Re: Me 262 should have been used as a bomber?
 

John, I fear you grossly underestimate the accuracy of modern equipment. In the Normandy campaign it was found that 250 tons of bombs were required for every bridge destroyed (500 tons if you used medium bombers). In recent wars a flight of four aircraft was normally considered adequate - perhaps 8 tons? Maybe 16. That's at least an order of magnitude better.

I also feel that describing the 262 as being as good a fighterbomber as conventional types does require qualification. Without superior aiming equipment its faster speed would simply have increased the bombing errors. It would however have stood a greater chance of survival. Better for the pilot, but less effect on the war.

Re: Me 262 should have been used as a bomber?
 

And interestingly, the 262 is commonly pictured carrying 2 x SC 250 bombs when the contemporary sources report it dropping 2 x AB 250 (or 1 x AB 500) as often as not: the scattergun approach.

Re: Me 262 should have been used as a bomber?
 

You left out Spitfires and Tempests. ;)

Don't know how accurate this is but one of Green's book it was stated that a Mossie dropped 40 tons of bombs to destroy a V-1 site. The B-25 and B-26 required 182 and 215 tons respectively.

Re: Me 262 should have been used as a bomber?
 

As Eric Clapton once said, It's In The Way That You Use It!

Re: Me 262 should have been used as a bomber?
 

Graham, what is your source? I am looking for such data, mostly for railroad targets.

Re: Me 262 should have been used as a bomber?
 

Now that you're on the subject of What-Ifs ... I've read a convincing argument that the RAF and USAAF should have instead concentrated more efforts against Germany's power grid. It would have taken comparatively less effort to literally and figuratively turn out the lights on The Third Reich.

The idea was explored at the time, but decision makers guessed incorrectly that Germany had the means and infrastructure to quickly repair power plants. After the war, the bombing survey teams discovered that Germany's national power supply was a much more fragile system than believed. There were many power plants but knocking out just four would have seriously crippled Nazi war industry, and it would have taken several months or more to restore a large power station with serious bomb damage.

Re: Me 262 should have been used as a bomber?
 

Franek: I believe it is in Chris Shores' original 2 TAF book for Osprey.

If it isn't there, then it probably is in some of the work I read through when employed in Operational Analysis, and no longer have any access to nor record of sources used.

Re: Me 262 should have been used as a bomber?
 

Thanks, Graham!

Re: Me 262 should have been used as a bomber?
 

Hi Nick,

Sorry i didnt explain my reason very well when i stated the 262 could not survive in a Mustang and P47 infested sky for very long.
I agree that if being hunted at altitude the 262 certainly had an edge over all piston aircraft and a pilot could keep out of trouble if he wished. The problem came when they got sucked intoa dog fight with US and RAF fighters and, even more importantly during landing and take off at low slow speeds.
The simple numbers of Allied fighters available in 1944/45 was against the Luftwaffe, the 262's were too late to alter anything.
Had they been about in 42/43 then things would have been very different.

Still wish the Meteor had been rushed over to take on the 262's rather than stay home after the V1 bombs.

Re: Me 262 should have been used as a bomber?
 

Graham,

As one Lancastrian to another, I have to say that I think you did not see the programme that was shown on UK TV in the last 12-18 months which took apart the US claims of the accuracy of their jet fighter-bombers in recent conflicts (it might have been on the History Channel). Their accuracy claims were grossly overstated, and this programme proved the case. I wish I would have videod it. I was frankly surprised that with all of the modern technology they possessed, they were nowhere near as accurate as one would expect.

As for accuracy with the 262 given its high speed, which others have mentioned, it all boils down to speed, dive angle, height and point of release. And that's not from me, but from the Lw pilots who were doing it in WW2 that I interviewed.

Re: Me 262 should have been used as a bomber?
 

Jon, Meteors would not done much, being not much faster than the prop jobs, except to add to the 262's 'kill' tally. Besides they had restrictions placed on them when it came to aerobatics, ie combat manuevers.

Re: Me 262 should have been used as a bomber?
 

John, I cannot claim to be a Lancastrian, being a Geordie in long-term exile. (Strictly speaking, arguably not a Geordie either, but a pit-yacker, but perhaps that's too obscure!).

