A myth about the Me 262?

[DonL]

The Me 163 was nothing else then a pilot killer.

The whole concept was wrong from fuel, speed and the possible tactic with only one try to shoot down an enemy a/c.
The concept wasn't developed any further after the war, which shows it was very inferior.

 

[DonL]

German defeat was not just about the failure of a few individuals at the top. its defeat was total, from top to bottom, a defeat of all things and all people who aligned with the german cause. german methods, ideas, procedures, organizations, strategy and tactics were all comprehensively and irrecoverably defeated. Why? Numbers, mismanagement, lack of resources, but the failure was comprehensive, total

If this post is refering to the german politics, of racism, violence, Übermenschen and the thousand year Reich it is true.
If it is refering to the Wehrmacht and the military of Germany at WWII it nothing more then bogus.

Absolutely.Particularly on the eastern front..at the beginning the limited resources avaliable to the germans dictated that they adopt narrow points of breakthrough....schwerepunkts, followed by deep penetrations. Tanks would then be forced to sit there and wait whilst the slow moving infantry formations completed the encirclements and cleaned up. generally worked, but it was innefficient, and many Soviets that should have been captured got away.

german logistics was terrible, and pretty much cost them the war. The idea that they could tack on a few mobile units to an unmotorized main body was busted, particualalry as the motorized elements of the infantry (what little they had) fell out of the floor, and then even the horsedrawn elements also lost mobility

And the list goes on and on....this is just one example

Their weapons were pretty good, procedures are just procedures, and almost everyone used similar tactics in simnilar situations at SOME time.
Dont agree, sorry.Some weapons were excelent, some were technically excellent, but the wrong tool for the job, others were downright awful. Examples of excellent include the Nebelwerfer, MP38, MG42, Stug III Me 109 ju88, type VII. Examples of technically excellent but the wrong tool for the job include Tigers, Panthers, most of theiir truck MT in Russia, their artillery in winter(it wouldnt work), their battleships and short range cruisers. examples of terrible equipment...type II,Narvik DDs, F-boote, early war torpedoes, Me 110, Me 210. The problem for the germans though isnt that their weapons were not good, in the main they were excellent, in the field. the problem was that there were never enough of them. okay, so they were behind the 8 from the start, but their production decisions certainly did not help them. The 262 is very much in this category. It wasnt really ready for squadron service in 1944, or even 1945, yet it was eating into their production at a time when they needed everything they could get their hands on. it was criminal how the germans tended to waste their production.

procedeures make all the difference. if procedures didnt matter,why did the french lose in 1940, why did the british get nowhere for 3 years (in NA),why did the germans clobber the russians 41-2. but the germns did not adapt as fast or as well as the allies, and allied/soviet methods were not the sameas german methods. German armoured warfare was fundamentally different to the allies. They focused on the tank, and centred their firepower around it, whereas by 1944, the allies, with their far greater levels of mobility wre able to implement integrated assault teams to a much greater extent than the germans. Dont get me wrong, the germans had some of that, but their formations and techniques of 1940were nothing like allied techniques of 1944, they werent like german techniques of 1944 either, and allied and German techniques remained fundamentally differtnt in 1944.

Russians adapted and produced a unique style of warfare that was all their own. They began the war with essentially western TOE and thinking....but it failed them badly. they simply did not have the technical skills to do what was the norm in the western armies. in the west, a division was more or less the main combat unit,with high levels of integration and a variety of weapins that its commandrs had to co-ordinate. But this required high levels of technical proficiency to produce a fully integrated team.The russians did not have the leadership skills, the technical skill, the mobility to dod any of that. sothey simplified the command problem...rifle divisions weredevoid of nearly everything except the basic weapons...almost quite literally a rifle division was a division with just rifles. what little artillery there was, was mostly for los shooting. The russians formed fuge artillery armies that were magnificant assault TOEs, but hopeless in defence. They found their tank formations hopeless as well, far too complicated for them to be workable, so they formed smaller, simipler Tank and mech brigades, with a few SMG armed men and afew mortars in support, so that such formations were within the level of complexity that their commanders could handle.

because of that lack of C&C, even later in the war the russians adapted. their formations were never as flexible as their German counterparts, So that meant complicated narrow front assaults wouldnt work. Instead the Russians adopted broad front tactics, and something the russians nicknamed a "Zhukov symphany" or "Zhikov orchestra". basically one offensive after another in rapid succession to keep the germans reeling and off balance. Eisenhower used the same approach in france in 1944. germans never used those sorts of tactics.

