Me 262 should have been used as a bomber?

[Jon]

No chance, the 262 should have been developed as a fighter and only a fighter, mainly as a bomber destroyer.
I firmly feel that with the strong Allied fighter cover offered late war,the 262 even in large numbers would still have not acheived anything.
As we now know many 262's fell in action, more 262's would just have been more kills for the Mustangs and Thunderbolts.

Just wish the Meteor could have met it in combat

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by Jon

No chance, the 262 should have been developed as a fighter and only a fighter, mainly as a bomber destroyer.

By 1944 the Luftwaffe had just as great a need for a daytime close support aircraft that could survive in the West. The Fw 190 F wasn't it (see what happened to SG 4 in Italy) since German resources weren't great enough to provide it with escorts on the necessary scale. The 262 on the other hand had a better chance without escorts.

[CJE]

On the return leg, yes. But how fast and manoeuvrable was the 262 with two bombs?
And why not build more Ar 234s in this case?

[Six Nifty .50s]

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

[Graham Boak]

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.

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by Graham Boak

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.

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.

[Franek Grabowski]

Originally Posted by Graham Boak

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).

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

[Kutscha]

Originally Posted by Jon

No chance, the 262 should have been developed as a fighter and only a fighter, mainly as a bomber destroyer.
I firmly feel that with the strong Allied fighter cover offered late war,the 262 even in large numbers would still have not acheived anything.
As we now know many 262's fell in action, more 262's would just have been more kills for the Mustangs and Thunderbolts.

Just wish the Meteor could have met it in combat

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.