However, I have been employed in Aerodynamics, Flight Test and Operational Analysis for a well-known Single British Aircraft Company. I have seen the (real) Pk for WW2, later and current weapons. Modern guided weapons really are more than one order of magnitude more accurate than the unguided weapons of WW2.

I didn't see the programme, so cannot comment on what was said, what biases the makers may have introduced to their presentation (deliberately or accidentally), or what was omitted. I certainly would not recommend accepting all the sales claims for modern kit, but the improvement since WW2 is non-the-less real.

The comment from Luftwaffe pilots could be made by any bomber pilot, any era. Error distance is dependent on speed, all else constant. With no more sophisticated aiming device, the 262 would be less accurate than an Fw 190, and considerably less accurate than a Ju 87. Hunter pilots may sympathise, being no better off.

Kutscha: What Me 262 kill tally? Against fighters, it had one of the poorest kill to loss ratios in history. Are you discussing limitations on the Meteor Mk.1, which was used against the V-1s, or the Meteor Mk.3 that came to the continent in 1945? The main combat limitation on the Mk.3 was the short range, common to all that generation of jet fighters and (with shortage of numbers) preventing it from playing any significant role. That generation of jet fighters were all interceptors, not escorts or air superiority types.

Re: Me 262 should have been used as a bomber?
 

Graham, the F.3 I have as doing only 415mph @ SL. The F.4 being some 170mph faster than the F.3.

"The pilots appreciated the additional power provided by the Meteor III relative to the Meteor I, as well as the improved view with the new canopy. However, the ailerons had been deliberately wired to be "heavy" to prevent aerobatic maneuvers from overstressing the wings, and pilots complained that flying the aircraft could be very tiring; this had not been a problem with the Meteor I, since it hadn't been cleared for aerobatic maneuvers. Pilots also complained that the machine tended to "snake" at high speed, limiting its accuracy as a gun platform, and it tended to become uncontrollable in a dive due to compressibility buffeting."

" Just after the end of the war in Europe, a few Meteor IIIs were evaluated for possible use in the photo-reconnaissance role, but at the time their performance was not that superior to the Spitfire PR.XIX."

Are you including the vulching in the 262's loss ratio? Me262 units made claims for some 736 enemy a/c, of all types.

Re: Me 262 should have been used as a bomber?
 

It is apples and oranges here. No jet was able to intercept Spitfire XIX (or rather 19) until MiG-15 arrived. This is mostly related to altitude performance of early jets and is not specific to Meteor. Other limitations of Meteor were, I suppose, cautionary. Allies had no need to push it hard forward, so gradually increasing allowed performances were always on the safe side. On the other hand I recall hearing that Meteor suffered from structural failures, until a simple sollution was offered.

Re: Me 262 should have been used as a bomber?
 

Franek, Spit PRXIXs, not 19, were intercepted by 262s.

Re: Me 262 should have been used as a bomber?
 

ONLY 415mph at S/L? Don't confuse that with fighters capable of achieving that sort of speed at their optimum altitude. My EAS/TAS tables are at work, unfortunately, so I can't convert that into a speed at (say) 20000ft.

I believe that, given the wing thickness, the Meteor had a very similar Mach limit to the Me 262. I suspect that neither service variant could achieve this in level flight, unlike the Me 163.

The 262, engines aside, was clearly more ready for service than the Meteor. For those who believe that the Germans failed to apply sufficient priority to the jet fighter programme, a study of the delays and problems of the Meteor programme may make them less critical of the German effort. Arguments will no doubt never cease, but the success of the Mk.IV does imply to me that Gloster's more conservative approach could have resulted in a more generally useful fighter, had RR taken over control of the engine programme sooner. However, unlike Germany, Britain had no priority for a short-range bomber interceptor.

Re: Me 262 should have been used as a bomber?
 

OOps.

Re PR: Was this interception of a pressurised or unpressurised Mk.XIX? Either way, a single or a small handful of interceptions did not prevent or sway in any form the operation of the Allied PR units, other than a warning to take extra care. Similarly a Hurricane once managed to shoot down a Dinah. Neither case should be taken as representative of a general capability.

On the other hand, I have no doubt that development of the Me 262, perhaps the version with a rocket booster under the tail, could have produced a more capable anti-PR Mk.XIX device. It just didn't happen in time (rather like the Meteor Mk.IV!)

