PDA

View Full Version : The concept of the fighter-bomber ?



Patch_whiner
09-26-2004, 04:59 AM
With IL2 FB/AEP, we now have flyable aircraft, which are fighter-bombers. These are planes like the P38, Bf110 and Pe2 (not flyable). While I was curious about these planes and like flying them I think their idea is flawed for combat. For recon, intercepting and other special tasks perhaps they have a role. Against weak opposition or against inferior planes these planes will do well. They have some advantages:
1.Good range, speed
2.High firepower, lots of ammunition
3.Rear gunner provides defence

They are a halfway house and their list of disadvantages in combat is rather long:
1.Climb rate might be as good as a turn fighter but won€t match the best BnZ fighters
2.Turn rate won€t be as good as turn fighter
3.We€re a big target
4.Damage absorption inferior to bomber, rigidity inferior to fighter
5.Bombing capacity lower than a bomber
6.Loss of 2 engines for each one shot down
7.Effort/cost to make more than a fighter

A combination of heavy bombers and fighters seems more effective in war than the same number of fighter-bombers. The Battle of Britain was hard for the Germans. The UK had brilliantly designed fighters in the Spitfire and Hurricane. Fuel consumption for Britain was not such a problem because we€re `playing at home€. To destroy Britain€s planes and cities with Germany€s selection of aircraft was hard.
1.Ju-87€s range is OK but it can€t fight, needs support - unsuitable
2.He-111€s needs support - suitable
3.FW-190 range is OK - suitable
4.Bf-109 range severe problem - unsuitable
5.Bf-110 range is OK but not effective against fighters, needs support - unsuitable

Germany€s difficulty stemmed from its aircraft. The extremes of the ultra no compromise 109 to the heavily compromised 110, a slow psychological dive-bomber and a slow heavy bomber He-111. They are in my view an odd mix. With the enormous benefit of hindsight the tactics might have been: FW190€s flying high above He-111€s to protect them and engage enemy fighters. The fighter-bomber here confuses things. The Bf-110 suffered heavy losses if sent alone, so it had to be supported. This made lots of work for the fighters who had to protect bombers/fighter-bombers/strange Ju-87€s and attack enemy aircraft. The fighter-bomber can therefore reduce the effectiveness of the fighter. The fighter in this case was the Bf-109, a fighter that had stunning performance but short range/endurance and which performed in dogfights, not escort duty.
With an enormous military budget there must be a temptation to make as many fighter-bombers as fighters. Success depends on the theatre of operations; the opposition and whether they thought fighter-bombers were a good idea. Alternatively, you could add bomb racks to a fighter.


PW

Patch_whiner
09-26-2004, 04:59 AM
With IL2 FB/AEP, we now have flyable aircraft, which are fighter-bombers. These are planes like the P38, Bf110 and Pe2 (not flyable). While I was curious about these planes and like flying them I think their idea is flawed for combat. For recon, intercepting and other special tasks perhaps they have a role. Against weak opposition or against inferior planes these planes will do well. They have some advantages:
1.Good range, speed
2.High firepower, lots of ammunition
3.Rear gunner provides defence

They are a halfway house and their list of disadvantages in combat is rather long:
1.Climb rate might be as good as a turn fighter but won€t match the best BnZ fighters
2.Turn rate won€t be as good as turn fighter
3.We€re a big target
4.Damage absorption inferior to bomber, rigidity inferior to fighter
5.Bombing capacity lower than a bomber
6.Loss of 2 engines for each one shot down
7.Effort/cost to make more than a fighter

A combination of heavy bombers and fighters seems more effective in war than the same number of fighter-bombers. The Battle of Britain was hard for the Germans. The UK had brilliantly designed fighters in the Spitfire and Hurricane. Fuel consumption for Britain was not such a problem because we€re `playing at home€. To destroy Britain€s planes and cities with Germany€s selection of aircraft was hard.
1.Ju-87€s range is OK but it can€t fight, needs support - unsuitable
2.He-111€s needs support - suitable
3.FW-190 range is OK - suitable
4.Bf-109 range severe problem - unsuitable
5.Bf-110 range is OK but not effective against fighters, needs support - unsuitable

