Most effective nightfighter

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

DonL said:
...Also knows anybody the ammo equipment of the Mosquito?
Click to expand...

Hello Don
According to Gunston's The Encyclopedia of the World's Combat Aircraft (1976) it was 300rpg. My best Mossie sources are in my attic now, I'll check the ammo ammount when I go there next time, if I remember.

Juha
 
davebender said:
Which brings us back to an unanswered question - What electronic equipment was carried by mid 1944 Mosquito night fighter aircraft? Did Mosquito have as much internal space as Ju-88G6? That's a lot more important then ability to turn burn.
Click to expand...

It depends... 85 Sqn intruders carried besides normal equipment AI Mk X radar and were variously fitted with Gee, Monica III, IV, VIII, Perfectos, Type F or Z infrared IFF gear and SCR 274 long range MF radio receivers according to Martin Streetly's Confound and Destroy (1978 )
 
Last edited:
I believe the Mossie carried 150 rounds per gun. At any rate I believe the Beaufighter with 283 rpg held the record for Allied aircraft.

I find it strange that 4 20mm Hispano guns are not enough to shoot down heavy bombers and yet the majority of Luftwaffe Schrage musik installations were a pair of 20mm cannon.

as far as "Did Mosquito have as much internal space as Ju-88G6?That's a lot more important then ability to turn burn." few night fighters did much turning and burning ( and NONE of the pilots of the time used that expression)

AS far as needed volume goes that rather goes to how effective and how compact the equipment fitted was. Radar got much more effective per cubic ft of installed space as the war went on.

many German night fighters carried both the FuG 220 and FuG202 radars because the early FuG 220 had a minimum range of about 900 meters which was too far for visual pick up.

The SCR 720 radar used in the late war British nightfighters ( and the P-61) had a usable range of 10 miles and much, much better off axis performance than earlier radars. Many aircraft used the fixed antenna/aerial arrays with rapid switching. the British AI VIII radar used a fixed transmitter aerial with a parabolic reflector that was driven in increasing and decreasing spirals. At a 30-45 degree off angle to the aircraft the range was about 1/3 of the range dead ahead. The SCR-720 radar (AI MK IX) piped the micro waves to the transmitter aerial which moved with the parabolic reflector (always staying centered) which allowed a much, much larger volume of sky to to be swept by the radar.
You could have centimetric radar but the type of antenna could make a radical difference to how effective it was.
SCR-720 radar weighed 415lbs without cables or radome.

 
Amazing! I had totally overlooked the Defiant. I was not aware that they were still even operational after 1940. You learn something new every day!!!
Click to expand...

The problem with the Defiant is that it is unfairly judged on its performance over a period of three months of a three or more year career as a front line fighter, in a job that it was better suited for than any other single engined aircraft in RAF service at that time. Defiants were still in RAF and RN (yes, Royal Navy used them too) service as target tugs and search and rescue aircraft at the very end of the war.

Comparing it with the more effective and better suited Beaufighter, the Daffy was in service in larger number sin the 1940 to '42 period than the Beaufighter and there had been a few issues with the NF variant, so, until Beaus and Mosquitoes came into squadron service in suitable numbers from mid to late 1942, the Daffy was it.
 
Shortround6 said:
I find it strange that 4 20mm Hispano guns are not enough to shoot down heavy bombers and yet the majority of Luftwaffe Schrage musik installations were a pair of 20mm cannon.
Click to expand...

Schrage Musik was only partly about increased damage. Hitting an aircraft at a perpendicular angle was generally more effective damage-wise than hitting from direct astern.

The main benefit was sneaking up on, and attacking two alert gunners who weren't watching or were unable to see a fighter against the dark ground below. Many German night fighter pilots simply left bombers alone that had seen them or even behaved in an alert manner (constant course changes, pilot weaving to give gunners a better view to the sides and below, etc.) The German pilots also liked the system because it let them saddle up underneath and target the fuel tanks in the wing, setting the bomber alight and hopefully allowing the crew to bale out.

With regards to the Mosquito, a test aircraft flew with a full mock up of a turret in 1941. So, if an upward-firing solution was desperately needed I'm sure it was possible.

 
With regards to the Mosquito, a test aircraft flew with a full mock up of a turret in 1941. So, if an upward-firing solution was desperately needed I'm sure it was possible.
Click to expand...

It certainly was - the Defiant's unique solution to night fighter armament meant that night fighter pilots frequently approached their prey's vulnerable underbellies and their gunners aimed their guns forward and upwards.

This mod to the Mossie was as a result of Specification F.18/40 for a turret equipped night fighter to replace the Defiant. it never progressed beyond the mock-up stage and GdeH was strenously against it owing to the drag penalty on the aircraft's performance. A Beaufighter was actually fitted with a Boulton Paul turret and although the aircraft and turret operated successfully its forward speed was only 302 mph; slower than the Defiant it was to replace. Boulton Paul envisaged a bigger Defiant powered by either a Napier Sabre or Bristol Centaurus and a twin boom new design that resembled a small Northrop P-61. The Gloster Reaper twin was also proposed for this spec and prwas inspiring, although without a turret, but Gloster was informed to stop work on it and work on the Whittle prototype. Fairey envisaged a cannon equipped Firefly without a turret. The spec came to nothing owing to delays in getting the projected aircraft ready and the Mossie's performance eventually meant a new design was not necessary.
 
It may have been possible to mount near vertical firing 20mm cannon at the rear of the cockpit.

Another alternative was cannon firing up at a shallower angle.

The Gloster F.9/37 had such an arrangement in one of the prototypes.



The caption says the angle was to avoid the cockpit, but the guns were placed there deliberately to fire from behind and below an enemy.