Re: Me 262 should have been used as a bomber?
 

It is new to me that a piston engined fighter had a higher performance in terms of speed than the Me 262, but then again, I am no Spitfire expert. But I do have one question if the Spitfire indeed had a higher performance: how many Me 262 did the superior Spitfire XIX (pressurized) shot down? Must have been a lot if it had a higher performance and less engine troubles....

I think the main reason that more Me 262 were shot down by Allied fighters as compared to the number of Allied fighters by Me 262 is less due to higher performance but much more due to the far superior number of aircraft employed on the Allied side. Or do you think the result would have been the same if 100 Me 262 met 100 Spitfires? OK, I don't want to start another "what-if" discussion. We will never now as it didn't happen ;-)

Re: Me 262 should have been used as a bomber?
 

The only reason of the air-superiority is the number, nd when you gather it you win the war, between the Spit XIX nd the Me262, there is no more difference than between a vitaminated-donkey nd a race-horse

rémi

Re: Me 262 should have been used as a bomber?
 

The Spitfire PR XIX would have shot down far more if it had carried any armament!

The point is not just which aircraft had the higher top speed, it's any interceptor's ability from a standing (i.e. when first alerted to the approaching hostile aircraft) to gain the necessary altitude, spot its target, get into an attacking position and open fire - and all before its fuel falls below a safe limit for getting home. So it's not "can you catch him" but "can you catch him in time."

Re: Me 262 should have been used as a bomber?
 

Guys, guys, guys... Robert, Spitfire XIX was an unarmed PR aircraft. She had better altitude performance than any jet up into 1950s. Up to appearance of MiG-15 they were flying untouched over the Soviet territories and Soviets had somewhat better jets than Germans.
Kutscha, you certainly mean PR.XI. How could a Spitfire flying at about 14 kms been intercepted by a Me 262 able to reach 11,5 km?

Re: Me 262 should have been used as a bomber?
 

Nick

I understand that tactical value was not only limited to speed. Also, maneuverability and as you said how fast it could intercept, etc. is important. Nevertheless, due to the high speed of the jets they could reach a target much faster than e.g. a Me 109 once they were at the same level. Of course there are pros and cons of the Me 262 (low manouverability compared to piston engined aircraft, unreliable engines, etc.) but if it hadn't been a superior aircraft IN GENERAL and the Spitfire and Meteors far superior the Allied wouldn't have touched it after the war (e.g. only very few Me 109 K-4 were captured and tested after the war compared to Me 262s).
Of course, if you compare it with aircraft that were specifically designed for special roles (e.g. rocket interceptor, high altitude recon aircraft, pure fighter bomber, etc.) you will always find an aircraft superior in one specific feature: The P-51 was more maneuverable, the P-47 the more accurate fighter bomber, the Spitfire XIX the higher (and faster?) flying recon aircraft, the Me 163 the faster climbing fighter, the Lancaster the more weight carrying aircraft, etc. etc. So, there won't be an ultimate truth to this discussion but only arguments for and against one's point of view. And I don't want to say that one was better than the other as it is very difficult to compare aircraft that had different purposes.

What I just wanted to say is that IN MY OPINION (and I don't claim this to be the absolute truth neither) what caused the higher losses of Me 262 to Allied fighters than vice versa was the far superior number of enemy aircraft in the sky of the Reich at the end of the war. Of course there are many other factors that added to this: poor quality of training of young German pilots at the end of the war, unreliable technology, unexperience with flying jets at high speed, new tacticts, etc. etc. And even if the Germans had enough fuel, experienced pilots, sovereignty over their airspace, larger numbers of own fighter in the sky than Allied ones, there would still have been losses of Me 262, but I think the balance would have looked quite different. But as this is a "what if" question, nobody can answer it but just argue for or against it.

Franek, thanks for the correction. As I said, I am not a Spitfire expert and didn't even know that the XIX is an unarmed recon variant. Sorry for my ignorance.

Regards
Roger Gaemperle

Re: Me 262 should have been used as a bomber?
 

Franek, the service ceiling of the PR XIX was 42,600ft (13km). Did they always fly at their service ceiling? Btw, the Spit XIV had the approx. same max speed at the same altitude (~26kft) as the PR XIX and had a service ceiling ~1000ft higher than the PR XIX.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-XIV-ads.jpg

Re: Me 262 should have been used as a bomber?
 

