How would the Allies have dealt with large numbers of ME 262s?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules


I think the last few posts pretty much sum up my thoughts on the subject, but for the record, had there been significant numbers of 262s dishing it out to daylight bombers prior to D-day, I'm thinking the following might have happened.

1. Heavy bombers might have been forced to operate only at night. If so they would have gone after anything associated with 262 production. The 262 would have been particularly vulnerable to interference in its production lines, because it was highly complex to build and once delivered, wore out far more quickly than conventional fighters. The 262 would not have been any more effective against night bombing than conventional night fighters, probably less so.
2.By the time daylight bombing could resume, the Allies would be ready to absolutely blanket enemy airfields and nail the 262s on take off and landing, like they did in reality but times ten.
3. in the mean time, lots and lots of Mosquitos bombing and shooting things up by day on low level missions. The 262 was the only German aircraft that could reliably intercept the Mossie at altitude, but even for it low level Mosquito raids would have been an issue, at least if they didn't penetrate to far and over-reach.

Of course, as has been mentioned, all this doesn't take into account the Atomic bomb. Probably had the Germans been that far ahead in jet production a lot more people would have died, and most of them would have been German civilians.
 
CobberKane said:
a lot more people would have died, and most of them would have been German civilians.
Click to expand...

I think it is often forgotten that despite the almost incomprehensible atrocities of the holocaust, the savage war in the East and other campaigns, the German people themselves were amongst the principle victims of the Nazis.

Cheers

Steve
 
Was the Me 262 specifically vulnerable at take off? Did its jet engines really take minutes to gear up? Or was this a common thread for aircraft? Couldn't it be that the Allies knew it was the only times they could hope to shoot down a jet fighter?? The Allies had the capability of patrolling near known German jet bases. This would not have been possible prior to the liberation of France nor would it have been possible once the Me 262s were ruling the skies.


Kris
 

A lot of the early jets took a while to get up to speed ( a lot of the later ones simply have an insane power to weight ratio).
Not only did the early jets have poor throttle response or need to have throttles opened slowly but the jet exhaust is a very poor transmitter of power at low speed. For the same thrust the actual horse power varies from 0 while stationary to max at a speed that matches the velocity of the exhaust gases. SO actual power at 150-200mph was pretty low.
Even piston planes take a while to get up to speed which is why a lot of the "book" figures for ranges at cruising speeds of 180-120mph are worthless for figuring actual combat ranges.
High top speeds do not always mean high acceleration and that was particularly true of early jets.


The British tested a Hawker Tempest against a Meteor III and at 250/260 Imph at 8,000 ft the acceleration was identical, if starting at an indicated 190mph the Tempest pulled ahead to begin with "but, after about thirty seconds and as the accelerating speed approached 300mph Meteor IAS the jet drew away rapidly and was out of range, that is, 600yds, in about 1.5 minutes"*

The Tempest was good for 381mph at 1000ft while the Meteor was good for 465mph and at 15,000ft the the Tempest was good for 416mph and Meteor 471mph.

Now if the Tempest caught a Meteor taking off or landing at a speed of around 200mph while the Tempest was doing anywhere near 350mph what are the Meteor's chances?

Please note that it took the Tempest about a minute and a half to go from around 190mph to full speed.

* Figures are from the Aerofax book "Gloster Meteor" by Phil Butler and Tony Buttler.
 
Last edited:
Large numbers of Me-262s?

From wikipedia: Military production during World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Total Allied Fighter production: ~215,000
Total Axis Fighter Production: ~95,000

Total German fighter production: ~53,000 (if counting attack-configured FW-190s I expect this number to be a bit (~12,000?) higher.

The allies outproduced the axis: 2+:1 in fighters, 3:1 in attack, 5:1 in bombers, and perhaps most important: 8:1 in transport and 8:1 in trainers

Of course some of the allies were fighting two wars, but not knowing for sure, I expect the commitment to the ETO was significantly in excess of that to the PTO, so it still doesn't seem to indicate a technologically-weighted parity could be reached such that pure technological superiority would make a significant impact. Moreover, allied fighter production was essentially unimpaired by the war and could ramp up to meet demand, whereas axis production was suffering continued depredation.

For mounting any war time effort, the allies had almost 20 times the Crude oil resources of Germany and nearly 2.5 times the iron ore.

I expect the raw numbers tell only part of the story, I would suspect that total operational allied fighters in the ETO/MTO during the period 1943 through 1945 would outweigh those of the LW by a significantly increasing margin with time. I've never seen a graph but that's my suspicion.
 
Last edited:
I also wonder if the P38 might have had a bigger role if there were more Me262's flying. The P38 had the range to roam around the LW airfields waiting for the jets to take off or land?
I know the LW would have (did) add piston engined fighters to try to provide cover for the jets - with how much success?
 
