Best Bomber Killing Aircraft......

[Civettone]

In daylight the mossie would get torn to shreds just like any other 2 engined heavy fighter

Yeah just like the P-38


Kris

 

[looney]

You are comparing a P-38 with a Mossie? I will admit I'm not an expert on the P-38, but in a 1 vs 1 fight against a similar skilled pilot in a single engined fighter it's gonna loose. And even if we say the P-38 is equal than a single engined fighter, the mossie is a bomber at heart so not nearly as manouvrable.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

You are comparing a P-38 with a Mossie? I will admit I'm not an expert on the P-38, but in a 1 vs 1 fight against a similar skilled pilot in a single engined fighter it's gonna loose.

Any proof to back that up?

 

[looney]

Nope like said I'm not an expert, but the extra weight of the P-38 would be terrible in a dogfight. Weight reduced acceleration turning radius, which can be offset with more power. Then again more power costs more weight. It's a trade-off.

If a P-38 is comparable in speed and manouvrability with say a FW190 (not anti bomber outfitted) or a BF109 (without gunpods). I'll admit it my error asap.

A mossie on the other hand is a bomber converted into a bomberinterceptor.. not a fighter. It simply wasn't designed to be manouvrable. You need to make some compromises. The same with JU88 and Do nightfighters. Great for their purpose NF but in daylight I don't think they could hold their own.

From wiki: The P-38 was unusually quiet for a fighter, the exhaust muffled by the turbo-superchargers. It was extremely forgiving, and could be mishandled in many ways, but the rate of roll was too slow for it to excel as a dogfighter.

Again if I'm wrong please corrrect me.. I want to learn

 

[Colin1]

Nope like said I'm not an expert, but the extra weight of the P-38 would be terrible in a dogfight. Weight reduced acceleration turning radius, which can be offset with more power. Then again more power costs more weight. It's a trade-off.

If a P-38 is comparable in speed and manouvrability with say a FW190 (not anti bomber outfitted) or a BF109 (without gunpods). I'll admit it my error asap.

From wiki: The P-38 was unusually quiet for a fighter, the exhaust muffled by the turbo-superchargers. It was extremely forgiving, and could be mishandled in many ways, but the rate of roll was too slow for it to excel as a dogfighter

The extra weight of the P-38
while obviously undesirable wasn't necessarily 'terrible' in a dogfight. It was always felt that the P-38 needed a good pilot to get the best out of it and while it could never roll with the Fw190 it did have features that enabled it to fight, with said good pilot installed, on comparable terms with the Luftwaffe and more notably in the PTO.

Entering a turn with a single-engined opponent, the good pilot would know to reduce power on the inboard engine whilst increasing it on the outboard, this frequently brought the P-38 inside of the single-engined bogie in the turn. Presented with the firing solution, the good pilot could then make good his advantage.

The P-38 in the ETO was bedevilled with mechanical problems that never really gave it the opportunity to shine. By the time the issues were resolved, the P-51 had entered operations in the escort role.

Re your claim of more power equalling more weight, again, not necessarily true. I'm not at home right now but I would like to see figures for the powerplant weight gain between the V-1650-1 and the -9; some maybe but I doubt anything significant. I know the P-38 wasn't powered by Packard Merlins, before you point that out so anything similar that you can reveal on V-1710s is also good.

 

[looney]

We are moving away from my main point: A mossie can't dogfoght, it simply isn't designed for it. And in daylight it will get shot up badly by any defense guns on a bomber and/or the fighter escort.

 

[drgondog]

Re your claim of more power equalling more weight, again, not necessarily true. I'm not at home right now but I would like to see figures for the powerplant weight gain between the V-1650-1 and the -9; some maybe but I doubt anything significant. I know the P-38 wasn't powered by Packard Merlins, before you point that out so anything similar that you can reveal on V-1710s is also good.

