How would the Allies have dealt with large numbers of ME 262s? (1 Viewer)

[bobbysocks]

262 pilots ( at least some of them ) were ballsy ( or stupid depending on your outlook ). maybe they thought their machines were so superior that nothing could touch them...i dont know what they thought. but know of 2 instances where they flew extremely close to mustang groups...not attacking just nosing around....one even got in formation with them! in both cases they lucked out as the pony pilots forgot they didnt have their gun heaters on. the one pilots has some nice footage of 262 at near point blank range. some 262 jocks were lulled into a false sense of security by that overwhelming speed and would think they were out of range and circle back only to be cut off and shot down by the pilot who didnt give up. that is how my dad got his. when they were within a couple hundred yards they were just as vulnerable to being shot down as any plane. the big difference was they had the speed that they were in that danger zone for a shorter duration and they required more lead. but they werent invincible. when engaged by fighters they usually ran towards a base trying to drag the alled fighters into AA and/or waiting cover aircraft. but even with all that cover like erich said they lost a ton that way....granted the allies paid a hefty price sometimes for those victories but that never stopped them either.

 

[Erich]

and understatement D ~ reason your Dad's 357th fg was the highest killing jet unit ever................... cocky is a good word probably for many experienced/non jet pilots forgetting abut so many possible probs with an untried jet A/C teething always with problems. think the high fly zoom down and just nip a Mustang was a prime case of well I will just take a chance and from what I recall this is how Mustangs were hit on case, not so much a 1 to 1 encounter, the jet just did not fair well at all in this type of fight scenario. must admit my amazement over so many years of research with taking JG 7's average pilots and seeing how many of them were able to get 4-5 kills make ace status before going down in flames.

 

[stona]

incidentally whitemore of the 356th fg shot down on tail of a 262 that had just finished off a P-38 on PR that Whitemore and his wingman were escorting

That Me 262 was probably W.Nr.170299 (or 170099,170199,500199....complicated isn't it !) piloted by Gerhardt Rhode (or Ronde or Rohde).

On that day 21/2/45 as many as 60 Me 262s were destroyed during a raid on Obertraubling. Sgt Pollards of B.6 (40mm Bofors) gun detachment 2809 Light Anti Aircraft Squadron of the RAF Regiment weighed in with one more at Volkel airfield.

Steve

 

[Civettone]

The LW was never able to maintain 100% air superiority around its bases, this was a situation that cannot go away.

Of course they had air superiority over their own bases, at least in Germany. You are confusing it with air supremacy.


Stona, coming up with a list of Me 262 shot down proves very little. Unless you want to prove that the Me 262 was not indestructable? I think we all know that no combat aircraft is, especially when opposed by a much larger opponent. For instance, we all agree that the Bf 109F was far superior to anything the Russians had in 1941. Yet despite this undisputed superiority, there were substantial numbers of Bf 109s shot down. The I-16 was clearly inferior to the Bf 109, but like the P-51, we can come up with several tactics in which the I-16 would be able to shoot down a Bf 109. Does that prove the I-16 was not inferior? It does not. Same story with the P-51.

So instead of trying to show that the Me 262 was not invincible, why not try to make your case that the Me 262 was not superior to the P-51. Thus, why don't you come up with a list of Me 262 kills to correlate with your list of Me 262 losses? I remember that the Me 262 pilots "claimed" 600 aircraft shot down, which includes heavy bombers and P-51s, while constantly being outnumbered by swarms of P-51s... And you can come up with a list of what? 100-150 Me 262s destroyed shot down by ALL Allied fighters/bombers/Flak??

Kris

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Of course they had air superiority over their own bases, at least in Germany. You are confusing it with air supremacy.

Definition from the USAF War College

Air supremacy - a position in war where one force holds complete control of air warfare and air power over enemy forces.

Air Superiority - that degree of dominance in the air battle of one force over another which permits the conduct of operations by the former and its related land, sea and air forces at a given time and place without prohibitive interference by the opposing force.

Take your pick....

