Which reflects the tonnage of bombs dropped on oil targets by the British and Americans, look at the jump in November '44. According to some this was pointless
Cheers
Steve
Interesting, the British dropped more tonnage than the Americans.
How would the Allies have dealt with large numbers of ME 262s?
- Thread starter CobberKane
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Interesting, the British dropped more tonnage than the Americans.
razor1uk
Staff Sergeant
The Brits (with Commonwealth and 'Free European' forces) were against the Natzi's for longer, but see the USAAF was playing catch up very quickly - another 6 months and they might have dropped more in less overall time. But just the dropping of bombs doesn't confer damage hinderance to the enemy/target unless you hit something important - something that both the Allies and Axis generally missed with their level bombers.
oldcrowcv63
Tech Sergeant
Kris, a fair comment in very general terms, except for the generational context. Comparing first generation jets (with all their technological immaturity and limitations, especially those produced in a besieged country that can barely muster a cadre of competent pilots) with large numbers of last generation prop fighter a/c flown by very well trained and logistically supported adversaries doesn't seem to me to translate well to what modern jets can do in response to what can only be described as a marginal threat. If it were otherwise, Vietnam would have been acquiring Yaks to counter the McDc F-4. By current example, if a Cessna breaks the ADIZ today, it will be initially intercepted by an F-16, but will soon be handed off to a local law enforcement helicopter.
Speed and power were indeed enhanced in WW2, but I believe the aviation (fighter) world was already headed down that road. What WW2 brought that was a true revolution was endurance. The idea that a single-seat, single-engine a/c could roam a continent picking fights with whatever it met was an unheralded development and one that remains not fully appreciated. The P-51 seems to be most frequently touted due to its role as an escort, but that played a secondary (albeit important) role in the defeat of the Luftwaffe.
Last edited:
We were at it for longer and our main strategic bombers carried a much bigger load.
Cheers
Steve
oldcrowcv63
Tech Sergeant
~50 to 100 mph speed disadvantage is typically significant in combat outcome but not necessarily fatal to the poorer performing adversary. WW2 is replete with examples of confrontations by fighters of similarly mismatched performance (as 262 vs P-51):
Rather than using the more appropriate graphs of speed vs altitude, I'll make it easy on myself and compare optimum altitude maximum speed
IJA Ki-27 (~275 mph) vs USAAF FEAF P-40E (~350 mph) in the PI: Published Speed Differential: ~75mph
F4F-3 (~331 mph) vs A5M (~273 mph) in early 1942 carrier raids: Speed Differential: ~58 mph
Gloster Gladiator (253 mph) vs Me-110 (336 mph) in 1940 Norway campaign: Speed Differential: ~83 mph
Grumman Martlet IV (~F4F-4A, I think? no sources handy) (~300 mph) vs FW 190 or Me-109 (~400 mph): Speed Differential: `~100 mph
I expect there are other examples of similar disparities but these will serve to make the point that numbers of serviceable aircraft count at least as much as raw speed performance (Fulmar vs ???)
Rather than using the more appropriate graphs of speed vs altitude, I'll make it easy on myself and compare optimum altitude maximum speed
IJA Ki-27 (~275 mph) vs USAAF FEAF P-40E (~350 mph) in the PI: Published Speed Differential: ~75mph
F4F-3 (~331 mph) vs A5M (~273 mph) in early 1942 carrier raids: Speed Differential: ~58 mph
Gloster Gladiator (253 mph) vs Me-110 (336 mph) in 1940 Norway campaign: Speed Differential: ~83 mph
Grumman Martlet IV (~F4F-4A, I think? no sources handy) (~300 mph) vs FW 190 or Me-109 (~400 mph): Speed Differential: `~100 mph
I expect there are other examples of similar disparities but these will serve to make the point that numbers of serviceable aircraft count at least as much as raw speed performance (Fulmar vs ???)
Last edited:
til June `44 RAF BC - 1899, USAAF - 3115
from June `44 RAF BC - 82.025, USAAF - 76,116
There was way more American heavy bombers.
GregP
Major
Civetone, regarding post 180, let's just say we totally disagree with one another and let it go at that.
I doubt the moderators would appreciate my retort to your "utter nonsense" comment, and I'll leave it at that.
Have a nice day.
I doubt the moderators would appreciate my retort to your "utter nonsense" comment, and I'll leave it at that.
Have a nice day.
Last edited:
GregP
Major
Regarding post 181: Actually the British did not drop more tonnage than the USAAF. The list Stona posted was tons of bombs dropped on OIL targets in the ETO and it added up to 163,155 tons on OIL targets alone. Not sure if those are long tons or short tons since it doesn't say. Probably depends on where it was published.
