p-80 V Me 262

[drgondog]

How about May 8, 1945...

Joe - or august 6, 1945..in which pitiful Allied technology created the one ship/one city concept for strategic airpower!

It is perfectly clear that the US and UK and USSR had worthless science, terrible engineering and even worse metallurgy when confronted by the brilliance and dominance posed by Germany in WWII.

The B-29, B-32, Lancaster, B-17 and B-24 were lousy designs compared to the vaunted He-177 and Do 17 and Do 217 and other heavy bombers that the Reich put out in such large numbers.

The Mosquito of course couldn't touch anything the LW put out... and all the mediums and light bombers such as the B-26, A-26 were clearly inferior.

The Japanese can attest that the US Fleet Boats and Brit subs never laid a hand on them, our carriers were pitiful, the US and Brit fleets in general second class in all respects to Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan - including carrier aircraft.

The Mustang and Spit and Tempest and Yak3 and Thunderbolt were really lucky in all the encounters, the Garand was worthless, the Jeep a piece of junk, the C-47 was a nightmare, the T-34 and M-26 and M10 were engineering failures, the 3.5 Bazooka had no value, the M2 machine gun was idiocy and besides nearly ancient in WWII, the Liberty ship was a non contributor, etc. etc.

We designed lousy stuff - and worse - we put them into the field in shortest times and greatest numbers. I know we did it because we had lousy engineers so an inferior product can be made cheaply and quickly.

And even worse than that, we went into a steady technological decline in military and scientific development after the war was over thanks to really deficient technology and science - including breaking the speed of sound, putting a man on the moon and building dumb aircraft like the SR-71 and F-117.

I mean, how stupid can we really get?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

 

[Soren]

I was hoping, infact I was pretty sure, that you were a more mature person Bill.

I never called what the Allies made inefficient or junk as you imply in your childish attempt to ridicule, but then again its not the first time you've tried to put words into my mouth so I should've been prepared.

In my very own post I wrote that the B-29 was overall the best large bomber of WW2, but like you do so often you choose to ignore that.

Like I said the Allies had their own advanced projects, but as you can clearly see yourself the Germans were in general fielding more advanced equipment.

The Allies failed to field an equal to the Me-262, He-162, Ta-152, Ar-243, Ju-388 Fa 233. The Allies failed to field an equal to the StG.44, MG-42 Panzerfaust. The Allies failed to field an equal to the Pzkpfw V, IV, IV B, JagdPanther, JagdTiger Hetzer etc etc. The Allies failed to produce an equal to the Type VII, IX, XXI XXIII subs.

The Allies, with a great amount of outside help, produced the A-bomb. The Germans failed to produce an equal to this.

 

[the la-7 is gangster]

The me-262 would win cos it has more speed and a much more powerful set of armament. The P-80 advantage in manouverability wouldnt matter for much but it would be able to accclerate faster.

 

[AL Schlageter]

Granted, the Germans were ahead in feilding jets, particularly the Ar-234 which was performing recon before D-day I believe, though to be honest I've never liked the fixed rearward guns of the 234, there's virtually no rearward vision to aim it with or a gunner

From what I understand this weapons system was in development with maybe some combat testing but was not to appear on the 234 til the C-4 model.

Any further words?

The Ar234 was the only German a/c capable of taking recon photos of the Noramandy beachs. This happened in Aug 1944.
.......................................
Late war German armour, from what I understand, was not as good as early war armour due to the lack of certain materials.

.......................................
Wasn't the German antitank weapon a development of the American bazooka.

 

[the la-7 is gangster]

the allies did manage to find an answer to the panzers what about russia's is2 eh?

 

[pbfoot]

The one thing that everyone is skirting around is the Germans were not paying much of their labour force and using looted funds to proceed with these projects

 

[kool kitty89]

The 262's operational armament was only effective aganst bombers, and even then not past 300m. The P-80's 6x .50 cals made for much better dogfighting weapons, had a much higher velocity, longer range, and were faily effective in other roles as well.

