Me 262 should have been used as a bomber?

[Graham Boak]

Roger: can you identify Ar 234 flights over England? I know of none. The aircraft lacked the range for any significant penetration. I know of a handful of Ar 240 flights in March 1944 where the pilot infiltrated returning US bomber streams, but the number of such flights and the depth of penetration was limited. The Ar 234 was used in Italy and for missions behind Allied lines in France/Belgium, but was not invulnerable then. The Ju 88, in different variants, was used for limited coastal missions away from the main combat areas.

However, even if more did exist, they were only a few in comparison. The Allies, with mainly Spitfires, Mosquitoes and Lightnings, carried out continuous missions over Germany and the occupied territories. The Germans, who started with an excellent reconnaissance setup, had nothing to match this coverage after the first years of the war.

This is a long way from 1 to 1.

[Roger Gaemperle]

Originally Posted by Graham Boak

Roger: can you identify Ar 234 flights over England? I know of none.

Graham, on September 9, 1944, Erich Sommer received orders to fly a reconnaissance sortie over the Thames Estuary. He carried this out the next day, extending the flight to cover London.

Yes, you are right, the 1:1 is only valid if you disregard the imbalance in numbers of aircraft employed (as I wrote in my last post as well).

Originally Posted by Six Nifty .50s

All this was well known to Me 262 pilots and their superiors. After a flyer from JG 7 claimed three Mosquitos (flying at heights not identified by the unit historian) Hermann Goering was apparently sceptical when he joked that it was a phenomenal achievement for a plane with engines that stop above 6,000 meters and self-destruct at speeds above 750 km/hr.

Hermann Goering was not sceptical, he just ironically referred to the Allied propaganda that the engines would stop above 6'000meters and self-destruct above 750 km/hr as the achievement demonstrated that this was not true.

Again, to summarize:
the Spitfire had a speed of 718 km/h at 7,9 km (source: Franek).
the Me 262 had a speed of 859 km/h at 8,0 km (source: Mtt Versuchsbericht 29 L 44)

The bombs made a difference of 35km/hr at 6km. Without bombs it was certainly possible to fly higher, Franek. While drag dictated speed, weight together with speed dictated the rate of climb (simplified). If it was less heavy, then less speed was required to produce the upward thrust to keep it at level flight. So, less weight, higher service ceiling.

Formation flight at 14'000m would not have been necessary if you attack single recon airplanes. Formation flight was much more important when attacking bomber formations.

Therefore, IMHO the reason for the few high altitude sorties were less due to poor performance but much more due to:

1) lacking pressurized cabin which prevented pilots to fly above 12'000meters

2) only few occasions where an interception would have been possible due to the time it took to rise to 14'000m. The interception would have required a well organized guidance via radio, which was often a problem.

3) The main focus for the Me 262 were the bombers. On 5 January, Hitler ordered on advice of Speer the Me 262 to be used primarily against bombers. It was estimated that in the long run the US could produce only one bomber as opposed to three fighters for the equivalent of one German fighter due to the increased demand on aluminum.

Regards
Roger Gaemperle

[Six Nifty .50s]

Originally Posted by Roger Gaemperle

Hermann Goering was not sceptical, he just ironically referred to the Allied propaganda that the engines would stop above 6'000meters and self-destruct above 750 km/hr as the achievement demonstrated that this was not true.

You are sadly mistaken. Goering's remark was not a public statement and the wartime Allied propaganda machine knew nothing about it.

[Roger Gaemperle]

Six Nifty .50s, I didn't claim that he said it in Public nor that the Allied propaganda knew about it, did I?

I only said that it was an ironic remark of Göring regarding the Allied propaganda which spread the rumor - partially appropriate, at least in summer 1944 - that the Germans had engine problems at high altitude. They indeed had troubles with the engines at the beginning since at high altitude the Jumo speed governor delivered too much fuel for the low air density and there were issues with the fuel nozzles which operated not so well at low pressure. But these problems were mostly solved towards the end of the war when they were just about to introduce a new type of governor (Beschleunigungsregler) that allowed the pilot to vary the throttle as fast as he wanted without risking a flame out or burning engine.

