Best Allied bomber destroyer.

[Milosh]

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

 

[Waynos]

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

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

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

 

[drgondog]

Excellent thread!

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

Aircraft:

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

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

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

It's great to be a Monday night QB!

Cheers,
Biff

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

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

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

 

[drgondog]

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

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

 

[fastmongrel]

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

 

[JtD]

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

 

[pinsog]

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

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

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

 

[Conslaw]

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

 

[Glider]

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

 

[pinsog]

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

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

 

[Aozora]

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

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

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

 

[BiffF15]

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

 

[wuzak]

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

Moral support?

In reality he was probably an observer/navigator.


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

 

[Aozora]

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

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

 

[BiffF15]

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

OUCH!

That was like taking candy from a baby...

 

[redcoat]

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

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