The LW wasn't able to prevent their bases from being attacked or prevent -262s from being blasted out of the sky either during takeoff or landing, they might have hampered the effort but could never completely stop it, the rest is history.

As far as -262 kills - from another forum...

"According to Manfred Boehme's book 'JG7 The world's first jetfighter unit 1944/1945', the pilots of JG7 shot down about 256 aircraft from 19.11.44 to 8.5.45. The book details the short life of this unit very well and mentions virtually every victory by pilot, aircraft type and date at least- save for stating that approximately 20 Soviet aircraft were shot down in the last weeks of the war- so the total is quite accurate. I can't account for the significant difference between some books' quote of 450 victories and this, however I'm more inclined to believe Boehme."

 

[Civettone]

You said they NEVER had air superiority ...


Kris

 

[FLYBOYJ]

You said they NEVER had air superiority ...


Kris

Read my quote...

"The LW was never able to maintain 100% air superiority around its bases"

 

[stona]

Stona, coming up with a list of Me 262 shot down proves very little. Unless you want to prove that the Me 262 was not indestructable?
Kris

No. You claimed that the only way an Me 262 could be shot down was in flight phases around take off and landing. My list is of 105 Me 262s shot down (and the full version which I am not about to post on a public forum) includes much more information. Only a small minority were shot down in traffic patterns.

I don't have a total for Me 262 kills as it is nigh on impossible to work out an accurate figure. You can have 500 but I doubt it was half that. Any figure needs to be put into context, the Allies had tens of thousands of aircraft in the ETO.

Most Me 262 units rarely fielded quantities of serviceable aircraft in double figures due to the appallingly low serviceability rates (which I touched on before) and debilitating accident rate, very often due to engine failures. Most of these were fatal.
In this sense, important for a military aircraft, the Me 262 was VASTLY inferior to the P-51.

Cheers

Steve

 

[fastmongrel]

Slight correction - the USAAF went away in 1947, in Korea it was the USAF

I have to admit I am never sure about the USAAC, USAAF and USAF names when they were in use and when they went out of use, there does seem to be a bit of overlap even by ex servicemen. I tend to play it safe and say USAAF all the time at least then I can claim it was a fat finger typo if I got the wrong one.

Its about time I read up on the name changes of the US air forces.

Just read up about the change from USAAC to USAAF and I am really confused now. The USAAC as an admin organisation was abolished in 1942 but wasnt abolished till 1947. 85% of USAAF aircrew were from the USAAC

 

[jim]

Of course they had air superiority over their own bases, at least in Germany. You are confusing it with air supremacy.


Stona, coming up with a list of Me 262 shot down proves very little. Unless you want to prove that the Me 262 was not indestructable? I think we all know that no combat aircraft is, especially when opposed by a much larger opponent. For instance, we all agree that the Bf 109F was far superior to anything the Russians had in 1941. Yet despite this undisputed superiority, there were substantial numbers of Bf 109s shot down. The I-16 was clearly inferior to the Bf 109, but like the P-51, we can come up with several tactics in which the I-16 would be able to shoot down a Bf 109. Does that prove the I-16 was not inferior? It does not. Same story with the P-51.

So instead of trying to show that the Me 262 was not invincible, why not try to make your case that the Me 262 was not superior to the P-51. Thus, why don't you come up with a list of Me 262 kills to correlate with your list of Me 262 losses? I remember that the Me 262 pilots "claimed" 600 aircraft shot down, which includes heavy bombers and P-51s, while constantly being outnumbered by swarms of P-51s... And you can come up with a list of what? 100-150 Me 262s destroyed shot down by ALL Allied fighters/bombers/Flak??

