Best Bomber Killing Aircraft......

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

you guys can try out busting bombers in free versions of IL2 and Warbirds.

The flight, damage, and gunnery models are relatively accurate.

You will find that the closing speed of the 262 and the short range of it's cannons makes killing of fighters or bombers impossible for an inexperienced pilot and easy for one who's invested the time to acquire the skills necessary.

Just watch out for me.........I'll shoot you down.

warbirds freehost and IL2 freehost are free and require a bit of computer saavy to get working on vista/win7 but they work great on xp.

As always, best action is on the pay servers of warbirds, aces high and IL2 but the free servers are a good way to prepare for flying in the pay arenas which are populated with the best pilots.

If you know flight and gunnery characteristics of fighters, you will spend far less time hanging in your chute.
 
Last edited:
icepac said:
Just watch out for me.........I'll shoot you down.
Click to expand...
LMAO...God how many times have I seen people say stuff like that, only to end up in my Revi

icepac, there is a gaming section on this site where we talk MP and stuff. You'll find that simming and actual aircraft discussion don't mix too well. They're totally different, though it might seem real enough...
 
Photo 3+3+5
 

Attachments

  • Martin Baker MB3 Ammunition Bay.JPG
    166.3 KB · Views: 163
  • Martin Baker MB3 Under Construction 1.JPG
    257.5 KB · Views: 174
  • Martin Baker MB3 Under Construction 3.JPG
    235.9 KB · Views: 149
I have to go with the Fw190, like many before me said, it had the best attributes for a bomber killer. But still as an honorable mention, I'd like to also choose the I.A.R. 80 fighters from the "6 Hunting Group", who fought the almost 200 B-24's in the raid against Ploiesti oil fields and did heavy damage
 
Last edited:

That's cool.

I've been flying citabria and super D since 1984 and simming steadily since 1985 when I first flew falcon while employed at A.O.P.A.

The multiplayer sims with the most accurate flight models (warbirds, warbirds 2.77 freehost, and targetware) are accurate enough to illustrate or help disprove many points made in this thread.

When I have a question, I run the scenario on a sim for my father to try out since he has a real life guns kill of a fighter before he was called upon to help set up the original top gun in the mid 1960s.

new here does not mean noob

See you in the sim section if I can find it.
 
Don't recall anyone making reference to you being a "noob", icepac...

I have been flying far longer than the 80's and spent a great deal of my early years in the company of far greater pilots than I will ever be. I have also been enjoying flight sims for many decades, including before the "internet" as we know it, when connecting a computer to another involved dialing a telephone and placing the handset into the modem.

All that aside, no matter how realistic a flight sim will be, it will never emulate true flight and I (and others) avoid merging the two when discussing actual aircraft whether it's performance, situations, etc...
 
GrauGeist said:
I have been flying far longer than the 80's and spent a great deal of my early years in the company of far greater pilots than I will ever be.
Click to expand...

Wow.....and you can still maintain a first class medical ticket?

Kidding.

I also had the experience growing up with pilots like the blue angels and Leon Johnson being regular dinner guests as well as my father's being an instructor in air combat at miramar and the naval war college.......he's a good resource and I can sometimes get his feedback on sim accuracy.

Sadly, he keeps bothering me to set him up with me flying a mig 17 to his skyraider so he can relive his victory.....with me being the victim.




My point is that some of the simming is accurate enough to illustrate certain points such as the difficulty in scoring kills in the 262 because of closing speed and mk108 cannon range.

The 262 was a great bomber buster in the hands of a true expert and damn near useless to anyone who couldn't cope with the new (at the time) closing speeds.

There were plenty of good bomber busters but circumstances such as fighter escorts determined success as much as the airplane's ability to down bombers.

That said, me262 was king since it could make a pass through a formation, down a bomber in that pass, and maintain enough speed advantage to be immune to interception......unless the bomber stream was low enough such that a covering fighter in extremely high perch could catch up in a shallow dive....if the 262 pilot made any move to climb after his pass.
 
Last edited:
the Bf 110G-4 at night sure it could it was the leading LW Night fighter in their arsenal from the beginning and still flown in 45 albeit in smaller numbers. Top "killer" of night bombers was NJG 1 which flew almost exclusively the 110 except for I. gruppe flying the He 219 and a few Ju 88G-6's which NJG 1 really never accepted in thought.
 
I have learnt something today.
Later in the war, the MW110 was developed into a formidable night fighter, becoming the major night-fighting aircraft of the Luftwaffe. Most of the German night fighter aces flew the Bf 110 at some point during their combat careers, and the top night fighter ace of all time, Major Heinz-Wolfgang Schnaufer, flew it exclusively and claimed 121 victories in 164 combat missions.
Thanks guys
Cheers
John
 
I believe the best bomber killing airplane, if it had been called on to fill that role, would have been the P47. For most of the war, the P47 did not have great range and the early P47s did not climb well. But with the paddle blade prop it's climb was improved and at high altitudes( above 25000 feet) it outperformed almost all other fighters and it could always dive. If the Axis had had strategic bombers like the Allies had, the P47 could have been up there at 30000 feet or so and then used that power it's engine still had along with those 8-50s and that dive and zoom climb ability to decimate bombers.
 
John just a slight correction, the Bf 110G-4 late was was almost fazed out, NJG 1 as I mentioned kept it throughout hostilities, NJG 2 and NJG 3 replaced it in 1944 with the Ju 88G-6 a superior though larger A/C with a crew of 3-4 and increased range and better toughness plus a speed advantage plus could house all the radar goodies the LW wanted to put in a crate. NJG 4 still had some on hand though late into replacing these with the 88G-6, NJG 5 almost entirely except for IV. gruppe. NJG 6 still flew a mix of the two craft. The outfit that excelled on the Ost front, NJG 100 had full compliment of Ju 88G-6's in 1945.

Ren I could agree had the range and performance been made available early on the P-47 would of been hard to beat though with the .50's you had to deal out a huge amount of ammo to blast a bomber out of the skies, re: why the LW stuck with the heavier long barreled 2cm and then 3cm weapon options, but that was their key mode to attack and destroy BC and US bomber formations.
 
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
1K
Shortround6
S
A
Best Axis four engined bomber?
Replies
9
Views
2K
dedalos
D
S
Request help identifying type of Bomber aircraft
Replies
3
Views
877
SaparotRob
S
"Generations" of fighter aircraft
2
Replies
32
Views
1K
Barrett
B
S
Researching German Aircraft Armor; Actual Use & Accounts
Replies
2
Views
201
sopwith21
S
Menu
Log in
Register