with a center line tank and two 1000lb bombs was carrying a similar package. Add in the heavy aircraft armament (4 x 20mm, back to that mg vs cannon debate, again :rolleyes:;)) and I'd say the Hawker was actually heavier armed than USMC, RNZAF, RN & USAAF attack aircraft on a typical mission.

The P-47 could carry a marginally heavier bombload than the Tempest. Its eight .50 cals. were more effective against light targets (far more rounds available), as effective against medium targets, and less effective against heavier and lightly armored targets than the Tempest's four 20 mm cannon.

The Thunderbolt became a great fighter bomber not so much for its heavy bombload and its armament but for its ability to attack and destroy heavily defended targets without being shot down and then bring its pilot home in spite of heavy damage. It was, without a doubt, less vulnerable than the Tempest.

Naturally, twin engine attack aircraft like the Pe-2, Beaufighter, Lightning etc could carry heavier loads much further, but at a premium in terms of cost, complexity and additional maintenance.

The fighter bomber variant of the Mosquito did not really have that heavy a bombload--especially in light of the ability of the B XVI version to carry 4000 pounds--but it had a heavy punch in its concentrated 20 mm nose guns. It was among the best fighter bombers of the war and therefore deserves a spot in this thread.


The new fighter attacked flack positions in the Scheldt estuary in Sept. '44, a task poorly suited to small calibre cannons.

Although employed extensively on 'Ranger' long range, medium level fighter sweeps (where 45gal drop tanks precluded the carrying of any offensive stores) 122 Wing accounted for " the record total of 484 German locomotives, 32 aircraft, 485 road vehicles, 118 barges and 650 railway trucks" in Feb '45. Don't you think it might take a little more than four 20s to disable some of those targets?

The P-38, P-47, and P-51 fighter bombers knocked out numerous flak positions and flak towers in Europe using only .50 cal machine guns (and, in the case of the P-38, one 20mm cannon).

The P-38 destroyed its share of any-and-all of the targets you named above. In addition, it also sank several ships using its nose guns. It could carry a combination of rockets, bombs and drop tanks in order to reach and destroy distant targets that were beyond the range of single-engine fighter bombers.

I know they never replaced the Bombphoon in the CAS role, but with the ability to carry the same heavy ordinance load comes the flexibility to tailor the weapon load to intended tasking.

Weight-carrying ability did not automatically equate to load flexibility. The under-wing hardware (shackles, brackets, racks, rails, hard points, etc.) did not always accommodate the desired mix of external loads. Sometimes, because of dimensions, one piece of ordnance interfered with another. A drop tank could mean that a bomb could not be carried. Carrying a bombload meant that some or all of the rockets had to be left behind. The P-38, F4U, and maybe the P-47 had more such flexibility than did the Tempest.

Regards,

Lightning

[Ricky]

I'm still not entirely sure why we are discussing the |Tempest when it's younger brother (Tiffee) was the more obvious fighter-bomber

[Lightning]

Hi providence1q,

My vote is going with Lockheed P-38 Lightning. I have never seen any other plane than Lockheed.

A wise choice (:D), but I would like to see the rest of your thought. It appears that you cut it short. Also, did you click the box for the P-38? Otherwise, your vote doesn't count.

Regards,

Lightning

[Eagledad]

Good afternoon!

Found this on the net some time ago. The question about the effect of Allied Fighter Bombers was asked of Generalleutnant Fritz Bayerlein, former commander of the Panzer Lehr Division on 4 May, 1945:

Question:
Is there any difference in ground force reaction to P-47's, P-38's, P-51's, Spitfires and Typhoons?
Answer.
Difference in effect:
1. Lightning; Unpleasant for ground troops because of its quiet, almost noiseless approach, its maneuverability and speed, its heavy armament and bombs, exact aiming and hitting. Particularly effective against tanks. Direct or near hits destroy the tank.

