# Best Allied bomber destroyer.



## pattle (Aug 30, 2013)

If the roles had been reversed and Germany was bombing Britain by day with large fleets of four engine bombers Eighth Air Force style what would have been the best aircraft in the Allied fighter arsenal to combat these bombers? 
Or to put the question in a more pertinent way if the Germans had of been able to put one type of Allied fighter into production for the sole purpose of shooting down B24's and B17's then which one would have been the best choice? 
I don't want to over complicate this thread with production practicalities etc, if possible I would just like to hear peoples ideas on which Allied fighter was the most capable and best suited to the task of destroying large P51 escorted fleets of four engine bombers by day. 

To be honest I haven't given a lot of thought to what would be the strongest candidate so may well in future change my mind. My opening proposal is the P38 Lightning. I understand the P38 was not going to be the favourite in a dogfight with a P51 but having said that I feel the P38's concentrated nose mounted armament which included a 20mm canon would have been the most effective of all Allied fighters against lets say a B17.


----------



## Thorlifter (Aug 30, 2013)

I'll think about it a little more when I get home, but first thoughts would go to the P-47, F4U (Cannon versions), or Tempest. All three packed one heck of a punch, could climb with the best of them, could dogfight (the Tempest not so much), and had the ability to stay in the air for extended time when equipped with drop tanks. That's just my first thought. There may be better at destroying bombers and I just haven't thought of them.


----------



## varsity07840 (Aug 30, 2013)

Thorlifter said:


> I'll think about it a little more when I get home, but first thoughts would go to the P-47, F4U (Cannon versions), or Tempest. All three packed one heck of a punch, could climb with the best of them, could dogfight (the Tempest not so much), and had the ability to stay in the air for extended time when equipped with drop tanks. That's just my first thought. There may be better at destroying bombers and I just haven't thought of them.



I'd go with the P-38. It was intended to be an interceptor rather than an air superiority/dogfighter. Long endurance, fast climb. excellellent concentrated firepower from the nose rather than from converging wing guns. The P-47 was a great airplane but not known for its climb rate.

Duane


----------



## Greyman (Aug 30, 2013)

I gotta go with the Spitfire.


----------



## Juha (Aug 30, 2013)

a


----------



## davebender (Aug 30, 2013)

It was designed for that role so it ought to be superior as a bomber interceptor.


----------



## swampyankee (Aug 30, 2013)

Please, please, not the Bell FM-1


----------



## wuzak (Aug 30, 2013)

I would say a combination of the Spitfire and the Whirlwind.

Spits take out the escorts, Whirlwinds, with the concentrated 4 cannons in the nose, take out the bombers.


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 30, 2013)

Spitfire XIV.


----------



## CobberKane (Aug 30, 2013)

Large formations of four engine bombers, escorted by P51s? Big ask for any aircraft. Seems to me you would need three major dualities:

1. Multiple cannon armament with plenty of firing time - I know there are some who argue that HMGs would be sufficient for knocking down heavies, but the Luftwaffe were the only air force that had to actually do it and they thought otherwise. 
2. Sufficient performance to have at least a chance of getting away from all those Mustangs. In fact, aside from the Me262 and maybe the Heinkel Pfeil I don't think any WII fighter could have done this, but some would be more vulnerable than others. 
3. Pilot protection. No way of getting around it, you are going to get shot up doing this work.

Bearing in mind the parameters of the question place the scenario in 1944 or later...

Spitfire - too fragile
Tempest - maybe, but borderline performance at altitude
P-51 -also a bit fragile and too lightly armed
P47 - more like it, but still no cannon
P-38 - even more like it, but only one cannon

If we are allowed to modify our fighter a bit, I'd go with the P47 upgraded to cannon. I don't think it's average climb rate would matter too much, because by 1944 the Germans knew when the bombers were coming in plenty of time. Failing that, how about, maybe, the Mosquito? Speed and twin engine reliability of the P-38, firepower of the Tempest (plus) and while it couldn't dogfight with a P-51, it could at least outrun one in the right situation.


----------



## snelson (Aug 31, 2013)

+1
I think the mosquito would be the best choice.


----------



## silence (Aug 31, 2013)

What about a P-63? From what I've read here that plane was pretty hot, and I imagine that 37mm carries a helluva punch.

More practically, a P-47 with 4x20mm and underwing rockets like the R4M.

And for the "out there" solution, the XP-58 (dumping the turrets and second crewman).


----------



## pattern14 (Aug 31, 2013)

What about the Mk 111 Meteor? Not in the same class as the 262, but it would have done the job, i'm sure.


----------



## Thorlifter (Aug 31, 2013)

If you want the 4x20mm cannons, that is why I suggested the cannon wielding Corsair. The P-63A would be interesting, but the climb rate was poor (all based on Wiki numbers) compared to the F4U-4 (1,870 ftm better), the P-47D (620 fpm better), the Tempest V (2,200 fpm better) and the P-38 (2,250 fpm better), plus I think durability would come into play with the liquid cooled Allison. But that 37mm would do incredible damage. I don't have the numbers of how later versions of the P-63 were improved, but I'm sure it was.

I'm almost talking myself into the F4U or the Tempest would be the best heavy killer due to ROC, top speed, ability to boom and zoom, armament, and durability. Where the Tempest would struggle is dogfighting, but it could certainly run away, then return to the fight.


----------



## wuzak (Aug 31, 2013)

My understanding is that the 37mm cannon wasn't as potent as its calibre suggests.

If you want big bore, perhaps a Mosquito FB.XVIII is the go. That would put a hole in any bomber. But would require other fighters to keep the escorts away.

F4U-4 is a bit of a late comer, so not really an option for WW2.

Spitfire XIV has the climb, speed, manouevrability and firepower to do the job.


----------



## JtD (Aug 31, 2013)

I think that twins are mostly out of the question, just like German twins were out once the escorts showed up. The P-38 is a possible exception, but it still cost twice as much as a single engined fighter without being twice as good.

The British had Spitfires and Typhoons available in 1943, which is about when the bombing would start. Both of them could be armed with 4 20mm cannons, and the Spitfire IX offered a very decent high altitude performance. In my opinion there wasn't much the Spitfire lacked for the task, it was available and well established, so I suppose the obvious solution is to put the 4 cannons into the wing and have it go for it. The Typhoon lacked high altitude performance pretty much like the Fw 190 did, and it would not be first choice, I suppose.


----------



## redcoat (Aug 31, 2013)

wuzak said:


> Spitfire XIV has the climb, speed, manouevrability and firepower to do the job.


It's the role the aircraft was designed for. 
As you have stated, it can outclimb any other allied aircraft with ease, it has the option of 4x 20mm cannon, and it can hold it's own in a dogfight with anything.


----------



## CobberKane (Aug 31, 2013)

wuzak said:


> My understanding is that the 37mm cannon wasn't as potent as its calibre suggests.
> 
> If you want big bore, perhaps a Mosquito FB.XVIII is the go. That would put a hole in any bomber. But would require other fighters to keep the escorts away.
> 
> ...



I would say the Spit XIV would certainly be a candidate, especially with the 4x20mm cannon option, though a bit more survivability would be nice. The F4UCwas tougher and had altitude performance, but I believe it's cannon tended to freeze up at altitude, even in the Pacific, and being American cannon if they weren't frozen they were probably jammed anyway - or had that been sorted by then? All depends how much we are allowed to modify our planes, I guess. I still rule the Tempest out on the basis of diminishing performance at altitude, though I don't doubt it could 'dogfight' with the P-51 lower down


----------



## JtD (Aug 31, 2013)

Spitfire XIV, Tempest, F4U-1C - all (late) 1944, 1945. You guys would not be opposing Luftwaffe bombing for about a year?

The Tempest was still superior to a Fw 190 at altitude, and see what the Germans did with the 190.


----------



## pattle (Aug 31, 2013)

nuuumannn said:


> Spitfire XIV.


I think the Spitfire Mk XIV ticks more of the boxes than anything else on offer. I am thinking that the Spitfire Mk XIV would have been able to use it's superior ceiling to help avoid being bounced by the Mustangs before they were able to attack the bombers, it's armament looks good and I think that the Spit would have had the upper hand if forced into a dogfight with the Mustang. Also more importantly I think the Spit had the performance to get away from the Mustang and avoid dogfights.


----------



## fastmongrel (Aug 31, 2013)

Thorlifter said:


> I'll think about it a little more when I get home, but first thoughts would go to the P-47, F4U (Cannon versions), or Tempest. All three packed one heck of a punch, could climb with the best of them, could dogfight (the Tempest not so much), and had the ability to stay in the air for extended time when equipped with drop tanks. That's just my first thought. There may be better at destroying bombers and I just haven't thought of them.



I always thought that at its best altitudes the Tempest was reckoned to be a good dogfighter. The altitude problem was the lack of a good high altitude supercharger caused by English Electric having to force Napiers to concentrate on reliabilty first rather than developing hotter and hotter versions. Very late prototype Sabres had a 3 stage (or 3 speed 2 stage not 100% sure) blower that might have got the Tempest high enough. For real punch to knock out bombers the RAF already had the Vickers 40mm S gun which had originally been designed as an anti bomber gun before it was turned into a ground attack gun.


----------



## vinnye (Aug 31, 2013)

It looks like the Spitfire XIV is going to get the job done.
It helps if you have a height advantage and can decide when you want to engage, and have the dive ability to disengage when you want.
I think they could have been available in large enough numbers to do serious damage.


----------



## pattle (Aug 31, 2013)

fastmongrel said:


> I always thought that at its best altitudes the Tempest was reckoned to be a good dogfighter. The altitude problem was the lack of a good high altitude supercharger caused by English Electric having to force Napiers to concentrate on reliabilty first rather than developing hotter and hotter versions. Very late prototype Sabres had a 3 stage (or 3 speed 2 stage not 100% sure) blower that might have got the Tempest high enough. For real punch to knock out bombers the RAF already had the Vickers 40mm S gun which had originally been designed as an anti bomber gun before it was turned into a ground attack gun.


I didn't know that the 40mm Vickers gun was designed for use against bombers, I suppose the fact or at least part of the fact that it wasn't used for this purpose was due to there being no real threat from daylight bombers after the Battle of Britain, or was it just a bad idea?


----------



## Greyman (Aug 31, 2013)

The British decided that pound for pound the Hispano ended up being a better weapon for destroying bombers.


----------



## davebender (Aug 31, 2013)

> P-38 is a possible exception, but it still cost twice as much as a single engined fighter



No need to guess. U.S. Aircraft prices are only a couple mouse clicks away.
United States Army Air Forces in World War II

As you can see a P-38 costs only slightly more then a P-47.


----------



## yulzari (Aug 31, 2013)

pattle said:


> I didn't know that the 40mm Vickers gun was designed for use against bombers, I suppose the fact or at least part of the fact that it wasn't used for this purpose was due to there being no real threat from daylight bombers after the Battle of Britain, or was it just a bad idea?



I understood it was selected by the Air Ministry as a potential bomber defence gun to engage fighters before they got into range to fire. One was tested in a mid upper turret on a Wellington. Presumably using the HE round.


----------



## fastmongrel (Aug 31, 2013)

There was also a Vickers 25.4mm cannon that was one of the guns considered for the Spitfire in its early development THE VICKERS 25


----------



## JtD (Aug 31, 2013)

davebender said:


> No need to guess. U.S. Aircraft prices are only a couple mouse clicks away.
> United States Army Air Forces in World War II
> 
> As you can see a P-38 costs only slightly more then a P-47.


I wasn't guessing, but then I wasn't comparing it to the single most expensive single engined fighter in the USAAF inventory either. If you take less selective data, you'll end up exactly where I said.


----------



## l'Omnivore Sobriquet (Aug 31, 2013)

With a small frontal aera and a heavy gun in the nose, Bell's P-63 has to be a very good bomber destroyer.
If allowed a free hand, we would fit it with a powerful supercharger gear..., and why not, putting in front some Russian goodies like one Nudelman-Suranov NS-37 of 37mm fame. Just to perfect the idea...
Getting a high altitude gear for the P-63 was very close to being real, while we could think that, given a good knowledge of permorfances of the latest Ru gunnery, and (then) given the will, the USA may well have force bargained a licence prodution of one of these, considering the gargantuan amount of aid they were able to promise and ship.

Sticking to strick reality, was the historical P-63 so bad a contender ?
Lacking speed and climb in the higher third of altitude yes, but displaying more than the required qualities otherwise.

Besides, I think that squadrons of P-47s would have done a hell of a job given the opportunity. Those things were hard to stop. Excellent altitude performance for the task, and armement, hmff.., said to be too small ?? I would have liked to see the verdict of reality on this point... Certainly, the Fighter Command philosophy of 1940 with its 8 small caliber 'sprayers' per aircraft showed results. And similarly 'thinking' waves of P-47s would have given a good 1944 brand of the show.

Finaly, as the NS-37 was mentionned, one should not forget the small batch of Yak-9UT equipped with this knocker. It WAS a good bomber destroyer. 
In front of a 8th AF type of opponant it would have displayed its shortcoming certainly (lack of altitude performance, of armour/protection.) But in any case, whatever the altitude I would not have liked being part of a bomber crew, sitting in tail or sitting in nose, with flights of this little big one closing in for a pass.


----------



## pinsog (Aug 31, 2013)

The Tempest was still superior to a Fw 190 at altitude, and see what the Germans did with the 190.[/QUOTE]

And look what Mustangs and Thunderbolts did to the 190 at high altitude.

Why is the climb rate of the P47 an issue for bomber interception? The Germans used ME110's for daylight interception until they were driven from the skies by P51s and P47s and I don't think an ME 110 had a better climb than the P47. The paddle bladed prop fixed the climb issue anyway. Radar should give the P47 enough time to climb to altitude for interception.

I'm a huge fan of the 50 Browning, but for intercepting 4 engine heavies I would definitely rearm with cannon. My pick would be the P38 and P47 together. I would re-arm the P47 with 4 20mm cannon and a HUGE supply of ammo. The P38 I would arm with maybe a 30mm or 37mm in the center and a 20mm on each side of it.

The P63 is a very interesting concept, especially if it was re-armed in the manner suggested in post number 29.


----------



## OldSkeptic (Aug 31, 2013)

Using British equipment: Spit, Mossie (with 2 stage engines) and Tempests.

Spits to take on the escorts, they have the speed and climb rate to get above the escorts and can 'mix it' as required. 
Good tactics would have small numbers bouncing the escorts early on to force them to ditch their drop tanks (starting the 'peel away' early as possible).
Mossies with 20mm, 40mm and 57mm (the 6 pounder Tse) cannons along with rockets to hammer the bombers, break up formations, etc.
In other words an updated Spit/Hurricane scenario.

The Mossies don't mix it with the escorts of course, but have the speed to get in, hit bombers and evade the escorts.

Tempests to patrol the lower altitudes to stop the escorts breaking away and returning (and attacking) down lower as they leave, essentially low cover.

The tactics behind the Tempests move to keep the escorts under stress all the time and limit their freedom of action. Doing a typical 'low on ammo/low on fuel' dive down and break away takes them into the Tempest zone which have the speed to catch them unless they go flat out.

This is a very important tactic as the range of the escorts is determined by the distance they can cover after combat and then returning to base on internal (and CoG stable) fuel. If they are being harassed and caught by very fast planes they will have to maintain altitude (often having to gain altitude after combat, again using more fuel) and speed going home which cuts their range considerably (say by having to run at max cruising speed instead of most economical).

Of course, once you have 'peeled off' the escorts, then all can get in and hammer the bombers (inc the Tempests). Standard Park tactics (later used by the Germans too) frontal attacks to break them up, beam attacks by your twins with the heavy weapons, etc.

Similar tactics with US equipment with Mustangs (possibly stripped down a bit) in the Spit role, P-38s in the Mossie role and P-47s in the lower role (though they have the advantage of, after being upgunned, being good bomber destroyers too). The P-47s can (thanks to their excellent high altitude performance) sit higher, away from the main combat (probably a bit behind the bomber group) waiting to pounce on the escorts breaking away.

Note great success (in terms of numbers brought down) harassing the escorts is not entirely necessary, after they have been caught a few times breaking away they will have to change their tactics and thus reduce their range. When (if you have done this well) happens then you can re-configure your mix and roles of defending aircraft as required.

Ideally you have both US and British equipment and then you can combine them all into their optimum tactical roles.

All this requires a very good C&C system and someone of Park's ability to coordinate and control the action of course.

Not this is an amended and improved version of what actually happened in late 43. But the Germans were crippled by not enough fighters overall, twins that were too slow to survive against any escorts and only having one aircraft with good enough high altitude performance, plus I have grave suspicions about their overall C&C.


----------



## grampi (Aug 31, 2013)

Thorlifter said:


> I'll think about it a little more when I get home, but first thoughts would go to the P-47, F4U (Cannon versions), or Tempest. All three packed one heck of a punch, could climb with the best of them, could dogfight (the Tempest not so much), and had the ability to stay in the air for extended time when equipped with drop tanks. That's just my first thought. There may be better at destroying bombers and I just haven't thought of them.



P-47s weren't very good climbers, in fact there were few fighters of the day that couldn't outclimb it...it was just so heavy....


----------



## grampi (Aug 31, 2013)

CobberKane said:


> Large formations of four engine bombers, escorted by P51s? Big ask for any aircraft. Seems to me you would need three major dualities:
> 
> 1. Multiple cannon armament with plenty of firing time - I know there are some who argue that HMGs would be sufficient for knocking down heavies, but the Luftwaffe were the only air force that had to actually do it and they thought otherwise.
> 2. Sufficient performance to have at least a chance of getting away from all those Mustangs. In fact, aside from the Me262 and maybe the Heinkel Pfeil I don't think any WII fighter could have done this, but some would be more vulnerable than others.
> ...



I can't think of a single scenario where a Mosquito could outrun a Mustang....it certainly couldn't outdive it....


----------



## CobberKane (Aug 31, 2013)

l'Omnivore Sobriquet said:


> With a small frontal aera and a heavy gun in the nose, Bell's P-63 has to be a very good bomber destroyer.
> If allowed a free hand, we would fit it with a powerful supercharger gear..., and why not, putting in front some Russian goodies like one Nudelman-Suranov NS-37 of 37mm fame. Just to perfect the idea...
> Getting a high altitude gear for the P-63 was very close to being real, while we could think that, given a good knowledge of permorfances of the latest Ru gunnery, and (then) given the will, the USA may well have force bargained a licence prodution of one of these, considering the gargantuan amount of aid they were able to promise and ship.
> 
> ...



