# How would the Allies have dealt with large numbers of ME 262s?



## CobberKane (Aug 3, 2013)

Pursuant to the ongoing discussion about the ME 262; it is often said that if the Luftwaffe's jet had been available in numbers and earlier it would have lengthened the war, but not won it. Assuming this is so, lets say the 262 did appear en masse just as the P-51 became available, and started knocking down USAAF bombers in something like the numbers it enthusiasts said it could have. What would the Allies as a whole have done to counter this new threat? I'm thinking of a tactical and strategic responses from both the USAAF and the RAF.


----------



## davebender (Aug 3, 2013)

U.S. 8th Air Force would switch to night bombing. There is no other realistic option.

There won't be a Normandy invasion as long as Me-262s own the French sky during daytime. German jet production facilities and operating bases would move to top of U.S. 8th Air Force priority list. In fact they would probably be only thing on the list as long as Me-262s continue to operate in large numbers.


----------



## Civettone (Aug 3, 2013)

I agree with Dave. 

There is no cure against the Me 262. Only option is night bombing the Me 262 and Jumo 004 factories and of course attacking the chemical industry. 

Kris


----------



## Jenisch (Aug 3, 2013)

It's logic, but the Allied jet programs would have to be put in maximum priority (if they already not were historically).


----------



## Greyman (Aug 3, 2013)

Eventually, nuclear weapons.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Aug 3, 2013)

Given that the Me-262 didn't appear until after the Western Allies had landed in Normandy, I'd say the UK and US have several options for dealing with the aircraft.

The first is to divert some bomber resources away from the industrial/transport/oil/urban campaigns and towards bombing fighter bases. Day bombing by USAAF and night bombing by RAF would certainly have an impact on German fighter ops.

Secondary to this would be a change in fighter basing tactics. I'd suggest that the USAAF would have accelerated the shift of fighter bases away from the UK and onto continental Europe. This way the fighters can hunt -262s on the ground in France and Germany. Rat catching on a grand scale.

Another option would be to switch bombing to -262 production facilities, particularly engine plants.


----------



## Erich (Aug 3, 2013)

with all your logic and if the 262 is in numbers then you open up the LW Nf force using 262's, goodbye bombers at an alarming rate with no defense against them


----------



## CobberKane (Aug 3, 2013)

Erich said:


> with all your logic and if the 262 is in numbers then you open up the LW Nf force using 262's, goodbye bombers at an alarming rate with no defense against them


 
But would the 262 have been an effective night fighter? Even in broad daylight experienced pilots had problems compensating for the speed at which it closed on bombers - how much more difficult would it have been in darkness? Sure, the 262 could have slowed down, but if that was required, why fly a jet in any case? Something like the Uhu would have been plenty fast enough, have greater endurance, be much easier to produce and maintain and far easier to land and take off in darkness.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 3, 2013)

assuming that the Luftwaffe ignored all other early jet opportunities and did focus on the Me262 early on, it would have made the skies over Europe dangerous, but not unbeatable. Bear in mind that the Allies had thier own jets in the works and it would have been just a matter of time before they met each other in a showdown...

As far as night bombing goes, it would have been just as dangerous at night...the Me262B-1a/U1 trainer was retro-fitted with FuG 218 radar and did engage and destroy Mosquitos over Berlin in night action, for example.


----------



## Civettone (Aug 3, 2013)

Negative on the Allied jet fighters: no way would they get the range needed to escort bombers to Germany. 
There is a thread about that right now: the P-80 might have had decent range, it would be too fast to escort B-17s. Slowing down would have wasted too much fuel.

The Me 262 as a night fighter? As Erich will tell you, the Me 262B-1a was not very suited as a NF, but the later Me 262B-2 (which in this case would also have appeared in 1944) was going to be an excellent night fighter. The notion that it is too fast, is just nonsense. All postwar night fighters were jets, just think of the Meteor NF or F-94, which were to intercept Tu-4s. The reason why their speed is important, is because it makes the interception much faster and allows them to move from one scene to another. 

Kris


----------



## Civettone (Aug 3, 2013)

-


----------



## swampyankee (Aug 3, 2013)

Delay the war a few months, and it's time for the nukes. I also think it's difficult to argue with the statement that the US and UK would not have considered an aircraft engine with the absolutely crappy service life of the Me262 engines into service, which delayed the entry of the USAAF's and RAF's into service: it wasn't that the Germans were better with jet technology; it's that they were willing to accept engines that had idiotically short service lives.

And if the USAAF or RAF decided it needed a jet bomber, do you really think they couldn't get one into service? Construction of the prototypes of the B-45 started in late 1944 after a development program that started earlier that year. P-80 development started in early 1943; a prototype was delivered later that year. If, in 1943, the USAAF felt the need for a jet bomber in Europe, they probably could have had one in squadron service by late 1944. The USAAF and RAF didn't get significant numbers of jets into service over Europe by the end of WW2 because they didn't need to, not because they were so technologically inferior they couldn't.


----------



## Jenisch (Aug 4, 2013)

A good quantity of jets also would allow the Germans to strike the bomber bases in England. The question is how they would have stood against the Meteor and the P-80.


----------



## CobberKane (Aug 4, 2013)

If you are going to compare the meteor to the 262, you have to look at what they were flying against. As you said, in the case of the Meteor it would have been intercepting the likes of the Tu-4, which was effectively a B-29, flying much higher and faster than anything the Allies had in WWII Europe. For that kind of target a 262 night fighter would have made sense, certainly, just as it did against the swift and elusive Mosquito. But against and B-17 or Lancaster all that extra speed is unnecessary, particularly if it comes in an aircraft that is much more expensive than the excellent conventional designs available, and can stay in the air for far less time. I suspect the 262 night fighter may have been a response to the existing problem of the Mosquito and the imminent problem of the B-29 rather than a response to Lancasters.
One other thing to consider: Mosquito intruders took a heavy toll on LW night fighters by loitering around airfields and nailing them as they took off and landed. How would the 262, which committed it's pilot to a take-off and landing run many miles long, have fared against this tactic?


----------



## GregP (Aug 4, 2013)

If the Me 262 had been available earlier, there is no reason to think the P-80, Meteor, and Vampire would not have been available as well.

I say we'd send in the P-80's and the British would send in the Meteors and Vampires.

Korean War in Europe 7 - 8 years early.


----------



## Jenisch (Aug 4, 2013)

And what about the "relay" system to keep the P-80s together with the bombers?


----------



## CobberKane (Aug 4, 2013)

Maybe I should have specified that for the purposes of discussion, the 262 came on line earlier, but the allied jets did not. In any case, I can't see P-80s escorting B-17s. B-29s maybe, as Sabres did in Korea. maybe if the 262s had lengthened the war by 12 months that would have happened.


----------



## GregP (Aug 4, 2013)

I never thought they ALlied jets would be escorts. I figured it would jet versus jet and let the P-51's do the escort thing. Meanwhile the jets would time it to show up about where the German jets were based when the bombers got there and have at it.

Putting the Me 262 out that much earlier is dubious enough, but saying the allies wouldn't or couldn't respond in kind at some point soon thereafter isn't giving much credibility to the scenario. 

It is fortunate that didn't happen.


----------



## stona (Aug 4, 2013)

About 130-150 jet powered Luftwaffe aircraft of all types were shot down during the war. The majority were Me 262s. Given the small number operating this makes them far from invulnerable. They were so vulnerable on take off and landing that they required protection from piston engine fighters. This vulnerability, particularly on take-off, extended for several kilometres from the airfield.
Does anyone imagine that the allies would not have exploited this more fully had the Me 262 ever developed into a serious threat?

As far as the effectiveness of the type as a night fighter, this has little to do with the aircraft and much to do with its electronic systems and radar which would be no better than any other contemporary Luftwaffe night fighter. A surfeit of speed, combined with a relatively low rate of fire from the main armament does not make an interception easy in day light, never mind at night. The most successful night fighter pilots were flying at the same speed as their targets when they engaged. To use "Schrage music" they effectively flew in formation with the target. Accelerating and decelerating the Me 262 was not one of its strong points.

The idea that had in, some parallel universe, the Me 262 arrived in numbers sooner and that the allies would not have reacted with their own well financed and supplied jet programmes is not sensible. The Germans did not have the huge technological advantage that some seem to imagine.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## vinnye (Aug 4, 2013)

I agree with Stona.
The Allied fighters were aware of the weaknesses of the LW jet engines on take off and landing. Had the LW had more jets and or had them earlier, I believe the "rat catching" missions would have increased in number and importance. There would almost certainly been an increase in raids on these airfields by intruder type missions flown by Mossies?


----------



## CobberKane (Aug 4, 2013)

vinnye said:


> I agree with Stona.
> The Allied fighters were aware of the weaknesses of the LW jet engines on take off and landing. Had the LW had more jets and or had them earlier, I believe the "rat catching" missions would have increased in number and importance. There would almost certainly been an increase in raids on these airfields by intruder type missions flown by Mossies?


 
I think the last few posts pretty much sum up my thoughts on the subject, but for the record, had there been significant numbers of 262s dishing it out to daylight bombers prior to D-day, I'm thinking the following might have happened.
 
1. Heavy bombers might have been forced to operate only at night. If so they would have gone after anything associated with 262 production. The 262 would have been particularly vulnerable to interference in its production lines, because it was highly complex to build and once delivered, wore out far more quickly than conventional fighters. The 262 would not have been any more effective against night bombing than conventional night fighters, probably less so.
2.By the time daylight bombing could resume, the Allies would be ready to absolutely blanket enemy airfields and nail the 262s on take off and landing, like they did in reality but times ten.
3. in the mean time, lots and lots of Mosquitos bombing and shooting things up by day on low level missions. The 262 was the only German aircraft that could reliably intercept the Mossie at altitude, but even for it low level Mosquito raids would have been an issue, at least if they didn't penetrate to far and over-reach.

Of course, as has been mentioned, all this doesn't take into account the Atomic bomb. Probably had the Germans been that far ahead in jet production a lot more people would have died, and most of them would have been German civilians.


----------



## stona (Aug 4, 2013)

CobberKane said:


> a lot more people would have died, and most of them would have been German civilians.



I think it is often forgotten that despite the almost incomprehensible atrocities of the holocaust, the savage war in the East and other campaigns, the German people themselves were amongst the principle victims of the Nazis.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Civettone (Aug 4, 2013)

Was the Me 262 specifically vulnerable at take off? Did its jet engines really take minutes to gear up? Or was this a common thread for aircraft? Couldn't it be that the Allies knew it was the only times they could hope to shoot down a jet fighter?? The Allies had the capability of patrolling near known German jet bases. This would not have been possible prior to the liberation of France nor would it have been possible once the Me 262s were ruling the skies.


Kris


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 4, 2013)

Civettone said:


> Was the Me 262 specifically vulnerable at take off? Did its jet engines really take minutes to gear up? Or was this a common thread for aircraft? Couldn't it be that the Allies knew it was the only times they could hope to shoot down a jet fighter?? The Allies had the capability of patrolling near known German jet bases. This would not have been possible prior to the liberation of France nor would it have been possible once the Me 262s were ruling the skies.



A lot of the early jets took a while to get up to speed ( a lot of the later ones simply have an insane power to weight ratio).
Not only did the early jets have poor throttle response or need to have throttles opened slowly but the jet exhaust is a very poor transmitter of power at low speed. For the _same_ thrust the actual horse power varies from 0 while stationary to max at a speed that matches the velocity of the exhaust gases. SO actual power at 150-200mph was pretty low. 
Even piston planes take a while to get up to speed which is why a lot of the "book" figures for ranges at cruising speeds of 180-120mph are worthless for figuring actual combat ranges.
High top speeds do not always mean high acceleration and that was particularly true of early jets.


The British tested a Hawker Tempest against a Meteor III and at 250/260 Imph at 8,000 ft the acceleration was identical, if starting at an indicated 190mph the Tempest pulled ahead to begin with "but, after about thirty seconds and as the accelerating speed approached 300mph Meteor IAS the jet drew away rapidly and was out of range, that is, 600yds, in about 1.5 minutes"*

The Tempest was good for 381mph at 1000ft while the Meteor was good for 465mph and at 15,000ft the the Tempest was good for 416mph and Meteor 471mph. 

Now if the Tempest caught a Meteor taking off or landing at a speed of around 200mph while the Tempest was doing anywhere near 350mph what are the Meteor's chances? 

Please note that it took the Tempest about a minute and a half to go from around 190mph to full speed. 

* Figures are from the Aerofax book "Gloster Meteor" by Phil Butler and Tony Buttler.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Aug 4, 2013)

Large numbers of Me-262s?

From wikipedia: Military production during World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Total Allied *Fighter* production: ~215,000
Total Axis _*Fighter*_ Production: ~95,000

Total German _fighter_ production: ~53,000 (if counting attack-configured FW-190s I expect this number to be a bit (~12,000?) higher. 

The allies outproduced the axis: 2+:1 in fighters, 3:1 in attack, 5:1 in bombers, and perhaps most important: 8:1 in transport and 8:1 in trainers

Of course some of the allies were fighting two wars, but not knowing for sure, I expect the commitment to the ETO was significantly in excess of that to the PTO, so it still doesn't seem to indicate a technologically-weighted parity could be reached such that pure technological superiority would make a significant impact. Moreover, allied fighter production was essentially unimpaired by the war and could ramp up to meet demand, whereas axis production was suffering continued depredation. 

For mounting any war time effort, the allies had almost 20 times the Crude oil resources of Germany and nearly 2.5 times the iron ore.

I expect the raw numbers tell only part of the story, I would suspect that total operational allied fighters in the ETO/MTO during the period 1943 through 1945 would outweigh those of the LW by a significantly increasing margin with time. I've never seen a graph but that's my suspicion.


----------



## vinnye (Aug 4, 2013)

I also wonder if the P38 might have had a bigger role if there were more Me262's flying. The P38 had the range to roam around the LW airfields waiting for the jets to take off or land?
I know the LW would have (did) add piston engined fighters to try to provide cover for the jets - with how much success?


----------



## razor1uk (Aug 4, 2013)

Certainly they had more success with them than without, but only as long as the higher octane fuel supply to (and) the localised airfield fuel stores lasted.... Depends also upon the number and types of allied A/C conducting rhubarbs and anti airfield operations in the area too.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 4, 2013)

They simply would have laughed at the failure known as the Me 262 (because it is not a P-80 or Meteor...). 



(No, I do not actually believe this. I am being sarcastic.)


----------



## stona (Aug 4, 2013)

Hans Fey, who helpfully delivered his Me 262 to the western allies in March 1945 gave three pieces of advice on how to shoot down an Me 262.

1 Aim at the engines, they catch fire more readily than "conventional" types.

2 Overcome the advantage in speed by an advantage in altitude. The Me 262 was not at all manoeuvrable (he said for example that it was slow in turns and couldn't Split S in less than 9,000 to 12,000 ft). Allied fighters should trade altitude for speed (nothing new here) making a straight escape risky for the Me 262 and then exploit its lack of manoeuvrability.

3 Catch the Me 262 in its traffic pattern. Fey considered it most vulnerable when landing since due to its very limited endurance it would almost certainly be low on fuel as well as slow in this phase of an operation.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Milosh (Aug 4, 2013)

vinnye said:


> I also wonder if the P38 might have had a bigger role if there were more Me262's flying. The P38 had the range to roam around the LW airfields waiting for the jets to take off or land?
> I know the LW would have (did) add piston engined fighters to try to provide cover for the jets - with how much success?



There was also large numbers of light and medium flak (up to 200 barrels). They would be arranged alongside the landing and take off paths.


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 4, 2013)

> once the Me 262s were ruling the skies.



Despite the superiority of the Me 262's performance over Allied piston engine aircraft, an increase in numbers wouldn't have changed the situation by as much as we are allowing ourselves to believe - the coutcome would certainly not be any different. The Me 262 was a terrific aeroplane and engine issues aside (yes, these existed alright) The Germans lost because of the sheer weight of numbers of Allied opposition. It was the application of resources as well and as others have stated, the Allies would not have just sat back and allowed such a marked increase in performance by the LW to go unchecked for too long. Look at what happened when the Fw 190 first appeared; the British Air Staff rewrote its future needs around how best to counter it as quickly as possible practically overnight.

As for the assertion that US heavy bombers would have to take to night operations; again, I don't believe that would take place. I think we are overestimating what the Me 262's impact might be. Yes, losses of bombers would be higher, but why would they be so high that the US Strategic bombing campaign would be threatened? The Americans would throw more aircraft in the air as escorts and yes, these would also suffer losses, but again, we are assuming that the Allies would just bungle along as normal without reacting to the circumstances as they unfolded (a common assumption made by German technology enthusiasts). The aviation industry relied on specific materials that the Germans could not get their hands on toward the end of the war and targetting essential industries and airfields would be a top priority by the Allies. For an example of how superior technology made little difference to things, look at the A-4 (V 2) rocket; unstoppable and unpredictable once launched, but bomb the bejesus out of its production and research facilities and its overall impact is lessened considerably.

Any lead the Me 262 in larger numbers would have given the Germans would not be in place for long and the Allied war industry would eventually do what it actually did; outproduce the Germans (and the Japanese). We forget that the Allies did not win because they had overwhelmingly superior technology; as we all know, the Germans were working on weapons the Allies could not have immediately countered had they entered service, but the end result would have been the same because the Allies had a bigger industrial base and more resources than their enemies.


----------



## stona (Aug 4, 2013)

We tend to remember designs by Lippisch, the Horten brothers and others as being revolutionary, but they were not the only ones working on such things. Shenstone (of Spitfire fame) had worked with Lippisch in his design office at Ursinus House in 1930/31 after his time at Junkers and is one of the non-German fathers of the delta wing.
In 1938 he proposed this incredible looking design!







Cheers

Steve


----------



## Civettone (Aug 4, 2013)

nuuumannn said:


> Despite the superiority of the Me 262's performance over Allied piston engine aircraft, an increase in numbers wouldn't have changed the situation by as much as we are allowing ourselves to believe - the coutcome would certainly not be any different. The Me 262 was a terrific aeroplane and engine issues aside (yes, these existed alright) The Germans lost because of the sheer weight of numbers of Allied opposition. It was the application of resources as well and as others have stated, the Allies would not have just sat back and allowed such a marked increase in performance by the LW to go unchecked for too long. Look at what happened when the Fw 190 first appeared; the British Air Staff rewrote its future needs around how best to counter it as quickly as possible practically overnight.
> 
> As for the assertion that US heavy bombers would have to take to night operations; again, I don't believe that would take place. I think we are overestimating what the Me 262's impact might be. Yes, losses of bombers would be higher, but why would they be so high that the US Strategic bombing campaign would be threatened? The Americans would throw more aircraft in the air as escorts and yes, these would also suffer losses, but again, we are assuming that the Allies would just bungle along as normal without reacting to the circumstances as they unfolded (a common assumption made by German technology enthusiasts). The aviation industry relied on specific materials that the Germans could not get their hands on toward the end of the war and targetting essential industries and airfields would be a top priority by the Allies. For an example of how superior technology made little difference to things, look at the A-4 (V 2) rocket; unstoppable and unpredictable once launched, but bomb the bejesus out of its production and research facilities and its overall impact is lessened considerably.
> 
> Any lead the Me 262 in larger numbers would have given the Germans would not be in place for long and the Allied war industry would eventually do what it actually did; outproduce the Germans (and the Japanese). We forget that the Allies did not win because they had overwhelmingly superior technology; as we all know, the Germans were working on weapons the Allies could not have immediately countered had they entered service, but the end result would have been the same because the Allies had a bigger industrial base and more resources than their enemies.


I completely agree that we should be careful with what-if scenarios. All variables can change. Action causes reaction.
But what would the Allies do against the Me 262? You say they wouldn't just sit back and accept the situation. But if so, what would they do??

You say that the Bomber offensive would continue anyway. This is simply not true: in 1943 the campaign was stopped due to its high losses. If Me 262s inflict bomber losses of a certain degree, the offensive will be stopped. Sure, the bomber groups will continue to expand and they will try again. But there is no easy fix against the Me 262. The Allies were lucky that they bombed the oil industry before the Me 262 became operational, that they could circle the Me 262 air fields before there were too many jets to drive them away. 

Once airborne, the Me 262 was the best bomber destroyer available. Later, with all-weather equipment, improved Jumo 004B-4 engines and R4M rockets, it is the ultimate bomber destroyer. And there would be no Allied response to that.
Kris


----------



## davebender (Aug 4, 2013)

Me-110G and Ju-88G worked just fine against Lancaster bomber. They will work just as well against B-17s and B-24s operating at night.


----------



## stona (Aug 4, 2013)

davebender said:


> Me-110G and Ju-88G worked just fine against Lancaster bomber. They will work just as well against B-17s and B-24s operating at night.



Yes they will. But would they inflict unsustainable losses? They came close against Bomber Command (which itself, in its official history, acknowledges the Battle of Berlin as a defeat) but close wasn't good enough.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## stona (Aug 4, 2013)

Civettone said:


> Once airborne, the Me 262 was the best bomber destroyer available. Later, with all-weather equipment, improved Jumo 004B-4 engines and R4M rockets, it is the ultimate bomber destroyer. And there would be no Allied response to that.
> Kris



The allies would still have shot them down, plenty were shot down. Hans Fey explained quite nicely how to do it. The only advantage it had was speed and this could be negated when the jet was attacked from an advantageous position. It couldn't out manoeuvre a pork pie. They were far from invulnerable. The point has already been made by myself and others that the Luftwaffe would simply be overwhelmed.

BTW when was the USAAF bomber offensive halted? It was certainly altered, a natural response to an unfavourable tactical situation experienced on deep penetration raids, but I don't recall it being stopped for any significant period. I suppose there was a distinct lull in September (43) and ultimately Eaker lost his job. Arnold told his British colleagues in Cairo that December that there was a problem in the 8th that needed to be fixed. “Only a new commander divorced from day to day routine could achieve this.”

Cheers

Steve


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Aug 4, 2013)

Of course, the point that circumstances in 1943 lead to suspension of the campaign is I think a relevant observation and a historical analog to a possible 8th AF response. Even so, I think it comes down to a numbers game but perhaps not in the way you may think. When are the 262's available and what's in the allies inventory to respond? Do the 262's suddenly appear in large numbers and if so when does that somewhat unlikely event happen? There is typically a ramp-up to full deployment of large numbers of any new type. There are chains of events that need to occur for that to happen and these may be detectable to intelligence gathering organs. I think a model scenario of allied ignorance is both unlikely and a-historical. 

IIRC, to the dismay of the bomber crews, Doolittle unleashed the fighters to rampage across germany in early 1944. So the 262's have to become a dominant factor in LW air defense before that. But before January 1944, the bombing campaign is already suspended. It seems to me, the wide ranging P-51 whose legs seem to practically trump 262 speed, comes into play exactly at the optimal time the 262 might have been deployed in increased numbers. Before that, the 262 wasn't needed. After that, it becomes a production and deployment race between P-51s and 262s. It seems to me the USAAF wins that race hands down. JMO

I understand the P-38 was most problematic at high altitude in the ETO. It had good legs but how was its endurance at medium to low altitude? Was it a possible surrogate for, or to augment the P-51's airbase suppression campaign? Just asking. Probably insufficient in numbers unless deployment policy changed for some reason.

I believe the bomber campaign halted after the Schweinfurt raid, October 15, 1943, and resumed in early 1944


----------



## vinnye (Aug 4, 2013)

Milosh, I take your point about the flak that was repositioned to around the jet airfields. But, the allies could still afford to run the risk of losing P51s, P38s or Mossies if they did enough damage to the 262s on take off or landing or being readied for flight.
Another thought is that the LW had problems training sufficient pilots for piston engined fighters, I do not see them producing jet pilots in bulk even if they miraculously produced the jets!


----------



## swampyankee (Aug 4, 2013)

CobberKane said:


> Pursuant to the ongoing discussion about the ME 262; it is often said that if the Luftwaffe's jet had been available in numbers and earlier it would have lengthened the war, but not won it. Assuming this is so, lets say the 262 did appear en masse just as the P-51 became available, and started knocking down USAAF bombers in something like the numbers it enthusiasts said it could have. What would the Allies as a whole have done to counter this new threat? I'm thinking of a tactical and strategic responses from both the USAAF and the RAF.



Put a lot more effort into getting their jets fielded, of course. The jets -- Meteor, P-80, Vampire -- could probably have been pushed into squadron service several months earlier than historical. That they were not available over the skies of Europe was because they were not needed, not because the US and UK were incapable.


----------



## stona (Aug 4, 2013)

vinnye said:


> Another thought is that the LW had problems training sufficient pilots for piston engined fighters, I do not see them producing jet pilots in bulk even if they miraculously produced the jets!



It is claimed by some old Luftwaffe hands that a Bf 109 or Fw 190 could be converted to the Me 262 with an hours training which seems optimistic. Even if true those trained piston engine pilots have to be available, which was a problem for the Luftwaffe. Presumably they would also have to be replaced, another problem.

An even bigger problem was the lack of spares, infrastructure and personnel to support the new aircraft. This applies to any new type. Check the improvement in He 177 serviceability once its maintenance problems were finally addressed. It is even more critical for a new type with a propulsion system unfamiliar to most Luftwaffe technicians.

Logistics, logistics and then logistics win campaigns. Ask Wellington, or Patton, or Henry V (he took 3 million arrows to France), or Julius Caesar.

Cheers
Steve


----------



## RCAFson (Aug 4, 2013)

How soon can the P-51H or equivalent be introduced in large numbers?

Another option would be to strip daylight bombers of all defensive armament except the tail turret, lighten the bomb loads and increase cruise speed to the maximum possible. This would reduce contact time with Luftwaffe fighters and reduce losses via Flak and probably reduce overall losses. It would also better match escort fighter and bomber cruise speeds.


----------



## swampyankee (Aug 4, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> How soon can the P-51H or equivalent be introduced in large numbers?
> 
> Another option would be to strip daylight bombers of all defensive armament except the tail turret, lighten the bomb loads and increase cruise speed to the maximum possible. This would reduce contact time with Luftwaffe fighters and reduce losses via Flak and probably reduce overall losses. It would also better match escort fighter and bomber cruise speeds.



I think that some people were doing operations research during and shortly after the war, and concluded that the defensive armament in the heavy bombers was, counter-intuitively, _increasing_ casualties, as the gunners increased crew size without commensurate decrease in the probability of a plane's being lost.


----------



## RCAFson (Aug 4, 2013)

swampyankee said:


> I think that some people were doing operations research during and shortly after the war, and concluded that the defensive armament in the heavy bombers was, counter-intuitively, _increasing_ casualties, as the gunners increased crew size without commensurate decrease in the probability of a plane's being lost.



Exactly. I think the Allies had lots of cards to play if the Me-262 appeared sooner and in greater numbers.


----------



## davebender (Aug 4, 2013)

They will until Allies land an invasion force along channel coast. Germany needs that space for forward deployment of air raid warning units and night fighter units.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 4, 2013)

RCAFson said:


> Another option would be to strip daylight bombers of all defensive armament except the tail turret, lighten the bomb loads and increase cruise speed to the maximum possible. This would reduce contact time with Luftwaffe fighters and reduce losses via Flak and probably reduce overall losses. It would also better match escort fighter and bomber cruise speeds.



Deleting a good portion of the armament actually does very little for an _existing_ design. See the difference in performance for some of the British bomber's transport versions. The British were very slow to adopt cruising at a max lean cruise power which could increase cruising speeds without impacting either load or range by very much. 
Operational ceiling would probably go up more than cruise speed. 
A problem for the US is the large formations, Formation speed is governed by the _worst_ aircraft in the formation on the _outside_ of a turn. I am not sure if they figured in a battle damage allowance. Since stragglers were much more likely to get shot down the Formation _may_ have cruised at less than max cruise in order to keep damaged aircraft in the formation (within reason, 3 engine aircraft might be too slow)

US top turrets were a lot lower than British top turrets and would likely have less drag, The ball turret might be another story and the bow turrets might have been ditched. Waist guns depend on covers/windows fitted.


----------



## F-16 (Aug 4, 2013)

Did the Soviets not made the best anti-air fire at some stage or was it artillery, I saw it on Discovery Channel firing multiple missiles short after each other, looked very modern for it's time. I believe this installation could also be forwarded by horses to make it mobile in slobbery surfaces. Anyway, they would have made better anti-air (I think) if there were more dangerous planes.


----------



## razor1uk (Aug 4, 2013)

Stalins Organ(s) ...no not that one, otherwise known as Katushka, ground to ground bombardment/artillery rockets I believe from your description F16. 
The early rockets were initially aerial rockets fired from bomber interceptors, converted to fire from truck or trailer mounted frames of rails.


----------



## bobbysocks (Aug 4, 2013)

i dont believe daylight bombing would have ceased unless all other avenues failed. i am sure the allies would have tried several different tactics and adapted. every scheme and effort would be put into catching the 262s flatfooted...on the ground or taking off. i think it can be done.


----------



## Civettone (Aug 4, 2013)

swampyankee said:


> Put a lot more effort into getting their jets fielded, of course. The jets -- Meteor, P-80, Vampire -- could probably have been pushed into squadron service several months earlier than historical. That they were not available over the skies of Europe was because they were not needed, not because the US and UK were incapable.


They did not have the range to operate over Germany. 



stona said:


> The allies would still have shot them down, plenty were shot down. Hans Fey explained quite nicely how to do it. The only advantage it had was speed and this could be negated when the jet was attacked from an advantageous position.


The Me 262 was superior to the P-51, the same way the P-51 was superior to the 109 and 190: its speed! The P-51s ONLY chance to kill a Me 262 was to surprise a Me 262 by diving down on it and momentarily match its speed. (Or of course circling over its airfield) The Me 262 had superior speed and climb rate. It could break off at will. The P-51 had to rely on manoeuvrability to escape from a Me 262. Unfortunately, this is also what the Japanese Zero had left when compared to the F-6F and P-47, or all those agile planes of the countries Germany conquered in 1940/1941. They were all more manoeuvrable than the Bf 109, but it was of no use: the Bf 109 held the advantage that it could break off the fight and reinitiate it if it saw a chance. That, I think, is the single most important lesson of WW2 aerial combat.



bobbysocks said:


> i dont believe daylight bombing would have ceased unless all other avenues failed. i am sure the allies would have tried several different tactics and adapted. every scheme and effort would be put into catching the 262s flatfooted...on the ground or taking off. i think it can be done.


You are sure it can be done, but you fail to come up with one suggestion? I guess that is what they mean by blind faith? Faith in the invincibility of the Allied air forces...

Kris


----------



## Erich (Aug 4, 2013)

due to extreme measures 262 Nf's flew off grass fields and then finally on day missions against the soviets and the RAF. thre were n losses due to Allied encounters just accidents and pilot errors. the 262 S/E would of performed well had it been ordered too against BC 4 engines the B-1/A-1 faired only to shoot down only 1 Mossie but was seen if developed further to remit the bugs in the variant would of been possibly the ultimate nf machine for either side. I have spoken for years on this site what the if of a B-2 and sub-variants would of been with enclosed fuel cells and streamlining, enclosed AI. arms would of been reduced to longer range 2cm weapons. Allied countermeasures would of been tough to catch the bird except destroy in on known fields but as I said late war the Welter unit was broadcasted on satellite fields nothing was really known of whereabouts for security reasons.

let me to the above posts about 262's during the day ops one problem all pilots had was turning radius because of excess speed the P-51 could turn inside nearly all times to bring a side shot to the jets fuselage.....in the flat out of course forget it.


