Me 262 should have been used as a bomber?

[Roger Gaemperle]

Franek,

I completely agree with you, there is absolutely no reson to glorify it. Therefore, I tried to base all my statements on technical source documents. The 13.5km maximum service ceiling with bombs is given in a technical report of the Messerschmitt company. I even said that they had engine problems in summer and fall 1944. The fact that they found a way out of the most severe engine problems is based on the diary of the Technische Luftrüstung as well as Jumo reports and last but not least an US interrogation report. I hope you agree with me that using source documents is not glorifying the technical achievements of that time.

So, again, I couldn’t find any source document that states that it could fly above 13.5km. But they were able to fly at 13.5km with bombs according to Erprobungsbericht No. 50 (why should they lie in this report? There was no need for that). Assuming that it couldn’t fly much higher without bombs and assuming that your information regarding the maxium service ceiling (above 14’000m) is correct for the Sptifire, it has to assumed that the Me 262 could not reach it even if it had a pressurized cabin. But as I said in one of my earlier post, you will always find a special purpose aircraft that excels in its role but cannot outperform others in other roles. Just take the Me 163 and the Spitfire XIX as an example and talk about rate of climb. And then again, the Ar 234 could carry out reconnaissance missions as well over Allied territory without being harassed (which was less due to its maximum service ceiling but more due to the high speed at which it carried out these missions). And in the end it made no difference as there were much more serious problems the Luftwaffe was faced with than high flying enemy aircraft: inferior number of aircraft employed, fuel shortage, low quality of pilot training, collapsing logistics, enemy fighter bombers that waited over own airfields, etc. etc. The Me 262 could not win the war, neither did the Spitfire XIX. And as another member stated in this thread, if a technology did win the war, then it was the atomic bomb.

Regarding Soviet fighters. I am no expert of early Soviet jets, but I know that not only the engine but also the wing type and profile was important for the maximum service ceiling. But I really don’t want to start arguing about their performance as I believe that your information is based on true facts.

Regards
Roger Gaemperle

[Roger Gaemperle]

accidental double post

[Kutscha]

I am still waiting for Franek to tell us that the PR XIX ALWAYS flew at max altitude on EVERY mission. Hard to take photos from 14km when the cloud base is at say 10km.

[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.

[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.