Which was the best night fighter? (1 Viewer)

[tail end charlie]

then make the list or approve of 1-2 NF 's with reasons, lets face it sure the measure s of radar and counter measures were done from both sides but then what. but it is also about the crew what they could do with what they were given.......

I would say on the allied side the mosquito was the best 'plane, the black widow was possibly better all round but was very late in the day.

On the German side there are more ifs and buts and maybes I would go for the Ju88 because of all round performance and crew size. I take your point about crew performance the team on the plane must work with the team on the ground especially for the German system and it takes a lot of skill, training and experience.

 

[Erich]

you have to take crew consideration of expertize when LW ground was jammed during 44 and into 45.

late marks Mossie and Ju 88G-6 the best, short range the jet was master well get into looking from page 1 through when time permits, my thoughts are throughout

the 109 was preferable in higher alt realms as a nf than the Fw 190A though that was considered the best weapons platform for any S/E crate.

 

[parsifal]

With regard to crew training and its importance, I would say that this single factor was the single most importantfactor in the success of night fighters.

Gunston gives a pretty detailed account about the introduction of AI radar to the RAF in 1940. These sets have often been labelled inneffective, yet these same sets did prove their wort in the latter part of the blitz, only after a lot of time was spent retraining the crews on their proper use.

The RAF learnt its lesson. Some time later they developed the much improved AI MkVIII. An integral part to its introduction was a thorough induction program for the crews, so that when the type did become operational, it was a seamless and effective changeover . RAF NF crews entusiastically and effctively embraced the introduction of the new technology

According to Gunston, the LW were not as careful in regards to crew induction of their new techs, when they began to be introduced in late '41 -42. He says there was considerable resistance , disdain and misuse of the new technology, at least to begin with, and like the RAF in 1940, it was some time before the new technology had some effect on the outcomes of battles.

New technology, high technology, requires even higher levels of crew proficiency, not less

 

[Glider]

I would like to second the statement about training. Even old equipment could be very effective when used properly. I found one example when three out of four Japanese bombers were shot down by one NF using old Mk IV equipment in the Far East. As ever the Far East was always last when it came to equipment.

 

[vikingBerserker]

Wouldn't the jet have been an issue though, esp with jet engines pumping out flames in the middle of the night. I would think it would be far easier to spot then a prop job with flame dampeners.

 

[Glider]

My problem with using Jets as night fighters in WW2 are around three basic issues:-

i) Range.
Range is important in a night fighter due to the long loiter times and distances involved. Its worth remembering this is one reason why the Ju88 was prefered over the Me110

ii) Reliability
The Jet just wasn't reliable enough in this period

iii) Speed
Stalking a bomber involves tracking the target at fairly slow speed, excessive speed is a significant problem, to be brief they don't need the extra speed. The Mosquito was a problem but at the end of the day it only carried a small proportion of the bombs dropped.

The Me262 had the headline performance to handle the Mosquito threat but with the limited range you would need a lot of them and even then tactics could have been developed to keep losses within bounds. The Mossies would have had higher losses but still acceptable.

 

[pbfoot]

Wouldn't the jet have been an issue though, esp with jet engines pumping out flames in the middle of the night. I would think it would be far easier to spot then a prop job with flame dampeners.

The flames you see are mostly from afterburners , I've watched 1000's of jet departures and never saw a flame unless the A/B was used . However I could be very wrong

 

[tail end charlie]

My problem with using Jets as night fighters in WW2 are around three basic issues:-

The Me262 had the headline performance to handle the Mosquito threat but with the limited range you would need a lot of them and even then tactics could have been developed to keep losses within bounds. The Mossies would have had higher losses but still acceptable.

I dont know how good the 262 was against the mosquito

wiki says this about Kurt Welter who claimed 33
"
There remains some controversy about the exact number of victories achieved while flying the Me 262, with only three of the Mosquito kills coinciding with RAF records:
"

 

[Erich]

wiki is wrong as usual. Welter did not have 33 kills that is certain his little band was not quite what was hoped for a sure fire cure against the Mossie that is why I am working with another to produce some truth about the man and his jet Kommando, overall claims is around 55-60 but this is not confirmed of course

the Kommando received 7 twin seaters this was to carry the defensive means to the heavy bombers of B Command, slower due to another crewmember and the electronic gizmos plus the two under nose drop tanks which really cut down the power ration of the jet so with that would fly in the 450mph range comfortably and was seen to be an able contender for knocking down 4 engines, but was never tasked to do so, the Lw was playing of course more streamlined games and the twin seater in the summer was to have internal fuel cells, a streamlined canopy and experiments why on earth though with the upward firing SM weapons package..........it wasn't needed and this latest test piece was to have Berlin 240A AI radar so none of the silly exposed antlers that the B-1aU1 had which again slowed performance. As everyone including myself has pointed out the single seater had very limited range due to it's fuel capacity which was almost zilch thus it was and did defend Berlin in it's capacity but could not loiter for any prolonged length of time to intercept far heavier BC bombers and with only a dozen jets on hand is not going to really change the courseness of the night air operations. Re: why I stated to allow at least 1 if not more NJG's to have the jet fully loaded and ready to go defending areas of engagement as was done with the T/E A/C units. changing the forward firepower plants would of helped as well with 2cm instead of the door knocker 3cm short barrel and short range

 

[tail end charlie]

wiki is wrong as usual. Welter did not have 33 kills that is certain his little band was not quite what was hoped for a sure fire cure against the Mossie that is why I am working with another to produce some truth

The quote I posted said only three tied up to mosquito losses.