----------



## bobbysocks (Aug 4, 2013)

i dont have all the intelligence that they had...but to humor you i will make a suggestion. i would have the raf bomb those bases at night. i would train 51 pilots in night fighting and bombing. then i would have them take off so that they arrive at the those fields just about day break. I would have them coming in low and fast use conventional bombs and napalm. i already said i would have a group(s) futher out in front of the bomber boxes for early warning and a group(s) flying even higher top cover so that if 262 were encountered they would have the alt to hopefully catch them. the jets didnt have a long flight time so again i would be concentrating forces on nearby airdromes and catch them as they landed. that is just for starters...


----------



## razor1uk (Aug 4, 2013)

Daylight bombing did start to come close to be postponed until new tactics and theories and or aircraft were available, but within a few months of those black mournful days, the escorts were freed to try and break the LW's back so to speak.


----------



## Erich (Aug 4, 2013)

it's all in perspective in fact the "future" LW jet bases were to made underground with slight upsloping ramps................... the race against the inevitable time machine the LW did not have on it's side. Welters men raced from the east side trying to get behind soviet lines and steal necessary fuels for it's jets to counter BC A/C..................ha ha but what a story it is of insanity.


----------



## razor1uk (Aug 4, 2013)

Like the last ditch panzers rush for Antwerp then... always those decisive dice throws towards victorious gambles, that could've been more sound strategic/tactical options had more planning for supplies, forces, fuels and certainly less enemies about (or closer to actual realisations of the force dispositions against them).


----------



## Civettone (Aug 4, 2013)

Erich said:


> let me to the above posts about 262's during the day ops one problem all pilots had was turning radius because of excess speed the P-51 could turn inside nearly all times to bring a side shot to the jets fuselage.....in the flat out of course forget it.


Yeah, I read about that too. Evading the Me 262 and then turning back inwards to strafe the passing Me 262. A very difficult manoeuvre, yet some American pilots actually shot down Me 262 like this. It requires excellent control over your aircraft and excellent gunnery.

For what it's worth, the Me 262 as a jet conserved speed/energy much better than piston engined fighters. It would get into trouble if it broke its golden rule: don't get drawn into a low speed turn fight, but keep your up. Sounds familiar? Yeah, it's also the motto of the P-51 pilot.

Kris


----------



## parsifal (Aug 4, 2013)

Interesting thread guys. My opinion is that an Me 262 force delivered from mid-43, would have begun to have an effect from mid-44 on daylight operationsd, and from late 44 on night operations. 262s with none of the teething problems affecting operational units is a very dangerous proposition, but not a complete war winner. And, it would come at a price. Overcoming the 262 problems means more resources going into the program, means less resources on the conventional piston engined program, means a harder time for the LW whilst they work up their uber fighter. 

Then ther is the issue of what the allies would do in reply. If in 41-42 the allies got wind of the German accelarated development of the 262, they are likley to respond in kind. instead of the F1 entering service mid 44, we would likley see it introduced mid 43. The F3 would appear 3-6 months later, but the allies would need to continue development up to the F8 standard. Historically the F8 did not appear until 1950, with development taking about a year, and then on a strictly peacetime basis. It took about a year of development to get the F-8 up and going, but because it was a development of existing types, would not have suffered great operational difficulties on introduction (as was the historical case...it service introduction was painless and seamless). Under wartime accelarated conditions, I think the Meteor F8 would start to see extensive service delivery from about June 1945. The Meteor F-8 was a long range, high performance fighter, able to travel from Japan to northern Korea, and engage the MiG 15 (with difficulty) so I dont see it as being particualalry troubled by the historical models of the 262. 

The introduction of the 262, eclipses the piston era aircraft, but it comes at a price, and it merely swings the aircraft performance debate back in favour of the Germans for a period, not permananetly. It is an advantage, but it is not a panacea for German problems.


----------



## davebender (Aug 4, 2013)

P-51 could also turn inside modern day F-22. That won't keep the P-51 from losing most aerial engagements with jet aircraft flown by properly trained pilots.


----------



## davebender (Aug 4, 2013)

Accelerated development isn't necessary. Just place Jumo 004A engine into mass production during 1943.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 4, 2013)

Civettone said:


> They did not have the range to operate over Germany.



Berlin no, Ruhr yes, see P-80 pilots Manual.


Civettone said:


> The Me 262 was superior to the P-51, the same way the P-51 was superior to the 109 and 190: its speed! The P-51s ONLY chance to kill a Me 262 was to surprise a Me 262 by diving down on it and momentarily match its speed. (Or of course circling over its airfield) The Me 262 had superior speed and climb rate. It could break off at will. The P-51 had to rely on manoeuvrability to escape from a Me 262. Unfortunately, this is also what the Japanese Zero had left when compared to the F-6F and P-47, or all those agile planes of the countries Germany conquered in 1940/1941. They were all more manoeuvrable than the Bf 109, but it was of no use: the Bf 109 held the advantage that it could break off the fight and reinitiate it if it saw a chance. That, I think, is the single most important lesson of WW2 aerial combat.



P-51 had a few more tricks up it's sleeve than _just_ speed against the 109 and 190. climb against the 262 seems variable. The 262 may have zoom climb but sustained climb may depend on the weight that the planes are operating at. 



Civettone said:


> You are sure it can be done, but you fail to come up with one suggestion? I guess that is what they mean by blind faith? Faith in the invincibility of the Allied air forces...



One trick might be to shift to low level raids with small groups. Run the Jets out of fuel. A P-80 used about twice the fuel at sea level as it did at 35,000ft. The 262 shouldn't be much different.


----------



## razor1uk (Aug 4, 2013)

Being able to turn inside a much faster opponent means not alot if you gunnery aim isn't timely and accurate or within appropirate range. 

While most recips' could turn easily inside the 262 and try to aim into his trajectory, a skilled pilot might just turn his 'O' into an 'S' or an '8' and break away from the orbit and force the recip to change direction and bleed acceleration/vector energy. Or the jet lets the recip continue around in the hope it'd force the jet or overshoot into the recips sights. But some that is knowledge is more post war based upon energy theory perhaps.

This is considering the much greater radius and hence likely a smoother control of the 262s vector vs the tighter and smaller radius of the recips turn/arc, a fact that is sometimes ignored in argument when discussing general horizontal combat.

Mind that assuming the jet knew his weakness and advantages and his opponent(s too) and was only one on one/1 vs 1/plane-o et plane-o at similar altitude.

Late war, the training situations and skill levels were less than recommended or ideal for the LW, and so, most new to fresh pilots didn't know that as well as they most lilely wished, nor have absorded and survived the critical 5th+ mission to gain enough of the basics of combat awareness smoother aircraft control. Being told and studying facts are one thing next to being able to do them in the heat/strain/rush of actual combat.

But assuming they could have at least some more basic flight hours flight understanding prior to 262 selection/conversion... for fitting in more to the topic of this thread.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 4, 2013)

parsifal said:


> but the allies would need to continue development up to the F8 standard. Historically the F8 did not appear until 1950,



You don't need the F8, the F4 will do very nicely. First flown 15th Aug 1945 it soon hit 570mph at 10,000ft. The early production versions had the big wing but the short span version and specification 11/46 written around it Nov 1946 ( At least one prototype already flying)


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 4, 2013)

Another difference between the Tempest and the Meteor. If flying side by side and both chopped throttle the propeller acts like a speed brake and the prop plane gets behind the jet in just a few seconds. _IF_ the Meteor uses _it's_ speed brakes it godd drop behind the Tempest but needed to retract the speed brakes quickly to keep form dropping out of range. Me 262 did not have speed brakes but I guess they could be fitted?


----------



## razor1uk (Aug 4, 2013)

IMHO, speed/air brakes were one of the things the 262 needed most - with them, it could've made landings at slightly higher rpms thrusts, and perhaps still made landing easier by using them to lower the approach speed quicker once fully deployed as touch down neared just prior to flaring... but they were never fitted or perhaps not even envisaged in this way so not designed for the swallow/stormbird at that time/yet and following the then idea that airbrakes were usually only for diving with...


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 4, 2013)

> But there is no easy fix against the Me 262



Why not? As others have stated, both the Americans and British were developing jets and don't forget, Me 262s were shot down by Allied piston engined fighters, just like Fw 190s were shot down by pilots flying the inferior Spitfire V. You are also forgetting the numerous issues the 262 had whilst under development; its engines were put into production before they were reliable enough for mass production, one reason why - Allied bombing for one thing. Also, how many 262s are we talking here? Germany did not have infinite supplies and could only build a certain number of aircraft at any given time - the number not being fixed but variable depending on how well they were doing against, well, Allied bombing for one thing. With more jets, something else would have to give. Also, essential industries surrounding aircraft production would be attacked, blockaded or what have you by the Allies. 

When the British first learned about the 262 the prospect of German jets scared them witless; in a paper written in late 43 or mid 44 (I think) there was a prediction that the Germans would be able to field up to 1,000 jet and rocket (Me 163) fighters by the end of 1944, but in September 1944 a report revealed after the British experienced combat with the Me 262 for the first time how to combat the type; one of the recommendations was to attack them as they took off and were on finals for landing, a recommendation was destruction of their airfields as well. And this was from very early experiences in combat. 

From wreckage of a crashed example recovered in France the British made assumptions about its performance form its engines and fuel capacity and got it pretty well spot on - one aircraft that had potential to combat the Me 262 that was mentioned was the Hawker Tempest. While the 262 was faster and it was recommended not to dive away, Allied aircraft could out manoeuvre the German jet and its throttle response time was far longer than that of piston fighters. If this actually happened in real WW2, then why would it not have happened in fantasy WW2?

Having more jets might have been a curse than a gift for the LW since the 262 was a far less flexible a machine compared to the Fw 190 and Bf 109, Ju 88, Bf 110, He 111, Ju 87 - these aircraft were the mainstay of the LW at the beginning of the war (except the Fw 190) and until the very end. Their versatility of use and widespread use in different theatres enabled the LW to achieve incredible advances without the need for 'wunder waffen'. They were the staple of the German air war effort. Take some of them away and you have a less effective force across the board - in theory.

The Allies had no 'wonder weapons' (umm, apart from the atomic bomb) and as we know German aircraft were the match for and better than their Allied contemporaries in many cases. The Allied forces were not invincible, but as I pointed out earlier, their rate of production was greater by a country mile than anything the Germans could do.


----------



## Jenisch (Aug 4, 2013)

nuuumannn said:


> While the 262 was faster and it was recommended not to dive away, Allied aircraft could out manoeuvre the German jet and its throttle response time was far longer than that of piston fighters. If this actually happened in real WW2, then why would it not have happened in fantasy WW2?



The Japanese and Italians used to think the same thing.

I'm skeptical of the "airfield combat" proposal. If it was possible to catch Me 262s on final, it was possible to catch any LW piston engine plane.


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 4, 2013)

> The Japanese and Italians used to think the same thing.



So what of it? Entirely different circumstances.


----------



## Jenisch (Aug 4, 2013)

nuuumannn said:


> So what of it? Entirely different circumstances.



I edited there.


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 4, 2013)

> I'm skeptical of the "airfield combat" proposal. If it was possible to catch Me 262s on final, it was possible to catch any LW piston engine plane.



The early German jets had poor throttle response, you can't just bang the power levers to the wall like on a piston fighter; they also required a greater distance to approach to landing. On take off with full power, pulling the aircraft into sharp manoeuvres would most likely stall the engines and cause flameout, as would rapid lever movement to throttle down.

The Allies did do this against jet fighters.


----------



## Jenisch (Aug 4, 2013)

I'm aware of this and didn't mentioned. But did so because what I'm thinking is a plane like the 109 on final. What it can do against a P-51 diving on it at high speed?


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 4, 2013)

Here is a rather telling account by Herbert Altner flying a Me 262B-1a/U-1 night fighter against Mosquitoes;

"One night as we were being led to an intercept course with a formation of Mosquitoes, I got a really nasty shock as I picked out an enemy aircraft and got my sights on him. I went to full power and before I knew what was happening, I was nearly on top of him. I must have throttled back a bit too quickly because both engines flamed out. Not being able to restart them and with the aircraft about to go into a crash dive, my WO and I had to make a quick exit from our stricken craft."

From Eric Brown;

"Whilst obviously proud of the Me 262, the German pilots were also somewhat apprehensive of it, especially the two seat night fighting version! As far as we could ascertain, their worries were two-fold. Firstly, the turbo-jets were unreliable and had, we were told, an overhaul life of no more than 25 hours. This was bad enough, but all the technical records had been hurriedly destroyed before our arrival, and thus we had no means of knowing how many flying hours any of the engines fitted to these abandoned Me 262s had on them! Secondly, the single-engine safety speed on take-off was rather daunting - an engine failure before 180 mph (290 km/h) had been attained produced dire results. In fact, accidents fatalities on Me 262s had been apalling, particularly among the night fighter boys flying the heavier model, although there had also been just as fair a share of nasty prangs with the single-seat version laden with bombs."


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 4, 2013)

> What it can do against a P-51 diving on it at high speed?



From what I've read, the Allied pilots were cautioned against entering into a diving competition at/from altitude with the 262 as it would certainly out run the piston fighters, but if caught near the ground at low power settings, head for the deck and hope you survive the inevitable crash.


----------



## Jenisch (Aug 4, 2013)

nuuumannn said:


> From what I've read, the Allied pilots were cautioned against entering into a diving competition at/from altitude with the 262 as it would certainly out run the piston fighters, but if caught near the ground at low power settings, head for the deck and hope you survive the inevitable crash.



What I'm talking is why the 262 could be caught (and thus countered) on it's final approches, and the LW piston fighters could not? I understand that the jets had a longer approach, but I still see a landing 109 vulnerable to a diving P-51. Anti-aircraft fire comes come to mind here. Perhaps the jets, by their longer approch, could be shoot down exposing the Allied fighters less to the airdrome's AA batteries, and therefore the same tactic was not applied against the German piston fighters with the same enthusiasm (since they could be countered with less risk in the air).


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 4, 2013)

On "final" not much. A few miles from the airfield and with a bit of altitude and flaps and gear still up perhaps a bit more, still not good but some sort of evasive maneuver is possible but no guarantee of survival. The Jet has a longer and higher "final". The Jets even had problems with a balked landing, not ever time but enough that comments are made about it.

According to Brown (corrections welcome) the landing gear was lowered at about 250mph ( max speed for lowering was 310) then throttle the engines back up some, lower flap to 20 degrees at 225mph, turn in at 185mph, go to full flap at about 155mph and cross the airfield boundary at 125mph. While the last two numbers are close enough to the FW 190 as to make no real difference the FW 190 didn't start lowering flaps and under carriage until around 150-160mph and the turn in was done at about 155mph also. 

To be fair the Allied Jets needed careful handling at this time also. It was partly this lack of throttle response and low thrust that helped prompt some of the piston + Jet aircraft ( cruising range was another consideration).
Some of this went away fairly quickly, the engines got a little less sensitive to throttle movement and thrust improved by leaps and bounds. The Meteor I had 1600lb thrust engines, the III went for 2000lb thrust engines and the MK IV of 1946 had 3500lb thrust engines. The P-80A started with 3850lb engines and later blocks got 4000lb engines, early planes were brought up to the new standard, P-80Bs got water/methanol injection and 4500lb and the P-80C got 4600lbs dry and 5200lbs wet.


----------



## CobberKane (Aug 5, 2013)

Jenisch said:


> What I'm talking is why the 262 could be caught (and thus countered) on it's final approches, and the LW piston fighters could not? I understand that the jets had a longer approach, but I still see a landing 109 vulnerable to a diving P-51. Anti-aircraft fire comes come to mind here. Perhaps the jets, by their longer approch, could be shoot down exposing the Allied fighters less to the airdrome's AA batteries, and therefore the same tactic was not applied against the German piston fighters with the same enthusiasm (since they could be countered with less risk in the air).


 
The short answer is that any fighter, conventional or jet, is highly vulnerable during take of and landing. The allies absolutely targeted conventional german fighters while landing.I've read many accounts of LW pilots low in fuel and with no alternative comming in to land while the P-51 were circling ablove, just waiting to pick them off. At this point any plane is low and slow. If it is attacked, the pilot has no alternative but to pour on the coals and wait, and waiting while someone is shooting at you gets you killed. The situation would have been bad enough in an Fw190 or Bf109 where the pilot can at least firewall the throttle and will get be able to get some manouvorability back at intermediate speed, if he survives that long. In the 262 he has to line up from much furhter out and spend much longer on approach, and if he is attacked he can't jam the throttle foward, he has to softly softly ease it open while the jet crawls up to a manouvering speed much higher than for the prop driven aircraft, all the while getting hosed with .50 cals or 20mms. A 262 on approach with a Temest two thousand feet above it would be dead meat, unless all that light flak along the flight path could protect it - which happened often enough that the RAF eventually abandoned the tactic.


----------



## stona (Aug 5, 2013)

davebender said:


> They will until Allies land an invasion force along channel coast. Germany needs that space for forward deployment of air raid warning units and night fighter units.



But they didn't on Bomber Command so why the USAAF? I agree that they came close, but in the long term that's not good enough.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 5, 2013)

> What I'm talking is why the 262 could be caught (and thus countered) on its final approches



The LW learned that this aspect of the 262's flight envelope was a particularly vulnerable one and based Fw 190Ds at some of their bases as well as basing flak guns along the runway glidepaths; these 'Flak Alleys' accounted for more than a few Allied aircraft that followed the jets in. The RAF carried out 'Rat Catching' ops in Tempests with the intention of catching 262s on finals, but Tempest losses were high and these were halted.

Regarding the 262 fitted with air brakes, I found a quote by Adolf Galland on the very same subject whilst doing a bit of reading;

"It is often reported that our jets suffered due to lacking speed brakes. Of this requirement I cannot agree. On the contrary. I'd have done everything to not develop engine stall, because if we had not flown at the 150 kts higher speed than any Allied aircraft, then we would have lost our advantage. To re-accelerate the Me 262 having slowed down took a long, long time because of the relatively low thrust. So, if we had had speed brakes, and our pilots when attacking the bombers had used them in order to reduce the speed, they would have lost all superiority."

I also read that post-war in trials, a Tempest and 262 were put in the air together and it was found that the Tempest could keep up with the 262 for a few seconds or more on accelerating to high speed, but once the Jumos got going, the 262 then left the British fighter behind. One essential issue with the Me 262 was that it was underpowered.

Like Shortround states, the 262 was not unique as a jet in some of its foibles; its just that these things were highlighted because of the Allies taking advantage of its known weaknesses, which is what would also happen in our fantasy WW2 scenario of increased 262s earlier. Something that is roundly agreed on by experts - i.e. former LW pilots, scientists etc is that the 262 was not ready for combat when it entered service.


----------



## cherry blossom (Aug 5, 2013)

One point that hasn't been made is that in this scenario, with the Me 262 arriving approximately a year earlier, the LW has both the Me 262 and Bf 109/Fw 190 equipped units together with enough fuel to fly both and initially few P-51s over its bases. This gives it the opportunity to start dissimilar combat training and learn what works and what doesn't work at low cost while its opponents have to learn it in real combat. 

If the Me 262 can learn how to make life difficult for American piston engined escorts, some Me 262 may attack the escorts over the Netherlands to try to force them to release their drop tanks. We might imagine a Me 262 derivative with 4xMG 151s being used for that task as the lower weight and higher velocity guns should help.


----------



## stona (Aug 5, 2013)

It is often suggested that the Luftwaffe should have made an early interception of the escorts either escorting the bombers or on their way to their relay point. It seems logical that forcing them to drop tanks would be to the Luftwaffe's advantage. What might seem logical is not always so in the larger tactical scenario. The 8th Air Force itself understood why the Germans did not maintain this tactic, it was rarely attempted. 
From the 8th AF official history.







The last sentence is telling. The primary target of the interception, just like for the RAF during the Battle of Britain, was the bombers. Tangling with escorts simply left the bombers unmolested and was exactly what the USAAF wanted.

Douhet wrote: 

"The air arm defends on attack for its own best defence. When it resorts to defence it will eventually face defeat."

In the case of the Luftwaffe in WW2 he was right.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## cherry blossom (Aug 5, 2013)

I am not sure that the LW attempts to engage the escorts with piston engined fighters is relevant. It would have been hard to “make him pay dearly” if the attack was by say four Me 262s that could disengage at will. I also suspect that the LW failure to engage escorts was due to the same problems that confounded attempts to attack the LW with big wings during the BoB. Again formations of four Me 262 would not have to wait to form up but could simply go and make attacks on anything that they could see or be directed towards.


----------



## cimmex (Aug 5, 2013)

here is an interesting film about the conversion training to the Me 262

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DR8GM9DuHQ4_


----------



## stona (Aug 5, 2013)

cherry blossom said:


> It would have been hard to “make him pay dearly” if the attack was by say four Me 262s that could disengage at will. I also suspect that the LW failure to engage escorts was due to the same problems that confounded attempts to attack the LW with big wings during the BoB.



I think that you and others are overestimating the capabilities of the Me 262 and its pilots. I'm not sure how many would volunteer to attack an 8th AF Fighter Group of 40+ fighters as a single schwarm. 

I'm sure you are right about the second part, though the Luftwaffe did have in place a method for assembling larger formations over various beacons or land marks.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Civettone (Aug 5, 2013)

nuuumannn said:


> Why not?


Nuuuman, there is no easy fix. What are your arguments? 
The Allies were developing jets. 
- Yes, but not with sufficient range to fight over Germany. At least not while flying from Britain, which is what they are supposed to do in this early 1944 scenario.

Me 262s were shot down by Allied piston engined fighters
- And Il-2s shot down plenty of BF 109s. Aerial combat is unpredictable, but in the end, there is no doubt that the Me 262 was far superior to _any_ piston engined fighter. 

Its engines were put into production before they were reliable enough for mass production
- So your easy fix is to hope for the engines to malfunction? The Jumo 004s were okay as long as they were operated correctly. 25 hours is plenty for a combat aircraft. And then the 004B-4 engines came which could do with 100 hours til overhaul.

Germany did not have infinite supplies and could only build a certain number of aircraft
-They managed to construct almost 1,500 jets in the last months of the war. That is with a parallised industry and major shortages. Meanwhile, production of other aircraft and weapons continued undiminished. 

attack them as they took off and were on finals for landing, a recommendation was destruction of their airfields as well. 
- Don't you see that this actually proves that there was little to be done against the Me 262? The Allies _only_ hope to destroy them was by circling above the jet airfields. 

Also the mere fact, that you come up with half a dozen arguments already proves my point: there is no easy fix against large swarms of airborne Me 262s.

Also, it might be a good idea to re-examine the airborne kill-loss ratio for the Me 262. And keep in mind that the Me 262 pilots were instructed to ignore the escort fighters and go for the bombers.

Kris


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Aug 5, 2013)

Jenisch said:


> The Japanese and Italians used to think the same thing.
> 
> I'm skeptical of the "airfield combat" proposal. If it was possible to catch Me 262s on final, it was possible to *catch any LW piston engine plane.*



AFAIK, that's essentially what happened. When the P-51s were released to range over the continent, and especially LW bases, they caught anything that was taking off or landing. You don't hear of it because it was just part of the bigger story of the seizing of air superiority over the continent. The Me-262 was noteworthy because it showed the new high performing jet was just as vulnerable (and more so) in that flight regime as any aircraft. 

The fantasy WW2 seems to be based on two assumptions. First, that the 262 become available for use about 1 year earlier, when the LW still controlled the airspace above Germany and hotly contested the airspace over wider Europe. 

the second implicit assumption is that allied response is fixed to historic schedules. That seems a bit unlikely even in a fantasy world. 

When Goering saw P-51s over Berlin, he understood the war was lost. He didn't say, "gee, I wish we had more 262's." probably because he understood that an air superiority fighter needs the long legs of the P-38 or P-51 and that the 262 is an interceptor not a good air superiority fighter. 

The 262 is an interceptor that would appear to have been hard to counter in 1943 but so were Me-109s and FW-190s.

A second assumption seems to be invoked that the P-51 being unavailable much before January 1944 limits the allies options. There were quite a lot of P-51s in Europe in 43. But they had Allison engines. 

5/14/42 Rolls Royce proposes Merlins installed in late model Mustang I (NA-83). 
5/29/42 P-51 delivered to RR
10/14/42 Mustang X first flight. 

I would expect the Mustang program would have accelerated to provide the long legged fighter to project air superiority over European airspace, and that wide-spread conversion of Allison powered P-51s might provide an immediate answer to increase numbers, although, assuming such a program was instituted at the appearance of the first 262, the conversions probably wouldn't be ready any sooner that the P-51Bs, or about early 1944. There would have to have been some intelligence foreknowledge of the introduction of this weapon to motivate either acceleration of the P-51B or conversions... Just a thought and probably not a good one. I would imagine the necessary tooling for wide spread conversion is probably out of the question.

Performance (aka speed) is one thing and a serious consideration in this fantasy thread but so is endurance and operational tempo _and especially the tactics that these attributes enable_. The numbers of 262's the LW is likely able to muster are going to have a very poor ability to provide multiple sorties in defense of the homeland after December, 1943. It comes down to numbers again. The production of allied aircraft will stress the fragile technology of the jet to the breaking point by pushing it to the limits of its material failure envelope. 

In the worst case, the Me-262 may have delayed the inevitable and forced a bloodier campaign but ultimately, I don't see the new technology as being able to do more than forestall it.


----------



## stona (Aug 5, 2013)

Civettone said:


> there was little to be done against the Me 262? The Allies _only_ hope to destroy them was by circling above the jet airfields.
> Kris



Not so. That is not how 100+ Me 262s were shot down historically. I'd refer you back to Hans Fey's advice to his captors on how best to deal with the Me 262, a type with which as an ex Luftwaffe and then Besichtigung Abteilung Luftwaffe (BAL) acceptance pilot he was very familiar.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Civettone (Aug 5, 2013)

I am auite aware of Hans Fey interrogation report. It just boggles me how you use that document to prove your point, while his testimony clearly demonstrates the superiority of the Me 262 !




Kris


----------



## Civettone (Aug 5, 2013)

People keep using the argument of bouncing the jets on their take off and landing. However, this would not happen in this 1944 scenario.

Why?

The effective patrolling over German jet bases started around February 1945. By that time, the Allies were already invading Germany itself. This had two major results, which would be absent in this 1944 scenario.

1. the early warning radar system collapsed, because all radars in France were lost. It was no longer possible for air controllers to form an effective air defence system. Allied aircraft were flying all over Germany, destroying targets of opportunity and disrupting communications. In these last weeks, fighter units became semi-autonomous units, fighting their own battles. There was hardly any coordination. Fuel was almost non-existent, which meant that excess pilots and planes sat by idly while Allied planes patrolled over German skies.

2. the reduced area in which the German Luftwaffe was operating, meant that only a few (paved) air fields were available to the German jet units. Coupled with the very limited amount of operational Me 262s (due to a lack of fuel), the Allies had no problem in identifying the few major Me 262 bases. Under normal circumstances, the Luftwaffe always used proxy air fields, which were used temporarily to confuse Allied intelligence on the location of the fighter unit. (This was a result of major Allied attacks on German air bases.) More bases with more aircraft would have been made the patrolling over Me 262 bases too costly for the Allies. They did not have the resources to patrol all possible air fields. 

In conclusion, the 1944 scenario was very different from the 1945 reality. It would have made the Allied tactic of patrolling over known Me 262 bases a very dubious tactic. 

Kris


----------



## razor1uk (Aug 5, 2013)

Superiority is only superior when the cards of the aerial situation are decked on the pilots side and he can use them.


----------



## fastmongrel (Aug 5, 2013)

The USAAF had to deal with radar guided MIGS and AAA over N Korea how did they cope. It seems a similar enough situation to use the response of the USAAF in 1950 to 54 to extrapolate the response in 44.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 5, 2013)

fastmongrel said:


> The USAAF had to deal with radar guided MIGS and AAA over N Korea how did they cope. It seems a similar enough situation to use the response of the USAAF in 1950 to 54 to extrapolate the response in 44.


Slight correction - the USAAF went away in 1947, in Korea it was the USAF


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Aug 5, 2013)

Civettone said:


> People keep using the argument of bouncing the jets on their take off and landing. However, this would not happen in this 1944 scenario.
> 
> Why? *The effective patrolling over German jet bases started around February 1945.*
> 
> Kris



I've was under the impression that fighter sweeps began in the February-March 1944 time frame just after Doolittle assumes 8th AF command. Is that incorrect?

from wikipedia: (understandably not always the most reliable source)

"_The rapid re-equipment of USAAF fighter squadrons enabled the new commander of the 8th AF, Jimmy Doolittle, in March of 1944 to send out Mustang squadrons in formations well ahead of the lead elements of the bomber formations, to perform air supremacy "fighter sweeps" to clear the German skies of the Luftwaffe, and permit the USAAF's bombers to operate without serious opposition._"

AHT appears to confirm date, (page 335) April, 5 1944, two P-51B groups (~ 6 squadrons?) go on airfield strafing missions near Berlin and Munich destroying 100 a/c. 7 P-51 lost.

Same source indicates fighter sweeps over the continent by P-51Bs and P-38s began in late 1943. Prior briefing on the location of LW air bases would have been sop and they would have been prime targets.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 5, 2013)

Civettone said:


> People keep using the argument of bouncing the jets on their take off and landing. However, this would not happen in this 1944 scenario.
> 
> Why?
> 
> The effective patrolling over German jet bases started around February 1945. By that time, the Allies were already invading Germany itself. This had two major results, which would be absent in this 1944 scenario.


The LW was never able to maintain 100% air superiority around its bases, this was a situation that cannot go away.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Aug 5, 2013)

Careful reading of AHT seems to indicate that the pacing item wasn't availability of P-51 airframes but rather Merlins. I would expect that to have been changed rather quickly by re-prioritization in the event of 262's early appearance. 

AHT states that, while 534 P-51B airframes had been completed in July of 1943, only 173 Merlins were received. Considering all the aircraft using merlins not specifically dedicated to countering a 262 threat, the engines existed but were otherwise allocated. The critical situation in the 8th in the Fall of 1943 was apparently prompting many such re-prioritizations of production and distribution. Seems like this would have been a reasonable response assuming its value in that role was appreciated in a timely way. I suspect that would be the real pacing item: Allies coming to the rapid realization that the answer to 262 early deployment lay in the P-51B.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 5, 2013)

I was looking at the situation over Korea at the introduction of the Mig-15. situation is somewhat analogous to this hypothetical. Migs were not deployed to the far east until early 1950, when a single IAD (air division, about 120 aircraft), under the command of a leading WWII soviet ace was initially deployed to Shanghai, China to support the final PLA mopping up ops against the nationalists. Soviet conversion was too hasty , even though the unit flying these aircraft was handpicked, with a vast number aces from the patriotic war, conversion training was very short and inadequate.


in july the mig IAD was trasferred to Korea, to try and halt UN bombing operstions, which was relying mostly on prop driven bombers including b-29s. The UN was working over the korean peninsula systematically, trying to strangle the Korean Army's supply lines. Despite the hype, 1950-51, UN air losses were fewer than 140 a/c lost to all causes. There is a lot of dispute about Mig losses, but being conservative, probably at least 50 were lost, principally fom F-84s, F-80s, meteor F8s and a handful of F-86s. Despiute the deployment of more than 100 Migs, in the hands of some very experienced pilots, UN losses remained tolerable, and ther was no apparent let up in UN air activity. Un never lost air superiority.

i wonder if there might be a parrallel to draw with German operationsin a me 262 rich environment????