Certainly they had more success with them than without, but only as long as the higher octane fuel supply to (and) the localised airfield fuel stores lasted.... Depends also upon the number and types of allied A/C conducting rhubarbs and anti airfield operations in the area too.
 
They simply would have laughed at the failure known as the Me 262 (because it is not a P-80 or Meteor...).



(No, I do not actually believe this. I am being sarcastic.)
 
Hans Fey, who helpfully delivered his Me 262 to the western allies in March 1945 gave three pieces of advice on how to shoot down an Me 262.

1 Aim at the engines, they catch fire more readily than "conventional" types.

2 Overcome the advantage in speed by an advantage in altitude. The Me 262 was not at all manoeuvrable (he said for example that it was slow in turns and couldn't Split S in less than 9,000 to 12,000 ft). Allied fighters should trade altitude for speed (nothing new here) making a straight escape risky for the Me 262 and then exploit its lack of manoeuvrability.

3 Catch the Me 262 in its traffic pattern. Fey considered it most vulnerable when landing since due to its very limited endurance it would almost certainly be low on fuel as well as slow in this phase of an operation.

Cheers

Steve
 

There was also large numbers of light and medium flak (up to 200 barrels). They would be arranged alongside the landing and take off paths.
 
once the Me 262s were ruling the skies.
Click to expand...

Despite the superiority of the Me 262's performance over Allied piston engine aircraft, an increase in numbers wouldn't have changed the situation by as much as we are allowing ourselves to believe - the coutcome would certainly not be any different. The Me 262 was a terrific aeroplane and engine issues aside (yes, these existed alright) The Germans lost because of the sheer weight of numbers of Allied opposition. It was the application of resources as well and as others have stated, the Allies would not have just sat back and allowed such a marked increase in performance by the LW to go unchecked for too long. Look at what happened when the Fw 190 first appeared; the British Air Staff rewrote its future needs around how best to counter it as quickly as possible practically overnight.

As for the assertion that US heavy bombers would have to take to night operations; again, I don't believe that would take place. I think we are overestimating what the Me 262's impact might be. Yes, losses of bombers would be higher, but why would they be so high that the US Strategic bombing campaign would be threatened? The Americans would throw more aircraft in the air as escorts and yes, these would also suffer losses, but again, we are assuming that the Allies would just bungle along as normal without reacting to the circumstances as they unfolded (a common assumption made by German technology enthusiasts). The aviation industry relied on specific materials that the Germans could not get their hands on toward the end of the war and targetting essential industries and airfields would be a top priority by the Allies. For an example of how superior technology made little difference to things, look at the A-4 (V 2) rocket; unstoppable and unpredictable once launched, but bomb the bejesus out of its production and research facilities and its overall impact is lessened considerably.

Any lead the Me 262 in larger numbers would have given the Germans would not be in place for long and the Allied war industry would eventually do what it actually did; outproduce the Germans (and the Japanese). We forget that the Allies did not win because they had overwhelmingly superior technology; as we all know, the Germans were working on weapons the Allies could not have immediately countered had they entered service, but the end result would have been the same because the Allies had a bigger industrial base and more resources than their enemies.
 
We tend to remember designs by Lippisch, the Horten brothers and others as being revolutionary, but they were not the only ones working on such things. Shenstone (of Spitfire fame) had worked with Lippisch in his design office at Ursinus House in 1930/31 after his time at Junkers and is one of the non-German fathers of the delta wing.
In 1938 he proposed this incredible looking design!



Cheers

Steve
 
I completely agree that we should be careful with what-if scenarios. All variables can change. Action causes reaction.
But what would the Allies do against the Me 262? You say they wouldn't just sit back and accept the situation. But if so, what would they do??

You say that the Bomber offensive would continue anyway. This is simply not true: in 1943 the campaign was stopped due to its high losses. If Me 262s inflict bomber losses of a certain degree, the offensive will be stopped. Sure, the bomber groups will continue to expand and they will try again. But there is no easy fix against the Me 262. The Allies were lucky that they bombed the oil industry before the Me 262 became operational, that they could circle the Me 262 air fields before there were too many jets to drive them away.

Once airborne, the Me 262 was the best bomber destroyer available. Later, with all-weather equipment, improved Jumo 004B-4 engines and R4M rockets, it is the ultimate bomber destroyer. And there would be no Allied response to that.
Kris
 
davebender said:
Me-110G and Ju-88G worked just fine against Lancaster bomber. They will work just as well against B-17s and B-24s operating at night.
Click to expand...

Yes they will. But would they inflict unsustainable losses? They came close against Bomber Command (which itself, in its official history, acknowledges the Battle of Berlin as a defeat) but close wasn't good enough.