I think the RAF were well aware of the limitations of the .303 Browning and were making efforts to to up-gun their fighters from the BoB on. But I agree that the P-47 would have been a better bomber destroyer than the Spitfire. It was much tougher, could be up-gunned easily and carry a heavier ammo load, and had better endurance. Effectively, it could do in one sortie what a Spit would do in two, sort of a twin engine zerstroyer with only one engine.
On the note of the twin engine fighter, history records that they worked great when there were no escort fighters to deal with but got shot out of the skies as soon as soon as the P-51s had a licence to roam. In the former environment I think the Mossie would have shone - it had much better performance than the Bf110, which was an efficient bomber killer. In the latter scenario, the P-51s might have had more trouble knocking them down, but it wouldn't have mattered - as with the historical experience, the twin engine intereceptors would never have got to the bombers anyway. 
-


----------



## pattle (Aug 31, 2013)

I would have thought that the best tactic for ending a bomber offensive would have been to destroy as many bombers as possible and avoid the escorts wherever possible. Without wanting to get involved in a pointless argument over which was the better aircraft out of the Mustang and Spitfire I will say that this particular set of circumstances favours the Spitfire. The Spitfire having a better operating ceiling than the bombers and their P51 escorts would have meant that these aircraft would of had nowhere to hide, the Spitfire would of had the advantage in height both in attack and in defence prior to attack. Having attacked the bombers the surviving Spitfires would have been able to use their superior speed and climb rate to get out of the way of the P51's and if the Spitfire was forced to dogfight then in that event it was also more agile than the P51. I understand that my argument is very simplistic and that the Spitfire would not always being flying at maximum altitude but the tactics used by the Eighth Air Force against defending Me109's and FW190's would not have worked so well against the more capable Spitfire. A lot of this would come down to the pilots of course and if I had an Air Force crewed by poorly trained and inexperienced pilots then I would want to give them aircraft that had the attribute of being able to get them away from angry escort fighter pilots.


----------



## pattle (Aug 31, 2013)

With it's fast dive speed, radial engine and robust airframe I think the P47 would have been a particularly good aircraft for destroying bombers had it had canon, but in reality it did not have canon. I am not so sure about how good the P47's would have been at escaping the P51s following their attack, with the P47's poor climb rate I would have thought this would have forced it all to often into a low altitude dogfight with the pursuing P51's.


----------



## pinsog (Aug 31, 2013)

What is the largest reasonable guns that could be installed in the wing of a P47? 30mm?


----------



## OldSkeptic (Aug 31, 2013)

grampi said:


> I can't think of a single scenario where a Mosquito could outrun a Mustang....it certainly couldn't outdive it....



Fighter config Mossie with Merlin 70's (better Merlin 130s) is in the 420mph class, oh and they could dive all right. 57mm gun (or others) doesn't impact the speed, rockets do, but they can be fired and the racks dropped.
Don't forget by using good tactics the escorts are already being engaged.
More than enough speed to engage the bombers and slip away from the escorts if they become involved. That was the problem with the German twins (110s, 88s, some 410s) they just didn't have the speed to get away if they were engaged (would have been different if they had made the TA-154s of course). 

The effective tactics would be to keep the speed up (380mph+ min), beam (above, etc) attacks with rockets and the big guns, frontal attacks with the 20mm armed ones. Peel away from escorts if they approach and go for a shallow dive and accelerate to max straight line speed, then leveling off, to avoid the escorts then re-engage. Makes for a very difficult engagement for the escorts ... and they burn more fuel as well (and they are looking over their shoulders all the time for Spits). The Mossies have the contineous speed to stay ahead in a long chase .. and can run them out of fuel if they try. Plus this makes for a tricky tactical situation for the escorts, if they go for a chase then they leave the bombers alone. If they don't go for a chase the Mossies come back (or others engage of course).
Probably keep some Spits close to the Mossies to catch any that get through the bouncing attacks on the escorts.

Probably do it at squadron level with a squadron all having the same armament. Eg 3 Mossie squadrons, one for frontal attacks (20mm boys), others beam, etc (big guns and rockets).


----------



## OldSkeptic (Aug 31, 2013)

I warming to this theme. Thinking a bit more about it and taking some leaves from Park's book.

You wouldn't wait until they are over Germany. You'd start your escort 'peeling off' early on as possible.

Use PR versions of the Mossie and Spit as spotters, sitting up at 40,000ft helping track the bombers and escorts. Early attacks are by small numbers of Spits concentrating on the escorts at first, making them drop their tanks. Then the Mossie (and more Spit) attacks on the bombers and remaining escorts.

Remember the escorts are layered, rendezvousing with the bombers and escorting them for a period of time, then others take over. You catch the rendezvousing escorts as they approach the bombers, again with the aim to disrupt them and make them drop their tanks. Note that this is not 'furballs', this is harassing bounces to break up the escorts, takes good discipline on the defending fighters to stick to the plan of course.

Set your Tempests last at the 20,000ft-15,000ft level for the escort and bombers return. The Tempests harass the returning escorts (forcing them to change their escape tactics) and of course hammering returning and straggling bombers.

This means the escorts have some serious problems, good as the Mustang is. You can't simply run off and chase down the twins with ease, they will run you dry on fuel if your try. You can't break off, go down low and cause havok on the way home. You are harassed from before you rendezvous with the bombers and on the way home, you can't cruise at most economical speed anywhere.

And that makes a big difference, your range is reduced by about 40% at max cruise vs most econ cruise. If you can get them to drop their tanks early on then they ain't gonna be flying all over Germany.

The bombers are having their escorts stripped off and are now under attack from the beginning, the middle and the return. Thinking about how Park would do it, he would probably slip in some high speed Mossie and Tempest frontal attacks (still fast enough at 25,000ft and can dive away easily, even a Mustang is not going to be able to catch a Tempest diving and if they follow down too far then come into its best performance range, plus there goes those tanks again) when the escorts get attacked the very first time. Then coordinate the Spits escort attacks with further bomber attacks as they approach. Then everything to hammer the bombers at periods with no escorts left. 

As well as radar the spotter planes help supply the information to do all this, sitting basically immune from it all. If some brave Mustang boy tries to come up to that level, then he will have to drop his tanks and you can keep away from him easily, he will drop out shortly and that is him out of the game.

Remember you are not trying to kill lots of escorts you are harassing them to 'peel' them off the bombers. 

And you would start this over France and Holland, even when the bombers are covered by the P-47s, quick (single squadron level) bouncing attacks.


----------



## redcoat (Aug 31, 2013)

I don't think Mossie would be a good idea if the bombers were escorted by P-51's. The success of the Mossie was down to that it was normally fast enough to avoid interception by enemy fighters, but in this case that wouldn't apply as the fighters would be already in position to intercept them, and the Mossies wouldn't be fast enough to get away.

ps: the 20 1 is due to me spilling some beer over my keyboard


----------



## wuzak (Aug 31, 2013)

pinsog said:


> Why is the climb rate of the P47 an issue for bomber interception?



It reduces the options on the timing of the interception. That is, the interception will have to be closer to home.

A faster climbing interceptor, such as the Spitfire, can be at altitude well before the bombers are over your territory, and can be vectored to intercept earlier, if so desired.


----------



## pinsog (Aug 31, 2013)

wuzak said:


> It reduces the options on the timing of the interception. That is, the interception will have to be closer to home.
> 
> A faster climbing interceptor, such as the Spitfire, can be at altitude well before the bombers are over your territory, and can be vectored to intercept earlier, if so desired.



ME110's were waiting at altitude to intercept B17's so climb performance shouldn't be an issue.

I would want P47M's or P47N's with 4 cannon and a BUNCH of ammo. It is fast, tough, can carry a heavy load of weapons without degrading performance, the climb issue had been resolved and even turns well above 25,000 feet. Stay high, keep your speed up, make high speed diving attacks and zoom climb back up. Even a Mustang would have trouble with a P47 above 25,000 feet.


----------



## bob44 (Aug 31, 2013)

Interesting. Historically, the Spitfire, P38, P47 and P51 would be the best choices. Regunned for shooting down the bombers. But throw in a German P51 escort, now we have a very different war. This could probably accelerate the Meteor into service.


----------



## OldSkeptic (Aug 31, 2013)

redcoat said:


> I don't think Mossie would be a good idea if the bombers were escorted by P-51's. The success of the Mossie was down to that it was normally fast enough to avoid interception by enemy fighters, but in this case that wouldn't apply as the fighters would be already in position to intercept them, and the Mossies wouldn't be fast enough to get away.
> 
> ps: the 20 1 is due to me spilling some beer over my keyboard



Except we are talking about coordinated attacks with Spits (as per Park's coordinated ones with Spits and Hurris). And a 420mph class Mossie is fast enough to get in at high speed hit and pull out. The performance margin of the Mustangs is quite small in those circumstances. Even if untouched by the Spits and getting in a bounce with the advantage of dive speed means, at best, one attack then the Mossies are gone, more accurately broken away and coming round for another attack from another direction. 

This is not 110s and the like where the Mustangs have a 100-150mph level speed advantage, they have at best 20-30mph flat out (and burning lots of fuel doing so), not enough to wreck major havok as they did in real life. More ever the Mossies max cruise is as fast (or faster) than the Mustangs and they have heaps of range (and lots of ammo in the 20mm version). if the Mustangs decide to do a chase then the Mossies can just lead them off until the Mustangs have to break away, leaving the bombers uncovered. Plus attacking them means they are open to bounces from high flying Spits.

Plus again these are not lumbering 110s and 88s, a well handled Mossie (in this scenario with two stage Merlins of course) is quite a handful, as the German 109s and 190s found against the Banff Strike wing.

This is the sort if scenario the USAAF could have found if the Germans had got the Ta-154 or even the Do-335 into mass production, hard to deal with. Even harder if you are gotten bounced and dogfighted with by Spits at the same time too.

Very similar scenario with defending P-51s and P-38s. The P-38s poor mach limit is an issue but can be overcome to a great extent by good tactics. 

The key is the correct tactics. A fast (350mph to 380 mph) frontal attack with the 20mm versions, fast beam/etc attacks with rocket (etc) versions. Break away into a shallow dive up to accelerate up to max (420mph) level speed, extend making sure no escorts following and then return for another engagement, continue until ammo is done.

And, of course, Spits are harassing the escorts all the time (and attacking bombers when there are no escorts around), every pilot will be looking over their shoulder and avoiding flying in a straight line for any period of time.

Of course the escorts will get some good bounces in and score kills, but because the speed difference is so small they have come screaming in from dives in the 500mph region, one bounce then gone, recovering lower down and having to climb up to re-engage (and being at a tactical disadvantage while doing this). The pilots are going to have to work their planes real hard, cutting range again and in the back of their minds will be the fact that they need to break for home with enough fuel to fast cruise back at altitude (otherwise the Tempests catch them). No more most economical return at (say) 10,000-20,000ft, Tempest fodder if they do that.
Instead they have to be at (or close to) max cruise speed and with a good altitude.

You are stretching them, cutting their effectiveness, hence allowing more and easier bomber kills and inflicting attrition on them too.


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 31, 2013)

> I would say the Spit XIV would certainly be a candidate, especially with the 4x20mm cannon option, though a bit more survivability would be nice.



What was wrong with its survivability, Cobber? The Spit XIV was Britain's principal medium to high altitude air superiority fighter from mid 1944 until the end of the war. There's no evidence of fragility of structure or lack of capability.

In trials carried out in mid 1944 by the AFDU, a XIV was trialled against a Tempest V, a Mustang III, a Spitfire VIII and IX and proved superior to all of them at altitude. Where it fell down was against the P-51 in dive and range, and the Tempest at low altitude. In the case of the Tempest, between 0 and 10,000 ft, the Tempest reigns supreme, between 10 and 20,000 ft there two are evenly matched, above 20,000 ft the XIV is superior. With regards to the Fw 190 the XIV is superior in every respect except rate of roll.


----------



## CobberKane (Aug 31, 2013)

nuuumannn said:


> What was wrong with its survivability, Cobber? The Spit XIV was Britain's principal medium to high altitude air superiority fighter from mid 1944 until the end of the war. There's no evidence of fragility of structure or lack of capability.
> 
> In trials carried out in mid 1944 by the AFDU, a XIV was trialled against a Tempest V, a Mustang III, a Spitfire VIII and IX and proved superior to all of them at altitude. Where it fell down was against the P-51 in dive and range, and the Tempest at low altitude. In the case of the Tempest, between 0 and 10,000 ft, the Tempest reigns supreme, between 10 and 20,000 ft there two are evenly matched, above 20,000 ft the XIV is superior. With regards to the Fw 190 the XIV is superior in every respect except rate of roll.


 
I didn't mean that the Spit was intrinsically fragile on the way that something like a Zero or Oscar was, just that at the time we are speaking of their are designs that are going to be more resistant to battle Damage due to the use of radial engines, heavier airframes or by virtue of being twin engine designs. The P-47, P-38 and Mosquito all qualify on one or more of these counts, and I'd rather be in one of them while making a run on a box of heavies with all those .50 shooting back at me. On the other hand, I'd rather be in the Spit if the escorts got to me.


----------



## nuuumannn (Sep 1, 2013)

I see, Cobber. I don't really think that was much of an issue and when the XIV was in the air superiority role over the continent in '44 - '45 it proved as tractable as any other type. Remember also that it was faster and more manoeuvrable than the P-38 and Mosquito at altitude.


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 1, 2013)

P-47 without question.

It had the radial engine that would allow it to take punishment unlike liquid-cooled types, it was well armored to protect the pilot from defensive fire AND it had the ability to unload an ugly amount of .50 caliber into anything that was down range.

Add to that the ability to carry HVARs underwing to hurl into formations, much like the Me262's role, and you have a pretty potent contender.

My money would be on the Jug...


----------



## OldSkeptic (Sep 1, 2013)

nuuumannn said:


> I see, Cobber. I don't really think that was much of an issue and when the XIV was in the air superiority role over the continent in '44 - '45 it proved as tractable as any other type. Remember also that it was faster and more manoeuvrable than the P-38 and Mosquito at altitude.



Much more, don't be modest about how good it was. Run rings around them.

The twins are for the heavy armament for bomber destroying and formation breaking. They cannot (even 2 stage Merlin Mossies or late model P-38s) survive without the Spits against those heavy bombers with Mustang escorts.

Again the correct tactics and command and control are so important, bad tactics and even with the best equipment you will lose. 

Again (I repeat myself) an examination of Park and how he stripped away the 109 escorts in the BoB and Malta are instructive. 
He worked his Spit squadrons hard, especially later on in the BoB when the Luftwaffe moved to 3 or 4 or even 5 to 1 fighter/bomber ratios. He responded and dealt with it so the bomber loss ratios (which in the end were the key thing) still remained too high to survive.


It is not about the equipment so much it is about how you use them.


----------



## Piper106 (Sep 1, 2013)

GrauGeist said:


> P-47 without question.
> 
> ...it had the ability to unload an ugly amount of .50 caliber into anything that was down range...



And as the Germans learned, it takes an a UGLY amount of hits from machine guns (and even 20mm) to down a heavy bomber (unless they have unprotected fuel tanks like the Mitsubishi G4M Betty and other Japanese types). With 50 caliber machine guns the number of hits required to take down a heavy bomber forces the attackers to stay inside the range of the bombers defensive armament longer than would be wise. Cannon are a must, as big and as many as possible. 

I like the P-63. The M10 belt fed 37mm cannon in the later versions of the P-63 is the punch needed, and as another poster suggested upgrading to the Soviet 37mm cannon would make it even better. None of the previous posters have noted that some very early P-38s also carried the 37mm cannon, a step backward to this weapon would be more useful than the 20mm cannon of the later P-38 varients. 

Agreed, air to air rockets to break up bomber formations is another useful weapon.


----------



## pinsog (Sep 1, 2013)

Piper106 said:


> And as the Germans learned, it takes an a UGLY amount of hits from machine guns (and even 20mm) to down a heavy bomber (unless they have unprotected fuel tanks like the Mitsubishi G4M Betty and other Japanese types). With 50 caliber machine guns the number of hits required to take down a heavy bomber forces the attackers to stay inside the range of the bombers defensive armament longer than would be wise. Cannon are a must, as big and as many as possible.
> 
> I like the P-63. The M10 belt fed 37mm cannon in the later versions of the P-63 is the punch needed, and as another poster suggested upgrading to the Soviet 37mm cannon would make it even better. None of the previous posters have noted that some very early P-38s also carried the 37mm cannon, a step backward to this weapon would be more useful than the 20mm cannon of the later P-38 varients.
> 
> Agreed, air to air rockets to break up bomber formations is another useful weapon.



A P38K, the super high performance model never produced, with a Russian 37mm cannon and 2 20mm cannon would be a nightmare for the bombers and their escorts


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 1, 2013)

When you consider a bomber interceptor that is going engage a B-17 or B-24, keep in mind the defensive fire.

If you want to stay in the game and take them out, you need to consider the vulnerability of a water cooled engine. The P-63 had it's engine to the rear making it a consideration, the P-47 was radial as was the F4U and both easily carried rockets as additional loadout. 

8 .50 caliber MG armament was nothing to dismiss, they'd easily tear a Luftwaffe fighter apart and would certainly do considerable damage to a bomber. Lobbing cannon rounds at a bomber from a slow cycling weapon means you have to stay on target longer, exposing yourself to defensive fire longer...


----------



## pinsog (Sep 1, 2013)

GrauGeist said:


> When you consider a bomber interceptor that is going engage a B-17 or B-24, keep in mind the defensive fire.
> 
> If you want to stay in the game and take them out, you need to consider the vulnerability of a water cooled engine. The P-63 had it's engine to the rear making it a consideration, the P-47 was radial as was the F4U and both easily carried rockets as additional loadout.
> 
> 8 .50 caliber MG armament was nothing to dismiss, they'd easily tear a Luftwaffe fighter apart and would certainly do considerable damage to a bomber. Lobbing cannon rounds at a bomber from a slow cycling weapon means you have to stay on target longer, exposing yourself to defensive fire longer...



Agreed. I am a big fan of the 50 Browning and 8 50's is what I would have wanted if I were in a P47 facing the Germans. If however, I was tasked with intercepting B17, B24 or B29's I would have wanted cannon. Probably 4 20mm and a huge load of ammo if I were in a P47(vs 6 20mm and less firing time). I also agree with the aircooled R2800 vs liquid cooled anything, but the P38K would have been a hard airplane to dismiss for bomber interception with its twin engines, high performance and concentrated firepower. I also go back and forth with myself on fast firing 20mm cannon vs some sort of standoff weapon like the Russian 37mm. Against fighters the choice is clear, but I'm not so sure about heavy bombers. 

What was the muzzle velocity of the Russian 37mm cannon? (in feet per second please)


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 1, 2013)

The Russians most commonly used the ShVAK 20mm with a rate of fire of 700 to 800 rounds per minute @ a MV of 2,500 - 2,600 fps (750-790 mps) but the P-39 (and P-63) was equipped with the U.S. M4 37mm cannon that had a rate of fire of 150 rounds per minute (max) with a magazine of only 30 rounds.

The M4 had a muzzle velocity of 2,000 fps (610 mps) and it's effective range depended on the type of round (HE, AP, Tracer, etc.)


----------



## JtD (Sep 1, 2013)

pinsog said:


> What was the muzzle velocity of the Russian 37mm cannon? (in feet per second please)


The NS 37 was at around 2900 fps.

The Russian VYA 23mm cannon would also be a good weapon for bomber interception. Not far off the Hispano MkII in terms of rate of fire, the projectile is about 50% heavier and is fired at a slightly higher velocity.


----------



## Rufus123 (Sep 1, 2013)

It looked like some of these planes were being evaluated more on their ability to deal with fighters than to take heavy well protected four engined bombers. With what the allies had I think destroying bombers with what the allies had was at least a two plane type job if not more than two types.

I might be way off base here and am no expert but I wonder. As everyone here knows the Germans up gunned some of their single engined fighters to the point it robbed them of performance to deal with fighters.

I also imagine it is a difficult proposition to have bombers as your primary target while being set on by fighters. 

It seems to me (I could be wrong) that with the technology of the era the best approach would be to have at least two different plane types if not more to deal with these four engined bombers escorted by Mustangs. 

I don't think the Allies in WW2 needed the firepower that Axis needed since the German bombers were not in flights of huge numbers, smaller, and were less durable than the larger British and American bombers. In this new case I think the allies do need heavy firepower.

