Horton HO 229 Vs Vampire...

[kool kitty89]

Do you have that thread, I couldn't find it.

It seems I was mistaken. I was remembering some more hypothetical criticism Shortround6 had leveled against the R4M here:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/av...killing-heavy-bombers-34002-5.html#post939642

Still somewhat valid, but not the hard data delcyro's arguments usually are accompanied by. (though I still think lack of development of lighter/compact medium-velocity 37 mm weapons in spite of putting effort into 50 mm ones seems unfortunate, that or lack of higher velocity 30 mm cannons -middle ground between the Mk 108 and 103 more like what the Japanese had)

The lack of endurance of the Me 262 is bemoaned time and time again by the men who flew them. Only the bomber version could use the rearmost tank as this had to be counterbalanced by the external stores. A downside of this is that jettisoning the stores before said tank was exhausted made the aircraft impossible for the average pilot to control.
Cheers
Steve

Context is still important, and the same issue is addressed with the huge disparity in range figures for the He 162. Endurance and range varies considerably more dramatically with early jets than with piston engined aircraft to the point of cruising below 10,000 ft could easily be half the range/endurance at 25,000 ft.

 

[Koopernic]

The range figures given for the Me 262 and the Heinkel He 162 both show that they had range equal to most allied fighters and in some cases superior to the shorter anged types e.g. Tempest V or the entire Spitfire series. However endurance, in terms of time in the air, was obviously less.

The Heinkel He 162 with engine at 'full bore' at sea level could give 30 minutes of thrust. However a increase in fuselage tank size and then wing tank size probably took this to 40 minutes. Obviously one doesn't need to run quite 'full bore' even with a war going on.

The specific fuel consumption of the Jumo 004B was approximately 1.39 per hour. At Sea Level when producing 880kg thrust was consuming 1200kg fuel per hour per engine. This would exhaust the two 900L fuel tanks (which would have about 675KG each in 33 minutes. However these figures are somewhat worse case because the thrust and sfc were somewhat less than the sea level static case. Furthermore the thrust at 10000m (33000ft) was 380kg and so the fuel consumption would only be 43% of the above case.

Me 262 pilots had standing orders which forbade them from flying less than about 440mph, presumably this was actually a nice round figure of 700km/h (732mph) or 720kmh which was of course the maximum level speed of the best allied fighters at optimal altitude. Its worth considering that when at sea level and 440mph that the equivalent horse power of the Me 262 was 4576hp and it could go 510mph at sea level while no allied craft could get much above 400mph even with 100/150 fuel. At sea level the Me 262 could wash of 100mph in pulling a turn and still be as fast as the fastest allied piston fighter.

Obviously the Me 262 without the toss bombing sight was limited to intuitive skills of the pilot, however the TSA 2D was slated for many other Luftwaffe fighter bombers, there had been an earlier TSA 2 which the Luftwaffe had eschewed in favour of the more refined 2D. In other words the bomber version of the Me 262 really doesn't make sense unless the TSA 2D is used.When Adolph Hitler asked of the Me 262 "Can it carry bombs" he might have expected epistemological honesty and been told "yes, but to deliver them accurately we need the TSA Tief Schleuder Apparatus". With his well known interest in ballistics and weapons he might have inquired further and thrown more priority behind such devices. He might have also realised his best hope for an effective bomber was the Arado Ar 234 which in which prototypes actually fly reconnaissance missions over the Normandy Beach heads and could actually carry two existing and highly effective bomb sights: the Stuvi 5B and the Lotfe 7.

There is a document on the pay site 'cockpitinstrument.de' now renamed that has the accuracy data from the TSA 2D trials. I think they were getting 90% of their bombs inside of a 40m by 60m square but I can't quite remember as they measured lateral and longitudinal dispersion separately. The nice thing about this bomb sight is the toss gives a considerable degree of stand off distance. In anti tank attacks the longitudinal dispersion is more important since the bomb can be relied to slide along the ground. If both the Me 262 and its toss bombing sight had of been operational in numbers the aircraft might have fulfilled its expectation during the Allied invasion.

The Arado 234 due to its forward view could carry the Stuvi 5B dive bombing site with the BZA computer attachment and could thus make slide bombing attacks or even release at low altitude in level flight. RAF Coastal Command Mosquiotos had the Mk.XIV sight mounted in front of the pilots windscreen for anti shipping attacks in a similar fashion. There were plans for an Me 262 with the pilot moved to the far nose which would probably given enough downward view to use the Stuvi 5B in low altitude level bomb attacks.

Luftwaffe single seat fighters could be guided to bomb release via the EGON and also Zyklops blind bombing system, usually over a voice channel for single engine aircraft.

The Mk 103 30mm canon, despite its effectiveness, was a little short ranged. Two guns which might have appeared were the 20mm MG 213 and the 30mm MK 213C which had revolving breaches. These were testing on Fw 190D's at the end of the war. These improved cadence over reciprocating weapons by nearly 50%, should resistant to jamming. The 20mm version offered impressive muzzle velocity and may this have offered a better weapon.

 

[stona]

Hitler is supposed to have seen his 'Blitz Bomber' when he saw the demonstration by Lindner flying the V6 on 26th November 1943. The myth is that he subsequently ordered all Me 262s to be produced as bombers, though this is contradicted by a telegram sent by Hitler to Goering on 5th December asking that it be developed as a fighter bomber. It wasn't until April 1944 that Hitler was told (by Milch or Goering, it's not clear which) that only one of the Me 262s delivered to Erprobungskommando 262 had been equipped to carry bombs. It was after this that he appears to have had a bit of a paddy, as my old grandma would say, and forbidden even the mention of the Me 262 as a fighter and demanded why his orders for a fighter bomber had been ignored. It was on 26th May 1944 that Goering convened a meeting with Galland, Bodenschanz, Korten and Petersen to discuss the future of the Me 262 in light of the Fuhrer's directive. As a result Galland was entrusted with development, but with conditions from Goering.

"Some of the aircraft are to be allowed for tests in the [fighter] role, as long as this does not affect the development of bomber models turned out. I also suggest that this aircraft be called a 'super speed bomber', not a fighter, in the Fuhrer's presence in future. He is well aware of the fighter potential, but wants the Me 262 to go into action first in the bomber role."

The very next day the now infamous Fuhrer Befehl was promulgated which ordered initial production to continue as a bomber whilst allowing fighter testing, but.

"Under no circumstances is bomber production to be delayed while awaiting results of such [fighter] tests. Not until these tests have been concluded will fighter production be permitted to start. Once this point has been reached there is no reason why production capacity cannot be divided between the two."

Despite this Ekdo 262 kept it's fighters and even gained some more. A photo reconnaissance version was also developed and operated by 'Einsatzkommando Braunegg', commanded by Hauptmann Herward Braunegg, previously of Nahaufklarungsgruppe 9.
As you can see Hitler never banned the production of the Me 262 fighter. Even in the Fuhrer Befehl he allowed that production might be divided between the two versions once fighter testing (by Ekdo 262) was completed. The reasons that there were few fighter versions was the initial preference for the bomber version, but more importantly a lack of parts, notably engines, and the effect of allied bombings, something often ignored today. For example on 12 September bombers of the US 15th Air Force bombed the Messerschmitt plant at Wasserburg, destroying many of the jigs essential for Me 262 airframe construction. That cost production of all types of Me 262.
Later a designated Me 262 bomber was allowed to be produced as a fighter version on a one to one swop with an Ar 234. This again is perfectly reasonable.

It wasn't until 3rd June 1944 that III KG 51 was ordered to start conversion to the Me 262 at Lechfeld. These pioneers would become operational in August. Given the immediate post Overlord situation in Normandy and the parlous situation of the Eastern Front the use of the Me 262 in a fast bombing role is not as daft as some exercising hindsight would have us believe.

