ME262 Swallow (3 Viewers)

[Mitch]

Combat....

It is one of those moral issues which, makes one wonder. Seemed alright gassing the jews yet balked at cruelty to animals and was a vegetarian and, as you say could have used gas etc but, choose not to even against what he fully considered ''untermench''

I have heard of several reasons why he did not, including, that he himself was subject to gassing so viewed it as not applicable on the battlefield.

Suppose the targets could have been Moscow, London or, if possible New York
Mitch

 

[lancer]

Would the Germans have used the A-bomb if they had it? My guess is probably yes at least on the Eastern Front. It's interesting, though, that Hitler refused to authorize the use of poison gas even though the Germans had stockpiles near the end of the war and it might have been very effective.

I have no doubt that Hitler would have used the A-bomb against the Russians. Don't know about it's use against the western Allies. My opinion is, if used against the Russians, the A-bomb would have given Hitler the leverage he needed to make peace with the western Allies as he saw fit. The western Allies would not have been able (population centers much too vulnerable) to carry on war in the face of German nuclear capabilities. A very interesting "what if". As to Hitler's refusal to use poison gas, I would bet that this reluctance goes back to his experience in WW1 and the horrors of gas in that war. Probably realized Germany was much too open to retaliation, though this seems odd considering the aerial bombing both sides had resorted to. -- Al

 

[Mitch]

Wonder if even dropping the bomb on the russians would have been sufficient to stop them as they at that time had little consideration for the lives of their own people and troops.

It certainly may have been the leaverage that Germany would have needed to get the UK and US to the peace table. This may have allowed Germany to deal with the Russians but, it would have still been a ferocious war between the two ideological enemies as I cannot see The USSR at that time giving in
Mitch

 

[lancer]

Wonder if even dropping the bomb on the russians would have been sufficient to stop them as they at that time had little consideration for the lives of their own people and troops.

It certainly may have been the leaverage that Germany would have needed to get the UK and US to the peace table. This may have allowed Germany to deal with the Russians but, it would have still been a ferocious war between the two ideological enemies as I cannot see The USSR at that time giving in
Mitch

Incredibly interesting possibilities. If peace was made between Germany and the western Allies, leaving the USSR alone, I do not see how the USSR could have prevailed. Any peace would also have ended Lend-Lease as well. With a one front war, Germany would have been able to muster all their conventional forces, plus nuclear capabilities, against the USSR. The USSR had huge numbers and area, but how could she have had a chance? All Germany would have had to do is hold defensively while bombing the USSR out of the war. The USSR might have pulled back beyond the Urals, losing European Russia, but this would only by time. That nuclear advantage is a killer. I see no way out of it for an isolated USSR. And just to go a little further, after finishing Russia, Hitler would have turned his attention back to Europe and the USA. Nuclear weapons (and a delivery system) would have changed EVERYTHING for Germany and the world. Good thing Germany never really got near nuclear capability. -- Al

 

[Mitch]

Lancer...

Interesting thoughts and probably right about USSR not being able to win if a seperate peace with the west had been formulated as it was Germany gave both east and west (though more so the russians) a bloody nose with conventional warfare I think you are right that they would have had little chance alone and against a nuclear power.

Whats more interesting is your assumption about the recommencement of hostilities by Nazi germany after knocking out the russians. I think it may have been a real possibility and, as you mention I wonder what would have been the effect had germany (and we know they tried) found the capability whether by Horton bomber or sub launched attack on mainland USA even, with conventional bombs?
Mitch

 

[Combat]

Another interesting question is what would have happened if both the Germans and Russians had developed the A-bomb about the same time. Say in 1943 or so. Would they have blown Europe and each other to bits or been forced to reach some compromise. In 1939, both Hitler and Stalin demonstrated a willingness to put aside ideological differences in favor of mutually beneficial considerations. Stalin bought time and territory. Hitler gained a free hand in Poland. Is that something they still could and would have done later in the war? Absent the bomb that was never a possibility because Stalin believed correctly it was only a matter of time before Germany was defeated and Russia gained control over Eastern Europe. The cost in lives never concerned him and he had no desire or incentive to compromise. With the bomb, however, Germany would have been difficult to defeat.

 

[lancer]

Another interesting question is what would have happened if both the Germans and Russians had developed the A-bomb about the same time. Say in 1943 or so. Would they have blown Europe and each other to bits or been forced to reach some compromise. In 1939, both Hitler and Stalin demonstrated a willingness to put aside ideological differences in favor of mutually beneficial considerations. Stalin bought time and territory. Hitler gained a free hand in Poland. Is that something they still could and would have done later in the war? Absent the bomb that was never a possibility because Stalin believed correctly it was only a matter of time before Germany was defeated and Russia gained control over Eastern Europe. The cost in lives never concerned him and he had no desire or incentive to compromise. With the bomb, however, Germany would have been difficult to defeat.