Two plane types at a minimum: From the RAF maybe a version of the Spitfire best suited to take on the escorts and cannon armed that can still do some damage to bombers if not escorts are present. Primary job is to take on the escorts with taking on bombers a secondary role. 

The second plane an up gunned Mosquito perhaps or an up gunned Tempest to take on the bombers.

USA, I am going out on a limb, they were not available in time and were naval aircraft but I think they best team from the USA would be cannon armed Bearcats working with up gunned Tigercats. The Bearcats could climb fast and engage the escorts, could in a pinch help take down bombers. The Tigercat I think would be dangerous against bombers and has a small chance even upgunned in winning a fight against the escorts though perhaps disadvantaged.

If I had to pick what was available to the USA if I had to pick what was available before the BC and TC were available I am thinking a team of a P-63, It can take on the escorts and has the firepower to assist against bombers combined with an upgunned A-26. I think an A-26 having it's own defensive guns and replacing the .50's in the nose with cannon and its wing guns could be a hard hitting bomber destroyer while working with P-63's.

Of course with the wide variety of aircraft the allies had I think it would have been a mixed bag of aircraft used and this variety would be best used trying to play to each plane types strengths.


----------



## Lucky13 (Sep 1, 2013)

Interesting thread lads! Luftwaffe four engined bombers? I take it that it means perhaps He 277 and maybe the Me 264?
He 277 how was their defense, 8 x 20 mm and 1 x 13 mm cannons, and their speed and ceiling 570 kph (maximum) and 15,000 m?
...and the Me 264, 4 x 13 mm and 1 x 20 mm cannons, slightly slower at 560 kmh and only 8,000 m as their ceiling?
Then again, the Junkers Ju 390 was even slower at 505 kmh and only 6000 m!

I take it that the '277 and perhaps the '264 would be their best bets, much like B-17/24 and Halifax/Lancaster...


----------



## Rufus123 (Sep 1, 2013)

While it might have been a production deficit I some times think the great variety that the Allies had was sometimes a benefit. 

Imagine having to remember the best ways to fight the variety pack. Oh, this is a Spitfire, my best chance at this situation is to do XYZ, or is XYZ what I do when dealing with a P-47?

I would have mentioned the Whirlwind as a bomber destroyer but I think a Mosquito if a bomber destroyer was needed would be easier to up gun and working with Spitfires would be dangerous.


----------



## stona (Sep 1, 2013)

I think it is a misconception that 4 x 20mm cannon is adequate bomber destroying armament. The RAF thought so in 1940/41 and were sorely disappointed by the inability of the Whirlwind to knock down two engine bombers. There are several examples of Whirlwinds engaging and scoring multiple strikes on Ju 88s and at least a couple I know of on He 111s when the bomber was not shot down.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## Greyman (Sep 1, 2013)

And there were plenty of Liberators shot down by Ki43s armed with one 12.7-mm and one 7.7-mm. One can play the anecdote game all day when it comes to the somewhat nebulous 'adequate'.


----------



## JtD (Sep 1, 2013)

It does get the job done a whole lot better than 6 or 8 .50ies. It doesn't get it done as well as 4 MK 108, though.

If you look at the Schweinfurt attacks, where the Luftwaffe was primarily using 20mm guns, I think you'll agree that 20mm isn't hopeless.


----------



## stona (Sep 1, 2013)

Greyman said:


> And there were plenty of Liberators shot down by Ki43s armed with one 12.7-mm and one 7.7-mm. One can play the anecdote game all day when it comes to the somewhat nebulous 'adequate'.



It's not really a nebulous concept. For a bomber destroyer you want to be able to disable or destroy the bomber with few hits. That's why the one air force seriously engaged in bomber destroying during the second half of WW2, the Luftwaffe of course, both tried to develop and equipped its aircraft with ever larger calibre weapons. It certainly didn't consider 20mm adequate or it wouldn't have invested immense amounts of time, money and other resources in the development of larger calibre aircraft weapons and more effective ammunitions.

The RAF was surprised how difficult it was to shoot down an armoured, two engine bomber in 1941 using four 20mm cannon. The 20mm cannon was a weapon they'd been interested in long before they settled on the eight rifle calibre machine guns for their fighters, for reasons that don't belong here. They thought it would be more than adequate against bombers (and against tanks incidentally, in the spring of 1941 when they caught the annual dose of invasion fever) and were proven wrong on both counts.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Greyman (Sep 1, 2013)

I don't think it's a case of 20-mm weapon being inadequate for the job, but the fact that 30-mm and 50-mm guns being more effective for destroying bombers.

Big, heavy, twin-engine fighters with 30-mm and 50-mm guns would be ideal for bombers, yes ... but there's a pack of Mustangs on our asses here. Give me a Spitfire.


----------



## vinnye (Sep 1, 2013)

I like the Whirlwind, but a lot would seem to depend on the range at which yo want to engage the oppositions bombers. The most effective method seems to be the sooner the better, make them drop their drop tanks and engage you, then they can not escort for nowhere near as long as with the tanks. As previously posted, a combination of radar and high altitude spotter aircraft enable the defenders to decide which formations need to be attacked and which not.
I also liked the idea of developing the jets more quickly ie Meteor and Vampire?


----------



## Greyman (Sep 1, 2013)

The Whirlwind was nice for 1940-41 but it's not going to cut it at all against Fortresses and Mustangs. It has a performance slightly less than a Spitfire Mk.I


----------



## fastmongrel (Sep 1, 2013)

Greyman said:


> The Whirlwind was nice for 1940-41 but it's not going to cut it at all against Fortresses and Mustangs. It has a performance slightly less than a Spitfire Mk.I



If the Whirlwind and it engines had been developed it would probably have had a similar performance to a Spit Mk9 by 43/44


----------



## fastmongrel (Sep 1, 2013)

stona said:


> I think it is a misconception that 4 x 20mm cannon is adequate bomber destroying armament. The RAF thought so in 1940/41 and were sorely disappointed by the inability of the Whirlwind to knock down two engine bombers. There are several examples of Whirlwinds engaging and scoring multiple strikes on Ju 88s and at least a couple I know of on He 111s when the bomber was not shot down.
> Cheers
> Steve



I think the RAF changed the fuses in about 41 from instantaneous to fuses with a slight delay to allow the HE rounds to burst inside the fuselage rather than explode on impact. Possibly this would improve performance against heavier aircraft.


----------



## CobberKane (Sep 1, 2013)

Without repeating what has been covered in other threads, LW studies of downed B-17s indicated that prior to the introduction of the 30mm cannon, the average pilot in either a 109 or 190 would expend their entire ammunition load before scoring the number of hits required (on average) to bring one of these bombers down. hence the imperative behind the introduction of the Mk 108, even with it's shortcomings as an air to air weapon.
With an escort to deal with the typical LW tactic was to make a high speed pass on the bombers and then dive away, hopefully to reposition and have another go, but quite likely not if the P-51 have anything to say about it. To have a reasonable chance of doing critical damage in one pass, the LW concluded they needed cannon; the more and the bigger the better.
If we are allowed to up gun, I really like the P-47. Tough, fast, able to get away from the Mustangs in a dive, and with plenty of endurance to get back in position for another crack if the opportunity presents itself. A bit more climb would have been nice in the earlier versions, but then again the heavies were over enemy territory for hours at a time. Love the Mossie for roaming around knocking off stragglers, though.


----------



## yulzari (Sep 1, 2013)

The RAF already had the 40mm S type cannon. It was fittable in the Beaufighter in lieu of the 4x20mm cannon and a Whirlwind mount was drawn up for the same. It won't fit into a wing mounting though (could a Typhoon wing be thick enough?) and would have benefitted from conversion to belt feed and a new HE shell with more HE and thinner casing.
In the trial Mustang fitting it was a pair of underwing pods like the Hurricane. Of course if you went for underwing pods there is always the Tempest with x2 47mm P guns........

I am surprised the S gun wasn't chosen as the DH Hornet armament with 2 x 40mm cannon with 250 rpm 40mm HE shells and a range of 2 kilometres.


----------



## pattle (Sep 1, 2013)

This thread is only for fun, who knows what may have happened in a fictional situation. I was just asking myself if any of the Allied fighter designs could have done better than the Me109, FW190 pairing.


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 1, 2013)

Ok, let's stretch this a little bit...how about a real "Zerstorer"?

With top cover, why not send in a gunship like the A-26B. It was fast, agile and packed quite a bit of ordnance in it's nose and in it's underwing pods and it had defensive positions in case any bomber escorts got past it's fighters.

As it stood, it carried up to .50 caliber MGs in it's nose (1,600 rounds per MG) and up to 8 additional .50 in it's pods. You could stay with the standard .50s or up-gun to a heavier round if desired. 

While it was capabale of 355mph (570kph), it did have a limitation in altitude which was about 22,000 feet (6,700 M), if I remember correctly.


----------



## Piper106 (Sep 1, 2013)

stona said:


> I think it is a misconception that 4 x 20mm cannon is adequate bomber destroying armament. The RAF thought so in 1940/41 and were sorely disappointed by the inability of the Whirlwind to knock down two engine bombers. There are several examples of Whirlwinds engaging and scoring multiple strikes on Ju 88s and at least a couple I know of on He 111s when the bomber was not shot down.
> Cheers
> Steve


There is an article in the October 2001 Flight Journal magazine titled "Splash One Dreamboat" that adds further fuel to this fire. Cliff Notes version; a B-29 is damaged over japan. After the crew bails out over Iwo Jima, a P-61 is called to shot down the unmanned aircraft flying aimlessly to prevent it from crashing onto the island. The P-61 was able to shoot at a 'sitting duck' from close range. Even then they still needed all of their 450 rounds of 20mm ammo plus all of their 50 caliber ammo to shoot down the B-29.

I think if the US had faced heavy bombers as tough as the B-17 or B-29, the reputation of the all conquering 50 caliber machine gun would have changed really fast. Same as the Germans, the US would have moved to 30mm or even larger weapons.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Sep 2, 2013)

stona said:


> I think it is a misconception that 4 x 20mm cannon is adequate bomber destroying armament. The RAF thought so in 1940/41 and were sorely disappointed by the inability of the Whirlwind to knock down two engine bombers. There are several examples of Whirlwinds engaging and scoring multiple strikes on Ju 88s and at least a couple I know of on He 111s when the bomber was not shot down.
> Cheers
> Steve


 
Allied bombers, both day and night and two and four engines, survived multiple 30 mm hits as well, so by that anecdoteal evidence you could argurge that the 30 mm was inadequate...

The RAF's experience with the Beaufighter and Mosquito, and the USAAF's experience with the P-61, would tend to suggest the opposite though. Certainly the Beaufighter and Mosquito pilots found the 4 x 20 mm armament more than adequate against aircraft up to FW 200 and He 177 size. Night fighting was all about firepower - usually you got just one shot, so you had to make sure of it.

The Allied night fighters had a couple of advantages over any daytime bomber destroyer: firepower concentrated in the nose, no prop synchronisation issues, larger ammunition supply and generally more stable aiming platforms.

As for an "ideal" bomber destroyer, well much depends on the strategic situation you're faced with. If you need a fast climbing interceptor for local defence, its hard to go past the Spitfire for the majority of the war. If you want something with more persistence, then perhaps the P-38 is adequate. You can always add more 20 mms in the nose.

If the Allies had been faced with heavy bombing, I suspect that their fighter armaments would have developed to reflect this fact. The USN certainly moved to adopt the Hispano after being faced with kamikazes and Japanese night bombers. P-51s and P-47s with 4 x 20 mm would certainly make be a step up in terms of armament against bombers. 

There are precious few other options available in terms of armament. The 37 mm was a horrible weapon, highly prone to jamming and terrible ballistics. The various .60 cal experiments fizzled and died, as did the .90 projects. The 23 mm Madsen is another possibility, but the gun was overweight, slow firing and the ammunition was only so-so.


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 2, 2013)

The other factor that can be considered, is tactics.

The Luftwaffe employed head-on attacks with success while using lighter weaponry until the bombers started using heavier forward defensive fire. The nose of the bombers offers little in the way of protection for the crewmembers.

Sitting behind a bomber and trying to randomly pour huge amounts of ammunition into a bomber will most likely get you killed or put out of action from the bomber's gunners. Armed with even 8 fifties will cause sufficient damage if you concentrate the fire into the inboard engine and wing, for example, where the fuel cells are.

Your weapon platform will determine the tactics


----------



## Jabberwocky (Sep 2, 2013)

A case could be made for the P-47, Hellcat and F4U as bomber interceptors, purely on their ruggedness/pilot survivability. 

In analysis of gun camera films, the Luftwaffe found that FW 190 pilots were significantly more successful in combating heavy bombers than any other prop powered types (note: the analysis didn’t include the Me 262). 

FW 190 pilots tended to fire from more favourable angles and at closer range than pilots in the Bf 109, the twin-engine fighters and the Komet. Furthermore, they would tend to press their attacks closer than those of other pilots and generally were more accurate. In addition, the FW 190s heavy armament meant that it tended to score more observable hits than other fighters, almost regardless of aspect of approach. 

The reason was that pilots trusted the strength of the FW 190 to protect them from bomber return fire more than other types. The strength of the FW 190’s armour scheme and the reassuring solidity of the big up-front radial engine probably had something to do with it. 

109 pilots tended to open fire from the longest ranges, consequently having the worst accuracy and least number of hits per attack. The Me 110/210/410 were a bit of a mixed bunch in terms of range but managed to make around two thirds of the number of observable hits that a FW 190 did. 

If I was an Allied pilot assigned to attack bombers, I'd probably feel far safer sitting behind an R-2800 than behind a Merlin, Griffon or between two V-1710s.


----------



## Rufus123 (Sep 2, 2013)

Some thoughts.

The BF-110 had success against the B-17's until the Mustang showed up. Were the BF-110's armed differently once they started going after bombers? After the Mustangs showed up the up-gunned single engine fighters lost performance.

When single engined fighters tried to escort the bomber destroyers it didn't work as well as they needed. Perhaps they were doing this all wrong and the Allies could do a better job of it like this.

Don't try and have the best bomber destroyer but use the massive variety available and up gun some of the planes going after the bombers.

Maybe all of the high performance assets that were not cannon armed can be told to ignore the bombers. 1/2-2/3s of them go on a pure escort hunt, try and force them to abandon the bombers and fight or get shot down. The ones that try and stay with the bombers can get B&Zed. Some lower performance planes might be able to score kills on the escorts that refuse the abandon the bombers. A minority of the high performance planes without can try and protect some of the faster pure bomber destroyers.

The high performance cannon armed planes are not tasked with protecting anything, they are dual role and their utilization can be fluid. The high performance planes that have cannon can go after bombers if the non-cannon armed planes are keeping the escorts under control. If they are not keeping the escorts under control some of them can shift duties. 

The single engined planes that are not quite as good in the fighter vs fighter role armed with cannon can either be tasked with hitting bomber formations with a handful of non-cannon armed planes tasked to protect them. The cannon armed Hurricanes I think can damage a bomber but needs a bit of an escort unless the bomber escorts are brought under control. The lower performance cannon armed planes could be assigned to engage stragglers and dive avoid contact if the escorts are around. 

The fast bomber destroyers like up gunned Mossies and A-26s can have a handful of non-cannon armed fighters running interference for them. Stick cannon in the nose of an A-26 and load up the Moussies with Cannon. 

Any plane that can get enough altitude to participate and at least 350mph can participate. The allies had such a large variety of aircraft that one strategy would not be happening at one time but many strategies happening at the same time. It will be a confusing mess for the Germans.

Hurricanes might be obsolete at time but should be able to get a few licks in on the bombers. With all of those planes without cannon concentrated on the bomber escorts and a handful escorting the bomb killers I think the Allies can stop this bombing campaign.

I think the Spitfires have the most demanding job in this as they will be called upon the change missions during the air battle switching from bombers to fighters as needed.

As new planes come online if the war is not over by this time just complicates things more. Some of the Bearcats that were to be sent to the Pacific get sent to Europe. The .50 armed ones can intercept fighters, the cannon armed ones go after bombers. The Tigercat I think brings something new to the fight with 8 guns 4 cannon and 4 .50's and the speed of a fighter. The can slash through bomber formations with a lower chance of getting caught by an escort. I think the P-38's with a single cannon are not for going after bombers. I think they are better at going after escorts that are trying to stay with the bombers.

I would hate to be tasked with protecting bombers against Mosquitos, A-26's, cannon armed Hurricanes Tempests, and Spitfires, while at the same time having P-47's, Spitfires, and Mustangs slashing at me. While staying with the bombers I might be an easier target and when I go after an A-26 a P-38 might get an easy kill on me if I have not already been pulled away from the bombers by harassment from a P-47.

Later when the Bearcat joins the fight if the war is not over I have another .50 armed plane hunting me as I try and go after a 20mm armed Bearcat. While I am trying to stay alive and get that 20mm armed Bearcat a Tigercat just killed the bomber I was trying to protect. When I see my bomber is dead and I try and protect another bomber a Spitfire nabs me.

I think it is the massive variety of things that Allies can throw into the fight that wins it, not a single best plane.


----------



## Rufus123 (Sep 2, 2013)

Jabberwocky said:


> A case could be made for the P-47, Hellcat and F4U as bomber interceptors



Why not send those planes after the escorts. They could go out ahead of the bomber destroyers and force the escorts to abandon the bombers or die. I don't think they need to go after the bombers stop the bombers, clear the escorts away to let the bomber destroyers go after the bombers.


----------



## stona (Sep 2, 2013)

Without diverging too much the Whirlwind was not a good aircraft. As far as destroying these four engine bomber goes, it would struggle to reach the altitude at which they flew!
It got to 15,000ft in 5.7 minutes, but from 24,000ft it climbed at less than 1,000ft per minute. This is not going to make a late war bomber interceptor. A report from Squadron Leader Eeles stated.

"The performance of the Whirlwind above 20,000ft falls off quite rapidly and it is considered that above 25,000ft it fighting qualities are quite poor."

This at a time in late 1940 when the Luftwaffe was mounting fighter sweeps at 30,000ft.

Much is made of the Whirlwind's range, yet in August 1941 the radius of action restriction placed on the type was 120 miles, exactly the same as a standard Hurricane.

I don't see how the Whirlwind could have matched Spitfire IX performance by 42/43 either. In 1940 Rolls Royce ran the Peregrine at 12lbs boost but as far as I know only one aircraft had the engines capable of this fitted (P6966).

Dowding didn't like it much. He wrote to Beaverbrook.

"Further, I think that it is a very extravagant design. By this I mean that it takes two engines to lift four cannon guns, whereas the new Hawker fighter [Typhoon] should be able to lift six with one engine and give a similar performance with a lower landing speed."

He didn't know at the time how long the RAF would have to wait for the new Hawker fighter.

The Whirlwind also had a lot of teething problems, not least collapsing tail wheels and problems with the slat mechanism. Eventually the slats were wired shut on all Whirlwinds. There were many more problems.

Finally it was expensive and used nearly three times as much alloy as a Spitfire to build.

There are echoes of the saga of a certain Focke-Wulf twin in this saga! It was proposed as a stop gap night fighter and reconnaissance aircraft, but never did either.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## fastmongrel (Sep 2, 2013)

stona said:


> Without diverging too much the Whirlwind was not a good aircraft.



