# Which fighter brought the biggest new advantage when introduced?



## Oreo (Jul 20, 2008)

Think in terms of the time when each plane came on the scene-- which fighter really threw its opposition for a loop the most?


----------



## magnocain (Jul 20, 2008)

The Me262 by far.


----------



## JugBR (Jul 20, 2008)

dificul pool, because me 262 was the first jet fighter but there was so few, and when germany was almost falling... it didnt brought some real advantege for germany that time.

also there the yaks, the mustangs, the spitfires, the fw 190, etc.. all great machines...

but i believe the bf 109, by its big superiority over the planes that fought in spain at that time brought a real adavantage for that war.


----------



## machine shop tom (Jul 21, 2008)

The FW-190 was a nasty surprise for the British and they were even more surprised when one was landed by mistake in England and they got a GOOD look at it.

tom


----------



## drgondog (Jul 21, 2008)

Im'm torn beteeen P-51B, Fw 190A and Me 262. From my perspective it was the P-51 B

It took on and defeated the best fighters the LW had to defend aginst the B-17 and B-24 - and did it over Berlin when it was 200 miles farther into Germany than any other fighter except the P-38. It saved Strategic Daylight Bombardment

Most of the LW pilots that I have talked with siad it was a 'major agent of change' to put it lightly.

Having said that, the Fw 190 was a major shock to the RAF Spitfire - and obviously the Me 262 was the best of the war.

Take your pick - but Spit got control of air over Britain and P-51B did it over Berlin, and the 262 didn't.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Jul 21, 2008)

It would be intersting to include the meteor, and perhaps the P-80 in the list. Whilst the 262 was superior to the Meteor, the contest becomes intersting because the Meteor was the first to enter squadron service, also the later marks of the Meteor reportedly started to close the performance gap


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 21, 2008)

From a technical point of view it is the Me 262. It just was too late and too little.


----------



## Wayne Little (Jul 21, 2008)

I'm gonna go with the Me262,...but I have to agree with drgondog about the P51! It certainly improved the odds of more bombers hitting the target and getting home to fight another day.....and it got better with the P51D..


----------



## Oreo (Jul 21, 2008)

that's the sort of discussion I like to see! Good job, y'all!


----------



## Thorlifter (Jul 21, 2008)

I'm torn between the 262 and 109, but I'm going to eliminate the 262 because I feel the 262 ushered in a new era. So I'll go with the 109.


----------



## Soren (Jul 21, 2008)

The Me-262 no doubt.


----------



## timshatz (Jul 22, 2008)

Technically, the Me262. But it didn't affect the war. The airwar went on, much as it had before the introduction. 

P51 showed up and did what other fighters could do over their home airdromes. But it could do it 300 miles away. Pretty much the end of the luftwaffe at that point. It was a long range air supremecy fighter. The airplane everyone was looking for since the late 30s. 

Technically, it was not a great advancement. Strategically, it marked the begining of the end for the Luftwaffe. 

Gets my vote.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 22, 2008)

Tim you nailed it - the 262? Greatest innovation but its advantage was never fully exploited. The P-51, its strengths were exploited to the fullest and the proof is in the end result.


----------



## Jerry W. Loper (Jul 22, 2008)

The Zero swept the skies clear of Chinese aircraft during the period before Pearl Harbor, and outperformed European-flown fighters for several months after Pearl Harbor, before Allied airmen discovered its weak points.


----------



## Erich (Jul 22, 2008)

me 262 without a doubt, every US bomber crewmen from the 8th and 15th swore they saw them and those that did wish to God they never met them.

sure the thing was in the infant stage but it was just the start of something so much bigger everyone can attest to that - the impression it gave the Allies was one of fear until they met up with it and could combat it


----------



## Messy1 (Jul 22, 2008)

ME-262. It made a huge impact on aviation even in the small numbers it was deployed in.


----------



## Marcel (Jul 22, 2008)

What did the Me262 really do? It had absolutely no impact on the course of war. Some others had, Bf109, best fighter of the early years, helped the Germans greatly in their conquer of Europe, being the best fighter around. Hurricane (not on the list????!) helping stem the German advance. Zero because of their impact and victories in the Naval warfare, by far the best in the early months of the Pacific war. Made the Americans have to fight a long way before reaching Tokio. Americans had to change tactics for this plane. I voted this one but could as easily have voted Bf109 for the same reason.


----------



## Soren (Jul 22, 2008)

Marcel the Me-262's were seriusly outnumbered, mostly piloted by inexperienced pilots, and the few which were available couldn't always fly because of fuel shortages. That's the reason it had little impact on the outcome of the war.

However the headline of the topic is "Which fighter gave the best new advantage when introduced?" which would be the Me-262 without any doubt as it was the biggest leap forward in a/c technology of the entire war. One on one and with an experienced pilot the Me-262 was unbeatable.


----------



## Messy1 (Jul 22, 2008)

I was looking at the impact the ME-262 had on aviation in general, not so much during the war, which really was not all that much. But the poll was for which fighter brought the biggest new advantage. For me, the ME-262's jet engine was a huge advantage as far as speed goes. Had it been employed right and used correctly in would have made a larger impact on the war, but it would not have changed the outcome.
Once the Allies knew the Zero's secrets, it's domination was over. Newer and faster piston driven planes appeared and made the Zero obsolete once it's weaknesses were used against it. Even a good pilot in a Wildcat or a P-40 was more than a match for the Zero. Once the newer Allied planes were introduced, Lightning, Hellcat, Corsair, etc, the Zero was outclassed. These newer planes could pick and choose when and where they would fight. The US changed their tactics because they had to and with their new planes, they could change them. The Zero pilots were not able to change tactics, or do anything if their opponent insisted on keeping his speed up!


----------



## renrich (Jul 22, 2008)

I think that the advantage the ME262 had over other existing AC was so great that it would have to get the nod. As a bomber interceptor it was almost impossible to defend against. If you exclude the ME262 because of it's lack of any real overall impact on the outcome of the war, I would go with the P51B or A6M because of almost identical impacts. The Mustang made daylight precision bombing much more possible because it kept losses of the bombers in the bearable range. There was no other fighter in the world that could accomplish the mission the Mustang did in late 43-44. Likewise in late 40-41, the A6M could accomplish a mission no other fighter in the world could. Some historians have said the performance of the Zero is the reason that Japan decided to go forward with the war. If the LW had had the A6M in July,Sept, 1940, the BOB might have had a different ending.


----------



## Bigxiko (Jul 22, 2008)

Me 262!!!!
No Doubt


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 22, 2008)

The P38 when introduced into the pacific, gave the allies an huge advantage over the Japanese.


----------



## Soren (Jul 22, 2008)

Syscom the P38 wasn't 100 mph faster than anything in the air.


----------



## pbfoot (Jul 22, 2008)

It sure wasn't the 262 that caused concern it was the Fw 190 on its arrival made all the Spit V a complete underdog and caused huge concern in every venue .


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 23, 2008)

Soren said:


> Syscom the P38 wasn't 100 mph faster than anything in the air.



It was over the Zero. And it had more of a proven impact than the -262.


----------



## Marcel (Jul 23, 2008)

Soren said:


> Marcel the Me-262's were seriusly outnumbered, mostly piloted by inexperienced pilots, and the few which were available couldn't always fly because of fuel shortages. That's the reason it had little impact on the outcome of the war.
> 
> However the headline of the topic is "Which fighter gave the best new advantage when introduced?" which would be the Me-262 without any doubt as it was the biggest leap forward in a/c technology of the entire war. One on one and with an experienced pilot the Me-262 was unbeatable.



I interpreted the question differently, not focussed on the individual pilot. Of course I agree that the ME262 gave a huge advantage for it's pilot against the props, but didn't give a huge advantage for Germany because of the few numbers, you already mentioned. 
The ones I mentioned gave an advantage for their own country over others. I realise I forgot one, the P51, giving the huge advantage to escort bombers all the way to Berlin.


----------



## evangilder (Jul 23, 2008)

I say the 262 also. While I do see the points about the P-51, the 262 not only ushered in the jet age, but also was the beginning of the end for piston based fighters. It was too little, too late for the Germans, but it was still of great concern to allied planners.

The Zero didn't really outperfrom the allied fighters. The Zero became mythic in it's capabilities, and many of it's "strengths" were not as great as the myths made them out to be.


----------



## timshatz (Jul 23, 2008)

Problem with calling the 262 revolutionary is there were at least two other aircraft in production (the P-80 and the Glouster Meteor) using jet engines at roughly the same time. Granted, they did not use swept wing technology, but they did have better engines from the standpoint of reliability. From that perspective, the 262 is evolutionary and not revolutionary. 

To consider the 262 the most effective when it was introduced would be to assume that it changed the course of the war in some way. It didn't. It was effective in it's role as a fighter, but not enough to stop (or even significantly affect) daylight bombing. Such an event happened in the Korean War when the Mig-15 forced the USAF to fly B29 missions at night. Didn't happen with the 262.

If it had better management or been introduced earlier, that is possible. But the war went it's way in spite of the advantages brought on by the 262.


----------



## evangilder (Jul 23, 2008)

There were 2 other jet fighters in production, but the 262 was the first one to go into combat. The engines could have been more reliable if Tungsten had been available to the Germans in a much larger quantity. The 262 was the start of a dramatic change in fighter designs and technology. 

No one said it was the most effective, but it was had a big advantage with speed. And as Erich pointed out, bomber crews were very concerned with the Me-262.


----------



## Messy1 (Jul 23, 2008)

Which was the bigger innovation? The ME-262's being the first jet fighter in combat, or being the first with a swept wing?


----------



## timshatz (Jul 23, 2008)

evangilder said:


> No one said it was the most effective, but it was had a big advantage with speed. And as Erich pointed out, bomber crews were very concerned with the Me-262.




Then I guess we'd have to define what "biggest new advantage" means. If we take it as being totally unknown before the introduction, then I guess the swept wings would be it for the 262 (as there were already jet engines being used and heavy cannon as well). 

Does anyone know if there was another bird out there, in service, using swept wings?


----------



## SoD Stitch (Jul 23, 2008)

The question is "best new advantage", not which one affected the War the most, so I voted for the 262. The 262 was years ahead of the competition when it was introduced.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Jul 23, 2008)

timshatz said:


> Does anyone know if there was another bird out there, in service, using swept wings?



Me 163.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 23, 2008)

Me 262 for certain.

Yes it did not win the war, but it was a major advantage over piston engined aircraft, against bombers, and certainly against the Meteor and possible against the P-80.

If Hitler had not ordered to be built as a bomber and put it into production, it might well have been able to stop the Allied bombing offensive and delay the end of the war.


----------



## merlin (Jul 24, 2008)

I was tempted with the 109 in Spain, but went for the next obvious one the Merlin-Mustang combination which sealed the fate of the LW over Germany, with its superiority over the 109 190.


----------



## Ramirezzz (Jul 24, 2008)

I-16 - first all - metal fighter monoplane with the retractable landing gear


----------



## seesul (Jul 24, 2008)

Ramirezzz said:


> I-16 - first all - metal fighter monoplane with the retractable landing gear



Amen


----------



## timshatz (Jul 24, 2008)

SoD Stitch said:


> Me 163.



Good point. And, it was rocket powered. Not very effective, but extremely novel.


----------



## ToughOmbre (Jul 24, 2008)

Me-262

No doubt about the leap in technology and performance. 

But with only something like 1433 built and only about 250 ever seeing combat, they didn't have the desired impact.

TO


----------



## Soren (Jul 24, 2008)

The reason it's the Me-262 is not only because it was better than anything else in the air during the war, but also because that at its introduction and till the end of the war it was better than any Allied fighter still in development, which includes the Meteor P-80.


----------



## pbfoot (Jul 24, 2008)

I don't think the 262 had the same effect on the western allies as did the introduction of the 190 whwn flying missions over the channel took on a whole new meaning the Spit MK V which was the mainstay of the allied effort at that time were confronted with the 190 which was a better aircraft then the MK v in all aspects it wasn'y until the Mk IX that the war became more equal . When the 262 came out I don't think it had at all the same effect , yes it was fast but there were very few of them . 
The comment that nothing was in the pipeline the equal of the 262 all you have to do is look at the P80 . The 262 was in production Czechoslavakia post war and really had a very short career compared to the P80


----------



## Soren (Jul 24, 2008)

Pbfoot the first Avia S-92 to roll off the production line did so in 1948, and with the then old and outdated Jumo 004B engine, yet it stayed in service until later in the 50's where the Czechs were becoming interested in the MIG-15 as their main fighter. 

The P-80 on the other hand benefitted from being produced by the side who won the war, and so could continually be fitted with new engines and equipment, yet its career wasn't any longer as it got phased out as a fighter already in 1948 by the F-86 Sabre. So the Me-262 actually stayed in service as a fighter longer, and that was eventhough it used the outdated by postwar standards Jumo 004B. 

Note: By 1945 the Germans already had available the improved Jumo 004E, which was a lot more fuel efficient than the B engine and featured a 25% increase in thrust. Furthermore a new fuel injection system came along in 45 which virtually eliminated the danger of flame outs. Now had the Czech had avaiable the blueprints for both the engine new fuel injection system, plus been able to produce this engine, then the S-92 would've undoubtedly stayed in service for longer. 

So like I said, the Me-262 is superior to any a/c the Allies had in the works during WW2, which includes the P-80 Meteor. And the USAAF concluded the same in postwar comparative trials between a captured Me-262 P-80A, in which the Me-262 proved superior.


----------



## pbfoot (Jul 24, 2008)

yes I 'm aware of forthcoming projects but it still was not as desirable as the P80 it had no ceiling which is paramount according to most pilots and the P80 as fighter was around until the mid seventies with some south American air arms. 
I voted for the 190 if any fighter gave pause for thought that was it as overnight the Spit Mk V was outclassed and for a period until the Mk IX came along the LW could've owned the channel and North Sea if they had enough units


----------



## Soren (Jul 24, 2008)

The Jumo 004E would've solved the powerloss by altitude problem Pbfoot.


----------



## pbfoot (Jul 24, 2008)

Soren said:


> The Jumo 004E would've solved the powerloss by altitude problem Pbfoot.


so would've winning the war but there was no need to push allied jets when you own the air


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jul 24, 2008)

It would also need a pressurized cockpit. (which the 262 was designed for but afik was never implimented)


----------



## Soren (Jul 24, 2008)

Regarding the Me-262's service ceiling; According to the official performance chart with test flight figures it is in the area of 12.5 km (41,000 ft) or higher, which isn't bad.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jul 24, 2008)

Is that at 6400 kg?


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Jul 25, 2008)

I voted for the F6F Hellcat. It brought a tremendous boost to the American Navy in the Pacific, to finally have a carrier fighter that could go one on one with the Japanese and win. True, it didn't outperform the Zero, but it could take a lot more hits to it and still survive, and it had excellent firepower to bring down the flimsy Zeros. 

So it really made a differance. By the time the even better Corsair came on the scene the Japanese were already being beaten, also by the P-38 Lightning over the islands.


----------



## Soren (Jul 25, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> Is that at 6400 kg?



Actually it's at a starting weight of 7,000 kg, so it must have been completely loaded up with extra fuel. The empty weight with weapons and all is 3,900 kg. Those Jumo 004B's really guzzled some fuel! 

Imagine the range of the Me-262 on internal fuel with the Jumo 004E engine, it would've been very long.


----------



## carbonlifeform (Jul 22, 2009)

Gotta be the Mighty Mouse (Mustang). While the LW had been used to seeing the P-47 being used as bomber escort after the US got involved, the Mustang had to come as quite a shock to them. Sleek, agile and able to escort bombers to the deepest parts of Germany, the Mustang was a true air superiority fighter.
The ability to escort the bombers all the way to their targets had to be the biggest advantage in the air war.

Altho the Me 262 had the potential to be a huge advantage, it did nothing to alter the course of the air war over Germany.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Jul 22, 2009)

The extraordinary range of the P-51, giving the fighter the ability to take the fight to the enemy either alone or escorting bomber formations was the single greatest blow that any major Air Force was dealt in the war.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jul 22, 2009)

I've got to agree with PB Foot - the Fw-190A. The Me 262 was the most advanced and perhaps technically innovative but in real operational terms the 190A and then the P-51B. Both were game changers that continuously evolved. Think 190A to 190D to Ta 149 ... huge evolution.

MM


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 22, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> The extraordinary range of the P-51, giving the fighter the ability to take the fight to the enemy either alone or escorting bomber formations was the single greatest blow that any major Air Force was dealt in the war.



The P38 gave the AAF its first long range fighter that had a chance to maintain air superiority


----------



## Glider (Jul 22, 2009)

This was a difficult choice, top marks for the idea and selection. I have put a one line description in so that you can follow the reasoning, feel free to disagree, but at least you can see the thinking behind the choice. 

Personally I had to choose between the 
FW190 - Because it really put everything else in the air at the time in the shade and gave the RAF had a real shock.
Me262 - For the obvious reason that it was so far ahead of the rest of the world at the time
P51B - Its range totally changed the air war in the West and its performace was such that it could take on any defending fighteron equal terms.

In the end I went for the P51 because once the advantage was gained it was never lost and it made a fundamental difference on the war.
Time caught up with the FW190 with the Spit 9 and other modern fighters. The Me262 could have had a huge impact but they lacked the numbers and time to make that impact.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 22, 2009)

my opinion is that the zero had the greatest effect of any aircraft. This is a rather strange choice, I know, but consider this.

That someone could produce a fighter with performance greater than its land based opponents in 1941 was astounding. That it was an Asian nation that did this was earth shattering for many.

The Zero was the single weapon system that influenced the war in the Pacific in its early days more than any other single system. The successes of the Japanese in those early days inspired the development of post war independance movements across the asia pacific rim, and in a sense brought colonialism to an end.....and all of this can in part be traced back to the stunning successes enjoyed by the zero in its early days

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## syscom3 (Jul 22, 2009)

parsifal said:


> my opinion is that the zero had the greatest effect of any aircraft. This is a rather strange choice, I know, but consider this.
> 
> That someone could produce a fighter with performance greater than its land based opponents in 1941 was astounding. That it was an Asian nation that did this was earth shattering for many.
> 
> The Zero was the single weapon system that influenced the war in the Pacific in its early days more than any other single system. The successes of the Japanese in those early days inspired the development of post war independance movements across the asia pacific rim, and in a sense brought colonialism to an end.....and all of this can in part be traced back to the stunning successes enjoyed by the zero in its early days




Interesting perspective.


----------



## Maximowitz (Jul 22, 2009)

Me 262. The future beckoned.


----------



## davparlr (Jul 22, 2009)

Techically the Me-262. Affect on the war, P-51B. The P-51 is known for its escort efforts, but its long range interdiction efforts against the Luftwaffe and other targets must have been immensely annoying to German logistics and manufacturing. As a results, I would select the P-51B.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Jul 22, 2009)

syscom3 said:


> The P38 gave the AAF its first long range fighter that had a chance to maintain air superiority


They never could get the engines to work the way they wanted to in the ETO, the P-38 also was a VERY expensive and slow plane to mass-produce, they never had enough of them to really make that impact.


----------



## Waynos (Jul 22, 2009)

I voted for Bf109. The 262 has its obvious merits, but for reasons outside its control its overall impact on the war was negligible.

The Bf 109 however appeared when the Gladiator, hell even the Hawker Fury II, was still only on test! This cantilevered monoplane with its 300mph plus potential frightened us to death. It was a signal of Germany's intent, and it was why we had the Hurricane, Spitfire and all the investment and expansion that went hand in hand with them in the second half of the 1930's. Yes we talked of appeasement and treaties, but thanks to this and its ilk we were making sure we prepared for war, thankfully.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jul 22, 2009)

I had to go with the Me 262 just due to the shock value - which was probably somewhat short lived.


----------



## carbonlifeform (Jul 22, 2009)

I also think the P-38 had a unique advantage for it's pilots. Unfortunately, this advantage could also be a disadvantage. It's twin tail boom made it easily identifiable to friendly pilots and more importantly, to flak happy gunners in the Pacific(no offense intended), which probably reduced the loss rate from friendly fire. However an enemy pilot could easily pick you out in a furball. A twin engined fighter is also an advantage when you consider the redundancy of having two engines. But all in all I'd have to say the advantages the P-38 offered its pilots did not make it a war changing plane like the P-51.
The entrance of the P-51 completely altered the course of the strategic air war over Germany.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Jul 22, 2009)

carbonlifeform said:


> I also think the P-38 had a unique advantage for it's pilots. Unfortunately, this advantage could also be a disadvantage. It's twin tail boom made it easily identifiable to friendly pilots and more importantly, to flak happy gunners in the Pacific(no offense intended), which probably reduced the loss rate from friendly fire. However an enemy pilot could easily pick you out in a furball. A twin engined fighter is also an advantage when you consider the redundancy of having two engines. But all in all I'd have to say the advantages the P-38 offered its pilots did not make it a war changing plane like the P-51.
> The entrance of the P-51 completely altered the course of the strategic air war over Germany.


