Why did 10./JG 2 bomb a school in Catford?

[tcolvin]

Thank you, Juha.

Tony

[tcolvin]

Originally Posted by John Vasco

A 'Jabo' is a fighter that carries bombs. Jagd-bomber = fighter-bomber. I would therefore suggest that all fighters carrying bombs were fighter-bombers.

Yes, of course.

The problem arises, however, when the fighter carrying the bombs becomes uncompetitive and should be laid up in a museum or scrapped.
The Typhoon 1B and FW 190A's were in that position in 1944 and certainly 1945 (http://luthier.stormloader.com/SFTacticsIII.htm).
The Jagd part of the Jabo designation had a sell-by date.
So I would suggest your definition be changed to all fighters that can hold their own against enemy fighters, and that carry bombs, were fighter-bombers.
That would leave Schenk's Me 262s as the only Jabos fielded by either side in the European Theatre in 1945.
Spitfire, Typhoon, Thunderbolt and Mustang were past it.
Also, the He 51, on this argument, was never a Jabo as it was never competitive in Spain as a fighter.

Tony

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by tcolvin

The Typhoon 1B and FW 190A's were in that position in 1944 and certainly 1945 (http://luthier.stormloader.com/SFTacticsIII.htm).

Tony

A link to a flght sim gaming website — now I'm convinced.

[Kutscha]

Oh please Tony, the Fw190A could hold its own under 20,000ft. Even the Jabo F and G which had multiple aces in the double digit class.

[John Vasco]

Originally Posted by tcolvin

The problem arises, however, when the fighter carrying the bombs becomes uncompetitive and should be laid up in a museum or scrapped.
The Jagd part of the Jabo designation had a sell-by date.
So I would suggest your definition be changed to all fighters that can hold their own against enemy fighters, and that carry bombs, were fighter-bombers.

Tony

Once again, that word you love so well: BOLLOCKS!

Read again what you have actually written. It's a load of crap. Nothing less.

A fighter-bomber is a fighter-bomber, is a fighter-bomber. Period. Holding their own against enemy fighters doesn't come into it.

So by your reasoning/logic, the Bf 110s of Erprobungsgruppe 210 couldn't hold their own against Spitifres of the same period, so weren't fighter-bombers.

I do think you are digging an even bigger hole for yourself. Why don't you quit now while you're behind, and not totally out of sight? Please stop writing shite!

[tcolvin]

Originally Posted by John Vasco

Once again, that word you love so well: BOLLOCKS!

A fighter-bomber is a fighter-bomber, is a fighter-bomber. Period. Holding their own against enemy fighters doesn't come into it.
So by your reasoning/logic, the Bf 110s of Erprobungsgruppe 210 couldn't hold their own against Spitifres of the same period, so weren't fighter-bombers.

Some definitions;
Kampfflugzeug = fighter aircraft
Jäger = interceptor (fighter)
Zerstörer = heavy, long range (fighter)
Jagdbomber = Jägerbomber = interceptor (fighter) bomber
Kampfzerstörer = heavy, long range, with internal bombload (fighter)
Schnellbomber = fast, long range, with internal bombload (bomber)

Three questions.

1) Are the above definitions correct, and inclusive?

2) The RLM request for tender in 1934 for a Kampfzerstörer (with internal bombload) was answered by the Fw 57, the Hs 124 and the Bf 110 without a bomb-bay. The Bf 110 received the contract when the tender was changed to accommodate it.
But when the Bf 110 was fitted with bombs, why did it not then revert to being a Kampfzerstörer rather than a Jabo?

3) Is not the distinction referred to in 2) the very same as was made officially between the Me 262 Schwalbe (interceptor) and Me 262 Sturmvogel (Schnellbomber). And should it not equally apply to the Fw 190 A (interceptor) and Fw 190 F and G (Schnellbomber)?

These are not semantic quibbles. The RAF persisted in justifying the use of the Typhoon 1B in 1945 because, they said, it could hold its own against German fighters when bounced, and escape the fate of the Ju 87. Luckily for 2TAF, there were too few FW 190 Doras and Me 262 Schwalbes to prove them wrong. The RAF's deceit and misrepresentation were politically motivated, and successful.

Tony

[John Beaman]

Gentlemen, I am closing this thread. It has moved far beyond its original subject and some comments are bordering on personal attack instead of subject discussion. It is obvious that some points will not be resolved or even "agree to disagree".