# Best Bomber Killing Aircraft......



## lesofprimus (Oct 16, 2004)

There are a few that were just devastating against Bomber formations.... There has to be one that was head and shoulders above the rest....

Which one was it???


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Oct 16, 2004)

Easy...


Me-262, no doubt in my mind.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 17, 2004)

well during the BoB i'd say the hurricane, over Europe the 262............


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Oct 17, 2004)

The BoB WAS over Europe!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 17, 2004)

you know what i mean...............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 17, 2004)

Best bomber killing aircraft, thats a good one.....

When i read the topic I immediately thought M-262, Ill go with that.


----------



## Maestro (Oct 18, 2004)

I also vote for the Me-262.


----------



## NightHawk (Oct 18, 2004)

what was so good about the 262 ??
a ju-87 with a flak 38 will finish bombers fast.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 18, 2004)

A Ju-87 cant even shoot down a fly


----------



## NightHawk (Oct 18, 2004)

but it can shoot down a flying tank.


----------



## evangilder (Oct 18, 2004)

Nothing fast about the JU-87. Top speed of the fastest one was 250MPH. It couldn't keep up with the heavies. I'm with the Me-262 as well.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 18, 2004)

not to mention it's rate of climb.................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 18, 2004)

What the Stuka?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 18, 2004)

yeah, a good bomber interceptor will have a good rate of climb, just look at the EE Lightning...................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 18, 2004)

P-38 had a good rate of climb....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 18, 2004)

not as good as the EE lightnings'.................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 18, 2004)

Yeah but thats more modern and its a jet  We arent talking about the E.E lightning here, we're talking about Bomber killing planes of WW2.

I would nominate the P-38 Lightning, but im not sure if it shot down many Jap bombers.



Talking of Lightnings, where is Lightning Guy these days?


----------



## NightHawk (Oct 18, 2004)

who needs planes ??? use a SA-3 or a patriot.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 18, 2004)

because a plane's far more effective than a missile................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 18, 2004)

In case you aint noticed, the title is Best Bomber Killing AIRCRAFT; The whole website is about AIRCRAFT.


----------



## NightHawk (Oct 18, 2004)

and what about ata missles ?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 18, 2004)

Look. Its simple. This is a website about the AIRCRAFT OF WORLD WAR 2.


----------



## NightHawk (Oct 18, 2004)

i was just doing it to gain some more post's thets it.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 18, 2004)

well don't, and an aircraft is better than a missile................


----------



## NightHawk (Oct 18, 2004)

why ?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 18, 2004)

Please do not get into this debate here. If you wish to, please create it in the OFF-TOPIC/Misc. forum.

Thanks 8)

cheddar cheese


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 19, 2004)

ok back on topic, i stand by what i said, over europe it was the 262, during the BoB t'was the hurricane..................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 19, 2004)

During the BoB it could only really have been the Hurricane or the Spit.

The 262 was ultimately superior though.


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 19, 2004)

Although I have great respect for the -262, I'd have to go with the Fw-190A-8/R2 Bomber Destroyer... If u went to the 8th AF Historical Society's Reunion, you could meet a group of guys who could tell you in no uncertain terms that they were scared to death of the Fw-190A8/R2's... They are the 40+ survivors of the Kassel Mission of Sept 27th, 1944, when the 445th Bomb Group was almost wiped out of existance... They lost 33 of 37 planes that day, mostly to two waves of Fw-190's attacking from the rear... 25 bombers went down in about 3 minutes, the wreckage scattered over about 15 miles of the German countryside... 

Martin Caindin said in his book "Black Thursday" (the Schweinfurt raid in October, 43) said that gunners could see their .50 cal rounds, including armor-piercing, bounce off the armor plating on the Fw-190's... 

The Fw-190A8/R2 was equipped with 2 13mm heavy machineguns in the nose, 2 20mm cannon located near the wing roots and 2 30mm Mk 108 cannons mounted outboard of the propellor arc... The 30mm cannon replaced 2 20mm cannons located on the outer wing section... 

The Fw-190A8/R1 carried no less than the 2 13mm machineguns, 2 20mm cannons internal to the wing and 2 R1 'Rustak' pods, each containing 2 20mm cannons!!!! Imagine the poor tailgunner looking through his gunsight at an Fw-190 coming in with 6, yes I said 6, 20mm cannons blasting away at him, well beyond the range of his .50 cal machineguns...

The -262 to me was just too fast, and did not enough time on station, to effectively claim the title as Best Bomber Killer...


----------



## kiwimac (Oct 19, 2004)

Focke-Wulf FW-190 with Rockets and or Me 109 G / K series also with rockets. And in passing I note that the Me 110 was used quite successfully against B17s

Kiwimac


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 20, 2004)

i'm still going for the -262......................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 20, 2004)

Yeah me too, for the Germans to utilise such a great piece of engineering like that in the time they had and under the pressure they had was pretty great.


----------



## evangilder (Oct 20, 2004)

While I will agree that the aircraft you mentioned, Les, was definitely a terror on the bombers, I have also heard it said that if the -262 was out earlier, it would have made it alot tougher on the bomber crews. It would probably not have changed the outcome, but could very well have prolonged it.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 20, 2004)

Yup I feel the same.


----------



## NightHawk (Oct 20, 2004)

what about the germen redio guided anti bomber missle ?
the japanis proberly had a maned version,


----------



## Maestro (Oct 20, 2004)

Yes, they were called Kamikazees...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 20, 2004)

:lol : Why did Kamikaze pilots wear helmets?


----------



## MichaelHenley (Oct 20, 2004)

Maybe they packed explosives in them


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 20, 2004)

To keep their hair from getting in their eyes????

Sorry to disagree with u guys, but the -262 was not a better bomber killer than the Fw-190.... It had less firepower, less armored protection, and alot less time on station... I dont reall ever reading about bomber crews being scared of the -262 on attack... 

Not to say that it wasnt a devastating attack... 4x 30mm will put the fear of god in ya no doubt....


----------



## evangilder (Oct 20, 2004)

Yes, but with 4 x 30mm cannons, it doesn't take but a good burst to do some serious damage. I am sure you have seen what a 30mm does to metal, and bodies. BIG holes and pink mist.


----------



## NightHawk (Oct 21, 2004)

near the end of the war the germens had a radio controled rocket. thet they would luanch from bombers.


----------



## JAGD_RC (Oct 21, 2004)

You guys are thinking rockets and jets...umm...sounds like a F16. Truth of the matter is that the FW190 was the bomber killer of the skies during wwii. The 262 was never produced in enough numbers or early enough to make a difference, also it's engines could not withstand the kind of abuse the a B17 crew would give them...50 cals hurt turbines pretty bad. The FW190 could knock a bomber out of the sky and even if it took hits while doing so, it would simply laugh and fly away.

If you want rockets and jets, then try an ME163 it was a rocket powered bomber killer, but it didn't work very well.


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 21, 2004)

Evan, while it is true that 4 x 30mm will ruin ur day or anyone elses, the concentrated firepower of the 190-A8/R2 was more destructive....

2 x 13mm, 2 x 20mm, 2 x 30mm would cause more damage in a quicker amount of time than 4 x 30mm....

Either way, bomber crews had a rough time of it up there....

But the Fw-190A8/R2 was definatly a better platform for knocking down bombers.... Id rather be surrounded by armor plating and be slower than fast and easy to shoot down....


----------



## evangilder (Oct 21, 2004)

Good point Les. Either one would cause some substantial damage. Quick, short bursts do damage when using hit and run tactics. But I do see your point. Different methods of doing the same job. Either one head on could take out the cockpit and nose crew, which would effectively result in the loss of the bomber. Kind of hard to say which was "better" than the other as they were both effective. 

By the way, nice sig!


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 21, 2004)

Ty very much.... One of the best actual combat pics i have ever seen....


----------



## MichaelHenley (Oct 22, 2004)

Whats the pic taken from?


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 22, 2004)

I think its from a B-25.....


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Oct 22, 2004)

lesofprimus said:


> Evan, while it is true that 4 x 30mm will ruin ur day or anyone elses, the concentrated firepower of the 190-A8/R2 was more destructive....
> 
> 2 x 13mm, 2 x 20mm, 2 x 30mm would cause more damage in a quicker amount of time than 4 x 30mm....
> 
> ...




That makes no sense...


The Me-262's four concentrated cannons will make a lot more damage!

Lets say one burst equals a bullet out of each gun...

One pull on the 262=4 high explosive bullets, all in the nose - VERY CONCENTRATED

One pull on the 190=2 high explosive shells on the outer wings (easy to miss), 2 AP rounds on the inner wings (Ok, but not much damage unless to the fuel tanks or bombs...) and 2 13mm mg bullets (very rare to do anything)...


The Me-262 not only has a better chance of the shots landing together, the shells have a chance of creating damage anywhere.


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 22, 2004)

> 2 AP rounds on the inner wings (Ok, but not much damage unless to the fuel tanks or bombs...)



2x 20mm rounds wont do much damage????? Last time I checked, 20mm rounds do alot of damage, especially to a thin skinned bomber....

The amount of lead that an Fw-109 can spew into a target in 2 seconds is far greater than the amount of lead the -262 can deliver in the same amount of time... Plus the fact that one burst from a -262 and hes flown by the target...


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 24, 2004)

Which would be more destructive to a thin skin bomber???

1) 4 x 30mm
2) 2 x 30mm, 2 x 20mm, 2 x 13mm
3) 6 x 20mm, 2 x 13mm

Ill say # 2....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 24, 2004)

I dont know, it depends on their location on the fighter.


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 24, 2004)

> I dont know, it depends on their location on the fighter.



Ummm, if i understand u correctly:
The 4 x 30mm in the nose...
The 2 x 30mm in underwing gondolas, 2 x 20mm in wing roots, and 2 x 13mm in cowling...
The 6 x 20mm, 4 in underwing gondolas, 2 in wing roots, and 13mm in cowling...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 24, 2004)

I'd go #1 then...


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 24, 2004)

You know that all armament platforms are sighted in for accuracy and convergence at a certain distance..... So all that lead from a 190A8/R2 comes together at 150yards, while the lead from the 4 x 30mm basically spreads out over the target area, as it had a very low velocity...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 24, 2004)

Well If its going to spread out, on a thin skinned bomber surely thats better because you are more likely to hit a vital part of the plane, rather than a load of lead hitting a small area which may not be that important?


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 24, 2004)

Umm, slicing the wing off a B-24 certainly is important.... All that lead is like a giant chainsaw.... 

Also remember that the Fw-190 could come up behind a bomber, and just fill that bomber full of lead, while the -262 usually did a high speed head-on attack.... Armor plating is a wonderful thing aint it???


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 24, 2004)

Meh, armament and stuff aint really my thing


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 24, 2004)

Well thank God and Allah and Buddah that Im here then, to educate and alert u to this very important phase of aerial combat....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 24, 2004)

Like ive said a million times before, I know next to nothing about planes at all, there are only 2 that that im mildly educated on


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 24, 2004)

Well then, lemme ask u this.....

What DO u know something about???? Fox Hunting??? The Female Anatomy??? Mini Coopers??? Pimple Popping??? Lanc's Sheeping Beastiality????

Just jokin....



> I know next to nothing about planes at all


Well atleast ur here learning about them man....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 24, 2004)

Yup.


Hey If I joined a forum about cars I would be the man (or boy, however you see 15 year olds) to fear 

Trouble is I cant brsed to get into one cos theyre all already popular, when I joined this site it was very new and there werent that many active members. If I could come across a car site in a similar situation I would be straight in


----------



## Erich (Oct 24, 2004)

The SturmFw 190 A-8/R2 or R8 variant hands down as shown on my web-site pages. Sine I hade a site for a umber of years "Sturmgruppen missions 1944"

Indeed the 262 was way too fast when they attacked from the rear and thier was only a couple of seconds to fire and if the pilot was not experienced then he could easily overshoot.

For the SturmFw the 13mm were used to pinpoint the shots of the larger cannon since they had the range of the US .50. many times the 13mm's were pulled off the heavy 190 as it just added unecessary weight so the 20mm's could do the job. with the newer emplaced M rounds 3-4 30mm rounds could bring down a US or RAF heavy and only 8-10 of the 20mm was needed to do the same.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 24, 2004)

> with the newer emplaced M rounds 3-4 30mm rounds could bring down a US or RAF heavy and only 8-10 of the 20mm was needed to do the same.



ah but that depends on where you put the bullets, in most of the fusilage, nothing'll happen, in the engines/fuel tanks/wing you're in trouble, obvious i know but i don't think anyone's said that yet and i thought it was worth pointing out..........................


----------



## Erich (Oct 24, 2004)

It acutually did not matter as one placed 30mm round would take the tail off any allied bomber as it made a 4-6 foot wide hole.

The M HE/I and I have covered this is an earlier posting this past late spring, once hit the aluminum skin of a bomber would start an immediate fire, now concerning close in combat with the SturmFw, not just the 30mm's were ued but also in conjuction with the two 20mm weapons so whose counting rounds ? The fact is that some of the Sturm pilots got within 30 yards before they banked away to ensure a kill. these guys were nothing but crazy but I have to hand it to them probably no braver pilots than these. this is not to discount any other pilots from any of the countrys particpating in the war............


----------



## NightHawk (Oct 25, 2004)

was bullet proof glass used on bombers in ww2 ?
if not it is possibul to kill the pilots, and the plane will go out of contorl.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 25, 2004)

"I have to hand it to them probably no braver pilots than these"

i'm sorry but i'm gonna have to disagree and say the torp. bomber pilots of RAF bomber command were braver, i've read about some of the stuff they did and it's truely amazing...................


----------



## Erich (Oct 25, 2004)

can't say except that I hae had personal interivew with the Sturm pilots as well as gun cam footage. pretty bloody scary with all the .50 round flying at you from such close quarters and not knowing when the US bomber was going to explode in your face. Their stories are rivetting from the word "go"

night hawk there was no need to hit the canopy to disable or kill the crewmen. The Sprenggschoss M round both in the 2cm and 3cm was terribly devastating. Due to the extreme explosive effects the entire insides of the bombers would be full of carnage, on fire or just plain blown out through the sides without any of the bomber crewmen being able to bail out. Shearing off a wing was not uncommon and the poor bomber crewmen would be held within the framework of the bomber by the G forces as it spun out of control and then vaporized. War is Hell and this was truly an example of such horror...........


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 25, 2004)

and you had next to no chance of getting out, especailly in a lanc...............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 25, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> and you had next to no chance of getting out, especailly in a lanc...............



I must say I love the way that the tail gunner escaped 

Yet another down fall of the Lancaster there as well...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 25, 2004)

but it wasn't just bad in the lanc, it was bad in most all bombers.....................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 25, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> but it wasn't just bad in the lanc, it was bad in most all bombers.....................



Assuming thats a typo of "mostly", that makes no sense  How can you have "mostly all"   Even if it isn't a typo it still doesnt make sense  8)


----------



## Gemhorse (Oct 25, 2004)

I gotta get into this !!
- Erich's right about the M ammo, known as 'Mine'...In reading 'Nachtjagd' [Theo Boiten], Karl-Heinz Becker describes flying the 262 against the Nightfighter Mosquitos, and approaching the target aircraft at an overtaking speed of 150 mph., they only had a short time to aim and shoot. Armed with 4x MK108 30mm's, with their lower rate of fire, coming in real close to fire resulted in less incidents of target aircraft exploding and damaging the 262.- Every 5th shell was a 'glow' shell [not as bright as tracer] and in between were armour-piercing and 'mine' shells, which with these, at the slightest contact, blew a huge hole or even tore a wing off.... 
The 262's were the only solution to the Mosquitos, but it was too little, too late....but they certainly sorted-out bombers effectively, day or night...These guys were having a contest to see who used the least ammo for the most kills !
I have to say 262's were faster and 4x 30mm in the nose at close range with that ammo-load packed, must be real deadly....
Another point too, the 190's would suffer a recoil penalty that probably wouldn't have disadvantaged the 262's....
However, the 190's were at it longer than the 262's, and probably had it off-pat, and overall would have the greater number of kills, but they must've suffered some losses...Stuff-all 262's were lost to return-fire in comparison in the Nachtjagd.....


----------



## NightHawk (Oct 26, 2004)

but why not use a ju-87 with 2 flak 38 under the wings ??? from a close range a 38 will destroy a bomber in a matter of seconds.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 26, 2004)

1. Ju-87's are so too slow to even keep up with the bombers in the first place.
2. The fighter escorts would absolutely muller the Ju-87 

And if we're going to be silly like that, why not use a Henschel Hs-129 with 75mm cannon in the nose?  That would wipe out a few...  Or if you want to go beyond the realms of impossibility, We could always use a Piaggio P.108A with 102mm cannon  Well, it would at least be better than a stuka


----------



## NightHawk (Oct 26, 2004)

or you can fly a kamikazy plane like the japanis but not against shits but against bombers.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 26, 2004)

Thats a bit wasteful though, using your life and one plane to knock down what would only probably be one bomber...


----------



## NightHawk (Oct 26, 2004)

so eject 1 sec befor you smash.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 26, 2004)

But then you aint a kamikaze pilot  And its still a waste of a plane.

And do you know how tricky it was to eject back then? You dont just push a button, You gotta fling the canopy back and undo your straps (Did they even wear straps of any kind back then), and then climb out. All of which take at least 10 seconds, and if you were flying the He-162 or the manned version of the V1, you werent shaping to well...

The plane would go off course too.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 26, 2004)

> it was bad in most all bombers



sorry, meant to say "almost all" bombers...................


----------



## Erich (Oct 26, 2004)

yes straps were used to keep the fighter pilot in his seat while doing maneuvers.

there was no different recoil in the heavy SturmFw as there was in the regular four 2cm mounted A-8 variant. The 262 was problem at night with the 3cm because of the blinding flash and the closeness with which the jet had to be to a RAF a/c to knock it down. In the case of Dr. boiten who I know he only included just scant information on Becker as Becker on at least two occassions only used two 3cm weapons and yeas they could be fired as either two or four weapons. Becker will be covered in our book in-depth as we have a copy of his log-books.

The Bf 110G-2 with all it's funny heavy arms experiments were no match for the Allied escorts, neither was the 50mm equipped Me 410 A and B variants. Even the Me 262 had an experiment with a 50mm piece and on both missions the cannon failed by jamming. the unit was part of the JV 44 fighter group under Adolf Galland and flown by a German night fighter ace who transferred into the unit. Even with the jets speed the big gun slowed the a/c down and it was very hard to aim the heavy piece as it threw off the aerodynamics of the jet.

E ~


----------



## Erich (Oct 26, 2004)

by the way it was quite common for US heavy bomber crews to abandon ship through the bomb-bay


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 26, 2004)

That would look pretty funny, i can just imagine a plak and white piece of film footage of a B-17 with a load of men dropping out the bomb bay in quick succession


----------



## NightHawk (Oct 26, 2004)

now theres a real smart bomb.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 26, 2004)

Not really, as men tend not to explode terribly well.


----------



## Erich (Oct 26, 2004)

not so funny if you would have been in their position

there were also belly hatches as well as a side fuselage hatch


----------



## NightHawk (Oct 27, 2004)

you can allways starp your self to a bomb.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 27, 2004)

What good is that?


----------



## NightHawk (Oct 27, 2004)

you can make your self a smart bomb.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 27, 2004)

but you have to ask, how smart is someone that straps themselfs to a bomb to make it a smart bomb??


----------



## Lightning Guy (Oct 27, 2004)

The bomb bay was a common method of exit for those on the flight deck (pilot, co-pilot, flight-engineer) and anyone in the radio room immediately behind the bomb bay. I've seen some footage of this being done. It might look silly, but it was the quickest way out for those individuals in a situation where time was of the essence.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 27, 2004)

but it couldn't be done in a lancaster, the bomb aimer and tail gunner had the best chance of getting out.....................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Oct 27, 2004)

Point for the B-17!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 27, 2004)

well not really because to escape you have to be shot down, point taken away from the B-17..............


----------



## Lightning Guy (Oct 27, 2004)

B-17 was a lot harder to shoot down that the Lanc.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 27, 2004)

if this was both at day i would agree, and i'll agree anyway but can i just point out that as the lancaster flew at night the fighters had to get allot closer to the lanc to identify and take aim at it, bringing the fighter well in range of the lanc's defensive armorment where the attacker would be "strongly disscouraged" from attacking...................


----------



## Lightning Guy (Oct 27, 2004)

The same advantage would have applied to the B-17 if it had flow at night. The simple fact is that the B-17 was better able to withstand battle damage.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 27, 2004)

i said i agreed with that, i'm just saying that it tokk more than allot of people think to bring one down because of the reasons i mentioned, as well as the corkscrew......................


----------



## NightHawk (Oct 27, 2004)

LG is back. its been ages from the last time i saw you posting.


----------



## NightHawk (Oct 27, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> but you have to ask, how smart is someone that straps themselfs to a bomb to make it a smart bomb??


 well shahids do it all the time.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 27, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> if this was both at day i would agree, and i'll agree anyway but can i just point out that as the lancaster flew at night the fighters had to get allot closer to the lanc to identify and take aim at it, bringing the fighter well in range of the lanc's defensive armorment where the attacker would be "strongly disscouraged" from attacking...................



But because the Lancaster had relatively thin armour, it would only take one or 2 lucky hits to bring it down. And I'm sure that before an enemy pilot withdrew from the pursuit, he would take a quick pop at it.


----------



## Erich (Oct 27, 2004)

proof is that both the Lanc and B-17 were shot down at night and they were not that hard of a victim to bring down.

the German ammo was superior to anything as the relatiosnhip to cannon arms. with an RD-X component the Minengeschoss was the destructive round in the air war. simple but very much effective.

the night fighters in the Bf 110G and Ju 88G did not use it because of the destructive properties in the Schräge Musik installation but a mild form of tracer, and HE which eaisly brough down all 4 enigne bombers. Because an Allied bomber could be determined by the blip on the radar screen as well as visual the crews did not have to get in that close to have the 2cm weapons take effect on the rear gunner and inboard engines. Will say that manay night fighter crews could not properly ID their RAF victims at night as it was happeneing all too fast and of course on a moonless night you could barely tell a shape, so the log-buchs make reference only to a 4-engine bomber

E ~


----------



## Gemhorse (Oct 28, 2004)

Yeah, I agree with you Erich, with the 'ease' almost that the Nachtjagd had in disposing of bombers, especially deadly was the 'Shrage Muzik' oblique cannon, firing-up into the bombers, preferably the wings, for the fuel tanks and engines...
The Allies were bloody lucky really, that the German High Command kept dicking-around and obstructing Kammhuber and his successors from developing the Nachtjagd to it's fullest potential, and when they did acknowledge that 'defensive' was the correct strategy, not 'offensive' [Hitler just wanted to attack and bomb everything], it was too late. But they fought to the last drop of fuel and were taking down bombers right to the end...

I was wondering about the gun-flash on the 262's, due to the position of their cannons.... They stated in the book that they only used two sometimes, probably the lower two ! - In discussing this with the last [very elderly] survivor of one of our Mosquito Squadron's recently, he said when the guns were fired on them at night, there were flames shooting-out about 10-15 yds. in front of the aircraft, along with their thunderous bucking from under their feet, the recoil taking about 30 mph. off their airspeed.... The Nightfighter Mossies only used their 4 cannons, to keep gunflash to a minimum, and minimal tracer... - I know German tracer was red in colour, I was wondering what colour the Allied tracer was ? Was it different for machine-gun from cannon ? - Anyone know ???....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 28, 2004)

i believe it was green/yellow..................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 28, 2004)

I thought it was more orange in colour...


----------



## MichaelHenley (Oct 29, 2004)

Sort of like lightsaber colours... When it comes to nightfighters and that, what was the difference between a normal spotlight and a blue one? Anybody know?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Oct 29, 2004)

Nope sorry 8) I haven't even got a clue what your on about


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 29, 2004)

i didn't even know they used blue spotlights..............


----------



## kiwimac (Oct 30, 2004)

Given the nature of BLue Light, it would have rather a short-range wouldn't it?

Kiwimac


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Oct 30, 2004)

it's make it even harder to pick out the planes as well................


----------



## Erich (Oct 31, 2004)

Blue light ? never heard of that.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 1, 2004)

where did you hear about this blue light??


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 5, 2004)

I'm at a loss as well.. Maybe he was jokin around...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 6, 2004)

sounds like MH's got allot to answer for..................


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 6, 2004)

He's not the most informative poster so I'll go with the "He had no idea what he was talking about" line....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 6, 2004)

i'd like to see him try and worm his way out of it though............


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 6, 2004)

He cant spell half the words hes trying to say.... If ud like to see him try, u must be a sadist...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 6, 2004)

no, i'm british, there's nothing we love more than a failure, emma melia, she's a sadist...................


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 6, 2004)

If u love failures, I'm sure u'd fit in America quite nicely....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 6, 2004)




----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 7, 2004)

Ive always had the image America were successful...


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 7, 2004)

> Ive always had the image America were successful...


Dude are u drunk or huffing on something??? Did u take a stupid pill???? Ur typing or grammer has gone to shit.....

If u think all Americans are sucessful, take a trip to Arkansas some time.... That'll change ur mind...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 8, 2004)

Dude im never going to america ever...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 8, 2004)

me neither.............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 8, 2004)

Europe is where I shall always stay.


----------



## Maestro (Nov 8, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> Europe is where I shall always stay.



I thought you wanted to go in Canada at least once... Do you changed your mind or did you failed your geography exam ?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 8, 2004)

Oh yeah, I forgot Canada  I dont take Geography, perhaps that explains it


----------



## Gemhorse (Nov 8, 2004)

I'm sure as hell happy right here in 'Godzone'...Four years in Aussie in the late70's - early 80's made my mind up on that one... Probably wouldn't get a passport now anyway...[mis-spent youth !!]


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 9, 2004)

I would have to say it depends on the era of the war. During the Battle of Britain it had to have been the Hurricane. This plane was overshadowed by the Spitfire but it was the workhorse of the Battle Of Britain. However the ultimate had to be the Me-262. It had to have been so hard for the bomber crews to shoot down one because of its sheere speed. It is just luck for the Allies that the Germans did not put into full production until too late in the war and when they did Hitler wanted to use it as a fighter bomber instead of an intercepter. A truely remarkable plane.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 9, 2004)

I agree; I think the general consensus is that the 262 was the best bomber killer.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 9, 2004)

and some going for the Fw-190.............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 9, 2004)

Yup. There isnt really much else to choose from.


----------



## Gemhorse (Nov 10, 2004)

I thouroughly agree with 'The Eagle'... the Hurricane did indeed play a big part initially against the Luftwaffe bombers during the BoB...I just wish they had .50's or 20mm's, as the .303's they 'rained-on' the bombers weren't as effective...One of our NZ pilots during the BoB, Crawford-Compton, used to specifically aim for the [I think] starboard engine, which controlled their aircraft power controls, and that eliminated their chances of escaping... 
But 'Eagle' also agrees that the 262's were the 'Best Bomber-killer'....- I feel this was an established fact by War's end, their speed an undeniably contributive factor, as well as the slower-firing MK108 30mm cannons which at that speed allowed just enough time to lob a few heavy-duty rounds at the bombers in passing...
Interestingly though, if the War had continued on for abit, their days would've been numbered anyway, as the RAF 616 Sqn [I think] with Meteors, would've nullified their Air Superiority......


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 10, 2004)

I have to disagree. The Meteor was a neat aircraft but I wonder if It would have had much of a advantage over the Me-262. I dont know much about the Meteor but it is hard to believe of anything at that time that could out perform a "Schwalbe".


----------



## Gemhorse (Nov 12, 2004)

I'm not familiar with their performance stats, they had 4x 20mm cannons to the 262's 4x 30mm's, but the speed factor 262's had would've been rather compromised by Meteors, and the piston-engined fighters were starting to claw the 262's down anyway... - P.51's, Tempests and Mosquitos were getting at them, the fighters' dive-speeds were around 600 mph, enough to catch the 262's...- Also, they were out-numbered.....


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 12, 2004)

I have read many articles concerning the -262 and Bomber Crew's opinions concerning this subject... I dont recall ever reading a bomber crewman saying he was scared of -262's.... 

However many, many times I have read that they were scared shitless of the Armoured -190A/8's... .50 cal rounds would bounce of the armour plating, severely depressing the bomber crews....

The -190A/8 was a much better bomber killer..... I still connot fathom how someone can think the -262 was better.... Faster isnt always better, especially when u are attack a bomber formation from the rear... 2 seconds, destroy a bomber, alittle right rudder, destroy a second bomber, pull back on the stick and alittle more right rudder, destroy a third.....

You couldnt do that with a -262 fellas....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 13, 2004)

But by then the bombers will have time to open fire on you, you may well destroy 3 bombers but that would be it...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 13, 2004)

> The Meteor was a neat aircraft but I wonder if It would have had much of a advantage over the Me-262. I dont know much about the Meteor but it is hard to believe of anything at that time that could out perform a "Schwalbe".



well you have to remeber that we're discussing what would happen if the war went on longer, if it had, the Mk.VIII would broberly have entered service allot quicker, and that would eat the speed of the -262 for breakfast, the -262 wasn't the most manouverable of aircraft however the meteor's encounters with "buzzbombs" proved they were suprisingly agile, it's hard to call a winner though................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 13, 2004)

But remember, it wouldnt only be the Meteor that developed, it would have been the 262 as well. And because the 262 was ahead initially I can only assume that it would stay ahead.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 13, 2004)

ah but believe the Me-262's development was slowing down considderably, wheras the meteor's development was speeding up,


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 13, 2004)

CC, the -A8's were considerably armored on the leading wing edges, the engine, windscreen, fuel tanks and pilot protection..... As I have said before, crewmen would see their .50 cal bullets BOUNCE off the Fw-190A-8's.... And besides, its not like the -190 was slow or something.....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 13, 2004)

it was also very good looking, much beter than, say, a Fw-109D.............


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 13, 2004)

Looks have nothing to do with the discussion at hand Mr Lanc.... GGGGRRRRRRRRRR.......


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 13, 2004)

And even if they did he would be talking bull


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 13, 2004)

Yea talking crap while looking through his coke bottle glasses.....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 13, 2004)

Nah, you mean his hair...


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 13, 2004)

u get the point....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 13, 2004)

I know. The lanc has the strangest tastes in style of anyone I know


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 13, 2004)

are you including youself in that collection of people you know??


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 13, 2004)

I doubt it.....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 13, 2004)

At the same time if the war had continued longer, many more german jet fighters and intercepters would have entered service that would have outclassed anything such as the Gotha H0-229.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 13, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> are you including youself in that collection of people you know??



Yeah...I wear kick ass jeans.


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 13, 2004)

And silly British Shirts.....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 13, 2004)

I dont wear shirts unless im going out some place nice...i always wear black t-shirts


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 14, 2004)

> At the same time if the war had continued longer, many more german jet fighters and intercepters would have entered service that would have outclassed anything such as the Gotha H0-229.



at the same time we would also be developing some amazing fighters, such as the meteor Mk.VIII and even the EE Lightning, which would have outclassed absolutly anything it came up against, just so long as it didn't have to travel more than 50 miles from it's base


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 14, 2004)

i dont get it....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 15, 2004)

That is true I believe that most advanced aircraft built with jet engines at that time were limited in range. I think the biggest problem the Germans would have had and hurt them the most would have been the lack of fuel for there Jet aircraft.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Nov 15, 2004)

lanc~"yeh, thats why i think they wouldnt be a threat to us............................"




Blah, blah, blah.


8)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 16, 2004)

Once the germans lost Ploetzki in Romania they were really hurting for petroleum and that was a nail in there coffin.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 17, 2004)

> i dont get it....



the EE Lightening was notorious for it's lack of range, one pilot said "with the F.6's extended range emergency diversions might actually take you out of Linkonshire"............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 17, 2004)

+ another  for your interpretation of the word "Lincolnshire"


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 19, 2004)

ok so i'm not great at spelling.............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 19, 2004)

I know but it was funny


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 20, 2004)

and we wont even start on my stutter................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 20, 2004)

Which isnt really a stutter...


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 20, 2004)

whawha sssttttuter are uuuu talkin abbbout????


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 20, 2004)

Well his stutter aint that bad  Its more of a delayed pause between occasional words


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 20, 2004)

U know stutters are usually caused by some sort of penial dysfunction.....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 20, 2004)




----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 20, 2004)

it's not so much a stutter in the normal sence, i just start to say a word then can't finish it and end up saying the beggining/previous word over and over again..............


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 20, 2004)

Thats what we call a stutter dude.....


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 20, 2004)




----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 20, 2004)

So what else can you tell me about the EE Lightning. I really have never heard anything about it.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Nov 20, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> it's not so much a stutter in the normal sence, i just start to say a word then can't finish it and end up saying the beggining/previous word over and over again..............



It's called stammering.

And it's still caused by penial dysfunction.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 20, 2004)

Me neither; apart from the fact it was extremely good...


----------



## Nonskimmer (Nov 20, 2004)

See this for EE Lightning info: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=724


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 22, 2004)

or just check out www.lightning.org and how can you not know about it, it's a british institution, it made all other interceptors obsolete overnight, it took the RAF from subsonic to transonic, not until the F-14 has the world seen an interceptor like it............


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 22, 2004)

Okay I now know the aircraft you are talking about. The EE Lighting, yes I have heard of it but it was not a WW2 Aircraft. It was post war. Go to http://www.thunder-and-lighting.co.uk and you can read about it. It did not even take flight until 1954.


----------



## Anonymous (Nov 23, 2004)

Me-262!

Hard to argue with 4 x MK108 30mm's on a plane to fast to intercept.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 23, 2004)

I agree.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 23, 2004)

And me.


Welcome to the site by the way 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 23, 2004)

> It did not even take flight until 1954.



the design specification was given in 1947 (i think), i've read sorces that say if the war had gone on longer it could have been in service by 1950..............


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 23, 2004)

That I can believe. It was an interesting aircraft.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 23, 2004)

interesting, it was bloody amazing!!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 23, 2004)

I guess it was not one of my favorites


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 23, 2004)




----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 23, 2004)

Not one of mine either...


----------



## Anonymous (Nov 24, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> And me.
> 
> 
> Welcome to the site by the way 8)



Thank you. One of my favorite topics to discuss.  

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 24, 2004)

So where ya from RG_Lunatic


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 24, 2004)

And may I ask how old you are? It gives me a better image of who you are if I know your age 8) (Im 15)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 24, 2004)

I am 24


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 24, 2004)

ok cool 8)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 24, 2004)

yeap not too old jet not too young.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 24, 2004)

me's 14..............


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 24, 2004)

Are all of the moderators here your age.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 24, 2004)

pretty much


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 24, 2004)

thats cool, do you all actually know each other


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 24, 2004)

i know CC from school but apart from that i don't think anyone knows anyone else in person...............


----------



## germanace (Nov 24, 2004)

I think the Fw-190 is the best 

by the way im 14


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 24, 2004)

any arguments to back that up??


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 24, 2004)

The Fw-190 is a great choice. It was a great aircraft. I have to go with the Me-109G though mostly because of my own preference.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 24, 2004)

you're a big fan of the 109 aren't you??


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 24, 2004)

I love the 109, it is by far my fav WW2 aircraft. I just like everything about it the way it looks everything. Everytime I go to the Sinsheim museum in Germany it is the first plane that I go and see.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 24, 2004)

I can see why - before I knew as much as I do about planes now it was my favourite plane, and its still right up there.


And not all the Mods are my age! Ok Crazy and horse are, but kiwimac isnt, and neither is - sorry was - bronzewhaler82. And as for Hot Space, dont ask....


----------



## Anonymous (Nov 24, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> And may I ask how old you are? It gives me a better image of who you are if I know your age 8) (Im 15)



LOL - I'm an old fart m8. 44.

Currently an expatriot Californian living in Oklahoma but headed back soon.

I've aways loved WWII aviation. My Dad was a Navy pilot and I got hooked young.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 24, 2004)

Cool 8)  Nowt wrong being an old fart, means I respect you more and am less likely to give you backchat


----------



## Anonymous (Nov 24, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> Cool 8)  Nowt wrong being an old fart, means I respect you more and am less likely to give you backchat



No dude. Treat me like anyone else. Just credit me with having had more time to read than you, and allow for the fact that I've had the opportunity to talk to real WWII pilots. There used to be a lot of them around... but I fear there are very few remaining.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Hot Space (Nov 24, 2004)

Hot Space is 46


----------



## Nonskimmer (Nov 24, 2004)

Back in diapers soon then, eh?


----------



## Hot Space (Nov 24, 2004)

Only on Friday nights and then I have to pay for it  

Hot Space


----------



## Nonskimmer (Nov 24, 2004)

Bring your own.


----------



## Hot Space (Nov 24, 2004)

I would do, but the cat is wearing it on his head at the moment  

Hot Space


----------



## Nonskimmer (Nov 24, 2004)




----------



## Hot Space (Nov 24, 2004)

It's a hobby.......................not sure way the cat has such a hobby, but there you go  

Hot Space


----------



## Medvedya (Nov 24, 2004)

It's good to have a hobby.....


----------



## Hot Space (Nov 25, 2004)

Trouble is, I have to clean up after it  

Hot Space


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 25, 2004)




----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 25, 2004)

Alright this conversation took a turn for the south.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 25, 2004)

It was Hot Space, Sir!


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Nov 25, 2004)

RG_Lunatic said:


> cheddar cheese said:
> 
> 
> > And may I ask how old you are? It gives me a better image of who you are if I know your age 8) (Im 15)
> ...



"Oh-kay-ell-ay-eich-oh-em-ay!"


Damn, move back to Cali, I'm almost certain it's better than Oklahoma(!), the part where I live, at least (Southern)...


----------



## Hot Space (Nov 25, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> It was Hot Space, Sir!



Who?

Hot Space


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 25, 2004)

> Who?
> 
> Hot Space



Sorry but I find that terribly funny


----------



## Hot Space (Nov 25, 2004)

Like Hot Space who's just plain silly, don't you know  

Hot Space


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 25, 2004)

Cant win em all


----------



## Hot Space (Nov 25, 2004)

No, they fell off year's ago  

Would should really just keep this though to the 2 Hot Space's Threads though as this spam is all over the place  

Hot Space


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 25, 2004)

yeah I agree 8) See ya in there


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 26, 2004)

Well I am glad that I am not the youngest atleast and I am glad that I am not the oldest.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 26, 2004)

Me too. Although being on the younger side does make me more innocent


----------



## Hot Space (Nov 26, 2004)

Rubbish, you're as bad as the rest of us  

Hot Space


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 26, 2004)




----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 26, 2004)

I agree.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 26, 2004)

me too..........................


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 26, 2004)

Well that was easy we all agree on that.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 26, 2004)

which is a rare occourance................


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 26, 2004)

Seems to be that way.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 26, 2004)

ah it is...........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 26, 2004)

How agreeable


----------



## Hot Space (Nov 26, 2004)

Just like Tea and Biscuits  

Hot Space


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 26, 2004)

Except I dont like tea


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 26, 2004)

Come on you Brits make the best tea. Put some milk in it and it is great.


----------



## Hot Space (Nov 26, 2004)

Yeah, plus Tea is very good for you  

Hot Space


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 26, 2004)

Im a coffee man 8) Tea is bleurgh


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 26, 2004)

I still prefer coffee and a good Crystal Weizen or Pils


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 26, 2004)

Irish Coffee is the pinnacle


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 26, 2004)

Yes it is wonderful.


----------



## Hot Space (Nov 26, 2004)

Pils. Now ya talking 8) 

Hot Space


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 26, 2004)

Contraceptive Pills?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 26, 2004)

Yeap a good golden pils slightly bitter, umm its great.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 26, 2004)

are you serious with the contraceptive pills thing. I hope not we are talking about beer.


----------



## Hot Space (Nov 26, 2004)

Yes, M8. Forget him, he's daft  But you can't beat a good beer 8) 

Hot Space


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 26, 2004)

I cant wait to get out of here and drink a nice cold Weizen. Oh man it will be great.


----------



## Hot Space (Nov 26, 2004)

You should try some old English Ales, m8. Beautiful, just beautiful 8) 

Hot Space


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 26, 2004)

I have tried some, mostly Irish though Kilkenny and Guiness. Both are great. I used to travel to England all the time and enjoyed each visit especially trying different ales.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 26, 2004)

I dont like beer


----------



## Hot Space (Nov 26, 2004)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I have tried some, mostly Irish though Kilkenny and Guiness. Both are great. I used to travel to England all the time and enjoyed each visit especially trying different ales.



Were you stationed over here then, m8?

Hot Space


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 26, 2004)

No I lived most of my life in Germany but I had a girlfriend who was from England and lived near Bristol. I used to fly there twice a month and she would come to Germany twice a month on weekends. Unfortunatly plane fairs add up quickly and it got to be quite an expensive relationship so we broke it off. We still remained friends for some time and kept a correspondance with one another but we lost touch about 4 years ago. Man she was awesome. Her name was Jade and I think she was the first girl I could say I truely loved.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 26, 2004)

Cute  And I thought I had had a long distance relationship


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 26, 2004)

Right now I have a really long distance relationship. I am in Iraq and she lives in Germany. Now that is tough.


----------



## Hot Space (Nov 26, 2004)

Yep, woman can have that affect on a man. I'm married, and my wife is 12 year's younger then me (I'm 46) and I keep buggering her to marry me and after a few year's of nagging, she said yes - Still on Cloud Nine today  

Hot Space


----------



## Yeomanz (Nov 26, 2004)

the best bomber killer has to be the He-219 Uhu , 6 30mm's  8)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 26, 2004)

Yeah my wife did not even give me the chance to ask her, I guess she found out I was going to ask when I got home from my last deployment to Kosovo and she went ahead and asked me on the phone and we got married 2 weeks after I returned to Germany from Kosovo. However back to what this thread is about I agree that the Uhu was a great aircraft but I dont know if it was the best. Again just my oppionion though.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 27, 2004)

so now it's between the Uhu, -262 and -190.................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 27, 2004)

I didnt think the Uhu was that widely used


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 27, 2004)

no it wasn't, the Bf-110 was the most widely used german NF................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 27, 2004)

Thats what I thought...same sorta thing with the Ju-88


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 27, 2004)

how's it the same sorta thing??


----------



## Yeomanz (Nov 27, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> no it wasn't, the Bf-110 was the most widely used german NF................


Uhu wasn't built in such great numbers because of polical problems or something like that , but with 6 30mm's i'd would ave built as many as possible .


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 27, 2004)

Hehe 

lanc I meant the Ju-88was also more widely used as a Nachtjager


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 27, 2004)

but a Fw-190 could do just as much damage...........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 27, 2004)

Im sure it could....


----------



## Yeomanz (Nov 27, 2004)

dont make me bring in a reffery


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 27, 2004)

I am the ref, I can red or yellow card the lanc any time i feel like it


----------



## Yeomanz (Nov 27, 2004)




----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 27, 2004)

No really I can


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Nov 27, 2004)

So can HS, he's a modmin/aderator!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 27, 2004)




----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 27, 2004)

The great thing about the Ju-88 was its diversity. It could be used in so many roles. I think it was a better night fighter than a bomber though.


----------



## Yeomanz (Nov 27, 2004)

Yep , over 10 different roles wasn't it ?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 28, 2004)

over 40 marks.................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 28, 2004)

Jeez, thats a lot


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 28, 2004)

i think it was 43 for the mossie but i can't remeber how many for the Ju-88, it wasn't many more i don't think................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 28, 2004)

Another thing, it wasnt marks for the 88, it was varient seen as they didnt use the mark system like us.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 28, 2004)

The mosquito was also a great aircraft it is one that I like alot. It had great performance and was quite impressive.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 28, 2004)

As did the P-38 Lightning


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 28, 2004)

Yeah the P-38 was a great aircraft too, I am just not fond of the design I dont like aircraft that like that but that does not change the fact that it was a good aircraft.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 28, 2004)

Fair enough. I happen to prefer twin boom aircraft.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 28, 2004)

I like the more sleaker traditional aircraft like the Me-109, Spitfire and P-51.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 28, 2004)

They are 3 of the best looking planes of the war I admit, but I think the P-38, P-61 and Fw-189 were very also good looking planes.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 28, 2004)

They were too, it is just a matter of what you prefer.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 29, 2004)

i reckon the mossie looked loads better than the P-38, but that's just a matter of opinion and the mossie Vs. P-38 debate's happening in most topics now so we wont start it here..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 29, 2004)

You think all british planes look better than everything...

Mossie looked plain and boring.


----------



## Hot Space (Nov 29, 2004)

Nahhhhhhhhhhhhhh, the Mossie is one sexy lady 8) 

Hot Space


----------



## Maestro (Nov 29, 2004)

The Mossie looked cool. But I must say that (except for the bombers) I always preferred British planes.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 29, 2004)

It has no character! The Spit had character, the Lancaster had characted, the P-38 had character because of its unique looks and hell, even the Brewster Buffalo has character because it was so bad! The mossie has NO redeeming feateres in terms of styling.

Mossie = characterless 8)


----------



## Hot Space (Nov 29, 2004)

Hot Space = Top Tottie    

Hot Space


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 30, 2004)

Too right my dearest


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 30, 2004)

I think the mosquito was quite a good looking aircraft. The Bv-155 did not make any major impacts or anything because only prototypes were flown but I think if it had been mass produced it could have been a big threat to bombers. The Bv-155 is quite interesting looking too and pretty stylish as cheddar likes to call aircraft.

Type: High-Altitude Interceptor
Origin:Blohm undVoss, Abt. Flugzeugbau
Models: A &B
First Flight: September 1, 1944
Service Delivery: None
Final Delivery: None

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engine:
Type: DB 603A with TKL 15 turbocharger
Horsepower: 1,450 hp at 49,210 ft. (15,000m)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dimensions:
Wing span: 20.5m (67 ft. 3 in.)
Length: 12.00m (39ft. 4½ in.)
Height: 2.98m (9 ft. 9½ in.)
Wing Surface Area: N/A
Weights:
Empty: 10,734 lb. (4870 kg)
Maximum: 13,262 lb. (6016 kg)

Performance:
Maximum Speed: 429 mph (690km/h)
Initial climb: N/A
Range: 895 miles (1440km) at high altitude
Service Ceiling: N/A

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Armament:
Heavy groups of 15, 20 or 30mm cannon proposed

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments:
Design originally started by Messerschmitt as a carrier fighter for the Graf Zeppelin but was developed as a pin-point bomber after the carrier was once again shelved. Eventually the design was given to Blohm und Voss to relieve the already overloaded Messerschmitt.


----------



## Anonymous (Nov 30, 2004)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Engine:
> Type: DB 603A with TKL 15 turbocharger
> Horsepower: 1,450 hp at 49,210 ft. (15,000m)
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Germany was not able to produce turbo-chargers in WWII. They could get one or two to work (no telling how many bad fan units to do it), but even these were not reliable. Mass-production was not feasable given the state of their machining industry.

Also, the huge radiators out on the wings would make huge drag and the plumbing to reach so far out onto the wing just makes the plane that much more vulnerable.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 30, 2004)

> Service Ceiling: N/A



don't tell me, it sits on the ground and fires upwards with it's ultra long range Shrauk Muisk..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 30, 2004)

RG_Lunatic said:


> DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
> 
> 
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ...



You maybe thats why the Ta-152 got the not for production and the 155 didnt...


----------



## Anonymous (Nov 30, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> You maybe thats why the Ta-152 got the not for production and the 155 didnt...



And the FW 190C.



> There was no designation conflict with the Fw 190C, since all work on that version had been abandoned by this time owing to chronic turbosupercharger problems.
> http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/ta152.html



Virtually all German attempts at a turbo-supercharged engine failed.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 30, 2004)

I was actually being sarcastic


----------



## Anonymous (Nov 30, 2004)

cheddar cheese said:


> I was actually being sarcastic



How would I know this?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Nov 30, 2004)

I dunno, its very hard to emphasise sarcams in writing, I need the tone of voice.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 1, 2004)

That is an interesting note. I think that if it had worked out it might have been an interesting attempt though. I never really heard much about a Fw-190C. Can you tell me anything about this failed attempt?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 1, 2004)

i never even heard of the C.................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 1, 2004)

Me neither...


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 1, 2004)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> That is an interesting note. I think that if it had worked out it might have been an interesting attempt though. I never really heard much about a Fw-190C. Can you tell me anything about this failed attempt?



I believe it evolved into the Ta-152C with only a couple of FW190C designated proto's being built. The Ta is just a name change, the Ta is still an FW.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Hot Space (Dec 1, 2004)

If I remember the 190C was gonna be powered be a DB603 Engine.

Hot Space


----------



## Udet (Dec 2, 2004)

From guncamera footage I have, as well from combat films recorded from German recon planes, or perhaps bombers, flying alongside the B-17 formation I can tell you the allied bomber crews were subjected to a real hurricane of fire.

It is even terrifying to see it.

They launched rockets, heavy cannon and heavy machine gun fire at the bombers.

The video shows rocket armed Bf109G´s (it could be the G5 or G6 Rs), Bf110´s and Fw190´s (not the "Sturmböck) conducting a slaughter.

The effect of the 21 cm rocket of the Bf109G´s was apocalyptic. While no direct hits are scored, the explosion of those within the bomber box immediately brought down several of them heavies, while scattering many others.

Only 2 German fighters are seeing going down while no less than 20 heavies were destroyed.

It would amaze many of you to see the Bf110 in action. While we of course know it had no chance against the late war allied fighters, it was everything but slow and clumsy, as many of the people use to think (I used to think that myself, perhaps the allied story on how badly the Bf110 failed over England in 1940 created the fixed idea of a very bad plane).

It had an excellent turning radius and its diving capabilities were excellent as well. Also its nose carried a fearsome punch. It is seen when one "zerstörer" tails a B-17 an literally torns the complete tail apart with its nose cannons.

As a bomber destroyer, the Bf110 eventually honored its nickname.

The Fw190 was perhaps one the very few fighters of the war getting closer to the notion of perfection. Excellent both as dogfighter and bomber destroyer -either the standard "Butcher bird" or the "Sturmböck"-.

It carried what perhaps constituted the most devastating machine gun-cannon configuration ever fitted to any single engine fighter.

Those German guys were totally nuts. They enter the bomber stream completely! I am sure the German pilots and the bomber crews could even remember each other faces. It has a beautiful sight however, the moment when after strafing and banking off the bombers, the Fw190´s commence a very acrobatic dive to move away from the enemy gunners.
You see it and you know those guys were simply professionals.

It is even stressing for me to think of those guys of the USAAF inside their clumsy massive planes, taking all that fury of fire the Luftwaffe unleashed upon them.

This video, of that specific battle, lasts for nearly 15 minutes. Only 2 German fighters are seeing going down while at least 20 B-17´s are clearly see going down in flames.

I tried to find out to what bomber units those B-17 belong, but I was told it is impossible for the image is not that zoomed in order to see the markings of any of the B-17´s and battles such as that occurred so many many times.

This video also reinforced my view of the extremely wild overclaiming of the USAAF heavy bomber gunners. The imagery is one of insanity as the battle goes on, tracers all over the place from all directions, but curiously very very few German fighters get hit. Perhaos the USAAF gunners were not as efficient as it has been depicted.

I wonder how many German fighters those who made it through claimed when returning to base. Perhaps they claimed a number of kills that surpassed the actual number of German fighters that had intercepted them.

Still all those men, German and of the USA were really brave and their courgae is far beyond question.

Cheers!


----------



## Karaya_1 (Dec 2, 2004)

The FW 190C was a specially designed prototype for an high-altitude interceptor. It's design was a normal FW 190 wing with an DB 603 engine with a Hirth 9-2281 pre-compressor, a ringcooler and 4-bladed-propeller. Only 5 were build, then they concentrated on the Ta 152 with new wings.

Michael


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 2, 2004)

Ah 8) Thanks 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 3, 2004)

man that thing's ugly................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 3, 2004)

It looks basically the same as the 190A, apart from that air intake; HYPOCRITE


----------



## Hot Space (Dec 3, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> man that thing's ugly................



No I'm not  

Hot Space


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 4, 2004)




----------



## Yeomanz (Dec 4, 2004)

poor space


----------



## Hot Space (Dec 4, 2004)

Poor, ugly Space who has no life, no money no woman to sit on his...............it's cold again outside, isn't it  

Hot Space


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 4, 2004)

Hot Space said:


> the lancaster kicks ass said:
> 
> 
> > man that thing's ugly................
> ...





