P-51 vs. Me-262, Allied Dog Fighting Guidance Tips, Based on Aerial Combat Engagements

Me-262 engaged allied fighters in aerial combat. Usually the allied fighter won the battle. The video will focus on the vulnerabilities of the Me-262 the allies exploited and the combat engagement tactics the allied fighter that were provided if caught in the cross hairs of an attacking Me-262.
Allied fighters exploited the vulnerabilities of the Me-262, this included:
Its inability to dive beyond angles of 30 degrees.
Wide turning radius, at any altitude
Slow acceleration, couple minutes to reach max speed
Targeting the airfields where the jets were stationed
The Jet’s closing speed made accurate gunnery difficult
The number of Allied fighters overwhelmed the number of me-262s
Allied fighter armaments optimized for fighter engagements whereas Me-262s was optimized for bomber engagements, not fighters

[@FAMUCHOLLY]

Another EXCELLENT, logical, dispassionate, accurate, well researched, and presented essay. THANKS!!!

[@alexanderrswaim5142]

9:30 “Göring, though, had a reputation for embellishment” may be the understatement of the year :-) Very interesting, as are all of your videos. Thanks for making it. It’s worth noting that Göring’s comments blaming Hitler for the Me-262’s use as a bomber should be taken with a grain of salt. Post-war, everyone found it very convenient to blame Hitler for their own mistakes.

[@jkdeweese]

Excellent video! It is amazing how much technical and historical data you fit into a 10 minute video.

[@stanleybest8833]

I knew a P51 pilot. They were impressed with the speed. The ME 262 had a superior airfoil and reasonably large tail feathers. It still flew dumpy, slow, but had novelty spoilers for slow speed flight control. The Junkers Jumo 004 factory output had hot section alloys watered down like Harry Lime's penicillin. The 262 could attack bombers well by diving down on them, taking a first shot, then arcing up under the belly of a second bomber for a very accurate burst. The escape route was down. Willy Messerschmitt had to abandon the ME 108, ME 109 cookie cutter rear fuselage construction to make the jet stronger. It was defended on the ground, but once airborne, something of a sitting duck. All jet turbines lose a lot of power at low density high altitude.

[@michaelporzio7384]

The idea the German Top Guy had was that no German piston engined plane could survive missions over the invasion beaches, the Me 262 would be the "Blitz Bomber" that could swoop in drop a few bombs strafe the invasion beaches and get away. The intent was to disrupt the invasion not necessarily stop it. Using the ME 262 as a ground attack plane was not as half baked as it was made out to be. As it was, the Luftwaffe was absent on D-Day. (except maybe Priller and his wingman). Until the fielding of afterburners in post-war jets, all jet aircraft suffered from throttle lag ("spool up") and flameouts if the throttles were moved too quickly. Allied air supremacy was so great that a few jets were not going to change anything.

[@gort8203]

This report even states that the 262 was an excellent attack bomber. This role is a case were speed really improves the odds of mission success. Hitler had different priorities than Goering and Galland because he was focused on the big picture of the allied threat to Germany rather than just the daylight bombing picture.

[@michaelporzio7384]

@@gort8203 excellent comment!

[@Treblaine]

There was a critical weakness with any axis attacks on vessels at sea because the US had proximity fuses. They were very worried about the Germans capturing a dud proximity fuse and copying it so they would only use the fuse over water but these fuses were absurdly effective and along with radar direction made even the speed advantage of a jet fighter futile. Also, the ships at sea were within range of an early allied jet fighter, the Meteor. This still left air-strikes on land but it's just a lot harder to spot ground targets, especially at high speed. The only thing that could have made a difference was something like a sea-skimming missile that became a major threat in the cold war. This defeated the radar advantage by hiding below the horizon (suck it flat earthers) and the proximity fuse was so sensitive it could be set off by reflections off the water. This was theoretically possible in with the tech they had in 1944, they had the V1 flying bomb but could it be modified to skim very close to the surface AND home in on ships? However the allies probably would have countered even this with the use of chaff or jamming or just focusing on attacking the launch sites.

[@michaelporzio7384]

@ All valid! The leader wanted to hit the Anglo Americans on day one (the longest day so to speak) while the Allies were still stuck in the sand and unable to set up flak and heavy weapons.

