- Thread starter
- #841
lesofprimus
Brigadier General
Nice Bill, gave me a laugh.... That last one with the Wolfhounds, is that something ur in the process of painting??? If so it looks very good...
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
SoD Stitch
Banned
I would have to (also) go with the 262; true, it came out too late to make a difference in the War, but post-War tests of it's Mk-108 armament showed it only took three or four rounds to bring down a heavy, even the "tough" B-17. Against a fighter, it only took one or two 30mm rounds. I saw a picture of a Mk-108 round versus a Hurricane; it completely severed the tail with a single (explosive) round.
And, as mentioned above, the German pilots of the 262 were just finally developing effective tactics for the 262 when the War ended. According to post-War interviews with senior 262 pilots, they would approach bomber formations from the rear and execute a "roller-coaster" manuever; they would overtake the formation about 1000' above and a few miles behind the bombers. They would go into a shallow dive, overtaking the bombers at about twice their speed (500 mph+). When they were approximately 500' below the bombers and about a half mile behind, they would pull up underneath the bomber, which would slow the 262 down for better accuracy, and hit the bottom of the bomber(s) with their Mk-108's. Very effective.
And, as mentioned above, the German pilots of the 262 were just finally developing effective tactics for the 262 when the War ended. According to post-War interviews with senior 262 pilots, they would approach bomber formations from the rear and execute a "roller-coaster" manuever; they would overtake the formation about 1000' above and a few miles behind the bombers. They would go into a shallow dive, overtaking the bombers at about twice their speed (500 mph+). When they were approximately 500' below the bombers and about a half mile behind, they would pull up underneath the bomber, which would slow the 262 down for better accuracy, and hit the bottom of the bomber(s) with their Mk-108's. Very effective.
Erich
the old Sage
it's called a porpoise or Dolphin maneuver which I have stated at length in past theads.
the Fw 190A-8/R-8 pilots did something similar and actually could dive on the rear of the B-17's pull up and blast the belly turret and tail gunners positions and then even overshoot and hit the B-17 in front of the one they were dealing with to score 2 kills. I have gun cams to prove this. HE-I Minengeschoss 2cm and 3cm was just plain ugly
problem with the 262 is : it just plain too fast in the bomber intercepting role
the Fw 190A-8/R-8 pilots did something similar and actually could dive on the rear of the B-17's pull up and blast the belly turret and tail gunners positions and then even overshoot and hit the B-17 in front of the one they were dealing with to score 2 kills. I have gun cams to prove this. HE-I Minengeschoss 2cm and 3cm was just plain ugly
problem with the 262 is : it just plain too fast in the bomber intercepting role
SoD Stitch
Banned
Yes, the Sturmbock 190's were very effective; I have no doubt they scored more bomber kills than the 262's did, especially given they were operational for at least twice as long (?).
The Minengeschoss 3cm you refer to, was that the Rheinmetall-Borsig Mk-103? I know the -190 was cleared to carry the -103 in underwing pods during the later stages of the War.
Erich
the old Sage
no it is for the Mk 108 short barrel. Mk 103's were NOT fitted to any Fw 190 for combat for air to air targets or air to ground. test prototypes only
- Thread starter
- #846
lesofprimus
Brigadier General
Damn right brother.... I'll upload a clip of someone gettin the bejeezus nailed out of them...Erich said:
I agree wholeheartedly 100% with u Erich...Erich said:
drgondog
Major
Funny thing about that gun.
A USMC Colonel designed a 30mm very similar to Mk 103 that we tested at Bell Helicopter when I was there. It was an option for the 3 Barrel GE 20mm in chin turret... and it was an option for the Army to replace the 7.62x51.
Problem (BIG problem) is that the cyclic rate for this one was right at the natural frequency of the loaded airframe - on our first hover test (about two feet off ground) we had a camera watching the tailboom to record during the firing sequences- starting to look like an agitated sidewinder when we shut it down.