Your descriptions are all true, your analysis are very wrong with a tend to be ridiculous.

 

[GrauGeist]

If we look at kill-loss ratio, the Komet was a successful point defence interceptor, but lack of fuel and inefficient unit location limited its usefulness. Only few flew missions in 1945. It would have been a real asset as the Me 163C or 263 and armed with the R4M. The Natter was probably the best wonder weapon the Germans came up with in 1945. If time had allowed it, it would have revolutionized air combat over Germany. The idea was pure genius: basic trained pilots in a manned air defence missile whose only job was to fire the R4M or Foehn rockets towards the bombers, and then eject with the vital parts of the plane ready for re-use. Brilliant !

Kris

In an alternate universe, perhaps waves of Natter Vipers could have rose up to challenge Emporer Ming's space fleet, with Buck Rogers leading the charge, but here on earth and in this reality, the Natter was a drain on resources. They required assembly and then hoisting onto static launch pads. Their launch components needed manpower to recover in the field and if that weren't interesting enough...after intercepting the bomber formations, they had to glide back to thier launch point for recovery. God help them if the Allied fighters were in the area waiting for them like actually happened when the Me262 was taking off or landing. Also keep in mind that as "point defense" fighters, their launch areas had to be secured, meaning they could not be easily transferred to another airfield if the Wehrmacht couldn't hold the area.

Instead of this fantastic wonder-weapon, why not stay focused on what had already proven to work? The Fw190A-8 did terrible damage to the bombers, especially with Bf109 top cover. So did the Me410 and several other conventional types. And here's the bonus: they could actually defend themselves if challenged by Allied escorts instead of being dead meat floating along powerless...

The problem was air superiority. The Luftwaffe simply did not own thier own airspace. You could send up hundreds of Natters and they would possibly make a dent in the bomber stream that was darkening the German skies. But those hundreds of proposed Vipers built were that much in precious resources that would have been drawn away from production of proven performers.

 

[DonL]

@ Graugeist

It is more than obvious that even till today no a/c is flying with rocket fuel, because the concept isn't good for anything.
The Natter and the Komet were nothing else then pure desperate and far far away from anything that works or could be called a sustainable concept.

 

[GrauGeist]

True, Don...though the U.S. did examine the Me163, because of it's potential, after the war...but that never lead anywhere as far as warplane developement.

Rocket powered fighters were simply a dead-end in the evolution of military aviation, much like steam-powered aircraft and hydrogen filled airships.

 

[razor1uk]

True DonL, but in effect they were the first 'guided' anti-aircraft/bomber rocket (interceptor), who's development partially assisted in the continuing R&D of rocketry systems inc the; RATO, the developing Me.262C mix power BMW04RL , Ground to Air AA Rockets A4/V2 etc.

At the time with the tech knowledge, skills and industrial availability, the T K Stoffs were likely to be the most reactively powerful fuels then created for a given fuel load fuel weightage. The 163 did effectively fail as a weapon itself, although later in the war its design was adapted to try and make it formation killer/splitting unmanned rocket - had things progressed for longer, it in that guise might had a more damaging effect to the enemy than the farting flea did to its own pilots overall.

Luckely for pilots and ground crews post war chemicals and synsetisation processes created less volitile and more storage stable fuels that rendered the T K Stoffs largely redundant. Apparently the British used as similar rocket fuel system post war where the hydrazine permigranite reacted with a silver and something alloy mesh catalyst which made the Saunders Roe rocket plane safer and more 'throttlable'.

And some torpedoes or underwater hydrosonic missiles still use a variation of one of these stoffs (like the likely Kursk event) ....allegedly.

 

[Erich]

komet is fantasy, look at JG 400 records and it's ops whomever made it through that small ban alive went to JG 7.the LW records that the Schwalbe was the only thing that may put a partial block into the allied attack system..........ha ha

 

[DonL]

I agree razor1uk,

but a rocket at this time is unmanned and an a/c is in generals manned and this is the fundamental difference and my criticism.
Rockets were well known even at 1939, look at the development of the Nebelwerfer or Stalinorgel.
To me it is pure desperate to built manned rockets at this time. Something like Kamikaze.