[@Constance_tinople]

@@gort8203the actual testing on the 262 showed it didn’t make a good bomber. It locked up at any dive speed especially if coming in for a standard dive bomber attack run. It had stability issues due to the drag and weight offset. The airframe wasn’t truly capable of supporting the installation of bombs without large risks regarding airframe integrity. It was all in all a fighter that was forced to have bombs strapped to it that it was entirely incapable of delivering effectively

[@williamashbless7904]

First class information. Great stuff! At 6:42 your documents say that 262’s excelled at high speed ground attack. Another document(maybe the same report) says a weakness of the 262 was limited engagement time to effectively target and damage aerial targets(bombers). Did the 262 have any aiming devices or different ordnance delivery systems that would make them so much more proficient in this role than say JU-87 or other dedicated ground attack planes? At ground level things come at you so fast that I’m struggling to understand just how successful 262 was in the role. On a related note: In Belton Cooper’s memoir(Deathtraps) he witnessed a lone 262 bomb a column ahead of him. Suddenly a P-47 came out of nowhere in a steep dive and tried to intercept. As the P-47 got close, the 262 suddenly accelerated away and left the P-47 standing still. That passage always stuck with me.

[@dukecraig2402]

Belton Cooper is known to have been full of it, there's no way an ME262 could have done that as they were notorious for accelerating much slower than piston engine aircraft of the time, a P47 diving down with a speed advantage would have had him. There's 2 documented examples of ME262's flying straight and level at full throttle that were run down and destroyed by P47's that had an altitude advantage, on both occasions the pilots put their P47's in a 30° dive, which would create their fastest possible ground speed, and closed the gap on the fleeing ME262's and shot them down. So no, an ME262 that was below its top speed, that was known for being slow at accelerating, wasn't about to just throttle up and pull away from a P47 diving on it, ain't gonna happen.

[@marioacevedo5077]

Great video. I've read that FW-190Ds provided top cover over the ME-262 airfields. That would be an interesting story.

[@basilb4733]

Just a small correction to your narration regarding the document you show at 1:00 - Göring explains they were expecting the 5.5 cm guns to make a positive impact in interception success as an ultimate anti-bomber fighter armarment (he obviously refers to the Rheinmetall MK 112 and Krupp/Mauser MK 412 which were in development as armament for the Me 262 and other interceptors). In the meantime they used the salvo rocket R4M, he says. The unsuited gun he mentions was the Mauser MK 214 which was tested in a Me 262 as a very long range anti-bomber "sniper" gun with a calibre of 5 cm (and later 5.5 cm).

[@Constance_tinople]

I love how niche and specific this KZbin channel is it’s oddly comforting

[@JK-rv9tp]

The first generation turbojets all had what amounted to a needle valve operated by the throttle controlling flow to the burner cans, and in effect the pilot's eyes, ears and brain was the fuel control unit. You had to advance power while carefully monitoring turbine inlet temperatures and feeling for signs of compressor stall. It was a bit like driving a car with a carburetor that had no accelerator pump. By the 50s, "slam acceleration" became possible with new fuel controllers that used a hydromechanical fuel flow regulating system that controlled fuel flow to achieve a commanded thrust setting. That was followed by electronic trimming (fine tuning of the hydromechanical system so to speak by controlling the upper, say 10% of the fuel schedule electronically) of the hydromechanical fuel control system in the late 70s, before FADEC became a thing in the 90s.

[@gavinc.6243]

Can you explain this like I'm five?

[@mikus4242]

Great stuff. Thanks.

[@Cuccos19]

I'm curious how the He-280 would do against the Allied fighters of the time. The engine was the same, so acceleration should be as well. the wing design was different, and the armament was rather a "fighter killer" than a bomber destroyer (3xMG151/20).

[@stevewhisperer6609]

I'm a little surprised the Germans didn't at least try experimenting with mixing in a pair of 20mms, ( for fighter to fighter use ) for one of the pairs of 30mms. I know the ballistics of both cannons are a fair bit different from each other, so they'd probably need to fired separately, but I believe it would've given the 262 a better chance of success against fighter targets. In some cases of fighters with mixed ballistics weapons, they were fired simultaneously, ( later on in the P-38 Lightnings development and from the start of the later MiG-15. )

[@juliushummer1069]

You are the best!

[@SheriffsSimShack]

The Me262 was a great first operational jet fighter. But it was the first and that was its achilles heel. Thats of no fault of the designer, its just the nature of things which came "first". I am a bit surprised that german pilots reported to have gunnery issues. While yes the closing speed are tremendous at times, but these were also similar of a diving 190/109 on a slower target (like a bomber or a IL-2) and B-17 are large and slow targets. So they dont have to go to ramming distance.

