Best Bomber Killing Aircraft......

[renrich]

Shortround, your next to last paragraph is what I have been trying to say all along(apparently not very clearly.) Someone earlier said that LW fighter pilots mentioned that they were leary of damage from bomber defensive guns at 1200 meters. Other posters said that the 50 BMG probably was not effective at that range. Depending on the definition of effective, that may or may not be true.

One of my favorite sources, "America's Hundred Thousand," has a table that says that the maximum effective practical range of the 50 BMG is 300 yards. To me, that is extremely conservative for that is "point blank" range for the 50 except that maybe it supports the gunnery training of the US in opening fire at 1000 feet. In fact, the point blank range for the 3006 is 300 yards using the "rule of three" according to Jack O Connor." A 3006 zeroed to be three inches high at 100 yards will be within three inches of point of aim all the way to 300 yards" with the 150 grain bullet. The table in "America's Hundred Thousand" also gives the maximum effective theoretical range of the 50 BMG as 900 yards. It also gives the two corresponding ranges of the 30 cal gun as 200 and 600 yards respectively.

Prior to WW1, the British Regulars were trained to open rapid fire with their service rifles at ranges up to 800 yards. Early in the war, the German troops in the open found that they ignored that rapid fire at those ranges at their peril. If the 303 British can be dangerous at 800 yards to troops in the open, how can the 50 BMG not be dangerous to a fighter at 1200 yards?

 

[tail end charlie]

Shortround, your next to last paragraph is what I have been trying to say all along(apparently not very clearly.) Someone earlier said that LW fighter pilots mentioned that they were leary of damage from bomber defensive guns at 1200 meters. Other posters said that the 50 BMG probably was not effective at that range. Depending on the definition of effective, that may or may not be true.

Renrich I agree completely that a .50 cal gun could damage an aircraft at 1200 yards. However my point is similar to those already made, hitting a moving target from a moving platform is almost impossible. The recoil and vibration means the machine guns spray the bullets in a general direction

Basically if a bomber formation throws enough rounds up in the air they will hit something, sometimes your own aircraft!. An approaching aircraft could be faced by over 200 guns from a formation but that means 10 aircraft are facing 20 each and 40 aircraft by 5 and so on. The more aircraft attacking the less effective the defence is.

I read one account about fighter pilots that said when scanning a clear sky most peoples eyes focus about 30 yards in front of you, its difficult to even see a plane at 1200 yards.

 

[renrich]

Well, it seems we finally have reached an understanding of a common element. I believe that most of the defensive fire from a bomber formation was area fire which probably meant that the gunners were taught to take certain sectors and put rounds into them if fighters were thought to be there. However, if the run made by a fighter was either a head on or dead astern run the firing solution got a lot more simple. Butch O Hare made numerous firing runs on the Betty bombers he shot down and damaged and got hit with one 7.7 round BUT his runs were all high deflection runs and the gunner's solutions were difficult. One of the pilots in his section made a low deflection run from astern and the Betty 20 MM tail gunner potted him. Saburo, when he lost his eye, made a low deflection run from astern on what he thought was an F4F and it turned out to be a TBF (I think) and the single 50 BMG gunner potted him.

I have always thought that the simplest shots on duck or dove were those going away or head on because not much lead is needed. My guess, because of the design of the FW190 and ME109 and because most of the LW pilots of those planes probably had only moderate gunnery training, that most of the gunnery runs which were effective aginst the Eighth Air Force were low deflection runs from either astern or head on and they were dangerous because the top turret gunner and tail gunner had pretty simple firing solutions, if they saw the attacker. The twin engined LW interceptors were a different matter.

 

[tail end charlie]

Well, it seems we finally have reached an understanding of a common element. I believe that most of the defensive fire from a bomber formation was area fire which probably meant that the gunners were taught to take certain sectors and put rounds into them if fighters were thought to be there. However, if the run made by a fighter was either a head on or dead astern run the firing solution got a lot more simple. Butch O Hare made numerous firing runs on the Betty bombers he shot down and damaged and got hit with one 7.7 round BUT his runs were all high deflection runs and the gunner's solutions were difficult. One of the pilots in his section made a low deflection run from astern and the Betty 20 MM tail gunner potted him. Saburo, when he lost his eye, made a low deflection run from astern on what he thought was an F4F and it turned out to be a TBF (I think) and the single 50 BMG gunner potted him.

I have always thought that the simplest shots on duck or dove were those going away or head on because not much lead is needed. My guess, because of the design of the FW190 and ME109 and because most of the LW pilots of those planes probably had only moderate gunnery training, that most of the gunnery runs which were effective aginst the Eighth Air Force were low deflection runs from either astern or head on and they were dangerous because the top turret gunner and tail gunner had pretty simple firing solutions, if they saw the attacker. The twin engined LW interceptors were a different matter.

Well I dont know about that I think the LW like the RAF found that head on attacks broke up the formation and therefore their group defence. I read the other day that to bring down a B17 in a head on attack needed just one half second burst on target. The LW also used high speed staffing passes which meant they were in and out before many guns were trained on them. For the LW the problem was the escorts, if ever they got an unescorted formation they caused heavy losses.
As it happenes I am watching menphis belle at the moment I recorded from earlier this evening and the pilot just told everyone to hold fire ;til jerry is in range lol.

