Best Bomber Killing Aircraft......

[lesofprimus]

The Beaufighter was not designed as a bomber killing aircraft...

[CharlesBronson]

It destroyed some german bombers but mostly in the Night fighter role.

[102first_hussars]

as much as i would like to say the Hurricane


I think the FW-190 hands down is the best.......it had way better fire power than the -109

[Heinz]

FW 190 in the A8 variant was pretty lethal, thats my vote!

[Jabberwocky]

Is this a qualitative discussion - as in what aircraft was most able to shoot down bombers? - or a quantative discussion - as in, what aircraft shot down the most bombers?

For qualitative, the first thing I'd do is split the categories between Allied and Axis bomber destroyers and day and night bomber destroyers. Probably by timeframe as well.

An Allied bomber destroyer is not going to get as many cracks as his Axis counterparts. Apart from the Battle of Britain and smaller operations over the Eastern Front, the Allies very rarely encountered formation bombing.

The Axis powers built approximately 42500 twin engine/ four engine bombers.

The Allies powers built approximately 135,000 twin engine/ four engine bombers, more than three times the amount of their opponent. The difference in airframe tonnage is even greater as is the number of bomber sorties flown.

A twin engine night fighter is probably going to struggle during the daylight, even against unescorted bombers, despite its heavier armament and longer endurance.

Similarly, unless a single engine fighter is modified for night work, with assorted radar and detection gear, it is going to have a realtively more difficult time against night bombers.

Qualitatively, on the Axis side I'd say:

Dayfighter: FW-190A
Nightfighter: Ju-88G

Both combined effective, heavy armament with high performance and excellent reliability.

Honourable mentions go to the Ki-84 as a dayfighter and the Ki-46-III as a night fighter.

On the Allied side I'd say:

Dayfighter: Tempest V
Nightfighter: Mosquito NF Mk XXX

Honourable mentions to P-38 as a dayfighter and P-61 and Beaufighter as nightfighters.

[drgondog]

The Me 262 based on;
1. Heaviest firepower
2. Immune to interception (unless it stayed to play)
3. Best Performance at any altitude

but, short range interceptor as the major fault

B-17 and B-29 would be the standard for 'hard to kill' toughness and ceiling. Lancaster great airplane but believe the Rolls made it more vulnerable to coolant hits than those Wasps and 3350's

Next would be the Fw190A8 and/or (Fw190D) plus and Do335 and Ta152 - the latter two not around long enough -ditto Japanese N1K2-J Shiden 21)

The only one of the above that could engage at long range would be the Shiden

None of the Allied Fighters had to kill a B-17 or B-29 so hard to judge but Tempest and P-38 and P-47 would get my vote based on Firepower and Pure speed at altitude...with 47 and 38 at altitudes approaching 40,000 feet. I think the 20mm gives the edge over the 51 for the 38 and two extra 50's the edge for the 47 over the 51..but if the enemy bombers had great escort - I would go Mustang as the better able to go long range and engage both bombers and fighters - and if that mission had come, believe it (51) would have been re-armed with 4 20mm instead of .50's.

Post War Piston engine - the P-82 would get my vote

Night Fighter - either P-61 and Mosquito with edge to Mossy for speed and ceiling and range and maybe He219 except for range

Opinions only - no 'simple' answer

Bill

[Erich]

well Bill I would agree with the Me 262 with R4M's as the # 1 day fighter bomber killer except for it's endurance range level which was limited. Even at night it may be the # 1 night fighter but again the range problem, one reason why Kurt Welter insisted that two seaters with radar and long range fuel tanks to be added for increased performance. Problem with this is that his task force 10./NJG 11 was to hunt LSNF Mossies and the extra baggage of radar, fuel tanks and another crew member really limited overall effectiveness.

the Mossie XXX was probably on top for nf's followed by Ju 88G-6 with Berlin 240a1 radar in streamlined nose cone. He 219 was limited in numbers, actually too heavy like the P-61, understandably the last two did have heavy firepower but with that bulk

[drgondog]

Erich I actually considered the weight on both the 219 and the 61 but still liked both better than the Ju88G6 - but not for any pure technical reason I can think of - I thought all were behind the Mossie for night.

