Did Gloster Meteor fight in WWII?
Dmitri Gennadievitch Alex Artemenko
I vaguely remember they were used against V-1's. Is it true?
Anurag Gupta
Dmitri Gennadievitch "Alex" Artemenko <she...@eden.rutgers.edu> wrote:
>
>I vaguely remember they were used against V-1's. Is it true?
Hmmm, I am pretty sure about that. I owned an av. art print that depicted a
Gloster Meteor ( Mk I ?) shooting down a V1 over English soil.
Don't know about their operational successes against Axis aircraft, though.
--
_____________________________________________________________________
Anurag Gupta, School of Aerospace Engg.
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
Internet: gt5...@prism.gatech.edu,anu...@arthu.savant.gatech.edu
na
>
>
>I vaguely remember they were used against V-1's. Is it true?
Yes they were used against V-1s, they shot down 13 of them, I
have to check my books for dates, and pilots. after that they
were transferred to the Netherlands, thay never went up against
any axis fighters, too late in war. But used against ground
targets. Ned.
FrankWielbo
EE219 arrived at Culmhead on 12 july 1944
Two weeks later the Sqd mved to Manston with their Spitfire VII
but had a detached flight of 7 Meteors
The first kill came on 4 August when F/O Dean downed a V1 in EE216
The squadron even did some Training/Trials with US bombers and
fighters to give the crews some experience of jet fighter tactics
Matthew Saroff
The Meteor did enter service during WWII, I am not sure however
if it saw any duty beyond chasing V-1s. However, according to one source
(it's been 15 yewars, and I can't remember the name) it entered squadron
service chasing V-1s a few weeks before the Me-262 enter service and
qualifies as the first jet fighter to see front line service.
It's been a whild, but could anyone give first date for service
entry for the Meteor and the 262?
--Matthew Saroff| Standard Disclaimer: Not only do I speak for
_____ | No one else, I don't even Speak for me. All my
/ o o \ | personalities and the spirits that I channel
______|_____|_____| channel disavow all knowledge of my activities. ;-)
uuu U uuu |
| In fact, all my personalities and channeled spirits
Saroff wuz here | hate my guts. (Well, maybe with garlic & butter...)
Mutual Improvement
>I vaguely remember they were used against V-1's. Is it true?
a few were used by 616sqn, RAF in NW europe during the winter of 1944-45.
AFAIK none ever met a Me262 in combat. they only ever shot down V-1's.
t.
FrankWielbo
> entry for the Meteor and the 262?
Me262 According to "German A/C of WWII"
by Putnams the ME262 was in service wth EK 262 in the summer of 1944
EK 262 is described as a"semi operational Luftwaffe jet fighter unit"
its work was fininshed in September 1944 when Kommando Nowotny was
formed
The new unit had two Staffeln of about 20 ME262A-1
based at Achmer and Hesepe they became operational on 3 October 1944
against USAAF bombers.
LTGL
>
> I vaguely remember they were used against V-1's. Is it true?
______________________________________________________________
Yes, you are correct (according to the Heritage film series on
the German weapons development programs). They were used, as
were Spitfires and Typhoons, as well as AAA -- each were somewhat
effective, as the V-1 flew a straight-line flight path from launch
to target.
LTGL
John E Allen
The original Meteor prototype was slower than a Spitfire and used more
fuel, therefore production schedules were delayed until the latter half
of 1943 following reports of the V1 weapon being powered by a jet engine.
The Meteor I could hold its speed at low altitudes below 4000ft where
the V1 operated. 616 Squadron at Manston, Kent was converted to Meteors.
Up to the end of August 1944, the Meteors accounted for thirteen V1 bombs.
The allied ground forces overran most of the V1 sites at this point
in the war.
For a short time, four Meteors were attached to the US Army Air Forces
to help the P-51s develop strategies for engaging the German Me-262 which
were attacking their bomber groups.
The Meteor III was produced in September 1944 with more powerful jet
engines and better handling.