If there was a standing order that Me 262s not be flown slower than 700 kph I've never seen it or by who and to whom it was issued. Nonetheless it is entirely plausible and a perfectly sensible thing to have done. If such an order was issued it was not followed. Many Me 262s were caught cruising slower than this, as evidenced by allied combat reports, probably trying to preserve their fuel.

Cheers

Steve

 

[blueskies]

iirc, the first suggestion of using the 262 as a bomber came from messerschmitt in 1942.

 

[stona]

iirc, the first suggestion of using the 262 as a bomber came from messerschmitt in 1942.

When in 1944? Before the prototype(s) even flew?

On 10th December 1942 Milch accorded the highest priority (code 'Vulkan') to the Me 262 with no mention of a bomber role. Throughout the same month Messerschmitt wrote on several occasions to Georg Pasewaldt, Chief of Development in the Technical Office of the RLM, with all sorts of problems that needed to be solved before the type could enter production. Included was the requirement for armament and other equipment to be brought up to 'current standards', yet again no mention of bombing. If Messerschmitt did suggest the role, it was unofficially.

In April 1944 some of the first two batches of Me 262s completed were delivered to Erprobungskommando 262 and it was at this time that Hitler discovered that none were equipped with bomb racks. At this time it seems Messerschmitt were working on ways of converting the Me 262 to carry bombs, but that is nearly two years after the first prototype flew in July 1942.

Cheers

Steve

 

[GrauGeist]

iirc, the first suggestion of using the 262 as a bomber came from messerschmitt in 1942.

Interesting...

If we follow the design of the Me262 from it's inception as P.1065 through the early development stages and initial flight testing, we can see at no time was there provisions or consideration for a bomber concept. Willy was good for taking an airframe and trying a concept and yet there is no indication of a bomber version before 1943.

It wasn't until Hitler saw V6 being tested at Insterburg (26 November 1943), that the notion of a "fast bomber" was considered on the Me262's platform. Unfortunately, those that had the most influence with Hitler did nothing to promote the Ar234 (which was nearing service at this time) as the fast bomber solution and allow the Me262 to continue on as the intended Heavy Fighter.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

On June 8, 1944 Hitler ordered (führer befehl)the Me 262 to be used as a bomber.

 

[stona]

On June 8, 1944 Hitler ordered (führer befehl)the Me 262 to be used as a bomber.

He ordered initial production to be fighter bomber variant, but did not order the cancellation of the fighter version, simply it's delay until Erprobungskommando 262 which had received its first fighters in April, less than eight weeks earlier, had finished testing.
In the words of the 'infamous' Fuhrer Befehl:

"Under no circumstances is bomber production to be delayed while awaiting results of such [fighter] tests. Not until these tests have been concluded will fighter production be permitted to start. Once this point has been reached there is no reason why production capacity cannot be divided between the two."

It seems to me that the situation in NW Europe in the days following the allied landings and also the state of the Eastern Front persuaded Hitler that this fighter bomber type should be the priority for his new wonder weapon. We have the benefit of hindsight and know that Galland and others were correct in arguing that using the Me 262 against the American (and to a lesser extent British) aerial onslaught would have been better, but hindsight is a wonderful thing. Hitler, not for the first time, made a serious misjudgement, but it was not as unjustified as many have since argued.

Cheers

Steve

 

[kool kitty89]

He ordered initial production to be fighter bomber variant, but did not order the cancellation of the fighter version, simply it's delay until Erprobungskommando 262 which had received its first fighters in April, less than eight weeks earlier, had finished testing.

It seems to me that the situation in NW Europe in the days following the allied landings and also the state of the Eastern Front persuaded Hitler that this fighter bomber type should be the priority for his new wonder weapon. We have the benefit of hindsight and know that Galland and others were correct in arguing that using the Me 262 against the American (and to a lesser extent British) aerial onslaught would have been better, but hindsight is a wonderful thing. Hitler, not for the first time, made a serious misjudgement, but it was not as unjustified as many have since argued.