The P-38's main advantage was concentrated firepower, IMO. The ability to just shoot straight instead of trying to shoot from the wings allowed for much greater engagement distances. I think they should have left off the big malfunctioning cannon and gone whole hog with 8 .50s. It's a shame we didn't reinvent the minigun until Vietnam, a .50 caliber gatling would have been terrifying for enemy fighters.


----------



## BikerBabe (Jul 22, 2009)

Me 262 in my opinion.
I am well aware that this particular plane model didn't get the time to do much good for Germany back then, but it was a huge technical step forward, compared with the various other planes from all over the world at the time.


----------



## Eddar (Jul 22, 2009)

Nice poll. However the Heinkel was some of the most inovative aircraft to be developed. A lot of the ideas were taken and shared with other German aircraft. Heinkel should be given a lot of credit. He-178 was the first jet propelled manned aircraft.


----------



## carbonlifeform (Jul 22, 2009)

Yeah, yer right about the concentrated firepower. And I do believe some units did get rid of the cannons and went with the 8 .50's although I could be wrong.
If they had fitted a pair of Merlins into the P-38 and kept to the .50's without the cannons,(or at least went with cannons that worked) the P-38 would have indeed been a truly fearsome weapon and could well have become the greatest multi role fighter of the war.


----------



## renrich (Jul 23, 2009)

The ME262 was a huge jump in performance but I don't believe it was a surprise as Britain and the US had advance notice about it's development and had jets of their own in the works. The A6M was a huge surprise because of it's overall impact on the war. Because of it's long range, it could be places where no other fighter could be expected to be and it's performance, flown by superbly trained IJN pilots made it almost unbeatable.


----------



## Njaco (Jul 26, 2009)

The Me 262. Agreed that while its entry into the war was shocking and negligable, its value in the history of avaition is inmessurable. Yes, the Allies were working on jet design but the type of jet engine used by the Me 262 was more efficent and is mostly the blueprint for engines today (centrifugal-flow vs axial-flow ). It ushered in a whole new way of waging aerial warfare and almost overnight made every piston-engined fighter or aircraft obsolete. In terms of what it did just for the war, maybe not much but for aviation history, it was a whole new world.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 26, 2009)

I kind of agree with both of you. The 262 was a technological marvel, it represented the pinnacle of jet technology for its time. 

But it did not have anything really revolutionary or surprising either. It was not the first , not even the first to enter squadron service, and there is nothing revolutionary in its technology that the allies did not have comparable solutions.

If you expand the original thread, to look at the impact of a fighter, as I did, and pay less attation to the purely technical side of the equation, I doubt the 262 can be seen as the most influential . Perhaps the He 178, perhaps the zero, perhaps the P-51. Each had an impact on either warfare, or technology or politics, or a combination of all three. Its then a question of estimating how much effect....my money was on the zero, but thats just an opinion


----------



## Waynos (Jul 27, 2009)

1 The He 178 was not a fighter, but it certainly deserves mention for its postion as the only jet aircraft of the 1930's

2 The allies also developed axial engines, and flew them.


----------



## red admiral (Jul 27, 2009)

Waynos said:


> 2 The allies also developed axial engines, and flew them.



They also worked a lot better. Axial type compressors can be more efficient, but for the low thrust levels and low pressure ratios being produced there isn't a great deal of difference between axial and centrifugal types. In fact, the axial type used on the 004 was less efficient than the British centrifugal types. On the other hand, axials are more complicated, heavier, harder to build, have narrower performance bands and were generally a pain to get right.


----------



## Njaco (Jul 28, 2009)

But to gain more power wouldn't an axial be more efficent as you would just add more rotating blades behind those already there? That makes for a slimmer design as opposed to the centrifugal-flow which was a little more bulkier and not so stream-lined?

Not disagreeing on your points about the Allies having the better engine but the 004 was the first to be 'efficently' (loose term ) used in ops.


----------



## renrich (Jul 28, 2009)

To bolster the case for the A6M and it's impact on the war with it's before 1941 unheard of range and performance. I am reading a new book about the "Marianas Turkey Shoot" and the Japanese were able to launch carrier strikes at least 100 miles further than the US because of the range of the A6M. Many of the IJN strikes were composed of A6M fighter bombers and the other strikes were escorted by A6Ms. This was in June of 1944 and the Japanese were still reaping the benefits of the A6M's long range. If not for the US submarines and the inexperience of the IJN pilots, the battle might have been a much closer run thing.


----------



## red admiral (Jul 28, 2009)

Njaco said:


> But to gain more power wouldn't an axial be more efficent as you would just add more rotating blades behind those already there? That makes for a slimmer design as opposed to the centrifugal-flow which was a little more bulkier and not so stream-lined?



Another turbine stage could take more energy from the flow and give more power for a turboprop, but probably wouldn't be suitable for a jet. The low pressure ratio in the 004 means it probably wouldn't be a good idea. Greater mass flow (i.e. larger diameter or more rpm) or higher temperature are how to increase thrust in a turbojet. Junkers went for higher temperatures with late model 004s with new turbine blades, but reduced rpm because of some nasty vibration issues. Axial types are generally smaller diameter, but longer. There doesn't seem to be much difference between the two for these thrust levels given that the nacelles on the Me 262 gives more drag than the fatter Meteor ones.


----------



## paradoxguy (Sep 10, 2009)

I believe the Bf 109 in the Spanish Civil War was the most significant of the polled fighters because it marked the beginning of the era of the "modern" WWII fighter and also introduced new tactics and formation guidelines widely used in WWII, such as the "finger four" formation and emphasis on vertical fighting over dogfighting.


----------



## JoeB (Sep 10, 2009)

I would say Zero, when introduced over China in 1940. These were combat trial quantities a couple of sdns, but within the scale of that air war it completely changed the situation. The main air campaign was one by the JNAF against Chinese cities to force a collapse in Chinese morale. The Type 96 hadn't had the range to escort bombers against inland cities (like the Nationalist wartime capital at Chongqing), and the bombers suffered too heavily from Chinese fighters when unescorted in daylight, as demonstrated right from the start of the war in 1937. Even against targets Type 96's could reach with drop tanks, the match up v Soviet type fighters (I-16), often with Soviet pilots, but even those piloted by the Chinese, was in the JNAF's favor but not overwhelmingly. Soviet pilots were withdrawn before the Zero came but the balance still changed to absolutely no contest with I-16 v Zero, virtually no Zeroes were lost at all, and the opposing AF soon basically refused to face them. And the Zero could go anywhere the bombers needed to. The Zero gave a huge new advantage when first introduced which in relative terms outstrips any of the other cases.

In Me-262 case there'd be a strong argument for step in *performance*, and future *potential*; latter also seems to be the argument in favor of Bf109 in Spain, but the degree of change in *advantage*, especially v opposing fighters, wasn't as great. The Me262 was in fact quite unsuccessful against the piston fighters it met in the circumstances pertaining, for which there are various explanations but it didn't do any better against them, if even as well, as German piston fighters were doing at the same time. It did have more capability to ignore Allied fighters and go for bombers. The Bf109 in Spain IMO should be considered for the new advantage it gave to all forces on the Nationalist side, not just to the Germans by substituting Bf-109B for He-51: the increment of advantage over CR.32 equipped units on the same side wasn't as dramatic. And the Bf109B wasn't able to allow whole new operations previously impossible with any other fighter on the Nationalist side.

The P-51B situation had the same elements as the Zero over China, extending reach of daylight escort, and better match up v intercepting fighters. But P-51B v P-38's and P-47's didn't improve the USAAF's situation over Germany in 1944 by quite as much relatively in either respect as Zero v Type 96 improved the JNAF's situation over China in 1940.

Joe


----------



## drgondog (Sep 11, 2009)

I'm inclined to agree with JoeB. I voted 262 because it was a quantum leap in performance but one could debate whteher it was effective. I would point out that the tactical situation relative to airfield security was extremely poor for the Me 262 which reduced its potential impact.

But if results based on performance is the determinant, the Zero deserves major consideration. 

The Mustang had the greater impact from the time it was introduced through the end of the war but it wasn't so much of a performance boost over the 109 and 190. What was critical is that its performance envelope of superiority happened to be at the altitudes that the 109 and 190 were forced to engage, and where they were forced to engage (over its own airspace).. Ditto the Zero through 1942 and mid 1943.


----------



## Colin1 (Sep 11, 2009)

I voted P-51B
Unless I misunderstood the question

Which fighter _brought_ the biggest new advantage when introduced

rather than

Which fighter _promised_ the biggest new advantage when introduced

then the P-51B brought the biggest new advantage, that of range and with it, the ability to carry escorted strategic bombing deep into Germany.

The Me262 was late to the fight and even then got there too few in numbers, these were watered down again with planes allocated to the ground attack role rather than taking on the bombers. If applied to the bomber-destroyer role it would easily have taken the vote; I can't see how the USAAF would have stopped it.


----------



## renrich (Sep 11, 2009)

I think I voted for the A6M and JB's analysis is an extremely good one. The A6M's performance, particularly regarding it's range, despite reports from China, came as a complete surprise to the Allies in 1941-42. It has been said that the Japanese would never have undertaken the conquest of much of the Pacific if the Zero had not existed. That is a huge impact.


----------



## parsifal (Sep 12, 2009)

I agree , and in an earlier post also said that the political ramification of the zero were huge. It was a carrier based fighter with performance superior to its land based counterparts. The only aircraft that even came close to that was the Wildcat, and even then, the Wildcat lacked the range to be as decisive as the Zero.

Being a Carrier Fighter of superior performance was one part of the shock the zero generated. The other part was that it came from an Asian nation , long regarded as backward and inferior in its aircraft development. This really upset the apple cart for a lot of people


----------



## Clay_Allison (Sep 12, 2009)

parsifal said:


> I agree , and in an earlier post also said that the political ramification of the zero were huge. It was a carrier based fighter with performance superior to its land based counterparts. The only aircraft that even came close to that was the Wildcat, and even then, the Wildcat lacked the range to be as decisive as the Zero.
> 
> Being a Carrier Fighter of superior performance was one part of the shock the zero generated. The other part was that it came from an Asian nation , long regarded as backward and inferior in its aircraft development. This really upset the apple cart for a lot of people


I'm sure it massively emboldened the Japanese, politically. Without it, I doubt they would have had the guts to try Pearl Harbor.


----------



## parsifal (Sep 13, 2009)

I agree, I dont think they would have attempted their offensive without the Zero....


----------



## proton45 (Sep 13, 2009)

The A6M battle score for the mainland China engagement was, out of 76 attacks (354 sorties) against enemy targets their where 99 enemy planes shot down 163 planes damaged with another 4 probable kills...this was with a loss of 2 A6Ms shot down by flak and 39 A6M's damaged. I believe this covers the period of 1940 til November of 1941.

In 1940 (Aug to end) their where 22 attacks (153 sorties) with 59 enemy planes shot down, 101 Chinese planes destroyed on ground at a loss of 0 A6M. 

[edit] these are Japanese figures...but the reality remains that from early 1941 the Japanese had complete air superiority in the mainland Chinese theater. Even if you half the number of planes shot down that's still 50 Chinese planes shot down at a loss of 2...


----------



## renrich (Sep 14, 2009)

Don't overlook in this discussion the superior training and capabilities of the IJN pilots in the A6Ms over the Japanese Army pilots in other models of aircraft. I believe it is a fact that the AVG, which only was in combat from late December, 1941 to July, 1942, never faced A6Ms.


----------



## drgondog (Sep 15, 2009)

I just looked up some detail award lists for Tex Hill, Neale, Older, etc. There were were awards for both Type '0' and Zeros for the aces listed in Olynyk's Stars and Bars in the March 42 timeframe until the the AVG became the 23rd FG in July 1942. I.e. - Tex was awarded 3, Older 2.5, RT Smith had 3 Type '0' plus two Probables and 2 Damaged.. Having said that the Type 97 was by far the dominant fighter type.

There is no entry for A6M but I am not aware that USN/USMC/USAAF/AVG made a distinction until Zeke appeared in terminology.


----------



## proton45 (Sep 15, 2009)

drgondog said:


> I just looked up some detail award lists for Tex Hill, Neale, Older, etc. There were were awards for both Type '0' and Zeros for the aces listed in Olynyk's Stars and Bars in the March 42 timeframe until the the AVG became the 23rd FG in July 1942. I.e. - Tex was awarded 3, Older 2.5, RT Smith had 3 Type '0' plus two Probables and 2 Damaged.. Having said that the Type 97 was by far the dominant fighter type.
> 
> There is no entry for A6M but I am not aware that USN/USMC/USAAF/AVG made a distinction until Zeke appeared in terminology.



All but 30 A6M's where withdrawn from combat in the middle of '41' in preparation for the Pearl Harbor attack...its possible that the AVG had limited contact with the Zero. The majority of the A6M's where resigned to the carrier fleet through the Java campaign...


----------



## drgondog (Sep 15, 2009)

proton45 said:


> All but 30 A6M's where withdrawn from combat in the middle of '41' in preparation for the Pearl Harbor attack...its possible that the AVG had limited contact with the Zero. The majority of the A6M's where resigned to the carrier fleet through the Java campaign...



I got that Proton and note that awards are based on observation from some distance away rather than close inspection of ID plates - so an award of a Type '0' and 'Zero' is not a confirmation of A6M but leads to question of what that meant. 

At any rate they showed up in AVG records in March 1942.


----------



## JoeB (Sep 15, 2009)

The 'Zero' awards to the AVG were Army Type 1 Fighters, later known to the Allies as 'Oscar', (development designation Ki-43 but that was used by neither Japanese fighter units nor the Allies at the time), mainly of the 64th Sentai based in northern Thailand. I counted from the information in Ford's "Flying Tigers" 11 Type 1's shot down by the AVG (many more credited of course) for only 3 losses, huge outlier compared to the Type 1's record v other Allied units in that theater at the time, which for example v Hurricanes was 20 to 4 in the other direction. The AVG shot down around 35 Type 97's at a similar ratio of around 3, other Allied units at the time didn't even achieve parity v the Type 97, and also shot down 3 Type 2 2-seat Fighters ('Nick') for one loss, among fighter types. The AVG almost certainly never met Zeroes, nor did 10th AF fighter units in Burma thereafter and 14th AF fighter units in China only met them a few times from 1944. 

The Zero's operations in China 1940-41 were a basically separate chapter from Pacific War (AVG project aimed to help China before the US entered the war but didn't actually enter combat till after Pearl Harbor). That earlier chapter featured total supremacy by Zeroes over Chinese fighters, beyond what Zeroes achieved in the Pacific War, compared to what was sometimes a real contest for the Type 96 against Chinese fighters.

Joe


----------



## drgondog (Sep 16, 2009)

JoeB said:


> The 'Zero' awards to the AVG were Army Type 1 Fighters, later known to the Allies as 'Oscar', (development designation Ki-43 but that was used by neither Japanese fighter units nor the Allies at the time), mainly of the 64th Sentai based in northern Thailand. I counted from the information in Ford's "Flying Tigers" 11 Type 1's shot down by the AVG (many more credited of course) for only 3 losses, huge outlier compared to the Type 1's record v other Allied units in that theater at the time, which for example v Hurricanes was 20 to 4 in the other direction. The AVG shot down around 35 Type 97's at a similar ratio of around 3, other Allied units at the time didn't even achieve parity v the Type 97, and also shot down 3 Type 2 2-seat Fighters ('Nick') for one loss, among fighter types. The AVG almost certainly never met Zeroes, nor did 10th AF fighter units in Burma thereafter and 14th AF fighter units in China only met them a few times from 1944.
> 
> The Zero's operations in China 1940-41 were a basically separate chapter from Pacific War (AVG project aimed to help China before the US entered the war but didn't actually enter combat till after Pearl Harbor). That earlier chapter featured total supremacy by Zeroes over Chinese fighters, beyond what Zeroes achieved in the Pacific War, compared to what was sometimes a real contest for the Type 96 against Chinese fighters.
> 
> Joe



Joe - why were the awards described as Type O or Zero if they were type 1's?


----------



## parsifal (Sep 16, 2009)

the two aircraft were similar in appearance.....I would suspect it is simply a case of mis-identification


----------



## proton45 (Sep 16, 2009)

parsifal said:


> the two aircraft were similar in appearance.....I would suspect it is simply a case of mis-identification




Ya, I think your right...

The hype was really on the A6M and most likely an over excited AVG pilot just misidentified a Type 1 as an A6M (you can almost hear him screaming, "I got a zero, I got a zero!!!"). I have even seen early US military briefs that claim the A6M was in use with the IJA the IJN...


----------



## jugggo (Oct 23, 2009)

Would have to go with the Corsair. Since it did have a 11-1 kill ratio and not to mention to be used as a multi-platform ie fighter/bomber. With that being said it did increase drasticlly the bomb tonnage used in the Pacific.


----------



## thewritingwriter89 (Oct 23, 2009)

I would have to say any of the early 109s V series through D. They were revolutionary, and even ahead of their contemporaries (with exception to the spitfire). It was the benchmark for a critical phase in fighter design, and it has to get credit.

TWW89


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 23, 2009)

Well, I-16 served as a pattern for the WW2 fighters as we know them, trumping the contemporary designs in every aspect by a large margin. It took Bf-109 to reach E version to beat it, previous versions being only as good (if even that good) as contemporary Ishaks. 
Too bad it's not in the poll.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## thewritingwriter89 (Oct 23, 2009)

tomo pauk said:


> Well, I-16 served as a pattern for the WW2 fighters as we know them, trumping the contemporary designs in every aspect by a large margin. It took Bf-109 to reach E version to beat it, previous versions being only as good (if even that good) as contemporary Ishaks.
> Too bad it's not in the poll.



You make a very good point. I just think the 109 deserves recognition for the fact that, at least early in the war, so many fighters were measured against it.


----------



## proton45 (Oct 23, 2009)

thewritingwriter89 said:


> You make a very good point. I just think the 109 deserves recognition for the fact that, at least early in the war, so many fighters were measured against it.



I agree that it made quite an impact (all across Poland)...but seriously, again, the fighter was a milestone in performance and production, but they had to make sacrifices in the ground handling department and that accounted for a huge number of aeroplane losses...I'm guessing (as I don't have my books right here) but didn't landing take offs (and other ground handling issues) account for almost 1/3 of all ME109 losses?


----------



## Glider (Oct 23, 2009)

An observation re the Poles. During the battle for Poland the Poles considered the 110 to be better than the 109. I am looking into it to see if I can work out why, but if anyone has any ideas I would welcome any suggestions.


----------



## Colin1 (Oct 23, 2009)

Glider said:


> An observation re the Poles. During the battle for Poland the Poles considered the 110 to be better than the 109. I am looking into it to see if I can work out why, but if anyone has any ideas I would welcome any suggestions.


Doesn't really answer your question
but it's an interesting read, doesn't sound like the Poles really cared. I was aware of Polish excellence in aviation, their fighter school at Deblin was arguably the finest in the world at the time, but I also thought the Poles were largely caught on the ground

Deadly Eagles: The Polish Air Force in 1939 : Great History


----------



## thewritingwriter89 (Oct 24, 2009)

proton45 said:


> I agree that it made quite an impact (all across Poland)...but seriously, again, the fighter was a milestone in performance and production, but they had to make sacrifices in the ground handling department and that accounted for a huge number of aeroplane losses...I'm guessing (as I don't have my books right here) but didn't landing take offs (and other ground handling issues) account for almost 1/3 of all ME109 losses?



Your facts are sound proton. Looked em up today. Mainly, I was just saying the late 1930s shift in design theory was due in large part to the 109, and the threat/design potential it offered. Basically, other countries saw the 109, and thought "what we have in development, speed it up, or get it on the drawing board." This is, of course, a over-simplified generalization, but you get my drift.


----------



## JoeB (Oct 24, 2009)

drgondog said:


> Joe - why were the awards described as Type O or Zero if they were type 1's?


I guess it's mainly been answered already, as 'probably' mis-id but it wasn't just probably but almost certainly the case. The AVG's retractable undercarriage fighter opponents were apparently all Type 1's of the 64th Sentai JAAF. The 64th had a couple of engagements with the AVG in late December 1941 in large escorted raids against (allied held) Rangoon, mainly escorted by Type 97's; then the 64th began meeting the AVG more regularly from late March 1942 when it was based at Chang Mai Thailand, engaging AVG squadrons based in both Burma and south China, and AVG raiding Chang Mai several times. The 64th was the only Type 1 unit in the theater at the time, and no IJN fighter units were present.