Hot Space said:


> Poor, ugly Space



Sure, go ahead and contradict yourself, thus confusing me


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 4, 2004)

well that's not hard to do..........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 4, 2004)

True


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 5, 2004)

The Ta on the Ta-152 was actually for the person who designed the aircraft it was just built by Focke-Wulf that is why it is the Focke-Wulf Ta-152. I would have to research the name of the guy who designed it to tell you who it is but that is what it means. It is just like with the Gotha Ho-229 it was built by Gotha but was designed by Horton, so it got the an Ho-229 designation but some people still mistake it and call it a Gotha Go-299.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 5, 2004)

Kurt Tank was the head of the Focke-Wulf design bureau.
The letters "Ta" were adopted for Focke-Wulf aircraft designations starting sometime in 1944, to honour him.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 5, 2004)

Yes you are correct I just read that a few minutes ago.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 5, 2004)

I like the Ta-154 Moskito


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 5, 2004)

Yeah that was a neat one.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 5, 2004)

Good looking plane - did it ever see any service?


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 5, 2004)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> The Ta on the Ta-152 was actually for the person who designed the aircraft it was just built by Focke-Wulf that is why it is the Focke-Wulf Ta-152. I would have to research the name of the guy who designed it to tell you who it is but that is what it means. It is just like with the Gotha Ho-229 it was built by Gotha but was designed by Horton, so it got the an Ho-229 designation but some people still mistake it and call it a Gotha Go-299.



Yes, but the TA-152 was clearly a derivative of the FW-190 series. In fact, the TA-152C is almost identical to the late model Dora's with the addition of a P-51 style cooling system (I'm not sure if it generated thrust???). It had the same identical wings and primary fuselage.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 6, 2004)

Yes that is true about the Ta-152. As for the Ta-154 yes it did see service but I dont know how many were built or how extensive the service was here is some info on it.

Origin: Focke-Wulfe Flugzeugbau GmbH
Models: V1 to V15, A and C series
Type: Night and All-weather fighter

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
POWERPLANT:
Type: Junkers Jumo inverted-vee-12 liquid-cooled
Number: 2
Horsepower:
V1, 2 - Jumo 211N - 1,520hp
V3-15, A-1 - Jumo 213E - 1,750hp
C - Jumo 213A - 1,776hp

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DIMENSIONS
Span: 16.00m
Length: 12.56m
Height: 3.60m
WEIGHTS:
Empty: 1810kg (3,990lbs.)
Maximum Loaded 2500kg (5,512lbs.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PERFORMANCE:
Maximum speed 670km/h (416mph)
Service Ceiling: 11,000m (36,090ft)
Range: 900km (559 Miles)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARMAMENT:
Two MG 17 and a 20mm MG/FF


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 6, 2004)

Ah cool, thanks 8)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 6, 2004)

No prob. I have plenty of info on most Luftwaffe aircraft not all of them ofcourse. So if you have any questions about some of them.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 6, 2004)

very god looking plane................


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 6, 2004)

yeap its deffinatly attractive and was quite impressive in its performance


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 6, 2004)

range is nothing special though.................


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 6, 2004)

that is correct though


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 6, 2004)

mind you late in the war the only reason they needed good range was to stay on station for ages to keep shooting down the bombers


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 6, 2004)

Which they had a problem with but yeah they had no reason to really build extended range aircraft to attack england anymore because they had there own problems with there skies filled with allied aircraft. Once they lost air supieriority they should have just stuck with fighter, fighter, fighters and more fighters but Hitler never wanted to abandon completly his bomber program. I dont think I would have abandoned it completely either but I would have put more emphasis on interceptors, fighters, and ground attack aircraft.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 6, 2004)

the german bomber program, what a laugh


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 6, 2004)

Yeah it was not very successfull. They never really got a heavy bomber in large scale production and the best thing they came up with was the Arado Ar-234. But it too was too late.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 6, 2004)

just look at the BoB, they didn't even have proper bombers, the He-111 and Do-17 were officailly close support bombers and the Ju-88 was more of an allrounder...........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 6, 2004)

I would say the Ju-88 was the best overall bomber they had. I think it was quite an aircraft mostly because it could be used in many different varients especially as a night fighter. One mistake the Germans had was not to have a large quantity of heavy bombers like the kinds the allies had ie. B-17, B-14 and Lancaster.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 6, 2004)

I would say the Ju-88 was the best overall bomber they had. I think it was quite an aircraft mostly because it could be used in many different varients especially as a night fighter. One mistake the Germans had was not to have a large quantity of heavy bombers like the kinds the allies had ie. B-17, B-14 and Lancaster at the start of the war. They were ill prepared for a bombing campaign.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 6, 2004)

well you see before the war they only pictured war with neighbouring countries.............


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 6, 2004)

yeap so they made aircraft more suited for the blitzkrieg


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 6, 2004)

which worked well, untill they were introduced to our old friend the RAF.............


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 6, 2004)

yes indeed


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 6, 2004)

and that was another fatal mistake was not destroying the RAF airfields, aircraft and factories during the BoB


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 6, 2004)

They were so nearly on their way to winning the BoB, but then they started bombing cities for some reason...


----------



## Adolf Galland (Dec 6, 2004)

thats because of churchill's idea of "keep hiting berlin until the germans react" he instructed the RAF Bomber command to start bombing berlin only for morale effects, but hilter went furious so he told goring to start bombing london to see how they feels, and so they left the fighter command alone and so the airdromes and aircraft factorys had time to rest and recover and be ready to fight again( the luftwaffe intel had told goring that the RAF had the most 100 fighters left but the RAF really still had 750, still, the RAF is close to dying).and, yes, that is the Reich Marshal's greatest mistake


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 6, 2004)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Yes that is true about the Ta-152. As for the Ta-154 yes it did see service but I dont know how many were built or how extensive the service was here is some info on it.



I remember discussing this plane years ago. It's the "German Mosquito". As I recall performance was not that good, as a fighter it could not compare to the P-38, as a bomber it could not compare to the Mosquito.

Like the Mosquito, it was a wooden design. And, I don't think any saw combat, but I could be wrong it's been at least 3 years since I researched it.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 7, 2004)

I am going to have to find the website on it again. It did see combat but It was not very extensive. The performance was not bad on the aircraft it was quite good but it did not compare like you said to the mosquito or the P-38


----------



## Hot Space (Dec 7, 2004)

Hot Space said:


> No, the Ta-154 only saw the shortest of combat, it was because the glue it used was sub-standard




That could spoil your whole day, watching your plane disintergrate like Dick Dastardly's!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 7, 2004)

I knew it was not much combat that it saw.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 7, 2004)

Adolf Galland said:


> thats because of churchill's idea of "keep hiting berlin until the germans react" he instructed the RAF Bomber command to start bombing berlin only for morale effects, but hilter went furious so he told goring to start bombing london to see how they feels, and so they left the fighter command alone and so the airdromes and aircraft factorys had time to rest and recover and be ready to fight again( the luftwaffe intel had told goring that the RAF had the most 100 fighters left but the RAF really still had 750, still, the RAF is close to dying).and, yes, that is the Reich Marshal's greatest mistake



Actually the RAF only had some 600 fighters at the beginning of the BoB.
And Hitler was furious AT Goering, because Goering had promised that no British plane will fly over/bomb Berlin...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 7, 2004)

> thats because of churchill's idea of "keep hiting berlin until the germans react" he instructed the RAF Bomber command to start bombing berlin only for morale effects, but hilter went furious so he told goring to start bombing london to see how they feels, and so they left the fighter command alone and so the airdromes and aircraft factorys had time to rest and recover and be ready to fight again( the luftwaffe intel had told goring that the RAF had the most 100 fighters left but the RAF really still had 750, still, the RAF is close to dying).and, yes, that is the Reich Marshal's greatest mistake



almost but not quite, the germans had a cat and mouse system similar to what we had to guide their bombers onto the target, however we, being world leaders in electronic warfare, "bent" the beams sent out to the bombers, so they bombed the wrong place, this unfortunatly was london and we didn't know they bombed london because of us. Obviously this was a civilain target and bombing it was against the geneva convention, we wanted revenge, so the next night night we bombed Berlin with wellingtons, and as hitler didn't know he'd bombed london he also wanted revenge, so he ordered the destruction of london................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 7, 2004)

I knew I was forgetting something


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 8, 2004)

If one bomb falls on Berlin, my name is Meyer! - Herman Goering
The famous ill thought of words, or atleast it was something like that.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 8, 2004)

i can't believe they actually thought no bombers would be able to fly over Berlin unscated.............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 8, 2004)

But they thought they'd win the BoB...


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 9, 2004)

They almost did..... Amazing how one thought of Hitlers, ie bombing London instead of the airfields, changed the outcome of the War......


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 9, 2004)

lesofprimus said:


> They almost did..... Amazing how one thought of Hitlers, ie bombing London instead of the airfields, changed the outcome of the War......



Even if they'd not switched to bombing London it is questionable whether the German's would have defeated Britain. Britian would have had to pull back the RAF and recover, allowing Germany to bomb at will. But it would still have been next to impossible for Germany to get an invasion force across the channel. Once the USA was in the war, the British would have retaken air-superiority over Britain. It would certainly have hurt the British a great deal, but whether they could have been bombed into submission is highly doubtful, especially with Germany's rather meager bombing capability.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## johnny (Dec 9, 2004)

The story I got is that it was 1 lone Heinkel bomber at night that accidentally dropped his bombs on London instead of the docks.Churchill then decided to bomb Berlin in revenge and so the bombing of all cities started.If my facts are correct then the outcome of the entire war was decided by 1 bomber crews mistake.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 9, 2004)

It was actually us that made the Germans bomb a city, we were bending their radar waves making them go off course. We didnt know we'd done this at the time though.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 9, 2004)

Yeah I dont think that winning the Battle of Britain would have won the war for Germany. They needed to invade England and take it. If they had done so then the US could not have based the 8th Airforce out of there to bomb Germany into the stone age. Then Germany could have concentrated on Russia without haveing to worry about the west front. But again it would still be all hypothetical, I really dont think that Germany had much of a chance to win the war, atleast the way it was being fought.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 9, 2004)

Remember though that we were still recovering from Dunkirk at the time and supplies were low. I dont think that A German land invasion would have been too difficult for them.
Luckily though the RAF done their job exceddingl well and prevented all this happening. Like the man once said: "Never was so much owed by so many to so few." 8) (I think that has to be my favourite quote of all time.)


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 9, 2004)

> (I think that has to be my favourite quote of all time.)



My favorite quote is:

"You Gonna Pull Those Pistols, or Just Whislte Dixie..."

2 Confirmed Kills to whoever can guess who said that....


----------



## Anonymous (Dec 9, 2004)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Yeah I dont think that winning the Battle of Britain would have won the war for Germany. They needed to invade England and take it. If they had done so then the US could not have based the 8th Airforce out of there to bomb Germany into the stone age. Then Germany could have concentrated on Russia without haveing to worry about the west front. But again it would still be all hypothetical, I really dont think that Germany had much of a chance to win the war, atleast the way it was being fought.



I think had Hitler not been such an idiot and a racist, he could have won WWII simply by embracing the Ukranian seperatist movment. This would have doubled his forces against Stalin and problably lead to a quick Soviet defeat. This would probably have brought Turkey into the war on Hitler's side, and he could then have relatively easily have taken the middle-east. By gaining the mid-east oil supplies for Germany, and denying them to the Allies, and with the added troops from the Ukrane and Turkye, Hitler could probably have held Europe. But Hitler's racist views made any such alliance impossible.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Karaya_1 (Dec 10, 2004)

lesofprimus said:


> > (I think that has to be my favourite quote of all time.)
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hmmm....the Duke ?


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 10, 2004)

Nope, but close.....


----------



## evangilder (Dec 10, 2004)

Clint Eastwood?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 10, 2004)

My favorite quote is probably the shortest. NUTS!


----------



## evangilder (Dec 10, 2004)

That's a classic, Adler! General McAuliffe <sp?> had some nerve to reply to surrender terms that way. Speaking of that, the 60th anniversary of the Battle of the Bulge is coming up. I am giving a presentation about it next saturday, along with the P-47.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 10, 2004)

Have you ever been to the Bastogne and the site of the Battle of the Bulge it is just amazing to stand there where they fought especially in the winter with all the snow everywhere it is amazing and solemn.


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 10, 2004)

Good guess Evan...... 2 confirmed kills to u..... Clint Eastwood was the individual who said the above quote.....

2 more confirmed kills if u tell me the name of the movie........


----------



## evangilder (Dec 10, 2004)

Outlaw Josey Wales. I love that mangy mutt he keeps spitting on. I love the quote in that movie "Dying ain't much of a living"


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 11, 2004)

Once again u are correct.. Another 2 Confirmed kills to u.....


----------



## evangilder (Dec 11, 2004)

Adler, I never made it to Bastogne, but I heard it is quite a place. In some ways, I wish I could go back to my time in Europe. I would have visited more of the historic places, or appreciated the one I did see more. 

I visited Duxford while I was there. I also went to Bergtesgarten and Partenkirchen. Looking back, I would have loved to have seen Bastogne, Normandy and many others.


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 11, 2004)

Normandy was amazing.....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 11, 2004)

I went to Normandy for the 50th Anniversary of the Invasion and it was amazing and solemn at the same time. I remeber standing at the cemetary and looking at all the white crosses and then walking down to the beach and standing at the water front just see what it might have looked like to be a soldier landing on the beach. At Point du Hoc it was just amazing to stand on the cliff that the rangers climded up to take out the German artillary. It is a must see place.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 12, 2004)

Im going to Normandy next year for a school trip.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 12, 2004)

You will enjoy it, it is an amazing experience. Just go down to the water and look up the beach and you will be amazed. Then think what it had to feel like with the rounds flying at you. I dont think anyone can truely understand it like the vets who landed there. I wish I could have asked my fathers adopted American father who landed on Omaha but he died when I was too young to really talk to him about it.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 12, 2004)

it sounds incredible but i doubt the school will let people go down to the water's edge, they'd be to worried about getting sued.............

BTW sorry i haven't been on for three nights, a tradgic combination of table tennis, general knoledge quizzes and the fact that my sister's dating the son of a lesbain have prevented me from sufing the information highway..........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 12, 2004)

How does your sister dating the son of a lesbian get in your way? I can imagine some reasons but....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 12, 2004)

2 ways

1) she's always on the phone to him, no phoney, no internety
2) she was round his house, i had to kepp the phone line free incase she was trying to ring to get picked up................


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 12, 2004)

Ahh sibling stuff, I see. My sister is 12 years older than me so we never really had much a problem with that stuff.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 12, 2004)

she's 3 or 4 years older than me............


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 12, 2004)

Yeah just the right age to be squibling and fighting.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 12, 2004)

we don't fight physically, she knows i'll always beat her.........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 12, 2004)

> it sounds incredible but i doubt the school will let people go down to the water's edge, they'd be to worried about getting sued.............



Of course theyre gonna let us, having payed £270 ill be damn pissed off if we dont.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 12, 2004)

well maybe, but only if you've got your dingy, flares and rations with you, just in case you get swept out to sea..........................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 12, 2004)

No of course we will, if that applies then how are we getting there? 

"Oh no, we cant let them go on the boat because it might sink and the insurance wont cover it".

We're 14/15 years old and We kinda know what to do...

If we were about 7 or 8 I could understand.

Anyways, I only know of 4 people who are going.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 12, 2004)

yeah but you know what schools are like, they don't put soap in the soap dispencers because it's a safety risk, and since the whole caroline dickinson affair they've been very carefull.................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 12, 2004)

No, they dont put soap in cos people were being stupid and putting it on the floor, thus wasting it. Nothing to do with safety risks.

If anything the bloody door frames are safety risks, my head brushes the top of em.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 12, 2004)

> No, they dont put soap in cos people were being stupid and putting it on the floor, thus wasting it. Nothing to do with safety risks.



it was because they were putting it on the floor, a safety risk................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 12, 2004)

Then perhaps they shouldnt wash the floors in them either, Im always slipping on the bloody wet floor.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 12, 2004)

ah but because they put up wet floor signs that stops them being sued if you do..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 12, 2004)

Surely not having soap in the dispencers is a health risk though because people cant wash their hands properly.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 12, 2004)

tell it to the school councel..................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 12, 2004)

Whats the point, they'll do bugger all.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 12, 2004)

yeah but they'll do more bout it than me................


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 12, 2004)

True


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 14, 2004)

yeah they might actually mention it, which is more than i'll do............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 14, 2004)

Screw it.


----------



## remoraptor (Dec 15, 2004)

Contrary to popular beliefs the best bomber killing aircraft were actually the A5M and Ki-27. Take-off, fly it, then squash... I mean smash it on a B-29. :>


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 15, 2004)




----------



## The Jug Rules! (Dec 15, 2004)

If it can get close enough without getting blown out of the sky.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 15, 2004)

actually they stood a good chance, with kamakze tactics hitting the plane isn't enough, the plane must be completely destroyed or it'll still hit you...............


----------



## The Jug Rules! (Dec 15, 2004)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> not as good as the EE lightnings'.................


What's an EE lightning?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 15, 2004)

only the greatest intorceptor of all time, a true classic and power personified.............


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 15, 2004)

The last of the "all British" fighters. It is a classic, IMO.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 15, 2004)

Yup, not one of my favourites though.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 16, 2004)

I agree the EE Lightning was a great aircraft for its time but definatly not one of my fav.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 16, 2004)

Not very good _looking_, anyway.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 16, 2004)

Hell no, pretty ugly actually...

This means the lanc will say that it was a great looking plane


----------



## Lightning Guy (Dec 16, 2004)

The EE Lightning has got to rank among the ugliest jest of all time.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 17, 2004)

I agree it was quite ugly.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 17, 2004)

Ugly jets, eh?
How about the only Canadian designed and built fighter to ever see production. Called, aptly enough, the "Canuck".
Not the prettiest, in my book! 

Only Belgium was nutty enough to buy some. Besides the RCAF, that is.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 17, 2004)

Yeah I that is pretty fugly.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 17, 2004)

Nah its not that bad, Ive seen worse.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 17, 2004)

Where?


----------



## Medvedya (Dec 17, 2004)

The Corsair is no great shakes on the looks department - it looks like a basking shark IMO.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 17, 2004)

Ah, silly me! I'd forgotten about the deHavilland Vampire!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 17, 2004)

Thats bad...


----------



## Medvedya (Dec 17, 2004)

Looks nicer than the EE Lightning though.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 17, 2004)

Medvedya said:


> Looks nicer than the EE Lightning though.



You really think so?


----------



## Medvedya (Dec 17, 2004)

Urmm, it has a kind of 50's comic book look to it which I like - I guess it's just me.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 17, 2004)

Sorry, in my last post I was talking about the Corsair, not the Vampire, I like the looks of the Vampire...


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 17, 2004)

Wow!
Okay, then I guess I'm the only one who finds the Vampire hideous!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 17, 2004)

Sorry but it has twin booms - Im rather partial to planes with twin booms


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 17, 2004)

the vampireis far from ugly, and you guys are insane for the saying the EE Lightening's ugly!!! it's only of the best looking planes of all time, nest you'll be saying the lancaster was ugly................


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 17, 2004)

No, the Lancaster I like. Even the EE Lightning wasn't _too_ bad looking, but the Vampire? No way!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 17, 2004)

Both the Lancaster and the EE Lightning were ugly...

Seriously lanc, you have the oddest taste in style...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 17, 2004)

the EE Lightening's an amzingly good looking aircraft!!! as was the lancaster, but that goes without saying...........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 17, 2004)

No it wasnt, and no it doesnt...


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 17, 2004)

The EE Lightning was OK looking, at best.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 17, 2004)

in what way was the EE Lightening ugly??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 17, 2004)

Well the front is the worst. And then theres lots of other little things that add up to its ugliness.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 17, 2004)

I dont think the corsair looked to bad, not the best but not too bad.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 17, 2004)

Were talking about modern Corsair here. (Or do you know that?)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 17, 2004)

Yes I know. The one you posted a picture of, used by the US Navy and the French and who knows who else.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 17, 2004)

Ah ok.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 17, 2004)

no problem


----------



## Erich (Dec 18, 2004)

best bomber killer was the Fw 190A-8/R8 as noted in my earlier postings of October/November. the Fw was the superior weapons platform to the 109 and the 262 was too fast as noted by earlier posters. Unless the pilot was an experten in the field of high tech avionics and speed he could not set up properly and easily overshot. Walter Schuck told me this when he was in I./JG 7 as he had a very hard time transitioning to the 262 from JG 5 109's.........

♪


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 18, 2004)

i'm with you on the 190A............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 18, 2004)

I, however, am not.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 18, 2004)

what are you going with then??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 18, 2004)

The 262


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 18, 2004)

I believe the 262 was the best bomber killer if it was armed with folding fin rockets. The rockets were devastating when used against large bomber formations. However if just using its cannons, the Me-262 was too fast to attack the slower bombers, and if it slowed down it was then an easy target for the P-51's and P-47's. So if you are talking about just straight bomber killer with cannons then yes I would go with the Fw-190 also.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 18, 2004)

I think the Rolls Royce Vulture (were they the ones on the Manchester?) engines were the biggest bomber killer...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 18, 2004)

The Rolls-Royce Vulture (and the related Peregrine) were aircraft engines, and probably the least successful power units ever produced by Rolls-Royce.

They were part of a program to develop power levels beyond that of the Merlin (1,100 hp, 820 kW in the early production versions) - a program that also resulted in creations like the Napier Sabre.

The Peregrine was a fairly standard design (at first sight) with two cylinder banks arranged in a V form. The Vulture was basically two Peregrines joined at the crankcase and with separate crankshafts geared to a common propeller shaft thus putting the cylinder banks in an X layout.

Both seem to have suffered from a far too short pre-service development period and the reliability was very poor. So much so that production was stopped.

The only type using the Vulture to go into production was the Avro Manchester which had two of them. When the engine reliability issues became clear the Avro team re-designed the aircraft to use four Merlins. This was initially called the Manchester Mark III and then renamed Lancaster.

Like all successful aircraft the Lancaster not only looked good but its flying characteristics matched its appearance. It is all the more ironic therefore that the birth of Avro's mighty machine owed so much to failure, the failure of its immediate predecessor, the twin engine Avro Manchester. The Avro 683 evolved almost accidentally as a result of recurrent failure of the insufficiently developed Rolls Royce Vulture engines installed in the Manchester.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 18, 2004)

What were the engines called that were used in the Heinkel He-177?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 18, 2004)

2 Daimler-Benz DB 610A-1/B-1

Origin: Ernst Heinkel AG
Sub Contractor: Arado Flugzeugwerke
Type: Six-Seat Heavy Bomber and Missile carrier
Models: A-0 to A-5
First Flight:
V-1: November 19, 1939
A-0: November 1941
Service Delivery:
A-1: March 1942
A-5: February 1943
Engine: 2 Daimler-Benz DB 610A-1/B-1
Thrust: 2,950lb
Note: Each engine comprised of two V12 liquid cooled engines geared to one propeller.

Dimensions: 
Span: 31.44m (103 ft. 1¼ in.)
Length: 22m (72 ft. 2 in.)
Height: 6.4m (21 ft.)

Weights: (A-5)
Empty: 37,038lb. (16,800 kg)
Loaded: 68,343lb (31,000kg)

Performance: 
Maximum (at 41,000lb.): 295mph (472km/h)
Initial Climb: 853 ft/min (260m/min)
Service Ceiling: 26,500 ft (7080m)
Range with Fritz or Hs 293 missle: 3,107 miles (5000km)
Armament: A-5/R2:
One 7.92mm MG 81J manually aimed in nose
Ammunition: 2000 rounds
One 20mm MG 151 manually aimed in forward ventral gondola
Ammunition: 300 rounds
Two 13mm MG 131 in remote front dorsal turret
Ammunition: 750 rounds per gun
One 13mm MG 131 in electric aft dorsal turret
Ammunition: 750 rounds
One 20mm MG 151 cannon in in tail position
Ammunition: 300 rounds

Bomb Load: A-5/R2:
Sixteen 110 lb. (50kg) SC 50, four 551 lb. (250-kg) SC 250 or two 1,102 lb. (500 kg) SC 500, or two LMA III parachute sea mines, LT 50 torpedos, or Hs 293 of FX 1400 missiles. 


Production: 
8 Prototypes
35 He 177A-0 (Mainly Arado built)
130 He 177A-1 (Arado built)
170 He 177A-3 (Heinkel Built)
826 He 177A-5

Comments 
Arguably the largest bomber built by the Germans, the He 177 suffered many flaws and turned into one of the Luftwaffe's biggest failures (when compare service use to the amount of resources invested.) A significant problem that plagued the program from the beginning was a ludicrous requirement that this extremely large aircraft be capable of dive bombing. This combined with the attempt to reduce drag by coupling the engines, while theoretically sound, proved to be impossible in practice for no aircraft in history had engines that would so readily burst into flame. 75% of the prototypes crashed and a good percentage of the 35 A-0 pre-production airframes were written off in crashed or in-flight fires.
About 700 served on the eastern front using 50mm and 75mm guns for tank-busting while a few brave aircrews ineffectually bombed England.
The He 177 proved to be such a big problem that Goering forbid Heinkel to develope a four engine version (though Heinkel did anyways, the result being the He 277).


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 18, 2004)

So arguably this aircraft was the best bomber killer!


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 18, 2004)

I guess the 262 gets my vote 4-30s will ruin your day very quickly. There are to many accounts of one or two flashing througe a formation of bom,bers and 4-6 bombers going down. If construction had not bee delayed by the switch to underground factories and indecision in the manufacturing they would have been quite formidable and worse yet more progress on reliability and range would have made a mojor impact.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 18, 2004)

Yeah that was a dreadful plane too. But I still like it 

So, my votes for the best bomber killers are the Daimler-Benz DB 610A-1/B-1 and the Rolls-Royce Vulture


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Dec 18, 2004)

Sure, the Vulture sucked, but in concept I think it's a cool idea - an "X" engine!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 18, 2004)

Yeah its a great concept! Like communism though, it failed.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 18, 2004)

As said by many though including myself the Me-262 was too fast to really use its cannons on bombers.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Dec 18, 2004)

See, look how cool this would look as an engine that worked!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 18, 2004)

Wow that was pointless


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Dec 18, 2004)

I know!


A while ago I wanted to explain an inverted 'V" engine, so I did it...

But the photo was a bitmap so it never got posted...


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 18, 2004)

Ah...what if you doubled up 2 "corn cob" radials?


----------



## Erich (Dec 18, 2004)

the jet was too fast to take out more than 1 bomber per pass, coming around which it was able to do or go forward and attack a bomber pulk farther up the line, say within five miles it then could take out the second bomber.

The Fw 190 pilots learned to sit on their tail and it is a fact that pilots on many an occassion and with experiecne were able to knock out as many as 3 heavies during a mission


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 19, 2004)

> The only type using the Vulture to go into production was the Avro Manchester which had two of them. When the engine reliability issues became clear the Avro team re-designed the aircraft to use four Merlins. This was initially called the Manchester Mark III and then renamed Lancaster.
> 
> Like all successful aircraft the Lancaster not only looked good but its flying characteristics matched its appearance. It is all the more ironic therefore that the birth of Avro's mighty machine owed so much to failure, the failure of its immediate predecessor, the twin engine Avro Manchester. The Avro 683 evolved almost accidentally as a result of recurrent failure of the insufficiently developed Rolls Royce Vulture engines installed in the Manchester.



i love the smell of shit in the morning........

that's a very common myth, the lancaster wasn't born out of the failure of the manchester, the sources as to when Chadwik unnoficaily started the designs for the lancaster vary from a couple of days before the manchester went into production to a couple of days after, either way chadders knew that we'd need an even bigger and even better bomber than the manchester, i so took the manchester, and stuck two more vultures on the wings, as it happens, the vulture was, shall we say, unreliable, so he very very quickly changed to merlins, and never looked back............


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 19, 2004)

Yes he knew that Britain needed a larger and more reliable bomber. What I was saying with that is and what the website where I found it is saying is that the design of the Manchester evolved into the design of the Lancaster because the engines were not reliable on the Manchester.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 19, 2004)

> i love the smell of s**t in the morning........



You have some serious issues..


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 19, 2004)

Yeah I agree.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 19, 2004)

And I agree!


----------



## Erich (Dec 19, 2004)

type in Sturmgruppen on google search and find out pages and you will see why the Fw190A-8/R8 was the killer.........

http://members.aol.com/falkeeins/Sturmgruppen/

scroll down towards the bottom


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 19, 2004)

living on a farm it becomes second nature, all farmers love it...........



> the design of the Manchester evolved into the design of the Lancaster



that part is ture.................



> because the engines were not reliable on the Manchester.



that part isn't, well not as much..............


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 19, 2004)

cool, so which Luftwaffe pilots have actually met and interviewed.


----------



## Erich (Dec 19, 2004)

geez where do I start..............

Oskar Bosch is a personal friend and flew the SturmFw during is career. At least four other pilots through letter, Oskar Romm RK winner being one, and Willi Unger being another who received the RK, he now has parkinson's disease. Numerous night fighter pilots and crews as that is really my specialty. I've probably interviewed some 50 Luftwaffe pilots over the years. 

E ~


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 19, 2004)

I have spoken to a few but not too many. Mostly I have only spoken to Heer soldaten who are family members of mine. There stories are great also especially those of my Grandfather who was a Major in the Army and my mothers Uncle who was in the Waffen SS. Unfortunatly I only have my Grandfathers diaries left because he is dead now. But the stories of the soldiers and airmen of the WW2 are so interesting and one can learn so much no matter which side they were on.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 19, 2004)

fine then ignore my post..............


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 19, 2004)

Sorry I was not trying to ignore it. On the Lancaster I can only post what I have read and pretty much what I posted is what was said on most pages about the Lancaster.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 19, 2004)

no, i meant it, ignore it, i did, i found the other conversation more interesting


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 19, 2004)

Avro Lancaster Mk I First production model of the Lancaster. This version was based on the design of the Avro Manchester, wich was powered by 2 × Rolls Royce Vulture X engines. The Vulture, however proved to be troublesome, and after the war had already started the Avro design team looked for alternatives. This turned out to be a 4-engined bomber, powered by Rolls Royce Merlins. The result proved to be one of the most successful heavy bombers of the war, even so that the British Air Ministry ordered the Manchester production stopped instantly to prioritise the lancaster production. Also, it was the omly bomber capable of carying the Tallboy and Grand Slam bombs.
Production of the Lancaster started with Merlin XX's, but during the construction of the 3434 aircraft they switched to Merlin 22's, and later to Merlin 24's. Also, the initial ventral turret was dropped and other aerodynamic changes made sure that the Lancaster's performance and bombload increased 
Number built: 3434 

Strengths:


Highly maneuverable (for an aircraft of that size), enabling it to outmaneuver German nightfighters 
Well armoured, capable of sustaining heavy damage 
Huge bombloads 

Weaknesses:


Not one of the fastest bombers available


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 19, 2004)

i wouldn't call it well armoured, the ONLY peice of armour normally carried was a small peice behind the pilot's head, but it could take more damage than it's often given credit for..................

and the speed thing depends what bombers you're comparing it to, next to the mossie it was slow, next to a B-17 it was fast...............


----------



## Erich (Dec 19, 2004)

Eagle I had two cousins serve in the Luftwaffe, one a day fighter pilot with only 3 missions flying an Fw 190A-9 killed in action on 26 November 1944. Siegfried Baer.

seond was Hans Baer a night fighter ace killed tragically in a stupid engine accident in his Bf 110G-4 near his base while Gruppenkommandeur of II./NJG 5.

4 others were in the Heer on the Ost front.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 19, 2004)

They are probably just comparing it to most heavy bombers of the time.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 19, 2004)

it had a cruising speed of 210mph, fast for a 4 engined heavy.......


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 19, 2004)

Shouldnt "Downright ugly" be under advantages too?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 19, 2004)

B-17G cruising speed:287 mph at 25000 ft Max Speed: 302 mph at 25000 ft

B-29 Cruising speed 230 mph at optimum altitude Maximum speed 358 mph at 25000 ft 

B-25J Cruising speed 215 mph at optimum altitude Maximum speed 300 mph at 30000 ft


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 19, 2004)

> B-17G cruising speed:287 mph at 25000 ft Max Speed: 302 mph at 25000 ft



i've NEVER seen those stats..................

the last time i checked the B-25 wasn't a 4 engined heavy..................


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 19, 2004)

I am sorry I meant B-24 Liberator. That was a typo on my part.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 19, 2004)

ok


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 19, 2004)

Go to any website that shows the performance of the aircraft and they will tell you that.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 19, 2004)

Even I dont think the b-17 cruised that high, I thought it was around the 230mph mark...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 19, 2004)

That was the G model, the later model here are some of the earlier models:

B-17B: Maximum speed 292 mph at optimum altitude 
B-17C: Cruising speed 231 mph Maximum speed 323 mph
B-17E: Cruising speed 224 mph at 15000 ft Maximum speed 318 mph at 25000 ft 

As you can see the earlier B-17's were about the 230 mph cruising speed that you said. The one I stated ealier was just the optimum B-17.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 19, 2004)

Ah ok. Im not doubt you but do you have some sources? Then Ill beleive you fully 8)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 19, 2004)

um lets see
http://www.xs4all.nl/~fbonne/warbirds/ww2ixcounult.html#germ-index

Now I have found conflicting reports about the B-17G if you go to
http://www.warbirdalley.com it says that the cruising speed was only 182 mph on the G model. Now that would make sense because the G was weighted down with extra armor and defensive weapons. This website though has the earlier models much faster then on the other in some cases the C and D models being as fast as 250 mph at cruising speed. The same goes for the this website: http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org 
It is something that I think warrants further investigation.


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 19, 2004)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> B-17G cruising speed:287 mph at 25000 ft Max Speed: 302 mph at 25000 ft
> 
> B-29 Cruising speed 230 mph at optimum altitude Maximum speed 358 mph at 25000 ft
> 
> B-25J Cruising speed 215 mph at optimum altitude Maximum speed 300 mph at 30000 ft



The B-17 rarely made 200 when loaded, the speed I've seen was normaly around 170mph on the way in.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (Dec 19, 2004)

Yep, you're right...

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/air_power/ap16.htm


----------



## Lightning Guy (Dec 19, 2004)

I was going to say somewhere between 160-180 TAS depending on the loaded weight.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 20, 2004)

Ah that would make sense.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 20, 2004)

Yeah when the aircraft is fully loaded it is a lot slower. That is true of all aircraft though fighters, bombers, transports. The heavier the aircraft the slower it will fly. Weight sometimes effects the handling characteristics of the aircraft also. The same is for the Blackhawks we fly, when we are light we can haul ass but if we get up around 19,000 to 20,000lb we struggle to get over our cruising speed and she tends to handle a little sluggish.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 20, 2004)

the top speed for the B-17G was 287mph, cruising speed 182mph..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 20, 2004)

B-17G could crack 300...

And lanc, I get the feeling that you are comparing the unloaded cruise of the Lancaster and the loaded speed of the B-17. An unfair test, something you do very often.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 20, 2004)

The G could go over 300 if it was not fully loaded. Of course when it was loaded it was slower, just like all aircraft. Fully loaded it could probably not top 180 to 200.


----------



## Erich (Dec 20, 2004)

in any case the B-24 and B-17's were sitting ducks when an organized rear attack by heavy Fw's was on the scene. In fact many of the SturmFw staffeln had to reduce speed after taking out the rear gunners postion to form an attack further.

Back to this thread or another where itwas mentioned that the 2cm HE Minen was not sufficient is not true. 6-10 rounds were only needed fired in the right places to bring a bomber down, and in the case of experten pilots flying typical A-8's such as Konrad Bauer of II.Sturm/JG 300, the Fw 190A-8 unarmored was a lethal machine as well as defending itslef against P-51's.

E ~


----------



## Lightning Guy (Dec 20, 2004)

If the G could crack 300, it was just cracking it. The F was the fastest of the B-17 models.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 21, 2004)

Yes the F was faster and could easily top 300 however it was also lighter than the G. As for the Fw-190 yes it was truely a bomber killer. It was remarkable at doing its job of bring down B-17's. Which did not see to hard to do with a Fw-190.


----------



## remoraptor (Dec 21, 2004)

There's something funny about the Fw-190; when its sitting on the ground the main landing gear looks as if they haven't fully opened up but they're actually made that way. I don't know.. Maybe its just me... I just have this itch of getting to one of those fighters and pushing those wheels a little farther apart...


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 21, 2004)

I know what you mean. To me, the main wheels look a little too small too. Strange, huh?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 21, 2004)

The wheels are out of proportion from the rest of the airframe but its still a great looking aircraft.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 21, 2004)

Agreed.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 21, 2004)

The wheels are out of proportion from the rest of the airframe but its still a great looking aircraft.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 21, 2004)

oops look like I accidently posted that 2


----------



## Lightning Guy (Dec 21, 2004)

From the side view, the whole landing gear seems rather out of proportion. The wheels are too small and the struts are too long.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 22, 2004)

Yeah I always thought the same thing that the struts were too long but at the same time there is probably a reason for this like to keep the blades from striking the ground. I dont know if that is the reason but it is the best reason I can come up with. If anyone knows the reason for this it would be great to know. Or maybe it was to correct the problem that the Me-109 had.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 22, 2004)

nice head on shot of the 190A..............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 22, 2004)

The wheels do look out of proportion - but I think that adds to the character and it looks rather good.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Dec 22, 2004)

I'm not sure what the reason for the long legs was. The wide landing gear track would certainly make it easier to handle on the ground than the 109.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 22, 2004)

Yes - The 109 was notorious for having a narrow track.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 22, 2004)

apart from that high altitude variant, can't remeber the designation..........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 22, 2004)

What, the 209 or 309?

Or the 109Z?

Or the K-4?


----------



## plan_D (Dec 22, 2004)

The long struts most likely were to stop the props striking the ground. 

And I'd say Me-262A-1a for best bomber killer...come on, at least 300 in its short service.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 22, 2004)

As much as that?


----------



## plan_D (Dec 22, 2004)

More than that. That's at least because JG-7 shot down 427 aircraft, 300 being four-engined heavies. And then there's the other geschwader's using them like Kommando Nowotny, JV44, Kommando Schenck etc. etc. I don't know their kill counts.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 22, 2004)

> Or the 109Z?



i'm not that stupid, i know the Z was the zwilling...............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 22, 2004)

Ah but do you know what the word Zwilling actually means?


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 22, 2004)

no but that's irrelivent..........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 22, 2004)

Quite simple - German for "Twin" 8)


----------



## Lightning Guy (Dec 22, 2004)

The 109Z would have been rather effective against bombers, it certainly had the firepower. It would have been a sitting duck against the Allied fighter cover though. The standard 109 had already "outgrown" its small wing and doubling the size of the aircraft was hardly going to help its handling any.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 23, 2004)

What were the proposed armament layouts for it?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 23, 2004)

The Messerschmitt development department received a directive in 1942 to begin work on a Zerstörer (destroyer, or heavy fighter). An earlier RLM directive of 1941 had tried to limit the amount of new designs coming from the major aircraft companies (to not disrupt the production lines with new aircraft), so it was decided to couple two Bf 109 fuselages together, along with a new center wing and tailplane section, to come up with the Me 109Z (Zwilling, or twin). 
The Me 109Z prototype incorporated two Bf 109F-4 fuselages, joined with a new constant chord wing center section and parallel chord tailplane. Included also was the 109F-4 powerplant, the Daimler Benz DB 601E-1 engine (12 cylinder, liquid-cooled, inverted V - 1750 horsepower on takeoff). The main landing gear attachment point were moved inboard to attach to a strengthened centerline keel in each fuselage. The outermost main landing gear retracted outboard; the inner legs retracted into the new center wing section. A single pilot sat in the port cockpit and the starboard cockpit was faired over. Armament on the projected production models varied (see below). 
Several other Me 109Z designs were planned, developed around the 109G fuselages. The Me 109Z was to use around 90% of pre-existing 109 parts, with only the new main wing and tailplane, modified landing gear mountings, slightly larger wheels, extra fuel tanks in place of the starboard cockpit and a few other components needed to complete the aircraft. A prototype was completed in early 1943, but it was damaged in an Allied air attack on the Messerschmitt test center, and the damage was deemed too severe for repair. The development was abandoned in 1944, and by then, the Me 262 jet fighter had taken wing. One interesting note: the North American aircraft company followed the same design (independently) to produce the P-82 Twin Mustang, which was two P-51 fuselages joined in a similar manner as the Me 109Z. 

Max speed: 462mph/cruise speed: 352mph 

Z-0 (1943) 
A single Z-0 airframe was built using two standard F-4 airframes. It was destroyed in an air raid just before its completion. After its destruction the entire Me-109Z program was terminated. 

Z-1 (project) 
The Z-1 was a projected production version similar to the Z-0 but based on the G-5 instead of the F-4. Armament was to be 5 x MK 108. 

Z-2 (project) 
This was a bomber version with only 3 x MK 108 and a bomb load of 1100lb. 

Z-3 (project) 
The Z-3 was to have been powered by the Jumo 213 engine. 

Z-4 (project) 
This was a bomber version of the Z-3, also powered by the Jumo 213. 

What Willie Messerchmitt had envisiond however was to have: 2 MK-108, 4 MK-131, 4 MK-151, and 2 MK-108 arming each Me-109Z. I agree that the Zwilling could have been an effective bomber killer if it could get through the fighter cover. I dont know much about the handling of the Z though but I dont think it would have done much against allied fighters.

The Me-309:

Type: Single-seat fighter
Origin: Messerscmitt AG
Models: V1 and V2
First Flight: June 1942
Service Delivery: None
Final Delivery: None



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engine:
Model: Daimler-Benz DB 605B
Type: Inverted V12 liquid-cooled
Horsepower: 1,475

Dimensions:
Wing span: 11.04m (36 ft. 2¾ in.)
Length: 9.46m (31 ft. ½ in.)
Height: 3.45m (11 ft. 3 in.)
Wing Surface Area: N/A
Weights: (V1)
Empty: 3530kg (7,783 lbs.)
Maximum: 4250kg (9,371 lbs.)

Performance:
Maximum Speed: 733km/h (455 mph)
Initial climb: NA
Range: N/A
Service Ceiling: N/A

Armament: (V4)
Four 13mm Machine Guns
Two 20mm Cannon
Two 30mm Cannon

Avionics:
N/A


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments:
The 309 was originally designed to be the definitive successor to the 109. Innovative features included a pressurized cockpit, tricycle landing gear, and a retractable radiator. However, the 309 could be out turned by the Bf 109G and was judged inferior to the Fw 190D and never reached production. The Me 609 was to be a twinned version similiar to the P-82.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 23, 2004)

Thanks for the info, nice pics too 8)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 23, 2004)

I have a bunch of pics on my computer I have a whole folder dedicated to the Luftwaffe aircraft and next I am going to do the allies starting with the British and the US. I try to collect as many pictures and specs and break them down by type.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 23, 2004)

Thats exactly what I do. Apart from the specs that is. I also have a whole folder with pictures of the P-38 in, I currently have 156 and counting!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 23, 2004)

Damn you love that Lightning dont you?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 23, 2004)

Yep 8)

I have about 10 of the P.108, I would have more, if I could find more


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 23, 2004)

I can help you. I dont have any either. What aircraft was the P.108. I cant remember that one.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 23, 2004)

Piaggio P.108: Italian Heavy Bomber


----------



## plan_D (Dec 23, 2004)

That first P.108 picture is good...you can just picture all of those surrendering, it's so easy to do.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 23, 2004)

I happen to think its a good pictue too, but for different reasons


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 23, 2004)

Ah yes I know which aircraft you are talking about. Yeah the first one was good.

The Piaggio P.108 B was the only heavy four-engine bomber to see service with the Regia Aeronautica during World War Two. Too few were built to play a significant role in the war, only 163 P.108 Bs having been built. The P.108 B was an all-metal cantilever low-wing monoplane with an retractable under-carriage, driven by four 1,350 hp Piaggio P.XII radial engines. The first prototype was finished in 10/39 and had a very advanced defensive armament for its day of two 7.7 mm machine waist guns, a 12.7 mm machine gun in the lower turret and a similar weapon in the nose turret, and two remotely-controlled twin gun turrets in outer engine nacelles. The first Allied bomber with a similar armament was the Boeing B 29, developed four years later. The bomb load of the Piaggio comprised of 7,700 lbs, all carried internally in the bomb bay.

The only unit of the Regia Aeronautica ever to fly the P.108 B was the 274th Long-Range Bombardment Group. This unit was formed in 5/41 around the first machines that came off the assembly lines. The training of the crews lasted far longer than anticipated and in 6/42 the 274th became operational. The most spectacular raids with the P. 108 B were flown in 10/42 when several night attacks against Gibraltar were undertaken from Sardinia. Several versions were derived from the P. 108 B: such as the P.108A, which had a 102 mm anti-shipping gun in the nose; the P.108C airliner and the P.108T transport. The latter two versions had a larger diameter fuselage for transporting passengers or freight. They were hardly used by the Regia Aeronautica, the main user being the German Luftwaffe. In 9/43, after the Italian armistice, the Luftwaffe had captured all fifteen P.108 Cs and P.108 Ts built. They were used at the Russian front, as part of Luftflotte 2, where they performed sterling duties, among others during the evacuation of the Crimea in 1944.

Model Piaggio P 108 
Horsepower 1350 x 4 
Engine Piaggio P.IIX RC 35 
Max Speed 420 km at 3,900 m 
Range 3,520 Km 
Max Elevation 8,050 m 
Wingspan 32 m 
Height 7.70m 
Weight 17,320 Kg 
Max Weight 29,885 Kg 
Length 22.92m 
Crew 6 
Payload 3,500 Kg 
Armament 6 x 12,7 mm + 1 x 12,7 mm + 2 x 7.7 mm 

Here is the only pic of the P.108 I have at this moment. I have not started on my Italian folder yet.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 23, 2004)

Yeah I got that one and the information


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 23, 2004)

It the only one I have right now.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 23, 2004)

There is my two - I have a few others I can post too if you like.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 23, 2004)

sure go ahead that way I can already copy them


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 23, 2004)

Ok, here you go 8)


----------



## Erich (Dec 23, 2004)

if you guys are going to start posting what-ifs in combat and 4 engine bombers then please make another thread as this is being tainted........

agreed ? SturmFw's rule !


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 23, 2004)

cool thanks


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 23, 2004)

Youre welcome 8)

Like Erich says though, we should really get back on topic.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 23, 2004)

yes I do agree


----------



## Erich (Dec 23, 2004)

note the heavy armor around the cockpit on the SturmFw, Willi Unger, friend at the controls............yes this is a pic I posted some months ago...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 23, 2004)

Nice pic. So you know Willi Unger? 

Willi Unger was born on 27 March 1920 at Warstein in the Sauerland region of Westfalen. He became an accomplished glider pilot. He trained as an engineer and passed his Facharbeiterprüfung on 1 September 1939. He joined the Luftwaffe at the start of World War 2 where he served as a Flugzeugmechaniker despite his flying qualifications. He was finally accepted for pilot training in December 1941, commencing flying training with Flugzeugführerschule A/B 10 at Warnemünde. At the end of May 1943, he transferred to I./JG 104, based at Herzogenaurach, to undergo fighter pilot training. In December 1943, he was promoted to Unteroffizier and completed his fighter pilot’s training with the Ergänzungsgruppe, based at Laleu in France. Unger was posted to JG3 on 10 March 1944. Unteroffizier Unger was assigned to 11./JG 3, based at Salzwedel. His first victory was achieved during his seventh mission on 11 April, when he shot down a USAAF B-17 four-engined bomber, from a formation that had attacked Rostock, near Warnemünde. In April, he was to down a total of eight four-engine bombers. On 29 April 1944, IV./JG 3 and Sturmstaffel 1 were amalgamated and redesignated IV.(Sturm)/JG 3 under the command of Hauptmann Wilhelm Moritz (44 victories, RK). Unger was assigned to 12.(Sturm)/JG 3. On 8 May, after claiming a B-24 shot down, he was himself shot down but carried out a successful belly landing. In aerial combat over Oschersleben on 7 July, Feldwebel Unger shot down two USAAF B-24 four-engine bombers, his 10th and 11th victories. He was shot down again on 18 July, after shooting down a B-17 for his 12th victory, when coming into land at Memmingen by USAAF fighters. He managed to bale out landing in a tree! On 3 August, Unger shot down two B-24s, but was himself shot down by defensive fire from the bombers over the Lechtal Alps, baling out safely from his damaged Fw 190A-8 “Yellow 7” + ~. In August, he received the Deutsches Kreuz in Gold and promotion to the rank of Oberfeldwebel. By September 1944, Unger had transferred to 15.(Sturm)/JG 3. Fahnenjunker-Feldwebel Unger was awarded the Ritterkreuz on 23 October for 19 victories. He was given home leave, during which time he was married on 24 December. In December, he was promoted to the rank of Leutnant and attended a formation leaders course at Gütersloh. In February 1945, IV./JG 3 moved to the Eastern Front. Unger was appointed Staffelführer of 14.(Sturm)/JG 3 and led the Staffel on freie-Jagd and ground attack missions over the Oder front, He recorded his last three victories there. At the beginning of April 1945, Unger joined JG 7, based at Brandenburg, flying Me 262 jet fighters. Within two weeks he had completed his conversion training, however he achieved no further victories before being captured by American troops and taken to Regensburg for imprisonment. He was released on 28 May 1945. Post-war Unger was an active sports flyer winning a number of gliding competitions. He resumed his vocation as a fitter working for a local quarrying operation. He retired on 31 December 1981. 
Willi Unger was credited with 24 confirmed victories in 59 missions. He recorded at least 21 victories over the Western Front, all four-engine bombers.


----------



## Erich (Dec 23, 2004)

yes I know him. I have a copy of all his photos from his photo album as well as a portion of his flugbuch in the summer of 44. A kind a gracious man, Parkinson's is taking it's toll on him and all correspondance is done through his daughter...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 23, 2004)

It is great to know some of these pilots. I am sorry he has Parkinsons disease though.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 23, 2004)

Do you know of any that live in the Stuttgart area?


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 23, 2004)

Erich said:


> yes I know him. I have a copy of all his photos from his photo album as well as a portion of his flugbuch in the summer of 44. A kind a gracious man, Parkinson's is taking it's toll on him and all correspondance is done through his daughter...



Very interesting, Erich! I think you're very fortunate to have met him.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 23, 2004)

I agree I think it is a wonderful thing to know these people no matter what side they were on. Just the things they can tell you need to be preserved forever so that there stories are never forgotten.


----------



## Erich (Dec 23, 2004)

it is an honour that is for sure. 

Here is another chap from IV.Sturm/JG 3, Karl Heinz von den Steinen. He was wounded after three victories on 3 August 44 the same date as Will U. Karl is also a very special man....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 23, 2004)

I agree it is an honor to know these men.

Here is a picture of him and Wolfgang Kosse of 10./JG 3


----------



## Erich (Dec 23, 2004)

last pic before I head out to work.

Friend Walter Hagenah. At least 8 "heavies" to his credit while serving in 13.Sturm/JG 3, later flew in Me 262 III./JG 7 taking out 1 P-51 with his R4M's.............obliterated is actually the word he used.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 23, 2004)

Walter Hagenah was born in 1919. Hagenah completed his fighter pilot training in early 1942 and was posted to JG 3. Obergefreiter Hagenah was assigned to 2./JG 3, based at Wiesbaden. On 22 April, the unit was ordered to relocate to Vienna-Aspern in preparation for service on the Eastern front. Hagenah suffered a take-off accident in Bf 109 F-4 “Yellow 4” at Vienna, fortunately without injury. On 12 August 1942, Hagenah achieved his first success when he shot down a Russian LaGG-3 fighter. His last victories on the Eastern Front were gained on 14 October 1942, over the Stalingrad pocket, when he downed two Russian Il-2 Sturmovik ground-attack aircraft for his 5th and 6th victories. I./JG 3 was then recalled to Germany for rest and refit. By December 1943, Hagenah was serving with 10./JG 3. His 7th victory, a USAAF B-24 four-engine bomber, was claimed on 19 December 1943. On 12 May 1944, he claimed a USAAF B-17 four-engine bomber Herausschuss but had to force-land near Dornholzhausen in his Bf 109 G-6. In July 1944, Leutnant Hagenah transferred to IV.(Sturm)/JG 3, under the command of Hauptmann Wilhelm Moritz (44 victories, RK), based at Illesheim. The Gruppe was the first of several being formed to fly the heavily armed and armoured Fw 190 A-8/R8 Sturmbock fighters in an attempt to inflict heavy losses on the American bomber formations. He was appointed Staffelkapitän of 10./JG 3 when Leutnant Hans Weik (36 victories, RK) was shot down and wounded on 19 July 1944. On 30 July, he downed a USAAF P-38 twin-engine fighter for his 15th victory. In September 1944, Hagenah attended a fighter leaders’ course. He then went to Erfurt to convert ex-bomber pilots for fighter operations with the Fw 190A. Later he was sent to Luben to train new Sturmgruppe pilots. In March 1945, he was transferred to III./JG 7 to fly Me 262 jet fighters from Lärz. On 10 April 1945, he shot down a USAAF P-51 fighter with R4M rockets. It was his 17th and last victory. 
Walter Hagenah was credited with 17 victories in about 140 combat missions. He recorded six victories over the Eastern Front. Of his 11 victories recorded over the Western Front, nine were four-engine bombers.