Even without the same dire situation (albeit more focused use for offensive weapons) early war, I wonder if similar logic could have swayed more favor towards the Fw 187 pre/early war if proposed as a single-seat high speed fighter-bomber. ( and gotten similar priority for DB-600s/601s/Jumo 211s as contemporary fast bombers)

The RLM seemed to want to tack on dive bombing capabilities to every bomber in development, yet adapting a FIGHTER to that role is often more practical (already stressed for relatively high G maneuvers and often needing only the addition of dive breaks to be effective -sometimes not even that).

I believe there were later paper designs based on the Fw 187 aimed at being a fighter-bomber, but those were significantly later (targeting DB-605s iirc) and facing more and different competition. (and had the Me 262 in the picture)

 

[GrauGeist]

Look at how the Fw187 progressed.

It was offered as a high-speed fighter but then was requested that it be configured as a "Zerstorer", so the twin seat was added, then it was pushed in the direction of a night fighter, then a dive bomber (didn't see that coming, did you?), then a multi-role fighter-bomber and just about anything else that they could think of...except leaving is as it was intended: a high speed twin-engine fighter. There were so many cases where the development of good designs were hampered by the RLM's "waffling" and many good opportunities were lost.

If the RLM had seized on the He280 and backed it AND the jet engine development by Junkers, BMW, Porsche and Hirth.
If they had followed through with the Fw187 and the Ar240 and allowed the designs to go to production as intended.
If they had allowed Messerschmitt to develop the Me262 as it was intended: a heavy fighter.
If they kept the high-speed bombing to the Ar234.

And on and on and on...

 

[stona]

Even without the same dire situation (albeit more focused use for offensive weapons) early war, I wonder if similar logic could have swayed more favor towards the Fw 187 pre/early war if proposed as a single-seat high speed fighter-bomber.

I think that the problem there is that the fighter-bomber concept, as in modifying a fighter to carry bombs to operate in what we would no call close air support or battlefield interdiction simply didn't exist in the mid 1930s. That's not to say that some adventurous types hadn't lobbed small bombs from the cockpits of their fighters in WW1, but this was developed into the dive bomber (almost every German bomber) or light bomber (Hawker Hart, ideal for cheaply and effectively bringing recalcitrant tribesmen into line, unfortunately the Fairey Battle couldn't do the same to the Germans). These were not fighters.
The first Bf 110s with bomb racks were not delivered by Messerschmitt until June 1940. 13 of these aircraft went to 1. and 2./Erprobungsgruppe 210. 3 Staffel got Bf 109 E Jabos at the same time. The British adapted the Whirlwind and Hurricane as fighter bombers a year or so later. All fighter bombers were an expedient rather than a design, forced on the various air forces by a tactical requirement their existing types did not fulfil.
The means to operate such aircraft effectively and the development of the command and control systems needed didn't really start until the British really adopted the fighter bomber in the Desert Air Force in 1942.

The Germans were just as attached to their 'Zerstorer' idea, though they did modify it from time to time, as they were to their obsession for dive bombing. Proposing the Fw 187 as a high speed fighter bomber, something like the British Whirlwind, is not something I think the RLM would have been interested in, nor would it have occurred to Focke-Wulf. The Fw 187s best bet was as an out and out fighter, but that was lost when the RLM wanted a two seat 'zerstorer' version.


As for the engines, the Bf 110 didn't start life with DB engines, the Bf 110 B-1 was the first to reach operational units, powered by a couple of Jumo 210 Gs. so I doubt any Fw 187 would have been better prioritised. The DB 601 A powered Bf 110 C was to be built from January 1939, a total of 990 by March 1940, according to Production Plan 8. Like all RLM plans this was never realised, though Zerstorer units did have the Bf 110 C by the beginning of the war.
The Jumo powered Bf 110 B was supposedly withdrawn to training schools in July 1939, though 27 Bf 110 Bs were still on the Luftwaffe's front line inventory as late as 31st August 1939, almost on the eve of war.