In early 1945, Meteors were detached to Melsbroek in Belgium. Their pilots
were ordered to remain over Allied controlled territory to prevent the
enemy from capturing one of the Meteors. The aircraft were actually painted
white to prevent the planes being shot down by "friendly fire".
At the start of April, 616 Squadron moved to Holland. Later in the month,
they were cleared to operate over enemy territory. During this period they
engaged in strafing attacks on enemy airfields claiming the destruction
of seven planes on the ground.
I believe there are no records of air-to-air combat with the Luftwaffe.
Trivia notes:
The jet fighter was originally named the "Thunderbolt" in
September 1941. Following the announcement of the name for
the new Republic P-47, the name was changed to the "Meteor".
The Meteor II never went into production as the engine it was
designed for was superceded.
In November 1945, a Meteor 4 broke the world absolute speed with an
average speed of 606mph. This was increased to 616mph the following year.
The previous record had been held by an Me 209 and the decision to break
this record was largely political following the defeat of Germany.
Hope this was of interest.
John E Allen
Dan Ford
As I recall, it was designed as a bomber interceptor and lacked the range
to fly over Europe; by the time it entered service there weren't any
bombers to intercept. It was the best V-1 chaser around, for its speed,
so that's the job it performed. I think it did some bridge-busting later
when it was moved to France, but no air-to=air combat until the Korean War.
I wonder if there was some reluctance to risk this marvel by basing it
forward.
- Dan
dan....@unh.edu ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ http://pubpages.unh.edu/~df
Roger Wallsgrove
the Me262 entered service). They were successful against V1s, and later
the squadron moved to mainland Europe as part of the 2nd TAF. No
recorded combat against the 262, but successfully used on fighter sweeps.
The Mk III, which had the performance to match the Me262, was coming
into service at the end of the war.
So the Meteor was the first jet fighter to enter service - any Me262
operations prior to July '44 were experimental and/or test units only.
Roger Wallsgrove
Mike Campbell
In article <Pine.OSF.3.91a.9503...@hopper.unh.edu> Dan writes:
>
>
> As I recall, it was designed as a bomber interceptor and lacked the range
> to fly over Europe; by the time it entered service there weren't any
> bombers to intercept.
No - the Meteor I had a range of about 1,000 miles on internal fuel -
plenty to get to Europe and back!
The early versions (Mk I) had quite low-rated engines, and were really
only pre-production a/c. The Mk III was the first "real" production
version, with 2000 lb thrust Derwents, and the Mk 4 had 3500 lb thrust
Derwent 5's. A Mk 4 set the world speed record in 1945 of 616 mph,
then broke it at 616mph.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mike Campbell, + A cuspide corona
Blenheim, + -From the spear [comes] a crown
New Zealand +
mi...@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz + (Latin proverb)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mike Campbell
In article <3l1brb$m...@sun.scotborders.co.uk> FrankWielbo writes:
>
> first date for service
> > entry for the Meteor and the 262?
Meteor 12 July 1944 (1 flight with 616 sqn)
>
> Me262 According to "German A/C of WWII"
> by Putnams the ME262 was in service wth EK 262 in the summer of 1944
20 July 1944.
> EK 262 is described as a"semi operational Luftwaffe jet fighter unit"
> its work was fininshed in September 1944 when Kommando Nowotny was
> formed
EK 262 and 616 sqn would have had about the same status - operational
trials units.
Tony Knight
In article <3l1lsr$i...@usenet.interramp.com>,
> Yes, you are correct (according to the Heritage film series on
> the German weapons development programs). They were used, as
> were Spitfires and Typhoons,
I think that Typhoons were used only very rarely, if at all, against
V1s in the air. They did, however, attack many "No-Ball" sites in
France, it having been discovered that the buildings housing the V1s
and their launch equipment were made of lightweight concrete blocks,
so the Typhoons with bombs and rockets could destroy them. The
Tempest was extensively and successfully used against flying V1s,
either by cannon fire or by tipping them over. The AA became more
successful when radar-guided guns and proximity fuses became
available (using the same valves ["tubes" for our American friends]
that made the Colossus code-breaking machines possible).