In the entire war, the USAAF dropped 1,463,423 tons (52.8%) in the ETO and the RAF dropped 1,307,117 tons (47.2%) in the ETO. Roughly equal. For the USAAF, that includes 8th, 9th, 12th, and 15th Air Forces as well as the 1st Tactical Air Force. For the RAF that includes Bomber Command, Fighter Command, 2nd Tactical Air Force and the Mediterranean Air Command. The RAF took 687,462 sorties to do it and the USAAF took 754,818 sorties. The RAF average 1.901 tons per sortie. The USAAF averaged 1.930 tons per sortie. Also roughly equal.
Since we know the Lancaster hauled more bombs per sortie than the USAAF planes, it follows that there were many more sorties in the RAF flown by other than Lancasters. In fact the Halifax, Wellington, Stirling and Mosquito together flew more sorties than Lancaster did.
Those tonnages are Wiki numbers and the numbers from such sources as Jane's Fighting Aircraft of WWII are a bit lower but show a similar percentage dropped by the USAAF and the RAF. We didn't get started until later but rapidly caught up. The British had been at it longer but also didn't have the industrial production capacity to match the rapid growth of the USAAF bomber fleet. In the end, the total tonnage was very close for both Air Forces.
1944 saw the heaviest aerial bombing the world has ever known.
You can tell when the eventual breakdown came from other statistics, too. In 1942 and 1943 the USAAF didn't destroy any Axis aircraft on the ground. In 1944 they averaged 198 Axis aircraft destroyed on the ground per month and 688 destroyed in the air. For the first 3 months of 1945, they averaged 234 on the ground and 324 in the air.
Then came April 1945. The USAAF in April shot down 324 Axis aircraft in the air but also destroyed 3,703 Axis aircraft on the ground. That amounts to more losses on the ground in April 1945 than for the whole preceeding rest of the war!
Tough for the Luftwaffe to rebound from those kinds of losses, but April 1945 was also the same time the Ta 152 made its combat contributions. Altogether bad timing.
In the entire war, the USAAF dropped 1,463,423 tons (52.8%) in the ETO and the RAF dropped 1,307,117 tons (47.2%) in the ETO. Roughly equal. For the USAAF, that includes 8th, 9th, 12th, and 15th Air Forces as well as the 1st Tactical Air Force. For the RAF that includes Bomber Command, Fighter Command, 2nd Tactical Air Force and the Mediterranean Air Command. The RAF took 687,462 sorties to do it and the USAAF took 754,818 sorties. The RAF average 1.901 tons per sortie. The USAAF averaged 1.930 tons per sortie. Also roughly equal.
Since we know the Lancaster hauled more bombs per sortie than the USAAF planes, it follows that there were many more sorties in the RAF flown by other than Lancasters. In fact the Halifax, Wellington, Stirling and Mosquito together flew more sorties than Lancaster did.
Those tonnages are Wiki numbers and the numbers from such sources as Jane's Fighting Aircraft of WWII are a bit lower but show a similar percentage dropped by the USAAF and the RAF. We didn't get started until later but rapidly caught up. The British had been at it longer but also didn't have the industrial production capacity to match the rapid growth of the USAAF bomber fleet. In the end, the total tonnage was very close for both Air Forces.
1944 saw the heaviest aerial bombing the world has ever known.
You can tell when the eventual breakdown came from other statistics, too. In 1942 and 1943 the USAAF didn't destroy any Axis aircraft on the ground. In 1944 they averaged 198 Axis aircraft destroyed on the ground per month and 688 destroyed in the air. For the first 3 months of 1945, they averaged 234 on the ground and 324 in the air.
Then came April 1945. The USAAF in April shot down 324 Axis aircraft in the air but also destroyed 3,703 Axis aircraft on the ground. That amounts to more losses on the ground in April 1945 than for the whole preceeding rest of the war!
Tough for the Luftwaffe to rebound from those kinds of losses, but April 1945 was also the same time the Ta 152 made its combat contributions. Altogether bad timing.
Last edited:
Erich
the old Sage
.............side note the Ta 152H became operational in January of 45...........don't believe everything you read...........
davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
General comments on various post
Once the USSR was invaded and war was declared on the US, the only thing that could have ended the war to Germany's betterment would have been development of the atom bomb before the allies. They would never be able to out produce the US or out man the Soviet Union. Advanced conventional weapons may have delayed the war but probably not by much as advanced weapons were rapidly countered (typically 6-9 mos).
