Questions about the Me-262

Hi Sycom,

>HoHun, look at your figures for November and December 1944.

>Why were there so many 262's available for use, yet so little to show for it.

As Koolkitty pointed out, the majority of the jets were flown in the fighter bomber role (by KG 51, KG 54 according to Ethell/Price seems not to become active yet in that period). After Nowotny's death in early November, Kommando Nowotny (redesignated JG 7) had been pulled out of the front line for additional training as the transition to twin-engined jet fighters had been more difficult than expected for single-engine propeller fighter pilots. EJG 2 was an operational training units anyway, and Kommando Braunegg was a reconnaissance unit.

As a result, there effectively was no jet fighter force on the front line in this period. To a certain degree, this can be attributed to Hitler's order to use the Me 262 as a bomber, since KG 51 could (and probably would) have been established as a fighter unit instead if it hadn't been for this order.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Hello
First of all the right unit designation of KG 54 was in fact KG(J) 54, it was a fighter unit. Because of German single engine fighter pilots were not used to or trained to instrumental flying the idea was to use redundant bomber pilots, who also had also multi engine experience as fighter pilots. That was thought to be especially useful when weather was overcast. There is a good unit history of KG 54 by Radtke.

Kommando Nowotny had shown that fighter pilots needed more training for effective use of Me 262 as a fighter and KG(J) 54 showed that converting bomber pilots to Me 262 fighter pilots wasn't a rapid solution either. There was no fast track for getting Me 262 into service as a fighter.

I doubt that KG 51 would have been more successful as a fighter unit than KG(J) 54 was.

Juha

FLYBOYJ said:

Where did you come up with those kill ratio?

Click to expand...

?? I didn't come up with anything. It's a simple matter of counting confirmed aerial kills vs confirmed aerial losses. Going by claims alone the kill/loss ratio was even higher FLYBOYJ.

but it is not a simple matter according to existing LW records nor even with US fighter and bomber losses

case in point is 18 March 45 the first use of the dreaded R4M's from III./JG 7 8th Af records give losses to Flak and 8 B-17' lost. we know due to the carnage wasted by I. and III./JG 7 flying 37 Jets this date that the R4M's and 3cm cannon fire accounted for 25 B-17's. the attack was like a lighting blast and even 8th Af accts give it thus : the most concentrated and successful attack by Me 262's on the bombers to date.

so the question remains whom is hiding whom when it comes to the record books. the cracked up B-17's on the ground, trees and hills gives one story but .........

Soren said:

?? I didn't come up with anything. It's a simple matter of counting confirmed aerial kills vs confirmed aerial losses. Going by claims alone the kill/loss ratio was even higher FLYBOYJ.

Click to expand...

And as pointed out, even the "confirmed" kills were sometimes flawed - and does this include only bomber to bomber conflicts or an over all kill ratio?

From sources I've seen I see no more than a 4 to 1 kill ratio in favor of the 262.

You think the USAAF has held back the official losses ?

Isn't there full access to bomber fighter losses of the USAAF for researchers these days?

FLYBOYJ said:

And as pointed out, even the "confirmed" kills were sometimes flawed - and does this include only bomber to bomber conflicts or an over all kill ratio?

From sources I've seen I see no more than a 4 to 1 kill ratio in favor of the 262.

Click to expand...

Well when people talk of the Corsair's kill/loss ratio they are also just counting claims vs losses so..

I feel the same way about RAF/RCAF and other Allied losses, a definate about Soviet losses. not everything has come to light..........yet. too many LW unknowns still that will never be resolved

I've been argued to death since the 1970's on this whole issue, but it is my opinion nobody is trying to hide anything, it is just the records are not 100 % sure

Hi Juha,

>I doubt that KG 51 would have been more successful as a fighter unit than KG(J) 54 was.

The point is, the timeline shows if there hadn't been Hitler's bomber order, the Luftwaffe would have been in 7 or 8/1944 where it historically was in 11 or 12/1944. That's the impact of Hitler's interference.

