The Germans needed a better tactical bomber in 1942 (1 Viewer)

[Steamed_Banana]

I assume the lack of high temperature alloys kept the Germans from building turbines and turbochargers. Not important early in the war.

That's interesting... are we talking about jets without turbines? I'm not sure I follow that.

Bombers work in the short term. If the Russians decide they have a problem, they have Spitfire_IXs. A Leo455 is not outrunning that.

They have Spitfire IXs... eventually. And even once they get them, these have quite short range and they didn't have an infinite supply of them. It might put certain targets off-limits for daylight attacks, perhaps.

They had Spitfire IXs in the Western Desert too, by early 1943 or so. They helped a lot, but they were not quite as decisive of an impact as you might expect. Spitfire VIIIs were more useful, but in limited quantity.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

One description of the LeO 451 has a bomb cell in each wing root, like some British bombers (?).
But much like the Ju 88, large bomb load meant not much fuel. Perhaps a more powerful engine could allow a higher gross weight?
No idea if gross weight was a structural problem or a field length problem.
The Long gun may not be as much problem as you think as the mount was supposed to be powered, I don't know if in direction or two directions.
Changing the drum required courage

The French Wikipedia article says they couldn't change the drum in flight, so that would be a big problem... but of course the LeO 451 never really had time to get beyond the first variant, these things could have been addressed.

Swapping for the MG FF might be going backward. You still have the drum problem, The MG FF is slower firing (at least some) and using lower velocity shells means you have to lead targets more. Hopefully the powered mount makes it easier to aim than a manual 20mm gun.
Getting a belt feed like the MG 151 would be a considerable improvement.

Indeed. I just also think a smaller barrel would help a lot, it's hard to imagine that huge gun being quick to bring to bear. But I'm prepared to be wrong.

Also an improvement would be some sort of ventral blister mount behind the bombbay for a twin 7.5-8mm machine gun or a single 13mm gun. Less drag than the French mount and double the firepower.

Yeah possibly.

 

[z42]

Was the metal alloy issue something that manifested late in the war or was it a problem all along?

There's an interesting argument to be made that this was partially a self-inflicted problem. Namely the problem wasn't as much scarcity but very small allocation of these critical elements to engine manufacturers. There was the obvious realization that in case war broke out Germany would be blockaded and imports of many critical raw materials would be blocked. So they instituted very strict quotas of these materials. In the end, however, Germany ended the war with a larger stockpile of nickel than what they started with. Also, turbine blades are only a few kg's and there are many other uses of nickel, chromium etc., so even if they had used high nickel superalloys like e.g. the British did, it wouldn't had made much difference to the total stock.

In the end, the ersatz turbine materials they used, Tinidur and later Cromadur, were markedly inferior to the Nimonic that Whittle's turbines used.

On the positive side, this lead to innovations like hollow air cooled turbine blades.

I guess the same argument could be made for valves in high performance piston engines as well, which severely set back German aero engine development in a critical time.

Early German gas turbine development

...so as not to hijack the British thread! Let's start with a subject to which I hope to be able to make a meager contribution to: design constraints and philosophy behind design decisions. Hermione Giffard's PhD thesis and hopefully soon-to-be book "The Development and Production of Turbojet...