Roger, sorry for 'changing' your name, call it temporary mental disablement. ;)
Otherwise I do not agree with the numerical superiority argument. It is a common excuse but I would hardly call it a decisive factor. At least not in the context.
Kutscha, in 1950s they flew at 14+ kms, perhaps at an earlier date they were not cleared for more. Nonetheless note that mentioned 13 km (have not checked it) is an operational altitude which is still 1,5 km more than the maximum ceiling of Me 262. Add to this obvious problems with intercepting the target and it means Spitfire 19 (post war marking) was untouchable.

Re: Me 262 should have been used as a bomber?
 

Franek, OK, the PR Spit was out of reach.
But was it a decisive factor in winning the air war over the Reich? Obviously not. Outnumbering the LW was!

Re: Me 262 should have been used as a bomber?
 

If my memory serves me correctly didn't Eric Brown the famous British Test Pilot say the Me 262 was probably the best aircraft he had ever flown (I think it was during some documentary on Discovery). He flew practically all British aircraft types, as well as many American and Axis types.

However even if the aircraft possessed great performance it would count for nothing if plagued with serviceability problems, used in the wrong role, grounded due to lack of fuel or unavailable in sufficient numbers which the Me 262 often was.

A revolutionary aircraft but too little too late.

Re: Me 262 should have been used as a bomber?
 

Hello Andy
IIRC Brown's writings he wrote that the best planes he flew were Spitfire/Seafire and F-86 Sabre.

Re: Me 262 should have been used as a bomber?
 

Hi Juha,

Like I said I was going on memory and TV interviews/documentaries are often edited so that comments are quoted out of context. Maybe he said "one of the best" aircraft he had ever flown or the "best Axis type".

Thanks for the correction

Re: Me 262 should have been used as a bomber?
 

I seem to have lost my last two posts.

At the risk of wandering too far from the point, can I point out that the ability to fly reconnaissance missions anywhere over enemy territory, with little or no effect interference: to see what the enemy has got, where it is placed, what he is doing with it, and the results of your own actions; certainly should have been decisive. Not THE decisive effort, but one of the most important. I would also point out that being outnumbered did not seem to be a problem to the Germans earlier in the war. Simply being outnumbered was not decisive in itself.

Re: Me 262 should have been used as a bomber?
 

Just a quick note on outnumbering the Luftwaffe. IIRC, the Eastern front in the final stages of the war might have seemed a better area to demonstrate the effect of overwhelming numerical superiority against the Luftwaffe. However, using the Luftwaffe's own data, loss rates per mission were several times higher in the West versus the East. There are many factors which may have affected the numbers, but allied numeric superiority is probably overplayed and does not give enough weight the relative level of tactics, training and equipment opposing the Luftwaffe late in the war.

Best Regards,

Artie Bob

Re: Me 262 should have been used as a bomber?
 

At the break of the war nd for 2 years they never, the germans, be outnumbered , they manage to take the adversaries one after the other, very clever , later they were a bit less clever nd declare war to everybody who want fight, the outnumbering arrived nd many more problems with it,

The outnumbering make possible the bombing-war, even if at my sense is no worth the cost of the bombers built, because the german didn'nt outnumbered the RAF the battle was lost for them, they lost their bomber for nill

remi

Re: Me 262 should have been used as a bomber?
 

I agree with Graham reference photo reconnaissance. Without accurate target data the bombing offensive against German industry would have been far less effective. If the bombers only hit targets of oppurtunity or bombed where they thought key industries were located the Germans may not always of been compelled to defend, the Allies thus losing a degree of strategic initiative. The Jagdwaffe may then have been able to conserve some of it's strength and/or deploy it elsewhere. As it was the Jagdwaffe was concentrated to defend German industry and was compelled to try and stop the systematic destruction of key industries and was ultimately bled white until air superiority was lost and it was incapable of stopping the bombing.

Photo reconnaissance wasn't the decisive factor in the defeat of Germany but was one of the parts that contributed to it.

Sorry for being off topic.

Best Regards

Andy Fletcher

Re: Me 262 should have been used as a bomber?
 