The Germans nuclear program focused more on nuclear energy development. Though a weapons program did exist it was generally thought that one couldn't be deployed before the war's end, so less work was put tward that.
see: German nuclear energy project - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Japanese had also started with neclear energy development, but quickly shifted work tward bomb development. By the end of the war they were very far along having designed and (possibly) set up several gas-defusion enrichment facillities. There was also talk that japan had secretly tested a small bomb (~6 kT) in Konan (a small island of the coast of what today is northern Korea) on August 12, 1945. There was also a history channel special about it: Japan's Atomic Bomb DVD There are some clips here: Japan's Atomic Bomb : Japan Probe

see: Japanese atomic program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and Japan's Atomic Bomb

 

[comiso90]

much more powerful set of armament.

Armament wasn't much of a factor.

Against bombers yes, against other fighters, no.

.50 cals will shred a jet engine just fine and you can carry more rounds then cannon shells... the higher rate of fire is handy at jet speeds too.

.

 

[Soren]

The me-262 would win cos it has more speed and a much more powerful set of armament. The P-80 advantage in manouverability wouldnt matter for much but it would be able to accclerate faster.

The Me-262A-1a is both more maneuverable and faster than the P-80, but it lacked effective fighter vs fighter armament.

the allies did manage to find an answer to the panzers what about russia's is2 eh?

The Allies include the Soviets, but even they didn't even come close. The IS-2 was litterally a piece of junk in the field of Tank vs Tank combat, it had lousy optics, slow RoF, inadequate protection and its gun wasn't a very effective AT weapon for its size being outperformed by the 75mm Kwk42 88mm Kwk43 in this department, and considerably so by the 88mm Kwk43.

 

[kool kitty89]

I'm not too sure about the maneuverabillity...

Speed (accept crit mach/ dive speed) was about the same on average and I think the P-80 was faster at SL. The P-80 also had better range and a significantly higher ceiling. (over 5,000 ft higher than the 262's)

A better armament for the Me 262 would be 2x MK-103 and 2-MG-151/20 cannons using mine rounds. This would offer better range and trajectory and a more well-rounded armament.

 

[syscom3]

.....

I mean, how stupid can we really get?

 

[magnocain]

I dont know if this really counts, but according to Secret Weapons Over Normandy (a video game for the XBOX), the me 262 was rather unmaneuverable, but was the best plane cause of it's speed and firepower. The game's creators (LucasArts with a aviation museum) tried to make it as accurate as possible.
I have also read that the me 262 was not very maneuverable from several places

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I dont know if this really counts, but according to Secret Weapons Over Normandy (a video game

Say no more PLEASE!...

 

[drgondog]

I was hoping, infact I was pretty sure, that you were a more mature person Bill.

I never called what the Allies made inefficient or junk as you imply in your childish attempt to ridicule, but then again its not the first time you've tried to put words into my mouth so I should've been prepared.

You stated that German engineers and scientists were better than the combined allies, then illustrated a mix of German scientists - some of which were major contibutors in WWI timeframe, some educated in germany and moved to US, some you didn't mention like Von Karman and Theodorsen and Planck and Einstein thet were educated in germany and moved to US then moved on as if the pioneers you mentioned would clearly illustrate your point. It didn't!

In my very own post I wrote that the B-29 was overall the best large bomber of WW2, but like you do so often you choose to ignore that.

BFD - the Germans had no counter to the Mossie, the Fw 190 and 109 was defeated handily by Spit, Tempest and Mustang - they were lucky they didn't have to deal with the F4U or even the P-51H or the P-80 - all of which were ready for combat in early 1945 but not deployed.

The He 219 was an excellent design but inferior overall to Mossie or maybe even the P-61 as pure night fighter. Debatable either way but neither an illustration of 'design superiority' - and the Mossie was in service in 1942.

The Me262 came into service after 3 years of development. The P-80 went from contract to flight in 143 Fu*****ing days, the P-51 in 117 days and first flew in 1940.

None of the German heavy bombers are even a footnote in history as far as either reliability or contribution to the war effort. The Ar 234 could have been interesting but relegated mostly to recon. Ta 152 slithered in in late March 1945 and made zero contributioon as good as it was - and would have been marginal over the P-51H and various Spits at that late stage of the war - it would have its hands full in medium high altitude to the deck against the F8F or F7F - I could go on and on here but my maturity would come into question once again.