My father once commanded the 318th(?have to check) FG before we went to Japan where he picked up the 35FBW. The 318th was a P-61B or C Wing. He claimed the 61 would turn very well with 51's and would have presented an interesting dogfighter with a top turret equipped 61.. for those a/c in a turning fight..but he would rather be in a 51 if it came to a fight.

From my perspective the only reason for a 262 at night was to hunt a Mossie at night - lol.

If I were war god of Kingdom of Whoopass and could set up my ADC TO&E with any force from any nation I would have two layers - 51H's to attack offshore and force escort to drop any external fuel they had, engage same plus the bombers, and 262's to mop up the inbound (for daylight) and have all Mossie force for night intrusions... For escort of MY strategic force, 51H's all the way. I would mod the 51H to carry 2-4 20mm cannons to replace the .50's or at least swap them w/15mm MG..

My world may not be the same as yours (or Dan's)

[Erich]

ah but we must look at what the TA 152H-2 and 3 might have been........yep too late to see action, but a ceiling of over 50,000 could of been interesting with special cockpit provisions

In our book once published it will be of note that Kurt Welter knew full well the attacks on Mossies were futile attempts and that attacking the heavier RAF bombers was the key and the twin seat 262 even with all the weight measures could still out fly everything else in the Luftwaffe and Allied arsenal. too much time had run out, the nf Kommando was on the run westward to get out of the long reach of the Soviets

[renrich]

Interesting thought about the vaunted TA152H. It was supposed to be able to touch 472 mph at 41000 ft. taking an average at that altitude, that is Mach .714. In the P51, a very clean airframe the onset of compressibility was at just under .75. Seems to me that if you are in an airplane at 41000 ft and near your top speed and dive to make an interception you could easily lose control because of compressibility. just wondering.

[drgondog]

It has been too long since I was in one and I Never personally dove to Miltary Max (.75 Mach), and my flying experience was solely with the -30. I also recall the biggest issue was not only structural but the turbulence on the airfoil surfaces due to 'rippling effect' on the pull out - I never experienced that either

From the history, the 51G was the very fastest of all the Mustangs with 490+mph TAS at 22,000 feet with a Service celing of 46,000ft... the only Mustang in the Ta152 class and the thought leader behind the 51H as far as weight reduction.

I think (CRS) that the max diving speed at altitude was 270? mph at 40,000 ft (where I also never even thought about) IAS which is about .75 Mach at STP.

Each aircraft had different issues at Mcr for that a/c. As I recall from literature the 262 had a severe 'pitch down' which is a very bad thing when stick forces are already like concrete..

As the topic was Ta 152 I don't have a clue regarding its Mcr issues.

Regards,

Bill

[renrich]

Some interesting inf. Knew a man who was Air Force in 50s-60s, flew 86s and 102s. Said in ACM between F80 and F9F at high altitude, 40000 ft Panther had a real advantage because it had a higher Mach #, in other words, got into compressibility at a higher TAS than F80. At 40000 ft the gap between stalling speed and compressibility on F80 was so narrow it was like walking a tight rope. Slow down a tiny bit, stall and spin. Speed up a bit and into compressibility and out of control.

[Erich]

side note : the Ta 152H's intended role was to intercept the P-51D and K not engage bombers

[lesofprimus]

I was about to say that Erich lol...

[drgondog]

Eric and Dan - of course you are right but if the Ta152 wants to find the 51s the first place to look is at 24K to 30K - not way up - because the 51s are with the bombers.

And to belabor the point, the 51H was in production in March 1945 and could have been expedited if the D9 and Ta152 had been hurting us severely. Mike Williams repository of USAAF tests on the 51H didn't show the speed that the factory had (487TAS stripped) but still 450+ at 25000 feet with full ammo/Guns and 180 gal internal fuel (bleed fus tank before flight).

Remember the H was 900 pounds lighter than the 51D while the P-47N and M went the other way from the 47D to get the fuel

so, the 152 might have represented a much faster bird at 36+ it wasn't such a big advantage at 25K over the 51H which was also more nimble than the 51D in every way.

BTW Eric I have never seen valid LW flight test data on either the Ta 152 series or the 190D-12/13 with functioning 3 stage blower on the Jumo 213 - so I have never been able to understand what the birds could do with full combat load in the 25K range. Can you point me in right direction.

Now, I'm gonna have my feelings hurt if you pile on..