Me 262 should have been used as a bomber?

[RT]

To add; concerning the unused of fighter-bomber due to Flak, the fact that when the SG4 first use the Pz-blitz in dec.44 in Elsass, they concluded that their use was impossible due to the density of the Flak they found

"Pz-blitz + M8 zwecklos ist, da das Verhältnis v. erfolg z. Verlust zu ungesund "

rémi

[Juha]

Hello tcolvin
"the Polish army in 1939 which lacked Flak" is not entirely correct, Polish army had a decent number of 40mm Bofors AA guns and some heavy AA guns.

"There was a need for armoured aircraft with guns to destroy tanks, artillery and ships"
There was a point for armoured a/c like Il-2 in ground attack work but against ships that wasn't a good type of a/c because they lacked load carrying ability and ships were rather difficult to sink. Even fabric covered torpedo bi-plane like Swordfish was clearly more effective against ships than Il-2. Against warships the difference was even clearer. And Il-2 armed with 37mm cannon wasn't liked by pilots, plane was too heavy and unwieldy and the recoil was too heavy for accurate aiming. But Il-2 was effective against infantry, soft vehicles and artillery and moderately successful against armour with 23mm cannon and anti-tank bomblets.

[CJE]

Any quality may have a combat plane, it cannot be effective unless it is available in number.
A handful of high-technology Ar 234s and Me 262s were definitely less effective than thousands of Il-2s.
That's for the same reason that the US kept on building Shermans which were outclassed by German Tigers but outnumbered them.

[Graham Boak]

Although lacking in range for other than Baltic waters, the Il 2 would have been perfectly effective against ships using rockets. The RAF strike wings were converting to rockets rather than torpedos because rockets were at least as effective when they hit, had a greater probability of hitting, and placed the aircraft under less risk from flak. No aircraft can be effective without an appropriate weapon. The Russians had air-to-ground rockets, so it was just a matter of applying their capabilities.

How much flak renders fighter-bombers nugatory is a difficult measure to use. The intense German light flak did not stop the Allied fighterbombers, though may well have biased the weapon of choice to the less accurate (but stand-off) rocket rather than the more effective bomb. Intense light flak also drives to the use of the medium bomber, bombing in the safer environment of medium altitudes.

The Germans no longer had the luxury of choice. The high speed of the 262 would give greater survivability than the 190 jabo, and linked to air-to-ground rockets was probably the only option available with any realistic capability.

[Juha]

Hello Graham
Il-2s could make life miserable for minesweepers and smaller warships and for transports but usually could not sink them. On the other hand destroyers and bigger warships were able to give artillery support to Heer at Baltic right to end of war. Swordfish, which could use rockets, torpedos, bombs or mines and had room and carrying capacity for ASW radar and operator, could attack day or night or at least mine the harbour entrances or usually used searoutes would IMHO have been more effective countermeasure against Kriegsmarine. Il-2 with its, was that 700 kg, armour simply didn't have enough carrying capacity for an effective anti-shipping operation, at least against real warships.

[RT]

But a big ship, Arcona ?full of Kz-lager inmates was sunk by brit. aircrafts using rockets no ?? during the war between Iran nd Irak tankers were sunk using blind-rockets, not maybe adapted for armoured big-units..

rémi

[tcolvin]

Originally Posted by Juha

Hello tcolvin
"the Polish army in 1939 which lacked Flak" is not entirely correct, Polish army had a decent number of 40mm Bofors AA guns and some heavy AA guns.

This is new. Can you tell me how this Polish Flak performed during the heavy LW attacks on September 16, 1939 against the Bzura counteroffensive?
Is it not true that the LW considered the Polish army had no Flak?
It is my understanding that the LW responded to the Wehrmacht's clamour for help against the Polish counterattacks that began on the Bzura on Sptember 9, by sending everything available to destroy the Polish army.
On September 16, 820 German aircraft dropped 328,000 kg of bombs on the hapless Poles. Sending everything to destroy Poles included fitting bomb racks to air superiority fighter aircraft for the first time ever, because a bomb was seen to be more destructive than bullets against troops that could not fire back and had no fighter defense. The German fighters had nothing to do so why not use them as make-shift bombers?
The fighter-bomber was thus born over the Bzura.
Later, during the Battle of Britain, Galland was told to fit a bomb rack to his Bf109 when bomber losses became unacceptable. Galland went apeshit. The British saw a bomb rack on a downed Bf109 and promptly followed this LW innovation that was controversial even on the German side. The British had never thought of a fighter-bomber before, but seized on it as a way of using up failed air superiority fighters like the Typhoon and at the same time heading off army demands for an army-air corps because the army had been abandoned by the RAF at Dunkirk.
The Russians started from a different and base which was the development at the end of WWI by Britain and Germany of armoured tactical ground-attack aircraft, which like the IL-2 were bombers which could survive over the battlefield and not fighter-bombers which could not survive - except against troops like the Poles who lacked Flak.

[Juha]

RT
Yes Arcona was sunk by rockets, but Brtish used solid head rockets in their anti-shipping strikes. Aimed little low to hit hull below waterline to punch holes. IIRC Soviet rockets were short stubby sort ones and I'm not sure were they enough accurate and did they have suitable underwater traectory for such a tactic and anyway IIRC they usually had HE warhead.

[Juha]

Tcolvin
"The fighter-bomber was thus born over the Bzura."
Now they used fighter bombers in WWII and LW used them in Spanish Civil War, He 51s.

On Poland's AA defences, IIRC they had some 380 40mm Bofors AA guns etc.

"army had been abandoned by the RAF at Dunkirk."
Now I'd say that that is a one-sided statement when one thinks the air combats over Dunkerque.

"IL-2 were bombers which could survive over the battlefield and not fighter-bombers which could not survive..."

Now Il-2 losses were very heavy and without better fighter escorts would have been even disasterous because Bf109 with gun gondolas or Fw190 could shoot them down, I'll not say easily but without too much difficulties. And Il-2s were vulnerable to AAA fire from 20mm upwards. Of course they were "harder" targets than fighter bombers and were practically invulnerable to rifle and 7 - 8mm mg fire which could be deadly to fighter-bombers. But on other hand fighter-bombers were less vulnerable to enemy fighters.

[leonventer]

Originally Posted by tcolvin

Please recommend a good book concerning the LW's fighter bombers in 1940. I must read it.

Hi tcolvin,

It appears you didn't pick up on it, but John Vasco's message above contains a self-effacing reference to his own fine book, "Messerschmitt Bf 110 Bombsights over England: Erprobungsgruppe 210 in the Battle of Britain", published by Schiffer in 2002, ISBN 0764314459. (An earlier edition was published by JAC in 1990.)

The revised edition is available from Amazon and Schiffer for about $50.

Leon Venter