 

[Erich]

Don you know this but it is not the German frame of mind to commit oneself like the Japanese did to a Kamikaze position.........

 

[DonL]

Yes I know, but there were very strong tendency at the end of the war with the Sonderkommando Elbe, some units of frogmen and the Werwolf units.
The nazi system wasn't disinclined to something like Kamikaze, thankfully the civic education to most of the very very young soldiers was stronger.

 

[razor1uk]

I did say the komet was a weapon systems faliure, but some of its componant parts and knowledge gained in makeing it lead to further things after it during the warring time of WW2.
Modern ideas, newer methods, usages and theories are largely irrelivant in that context to do with WW2, and only highlight the differences of now to then.
If not for that back then, what would we know now; we don't know what we don't know, only guess at what we think we dont...

...So how does the Komet tie into this 262 topic, e.g: apparently because its Luftwaffe or advanced for the 30's/40's tech?

 

[GrauGeist]

...So how does the Komet tie into this 262 topic, e.g: apparently because its Luftwaffe or advanced for the 30's/40's tech?

Because it was painted the same colors?

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I have a feeling by some posts, things might get heated in this thread. Keep it civil or don't post it at all. Don't make bait postings or cheap shots.

No one is immune or safe to act in any way other than a civil adult like manner.

 

[razor1uk]

roger

 

[Civettone]

???

From Wiki...

Wiki is wrong. The Me 163 shot down 16 bombers. It also lost less, but need to look up how many exactly.

The Me 163 was nothing else then a pilot killer.

Based on what? Folk stories about pilots being incinerated in their seats?

The whole concept was wrong from fuel, speed and the possible tactic with only one try to shoot down an enemy a/c.
The concept wasn't developed any further after the war, which shows it was very inferior.

What a logical fallacy! Simply because something is not continued with, does not make it bad. We don't use black powder explosives anymore, doesn't mean it was bad at the time. Several countries, especially France, developed rocket fighters well into the 1950s. It was discontinued because turbojets had developed in such a way that they made rocket fighters obsolete. But what was the first jet aircraft to fly? The He 176 rocket plane. What was the first operational jet fighter in the world? The Me 163. Not the He 178 or Me 262.

The Me 163 scored its first kills when its unit was still becoming operational. They had to work out a lot of technical difficulties, just like the Me 262 and other revolutionary aircraft. But Me 163 operations soon came to a halt, when methanol and other chemicals became even more rare than gasoline. If not, we can assume that the number of kills would have increased.
Later, the Me 163C and Me 263 were developed which had greater endurance. Armed with R4M rockets, it would have made a very strong short-range interceptor. Of course, it needed to be placed as much to the west as possible. Luftwaffe failed to do so and placed them in remote areas and around Leuna.

In an alternate universe, perhaps waves of Natter Vipers could have rose up to challenge Emporer Ming's space fleet, with Buck Rogers leading the charge, but here on earth and in this reality, the Natter was a drain on resources. They required assembly and then hoisting onto static launch pads. Their launch components needed manpower to recover in the field and if that weren't interesting enough...after intercepting the bomber formations, they had to glide back to thier launch point for recovery. God help them if the Allied fighters were in the area waiting for them like actually happened when the Me262 was taking off or landing. Also keep in mind that as "point defense" fighters, their launch areas had to be secured, meaning they could not be easily transferred to another airfield if the Wehrmacht couldn't hold the area.

You can joke about it as much as you like. It was a sound plan. You have to stop seeing them as fighter aircraft and start seeing them as manned SAMs. Germany did not have the technology to guide their missiles to target. Visual guidance as well as homing signals were still under development.
Your comment on manpower does not make any sense. You always need manpower to operate air defence, be it Flak, SAMs or fighter aircraft. The Natter was extremely cheap to build! Very simple construction with few strategic materials and a very light (around 150 kg) Walter rocket engine. Even a complete loss would not have mattered, as they could be easily replaced. They also did not require well trained pilots, which was the real structural reason why Germany had lost the air war, much more so than the lack of fuel.
Also, you make the mistake that these areas needed to be secured, because they might get overrun by the enemy? These manned rockets were going to be used near industry and cities, far away from the frontline.
Of course, if the Allies were about to invade Germany, nothing would have saved it.