Whether it was smart to have bomber pilots fly the Me 262 a fighter is a different question, though I suppose it would probably not have happened without Hitler's jet bomber decision that allowed the Kampfflieger to get a foot into the door.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Soren said:

Well when people talk of the Corsair's kill/loss ratio they are also just counting claims vs losses so..

Click to expand...

Soren, we're not talking about Corsairs here - bottom line the 262 did not have a 7 to 1 kill ratio. 4 to 1 tops as low as 1.05 to 1 (150 kills to 100 losses) depending who to talk to. In the book Arrow to the Future by Walter Boyne he states JV 44 scored 50 victories through out is limited existence. This is based on interviews with Galland and Stienhoff.

Erich said:

I feel the same way about RAF/RCAF and other Allied losses, a definate about Soviet losses. not everything has come to light..........yet. too many LW unknowns still that will never be resolved

I've been argued to death since the 1970's on this whole issue, but it is my opinion nobody is trying to hide anything, it is just the records are not 100 % sure

Click to expand...

I agree. However it was my understanding that USAAF losses were completely covered, only many of the causes being unknown. While on the other hand many LW loss claim records have been lost.

Soren said:

You think the USAAF has held back the official losses ?

Isn't there full access to bomber fighter losses of the USAAF for researchers these days?

Click to expand...

No to 'hold back', and yes to complete records. subscribe to footnote.com if you want access to all USAAF MACR's.

From my own perspective that is the first place to start to get a very accurate compilation of the losses over enemy territory. There will not be MACR's for ditched bombers and fighters because they weren't 'missing'.

The total losses for 8th AF in very significant detail is found in places like 'Bits and Pieces" and the Mighty Eighth Combat Chronology. While even these are not totally accurate to cause, they are accurate to all operations losses including ditching. What is more difficult to pin down is the 'damaged Category E - salvaged' as those records are painfully assembled by researchers like Ted Damick - who is pretty near complete now.

Ken Miller's Fighter Units and Pilots of the 8th AF is accurate on the Fighters lost to all causes but not the damaged a/c. In my opinion he has at least a 5-10% error rate on the Cause because he did not research all the Macr's individually and relied on other published workds like my own - and I made mistakes also (and Kent has my mistakes in his book).

In compiling my own set of tables for losses and awards, I did research ALL of the claims and awards to get the counts on German types awarded as well as the cause of losses (8th AF Fighters only). I also researched the accident and damage reports with great assistance and body of work provided by Ted Damick. With all the research on losses for 8th FC I still 'feel' a 5% error in cause of loss and always assign 'lost to fighters' if last seen or heard from in the presence of the LW - so I will err on the high side to Air Losses.

You will often find Macr's with annotations lsuch as 'last seen', or 'last heard from' so you will never know for sure whether it was flak or fighters or gas fumes or oxygen failure or bad weather unless there were survivors. The Causalty Questionnaires are attached to Macrs to help close that loop.

Having discussed the flaws, the USAAF records are far more complete and accurate than the LW - particularly post late 1944.

So exactly how have you been able to definitively get the 'facts' about Me 262 scores and losses? Have you found a better compilation than Tony Woods Awards tables for LW?

And having noted his stuff, which is drawn from many years of research as well as piggy backing on folks like Prien and Goyat, Erich, etc you know that even the official 'Awards' in Tony's works are perhaps 70-80% overstated to actual 8th AF Losses?

So what source do you use that is closer to reality and more comprehensive?

It needed to be up and running at least fully operational in 1942 and in full production....to make a mark in 1944.

It was simply too late.

I can see the 262 as a bit of drama but not as a working combat machine.

It needed time....plenty of time...which it never had.

Now the He 280....

Bill I don't just choose a single source and go by that, it is my opinion that one has to go through them all to gain a proper perspective.

Tony Woods award list is far from complete.

For Me-262 losses I also took careful note of what Erich has written in the Jets vs Propjobs thread.

As for 'definite facts', well I never called the final figures that and I don't think any of us has the 'definite facts', but I reached a 7:1 to 10:1 kill/loss ratio for the Me-262 in the air by noting Tony Woods figures and Erich's.

As for the -262 engines, when was it being produced in quantity and considered reliable enough for operations? I suspect that the bugs weren't fully worked out of it until after summer 1944.

