Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

What if the Me-262 was created earlier?

Discussion in 'What If - European Theater - Western Front & Atlan' started by Terror of the Skies, Oct 13, 2007.

  1. Ripvulcan

    Ripvulcan Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Messages:
    26
    Likes Received:
    6
    I, too, don't think the Me-262 was such a great aircraft in itself, although I do think that getting it into production and flying operationally was a great technical achievement for German industry, especially considering the pasting German industry had got and was getting from the Allied bomber offensive. Plane for plane, the Gloster Meteor was arguably as good as the Me-262 and probably damned more reliable if memory serves me correctly; although, again, I think that getting the Meteor into production and into the air operationally was a great technical achievement for British industry during wartime.
     
  2. tikilal

    tikilal Ace

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2007
    Messages:
    1,133
    Likes Received:
    66
    How would this have changed anything? Perhaps they would have been able to strike targets in Russia but at the cost of fighters and other things I doube that this would have changed anything?
     
  3. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,312
    Likes Received:
    1,232
    Location:
    Michigan
    It would have made a huge difference. Having built strategic bombers rather than tactical bombers the Germans would have had a much harder/longer time running over Poland and France. Indeed they may not have achieved the required breakthrough(s) to defeat France.
     
  4. T. A. Gardner

    T. A. Gardner Genuine Chief

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2003
    Messages:
    5,945
    Likes Received:
    760
    Location:
    Phoenix Arizona
    The problem with this concept is Germany couldn't manage it. Aircraft grow in complexity as an expotential function of their size. That is, a single engine fighter might have 5,000 parts. A twin engined bomber could have 25,000 parts. A large four engine bomber could grow to 100,000 parts.
    The result of this is that the number producable goes down expotentially too. So, Germany might produce several thousand fighters or, with the same production capacity a bit less than a thousand twin engine bombers, or a couple of hundred large four engine bombers.
    Given their geographic position which seems the better proposition?
     
    Kruska likes this.
  5. Kruska

    Kruska Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    1,866
    Likes Received:
    190
    Lot's of Flak and a 1000 Maus Panzers?

    hey I am just joking okay! - on the other hand ...... a 1000 Maus Pz. what a sight.

    Regards
    Kruska
     
  6. Wolfy

    Wolfy Ace

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2008
    Messages:
    1,900
    Likes Received:
    90
    [​IMG]

    What is wrong with those German engineers, lol?
     
  7. jaxson50

    jaxson50 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2009
    Messages:
    29
    Likes Received:
    5
    Actually, having bombers that could reach deep into Russia and attack troops and supplies moving up from eastern Russia may have been a great benefit. But, what about the Battle of Britain? How would having bombers that could cover all of Britain and Scotland changed the out come?
    I don't know, but one thing can not be denied, Allied heavy bombers had enough range to bring the war to a majority of German cities long before the Russian Army managed to enter Germany.
    And Germany never had the ability to do like wise.
     
  8. jaxson50

    jaxson50 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2009
    Messages:
    29
    Likes Received:
    5

    Having the ability to hit targets in Britain from bases in Germany wouldn't have been a benefit to Germany? Having aircraft capable of carrying heavier bomb loads all the way to Britain from Germany wouldn't have helped the German military change their situation?
    Interesting, it worked very well for the Allies.
    Now, you may be right that Germany couldn't manage this, but Britain did. Seems like a weak argument though, Germany had no problem building tanks that were too large to be transported.
     
  9. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,312
    Likes Received:
    1,232
    Location:
    Michigan
    Germany was pretty much building what it could. Sure they could have built 4 engine bombers but what would they have to give up to do so? And of course 4 engine bombers weren't having spectacular successes in 1940 or 41.
     
  10. YoungAirNut

    YoungAirNut Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2009
    Messages:
    34
    Likes Received:
    1
    Now thats a good point, plane Vs. plane, the Gloster Meteor could also hold its own very well considering it was a pioneering jet aircraft. (and a personal note, it just looks better) but I think the main reason the Meteor was such a fine craft is mostly because british engineering learend from the mistakes made by Nazi engieneers. Several stolen or captured Me-262 were being evaluated and dis-assembeled by the end of the war and, post-war, the technology used in creating the Me-262 as well as the Komet were used to create the second generation of jet planes.

    But like i said in my original post, only time could have made this aircraft an actual force to reckoned with. Time, however, was exactly what the germans did not have.
     
  11. Plumky

    Plumky Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2008
    Messages:
    57
    Likes Received:
    7
    I must say that if the 262 would have been used to the extent of the Me - 109 we may have lost air superiority.

    As far as I am concerned these craft where a huge leap into the future and according to some of the information I have uncovered these fighters had a plan by the Lufftwaffe but was never put into practice.
     
  12. Erich

    Erich Alte Hase

    Joined:
    May 13, 2001
    Messages:
    14,439
    Likes Received:
    617
    guys remember what I said, for the 262 JG's Allied fighters were to be avoided at all costs. The intended role for it was to be used as a Bomber killer not fighter vs fighter
     
  13. tikilal

    tikilal Ace

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2007
    Messages:
    1,133
    Likes Received:
    66


    This is the role for the medium bombers that the Germans did have. There were very few strategic targets in Russia. This is a result of the fact that Russia is huge. Everything is spread out.


    More bombers without fighter cover is all that would achieve. Yes there is a potential for a bigger bomb load with in the area the fighters could cover. Taking into account the numbers of mediums vs the 4 engined the total bomb capacity would have been very close.


    Yes they did bomb Germany. But what value was added? (oil aside) This is another thread though. Feel free to start one.
     
  14. jaxson50

    jaxson50 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2009
    Messages:
    29
    Likes Received:
    5
    I would have to agree with Plumky, the 262 was a huge step forward, more of them would have only prolonged the war, but would not change the outcome
     
  15. brndirt1

    brndirt1 Saddle Tramp

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Messages:
    9,713
    Likes Received:
    1,501
    How so?
    The Do-17 only had a bomb load of about 2,000 lbs to deliver on the British Isles, and the larger He-111 carried the heavier load of 3,300 lbs., over the short distance.

    The same time-frame developed B-17, by the time it was improved to the G model on the other hand, could carry 17,000 lbs over the same short distance.

    Five + times the bomb load per plane, 10-13 machine gun protection (interanlly), and the same number of fighters could have flown "CAP" for those bombers for the Luftwaffe, if they had the lifting capacity for the load with a 4 engine bomber. Perhaps if they had employed a four-engine bomber with its own protection (no matter how lame), the Luftwaffe wouldn't have spent the time with the Me-110. A fighter which needed its own figther cover. What a waste of time and effort for the time.

    I don't want the Luftwaffe to "win", but that was simply a silly choice on their part. Trying to use tactical fighter/bombers in the strategic setting of bombing a populace (British or Soviet) into a helpless position. The policy of "the bombers will always get through" was flawed and never worked as expected; but the Luftwaffe didn't even have the planes with which to prove it didn't. The choice they took was even less effective.
     
  16. tikilal

    tikilal Ace

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2007
    Messages:
    1,133
    Likes Received:
    66

    Yes a larger bomber could have carried like you say five time more bombs, but the larger bomber also cost 5 times as much to make and field. This is how I got to roughly the same bomb load.
     
  17. Wolfy

    Wolfy Ace

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2008
    Messages:
    1,900
    Likes Received:
    90
    What was the cost of a B-17 compared to a Ju-88 or a He-111?
     
  18. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,312
    Likes Received:
    1,232
    Location:
    Michigan
    That's a very tricky question to answer.
     
  19. jaxson50

    jaxson50 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2009
    Messages:
    29
    Likes Received:
    5
    I found these figure on ask.com
    The cost to build a B-17 during the war;
    $187,742 (US)
    P-51 Unit cost in 1945;
    $50985 (US)
    Sound like a lot of money?
    According to ask.com a Tiger tank cost;
    $250000 Marks (close to $100,000 US dollars)
    If these figures are right, the B-17 was a bargan.
     
  20. Kruska

    Kruska Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    1,866
    Likes Received:
    190
    Not quite correct in regards to your conversion table.

    In 1940, One $ US was equivalent to 20 RM (Reichsmark), however even this conversion wouldn't stick since Germany couldn't be bothered about this exept when it came to purchase outside goods.

    A better way to compare would therefore be the number of workhours needed to produce goods as such, and this comparrison will show that Germany was in no position to produce whatever it had in mind or needed in order to match Russia or the US. Not to mention Germanys industrial backyard layout compared to the US mass production industry.

    So the production of the Me262 would have taken away production capability of something else - less tanks or 190's e.g. which would have had a devestating effect on the German forces just as well.

    Regards
    Kruska
     

Share This Page