There doesnt seem to be anything fundamentally wrong with the airframe or engines and if the RAF had wanted it it would have been developed. I dont think its too far into the realms of fantasy for it to have 1100hp 2 stage engines running on 100 octane by 43.


----------



## Rufus123 (Sep 2, 2013)

fastmongrel said:


> There doesnt seem to be anything fundamentally wrong with the airframe or engines and if the RAF had wanted it it would have been developed. I dont think its too far into the realms of fantasy for it to have 1100hp 2 stage engines running on 100 octane by 43.



Is it possible that the Mosquito was better and could do more jobs that Whirlwind development was abandoned?


----------



## stona (Sep 2, 2013)

fastmongrel said:


> There doesnt seem to be anything fundamentally wrong with the airframe or engines and if the RAF had wanted it it would have been developed. I dont think its too far into the realms of fantasy for it to have 1100hp 2 stage engines running on 100 octane by 43.



Maybe, if they'd pursued the project. The problem was that there were always better options. The Whirlwind was axed and reprieved two or three times, that initial order for 114 always just about survived!

The Air Ministry don't seem to have had much faith in Westlands's ability to produce the air frame, there are many complaints about the quality of the Lysanders being built down in Yeovil. They still gave the company a Spitfire order though. Needs must and all that.

Dowding had predicted "an infinity of trouble" with the Whirlwind and within a month of 263 Sqn. forming in June 1940 he got it!

Rivets in outer slat shells failed causing slat to jump of sprockets.
Failed welds in carburettor intake ducting.
Wing tip fairings cracking in less than ten hours flying time.
Tail wheel oleos collapsing, causing cracking of rear bulkhead casting.

Those are just the problems listed as the reasons for grounding the aircraft in July. There were many more.

In October/November Westland, MAP, and the Air Ministry all suggested that 263 Squadron. should be moved to 10 Group in the South West and be closer to Westland's factory at Yeovil. Serviceability was consistently low, often less than 50%. Dowding's reply to Beaverbrook at the MAP is telling.

"I purposely put 263 Squadron out of the way because I know Westlands and I know what a packet of trouble the squadron would be in for. I cannot put them anywhere in the South because I cannot carry any passengers in that part of the world."

When one reads the sagas of newly introduced aircraft during this period it makes you appreciate just how right a few were and just how difficult most were. 

Cheers

Steve


----------



## swampyankee (Sep 3, 2013)

Tigercats? Probably one of the few twin-engined fighters that could successfully mix it up with its single-engined contemporaries. If I recall its specs, it could climb at something like 4,500 fpm, which is not too shabby.


----------



## Rufus123 (Sep 3, 2013)

swampyankee said:


> Tigercats? Probably one of the few twin-engined fighters that could successfully mix it up with its single-engined contemporaries. If I recall its specs, it could climb at something like 4,500 fpm, which is not too shabby.



With 4 20mm and 4 .50 I thought it would be an amazing bomber destroyer and attack aircraft.

If you were a bunch of heavy bombers could you imagine going up against the US naval and army aircraft that was coming out at the end of the war. What the UK had was not shabby either. The Tigercat would be a heavy hitter against the bombers but could take on fighters if it had to (bombers are the primary target), the Bearcat could get to altitude fast and could engage the escorts. the Corsair and Mustang could continue stripping off the escorts, I think .50 armed planes should focus on escorts. The Spitfire could do dual purpose while the Tempest, upgunned A-26 and Mosquito Could be the pure bomber destroyers. 

I think a heavy bomber force if the war went past 1945 into 1946 going up against the British and US air arms would get torn apart even with a heavy escort of German P-51's


----------



## muscogeemike (Sep 3, 2013)

My vote goes to the P-61.


----------



## Rufus123 (Sep 4, 2013)

muscogeemike said:


> My vote goes to the P-61.



The P-61 does not have any more firepower than a Tigercat and is much slower. Perhaps the P-61 carries more ammo.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 4, 2013)

Once you have four 20mm Hispano cannon adding four .50 cal guns doesn't really buy a whole lot. *IF* the US Navy was right and one 20mm gun was worth 3 .50 cal guns then you have the equivalent of 5 1/3 20mm guns. a roughly 33% increase in fire power. It is an increase but hardly a dramatic one. It's like going from six mg's to eight. Not really worth an extra engine and all the extra aircraft structure.


----------



## Rufus123 (Sep 4, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> Once you have four 20mm Hispano cannon adding four .50 cal guns doesn't really buy a whole lot. *IF* the US Navy was right and one 20mm gun was worth 3 .50 cal guns then you have the equivalent of 5 1/3 20mm guns. a roughly 33% increase in fire power. It is an increase but hardly a dramatic one. It's like going from six mg's to eight. Not really worth an extra engine and all the extra aircraft structure.



But isn't the Tigercat getting enough performance for the jobs it is likely to do. It seems like a plane that has a lot of options. It could go .50's only for something like an Oscar or a Zero, the .50's will work on a 109 as well. It has cannon for the bigger targets like a heavy bomber. It looks like it could stay in a fight longer than some other planes from an ammo point of view. 

I might also like a 33% increase if I am attacking a ship tossing up a lot of flack.

When I look at it's gun layout it looks like the span of the guns is about as wide as someones outstretched arms. It makes me think of a broom rather than a shotgun. I think if the pilot did a perfect job of aiming for .50s will be acting like a buzz saw and both sets of 20s are not far off the mark. When I see gun camera footage it looks like the steam of fire is dancing all over the place. When the aim is a couple of feet to the right or left one of the sets of 20's is hitting where you want to to be. The plane looks like it give more options.

The statement that a 20mm is worth 3 .50's sounds like a rule of thumb comment to me. We know that can only be compared so far as there also have different qualities.


----------



## vinnye (Sep 4, 2013)

Having the extra 50's gives you some firepower when the 20 mm's are out of ammo.
So when you disengae and see a target of opportunity, you can engage / strafe it.
No 50's no engagement - just run for home and hope you do not get company!


----------



## Rufus123 (Sep 4, 2013)

muscogeemike said:


> My vote goes to the P-61.



Just a thought from someone that does not know much.

Comparison between the P-61 and Tigercat.

1. I think the P-61 will be a more stable gun platform.

2. I think the superior speed of the Tigercat allows it a better chance to slip past the fighters to get to the bombers. The faster speed allows the Tigercat to search more ground in a limited amount of them. The P-61 does not have an advantage in range.

3. Firepower, both of them have 200rpg in 20mm, the Tigercat has 300rpg in .50 and the P-61 has 560rpg in .50 so the P-61 does has a greater ammo load out of .50.

4. The P-61 having it's 50's in a turret changes some things. It has some defensive capability the Tigercat does not have. The turret allows some offensive options against the bomber as well. When the fixed guns are not aligned with the target the turret potentially has a shot. It can also fire upward for under the bomber approaches. The turret adds several options of putting fire on the bomber. I do understand that the turret did cause some buffeting problems.

I say use them both if you are trying to stop heavy bombers.


----------



## l'Omnivore Sobriquet (Sep 4, 2013)

muscogeemike said:


> My vote goes to the P-61.


This is cheeting. This thread up to #83 was dealing with daytime bomber destruction !

I was having the same thoughts as yours while browsing it then and again...
If it comes to night's zerstörung, then some Mosquito NFthis or NFthat should settle the issue, even if one or two meters long... or yards if you prefer PC screening applying. 
On the matter I'm having that seasonned love of the Douglas B-26C option, all too often forgotten...


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 4, 2013)

vinnye said:


> Having the extra 50's gives you some firepower when the 20 mm's are out of ammo.
> So when you disengae and see a target of opportunity, you can engage / strafe it.
> No 50's no engagement - just run for home and hope you do not get company!



An F4U-1C carried 924 rounds of ammo for it's four guns or about 23 seconds of firing time. Most engagements will be over before then. 

Don't forget that _each_ R-2800 is sucking down 4-5 gallons of fuel per minute at combat ratings. 

Switching from .50 cal guns to 20mm cannons and back for different targets is comic book or computer game stuff most of the time. Some Japanese and German pilots did it in the early part of the war but then they only had 60 rounds per cannon or 6-8 seconds firing time. 

And since if you have enough pilots you can get almost two Corsairs for every F7F or P-61 it doesn't look that good for the twin engine planes.


----------



## Rufus123 (Sep 4, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> An F4U-1C carried 924 rounds of ammo for it's four guns or about 23 seconds of firing time. Most engagements will be over before then.
> 
> Don't forget that _each_ R-2800 is sucking down 4-5 gallons of fuel per minute at combat ratings.
> 
> ...



That is 31 more rounds per gun. When I have seen gun camera footage of attacks on heavy bombers it looks like it takes a lot to shoot them down. I thought the Germans often took multiple passes at bombers.

Why was the nave taking deliveries of the Tigercat when they had Corsairs?


----------



## Rufus123 (Sep 4, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> An F4U-1C carried 924 rounds of ammo for it's four guns or about 23 seconds of firing time. Most engagements will be over before then.
> 
> Don't forget that _each_ R-2800 is sucking down 4-5 gallons of fuel per minute at combat ratings.
> 
> ...



I know this might not be a reliable source but here it is.

"The F4U-1C was introduced to combat during 1945, most notably in the Okinawa campaign. Aviators preferred the standard armament of six .50 in (12.7 mm) machine guns since they were already more than powerful enough to destroy most Japanese aircraft, and had more ammunition and a higher rate of fire.[101] The weight of the Hispano cannon and their ammunition affected the flight performance,"

Was this too much of a load for this plane to carry and maintain performance.

Vought F4U Corsair - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It also appears that the Tigercat was slightly faster but I don't think by enough to make much difference but it is doing it carrying 8 guns 4 of them being cannon.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 4, 2013)

A F4U with six .50s and 2400 rounds is carrying 442kg of guns ammo, not including links, ammo boxes, mounts, chargers etc. An F4U with four 200mm cannon and 934 rounds is carrying 440kg of guns ammo not including links, ammo boxes, mounts, chargers etc. unless there is something weird going on with mounts, chargers etc there shouldn't be that much of a difference. 
I would also note that the last of of the F4U-4 had four 20mm cannon as did the F4U-5 and the F8F-2. 
A .50 cal with 400 rounds has about 32 seconds of firing time. 
Most Spitfires had about 12 seconds. The Typhoon and Tempest had about 14-15 seconds. 

The Thread is about shooting down 4 engine bombers with a fair degree of protection, not Mitsubishi G4Ms


And the F7F is carrying fewer rounds for it's cannon? one or two fewer bursts?


----------



## Rufus123 (Sep 4, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> A F4U with six .50s and 2400 rounds is carrying 442kg of guns ammo, not including links, ammo boxes, mounts, chargers etc. An F4U with four 200mm cannon and 934 rounds is carrying 440kg of guns ammo not including links, ammo boxes, mounts, chargers etc. unless there is something weird going on with mounts, chargers etc there shouldn't be that much of a difference.
> I would also note that the last of of the F4U-4 had four 20mm cannon as did the F4U-5 and the F8F-2.
> A .50 cal with 400 rounds has about 32 seconds of firing time.
> Most Spitfires had about 12 seconds. The Typhoon and Tempest had about 14-15 seconds.
> ...





The F7F pilot has the option of throwing 1200 rounds of .50 along long with those cannon rounds. 

It looks like to me the comparison is this.

Rate of Climb F4U-4 Rate of climb: 3,870ft/min (19.7 m/s)
Rate of Climb F7F-4N Tigercat 4,530 ft/min (23 m/s) <--- This is the two seat night fighter version.

Range Corsair 897 mi (602 nmi (1,115 km)
Range Tigercat 1,200 mi (1,000 nmi, 1,900 km)

Service Ceiling Corsair 41,500ft (12,649 m)
Service Ceiling Tigercat 40,400 ft (12,300 m)

Speed Corsair 453 mph (395 kn, 731 km/h)
Speed Tigercat 460 mph (400 knots, 740 km/h)

Weapons Corsair 4 × 20 millimetre (0.79 in) M2 cannon
Weapons Tigercat 4 × 20 mm (0.79 in) M2 cannon + 4 × 0.50 in (12.7 mm) M2 Browning machine gun

Ammo load out Corsair 924 20mm 
Ammo load out Tigercat 800 20mm+ 1200 .50BMG

Gun placement. The Tigercat's right and left guns are much closer to centerline than the Corsair giving the Tigercat more concentrated fire.

While .50 might not be optimal for bringing down a heavy bomber I cannot imagine it is doing nothing. I believe the .50 will be penetrating deeper while the cannon is doing more damage. If I was in a bomber being struck with 4 20's I would still be concerned about the stream of 4 .50s passing through. The Tigercat has the option of deep penetration from its concentrated .50s while at the same time explosive effect 20mm's in a more concentrated pattern than the Corsair can deliver.

Again I don't think the .50 is as good at the 20mm for the heavy bombers but it can deliver two different kind of hits at the same time. The question would be is 1200 rounds of .50 able to make up for 124 20mm cannon.

That concentrated mass of 4 .50s has to have some affect between those 4 20mms.

Who was it that said 1 on the nose was worth 2 in the wings? I don't know how that calculation was done. Maybe in reality 1 in the nose was worth 1.8 in the wings but never mind. There were those attempts at pusher fights in order to get the firepower concentrated in the nose. With the Tigercat you have a line of 8 guns about as wide as a persons outstretched arms none far from the center line. Wing roots seem the next best thing to the nose.


----------



## silence (Sep 4, 2013)

I might be tempted to go with the DH Hornet, primarily because it looks like its Hispanos don't have the issues of the M2s.


----------



## Rufus123 (Sep 4, 2013)

This is curious.

The XP-67, in WW2 it was the allies that had most of the big heavy bombers. Most of the Axis bombers were not near as large as what the Allies used but it seems like the US was chasing after the more firepower the better route for bomber destruction 6 × 37mm for an allied prototype bomber destroyer in WW2.

The side with the biggest bombers was also trying to develop big bomber destroyers.


----------



## Rufus123 (Sep 4, 2013)

silence said:


> I might be tempted to go with the DH Hornet, primarily because it looks like its Hispanos don't have the issues of the M2s.



I thought the M2 issues got sorted. I don't think they were ever an issue on the Tigercat but perhaps there is not much flexing on a wing root. The Hornet would be a good choice I think. 8 guns just seems so devastating to me still when 4 of the are cannon and 4 are heavy MG.


----------



## Rufus123 (Sep 4, 2013)

Going to different route, how helpful would turrets be in attacking a bomber formation?

I still wonder how many 20mm guns can be stuck in the nose of an A-26. Here you do have a shotgun. Nose mounted 20mm with 6 widely spaced .50s in the wings plus dorsal and ventral turrets. I don't think this would be as good as the Corsair, Tigercat, or Hornet in this job but it does have defensive fire when coming up behind a large bomber. Also with two turrets it could still be engaging bombers when the nose was not pointed at one.


----------



## Rufus123 (Sep 4, 2013)

Looking around it looks like the USA was trying a lot of things to but a lot of firepower in planes to kill bombers. I didn't know Axis bombers were considered that tough. 

Airacuda
Curtiss XP-71
XP-58 Chain Lightning
McDonnell XP-67

The British tried to do the same thing.

Vickers Type 432 with 6 20mm
Vickers Type 414 with 40mm gun

Some people were wanting to throw a huge amount of firepower at some bombers.


----------



## wuzak (Sep 4, 2013)

Tigercats and Hornets - if you are speaking of that period wouldn't it be better to push the development of the Vampire, Meteor and P-80?

The Meteor was in production by 1945. Though it was judged as a poor gun platfrm, and its Hispanos often didn't work.
The Vampire first flew in 1943 - six months before the Hronet did. Took a while to get in production due to priorities.
The P-80 first flew in 1944, and was being introduced to squadrons in 1945. 

I like the Vampire for this role. Mount a 40mm cannon under each inner wing or under the fuselage, That si if the 4 20mm is judged to be not enough.


----------



## wuzak (Sep 4, 2013)

Wonder why endurance is so important for people in the role of bomber destroyer.

Surely your ammo is long gone before you've got anywhere near your endurance limit - even for a Spitfire?


----------



## Rufus123 (Sep 4, 2013)

wuzak said:


> Wonder why endurance is so important for people in the role of bomber destroyer.
> 
> Surely your ammo is long gone before you've got anywhere near your endurance limit - even for a Spitfire?



My guess, time spent finding the best route to the bombers with the least escort protection.


----------



## Rufus123 (Sep 4, 2013)

wuzak said:


> Wonder why endurance is so important for people in the role of bomber destroyer.
> 
> Surely your ammo is long gone before you've got anywhere near your endurance limit - even for a Spitfire?



Time spent finding the best route to the bombers with the least escort protection. Multiple passes at bombers.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 4, 2013)

Rufus123 said:


> The F7F pilot has the option of throwing 1200 rounds of .50 along long with those cannon rounds.
> 
> It looks like to me the comparison is this.
> 
> ...



We have been over this before the bit about the guns in nose being worth 1.8-2 in the wings is a bit of a crock. Especially against bombers. It is simply geometry. Even with guns 20 ft apart and set to cross at 300 yrds the bulk of the rounds will be only 10 ft apart (or closer) from 150-450 yds. Shooting from 450yds or more without a gyro gun site is not very effective anyway. Shooting at under 150yds is risking collision. 

Shooting at skinny 109s or Yaks or Spitfires it may have some merit. Shooting at bombers with fuselages over 6 ft wide and 70-100ft wing spans? Unless you are at dead 6 (or 12) O'clock the fuselage will be larger than your impact area. 
I don't know about American ammo but the British 20mm API round would penetrate as much armor as a .50 cal AP AND carry almost 10 grams of incendiary material to a point behind it. Fighters rarely carried just one type of ammo but used mixed belts. Even the Germans used mixed belts and figured it needed about 15-20 20mm hits to bring down a 4 engine bomber even with part of the ammo being the _mine_ shells(or 45-60 .50 cal hits????? but that is really stretching things).


----------



## Rufus123 (Sep 4, 2013)

wuzak said:


> Tigercats and Hornets - if you are speaking of that period wouldn't it be better to push the development of the Vampire, Meteor and P-80?
> 
> The Meteor was in production by 1945. Though it was judged as a poor gun platfrm, and its Hispanos often didn't work.
> The Vampire first flew in 1943 - six months before the Hronet did. Took a while to get in production due to priorities.
> ...



P-80 not armed heavily enough in my opinion for anti bomber work. 


I am sure the bombers would not want to see the Vampire show up.


----------



## wuzak (Sep 4, 2013)

Rufus123 said:


> P-80 not armed heavily enough in my opinion for anti bomber work.



Only 25% less than a P-47.

I'm sure if needed it could be upgunned.


----------



## wuzak (Sep 4, 2013)

Here is one that did not fly, that could have been good as a bomber destroyer - Supermarine Type 327. 6 x 20mm cannon (though the Air Ministry felt that the proposed installation was impractical).


----------



## Rufus123 (Sep 4, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> We have been over this before the bit about the guns in nose being worth 1.8-2 in the wings is a bit of a crock. Especially against bombers. It is simply geometry. Even with guns 20 ft apart and set to cross at 300 yrds the bulk of the rounds will be only 10 ft apart (or closer) from 150-450 yds. Shooting from 450yds or more without a gyro gun site is not very effective anyway. Shooting at under 150yds is risking collision.
> 
> Shooting at skinny 109s or Yaks or Spitfires it may have some merit. Shooting at bombers with fuselages over 6 ft wide and 70-100ft wing spans? Unless you are at dead 6 (or 12) O'clock the fuselage will be larger than your impact area.
> I don't know about American ammo but the British 20mm API round would penetrate as much armor as a .50 cal AP AND carry almost 10 grams of incendiary material to a point behind it. Fighters rarely carried just one type of ammo but used mixed belts. Even the Germans used mixed belts and figured it needed about 15-20 20mm hits to bring down a 4 engine bomber even with part of the ammo being the _mine_ shells(or 45-60 .50 cal hits????? but that is really stretching things).



