Best Bomber Killing Aircraft......

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

Maximowitz said:
You can learn a lot here John!

Click to expand...

I look forward to that.

We have looked at German v allied bombers but, another candidate for bomber killer would be the Hurricane v the Luftwaffe.

Both the Supermarine Spitfire and the Hurricane are renowned for their part in defending Britain against the Luftwaffe — generally the Spitfire would intercept the German fighters, leaving Hurricanes to concentrate on the bombers, but despite the undoubted abilities of the "thoroughbred" Spitfire, it was the "workhorse" Hurricane that scored the higher number of RAF victories during this period, accounting for 55 percent of the 2,739 German losses, according to Fighter Command, compared with 42 per cent by Spitfires.

Cheers
John
 
Actually, I believe the range of the early P47s was more than adequate for the interceptor role. It was, I believe, originally designed as an interceptor. It could also carry a lot of ammo for those 8-50s. Up to 425 rounds per gun and that would be a big asset in engaging bombers. As for the efficacy of the 50 cal against bombers, the P47 late war in ground attacks shot up plenty of locomotives. In the prelude to Coral Sea, two F4F3s with four 50s each and 400 plus rounds per gun shot up and disabled an IJN DD. Not a patrol craft but a genuine fleet DD. That happened more than once in the Pacific. To me, eight fifties, with their long range, long firing time because of ammo capacity and high rate of fire ( compared to cannon) would be more than adequate against any WW2 bomber, including the B29.

Another plus for the P47 against bombers would be that it's well known ruggedness would be very handy against the defensive fire of bombers.
 
Last edited:
I have to agree that the 0.50 would have had difficulty against well protected heavy bombers. There was a reason why the Germans and Japanese increased their guns to multiple 20 and in some cases 30mm cannons and thats because they had to.

I keep hearing this story about how a Japanese Fleet destroyer was disabled by two Wildcats, but the best that I have been able to find is a destroyer that had a number of deck casualties as they were exposed to straffing. Casulaties that would have occurred against any accurate straffing attack and a minesweeper that was sunk, but which turned out to be a very small converted fishing boat.

Happy to be wrong on this and any details would be appreciated.

It should also be mentioned that the Russian UB 12.7 HMG was a much better weapon than the 0.5 M2, being lighter, faster firing and until I think it was 1943 fired a better designed projectile. In 1943 a new projectile was issued to US forces based on the Russian design.
 
Last edited:
Glider, darn you. Now I have to go digging to support my post Page 174, Lundstrom, "The First Team" I was wrong, however, because it turned out to be four F4F3s, not two, although two of those Wildcats had already engaged Japanese planes. They killed the captain, riddled the Yuzuki, starting fires and puncturing fuel tanks, leaving the ship trailing an oil slick and the ship was disabled enough that it had to be replaced with another DD for the invasion for Ocean and Nauru. Bill Leonard was one of the Wildcat pilots. Perhaps you could persuade his son to authenticate this encounter.

I looked up the Yuzuki on Janes and it was a fleet destroyer, built in 1927 and on par with many of our pre war DDs, more modern than our four pipers. There are several mentions in Lundstrom's books about how effective the 50s were on smaller warships and there are many combat films showing naval planes strafing ships including cruisers. Please don't try to convince me that if 50s can disable a DD or disable and blow up locomotives, it can't handles flimsy airplanes. No way, any WW2 bomber, including B29s are more heavily built than a DD or locomotive. If they were they would never fly. I have used a 50 cal on the range and have seen what a single 50 will do to a deuce and a half or lightly armored half tracks.
 
Last edited:
Had the P-47 or Mustang been pressed into an interceptor role against sturdy Axis bombers like the Do 217 or He 177 it would been no problem to retrofit 20mm cannon in either... and if necessary, license the Brit Hispano.

There is anecodotal evidence to support difficulty for one P-47 or one P-51 taking out either one of those German bombers 'easily' with existing 4x50 and 8x50 M3's.
 

I have to agree with this posting. Re the Yuzuki my understanding was that she was straffed and a number of crew killed and wounded (10 killed and 20 wounded) which was a significant success for the fighters and I admit, more than I would have expected. She had what was described as 'moderate' damage but wasn't disabled. Unfortunately what 'moderate' was I do not know.

Whatever the damage with 30 out of a crew of approx 150 out of action she would have needed to recover
 
Lundstrom, page 174, "The First Team." "Each Grumman pilot opened fire at about 3500 feet and pressed within masthead height before pulling out. They concentrated their tracers on the

Yuzuki's bridge, machinery spaces and torpedo mounts. Heavy .50 caliber slugs riddled the vessel, starting fires and holing oil bunkers. A thick trail of fuel oil lay in the destroyer's wake. During the first two runs, Leonard noticed some return fire, but he saw no response on the final two passes. At 1410 when the fighters broke off, they left the tin can in such bad shape that she had to crawl back to Rabaul for emergency repairs. Bullets had killed her skipper. Lt Commander Tachibana Hirota, and nine of his crew, while another twenty were wounded. The destroyer, Uzuki. detached from the Port Moresby Invasion Force, had to replace the Yuzuki in the invasion of Ocean and Nauru islands scheduled for 15 May."

Sounds very specific to me and not at all anecdotal and I have to give it lots of credibility. From my Janes, 1942 (which I am getting reluctant to open since it is so fragile) Yuzuki, spelled Yuduki (you know how bad the Brits are about spelling) the Yuzuki was a Mutuki class DD displacing around 1300 tons and 320 feet long. She carried 4-4.7 50 caliber guns and 6-21 inch torpedo tubes and had a speed of 34 knots. My Janes, 1945( not an original) changes the class to the Uduki class( perhaps in honor of the Uzuki(Uduki) which survived an attack by four Grummans with ferocious four 50 cals each.) Incidently, I am certain you are burning to know the following: The word "Yuduki" is a Japanese poetical name for the month, April. Comparable RN DDs would be Amazon and Ambuscade, first new DDs built after WW1. The Farragut class in the USN would compare in size. However, I am sure that none of those ships is as durable and well built as a WW2 bomber

Perhaps the AAF pilots in the anecdotes were not as good at gunnery as Misters Leonard and company Of course the Grummans made four passes and interceptors might get only one!
 
On this we will have to agree to disagree. Being practical you cannot aim for the machinery spaces as these are not visible, all you can do is aim at the hull around the base of the funnel and hope for the best. The Bridge is a clear target and can cause significant damage. Oil trails are also misleading as it doesn't take much oil to make a good size slick. Always cautious of descriptions she crawled back to wherever, did it happen, if it did was it due to localised damage, the elimination of the bridge officers (probable in this case), fires could be anything from ready use ammunition, to a paint locker, smoke from a funnel or even (a real example in the RN during the 70's) the toilet paper on a supply ship. You get the picture.
At the end of the day the USAAF made requests for their P40's to be equipped with 60lb rockets because the guns and rockets they had, couldn't deal with Junks and river craft on the rivers in China. Many hundreds, probably thousands of attacks were made on shipping by the USAAF and the 0.50 wasn't enough.

Finally if the Fw190 needed to be upgunned to tackle the B17's why would the P47, an aircraft with far less firepower be sufficient?

This attack was a success that I do not and cannot deny but it wasn't the normal result of an attack of this kind. In Naval combat luck tends to play a large part in actions big and small and this may well have been their lucky day.

Examples of luck include the US Merchant ship that sunk a German Armed Merchant Cruiser, an Italian Submarine that sank a modern fleet class RN destroyer with one hit from its 4.7in gun when taking on three escorts on the surface. Does this mean that the Merchant ship or Italian Submarine are always effective in these situations, of course not. Neither does it mean that 0.50 HMG's are always effective against surface ships.
 
Last edited:
Don't know where to put this and don't want to start a new thread so will post it here because it does have something to do with the P47, which I postulated would have made a good bomber killing fighter if called upon for that role.

Was reading up on the hemi-head auto engine which was developed by Chrysler post WW2 and found that they developed an aero engine called the XIV2220, a V16 push rod engine which used the same hemi head technology as the auto engines. They installed one in a P47 and flew it to slightly more than 500 MPH at 15000 feet allegedly timed by radar. Because the engine was an inline engine, the frontal section of the P47 was much smaller than with the radial R2800. Engine displaced 2220 cubic inches. Second car I ever owned was a 1953 Dodge with the Red Ram V8, a hemi head design which displaced around 220 cubic inches, developed 140 HP and pushed the Dodge to a little more than 100MPH. I drove the car at around 120 MPH indicated but the speedometers in those days were very inaccurate. That same engine was later developed to around 200 HP.

As a parting shot on the 50 BMG debate: The fact is that most Allied bombers were shot down by flak, not enemy fighters. And most of those kills were caused not by direct hits but by the the kinetic energy of the shrapnel when an AA shell burst nearby. That is the same type of damage which would have been inflicted by the 50 BMGs in a P47. American fighters in WW2 were credited with 20945 air to air kills. Only a few of those were caused by air cannon in the P38, P39, F6F and F4U and maybe the A36(P51). Hard to tell how many but the 50 BMG was a very effective weapon.
 
Last edited:

For each (heavy?) bomber shot down by heavy AA shell (75mm and above), there is a dozen or two that were holed, but returned to base. So I wouldn't agree that .50 BMG would've been a good choice for a bomber destroyer. German Japanese experiences show that it took cannons to shoot bombers.
The overwhelming percentage of Axis planes shoot down with bursts of .50 BMG were ordinary fighters or flimsy Japanese bombers/attack planes. It was rare for .50 BMG to be employed vs. a target as sturdy as a B-17.
 
With great respect to all the threads, I don't see how you can call Mustangs Thunderbolts 'bomber killers'.
By the time the USA joined WW2 in any meaningfull way the Luftwaffe had gone from offense to defense and the bomber attacks like the blitz's in London, Plymouth, Coventry etc were all but over.
The true 'bomber killer' aircraft would be the likes of Hurricanes Spitfires in the early part of WW2 and the German fighters ME110 , FW 190 etc already mentioned later in WW2.
World War 2 Bombers
This link shows some interesting points. The Mosquito was as effective than the B17 on the Berlin run....
Cheers
John
 
Last edited:
John - depends on your definition of 'effective' - the Mossie could carry a load to Berlin but what was it designated to take out - a blind block in or around the city or a ball bearing factory in a specific location?
 
1.8 tons of bombs is the same whichever aircraft deliveries it.
I would define 'effective' as the maximum impact. That is precision bombing rather than area bombing.

However, if you have, say, 200 B17's by day, 200 Lancaster's (carrying rather more than the B17's 1.8 tons) by night and Mosquitoes attacking Berlin then the commanders had it all.

Cheers
John
 
Readie said:
1.8 tons of bombs is the same whichever aircraft deliveries it.
John
Click to expand...

Not really, it appear that the Mosquito could only carry 4,000lbs by using a single 4,000lb "cookie" bomb. While they were able to some rather amazing things with this bomb dropping at low level the lack of fins and predictable trajectory when dropped at high altitude meant that it was less than desirable for "precision" attacks from high altitude. Granted the US "precision" attacks were less precise than desired but using a less accurate bomb wasn't going to make things better. A few experimental Mosquitos carrying a pair 'spinning' anti-ship bombs aside it appears the Mosquito was restricted to four 500lb bombs INSIDE the bomb-bay. B-17 could carry four 1000lb bombs or eight 500lb bombs for it's 4,000 pound load.

Add if the target was closer than Berlin, say Bremen, Essen or Karlsruhe, then the B-17 could carry more bombs while the Mosquito could not, at least not inside.
 
Small point, but Mosquito's with the bulged bomb bay could carry 6 x 500lb internally and hang a couple more on the wings but these were normally replaced with wing tanks.
 
Glider said:
Small point, but Mosquito's with the bulged bomb bay could carry 6 x 500lb internally and hang a couple more on the wings but these were normally replaced with wing tanks.
Click to expand...

Could you please provide a source? everything I have read so far says 4 X 500lbs inside and 2 X 500lbs on the wings instead of drop tanks. maybe my books are old and/or not correct. What I have are not manuals.

many bombers had similar problems. The B-17 is often claimed to hold 12,800 lbs of bombs inside. It could, but only if they were 8 X 1600lb AP bombs which were actually smaller in size than a 1000lb GP bomb. Using 1000lb GP bombs the B-17 could only carry eight (8,000lbs) because there wasn't space or rack positions for more. Changing to 500lb bombs dropped the load to 6,000lbs because there were only 12 stations on the bomb racks for 500lb bombs. There is a bomb rack chart in the B-17 manual available in the manuals section of this site.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/other-mechanical-systems-tech/b-17f-g-manual-one-piece-22716.html
 

As requested
De Havilland Mosquito B Mk XVI I did follow this up by a visit to the Mosquito Museum and there was a reference on the web which I cannot now find, about the layout of the bombs. When looking at them from the front or back, the bombs were in a triangle formation. The problem with the original bomb bay was a lack of space not a problem with the ability of the aircraft to carry the weight. Using this layout the extra volume caused by the bulge could be used.

Hope this helps
 
For Brunswick radius missions the normal load out was 4500-5000, whereas the Berlin/Posnan/Brux/Munich rides were more often 8x500 of 4x1000 or 2x2000 - all with variations depending on the mission. Of course the B-24 was correspondingly 'more'
 
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
684
Shortround6
S
A
Best Axis four engined bomber?
Replies
9
Views
2K
dedalos
D
XB-24J prototype bomber
Replies
9
Views
194
aidenmac16
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
Menu
Log in
Register