Kris

Thats exactly what Mr Stona is doing in his many of his last posts. Try to devalue the Me 262 and imlyies that is at best equal to P51D ( and naturally inferior to 51H )
He calls the 262 not manouverable, a"brick" when all test pilots report a fully aerobatic aircraft with excellent high speed agility
He calls "fantacies" the 400+++ german jet claims but accepts without question the claims of the american pilots.
He accepts stories of P51s out diving Me 262s, Spitfires XIVs catching on level flight (!!!) 262s

What i have
Statements of AMERICAN tests pilots calling the 262 superior to P80, on american soil tests
Statements of american fighter pilot that reports that while in his P51 had shorter turn radius the 262 could fly around him and one out manouvered 5 of his comrades
Statements of all german pilots that flew the 262 that they had several unconfirmed on the bird because the speeds were so great that often ther was no witness around. You have the choise not to believe them , i believe them and i dont believe you

The problem with many 262s pilots was the same with the problem of conventional fighter units that recieved former bomer pilots and reconaissance pilots Their mind set about manouvering was not correct for flying fighters. Norbert Hanning, Eric Hartmann, Lipfert, make special reports about this problem
Also the 4x30mm ,low velocity guns was not the best choise. Some pilots tended to slow down in order to ease their aiming. 4 x mg151 would be a much better choice, lighter, more muzzle velocity and still very distructive arrangement (except against p51s of course)
As for the initial question of the thread i believe that an one year earlier deployment of Me 262s would have create some impressive victories for the LW ,but nothing more. Wars are not winned by smart generals and revolutionary weapons but by numerous battallions (eg The confederate States of the America had much better generals and some amazing new weapons but were crashed by america easily and disappeared from the map)

 

[CobberKane]

this poor thread has so bounced around from 1943, 44 and 45 it is hard to make a sensible question let alone a feasible answer to anything written as things are so convoluted. had the 262 been in the numbers in March of 45 during mid-1943 start of the US bomber campaign then real probs would of existed Allies would of been on the drawing board as hot as fire. during 43 and early 44 the LW had to need for protective high cover AF defense of prop or this case of jets as we did not see the full blown invasion of Allied ground attack forces yet ............... now getting to spring of 45 yes the LW is still in kindergarten practicing old unworkable un-novel ideas for ground to air defenses. III./JG 54 Doras could not protect Nowotny's band in the fall of 44, the Wörger staffel did nothing for the inept 262 band of JV 44. JG 7 the most threatening of the LW jet day units had absolutely NO air cover for jets upon landing or take off still thinking that tons of quad 2cm Fla would ward off any attempts by US/Soviet fighters/bombers.

I just see the thread as a full-on what-if ? maybe the original poster needs to get a 10 point specific questionnaire so we are all on the same page ?

Not the first time I have been accused of being vague - or worse.
When I posted this thread I was thinking of the common (but commonly contested) argument that without Hitler's supposed interference etc the 262 might have been available to counter the Allied daylight bombing campaign significantly earlier and in greater numbers. I know that's a debatable argument, but for the sake of discussion I was taking it as a given. A slightly less contentious argument is that the Luftwaffe won the air battle over Europe in 1943 - USAAF losses were too high to justify any benefits from the bombing - but that changed in 1944 with a review of escort tactics and the arrival of the P-51. In I nutshell, I was wondering what the Allies as a whole would have done if the 262 had appeared in the kind of numbers Galland had fantasised about, just as the USAAF was fielding numbers of P-51 on the other side. That is, before D-day, and without the use of bases in occupied Europe. But hey, if anyone wants to talk about football, or interesting things to do with small rodents and root vegetables, be my guest!

 

[Erich]

then the time frame includes big week........... anything in February of 44 when the LW was at it's zenith in numbers .............. whoa unto anyone flying

 

[parsifal]

I dont think ther are serious challenges being made to the 262's technical exceellence. it, along with the Meteor, the AE 234B and other jets of that later war period marked a fundamental change of technology from prop fighters (and other types), to jet technologies. The Me 262 was fast well armed, and dangerous. And yet, it made virtually no mark on the air war perse. The question is firstly why, and secondly if it had been given time to work up properly and introduced in moderate numbers (a force structure of about 200, or roughly 1/3 the total LW home defences) whether that could have a significant, decisive, ir little effect.