But the Type 1 was not even known to be a separate type at that time; the Army Type 97 and Navy 0 were known, the Type 1's exsitence separate from the Zero was only gradually figured out, after the AVG period it seems. Also in the mythology of the AVG, Type 97's opponents, which everyone knew at the time were not Zeroes, have been referred to as Zeroes too.

Counting in Ford's "Flying Tigers", which uses Senshi Sosho Vol 34 as its main Japanese source, the AVG shot down, just among fighters, about 35 Type 97's, 11 Type 1's, 3 Type 2 two-seat ('Nick'); they also met preproduction Type 2's (Tojo) being used for combat trials, but apparently didn't down any. They lost around 15 P-40's in air combat to fighters, a record far better than any other Allied fighter unit v Japanese in 1942 which saw significant action. But, besides their own strengths in flying experience (lots of high hour peacetime US military pilots, mainly w/o combat experience but still pretty different than typical green mass produced '41-42 British/CW pilots, or those of the rapidly expanded USAAC/F in '41-42) and tactics, the AVG also mainly learned the ropes v Type 97's then mainly met the Type 1's later on. 

The 64th Sentai was usually bested in its Type 1's v the AVG, but had on average much the better of it v Hurricane units all the way thru 1943. USAAF P-51A's in Burma attempting long range escort against (Japanese held) Rangoon in late 1943 lost more a/c to Japanese fighters than they downed. And, P-40 units in Burma and China, including AVG's successor 23rd FG, typically came out more like even v Japanese fighters in 42-43, with more advantage as time went on but not the same degree as the AVG. The 64th was again the opponent in many cases. The story of initially successful Japanese fighters which quickly turned to pumpkins fits the facts particularly poorly when it comes to the AVG and the 64th Sentai. 

Joe


----------



## proton45 (Oct 24, 2009)

JoeB said:


> I guess it's mainly been answered already, as 'probably' mis-id but it wasn't just probably but almost certainly the case.
> 
> Joe




I tend to qualify my historical comments with uncertainties...mostly because, even though I feel confident of my research materials...I'm not always confident in my memory. 


p.s. Thanks for the well written information...your posts are always a joy to read.


----------



## buffnut453 (Dec 8, 2009)

parsifal said:


> the two aircraft were similar in appearance.....I would suspect it is simply a case of mis-identification



Hi Parsifal,

You're right. To the Allies in 1941-1943, any Japanese fighter with retractable undercarriage was a Zero (or Type 0). The subtle distinction of IJAAF and IJN functions, role and equipment were not necessarily fully understood. The Type 1 (Ki-43) was not called out as a distinct design until well into 1943...IIRC.

KR
Mark


----------



## buffnut453 (Dec 10, 2009)

Dumb question...why are we focussing on WWII aircraft? Surely the Fokker Eindecker merits an honourable mention? And how about the MiG-15 over Korea. Just a few tangential thoughts....I'll shut up now!!


----------



## Civettone (Dec 11, 2009)

Tomo, good call on the I-16 !!


Kris


----------



## JoeB (Dec 13, 2009)

buffnut453 said:


> Dumb question...why are we focussing on WWII aircraft? Surely the Fokker Eindecker merits an honourable mention? And how about the MiG-15 over Korea. Just a few tangential thoughts....I'll shut up now!!


If not limited to some connection to WWII, then F-15/16 could be mentioned too, Bekaa Valley and later long 'introduction' over many years. 

Among other non-WWII fighters it's true the start of combat operations by Soviet AF MiG-15 units in Nov 1950 caused a stir in Korea (and would have been more of a political stir if it had been publicized that they were Soviet AF units!), and was 'replacing' several months of near total inactivity by the NK air component, nothing v MiG-15 was a pretty big change. But there was no actual and sustained period of superiority. The real kill ratio of MiG-15 v F-80/84 in early months of MiG-15 action in Korea was somewhat in the latter a/c's favor, and F-86's were first introduced within less than two months of MiG-15 appearance (Dec 1950 v November for MiG, though F-86's unable to reach the Yalu because of loss of their bases from ground action from Jan-Mar 1951, and straightwings had to bear the load in that period also). The F-86 itself might be a better candidate actually: changing a fairly close to equal real fighter-fighter kill ratio situation heavily in the UN side's favor (not as much as claimed, but what kill ratio ever was?, the real ratio was quite high by WWII *real* ratio standards between ostensibly comparable fighters). But I don't think it ranks at the very top in history; in part because the F-86 wasn't able to eliminate the MiG threat to low performance WWII types like B-29 and F-51, both of which (B-29's more importantly) eventually had to stay out of MiG areas (in daylight).

I-16 was a WWII fighter which was a big advance when introduced in peace time relatively long before WWII, but I don't think its combat introductions, in Spanish Civil War and China, rank at the top. It's fair to mention the I-16 in Spain though if nothing else because it reinforces the fact that BF109B introduction in Spain is definitely not the right answer to this question: the Republican forces could still deal reasonably with the Nationalist forces including a few Bf109B's, just as the Nationalist forces could still cope, though with difficulty, with I-16's before that. Neither change was comparable to the Zero's introduction in China, which changed a somewhat competitive (I-16 v Type 96 mainly) situation to totally one sided (no Zeroes at all were downed by Chinese a/c in 1940-41 according to Japanese records, and Japanese bombers were then unchallenged whereas previously they had serious problems with Chinese [some Soviet piloted] fighters).

Joe


----------



## Civettone (Dec 13, 2009)

I have read that the I-16 was the first fighter with armour. (Some others were mainly attack aircraft.) It was also the first cantilever-winged monoplane fighter with retractable landing gear. Maybe it was also the first to have wing cannons.


Kris


----------



## JoeB (Dec 13, 2009)

The big issue with the poll is that the question asks 'which fighter brought the biggest new *advantage*' and many people are answering it as 'which fighter brought the biggest new *advance*'. I-16's were the first widely used fighters with armor, and later cannon, though early versions had neither. Just being retractable monoplane in early mid 30's, made it one of the bigger *advances*. But in Spain and China I-16's did not give their side a huge *advantage* when introduced, not as much as other cases. The same goes for the most popular answer, Me262, big *advance*? yes, potential advantage? yes that follows from 'advance'; big "advantage*? in practice, no. The 262 had a very poor kill ratio v Allied piston fighters in the circumstances prevailing, and no those cases were *not* mainly 'taking off and landing'. It was a fairly effective bomber destroyer but overall it didn't give an *advantage* comparable to the case of the Zero, where JNAF went from seriously challenged by the Chinese air arm to virtually not challenged at all, the opposing force basically stopped coming up to meet it. That certainly didn't happen with the Me 262, and the P-51 also established much more of an *advantage* when introduced than the 262 did, if the issue just focusing too much on the European war and not being aware of the air war in China pre 1941.

Joe


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 13, 2009)

Zero was flown against design 7 years older (the I-16), and 50 mph slower, in China in late 1940/early 1941. I'd argue that the 1st batch of Zeroes was flown by top-notch pilots. 
The *advantage* was easy to come by; Japanese forces really snatched it, no argument there.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## renrich (Dec 13, 2009)

The "advantage" the Zero conferred was not just China, where it first served but the whole Japanese game plan for the Pearl Harbor attack and subsequent conquest of Southeast Asia was influenced by it's ability to be in the fight a long way from it's bases. I may be wrong but I seem to remember that the initial attacks in the Philipines at Clark Field, Cavite, etc were by bombers escorted by Zeros that had been launched from Formosa. No other fighter in the world at that time could fight and fight effectively 300, 400, even 500 miles from it's base or flight deck. If by some miracle the A6M had been escorting the LW bombers in the summer of 1940 over Britain the BoB might have been a different story.


----------



## Doughboy (Dec 13, 2009)

The ME-262... It was a gigantic technical step forward compared to all previous planes. Nuff' said.


----------



## JoeB (Dec 13, 2009)

Again I'd just stick with the words in the question to answer the question. Experienced Japanese Navy pilots flying Type 96's v I-16's had generally the better of it but in somewhat competitive combat, but the same quality of pilots were essentially invincible when flying the Zero against the same opponent. And as important, they could range much farther inland in China from their bases relatively near the coast, allowing their bombers free reign in daylight, v previous situation of choosing between night attacks and heavy losses to the Chinese in daylight unescorted against the more distant targets. So I don't see how pilot quality affects the answer that the Zero gave the same pilots a huge new advantage, more than any of the other examples, I think.

I agree the Zero also generally had a big advantage over early Pacific War fighter opponents theoretically much more capable than the I-16 (not quite as one sided).

Again the 262 was an advance and sign of pontential, but was no more successufl against USAAF fighters in practice than German piston a/c were in the actual circumstances in the same period, gave perhaps no practical advantage at all in that respect, paradoxically but true. It did bring an advantage of bomber destroyer that could avoid opposing fighters more ably than other similarly armed piston bomber destroyers (like heavily armed piston twins).

Joe


----------



## Civettone (Dec 13, 2009)

JoeB said:


> The 262 had a very poor kill ratio v Allied piston fighters in the circumstances prevailing, and no those cases were *not* mainly 'taking off and landing'.


You have a figure on that ?


I agree with you that the one shouldn't misinterpret the question. But I feel that you are doing the same thing but just in a different way. What about the circumstances which give room for advantage? I think you are overlooking that and simply implying it together with the fighter. 

Kris


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 14, 2009)

Perhaps we could agree about one thing: for a plane to bring the advantage, some other stuff (beside the plane itself) need to be achieved. 

One thing are the numbers. If an air force, eg. Luftwaffe, is fielding a world-beater jet fighter, the plane would hardly be able to defeat a, say, 5-fold enemy air force (if we subtract the piston-engined LW fighters, the odds worsen by order of magnitude). Since Chinese never fielded a big number of planes (even less fighters, and almost never concentrated), Zero enjoyed a situation 262 pilots only could dream of.

Then we have pilot skills. Since the IJA/IJN ( with Type 97 and A5M) could their hold own (at least) vs. all fighters Chinese could muster, they were unbeatable when flying Zeroes ( Oscars) for the good part of war. The 262 pilots were chosen carefully, but the pilot pool was shrinking every day taking the quality down.

Quality of oposing pilots. IJN/IJA had an edge over Chinese, while LW wasn't enjoying that.

Strategic situation. LW was at defensive, with imperative to go for bombers. When a side in China enjoyed being in offensive, it was Japanese; Chinese rarely. So Zeroes were able to go against what they want, just opposite with 262.

Early warning. When IJA/IJN planes were on a deep bombing run (bombers + escorts), Chinese planes' pilots knew that when bombs start to fall. The bombing run of LW planes (say, Ju-188 with 262 flying escort) was out of question to be attacked, let alone to be conducted without Allies know about that. 


So did the Zero brought "brought the biggest new advantage when introduced?"? The plane can get only so much credit as other factors counted above.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## JoeB (Dec 14, 2009)

Civettone said:


> You have a figure on that ?
> 
> 
> I agree with you that the one shouldn't misinterpret the question. But I feel that you are doing the same thing but just in a different way. What about the circumstances which give room for advantage? I think you are overlooking that and simply implying it together with the fighter.


If you count up in Foreman and Harvey's "Me 262 Combat Diary" Allied piston fighters (mostly US 8th AF) downed well over 100 Me 262's. Me 262's downed very few piston fighters which are documented in that book, especially if you exclude recon P-38's of which they downed several documented on both sides. The ratio is apparently higher than what Allied piston fighters were enjoying over LW piston fighters at the time. Other factors differed in employment of the jets compared to the LW piston planes, but the raw stat was a remarkably poor performance of the jets v piston fighters. They had better success against bombers, and were, as alluded to, pretty effective against piston recon types (Lightning, Mosquito, Spit) that had previously been hard to intercept. 

The responses are often giving factually correct info, but again I go back to 'new advantage', which is logically to be interpreted as new advantage for the side introducing the plane at the time and in the situation in which the plane was introduced. The non-aircraft reasons the Zero had a very high fighter v fighter kill ratio in the JNAF/China situation and the Me 262 had a poor one in LW/NWE situation are not directly relevant to the question. The comparison should be between the newly introduced plane and planes immediately previously used by the same side, to find what new advantage the new plane gave to that side at that time. That's the question. 'which fighter brought the biggest new advantage when it was introduced'. I don't know another way to interpret that question.

The JNAF in China (the JAAF wasn't as heavily involved in air combat over China proper) had all the same non-plane advantages over the Chinese flying the Type 96 as flying the Zero. The huge change in balance was due to the Zero, not a sudden change in the other factors. The Zero brought a huge new advantage to the JNAF over China.

The LW had all the same disadvantages in non-airplane factors when flying the Me 262 1944-45 as it did flying the Bf109 and Fw190. But the Me 262 provided no practical advantage in combating Allied fighters in that same situation, some advantage in attacking bombers and lone recon a/c in that situation, but those advantages were somewhat offset by heavy attrition to fighters, as heavy or more than LW piston fighters were suffering. So the Me 262 can't be said IMO to have given the biggest new advantage when introduced. It might be said to be the biggest theoretical advance when introduced.

Joe


----------



## Civettone (Dec 14, 2009)

Good post Tomo


Kris


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 14, 2009)

From some of what I have read the Chinese actually had a pretty good early warning system. In the late 30's or 1940 many bombers were cruising at under 200mph and the Japanese were flying long distances. The Chinese sometimes had 20-30 minutes warning of an attack. 
While the Chinese may not have large numbers of fighters the number of Zero's used to completely change the situation isn't very large either.


----------



## Civettone (Dec 14, 2009)

I was doubting between Me 262, Zero, F6F, Lightning and P-51 - and kept asking myself the same question: did it substantially change things? And only with one could I say full heartidly yes: the Me 262.
Not in outcome but it suddenly gave the Luftwaffe a fighter far ahead of anything the allies had, plus an excellent weapon against bombers. Never was the difference in quality so great!

Don't know why the Fw 190 got so many votes though. Except for some low altitude raids what did it add to the fighting of the Bf 109F??

Kris


----------



## Clay_Allison (Dec 14, 2009)

I don't get this love for the 262. Did it even slow down the bombing raids on Germany? Did it really make life ONE IOTA easier for the Luftwaffe? I don't think it even bought them an extra gasp of air. If it had really caused the allies any kind of setback, stopped the bombing raids for a month, I'd agree but it doesn't seem like any tangible strategic advantage was gained.

Did the P-51 change the war? In spades! A cheap, high altitude, long range fighter able to best the 109 and 190 in combat changed everything about how we attacked Germany.


----------



## Civettone (Dec 15, 2009)

If the Germans would have been handed a fully operational F-22 Raptor, it wouldn't have changed a damn thing. You have to know what you're pointing at here ... The Me 262 simply came too late and couldn't achieve anything. But it did "bring the biggest new advantage when introduced".

P-51 is also a good choice but somehow I feel that the P-38 would have done the very same thing. Its range was also sufficient.

Kris


----------



## buffnut453 (Dec 15, 2009)

Seems we're devolving into 2 camps here, the "biggest performance advantage" group and the "biggest operational benefit" group. Seems both can live side-by-side so long as we all understand what "advantage" we're talking about. 

I'd tend to go with the Me262 in terms of outright performance potential - there really was nothing that could equal it at the time. 

For the "operational benefit" group, I'm not so sure the P-51 brought such a great advantage when it was introduced (key word is "introduced" - although I accept this may be splitting hairs somehwat!) because the Allison engine performance was decidedly mediocre. It was the later versions, allying a great airframe with a superb engine (ahhhh, sigh for a Merlin) that made the P-51 into a war-winner. I know the list specifically calls out the P-51B but that was a development of an existing type - why not specify versions for the other aircraft like the MkIX Spit that was designed to counter the Fw190 threat? 

Proving operational advantage is much more difficult than defining a performance advantage - subjectivity and local operational conditions impact the decision to a great extent. I think, on balance, I'd have to go with the Zero which really wiped the floor with pretty much all its opposition until superior numbers and tactics neutralized its performance advantage.

Just my two penn'orth!


----------



## parsifal (Dec 15, 2009)

Say you were an army without aircraft, and were confronted by an opposing army that did have aircraft, albeit of limited performance. Despite that caveat, the air supported army has an infinite advantage over its opponents. 

Technologically I cannot argue with the 262 being a huge advance. But operationally it was a near washout, because of the unresolved technical difficulties it faced. For reasons not all of which relate directly to the aircraft the operational readiness rate for the 262 was kept very low.....I have read that of the 1300 produced, perhaps 100 actually flew with perhaps 25 operational at any given time. But as an aerial performer, the 262 probably held a performance advantage few other situations could match, before or after its debut.

So the issue gets down to how you define advantage....do you compare theoretical performance, or do you rate operational advantage....thats why I supprted the Zero.....it contributed materially to the early Japanese run of success that had impacts that are still evident, in a political sense today.....the Japanese victories shattered the myth of white supremacy that led to the rise of non-european nationalism in the post war era.....thats a considerable impact in my opinion.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clay_Allison (Dec 15, 2009)

> somehow I feel that the P-38 would have done the very same thing. Its range was also sufficient.


 Its reliability was insufficient and its cost was more than sufficient.



> The Me 262 simply came too late and couldn't achieve anything. But it did "bring the biggest new advantage when introduced".


It may have promised an advantage but it didn't actually create one. To bring an advantage it should have some effect towards some goal. Think about this sequence:

"We now have a tremendous advantage!"
"Excellent, Can we achieve air superiority?"
"No."
"Can we inflict heavy losses on their bombers?"
"No."
"What can we do that we couldn't do yesterday?"
"Not a bloody thing sir, but we can brag about designing it after we lose."
"Not very advantageous, is it?"


----------



## Njaco (Dec 15, 2009)

> But operationally it was a near washout, because of the unresolved technical difficulties it faced.



I don't know if I would exclude it from being an advantage. Those technical difficulties were engine life, pilot training, and failure to realize the potential in a timely manner - obstacles to be overcome just as the P-51B evolved into the 'D'. I would think with the mentioned criteria, then we need to discount the P-51B as it seems anything related would ultimatley be based on the performance of the 'D' model irregardless. The 262 was, on its own, a major slap in the face to every SOP.


----------



## buffnut453 (Dec 15, 2009)

parsifal said:


> So the issue gets down to how you define advantage....do you compare theoretical performance, or do you rate operational advantage.



Parsifal, we are in complete agreement. Per my preceding post, there is a performance advantage and an operational advantage but the two are not necessarily synonymous. From the sounds of things, Clay is actually in agreement - he's just stressing the operational advantage argument.


----------



## buffnut453 (Dec 15, 2009)

Njaco said:


> The 262 was, on its own, a major slap in the face to every SOP.



That's 'cos it redefined the standard...in so many ways. It really was a mould-breaking advance in technology which, for reasons various, could not be translated into equally stunning operational success.


----------



## Njaco (Dec 15, 2009)

true, true


----------



## riacrato (Dec 16, 2009)

When you hear the numbers of craft produced vs. craft flow you mustn't forget that the larger part was assembled in '45 where there was little fuel or pilots left to fly them and the whole logistical infrastructure was a mess.

Anyways P-51 B takes the cake. The Me 109s over spain were mostly of the older B/C type, the performance advantage over the I-16 was there but the latter was still a contender. The E type came in only late and in few numbers iirc.


----------



## Soren (Dec 16, 2009)

Well considering the difficulties facing the LW in late 1944 to 45, both in terms of crew training, lack of fuel, complete lack of airspace security and the massive bombing of German industry citys. Then the fact that roughly 100 Me262's were to account for roughly 600 Allied aircraft during the period late 44 to 45 is a big testament to how excellent a machine the Me262 truly was. It was way ahead of its time, something which was confirmed by everyone who flew it. 

The Me262 brought with it the biggest advantage any airplane had ever had above the rest at any time during the war, unfortunately for the Germans however the means to capitalize on such an advantage had passed by the time the Me262 was finally let into service.


----------



## JoeB (Dec 16, 2009)

Soren said:


> Then the fact that roughly 100 Me262's were to account for roughly 600 Allied aircraft during the period late 44 to 45 is a big testament to how excellent a machine the Me262 truly was. .


Luftwaffe claims late in the war were highly exaggerated (the same issue we run across with claims by late war piston LW fighters, LW claims were pretty accurate in some phases of the war, but 'out to lunch' near the end of the war). Me 262's didn't down anywhere near as many Allied a/c as they claimed, and Allied fighters downed over 100 Me-262's that are documented in German accounts (compared to quite few Allied piston fighter losses to 262's). So a lot more than 100 Me 262's saw action; many were lost to other causes as well.

To understand that the 262 *promised* a great advantage, but didn't achieve one in practice, you have to use the real numbers for its successes and losses. As basic reference I'd consult "Me 262 Combat Diary" by Foreman and Harvey, which documents most Me 262 actions from both sides.

Joe


----------



## Messy1 (Dec 16, 2009)

Soren said:


> The Me262 brought with it the biggest advantage any airplane had ever had above the rest at any time during the war, unfortunately for the Germans however the means to capitalize on such an advantage had passed by the time the Me262 was finally let into service.



I totally agree with that statement Soren. Very simple, straightforward way to phrase it.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 16, 2009)

Soren said:


> Well considering the difficulties facing the LW in late 1944 to 45, both in terms of crew training, lack of fuel, complete lack of airspace security and the massive bombing of German industry citys. *Then the fact that roughly 100 Me262's were to account for roughly 600 Allied aircraft during the period late 44 to 45 is a big testament to how excellent a machine the Me262 truly was*. It was way ahead of its time, something which was confirmed by everyone who flew it.
> 
> The Me262 brought with it the biggest advantage any airplane had ever had above the rest at any time during the war, unfortunately for the Germans however the means to capitalize on such an advantage had passed by the time the Me262 was finally let into service.


Soren, please provide your sources to show that each 262 brought down an average of 60 allied aircraft. The top 262 ace had 17 kills. Were there 1000 different pilots flying the 100 or so fielded at any given time 262s???? Do the math.... 

I think August 1944 was the Me-262's best month at least as claims go - 19 allied aircraft "claimed." I think the most 262s ever used in one mission was just under 40 and that was in March 1945. From memory I think the 262s brought down 13 aircraft for the loss of three of their own. 

I believe in reality the 262 shot down about 150 allied aircraft for a loss of about 100 of their own. I believe this is even mentioned in the book "Arrow to the Future" be Walter Boyne

There is no doubt the Me 262 changed the face of aerial combat but no way did 100 Me 262s bring down 600 allied aircraft.......


----------



## Glider (Dec 16, 2009)

I believe that there is a difference between 

a) Fighter that brought the biggest performance advantage when introduced
b) Fighter that brought the Biigest advantage when introduced

If its (a) that your after, then the 262 is the runaway winner
If its (b) that your after, then it isn't the 262

The 262 didn't change anything, it had the potential to had it been 6-9 months earlier, but it wasn't earlier and didn't change anything. 

The P51B did change something, it allowed the USAAF to undertake long range missions over enemy held areas, a huge advantage and most importantly, an advantage that it never lost. The Zero had the same advantage early on in the Pacific War but it lost the edge and the advantage was lost. A number of the aircraft on the list such as the Fw190 gained a temporary advantage but lost it, the P51 however never lost the advantage it gained and for that reason had my vote.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clay_Allison (Dec 16, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Soren, please provide your sources to show that each 262 brought down an average of 60 allied aircraft. The top 262 ace had 17 kills. Were there 1000 different pilots flying the 100 or so fielded at any given time 262s???? Do the math....
> 
> I think August 1944 was the Me-262's best month at least as claims go - 19 allied aircraft "claimed." I think the most 262s ever used in one mission was just under 40 and that was in March 1945. From memory I think the 262s brought down 13 aircraft for the loss of three of their own.
> 
> ...


~150 were the numbers I heard as well.

The 262 "promised" an advantage but it did not truly deliver more than a very small one (150 aircraft out of how many?). It did not turn the tide or even cause a ripple in it. It was a deck chair on the titanic that affected the future but did not affect the war. If the money on the entire project had been spent on buying more Bf-109Zs, it wouldn't have made any difference to anybody prior to May 1945.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 16, 2009)

the 354th FG, 352nd, 357th, 355th and 4th FG - between March 1 through May 30, 1944 - destroyed a total of 900 German fighters in P-51B's during that 90 day period - and for the 352 and 355 that wasn't a full 90 days in 51s as they were converting from P-47s.

That would be ~ 250 fighters operational over Germany. Contrast the Me 262 record despite exceptional performance and firepower advantage.


----------



## Vincenzo (Dec 16, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Soren, please provide your sources to show that each 262 brought down an average of 60 allied aircraft. The top 262 ace had 17 kills. Were there 1000 different pilots flying the 100 or so fielded at any given time 262s???? Do the math....
> 
> I think August 1944 was the Me-262's best month at least as claims go - 19 allied aircraft "claimed." I think the most 262s ever used in one mission was just under 40 and that was in March 1945. From memory I think the 262s brought down 13 aircraft for the loss of three of their own.
> 
> ...




60 or 6?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 16, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> 60 or 6?



Sixty - 60 - Six-Zero.

It would of meant that at any given time the 100 or so operational Me 262s would have had to shoot down SIXTY (60) allied aircraft per operational Me 262 - that would have been 600 allied aircraft downed by 262s as Soren claims.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 16, 2009)

JV 44 shot down 47 aircraft April/ May of 1945 They operated from March to May. The 8th AF claimed 1233 encounters with the 262 and or Me 163 and claimed 146 kills, 11 probables and 150 damaged - the 8th admitted the loss of 10 fighters and 52 bombers to "jets." (Toliver)


----------



## Njaco (Dec 16, 2009)

The ratio of kills by 262s has been discuss at length in another thread and Erich and others gave the sources. I go with Joe on the numbers.

Bill, those FGs were flying 'B' models that late in the war?


----------



## parsifal (Dec 17, 2009)

To be fair, the allies did take exceptional steps to keep the 262 formations suppressed....things like constant air patrols over their known bases, and absolute trolloping of their logistic tails like fuel supplies and the like. 

Do you include factors extraneous to the actual aircraft when determining its operational efectiveness


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 17, 2009)

parsifal said:


> ...
> 
> Do you include factors extraneous to the actual aircraft when determining its operational efectiveness



That's key point: it's impossible to single-out the particular design out of the enviroement it operated, if we asses the advantage it brought. Me-262 did have any major issue against himself, so, as Kris stated, the Germans wouldn't be able to capitalize even if they've fielded the F-22 in late 44.


----------



## Vincenzo (Dec 17, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Sixty - 60 - Six-Zero.
> 
> It would of meant that at any given time the 100 or so operational Me 262s would have had to shoot down SIXTY (60) allied aircraft per operational Me 262 - that would have been 600 allied aircraft downed by 262s as Soren claims.



sorry i don't understand, if each operational 262 shoot down 60 allied plane they shoot down in all 6000 allied not 600 (a part that 100 operational in a given time is not the same that in all there were been 100 262 operational)


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 17, 2009)

Vincenzo said:


> sorry i don't understand, if each operational 262 shoot down 60 allied plane they shoot down in all 6000 allied not 600 (a part that 100 operational in a given time is not the same that in all there were been 100 262 operational)



And you are correct!!! - 

Even at 6 (six) VI - it still doesn't add up. Large Me 262 formations weren't being fielded until late in the war and at that you were only talking 30 or more aircraft. It seems the best months for the 262 was April/ May of 45' and even then its evident that the LW did not shoot down anywhere close to 600 aircraft with the 262. As a matter of fact the highest "exaggerated" source I've found gives the 262 510 claims.


----------



## Vincenzo (Dec 17, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> And you are correct!!! -
> 
> Even at 6 (six) VI - it still doesn't add up. Large Me 262 formations weren't being fielded until late in the war and at that you were only talking 30 or more aircraft. It seems the best months for the 262 was April/ May of 45' and even then its evident that the LW did not shoot down anywhere close to 600 aircraft with the 262. As a matter of fact the highest "exaggerated" source I've found gives the 262 510 claims.



out consideration on claims and source a little note on numbers:
if 100 262 were operation in a give time it's easy that many more 262 became operational with LW
put only half production became operational (obv. not in same given time) there is less a kill for each 262.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 17, 2009)

Njaco said:


> The ratio of kills by 262s has been discuss at length in another thread and Erich and others gave the sources. I go with Joe on the numbers.
> 
> Bill, those FGs were flying 'B' models that late in the war?



The first D did not arrive in ETO until late May and were not in significant percentage until August. 8th AF were still flying about 20% B's in February 1945.

Yes, the 4, 352, 354, 355 and 357 FG's were all flying P-51B-1s through -7's with some -10's in December 1943 though May 1944.


----------



## JoeB (Dec 17, 2009)

parsifal said:


> Do you include factors extraneous to the actual aircraft when determining its operational efectiveness


The question is which brought the biggest new advantage when introduced. So it's a comparison of the situation before and after that a/c was introduced. If the non-plane factors didn't change significantly at the same time the new plane was introduced, then they aren't relevant to what advantage it provided over the plane the same side was using just prior to that. I think that's basic logic.

Type 96's and Zeroes faced a basically similarly non-plane situation but the Zero completely changed the balance of air power from moderate overall advantage to total dominance. Late model Bf109/Fw190's and the Me 262 all faced a basically similar non-plane situation and the Me 262 had some (though not radically) more success v bombers but even less v fighters than the 109/190 had had just before in the basically the same situation otherwise. The Zero provided more new advantage when introduced, simple. 

The argument that 'biggest new advantage' really means biggest increase in aerodynamic performance (or speed, since the 262 wasn't superior to pistons in every aspect of performance), even if it couldn't be exploited effectively, is shaky IMO, but not clearly illogical. But the argument that 109/190/262 all faced a tough situation so that fact means the 262 created more of an advantage over the 109/190 is clearly illogical.

Joe


----------



## Soren (Dec 17, 2009)

Despite JoeB's claim LW kill claims made flying the Me262 seem surprisingly accurate.

According to LW records Me262's lost in action numbered less than 100, around 60 being lost in the air (USAAF fighter claimed 66 Me262s), and of those the majority was while taking off or landing. And according to LW records they claimed 509 to 600 + Allied aircraft.

450 Allied aircraft were claimed shot down by JG7 alone, most on the eastern front, of which there are many more victories which were never claimed. Around 125 to 150 kills have been confirmed by cross examination as losses to Me262's in the west. Furthermore JV44 claimed 56 Allied aircraft shot down, 47 of which have been confirmed by cross examination as-well.

So a 6:1 kill ratio for the Me262 seems not only true, but conservative at that when one considers the many Soviet a/c shot down which werent even claimed.

As the situation got more and more desperate for the LW they in the end stopped writing claims for their victories alltogether, the whole exercise seeming pointless.

P. Source: Manfred Boehme

Erich knows far more on this than any of us here though, so I hope he'll step in and clear this whole matter up


----------



## drgondog (Dec 17, 2009)

Soren said:


> Despite JoeB's claim LW kill claims made flying the Me262 seem surprisingly accurate.
> 
> According to LW records Me262's lost in action numbered less than 100, around 60 being lost in the air (USAAF fighter claimed 66 Me262s), and of those the majority was while taking off or landing. And according to LW records they claimed 509 to 600 + Allied aircraft.
> 
> Erich knows far more on this than any of us here though, so I hope he'll step in and clear this whole matter up



Soren - the Awards (not claims) for 8th AF 262 scores were 116.5-9-131. These totals do not include 9th AF or RAF TAC or 15th AF or VVS.

the 354th FG for example were awarded 6-0-3 Me 262s.

The souce for 8th AF is USAF 85 and cross correlated with 8th AF VCB to pinpoint 'award' to 'type'. 

Which LW records are you referring to in context of actual losses? 

It is entirely possible that the 8th AF overclaimed/awarded but equally possible that the total air losses for Me 262 will never be known due to loss of data in November 1944 - May 1945.


----------



## Marcel (Dec 17, 2009)

About operational advantage, one should not forget the Bf109E. Until the Germans met the RAF over the British isle, the Bf109 was tremendously superior over all opposition, claiming victory over at least 7 airforces, including British Hurricanes in France.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 17, 2009)

JoeB said:


> The question is which brought the biggest new advantage when introduced. So it's a comparison of the situation before and after that a/c was introduced. If the non-plane factors didn't change significantly at the same time the new plane was introduced, then they aren't relevant to what advantage it provided over the plane the same side was using just prior to that. I think that's basic logic.
> 
> Type 96's and Zeroes faced a basically similarly non-plane situation but the Zero completely changed the balance of air power from moderate overall advantage to total dominance. Late model Bf109/Fw190's and the Me 262 all faced a basically similar non-plane situation and the Me 262 had some (though not radically) more success v bombers but even less v fighters than the 109/190 had had just before in the basically the same situation otherwise. The Zero provided more new advantage when introduced, simple.
> 
> ...



Joe - I tend to agree your points save one. The Me 262 could choose to enter a fight with extremely high delta in speed and firepower - or equally to disengage if it kept its airspeed up. Its aerodynamic attributes were exceptional and greater than any piston engine fighter. 

The Zero was not particularly superior aerodynamically speaking and achieved its manueverability advantage due to compromising hit survivabilty by draconian reductions in weight. Unlike most contemporary Allied fighters (P-38, F6F, F4U, etc) it did not possess a fundamental 'growth of mission capability' via increased Hp. 

The US fighters reduced the ability of the Zero's manueverability advantage simply by being enormously faster in level flight and dive and zoom and maintaining operational performance at high altitude to SL. These fighter could engage/disengage with perhaps nearly the same advantage as a 262 to a Mustang

The Zero entered the war with great advantage in 'envelope' superiority but did not have compelling speed advantage to engage and pursue at will - actually the Mustang (B-D) was closer to the latter capability vs the 109/190 than the Zero vs Spit of P-40 or F4F.

Having said this I still favor the Zero as one of the two or three that offered the greatest intial performance 'difference maker' along with P-51B and Me 262.


----------



## Soren (Dec 17, 2009)

Hi Bill,

I trust you on the USAAF claims as you're the expert on this board when it comes to this. My data is from Boehme, who writes that the USAAF by far shot down the most Me262's, fighter pilots alone claiming 66 Me262's in the air. IIRC bomber gunners claimed a pretty large numbers as-well, but most of those were almost certainly not true shoot downs. The rest as I understand it were lost to Allied strafing bombing runs as-well as accidents of all kinds.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 17, 2009)

drgondog said:


> The Zero was not particularly superior aerodynamically speaking and achieved its manueverability advantage due to compromising hit survivabilty by draconian reductions in weight. Unlike most contemporary Allied fighters (P-38, F6F, F4U, etc) it did not possess a fundamental 'growth of mission capability' via increased Hp.



the Zero did and didn't " possess a fundamental ''growth of mission capability' via increased Hp."

The airframe may have possessed the growth potential, at least with suitable modifications, as shown by the A6M8 prototypes at the end of the war. It would have required sacrificing the cowl guns though. It apparently was the Sakae engine that didn't possess much growth potential. 

A change to the Kinsei engine much earlier offers some interesting "what if" performance changes.

trading shorter range for aprox. a 10% power gain in 1942 may not have been worthwhile but the Kinsei engine seemed to offer more potential for growth.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 17, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> the Zero did and didn't " possess a fundamental ''growth of mission capability' via increased Hp."
> 
> The airframe may have possessed the growth potential, at least with suitable modifications, as shown by the A6M8 prototypes at the end of the war. It would have required sacrificing the cowl guns though. It apparently was the Sakae engine that didn't possess much growth potential.
> 
> ...



Strictly speaking you are right - but it was a significant mod to change engines and re-design wing to enable the hardpoints. Also it took until spring 45 to get this airplane flying with the new engine. The firepower loss due to the much larger cowl and ducting re-design seems less of an issue - and at the time it was flown it would have still been hopelessly outclassed wouldn't it?

The Japanese were making much more capable fighters in the Ki 84/100 and N1K1/2 series by the time the A6M was redesigned for bigger engine.

So, I feel the statement stands as I was focused on the aerodynamics and implied upgrade potential while maintaining the lines. The Mustang by comparison upgraded from P-51A with 1100 hp to P-51H w/2200 hp (1650-11 version ONLY) with essentially the 'same' lines. (I know I am stretching a point here - but take the F4U-1 to F4U-5 or Fw 190A1 to Fw 190D-13 in contrast for similar aerodynamics, w/significant growth in Hp and significant mission capability growth with same basic airframe)

Contrast the Mission Profiles of the original introduction to the final production versions of each. The Zero was by far the poorest example of improvements to introduced purpose and capability to final version mission capability in same timeframe?

So, during the mission critical opportunity to maintain some level of performance match against the F6F, F4U, etc growth versions - it didn't.

I do not know when the Kinsei engine was actually developed enough to consider the upgrade to create the A6M8so it may have been a priority decision?


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 17, 2009)

I really have no Idea why the Japanese Navy insisted the Mitsubishi Zero use a Nakajima engine for so long, especially when the Nakajima engine showed so little progress in power output. I have read that that Mitsubishi engineers wanted to put in the Mitsubishi engine much earlier but were over ruled. Truth or revisionist history?
Fuel economy and range held to be more important than speed and climb?

I believe the engine used in the Ki 100 was the same engine used in the A6M8 so I think that a Zero with that engine might have been able to perform close to the Ki-100. Of course with the pilot situation in 1944 even a year early introduction of the A6M8 wouldn't have changed things much.

I suspect the Japanese were severely limited by the number of engineers available. trying to develop the J2M Raidan and the A7M Reppu might not have left enough enough talent to improve the Zero in a timely manner. 
I believe the Japanese tried to develop more new fighters from 1939 on than the British did. Perhaps they were hoping for another big leap in performance rather than steady steady progress, I don't know. I do think teat multiplicity of projects slowed them all down and held back the development of the Zero.
I could be wrong and the Zero airframe might not have been strong enough to take even a 1500hp engine in squadron use. Just not enough information.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 17, 2009)

Shortround6 said:


> I really have no Idea why the Japanese Navy insisted the Mitsubishi Zero use a Nakajima engine for so long, especially when the Nakajima engine showed so little progress in power output. I have read that that Mitsubishi engineers wanted to put in the Mitsubishi engine much earlier but were over ruled. Truth or revisionist history?
> Fuel economy and range held to be more important than speed and climb?
> 
> I believe the engine used in the Ki 100 was the same engine used in the A6M8 so I think that a Zero with that engine might have been able to perform close to the Ki-100. Of course with the pilot situation in 1944 even a year early introduction of the A6M8 wouldn't have changed things much.
> ...



Good questions.

The introduction of that much increased torque would lead the structures guys to immediately look at the rudder size for low speed flight control and look at the Torque carry through structure for the tail for asymmetrical loads in high speed flight - which in turn makes them look at all the longeron/shear panel design going forward.

The intro of the Merlin caused problems on the B-D Mustangs due to torque and focused on the asymmetric load issues on the airframe for diving turns, slow and snap rolls - which were never really completely solved until the P-51H redesign.

It would not have been a simple 'bolt on and go' as far as engine mounts and cowl design.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 17, 2009)

Soren said:


> Hi Bill,
> 
> I trust you on the USAAF claims as you're the expert on this board when it comes to this. My data is from Boehme, who writes that the USAAF by far shot down the most Me262's, fighter pilots alone claiming 66 Me262's in the air. IIRC bomber gunners claimed a pretty large numbers as-well, but most of those were almost certainly not true shoot downs. The rest as I understand it were lost to Allied strafing bombing runs as-well as accidents of all kinds.



The question is 'where did Boehme parse the data?' 

The awards(credits - not claims) for just five of the fifteen 8th AF FG's totalled 65.5. The Mustang accounted for all of the 8th AF totals except for the 56th FG's 4.5 and 78th FG 1.0.

357(18.5), 55th (16), 78th (12), 339th (11) and 361st (8) Mustangs totalled 65.5 Me 262 Awards..the rest of the 10 FG's totalled another 50 and that leaves bombers, 15th AF, RAF TAC and 9th AF with no accounting in the final totals.

Soren - we know that award systems were not perfect but I suspect USAAF data a lot better than LW data in the Nov-May timeframe?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 17, 2009)

Soren said:


> 450 Allied aircraft were claimed shot down by JG7 alone, most on the eastern front, of which there are many more victories which were never claimed. Around 125 to 150 kills have been confirmed by cross examination as losses to Me262's in the west. Furthermore JV44 claimed 56 Allied aircraft shot down, 47 of which have been confirmed by cross examination as-well.



I welcome Erich in this discussion as he brought this up on another thread...

JV 44s kills were over a 40 day period and well documented. JG7 CLAIMED about 60 aircraft by Feb. 1945. So now we'll bring the elusive Soviet records into this....


----------



## parsifal (Dec 17, 2009)

JoeB said:


> The question is which brought the biggest new advantage when introduced. So it's a comparison of the situation before and after that a/c was introduced. If the non-plane factors didn't change significantly at the same time the new plane was introduced, then they aren't relevant to what advantage it provided over the plane the same side was using just prior to that. I think that's basic logic.
> 
> Type 96's and Zeroes faced a basically similarly non-plane situation but the Zero completely changed the balance of air power from moderate overall advantage to total dominance. Late model Bf109/Fw190's and the Me 262 all faced a basically similar non-plane situation and the Me 262 had some (though not radically) more success v bombers but even less v fighters than the 109/190 had had just before in the basically the same situation otherwise. The Zero provided more new advantage when introduced, simple.
> 
> ...



