Best Bomber Killing Aircraft...... - Page 3 - Aircraft of World War II

the lancaster kicks ass · 10-20-2004, 02:22 PM

i'm still going for the -262......................

cheddar cheese · 10-20-2004, 04:01 PM

Yeah me too, for the Germans to utilise such a great piece of engineering like that in the time they had and under the pressure they had was pretty great.

evangilder · 10-20-2004, 04:17 PM

While I will agree that the aircraft you mentioned, Les, was definitely a terror on the bombers, I have also heard it said that if the -262 was out earlier, it would have made it alot tougher on the bomber crews. It would probably not have changed the outcome, but could very well have prolonged it.

cheddar cheese · 10-20-2004, 04:39 PM

Yup I feel the same.

NightHawk · 10-20-2004, 05:02 PM

what about the germen redio guided anti bomber missle ?
the japanis proberly had a maned version,

Maestro · 10-20-2004, 05:13 PM

Yes, they were called Kamikazees...

cheddar cheese · 10-20-2004, 05:16 PM

:lol : Why did Kamikaze pilots wear helmets?

MichaelHenley · 10-20-2004, 08:35 PM

Maybe they packed explosives in them

lesofprimus · 10-20-2004, 08:46 PM

To keep their hair from getting in their eyes????

Sorry to disagree with u guys, but the -262 was not a better bomber killer than the Fw-190.... It had less firepower, less armored protection, and alot less time on station... I dont reall ever reading about bomber crews being scared of the -262 on attack...

Not to say that it wasnt a devastating attack... 4x 30mm will put the fear of god in ya no doubt....

evangilder · 10-20-2004, 10:27 PM

Yes, but with 4 x 30mm cannons, it doesn't take but a good burst to do some serious damage. I am sure you have seen what a 30mm does to metal, and bodies. BIG holes and pink mist.

NightHawk · 10-21-2004, 02:20 AM

near the end of the war the germens had a radio controled rocket. thet they would luanch from bombers.

JAGD_RC · 10-21-2004, 04:35 AM

You guys are thinking rockets and jets...umm...sounds like a F16. Truth of the matter is that the FW190 was the bomber killer of the skies during wwii. The 262 was never produced in enough numbers or early enough to make a difference, also it's engines could not withstand the kind of abuse the a B17 crew would give them...50 cals hurt turbines pretty bad. The FW190 could knock a bomber out of the sky and even if it took hits while doing so, it would simply laugh and fly away.

If you want rockets and jets, then try an ME163 it was a rocket powered bomber killer, but it didn't work very well.

lesofprimus · 10-21-2004, 09:25 AM

Evan, while it is true that 4 x 30mm will ruin ur day or anyone elses, the concentrated firepower of the 190-A8/R2 was more destructive....

2 x 13mm, 2 x 20mm, 2 x 30mm would cause more damage in a quicker amount of time than 4 x 30mm....

Either way, bomber crews had a rough time of it up there....

But the Fw-190A8/R2 was definatly a better platform for knocking down bombers.... Id rather be surrounded by armor plating and be slower than fast and easy to shoot down....

evangilder · 10-21-2004, 10:27 AM

Good point Les. Either one would cause some substantial damage. Quick, short bursts do damage when using hit and run tactics. But I do see your point. Different methods of doing the same job. Either one head on could take out the cockpit and nose crew, which would effectively result in the loss of the bomber. Kind of hard to say which was "better" than the other as they were both effective.

By the way, nice sig!

lesofprimus · 10-21-2004, 07:15 PM

Ty very much.... One of the best actual combat pics i have ever seen....

10-20-2004, 02:22 PM	#31
the lancaster kicks ass Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 19,945	i'm still going for the -262...................... __________________ "Reminds me of the time I sank the Tirpitz" comments a Spitfire pilot, "One pass of course, old boy."