Going off at a slight tangent, I'm not sure that the Bf 109 'Jabos' were really used in what we would consider a fighter bomber role in 1940 at all. For reasons unrelated to this thread, I have been looking at the three attacks on London on 15th October 1940, all carried out by Bf 109s. The attackers approached at altitudes estimated at between 26,000 and 33, 000ft. The dropped their bombs from 18,000 to 20,000ft. The bombing was so inaccurate that British reports for the three raids could only assume the actual targets. The first spread bombs in the area around Waterloo and Vauxhaull, Waterloo station was assumed to have been the target though it was not hit. The British could not work out the targets of the second and third raids, bombs falling in the 'area around Tower Bridge' and then 'the Southwark area'.
The Bf 110s of Erprobungkommando 210 did carry out successful low level attacks, particularly on Fighter Command airfields, which look far more like what we would expect fighter bombers to do.

Cheers

Steve

 

[Shortround6]

I think that the problem there is that the fighter-bomber concept, as in modifying a fighter to carry bombs to operate in what we would no call close air support or battlefield interdiction simply didn't exist in the mid 1930s. That's not to say that some adventurous types hadn't lobbed small bombs from the cockpits of their fighters in WW1, but this was developed into the dive bomber (almost every German bomber) or light bomber (Hawker Hart, ideal for cheaply and effectively bringing recalcitrant tribesmen into line, unfortunately the Fairey Battle couldn't do the same to the Germans). These were not fighters.

Actually the fighter bomber concept dated to WW I and was alive and at least moderately well during the 1920s and 30s. Late 1930s may have seen funding games being played.
Many British fighters in WW I had racks/fittings for a pair of 20lb bombs under each lower wing. Not a lot but hey, what do you want from 130-150hp engines while trying to carry a pair of machine guns? This capability carried on through the 20s and into the early 30s. How often individual aircraft carried the racks/fittings may be another story. Some of the American Bi-plane fighters could carry light bombs under the wings and sometimes up to a 116lb under each wing. Strangely many American Bi-plane fighters could carry external drop-able fuel tanks which seems to have been forgotten by 1940/41??? The P-26 mono-plane could carry up to 200lbs and the P-35 was rated for 350lbs. Commercial Curtiss Hawk 75s (P-36) were rated (and advertised) for up to an 850 pound bomb load with descriptions and photographs in the company brochure although this capability seems unused by the US.
Both the Arado 68 and He 51 biplane fighters could carry six 10kg bombs in some sort of internal bay/magazine/cassette.

The P-40 was often touted as a ground attack fighter to explain it's lack of altitude performance. Yet it was never rated as having an external bomb load until the C model. Perhaps (personal conjecture here) the Army was afraid that if Congress thought the pursuit planes could carry bombs they would NOT fund attack bombers?
British fighters lost the light bomb racks with the Gladiator and monoplanes. Afraid of being tied to the army ground forces and not being an independent Branch of service?
I have no idea why the 109 lost light bombing capability.

As for the Fw 187, In 1937-39 such aircraft as the Do 17 and Ju 88 were viewed as Schnellbombers, and against such things as PZL P11 they were. And if you had enough spare DB601 engines to build Fw 187 "bombers" why not build Do 215s instead?

 

[stona]

In the 1930s a distinction was made between fighters, light bomber/dive bomber/army cooperation aircraft (depending on nationality), and other bombers. The fighter bomber concept was dead at the time the Fw 187 was being touted as a fighter, then zerstorer.
None of the Anglo-American or German fighter bombers of WW2 (from the Bf 109, Fw 190, Bf 110, Hurricane, Whirlwind, Spitfire, Typhoon, P-47,P-51 etc) were designed as such. They were all fighters converted to have a bombing capability. Some (certainly the P-47, Typhoon and Fw 190) were really very good fighter bombers, but more by chance than design.
The fighter bomber of WW1, and I don't really like to apply that term to it, really evolved into the light bomber concept in the RAF which you could argue extended to Army cooperation aircraft like the Lysander. The Germans had a different approach and for them it evolved into ground attack aircraft like the Ju 87. Again, none of these can properly be classed as fighters.

