Night fighter rear gun: was it worth it

[kool kitty89]

And of course the Mosquito wasn't designed to be a Nightfighter but it did very well in the role and fit it well. (similat to the Ju 88 in many respects)

[Kruska]

Originally Posted by drgondog

We are on the same page in our views

Hello drgondog,

Ooops.. sorry, but now I got your view

Regards
Kruska

[Glider]

I suppose the first aircraft in WW2 to being designed for Night Fighting was the Beaufighter. I know that originally it was designed to a spec which was for a four cannon armed fighter, but its the first plane that I can think of that first entered service as a nightfighter and then developed into other roles. Obviously it didn't have a rear gun until much later for daylight operations.

Re the worth of having a rear gun, if you had the room and the weight wasn't a problem then why not, but I am pretty sure the benefit was limited as the standard method of attack was from below to outline the traget against the lighter sky and keeping the attacker against the dark ground.

One question which I admit is digressing a bit, does anyone know why a more serious attempt wasn't made to convert the Me410 to a nightfighter? It had the range and performance that was required, it also had plenty of space for the Radar equipment and extra guns. It was in production and even had some rear guns!!

[Erich]

it did not have space /extra room for the radar set or a 3rd crew member

typically the LW way of thinking was use what you have till you have exhausted all resources, the Ju 88G filled the bill from summer 44 till wars end replacing many Bf 110G-4 gruppen

[freebird]

Originally Posted by Udet

Also i will dispute that argument of yours, when you said, quote: "It is this, not the quality of their AC, that allowed the Luftwaffe to exact such a terrible toll. Had the bombers been fitted with heavily-armed ventral turrets, and been accompanied by large numbers of hi-performance escort fighters (All within the means of the RAF during the Nachtjagdgeschwader's most successful period) things would have been very different."

Hmmm...then it would seem obvious that the quality of the main German night-fighters was more than sufficient to inflict heavy losses to Bomber Command streams entering German air space.

Would you think it was the Luftwaffe´s fault Bomber Command´s ships were awfully armed? To put this in other words, German utilization of their resources to counter Bomber Command night bombing operations was wise and desirable...if making some adaptations to existing airframes that are flexible enough will work to deal with such menace (and hell it did work) what we will do is make the necessary convertions on the airframes and deploy them in operations.

Udet I'm not quite sure what your disagreement is here. He is not saying that the Germans had poor night-fighters, he is saying that the main cause of casualties was the poor equipment & tactics of the RAF, which the Germans took full advantage of, given the oppertunity. I don't think that by 1944 you can consider the performance of the venerable Me110 or the Ju88 to be "outstanding" or "superlative", but these older designs {with updated radar & equipment}were very effectivly used by the Luftwaffe.

Originally Posted by Udet

You have to believe that if the Lancaster had been equiped with far more powerful defensive armament instead of the silly defensive hardware it got, or had more RAF night-fighters been involved in the action, the Germans would have responded accordingly bringing new tactics and equipment to the action. In this regard, the Germans knew the enemy very well, and knew themselves, therefore they obtained excellent results.

True enough if the RAF had tried better tactics the Germans would have countered with new tactics oof their own, but at least from the RAF point of view it may have given a better % chance of surviving a mission

[drgondog]

Originally Posted by Udet

The Luftwaffe nightfighters were all adaptations of AC designed for other purposes. That they were as successful as they were, is a testament to German ingenuity, but they also had the inestimable advantage of the rigid dogma of Bomber Command. The near-religious RAF devotion to numbers and bomb load gave the Nachtjag a shooting gallery of poorly-armed bombers with minimal fighter support. It is this, not the quality of their AC, that allowed the Luftwaffe to exact such a terrible toll. Had the bombers been fitted with heavily-armed ventral turrets, and been accompanied by large numbers of hi-performance escort fighters (All within the means of the RAF during the Nachtjagdgeschwader's most successful period) things would have been very different.