Does explosive 20mm shells not bring penetration to and end when it detonates? Still on the question of firepower does 1200 .50 make up for 124 20mm? How about the flight characteristics? These are all questions, not statements of facts. Will 4 x 20mm and 4 x .50 damage a heavy bomber faster than 4 x 20mm alone. Even with the extra guns the performance of the planes do not seem that far apart and the Tigercat seems to have some performance advantages. 

The Corsair might be better at this job but I don't yet see why it would be except for maybe cost of the plane. It looks like for anti bomber work the Tigercat is very close in performance to the Corsair while carrying an extra 4 .50s and can put out more metal.


----------



## wuzak (Sep 4, 2013)

What other heavy guns woudl be available for the Allies to use?

0.50" Browning
20mm Hispano
23mm Madsen
37mm M4 Oldsmobile cannon
40mm Vixkers S
40mm Rolls-Royce QF 2 pounder Mk XIV
57mm QF 6pdr Class M Mark I with Auto Loader Mk III


----------



## wuzak (Sep 4, 2013)

Perhaps this one
Nudelman-Suranov NS-37 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 4, 2013)

> How about the flight characteristics? These are all questions, not statements of facts.



The difference in time of flight and trajectory between 20mm Hispano and .50 Browning out to 600-700 yds are too small to worry about. The .50 does start to show and advantage beyond that but that kind of range is not practical for air to air shooting.



> Will 4 x 20mm and 4 x .50 damage a heavy bomber faster than 4 x 20mm alone.



Certainly but is four. 50 cal guns worth another engine? 



> Even with the extra guns the performance of the planes do not seem that far apart and the Tigercat seems to have some performance advantages.



It does in some areas but the F7F used two speed single stage engines and does not perform quite as well in the 20-30,000 ft area as the Corsair with it's two stage supercharger. The contemporary of the F7F is probably the F4U-4 Corsair. For instance the F4U can climb at 2500fpm at about 27,000ft while the F7F climbs at 2500fpm at 23,000ft and about 2,000fpm at 27,000ft. Max speed according to one chart for the F7F is at about 23,500ft while the max speed for the F4U-4 is at 29,000ft. I am not saying which is better but they tend to operate best at somewhat different altitudes. 



> The Corsair might be better at this job but I don't yet see why it would be except for maybe cost of the plane. It looks like for anti bomber work the Tigercat is very close in performance to the Corsair while carrying an extra 4 .50s and can put out more metal.


 The Tigercat can put out more metal (about 33% more) but are four .50 cal guns worth an extra engine and prop and an empty weight of around 16,000lbs vs 9300lbs?


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 4, 2013)

duplicate


----------



## nuuumannn (Sep 5, 2013)

This debate over whether the .50 cal or the 20 mm is effective enough for interceptors is needless haggling over semantics, to be honest. Actual experience dictates otherwise and to argue the case one needs to take into consideration the tactics of the interceptor force, the individual aircraft involved and the skill of its pilots. If a Boulton Paul Defiant with a maximum speed of just over 300 mph can be vectored within range of a single German bomber at night in a broken cloudy sky, find the bomber and shoot it down by concentrating fire into its bomb bays from its four .303s, then with an adequate interception system, good piloting an excellent interceptor armed with _only_ .05s or 20 mm cannon should (and did) do the job adequately. Yes, the .303 was inadequate, but six fifties is going to do a good job at disabling a bomber and knocking it off its trajectory, when well flown.

I chose the Spitfire XIV because of its peerless performance and good armament. You put well trained pilots in a squadron of them in a good GCI environment and they'll knock the enemy bombers down.


----------



## silence (Sep 5, 2013)

Rufus123 said:


> Time spent finding the best route to the bombers with the least escort protection. Multiple passes at bombers.



Also more time at higher speeds.

Plus I'd rather have too much fuel than too little (especially if an escort is chasing me).


----------



## silence (Sep 5, 2013)

nuuumannn said:


> This debate over whether the .50 cal or the 20 mm is effective enough for interceptors is needless haggling over semantics, to be honest. Actual experience dictates otherwise and to argue the case one needs to take into consideration the tactics of the interceptor force, the individual aircraft involved and the skill of its pilots. If a Boulton Paul Defiant with a maximum speed of just over 300 mph can be vectored within range of a single German bomber at night in a broken cloudy sky, find the bomber and shoot it down by concentrating fire into its bomb bays from its four .303s, then with an adequate interception system, good piloting an excellent interceptor armed with _only_ .05s or 20 mm cannon should (and did) do the job adequately. Yes, the .303 was inadequate, but six fifties is going to do a good job at disabling a bomber and knocking it off its trajectory, when well flown.
> 
> I chose the Spitfire XIV because of its peerless performance and good armament. You put well trained pilots in a squadron of them in a good GCI environment and they'll knock the enemy bombers down.



I look at it as needing a firepower great enough to at the very least knock a bomber out of formation with one burst, since when you and dozens or even hundreds of other planes each with a unique vector are occupying the same airspace; you might only be able to get a snap shot off.


----------



## OldSkeptic (Sep 5, 2013)

According to many sources (eg Price) it took an average of 20 x 20mm shells to take down a US bomber. Where 1 or 2 x 30mm could do it.

When they worked out the average pilot's accuracy, most would take their full ammo load to knock one out, more likely just damage it.
Hence the heavy twins usefulness and gondolas under wings with big guns for the singles (at the price of lowered performance).


----------



## wuzak (Sep 5, 2013)

Did the Allies have a 30mm class weapon?

And could such a cannon fit in a Spitfire wing in place of a Hispano?


----------



## CobberKane (Sep 5, 2013)

nuuumannn said:


> This debate over whether the .50 cal or the 20 mm is effective enough for interceptors is needless haggling over semantics, to be honest. Actual experience dictates otherwise and to argue the case one needs to take into consideration the tactics of the interceptor force, the individual aircraft involved and the skill of its pilots. If a Boulton Paul Defiant with a maximum speed of just over 300 mph can be vectored within range of a single German bomber at night in a broken cloudy sky, find the bomber and shoot it down by concentrating fire into its bomb bays from its four .303s, then with an adequate interception system, good piloting an excellent interceptor armed with _only_ .05s or 20 mm cannon should (and did) do the job adequately. Yes, the .303 was inadequate, but six fifties is going to do a good job at disabling a bomber and knocking it off its trajectory, when well flown.
> 
> I chose the Spitfire XIV because of its peerless performance and good armament. You put well trained pilots in a squadron of them in a good GCI environment and they'll knock the enemy bombers down.


 
The debate over whether the .50 or the .2mm is the more effective interceptor armament is needless in the sense that it has be settled by the Luftwaffe - cannon trump HMGs. Pilot quality is relevant only when applied as an average. Some pilots might be skilful enough to use multiple HMGs as effective weapons against heavy bombers but the Luftwaffe concluded that the average pilot was not (and by reputation their average pilot was pretty good). Seeing as raising pilot skills is a long term proposition, the alternative is to give the pilots you have now better tools. Part of that was up-arming their aircraft with more and heavier cannon.


----------



## OldSkeptic (Sep 5, 2013)

wuzak said:


> Did the Allies have a 30mm class weapon?
> 
> And could such a cannon fit in a Spitfire wing in place of a Hispano?



No you'd use your Spits against the bombers' escorts and something else, with heavy armament, for the bombers. If there were no escorts then the Spits could go for the stragglers.
A Spit/Mossie/Tempest combination (2 stage engined ones) if you were just using British equipment.

Instead of as a bomber destroyer think of the Spit as a escort destroyer. Can't have one without the other. The best bomber destroyer is going to have a hard time without something to clear off the escorts.

Tempest with under wing guns perhaps or rockets perhaps, the thing is so fast that it would still have enough speed.
Heck you can even add rockets to a Spit, they did after the war, possibly even underwing guns if you have enough to clear the escorts and have some left over for pure bomber work.

Heck, if there were no escorts (or they were kept away) a Mossie with the 57mm Molins guns would do some damage.... plus rockets. Shouldn't be too hard to put a couple of 30mm in the front of a Mossie too.


----------



## mhuxt (Sep 5, 2013)

OldSkeptic said:


> According to many sources (eg Price) it took an average of 20 x 20mm shells to take down a US bomber. Where 1 or 2 x 30mm could do it.
> 
> When they worked out the average pilot's accuracy, most would take their full ammo load to knock one out, more likely just damage it.
> Hence the heavy twins usefulness and gondolas under wings with big guns for the singles (at the price of lowered performance).


 
The Germans actually reckoned on 5x30mms being required to take down a Viermot with certainty, though you're right about them having reckoned on 20x20mm as well.

The table at the end of this pdf rates various weapons combinations for the late war Luftwaffe. Their aim was to get a high rate of fire of destructive shells with a low-weight weapons combination - they reckoned on 5% hits from aimed fire. Top of the class was a weapons mount of two 30mm MG 213/30 (not sure if it ever saw service, not my area of knowledge), which the boffins rated as 1.0, which was then compared to the combination of weight and required firing time, based on 5% hits, rate of fire and ammo and ammo used of other weapons setups (six MG 151/15s, four 20mm cannon, two 30mm cannon and one 50 mm cannon). 

Their numbers showed the BK 50mm as next to useless.
View attachment ammunitions.pdf


----------



## Rufus123 (Sep 5, 2013)

OldSkeptic said:


> No you'd use your Spits against the bombers' escorts and something else, with heavy armament, for the bombers. If there were no escorts then the Spits could go for the stragglers.
> A Spit/Mossie/Tempest combination (2 stage engined ones) if you were just using British equipment.
> 
> Instead of as a bomber destroyer think of the Spit as a escort destroyer. Can't have one without the other. The best bomber destroyer is going to have a hard time without something to clear off the escorts.
> ...



This is what I was thinking on part of this. Two plane types at a minimum and maybe more then two plane types with at least one type dedicated to keeping the escorts occupied. Maybe a dual purpose craft and one dedicated to bomber destruction.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 5, 2013)

Germans need to follow that route because they didn't have the engines needed for a single engine bomber interceptor. 

The Allies don't. 

Four 20mm Hispano guns are a decent anti-bomber armament. Not the greatest but well above most single engine fighters. Roughly equal to a FW 190 with two 13mm and four 20mm Mg 151s ( not all 20mm cannon are equal). 

Better than 109 'gun-boats' 

Allies have Napair Sabre, P W R-2800 and R-R Griffon engines _in quantity_ that allow the carrying of 4 20mm guns in a single engine fighter with enough performance to engage both escorts and bombers. Maybe Tempests aren't the best for anti-escort work at 25,000ft but they would be a heck of a lot better than most twins. Or to put it another way, they may not be able to defeat the escorts and get to bombers at times but they DON'T need to escorted by other fighters. 

The Germans did not have many over 2000hp engines or engines that offered 1500hp and up at 25,000ft. This made it much harder to build large all purpose fighters.


----------



## Gixxerman (Sep 5, 2013)

A Mossie with 4 x 20mm cannon 4 x .303 always looked like a lethal bomber killing combo to me.
Given the way things turned out the need just never really arose in the same way it did for Germany I suppose.


----------



## muscogeemike (Sep 5, 2013)

Rufus123 said:


> The P-61 does not have any more firepower than a Tigercat and is much slower. Perhaps the P-61 carries more ammo.


Possibly true but the P-61 did engage in the war - the Tigercat didn't.


----------



## stona (Sep 5, 2013)

A lack of ammunition in relatively small fighters is also a problem when they are equipped with numerous or large calibre weapons. What the allies would have done had the need arisen must surely be reflected in what the Germans actually did when confronted with the same problem.

The Luftwaffe developed a weapons pod to fit in the bomb bay of the Me 410 with 2xMG 151/20s (giving a total of four 20mm cannon and two MG 17s). This pod could also carry 230 rounds per cannon. It was a stop gap due to delays in MK 103 production. They really wanted the larger calibre.

II./ZG 26 got aircraft equipped with the 5cm BK (fitted by Auto-Union Chemnitz for anyone who drives an Audi!) but it proved practically to be less effective than the MK 103, which would be supported by the figures posted in the link above. 

Trials were carried out with various 3.7cm Flak guns (18 and 43) in ever more desperate efforts to fit something that would destroy the bombers.

Galland insisted several times at various meetings that the MK 103 30mm cannon was what was really needed.

I agree with Galland (it's not often I can say that) and the Luftwaffe. The allies are going to need to fit larger calibre weapons to their bomber destroyers and they are going to have to protect those bomber killers with something like the Spitfire XIV.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## JtD (Sep 5, 2013)

Well, the original question was more along the lines of


> Or to put the question in a more pertinent way if the Germans had of been able to put one type of Allied fighter into production for the sole purpose of shooting down B24's and B17's then which one would have been the best choice?


 than along the lines what the Allies needed to develop in order to counter a bombing threat. I would say that once the Germans had the 262, they pretty much had the best aircraft for that task available. So I'd say the question is about if there's anything Allied that would have been better than the 109's and 190's or even the 110's they had been using before the 262 came along.


----------



## swampyankee (Sep 5, 2013)

muscogeemike said:


> Possibly true but the P-61 did engage in the war - the Tigercat didn't.



And the P-61 got air-air kills, usually at night. It also had a reputation for very good maneuverability (not just for its size, but on an absolute scale). Put the "C" engines into the "E" airframe, and it may manage 440-450mph at altitude.


----------



## stona (Sep 5, 2013)

JtD said:


> Well, the original question was more along the lines of than along the lines what the Allies needed to develop in order to counter a bombing threat. I would say that once the Germans had the 262, they pretty much had the best aircraft for that task available. So I'd say the question is about if there's anything Allied that would have been better than the 109's and 190's or even the 110's they had been using before the 262 came along.



Yes, but the allies didn't really have a bomber destroyer of the type needed to meet these hypothetical enemy four engine bombers. They didn't have one because they didn't need one.
My point is that since they didn't have anything to do the job properly they would have to develop one. It would need to be based on something already in existence to be achieved in a reasonable time frame.

I'd use the D H Mosquito, but I don't know much about the potential of the P-61.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 5, 2013)

Let me see if I have this right. 

AN Me 410 with four MG 151 20mm guns ( and 230rpg) and _two_ 7.9mm MGs is a bomber destroyer? 

A Mosquito with four 20mm Hispano guns with 150rpg and four .303s ( with 500rpg) is a bomber destroyer? 

A Corsair with 20mm Hispano guns with 231 rpg is _not_?

Those rifle caliber machine guns must make all the difference. 

I wonder what kind of plane you need to "escort" the Corsairs? 

BTW, just stick four 20mm Hispano guns in a P-47?

3-4 Hispano guns in P-38? You could swap four .50s with 500rpg for two 20mm with 150rpg and _SAVE_ 438lbs. or add the 4th 20mm gun (196lbs for the P-38 installation) and another 150 rounds (92lbs) and have 150lbs to spare (more than enough to bring all four 20mm guns to 200rpg)


----------



## pinsog (Sep 5, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> Let me see if I have this right.
> 
> AN Me 410 with four MG 151 20mm guns ( and 230rpg) and _two_ 7.9mm MGs is a bomber destroyer?
> 
> ...



Agree 100% with everything you said here. P38, P47 and Corsair. All 3 of them have the horsepower to carry a heavy cannon armament without affecting performance AND all 3 can tangle with the best fighters in the world on more or less equal footing. The P47 above 25,000 feet would be a nightmare to defend against. The P38 in later models, especially the unproduced P38K variant would be another major thorn in a bombers side. I think we are very lucky these 2 fighters were on our side and not the Germans.

Shortround, 
Whats your best guess for ammo capacity if you installed 4 Hispano 20mm's in a P47?


----------



## stona (Sep 5, 2013)

The Luftwaffe didn't consider four or even six (with another proposed gun pack) 20mm cannon enough to guarantee knocking the bombers down. I'm not suggesting that it couldn't be done, many bombers were shot down by 20mm cannon, but they wanted something bigger for their bomber killers.
They may have estimated five 30mm cannon shells to down a four engine bomber, and this was the weapon that some, notably Galland, were pushing very hard for. Others really wanted something that would offer a one hit solution.
I usually defer to the opinion of the men who were actually fighting the battle as to what weapons might work best.

As I've said before in many different threads, relating to many different aircraft, just "sticking" four 20mm cannon in a P-47 may be much easier to write than do.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 5, 2013)

Weight wise it could be around 400rpg But P-47s seldom carried the full 425rpg possible for their .50 cal guns. Underwing loads usually meant a restricted ammo load, there may be some question as to the ability of the 20mm gun and feeder unit to move a 400 round belt without help. But 240 20mm rounds or so per gun for 4 guns would correspond to 267-276 rounds per gun for eight .50 cal guns _with_ under wing loads. 

I don't know if there is a spacing problem with spars.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 5, 2013)

Four 20mm Hispano may not be ideal but it is better than the gunboat 109s and is arguably as good or better than a 190 with four MG 151/20s. 

Without inventing a new gun the 20mm Hispano is as good as it is going to get. The 37mm M4 cannon has a miserable rate of fire, 1/4 that of a "normal" Hispano gun, each shell is very powerful but the hit chance is very low. The velocity and time of flight also require getting closer than the 20mm Hispano. The gun also weighs about double what Hispano does. The Vickers S gun is even bigger and slower firing (about 2/3 the 37mm or 1/6 the rate of fire of the 20mm Hispano). It also has velocity and time of flight problems which argue against long range gunfire. 
Please note that these rates of fire are for the _standard_ British MK II or American M-2 guns. The British introduced the short barreled MK V gun with a higher rate of fire before the war ended and the Americans were working an a faster firing Hispano and adapted it after the end of the war. Rates of fire went up 20-25%. The British Molins company had built prototype guns firing at up to 1000rpm during the war.


----------



## JtD (Sep 5, 2013)

stona said:


> Yes, but the allies didn't really have a bomber destroyer of the type needed to meet these hypothetical enemy four engine bombers. They didn't have one because they didn't need one.
> My point is that since they didn't have anything to do the job properly they would have to develop one. It would need to be based on something already in existence to be achieved in a reasonable time frame.


Well, neither had the Germans when the 8th AF started operating. Or are you saying that the gondola equipped 109 was a better bomber destroyer than any aircraft the Allies were fielding at the time?


----------



## stona (Sep 5, 2013)

JtD said:


> Well, neither had the Germans when the 8th AF started operating. Or are you saying that the gondola equipped 109 was a better bomber destroyer than any aircraft the Allies were fielding at the time?



Not really. The addition of gun pods, rockets, mortars and the experimentation with ever larger calibre weapons on Luftwaffe fighters simply reflected a realisation that the standard armament was not sufficient for bomber killing operations. 
That standard armament on Luftwaffe single engine fighters was not particularly lighter than most allied types. That's why I am arguing that the allies, had the tables been turned, would have had to up gun one or more of their fighters to make a good bomber killer.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## pinsog (Sep 5, 2013)

stona said:


> As I've said before in many different threads, relating to many different aircraft, just "sticking" four 20mm cannon in a P-47 may be much easier to write than do.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Steve



If a dainty little Spitfire (that will probably draw some return fire), a Hurricane, Typhoon, Tempest, FW190, early P51, F4U, F8F, and even some Japanese planes could mount up 4 20mm, then what on earth could keep them out of a P47?