www.secretprojects.co.uk

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Janne-M-Korhonen/publication/323487362_Overcoming_Scarcities_Through_Innovation_What_Do_Technologists_Do_When_Faced_With_Constraints/links/5b28e9ef0f7e9b1d0034afaf/Overcoming-Scarcities-Through-Innovation-What-Do-Technologists-Do-When-Faced-With-Constraints.pdf?origin=publicationDetail&_sg%5B0%5D=FBq3FNwftozH8eC65UkK9JGMfBp1gTKxpEVkUZbnCR0pmoK7N8-qvMEHKeJjDmu_8Wlp9BU3XFo8ijVsGK0uyw.ch1xzI5uHtcHsQ3nOV0nLuLGfYxz_w3LAgdX2UQxJe7-D7D-e5ujxoWDz1k9WXkbGC04KFvSY7ADKgsdjnzdSA&_sg%5B1%5D=IxsRhSe_nlQmEUFbQJbww5grHR_F9qpDDciEZw4gf36FuUWpyuuuPXdqLnr0_rUArQM2xq7IurpWljju9aQtQI0LJif18XUXZLV81Tue4WAV.ch1xzI5uHtcHsQ3nOV0nLuLGfYxz_w3LAgdX2UQxJe7-D7D-e5ujxoWDz1k9WXkbGC04KFvSY7ADKgsdjnzdSA&_iepl=&_rtd=eyJjb250ZW50SW50ZW50IjoibWFpbkl0ZW0ifQ%3D%3D&_tp=eyJjb250ZXh0Ijp7ImZpcnN0UGFnZSI6InB1YmxpY2F0aW9uIiwicGFnZSI6InB1YmxpY2F0aW9uIiwicG9zaXRpb24iOiJwYWdlSGVhZGVyIn19

Jumo 004

I agree about the exaust section of the model, the struts look way off. At least in alt the images I've seen of the 004B's exhaust there are 6 struts and they taper straight back (not curved like in the CGI immage) and are shorter inlength (how far they extend down the exhaust front-back...

ww2aircraft.net

 

[Howard Gibson]

That's interesting... are we talking about jets without turbines? I'm not sure I follow that.



They have Spitfire IXs... eventually. And even once they get them, these have quite short range and they didn't have an infinite supply of them. It might put certain targets off-limits for daylight attacks, perhaps.

They had Spitfire IXs in the Western Desert too, by early 1943 or so. They helped a lot, but they were not quite as decisive of an impact as you might expect. Spitfire VIIIs were more useful, but in limited quantity.

A turbojet without a turbine is a sort of cylindrical thing that sits on the ground, and people wonder what it is for. Same goes for turbochargers without turbines.

A Spitfire_IX is primarily an interceptor. You position it close to things the enemy wants to bomb. When they come to bomb, the Spitfire uses its high rate of climb and its top speed to catch the bomber and shoot it down. If the enemy switches to night bombing, they get less accurate. I cannot see the British sending radar equipped Mosquitos to Russia.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

A turbojet without a turbine is a sort of cylindrical thing that sits on the ground, and people wonder what it is for. Same goes for turbochargers without turbines.

Yeah, that's pretty much what I thought. I was just having trouble parsing the comment.

A Spitfire_IX is primarily an interceptor. You position it close to things the enemy wants to bomb. When they come to bomb, the Spitfire uses its high rate of climb and its top speed to catch the bomber and shoot it down. If the enemy switches to night bombing, they get less accurate. I cannot see the British sending radar equipped Mosquitos to Russia.

It's also an issue that they can't loiter for very long, or protect a very wide area, and the Soviet Union + Eastern Europe is a bit bigger than the UK so it becomes a lot to defend, as far as PVO units go.

 

[Howard Gibson]

It's also an issue that they can't loiter for very long, or protect a very wide area, and the Soviet Union + Eastern Europe is a bit bigger than the UK so it becomes a lot to defend, as far as PVO units go.

A Spitfire's range wasn't that bad. There are all sorts of difficult to defend parts of Russia the Germans in He177s can bomb with impunity. These places are of no military value, and the Germans can find better things to do with their aircrew, aluminium and avgas. The Spitfires are deployed next to valuable targets, or on airfields located near the routes the Germans must take to reach anything valuable.

 

[Shortround6]

Most importantly, even with 1,000 hp Gnome Rhone engines, this thing makes 300 mph in 1940, carries a big bomb load, has a long range, and apparently handles well.

According to old book by William Green which could be in error................
Max bomb load
two 1102lb bombs plus five 441lb bombs in bomb bay with 220 imp gal
two 1102lb bombs plus two 441lbs in the bomb bay with 398 imp gal
two 1102lb bombs in the bomb bay with 530 imp gal
one 1102lb bomb or two 441lb bombs with 712 imp gal

The wing root bays were supposed to hold either one 441lb bomb or one 220lb in each bay.
Like many early bombers, it may have been able to carry a large load OR it had long range. It could not do both.
I don't know if the LeO 451 had any armor or if there was any fuel tank protection.