Looking at flight test data and characteristics it is unreasonable to assume there was much difference in performance between the P-80 and the Me 262. The P-80 was a bit lighter and thus had slightly better thrust to weight ratio and wing loading. It appears to be faster at SL but slower at high altitude and climbed better. High ranking officer comments negative on the P-80 has the smell of the claims by the military during the 50s and 60s on how far behind the Russians the US was. After WWII I suspect no general would say the P-80 was good enough when they were desperately seeking limited funding to develop more advanced aircraft like the F-86. Twin pod engines on the Me 262 and Meteor were dead end streets in the design of fighter aircraft.
The P-51B/D was an excellent long range escort and interdiction fighter and was very capable of dogfighting the majority of Bf-109 and Fw 190 versions it faced, excluding the Fw 190D-9, Bf-109 G-10, and certainly the Bf-109K-4, which was more of a challenge, all of these appearing too late. But the Me 262 was a different beast. It was 100 mph faster than the P-51B/D and if well flown in quantity would have been problematic to daylight bombing forcing it to nighttime. However, swarms of P-51s, P-38s, P-47Ns, and others, even if outperformed, would still have chased them to ground and eliminated the Me 262 as a threat.
All aircraft are vulnerable on landing and taking off. Jets are more so since they tend to accelerate slowly. Jets in this era was more vulnerable because of slow spin up of the compressor.
I agree with the comment that the Germans made an error in pursuing axial flow engines this early in development. While they had a good head start over the British, by the end of 1944 the British were testing engines with 5000 lbt (Nene) whereas the Germans seemed never to get an engine over 2000 lbt running, although there were many planned many were cancelled, for who knows why. In addition, the British engines had more than twice the thrust to weight ratio of comparable German engines.
German airframe/jet engine integration was significantly advanced compared to allied effort. Both the He 280 and the Me 262 were a generation past the aero designs of the Meteor and the P-59. It wasn't until the P-80 and Vampire (which was delayed due to an inlet failure on the P-80) that the allies caught up and that was practically after the war. The Meteor only became competitive with the inclusion of more powerful engines.
As for advanced German jets this is my opinion, and I have been involved in developing advance aircraft for nearly 30 years.
He 162. Seems to be a reasonable design with good performance potential. Very small with limited flexibility. Had limited range and high exposure to combat losses due to frequent landings. Requires experienced pilot.
Go 229. Advanced flying wing concept but probably way ahead of technology. Probably five to ten years from combat ready. Without flight control computers vertical stabilizers would probably need to be added ala Jack Northrop aircraft.
P 1101. Variable wing sweep test vehicle. My feelings are that this could have been morphed into the first successful swept wing fighter, though no variable sweep, in 1946.
Ta 183. My feelings are that this plane was years away from operations, as demonstrated after the war. Good concepts but a lot had to be worked out.
Once the USSR was invaded and war was declared on the US, the only thing that could have ended the war to Germany's betterment would have been development of the atom bomb before the allies. They would never be able to out produce the US or out man the Soviet Union. Advanced conventional weapons may have delayed the war but probably not by much as advanced weapons were rapidly countered (typically 6-9 mos).
Looking at flight test data and characteristics it is unreasonable to assume there was much difference in performance between the P-80 and the Me 262. The P-80 was a bit lighter and thus had slightly better thrust to weight ratio and wing loading. It appears to be faster at SL but slower at high altitude and climbed better. High ranking officer comments negative on the P-80 has the smell of the claims by the military during the 50s and 60s on how far behind the Russians the US was. After WWII I suspect no general would say the P-80 was good enough when they were desperately seeking limited funding to develop more advanced aircraft like the F-86. Twin pod engines on the Me 262 and Meteor were dead end streets in the design of fighter aircraft.
The P-51B/D was an excellent long range escort and interdiction fighter and was very capable of dogfighting the majority of Bf-109 and Fw 190 versions it faced, excluding the Fw 190D-9, Bf-109 G-10, and certainly the Bf-109K-4, which was more of a challenge, all of these appearing too late. But the Me 262 was a different beast. It was 100 mph faster than the P-51B/D and if well flown in quantity would have been problematic to daylight bombing forcing it to nighttime. However, swarms of P-51s, P-38s, P-47Ns, and others, even if outperformed, would still have chased them to ground and eliminated the Me 262 as a threat.
All aircraft are vulnerable on landing and taking off. Jets are more so since they tend to accelerate slowly. Jets in this era was more vulnerable because of slow spin up of the compressor.