----------



## Erich (Dec 23, 2004)

thenSturmFw's were actually the R2 as the R8 did not come out till November-December 1944 with the aerodynamci fairings over the deleted mg 131's as standard.

Hannes Weik was a great guy as well and we were able to interview him at lenght before his passing; probably the last research group to do so as we were contacted within 3 days of our interview of his death. Hannes scored 2 bombers in the heavy SturmFw, all others were in the Bf 109G-6


----------



## plan_D (Dec 23, 2004)

He shot down a P-51 with R4/Ms? Jesus christ, crazy to use them...brilliant to actually hit them.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 23, 2004)

There were many crazy things that happend. It just shows what a determined pilot could do back them. They were all either lucky or talented the lot of them that survived.


----------



## Erich (Dec 23, 2004)

not all Sturm aces few the heavier Fw 190A-8-Sturm. Konrad Bauer although flying several different a/c due to being shot down flew a red 3 Fw 190A-8 with four 2cm weapons. Minengeschoss did their job.....he was an RK winner


----------



## Erich (Dec 23, 2004)

and who were to protect the heavy SturmFw units on the wedge attacks on the rear of the US heavy bomber formations ?

why of course Bf 109G-6 equipped I./JG 300 under the leadership of Gerhard Stamp, RK winner


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 23, 2004)

Konrad “Pitt” Bauer was born on 9 February 1919 at Gelsenkirchen. In March 1943, Bauer was serving with JG 51 based on the Eastern Front. Unteroffizier Bauer was assigned to 10./JG 51. He recorded his first victory on 20 March, when he shot down a Russian Pe-2 twin-engine bomber. By September 1943, Bauer was serving with the Geschwaderstab of JG 51. On 15 December 1943, he claimed six enemy aircraft, five of which he shot down in five minutes on one mission. He gained a total of 18 victories over the Eastern front. Bauer was transferred to 2./JG 3 “Udet”, operating on Reichsverteidigung duties, in March 1944. He recorded his first victory over a four-engine bomber on 18 April, when he shot down a USAAF B-17. He shot down another two B-17s on 24 May. In June 1944, Bauer was transferred to 5.(Sturm)/JG 300. This unit was mostly equipped with Focke-Wulf 190 A-8/R2 or R8 with two 30mm cannon Mk 108 and two 20mm cannon MG 151/20 to combat the increasing number of USAAF four-engine bombers raiding Germany. With this unit he became one of the best Viermottöters recording 29 four-engine bombers shot down. On 7 July 1944, Bauer shot down two USAAF B-24 four-engine bombers and escorting USAAF P-38 twin-engine fighter in the Oschersleben area. On 11 September, after shooting down three USAAF P-51 fighters, he was himself shot down in Fw 190 A-8 (W.Nr. 681 469) “Red 21” and wounded losing two fingers from his right hand. Feldwebel Bauer was awarded the Ritterkreuz on 31 October 1944 for 34 victories, including 14 four-engine bombers. At the end of January 1945, Bauer returned as Staffelkapitän of 5./JG 300. Bauer was recommended for the Eichenlaub but never received the award. 
“Pitt” Bauer flew 416 combat missions and shot down 57 enemy aircraft. He recorded 18 victories over the Eastern front. Of his 39 victories recorded over the Western front, 32 were four-engine bombers including some Herausschüsse and at least five P-51 fighters. He was shot down seven times.

Victories : 57 
Awards : Ehrenpokal (31 March 1944) 
Deutsches Kreuz in Gold (10 July 1944) 
Ritterkreuz (31 October 1944) 
Units : JG 51, JG 3, JG 300


----------



## Erich (Dec 23, 2004)

sorry for the huge image.....maybe this will be better ?


----------



## Erich (Dec 23, 2004)

I doubt very much that Bauer had that many kills. Are you using Petr's site for your bio info ? quite a few errors on it.........

Bauer was out of service early in his career due to injuries from a P-51. He became Staffelkapitän of 5.Sturm/JG 300 in name only after Klaus Brettschneider was KIA in December 44. There are loads of pics of Bauer sitting on the wing or standing on the side of SturmFw's of JG 300 congratualting the pilots on victories


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 23, 2004)

Gerhard Stamp was born June 3, 1920 in Bamberg and died on May 21, 1998. More than 400 combat missions or Feindflüge, davon 300 als Kampfflieger. 4 air victories, 3 at night and 1 US bomber by day. 


The following from Obermaier; " Im November 1944 stellte er ein Sonderkommando Me 262 zur Erpobung der Bekampfung von Viermots durch Bombenwurf, Spezialmunition und mit Spezialgeraten auf.." . Assigned to set up a special Me 262 weapons test detachment. "…Das Ritterkreuz wurde ihm fur seine hervorragenden Erfolge als Kampfflieger bei 1./KLG 1 im Mittelmeerraum verliehen"……awarded the Knights Cross for his outstanding success as bomber pilot with 1./KLG 1 in the Mediterranean theatre.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 23, 2004)

I get most of my info from http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/aces.htm
or http://www.luftwaffe.cz/index.html


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 23, 2004)

Well you probably have better soarces then I do, I have to get my info from books or off of the internet.


----------



## Erich (Dec 23, 2004)

I see you "bagged the pic and the profile" from my web-site..........

Erich


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 23, 2004)

I pretty much get all of my info from other peoples websites, since I dont have my own. Thanks though. You have great info.


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 23, 2004)

Thats why people make websites.. For the sharing of information and the continuance of WWII avaition in history... Erich has some great stuff, as does Kacha... 

Thanks go out to all the guys that spent those countless hours researching and typing...

And for the record, I am one of the Anti-Copyright people... If u dont want someone copying ur pics and info, either make em uncopyable, or dont post the info...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 23, 2004)

I agree the info that I have gotten from Erichs website are great. He has met and talked with a lot of pilots and the info that the pilots can give is just priceless.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 23, 2004)

I havent actually visited his website yet. It sounds good though, I might have to drop in.


----------



## Erich (Dec 23, 2004)

u all honour me by your comments. go have fun and wish all the pages of the old site were back up but we will see after the JG 300 buchs are printed out this next early year.....

Horrido !


----------



## Gemhorse (Dec 23, 2004)

Really Awesome research Erich, and to meet and interview them is getting more precious by the day now....


----------



## evangilder (Dec 23, 2004)

Erich, That is similar to a project that I am just beginning. Since I volunteer with alot of the vets, I am starting to hear some of their stories, and they are fascinating and riveting. I am trying to get all their info together and put together a book. I want to get the stories from these guys before they are gone. I can read, write and present about the battles, airplanes and the like. But they lived it and can offer a perspective that I do not have.

Do you have any tips on how to get some of the quieter ones to open up? I know they need to be comfortable and be eased into it. But some just clam up at the first inkling that you want to hear a story.

Thanks,
Eric


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 24, 2004)

evangilder said:


> Since I volunteer with alot of the vets, I am starting to hear some of their stories, and they are fascinating and riveting.



I'm only now beginning to really get the story of my grandfather, who flew bombing missions from about mid '42 onwards. First in Wellingtons, then in Lancasters. 
It is indeed riveting, and I agree that this bit of history must not be lost!


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 24, 2004)

Evan, I have found with the quieter ones, that by relating a relatives actions in WWII, they seem to open up some....


----------



## evangilder (Dec 24, 2004)

Ah, good idea, Les. I had an uncle in the Marine Corps who fought on Iwo and Peleliu, among others, including Saipan and Okinawa. He isn't around anymore, he died when I was three, but my other uncle was a Seabee and he has told some interesting stories as well. One of the things that I have told them that has helped is that the purpose of their stories is not to glorify them, but to hear their history so that others can learn about that time.


----------



## Erich (Dec 24, 2004)

Pretty tough except to just sit and listen, or easily ask them "Could you please share some of your war time career with me ?" many do say no as they are bitter to the end. Sometimes with luck things do happen in a positive way, but the best thing I could say is just to sit and listen and build up a trusting relationship with them..............

good luck !

E ~


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 24, 2004)

Yeah my Grandfather was very reluctant to tell me his stories from being in the German Army in WW2 because he always said I was too young. However my Grandmother has given me his war time diary to read and it is very exciting and interesting. I did not take it with me to Iraq out of fear that it would be damaged or destroyed but when I get home I am going to finish reading it.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 24, 2004)

As I am sitting here in my tent over in Tikrit, Iraq I just opened a Christmas card from a little girl back in the states and in the card there was a story. I know this has nothing to do with WW2 aviation but I wish to post this story in honor of all the soldiers no matter what country they come from who are away from there families during this holiday season.

A Soldiers Christmas Story

Twas the night before Christmas, He lived all alone, in a one bedroom house, made of plaster and stone. I had come down the chimney with presents to give, and too see who in this house did live. I looked all about a strange sight did I see, no tinsel, no presents, not even a tree. No stocking by the mantel, just boots filled with sand, on a wall hung pictures of far distant lands. With medals and badges, awards of all kinds, a sober thought came through my mind. For this house was different, it was dark and dreary, I found the home of a soldier, once I could see clearly. The soldier lay sleeping, silent, alone curled up on the floor in this one bedroom home.

The face was so gentle, the room in disorder, not how I pictured a United States soldier. Was this the soldier of whom I had just read? Curled up on a poncho, the floor for a bed? I realized the families that I saw this night owed there lives to these soldiers willing to fight. Soon round the world, the children would play, and grownups would celebrate a bright Christmas day. The all enjoyed freedom each month of the year, because of these soldiers, like the one laying here. I couldn't help wonder how many lay alone, on a cold Christmas eve in a land far from home. The very thought brought a tear to my eye, I dropped to my knees and started to cry. The soldier awakend and I heard a rough voice, :Santa don't cry, this life is my choice; I fight for freedom, I do not ask for more, my life is my God, my Country, My Corps." The soldier rolled over and drifted to sleep, I couldn't control it, I continued to weep. I kept watch for hours, so silent, so still, and we both shiverd from the cold nights chill. I didn't want to leave on that cold, dark, night, this guardian of honor so willing to fight. Then the soldier rolled over, with a voice soft and pure, whispered, "Carry on Santa, its Christmas day, all is secure." One look at my watch, and I knew he was right. "Merry Christmas my friend, and to all a good night."


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 24, 2004)

There is nothing like a Christmas with the sounds of mortors and rockets landing around you. Its crazy I will never forget it.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 24, 2004)

cirtainly one to tell the grand kids..........


----------



## Erich (Dec 24, 2004)

Thanks for serving Eagle...........

and a Merry Christmas to all of U !


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 24, 2004)

Thank you Erich and Merry Christmas to all of you too.


----------



## evangilder (Dec 24, 2004)

Sounds good. Thanks Erich.


----------



## Erich (Dec 24, 2004)

a few more hours and then:

Weihnachtsbescherung


----------



## Erich (Dec 24, 2004)

guys one an all a wonderful next couple of days with famile and friends...

Red 8 from 5.Sturm/JG 300 "Pimf" (young lad)


----------



## evangilder (Dec 24, 2004)

Adler, I know I speak for many when I say THANK YOU for your service!!! I know how it is to be far from home during holidays, but know that our thoughts and prayers are with you and all the troops over in harms way. God bless and God speed.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 24, 2004)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> There is nothing like a Christmas with the sounds of mortors and rockets landing around you. Its crazy I will never forget it.



Take care, buddy. Merry Christmas!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 25, 2004)

Ho Ho Ho.....................


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 25, 2004)

Thank you all for your prayers and good wishes. It means a lot to all of us. Again have a merry Christmas.


----------



## Erich (Dec 25, 2004)

YES another Christmas ! all of you take care today, out in the freezing fog today riding my cycle for many miles

another sturmFw shot to stay focused.....from II.Sturm/JG 300

Konrad Bauer on the wing chatting with ace Klaus Brettschneider


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 25, 2004)

Great pic.


----------



## Lightning Guy (Dec 25, 2004)

I certainly hope that each and everyone on this site had the happiest of holidays possible.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 26, 2004)

Made the best of it!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 26, 2004)

i had a pretty good day, how about everyone else??


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 26, 2004)

I'm still breathin'. It's a start.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 26, 2004)

like that is it??


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 26, 2004)

Bit too much 'holiday cheer'!


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 26, 2004)

My head still hurts from Christmas night.... UGH!!!!!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 26, 2004)

les's had to much brandy butter.............


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 26, 2004)

Hehe.... Also, too much of this woman Crystal... A friend of a friend.... God, shes so annoying... I dont despise many people..... Hitler, Stalin, Usama, Saddam, and this stupid Bitch Crystal....

I had to talk and be in the same room as her.. And be nice.... Hehe, I ignored the hell outta her... Shes just a retard who tells retarded stories, interupts conversations, and basically grates on my every nerve.....

AAAAarrrrrrrrrggggggggggHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Nonskimmer (Dec 26, 2004)

Sounds like my sister in-law!


----------



## Erich (Dec 26, 2004)

back on topic gentlemen...........

A B-24 getting the guts torn out by 2cm and 3cm Minengeschoss


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 26, 2004)

The German Minengeschoß rounds introduced a different manufacturing technique: A thin shell was drawn, in the same way as a cartridge case is drawn. This resulted in a much larger explosive capacity for the same calibre, and became widespread after the war. It is commonly assumed that HE ammunition is really effective only in calibres of 20mm or larger, but it was also made for 12.7mm and even rifle-calibre weapons.

These are the belt compositions for fighters, used against air targets, as given given in a German manual, published in in 1944. (Ref. 204.) Note that these were more or less advisory: Local commanders were encouraged to determine the armament mix that suited them. (Note I am only posting for the 20mm and 30mm, if you want more info on other gun types go to: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/8217/fgun/fgun-am.html)

20 mm (MG-FF, MG 151/20) 
2 Minengeschoß m. Zerl. 
2 Brandsprenggranatpatronen L'spur m. Zerl 
oder Brandgranatpatronen 
1 Panzersprenggranatpatrone o. Zerl 
oder Panzerbrandgranatpatrone (Phospor) o. Zerl. 
Here the Minengeschoß appears for the first time. A version of the 20mm M-Geschoß with tracer did not exist, so tracer was used on HE/I (Brandsprenggranatpatrone) or pure incendiary (Brandgranatpatrone) rounds. The latter was apparently a new development in 1944, intended to replace the less effective HE/I. The fifth round was a semi-AP projectile, explosive or incendiary. Apparently the main reason this was used instead of a solid AP round was that a solid projectile would have been too heavy.

It was recommended that more AP or semi-AP ammunition would be loaded when the probable targets were well-armoured attack aircraft such as the Il-2. On the other hand, against the four-engined bombers of the RAF and USAAF the high explosive types were more effective.

30 mm low-velocity (MK 108) 
Minengeschoß 108 El o. Zerl. 
Only the Minengeschoß was fired by the MK 108, also in versions with day or night tracer. The ammunition was not interchangeable with that of the much more powerful MK 101 and MK 103, hence the addition 108. The letters El probably indicate the presence of Elektron, an incendiary compound, in the projectiles. Surprisingly, self-destruction fuses were not used, although German fighters were operating over the home country at this time in the war. Probably it was felt that this reduced the effective range too much.

30 mm high-velocity (MK 101, MK 103) 
1 Sprenggranatpatrone L'Spur o. Zerl 
1 Minengeschoß L'Spur o. Zerl 
1 Panzersprenggranatpatrone L'Spur o. Zerl 
oder Panzerbrandsprenggranatpatrone L'Spur o. Zerl 
The MK 103 was a high-velocity weapon with a much better armour penetration than the MK 108. Hence the addition of the older type of HE round and semi-AP ammunition to the mix. The exception were the nightfighters, which used only the Minengeschoß with a glowing trace (Gl'spur).


----------



## Erich (Dec 28, 2004)

actually the Mk 108 rounds came in a variety of evil like rounds : 7 that I know of designated with different coloured nose rings, blue, grey, red, dark red, green and again blue

E


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 28, 2004)

Yeah I am only going off what the website was telling me. I dont know exactly how they linked them or what.


----------



## Erich (Dec 28, 2004)

depending on the a/c the SturmFw's had HE and HEI interspersed but will have to really dig for the info as to how many rounds to rounds on the links for both 2cm and 3cm. From what I remembver and it has been about 5 years ago. 5 yellow bodied HE Minen with one dark bodied I Minen round. Again this is from memory which is probably wrong in this case.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 28, 2004)

Thats really interesting to know though.


----------



## wmaxt (Dec 28, 2004)

One thing I read was that Tom Lynch removed all the incindary rounds because of their different trajctories and it actuly improved the score of his pilots!


----------



## Erich (Dec 28, 2004)

remember the SturmFw's were to bring down as many US heavy bombers as possible and this required close-in type tactics with the pilot closing within one hundred yards and closer and banking away only at the last minute. Pumping as many HEI rounds to start fires but just simply to blow anything inside the bomber away but also including the engines on one wing of the a/c to flip it over. I have many bomber crew reports after war and from members of bombers that made it back to England and the effects of the 2cm and 3cm M rounds was horrific

Erich ~


----------



## Erich (Dec 28, 2004)

here is a little note I dug ut of my night fighter files on friend and ace Peter Spoden.

the ammo we used was a mixture done by the Waffenmeister according to the wishes of the pilot.

Normally 1 explosive Minengeschoss, then 1 Phosphorbrand and 1 tracer-glimmspur, the last not too bright. with the tracer the pilot could follow the round. Our 2cm was terribly effective.

After the mission our "black men" checked the used ammo for the claim-report and (I told you already that in one case the pilot brought down a Lnacster with one shot of Phosphor-brand in the fuel tanks, because he had Ladehemmung (jamed guns) after this shot.) this was checked by the mechanics...............

Peter Spoden 6./NJG 6, flying Ju 88G-6's  

Erich


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 29, 2004)

I knew that they were very serious about confirming there kills but was it that bad?


----------



## Erich (Dec 29, 2004)

that bad ? hmmmmmmmmm

if you have seen an Abschussmeldung report you would see that the type of armament as well as the type of rounds many times and how many used are always present, but like I said too, from the fall of 1944 onward the processing of these claims-kills was done away with so personal records in flight books as well as by staffel reports had to be kept. Memories such as Herr Spodens are vital to understand the typical Luftwaffe calim type of form and what was done to approve it. It wasn't just NJG 6 but all the Nachtjagd and Tagjagd

Erich


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 29, 2004)

I knew it was official but why wouldn't just other pilots seeing the kill confirm it. I mean it was sort of an honorable race among each other to get the most.


----------



## Erich (Dec 29, 2004)

on the day fighter claim report a wingman or another pilot was needed to confirm and it is stated as such. for night fighter you had the confimration of at least 1 other crewman, the bordfunker or in the case of a alter war Ju 88G-6 a total of 3 other crewmen, so that was taken into consideration as besides the pilot getting the kill so did the crew since they were all part of the interception esepcially the radar operator.


----------



## Erich (Dec 29, 2004)

to answer your staement about honourable way to get the most kills, maybe during 43 and the first part of 44, but then after that it didn't mean much. the Luftwaffe (day fighters) was just trying to survive encounters with hordes of P-51's and the Nachtjagd with the stupid fuel supply problems and the shrinking of the Reich in general


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 29, 2004)

Yes that I can understand.


----------



## Erich (Dec 29, 2004)

I leave with one last STurmFw killer pic

Heinz Bake und wart; IV.Sturm/JG 3, December 1944. Heinz passed away 2 years ago........


----------



## plan_D (Dec 30, 2004)

It's good that the Germans were so well organised and good at keeping records, it's a shame a lot of them burned under Allied air power...


----------



## Erich (Dec 30, 2004)

yes like many in the defnce of the Reich. A younf flugzeugfuhrer of JG 301 KIA on the same day as my cousin Siegfried Baer and from the same Geschwader. this pics as others will be in a future book on JG 301.....

I share these with you, this of Gabler and the enxt pic will be of my cousin, note the difference in materials. both cross's and both remembered .........


----------



## Erich (Dec 30, 2004)

my cousins grave site marker in an area of more modern stone


----------



## Erich (Dec 30, 2004)

getting back to the baisc coverage of the SturmFw's. Here is a pic of pilot Werner Dehr in front of one of the Bf 109G's of III./JG 4 during the fall of 44. some are equipped with the underwing 2cm waffen pods and others are not.


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 30, 2004)

Werent those -109's with the 151/20 pods called Kanonenbootes with the Rustsatz-6 gondolas????


----------



## Erich (Dec 30, 2004)

yes cannon-boats but not sure about the Rust. though.....

this version ws the common bomber killer until the heavier SturmFw types took over in JG 1 and 11 in the fal/winter of 43-44. The were on the A-7 Fw 190 and called the Fw 190A-7/MK. Unarmored but did have outboard 3cm weapons along with the two 2cm and upper mg 131's over the cowling


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 30, 2004)

I double checked and it is R-6.....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 3, 2005)

I feel like a missed a lot of the convo, my internet was down for a couple of days over here.

Well from what I can tell the leading scorer of Heavy Bombers was:
Georg-Peter Eder 
With atleast 36 bomber kills. 



> Georg-Peter “Schorsch” Eder was born on 8 March 1921 at Oberdachstetten. In October 1938 he joined the Luftwaffe. At the beginning of April 1939 he enrolled in the aviation academy at Berlin-Gatow. A year later he sat a pilot examination and was sent to aviation school at Werneuchen. He flew his first combat mission with 1./JG 51 on 1 September 1940. He flew with this unit throughout the Battle of Britain but did not gain a victory. In May 1941 he joined 4./JG 51 and with this unit shot down his first aircraft, a RAF Spitfire fighter, on 7 May. Eder marked his participation in the commencement of the campaign on the Eastern Front by destroying two Russian aircraft on 22 June 1941. On 24 July 1941, he was shot down and wounded. On 22 August, Eder collided with a Ju 52 transport aircraft on the ground at Ponjatowska in his Bf 109 F-2 (W.Nr. 9184). He suffered a fracture at the base of the skull and was forced into hospital. He had recorded 10 victories at this time. On recovery from his injuries, Eder was sent as a flight instructor to Jagdfliegerschule 2 based at Zerbst arriving there on 1 November 1941. Eder was transferred to 7./JG 2 based in France on 1 November 1942. With this unit he participated in the growing battle against the American four-engined heavy bombers. With Hauptmann Egon Mayer (102 victories, of which 25 were four-engined bombers, RK-S), also of III./JG 2, Eder developed the strategies to combat the formations of four-engined B-17s and B-24s. Particularly noteworthy was the development of the head-on attack in order to take advantage of the relatively weak defensive fire from that sector of the bombers. In February 1943 Eder was appointed Staffelkapitän of 12./JG 2. On 28 March he downed a B-17, however, was hit engine of his machine and he was wounded when his Bf 109 G-4 (W.Nr. 14 998) somersaulted upon landing at Beaumont. Eder continued to score steadily, destroying his 20th enemy aircraft on 29 May 1943. After shooting down a P-47 and a B-17 Herauschuss on 30 July his victory total reached 31 victories. On 5 September 1943, Eder was transferred as Staffelkapitän of 5./JG 2. He continued to fight against the formations of four-engined bombers and had continued success against these aircraft. On 5 November, Eder was again forced to bail out of his Bf 109 G-6 (W.Nr. 20 733) and was again injured.
> 
> In March 1944 Oberleutnant Eder was transferred to 6./JG 1. He baled out of his Fw 190 A-7 (W.Nr. 430 645) “Yellow 4” following aerial combat with an USAAF P-47 fighter near Göttingen on 19 April. On 8 May, he downed a B-24 but he was also hit and had to make an emergency landing in Fw 190 A-8 (WNr 170071) “Yellow 4” at Vechta. On 29 May, after shooting down a B-17, colided his Fw 190 A-8 (W.Nr. 730 386) "red 24" with Siebel during landing in Cottbus but Eder escaped unhurt. By the end of the month of May he had a total of 49 confirmed victories. As the Kommandeur of II./JG1 he fought in the aerial battles over Normandy after the Allied invasion. On 21 June 1944 he recorded his 50th victory and on 24 June received the Ritterkreuz. On 11 August 1944 Eder took command of 6./JG 26. In an attack on allied armour near Dreux on 17 August Eder shot down a Spitfire from very low altitude; it crashed between two M-4 Sherman tanks, destroying them both. Shortly after it he shot down a second Spitfire, which crashed on a third tank, setting it on fire. On 4 September Hauptmann Eder became Gruppenkommandeur of II./JG 26, the day after the unit's previous Kommandeur Hauptmann Emil Lang (173 victories, RK-EL) was killed in action against USAAF Thunderbolts over St Trond, Belgium. In September Hauptmann Eder was transfered to Erprobungskommando 262 (later Kommando Nowotny) where he was appointed Staffelkapitän of 1./Kdo Nowotny.On 19 November, following redesignation of Kommando Nowotny to JG 7, he commanded 9./JG 7 flying the Me 262 jet fighter in combat with considerable success. During the Ardennes offensive, Eder was to prove his efficacy with the Me 262 in the ground-attack role claiming 40 P-47s destroyed on the ground. He was awarded the Eichenlaub (Nr 663) on the 25 November 1944 for 60 victories. On 22 January he was shot down near Parchim by USAAF P-51s and P-38s while preparing to land. He broke both his legs and spent the rest of the war in hospital at Wismar and, later, Bad Weissee where he was captured by US Army troops.
> Altogether he flew 572 combat missions of which 150 were with the Me 262. On the Eastern Front he scored 10 victories and on the Western Front 68, of which no less than 36 were four-engined bombers. With the Me 262 he scored at least 24 victories (most of them couldn`t be officially confirmed). He was the leading scorer against the four-engined bombers, although Eder himself was shot down 17 times, baling out 9 times. He was wounded 14 times.
> http://www.luftwaffe.cz/eder.html



This does not have much to do with Bomber killers but I found this story interesting in my search for the pilot with the most heavy bomber kills.



> The fates of two young German fighter pilots, Eugen Wintergest and Herwig Zuzic are remarkably linked together. During the summer and early autumn of 1941, the former flew as wingman to the latter in the air war over southern Soviet Union, both belonging to 4./JG 77.
> 
> Zuzic was credited with 13 victories. Oberfeldwebel Wintergest had a remarkable feat: On 12 August 1941 he had attacked alone a formation of seven SB-3 bombers between Zebrikovo and Odessa, and he shot down all of them. At first this was not beleived by his superiors, so his commander Hauptmann Anton Mader took off to check it, and he found all seven bombers lying in a row. This was Wintergest's 8th to 14th victories. His last, and 20th, victory was achieved over a MiG-3 near Preobrashenko (while escorting He 111s attacking this target) at 17:20 hrs on 23 September 1941.
> 
> ...


----------



## Lukas Buringen (Feb 25, 2006)

Contribution on Mr. Hagenah.

I know this gentleman personally, because he once upon a time was one of my superiors at the ACC (Area Control Centre) at Frankfurt/Main. After the war he joined the new established ATC unit (BFS) at Rhein-Main Airport first as a controller and later as team supervisor. He retired about 1972, according to the law of the Bundesanstalt fuer Flugsicherung (BFS), which allowed controllers to retire with the age of 53. 

I first met him in 1960, when I was transferred from Hamburg Tower to Frankfurt ACC. 
Then, in 1970, I became a direct neighbor to him in the northern part of Frankfurt, where he still lives, however a sick man. 
He is married and has, as far as I know, a son.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Feb 27, 2006)

an air to air bomber

from LUFTWAFFE FIGHTER AIRCRAFT IN PROFILE

*scanner image is of low quality, tell me if i should post the image of his plane or not*

Messerschmitt Bf109G-1
Flown by Leutnant Heinz Knoke, 5./JG 11, Jever, Germany, April 1943

Heinz Knoke, famous as the man who introduced the air to air bombing of B-17s and well known for some of his post-war memoirs, led the so called boeing klau (boeing grabber) Staffel, 2./JG1 (later 5./JG 11), defending NW Germany against US 4 engined bombers from the onset of the US Bomber offemsive over Germany.

On March 22, 1943, Knoke succeeded in destroying a US Heavy Bomber in the air by dropping a bomb on it. On April 17, the entire Staffel dropped bombs on a B-17 formation over Bremen, where a Focke-Wulf factory is based, this time without success. Defending Kiel 1 month later, on May 14, 3 of his men managed to knock out 3 B-17s by air to air bombing.

Knokeand his men became heavily exploited by German Propaganda in 1943, when there was a desperate need to counterbalance the Daylight bombing raids with....


----------



## R988 (Feb 27, 2006)

I wondered if anyone had tried that tactic, it would take a large amount of skill and/or luck to have much success though.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Feb 27, 2006)

if u read my article, your question should be answered


----------



## Twitch (Feb 27, 2006)

While this very long thread gets into many aspects of the topic I would agree that the 262 was the ultimate bomber knocker-downer.  But armourers cobbled up lots of outlaw armament sets not of official origin. I'd have to give consideration to Me 110/210/410s with 8-10 cannon and 4 2cm rockets as pretty potent customers.


----------



## Henk (Feb 27, 2006)

Twitch mate you forgot about the Henkel 219 UHU, now that baby also was a great bomber downer.

Henk


----------



## Erich (Feb 27, 2006)

suggest you and others go back to see how much of a dog the Uhu was. ` in the older threads in archives...........developed to late and no Reich backing to keep the heinkel in perspective, too much time wasted in test pieces, over armed, weak wings, ejection seats did not work half the time, the cockpit was too forward of the twin engines which was another fatal flaw. No rearward armament. Nothing developed operationaly beyond the A-2's. thus rear warning Rückswart was not standard equipment like on Ju 88G-6's. Books stating a-5', a-6 and a-7's used on ops are sadly misktaken.

ok rant over. I./NJG 1 is the only gruppe using the Uhu in action. I./NJG 3 had them on hand but did not fly them preferring the truley excellent Ju 88G-6 to attack RAF heavies on Gardening ops. Also just to make it clear now there were only 12 Mossies shot down by the I./NJG 1's Uhu's not a very good track record for all the claim they get in books


----------



## Henk (Feb 27, 2006)

Later versions did have rearward firing guns and was pretty successfull against bombers though.

The Ju-88 was the god of night fighters and bomber destroyers when it came to prop driven aircraft.

Henk


----------



## Erich (Feb 27, 2006)

Hendrik check the variants that were operational out again please, no UHU's on ops ever had a rearward gun fitting. Schrägwaffen was another thing altogether and was used for downing bombers from underneath as was the Bf 110G's and Ju 88c's and G's.

Because of the Mossie nf situation further variants were to have a third pair of eys plus a single MG 131 13mm mg in the rear position but it never evolved.

the Uhu in its interception role the A-6 anti-Mossie machine will be covered in our book although just a prototype unit.


----------



## Henk (Feb 27, 2006)

Oh, sorry mate I meant that. I feel so stuped now. It is quite sad that id did not have great success.

They say that the Junkers 88 are actualy the best WW2 aircraft becuase it could do so much and be good in it.

Henk


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Feb 28, 2006)

but want as successful, it did its job though


----------



## plan_D (Feb 28, 2006)

People who state that, Henk, must be forgetting the 'Wooden Wonder' ...


----------



## Gnomey (Feb 28, 2006)

They are, Henk you should have a look here: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2966


----------



## Twitch (Feb 28, 2006)

Rear armament was not a required element of success as even Wilde Sau aircraft were mostly single seat fighters. The Mosquito had no rear armament either.


----------



## Erich (Feb 28, 2006)

The Mossie in its bombed up versions and night fighter - intruder did not have rear armament to be certain as the crewmen thought they were impervious to rear guard attacks by German nf's. Too bad for many they went down thinking they were safe by Fw 190A's, Bf 109G-6's, Bf 110G-4's and Ju 88G-6's. inclusion of the pitiful he 219 Uhu and their 12 mossie kills; the ultimate was falling before me 262 single seaters, the mossie crews never knew what hit them.

my point was this, even in 1943 the Mossie intruder was being felt in the skies and on the strafing runs at night on German AF. My cousin and his crew piloting a Do 217N-1 nearly bit the bullet when they were taxing out towards RAF heavies in August of 43 when a Canadian 418 Mossie shot the crap out of their Dornier wounding all three crewmen.

A rear gunner was a necessity in the air for defence and lesser extent offense for German nf's. Friend Karl Johanssen shot down 2 Lancs and 1 B-17 of 100th group on a mission where the crew shot down a total of 9 RAF heavies in March of 45. Karl was operating the Naxos and then when his pilot ran out of forward 2cm ammo he unleased the mg 131 in the bottom of the 3 RAF bombers. Their Ju 88G-6 did not have Schrägwaffen


----------



## elmilitaro (Mar 1, 2006)

nice point Erich.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 7, 2006)

For nightfighter I have to go with the Ju-88G-6. Also a bomber killer I think you have to throw in the Fw-190's, they packed a good punch an could tangle with any fighter that was escorting the bombers.


----------



## saltlakespitfire (Aug 29, 2006)

You guys are quite rigt on voting the Me 262. But I would like to point out that compared to the hawker hurricane It was in service for Like 2 minutes 
Anyway, during BoB the hurricane was far better at downing Heinkels and droniers than during the allied air offensive over Germany so even though the 262 was a far Better interceptor , It did;nt stand the test of time(could have passed or failed?)


----------



## plan_D (Aug 29, 2006)

The Hurricane Mk.I was not a potent interceptor. The eight Browning .303cal machine guns were not suitable for knocking down bombers. The cost for the Luftwaffe during the Battle of Britain would have been many times higher had the Hurricanes been equipped with four Hispano Mk.II 20 mm cannon like in the Hurricane IIC. Too many He 111 and Do 17s went home from Britain for the Hurricane to be called an effective bomber destroyer. 

The Bf 109E was a better bomber destroyer than the Hurricane. The RAF would have greatly appreiciated a cannon armed fighter during the Battle of Britain. The Spitfire Mk.IB unfortunately had teething troubles and was not in widespread use because of the cannons reliability issues.


----------



## Tony Williams (Aug 29, 2006)

plan_D said:


> The Hurricane Mk.I was not a potent interceptor. The eight Browning .303cal machine guns were not suitable for knocking down bombers. The cost for the Luftwaffe during the Battle of Britain would have been many times higher had the Hurricanes been equipped with four Hispano Mk.II 20 mm cannon like in the Hurricane IIC. Too many He 111 and Do 17s went home from Britain for the Hurricane to be called an effective bomber destroyer.


True enough. See THIS article for an analysis of Battle of Britain fighter armament.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum


----------



## plan_D (Aug 30, 2006)

Thanks for the article, Tony. 

The Spitfire Mk.IB would have been a powerful asset to the RAF during the Battle of Britain. I think it might have been better to equip the Hurricane with the cannon rather than the Spitfire though. In August 1940 the eight Browning .303 could deal with the Bf 109, the problems arose when the same weapons were used against the bombers. And since the Hurricane was attacking the bombers I would have thought to put the cannon in them. 

The reliability of the cannon saved many German planes and pilots from destruction though. On 16 August seven No.19 Sqdn. Spitfire Mk.IBs engaged the enemy, only one of those Spitfires had both cannons functioning properly. 19 August, three Spitfires engaged the enemy with no cannons functioning, 24 August two out of the eight Spitfires that engaged had their cannons functioning and on 31 August there were three out of the six Spitfires with cannons functioning. In four days of combat twenty-four Spitfire Mk.IBs engaged the enemy, six of those had their cannons functioning. With a 75% failure rating of the cannon, we cannot blame Sqn Ldr R. Pinkham for sending a complaint to his superiors: 

_"In all the engagements so far occuring it is considered that, had the unit been equipped with eight-gun fighters, it would have inflicted far more severe losses on the enemy. It is most strongly urged that until the stoppages at present experienced have been eliminated, this squadron should be re-equipped with Browning-gun Spitfires."_

In September, Fighter Command accepted this and No.19 Sqdn. traded the Spitfire Mk IB in for the Spitfire Mk IIA. One pilot did achieve some success in this otherwise failure. The ace Flt Sgt George Unwin flew Spitfire Mk IB #R6776 during it's short stay at No.19 Sqdn. He claimed thirteen (13) kills during 1940 in Spitfire Mk.IA, B and Mk IIA aircraft.


----------



## Glider (Aug 30, 2006)

There were some Hurricane equiped with 2 x 20mm in the BOB. If I recall they didn't have as bad a time reliability wise as the Spitfire but had a large performance penalty as the guns were below the wing. 
I do hope I am remembering correctly but there was one pilot killed in the battle who stuck with these and shot a bomber down at over 400 yards which with a 303 was almost a fantasy land range.

Must dig around and find the details


----------



## Glider (Aug 30, 2006)

Found some details. The plane flew with 151 squadron and amongst the planes it shot down was a Do17. I don't know if this was the long range shot but it did have reliability problems as well as the loss of performance.


----------



## Tony Williams (Aug 30, 2006)

Yes, there was one Hurricane fitted with two Hispanos (sometimes wrongly identified as Oerlikons) in underwing gun pods. The performance penalty actually wasn't that great. As the guns were mounted right-way-up instead of on their sides, reliability would have been better than in the early Spitfire installation.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum


----------



## Nicodemus (Nov 14, 2006)

First post here 

I think the Fw 190A-8/R-2 and Me 262 are both very potent bomber destroyers. 
The Me 262 with its high speed slashing attacks would cut through bomber boxes like hot butter, look at the results of JG 7 during their campaign against the Eighth during spring 1945, especially late March, when they shot down 18 B-17s on the 18th, almost repeated that score on the 21st and 22nd and downed 23 RAF Lancs and Halifaxes on the 31st to finish the bill. Too bad it was emplyed too late, if given to a crack bomber destroyer formation like JG 2 or 3 it would definately have destroyed more.

The A-8/R-2 would pump a Fortress full of lead in a matter of seconds with its 2x 13mm heavy machineguns, twin 20mm cannons and double MK 108 explosive shells, but it was on the slow side and inferior to the Mustang. Still, it could attack bombers head-on with deadly effect, something the Me 262 could not due to its high speed.

As a sidenote, it was determined that with the MK 108 cannon the pilot only needed to put three rounds on average (!) into a bomber to bring it down, so speaking of armament the aircraft are almost equal.

I consider the Bf 110 and Me 410 to be very good bomber interceptors as well. If they were escorted properly, these Zerstörers could wreak havoc amongst the B-17s and B-24s with their quadruple 20mm cannons plus four 7.9mm machineguns in the nose, and four 210mm heavy rockets in addition. Maybe its just because I like them in Flight sims, being a very stable gunnery platform for taking down heavies.

Just my 2 cents,

Nick


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 14, 2006)

Many Fw pilots disliked the Mk108 30mm due to its problems with jamming during high G maneuvers and high deflection... Konrad "Pitt" Bauer was one pilot out of many that retained the 4x 20mm set up.....

That being said, the A-8/R2 of II./JG300 and several other Sturmgruppen was extremely effective and is my choice...


----------



## Nicodemus (Nov 14, 2006)

Just out of curiosity, what were the notable successes and 'black days' of II.(_Sturm_)/JG 300? I can think of many concerning IV./JG 3, but did this Sturmgruppe destroy 'heavies' in any significant numbers?

BTW, what about II.(_Sturm_)/JG 4? Any remarks and/or notable feats abouth them ?


----------



## Erich (Nov 14, 2006)

of course

for JG 300, September 11, 12, 27 and 28th, although in my opinion the JG 3 Sturms claimed most of the 445th bg B-24's on the 27th of September.

October, 6 and 7th, 44. January 14, 45 for JG 300 only.

II.Sturm/JG 4 on Sept. 11, 44 their first action they wiped 100th bg but in turn almost got wiped out by P-51's. November 2, 44 along with Sturms of JG 3.

by the way as for K. Bauer he felt the four 2cm weapons were enough to take out the bombers and they did but also wanted a better aero Fw 190 without the heavier weight of ammo/Mk 108 and all the Sturm armor when confronting P-51's ............. he was not alone in his feelings, several JG 3 Sturm pilots did the same as well as JG 300 ~ Ernst Schröder comes to mind


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 14, 2006)

Ive been researching one specific day for the Sturms.... 

25 July 1944

II./JG300 launched an attack on the Liberators of the 461st BG over Linz, Austria... 14 armored Fw190-A8/R2's came in unopposed and unleashed a fury of 20mm and 30mm rounds that devastated the box... They had enough time to mount a second attack upon the formation before being bounced by P-51's....

4. Staffel claimed 3 kills, 5. Staffel claimed 4 kills, 6. Staffel claimed 4 kills, and the Stab claimed one, for a total of 12 kills, all within about 4 minutes... 

II./JG300 lost 1 pilot and 2 FW's....

For a twist, it was on this mission that the crew of All American, a B-24, set a record with 14 fighters shot down....

Linz was Heinrich Bartels home town BTW, and there was a concentration camp there as well, KZ Gusen... It was there that guards shot a seargent who was coming down in his chute....


----------



## Erich (Nov 14, 2006)

Les don't forget the carnage inflicted by Bf 109G-6's on the same date from I./JG 300 against B-24's. the 109's were also flying top cover for the 14 SturmFw's and A-8' mix.

Actually one of the haireist Sturm attacks was the very first one put on 7-7-44, JG 3 Sturms and JG 300 Sturms/A-8's along with it's top cover of Bf 109G-6's attacked en-masse inflicting over 50 bombers destroyed. there were actually two defensive maneuvers this date which is very confusing and the US vets nearly everyone I have interviewed about this mission remembers the attacks by Me 410's which in reality did not add up to much except to get their butts kicked by US escort fighters. the 8th AF attacked and then the US 15th AF attacked and came up a bit to the north where it got entangled with JG 3 and JG 300


----------



## Udet (Nov 14, 2006)

Erich:

Great information as usual.

What about the anti-bomber deeds of JG 1 and JG 11? The Bf 109s of both units too sent way too many heavy bombers to litter the German landscape.

I will agree the Fw 190 A-8s fitted with the extra-armour and heavy wing cannon were the best heavy bomber killers, but the 109s too proved they were capable in that sort of missions.

One question Erich, a few weeks ago i was watching some of my Luftwaffe videos and guncamera footage, and shown is a flight of 109s equipped with the 151/20 cannon under the wings. What i detected -for the first time even though i had seen it so many times- is those Bf 109s do not have the bulges on top of the cowling common in the G-6 variant. What version of the 109 were those? 

Cheers!


----------



## Erich (Nov 14, 2006)

109G-5's but probably G-14/AS. G-6/AS was not fitted with underwing 2cm as they were to provide high top cover against the Mustang.

yes JG 1 and JG 11 especially JG 11 had Fw 190A-7/MK in all of 2./JG 11, and of course the standard A-8. JG 1 and JG 11 from late 43 through spring of 44 attacked from the front in a wedge, just the reverse direction of the SturmFw's of JG 3, 4 and 300 in July of 44 till January of 45.
JG 1 and JG 11 was hoping to take out the crew in the cockpit of the heavy bombers but the time to score hits even with the heavier wing mounted 30mm's was slight. you had to be a proficient pilot to acquire the knack with only 5 seconds; hit the bomber and if you made it through the Pulk attack the next one in line and then Split-S away and down

good to see you back here Udet .


----------



## Tony Williams (Nov 15, 2006)

lesofprimus said:


> For a twist, it was on this mission that the crew of All American, a B-24, set a record with 14 fighters shot down....


Has that been confirmed by German records of losses?

There are three figures which apply to shoot-downs by US bombers: the claims of the crews; the figures accepted by the USAAF (maybe two-thirds of the first figure); and the figures confirmed by postwar examination of German records (maybe one-sixth of the accepted figure).

If the "14 fighters shot down" came from US records, the true figure was probably 2 or 3.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum


----------



## 102first_hussars (Nov 15, 2006)

plan_D said:


> The Hurricane Mk.I was not a potent interceptor. The eight Browning .303cal machine guns were not suitable for knocking down bombers. .



The Armament was just fine in 1940, the machine guns were concentrated well enough to take down any germany bomber, surely cannons would have been more effective


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 15, 2006)

102first_hussars said:


> The Armament was just fine in 1940, the machine guns were concentrated well enough to take down any germany bomber, surely cannons would have been more effective



Even in 1940 8 .303's wasn't really good enough, it surficed (just) but the switch to heavier armament was noted and implemented after the Battle of Britain (and during - Spitfire had 2 x 20mm fitted but they jammed so the squadron went back to the 8 .303's). That is why the later Hurricanes had 12 .303's before the switch to 4 x 20mm was done with the MkIIC, almost every mark of both the Hurricane and the Spitfire had 20mm cannon fitted after 1940. The RAF realised that the .303 wasn't good enough for the fighter-bomber role (although it was alright for fighter-fighter) and so they were phased out as the war went on.

As for best bomber killing aircraft overall I would agree with Les and Erich with the FW-190A8 (with or without the 30mm cannons).


----------



## luftwaffemesserschmitt (Nov 26, 2006)

me 262 was the best bomber killer with the awsome punch from 4 30mm mk 108 and the great 24 r4m rockets. The messerschmitt 262 is the best


----------



## Bullockracing (Nov 26, 2006)

Wow, ton of good info in this thread. If you want to make best = most effective, you have to take mission capable rates, ease of use by pilot, survivability, etc into account. The Axis expended far greater effort in producing a dedicated bomber-killer, since their own airspace was (ahem) a target-rich environment. The 109 and the 190 each were pretty effective when equipped with multiple cannon and explosive shells. The 262 was a little too finicky in its handling (particularly the throttle), and required too much maintenance, and was too late in the war to prove itself. The 109 was good, especially at altitude, but didn't have enough power to overcome the additional armor and armament, and the 190 had enough power that all of the additional weight did not degrade performance as significantly as the 109.

A one-off quasi-prototype Hurricane equipped with cannons does not make the Hurricane the best bomber-destroyer of the entire war.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 26, 2006)

the Mk.IIC hurricane wasn't a one off she was if not the most then the second most produced Mark of the hurricane, however by this point the hurricane had been religated from the front line duties over Europe but went on the serve in every other theatre............


----------



## Bullockracing (Nov 26, 2006)

Roger that, I was referring to the "a Hurricane with cannons flew a little during the BoB" earlier in the thread...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 26, 2006)

ah well, even with the .303s at that time of the war she was the best anti-bomber platform around.........


----------



## Bullockracing (Nov 27, 2006)

Agreed, for the BoB...


----------



## Erich (Nov 27, 2006)

well bull I have to disagree, JG 7 Me 262's proved themselves many times in the anti-bomber role, even in fighter vs fighter if they had the jump.

stil l the Fw 190A-8 Sturm was the ultimate devastating "pulk" destroyer in 44


----------



## lesofprimus (Nov 27, 2006)

Have to agree with u on all points Erich, as the 262, while hampered by some teething problems and some shoddy workmanship/sabotage, definatly made a difference and was quite effective as a bomber killer...


----------



## luftwaffemesserschmitt (Nov 29, 2006)

quite effecktive ????
the me 262 was the ultimate bomber killer he killed the b-17 with 3 shells only!!!


----------



## Erich (Nov 29, 2006)

the 262 was still too new on the scene and did not really prove itself as the "ultimate" Viermottötter till March of 1945. Not a very long track record as the Fw 190A-7 and A-8 with Mk 108's had been popping US heavies since the spring of 1944.

one of the problems facing the Me 262 pilots and veteran Walter Schuck can easily confirm when he flew in JG 7, is the set-up time to attack and then the attack from the rear with only 3 seconds firing time at best as they 'SWOOSHED' through the rear of the bomber Pulks. Many pilots admitted the total frustration, the jet was just too blame fast .....................


----------



## Erich (Nov 29, 2006)

again I point out that it was these guys that were the most effective bomber busters in the air for the Luftwaffe, and they paid the price in blood ....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 29, 2006)

Gotta agree with Erich and Les as well. While the Me-262 with more time could have eventually equalled what the Fw-190s were doing the Fw-190 was the single handedly best bomber killer of the ETO for the Luftwaffe.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Nov 29, 2006)

so we're agreed that up to the end of the BoB the hurricane gets it, with the allied offensive the Fw-190 gets it?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 29, 2006)

No I dont agree. I think the Hurricane was a damn good bomber killer but only because the Spits were handling the 109s. The 109 was just as effective if not better at killing bombers as the Hurricane.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 29, 2006)

No for bomber killer of the BoB, yeah I think the Hurricane gets the nod. Sorry for the second post for this.


----------



## saltlakespitfire (Dec 1, 2006)

I would go with the hurricane anytime , everytime.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 1, 2006)

Okay then I meet you in the sky with my Fw-190D-9 in 1945 and completely out fly you and outshoot you! Dont say no, because you said anytime and everytime.

The Hurricane was outclassed for the most part by 1943.


----------



## Erich (Dec 1, 2006)

Fw 190A-8/R2 or R8 the Mk 108 Minengeschoss would prove itself superior, of course I guess since it is almost years end we could come up with a fantasy armament .......... think we have done this previously




whoa, too much Glühwein !!


----------



## saltlakespitfire (Dec 6, 2006)

I'll go with the Hurricane any time in the bob but if you want it in 1943 The P-47M will shoot down a dora anytime (sorry for previous quote"anytime , everytime")


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 6, 2006)

Okay the Bf-109E clearly was superior to the Hurricane during the BoB and are you really sure that a P-47M would take out a Fw-190D that easily?


----------



## Erich (Dec 6, 2006)

hmmmmmmmmm I wonder about the reality: did the Dora ever meet the late war P-47 in combat ?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 6, 2006)

Hmmm you got me on that...


----------



## Erich (Dec 6, 2006)

Chris we know that the Mustang did but the P-47 from the 56th fg or the 9th AF units ?? sorry I just cannot confirm nor do I have any type of Dora losses to indicate combat with P-47's.

lets see now

Doras in 

several factory protection units
JG 2
IV./JG 3 stab and one staffel but they wer on the Ost front
JG 4 stab
I. and II./JG 6
JG 26
JV 44 Würger staffel - probably was in combat in it's intended role once
at least one staffel and Stab of JG 51 on the Ost front
III./JG 54 before transfer into JG 26
Stab of JG 300
II./JG 301, only P-51's that I am aware of ........

E ~


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 6, 2006)

I too dont know of any P-47M dueling with Doras.


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 6, 2006)

Have to agree here, the Dora never encountered the P-47M, and as far as I can confirm, never twisted it with the P-47D either... Spits, Tempests and Mustangs...


----------



## saltlakespitfire (Dec 8, 2006)

Well I mean it was just a conjencture. Like Der crewchief said, Even the Hurricane did not get to meet the Dora either.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 8, 2006)

Yes but the Hurricane would have been outclassed by the Dora any day and I think that it would have been a much closer fight than you think between the P-47M and the Dora.


----------



## Gnomey (Dec 8, 2006)

Yep, the Hurricane wouldn't of stood a chance against the Dora in a dogfight unless the odds were heavily (very) in its favour even then it would find it hard. Would be a much closer fight between the P47M and the Dora as you said Chris, be interesting to see.


----------



## Parmigiano (Dec 8, 2006)

I think we are shifting from 'best bomer destryer' to 'dogfighter'

The Dora (at least the D9, the only who saw service in some number) was not primarily designed to tackle bomber, his armament was too light. 