----------



## Erich (Aug 5, 2013)

this poor thread has so bounced around from 1943, 44 and 45 it is hard to make a sensible question let alone a feasible answer to anything written as things are so convoluted. had the 262 been in the numbers in March of 45 during mid-1943 start of the US bomber campaign then real probs would of existed Allies would of been on the drawing board as hot as fire. during 43 and early 44 the LW had to need for protective high cover AF defense of prop or this case of jets as we did not see the full blown invasion of Allied ground attack forces yet ............... now getting to spring of 45 yes the LW is still in kindergarten practicing old unworkable un-novel ideas for ground to air defenses. III./JG 54 Doras could not protect Nowotny's band in the fall of 44, the Wörger staffel did nothing for the inept 262 band of JV 44. JG 7 the most threatening of the LW jet day units had absolutely NO air cover for jets upon landing or take off still thinking that tons of quad 2cm Fla would ward off any attempts by US/Soviet fighters/bombers.

I just see the thread as a full-on what-if ? maybe the original poster needs to get a 10 point specific questionnaire so we are all on the same page ?


----------



## altsym (Aug 5, 2013)

More fighters, more bombers, more fighters, more bombers. There was no way the allies would outright lose the air war. In any realistic scenario.


----------



## bobbysocks (Aug 5, 2013)

Erich said:


> it's all in perspective in fact the "future" LW jet bases were to made underground with slight upsloping ramps................... the race against the inevitable time machine the LW did not have on it's side. Welters men raced from the east side trying to get behind soviet lines and steal necessary fuels for it's jets to counter BC A/C..................ha ha but what a story it is of insanity.



not a problem at all...the raf had that 363 sq of mossies that could plop a bouncy bomb right through the opening of the underground airbase.....


----------



## stona (Aug 5, 2013)

Civettone said:


> I am auite aware of Hans Fey interrogation report. It just boggles me how you use that document to prove your point, while his testimony clearly demonstrates the superiority of the Me 262 !
> Kris



That's just an example.

I have details of 105 Me 262s shot down by the allies. That includes when, where, who was flying the jet and when possible who did the shooting down. Most were shot down by fighters, a few by return fire from bombers, sometimes finished off by fighters, and a very few by flak. 

That's how I know that stooging around airfields was not the only way to shoot them down. Collating that information has been a labour of love over a long time but I'll gladly share it with you.

I also have about thirty other Me 262, unknown werknummern, shot down by allied aircraft and am still working to establish more details for them. Many records, particularly German, are either missing or illegible.
Incredibly the Luftwaffe, particularly JG7, report losses on days when there is no corresponding allied claim. More normally the allies make claims when there is no corresponding Luftwaffe loss. This makes things complicated.

Incidentally the most dangerous thing to an Me 262 was the Me 262 itself. The vast majority of losses of aircraft and crew are to accidents which is what happens when an aircraft is rushed into service LOOOOONG before it is ready.

I have examples of Me 262s being attacked by a dozen or more P-51s. I have accounts of head on attacks, following the jets in climbs and jumping them as the attacked the bombers. I even have one account (Lt. Keith R McGinnis) of chasing a jet from 21,000 to 16,000 feet, closing the range, until the Me 262 rolled on its right wing and the pilot baled out. McGinnis was awarded the victory, confirmed by Lt. Darrel D Bachmann, without firing a shot!

From the German side I can think of two (there must be more) examples in which the pilot tried to accelerate by opening his throttles to abruptly resulting in engine failure or fire. In both cases the pilot survived by abandoning the aircraft. 

What exactly is the source for your contention that they were virtually invulnerable and could only be shot down in particular circumstances? Your assumption is that the pilots always flew the Me262 to exploit its one advantage (speed) whereas my research into the actual historical combats, as reported by the men who were, there makes it clear that they did not.

Page One.







Cheers

Steve


----------



## Erich (Aug 5, 2013)

....the 100 or so are kills resulting with action of the US 8/9th/15th AF and 2 TAC. nothing on RAF command added to that listing. the 425 kills of JG 7 are fatantasy should be reduced by 1/2 easily. one thing is we do not know the actions/kills and there are some against JG 7 vs the Soviet bomber/fighter forces. Also the combination of the total Kommando Hogeback with KG (6) and tw other bomber/fighter units combined in March 45-May 45 time frame against the Soviets, too many things are lost but it may have been impressive. The r4M in the ground attack came into it's own here against Soviet armor.


----------



## razor1uk (Aug 5, 2013)

Most 262 pilots were undertrained fresh graduates or ex bomber crew as unsuited or new to being acting as fighter pilots. Only a relative few were from fighter background; I am not discounting those who became good jet fighter pilots or that there weren't difficulties or highly skilled individuals converting and flying the swallow.
Goering and also later Otto Gotlieb/G-something (name?) had fallen out with A.Gallands opinions, and Gotleib (name?) despised and usurped him and the fighter part of the LW at every opportunity to strengthen his own 'power' base.

This might account to some of the RLM's reduced support for the 262 fighter arm - that and following sometime in 43 or 44, Goering paratically gave up on administering the LW, leaving it to the factions with the LW commands and to who and what political vagaries they could or couldn't influence to their own aims.
But thiat's more related to late war regarding towards JV44 from the Battle Over Baveria book via my memory.


----------



## Erich (Aug 5, 2013)

that's a generalization if I ever saw one. you had a cadre always of experienced pilots flying the 262 was not that big of a deal the NF pilots noted this, basic instrument skills and then get ready to crank it up and that was a big prob with the prop boyz the tremendous range of acceleration and flat out kick ass speed never encountered before.

incidentally whitemore of the 356th fg shot down on tail of a 262 that had just finished off a P-38 on PR that Whitemore and his wingman were escorting no doubt Whitemore was so pissed off and told his wingman to shoot that SOB down. they were both taken by surprise............ and White was able to bank over as the jet flamed out and shot the jet to pieces. interview with whitmore and the 356th fg association. the claims was made on February 21, 1945.more will be included a forth-coming title


----------



## bobbysocks (Aug 5, 2013)

262 pilots ( at least some of them ) were ballsy ( or stupid depending on your outlook ). maybe they thought their machines were so superior that nothing could touch them...i dont know what they thought. but know of 2 instances where they flew extremely close to mustang groups...not attacking just nosing around....one even got in formation with them! in both cases they lucked out as the pony pilots forgot they didnt have their gun heaters on. the one pilots has some nice footage of 262 at near point blank range. some 262 jocks were lulled into a false sense of security by that overwhelming speed and would think they were out of range and circle back only to be cut off and shot down by the pilot who didnt give up. that is how my dad got his. when they were within a couple hundred yards they were just as vulnerable to being shot down as any plane. the big difference was they had the speed that they were in that danger zone for a shorter duration and they required more lead. but they werent invincible. when engaged by fighters they usually ran towards a base trying to drag the alled fighters into AA and/or waiting cover aircraft. but even with all that cover like erich said they lost a ton that way....granted the allies paid a hefty price sometimes for those victories but that never stopped them either.


----------



## Erich (Aug 5, 2013)

and understatement D ~ reason your Dad's 357th fg was the highest killing jet unit ever................... cocky is a good word probably for many experienced/non jet pilots forgetting abut so many possible probs with an untried jet A/C teething always with problems. think the high fly zoom down and just nip a Mustang was a prime case of well I will just take a chance and from what I recall this is how Mustangs were hit on case, not so much a 1 to 1 encounter, the jet just did not fair well at all in this type of fight scenario. must admit my amazement over so many years of research with taking JG 7's average pilots and seeing how many of them were able to get 4-5 kills make ace status before going down in flames.


----------



## stona (Aug 5, 2013)

Erich said:


> incidentally whitemore of the 356th fg shot down on tail of a 262 that had just finished off a P-38 on PR that Whitemore and his wingman were escorting



That Me 262 was probably W.Nr.170299 (or 170099,170199,500199....complicated isn't it !) piloted by Gerhardt Rhode (or Ronde or Rohde).

On that day 21/2/45 as many as 60 Me 262s were destroyed during a raid on Obertraubling. Sgt Pollards of B.6 (40mm Bofors) gun detachment 2809 Light Anti Aircraft Squadron of the RAF Regiment weighed in with one more at Volkel airfield.

Steve


----------



## Civettone (Aug 5, 2013)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The LW was never able to maintain 100% air superiority around its bases, this was a situation that cannot go away.


Of course they had air superiority over their own bases, at least in Germany. You are confusing it with air supremacy. 


Stona, coming up with a list of Me 262 shot down proves very little. Unless you want to prove that the Me 262 was not indestructable? I think we all know that no combat aircraft is, especially when opposed by a much larger opponent. For instance, we all agree that the Bf 109F was far superior to anything the Russians had in 1941. Yet despite this undisputed superiority, there were substantial numbers of Bf 109s shot down. The I-16 was clearly inferior to the Bf 109, but like the P-51, we can come up with several tactics in which the I-16 would be able to shoot down a Bf 109. Does that prove the I-16 was not inferior? It does not. Same story with the P-51.

So instead of trying to show that the Me 262 was not invincible, why not try to make your case that the Me 262 was not superior to the P-51. Thus, why don't you come up with a list of Me 262 kills to correlate with your list of Me 262 losses? I remember that the Me 262 pilots "claimed" 600 aircraft shot down, which includes heavy bombers and P-51s, while constantly being outnumbered by swarms of P-51s... And you can come up with a list of what? 100-150 Me 262s destroyed shot down by ALL Allied fighters/bombers/Flak??

Kris


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 5, 2013)

Civettone said:


> Of course they had air superiority over their own bases, at least in Germany. You are confusing it with air supremacy.



Definition from the USAF War College

Air supremacy - a position in war where one force holds complete control of air warfare and air power over enemy forces.

Air Superiority - that degree of dominance in the air battle of one force over another which permits the conduct of operations by the former and its related land, sea and air forces at a given time and place without prohibitive interference by the opposing force. 

Take your pick....

The LW wasn't able to prevent their bases from being attacked or prevent -262s from being blasted out of the sky either during takeoff or landing, they might have hampered the effort but could never completely stop it, the rest is history.

As far as -262 kills - from another forum...

_"According to Manfred Boehme's book 'JG7 The world's first jetfighter unit 1944/1945', the pilots of JG7 shot down about 256 aircraft from 19.11.44 to 8.5.45. The book details the short life of this unit very well and mentions virtually every victory by pilot, aircraft type and date at least- save for stating that approximately 20 Soviet aircraft were shot down in the last weeks of the war- so the total is quite accurate. I can't account for the significant difference between some books' quote of 450 victories and this, however I'm more inclined to believe Boehme."_


----------



## Civettone (Aug 5, 2013)

You said they NEVER had air superiority ...


Kris


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 5, 2013)

Civettone said:


> You said they NEVER had air superiority ...
> 
> 
> Kris



Read my quote...

*"The LW was never able to maintain 100% air superiority around its bases"*


----------



## stona (Aug 5, 2013)

Civettone said:


> Stona, coming up with a list of Me 262 shot down proves very little. Unless you want to prove that the Me 262 was not indestructable?
> Kris



No. You claimed that the only way an Me 262 could be shot down was in flight phases around take off and landing. My list is of 105 Me 262s shot down (and the full version which I am not about to post on a public forum) includes much more information. Only a small minority were shot down in traffic patterns.

I don't have a total for Me 262 kills as it is nigh on impossible to work out an accurate figure. You can have 500 but I doubt it was half that. Any figure needs to be put into context, the Allies had tens of thousands of aircraft in the ETO.

Most Me 262 units rarely fielded quantities of _serviceable_ aircraft in double figures due to the appallingly low serviceability rates (which I touched on before) and debilitating accident rate, very often due to engine failures. Most of these were fatal.
In this sense, important for a military aircraft, the Me 262 was VASTLY inferior to the P-51.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## fastmongrel (Aug 5, 2013)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Slight correction - the USAAF went away in 1947, in Korea it was the USAF



I have to admit I am never sure about the USAAC, USAAF and USAF names when they were in use and when they went out of use, there does seem to be a bit of overlap even by ex servicemen. I tend to play it safe and say USAAF all the time at least then I can claim it was a fat finger typo if I got the wrong one. 

Its about time I read up on the name changes of the US air forces.

Just read up about the change from USAAC to USAAF and I am really confused now. The USAAC as an admin organisation was abolished in 1942 but wasnt abolished till 1947. 85% of USAAF aircrew were from the USAAC


----------



## jim (Aug 5, 2013)

Civettone said:


> Of course they had air superiority over their own bases, at least in Germany. You are confusing it with air supremacy.
> 
> 
> Stona, coming up with a list of Me 262 shot down proves very little. Unless you want to prove that the Me 262 was not indestructable? I think we all know that no combat aircraft is, especially when opposed by a much larger opponent. For instance, we all agree that the Bf 109F was far superior to anything the Russians had in 1941. Yet despite this undisputed superiority, there were substantial numbers of Bf 109s shot down. The I-16 was clearly inferior to the Bf 109, but like the P-51, we can come up with several tactics in which the I-16 would be able to shoot down a Bf 109. Does that prove the I-16 was not inferior? It does not. Same story with the P-51.
> ...


 
Thats exactly what Mr Stona is doing in his many of his last posts. Try to devalue the Me 262 and imlyies that is at best equal to P51D ( and naturally inferior to 51H )
He calls the 262 not manouverable, a"brick" when all test pilots report a fully aerobatic aircraft with excellent high speed agility
He calls "fantacies" the 400+++ german jet claims but accepts without question the claims of the american pilots.
He accepts stories of P51s out diving Me 262s, Spitfires XIVs catching on level flight (!!!) 262s

What i have
Statements of AMERICAN tests pilots calling the 262 superior to P80, on american soil tests
Statements of american fighter pilot that reports that while in his P51 had shorter turn radius the 262 could fly around him and one out manouvered 5 of his comrades
Statements of all german pilots that flew the 262 that they had several unconfirmed on the bird because the speeds were so great that often ther was no witness around. You have the choise not to believe them , i believe them and i dont believe you

The problem with many 262s pilots was the same with the problem of conventional fighter units that recieved former bomer pilots and reconaissance pilots Their mind set about manouvering was not correct for flying fighters. Norbert Hanning, Eric Hartmann, Lipfert, make special reports about this problem
Also the 4x30mm ,low velocity guns was not the best choise. Some pilots tended to slow down in order to ease their aiming. 4 x mg151 would be a much better choice, lighter, more muzzle velocity and still very distructive arrangement (except against p51s of course)
As for the initial question of the thread i believe that an one year earlier deployment of Me 262s would have create some impressive victories for the LW ,but nothing more. Wars are not winned by smart generals and revolutionary weapons but by numerous battallions (eg The confederate States of the America had much better generals and some amazing new weapons but were crashed by america easily and disappeared from the map)


----------



## CobberKane (Aug 5, 2013)

Erich said:


> this poor thread has so bounced around from 1943, 44 and 45 it is hard to make a sensible question let alone a feasible answer to anything written as things are so convoluted. had the 262 been in the numbers in March of 45 during mid-1943 start of the US bomber campaign then real probs would of existed Allies would of been on the drawing board as hot as fire. during 43 and early 44 the LW had to need for protective high cover AF defense of prop or this case of jets as we did not see the full blown invasion of Allied ground attack forces yet ............... now getting to spring of 45 yes the LW is still in kindergarten practicing old unworkable un-novel ideas for ground to air defenses. III./JG 54 Doras could not protect Nowotny's band in the fall of 44, the Wörger staffel did nothing for the inept 262 band of JV 44. JG 7 the most threatening of the LW jet day units had absolutely NO air cover for jets upon landing or take off still thinking that tons of quad 2cm Fla would ward off any attempts by US/Soviet fighters/bombers.
> 
> I just see the thread as a full-on what-if ? maybe the original poster needs to get a 10 point specific questionnaire so we are all on the same page ?


 
Not the first time I have been accused of being vague - or worse.
When I posted this thread I was thinking of the common (but commonly contested) argument that without Hitler's supposed interference etc the 262 might have been available to counter the Allied daylight bombing campaign significantly earlier and in greater numbers. I know that's a debatable argument, but for the sake of discussion I was taking it as a given. A slightly less contentious argument is that the Luftwaffe won the air battle over Europe in 1943 - USAAF losses were too high to justify any benefits from the bombing - but that changed in 1944 with a review of escort tactics and the arrival of the P-51. In I nutshell, I was wondering what the Allies as a whole would have done if the 262 had appeared in the kind of numbers Galland had fantasised about, just as the USAAF was fielding numbers of P-51 on the other side. That is, before D-day, and without the use of bases in occupied Europe. But hey, if anyone wants to talk about football, or interesting things to do with small rodents and root vegetables, be my guest!


----------



## Erich (Aug 5, 2013)

then the time frame includes big week........... anything in February of 44 when the LW was at it's zenith in numbers .............. whoa unto anyone flying


----------



## parsifal (Aug 5, 2013)

I dont think ther are serious challenges being made to the 262's technical exceellence. it, along with the Meteor, the AE 234B and other jets of that later war period marked a fundamental change of technology from prop fighters (and other types), to jet technologies. The Me 262 was fast well armed, and dangerous. And yet, it made virtually no mark on the air war perse. The question is firstly why, and secondly if it had been given time to work up properly and introduced in moderate numbers (a force structure of about 200, or roughly 1/3 the total LW home defences) whether that could have a significant, decisive, ir little effect. 

My starting hypothesis is based on the experiences in Korea with the Mig-15....a roughly similar scenario. here the Mig-15 had a profound material and pschological effect, and the Migs technical excellenece should not be at issue. But despite its profound impact, actual loss rates remained tolerable, and the UN never lost air superiority......It is arguable that they may have lost air supremacy (in the sense that enemy air activity went from zero, or virtually zero, to some activity. The Soviets over Korea managed to mount some air denial operations, but it was never air parity, and they could not stop or halt UN air dominance. If there is a parrallel with 1944-5 with Me 262 operational, I struggle to see, how the 262 would do any differently to the Mig. It would have struggled to halt the bombing, and I doubt overall loss rates would change significantly. As Steve points out, a significant proportion of losses had nothing to do with fighters. The allied jets could be expected to ramp up in parallel to the Me 262, and it is a big fib to claim they lacked the range. The jets of 1950 were operating mostly from ai bases in Japan, to northern Korea and beyond, so the evidence is clearly there that they could fly missions to the heart of germany....the allies just chose not to because of security concerns. 

So what effect would the early introduction (and full work up) of the 262 have. not a lot in that scenario. And that is not denying its technical excellence,its applying standard operational analysis and projection based on the nearest known equivalent.


----------



## Balljoint (Aug 5, 2013)

CobberKane said:


> Not the first time I have been accused of being vague - or worse.
> When I posted this thread I was thinking of the common (but commonly contested) argument that without Hitler's supposed interference etc the 262 might have been available to counter the Allied daylight bombing campaign significantly earlier and in greater numbers. I know that's a debatable argument, but for the sake of discussion I was taking it as a given. A slightly less contentious argument is that the Luftwaffe won the air battle over Europe in 1943 - USAAF losses were too high to justify any benefits from the bombing - but that changed in 1944 with a review of escort tactics and the arrival of the P-51. In I nutshell, I was wondering what the Allies as a whole would have done if the 262 had appeared in the kind of numbers Galland had fantasised about, just as the USAAF was fielding numbers of P-51 on the other side. That is, before D-day, and without the use of bases in occupied Europe. But hey, if anyone wants to talk about football, or interesting things to do with small rodents and root vegetables, be my guest!



The Me-109 were quite capable of dealing with the P-51s one on one, but failed primarily through loss of quality pilots and the use of poorly trained replacements. The Me-262 would have been a tougher nut but the p-51 could adapt tactics to lever the vertical, for instance. They would know where the LW was going, i.e. after the bombers, and attack appropriately. Slippage of LW pilot skill would be even more telling in the Me-262 if Nowotny’s early 262 experience was any indication.

Not to diss the Me-262, but there’s a certain quality in quantity, both in planes and pilots.


----------



## Wendovertom (Aug 5, 2013)

This assumes that the 262's engines were reliable. From what I have read they were good for little more than perhaps 2-3 short sorties and extremely sensitive to pilot inputs (too much throttle to fast burned them up). By the time the 262 appeared I think it was too late. And, being somewhat patriotic, my gut response is to wink and say, "We'd of shot them down to". 

Tom P.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 5, 2013)

jim said:


> What i have
> Statements of AMERICAN tests pilots calling the 262 superior to P80, on american soil tests



There were several US test pilots who gave the -262 high marks in many performance areas but I don't think anyone ever said the 262 was "over all" superior to the P-80 and that includes the first US pilots who flew the -262 (The pilots of Operation Lusty). Chuck Yeager stated on more than one occasion that he thought both aircraft were equally matched. Now compare the first P-80As being produced in early 1945 to the -262 of the same period? I believe the 262 was a much more reliable and combat ready aircraft, but in the end I think the P-80, despite some limitations, "would have" given the 262 a fight, especially considering it would have arrived in numbers with better trained pilots flying them.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Aug 5, 2013)

CobberKane said:


> In I nutshell, I was wondering what the Allies as a whole would have done *if the 262 had appeared in the kind of numbers Galland had fantasised about, just as the USAAF was fielding numbers of P-51 on the other side. That is, before D-day, and without the use of bases in occupied Europe. *But hey, if anyone wants to talk about football, or interesting things to do with small rodents and root vegetables, be my guest!



CK, the only quote I can find describing _*Galland's fantasy *_is of postulating the effect of introducing 100 262s into the pre P-51 environment (I assume mid 1943). He speculates that the effect would have been dramatic: the downing of as many as 200 allied bombers during one mission to stop the bombing campaign earlier than it was historically stopped. 

I think the reaction of the allies to such a debacle would be quite as dramatic. I expect efforts to counter the 262's appearance would have achieved a priority probably equal to the Manhattan project. 

Speaking of which, I believe there were three wonder weapons in WW2. The internationally produced Atomic bomb, the undisturbed American factory production line with virtually unhindered access to resources and allied cooperation exemplified by the Tizard mission. the latter two defeated Germany, the Luftwaffe and the Me-262 and would have regardless. JMO


----------



## CobberKane (Aug 5, 2013)

One thing worth considering is whether the 262, even had it been able to halt the allied heavy daylight bomber campaign, would have been able to establish air superiority over occupied Europe and prevent D-Day. For the invasion to happen, the allies needed to be able to neutralise LW bombing of the beach heads. To do that they needed to have allied fighters swarming over Normandy, ready to knock down any bomber that appeared. The evidence suggests that the 262 may not have been a very effective weapon for shooting down those enemy fighters - as previously mentioned, it was an interceptor, not an air superiority fighter. If the Allies could have come up with tactics to minimise exposure to the 262 prior to D-Day and still acheive their objective of suppressing the German war machine - such as night bombing, increased high speed intruder raids by the likes of the Mosquito, and heavy use of fighter bombers like the Typhoon and P-47 - I wonder of the 262 could have done much against all those swarms of Spitfires, Tempests and Mustangs waiting to nail LW bombers. Of course the 262 could also bomb, and there was the Arado, but how effective they were I don't know. There would also have been many more conventional German air superiority fighters available, but that would bring us back to a way of attrition that only one side was ever going to win.


----------



## Jenisch (Aug 5, 2013)

What numbers Galland "fantasised about"?


----------



## Civettone (Aug 5, 2013)

Wendovertom said:


> This assumes that the 262's engines were reliable. From what I have read they were good for little more than perhaps 2-3 short sorties and extremely sensitive to pilot inputs (too much throttle to fast burned them up).


The Jumo 004B were good for more than 2-3 short sorties, rather 25 'short' sorties. Of course you are right about their throttle sensitivity. But let's not make it into a caricature: it's not that every Me 262 sortie would result in an engine failure.



Balljoint said:


> The Me-109 were quite capable of dealing with the P-51s one on one, but failed primarily through loss of quality pilots and the use of poorly trained replacements. The Me-262 would have been a tougher nut but the p-51 could adapt tactics to lever the vertical, for instance. They would know where the LW was going, i.e. after the bombers, and attack appropriately. Slippage of LW pilot skill would be even more telling in the Me-262 if Nowotny’s early 262 experience was any indication.


In all these years, I have defended the Bf 109 as much as any other. But, I can tell you that the Bf 109G was definitely not able to deal with the P-51, at least not the G-6. When the G-10 and K-4 arrived, they were up to the challenge again. Of course, it mainly depends on the pilot, but that's a no brainer.
What do you mean by P-51 levering the vertical? The Me 262 had superior climb rate and maintained speed better during manoeuvre. 




CobberKane said:


> But hey, if anyone wants to talk about football, or interesting things to do with small rodents and root vegetables, be my guest!


For what it's worth, I think it is an excellent topic. But out of experience, I know how important it is to set very specific guidelines to your scenario, so people will not drag the discussion all over the place.



parsifal said:


> My starting hypothesis is based on the experiences in Korea with the Mig-15....a roughly similar scenario. here the Mig-15 had a profound material and pschological effect, and the Migs technical excellenece should not be at issue. But despite its profound impact, actual loss rates remained tolerable, and the UN never lost air superiority......


I don't know much about the Korean war. But weren't the MiG-15s engaged by P-80s and F-86s? How would that compare to P-51s engaging Me 262s?



CobberKane said:


> One thing worth considering is whether the 262, even had it been able to halt the allied heavy daylight bomber campaign, would have been able to establish air superiority over occupied Europe and prevent D-Day.


Good point. But you are missing another one: stopping the US bomber offensive means: more German military production and an intact transport network towards Normandy. That might have changed the outcome of the invasion!

Kris


----------



## awack (Aug 5, 2013)

Some one had stated the fact that the me 262 could out climb the p51, then some one said that it would also depend on the fuel load, well yes of course, this is true for many air craft types...actual german test of the me 262 showed a clime rate of about 3800 fpm, at 7000kg, that's 15.432 pounds for the me 262 tested, some one correct me if im wrong but that means that the me 262 is carrying its maximum fuel load of around 4500 pounds...lets compare that to the spitfire xiv which had a climb rate of around 4700 fpm with a fuel load of 950 pounds of fuel, so lets say each each aircraft meets each other in the air at half fuel load, where is the spitfire has gone through hundreds of pounds of fuel the me 262 has gone through thousands of pounds of fuel, this should have a dramatic effect on climb performance. Here are a few combat reports (I don't put a lot of faith in combat reports but) on one or two occasions US pilots one of which was p47 pilot said that chasing an me 262 in a zoom climb that the me 262 could actually accelerate while vertical, obviously it just seemed that way, a 262 following a recon spitfire from below stated that the spitfire pilot after spotting him opened his(by viewing smoke from the spitfire I think) pulled the spit into a climb but the me 262 had no problem out climbing him, spitfire 9 pilots jumping a me 262 while landing said that the german pilot opened out climb him, the key to this is the spitfire pilot stated that the me 262 was able to gain altitude on him not just a faster climb, of course the 262 was coming in to land and most likely low on fuel.




> There were several US test pilots who gave the -262 high marks in many performance areas but I don't think anyone ever said the 262 was "over all" superior to the P-80


here is is some of the stuff I can find on that 


> The claims that, in certain respects, the Me 262 was found to be superior to its American counterparts are correct. These claims did cause consternation in the Air Force. Brig. Gen. L. P. Whitten wrote on Oct. 17, 1946:
> 
> "1. The results of the ME-262 - P80A comparative speed and climb tests as outlined in Air Materiel Command Flight Test Report, Serial No. TSFTE-2008, are viewed with serious concern by this headquarters. ..."



Watson himself said in a documentary that the me 262 was the best, most combat worthy and that you could do any thing in it.

I personally think they were about equal fighters myself but that the me 262 was the superior jet, what I mean by that is that the me 262 was superior in speed, acceleration, dive and same in climb and found to hold its speed better in turns, the p80 of course had boosted ailerons and lighter wing loading, pilots also found the view to be better as well as the canopy being quieter in flight oh it also had dive brakes.

The early jets are where my interest mostly are with the me 262 being by far my favorite but I also love the Meteor, having said that, I believe the allies have easily delt with larger numbers of jets to a point of course, using the same tacticts they were already using, like having their fighters staggered in altitude 2000 ft 4000 ft 8000 ft and so on, attack the jets while climbing, forming up, attacking, approaching the air field and landing.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 5, 2013)

Civettone said:


> People keep using the argument of bouncing the jets on their take off and landing. However, this would not happen in this 1944 scenario.
> 
> Why?
> 
> The effective patrolling over German jet bases started around February 1945. By that time, the Allies were already invading Germany itself. This had two major results, which would be absent in this 1944 scenario.



Kris - the 8th AF was shooting up airfields in the Berlin, Leipzig, Munich area in April 1944. While patrolling doesn't express the tactics, April 5th 1944 demonstrates what a co-ordinated and planned Fighter Sweep could do. The 4th hit in the Berlin area and the 355th hit Munich area with devastating effect, destroying more than 130 fighters on the ground in a snowstorm. The Me 262 would have been just as vulnerable.


----------



## OldSkeptic (Aug 5, 2013)

Wendovertom said:


> This assumes that the 262's engines were reliable. From what I have read they were good for little more than perhaps 2-3 short sorties and extremely sensitive to pilot inputs (too much throttle to fast burned them up). By the time the 262 appeared I think it was too late. And, being somewhat patriotic, my gut response is to wink and say, "We'd of shot them down to".
> 
> Tom P.



I agree and have brought this up. Reliable, with better performance, axial flow jet engines were years away and that was the fundamental limitation of the 262, whatever Hitler did.
The research, design, engineering, materials and production issues were immense. Read Hookers account of trying to get the first RR axial flow engine up and running as an example, while he and his team had pulled off the 5,000lb Nene in a few months.

The advantages of the centrifugal flow engine, at that time, were immense.
A far simpler design, levered off the design and production expertise developed for superchargers.
You look at the performance of British centrifugal flow engines in late 44 vs German axial flow ones, totally superior in every measure of performance.
It took years more before axial flow ones got to the stage of the centrifugal ones.
Even as late as the Korean war Mig-15 vs F-86 time, there was sod all difference in their engines' performance between the Russian Nene centrifugal copy and the GE axial flow.

So it was a strategic mistake for the German engineers to go down that route, because it added years to the development and production time.

As for the 262 airframe, it was a superb design, significantly superior to the Meteor (though not the almost forgotten Vampire, at least as a pure fighter). As such it had much better performance with less power.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 5, 2013)

OldSkeptic said:


> Even as late as the Korean war Mig-15 vs F-86 time, there was sod all difference in their engines' performance between the Russian Nene centrifugal copy and the GE axial flow.



Not really...

Both were putting out about 6000 pounds. The J-47 could put out 6500 lbs with water injection, the VK-1, although a very simple and trouble free engine never matured any further than what was seen in the MiG-15 bis (unless you want to include the AB on the MiG-17)


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Aug 5, 2013)

Civettone said:


> Good point. But you are missing another one: stopping the US bomber offensive means: more German military production and an intact transport network towards Normandy. *That might have changed the outcome of the invasion!*
> 
> Kris



I doubt the invasion would have been staged absent air superiority. AFAIK, Ike considered it a huge risk even with it firmly established. But I also consider a superior interceptor denying allied access to German airspace to be a very different battle than establishing air superiority over a Normandy beachhead. I'd be surprised if the 262 could be used in an offensive fighter role with its short legs.