2.Thunderbolt. Armament and bombs; noisier, easier to identify from the ground, also very maneuverable and fast. Otherwise, same effect as Lightning, probably lighter bombs. (I, myself, was hit by Thunderbolts five times.) Direct or close bomb hits destroy the tank, weapons penetrate all tank armor except that of the "Koenigstiger".

3.Spitfires and Mustangs have not impressed me particulerly in their effect.

(Source: Interrogation Report of General BAYERLEIN, AIR SURRENDER DOCUMENTS)

So may I vote for the P-38 twice?, once for the General, and once for myself :)

Have a wonderful weekend, and may God protectyour 6 always!

Eagledad

[Sid447]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KV_ubUKWg2s


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cj0kez2WHr4&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZucXEeOa-sY

[Flo]

Hi Flo,



Yes, you would. :D

-:D!


As I said in an earlier posting in this thread, when evaluating an aircraft, you should not rely only on what it usually did but on what it was capable of doing. As a fighter bomber, the F4U was the only single-engine fighter that approached the P-38 in its ability to carry heavy loads of mixed ordnance. Maybe it (the F4U) normally carried two 1000 pounders, but it could, and did carry much heavier loads on more than a few occasions.

-Hmm, I'm not so sure Lightning. I've got a picture of a Mk V Spitfire flying in to Malta with a 170gal slipper tank#. Add a couple of 250lb bombs and strikes against Rome (or Berlin, if you base them in England) become possible. Being capable of it doesn't mean it would be a particularly good idea though.

The P-47 could carry a marginally heavier bombload than the Tempest. Its eight .50 cals. were more effective against light targets (far more rounds available), as effective against medium targets, and less effective against heavier and lightly armored targets than the Tempest's four 20 mm cannon.

-I'm not getting into that 20mm vs 50cal thing again! :p

The Thunderbolt became a great fighter bomber not so much for its heavy bombload and its armament but for its ability to attack and destroy heavily defended targets without being shot down and then bring its pilot home in spite of heavy damage. It was, without a doubt, less vulnerable than the Tempest.

-Again, I'm not so sure about that. The radial might take more to kill than an in line engine, but the Thunderbolt was a large, complex aircraft with a good many vulnerable components throughout its frame. The Tempest/Typhoon power plant was a relatively compact fitting, in an airframe containing armour, self sealing tanks and exitinguishers, reguarded as sturdy by its crews. Without a detailed breakdown of losses vs defences, attacking numbers etc it would be hard to directly compare their vulnerability, but combat losses were high in P-47s as well as in the Hawkers. A feature of their role, rather than any fault of the aircraft themselves.


The P-38, P-47, and P-51 fighter bombers knocked out numerous flak positions and flak towers in Europe using only .50 cal machine guns (and, in the case of the P-38, one 20mm cannon).

-As did the Hawkers. My point was that they could have used heavier weapons when not engaged on 'Rangers' or employed in the 'rat run'. Kutschas usually right, so I'll let my original comment stand. I was speculating, not reporting. :D

Weight-carrying ability did not automatically equate to load flexibility. The under-wing hardware (shackles, brackets, racks, rails, hard points, etc.) did not always accommodate the desired mix of external loads. Sometimes, because of dimensions, one piece of ordnance interfered with another. A drop tank could mean that a bomb could not be carried. Carrying a bombload meant that some or all of the rockets had to be left behind. The P-38, F4U, and maybe the P-47 had more such flexibility than did the Tempest.

-Typhoons carried mixed fuel and ordinance loads Lightning. Sea Furies, closely related to the Tempest, carried mixed loads of fuel, rockets and bombs over Korea (the RN had a more flexible approach). I don't think it's likely that the Tempest would fail to have the same flex Hawker built into its sisters. To re-iterate, the RAF didn't like mixing bomb and rocket armament, which is different to the frame being unable to mount both together.



# It's huge! How they got off a flight deck carrying the monster is beyond me. The usual fitting was just 70gal.

[Ricky]

Good afternoon!