Also it depends 'which' bomber: for a medium twin engine (HE111, Ju88, Mosquito, B25 etc.) the armament of Dora, Spit, P51 was good enough, for heavies the only candidates for me are the 190A standard (proven), 190A-U2/U8 (proven but maybe too specialized) the 262 (proven), the Mossie and the Typhoon/Tempest (potential). 
This are the only ones who have some reasonable chance to down a heavy with one pass, all the other fighters were too lightly armed 

In my opinion the 4x20 model of the Hurri was too slow and obsolete to be effective in tackling a 4 engine at 25000 ft, same for the Bf110.

Of course night fighters are another chapter.


----------



## Erich (Dec 8, 2006)

Fall of 1943 and into spring of 1944

Fw 190A-5/U12

Fw 190A-7/MK


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 9, 2006)

I have to agree with Erich. The 190 was built for the purpose of bringing those heavy bombers down there were flying over Germany. Her armament was purpose built for that. 

190 all the way when it comes to bomber killer. The other aircraft especially allied ones were built with armament more suited for tackling the 190s and the 109s to protect those bombers.


----------



## twoeagles (Dec 9, 2006)

Erich - exactly how many models and variations of Fw 190 are there?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 9, 2006)

Here is what I got on that. I could be wrong with some of these models though and Erich can clarify any of the mistakes that I have.

Fw-190V-1 through Fw-190V-54 which I will not count as varients.

So I believe there were 25 different varients of the Fw-190.

Fw-190A-0, A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, A-5, A-6, A-7, A-8.

Fw-190B of which only 6 were built.

Fw-190C of which only 9 were built.

Fw-190D-0 which actually was a A-7 converted to the D standard and only 10 were converted.

Fw-190D-9

Fw-190D-12

FW-190F-1, F-2, F-3, F-8, F-9

Fw-190G-0, G-1, G-2, G-3, G-4, G-8

Then ofcourse there were the Umrüst-Bausätze (factory conversion sets) and Rustzaetze (field conversion sets) which came to a total of 70 different sets.

There also were Fw-190Aa-3 which built only for Turkey and similar to the Fw-190A-3 of which 72 were delivered to Turkey. The a after the A stood for auslaendish (foreign).

The French also produced the Fw-190A-8 after the war for the French Airforce and called it the Focke-Wulf NC.900 and built 64 of them.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 9, 2006)

wow never knew the French made some, are there any pictures of them?


----------



## Parmigiano (Dec 9, 2006)

Adler, I thing there was also the 190A-9
Some sources say it was just a few prototype, others report about 800 built (I am going by memory here, but the dimension is that)
Maybe Erich can sort this out...


----------



## Erich (Dec 9, 2006)

A-9 was the last A model to do ops, my cousin flew an A-9 in November of 1944 in 5./JG 301. Portions of JG 300 and 301 flew the craft till wars end, JG 1 had them and so did JG 3, JG 4, JG 6


----------



## exec228 (Dec 10, 2006)

imho an ultimate bomber killers are T-34 and M4A.
soviets did not bombed bomber factories, allies did not done it properly.
only occupation of territory provides "terminal decision of the question".


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 10, 2006)

Thats one of the dumbest things Ive ever read here, with some of the worst grammer to boot...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 10, 2006)

i realise it's not a grammatical mistake but grammar's spelt with an a not an e, but you're right in saying he's a grade A dong..........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 10, 2006)

I still dont understand what he is trying to say with that though...

Lanc I have a few pics of the French Built NC.900 but for somereason when I try and upload them it tells me that it is an invalid file. I will try and post them but I am sure someone else has some and will post them first.


----------



## Erich (Dec 10, 2006)

I do wonder if exec's primarily language is English ? correct, his post does not makes sense as he is talking of Tanks not a/c


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 10, 2006)

haha, maybe there's an anti-french filter to protect us


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 10, 2006)

Got me on this one. Tanks intercepting bombers....


----------



## mkloby (Dec 10, 2006)

lesofprimus said:


> Thats one of the dumbest things Ive ever read here, with some of the worst grammer to boot...



LMFAO!!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 11, 2006)

all he's saying is that you need tanks (i.e. a larnd force) to truely occupy a country, which has little to do with this


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 11, 2006)

Like I said Shermans destroying bombers....Make Perfectly good sense to me....not really...


----------



## Erich (Dec 11, 2006)

depends on the angle of deflection and altitude. make sure those Shermans are at a 45 degree embankment please


----------



## saltlakespitfire (Dec 14, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Yes but the Hurricane would have been outclassed by the Dora any day and I think that it would have been a much closer fight than you think between the P-47M and the Dora.



I got to try out that one in a simulator.(P-47M vs Dora) . But you got to admit, that the hurricane did the job that it was intended to do during the BoB. The spits would stay high up, engage the fighters, while the hurricanes would maul the bombers. On occasion the roles would get reversed and then the hurricane would probably have a hard time though it could probably hold it's own.


----------



## mkloby (Dec 14, 2006)

saltlakespitfire said:


> I got to try out that one in a simulator.(P-47M vs Dora) . But you got to admit, that the hurricane did the job that it was intended to do during the BoB. The spits would stay high up, engage the fighters, while the hurricanes would maul the bombers. On occasion the roles would get reversed and then the hurricane would probably have a hard time though it could probably hold it's own.



Well - makes tactical sense. Spits were higher performance machines, better suited to tackling fighters. 'canes were more stable gun platforms, nice for taking out bombers.


----------



## Seawitch (Dec 17, 2006)

Hi All
I think this is a debatable question. The ME262 in it's rare pure interceptor role, four Rhinemetal 30mm cannon, and some later ones with rocket pods would take an awful lot of beating.
But was it really the best in a wider look at the topic?
It needed a very good pilot. It soaked up resources I feel could have been better applied on something else?
I gather the FockeWulf 190 had a specialist varient notorious enough to become known as the _Formation Buster?_


----------



## exec228 (Dec 19, 2006)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> all he's saying is that you need tanks (i.e. a larnd force) to truely occupy a country,<...>


you got it right.



the lancaster kicks ass said:


> which has little to do with this


not less than dummies twaddling and blabbering without any criteria.


----------



## Erich (Dec 19, 2006)

Formation buster ? should read Stormfighter, aka Sturmjäger


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 19, 2006)

exec228 said:


> you got it right.
> 
> 
> not less than dummies twaddling and blabbering without any criteria.



i realise you may have a lot to bring to the forum but with an attitude like that from the new guy you wont get far.........


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 20, 2006)

Typical dumbass....


----------



## exec228 (Dec 20, 2006)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> i realise you may have a lot to bring to the forum but with an attitude like that from the new guy you wont get far.........


with such buttheads here it's hard to be positive.
what i see here is absence of humour together with foolish rage and noob abmitions of "comparing ass vs dick"/russian proverb/

i'd better stay in more specialised forums, such as "Other Mechanical Systems Tech." and so on where all words said are backed up with amount of expertise.


----------



## twoeagles (Dec 20, 2006)

exec228 said:


> where all words said are backed up with amount of expertise.




I agree! Will all the experts please raise their hands?


----------



## Chingachgook (Dec 20, 2006)

Hehe, I've got the perfect image for this thread...

Panzers shooting down Hurricanes with their main gunz!!!  

damn I'm good!


----------



## Chingachgook (Dec 20, 2006)

"...In the distance the Hurricane tank-busters were attacking Panzers from only 50 feet off the deck with their 40 mm cannons. In defence the Panzer IVs were using their 88 mm guns as Flak cannons and had taken down three Hurricanes. Yet another Squadron of Kittyhawks began their dive onto targets in the area. 260 Squadron used up the last of their bullets and left the battle raging behind them. "


----------



## Erich (Dec 20, 2006)

back on topic everyone ....... please 8)


----------



## Gnomey (Dec 20, 2006)

Panzer IV's never had 88mm guns - only 75mm...

Back on topic the FW190A were the best as has been said many times and doesn't need to be proven any further than before. It would be the Me-262 but it arrived to late.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 20, 2006)

exec228 said:


> with such buttheads here it's hard to be positive.
> what i see here is absence of humour together with foolish rage and noob abmitions of "comparing ass vs dick"/russian proverb/



Excuse me. Who the **** are you calling buttheads. We are just having convo in this thread and we dont like buttheads like yourself complaining about it. You dont like it go to another forum.

I can tell you this because I am a moderator. Dont like it... Tuff!!!



exec228 said:


> i'd better stay in more specialised forums, such as "Other Mechanical Systems Tech." and so on where all words said are backed up with amount of expertise.



Or go to another forum all together...No one here cares....


----------



## Chingachgook (Dec 20, 2006)

Gnomey, it was a blasted cut and paste (88mm)... Blame the canuk who wrote it


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 20, 2006)

Gave exec a 5 point infraction for his little temper tantrum/butt head reference..


----------



## Erich (Dec 20, 2006)

childish acts deserve a spanking ..........

Fw 190A-5/U12, six 2cm weapons . . . ...... . . . ouch !


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 20, 2006)

that's a whole lot more than a spanking! so at the moment it seems were're just debating which -190 varient was the best bomber killer, let's face it there're plenty to choose from...............


----------



## Erich (Dec 20, 2006)

not really Lanc, either the SturmFw A-7/MK or A-8/R2, R8 and the above mention


----------



## exec228 (Dec 20, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Excuse me. Who the **** are you calling buttheads. We are just having convo in this thread and we dont like buttheads like yourself complaining about it. You dont like it go to another forum.
> 
> I can tell you this because I am a moderator. Dont like it... Tuff!!!
> 
> ...


who the **** is lesofprimus to call me a dumb?
i just having a conversation here too, dropping in a joke, when he rushed with his rage on me?
can someone point me a board-rule about insulting members? afair it's forbidden despite of local rank.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 20, 2006)

dude, give up now ok, you're the new guy here, it's your job to fit in with us not the other way around, you have not made jokes only insulting remarks since you've gotten here, and what's infinately worse is that the guy you're insulting is the site heavyweight, a few more posts and you will be nothing more than annother meatball dispatched to add to his growing collection, and there are no written board rules, the mods ARE the board rules, you've recieved warnings, if you're not a complete dong you'll give up now...........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 20, 2006)

He is hiding on invisible now...

Oh well another one bites the dust. He will either get with the program or move on, either way I dont care.

You see exec you can post here with no problems, just dont come off as the tough buy, dont come in here and insult people with whatever agenda you have. Its up to you. Others here started off like this as well and now they are contributing members to this forum. Its your choice. Put up or shut up.


----------



## Gnomey (Dec 20, 2006)

You were wondering where the data is, it is here just look for it...

If you insult here you will get the same **** back and worse, just get over it, don't like it then you can **** off and make sure the door hits you on the way out...


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 20, 2006)

exec said:


> who the **** is lesofprimus to call me a dumb?


Im a Moderator here, and the so called "Heavyweight", and by the American flag and ur obvious lack of the English language, I suspect that u are either slightly retarded or in desperate need of medical treatment....

Either way, we've seen ur meatball behavior before.... Take it somewhere else or conform....


----------



## pbfoot (Dec 20, 2006)

yeah the English is like Borat


----------



## mkloby (Dec 21, 2006)

pbfoot said:


> yeah the English is like Borat



I have sexy time with mother-in-law!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 21, 2006)




----------



## Erich (Dec 21, 2006)

ah I've heard about strange things and people on the SE Texas shore-line

yuk, I'm not going to ask if she has big cannons as a bomber destroyer ....


----------



## mkloby (Dec 21, 2006)

Erich said:


> ah I've heard about strange things and people on the SE Texas shore-line
> 
> yuk, I'm not going to ask if she has big cannons as a bomber destroyer ....



It was a reference to a line from the movie Borat! MY mother in law wishes death upon at least 24 times a day! I'm not close to being from Texas


----------



## Erich (Dec 21, 2006)

no but your location says otherwise ........ C.C. humidity city in the summer months according to a good friend that lives there.

in-laws, bah Humbug !


----------



## mkloby (Dec 21, 2006)

Erich said:


> no but your location says otherwise ........ C.C. humidity city in the summer months according to a good friend that lives there.
> 
> in-laws, bah Humbug !



Just a quick duty station! 8)


----------



## Erich (Dec 21, 2006)

Roger that !


----------



## str8jax (Jan 25, 2007)

Erich said:


> no but your location says otherwise ........ C.C. humidity city in the summer months according to a good friend that lives there.
> 
> in-laws, bah Humbug !


High humidity is an understatement, Its a steam bath here in the summer.  And im going with the 190 in any of the 20mm 30mm varients. the 262 was just to fast to accuratly target a slow moving bomber without making multiple passes and leaving itself open to .50 cal fire. Just my opinion.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 26, 2007)

speed is vital in attacking bombers, unlike sims where we all slow down to get a good shot whilst sitting out of range because we've turned the accurately modeled gunney off in real life speed was everything because it's speed that makes you bloody hard to hit, and with 4x 30mm cannon you only need to get off one or two birsts and even a B-17 will struggle to stay in the air............


----------



## riseofnations (Feb 2, 2007)

you really cant go past the me-262 for its firepower and speed. As long as the pilots could get a good shot in. I was reading about the me-163 Komet and they also had an amazing speed but there guns had a slow speed or rate? anyway this meant that it was more luck or miracle if they hit their target because of the time that they had available to shoot. However there might have been some development of putting on guns that fire upwards and when the me-163 passed under the bomber some sensor would be triggered off (from the light) and the bomber would get blasted.


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 2, 2007)

The sensors did not work well at all, and most projests of the type we abandoned.... U seem enamoured by the 262 in the last couple threads and I think u need to spend some more time educating urself about the facts.... 

Read this entire thread and get an idea of the other platforms that were used to attack bomber pulks...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 3, 2007)

In particular he means the Fw-190A series, the only contender to the -262 in this role............


----------



## Erich (Feb 3, 2007)

Me 163 rocket dud had the same arms as the 262. both the 3cm minimal range but deadly cannons. the Me 163's if confirmed shot down only 12 bombers. Talk about to close for comfort on the closing range to get some hits, well you can see why through videos and veteran accounts whomever is left to tell about them in books. Granted a unique craft but far too deadly to it's pilot than to the US AF in the skies


----------



## Civettone (Feb 7, 2007)

Erich, even if the Me 163 shot down 9 bombers for the loss of 14 of its own, then that's still better than what could be achieved by Kolbenjäger in the same period.


I have often read that the Komet pilots had a hard time shooting down bombers due to the high speed of their approach. Some thoughts:
After WW2 all jet fighters had a speed similar to that of the Komet and were armed with guns/cannons. I never read about MiG-15 pilots complaining about difficulties of shooting down B-29s in Korea. Talking about Korea, pilots who had just converted to jet aircraft complained that their faster aircraft were unsuited for ground attacks because it all went too fast. After a while they got the hang of it. Ever since air forces have used a fixed wing jet as their main attack aircraft. 
The closing speed of the Komet to a B-17 would be something like 500 kmh. This would mean an attack time of 3 seconds. Two MK 108s renown for their high rate of fire would thus throw out 30 shells each (=half of the total ammo in one pass). If just 1/20 of these hit the target the bomber would have been destroyed. The Komet was also a stable gun platform and flew more smoothly than piston engined aircraft. 
Finally, let's compare with the earlier head-on passes: these were very difficult though still succesful. Their approach speed was 1100 km/h which means less than half the attack time.


And on the range of the Me 163, consider that it would be possible for the Komet to engage a target at a distance of 50 km only to glide down and touch down at another pre-designated airfield. They didn't need to get back to base. Their excellent gliding abilities would have meant that they could have reached several suitable airfields in a distance of several kilometers. 

Kris


----------



## Erich (Feb 7, 2007)

Kris for the amount of time and energy spent on this little devil they should of put more research and development in perfecting the engines and fuel system in the Me 262A.

the little Komet was too much of a horror story to the pilots and ground crews associated with it and for it's all over war effort it was worthless compared to what was in the Luftwaffe arsenal. have to hand it to the techs though the little bugger was an ingenious piece of equip, but was totally wreckless


----------



## riseofnations (Feb 8, 2007)

I dont pretend that the Me-262 was perfect but speed is a vital asset to have to take on bomber formations with their fighter escorts. Put it this way how many Me-262s were lost to the gunners from a B-17? They couldnt keep up with it. On the video game secret weapons of normandy there is an interview with a U.S. gunner and he said he tried to aim and keep up with it but couldnt. It wouldnt be a good bomber killing aircraft if it was easy to shoot down.


----------



## Civettone (Feb 8, 2007)

Erich said:


> Kris for the amount of time and energy spent on this little devil they should of put more research and development in perfecting the engines and fuel system in the Me 262A.


Wasn't the development done by the Lippisch team with little help from Messerschmitt who was against the project. He even designed competing designs to the turbojet variant of the Me 163, the Lippisch P 20.



> the little Komet was too much of a horror story to the pilots and ground crews associated with it and for it's all over war effort it was worthless compared to what was in the Luftwaffe arsenal. have to hand it to the techs though the little bugger was an ingenious piece of equip, but was totally wreckless


What horror story are you referring to?

And off-topic Erich, what has happened to the Luftwaffe-Experten forum???

Kris


----------



## Erich (Feb 8, 2007)

I am not clear on the origins of the Me 163, but had been in contact with Rudi Opitz some years back ........ on operations, he mentioned their constant move because of the quickness of the Soviet advances. He felt the speed of the little bugger was too much for attacking the bombers as the rocket would over-fly on many ops.

the horroI am talking about is the way the fuels did not mix even under the strictest guidelines, one goof up mis-placement and boom or burn or melt or ........ you get the picture. How uneasy the ground crews must have been after watching 1-2 Rocket fighters blow up in front of them while on the ground,e verything torched or melted into a nasty heap.

as to LEMB, Peter is working on it, major server probs. But he is not alone as rafcommands has gone through a major hack job and Ross is recovering original posts but lost the answers or other posts with those very thread starts. armyairforces got popped for a day as well but back online, all during superbowl weekend .......... odd eh ?


----------



## Civettone (Feb 8, 2007)

Now that's strange!! 
You talked to Rudi Opitz personally and you still hold on to those urban legend stories of people incinerating and blowing up??

Komet Me163 - Chief test pilot Rudy Opitz tells it like it was - Flight Journal.com Page 5

_Popular Wisdom vs. a Test Pilot’s Experiences

1. Rocket engines would explode without warning.

RO: engines were reliable and relatively safe and were adjusted so as to shut down in the event of an imbalance in fuel flow. If there was a problem in engine performance, it related to shutdowns, not explosions. The only instances of engines blowing were in early testing of prototypes or when they had been damaged in battle or by accident.

2. Leaking fuel could turn pilots to jelly, particularly if the plane flipped over.

RO: pilots, me included, survived overturned Komets, and an overturned ship would not necessarily leak fuel into the cockpit. When fuel contacted organic material, including skin, it ignited after only a few seconds. Our protective nylon suits would not ignite but were porous, and fuel could sop through to the skin.

3. Forward-mounted flaps were necessary to counter a negative pitching moment from the trailing-edge flaps.

RO: the TE flaps were trim flaps only, and the deployment of the forward-mounted underwing flaps did not cause a pitch change.

4. The Komet’s dive to speeds resulting in compressibility were often fatal.

RO: no fatalities resulted from this, to my knowledge. The Komets in such dives recovered after reaching a lower altitude that neutralized the compressibility problems.

5. As many as 15 percent of Komets broke up while pulling out of high-speed dives where compressibility had became a factor.

RO: no such fatalities to my knowledge.

6. Stall characteristics were abrupt and severe and taxed the skills of even experienced fighter pilots.

RO: the plane was equipped with leading-edge slots that eliminated stalls and caused it to mush forward in a mode that was immediately recoverable. The plane would not spin and was intentionally designed to be docile for low-time pilots.

7. Only experienced pilots could adequately handle the airplane at slow speeds.

RO: the plane was docile and friendly at slow speeds, and it had to be for low-time pilots to successfully land it dead-stick._

Good that Peter Evans has things under control. I was fearing something similar like that of a couple of years ago had happened. That would probably have meant the definite end of LEMB.
Kris


----------



## Morai_Milo (Feb 9, 2007)

Rudy Opitz on the Me163, Komet Me163 - Chief test pilot Rudy Opitz tells it like it was - Flight Journal.com Page 1

The Me163's engine, The Walter Rocket Motor Site


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 9, 2007)

Be interesting to see Erichs reply to Civ...


----------



## Erich (Feb 10, 2007)

it doesn't matter Les, Rudi never flew combat operations and that is what I am after. Wolfgang Späte talked of the horrors in his test commando before the JG 400 debache and then off to safer grounds in JG 7. Sorry the Me 163 K was not a safe bird to handle in my opinion. Flight Journal is also down in my book as well


----------



## Civettone (Feb 10, 2007)

Opitz did fly operational missions. Not only did he fly the second operational mission ever (with the Me 163V-33 shortly after Späte flew the red V-41), he took command of the I. Gruppe and after that the II. Gruppe until badly wounded in a crash in April 1945.

So if anyone would know of Komets blowing up or incinerating its pilots, he would know about it.

(Information comes from Ethell, Messerschmitt 163 Komet - Entwicklung und Einsatz des ersten Raketenjägers.)

Kris


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 10, 2007)

Hmmmm....


----------



## joebong (Feb 12, 2007)

Wow, forgive me if I repeat some things already said, this is an enormous thread and I didn't cover everything. At first I felt the190 wasn't at home at high altitudes, my ref says no 37,000' is pretty high. So I would put my hat in the Fw190A8 R2 camp. One thing worth mentioning is a film strip of a B17 getting ripped up, from about 80m the Ger, hits the tail, the ball turret, the outer port eng and finally the inner port engine, breaking off at about 10-15m. The point is, to bring down a heavy, you got to do a lot of damage.
Food for thought, had the Do335 V2 heavy day fighter, been deployed we might be talking about its virtues.


----------



## Erich (Feb 12, 2007)

Joe I have that movie clip, yes a SturmFw attack it was from an Fw 190A-8/R2. pretty ugly but a great defensive weapon it was compared to that little fart called a komet .......






H. Bake sitting on his Schwarze 3, A-8/R8, courtesy: the Bake archiv


----------



## Civettone (Feb 12, 2007)

Well Erich, you still have to prove it's the little fart you claim it to be 

As to answer the original question of this topic, to me it's clear that the Germans didn't have a really good bomber killing aircraft, else they wouldn't have been in the **** they had been in. To me it should have two main virtues, and that's speed and firepower. The speed should be at least equal to that of the P-51 and the firepower at least 4 20mm guns or 2 30mm guns or something with equal destructive power. The Germans didn't have anything for that speed requirement until the arrival of the Me 262 and Me 163 when it was already too late. But then, the Me 262 does meet the requirements. Also, the later Do 335 but who would want to waste two DB 603 engines when a Ta 152 could achieve the same with one? 

To me there were three alternatives presented to the Germans in late 1943 but they failed to follow up on these ideas: the cheap Bf 109Z, the Italian G.55/56 and finally a simple single-engined fighter (The Fw P III and IV, the Me P 1095, the Lippisch P 20, ...). 

But all in all, I would go for the Bf 109G-6/R6. It may not meet the requirements I set forward, but it was the best from a cost benifit analysis. In fact, the Bf 109 could do pretty much everything* the Fw 190 could but at a lower cost. 
(* except carrying a heavy bomb load)

Kris


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 12, 2007)

The Germans did not have anything that matched the speed of the P-51D until the Me-262?

You sure about that?


----------



## Erich (Feb 12, 2007)

actually Kris I don't have to prove anything history has proven it already, I'll get around and print out Rudi's response to me back in 99 for all to read, as some of the language descriptions for 1945 were pretty dramatic ... ..

to your statements about a German bomber killer I will heartily agree they had nothing as they did not expect such a severe pounding over their homeland, with the experiments of dropping bombs, different rocket projections, heavier cannon, sleeker designs in the 262; the Reich was doomed and they all new it by mid-1944. My Familie knew it all to well, my cousin in JG 301 knew it was suicide when he gave his life up on 26 November 44, but yet they felt as we would-to do everything to protect your homes from the enemy. Something needed to be invented aerially to counter the P-51 threat,- there was nothing. without that, overall destruction of the US heavies was practically nullified.

E ~


----------



## Civettone (Feb 12, 2007)

I'm with you on that the Germans didn't see what was coming their way. 

On the other hand, it's even worse than that. What was coming their way was simply ignored. It all started with Hitler's opinion that the Americans couldn't produce a quality aircraft because he had regularly seen American cars break down... 
Did you ever read that story of the fight between Galland and Göring back in 1943. Galland had reported to Hitler that there were American escort fighters shot down near Aachen, so over German territory. Göring went into a rage and said it was nonsense. Galland remained cool, with his cap in the usual skew position, a cigar between his teeth "well, it's the truth, if you don't believe me, come with me, I'll show them to you." And than Göring again "it's impossible, I'm a fighter pilot too, I know that it's not true. Admit that you were wrong!". "No Herr Reichsmarshall, they're there. And soon they'll be flying ever further" Then Göring again: "Perhaps they were shot down over occupied territory and simply glided down to German territory??" Galland with a mocking smile: "Glided down, sir?". Finally Göring "I hereby give you an order that those fighters were not shot down near Aachen! Do you hear that? I order you that those American fighters weren't there!!" Galland "Wel, orders are orders..."     I would have loved to be a witness of that!!


PS looking forward to Rudi's response. I prefer to call the little fart a little flee, I'm sure you know why  
Kris


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 12, 2007)

Good story about Galland up there. I really think it would have been neat to meet him. He was a typical fighter pilot in my opinion. Cocky except he could back it up.


----------



## Wespe (Feb 14, 2007)

Hi guy's as you can see I am new on this forum

Quote Civettoneto: to me it's clear that the Germans didn't have a really good bomber killing aircraft. 
Now I would say "that is totally not clear". The Germans had fantastic bomber killing aircrafts. To kill a bomber you need machines able to carry "weapons of bomber mass destruction"
e.g. MK-108, MK-101, 3,7-cm-Flak 18, R4M's, BK-50mm, WGr. 21, etc. and an abundance of ammo. So I would say, let's look at just the 2 engine Lw planes, Me-110,Me-410,He-219 and off course the Me-262.[/LEFT]

It is just, that the Lw didn't have enough, and besides the Me-262 none of these bomber killers had a chance to fight the day escort fighters.
But they were still terrifying bomber killers.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 14, 2007)

Fw-190 was a very fine bomber killer.


----------



## Erich (Feb 14, 2007)

point of the matter was not enough of the machines, as I stated you had to take care of what was above you so you could close in and fire effectively without .50's coming down on your head. The US AF was overwhelming in their defense and coverage of the big friends, obviously they could not be everywhere over miles and miles of compacted bombers so the Luftwaffe was able to score heavily on occasion ... .


----------



## Wespe (Feb 14, 2007)

Correct, 

But it wasn't able to cruise (range) and attack (ammo) for hours, which a two engined plane could do, especially at night.(excluding the 262)

That is why I refered only to twin engined bomber killers


----------



## Erich (Feb 14, 2007)

well actually my German friend the Nachtjäger were not up for hours in any twin engine a/c, this by the times of their kills. Maybe up to an hour or less searching. Much fuel was expended to get into a Pulk of Hali's or Lancs and many especially inexperienced crews never found the bombers. But when they did we know the devastating results. Even my cousin Hans Baer in the heavy Do 217 was able to shoot down 2-3 Lancs when he got in amongst them while in 4./NJG 3. to me the Do 217 was a big ugly slow thing but it did the job at the time . . . ........
there was talk of extending the Ju 88G-6 to the G-10 limits with loads of fuel so it could range wide and far over England on Fernenachtjagd and then get back home in 45. several are suppose to have been given to NJG 3 for testing, but am not sure if this was ever completed.


----------



## Wespe (Feb 14, 2007)

Hi Erich,

If I recall correctly, it was H. Schnaufer who mentioned the disadvantage of not being able to cruise for hours, due to the fact that many crews, especially the new ones took to much time to find the bombers. Therefore a twin engine a/c would still have been better then a single engine a/c. which is reflected if you look at the planes that took part in the NJG's.


----------



## Erich (Feb 14, 2007)

yes I know these things.....look back in some of the archiv threads and you will see why: Mossie versus Ju 88, and the he 21 thread(s). As I said a cousin flew the Do 217 and later the Bf 110G-4 in II./NJG 5 as Gruppenkommanduer, an ace with 12 kills before his un-timely accidental death


----------



## Civettone (Feb 14, 2007)

> Good story about Galland up there. I really think it would have been neat to meet him. He was a typical fighter pilot in my opinion. Cocky except he could back it up.


I couldn't agree more, Adler, that's also how I see him. 
I also notice that he played an important role in post-war Luftwaffe research as he was always willing to talk about the war and answer questions from people like us. 
8) Respect! 




Wespe said:


> Hi guy's as you can see I am new on this forum
> 
> Quote Civettoneto: to me it's clear that the Germans didn't have a really good bomber killing aircraft.
> Now I would say "that is totally not clear". The Germans had fantastic bomber killing aircrafts. To kill a bomber you need machines able to carry "weapons of bomber mass destruction"
> e.g. MK-108, MK-101, 3,7-cm-Flak 18, R4M's, BK-50mm, WGr. 21, etc. and an abundance of ammo. So I would say, let's look at just the 2 engine Lw planes, Me-110,Me-410,He-219 and off course the Me-262.[/LEFT]


Wespe welcome. I'm curious, what's the story behind your signature?


As to your reply to my comment that the LW didn't have good bomber killing aircraft, I still stand by it because that claim is based on two observations: they weren't fast enough or they didn't have the right armament. The first one is clear: only jet fighters and the Ta 152 had the required speed to outrun the P-51 (and perhaps the Bf 109K though that still remains to be seen). Except for the Komet, these aircraft appeared in late 1944 when it was already too late. 
As to your armament examples, the MK-101 fired too slow, perhaps you meant the MK 103, the 3,7-cm-Flak 18 used Hartkern ammunition which was hardly available, R4M's appeared in 1945, the BK-50mm could only fire once per pass, and the WGr. 21 wasn't accurate enough to actually shoot down bombers.

Kris


----------



## Udet (Feb 14, 2007)

"only jet fighters and the Ta 152 had the required speed to outrun the P-51 (and perhaps the Bf 109K though that still remains to be seen)."

Do not forget the G-5,-6,-14/AS and the G-10, all versions could outrun the Mustang.


----------



## Civettone (Feb 15, 2007)

Udet said:


> "only jet fighters and the Ta 152 had the required speed to outrun the P-51 (and perhaps the Bf 109K though that still remains to be seen)."
> 
> Do not forget the G-5,-6,-14/AS and the G-10, all versions could outrun the Mustang.


Please explain. At what altitude were those faster than the Mustang? 

Kris


----------



## Wespe (Feb 15, 2007)

Civettone said:


> I couldn't agree more, Adler, that's also how I see him.
> I also notice that he played an important role in post-war Luftwaffe research as he was always willing to talk about the war and answer questions from people like us.
> 8) Respect!
> 
> ...



Hi Kris,

Well I lost quite heavily on a bet, believing that there was no such thing as a Chinese, officially wearing a Wehrmacht uniform.
In the ongoing research I found out that this fellow was, Chiang Wei Guo, one of Chiang Kai Shek’s sons who studied at the Wehrmacht Officer school in Munich prior to the outbreak of WW2. 

So; sometimes you just got to see something in order to believe it.

Regarding your denial of the Lw having bomber killers; well they had – but not enough, not enough, not enough, and according to my uncle, he didn’t have a problem to outrun a Mustang or whatever with his Fw-190D-12. But he always kept saying; we didn’t have enough, enough, enough.

All the best
Wespe


----------



## Erich (Feb 15, 2007)

Wespe your uncle was ? with JG 26 correct ?

Kris the G-10 was the fastest of the Bf 109 breed according to NJG 11 vets who in March 45 took on RAF as well as day missions against US P-51's and of course idiotic ground attack when they added underwing 2cm gun pods to the G-10..........really stupid


----------



## Wespe (Feb 15, 2007)

Erich said:


> Wespe your uncle was ? with JG 26 correct ?
> 
> Kris the G-10 was the fastest of the Bf 109 breed according to NJG 11 vets who in March 45 took on RAF as well as day missions against US P-51's and of course idiotic ground attack when they added underwing 2cm gun pods to the G-10..........really stupid




Hi Erich,

JG 26, no sorry – he is from Augsburg, started of in I ZG1, then was with Erp.210 (My Wespe Avatar) is in memory to him – continued as a liaison pilot Paris-Barcelona whilst being stationed in France and ended the war in Bad Woerishofen, from where he frequently had to fly missions around Muechen-Riem and Lagerlechfeld. 

Wespe


----------



## Erich (Feb 15, 2007)

what was his late war unit flying the D-12 ? not Würger staffel of JV 44 as they defended München-Riem ?


----------



## Wespe (Feb 15, 2007)

Erich said:


> what was his late war unit flying the D-12 ? not Würger staffel of JV 44 as they defended München-Riem ?



Hi Erich,

my uncle Edwin Eberhardinger somtimes mentioned a Krupinski and a Oberst Morgenstern who was later Kommodore in Lagerlechfeld were my uncle also served with the new Luftwaffe.
Since he was a gifted photographer, (did some books - Flug ueber Schwaben/Franken) he had an abundance of photos showing him and comrades in front of D-11/12 and Ta-152's. As far as I can recall, my uncles unit was disolved in March 45 and he was transfered to the Verbandsfuehrerschule in Woerishofen. He mentioned that he did not want to fly jets but prefered the piston engines, and after a big discussion he managed to get one of these new Fw's, of which he said (did some competitive flying) that it was much better then those "Duesenjaeger" that never worked and that the Americans were cowboys who always tried to shoot down the landing Lw pilots. Sometimes a dozen of them trying to hunt down a single Lw pilot. The war ended with him being at Lagerlechfeld. He never mentioned the names "Wuergerstaffel" or "Papageienstaffel". It was only a few years ago that I came across these terms. 

Wespe


----------



## Erich (Feb 15, 2007)

machs gut Wespe ! 

now do you have copies of any of the D-11/D-12 and Ta 152 and pilot's from your uncle ? this is all quite very interesting .......

Danke

Erich ~


----------



## Wespe (Feb 15, 2007)

Erich said:


> machs gut Wespe !
> 
> now do you have copies of any of the D-11/D-12 and Ta 152 and pilot's from your uncle ? this is all quite very interesting .......
> 
> ...



Hallo Erich,

I will be in Germany around July, and try and get my hands on the album.

Have fun
Wespe


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 15, 2007)

Extremely interesting... Maybe u have some snapshots u'd be willing to scan for us to view Wespe??


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 15, 2007)

I know I would love to see them. Oh well goodnight to you all it is late here.


----------



## renrich (Feb 15, 2007)

I have Charlie Brown's story on my e-mail. If youall haven't seen it, it is outstanding. I am a computer ignoramus and don't know how to forward it to this forum. If someone will give me instuctions, I will attempt to share it with you.


----------



## GregP (Feb 21, 2007)

How could the Me 262 even be in the running? 

There were VERY few built in comparison, and they were built late in the war. They had almost no effect on overall bombing, and were shot down in droves.

Yes, it hit hard when it shot and actually hit something and was the prototype jet fighter, but it just didn't do it very often over the course of the war.

The question was which plane shot down the most bombers, not which had the potential to do so.

I'd say the Hurricane shot down more bombers than anything else on the Allied side since the Spitfires were concentrating on enemy fighters.

On the German side, the Bf 109 shot down more aircraft than any other aircraft in recorded history. My bet is that it shot down more bombers than any other combined three or four other aircraft in the world.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 21, 2007)

I dont know. If the Me-262 was in optimal operating condition she was a marvelous bomber killer. My vote still goes for the venerable Fw-190 however.


----------



## Jabo (Feb 21, 2007)

I would agree on the 262 part, that plane just didn't have enough time to develop.
So it could only be the normal Luftwaffe props that could do the job.
And the Fw was definatly in a position to do so.

Jabo


----------



## Erich (Feb 21, 2007)

Greg your statements are nonsense man. for 1945 JG 7 bore the brunt of anti-bomber operations over what was left of the Reich besides JG 300's Fw 190A-8's and my cousins JG 301. To say they were shot down in droves is another misnomer...........8) 

now where is my Bier


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 21, 2007)

Wespe or Jabo? Wespe or Jabo? Wespe or Jabo?

Hmmm.....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 21, 2007)

Wespe...

WE ARE WATCHING YOU!


----------



## Hunter368 (Feb 21, 2007)

Chris is like a Pitbull.


----------



## Wespe (Feb 21, 2007)

Hi Hunter,

could you change your signature to a Me-262? Just imagine a Me-262 flying the Canadian Mapleleaf.

Georgeous right ? come on be honest with yourself , right ? right ?

Wespe


----------



## Hunter368 (Feb 21, 2007)

Wespe said:


> Hi Hunter,
> 
> could you change your signature to a Me-262? Just imagine a Me-262 flying the Canadian Mapleleaf.
> 
> ...



Wespe/Jabo,

I do like the 262 sure. But the P-51 in my sig is from the 402 Squadron "City of Winnipeg Bears", which is where I live. So I don't see myself changing it anytime soon.

You trying to joke with me in attempt to divert attention from you trying to play games with us all here is not going to work. We get people here trying to BS us all the time, we all can spot them a mile away. So you are not only being watched by the Mods but some us members also. We like people who are honest not BS artists. Take this experence as a warning before you really tick someone off on this forum and get banned. 

If you like WW2 this is the site to be at, don't blow it. Read, post, watch and learn from the people on this forum. Be respectful.


----------



## Udet (Feb 21, 2007)

Mr. GregP is another misinformed person that has to an important extent swallowed the pills prescribed by the allied propaganda.


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 21, 2007)

Wespe is in the crosshairs Hunter... We knew the second he created a new member name.... How fu*king stupid can one meatball be u ask???

Ask Wespe...


----------



## Hunter368 (Feb 22, 2007)

lesofprimus said:


> Wespe is in the crosshairs Hunter... We knew the second he created a new member name.... How fu*king stupid can one meatball be u ask???
> 
> Ask Wespe...




LOL your one liners are always the best.

I might have to steal some of your material to use at work or on other forums. Where can I send the royalty checks to?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 22, 2007)

I have a feeling he may not return now, after all the **** he got in the past few threads because of his stupidity. Oh well we will see. 

It was amusing for the most part...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 22, 2007)

Hey Hunter wipe your nose clean of that brown stuff...


----------



## Hunter368 (Feb 22, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Hey Hunter wipe your nose clean of that brown stuff...



    


Bastard!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 22, 2007)

Thankyou...


----------



## Hunter368 (Feb 22, 2007)

LOL


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 22, 2007)

Hunter said:


> LOL your one liners are always the best.
> 
> I might have to steal some of your material to use at work or on other forums. Where can I send the royalty checks to?


Hunter, my stuff is non-copyrighted, so feel free to abuse ur coworkers and pals with whatever tickles ur cockles....


Adler said:


> Hey Hunter wipe your nose clean of that brown stuff...


Man Chris, lay off my pet, I mean slave, I mean my good ol buddy ol chum Hunter... He's just noticing the brilliance of my masterful tounge lashings... Admiration is always the biggest compliment...


----------



## Hunter368 (Feb 23, 2007)

lesofprimus said:


> Man Chris, lay off my pet, I mean slave, I mean my good ol buddy ol chum Hunter... He's just noticing the brilliance of my masterful tounge lashings... Admiration is always the biggest compliment...



You both are bastards of the finest kind, I mean worst kind!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 23, 2007)




----------



## CharlesBronson (Mar 22, 2007)

Interesting picture of a Hs-129 strafing british tanks.








From: Luftwaffe Slachtgruppen /osprey Elite.


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 23, 2007)

Great pic Bronson, but u do realize this thread is about Bomber Killing, not Ground Attack. dont u???


----------



## CharlesBronson (Mar 23, 2007)

Ughhh....wrong topic , sorry. Anybody can move that ?


----------



## The Jug Rules! (Mar 23, 2007)

Well having you nose in brown stuff isn't exactly on-topic...


----------



## MAV_406 (Mar 24, 2007)

what about the beau fighter and other night fighters. there speciality was bombers, was it not


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 24, 2007)

The Beaufighter was not designed as a bomber killing aircraft...


----------



## CharlesBronson (Mar 24, 2007)

It destroyed some german bombers but mostly in the Night fighter role.


----------



## 102first_hussars (Mar 31, 2007)

as much as i would like to say the Hurricane


I think the FW-190 hands down is the best.......it had way better fire power than the -109


----------



## Heinz (Apr 25, 2007)

FW 190 in the A8 variant was pretty lethal, thats my vote!


----------



## Jabberwocky (Apr 28, 2007)

Is this a qualitative discussion - as in what aircraft was most able to shoot down bombers? - or a quantative discussion - as in, what aircraft shot down the most bombers?

For qualitative, the first thing I'd do is split the categories between Allied and Axis bomber destroyers and day and night bomber destroyers. Probably by timeframe as well.

An Allied bomber destroyer is not going to get as many cracks as his Axis counterparts. Apart from the Battle of Britain and smaller operations over the Eastern Front, the Allies very rarely encountered formation bombing. 

The Axis powers built approximately 42500 twin engine/ four engine bombers. 

The Allies powers built approximately 135,000 twin engine/ four engine bombers, more than three times the amount of their opponent. The difference in airframe tonnage is even greater as is the number of bomber sorties flown.

A twin engine night fighter is probably going to struggle during the daylight, even against unescorted bombers, despite its heavier armament and longer endurance.

Similarly, unless a single engine fighter is modified for night work, with assorted radar and detection gear, it is going to have a realtively more difficult time against night bombers.

Qualitatively, on the Axis side I'd say:

Dayfighter: FW-190A
Nightfighter: Ju-88G

Both combined effective, heavy armament with high performance and excellent reliability.

Honourable mentions go to the Ki-84 as a dayfighter and the Ki-46-III as a night fighter.

On the Allied side I'd say:

Dayfighter: Tempest V
Nightfighter: Mosquito NF Mk XXX

Honourable mentions to P-38 as a dayfighter and P-61 and Beaufighter as nightfighters.


----------



## drgondog (May 31, 2007)

The Me 262 based on;
1. Heaviest firepower
2. Immune to interception (unless it stayed to play)
3. Best Performance at any altitude

but, short range interceptor as the major fault

B-17 and B-29 would be the standard for 'hard to kill' toughness and ceiling. Lancaster great airplane but believe the Rolls made it more vulnerable to coolant hits than those Wasps and 3350's

Next would be the Fw190A8 and/or (Fw190D) plus and Do335 and Ta152 - the latter two not around long enough -ditto Japanese N1K2-J Shiden 21)

The only one of the above that could engage at long range would be the Shiden

None of the Allied Fighters had to kill a B-17 or B-29 so hard to judge but Tempest and P-38 and P-47 would get my vote based on Firepower and Pure speed at altitude...with 47 and 38 at altitudes approaching 40,000 feet. I think the 20mm gives the edge over the 51 for the 38 and two extra 50's the edge for the 47 over the 51..but if the enemy bombers had great escort - I would go Mustang as the better able to go long range and engage both bombers and fighters - and if that mission had come, believe it (51) would have been re-armed with 4 20mm instead of .50's.

Post War Piston engine - the P-82 would get my vote

Night Fighter - either P-61 and Mosquito with edge to Mossy for speed and ceiling and range and maybe He219 except for range

Opinions only - no 'simple' answer

Bill


----------



## Erich (May 31, 2007)

well Bill I would agree with the Me 262 with R4M's as the # 1 day fighter bomber killer except for it's endurance range level which was limited. Even at night it may be the # 1 night fighter but again the range problem, one reason why Kurt Welter insisted that two seaters with radar and long range fuel tanks to be added for increased performance. Problem with this is that his task force 10./NJG 11 was to hunt LSNF Mossies and the extra baggage of radar, fuel tanks and another crew member really limited overall effectiveness.

the Mossie XXX was probably on top for nf's followed by Ju 88G-6 with Berlin 240a1 radar in streamlined nose cone. He 219 was limited in numbers, actually too heavy like the P-61, understandably the last two did have heavy firepower but with that bulk


----------



## drgondog (May 31, 2007)

Erich I actually considered the weight on both the 219 and the 61 but still liked both better than the Ju88G6 - but not for any pure technical reason I can think of - I thought all were behind the Mossie for night. 

My father once commanded the 318th(?have to check) FG before we went to Japan where he picked up the 35FBW. The 318th was a P-61B or C Wing. He claimed the 61 would turn very well with 51's and would have presented an interesting dogfighter with a top turret equipped 61.. for those a/c in a turning fight..but he would rather be in a 51 if it came to a fight.

From my perspective the only reason for a 262 at night was to hunt a Mossie at night - lol.

If I were war god of Kingdom of Whoopass and could set up my ADC TO&E with any force from any nation I would have two layers - 51H's to attack offshore and force escort to drop any external fuel they had, engage same plus the bombers, and 262's to mop up the inbound (for daylight) and have all Mossie force for night intrusions... For escort of MY strategic force, 51H's all the way. I would mod the 51H to carry 2-4 20mm cannons to replace the .50's or at least swap them w/15mm MG.. 

My world may not be the same as yours (or Dan's)


----------



## Erich (May 31, 2007)

ah but we must look at what the TA 152H-2 and 3 might have been........yep too late to see action, but a ceiling of over 50,000 could of been interesting with special cockpit provisions

In our book once published it will be of note that Kurt Welter knew full well the attacks on Mossies were futile attempts and that attacking the heavier RAF bombers was the key and the twin seat 262 even with all the weight measures could still out fly everything else in the Luftwaffe and Allied arsenal. too much time had run out, the nf Kommando was on the run westward to get out of the long reach of the Soviets


----------



## renrich (May 31, 2007)

Interesting thought about the vaunted TA152H. It was supposed to be able to touch 472 mph at 41000 ft. taking an average at that altitude, that is Mach .714. In the P51, a very clean airframe the onset of compressibility was at just under .75. Seems to me that if you are in an airplane at 41000 ft and near your top speed and dive to make an interception you could easily lose control because of compressibility. just wondering.


----------



## drgondog (May 31, 2007)

It has been too long since I was in one and I Never personally dove to Miltary Max (.75 Mach), and my flying experience was solely with the -30. I also recall the biggest issue was not only structural but the turbulence on the airfoil surfaces due to 'rippling effect' on the pull out - I never experienced that either

From the history, the 51G was the very fastest of all the Mustangs with 490+mph TAS at 22,000 feet with a Service celing of 46,000ft... the only Mustang in the Ta152 class and the thought leader behind the 51H as far as weight reduction.

I think (CRS) that the max diving speed at altitude was 270? mph at 40,000 ft (where I also never even thought about) IAS which is about .75 Mach at STP.

Each aircraft had different issues at Mcr for that a/c. As I recall from literature the 262 had a severe 'pitch down' which is a very bad thing when stick forces are already like concrete..

As the topic was Ta 152 I don't have a clue regarding its Mcr issues.

Regards,

Bill


----------



## renrich (Jun 1, 2007)

Some interesting inf. Knew a man who was Air Force in 50s-60s, flew 86s and 102s. Said in ACM between F80 and F9F at high altitude, 40000 ft Panther had a real advantage because it had a higher Mach #, in other words, got into compressibility at a higher TAS than F80. At 40000 ft the gap between stalling speed and compressibility on F80 was so narrow it was like walking a tight rope. Slow down a tiny bit, stall and spin. Speed up a bit and into compressibility and out of control.


----------



## Erich (Jun 1, 2007)

side note : the Ta 152H's intended role was to intercept the P-51D and K not engage bombers


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 1, 2007)

I was about to say that Erich lol...


----------



## drgondog (Jun 1, 2007)

Eric and Dan - of course you are right but if the Ta152 wants to find the 51s the first place to look is at 24K to 30K - not way up - because the 51s are with the bombers.

And to belabor the point, the 51H was in production in March 1945 and could have been expedited if the D9 and Ta152 had been hurting us severely. Mike Williams repository of USAAF tests on the 51H didn't show the speed that the factory had (487TAS stripped) but still 450+ at 25000 feet with full ammo/Guns and 180 gal internal fuel (bleed fus tank before flight). 

Remember the H was 900 pounds lighter than the 51D while the P-47N and M went the other way from the 47D to get the fuel

so, the 152 might have represented a much faster bird at 36+ it wasn't such a big advantage at 25K over the 51H which was also more nimble than the 51D in every way.

BTW Eric I have never seen valid LW flight test data on either the Ta 152 series or the 190D-12/13 with functioning 3 stage blower on the Jumo 213 - so I have never been able to understand what the birds could do with full combat load in the 25K range. Can you point me in right direction.

Now, I'm gonna have my feelings hurt if you pile on..


----------



## Erich (Jun 1, 2007)

Bill:

III./JG 301 had 35 TA 152H-0's at their disposal starting at mid-January 1945 along with their Fw 190A-8's.

the questions/answers you seek are suppose to be given in Monograms book on the Ta 152 that was supposed to have been published last summer. Still not published which is quite discouraging.

As the Ta 152H flew combat ops at medium altitude we are never going to know fully what the bird was able to do at over 28,000 feet


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 2, 2007)

And to get back on topic, I still feel that the armor plated Fw 190A-8/R8 was the best bomber killer, even over the vaunted 262 and the R4Ms...


----------



## drgondog (Jun 2, 2007)

Dan - I would offer no rebuttal on the Strumbock as the most effective for maybe a 3-5 month period... and from July through December 1944 it inflicted the most damage in short bursts of time than any other 'bomber killer'

Having said that, it was so vulnerable to the 51s and 47s and 38s that it needed serious escort to survive when the fighters were there.

So maybe the question is, Most Dangerous if escorted effectively or Most Dangerous with no escort required (at least until it was landing)

The 262 was not as effective ship by ship initially because the the initial (JV44 with serious expertise for example) pilots struggled over tactics and speed. A tail end shot had the same closing speed as a company front A8 attack... but once they got it right it was high diddle diddle right up the middle and all we could do is chase and hope to catch up when they landed.

The Leipzig battles on 7 July 44, and Kassel on 27 Sep 44 and Hannover area 26 Nov 44 are all examples where one or two B-24 wings were brutalized by the A8s, but in each case the Fw190A8s were in turn decimated at a time when the LW couldn't 'trade' pilot losses. 

Eric blessed the forum some time ago with the experiences of JG301 on the 26th when they clobbered the 491st and 445th BG and in turn were near annhilated by 51s of 355 and 339FG's

These birds would have been awesome in 1943 when the escorts had to turn back well before targets, and certainly more agile than a heavily armed 110 or 410, but it was dogmeat for the escort fighters. 

As always I can often be wrong but rarely uncertain so take the opinion for what it is worth and leave the rest..

Bill


----------



## drgondog (Jun 2, 2007)

Erich said:


> Bill:
> 
> III./JG 301 had 35 TA 152H-0's at their disposal starting at mid-January 1945 along with their Fw 190A-8's.
> 
> ...



Eric - I can't help myself - was mid January like the 13th before the bloodbath JG301 was in the next day, or the 15th to replace all the A8s that went down to the 357th? Did the 152H engage on the 14th?


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 2, 2007)

I had almost typed in on my original post about the lack of escort fighter interference, or the Sturms high cover staffel intercepting, but left it out....

U are quite correct Bill... The heavily loaded down R8's were no match for the 51D escorts, on any level, as had been proven many times... It still didnt stop those guys from going up every day or so and layin it on the line....

As far as the 14th goes for JG 301, the loss records indicate A-8's, A-9's and Doras going down.... The tranistion was about to happen... 

On the 27th of Jan, III./JG301 was withdrawn from Ops and re-equipped..... Will Reschke was driven on the 27th to Neuhausen factory near Cottbus and made his first flight in the Tank at 11:08 am and landed back at Alteno at 11:28...

From what I have available, there were never more than 16 H-0's and H-1's from the period of transition....


----------



## drgondog (Jun 2, 2007)

Dan - my kindly, soft spoken, cocky old man had a chance to fly several LW ships post war when the 355th was at Gablingen. 

One of them was a D9 which he got some 15-20 hours doing some ad hoc field trials against the 51D-30. He liked the D9 (liked the 51 better - what a suprise - stock answer), thought the 109 was 'dangerous to the unitiated', but remarked that he had heard of both the the Ta 152 and the Do335 but never had a chance to fly either one.

He enjoyed the Fw190 most of all as a 'pilot's' airplane. He didn't remember which version except that it was armed with only two 20mm cannon in wing and thought 15mm under cowl - so it wasn't an A8.. actually it could have been an F and he may not have known the difference.