Germany€s difficulty stemmed from its aircraft. The extremes of the ultra no compromise 109 to the heavily compromised 110, a slow psychological dive-bomber and a slow heavy bomber He-111. They are in my view an odd mix. With the enormous benefit of hindsight the tactics might have been: FW190€s flying high above He-111€s to protect them and engage enemy fighters. The fighter-bomber here confuses things. The Bf-110 suffered heavy losses if sent alone, so it had to be supported. This made lots of work for the fighters who had to protect bombers/fighter-bombers/strange Ju-87€s and attack enemy aircraft. The fighter-bomber can therefore reduce the effectiveness of the fighter. The fighter in this case was the Bf-109, a fighter that had stunning performance but short range/endurance and which performed in dogfights, not escort duty.
With an enormous military budget there must be a temptation to make as many fighter-bombers as fighters. Success depends on the theatre of operations; the opposition and whether they thought fighter-bombers were a good idea. Alternatively, you could add bomb racks to a fighter.


PW

F19_Ob
09-26-2004, 05:11 AM
This is why they are labeled with a high coolfactor http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Monty_Thrud
09-26-2004, 09:29 AM
Yep!...after a mission complete and returning to base in a P38/Bf109 etc, you definately feel good...with a sigh of relief and a pat on the back you can rightfully slip into smug mode http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

p1ngu666
09-26-2004, 09:35 AM
amusingly stuka was ment to have speed of a fighter AND carry bombs. its fine if u never meet any fighters, or if u dont haveto climb with a big bomb...
a bomber with speed of fighter? mossie and b29, few german aircraft, ju88 (s?) and that 4 engine jobby. russian pe2? tu thingy aswell

bf110 was a bomber destroyer long range escort, it does pack alot of punch (or can)

btw west ended up with fighter bombers cos they didnt have a good tatical plane like il2.
for close suport u need small aircraft, not b17's. didnt they bomb own troops when they tried to use b17's?

LEXX_Luthor
09-26-2004, 09:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>A combination of heavy bombers and fighters seems more effective in war than the same number of fighter-bombers. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes. A squadron of P~47 heavy bombers escorted by a squadron of P~47 fighters is the best mix.

p1ngu666
09-26-2004, 09:39 AM
true lexx http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
fw190f8 is good jabo too http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
mossie will pwn as fighter bomber tho, atm we are slowed by bombs, mossie has internal bomb bay, so be less loss of speed http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

LStarosta
09-26-2004, 09:52 AM
OMFG TEH P47 R0x0rZ TEH BIG ONE111!

LEXX_Luthor
09-26-2004, 10:04 AM
One of the more interseting is long range high speed jabo and escort/recce/intercept Bf~109Z.

...at least until Do~335 is releaced. Wonder if it will have bombs. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Jaws2002
09-26-2004, 10:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Patch_whiner:

They are a halfway house and their list of disadvantages in combat is rather long:
1.Climb rate might be as good as a turn fighter but won€t match the best BnZ fighters
2.Turn rate won€t be as good as turn fighter
3.We€re a big target
4.Damage absorption inferior to bomber, rigidity inferior to fighter
5.Bombing capacity lower than a bomber
6.Loss of 2 engines for each one shot down
7.Effort/cost to make more than a fighter

A combination of heavy bombers and fighters seems more effective in war than the same number of fighter-bombers. The Battle of Britain was hard for the Germans. The UK had brilliantly designed fighters in the Spitfire and Hurricane. Fuel consumption for Britain was not such a problem because we€re `playing at home€. To destroy Britain€s planes and cities with Germany€s selection of aircraft was hard.
1.Ju-87€s range is OK but it can€t fight, needs support - unsuitable
2.He-111€s needs support - suitable
3.FW-190 range is OK - suitable
4.Bf-109 range severe problem - unsuitable
5.Bf-110 range is OK but not effective against fighters, needs support - unsuitable



PW <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

For the Battle of Britain you kind of got it wrong. There was no FW-190 in the battle of Britain. The BF-110 was heavy and sluggish but was faster then both Bf 109 and spitfire and had better firepower. It was used very wrong that's what made it loose that bad.
I think the best Fighter bombers in the game are the FW-190 (all the A and F models) and the P47. this things are the tools that will get you in and out of the target area fast, are strong, great bomb load.Are agile at high speed, so you can come in at higher altitude and still make last moment corrections during the bomb run. Plus after you released your ordnance you can go around shoot planes down.
I would take eight Jabo FW-190 over four He-111 + four Bf-109 any day of the week. You have much better chances to get the job done and get home this way.

