Efficacy of the Me262 as a schnellbomber

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

redcoat said:
and their effect on the morale of enemy troops was considerable
Click to expand...

This was probably their main effect. It is unquantifiable but prisoner interrogations would suggest it was significant. There are documented cases of German units surrendering at the threat of an aerial rocket attack, a fly past by Typhoons being sufficient.
Cheers
Steve
 
stona said:
In WW2 the USAAF used very few rockets (10-20,000?). The RAF used more than 200,000 from memory. I have the numbers but a young relative is asleep in my front room/library at the moment! Maybe I can post them tomorrow
Cheers
Steve
Click to expand...

Are we counting numbers or useage now? Fact remains that HVARs were used by the US through out WW2 into Korea and even during Vietnam.

BTW - the 3.5" was produced in numbers 10,000 a month....
 
Last edited:
Very few US units used the rockets in the ETO and they were not regarded as a success. They were extensively used by the RAF and the 2nd TAF persisted with them despite evidence from their own ORS (which Coningham ignored). As I said before, the 9th AF preferred napalm and bombs to do the same job.
Cheers
Steve
 
The P-84 (later 'F') proved to be a good ground attack plane. So why not a Me-262 ?
Air-breaks is the only difference I can see, given a good supply of ordnance and other 'disposable goods' (like jumos...) Both airplanes were quite under-powered, not really armoured, yet stable and precise in their -fast- flight enveloppes. Ranges were just about ok. Give the Republic another advantage for its ease to carry various weapons under wings, and even, the Messe did have some nose...
After all, to put the matter clear, was not the F-84 [edit Thunderjet] a similar 'schnellbomber' ??
 
Last edited:
I think you'll find they were used more than what you think in the ETO and MTO (12th AF), check your P-47 units. They were heavily used in the PTO, especially by the USN and USMC. You make claim that maybe one command "gave up" on them, well that wasn't an across the board decision.
 
Their reports Erich. If you believed the reports of the pilots of the 2nd TAF you'd think that they were destroying a lot of armour and other vehicles too. When the Operational Research Sections (ORS) actually examined the evidence on the ground it revealed a very different picture. For every 100 claims the ORS was only able to confirm 1 armoured vehicle destroyed from the air. Now that is over claiming on a monumental scale, despite the claims being made in good faith.
Of course the Luftwaffe had no ORS or means of actually verifying the reports of their pilots.
Cheers
Steve
 
Erich said:
except by gun cams which they had as well as Heer troops watching the action .......
Click to expand...

With all due respect that is not the same as the work done by the ORS. One of the problems with rockets was that a near miss will often look like a kill, even on gun camera, whereas in fact, as the RAF discovered in tests back in the UK, it would leave an armoured vehicle undamaged. That's with the RAF's 3" rocket with a 60lb hollow charge, somewhat more than the R4M.

It's also worth remembering that about 12,000 R4M rockets (including Panzerschrek I and II) were produced whereas the British, in 1944 and 1945 produced 656,000 60lb SAP 3" rockets and a further 59,000 "special" 60lb rockets and 25,000 25lb armour piercing rockets. It's not hard to see why Germany lost.

As far as accuracy in RAF trials using a Panther tank (I think) 9 hits were recorded for 116 rockets fired. Only a direct hit would destroy a tank. The rockets would penetrate the top armour of a Panzer IV and Panther. In the trials of course nobody was shooting back.

Cheers

Steve
 
Last edited:
the LW had proved already the flat angle approach was more effective than that of the RAF in Normandy and beyond. The R4M was not used except enmasse attack though it appears from first person accounts there were individual kills. am not stating the Lw was more effective it did kill soviet armor that is a fact. how much is anyones guess but the targets in spring of 45 were plentiful.

Steve I also firmly believe that Fw 190F's and 262's actually attacked at a closer range
 
Last edited:
My understanding of the lack of efficiency of the Mk 108 on GA Me 262s was owing to its low rate of fire and the high speed at which the 262 approached the target area. The window of firing opportunity was small because of the high closing speed; same thing with the same gun on the Me 163 as an interceptor. This would not have been such an issue with Fw 190s.
 