Hi Joe

Im not sure that I can fully accept your argument on this.....I tend to look at this in a mathematical sense to get an idea of the effect of the extraneous factors.

The actions of the allies like bombing, airfield suppression and the like are "reverse" force multipliers. In other words the force multipliers applying to the Luftweaffe in late'44 and early '45 are less than one, perhaps even approaching zero. If a combat value is assigned to a given type, say 6 for the Me109gs and say 10 for the me 262s, then if no force multipliers are at work, the Me 262 formations should be 40% more efficient at thair job, compared to the me 109 formations. However, if the force multipliers were reduced to zero (ie, the entire force is permanently grounded), then the combat effectiveness for both the 109 and the 262, are both the same, that is zero. As the Force multiplier effect approaches zero, the differences between the 109 and the 262 whilst proportionately still 40%, are going to narrow to such small differences in absolute terms as to be undetectable. If each force is 100 strong, but only 5% can get airborne, and each aircraft that gets airborne can shoot down say 1/10 of the aircraft then the5 109s (with a value of 6) will shoot down 3 aircraft per 100, whilst the 262 would shoot down 5 per 100. Whilst the qualitative relationship remains in tact, in real terms the difference is so small as to be negligible. 

Force multipliers are crucial to the overall assessment of a types effectiveness. i take your point about the late war Zekes suffereing the same problems, but I see that as only reinforcing the theory, rather than disprovinbg it. 


Regards

Michael


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 17, 2009)

Soren said:


> So a 6:1 kill ratio for the Me262 seems not only true, but conservative at that when one considers the many Soviet a/c shot down which werent even claimed.



Me 262 Combat Diary by Foreman and Harvey states that only 2 Yak-9s were claimed by 262s. I don't have the text in front of me so we're looking at another 398 Soviet aircraft (of mixed types) claimed by JG7. Hmmmm........

JoeB, feel free to chime in any time!


----------



## Njaco (Dec 17, 2009)

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/piston-engine-aircraft-jet-kills-1226.html

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/usaaf-claims-me262s-destroyed-aerial-combat-7125.html


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 17, 2009)

Thanks!


----------



## Soren (Dec 18, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Me 262 Combat Diary by Foreman and Harvey states that only 2 Yak-9s were claimed by 262s. I don't have the text in front of me so we're looking at another 398 Soviet aircraft (of mixed types) claimed by JG7. Hmmmm........



Just wait till Erich gets here, he'll only confirm what I've said. Over 450 Allied a/c were claimed by JG7, most of them Soviet a/c, with many more victories not even being claimed because of the desperate situation facing the LW deeming the exercise of noting victories pointless in the pilots eyes. Of these 450 claims approx. 125 to 150 have been confirmed as Western Allied a/c and as actual losses.

JV44 claimed 56 western Allied a/c, 47 of which have been confirmed.

Me262 operational losses, which means whilst landing, taking off or suffering an accident numbered abit over 100 aircraft, the far majority being caused upon landing, Allied fighters ganging up on the Me262.

As Erich himself has put it:
_In the observance of the last war months over the Reich the 262 was no match for hundreds of P-51's just looking for 1-2 jets to set upon as the jet zoomed down and then upward through a US heavy bomber formations. Imagine the jet pilots no-one coming to their aid while at least 10-12 P-51s from several different US fighter groups converging to take out this 1 jet, while the other jet may have had a chance to escape or the same scenario appeared time and time again. Yes the Allied escort pilots had guts and were quite a cocky bunch till this day. The jet pilots were brave and new the odds were far against them but they did their duty knowing full well even with their speeds beyond anything the US could come up with could only dream of shooting down maybe 1-2 B-17's or B-24's during 1 mission knowing that dropping the landing gear at their base and even warned of "Indianers" in the area they soon could be a sitting duck target._

Having to constantly deal with 10 to 12 Mustang's up ur arse everytime you attack a bomber stream is gonna doom any fighter. Fact of the matter is that taking the actual situation facing LW fighters into account and you'll soon realize that litterally no other a/c could've achieved the success the Me262 did, Allied or Axis. The Me262 was the only a/c in the latter part of the war which could take off, well knowing there were gonna be at least 10 escorts on its ass after the first attack run (following it all the way until it eventually had to land need be), and still have a hope of being succesful.


----------



## Soren (Dec 18, 2009)

drgondog said:


> Soren - we know that award systems were not perfect but I suspect USAAF data a lot better than LW data in the Nov-May timeframe?



Not sure about that Bill, as many possible LW victories were left unclaimed during the latter part of the war, causing a high number of Allied a/c being listed as MIA because there was no way of finding the German side of the events. Many of these a/c MIA no doubt are actual kills made by the LW. 

Another thing to consider is that whilst overclaiming did occur on both sides it would've been a much harder exercise in the Me262, seeing that there was no mistaking if you had hit your opponent or not, the Me262's armament needing only to land just 1 hit to bring down a fighter and 3 to bring down a bomber. Hitting your enemy with the Mk108 wouldn't cause him to merely pour some smoke and dive away, many pilots often mistaking this as a kill. No the Mk108 blasted the target if a succesful hit was scored, leaving it seriously crippled, something there was no mistaking of.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 18, 2009)

Soren said:


> Just wait till Erich gets here, he'll only confirm what I've said. Over 450 Allied a/c were claimed by JG7, most of them Soviet a/c, with many more victories not even being claimed because of the desperate situation facing the LW deeming the exercise of noting victories pointless in the pilots eyes. Of these 450 claims approx. 125 to 150 have been confirmed as Western Allied a/c and as actual losses.
> 
> JV44 claimed 56 western Allied a/c, 47 of which have been confirmed.



The argument that I have is something that JoeB has discussed for years -* CLAIMS *vs. confirmed kills. Even JV44's claims were "off" by 20%. Apply that to JG7 and think we might have more believable numbers. Additionally, how much of the Me 262 fighter strength was directed at the Soviets - when in reality it was really needed to stop the bombers pounding Germany day and night?



Soren said:


> Me262 operational losses, which means whilst landing, taking off or suffering an accident numbered abit over 100 aircraft, the far majority being caused upon landing, Allied fighters ganging up on the Me262.
> 
> As Erich himself has put it:
> _In the observance of the last war months over the Reich the 262 was no match for hundreds of P-51's just looking for 1-2 jets to set upon as the jet zoomed down and then upward through a US heavy bomber formations. Imagine the jet pilots no-one coming to their aid while at least 10-12 P-51s from several different US fighter groups converging to take out this 1 jet, while the other jet may have had a chance to escape or the same scenario appeared time and time again. Yes the Allied escort pilots had guts and were quite a cocky bunch till this day. The jet pilots were brave and new the odds were far against them but they did their duty knowing full well even with their speeds beyond anything the US could come up with could only dream of shooting down maybe 1-2 B-17's or B-24's during 1 mission knowing that dropping the landing gear at their base and even warned of "Indianers" in the area they soon could be a sitting duck target.[/I
> ...


_Not disputing anything there, it's just funny, having to deal with the described situation when facing heavy bomber streams and escorting fighters, when did the 262 have time to shoot down over 400 Soviet aircraft, especially when one of the most numerous fighters in the east, the Yak-9 is only "CLAIMED" twice by the 262????_


----------



## Soren (Dec 18, 2009)

Erich will clear this up FLYBOYJ, I've been following discussions on the matter on a different forum where he brought up some details on this some time ago, and I clearly remember him stating that many of the victories acquired by the Me262 in the east never even got claimed. 

The actual number of kills claimed by Me262's was around 735 enemy a/c according to other sources as-well.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 18, 2009)

Soren said:


> Not sure about that Bill, as many possible LW victories were left unclaimed during the latter part of the war, causing a high number of Allied a/c being listed as MIA because there was no way of finding the German side of the events. Many of these a/c MIA no doubt are actual kills made by the LW.
> 
> *Soren - I agree the point that 'many' scores were achieved by LW that were never recorded - ditto losses in that time frame - which is why I tend to credit USAAF records in that timeframe far more. Not only were the LW a 'little busy' to record and award credits for claims, but the same thing applies to losses... having said this, USAAF in the ETO did not get all the April 1945 group claims through the Victory Credits Board..*
> 
> Another thing to consider is that whilst overclaiming did occur on both sides it would've been a much harder exercise in the Me262, seeing that there was no mistaking if you had hit your opponent or not, the Me262's armament needing only to land just 1 hit to bring down a fighter and 3 to bring down a bomber. Hitting your enemy with the Mk108 wouldn't cause him to merely pour some smoke and dive away, many pilots often mistaking this as a kill. No the Mk108 blasted the target if a succesful hit was scored, leaving it seriously crippled, something there was no mistaking of.



A legitimate point - but overclaiming occurred not just to perception of damage but also 'just because' one decided to enter a claim when there was no witness - or conversely not claiming at all because there was no witness. 

The difference (between Allies and LW) at that late stage of the war is that the review process for the Allies was more methodical and consistent simply because they were a.) winning the air battle, b.) they had the process in place and the circumstances of the war did not force abandonment of the process.

A specific example occurred in the 355th on March 2, 1945 when a 358FS pilot had drop tank feed problems and returned early, spotted some 109s on the deck and attacked. He claimed 5 destroyed and one probable but was given zero credit because no witness and his camera failed. Coulda happened but didn't meet the standard - but there are records of the claim, and records of the rejection, (and all the records of Mustangs lost or damaged).

The Luftwaffe records are missing and much of the data for late 1944 through EOW are sketchy unit records and personal recollections - making so much of this discussion opinions about opinions rather than debating verified and official data after review process and recorded decisions.

Simple fact - I don't know how many kills and damage the Me 262 scored, or how many were actually shot down or damaged, or how many were lost to accident.. nor does anybody else for certain.

The difference between the WWII data (re: Germany) vs Korean War data is that Germany was being overrun and neither US nor China/Russia was being forced to abandon records and process - so long after the war at least there is complete documentation available even if the claim to award process is flawed.


----------



## Glider (Dec 18, 2009)

It would be interesting to see how the claims seem to have gone from 150 to 600 and now 735. Also, one small point, I am confident that the RAF and Russian airforce shot some of the 262's down. The USAAF good as they were didn't have a monopoly on them.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 18, 2009)

Not to pile on Soren but I have some questions about Boehme's data.

First a comment. To my knowledge nobody has gone to the trouble of trying to match all USAAF/8th AF FC Macrs to establish recorded opinions of witnesses regarding actual cause of loss. I will have to research a little more but my findings regarding definitive observations of a loss to a Me 262 are few. IIRC it is about 6 for sure and about 3 'maybe's'. This includes 'unknown' but Me 262s seen in area'

One would have to research all the USAAF ETO macrs to try to pinpoint bomber losses (both 8th and 9th AF plus 15th).

What does Boehme cite as his research sources and processes?

Same question for 'awards'. I literally have gone over every award in USAF 85 and 8th AF VCB to match award to 'type' - and published the result to both Mike Williams site as well as here. Frank Olynyk is the only other one I know of who has performed the same study and I defer to him when we have a conflict.

What is Boehme's source and process to arrive at US fighter awards of '66'? as I have the data for each squadron, each pilot and each group for all of 8th FC and my number is 116.5

I don't mind finding a superior methodology but wondering what he did to arrive at a conclusion that ALL of USAAF fighters only reached 66.. I haven't even touched 9th AF (except 354FG) or 15th AF records yet.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 18, 2009)

Glider said:


> It would be interesting to see how the claims seem to have gone from 150 to 600 and now 735. Also, one small point, I am confident that the RAF and Russian airforce shot some of the 262's down. The USAAF good as they were didn't have a monopoly on them.



I totally agree - the advantage the USAAF had was solely numbers and range - and at that stage of the war there was overwhelming superiority of numbers of fighters available to attack Me 262s all over Germany. RAF and VVS and 9th 15th AF were also active in Eastern and Southeastern Germany the last several months of the war.


----------



## Soren (Dec 18, 2009)

Bill,

I have no doubt that a good number of LW a/c MIA are USAAF kills and vice versa, that was my point infact, and we seem to agree on that as-well. What I also wish to point out though is that claims made in the Me262 were inherently more accurate than those made by other fighters, simply because of the fact that the armament ruled out the possibility of just damaging your target if it was anything smaller than a bomber. I bet many bombers managed to limb back home after being attacked by a Me262, the B-17 was one tough a/c. But fighters would've simply been blasted out of the sky if they found themselves infront of the Me262's guns.

As for confirmation of kills during war time, well the Germans didn't slack on their confirmation procedure, the problem was however that the majority of the claims made were never confirmed seeing that the OKL was too busy. In the end this resulted in pilots simply refraining from making claims after victory at all, what was the point anyhow.


Glider,

Different sources state different things. Boehme claims that JG7 claimed 450 kills with the Me262, most on the eastern front. Approx. 125 to 150 western Allied a/c have been confirmed as shot down by the Me262's from JG7. JV44 claimed another 56 Allied a/c shot down in their Me262's, 47 of which have been confirmed. 

So 172 to 197 western allied a/c have been confirmed to have been shot down by the Me262. (There were undoubtedly more shot down in reality)

Another source claims that the LW in all made ~735 claims with the Me262, the majority on the eastern front.


----------



## Soren (Dec 18, 2009)

Bill,

Regarding Beohme, without checking to make sure I believe he was talking about 66 confirmed kills, and not claims. My mistake if I wrote claims. I no problem believing that 116.5 were claimed.


----------



## Soren (Dec 18, 2009)

My point in short:

A confirmed German kill is just as accurate as any confirmed Allied kill, no more no less, regardless of the time period. But by the end of the war many German pilots didn't even claim their kills, and when they did they knew it would take months even years before they were confirmed by the OKL. In the end the OKL couldn't keep up and were so far behind that many kill claims made during the 44 to 45 period never even reached examination. 

The good thing about USAAF records is that they have the confirmed victories listed, which is a heck of a lot better than just having a pile of claims lying around like the LW did.


----------



## Juha (Dec 18, 2009)

Hello Soren
Quote :”450 Allied aircraft were claimed shot down by JG7 alone, most on the eastern front, of which there are many more victories which were never claimed. Around 125 to 150 kills have been confirmed by cross examination as losses to Me262's in the west. Furthermore JV44 claimed 56 Allied aircraft shot down, 47 of which have been confirmed by cross examination as-well.
So a 6:1 kill ratio for the Me262 seems not only true, but conservative at that when one considers the many Soviet a/c shot down which werent even claimed.
As the situation got more and more desperate for the LW they in the end stopped writing claims for their victories alltogether, the whole exercise seeming pointless.
P. Source: Manfred Boehme”



Can you give more exact source because in his JG 7 book Boehme writes on p. 173 “According to conservative estimates JG 7 shot down about 20 Russian aircraft during the final weeks of the war.”?

On p. 189 while noting that to many LW pilots Me 262 must have seemed like a kind of “life insurance” he noted that loss rate was high. “At 15%, losses in action among the Me 262s which made contact with enemy – if the 56.5% of the unluckly 10.4.45 are left out – are surprising high.” And noted that “This rate of loss is not much lower than that of the conventional fighter units with piston-engined a/c.”

Richard T. Eger had counted from the table in the book that between Jan. 1 and May 3 1945 JG 7 scored 225 to 226 confirmed victories and 37 probables. 


To Drgondog, of these 30 were P-51s, 2 P-51 recons., 2 P-51 recons. ? [? Is in the list, not mine] and 2 P-51s British.

Juha


----------



## drgondog (Dec 18, 2009)

Soren said:


> Bill,
> 
> Regarding Beohme, without checking to make sure I believe he was talking about 66 confirmed kills, and not claims. My mistake if I wrote claims. I no problem believing that 116.5 were claimed.



Soren - the 116.5 are confirmed kills - not claims. The USAF 85 names them 'Credits' not claims.. same with USAAF VCB.

Both record the Awards/Credits after the claims are reviewed and altered as may be the award if down graded.

Therefore Boehme made adjustments without basis


----------



## drgondog (Dec 18, 2009)

Juha said:


> Richard T. Eger had counted from the table in the book that between Jan. 1 and May 3 1945 JG 7 scored 225 to 226 confirmed victories and 37 probables.
> 
> 
> To Drgondog, of these 30 were P-51s, 2 P-51 recons., 2 P-51 recons. ? [? Is in the list, not mine] and 2 P-51s British.
> ...



Juha - here are All the 8th AF pilots lost in engagements w/Me 262 plus several 'speculatives'

1 Nov - Alison 77/20FG near Henglo - KIA
8 Nov - Hoffert 359/356FG near Osnabruck - POW
8 Nov - McElvey 359/356FG near Osnabruck - POW
30 Dec - Hawkins 503/339FG near Soltau - KIA
30 Dec - Mankie 503/339FG near Westertimke - POW
9 Feb - Browning 363/357FG MAC w/262 near Fulda - KIA
22 Feb - Radley 383/364FG near Stendal -KIA
25 Mar - Roebuck 487/352FG near Ulzen - KIA
30 Mar - Wagner 505/339 near Hamburg - KIA


Suspicious 
8 Nov - Corwin 363/357FG - landed near Termode - WIA/DOW - last seen chasing 262
19 Mar - Enoch 368/359FG - crashed chasing 262 on deck - Flak?
17 Apr - Preddy 503/339FG - last seen chasing 262 over airfield near Prague - flak?
17 Apr - Reuter 503/339FG - last seen chasing 262 over airfield near Prague - flak?

The 'other' Mustang group (in 9th AF) was 354th and did not lose any Mustangs to German jets of any kind (so far in my research through February 1945. So, there is a confirmed loss count of 9 Mustangs in 8th and 9th AF. It is extremely unlikely that the 15th had anywhere near the engagements w/Me 262s as the 8th and 9th... but I have no facts on this assumption.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 18, 2009)

Soren said:


> My point in short:
> 
> A confirmed German kill is just as accurate as any confirmed Allied kill, no more no less, regardless of the time period.
> 
> ...



If the Tony Woods list is an accurate compilation of LW awards, the LW overclaims of the April 24, November 2 and November 26, 1944 battles have about a ratio of nearly 2 awards (confirmed) by LW to actual losses of 8th AF for those big battles.

As you know I have spent a lot of time researching those battles (both sides) for my new book. Erich has been a big help as we have collaborated quite a bit - 

Using the April 24 mission as a specific case, JG3, JG26 and JG27 (Me 109) were awarded 12 Mustangs (Woods) plus one P-47 (impossible) surrounding Munich area - where 4 (3 'unk cause' but probably shot down so I counted them as shot down) Mustangs were shot down and two were lost in MaC w/Me 110's. One other was shot down by flak.

The 355 and 357FG claims closely match the 109 and 110 losses (one overclaim for each, but several crashlanded and not recorded as a 'loss' by LW) recorded by the LW in that area - but also possible that the B-17s got a few of the total..which would result in higher overclaim than 2.

That pretty well summarizes comparable Credit/Actual experience for LW Awards on 2 and 26 November.

If there is a better source of collective accounting than Woods I have not had access to it.


----------



## Juha (Dec 18, 2009)

Hello Drgondog
Thanks for the P-51 losses of the 8th FC. When one thinks the environment where Me 262 pilots fought I’m not surprising that there was overclaiming. They were flying high speed plane and knew that almost every time there were numerous Allied fighters around trying to get to proper bounce position to knock them down, so it was essential to keep speed up and to keep sharp lookout around, especially on upper hemisphere. Nobody in right mind would began circling around and so slow down to make sure that the victim was really going down.

Juha


----------



## drgondog (Dec 18, 2009)

Juha said:


> Hello Drgondog
> Thanks for the P-51 losses of the 8th FC. When one thinks the environment where Me 262 pilots fought I’m not surprising that there was overclaiming. They were flying high speed plane and knew that almost every time there were numerous Allied fighters around trying to get to proper bounce position to knock them down, so it was essential to keep speed up and to keep sharp lookout around, especially on upper hemisphere. Nobody in right mind would began circling around and so slow down to make sure that the victim was really going down.
> 
> Juha



You are most welcome.. I wish the 9th and 15th AF did half the job of records as the 8th AF.

btw there were no 'confirmed' P-47 (8th AF 56/78FG) losses, but there were conversely very few awards - 
Ditto P-38.

The Me 262 that hung around several Mustangs to manuever for extra passes lost airspeed and all advantage. I think most of that type were referred to as 'dead'.

There was one eyewitness encounter of a 355th pilot observing a bounce by a lone Me 262 on a trailing Mustang Group. The 355th two ship element fired a deflection shot scoring some hits and the 262 turned back - right into the teeth of ~ 2 squadrons of Mustangs chasing him! He had no chance of escape and he didn't.

It probably was the 357th FG as they had awards in that are on Nov 8th.


