Thankyou...
Best Bomber Killing Aircraft......
- Thread starter lesofprimus
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Thread starter
- #803
lesofprimus
Brigadier General
Hunter, my stuff is non-copyrighted, so feel free to abuse ur coworkers and pals with whatever tickles ur cockles....Hunter said:
Man Chris, lay off my pet, I mean slave, I mean my good ol buddy ol chum Hunter... He's just noticing the brilliance of my masterful tounge lashings... Admiration is always the biggest compliment...Adler said:
CharlesBronson
Senior Master Sergeant
Interesting picture of a Hs-129 strafing british tanks.
From: Luftwaffe Slachtgruppen /osprey Elite.
From: Luftwaffe Slachtgruppen /osprey Elite.
- Thread starter
- #807
lesofprimus
Brigadier General
Great pic Bronson, but u do realize this thread is about Bomber Killing, not Ground Attack. dont u???
CharlesBronson
Senior Master Sergeant
Ughhh....wrong topic , sorry. Anybody can move that ?
The Jug Rules!
Airman 1st Class
Well having you nose in brown stuff isn't exactly on-topic...
- Thread starter
- #811
lesofprimus
Brigadier General
The Beaufighter was not designed as a bomber killing aircraft...
CharlesBronson
Senior Master Sergeant
It destroyed some german bombers but mostly in the Night fighter role.
102first_hussars
Tech Sergeant
as much as i would like to say the Hurricane
I think the FW-190 hands down is the best.......it had way better fire power than the -109
I think the FW-190 hands down is the best.......it had way better fire power than the -109
Heinz
Captain
FW 190 in the A8 variant was pretty lethal, thats my vote!
Jabberwocky
Staff Sergeant
Is this a qualitative discussion - as in what aircraft was most able to shoot down bombers? - or a quantative discussion - as in, what aircraft shot down the most bombers?
For qualitative, the first thing I'd do is split the categories between Allied and Axis bomber destroyers and day and night bomber destroyers. Probably by timeframe as well.
An Allied bomber destroyer is not going to get as many cracks as his Axis counterparts. Apart from the Battle of Britain and smaller operations over the Eastern Front, the Allies very rarely encountered formation bombing.
The Axis powers built approximately 42500 twin engine/ four engine bombers.
The Allies powers built approximately 135,000 twin engine/ four engine bombers, more than three times the amount of their opponent. The difference in airframe tonnage is even greater as is the number of bomber sorties flown.
A twin engine night fighter is probably going to struggle during the daylight, even against unescorted bombers, despite its heavier armament and longer endurance.
Similarly, unless a single engine fighter is modified for night work, with assorted radar and detection gear, it is going to have a realtively more difficult time against night bombers.
Qualitatively, on the Axis side I'd say:
Dayfighter: FW-190A
Nightfighter: Ju-88G
Both combined effective, heavy armament with high performance and excellent reliability.
Honourable mentions go to the Ki-84 as a dayfighter and the Ki-46-III as a night fighter.
On the Allied side I'd say:
Dayfighter: Tempest V
Nightfighter: Mosquito NF Mk XXX
Honourable mentions to P-38 as a dayfighter and P-61 and Beaufighter as nightfighters.
For qualitative, the first thing I'd do is split the categories between Allied and Axis bomber destroyers and day and night bomber destroyers. Probably by timeframe as well.
An Allied bomber destroyer is not going to get as many cracks as his Axis counterparts. Apart from the Battle of Britain and smaller operations over the Eastern Front, the Allies very rarely encountered formation bombing.
The Axis powers built approximately 42500 twin engine/ four engine bombers.
The Allies powers built approximately 135,000 twin engine/ four engine bombers, more than three times the amount of their opponent. The difference in airframe tonnage is even greater as is the number of bomber sorties flown.
A twin engine night fighter is probably going to struggle during the daylight, even against unescorted bombers, despite its heavier armament and longer endurance.
Similarly, unless a single engine fighter is modified for night work, with assorted radar and detection gear, it is going to have a realtively more difficult time against night bombers.
Qualitatively, on the Axis side I'd say:
Dayfighter: FW-190A
Nightfighter: Ju-88G
Both combined effective, heavy armament with high performance and excellent reliability.
Honourable mentions go to the Ki-84 as a dayfighter and the Ki-46-III as a night fighter.
On the Allied side I'd say:
Dayfighter: Tempest V
Nightfighter: Mosquito NF Mk XXX
Honourable mentions to P-38 as a dayfighter and P-61 and Beaufighter as nightfighters.
drgondog
Major
The Me 262 based on;
1. Heaviest firepower
2. Immune to interception (unless it stayed to play)
3. Best Performance at any altitude
but, short range interceptor as the major fault
B-17 and B-29 would be the standard for 'hard to kill' toughness and ceiling. Lancaster great airplane but believe the Rolls made it more vulnerable to coolant hits than those Wasps and 3350's
Next would be the Fw190A8 and/or (Fw190D) plus and Do335 and Ta152 - the latter two not around long enough -ditto Japanese N1K2-J Shiden 21)
The only one of the above that could engage at long range would be the Shiden
None of the Allied Fighters had to kill a B-17 or B-29 so hard to judge but Tempest and P-38 and P-47 would get my vote based on Firepower and Pure speed at altitude...with 47 and 38 at altitudes approaching 40,000 feet. I think the 20mm gives the edge over the 51 for the 38 and two extra 50's the edge for the 47 over the 51..but if the enemy bombers had great escort - I would go Mustang as the better able to go long range and engage both bombers and fighters - and if that mission had come, believe it (51) would have been re-armed with 4 20mm instead of .50's.