Like I said the Allies had their own advanced projects, but as you can clearly see yourself the Germans were in general fielding more advanced equipment.

The German jets were slightly better and came into operations sooner. The armor was superior

The Allies failed to field an equal to the Me-262, He-162, Ta-152, Ar-243, Ju-388 Fa 233.

The Germans failed to field an equal to the F4U, the P-51H or the P-47N for long range escort. The Germans failed to produce a medium altitude to low altitude air fighter like the Yak3. The Germans failed to produce transports like the C-47 or C-54. The Germans failed to produce viable naval fighters as good or anywhere neare the numbers of F6F or Seafires or F4U for naval aviation. Had no general purpose naval bombers like the TBF or SB2C. Had no long rang Patrol bombers like the PBM or even the PBY. The closest thing to them was a converted airliner with a weak spine in the Fw200.

Don't even step into heavy or really, medium bombers. The Ju 88 was a superb medium carry, multi purpose twin but do you really want to say it was better than the Mossie, or even the B-25, B-26 or A-26.. pick the mission. If you want to go night fighter talk about mossie, if you want an anti shipping a/c look to up gunned B-25s and compare the records.

The Allies failed to field an equal to the StG.44, MG-42 Panzerfaust.

The Germans failed to field an equal to the M-1 Garand and the M2 heavy machine gun. The Panzerfaust was excellent short range the 3.5 bazooka was equally devastating at much longer ranges and effective against T-34 and T-54 in Korea.

The Allies failed to field an equal to the Pzkpfw V, IV, IV B, JagdPanther, JagdTiger Hetzer etc etc. Agreed but M-26 wasn't that short

The Allies failed to produce an equal to the Type VII, IX, XXI XXIII subs.

The Balao and Tranch Class were equal - but only one Trench (and two XXIII served combat)

The Allies, with a great amount of outside help, produced the A-bomb. The Germans failed to produce an equal to this.

The Germans produced nothing like the Liberty ship, the Jeep or the GM 6x6. The Germans could never produce a ship like the Liberty in less than 5 days which is the record. The 1911A1 was better combat sidearm than the P-38 or the Luger.

If you even want to go there, bring on your equivalents to Iowa class BB, Alaska Class Heavy Cruisers, Cleveland Class Light Crusiers or Fletcher Class Destroyers.

What REALLY distinguished combined Allied engineers was designing some 'good to very good' and then getting them to the field ops in record times.

 

[kool kitty89]

I dont know if this really counts, but according to Secret Weapons Over Normandy (a video game for the XBOX), the me 262 was rather unmaneuverable, but was the best plane cause of it's speed and firepower. The game's creators (LucasArts with a aviation museum) tried to make it as accurate as possible.
I have also read that the me 262 was not very maneuverable from several places

I own this game (for PC) and, while the physics are very relaxed and the planes perform nothing like real WWII fighters would, the realitive performance (compared to other planes in the game) is realitively accurate. The storyline is good and fairly accurate (~90% based on or adapted from actual events).

However the biggest problem for me was a lack of a cockpit viewpoint, without one it really limits the realism, lax physics aside. (a strong arcade type gameplay influence, similar to Blazing angels which was actually inspired by it)

You are corect in the museum consultation, in fact one of the most extensive aircraft museums in the US (and the world), the Planes of Fame Museum (in Chino, CA) is the museum that was consulted. (they have one of two surviving Horten Ho IV gliders, the last flying P-26 Peashooter, the onle surviving Northrop N-9M (and still flying!) flying wing, one of the most extensive Japanese WWII aircraft collection in the world including the last fully authentic flying A6M Zero, and soon to have in flight condition a YP-59A which will be the oldest flying jet aircraft in the word as well as the only flying Airacomet.

Though I'm not sure of their oppinion of the final cut of the game.