----------



## CobberKane (Aug 5, 2013)

awack said:


> Some one had stated the fact that the me 262 could out climb the p51, then some one said that it would also depend on the fuel load, well yes of course, this is true for many air craft types...actual german test of the me 262 showed a clime rate of about 3800 fpm, at 7000kg, that's 15.432 pounds for the me 262 tested, some one correct me if im wrong but that means that the me 262 is carrying its maximum fuel load of around 4500 pounds...lets compare that to the spitfire xiv which had a climb rate of around 4700 fpm with a fuel load of 950 pounds of fuel, so lets say each each aircraft meets each other in the air at half fuel load, where is the spitfire has gone through hundreds of pounds of fuel the me 262 has gone through thousands of pounds of fuel, this should have a dramatic effect on climb performance. Here are a few combat reports (I don't put a lot of faith in combat reports but) on one or two occasions US pilots one of which was p47 pilot said that chasing an me 262 in a zoom climb that the me 262 could actually accelerate while vertical, obviously it just seemed that way, a 262 following a recon spitfire from below stated that the spitfire pilot after spotting him opened his(by viewing smoke from the spitfire I think) pulled the spit into a climb but the me 262 had no problem out climbing him, spitfire 9 pilots jumping a me 262 while landing said that the german pilot opened out climb him, the key to this is the spitfire pilot stated that the me 262 was able to gain altitude on him not just a faster climb, of course the 262 was coming in to land and most likely low on fuel.
> 
> Bear in mind here that while the 262s vertical velocity might not have been as great as the P-51s (by these figures, anyway) it's horizontal velocity at maximum ROC was certainly much more. This is important, because it can mostly negate any advantage the P-51 might get from climbing faster. Post war tests of the Spit XIV vs the Vampire found that the Spit outclimbed the Vamp by about 5000fpm to the jet's 4000fpm (IIRC). However, the pilots noted that in practise the disparity in speed between the two meant that the Spit could not use this advantage in any meaningful way.
> Incidentally, the Vampire out-turned the Spitfire easily!


----------



## Civettone (Aug 5, 2013)

drgondog said:


> Kris - the 8th AF was shooting up airfields in the Berlin, Leipzig, Munich area in April 1944. While patrolling doesn't express the tactics, April 5th 1944 demonstrates what a co-ordinated and planned Fighter Sweep could do. The 4th hit in the Berlin area and the 355th hit Munich area with devastating effect, destroying more than 130 fighters on the ground in a snowstorm. The Me 262 would have been just as vulnerable.


Yes, you are absolutely right. The Germans did not see that coming. They responded by increasing the Flak on its air fields, but this probably took some time. 
Later in the war, some air fields were true Flak traps. For instance, the British stopped circling the Me 262 bases because of the losses they suffered.



oldcrowcv63 said:


> I doubt the invasion would have been staged absent air superiority. AFAIK, Ike considered it a huge risk even with it firmly established. But I also consider a superior interceptor denying allied access to German airspace to be a very different battle than establishing air superiority over a Normandy beachhead. I'd be surprised if the 262 could be used in an offensive fighter role with its short legs.


I agree. But I also don't see any contradiction with what I am saying.
However, the Allies would still have air superiority even if the Me 262 ruled the skies over Germany. They were closer to Normandy than most German fighters. 
As said in the previous page, this is not the same air supremacy, which means that you have 100% control over the skies, as they actually IRL over Normandy.



CobberKane said:


> awack said:
> 
> 
> > Bear in mind here that while the 262s vertical velocity might not have been as great as the P-51s (by these figures, anyway) it's horizontal velocity at maximum ROC was certainly much more. This is important, because it can mostly negate any advantage the P-51 might get from climbing faster. Post war tests of the Spit XIV vs the Vampire found that the Spit outclimbed the Vamp by about 5000fpm to the jet's 4000fpm (IIRC). However, the pilots noted that in practise the disparity in speed between the two meant that the Spit could not use this advantage in any meaningful way.
> ...


----------



## Jenisch (Aug 5, 2013)

If the Germans had a considerable number of 262s, what about put some bombs and sent them to hit and run attacks in the Allied airbases in England?


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Aug 6, 2013)

Interesting student's take on the situation in '44:

WW2 Luftwaffe Air Superiority

"After reorganization in 1944 by Dorsch of the Ministry of Armament and War Economy, the production shot to new highs. _In 1944 the production of fighter aircraft, almost 11 thousand not including the 1000 jet aircraft, was significantly more than all of the previous 5 years of wartime production. From 1943 to 1944, the production of all types almost doubled._ (Bekker Appendix 13) _Even with the massive numbers of aircraft built, Germany had lost the production race against the almost unlimited resources and manpower of the Allies especially the United States. In 1944 America had produced almost 100 thousand aircraft (Angelucci p. 361). Thus Knoke was correct in assessing the loss ratio of the Luftwaffe. ``The loss of five aircraft... means as much as a loss of fifty of the enem_y'' (Knoke p. 167).


----------



## Jenisch (Aug 6, 2013)

And let's not forget the Soviets, which produced 40,000 planes in 1944.


----------



## stona (Aug 6, 2013)

Jenisch said:


> If the Germans had a considerable number of 262s, what about put some bombs and sent them to hit and run attacks in the Allied airbases in England?



Coming back to the beginning of the thread, apologists like Galland would argue that this was a waste of resources. Such raids could be carried out by conventional aircraft. Historically (1940) the most successful raids were carried out by the Bf 110s of Erprobungsgruppe 210.

Dropping bombs from Me 262s was another thing that they were not entirely ready for. Changes in trim to compensate for CoG changes had to be done rapidly and there are several accounts of aircraft crashing immediately after releasing bombs.
Bomb racks were not interchangeable but positioned and fitted to individual aircraft, almost invariably marked with that aircraft's werknummer. Another sign of the premature rush into service.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## stona (Aug 6, 2013)

jim said:


> Thats exactly what Mr Stona is doing in his many of his last posts. Try to devalue the Me 262 and imlyies that is at best equal to P51D ( and naturally inferior to 51H )
> He calls the 262 not manouverable, a"brick" when all test pilots report a fully aerobatic aircraft with excellent high speed agility
> He calls "fantacies" the 400+++ german jet claims but accepts without question the claims of the american pilots.
> He accepts stories of P51s out diving Me 262s, Spitfires XIVs catching on level flight (!!!) 262s



1 The Me 262 was not an agile fighter. Being fully aerobatic and agile are not the same thing. Interestingly on acceptance flights no aerobatics apart from slow rolls were performed. The aircraft had to reach a minimum speed without wrinkling of skins or bits flying off and that was about it.

2 No I don't. Long experience of the Luftwaffe would cause me to be cautious of counting claims as kills, particularly after the autumn of 1944 when the claims verification system broke down. Some pilots provably and fraudulently over claimed and all pilots over claimed, even if in good faith. This, particularly the latter, was not unique to the Luftwaffe and was well known at the time. It was the bane of every debriefing intelligence officer's life.

I do not accept the claims of allied pilots, you presumably either didn't read or misunderstood my post. In fact I have gone to great lengths to match claims with German losses. I said in another post that I still have about 30 German losses that I can't tie to an allied claim. Those aircraft were still lost in or following air combat. The losses, as reported in German records actually outnumber the claims that I have found. This is due to a lack of information available to me, particularly from USAAF records. I would also say that due to inaccurately or badly written werknummern in German records and a propensity for getting dates wrong, some claims are difficult to exactly interpret. Nonetheless a loss was reported and can often be tentatively linked to a claim.

3 Those are mostly from encounter reports or the memoirs of the pilots (both sides) involved. Any allied fighter could easily catch an Me 262 if it wasn't being flown fast, even in level flight. In some circumstances the allied fighters out accelerated the Me 262 in just about all flight regimes. This is not a comment on the Me 262 but the way it was flown.

It is naïve in the extreme to apply the sort of performance achieved by test pilots to the way that service pilots flew the Me 262. Time and again they were caught by piston engine fighters or shot down by bombers having thrown away the one significant advantage their aircraft had, its speed.

I don't think that the Me 262 was a bad aeroplane. It was a significant step into the future. It was however introduced into service in July 1944 well before it was ready. No western allied air force would have introduced an aircraft with such an appalling serviceability record. No air force, except in desperation, would introduce an aircraft with such a lethal safety record. I've seen many aircraft described as death traps but the Me 262, as it entered service in 1944, killed far more of its pilots than the allies did.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## bada (Aug 6, 2013)

stona said:


> 1 The Me 262 was not an agile fighter. Being fully aerobatic and agile are not the same thing. Interestingly on acceptance flights no aerobatics apart from slow rolls were performed. The aircraft had to reach a minimum speed without wrinkling of skins or bits flying off and that was about it.
> 
> 2 No I don't. Long experience of the Luftwaffe would cause me to be cautious of counting claims as kills, particularly after the autumn of 1944 when the claims verification system broke down. Some pilots provably and fraudulently over claimed and all pilots over claimed, even if in good faith. This, particularly the latter, was not unique to the Luftwaffe and was well known at the time. It was the bane of every debriefing intelligence officer's life.
> 
> ...



Stona, 
look at the loss-page you posted, what i see there are A2's marks, in other words: bombers (jabo's) not fighters (A-1), those were mostly flown by Bomber's pilots, guys that flew on He111-ju88 and other "slow" aircrafts for years...and most of them flew the schwalbe simply the wrong way , maybe due to their bomber-reflexes.
It would be nice to see the total stats of the 262's losses by squadron, by type(mark) and especially by cause , for exemple: mechanical failure, direct ennemy action(air combat), flak, pilot error, straffed on takeoff/approach. Such stats gives more a decent view than just a list like you've posted.

If i take the same aproach as you did, than i could told you that most of the spitfire's pilots shouldn't have received their flight diploma or their instructor should have told them to RTFM...especially if i take the exemple of the spit MK12, which,statisticaly spoken, is the worst spit of them all


----------



## cherry blossom (Aug 6, 2013)

Although not obviously relevant to the question of how the Allies would respond, it may be worth noting that large numbers of Me 262s could cause other problems for a Normandy invasion. Firstly, there won't be any great surprise as reconnaissance aircraft can watch the invasion force in harbour and as it assembles. Secondly, jets could be used (as I suspect Hitler intended) for skip bombing against the supply ships. I am not sure how much trouble that will cause or what losses the jets will suffer in such attacks. Bomb laden jets at low altitude can probably be caught by lucky piston engined fighters and the speed over the target will not make jets immune to flak although some of the guns may have problems following crossing targets.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 6, 2013)

Just hecause the Me262 could carry bombs didn't mean it was a threat. For 10 days, Ar234 jet bombers attacked the bridge at Remagen with no spectacular success...


----------



## stona (Aug 6, 2013)

bada said:


> Stona,
> 
> It would be nice to see the total stats of the 262's losses by squadron, by type(mark) and especially by cause , for exemple: mechanical failure, direct ennemy action(air combat), flak, pilot error, straffed on takeoff/approach. Such stats gives more a decent view than just a list like you've posted.



I have that information, but in raw form. It is still possible to get a good idea of the causes of losses scanning through it. It would take months to reduce it to simple tables. I don't have the time or inclination to start that project at the moment. 
I can tell you this, of the Me 262s whose loss has a known cause the vast majority were non-combat related. I'd hazard a guess that engine and undercarriage failures would top the list of causes, followed by pilot error, airframe failure (large bits often tore off at high speeds) and unknown.
It is worth noting that they were not particularly well built. Those examined post war by the allies displayed signs of rushed production. Screw and rivet holes were not evenly spaced making the attached parts non-interchangeable for example. Both US and British reports comment on the copious amounts of filler used. Some systems were incompletely installed.

The thing was far more lethal to its pilots than the RAF and USAAF combined. 

That is one page of early production werknummern. Unsurprisingly those -2as were lost by 2,3 and 5./ KG 51 with a couple from Kommando Schenk.

I was unaware that we were discriminating between different dash numbers of the Me 262. They are essentially the same aircraft with removable ETC racks. 

Even the Luftwaffe got confused. As one example, courtesy of Dan O'Connell, W.Nr.110544 is listed as a -1a but its acceptance papers (which list all fitted equipment) state that it had two ETC racks making it a "Jabo". It also had special equipment, "Starthilfe" ( the mounting plates and wiring for RATO) which could be for either type and a BSK 16 gun camera more usually fitted to fighters.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 6, 2013)

> In a nutshell, I was wondering what the Allies as a whole would have done if the 262 had appeared in the kind of numbers Galland had fantasised about, just as the USAAF was fielding numbers of P-51s on the other side. That is, before D-day, and without the use of bases in occupied Europe.



Assuming the Me 262 had appeared in larger numbers in 1944 than it did, then little would have changed from what actually happened - apart from higher losses of bombers attacking Germany. How high would the losses be and would it be enough to halt the bombing altogether? That depends on whose conducting the fantasy - essentially, how many Me 262s are we looking at and are the issues that affected them in real WW2 affecting them in fantasy WW2? Are the Allies able to respond with jet development in advance also? Erich's statement about clarification is a pertinent one. 

In real WW2 the British became aware of the Me 262 five months before it became operational and feared exactly the scenario that we are discussing here even earlier based on reconnaissance photos showing scorch marks on airfields matching a twin engined jet and images of prototype Me 163s at Peenemunde - which the Allies had images of by mid 1943 - before they got one of a 262. A paper produced in July 1943 outlined these fears - that by early 1944 the Germans would have at least one jet/rocket fighter operational and that its performance would be beyond anything fielded by the Allies at that time. It was the first the Air Ministry produced on German jet/rocket fighter activity and it prompted an order for 120 Gloster Meteors and further research into high speed jet powered flight.

Within a year, after the Me 262 had entered service and crashed examples had been recovered and examined, the Air Staff, through the receipt of Enigma decrypts and other intel came to the conclusion that the threat of German Jets was overestimated and that not nearly as many as was initially thought would be in service and that their introduction would; "...not make any radical alteration to the effectiveness of the German Air Force." This was in late 1944.

The Americans were not so convinced by the RAF's increasingly blase attitude toward the German jets, Spaatz in particular since his bombers were their targets. He prioritised jet and rocket development installations as targets in September 1944, Helmut Walter's works at Keil and Junkers at Dessau were attacked in response. Augsburg had also been bombed in late February 1944. 

In fantasy WW2 where Me 262s enter service much earlier than mid 1944, we can presume that the Allies would have found out about them sooner and could react accordingly - therefore much would be done to counter the threat up to that point, such as the increased progress on jet aircraft in Britain and the USA. We can also assume that the issues that affected the Me 262 in real time would also affect them in fantasy time, meaning the engine issues etc, so their effectiveness would only be immediate, resulting in losses of bombers, but with the introduction of greater numbers of escorts, bombing sorties against research facilities etc - the threat _would_ eventually be met. The time period this would take place over and the countermeasures in place depend solely on whose conducting the fantasy.

Regardless of this, extra Me 262s would be in vain; the ultimate result would still be the end of the Third Reich - that would not change.


----------



## stona (Aug 6, 2013)

I'd like to add that no one is sure how many Me 262s actually saw service. Even the most optimistic would probably argue around 300 of the roughly 1500 produced. Of those I know for sure that between 110 and 130 were shot down by allied fighters, bombers or AAA. There are many whose fate is unknown.That makes them far from invincible. 

My point is and always has been that no matter how revolutionary a weapon the new jet was, it was far from the war winning wonder weapon that some are suggesting. Its capabilities and that of the men who flew it are being largely over estimated.

Cheers
Steve


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 6, 2013)

stona said:


> I'd like to add that no one is sure how many Me 262s actually saw service. Even the most optimistic would probably argue around 300 of the roughly 1500 produced. Of those I know for sure that between 110 and 130 were shot down by allied fighters, bombers or AAA. There are many whose fate is unknown.That makes them far from invincible.
> 
> My point is and always has been that no matter how revolutionary a weapon the new jet was, it was far from the war winning wonder weapon that some are suggesting. Its capabilities and that of the men who flew it are being largely over estimated.
> 
> ...



Read "Arrow to the Future"

Amazon.com: Messerschmitt Me 262: Arrow to the Future (Schiffer Military/Aviation History) (9780887406652): Walter J. Boyne: Books

This is from Wiki, sources shown when you go the the page.

_"About 1,400 Me 262s were produced, but a maximum of 200 were operational at the same time. They destroyed about 150 enemy planes, but the Allies destroyed about 100 Me 262s in the air.[51] While Germany was bombed intensively, production of the Me 262 was dispersed into low-profile production facilities, sometimes little more than clearings in the forests of Germany and occupied countries. Through the end of February to the end of March 1945, approximately 60 Me 262s were destroyed in attacks on Obertraubling and 30 at Leipheim;[62] the Neuberg jet plant itself was bombed on 19 March 1945.[63]"_


----------



## Balljoint (Aug 6, 2013)

Civettone said:


> In all these years, I have defended the Bf 109 as much as any other. But, I can tell you that the Bf 109G was definitely not able to deal with the P-51, at least not the G-6. When the G-10 and K-4 arrived, they were up to the challenge again. Of course, it mainly depends on the pilot, but that's a no brainer.
> What do you mean by P-51 levering the vertical? The Me 262 had superior climb rate and maintained speed better during manoeuvre.




My point is that the Me-262s would be tasked with destroying bombers. Thus the escort fighters would locate above the bombers and take a crack at the attacking jets. There was some success doing this on an ad hoc basis. It’s a tactic that could be refined. The situation wouldn’t have reverted to the days of no escorts.

But my main point is that the LW’s failure was a function of pilot skill and availability, not planes. The super weapons such as the V-1/2 were more a bother than a game changer in the big picture. Me-262s by the hundreds would have reshaped perhaps but not changed the outcome.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 6, 2013)

cherry blossom said:


> Although not obviously relevant to the question of how the Allies would respond, it may be worth noting that large numbers of Me 262s could cause other problems for a Normandy invasion. Firstly, there won't be any great surprise as reconnaissance aircraft can watch the invasion force in harbour and as it assembles. Secondly, jets could be used (as I suspect Hitler intended) for skip bombing against the supply ships. I am not sure how much trouble that will cause or what losses the jets will suffer in such attacks. Bomb laden jets at low altitude can probably be caught by lucky piston engined fighters and the speed over the target will not make jets immune to flak although some of the guns may have problems following crossing targets.



in relation to your first point, highy unlikely, or extremely foolhardy if attempted. The germaans, like everyone, would be cautiousto place extremely secret and highly valuable jet techniologies in harms way over enemy teritory. by way of comparison, it was 5 months before the Meteor was cleared for service over europe, and even then only over or near allied controlledterritory. that was many months after the 262 had entered squadron service

In relation to your second point, fighter bombers were notoriously bad at hitting moving ships, they could do it,and they could even hit ships,but as a rule of thumb prop driven FBs were roughly half as accurate as dedicated Divebombers. Rocket firing FBs like the befighter had some success, but in order to improve accuracy, generally had to reduce speed. reduce speed inan aircraft like the me 262, and you are immediately in trouble. And I doubt the 262 could slow down enough to be effective in this role. The best FB in the anti-shipping role in my opinion wasthe fairey firefly. it was accurate for a number of reasons, but chief among was its patented youngman flaps, which allowed their deployment even in 90degree dives. it greatly increased the bombing accuracy. no other flap, including the junkers design could match its capability. but it would not be possible to safely use it in an enemy controlled airspace. 

even in my era,when our F-111s were using all but stand off weaponary lke the harpoon, to achieve better accuracy, the sircraft had to reduce sped to subsonic. That was with computer assisted aiming....the 262 would be relying on los the same as other a/c of its era. becauseof it high minimum speeds, it would not be very accurate at all.

An Me262 carrying boms would have to suffer some penalties in speed andother performance, and make it quite vulnerable to alled air defences, both AA and airborne. I thinkn a 262 used as an anti-shipping weapon would have yielded virtually no results. with regard to flak,wwii era guns would have no problem tracking a jet travelling at subsonic speed. We were tracking A-4s at 500 knots using 4.5" guns and even Bofors in the 70's , so why all of a sudden would a 262 be immune???


----------



## stona (Aug 6, 2013)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Read "Arrow to the Future"
> 
> Amazon.com: Messerschmitt Me 262: Arrow to the Future (Schiffer Military/Aviation History) (9780887406652): Walter J. Boyne: Books



Thanks. It's always a bit risky stating numbers like that as hard facts. We can be sure that total production was 1400-1500 but many records are either missing, wrong or erroneous when it comes to aircraft in service.
I wouldn't argue with them, they are certainly in the generally accepted ball park.

I don't know his source for the 150 allied aircraft destroyed but that also sounds about right, though a bit higher than my own guesstimate. I didn't post the figure earlier because there are many who believe that the 500+ claims (depending who you read) are actually aircraft destroyed and it would just trigger another pointless debate 

Cheers

Steve


----------



## altsym (Aug 6, 2013)

@ Parsifal,

In regards to you "liking" my comment, understand that I'm a firm believer that Germany could have brought the airwar to a stalemate if different tactics were employed, and certain command decisions countermanded. Even with existing German aircraft.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 6, 2013)

stona said:


> I don't know his source for the 150 allied aircraft destroyed but that also sounds about right, though a bit higher than my own guesstimate.* I didn't post the figure earlier because there are many who believe that the 500+ claims (depending who you read) are actually aircraft destroyed and it would just trigger another pointless debate *Cheers
> 
> Steve



Agree, I've seen claims as high as 700. In the book I mentioned it talks about March or April of 1945 where 262s were shot down in greater numbers than their prey.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 6, 2013)

altsym said:


> @ Parsifal,
> 
> In regards to you "liking" my comment, understand that I'm a firm believer that Germany could have brought the airwar to a stalemate if different tactics were employed, and certain command decisions countermanded. Even with existing German aircraft.




doesnt matter to me. I give likes to comments that are clever or entertaining, or sometimes putting apoint across that I just didnt think of.

Despite what people think of me, I dont see this as a "them and us" contest at all. I object to revisionist history that is unfounded and in reality trying to re-write history. i also object to comments that are clearly derogatory for political or other reasons.


----------



## Conslaw (Aug 6, 2013)

If I were an Allied commander facing multitudes of ME-262 on the eve of a planned invasion of the continent, I would switch American heavy bombing to night and I would lead with my fighter bombers in targets up to their maximum range. I could trade 1-1 or 2-1 and still come out ahead. I could still get sufficient air superiority over France to invade in the summer of 1944, and I'd rely on my advancing ground troops and my fighter-bombers to move my ground forces ahead to twin the war. I could fly medium bombers under a heavy curtain of fighter protection.


----------



## Erich (Aug 6, 2013)

I believe there has not been written th fina word if ever will be on case studies of the % of Allied/Soviet A/C kills produced by 262 jet units, dn;t thin there ever could be due to records losses data buried burned up, stolen or simply does not exist.

say for example Nowony band - 50
JV 44 band - 50

I personally reduce JG 7 numbers but do not add any Soviet A/C kills down from 425 to 250.

you have private eschelon protective factory units, staffel sized units, Bomber-jabo, etc, which I will not even admit too nor 10./NJG 11 which records shall we say all over the books and cannot be 100 % confirmed with any facts. go back to Kommando Hogebeck out of Prague - Rusin which incorporated JG 7 and at least 3 other jet units so am wondering if JG 7 claimed overall everyone's western/eastern front jet claims ? ..... hard to say.

still if we take the upper 3 units that figures seem somewhat available for that record is impressive for the amount of jets encountered damaged/shot down if can be believed..........


----------



## Jenisch (Aug 6, 2013)

stona said:


> Coming back to the beginning of the thread, apologists like Galland would argue that this was a waste of resources. Such raids could be carried out by conventional aircraft. Historically (1940) the most successful raids were carried out by the Bf 110s of Erprobungsgruppe 210.
> 
> Dropping bombs from Me 262s was another thing that they were not entirely ready for. Changes in trim to compensate for CoG changes had to be done rapidly and there are several accounts of aircraft crashing immediately after releasing bombs.
> Bomb racks were not interchangeable but positioned and fitted to individual aircraft, almost invariably marked with that aircraft's werknummer. Another sign of the premature rush into service.
> ...



Well, the bombers were just parked. A short 30mm burst in each of them and major damage would be ensured. The author of the topic says that the Me 262s would "appear in numbers" just as the P-51 became avaliable (late 1943). Historically, the Meteor appeared operationally in mid-1944. If the RAF could not have it earlier, then there's a window of oportunity for the 262s attack the airfields in England.

The Germans may not have like from the idea of having the new technology avaliable to the Allies, due to the risk of a 262 get in Allied hands by conducting attacks in England. The problem is that if the jet is to "save" Germany, just as an interceptor in friendly territory it would not do it. Specially because the red Juggernaut was coming and runing over everything on it's way.

ps: CobberKane, we need to have idea of what "numbers" of Me 262s you are proposing.


----------



## CobberKane (Aug 6, 2013)

Fair enough. I think the USAAF regarded a 5% loss rate as acceptable for daylight raids. In 1943 the loss rate was often closer to double that, but then came the P-51 and revised tactics. How many 262s would have been required to get the loss rate back up to the unacceptable level? No idea, but for arguments sake, lets say the LW had the resources to put up 100 competently flown 262s to meet each large raid, as of about the time the P-51 was available in numbers for escort duty. That would be about the start of 1944, wouldn't it?


----------



## Jenisch (Aug 6, 2013)

Yes. However, if they could field 100 Me 262s, there will have to be a context for this. We need to understand the German industry in the counterfactual scenario.


----------



## bobbysocks (Aug 6, 2013)

what would happen if the allies made an equal or more mossies? have us and canada factories gear up to fabricate them en mass and flood the sky with them and replace the p38. you would have the range and something that is closer to the 262 in speed and flight characteristics. you would still need a sufficent number of 51s to deal with 109s and 190s. viable?


----------



## Gixxerman (Aug 6, 2013)

In this scenario large numbers of 262's only 'works' in early 1943 if the allies are completely oblivious and shocked by their appearance, but it would have to be in large in numbers and with decent tactics for their use, reliability, well trained pilots etc etc.
Never credible in my opinion.
I still think the only outcome is continued bombing (by night) the Soviets get more of western Europe defeating Hitler's gang.


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 6, 2013)

Too many of us here are assuming that the first inkling that the Allies would have of these '100 or so' Me 262s would be as they came streaking out of the sky toward the bombers. That would most certainly not be the case at all. As I pointed out earlier, the Allies were fully aware of what the '262 was five months before it entered service and were aware the Germans had twin engine jet aircraft and the Me 163 a whole year before either entered service. Are you guys really that naive to believe that the Allies would do nothing and would be forced to accept enormous losses of bombers? They didn't just sit on their hands, they drew up plans - as was pointed out, the Gloster Meteor entered squadron service very shortly after the Me 262 did, they bombed production facilities, airfields etc. Yes there were dispersed sites, but the work was insufficient to make a lasting difference. Toward the end Me 262s were sitting on airfields because the Germans had no fuel, no spares, engines etc. Why are assuming that the real situation that did actually happen would not happen in a fantasy scenario?

The Me 262 was a flawed beauty; it promised great things for the future, but in its current state was not able to deliver because it was rushed into service prematurely. The Allies planned and acted on just such a scenario as what we are discussing, but in the end it did not happen; it could not happen - thankfully.


----------



## Jenisch (Aug 6, 2013)

The Soviets modified some of their fighters with a rocket engine in the tail to fight the German jets (it was actually not completed before the war ended). I'm wondering if this could have been done with the American fighters (even if at the expensive of range, meaning more relays).


----------



## Erich (Aug 6, 2013)

since none of Allied command had never seen films nor first hand ops by the jet it is strongly doubtful as you say months in advance. 8th AF escort pilots were astounded at the lack of being able to chase any of them down when they were first encountered almost on instructional flights in the summer/fall of 1944. As to bomber crews they knew they stood no chance against the jet as they could track them with their .60's unless they had high protective coverage......this is all covered in personal interviews over the last 30 years with former crews // squadron philosophies changed on the way they manged escort of heavies with allowance for jets to pass through and then follow if need be back to their own A/F's


----------



## CobberKane (Aug 6, 2013)

Jenisch said:


> Yes. However, if they could field 100 Me 262s, there will have to be a context for this. We need to understand the German industry in the counterfactual scenario.



Golly. Maybe I'll just have a contextual counterfactual beer and let it all ride...


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 6, 2013)

> since none of Allied command had never seen films nor first hand ops by the jet it is strongly doubtful as you say months in advance.



The British based their information on reconnaissance photographs. Erich, read about Constance Babington-Smith, a photographic interpreter who made the first discovery of German jet development and about AI2(g) the British committe tasked with investigating intelligence about German jet and rocket projects. Head of British Scientific Intelligence Prof R.V. Jones had continuous contact with AI2(g) about the German jets and got his predictions pretty well done on what the Germans were up to. Further reading:

http://www.theguardian.com/news/2000/aug/12/guardianobituaries

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0750936487/?tag=dcglabs-20

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0141042826/?tag=dcglabs-20

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_Report


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Aug 6, 2013)

Jenisch said:


> The Germans may not have like from the idea of having the new technology avaliable to the Allies, due to the risk of a 262 get in Allied hands *by conducting attacks in England. *The problem is that if the jet is to "save" Germany, just as an interceptor in friendly territory it would not do it. Specially because the red Juggernaut was coming and runing over everything on it's way.




Am I missing something here? With a combat radius of ~150 miles. Any base from which the 262 might stage an attack on England is within range of virtually every USAAF RAF fighter based in England (from mid-1943, if not a bit earlier) and therefore the air over it is already for all practical purposes, allied controlled. I can see the 262's value as a point defense interceptor and to some (but much less) extent even as a CAS weapon but as a power projection weapon its seems virtually useless. This isn't the summer of 1940 when the LW can attempt to seize control of British airspace with Me-109s and Me-110s, a chore for which those aircraft were woefully inadequate to accomplish, even when confronted by a '_mediocre_' performing adversary like the Hurricane flown by rank novices.

For essentially the same reason I don't see the early presence of 100+ 262s as delaying Overlord at all.


----------



## altsym (Aug 6, 2013)

Again it wasn't the BF 109's fault. Command decisions hampered the 109 pilots efforts. If decisions were left to the pilots, the RAF would have been decimated.


----------



## CobberKane (Aug 6, 2013)

altsym said:


> Again it wasn't the BF 109's fault. Command decisions hampered the 109 pilots efforts. If decisions were left to the pilots, the RAF would have been decimated.


 
I doubt it. "Decimate" is what the P-51 did to the Luftwaffe over Europe four years later, but they had an endurance over enemy territory of hours, not minutes.


----------



## altsym (Aug 6, 2013)

Ignore the fighters, go for the bombers. Goring's big blunder in regards to the P-51. Not allowing his pilots the free hunt. Another blunder in regards to the BoB.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Aug 6, 2013)

altsym said:


> Ignore the fighters, go for the bombers. Goring's big blunder in regards to the P-51. Not allowing his pilots the free hunt. Another blunder in regards to the BoB.



I don't have ready references, but it is my understanding that operations analysis applied to the BoB indicate there was no way the Luftwaffe could have won. The RAF had options to consider or implement in the worst possible case (different LW command decisions). For example, moving northward out of the limited range of its adversaries. Just saying what I've read in the past and unfortunately can't cite. Seems to me the ability of the 109 to mimic P-51 fighter sweep ops is extremely limited.


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 6, 2013)

> If decisions were left to the pilots, the RAF would have been decimated.



If only it were that simple


----------



## parsifal (Aug 6, 2013)

> Ignore the fighters, go for the bombers. Goring's big blunder in regards to the P-51. Not allowing his pilots the free hunt. Another blunder in regards to the BoB.



He can correct me if Im wrong, but as i recall, DG has previously stated that was the policy of the Reich Defences in '44, and it cost them dearly


----------



## parsifal (Aug 7, 2013)

Ialso found this online source, which has good discussion of the Me 262 from page 344 onward

Germany and the Second World War: Volume VII: The Strategic Air War in ... - Horst Boog, Gerhard Krebs, Detlef Vogel - Google Books

Is this written from German sources? it appears so judging by the authors names


----------



## CobberKane (Aug 7, 2013)

altsym said:


> Ignore the fighters, go for the bombers. Goring's big blunder in regards to the P-51. Not allowing his pilots the free hunt. Another blunder in regards to the BoB.