----------



## Glider (Dec 18, 2009)

Soren said:


> Bill,
> 
> Glider,
> 
> ...



Interesting statement. So the Luftwaffe claimed approx 185 allied aircraft shot down by the Me262 a high proportion of which were bombers. Then the USAAF claimed about 115 Me 262 kills and the RAF around 30 ( I don't know the exact number but this seems about right with 15 claimed by Tempests) then in fighter combat the Me 262 lost out.
Going back to the title of the thread, what exactly was the advantage gained by the Me262. I certainly agree that it had a huge *potential *advantage but what was the *actual *advantage gained.


----------



## Soren (Dec 18, 2009)

Bill,

Those 116.5 victories, were they all achieved in the air or were there some being the result of strafing? 

A little over 100 Me262's were lost in actual combat, most whilst on landing approach or returning to base. Accidents are counted here as-well, which were many. So unless the USAAF credits include strafing attacks then it seems like they are overstated by roughly a 2:1 factor as-well. The same as the LW did in some cases. Which is perfectly normal.

The LW USAAF confirmation procedures were also remarkably similar. If two other pilots didn't wittness the kill then gun camera footage was demanded by the OKL for a confirmation of the kill, either that or a verification recieved from ground forces having located the wreck of the enemy a/c. This procedure was followed slavishly until the very end of hostilities by the OKL. I believe the USAAF procedure was similar to this.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 18, 2009)

Glider said:


> Interesting statement. So the Luftwaffe claimed approx 185 allied aircraft shot down by the Me262 a high proportion of which were bombers. Then the USAAF claimed about 115 Me 262 kills and the RAF around 30 ( I don't know the exact number but this seems about right with 15 claimed by Tempests) then in fighter combat the Me 262 lost out.
> .



Glider - the 8th AF were credited w/116.5. Those credits do not reflect 9th or 12 AF or any that actually were shot down by bombers


----------



## Soren (Dec 18, 2009)

Glider said:


> Interesting statement. So the Luftwaffe claimed approx 185 allied aircraft shot down by the Me262 a high proportion of which were bombers. Then the USAAF claimed about 115 Me 262 kills and the RAF around 30 ( I don't know the exact number but this seems about right with 15 claimed by Tempests) then in fighter combat the Me 262 lost out.
> Going back to the title of the thread, what exactly was the advantage gained by the Me262. I certainly agree that it had a huge *potential *advantage but what was the *actual *advantage gained.



The actual advantage(s) gained were amongst other things a huge advantage in performance. Once airborne nothing the Allies had could touch the Me262 if it was well flown. Problem was however that the lack of fuel trained pilots, as-well as the huge numerical disadvantage the German suffered from, kept them from ever being capable of capitalizing on the actual advantages the Me262 introduced.

As for its performance against fighters, it far from lost out, instead it outshined everything else out there. Several pilots scoring over 5 fighters in the Me262 without being shot down once. Also remember that the far majority of Me262's lost in combat were so by being bounced whilst trying to land or return to base. The escorts ganged up on the Me262's everytime one was spotted, never allowing a fair fight.


----------



## JoeB (Dec 18, 2009)

To summarize recent posts, I haven't seen anything that credibly contradicts what I said. Foreman and Harvy give only a handful of USAAF fighters certainly downed by Me 262's (and hardly any other Allied fighters either), and Bill says he found something like 10 or less looking more carefully, I assume 8th AF, and there's no reason in F=H or generally to suppose a lot of fighter losses by the other US numbered AF's or the RAF to jets. Whatever the 262's claimed or were officially credited with, it doesn't seem plausible to maintain that they actually shot down many Allied piston engine fighters.

OTOH Foreman and Harvy give, case by case with each episode explained, as I counted up looking at my notes, 113 Me-262's downed in air combat, almost all by Allied fighters (the great bulk by the USAAF), German losses which correspond with Allied claims/credits (the 262 losses represented around 80% of the Allied credits, 8/9/15th AF, RAF, combined). I haven't seen any credible reason to throw out F+H's count as at least approximately correct. 

So, on Me-262 fighter v fighter I don't see much doubt: in the circumstances prevailing the Me 262 was ineffective against piston engine fighters in air combat. 

As usual, I don't see a reason to obsess about claims/credits when actual losses are *generally* known (of course not completely, never are 100% completely with causes 100% certain). 

As far as jet claims being more accurate, the Soviets racked up an extremely high overclaim rate in Korea, and one of the legitimate reasons given is the split second nature of hit and run attacks by jets, especially with big caliber cannon armament. In that situation too the MiG-15 only needed to land a hit or few to score a kill, but the MiG pilots consistently overoptimisitically believed they'd done so when they had not. And in general, narrative explanations of why claims 'must have been' accurate are useless. The only way to tell is to check opposing losses.

Joe


----------



## Soren (Dec 18, 2009)

JoeB said:


> So, on Me-262 fighter v fighter I don't see much doubt: in the circumstances prevailing the Me 262 was ineffective against piston engine fighters in air combat.



Come on now, that's just stupid. How can one conclude that it was ineffective against fighters from the data we have available?? Does the fact that most Me262's shot down were so whilst trying to land make it a bad fighter??? Or how about that it was normally outnumbered 12 to 1 in every encounter?? 

Sorry JoeB but to claim that the Me262 was ineffective against piston engined fighters is to be extremely ignorant and unable to look objectively on the issue at hand. The plane was most often outnumbered, shot up whilst landing or returning to base, in short it was never a fair fight; war isn't.

Take ANY Axis or Allied fighter and give it the tasks that the Me262's were carrying out from late 44 to 45, and NOT ONE will even approach being as successful as the Me262.


----------



## Juha (Dec 18, 2009)

Hello Soren
Quote: ” A little over 100 Me262's were lost in actual combat…”

How so? According to Boehme’s JG 7 book JG 7 alone lost 51 pilots killed and 12 badly wounded, add JV 44 losses and especially losses of KG(J) 54, which was badly mauled in air more than once, and losses of other KG(J)s. And then losses of KG 51 and the other non-fighter units. Now I can understand that Boehme has found some more claims but I doubt that he had found that losses were smaller than those he had found when he wrote the JG 7 book.

Quote:” Once airborne nothing the Allies had could touch the Me262 if it was well flown.”

Best late war Allied fighters were capable of catching Me 262 if they could use extra speed gained by dive, have timed their bounce correctly, preferably with some surprise element on their side and with adequate shooting skill was shown by pilot(s).

Juha


----------



## Juha (Dec 18, 2009)

Soren
Drgondog has shown earlier that only 25% of those Me 262s of which pilots of 8th FC got victory credit were shot down while landing of taking off.

Juha


----------



## drgondog (Dec 18, 2009)

Juha said:


> Best late war Allied fighters were capable of catching Me 262 if they could use extra speed gained by dive, have timed their bounce correctly, preferably with some surprise element on their side and with adequate shooting skill was shown by pilot(s).
> 
> Juha



Most of the encounter reports with 262s fell into three categories 
1. Long range shot that scored on an engine, slowing it down - often after long chase or high deflection
2. Diving bounce on 262s below them, getting close enough for decent shot
3. Long chase and catching the 262 trying to land or bring the chasing fighters in range of airfield flak.

Most of the kills at both high and low altitude were made because the 262 lost power in an engine and no longer had the legs to 'get out of sight' and the Mustang had plenty of fuel to close.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 18, 2009)

JoeB said:


> To summarize recent posts, I haven't seen anything that credibly contradicts what I said. Foreman and Harvy give only a handful of USAAF fighters certainly downed by Me 262's (and hardly any other Allied fighters either), and Bill says he found something like 10 or less looking more carefully, I assume 8th AF, and there's no reason in F=H or generally to suppose a lot of fighter losses by the other US numbered AF's or the RAF to jets. Whatever the 262's claimed or were officially credited with, it doesn't seem plausible to maintain that they actually shot down many Allied piston engine fighters.
> 
> OTOH Foreman and Harvy give, case by case with each episode explained, as I counted up looking at my notes, 113 Me-262's downed in air combat, almost all by Allied fighters (the great bulk by the USAAF), German losses which correspond with Allied claims/credits (the 262 losses represented around 80% of the Allied credits, 8/9/15th AF, RAF, combined). I haven't seen any credible reason to throw out F+H's count as at least approximately correct.
> 
> ...



Joe - what sources do Foreman and Harvy give for their 262 roll ups? There is really only one possible combination to arrive at a definitive 'credit' for USAAF - that is USAF 85 for the credit for that pilot on that day - with a throrough review of the Encounter Reports (and USAAF VCB reports) to sort out the Me 262s.

If they used that approach the 116.5 result for 8th AF should be where they finally end...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 18, 2009)

Juha said:


> Can you give more exact source because in his JG 7 book Boehme writes on p. 173 “According to conservative estimates JG 7 shot down about 20 Russian aircraft during the final weeks of the war.”?
> 
> On p. 189 while noting that to many LW pilots Me 262 must have seemed like a kind of “life insurance” he noted that loss rate was high. “At 15%, losses in action among the Me 262s which made contact with enemy – if the 56.5% of the unluckly 10.4.45 are left out – are surprising high.” And noted that “This rate of loss is not much lower than that of the conventional fighter units with piston-engined a/c.”
> 
> ...



I could believe that....


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 18, 2009)

Soren said:


> Sorry JoeB but to claim that the Me262 was ineffective against piston engined fighters is to be extremely ignorant and unable to look objectively on the issue at hand. The plane was most often outnumbered, shot up whilst landing or returning to base, in short it was never a fair fight; war isn't.


Sorry Soren but the man is right - "Fair Fight?" Come on, are we talking about a school yard here?!?!? In the end the "unfair" situation played into the hands of the victors and because of the situation, in the end to Me 262 was ineffective as its presence made no difference to the outcome as we all know, and as the old saying goes "all's fair in love in war."


----------



## Juha (Dec 19, 2009)

Hello Drgondog
From USAAF and British combat reports I have seen I have got exactly same impression. The few British which I remember best told the same story; max speed dive, pilots trying to take most out of their planes everyone eager to get into firing position, no old time polite queuing there more like a pack of dogs during fox hunt, usually someone got first a few telling hits and Me slowed down or Me pilot began wave after noticing that he was fired at, then more hits at shorter range and that was that. Or high deflection shot and “thanks for the gyro sight”


Hello Flyboyj
The book is published 17 years ago and Richard’s message is from 2003 and he was in contact with Boehme at that time, so Boehme might have found some more claims lately but massive increase isn’t very likely. Soren has not given his exact source even if I have asked that, so it is difficult to say more.

Juha


----------



## Soren (Dec 19, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Sorry Soren but the man is right - "Fair Fight?" Come on, are we talking about a school yard here?!?!? In the end the "unfair" situation played into the hands of the victors and because of the situation, in the end to Me 262 was ineffective as its presence made no difference to the outcome as we all know, and as the old saying goes "all's fair in love in war."



No he isn't right FLYBOYJ, and knowing how intellectual a person you are (and no thats not a snide remark or sarcasm, I mean it) I honestly haven't got the slightest clue as to how you can't see that right now. He claims the Me262 was ineffective against fighters, which is just downright wrong to put it mildly and goes against what every person who actually got to fly the bird says.

I mean come now, facts are on the table FLYBOYJ, the Me262 was mush faster than any Allied fighter and had much superior climb rate and high speed handling. I goes without saying that if flown well it was near untouchable, but like many historians have pointed out over the years by late 1944 the Germans weren't capable of capitalizing on this advantage, there simply being too little fuel skilled pilots left to fly the bird in any meaningful numbers and the LW being completely outnumbered in the air. No a/c made during WW2 would've made a bigger difference than the Me262, quite simply because no other a/c had the performance to even attempt it.

A lone Me262 could attack a bomber stream swarmed by escorts and still hope getting away with it. What other a/c, Axis or Allied could do that? Answer: NONE. 

And then there's British RAF chief test pilot Eric Brown whom rated the Me-262 as flat out the best fighter aircraft of the entire war. And he stated that he gave the 262 this rating having flown all versions of the Spitfire and the Mustang along with the Bf-109, FW-190 and Ta-152. 

And as Adolf Galland said himself:
_"if I had had 500 operational Me-262s I could have stopped the daylight bombing raids."_

There's a reason renowned veterans historians alike say it [Me262] could've changed the war.

I am confident Bill Erich will agree with me on this.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 19, 2009)

Soren said:


> A lone Me262 could attack a bomber stream swarmed by escorts and still hope getting away with it. What other a/c, Axis or Allied could do that? Answer: NONE.
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> ...


----------



## Soren (Dec 19, 2009)

parsifal said:


> Soren said:
> 
> 
> > A lone Me262 could attack a bomber stream swarmed by escorts and still hope getting away with it. What other a/c, Axis or Allied could do that? Answer: NONE.
> ...


----------



## drgondog (Dec 19, 2009)

Soren said:


> No he isn't right FLYBOYJ, and knowing how intellectual a person you are (and no thats not a snide remark or sarcasm, I mean it) I honestly haven't got the slightest clue as to how you can't see that right now. He claims the Me262 was ineffective against fighters, which is just downright wrong to put it mildly and goes against what every person who actually got to fly the bird says.
> 
> I mean come now, facts are on the table FLYBOYJ, the Me262 was mush faster than any Allied fighter and had much superior climb rate and high speed handling. I goes without saying that if flown well it was near untouchable, but like many historians have pointed out over the years by late 1944 the Germans weren't capable of capitalizing on this advantage, there simply being too little fuel skilled pilots left to fly the bird in any meaningful numbers and the LW being completely outnumbered in the air. No a/c made during WW2 would've made a bigger difference than the Me262, quite simply because no other a/c had the performance to even attempt it.
> 
> ...





I do pretty much agree with this. 

The only disagreement is that in general the Luftwaffe put their top remaining pilots in the 262 - so while there was no easy way to transition into a 262 - except 'fly it' - the remaining pilots were far more skilled than the ones they were putting into the 190 and 109s.


----------



## Soren (Dec 19, 2009)

In the case of the JV44 I totally agree Bill, but JG7 wasn't purely made up from good pilots.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 19, 2009)

Having agreed with Soren about the 262, and I voted the 262 also, Joe B has made very good points about the Zero - and the Mustang also made a huge impact despite not being significantly better in performance than the 109 or 190 as the 262 was to the Mustang..

This is an interesting thread despite not have a metric base for the judgments -


----------



## drgondog (Dec 19, 2009)

Soren said:


> In the case of the JV44 I totally agree Bill, but JG7 wasn't purely made up from good pilots.



Agreed that not all 262 pilots were Experten, particularly in the KG units. The 262 gave the lesser skilled pilots a better chance of survival but still the average skill and experience level of the pilots assigned to 262s in 1945 were better than the ones getting the 190s and 109s.

It would have been stupid to consciously downgrade the 262 in combat by de selecting better pilot candidates to the conventional fighters.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 19, 2009)

Soren said:


> No he isn't right FLYBOYJ, and knowing how intellectual a person you are (and no thats not a snide remark or sarcasm, I mean it) I honestly haven't got the slightest clue as to how you can't see that right now. He claims the Me262 was ineffective against fighters, which is just downright wrong to put it mildly and goes against what every person who actually got to fly the bird says.
> 
> I mean come now, facts are on the table FLYBOYJ, the Me262 was mush faster than any Allied fighter and had much superior climb rate and high speed handling. I goes without saying that if flown well it was near untouchable, but like many historians have pointed out over the years by late 1944 the Germans weren't capable of capitalizing on this advantage, there simply being too little fuel skilled pilots left to fly the bird in any meaningful numbers and the LW being completely outnumbered in the air. No a/c made during WW2 would've made a bigger difference than the Me262, quite simply because no other a/c had the performance to even attempt it.



And there's nothing there I'll disagree with BUT - was the 262 effective enough to prevent the Mustangs from doing their jobs or from inflicting enough bomber losses so the 8th AF would halt or curtail the bombing of Germany in the spring of 1945?


Soren said:


> A lone Me262 could attack a bomber stream swarmed by escorts and still hope getting away with it. What other a/c, Axis or Allied could do that? Answer: NONE.


And did they do it to the effectively to stop the bombing (see comment one) NO


Soren said:


> And then there's British RAF chief test pilot Eric Brown whom rated the Me-262 as flat out the best fighter aircraft of the entire war. And he stated that he gave the 262 this rating having flown all versions of the Spitfire and the Mustang along with the Bf-109, FW-190 and Ta-152.
> 
> And as Adolf Galland said himself:
> _"if I had had 500 operational Me-262s I could have stopped the daylight bombing raids."_
> ...



And again I agree with all the statements but you're not "seeing the forest from the tress." "Could have, would have, should have." Despite how good it was and how advanced it was, it could not stop what it was up against, and even if the Soviet losses are substantiated, the 262 inflicted only 1% losses against the 8AF. Yes it was out numbered but as stated "all's fair in love in war."

In the end it COULD NOT accomplish its objective despite being the best fighter of WW2, and yes all reasons given are valid, but in the end it WAS ineffective....

And oh by the way - I too voted for the -262.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 19, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> And there's nothing there I'll disagree with BUT - was the 262 effective enough to prevent the Mustangs from doing their jobs or from inflicting enough bomber losses so the 8th AF would halt or curtail the bombing of Germany in the spring of 1945?
> 
> And did they do it to the effectively to stop the bombing (see comment one) NO
> 
> ...



lmao - I went through the same mental gyrations Joe..


----------



## Glider (Dec 19, 2009)

Soren said:


> The actual advantage(s) gained were amongst other things a huge advantage in performance. Once airborne nothing the Allies had could touch the Me262 if it was well flown. Problem was however that the lack of fuel trained pilots, as-well as the huge numerical disadvantage the German suffered from, kept them from ever being capable of capitalizing on the actual advantages the Me262 introduced.
> 
> As for its performance against fighters, it far from lost out, instead it outshined everything else out there. Several pilots scoring over 5 fighters in the Me262 without being shot down once. Also remember that the far majority of Me262's lost in combat were so by being bounced whilst trying to land or return to base. The escorts ganged up on the Me262's everytime one was spotted, never allowing a fair fight.



I think the difference lies between having a potential advantage and an actual one. On this we are going to have to differ. No one will disagree that the 262 had a huge performance advantage but the circumstances meant that it didn't deliver any strategic advantage.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 19, 2009)

Glider said:


> *I think the difference lies between having a potential advantage and an actual one. * On this we are going to have to differ. No one will disagree that the 262 had a huge performance advantage but the circumstances meant that it didn't deliver any strategic advantage.



BINGO!


----------



## Soren (Dec 19, 2009)

Judging from the last few responses it doesn't seem like we were in disagreement at all then, FLYBOYJ, Bill Glider. Like I said in post #129: 

_The Me262 brought with it the biggest advantage any airplane had ever had above the rest at any time during the war, unfortunately for the Germans however the means to capitalize on such an advantage had passed by the time the Me262 was finally let into service. _


----------



## Glider (Dec 19, 2009)

Blimey, you, me, Bill and FJ all in agreement a first 

Just to throw a thought into this. The often overlooked Arado 234 did give the germans something that hadn't had since around 1942. Not only did it have the performance to excell it did give the Luftwaffe a reliable PR capability.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Dec 19, 2009)

I don't see how being too expensive and short legged to be effective under late war conditions don't count as flaws. It was a fighter that didn't fit the situation and didn't deliver a SIGNIFICANT advantage to the LW, even if it did deliver an advantage to a given pilot.


----------



## buffnut453 (Dec 19, 2009)

Clay, I don't think ANY fighter could have fitted the conditions faced by the Luftwaffe in late-44 and early-45. It was clear by then that the Nazi party's aspirations were in tatters and it was a question of when rather than if the Allies would triumph. Even if resources were diverted from Me262 to piston types, problems remained in terms of pilot availability and quality, fuel, spares, not to mention an ever-shrinking defensive boundary (which always disrupts defence as units redeploy from airfields that are about to be overrun, hence reducing warning and ability to intercept incoming raids at distance).


----------



## buffnut453 (Dec 19, 2009)

Soren said:


> Judging from the last few responses it doesn't seem like we were in disagreement at all then, FLYBOYJ, Bill Glider. Like I said in post #129:
> 
> _The Me262 brought with it the biggest advantage any airplane had ever had above the rest at any time during the war, unfortunately for the Germans however the means to capitalize on such an advantage had passed by the time the Me262 was finally let into service. _



Which is precisely the point I made at Post #121 (sigh...would you like the 15-minute argument or the full half hour (or in this case month!)) - "biggest advantage" can be operational or it can be in outright performance, the former being the effect of the fighter force on the operational landscape, the latter being the comparison of the individual aircraft type's performance with that of its opponents'. 

Glad we all agree (or at least most of us)....at last!


