I disagree totally with the Mig 15 scenario etc. That conflict and the circumstances were very different to what was happennning over Germany 5 years earlier, but that is probably best discussed in another thread at this stage ( should make for a lively debate!).
I agree, but what was happening in Germany 5 years earlier was that the LW was expending a truckload of its ever decreasing resources on its Jet program, and in the context of the war, getting nowhere fast. Korea was the first conflict where jet technologies were effectively applied, and the the last war where missiles were not the dominant weapons. The MIG enjoyed a similar performance advantage over its targets as the Me 262 enjoyed, better probably, plus it was a reliable mount, with plenty of fuel and good pilots. it was not as hopelessly outnumbered as the Me 262, and could operate from relatively secure bases because the Korean conflict was a geographically limited conflict. If anything, therefore, the advantages of the MIG were far greater than those endured by the 262. Didnt make any measurable difference to the loss rates of its opponents however. these are the basic observed facts. Moreover that is entirely consistent with every major conflict up until the introduction of the ultra modern missile and tracking technologies. Quality does not equal increased kills. Other factors do that. Not even in Russia was the Jagd gruppen the main killer of Russian aircraft, neither was the VVS, or the USAAF or the RAF the main killer of the LW. Most aircraft were lost for reasons other than enemy action, with only one exception of circumstance. If one side had fighters, and the other did not, then there was a massacre. if both sides have fighters, the opposing fighters tended to cancel each other out, more or less. That rule does not apply in the modern era, where electronics changes everything. neither does it apply when the technology of one side is so overwhelming that it trumps everything. Unfortunately for the Germans, there is no evidence of that ever happening with the 262, similalry there is no evidence of it happening with the Mig-15. In fact it was a generally rare event in WW2, the technology difference was simply not enough to register that effect. To give some persepective there are often wildly optimistic figures given for Russian losses during the war, whilst german losses are minimised....but this falls apart when the overall loss rates to all causes are looked at. in that scenario, total german losses are similar to those lost by the russians
The Me 262 was a generation ahead aerodynamically, and the British scoffed at german research documents regarding swept wings.
Err nope and nope. no denying the meteor was not particulalry clean, but the vampoire in my opinion was closer aerodynamically to the German aircraft. I dont know if any "scoffing was going on, just an underestimation of its importance.
They did not even have a swept wing production fighter until the next decade, lagging behind the Russians and the U.S., and never really catching up ever since.
nope, not right either, after the war the scimitar, the Lightning, even the harrier, were equal to their contemporaiers in terms of aerodynamics.
As far as the Me 262 being a failure, I'm trying to work out in what aspect. It failed to win the war for the Nazi's, but apart from that did very well for itself. It produced 22 jet aces for a start, while the Meteor failed to produce even one.
Claimed aces, not confirmed aces. theres a difference. Operationally, it managed to shoot down 150 enemy aircraft in the air, whilst losing a similar number itself, as a fighter, thats less than an adequate performance. More to the point, of the 1400 produced, less than 200 were operational, moreover for most of its service life if there were 200 operational, typically 25 might be servicable, on a good day. What were the serviceability rates of say Me 109s at this time. I think the LW would have been far better off just churning out more 109s or FWs at the end (early 44 onward). they would have improved their availability rates vastly if they had, and a much higher allied loss rate would have ensured. If they had produced 2000 extra 109s as a result of not building the 262, and we assume an overall serrvi8ceability rate for proven types of 70% (more or less the rate applicable to the LW as a whole in '44), and the exchange rate of around 2 losses for each shoot down, then the allies would have sufereed 1000 losses from the extra 109s, instead of the 150 they lost from the 262s.
Made from poor quality materials using semi skilled labour in forest factories, training pilots under the most trying of circumstances, and managing to score kills while completely and totally out numbered in every instance.
All indicative of a rushed entry to service. If the Germans had put in a greater effort to get their jets going properly, then so too would the allies, because the need was there. If we assume effective delivery of the 262, with the bugs ironed out in early 1944, then my estimated realisitc service delivery for the Meteor I would be about Feb 44, the Meteor II April 44, and the Meteor 4 July 44. We could expect a Meteor 8 delivery from some time in 45, and so it goes on. There is no solution to Germany's problem via rtechnogy. its a post war myth.
If we talk failure, the meteor failed to down a single enemy aircraft, and YP 80 failed to even get into the picture. I really don't get into the "what if" thing; the Me 262 was a remarkable achievement.
Your being more than a little inconsistent. Your saying, in one breath....."what if the 262 had a better run as far as serviceability and availability was concerned", and then, in the same breath are saying " I really am not going to consider any hypothetical extrapolation for the allies!!!" that is a totally inconsistent approach. Facts are these, if we want to eliminate all "what ifs"....the 262 had enormous resources spent on it. It was a technical marvel, and a near total operational failure. by comparison, the meteor had far less resources spent on it, but was an operational irrelvance in the context of the war. which is worse...spend a bucket and get nothing, or spend a little (as insurance) and get nothing????