I don't recall that Goering or anyone else required that the LW pilots shoot down fighters. In fact, I believe the only times they were specifically instructed to attack fighters was in protection of the twin engine Zerstoyers, to give them a crack at the bombers. Either way, the bombers were always the priority targets. As for ignoring the fighters, it's very hard to ignore someone camped on your tail squirting .50s while you try to get at the bombers. Practically speaking, the LW pilots could ignore the fighters only when they knew the fighters would eventually have to turn back and leave the bombers unprotected, which stopped happening with the arrival of the P-51, or by flying 100mph faster than anything else in the air, which only happened for the lucky few who got the 262.
Free ranging 109s in the BoB? The RAF might have lost some more fighters, but how much free ranging can you do when you have only twenty minutes of flying time in the combat zone?


----------



## awack (Aug 7, 2013)

[QUOTEBear in mind here that while the 262s vertical velocity might not have been as great as the P-51s][/QUOTE]
I think you meant to say Spitfire XIV, nothing special about p51d climb with 180 gallons of standard fual (not 260 gallon long range load out) its climb rate is about 3400 fpm, compared to the me 262s 3800 fpm with its well over 600 gallons of fuel...which is why you hear stories of the me 262 out climbing spitfires 14s and 9s, it depends on how much fuel the me 262 has burned off, the spits had hundreds of pounds to burn off the me 262 had thousands, combined with its higher speed climb, awesome zoom climb, highest tact mach number, fantastic high speedhandling, firepower, its energy retention, to its speed of 514 at sea level, 542 at 20000, 510 at 33000, it was far faster than anything at any altitude. having said all that, the allies could have delt with the jet any time they wanted by targeting their basses causing the jets to attack and having their own prop fighters attacking at all altitudes, the germans only hope was to introduce the me 262 a lot earlier and that was not possible.


----------



## altsym (Aug 7, 2013)

Young late war LW pilots only heard ignore the fighters. Which most took literally even when fired upon.
Galland Mullers were big advocates of the free hunt during the BoB. They felt babysitting bombers or
Carrying bombs was a waste of what there 109's were capable of. I tend to agree.


----------



## Jenisch (Aug 7, 2013)

How was the German fuel situation by late 1943? Also, could the jets have prevented the Soviets from occupy Romania and it's oil fields?


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 7, 2013)

> They felt babysitting bombers or carrying bombs was a waste of what there 109s were capable of. I tend to agree.



They might have been right, but their theories were not going to win them the Battle of Britain, or for that matter, 'decimate' the RAF, as you put it. Your simplistic and inaccurate view doesn't take into account the actions of the British themselves to prevent the Germans from defeating the RAF, nor does it accept that the German bomber force tactics were a part of the LW's defeat. The British came the closest to losing when their 11 Group airfields were being systematically attacked by the bombers - the fact that there wasn't sufficient reconnaissance to determine exactly how much (or little) damage was being done was also a weakness of the LW. The German fighters were important, yes, but it was the bombers that held the key to a successful outcome for the LW. The Germans had the most accurate bombing force in the world during the BoB and they squandered the opportunity to use the technology they had to great advantage, that is, before the British came up with countermeasures to that technology.

One thing, how did we get from the Me 262 to Bf 109s in the Battle of Britain?


----------



## parsifal (Aug 7, 2013)

According to Hayworth ("Stopped At Stalingrad"), the Germans went through a bit of as fuel crisis in '42, and then staged a bit of a recovery in '43 as offensive movement started to thin out. The real nose dive occurred in the first six months of 44. However, having said all that ther was never anything like enough fuel to maintain a proper training regime, and this limited both the quantity and the quality of pilots. it also accounts for the massive fleet decommissionings and limited training times for the surface fleet as well which so affected the KM as the latter part of the war drew in. 

Hayworth goes into considerable detail on this, but i havent got him her with me at the moment. i think also Murray does a similar analysis. i also have a commercialized version of the USSBS at home that might help in this issue


----------



## GregP (Aug 7, 2013)

Don't know about "fantastic high speed handling." The Me 262. while it flew smoothly, was NOT a dogfighter and anythinhg could out-roll, and out-turn it. The climb was nothing spectacular, but WAS done at high forward speed, making it difficult to catch when climbing ... unless you were higher. The only hope the Me 262 had was boom and zoom tactics. If it ever tried to stay and fight, it was doomed.

No doubt it handled very well compared to other jets, but not the propeller fighters, which could turn and out-accelerate it. There are tales of a Meteor turning with a Tempest, but the Me 262 wasn't ever mentioned as a good turner in the war by anybody. It had two strengths only ... high speed and heavy armament. Everything else was 1st-generation jet ... which means not so good.

The Me 262 did OK against bombers flying at less than 200 mph, but with 509 to 542 claimed victories against 100 or so combat losses and some unknown number to operational casues, it isn't anything spectacular. We had piston fighters that did almost 4 times as well for the war. I don't know the real number (and don't know anyone else who does), but I feel safe in saying the Bf 109 did better, too, by a large margin.

So I'm thinking that large numbers of Me 262's would not have accomplished much except to focus attention on Allied jet development while the late pistons were handling the Me 262's, particularly as they landed or took off.


----------



## OldSkeptic (Aug 7, 2013)

altsym said:


> Again it wasn't the BF 109's fault. Command decisions hampered the 109 pilots efforts. If decisions were left to the pilots, the RAF would have been decimated.



I think Stephen Bungay's Book "most Dangerous Enemy' has put that myth to rest.

No matter what the Luftwaffe did, the best it could have achieved was to lose more slowly.

Plus he debunked that myth about Goering's orders. Goering didn't say that at all. He left tactics up to the individual commanders wot work out, though he did gave them a kick for the Stuka and bomber losses. h also suspected, probably correctly, that some of the fighter pilots were more interested in their 'throat ache' than protecting bombers.

The correct way, which Galland followed (and innovated to a large extent) was for a layered defence of the bombers. Close (ish) escort, high cover and forward sweep. Plus fighters to rendezvous for return.
Exactly as the USAAF worked out later.

Problem was the Luftwaffe didn't have the number of fighters to be able to force enough attrition on the RAF to win. And their fighter production was too low and not enough pilots were being trained.
Park perfectly played to their weaknesses his performance, in all the many times in all the places that have war gamed the BoB, has never been beaten.

Realistically they needed twice or even three times as many fighters to begin with, to have a chance.

As for basic tactics, kill the bombers, then the fighters are irrelevant. Plus in terms of attrition, a bomber is far harder to replace (materially and crew wise) than a fighter.

If, at worst, you only kill one bomber per fighter lost (and the production and training levels are similar) then you win.

If more realistically each fighters takes out 2-5 bombers, then you thump them.

Take '43 for example, the Luftwaffe simultaneously beat the USAAF and RAF Bomber Command. But it's victory depended on a fragile factor, it's twins (Me-110s, Ju-88s and 410s), once the USAAF had a LR fighter, they were slaughtered and their SE engined fighters were too few, too poorly armed and/or too poor a performance to take up the load. Never again did they inflict the sort of kill/loss ratios needed that they managed before.

Note also, unlike (say) the BoB, their kill/loss ratios against bombers had to go up as the air battle over Germany went on, as the USAAF brought on stream more and more bombers and of course more and more escorts, meant that they were suffering greater fighter losses from the US fighters, while having to kill even more bombers.

Attritional warfare again, only in the opposite way to the BoB. The attackers, finally, won.

In this case, unlike the RAF in the BoB which was actually getting stronger as the battle went on (relative to the Luftwaffe), the Luftwaffe basically had the same amount of SE fighters in 44 as they had in 40 .. with mostly poorer pilots.


----------



## stona (Aug 7, 2013)

OldSkeptic said:


> the Luftwaffe basically had the same amount of SE fighters in 44 as they had in 40 .. with mostly poorer pilots.



Which is a very important point. In May 1940 the Luftwaffe had 1369 fighter (SE and TE) ready for the Battles of France and Britain. In May 1944 it had 1650.

Production had soared and yet numbers in service did not. In simple terms the more fighters the Luftwaffe put up, and you can include the Me 262 in this, the more the allies, particularly the USAAF shot down.
In the six months from January to June 1944 the Luftwaffe lost 2855 fighters in combat and a further 1345 to other causes. That's 4200 fighters, over two and a half times it's entire fighter establishment_ in six months_.

Frankly the introduction of a few hundred Me 262s would have made very little difference to these figures, except to boost the "other causes" number.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## OldSkeptic (Aug 7, 2013)

stona said:


> Which is a very important point. In May 1940 the Luftwaffe had 1369 fighter (SE and TE) ready for the Battles of France and Britain. In May 1944 it had 1650.
> 
> Production had soared and yet numbers in service did not. In simple terms the more fighters the Luftwaffe put up, and you can include the Me 262 in this, the more the allies, particularly the USAAF shot down.
> In the six months from January to June 1944 the Luftwaffe lost 2855 fighters in combat and a further 1345 to other causes. That's 4200 fighters, over two and a half times it's entire fighter establishment_ in six months_.
> ...



And in terms of pilot/crew and machine quality they were at their best. The 109 outnumbered the Spits (it's only match at that time) very significantly and it was markedly superior to the Hurricane.
Their fighter pilots were significantly better trained and experienced than RAF ones.
Their fighter (and bomber) tactics were far better (took FC another year and BC tactics and technology took to late 42 to even get close).

At the BoB it was the Luftwaffe at it's absolute height. Blooded and hardened from the Spanish, Polish, French (etc) campaigns. With superb (and overall superior) equipment, incredibly well trained and experienced pilots and crews.


----------



## cimmex (Aug 7, 2013)

stona said:


> Which is a very important point. In May 1940 the Luftwaffe had 1369 fighter (SE and TE) ready for the Battles of France and Britain. In May 1944 it had 1650.
> 
> 
> Cheers
> ...


This numbers may be true but you should also show the numbers at the opposite side in those years.
cimmex


----------



## stona (Aug 7, 2013)

cimmex said:


> This numbers may be true but you should also show the numbers at the opposite side in those years.
> cimmex



According to Overy, on 19th June 1940 Fighter Command had 768 fighters in operational squadrons of which 520 were serviceable.

According to the USSBS in May 1944 the RAF and USAAF had 7706 and 5716 fighters in the ETO respectively. That's a total of 13,422. That's a grand total in the entire ETO and no indication of how many were operational. In any case it is vastly more than the Luftwaffe had available. Then there was the Soviets.

The total of allied aircraft in the ETO at this time was 25416, roughly ten times the total Luftwaffe establishment. Another reason why the Me 262 would not have had a significant impact.

You'll notice that whilst the number of fighters available to the Luftwaffe has remained roughly the same the RAF strength in the ETO alone has increased ten fold.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Aug 7, 2013)

Jenisch said:


> How was the German fuel situation by late 1943? Also, could the jets have prevented the Soviets from occupy Romania and it's oil fields?



www.conservapedia.com/Luftwaffe

Annual LW av-gas stores on hand


----------



## stona (Aug 7, 2013)

Which reflects the tonnage of bombs dropped on oil targets by the British and Americans, look at the jump in November '44. According to some this was pointless 






Cheers

Steve


----------



## Civettone (Aug 7, 2013)

GregP said:


> Don't know about "fantastic high speed handling." The Me 262. while it flew smoothly, was NOT a dogfighter and anythinhg could out-roll, and out-turn it. The climb was nothing spectacular, but WAS done at high forward speed, making it difficult to catch when climbing ... unless you were higher. The only hope the Me 262 had was boom and zoom tactics. If it ever tried to stay and fight, it was doomed.


Utter nonsense. What you are saying goes for all jet fighters !
Pretty much every piston fighter could outmanoeuvre a jet, from the F-86 to an F-22. 
And WW2 was all about boom and zoom attacks! How else do you think the P-38, P-47 and P-51 achieved air superiority over Germany and Japan? Speed and power, that is what WW2 brought to aerial combat.

Kris


----------



## Milosh (Aug 7, 2013)

stona said:


> Which reflects the tonnage of bombs dropped on oil targets by the British and Americans, look at the jump in November '44. According to some this was pointless
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Interesting, the British dropped more tonnage than the Americans.


----------



## Milosh (Aug 7, 2013)

Another graph for German fuel.


----------



## razor1uk (Aug 7, 2013)

The Brits (with Commonwealth and 'Free European' forces) were against the Natzi's for longer, but see the USAAF was playing catch up very quickly - another 6 months and they might have dropped more in less overall time. But just the dropping of bombs doesn't confer damage hinderance to the enemy/target unless you hit something important - something that both the Allies and Axis generally missed with their level bombers.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Aug 7, 2013)

Civettone said:


> What you are saying goes for all jet fighters !
> Pretty much every piston fighter could outmanoeuvre a jet, from the F-86 to an F-22.
> And WW2 was all about boom and zoom attacks! How else do you think the P-38, P-47 and P-51 achieved air superiority over Germany and Japan? _*Speed and power,*_ that is what WW2 brought to aerial combat. Kris



Kris, a fair comment in very general terms, except for the generational context. Comparing first generation jets (with all their technological immaturity and limitations, especially those produced in a besieged country that can barely muster a cadre of competent pilots) with large numbers of last generation prop fighter a/c flown by very well trained and logistically supported adversaries doesn't seem to me to translate well to what modern jets can do in response to what can only be described as a marginal threat. If it were otherwise, Vietnam would have been acquiring Yaks to counter the McDc F-4. By current example, if a Cessna breaks the ADIZ today, it will be initially intercepted by an F-16, but will soon be handed off to a local law enforcement helicopter. 

Speed and power were indeed enhanced in WW2, but I believe the aviation (fighter) world was already headed down that road. What WW2 brought that was a true revolution was endurance. The idea that a single-seat, single-engine a/c could roam a continent picking fights with whatever it met was an unheralded development and one that remains not fully appreciated. The P-51 seems to be most frequently touted due to its role as an escort, but that played a secondary (albeit important) role in the defeat of the Luftwaffe.


----------



## stona (Aug 7, 2013)

Milosh said:


> Interesting, the British dropped more tonnage than the Americans.



We were at it for longer and our main strategic bombers carried a much bigger load.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Aug 7, 2013)

~50 to 100 mph speed disadvantage is typically significant in combat outcome but not necessarily fatal to the poorer performing adversary. WW2 is replete with examples of confrontations by fighters of similarly mismatched performance (as 262 vs P-51): 

Rather than using the more appropriate graphs of speed vs altitude, I'll make it easy on myself and compare optimum altitude maximum speed 
IJA Ki-27 (~275 mph) vs USAAF FEAF P-40E (~350 mph) in the PI: Published Speed Differential: ~75mph
F4F-3 (~331 mph) vs A5M (~273 mph) in early 1942 carrier raids: Speed Differential: ~58 mph
Gloster Gladiator (253 mph) vs Me-110 (336 mph) in 1940 Norway campaign: Speed Differential: ~83 mph
Grumman Martlet IV (~F4F-4A, I think? no sources handy) (~300 mph) vs FW 190 or Me-109 (~400 mph): Speed Differential: `~100 mph

I expect there are other examples of similar disparities but these will serve to make the point that numbers of serviceable aircraft count at least as much as raw speed performance (Fulmar vs ???)


----------



## Milosh (Aug 7, 2013)

stona said:


> We were at it for longer and our main strategic bombers carried a much bigger load.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Steve



til June `44 RAF BC - 1899, USAAF - 3115

from June `44 RAF BC - 82.025, USAAF - 76,116

There was way more American heavy bombers.


----------



## GregP (Aug 7, 2013)

Civetone, regarding post 180, let's just say we totally disagree with one another and let it go at that.

I doubt the moderators would appreciate my retort to your "utter nonsense" comment, and I'll leave it at that.

Have a nice day.


----------



## GregP (Aug 7, 2013)

Regarding post 181: Actually the British did not drop more tonnage than the USAAF. The list Stona posted was tons of bombs dropped on OIL targets in the ETO and it added up to 163,155 tons on OIL targets alone. Not sure if those are long tons or short tons since it doesn’t say. Probably depends on where it was published.

In the entire war, the USAAF dropped 1,463,423 tons (52.8%) in the ETO and the RAF dropped 1,307,117 tons (47.2%) in the ETO. Roughly equal. For the USAAF, that includes 8th, 9th, 12th, and 15th Air Forces as well as the 1st Tactical Air Force. For the RAF that includes Bomber Command, Fighter Command, 2nd Tactical Air Force and the Mediterranean Air Command. The RAF took 687,462 sorties to do it and the USAAF took 754,818 sorties. The RAF average 1.901 tons per sortie. The USAAF averaged 1.930 tons per sortie. Also roughly equal.

Since we know the Lancaster hauled more bombs per sortie than the USAAF planes, it follows that there were many more sorties in the RAF flown by other than Lancasters. In fact the Halifax, Wellington, Stirling and Mosquito together flew more sorties than Lancaster did.

Those tonnages are Wiki numbers and the numbers from such sources as Jane’s Fighting Aircraft of WWII are a bit lower but show a similar percentage dropped by the USAAF and the RAF. We didn’t get started until later but rapidly caught up. The British had been at it longer but also didn’t have the industrial production capacity to match the rapid growth of the USAAF bomber fleet. In the end, the total tonnage was very close for both Air Forces.

1944 saw the heaviest aerial bombing the world has ever known.

You can tell when the eventual breakdown came from other statistics, too. In 1942 and 1943 the USAAF didn't destroy any Axis aircraft on the ground. In 1944 they averaged 198 Axis aircraft destroyed on the ground per month and 688 destroyed in the air. For the first 3 months of 1945, they averaged 234 on the ground and 324 in the air.

Then came April 1945. The USAAF in April shot down 324 Axis aircraft in the air but also destroyed 3,703 Axis aircraft on the ground. That amounts to more losses on the ground in April 1945 than for the whole preceeding rest of the war!

Tough for the Luftwaffe to rebound from those kinds of losses, but April 1945 was also the same time the Ta 152 made its combat contributions. Altogether bad timing.


----------



## Erich (Aug 7, 2013)

.............side note the Ta 152H became operational in January of 45...........don't believe everything you read...........


----------



## davparlr (Aug 7, 2013)

General comments on various post

Once the USSR was invaded and war was declared on the US, the only thing that could have ended the war to Germany’s betterment would have been development of the atom bomb before the allies. They would never be able to out produce the US or out man the Soviet Union. Advanced conventional weapons may have delayed the war but probably not by much as advanced weapons were rapidly countered (typically 6-9 mos).

Looking at flight test data and characteristics it is unreasonable to assume there was much difference in performance between the P-80 and the Me 262. The P-80 was a bit lighter and thus had slightly better thrust to weight ratio and wing loading. It appears to be faster at SL but slower at high altitude and climbed better. High ranking officer comments negative on the P-80 has the smell of the claims by the military during the 50s and 60s on how far behind the Russians the US was. After WWII I suspect no general would say the P-80 was good enough when they were desperately seeking limited funding to develop more advanced aircraft like the F-86. Twin pod engines on the Me 262 and Meteor were dead end streets in the design of fighter aircraft.

The P-51B/D was an excellent long range escort and interdiction fighter and was very capable of dogfighting the majority of Bf-109 and Fw 190 versions it faced, excluding the Fw 190D-9, Bf-109 G-10, and certainly the Bf-109K-4, which was more of a challenge, all of these appearing too late. But the Me 262 was a different beast. It was 100 mph faster than the P-51B/D and if well flown in quantity would have been problematic to daylight bombing forcing it to nighttime. However, swarms of P-51s, P-38s, P-47Ns, and others, even if outperformed, would still have chased them to ground and eliminated the Me 262 as a threat. 

All aircraft are vulnerable on landing and taking off. Jets are more so since they tend to accelerate slowly. Jets in this era was more vulnerable because of slow spin up of the compressor.

I agree with the comment that the Germans made an error in pursuing axial flow engines this early in development. While they had a good head start over the British, by the end of 1944 the British were testing engines with 5000 lbt (Nene) whereas the Germans seemed never to get an engine over 2000 lbt running, although there were many planned many were cancelled, for who knows why. In addition, the British engines had more than twice the thrust to weight ratio of comparable German engines.

German airframe/jet engine integration was significantly advanced compared to allied effort. Both the He 280 and the Me 262 were a generation past the aero designs of the Meteor and the P-59. It wasn’t until the P-80 and Vampire (which was delayed due to an inlet failure on the P-80) that the allies caught up and that was practically after the war. The Meteor only became competitive with the inclusion of more powerful engines.

As for advanced German jets this is my opinion, and I have been involved in developing advance aircraft for nearly 30 years. 
*He 162.* Seems to be a reasonable design with good performance potential. Very small with limited flexibility. Had limited range and high exposure to combat losses due to frequent landings. Requires experienced pilot.
*Go 229.* Advanced flying wing concept but probably way ahead of technology. Probably five to ten years from combat ready. Without flight control computers vertical stabilizers would probably need to be added ala Jack Northrop aircraft.
*P 1101.* Variable wing sweep test vehicle. My feelings are that this could have been morphed into the first successful swept wing fighter, though no variable sweep, in 1946.
*Ta 183.* My feelings are that this plane was years away from operations, as demonstrated after the war. Good concepts but a lot had to be worked out.


----------



## GregP (Aug 7, 2013)

Hi Erich. Yes the Ta 152 did become operational in January 1945. 

But most of the few victories I have read about happened in April. Ergo my comment about APril 1945 being when the Ta 152 made it's *combat contributions*.

Oberfeldwebel Willi Reschke's first Ta 152 combat happened on 14 Apr 1945 when he tried to intercept a Mosquito and the famous Tempest fight was later than same day. Reschke claimed two Yakovlev Yak-9s near Berlin on 24 April 1945. It seems that three often reported victory claims by Obfw. Walter Loos, on 24, 25 and 30 April, cannot be attributed to Ta 152. Loos himself stated he never shot down a single enemy fighter while flying the Ta 152. 

Four victories were achieved by Josef Keil, from 1 March 1945 to 21 April 1945. 

So most of the victories were in April 1945. The 4 combat losses were also in April 1945. I do wonder how many Ta 152's were lost to mechanical issues and how many were destroyed on the ground, though.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Aug 7, 2013)

Been anticipating your weighing in on this thread dav.


----------



## Erich (Aug 7, 2013)

Greg there is new data out reschkes books is wrong and so are you're findings

back to the original thread if we suppose the 262 ready for Big Week and before as the US 354th fg makes it's debut with the P-51B the question is then asked what do the 262A-1a's replace in the LW line-up 109's/Fw's ? or what about the ZG's composed of Bf 110G-2's and early Me 410's ? in any ase the ZG's needed high cover protection in late 43 by 109 gruppen. wouldthe 262 be handled in the same way but probablyu not as he 262's at least late war depended on cruising speed outweighing 109/Fw capabilities. Besdies the tactics flown before and during an attack on a bomber box.


----------



## GregP (Aug 7, 2013)

Where are the new data? Been hearing about it for 10 years. If you won't share the data, then what is the primary source and what makes IT more believable than the existing data? It it a single report? Or was a heap of new data unearthed sonehow? 

I'll believe my coclusion might be wrong when I see the proof of same. That is NOT to disrespect either you or your new data. 

It is only an admission that I haven't seen it and don't know why it would be any more believabale than the data we have and HAVE had for 65+ years.

However, I look forward to seeing your new data and comparing it against flight test reports on the Ta 152's.


----------



## Jenisch (Aug 7, 2013)

oldcrowcv63 said:


> Luftwaffe - Conservapedia
> 
> Annual LW av-gas stores on hand



Was the Soviet occcupation of Romania the main factor to the abrupt drop in '44?


----------



## awack (Aug 7, 2013)

> Don't know about "fantastic high speed handling." The Me 262. while it flew smoothly, was NOT a dogfighter and anythinhg could out-roll, and out-turn it. The climb was nothing spectacular, but WAS done at high forward speed, making it difficult to catch when climbing ... unless you were higher. The only hope the Me 262 had was boom and zoom tactics. If it ever tried to stay and fight, it was doomed.



The me 262 couldn't out turn piston engine fighters, but it could definitely out roll them at speed, at slow speed pilots describe it as feeling like a heavy aircraft though, actual testing shows it could slightly out roll the 190a at high speed but trounce aircraft like the standard wing spitfire and zero etc, etc... its climb when full of fuel was very good, but not spectacular like the me 109k4 or spitfire 9, again it carried tons of fuel not hundreds of pounds of fuel, so its climb rate should in theory increase a lot more than other single seat fighters, again, in theory. combined with its high forward velocity climb and amazing zoom climb, remember another thing once at speed jets are very powerful so when you raise the nose of the me 262 is going to bleed off sped a lot, lot slower than say a spitfire or me 109, over all, I would say a fantastic climber.


----------



## Jenisch (Aug 7, 2013)

After the 262 got speed, it could climb above even a pursuit Spitfire and dive on it.


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 7, 2013)

> While they had a good head start over the British, by the end of 1944 the British were testing engines with 5000 lbt (Nene) whereas the Germans seemed never to get an engine over 2000 lbt running, although there were many planned many were cancelled, for who knows why. In addition, the British engines had more than twice the thrust to weight ratio of comparable German engines.



Yes indeed, an important point, Dav. The German lead in jet technology was also not as great as we tend to perceive; our enthusiasm for the possibilities of what the Germans might have done tends to colour our judgement of what was actually happening at the time and what the Allies were doing at the same time with similar technology. Yes, the Germans got a jet in the air before anyone else, but that doesn't mean Britain did not have the technology to do so; they had working jet engines by then and just needed the official recognition of the technology before a British jet could get into the air. Also, the Gloster Meteor I entered service with 616 Sqn on 12 July 1944 after extensive testing, at this time it is worth remembering that unlike the Me 262 the Meteor was not rushed into service before the most serious bugs were ironed out; the British gas turbines were far more reliable than the German ones as we all know. Although Germany had more jet aircraft in service at the end of the war, their use was stifled by unreliability and, of course supply, pilots, training issues with the war being raged etc, Britain's jets, although not without their own issues and fewer in number, were every bit as capable as the German aircraft that were put into service.


----------



## GregP (Aug 7, 2013)

I wouldn't say that it was a fnatastic climber at all, but we all have our own conclusions from the data. 

With all the mass out on the wings, I seriously doubt it would out-roll may fighters ... but well might do so above 400 - 450 mph TAS since it designed more for those speeds than the pistons were. It also didn't have "tons" of fuel. It had about 3,200 pounds for 475 US gallons. That's about 1.6 tons, so it doesn't even make 2 tons.

Considering the difficulties it had with landing, I wouldn't think they'd stick around to fight once the fuel got down to less than 1/2 to 1/3 or so ... it would be time to boogie for home plate or face possible flame out if the first approach didn't work out. The fuel consumption was high at altitude, but ridiculous down low.

Our Bell YP-59A Airacomet is in the same ballpark, fuel consumption-wise. You can get it down to 125 gallons per hour at 40,000 feet, but at 650 feet (the altitude at the base of Chino tower) it is 575+ gallons per hour. That is gallons per hour, not pounds per hour. I'd bet the Me 262 wasn't that much different.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Aug 7, 2013)

Jenisch said:


> Was the Soviet occcupation of Romania the main factor to the abrupt drop in '44?



I'm still puzzled by the disparity in the two graphs posted earlier that supposedly address the same quantity. The av-gas production appears to have dropped before soviet occupation in mid-44. I expect the small drop in the mid-summer 1943 shown in the green graph was the result of the oil field bombing campaign and destruction of stocks and transportation infrastructure may account for the major drop thereafter. That's my guess but I really don't have information to support it, other than the dates of the mid summer 43 bombing and soviet occupation which seems to post date the drop. I understand the mid summer Tidal Wave bombing campaign had little to no effect on production or supplies.


----------



## awack (Aug 7, 2013)

> With all the mass out on the wings, I seriously doubt it would out-roll may fighters ... but well might do so above 400 - 450 mph TAS since it designed more for those speeds than the pistons were. It also didn't have "tons" of fuel. It had about 3,200 pounds for 475 US gallons. That's about 1.6 tons, so it doesn't even make 2 tons.




The me 262 actually carried 565 imp gallons of fuel which translates to 678 US gallons, two 198 imp gallon tanks, one 132 imp gallon tank and one 37 imp gallon tank , in other words, it carried a poop load of fuel, so instead of fuel imagine part way through your flight in the me 262 you dump a couple thousand pounds of bombs, what kinda effect is that going to have on climb? Yeah, Erich Brown tested a two seat version of the me 262, and got 3.8 seconds at 400 mph at 5000 ft, ive heard of one other test that got even better results, but don't know much about the test, in other words I cant put a lot of faith in it. I would imagine the boosted ailerons of the p38 was better at high speed than the me 262 though.


----------



## GregP (Aug 7, 2013)

3.8 seconds at 400 mph at 5,000 feet to do what, fart? 

Sorry, 3.8 seconds at 400 mph at 5,000 feet isn't a measurement I understand. It gives me a speed, an altitude, and a time to do something. I assume you mean 3.8 seconds to climb to some change in altitude. It certainly wouldn't climb from sea level to 5,000 feet in 3.8 seconds regardless of any circumstances ... especially since the climb rate was less than 5,000 feet per minute by a decent margin.

The flight tests of the Me 262 are pretty specific and the climb wasn't measured much with a bonb load being carried. It was measure after the bomb load was gone in the ones I've seen ... since nobody would get into a dogfight of any sort with a load of bombs.


----------



## awack (Aug 7, 2013)

Im sorry, that's how long it took to complete a 360 degree roll.

Anyway, low slow and full of fuel like say just after take off, the me 262 was dead meat against the best piston engine fighters.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 7, 2013)

I dont know the basis of the claims for Me 262 having better roll rates and manouverability are coming from, or for its alleged climb advanatages either. They are unsubstantiated claims, and not supported by some very knowdgeable commentators. The 262 dide have some priceless advantages...speed, firepower being the chief advanatages. The rest look totally bogus, at least when compared to the Meteor III and later.

T.A Gardiner, author and contributor to the armchair General Forum, had this to say recently

"The 262 really has some problems that are not totally obvious.

A lot of those are with the engines. The Jumo 004 cannot be quickly throttled up or down due to its design. The hydraulic zweibel has to be moved in or out along with adjusting the fuel mixture. This combination changed too fast can kill the engine, cause a loss of power and/or cause an engine fire. So, the 262 pilot has to be very gentle on the throttle meaning acceleration is less than it might otherwise be.

Adding to this is an inlet design deficiency. Now, with early jets these things were not uncommon so I'm not faulting Messerschmitt for it because they simply didn't have any experiance to draw on in this respect. Anyway, if the 262 pitches up or down quickly it or is put into a tight climbing or diving turn it will often result in a loss of air pressure in the inlet side of the engine and the engine will quit. While a restart is possible it is hardly something you want to be doing in combat.

The Meteror's centrifugal W2 Dewent engines don't suffer from this problem like the axial Jumo 004 does so the Meteor is not restricted in maneuvering in those ways.

Both aircraft had problems with having too small a rudder surface and both have some aileron problems but the 262 in both cases are worse. The 262 also suffers from very high stick forces on all control surfaces making maneuver at high speed difficult.

The Meteor also has dive brakes fitted. These could be a nasty surprise to a 262 pilot.

Neither has any advantage in a dive and the Meteor has an advantage in climb rate. I don't know which might have an advantage, if any, in energy maneuvering.

For the 262 its only real means of attacking is to try and make shallow high speed diving passes with a zoom climb away much like a P-38 on a Zero. The problem here is that the 'Zero' is now a Meteor that can come after you.

The Meteor definitely has a much better turn and roll rate than the 262. In a dogfight those could very well determine the winner.

The 262 is slightly faster in level flight but this is hardly an advantage on its own.

The Meteor's high velocity rapid fire 20mm Hispanos are far superior in fighter on fighter combat to the low velocity slower firing 30mm Mk 108's on the 262. Basically, the 262 is optimized as a bomber killer. It can make high speed passes on a formation and take down a slow moving large bomber in one pass zooming away afterwards.

In a turning fight or one that requires hard maneuvering it is almost certainly doomed. The 262 has to keep its speed up and not get into a turning fight with its opponent".

