FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
syscom3 said:
I'd like to see the sources for the Japanese claims - 138 kills for SBDs - that won't surprise me - on the other side 78 SDBs were lost to Japanese fighters
fighter-killing bombers of WW2
- Thread starter elmilitaro
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I'd like to see the sources for the Japanese claims - 138 kills for SBDs - that won't surprise me - on the other side 78 SDBs were lost to Japanese fighters
We have discussed this issue in past threads.
Also, we pretty much agreed bombers lose to fighters. Whatever the number of defensive guns carried in to attempt a defese against fighters, for as long as you fly inside that clumsy and hardly manouverable tube -especially the B-17- your many many times more nimble, agile, manouverable and faster enemy will make you bite the rocks with all your teeth in far, far bigger numbers.
Bombers, on their own, are losers.
Also, we pretty much agreed bombers lose to fighters. Whatever the number of defensive guns carried in to attempt a defese against fighters, for as long as you fly inside that clumsy and hardly manouverable tube -especially the B-17- your many many times more nimble, agile, manouverable and faster enemy will make you bite the rocks with all your teeth in far, far bigger numbers.
Bombers, on their own, are losers.
Gemhorse
Senior Airman
Definately the de Havilland Mosquito, it took care of a respectable number of enemy fighters...and before anyone jumps down my throat about the ''unarmed variants'', there were ''armed variants'' as well, especially the FB Mk. VI's, which were used to good effect besides the 'Strike Wings'.....
- Thread starter
-
- #25
elmilitaro
Senior Airman
The de Havilland one of the best and fastest bomber of WW2. 
Especially if it was armed.
Especially if it was armed.
![](data:image/svg+xml;charset=utf-8,<svg height="16px" width="16px" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" version="1.1"/>)