Best Allied bomber destroyer.

Thorlifter said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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

fastmongrel said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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

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

Click to expand...

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

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

pattle said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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

davebender said:

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

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

Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thorlifter said:

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

Click to expand...

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

CobberKane said:

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

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

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

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

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

Click to expand...

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

l'Omnivore Sobriquet said:

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

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

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

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

Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

grampi said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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