Great "what ifs". IMO no such peace could have been reached later in the war, after such horrific casualties and investment in the destruction of the foe. Neither Hitler or Stalin would have or could have made peace with such a mortal enemy and expected to remain in power. Too much had been lost. It was a fight to the death with whatever weapons could be used, A-bombs or sticks and stones. Someone was going down to defeat. -- Al

 

[Mitch]

I think the ideological hatred between the two and how little regard Hitler and Stalin had for human life would have meant every bomb had they had them would have been used to destroy as much as possible and, would then have been left to whatever troops each side could muster. This is why the germans and russians fought so hard and viciously against each other and why its hard for westeners to comprehend properly what the Russian front was really like.
Mitch

 

[lancer]

I think the ideological hatred between the two and how little regard Hitler and Stalin had for human life would have meant every bomb had they had them would have been used to destroy as much as possible and, would then have been left to whatever troops each side could muster. This is why the germans and russians fought so hard and viciously against each other and why its hard for westeners to comprehend properly what the Russian front was really like.
Mitch

Good points. Not widely appreciated that the Russian Front occupied 75% of Germany's resources and was responsible for almost 80% of German casualties. It was a massive battle to the death. -- Al

 

[Mitch]

would not have liked to have seen the full german army face the western allies as it was they fought well its not imaginable what would have been the outcome had germany been able to take out the russians and been able to turn all attention west.
Mitch

 

[lancer]

would not have liked to have seen the full german army face the western allies as it was they fought well its not imaginable what would have been the outcome had germany been able to take out the russians and been able to turn all attention west.
Mitch

So true. Does not really look good for the Allies. Tigeritis could have been fatal if most of them hadn't been fighting Russians. -- Al

 

[Mitch]

Tigeritis rather apt name for a diesese many fell victim too. Would certainly have not wanted to see divisions such as Totenkopf (especially) Wiking etc permanently on the western front.

Suppose, in a morbid sort of a way, we have to be thankful for 20 million deaths on the soviet side. That could have easily been western victims.
Mitch

 

[lancer]

Egads! We sure went off course on this thread. German jets to reshaping history! It is fun, though. -- Al

 

[Mitch]

Pretty much on theme as the jets early introduction was something that could have changed the war. It has been an interesting dialogue for sure
Mitch

 

[binder001]

The change in history depends on when you introduce the jets. Although the Germans flew the ME262 relatively early, their operational service would probably not be much earlier than history. All the early jets had bugs that had to be worked out. After the "Big Week" in 1944 the Luftwaffe was in steady decline. The factories were cranking out lots of new airplanes but the losses in pilots exceeded the training command's ability to supply new ones. Each new German fighter pilot's training was a sahow of what his predecessor's had been. There are arguments that the bombers biggest contribution to victory was to be "fighter bait" rather than the ****age wrought from the bombs (but let's not get into THAT argument). If the German jets had proven more of a threat earlier then the Allies would have pushed development of the Meteor and the P80. As it was the Meteor was slightly ahead of the P80, but there were a couple pairs of P80s deployed to the UK and Italy late in WW2 for testing and demonstarion. As Allied production ramped up the ME262s would find themsleves outnumbered and facing better trained pilots. A contest between the ME262 and P80 would slightly favor the P80 but would really depend on the pilots' skill and tactical situation ("see first, shoot first, kill first"). The 262 alone couldn't have stopped the invasion - as a strike fighter it didn't have that great of a bomb load. The few jet bomber sorties didn't manage to hit the Ludendorff Bridge at Remagen in March, 1945, it's hard to see how they would have faired against a well defended invasion fleet.

 

[Mitch]

Binder001...

Interesting that you should say that the P80 may edge the ME262 I have seen some technical and flight test data which, would contradict that and, that much of the german technology went into many early US and Russian jets and I have also read that the Russians really appreciated the 262.

I think your right about its effectivenesss as a bomber which, was why I initially put the comment from Galland and posed the question had this came earlier what effect would the 1200 Galland wanted would have done. It was certain that all or many teething problems were being eliminated or addressed as the war came to its conclusion but, its worth pondering, the damage to the bomber fleets had they came earlier, as earlier, would have given more time to refine this very good aircraft.

