Nazis develop/mass produce Wunderwaffes early, not destroyed/captured or War is longer in Nazi Favor

trajen777

Banned
Interesting conversation, so basically if the war would have been extended or the 262 had been brought forward earlier the next variation of the 262 was interesting in reducing drag and increased performance while keeping much of the body of the 262. : https://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=1643


messerschmitt-me-p262-hgiii-fighter-concept-nazi-germany.jpg


while HG III emerged as a drastic overhaul of the base design. The HG initiatives looked to incorporate additional aerodynamic qualities to help performance and fuel efficiency. Work on these aircraft was started in 1944 by Woldemar Voight, the man also responsible for the original Me262.
the HG III would incorporate its engines within the wing roots in an attempt to blend wing and body. These were aspirated by side-mounted intakes located at each wing leading edge and served to keep thrust output as close to center mass as possible while also eliminating the need for an expansive ductwork system which would have reduced thrust output further. Projected thrust from the selected Heinkel HeS 011 turbojets was 2,866lb each with a combined rating nearing 5,700lb. Estimated performance specs for the HG III included a maximum speed between 620 and 730 miles-per-hour (sources vary) and a service ceiling of at least 35,000 feet.
 
Well, Randy, if the Me262 was as good as is claimed ad nauseum, why did only two air forces ever operate it? That of the Greater German Reich and Czechoslovakia

Read the rest of your responses but it boils down to pretty much if it was any good everyone would use them but still...

Why did the USAAF/RAF not order an Me262 copy with more reliable axial flow engines?

First of all the 'claims' were made by the ALLIES after comprehensive testing versus their own first generation jets. Second let me point out the Allies already HAD
better aircraft on the drawing boards but post-war development and budget issue were delaying production so they (naturally) built what they had set up to build for the war. As most of the new generation had better capabilities and used axial flow engines there was no need.

Czechoslovakia already had parts production and some assembly plants in place, (thanks to the Nazi's) so it made sense to produce what they COULD rather than buy from someone else. When later second generation aircraft became available they did in fact buy them.

They evaluated many captured examples, and wrote long reports on their performance, and then scrapped all but a few of them.

Which they did with the Me262 and because they had vastly more piston aircraft already on-hand and first generations jets already built or building. I'm guessing your "point" was why do this when some had superior performance to comparable Allied aircraft? Not sure why you'd think anyone would consider it cost effective to do so for the rather 'short' time the surplus Allied aircraft were expected to serve.

Why did they instead order the P-80 and P-86, and the Meteor and Vampire, instead of cancelling them and ordering Me262 analogs?

The a fore mentioned were already on order and factories and facilities existed in the Allied countries to produce them in quantity while the Me262 factories and production facilties were mostly in ruin.

Why did the export customers for those aircraft types enter double figures, when they could just copied the Me262?

See this is why it helps to understand things beyond the basic performance figures, this has been answered multiple times in this post alone but I highly doubt, (since your using an easily researched and refuted "argument" and ignoring things like economics and national pride. "Copying" the Me262 would not have been either easy or cheap to do since all the current production line were destroyed or heavily damaged and the limited production in Czechoslovakia was for internal use only. So quite naturally since the Allies would be producing their own already existing designs it only made sense to make more and sell them to foreign customers.

Of course the ACTUAL question your asking is why didn't those 'forgien' customers spend millions of dollars to develop and build their own national infrastructure, industries and such to produce their own 'copies' of the Me262. Which is to ask why those same 'customers' bought anything from someone else in the first place but ignores realities like lower technical and industrial bases and the 'economy' of buying jets instead of producing them locally. Further, unlike the Me262 the first generation Allied jets (specifically the centrifugal engines) used technology and had operational requirements more similar to late generation high-performance propeller aircraft which greatly reduced training time and maintenance expenses.
(Post war this was very important)

The French and the Canadians used the Jumo 004 as the starting point for their jet engine programs, culminating in the Atar and the Orenda, after all

Everyone actually used concepts, ideas and technology from the German axial flow jets in their programs. They did so BECAUSE they were advanced over Allied centrifugal engines. This was far from the only area of technology this was done.