The never ending search for a role for the Fw 187 is just that, without end. Once it was turned down as a fighter it was dead in the water. The argument about what it or any of the other fighters that the Germans did not develop at the time might have done is moot. Had it been developed as a fighter I can easily see a fighter bomber variant being developed. It would just be following the same course as all those listed above. Unfortunately the horse (fighter) always came before the cart (fighter-bomber).

Cheers

Steve

 

[Shortround6]

A website: Curtiss Goshawk Marketing Brochure

The thing is that the fighter-bomber concept was not new or un-thought of. It may have been out of fashion (and turret fighters in fashion for a few years in the late 30s.

Many small countries embraced the fighter bomber concept as they could only afford a very modest number of planes and a lot their use was anticipated against either domestic or poorly equipped enemies.

The US Navy never gave up on the fighter bomber concept although they may have held on to the pair of 100-116lb bombs a bit too long. Here it may have been a case of having planes do double duty.

 

[stona]

The thing is that the fighter-bomber concept was not new or un-thought of. It may have been out of fashion (and turret fighters in fashion for a few years in the late 30s.

No, but that doesn't alter the fact that neither the Anglo-Americans, nor the Germans operated a fighter bomber in WW2 that hadn't previously been designed and in almost all cases operated, as a fighter before being converted to the fighter bomber role.
The idea that either Focke-Wulf would suggest or the RLM would stipulate such a role for the Fw 187 flies in the face of all the evidence, not least the various requirements the RLM wrote for prospective aircraft during this period. It would have needed remarkable prescience, or a crystal ball that worked.
The ONLY way we might ever have seen a Fw 187 fighter bomber would be for it first to have been developed as a fighter or Zerstorer. Since neither happened the fighter bomber didn't. The proposition is yet another example of hindsight in action.
Cheers
Steve

 

[Shortround6]

The exception that proves the rule

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/at...265874650-h75a-flight-manual-h75-a_manual.pdf

See pages 16, 20 and 21.

max bomb load 850lbs, one 500lb bomb, two 100lbs and six 25lb bombs all at once ( marketing man's idea?).

How much of this ability was "built in", ie, local reinforcement to handle bomb beams/racks etc. and/or allowed for in "G" load ratings I don't know. Granted this is for an export version of the P-36 but how much "legacy" structure/engineering was available for the P-40 when the P-40 was converted to a "fighter bomber"?

However your idea about a "fighter bomber" version of the Fw 187 also stands up. The early German radios for single seat fighters were crap (so were most other countries). The ability to communicate with base and ground troops was minimal at best at any but short ranges. Pretty much a single frequency set. One reason for the 2nd crewman was to operate the long range radio. This also had multiple frequencies or was tunable to different frequencies. For a close support plane to depend on signal panels laid out on the ground (large arrows made of sheets of cloth) for targeting instructions is hardly the way to go. The guy in the back of the Ju 87 did more than wave that MG 15 around.

The fact that early P-40s had NO external loads when first produced seems to smell of a deliberate policy ( we need more attack planes) rather than the capabilities of the airframe. Granted the Liquid cooled engine did run the gross weight up.

 

[stona]

Is there one single example of the USAAF using a P-36 in this role? Did any operator, even the Finns do it? It does seem like a marketing ploy rather than a requirement, but then I don't know how the US system worked.

The point is that nobody really foresaw the need for a dual role aircraft in the period immediately before the war. The British must have been most upset by the inability of the Fairey Battle to survive when pre-war exercises were replaced with the real thing.
Fighters were designed primarily as interceptors to shoot down bombers. Bombers, no matter which category we might like to put them in, were designed primarily as bombers. The fighter bomber was a compromise between the two. No bomber could become a fighter bomber but several fighters could adopt the role. A fighter bomber could bomb and then either fight or run away.