Not all of them...the Heinkel He 219 was a pure night-fighter virtually from the outset, even if the model saw action in very limited numbers never becoming the most important of the German night-fighters.

As for the other German planes used as night-fighters your statement will likewise apply to the dreaded Mosquito; in the night-fighter role the Mossie too was an adaptation of a plane originally conceived for other roles...same case as it happened in Germany, a flexible airframe that became a valuable night fighting toy.

Also i will dispute that argument of yours, when you said, quote: "It is this, not the quality of their AC, that allowed the Luftwaffe to exact such a terrible toll. Had the bombers been fitted with heavily-armed ventral turrets, and been accompanied by large numbers of hi-performance escort fighters (All within the means of the RAF during the Nachtjagdgeschwader's most successful period) things would have been very different."

Hmmm...then it would seem obvious that the quality of the main German night-fighters was more than sufficient to inflict heavy losses to Bomber Command streams entering German air space.

Would you think it was the Luftwaffe´s fault Bomber Command´s ships were awfully armed? To put this in other words, German utilization of their resources to counter Bomber Command night bombing operations was wise and desirable...if making some adaptations to existing airframes that are flexible enough will work to deal with such menace (and hell it did work) what we will do is make the necessary convertions on the airframes and deploy them in operations. Or what is it that you believe the German should have done in view of the miserable defensive capabilities of RAF bombers?

You have to believe that if the Lancaster had been equiped with far more powerful defensive armament instead of the silly defensive hardware it got, or had more RAF night-fighters been involved in the action, the Germans would have responded accordingly bringing new tactics and equipment to the action. In this regard, the Germans knew the enemy very well, and knew themselves, therefore they obtained excellent results.



That even the Luftwaffe recognized the primacy of performance over defensive capability in the nightfighter role, is demonstrated by the nature of the final nightfighter designs. Where are the dorsal/rear-gunners in the Me262, Do335, and Ta154 nachtjager variants? And while the situation certainly altered with the advent of the AAM age, where were the defensive gunners in the early incarnations of the AC that supplanted the nightfighter; the all-weather fighter?

I fail to detect a clear connection between the two notions: (i) Germany´s late war night-fighters [referring to the Me 262, for the Do 225 never saw action] had no rear/dorsal gunners, then (ii) the Germans did recognize the primacy of performance over defensive capabilities...

You should be aware the Me 262 was not conceived as a night-fighter plane; it was only after the model became operational that some German commanders noticed its capabilities should put to test in the night-fighter role. When it entered service as such, mainly under Welter, it chewed Mosquitos at will...

You are giving a bad connotation to the fact Germany simply converted existing aircraft to fulfill roles they were not originally conceived for, or perhaps as a sign of "weakness" on the German part. I do think my above comment clears the atmosphere. Not only was it a very valid thing, it worked very well. You are trying to present such fact as anomaly when it is nearly standard procedure in any branch of most armed forces in the world. (the Germans were not the only ones to convert or adapt weapons for new/different roles).

Good post Adrian..
Interesting to contemplate just how effective the 262 would have been unless they a.) figured out how to slow the beast way down or introduce radar gunsights, and b.) perhaps mask the exhaust flames which might make it more visible from farther away.

[buzzard]

Erich and Udet,

I get the distinct impression that we are talking past each other. The initial question of Tomo pauk was answered, after which the discussion moved on to a more general one concerning the relative merit of defensive armament in the nightfighter role, not whether the Nachtdgeschwader was successful in its mission. It clearly was...

My argument concerns the value of defensive armament in accomplishing a specific task; the efficient shooting down of ac at night. IMO, it has a negative value, in that it detracts from the more useful quality of high performance. You can argue that the converted bombers with their multi-man crews were effective at shooting down the poorly armed bombers, but when it came to NF vs NF combat, the lighter, simpler Mosquito was the clear victor. Performance is worth more than defensive gunners.