----------



## drgondog (Dec 19, 2009)

Soren said:


> Judging from the last few responses it doesn't seem like we were in disagreement at all then, FLYBOYJ, Bill Glider. Like I said in post #129:
> 
> _The Me262 brought with it the biggest advantage any airplane had ever had above the rest at any time during the war, unfortunately for the Germans however the means to capitalize on such an advantage had passed by the time the Me262 was finally let into service. _



I am in total agreement with this statement - zero equivocation or nitpicking - lol!


----------



## drgondog (Dec 19, 2009)

Glider said:


> Blimey, you, me, Bill and FJ all in agreement a first
> 
> *absolutely NOT the first time - by far*
> 
> Just to throw a thought into this. The often overlooked Arado 234 did give the germans something that hadn't had since around 1942. Not only did it have the performance to excell it did give the Luftwaffe a reliable PR capability.



But not potentially the game changer that the 262 was - although the last model and the 4 engine version would have been devastaing to Allied bases in UK at the BEGINNING of 1944.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 19, 2009)

Soren said:


> parsifal said:
> 
> 
> > Parsifal lets please refrain from misinterpreting what I wrote on purpose. If a lone Fw-190D-9 attacked a US bomber stream in late 1944 or 1945 with a swarm of escorts keeping a close eye, then sorry but the Fw-190D-9 is deadmeat in that case. It would be unable to escape the escorts, the P-51 being just as fast in level flight and on top of that featuring generally better performance at high alts whilst on top of that always flying above the bombers to come zooming down. Only the Me262 had a good chance of getting away with such an attack. It was nearly 200 km/h faster than its' closest opposition. Like many of the pilots who faced the Me262 in combat have put it: _"It went by at a speed which made it look like we were standing still"_
> ...


----------



## Soren (Dec 19, 2009)

Parsifal you can't compare BoB to the situation facing the LW from 1944 to 1945. In 1944 to 45 the Allied bomber streams had escorts with enough fuel to not only stay and fight the interceptors, but also chase them all the way back to their home bases and back if need be. During the BoB escorting LW fighters hardly had enough fuel to stay and fight off any attackers in the first place.

Sorry Parsifal, but there just is no comparison to be made here and I am sticking with my point as-well. A lone 190 attacking a heavily guarded Allied bomber stream in late 1944 to 45 was as good as dead.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 19, 2009)

parsifal said:


> Soren said:
> 
> 
> > I agree that the 262 had a tremendous advantage in survivability due to its speed, but I stick to my point. Its not absolutely essential for survivability to have a jet powered aircraft in heavily outnumbered situations....ther are many ways to gain speed advantages, and there are many examples of small numbers of fighters against large formations attacking and getting away with it.
> ...


----------



## parsifal (Dec 19, 2009)

I agree with everything you are saying DG, but that was not the claim made by Soren. Check back on his posts and you will see that he did not qualify his statements about lone interceptors against large formations at any point. What I am saying is that the Sorens statement might apply to one moment in time, one particular campaign, but not as a general rule applicable to every or most situations. Mostly lone fighters had a good chance to make and intercption and get away with it. this certainly happened to the Japanese over places like Iwo (eg Sakais run in with US Hellcats), Mutos fight over the Home islands, and of course in the BOB. It happened all the time on the East front, and in the MTO as well.

Plus I am not convinced that the 262 can be claimed as the only aircraft that could claim this distinction over germany in the time period you mention. I think there were types and situations where the Prop fighters of the LW could also undertake these attacks and have some hope of survival. 

I am reading a book at the moment called "1941- Part II - The Blitz to the Non-Stop Offensive" It gives a day by day description of the fights over Western Europe and Britain in that 1940-41 period. There are countless occasions described in the book of a lone fighter (from both sides) being found isolated, surrounded and heavily outnumbered, and making good its escape. 

My belief is that the more resources you pour into the battle, the more potential losses you risk. You also stand to take bigger winnings if your forces are successful. The trouble, from the LWs POV from the latter part of '44, was that the dice were so heavily stacked against them, that no matter whether they tried the "Big wing" or the small hit and run strategies, they were going to lose regardless. I never raised that as an argument in this debate. My point is that in most instances, hit and run attacks can be undertaken....you dont need a 262 to undertake that sort of mission. I deliberately spoke about the BoB to highlight that diffrerent situations could result in different outcomes....


----------



## Clay_Allison (Dec 20, 2009)

Soren said:


> Parsifal you can't compare BoB to the situation facing the LW from 1944 to 1945. In 1944 to 45 the Allied bomber streams had* escorts with enough fuel to not only stay and fight the interceptors, but also chase them all the way back to their home bases and back if need be. *During the BoB escorting LW fighters hardly had enough fuel to stay and fight off any attackers in the first place.
> 
> Sorry Parsifal, but there just is no comparison to be made here and I am sticking with my point as-well. A lone 190 attacking a heavily guarded Allied bomber stream in late 1944 to 45 was as good as dead.



call me crazy but I'd call that a "big advantage".


----------



## Glider (Dec 20, 2009)

drgondog said:


> Originally Posted by Glider
> Blimey, you, me, Bill and FJ all in agreement a first
> 
> *absolutely NOT the first time - by far*



Blimey, lighten up a little


----------



## Soren (Dec 20, 2009)

Sorry Parsifal but there is no comparing the BoB, or the airwar in the Pacific, with the airwar over western Europe in late 1944 to 45. Allied escorts were many, fast and had long legs, while at the same time the LW were seriously outnumbered and lacked fuel trained pilots. 

So while a lone fighter might have been able to attack a bomber stream in 1943 and get away with it, it was an entirely different deal in late 1944 to 45 over western europe. Only a handful of very exotic aircraft could by then hope of attacking solo to achieve something and then get away alive, and that handful was the Me262, Ta152, Do335 He162, and that simply because these a/c featured performance so extraordinary that the escorts would have a tough time shooting them down even if they spotted them in good time.


----------



## Timppa (Dec 20, 2009)

It is impossible to decide between Bf109(Spain), Fw190A (early), A6M2, P-51B, or F6F. All these planes changed the balance significantly.

As of Me-262, despite of its potential, it did not bring any actual advantage, because:
1. Hopelessly inferior numbers.
2. Inadequate pilot training.
3. Serious technical problems (very unreliable engines,weak langing gear, tyres, trim problems, etc. (see Boehme)). The plane was brought to service way too early (by necessity though).
4. Lack of fuel.


----------



## Soren (Dec 20, 2009)

Beside the engines being unreliable because of substitute metals being used in production, the Me262 didn't experience any real technical problems. Trim wasn't an issue, the whole horizontal tailplane was adjustable and featured trim taps, and the rudder featured trim tabs as-well. The USAAF however experienced some issues with trim testing one Me262 as all the trim tabs had been welded shut for some mysterious reason. 

As for the landing gear being weak, I've heard this before but seen no proof at all.

Anyway technical problems wasn't what kept the Me262 from ruling the skies, that was the lack of numbers, trained pilots fuel as-well as being completely outnumbered in the air.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 20, 2009)

Soren said:


> As for the landing gear being weak, I've heard this before but seen no proof at all.



Arrow to the Future by Walter Boyne Page 115 - The landing gear was made from low grade steel and drawn seamless tubing for the oleos. Borne states "The resulting structure was relatively light weight and easy to produce, but not very robust, and was the major cause for the aircraft for being out of commission."


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 20, 2009)

From the people who built the 262 replicas

"As the landing gear was known to be another weak area on the original Me 262, a detailed analysis of landing gear stresses was directed. This process revealed that a shock loading was generated by the spin-up forces of the large, heavy main wheels, which had to be reacted into by the wing landing gear attachment structure. This placed a severe demand upon wing spar area and the airframe simply had to absorb these forces. Over time, this would have had a devastating effect upon the aircraft."

Me 262 PROJECT TECHNICAL DATA


----------



## renrich (Dec 20, 2009)

There is the proof about the landing gear!


----------



## drgondog (Dec 20, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> From the people who built the 262 replicas
> 
> "As the landing gear was known to be another weak area on the original Me 262, a detailed analysis of landing gear stresses was directed. This process revealed that a shock loading was generated by the spin-up forces of the large, heavy main wheels, which had to be reacted into by the wing landing gear attachment structure. This placed a severe demand upon wing spar area and the airframe simply had to absorb these forces. Over time, this would have had a devastating effect upon the aircraft."
> 
> Me 262 PROJECT TECHNICAL DATA



I'm trying figure out just what issue they defined. 

Joe - Virtually all wing mounted gear was/is designed to absorb both shock and bending in the main spar, so the 262 by that definition would not have been any different.

Larger wheels would tend to create more eccentric loads to a yoke (than smaller tires) before being resolved into compression and shear loads on the strut. The torque box design should be designed to transmit the torque created by lateral loads on tire into shear panels while the rest (vertical) Has to be taken by the Spar and translated to the fuselage structure designed to take all the wing loads..


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 20, 2009)

drgondog said:


> I'm trying figure out just what issue they defined.
> 
> Joe - Virtually all wing mounted gear was/is designed to absorb both shock and bending in the main spar, so the 262 by that definition would not have been any different.
> 
> Larger wheels would tend to create more eccentric loads to a yoke (than smaller tires) before being resolved into compression and shear loads on the strut. The torque box design should be designed to transmit the torque created by lateral loads on tire into shear panels while the rest (vertical) Has to be taken by the Spar and translated to the fuselage structure designed to take all the wing loads..



Agree - it seems someone on the replica team saw something really wrong when analyzing the original design.

I think the biggest problem would be with a drawn seamless tubing for the landing gear of an aircraft that would have to operate off of grass strips, evidently the gear was built for mass production. I read on several occasions that this was a problem with the 262. Adding low grade steel trunnions and link fittings didn't help, but then again the need at the time was to have the aircraft rapidly produced.


----------



## Soren (Dec 20, 2009)

FLYBOYJ I concede regarding the landing gear, just reread some of my books and there were indeed even a few Me262's which crashed on hard landings due to a landing gear failure. Doesn't say wether it was the main landing gear or the nose gear which failed though in any of the cases.


----------



## drgondog (Dec 20, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Agree - it seems someone on the replica team saw something really wrong when analyzing the original design.
> 
> I think the biggest problem would be with a drawn seamless tubing for the landing gear of an aircraft that would have to operate off of grass strips, evidently the gear was built for mass production. I read on several occasions that this was a problem with the 262. Adding low grade steel trunnions and link fittings didn't help, but then again the need at the time was to have the aircraft rapidly produced.



They sure as hell didn't have the luxury of doing forgings or castings with the 'lead times' available to them..


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 20, 2009)

Soren said:


> FLYBOYJ I concede regarding the landing gear, just reread some of my books and there were indeed even a few Me262's which crashed on hard landings due to a landing gear failure. Doesn't say wether it was the main landing gear or the nose gear which failed though in any of the cases.



Hard to say - I would think that any torsional loads on the mains during a x-wind or single engine landing could cause big problems.



drgondog said:


> They sure as hell didn't have the luxury of doing forgings or castings with the 'lead times' available to them..


 Very true - I've seen lead times as long as a year for certain types of aircraft.


----------



## Sweb (Dec 30, 2009)

All you needed was one airplane with a better performance advantage over the rest and it needn't be an extreme advantage. The pilots took it from there. Though the 262 was fast, it was too fast. It had hitting power but those weapons were slow muzzle velocity, in-close weapons that put the 262's performance disadvantageous to it's purpose as an interceptor. Yea, it could scoot but it couldn't scoot _and_ be an effective weapon at those speeds. It needed to be flown slower to put the pilots in-close with sufficient time-on-target to bring their cannons in where they were most effective. Engine spool-up was slow so speed recovery was slow. At high speed there was little time to put enough fire power on any given target, not to mention the very real target fixation that got many pilots in trouble by staying too long on a firing run and wrenching the crap out of the plane to avoid hitting the target. At 500 MPH closing speed, there's precious little time from the instant a target is within _effective_ range to the moment of collision and head-on attacks at those closing speeds of 7-800 mph were a pointless waste of ammunition. Tactics for using an extremely high-performance, easily flamed (fragile) airplane against a very slow moving target required reducing performance to stay with that target. In that performance envelop the 262 was outmoded by the P-51, hands down.


----------



## renrich (Dec 31, 2009)

Was watching the latest rendition of "Dogfights" the other night and reflecting on fights between F4s and Mig 17s and comparing that to a fight between the ME262 and a P51. The F4 had a huge advantage in speed but could not stay with a Mig 17 in turn so had to adopt energy tactics to compete. Strikes me that the ME262 faced the same problem with the P51. Were the ME262 pilots able to utilise the same energy tactics as the F4s did?


----------



## drgondog (Dec 31, 2009)

renrich said:


> Was watching the latest rendition of "Dogfights" the other night and reflecting on fights between F4s and Mig 17s and comparing that to a fight between the ME262 and a P51. The F4 had a huge advantage in speed but could not stay with a Mig 17 in turn so had to adopt energy tactics to compete. Strikes me that the ME262 faced the same problem with the P51. Were the ME262 pilots able to utilise the same energy tactics as the F4s did?



They probably could have used them had they developed the high speed scissors and yo yo to take advantage of the energy they had. IIRC the energy manueverability tactics were developed and refined in the late 50's and certainly taught in Top Gun and Red Flag for US fighters.

John Boyd was a pioneer for USAF, and if you believe the stories, the USN which adopted his doctrines from Fighter School.


----------



## renrich (Jan 1, 2010)

Thanks, Bill, you answered my question. It came clear to me that an AC with a huge Vmax advantage making a run on an AC much slower making a tight turn could not only not get in position to make hits but could also, in an overshoot, if the slow guy reversed, put itself in a position to be shot down. I did not know if the energy tactics such as the high yoyo had been developed yet or if the Me262 had the performance to execute those tactics. Seems pretty obvious that in fighter combat, as long as the slow AC has the faster AC in sight, the slow one is not always at a disadvantage.


----------



## vinnye (Jan 2, 2010)

I voted for the Fw190 - because as posted elsewhere - it was superior to the best the RAF had at that time - the Spitfire Mk V. Which was a good fighter by every other standard at that time - the 190 caused a huge problem which needed a swift response. It was the addition of the supercharger to the merlin that became the Mk IX which enabled the Allies to take the 190 on with a even chance.
The Me262 was a problem - but only in the same way the Tiger tank was on the ground. There were not enough of them to change the way the war was going - but they made things more difficult. The fear of the Tiger and the fear of the 262 - were greater than the impact that either had on the war.
Having said that - i would not have wanted to be in a bomber flying missions in Europe or a member of a British or American tank crew either!


----------



## parsifal (Jan 2, 2010)

FW 190 was a great aircraft, thats for sure, but it not have a significant impact on loss rates when introduced. RAF returns for their Day fighter units dont show any significant spike as a result of the introduction of the FW 190. What the FW 190 did allow was for hit and run raids to be made over British territory, with some hope of survival.

Another significant detail to note was the success of the FW 190 over Dieppe. The Luftwaffe did very well in that fight, but as a general tend, there was no significant reversal of the general trends occurring at that time.

With regard to allied bombers, there was a heavy loss rate, but in the case of the RAF night offensive, it was not so much the FW 190s that inflicted that damage, rather the more sedate Ju88s and Me 110s (along with some other odds and ends) that decimated the Bomber streams. The eight air force suffered quite heavily whilst the bombers were inadequately protected, but the tables turned after the introduction of the P-51. From that point on the Luftwaffe was the force taking the pounding. A similar story , but not quite as dramatic occurred with the Night Bombers, after the Bommber streams started to receive increased protection from British Night Fighters, and also ,somewhat earlier, with the use of Window

As I said the FW 190 was a great aircraft, but it did not turn the tables on the allies in any sense of the word


----------



## Soren (Jan 2, 2010)

Sweb said:


> All you needed was one airplane with a better performance advantage over the rest and it needn't be an extreme advantage. The pilots took it from there. Though the 262 was fast, it was too fast. It had hitting power but those weapons were slow muzzle velocity, in-close weapons that put the 262's performance disadvantageous to it's purpose as an interceptor. Yea, it could scoot but it couldn't scoot _and_ be an effective weapon at those speeds. It needed to be flown slower to put the pilots in-close with sufficient time-on-target to bring their cannons in where they were most effective. Engine spool-up was slow so speed recovery was slow. At high speed there was little time to put enough fire power on any given target, not to mention the very real target fixation that got many pilots in trouble by staying too long on a firing run and wrenching the crap out of the plane to avoid hitting the target. At 500 MPH closing speed, there's precious little time from the instant a target is within _effective_ range to the moment of collision and head-on attacks at those closing speeds of 7-800 mph were a pointless waste of ammunition. Tactics for using an extremely high-performance, easily flamed (fragile) airplane against a very slow moving target required reducing performance to stay with that target. In that performance envelop the 262 was outmoded by the P-51, hands down.



Sorry but you've got it the wrong way around. The superior performance of the Me262 was an advantage, not a disadvantage. The Me262 needed but to spot the P-51, head in for a shot, and providing the P-51 didn't make too many unpredictable maneuvers then that would be the end of it. Otherwise the Me262 would simply do a hard pullout and gain altitude, reverse and come back down for another shot.

Also note that if a P-51, or any fighter for that matter, makes a straight turn whilst having an enemy on its tail, then it will be making itself EXTREMELY vulnerable to a deflection shot. So if a P-51 pilot was to spot a Me262 on his tail then one of his worst moves would be to make a straight turn, the Me262 pilot then only having to pull lead and let loose a burst with a good chance of hitting the target. The best thing the P-51 pilot could was to conduct a barrel roll, that would throw the aim of the Me262 off.

As for reversing on an overshooting Me262, well it would be very hard as the Me262 would be going by so fast that the P-51 wouldn't able to get guns on target before the 262 was well out of range, esp. not if the Me262 pilot knows what he's doing. Incase of an overshoot the experiened Me262 pilot would pull up sharply, pulling 7+ G's, and gain altitude very fast. And such a maneuver would ensure that the P-51, or any piston engined fighter of the period, would be completely unable to get guns on target before the 262 was well out of range.

The outcome would be the same as when pitting an F4U-4 Corsair against a A6M2 Zero, if both a/c are flown by experienced pilots the A6M is deadmeat most of the time.


----------



## renrich (Jan 2, 2010)

If an ME262 is Making a run on the P51 from the 6:00 position at 450 mph and the P51 is doing 350 mph and pulls a max G turn, can the ME262 turn inside the P51 in order to pull lead? A comparable example would be a Corsair at 350 mph and an A6M at 250 mph. Under those conditions the USN told their pilots not to dogfight with the A6M.


----------



## Soren (Jan 3, 2010)

renrich said:


> If an ME262 is Making a run on the P51 from the 6:00 position at 450 mph and the P51 is doing 350 mph and pulls a max G turn, can the ME262 turn inside the P51 in order to pull lead? A comparable example would be a Corsair at 350 mph and an A6M at 250 mph. Under those conditions the USN told their pilots not to dogfight with the A6M.



Pulling lead on your opponent is not the same as going into a furball with him Renrich. If a Zero pulled a straight turn with a F4U on its tail it would present a very nice target for the incoming F4U. The F4U pilot just has to note the direction of the turn, pull lead and squeeze off a 1 second burst. Chances of a hit are good. And the exact same goes for a P-51 with an Me262 on its tail.

The best move for the Zero would be to do a half barrel roll and then reverse direction by pulling out. This will make targeting extremely difficult for the incoming F4U and force it to either try and follow the maneuver, which it cant cause it's going too fast and the Zero is at an advantage in an angles fight, or climb for another attack. And again, the exact same goes for a P-51 with a Me262 on its tail. 

In the end though the nimbler but much slower opponent is at a serious disadvantage as the more powerful opponent will be able to completely dictate the whole engagement, going in for pass after pass until a successful hit is made. And neither the F4U or Me262 needed many hits to down their opponents in question.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Jan 3, 2010)

Soren said:


> Pulling lead on your opponent is not the same as going into a furball with him Renrich. If a Zero pulled a straight turn with a F4U on its tail it would present a very nice target for the incoming F4U. The F4U pilot just has to note the direction of the turn, pull lead and squeeze off a 1 second burst. Chances of a hit are good. And the exact same goes for a P-51 with an Me262 on its tail.
> 
> The best move for the Zero would be to do a half barrel roll and then reverse direction by pulling out. This will make targeting extremely difficult for the incoming F4U and force it to either try and follow the maneuver, which it cant cause it's going too fast and the Zero is at an advantage in an angles fight, or climb for another attack. And again, the exact same goes for a P-51 with a Me262 on its tail.
> 
> In the end though the nimbler but much slower opponent is at a serious disadvantage as the more powerful opponent will be able to completely dictate the whole engagement, going in for pass after pass until a successful hit is made. And neither the F4U or Me262 needed many hits to down their opponents in question.


all of this applies to a "far fight" which the prevailing conditions in the war didn't allow for. so the Me262 had a great advantage in a fight that it wasn't in. It's like taking a semi-auto pistol into a room full of people carrying six shooters. Advantage? None that matters.


