First jet bomber with jet fighter escort?

[pattern14]

With all the information available on this forum, some one is bound to know the answer. My primary interest is in first generation jets, but there is a lot of mis-information out there. I have a particular interest in the Arado Ar234, which was the first operational jet bomber. I know the Me 262 was built as a fighter bomber as well, but the Ar234-B ( the one with retractable under-carriage) was purpose built as a bomber only. The earlier version was a recon plane that used a dolly and skid arrangement. I've read stories that claim that the Ar234-B was escorted by Me 262's on bombing raids against the bridge at Remagen, but can't find anything really substantiated. Does anyone have any links or books that back this up ? I also tried to find the next instance of this happening, but there were only vague references to the B45 Tornado during Korea ( which did not appear to have jet escorts), as well as the B47, which never actually dropped a single bomb. A number of sources claim that the Ar234 was immune to allied fighters, and others actually state that none were lost on combat, but I know for a fact that a number were shot down by fighters and flak as they held straight level lines on their bombing runs. Some got shot up by their own side as well, as this new aircraft were unfamiliar to German AA crews. To the best of my knowledge, the Arado was the last enemy aircraft to overfly the UK undetected as well, although those sneaky soviets may have gotten away with it since

 

[F-16]

Found this nice art work of the planes?

Oberleutnant Erich Sommer's Arado Ar 234B Blitz Art

 

[pattern14]

Thanks for the reply F16. It states my case perfectly!!!!! When I checked out the link, it says it is an AR234 B, which is totally incorrect. Erich Sommer did fly the worlds first Jet recon mission on August 2nd 1944, but in the AR234 A version, which landed on skids and had no undercarriage. The B model also had a wider fuselage, and carried bomb racks under the fuse and Jet nacelles. He was also never escorted by an Me 262 on that flight. Nice painting though, if you had a spare $145.00 to spend on art!

 

[Civettone]

I have my doubts about Ar 234s being escorted by Me 262. It would destroy the whole purpose of the Ar 234. Btw, it was foremost designed as a reconnaissance aircraft.


Kris

 

[pattern14]

I have my doubts about Ar 234s being escorted by Me 262. It would destroy the whole purpose of the Ar 234. Btw, it was foremost designed as a reconnaissance aircraft.


Kris

You're absolutely correct there, but the design had the potential to be used with more than one purpose in mind, and the prototypes were so spot on they were made operational from the outset. Part of the illogical use of the Me 262 as a light bomber was that the AR234 was far better suited in this role. As the AR234 was susceptible to interception during its bombing run, Me 262's were the only fighter capable of flying faster to engage potential hostiles. At least that is what I've been reading; I'd just like some substantiated facts either way

 

[vikingBerserker]

Was there not Me 262 "bombers" being escorted by Me 262 fighters? I thought I had read that somewhere.

 

[pattern14]

Was there not Me 262 "bombers" being escorted by Me 262 fighters? I thought I had read that somewhere.

Quite possibly, but I don't recall reading about that myself.

 

[Civettone]

You're absolutely correct there, but the design had the potential to be used with more than one purpose in mind, and the prototypes were so spot on they were made operational from the outset. Part of the illogical use of the Me 262 as a light bomber was that the AR234 was far better suited in this role. As the AR234 was susceptible to interception during its bombing run, Me 262's were the only fighter capable of flying faster to engage potential hostiles. At least that is what I've been reading; I'd just like some substantiated facts either way

The only way an Ar 234 could be intercepted if an enemy fighter plane would dive down on it and take it down in a single pass. All Ar 234s were unarmed and relied only on speed.

A similar question could be asked about the Mosquito bomber. Were they ever escorted by Mosquito night fighers? Were the Mosquito recons escorted by Spits/Mustangs? I don't think they were.

Kris

 

[wuzak]

Were the Mosquito recons escorted by Spits/Mustangs? I don't think they were.

Kris

USAAF recon Mossies often were escorted by P-51s.

