Ideal WW2 tactical bomber: Single or Double engine?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date

Deleted member 1487

If we were to build a perfect tactical bomber/attack aircraft for WW2 would it ideally be a fighter-bomber like the P-47/FW-190/Sturmovik or be a double engine light bomber like the Pe-2/Me-410/A-26/Mosquito? What are the advantages/disadvantages of either layout?
 
One requires twice as many engines to build as the other :p

Also, it depends a bit on requirements - attacking targets such as trains deep inside the USSR, or distant Pacific islands requires range. Attacking in a deeply contested airspace requires a decent amount of speed and maneuvrability. Attacking massive front-line formations requires a good amount of armour to make sure you don't die from AAA. So I don't think we can make a 'perfect' design. The jack of all trades is the master of none and all that.
 

Deleted member 1487

One requires twice as many engines to build as the other :p

Also, it depends a bit on requirements - attacking targets such as trains deep inside the USSR, or distant Pacific islands requires range. Attacking in a deeply contested airspace requires a decent amount of speed and maneuvrability. Attacking massive front-line formations requires a good amount of armour to make sure you don't die from AAA. So I don't think we can make a 'perfect' design. The jack of all trades is the master of none and all that.

I'm assuming that there are medium and heavy bombers for longer range stuff, so tactical bombing would take place withing 2-300 miles of the front against primarily combat units.
 
What's "perfect'? The Sturmovik was never a fighter, so it never became a fighter-bomber. The ideal attack aircraft depends on the ideal target in the ideal threat environment at the ideal range. Also, the P-38 was a twin-engine fighter bomber, while the Vengeance was a single-engine dive bomber. The Hs-129 was a great tank killer but not much of a bridge buster like the B-25.
 

Deleted member 1487

What's "perfect'? The Sturmovik was never a fighter, so it never became a fighter-bomber. The ideal attack aircraft depends on the ideal target in the ideal threat environment at the ideal range. Also, the P-38 was a twin-engine fighter bomber, while the Vengeance was a single-engine dive bomber. The Hs-129 was a great tank killer but not much of a bridge buster like the B-25.
Most balanced to attack combat targets within 200 miles of the battle zone effectively and survive.
 
If we were to build a perfect tactical bomber/attack aircraft for WW2 would it ideally be a fighter-bomber like the P-47/FW-190/Sturmovik or be a double engine light bomber like the Pe-2/Me-410/A-26/Mosquito? What are the advantages/disadvantages of either layout?

For short range CAS - lots of single seat fighter bombers - ie Corsair / FW190 / Spitfire / Typhoon etc not forgetting Stuka nd Sturmovik

For everything else - Mosquito or lesser two engined aircraft
 
Last edited:
let look fro another perspective: What you want, wiking ?

perfect tactical bomber/attack aircraft for WW2

most Airplane of WW2 were build for there Purpose either as Fighter or Bomber or ground Attack Aircraft.
only a hand full of Aircraft ende up as Multi purpose aircraft

like FW 190 design as standard Fighter for Luftwaffe, it became from 1943 a multi funktional combat Aircraft.
also Grumman F6F Hellcat design as standard Fighter for US navy, it became later also ground Attack aircraft, do lack of enemy Aircraft in Pacific...

so One or Two engine ?
Two engine has benefit of higher speed or higher weapon load compare to single Engine aircraft, see P-38 or Mosquito
 
There is a distinct difference between a tactical "bomber" and a dedicated ground attack, close support aircraft.

The ideal tactical bomber needs to be fast, have a useful range, carry a useful bomb load as well as a battery of fixed cannon and MGs and rockets or other special purpose weapons on external hard points. The best tactical bombers are also versatile enough to be used as a level light bomber, dive bomber, or for anti-shipping tasks. For this role, I would go for a twin-engine, 2-3 seat aircraft optimized for high speed and maneuverability. The Mosquito, A-20/A-26, Pe-2 or perhaps the Me 410are the kinds of airplanes that would fit that bill.

