Jump to content

  • Log in with Twitter Log in with Windows Live Log In with Steam Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Photo
- - - - -

Best (Allied) Fighter-Bomber of WW2


  • Please log in to reply
66 replies to this topic

Poll: Best Allied Fighter-Bomber (32 member(s) have cast votes)

Best Allied Fighter-Bomber

  1. Hawker Typhoon (8 votes [24.24%])

    Percentage of vote: 24.24%

  2. Republic P-47 Thunderbolt (10 votes [30.30%])

    Percentage of vote: 30.30%

  3. Lockheed P-38 Lightning (4 votes [12.12%])

    Percentage of vote: 12.12%

  4. Vought F4U Corsair (2 votes [6.06%])

    Percentage of vote: 6.06%

  5. de Havilland Mosquito FBVI (5 votes [15.15%])

    Percentage of vote: 15.15%

  6. Other (4 votes [12.12%])

    Percentage of vote: 12.12%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#21 Ricky

Ricky

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 2,981 posts
  • Joined 14 Years, 8 Months
  • 138 topics

Posted 01 July 2010 - 07:17 AM

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


Ah, and it relatively easier to fly...

#22 Lightning

Lightning

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,725 posts
  • Joined 13 Years, 9 Months and 3 Days
  • 46 topics

Posted 06 July 2010 - 03:11 PM

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

#23 Sid447

Sid447

    Regular Member

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPip
  • 72 posts
  • Joined 9 Years and 18 Days
  • 3 topics
  • LocationCyprus/UAE

Posted 21 April 2011 - 10:15 AM

.......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.

Edited by Sid447, 21 April 2011 - 11:06 AM.


#24 Wuzak

Wuzak

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,935 posts
  • Joined 12 Years, 5 Months and 17 Days
  • 159 topics

Posted 21 April 2011 - 11:44 AM

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.

#25 flying kiwi

flying kiwi

    Regular Member

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPip
  • 679 posts
  • Joined 7 Years, 9 Months
  • 5 topics

Posted 27 April 2011 - 07:02 AM

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

#26 Lightning

Lightning

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,725 posts
  • Joined 13 Years, 9 Months and 3 Days
  • 46 topics

Posted 04 June 2011 - 06:09 PM

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

#27 flying kiwi

flying kiwi

    Regular Member

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPip
  • 679 posts
  • Joined 7 Years, 9 Months
  • 5 topics

Posted 06 June 2011 - 09:15 AM

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.

#28 Lightning

Lightning

    Forum Guru

  • Forum Guru
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,725 posts
  • Joined 13 Years, 9 Months and 3 Days
  • 46 topics

Posted 06 June 2011 - 01:30 PM

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

#29 flying kiwi

flying kiwi

    Regular Member

  • Regulars
  • PipPipPip
  • 679 posts
  • Joined 7 Years, 9 Months
  • 5 topics

Posted 06 June 2011 - 02:15 PM

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?

#30 Ricky

Ricky

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 2,981 posts
  • Joined 14 Years, 8 Months
  • 138 topics

Posted 07 June 2011 - 07:39 AM

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.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users