Me 262 should have been used as a bomber?

[Graham Boak]

Kutscha: Not a lot of point in taking photos at any altitude if cloud covers the intended target, though weather reconnaissance is an important part of any intelligence gathering, of course, and there remains the possibility of alternative targets where the weather could be better. It was a fairly common event during the war, and built into the operating procedures. Therefore there is little point to the last posting. (I don't think the PR Mk.XIX always operated at 14km either - but then it didn't need to.)

Roger: Examples of the Ar 234 were shot down on their missions over Allied lines. If this counts as not being harassed we have different dictionaries.

This discussion has moved significantly away from its original intent. If it has dissolved into a pissing contest then Ruy should close it down.

[Roger Gaemperle]

Graham,

Please. No aircraft was invincible and as far as I can tell without referring to books the Ar 234 that were shot down were mostly bombers and if reconnaissance Ar 234 then not at high altitude and at high speed. Even a Spitfire XIX was vulnerable during climbing and landing.

I really cannot understand your statement that this discussion is a "pissing contest". Could you elaborate? I hope I didn't offend anybody.

I think it is an interesting thread where at least I learned some new facts previously unknown to me and I hope most of the other members see this also in the same light.

Regards
Roger Gaemperle

[Franek Grabowski]

Roger, but what was the point, please? Somebody has tried to prove Meteor was hopeless because Spitfire XIX was found a better photo-reconnaissance aircraft. Now, what is the purpose claiming that Spitfire XIX was a highly specialised aircraft? Everyone knows she was. But still, she was better at high altitude work than any jet available until 1950.
Graham, do not underestimate weather service. This was the most important reconnaissance but it had no glamour at all.
Kutscha, it would help if you read my posts, actually.

[Roger Gaemperle]

Franek,

With my remarks about the development of the engines and about the performance recorded in the Messerschmitt report I wanted to point out -based on hard facts - that the Me 262 was not that bad as it was intially asserted and the main reason that it rarely flew between 12'000m - 13'500m were mainly due to the missing cabin pressure and the major target being bombers at lower altitudes.

If you mean higher flying with better you are right if it flew higher than 13'500meters, which I also admitted in my last post. The Ar 234 didn't fly so high as the Spitfire but it was faster than any other propeller driven fighter at 10'000m making it a very effective reconnaissance plane as well. But of course, this fact shouldn't diminish the Spitfire's performance and maximum service ceiling which apparently was unrivaled until years after the war. If I offended you by stating technical facts, I have to apologize.

For me, not being familiar with Spitfires, this thread provided interesting and new information to me and was not intended as "pissing contest" whatsoever. And honestly, I don't see why anybody should see it this way.

I hope we can now go back to a constructive discussion again.

Regards
Roger Gaemperle

[Graham Boak]

I wasn't underestimating weather reconnaissance, but most important work was done to the west of the UK because of the prevailing winds. I was pointing out that useful information could be obtained even if the prime mission proved abortive.

[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.