Erich says that the RAF NFs couldn't be everywhere, and he's right. Right, because the religious fanatic masquerading as a military leader (Harris), had far more concern for his precious bomber dogma than he did for the men serving under him. The RAF had plenty of experienced combat pilots with no vital combat role during the worst slaughter of the bombers. They also had plenty of Mosquitos that could have been more effectively used as NFs than as bombers and Pathfinders. Other ac could have carried out those missions quite effectively. Perhaps some of the Lancs that might have survived with effective fighter support...

The LW NF were not effective because they had big crews and defensive armament. They were successful in spite of it, largely due to the absence of any effective fighter opposition. That there was no opposition was the direct result of flawed Bomber Command doctrine, not the lack of means to provide it.

More evidence of the superiority of high performance NFs, is the success of the 'Indianer' Mosquitos that plagued the LW NF bases...Do you really think that Ju-88Gs would have been able to operate with the same relative impunity over Mosquito NF bases?

Much of my argument IS predicated on Erich's 'magical what if', but unlike the wild imaginings of the 'Luftwaffe '46' crowd and their ilk, it is based on reasonable and provable premises. The RAF did have the men and the high-performance AC necessary to decimate the defensively armed LW NFs. The Nachtdjag should be thankful that the RAF also had Harris...

JL

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Erich

it did not have space /extra room for the radar set or a 3rd crew member

typically the LW way of thinking was use what you have till you have exhausted all resources, the Ju 88G filled the bill from summer 44 till wars end replacing many Bf 110G-4 gruppen

Surely the 410 have had room for the radar with the internal bomb bay to house the electrics? Fair comment about the Ju88 I do admit, as for the third crew I would have dumped the rear guns and let the gunner be the Radar Op.

[buzzard]

drgondog,

Despite the fact that it did not see service, I'm of the opinion that the Do335 would have made a more effective NF than the Me-262. That the Do335 never achieved operational status was due to the usual culprit; the RLM.

Had they allowed the Do335 program to proceed (instead of delaying it for 16 mths) the Luftwaffe could have had the best NF in the war. Unlike the jets, and the problem-plagued Ta154, the Pfeil had a very smooth development. It was a technologically mundane AC with superlative performance, good handling, long range, and plenty of 'stretch'. And unlike the vaunted He 219, it could out-perform the Mosquito by a considerable margin.

JL

[Erich]

ah but the 262 was the best nf of the war, proved already through the small band of Kmdo Welter. do not let the staffel size of single seaters fool you.

As with any new type that did not see any or much service the Dornier was in that category - always being tested for a new variant - it already was set for the chopping block as AI was not to be installed rather kept in the proven Ju 88G-6 and was to be used in the Me 262B-2 and beyond variants as well as the capable Are 234N

[buzzard]

Erich,

I agree,given its limited numbers and opportunities, the '262 was the best NF of the war. I also concur with your views on the deleterious effect that incessant modifications imposed on the Do335 (and other ac)

My preference for the Do335 over the 262 is predicated on its superior range, loiter time, and reliability...not (surprise )performance. It had sufficient performance to deal with any forseeable enemy NFs. Good enough is enough, in this case.

JL

[Erich]

the proposed twin seater version beyond the B-2 for late 45 into 46 was to have enclosed fuel cells to extend it's range and a more streamlined fuselage and also equipped with the latest gadgets, the radar being AI

[drgondog]

I agree with both of you.

My sole question about the 262 as a night fighter is that it was hard enough to get a firing solution in daylight on a B-17 (or whatever) because of the high closing speeds - so what was going to make it as 'effective' at night with low relative visibility and depth perception?

In the comparisons between the two, given enough time to solve the technical and tactical issues I lean to the 2 seater Me 262.

The converse to this challenge is what platform did the Allies have to address jet a/c raiders or recon at night - The A3D didn't fly until 1948. The Korean War platforms of the F-94 and F-89 weren't in service until middle of Korean War and the Meteor was a little clumsy as a night Fighter even though it did have AI radar.