----------



## drgondog (Sep 5, 2013)

nothing


----------



## Glider (Sep 5, 2013)

stona said:


> I'd use the D H Mosquito, but I don't know much about the potential of the P-61.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Steve


So would I with the 6pd Mollins gun if there are no fighter escorts, one hit would probably do it in most cases and few would escape two hits


----------



## CobberKane (Sep 5, 2013)

Regarding the use of 40 and 50mm cannon and the like, what were the pro's and cons of these? The LW trialled everything up to 75mm. My understanding is that the idea was to sit back out of range of the defensive fire of the bombers and keep lobbing shells until one hit, one being probably enough. Of course, flying slowly behind the bomber stream would be tantamount to suicide with escort fighters around. In those circumstances the LW seemed to prefer the high-speed-pass-and-outa-there approach, for which I guess a smaller faster firing weapon might be better. Does the use of heavy (40mm plus) cannon assume a fighter free environment?


----------



## pattle (Sep 5, 2013)

I don't think it was all about gun calibre size, they could of armed a fighter with a gun the size of Mons Meg but if it had not of been able to survive it's own attack then it would have been part of the problem and not part of the solution. The Spitfire XIV had the speed and agility to evade the escort fighters, a big part of the problem that the Germans had was that their fighters were being lost along with their aircrew in unsustainable numbers due their inability to fight or flee from the escorts, had the Germans possessed a fighter that could attack and clear off without being shot down then this would have allowed their pilot strength to grow. I think Dowding and Park had it the right way around with regards avoiding contact with fighters. The Spitfire XIV could have been a poor mans ME262.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 5, 2013)

stona said:


> Not really. The addition of gun pods, rockets, mortars and the experimentation with ever larger calibre weapons on Luftwaffe fighters simply reflected a realisation that the standard armament was not sufficient for bomber killing operations.
> That standard armament on Luftwaffe single engine fighters was not particularly lighter than most allied types. That's why I am arguing that the allies, had the tables been turned, would have had to up gun one or more of their fighters to make a good bomber killer.
> Cheers
> Steve



The "standard" armament of the 109 was considerably lighter than most allied types. At least until the Mk 108 was fitted. And with the MK 108 the 109 had a rather limited firing time. The "gun boats" and FW 190 had decent armament ( but not heavier than some allied types had standard) but were a bit lacking in performance at altitudes higher than bombers flew (where escorts could bounce the attackers from).


----------



## wuzak (Sep 5, 2013)

What about the allied rockets? Usually used for ground attack or anti-shipping, but if salvoed into a bomber box may cause soem damage despite their poor accuracy.

And if you could fire them from front and above, you give yourself more area at which to aim.

Of course, what happens to the ones that miss when you are over home soil may be of concern.


----------



## wuzak (Sep 5, 2013)

wuzak said:


> I like the Vampire for this role. Mount a 40mm cannon under each inner wing or under the fuselage, That si if the 4 20mm is judged to be not enough.



Forget putting them under the wings - stick them in the booms!


----------



## fastmongrel (Sep 5, 2013)

Proximity fused 3 inch rockets sounds good, launch them in pairs and follow up with 4 x 20mm Hispanos. Even if the rockets dont do any damage they are going to be a good physchological weapon. Not many pilots could see the rockets coming and stay level and straight.


----------



## Piper106 (Sep 5, 2013)

I recall the Tempest, Spitfire, etc. carried 125 rounds per gun when carrying the 4 x 20mm armament, or 500 rounds total on board. Data indicates a 5% hit rate under combat conditions or about 25 hits if the whole ammo load is fired. If you believe the data that says it takes 20 hits from a 20mm cannon to down a heavy bomber, the 4 x 20mm cannon armament is just adequate, and by no means overkill. 

The other concern is that it takes 12 to 20 secs to fire those 500 rounds from 4 x 20mm. That implies a minimal deflection stern attack or multiple attack passes, either way a long time within the defensive fire of the bombers. 

By contrast if we look at the American M4 37mm cannon, it fired at 120 to 150 rpm, 2 to 2.5 rounds per second. Five seconds of fire equals 10 to 12 shells. If we can get 5% hits with this gun, 5 seconds of fire is around a 50% chance of a hit. One hit from this size shell is destructive enough to have a chance of being decisive. 

Once again I am thinking of a P-63 armed with a reverse Lend Lease Soviet NS-45 cannon (the Soviet NS-37 cannon modified to fire a 45mm shell). More than one pilot reports the P-63 being more manuverable than the P-51, and although not as fast as P-51, the speed difference was small enough to make interception difficult. The bigger 45 mm shell pushes further toward a 'one hit kill' potential. This gun fires 240 rpm, significantly faster than the US M4. Since the Soviets were able to fit this gun into the Yak-9, it should be possible to fit this cannon into a P-63. 

That is all I think i know.


----------



## nuuumannn (Sep 5, 2013)

This is beginning to sound strangely familiar...



> you'd use your Spits against the bombers' escorts and something else, with heavy armament, for the bombers. If there were no escorts then the Spits could go for the stragglers.



This is very similar to the pre-war RAF's tactic for the use of the turrent fighter to which F.9/35 was written, which produced the much maligned BP Defiant. In 1937 the Air Staff released F.11/37 which called for a twin engined fighter equipped with four 20 mm Hispano cannon in a turret. Nothing was completed except a small scale flying test bed by Boulton Paul. Even after the Daffy was retired from day fighter duties the concept of a cannon armed turret bomber interceptor did not die completely, although the focus was on the night fighter role. In July 1940 F.18/40, before the Daffy became a night fighter, was released, but research and concepts continued to be released until April 1941. A couple of contenders, including Boulton Paul's P.97b resembled the P-61; the also released a big Defiant with either a Sabre or Centaurus with forward firing guns in the wings as well as the turret.


----------



## Conslaw (Sep 6, 2013)

If climb rate isn't an issue, then the P-61 Black Widow would be a good candidate. Four 20mm cannon and 4 .50 cal. It had a turret so that it had flexibility in how to approach the bomber. If the F7F would have served during the war, it would rank right up there.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Sep 6, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> Four 20mm Hispano may not be ideal but it is better than the gunboat 109s and is arguably as good or better than a 190 with four MG 151/20s.
> 
> Without inventing a new gun the 20mm Hispano is as good as it is going to get. The 37mm M4 cannon has a miserable rate of fire, 1/4 that of a "normal" Hispano gun, each shell is very powerful but the hit chance is very low. The velocity and time of flight also require getting closer than the 20mm Hispano. The gun also weighs about double what Hispano does. The Vickers S gun is even bigger and slower firing (about 2/3 the 37mm or 1/6 the rate of fire of the 20mm Hispano). It also has velocity and time of flight problems which argue against long range gunfire.
> Please note that these rates of fire are for the _standard_ British MK II or American M-2 guns. The British introduced the short barreled MK V gun with a higher rate of fire before the war ended and the Americans were working an a faster firing Hispano and adapted it after the end of the war. Rates of fire went up 20-25%. The British Molins company had built prototype guns firing at up to 1000rpm during the war.



Australian Beaufighter crews got their Hispano Mk IIs cranked up past 1,000 rpm for ground straffing missions. Apparently there was a contest between ground crews as to who could get the RoF of their guns the fastest. There were also similar competitions amoung armourers in the UK, with similar results.

The original French Hispanos fired at around 700-750 rpm. This resulted in deformed cases and ejection jams, so the British slowed the RoF down in the Mk I to 600-650 rpm so that the guns would be more reliable. The French Hispano was designed around a rigid mouting - with an equally rigid feed system - and kept nice and warm and dry by the engine. When it transitioned to a wing mounting in the Spitfire and Hurricane, it had none of these and some changes were needed to get the guns to work acceptably. There were quite a few design alterations between the French metric version, various iterations of the Mk I Hispano and the Mk II, which eventually became the standard gun.

I don't know if the Hispano, even the Mk V, is as good as it gets for WW2 20 mm cannon. I think the B-20, which was much lighter and a litte faster firing, probably just shades it. Its let down by the lighter round, worse ballistics coefficient and slightly lower M/V, by the Russians really knew how to build a good gun. Even then though, its a matter of a few % either way in terms of firepower and efficiency.


----------



## OldSkeptic (Sep 6, 2013)

JtD said:


> Well, neither had the Germans when the 8th AF started operating. Or are you saying that the gondola equipped 109 was a better bomber destroyer than any aircraft the Allies were fielding at the time?



No, because you need a good escort destroyer along with a good bomber destroyer. The trouble is that, because of the 190A's poor high altitude performance and it's lower production levels (plus its demand all over the place for low level stuff) they really only had the 109 which, even if you were very optimistic, it was barely competitive with the P-51s (if you were not optimistic it was markedly inferior). 

But it's armament was too small and if you hung gondolas off of it was its performance dropped terribly. Basically think of a Hurricane II with the 40mm vs a Me-109F. Which was about (at that time) about the difference between a 'bulge' with gondolas and a P-51B or D.

Plus the lack of a fast twin, which can carry much bigger armament with lower impact on performance which can get in, hit, avoid and break away from the escorts.. They had nothing like a Mossie (2 stage Merlin ones) which were in the 420mph class, even with bigger guns (though if the Ta-154 had come into play they would have).

Remember, in this scenario you are facing Mustangs (Bs and Ds) as escorts .. tough ships to handle along with very good pilots and (though it took a bit of time) very good tactics.

So taking a SE plane, loading it up, unless you have very good escort 'killers' to keep them away they are going to suffer. As did the German 109 and 190 equivalents.

But the Allies, in this scenario, have a major advantage they have several good high(ish) altitude SE fighters and twins. 

If we had a mixed US/British equipment I'd use (assuming that for some reason there are no P-51s for the defence) P-47s very high for bounces (very early in that attrition and start the 'peeling off' off of the escorts), Spit XIVs for the 'get in and get dirty' stuff, taking the fight right to the escorts. Mossies (upgunned and with rockets) for the initial hits on the bombers to break them up. Tempests and (if available) Corsairs for the hammering of both of the escorts and the bombers as they leave. Quite possibly upgunned P-47s (maybe P-4Us) to add to the mayhem after the escorts are stripped off/engaged. Both have the raw power to carry more with less of an impact in performance (though I lean towards the P-47s in this).

With all the others coming in as available (they have to land and refuel, etc and get up again).

Basically the invading forces are under attack from all quarters and altitudes all the time, but under a strict tactical control. First peel off the escorts (1st staring with reducing their range by bounces as early as possible), then hammer the bombers.

Hit the escorts early with bounces (and the P-47s would be great for this) to make them drop their tanks. Be a brave Mustang pilot that would hold onto their tanks, when on their way to a rendezvous (using the layered escort system) they get bounced by a squadron of P-47s. Might only be one pass ... but still ugly ... and there go all the drop tanks. Then as the Spit XIVs come up to play, 'they' are the ones looking nervously at their fuel gauges.


----------



## stona (Sep 6, 2013)

drgondog said:


> nothing



How do you know? Did anyone ever try it?

I'm not saying it can't be done. I'm saying there is a tendency for people to write down things like "stick 4 xyz weapons in fighter abc" without reflecting just what that might involve. History shows that altering the armament of most WW2 fighter aircraft was easier said than done. Most needed considerable testing and development before they worked properly. Some needed considerable modification of the airframe to which they were fitted.
The P-47 was a large and rugged aeroplane but that doesn't mean you can just unbolt 4 machine guns and "stick" 2 cannon in each wing. Who knows what other structures or systems the larger weapons might impinge upon?

Cheers

Steve


----------



## stona (Sep 6, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> The "standard" armament of the 109 was considerably lighter than most allied types.



By one cannon compared with its contemporary Spitfire (in 43/44). At least it's cannon was a centreline weapon which had much debated advantages. 

I'd say the standard Fw 190 armament (which does include the outer wing guns on almost all versions) was heavier than average, not many allied single seat fighters toted four cannon and two machine guns. The inboard cannon had 250 rounds, the outboard 125. The MG 131s had 400 rounds each. It was still not enough.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## wuzak (Sep 6, 2013)

OldSkeptic said:


> No, because you need a good escort destroyer along with a good bomber destroyer. The trouble is that, because of the 190A's poor high altitude performance and it's lower production levels (plus its demand all over the place for low level stuff) they really only had the 109 which, even if you were very optimistic, it was barely competitive with the P-51s (if you were not optimistic it was markedly inferior).
> 
> But it's armament was too small and if you hung gondolas off of it was its performance dropped terribly. Basically think of a Hurricane II with the 40mm vs a Me-109F. Which was about (at that time) about the difference between a 'bulge' with gondolas and a P-51B or D.
> 
> ...



I assume the P-47swill be mounting standing patrols, to negate their lack of climb?

And P-4U?


----------



## Tante Ju (Sep 6, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> Germans need to follow that route because they didn't have the engines needed for a single engine bomber interceptor.
> 
> The Allies don't.



That silly weight theory again creeps up...



> Four 20mm Hispano guns are a decent anti-bomber armament. Not the greatest but well above most single engine fighters. Roughly equal to a FW 190 with two 13mm and four 20mm Mg 151s ( not all 20mm cannon are equal).



Indeed they aren't. For bomber killing purposes, I'd rate the Mauser cannon above the Hispano. Faster rate of fire, better HE shells and also weighting about 3/4 of the Hispano. Bombers dont manouver much.



> Better than 109 'gun-boats'



3 x MG 151/20 on 109 gunboat: 3 x 750 rounds per minute = 2250 rounds per minute. 200 + 2 x 145 rounds = 490 rounds.
2 x MG 131 on 109 gunboat: 2 x 900 rounds per minute = 1800 rounds per minute. 2 x 300 rounds = 600 rounds.
4 x Hispano Mk II. 4 x 600 rounds per minute = 2400 rounds per minute.
4 x 120 rounds = 480 rounds, 4 x 150 = 600 rounds on Typhoon/Tempest IIRC.

Not counting for the better HE shells, which very heavily boosts the Mauser setup, the 3 x 151 vs 4 x Hispano setup comes out at about equal in firepower. The plus side is that the triple Mauser setup weights only about _half _that of the quad Hispano setup.

Things get funnier when the explosive contents of the M-Geschoss is taken into account. 1 M-Geschoss : 18 gram of explosives, 1 Hisso HE = 10 gram of HE. So the above expressed in HE content/total capacity.

Triple MG 151 setup on 109 gunboat. 2250 x .018 kg per minute = 40 kg of HE / min, total rounds: 490 = 8.82 kg HE
Quad Hisso setup. 2400 x 0.010 = 24 kg of HE / min, 480 rounds carried = 4.8 kg, 600 rounds carried: 6 kg of HE

In summary, the triple Mauser gunboat 109 had a potential of delivering about TWICE the HE (40 kg vs 24 kg / min) to a bomber in any given lenght of time, and almost again 1.5x as much in total (4.8-6 kg vs 8.82 kg), at HALF the gun weight.

Oh yes and it still runs circles around a P-47.. Soviet trials showed the P-47D10 had turning time of about 27-28 seconds, the gunboat 109 a turn time of 22 seconds.. I am not sure about the Typhoon/Tempest, but they were not quite as good as the Fw 190, which the Soviets measured at about 22-24 seconds IIRC.


----------



## OldSkeptic (Sep 6, 2013)

Radar helps too.... The Germans were picking up the formation build ups hours before they came into German territory.

Even the BoB radar levels (much inferior) could pick up fighter sweeps vs bombers. Lots of time to get the P-47s up (have breakfast, lunch, a chat and so on, climb in, take off, climb up to the right place and 'Tally ho').

In that sense they had it much easier than in the BoB, where coming across from France the RAF (11 group especially) had little time. Another mark of Park's genius, that despite that he never got caught out.
The Luftwaffe had wet dreams about catching (as they did to the Polish, Russians, etc) FC on the ground ... never happened .. again thank to Park. 

Leigh Mallory, after his great political stuff and got 11 Group, did an exercise, replicating the BoB (obviously again another political ploy to make him look good) in 41 . In that he lost all his planes on the ground. 
His response "oh I will do better next time", then never, (ever) did something like that again. 

Usual military idiot who can play politics and deliver nothing except lots of losses of their own people.


"There are those who can do .. and then the wankers .. and the second group always get to the top .. except when times are dire ... and after that moment the W group always get to the top, because nothing uniites the W group than opposition against 'those who can do'. 
A W type would rather (Catch 22 describes that perfectly) unite with the other side's W's against the doers, than have to submit to them. Common cause and all that.

So when you are out there, fighting, dying ... your enemies are all around you ... and the worst ones are well (really well) behind you.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 6, 2013)

stona said:


> By one cannon compared with its contemporary Spitfire (in 43/44). At least it's cannon was a centreline weapon which had much debated advantages.


 Was the Spitfire "most allied types"? 

the center line thing? You are shooting at B-17s or B-24s and you are worried that your canon shells are hitting 8 feet apart? 



stona said:


> I'd say the standard Fw 190 armament (which does include the outer wing guns on almost all versions) was heavier than average, not many allied single seat fighters toted four cannon and two machine guns. The inboard cannon had 250 rounds, the outboard 125. The MG 131s had 400 rounds each. It was still not enough.



Yes, the 190 had a heavier than average armament. Which is one reason the Germans were trying to use as _the_ bomber destroyer when they could and use 109s against the escorts. Plans and reality don't match up well at times.

The MK 108 was just being introduced in the fall of 1943 which means the vast majority of losses from fighters in the Schweinfurt raids were due to 20mm cannon. It may not have been optimal but it was far from being ineffective.


----------



## swampyankee (Sep 6, 2013)

imho, it's probably a bad idea to have a "bomber destroyer" and an "escort destroyer": put the two roles into an aircraft that can do both. The Allies had them: certainly the P-51, the P-47, the P-38, various marks of Spitfire, various versions of the Corsair (F4U; in the USN "P" was for a patrol aircraft), potentially the Tigercat, P-80, Meteor, Vampire, Bearcat, Hornet, Fireball (FR-1), and [Sea] Fury.


----------



## JtD (Sep 6, 2013)

OldSkeptic said:


> Remember, in this scenario you are facing Mustangs (Bs and Ds) as escorts ...


In this scenario you get to chose _one_ Allied type to fly for the Luftwaffe. I don't know how a variety of single engined fighters and a couple of twins qualify as _one_ type. That said, if you want to pick a type only in early 1944, you'll be facing Mustangs. If you pick one to support the defence of Germany from 1943 on, at first you're not. Of course you can also pick a type for late 1945, then again you won't be facing Mustangs, because you've already lost the war.


----------



## Glider (Sep 6, 2013)

The problem with the 109 Gunboat isn't the firepower but the impact on the aircrafts performance and handleing. Fine against unescorted bombers but not when the escorts arrive.

The 109 wasn't designed to carry that weight on the wings and the impact in handleing was significant. The Tempest/Typhoon were designed with this in mind and it wasn't an issue. Even the Spit with 4 x 20mm retained its good handleing but as you would expect the climb and acceleration were impacted.

I admit to not knowing the impact on the 109 on its climb, acceleration and role rate.


