Best Allied bomber destroyer.

[wuzak]

Tigercats and Hornets - if you are speaking of that period wouldn't it be better to push the development of the Vampire, Meteor and P-80?

The Meteor was in production by 1945. Though it was judged as a poor gun platfrm, and its Hispanos often didn't work.
The Vampire first flew in 1943 - six months before the Hronet did. Took a while to get in production due to priorities.
The P-80 first flew in 1944, and was being introduced to squadrons in 1945.

I like the Vampire for this role. Mount a 40mm cannon under each inner wing or under the fuselage, That si if the 4 20mm is judged to be not enough.

 

[wuzak]

Wonder why endurance is so important for people in the role of bomber destroyer.

Surely your ammo is long gone before you've got anywhere near your endurance limit - even for a Spitfire?

 

[Rufus123]

Wonder why endurance is so important for people in the role of bomber destroyer.

Surely your ammo is long gone before you've got anywhere near your endurance limit - even for a Spitfire?

My guess, time spent finding the best route to the bombers with the least escort protection.

 

[Rufus123]

Wonder why endurance is so important for people in the role of bomber destroyer.

Surely your ammo is long gone before you've got anywhere near your endurance limit - even for a Spitfire?

Time spent finding the best route to the bombers with the least escort protection. Multiple passes at bombers.

 

[Shortround6]

The F7F pilot has the option of throwing 1200 rounds of .50 along long with those cannon rounds.

It looks like to me the comparison is this.



Gun placement. The Tigercat's right and left guns are much closer to centerline than the Corsair giving the Tigercat more concentrated fire.



Who was it that said 1 on the nose was worth 2 in the wings? I don't know how that calculation was done. Maybe in reality 1 in the nose was worth 1.8 in the wings but never mind. There were those attempts at pusher fights in order to get the firepower concentrated in the nose. With the Tigercat you have a line of 8 guns about as wide as a persons outstretched arms none far from the center line. Wing roots seem the next best thing to the nose.

We have been over this before the bit about the guns in nose being worth 1.8-2 in the wings is a bit of a crock. Especially against bombers. It is simply geometry. Even with guns 20 ft apart and set to cross at 300 yrds the bulk of the rounds will be only 10 ft apart (or closer) from 150-450 yds. Shooting from 450yds or more without a gyro gun site is not very effective anyway. Shooting at under 150yds is risking collision.

Shooting at skinny 109s or Yaks or Spitfires it may have some merit. Shooting at bombers with fuselages over 6 ft wide and 70-100ft wing spans? Unless you are at dead 6 (or 12) O'clock the fuselage will be larger than your impact area.
I don't know about American ammo but the British 20mm API round would penetrate as much armor as a .50 cal AP AND carry almost 10 grams of incendiary material to a point behind it. Fighters rarely carried just one type of ammo but used mixed belts. Even the Germans used mixed belts and figured it needed about 15-20 20mm hits to bring down a 4 engine bomber even with part of the ammo being the mine shells(or 45-60 .50 cal hits????? but that is really stretching things).

 

[Rufus123]

Tigercats and Hornets - if you are speaking of that period wouldn't it be better to push the development of the Vampire, Meteor and P-80?

The Meteor was in production by 1945. Though it was judged as a poor gun platfrm, and its Hispanos often didn't work.
The Vampire first flew in 1943 - six months before the Hronet did. Took a while to get in production due to priorities.
The P-80 first flew in 1944, and was being introduced to squadrons in 1945.

I like the Vampire for this role. Mount a 40mm cannon under each inner wing or under the fuselage, That si if the 4 20mm is judged to be not enough.

P-80 not armed heavily enough in my opinion for anti bomber work.


I am sure the bombers would not want to see the Vampire show up.

 

[wuzak]

P-80 not armed heavily enough in my opinion for anti bomber work.

Only 25% less than a P-47.

I'm sure if needed it could be upgunned.

 

[wuzak]

Here is one that did not fly, that could have been good as a bomber destroyer - Supermarine Type 327. 6 x 20mm cannon (though the Air Ministry felt that the proposed installation was impractical).

 

[Rufus123]

We have been over this before the bit about the guns in nose being worth 1.8-2 in the wings is a bit of a crock. Especially against bombers. It is simply geometry. Even with guns 20 ft apart and set to cross at 300 yrds the bulk of the rounds will be only 10 ft apart (or closer) from 150-450 yds. Shooting from 450yds or more without a gyro gun site is not very effective anyway. Shooting at under 150yds is risking collision.