Post War Piston engine - the P-82 would get my vote
Night Fighter - either P-61 and Mosquito with edge to Mossy for speed and ceiling and range and maybe He219 except for range
Opinions only - no 'simple' answer
Bill
1. Heaviest firepower
2. Immune to interception (unless it stayed to play)
3. Best Performance at any altitude
but, short range interceptor as the major fault
B-17 and B-29 would be the standard for 'hard to kill' toughness and ceiling. Lancaster great airplane but believe the Rolls made it more vulnerable to coolant hits than those Wasps and 3350's
Next would be the Fw190A8 and/or (Fw190D) plus and Do335 and Ta152 - the latter two not around long enough -ditto Japanese N1K2-J Shiden 21)
The only one of the above that could engage at long range would be the Shiden
None of the Allied Fighters had to kill a B-17 or B-29 so hard to judge but Tempest and P-38 and P-47 would get my vote based on Firepower and Pure speed at altitude...with 47 and 38 at altitudes approaching 40,000 feet. I think the 20mm gives the edge over the 51 for the 38 and two extra 50's the edge for the 47 over the 51..but if the enemy bombers had great escort - I would go Mustang as the better able to go long range and engage both bombers and fighters - and if that mission had come, believe it (51) would have been re-armed with 4 20mm instead of .50's.
Post War Piston engine - the P-82 would get my vote
Night Fighter - either P-61 and Mosquito with edge to Mossy for speed and ceiling and range and maybe He219 except for range
Opinions only - no 'simple' answer
Bill
Erich
the old Sage
well Bill I would agree with the Me 262 with R4M's as the # 1 day fighter bomber killer except for it's endurance range level which was limited. Even at night it may be the # 1 night fighter but again the range problem, one reason why Kurt Welter insisted that two seaters with radar and long range fuel tanks to be added for increased performance. Problem with this is that his task force 10./NJG 11 was to hunt LSNF Mossies and the extra baggage of radar, fuel tanks and another crew member really limited overall effectiveness.
the Mossie XXX was probably on top for nf's followed by Ju 88G-6 with Berlin 240a1 radar in streamlined nose cone. He 219 was limited in numbers, actually too heavy like the P-61, understandably the last two did have heavy firepower but with that bulk
the Mossie XXX was probably on top for nf's followed by Ju 88G-6 with Berlin 240a1 radar in streamlined nose cone. He 219 was limited in numbers, actually too heavy like the P-61, understandably the last two did have heavy firepower but with that bulk
drgondog
Major
Erich I actually considered the weight on both the 219 and the 61 but still liked both better than the Ju88G6 - but not for any pure technical reason I can think of - I thought all were behind the Mossie for night.
My father once commanded the 318th(?have to check) FG before we went to Japan where he picked up the 35FBW. The 318th was a P-61B or C Wing. He claimed the 61 would turn very well with 51's and would have presented an interesting dogfighter with a top turret equipped 61.. for those a/c in a turning fight..but he would rather be in a 51 if it came to a fight.
From my perspective the only reason for a 262 at night was to hunt a Mossie at night - lol.
If I were war god of Kingdom of Whoopass and could set up my ADC TO&E with any force from any nation I would have two layers - 51H's to attack offshore and force escort to drop any external fuel they had, engage same plus the bombers, and 262's to mop up the inbound (for daylight) and have all Mossie force for night intrusions... For escort of MY strategic force, 51H's all the way. I would mod the 51H to carry 2-4 20mm cannons to replace the .50's or at least swap them w/15mm MG..
My world may not be the same as yours (or Dan's)
My father once commanded the 318th(?have to check) FG before we went to Japan where he picked up the 35FBW. The 318th was a P-61B or C Wing. He claimed the 61 would turn very well with 51's and would have presented an interesting dogfighter with a top turret equipped 61.. for those a/c in a turning fight..but he would rather be in a 51 if it came to a fight.
From my perspective the only reason for a 262 at night was to hunt a Mossie at night - lol.
If I were war god of Kingdom of Whoopass and could set up my ADC TO&E with any force from any nation I would have two layers - 51H's to attack offshore and force escort to drop any external fuel they had, engage same plus the bombers, and 262's to mop up the inbound (for daylight) and have all Mossie force for night intrusions... For escort of MY strategic force, 51H's all the way. I would mod the 51H to carry 2-4 20mm cannons to replace the .50's or at least swap them w/15mm MG..
My world may not be the same as yours (or Dan's)
Erich
the old Sage
ah but we must look at what the TA 152H-2 and 3 might have been........yep too late to see action, but a ceiling of over 50,000 could of been interesting with special cockpit provisions
In our book once published it will be of note that Kurt Welter knew full well the attacks on Mossies were futile attempts and that attacking the heavier RAF bombers was the key and the twin seat 262 even with all the weight measures could still out fly everything else in the Luftwaffe and Allied arsenal. too much time had run out, the nf Kommando was on the run westward to get out of the long reach of the Soviets
In our book once published it will be of note that Kurt Welter knew full well the attacks on Mossies were futile attempts and that attacking the heavier RAF bombers was the key and the twin seat 262 even with all the weight measures could still out fly everything else in the Luftwaffe and Allied arsenal. too much time had run out, the nf Kommando was on the run westward to get out of the long reach of the Soviets
renrich
Chief Master Sergeant
Interesting thought about the vaunted TA152H. It was supposed to be able to touch 472 mph at 41000 ft. taking an average at that altitude, that is Mach .714. In the P51, a very clean airframe the onset of compressibility was at just under .75. Seems to me that if you are in an airplane at 41000 ft and near your top speed and dive to make an interception you could easily lose control because of compressibility. just wondering.
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