Take it or leave it guys, but the 262 is, according to this comment, definately not the all conquering panacea its disciples are trying to have us believe.


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 7, 2013)

I found a quote that might be of passing interest from German test pilot Walter Kroeger who flew the Ar 234 prototypes, witnessing a demo of the Arado's manoeuvrability against the Me 262 at a display of aircraft by high ranking officials at Rechlin in June 1944:

"During the second day's show on 13 June [1944] the course of events was interrupted when both of the Me 262s provided troubles starting up. The Ar 234, which had just gotten airborne was told by radio to fill the gap by extending its performance. Eheim subsequently gave such an impressive demonstration of the Ar 234's manoeuvrability that Generalfeldmarschall Erhard Milch asked to be introduced to the pilot and also called for a mock dogfight between an Me 262 and the Ar 234. As a result the Ar 234 demonstrated its marked superiority in a turning dogfight; the Ar 234 V10 bought its guns [figuratively speaking, I suspect - don't jump to conclusions] to bear on the Me 262 several times. The Me 262 however, as able to escape by outdistancing its adversary. Overall impression of the Ar 234 was very favourable."


----------



## Milosh (Aug 7, 2013)

The throttles of the Jumo 004B could be moved as fast as the pilot wanted to as long as the rpm was above 6000.


----------



## awack (Aug 8, 2013)

Yeah, ive read post war accounts from us test pilots that the AR 234 was quite maneuverable, but mostly in its roll rate.

To Parsifal, the me 262 had a good high speed roll rate, but not in its turning capability, I know some people say that it could turn sharper at higher speeds but I don't know enough to give an opinion on that.

[QUOTE The Meteor definitely has a much better turn and roll rate than the 262. In a dogfight those could very well determine the winner.][/QUOTE]

Post war Meteors did have good roll rates but the war time Meteor III seems to be very, very poor, according to test pilots, a couple of changes to the Meteor III, like introducing the long engine nacelles during the war and Lightening the aileron forces would in my opinion made it the best allied fighter of the war, even better than my favorite piston engine fighter the Spitfire XIV.


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 8, 2013)

> my favorite piston engine fighter the Spitfire XIV.



You have good taste! Terrific aeroplane.


----------



## Jenisch (Aug 8, 2013)

oldcrowcv63 said:


> I'm still puzzled by the disparity in the two graphs posted earlier that supposedly address the same quantity. The av-gas production appears to have dropped before soviet occupation in mid-44. I expect the small drop in the mid-summer 1943 shown in the green graph was the result of the oil field bombing campaign and destruction of stocks and transportation infrastructure may account for the major drop thereafter. That's my guess but I really don't have information to support it, other than the dates of the mid summer 43 bombing and soviet occupation which seems to post date the drop. I understand the mid summer Tidal Wave bombing campaign had little to no effect on production or supplies.



Well, both the bombing and the occupation of Romania did affected the same targets (Rumanian oil facilities). But the Allied bombing also hit the oil plants in Germany. And those oil plants hit in Germany were also destroyed by the RAF. So, the question would be how much damage the Rumanian oil industry suffered in the first six months of 1944, due to American bombing, and also how much the oil facilities in Germany suffered due to USAAF bombing (this needs to be understood, because if the American attacks were the most important ones and the RAF could not have "substitute" them, the scenario might be affected if the Me 262s had the capability to seriously affect the USAAF attacks).

Also, in the previous post, I suppose you got my idea: if the Germans had Romania as their primary oil source (actually I don't know if it was by late 1943), and the German jets could not have prevented the Red Army from occupying that country, then at the maximum it would be a question of attrition to the defeat of Germany. Of course that the Germans would have inflicted more casualities in the Allies had the war lasted longer. However, would such casualities be enough to compell the Allies that the Nazis should be allowed to survive? Because even if D-Day didn't occured, the Soviets would be in Poland by mid-1944 (again, supposing that the jets did not interfere in the Eastern Front). Since I don't know if the Allied jets could have been in larger numbers and earlier in operation, I will say that at the maximum, like historically, by mid-1945 the Allies could have had a considerable number of jets in service (it was planned for the invasion of Japan, which presumably would be delayed in case Germany resisted). But by this time, I will risk to say that the Soviets may have already well occupied the Reich and thus the war could have been over regardless of D-Day (which some members are saying that the jets will prevent from happening).


----------



## fastmongrel (Aug 8, 2013)

Been doing some reading on the DH Vampire and its long development, it certainly seems that if it had been needed it could have been in service a lot earlier than it was. The design changed several times, production was moved and the prototypes engine was removed and sent to the US. If the RAF had received strong intel that the 262 was going to be in service earlier and in larger numbers this long, leisurely and rambling development could have had money and men (it seems to have been a side project for DH) thrown at it and possibly be in service early/mid 44. Whether it had the legs to do escort work is another matter I am not qualified to say.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 8, 2013)

> Post war Meteors did have good roll rates but the war time Meteor III seems to be very, very poor, according to test pilots, a couple of changes to the Meteor III, like introducing the long engine nacelles during the war and Lightening the aileron forces would in my opinion made it the best allied fighter of the war, even better than my favorite piston engine fighter the Spitfire XIV.



That would be in direct contrsdiction to Gardiners assessment


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 8, 2013)

Milosh said:


> The throttles of the Jumo 004B could be moved as fast as the pilot wanted to as long as the rpm was above 6000.


Where is that referenced?


awack said:


> The me 262 couldn't out turn piston engine fighters, *but it could definitely out roll them at speed*, at slow speed pilots describe it as feeling like a heavy aircraft though, actual testing shows it could slightly out roll the 190a at high speed but trounce aircraft like the standard wing spitfire and zero etc, etc...


Again, where is this shown? At what speeds are we talking about? 

I've found nothing mentioned in any of the make shift flight manuals on roll rates at given speeds (I'm not at home and have limited access to the internet where I'm at) but from memory I remember something like a 3 second roll rate for the 262, it might be mentioned here...

WWII Aircraft Performance

This discussion could be better served if real life no BS references (flight manuals, performance trials) could be provided for performance characteristics rather than some on-line biased website or some blurb from an Osprey book written 30 years ago by someone who's never flown an aircraft...


----------



## Kryten (Aug 8, 2013)

considering the weight of those engines and nacelles I'm highly dubious a 262 could out roll very much at all!


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 8, 2013)

> Been doing some reading on the DH Vampire and its long development



The Vampire is a much underrated aircraft and it is often overlooked that it was actually a WW2 design, especially considering its longevity postwar (which is of no consequence to this discussion). Unfortunately the Vampire didn't have the legs to be a fighter escort, but was a slick dog fighter. The Vampire F.1 was actually faster in level flight and had a higher rate of climb than the Me 262. 

One fact that is often overlooked regarding the history of the Me 262 is that the Gloster Meteor I entered frontline squadron service before the Me 262, although '262s had already equipped Ekdo 262, which was not a frontline _squadron_ as such, a matter of weeks before the Meteors went to 616 Sqn in July 1944. The Me 262 did not reach a full squadron until October '44. The Meteor was certainly ready for squadron service _before_ the Me 262.


----------



## Erich (Aug 8, 2013)

this thread continues to be convoluted a question to the origins what are we frankly talking about surely not Metoer.s, Migs or other jet involvement but how the US only or British as well would of had to contend/reality check out up equal numbers of piston jobs to stop 262 incursions on the Us bomber force during the start of the US bombing campaign or later ?

secondary note as I have privately written Greg about future sources of the Ta this surrounds JG 3o1 as a whole and there is new info that has not been used for the past 35 years sitting under authors noses neer applied nor backed as written materials including what cI found in the 1960's of the Ta 152 H/N. Reschke has admitted to me and others he enver had full useage of all materials at his disposal n cross checking into US/soviet archival references and reality check the former pilots have forgotten or fallen off the face of the earth....... this is starting to change...... similiarly the myth's surrounding the use of TA's for A/F 262 high cover which is a load of crock and it's origins to combat the B-29's future in the ETO.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 8, 2013)

nuuumannn said:


> One fact that is often overlooked regarding the history of the Me 262 is that the Gloster Meteor I entered frontline squadron service before the Me 262, although '262s had already equipped Ekdo 262, which was not a frontline _squadron_ as such, a matter of weeks before the Meteors went to 616 Sqn in July 1944. The Me 262 did not reach a full squadron until October '44. The Meteor was certainly ready for squadron service _before_ the Me 262.



This is 100% correct and mentioned in Ed Jablownski's series "Airwar"


----------



## GregP (Aug 8, 2013)

First, thank you Erich for the PM with some info. I appreciate it and would like to go on record as on the list for a copy.

And now an observation ...

I am seriously wondering about the Ta 152H service. It is verifiable that they went into service in late January 1945 (27th?). The first victory wasn't until 3 March 1945. There was not another victory until 14 April 1945 and all of the rest of the victories and losses in the air came in April 1945. So my question was and is, "The Third Reich was being bombed daily by hundreds if not 1,000 Allied bombers. What were the Ta 152's DOING for all of February and March, except for the 3rd, if not flying ops?" It's not like there weren't any targets.

My own conclusions is one of three or four possibilities:

1) They were cowards and avoided combat. I reject that since the Ta 152's were assigned to ecperienced combat pilots. The Ta 152's were not assigned to green pilots or should not have been.

2) They were assigned specific duties that kept them from aerial combat with other fighters. Lends credence to the Me 262 top cover story but, again, I can't say from personal research. I wouldn't know where to start looking for the documents and don't read German anyway.

3) They were working up to operational status. Could be but experienced combat pilots don't need a month to trransition into what is essentially the same aircraft with new wings. And Keil got a victory on 3 March 1945. What happened to the REST of March? I don't know.

4) Maybe the weather was awful on the ground where the Ta 152's were based? Could be at that time of the year in Germany. Hell disassanble them and truck them to a new base. Wouldn't take more than a week.

5) They were very unlucky and simply didn't see any Allied planes? Hardly seems likely, but possible, After several days of it, I would have moved to where the bombs were falling to fly ops.

It's like they disappeared for 10 weeks when the war was in the last critical stages ... it is not logical in the slightest.

Anybody know why the Ta 152's were absent without leave for February, March and the first two seeks of April except for one recorded kill by Keil? Why wait until mid-April? I just don't get it.

Edit: Just read the post below and it IS off-topic. Shelf it and I'll start a new thread to discuss it.


----------



## pattern14 (Aug 8, 2013)

Another intriguing thread that goes off topic regularly, but I find those tangents more interesting than the original post. Not sure why anybody wants to argue the toss about Me 262/meteor comparisons; the original 262 1a was superior in performance to its Mk 1 meteor "rival'. It does appear that that post war variants of allied jets get mixed up with the original models at times during these lively discussions. Please correct me, but I believe that the original combatants 616 squadron, accounted for only 16 V1's ( compared to countless shot down by piston engine fighters), plus a number of retreating German ground columns. I believe a handful of parked Luftwaffe aircraft were also accounted for as they stood helpless on the ground. There was one actual air to air with a Fiesler Storch (!!!), but the Storch easily evaded the meteor, and actually landed, enabling the crew to escape. The Storch was then strafed as it stood immobile as well. Didn't Eric Brown state that the 262 would have made "cats meat" out of the meteor, and didn't Adolf Galland say much the same some years later. They both flew the respective planes, and did not read about them in some Osprey book. As for the first operational meteors, their 20 mm cannons jammed on their first mission, and continued to do so on a regular basis for the remainder of their service. The meteor went on to serve with distinction post war, and certainly improved with subsequent Mk's, but in its original ww2 form, it was outclassed by the Me 262. And to answer the original question.....the most amount of 262's to fly in one day was only about 50 (records are slightly inaccurate here). If they were to put up 300 or so, it would have been carnage. I'm also glad some one finally mentioned the popular myth that Ta 152's were used to defend the 262's over their airfields. That never happened, and it was usually FW190's, and occasionally Bf 109's. I've just got a copy of Harmanns excellent reference text on the Ta 152, so I'll see what it says about their strange leave of absence. I'm guessing I might know, but I'll see what the experts say.


----------



## silence (Aug 8, 2013)

GregP said:


> Anybody know why the Ta 152's were absent without leave for February, March and the first two seeks of April except for one recorded kill by Keil? Why wait until mid-April? I just don't get it.



I actually wouldn't be surprised if its simply a case of nothing was confirmed, especially considering the chaos in military leadership at this time. They may have been - probably were - flying, but simply no one got around to processing their claims before May 8.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 8, 2013)

> Another intriguing thread that goes off topic regularly, but I find those tangents more interesting than the original post. Not sure why anybody wants to argue the toss about Me 262/meteor comparisons; the original 262 1a was superior in performance to its Mk 1 meteor "rival'.



I dont think any in the "Meteor" camp are arguing that. Conversely, Meteor I production was just 20 machines




> It does appear that that post war variants of allied jets get mixed up with the original models at times during these lively discussions. Please correct me, but I believe that the original combatants 616 squadron, accounted for only 16 V1's ( compared to countless shot down by piston engine fighters), plus a number of retreating German ground columns. I believe a handful of parked Luftwaffe aircraft were also accounted for as they stood helpless on the ground. There was one actual air to air with a Fiesler Storch (!!!), but the Storch easily evaded the meteor, and actually landed, enabling the crew to escape. The Storch was then strafed as it stood immobile as well. Didn't Eric Brown state that the 262 would have made "cats meat" out of the meteor, and didn't Adolf Galland say much the same some years later.



Thats all true....for the meteor I, but the Meteor III that followed it and the first main production version was a vast improvement, and the meteor 4 was, in most assessments, superior to the me 262. The reason that post war versions of the Meteor are being dredged up goes to the original assumption that the 262 was made ready and properly operational from the beginning of 1944. Thats a fair enough hypothetical, but one has to consider what the allies might do if priority had been given to the 262. I think it entirely plausible that the Meteor and Vampire programs would be also pushed forward in a similar way. There was no technological or resourcing reason why this could not be done....its just that the allies didnt really have much of a need for a fully worked up jet in WWII

And I would not denigrate the Meteor performance too loudly. Whilst the meteor could be described as just useless, the Me 262 could be described as less than that. 1400 Me 262s were produced, 200 were operational, and 150 (estimated0 allied aircraft shot down. That is anything but a stellar performance. 




> They both flew the respective planes, and did not read about them in some Osprey book. As for the first operational meteors, their 20 mm cannons jammed on their first mission, and continued to do so on a regular basis for the remainder of their service.




The second part of the statement is just untrue. Yhe gu jamming problem had been solved by November, and the Meteor I remained in service until February, or march (I would have to check)



> The meteor went on to serve with distinction post war, and certainly improved with subsequent Mk's, but in its original ww2 form, it was outclassed by the Me 262.




Only on paper. In actual service, the 262 was a failure, worse than the Meteor. 




> And to answer the original question.....the most amount of 262's to fly in one day was only about 50 (records are slightly inaccurate here). If they were to put up 300 or so, it would have been carnage.



There is zero evidence to support that claim, and quite a bit of circumstantial evidence to disprove it. The case in point is the deployment of the MIG-15 in 1950....initially 125 or so deplyed,rapidly increased to around 3-400. Engaged mostly WWII era prop bombers for the first year, could only manage to shoot down 140 such bombers in its first year of sevice, and flown by expereienced pilots


----------



## Erich (Aug 8, 2013)

Greg

please start another thread on JG 301 Ta's, I can probably release thought s that will not detract from my work. as to confirmation the OKL did not count any ore victories past November of 44 for any Jagdgruppe. Reschke told me he had the losses for JG 301 but nowhere even close the victory tallies in total


----------



## awack (Aug 8, 2013)

> Again, where is this shown? At what speeds are we talking about?



Test pilot captain Eric Brown of Britain, is the one who conducted the test of the me 262, again it was at 5000ft at 400 mph the result was 3.8 seconds for one complete roll, it was the 2 seat model, he also gave stick forces.


----------



## swampyankee (Aug 8, 2013)

awack said:


> Test pilot captain Eric Brown of Britain, is the one who conducted the test of the me 262, again it was at 5000ft at 400 mph the result was 3.8 seconds for one complete roll, it was the 2 seat model, he also gave stick forces.



One complete roll in 3.8 seconds is a bit less than 95 degrees/second. Since a single datum is useless, I found some data, on a thread long ago but not far away (http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/av...teristics-wwii-fighters-36397.html#post995858) a report was found: http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/reports/1947/naca-report-868.pdf.

Glad he recorded all the data. Now, could we have a citation?


----------



## awack (Aug 9, 2013)

On page 252 FROM Wings of the Luftwaffe, The normal range of flight characteristics from aerobatic maneuvers to the stall revealed the Me 262 as a very responsive and docile aeroplane, leaving one with a confident impression of a first class combat aircraft for both fighter and ground attack roles. Harmony of controls was pleasant, with a stick force per 'g' of 2.72 kg (6lb) at mid-CG position and a roll rate of 360 degrees in 3.8 seconds at 645 km/h (400 mph) at 1525m (5000 ft)."


----------



## GregP (Aug 9, 2013)

If the data are accurate, that is pretty good. Now all we need is a V-N diagram (sometimes called V-g diagram ... speed versus g-load factor) so we know how many g's the 262 could pull at what speed. I KNOW it exists ... the question is can we FIND it?


----------



## Juha (Aug 9, 2013)

awack said:


> On page 252 FROM Wings of the Luftwaffe, The normal range of flight characteristics from aerobatic maneuvers to the stall revealed the Me 262 as a very responsive and docile aeroplane, leaving one with a confident impression of a first class combat aircraft for both fighter and ground attack roles. Harmony of controls was pleasant, with a stick force per 'g' of 2.72 kg (6lb) at mid-CG position and a roll rate of 360 degrees in 3.8 seconds at 645 km/h (400 mph) at 1525m (5000 ft)."



Thanks for pointing that out!
so 95deg/sec at 400mph at 5000ft, P-51B-1 had appr. 85deg/sec at 400mph IAS at 10 000ft with 50-pound stick force. If Brown's speed is also IAS it up to the stick force, with higher stick force P-51B-1 would have rolled faster at 400mph, but probably still slightly slower.

Juha


----------



## GregP (Aug 9, 2013)

Funny, the pilot's manual says no aerobatics are authorized. That means positive g-at all times instead of staying upright. If you are upside down and have 1-g positive, the occupant won't know it until your speed builds up and you have to exceed about 2.5 g to pull out before impacting the earth.

I am grateful for the numbers but a bit skeptical as to why a jet with two heavy masses out on the wings should out-roll a piston fighter with no heavy masses out on the wings ...

Maybe so. I'll look for pilot reports to confirm it.


----------



## pattern14 (Aug 9, 2013)

parsifal said:


> I dont think any in the "Meteor" camp are arguing that. Conversely, Meteor I production was just 20 machines
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Thanks for clarifying the cannon jamming problem. The info I had appeared to suggest it was an ongoing isssue. I disagree totally with the Mig 15 scenario etc. That conflict and the circumstances were very different to what was happennning over Germany 5 years earlier, but that is probably best discussed in another thread at this stage ( should make for a lively debate!). The Me 262 was a generation ahead aerodynamically, and the British scoffed at german research documents regarding swept wings. They did not even have a swept wing production fighter until the next decade, lagging behind the Russians and the U.S., and never really catching up ever since. As far as the Me 262 being a failure, I'm trying to work out in what aspect. It failed to win the war for the Nazi's, but apart from that did very well for itself. It produced 22 jet aces for a start, while the Meteor failed to produce even one. Made from poor quality materials using semi skilled labour in forest factories, training pilots under the most trying of circumstances, and managing to score kills while completely and totally out numbered in every instance. If we talk failure, the meteor failed to down a single enemy aircraft, and YP 80 failed to even get into the picture. I really don't get into the "what if" thing; the Me 262 was a remarkable achievement.


----------



## Juha (Aug 9, 2013)

pattern14 said:


> ... They did not even have a swept wing production fighter until the next decade, lagging behind the Russians and the U.S.,



and Sweden



pattern14 said:


> and never really catching up ever since.



How about BAC Lightning



pattern14 said:


> As far as the Me 262 being a failure, I'm trying to work out in what aspect. It failed to win the war for the Nazi's, but apart from that did very well for itself. It produced 22 jet aces for a start, while the Meteor failed to produce even one. Made from poor quality materials using semi skilled labour in forest factories, training pilots under the most trying of circumstances, and managing to score kills while completely and totally out numbered in every instance. If we talk failure, the meteor failed to down a single enemy aircraft, and YP 80 failed to even get into the picture. I really don't get into the "what if" thing; the Me 262 was a remarkable achievement.



And what planes Meteor could have shot down? When it was operating over England there was not much "trade" around but V-1s. When 616 moved to Continent, it wasn't at first allowed to fly over enemy held territory. When that was eventually allowed, there were not many LW planes around. It was opposite to Me-262 it flew in "over-rich" target enviroment. And I'm not keen on what was claimed, much more important is what reallywas achieved. Me 262 achieved maybe 2 - 3:1 victory ratio and part of the 262 losses were Jabos, that wasn't bad in those circumstances but not exceptional. Finns did much better with Fokker D.XXIs, Gladiators, MS.406s and Fiat G.50s during the Winter War against similar odds but against different AF.

Juha


----------



## parsifal (Aug 9, 2013)

> I disagree totally with the Mig 15 scenario etc. That conflict and the circumstances were very different to what was happennning over Germany 5 years earlier, but that is probably best discussed in another thread at this stage ( should make for a lively debate!).




I agree, but what was happening in Germany 5 years earlier was that the LW was expending a truckload of its ever decreasing resources on its Jet program, and in the context of the war, getting nowhere fast. Korea was the first conflict where jet technologies were effectively applied, and the the last war where missiles were not the dominant weapons. The MIG enjoyed a similar performance advantage over its targets as the Me 262 enjoyed, better probably, plus it was a reliable mount, with plenty of fuel and good pilots. it was not as hopelessly outnumbered as the Me 262, and could operate from relatively secure bases because the Korean conflict was a geographically limited conflict. If anything, therefore, the advantages of the MIG were far greater than those endured by the 262. Didnt make any measurable difference to the loss rates of its opponents however. these are the basic observed facts. Moreover that is entirely consistent with every major conflict up until the introduction of the ultra modern missile and tracking technologies. Quality does not equal increased kills. Other factors do that. Not even in Russia was the Jagd gruppen the main killer of Russian aircraft, neither was the VVS, or the USAAF or the RAF the main killer of the LW. Most aircraft were lost for reasons other than enemy action, with only one exception of circumstance. If one side had fighters, and the other did not, then there was a massacre. if both sides have fighters, the opposing fighters tended to cancel each other out, more or less. That rule does not apply in the modern era, where electronics changes everything. neither does it apply when the technology of one side is so overwhelming that it trumps everything. Unfortunately for the Germans, there is no evidence of that ever happening with the 262, similalry there is no evidence of it happening with the Mig-15. In fact it was a generally rare event in WW2, the technology difference was simply not enough to register that effect. To give some persepective there are often wildly optimistic figures given for Russian losses during the war, whilst german losses are minimised....but this falls apart when the overall loss rates to all causes are looked at. in that scenario, total german losses are similar to those lost by the russians




> The Me 262 was a generation ahead aerodynamically, and the British scoffed at german research documents regarding swept wings.



Err nope and nope. no denying the meteor was not particulalry clean, but the vampoire in my opinion was closer aerodynamically to the German aircraft. I dont know if any "scoffing was going on, just an underestimation of its importance. 



> They did not even have a swept wing production fighter until the next decade, lagging behind the Russians and the U.S., and never really catching up ever since.



nope, not right either, after the war the scimitar, the Lightning, even the harrier, were equal to their contemporaiers in terms of aerodynamics. 




> As far as the Me 262 being a failure, I'm trying to work out in what aspect. It failed to win the war for the Nazi's, but apart from that did very well for itself. It produced 22 jet aces for a start, while the Meteor failed to produce even one.



Claimed aces, not confirmed aces. theres a difference. Operationally, it managed to shoot down 150 enemy aircraft in the air, whilst losing a similar number itself, as a fighter, thats less than an adequate performance. More to the point, of the 1400 produced, less than 200 were operational, moreover for most of its service life if there were 200 operational, typically 25 might be servicable, on a good day. What were the serviceability rates of say Me 109s at this time. I think the LW would have been far better off just churning out more 109s or FWs at the end (early 44 onward). they would have improved their availability rates vastly if they had, and a much higher allied loss rate would have ensured. If they had produced 2000 extra 109s as a result of not building the 262, and we assume an overall serrvi8ceability rate for proven types of 70% (more or less the rate applicable to the LW as a whole in '44), and the exchange rate of around 2 losses for each shoot down, then the allies would have sufereed 1000 losses from the extra 109s, instead of the 150 they lost from the 262s. 




> Made from poor quality materials using semi skilled labour in forest factories, training pilots under the most trying of circumstances, and managing to score kills while completely and totally out numbered in every instance.




All indicative of a rushed entry to service. If the Germans had put in a greater effort to get their jets going properly, then so too would the allies, because the need was there. If we assume effective delivery of the 262, with the bugs ironed out in early 1944, then my estimated realisitc service delivery for the Meteor I would be about Feb 44, the Meteor II April 44, and the Meteor 4 July 44. We could expect a Meteor 8 delivery from some time in 45, and so it goes on. There is no solution to Germany's problem via rtechnogy. its a post war myth. 



> If we talk failure, the meteor failed to down a single enemy aircraft, and YP 80 failed to even get into the picture. I really don't get into the "what if" thing; the Me 262 was a remarkable achievement.




Your being more than a little inconsistent. Your saying, in one breath....."what if the 262 had a better run as far as serviceability and availability was concerned", and then, in the same breath are saying " I really am not going to consider any hypothetical extrapolation for the allies!!!" that is a totally inconsistent approach. Facts are these, if we want to eliminate all "what ifs"....the 262 had enormous resources spent on it. It was a technical marvel, and a near total operational failure. by comparison, the meteor had far less resources spent on it, but was an operational irrelvance in the context of the war. which is worse...spend a bucket and get nothing, or spend a little (as insurance) and get nothing????


----------



## stona (Aug 9, 2013)

The Me 262 also killed more of its pilots than all the allied air forces combined. That's probably not one for the success column.

From all the statistics I've seen "most" aircraft were not lost for reasons other than enemy action. I'd rate the ratio as about 3:2 very generally occasionally reaching close to parity. That is a lot but not most. There are a myriad of factors affecting this ratio.

Here's a table for the Luftwaffe since we're talking Me 262.








Cheers

Steve


----------



## GregP (Aug 9, 2013)

Parsifal, the Harrier HAD no contemporaries at first (but was pretty clean anyway) except the Yak-38 which did NOTHING in its entire service career. They produced 718 Harriers, was introduced in 1969, and served until recently.

No other jump jets flew in service until the Yak-38, introduced in 1976 but flew in 1971. They only made 231 of them before removing them from service in 1991. 

The Yak-141 didn't fly until 1987 and they made 2.

Next production jump jet is the F-35.


----------



## pattern14 (Aug 9, 2013)

Before I post again, could some one please tell me how I just get particular lines or paragraphs to appear in those neat boxes like Parsifal has, instead of replying with the whole previous post. It would make replying a lot more concise, as my comments are not coming across as clear as I would like. I don't see my posts as being inconsistent at all; the original thread was how would the allies have dealt with large numbers of Me 262's? I don't believe I mentioned a better run or serviceability, just more of them would have caused carnage. None of the "what if's" happened anyway. When you are fighting a war you have already lost, you do desperate things to try and salvage anything at all, and Hitlers rhetoric about his wonder weapons was just that. If you talk wasted money and resources, look more closely at the He 162, which was a total failure operationally, and claimed nothing. The Me 262 achieved combat success while the piston engined Luft planes could do nothing in those final months in early 1945. Read Smith and Creeks 4 volume series on the Me 262, and Gallands, "The first and the Last". When it all boils down to it, all we have to go on, is something some one else has written.


----------



## fastmongrel (Aug 9, 2013)

Strictly speaking Greg the Harrier is still the only VTOL aircraft ever to enter (or likely to enter in the next 30 years) service. The fact that Vertical take off wasnt efficent and only really ever took place at airshows is irrelavent it could do it if needed. Its STOVL competitors have never even come close to Harriers ability to take off from a small space.


----------



## GregP (Aug 9, 2013)

Parsifal,

That is a great retort if I ever saw one.

The jets did relatively nothing but get a lot of accolades ... that they don't deserve. I agree and think that the reason the P-80 never got into combat (DID get into WWII service in Italy ... at least 4 P-80's since we have a pic of them over Mount Vesuvius during the war) was a LOT more due to the USA not seeing the need to use them and possibly compromise the technology if one was forced down over Axis territory.

They WERE available, like the Sabres in Korea were ... which WERE dispatched when needed. It was NOT that they were unavailable or could not have been accelerated in development if required to face a real jet threat from the Germans ... they COULD have been but weren't required to win the war.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 9, 2013)

> Before I post again, could some one please tell me how I just get particular lines or paragraphs to appear in those neat boxes like Parsifal has, instead of replying with the whole previous post.





Hi Pattern

Theres different ways of doing it, but what I do is firstly hit "reply with quote", this will bring up the entire quote of the other member. then I delete the bits i dont want, including the leading and ending "quote" . i then highlight the bits of the text i want to respond to and press the button 2nd on the right (immediately to the left of the button with the tick and the "ABC". If you hold the cursor over it, it says "wrap


> Tags around selected text". Now you can put in your reply. You can repeat this as many times as you want.
> 
> You can also go back and fix your posts after youve relesed them, byt hitting the "edit" button.
> 
> ...


----------



## parsifal (Aug 9, 2013)

> From all the statistics I've seen "most" aircraft were not lost for reasons other than enemy action. I'd rate the ratio as about 3:2 very generally occasionally reaching close to parity. That is a lot but not most. There are a myriad of factors affecting this ratio.




I would concede that makes it look that combat losses look like they are the dominant factor. however there is an enormous hole for several nations that I just cant reconcile. Russian l;osses for example. Conventional history puts their losses to combat at 40000, but total losses at nearly 1160000. German disparities are even more inexplicable ....around 30000 lost in combat, but over 100000 lost in total. this just doesnt correlate to the table youve posted.

I dont profess to know the answer to this, but is anything but simple


----------



## fastmongrel (Aug 9, 2013)

Theres a multi quote button but I have never found how it works I just do what Parsifal does


----------



## Milosh (Aug 9, 2013)

Greg, 2 YP-80s went to Italy and 2 went to England.



> YP-80As 44-83026 and 44-83027 were shipped to England in mid-December 1944, but 44-83026 crashed on its second flight at Burtonwood, England, killing its pilot, Major Frederick Borsodi. 44-83027 was modified by Rolls-Royce to flight test the B-41, the prototype of the Nene turbojet. On November 14, 1945, it was destroyed in a crash landing after an engine failure. 44-83028 and 44-83029 were shipped to the Mediterranean. They actually flew some operational sorties, but they never encountered any enemy aircraft.