For consideration
US A-20s had 500 US gallons at first in unprotected tanks but this was changed to 400 US gal in protected tanks and then the tanks in the unused upper bomb bay raised the fuel back to at 525 gal total.

First 24 B-25s held 916 US gal in unprotected tanks.
The next 40 B-25As held 692 US gal in protected tanks as did B-25Bs,
The B-25Cs added 152 US gal in each wing and added (and some B-25bs did too?) the ability to carry a pair of 125 gal waist ferry tanks, a fixed upper bay tank of 215 gal, a droppable bay tank of 335 gal and/or a fixed ferry tank of 585 gal. The 215 gal tank was self sealing and weighed about 230lbs empty.
The first 24 plane were supposed to go 322mph but with no passive protection and few guns and not quite enough speed they were only used for training in the US as were the B-25As which were supposed to hit 315mph. They had both armor and self sealing tanks but lost range and still had crap for guns.
The B-25B with the top and bottom turrets were good for 300mph.
The B-25C with the increased fuel and a few other details (like de-icing, new cabin heater, under wing racks) was now down to 284mph.
The B-25Ds were about the same and the B-25Gs dropped to about 280mph.
As is well known many B-25s were extensively modified both in the field and in modification centers, I don't think the modifications ever increased the speed?
Going through this to show how even a small difference in speed can make a big difference to an aircraft.
A-20s used 1600hp R-2600s and rather light armament in the early years and didn't carry much fuel as bombers.
The B-25s used 1700hp R-2600s and started just about 25-30mph slower and increased capability was purchased at the cost of speed.
Trying to take a 320mph aircraft and get it up to 350mph is a lot harder than in seems. Especially if you are starting with an aircraft without armor and self-sealing tanks.
US may have used rather thick and heavy tank construction compared to other nations but adding several hundred pounds to even a streamline aircraft is going to hurt performance. Speed may be slight but climb and take-off?
US had bulldozers to help with quick field construction and repairs.

I believe the Mosquitoes, while unarmed did have some armor and protected fuel tanks?

 

[BarnOwlLover]

Mosquito from the start did have at least pilot armor and self sealing tanks, given that serious development took place after early experience that showed how valuable such things were i combat.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

According to old book by William Green which could be in error................
Max bomb load
two 1102lb bombs plus five 441lb bombs in bomb bay with 220 imp gal
two 1102lb bombs plus two 441lbs in the bomb bay with 398 imp gal
two 1102lb bombs in the bomb bay with 530 imp gal
one 1102lb bomb or two 441lb bombs with 712 imp gal

The wing root bays were supposed to hold either one 441lb bomb or one 220lb in each bay.
Like many early bombers, it may have been able to carry a large load OR it had long range. It could not do both.

Thanks, very helpful. Where did you find all this?

I don't know if the LeO 451 had any armor or if there was any fuel tank protection.

Apparently LeO 451 had self sealing tanks in the wings, two in each wing, but the overflow tanks in the fuselage / bomb bays were probably not protected.

It also had 12mm steel plates behind the pilot and behind the dorsal gunner.

For consideration
US A-20s had 500 US gallons at first in unprotected tanks but this was changed to 400 US gal in protected tanks and then the tanks in the unused upper bomb bay raised the fuel back to at 525 gal total.

The A-20 / DB-7 history gets pretty complicated as the aircraft really changed a lot over the time of it's deployment.