Patch_whiner
09-26-2004, 10:47 AM
I am no military history expert. If there was no FW-190 then that explains the use of the Bf-110. Japan's Zeke also would have done the job. I just find it hard to see the merits of fighter-bombers. They seem to be like four wheel drive for F1 cars. Less is more.


PW

SkyChimp
09-26-2004, 10:58 AM
Add.....bombracks? To a.......fighter?

That, that just may work.

VW-IceFire
09-26-2004, 11:48 AM
P-47 and P-38 were both fighters long before they were considered fighter bombers. The same goes for the Corsair and the Hellcat. In all cases, they are competent fighters as well as good ground pounders.

The Bf-110 is totally different in my mind. It was designed to be a heavy fighter with the range of a bomber and massive firepower. It was supposed to be for the elite pilots. But it turned into a disaster as a fighter not being fast or agile enough. It did find its role as a fighter-bomber however. It blasts other bombers quite well and it can carry quite a punch against ground targets.

Given the choice, on the Axis side, of a Stuka, a Bf-110 and a FW190A-5 Jabo or a F-8...I'd pick the FW190. Superior speed is of vital importance and the FW190 is clearly a fighter as well...while the others are not.

F19_Ob
09-26-2004, 12:08 PM
I have noticed that I'm very bad in fighting agains late 109's in the P-38.
I'm very good at hiding in clouds and running away though.
Occasionally I get a lucky hit in a bounce or such, but I estimate that any plane on the LW side has easier to spot and catch me so I stay near clouds.

Atleast this ugly baby climbs like a rocket compared to the il-2 wich I seem to favor nowadays.
The stuka with the big thing blocking the front view is another one....good for furballs with spits (he he.... many dont know it has two 20mm cannons) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Patch_whiner
09-27-2004, 02:38 AM
Some interesting points. I have a difficulty not colliding with the AI in fighter-bombers but then I don't really have the practice to fly them properly. FB/AEP is unlike these racing games where if you can drive a Sauber you can drive a McLaren. They all have such completely different characteristics. Fighter-bombers are brutally effective, like US planes its bad news if you get hit by one. I wish the Pe2 was flyable, perhaps PF has some of them. I jump from one plane to the next and get killed (offline) as often due to incorrect flying/landing of the aircraft as being shot down.


PW

Tully__
09-27-2004, 03:06 AM
As IceFire mentioned, many of the aircraft eventually used as fighter bombers were originally conceived as fighters only, the P-47 and P-38 being notable among these. As Pingu mentioned, many of these ended up in the fighter bomber or ground attack roles because there were not enough dedicated light tactical bombers available.

It is interesting to note that by the end of the war some of these so called light fighter bombers were carrying loads that would have been impressive in medium to heavy bombers at the start of the war, and at much higher speeds.

AlGroover
09-27-2004, 03:16 AM
I like to see these as forerunners of today's multi role strike aircraft.

WOLFMondo
09-27-2004, 04:28 AM
I think the IL2 is a bit different from western equivilents. The Soviets required hard hitting close support aircraft. Soviet stratergy while questionable always required the VVS to support the army, thats how they fought the war, quite similar to German and Japanese warfare. US and UK stratergy was different for the most part. The first 4 years were spend sending aircraft into enemy territory to knock out key targets and there was no army to support, high altitude bombing was used, not close air support, I think this is reflected in the bulk of aircraft the RAF and USAAF had. I guess this was different in Africa where they were using fighters as fighter bombers like the P40, Spitfire, Hurricane...planes not really suited to the task. After 1944 the western allies seemed to use planes that were originally designed as light/medium bombers or converted fighters...they did the job, especially the Typhoon and P47.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by p1ngu666:
btw west ended up with fighter bombers cos they didnt have a good tatical plane like il2.
for close suport u need small aircraft, not b17's. didnt they bomb own troops when they tried to use b17's? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The western allies did have lots of planes that could be described as tactical bombers: A20, Beaufighter, B25, B26, Mosquito etc. I think they all started life with somthing else in mind though, I think all were intended as either heavy fighters or light/medium bombers.

