Best Allied bomber destroyer.

[Milosh]

The graphic doesn`t say how many sorties were flown.

 

[bbear]

For UKair defence in1944 the AAA is the right answer : the V1s travelling alone and much faster (350-400 mph IIRC and at 2000 to 5000ft - an awkward 'low fast bird' target) were dealt with successfully in the end by AAA

The UK had long range radar detection of inbound v1s (at launch or near to it), their BoB style air defence co-ordination system and crucially (courtesy of the USA) had VT proximity fuses (June 1944), centimetric radar ranging (SCR-584 as one example earlier ones were available 1942 onwards I think), electronic predictors (M9 (British T24) aka gun directors, June '42).

By September 1944 about 80% of V1s engaged by AAA were destroyed which was about 67% of the total launched. It took about 100 shells per kill in the end. At the start, before June 1944, it was a steep learning curve. Was called Operation Diver.

You won't top that rate for effect or economy using an aircraft. For large slow b17 and b24 formations just the 1942 radar and electronic predictor might be enough to ensure unacceptable losses.

 

[stona]

I think you've missed my point again. What you're talking about would be efficiency, I was referring to effectiveness. I actually spelled out what I meant: "to cost the enemy more then it's costing you". A defence system is still a failure even if it kills something for no cost at all, but ultimately fails to defend whatever it is tasked to to defend.
Since we're way off topic that's all from me.

Cost effective and cost efficient? Good grief!
The flak was as effective or as efficient at shooting down enemy aircraft (roughly 50/50 by both our figures) as the fighter arm of the Luftwaffe. Neither was ultimately effective because, despite the losses the allied air forces continued bombing, day and night, until the air defence system was overrun.
Both were effective at shooting down and damaging attacking aircraft, disrupting bombing accuracy, and slaughtering and maiming their crews, the just weren't effective enough in the end.

We talk of "bomber destroyers" almost as a euphemism for "bomber crew killers". 55,500 men of Bomber Command didn't die of boredom and the 4,200 who returned from operations wounded didn't cut themselves shaving. Nearly 10,000, many of them wounded, didn't elect to become PoW.

There were significant advances in detection and targeting later in the war which were exploited by the Germans. Both 8th and 15th AF reports concur that German flak got very much better, more effective/efficient (whatever we like to call it) from early 1944 onwards.
The British would have done well to invest heavily in AAA. It may well have been their best bomber destroyer.

Cheers
Steve

 

[Conslaw]

My choice for the best Allied Bomber Destroyer would be the F7F Tigercat. It had the best combination of firepower (4x 20mm + 4x .50 cal), rate of climb, and toughness. It may not have been as agile as many single-engine fighters, but it was agile enough and fast enough not to be an easy target. As a bonus, the F7F was adaptable as a night fighter.

Historically, the XF7F didn't fly until early 1943, and the test program really didn't get started until late 1943. As it so happened though, the Navy put the F7F on the backburner, and Grumman was advised that turning out as many F6F Hellcats as quickly as possible was top priority. That is understandable under the circumstances, however if the allies had a compelling need for a bomber destroyer, the F7F could have been accelerated.

If I had to go with planes that were readily available, I'd pick 4-cannon versions of the Spitfire and Tempest and 4-cannon F4U Corsairs as next in line.

 

[Dino in Reno]

There were great bomber destroyers developed that never went into production as they were not needed. My pick?

XP-72 with the four 37mm weapons load.
And for better formation busting, put the proximity fuses from A.A. shells on the High Velocity Aircraft Rocket (HVAR).

 

[wuzak]

There were great bomber destroyers developed that never went into production as they were not needed. My pick?

XP-72 with the four 37mm weapons load.
And for better formation busting, put the proximity fuses from A.A. shells on the High Velocity Aircraft Rocket (HVAR).

Then, I'm sure, you would have loved the XP-67, which was designed as a long range bomber buster. It was to have had a 6 x 37mm armament. Production versions woudl have needed to dump the IV-1430 for a V-1710, Merlin or Griffon though.


My understanding is that the 37mm cannon was not a very good air to air weapon. Actually, not a good weapon at all!

 

[Shortround6]

It got better as time went on, but trying to put them in the wing calls for a totally different feed system that what was used on the P-39/P-63. Solves a problem or creates one?

 

[Waynos]

What about the Mk 111 Meteor? Not in the same class as the 262, but it would have done the job, i'm sure.

Worth bearing in mind that the Meteor was conceived in September 1940, the height of the Battle of Britain, and that was exactly the role it was intended for.