Early A-20, aka DB-7A in French and British use, carried 205 US gallons of fuel. Top speed was 344 mph and range roughly 460 miles with a 2,000 lb bomb load.
The DB-7B aka Boston III carried a much improved but still small load of 394 US gallons. These had some self-sealing fuel tanks but I do not think all tanks were, armor was minimal (I think pilot only). But it made 338 mph at 12,500 ft, with a range of 525 miles with 2,000 lbs of bombs internal. Cruise speed was 273 mph. This was the most important type for the Desert Air Force and saw a lot of combat.
The US A-20A was similar to the DB-7A but made 347 mph. Range 675 miles with 1,200 bomb load. This was an important type for the US in the early Pacific war in 1942 and early 1943.
The US A-20B, which was similar to the DB-7A made for the French, lacked self sealing fuel tanks but made 350 mph, being the fastest variant. It carried more fuel and had a range of 825 miles with 1,000 lbs of bombs. 665 of these were sent to the Russians.
The US A-20C had better armor plus self-sealing tanks and made 343 mph. This was one of the main types the US used from late 1942 or early 1943 depending on Theater. Range was 745 miles with 1,000 lb bomb load. Cruise speed was 280 mph.
The US A-20G was better armored, had 140 gallons more fuel in protected tanks, plus a proper dorsal turret (Martin 250CE) with two .50 guns. Top speed was 339 mph. This was the most important type for the US entering service in mid 1943. Range was 1,025 miles with a 2,000 lb bomb load. Cruise speed was 230-272 mph.

First 24 B-25s held 916 US gal in unprotected tanks.
The next 40 B-25As held 692 US gal in protected tanks as did B-25Bs,
The B-25Cs added 152 US gal in each wing and added (and some B-25bs did too?) the ability to carry a pair of 125 gal waist ferry tanks, a fixed upper bay tank of 215 gal, a droppable bay tank of 335 gal and/or a fixed ferry tank of 585 gal. The 215 gal tank was self sealing and weighed about 230lbs empty.
The first 24 plane were supposed to go 322mph but with no passive protection and few guns and not quite enough speed they were only used for training in the US as were the B-25As which were supposed to hit 315mph. They had both armor and self sealing tanks but lost range and still had crap for guns.
The B-25B with the top and bottom turrets were good for 300mph.
The B-25C with the increased fuel and a few other details (like de-icing, new cabin heater, under wing racks) was now down to 284mph.
The B-25Ds were about the same and the B-25Gs dropped to about 280mph.
As is well known many B-25s were extensively modified both in the field and in modification centers, I don't think the modifications ever increased the speed?

That would be interesting to know. There were ways to increase speed in the field as I'm sure you know.

Going through this to show how even a small difference in speed can make a big difference to an aircraft.
A-20s used 1600hp R-2600s and rather light armament in the early years and didn't carry much fuel as bombers.
The B-25s used 1700hp R-2600s and started just about 25-30mph slower and increased capability was purchased at the cost of speed.

By my count B-25s were around 50-70 mph slower based on top or sprint speed, though in combat cruise speeds were used more often.

Trying to take a 320mph aircraft and get it up to 350mph is a lot harder than in seems. Especially if you are starting with an aircraft without armor and self-sealing tanks.

It did have self sealing tanks and armor, apparently, and the French made a 320 mph version. I recognize what you are saying but I think it could have been made to go faster with more powerful engines, that said, were the Germans going to pull that off?

US may have used rather thick and heavy tank construction compared to other nations but adding several hundred pounds to even a streamline aircraft is going to hurt performance. Speed may be slight but climb and take-off?
US had bulldozers to help with quick field construction and repairs.

I believe the Mosquitoes, while unarmed did have some armor and protected fuel tanks?

Yes

 

[Shortround6]

Thanks, very helpful. Where did you find all this?

Warplanes of the Second World War, Volume Eight, Bombers and Reconnaissance Aircraft.
I believe the series ended with Volume Ten which completed the German aircraft. Anything by any countries after Germany in alphabetical order were not covered. Volumes I-IV covered fighters, Volume V was flying boats and Volume VI was float planes. William Green was pretty good but not infallible and better information may be coming to light as more research is being done in non-English records/archives.

The A-20 / DB-7 history gets pretty complicated as the aircraft really changed a lot over the time of it's deployment.