Shooting at skinny 109s or Yaks or Spitfires it may have some merit. Shooting at bombers with fuselages over 6 ft wide and 70-100ft wing spans? Unless you are at dead 6 (or 12) O'clock the fuselage will be larger than your impact area.
I don't know about American ammo but the British 20mm API round would penetrate as much armor as a .50 cal AP AND carry almost 10 grams of incendiary material to a point behind it. Fighters rarely carried just one type of ammo but used mixed belts. Even the Germans used mixed belts and figured it needed about 15-20 20mm hits to bring down a 4 engine bomber even with part of the ammo being the mine shells(or 45-60 .50 cal hits????? but that is really stretching things).

Does explosive 20mm shells not bring penetration to and end when it detonates? Still on the question of firepower does 1200 .50 make up for 124 20mm? How about the flight characteristics? These are all questions, not statements of facts. Will 4 x 20mm and 4 x .50 damage a heavy bomber faster than 4 x 20mm alone. Even with the extra guns the performance of the planes do not seem that far apart and the Tigercat seems to have some performance advantages.

The Corsair might be better at this job but I don't yet see why it would be except for maybe cost of the plane. It looks like for anti bomber work the Tigercat is very close in performance to the Corsair while carrying an extra 4 .50s and can put out more metal.

 

[wuzak]

What other heavy guns woudl be available for the Allies to use?

0.50" Browning
20mm Hispano
23mm Madsen
37mm M4 Oldsmobile cannon
40mm Vixkers S
40mm Rolls-Royce QF 2 pounder Mk XIV
57mm QF 6pdr Class M Mark I with Auto Loader Mk III

 

[wuzak]

Perhaps this one
Nudelman-Suranov NS-37 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Shortround6]

How about the flight characteristics? These are all questions, not statements of facts.

The difference in time of flight and trajectory between 20mm Hispano and .50 Browning out to 600-700 yds are too small to worry about. The .50 does start to show and advantage beyond that but that kind of range is not practical for air to air shooting.

Will 4 x 20mm and 4 x .50 damage a heavy bomber faster than 4 x 20mm alone.

Certainly but is four. 50 cal guns worth another engine?

Even with the extra guns the performance of the planes do not seem that far apart and the Tigercat seems to have some performance advantages.

It does in some areas but the F7F used two speed single stage engines and does not perform quite as well in the 20-30,000 ft area as the Corsair with it's two stage supercharger. The contemporary of the F7F is probably the F4U-4 Corsair. For instance the F4U can climb at 2500fpm at about 27,000ft while the F7F climbs at 2500fpm at 23,000ft and about 2,000fpm at 27,000ft. Max speed according to one chart for the F7F is at about 23,500ft while the max speed for the F4U-4 is at 29,000ft. I am not saying which is better but they tend to operate best at somewhat different altitudes.

The Corsair might be better at this job but I don't yet see why it would be except for maybe cost of the plane. It looks like for anti bomber work the Tigercat is very close in performance to the Corsair while carrying an extra 4 .50s and can put out more metal.

The Tigercat can put out more metal (about 33% more) but are four .50 cal guns worth an extra engine and prop and an empty weight of around 16,000lbs vs 9300lbs?

 

[Shortround6]

duplicate

 

[nuuumannn]

This debate over whether the .50 cal or the 20 mm is effective enough for interceptors is needless haggling over semantics, to be honest. Actual experience dictates otherwise and to argue the case one needs to take into consideration the tactics of the interceptor force, the individual aircraft involved and the skill of its pilots. If a Boulton Paul Defiant with a maximum speed of just over 300 mph can be vectored within range of a single German bomber at night in a broken cloudy sky, find the bomber and shoot it down by concentrating fire into its bomb bays from its four .303s, then with an adequate interception system, good piloting an excellent interceptor armed with only .05s or 20 mm cannon should (and did) do the job adequately. Yes, the .303 was inadequate, but six fifties is going to do a good job at disabling a bomber and knocking it off its trajectory, when well flown.

I chose the Spitfire XIV because of its peerless performance and good armament. You put well trained pilots in a squadron of them in a good GCI environment and they'll knock the enemy bombers down.