Cheers

Steve
 
Civettone said:
Once airborne, the Me 262 was the best bomber destroyer available. Later, with all-weather equipment, improved Jumo 004B-4 engines and R4M rockets, it is the ultimate bomber destroyer. And there would be no Allied response to that.
Kris
Click to expand...

The allies would still have shot them down, plenty were shot down. Hans Fey explained quite nicely how to do it. The only advantage it had was speed and this could be negated when the jet was attacked from an advantageous position. It couldn't out manoeuvre a pork pie. They were far from invulnerable. The point has already been made by myself and others that the Luftwaffe would simply be overwhelmed.

BTW when was the USAAF bomber offensive halted? It was certainly altered, a natural response to an unfavourable tactical situation experienced on deep penetration raids, but I don't recall it being stopped for any significant period. I suppose there was a distinct lull in September (43) and ultimately Eaker lost his job. Arnold told his British colleagues in Cairo that December that there was a problem in the 8th that needed to be fixed. "Only a new commander divorced from day to day routine could achieve this."

Cheers

Steve
 
Last edited:
Of course, the point that circumstances in 1943 lead to suspension of the campaign is I think a relevant observation and a historical analog to a possible 8th AF response. Even so, I think it comes down to a numbers game but perhaps not in the way you may think. When are the 262's available and what's in the allies inventory to respond? Do the 262's suddenly appear in large numbers and if so when does that somewhat unlikely event happen? There is typically a ramp-up to full deployment of large numbers of any new type. There are chains of events that need to occur for that to happen and these may be detectable to intelligence gathering organs. I think a model scenario of allied ignorance is both unlikely and a-historical.

IIRC, to the dismay of the bomber crews, Doolittle unleashed the fighters to rampage across germany in early 1944. So the 262's have to become a dominant factor in LW air defense before that. But before January 1944, the bombing campaign is already suspended. It seems to me, the wide ranging P-51 whose legs seem to practically trump 262 speed, comes into play exactly at the optimal time the 262 might have been deployed in increased numbers. Before that, the 262 wasn't needed. After that, it becomes a production and deployment race between P-51s and 262s. It seems to me the USAAF wins that race hands down. JMO

I understand the P-38 was most problematic at high altitude in the ETO. It had good legs but how was its endurance at medium to low altitude? Was it a possible surrogate for, or to augment the P-51's airbase suppression campaign? Just asking. Probably insufficient in numbers unless deployment policy changed for some reason.

I believe the bomber campaign halted after the Schweinfurt raid, October 15, 1943, and resumed in early 1944
 
Last edited:
Milosh, I take your point about the flak that was repositioned to around the jet airfields. But, the allies could still afford to run the risk of losing P51s, P38s or Mossies if they did enough damage to the 262s on take off or landing or being readied for flight.
Another thought is that the LW had problems training sufficient pilots for piston engined fighters, I do not see them producing jet pilots in bulk even if they miraculously produced the jets!
 

Put a lot more effort into getting their jets fielded, of course. The jets -- Meteor, P-80, Vampire -- could probably have been pushed into squadron service several months earlier than historical. That they were not available over the skies of Europe was because they were not needed, not because the US and UK were incapable.
 
vinnye said:
Another thought is that the LW had problems training sufficient pilots for piston engined fighters, I do not see them producing jet pilots in bulk even if they miraculously produced the jets!
Click to expand...

It is claimed by some old Luftwaffe hands that a Bf 109 or Fw 190 could be converted to the Me 262 with an hours training which seems optimistic. Even if true those trained piston engine pilots have to be available, which was a problem for the Luftwaffe. Presumably they would also have to be replaced, another problem.

An even bigger problem was the lack of spares, infrastructure and personnel to support the new aircraft. This applies to any new type. Check the improvement in He 177 serviceability once its maintenance problems were finally addressed. It is even more critical for a new type with a propulsion system unfamiliar to most Luftwaffe technicians.

Logistics, logistics and then logistics win campaigns. Ask Wellington, or Patton, or Henry V (he took 3 million arrows to France), or Julius Caesar.

Cheers
Steve
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Would a Spitfire with the same wing area as on the Bf 109 have been a good idea or not?
3 4 5
Replies
95
Views
5K
Reluctant Poster
R
A
Do we know about how much Luftwaffe jet aircraft other than the Me 262 would cost in today's money?
Replies
0
Views
1K
anetos05
A
A
How did the I-16 Really Perform in WWII?
3 4 5
Replies
88
Views
5K
bf109xxl
A
Would any other designs like the Arado E.583, the Blohm & Voss P 215 or the Lippisch P.13a have been better than the Horten Ho 229?
Replies
1
Views
1K
bada
B
N
How capable was the Ki-44?
4 5 6
Replies
105
Views
11K
Irregualr23
I
Menu
Log in
Register