----------



## pattern14 (Aug 9, 2013)

parsifal said:


> Hi Pattern
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Thanks Parsifal; it's still giving me a nose bleed though


----------



## pattern14 (Aug 9, 2013)

parsifal said:


> Claimed aces, not confirmed aces. theres a difference. Operationally, it managed to shoot down 150 enemy aircraft in the air, whilst losing a similar number itself, as a fighter, thats less than an adequate performance. More to the point, of the 1400 produced, less than 200 were operational, moreover for most of its service life if there were 200 operational, typically 25 might be servicable, on a good day. What were the serviceability rates of say Me 109s at this time. I think the LW would have been far better off just churning out more 109s or FWs at the end (early 44 onward). they would have improved their availability rates vastly if they had, and a much higher allied loss rate would have ensured. If they had produced 2000 extra 109s as a result of not building the 262, and we assume an overall serrvi8ceability rate for proven types of 70% (more or less the rate applicable to the LW as a whole in '44), and the exchange rate of around 2 losses for each shoot down, then the allies would have sufereed 1000 losses from the extra 109s, instead of the 150 they lost from the 262s.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## tomo pauk (Aug 9, 2013)

Proper time for more Bf-109s was during 1939-43, but not 1944-45. 
In 1944-45 Germans do not have trained manpower to pilot the supposed increased number of planes, nor they have fuel for them (neither for the historical number of fighters produced). The better performing fighter (and that basically means a jet) should reverse the performance advantage the P-51 and P-47 were enjoying at typical ETO altitudes, and the fuel for a jet was far better choice than B4, C3, plus all those MW-50 and GM-1 additives.


----------



## stona (Aug 9, 2013)

parsifal said:


> German disparities are even more inexplicable ....around 30000 lost in combat, but over 100000 lost in total. this just doesnt correlate to the table youve posted.
> I dont profess to know the answer to this, but is anything but simple



They are and I don't profess to know why either. I've seen some fairly wild explanations offered. One author suggested that they may have lost 20% of their fighter production between factory and air park which seems unlikely 
Cheers
Steve


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 9, 2013)

awack said:


> Test pilot captain Eric Brown of Britain, is the one who conducted the test of the me 262, again it was at 5000ft at 400 mph the result was 3.8 seconds for one complete roll, it was the 2 seat model, he also gave stick forces.


Test pilot captain Eric Brown of Britain was one of the most talented and experienced test pilots of his day however some of his colorful and opinionated pilot reports reflect more of a wine critic/ connoisseur than of a non-biased test pilot. No disrespect for the man, he’s spent more time passing gas in the cockpit than I have total flight time but he was highly opinionated!

3.8 sec roll rate is good for the era but not spectacular, and also remember the 262 had g limitations at high speeds.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/naca868-rollchart.jpg


----------



## awack (Aug 9, 2013)

> 3.8 sec roll rate is good for the era but not spectacular, and also remember the 262 had g limitations at high speeds.



I would like to know its best roll rate and at what speed it was achieved, some fighters took all day to roll at at 400 mph at 5000 to 10000 ft...the me 262 and p51 seem to be two of the best rollers at high speed, infact the me 262 really was at its best at high speed, its acceleration, its climb, its handling, like all early jets it did have a snaking problem at speed, conversely, at 200 mph it couldn't out climb, out roll or out accelerate any late war prop plane as far as I know


----------



## Erich (Aug 9, 2013)

curious where 150 kill figure comes from as you are way off ............... 262 war diary confirms over 200 alone in it not counting what I have repeated about Soviet air losses which we plain do not have totals for. lets face it argue all you want the aluminum swallow was a success story even in it's limited numbers // now back to the whit if's of 1943 and how would the Allies cope instead of the bounce to fuels and charts which make no sense to the thread.


----------



## stona (Aug 9, 2013)

Surely any units war diary confirms_ claims_ at this time in the war.
We know that 500+ claims were made for the Me 262 but that does not equate to that number of enemy aircraft destroyed. As I and someone else (might even have been you  ) have already pointed out, by October/November 1944 the claims verification system had collapsed.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## Erich (Aug 9, 2013)

confirmation is from existing war diaries and flugbuchs really the only way of knowing but still shakey ............. as I stated so many times the JG 7 claims of 425 Allied craft shot down is bogus I give them roughly 1/2 and I am probably being good at that.....if you read the existing JG 7 war diary much of even the claims do not make sense, results are way too brief.


----------



## GregP (Aug 9, 2013)

Hi Fastmongrel,

Regarding post 235, when I saw the STOVL take off vertically, it lifted vertically the same as a Harrier. It is MUCH easier to fly when in vertical mode ... like a video game almost. Steve Hinton has lown the simnulator and says it is extremely simple to hover and hover-taxi. The software makes it easy.

I think you'll see it can operate from almost esxactly the same spaces as a Harrier. The only reason it is STOVL is they want to hang a lot of weight on it. It also has a VTOL weight ... its just lighter than STOVL weight.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 9, 2013)

awack said:


> I would like to know its best roll rate and at what speed it was achieved, some fighters took all day to roll at at 400 mph at 5000 to 10000 ft...the me 262 and p51 seem to be two of the best rollers at high speed, infact the me 262 really was at its best at high speed, its acceleration, its climb, its handling, like all early jets it did have a snaking problem at speed, conversely, at 200 mph it couldn't out climb, out roll or out accelerate any late war prop plane as far as I know


 At the rear of the 868 report may answer some of your questions...

(http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/avi...tml#post995858 (Relative Rolling Characteristics of WWII Fighters)) a report was found: http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/...report-868.pdf.


----------



## pattern14 (Aug 9, 2013)

Erich said:


> curious where 150 kill figure comes from as you are way off ............... 262 war diary confirms over 200 alone in it not counting what I have repeated about Soviet air losses which we plain do not have totals for. lets face it argue all you want the aluminum swallow was a success story even in it's limited numbers // now back to the whit if's of 1943 and how would the Allies cope instead of the bounce to fuels and charts which make no sense to the thread.


 I was still trying to get to the amount of the victories achieved, but had not got through the rest of the previous posts. Glad someone else thinks the Me 262 did Ok for itself. And yes, the Russian side of things are pretty obscure


----------



## GregP (Aug 9, 2013)

The Russian side is not only obscure but also gets rewritten every so often to make it better. By now I'm sure they won the war on their own and decimated Germany without any assitance from the rest of the Allies. Getting a factual Soviet WWII history is a study in disinformation.

We may NEVER know. I'm sure the truth is buried somwhere in the basement of the Kremlin, but we'll never see it.


----------



## SPEKTRE76 (Aug 9, 2013)

They would have turned belly up and bailed out before getting in weapon range. Or they would have lurked in the clouds and dove in behind them and got them on their landing run. Or we would have had the P-80 and F-86 a lot sooner.



GregP said:


> The Russian side is not only obscure but also gets rewritten every so often to make it better. By now I'm sure they won the war on their own and decimated Germany without any assitance from the rest of the Allies. Getting a factual Soviet WWII history is a study in disinformation.
> 
> We may NEVER know. I'm sure the truth is buried somwhere in the basement of the Kremlin, but we'll never see it.




Yeah this holds true in the game War Thunder. ALL of the Russian planes fly like physics does not apply to them and they seem to fire basket ball sized bullets at you no matter the caliber they say they have. They must have thought Erich Hartmann was just a myth like the Boogie Man.


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 9, 2013)

Pattern14, if you are still having trouble with quotes, try writing this


> at the beginning of the section you wish highlight and end it with the same, but with a forward slash / between the first bracket [ and the word "quote" ]. The reason why I haven't written it is because the computer will think it's a command and do it like this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## GregP (Aug 9, 2013)

Hi Erich, 

I note you were saying proof comes from war diaries ... but aren't they somewhat proof of a claim and not a kill? If the pilot THINKS he shot somthing down, that's the definition of a claim, isn't it? 

Confirmation comes from gun camera destruction or witnessed kills that hit the ground, blew up, the pilot bailed out, or ... very few other results.

Not arguing, trying to clarify your post.


----------



## Juha (Aug 9, 2013)

GregP said:


> The Russian side is not only obscure but also gets rewritten every so often to make it better. By now I'm sure they won the war on their own and decimated Germany without any assitance from the rest of the Allies. Getting a factual Soviet WWII history is a study in disinformation.
> 
> We may NEVER know. I'm sure the truth is buried somwhere in the basement of the Kremlin, but we'll never see it.



Just learn to read Russian and visit the Army Archives near Moscow, not as user friendly as most of Western Archives, but if one knows what one wants, not impossible. In fact there is an internet site where one can find all VVS personel losses by units and by names (in Russian). Naval aviation archieves are in St Petersburg, ex-Leningrad. The problem is the archieves of the Central Committee of the Communist Party which might well be in Kreml, are closed from foreigners, but if one is interested in tactical and operational matters, the answers can be found at the army and navy archives.

Juha

PS the Internet site seems to have moved or down since Dec 2010.


----------



## silence (Aug 9, 2013)

SPEKTRE76 said:


> Yeah this holds true in the game War Thunder. ALL of the Russian planes fly like physics does not apply to them and they seem to fire basket ball sized bullets at you no matter the caliber they say they have. They must have thought Erich Hartmann was just a myth like the Boogie Man.



Sounds like World of Tanks, too.


----------



## silence (Aug 9, 2013)

Juha said:


> Just learn to read Russian and visit the Army Archives near Moscow, not as user friendly as most of Western Archives, but if one knows what one wants, not impossible. In fact there is an internet site where one can find all VVS personel losses by units and by names (in Russian). Naval aviation archieves are in St Petersburg, ex-Leningrad. The problem is the archieves of the Central Committee of the Communist Party which might well be in Kreml, are closed from foreigners, but if one is interested in tactical and operational matters, the answers can be found at the army and navy archives.
> 
> Juha



American Military historian David Glantz is one of many who's been to the archives and since has been literally rewriting the war on the Eastern Front.


----------



## Jenisch (Aug 10, 2013)

.


----------



## GregP (Aug 10, 2013)

Hi Jenisch,

I THINK the Soviet Union could have won the war alone, but my comments were meant more to say the later Soviet government was pretty good at "revisionist" history ... nothing more. The Soviet Union was MUCH more populous than Germany and they had no lack of courage.

Without the Western Allies, I'm not altogether certain they could have moved the aircrarft factories beyond the Urals to produce the Yaks, MiGs. and Lavochkins that actually won the air war on that front. Maybe ... maybe not. It might depend entirely on the weather, which is nothing if not fickle. If they had lost the air war, then the ground war would have been beset by German aerial attackers that might have carried the day. I can't say for sure. 

It is a BIG "what if" if I ever saw one, for sure.


----------



## fastmongrel (Aug 10, 2013)

GregP said:


> Hi Jenisch,
> 
> The Soviet Union was MUCH more populous than Germany and they had no lack of courage.



I dont think the population difference was as great as some imagine. Population of Soviet Union in 1940 approx 180 million. Population of Germany and its Eastern Allies in 1940 approx 105 million. When you take out the large swathes of western SU that were under Axis control Belarus, Baltic region and the Ukraine basically thats a population of about 40 to 50 million out of Soviet control by 1941. The Soviet Union still has a bigger population but not the 2 or 3 to 1 that some Nazi nuts will have us believe.


----------



## Juha (Aug 10, 2013)

Hello Greg



GregP said:


> Hi Jenisch,
> 
> I THINK the Soviet Union could have won the war alone, but my comments were meant more to say the later Soviet government was pretty good at "revisionist" history .



I agree that Soviet history literature was fairly nationalistic and some books were wrote only for to belittle Western Allies contributions to the victory of WWII, upto laughable dimensions. But after late 80s Russian historians have published very good and balanced books on WWII but of course also some very nationalistic ones.



GregP said:


> The Soviet Union was MUCH more populous than Germany and they had no lack of courage.



fastmongrel answered already to this, but of course Germany had to keep a part of its forces in the West and in the Med, a clearly bigger proportion than that SU had to keep of its forces in the East and in the South.



GregP said:


> Without the Western Allies, I'm not altogether certain they could have moved the aircrarft factories beyond the Urals to produce the Yaks, MiGs. and Lavochkins that actually won the air war on that front. Maybe ... maybe not. ..



Western aid had nothing to do with the Soviet ability to move their factories to East, that happened before the western aid had practically any effect, during Summer and Autumn 41. Western helped greatly during the difficult period of 42-43 and even after that had big impact because its impact to e.g. Red Army mobility (trucks, jeeps, lokomotives, radios and POL), its AA protection (M-17s and radars). And of course it enforced the numerical superiority of Rd Army in a/c and tanks. Russian complated that many of the L-L equipments were 2nd rated and not match for German equipment and IMHO they were right in cases of e.g. Hurricane, P-40 and O-52 and M-3 tanks but were very happy with P-39s, A-20s and B-25s. And fairly happy with M4 and Valentine tanks. . Also the raw materials sent by Allies helped Soviet own production.

Juha


----------



## Erich (Aug 10, 2013)

Greg

actually no that is not what I am saying. due to the fact that not all 262 war diaries exist or were destroyed/buried the final talley or official tallies will not be known so we have to check surviving pilots flugbuchs even if the idea is concrete that the pilot even flew on such and such a date. sadly they are so simple - a time, and roughly a place of engagement not necessarily where an Allied/Soviet A/C hit ground. think this reply makes more sense...... ?


----------



## swampyankee (Aug 10, 2013)

Actually finding out what happened in a war is difficult: eye witnesses are notoriously unreliable, with their testimony getting much less reliable with time, as it's influenced by what other people say and by ones personal biases (my father would argue that the Beirut barracks bombing, which happened in 1983, occurred during the Carter presidency), memoirs are even less reliable (largely, memoirs and autobiographies may be more accurately shelved as fiction), records are incomplete, either because they were never complete in the first place, were destroyed (including redactions), or just plain lost. As an example, witness the recent revision in US Civil War deaths, which, after about 150 years, were revised upwards by about 20%. 

For WW2, it's rather obvious that Allied records are going to be more complete. London and Washington were much less chaotic places in 1945 than Berlin.


----------



## davebender (Aug 10, 2013)

I disagree. This business of moving Soviet factories east is largely a wartime propaganda myth. Let's look at major Soviet tank factories.

CHAPTER XII: Tanks
Kirov Works. Leningrad.
.....Pulitov munitions plant which was modernized and expanded during 1930s. 
Evacuated in name only. Original plant largely remained in Leningrad. Like other industry in that city production was shut down when Germany blockaded seaport and rail lines.

Stalingrad tank plant. 1931.
Built in USA and shipped to Soviet Union in pre-fabricated sections.
Order for evacuation given too late. Consequently the surrounded factory continued to build tanks until they ran out of parts. Factory largely destroyed during ground combat during late 1942.

Kharkov tank plant. 1932.
Built largely on site using American engineers and imported machinery.
Order for evacuation given in time to remove production jigs. Most of the factory including heavy materials handling equipment remained in Kharkov. German Army put this facility to good use. It became their major Ost Front tank repair facility run by Daimler-Benz engineers. 

Chelyabinsk tank plant. 1933.
Construction begun without foreign assistance resulting in a fiasco. Caterpillar Company hired to take over construction using American engineers and equipment. Only pre-war tank factory in Urals so evacuation was not required. 

Kharkov was the only tank plant moved east and that only involved production jigs. Soviets had to build a new factory complex from scratch and they used same methods as during 1930s. Without American engineers and American equipment there would have been no Tankograd. Newly constructed factories were given same names as pre-war plants in Leningrad, Kharkov and Stalingrad for propaganda purposes.


----------



## tyrodtom (Aug 10, 2013)

What does who built the plant originally have to do with moving the plants 8-9-10 years later ??


----------



## Juha (Aug 10, 2013)

Hello Dave
if you read the messages more carefully you might notice that the question was on a/c factories.

Juha


----------



## stona (Aug 10, 2013)

swampyankee said:


> Actually finding out what happened in a war is difficult: eye witnesses are notoriously unreliable, with their testimony getting much less reliable with time, as it's influenced by what other people say and by ones personal biases (my father would argue that the Beirut barracks bombing, which happened in 1983, occurred during the Carter presidency), memoirs are even less reliable (largely, memoirs and autobiographies may be more accurately shelved as fiction), records are incomplete, either because they were never complete in the first place, were destroyed (including redactions), or just plain lost. As an example, witness the recent revision in US Civil War deaths, which, after about 150 years, were revised upwards by about 20%.
> 
> For WW2, it's rather obvious that Allied records are going to be more complete. London and Washington were much less chaotic places in 1945 than Berlin.



Nonetheless there is a mountain of contemporary information available. There is a surprising amount of material which did survive in Germany as a perusal of the relevant bundesarchiv will reveal. A lot of German material was also copied or taken by the allies at the end of the war.
For the Luftwaffe a substantial number of quartermaster returns survive as well as personnel files etc. This is how authors like John Manhro can give us such a complete oversight of "Bodenplatte", or Don Caldwell so much on missions flown in defence of the Reich. It takes a monumental effort, for which I for one am grateful, but it can be done.
I picked those two simply because I have referred to them recently, there are many more.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## fastmongrel (Aug 10, 2013)

Juha said:


> fastmongrel answered already to this, but of course Germany had to keep a part of its forces in the West and in the Med, a clearly bigger proportion than that SU had to keep of its forces in the East and in the South.



I didnt include Italy in the Axis population figures as I am not well read enough to comment on the amount Italy was engaged on the Eastern front. Italies population in 1940 was approx 44 million. 

The Soviets kept 19 rifle divisions, 1 cavalry division, 2 rifle brigades, 1 airborne brigade, 2 cavalry regiments, 1 rifle regiment, and 12 fortified regions organized into four rifle corps and five rifle armies in the far East and that didnt include the 80,000 strong Mongolian Army. I cant find out how many divs were stationed in the Siberian and Trans Baikal areas.

The reason the Soviets seemed to have so many more men was partly because they were so efficent at raising new armies. In the 2nd half of 1941, 182 rifle divisions, 43 militia rifle divisions, eight tank divisions, three mechanised divisions, 62 tank brigades and 11 naval infantry brigades were mobilised. A lot of these units werent of the 1st order of efficency but numbers counted particulary in front of Moscow. By 1944 even the Soviets were running out of men and apart from the battle of Berlin it is noticeable that Soviet generals werent throwing men into the meat grinder with such abandon as they had in the dark days of 41 and 42.

Just found this US intel report on the forces in the East Oct 41. The Kwantung versus the Siberian Army, October 21, 1941.


----------



## GregP (Aug 11, 2013)

Hi Juha,

What I meant was that if Hitler had not started the war with Britain and had instead concentrated on the Soviet Union alone, then he could have put a lot more troops and aircraft on the Russian front. In other words, if the Nazis weren't fighting in both the east AND the west, I am not sure the Soviets could have stopped the Germans before they overran the aircraft factories and achieved victory.

I didn't mean we assisted the Soviet Union directly, only that we tied up a sizeable amount of German resources that otherwise might have made a big difference on the Soviet Front.


----------



## swampyankee (Aug 11, 2013)

Hitler started a war with Britain and France a soon as he invaded Poland. Once he did that, he had powerful (albeit rather passive) enemies on the country's western borders and faced the same sort of blockade that severely hampered Germany in WW1 (you can't make explosives without nitrates, and you can't grow food without nitrates and labor. The German government gave priority to the army, so agricultural production dropped: not enough fertilizer, too few farm laborers. I read that 800,000 Germans died of malnutrition during ww1 as a result).


----------



## parsifal (Aug 11, 2013)

> davebender;1044781]I disagree. This business of moving Soviet factories east is largely a wartime propaganda myth. Let's look at major Soviet tank factories.
> 
> Kharkov was the only tank plant moved east and that only involved production jigs. Soviets had to build a new factory complex from scratch and they used same methods as during 1930s. Without American engineers and American equipment there would have been no Tankograd. Newly constructed factories were given same names as pre-war plants in Leningrad, Kharkov and Stalingrad for propaganda purposes


.

This is so typically you Dave. You take a scrap of truth that in reality is a minor element of the war, and blow it out of proportion and then claim that to be the gospel truth. The facts are, what you are saying has just a few bits and pieces that are true, but the majority is sheer bollocks.

Soviets did have to build the buildings, but the jigs, the dies, the workers (the skilled ones) were all moved as required. some factories didnt get away, but the majority did. To a greater or less extent, enough productive capacity escaped, to either establish new factories or expand existing capacity for the following industrial complexes
Facories, 183, 195, 232, "ural tank Factory", Chelyabinsk, Factory Numbers 100, 112, 174, "Kirov Production complex (5 plants), Chkalov, Omsk-Leningrad (Gorki - 2 plants), Nizhny - Novgorod (mostly Yekaterinburg), Sverdlovsk. Factories were also set up in three locations in the far east, including Chita and Kiovgrad (I think). ASll from jigs and dies saved in the German invasion 

T-34 production is the one I know best, so lets have a look at that.

The T-34 Medium Tank was built at seven different factories during the Second World War, starting with Factory 183 at Kharkov and the Stalingrad Tractor Factory, both of which would fall to the Germans during the war. 

On 5 June 1940 the Central Committee passed a resultion setting the production targets for 1940. Factory 183 was to produce 600 tanks in 1940, and the STZ another 100. In fact only 183 T-34s were completed during the year, all of them at Kharkov.

After the German invasion it became clear that Kharkov was in danger, and so Factory No.183 was evacuated to the east, and Factory No.112 was ordered to begin production. This left the STZ as the most important producer of the T-34 at the end of 1941. 

1942 saw the new Factory No.183 begin large scale production, but this was countered by the German threat to Stalingrad. Three more factories were ordered to begin production during 1942, and although none of them reached the same scale of production as Factory No.183, they did produce 12,000 tanks. 

Different sources give different figures for the production of the T-34, but the margins of error are all comparatively small. For consistency we will use the figures given in Michulec, T-34 Mythical Weapon. According to his figures a total of 35,595 T-34-76s were produced from new between 1940 and 1944. The relocated Kharkov plant at Nizhniy Tagil was responsible for a third of the total production, building 15,014 T-34-76s and as many T-34-85s. 

The urgency of production in the Soviet Union in the second half of 1941 meant that despite all of the disruption caused by the German invasion 2,104 T-34s were completed. In the same period German complacency meant that only 1,388 Panzer IIIs and Panzer IVs were built! 

First Factory No.183 - Charkovskiy Traktornyj Zawod (ChTZ), Kharkov

Production of the T-34 began at Factory No.183 at Kharkov, where the tank had been designed. On 5 June 1940 the Central Committee passed a resolution ordering the Kharkov plant to produce 600 tanks in 1940, with another 100 to be produced at Stalingrad. In fact only 183 T-34s were completed during 1940, all of them at Factory No.183. Production stepped up in the first half of 1940, when 553 tanks were produced at Kharkov, and reached a peak in the second half of the year, when despite the rapid approach of the Germans another 939 T-34s were completed. A total of 1,675 T-34s were produced at Kharkov. 

By September 1941 it was clear that there was a real danger that Kkarkov would fall to the Germans. On 13 September 1941 the factory was ordered to evacuate to Nizhniy Tagil, east of the Urals. The first of 43 trains left on 17 September, the last on 19 October. Although much of the factory equipment reached the new site, only 10% of the work force and 20% of the engineers followed the machinery. 

Production Summary
T-34-76: 1,675

Second Factory No.183 - Uralskiy Tankovyj Zawod No.183 (UTZ), Nizhniy Tagil

The staff and machinery from Factory No.183 reached Nizhniy Tagil in the middle of winter. The facilities remained primitive for some time – at first parts of the factory were unroofed, despite the low winter temperatures (as low at -40 degrees C at some times). Most of the original workforce had been lost, and much of the burden of production fell on children and women. There was barely enough food and virtually no medical care. 

Despite these terrible circumstances production at Nizhniy Tagil began in December 1941, when 25 T-34s were completed. Hardly surprisingly the quality of these tanks was not high, but as the factory became better established many of the problems were ironed out. 

Production Summary
T-34-76: 15,014
T-34-85: 13,938
Total: 28,952

STZ Factory – Stalingradzkiy Traktornyj Zawod

The Stalingrad Tractor Factory was introduced into the T-34 production programme in 1940, although the first tanks did not appear until the start of 1941. A massive effort was needed to create a viable tank industry at Stalingrad. The city was surrounded by an un-industrialised hinterland, and so every industry needed for the production of the T-34 had to be concentrated in the city. The tanks were built at the STZ, armour plates were made at the Krasniy Oktyabr steel mill, and chassis were produced at either the STZ or the Stalingrad Ship Yard (Factory No.264). 

This effort paid off after the German invasion. In the autumn of 1941 the Kharkov factory had to be evacuated to the east, leaving the STZ as the only major producer of the T-34. Of the 1,250 tanks produced in Stalingrad during 1941, 1,000 were built after the German invasion. 

Tanks produced at Stalingrad had a number of identifying features. The front glacis plate and rear armour were interleaved with the side plates, a later used at Factory No.112. The front part of the gun tube recuperator cover was made from a single straight plate, producing a chisel-like profile. The STZ had the worst supply of rubber during 1942, and so was more likely to produce tanks equipped with nothing but steel wheels. STZ tanks also had two observation periscopes on the roof – one for the loader and one for the commander. 

By mid-1942 it was becoming clear that Stalingrad too was about to be threatened by the Germans. The last tanks are said to have left the factory unpainted and gone straight to the front line in September 1942, before production was stopped by the German advance. 

Production Summary
T-34-76: 3,770
Total: 3,770

No.112 Factory – Krasnoye Sormovo, Gorky

The third factory to begin production of the T-34 was the Krasnoye Sormovo Factory No.122 at Gorky. This would become the second most important producer of the T-34, eventually building over 12,000 tanks, equally split between the T-34-75 and T-34-86. The factory was ordered to begin production of the T-34 on 1 July 1941, in the immediate aftermath of the German invasion, and the first tanks were delivered in October. A shortage of diesel engines meant that the first “Sormovo” tanks had to use a M-17F petrol engine, and only 5 of the 161 tanks produced at Gorky in 1941 used the V-2 diesel. 

Factory No.112 copied the STZ in using a simplified front glacis plate, with the armour interlocking with the side armour. A combination of the modifications introduced at Stalingrad and Gorky and the general changes to the production of the T-34 meant that the time taken to produce the components for one tank hull was reduced from 200 hours before the war to only 36 hours at Gorky in December 1941, and the time to assemble them into a complete hull went down from nine to two days. 

Production Summary
T-34-76: 6,396
T-34-85: 6,208
Total: 12,604

No.174 Factory (Voroshilov Plant), Omsk

The No.174 Factory at Omsk was one of the three plants orders to begin production of the T-34 when the Germans began to threaten Stalingrad, and was the only one of the three to continue producing the T-34 to the end of the war. By the end of the war No.174 Factory had produced 5,867 T-34s, equally split between the 76mm and 85mm armed versions. 

Production Summary
T-34-76: 2,927
T-34-85: 2,940
Total: 5,867

CzKZ – Czelyabinskiy Traktorniy Zavod (Czelyabinsk Tractor Factory) then Czelyabinskiy Kirovskiy Zawod

Czelyabinskiy became famous as “Tankograd”, but the city wasn’t a major producer of the T-34. Tank production at Czelyabinskiy began after the Kirov (Heavy) Tank Factory was relocated from Leningrad in June 1941, but T-34 production did not begin until the summer of 1942. Like the Omsk plant T-34 production began at CzKZ as the Germans began to threaten production at Stalingrad. Tankograd had been producing T-34 components since the end of 1941, so it did not take long for production to begin – the first tank was completed on 22 August 1942, only 32 days after the order to start building complete tanks, and 30 tanks were built that month. Production ended in March 1944 after 5,094 T-34-76s had been produced. 

Production Summary
T-34-76: 5,094
Total: 5,094


----------



## parsifal (Aug 11, 2013)

Part II of II


UTZM – Uralskiy Zavod Tyazhelogo Mashinostroyenya im. Ordzhonikidze or Uralmash (Ordzhonikidze Ural Heavy Machinery Factory)

In numerical terms the least important of the T-34 factories was UTZM, or Uralmash, where only 719 complete tanks were produced during 1942-43. Production of complete tanks at Uralmash began in the summer of 1942, as the threat grew to the factory at Stalingrad, and ended in the autumn of 1943. After that the factory produced a large number of assault guns based on the T-34 chassis. This did not end the involvement of the Uralmash factory in T-34 production. They had developed the stamped hexagonal turret in October 1942, after having problems with the cast version, and between then and March 1944 produced 2,670 of these turrets. 

Uralmash had been involved in the T-34 programme since the autumn of 1941, when production of T-34 hulls had begun. Turrets soon followed, and in April 1942 the factory began to produce complete hulls and turrets, which were then sent on to Factory No.183 to be turned into complete tanks. Finally on 28 July 1942 the factory was ordered to begin assembling complete T-34s, and the first one came off the production line on 15 September 1942. 

Production Summary
T-34-76: 719
Total: 719


----------



## Juha (Aug 11, 2013)

GregP said:


> Hi Juha,
> 
> What I meant was that if Hitler had not started the war with Britain and had instead concentrated on the Soviet Union alone, then he could have put a lot more troops and aircraft on the Russian front. In other words, if the Nazis weren't fighting in both the east AND the west, I am not sure the Soviets could have stopped the Germans before they overran the aircraft factories and achieved victory.
> 
> I didn't mean we assisted the Soviet Union directly, only that we tied up a sizeable amount of German resources that otherwise might have made a big difference on the Soviet Front.



I agree with that, only want to add that MTO was very important airwise, significant portion of LW losses, especially fighter losses, happened there, especially between Oct 42 and Sept 43.

Juha


----------



## parsifal (Aug 11, 2013)

The Soviet Economy and the Red Army, 1930-1945 By Walter Scott Dunn

Go to page 32 and read on for a detailed description of Soviet plans and activities in the relocation of their industries....how it worked and how it didnt work

Ive read this book, as a library loan, and the following link gives some important details on this issue. it certainbly was not good old American know how that got the Soviet industrial potential moved....

The Soviet Economy and the Red Army, 1930-1945 - Walter Scott Dunn - Google Books


----------



## Jenisch (Aug 11, 2013)

American aid to Soviet Union, or unknown lend-lease



> Speaking of lend lease and aid provided in accord with this program, Tuyll noted that the Soviet Union would have survived without it but the victory would not have been so complete.
> 
> “In the first 1.5 years the Soviet Union was fighting for survival and would have won without lend lease, but further victories and movement to Europe would be questionable,” he reported.


----------



## Erich (Aug 11, 2013)

see another thread with a page totally OT......c'mon guysr


----------



## bada (Aug 11, 2013)

Erich said:


> see another thread with a page totally OT......c'mon guysr



indeed master. (would like to know more about your forthcoming book, title, time of release, etc. thank you)



SPEKTRE76 said:


> They would have turned belly up and bailed out before getting in weapon range. Or they would have lurked in the clouds and dove in behind them and got them on their landing run. Or we would have had the P-80 and F-86 a lot sooner.



Yes of course, LW pilots were sooo scary of everything flying with a star on the wings... 

and by the way: no captured german tech, no german wind-tunnels transferred to USA, no F-86, but just the FJ-1. Say thank you to willy.


----------



## fastmongrel (Aug 11, 2013)

bada said:


> and by the way: no captured german tech, no german wind-tunnels transferred to USA, no F-86, but just the FJ-1. Say thank you to willy.



Yeah those dumb yankees would never be able to work it out for themselves


----------



## parsifal (Aug 11, 2013)

Having a swept wing or not having a swept wing is a function of the main operating speeds. This has the effect of "delaying the drag rise caused by fluid compressibility near the speed of sound as swept wing fighters such as the F-86 were among the first to be able to exceed the speed of sound in a slight dive, and later in level flight". 

Swept wing technology is not much help to aircraft travelling at singinificantly less than mach 1. And there are disadvantages. This from wiki

"When a swept wing travels at high speed, the airflow has little time to react and simply flows over the wing almost straight from front to back. At lower speeds the air does have time to react, and is pushed spanwise by the angled leading edge, towards the wing tip. At the wing root, by the fuselage, this has little noticeable effect, but as one moves towards the wingtip the airflow is pushed spanwise not only by the leading edge, but the spanwise moving air beside it. At the tip the airflow is moving along the wing instead of over it, a problem known as spanwise flow.

