Best Fighter

• May 2, 2004

• #261

L

Lightning Guy

Master Sergeant

2,511

4

Apr 29, 2004

True, but that is still an interception. And I've even heard that the speed of the Me-262 caused some problems with overshooting B-17s.

 

• May 3, 2004

• #262

plan_D

Lieutenant Colonel

11,643

22

Apr 1, 2004

With the 4*30mm on the Me262 one pass can be enough to bring a B-17, you don't want to be hanging around a B-17 formation at slow speeds.

 

• May 3, 2004

• #263

cheddar cheese

Major General

20,265

21

Jan 9, 2004

WSM, England

unless you're one of the fighter escorts 8)

 

• May 3, 2004

• #264

L

Lightning Guy

Master Sergeant

2,511

4

Apr 29, 2004

But with the speed of the Me-262 it was difficult for them to get off more than one aimed burst in a single pass. And of course head-on attacks were a serious no-no.

 

• May 3, 2004

• #265

cheddar cheese

Major General

20,265

21

Jan 9, 2004

WSM, England

unless you were feeling lucky

 

• May 3, 2004

• #266

L

Lightning Guy

Master Sergeant

2,511

4

Apr 29, 2004

More like feeling stupid. The closing speed would have been up around 750 mph. Do you wanna try flying through a formation of a few hundred B-17s at that speed?

 

• May 3, 2004

• #267

cheddar cheese

Major General

20,265

21

Jan 9, 2004

WSM, England

perhaps if life was getting me down, my family had all been killed by a bombing raid.... then id consider it

 

• May 3, 2004

• #268

L

Lightning Guy

Master Sergeant

2,511

4

Apr 29, 2004

Sound more like a Japanese than a German.

 

• May 3, 2004

• #269

cheddar cheese

Major General

20,265

21

Jan 9, 2004

WSM, England

 

• May 3, 2004

• #270

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General

19,937

17

Dec 20, 2003

well you know what the amricans were like, you'd be pretty safe, they would proberly end up shooting each other...............

but on the other hand, if you were in a lancaster..................

 

• May 3, 2004

• #271

L

Lightning Guy

Master Sergeant

2,511

4

Apr 29, 2004

I wasn't even talking about getting shot down. I would be more worried about the chance of collision.

 

• May 3, 2004

• #272

cheddar cheese

Major General

20,265

21

Jan 9, 2004

WSM, England

collision = instant death 8) if you get shot down you have to sit and wait while you plummet to the ground 8)

 

• May 3, 2004

• #273

cheddar cheese

Major General

20,265

21

Jan 9, 2004

WSM, England

and if you collide, at least you're taking out another plane too 8)

 

• May 3, 2004

• #274

L

Lightning Guy

Master Sergeant

2,511

4

Apr 29, 2004

Collisions hardly equal instant death and many of the planes that were shot down went down because of dead pilots.

 

• May 3, 2004

• #275

cheddar cheese

Major General

20,265

21

Jan 9, 2004

WSM, England

whoops, my mistake

 

• May 4, 2004

• #276

plan_D

Lieutenant Colonel

11,643

22

Apr 1, 2004

The Germans encouraged the tactic of head on attacks on bomber formations, you have to take risks or you're not going to get anything done.
In a B-17 formation you really don't need perfect aim, those 30mm shells will probably hit something.

 

• May 4, 2004

• #277

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General

19,937

17

Dec 20, 2003

you were more likly to collide in a head on attack than you were to get shot...............

 

• May 4, 2004

• #278

cheddar cheese

Major General

20,265

21

Jan 9, 2004

WSM, England

yup, b-17's were big planes 8) and cos they fly in formations, it makes them a huge target 8)

 

• May 4, 2004

• #279

the lancaster kicks ass

Major General

19,937

17

Dec 20, 2003

i know, it was a bi stupid, they had to stay in formation, even when getting attacked, the RAF let pilots try to loose the fighters if they got jumped................

 

• May 4, 2004

• #280

cheddar cheese

Major General

20,265

21

Jan 9, 2004

WSM, England

nothing to do with the planes though...