I agree with the comment that the Germans made an error in pursuing axial flow engines this early in development. While they had a good head start over the British, by the end of 1944 the British were testing engines with 5000 lbt (Nene) whereas the Germans seemed never to get an engine over 2000 lbt running, although there were many planned many were cancelled, for who knows why. In addition, the British engines had more than twice the thrust to weight ratio of comparable German engines.
German airframe/jet engine integration was significantly advanced compared to allied effort. Both the He 280 and the Me 262 were a generation past the aero designs of the Meteor and the P-59. It wasn't until the P-80 and Vampire (which was delayed due to an inlet failure on the P-80) that the allies caught up and that was practically after the war. The Meteor only became competitive with the inclusion of more powerful engines.
As for advanced German jets this is my opinion, and I have been involved in developing advance aircraft for nearly 30 years.
He 162. Seems to be a reasonable design with good performance potential. Very small with limited flexibility. Had limited range and high exposure to combat losses due to frequent landings. Requires experienced pilot.
Go 229. Advanced flying wing concept but probably way ahead of technology. Probably five to ten years from combat ready. Without flight control computers vertical stabilizers would probably need to be added ala Jack Northrop aircraft.
P 1101. Variable wing sweep test vehicle. My feelings are that this could have been morphed into the first successful swept wing fighter, though no variable sweep, in 1946.
Ta 183. My feelings are that this plane was years away from operations, as demonstrated after the war. Good concepts but a lot had to be worked out.
GregP
Major
Hi Erich. Yes the Ta 152 did become operational in January 1945.
But most of the few victories I have read about happened in April. Ergo my comment about APril 1945 being when the Ta 152 made it's combat contributions.
Oberfeldwebel Willi Reschke's first Ta 152 combat happened on 14 Apr 1945 when he tried to intercept a Mosquito and the famous Tempest fight was later than same day. Reschke claimed two Yakovlev Yak-9s near Berlin on 24 April 1945. It seems that three often reported victory claims by Obfw. Walter Loos, on 24, 25 and 30 April, cannot be attributed to Ta 152. Loos himself stated he never shot down a single enemy fighter while flying the Ta 152.
Four victories were achieved by Josef Keil, from 1 March 1945 to 21 April 1945.
So most of the victories were in April 1945. The 4 combat losses were also in April 1945. I do wonder how many Ta 152's were lost to mechanical issues and how many were destroyed on the ground, though.
But most of the few victories I have read about happened in April. Ergo my comment about APril 1945 being when the Ta 152 made it's combat contributions.
Oberfeldwebel Willi Reschke's first Ta 152 combat happened on 14 Apr 1945 when he tried to intercept a Mosquito and the famous Tempest fight was later than same day. Reschke claimed two Yakovlev Yak-9s near Berlin on 24 April 1945. It seems that three often reported victory claims by Obfw. Walter Loos, on 24, 25 and 30 April, cannot be attributed to Ta 152. Loos himself stated he never shot down a single enemy fighter while flying the Ta 152.
Four victories were achieved by Josef Keil, from 1 March 1945 to 21 April 1945.
So most of the victories were in April 1945. The 4 combat losses were also in April 1945. I do wonder how many Ta 152's were lost to mechanical issues and how many were destroyed on the ground, though.
Last edited:
oldcrowcv63
Tech Sergeant
Been anticipating your weighing in on this thread dav.
Erich
the old Sage
Greg there is new data out reschkes books is wrong and so are you're findings
back to the original thread if we suppose the 262 ready for Big Week and before as the US 354th fg makes it's debut with the P-51B the question is then asked what do the 262A-1a's replace in the LW line-up 109's/Fw's ? or what about the ZG's composed of Bf 110G-2's and early Me 410's ? in any ase the ZG's needed high cover protection in late 43 by 109 gruppen. wouldthe 262 be handled in the same way but probablyu not as he 262's at least late war depended on cruising speed outweighing 109/Fw capabilities. Besdies the tactics flown before and during an attack on a bomber box.
back to the original thread if we suppose the 262 ready for Big Week and before as the US 354th fg makes it's debut with the P-51B the question is then asked what do the 262A-1a's replace in the LW line-up 109's/Fw's ? or what about the ZG's composed of Bf 110G-2's and early Me 410's ? in any ase the ZG's needed high cover protection in late 43 by 109 gruppen. wouldthe 262 be handled in the same way but probablyu not as he 262's at least late war depended on cruising speed outweighing 109/Fw capabilities. Besdies the tactics flown before and during an attack on a bomber box.