Colin - IIRC the 1650-9 (@1745 built up) was about 50 pounds more than the -1 (1690)

 

[tail end charlie]

We are moving away from my main point: A mossie can't dogfoght, it simply isn't designed for it. And in daylight it will get shot up badly by any defense guns on a bomber and/or the fighter escort.

Without an escort a bomber fleet would get destroyed, 4 cannon would take out defensive fire before they got in the range of defensive MGs. The escort makes the difference but that isnt in the thread title. Without an escort most planes are effective bomber killers though.

 

[renrich]

Hold the phone. 20 MM cannon don't necessarily have more range than 50 BMGs. In fact some 20 mms don't shoot as flat as the 50 cals and it would be easier to hit with the 50s at say 400-500 yards than with the cannons.

 

[tail end charlie]

Hold the phone. 20 MM cannon don't necessarily have more range than 50 BMGs. In fact some 20 mms don't shoot as flat as the 50 cals and it would be easier to hit with the 50s at say 400-500 yards than with the cannons.

Well its a long discussion already, I think a turret mounted twin gun was lucky to hit anything at that range.

 

[renrich]

I can't think of any Axis bombers that had any defensive guns equal to the 50BMG. Some of the Japanese bombers had a 20 MM stinger and they were effective against a low deflection attack from the stern. In a daylight attack, in a low deflection run, the twin fifties either in a turret or hand held, or in the case of the TBF, the single fifty were very effective against fighters at quite long range. The 50 BMG shoots really flat and maintains it's energy very well.

 

[tail end charlie]

I can't think of any Axis bombers that had any defensive guns equal to the 50BMG. Some of the Japanese bombers had a 20 MM stinger and they were effective against a low deflection attack from the stern. In a daylight attack, in a low deflection run, the twin fifties either in a turret or hand held, or in the case of the TBF, the single fifty were very effective against fighters at quite long range. The 50 BMG shoots really flat and maintains it's energy very well.

Thats as maybe but any unescorted bomber formation or individual bomber was in serious trouble when caught by fighters regardless of what bomber era or theatre of the war. The USAAF tried extra heavily armed bombers but they wernt a success because they slowed the whole formation on their return. With any individual defence like a turret it can be overwhelmed by two fighters and using a formation means the bomber must fly straight and level making a perfect target.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I can't think of any Axis bombers that had any defensive guns equal to the 50BMG. Some of the Japanese bombers had a 20 MM stinger and they were effective against a low deflection attack from the stern. In a daylight attack, in a low deflection run, the twin fifties either in a turret or hand held, or in the case of the TBF, the single fifty were very effective against fighters at quite long range. The 50 BMG shoots really flat and maintains it's energy very well.

The He 177 had 2 20mm cannons and 3 13mm mg's among its defensive armament.

The He 290 and 390 could be configured with 4 20mm cannons and 2 13mm mg's.

The Me 264 (which never saw service) was designed with 2 20mm cannon and 4 13mm mg's.

The Do 17's armament included 4 20mm and 2 13 mm.

He 111 - 1 20mm and 1 13 mm.

Ju 188 - 1 20mm and 3 13mm.

Now their effectiveness compared to the .50 BMG, that I do not know...

 

[drgondog]

Without an escort a bomber fleet would get destroyed, 4 cannon would take out defensive fire before they got in the range of defensive MGs. The escort makes the difference but that isnt in the thread title. Without an escort most planes are effective bomber killers though.

The Me 110/210/410, Me 262, Fw 190 and Me 109s all had to close to ~ 200 yards to get effective fire into B-17/B-24's - and they did! But effective range worked both ways although the fighter had the advantage with speed and manueverability to get within shooting range - either from head on or astern.

Bomber gunners had a much more difficult tracking and firing solution than fighters.

The LW training films emphasized the need to close.

 

[Kurfürst]

Hold the phone. 20 MM cannon don't necessarily have more range than 50 BMGs. In fact some 20 mms don't shoot as flat as the 50 cals and it would be easier to hit with the 50s at say 400-500 yards than with the cannons.

