Best Nightfighter of WW2

[plan_D]

The point I was trying to get at was, how? The amount of damage a bomber could take before dropping out of the sky was a lot, so that person must have been hitting them in the perfect spots, like engines or maybe a fuel line.

My 'experience' on the game was trying to point out that these weaker armoured planes used up my ammo, and I only did four over. It's supposed to be realistic so, I can only assume that, that man had brilliant aim to hit the right spots. Admittedly, I was plugging away at one the '111s' fuselages...which is dumb.
They have no tail gun though so I couldn't resist.

Anyway, what was the ammo count on Ju-88G-6?

 

[Erich]

the tail was not armored or at least not as we would hope it was DP. The tail attack was extrememly effective if the German pilot could knock this position out then quickly hit the fusleage and inboard enignes or both engines on one side of the bomber. If these were then knocked out the flying properties would then be such that the big 4 eninge boy would flip over one side. Fw 190 Sturm pilots would actually attack slightly above and dive porposie like, hit the tail and sit on the prop so to speak and blow the belly posisiton away and then take advantage of the wing struts and engines beofre flying through the formation and away.


E ~

 

[Erich]

Ok plan_D maybe this will help you determine future air-air battles....... , by the spring of 1944 the 3cm MK 108 cannon was appearing on the Fw 190A-7 through A-8's and it was a close in weapon, meaning that in US terms to be really effective the German a/c had to be within 100 yds to really score. The 2cm and 3cm wepaons were armed with Mine Geschoss or HE and HE-I shells that actaully caused the aluminum skin of US bombers to flare up and start a fire. U then can imagine from a rearward attack if one round placed itself in a fuel cell in a wing what the carnage would be ! yes and I have Luftw. interviews that simply explain this. " Fired at a B-17, hit the wing and the a/c blew up in a fire-ball " pretty graphic yes ?

Ju 88G-6 had four 2cm guns forward with 200 rpg
two 2cm weapons in the SChräge Musik installation with 200 rpg
one single MG 131 13mm gun with 500 rounds

The night fighter pilots had the HE with phosphorous content and the use of glimmspur which was a faint tracer. this was mandatory in the SM guns so the nf would not be seen under the RAF bombers as well as fitted to some 13mm's but this was up to the crews/mechanics-armorer.

E

 

[plan_D]

That's still impressive. Yes, hitting the fuel line would do an enourmous amount of damage but it's hitting the fuel line on every aircraft, with a tail gunner firing away at you.
With the rear gunner, did he hang the plane down and under the bomber to let him destroy it. I'm still a little confused as to how the rear gun got its kills on the bombers. I imagine he just hung under the belly of the Lancaster since they had no protection.

 

[Erich]

ok to the RAF night involvement. The Ju 88G-6 as an example would trail out of sight the Lancaster (as an example), pick up the RAF on radar and then close in with visual. once seen would dive down about 1000 feet below the bomber with the other three German crew watching as the German pilot pulled up and level underneath the RAF Lanc. flying at the same speed roughly would get into posisiton so the rear gunner or the SM installation could do it's work between the engines or at the wing spars. Once a fire was started the German a/c would bank away to the left/right and above to watch the bomber......

make sense ?

 

[plan_D]

Yes, it did. Thank you. How did he do the B-17 over then? He couldn't have done that with the B-17, it had protection under there.

 

[Erich]

Plan evidently the belly turret was removed on the 100th group B-17's and the belly was fitted with jamming equipment if I understand this correctly. 100th group lost something like 7-8 B-17's due to Luftw. nf's during the latter part of the war.

interesting that in late 1943 and early 1944 Ju 88C's and especially the Bf 110G-4's of the nachtjagd were ued in conjuction with existing Luftwaffe day fighter forces to counter the B-17's and B-24's of the US AF's. what a huge mistake as the Luftwaffe 110's would come underneath to attack and the belly turrets would blow the night fighters out of the sky. In february/march of 44 they were removed and sent back to fight at night...............good idea

 

[plan_D]

Well, that explains the belly attack on the B-17s then.