Abbuzze
09-27-2004, 05:12 AM
The 110 was not a bad plane as many people think!
In the BoB it was simply used in a totaly wrong way, cause G¶ring give idotic orders. Flying BaZ vs Spits and Hurris that are in combat with 109 should be deadly.
Another example- the Beaufighter, a plane with a gooood reputation, and a real successfull aircraft. British pilots in Africa had the opportunity to test them both, after they captured a 110.
Result:
The 110 outturned the Beaufighter at all altitudes, was faster at high alt but was slower at sealevel... so this poor 110 should be as good as a Beaufightr in the same role keep this in mind!

WOLFMondo
09-27-2004, 05:43 AM
I think the beaufighter was more versatile though, it was an excellent ship killer as much as a strike aircraft and could carry allot of varied ordanance but both had awesome forward firepower.

p1ngu666
09-27-2004, 06:58 AM
true about those light/medium bombers, but they are abit big and costly for such a dangous role as jabo attacks, but yes they are good http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

idea of fighter bomber is to have speed of fighter to evade interception, ofcouse you are slowed by bombs etc.

i like the p38 for its loadout, but i do not fly it at ALL well, im pretty much dead if anything gets on my 6

i also know the mossie is already getting lw fliers worked up, just like irl http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

bf110 canbe deadly, but u haveto get nose on target, and thats hard, also slugish

dunno how ju88 will turn out, not sure if we get the mossie alike one, but that had 1 gun, 5mph slower than a mossie of unknow type

WOLFMondo
09-27-2004, 08:06 AM
Isn't that the Ju188? I think thats the one that saw very limited night fighter use and put the wind up mossie crews.

Was money really a problem for the allies though? The US continued to produce the B24 despite it being much more expensive than the B17. I guess it was more costly in lives and towards the end there was an emphasis on trying to save as many people as possible given how inevitable the Axis defeat was.

Does handling really come into it? I mean the P47 was a great ground pounder because it could carry so much ordanance for the cost of 1 man and 1 plane. but down low, even after an attack and free of bombs it needed escorts because it was out of its element as a fighter. It was also pretty slow when laden with ordanance. About as slow as a light/medium bomber with ordanance.

Maybe part of it was the plane itself and the rest how they were used. Fighter bombers advantage was against flak. Lots of small fast targets vs's bigger and slightly slower targets...but then B25's were used as ground pounders allot in the pacific with those noses packed with lots of guns, as were Beaufighters.

Its all swings and roundaboutshttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Von_Zero
09-27-2004, 09:08 AM
ok, the concept of a figter-Bomber (JaBo) goes further than " put a bomb on a fighter, send it to the target drop the bomb & get back, all of that fast". http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif
How much payload can a fighter carry , compared to a bomber (medium bombers i.e.)? i'd say about 1/3,but that would still affect it's speed & range, thus reducing the chances to get over the target area. Ok, range problem can be solved by the use of droptanks, but speed, stil is a problem.
Against what kind of targets could be used the payload of a Jabo most effectively? factories?
No, but against small, softer,
1. Small targets: tanks, artillery, small observators....
2. Soft targets: infantry, trains, cars,etc
ppl, usualy think about Jabo, more like dive bombers "get there dive over the target, get back". well it's not like that... in order to hit a target like a tank with ONLY ONE bomb, you must get low, and dive(dangerous due to small amount of time to aim), or get on the deck and do a skip bombing. in both cases,. you end VERY low, in a place where not only the dedicated AA and the AA mgs on the tanks shoots at you, but also every peasant with a gun.
soft targets are even more complicated... what damage can do a single bomb dropped over a car column? it will destroy, one two, three trucks.... what damage can a cannon and a pair of mg's? well, at least the same.... the part with the AA remains, maybe a little lighter. so here intervenes the thing called "strafing".
Imagine this: attacking a factory with 50 bf-109 each carrying 4x50kg of bombs.... one thing i can say about something like this... :"ridiculous" a plane like the 109 (or even 190) doesn't have the range to reach a factory, it could not do much damage with that limited payload, and it is hard to believe it could withstand a serious AA barrage. all that beside keeping formation, escorting them, etc
now imagine 10 Ju-88 with 4x250 each, escorted by other 109 or 190 (eventualy with d/t). the result? in some roung numbers this: Incaluable more damage (bigger bombs, better destruction range), more resistance to AA, (as most ppl know, the fighters, not even iterceptors, don't go over the target area, when the AA is shooting)without risking the posibility of defence on the way back, a better range than Jabos (excepting 190/109 with d/t, P-47& P-38), better defence for all the participating planes on the way to the target & back, less expensive.
conclusions:
JaBos can be used ONLY against small targets, in very limited areas, and for strafing tasks. they cannot be used against airfield, or naval attacks. Escort is needed for the way to the target.
In any of the cases the AA is the most dangerous oponent. =&gt;a fighter with a good range, payload, and armor is needed for such tasks.
Bombers can be used for large targets, placed at a respectable distance inside the enemy teritorry, against ships, or airfields,having a good range, payload and resistance, but an escort is absolutely necesary, for both the way to and from the target.=&gt; a bomber with a greater speed, and posibility to evade fighters is needed for such tastks.
good. u may notice a little thing here... how about the targets like fuel deposts, vewry close to the frontline? or large concentrations of troops? well, both of the categoryes, would not bee very effective, maybe not even medium-light bombers.
What is needed then? simple... an ASSAULT aircraft.
Most "JaBo"s were actualy used as assaults a/c, dot some kind of "light bombers". An assault a/c, has, or at least is getting close to a combination of the two categories, good armor, range and load, better speed and maneuvrability. Having this, such a plane can act in high threats where a bomber or a fighter would be unsuitable.
So what is the final conclusion?
My 2 cents: a JaBo is not an "almost bomber" it is an "almost assault plane".
The case of the 110: it was designed as a heavy fighter, like said before, in BoB was used as close escort, instead of being given a larger space of maneuver, it proved succesfull in the begining of the war in east, as a JaBo, getting close to the concept of an assault aircraft. and was deffinately the best nightfighter of the war.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> If there was no FW-190 then that explains the use of the Bf-110. Japan's Zeke also would have done the job. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
hehe, they were using the 110, cuz the Wurger was only a project at that time...it's not like they used the 110 instead of the 190.....
The Zero as a Jabo? with no armor? that's funny....we used the IAR-81 both in the eastern front and against the germans in the west... inm both cases, it was proven suicidal, due to the lack of armor for the engine and for the fuel tank..... just imagine the Zeke...

p1ngu666
09-27-2004, 09:26 AM
id say the mossie was a better night fighter against other night fighters, but 110 has more punch for 4 engine bombers. something the mossie didnt need, but 4x20mm and 4x 303 do hurt http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

i think it was a ju88 S, blitz time roughly, was a bomber rather than night fighter, atleast in what i read http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

WOLFMondo
09-27-2004, 09:44 AM
4 20mm hispano's and 4 0.303's is horrific! Then theres the Beaufighter with 6 0.303's and 4 20mm's. Thats gonna ruin anyones day.

How extensivly was the 110 used against the RAF night raids? Was it particularly successful? I know that the Mossie path finders weren't particularly worried about them but maybe the lanc crews were. Was it used in the day at all as a bomber destroyer? I'd not want to be a 110 pilot/gunner trying it on with 500 B17's and all there escorts. You'd be totally outclassed by P51's and P47's.

p1ngu666
09-27-2004, 12:31 PM
110, and ju88 where the mainstay of the nightjadger i think, i think the mossie out performed them in every way.

