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

[Franek Grabowski]

With all responsibility, knowing pilots who flew such missions, I can state that Me 262 was not suitable for such bombings because of its speed. Look for Americans. Until they got appropriate sights, Spad was the ultimate bomber.
While I do not see any controversy making Me 262 Jabo, I note that it was just unsuitable for the task.

[Richard T. Eger]

Dear Franek,

It depends on your definition of "unsuitable". If it means it couldn't drop its bombload onto the target, I have to disagree, as tests with the Lotfe bomber variant proved otherwise. If you mean, on the other hand, that the bombload was too small to be effective in the bombing role, then you may have a point.

Regards,
Richard

[Jim P.]

Pretty neat to be able to 'solve' this question 60 years after the fact......

[George Hopp]

Pretty neat to be able to 'solve' this question 60 years after the fact......

Do you really think that this question is being "solved" even now?

[Richard T. Eger]

Dear George,

What's your point?

The Me 262 was constantly under development to the end of the war. The Lotfe bomber was obviously a development to improve the aircraft's employment in the bomber role, which it effectively demonstrated it was capable of doing. It came too late to be put into mass production. And, by the time it was demonstrated, emphasis on the bomber role had diminished in favor of the fighter role and, in specific, as a bomber interceptor.

Ironically, the aircraft was an answer looking for a purpose. Mis-used in its original guise as a bomber, it was also mis-used similarly as a fighter, to wit, the Nowotny dibacle. Subsequently, Steinhoff and company would not relent on their advocacy of the aircraft in the fighter-to-fighter role, to which it was ill-suited, wasting valuable time. Even when the target was forced upon the fighter force to directly attack the bombers, the strategy to do so was flawed, forcing another delay and frantic effort to redevelop a workable offense, which was finally put into effect in Feb. or Mar. 1945.

The Me 262 had been rushed into service long before the bugs had been worked out. These, alone, accounted for many of the combat problems. And, it wasn't just the engines, but the airframe, as well. In the fall of 1944 in a complaint by KG-51, they requested 3 spare noses for each aircraft, as the guns or gun barrels would work themselves loose in a mission, requiring replacement of the nose. Parts had to be beefed up because they were inadequate to the rigors of field and combat conditions.

It amazes me that, as late as April 1945, technical meetings were being held on developments of various variants as the nation collapsed around their ears.

In a mia culpa, it is far easier being an armchair critic when seeing what happened in hindsight.

Regards,
Richard

[Juha]

“The subject of how to employ the Me 262 as a bomber was discussed at quite some length at the famous Göring conference of late May 1944.”

Richard, thanks for that info and for the analysis in Your 9th November 2007, 03:12 message.

Juha

[bearoutwest]

If I remember correctly, the Bridge at Remagen was the only time German jet bombing missions (Me 262 and Ar 234) were used in a relatively sustained manner against a fixed target, heavily defended by Allied AA and fighter patrols. I don't have my references at hand, but if someone can shed some light on the missions, it might give the best indication as to whether the German jets of the time would have performed effectively.

As an aside, an Ar 234 nuisance raid against a RAF airfield in Belgium in 44/45 caused minor damage to RAF Meteors on the ground and was probably the closest thing to jet-versus-jet combat in WW2.

[Franek Grabowski]

Richard
It is a simple issue of what is the target for a fighter bomber. It is obvious you would not bomb a city with them, as you need big bombers or at least a number of V1s to have an effect (apart of psychological perhaps). Fighter bombers attack small targets of tactical importance and therefore high accuracy is needed. Me 262 was way too fast to make an accurate target approach, and technology of the time not allowed for precision bombing from level flight. Well, even today, with laser guided bombs it is still a hard task. Thus there was nothing wrong with the concept, but the platform was wrong.

[Leo Etgen]

Hello Geoff

Here is a short excerpt from the rather dated The Warplanes of the Third Reich by William Green concerning KG 51's raids against the Nijmegen bridge.

"The Me 262s of KG 51 now began to make regular attacks on the strategic Nijmegen road bridge held by British forces, and fighter patrols and anti-aircraft defences were ineffective in dealing with them. The Me 262s flew singly and during daylight approached at altitudes of the order of 25,000 ft., releasing their bombs at about 18,000 ft. in a shallow dive. At dusk when viability was poor they went in at about 1,000 ft., diving to 500 ft. to drop their bombs, and at night they approached at approximately 12,000 ft. and dived to 8,000 ft. before releasing their bombs. Under these conditions of high speed and rapid changes of altitude heavy anti-aircraft artillery was useless, although the bombing was quite indiscriminate. Even though the attacks were little more than nuisance raids the fact that the Me 262s could attack at will was intensely annoying, and both umbrella and radial barrages were maintained around the bridge in an attempt to solve the problem, but failed to knock down one Me 262. Spitfire XIVs and Tempest Vs were assigned the task of patrolling the bridge, but enjoyed little success, and on most occasions when the RAF fighters did succeed in "bouncing" the jet fighter-bombers, the Me 262s were able to half-roll and dive away, or to climb away at a much higher rate than their attackers."

Please remember that this is a dated source so perhaps new information will differ but perhaps this can help you.

Horrido!

Leo

[Richard T. Eger]

Dear Franek,

I'm dealing with one or more test reports of the Lotfe bombers' bombing accuracy. I believe it is pointless for you to argue against the facts.

Regards,
Richard