 

[Civettone]

That last bit seems reasonable. I can not imagine the USAAF allowing gunners to shoot at enemy fighters at ranges of 1200 m. What a waste of ammo that would be. Also, can one even IFF at that distance?

That being said, I have read that the Germans were developing guns or missiles which they could launch from a distance of over a km away as this would be out of the range of the 50 cals. It seems to me that this refers to harrassing fire. German fighters would line up for their assault and enemy gunfire could disrupt their formation. This makes sense: the main puprose of defensive fire is not to shoot down enemy aircraft, it's to defer/disrupt the enemy attack.

Kris

 

[looney]

Germans where in the testing bit fase SAM and/or AA missiles.

 

[drgondog]

Renrich - any reference to '300 yard effective fire' is very probably referring to a.) the range at which a coordinated pilot can keep the K-14 gunsight (or reasonable equivalent) on his target, and b.) have a concentration of converging fire which could bring it down with a two to three second burst.

The .50 cal AP round will easily breach an engine block at 1800 yards but the probability of hitting something past 300 yards with an effective package of perhaps 20 rounds (a number I plucked out of a dark place) probably varies inversely by the distance (for all the reasons Shortround recounted). Even a well boresighted battery is putting out a shotgun pattern at best - and a very sparse one past 250-300 yards with bending/torquing wings and turbulent air bouncing you..

Eric Hartmann had the right idea on aircraft gunnery - 'wait until he fills your windscreen - then wait some more"

The Luftwaffe wasn't very effective outside 300 yards either, even with a battery of 20mm.

 

[drgondog]

Well I dont know about that I think the LW like the RAF found that head on attacks broke up the formation and therefore their group defence. I read the other day that to bring down a B17 in a head on attack needed just one half second burst on target. The LW also used high speed staffing passes which meant they were in and out before many guns were trained on them. For the LW the problem was the escorts, if ever they got an unescorted formation they caused heavy losses.
As it happenes I am watching menphis belle at the moment I recorded from earlier this evening and the pilot just told everyone to hold fire ;til jerry is in range lol.

Head on attacks did not break up any B-17/B-24 formations. It did present a very difficult and fast target with great firepower shooting into the 'office' where the pilots had nearly zero protection except for armored glass. 'Company front/line abreast flights of 6-8 Fw 190s were very effective - ditto from six o'clock but the closing speed was slow enough that bomber gunners had much better chance of hitting the fighters.

One half second of a perfectly aimed burst from 4x20mm into the cockpit would certainly take out the pilots but a half second well aimed burst between 300 yards to 100 yards is difficult to achieve at a closing speed of 500mph

The Spielburg version was a joke.. you need to watch the WWII documentary.

What is your source of RAF using head on attacks?

 

[tail end charlie]

Head on attacks did not break up any B-17/B-24 formations. It did present a very difficult and fast target with great firepower shooting into the 'office' where the pilots had nearly zero protection except for armored glass. 'Company front/line abreast flights of 6-8 Fw 190s were very effective - ditto from six o'clock but the closing speed was slow enough that bomber gunners had much better chance of hitting the fighters.

One half second of a perfectly aimed burst from 4x20mm into the cockpit would certainly take out the pilots but a half second well aimed burst between 300 yards to 100 yards is difficult to achieve at a closing speed of 500mph

The Spielburg version was a joke.. you need to watch the WWII documentary.

What is your source of RAF using head on attacks?

Most recently I think it was Geoffrey Wellum speaking on a documentary (he has been on a few). There was also an account I read recently where a pilot tried it for the first time and nearly had a head on collision. When he returned to base he discussed it with another pilot who said he must have killed the pilot. "How do I know if I've killed the pilot|" he asked? "The way you did" was the grim reply.

Of course a head on attack was difficult but in the Battle of Britain the standard procedure when attacked was to turn into the attacker so I dont suppose firing head on to a bomber was so unusual. I dont mean that head on attacks were planned from the ground like a "company front" but if a bomber formation was encountered head on it was engaged straight away. Fighter command wanted first to disrupt the attack and make the job of the bombers and escorts more difficult.

I saw the Memphis Belle documentary too, most war films are a pastiche if they were really true to life they wouldnt be allowed to be shown. However the recent Battle of Britain documentary by David Jason was less informative than the movie and didnt have Suzannah York in sussies in it.

 

[renrich]

Bill, to backup your post this from Linnekin, "Eighty Knots to Mach Two" on gunnery, " The guns are Colt-Browning air cooled, recoil operated automatic weapons. They are boresighted to converge in a tight pattern at about one thousand feet. That range is selected in part to utilize the flat part of the bullet's trajectory and also to keep bullet dispersion small enough to produce an effective, repeatable pattern."

 

[drgondog]

Bill, to backup your post this from Linnekin, "Eighty Knots to Mach Two" on gunnery, " The guns are Colt-Browning air cooled, recoil operated automatic weapons. They are boresighted to converge in a tight pattern at about one thousand feet. That range is selected in part to utilize the flat part of the bullet's trajectory and also to keep bullet dispersion small enough to produce an effective, repeatable pattern."