110 was used against b17s, did ok if they unescorted.

yes the lancs where worried by them, mossies less so, but u cant fly to berlin and beyond flat out all the way, u simply dont have the fuel, so u could catch a cruising mossie

LilHorse
09-27-2004, 03:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by AlGroover:
I like to see these as forerunners of today's multi role strike aircraft. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hitting the nail on the head here. Fighter-bombers not being worthwhile? Where to begin with how wrong this is? For one thing, today all fighters are fighter-bombers as AlGroover indicates above. There is no such thing as a pure fighter or intercepter anymore.

Further, they were of immense importance in WWII. After Normandy the threat most feared by German troops/ motor/ and armor wasn't Allied tanks, artillery, heavy or medium bombers. The most feared thing in the Allied arsenal were the "Jabos".

The Stuka's ineffectivness in the BoB was due less to it's capabilities (it was no more meant to be able to take on fighters than today's A-10s are) and more to Goerings mis-use of them. The Stuka's role is mainly operational as is that of the fighter-bomber. Heavies for strategic. Mediums for strategic and tactical. Jabos and Stukas for some tactical but mostly operational applications. The beauty of a Jabo is that after it delivers the package it has effectivness as a fighter. If they are escorted (which they should be) then that capability becomes a "force multiplier" in the A2A arena.

Abbuzze
09-27-2004, 03:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WOLFMondo:

How extensivly was the 110 used against the RAF night raids? Was it particularly successful? I know that the Mossie path finders weren't particularly worried about them but maybe the lanc crews were. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Mossies were not worried, but all the other bombers was, in fact (if I remember correct) the german Luftwaffe was much more successfull in the night than at day! In the nightmissions they lost sometimes around 10% of the bombers!!!
Compare this to losses of the daymissions of the USAAF...


19/20. Februar 1944 Leipzig : 78 of 823 Bomber

24/25. M¤rz 1944 Berlin : 82 of 810 Bombern.

30/31. M¤rz 1944 Nürnberg : 95 of 795 Bomber.

But it was a silent and dark dying. The surviving crews didn´t saw their dying friends in the other planes, or battledamadged aircrafts trying to made their way home...

The crew in the B17/24 saw their enemy coming frightening of course, but sitting in a Lance without a lower ball turret, attacked by a 110 with "Schr¤ge Musik" that firing upward with a 60? angle into the wingroot/inner engine...

And this in a Lanc (a good plane without doubt)
where only 19% of the crew survived if it was once hit!!!

here some numbers:
Middlebrook in his book "The Berlin Raids" ( 1988) gives the average number of crew survivingl, out of 7, in a shot down aircaft as

Lancasters
1.3
19%

Stirlings
1.8
26%

Halifax
2.45
35%

However the figures for 77 Squadron Halifax operations between January 1943 and April 1945 would indicate 1.6 (23%) survivors for aircraft shot down.

p1ngu666
09-27-2004, 04:02 PM
night missions had less % loss on average, RAF couldnt sustain the losses the 8th could, still pretty grim http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

and its a shame lanc didnt have belly gunner, but im not sure how much gunners could see anyways, in my mossie book, id say 70% of pilot reports said no return fire, a few did fire back, very few hit the mossie

XyZspineZyX
09-28-2004, 01:31 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v187/Secudus/WhirlyBomber.jpg

Secudus

JR_Greenhorn
09-28-2004, 07:55 PM
I think some of the confusion and disagreement
in this thread originates from the original
post: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Patch_whiner:
With IL2 FB/AEP, we now have flyable aircraft,
which are fighter-bombers. These are planes
like the P38, Bf110 and Pe2 (not flyable).
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>With all due respect to Patch_whiner,
the 3 planes mentioned do not fall easily into the same group. The P-38 is probably classified by most as a fighter-bomber (as
always dependent upon equipment and operation), but the Pe-2 is more of a light bomber or attack plane, and the Bf 110 falls somewhere in
between (depending on whom you ask).