Jet aircraft made the fine P-61 obsolete for the newer threats and the F-82 just wasn't fast enough to defeat a jet bomber at high altitude either.

The Me 262 seemed scalable into perhaps even the 1950's.. but the Do 335 would have been in same class as F-82..

Erich - on the Do 335, I know that the plant west of Munich was one of the targets of the 1st Task Force on April 24, 1944. The strike assessment was 'excellent' results but I also know some of the facilities were underground. Have you seen any historical reference indicating any setback due to USAAF bombing?

[Erich]

Bill total rejection of the design by the LW in part for the Do 335. It was to be a bomber Pulk Zerstörer that was why it was built, not for night fighting nor for engaging Allied escort fighters such as the P-51, it couldn't simple and fair. yes jigs were destroyed and the pant broken up with some of it being developed underground like the furtherance of the LW jet and rocket programs.

ideally Welter felt that Mossie hunting with the Me 262A-1a was not going to win the war, long running battles with 4-engines was the key one reason and he was not wild about it, he accepted radar operators into the unit with new pilots from other gruppen who had flown with more than one crewman, Welters original band came from 109/Fw 190 pilots cadre like himself in November/December of 44, the single seater could catch the Mossie-all types with ease, no radar guidance was needed as all pilots from the blind flying Schulen and expertize in other units in the Wilde Sau/hell-Nacht tactics

[Udet]

Bill and Soren, thanks!

Now freebird...

Udet I'm not quite sure what your disagreement is here. He is not saying that the Germans had poor night-fighters, he is saying that the main cause of casualties was the poor equipment & tactics of the RAF, which the Germans took full advantage of, given the oppertunity. I don't think that by 1944 you can consider the performance of the venerable Me110 or the Ju88 to be "outstanding" or "superlative", but these older designs {with updated radar & equipment}were very effectivly used by the Luftwaffe.

He just did point out the fact it was not the quality of German night-fighters that caused the high losses of RAF bombers...he put the blame of Bomber Command´s horrific losses mainly on British doctrine and the decisions made by "Civilian Bomber" Harris. I say no to that opinion; whatever the doctrine of the enemy might have been, the quality of the German night ships allowed them to efficiently counter the enemy´s strategy and effectively destroy huge quantities of British bombers. That, in my view, and also most people´s view, should be regarded as excellent quality.

My only point of contention though for comparing the Mossie against the main German night-fighters was the one referring to airframes not originally conceived for night-fighting that were converted and adapted to become successful nocturne ships.


Mr. Buzzard...

My argument concerns the value of defensive armament in accomplishing a specific task; the efficient shooting down of ac at night. IMO, it has a negative value, in that it detracts from the more useful quality of high performance. You can argue that the converted bombers with their multi-man crews were effective at shooting down the poorly armed bombers, but when it came to NF vs NF combat, the lighter, simpler Mosquito was the clear victor. Performance is worth more than defensive gunners.

Their primary mission was to intercept and destroy bombers, and not to deal with some plane that during an important period of time was too bloody rare to be encountered...tell me, how many Mosquitoes served in the night-fighting role during the entire war? Around 1,300?


Erich says that the RAF NFs couldn't be everywhere, and he's right. Right, because the religious fanatic masquerading as a military leader (Harris), had far more concern for his precious bomber dogma than he did for the men serving under him. The RAF had plenty of experienced combat pilots with no vital combat role during the worst slaughter of the bombers. They also had plenty of Mosquitos that could have been more effectively used as NFs than as bombers and Pathfinders. Other ac could have carried out those missions quite effectively. Perhaps some of the Lancs that might have survived with effective fighter support...

That the British were sometimes very foolish at managing their resources is not the fault of the Nachtjagdwaffe. I am sure Germany could have fared way better than it did against both RAF and USAF together; they had the human and material resources to achieve it but they simply didn´t do what was necessary. The allies took full advantage of it, very simple. Exactly what the Germans did when dealing with RAF bombers.