The A-20 history is very complicated, especially sorting out some the earlyDB-7 P&W R-1830 powered stuff and the transition to the early R-2600 powered planes.
I was trying to simplify and show the difference between a R-2600 powered "light bomber/attack" plane and a R-2600 powered "medium bomber."
The B-25 could, for several years, carry a larger bomb load hundreds of miles further than an A-20.
Both American planes did have external bomb racks at some point in their histories but performance with underwing loads is seldom mentioned.
A-20s, when they got the racks, had two racks under each wing and each rack could hold a single 100, 250, or 500lb bomb but as I said, range and speeds with such loads are very hard to find.
B-25s were equipped with racks for four 250lb bombs under each wing, or three 325lb depth charges or two 500lbs bombs. Perhaps some of our B-25 experts can offer more?
But again, eight 250lbs hanging under wings are going to have an awful lot of drag

 

[Steamed_Banana]

Thanks. History of War actually has a decent article on the type here

He also has a short article about the post-war Leo 453 which was a 451 with Pratt and Whitney R-1830-67 engines, which was used as a passenger plane and air-sea rescue aircraft until 1952 (!) and then in other capacities until 1957. Sadly no performance benchmarks given but I bet they exist somewhere in French. There is also a short article here about the LeO 455 which was a test-bed which had improved 1,600 hp Gnome Rhone 14R engines and lo and behold, the huge 20m gun replaced by an MG 131 on a ring mount. The German test bed crashed in 144 but 5 more were made postwar. Sadly once again no speed is given here though I bet they are out there in French somewhere. I'm very curious about the speed of the Leo 455 because that would give us a good benchmark for a BMW 801 powered one. There was also finally the 458 which had R-2600 engines! But again no speed is given, this may have just been a paper project.

It seems to me that the 1940 vintage LeO 451 (or anyway, the 454) already has a performance, bomb load, fuel system protection and armament pretty similar or equivalent to an A-20G. Range actually a bit better. This with at the most 1250 hp Gnome Rhone engines. I think if we add ~ 1,500 HP+ engines, maybe clip the wings slightly, remove the ventral gondola, install a smaller dorsal cannon rig, we are already close to the same speed.

Considering you can carry even two 500 lb bombs quite a long distance inside the bomb-bays, this thing is already a lot better than a Ju 88 in terms of performance.

What really remains to be seen is bombing accuracy, and intangible qualities of survivability

We tend to look at bombers based on range, speed, payload and armament. But their ability to hit targets was also very important. A-20s, B-25s, B-26s, Martin Baltimores, Pe-2s and Ju 88s, G4Ms and Ki-48s for all their various flaws, were all pretty good at hitting their targets. Ju 87s, SBDs and D3As were very good at hitting targets (by WW2 standards), though with some further limitations. B-17s and B-24s were pretty good at surviving missions against anything short of a fully integrated air defense, but not quite as good at hitting things, as were an array of other light and medium types used throughout the war.

The difference was often down to bombing altitude. B-17s proved fairly accurate in some (quite rare) low-level strikes in the South Pacific. The light and medium bombers, and dive bombers listed above could all drop bombs at low altitude and were used in this way, albeit sometimes at considerable risk or high attrition. I don't know what the Le 45 series performance was like near sea-level. Was it quick and nimble down low? Big wings suggest maybe not. In the 'What If' scenario here, the Fw 190G probably takes over a lot of the pin-point attacks and CAS missions, but we would also need our medium bomber to hit targets.

So that is the last real open question for me at this point, otherwise I think we have a winner in the LeO 45 series, or maybe the very similar but possibly easier to fly Amoit 354.

 

[Steamed_Banana]

Survivability is another near-intangible issue. Early A-20s, with barely any internal protection, one pilot, and effectively only two .30 cal defensive guns, largely due to speed seemed to be fairly good at surviving combat sorties, both in North Africa and in the SW Pacific. This does assume at least mediocre / intermittent coverage by escorting friendly fighters most of the time, and they did take losses, but they didn't seem to take very take heavy losses just from what I've seen of the operational history. I think the Boston compared quite well in this sense to the Ju 88, to other Allied types like the Bristol Blenheim, to the Italian CANT Z.1007 and SM 79, to the Japanese G3M and G4M, to the Soviet IL-2 and probably the Pe 2 as well.

