Best Tank Killer of WW2 continued (2 Viewers)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

If you think the 262 was too fast for tank busting just think of the jet aircraft today that do that stuff like the A-10. The A-10 would be comparable in speed while doing so. Also you have to remember that the 262 would not have been at full speed when attacking tanks.
 
Adler, the comparison with the A10 is 'unfair' : although the Warthog is roughly comparable in speed with a 262 (and also a FW190, being rated at a top speed of 420 mph!) there are 30+ years of progress to consider.

It is a completely different weapon system, the parameters of the seven barrell Gatling (like rate of fire, aiming devices accuracy) and the laser-guided missiles are in a different world.

I did not know that the 262 was actually used as anti-tank weapon as Erich says, but surely you need more time to line up a tank with your unguided rockets flying in rough air than radar-lock it with a laser missile or with the GAU8A. And you can do it from a much greater distance, ergo you have even more time!
 
Okay you really let this one fly past your head. My point was not comparing a Me-262 to an A-10. Read the post again. The point I was making is that a 262 is not going to attack at tanks at 500mph. It slows down lets say atleast 200 to 250 mph.
 
OK, but then I still have some doubt about the effectiveness of a 262 and the opportunity to have it perform that job
- If the attack speed is the same attainable by a FW190, the advantage of attacking at high speed (less time for AA to shoot at me and for the defensive fighters to shoot me down, if nothing else...) is lost
- the 262 was less rugged than a FW190F, making it more vulnerable to return fire
- Also the 262 weakness was the acceleration, I don't recall the exact figures but I think a 190 was faster in changing speed: the jet would have performed worse than the FW in zoom climbing to a safe height.
- A 262 was much more expensive than a Stuka or a FW, attacking tanks at 250 Mph you must consider losses due to AA fire and fighters (and at that speed the 262 was a sitting duck)

The A10 is armored enough to sustain AA fire, and anyway (like ANY of this specialized aircrafts) can be used only when air control is absolute, otherwise it would have the same loss rate of the IL 2.

In my opinion the best compromise between anti-tank effectiveness and survivability in a 'non-air-superiority' scenario was the FW 190 F fitted with Panzerbliz II
 
JG 7 attacked ground targets this is very true. Motor transport with Mine shells besides parked a/c which were sitting ducks. Panzerschreck headed R4M's were used on these missions especially armor attacked from the sides and the rear. Fast they were as the ground supported tri-flak could not track them.

the ground kills for the jet unit JG 7 were never be fully known as they were not kept due the overall trasfer from base to base, ground field to ground field, but the impression for what was going to be done in the future was readily apparent.... in April of 45. In March the JG 7 unit was still battling US fighters/bombers until almost months end. then it started attacking invading Soviet arms, still taking on allied a/c and Soviet a/c till the wars end.
 
I agree with you on the Fw-190F however I dont understand why you find it so hard to believe about the 262. She had excellent fire power and as Erich pointed out was hard to hit from the ground.
 
remember one thing and this is very important. 9/10th's and even more of the ground troops, British, US and Soviet had never seen the performance of the Me 262 let alone even one in action in the air. The speed was overwhelming and in several interviews of US ground troops the sound as it came before the jet even appeared did strike a bit of terror into the hearts of these men.
 
FW-190 s best weapons were its performances and handling, and the advantage of a more powerful engine without a vulnerable liquid cooling system.
Ju87's one was only one: its precision in aiming the target, that's the only purpose for it was projected.

I would have liked a Ju-87 with BMW 801 engine, two Mg-151 in the wings and a Mg-131 for the gunner and , if it doesn't worsen too much the stability in dive, a retractable ungercarriage.

Alternatively, a FW 190 A or G series with a stronger air frame , an "inverted gull " wing and with the Askania automatic system to go out from the diving.

Russians re-engined the Il-2 ( most of the Sturmoviks had been lost for hits in the cooling system) with a air-cooled Shvetsov with improved performances, but the prototype was soon dropped.I don' remember precisely, I will search data about the aircraft.....

Me 262A was used with a good success to strafe Allied flak guns during the attack of Arado 234s to Remagen bridge.[/quote]
 
side note. Me 262A-2's from KG ? did not do well in trying to bring down the Remagen bridge neither the Ar 234's.

Ju 87D's did quite well in the night ground attack role with increased pressure from RAF Mossie and US P-61 squadrons to try and intercept them. Some were shot down but the overall almost stalling speed of around 120-135mph and then a quick flip down through the ground haze to the deck through off many Allied night fighter crew.
 
Parmigiano said:
OK, but then I still have some doubt about the effectiveness of a 262 and the opportunity to have it perform that job
- If the attack speed is the same attainable by a FW190, the advantage of attacking at high speed (less time for AA to shoot at me and for the defensive fighters to shoot me down, if nothing else...) is lost
- the 262 was less rugged than a FW190F, making it more vulnerable to return fire
- Also the 262 weakness was the acceleration, I don't recall the exact figures but I think a 190 was faster in changing speed: the jet would have performed worse than the FW in zoom climbing to a safe height.
- A 262 was much more expensive than a Stuka or a FW, attacking tanks at 250 Mph you must consider losses due to AA fire and fighters (and at that speed the 262 was a sitting duck)

The A10 is armored enough to sustain AA fire, and anyway (like ANY of this specialized aircrafts) can be used only when air control is absolute, otherwise it would have the same loss rate of the IL 2.