 

[HBPencil]

Just my 2 cents worth but seeing as we're talking about a hypothetical situation of the LW fielding heavies and P-51esq escorts (against the UK only? I assume France/Belgium/Holland are still occupied) then it seems to me that outright performance (including rate of climb) is important enough that heavy "bomber killers" would be too vulnerable. So far I'm thinking that regunned P-38s (is 4+ 20mm viable?) and/or Spitfires with 4x20mm would be a good bet... this might be a bit b.s. but I wonder if one 30mm Mk108 type cannon could be mounted in each wing of a Spit? I assume it wouldn't be much use against the escort fighters but I figure if one could be fitted in the wing of a Ki-84 then it's not beyond the pale for the Spit to mount them; I figure it'd need largish blisters above and below, not disimilar to the B wing Spitfires and that it would struggle to be a stable gun platform with weapons of that size.

 

[Glider]

A Typhoon with the thick wing and large weapon bay is probably a more realistic idea for fitting 2 x mk 108 instead of the 4 x 20mm, but at altitude it would be a sitting duck as the 109 with under wing guns.

You could do a lot worse that the Spit mk VIII with 4 x 20mm. Good performance at altitude with good handling and good firepower

 

[nuuumannn]

You could do a lot worse that the Spit Mk VIII with 4 x 20mm. Good performance at altitude with good handling and good firepower.

You could do better than a Mk.VIII with a Spit XIV, though...

 

[SHOOTER]

If the roles had been reversed and Germany was bombing Britain by day with large fleets of four engine bombers Eighth Air Force style what would have been the best aircraft in the Allied fighter arsenal to combat these bombers?
Or to put the question in a more pertinent way if the Germans had of been able to put one type of Allied fighter into production for the sole purpose of shooting down B24's and B17's then which one would have been the best choice?
I don't want to over complicate this thread with production practicalities etc, if possible I would just like to hear peoples ideas on which Allied fighter was the most capable and best suited to the task of destroying large P51 escorted fleets of four engine bombers by day.

To be honest I haven't given a lot of thought to what would be the strongest candidate so may well in future change my mind. My opening proposal is the P38 Lightning. I understand the P38 was not going to be the favourite in a dogfight with a P51 but having said that I feel the P38's concentrated nose mounted armament which included a 20mm canon would have been the most effective of all Allied fighters against lets say a B17.

The was only one real contender, the Me-262(Un-known Mod?) with two Mk-103s. Then the standard Me-262 with four Mk-108s.
PS. As a second thought, the Ta-152H, or as a last resort, the P-38L.

 

[wuzak]

The was only one real contender, the Me-262(Un-known Mod?) with two Mk-103s. Then the standard Me-262 with four Mk-108s.
PS. As a second thought, the Ta-152H, or as a last resort, the P-38L.

Only problem is that the Allies didn't have Me 262s....

 

[Glider]

Shold be able to get a pair in the nose of the Meteor

 

[GrauGeist]

The was only one real contender, the Me-262(Un-known Mod?) with two Mk-103s. Then the standard Me-262 with four Mk-108s.
PS. As a second thought, the Ta-152H, or as a last resort, the P-38L.

Unless you're hypothetically modifying the Me262 for two Mk103s for the scenario, there wasn't a varient that had only two Mk103 cannon.

The A-1a/U1 had two Mk103s as part of a "6 gun" configuration and the PRU version occasionally carried a single Mk108. The only varient that had two cannon (Mk108) was the A-2a

 

[BiffF15]

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

 

[pattle]

You could argue that the P51 was a German aircraft with a British engine, as the P51 was designed by a German!

 

[Shortround6]

I guess a lot of american planes were actually German or British or French or Italian or Russian as quite a number of people emigrated to America during the 20s and 30s.

Igor Sikorsky.

Alexander de Seversky

Alexander Kartveli

and so on.

Or how about Sam D. Heron's work.

I am sure that there are many more.

 

[nuuumannn]

Gustav Lachmann, responsible for the Handley Page Hampden was German. Fred David, who was the principal designer of the CAC Boomerang had formerly worked for Heinkel.

 

[Waynos]

I remember seeing a wartime Heinkel jet bomber design that looks VERY like the Handley Page Victor, I've always wondered how much of the V bombers came from German research. I've always had a bit of a Junkers feeling about the Valiant, with nothing whatsoever to back it up. It is remarkable how a Vickers went from the Windsor to the Valiant in one go.