If combatting bombers was an issue for Mosquitoes, or the standard arrangement wasn't proving effective enough, something similar could have been adoped for them. Though it may have required an additional fairing on the back of the Mossie.
 

At 625 km/h they are still approx. 20mph slower than the Mossie NF XV of 1943 plus of course the FUG 240 was only operational in very very small numbers right at the end of the war. So to all intent and purposes the Ju88 G6 was normally much slower during the war. It was also a heavier aircraft so general performance such as climb and acceleration would be less and general agility.

As for firepower I don't see much difference myself 4 x 20mm Hispano II vs 4 x 20mm 151 are pretty similar and the Schräge Musik seems to be the only difference. That and the need to keep the defensive guns as they were so concerned about the Mosquito NF's. I don't know how much ammo the Ju88 carried do you have that information?

Re the Schräge Musik, it has been pointed out that the RAF were using radar nightfighters well before the Luftwaffe, if they had seen the need for this type of installation then no doubt it would have been used. Its also worth noting that post war no other nation used this type of weapon so it seems to have been of benefit for a limited period.
 
Schrage music simply exploited a weakness in the RAF's bombers' defensive armament. All the armour was removed with the exception of the plate behind the pilot and virtually no RAF bombers operated with a ventral turret (I'm aware of some exceptions, so no need for a diversion).
The large fuel tanks in the wings of a Lancaster or Halifax were vulnerable from whatever angle were hit
The only four engine bomber the Luftwaffe operated did have ventral gun positions facing down and to the rear and down and forward making a schrage music attack profile much more likely to be seen.
What would be the point of compromising the Mosquito's outstanding performance for a weapons system likely to be less effective than that already carried?
Cheers
Steve
 

Thanks - unfortunately, the data covering in depth the performance capabilities of the LW's workhorse seem to be sorely lacking - flight tests, original tables and all?
 
Till now I have not seen original data-sheets, that's all secondary sources.

Anyway they are close and in consens to Eric Brown's test flight with a Ju 88 G-6 without Radar and flame damper, but also without MW 50 and after his book he clocked 644 km/h in level flight at optimal altitude.
So to my opinion the late Ju 88 G-6 was far away from being a slow night fighter especially with the full enclosed FuG 240 radar.

Also at this forum a few years ago, was a original articel about a comparison flight between a Ju 88 G-1 and a Mosquito NF at a british air base, which had shown how equal the two aircrafts were at their performance.

To my opinion I agree with Erich, for the hunting of heavy Bombers the Ju 88 G-6 with it's heavier armament and Schräge Musik and a third man was the best night fighter and all other nightfighter roles were filled a little better by the Mosquito, but it is to my opinion a very close race and the Mosquito is as a nightfighter not that far in front from a the latest Ju 88 G-6 with it's performance and equippment.
 
Last edited:
I have a couple of Chris Chants books on Luftwaffe aircraft, and he is of the opinion that the Ju 88 also vies with the Mosquito for being the most versatile aircraft to operate during WW2. The fact that both were effective as night fighters appears to back that opinion. On another aspect, the Arado Ar 234 was trialled in the night fighter role, but was deemed unsuitable due to the extensive glazing of the cockpit. The bolt on weapons pack, similar to the He 219 placement, did little to reduce the reflected glare and visual distortion. There were developments in progress to alleviate this problem, but, like so many advanced Luft projects, the war ended before anything was realised.
 

I understand the shallow angle was for 'no deflection' firing. At a normal firing distance the bullets would have dropped to such that the point of impact was straight in front. Thus making aiming easier.

Slightly riding a hobby horse, the Defiant turret guns, turned and fixed forward in a similar configuration, were supposed to be for the pilot to do the same. Hence the pilot having a firing button. However the story got lost and the sights and training never happened.
 
The FuG 240 "Berlin" was an airborne interception radar introduced very late in World War II by the German Luftwaffe. It was the first German radar to be based on the cavity magnetron, eliminating the need for the large antenna arrays seen on earlier radars, and thereby greatly increasing the performance of the night fighters. Introduced by Telefunken in April 1945, only about 25 units saw service.

It is still not close to a Mossie NF30.
 
By the later stages of the war I believe it was encumbent on electronics suppliers to produce units small enough and light enough to be easily carried by an aircraft in service. The Ju88 may have had more room inside but surely a higher top speed was more preferable.
 
DonL said:
Nice quote from Wiki, do you have other sources for your claims besides Wiki.
Click to expand...

Do you have sources that dispute what was said in Wiki?

Introduced by Telefunken in April 1945, only about 25 units saw service.
 
25 saw service?
As far as I know the allies only found 10 aircraft equipped with FuG 240. I wonder where 25 comes from.

Cheers

Steve
 
Last edited:
Greyman said:
normally 500 rounds per gun for the .303s (if fitted) - 780 rounds possible
normally 150 rounds per gun for the 20mm - 175 rounds possible
Click to expand...

Thanks Greyman, my better sources say more or less same, Simons' Mosquito book 175rpg and Green Swanborough in the AI Mossie fighters article 150rpg.

Juha
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Most Manoeuvrable Superprop Fighter/Interceptor Possible
Replies
13
Views
2K
drgondog
Most numerous surviving ww2 warbird type?
2
Replies
20
Views
2K
wlewisiii
Why were most early WW2 fighters designed with limited rear visibility?
4 5 6
Replies
107
Views
11K
buffnut453
Effectiveness of the P-38
6 7 8
Replies
145
Views
13K
Thumpalumpacus
Break Mean Effective Pressure
2
Replies
26
Views
3K
HP52
H
Menu
Log in
Register