Best Allied bomber destroyer.

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

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

Greyman said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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

Cheers

Steve

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

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

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

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

Greyman said:

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

Click to expand...

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

stona said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

stona said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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

stona said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

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

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

The other factor that can be considered, is tactics.

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

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

Your weapon platform will determine the tactics

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some thoughts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jabberwocky said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers

Steve

stona said:

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

Click to expand...

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

fastmongrel said:

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

Click to expand...

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