 

[Erich]

well we know of two as a fact from two other of the pilots of his Kommando for starts and these are confirmed. so 3 is just plain too low.

 

[Glider]

Does anyone have a more accurate figure for the claims of Kurt Welter as I have seen the 33 figure mentioned elsewhere but cannot believe that its so large. That said 3 is probably too low so there must be something in the middle

 

[Erich]

yes I do...............but it is for my book, sorry

 

[Glider]

That I await with interest, any idea as to when the book will be out?

 

[Gemhorse]

Hello again chaps,

As before, IMHO the Mossie was the best of the Allied NF's. The Mk.XXX was well accepted by RAF NF Sqn.s, as was related to me by one of our pilots, a W/C RAF 488 [NZ] Sqn., who sadly passed away late last year...

And Erich is most correct about the Ju88 as the best Axis NF...

I'm looking forward to your book too, Erich!

Cheers

 

[parsifal]

so whose game enough to tackle the $64 question....which was better, Ju88 or Mossie?????

 

[tomo pauk]

Mossie was able to do whatever Ju-88 could, while vice-versa is not true. So, Mossie is better.

added: Even Beaufighter NF (before mid 1944) was a competitive bird vs. everything LW could've mustered.

 

[spicmart]

Where to start? Achieved 700 kmh? With what engines? Night fighters don't need to be manoeuvrable, but stable. The two are opposites. Tank planes more agile? The Fw 190 wasnt more agile than the Bf 109. There is nothing else to compare. Other aircraft are not comparable. I have never heard that Tank made pilot friendly aircraft. I wouldn't even know what that means. Any aircraft would be outstanding with a Jumo 213E.

Kris

In Dietmar Hermanns Book about the Ta 154 (recommended!) it is mentioned that the plane could and DID achieve 700 km/h albeit with the Jumo 213A but without NF equipment if memory serves me right.
And while there are sources who critisized some of the 154's flying characteristics, there are also some pilots like Gottfried Schneider from NJG 3 who say that it was not "a pig" but pleasantly to fly being almost "as maneuverable as any single engined fighter, even more so than the Fw 190". While this may be an exaggeration it speaks volumes about the plane. It was much more agile than the Ju 88 and Me 110 and also than the He 219 which did not fly like a fighter because of being quite heavy.
Special emphasis was put to the torsional stiffness of the wing (as in the Fw 190 series) to ensure good high speed handling, agility and control, which was not the case with the Messerschmitt planes as Willy wanted his planes to be build in "Leichtbauweise" (light weight construction) with its inherent weaknesses. Erhard Milch mentioned it several times.
It appears that the Ta 154 was also a good weapons platform.
It also needed to be agile to be a good Mosquito hunter. The required speed could then only surely be reached with Jumo213E though.
In the book "Kurt Tank: Focke Wulf's designer and test pilot" it is stated that Tank, being a seasoned test pilot himself wanted his planes to be sturdy and easy to maintain and fly "men who had had received only short training".
In this book he is interviewed so some self-adulation might have occured but who doesn't.
Remember his quotation about the cavalry horse concept!
Recently a guy told me that Tank ceased to be a designer after leaving Rohrbach but if that's true I guess maybe he gave Focke Wulf its design philosophy.

Huey

 

[Astaldo711]

It's hard to quantify if you're speaking solely in terms of performance. If you could speak to a pilot that actually flew one of these birds, whose to say his memory would be 100% accurate? If you could find the aircraft today and fly all of them side by side it still wouldn't be a true test because you couldn't jink them through all the hard manouvering you might during actual wartime conditions. It probably would come down to opinion. I like the mosquito myself. A true Jack-Of-All-Trades.

 

[cimmee]

actually there was no 88 G-7 the last variant was the G-6 and there were no sub link G-6's like a b or c.

The G-6 was the best Germany had to offer in twin engine prop. P-61 was too bulky and could not turn and was popped on occassion by Bf 110G-4 and 88G-6's. The biggest fault was sadly to the crews, German bombers and their rear defences like th He 177 and the Ju 87D-5 at night.

overall the Mossie XIX and XXX was the best Allied craft, the best of the best was the Me 262A-1a in my opinion due to speed, firepower but adversely ineffective in long range running battles with RAF 4-eninge heavies, though this is why the twin seat radar equipped B-1/A-1a was developed and at a later date the B-2 would of entered to bring a new look at night warfare plus smooth nosed Ar-234's

The ME was far more dangerous to the Nazis than it ever was to the allies. It had a poor gun, poor range, and horrible reliability. It ate trained pilots as well.

There are several candidates for great night fighters. Mossies, Black Widow's, Lightnings, Corsairs, Hellcats, HE-177's, ME-110's, etc...

Depends on the pilot and crew..