My starting hypothesis is based on the experiences in Korea with the Mig-15....a roughly similar scenario. here the Mig-15 had a profound material and pschological effect, and the Migs technical excellenece should not be at issue. But despite its profound impact, actual loss rates remained tolerable, and the UN never lost air superiority......It is arguable that they may have lost air supremacy (in the sense that enemy air activity went from zero, or virtually zero, to some activity. The Soviets over Korea managed to mount some air denial operations, but it was never air parity, and they could not stop or halt UN air dominance. If there is a parrallel with 1944-5 with Me 262 operational, I struggle to see, how the 262 would do any differently to the Mig. It would have struggled to halt the bombing, and I doubt overall loss rates would change significantly. As Steve points out, a significant proportion of losses had nothing to do with fighters. The allied jets could be expected to ramp up in parallel to the Me 262, and it is a big fib to claim they lacked the range. The jets of 1950 were operating mostly from ai bases in Japan, to northern Korea and beyond, so the evidence is clearly there that they could fly missions to the heart of germany....the allies just chose not to because of security concerns.

So what effect would the early introduction (and full work up) of the 262 have. not a lot in that scenario. And that is not denying its technical excellence,its applying standard operational analysis and projection based on the nearest known equivalent.

 

[Balljoint]

Not the first time I have been accused of being vague - or worse.
When I posted this thread I was thinking of the common (but commonly contested) argument that without Hitler's supposed interference etc the 262 might have been available to counter the Allied daylight bombing campaign significantly earlier and in greater numbers. I know that's a debatable argument, but for the sake of discussion I was taking it as a given. A slightly less contentious argument is that the Luftwaffe won the air battle over Europe in 1943 - USAAF losses were too high to justify any benefits from the bombing - but that changed in 1944 with a review of escort tactics and the arrival of the P-51. In I nutshell, I was wondering what the Allies as a whole would have done if the 262 had appeared in the kind of numbers Galland had fantasised about, just as the USAAF was fielding numbers of P-51 on the other side. That is, before D-day, and without the use of bases in occupied Europe. But hey, if anyone wants to talk about football, or interesting things to do with small rodents and root vegetables, be my guest!

The Me-109 were quite capable of dealing with the P-51s one on one, but failed primarily through loss of quality pilots and the use of poorly trained replacements. The Me-262 would have been a tougher nut but the p-51 could adapt tactics to lever the vertical, for instance. They would know where the LW was going, i.e. after the bombers, and attack appropriately. Slippage of LW pilot skill would be even more telling in the Me-262 if Nowotny's early 262 experience was any indication.

Not to diss the Me-262, but there's a certain quality in quantity, both in planes and pilots.

 

[Wendovertom]

This assumes that the 262's engines were reliable. From what I have read they were good for little more than perhaps 2-3 short sorties and extremely sensitive to pilot inputs (too much throttle to fast burned them up). By the time the 262 appeared I think it was too late. And, being somewhat patriotic, my gut response is to wink and say, "We'd of shot them down to".

Tom P.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

What i have
Statements of AMERICAN tests pilots calling the 262 superior to P80, on american soil tests

There were several US test pilots who gave the -262 high marks in many performance areas but I don't think anyone ever said the 262 was "over all" superior to the P-80 and that includes the first US pilots who flew the -262 (The pilots of Operation Lusty). Chuck Yeager stated on more than one occasion that he thought both aircraft were equally matched. Now compare the first P-80As being produced in early 1945 to the -262 of the same period? I believe the 262 was a much more reliable and combat ready aircraft, but in the end I think the P-80, despite some limitations, "would have" given the 262 a fight, especially considering it would have arrived in numbers with better trained pilots flying them.

 

[oldcrowcv63]

In I nutshell, I was wondering what the Allies as a whole would have done if the 262 had appeared in the kind of numbers Galland had fantasised about, just as the USAAF was fielding numbers of P-51 on the other side. That is, before D-day, and without the use of bases in occupied Europe. But hey, if anyone wants to talk about football, or interesting things to do with small rodents and root vegetables, be my guest!