 

[dead parrot]

This all reminds of the thinking behind the specification that led to the development of the Defiant. The Air Ministry figured that modern bombers were so fast, fighters could only attack when the relative speeds between the two were about zero, and the fixed, forward-firing guns of standard fighters meant this could only be achieved by squatting on the tail of the bomber. Hence, the Defiant, which in the minds of the Air Ministry folk, could chose exactly what angle to attack the bomber. I guess they were proven wrong...

Oh, this also reminds me that some Japanese intercepters had fuselage-mounted cannon that fired obliquely, presumambly so they could attack from below/above their target while flying alongside. I think this was inspired by a Luftwaffe innovation??? Was this common?

 

[dead parrot]

Right, here's a couple: The intercepter version of the Nakajima C6N Saiun had 2 obliquely mounted cannon, and later nightfighter versions of the J1N had 4 cannon, 2 firing down and 2 up. Again, does anyone--Erich maybe--know if this was something that the Luftwaffe did too, and if it was effective?

 

[Lightning Guy]

The Defiant had some noteworthy success as a nightfighter, but I don't know anything of it's tactics. I imagine it would have been able to attack a bomber from a number of angles.

The Japanese use oblique-firing machine guns and cannons on a number of fighters including the Ki-45 Toryu and A6M Zero. This was developed, as I understand, completely independently of the German Shrage Musik installations. The Japanese used these weapons on day fighters as well as night fighters, although with somewhat different tactics. I believe the Zero's upward-firing 20mm weapon was intended for use in head-on attacks against US bombers. The Zero would attack head on with its normal armament and then pass under the target squeezing off a few more rounds.

 

[dead parrot]

Huh, didn't know the Zero had them too. There is a good picture of the Toryu here that shows the twin cannon sticking out of the top of the fuselage:

http://www.tayyareci.com/digerucaklar/japonya/ww2/ki45.asp

The Nakajima J1N1-S nighfighter ONLY had oblique guns, 2 firing up and 2 firing down. The latter were removed, however, because they were found to be ineffective (I would imagine it would be rather hard to aim them...)

I am still curious about the tactics involved. I wonder how effective this kind of weaponry was...

 

[Lightning Guy]

For the Germans it was very effective. I think the head-on tactics employed by the Zero would have limited its effectiveness. For the Japanese night fighters, it was the lack of radar and not the aramament that limited their effectiveness.

 

[dead parrot]

I just realized you guys were talking about the angled guns of the Luftwaffe up above... Sorry for missing that.

What kind of angle were the Shrage Musik set up at? From some of my reading, I get the impression that they pointed up at 90 degrees(?), but is that right?

 

[Erich]

usually between 60 and 70 degrees

 

[the lancaster kicks ass]

i doubt it would have been 90 as they would literally have to get under the part of the plane they wanted to hit...................

 

[Lightning Guy]

60-70 degrees was a good angle. It allowed for a very easy shot but at the same time kept the fighter low enough that the tail gunner would have a tough time spotting him.

 

[Huckebein]

Blimey Erich, how many 13mm rounds did Nachjagd 110s carry!?! Bringing down two Lancasters and a B-17 with two 13mm guins is some feat!

 

[MP-Willow]

WEll Erich thanks for your interviews. When is your book going to be out?

 

[trackend]

In my opinion the mosquito was the most successful night fighter of the war if this means it was the best then so be it. it was not until the advent of radar that night fighters really worked as an interceptor .
Cats eye Cunningham didnt become an ace night fighter pilot by eating carrots as was aspoused during the war but it was radar that helped him. That is not to say he was not a fine pilot and at the end of the day the guy behind the stick is the most important component in any aircraft.
As for tail gunners i believe that on any bombers that had them the life expectancy was shorter than any other position in the aircraft . i can only deduce from this that an attack from the tail was believed to be the most effective and indeed proved to be. If it had been possible to fit the mosquito with a rear turret the loss of perfomance would have produced a very poor aircraft. To me the most amazing thing about the mosquito is the construction. To produce a sandwich glued wooden aircraft with many of the components being able to be made by furniture makers at a time when the industrial power of the UK was under a huge strain was a work of genius.And to end up with a plane that performed as well as it did,amazing. Indeed the use of sandwich construction is still widely used in the yacht building world and if you have ever made a model kit the fusilage construction is exactly the same as the mosquitos with the bulk heads being fitted in then the two halves fitted together.