A German in the highest!

they had it ME262

The Me-262b was available for production as a fighter in 43, they decided to make a bomber out of it which took the speed advantage out of the aircraft so few were produced. It was ill suited for a bomber. In 44 they decided to resurrected it as a fighter were with a kill ratio of > 4:1 it took out 542 Allied planes. However this was too late against the massive allied air armadas who destroyed the special runways needed for the ME-262's and destroyed much of the special fuel as well.

Had the plane been keep as a fighter and fielded in 43, it's speculated that Germany would have won the air war on all fronts. We can be grateful to poor decision making at the top in Nazi Germany.
 
Personally I think they should have dropped the BV-155 and focused on the Focke Wulf Ta-152 as a high altitude fighter.
 
ME-262

but remember the ME-262 in late 44-45 was taking out Mustangs at ~ 4:1,
In 43 no allied fighters were even available that were the equal to the P-51 Mustang. I don't think any propeller driven fighter could have turned the tide like the ME-262 could have, which BTW the ME-262 was capable of taking on bombers as well "could reach the needed altitude".
True the Ta-152 was a good high altitude interceptor for attacking the bombers, yet as with the ME-262 it was to little to late.
 
Last edited:
JOC said:
but remember the ME-262 in late 44-45 was taking out Mustangs at ~ 4:1,
In 43 no allied fighters were even available that were the equal to the P-51 Mustang. I don't think any propeller driven fighter could have turned the tide like the ME-262 could have, which BTW the ME-262 was capable of taking on bombers as well "could reach the needed altitude".
True the Ta-152 was a good high altitude interceptor for attacking the bombers, yet as with the ME-262 it was to little to late.
Click to expand...

You know I have loved the Me-262 ever since I say one at the Smithsonian a long time ago but it was operationally a liability.

1) They simply did not have the materials to make such an advanced fighter so it consumed a huge amount of maintenance hours.

2) It required dedicated facilities to produce it properly at a time when they were being forced to build them in forests.

3) The engines were not up to spec and as such required the pilots to fly slowly on take off and landing to prevent flame outs and crashing their answer to this was to require airfields to send up Me-109s and FW-190s to protect them while they landed.

The Me-262 was a great aircraft but the conditions it was built in and the resources it used just to get it up and down tell me they would have been better off developing better piston engined fighters that would have worked out far cheaper, aircraft like the Ta-152 and Do-335.
 
Last edited:
MontyB said:
You know I have loved the Me-262 ever since I say one at the Smithsonian a long time ago but it was operationally a liability.

1) They simply did not have the materials to make such an advanced fighter so it consumed a huge amount of maintenance hours.

2) It required dedicated facilities to produce it properly at a time when they were being forced to build them in forests.

3) The engines were not up to spec and as such required the pilots to fly slowly on take off and landing to prevent flame outs and crashing their answer to this was to require airfields to send up Me-109s and FW-190s to protect them while they landed.

The Me-262 was a great aircraft but the conditions it was built in and the resources it used just to get it up and down tell me they would have been better off developing better piston engined fighters that would have worked out far cheaper, aircraft like the Ta-152 and Do-335.
Click to expand...
Worked a lot better than the Komet!
 
The Gloucester Meteor was operational and was mainly used in 44 to deal with the V1 menace. The engines in the Meteor were far more reliable than the ones in the 262. Several Squadrons of the Meteor were sent to Belgium to escort the B17 bombers who had got the wind up about the 262 although there was never a clash between the the Meteor and the 262
 
You don't hear much about the Meteor. Apparently very few were used ~ 40 as fighter bombers and against V1's. I don't know the specific's. The Me-262 was very maneuverable and was armed with 2 powerful cannons and or rockets near the end. It was quite difficult to shoot down. However as mentioned it had the runway issue, which was one of the main ways the allied keep the Germans from fielding the majority of the ~1400 ME-262 built. Most were destroyed on the ground or had their runways destroyed.
 
JOC said:
You don't hear much about the Meteor. Apparently very few were used ~ 40 as fighter bombers and against V1's. I don't know the specific's. The Me-262 was very maneuverable and was armed with 2 powerful cannons and or rockets near the end. It was quite difficult to shoot down. However as mentioned it had the runway issue, which was one of the main ways the allied keep the Germans from fielding the majority of the ~1400 ME-262 built. Most were destroyed on the ground or had their runways destroyed.
Click to expand...

The RAF Meteors were largely banned from flying over enemy held territory in case one was shot down and the Germans got hold of it. The Spitfires were also used to shoot down V1, or fly along side and tip the wing of the V1 using the Spitfires wing.

As a matter of interest the ME 262 engines only had a life of around 25 hours before needing a major overhaul, where the Meteor's engines were 100 hours. The 262's engines also a nasty habit of catching fire.

When I flew into RAF Changi in Singapore to start my tour of duty in 1967 I saw two or three Meteors sitting on the dispersal. I found out later they were used as target tugs.

If the Air Ministry had listened to Frank Whittle and backed him from the beginning, the RAF could have been flying jets during the Battle of Britain instead of Spitfires and Hurricanes. One so called Air Ministry expert told Whittle that his jet engine idea would never work.
 
Last edited:
The aviation historian Alfred Price is disagreeing: in "the Last Year of the Luftwaffe" (PP 147-148 ),er said 2 things :

1)Hitler's order to transform the ME 262 in a fighter bomber,delayed the introduction of the Me262 by only 3 weeks :the big problem were the engines.

2)Price is also convinced that Hitler was right : Germany needed an offensive fighterbomber,and not an air defence fighter .
 
lljadw said:
The aviation historian Alfred Price is disagreeing: in "the Last Year of the Luftwaffe" (PP 147-148 ),er said 2 things :

1)Hitler's order to transform the ME 262 in a fighter bomber,delayed the introduction of the Me262 by only 3 weeks :the big problem were the engines.

2)Price is also convinced that Hitler was right : Germany needed an offensive fighterbomber,and not an air defence fighter .
Click to expand...

They were being bombed by 100's or even thousands of allied bombers on a regular basis. Also the plane could shot down any other fighter fielded by anybody. Hitler and Goering were wrong. When they did put the plane into action it performed admirably, but it was to late to work the bugs out and more importantly to late to protect the runways and planes on the ground from the massive allied air armadas. I suppose we all have an opinion? I've read the plane had war winning potential.
 
US had won the war against Japan,long time before the A Bomb was used : the A Bomb hastened the end of the war,which was expected somewhere in 1946 .
 
lljadw said:
US had won the war against Japan,long time before the A Bomb was used : the A Bomb hastened the end of the war,which was expected somewhere in 1946 .
Click to expand...

The Japanese were still fighting hard, a war isn't won until the vanquished signs the surrender document which only happened after the two A bombs were dropped.
 
The Japanese had lost the war militarily long before the A-Bomb were dropped. But they had no intentions of quitting until they were atomic bombed. Finally something really scared the heck of of them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top