Regards
Roger Gaemperle

[Roger Gaemperle]

Some additional information regarding the Jumo 004s:

During the summer and fall 1944 Junkers, Messerschmitt and Rechlin tried to optimize the settings of the speed regulator and the adjustable exhaust area motor in order to increase the altitude performance. At the same time work was being carried out on new types of regulators and fuel nozzles that should have avoided a flame out at high altitude or a burning engine when the pilot moved the throttle too quickly. All these work gradually improved the reliability of the engine step by step.

On 3 January 1945 the Kriegstagebuch Chef TLR announced that the problems of the engines at high altitude and when the throttle was moved quickly were eliminated ("Ausgehen der Triebwerke in Höhe und bei schneller Drosselung bei Jumo 004 behoben").

On 4 April TLR mentioned that it was intented to introduce the new speed governor that completely eliminated the "throttle problems" at both the units and serial production by the beginning of April.

A post war interrogation report (A.D.I. Report 323/1945) by the Allieds said that "a new regulator had been developed to control the fuel flow from 0 rpm to maximum so that the throttles could be set at once at any point. ... The new regulator had been tested and found satisfactory".

So, while it is true that the Germans experienced engine problems in summer and fall 1944, R&D at both Junkers, Messerschmitt and Rechlin gradually improved the performance and reliability and at the end of the war the most severe issues had been resolved.

Of course by this point in time the German industry had suffered so heavily from the Allied bombing that material and supply issues became more critical than technical deficiencies.

Regards
Roger Gaemperle

[Kutscha]

Originally Posted by Graham Boak

Roger: can you identify Ar 234 flights over England? I know of none.

Erich Sommer flew a mission over the Thames estuary Sept 9 1944. His was based at the time at Rheine. He also flew another mission over southern England shortly after he potographed the Normady beach area.

[tcolvin]

What an interesting discussion!
But what is the conclusion? Should any aircraft, let alone the Me262, have been used as a bomber?
I think not.
There was a need for armoured aircraft with guns to destroy tanks, artillery and ships.
And a need for a divebomber with pin-point accuracy against strongpoints, ships and artillery.
And a need for a bomber like the Mosquito to take out the German electricity generation and distribution system, and the synthetic fuel plants.
But that, in my humble opinion, was that. These needs would require about 10% of the nation's GNP, and not the 40 to 50% absorbed by Bomber Command.
The 30 to 40% of GNP that was available should have been used to give the army better tanks and equipment so that they could have had equality with the Wehrmacht instead of inferiority.
The military cemetaries would then have been far smaller.
Germany survived for six years because it had no strategic bombing force.

[RT]

Here is an uncommon thought, but all is far to be wrong, winning at any cost is disastrous for the future, the great winner is the one that defeat his foe without trying to take an unfair advantage after, in this category for sure Germany is not among, but maybe not the others too.

rémi

[John Vasco]

Originally Posted by tcolvin

What an interesting discussion!
But what is the conclusion? Should any aircraft, let alone the Me262, have been used as a bomber?
I think not.
And a need for a divebomber with pin-point accuracy against strongpoints, ships and artillery.
And a need for a bomber like the Mosquito to take out the German electricity generation and distribution system, and the synthetic fuel plants.

You say no aircraft should have been used as a bomber, then cite instances of when a bomber would be useful. Actually what you cite is exactly what fighter-bombers have been doing from July 1940 up to present. Go get a copy of some guy's book on the Luftwaffe's fighter-bomber unit in 1940 and see what they did to a lot of targets in 1940...

[tcolvin]

Originally Posted by John Vasco

Go get a copy of some guy's book on the Luftwaffe's fighter-bomber unit in 1940 and see what they did to a lot of targets in 1940...

Please recommend a good book concerning the LW's fighter bombers in 1940. I must read it.
Nothing I've seen so far, apart from the destruction of the Polish army in 1939 which lacked Flak, about the early years of WWII fighter-bombers showed them as any more effective than the Typhoons of 2-TAF in 1944/1945. Their activity was curtailed in March 1945 due to high losses from Flak.
My reading is that the Me262 would have been a faster Typhoon, ineffective and unable to survive over the battlefield.