Why did the Soviets build a succession of jet fighter designs, when they too, could have copied the 'superior' Me262, seeing as Messerschmitt had already produced the 'perfect' 1st generation fighter?

You could easily have included the Soviets in with the other Allied examples above. That you specifically chose not to shows your running rapidly out of 'arguments' and need to keep beating strawmen to attempt to bolster your point. In Debate this would be followed by name calling and insults but I hope this doesn't descend to that level.

Could it possibly be, that it wasn't quite as good as its proponents proclaim?

I'd say "nice try bundling the "arguments" in the hope that no one would notice they are two different and unrelated points" but as it's so obvious and weak it's not even 'nice' really.

Those 'proponents' were professional aviators familiar with the relevant Allied aircraft tasked with truthfully and efficiently evaluating the Me262, (among other aircraft) in comparison to equivalent Allied aircraft. So because those evaluations differ from your preferred opinion, and despite the fact that those evaluations and conclusions were validated, accepted and included in the official histories and records you wish to attempt to cast doubt on their knowledge and professionalism by proposing your opinion is in fact "better"?
And you have I might add no evidence to "support" your opinion over those professionals?

Lets just leave it that even granting the evaluating pilots and engineers might have been 'proponents' of the Me262 the very fact that existing data, records, eyewitness testimony, gun camera and other photographic evidence all points to those evaluations being far more correct than your opinion,

That it was vulnerable to being shot down by propeller driven aircraft?
Really? That's all you have as a 'killer' argument? That's your 'support' for the opinion that the Me262 wasn't any good? Really?

::::Sigh:::: Well I guess that shows everyone that we should never have given up the obviously superior and unbeatable propeller driven aircraft! I mean F-16s have been shot down by bows and arrows, B-52 have been brought down by birds and of course B-2s have been downed by water so quite obviously Me262s being shot down when landing and taking off PROVES that despite reports and evidence by pilots at the time of the difficulty in engaging let alone destroying the Me262 in 'normal' combat conditions AND the recommendations, action-reports and official policy of mainly engaging the Me262 during landing and take off or conditions during which the jets could not use their LISTED superior speed to avoid engagement that 'everyone' was lying to cover up horrible the Me262 was and how superior propeller driven aircraft were.

I'm so glad your here to show how ignorant and biased the people who were actually there and flew against these obviously terrible, awful, and useless aircraft were. Obviously they didn't have a clue and had no idea what they were about.

As you say:
Surely not.

That would be heresy.

Randy
 
Or have Ernst Heinkel be on better terms with the Nazis, and his He-280 gets greenlit instead of the 262 in 1942, after the OTL prototypes flew in 1941
564px-He-280.svg.png

It was aerodynamically a better design (fewer stability issues, more maneuverable), but a bit slower and lighter armament, three MG151/20s, but would have used the BMW003 that were more reliable than the HeS 8 and lighter than the Jumos. And had a working ejector seat.

That would be a good alternative but keep in mind the Me262 promised, (and eventually delivered but far to late) BETTER performance which is what they really wanted.

Of course the He280 was supposed to be a fighter not an interceptor like the Me262

Randy
 
It doesn't matter how good the Me-262 and it's pilots were or not. They were massively outnumbered; there's nothing you can do, short of magic, when you're fighting at 10:1 or more. Also...

Hello, the Royal Air Force and the Soviet Air Force would like a word, concerning their considerable number of Hawker Typhoons & Tempest, Gryphoon-powered Spifires, Yak-9...

There's no point in having the best gear in the world, if when you face the other guy, you get swamped...

Well massive quantity over few quality was a Soviet staple and lets face it what's the use of having a massive industrial base secure from attack if you're not going to use it :)

Note I specifically pointed out that the German's still wouldn't win but there were ways they could have made it more painful and drawn out.

Wimble Toots "argument" would logically conclude that the M4 Sherman was the greatest tank ever built :)

Randy
 
That would be a good alternative but keep in mind the Me262 promised, (and eventually delivered but far to late) BETTER performance which is what they really wanted.

Of course the He280 was supposed to be a fighter not an interceptor like the Me262
Luftwaffe wasn't really looking for bomber interceptors when the He 280 was first flown, and the 262 wasn't sold as that either when on the drawing board at that point.

3 20mm was superior to what the Me-109F was flying with at that point

Both would have higher top speed than any reciprocating design, as well
 
Last edited:
The Meteor was still in production in 1947

The Vampire was still in production in 1947

The F-80 was still in production, and as the T-33, would remain in service until the 1980s

But no jet fighters with draggy, air flow disrupting heavy engines hung under their wings were, however.

The Me262 went from innovative to obsolete in about 6 months.

Eh? You might consider actually doing some research before you post:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Canada_CF-100_Canuck
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sud_Aviation_Vautour
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-25
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_B-57_Canberra

to name a few with a short search.

But lets get to the 'heart' of the argument:
The Me262 was desperate design solution to a problem no Allied country had, namely mass attacks by large numbers of heavy bombers.

Once you understand that it was a bomber destroyer, not a dogfighting combat aircraft, all becomes clear.

See here's where you attempt to move the goal posts. No the Me262 was ORIGINALLY supposed to be a 'fighter' with capability to intercept bombers but as it progressed the bomber interceptor mission became primary. There's quite a bit more than a little difference in the mission wording. Considering it was initially proposed and design work begun in 1941 prior to bombers becoming more than an annoyance your assertion lacks support. It was in fact meant to be superior to any known Allied fighter as well but test flights showed it lacked the ability to engage in a turning dogfight but could outrun, and out climb any conventional fighter aircraft. These factors also meant it could avoid Allied fighter protection and engage the bombers directly with fast passes which also reduced the bombers ability to counter it.

Fact was it didn't HAVE to engage in dogfighting and could easily dash down and make attack runs against allied fighters almost as well as the bomber using the same tactics and the Allied aircraft could not respond due to the Me262s speed. This is why Allied fighters had to specifically find situations where the Me262 could not use that speed advantage and they in turn could use their advantage in maneuver combat. Hence the majority of Me262 kills were achieved by 'bouncing' them as the took or landed. A point I might add you have beed denying.

You have also been arguing that BECAUSE the Me262 could not 'dogfight' Allied fighters it was basically 'useless' yet here you seem to assume it could do the job you think it was designed for and therefore was not in fact useless.

You also conflate the roles of interceptor, (which btw was a role both the P-51 and Spitfire were designed to fulfill initially) with Bomber Destroyer which was a different role that the Me262 was specifically NOT designed to do but could in fact do within the role of interceptor. it could in fact 'face-off' against Allied fighters in the same manner as Allied fighters could face off, (and win) against the similar superior maneuverability Japanese of the Japanese Zero in the Pacific. It was not initially armed "correctly" for the bomber destroyer role either as it's cannons had a low muzzle velocity and short range, exactly opposite of that required for the role of bomber destroyer. That it could and did is testament to its capabilities DESPITE the handicap and skill of its pilots. The other amazing fact is that despite the added handicap of being redesigned and rebuilt as a fighter-bomber, (with emphasis on the bomber) and still managed to kill both Allied bombers and fighters speaks volumes of its basic capability.

The fact that it was most vulnerable at the edge of its performance, (such as landing and take off) takes nothing away from that nor does the fact that the Allies needed to exploit these disadvantage in order to neutralize the Me262 by 'cheating' do so for them as it is basic military tactics. Those that engaged it praised the advantages and capabilities of the Me262 compared to current and first generation Allied jet aircraft and evidence supports the conclusions. It could have been a game changer if it had been introduced earlier and in quantity to an extent. It was obviously not a 'war-winner' all on its own and I've never argued otherwise, But it could and did take on the best Allied fighters of the war and win as evidenced by Allied and German records.

Having arrived to late and in to few operational numbers the raw data is of course going to favor the Allies, but keep in mind that the Allies themselves respected and acknowledged its capabilities and changed standard doctrine to nullify those when possible and avoided conflict when possible when they could not.

Randy
 
Luftwaffe wasn't really looking for bomber interceptors when the He 280 was first flown, and the 262 was sold as that either when on the drawing board at that point.

True and it's likely the He280 would have gotten the "I want bombers" treatment from Hitler as well.

3 20mm was superior to what the Me-109F was flying with at that point

Wouldn't they have had to shorten the cannons same as the 262's? That drops your range and accuracy which was an issue with the cannon on the 262.

Both would have higher top speed than any reciprocating design, as well

Yep but slow speed maneuverability was a problem with the 262 but seems better for the 280. Unfortunately none of that really helps in situation like take off and landing if the Allies can bounce you with ease.

Randy
 
You also conflate the roles of interceptor, (which btw was a role both the P-51 and Spitfire were designed to fulfill initially)

The Mustang was designed to fulfill a role of something better than Tomahawk/Kittyhawk for the RAF. The Kittyhawk was a fighter bomber and escort fighter for fighter-bombers and bombers, with intercepter by default in the absence of Spitfires. It was only with additional testing by the British that its role was expanded to suit its capabilities.

Sorry to be anal. I must have caught it somewhere.
 
In 1944 Luftwaffe West flew 80,000 sortie with ME-109/FW-190 in defense of the Reich. Allied admit the loss of 9409 aircraft [ 3150 to fighters & 4309 to flak - rest misc.]. That's about 25 sortie to shoot down each allied plane . Me-262 flew 636 sortie and shot down 78 planes....or one plane shot down for ever 8 sortie. ME-262 was three times as effective interceptor as the other LW fighters in 1944.

Had Me-262 entered service in late 1942- all those Luftwaffe West fighters in 1944 could have been Me-262, suggesting the carnage could have increased to 10,000 lost to fighters plus 3500 to flak [ + 2798 misc.]. Total 16298 planes lost in 1944.

How many bombers could the American's afford to lose before they are forced into inaccurate night time bombing?
 
In 1944 Luftwaffe West flew 80,000 sortie with ME-109/FW-190 in defense of the Reich. Allied admit the loss of 9409 aircraft [ 3150 to fighters & 4309 to flak - rest misc.]. That's about 25 sortie to shoot down each allied plane . Me-262 flew 636 sortie and shot down 78 planes....or one plane shot down for ever 8 sortie. ME-262 was three times as effective interceptor as the other LW fighters in 1944.

Had Me-262 entered service in late 1942- all those Luftwaffe West fighters in 1944 could have been Me-262, suggesting the carnage could have increased to 10,000 lost to fighters plus 3500 to flak [ + 2798 misc.]. Total 16298 planes lost in 1944.

How many bombers could the American's afford to lose before they are forced into inaccurate night time bombing?

Simple answer is as many as it takes because a game of attrition is something the Germans can't win.

More completely it would suck to be a bomber crew but as fast as possible the US would ship the B-29 to Europe instead of China, (FDR and the AAF commanders would have probably given the Nazi's a medal for that chance) as they flew higher than the Me262 could reach. That was originally the plan to 'blood' the B-29 in combat but China insisted on getting "offensive air support" against Japan and there was no pressing reason, (which is tough to say from this point in time with over 9000 aircraft but it's really a drop in the bucket at this point in the war) to NOT deploy them to China and no diplomatic way to say "F-off!" so something over 70 B-29s spent most of the rest of the war waiting on fuel and supplies to be flown over the "hump" on shipment at time. (And having a quarter of the stockpiles stolen and sold on the black market to boot)

As I keep saying by 1944 it would hurt but it wouldn't change the outcome. "Worse" for Germany is any extension would probably see one or more a-bombs dropped on them as a 'warning' to the Japanese. (Conversely, that has the possibility of making the "bomb" less of an 'ultimate weapon' due to overall less damage from one. Testing had shown that typical European and American construction actually stood up better to the blast than typical Japanese construction for some obvious reasons. The report on the tests actually recommended against using the bomb on Germany as they were worried it wouldn't "appear" as effective as when used against Japan)

Randy
 
The Mustang was designed to fulfill a role of something better than Tomahawk/Kittyhawk for the RAF. The Kittyhawk was a fighter bomber and escort fighter for fighter-bombers and bombers, with intercepter by default in the absence of Spitfires. It was only with additional testing by the British that its role was expanded to suit its capabilities.

Sorry to be anal. I must have caught it somewhere.

No issues :) This is how we learn. I suspect my confusion was based on post-war use and mission for the P-51. As noted in the "P-38" thread it was the default choice for the post-war USAAF/USAF because the interceptor role was primary. Much to the disgust of previous P-47 pilots that had to fly it as a ground attack aircraft in Korea :)

Randy
 

Wimble Toot

Banned
Eh? You might consider actually doing some research before you post:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Canada_CF-100_Canuck
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sud_Aviation_Vautour
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-25
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_B-57_Canberra

to name a few with a short search.

But lets get to the 'heart' of the argument:


See here's where you attempt to move the goal posts. No the Me262 was ORIGINALLY supposed to be a 'fighter' with capability to intercept bombers but as it progressed the bomber interceptor mission became primary. There's quite a bit more than a little difference in the mission wording. Considering it was initially proposed and design work begun in 1941 prior to bombers becoming more than an annoyance your assertion lacks support. It was in fact meant to be superior to any known Allied fighter as well but test flights showed it lacked the ability to engage in a turning dogfight but could outrun, and out climb any conventional fighter aircraft. These factors also meant it could avoid Allied fighter protection and engage the bombers directly with fast passes which also reduced the bombers ability to counter it.

Fact was it didn't HAVE to engage in dogfighting and could easily dash down and make attack runs against allied fighters almost as well as the bomber using the same tactics and the Allied aircraft could not respond due to the Me262s speed. This is why Allied fighters had to specifically find situations where the Me262 could not use that speed advantage and they in turn could use their advantage in maneuver combat. Hence the majority of Me262 kills were achieved by 'bouncing' them as the took or landed. A point I might add you have beed denying.

You have also been arguing that BECAUSE the Me262 could not 'dogfight' Allied fighters it was basically 'useless' yet here you seem to assume it could do the job you think it was designed for and therefore was not in fact useless.

You also conflate the roles of interceptor, (which btw was a role both the P-51 and Spitfire were designed to fulfill initially) with Bomber Destroyer which was a different role that the Me262 was specifically NOT designed to do but could in fact do within the role of interceptor. it could in fact 'face-off' against Allied fighters in the same manner as Allied fighters could face off, (and win) against the similar superior maneuverability Japanese of the Japanese Zero in the Pacific. It was not initially armed "correctly" for the bomber destroyer role either as it's cannons had a low muzzle velocity and short range, exactly opposite of that required for the role of bomber destroyer. That it could and did is testament to its capabilities DESPITE the handicap and skill of its pilots. The other amazing fact is that despite the added handicap of being redesigned and rebuilt as a fighter-bomber, (with emphasis on the bomber) and still managed to kill both Allied bombers and fighters speaks volumes of its basic capability.

The fact that it was most vulnerable at the edge of its performance, (such as landing and take off) takes nothing away from that nor does the fact that the Allies needed to exploit these disadvantage in order to neutralize the Me262 by 'cheating' do so for them as it is basic military tactics. Those that engaged it praised the advantages and capabilities of the Me262 compared to current and first generation Allied jet aircraft and evidence supports the conclusions. It could have been a game changer if it had been introduced earlier and in quantity to an extent. It was obviously not a 'war-winner' all on its own and I've never argued otherwise, But it could and did take on the best Allied fighters of the war and win as evidenced by Allied and German records.

Having arrived to late and in to few operational numbers the raw data is of course going to favor the Allies, but keep in mind that the Allies themselves respected and acknowledged its capabilities and changed standard doctrine to nullify those when possible and avoided conflict when possible when they could not.

Randy
Eh? You might consider actually doing some research before you post:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Canada_CF-100_Canuck
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sud_Aviation_Vautour
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-25
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_B-57_Canberra

to name a few with a short search.

But lets get to the 'heart' of the argument:


See here's where you attempt to move the goal posts. No the Me262 was ORIGINALLY supposed to be a 'fighter' with capability to intercept bombers but as it progressed the bomber interceptor mission became primary. There's quite a bit more than a little difference in the mission wording. Considering it was initially proposed and design work begun in 1941 prior to bombers becoming more than an annoyance your assertion lacks support. It was in fact meant to be superior to any known Allied fighter as well but test flights showed it lacked the ability to engage in a turning dogfight but could outrun, and out climb any conventional fighter aircraft. These factors also meant it could avoid Allied fighter protection and engage the bombers directly with fast passes which also reduced the bombers ability to counter it.

Fact was it didn't HAVE to engage in dogfighting and could easily dash down and make attack runs against allied fighters almost as well as the bomber using the same tactics and the Allied aircraft could not respond due to the Me262s speed. This is why Allied fighters had to specifically find situations where the Me262 could not use that speed advantage and they in turn could use their advantage in maneuver combat. Hence the majority of Me262 kills were achieved by 'bouncing' them as the took or landed. A point I might add you have beed denying.

You have also been arguing that BECAUSE the Me262 could not 'dogfight' Allied fighters it was basically 'useless' yet here you seem to assume it could do the job you think it was designed for and therefore was not in fact useless.

You also conflate the roles of interceptor, (which btw was a role both the P-51 and Spitfire were designed to fulfill initially) with Bomber Destroyer which was a different role that the Me262 was specifically NOT designed to do but could in fact do within the role of interceptor. it could in fact 'face-off' against Allied fighters in the same manner as Allied fighters could face off, (and win) against the similar superior maneuverability Japanese of the Japanese Zero in the Pacific. It was not initially armed "correctly" for the bomber destroyer role either as it's cannons had a low muzzle velocity and short range, exactly opposite of that required for the role of bomber destroyer. That it could and did is testament to its capabilities DESPITE the handicap and skill of its pilots. The other amazing fact is that despite the added handicap of being redesigned and rebuilt as a fighter-bomber, (with emphasis on the bomber) and still managed to kill both Allied bombers and fighters speaks volumes of its basic capability.

The fact that it was most vulnerable at the edge of its performance, (such as landing and take off) takes nothing away from that nor does the fact that the Allies needed to exploit these disadvantage in order to neutralize the Me262 by 'cheating' do so for them as it is basic military tactics. Those that engaged it praised the advantages and capabilities of the Me262 compared to current and first generation Allied jet aircraft and evidence supports the conclusions. It could have been a game changer if it had been introduced earlier and in quantity to an extent. It was obviously not a 'war-winner' all on its own and I've never argued otherwise, But it could and did take on the best Allied fighters of the war and win as evidenced by Allied and German records.

Having arrived to late and in to few operational numbers the raw data is of course going to favor the Allies, but keep in mind that the Allies themselves respected and acknowledged its capabilities and changed standard doctrine to nullify those when possible and avoided conflict when possible when they could not.

Randy

Bored now.

You believe what you want, you are clearly an expert on your subject material.
 
Well massive quantity over few quality was a Soviet staple and lets face it what's the use of having a massive industrial base secure from attack if you're not going to use it :)

Afaik, the Typhoon, Tempest and Spifires were not soviet. And the Yak-9 was very good.
 
These factors also meant it could avoid Allied fighter protection and engage the bombers directly with fast passes which also reduced the bombers ability to counter it.

There is the problem that if a Me 262 made a really fast pass against bombers, where "really fast" means at a speed that makes it immune from the allied escort fighters, it will just miss the target. Especially if in the hands of a novice pilot, and the quicker you introduce these radically new airplanes, the more novice pilots you will have.

There is such a thing as the ideal delta of speeds between the firing aircraft and the target. If you are 300 km/h faster than the target, you will have about one second during which your gun is in effective range. If you attack from the front in order to choose the least defended side, you have to add the bomber speed instead of subtracting it, and you have less than one split second.
If you fire just a little off, you won't have time to observe your tracers and correct your aim. Wasted pass, and note that with the Me 262's endurance, there aren't a lot of tries you can make.

Also note that we're talking about big, sturdy, redundant targets; even with those heavy 30mm rounds, you need more than one or two hits to make sure you actually down them.

So you have to slow down. So you are in a similar situation as those in which the Me 262 is vulnerable. Note BTW that with that aircraft, regaining speed to evade the escort fighters or engage them is not easy. Its acceleration is slow, and pushing it is dangerous (can very well lead to flameouts).

There is a reason if the Germans, in the end, resorted to the desperate measure of using rockets, i.e. they switched to work on a shotgun area-fire principle.
 
All aircraft are at their most vulnerable when landing. The plane is at low speed and low altitude, the landing gear is down and the pilot is concentrating on not pancaking into the ground. Thus it makes sense to attack jets at that point where their superior speed can't be used. The Luftwaffe had to put up lots of piston-engined fighters over the airfields to help the Me-262's land, but they were badly outnumbered and losses were heavy.
 