The difficulty in these types of threads (back to topic) is that even while this forum has categorized well specific MISSIONs that the fighter/bomber/pick one, is discussed, grappling with the BEST is still subjective - so I guess that is why this is called a Forum..

As much as I think and believe that the 51 was the most IMPORTANT fighter that opinion is equally based on what I thought was the most important MISSION for airpower in WWII - namely the destruction of the LW and German industry

If you twisted the objectives to be met by the BEST or MOST IMPORTANT to include for discussion *only *those fighters which performed well at every role then you immediately narrow down to Carrier based fighters that also acted in Interceptor, Long Range Escort, Fighter Bomber, Recon, Night Interceptor roles - real short list here.. you end up with a fighter which starts with F and ends with a U or F

It is only after many years of bliss in my opinion that the 51 was the BEST that I am cringingly concluding that that title deservedly belongs to the F4U-4 or 5.

Bill


----------



## drgondog (Jun 2, 2007)

E - did I send these JG301 adversaries during 26 Nov to you? You are welcome to use.
First two are Whitlow and Whalen - 2SF (Ialso have Ceglarski if you need)
Next is Duffy's WR-Y on 26 Nov
Next is Hauver's WR-R in early Dec
Last is Lyons OSF -

As you might expect I either have most/all of the pilots and ships scoring 
(355/2SF) that day if you need for some project

Regards,

Bill


----------



## renrich (Jun 2, 2007)

Bill, certainly enjoy your posts, not only well informed but well written. Have you written and published? Please don't let what I next say diminish my appreciation for your writing style and informative posts but you are thinking right because you think like me. What a remarkable design Mr Rex Beisel and his crew came up with in 1938 when the F4U began gestation. I have been an advocate for the Corsair ever since I saw a picture of the XF4U in a book during WW2 but especially since I worked at Temco in the 50s and went out to the flight line to see a few Corsairs that Vought had next door. To have designed a fighter that could play the many roles, and play them well, as you pointed out in your post is to me one of the outstnding achievements in aviation history. Of course PW must get some of the credit for the R2800 but Beisel and company pulled a rabbit out of the hat.


----------



## Erich (Jun 2, 2007)

renrich he has written THE book on the 355th fg "Angles, bulldogs and Dragons" which he is rewriting now with added new information. guys it will be a must have for a fact.

Bill thanks for those pics again, yes have a couple of them and was great to be in contact by phone and e-mail with Lyons and getting his memories about chasing down Bf 109G's on 26 Nov. 44.

Les yes Reschke told me there were 35 Ta's in III. gruppe of JG 301 and it dwindled down due to take off and landing accidents at a pretty fast rate, none by combat ops. Thanks for looking up when III./JG 301 took on the Ta 152H-0's. As I said Fw 190A-8 including A-8/R-2's with cowling mg 131's were still in the III. gruppe as well. the A-8/R2's did not have the extra armor plateing of the SturmFw's in JG 3, 4 and JG 300, but were straight up A-8's but had outter 2cm removed and replaced by heavier 3cm cannon, ah but I must say I do have a pic of one such bird of prey that did have panzerplatten-armor plate on the fuselage side but in most cases all of the heavy steel was removed.


----------



## renrich (Jun 2, 2007)

Thanks for the info on Bill, Erich. That sounds like a must read.


----------



## Erich (Jun 2, 2007)

yes it sure is.

note my avatar, Sturms from Jg 300 and the first one is unusual in the fact of two things

# 1 note the yellow defence fuselage band instead of red as the A-8 origins in Jg 11. 

# 2 note the canopy compared to the other SturmFw's, see the Scheuklappen "blinkers" ~ forming an extra protective glass screen on either side of the canopy. something that JG 4 and JG 300 Sturm crews had removed due to severe icing

ok back to JG 301 Sturms heres a pic that will be published elsewhere in a very special book that I will say nothing about at this time except it is going to be pretty bloody informative






a much more serene situation eh ? 

Altenwolf kommt !


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 2, 2007)

Excellent pic, thx Erich....


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 2, 2007)

Very Cool Erich!!!

Where's Lanc?


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 2, 2007)

I was wonderin the same thing Joe lol...


----------



## drgondog (Jun 2, 2007)

For Dan - A friend of mine is a really fine artist with a sense of the whimsical and two of his favorite subjects are Cape's and Lions.

From Adam Freeman to you - not exactly ww2 aviation but there are 'similarities'
the first is a white hunter and tracker that have pi$$ed off a cape with a .470 and his buds in the background want a piece (they don't always run AWAY from shots -lol)

The second is the wounded buff content to snack after it's over - but he can't get the pesky T-shirt off yet.

The third is Lefty. He sees you and you have just noticed him

the fourth is Lefty when he is old and tossed from the Pride by a younger male and the Hyena's 'think' he's dinner

the last are three of my Wolfies chasing a wolf - a painting work in process

Regards,

Bill

PS the second one could be the real 'you'


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 2, 2007)

Nice Bill, gave me a laugh.... That last one with the Wolfhounds, is that something ur in the process of painting??? If so it looks very good...


----------



## SoD Stitch (Jun 19, 2007)

I would have to (also) go with the 262; true, it came out too late to make a difference in the War, but post-War tests of it's Mk-108 armament showed it only took three or four rounds to bring down a heavy, even the "tough" B-17. Against a fighter, it only took one or two 30mm rounds. I saw a picture of a Mk-108 round versus a Hurricane; it completely severed the tail with a single (explosive) round.

And, as mentioned above, the German pilots of the 262 were just finally developing effective tactics for the 262 when the War ended. According to post-War interviews with senior 262 pilots, they would approach bomber formations from the rear and execute a "roller-coaster" manuever; they would overtake the formation about 1000' above and a few miles behind the bombers. They would go into a shallow dive, overtaking the bombers at about twice their speed (500 mph+). When they were approximately 500' below the bombers and about a half mile behind, they would pull up underneath the bomber, which would slow the 262 down for better accuracy, and hit the bottom of the bomber(s) with their Mk-108's. Very effective.


----------



## Erich (Jun 19, 2007)

it's called a porpoise or Dolphin maneuver which I have stated at length in past theads.

the Fw 190A-8/R-8 pilots did something similar and actually could dive on the rear of the B-17's pull up and blast the belly turret and tail gunners positions and then even overshoot and hit the B-17 in front of the one they were dealing with to score 2 kills. I have gun cams to prove this. HE-I Minengeschoss 2cm and 3cm was just plain ugly

problem with the 262 is : it just plain too fast in the bomber intercepting role


----------



## SoD Stitch (Jun 19, 2007)

Erich said:


> it's called a porpoise or Dolphin maneuver which I have stated at length in past theads.
> 
> the Fw 190A-8/R-8 pilots did something similar and actually could dive on the rear of the B-17's pull up and blast the belly turret and tail gunners positions and then even overshoot and hit the B-17 in front of the one they were dealing with to score 2 kills. I have gun cams to prove this. HE-I Minengeschoss 2cm and 3cm was just plain ugly
> 
> problem with the 262 is : it just plain too fast in the bomber intercepting role



Yes, the Sturmbock 190's were very effective; I have no doubt they scored more bomber kills than the 262's did, especially given they were operational for at least twice as long (?).

The Minengeschoss 3cm you refer to, was that the Rheinmetall-Borsig Mk-103? I know the -190 was cleared to carry the -103 in underwing pods during the later stages of the War.


----------



## Erich (Jun 19, 2007)

no it is for the Mk 108 short barrel. Mk 103's were NOT fitted to any Fw 190 for combat for air to air targets or air to ground. test prototypes only


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 20, 2007)

Erich said:


> HE-I Minengeschoss 2cm and 3cm was just plain ugly


Damn right brother.... I'll upload a clip of someone gettin the bejeezus nailed out of them...


Erich said:


> problem with the 262 is : it just plain too fast in the bomber intercepting role


I agree wholeheartedly 100% with u Erich...


----------



## drgondog (Jun 21, 2007)

Erich said:


> no it is for the Mk 108 short barrel. Mk 103's were NOT fitted to any Fw 190 for combat for air to air targets or air to ground. test prototypes only



Funny thing about that gun. 

A USMC Colonel designed a 30mm very similar to Mk 103 that we tested at Bell Helicopter when I was there. It was an option for the 3 Barrel GE 20mm in chin turret... and it was an option for the Army to replace the 7.62x51.

Problem (BIG problem) is that the cyclic rate for this one was right at the natural frequency of the loaded airframe - on our first hover test (about two feet off ground) we had a camera watching the tailboom to record during the firing sequences- starting to look like an agitated sidewinder when we shut it down.

End of test - end of concept. There were ways of changing the cyclical firing rate but Marines opted for the long barrel GE on the AH-1J


----------



## Erich (Jun 21, 2007)

Bill :

Please remember the Mk 108 30mm bomber killer is different than the much longer barreled and heavier Mk 103 30mm that you mention, firing different rounds, the Mk 103 also used longer rounds and was used very effectively as a ground -tank and MT buster on the Eastern front.


----------



## drgondog (Jun 22, 2007)

the 30mm Wecom was actually a short barrel 'Thang. The 20mm GE (XM-188?) was a long barrel varmint. 

From memory the Wecom 30 barrel was perhaps 24 inches and a short round -about same lengthas our 40mm grenade

therefore the Wecom might have derived from the Mk108?


----------



## blu3y4 (Jun 22, 2007)

i personally dont know much however ive heard the Fw-190 had a good kill ratio (im unsure but)

but the me-262 would get my vote other wise.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Jun 27, 2007)

Erich said:


> no it is for the Mk 108 short barrel. Mk 103's were NOT fitted to any Fw 190 for combat for air to air targets or air to ground. test prototypes only



My sources indicate the Mk103 was installed on more than a few units as a "Rustsatze", or Field Modification Kit (not a factory kit!); when the Mk103 was installed, the designation would end with "R3".

Referenced from WW2 Warbirds: the Focke-Wulf Fw 190 Würger (Shrike) - Frans Bonné - See underlined section:

Rüstsätze (field conversion sets):

Fw 190F-8/R1 Attack aircraft, armed with 2 × 0.51 in (13 mm) MG 131 fuselage-mounted guns and 4 × 20 mm MG 151/20 wing-mounted cannon as well as underwing bombs on 4 × ETC 71 racks. 
Fw 190F-8/R2 Attack aircraft, armed with 2 × 0.51 in (13 mm) MG 131 fuselage-mounted guns and 2 × 20 mm MG 151/20 wing-mounted cannon, supplemented by 2 × 30 mm MK 108 cannon in underwing gondolas. 
Fw 190F-8/R3 Attack aircraft, armed with 2 × 0.51 in (13 mm) MG 131 guns and 2 × 20 mm MG 151/20 cannon, supplemented by 2 × 30 mm MK 103 underwing cannon for tank-busting operations. 
Fw 190F-8/R13 Nocturnal ground-attack fighter, fitted with additional navigation equipment and armed with 2 × 0.51 in (13 mm) MG 131 fuselage-mounted guns and up to 3,307 lb (1.500 kg) of disposable stores carried on 1 × ETC 501 underfuselage rack and 2 × ETC 503 underwing racks 
Fw 190F-8/R14 Torpedo-fighter, powered by 1 × BMW 801TU radial, rated at 2,000 hp (1.491 kW) for take-off. It featured the PKS 12 radio navigation system, and was armed with 2 × 20 mm MG 151/20 cannon in the wing roots and one LT F5b torpedo carried on an ETC 502 underfuselage rack. 
Fw 190F-8/R15 Torpedo-fighter, equal to the Fw 190F-8/R14, but with the standard 1 × BMW 801D-2 engine and a 3,086 lb (1400 kg) LT 1400 torpedo-bomb. 
Fw 190F-8/R16 Torpedo-fighter, equal to the Fw 190F-8/15, but with a 1,543 lb (700 kg) LT 700 torpedo-bomb. 


Number built: 385


----------



## Erich (Jun 27, 2007)

well the guys info is incorrect. bombs and the useage of hard core point 2cm ammo was used along with the panzerblitz killer rockets on the F-8 variant. NO mk 103 on Fw 190's were used by units in the field for tank busting, test pieces only...........


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 28, 2007)

I concur with Erich, as my references and info show that NO Mk 103 armed 190A's entered field ops...


----------



## reddragon (Jun 28, 2007)

I would think the advantage of the ME-262 would be it's speed, which meant that it wouldn't have to worry as much about having to fight it's way through the fighters to reach the bombers.


----------



## Erich (Jun 28, 2007)

the 262 problems: unreliable engines that flame out easy enough, wide turning radius enough for the P-51 to turn inside, no long range cannon. All 3cm Mk 108 short range, the largest factor due to speed is the close in rate on the rear of a B-17/B-24, Lanc/Hali. for an inexperienced pilot they would blow right by with getting in a shot


----------



## The Basket (Jun 28, 2007)

What about the 37mm cannon in the Ariacobra? The Russians must have hacked a few bombers down with that.

The upward firing cannon in the German nightfighters was a work of sheer genius. Certainly the best way to shoot a bomber down. The perfect non deflection shot right in the fuel tanks or bomb bay. Any aircraft fitted with these guns would be lethal. 

Go with the 262. A head on pass would mean a B-17 coming at you at 700mph. But could get through the escorts and shoot and then out again.

If it had the role, the P-47 would have have been an awesome bomber destroyer.


----------



## bigZ (Jun 28, 2007)

The Basket said:


> Go with the 262. A head on pass would mean a B-17 coming at you at 700mph. But could get through the escorts and shoot and then out again.



Unless your a good shot with cat like reactions. Your gonna end up with brown pants at best or your a$e sharing the same space as your head.


----------



## Erich (Jun 28, 2007)

well Basket the Me 262 units were ordered to attack from the rear like conventional LW prop jobs during late 44-45 so they could get into position and drill the engines and inner wings. A frontal attack was beyond reason and would carry the 262's through the bomber box to the rear where Allied escorts would have it much easier to take them out.

The Schrägwaffen or upward firing guns on the LW night fighters were a very effective means of taking out RAF heavies but the pilot fired between the engines, the engines themselves and not into the bomb bay which would bring on a disaster as you could well imagine taking the LW crew with the RAF one. Same would apply to the fuel tanks, in fact I have interviewed LW NF crews who told me they would hit the engines bank off and watch the wing take hold and burn the fire leading to the fuel tanks and then the ultimate explosion or the wing shredding off
so again we go back did the Me 262 have the means to be the ultimate bomber killer ? probably not in 44-45, too short range, the external fuel tanks would have slowed the jet way down


----------



## The Basket (Jun 28, 2007)

Do you think the Do-335 was the answer? Certainly had speed firepower and range. 

But wasn't the Me-110 built for this type of combat? Was the Ju-88 heavy fighters ever used to take on unescorted bombers in daylight? 

I Don't think the perfect answer exists in the context of WW2. The Germans really needed a MiG-15 type aircraft although the ideas were around at the time. If I recall the Ta-183 shared a likeness. An air to air guided missile would have been handy too.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Jun 29, 2007)

The Basket said:


> Do you think the Do-335 was the answer? Certainly had speed firepower and range.
> 
> But wasn't the Me-110 built for this type of combat? Was the Ju-88 heavy fighters ever used to take on unescorted bombers in daylight?
> 
> I Don't think the perfect answer exists in the context of WW2. The Germans really needed a MiG-15 type aircraft although the ideas were around at the time. If I recall the Ta-183 shared a likeness. An air to air guided missile would have been handy too.



"Yes", to the last two questions . . . the MiG-15 actually was (indirectly) based on a German jet design of WWII. And there was an air-to-air missle developed by the Germans in late '44/early '45, but it wasn't very effective; it was too slow, and it wasn't self-guiding - it had to be steered all the way to the (moving) target by the pilot, which took about 30 seconds, and all the while the German pilot would be getting shot at by multiple Allied aircraft. Not very safe . . .


----------



## drgondog (Jul 5, 2007)

The Basket said:


> Do you think the Do-335 was the answer? Certainly had speed firepower and range.
> 
> But wasn't the Me-110 built for this type of combat? Was the Ju-88 heavy fighters ever used to take on unescorted bombers in daylight?
> 
> I Don't think the perfect answer exists in the context of WW2. The Germans really needed a MiG-15 type aircraft although the ideas were around at the time. If I recall the Ta-183 shared a likeness. An air to air guided missile would have been handy too.


The Ju88 was used in attempting to stop B-17s and B-24s in daylight when NJG units were pressed into service in late 1943. The Mustang and P-38s eliminated the practice in early to mid 1944.

Do 335 would have been formidable. Too few, waaaay too late

The 110 was originally a long range escort that was hammered in BoB - became the foundation for NJG fighters battling the RAF, pressed into service in 1943 against 8th AF, hammered again first by 47s, then 38s and 51s as the 110's pulled back out of range of 47's.


----------



## Erich (Jul 5, 2007)

the revamped 262 and other jet projects were the wave of the future. Prop jobs were on their way out. The do 335 may have looked formidable but never flew on ops so it is all guesswork.

the NJG units 2 and 3 used the Ju 88C's for anti-bomber work, none of them with rockets only the Bf 110G-4 in limited amounts and of course the ZG's with the bomber killing Bf 110G-2, rockets, cannon in ZG 101, ZG 1, ZG 26 and ZG 76. As Bill pointed out were fodder for the storm drain in late 43 into spring of 44, but then a movement to Austria and used side by side with 109's of JG 27, this was heavy unit II./ZG 1 which had some success even into the summer of 44 against the 15th AF before the ZG was completely drained of a/c and reserves in men and then they were transferred into daylight Reich units. They were too cumbersome, slow, non-manueverable with Allied escorts and many times without any high protection staffeln of single engine fighters.


----------



## Aussie1001 (Jul 14, 2007)

you guys are nuts firstly the 262 was introduced so late in the war that it did jack to stop the bombers the ju88 was a very good aircraft at shooting down bombers and lanc i hate to point it out but the lancaster had no bottom turrent and when the ju88 was equiped with _slanting music_ it devestated the english bombers although the bombers had no escort to help them at night either.....


----------



## outremerknight (Jul 14, 2007)

My personal opinion is that the best bomber killer was the BF110 series.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 14, 2007)

Aussie1001 said:


> you guys are nuts firstly the 262 was introduced so late in the war that it did jack to stop the bombers



That was not there point. There point was its capability...




Aussie1001 said:


> the ju88 was a very good aircraft at shooting down bombers and lanc i hate to point it out but the lancaster had no bottom turrent and when the ju88 was equiped with _slanting music_ it devestated the english bombers



You might want to talk to Erich about this....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 14, 2007)

outremerknight said:


> My personal opinion is that the best bomber killer was the BF110 series.



Can you explain why? Because it was very outclassed and if there were escorts for the bombers the Bf 110s would be slaughtered.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 14, 2007)

Aussie1001 said:


> you guys are nuts firstly the 262 was introduced so late in the war that it did jack to stop the bombers the ju88 was a very good aircraft at shooting down bombers and lanc i hate to point it out but the lancaster had no bottom turrent and when the ju88 was equiped with _slanting music_ it devestated the english bombers although the bombers had no escort to help them at night either.....



It's interesting how the word 'bomber' evokes different first images.. To a Japanese it would probably bring up a B-29, for which there was no 'night fighter' bomber killer for the mode of attack the B-29 used to burn out demand - but would think Shiden for daylight.

Your first reaction was to dismiss the 262 because your focus was on a.) night, and b.) RAF did night ops to avoid day fighters - and really developed no long range 'night escort' - so Ju88, Me110, He219 come to mind as bomber destroyer - all of which were exterminated against the USAAF Daylight ops.

My first reaction was daylight, where the 110G-2 and 410s and Ju88s were deadly against B-17s and B-24s but became easy prey for 51s, 38s and 47s - so the Fw190A8, Me262, and any Me109 equipped w/30mm were a better solution - but USAAF Mustangs solved all of the bomber destroyer threats except for the exceptionall high performance jets and rockets - couldn't stop a 262 or 163 from attacking

but the only reason the 262 didn't wreak havoc is because it took time to develop effective tactics, were too few in number, and those that existed were in mortal fear of the sweeps before and during takeoff as well as running out of fuel and trying to land. But nothing topped it for sheer performance and devastating anti-bomber firepower

The LW didn't have a 'night destroyer' problem with conventional a/c - it kept inflicting huge losses on RAF ops in 1945 because the RAF had no escort solution.. opposite situation for USAAF who last lost 10% of its striking force on May12, 1944 - and the LW had to have a technological leap to defeat the Escort to get to the bombers.

Regards,

Bill


----------



## ToughOmbre (Jul 14, 2007)

Sturmgruppen FW 190s are high on the list.

On 15 August 1944 the 303rd Bomb Group lost nine B-17s in a little under two minutes on the return flight from it's target, the Luftwaffe airfield at Weisbaden, Germany.

Keith Ferris' print, "A Test of Courage", commemorates that mission.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 14, 2007)

Perfect post Bill...


----------



## drgondog (Jul 14, 2007)

lesofprimus said:


> Perfect post Bill...



Dan - thx but we both know I stumble on the English language and context as much as any. One good (really good) feature of this group is waving your arms and pontificating beliefs versus facts often end in having to swallow pride and admit that one didn't have all the fact or deal with right set of definitions.

Belief systems are hell when dealing w/Pragmatists

PS I just stumbled on a bunch of pics I took with Doolitle, Rall, Krupinski, Tolliver, Galland, Scharf, Tolliver, Parr, Landers, Gray, Sublett, Robin O. and others - does anybody give a Sh**? If so I will digitize and post

1984 Fighter Aces convention that I was asked to speak - plus catch up with guys I really cared about. The best part was Doolittle remembering when Priest picked up my father and having a rational argument with Galland and Rall about 'local air superiority' and last with one having dinner with one of my old mans best friends - who was in Hanoi Hilton when Fonda defiled the area - Gen John Flynn RIP


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 14, 2007)

Post that sh!t up u cigar smokin bastardo....

Ive met most of the same guys u have, albeit it was 25+ years ago, and no photos remain... I would love to see em...


----------



## Soren (Jul 15, 2007)

Yes such pictures are always welcome !


----------



## jaylg (Aug 10, 2007)

I would have to say the fw 190, but as a night-fighter the HE 219 seem to remember reading about one of those shooting down 5 Lancasters in a single sortie.


----------



## xavier (Aug 22, 2007)

my vote is for the Me-163.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 23, 2007)

Soren said:


> Yes such pictures are always welcome !



Soren, Dan - I posted them a couple of days ago under http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/fighter-aces-german-visitors-1984-a-9215.html


----------



## Konigstiger205 (Aug 23, 2007)

Me 262 no doubt....speed and firepower....lucky for the B17's it appeared very late in the war.


----------



## Glider (Aug 23, 2007)

It is interesting how the mind works with a question like this. Personally I believe there are two parts to this. 
a) Being able to destroy the bombers whilst
b) Avoiding the escort fighters.

On this basis the upgunned 190 and 109 don't make the grade because while they are excellent at shooting down the bombers, they are very vulnerable to any escorting fighters. 
The 262 has to be the choice for the reasons known to us all. Massive firepower and the ability to use its speed to choose when and how to attack.

At night it becomes the best nightfighter, which is a different thread.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 23, 2007)

Glider said:


> It is interesting how the mind works with a question like this. Personally I believe there are two parts to this.
> a) Being able to destroy the bombers whilst
> b) Avoiding the escort fighters.
> 
> ...



Glider - those were my criteria and same choice for same reason.. the anology would be a "man among boys".. speed, pick the fight, devastating firepower, evade pursuers with near impunity.. nothing else close.


----------



## Glider (Aug 24, 2007)

drgondog said:


> Glider - those were my criteria and same choice for same reason.. the anology would be a "man among boys".. speed, pick the fight, devastating firepower, evade pursuers with near impunity.. nothing else close.



Great Minds!!!
Its almost a case of picking the second best.


----------



## xavier (Aug 24, 2007)

the 163 may not shot down many aircraft but it did hav solar panals so once it flew under a plane it detroyed it.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Aug 24, 2007)

xavier said:


> the 163 may not shot down many aircraft but it did hav solar panals so once it flew under a plane it detroyed it.



That was just bizarre . . .


----------



## ToughOmbre (Aug 24, 2007)

xavier said:


> the 163 may not shot down many aircraft but it did hav solar panals so once it flew under a plane it detroyed it.



Huh?????


----------



## Erich (Aug 24, 2007)

the 163 was a time bomb and cannot even be seriously considered. overall the Fw 190A-8/R8 or Me 262 would suffice, the 262 yes for speed but no endurance and that was it's fault besides it's finicky engines and fuel system


----------



## Civettone (Oct 1, 2007)

As I already pointed out some months ago, the Me 163 was not a time bomb at all as it was a rather safe and reliable aircraft. Loss figures and witness accounts are clear about that.

Kris


----------



## Glider (Oct 1, 2007)

Civettone said:


> As I already pointed out some months ago, the Me 163 was not a time bomb at all as it was a rather safe and reliable aircraft. Loss figures and witness accounts are clear about that.
> 
> Kris



You have got to be kidding.


----------



## Parmigiano (Oct 1, 2007)

xavier said:


> the 163 may not shot down many aircraft but it did hav solar panals so once it flew under a plane it detroyed it.



It was not exactly like that, but there was something similar for the 'fly under' part.

Some Me163 were fitted with a special weapon, the '500 Jaegerfaust' 
It was a row of 5x50mm launching barrells per wing firing upwards and controlled by an optical device.

The idea was to fly below the bomber from behind, the optical device was in charge to detect the shadow of the big airplane and fire automatically the guns. I think that whitin some limits it was also compensating the quote difference.

The same weapon was tested on a Fw190 but I don't think it was used operationally, while it seems that a Me163 downed a 4 engine bomber in this way.


----------



## Civettone (Oct 3, 2007)

Glider said:


> You have got to be kidding.


No.



Kris


----------



## Glider (Oct 3, 2007)

If a 163 is a safe, reliable aircraft, can I ask what your definition is of an unsafe aircraft?


----------



## Civettone (Oct 3, 2007)

Few Me 163 were lost either to enemy actions or to accidents. No pilots were incinerated, no planes blowing up on take off or landing. Easy to fly too.

It had a short endurance, that was its only vice. Even the short firing time was only a problem because of limited training.

Kris


----------



## delcyros (Oct 7, 2007)

While it is true that few -163 were lost in accidents (measured in total numbers), the LOSS RATE of this plane particular, esspeccially at the EKdo in Bad Zwischenhahn was particularely high - higher than could be postulated before with an unusually high kill rate (40%) of the pilots involved. The plane itselve was tricky (GoG-issues), altough gentle and pleasing to fly if everything was ok. The fuel however, was a real hazard.


----------



## Civettone (Oct 7, 2007)

Delcyros, you're talking about an Erprobungskommando, so a unit destined to test this new aircraft before it was operational. A better way to judge the Me 163 would be to look at the loss figures of JG 300, the only operational Me 163 unit. You'll see it was more reliable than several Bf 109 or Fw 190 units of the time!

What are GoG issues? (I know CoG, is that what you meant?)
Kris


----------



## delcyros (Oct 7, 2007)

My fault - CoG - is what I meant 

The JG 300 records are indeed telling! If You dig into them You will find an avaiability rate for it´s planes of less than 35% (!!!) -by far the weakest number of any Luftwaffe fighter in 1944/45.


----------



## Erich (Oct 7, 2007)

geezo Kris check you LW data please, JG 300 never flew the Komet as the pilots would of laughed themselves silly trying to fly that crap against B-24/B-17 formations

the unit you want is JG 400


----------



## Civettone (Oct 7, 2007)

Oooooooooohh .... sorry about that, JG 400 ... of course!!

Start over Delcyros ... 
Kris


----------



## Glider (Oct 8, 2007)

I do know that on the 7th October JG400 lost 4 Komets in accidents. Considering the small number of aircraft available this alone must have been a bit of a knock.
2 pilots were killed and one injured


----------



## Civettone (Oct 8, 2007)

Official records show that JG 400 lost 3 aircraft during the entire month of October 1944. They were the only losses of the entire Geschwader which consisted of about 50 aircraft. All losses were non-combat. 

Kris


----------



## Glider (Oct 8, 2007)

Well it looks as if the official records could be incomplete.
One of the pilots killed was Manfred Eisenmann flying 440013 and the injured pilot was Fritz Husser flying 440165 
I dont have the details of the other two aircraft but can I ask how the details above fit in with your info? It might help identify the other two aircraft. 

I also know that on the 9th September the Germans lost one flown by Fritz Kelb when demonstrating the aircraft to the Japanese when it caught fire in the air. He was able to bale out.


----------



## Erich (Oct 8, 2007)

their own pilots say upward of at least 12 Komets lost to action also the US gun cameras show otherwise, the 359th fg shot down 2 for fact alone.

12 kills for the whole small Geschwader does not say much at all. As the units was constantly on the move late 44 till wars end due to being planted in the east and the Russians were keen on grabbing as many fleas as possible plus any Komet tech and personell. Fast yes, inefficient yes, no range, sitting ducks in a glide home


----------



## Civettone (Oct 8, 2007)

Even if they lost 12 Komets due to enemy action then it's still less than the 14 bombers they shot down. 
Low figures in any case: few losses, few kills. It's clear that they didn't see enough action. IMO because they weren't placed in the right area. I would have put them right in the Ruhr area. Plenty of stuff to do there, and all within range.

Glider, I'm just basing myself on the public Flugzeugbestanden which are summarized on the net by Holm at ww2.dk.
Kris


----------



## AL Schlageter (Oct 13, 2007)

Web site on the Walter engine used in the Me163.
The Walter Rocket Motor Site


----------



## AL Schlageter (Oct 13, 2007)

jaylg said:


> I would have to say the fw 190, but as a night-fighter the HE 219 seem to remember reading about one of those shooting down 5 Lancasters in a single sortie.


The LW claims list does not support your statement.

12.06.43 Maj. Werner Streib Stab I./NJG 1 *Halifax* £ 14 km. S.E. Roermond: at 4.700 m. 01.05 Film C. 2027/I Anerk: Nr.71

12.06.43 Maj. Wern er Streib I./NJG 1 *Halifax* £ 2 km. S.W. Rheinberg: 5.800 m. 01.20 Film C. 2027/I Anerk: Nr.72

12.06.43 Maj. Werner Streib Stab I./NJG 1 *Halifax* £ 3 km. N. Mook: no height 01.55 Film C. 2027/I Anerk: Nr.73

12.06.43 Maj. Werner Streib Stab I./NJG 1 Lancaster £ 05 Ost S/KN -2.6: no height [Goch] 02.16 Film C. 2027/I Anerk: Nr.74

12.06.43 Maj. Werner Streib I./NJG 1 *Halifax* £ 05 Ost S/KM-6.3: at 5.900 m. [Gennep] 02.22 Film C. 2027/I Anerk: Nr.104


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 14, 2007)

Those 5 kills are still impressive however.


----------



## Glider (Oct 14, 2007)

Almost as impressive as Branse Burbridge (pilot) and Bill Skelton (Radar Op) who shot down four German nightfighters on the night of 4th November over Germany in a mossie. 
Three Ju88's and an Me110 over enemy land without the aid of ground control and picking them out of the mass of bomber returns. To me this was the best performance of any nightfighter of the war.


----------



## AL Schlageter (Oct 14, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Those 5 kills are still impressive however.


Yes, but never repeated.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 14, 2007)

And that makes it all the more impressive.


----------



## lesofprimus (Oct 14, 2007)

What about Schnaufer??? He shot down five enemy aircraft on the night of 24/25 May to record his 70th through 74th victories....


----------



## Erich (Oct 14, 2007)

sorry but there are at least 6 other aces that shot down 4-9 RAF bombers down on a single night, Streibs in the He 219 cannot be confirmed and I really do not care what is listed in Tony Woods files from Freiburg

be cool don't drool


----------



## AL Schlageter (Oct 14, 2007)

Did Maj. Werner Streib ever have another 5, or more, night in a He219? Did he ever have any other multi kill nights?

What is wrong with Tony's LW claim list?


----------



## Erich (Oct 14, 2007)

under his own admission to me several years ago that many of the kills or I should say claims were not readable when copied off and he had to fill in. the truth will be told soon on Streib in a book in 2008

you can look back on the mission 26 November 1944 as an example of the Freiburg mistakes ~ for 56 claims by JG 301 with B-24/B-17 formations............. what a joke ! should read 21 which I have confirmed. that is a major gross error and that is only one of many. Remember this is only a claims listing and not a confirmation listing .......


----------



## drgondog (Oct 14, 2007)

Erich said:


> under his own admission to me several years ago that many of the kills or I should say claims were not readable when copied off and he had to fill in. the truth will be told soon on Streib in a book in 2008
> 
> you can look back on the mission 26 November 1944 as an example of the Freiburg mistakes ~ for 56 claims by JG 301 with B-24/B-17 formations............. what a joke ! should read 21 which I have confirmed. that is a major gross error and that is only one of many. Remember this is only a claims listing and not a confirmation listing .......



Ditto on April 24 - B-17 'awards' 2+x actual and 7 of those weren't shot down as claimed but did land in Swtzerland. 12 Mustangs claimed by 109s and four actully shot down.

Overclaiming on all sides but....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 15, 2007)

Erich is are resident night fighter expert. He is a man of mystery and only reveals things at certain times. Man I love it!!


----------



## majorwoody10 (Oct 23, 2007)

in il forgotten battles the late war up gunned 190s are the uber bomber killers in online combat .no american fighter has the punch to come close ...even with the jugs 8 fifties ....also in real life the same was true ..the 30 and 20 mm guns each fireing mini grenades and with lots of armour plate and a tuff radial engine coupled with the endless combat experience and super human effort ..( whats pts ? apparently it was forbidden in the luftwaffe ) the lw pilots given the endless parade of targets made this plane a bomber killer that was not then , nor ever will be , eclipsed in history ..modern costs and realitys being what they are ..the 262 was too fragile , too tempemental and too fast too even really be considered a rival as for allied planes , if it dosent mount at least 4 , 20 mm cannons ,,,fugedaboutit ...


----------



## the la-7 is gangster (Oct 31, 2007)

I would go for me-262 and for ace pilots me-1
63


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 1, 2007)

What the hell are you trying to say?


----------



## plan_D (Nov 1, 2007)

I think he's saying that the Me 262 is the best bomber killing aircraft; however for 'ace' pilots it would probably be the Me 163.

Personally, I wouldn't waste 'ace' pilots in the _Komet_...


----------



## Neto (Nov 1, 2007)

my opinion Bf 109 G, the versions with mk 108 cannon specially, this wepon with his high-explosive ammunition and god rpm was destructible to alied bombers.


----------



## Neto (Nov 1, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Erich is are resident night fighter expert. He is a man of mystery and only reveals things at certain times. Man I love it!!



Erich fly in night missions  how many kills he have in night missions?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 2, 2007)

I said he was our expert. I did not say he flew night fighters....


----------



## Neto (Nov 3, 2007)

ok lol.. so i see that you like Erich you can tell me one thing? he participated in missions over the Western front theater ?


----------



## Erich (Nov 3, 2007)

Neto a few things about me :

I am not a WW2 vet. am 54 years old. I did have two relatives serve in the Luftwaffe, 1 a day fighter pilot the other a night fighter ace and finished as Gruppenkommandeur of II./NJG 5 flying the Bf 110G-4. Both pilots were killed in the war. Also had 3 other men on my mothers side that served in the Heer on the Ost front, 2 of them died in action, the other as he was released from a Soviet Gulag died on his way home to the Pfalzland.

have studied the LW Nachtjagd, men and machines and units, radar and almost everything about it since 1964.

Gruß E ~


----------



## Neto (Nov 3, 2007)

Erich said:


> Neto a few things about me :
> 
> I am not a WW2 vet. am 54 years old. I did have two relatives serve in the Luftwaffe, 1 a day fighter pilot the other a night fighter ace and finished as Gruppenkommandeur of II./NJG 5 flying the Bf 110G-4. Both pilots were killed in the war. Also had 3 other men on my mothers side that served in the Heer on the Ost front, 2 of them died in action, the other as he was released from a Soviet Gulag died on his way home to the Pfalzland.
> 
> ...



Easy, i am talking about Erich Alfred Hartmann the best ww2 ace with 352 kills, forgive if i don't explain me very well .. i only want know more about this famous ace.


----------



## ralphwiggum (Mar 21, 2008)

I'm prejudiced to the FW 190A8 A lot of their pilots dumped the extra armor for better performance and, With the 30mm cannon it takes a very few rounds 
to kill a heavy bomber


----------



## SoD Stitch (Mar 21, 2008)

Neto said:


> ok lol.. so i see that you like Erich you can tell me one thing? he participated in missions over the Western front theater ?



As far as I know (others can correct me if I'm wrong), he spent NO time on the Western Front; all of his time was spent on the Eastern Front. In fact, he was offered a spot in the Me 262 unit Galland was forming on the Western Front in '45, but he turned it down (even after making a flight in a 262) because he felt he could do more good on the Eastern Front defending Germany from the "Russian hordes".


----------



## Erich (Mar 21, 2008)

E.H. was not the best ace......period

the most kills on the east front, then yes


----------



## B-17engineer (Mar 21, 2008)

I say Bf-109G, a 30 mm gun in the nose, that could reak some havic.........I heard it only took 3 shots in the right place to knock a B-17 out. Imagine what that would do to the escort......


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 24, 2008)

Hey Engineer, how about the Fw 190A-8 with 2x 30mm and 2x 20mm.... Kinda make one hub fired 30mm kinda obsolete in the Bomber Killing Dept...


----------



## Kruska (Apr 30, 2008)

Yes Fw-190A-8, surely the No.1 armed fighter in ww2 and as such probably the most potent bomber destroyer.

Was the Do 335 B2 acctually configured with nose mounted 1x30mm and 2x20mm, plus 2x30mm in underwing gondolas? If so it would have had even more firepower then the 190A-8.

Regards
Kruska

View attachment 62193


----------



## kool kitty89 (Apr 30, 2008)

Underwing gondolas usually put enough of a performance penalty to limit intercepting abilities, as long as they're MK 108's it's reasonable though. (with 103's no way, and wing mounts for them would be inaccurate due to recoil twisting the wings)
The 190 had the MK 108's mounted in place of the outer wing MG 151/20's but they were only close range weapons. (not much good beyond 300m) 

I think the Do 335's nose mounted 30mm was the MK 103 though, a much larger and more powerful gun (albeit at a lower rate of fire) than the 108 and on a centerline mounting allowing hits at max range. (with 500m probably being possible with some decent accuracy, more with a very skilled marksman)


The 190 also had the nose-mounted 2x MG 131's (albeit a bit weak for this role) and 2x MG 151/20 in the wing roots with 250 RPG! The centerline mounting meant no convergence zone, though hits at max range. (while not the best 20mm gun, it was pretty good and in this case carried a lot of ammo and the mine round held a lot of HE, albeit at the expense of poor ballistic shape. The HE(XM) -high capacity mine round- weighing 104g with 25g HE filler)


----------



## Kruska (Apr 30, 2008)

I guess that as a day fighter the D0335 would have been fitted with R4M's instead of gondolas. As for a role as a night-fighter the reduction in speed due to its gondolas would probably not cause any difficulty to cope with a bomber flying at 350-400km/h.

I think the decisive factors would have been loitering time and ammo carriage capabilities especially as a night-fighter. In this criteria I tend to favour the 335 (but I could be wrong).

Regards
Kruska
View attachment 62207


----------



## Erich (Apr 30, 2008)

curious why are you posing a what if with the Do 335 in this thread as well as nf ? the way of the jet was at hand, all prop jobs except the Ta 152H were to be replaced during summer of 45 for Tagdjagd. the 262 single seat had proven itself, other gruppen would have followed for nf duties, the Do 335 was not even considered seriously in the nf role. I'm doing a book co-authoring on the NF Reich defence duties, data collected for over 35 years so there will be much included as to why I consider my statements as truth


----------



## kool kitty89 (Apr 30, 2008)

The Me 262 was certainly the best interceptor fielded. Even with the ongoing problems. (particularly the engines, which were much better by the war's end)

Though for a/c that saw more extensive service in the role, it's probably the Fw 190A-8. (maybe the A-9)


----------



## Kruska (May 1, 2008)

```

```



Erich said:


> curious why are you posing a what if with the Do 335 in this thread as well as nf ? the way of the jet was at hand, all prop jobs except the Ta 152H were to be replaced during summer of 45 for Tagdjagd. the 262 single seat had proven itself, other gruppen would have followed for nf duties, the Do 335 was not even considered seriously in the nf role. I'm doing a book co-authoring on the NF Reich defence duties, data collected for over 35 years so there will be much included as to why I consider my statements as truth



You are correct in that this thread the question is about which aircraft is the best bomber killer. Taking into account the superb performance of the 335 and the asumtion that it could be additionally armed with 2 gondolas and R4M's it well could have been the best in this role. Adding the chance that it could also have been used as a NF. I am not aware that the 335 had any major engine difficulties such as any German jet. 

I do not believe that the German jets would have achieved a reliable performance at any time due to the existing material shortage of alloys. No matter if summer or winter 45.

In contra I would strongly believe that this advanced technology was only exploitable by the US as it proofed after the war due to its seemingly endless resources and $$. As for Germany it proofed to be a fatal choice and instead of developing and pressing a new generation of affordable and technically developed props such as the USA in the form of a P51/P47 or F4U the limited resources in regards to material/scientists was diverted into "mystic" wunderwaffen believes.

The only new props available in 44 that could have been pushed faster into service were the 152 or D11-14 or the 335 but due to to the above mentioned reasons they were neglegted in favour of "mystic" a/c and weapons.

That the 335 was not ment to serve as a NF in 45 is certainly correct, therfore I am meerly forwarding the idea that it could have served in its role as a bomber killer just as well during night and day.

As for two of my uncles (one is a real uncle) and two of their Fliegerkameraden (3 survived the war) all were piloting from 39-45, none of them supported the jets as an alternative to the overall prop solution. If one of them would have flown a 262 it would not have changed their mind in regards to a "future" alternative but a presently needed realistic support in means of advanced props in 44/45

None of them believed in 44 that the war could be won (especially not by Wunderwaffen) but they desperatly eyed and waited for support by advanced props in order to stop the Bombers and not a 262 or other jets that were to unreliable to ensure that support.

Offcourse I do admit that a "working" and "reliable" 262 must have been the solution to any desperate Luftwaffe Pilot in 45, but unfortunatly they were not working reliable. In contra a 109K, D-12 or D-9 or 335 was.

Regards
Kruska
View attachment 62234


----------



## fly boy (May 1, 2008)

me 262


----------



## kool kitty89 (May 1, 2008)

Another advantage of jet engines is onece you've got a design working it can be developed, expaded, and bulit upon at a rate inconcivable for piston engine designs. Hence why the US was able to catch up so fast even with the late start. The J31-to-J-33 and J30-to-J34 being the best examples of this.

However the original designs were still being worked out, had it not been due to some of the mechanical (turbine vibration) problems when switching from the 004A (1941) to the initial 004B design it would have gone alot smoother it wasn't till the 004D nearing production in early 1945 (produced before war's end,) that the vibration (and thus the 8700 rpm linit) was resolved. The 003 was still a bit from working in the same period as the 004 in '41 as it had both some compressor, turbine, and combustor problems to work out (basicle the whole design deeded work, hence the low power output of the early test engines), however it turned out to be easier to build than the 004B in addition to bing more compact, relaible, and better performing. And I'm not even going into the HeS-30 (006) design... And in hindsight the HeS-011 should never have been developed.


----------



## Vraciu (Aug 18, 2008)

Over Europe - Me 262 with it's four MK 108 30 mm cannons;
Over Pacific - 1941/1942 A6M2 Zeke, 1943-1945 F6F and N1K2-J


----------



## B-17engineer (Aug 18, 2008)

I really don't know but I would say Me-210/410, Me-110, or Me-262


----------



## moomoo2 (Aug 21, 2008)

Over the Pacific it would have to be the J2M Raiden. The only Japanese plane good in combat with the B29.

Over Europe the Me262 with its 4x30mm cannon and the R4M rockets was pretty tough as the rockets had the same trajectory as the cannon, so easy to aim. 

Allied wise the Black widow or mosquito FB would cause alot of damage if you got in front of it.


----------



## BIG BIRD (Aug 29, 2008)

The hienklel he 219 uhu was definitly a force to contend with at night. But during the day the me 410 hornes was bloody efective given that there were no escorts. With escorts the best interceptore would have to be the me 262. Keep in mind that with closing speeds of up to 700+ miles per hour the jet pilots coudent aim well or get many shots on target, its strengh was its speed could out run fighters. Luckly for the germans 4 30mm cannons don't need much hits on target to bring down a bomber.


----------



## irshcountry (Oct 17, 2008)

First off, this argument on the 262 being too fast? WTF? Tell that to the Mig-15 pilots against the B-29s with there remote/radar gunners. I do like the a8/R8, but lets remember, it needed escorts, namely, 109G6s and G10s. The FW190A8/R8 was poor high altitude performer anyways, and all that added weight just contributed to it. Though, Macky stated that in a turn he could see the 30mm shells due to poor velocity. Ok, we got that, but 2 or 3 of those shells in the right place knock a 24 or 17 right out of the air, no question. And you never fire from a distance, lest you guys forget Erich Bubi Hartmanns motto,"Get so close the enemy fills your windshield"


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Dec 5, 2008)

IMHO to kill bombers you need two things: Fast climb and heavy and accurate armament. 

If this is the criterion...262. No argument. The only weak point of the 262 was the short range of the MK 108.


----------



## Eurofighter (Dec 13, 2008)

I have to go with the Me 262, it had the speed to out run the escort fighters and the fire power to bring down a bomber in a single pass. I have seen pictures of B-17s and B-24s riped in half by an acurate burst of the Me 262's cannons and is not a pleasant view; although is notorious that the Me 262 suffered with problems by its unreliable engines once it was working properly it was a deadly bird.


----------



## TheMustangRider (Dec 22, 2008)

It has to be the Me 262


----------



## Clay_Allison (Dec 24, 2008)

The ME-262 with the Caveat that the Gloster Meteor might have been had it been needed in that role by that juncture in the war.


----------



## cormallen (Jan 16, 2009)

Hi Folks

The answer is fairly dependant on whether our prospective giant killer has to cope with assorted "little friends" trying to butt in?!

If our herioc "defender-of-the-hearth" gets to play with the B17/B24/B29 formation without any uncouth interruptions then all you need is a plane that can catch cruising bomber formations... With B17/24 this is not really too hard given a sensible degree of warning. Assorted Ju88s carrying big cannons (37-75mm to taste really) and plenty of ammo will kill happily enough from outside fifty range? 
If chasing high alt B29s is the game (and didn't they give up on that tactic vs Japs and ended up using them at low alt and at night mostly...rather like Lancs...cough-cough!) then something Like a Do335V13 or Me410D maybe needed? 

If, as is likely historically, there are swarms of P47/51 type things around then you either need lots of Fw190D/Bf109G-K types to play with the escorts or... Me262s... regardless of their undoubted engine issues, they are the only thing to really have sufficient performance to have a chance of getting a good crack at the massed bombers...

Really "late" war german concepts start getting either utterly hopeless (what-no-fuel?!) or very space age (Luft'46 etc with swept wing creations loaded with guided missiles and SAMs joining in...) depending on desired reality level.

regards alan


----------



## Colin1 (Jan 16, 2009)

Me262
once again I haven't read the whole thread but I didn't detect any what-if about this post, so arguments like the P80 and/or Gloster Meteor are therefore null.

The Me262 was roughly 70mph faster than even the P47-M and carried an utterly devastating forward-firing armament, concentrated in the nose.

With this in mind, it didn't need to engage the escorts that were prevalent at the time, it could bore in on the bomber stream in the knowledge that 2-3 strikes, certainly somewhere near the main spar were going to be enough to bring down a heavy.

That's why I think the title bomber-destroyer serves the Me262 so much more appropriately than fighter; getting sucked in to the P51's game stood it a good chance of getting itself shot down.


----------



## drgondog (Jan 16, 2009)

cormallen said:


> Hi Folks
> 
> The answer is fairly dependant on whether our prospective giant killer has to cope with assorted "little friends" trying to butt in?!
> 
> ...



Good points leading to conclusions for late 1944 through end of war.

The Me 262, despite its problems, was the Only German interceptor that was able to attack with devastating firepower and disengage at will - and then hope to find an airfield not being 'visited' when it was low on fuel. 

Me 163 was too range limited, there weren't near enough Fw 190D's to make it interesting and the Ta 152 and He 162 while superb potentially were far too late.


----------



## ksilber11 (Jan 27, 2009)

I'm going to go with the FW-190 A8/R2. The 262 was pretty good, but it was fragile and pretty much too fast.


----------



## drgondog (Jan 27, 2009)

ksilber11 said:


> I'm going to go with the FW-190 A8/R2. The 262 was pretty good, but it was fragile and pretty much too fast.



The 'problem' with the Fw 190A8 is that it was a real killer but much too slow to survive at 23-28K versus Mustangs. It had a few spectacular successes but was crucified when caught,

The 262 could engage and break away at will... pretty much


----------



## ksilber11 (Jan 28, 2009)

Well we're talking about the best bomber killers here, not the best dogfighters


----------



## drgondog (Jan 28, 2009)

ksilber11 said:


> Well we're talking about the best bomber killers here, not the best dogfighters



Neither were great dogfighters, but only one had the technology to escape and at the same time had the most effective bomber killing armament, moreso than 190A8.

The other would have been extremely deadly if it had entered operations one year earlier - when escorts were absent. The 262 did not achieve the operational successes due to tactics. The 190A8 did not achieve operational expectations because it did not have a technical advantage to enable engage and escape from escorts.

Pick the one you personally would wish to bring you home from July 1944 to end of war against 8th AF FC escorts?

I still respect your choice - just disagree, though not passionately

In the same context, the Me 110 and 410 were great bomber killers - but like the 190A8 they were dramatically reduced in effectivity by the Mustang.

So, as you intimated earlier - if only the 1908A8 didn't have to play with the escorts - it was awesome.


----------



## Erich (Jan 28, 2009)

this is subtle but ............ the 262 was a crap of a dogfighter, speed yes, turning .............no way, over and over again US Mustangs put the petal to the metal


----------



## drgondog (Jan 28, 2009)

Erich said:


> this is subtle but ............ the 262 was a crap of a dogfighter, speed yes, turning .............no way, over and over again US Mustangs put the petal to the metal



Agreed E, but unlike the A8, the 262 could disengage to fight another day. 

Looked at another way, the Fw 190A8 lost as many aircraft in one week to Mustangs in November, 1944 as all the Me 262s shot down by Mustangs during their entire operational history.

Speed kills.


----------



## Erich (Jan 28, 2009)

ah but on the other hand how many JG's had the A-8 on hand and were in use every stinking day while the 262's did not even come into numbers if we want to call it that till February of 45 when 3/4's of the Reich defense went to the Ost front

no doubt the A-8/A-9 had no chance against the Us Mustang escorts for a variety of reasons but so this was the case for III./JG 7 which made the most impact with their jets, 35 operational about 12-15 per mission if that average, so if we take into consideration with the amount of P-51's kicked up by the 8th, 15th and the lesser extent 9th AF, how many 262's per Mustang.................not many


----------



## drgondog (Jan 29, 2009)

Erich said:


> ah but on the other hand how many JG's had the A-8 on hand and were in use every stinking day while the 262's did not even come into numbers if we want to call it that till February of 45 when 3/4's of the Reich defense went to the Ost front
> 
> no doubt the A-8/A-9 had no chance against the Us Mustang escorts for a variety of reasons but so this was the case for III./JG 7 which made the most impact with their jets, 35 operational about 12-15 per mission if that average, so if we take into consideration with the amount of P-51's kicked up by the 8th, 15th and the lesser extent 9th AF, how many 262's per Mustang.................not many



All true Erich - so going back to 'best' - what is the best? 

if we go on the basis of number of Me 262s downed per Mustang on escort - versus number of A8's downed - it would seem that the survivavbility ratio favors the 262.

If we go on the basis of number of bombers knocked down per A8 sorties vs 262 sorties I am thinking, without fact or data, that the 262 however clumsily deployed probably comes out best here also? Ditto ratio of escort fighter destroyed by 262 vs A8.

Another charm school poll with few objective criteria to base decisions?