----------



## Soren (Jan 4, 2010)

Well I wasn't really talking about the advantage it gave the Luftwaffe as a whole Clay, only the advantage it gave the individual pilot. The Me262 was the a/c which introduced the greatest advantage any plane ever had over the rest. In the big picture it ofcourse wasn't enough however, seeing that it was usually outnumbered 12 to 1 by Allied escorts, but that's not what the thread is about as I see it.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Jan 4, 2010)

Soren said:


> Well I wasn't really talking about the advantage it gave the Luftwaffe as a whole Clay, only the advantage it gave the individual pilot. The Me262 was the a/c which introduced the greatest advantage any plane ever had over the rest. In the big picture it ofcourse wasn't enough however, seeing that it was usually outnumbered 12 to 1 by Allied escorts, but that's not what the thread is about as I see it.


See, I read it as "Which fighter brought the biggest new advantage to the war effort?" not "Which fighter brought the biggest new advantage to a hypothetical individual air duel?"

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## renrich (Jan 10, 2010)

Have been reviewing my copy of Shaw's "Fighter Combat Tactics and Maneuvering." A direct quote, "As long as the defender has awareness, speed and altitude for maneuvering, he can make the task of an attacking gunfighter almost impossible." He is saying that if the defender can see the attacker and if the defender's AC has somewhat optimum speed and altitude for it's maneuvering envelope, the defender can almost always make the attacker's task impossible and if the attacker is careless the defender can become offensive. There seems to be in the book an example of a one v one engagement between a P51 and a ME262. Based on the tactics Shaw demonstrates I find it hard to believe, as I stated in an earlier post, that a P51 could not evade an attack on his six, which would be a" pure pursuit" with a 100 mph overtake by the ME262, if he sees the attacker and pulls a hard turn. If the attacker tries to turn inside the defender to pull lead for a tracking shot, IMO he will not be able to do so and risks an overshoot and if the P51 reverses he could become offensive and be presented with a snap shot. I believe that the ME262 although deadly against bombers and with a speed advantage which allowed it to either accept or reject combat did not really pose much risk for a well flown Allied fighter unless the fighter was unaware of the ME262, which would be pretty much the same situation if the German pilot was flying a 109 or 190. The tactical situation was changed somewhat by the ME 262 but in no way was the appearance of the ME262 as profound as was the deployment of the A6M in late 1940 through 41 and 42. There was no single engined fighter in the world, let alone carrier fighter, which had the range of the A6M. It had an immense influence on the strategy employed by the Japanese high command. When a fighter with the fighting qualities of the A6M can be effective at distances which in some cases were twice as great as the opposition's fighters, that is a huge impact.


----------



## riacrato (Jan 13, 2010)

The Me 262 pilot doesn't want to attack the P-51, he wants to attack the bombers. If he plays his cards right, he can do so almost with impunity.

Regarding fighter-fighter combat. Likewise an aware Bf 109 pilot could avoid combat with a P-51. Reality though shows the latter to be the more successful. There were rarely one-on-one duels. Both fighters will have more than one fighter to watch out for, will never have perfect awareness and will make mistakes sooner or later. And in those cases I'd rather have the fighter that has a high top speed, fast climb and good acceleration.


----------



## Soren (Jan 13, 2010)

Renrich,

It all depends on wether the attacker is an experienced pilot or not, cause the experienced pilot will not allow himself to overshoot in the manner you suggest. If the P-51 pilot sees the Me262 coming in from behind and makes a sharp turn to evade, then he will give the Me262 a window in which to get a deflection shot. He can only avoid this by doing a half barrel roll, making a deflection shot almost impossible. Now if the Me262 pilot misses with his burst, then providing he knows what he's doing he will simply pull up and climb away to gain altitude for another pass. And the exact same was the case when the A6M Zero and F4U Corsair squared off against each other, the Corsair pilot wasn't going to try and match the Zero's turn, that would've been a dumb move.


----------



## renrich (Jan 17, 2010)

Soren, Are you saying that an attacker in a pure pursuit in a ME262 with around 100 mph overtake speed can, if the defender in a P51 makes a hard turn, also turn hard enough to pull lead and take a tracking shot? A Meteor, with a lower wing loading than the ME262, could not turn with a P51 so I don't believe that a ME262 could either, especially going 100 mph faster.


----------



## riacrato (Jan 19, 2010)

The consensus during all of WW2 was that speed is more important than turning ability. How is it that this is not valid anymore now? Can, under the ideal circumstances you proposed, a Zero evade an attack by a Corsair? Likely. What was the reality? The Zeros got slaughtered.


----------



## JoeB (Jan 19, 2010)

riacrato said:


> The consensus during all of WW2 was that speed is more important than turning ability. How is it that this is not valid anymore now? Can, under the ideal circumstances you proposed, a Zero evade an attack by a Corsair? Likely. What was the reality? The Zeros got slaughtered.


I think it was somewhat more complicated actually. The big advantage of speed was to be able to engage and disengage at will, so only fight when the circumstances were favorable. But speed wasn't the only determinant of that. You mentioned the reality, which for P-51 v Me-262 was generally different from idealized one on one match up, where besides being generally idealized almost never consider the differing endurance of the two a/c. In a typical situation, 262, though greatly faster, was often fuel limited, even right near its bases, compared to much easier fuel situation of P-51's. So even if the 262 went on the offensive, the alert and reasonably skille P-51 pilot, also enjoying superb visibility in the P-51D could usally turn into the attack of a faster a/c and force a deflection shot few WWII pilots could make. The problem with such a tactic comes when the slower plane must disengage on account of fuel and numerous fast enemy are still around to chase it down, but that was seldom the case in 'the reality' between P-51's and Me-262's which is one reason the real kill ratio of P-51 v Me-262 was probably more favorable than F4U v Zero, actually.*

*I still haven't seen specific evidence contradicting Foreman/Harvey book data, plus our own poster Drgondog's specific data that quite few P-51's were actually downed by Me-262's perhaps less than 10, though 262's claimed a lot, German late WWII claims were generally quite exaggerated, while something like a 100 262's were downed by P-51's. But even quibbling with those numbers, the real kill ratio of F4U to Zero wasn't anywhere near that. The total claimed ratio of F4U's against all opponents for the war, not just fighters, was 11:1, but that's at least a 2:1 overstatement. In Solomons 1943 the real ratio was definely much less than half that, no way as high as P-51 v Me-262, though it was generally in favor of the F4U after a few early unsuccessful combats (for example the 'Valentines Day Massacre', Feb 14 1943, 4 P-38's, 2 P-40's, 2 F4U's, 2 PB4Y's lost v 1 Zero lost) and moreover would be compared to a 1:1 ratio at best that any Allied fighter managed v Zeroes in 1942 (any 1942 fighter with a lot of combats that is, P-38's did well against Zeroes in a handful of combats right at the end of '42); and it would also be compared to highly unfavorable ratio's of many Allied types in 1942 and even some in 1943 (like the Spitfire V) v Zeroes.

Joe


----------



## riacrato (Jan 19, 2010)

I was simplifying on purpose. Though I generally agree on your points, comparing kill ratios in this particular case is kind of futile due to the different missions of the two fighters (P-51 and Me 262), almost opposite mission profiles in fact.

I stand by my point that when pitted directly against each other, a squadron of Me 262s vs a squadron of late war piston fighters, all else being equal, my money is on the jets. It rarely (if ever) happened like that, yet I doubt that the 'laws' established by the leading air forces and more or less proven during the years before for piston-vs-piston aircraft and later for jet-vs-piston and finally jet-vs-jet aircraft are somehow not applicable here: And that is that speed, climb and ceiling are more important than turning circle and maneuverability.


----------



## drgondog (Jan 19, 2010)

renrich said:


> Soren, Are you saying that an attacker in a pure pursuit in a ME262 with around 100 mph overtake speed can, if the defender in a P51 makes a hard turn, also turn hard enough to pull lead and take a tracking shot? A Meteor, with a lower wing loading than the ME262, could not turn with a P51 so I don't believe that a ME262 could either, especially going 100 mph faster.



Renrich - strictly speaking the a/c overtaking from a high speed from 5-7 O'Clock WILL have a snap deflection shot available if the pursued sees him and times a hard break accordingly - the issue is that a very small window to shoot is available to a high deflection shot and no real opportunity to track the adversary with a pursuit curve.

A good analogy is combat film showing a Zero pull high G turn in front of a Hellcat or P-38 - then disappear from the film. If the rudder and stick input isn't perfect the pursuing fighter needs to just keep boring straight ahead.


----------



## renrich (Jan 19, 2010)

Bill, you are making the point I have tried to make. Another example of that is Saburo's relating of his incident over, I think, Okinawa when his A6M was set upon by several Hellcats. He evaded them all until his arms were worn out and they finally gave up. He only had one eye also. I repeat again not verbatim from Shaw's book, "Fighter Combat, Tactics and Maneuvering," that a well flown and aware defender can make it almost impossible for a gun's attacker to be successful. In trying to digest his book, which is highly technical and which forces the reader to think in three dimensions, I have come to realise how difficult it must have been in WW2 to actually make hits on another fighter. It makes one understand why Hartmann's tactics were to get so close that 

the enemy AC filled his windshield before opening fire.


----------



## drgondog (Jan 19, 2010)

renrich said:


> Bill, you are making the point I have tried to make. Another example of that is Saburo's relating of his incident over, I think, Okinawa when his A6M was set upon by several Hellcats. He evaded them all until his arms were worn out and they finally gave up. He only had one eye also. I repeat again not verbatim from Shaw's book, "Fighter Combat, Tactics and Maneuvering," that a well flown and aware defender can make it almost impossible for a gun's attacker to be successful. In trying to digest his book, which is highly technical and which forces the reader to think in three dimensions, I have come to realise how difficult it must have been in WW2 to actually make hits on another fighter. It makes one understand why Hartmann's tactics were to get so close that
> 
> the enemy AC filled his windshield before opening fire.



You made the point - I just amplified it a tad..


----------



## SamPZLP.7 (Mar 12, 2012)

I would say the Me 262. It brought great secrets to life and surprised the enemy.


----------



## Conslaw (Jan 22, 2013)

I know this thread has been pretty dead for almost a year, but I want to put in a case for the F6F Hellcat. The A6M Zero was the first naval air superiority fighter, but the F6F beat the Zero at its own game. From the beginning of the Hellcat era in the summer of 1943, the Americans only lost one fast carrier to air attack, and ththat was the light carrier Princeton which was the victim of a single lucky hit. The raids on Truk in February 1944 and the Marianas "Turkey Shoot" in June showed that the F6F could reign supreme over the best opposition the enemy could offer. From that point on the Pacific was an American lake. The US Navy could go where it wanted whenever it wanted. 

One could argue that the F4U Corsair could have performed the same role. The Corsair was just as good a fighter plane as the F6F, but it wasn't as good a carrier plane. The Hellcat's low operational loss rate was as much a factor in its success as its kill ratio. That the F6F was ready to go when the new fast carriers were ready, and that it was available for carrier duty in the quantities needed at least until the major kamikaze attacks of 1945, is why I nominate the F6F as the fighter that gained the best new advantage when it was introduced. 

The Me262 had more of a performance advantage, but it was an advantage that couldn't be exploited by the Germans. The P51B was important but it was only available in limited quantities until March 1944. In the meantime, the P-47 units had made a lot of headway in taking out the cream of the German pilots. The P-38 was also available for long-range escort about the same time as the P-51.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jan 23, 2013)

Nobody can deny that F6F was the great CV fighter, bringing in a combination of good handling, decent performance, useful punch and combat radius. 
But it was not the F6F that turned Pacific into American lake, that would be F4F, P-38/-39/-40, along with SBD and other, not only US planes pilots, greatly aided by use of radar, and a bucket of luck. By the time F6F started to show in numbers, the Japanese best were not best anymore, not the pilots, nor the CV arcraft.

The P-51B have had an advantage in pursuing the LW deep into Germany, close to Polish border. Not even the flight schools were immune to P-51s. It took time for the P-47 to achieve that, by basing it on the Continent, but by then the LW presented no problems for Allied AFs.


----------



## drgondog (Jan 23, 2013)

Conslaw said:


> The Me262 had more of a performance advantage, but it was an advantage that couldn't be exploited by the Germans. The P51B was important but it was only available in limited quantities until March 1944. In the meantime, the P-47 units had made a lot of headway in taking out the cream of the German pilots. The P-38 was also available for long-range escort about the same time as the P-51.



Statistically, only two P-51B equipped Fighter Groups were operational in January 1944, namely the 354th (9AF) and 357th (8AF). Their impact however far exceeded their numerical strength versus the operational P-47 groups in the ETO (11). During Big week (2/20/44 to 2/25/44) the Mustangs destroyed 64.5 to 78 for the P-47 Groups despite comprising less than 13% of the escort fighters in the air. 

By the end of March, the three P-51B Groups destroyed more German aircraft in the air than all the P-47 victory credits for 1944 Jan-March, 
By the end of May the six operational P-51B groups had destroyed more in the air (and far more on the ground) than ALL the P-47 Victory credits Mar 1943 through May 30 1944 in the ETO for both 8th and 9th AF combined. 

There were no P51D victory credits until June 1944 so the air war victory over the LW in 1st half of 1944 belonged to the P-51B. 

The P-38 was important but not as significant in any respect (air combat or strafing) as the P-51 and P-47 by a very wide margin.

Having said that I voted for the 262 as the most dramatic capability leap during WWII.


----------



## Njaco (Jan 23, 2013)

> Having said that I voted for the 262 as the most dramatic capability leap during WWII.



End of discussion. 

As much as the P-51 brought to the table in WWII (which was tremendous), I agree that the 262 brought the best "new" advantage.


----------



## AirWolf (Jan 31, 2013)

What did the p51b 'give' exactly? Except the better wing design.


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 1, 2013)

It give plenty. If we talk about technicalities:
The wing itself was not only of low drag (due to shape exceptional finish), but also featuring enough of space to contain plenty of fuel, armament, ammo, along with space for the U/C to retract flush. Since all of that was located in the wing, it was no hassle to install an additional fuel tank in fuselage.
The design of radiator cmpartment was maybe the best of all inline-engined planes that saw combat in ww2, almost nullifyin the cooling drag.
Once the low-drag, plenty-of-fuel aircraft was mated with 2 stage engine, you have a great fighter. Compared with other planes that were offering performance combat range in the same time, it was far cheaper to produce operate. 

Those technicalities tuned into great strategical advantages: the low drag and competent engines allowed the plane to out pace anything Axis had, by a wide margin (an odd jet excluded), great fuel tankage allowed bringing the war deep into enemy-held airspace. The uncomplicated concept allowed to the production to ramp up, a great thing in a major war, that enabled both USAF Allied airforces to field it in good numbers.


----------



## Glider (Feb 1, 2013)

Looking at it from a different angle. I think the Fokker Eindecker deserves a mention. It wasn't a great airframe but it did bring the forward firing gun into the front line using interupter gear and it dominated the sky for a while until the allies caught up. The forward firing gun has stayed from then until now with few exceptions, The Defiant/Roc debacle and the early F4's who soon realised the error of the ways.

So there it is, I believe the Eindecker deserves a nod.


----------



## AirWolf (Feb 2, 2013)

tomo pauk said:


> It give plenty. If we talk about technicalities:
> The wing itself was not only of low drag (due to shape exceptional finish), but also featuring enough of space to contain plenty of fuel, armament, ammo, along with space for the U/C to retract flush. Since all of that was located in the wing, it was no hassle to install an additional fuel tank in fuselage.
> The design of radiator cmpartment was maybe the best of all inline-engined planes that saw combat in ww2, almost nullifyin the cooling drag.
> Once the low-drag, plenty-of-fuel aircraft was mated with 2 stage engine, you have a great fighter. Compared with other planes that were offering performance combat range in the same time, it was far cheaper to produce operate.
> ...



That's actually what i ment it was a very good design and also clever but there was already a plane with a big range, wich means you don't realy can call that a best "new" advantage.


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 2, 2013)

AirWolf said:


> That's actually what i ment it was a very good design and also clever but there was already a plane with a big range, wich means you don't realy can call that a best "new" advantage.



Not sure what you meant - you were pointing into one item from the whole aircraft, in a vague terminology ("the better wing design" - that meaning what?).
Also, in my post I've mentioned some other plane's qualities, not only the great combat range (plus the lack of detrimental compressibility effects, due to the very wing), that other long range planes lacked, be that Bf-110, P-38 or Zero. That giving the answer to your "What did the p51b 'give' exactly?" question.


----------



## AirWolf (Feb 2, 2013)

With the better wing disign, I ment the thing you sad about having 'everything' put in to it and the lesser drag it had compared to other planes than. The 'only'thing that it 'gave' was a way to be everything in one, and in my book that isn't really a reason to name it the best 'new advantage if it was there already, the only thing that was done from my point of view was making the concept better. instead of making something new like the first real monoplane fighter or the first long range fighter.
Having said that I get your point of being the first that putted all those things good together.
But that still doesn't make it the best 'new' advantage for me.


----------



## Supermarine-SpitfireMkXIV (Aug 21, 2018)

magnocain said:


> The Me262 by far.


Agreed


----------



## CORSNING (Aug 22, 2018)

I'd tend to go with the Me262 in terms of outright performance potential - there really was nothing that could equal it at the time. 

*Agreed, but the Vampire, Meteor and Shooting Star were just around the corner and coming fast.*


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 22, 2018)

And the He280 and P-59 were already there before the Me262.

Of the He162, P-80, Me262 and Meteor, only the Me262 and He162 saw combat against enemy aircraft. The closest occasion for jet versus jet combat came when 616 Sqdn. RAF was bombed by Ar234s.

All the other jets in the works (German, American, British, Japanese) had no bearing on the war, it was the Me262 that ushered in a new age, forcing a shift in tactics.


----------



## The Basket (Aug 22, 2018)

Bf 109.
Why only over Spain?


----------



## swampyankee (Aug 22, 2018)

The MiG-17 had a massive performance advantage over the AD Skyraider, but ADs shot them down. Obviously, the MiG drivers screwed up, but the swept-winged jets couldn't turn fast enough -- couldn't generate a sufficiently fast change in where the nose was pointing -- to retain a firing solution. Of course, the MiG had a much larger sweep.


----------



## CORSNING (Aug 23, 2018)

I apologize ahead of time to everyone. I am only up to page 6 of
this thread so I do not know what everyone has posted up to now.
From what I have read up to date it seems to me to that there is a
great amount of information to support several aircraft as being the
aircraft that brought the biggest new advantage at its time of introduction.
The Bf.109, Spitfire, P-51 (both versions), the Me.262 and even the
A6M.
I am going to answer this question from a different angle that Ramirezzz
brought up in Post #36 and Tomo pauk brought up in Post #95. They
were trying to tell everyone, or better yet ask everyone, what do all
these fighters have in common?
Cantiliver wing, ( auto starter ?), pilot armor, oxygen system, enclosed
canopy, retractable landing gear, the I-16 was the first production
monoplane fighter anywhere in the world to introduce this combination
in one package. As compared to its contemporaries in 1936 when it
was first introduced to combat, it was strongly built, capable of
withstanding considerable punishment, easily maintained and was
the fastest 1st line fighter. Keep in mind that the U.S.A.A.C's first line
fighter at the time was the P-26C. The Mosca could outclimb, out-
maneuver and outrun the Peashooter by as much as 42 mph.
What do you think guys, Jeff

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 23, 2018)

CORSNING said:


> I apologize ahead of time to everyone. I am only up to page 6 of
> this thread so I do not know what everyone has posted up to now.
> From what I have read up to date it seems to me to that there is a
> great amount of information to support several aircraft as being the
> ...



I guess it depends on what you call an "auto starter" 









But for the rest?
I agree that the I-16 is often forgotten in claims as to what plane was the "first" modern fighter.


----------



## CORSNING (Aug 23, 2018)

Shortround, you are probably right on the money about the auto
starter. Like Will Rodgers, I only know what I read in the news
papers.
Damn I like reading your posts, Jeff


----------



## Madelman (Sep 19, 2018)

CORSNING said:


> I apologize ahead of time to everyone. I am only up to page 6 of
> this thread so I do not know what everyone has posted up to now.
> From what I have read up to date it seems to me to that there is a
> great amount of information to support several aircraft as being the
> ...


I've a similar point, in 1938-39 I-16 and Me 109 were the planes that included the latest tech developments and marked the end of the biplane era and defined the how fighters would be in the next a years. In some aspects their impact in the fighter development are similar to the one of Me 262, everything changed after I-16 and 109


----------