Thanks Bill, I was responding to this.
 
The official tactic for Typhoons of the 2nd TAF was to enter a shallow dive from 3-4,000 feet and to fire rockets in pairs from 1,500 feet, commencing at a range of 1,000 yards. This was quickly abandoned in the field and units developed their own methods. Most common, according to the men who flew these missions, was to fly low in a shallow dive, aim at 600-700 yards and then fire rockets and cannon together at a range of 250-300 yds. This sounds very similar to the tactics of their Luftwaffe opponents.

As far as US use of rockets goes, the first P-47s were rocket equipped in July 1944 (NW Europe). They initially only carried four 5" HVARs though this was increased, later up to ten could be carried. The 9th AF fired 13,959 rockets during the war. This may sound a lot but the RAF's 2nd TAF fired 222,515.
In September 1944 these P-47s had flown 323 sorties and fired 1,117 rockets at ground targets. They made completely ridiculous claims, just like their British colleagues. This included 85 tanks, 15 armoured cars and 164 motor vehicles. With the exception of the last one, easily destroyed by the much more accurate machine guns, the real figures were in single figures, the figure for tanks might be zero!
This was considered a success and a 9th AF report recommended further use of rockets. They could be fired from longer range than the .50 calibre MGs, and penetrated better than bullets or general purpose bombs which tended to break up on hitting targets. (see ORS 9th AF report No.59, 15 Sept 1944, "Rocket Status in 9th Air Force"). The recommendation was not adopted and the 9th AF used napalm and bombs against armoured units. This was very risky in close proximity to friendly troops and when US forces were closely engaged with German armour recourse was had to the RAF for rocket firing Typhoons to operate in the American sector and engage them.

Cheers

Steve
 
Last edited:
On TV last night was a program 'D-Day to Victory'. One old British soldier said that their worst enemy breaking out of Normandy was the RAF Typhoons because they attacked everything friend and foe equally. An old RAF Typhoon said it was hard to ID the targets.
 

It was a huge problem and not just for the fighter bombers.
Short bombing by heavy and medium bombers also occurred. It was described as severely affecting morale and eroding confidence in the air force.
For example during the second phase of "Totalise" two formations of B-17s straddled Canadian and Polish troops who were in the open, ready to mount an attack, with nearly 1,000 90lb fragmentation bombs. When allied guns fired on the errant bombers troops on the ground cheered!
Cheers
Steve
 
my data from JG 7 pilots is that they rode as low as possible over flat out plains and slight hills attacking Soviet columns and whatever plus the rear ends of armor with R4M's and MT with 3cm. poor excuse I know but there is just not enough materials to compare the 262 with Typhoon and Jug attacks on German ground forces and rockets .......it was new age of warfare, fast and deadly the Soviets had no way of countering this as they pushed towards Berlin. am not sure of KG 6's attack tactics but probably very similar it being in association with JG 7 from it's area fields of Prague-Rusin.
 
Out of curiousity, would it be possible to develop 3cm HEAT rounds for MK 108? AFAIK German infantry had a sort of AT rifle granade of the same caliber.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Paper comparing the flight performance of the P-40E Warhawk and the A6M2 Zero
Replies
8
Views
851
Ivan1GFP
I
A
The Myth of the British "Fixing" The Corsair
8 9 10
Replies
183
Views
12K
EwenS
E
A
Was the Hispano-Suiza 12Y the worst ≥25L V-12 of WW2?
2 3
Replies
46
Views
3K
ThomasP
T
S
Comparison of the Gloster F.5/34 and the Mitsubishi A6M2.
3 4 5
Replies
86
Views
5K
z42
Z
W
The scarcity of fighter to fighter FW-190A pilot combat accounts...
2 3
Replies
52
Views
3K
GrauGeist
Menu
Log in
Register