CK, the only quote I can find describing Galland's fantasy is of postulating the effect of introducing 100 262s into the pre P-51 environment (I assume mid 1943). He speculates that the effect would have been dramatic: the downing of as many as 200 allied bombers during one mission to stop the bombing campaign earlier than it was historically stopped.

I think the reaction of the allies to such a debacle would be quite as dramatic. I expect efforts to counter the 262's appearance would have achieved a priority probably equal to the Manhattan project.

Speaking of which, I believe there were three wonder weapons in WW2. The internationally produced Atomic bomb, the undisturbed American factory production line with virtually unhindered access to resources and allied cooperation exemplified by the Tizard mission. the latter two defeated Germany, the Luftwaffe and the Me-262 and would have regardless. JMO

 

[CobberKane]

One thing worth considering is whether the 262, even had it been able to halt the allied heavy daylight bomber campaign, would have been able to establish air superiority over occupied Europe and prevent D-Day. For the invasion to happen, the allies needed to be able to neutralise LW bombing of the beach heads. To do that they needed to have allied fighters swarming over Normandy, ready to knock down any bomber that appeared. The evidence suggests that the 262 may not have been a very effective weapon for shooting down those enemy fighters - as previously mentioned, it was an interceptor, not an air superiority fighter. If the Allies could have come up with tactics to minimise exposure to the 262 prior to D-Day and still acheive their objective of suppressing the German war machine - such as night bombing, increased high speed intruder raids by the likes of the Mosquito, and heavy use of fighter bombers like the Typhoon and P-47 - I wonder of the 262 could have done much against all those swarms of Spitfires, Tempests and Mustangs waiting to nail LW bombers. Of course the 262 could also bomb, and there was the Arado, but how effective they were I don't know. There would also have been many more conventional German air superiority fighters available, but that would bring us back to a way of attrition that only one side was ever going to win.

 

[Jenisch]

What numbers Galland "fantasised about"?

 

[Civettone]

This assumes that the 262's engines were reliable. From what I have read they were good for little more than perhaps 2-3 short sorties and extremely sensitive to pilot inputs (too much throttle to fast burned them up).

The Jumo 004B were good for more than 2-3 short sorties, rather 25 'short' sorties. Of course you are right about their throttle sensitivity. But let's not make it into a caricature: it's not that every Me 262 sortie would result in an engine failure.

The Me-109 were quite capable of dealing with the P-51s one on one, but failed primarily through loss of quality pilots and the use of poorly trained replacements. The Me-262 would have been a tougher nut but the p-51 could adapt tactics to lever the vertical, for instance. They would know where the LW was going, i.e. after the bombers, and attack appropriately. Slippage of LW pilot skill would be even more telling in the Me-262 if Nowotny's early 262 experience was any indication.

In all these years, I have defended the Bf 109 as much as any other. But, I can tell you that the Bf 109G was definitely not able to deal with the P-51, at least not the G-6. When the G-10 and K-4 arrived, they were up to the challenge again. Of course, it mainly depends on the pilot, but that's a no brainer.
What do you mean by P-51 levering the vertical? The Me 262 had superior climb rate and maintained speed better during manoeuvre.

But hey, if anyone wants to talk about football, or interesting things to do with small rodents and root vegetables, be my guest!

For what it's worth, I think it is an excellent topic. But out of experience, I know how important it is to set very specific guidelines to your scenario, so people will not drag the discussion all over the place.

My starting hypothesis is based on the experiences in Korea with the Mig-15....a roughly similar scenario. here the Mig-15 had a profound material and pschological effect, and the Migs technical excellenece should not be at issue. But despite its profound impact, actual loss rates remained tolerable, and the UN never lost air superiority......

I don't know much about the Korean war. But weren't the MiG-15s engaged by P-80s and F-86s? How would that compare to P-51s engaging Me 262s?

One thing worth considering is whether the 262, even had it been able to halt the allied heavy daylight bomber campaign, would have been able to establish air superiority over occupied Europe and prevent D-Day.

Good point. But you are missing another one: stopping the US bomber offensive means: more German military production and an intact transport network towards Normandy. That might have changed the outcome of the invasion!

Kris