Thanks for the input
Mitch

 

[Spitfrnd]

The Me 262 and P-80 were two of the aircraft modeled for computer flight simulation using their actual factory data and I certainly would be interested to see what flight tests gave the 262 the edge. The 262 did have the advantage of dual engines but they are much under powered, especially relative to the P-80. Here are some comparative specs for the two:

Me 262
Engines: 2 x Jumo-004B engines with 1,980 lb S.T. (900 kg) each.
Weights - empty: 8,380 lb (3,800 kg) Operational: 14,110 lb (6,400 kg) Maximum: 15,720 lbs (7,130 kg)
Maximum speed - typical: 503 mph (810 kph) @ sea level, 519 mph (835 kph) @ 19,685 feet (6000 m)
Maximum speed - best: 515 mph (825 kph) @ sea level, 540 mph (870 kph) @ 19,680 (using -4A engines)
Cruise Speed: unknown
Initial climb: 3937 fpm (1200 m/min)
Sustained Climb: 6.8 mins to 19,685 ft (6000 m)
Service ceiling: 37,565 ft (11,450 m)
Range: 650 miles (1,050 km) on internal fuel
Gunsight: Revi 16b reflector sight
Armament: 2 x 30mm MK108 cannon with 100 rpg, 2 x 30mm MK108 cannon with 80 rpg, all nose mounted

P-80A
Engine: One General Electric J33-GE-11 or Allison J33-A-9 with 3,850 lb S.T. (1,746 kg)
Weights - empty: 7920 lbs. Operational: 11,700 pounds Maximum: 14,000 lbs
Maximum Speed - typical: 558 mph (898 kph) @ Sea Level, 577 mph @ 6000 feet (1828 m), 492 mph (792 kph) @ 40,000 ft (12,192 km)
Maximum Speed - best: 624 mph (929 kph) @ unknown alt (probably with -17 4000 lbs S.T. engine, Sept. 1946)
Cruise Speed: 410 mph (660 km/h)
Initial climb: 4580 fpm
Sustained Climb: 5.5 minutes to 20,000 ft (6,096 m)
Service Ceiling: 45,000 ft (1,3716 m)
Range - Normal: 780 miles (1,255 km) Maximum: 1,440 miles (2,317 km) {note: wingtip tanks actually improved performance!}
Gunsight K-14 lead computing gunsight
Armament: 6 x .50 caliber M2 machine guns with 200-225 rpg , 10 x 5" HVAR's or 2000 lbs bombs.

To me, the performance figures clearly show the superiority of the P-80. Moreover, the Star was a very nimble aircraft with a light stick and rolled much faster than the 262. I did have the privilege of flying a T-33 (basically a two seat P-80F) a few times and while not up to modern jet standards, it was indeed a sweet flying aircraft. I don't know but I think the Stars, especially with Allied training and numbers, would have swept the skies pretty quickly if the Mark IVs left any Swallows to deal with.

 

[Mitch]

Its available on the web if one searches for it,its where I found it and, had some ex pilots who had flown both citing these examples.so, they were pretty informative having actually flown both aircraft at the time. I have many books etc on the ME262 and other stuff which shows that the ME262 was a good aircraft with some technical issues which were being sorted out.

There is also a plethora of information from the soviets which show how highly they thought of the 262 and was it not used for several years by some countries???

All about opinions but, they seem quite informative despite you finding the alternative which, is your right but, does not make them right and you wrong or you right and they wrong. I will always prefer opinion that comes from those who actually flew the aircraft (often in combat) than those who have not as that seems always to be the best data without trying to retrospectively compare and contrast with more recent times
Mitch
Mitch

 

[binder001]

Since P80, Meteor, and ME262 never really faced off against each other it will always be a subjective argument. I still think the advantage will go to the better pilot (or the LUCKIER pilot). The actual ME262 wasn't enough better to make a big bifference. From a military point of view, since the Allies had stronger economies, more men, and more resources they would have been able to produce more jets and train more pilots. They would have started from behind but soon would overtake the Luftwaffe - the war just would have lasted longer.

I think that if the war had lasted longer, Europeans or no Europeans, the Germans might have found themselves on the receiving end of instant sunshine.

 

[Spitfrnd]

Since P80, Meteor, and ME262 never really faced off against each other it will always be a subjective argument. I still think the advantage will go to the better pilot (or the LUCKIER pilot). The actual ME262 wasn't enough better to make a big bifference. From a military point of view, since the Allies had stronger economies, more men, and more resources they would have been able to produce more jets and train more pilots. They would have started from behind but soon would overtake the Luftwaffe - the war just would have lasted longer.

I think that if the war had lasted longer, Europeans or no Europeans, the Germans might have found themselves on the receiving end of instant sunshine.

I must demur a wee bit Gary. Of the lot, the P-80 was the best performing and flying aircraft. You don't need combat to prove that and frankly the best pilot almost always wins win equal odds. I have proven that to myself on more than a few occassions. Views of pilots of the respective aircraft in combat are interesting but not definitive since there is just too little time for reflection and too many variables and yes the problem with a bit of attachment to one's own aircraft. Test pilot views are actually better where they have flown both aircraft.