For a close support ground attack plane, speed and maneuverability are less critical. Two engines are probably still ideal for survivability, but not essential. The plane would have to be well-armored against ground fire. The plane might not need a bomb-bay as such. I'd see it being capable of field modifications to carry tank-busting cannon, rockets, bombs, massed MGs, or anti personnel weapons. Long range is not essential, but endurance might be. Single or Two place is OK, but I would want a rear gunner if I were flying one in a situation where air superiority was not yet achieved. If this sounds like either the Il-2 or the Hs 129, that's because those planes pretty much embody what my dedicated close support airplane in WW2 would look like.

But the fact is a good Fighter-Bomber like the Typhoon, Fw 190 F/G, or P-47 can pretty much do what a tactical bomber can, and you only lose one crewmember when they get shot down and they are cheaper to produce.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Radial engine, singe engine, fast as a thief, and heavily armed. Liquid cooled engines are vastly more vulnerable, one fragment into the radiator and you, at best, lose the aircraft. Radials can have multiple cylinders shot OFF the engine and stay in the air. 20mm cannon are better than .50 cal, which are in turn better than .30 cal.

In exact terms the F4U-1C Corsair. Four 20mm, cannon, 400+mph, 4,000 pound bomb load. Death on a stick.

Runner ups: P-47D, F6F-5

Close but too late (and likely the best piston powered attack aircraft ever produced) - A-1 (later AD-1) Skyraider.

Best multiple engine: B-26B Block 55. 12x .50 cal forward firing, 2x .50 cal tail stingers, 4,000 pound bomb load. Runner ups: B-25J-NC. Up to 18x .50 cal, 3,000 pound bomb load. Bristol Beaufighter: 4x 20mm cannon, rockets or 500 pound bomb load.

The Mosquito could be fit in here, as it could as a tactical bomber, strategic bomber, night fighter, heavy interceptor, and photo-recon aircraft. Incredible aircraft, arguably the best design in the entire war, certainly the best prior to the introduction of the B-29, which more or less was the first really "modern" bomber. Even then, the most versatile aircraft of the era. Thinking not just out of the box, or even out of the room, but in an entirely different building. Downside is the water cooled engines. Down in the weeds there are lots of potential golden BB flying about.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 1487

Best multiple engine: B-26B Block 55. 12x .50 cal forward firing, 2x .50 cal tail stingers, 4,000 pound bomb load. Runner ups: B-25J-NC. Up to 18x .50 cal, 3,000 pound bomb load. Bristol Beaufighter: 4x 20mm cannon, rockets or 500 pound bomb load.
I'm surprised, that was a pretty large aircraft, like the Ju88 basically. The B-25 had a similar use, but lower losses, any idea why?
 
Number of engines is defined by the need to maneuver during dog-fighting IOW defending your tail in contested airspace. Single-engined fighter-bombers can turn tighter. A second pair of eardrums also helps when using multiple radios to talk with multiple forward air controllers.

On the single-versus-doubled engined debate, also remember that by 1944 Axis defenders could mount little opposition to WALLY invaders, so WALLY interceptor squadrons were sitting idle. Rather than have Spitfires, Thunderbolts, etc. sit idle, they were assigned ground attack missions. Spitfire could not carry much of a bomb-load, but it could harass German supply convoys during daylight hours to slow re-supply.

A third factor in favour of single-engined tactical bombers is the need to launch some of them from aircraft carriers. During WW2 navies only knew how to launch single-engined airplanes from carriers.
Radial engines are definitely more damage-tolerant.

Number of crewmen is defined by the need for a tail-gunner (in contested airspace) and navigation on longer missions.
Dive-bombing requires a much stronger and heavier airframe for the same bomb-load.

As for ordinance, I never understood the British fetish for rifle-caliber (.303 or .30 calibre) machine guns. I would like that Browning .50 calibre machine-guns would be the minimum for staffing with 20 mm preferred. Calibre is also determined by the thickness of the target. Machine guns are sufficient against infantry in the open but you need 20 mm or 40 mm to punching engine decks on tanks. Forget about shooting through glacier plates!
On that note, while Typhoons were credited with killing dozens of Togrts in Normandy, reality had them straggling soft-skinned supply columns which forced WM to abandon hundreds of Tigers and Panthers when they exhausted fuel, ammo and spare parts.
Typhoons and Sturmoviks also fired a lot of rockets to bust up supply convoys and the occasional AFV.
When calculating bomb-loads also consider that a 1,000 torpedo was the minimum to disable a major ship.
In the long run, you need a large payload that is flexible enough to balance bomb and fuel loads against the amount of fuel required for long distance missions or long loiter times.
 

hipper

Banned
Radial engines have two disadvantages in a CAS aircraft

1) Radial engines have a larger frontal aspect compared to a liquid cooled engine thus as a mater of mathematics are more likely to be hit.

