Your Favorite Attack Aircraft of WW2, all sides welcome

[plan_D]

Why no British aircraft in that list, NAVAIR? You mention the P-51D as a contender yet try to pass off the Typhoon IB as inferior because extra loading is less than the P-38 and P-47. Why would the P-51D be above an aircraft than can carry more equipment plus four 20mm cannon, did you forget about them?

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

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

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

[lesofprimus]

Valid points right there...

[Gnomey]

Good points pD and nice pics CC.

[MacArther]

This has definately been my most successful forum thingi to date (mind just relapsed into forgetfullness mode). As for the attack subject, yeah, I did leave some out, but mostly because I was looking for ATTACK planes, not fighter-bombers.

[plan_D]

So, if a fighter-bomber isn't an attack plane, what aircraft were attack? Only those with Attack prefix?

[cheddar cheese]

Originally Posted by trackend

That looks incredible with all those rockets racked up what a punch from a relatively small aircraft

Yes it does, but the 14 rocket slvo was never actually used in combat, the 10 rocket "Christmas Tree" format was more common.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Well I would go with the Me-262A-2 Sturmvogel, A-26 Invader, or the Typhoon.

[wmaxt]

Originally Posted by NAVAIR

If it were included in the poll, I'd have voted for the F4U-4. Not only was it one of the very best attack aircraft of the war, it was also one of the best air-to-air propeller driven fighters ever built, with unmatched versatility. Only a few fighters were faster, fewer still could out-climb it or match its acceleration. None deemed as competitors could operate from sea and land.

My regards,

Navair

I will stick with the P-38L I feel it was a little more versatile Compared to the F4U-4 it was also

Able to match it in a climb
Accelerated faster.
Carried as much
With differential Throttls very close in maneuverability
About 3 miles an hour slower
Much greater range
Was more controlable at the edges of the flight envelope

I feel mission would be the deciding factor of which aircraft to use, their capabilities were so close and each had an advantage or two over the other.

I also felt that planes like the A-20 and B-25 are more appropriate in this forum as they were more often dedicated in this role and were more effective even if the differences were not that great. A P-38 or F4U with 3,000/4,000lbs (or more) of bombs and the guns is still quite effective at ground attack.

PlanD,

The Mossie is up there for choosing, but I think most people decided like I did that this was for the more dedicated attack planes.

wmaxt

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I agree with you, between the P-38 and the F4U-4 I would go with the P-38. In my opinion more versatile also in the ground attack role.

[plan_D]

And what makes the P-38 and F4U more dedicated than the Mosquito? They are both fighters used as attack aircraft, the Mosquito was a bomber used as an attack aircraft.

[the lancaster kicks ass]

yeah the mossie is more of an attack aircraft than the P-38 and F4U, the P-38 and F4U are, as pD said, fighters used in the attack role, they're not dedicated, purpose built attack aircraft..........

[MacArther]

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

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I agree, I like the P-38 better. But we do not need to get into this discussion again. It will just drag out.

[wmaxt]

Originally Posted by the lancaster kicks ass

yeah the mossie is more of an attack aircraft than the P-38 and F4U, the P-38 and F4U are, as pD said, fighters used in the attack role, they're not dedicated, purpose built attack aircraft..........

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

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

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

wmaxt

[the lancaster kicks ass]

the first was that the P-38 was every bit as, if not more capable than the F4U.

when did i say it wasn't?