----------



## stona (Sep 6, 2013)

I'd say typical allied cannon armed fighter armament in 1943/4 was two machine guns and two 20mm cannon, rarely four cannon. For non-cannon armed aircraft, six to eight .50 calibre machine guns. 
That puts the Bf 109 slightly below average and the Fw 190 well above average. Even the Fw 190 was modified to carry other weapons in the Luftwaffe's efforts to destroy bombers.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 6, 2013)

Tante Ju said:


> That silly weight theory again creeps up...



Yep. Please tell how many 2000hp engines the Germans were using in fighters in 1944? ALL of 1944 not just December? 





Tante Ju said:


> Indeed they aren't. For bomber killing purposes, I'd rate the Mauser cannon above the Hispano. Faster rate of fire, better HE shells and also weighting about 3/4 of the Hispano. Bombers dont manouver much.


Getting selective in attributes? 

Lets try lousier AP ammo. 

And while the bombers don't maneuver much the Germans spent a lot of effort trying to get longer ranged weapons. The Hispano had a bit longer range than the MG 151. A bit more on this later. 





> 3 x MG 151/20 on 109 gunboat: 3 x 750 rounds per minute = 2250 rounds per minute. 200 + 2 x 145 rounds = 490 rounds.
> 2 x MG 131 on 109 gunboat: 2 x 900 rounds per minute = 1800 rounds per minute. 2 x 300 rounds = 600 rounds.
> 4 x Hispano Mk II. 4 x 600 rounds per minute = 2400 rounds per minute.
> 4 x 120 rounds = 480 rounds, 4 x 150 = 600 rounds on Typhoon/Tempest IIRC.
> ...



Key word in this is _potential_. Since few countries used ALL HE ammo in all belts in all guns on a plane. The Germans used a variety of mixes that ranged from 60% HE mine (3 mine/1 HET/1 AP or APT or APHE) to 40% HE Mine to 33% HE mine( 1 mine/1 HET/1AP or APT or APHE). Germans used 3 different types of shells in their belts. Some of the shells that were NOT HE mine carried as little as 3.6 grams of HE or incendiary material. The APT carried NO explosive or incendiary aside from the tracer. British Hispano belts usually were 50/50 HE and SAPI with the SAPI carrying just under 10 grams of incendiary material. Actual delivered amounts of HE/incendiary could be much close than the "potential". Depending on the "mix" the MG 151 could be delivering an _average_ of 14.4 to 8 grams of HE/incendiary per shell.

Much is made of the wing mounted guns and their convergence "problems". Little seems to be said about the roughly 100meters per second difference in the German shells between the mine shells and the rest of the ammo types and the different ballistic qualities of the shells (shape and sectional density) which do tend to cancel out a bit (high velocity mine shell has poor ballistics and slows down quicker than the other slower to start shells). But it does mean that as the ranges open up the ALL the German shells do NOT arrive at the same point in space at the same time ( or in the original sequence). Or the different ballistics of the 13mm and 20mm guns. _Effective_ range of the MG 151 being about 400 meters with mine ammo vs the cross over range on the wing guns??? 

At "practical" ranges for most pilots against bombers there really isn't enough difference to get very excited about. 



> Oh yes and it still runs circles around a P-47.. Soviet trials showed the P-47D10 had turning time of about 27-28 seconds, the gunboat 109 a turn time of 22 seconds.. I am not sure about the Typhoon/Tempest, but they were not quite as good as the Fw 190, which the Soviets measured at about 22-24 seconds IIRC.



And that turning time is at what altitude?? 1000Meters?

I am not saying the P-47 magically turns into a super dog fighter at high altitude but the P-47 is at it's worst at low altitude. AT 8000 meters the P-47 still has full engine power to fight speed bleed off in a turn. At 8000 meters an Early P-47 (toothpick prop) may be able to climb with a "gunboat" 109. While the gun pods don't affect speed that much they do affect climb. I may be reading the charts at the Kurfurst site wrong but it looks like the gun pods could lower the initial rate of climb by as much as 4 meters a second depending on exact model of 109? As you climb higher the difference in rate of climb does not stay the same percentage wise. ( 15% lower rate of climb does NOT mean 15% less at 8000 meters) but is closer to the same loss. ( 4 meters a second loss at sea level is close to a 4 meters a second loss at 8000 meters.) 
It is this loss of climbing ability (which is an indication of excess power available) which hurt the gun boats at altitude. 

Correct me if I am wrong but that Russian test involves a 360 turn with _no_ loss in altitude? 

A 109 with a 605A engine picks up a bit of power over the 1475 rating at sea level/take-off at 1000 meters but at 8000 meters it is down to about 1000hp/PS (give or take a line on the chart) or roughly 2/3 power while the P-47 is still at full power? Which one can do a 360 turn at what speed _without loosing altitude_.


----------



## JtD (Sep 6, 2013)

Regarding the explosive content of the projectile - on most parts of a heavy bomber, the 20mm M-round would not cause more damage than a standard round. The M-round worked through gas pressure, and that principle only works in small, confined compartments. A B-17's fuselage and also most parts of the wings are simply to thick and plated with too thick aluminium to leave the round effective. Splinters, as created far more extensively by standard HE shells, will maintain much of their damage potential, even against bigger structures and at some point will be more effective than the M-round. Good spots for the M-round are the wings outside the outboard engines and the tail assembly, but that's about it.

It is one of the reasons why the 30mm round was so much more successful, it packed enough explosives to work against thick bomber wings.


----------



## drgondog (Sep 6, 2013)

stona said:


> How do you know? Did anyone ever try it?
> 
> I'm not saying it can't be done. I'm saying there is a tendency for people to write down things like "stick 4 xyz weapons in fighter abc" without reflecting just what that might involve. History shows that altering the armament of most WW2 fighter aircraft was easier said than done. Most needed considerable testing and development before they worked properly. Some needed considerable modification of the airframe to which they were fitted.
> The P-47 was a large and rugged aeroplane but that doesn't mean you can just unbolt 4 machine guns and "stick" 2 cannon in each wing. Who knows what other structures or systems the larger weapons might impinge upon?
> ...



The gun Bays in the P-47 wing were 'deeper' than the P-51. The P-51, P-51A, P-51B and A-36 all had the same wing and all equally capable of fitting 4x20mm to match the P-51. Aside from a quick structural examination to look at the airframe structure load absorption there is neither an issue for space to mount the 20mm nor accommodate the ammunition.

If you look at the 4 gun staggered battery for each wing in the P-47, you will note that it has room to mount upright fifties forward and aft in the wing - demonstrating the actual thickness of the wing and favorable placement relative to the spar. When you have depth, you have many options to absorb and distribute load as well as placement to optimize your choices.

Absent any documentation demonstrating the concept - there is no 'knowing'. just educated opinion. I (along with others) put both an XM-188 and 97 20mm Gatling on a Cobra was well as the Wecom 30mm (based on the Mk 108 )
- all of which exerted far greater recoil than the Hispano and Oerlikon 20mm. The inhibiting factor was ROF on the 30mm which was close to airframe natural frequency.


----------



## MikeGazdik (Sep 7, 2013)

...or how about this thought. Keep making your single engine types to intercept the escort fighters, and build and place a lot more flak guns. What caused more 8th AF bomber losses, flak or fighters?? I'm guessing flak but not sure.


----------



## JtD (Sep 7, 2013)

Flak vs. fighters is a question of efficiency, and generally fighters are more efficient.


----------



## Juha (Sep 7, 2013)

Hello Tante Ju.
A couple notes
the rate of fire of Hisso Mk V was 750rpm (the armament of Tempest Mk V, 200rpg), Mk II had the 600rpm you mentioned. And did the LW Bf 109Gs carry the 200 rounds for their fuselage MG 151/20? At least to Finns they told that the 230 rounds (200 in the ammo box and 30 on the ammo tray from the box to the breech) belt was too heavy and tended to broke in the middle so they recommended to Finns who complained on the breaking belts to load with 125 rounds in the box and 30 in the tray, so 155 rounds altogether. And the Hisso had better penetrating power and a hole(s) in the pilot, spar or engine is often fatal to a bomber as was easily 20mm SAPI through a fuel cell even if HE was generally more effective than AP/SAPI.

And 4 Hisso Mk IIs was clearly very effective armament against Ju 88/188 or Do 217 as shown when Typhoons met Do 217s of KG 2 or Mossies Ju 88s/188s of KG 26. Even LW crews knew that and behaved accordingly.

Juha


----------



## stona (Sep 7, 2013)

Flak caused the majority of battle casualties amongst aircrew late in the war. Flak concentrations increased considerably in 1944/5.
The 8th Air Force carried out a survey of battle casualties in June, July and August 1944. 

"Table 183 gives the causes of the wounds sustained by the 1,117 casualties. Approximately 86 percent of the casualties were hit by flak fragments. Less than 4 percent were hit by shells or shell fragments fired from enemy fighter planes. Practically all of the 7.8 percent of casualties hit by secondary missiles were the result of flak hits on the aircraft. Secondary missiles include fragments of Plexiglas; pieces of dural from the skin of, or objects in, the plane; bulletproof glass; brass fittings; and parts of electrical heating and radio equipment and .50 caliber machinegun ammunition."

Flak was certainly doing most damage to the men in the aircraft.

"Of the WIA battle casualties, 23 (2.3 percent) sustained traumatic amputations; 20 of these amputations were due to flak. Of the remaining three, two were due to 20 mm. shells. The missile responsible for the amputation in the third case was not discovered. Two casualties had two amputations, one of both thighs and the other of one thigh and one arm. In the KIA group, all but one arm amputation, for which a 20 mm. cannon shell was responsible, were due to flak."

Of the small number of men killed or wounded by fire from enemy fighters most were hit by 20mm cannon fire, rather than the much rarer larger calibre rounds, which is not surprising.

"In the present survey, 50 battle casualties (4.5 percent) were known to be due to missiles fired from enemy aircraft. Their distribution according to missile (figs. 284, 285, and 286) and type of casualty is shown in table 218. Cannon shells (20 mm.) accounted for 88 percent of the casualties."

Waist gunner, tail gunner and radio operator were most likely to be hit by rounds fired from a fighter, in that order. Waist gunner, tail gunner and bombardier were most likely to be killed by all causes, again in that order.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## tomo pauk (Sep 7, 2013)

The destruction of the LW from spring of 1944 on contributing to a skewed damage ratio, Flak vs. fighters?


----------



## stona (Sep 7, 2013)

Westermann says that about half of all US aircraft combat losses were due to Flak.

The RAF's own official history gives a figure for Bomber Command of 37% lost to Flak between July '42 and April '45, 1229 of 3302. That is obviously mainly at night.

I haven't read Westermann for a while, but I'll have a flick through if I get a chance.

An RAF ORS report of January 1942 seems to reach a similar conclusion to Westermann for daylight operations.

"While it is impossible to deduce the proportion of aircraft destroyed by flak, it can be said that it is greater than 20% of the total aircraft missing both by day and night. Such information as available suggests that_ during the day sorties fighters and flak have been equally lethal."_

Just to muddy the waters a bit another, slightly later, ORS report stated.

"damage by fighter is more often lethal than damage by flak."

On 6th March 1944 672 of the 730 8th AF bombers that took off attacked Berlin. 318 returned to the UK with at least some Flak damage. That's 48%.

During the war in Europe the USAAF lost 5,400 aircraft to Flak and 4,300 shot down by enemy aircraft. 

31% of 8th AF bomber losses_ to all causes_, not just combat related, were attributed to flak.

You could easily argue that flak was overall a better way to shoot aircraft down than fighters. It's an argument that raged in Germany for years.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## JtD (Sep 7, 2013)

Flak is good at damaging aircraft, but bad at killing them. Heavy AAA doesn't really engage single targets, they fire up a barrage. If the odds are that 50% of the attacking aircraft come through undamaged, 45% get damaged and 5% get killed, this doesn't change if you have a single bomber instead of a formation. It still has a 50% chance to make it home undamaged. If you send up a fighter wing to engage a formation, and you'll get 80% home undamaged, 10% damaged and 10% get killed, these odds get dramatically worse if you use less aircraft and a single bomber would almost certainly get wiped out.

FWIW - in April 1944, when the Luftwaffe was putting up their hardest fight (big week), the 8th AF lost 314 heavy bombers to fighters, and 105 to AAA. First month the 8th AF lost more heavy bombers to AAA than to fighters was June 44. In the ETO, by the end of the war, the 8th AF attributed 2452 losses to enemy fighters and 2439 to AAA.


----------



## stona (Sep 7, 2013)

JtD said:


> Flak is good at damaging aircraft, but bad at killing them. .............. In the ETO, by the end of the war, the 8th AF attributed 2452 losses to enemy fighters and 2439 to AAA.



If flak "killed" as near as dammit 50% of the 8th AF's bombers your two sentences appear to be mutually exclusive.

Damaging bombers is a good way of using up your enemies resources. I bet a significant proportion of the spare parts had to be shipped across the Atlantic. Killing and injuring the crews, at which flak was significantly more effective than fighters, is another very good way of degrading your enemies efficiency, morale, and means to fight.

As I posted above, for all aircraft and all types of flak, for the USAAF, 56% were lost to flak (5,400 of 9,700).

I think it is because the relative success of flak and fighters is so close that the debate raged......and still does 

Cheers
Steve


----------



## tomo pauk (Sep 7, 2013)

stona said:


> ...
> As I posted above, for all aircraft and all types of flak, for the USAAF, 56% were lost to flak (5,400 of 9,700).
> 
> ...



Steve, how many were lost to the light Flak (37mm and under)? Any info about how many planes were lost in the last war year (May 1944 - May 1945)?


----------



## JtD (Sep 7, 2013)

stona said:


> If flak "killed" as near as dammit 50% of the 8th AF's bombers your two sentences appear to be mutually exclusive.


Appearances can be deceiving.


----------



## stona (Sep 7, 2013)

tomo pauk said:


> Steve, how many were lost to the light Flak (37mm and under)? Any info about how many planes were lost in the last war year (May 1944 - May 1945)?



Late in the war I expect a lot of aircraft, not heavy bombers, were lost to light flak. The data must be available, though the 8th AF didn't specify how it's losses were incurred before some time in 1943 if I remember correctly.
I'll see what I can find, the light flak data may be available in the 8ths own history, compiled shortly before the end of the European war but it will take some digging.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## drgondog (Sep 7, 2013)

JtD said:


> Flak is good at damaging aircraft, but bad at killing them. Heavy AAA doesn't really engage single targets, they fire up a barrage.
> 
> *Three types of Flak. Barrage or Predicted in which the airspeed range and heading are cranked in and multiple heavy batteries fire into a region of space ahead and into the bomber stream. Aimed Flak in which one or more heavy Flak guns pick a specific bomber to shoot at and do so. Then there is light Flak (20mm and 37mm) which is Aimed at specific aircraft (fighters dominantly). The 8th AF lost approximately 878 fighters to light flak. *
> 
> ...



What source are you using? I.e. 8th AF FC lost approximately 640 in air combat and ~ 878 to flak and 2311 'did not return' to all causes including air/flak/operations and accidents.. That number does not include Class E salvage/hanger queens due to battle damage.


----------



## stona (Sep 7, 2013)

JtD said:


> Appearances can be deceiving.



I'm not sure I understand. If both flak and fighters accounted for about 50% of bombers destroyed then they were both efficient bomber killers. The economic argument is something different and again has been going on for years.
Best estimates are that it cost 267,440 RM to shoot down an aircraft with heavy flak. This converts into well less than half the price of a B-17. It cost a mere 37,050 RM to shoot down an aircraft using light flak.
The cost of shooting down an aircraft with a fighter is impossible to estimate due to the enormous costs of designing, producing, maintaining an aircraft as well as all its support infrastructure, air fields etc. It is unlikely to be a cheaper option. Fighters and their expensively trained crews were much more likely to be destroyed in the battle than anti aircraft artillery and its crews too.

In August 1944 Hitler seems to have preferred flak. We have two accounts of a somewhat heated meeting and what Hitler said, the first from Speer.

"I want no more planes produced at all. The fighter arm is to be dissolved. Stop aircraft production! Stop it at once, understand? You're always complaining about the shortage of skilled workers, aren't you? Put them in flak production at once. Let all the workers produce anti-aircraft guns. Use all the material for that too! Now that's an order. ... A program for flak production must be set up. ... A program five times what we have now. . . . We'll shift hundreds of thousands of workers into flak production. Every day I read in the foreign press reports how dangerous flak is. They still have some respect for that, but not for our fighters."

The second from Galland.

"I will disband the fighter arm. With the exception of several advanced fighter Groups, I will carry on air defence solely with anti-aircraft defences. Speer, I order you to immediately submit a new program. Production is to be switched from fighters to flak guns and increased immensely."

Cheers

Steve


----------



## stona (Sep 7, 2013)

I found some statistics to show how effective flak could be.

Between April 5th and May 19th 1944 the 15th AF lost 233 bombers in attacks on Ploesti. Of these 131 were accounted victims of flak and 56 of fighters. The 15th did not face the same numbers or concentrations of fighters as the 8th which will skew the figures to the ratio of 2.3:1 in favour of the flak. In addition a further 556 bombers were rated as "seriously damaged".

Later that year we have this table. It is important to note that on average between 15% and 25% of aircraft damaged were considered "seriously damaged". That may be as many as 2,000 aircraft for the 8th AF.







The human consequences of seriously damaged aircraft in terms of numbers wounded I haven't found, but they will not be negligible.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## JtD (Sep 7, 2013)

stona said:


> I'm not sure I understand. If both flak and fighters accounted for about 50% of bombers destroyed then they were both efficient bomber killers.


Hardly. I also suppose you're talking about effectiveness, not efficiency. Effectiveness, i.e. net result, is that up to April 1944 the 8th AF lost a heavy bomber for each 23 effective sorties, whereas they lost one in 69 thereafter. That certainly wasn't because the Germans reduced their AAA.

You will see the same picture if you look into naval aviation, there were reasons why escort carriers were considered extremely valuable.

But the point I was making about "killing", is that after the Luftwaffe's doctrine went from maximum damage to maximum number of kills, most of the bombers damaged by fighters were in the end shot down, whereas most of the bombers damaged by AAA returned to base. There are stats for that around, I read them once, but can't point you to them right now. Edit: Fortunately you posted some, there's one 8th AF bomber killed for 32 damaged. That's basically what I was saying. AAA is good at damaging them, but bad at killing. Same stats for fighters were like 4 killed for each 1 damaged (sorry if that turns out to be inaccurate).

Regarding you excursion economics, remember that all the infrastructure would need to be there for any aircraft, and in fact bombers have far higher requirements than fighters. Fighters could and did operate out of little more than level meadows with a fuel truck and a couple of tents on the side. Also, intercepting bombers is not the only thing fighters do. And did you count the Autobahn and railways into the cost for the AAA? As opposed to aircraft, heavy guns don't just fly to where they are needed. Bottom line here: I don't accept your figures, because I don't think it's feasible to come up with a number at all.

Little add on: It's not the idea of a defensive system to be cost effective, i.e. to cost the enemy more then it's costing you. That's the concept of an attack weapon. The idea of the defensive system is to prevent damage, effectively. Any bomber that got through is an expression of the failure of the air defence system, and AAA doesn't have a good record in that regard.


----------



## stona (Sep 7, 2013)

The flak and the fighters were part of an integrated air defence system. The whole system failed in the end for Germany, not any one part of it.

Flak certainly damaged a lot of bombers, far more than the fighters. I don't have any figures for the cost in men and resources to repair the 15-20% of bombers estimated to be seriously damaged, but I bet it was significant. Every ton of materiel crossing the Atlantic came at the cost of something else as well as ships and seamen.

