Should the Me262 been used exclusively as a jabo ....

[Franek Grabowski]

John
The concept of fighter bomber as a standard equipment was much older than Me 262. For example, all Polish PZL P.11c fighters had bomb racks, though they were not used in anger as far as I know. I believe that in the early concepts Spitfire had to have bomb bays, nevermind the load was minimal. And were not He 51s so equipped in Spain?
That said, the problem of ineffectiveness of Me 262 in this role is not related to the idea of fighter bomber or jet engine, but rather quality of German training and the aircraft itself.

[George Hopp]

I don't have the reference at hand, but Me 262 bombing was stated as one of the reasons for an RAF Wing evacuating a forward base. I believe it was Grave (B.82) in October 1944.

[Franek Grabowski]

Originally Posted by dora9forever

franek mate. whats that got to do with 262s.
Gary

That the concept of fighter bombers was not at all unique and new, and that it was rather inadequate training and not appropriate aircraft the reason of failure. Better training and no Me 262s was the solution I think.

[Graham Boak]

"what is the primary strike aircraft in every air force today? Yep, the jet fighter-bomber."

Actually, no. If the term "primary strike" has any significance at all, then it should be applied to the B-1, B-2, B-52, Tornado (IDS variants), Tu 160, and Su 24. None of these have the slightest pretence at being fighters, hyphenated or otherwise.

Strike does have (or had) a particular meaning in RAF parlance, referring to nuclear missions, but offhand only the Buccaneer ever carried an S designation. And I immediately have to add the Sea Harrier, with its FRS for the naval role - where the RN had no choice of platform. So the Fleet Air Arm did indeed have the jet fighter bomber as its primary strike aircraft.

There are lots of fighter-bombers around, true. But given that modern air forces do not use piston engines, rocket engines, turboprops, or hyper/warp drives - what else would they be but jet fighter bombers?

[Nick Beale]

[quote=Graham Boak;53563There are lots of fighter-bombers around, true. But given that modern air forces do not use piston engines, rocket engines, turboprops, or hyper/warp drives - what else would they be but jet fighter bombers?[/quote]

Shame about the lack of piston engines in my view but I thought John was just pointing out that, for all its drawbacks at the time, the Me 262 in the bombing role was nevertheless the forerunner of the way most airforces have developed since.

[Franek Grabowski]

Nick, the point is it was not. As I have noted before, most air forces of 1930s had fighter bombers, but this was discontinued for a very short period due to too small bombload and need of highest performance to intercept enemy aircraft. RAF 'reverted' to fighter bombers in 1941.
The only revolutionary thing with Me 262 was that it was jet in series, but actually it had no influence on tactics.

[Graham Boak]

Originally Posted by Franek Grabowski

Nick, the point is it was not. As I have noted before, most air forces of 1930s had fighter bombers, but this was discontinued for a very short period due to too small bombload and need of highest performance to intercept enemy aircraft. RAF 'reverted' to fighter bombers in 1941.
The only revolutionary thing with Me 262 was that it was jet in series, but actually it had no influence on tactics.

If we are sticking to the thread, then I agree that the 262 had no radical effect on tactics. It just happened to be a fighter-bomber with jet engines, and hence more survivable because of its speed.

However, I'm not sure that pre-war airforces had fighter-bombers, in the sense that the term has been used since 1940/41. Many fighters could carry bombs, as a secondary role for no obvious purpose, but the dedicated fighter-bomber replaced the dedicated light bomber and/or the dedicated assault aircraft. The aircraft used in this role were often not seen as suitable for the true fighter role. Often this was mainly due to obsolescence in the pure role, but not always. Is a Jaguar a fighter? A Su 7 Fitter? Not really. Was a Typhoon - more arguable, that one. But the pilots flying these aircraft in WW2 did not have training as a fighter pilot, but in the fighter-bombing role. To get back to the Luftwaffe, this could be seen in the quality of the Schlachtflieger in late-war Fw.190s.

[John Vasco]

OK Graham,
I will try to be 100% exact in my terminology. The primary 'attack' aircraft. The fighter-bomber in the role of going in low and attacking specific targets in support of ground forces. Remember in the Falklands war all the hype about the Vulcans attacking Port Stanley airfield? Did nothing at all from the height they were bombing at. It was the Harriers, as fighter-bombers, who caused the real damage and took out the Argentinian aircraft on the ground. And in all the recent wars, the ones in the middle East, it was fighter-bombers that were causing most of the havoc on the ground.

The point I make is that it is not the huge bombers flying many thousands of feet high that are the most effective; it is the low level fighter-bombers that cause the enemy most damage and provide the most support to their own ground forces. The Russians in WW2 bore that out. They were not interested in high level bombing, but stuck to the low level attacks that pissed off the German army so much because they were so disruptive and damaging. Christer Bergstrom brings this point out excellently in his Black Cross/Red Star books. Would German troops on the ground prefer to face a force of IL2s going in at low level against them and taking out their positions, or a high level bombing force dropping bombs in such a pattern that there was a good chance they wouldn't get hit? I think the question answers itself...

Figher-bombers, not standard bombers, is my point, Graham. Matters not whether they were piston or jet engined.

[Graham Boak]

I hope not to get dragged into a discussion of tactical vs strategic airpower, feeling there are merits in both. However I will simply add here that the German tankers, like the 262 pilots, would just have to suffer whichever attack the Allies choose to apply, having no fuel thanks to the actions of the strategic bomber. Further, the Allied supplies would have been brought into action across sealanes kept open by the strategic bomber in its anti-submarine role, with axis sealanes closed predominantly by the strategic bomber as minelayer, and axis rail routes shattered by, guess what?

But more than that requires a separate thread.

[Franek Grabowski]

I think we are closing to the actual problem - terminology. There is a recent term, a close air support aircraft, which is a little bit more accurate or descriptive. Anyway, Jaguar is rather a ground attack/reconnaissance aircraft, while Su-7 is a strike aircraft or a light bomber, rather than fighter. Their (Su-7) task was to drop tactical nuclear weapons and not to fight in the air. That said, there is an obvious question, what should be considered Fighter Bomber. During the war the most popular Fighter Bomber RAF flew was... Mosquito FB.VI. It was actually a light bomber but capable to engage enemy aircraft, which stood no chance against ordinary fighters, however. Quite a different animal comparing to the German Jabo, which was just an ordinary fighter with bomb racks.
That said, it must be noted fighter-bomber of any mentioned kind is not the best solution, but rather the cheapest one, just like with anything universal.
Finally, I would suggest not to discuss Il-2 here, especially as recent Russian research puts quite a different and surprising light on the subject.