 

[razor1uk]

Not all 234's were 'unarmed', some or all(?) had the/a rear firing 151's or the more usual 151/20's tail fixed to fire into the in tails blind spot, or perhaps counter weights if not fitted - yes effectively unarmed as trying to aim a rearwards sighted mg's with un-reversed controls through a rear-view periscope is going to be so easy... mind if the firing sting in the tails weren't expected, an allied pilot woould be initially more cautious if he suddenly had tracers zip close by.

Althought I don't think any allied aircraft was officially damaged or shot at in this way by the 234's as far as what I can remember reading from non-conspiracy non-nationalistic sources.

 

[Milosh]

Not all 234's were 'unarmed', some or all(?) had the/a rear firing 151's or the more usual 151/20's tail fixed to fire into the in tails blind spot, or perhaps counter weights if not fitted - yes effectively unarmed as trying to aim a rearwards sighted mg's with un-reversed controls through a rear-view periscope is going to be so easy... mind if the firing sting in the tails weren't expected, an allied pilot woould be initially more cautious if he suddenly had tracers zip close by.

Althought I don't think any allied aircraft was officially damaged or shot at in this way by the 234's as far as what I can remember reading from non-conspiracy non-nationalistic sources.

No operational Ar234 had rear firing guns mounted in the fuselage. The Ar234C was to have rear firing guns.

 

[razor1uk]

Ok, mmm perhaps stereotypical cold war allied propaganda mixed with developmental hopes have pervaded in print and 3 views prior to the noughties/'00s for too long... that and keeping the wartime leadership more off their backs during development.

 

[Civettone]

No Arado Ar 234 was ever armed, athough they were designed to have the tailgun.



And Wuzak, thanks for answering the question on Mosquitoes.

Kris

 

[razor1uk]

Damn them old 'flight' related info's and cutaways of the blitz then.... grrrr Even a book Axis Aircraft of World War II has it wrong, and its a printed pre 2005...

 

[GrauGeist]

The early Ar234s types were designed to have one or two fixed MGs firing rearward, but were removed by the crews. They did keep the periscopic sight in place, though.

You'll find the He111 was designed to have a fixed MG facing rearward at the base of the tail, but that was often removed as well.

 

[razor1uk]

Ah, crossed axis control of aiming when the proverbial fan is spraying hot poop around you is the last thing you need....

Not to urine people off, but trying too hit anything in the 234 in IL-2 1946 is hard enough, let alone trying to fly forwards and aim backwards in real life without ground spearing or modern aviation computers etc...

 

[Milosh]

The early Ar234s types were designed to have one or two fixed MGs firing rearward, but were removed by the crews. They did keep the periscopic sight in place, though.

Reference please.

 

[F-16]

Thanks for the reply F16. It states my case perfectly!!!!! When I checked out the link, it says it is an AR234 B, which is totally incorrect. Erich Sommer did fly the worlds first Jet recon mission on August 2nd 1944, but in the AR234 A version, which landed on skids and had no undercarriage. The B model also had a wider fuselage, and carried bomb racks under the fuse and Jet nacelles. He was also never escorted by an Me 262 on that flight. Nice painting though, if you had a spare $145.00 to spend on art!

Np, guess the painter wish to have this info before he started his work.

 

[razor1uk]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and is limited by their pocket - a modern capitalisic artists motto. ...allegedly

Hyperthetically...
Well if you can create something that looks good and it might sell for a nice profit, some wouldn't care for the historical or the truth as much... that and you can only paint so many scenes of A/C's flying to or from a target in variing levels of fit and damage etc before you might do a themed ahistorical one akin to The 1st Operational Jets of the LW. just to stave of painters boredom mental/subject block perhaps...

 

[Airframes]

It's very possible that a painting such as this, was configured in that way at the behest of the marketing company.
Just a few days ago, I had a discussion with a friend concerning a painting by a very well-known and competent aviation artist, who's work is normally very, very accurate. In this particular instance, there were one or two glaring inaccuracies, so my friend contacted the artist. It turned out he was requested to portray the particular scene as it appeared by the company who publish and market prints of his paintings !