The inability to train replacements was hindered by shortages of fuel. The shortage of experienced aircrew was caused by the allied air forces killing or otherwise incapacitating them.
Steve
Germany's ideal late war fighter
- Thread starter wiking85
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The inability to train replacements was hindered by shortages of fuel. The shortage of experienced aircrew was caused by the allied air forces killing or otherwise incapacitating them.
Steve
davebender
1st Lieutenant
Germany had a multitude of good airframe designs. Production of those designs was constrained by engine availability.
Fw-190D is an excellent example of this. Maintain full funding for the DB603 engine program and Fw-190s powered by DB603 engines can probably be in service by early 1941. You will also have DB603 powered Ju-88 night fighter aircraft during 1942.
Fw-190D is an excellent example of this. Maintain full funding for the DB603 engine program and Fw-190s powered by DB603 engines can probably be in service by early 1941. You will also have DB603 powered Ju-88 night fighter aircraft during 1942.
And presenting themselves to the thick defensive fire and the escorts flying above. Didn't work and got them slaughtered in droves. Essentially this tactic is responsible for the defeat of the Luftwaffe in early 1944 more so than anything else (my opinion).
I respect your opinion but I actually have the exact opposite view on the MK 108: I think the popular view is skewed in that it was far more effective even in the anti-fighter role (especially in combination with the Me 262), than we perceive. If you look at some of the aces that flew the Me 262 you'll see a large number of s/e fighter claims. Surprisingly many if you keep in mind that in the west it was mainly used to attack bombers.
Schall: 11 fighters / 6 bombers
Rademacher: 5 fighters / 11 bombers
Eder: 8 fighters / 14 bombers
Rudorffer: 3 fighters / 9 bombers
Over these four it's 27 fighters to 40 Bombers, so about two fighters for every three bombers claimed, not by accompanying Bf 109s or Fw 190s, but by the Me 262s themselves. Overall the ratio will be lower I guess, but not as one sided as one might think.
Last edited:
drgondog
Major
Sometime back on a 262 thread, I was able to determine that 11 8th AF fighters were either destroyed or probaby destroyed by Me 262s. I don't know how that matches with LW claims as certainly RAF and 9th AF must have lost some to the 262. It does occur to me that 9th and RAF were operating far more near the deck than 8th AF escorting bombers.
I agree,but it was the tactic often used.
There are many problems with Luftwaffe claims at this late stage of proceedings as we all know,particularly from autumn 1944 onwards when the claims system had been abandoned completely.
I don't doubt that a few Me 262s flown by the few remaining experienced and successful pilots would enjoy considerable success. These men would have been successful whatever (within reason,maybe not a Go 145!) they were flying.
The average pilot,on both sides,had a great deal of difficulty hitting anything in air to air combat and by 1944 the Luftwaffe's average was well below that of the allies. Their chances would be reduced even further when flying a weapons system like the Me 262.
I suppose ultimately it is another debate that ends up chasing its own tail. The Me 262 could be an effective aircraft in the hands of an expert,almost any competitive fighter could be. We come back to the perennial problem,the Luftwaffe simply didn't have those men available anymore.
Shortround6
Major General
Back with that old idea? And just what performance would such an aircraft have? We might look at the Mig-1/3 for a comparison, similar sized engine in a similar sized air-frame. You don't get 1943 engine performance in 1940/41. You want more than one 20mm and a pair of 7.9mm Mgs you take the performance hit.
I didn't want to start a debate over claims vs kills (hence I used the word claims), but claims for bombers are likewise exaggregated. One might speculate the nature of air combat makes claims versus large bombers more accurate, but by how much? Even if they are twice as accurate (which could be about right?) the fact still stands more than a few fighters were claimed by the Me 262 pilots so they must've felt confident they could attack them successfully, given the right tactics (speed and surprise). I overall agree two decent 20mm like Hispano Mk.V or MG 151/20 would be superior to one MK 108 in the anti-fighter role. But if you bounce a P-51 type of fighter with 50-100mph advantage four MK 108s firing a one second burst don't sound like the worst option to me, given the alternatives at the time.
Edit: Also iirc a kill on a bomber in LW terms could also mean it was just shot out of a formation. I am not sure if that is relevant for the Me 262 scores i quoted but if so it would skew the results in favour of bomber claims.
Edit: Also iirc a kill on a bomber in LW terms could also mean it was just shot out of a formation. I am not sure if that is relevant for the Me 262 scores i quoted but if so it would skew the results in favour of bomber claims.
Last edited:
davebender
1st Lieutenant
P-51 wasn't all that durable. A single 3cm mine shell hit anywhere on the aircraft would probably cripple it.
Of course P-51s and other high altitude fighter aircraft should be attacked only in self defense. It's the bombers you need to disrupt.
Of course P-51s and other high altitude fighter aircraft should be attacked only in self defense. It's the bombers you need to disrupt.
That's the point. Four relatively fast firing MK 108s, centrally mounted, will put a lot of 30mm shells towards the target. So I reckon in a bounce, the typical distance to the target is fairly low and at the beginning of the attack and very low at the end of it. During that time the four cannons will have put out so many shots that the chances of one hitting the enemy are quite good.
Last edited:
If I did the math right, at a rate of 650 rounds/min a single Mk 108 is kicking out around 11 30mm rounds per second.
Multiply that by 4 and a 3-second burst equals 132 rounds from centrally mounted Mk 108's. The accuracy may be poor past 600 yards but with a cone of fire like that, any Mustang that gets blindsided by a 262 is going to get shredded, considering even a B-17 could only stand about 4-6 hits from HE shells before succumbing.
Multiply that by 4 and a 3-second burst equals 132 rounds from centrally mounted Mk 108's. The accuracy may be poor past 600 yards but with a cone of fire like that, any Mustang that gets blindsided by a 262 is going to get shredded, considering even a B-17 could only stand about 4-6 hits from HE shells before succumbing.
davebender
1st Lieutenant
IMO four MG151/20 cannon would probably be better for well trained pilots. However by 1943 most pilots were rookies, regardless of nationality. The 3cm Mk108 cannon is an ideal rookie weapon. R4M FF rockets are better yet. Putting a rack of R4M FF rockets under the wing of every Me-109G during 1944 might do Germany more good then early introduction of the Fw-190D.
davebender
1st Lieutenant
That's what happened historically.
Technology necessary to create a folding fin aircraft rocket was available years earlier. If the Luftwaffe increases funding for FF rocket development there's no reason it couldn't be mass produced a year earlier. Someone in high places just needs to realize the potential of such a weapon.
Technology necessary to create a folding fin aircraft rocket was available years earlier. If the Luftwaffe increases funding for FF rocket development there's no reason it couldn't be mass produced a year earlier. Someone in high places just needs to realize the potential of such a weapon.
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
The problem is that there is no ideal late war fighter. What Germany needed was the D-9s, G-10s, Ks in January, 1944, in mass.
Yes. Very true. Germany needed good fighters in mass. Also, perhaps, Germany needed to change their strategy a bit. Go after the fighters first, regain air superiority, then deal with the bombers. Concentrate on producing a good or great fighter, in mass, then worry about making bombers/destroyers/night fighters/recon ect.
davebender
1st Lieutenant
30,000 Me-109s plus 20,000 Fw-190s. How many more do you want? By 1944 Germany had more fighter aircraft then fuel for operations and pilot training.
kettbo
Senior Airman
yes, multiple rockets vs bomber boxes...
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
I would think that this would significantly degrade the performance of the fighters, especially since the pre-late 1944 German fighters were marginal in the first place.