GregP
Major
Where are the new data? Been hearing about it for 10 years. If you won't share the data, then what is the primary source and what makes IT more believable than the existing data? It it a single report? Or was a heap of new data unearthed sonehow?
I'll believe my coclusion might be wrong when I see the proof of same. That is NOT to disrespect either you or your new data.
It is only an admission that I haven't seen it and don't know why it would be any more believabale than the data we have and HAVE had for 65+ years.
However, I look forward to seeing your new data and comparing it against flight test reports on the Ta 152's.
I'll believe my coclusion might be wrong when I see the proof of same. That is NOT to disrespect either you or your new data.
It is only an admission that I haven't seen it and don't know why it would be any more believabale than the data we have and HAVE had for 65+ years.
However, I look forward to seeing your new data and comparing it against flight test reports on the Ta 152's.
Last edited:
Was the Soviet occcupation of Romania the main factor to the abrupt drop in '44?
The me 262 couldn't out turn piston engine fighters, but it could definitely out roll them at speed, at slow speed pilots describe it as feeling like a heavy aircraft though, actual testing shows it could slightly out roll the 190a at high speed but trounce aircraft like the standard wing spitfire and zero etc, etc... its climb when full of fuel was very good, but not spectacular like the me 109k4 or spitfire 9, again it carried tons of fuel not hundreds of pounds of fuel, so its climb rate should in theory increase a lot more than other single seat fighters, again, in theory. combined with its high forward velocity climb and amazing zoom climb, remember another thing once at speed jets are very powerful so when you raise the nose of the me 262 is going to bleed off sped a lot, lot slower than say a spitfire or me 109, over all, I would say a fantastic climber.
Yes indeed, an important point, Dav. The German lead in jet technology was also not as great as we tend to perceive; our enthusiasm for the possibilities of what the Germans might have done tends to colour our judgement of what was actually happening at the time and what the Allies were doing at the same time with similar technology. Yes, the Germans got a jet in the air before anyone else, but that doesn't mean Britain did not have the technology to do so; they had working jet engines by then and just needed the official recognition of the technology before a British jet could get into the air. Also, the Gloster Meteor I entered service with 616 Sqn on 12 July 1944 after extensive testing, at this time it is worth remembering that unlike the Me 262 the Meteor was not rushed into service before the most serious bugs were ironed out; the British gas turbines were far more reliable than the German ones as we all know. Although Germany had more jet aircraft in service at the end of the war, their use was stifled by unreliability and, of course supply, pilots, training issues with the war being raged etc, Britain's jets, although not without their own issues and fewer in number, were every bit as capable as the German aircraft that were put into service.
GregP
Major
I wouldn't say that it was a fnatastic climber at all, but we all have our own conclusions from the data.
With all the mass out on the wings, I seriously doubt it would out-roll may fighters ... but well might do so above 400 - 450 mph TAS since it designed more for those speeds than the pistons were. It also didn't have "tons" of fuel. It had about 3,200 pounds for 475 US gallons. That's about 1.6 tons, so it doesn't even make 2 tons.
Considering the difficulties it had with landing, I wouldn't think they'd stick around to fight once the fuel got down to less than 1/2 to 1/3 or so ... it would be time to boogie for home plate or face possible flame out if the first approach didn't work out. The fuel consumption was high at altitude, but ridiculous down low.
Our Bell YP-59A Airacomet is in the same ballpark, fuel consumption-wise. You can get it down to 125 gallons per hour at 40,000 feet, but at 650 feet (the altitude at the base of Chino tower) it is 575+ gallons per hour. That is gallons per hour, not pounds per hour. I'd bet the Me 262 wasn't that much different.
With all the mass out on the wings, I seriously doubt it would out-roll may fighters ... but well might do so above 400 - 450 mph TAS since it designed more for those speeds than the pistons were. It also didn't have "tons" of fuel. It had about 3,200 pounds for 475 US gallons. That's about 1.6 tons, so it doesn't even make 2 tons.
Considering the difficulties it had with landing, I wouldn't think they'd stick around to fight once the fuel got down to less than 1/2 to 1/3 or so ... it would be time to boogie for home plate or face possible flame out if the first approach didn't work out. The fuel consumption was high at altitude, but ridiculous down low.
Our Bell YP-59A Airacomet is in the same ballpark, fuel consumption-wise. You can get it down to 125 gallons per hour at 40,000 feet, but at 650 feet (the altitude at the base of Chino tower) it is 575+ gallons per hour. That is gallons per hour, not pounds per hour. I'd bet the Me 262 wasn't that much different.
Last edited:
