Best Allied bomber destroyer.

pinsog said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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

wuzak said:

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

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

Click to expand...

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

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

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

redcoat said:

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

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

Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Click to expand...

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

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

nuuumannn said:

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

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

Click to expand...

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

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

P-47 without question.

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

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

My money would be on the Jug...

nuuumannn said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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

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

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


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

GrauGeist said:

P-47 without question.

...it had the ability to unload an ugly amount of .50 caliber into anything that was down range...

Click to expand...

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

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

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

Piper106 said:

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

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

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

Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

GrauGeist said:

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

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

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

Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

pinsog said:

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

Click to expand...

The NS 37 was at around 2900 fps.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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