Any fighter that carries bombs or rockets can be considered a “fighter bomber”. The only difference between the Attacker F.1 and the Attacker FB.1 in real life is that the FB.1 is capable of mounting bombs and rockets.
Following this train of thought, most if not all of the US air tech tree should receive the strike aircraft designation and potentially airspawn. Spitfires that can carry bombs should also potentially receive this. Really, basically every fighter should have this designation.
No. only those specifically converted and used for that role.
Yes because britain wanted a strike aircraft hence why they developed a strike version. You are actually refuting your self. That is amazing
No. Because your train of thought utterly derailed the moment you tried to read.
Did they receive a special model just to carry more bombs? Like the P47, or FW 190? Otherwise no.
I think you will still not see how you are in conflict with your own argument, so let me spell it out.
ANY FIGHTER THAT HAD A CONVERSION/SPECIAL VERSION DESIGNED TO CARRY BOMBS IN A GROUND ATTACK ROLE IS A FIGHTERBOMBER/ATTACKER.
So no a fighter carrying bombs is not a “strike aircraft”. Because Ground strikes where not the primary role, only an option.
Hence why most versions of the P47 in the game should be atatckers as well while not a single version of the P51 should be.
And then again I called it an attacker, not Fighter bomber because surprise surprise that was the Attacker FB 1s official role in the RAF.
" The Attacker FB.1 was a fighter-bomber that differed little from the original F.1 model, except that it was expected to operate as a ground attack aircraft."
and as we are already using bad sources, here Wikipedia citing british manuals.
Neither of the dictionary you’ve provided actually contradict with one another, or the definition I provided. Oxford (which you just so happen to call “the best”) just says it can fight other planes and drop bombs, which any fighter that can carry a bomb can do.
Also, it is hilarious that you are saying that dictionaries are bad sources. Do you understand what the argument I’ve made is? The argument I’ve made is precisely with the definition of “fighter-bomber”. One of the primary main goals of dictionaries is specifically to provide definitions for words. If they are bad sources for what words are supposed to mean, then I’m afraid there’s no good sources.
Since you decided to quote Wikipedia, allow me to do some quoting of Wikipedia myself.
“The North American Aviation P-51 Mustang is an American long-range, single-seat fighter and fighter-bomber used during World War II and the Korean War, among other conflicts.”
The recent discussion is from my pov pointless as it is obvious that gaijin simply don’t care about comprehensible classifications of aircraft. The game is full of examples of “wrong”" classifications. A few even more clearer examples:
KI 102 (57mm) - the version in the game was developed as ground attack aircraft - classified as interceptor
P-61 & F-82 - nightfighter and long range escort/nightfighter classified as interceptors
XF5F - interceptor prototype classified as fighter
Bf 109 Z - the version in game (irl 5 instead of 4 30mm MK 108) designed as interceptor classified as fighter
Various Japanese interceptors like J7W1, Ki 94 etc classified as fighters
So it looks like the classifications were set either due to balancing reasons (airspawn or not below rank VI) or due to spawn cost in other modes than Air RB - or spawn options as described in the OP. Or just the placement/positioning of the aircraft in the TT…
Even in case i am completely wrong with my povs and they would decide the classification by throwing a coin - the OP asked for the MiG 27 - the plane was optimized (just look at the nose) for ground attacks, so imho gaijin is (as shown above) wrong with the fighter classification…