Best Bomber Killing Aircraft......

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

the 163 was a time bomb and cannot even be seriously considered. overall the Fw 190A-8/R8 or Me 262 would suffice, the 262 yes for speed but no endurance and that was it's fault besides it's finicky engines and fuel system
 
xavier said:
the 163 may not shot down many aircraft but it did hav solar panals so once it flew under a plane it detroyed it.
Click to expand...

It was not exactly like that, but there was something similar for the 'fly under' part.

Some Me163 were fitted with a special weapon, the '500 Jaegerfaust'
It was a row of 5x50mm launching barrells per wing firing upwards and controlled by an optical device.

The idea was to fly below the bomber from behind, the optical device was in charge to detect the shadow of the big airplane and fire automatically the guns. I think that whitin some limits it was also compensating the quote difference.

The same weapon was tested on a Fw190 but I don't think it was used operationally, while it seems that a Me163 downed a 4 engine bomber in this way.
 
Few Me 163 were lost either to enemy actions or to accidents. No pilots were incinerated, no planes blowing up on take off or landing. Easy to fly too.

It had a short endurance, that was its only vice. Even the short firing time was only a problem because of limited training.

Kris
 
While it is true that few -163 were lost in accidents (measured in total numbers), the LOSS RATE of this plane particular, esspeccially at the EKdo in Bad Zwischenhahn was particularely high - higher than could be postulated before with an unusually high kill rate (40%) of the pilots involved. The plane itselve was tricky (GoG-issues), altough gentle and pleasing to fly if everything was ok. The fuel however, was a real hazard.
 
Delcyros, you're talking about an Erprobungskommando, so a unit destined to test this new aircraft before it was operational. A better way to judge the Me 163 would be to look at the loss figures of JG 300, the only operational Me 163 unit. You'll see it was more reliable than several Bf 109 or Fw 190 units of the time!

What are GoG issues? (I know CoG, is that what you meant?)
Kris
 
My fault - CoG - is what I meant

The JG 300 records are indeed telling! If You dig into them You will find an avaiability rate for it´s planes of less than 35% (!!!) -by far the weakest number of any Luftwaffe fighter in 1944/45.
 
geezo Kris check you LW data please, JG 300 never flew the Komet as the pilots would of laughed themselves silly trying to fly that crap against B-24/B-17 formations

the unit you want is JG 400
 
I do know that on the 7th October JG400 lost 4 Komets in accidents. Considering the small number of aircraft available this alone must have been a bit of a knock.
2 pilots were killed and one injured
 
Well it looks as if the official records could be incomplete.
One of the pilots killed was Manfred Eisenmann flying 440013 and the injured pilot was Fritz Husser flying 440165
I dont have the details of the other two aircraft but can I ask how the details above fit in with your info? It might help identify the other two aircraft.

I also know that on the 9th September the Germans lost one flown by Fritz Kelb when demonstrating the aircraft to the Japanese when it caught fire in the air. He was able to bale out.
 
their own pilots say upward of at least 12 Komets lost to action also the US gun cameras show otherwise, the 359th fg shot down 2 for fact alone.

12 kills for the whole small Geschwader does not say much at all. As the units was constantly on the move late 44 till wars end due to being planted in the east and the Russians were keen on grabbing as many fleas as possible plus any Komet tech and personell. Fast yes, inefficient yes, no range, sitting ducks in a glide home
 
Even if they lost 12 Komets due to enemy action then it's still less than the 14 bombers they shot down.
Low figures in any case: few losses, few kills. It's clear that they didn't see enough action. IMO because they weren't placed in the right area. I would have put them right in the Ruhr area. Plenty of stuff to do there, and all within range.

Glider, I'm just basing myself on the public Flugzeugbestanden which are summarized on the net by Holm at ww2.dk.
Kris
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

A
Best WW2 Seafire vs. best A6M Zero
Replies
9
Views
543
Shortround6
S
A
Best Axis four engined bomber?
Replies
9
Views
2K
dedalos
D
Best "general purpose" prop fighter also capable of best high altitude performance
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
PAT303
P
K
Best Aircraft UNDER 1000hp
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
GrauGeist
What was it about the black crosses on the wings that made German aircraft the best?
5 6 7
Replies
123
Views
8K
mikewint
Menu
Log in
Register