The lift from a wing is generated by the airflow over it from front to rear. With increasing span-wise flow the boundary layers on the surface of the wing have longer to travel, and so are thicker and more susceptible to transition to turbulence or flow separation, also the effective aspect ratio of the wing is less and so air "leaks" around the wing tips reducing their effectiveness. The spanwise flow on swept wings produces airflow that moves the stagnation point on the leading edge of any individual wing segment further beneath the leading edge, increasing effective angle of attack of wing segments relative to its neighbouring forward segment. The result is that wing segments farther towards the rear operate at increasingly higher angles of attack promoting early stall of those segments. This promotes tip stall on back swept wings, as the tips are most rearward, while delaying tip stall for forward swept wings, where the tips are forward. With both forward and back swept wings, the rear of the wing will stall first. This creates a nose-up pressure on the aircraft. If this is not corrected by the pilot it causes the plane to pitch up, leading to more of the wing stalling, leading to more pitch up, and so on. This problem came to be known as the Sabre dance in reference to the number of North American F-100 Super Sabres that crashed on landing as a result.

The solution to this problem took on many forms. One was the addition of a fin known as a wing fence on the upper surface of the wing to redirect the flow to the rear (see the MiG-15 as an example.) Another closely related design was addition of a dogtooth notch to the leading edge (Avro Arrow). Other designs took a more radical approach, including the Republic XF-91 Thunderceptor's wing that grew wider towards the tip to provide more lift at the tip. The Handley Page Victor had a planform based on a crescent compound sweep or scimitar wing that had substantial sweep-back near the wing root where the wing was thickest, and progressively reducing sweep along the span as the wing thickness reduced towards the tip.

Modern solutions to the problem no longer require "custom" designs such as these. The addition of leading edge slats and large compound flaps to the wings has largely resolved the issue. On fighter designs, the addition of leading edge extensions, included for high maneuverability, also serve to add lift during landing and reduce the problem.

The swept wing also has several more problems. One is that for any given length of wing, the actual span from tip-to-tip is shorter than the same wing that is not swept. Low speed drag is strongly correlated with the aspect ratio, the span compared to chord, so a swept wing always has more drag at lower speeds. Another concern is the torque applied by the wing to the fuselage, as much of the wing's lift lies behind the point where the wing root connects to the plane. Finally, while it is fairly easy to run the main spars of the wing right through the fuselage in a straight wing design to use a single continuous piece of metal, this is not possible on the swept wing because the spars will meet at an angle".


Now, having read all that, I dont see the Me 262 as having solutions to the problems generated by the swept wing . I dont profess to understand any of this, but either the solution is there, or it isnt, and i dont see a solution in the Me 262 package. so its swept wing technology, like a lot of things about the 262, whilst "sexy" and "nice to have" isnt a real game changer or advantage that i can see. ill stand corrected if one of the boffins in this place can explain differently to me why the 262's swept wing was an advantage


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 11, 2013)

The 262's "swept wing" was simply a solution to Messerschmitt's CoM problem because of the heavier Jumo004, it was originally designed to have the BMW003. The original wing design for the 262 called for a more conventional wing profile.

Even the He280 had a "straight" wing, although it was actually eliptical, like the Spitfire's.

Only one German aircraft type, the DFS346, was specifically designed for Mach speed research and it never had a chance to be flown before the war ended, being only in the mock-up stage.


----------



## bobbysocks (Aug 11, 2013)

well maybe i would take some of the older b17s and 24s and convert them into gunships. add a few more crew members and a lot more guns and use them to lead the bomber boxes. when the 262s make their head on run they would be greeted by a lot more lead. in order to be able to keep pace with the main group they would carry no bombs.


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 11, 2013)

> The 262's "swept wing" was simply a solution to Messerschmitt's CoM problem because of the heavier Jumo004, it was originally designed to have the BMW003



Yep, and like I pointed out elsewhere, the less advanced, straight winged, wooden fuselaged, centrifugal flow engine equipped Vampire I could out perform the Me 262 in manoeuvrability, speed and climb.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 11, 2013)

bobbysocks said:


> well maybe i would *take some of the older b17s and 24s and convert them into gunships. add a few more crew members and a lot more guns* and use them to lead the bomber boxes. when the 262s make their head on run they would be greeted by a lot more lead. in order to be able to keep pace with the main group they would carry no bombs.


They tried that and it was a dismal failure...they were so heavy with thier extra guns, turrets and ammo, the regular bombers left them in the dust after dropping thier bombs.

Only good thing that came out of that adventure, was the chin turret that eventually found it's way onto the B-17G models


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 12, 2013)

A page scanned from Me 262 Vol One by J.Richard Smith and Eddie J. Creek showing the evolution of the 262's wing and engine arrangement. 

The P.1065 at bottom left was proposed with engines mounted midway in the wing, like the Meteor and also with the engine pods above the wing, either mounted directly on top of the wing or on pylons. Images of wind tunnel models in these configurations in the book. There was also a P 1065 with Bf 109 wings outboard of the nacelles. Messerschmitt also investigated a sharply swept wing on a wind tunnel model.


----------



## swampyankee (Aug 12, 2013)

superfluous


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 12, 2013)

> superfluous



Huh? I posted the picture because I thought it might be of interest to those who haven't seen it before - do you think it isn't? (Not everything is posted to prove a point!)


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 12, 2013)

swampyankee said:


> superfluous


So is your comment...



nuuumannn said:


> Huh? I posted the picture because *I thought it might be of interest* to those who haven't seen it before - do you think it isn't? (Not everything is posted to prove a point!)


That's a great illustration of the 262's wing transition (and the P.3304 series)!


----------



## GregP (Aug 12, 2013)

Thanks for posting that nuuumannn. Keep it up when you find something good!


----------



## parsifal (Aug 12, 2013)

swampyankee said:


> superfluous



The only thing superfuous is this i would suggest...you and me.


----------



## OldSkeptic (Aug 12, 2013)

nuuumannn said:


> A page scanned from Me 262 Vol One by J.Richard Smith and Eddie J. Creek showing the evolution of the 262's wing and engine arrangement.
> 
> The P.1065 at bottom left was proposed with engines mounted midway in the wing, like the Meteor and also with the engine pods above the wing, either mounted directly on top of the wing or on pylons. Images of wind tunnel models in these configurations in the book. There was also a P 1065 with Bf 109 wings outboard of the nacelles. Messerschmitt also investigated a sharply swept wing on a wind tunnel model.



Good one, well found. From what I understand the sweep was developed because the engines were heavier than projected (that axial flow thing again) and they swept the wing back to maintain the CoG.
It was insufficient to have any significant effect on mach limits (which were ok'ish but not tremendously good).


----------



## parsifal (Aug 12, 2013)

so, for the un-educated and misinformed (that would be me), was the 262 wing a benefit, or a piece of bling. Did it make a difference, and if so, by how much compared to its main rivals the p-80 and the Meteor????. Bearing i mind the normal or combat speed of the type, its weapons fits, targetting (los) and other flight characteristics. Did the design have aerodynamic elements to counter the bad effects of swept wing configuration, such as the Ta 183 and MiG-15 had?

Who's game to have a go....


----------



## Kryten (Aug 12, 2013)

OldSkeptic said:


> Good one, well found. From what I understand the sweep was developed because the engines were heavier than projected (that axial flow thing again) and they swept the wing back to maintain the CoG.
> It was insufficient to have any significant effect on mach limits (which were ok'ish but not tremendously good).



This is of interest to me as I have read that the 262 wing sweep was of no real benefit to the very early jets (indeed bordering on a deficit due to the speed range) as they did not operate close to transonic, but became more relevant as later jet speeds increased to near transonic?


----------



## pattern14 (Aug 12, 2013)

parsifal said:


> so, for the un-educated and misinformed (that would be me), was the 262 wing a benefit, or a piece of bling. Did it make a difference, and if so, by how much compared to its main rivals the p-80 and the Meteor????. Bearing i mind the normal or combat speed of the type, its weapons fits, targetting (los) and other flight characteristics. Did the design have aerodynamic elements to counter the bad effects of swept wing configuration, such as the Ta 183 and MiG-15 had?
> 
> Who's game to have a go....


 No information is really ever wasted ( except being told how many beers you can't remember drinking), but I distinctly remember reading an article still being formulated. In the "Watsons Whizzers" section of the "Stormbirds" website, there was a fellow putting together information regarding the swept wing design of the 262. He was of the opinion that the generally accepted reason for having swept wings is not entirely factual. I'm only repeating what I have traditionally read, but the story goes that the Messerschmitt engineers used moderate sweep on the wings for reasons of balance, not aerodynamic advantage . With jet engines in their infancy, it would be simpler to balance the aircraft longtitudinally for larger/smaller/heavier/lighter powerplants by using swept wings and underslung nacelles. They "unknowingly" improved performance as a benefit of this fore sight. The researcher on "Stormbirds" believed that they were aware of swept wing advantage, but this "fact" is usually overlooked. Dr lippisch who was involved in other aircraft designs using swept wings, as well as previous research by other German scientists some years earlier, were pioneering in this field, so it would appear naive to think that the design team behind the 262 were not aware of the potential. Of course I don't have the Aerodynamicist masters degree, but it appears logical that the Messerschmitt team did have some knowledge. Swept wing technology seemed to really go ahead in the early 1940's, but this was a couple of years AFTER the Me 262 was on the drawing board. It obviously would have been an interesting chat over a bottle of schnapps......


----------



## stona (Aug 12, 2013)

Slightly veering off topic, but Lippisch worked with Delta wings and I'm guessing the earlier research referred to would be that of Glauert and Birnbaum. It was Beverley Shenstone, who would have such a significant influence on the Spitfire wing, who introduced Lippisch to the aerodynamic calculus theories of Glauert.
The Delta wing was far from perfected when the Me 262 was being designed and anyway behaves quite differently from a swept wing. I don't know how much "cross pollination" there might be between the two as I don't have a degree in aero/fluid dynamics either 
Cheers
Steve


----------



## Milosh (Aug 12, 2013)

Swept wings had been around for some time. 1914


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 12, 2013)

I see the beginnings of this thread going the way of the Dodo bird. 

Keep it civil.

If not...

Somehow I have a feeling the usual suspects will be involved. Enough warnings have been given over the years. Vacations will be long.


----------



## Civettone (Aug 12, 2013)

Quite similar story to the Me 410 wing, isn't it?



Kris


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 12, 2013)

The DFS346 had a purpose-designed 45 degree wing for Mach testing and a model was tested heavily at the windtunnel at Halle. 

Dr. Lippisch was working on the delta wing that would make supersonic flight possible and so was Felix Kracht, the designer of the DFS346.


----------



## Erich (Aug 12, 2013)

the futuristic Me 262 B night fighter variants were to have swept back wings if this helps or confuses......


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 12, 2013)

Right, Willy wanted the HG series to have the true swept wing and the engines moved inboard towards the wing-root...and one version of the HG design was to have a "V" tail...

Would have been interesting to see how it performed


----------



## Erich (Aug 12, 2013)

it went beyond Willi to his techs working with leading 262 pilots late war, the body was to be more streamline and the canopy flattened, inboard air ducts at the wing roots. have stats somewhere of the tunnel tests as what the future was to hold for speed limits - impressive for the time ........


----------



## bobbysocks (Aug 12, 2013)

GrauGeist said:


> They tried that and it was a dismal failure...they were so heavy with thier extra guns, turrets and ammo, the regular bombers left them in the dust after dropping thier bombs.
> 
> Only good thing that came out of that adventure, was the chin turret that eventually found it's way onto the B-17G models



yeah i know that...i said it in some vain attempt to get the thread back OT.... how silly i am.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 12, 2013)

Erich said:


> it went beyond Willi to his techs working with leading 262 pilots late war, the body was to be more streamline and the canopy flattened, inboard air ducts at the wing roots. have stats somewhere of the tunnel tests as what the future was to hold for speed limits - impressive for the time ........


They were looking at a three-man crew for some versions of the HG series, if I remember right



bobbysocks said:


> yeah i know that...i said it in some vain attempt to get the thread back OT.... how silly i am.


lol...it seemed to work


----------



## mhuxt (Aug 12, 2013)

Can anyone ID the 262 in this colour guncam clip, apparently from the 362nd FG, April 1945:


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kf5i0D9yio4_

I'd not seen it before, and I thought I'd drained YouTube of every second of camera footage...


----------



## Erich (Aug 12, 2013)

Mark

the 362nd Mogun's Maulers was not given any confirmation for a downing of a 262 during the war, so one wonders what outfit 9th or 8th this portion of film may be from.... ?


----------



## mhuxt (Aug 12, 2013)

Yeah, that's part of what has me confused, the title boards say April '45, Y-64 which I believe is Mainz-Finthen.


----------



## Erich (Aug 13, 2013)

for April of 45 I see the 9th AF P-47's shooting down 4 262's. 365th, 368th and 370th fg's.


----------



## stona (Aug 13, 2013)

The title board would be shot before a film unit started filming to identify the footage (roll number, where shot, camera man) after development. It's still done today, though not with a "chalk board". It has nothing to do with the gun camera footage which is like an archaeological artefact out of context. I have no idea why someone inserted it into that sequence. Unless someone somewhere has the original date and unit from which the gun camera footage came we'll never know the identity of the Me 262 or the attacking aircraft.
It's a nice bit of film, but historically not terribly valuable in terms of the information to be gleaned from it.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (Aug 13, 2013)

Also says the combat was shortly after take off. However, it looks like the aircraft have some altitude (especially the T-Bolt) and both appear to be in a somewhat nose down attitude. Perhaps the 262, having recently taken off was climbing and when attacked by the T-Bolt put his nose down to pick up speed. This might be an example of a 'T-Bolt" diving from a higher altitude and staying with the 262 until its own speed bled off. However, since the t-Bolt doesn't appear to raise its nose much i would guess it's not losing speed so much as the 262 is just accelerating away. The 262 at first appears to open some distance before its engine was either hit or failed. Looking at it again, it may just be the smoke emitted by the 262 that obscures it and makes it appear to pull away.

Interesting video!


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 13, 2013)

> it went beyond Willi to his techs working with leading 262 pilots late war, the body was to be more streamline and the canopy flattened, inboard air ducts at the wing roots.



Here's someone's rather impressive rendition:

Messerschmitt Me 262 HG III/ Entwurf III 1/48

Vogt was working on wind tunnel models of basic aerodynamic P.1065 shapes with sharply swept wings as well.


----------



## Erich (Aug 13, 2013)

nice what-if................ if the builder would of moved the canopy/cockpit forward it would of looked quite a bit like the Me 262 HG III.


----------



## fastmongrel (Aug 14, 2013)

nuuumannn said:


> Here's someone's rather impressive rendition:
> 
> Messerschmitt Me 262 HG III/ Entwurf III 1/48
> 
> Vogt was working on wind tunnel models of basic aerodynamic P.1065 shapes with sharply swept wings as well.



That would have been fun to land zero forward view


----------



## swampyankee (Aug 16, 2013)

fastmongrel said:


> That would have been fun to land zero forward view



I suspect that it would have been difficult enough to keep it moving in a straight line on takeoff. And I'll bet vmc​ was quite high...


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 16, 2013)

> I suspect that it would have been difficult enough to keep it moving in a straight line on takeoff. And I'll bet vmc was quite high...



Very small fin/rudder area would have produced all sorts of problems.


----------



## RAGMAN (Aug 17, 2013)

i always wondered if the lightning could have taken rolls royce engines or griffin engines ... they increased the speed of the p-51 i was wondering if it would have done the same to the p-38 ?


----------



## nuuumannn (Aug 17, 2013)

Rolls-Royce built the Griffon (note tha spelng). I don't really see why that would be necessay; the Lightning was pretty darn good with the turbocharged Allisons.


----------



## GregP (Aug 18, 2013)

They did a study on it and concluded the potential gain was not worth the effort or cost. The Allisons, once the intake, European fuel issue, and pilot training were done, were just fine, The only real issue left was the low critical Mach number and the Merlins wouldn't have changed it at all.

Personally I would like have seen a Merlin-engined XP-40Q with a 2-stage MNerlin in it. I think we would have had something there.


----------



## pattern14 (Aug 19, 2013)

back to the original premise of the thread.....I just finished reading another book by a fellow called William N. Hess, titled "German jets versus the U.S. Army Air Force", published by Specialty press publishers in the United States. It uses a diary like format to document the encounters with Luftwaffe Jets up until the end of WW2 in Europe. Being curious, I looked up Mr Hess's background, and it does appear he has some credibility to write about the subject. He was a gunner on a B17, got shot down after 16 missions and ended up a POW. Post war he was involved in maintenance and mechanical training on P51's and B29's, and has written 25 books on the subject. When the book was published in 1996, he was the Official Historian of the American fighter aces association. The book is obviously written from an American perspective, but remains balanced and objective throughout. He certainly regards the Me 262 as a formidable opponent, making the P51 "Obsolete", and stating that " the allied fighter pilots were intensely aware of the fighters superiority". His perspective from the bombers point of view is also something that tends to get over looked in favour of the fighter Vs fighter thing. He states that U.S pilots were credited with 165 Jets downed, which I believe includes the Komet, and Arado Ar234. No mention is made of the He 162, although there are accounts of combat from the British and German sources in other publications. All in all, another good book for the reference library.


----------



## Glider (Aug 19, 2013)

At the end of the day had the 262 been available in large numbers then the allies would have put a much higher priority on the development of the Vampire, Meteor and P80.
The Meteor Mk III had some built in restrictions and was essentially a stop gap until the Mk IV was ready. With a higher priority the Mk IV would probably have come in earlier and the longer nacells for the Mk III which significantly improved performance would also have arrived earlier. The Vampire was in production during WW2 but not sent into action but with a higher priority would have been available for front line service.
The country with the most to lose when facing large numbers of german jets is Russia who as far as I am aware didn't have anything available apart from the B1


----------



## Erich (Aug 19, 2013)

US pilots were given credit for around 100 jets this accounts for all types, no He 162's since they were not engaged. Hess's book needs to be re-written with more first hand accts from both sides.......geez maybe I'll do that myself.


----------



## pattern14 (Aug 19, 2013)

Erich said:


> US pilots were given credit for around 100 jets this accounts for all types, no He 162's since they were not engaged. Hess's book needs to be re-written with more first hand accts from both sides.......geez maybe I'll do that myself.


 The itemised index at the back lists all the "confirmed" kills, so i'm only passing on what I've read. I'm finding it a bit of a struggle at times, wondering what to believe. The book was written 17 years ago, so it is entirely plausible there has been more accurate info since then. I've read 150 kills for the 262, and I've read 720+ as well. I'm sure the correct figures are out there somewhere......


----------



## stona (Aug 20, 2013)

pattern14 said:


> The itemised index at the back lists all the "confirmed" kills, so i'm only passing on what I've read. I'm finding it a bit of a struggle at times, wondering what to believe. The book was written 17 years ago, so it is entirely plausible there has been more accurate info since then. I've read 150 kills for the 262, and I've read 720+ as well. I'm sure the correct figures are out there somewhere......



We'll never know for sure exact numbers for "kills" for different types. I don't think 150 jets is unreasonable at all. 

There were over 100 Me 262s shot down with known werknummern, which we can match (more or less) between German loss reports and Allied claims. There are others which were certainly shot down but where this is impossible. 
The same problem will exist for the other types meaning any author can only make a best estimate.

Cheers
Steve


----------



## OldSkeptic (Aug 20, 2013)

RAGMAN said:


> i always wondered if the lightning could have taken rolls royce engines or griffin engines ... they increased the speed of the p-51 i was wondering if it would have done the same to the p-38 ?



Nope, the problem was it miserable mach limit. Late model P-38's maximum speed was very close to the its mach limit and as such they were limited to only very shallow dives. The 'dive recovery flaps' only added, if used before control was lost, about .2 of a mach to its limit. Beyond that .. all over .. lawn dart time.

There was no point in giving this thing any more power, it was at its aerodynamic limits already.

Did much better low down (and in warmer air) where the mach limits were not so bad and it was slower, but even used as a ground pounder you still had to be very careful about steep dives.

Bit of a shame, great concept but the aerodynamic knowledge of Lockheed at the time was not up to it.

One of the reasons why they went to the P-51, it was the only US plane with comparable mach limits to the German fighters it was against. The P-47 was better than the P-38, but still poor (0.72 from memory, while the Mustang was 0.8 similar to the 109 and 190).

An awful lot of US pilots were last seen in steep dives in their 38s and 47s. The -47 was a little bit more forgiving too in that it was pretty strong and provided the pilot didn't panic and stuff up when control was lost, if they waited until they got into thicker air then you could recover it. Later dive recovery flaps helped that process. But you were still a passenger when that happened.

Unless a 109 or 190 was on your tail, still with control and shot you up of course.

The Mustang was much better aerodynamically (to be fair it was later design) plus it had a benefit in that it would give a pretty clear warning that you were close to the limit by starting to porpoise. That meant, if you knew what you were doing, that you could keep it in the control zone, close to but not over the edge.


----------



## swampyankee (Aug 20, 2013)

There was a previous post with Bf109 never-exceed speed data: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/flight-test-data/bf-109-dive-rate-19817-6.html#post550872


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 20, 2013)

OldSkeptic said:


> Nope, the problem was it miserable mach limit. Late model P-38's maximum speed was very close to the its mach limit and as such they were limited to only very shallow dives. The 'dive recovery flaps' only added, if used before control was lost, about .2 of a mach to its limit. Beyond that .. all over .. lawn dart time.
> 
> There was no point in giving this thing any more power, it was at its aerodynamic limits already.
> 
> ...



I think your assessment of the P-38 compressibility problem is a bit overstated – “problem handled” on the "J" and "L" models with the incorporation of dive flaps that assisted in getting out of compressibility. Avoiding compressibility dives was something pilots were taught to deal with and PTO fighter groups and squadrons had little attrition losses due to this phenomena, check operations of 5th AF fighter groups (475th comes to mind). As a matter of fact one of the only well known PTO aces I know of that was killed in a compressibility dive was Ken Sparks (39th FS), so if “An awful lot of US pilots were last seen in steep dives in their 38s and 47s” I’d like to know what those numbers are.

I knew one P-38 ETO drive (Col Mike Alba, 55th FG) and in many ways he felt the later model P-38s were superior to the P-51 (Twin engines, better gun platform). Mike told me that an experienced pilot knew his limitations and knew when to avoid compressibility issues.

The P-51 was IMO the better over-all aircraft of the two, but I think in the end operating cost caused the P-38 to quickly disappear at the end of WW2.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 20, 2013)

Wasn't it Bill Goodson that brought his P-47 back from a compression dive during the bluff that saved his squadron mate?

Warped the sh!t of of his airframe but made it back to England...


----------



## parsifal (Aug 20, 2013)

stona said:


> We'll never know for sure exact numbers for "kills" for different types. I don't think 150 jets is unreasonable at all.
> 
> There were over 100 Me 262s shot down with known werknummern, which we can match (more or less) between German loss reports and Allied claims. There are others which were certainly shot down but where this is impossible.
> The same problem will exist for the other types meaning any author can only make a best estimate.
> ...



Is it just me, or do the accuracy of Allied claims to German admitted lossed tend to get closer to each other as the war progressed. By this I mean....early in the war allied claims were pretty wild, later in the war they seem (to me) to get closer to the truth. perhaps the squadrons had more resources to cross check and verify the vercity of claims.

Forsyth in his book on RAF ops 1942 (a day by day account for each squdron in NW Europe) estimates the inaccuracy of claims to actual losses at about 3 losses for every 4 claims made. im not sure what he baases that on.....


----------



## OldSkeptic (Aug 21, 2013)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I think your assessment of the P-38 compressibility problem is a bit overstated – “problem handled” on the "J" and "L" models with the incorporation of dive flaps that assisted in getting out of compressibility. Avoiding compressibility dives was something pilots were taught to deal with and PTO fighter groups and squadrons had little attrition losses due to this phenomena, check operations of 5th AF fighter groups (475th comes to mind). As a matter of fact one of the only well known PTO aces I know of that was killed in a compressibility dive was Ken Sparks (39th FS), so if “An awful lot of US pilots were last seen in steep dives in their 38s and 47s” I’d like to know what those numbers are.
> 
> I knew one P-38 ETO drive (Col Mike Alba, 55th FG) and in many ways he felt the later model P-38s were superior to the P-51 (Twin engines, better gun platform). Mike told me that an experienced pilot knew his limitations and knew when to avoid compressibility issues.
> 
> The P-51 was IMO the better over-all aircraft of the two, but I think in the end operating cost caused the P-38 to quickly disappear at the end of WW2.



From the P-38 Flight Operating Instructions for the P-38H, P-38J, P-38 L-1 L5 and F-5B Airplanes:



> DIVE RECOVERY FLAPS.—P-38L and Later P38J airplanes are provided with dive recovery flaps to improve the dive recovery characteristics of the
> 
> As described above, the airplane without these flaps becomes very nose heavy and starts to buffet above placard dive speeds. This condition is caused by a high speed stall and a consequent decrease in lift in the wing producing the nose heavy condition.
> The dive recovery flaps which are installed under the wings between the booms and the ailerons, restore the lift to this portion of the wing and thus cause the uncontrollable nose heaviness
> ...









As can be seen the max allowabe speeds are not much more than a P-51's max level speed.....


----------



## GregP (Aug 21, 2013)

Funny we dive our P-38 at 90° all the time in aerobatic exhibitions, but not from 25,000 feet. The zoom climb from a high speed airshow pass gets us only about 8,000 to 10,000 feet (when solo without the formation) or so (depending on the plane(s) in the maneuver) before coming back down. Doesn't have any problem with loops, rools or any maneuver ... maybe snaps. I guess it wasn't all that aerobatic:


_

It is the silver Sea Fury with the BIG engine (R-4360)._


----------



## stona (Aug 21, 2013)

parsifal said:


> Is it just me, or do the accuracy of Allied claims to German admitted lossed tend to get closer to each other as the war progressed. ....



Off the top of my head, and totally unscientifically, I think they do. 

Cheers

Steve


----------



## silence (Aug 21, 2013)

nuuumannn said:


> Rolls-Royce built the Griffon (note tha spelng). I don't really see why that would be necessay; the Lightning was pretty darn good with the turbocharged Allisons.



Here's one person's opinion on the idea:

_I don't think we would have seen an increase in performance because
the turbo-allison performed well at altitude when the problems were
fixed. The two stage Merlin might provide some speed increase at the
lowest altitude probably at the cost of some loss at high altitude.

What I think would have happened is that the less bulky Merlin would
have freed a lot of space in the booms that was othewise filled with
exhaust and intake ducting and that might have allowed another 50
gallons of fuel to be carried internally in each boom. (turbo
charger was mounted about 3ft-4ft behined the engine on the upper part
of the boom)

An 'idiosynchrasy' of American turbos was that at US Army insistance,
based on NACA recomendation, the turbo and the engine were seperated
by long straight runs of ducting. Done for reliabillity reasons but
obviously cost space.

There also was a two stage Allison. The Allison V-1710-121 engine
rated at 1,425hp for take-off and 1,100hp at 7620m was a two stage two
speed supercharger used on the P-40Q, which at 422mph matched or even
outperformed any Mk IX/XVI Spitfire in terms of speed and matched the
Me 109G-14AS. This engine sounds less powerfull than the Merlin 60
series but note that the absence of an intercooler probably kept the
weight down to around 600kg as opposed to the 745kg of the Merlin.

So this could have been fitted to the P-38 instead of the turbo
version. The reason it wasn't fitted to the P-51 was that the
arrangment of the gear driven supercharger was about 30cm longer than
the Packard Merlin and just didn't fit easily into the P-51. (The two
stage Merlins themselves must have been bulky due to the intercooler
themselves so so the V-1710-121 or German DB605DCM migh have done
even better.)

The Turbo charged V-1710 wern't known for their maximum power rating
(though they reached a decent 1700hp late in the war) however simple
ratings can be deceiving: the Merlins power vs altitude curve has many
inflexions and flat spots due to gear changes and throttling back of
excess pressure that was only usable in a narrow band and the Allision
clearly maintained power better at high altitude.

Pulling out power from the shaft to power a powerfull two stage
supercharger is clearly going to cost more power than using exhaust
gases to power via a turbo.

However the reduced exhaust backpressure and the greater jet thrust
is going to partially make up for it. The Merlin 66 had 300lbs of Jet
thrust which at 440mph was equal to 260kw-300kW (ie 450hp). I have no
figures but immagine a turbo would have sucked out more than half of
that._


----------



## silence (Aug 21, 2013)

GregP said:


> Funny we dive our P-38 at 90° all the time in aerobatic exhibitions, but not from 25,000 feet. The zoom climb from a high speed airshow pass gets us only about 8,000 to 10,000 feet or so (depending on the plane(s) in the maneuver) before coming back down. Doesn't have any problem with loops, rools or any maneuver ... maybe snaps. I guess it wasn't all that aerobatic:
> 
> Maybe it wasn't so bad after all, huh? Seen any other warbirds do better? I've seen Steve Hinton do MORE with it that would shock the "it's unmaneuverable" claimers. He departed early in this act only because he was a new member of the team, the left engine had only 2.5 hours on it, and the Horsemen at the time (Ed Shipley and Dan Freidken) had practiced the last part of the routine and Steve hadn't since the left engine (after overhaul by Joe Yancey) was installed only the day before. They only had time to install it, fly it, and join in what they had practiced earlier before the 8-week overhaul just before the airshow and the short afternoon practice before.
> 
> ...




You have the best hobby EVER!


----------



## GregP (Aug 21, 2013)

Thanks Silence. It is fun, but I want back into electronic engineering. Did 33 years and want to again.

I think my best hobby ever was my high school girlfriend. She was simply fantastic ... mostly. Discovery was wonderful. Pouting was inevitable. Maybe she wasn't the best ever. Hell, you're right!

Restoration is OK if you can devote an entire Saturday (or any other day, maybe more than 1) to it, but it must be regular or progress simply isn't very fast. Only regular work can make a plane fly again in a reasonable time.

Believe me, when we taxi and/or fly our Bell YP-59A, the video will be right HERE ... assuming I'm here and able. My estimate is March or April 2014. But I could be wrong ... yet again. Depends on the funding availability ONLY. The rest is prety much foregone. Only money will make a difference.


----------



## GregP (Aug 21, 2013)

Here's how NOT to do it. Biggin Hill.

The pilot had NOT practiced with the aircraft at altitude recently, NOT at low altitude, had NOT flown the plane much, and tried a loop at less than 1/2 power. Note the muted sound of the engine, which is NOT characteristic of an Allison at higher manifold pressures ... a recipe for disaster:


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jSHZPmiSPk_

Incipient spin if I ever saw one. 

Too bad, when the power is up the P-63 is a climbing fool ... as you can see below. He was at 43 inches MAP and the Allison was cleared for 57 inches for Military and 70 inches in the P-63 for WER. 70 inches almost doubles the climb rate from what you see:


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiuEpP0HFh0_

Sorry, off topic. Will stop and post vids elsewhere. I seem to wander off topic but mean no harm to the thread ... here's something ON topic:


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjyIo8uRBDI_


----------



## OldSkeptic (Aug 21, 2013)

Great stuff Greg. 

Yes stay under the mach limit (helped by saying low of course) and very maneuverable. 
Did well in the MTO and PTO, just high altitude, high speed stuff in the ETO were way outside its comfort zone.


----------



## Njaco (Aug 21, 2013)

The Kingcobra crash was just brutal. [email protected]


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 21, 2013)

OldSkeptic said:


> As can be seen the max allowabe speeds are not much more than a P-51's max level speed.....


 And during maneuvering combat, you're never seeing those speeds unless you need to get out of trouble quickly. Again, this is something that experienced pilots avoided.

BTW, the note from the text says 

"With the dive recovery flaps extended before entering the dive, angles of dive up to 45° *may* be safely accomplished." 

It doesn't state that's the limit...


----------