Found this on the net some time ago. The question about the effect of Allied Fighter Bombers was asked of Generalleutnant Fritz Bayerlein, former commander of the Panzer Lehr Division on 4 May, 1945:


Many thanks for this. I do notice that the Typhoon was not mentioned...

What about the Beaufighter - armament was a mixture of cannon & mg, some of it nose-mounted, and it could carry a fair amount of bombs/rockets/whatever. Plus it was quiet (Whispering Death) and being a Bristol could take damage.

[Eagledad]

Good day!

You are welcomed Ricky!

gen Bayerlein had this to say about the Typhoon:

Q. What about Napalm? Rocket-firing Typhoons?

A. Napalm was of good effect on artillery positions in forests. Fire and smoke put the artillery out of action for a long time. Rockets of the Typhoons ere feared and have a deadly effect on artillery guns end tanks. Good results in Normandy.

The document makes no mention of the Beaufighter. I don't believe that they were used for ground support during the battle of France/Germany in 1944-1945. Coastal patrol and convoy attacks were a different matter however.

The general further notes the discomfort experienced in headquarters areas caused by the Typhoons, Thunderbolts and Marauders.

May God fly your wing always!

Eagledad

[Ricky]

Sorry - I was referring to the Beaufighter more in general terms rather than for the report (thanks again for that). It gained a good rep out East against the Japanese.

[Lightning]

Hi Flo,


-Hmm, I'm not so sure Lightning. I've got a picture of a Mk V Spitfire flying in to Malta with a 170gal slipper tank#. Add a couple of 250lb bombs and strikes against Rome (or Berlin, if you base them in England) become possible. Being capable of it doesn't mean it would be a particularly good idea though.

# It's huge! How they got off a flight deck carrying the monster is beyond me. The usual fitting was just 70gal.

The P-38 could carry a 310 gal tank plus a 2000 lb bomb. As to a given range with maximum ordnance, there is no comparison between the Spitfire and the Lightning or the F4U. C'mon Flo, the Spitfire was a wonderful fighter, but as a long-range, load-carrying fighter bomber? It just wasn't.

Any capability is better than no capability. Nothing says you have to use it in a given situation, but if it is needed, it's there. An idea may be bad under one set of circumstances but just the right solution under another.

-Again, I'm not so sure about that. The radial might take more to kill than an in line engine, but the Thunderbolt was a large, complex aircraft with a good many vulnerable components throughout its frame. The Tempest/Typhoon power plant was a relatively compact fitting, in an airframe containing armour, self sealing tanks and exitinguishers, reguarded as sturdy by its crews. Without a detailed breakdown of losses vs defences, attacking numbers etc it would be hard to directly compare their vulnerability, but combat losses were high in P-47s as well as in the Hawkers. A feature of their role, rather than any fault of the aircraft themselves.

The P-47, Typhoon, and Tempest were all used extensively as fighter bombers. The reputation for being rugged and resistant to ground fire that the Thunderbolt earned is not even approached by the other two. Say what you will, but the record under actual combat conditions speaks for itself here.

-Typhoons carried mixed fuel and ordinance loads Lightning. Sea Furies, closely related to the Tempest, carried mixed loads of fuel, rockets and bombs over Korea (the RN had a more flexible approach). I don't think it's likely that the Tempest would fail to have the same flex Hawker built into its sisters. To re-iterate, the RAF didn't like mixing bomb and rocket armament, which is different to the frame being unable to mount both together.

I'm not saying that those single-engine planes could not carry mixed ordnance, only that whatever mix they could, or did, carry, it was no match for that of the P-38, especially when range capability entered the picture.

Regards,

Lightning

[Arossihman]

From what i've seen and read I believe the p-47 was the best in this role. Its durability was second to none. There was an account by a pilot saying he actually saw one rtb after literally flying through a tree with its wing! Thats a tall order for any aircraft! I know cannons hit harder but the rate of fire that 8 .50 cals generate have been said to knock over rail cars with the impact alone. It would have been my plane of choice! just ask the jug pilot who egon meyer failed to shoot down after he emptied his guns into it!