10-20-2004, 04:17 PM	#33
evangilder "Shooter" Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Moorpark, CA Posts: 14,779	While I will agree that the aircraft you mentioned, Les, was definitely a terror on the bombers, I have also heard it said that if the -262 was out earlier, it would have made it alot tougher on the bomber crews. It would probably not have changed the outcome, but could very well have prolonged it. __________________ http://www.vg-photo.com For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return. Leonardo Da Vinci

10-20-2004, 05:13 PM	#36
Maestro Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Beaupré, Province of Québec, Canada Posts: 2,359	Yes, they were called Kamikazees... __________________ Maestro http://www.yantremblay.com/

10-20-2004, 08:35 PM	#38
MichaelHenley Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Brisbane Posts: 507	Maybe they packed explosives in them __________________ I like traffic lights, I like traffic lights, I like traffic lights, that is what I said....

10-20-2004, 08:46 PM	#39
lesofprimus Minister of Whoopass Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Long Island Native in Mississippi Posts: 17,388	To keep their hair from getting in their eyes???? Sorry to disagree with u guys, but the -262 was not a better bomber killer than the Fw-190.... It had less firepower, less armored protection, and alot less time on station... I dont reall ever reading about bomber crews being scared of the -262 on attack... Not to say that it wasnt a devastating attack... 4x 30mm will put the fear of god in ya no doubt.... __________________ My IL2 Video Tribute to My Grandfather: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtzN5RuNNJk

10-20-2004, 04:01 PM	#32
cheddar cheese Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: WSM, England Posts: 20,387	Yeah me too, for the Germans to utilise such a great piece of engineering like that in the time they had and under the pressure they had was pretty great.

10-20-2004, 04:39 PM	#34
cheddar cheese Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: WSM, England Posts: 20,387	Yup I feel the same.

10-20-2004, 05:16 PM	#37
cheddar cheese Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: WSM, England Posts: 20,387	:lol : Why did Kamikaze pilots wear helmets?

10-20-2004, 10:27 PM	#40
evangilder "Shooter" Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Moorpark, CA Posts: 14,779	Yes, but with 4 x 30mm cannons, it doesn't take but a good burst to do some serious damage. I am sure you have seen what a 30mm does to metal, and bodies. BIG holes and pink mist. __________________ http://www.vg-photo.com For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return. Leonardo Da Vinci

10-21-2004, 04:35 AM	#42
JAGD_RC Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 1	You guys are thinking rockets and jets...umm...sounds like a F16. Truth of the matter is that the FW190 was the bomber killer of the skies during wwii. The 262 was never produced in enough numbers or early enough to make a difference, also it's engines could not withstand the kind of abuse the a B17 crew would give them...50 cals hurt turbines pretty bad. The FW190 could knock a bomber out of the sky and even if it took hits while doing so, it would simply laugh and fly away. If you want rockets and jets, then try an ME163 it was a rocket powered bomber killer, but it didn't work very well. __________________ It takes a whole lot of Germans to make a Messerschmitt...but it only takes one messerschmitt to make a messer YOU!

10-21-2004, 09:25 AM	#43
lesofprimus Minister of Whoopass Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Long Island Native in Mississippi Posts: 17,388	Evan, while it is true that 4 x 30mm will ruin ur day or anyone elses, the concentrated firepower of the 190-A8/R2 was more destructive.... 2 x 13mm, 2 x 20mm, 2 x 30mm would cause more damage in a quicker amount of time than 4 x 30mm.... Either way, bomber crews had a rough time of it up there.... But the Fw-190A8/R2 was definatly a better platform for knocking down bombers.... Id rather be surrounded by armor plating and be slower than fast and easy to shoot down.... __________________ My IL2 Video Tribute to My Grandfather: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtzN5RuNNJk

10-21-2004, 10:27 AM	#44
evangilder "Shooter" Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Moorpark, CA Posts: 14,779	Good point Les. Either one would cause some substantial damage. Quick, short bursts do damage when using hit and run tactics. But I do see your point. Different methods of doing the same job. Either one head on could take out the cockpit and nose crew, which would effectively result in the loss of the bomber. Kind of hard to say which was "better" than the other as they were both effective. By the way, nice sig! __________________ http://www.vg-photo.com For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return. Leonardo Da Vinci

10-21-2004, 07:15 PM	#45
lesofprimus Minister of Whoopass Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Long Island Native in Mississippi Posts: 17,388	Ty very much.... One of the best actual combat pics i have ever seen.... __________________ My IL2 Video Tribute to My Grandfather: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtzN5RuNNJk

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode