Civettone
Tech Sergeant
I agree with Tomo.
Though I agree that numbers were more important than technology and that the Germans had a horrible serviceability rate - I wrote a long post on these shortcomings a while back - I wouldn't exactly say that jets had made it worse. There was such a limit on fuel that few aircraft could fly anyway. So the Luftwaffe couldn't field large fleets in the last months of the war anyway. Also, given the lack of proper training, the low serviceability rates actually meant that there were always more pilots than available aircraft in the Luftwaffe.
And I am sure you are not suggesting that the Luftwaffe would have had a better chance at winning the air war by producing even more Bf 109s and Fw 190s! Even with twice the number they wouldn't have won the war because of a lack of pilots and more importantly a lack of fuel.
I can also say that the Me 262 did actually have a better kill ratio than the Bf 109 or Fw 190. The exact figures are very unclear but they do seem to suggest that this was the case.
Now let me tell you what I think was the solution: a simple jet fighter !
In fact, a jet engine is a rather simple device. Especially the BMW 003 was easy to build and relatively easy to maintain, perhaps easier than a BMW 801! It was also quite reliable, given the standards of the day. The Germans went for the superadvanced but inherently complicated Me 262. This was the result of the pre- and early-war thinking when ease of production and maintenance were not the center point of weapons design. Just think about the Tiger tank for instance. They also chose a two-engined fighter because of the limited power output of those first jet engines. Later engines would have enabled a light single-engined fighter, such as the first jet aircraft, the Heinkel He 178.
I am not saying the He 178 would have made a good fighter but I am saying that this design could have been used for a new fighter design. With the BMW 003 which was available at the end of 1944 - or perhaps a bit sooner under higher priority - a similar light fighter but with the needed armour and armament would have made a perfect little interceptor. The nose is clear for at least a couple of cannons, perhaps a couple more in the wing roots. Range will be limited but that is fine.
Also, these aircraft were rather easy to fly. It's like Galland said: "as if an angel was pushing me". The single BMW 003 in a relatively simple and straightforwrd aircraft would have been all what was needed.
I am sure that the connection with the Volksjaeger is clear. And it's a valid comparison. Of course what went wrong was that it was designed, contructed, test flown, put into production much too fast. But given a normal development time and flown by decently trained pilots the Volksjaeger could have been quite succesful. Pleaae not that this does not necessarily have to be the He 162 but could be any of the other contenders. For instance, originally the B&V P.211 won the competition.
This was probably the most simple fighter of WW2. Easy to build, maintain and repair. And given its straight wings probably easier to fly than the Me 262 or He 162.
Another option is the Lippisch P.20, which was derived from the easy-to-fly and maintain Me 163. But then with a jet engine.
All of these would have required some time to become operational and also advanced flight training would have to be done on these jet fighters, perhaps even two-seat variants. But I very much doubt they would necessarily be much more difficult to fly than the Bf 109K...
Also, there would be more fuel available for these jet engines.
Kris
I have studied all the German fighter losses from December 1943 to May 1944 and non-combat losses were always lower than combat losses. And it was never as low as 7%, but at least double of that! So I don't know where you get your information from ???Non-combat losses accounted for about three times the number of losses as combat related losses. During the war, the Luftwaffe suffered an average monthly loss rate of just under 7% per month due to non-combat related accidents. Introducing new technologies early will increase the unreliability of the machines, and place additional stresses on conversion training schools. It is almost inevitable that loss ratesw to attrition will go up if there is a wholesale conversion to jet technologies. Moreover the supply of pilots and other aircrew will dry up as the idiosyncrasies of this new design slow down the rate of output for new aircrew. The Luftwaffe will fight its final battles with even more numbers stacked against it. And ther is no substantive evidence that I know of that the new Jet equipped uinits of the Luftwaffe historically fielded were significantly better in their kill rates than were conventionally armed units. An Me 262 would get airborne, and maybe shoot down a bomber, as could an Me 109. It might have a better chance of shooting down a fighter , but these were not the determinants to Germany's defeat in the final months of the war.
Though I agree that numbers were more important than technology and that the Germans had a horrible serviceability rate - I wrote a long post on these shortcomings a while back - I wouldn't exactly say that jets had made it worse. There was such a limit on fuel that few aircraft could fly anyway. So the Luftwaffe couldn't field large fleets in the last months of the war anyway. Also, given the lack of proper training, the low serviceability rates actually meant that there were always more pilots than available aircraft in the Luftwaffe.
And I am sure you are not suggesting that the Luftwaffe would have had a better chance at winning the air war by producing even more Bf 109s and Fw 190s! Even with twice the number they wouldn't have won the war because of a lack of pilots and more importantly a lack of fuel.
I can also say that the Me 262 did actually have a better kill ratio than the Bf 109 or Fw 190. The exact figures are very unclear but they do seem to suggest that this was the case.
Now let me tell you what I think was the solution: a simple jet fighter !
In fact, a jet engine is a rather simple device. Especially the BMW 003 was easy to build and relatively easy to maintain, perhaps easier than a BMW 801! It was also quite reliable, given the standards of the day. The Germans went for the superadvanced but inherently complicated Me 262. This was the result of the pre- and early-war thinking when ease of production and maintenance were not the center point of weapons design. Just think about the Tiger tank for instance. They also chose a two-engined fighter because of the limited power output of those first jet engines. Later engines would have enabled a light single-engined fighter, such as the first jet aircraft, the Heinkel He 178.
I am not saying the He 178 would have made a good fighter but I am saying that this design could have been used for a new fighter design. With the BMW 003 which was available at the end of 1944 - or perhaps a bit sooner under higher priority - a similar light fighter but with the needed armour and armament would have made a perfect little interceptor. The nose is clear for at least a couple of cannons, perhaps a couple more in the wing roots. Range will be limited but that is fine.
Also, these aircraft were rather easy to fly. It's like Galland said: "as if an angel was pushing me". The single BMW 003 in a relatively simple and straightforwrd aircraft would have been all what was needed.
I am sure that the connection with the Volksjaeger is clear. And it's a valid comparison. Of course what went wrong was that it was designed, contructed, test flown, put into production much too fast. But given a normal development time and flown by decently trained pilots the Volksjaeger could have been quite succesful. Pleaae not that this does not necessarily have to be the He 162 but could be any of the other contenders. For instance, originally the B&V P.211 won the competition.
This was probably the most simple fighter of WW2. Easy to build, maintain and repair. And given its straight wings probably easier to fly than the Me 262 or He 162.
Another option is the Lippisch P.20, which was derived from the easy-to-fly and maintain Me 163. But then with a jet engine.
All of these would have required some time to become operational and also advanced flight training would have to be done on these jet fighters, perhaps even two-seat variants. But I very much doubt they would necessarily be much more difficult to fly than the Bf 109K...
Also, there would be more fuel available for these jet engines.
Kris