I think when most people think of a fighter-
bomber, they think of a single seat, single engine (save for the P-38 and others). A more fitting moniker for these planes could be
multirole fighters.

Patch_whiner, you seemed to not think much of
the Ju 87; what do you think of other dive bombers and light bombers? Does the Il-2 seem effective, or would you rather use an La or Yak
with bombs? Do you think P-38s would be more
effective as strike aircraft than A-20s or even
B-25s? Is an escorted B-17 safer than a bombed up but escorted P-47, or not?

I'm not trying to critize here, rather I want
to more fully understand the point you're making.

Patch_whiner
09-29-2004, 01:32 PM
JR_Greenhorn

This thread has wavered a little from the main thrust of my argument. This is fine as it is the point of having a forum. Like people the aircraft in IL2 FB/AEP are all different. I think the categories of fighters and bombers to be effective in war. The air superiority fighter rules the sky and destroys anything. The heavy bomber can deliver large destruction, it may need protection but it can protect itself and it has long range. I like the idea (not very practical with a front piston engined aircraft) of the bomber being able to refuel the attendant fighter. So we have the Ferrari and the HGV. The fighter-bomber attempts to be the V8 estate car. The fighter-bomber (in WW2 FB not modern jets) is unable to BnZ as effectively as a fighter, it can€t turn like a Yak, this disadvantage in manoeuvrability far outweighs the advantages of firepower, multi-engines, armour etc. If a fighter-bomber attacks an unescorted bomber then the fighter-bomber will be more effective than a fighter, but if it meets fighters or fighters escorting bombers then it will be at a disadvantage. Manufacturing is another area, if it takes the same effort to make 1 Bf-110 as 2 Bf-109€s then I would go for the latter. The Bf-109 is tremendous as long as you€re not far away from the target, 2 different targets can be attacked simultaneously. If one gets shot down you lose 1 engine and pilot. In a Spitfire 2 Bf-109€s are more of a problem than 1 Bf-110. Fighter-bombers do have a role for bombing troops, cars, lorries, recon, night sorties etc. This doesn€t hurt the enemy as much as the loss of its cities, factories, expensive aircraft from heavy bombers and the fighters that assist them.

Ju-87, not really a fighter-bomber because it can€t fight, slow, defenceless, merely a loss of 2 crew and an engine if it meets a fighter. Requires support or weak opposition. Better to put the engine in a Bf-109.

IL2 Sturmovik, flying tank, not really a fighter-bomber because it stands no chance against a fighter. Good for bombing airfields etc.

Bf-110 is a fighter-bomber, it€s a hard fight though, poor roll rate, can€t climb like a Spitfire, P-51 and easily out-turned by a Hurricane. A large target, which needs support against class fighters to avoid heavy losses.

I don€t think modern jets are fighter-bombers because of the success of WW2 fighter-bombers.

PW

Von_Zero
09-29-2004, 02:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> The fighter-bomber (in WW2 FB not modern jets) is unable to BnZ as effectively as a fighter, it can€t turn like a Yak, this disadvantage in manoeuvrability far outweighs the advantages of firepower, multi-engines, armour etc. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
what you are describing is not a Fighter-bomber, but rather a heavy fighter (like the 110, Pe-3bis, Me-210/410....).
A heavy fighter is primarely intended to be used against bombers, thus having more firepower, armour, etc They are not intended to be used directly against fighters, that is the reason they have a rear gunner, to defend in case they meet a superior oponent (like a "pure" fighter)).
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> If a fighter-bomber attacks an unescorted bomber then the fighter-bomber will be more effective than a fighter, but if it meets fighters or fighters escorting bombers then it will be at a disadvantage <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
the 190 was a figher bomber right? here is a little scenario: one 190 A4 carrying one 250kg bomb (thus being a Fighter-bomber) meets a TB-3. assuming he drops the bomb before engaging the bomber.... what is the difference between him and another Fw-190A4, that has a droptank (thus being a pure fighter)?
as i said before, a fighter-bomber, after launching the bomb, becomes a figher. the 110 with bombs is a figher-bomber. after drop it becomes a HEAVY Fighter.
it's quite simple....... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif