Best Bomber Killing Aircraft......

[Readie]

The British lost more lives simply because we were in WW2 longer than the Americans.
The greater losses were earlier in WW2 while tatics and aircraft were developing.
Cheers
John

 

[renrich]

The eighth, I believe, lost more men killed in WW2 than the US Marine Corps.

 

[drgondog]

True

 

[drgondog]

The Brits were heavily engaged long before the US in ETO, the Brits had sortie and throw weght advantage through 1944, the RAF in 1944 and 1945 were more vulnerable to GAF in 1944 and 1945 because they had no effective way to efficiently escort BC whereas the 8th broke the code for their own ops with long range escort - in daylight- to provide cover (more or less) for large blocks of tight formations.

The GAF had to mass to attack effectively against 8th AF FC/BC, versus one on one at night. Both Brit BC and 8th AF BC crews had the balls of an elephant but it was 8th FC that saved the most lives over Germany.

 

[johnbr]

How well did the Me-410 do with the 50mm canon on it.

 

[drgondog]

Not very well against bombers escorted by long range fighters. Effectively neutralized from about April 1944 through July 1944 then withdrawn from LuftReich in favor of Fw 190A-8

 

[Erich]

the long rod was almost worthless in late 1943 and phased out in early 44. the range was good the firing too slow and unwieldy with too much overall buffeting, reason why 2cm in many numbers were used in effect from winter to spring of 44. By June/July the units ZG 26 and 76 had been removed from the skies pilots not KIA were sent to units such as JG 6 whom were slaughtered by the 8th AF Mustangs.

 

[Readie]

Messerschmitt Me 410 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They had rockets too. Where these effective?

Cheers
John

 

[Erich]

so so, first used in Fall of 43 on Zerstörers though they were permitted in July of 1943 on twin engines they did not fly ops with these......yet. twin mountings under each wing even experimentation with singles and even under the belly. if anything they may have disrupted US bomber boxes but that was the point anyway so they could get in with 2cm and 3cm cannons.

 

[Readie]

so so, first used in Fall of 43 on Zerstörers though they were permitted in July of 1943 on twin engines they did not fly ops with these......yet. twin mountings under each wing even experimentation with singles and even under the belly. if anything they may have disrupted US bomber boxes but that was the point anyway so they could get in with 2cm and 3cm cannons.

Thanks Erich

 

[destrozas]

I think for comparison of units built, units destroyed and demolished units, theres no other like FW TA 152 H1, with the most potent Terpan all piston engines and higher flight altitude also

 

[Jabberwocky]

A little statistical comparison of RAF and USAAF losses.

From what resources I can find online (usual caveats as to reliability apply) Bomber Command lost, across all theatres and all aircraft categories, 12,330 aircraft.

This includes all combat losses, as well as training and accident losses of bomber aircraft, as well as aircraft written off for other reasons, such as being sunk while being transported in convoys to Russia.

I'm unsure if this includes losses of trainers, liaison aircraft and the like, but I doubt it. I'm sure more aircraft were written off in training before pilots were assigned to actual units.

In the ETO, around 8,950 Bomber Command aircraft were shot down/failed to return, crashed on take/off landing, were impounded German/foreign countries or written off from damage from ops.

In comparison, USAAF bomber losses in the ETO in combat were 5,548 heavy bombers and another 815 medium/light bombers, for a total of 6,363. This includes accidents. First loss was August 1942.

So we con conclude that the majority of bombers shot down in the ETO were from Bomber Command. In Europe, Bomber Command lost about seven bomber aircraft for every five bombers lost by the USAAF.

However, given that USAAF ETO bomber ops did not begin until around August 1942 and didn't really get into full steam until mid 1943, the number of losses from mid-1943 onwards were in all probability about the same for Bomber Command and the USAAF.

There were 121,867 USAAF personnel casualties during WW2, of which 94,565 were in theatres against Germany and 63,410 in the ETO. So, in the air the majority of casualties were in battles in the ETO. There is no break-down between fighter and bomber crew casualties though.

Expanding beyond the ETO, USAAF bomber combat losses in all other theatres were 5,687 very heavy/heavy/medium/light bombers. This gives a total of 12,050 USAAF bombers that were combat losses.

However, there were another 479 bombers were lost en route to various theatres.

So, there were just over 12,500 USAAF bombers lost outside the continental US.

Total USAAF losses in all overseas theatres were 41,575 combat and trainer/liaison aircraft. This means that bombers accounted for 30% of all USAAF losses.

 

[Glider]

The Brits were heavily engaged long before the US in ETO, the Brits had sortie and throw weght advantage through 1944, the RAF in 1944 and 1945 were more vulnerable to GAF in 1944 and 1945 because they had no effective way to efficiently escort BC whereas the 8th broke the code for their own ops with long range escort - in daylight- to provide cover (more or less) for large blocks of tight formations.

The GAF had to mass to attack effectively against 8th AF FC/BC, versus one on one at night. Both Brit BC and 8th AF BC crews had the balls of an elephant but it was 8th FC that saved the most lives over Germany.

I don't disagree with a word of this but the more I look into RAF fighters and the ranges they could achieve the more frustrated I get with RAF High Command. Tempests with 90 gallon DT's were pretty close to the Mustang for range and modified Spits could do a pretty decent job. Why the hell they continued with night raids from Jan 1945 when the allies commanded the air and could have escorted the Lancs and Halifax's to the vast majority of their targets by day is a mystery that I cannot fathom.

The RAF had the means (see attached) but lacked the ledership to make the change. The USAAF were very impressed with the Tempest and in August 1944 asked for a couple of examples to be sent to Wright Airfield for modifications to extend their range, but the request was turned down.

 

[tyrodtom]

The allies wanted Germany on the alert 24 hrs a day, no rest for the troops or civilians. Just think, for example, how many less people would have been needed if the night flak battery crews could have been reduced.

 

[Giorgio Pietrobon]

As WWII Researcher about the Goldener Sonntag ' combat I am looking for the Pilot WALTER HAGENAH , JG 3 , claimer of a B-24 shot down on Sunday 19 December 1943.

Mr Lukas Buringen : can you help me in this way ? I want a mailing or better mail address of him or his son.
See , for better info , my message posted today :

Looking for WALTER HAGENAH , JG 3 Pilot - Luftwaffe and Allied Air Forces Discussion Forum
Thanks very much for every help.
Giorgio Pietrobon .

1943 . Treviso . Italia
[email protected]

Contribution on Mr. Hagenah.

I know this gentleman personally, because he once upon a time was one of my superiors at the ACC (Area Control Centre) at Frankfurt/Main. After the war he joined the new established ATC unit (BFS) at Rhein-Main Airport first as a controller and later as team supervisor. He retired about 1972, according to the law of the Bundesanstalt fuer Flugsicherung (BFS), which allowed controllers to retire with the age of 53.

I first met him in 1960, when I was transferred from Hamburg Tower to Frankfurt ACC.
Then, in 1970, I became a direct neighbor to him in the northern part of Frankfurt, where he still lives, however a sick man.
He is married and has, as far as I know, a son.

 

[Ibuki]

Airplane Vulnerability and Overall Armament Effectiveness
Weiss, Herbert K. ; Stein, Arthur
Airplane Vulnerability and Overall Armament Effectiveness

 

[Procrastintor]

I think the De Havilland Mosquito, the variant with the 4x 20mm plus 4x .303s probably worked kinda like a meat grinder on bombers, it was kind of a crap dogfighter, but you don't need to maneuver to get a bomber.

 

[OldSkeptic]

Me-110 gets my vote. As a nightfighter shot down many, many British bombers. And, before the fighter escorts got sufficient range, invaluable for breaking up USAAF bomber formations with rockets.
Might argue for the Ju-88 (and 188) on the same basis.

But on pure numbers basis the 110 probably shot down more heavy bombers than every other type of plane put together.