Hello Andy
I also answered refering only my memory and it is entirely possible that we both remembered right. Spit and Sabre were both excellent a/c and delight to fly but I cannot find the article of Brown, maybe one in an old Aeroplane Monthly, from which I recall reading his preference of those two a/c. But in his Duels in the Sky p. 198 his assessment on Me 262A-1 was "The Me262A-1a was the most formitable aircraft produced in WWII..."

On the other hand on p. 201 on Spit XIV his assessmet was: "The Spitfire XIV was the greatest British fighter of World War II, incorporating as it did so many improvements over earlier models without losing anything in looks or handling." BTW I have seen also opinions which differ on Mk XIV handling vs earlier marks.

But in his final list of greatest single-seat fighters of WWII on p. 208 the first place is divided between Spitfire and Fw 190.

Re: Me 262 should have been used as a bomber?
 

Not a jet, but I think a Ta-152H would be capable to deal with the Spit PR...

Re: Me 262 should have been used as a bomber?
 

The late-war PR Mosquitos flying at maximum height more or less operated with impunity. It seems that both German turbines and piston engines were less efficient and reliable above 35,000 feet than paper estimates might suggest.

So far I have read of just one recorded attempt by a Ta 152 pilot to catch a high-flying Mosquito and the interception was not successful.

Re: Me 262 should have been used as a bomber?
 

Re: Me 262 should have been used as a bomber?
 

Hi Juha,

That may well be what he said during the documentary, I seem to remember the word formidable being used. Sorry for misquoting Brown in the first place.

Cheers

Andy Fletcher

Re: Me 262 should have been used as a bomber?
 

Ok, as some of you may know, I've spent a little time investigateing the 262. And it's all out in print and documented.

First, the 262 was a lousy bomber, as it didn't have adequate bomb aiming. Not the fault of the pilots, they did the best they could at guessing. Initial altitude limits didn't help...

Second, it was a lousy dog fighter. ALMOST EVERY instance where the pursued pilot followed his instincts and turned into his pursuers, he was shot down.

Mind you, I have a very healthy respect for this aircraft, but I know it did ONE thing well...bomber interception. It excelled there. If it got through the fighter protection, it was most likely going to bring down a bomber. Fortunately for us still speaking English, that wasn't figured out until March 45 and the R4M's.

Guys, the 262 was a remarkable aircraft, the first of it's kind. And it should be looked at it as that. But endless "what if's" are pointless. It had engine problems that couldn't be solved with the loss of certain metals, and of course fuel was an issue. Oddly, many pilots were trained in it that didn't reach service with it.
Let's just look at it with the respect due, an engineering marvel of the time, with all it's flaws, but in real life, would never have been a war winner. But our respective Air Forces all enjoy the benefits of it's teething problems.

Re: Me 262 should have been used as a bomber?
 

Roger, you can find various data over the internet, but it cannot change the fact, early jets had poor altitude performance. Lack of pressurised cockpit is not an excuse, as the highest interception of WWII was flown without the one, in a Spitfire IX. Such flights were uncomfortable but certainly possible.
Discussing the performance during interception you must also have in mind time necessary for take off, climbing to the ceiling and finding the target, which is still moving his own way. More, tests performed by British post-war have shown, that Spitfire XIX was flying above range of British radar system, thus remaining undetectable! It was only in 1950 that (Swedish) Spitfire was for the first time intercepted by jets (MiG-15s) but still she was able to escape over Finnish territory. Nonetheless safety measures ceased those incursions.

Re: Me 262 should have been used as a bomber?
 

Dear All,

Perhaps the following will help with the argument of Me 262 vs. Spitfire Mk. XIX. Here is maximum Me 262 speed versus altitude as measured on Nov. 19, 1944:

807 km/h at 1 km
827 km/h at 2 km
842 km/h at 3 km
856 km/h at 4 km
866 km/h at 5 km
870 km/h at 6 km
868 km/h at 7 km
859 km/h at 8 km
846 km/h at 9 km
828 km/h at 10 km

Source: Versuchs-Bericht Nr. 262 29 L 44, Bl. 4. The above is without bombs. Adding bombs knocks off 35 km/h at 6 km.

Anyone have comparable data for the Spitfire Mk. XIX?

Regards,
Richard