Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The British called it Rat Catching and it was highly dangerous to the RAF Tempests that were engaged in the tactic. The RAF discontinued the practise after a while owing to the losses suffered by their squadrons; the Germans cottoned on to what was going on and placed AA guns on the runway approach area and also took the measure of stationing Fw 190s nearby.
It was as close as you were going to get as Gloster and Hawker were part of the same company at the time. Hawker having taken over Gloster in 1934 and then merging with Armstrong-Siddeley and Armstrong Whitworth. Bad mouthing what was basically a Hawker Siddeley product probably was frowned upon by the H-S management.
In fact only a clear minority of Me 262s were shot down while landing.
It was certainly innovative and bears kudos for that, but it was not the revolution; it was a leading player in it."
The British called it Rat Catching and it was highly dangerous to the RAF Tempests that were engaged in the tactic. The RAF discontinued the practise after a while owing to the losses suffered by their squadrons; the Germans cottoned on to what was going on and placed AA guns on the runway approach area and also took the measure of stationing Fw 190s nearby.
So the Me-262 needed escort?
OK. Tough panel; but I'll submit the P-51; not so much as an airframe but as fulfilling a role thought to be impossible. In the early 40's the thought of a fighter able to hold its own against interceptors while having the range of bombers was ridiculed. The P-51 wasn't the only plane with the incipient capability in the role –just the first and probably the best. It revolutionized tactics and strategies,
Well, I consider the leading player in a revolution to be the revolutionary
I find it amusing though that there is more argument against the Me262 being revolutionary than there is an argument against the P-51 being revolutionary.
And no other powers can be researching or close to having success in researching the specifics that make this plane revolutionary.
Beyond that, in a twist of cruel irony, the P-51D proved to be the nemesis of the Me262...I find it amusing though that there is more argument against the Me262 being revolutionary than there is an argument against the P-51 being revolutionary.
...and this is where most of the aircraft mentioned here fall. Sorry, Balljoint, I don't consider the Mustang in itself revolutionary; the concepts it was advocating existed before and were already being practised; it was the epitome of its specific role and Luftwaffe tactics to counter it as a long range escort were no different to any other aircraft the USAAF employed in the role.
Chris, the Me 262 in itself was not a revolution; it was a part of one taking place and it had its Allied contemporaries; it also wasn't the first jet fighter, although as it has been stated here earlier it was the first jet fighter to go into combat, but also, like I said earlier, it took conventional means to counter the threat. The tactics used against it were conventional and yes, its appearance startled the Allies, but its impact at the time was not as great as we like to place credence on here. Jets were already in production in Britain and the USA at the same time as the '262; like I said, the revolution in aircraft powerplant technology was already taking place, with the '262 as one of its leading proponents. The Germans also rushed it into service prematurely, which, with its deficiencies, meant it was never going to live up to its promise. It was certainly innovative and bears kudos for that, but it was not the revolution; it was a leading player in it.
The 262 did not really bring about a change in tactics used by the Allies; it was defeated by conventional and soundly practised means; bombing of factories, (if this be a criteria for "revolutionary" then I would believe that this fact would disallow ALL aircraft. I don't understand how bombing of its factories would prevent it from being "revolutionary".) shooting down the aircraft as they approached to land etc. High speed air combat tactics in jets were evolved post WW2 when jet vs jet combat took place. Fighting the 262 during WW2 could and was done with piston engined aircraft using existing tactics; it's only real advantage was its speed. In this case, the Allies had more to fear from the Me 163, which was faster and more difficult to shoot down, but was saddled with its own set of deficiencies.
The RAF reconsidered its position on the Me 262 threat, which early intel in late 1943 had led the Brits to think that by late 1944 the Germans would have some 1000 jet powered aircraft in service, both 262s and 163s, but this was an over estimation and the British realised this by mid/late 1944, so its threat was played down, because the numbers were nowhere near what was presumed. The USAAF of course had a different view because it was its bombers being shot down by the 262, but its response was not jet fighters, but the bombing of factories and airfields. Fighter tactics did not change all that much to what had gone before; it was business as usual and, like the V1 threat, as much as resources were diverted to counter it, the Allies did so conventionally. The fact that the 262 was studied extensively post war adds to its impact and influence, but note that its technological design was not employed extensively post war; the F-86 might have had wing slats and swept wings, but the 262 offered little else and the Americans and British relied on a combination of captured material and their own research to produce their next jet fighters.
Fighter tactics did not change all that much to what had gone before; it was business as usual and, like the V1 threat, as much as resources were diverted to counter it, the Allies did so conventionally.
Avoiding air combat with fighters but hanging around there airbases to try to get them with out fuel and while they are landing are not "standard combat procedures".
The 262 started the ball rolling on jet tactics - whether they were shot down by piston engine or not. It forced a new way to dogfight which for the most part is still practiced today. You were not going to be very innovative by continuing with piston vs piston; most dogfighting for that type of fight were already being implemented and did not work against the jets and rockets - the 262 changed that by forcing the Allies to re-think tactics.
You really can't believe that anyone thought that piston vs piston dogfighting would work against jets? It HAD to change.
nuuumann, please stop comparing the 262 to the meteor, as the last one wouldn't have any chance in combat against a 262 in 44 or 45
If you label the Me-262 revolutionary, then you'd have to label the Meteor revolutionary as well.
Both were twin-engine jet-powered aircraft with conventional armament and tricycle landing gear. Both were introduced in mid 1944. Both were faster than contemporary piston-powered fighter aircraft.
That the Me-262 was a better aircraft than the early Meteors is actually besides the point. Its like arguing that the F-84 was revolutionary compared to the FJ-1, simply because it had better performance.
F.I Meteors were slow with many piston fighters being faster. It was not till the long nacelles were added (F.3s) that speed exceeded that of piston fighter.
"The Me 262 will have the usual poor performance of a jet aircraft at low speed.