End of test - end of concept. There were ways of changing the cyclical firing rate but Marines opted for the long barrel GE on the AH-1J
Erich
the old Sage
Bill :
Please remember the Mk 108 30mm bomber killer is different than the much longer barreled and heavier Mk 103 30mm that you mention, firing different rounds, the Mk 103 also used longer rounds and was used very effectively as a ground -tank and MT buster on the Eastern front.
Please remember the Mk 108 30mm bomber killer is different than the much longer barreled and heavier Mk 103 30mm that you mention, firing different rounds, the Mk 103 also used longer rounds and was used very effectively as a ground -tank and MT buster on the Eastern front.
drgondog
Major
the 30mm Wecom was actually a short barrel 'Thang. The 20mm GE (XM-188?) was a long barrel varmint.
From memory the Wecom 30 barrel was perhaps 24 inches and a short round -about same lengthas our 40mm grenade
therefore the Wecom might have derived from the Mk108?
From memory the Wecom 30 barrel was perhaps 24 inches and a short round -about same lengthas our 40mm grenade
therefore the Wecom might have derived from the Mk108?
SoD Stitch
Banned
My sources indicate the Mk103 was installed on more than a few units as a "Rustsatze", or Field Modification Kit (not a factory kit!); when the Mk103 was installed, the designation would end with "R3".
Referenced from WW2 Warbirds: the Focke-Wulf Fw 190 Würger (Shrike) - Frans Bonné - See underlined section:
Rüstsätze (field conversion sets):
Fw 190F-8/R1 Attack aircraft, armed with 2 × 0.51 in (13 mm) MG 131 fuselage-mounted guns and 4 × 20 mm MG 151/20 wing-mounted cannon as well as underwing bombs on 4 × ETC 71 racks.
Fw 190F-8/R2 Attack aircraft, armed with 2 × 0.51 in (13 mm) MG 131 fuselage-mounted guns and 2 × 20 mm MG 151/20 wing-mounted cannon, supplemented by 2 × 30 mm MK 108 cannon in underwing gondolas.
Fw 190F-8/R3 Attack aircraft, armed with 2 × 0.51 in (13 mm) MG 131 guns and 2 × 20 mm MG 151/20 cannon, supplemented by 2 × 30 mm MK 103 underwing cannon for tank-busting operations.
Fw 190F-8/R13 Nocturnal ground-attack fighter, fitted with additional navigation equipment and armed with 2 × 0.51 in (13 mm) MG 131 fuselage-mounted guns and up to 3,307 lb (1.500 kg) of disposable stores carried on 1 × ETC 501 underfuselage rack and 2 × ETC 503 underwing racks
Fw 190F-8/R14 Torpedo-fighter, powered by 1 × BMW 801TU radial, rated at 2,000 hp (1.491 kW) for take-off. It featured the PKS 12 radio navigation system, and was armed with 2 × 20 mm MG 151/20 cannon in the wing roots and one LT F5b torpedo carried on an ETC 502 underfuselage rack.
Fw 190F-8/R15 Torpedo-fighter, equal to the Fw 190F-8/R14, but with the standard 1 × BMW 801D-2 engine and a 3,086 lb (1400 kg) LT 1400 torpedo-bomb.
Fw 190F-8/R16 Torpedo-fighter, equal to the Fw 190F-8/15, but with a 1,543 lb (700 kg) LT 700 torpedo-bomb.
Number built: 385
Erich
the old Sage
well the guys info is incorrect. bombs and the useage of hard core point 2cm ammo was used along with the panzerblitz killer rockets on the F-8 variant. NO mk 103 on Fw 190's were used by units in the field for tank busting, test pieces only...........
- Thread starter
- #853
lesofprimus
Brigadier General
I concur with Erich, as my references and info show that NO Mk 103 armed 190A's entered field ops...
reddragon
Airman 1st Class
I would think the advantage of the ME-262 would be it's speed, which meant that it wouldn't have to worry as much about having to fight it's way through the fighters to reach the bombers.