I don't think A-20 could work like a Mosquito with no defensive guns, because it wasn't quite fast enough for that. The Mosquito had a particularly high cruise speed at the higher end of it's cruising options, as well as (depending on variant) a high cruising altitude potentially, which I think combined to make it hard to catch. Just hard enough.

But while they could be intercepted, I suspect the paltry defensive armament on the early A-20A, A-20C and Boston III were just enough to make those fleeting opportunities of enemy fighters to intercept them that much more tricky. The LeO 451, whether with a Hispano cannon or an MG 131 or MG 151 would theoretically be a bit better in this sense, a heavy defensive gun being more potent and / or possibly more intimidating.

Against AAA it's trickier because LeO 451 is a larger aircraft. Not vastly so, but a bit. I think bigger = easier target in general for AAA.

We also don't know how suscptible it was to damage. But it has a co-pilot which already makes it a bit less vulnerable than an A-20, and it has armor and SS tanks too.

 

[MikeMeech]

Hi
Volume 8 of 'War Planes of the Second World War' does have some operational info on LeO 451 during BoF:

I hope this is useful.
Mike

 

[don4331]

Survivability is another near-intangible issue. Early A-20s, with barely any internal protection, one pilot, and effectively only two .30 cal defensive guns, largely due to speed seemed to be fairly good at surviving combat sorties, both in North Africa and in the SW Pacific. This does assume at least mediocre / intermittent coverage by escorting friendly fighters most of the time, and they did take losses, but they didn't seem to take very take heavy losses just from what I've seen of the operational history. I think the Boston compared quite well in this sense to the Ju 88, to other Allied types like the Bristol Blenheim, to the Italian CANT Z.1007 and SM 79, to the Japanese G3M and G4M, to the Soviet IL-2 and probably the Pe 2 as well.

I don't think A-20 could work like a Mosquito with no defensive guns, because it wasn't quite fast enough for that. The Mosquito had a particularly high cruise speed at the higher end of it's cruising options, as well as (depending on variant) a high cruising altitude potentially, which I think combined to make it hard to catch. Just hard enough.

But while they could be intercepted, I suspect the paltry defensive armament on the early A-20A, A-20C and Boston III were just enough to make those fleeting opportunities of enemy fighters to intercept them that much more tricky. The LeO 451, whether with a Hispano cannon or an MG 131 or MG 151 would theoretically be a bit better in this sense, a heavy defensive gun being more potent and / or possibly more intimidating.

Against AAA it's trickier because LeO 451 is a larger aircraft. Not vastly so, but a bit. I think bigger = easier target in general for AAA.

We also don't know how suscptible it was to damage. But it has a co-pilot which already makes it a bit less vulnerable than an A-20, and it has armor and SS tanks too.

Don't the early A-20s have rudimentary flight controls in the back for the gunner? Not exactly a co-pilot, but someone to spell the pilot on longer flights and to take over if injured - at least long enough to be able to ditch in friendly territory. Obviously, removed on later model in which the turret was installed (Often removed before then as not very often used/useful).

p.s. the fixed 0.30's sometimes mounted in the back of the engine nacelles of the A-20s were pretty useless...

 

[Dimlee]

In my opinion, Ar 234 were successful, but of course could not change the big picture. I agree with Howard Gibson on that.
This book should be interesting. It was on my "to read" list for a couple of years; I hope to find time to read it.

Amazon.com

There was a good work by Russian authors Dyogtev and Zubov. Probably never translated, unfortunately.

Ar-234 «ÐлиÑ». РеакÑивнÑй ÑÐµÐ½Ð¸ÐºÑ Ð»ÑÑÑваÑÑе by ÐмиÑÑий ÐÑгÑев, ÐмиÑÑий ÐÑбов - Books on Google Play

Ar-234 «ÐлиÑ». РеакÑивнÑй ÑÐµÐ½Ð¸ÐºÑ Ð»ÑÑÑваÑÑе - Ebook written by ÐмиÑÑий ÐÑгÑев, ÐмиÑÑий ÐÑбов. Read this book using Google Play Books app on your PC, android, iOS devices. Download for offline reading, highlight, bookmark or take notes while you read Ar-234...

play.google.com

Ar 234, more sources.