So regardless of whether the LW had a few or lots of -262's .... if the engines weren't working, then everything is moot.

Erich, as for retraining the pilots, did anyone come up with a figure on how extensive it had to be? One month of retraining? Two months?

Soren said:

Bill I don't just choose a single source and go by that, it is my opinion that one has to go through them all to gain a proper perspective.

I absolutely agree

Tony Woods award list is far from complete.

I also agree but it is by far the most complete I have seen and severly overstates actual number of US/RAF aircraft destroyed.

For Me-262 losses I also took careful note of what Erich has written in the Jets vs Propjobs thread.

Also a good source, but as Erich pointed out the LW loss records will never be anywhere near complete.

As for 'definite facts', well I never called the final figures that and I don't think any of us has the 'definite facts', but I reached a 7:1 to 10:1 kill/loss ratio for the Me-262 in the air by noting Tony Woods figures and Erich's.

Click to expand...

So, what sources are you using for actual US and UK and USSR losses to Me 262's? or the actual (or even convincing) numbers for Me 262 losses?

The single most difficult task I have had as a serious student of airpower over Europe is attempting to match awards to actual Losses - and the ETO was perhaps the best documented combat theatre until the emergence of USSR records for Korea. But 1945 is simply impossible to develop any accuracy at all relative to LW losses.

By summer of 1944 the biggest problem was fuel supply, trained pilots and usable airfields.

Bill,

Just like loss records undoubtedly have gone missing, so have the records of pilot claims. Remember that by late 44 many of the kills scored by the LW were never confirmed by the OKL, which undoubtedly is the reason behind why many Allied a/c are listed as missing, there being no possibility to cross reference the details with LW records of Allied a/c claimed shot down.

As for my sources, I didn't directly cross reference with USAAF or RAF loss records, however I took into account overstatement of kills. Far more than 600 a/c were claimed shot down by the Me-262.

sys well this will tweek a few by in-experienced and experienced prop job boyz would start flying the 262 in a matter of a couple days....scary proposition but true. we are going to cover this in our jet NF-Mossie book with some of the pilots we interviewed and it was the same training as they flew A-1a's

wel for claims and losses I use ............. ? dang how many reference data sheets from individual Us/LW fighter units/histories are there ? woods for just the area, there is too large and borad a scope of claims made on several missions, overall basic histories covering what scan info is out there on Lw attacks and losses. US combat reports fighter and bomber, I have many individual days covered from the bomber perspective during 1944 and this helps somewhat pin-point location of attacks from the Lw fighters on the bomber formation, co-inciding incidently with several known LW fighter gruppen so this can be ascertained neatly. MACR reports are a god-send as Bill pointed out previously. may footnote have the graces to secure every one of those well needed items in the future, using www.armyairforces forums with former bomber crew vets and in the ase of facing the Me 262's from Jg 7 some very interesting side-lines have been drawn up since the early 2000's to go along with the JG 7 history, Classic pubs 3/4 volumes on the machine, 262 war diary, several auto-biographys of former jet pilots done up in the German, JV 44 book by Classic obviously and the the EE book(s) on the Würger staaffel and the Dora pilots thoughts on protecting JV 44 262's. Alfred Prices books on the German jets. Any of the Ww 2 8th AF chrono's done up by Freeman, Hess's book on the jets vs the US army air forces, though it needs an overhaul it is still a good companion volume. Numerous US fighter group newsletters with articles pertaining to combat with the 262,Ar 234 and Me 163 Komet.

what am I getting out here guys ? you see the picture form, there is not just ONE good source of info you have to expand and procure as much as possible through private, and public sources and compare, compare and compare ~ research in-depth. and of course there will always be more published or re-hashed out in a slightly different way

Hi Syscom,

>As for the -262 engines, when was it being produced in quantity and considered reliable enough for operations?

Did you ever read anything about the Me 262 being grounded for lack of engines? This seems to be a popular assumption, but I haven't found any source to confirm it.

In my opinion, many writers confuse short engine life with poor reliability or non-operability. You can fly operations just fine with a short engine life, it's just that the engine won't last long before having to be replaced.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)