If you want a highly accurate game in both the performance and physics departments, I'd go with IL-2 Sturmovik (game - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) it has a very high level of realism (when settings are set to "realistic" since difficulty can be altered) This game is highly realistic and has an inventory (as of the "1946" addition) of over 300 planes, sadly not including any of the british jets, though the next installment might change this since it will be centered on Britain. As per the name, much of the game is centered on the Eastern front. (though the Ar 234B, Me 262A-1 A-2 HG-II, He 162A C D, Me 163B, Ho-229, Ta-183, YP-80, Mig-9, and Yak-15 are included) This game also has a glossary with statistics and historical summaries of planes in the figures for the YP-80 it lists that it has "good maneuverabillity for a jet fighter)

Also note that you are comparing the the Me 262 to the piston fighters of the game, the game puts the Meteor F. III on the same level of maneuverabillity. And indeed the 262 is realitively unmaneuverable compared to the best piston fighters but compared to other jets it was quite similar.

 

[Glider]

What REALLY distinguished combined Allied engineers was designing some 'good to very good' and then getting them to the field ops in record times.

An excellent point.

 

[Soren]

You stated that German engineers and scientists were better than the combined allies, then illustrated a mix of German scientists - some of which were major contibutors in WWI timeframe

Prandtl and the others still contributed to aerodynamic research in WW2, that is why I mentioned them specifically.

, some educated in germany and moved to US, some you didn't mention like Von Karman and Theodorsen and Planck and Einstein thet were educated in germany and moved to US then moved on as if the pioneers you mentioned would clearly illustrate your point. It didn't!

Bill, I was drawing forth examples of aerodynamicists, Einstein was no aerodynamicist.

BFD - the Germans had no counter to the Mossie,

the Fw 190 and 109 was defeated handily by Spit, Tempest and Mustang - they were lucky they didn't have to deal with the F4U or even the P-51H or the P-80 - all of which were ready for combat in early 1945 but not deployed.

The FW-190 Bf-109 did amazingly against the fighters above considering the situation Germany was in by 1944-45 and both handily defeated the Tempest, Spit Mustang when'ever the odds were equal.

The He 219 was an excellent design but inferior overall to Mossie or maybe even the P-61 as pure night fighter.

The He-219, Ju-88 Ju-388 were as good as the Mossie as nightfighters and they were definitely better than the slow very low ceiling P-61!

The Mossie lacked the special weaponary of the German nightfighters to effectively fight enemy bombers at night.

Debatable either way but neither an illustration of 'design superiority' - and the Mossie was in service in 1942.

And the Ju-88 was in service way before that.

The Me262 came into service after 3 years of development.

For crying out loud Bill, the aircraft itself was finished ready to go already in 1943!

The project was delayed because of periods with lack of interest within the RLM and with Hitler.

The P-80 went from contract to flight in 143 Fu*****ing days

From contract to first flight less than 150 days isn't that unusual Bill, the He-162 beats it easily from contract to the final product.

, the P-51 in 117 days and first flew in 1940.

Like I stated less than 150 days from contract to first flight wasn't that unusual.

None of the German heavy bombers are even a footnote in history as far as either reliability or contribution to the war effort.

That is very incorrect on your part !

The Ar 234 could have been interesting but relegated mostly to recon.

I think it would've made for a more interesting nightfighter/heavy bomber-interceptor.

Ta 152 slithered in in late March 1945 and made zero contributioon as good as it was - and would have been marginal over the P-51H and various Spits at that late stage of the war - it would have its hands full in medium high altitude to the deck against the F8F or F7F - I could go on and on here but my maturity would come into question once again.

No Bill you can't go on cause the Ta-152H is a far superior fighter to any Allied fighter fielded in WW2. The F8F would've proven a good match, but the P-51H falls slightly short and the F7F has nothing but speed.

The German jets were slightly better and came into operations sooner. The armor was superior

Slightly ??! They were hampered only by their reliability issues which in turn were caused by a lack of the necesary heat resistant metals.

The Germans failed to field an equal to the F4U, the P-51H or the P-47N for long range escort.

Ta-152H-1. And again the P-51H didn't see service.

The Germans failed to produce a medium altitude to low altitude air fighter like the Yak3.

Now that is just plain wrong Bill ! You seriouslu need to read up on the occurences on the Eastern front my friend cause the FW-190 Dora-9 proved greatly superior to ANY fighter fielded by the Soviets, litterally beating the sh*t out of any VVS fighter in encountered, including the Yak-3!

The Germans failed to produce transports like the C-47 or C-54.