Arado 234 Blitz : Smith, J. Richard (John Richard) : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

264 p. : 31 cm

archive.org

(Arado 234 Blitz by J.Richard Smith, English, digital borrowing)

Strahlflugzeug Arado Ar 234 ’blitz’ [PDF] [3plff3je33tg]

Strahlflugzeug Arado Ar 234 ’blitz’ [PDF] [3plff3je33tg]. The Arado Ar 234 Blitz was the worlds first operational jet-powered bomber, built by the German Arado company in the clo...

vdoc.pub

(Strahlflugzeug Arado Ar 234, Manfred Griehl. German, PDF copy - not OCR).

And Dyogtev & Zubov have this list at the end of their book. Copy/paste is disabled in the edition, so just the screenshot.

 

[Dimlee]

Ar 234 losses...
Probably, 25-30 - direct combat loss / Feindeinwirkung, all variants?
KG76 only, Ar 234B-2 only, according to Dyogtev and Zubov:
455 sorties and direct combat losses - 12 (enemy fighters), 2 (AAA), 2 (unknown reason).
So, 3.5% rate.
Probably not too bad, taking into account the operating environment in Dec 1944 - May 1945?
I can't think of any other German aircraft, serial or prototype, achieving such a low loss rate in that period in regular operations.

Going back to the original topic, I'd say that the Germans not only needed, but they did have a better tactical bomber. Not just better, but the best in the world. In 1944, instead of 1943 (as the topic starter proposed) only due to initial complacency and bureaucracy.

 

[tomo pauk]

Going back to the original topic, I'd say that the Germans not only needed, but they did have a better tactical bomber. Not just better, but the best in the world. In 1944, instead of 1943 (as the topic starter proposed) only due to initial complacency and bureaucracy.

A bombed-up Me 262 is also a contender. Plus, it has some guns aboard, unlike the Arado, and even rockets.
But, yes, neither of these were a factor in 1943, let alone in 1942 (ie. for the needs of this thread).

 

[Steamed_Banana]

But the thing is of course, by 1944 it's way too late for the Germans. Stalingrad and Second El Alamein are both in late 1942. They need a bomber (and an at least medium-range fighter) by that time, or not very long after.

Could the jets have really been made ready for large scale tactical and operational use, in any role, in early 1943? Was it just politics that slowed their arrival or technical problems with turbines etc.?

 

[tomo pauk]

But the thing is of course, by 1944 it's way too late for the Germans. Stalingrad and Second El Alamein are both in late 1942. They need a bomber (and an at least medium-range fighter) by that time, or not very long after.

I'd say they need it in early 1942.

Could the jets have really been made ready for large scale tactical and operational use, in any role, in early 1943? Was it just politics that slowed their arrival or technical problems with turbines etc.?

Politics - RLM was a political entity, and their foresight wrt. the jet engines was IMO very limited. A greater and earlier support might've meant they have the jet engines in series production months earlier than it was historically so. Perhaps early 1943 would not be so far fetched.

 

[z42]

I'd say they need it in early 1942.

Politics - RLM was a political entity, and their foresight wrt. the jet engines was IMO very limited. A greater and earlier support might've meant they have the jet engines in series production months earlier than it was historically so. Perhaps early 1943 would not be so far fetched.

Hypothetically, going all-in on jet engine R&D starting in the mid-late 1930'ies and just using the high-temperature alloys with a high nickel content instead of struggling with developing ersatz materials, they could have had something in service years earlier than historical. Then again, assuming that, and streamlining away all the politics is, I think, highly unrealistic.

In general, yes they would have needed to drastically step up their game in multiple areas, not only aircraft power plants, during 1942. By 1943 they're slowly but surely losing a grinding industrial war.