----------



## ksilber11 (Jan 29, 2009)

drgondog said:


> Neither were great dogfighters, but only one had the technology to escape and at the same time had the most effective bomber killing armament, moreso than 190A8.
> 
> The other would have been extremely deadly if it had entered operations one year earlier - when escorts were absent. The 262 did not achieve the operational successes due to tactics. The 190A8 did not achieve operational expectations because it did not have a technical advantage to enable engage and escape from escorts.
> 
> ...


Ya I see what you mean, and I don't completely disagree with you, though I'd still probably rather fly the FW-190. I guess they had different ways of achieving the same job. For instance the Me-262 most likely made a lot of quick passes, safely taking out one bomber at a time. Whereas the 190 would probably take its time, shoot down a few bombers in one pass, while using its added armor to deflect more rounds, at least somewhat safely. 

Not really sure which one is more effective though, i'd assume there's pro's and con's for each. Keep in mind though i'm really just now getting into WWII aircraft, so i'm not exactly sure how accurate some of my assumptions are.


----------



## Amsel (Jan 29, 2009)

Me 262 in my opinion. It flew waaay faster then the bomber escorts!


----------



## drgondog (Jan 29, 2009)

ksilber11 said:


> Ya I see what you mean, and I don't completely disagree with you, though I'd still probably rather fly the FW-190. I guess they had different ways of achieving the same job. For instance the Me-262 most likely made a lot of quick passes, safely taking out one bomber at a time. Whereas the 190 would probably take its time, shoot down a few bombers in one pass, while using its added armor to deflect more rounds, at least somewhat safely.
> 
> Not really sure which one is more effective though, i'd assume there's pro's and con's for each. Keep in mind though i'm really just now getting into WWII aircraft, so i'm not exactly sure how accurate some of my assumptions are.



At the stage of the war in which both entered combat - it was a luxury to make more than one pass for either. In the case of the 262 if it turned to come back for another pass it gave time for the escorst to close - ditto the A8.

In either case it was a non habit forming tactic but the 262 had a better chance of escaping.


----------



## fly boy (Jan 29, 2009)

me262


----------



## Bill G. (Jan 30, 2009)

The best bomber killer operated at night. It was the He-219. It had decent enough radar, speed, and massive fire power. If Germany had had more, the RAF bombers would have been little more than sitting ducks. The Allies had no way to escort the RAF at night.

During the day, Germany had many good bomber killers. The problem was P-51s, P-47s, and the P-38s. And the invention of drop tanks. This team made going after our bombers very dangerous work. The German interceptors needed escort fighters just to deal with our escorts. And fighters to defend their own bases.

Two things in the end doomed the Luftwaffe. The first was lack of trained pilots. The second was lack of fuel. They had plenty of day fighters. But planes on the ground don't shoot down bombers.

My two bits American.

Bill G.


----------



## drgondog (Jan 30, 2009)

Bill G. said:


> The best bomber killer operated at night. It was the He-219. It had decent enough radar, speed, and massive fire power. If Germany had had more, the RAF bombers would have been little more than sitting ducks. The Allies had no way to escort the RAF at night.
> 
> During the day, Germany had many good bomber killers. The problem was P-51s, P-47s, and the P-38s. And the invention of drop tanks. This team made going after our bombers very dangerous work. The German interceptors needed escort fighters just to deal with our escorts. And fighters to defend their own bases.
> 
> ...



Bill - good choice for night time. Would you choose over the 262 two seater night fighter that could also be 'pressed into' daylight role?

Conversely how would He 219 do in daylight?


----------



## fly boy (Jan 30, 2009)

NightHawk said:


> but it can shoot down a flying tank.



flying tank what?


----------



## Erich (Jan 30, 2009)

sorry for reasons that I have already stated in the best nf thread about the He 219, the Ju 88G-6 was superior. in fact due to the over-arming of the 219 the underfuselage arms were reduced in I./NJG 1. Two man crew was a prob, the ejection seat had its fallacies with too many crews busting out through glass. no rear mg 131 for a Mossie deterent, on it goes. he 219 was a sitting duck in daylight making transfer flights and being hunted down by RAF fighters. the Uhu's record was not impressive as some would believe.

I'll make no comment about twin seat B-1a/U1 262's during the day.


----------



## drgondog (Jan 30, 2009)

Erich said:


> sorry for reasons that I have already stated in the best nf thread about the He 219, the Ju 88G-6 was superior. in fact due to the over-arming of the 219 the underfuselage arms were reduced in I./NJG 1. Two man crew was a prob, the ejection seat had its fallacies with too many crews busting out through glass. no rear mg 131 for a Mossie deterent, on it goes. he 219 was a sitting duck in daylight making transfer flights and being hunted down by RAF fighters. the Uhu's record was not impressive as some would believe.
> 
> I'll make no comment about twin seat B-1a/U1 262's during the day.



That about sums it up. 

On the B-1a/U1 - AFAIK it never flew a day mission, not sure what the operational history was - my only point is if I had to choose between a 219 and a 262 to perform both day and night there would be no contest for me.

The actual operational status would have a bearing on even considering the 262 in actual night ops?


----------



## Bill G. (Jan 30, 2009)

"Bill - good choice for night time. Would you choose over the 262 two seater night fighter that could also be 'pressed into' daylight role?

Conversely how would He 219 do in daylight?"

drgondog:

Both are good questions. 

The Me-262 two seater isn't as good as a single seater. But that is a given. It would still be an improvement over all of the piston engined fighters. I guess you could give the back seater the day off. Yep, pun intended! 

The He-219 would be better than most of the twin piston engined fighters of the Luftwaffe. Given a chance to slip inside of the fighters, the He-219 would be very damaging to B-17s and B-24s. The trick would be to stay outside of the effective range of massed 50 cal fire. The He-219 would be death to any straggling bomber.

An optimized He-219 for day operations would strip the radar (drag, weight) and delete the radar operator position and gear. And remove the upward firing cannons and ammo. This would lighten the He-219 and give it a higher top speed. The P-38 was one of the few twin engined fighters that got it right. Two engines don't mean you need two crew members and rear weapons.

The He-219 isn't a dog fighter. It's only defence is to use it's 400+MPH speed to escape. I am not a big fan of rear defence weapons on a fighter. You are outgunned every time. You are better off being able to break off the fight or at least stretch out the fight to the point the escort will break off to save fuel and stay in the area of the bombers. This is live to fight another day.

And to all. I took this thread to be all bomber killers. If my jumping into night fighting offended anyone by going in an unwanted direction, I am sorry. I mean no harm.

Bill G.


----------



## Erich (Jan 30, 2009)

Bill

I have chatted many times with the historian of I./NJg 1 out of Venlo, the Uhu never could hit 400 mph plus there were so many technical entanglements besides the beast being way too big over all. A Mossie hunter A-6 was invisioned but even with it's stripped armor and armament it was felt there ws nothing gained in producing it. In regards to I./NJG 1 they approved and loved the Uhu in comparison to the Bf 110G-4 which was cramped and way too slow but yet still flew with success with the other 3 gruppen of NJG 1. another aspect quite often overlooked was the the missing component of most Uhu's on ops and that is lack of rearward radar a standard fit to the Ju 88G-6. As I said flying the Uhu in whatever variant during the day or even any twin engine job NF by the LW in 44-45 was suicidal.

back the the twin seater 262 with radar, it was needed, driving a single engine at night just with ground searchlights was not where the LW NJG's had to go they had to face it - they needed a back seater to drive home the Zahme Sau taktics with radar and that was the essence had jet portion of NJG 11 been able to go into 1946 this indeed is where it would of led. We know this from the pilots/crewmens mouths


----------



## drgondog (Jan 30, 2009)

Erich said:


> Bill
> 
> I have chatted many times with the historian of I./NJg 1 out of Venlo, the Uhu never could hit 400 mph plus there were so many technical entanglements besides the beast being way too big over all. A Mossie hunter A-6 was invisioned but even with it's stripped armor and armament it was felt there ws nothing gained in producing it. In regards to I./NJG 1 they approved and loved the Uhu in comparison to the Bf 110G-4 which was cramped and way too slow but yet still flew with success with the other 3 gruppen of NJG 1. another aspect quite often overlooked was the the missing component of most Uhu's on ops and that is lack of rearward radar a standard fit to the Ju 88G-6. As I said flying the Uhu in whatever variant during the day or even any twin engine job NF by the LW in 44-45 was suicidal.
> 
> back the the twin seater 262 with radar, it was needed, driving a single engine at night just with ground searchlights was not where the LW NJG's had to go they had to face it - they needed a back seater to drive home the Zahme Sau taktics with radar and that was the essence had jet portion of NJG 11 been able to go into 1946 this indeed is where it would of led. We know this from the pilots/crewmens mouths



Erich - I look to you for the NJG stuff and have always heard (other than Green) that the 219 never met expectations - even for early production.

I had never heard of the 262b-1a/u1 ever being in combat but certainly built for test before the war ended. Was there ever an operational flight against RAF?


----------



## Erich (Jan 30, 2009)

Bill

without taking away from my future volume, yes the twin seater flew minimum of 5 flights, scoring 1 Mossie kill, A/C number was red 12 flown by H. Altner.


----------



## Bill G. (Jan 30, 2009)

Erich:

I am still young enough to learn new information. You have such a great source of what happened.

My answer on the night fighter Me-262 was based on using it during the day time. I agree with you at night, you need the radar operator. No debate at all from me!

I know only what I have read on the He-219. The bulk of that is William Green's book Warplanes of the Third Reich. Your first hand data trumps the book.

I will still stand by my answer on what I would do if I had to use the He-219 during the day to attack B-17s and B-24s. I would want to use the best of the Uhu to it's greatest advantage. And not to fight the escorts on the escort's best terms. 

Even though the Uhu couldn't top 400MPH, it would still be faster than the Bf-110, Me-410, and Ju-88. This would give the Uhu some advantages in both attacking the bombers and evading the escorts.

Still I wouldn't want to take the Uhu into an heavily escorted bomber stream. I would attack where the escorts were absent.

Bill G.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 30, 2009)

I would still take a Ju 88 over the He 219. Everything I have ever read (and Erich our signature night fighter expert will probably agree with me) is the He 219 was not that great of an aircraft.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 30, 2009)

It's easy understand that Ju 88G it's more efficency weapons system for nighter fighter of He 219 but it's for me more hard understand that Ju 88G was simply a best fighter of He 219, can explain, give info on speed, turn rate, roll rate and so...
thank


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 30, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> It's easy understand that Ju 88G it's more efficency weapons system for nighter fighter of He 219 but it's for me more hard understand that Ju 88G was simply a best fighter of He 219, can explain, give info on speed, turn rate, roll rate and so...
> thank



I do not think that those criteria (except maybe turn and roll rate) are defining factors for a night fighter.

If you wish to really get into depth in the night fighter discussion, we already have a thread about Night Fighters. The topic of He 219 vs. Ju 88 is discussed in depth in that thread.


----------



## drgondog (Jan 30, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I do not think that those criteria (except maybe turn and roll rate) are defining factors for a night fighter.
> 
> If you wish to really get into depth in the night fighter discussion, we already have a thread about Night Fighters. The topic of He 219 vs. Ju 88 is discussed in depth in that thread.



It seems to me that the fundamental criteria for successful night fighter is good radar and operator to minimize what the pilot must manage, adequate speed and climb to get on station at the altitude loiter position, high closing speed on the bomber and firepower.

as long as the roll rate is better than the bomber that should be good enough.

For evasion from night fighter - then ability to detect presence and enough manueverability to get out of the radar scan seems to be adequate.


----------



## KrazyKraut (Jan 30, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I do not think that those criteria (except maybe turn and roll rate) are defining factors for a night fighter.
> 
> If you wish to really get into depth in the night fighter discussion, we already have a thread about Night Fighters. The topic of He 219 vs. Ju 88 is discussed in depth in that thread.


I think what Vincenzo meant was that he understands that the Ju 88 is a better nightfighter than the He 219, but doesn't think that it is the better (heavy) fighter of the two per se.

And I would agree with him as many of the deficiencies of the He 219 would not have mattered had it been used as a heavy fighter and the Ju 88 was never all that successful in that role iirc. However I doubt it (the He 219) would've been markedly superior to a Me 410 and certainly would've had similar problems against escorts. Considering how moderately the EKdo 335 estimated the Do 335 to perform in that role in early '45, I don't think a somewhat/considerably slower plane would've fared better.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 30, 2009)

drgondog said:


> It seems to me that the fundamental criteria for successful night fighter is good radar and operator to minimize what the pilot must manage, adequate speed and climb to get on station at the altitude loiter position, high closing speed on the bomber and firepower.
> 
> as long as the roll rate is better than the bomber that should be good enough.
> 
> For evasion from night fighter - then ability to detect presence and enough manueverability to get out of the radar scan seems to be adequate.



I agree.

As for the Uhu, I think it could have been developed into a good night fighter. My belief however is that was not quite that. Could have, should have, would have, did not...


----------



## Colin1 (Jan 30, 2009)

drgondog said:


> ...high closing speed on the bomber...


would this be desirable at night?


----------



## drgondog (Jan 30, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> would this be desirable at night?



1.) The better closing speed, the less time for a tail gunner to pick up something odd in his field of view.
2.) More time in the air to go get another one
3.) Harder to hit by defensive fire

usually one of those would be a good thing.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 30, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> would this be desirable at night?



To get vectored to the bombers before they reach there target it would be, as well as what Bill listed.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 30, 2009)

KrazyKraut said:


> I think what Vincenzo meant was that he understands that the Ju 88 is a better nightfighter than the He 219, but doesn't think that it is the better (heavy) fighter of the two per se.
> 
> And I would agree with him as many of the deficiencies of the He 219 would not have mattered had it been used as a heavy fighter and the Ju 88 was never all that successful in that role iirc. However I doubt it (the He 219) would've been markedly superior to a Me 410 and certainly would've had similar problems against escorts. Considering how moderately the EKdo 335 estimated the Do 335 to perform in that role in early '45, I don't think a somewhat/considerably slower plane would've fared better.



You take my point.
and i think best lw heavy fighter it's Me 410 (obv, after the few Do 335)


----------



## Erich (Jan 31, 2009)

well for NF the inclusion of twin 2cm Schräge Musik would be enough to flying under the bomber in such a way the heavy bomber tail gunner would not be able to pick out the nif. this was done repeatedly with some practice, in fact many NF aces preferred this method of attack and armament arrangement over the forward firing weapons


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 31, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I do not think that those criteria (except maybe turn and roll rate) are defining factors for a night fighter.
> 
> If you wish to really get into depth in the night fighter discussion, we already have a thread about Night Fighters. The topic of He 219 vs. Ju 88 is discussed in depth in that thread.




i reading the thread nothing on question he 219a vs ju 88g as fighter but a generic he 219 it's underpowered but it's power ratio it's not much different from that of ju 88


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 31, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> i reading the thread nothing on question he 219a vs ju 88g as fighter but a generic he 219 it's underpowered but it's power ratio it's not much different from that of ju 88



I will see if I can find the thread for you. This topic has been hashed out over and over.


----------



## Sweb (Feb 7, 2009)

The Jug, hands down. High altitude performance, eight .050's with higher firing rates than any German cannon (less time-on-target), range, brutally tough and uncatchable in a dive. 

In another role, these puppies in mass flights could have done more pin-point accuracy bombing of German targets than any carpet bombing of the day and saved countless lives on both sides. The pilots of Jugs at the reunions I attended made these comments with the look of  in their eyes for the SNAFUs at the top who under-utilized them. Lose 10 Jugs on a surgical strike that takes out the intended target and that's ten lives vs 20 in 2 B-17's. That and on their best days (clear, no winds) a B-17 group might manage target damage. Jugs would render a second mission unnecessary.

With the advent of the P-51 flying cover, Jugs could have done what all the heavies did in less time with less cost and loss of life. 

Discuss.


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 8, 2009)

HUH????

The P-47 as a Bomber Killer??? WTF u smokin boy???


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 8, 2009)

Sweb said:


> The Jug, hands down. High altitude performance, eight .050's with higher firing rates than any German cannon (less time-on-target), range, brutally tough and uncatchable in a dive.



You want to try and bring down bombers with .50 Cals...

There is a reason why the most successful bomber killers were armed with 20mm and 30mm cannons that used high explosive minengeschoss.


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 8, 2009)

How about the Jug with 4 VYa-23 cannons?


----------



## Valo300 (Feb 9, 2009)

I would have to go with the F4U-1C armed with 4x 20mm guns.


----------



## imalko (Mar 18, 2009)

In my opinion, the best bomber killing fighter aircrafts of WW2 were:

In battle of Britain - Hurricane

In defence of the Reich - Focke Wulf Fw 190A-8 Sturmjager 

In the East - Messerschmitt Bf 109G with cannons in underwing gondolas (Fw 190 would be better here too but it was mainly used in ground attack role and only in small numbers in fighter role)

As for defence of Japan, I am not too familiar with Japanese aircrafts, but lets say Ki-61 Hien maybe?


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 20, 2009)

For Japan that would be Kawasaki Ki-45Toryu, the twin engined fighter, that could do the damage to B-17 B-24.
For attack at B-29 that would be the Nakajima Ki-84 Hayate, since all others lacked speed to catch Superfortreses at 30.000ft.


----------



## drgondog (Mar 20, 2009)

tomo pauk said:


> How about the Jug with 4 VYa-23 cannons?



How about the 51H with the same armament


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 20, 2009)

It would be an _uberflieger_, but the Jug was available years before.

Now, the engine mounted VYa-23 would transfer the Bf-109 into an bomber killer; even the Friedrich would rock.


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 20, 2009)

When I think of Bomber Killing Aircraft, I think of the Luftwaffe/Axis going after the hordes of Allied aircraft attacking Axis homelands....

And in that instance, theres nothing better than the A-8/R8 with the extra armor and 30mm Mk108's in the wings....


----------



## Clay_Allison (Mar 20, 2009)

lesofprimus said:


> When I think of Bomber Killing Aircraft, I think of the Luftwaffe/Axis going after the hordes of Allied aircraft attacking Axis homelands....
> 
> And in that instance, theres nothing better than the A-8/R8 with the extra armor and 30mm Mk108's in the wings....


I beg to differ on the 30mm, it had a very low velocity and rate of fire so that it limited a fighter's opportunity to engage the target accurately.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 20, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> I beg to differ on the 30mm, it had a very low velocity and rate of fire so that it limited a fighter's opportunity to engage the target accurately.



How would it limit it? With 30mm Minengeschoss it would not really matter.


----------



## Colin1 (Mar 20, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> I beg to differ on the 30mm, it had a very low velocity and rate of fire so that it limited a fighter's opportunity to engage the target accurately.


Low velocity was the key to large-calibre cannon's success. It meant an explosive hit anywhere on the body of the target aircraft, even the 'soft-skinned' areas rather than relying on the shell bumping into something hard, like an engine block. I'm not sure if calling it a bomber-specific weapon is entirely accurate but it was good at what it did. You also didn't really require that much of an opportunity when you consider the bomber is 

i. quite big and 
ii. in formation, holding steady

in order to engage the target accurately, it isn't jinking around like another fighter.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Mar 20, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> How would it limit it? With 30mm Minengeschoss it would not really matter.


As the fighters got faster, especially the Me 262, their window of opportunity to engage the target was more and more limited, making it much harder to hit the aircraft on a pass with a slow shooting weapon that had a rainbow trajectory.

The prop planes so-armed had to get uncomfortably close to the bomber formation and their defensive armament to use it as well.


----------



## Colin1 (Mar 20, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> As the fighters got faster, especially the Me 262, their window of opportunity to engage the target was more and more limited, making it much harder to hit the aircraft on a pass with a slow shooting weapon that had a rainbow trajectory


Surely the better closing speed of the Me262 opened that window of opportunity, along with shorter lead time between thumping one bomber and moving on to the next?


----------



## Clay_Allison (Mar 20, 2009)

Colin1 said:


> Surely the better closing speed of the Me262 opened that window of opportunity, along with shorter lead time between thumping one bomber and moving on to the next?


The closing time was excellent, everything about the interception ability of the AC was incredible. I just think that if the Mauser Mauser MG 213 had been perfected and put into service they would have been better served by its' higher rate of fire than by the giant caliber of the 30mm.


----------



## lesofprimus (Mar 20, 2009)

The Mk108 30mm Minen round was the most effective bomber killing weapon in the entire War.... Any other opinion is uneducated...


----------



## Clay_Allison (Mar 20, 2009)

lesofprimus said:


> The Mk108 30mm Minen round was the most effective bomber killing weapon in the entire War.... Any other opinion is uneducated...


My problem isn't so much the cartridge as the cannon. A longer barreled, gas operated gun with a high rate of fire would have improved the passes/kills ratio tremendously.

As it is, it reminds me of a more reliable version of the P-39's gun.


----------



## delcyros (Jun 16, 2009)

What is wrong with the MK 108´s rate of fire? 
650 rounds per minute is pretty neat for a waepon of this size (compare: 20mm Hispano MK II: 600 rpm). Late war (1945) versions had their rate increased to 850 rounds per minute, making it the fastest firing large calibre gun to see service in ww2.
High rates of fire in combination with low muzzle velocity also implies a small mean statistical distance between two successive shells and correspondingly a very high density of fire. That comes in handy while engaging aerial targets.


----------



## Erich (Jun 16, 2009)

what can I say except to view LW gun cam footage late war and witness the terrible destructive power of said weapon on B-17/B-24's. the LW said from the very beginning this was a close in to engage weapon to assure maximum firepower and effectiveness


----------



## TenGunTerror (Jun 25, 2009)

Although it couldn't get up to altitude fast or could maneuver at high altitudes good, the P-39 could usually take out most Luftwaffe bombers with a single 37mm shell and had many machine guns to boot


----------



## Erich (Jun 25, 2009)

and what is your basis for P-39's attacking LW bombers ?

fighter vs fighter yes but most importantly ground attack for that crate


----------



## delcyros (Jun 26, 2009)

hmm, the P-39´s 37mm M9 has a comparably low muzzle velocity as the MK 108 but only 140 rpm rate of fire (instead of 600 to 850 for the MK 108). In top of this, the M37 has less explosive cavity, so I would rate it inferior to the MK 108 in the bomber killing role.
It´s not such a lightweight weapon, too...


----------



## Civettone (Jul 21, 2009)

Erich said:


> and what is your basis for P-39's attacking LW bombers ?
> 
> fighter vs fighter yes but most importantly ground attack for that crate


Apparently that's a myth... The P-39 was used as a fighter and not as a ground attack aircraft. Of course it could be used that way but apparently not more than other fighters.

On the other side, many P-39s were rearmed with 20mm guns... though that may have been only during the early stages. 


Kris


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jul 21, 2009)

" ... On the other side, many P-39s were rearmed with 20mm guns... though that may have been only during the early stages..."

Not really, Civettone. The one's with 20's were P-400's that the British had ordered and found not to their wanting and passed on to the Soviets - who no doubt may have swapped the Hispanos with a 20 of their own. But mostly what the Russians did was REMOVE wing guns. Concentrating on the 37 and the 2 50's. 

MM


----------



## Clay_Allison (Jul 21, 2009)

If the P-38 had been fitted with a pair of M4 37mm cannon it would have been the perfect bomber interceptor IMO.


----------



## carbonlifeform (Jul 22, 2009)

The P-39 was called the Flying Dog for good reason by those that got stuck flying it. While it may have been decently armed, it was a pig to fly.
The best bomber attack aircraft of the war was the FW-190. Sturdy enough that if you ran out of gun and cannon rounds, you could ram the bomber as a last resort and have some chance of surviving.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Jul 22, 2009)

The P-38 really had a lot of potential, if we had needed a bomber killer for big bombers, the Lightning could have had some really impressive armament nose-mounted.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jul 22, 2009)

"..The P-39 was called the Flying Dog for good reason by those that got stuck flying it. While it may have been decently armed, it was a pig to fly."

The Russians didn't think so, Carbon, and neither did Chuck Yeager.

Providing top cover for Sturmaviks, flying from fields 20 miles behind the front, the Airacobra was a HOT plane with a deadly gun at 100 meters.

MM


----------



## Erich (Jul 22, 2009)

the P-39 used by the Soviets was used for close ground support, a few yes and I mean a few pilots were good enough to tangle with the Lw in the air. as to being armed with heavier caliber cannon the point is useless when closing in to ensure a kill that you don;t get entrapped with debris off your victim plus having the heavier up to two 37mm's ? point is the uselessness in maneuvering in a dogfight with your foes escorts.

the SturmFw was the supreme Viermotötter but proved it's probs with P-51's after the carry through a US bomber formation


----------



## Civettone (Jul 22, 2009)

michaelmaltby said:


> " ... On the other side, many P-39s were rearmed with 20mm guns... though that may have been only during the early stages..."
> 
> Not really, Civettone. The one's with 20's were P-400's that the British had ordered and found not to their wanting and passed on to the Soviets - who no doubt may have swapped the Hispanos with a 20 of their own. But mostly what the Russians did was REMOVE wing guns. Concentrating on the 37 and the 2 50's.
> 
> MM


You're right Michael. I reread the story from Joe Baugher and it did relate to the P-400 as well as post-war. 

As to Erich's claim. I'll just copy paste the following:

_It is in Soviet service that the Airacobra was used to its best effect. Soviet Air Force military doctrine was that its primary mission was to support the ground operations of the Soviet Army, and the P-39 was a natural for this role since it had an excellent low altitude performance and was heavily armed. Contrary to many published reports, the Soviet Airacobra was not primarily used as a ground-attack aircraft and tank buster, although it is certainly true that it often strafed targets of opportunity. It was actually primarily used as a low-altitude escort fighter for ground attack aircraft such as the Il-2 and later the Il-10. 

The Airacobra was quite popular with its Russian pilots, who appreciated its heavy armament, its excellent low-altitude performance, and its ability to absorb an incredible amount of battle damage. When operating at low altitudes, the Airacobra was often able to hold its own against top-of-the-line German fighters. Some Soviet pilots felt that the P-39 outclassed even the Messerschmitt Bf 109 and Focke Wulf FW 190 at altitudes below 10,000 feet. Some of the users of the type were Guard (ie. elite) Fighter Regiments 16 GIAP, 19 GIAP, 21 GIAP, 72 GIAP, 100 GIAP, 213 GIAP (previously 508 IAP) and Fighter Regiments 196 IAP, 255 IAP, 508 IAP (later 213 GIAP). 

Several Soviet Airacobra aces are known. Lieutenant Colonel of the Guards Alexander I. Pokryshin, a Soviet ace with 59 kills to his credit, scored 48 of these in a P-39. He was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross by President Roosevelt. There are eight other P-39 pilots with at least 20 kills. Among top Airacobra aces were Grigorii A Rechkalov (44 kills) , Nikolai D Gulayev (36 kills), Ivan I Babak, Aleksandr F Klubov, Andrei I Trud, and the brothers Boris B Glinka and Dmitrii B Glinka _

Airacobras in the Soviet Union

Kris


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jul 22, 2009)

Thanks, Kris. I get very tired at the endless slagging of the P-39. There were lots of Soviet Airacobra aces and it was probably as forgiving to fly in combat as any Soviet fighter. It wasn't the fighter that the British or Americans needed - even with high altitude performance it would have had very short legs - but it was what the Russians needed in the unique conditions on the Eastern Front. Deserves more respect IMHO 

MM


----------



## Erich (Jul 22, 2009)

I did not post a claim but the truth gents, you even say so Civ in your posting. the P-39 was not a bomber killer extrod


----------



## Clay_Allison (Jul 24, 2009)

I think the Mosquito would have been an amazing bomber killer if called upon to do the job.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 24, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> I think the Mosquito would have been an amazing bomber killer if called upon to do the job.



It would have been as effective or better than the Me 410 but should have a lot of problems against good escort fighters..


----------



## Waynos (Jul 24, 2009)

But the Germans didn't have any


----------



## Civettone (Jul 26, 2009)

Erich, I was more referring to what you said about the P-39 being used by the Soviets for close ground support which was not true. Mainly as a fighter and used for ground attacks when needed... just like any other Russian fighter.


Kris


----------



## 20317 (Sep 26, 2009)

if we're talking about kill / death ratio, surely a german night fighter has to take gold.

problem is, history is whats been reported by those *considerably* removed from the concept of free or accurate speech due to agendas, so I'm thinking there are those little diamonds of truth forever buried under the avalanche of Victors Propaganda.

its anyones guess. You might as well ask for the most effective fighter, pound for pound all things considered.

youll just get a question answered by a million more.


----------



## Colin1 (Sep 26, 2009)

20317 said:


> ...there are those little diamonds of truth forever buried under the avalanche of Victors Propaganda...


nice...


----------



## Josh64 (Sep 27, 2009)

FW-190A8 was by far the best!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 27, 2009)

Josh64 said:


> FW-190A8 was by far the best!



Why don't you tell us why you think it was the best. It might spark up conversation...


----------



## Josh64 (Sep 27, 2009)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Why don't you tell us why you think it was the best. It might spark up conversation...



Well it was the most heavily armed fighter of WWII and could easily stay with the bombers where the Me-262 could only make a pass and then have to turn around and come back. Also it was a rugged aircraft that could take alot of punishment. And in terms of numbers of Allied aircraft destroyed the Luftwaffe Sturmgruppen achieved incredible results.


----------



## lesofprimus (Sep 27, 2009)

The 262 had a chance to run from those Mustangs, whereas them young boys flyin those up-armored A-8/R2 and R8's didnt stand much of a chance...

Any idea how many died just tryin to get to the bomber stream??? 

100's....

That bein said, I agree that the Fw190A-8 was the best at bomber killin, but strictly from a weapons carrying platform with correct fighter support...


----------



## phatzo (Sep 28, 2009)

I would have to say the me 163 due to its ability to get to alt and the two massive Mk 108 30mm cannons, followed by the 262 and the Tank monster Ta 152. Seems 30mm was the way to bring them down. Just as a footnote the Bf 109K4 would have to be amongst them, with its good climb and speed not to mention the Mk 108 tater gun.


----------



## Josh64 (Sep 28, 2009)

lesofprimus said:


> The 262 had a chance to run from those Mustangs, whereas them young boys flyin those up-armored A-8/R2 and R8's didnt stand much of a chance...
> 
> Any idea how many died just tryin to get to the bomber stream???
> 
> ...



You're right about the vulnerabilty of the A8 to Mustangs. But I was just speaking from the "Bomber Killing" capability standpoint. 
But from the Vulnerabilty category the Me-262 was a better airplane. Good Point!


----------



## phatzo (Sep 28, 2009)

the 262 was extremely vulnerable to return fire as a single .303 in the engine would cause a flame out. Hence I mentioned the non jet interceptors, the Ta 152 and 109k4.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 28, 2009)

phatzo said:


> the 262 was extremely vulnerable to return fire as a single .303 in the engine would cause a flame out. Hence I mentioned the non jet interceptors, the Ta 152 and 109k4.


A .303 well placed in ANY engine could cause its failure. Where in the 262's engine are you referring to? Compressor? Turbine? At the exhaust duct? For that matter you could say that about any turbine engine.

Return fire? Do you realize how hard it was to even hit a 262 from a turret or any gun position?


----------



## Colin1 (Sep 28, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Return fire? Do you realize how hard it was to even hit a 262 from a turret or any gun position?


Yep
the motorised gun positions couldn't traverse fast enough to bead an Me262, leaving the waist gunners whose field of vision would preclude them also unless the Me262 was coming at them from the beam. Anything aft to fore would be a blur, fore to aft I doubt they'd even know there was anything out there unless there was a crew alert from the front of the aircraft.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 28, 2009)

phatzo said:


> the 262 was extremely vulnerable to return fire as a single .303 in the engine would cause a flame out. Hence I mentioned the non jet interceptors, the Ta 152 and 109k4.



That could technically happen to any aircraft engine...


----------



## Guns'n'Props (Sep 28, 2009)

Er... I think that the 262's worst enemy were its own engines. Very short life around 75hours if I recall and liable to come apart if revved up too suddenly (especially by rookies). 

Its 30mm guns were deadly - Mk108 no ? but had a low muzzle velocity so you probably had to get a bit closer than the usual 20mm. Results were spectacular if tragic. There a pic of a Spitfire fuselage after being hit by a 30mm shell in some post war test done on the ground. The structure frame etc 's completely gone at point of impact !!


----------



## Guns'n'Props (Sep 28, 2009)

.... and if I was to name a contender for bomber killer it would be the Me110 night fighter variant.

Ok I'm not going to trawl thru' all those books again so some of you guys will nail me with some statistics but this plane flew steadily thru' most of the war and reaped a grim harvest of RAF night bombers almost up to the end. Ok there other Nachtjaeger like the Ju88, Do217 or even the He219 and 109s 190 in Wilde Sau etc but the 110 was the "old warhorse".

IMHO during the daytime 109s and 190s did reap their own carnage. However it was always harder. SOme author (Mike Spick ?) once compared a head on attack on a formation of B17s to "going over the top" in WW1. The main idea was hit it such that it will fall out of the safety of the wing's defensive firepower, then take it out with greater ease. Thus I'd say it was more of a "hunting pack" job rather than a complete kill as in the 110 where you stalked and fired (1 on1) usually with catastrophic results for the receiver.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 28, 2009)

Guns'n'Props said:


> Er... I think that the 262's worst enemy were its own engines. Very short life around 75hours if I recall and liable to come apart if revved up too suddenly (especially by rookies).



Try as little as 10 hours, but "revving" a 262's engine did nothing to make it come apart. If you accelerated the power lever too quickly you could make the engine flame out. Fuel controls of the period were very poor, both allied and German.

In essence, many of the pilots who flew the -262 were "rookies" when flying a turbine aircraft.


----------



## Erich (Sep 28, 2009)

On yesterdays date in 1944 the US 445th bg was nearly destroyed by the 3 Sturmgruppen

todays date back in 1944 IV.Sturm/JG 3 ripped up 18 B-17's out of the 41st CBW. the 1st BD lost another 9-10 possibly to IV.STurm/JG 3 as well or another one of the SturmFW units - JG 300 in combination with JG 3's.

the SturmFw's made one pass from the rear through the heafvy bombers then turned around and were free to attack from all angles

US losses for the date are still confusing


----------



## Guns'n'Props (Sep 28, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Try as little as 10 hours, but "revving" a 262's engine did nothing to make it come apart. If you accelerated the power lever too quickly you could make the engine flame out. Fuel controls of the period were very poor, both allied and German.
> 
> In essence, many of the pilots who flew the -262 were "rookies" when flying a turbine aircraft.



I once read some anecdote of Wing Cmdr Douglas Benham flying Spitfire XIVs late in the war. With a height advantage of 5000feet + he would try to bounce 262 with steep vertical dives - to get the speed - and then chase. Apparently the idea was that if the 262 pilot was a veteran he would keep his cool and advance the throttles gradually thus picking up speed but if he was green he'd panic, fling the throttles open and possibly try to turn into the attack. WC Benham claimed that making the 262 fly flat out for more than 10mins would cause the engines to fail and 41 Sqdr used this tactic successfully on 6 occasions. Admittedly I have never verified this but the fact that the quality of engine materials available to the Germans at the time was poor does support it


----------



## Guns'n'Props (Sep 28, 2009)

Erich said:


> On yesterdays date in 1944 the US 445th bg was nearly destroyed by the 3 Sturmgruppen
> 
> todays date back in 1944 IV.Sturm/JG 3 ripped up 18 B-17's out of the 41st CBW. the 1st BD lost another 9-10 possibly to IV.STurm/JG 3 as well or another one of the SturmFW units - JG 300 in combination with JG 3's.
> 
> ...



I really had an apparently mistaken impression  that by late Sep'44 the P-51s had Jadgwaffe sorted out. Was this a singular incident or were such losses still occurring from time to time ? Is it possible that these units were the lowest or last in the bomber formation thus the most vulnerable ?


----------



## Erich (Sep 28, 2009)

October 6 and 7th, November 2nd, 21st, 27th, 28th

several missions in December as well, January 14, 1945

will back up into September again, September 11, 12th 44; all of July since the 7th and the month of August


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 28, 2009)

Guns'n'Props said:


> I once read some anecdote of Wing Cmdr Douglas Benham flying Spitfire XIVs late in the war. With a height advantage of 5000feet + he would try to bounce 262 with steep vertical dives - to get the speed - and then chase. Apparently the idea was that if the 262 pilot was a veteran he would keep his cool and advance the throttles gradually thus picking up speed but if he was green he'd panic, fling the throttles open and possibly try to turn into the attack. WC Benham claimed that making the 262 fly flat out for more than 10mins would cause the engines to fail and 41 Sqdr used this tactic successfully on 6 occasions. Admittedly I have never verified this but the fact that the quality of engine materials available to the Germans at the time was poor does support it



There's many problems with that claim...

The situation mentioned could be applied to any aircraft, not just the 262. Its a matter of seen and be seen. If you're diving on an opponent from 5000' above you could be in a bi-plane and have the advantage. As far as Benham's 10 minute claim, not true on the Jumo and for that manner just about any turbine engine. When flying the a turbine engine you are operating at RPMs in the high 80 and low 90%. Spooling up to full power happened a lot quicker than if you were at flight idle and then suddenly slamming the power levers to 100%. You never flew an early jet at flight idle unless you has some other issues.

And again for 10 minutes? If Benham was chasing a 262 for 10 minutes at WEP, I think he too would have some engine issues as well even if flying a Griffon powered Spit. WW2 dogfights rarely lasted more than a very few minutes if not sooner.

As long as turbine temps are kept within parameters you could run a turbine engine at 100% all day. The problems with the early Jumos was the materials used in the turbine section and the lack of nickel steels which were compensated by other means.

BTW Recip aircraft have throttles, jets have power levers.


----------



## Guns'n'Props (Sep 29, 2009)

Thanks for the info Flyboyj. I had no idea that turbines are flown at 80%+ so this rules out the "panic the pilot" tactic. This implies that unless you got really lucky the only way you could take out a 262 was (in fact) at take-off or landing.

It would be interesting to check on 41 Squadron's claims for 262s in '45. Maybe they came across a spate of 262's with Jumos past their "best before date". It is also possible that Benham was just describing a singular case that was incorrectly quoted or recorded.

Yes I agree that most dogfights were over in a very short time - unlike the ones on my PC flight simulators.


----------



## Civettone (Oct 3, 2009)

Oh no it's perfectly possible to catch a Me 262 while diving down and thereby achieving higher speeds. There are several documented kills done in that fashion. The problem Flyboyj had with that story was more about the stuff on the 10 minute chase. That doesn't make sense. Not only because of the Jumo 004 being able to take those rpms. But also because the momentary speed advantage would not last 10 minutes. 

Other accounts claim that Mustang pilots gave chase to a Me 262 after gaining speed after diving down on the Me 262. They would not be able to catch up but would wait for the (inexperienced) Me 262 pilot to turn after which they would go for the kill. That was another lesson for Me 262 pilots: don't turn violently but turn gently while keeping your main weapon: speed ! (Strangily enough this was also the main strength of the Mustang.)

Kris


----------



## Guns'n'Props (Oct 4, 2009)

I've finally done a bit of reading on the 262. I admit the 262 is not one of my favourite WW2 aircraft hence I know next to nothing other than the obvious. Rummaging thru' my book shelves I came across
"WW2 Fighting Jets" - Jeff Ethell and Alfred Price, Airlife 1994. It seems the 262 even had an Automatic Throttle Control as stated in pg54:

"On the Me 262s in service the throttles had to be advanced slowly up to 6,000 rpm to avoid burning out the jet units. Above 6,000 rpm the throttles could be pushed all the way forward at once, because an automatic fuel flow and pressure regulator prevented a too sudden increase in the amount of fuel entering the jets and a resultant overheating. By the end of the war a new regulator had been developed to control the fuel flow so that the throttles could be set at any point and the new regulator would ensure a safe and gradual acceleration of the engine to the rpm selected. Just before the war ended the new regulator had been tested and found satisfactory".

If the 6,000 rpm = 80% thrust this fits with what FLYBOYJ said earlier but it also highlights the possibility of damaging the engine if power was increase too suddenly below 6,000rpm. The fact that the Germans took precious time and resources to develop a new regulator may also imply that this was a common problem.

What are your thoughts / explanations ?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Oct 4, 2009)

In early jets from engine idle to 80% one had to be careful when moving the power levers, what the Germans were experiencing was evident on all turbine engines at the time, even those built with better nickel steels. In 2nd and 3rd generation engines there was a matter of acceleration where the engine just won't accelerate that quickly if you slam the power lever to 100% when sitting at engine idle. 

This regulator you speak about was probably part of the fuel control.


----------



## phatzo (Oct 4, 2009)

really anything with the tater chucker was devastating against bombers. bf109g-14 bf109k4 me163 me262 
fw190 a8 its hard to say which is better because the all excelled in different areas. 163 ability to get quickly to alt 262 for speed a8 for lots 'o' guns. But lets spend a minute or two reflecting on the mossie. I would not like to be in a He 111 that gets spotted by a mossie.


----------



## FW190D-9 (Oct 15, 2009)

FW-190A-8s were probable the most effective. The A-8/R-2 versions were probably the most devestating. The D-9s had the pedigree of an outstanding higher altitude killer than the A-8s, but came a bit too late in small numbers. Cheers, TF.


----------



## gepp (Oct 19, 2009)

Two come to mind for me FW-190A-8 and The Bf 110 i know ill probably get laughed at for saying the 110 but at night they made a mess of bomber formations.by day it was the A-8's turn.


----------



## Civettone (Oct 19, 2009)

Bf 109G-14/U4/R4 had two heavy MGs and three 30mm cannons. This was to me the ultimate Kanonenboot!

Kris


----------



## thor (Nov 19, 2009)

if you take the night war into account the 110 must get much respect ...


----------



## stona (Nov 19, 2009)

GermansRGeniuses said:


> The BoB WAS over Europe!



Apocryphal headline, "Fog in channel. Europe cut off"

And yes,I knew what you meant.


----------



## b0ned0me (Dec 22, 2009)

Guns'n'Props said:


> I really had an apparently mistaken impression  that by late Sep'44 the P-51s had Jadgwaffe sorted out. Was this a singular incident or were such losses still occurring from time to time ? Is it possible that these units were the lowest or last in the bomber formation thus the most vulnerable ?



From Kassel Mission , interview with one of the survivors


> We were approaching the I.P. in a southeasterly direction, where we were supposed to make a slight left turn in an east-southeasterly direction toward Kassel, but for some reason the lead ship turned almost directly east, a mistake which would take us past the target city of Kassel, too far to the north. The only explanation was that the radar man had made a grievous error.
> 
> Practically every navigator in our group picked up on this mistake almost instantly, but it was too late for the lead ship to correct to the right, as he would have run into the stream of bombers coming up from the rear. In hindsight we can say that the correct thing to do would have been to make a 360° turn to the left and come in on the rear of the second division, but Major McCoy decided to continue on east and bomb the city of Gottin-gen, about 50 miles away. As a result we lost our fighter escort, and flew alone to our own destruction.


That last sentence sums it up perfectly - Sept 1944 was no time to be pootling about over central germany in broad daylight with no escorts. One navigational error compunded by one command error, and a very bad day resulted. It shows just how finely balanced things were, as well as how often the little friends saved the day.


----------



## Brant (Dec 22, 2009)

Can't argue with the ME262.


----------



## luftwaffemesserschmitt (Dec 30, 2009)

The best Bomber killling Aircraft ?

Every aircraft that was equipt with the lethal R4M rocket was the NR1 Bomberkiller 
With every Dayfighter in the Luftwaffe equipt with R4ms the losses would be horrible....


----------



## Erich (Dec 30, 2009)

would you say and that is it, until the rocket could become more guided it still was in it's infancy. no doubt the Fw 190A-8/R8 and the 262 A-1a ar ethe supreme masters


----------



## Clay_Allison (Dec 31, 2009)

Gotta go with the Jazz Music Ju-88G night fighters.


----------



## r puckett (Dec 31, 2009)

i think the me262 is the best.


----------



## vinnye (Dec 31, 2009)

It would have to be one of the LW fighterrs - either day or night - as they had much more opportunity due to the scale of the bomber formations used daily / nightly against targets in Axis controlled areas.
The Allies did not face the same size raids on a daily / nightly basis - so their success rate would never match that of their LW counterparts.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 31, 2009)

You also have to remember that the LW aircraft were armed better for combating heavy bombers. If you compare the evolution of the allied fighter armament and the LW fighter armament, you will see the progression to heavier cannons on the LW aircraft. This is only natural because they had to combat the large bomber formations.


----------



## Will_Derby (Jan 3, 2010)

I would have to say the British Hurricanes.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 3, 2010)

What!!??

Hurricanes with their .30 cals??? Comeon man, read through the thread and get educated some..


----------



## phatzo (Jan 3, 2010)

the 2c had 4 hispanos, nothing to sneeze at. Just a bit slow to catch any later bombers.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 3, 2010)

The IIc didnt come around till April or so of 1941, which means it missed out on the BoB, where it could have proved itself....

Not even in the top ten....


----------



## phatzo (Jan 4, 2010)

lesofprimus said:


> The IIc didnt come around till April or so of 1941, which means it missed out on the BoB, where it could have proved itself....
> 
> Not even in the top ten....



Agreed but just pointing out there was a Hurricane capable of messing up a bombers day.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 4, 2010)

Yea, no doubt about that...


----------



## B-17engineer (Jan 4, 2010)

I think HUrricane's were fair during BoB but after that other aircraft took over, more notably Luftwaffe IMO. I like the Fw-190 D-13 more than most.


----------



## vinnye (Jan 15, 2010)

Agreed - B17 engineer - the LW had aircraft that were designed to hit bomber formations and had learned lessons from the BOB that they put to good use. They also had LOTS of opportunity to hit bomber formations both during the day and night!
That being said - the airplanes they came up with were very good! Fw190D for me!


----------



## Erich (Jan 15, 2010)

the Dora was not intended for the anti-bomber role it was to be used as high altitude cover for other heavier equipped A-8's or just plain fighter vs fighter combat. the Dora cannot even be considered


----------



## vinnye (Jan 16, 2010)

Did the Dora's not attack bomber formations? 
I know what you are saying Erich - there was a similar situation (sort of) during the BoB - the Spitfires were usually tasked to engage the Me109's and the Hurricanes to engage the bombers. 
So I would not be that suprised if the LW used similar tactics to maximise the strengths of the aircraft that they had available. But if the Dora did not have a fighter escort to engage then I presume that they would engage the bombers?


----------



## Duke Soddy (Jan 16, 2010)

lesofprimus said:


> There are a few that were just devastating against Bomber formations.... There has to be one that was head and shoulders above the rest....
> 
> Which one was it???



this can be measured in many a different way.
#1 number of bombers brought down by any given aircraft
#2 Kill/Death ratio fighter vs. bomber of any given fighter
#3 A fighters impact on bomber formations when it _firstappeared in theatre/war
#4 a matter of personal opinion

My Answers
#1 I would guess based on my limited scope on the stats of each individual aircraft, that the Bf-109 was responsible for more bomber kills than any other aircraft in the war.

#2 I would say the US fighters in the Pacific enjoyed the most favorable Kill/Death ratio. P-38,47,51,F6F, F4U...etc

#3 Rhinemetall-Borsig Mk103 Mk 108, the delivery systems changed to include the Me-163 and Me-262, but those two planes alone didn't amount to very many kills, revolutionary in performance as they may have been. Those were the real heros of the Luftwaffe's ability to drop buffs.

#4 my personal opinion for the best bomber killer of WWII is ... AAA and Me-262 on priciple; if hadn't been hampered with fuel, ammo, and pilot shortages as well as half their strenght devoted to fruitless bombing sorties in the KG units, the war may have been prolonged a bit longer than it did._


----------



## Duke Soddy (Jan 16, 2010)

The Dora really never had a chance, when it arrived they could never send it up in force, they went up against P-51s and Mk XIVs at odds of 4 and 5 to one Dora. I don't think the dora killed too many bombers.


----------



## vinnye (Jan 16, 2010)

Just found this clip of a Tempest V and a 190.
Looks like there was some bad info going round or the LW had not come across a Tempest in a dive!

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQTfXVqNo9A_


----------



## bf109 Emil (Jan 17, 2010)

In this debate, the question asked or sought was along the lines as to "What the best Bomber killing aircraft"

If this is limited to an aerial fighter, then i would have to respond it would most likely be a fighter and one which was produced by Nazi Germany...maybe the Ju88 as a night fighter and hmmm a 109/190 being a day fighter.

Along the same lines if the best aircraft could perhaps be any aircraft, then i would like to vote either the Lancaster or B-17. My simple logic being that ordinates dropped killed a large portion of factories making bombers, destroyed fuel used for bombers, but more so forced the killing of many bombers to now be produced by factories into constructing fighter planes instead of a ratio which earlier saw Germany producing a higher % of Bombers, simply by the fact that one nations bomber force could not be overlooked and as it became a threat, Bombers or orders for bombers where "Killed" in order to manufacture defensive fighter


----------



## vinnye (Jan 17, 2010)

If the German infra-structure had not been so disrupted by Allied bombing - would they have produced more twin engined bombers or more of the Condor size in order to increase payload and range?

If the LW had been able to mount raids on the scale that the Allies did then some Allied fighters may well have figured more highly in the best bomber killer debate.
Maybe the Tempest - a fast powerfullt armed aircraft?


----------



## phatzo (Jan 18, 2010)

the Condor only had a very limited capacity for ordinance at 2100 kg

the Ju 88 on the other hand could carry 3600kg at overload. The condor was probably a bit of a lemon as a bomber but great at coastal reconaisance.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jan 18, 2010)

It is not the max. overload that counts but the bomb load that can be carried over a given distance.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jan 18, 2010)

Dont even mention the Tempest in a thread about Best Bomber Killer...


----------



## zoomar (Mar 14, 2010)

It depends on the operational situation. 

If day bombers are attempting to penetrate beyond the range of effective long-range escorts, you'd want a well-armored, cannon armed airplane with long endurance and a sufficiently high speed and climb rate to overtake bomber formations and make repeat attacks during the same sortie. In this context, it would be something like a Bf-110 or Me-410 - or in a Luft 46 world, Do-335 or Bf-109Z. If the day interceptors must avoid (or be able to mix it up with) single-seat escorts, the obvious choice would be the Me-262. In a pinch the Fw-190/Ta-152, cannon-armed Spitfire variants, or something like a Ki-84 or J7W1 might work.

Night is considerably different. Here, I'd go with the He-219.

It's hard to evaluate many allied types as bomber-killers, because they didn't ever have to match up against massed formations of high-altitude multi-engined bombers. Shooting down Bettys and He-111s was a far different task than taking on Lancasters, B-17Gs or B-29s. We know Mk I Spitfires and Hurricanes were not ideal bomber interceptors - even eight or 12 .303 MGs were hard-pressed to bring down He-111's. Luckily for the British, the Germans attempted to mount a long-range strategic campaign with twin engined medium bombers and attackers. One wonders what would have happened if the Germans launched the BoB with truly effective heavy bombers using USAAF defensive tactics.


----------



## mhuxt (Mar 29, 2010)

zoomar said:


> Night is considerably different. Here, I'd go with the He-219.



*facepalm*


----------



## Bullo Loris (Mar 29, 2010)

What about Ilyushin Il-2 Sturmovik?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 29, 2010)

Bullo Loris said:


> What about Ilyushin Il-2 Sturmovik?



As a bomber killing aircraft?

You do know that the Il-2 was an attack aircraft right not an interceptor or "bomber killer"?


----------



## bobbysocks (Mar 29, 2010)

he must play Birds of Prey....

and i just sifted through this thread and no one even brought up...which front or theater. jap bomber in the pacific....german bombers over russia....german bombers over the UK...everyone assumed allied from the UK.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Mar 29, 2010)

bobbysocks said:


> he must play Birds of Prey....


----------



## zoomar (Mar 31, 2010)

Actually, I'm sure many of you know that a bomber-interceptor variant of the Il2 was actually built and experimented with. It was a failure.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 31, 2010)

Care to shed some light on that?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 31, 2010)

I too have read about something like that, but that it was a failure because it could not keep up with the faster more modern bombers therefore making it difficult to intercept them. Never left prototype stage.

The exact variant name and when this prototype was developed I am not sure of though.


----------



## zoomar (Mar 31, 2010)

tomo pauk said:


> Care to shed some light on that?