Erich
the old Sage
the 262 problems: unreliable engines that flame out easy enough, wide turning radius enough for the P-51 to turn inside, no long range cannon. All 3cm Mk 108 short range, the largest factor due to speed is the close in rate on the rear of a B-17/B-24, Lanc/Hali. for an inexperienced pilot they would blow right by with getting in a shot
The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
What about the 37mm cannon in the Ariacobra? The Russians must have hacked a few bombers down with that.
The upward firing cannon in the German nightfighters was a work of sheer genius. Certainly the best way to shoot a bomber down. The perfect non deflection shot right in the fuel tanks or bomb bay. Any aircraft fitted with these guns would be lethal.
Go with the 262. A head on pass would mean a B-17 coming at you at 700mph. But could get through the escorts and shoot and then out again.
If it had the role, the P-47 would have have been an awesome bomber destroyer.
The upward firing cannon in the German nightfighters was a work of sheer genius. Certainly the best way to shoot a bomber down. The perfect non deflection shot right in the fuel tanks or bomb bay. Any aircraft fitted with these guns would be lethal.
Go with the 262. A head on pass would mean a B-17 coming at you at 700mph. But could get through the escorts and shoot and then out again.
If it had the role, the P-47 would have have been an awesome bomber destroyer.
Unless your a good shot with cat like reactions. Your gonna end up with brown pants at best or your a$e sharing the same space as your head.
Erich
the old Sage
well Basket the Me 262 units were ordered to attack from the rear like conventional LW prop jobs during late 44-45 so they could get into position and drill the engines and inner wings. A frontal attack was beyond reason and would carry the 262's through the bomber box to the rear where Allied escorts would have it much easier to take them out.
The Schrägwaffen or upward firing guns on the LW night fighters were a very effective means of taking out RAF heavies but the pilot fired between the engines, the engines themselves and not into the bomb bay which would bring on a disaster as you could well imagine taking the LW crew with the RAF one. Same would apply to the fuel tanks, in fact I have interviewed LW NF crews who told me they would hit the engines bank off and watch the wing take hold and burn the fire leading to the fuel tanks and then the ultimate explosion or the wing shredding off
so again we go back did the Me 262 have the means to be the ultimate bomber killer ? probably not in 44-45, too short range, the external fuel tanks would have slowed the jet way down
The Schrägwaffen or upward firing guns on the LW night fighters were a very effective means of taking out RAF heavies but the pilot fired between the engines, the engines themselves and not into the bomb bay which would bring on a disaster as you could well imagine taking the LW crew with the RAF one. Same would apply to the fuel tanks, in fact I have interviewed LW NF crews who told me they would hit the engines bank off and watch the wing take hold and burn the fire leading to the fuel tanks and then the ultimate explosion or the wing shredding off
so again we go back did the Me 262 have the means to be the ultimate bomber killer ? probably not in 44-45, too short range, the external fuel tanks would have slowed the jet way down
The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
Do you think the Do-335 was the answer? Certainly had speed firepower and range.
But wasn't the Me-110 built for this type of combat? Was the Ju-88 heavy fighters ever used to take on unescorted bombers in daylight?
I Don't think the perfect answer exists in the context of WW2. The Germans really needed a MiG-15 type aircraft although the ideas were around at the time. If I recall the Ta-183 shared a likeness. An air to air guided missile would have been handy too.
But wasn't the Me-110 built for this type of combat? Was the Ju-88 heavy fighters ever used to take on unescorted bombers in daylight?
I Don't think the perfect answer exists in the context of WW2. The Germans really needed a MiG-15 type aircraft although the ideas were around at the time. If I recall the Ta-183 shared a likeness. An air to air guided missile would have been handy too.
SoD Stitch
Banned
"Yes", to the last two questions . . . the MiG-15 actually was (indirectly) based on a German jet design of WWII. And there was an air-to-air missle developed by the Germans in late '44/early '45, but it wasn't very effective; it was too slow, and it wasn't self-guiding - it had to be steered all the way to the (moving) target by the pilot, which took about 30 seconds, and all the while the German pilot would be getting shot at by multiple Allied aircraft. Not very safe . . .