Ren- I am very familiar with the Bore sighting procedure for USAAF wing mounted guns. The SOP for P-51D Mustangs was a hexagonal shape about 1 ft in width and heighth using a periscope like bore sight for each weapon. The boresight range was typically 200-300 yards and the command pilot for that airplane had a say in what the armorer did to 'his plane". In actual practice the flight envelop/G's pulled, etc had great influence on actual trajectories.

The first home made boresight tool came out of the 357FS/355FG line Armament M/Sgt and was later productized and shipped as a kit with the P-51D's.

 

[renrich]

Linnekin was a Navy pilot but I assume the procedures were similar. His experiences in this instance were in 1946-48 and they were in F6Fs, F8Fs and F4Us.

 

[luftwaffemesserschmitt]

4x 30mm MK-108 from the ME-26 backed up with 24X R4M was just killing..
The FW-190 was good but it was not able enough to hit and run from the escort fighters. The ME-262 could so a hit and run from behind and would make mincemeat from the heavys.

Chris

 

[Civettone]

I may have mentioned this before but to me the best bomber destroyer was the Bf 109G-6/AS/U4/R4. This is not an official designation but just one to show what kind of a Bf 109G we're talking about. It's a Bf 109G-6 with the bigger supercharger, armed with a MK 108 30 mm firing through the prop hub and two MK 108 30 mm gun pods under the wings. So it had 2 HMGs and 3 x 30 mm MKs. All of this for a speed loss of 10-15 kmh. The MK 108 pods formed less drag than the MG 151/20s.

The reason why this configuration was not used was because of a shortage of MK 108 ammo.

There may have been faster or stronger fighter aircraft available but if you want a bomber destroyer it has to be dirt cheap because you are going to lose a lot of them no matter what you do.

Kris

 

[looney]

But no added protection, the FW190 had a lot of extra protection. Which might save the pilot. Planes can be rebuilt, with ease (relative). Pilots not.

Plus what fighter would be flying cover?

 

[drgondog]

But no added protection, the FW190 had a lot of extra protection. Which might save the pilot. Planes can be rebuilt, with ease (relative). Pilots not.

Plus what fighter would be flying cover?

In the April 24, 1944 battle I wrote about G-6/U4's were used by III./JG26 and effective against the B-17s, but that was one 30mm nose, two Mg151/20's in gondola's.

Those 109s were at a significant disadvantage to 51's because their airspeed was further reduced, plus acceleration and climb was also impaired. Most gondola packages were removed by June because of the reduced performance against the Mustangs. It was in this timeframe that high cover staffels of Me 109G-6A/S were designated as Fw 190A-7/8 'escorts'..

 

[looney]

FW190's where at a disadvantage also against Allied fighters (+400kg armor etc etc)

 

[drgondog]

FW190's where at a disadvantage also against Allied fighters (+400kg armor etc etc)

More of a disadvantage against escort fighters above 20,000ft until the Dora... they did very well below that altitude when combined with a good pilot.

 

[Erich]

slight modification underwing armed Bf 109's were used right into 1945. III./JG 300 used them on their G-6's during the summer months especially to attack the rear of Bomber pulks while it's sister unit I./JG 300 provided high cover with now mounted weapons against P-51 escorts and tried in vain most times to protect it's SturmFw's.
The same was of I. and III./JG 4 with it's SturmFw's from august 44 through the fall of 1944 months agasint the bobmers aws well

G-6/AS replacement were the G-10 and G-14/AS units. the Fw 190A-8 and variants were not good at the higher altitudes as the latter marks of 109G's and later the K. It was found that the Fw 190A was the superior "heavier" weapons platform.

 

[Frantish]

Evan, while it is true that 4 x 30mm will ruin ur day or anyone elses, the concentrated firepower of the 190-A8/R2 was more destructive....

2 x 13mm, 2 x 20mm, 2 x 30mm would cause more damage in a quicker amount of time than 4 x 30mm....

Either way, bomber crews had a rough time of it up there....

But the Fw-190A8/R2 was definatly a better platform for knocking down bombers.... Id rather be surrounded by armor plating and be slower than fast and easy to shoot down....

The problem with the 190-A8/R2 is you have 3 different weapon types each with a different convergence and trajectory. The pilot will need to be extremely skilled to optimize the use of that combination.

With the 262 it has a centerline with all 4 the same type. The only major challenge to the pilot now is getting into range. The Mk 108 is effectively a short range weapon when one looks at its ROF, range, and spread, so the 262 would have to go slower and closer to get the maximum out of its guns (not a happy prospect!)

Still, to me, the 262 is winner.

Edit:
For anti-escort duty, a 262 armed with 6 to 8 MG 131 would have been ideal. The 131 was remarkably light and compact but still almost as good as Browning .50 in power. An engagement usually lasted < 1 second, so the more hits on target the worse off target is, and fighters of the time where not strong enough to withstand 13mm rounds.

Maybe 2x 20mm with 4x 13mm, I could go for that too.