I believe it was designated the Il-2I. Essentially it was a single seat variant with armor arranged to be more suitable for head on attacks against other aircraft. It carried the same cannon the ground attack versions used. I believe a few were tested operationally in 1941-42. It was intended as a bomber destroyer, but its performance was so poor it could rarely intercept most German twin engined bombers. This is based largely on memory, but I did check my memory against Wikipedia and it also describes this variant as a bomber interceptor. One reason I believe the Soviets went this route was because most of their standard early war single seat fighters with one MG and one cannon were chronically under armed.


----------



## Vincenzo (Mar 31, 2010)

there was a Il-1 idk if it's same Il-1, S.V.Ilyushin


----------



## zoomar (Apr 1, 2010)

Vincenzo said:


> there was a Il-1 idk if it's same Il-1, S.V.Ilyushin



I believe the IL-1 was a completely different design from the Il-2 (including the IL-2I), allthough it did employ some of the same basic Ilyushin concepts as in the Il-2. BTW, the "1" would not indicate it was an earlier design, or that it somehow led to the Il2 design. In Soviet nomenclature of the period, fighters received odd numbers while bombers/ground attackers had even numbers.


----------



## Hambone (Apr 2, 2010)

10% on the Me- 262


----------



## zoomar (Apr 2, 2010)

Hambone said:


> 10% on the Me- 262



I assume you meant "100%". Otherwise this is not much of an endorsement


----------



## Waggel (Apr 8, 2010)

This is my first post so hello to all and goof morning.

I went through the thread and I could see that the Me 262 and the Focke-Wulf 190 are the best bomber killers of WWII.

But you did not mention that both AC are the best bomber killer team of WWII. 

The US daylight bombing over Germany started in spring 1943

In 1943 the 190 was the best bomber killer that the Luftwaffe had. The air cooled double radial engine was a good protection for the pilot and the setup of weapons was deadly for a heavy bomber. 

In 1944 the mustang came to europe as a long range fighter and she was the best long range bomber escorter of WWII. She gave the 190 a very hard time.

With the Me 262 the german Luftwaffe again had the upper hand in fighting against the heavies. The Me 262 only was in service in small numbers. 

You have to see it a little bit more tactically:

The Me 262 could have been the first wave of an attack. With its 4 x 30mm or the R4M rockets she could split the bomber boxes. The P-51 could not follow the 262. With an high speed attack of an 262 you sometimes can not knock down a heavy bomber in the first run. But the damaged bombers can not stay in the formation and they fall out of the formation more and more, loosing altitude. As a pilot of a 190 such damaged planes are like breakfast in the morning. 

The mustangs now could attack the 190s but they mainly should protect the bomber boxes. Secondly the mustang is not that much better in lower alt against 190 and 109.

I personally prefer the 190-A as a bomber killer. Better protection. 


Have a nice day

Waggel


----------



## Clay_Allison (Apr 13, 2010)

Perhaps the Germans should have designated the 262s as primarily escort killers and sent the 109s and 190s after the bombers.


----------



## zoomar (Apr 13, 2010)

Clay_Allison said:


> Perhaps the Germans should have designated the 262s as primarily escort killers and sent the 109s and 190s after the bombers.



Actually, I believe that would be misuing their assets. The Me262 had devastating firepower best used in straight on attacks against large targets (bombers) able to shrug off lighter cannon and MG hits. The Fw190s and Bf109s would be better used to distract the escort fighters. It is frankly an arguable point if the Me262 was even superior to the Fw190D and Bf109K in fighter vs fighter combat against experienced USAAF pilots. Finally, to acheive the overall mission (which in 1945 Germany was bomber destruction, not acheiving overall air superiority), the piston engined fighters don't even have to shoot down any P-51s and P-47s to be successful. If they distract them to the point that the Me-262s can takeoff, make their interceptions, and land relatively unmolested. They have done their job.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Apr 15, 2010)

zoomar said:


> Actually, I believe that would be misuing their assets. The Me262 had devastating firepower best used in straight on attacks against large targets (bombers) able to shrug off lighter cannon and MG hits. The Fw190s and Bf109s would be better used to distract the escort fighters. It is frankly an arguable point if the Me262 was even superior to the Fw190D and Bf109K in fighter vs fighter combat against experienced USAAF pilots. Finally, to acheive the overall mission (which in 1945 Germany was bomber destruction, not acheiving overall air superiority), the piston engined fighters don't even have to shoot down any P-51s and P-47s to be successful. If they distract them to the point that the Me-262s can takeoff, make their interceptions, and land relatively unmolested. They have done their job.


I had considered that as well, my only concern was that there weren't enough 262s to beat off the bombers alone.


----------



## ashiphire (Apr 21, 2010)

the Hs 129 with the Bordkanone BK 7.5 model would have been interesting to see trying to take down bombers (even though it wasn't made for that)
And i'm not saying that it would have been the best just interesting to see

and if the Ta 152 got into mass production it would have done some serious damage in my opinion


----------



## Erich (Apr 21, 2010)

just so you are aware the Ta 152 was to be the crate to challenge the P-51 not US heavies, that was it's purpose


----------



## ashiphire (Apr 22, 2010)

yes but not all aircraft are used for what they were initially built for


----------



## Erich (Apr 22, 2010)

in this case .....yes


----------



## ashiphire (Apr 22, 2010)

well with what actually happened your right 
but what i'm saying is that if they had mass produced
the Ta 152 it would have been unlikely they would 
have only used it to take out P51s and some might
have been transferred to the role of bomber 
destroyer, in which case in my opinion they would 
have done very well


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 23, 2010)

Nice try to save face, but no dice.... They wouldnt have transferred any to the bomber destroyer role, it wasnt needed...


----------



## ashiphire (Apr 23, 2010)

just about every aircraft Germany made was at some point transferred to some other role
you can't say that they would have not tried it as a bomber destroyer


----------



## beaupower32 (Apr 23, 2010)

That may be, and I am sure that one or two Ta-152's would have tried to attack the bombers, but as Les and Eric said, it wasnt needed. They had the 262 for bomber destroyers, the Ta-152's were to deal with the Mustangs.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 23, 2010)

That would be "they were hoping to have". 
Producing sophisticated fighters in order to attack just a specific kind of enemy planes was, in the country that has 3 major powers shrinking it's territory, one of many mistakes Germans made in WW2.

A more specific case was deleting 2 cannons when they designed Fw-190D-9 vs. most of Anton's four, and hope to attack escorts only.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 23, 2010)

ashiphire said:


> just about every aircraft Germany made was at some point transferred to some other role
> you can't say that they would have not tried it as a bomber destroyer



In this case I think it would have. The Ta 152 would have been used to take out the escorts while other aircraft (i.e. Bf 109, Fw 190A, Me 262 etc) would have been used against the bombers.

Of course this all does not matter in the end because well it did not happen...


----------



## Knegel (Apr 28, 2010)

Hi,

for a good reason the Ta152H got a MK108 30mm, which was pretty much useless vs fighters.

btw, earlyer someone wrote that the 1 x 13mm + 2 x 20mm + 2x 30mm of the FW190A8/R8 was better than the 4 x 30mm of the 262. Thats just not true. 
And the best bomber destroyer while BoB was the 110C or Bf109E, cannons just do much better vs armored bombers.
Though, specialy cause this reason most RAF Bombers already operated at night while BoB.

Another very good and successfull Bomber destroyer was the He217 at night. 

Greetings,

Knegel


----------



## delcyros (Apr 28, 2010)

From 1939 to 1943 I tend to give the bf-110 credit for beeing the most dedicated and very successful bomber interceptor in night day roles.


----------



## looney (Jun 4, 2010)

BF110 is very good, I heard only it's roll rate was below par. P.s. Could the P-38 fight on equal terms with single engined fighters? Or was that only cause of the inferiour training of Axis pilots?

I find it strange to say that an aircraft is to fast. I do understand it was hard for the pilots to adjust to the higher speed. The FW190A-8/R8 is the best destroyer, however it could not hold his own against fighters. It was to heavy with the added armour. The ME-262 is the best interceptor, it's 100/80 30mm rounds are just not enuf to be called a pure destroyer. It could break up a box of heavies with ease. Leaving it open for destruction by other fighters. 

I read somethimes the max number of fighter they could send against a formation was 4. Not nearly enough to make a dent.


----------



## gjs238 (Jun 10, 2010)

lesofprimus said:


> There are a few that were just devastating against Bomber formations.... There has to be one that was head and shoulders above the rest....
> 
> Which one was it???



P-38


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 11, 2010)

gjs238 said:


> P-38



Why do you think that?

People need to explain why they think what they do. Just to name a plane and leave it at that is not really contributing to a good discussion.


----------



## gjs238 (Jun 12, 2010)

gjs238 said:


> P-38



P-38 for the following reasons:
- available early in the war
- very good firepower: 20mm cannon, (4) 0.50" machine guns
- very good range
- great rate of climb
- very good high altitude performance
(just don't feed it British fuel)


----------



## looney (Jun 15, 2010)

The P-38 might be the best US bomber killer, but nowhere near the German 30mm + 20mm or the heavy 37mm or 45mm armed Russian planes. The P-38 is only named cause the US didn't have a propper killer. The ME109 30mm + 2 13mm is better then the 20mm + 4x 0.50" of the P-38.

Why range is so important is beyond me, it's usefull but high climb rate with heavy armament is way more important. 
For the defenders it's a succes if the bomber formations break up and therefore miss their target, you need heavy rounds to bring 1 down in 1 pass. And thus make the bombers loose their formation, easier to kill them also when they alone.


----------



## Tomahawk101 (Jun 19, 2010)

Me 163
Me 262
Bristol Beaufighter
Hawker Hurricane
P-51
P-47


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 19, 2010)

Sure dumbass, why not, dont just pick one, list a whole bunch and throw a dart at em....


----------



## Tomahawk101 (Jun 21, 2010)

lesofprimus said:


> Sure dumbass, why not, dont just pick one, list a whole bunch and throw a dart at em....



Now now, I have had enough of insults for a day. FYI I was listing what I consider the best bomber killing aircraft.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 21, 2010)

Chill out everyone! Play nice...


----------



## looney (Jun 22, 2010)

I would think that any .50 armed fighter would have had problems bringing down bombers. Not to mention the Brittish and US heavies

P.s. I've been reading Osprey about the Sturmjeagers, they where mostly flying FW190 A8 R2, a MK108 with 55 rpg IN the wing. I thought the MK103/108 where mounted in gondolas. 
What where thay flying?


----------



## zoomar (Jul 2, 2010)

Tomahawk101 said:


> Me 163
> Me 262
> Bristol Beaufighter
> Hawker Hurricane
> ...



This is an interesting list, as it seems to be based on several, somewhat unrelated, critera. 

The first two (Me262 and Beaufighter) clearly belong based on actual performance in the role and by having the necesssary characteristics such as heavy cannon armament. The 262 also has excellent speed to avoid escorts and make enemy gunnery tracking difficult, and the Beaufighter has good endurance to commend it. 

The Hurricane racked up an outstanding record as a bomber interceptor in the Battle of Britain, so from the actual historical performance perspective it could be included as one of the "greatest" if not one of the "best" (there is a difference). However, its .303 calibre MG armameent was not really adequate against larger planes with self-sealing fuel tankls and it is fortunate for Britain that it mostly faced obsolescent twin-engined German bombers (He-111 and Do-17) with laughably poor defensive armament and not B-17s and B-24s.

The two US planes are also an interesting choce, since neither was used extensively in the bomber-killing role. However, it is reasonable to presume that the P-47, with its high altitude capability, ruggedness, and eight .50 cal MGs would do a good job against most bombers. The P-51, though, would not be well suited to the task. Four to six .50 cal MGs might bring down He-111s or Ki-21s pretty well, but against larger four-engined planes they would not be adequate. Plus its Merlin would be much more prone to "fatal" damage from concentrated defensive fire in comparison to the P-47.


----------



## JG 26 (Jul 11, 2010)

OK, here is my two cents

The best bomber killer was the FW 190A in just about all configurations. My reasons? Mass produced, long life, heavy firepower, armored, air cooled engine better survivability, radial engine helps protect pilot, can defend itself against escort fighters, did not need an escort when taking off or landing like the 262 and one of the most important aspects, reliability. Do not discount reliability when picking a bomber killer. Looking at the 262's reliability and the down time associated with very short engine life and vulnerability when taking off or landing I just can't choose it as my weapon of choice. But this is only my opinion.


----------



## looney (Jul 12, 2010)

About the Me 262: even the FW 190's (sturmbocken) needed protection from fighter they where heavy beasts (400kg heavier than the normal fighters). And the engine from a Me 262 could be changed very fast, at least fast enough not to make a problem. 

Allthough I agree the 190 was the best bomber killer, i do not agree with your reasons. The ME-262 was an high speed intereptor, the FW was a slow destroyer. 2 different tasks, 1 to break up the formation the 2nd to kill them.


----------



## Erich (Jul 12, 2010)

the tasks were the same in comparison if we use the A-8Sturm and the Me 262A-1a, both were developed to tackle the US heavy bomber formations and for Me 262 JG 7 this was it's primary task till wars end.


----------



## Glider (Jul 12, 2010)

The question 'Which is the Best Bomber Killing aircraft' is basically the same as 'Which is the Best WW2 bomber' There is one run away champion in each Me262 for the Killing aircraft and B29 for the best bomber.

The real question is 'Which is the second best bomber killing aircraft'.

When up to speed the Me262 was almost immune to enemy escorting fighters, could pick and choose when to attack and had a one pass, one kill ability, more with rockets. Nothing else comes close.

So the question is Whats second best?


----------



## johnbr (Jul 12, 2010)

I would love to have seen the Me 262 that had $ MG 213c in the nose.Muser said the date was burned in train fire.


----------



## Erich (Jul 12, 2010)

the 213 was worthless as it never fired in anger. 262 too fast for the committment against the rear of US heavy bombers, one shot one kill is a joke sorry, too fast to effectively set up a good rearward attack much more suited for the Fw and heavier arms packages. R4M's of the 262 was still too infantile and you could not be assured of a kill if even firing all 24 salvos in succession with your staffel Komarades.


----------



## zoomar (Jul 12, 2010)

Erich said:


> the 213 was worthless as it never fired in anger. 262 too fast for the committment against the rear of US heavy bombers, one shot one kill is a joke sorry, too fast to effectively set up a good rearward attack much more suited for the Fw and heavier arms packages. R4M's of the 262 was still too infantile and you could not be assured of a kill if even firing all 24 salvos in succession with your staffel Komarades.



So the Me262 was plane lacking a mission? If it wasn't an effective bomber destroyer (as you say), if it was not ideally suited to fighter vs fighter combat (which it wasn't), and was an ineffective ground attack plane, then what was it good at beside running away fast from allied fighters? Which raises the question if the Germans would have been better off putting all the R&D the spent of jets and jet engines into improved Fw-190s.


----------



## Erich (Jul 12, 2010)

who said it wasn't an effective bomber killer ? if you believe like many that JG 7 shot down some 500 Allied craft then there is truly something wrong. there is no doubt whatsoever in my mind the 262 put fear into the US bombe rcrewmen, everyone that I have interviewed from the 1945 era hated them and were fortunate enough not having to engage them for some, it was the last dying gasp that some would say kept the Reich alive in 45. the jet was too fast to make a turn around and attack again whether US escorts were involved or not, the fuel systems were funk the engines were haphazard the loiter time was not enough except to make one violent pass, was it the wave of the future.........yes without doubt.

as to ranking # 1 and # 2 good guess all of you it would be totally up to the pilots words flying their own crates


----------



## Glider (Jul 12, 2010)

Erich said:


> the 213 was worthless as it never fired in anger. 262 too fast for the committment against the rear of US heavy bombers, one shot one kill is a joke sorry, too fast to effectively set up a good rearward attack much more suited for the Fw and heavier arms packages. R4M's of the 262 was still too infantile and you could not be assured of a kill if even firing all 24 salvos in succession with your staffel Komarades.



A little harsh. I think we agree about the immunity from escorting fighters. There can be no doubt that if the 262 hit a B17/B24 then the aircraft was almost certain to go down. The problem seems to be the overtaking speed which limited the chance of a hit.
From what you are saying I take it that the tactic of firing when in a climb which slows the 262 down whilst firing wasnt a success. Am I right?


----------



## Erich (Jul 12, 2010)

harsh you say ? not really the truth though. pilots flying jets could appreciate any angle if not chased down by US P-51's which was more the case during spring of 45. the most common attack with success was flying level with the bomber formation to align sights which was miliaseconds fire a 2 second burst and speed away, hopefully the jet pilot got at least 1-2 hits on the bomber. the porpoise zoom down and climb up was early in the career of the jet unit JG 7 when they felt nothing in the US arsenal could stop them


----------



## looney (Jul 13, 2010)

How much time did the Me 109 and FW 190 have with frontal attacks? I believe that th epilots needed to learn how to attack with the 262, they all came from the slower prop planes, mostly only fought fighters so they needed to learn how to cope with defensive fire.


----------



## Erich (Jul 13, 2010)

5-6 seconds maximum even with setting up a frontal staffel attack a mile or more in distance, hopeful shots would get into the Bombers cockpit to take the crew out, the problem with this is the single and even twin engine LW fighters would have to go through the whole US heavy bomber formation before they could bank up or down and then the long trail forward to start the attack again if they could through the hail of .50 cals. this is why the rear attack became standard for the day JG's in July of 44.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 13, 2010)

Maybe less time E.. The effective envelope before imminent collision for the frontal attack was perhaps 300 yards down to 100 or a 600 ft envelope at, say, a minimum closing speed of 500mph ~ 733fps.. I think the math is roughly right.

So, maybe 1.2 -1.5 seconds for Effective aimed shooting, maybe two seconds if spray and pray for the lead ship from 400-500.. then pick another target with maybe the same interval?

Closing speed from rear closer to 200mph or 293fps - but a stern attack could be 'slowed' to a much slower closing speed to present a longer interval than 2.5 second interval for 300 to 100 yard closing.

Closing speed for an Me 262 is 700-750mph which makes a head on pass extremely difficult to put a pipper and hold it and avoid a mid air collision all at the same time...
~ .6 seconds.


----------



## Erich (Jul 13, 2010)

yes dependent on the JG staffeln on how soon they would start the attacks with their 2cm cannon many times out of range and wasting precious ammo.

you can easily see why the 262 would of been in a terrible position to attack from the front.


----------



## looney (Jul 14, 2010)

So a rear attack from a 262 takes about as long as a frontal attack by a 190 or 109? Plus in a dogfight 1 second is condidered long if you can keep a target in your crosshairs. 

Why was it so hard for the 262 pilots to make a zoom and boom pass from the rear?


----------



## looney (Jul 14, 2010)

Ooops double post


----------



## Erich (Jul 14, 2010)

the tactic was not hard to perform what was hard was for the pilot to be ready as he came up from slightly below to make the attack and fire. reason as I was saying that many times in 1945 the jet pilots just came in straight and slightly below to take out the tail gunner and fire into the inboard engines if time permitted, obviously the jet pilot slowed down to some degree to make an effective attack.


----------



## looney (Jul 15, 2010)

Sounds to me basic transition problems, not? 
Did they have a gyro sight on the 262, like the Ace maker? Cause it could be the gyro sight couldn't compute as fast as needed.. I can't believe pilots couldn't learn how to shoot down heavy slow bombers with a 262.


----------



## smg (Jul 15, 2010)

i think that the me 109 
thats just me


----------



## skeeter (Aug 25, 2010)

Has anyone mentioned the P-61 Black Widow? The early variants packed at least four 20mm cannon and four 50 caliber machine guns and, coupled with radar, were devastating. If the key question is WHAT is the best aircraft employed to shoot down bombers, I would think that the P-61 would certainly finish somewhere in the top ten. Due to the design of the relatively large Black Widow, the enhanced control surfaces of the aircraft permitted the P-61 to manoeuver better than most fighter aircraft. Check me on that, but I am certain of it. I have read a quote where a pilot was asked what happened when he fired the guns at an adversary. "They shudder and go down," he replied, or words to that effect.


----------



## tail end charlie (Aug 27, 2010)

I propose the mosquito

effective in countering the V1 ....a cruise missile bomb
used to counter FW 190 tip and run bombing missions
used to counter german night fighters of which some were converted bombers (Ju88 )
obviously never used against allied bombers but 4 cannon and 4 machine guns firing straight would shred almost anything and if it doesnt I mount a 57mm canon in my tsetse.


In BoB hurricane though the whirlwind could have been better if they sorted the engines sooner
Against bomber command me110 or Ju88 but that depended on what radar they had fitted as much as anything.
against USAAF FW 190 
in the pacific i dont know what had the most bomber kills but probably the corsair fast tough and as heavily armed as most.


----------



## looney (Aug 30, 2010)

In daylight the mossie would get torn to shreds just like any other 2 engined heavy fighter


----------



## peterpro (Sep 6, 2010)

cheddar cheese said:


> Yup.
> 
> 
> Hey If I joined a forum about cars I would be the man (or boy, however you see 15 year olds) to fear
> ...



cc it seems you haven't see me yet.I knew all the car marks and cars since i was 2 lol!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Sep 6, 2010)

peterpro said:


> cc it seems you haven't see me yet.I knew all the car marks and cars since i was 2 lol!



Do you realize that answered a post that is 6 years old?


----------



## tail end charlie (Sep 6, 2010)

looney said:


> In daylight the mossie would get torn to shreds just like any other 2 engined heavy fighter



The question didnt mention escorts, I still think 4 cannon and 4 MGs firing withouth convergence would mincs anything.


----------



## Civettone (Sep 17, 2010)

looney said:


> In daylight the mossie would get torn to shreds just like any other 2 engined heavy fighter


Yeah just like the P-38 


Kris


----------



## looney (Sep 20, 2010)

You are comparing a P-38 with a Mossie? I will admit I'm not an expert on the P-38, but in a 1 vs 1 fight against a similar skilled pilot in a single engined fighter it's gonna loose. And even if we say the P-38 is equal than a single engined fighter, the mossie is a bomber at heart so not nearly as manouvrable.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 20, 2010)

looney said:


> You are comparing a P-38 with a Mossie? I will admit I'm not an expert on the P-38, but in a 1 vs 1 fight against a similar skilled pilot in a single engined fighter it's gonna loose.



Any proof to back that up?


----------



## looney (Sep 21, 2010)

Nope like said I'm not an expert, but the extra weight of the P-38 would be terrible in a dogfight. Weight reduced acceleration turning radius, which can be offset with more power. Then again more power costs more weight. It's a trade-off. 

If a P-38 is comparable in speed and manouvrability with say a FW190 (not anti bomber outfitted) or a BF109 (without gunpods). I'll admit it my error asap.

A mossie on the other hand is a bomber converted into a bomberinterceptor.. not a fighter. It simply wasn't designed to be manouvrable. You need to make some compromises. The same with JU88 and Do nightfighters. Great for their purpose NF but in daylight I don't think they could hold their own.

From wiki: The P-38 was unusually quiet for a fighter, the exhaust muffled by the turbo-superchargers. It was extremely forgiving, and could be mishandled in many ways, but the rate of roll was too slow for it to excel as a dogfighter.

Again if I'm wrong please corrrect me.. I want to learn


----------



## Colin1 (Sep 21, 2010)

looney said:


> Nope like said I'm not an expert, but the extra weight of the P-38 would be terrible in a dogfight. Weight reduced acceleration turning radius, which can be offset with more power. Then again more power costs more weight. It's a trade-off.
> 
> If a P-38 is comparable in speed and manouvrability with say a FW190 (not anti bomber outfitted) or a BF109 (without gunpods). I'll admit it my error asap.
> 
> From wiki: The P-38 was unusually quiet for a fighter, the exhaust muffled by the turbo-superchargers. It was extremely forgiving, and could be mishandled in many ways, but the rate of roll was too slow for it to excel as a dogfighter


The extra weight of the P-38
while obviously undesirable wasn't necessarily 'terrible' in a dogfight. It was always felt that the P-38 needed a good pilot to get the best out of it and while it could never roll with the Fw190 it did have features that enabled it to fight, with said good pilot installed, on comparable terms with the Luftwaffe and more notably in the PTO.

Entering a turn with a single-engined opponent, the good pilot would know to reduce power on the inboard engine whilst increasing it on the outboard, this frequently brought the P-38 inside of the single-engined bogie in the turn. Presented with the firing solution, the good pilot could then make good his advantage.

The P-38 in the ETO was bedevilled with mechanical problems that never really gave it the opportunity to shine. By the time the issues were resolved, the P-51 had entered operations in the escort role.

Re your claim of more power equalling more weight, again, not necessarily true. I'm not at home right now but I would like to see figures for the powerplant weight gain between the V-1650-1 and the -9; some maybe but I doubt anything significant. I know the P-38 wasn't powered by Packard Merlins, before you point that out so anything similar that you can reveal on V-1710s is also good.


----------



## looney (Sep 22, 2010)

We are moving away from my main point: A mossie can't dogfoght, it simply isn't designed for it. And in daylight it will get shot up badly by any defense guns on a bomber and/or the fighter escort.


----------



## drgondog (Sep 22, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> Re your claim of more power equalling more weight, again, not necessarily true. I'm not at home right now but I would like to see figures for the powerplant weight gain between the V-1650-1 and the -9; some maybe but I doubt anything significant. I know the P-38 wasn't powered by Packard Merlins, before you point that out so anything similar that you can reveal on V-1710s is also good.



Colin - IIRC the 1650-9 (@1745 built up) was about 50 pounds more than the -1 (1690)


----------



## tail end charlie (Sep 22, 2010)

looney said:


> We are moving away from my main point: A mossie can't dogfoght, it simply isn't designed for it. And in daylight it will get shot up badly by any defense guns on a bomber and/or the fighter escort.



Without an escort a bomber fleet would get destroyed, 4 cannon would take out defensive fire before they got in the range of defensive MGs. The escort makes the difference but that isnt in the thread title. Without an escort most planes are effective bomber killers though.


----------



## renrich (Sep 22, 2010)

Hold the phone. 20 MM cannon don't necessarily have more range than 50 BMGs. In fact some 20 mms don't shoot as flat as the 50 cals and it would be easier to hit with the 50s at say 400-500 yards than with the cannons.


----------



## tail end charlie (Sep 22, 2010)

renrich said:


> Hold the phone. 20 MM cannon don't necessarily have more range than 50 BMGs. In fact some 20 mms don't shoot as flat as the 50 cals and it would be easier to hit with the 50s at say 400-500 yards than with the cannons.




Well its a long discussion already, I think a turret mounted twin gun was lucky to hit anything at that range.


----------



## renrich (Sep 22, 2010)

I can't think of any Axis bombers that had any defensive guns equal to the 50BMG. Some of the Japanese bombers had a 20 MM stinger and they were effective against a low deflection attack from the stern. In a daylight attack, in a low deflection run, the twin fifties either in a turret or hand held, or in the case of the TBF, the single fifty were very effective against fighters at quite long range. The 50 BMG shoots really flat and maintains it's energy very well.


----------



## tail end charlie (Sep 22, 2010)

renrich said:


> I can't think of any Axis bombers that had any defensive guns equal to the 50BMG. Some of the Japanese bombers had a 20 MM stinger and they were effective against a low deflection attack from the stern. In a daylight attack, in a low deflection run, the twin fifties either in a turret or hand held, or in the case of the TBF, the single fifty were very effective against fighters at quite long range. The 50 BMG shoots really flat and maintains it's energy very well.




Thats as maybe but any unescorted bomber formation or individual bomber was in serious trouble when caught by fighters regardless of what bomber era or theatre of the war. The USAAF tried extra heavily armed bombers but they wernt a success because they slowed the whole formation on their return. With any individual defence like a turret it can be overwhelmed by two fighters and using a formation means the bomber must fly straight and level making a perfect target.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 23, 2010)

renrich said:


> I can't think of any Axis bombers that had any defensive guns equal to the 50BMG. Some of the Japanese bombers had a 20 MM stinger and they were effective against a low deflection attack from the stern. In a daylight attack, in a low deflection run, the twin fifties either in a turret or hand held, or in the case of the TBF, the single fifty were very effective against fighters at quite long range. The 50 BMG shoots really flat and maintains it's energy very well.



The He 177 had 2 20mm cannons and 3 13mm mg's among its defensive armament.

The He 290 and 390 could be configured with 4 20mm cannons and 2 13mm mg's.

The Me 264 (which never saw service) was designed with 2 20mm cannon and 4 13mm mg's.

The Do 17's armament included 4 20mm and 2 13 mm.

He 111 - 1 20mm and 1 13 mm.

Ju 188 - 1 20mm and 3 13mm.

Now their effectiveness compared to the .50 BMG, that I do not know...


----------



## drgondog (Sep 23, 2010)

tail end charlie said:


> Without an escort a bomber fleet would get destroyed, 4 cannon would take out defensive fire before they got in the range of defensive MGs. The escort makes the difference but that isnt in the thread title. Without an escort most planes are effective bomber killers though.



The Me 110/210/410, Me 262, Fw 190 and Me 109s all had to close to ~ 200 yards to get effective fire into B-17/B-24's - and they did! But effective range worked both ways although the fighter had the advantage with speed and manueverability to get within shooting range - either from head on or astern.

Bomber gunners had a much more difficult tracking and firing solution than fighters.

The LW training films emphasized the need to close.


----------



## Kurfürst (Sep 23, 2010)

renrich said:


> Hold the phone. 20 MM cannon don't necessarily have more range than 50 BMGs. In fact some 20 mms don't shoot as flat as the 50 cals and it would be easier to hit with the 50s at say 400-500 yards than with the cannons.



Depends on the gun, but I don't believe at long range firing in air to air combat at all. The Germans were complaining about US heavies having a zone of fire of 1200 m, and did some steps towards ultra-range guns (see 5cm BK 5, 21 cm rockets etc.) but I'd wager that the effect of such bomber defensive fire was 98% physchological, rather than physical... all the tracers flying towards you was demoralising for sure! But to hit a fighter sized target from over a click, from a hand held gun or a turret, I'd say chances were close to nil..


----------



## renrich (Sep 24, 2010)

I believe that a hit from a 50 BMG at 1200 meters on a fighter, especially a liquid cooled engined fighter could be damaging. I agree though that the defensive fire from Allied daylight bombers was mostly unaimed except in a general direction except when the tail gunners were able to fire at a fighter making a run from the six o clock position. The closing speed would not be as high and a no or low deflection shot would not be difficult for the gunner on the bomber.

I knew that the BOB German bombers were mostly armed with 7.7 mm MGs and that some German bombers carried 20 mm defensive guns but was not aware that they also used a 13mm MG similar to the 50 BMG.

Was thinking the other day about the manufacture of the M2 50 BMG during WW2. Had read that the RAF did not mount many of them on their bombers because they were unavailable. The M2 was not a trivial weapon and required a lot of material and labor to produce. There were around 100000 US fighters produced with perhaps an average of five M2s per plane. That is half a million M2s. The heavy bombers mounted ten or more M2s and there were more than 30000 B17s and B24s built so that is another 300000. Medium bombers must have used up another 200000 or more which makes a total of at least one million.When one counts all the M2s used in the US Army by ground troops, tanks and other vehicles and those used on sea going craft, there were a lot of M2s built. If they cost as much as $100 each which sounds reasonable then well more than 100M dollars must have been spent for them.


----------



## tail end charlie (Sep 24, 2010)

renrich said:


> I believe that a hit from a 50 BMG at 1200 meters on a fighter, especially a liquid cooled engined fighter could be damaging. I agree though that the defensive fire from Allied daylight bombers was mostly unaimed except in a general direction except when the tail gunners were able to fire at a fighter making a run from the six o clock position. The closing speed would not be as high and a no or low deflection shot would not be difficult for the gunner on the bomber.
> 
> I knew that the BOB German bombers were mostly armed with 7.7 mm MGs and that some German bombers carried 20 mm defensive guns but was not aware that they also used a 13mm MG similar to the 50 BMG.
> 
> Was thinking the other day about the manufacture of the M2 50 BMG during WW2. Had read that the RAF did not mount many of them on their bombers because they were unavailable. The M2 was not a trivial weapon and required a lot of material and labor to produce. There were around 100000 US fighters produced with perhaps an average of five M2s per plane. That is half a million M2s. The heavy bombers mounted ten or more M2s and there were more than 30000 B17s and B24s built so that is another 300000. Medium bombers must have used up another 200000 or more which makes a total of at least one million.When one counts all the M2s used in the US Army by ground troops, tanks and other vehicles and those used on sea going craft, there were a lot of M2s built. If they cost as much as $100 each which sounds reasonable then well more than 100M dollars must have been spent for them.



I dont know where you get the range of 1200m unless that is the range that tracer is visible. from wiki discussing the B29

With the revolutionary Central Fire Control System (CFCS), the B-29 had four remote controlled turrets, each armed with two .50 cal M2/AN machine guns.[N 2] Four gunners were able to control these turrets with the use of four General Electric-made analog computers, one above the Norden bombsight in the nose[N 3] and three in a pressurized compartment in the rear fuselage, which featured clear blown sighting blisters. The gunner manning the sight in the upper rear station was the "Central Fire Control gunner" whose job was to allocate turrets to each of the other three gunners, avoiding confusion in the heat of battle. The CFCS had (at that time) a highly advanced analog computer that corrected for the B-29's airspeed, the target's speed, target lead, gravity, temperature, barrel wear, and humidity. Because of this, the .50 caliber machine guns of the B-29 had a maximum effective range of 1,000 yards (910 m), double the range of the manually aimed machine guns of the B-17 Flying Fortress. 



All sides in the second world war went down the road of the armed bomber. The Americans persisted with the daylight bomber but the B17 on a long raid carried as much weight defending itself as its bomb load (probably more). The British persisted with their night fighter designs which usually involved a front and upper mid turret even though most attacks were from behind or below. Even when statisticians said that the front and mid turret were dead weight they wouldnt remove them.

The mosquito was able to drop a load on Berlin almost equal to a B17 by day or night with two engines and two crew. If all the allies had concentrated their ideas on an escort like the mustang from 1939 and made their bombers faster more armoured with fewer crew a whole lot of lives could have been saved.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 25, 2010)

Later model Halifax bombers did away with the nose turret.
The H2S radar tended to go where a belly turret would have gone.

Lives could have been saved by simply increasing the cruise speed of some of the bombers. Not really that hard to do as some of them were not being operated at optimum settings. 

The Problem with "working" on escort fighters in 1939 was that the technology did not allow it. 
Only America had 100 octane fuel.
American 100 octane fuel was not the same as British 100 octane fuel (it had NO rich rating or ability).
It was impossible to predict in 1939 what the power rating of an engine in 1943 was going to be with the improved fuels. The Mustang was not designed as an escort fighter.
A Mustang with a 1940-41 Allison or Merlin engine would have had 30-40% less take-off power than the later Merlins and would not have been able to take-off from existing airfields with the fuel load of the later aircraft. With their single stage superchargers the early engines would not have had the power at 25,000ft and up to allow for effective escorting of turbo charged bombers. 
There was reason that most (if not all) long range fighters in the late 30s were twin engine.


----------



## renrich (Sep 25, 2010)

I did not say that the effective range on the 50 BMG was 1200 meters or that the "range" of the 50 BMG was anything in particular. I have been a hunter all my life and have also been a handloader and although no expert I have a rudimentary knowledge of ballistics. I have in several instances made one shot kills at 500 yards with a handloaded 150 grain bullet in 270 Winchester on Mule Deer with a body weight of around 200 pounds. The 50 BMG bullet used in WW2 weighed around 700 grains and had a much, much better ballistic coefficient and sectional density than the 270 bullet. It does not strain credulity at all to believe that a lucky hit at something more than twice 500 yards could pierce the flimsy fuselage of a WW2 fighter and do some damage. On top of that, the tracers which may have been used did not match the trajectory of the non tracer bullets at all especially at long ranges. I expect that the pilots on both sides understood that, and could not be sure that just because the tracers were falling short of their airplane, they were safe.

There are many recorded instances of snipers making kills at a mile(1760 yards) or even more with the 50 BMG. It would have to be very lucky for gunners on bombers to make hits on fighters at 1200 meters but if "Murphy's Law" was in effect that day, a fighter pilot would have to have no imagination to not feel some trepidation if he faced a high volume of fire from bombers at any reasonable range.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 25, 2010)

the problem with the "effective range" is not not if the bullet/shell will do damage if it hits but hitting at all.

A 300mph plane is doing 440feet per second, a 450mph airplane is doing 660 feet per second. 

What is the time of flight of the bullet/shell to 1200 yds or meters?

How far ahead of the target airplane do you have to aim? 

and if your "estimate" is off by even 10% you miss. 

Even if the airplane is flying straight at your "stationary" gun at these long ranges the bullet is changing elevation by 4-6 feet every 100yds so guessing the range wrong by even 100yds out of 1000-1200yds puts the bullets either above or below the target. The vibrating bomber may be rocking, pitching and/or yawing slightly at the same time so it is hardly a stationary firing platform let alone the wind drift problems. 

Having said all of that a large formation of bombers might be able to point over 100 guns to one side or in one direction and 100 guns can put a lot of bullets into the air in a short period of time. Sort of like having 100 hunters all shooting at the same deer (or group of deer) at 1000yds for 10-12 seconds. 400 to 500 rounds fired--- how many deer hit? what is the "effective" range of the rifles used? 

BTW the US manufactured over 10 Billion .50 cal rounds in WW II.


----------



## renrich (Sep 26, 2010)

Shortround, your next to last paragraph is what I have been trying to say all along(apparently not very clearly.) Someone earlier said that LW fighter pilots mentioned that they were leary of damage from bomber defensive guns at 1200 meters. Other posters said that the 50 BMG probably was not effective at that range. Depending on the definition of effective, that may or may not be true.

One of my favorite sources, "America's Hundred Thousand," has a table that says that the maximum effective practical range of the 50 BMG is 300 yards. To me, that is extremely conservative for that is "point blank" range for the 50 except that maybe it supports the gunnery training of the US in opening fire at 1000 feet. In fact, the point blank range for the 3006 is 300 yards using the "rule of three" according to Jack O Connor." A 3006 zeroed to be three inches high at 100 yards will be within three inches of point of aim all the way to 300 yards" with the 150 grain bullet. The table in "America's Hundred Thousand" also gives the maximum effective theoretical range of the 50 BMG as 900 yards. It also gives the two corresponding ranges of the 30 cal gun as 200 and 600 yards respectively.

Prior to WW1, the British Regulars were trained to open rapid fire with their service rifles at ranges up to 800 yards. Early in the war, the German troops in the open found that they ignored that rapid fire at those ranges at their peril. If the 303 British can be dangerous at 800 yards to troops in the open, how can the 50 BMG not be dangerous to a fighter at 1200 yards?


----------



## tail end charlie (Sep 26, 2010)

renrich said:


> Shortround, your next to last paragraph is what I have been trying to say all along(apparently not very clearly.) Someone earlier said that LW fighter pilots mentioned that they were leary of damage from bomber defensive guns at 1200 meters. Other posters said that the 50 BMG probably was not effective at that range. Depending on the definition of effective, that may or may not be true.



Renrich I agree completely that a .50 cal gun could damage an aircraft at 1200 yards. However my point is similar to those already made, hitting a moving target from a moving platform is almost impossible. The recoil and vibration means the machine guns spray the bullets in a general direction

Basically if a bomber formation throws enough rounds up in the air they will hit something, sometimes your own aircraft!. An approaching aircraft could be faced by over 200 guns from a formation but that means 10 aircraft are facing 20 each and 40 aircraft by 5 and so on. The more aircraft attacking the less effective the defence is. 

I read one account about fighter pilots that said when scanning a clear sky most peoples eyes focus about 30 yards in front of you, its difficult to even see a plane at 1200 yards.


----------



## renrich (Sep 26, 2010)

Well, it seems we finally have reached an understanding of a common element. I believe that most of the defensive fire from a bomber formation was area fire which probably meant that the gunners were taught to take certain sectors and put rounds into them if fighters were thought to be there. However, if the run made by a fighter was either a head on or dead astern run the firing solution got a lot more simple. Butch O Hare made numerous firing runs on the Betty bombers he shot down and damaged and got hit with one 7.7 round BUT his runs were all high deflection runs and the gunner's solutions were difficult. One of the pilots in his section made a low deflection run from astern and the Betty 20 MM tail gunner potted him. Saburo, when he lost his eye, made a low deflection run from astern on what he thought was an F4F and it turned out to be a TBF (I think) and the single 50 BMG gunner potted him.

I have always thought that the simplest shots on duck or dove were those going away or head on because not much lead is needed. My guess, because of the design of the FW190 and ME109 and because most of the LW pilots of those planes probably had only moderate gunnery training, that most of the gunnery runs which were effective aginst the Eighth Air Force were low deflection runs from either astern or head on and they were dangerous because the top turret gunner and tail gunner had pretty simple firing solutions, if they saw the attacker. The twin engined LW interceptors were a different matter.


----------



## tail end charlie (Sep 26, 2010)

renrich said:


> Well, it seems we finally have reached an understanding of a common element. I believe that most of the defensive fire from a bomber formation was area fire which probably meant that the gunners were taught to take certain sectors and put rounds into them if fighters were thought to be there. However, if the run made by a fighter was either a head on or dead astern run the firing solution got a lot more simple. Butch O Hare made numerous firing runs on the Betty bombers he shot down and damaged and got hit with one 7.7 round BUT his runs were all high deflection runs and the gunner's solutions were difficult. One of the pilots in his section made a low deflection run from astern and the Betty 20 MM tail gunner potted him. Saburo, when he lost his eye, made a low deflection run from astern on what he thought was an F4F and it turned out to be a TBF (I think) and the single 50 BMG gunner potted him.
> 
> I have always thought that the simplest shots on duck or dove were those going away or head on because not much lead is needed. My guess, because of the design of the FW190 and ME109 and because most of the LW pilots of those planes probably had only moderate gunnery training, that most of the gunnery runs which were effective aginst the Eighth Air Force were low deflection runs from either astern or head on and they were dangerous because the top turret gunner and tail gunner had pretty simple firing solutions, if they saw the attacker. The twin engined LW interceptors were a different matter.



Well I dont know about that I think the LW like the RAF found that head on attacks broke up the formation and therefore their group defence. I read the other day that to bring down a B17 in a head on attack needed just one half second burst on target. The LW also used high speed staffing passes which meant they were in and out before many guns were trained on them. For the LW the problem was the escorts, if ever they got an unescorted formation they caused heavy losses.
As it happenes I am watching menphis belle at the moment I recorded from earlier this evening and the pilot just told everyone to hold fire ;til jerry is in range lol.


----------



## Civettone (Sep 27, 2010)

That last bit seems reasonable. I can not imagine the USAAF allowing gunners to shoot at enemy fighters at ranges of 1200 m. What a waste of ammo that would be. Also, can one even IFF at that distance? 

That being said, I have read that the Germans were developing guns or missiles which they could launch from a distance of over a km away as this would be out of the range of the 50 cals. It seems to me that this refers to harrassing fire. German fighters would line up for their assault and enemy gunfire could disrupt their formation. This makes sense: the main puprose of defensive fire is not to shoot down enemy aircraft, it's to defer/disrupt the enemy attack. 

Kris


----------



## looney (Sep 28, 2010)

Germans where in the testing bit fase SAM and/or AA missiles.


----------



## drgondog (Sep 28, 2010)

Renrich - any reference to '300 yard effective fire' is very probably referring to a.) the range at which a coordinated pilot can keep the K-14 gunsight (or reasonable equivalent) on his target, and b.) have a concentration of converging fire which could bring it down with a two to three second burst.

The .50 cal AP round will easily breach an engine block at 1800 yards but the probability of hitting something past 300 yards with an effective package of perhaps 20 rounds (a number I plucked out of a dark place) probably varies inversely by the distance (for all the reasons Shortround recounted). Even a well boresighted battery is putting out a shotgun pattern at best - and a very sparse one past 250-300 yards with bending/torquing wings and turbulent air bouncing you..

Eric Hartmann had the right idea on aircraft gunnery - 'wait until he fills your windscreen - then wait some more"

The Luftwaffe wasn't very effective outside 300 yards either, even with a battery of 20mm.


----------



## drgondog (Sep 28, 2010)

tail end charlie said:


> Well I dont know about that I think the LW like the RAF found that head on attacks broke up the formation and therefore their group defence. I read the other day that to bring down a B17 in a head on attack needed just one half second burst on target. The LW also used high speed staffing passes which meant they were in and out before many guns were trained on them. For the LW the problem was the escorts, if ever they got an unescorted formation they caused heavy losses.
> As it happenes I am watching menphis belle at the moment I recorded from earlier this evening and the pilot just told everyone to hold fire ;til jerry is in range lol.



Head on attacks did not break up any B-17/B-24 formations. It did present a very difficult and fast target with great firepower shooting into the 'office' where the pilots had nearly zero protection except for armored glass. 'Company front/line abreast flights of 6-8 Fw 190s were very effective - ditto from six o'clock but the closing speed was slow enough that bomber gunners had much better chance of hitting the fighters.

One half second of a perfectly aimed burst from 4x20mm into the cockpit would certainly take out the pilots but a half second well aimed burst between 300 yards to 100 yards is difficult to achieve at a closing speed of 500mph

The Spielburg version was a joke.. you need to watch the WWII documentary.

What is your source of RAF using head on attacks?


----------



## tail end charlie (Sep 28, 2010)

drgondog said:


> Head on attacks did not break up any B-17/B-24 formations. It did present a very difficult and fast target with great firepower shooting into the 'office' where the pilots had nearly zero protection except for armored glass. 'Company front/line abreast flights of 6-8 Fw 190s were very effective - ditto from six o'clock but the closing speed was slow enough that bomber gunners had much better chance of hitting the fighters.
> 
> One half second of a perfectly aimed burst from 4x20mm into the cockpit would certainly take out the pilots but a half second well aimed burst between 300 yards to 100 yards is difficult to achieve at a closing speed of 500mph
> 
> ...



Most recently I think it was Geoffrey Wellum speaking on a documentary (he has been on a few). There was also an account I read recently where a pilot tried it for the first time and nearly had a head on collision. When he returned to base he discussed it with another pilot who said he must have killed the pilot. "How do I know if I've killed the pilot|" he asked? "The way you did" was the grim reply.

Of course a head on attack was difficult but in the Battle of Britain the standard procedure when attacked was to turn into the attacker so I dont suppose firing head on to a bomber was so unusual. I dont mean that head on attacks were planned from the ground like a "company front" but if a bomber formation was encountered head on it was engaged straight away. Fighter command wanted first to disrupt the attack and make the job of the bombers and escorts more difficult.

I saw the Memphis Belle documentary too, most war films are a pastiche if they were really true to life they wouldnt be allowed to be shown. However the recent Battle of Britain documentary by David Jason was less informative than the movie and didnt have Suzannah York in sussies in it.


----------



## renrich (Sep 29, 2010)

Bill, to backup your post this from Linnekin, "Eighty Knots to Mach Two" on gunnery, " The guns are Colt-Browning air cooled, recoil operated automatic weapons. They are boresighted to converge in a tight pattern at about one thousand feet. That range is selected in part to utilize the flat part of the bullet's trajectory and also to keep bullet dispersion small enough to produce an effective, repeatable pattern."


----------



## drgondog (Sep 30, 2010)

renrich said:


> Bill, to backup your post this from Linnekin, "Eighty Knots to Mach Two" on gunnery, " The guns are Colt-Browning air cooled, recoil operated automatic weapons. They are boresighted to converge in a tight pattern at about one thousand feet. That range is selected in part to utilize the flat part of the bullet's trajectory and also to keep bullet dispersion small enough to produce an effective, repeatable pattern."



Ren- I am very familiar with the Bore sighting procedure for USAAF wing mounted guns. The SOP for P-51D Mustangs was a hexagonal shape about 1 ft in width and heighth using a periscope like bore sight for each weapon. The boresight range was typically 200-300 yards and the command pilot for that airplane had a say in what the armorer did to 'his plane". In actual practice the flight envelop/G's pulled, etc had great influence on actual trajectories.

The first home made boresight tool came out of the 357FS/355FG line Armament M/Sgt and was later productized and shipped as a kit with the P-51D's.


----------



## renrich (Sep 30, 2010)

Linnekin was a Navy pilot but I assume the procedures were similar. His experiences in this instance were in 1946-48 and they were in F6Fs, F8Fs and F4Us.


----------



## luftwaffemesserschmitt (Oct 6, 2010)

4x 30mm MK-108 from the ME-26 backed up with 24X R4M was just killing..
The FW-190 was good but it was not able enough to hit and run from the escort fighters. The ME-262 could so a hit and run from behind and would make mincemeat from the heavys.

Chris


----------



## Civettone (Oct 6, 2010)

I may have mentioned this before but to me the best bomber destroyer was the Bf 109G-6/AS/U4/R4. This is not an official designation but just one to show what kind of a Bf 109G we're talking about. It's a Bf 109G-6 with the bigger supercharger, armed with a MK 108 30 mm firing through the prop hub and two MK 108 30 mm gun pods under the wings. So it had 2 HMGs and 3 x 30 mm MKs. All of this for a speed loss of 10-15 kmh. The MK 108 pods formed less drag than the MG 151/20s. 

The reason why this configuration was not used was because of a shortage of MK 108 ammo.

There may have been faster or stronger fighter aircraft available but if you want a bomber destroyer it has to be dirt cheap because you are going to lose a lot of them no matter what you do.

Kris


----------



## looney (Oct 12, 2010)

But no added protection, the FW190 had a lot of extra protection. Which might save the pilot. Planes can be rebuilt, with ease (relative). Pilots not.

Plus what fighter would be flying cover?


----------



## drgondog (Oct 12, 2010)

looney said:


> But no added protection, the FW190 had a lot of extra protection. Which might save the pilot. Planes can be rebuilt, with ease (relative). Pilots not.
> 
> Plus what fighter would be flying cover?



In the April 24, 1944 battle I wrote about G-6/U4's were used by III./JG26 and effective against the B-17s, but that was one 30mm nose, two Mg151/20's in gondola's.

Those 109s were at a significant disadvantage to 51's because their airspeed was further reduced, plus acceleration and climb was also impaired. Most gondola packages were removed by June because of the reduced performance against the Mustangs. It was in this timeframe that high cover staffels of Me 109G-6A/S were designated as Fw 190A-7/8 'escorts'..


----------



## looney (Oct 13, 2010)

FW190's where at a disadvantage also against Allied fighters (+400kg armor etc etc)


----------



## drgondog (Oct 13, 2010)

looney said:


> FW190's where at a disadvantage also against Allied fighters (+400kg armor etc etc)



More of a disadvantage against escort fighters above 20,000ft until the Dora... they did very well below that altitude when combined with a good pilot.


----------



## Erich (Oct 13, 2010)

slight modification underwing armed Bf 109's were used right into 1945. III./JG 300 used them on their G-6's during the summer months especially to attack the rear of Bomber pulks while it's sister unit I./JG 300 provided high cover with now mounted weapons against P-51 escorts and tried in vain most times to protect it's SturmFw's.
The same was of I. and III./JG 4 with it's SturmFw's from august 44 through the fall of 1944 months agasint the bobmers aws well

G-6/AS replacement were the G-10 and G-14/AS units. the Fw 190A-8 and variants were not good at the higher altitudes as the latter marks of 109G's and later the K. It was found that the Fw 190A was the superior "heavier" weapons platform.


----------



## Frantish (Oct 13, 2010)

lesofprimus said:


> Evan, while it is true that 4 x 30mm will ruin ur day or anyone elses, the concentrated firepower of the 190-A8/R2 was more destructive....
> 
> 2 x 13mm, 2 x 20mm, 2 x 30mm would cause more damage in a quicker amount of time than 4 x 30mm....
> 
> ...



The problem with the 190-A8/R2 is you have 3 different weapon types each with a different convergence and trajectory. The pilot will need to be extremely skilled to optimize the use of that combination.

With the 262 it has a centerline with all 4 the same type. The only major challenge to the pilot now is getting into range. The Mk 108 is effectively a short range weapon when one looks at its ROF, range, and spread, so the 262 would have to go slower and closer to get the maximum out of its guns (not a happy prospect!)

Still, to me, the 262 is winner.

Edit:
For anti-escort duty, a 262 armed with 6 to 8 MG 131 would have been ideal. The 131 was remarkably light and compact but still almost as good as Browning .50 in power. An engagement usually lasted < 1 second, so the more hits on target the worse off target is, and fighters of the time where not strong enough to withstand 13mm rounds.