But they did field the Me-323 to which the Allies had no equal.

The Germans failed to produce viable naval fighters as good or anywhere neare the numbers of F6F or Seafires or F4U for naval aviation.

Errr, Bill, incase you didn't notice the Germans didn't field any navy carriers during WW2, which is probably why they didn't produce any naval fighter

Don't even step into heavy or really, medium bombers. The Ju 88 was a superb medium carry, multi purpose twin but do you really want to say it was better than the Mossie, or even the B-25, B-26 or A-26.. pick the mission. If you want to go night fighter talk about mossie, if you want an anti shipping a/c look to up gunned B-25s and compare the records

The Ju-88 was atleast as good a nightfighter as the Mossie, and it was a capable medium bomber as-well.

The Germans failed to field an equal to the M-1 Garand

Gewehr 43.

and the M2 heavy machine gun.

I agree, but the MG-42 MG-34 fulfilled that role very effectively because of their heavy long range projectiles and high RoF - Allied troops in Africa used to refer to them as cannons because of their extreme long range effective fire.

The Panzerfaust was excellent short range the 3.5 bazooka was equally devastating at much longer ranges and effective against T-34 and T-54 in Korea.

Need I even remind you of the 8.8cm Panzerschreck capable of penetrating over 200mm of armor ?

And on the Panzerfaust, again you're rusty Bill, the Panzerfaust was a one time disposable AT weapon and eventhough the reach was short it was far more devastating than the US Bazooka ever was on impact. There were however versions of the Panzerfaust with a long reach.

The Balao and Tranch Class were equal

No the Balao and Trench Class were inferior mainly because they couldn't dive half as deep or feature as advanced equipment (Esp. in the field of Targeting) or weaponary as its German counterparts. The only thing the Balao Trench Class subs have in their favor is speed, something which is nearly completely irrelevant for a sub as its a stealth hunter.

The Germans produced nothing like the Liberty ship,

The Liberty ship is a cargo vessel am I correct ?

the Jeep or the GM 6x6.

That is again incorrect Bill, the Germans produced 4x4's which could even sail, and their trucks were just as good while their halftracks were unmatched.

The Germans could never produce a ship like the Liberty in less than 5 days which is the record.

I fully agree, way too hasty for the Germans. They didn't have the manpower.

The 1911A1 was better combat sidearm than the P-38 or the Luger.

That is VERY debatable ! The P-38 is right up there with the M1911A1 IMO.

If you even want to go there, bring on your equivalents to Iowa class BB, Alaska Class Heavy Cruisers, Cleveland Class Light Crusiers or Fletcher Class Destroyers.

The Germans didn't even think about battleships after the introduction of the Bimarck Tirpitz battleships, both were ahead early in the war but the US later built bigger battleships. The germans however continued to produce the worlds best pocket battleships.

What REALLY distinguished combined Allied engineers was designing some 'good to very good' and then getting them to the field ops in record times.

And the exact same goes for the Germans except the equipment they fielded in general was more advanced than their Allied counterparts.

 

[Soren]

Sorry about all the quotes btw.

 

[AL Schlageter]

The Mossie lacked the special weaponary of the German nightfighters to effectively fight enemy bombers at night.

This special weaponry is __________ ?

The FW-190 Bf-109 did amazingly against the fighters above considering the situation Germany was in by 1944-45 and both handily defeated the Tempest, Spit Mustang when'ever the odds were equal.

Yes Bodenplatte showed that.

Errr, Bill, incase you didn't notice the Germans didn't field any navy carriers during WW2, which is probably why they didn't produce any naval fighter

But the Germans did, the 109T.

No the Balao and Trench Class were inferior mainly because they couldn't dive half as deep or feature as advanced equipment (Esp. in the field of Targeting) or weaponary as its German counterparts. The only thing the Balao Trench Class subs have in their favor is speed, something which is nearly completely irrelevant for a sub as its a stealth hunter.

Speed allowed them to get on station quicker. Then there is the air conditioning for greater crew comfort and thus less fatigue. They didn't have to dive as deep as Japanese anti-sub measures, and Germanys, were not that great.

There was no need to rush new Allied planes into production because the Allies 'were not on the ropes' of a catastrophic total defeat.