Many of the bombers shot down by fighters had previously been damaged by flak. One Luftwaffe pilot went on the record stating "That was the old fighter pilot's trick. The successful ones built up their scores in this way."

Which ever way you want to spin it the 8th AF's own statistics are clear about the human cost. 85% of casualties were caused by flak.

There's no point in labouring the economic argument. It has been tried for years and there are too many unknowns. I would suggest that neither arm has a clear advantage. You might not think that it is important for a defensive system to be cost effective, but if you are a government, with your back to the wall, marshalling limited and ever diminishing resources it is an important factor.

Fixing the Me 210 cost Messerschmitt 37,000,000RM, you can shoot down a lot of bombers and build a lot of flak guns for that. That's what I mean by the high costs involved in developing aircraft. It is by no means an isolated instance. Aircraft might well operate from an airfield, but I guarantee that the cost of producing and transporting the Jagdwaffe's fuel and armaments and other operational costs would not be over shadowed by the cost of producing the 1.4 million rounds of flak ammunition which was the highest monthly production of the war.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## JtD (Sep 7, 2013)

stona said:


> You might not think that it is important for a defensive system to be cost effective, but if you are a government, with your back to the wall, marshalling limited and ever diminishing resources it is an important factor.


I think you've missed my point again. What you're talking about would be efficiency, I was referring to effectiveness. I actually spelled out what I meant: "to cost the enemy more then it's costing you". A defence system is still a failure even if it kills something for no cost at all, but ultimately fails to defend whatever it is tasked to to defend.

Since we're way off topic that's all from me.


----------



## Milosh (Sep 7, 2013)

The graphic doesn`t say how many sorties were flown.


----------



## bbear (Sep 8, 2013)

For UKair defence in1944 the AAA is the right answer : the V1s travelling alone and much faster (350-400 mph IIRC and at 2000 to 5000ft - an awkward 'low fast bird' target) were dealt with successfully in the end by AAA

The UK had long range radar detection of inbound v1s (at launch or near to it), their BoB style air defence co-ordination system and crucially (courtesy of the USA) had VT proximity fuses (June 1944), centimetric radar ranging (SCR-584 as one example earlier ones were available 1942 onwards I think), electronic predictors (M9 (British T24) aka gun directors, June '42). 

By September 1944 about 80% of V1s engaged by AAA were destroyed which was about 67% of the total launched. It took about 100 shells per kill in the end. At the start, before June 1944, it was a steep learning curve. Was called Operation Diver.

You won't top that rate for effect or economy using an aircraft. For large slow b17 and b24 formations just the 1942 radar and electronic predictor might be enough to ensure unacceptable losses.


----------



## stona (Sep 8, 2013)

JtD said:


> I think you've missed my point again. What you're talking about would be efficiency, I was referring to effectiveness. I actually spelled out what I meant: "to cost the enemy more then it's costing you". A defence system is still a failure even if it kills something for no cost at all, but ultimately fails to defend whatever it is tasked to to defend.
> Since we're way off topic that's all from me.



Cost effective and cost efficient? Good grief!
The flak was as effective or as efficient at shooting down enemy aircraft (roughly 50/50 by both our figures) as the fighter arm of the Luftwaffe. Neither was ultimately effective because, despite the losses the allied air forces continued bombing, day and night, until the air defence system was overrun.
Both were effective at shooting down and damaging attacking aircraft, disrupting bombing accuracy, and slaughtering and maiming their crews, the just weren't effective enough in the end.

We talk of "bomber destroyers" almost as a euphemism for "bomber crew killers". 55,500 men of Bomber Command didn't die of boredom and the 4,200 who returned from operations wounded didn't cut themselves shaving. Nearly 10,000, many of them wounded, didn't elect to become PoW.

There were significant advances in detection and targeting later in the war which were exploited by the Germans. Both 8th and 15th AF reports concur that German flak got very much better, more effective/efficient (whatever we like to call it) from early 1944 onwards.
The British would have done well to invest heavily in AAA. It may well have been their best bomber destroyer.

Cheers
Steve


----------



## Conslaw (Oct 4, 2013)

My choice for the best Allied Bomber Destroyer would be the F7F Tigercat. It had the best combination of firepower (4x 20mm + 4x .50 cal), rate of climb, and toughness. It may not have been as agile as many single-engine fighters, but it was agile enough and fast enough not to be an easy target. As a bonus, the F7F was adaptable as a night fighter. 

Historically, the XF7F didn't fly until early 1943, and the test program really didn't get started until late 1943. As it so happened though, the Navy put the F7F on the backburner, and Grumman was advised that turning out as many F6F Hellcats as quickly as possible was top priority. That is understandable under the circumstances, however if the allies had a compelling need for a bomber destroyer, the F7F could have been accelerated. 

If I had to go with planes that were readily available, I'd pick 4-cannon versions of the Spitfire and Tempest and 4-cannon F4U Corsairs as next in line.


----------



## Dino in Reno (Oct 17, 2013)

There were great bomber destroyers developed that never went into production as they were not needed. My pick?

XP-72 with the four 37mm weapons load.
And for better formation busting, put the proximity fuses from A.A. shells on the High Velocity Aircraft Rocket (HVAR).


----------



## wuzak (Oct 18, 2013)

Dino in Reno said:


> There were great bomber destroyers developed that never went into production as they were not needed. My pick?
> 
> XP-72 with the four 37mm weapons load.
> And for better formation busting, put the proximity fuses from A.A. shells on the High Velocity Aircraft Rocket (HVAR).



Then, I'm sure, you would have loved the XP-67, which was designed as a long range bomber buster. It was to have had a 6 x 37mm armament. Production versions woudl have needed to dump the IV-1430 for a V-1710, Merlin or Griffon though.


My understanding is that the 37mm cannon was not a very good air to air weapon. Actually, not a good weapon at all!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 18, 2013)

It got better as time went on, but trying to put them in the wing calls for a totally different feed system that what was used on the P-39/P-63. Solves a problem or creates one?


----------



## Waynos (Oct 20, 2013)

pattern14 said:


> What about the Mk 111 Meteor? Not in the same class as the 262, but it would have done the job, i'm sure.



Worth bearing in mind that the Meteor was conceived in September 1940, the height of the Battle of Britain, and that was exactly the role it was intended for.


----------



## HBPencil (Oct 21, 2013)

Just my 2 cents worth but seeing as we're talking about a hypothetical situation of the LW fielding heavies and P-51esq escorts (against the UK only? I assume France/Belgium/Holland are still occupied) then it seems to me that outright performance (including rate of climb) is important enough that heavy "bomber killers" would be too vulnerable. So far I'm thinking that regunned P-38s (is 4+ 20mm viable?) and/or Spitfires with 4x20mm would be a good bet... this might be a bit b.s. but I wonder if one 30mm Mk108 type cannon could be mounted in each wing of a Spit? I assume it wouldn't be much use against the escort fighters but I figure if one could be fitted in the wing of a Ki-84 then it's not beyond the pale for the Spit to mount them; I figure it'd need largish blisters above and below, not disimilar to the B wing Spitfires and that it would struggle to be a stable gun platform with weapons of that size.


----------



## Glider (Oct 21, 2013)

A Typhoon with the thick wing and large weapon bay is probably a more realistic idea for fitting 2 x mk 108 instead of the 4 x 20mm, but at altitude it would be a sitting duck as the 109 with under wing guns.

You could do a lot worse that the Spit mk VIII with 4 x 20mm. Good performance at altitude with good handling and good firepower


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 21, 2013)

> You could do a lot worse that the Spit Mk VIII with 4 x 20mm. Good performance at altitude with good handling and good firepower.



You could do better than a Mk.VIII with a Spit XIV, though...


----------



## SHOOTER (Oct 21, 2013)

pattle said:


> If the roles had been reversed and Germany was bombing Britain by day with large fleets of four engine bombers Eighth Air Force style what would have been the best aircraft in the Allied fighter arsenal to combat these bombers?
> Or to put the question in a more pertinent way if the Germans had of been able to put one type of Allied fighter into production for the sole purpose of shooting down B24's and B17's then which one would have been the best choice?
> I don't want to over complicate this thread with production practicalities etc, if possible I would just like to hear peoples ideas on which Allied fighter was the most capable and best suited to the task of destroying large P51 escorted fleets of four engine bombers by day.
> 
> To be honest I haven't given a lot of thought to what would be the strongest candidate so may well in future change my mind. My opening proposal is the P38 Lightning. I understand the P38 was not going to be the favourite in a dogfight with a P51 but having said that I feel the P38's concentrated nose mounted armament which included a 20mm canon would have been the most effective of all Allied fighters against lets say a B17.



The was only one real contender, the Me-262(Un-known Mod?) with two Mk-103s. Then the standard Me-262 with four Mk-108s.
PS. As a second thought, the Ta-152H, or as a last resort, the P-38L.


----------



## wuzak (Oct 21, 2013)

SHOOTER said:


> The was only one real contender, the Me-262(Un-known Mod?) with two Mk-103s. Then the standard Me-262 with four Mk-108s.
> PS. As a second thought, the Ta-152H, or as a last resort, the P-38L.



Only problem is that the Allies didn't have Me 262s....


----------



## Glider (Oct 22, 2013)

Shold be able to get a pair in the nose of the Meteor


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 25, 2013)

SHOOTER said:


> The was only one real contender, the Me-262(Un-known Mod?) with two Mk-103s. Then the standard Me-262 with four Mk-108s.
> PS. As a second thought, the Ta-152H, or as a last resort, the P-38L.


Unless you're hypothetically modifying the Me262 for two Mk103s for the scenario, there wasn't a varient that had only two Mk103 cannon.

The A-1a/U1 had two Mk103s as part of a "6 gun" configuration and the PRU version occasionally carried a single Mk108. The only varient that had two cannon (Mk108) was the A-2a


----------



## BiffF15 (Oct 27, 2013)

Excellent thread!

My two bits. To destroy heavies you need a gun platform with both lots of guns bullets. The most sensitive part of any plane to lead poisoning is the little pink body ensconced in it. 

Aircraft: 

F7F if available (previously discussed weapons load)
P-61 if escorts were minimized (previously discussed weapons load)
P-47 8x.50 x lots of ammo

Not delving into how I would strip the escorts (but it needs to be done), or when I would attack (the further from home the better), but focusing on the end game when the pilot pulls the trigger. 

Tactics: Head on attacks focusing on the cockpit to the max extent possible. Reduces amount of guns that can be brought to bear against you, and shortens the time / opportunity window for the rest of the gunners to take a crack at you. The Germans figured that out and didn't stop doing it. The B-17G was up gunned by 2 x .50's but the pilots still didn't have "shiza" for frontal attack armor.

It's great to be a Monday night QB!

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## pattle (Oct 28, 2013)

You could argue that the P51 was a German aircraft with a British engine, as the P51 was designed by a German!


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 28, 2013)

I guess a lot of american planes were actually German or British or French or Italian or Russian as quite a number of people emigrated to America during the 20s and 30s. 

Igor Sikorsky.

Alexander de Seversky

Alexander Kartveli

and so on. 

Or how about Sam D. Heron's work. 

I am sure that there are many more.


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 29, 2013)

Gustav Lachmann, responsible for the Handley Page Hampden was German. Fred David, who was the principal designer of the CAC Boomerang had formerly worked for Heinkel.


----------



## Waynos (Nov 2, 2013)

I remember seeing a wartime Heinkel jet bomber design that looks VERY like the Handley Page Victor, I've always wondered how much of the V bombers came from German research. I've always had a bit of a Junkers feeling about the Valiant, with nothing whatsoever to back it up. It is remarkable how a Vickers went from the Windsor to the Valiant in one go.


----------



## Milosh (Nov 2, 2013)

Waynos I think you maybe thinking of the Ar234, not Heinkel. There is a section in the Ar234 Monogram book on the wing shape.


----------



## Waynos (Nov 2, 2013)

No Milosh, this was an unbuilt design for a large 6 engine bomber, complete with swept (but not crescent) wing, T-tail and a genuine resemblance to the Victor. AFAIK it never even had a designation.

The Ar 234 is a completely conventional design with straight surfaces and underslung engines, though I know other variants were being schemed. 

The other similarity I was alluding to is a likeness (nothing more, I admit) between the valiant prototype and Junkers designs such as the EF132.


----------



## drgondog (Nov 2, 2013)

BiffF15 said:


> Excellent thread!
> 
> My two bits. To destroy heavies you need a gun platform with both lots of guns bullets. The most sensitive part of any plane to lead poisoning is the little pink body ensconced in it.
> 
> ...



I would certainly agree with picks and strategy depending on how escorts to be dealt with, particularly if the P-61C with great top end speed and ceiling could be slipped into the mix - but then the P-82 would also be in the mix. Having said that I would prefer the Mossie as a replacement for the P-61B in your mix with much better high altitude speed and equal ability for Day/Night fighter role. Long range interception far more desirable tactically than point defense.

One detail - the B-17 up gunned with the B-17G production chin turret but many B-17F's field installed twin 50's in the nose along with the 50 on each side of the nose..

One last thought - head on attacks require a lot more skill, a commodity that Luftwaffe lacked in late 1944. Combined with success of Sturm FW 190A-8's heavy firepower and fewer skilled 'practitioners' the stern attacks dominated when they could break through the escort. Nearly All of the big 'bad days' of 8th AF (July 7, Sept 27, Nov 26, etc) were result of stern attacks with 30mm armed FW 190A-8's.


----------



## drgondog (Nov 2, 2013)

Although the 30mm was a devastating weapon, the 20mm battery of four in an Fw 190 was extremely effective and had the ballistics and rate of fire to be better in fighter versus fighter combat... the F7F and Spit were very well positioned as bomber/fighter destroyers than could compete (more or less) in daylight with F7F also doing night defense.

Removing four fifties and replacing with two 20's would have been a good fit for the P-38 and retro fitting four 20mm back in Mustang would have made it a GREAT daytime bomber interceptor while still enabling fighter vs fighter capability.. would have slowed it down about 10mph but except for VLR interception, the wing tanks and racks could be stripped and regain the lost top end speed.


----------



## fastmongrel (Nov 2, 2013)

I recall reading somewhere that during the BOB the RAF officially discouraged head on attacks because they were so dangerous for the fighter. Plus with a closing speed in the 500 to 600 mph range you dont get much time to aim, it probably works better as a tactic to break a formation up. It must have taken nerves of steel for a bomber pilot not to take evasive action with his windscreen rapidly filling with fighter.


----------



## JtD (Nov 2, 2013)

...and for the fighter pilot, too. After all, there are stories of B-17 carrying the remains of Luftwaffe fighters home after a collision, but no stories about a Luftwaffe fighter carrying home half a B-17.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinsog (Nov 2, 2013)

drgondog said:


> Although the 30mm was a devastating weapon, the 20mm battery of four in an Fw 190 was extremely effective and had the ballistics and rate of fire to be better in fighter versus fighter combat... the F7F and Spit were very well positioned as bomber/fighter destroyers than could compete (more or less) in daylight with F7F also doing night defense.
> 
> Removing four fifties and replacing with two 20's would have been a good fit for the P-38 and retro fitting four 20mm back in Mustang would have made it a GREAT daytime bomber interceptor while still enabling fighter vs fighter capability.. would have slowed it down about 10mph but except for VLR interception, the wing tanks and racks could be stripped and regain the lost top end speed.



I think any P47 with the paddle blade prop, RE-ARMED with 20mm cannon and a LOT of ammo would have been a devastating bomber interceptor, the P47M and P47N being particularly effective due to their high top speed. I believe even a Mustang would have trouble defending against a P47M or P47N with equal numbers of planes. Plus, the P47 should be able to deal with large loads of guns and ammo without a significant decrease in performance. Remove wing tank racks from P47 also and gain a little more performance also.


----------



## Conslaw (Nov 2, 2013)

I'll take any of the 1944-45 American frontline fighters with 5" HVAR rockets with proximity fuses plus their regular armament. Just like the Germans, you fire the rockets first to disrupt the formation then follow up with regular fighter attacks. (Of course, this assumes large heavy bomber formations like flown by the Americans. Without large formations, the rockets are likely more trouble than they are worth since they were known for being inaccurate.)


----------



## Glider (Nov 2, 2013)

If we are going into late/post war aircraft, then the Meteor fits the time period, had the performance and firepower


----------



## pinsog (Nov 2, 2013)

Conslaw said:


> I'll take any of the 1944-45 American frontline fighters with 5" HVAR rockets with proximity fuses plus their regular armament. Just like the Germans, you fire the rockets first to disrupt the formation then follow up with regular fighter attacks. (Of course, this assumes large heavy bomber formations like flown by the Americans. Without large formations, the rockets are likely more trouble than they are worth since they were known for being inaccurate.)



I think you have a good idea. Inaccurate at what distance? There is a big difference between attacking a fixed target with a 300+ mph closing speed and letting go a snap shot and settling in behind a bomber moving at say 200mph so you have little to no closing speed and taking your time to line up a shot. Plus, the proximity fuses would make accurate aiming a whole lot less important. What about dropping 500 or 1,000 pound bombs into the formations from above using proximity fuses? I know the Germans tried it with little success but they didn't have a proximity fuse either.


----------



## Aozora (Nov 2, 2013)

pinsog said:


> I think you have a good idea. Inaccurate at what distance? There is a big difference between attacking a fixed target with a 300+ mph closing speed and letting go a snap shot and settling in behind a bomber moving at say 200mph so you have little to no closing speed and taking your time to line up a shot. Plus, the proximity fuses would make accurate aiming a whole lot less important. What about dropping 500 or 1,000 pound bombs into the formations from above using proximity fuses? I know the Germans tried it with little success but they didn't have a proximity fuse either.



These tactics would work against unescorted bombers but, as the Luftwaffe discovered, escort fighters had little trouble taking out interceptors waffling along at 200 mph trying to line up a shot. 

How about the P-61E? 4 x 20mm plus 4 x .50 - add the R-2800-77s and turbos of the P-61C


----------



## BiffF15 (Nov 2, 2013)

That is a cool looking airplane! But man oh man does it have a massive canopy! And why did it have two seats since there was no radar (relief pilot for long range flying)?


----------



## wuzak (Nov 2, 2013)

BiffF15 said:


> That is a cool looking airplane! But man oh man does it have a massive canopy! And why did it have two seats since there was no radar (relief pilot for long range flying)?



Moral support?

In reality he was probably an observer/navigator.


I think the P-61E is what the A/B should have been. That is, what you see there but with the radar in the nose and 4 20mm cannon (4 0.50"s would be superfluous).

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Aozora (Nov 2, 2013)

BiffF15 said:


> That is a cool looking airplane! But man oh man does it have a massive canopy! And why did it have two seats since there was no radar (relief pilot for long range flying)?



Yep, AFAIK the canopy rivalled that of the F-15B/D/E, and the second crewman was indeed a relief pilot:

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Nov 2, 2013)

Aozora said:


> Yep, AFAIK the canopy rivalled that of the F-15B/D/E, and the second crewman was indeed a relief pilot:
> 
> OUCH!
> 
> That was like taking candy from a baby...


----------



## redcoat (Nov 4, 2013)

pinsog said:


> What about dropping 500 or 1,000 pound bombs into the formations from above using proximity fuses? I know the Germans tried it with little success but they didn't have a proximity fuse either.


Actually the wouldn't have needed this weird tactic. Allied development of the proximity fuse for AAA would have made mass Luftwaffe daylight raids too costly anyway.


----------

