Where Jets that useful in WW2?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date
The only allied fighters which could have met the Germans if the war had dragged on into late 1945 would be the Metoer F3 and maybe F4, Vampire and P80. Of those only the Meteor F4 has better performance than the 262, although the others should be able to deal with the Ar234 and the He162. The awesome thing about fighters (and thus why I love them) is that it's all about performance.
 
*The R4M rockets were they ever actually used in OTL? I think I read somewhere that the plant manufacturing them was destroyed by an allied air raid.

Hi DMZ23

The R4M was used from mid[ish] March 1945 onwards.

French ace Pierre Clostermann notes in his book The Big Show that in March 1945, six R4M-armed Me 262s flying out of the Oberammergau flight test center and led by Luftwaffe General Gordon Gollob claimed to have shot down fourteen B-17s in a mission.

In April 1945, R4M-equipped Me 262s claimed to have shot down thirty B-17s for the loss of three aircraft.

The Luftwaffe found the R4M missiles to have similar trajectory to the 30 mm MK 108 cannon in flight, therefore the standard Revi 16B was utilized effectively.

I take what General Gollob claims with a pinch of salt!!

Whatisinaname
 
Depending on the POD it would have been possible for any of the machines I mentioned, there were others in design but not already under construction, to have gone into service. If the German machines became a problem then presumably the Allies decision makers would have fast-tracked jet development. As it was there was no need as the tried and trusted technology did the job.

As for which aircraft would have been a better match for the 262 I think the Meteor was the worst of the Allied designs, the Vampire had the same top speed as the 262 a higher ceiling and greater range the Shooting Star however flew faster, higher and further. Anyway pure speed does not a fighter make there are many other factors in the equation and we will never know for sure how the various designs would have fared under combat. The slow firing 30mm's of the 262 were no match in a fighter duel against the 20mm Hispano's used by the RAF even the .50s of the US machines were more effective in that type of combat.
 
Last edited:
Hi DMZ23

French ace Pierre Clostermann notes in his book The Big Show that in March 1945, six R4M-armed Me 262s flying out of the Oberammergau flight test center and led by Luftwaffe General Gordon Gollob claimed to have shot down fourteen B-17s in a mission.

In April 1945, R4M-equipped Me 262s claimed to have shot down thirty B-17s for the loss of three aircraft.

...

I take what General Gollob claims with a pinch of salt!!

Yeah. The operational word in both the accounts above is "claimed".
 
Yeah. The operational word in both the accounts above is "claimed".

Possibly the problem with the Luftwaffe claims is the same as the problem with US bomber claims, that is every bomber claims every fighter that is hit (as well as some that produce smoke when accelerating). Perhaps if everyone fires R4Ms at long range, any hits (and any random FLAK bursts) are reported as kills by every Me-262.

At first sight, calculations suggest that there should be at least one hit per Me-262. Even the problem that aiming the Me-262 was difficult due to snaking (also a problem with the Meteor and the P-80) should not cause it to miss a bomber box as the rockets were launched in four sets with a 0.07s delay. However, that does assume that the range is estimated reasonably correctly. The initial intention was to fire at 1500 m (outside of gun range). Experience caused the range to be reduced to 600 m (from the side an Me-262 closed about 200 m/s). Initially even aces were beginners with the R4M (Galland forgot to set the arming switch in his first attack). Thus it is possible that over the long month of R4M use, there was some improvement in effectiveness. Note that the USAF copied the design and trained to hit jet bombers in head on attacks at night!

For my Alt. Hist. idea of using R4M equipped Me-262s from February 1944, the Luftwaffe would have been able to train against towed targets (say over Silesia in January 1944) and I suspect that they would have started out hitting on most attacks. A radar for ranging might have helped but with practice the rings on the Revi should give the range. Manufacturing problems may have caused some R4M to miss in 1945 but that would have been quickly solved in less chaotic conditions (if it was a problem).
 
Possibly the problem with the Luftwaffe claims is the same as the problem with US bomber claims, that is every bomber claims every fighter that is hit (as well as some that produce smoke when accelerating). Perhaps if everyone fires R4Ms at long range, any hits (and any random FLAK bursts) are reported as kills by every Me-262.

At first sight, calculations suggest that there should be at least one hit per Me-262. Even the problem that aiming the Me-262 was difficult due to snaking (also a problem with the Meteor and the P-80) should not cause it to miss a bomber box as the rockets were launched in four sets with a 0.07s delay. However, that does assume that the range is estimated reasonably correctly. The initial intention was to fire at 1500 m (outside of gun range). Experience caused the range to be reduced to 600 m (from the side an Me-262 closed about 200 m/s). Initially even aces were beginners with the R4M (Galland forgot to set the arming switch in his first attack). Thus it is possible that over the long month of R4M use, there was some improvement in effectiveness. Note that the USAF copied the design and trained to hit jet bombers in head on attacks at night!

For my Alt. Hist. idea of using R4M equipped Me-262s from February 1944, the Luftwaffe would have been able to train against towed targets (say over Silesia in January 1944) and I suspect that they would have started out hitting on most attacks. A radar for ranging might have helped but with practice the rings on the Revi should give the range. Manufacturing problems may have caused some R4M to miss in 1945 but that would have been quickly solved in less chaotic conditions (if it was a problem).

An earlier R4M is possible, if it did come earlier then remember that the R4Ms were two warheads were available for the R4M, the common PB-3 with a 0.4 kg charge for anti-aircraft use and the larger shaped charge, similar in construction to the Panzerschreck, the Panzerblitz II (PB-2), for anti-tank use.

The anti-tank version may also have an effect on the Russian front, or not?
 
Top