![]() |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Me 262 should have been used as a bomber?
Guys, guys, guys... Robert, Spitfire XIX was an unarmed PR aircraft. She had better altitude performance than any jet up into 1950s. Up to appearance of MiG-15 they were flying untouched over the Soviet territories and Soviets had somewhat better jets than Germans.
Kutscha, you certainly mean PR.XI. How could a Spitfire flying at about 14 kms been intercepted by a Me 262 able to reach 11,5 km? |
#62
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Me 262 should have been used as a bomber?
Nick
I understand that tactical value was not only limited to speed. Also, maneuverability and as you said how fast it could intercept, etc. is important. Nevertheless, due to the high speed of the jets they could reach a target much faster than e.g. a Me 109 once they were at the same level. Of course there are pros and cons of the Me 262 (low manouverability compared to piston engined aircraft, unreliable engines, etc.) but if it hadn't been a superior aircraft IN GENERAL and the Spitfire and Meteors far superior the Allied wouldn't have touched it after the war (e.g. only very few Me 109 K-4 were captured and tested after the war compared to Me 262s). Of course, if you compare it with aircraft that were specifically designed for special roles (e.g. rocket interceptor, high altitude recon aircraft, pure fighter bomber, etc.) you will always find an aircraft superior in one specific feature: The P-51 was more maneuverable, the P-47 the more accurate fighter bomber, the Spitfire XIX the higher (and faster?) flying recon aircraft, the Me 163 the faster climbing fighter, the Lancaster the more weight carrying aircraft, etc. etc. So, there won't be an ultimate truth to this discussion but only arguments for and against one's point of view. And I don't want to say that one was better than the other as it is very difficult to compare aircraft that had different purposes. What I just wanted to say is that IN MY OPINION (and I don't claim this to be the absolute truth neither) what caused the higher losses of Me 262 to Allied fighters than vice versa was the far superior number of enemy aircraft in the sky of the Reich at the end of the war. Of course there are many other factors that added to this: poor quality of training of young German pilots at the end of the war, unreliable technology, unexperience with flying jets at high speed, new tacticts, etc. etc. And even if the Germans had enough fuel, experienced pilots, sovereignty over their airspace, larger numbers of own fighter in the sky than Allied ones, there would still have been losses of Me 262, but I think the balance would have looked quite different. But as this is a "what if" question, nobody can answer it but just argue for or against it. Franek, thanks for the correction. As I said, I am not a Spitfire expert and didn't even know that the XIX is an unarmed recon variant. Sorry for my ignorance. Regards Roger Gaemperle |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Me 262 should have been used as a bomber?
Franek, the service ceiling of the PR XIX was 42,600ft (13km). Did they always fly at their service ceiling? Btw, the Spit XIV had the approx. same max speed at the same altitude (~26kft) as the PR XIX and had a service ceiling ~1000ft higher than the PR XIX.
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-XIV-ads.jpg |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Me 262 should have been used as a bomber?
Roger, sorry for 'changing' your name, call it temporary mental disablement.
![]() Otherwise I do not agree with the numerical superiority argument. It is a common excuse but I would hardly call it a decisive factor. At least not in the context. Kutscha, in 1950s they flew at 14+ kms, perhaps at an earlier date they were not cleared for more. Nonetheless note that mentioned 13 km (have not checked it) is an operational altitude which is still 1,5 km more than the maximum ceiling of Me 262. Add to this obvious problems with intercepting the target and it means Spitfire 19 (post war marking) was untouchable. |
#65
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Me 262 should have been used as a bomber?
Franek, OK, the PR Spit was out of reach.
But was it a decisive factor in winning the air war over the Reich? Obviously not. Outnumbering the LW was! |
#66
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Me 262 should have been used as a bomber?
If my memory serves me correctly didn't Eric Brown the famous British Test Pilot say the Me 262 was probably the best aircraft he had ever flown (I think it was during some documentary on Discovery). He flew practically all British aircraft types, as well as many American and Axis types.
However even if the aircraft possessed great performance it would count for nothing if plagued with serviceability problems, used in the wrong role, grounded due to lack of fuel or unavailable in sufficient numbers which the Me 262 often was. A revolutionary aircraft but too little too late.
__________________
Per Speculationem Impellor ad Intelligendum |
#67
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Me 262 should have been used as a bomber?
Hello Andy
IIRC Brown's writings he wrote that the best planes he flew were Spitfire/Seafire and F-86 Sabre. |
#68
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Me 262 should have been used as a bomber?
Hi Juha,
Like I said I was going on memory and TV interviews/documentaries are often edited so that comments are quoted out of context. Maybe he said "one of the best" aircraft he had ever flown or the "best Axis type". Thanks for the correction
__________________
Per Speculationem Impellor ad Intelligendum |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Me 262 should have been used as a bomber?
I seem to have lost my last two posts.
At the risk of wandering too far from the point, can I point out that the ability to fly reconnaissance missions anywhere over enemy territory, with little or no effect interference: to see what the enemy has got, where it is placed, what he is doing with it, and the results of your own actions; certainly should have been decisive. Not THE decisive effort, but one of the most important. I would also point out that being outnumbered did not seem to be a problem to the Germans earlier in the war. Simply being outnumbered was not decisive in itself. |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Me 262 should have been used as a bomber?
Just a quick note on outnumbering the Luftwaffe. IIRC, the Eastern front in the final stages of the war might have seemed a better area to demonstrate the effect of overwhelming numerical superiority against the Luftwaffe. However, using the Luftwaffe's own data, loss rates per mission were several times higher in the West versus the East. There are many factors which may have affected the numbers, but allied numeric superiority is probably overplayed and does not give enough weight the relative level of tactics, training and equipment opposing the Luftwaffe late in the war.
Best Regards, Artie Bob |
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
KG51 Me 262 claims / confirmed kills & Me 262 9K+BH | Roger Gaemperle | Luftwaffe and Axis Air Forces | 4 | 27th November 2017 21:44 |
Me 262 wn 111755 | FRANCESCO M LENTINI | Luftwaffe and Axis Air Forces | 5 | 29th November 2006 02:53 |
VVS divisions | Mike35nj | Allied and Soviet Air Forces | 2 | 7th August 2006 13:27 |
Losses of B-17's in RCM role | paul peters | Allied and Soviet Air Forces | 4 | 15th February 2006 20:57 |
Bomber Aces | Jim Oxley | Allied and Soviet Air Forces | 18 | 14th October 2005 19:46 |