[@nightjarflying]

It's about weapons, timing & dive brakes. The 190s/109s didn't have the slow firing, close range only Mk-108 cannon - they could dive more steeply & begin firing further out. Capt Eric Brown wrote re the Me-262: QUOTE: "...you come in on a dive. The 30mm cannon were not so accurate beyond 600 metres [660 yd; 2,000 ft]. So you normally came in at 600 yards and would open fire on your B-17. And your closing speed was still high and since you had to break away at 220 yd; to avoid a collision, you only had two seconds firing time. Now, in two seconds, you can't sight. You can fire randomly and hope for the best. If you want to sight and fire, you need to double that time to four seconds. And with dive brakes, you could have done that"

[@beverlychmelik5504]

I will say that the 262 gunnnery was hampered by the low muzzle velocity of the MK 108. The MV of the MK103 isn't great, but that extra 600 FPS per second would take some of the lead calculation easier.

[@SheriffsSimShack]

yeah, that said if the plane goes fast and the target is slow the muzzle velocity is not really a problem. Especially against large targets like bombers.

[@tarjei99]

The Germans were outfitting their airfields with an increasing number of anti-aircraft guns, so it became increasingly dangerous for Allied fighters to loiter around the airfields. There were simply not that many operational Me-262s, so the statistics might be somewhat skewed. And there might be an issue with tactics. Note previous video where FW-190s were escorted by BF-109s.

[@Knuck_Knucks]

of course we liked this video !🐿

[@icterio1]

The US Me 262 shot-down claims are also highly inflated.

[@robmarsh6668]

I think all ww2 claims are pretty inflated tbf

[@Constance_tinople]

The US actually had a very very strict system for kill claims and you needed a lot more evidence to get a kill tally than other air forces. The German Air Force didn’t even require an eye witness for most of war (so yes most luftwaffe aces were lying their asses off)

[@bf-696]

"Allied figheters overwhelmed the Me262". Quantity has a quality all it's own. J. Stalin, probably.

[@randomnickify]

So...ironically, it would work better as a bomber/assault craft 😅

[@jaggedskar3890]

I think Growling Sidewinder needs to watch this video.

[@basfinnis]

I think anyone calling themselves 'growling sidewinder' needs to sit down with a cup of tea and calm down.

[@556m4]

I’ve never understood why the Germans made the barrel so short on the 30mm cannon on the 262. Why wouldn’t they make it at least a couple of feet longer ?

[@randomnickify]

That would add lots of mass to already heavy cannon.

[@johnharker7194]

Their job was to shoot down bombers traveling in a fixed formation with their big dummy thicc shells velocity isn't that important for that. But it did still require them to spend too much time inside of the bomber's defensive gun range.

[@SheriffsSimShack]

also rate of fire. Which helps a lot when engaging air targets.

[@tis7963]

The MK108 is a blowback operated gun, meaning that the bolt and barrel are not locked together at the moment of firing. The only thing resisting the pressure in the chamber is the inertia of the bolt. Increasing the barrel length and muzzle velocity would mean that the mass of the bolt would also need to increase. Kind of defeats the purpose, which was to have a light gun throwing a heavy shell.

[@gort8203]

It doesn't take the engines 1 to 2 minutes to spool up from cruise rpm to full rpm. It takes the airplane that long to accelerate from cruise speed.

[@randomnickify]

The article clearly states the engines are the issue, so is the later gun cam footage.

[@gort8203]

@@randomnickify Huh? Which issue, and what does gun camera footage have to do with engine spool time?

[@luvr381]

Spawn camping FTW!

[@SoloRenegade]

2:15 false. the P-51B at 75" MAP was doing 445mph at 25k ft. this is documented in 150 octane test reports.

[@gort8203]

This intelligence document seems to contradict itself in places, which could signify it was a quick presentation of raw data from various sources without sufficient analysis to present a cohesive assessment of the airplane. For example, at one point it says the airplane was easy to transition into, and at another says even experienced pilots had a high accident rate in transition training. First the report says the airplane was relatively maneuverable for its size, and later says it had poor maneuverability. The document says the landing speed was 100 miles per hour (slower than a B-26 bomber) but then says it had high landing speed. Everything is relative and needs to be placed in a meaningful contexts by analysis. Perhaps some of the myths surrounding this airplane had roots in this report.

[@johnharker7194]

Göring was the one who claimed it was easy to transition into. The section that contracted him seemed to be from the relevant pilots trainers themselves. I'm not sure if both views were compiled into a single presentation until this video. And I frankly think very little of Göring's views on any matter. Military aviation history did a video on how he was probably exaggerating Hitler's insistence on turning the 262 into a bomber. Given that Hitler was either dead or in Argentina, he couldn't really defend his Military decisions and all of his staff just blamed all of the military failures on him. This created a postwar perception that the German military was nearly flawless and only lost due to Hitler's bungling.

[@Constance_tinople]

I think you’re misunderstanding the analysis quoting what had been reported and then countering it with the actual data collected showing its weaknesses. As in its initial performance information had been embellished by the Germans