'Penultimate'? Do you not mean 'ultimate?' I knew a man who flew Beaufighters. He recalled how much power the Beaufighter had. On take off he felt himself being pushed back into his seat. Arthur flew other aircraft before and during the war including Mosquito's, Spitfire's and the Gloster Gladiator. I think the beau was too big for carrier operations.

I dunno about that, Mossies made there way to carriers and they were about as big as a beau. Pretty fast as well, I think the later ones with the 2 stage blowers were up at around 350 mph.

So the Beau could have made it to carrier ops, but did it in fact ever do so? Also, I know Beaufighters were used to attack shipping in Norway but I was not aware that they had been used in the Pacific.

Who cares about carriers. the Beau was ideal for island hopping. Anyway, the question remains as to whether it was the best anti-shipping striker in the Pacific.

We operated 581 Beau's. Operations started in new Guinea during 1942 with 30 and 31 SQNS. Oz built examples replaced earlier British ones and were pressed into service with 22, 30, 31, 92 and 93 SQNs.

"I was not aware that they had been used in the Pacific. " apart from Oz, the USAAF also used Beaufighters in the PTO as nightfighters.

I suppose it depends on whether you consider the Lockheed P-38 to be a "maritime strike platform." The Beau carried an impressive armaments loadout and it possessed excellent speed. The P-38 packed nearly as effective an offensive punch, and its speed and many other flight parameters exceeded those of the Beau making the P-38 better able to defend itself against aerial threats even while configured for strike missions with drop tanks. v^2

The issue with the Beaufighter with regards to carrier operations was that it did not have folding wings, unlike the Sea Mosquito. Obviously, the Beau could have been so adapted but it would appear that it wasn't considered worth the the effort. In addition, the British carriers were short on hangar space, so a plane the size of the Beau would have been a tight squeeze. For that matter, twin engined aircraft were relatively rare on WWII carrier decks. As far as P-38 vs. Beau as maritime strike aircraft, I would argue that the Beau held a number of edges. The relatively quiet engines made it harder for the Japanese to spot. It's bomber origins and it's air-cooled radial engines made it more resistant to battle damage. The P-38 was designed more as a high-altitude fighter and as such, I suspect it was not at its best in low altitude strikes. While it was a better able to deal with aerial threats, it wouldn't call it as good as the Beau in the actual mission. I think a better comparison would be the attack versions of B-25's armed with a 75mm cannon and a load of .50 cals.

The RAF flew them in Burma and India. VV2 mentioned that the P-38's offensive punch was compatible with the Beau. Actually, the P-38 had a single 20mm cannon and 4 0.5in HMG, while most Beau's carried 4 20mm cannons and 6 .303 MGs, as well as a greater bomb load.

The Aussie Beufighters later had 4 x .50's instead of the 6 x .303's, and of course the Beu's also had greater situational awareness over the P38, due to the second crew man.