Depends on the gun, but I don't believe at long range firing in air to air combat at all. The Germans were complaining about US heavies having a zone of fire of 1200 m, and did some steps towards ultra-range guns (see 5cm BK 5, 21 cm rockets etc.) but I'd wager that the effect of such bomber defensive fire was 98% physchological, rather than physical... all the tracers flying towards you was demoralising for sure! But to hit a fighter sized target from over a click, from a hand held gun or a turret, I'd say chances were close to nil..

 

[renrich]

I believe that a hit from a 50 BMG at 1200 meters on a fighter, especially a liquid cooled engined fighter could be damaging. I agree though that the defensive fire from Allied daylight bombers was mostly unaimed except in a general direction except when the tail gunners were able to fire at a fighter making a run from the six o clock position. The closing speed would not be as high and a no or low deflection shot would not be difficult for the gunner on the bomber.

I knew that the BOB German bombers were mostly armed with 7.7 mm MGs and that some German bombers carried 20 mm defensive guns but was not aware that they also used a 13mm MG similar to the 50 BMG.

Was thinking the other day about the manufacture of the M2 50 BMG during WW2. Had read that the RAF did not mount many of them on their bombers because they were unavailable. The M2 was not a trivial weapon and required a lot of material and labor to produce. There were around 100000 US fighters produced with perhaps an average of five M2s per plane. That is half a million M2s. The heavy bombers mounted ten or more M2s and there were more than 30000 B17s and B24s built so that is another 300000. Medium bombers must have used up another 200000 or more which makes a total of at least one million.When one counts all the M2s used in the US Army by ground troops, tanks and other vehicles and those used on sea going craft, there were a lot of M2s built. If they cost as much as $100 each which sounds reasonable then well more than 100M dollars must have been spent for them.

 

[tail end charlie]

I believe that a hit from a 50 BMG at 1200 meters on a fighter, especially a liquid cooled engined fighter could be damaging. I agree though that the defensive fire from Allied daylight bombers was mostly unaimed except in a general direction except when the tail gunners were able to fire at a fighter making a run from the six o clock position. The closing speed would not be as high and a no or low deflection shot would not be difficult for the gunner on the bomber.

I knew that the BOB German bombers were mostly armed with 7.7 mm MGs and that some German bombers carried 20 mm defensive guns but was not aware that they also used a 13mm MG similar to the 50 BMG.

Was thinking the other day about the manufacture of the M2 50 BMG during WW2. Had read that the RAF did not mount many of them on their bombers because they were unavailable. The M2 was not a trivial weapon and required a lot of material and labor to produce. There were around 100000 US fighters produced with perhaps an average of five M2s per plane. That is half a million M2s. The heavy bombers mounted ten or more M2s and there were more than 30000 B17s and B24s built so that is another 300000. Medium bombers must have used up another 200000 or more which makes a total of at least one million.When one counts all the M2s used in the US Army by ground troops, tanks and other vehicles and those used on sea going craft, there were a lot of M2s built. If they cost as much as $100 each which sounds reasonable then well more than 100M dollars must have been spent for them.

I dont know where you get the range of 1200m unless that is the range that tracer is visible. from wiki discussing the B29

With the revolutionary Central Fire Control System (CFCS), the B-29 had four remote controlled turrets, each armed with two .50 cal M2/AN machine guns.[N 2] Four gunners were able to control these turrets with the use of four General Electric-made analog computers, one above the Norden bombsight in the nose[N 3] and three in a pressurized compartment in the rear fuselage, which featured clear blown sighting blisters. The gunner manning the sight in the upper rear station was the "Central Fire Control gunner" whose job was to allocate turrets to each of the other three gunners, avoiding confusion in the heat of battle. The CFCS had (at that time) a highly advanced analog computer that corrected for the B-29's airspeed, the target's speed, target lead, gravity, temperature, barrel wear, and humidity. Because of this, the .50 caliber machine guns of the B-29 had a maximum effective range of 1,000 yards (910 m), double the range of the manually aimed machine guns of the B-17 Flying Fortress.