Instead of this fantastic wonder-weapon, why not stay focused on what had already proven to work? The Fw190A-8 did terrible damage to the bombers, especially with Bf109 top cover. So did the Me410 and several other conventional types. And here's the bonus: they could actually defend themselves if challenged by Allied escorts instead of being dead meat floating along powerless...

None of this is true. The Fw 190A-8 was a dog at hight altitude, even more so when it was used as a Sturmjaeger. Even with a Bf 109 protection group twice its size, it got shot down like in a turkey shoot. The only times the Sturmjaege did any damage was when they managed to find an unescorted US bomber group. Same story with the Me 410. All good bomber destroyers, all shot down in great numbers.
The Natter would be impossible to intercept due to its speed, small size and climb rate. It had an exceptionally armoured cockpit. The only way the pilot would get lost if the Americans decided to shoot him down in his chute. And even then, both semi-pilot and aircraft were easily replaced.

Kris

 

[Erich]

Kris

sorry but I interviewed Späte as well as both Rudi Opitz's. the score was 12 claimed fewer confirmed by anyone for the ratsy Jg 400. the unit was worthless, don't even go any farther as this thread is on the 262 let's clear the air now start another one if you prefer on the Komet.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Wiki is wrong. The Me 163 shot down 16 bombers. It also lost less, but need to look up how many exactly.

Your source??? How about confirmed kills vs, claims?

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/messerschmitt-me-163-komet-24377.html#post664027


Spate, Wolfgang; Bateson, Richard (1975) Aircraft in Profile No.225, Messerschmitt Me 163 Komet - gives the same dismal numbers as well. the -163 was an operational failure, a great propaganda tool, but a failure.

 

[parsifal]

If this post is refering to the german politics, of racism, violence, Übermenschen and the thousand year Reich it is true.
If it is refering to the Wehrmacht and the military of Germany at WWII it nothing more then bogus.

Like I said, in my opinion German defeat was from top to bottom. Its moral bankruptcy is reflected in its racial policies, its political bankruptcy reflected by its inability to face facts as to its situation. Its military bankruptcy was its adherence to strategies no longer valid or obtainable given the resources Germany had at its disposal. Tactics and doctrine were wrong, equipment was wrong, military thinking was wrong, appraisals of what could and should be done off the planet. The system was utterly corrupted and utterly broken. It just took a little time for germans to realize it.

Your descriptions are all true, your analysis are very wrong with a tend to be ridiculous

.

Matter of opinion really, but please do tell what you find ridiculous. It might be good for a chuckle or two

 

[parsifal]

if we apply this debate to the issue, the Me262, it is a great microcosm of what was happening to Germany as a whole....off in lala land whilst the country faced the most serious crisis of its entire existence. If the Me 262 was developed and ready in '41 or '42, they could have spent 43 and the first paret of 44 getting over and around its numerous technical shortcomings. That would have meant a big differnce, as in the last 8 moths the Germans would have had a real game changer at their disposal. As it was, with so many faults and problems, it was nothing more than a distraction, a diversion of critical resources from where they were needed. 1400 Me 262s were built, about 200 were in squadron service at any one time, they managed to shoot down maybe 150 enemy aircraft and achieve an average serviceability rate of waht...25, 30 (according to Galland). Whata total waste of time....

 

[stona]

The Me 163 was nothing else then a pilot killer.

The whole concept was wrong from fuel, speed and the possible tactic with only one try to shoot down an enemy a/c.
The concept wasn't developed any further after the war, which shows it was very inferior.

But there was a lot of interest in rocket powered interceptors at the end of the war. It did prove to be a dead end but the British shipped no fewer than twenty Me 163s back to the UK compared with only seven Me 262s. It makes you wonder how they were thinking, given that they had invented the jet engine
We know with hindsight that jet power was the future, but they didn't in 1946.

BTW I only mentioned these aircraft to demonstrate just how desperate and difficult Germany's air defences became late in the war and to imply that the arrival of a jet like the Me 262, even in larger numbers, would still have been too little, too late.

Cheers
Steve