In a curious way almost every fighter of the US air forces operating in Europe became at the very least a ground attack aircraft, if not a bomber. I very much doubt that as the Merlin engine was being shoe horned into a P-51 anyone envisaged that role. The engine was being fitted for exactly the opposite reason.

Cheers

Steve

 

[Shortround6]

It may have been a marketing ploy but then the Curtiss 75 was the companies successor to the Curtiss Hawk Biplane fighter series. The Hawk II and retractable landing gear Hawk III fighters not only being used by the Navy but being commercial export success to South America, the mid east and Asia, including China.

The Hawk III could carry a 500lb where the drop tank went. It was a pair of these fixed gear Biplane Hawks that Udent used to demonstrate dive bombing to Luftwaffe officials. The Navy even had a classification BFC-2 where BF stood for bomber-fighter.

Curtiss did not depend on US Military orders alone and any successor to the Biplane Hawks would be designed with their overseas customers desires and wants in mind. How often their over seas customers used the multi-role capability I don't know but if Curtiss hadn't offered it some other company would have.

Plenty of people foresaw the need for dual purpose aircraft. They may have also foreseen the tendency of the "bean counters" to seize on dual purpose aircraft as a reason to order fewer aircraft in total.
The British could be the Masters of multi-role aircraft at times. The Lysander was supposed to do everything from singing and dancing to washing windows. British medium/heavy bombers were supposed to carry 24 fully equipped troops.The British must have been under few illusions about the Fairey Battle as they issued a specification for a 'tactical' bomber in 1934. The resulting Fairey Aircraft was turned into the Fulmar and the Henley was used as a target tug but it is hard to believe they really thought the Battle was a viable tactical/close support bomber.

I would also note that many Japanese A5M aircraft could carry a pair of 66lb bombs and many Ki-27s could carry up to four 55lb bombs (Japanese army and navy couldn't even standardize on bombs) in place of drop tanks.

 

[stona]

Plenty of people foresaw the need for dual purpose aircraft.

So where were the fighter bombers when in 1940/41 the European combatants suddenly discovered that they needed them? Why did they have to press their established fighter aircraft and in the German case Zerstorer, into service to fulfil that role?
A little later the Americans also discovered that they needed such aircraft themselves. If the need had been foreseen I would suggest that suitable aircraft would have been available. Instead, once again, fighters were adapted to the role. Both the P-47 and P-51 had been designed for a very different role at a very different altitude.

The Hawk, Lysander etc fall into a broad category, maybe not the literal British one, of Army Cooperation aircraft. They were not viable as fighters in 1939.

I don't know enough about Japanese aircraft, doctrine or tactics to have an opinion about them

Cheers

Steve

 

[FLYBOYJ]

He ordered initial production to be fighter bomber variant, but did not order the cancellation of the fighter version, simply it's delay until Erprobungskommando 262 which had received its first fighters in April, less than eight weeks earlier, had finished testing.
In the words of the 'infamous' Fuhrer Befehl:

"Under no circumstances is bomber production to be delayed while awaiting results of such [fighter] tests. Not until these tests have been concluded will fighter production be permitted to start. Once this point has been reached there is no reason why production capacity cannot be divided between the two."

It seems to me that the situation in NW Europe in the days following the allied landings and also the state of the Eastern Front persuaded Hitler that this fighter bomber type should be the priority for his new wonder weapon. We have the benefit of hindsight and know that Galland and others were correct in arguing that using the Me 262 against the American (and to a lesser extent British) aerial onslaught would have been better, but hindsight is a wonderful thing. Hitler, not for the first time, made a serious misjudgement, but it was not as unjustified as many have since argued.

Cheers

Steve

In a twisted way, Hitler actually helped the 262 get fielded but as stated not for the purpose needed. I also believe that engine production was not keeping pace during this period as well, During this period the 262 was still seeing about ~10 hours engine life.