Deleted member 1487

Simple answer is as many as it takes because a game of attrition is something the Germans can't win.

More completely it would suck to be a bomber crew but as fast as possible the US would ship the B-29 to Europe instead of China, (FDR and the AAF commanders would have probably given the Nazi's a medal for that chance) as they flew higher than the Me262 could reach. That was originally the plan to 'blood' the B-29 in combat but China insisted on getting "offensive air support" against Japan and there was no pressing reason, (which is tough to say from this point in time with over 9000 aircraft but it's really a drop in the bucket at this point in the war) to NOT deploy them to China and no diplomatic way to say "F-off!" so something over 70 B-29s spent most of the rest of the war waiting on fuel and supplies to be flown over the "hump" on shipment at time. (And having a quarter of the stockpiles stolen and sold on the black market to boot)

As I keep saying by 1944 it would hurt but it wouldn't change the outcome. "Worse" for Germany is any extension would probably see one or more a-bombs dropped on them as a 'warning' to the Japanese. (Conversely, that has the possibility of making the "bomb" less of an 'ultimate weapon' due to overall less damage from one. Testing had shown that typical European and American construction actually stood up better to the blast than typical Japanese construction for some obvious reasons. The report on the tests actually recommended against using the bomb on Germany as they were worried it wouldn't "appear" as effective as when used against Japan)

Randy
There is the issue though of morale. If loses double or triple for Allied bombers there is a good chance you might get a morale crisis that calls off the bomber offensive. See the RAF Bomber Command's response to the Battle of Berlin's casualty rate. The Nuremberg raid that stopped city bombing for months cost Bomber Command more crew in one night than Fighter Command lost during the entire Battle of Britain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nuremberg_Raid
https://www.warhistoryonline.com/war-articles/remembering-1944-nuremberg-raid.html
 

Deleted member 1487

There is the problem that if a Me 262 made a really fast pass against bombers, where "really fast" means at a speed that makes it immune from the allied escort fighters, it will just miss the target. Especially if in the hands of a novice pilot, and the quicker you introduce these radically new airplanes, the more novice pilots you will have.

There is such a thing as the ideal delta of speeds between the firing aircraft and the target. If you are 300 km/h faster than the target, you will have about one second during which your gun is in effective range. If you attack from the front in order to choose the least defended side, you have to add the bomber speed instead of subtracting it, and you have less than one split second.
If you fire just a little off, you won't have time to observe your tracers and correct your aim. Wasted pass, and note that with the Me 262's endurance, there aren't a lot of tries you can make.
Hence the advent of the R4M and roller coaster attack pattern for cannon runs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Me_262#Anti-bomber_tactics
 
There is the problem that if a Me 262 made a really fast pass against bombers, where "really fast" means at a speed that makes it immune from the allied escort fighters, it will just miss the target. Especially if in the hands of a novice pilot, and the quicker you introduce these radically new airplanes, the more novice pilots you will have.

There is such a thing as the ideal delta of speeds between the firing aircraft and the target. If you are 300 km/h faster than the target, you will have about one second during which your gun is in effective range. If you attack from the front in order to choose the least defended side, you have to add the bomber speed instead of subtracting it, and you have less than one split second.
If you fire just a little off, you won't have time to observe your tracers and correct your aim. Wasted pass, and note that with the Me 262's endurance, there aren't a lot of tries you can make.

Also note that we're talking about big, sturdy, redundant targets; even with those heavy 30mm rounds, you need more than one or two hits to make sure you actually down them.

So you have to slow down. So you are in a similar situation as those in which the Me 262 is vulnerable. Note BTW that with that aircraft, regaining speed to evade the escort fighters or engage them is not easy. Its acceleration is slow, and pushing it is dangerous (can very well lead to flameouts).

There is a reason if the Germans, in the end, resorted to the desperate measure of using rockets, i.e. they switched to work on a shotgun area-fire principle.

True but , worse case scenario, they will live to fight another day. In any event the historical sample was against much slower bombers than B-29, so there may not be that much difference.
 
Top