In my opinion the best compromise between anti-tank effectiveness and survivability in a 'non-air-superiority' scenario was the FW 190 F fitted with Panzerbliz II
Click to expand...
At the mid-high altitudes the advantages of even primitive jet fighters was clear right across the flight envelope, it was certainly more restricted at lower altitudes especially in terms of overheating (thicker air, hotter burning), ground fire vulnerability (them turbojets just loved bursting into flames at the slightest provocation), and general airframe design (high stall speeds, poor low-speed manoeuvring characteristics, etc.).

Where their low altitude advantage was definitely clear was in sheer acceleration and climb rate. Put simply they did this more cleanly, more suddenly and with much more power than any piston engined aircraft (although some modern turboprops match 262 climb rates according to pilots who've built accurate reproductions).

The main advantage of using something like a 262 for ground attack is the inherent ability to get back up to speed quickly and sheer climb rate.
The main disadvantage was the vulnerability of early jet engines to ground fire on the necessarily "low and slow" approach of level ground attack and tricky engine management. The Me262 just wasn't designed for that and you're quite right about the 190F being much better suited to the role. Even better again would be a heavily armoured jet-engined attack aircraft if you can sort out those early turbojet bugs.

The idea that an Me262 was out accelerated by a piston engined aircraft of any description, at any altitude is frankly ridiculous. Below around 5000m altitude the margin by which the it utterly dominated piston engine's performance was simply lesser.

But before you go getting extreme, yes a Thunderbolt can shoot down a 262. Just if you put both in a civilian airshow their pilots will tell you plainly the jet dominates, right from the 262, it's just no contest under any conditions.

Most aircraft documentarians and historians unhesitantly refer to the Me262 as, "...the best fighter of the war, without question."
But I wouldn't be ignorant enough to quite start that debate at a forum like this.

And finally, in a survey taken of all peanut butter brands, people just preferred the Me262. Keep one in your cupboard, please for the children's sake. Think of the children.
 
The main advantage of using something like a 262 for ground attack is the inherent ability to get back up to speed quickly and sheer climb rate.
Click to expand...

From Wolfgang Wagner, "The history of German aviation-The first jet aircraft":

Major Wolfgang Schenk, experienced and highly decorated leader of KG 51 Edelweiss bomber wing trained his pilots in dive bombing profile using the reflective gunsight , with which he achieved an high accuracy rate: According to his report he dove at a 40 degrees angle beginning from a height of 5000 Meters and in doing so he maintained a constant airspeed of 950 Km/h.Sighting by the reflective gunsight he released the two 250 Kg bombs at an altitude no lower than 2000 Mts.such a recovery altitude was sufficient for the jet to pull up in time....during dive bombing tests in Lechfeld he achieved an average CEP of 18 Meters, a greater accuracy then the Ju-88 when it was used as dive bomber.
With his handful of men the major operated all along the front and sought out his targets himself , since he receaved no target assignments from headquarters.As the pilots began feeling comfortable with the dive bombing an order from the Fuhrer came down stating that they were not allowed to fly faster than 750 Km/H their aircrafts or to fly them below 4000 Mts under enemy territory.As a results from august 1944 the unit could no longer make accurate strikes, until the directive was rescinded in December of that year....

This operative profile is not exactly "tank killer" or close air support ( Il-2 or A10 Warthog's role),instead it was short range strike with a more strategical purpose.

More, thinking of Hitler's orders to stop the dive bombing we can speculate he was mad or perhaps something worse, but "paranoid delusion" is not necessariously linked to dementia or stupidity.
When he ordered to delay the production of jet fighters and to fit Me262 to bombing role he perhaps had a more strategically important outlook than the air defence of Reich: he was sure that Allieds would have landed in France one day, and in an Allied air superiority background Me262 was the only hope to effectively bomb and stop them still in British beachs before starting, making the whole project abort.

A new landing project could not have been planned before one year.
In one year if you really need you can build hundreds of Me-262s in fighter variant, and Heinkel 162 and other "volksjagers", and Dornier 335 , Ta-152 , V2 rockets, XXI and XXIII model "elektroboots" etc
 
Actually vanir, the Me-262 had horrible accileration. When she was taking off or landing that is when the P-51's and P-47s were able to get her the easiest because she would accelerate too quickly and they could get her at the low speeds.
 
Vanir, what I know (by reading books) is that the Jumo 004 were quite temperamental to the throttle movement: it was necessary to change the setting very slowly otherwise they would flame out.
Hence the logic of my point: if the 262 had to fly 'low and slow' it had to be throttled back fo some time (the 262 was apparently not eager to lose speed), and then could only accelerate little by little.

But the findings of the Damned Hunchback (nickname for the SM 79 Sparviero) put a new light on the topic: if the plane was flown in a 950kmh approach dive, then there was enough energy to accelerate away.
What I have not undestood is if this tactic was used against tanks or generic ground targets, what I had in mind was 'shooting tanks with guns or non-guided rockets'
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)

Similar threads

A
Best WW2 Seafire vs. best A6M Zero
Replies
9
Views
1K
Shortround6
S
A
Was the Hispano-Suiza 12Y the worst ≥25L V-12 of WW2?
2 3
Replies
46
Views
3K
ThomasP
T
G
Ditching qualities of WW2 Aircraft
Replies
14
Views
2K
ThomasP
T
aidenmac16
German WW2 seaplane bases
Replies
1
Views
507
Dimlee
Dimlee
BarnOwlLover
Best "general purpose" prop fighter also capable of best high altitude performance
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
PAT303
P
Back