Me 262 should have been used as a bomber?

[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.

[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.

[Six Nifty .50s]

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

[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.

[Six Nifty .50s]

Originally Posted by CJE

As an afterthought - what would it have mattered if the Germans has built thousands more conventional fighters ? What use would they have been without the fuel to fly them ?

Right.
But let's push the reasonning to its limits.
Had they had thousands more fighters, maybe they would have prevented the 8th AF from shattering their synthetic oil plants?

Now that you're on the subject of What-Ifs ... I've read a convincing argument that the RAF and USAAF should have instead concentrated more efforts against Germany's power grid. It would have taken comparatively less effort to literally and figuratively turn out the lights on The Third Reich.

The idea was explored at the time, but decision makers guessed incorrectly that Germany had the means and infrastructure to quickly repair power plants. After the war, the bombing survey teams discovered that Germany's national power supply was a much more fragile system than believed. There were many power plants but knocking out just four would have seriously crippled Nazi war industry, and it would have taken several months or more to restore a large power station with serious bomb damage.

[Graham Boak]

Franek: I believe it is in Chris Shores' original 2 TAF book for Osprey.

If it isn't there, then it probably is in some of the work I read through when employed in Operational Analysis, and no longer have any access to nor record of sources used.

[Franek Grabowski]

Thanks, Graham!

[Jon]

Hi Nick,

Sorry i didnt explain my reason very well when i stated the 262 could not survive in a Mustang and P47 infested sky for very long.
I agree that if being hunted at altitude the 262 certainly had an edge over all piston aircraft and a pilot could keep out of trouble if he wished. The problem came when they got sucked intoa dog fight with US and RAF fighters and, even more importantly during landing and take off at low slow speeds.
The simple numbers of Allied fighters available in 1944/45 was against the Luftwaffe, the 262's were too late to alter anything.
Had they been about in 42/43 then things would have been very different.

Still wish the Meteor had been rushed over to take on the 262's rather than stay home after the V1 bombs.

[John Vasco]

Graham,

As one Lancastrian to another, I have to say that I think you did not see the programme that was shown on UK TV in the last 12-18 months which took apart the US claims of the accuracy of their jet fighter-bombers in recent conflicts (it might have been on the History Channel). Their accuracy claims were grossly overstated, and this programme proved the case. I wish I would have videod it. I was frankly surprised that with all of the modern technology they possessed, they were nowhere near as accurate as one would expect.

As for accuracy with the 262 given its high speed, which others have mentioned, it all boils down to speed, dive angle, height and point of release. And that's not from me, but from the Lw pilots who were doing it in WW2 that I interviewed.