2) it is impossible to armour the front of a Radial engine so its more vulnerable to frontal fire than an armoured liquid cooled engine.

you can examine the loss rates per sortie of the 9th air force units flying thunderbolts compared to 2 TAF units flying Typhoons

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/AAF-H-DDay/index.html
 
Is it expected to counter/defend itself against enemy fighters or does it have air superiority? That makes a big difference.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
I'm surprised, that was a pretty large aircraft, like the Ju88 basically. The B-25 had a similar use, but lower losses, any idea why?

The B-26 and its sibling the A-26 (which I probably should have mentioned since they are completely different aircraft, although the AAF in the Pacific wouldn't even accept them to replace lost B-25 & B-26 due to some visibility issues when down in the weeds) were slightly less robust and notably less forgiving, mainly due to high wing loading and unusually high landing speeds. It was a dream for seriously experience pilots, less experienced found it a trial. B-26 crews called it charming nicknames like "widowmaker", "B dash Crash" Martin Murderer", etc.
 
What fetish. After 1941 how many new British built single or twin aircraft had anything other than 20mm Hispanos as its main armament.
Not "other than" but in conjunction with....

1942 onwards - Mosquito F Mk II - four .303 mgs
1942 - Seafire - four .404 mgs
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Radial engines have two disadvantages in a CAS aircraft

1) Radial engines have a larger frontal aspect compared to a liquid cooled engine thus as a mater of mathematics are more likely to be hit.

2) it is impossible to armour the front of a Radial engine so its more vulnerable to frontal fire than an armoured liquid cooled engine.

you can examine the loss rates per sortie of the 9th air force units flying thunderbolts compared to 2 TAF units flying Typhoons

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/AAF-H-DDay/index.html

Well, I'll just use the source you provided.

Of the two, the P47 was the more survivable, in part because it had a radial piston engine. The Typhoon had a liquid-cooled engine and "chin" radiator installation that was vulnerable to ground fire.
(bottom page14)

course, other fighter-bombers operated in Normandy and across Europe, notably the Lockheed P-38 Lightning, North American P-51 Mustang, and Supermarine Spitfire. With the exception of the Lightning (which had a concentrated armament installation that made it a formidable strafer), all of these proved disappointing. Their liquid-cooled engine systems were quite vulnerable to ground fire, and thus they were used far less for ground attack and much more for air superiority operations.
(middle page 16)

Undoubtedly the rugged construction and dependability of the P-47's air-cooled engine prevented even further losses, a luxury the liquid-cooled Typhoon lacked.
(middle page 43)
 

hipper

Banned
Well, I'll just use the source you provided.

all those quotes are commentary i.e. opinion

its hard to do a quantitate assessment However comparing loss rates in Normandy between P47's and typhoons something interesting shows up

P 47s were lost at twice the rate per sortie compared to the Typhoon

80 P 47's lost in 11 days
151 typhoons lost in 60 days

second TAF was making more than three times the ground attack sorties 9th air force was, and loosing fewer aircraft per sortie

Armour plate makes engines less vulnerable than no armour plate.
Smaller targets are hit less frequently

I don't think these two statements are controversial
 
Both. A ground attack aircraft and a light bomber are not actually the same thing, although there are plenty of cases where you can use one in the others role.
 
Close but too late (and likely the best piston powered attack aircraft ever produced) - A-1 (later AD-1) Skyraider.

Had WWII continued, the P&W R-4360 powered Martin AM-1 Mauler may have gotten an edge over the Spad.

But was on the way out after the War, for the smaller Skyraider that had a less troubled development, and never did get developed to a -2 that (hopefully) took care of the unresolved handling problems on Essex sized deck the Mauler had. It was big.

Was nicknamed 'Awful Monster' as often as 'Able Mable, carried even more ordnance

martin_mauler_1.jpg

AM-1s_armed.jpg
 
Top