Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
...
Do you include factors extraneous to the actual aircraft when determining its operational efectiveness
Sixty - 60 - Six-Zero.
It would of meant that at any given time the 100 or so operational Me 262s would have had to shoot down SIXTY (60) allied aircraft per operational Me 262 - that would have been 600 allied aircraft downed by 262s as Soren claims.
sorry i don't understand, if each operational 262 shoot down 60 allied plane they shoot down in all 6000 allied not 600 (a part that 100 operational in a given time is not the same that in all there were been 100 262 operational)
And you are correct!!! -
Even at 6 (six) VI - it still doesn't add up. Large Me 262 formations weren't being fielded until late in the war and at that you were only talking 30 or more aircraft. It seems the best months for the 262 was April/ May of 45' and even then its evident that the LW did not shoot down anywhere close to 600 aircraft with the 262. As a matter of fact the highest "exaggerated" source I've found gives the 262 510 claims.
The ratio of kills by 262s has been discuss at length in another thread and Erich and others gave the sources. I go with Joe on the numbers.
Bill, those FGs were flying 'B' models that late in the war?
The question is which brought the biggest new advantage when introduced. So it's a comparison of the situation before and after that a/c was introduced. If the non-plane factors didn't change significantly at the same time the new plane was introduced, then they aren't relevant to what advantage it provided over the plane the same side was using just prior to that. I think that's basic logic.Do you include factors extraneous to the actual aircraft when determining its operational efectiveness
Despite JoeB's claim LW kill claims made flying the Me262 seem surprisingly accurate.
According to LW records Me262's lost in action numbered less than 100, around 60 being lost in the air (USAAF fighter claimed 66 Me262s), and of those the majority was while taking off or landing. And according to LW records they claimed 509 to 600 + Allied aircraft.
Erich knows far more on this than any of us here though, so I hope he'll step in and clear this whole matter up
The question is which brought the biggest new advantage when introduced. So it's a comparison of the situation before and after that a/c was introduced. If the non-plane factors didn't change significantly at the same time the new plane was introduced, then they aren't relevant to what advantage it provided over the plane the same side was using just prior to that. I think that's basic logic.
Type 96's and Zeroes faced a basically similarly non-plane situation but the Zero completely changed the balance of air power from moderate overall advantage to total dominance. Late model Bf109/Fw190's and the Me 262 all faced a basically similar non-plane situation and the Me 262 had some (though not radically) more success v bombers but even less v fighters than the 109/190 had had just before in the basically the same situation otherwise. The Zero provided more new advantage when introduced, simple.
The argument that 'biggest new advantage' really means biggest increase in aerodynamic performance (or speed, since the 262 wasn't superior to pistons in every aspect of performance), even if it couldn't be exploited effectively, is shaky IMO, but not clearly illogical. But the argument that 109/190/262 all faced a tough situation so that fact means the 262 created more of an advantage over the 109/190 is clearly illogical.
Joe
The Zero was not particularly superior aerodynamically speaking and achieved its manueverability advantage due to compromising hit survivabilty by draconian reductions in weight. Unlike most contemporary Allied fighters (P-38, F6F, F4U, etc) it did not possess a fundamental 'growth of mission capability' via increased Hp.
the Zero did and didn't " possess a fundamental ''growth of mission capability' via increased Hp."
The airframe may have possessed the growth potential, at least with suitable modifications, as shown by the A6M8 prototypes at the end of the war. It would have required sacrificing the cowl guns though. It apparently was the Sakae engine that didn't possess much growth potential.
A change to the Kinsei engine much earlier offers some interesting "what if" performance changes.
trading shorter range for aprox. a 10% power gain in 1942 may not have been worthwhile but the Kinsei engine seemed to offer more potential for growth.
I really have no Idea why the Japanese Navy insisted the Mitsubishi Zero use a Nakajima engine for so long, especially when the Nakajima engine showed so little progress in power output. I have read that that Mitsubishi engineers wanted to put in the Mitsubishi engine much earlier but were over ruled. Truth or revisionist history?
Fuel economy and range held to be more important than speed and climb?
I believe the engine used in the Ki 100 was the same engine used in the A6M8 so I think that a Zero with that engine might have been able to perform close to the Ki-100. Of course with the pilot situation in 1944 even a year early introduction of the A6M8 wouldn't have changed things much.
I suspect the Japanese were severely limited by the number of engineers available. trying to develop the J2M Raidan and the A7M Reppu might not have left enough enough talent to improve the Zero in a timely manner.
I believe the Japanese tried to develop more new fighters from 1939 on than the British did. Perhaps they were hoping for another big leap in performance rather than steady steady progress, I don't know. I do think teat multiplicity of projects slowed them all down and held back the development of the Zero.
I could be wrong and the Zero airframe might not have been strong enough to take even a 1500hp engine in squadron use. Just not enough information.
Hi Bill,
I trust you on the USAAF claims as you're the expert on this board when it comes to this. My data is from Boehme, who writes that the USAAF by far shot down the most Me262's, fighter pilots alone claiming 66 Me262's in the air. IIRC bomber gunners claimed a pretty large numbers as-well, but most of those were almost certainly not true shoot downs. The rest as I understand it were lost to Allied strafing bombing runs as-well as accidents of all kinds.
450 Allied aircraft were claimed shot down by JG7 alone, most on the eastern front, of which there are many more victories which were never claimed. Around 125 to 150 kills have been confirmed by cross examination as losses to Me262's in the west. Furthermore JV44 claimed 56 Allied aircraft shot down, 47 of which have been confirmed by cross examination as-well.
The question is which brought the biggest new advantage when introduced. So it's a comparison of the situation before and after that a/c was introduced. If the non-plane factors didn't change significantly at the same time the new plane was introduced, then they aren't relevant to what advantage it provided over the plane the same side was using just prior to that. I think that's basic logic.
Type 96's and Zeroes faced a basically similarly non-plane situation but the Zero completely changed the balance of air power from moderate overall advantage to total dominance. Late model Bf109/Fw190's and the Me 262 all faced a basically similar non-plane situation and the Me 262 had some (though not radically) more success v bombers but even less v fighters than the 109/190 had had just before in the basically the same situation otherwise. The Zero provided more new advantage when introduced, simple.
The argument that 'biggest new advantage' really means biggest increase in aerodynamic performance (or speed, since the 262 wasn't superior to pistons in every aspect of performance), even if it couldn't be exploited effectively, is shaky IMO, but not clearly illogical. But the argument that 109/190/262 all faced a tough situation so that fact means the 262 created more of an advantage over the 109/190 is clearly illogical.
Joe
So a 6:1 kill ratio for the Me262 seems not only true, but conservative at that when one considers the many Soviet a/c shot down which werent even claimed.