All sides in the second world war went down the road of the armed bomber. The Americans persisted with the daylight bomber but the B17 on a long raid carried as much weight defending itself as its bomb load (probably more). The British persisted with their night fighter designs which usually involved a front and upper mid turret even though most attacks were from behind or below. Even when statisticians said that the front and mid turret were dead weight they wouldnt remove them.

The mosquito was able to drop a load on Berlin almost equal to a B17 by day or night with two engines and two crew. If all the allies had concentrated their ideas on an escort like the mustang from 1939 and made their bombers faster more armoured with fewer crew a whole lot of lives could have been saved.

 

[Shortround6]

Later model Halifax bombers did away with the nose turret.
The H2S radar tended to go where a belly turret would have gone.

Lives could have been saved by simply increasing the cruise speed of some of the bombers. Not really that hard to do as some of them were not being operated at optimum settings.

The Problem with "working" on escort fighters in 1939 was that the technology did not allow it.
Only America had 100 octane fuel.
American 100 octane fuel was not the same as British 100 octane fuel (it had NO rich rating or ability).
It was impossible to predict in 1939 what the power rating of an engine in 1943 was going to be with the improved fuels. The Mustang was not designed as an escort fighter.
A Mustang with a 1940-41 Allison or Merlin engine would have had 30-40% less take-off power than the later Merlins and would not have been able to take-off from existing airfields with the fuel load of the later aircraft. With their single stage superchargers the early engines would not have had the power at 25,000ft and up to allow for effective escorting of turbo charged bombers.
There was reason that most (if not all) long range fighters in the late 30s were twin engine.

 

[renrich]

I did not say that the effective range on the 50 BMG was 1200 meters or that the "range" of the 50 BMG was anything in particular. I have been a hunter all my life and have also been a handloader and although no expert I have a rudimentary knowledge of ballistics. I have in several instances made one shot kills at 500 yards with a handloaded 150 grain bullet in 270 Winchester on Mule Deer with a body weight of around 200 pounds. The 50 BMG bullet used in WW2 weighed around 700 grains and had a much, much better ballistic coefficient and sectional density than the 270 bullet. It does not strain credulity at all to believe that a lucky hit at something more than twice 500 yards could pierce the flimsy fuselage of a WW2 fighter and do some damage. On top of that, the tracers which may have been used did not match the trajectory of the non tracer bullets at all especially at long ranges. I expect that the pilots on both sides understood that, and could not be sure that just because the tracers were falling short of their airplane, they were safe.

There are many recorded instances of snipers making kills at a mile(1760 yards) or even more with the 50 BMG. It would have to be very lucky for gunners on bombers to make hits on fighters at 1200 meters but if "Murphy's Law" was in effect that day, a fighter pilot would have to have no imagination to not feel some trepidation if he faced a high volume of fire from bombers at any reasonable range.

 

[Shortround6]

the problem with the "effective range" is not not if the bullet/shell will do damage if it hits but hitting at all.

A 300mph plane is doing 440feet per second, a 450mph airplane is doing 660 feet per second.

What is the time of flight of the bullet/shell to 1200 yds or meters?

How far ahead of the target airplane do you have to aim?

and if your "estimate" is off by even 10% you miss.

Even if the airplane is flying straight at your "stationary" gun at these long ranges the bullet is changing elevation by 4-6 feet every 100yds so guessing the range wrong by even 100yds out of 1000-1200yds puts the bullets either above or below the target. The vibrating bomber may be rocking, pitching and/or yawing slightly at the same time so it is hardly a stationary firing platform let alone the wind drift problems.

Having said all of that a large formation of bombers might be able to point over 100 guns to one side or in one direction and 100 guns can put a lot of bullets into the air in a short period of time. Sort of like having 100 hunters all shooting at the same deer (or group of deer) at 1000yds for 10-12 seconds. 400 to 500 rounds fired--- how many deer hit? what is the "effective" range of the rifles used?

BTW the US manufactured over 10 Billion .50 cal rounds in WW II.