 

[silence]

Time spent finding the best route to the bombers with the least escort protection. Multiple passes at bombers.

Also more time at higher speeds.

Plus I'd rather have too much fuel than too little (especially if an escort is chasing me).

 

[silence]

This debate over whether the .50 cal or the 20 mm is effective enough for interceptors is needless haggling over semantics, to be honest. Actual experience dictates otherwise and to argue the case one needs to take into consideration the tactics of the interceptor force, the individual aircraft involved and the skill of its pilots. If a Boulton Paul Defiant with a maximum speed of just over 300 mph can be vectored within range of a single German bomber at night in a broken cloudy sky, find the bomber and shoot it down by concentrating fire into its bomb bays from its four .303s, then with an adequate interception system, good piloting an excellent interceptor armed with only .05s or 20 mm cannon should (and did) do the job adequately. Yes, the .303 was inadequate, but six fifties is going to do a good job at disabling a bomber and knocking it off its trajectory, when well flown.

I chose the Spitfire XIV because of its peerless performance and good armament. You put well trained pilots in a squadron of them in a good GCI environment and they'll knock the enemy bombers down.

I look at it as needing a firepower great enough to at the very least knock a bomber out of formation with one burst, since when you and dozens or even hundreds of other planes each with a unique vector are occupying the same airspace; you might only be able to get a snap shot off.

 

[OldSkeptic]

According to many sources (eg Price) it took an average of 20 x 20mm shells to take down a US bomber. Where 1 or 2 x 30mm could do it.

When they worked out the average pilot's accuracy, most would take their full ammo load to knock one out, more likely just damage it.
Hence the heavy twins usefulness and gondolas under wings with big guns for the singles (at the price of lowered performance).

 

[wuzak]

Did the Allies have a 30mm class weapon?

And could such a cannon fit in a Spitfire wing in place of a Hispano?

 

[CobberKane]

This debate over whether the .50 cal or the 20 mm is effective enough for interceptors is needless haggling over semantics, to be honest. Actual experience dictates otherwise and to argue the case one needs to take into consideration the tactics of the interceptor force, the individual aircraft involved and the skill of its pilots. If a Boulton Paul Defiant with a maximum speed of just over 300 mph can be vectored within range of a single German bomber at night in a broken cloudy sky, find the bomber and shoot it down by concentrating fire into its bomb bays from its four .303s, then with an adequate interception system, good piloting an excellent interceptor armed with only .05s or 20 mm cannon should (and did) do the job adequately. Yes, the .303 was inadequate, but six fifties is going to do a good job at disabling a bomber and knocking it off its trajectory, when well flown.

I chose the Spitfire XIV because of its peerless performance and good armament. You put well trained pilots in a squadron of them in a good GCI environment and they'll knock the enemy bombers down.

The debate over whether the .50 or the .2mm is the more effective interceptor armament is needless in the sense that it has be settled by the Luftwaffe - cannon trump HMGs. Pilot quality is relevant only when applied as an average. Some pilots might be skilful enough to use multiple HMGs as effective weapons against heavy bombers but the Luftwaffe concluded that the average pilot was not (and by reputation their average pilot was pretty good). Seeing as raising pilot skills is a long term proposition, the alternative is to give the pilots you have now better tools. Part of that was up-arming their aircraft with more and heavier cannon.

 

[OldSkeptic]

Did the Allies have a 30mm class weapon?

And could such a cannon fit in a Spitfire wing in place of a Hispano?

No you'd use your Spits against the bombers' escorts and something else, with heavy armament, for the bombers. If there were no escorts then the Spits could go for the stragglers.
A Spit/Mossie/Tempest combination (2 stage engined ones) if you were just using British equipment.

Instead of as a bomber destroyer think of the Spit as a escort destroyer. Can't have one without the other. The best bomber destroyer is going to have a hard time without something to clear off the escorts.

Tempest with under wing guns perhaps or rockets perhaps, the thing is so fast that it would still have enough speed.
Heck you can even add rockets to a Spit, they did after the war, possibly even underwing guns if you have enough to clear the escorts and have some left over for pure bomber work.

Heck, if there were no escorts (or they were kept away) a Mossie with the 57mm Molins guns would do some damage.... plus rockets. Shouldn't be too hard to put a couple of 30mm in the front of a Mossie too.