Maybe 2x 20mm with 4x 13mm, I could go for that too.


----------



## Erich (Oct 13, 2010)

no quit4e correct as the mg 131's were removed even on the R2 variant, all attacks were done on the tail gunner whether mg 131's or 2cm's with the 3cm Mk 108 for the close in up to 50 yards out.....no thanks don't like the idea of a face full of B-24 or B-17 exploding in my face.

even if the 3cm would of been removed from the 262 and it should have been and just replaced with four center 2cm cannon it would of been enough, the foursome combination already proved itself as far back as 1943 on twin engine ZG 110G-2's and the Fw 190A-6


----------



## Civettone (Oct 13, 2010)

looney said:


> But no added protection, the FW190 had a lot of extra protection. Which might save the pilot. Planes can be rebuilt, with ease (relative). Pilots not.
> 
> Plus what fighter would be flying cover?


You have to be careful when making broad statements on the Fw 190 Sturm fighters. Erich can tell you more about that. 

But first of all, not all Sturmjäger were uparmoured. Many even had their armour partially or completely removed to gain some speed. Most of the time the MG 131s were removed for the same reason, limiting the armament to 4 cannons (20 and 30 mm). 

The heavily armed Bf 109 I suggested (or the official Bf 109G-6/R6) would be slower but only by 10-15 kmh. They would have been vulnerable against P-51s but the Fw 190 even more so! 

I would also suggest removing the MG 131s on the Bf 109 and replace them with some extra armour. The Bf 109 already had a decent amount of armour anyway.

In short, I think the Bf 109G could have done what the Fw 190A-8/R2 could do but at a lower price and with an aircraft better at altitude. The Fw 190 was the better gun carrier but this means little when flying at such close distance. A Bf 109G with 3 MK 108s, extra armour and a decent inline engine with the AS supercharger would be excellent while normal Bf 109s would provide top cover.

And after that just wait for the Fw 190D. 
Kris

edit: http://falkeeins.blogspot.com/2010/09/difference-between-fw190a-8r2-and-8r8.html


----------



## tail end charlie (Oct 13, 2010)

The requirement for armour is a funtion of the lack of numbers of the luftwaffe, the more fighters there were the less concentrated defensive fire was. Loading up fighters with armour was just proof that the LW was losing the numbers game.


----------



## Civettone (Oct 13, 2010)

Maybe you are right. But it may also be that there is a maximum of fighters in formation attacking an enemy formation. You can't simply send in 50 fighters at the same time. 
Usually they attacked bomber formations in groups of 4 fighters.


Kris


----------



## tail end charlie (Oct 13, 2010)

Civettone said:


> Maybe you are right. But it may also be that there is a maximum of fighters in formation attacking an enemy formation. You can't simply send in 50 fighters at the same time.
> Usually they attacked bomber formations in groups of 4 fighters.
> Kris



Given enough fighters anything is possible, if the LW had 2000 fighters available things may have been different, it is a long flight to Berlin and back.


----------



## Colin1 (Oct 13, 2010)

tail end charlie said:


> ...if the LW had 2,000 fighters available things may have been different...


2,000 fighters when?
The Luftwaffe had the entire fighter arm in the West, a total of 3,000 fighters in mid-November 1944, carefully husbanded by Galland himself for a big-punch strike against the RAF and USAAF. These were frittered away just before, during and just after Christmas 1944 in the Ardennes, then decimated in the new year with Bodenplatte; numbers were not the problem for the Luftwaffe, it was the manner in which they were deployed. 

We can only speculate on what a 3,000-fighter punch focussed on the RAF and USAAF in the air might have achieved but losses to both services would almost certainly have been unacceptably high and may well have caused the 8th AF to review their daylight bombing campaign.


----------



## tail end charlie (Oct 13, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> 2,000 fighters when?
> The Luftwaffe had the entire fighter arm in the West, a total of 3,000 fighters in mid-November 1944, carefully husbanded by Galland himself for a big-punch strike against the RAF and USAAF. These were frittered away just before, during and just after Christmas 1944 in the Ardennes, then decimated in the new year with Bodenplatte; numbers were not the problem for the Luftwaffe, it was the manner in which they were deployed.



I meant 2000 availableto put in the air to oppose a single attack at the start of escorted raids.


----------



## Erich (Oct 13, 2010)

attacks in summer of 44 were done in staffel strength anywhere from 7 to a full 16 a/c and then divided into 2's possibly 4's as JG 301 did in December 44 and into 1945 in a Sturm like attack but in much smaller numbers.

by the time in the west strength by overwhelming numbers was supposed the LW was broken up for defensive actions in the east by mid-January 1945 taking the heart out of Reich defense, but back on topic.

you need a protective fighter with heavy arms slow enough to engage and give devastating blows, the Fw 190A-8/R8 delivers such a system. the 262 single seater needed a longer ranged cannon and a slower speed and really the common LW pilot was not going to be able to score even one shot with the speed ratio the jet had over the rear of a heavy bomber formation


----------



## Civettone (Oct 13, 2010)

Strange thing though ... the bomber combat box was 12 or 16. Would make perfect sense to attack them in a similar number. But of course the formation would have to be identical to that of the bombers and that must have been tricky. 

Oh, btw Erich, do Sturmgruppen/staffel still work with wingmen? Because in that case, two aircraft would attack the same bomber. But I have never read anything like it.

Kris


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 14, 2010)

Colin1 said:


> 2,000 fighters when?
> The Luftwaffe had the entire fighter arm in the West, a total of 3,000 fighters in mid-November 1944, carefully husbanded by Galland himself for a big-punch strike against the RAF and USAAF. These were frittered away just before, during and just after Christmas 1944 in the Ardennes, then decimated in the new year with Bodenplatte; numbers were not the problem for the Luftwaffe, it was the manner in which they were deployed.
> 
> We can only speculate on what a 3,000-fighter punch focussed on the RAF and USAAF in the air might have achieved but losses to both services would almost certainly have been unacceptably high and may well have caused the 8th AF to review their daylight bombing campaign.



3000 fighters in mid-November? Care to elaborate that?


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 14, 2010)

Civettone said:


> Strange thing though ... the bomber combat box was 12 or 16. Would make perfect sense to attack them in a similar number. But of course the formation would have to be identical to that of the bombers and that must have been tricky.
> 
> Oh, btw Erich, do Sturmgruppen/staffel still work with wingmen? Because in that case, two aircraft would attack the same bomber. But I have never read anything like it.
> 
> Kris



Kris, why would it make more sense to attack 12 bombers with 12 fighters, instead of attacking them with 24 (providing you could muster those 24)?


----------



## Civettone (Oct 14, 2010)

Yeah it wouldn't. 

Only when opposed by enemy fighters do you really need a wingman. 

Now that I think about it one can have both. The wingman gets released from his job of protecting the guy in front and gets his own bomber target appointed to him. 
Kris


----------



## Erich (Oct 14, 2010)

Kris and others the Sturmgruppen from July 44 onward to mid January 45 attacked by staffel with the other staffel follwed in suit the high protective gruppe with 109G's would be at least a 1000 feet higher and behind to battle P-51 escorts - if they could.

The heavy Fw's would close in in line abreast and then individually take out a bomber it was hoped, making one firing pass and if any other bombers were left staggering or not touched by 2cm/3m would then be assaulted by the successive staffels in same manner.

what JG 301 did in the first missions in November of 44 would approach by staffel strength and then break down to elements of 4 with the leader of this small formation forming the dagger or small wedge as they cut through the bombers making a much smaller target for the Us bomber gunners - again this was hoped. at this time with many raw recruits no missions under the belt they would stick close to the small formation leader to protect his flank while the small group went in with the leader the only one firing until after 2-3 missions these new pilots could get the feel and attack on their own. Of course one of the biggest problems with the "new" boyz is that they had no experience of defending themselves in a fighter versus fighter scenario the small leaders did not have the time to teach the kids except by personal example hoping the kids would make it through at least 1 mission. the experienced pilots seem to be the cadre of III./Jg 301 as they had come from the very tried and true 109G gruppen from the now defunct JG 302 already flying day ops against the US. As JG 301 did not have a protective stafflen in it's renewed formation of November 44 it depended on 2 staffels of I. and II. gruppe to provide this high cover or light staffeln while the other 2 staffels of each gruppe were called heavy to attack the bombers


----------



## ivanotter (Jan 5, 2011)

According to Alfred Price's book "The last year of the LW 1944-45",Pg 11,

"At the end of May 1944, the LW had a total strength of about 2,800,000 men and women. The force possessed about 4,500 combat aircraft..."

According to Price the *acceptance *in May 1944 was:

Bf109 1,065
Fw190 841
Bf110 158 (Night fighter,, possible s.musik)

A total of 2,987 (all other a/c not so interesting)

According to Price, LW got 3,821 a/c in September 1944, 80% being Bf109 and Fw190. Fighter strength in November 1944: 3.300 a/c.

So, it is not too far off.

obviously you will need a lot of pilots to make it effective, though. And fuel.

How it can be recon'd with Cajus Bekker's claim in LW War Diaries of a fighter strength of +/- 300 (24 May 1944), i don't know.

PS: is this thread limited to German a/c vs. US/RAF bombers?

The Bf110 springs to mind (night fighter w/ s.musik) or maybe something in Japan?

Ivan


----------



## Glider (Jan 5, 2011)

Can I ask what you are trying to say. What point are you trying to make


----------



## ivanotter (Jan 5, 2011)

Sorry - I just stepped into Colin and Tomo's discussion whether Germany had that many a/c towards the end '44.

I just looked it up in Price's book, really.

Not really a point in itself.

Reg,


----------



## cimmee (Jan 5, 2011)

GermansRGeniuses said:


> Easy...
> 
> 
> Me-262, no doubt in my mind.



Lousy engines, poor range, and poor guns... It was fast and pretty....

The Germans did the allies a favor by sinking a bazillion reichmarks into that beast. 



tomo pauk said:


> 3000 fighters in mid-November? Care to elaborate that?



No doubt. 

Maybe 3k fighters with 300 experienced pilots and NO gasoline... 



ivanotter said:


> According to Alfred Price's book "The last year of the LW 1944-45",Pg 11,
> 
> "At the end of May 1944, the LW had a total strength of about 2,800,000 men and women. The force possessed about 4,500 combat aircraft..."
> 
> ...



Meaningless.

Where were they deployed? Italy? Russia? France? How much gasoline was available? How many experienced pilots were left?


----------



## ivanotter (Jan 6, 2011)

Cimmee:

Meaningles or not, I tried to shed some light on the claim of 3,000+ a/c in late '44.

That, according to Price, is correct.

Also correct that the fuel situation made it rather difficult (if not impossible) to employ all the a/c.

I have a table somewhere depicting the deployment, but Western Europe would be the logical place to deploy the majority.

Yours,


----------



## cimmee (Jan 6, 2011)

ivanotter said:


> Cimmee:
> 
> Meaningles or not, I tried to shed some light on the claim of 3,000+ a/c in late '44.
> 
> ...



The mongoloid Nazis could have pinched off an F-15 with all of the pretty stuff.. 

Utterly useless as we dominated their skyscape. They had no gasoline. They had no food. They had no transport. They had no heavy bombers...

Nothing worked. Germany was a wasteland (they earned it, and I am NOT sorry).


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 7, 2011)

cimmee said:


> The mongoloid Nazis could have pinched off an F-15 with all of the pretty stuff..
> 
> Utterly useless as we dominated their skyscape. They had no gasoline. They had no food. They had no transport. They had no heavy bombers...
> 
> Nothing worked. Germany was a wasteland (they earned it, and I am NOT sorry).



And you are an idiot, and have been shown the door.


----------



## Milosh (Jan 12, 2011)

Luftwaffe Order of Battle, 10 January 1945
Luftwaffe Order of Battle, 9 April 1945

Luftwaffe Orders of Battle 1945


----------



## futuredogfight (Jan 13, 2011)

BF-110 tore apart British night bombers.


----------



## icepac (Jan 14, 2011)

you guys can try out busting bombers in free versions of IL2 and Warbirds.

The flight, damage, and gunnery models are relatively accurate.

You will find that the closing speed of the 262 and the short range of it's cannons makes killing of fighters or bombers impossible for an inexperienced pilot and easy for one who's invested the time to acquire the skills necessary.

Just watch out for me.........I'll shoot you down.

warbirds freehost and IL2 freehost are free and require a bit of computer saavy to get working on vista/win7 but they work great on xp.

As always, best action is on the pay servers of warbirds, aces high and IL2 but the free servers are a good way to prepare for flying in the pay arenas which are populated with the best pilots.

If you know flight and gunnery characteristics of fighters, you will spend far less time hanging in your chute.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 14, 2011)

And here we go again...


----------



## johnbr (Jan 14, 2011)

How about the Martin Baker M.B.3 with its 6 cannons.


----------



## johnbr (Jan 14, 2011)

Photo2


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 14, 2011)

icepac said:


> _Just watch out for me.........I'll shoot you down._


LMAO...God how many times have I seen people say stuff like that, only to end up in my Revi 

icepac, there is a gaming section on this site where we talk MP and stuff. You'll find that simming and actual aircraft discussion don't mix too well. They're totally different, though it might seem real enough...


----------



## johnbr (Jan 14, 2011)

Photo 3+3+5


----------



## Konigstiger205 (Jan 20, 2011)

I have to go with the Fw190, like many before me said, it had the best attributes for a bomber killer. But still as an honorable mention, I'd like to also choose the I.A.R. 80 fighters from the "6 Hunting Group", who fought the almost 200 B-24's in the raid against Ploiesti oil fields and did heavy damage


----------



## icepac (Jan 20, 2011)

GrauGeist said:


> LMAO...God how many times have I seen people say stuff like that, only to end up in my Revi
> 
> icepac, there is a gaming section on this site where we talk MP and stuff. You'll find that simming and actual aircraft discussion don't mix too well. They're totally different, though it might seem real enough...



That's cool.

I've been flying citabria and super D since 1984 and simming steadily since 1985 when I first flew falcon while employed at A.O.P.A.

The multiplayer sims with the most accurate flight models (warbirds, warbirds 2.77 freehost, and targetware) are accurate enough to illustrate or help disprove many points made in this thread.

When I have a question, I run the scenario on a sim for my father to try out since he has a real life guns kill of a fighter before he was called upon to help set up the original top gun in the mid 1960s.

new here does not mean noob

See you in the sim section if I can find it.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 20, 2011)

Don't recall anyone making reference to you being a "noob", icepac...

I have been flying far longer than the 80's and spent a great deal of my early years in the company of far greater pilots than I will ever be. I have also been enjoying flight sims for many decades, including before the "internet" as we know it, when connecting a computer to another involved dialing a telephone and placing the handset into the modem.

All that aside, no matter how realistic a flight sim will be, it will never emulate true flight and I (and others) avoid merging the two when discussing actual aircraft whether it's performance, situations, etc...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 21, 2011)

Well and put and said.


----------



## icepac (Jan 21, 2011)

GrauGeist said:


> I have been flying far longer than the 80's and spent a great deal of my early years in the company of far greater pilots than I will ever be.



Wow.....and you can still maintain a first class medical ticket?

Kidding.

I also had the experience growing up with pilots like the blue angels and Leon Johnson being regular dinner guests as well as my father's being an instructor in air combat at miramar and the naval war college.......he's a good resource and I can sometimes get his feedback on sim accuracy.

Sadly, he keeps bothering me to set him up with me flying a mig 17 to his skyraider so he can relive his victory.....with me being the victim.




My point is that some of the simming is accurate enough to illustrate certain points such as the difficulty in scoring kills in the 262 because of closing speed and mk108 cannon range.

The 262 was a great bomber buster in the hands of a true expert and damn near useless to anyone who couldn't cope with the new (at the time) closing speeds.

There were plenty of good bomber busters but circumstances such as fighter escorts determined success as much as the airplane's ability to down bombers.

That said, me262 was king since it could make a pass through a formation, down a bomber in that pass, and maintain enough speed advantage to be immune to interception......unless the bomber stream was low enough such that a covering fighter in extremely high perch could catch up in a shallow dive....if the 262 pilot made any move to climb after his pass.


----------



## Readie (Apr 21, 2011)

futuredogfight said:


> BF-110 tore apart British night bombers.



Eh?
You sure....
FW190 amd I may agree but, not the ME110
Cheers
John


----------



## Erich (Apr 21, 2011)

the Bf 110G-4 at night sure it could it was the leading LW Night fighter in their arsenal from the beginning and still flown in 45 albeit in smaller numbers. Top "killer" of night bombers was NJG 1 which flew almost exclusively the 110 except for I. gruppe flying the He 219 and a few Ju 88G-6's which NJG 1 really never accepted in thought.


----------



## Maximowitz (Apr 21, 2011)

^^^^^^

What Erich said. 

You may want to Google "Heinz - Wolfgang Schnaufer"


----------



## Readie (Apr 21, 2011)

I have learnt something today.
Later in the war, the MW110 was developed into a formidable night fighter, becoming the major night-fighting aircraft of the Luftwaffe. Most of the German night fighter aces flew the Bf 110 at some point during their combat careers, and the top night fighter ace of all time, Major Heinz-Wolfgang Schnaufer, flew it exclusively and claimed 121 victories in 164 combat missions.
Thanks guys
Cheers
John


----------



## Maximowitz (Apr 21, 2011)

You can learn a lot here John!


----------



## renrich (Apr 21, 2011)

I believe the best bomber killing airplane, if it had been called on to fill that role, would have been the P47. For most of the war, the P47 did not have great range and the early P47s did not climb well. But with the paddle blade prop it's climb was improved and at high altitudes( above 25000 feet) it outperformed almost all other fighters and it could always dive. If the Axis had had strategic bombers like the Allies had, the P47 could have been up there at 30000 feet or so and then used that power it's engine still had along with those 8-50s and that dive and zoom climb ability to decimate bombers.


----------



## Erich (Apr 21, 2011)

John just a slight correction, the Bf 110G-4 late was was almost fazed out, NJG 1 as I mentioned kept it throughout hostilities, NJG 2 and NJG 3 replaced it in 1944 with the Ju 88G-6 a superior though larger A/C with a crew of 3-4 and increased range and better toughness plus a speed advantage plus could house all the radar goodies the LW wanted to put in a crate. NJG 4 still had some on hand though late into replacing these with the 88G-6, NJG 5 almost entirely except for IV. gruppe. NJG 6 still flew a mix of the two craft. The outfit that excelled on the Ost front, NJG 100 had full compliment of Ju 88G-6's in 1945.

Ren I could agree had the range and performance been made available early on the P-47 would of been hard to beat though with the .50's you had to deal out a huge amount of ammo to blast a bomber out of the skies, re: why the LW stuck with the heavier long barreled 2cm and then 3cm weapon options, but that was their key mode to attack and destroy BC and US bomber formations.


----------



## Readie (Apr 22, 2011)

Maximowitz said:


> You can learn a lot here John!


 
I look forward to that.

We have looked at German v allied bombers but, another candidate for bomber killer would be the Hurricane v the Luftwaffe.

Both the Supermarine Spitfire and the Hurricane are renowned for their part in defending Britain against the Luftwaffe — generally the Spitfire would intercept the German fighters, leaving Hurricanes to concentrate on the bombers, but despite the undoubted abilities of the "thoroughbred" Spitfire, it was the "workhorse" Hurricane that scored the higher number of RAF victories during this period, accounting for 55 percent of the 2,739 German losses, according to Fighter Command, compared with 42 per cent by Spitfires.

Cheers
John


----------



## renrich (Apr 22, 2011)

Actually, I believe the range of the early P47s was more than adequate for the interceptor role. It was, I believe, originally designed as an interceptor. It could also carry a lot of ammo for those 8-50s. Up to 425 rounds per gun and that would be a big asset in engaging bombers. As for the efficacy of the 50 cal against bombers, the P47 late war in ground attacks shot up plenty of locomotives. In the prelude to Coral Sea, two F4F3s with four 50s each and 400 plus rounds per gun shot up and disabled an IJN DD. Not a patrol craft but a genuine fleet DD. That happened more than once in the Pacific. To me, eight fifties, with their long range, long firing time because of ammo capacity and high rate of fire ( compared to cannon) would be more than adequate against any WW2 bomber, including the B29.

Another plus for the P47 against bombers would be that it's well known ruggedness would be very handy against the defensive fire of bombers.


----------



## Glider (Apr 22, 2011)

I have to agree that the 0.50 would have had difficulty against well protected heavy bombers. There was a reason why the Germans and Japanese increased their guns to multiple 20 and in some cases 30mm cannons and thats because they had to. 

I keep hearing this story about how a Japanese Fleet destroyer was disabled by two Wildcats, but the best that I have been able to find is a destroyer that had a number of deck casualties as they were exposed to straffing. Casulaties that would have occurred against any accurate straffing attack and a minesweeper that was sunk, but which turned out to be a very small converted fishing boat.

Happy to be wrong on this and any details would be appreciated.

It should also be mentioned that the Russian UB 12.7 HMG was a much better weapon than the 0.5 M2, being lighter, faster firing and until I think it was 1943 fired a better designed projectile. In 1943 a new projectile was issued to US forces based on the Russian design.


----------



## renrich (Apr 23, 2011)

Glider, darn you. Now I have to go digging to support my post Page 174, Lundstrom, "The First Team" I was wrong, however, because it turned out to be four F4F3s, not two, although two of those Wildcats had already engaged Japanese planes. They killed the captain, riddled the Yuzuki, starting fires and puncturing fuel tanks, leaving the ship trailing an oil slick and the ship was disabled enough that it had to be replaced with another DD for the invasion for Ocean and Nauru. Bill Leonard was one of the Wildcat pilots. Perhaps you could persuade his son to authenticate this encounter.

I looked up the Yuzuki on Janes and it was a fleet destroyer, built in 1927 and on par with many of our pre war DDs, more modern than our four pipers. There are several mentions in Lundstrom's books about how effective the 50s were on smaller warships and there are many combat films showing naval planes strafing ships including cruisers. Please don't try to convince me that if 50s can disable a DD or disable and blow up locomotives, it can't handles flimsy airplanes. No way, any WW2 bomber, including B29s are more heavily built than a DD or locomotive. If they were they would never fly. I have used a 50 cal on the range and have seen what a single 50 will do to a deuce and a half or lightly armored half tracks.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 24, 2011)

Had the P-47 or Mustang been pressed into an interceptor role against sturdy Axis bombers like the Do 217 or He 177 it would been no problem to retrofit 20mm cannon in either... and if necessary, license the Brit Hispano.

There is anecodotal evidence to support difficulty for one P-47 or one P-51 taking out either one of those German bombers 'easily' with existing 4x50 and 8x50 M3's.


----------



## Glider (Apr 24, 2011)

drgondog said:


> Had the P-47 or Mustang been pressed into an interceptor role against sturdy Axis bombers like the Do 217 or He 177 it would been no problem to retrofit 20mm cannon in either... and if necessary, license the Brit Hispano.
> 
> There is anecodotal evidence to support difficulty for one P-47 or one P-51 taking out either one of those German bombers 'easily' with existing 4x50 and 8x50 M3's.


 
I have to agree with this posting. Re the Yuzuki my understanding was that she was straffed and a number of crew killed and wounded (10 killed and 20 wounded) which was a significant success for the fighters and I admit, more than I would have expected. She had what was described as 'moderate' damage but wasn't disabled. Unfortunately what 'moderate' was I do not know.

Whatever the damage with 30 out of a crew of approx 150 out of action she would have needed to recover


----------



## renrich (Apr 24, 2011)

Lundstrom, page 174, "The First Team." "Each Grumman pilot opened fire at about 3500 feet and pressed within masthead height before pulling out. They concentrated their tracers on the 

Yuzuki's bridge, machinery spaces and torpedo mounts. Heavy .50 caliber slugs riddled the vessel, starting fires and holing oil bunkers. A thick trail of fuel oil lay in the destroyer's wake. During the first two runs, Leonard noticed some return fire, but he saw no response on the final two passes. At 1410 when the fighters broke off, they left the tin can in such bad shape that she had to crawl back to Rabaul for emergency repairs. Bullets had killed her skipper. Lt Commander Tachibana Hirota, and nine of his crew, while another twenty were wounded. The destroyer, Uzuki. detached from the Port Moresby Invasion Force, had to replace the Yuzuki in the invasion of Ocean and Nauru islands scheduled for 15 May." 

Sounds very specific to me and not at all anecdotal and I have to give it lots of credibility. From my Janes, 1942 (which I am getting reluctant to open since it is so fragile) Yuzuki, spelled Yuduki (you know how bad the Brits are about spelling)  the Yuzuki was a Mutuki class DD displacing around 1300 tons and 320 feet long. She carried 4-4.7 50 caliber guns and 6-21 inch torpedo tubes and had a speed of 34 knots. My Janes, 1945( not an original) changes the class to the Uduki class( perhaps in honor of the Uzuki(Uduki) which survived an attack by four Grummans with ferocious four 50 cals each.) Incidently, I am certain you are burning to know the following: The word "Yuduki" is a Japanese poetical name for the month, April. Comparable RN DDs would be Amazon and Ambuscade, first new DDs built after WW1. The Farragut class in the USN would compare in size. However, I am sure that none of those ships is as durable and well built as a WW2 bomber

Perhaps the AAF pilots in the anecdotes were not as good at gunnery as Misters Leonard and company Of course the Grummans made four passes and interceptors might get only one!


----------



## Glider (Apr 25, 2011)

On this we will have to agree to disagree. Being practical you cannot aim for the machinery spaces as these are not visible, all you can do is aim at the hull around the base of the funnel and hope for the best. The Bridge is a clear target and can cause significant damage. Oil trails are also misleading as it doesn't take much oil to make a good size slick. Always cautious of descriptions she crawled back to wherever, did it happen, if it did was it due to localised damage, the elimination of the bridge officers (probable in this case), fires could be anything from ready use ammunition, to a paint locker, smoke from a funnel or even (a real example in the RN during the 70's) the toilet paper on a supply ship. You get the picture.
At the end of the day the USAAF made requests for their P40's to be equipped with 60lb rockets because the guns and rockets they had, couldn't deal with Junks and river craft on the rivers in China. Many hundreds, probably thousands of attacks were made on shipping by the USAAF and the 0.50 wasn't enough.

Finally if the Fw190 needed to be upgunned to tackle the B17's why would the P47, an aircraft with far less firepower be sufficient?

This attack was a success that I do not and cannot deny but it wasn't the normal result of an attack of this kind. In Naval combat luck tends to play a large part in actions big and small and this may well have been their lucky day.

Examples of luck include the US Merchant ship that sunk a German Armed Merchant Cruiser, an Italian Submarine that sank a modern fleet class RN destroyer with one hit from its 4.7in gun when taking on three escorts on the surface. Does this mean that the Merchant ship or Italian Submarine are always effective in these situations, of course not. Neither does it mean that 0.50 HMG's are always effective against surface ships.


----------



## renrich (Apr 29, 2011)

Don't know where to put this and don't want to start a new thread so will post it here because it does have something to do with the P47, which I postulated would have made a good bomber killing fighter if called upon for that role.

Was reading up on the hemi-head auto engine which was developed by Chrysler post WW2 and found that they developed an aero engine called the XIV2220, a V16 push rod engine which used the same hemi head technology as the auto engines. They installed one in a P47 and flew it to slightly more than 500 MPH at 15000 feet allegedly timed by radar. Because the engine was an inline engine, the frontal section of the P47 was much smaller than with the radial R2800. Engine displaced 2220 cubic inches. Second car I ever owned was a 1953 Dodge with the Red Ram V8, a hemi head design which displaced around 220 cubic inches, developed 140 HP and pushed the Dodge to a little more than 100MPH. I drove the car at around 120 MPH indicated but the speedometers in those days were very inaccurate. That same engine was later developed to around 200 HP.

As a parting shot on the 50 BMG debate: The fact is that most Allied bombers were shot down by flak, not enemy fighters. And most of those kills were caused not by direct hits but by the the kinetic energy of the shrapnel when an AA shell burst nearby. That is the same type of damage which would have been inflicted by the 50 BMGs in a P47. American fighters in WW2 were credited with 20945 air to air kills. Only a few of those were caused by air cannon in the P38, P39, F6F and F4U and maybe the A36(P51). Hard to tell how many but the 50 BMG was a very effective weapon.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 29, 2011)

here's a link to Wiki for the engine. the details in wiki seem to agree with several books I have. 

Chrysler IV-2220 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Milosh (Apr 29, 2011)

XP47H


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 30, 2011)

renrich said:


> ...
> As a parting shot on the 50 BMG debate: The fact is that most Allied bombers were shot down by flak, not enemy fighters. And most of those kills were caused not by direct hits but by the the kinetic energy of the shrapnel when an AA shell burst nearby. That is the same type of damage which would have been inflicted by the 50 BMGs in a P47. American fighters in WW2 were credited with 20945 air to air kills. Only a few of those were caused by air cannon in the P38, P39, F6F and F4U and maybe the A36(P51). Hard to tell how many but the 50 BMG was a very effective weapon.



For each (heavy?) bomber shot down by heavy AA shell (75mm and above), there is a dozen or two that were holed, but returned to base. So I wouldn't agree that .50 BMG would've been a good choice for a bomber destroyer. German Japanese experiences show that it took cannons to shoot bombers.
The overwhelming percentage of Axis planes shoot down with bursts of .50 BMG were ordinary fighters or flimsy Japanese bombers/attack planes. It was rare for .50 BMG to be employed vs. a target as sturdy as a B-17.


----------



## Readie (May 2, 2011)

With great respect to all the threads, I don't see how you can call Mustangs Thunderbolts 'bomber killers'. 
By the time the USA joined WW2 in any meaningfull way the Luftwaffe had gone from offense to defense and the bomber attacks like the blitz's in London, Plymouth, Coventry etc were all but over.
The true 'bomber killer' aircraft would be the likes of Hurricanes Spitfires in the early part of WW2 and the German fighters ME110 , FW 190 etc already mentioned later in WW2.
World War 2 Bombers
This link shows some interesting points. The Mosquito was as effective than the B17 on the Berlin run....
Cheers
John


----------



## drgondog (May 2, 2011)

John - depends on your definition of 'effective' - the Mossie could carry a load to Berlin but what was it designated to take out - a blind block in or around the city or a ball bearing factory in a specific location?


----------



## Readie (May 3, 2011)

1.8 tons of bombs is the same whichever aircraft deliveries it.
I would define 'effective' as the maximum impact. That is precision bombing rather than area bombing.

However, if you have, say, 200 B17's by day, 200 Lancaster's (carrying rather more than the B17's 1.8 tons) by night and Mosquitoes attacking Berlin then the commanders had it all.

Cheers
John


----------



## Shortround6 (May 3, 2011)

Readie said:


> 1.8 tons of bombs is the same whichever aircraft deliveries it.
> John


 
Not really, it appear that the Mosquito could only carry 4,000lbs by using a single 4,000lb "cookie" bomb. While they were able to some rather amazing things with this bomb dropping at low level the lack of fins and predictable trajectory when dropped at high altitude meant that it was less than desirable for "precision" attacks from high altitude. Granted the US "precision" attacks were less precise than desired but using a less accurate bomb wasn't going to make things better. A few experimental Mosquitos carrying a pair 'spinning' anti-ship bombs aside it appears the Mosquito was restricted to four 500lb bombs INSIDE the bomb-bay. B-17 could carry four 1000lb bombs or eight 500lb bombs for it's 4,000 pound load. 

Add if the target was closer than Berlin, say Bremen, Essen or Karlsruhe, then the B-17 could carry more bombs while the Mosquito could not, at least not inside.


----------



## Glider (May 4, 2011)

Small point, but Mosquito's with the bulged bomb bay could carry 6 x 500lb internally and hang a couple more on the wings but these were normally replaced with wing tanks.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 4, 2011)

Glider said:


> Small point, but Mosquito's with the bulged bomb bay could carry 6 x 500lb internally and hang a couple more on the wings but these were normally replaced with wing tanks.



Could you please provide a source? everything I have read so far says 4 X 500lbs inside and 2 X 500lbs on the wings instead of drop tanks. maybe my books are old and/or not correct. What I have are not manuals. 

many bombers had similar problems. The B-17 is often claimed to hold 12,800 lbs of bombs inside. It could, but only if they were 8 X 1600lb AP bombs which were actually smaller in size than a 1000lb GP bomb. Using 1000lb GP bombs the B-17 could only carry eight (8,000lbs) because there wasn't space or rack positions for more. Changing to 500lb bombs dropped the load to 6,000lbs because there were only 12 stations on the bomb racks for 500lb bombs. There is a bomb rack chart in the B-17 manual available in the manuals section of this site. 

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/other-mechanical-systems-tech/b-17f-g-manual-one-piece-22716.html


----------



## Glider (May 4, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> Could you please provide a source? everything I have read so far says 4 X 500lbs inside and 2 X 500lbs on the wings instead of drop tanks. maybe my books are old and/or not correct. What I have are not manuals.
> 
> many bombers had similar problems. The B-17 is often claimed to hold 12,800 lbs of bombs inside. It could, but only if they were 8 X 1600lb AP bombs which were actually smaller in size than a 1000lb GP bomb. Using 1000lb GP bombs the B-17 could only carry eight (8,000lbs) because there wasn't space or rack positions for more. Changing to 500lb bombs dropped the load to 6,000lbs because there were only 12 stations on the bomb racks for 500lb bombs. There is a bomb rack chart in the B-17 manual available in the manuals section of this site.
> 
> http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/other-mechanical-systems-tech/b-17f-g-manual-one-piece-22716.html


 
As requested
De Havilland Mosquito B Mk XVI I did follow this up by a visit to the Mosquito Museum and there was a reference on the web which I cannot now find, about the layout of the bombs. When looking at them from the front or back, the bombs were in a triangle formation. The problem with the original bomb bay was a lack of space not a problem with the ability of the aircraft to carry the weight. Using this layout the extra volume caused by the bulge could be used.

Hope this helps


----------



## drgondog (May 4, 2011)

For Brunswick radius missions the normal load out was 4500-5000, whereas the Berlin/Posnan/Brux/Munich rides were more often 8x500 of 4x1000 or 2x2000 - all with variations depending on the mission. Of course the B-24 was correspondingly 'more'


----------



## Milosh (May 4, 2011)

Glider said:


> Small point, but Mosquito's with the bulged bomb bay could carry 6 x 500lb internally and hang a couple more on the wings but these were normally replaced with wing tanks.


 
That would be using the AVRO carrier. Afaik this was not used and finding info on this carrier is next to impossible, so far.

This link, 303rd Bomb Group (H) - Molesworth, England, gives the missions flown by the 303BG which includes the bomb loads carried.

for example:

303rd BG(H) Combat Mission No. 1
17 November 1942
Target: U-Boat Submarine Pens, St. Nazaire, France
Crews Dispatched: 16
Length of Mission: 4 hours, 45 minutes
Bomb Load: 10 x 500 lbs General Purpose
Bombing Altitude: 20,000 ft


----------



## Shortround6 (May 4, 2011)

Thank you. It does appear that from Dec 1943/Jan 1944 the MK XVI Mosquito could carry 6 X 500lb inside. 
As I have said, many bombers had a space problem as opposed to a weight problem. Especially as engines got more powerful and allowed more weight to be carried by existing airframes. 
The British 4 engine bombers with their large bomb bays had the room to carry heavy loads of widely different sized bombs and not need strange or near useless combinations to hit "max load".
I am thinking of the American B-25/B-26 here where the max load is given as 5200lbs made up of two 1600 AP bombs and a 2000lb torpedo which must be dropped before the bombs. Torpedo had to be dropped low and slow and the AP bombs had to be dropped from 7,000-8,000ft to get up to good penetration speed. 1600lb AP bomb carried much less explosive than a 1000lb GP bomb. 

I believe that comparisons should be made on real capabilities and not max "book" numbers or carefully selected scenarios.


----------



## Glider (May 5, 2011)

Milosh said:


> That would be using the AVRO carrier. Afaik this was not used and finding info on this carrier is next to impossible, so far.
> 
> This link, 303rd Bomb Group (H) - Molesworth, England, gives the missions flown by the 303BG which includes the bomb loads carried.
> 
> ...


 
Thanks for the site. I admit I don't find 5000lb to the coast of France very impressive at all. Might as well use Wellingtons with the fighter cover that could be arranged.


----------



## drgondog (May 5, 2011)

Glider - that just represents SOP. For such short ranges the Fort could carry at least 12,000 pounds with external racks had the need surfaced.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 5, 2011)

Glider said:


> Thanks for the site. I admit I don't find 5000lb to the coast of France very impressive at all. Might as well use Wellingtons with the fighter cover that could be arranged.


 Later missions involved bombing from altitudes above 20,000ft to avoid AA fire and Mission 67 says that the same load (5,000lbs, 10 X 500lb bombs) was carried to Stuttgart and the bombing altitude was 25,100 ft which is pushing the capabilities a Wellington just a little bit  

Or Mission 155 to Berlin: 
"Bomb Load: Group A - 10 x 500 lb G.P.; Group B - 42 x 65 lb
M47A1 Incendiary bomb"
Now the 42 x 65 lb M47A1 Incendiary bomb load works out to 2730lbs for an average of 3865lbs for equal numbers of planes with each load but I think we can see that the 42X65lb load load may have had storage/rack limits rather than weight limits. 

Or Mission 172 to Caen on D-day.----Bomb Load: 12 x 500 lb G.P. 2 x 1,000 G.P. bomb

Some raids used eight 500lb M17 incendiary cluster bombs which may have had stowage/rack problems vs weight problems, if they were bigger in diameter than standard 500lb bombs they may have needed to be spaced further apart. 

I would like to thank Milosh for this site, it does point out different capabilities of the B-17 and perhaps some of it's limits as well.


----------



## Glider (May 5, 2011)

drgondog said:


> Glider - that just represents SOP. For such short ranges the Fort could carry at least 12,000 pounds with external racks had the need surfaced.


 
At the end of the day, it was a real operation to the French Coast and they only carried 5,000lb. Clearly they could carry more and did carry more later but I have never seen them carry 12,000 lb anywhere, at any time, on any mission, ever. At first glance the majority were in the 5-6,000lb bracket. 

Someone will now find examples all over the place and in perparation for this eventuality I have seasoned my hat with some salt and have a marinade on standby.

PS I am not saying the Wellngton was as good as the B17, just making an observation that on that day for that mission, they may as well have done.


----------



## drgondog (May 5, 2011)

The Wellington would have done very well with escort in the France Holland area. The a/c probably would have needed the new daylight computing bombsight and some training.


----------



## Glider (May 6, 2011)

Which is effectively what they used the Sterling for when they entered service, but only in very small numbers, often only three aircraft. The logic was that as each Sterling carried 14,000lb of bombs one bomber was equal to a squadron of Blenhiem's. I know that the Luftwaffe considered them difficult to shoot down with the Me109F, it would have been interesting to see what would have happened if they had used 50 or so at one time.

For obvious reasons the Fw 190 would have found them a lot easier to combat.


----------



## Readie (May 6, 2011)

The first RAF bombing attack of the war was made by Wellingtons of No. 9 and No. 149 Squadrons, along with Bristol Blenheims, on German shipping at Brunsbüttel on 4 September 1939. During this raid, the two Wellingtons became the first aircraft shot down on the Western Front. Numbers 9, 37 and 149 Squadrons saw action on 18 December 1939 on a mission against German shipping on the Schillig Roads and Wilhelmshaven. Luftwaffe fighters destroyed 12 of the bombers and badly damaged three others; thus highlighting the aircraft's vulnerability to attacking fighters, having neither self sealing fuel tanks nor sufficient defensive armament. In particular, while the aircraft's nose and tail turrets protected against attacks from the front and rear, the Wellington had no defences against attacks from the beam and above, as it had not been believed that such attacks were possible owing to the high speed of aircraft involved.As a consequence, Wellingtons were switched to night operations and participated in the first night raid on Berlin on 25 August 1940. In the first 1,000-aircraft raid on Cologne, on 30 May 1942, 599 out of 1,046 aircraft were Wellingtons (101 of them were flown by Polish aircrew).
With Bomber Command, Wellingtons flew 47,409 operations, dropped 41,823 tons (37,941 tonnes) of bombs and lost 1,332 aircraft in action.

A proud history.
Cheers
John


----------



## renrich (May 6, 2011)

That is a very interesting site. Thanks for posting it. While browsing through it, I noticed a couple of incidents where a crewman who was very badly injured and captured was repatriated by the Germans. I never knew they did that. Also noticed on a raid late in the war a B17 was shot down and the crew was captured. The co pilot was named John (Tex) Cornyn. He undoubtedly was from Texas and very likely is the father of the US Senator, John Cornyn.


----------



## Glider (May 6, 2011)

Repatriation was normally due to severe injuries where there wasn't sufficient medical facilities or in mental injury where keeping them in a POW camp would only cause tensions in the camp between POW's or between the POW and the guards.

Some people tried feigning this to get repatriated, but in at least one camp this was banned after people who attempted it when sent home, did need secure care. 

I must emphasise here that I am not being negative about anyone who suffered this fate, its a serious and very sad fact that the strain these people were under is something that I would not want to even think about. The casualties were just as real as a bullet wound.


----------



## drgondog (May 7, 2011)

As you look through the J reports attached to MACR's you note that is was almost common to repatriate severly wounded/disabled POWs. Without being cynical I imagine a.) cost of care, b.) not likely to return for duty were two factors that were important.


----------



## Milosh (May 7, 2011)

Glad you found the 303BG site interesting guys.


----------



## renrich (May 7, 2011)

Makes sense to repatriate if a guy won't be able to fight against you again. You don't have to feed him and you put the medical costs back on his home country.


----------



## Readie (May 7, 2011)

WW2 - The Second World War: Died after Repatriation from a POW Camp

I think this link says a lot about repatriated POWS.

Germany was not the most er, compassionate nation in WW2 but at least the Red Cross could arrange repatriation. I cannot image that the Imperial Japanese forces would have.

Cheers
John


----------



## fibus (May 14, 2011)

Heres the deal. The most bombers shot down were English. The most successfull bomber killers were the three twin engine fighters with rada and guns pointed near vertical and pointed slightly forward.


----------



## fibus (May 14, 2011)

If day fighters then it would be the 190.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 14, 2011)

fibus said:


> The most bombers shot down were English.


 
Do you have statistics on that?


----------



## Readie (May 14, 2011)

Bomber Command crews also suffered an extremely high casualty rate: 55,573 killed out of a total of 125,000 aircrew (a 44.4% death rate), a further 8,403 were wounded in action and 9,838 became prisoners of war. This covered all Bomber Command operations including tactical support for ground operations and mining of sea lanes. A Bomber Command crew member had a worse chance of survival than an infantry soldier in World War I.
By comparison, the US Eighth Air Force, which flew daylight raids over Europe, had 350,000 aircrew during the war, and suffered 26,000 killed and 23,000 POWs. 
Of the RAF Bomber Command personnel killed during the war, 72% were British, 18% were Canadian, 7% were Australian and 3% were New Zealanders. 
Taking an example of 100 airmen
55 killed on operations or died as result of wounds
three injured (in varying levels of severity) on operations or active service
12 taken prisoner of war (some injured)
two shot down and evaded capture
27 survived a tour of operations
In total 364,514 operational sorties were flown, 1,030,500 tons of bombs were dropped and 8,325 aircraft lost in action.



The 8 USAAF has arrived into the Britain in the end of 1942 but was involved into the bombing compain just in mid of the 1943.
In fact 8th AF begun air operations in Europe in August 1942.
The decision of "round the clock bombing" was made in Casablanca in January 1943, what allowed to start so-called The Combined Bomber Offensive officially six months later.
But it doesn't mean that 8th was staying on the ground all winter and spring. Bombing raids were conducted before that.

For much of the war both the Bomber Comand and the 8th AF ran a casualty rate in excess of 50 percent of crew force. In the 8th AF, the pioneers of 1942-43 paid the heaviest cost. Only one in five of these fliers completed their tour of duty. Of the 110,000 aircrew in Bomber Command, 56,000 were kiled, a los rate of 51 percent, the highest casualty rate of any of the Commonwealth's armed forces in the war.
8th AF's total casualty rate was between 26,000 and 28,000 fatalities (12.3 percent) of the 210,000 crewmen who flew in combat.

Hideous casualty rates on both the British American sides.
The comment that a WW1 soldier had more chance of survival makes the point I think.

Cheers
John


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 14, 2011)

Not sure what I am thinking about here, but I thought it was higher numbers for both the USAAF and the RAF.


----------



## Readie (May 15, 2011)

The British lost more lives simply because we were in WW2 longer than the Americans.
The greater losses were earlier in WW2 while tatics and aircraft were developing.
Cheers
John


----------



## renrich (May 21, 2011)

The eighth, I believe, lost more men killed in WW2 than the US Marine Corps.


----------



## drgondog (May 22, 2011)

True


----------



## drgondog (May 22, 2011)

The Brits were heavily engaged long before the US in ETO, the Brits had sortie and throw weght advantage through 1944, the RAF in 1944 and 1945 were more vulnerable to GAF in 1944 and 1945 because they had no effective way to efficiently escort BC whereas the 8th broke the code for their own ops with long range escort - in daylight- to provide cover (more or less) for large blocks of tight formations.

The GAF had to mass to attack effectively against 8th AF FC/BC, versus one on one at night. Both Brit BC and 8th AF BC crews had the balls of an elephant but it was 8th FC that saved the most lives over Germany.


----------



## johnbr (May 23, 2011)

How well did the Me-410 do with the 50mm canon on it.


----------



## drgondog (May 23, 2011)

Not very well against bombers escorted by long range fighters. Effectively neutralized from about April 1944 through July 1944 then withdrawn from LuftReich in favor of Fw 190A-8


----------



## Erich (May 23, 2011)

the long rod was almost worthless in late 1943 and phased out in early 44. the range was good the firing too slow and unwieldy with too much overall buffeting, reason why 2cm in many numbers were used in effect from winter to spring of 44. By June/July the units ZG 26 and 76 had been removed from the skies pilots not KIA were sent to units such as JG 6 whom were slaughtered by the 8th AF Mustangs.


----------



## Readie (May 23, 2011)

Messerschmitt Me 410 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They had rockets too. Where these effective?

Cheers
John


----------



## Erich (May 24, 2011)

so so, first used in Fall of 43 on Zerstörers though they were permitted in July of 1943 on twin engines they did not fly ops with these......yet. twin mountings under each wing even experimentation with singles and even under the belly. if anything they may have disrupted US bomber boxes but that was the point anyway so they could get in with 2cm and 3cm cannons.


----------



## Readie (May 24, 2011)

Erich said:


> so so, first used in Fall of 43 on Zerstörers though they were permitted in July of 1943 on twin engines they did not fly ops with these......yet. twin mountings under each wing even experimentation with singles and even under the belly. if anything they may have disrupted US bomber boxes but that was the point anyway so they could get in with 2cm and 3cm cannons.


 
Thanks Erich


----------



## destrozas (May 31, 2011)

I think for comparison of units built, units destroyed and demolished units, theres no other like FW TA 152 H1, with the most potent Terpan all piston engines and higher flight altitude also


----------



## Jabberwocky (Jul 5, 2011)

A little statistical comparison of RAF and USAAF losses. 

From what resources I can find online (usual caveats as to reliability apply) Bomber Command lost, across all theatres and all aircraft categories, 12,330 aircraft. 

This includes all combat losses, as well as training and accident losses of bomber aircraft, as well as aircraft written off for other reasons, such as being sunk while being transported in convoys to Russia. 

I'm unsure if this includes losses of trainers, liaison aircraft and the like, but I doubt it. I’m sure more aircraft were written off in training before pilots were assigned to actual units.

In the ETO, around 8,950 Bomber Command aircraft were shot down/failed to return, crashed on take/off landing, were impounded German/foreign countries or written off from damage from ops. 

In comparison, USAAF bomber losses in the ETO in combat were 5,548 heavy bombers and another 815 medium/light bombers, for a total of 6,363. This includes accidents. First loss was August 1942.

So we con conclude that the majority of bombers shot down in the ETO were from Bomber Command. In Europe, Bomber Command lost about seven bomber aircraft for every five bombers lost by the USAAF. 

However, given that USAAF ETO bomber ops did not begin until around August 1942 and didn’t really get into full steam until mid 1943, the number of losses from mid-1943 onwards were in all probability about the same for Bomber Command and the USAAF. 

There were 121,867 USAAF personnel casualties during WW2, of which 94,565 were in theatres against Germany and 63,410 in the ETO. So, in the air the majority of casualties were in battles in the ETO. There is no break-down between fighter and bomber crew casualties though. 

Expanding beyond the ETO, USAAF bomber combat losses in all other theatres were 5,687 very heavy/heavy/medium/light bombers. This gives a total of 12,050 USAAF bombers that were combat losses. 

However, there were another 479 bombers were lost en route to various theatres. 

So, there were just over 12,500 USAAF bombers lost outside the continental US. 

Total USAAF losses in all overseas theatres were 41,575 combat and trainer/liaison aircraft. This means that bombers accounted for 30% of all USAAF losses.


----------



## Glider (Jul 7, 2011)

drgondog said:


> The Brits were heavily engaged long before the US in ETO, the Brits had sortie and throw weght advantage through 1944, the RAF in 1944 and 1945 were more vulnerable to GAF in 1944 and 1945 because they had no effective way to efficiently escort BC whereas the 8th broke the code for their own ops with long range escort - in daylight- to provide cover (more or less) for large blocks of tight formations.
> 
> The GAF had to mass to attack effectively against 8th AF FC/BC, versus one on one at night. Both Brit BC and 8th AF BC crews had the balls of an elephant but it was 8th FC that saved the most lives over Germany.



I don't disagree with a word of this but the more I look into RAF fighters and the ranges they could achieve the more frustrated I get with RAF High Command. Tempests with 90 gallon DT's were pretty close to the Mustang for range and modified Spits could do a pretty decent job. Why the hell they continued with night raids from Jan 1945 when the allies commanded the air and could have escorted the Lancs and Halifax's to the vast majority of their targets by day is a mystery that I cannot fathom.

The RAF had the means (see attached) but lacked the ledership to make the change. The USAAF were very impressed with the Tempest and in August 1944 asked for a couple of examples to be sent to Wright Airfield for modifications to extend their range, but the request was turned down.


----------



## tyrodtom (Jul 7, 2011)

The allies wanted Germany on the alert 24 hrs a day, no rest for the troops or civilians. Just think, for example, how many less people would have been needed if the night flak battery crews could have been reduced.


----------



## Giorgio Pietrobon (Oct 13, 2011)

As WWII Researcher about the Goldener Sonntag ' combat I am looking for the Pilot WALTER HAGENAH , JG 3 , claimer of a B-24 shot down on Sunday 19 December 1943.

Mr Lukas Buringen : can you help me in this way ? I want a mailing or better mail address of him or his son. 
See , for better info , my message posted today : 

Looking for WALTER HAGENAH , JG 3 Pilot - Luftwaffe and Allied Air Forces Discussion Forum
Thanks very much for every help.
Giorgio Pietrobon . 

1943 . Treviso . Italia 
[email protected]





Lukas Buringen said:


> Contribution on Mr. Hagenah.
> 
> I know this gentleman personally, because he once upon a time was one of my superiors at the ACC (Area Control Centre) at Frankfurt/Main. After the war he joined the new established ATC unit (BFS) at Rhein-Main Airport first as a controller and later as team supervisor. He retired about 1972, according to the law of the Bundesanstalt fuer Flugsicherung (BFS), which allowed controllers to retire with the age of 53.
> 
> ...


----------



## Ibuki (Oct 18, 2011)

Airplane Vulnerability and Overall Armament Effectiveness
Weiss, Herbert K. ; Stein, Arthur
Airplane Vulnerability and Overall Armament Effectiveness


----------



## Procrastintor (May 20, 2013)

I think the De Havilland Mosquito, the variant with the 4x 20mm plus 4x .303s probably worked kinda like a meat grinder on bombers, it was kind of a crap dogfighter, but you don't need to maneuver to get a bomber.


----------



## OldSkeptic (May 21, 2013)

Me-110 gets my vote. As a nightfighter shot down many, many British bombers. And, before the fighter escorts got sufficient range, invaluable for breaking up USAAF bomber formations with rockets.
Might argue for the Ju-88 (and 188) on the same basis.

But on pure numbers basis the 110 probably shot down more heavy bombers than every other type of plane put together.


----------