TonyK
Guest Account for TSAC
>In article <3kqn0f$m...@er5.rutgers.edu>, she...@eden.rutgers.edu (Dmitri Gennadievitch "Alex" Artemenko) says:
>>
>>
>>I vaguely remember they were used against V-1's. Is it true?
>
Dunno 'bout Meteors, but I do remember a story from a Spitfire
pilot shooting down V-1's. They had to go so fast to shoot the
things that when they blew up they'd fly straight through the
fire-ball, and always end up upside down. No-one could figure
out why. Then someone came up with the theory that as the fireball
area was a partial vacuum, the engine torque was rotating the plane
rather than just the propellor.....
Geoff./
rov...@doc.cc.utexas.edu
Mike Campbell <mi...@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz> wrote:
> [Text inserted further down]
Which aircraft was deployed first operationally? The Me-262
or the Gloster Meteor?
This debate popped up frequently in the past. Ardent supporters
of the Meteor (a lot of them with the .uk extension on their e-mail
address) argued that the "operational deployment" of the Gloster
Meteor precedes the one of the Me-262 by a few days. I did a bit
of research on the subject with the limited resources at my disposal and
would like to share the result. Unless someone posts convincing, solid
sources, like books referring back to British/German wartime documents
or the likes, I think the Me-262 beats the Meteor by a wide margin.
First let's define "operational deployment". There seem to be
three classifications running around:
1. Operational units established on paper.
2. Combat against unmanned aircraft.
3. Combat against manned aircraft.
Obviously the German didn't have to contend with the second option, but
we'll classify that as "operational" as well, since it is a combat mission
of defensive nature. Option number one is a gray area: hard to classify.
It is fair (in my opinion) to say if the unit has a name, some of its
planes are in flying conditions (on the airfield) and its pilots have
finished training period (ready to move up to status 1./2.) then the unit
is operational on paper. From the references available to me, it seems
the Me-262 satisfies 1. and 3. before the Gloster Meteor (including option
2.), hence its title as the first operational jet in the world.
Enter Adolf Galland and his book "The First and the Last".
I have the paperback edition and will point out to pages and chapters
that may be different from an eventual hardcover edition that might
be out there. On pg.278, he describes a Luftwaffe technical demonstration
in Instenburg, (East Prussia) attended by Hitler and Goering (among others)
Supposedly, Hitler (following previous hints he had dropped in conversation
with Goering) verbally expressed the order that the new aircraft was
to be produced as a Blitz-bomber. [William Green disagrees with
this version but that's another story].
Galland describes how that order was not taken seriously by
those present and production of the Me-262 was
continued as a fighter (until the row between Hitler and Milch a few
days later, but that's YET another story). Then, quoting directly from
the book:
"In collaboration with the Luftwaffe research unit and the Messerschmidt
works, I formed a commando of experienced fighter pilots who started
WITH TESTS IN REAL ACTION against English Mosquito daylight reconnaissance
planes. At last we had a fighter which was superior to the fastest Allied
aircraft. SOON THE FIRST KILLS WERE ACHIEVED.
The tactical and technical trials went hand in hand as we had
planned from the start. One detachment of the commando was stationed at
the Messerschmitt aircraft factory at Augsburg, a second at the Luftwaffe
research station at Rechlin, north of Berlin....
...... But the Allies also know what it was all about. The first single
encounters with the new German rocket fighter Me-163 had already
alarmed the enemy. The Americans had not yet made the acquaintance of the
Me-262. But information from the Allied intelligence service and the
observation reports BY THE BRITISH MOSQUITO PILOTS made General Dolittle
arrive the the conclusion that if the German jet fighter appeared in
sufficient number, they would make daylight raids impossible."(1)
Continuing on pg. 279,
"Increased difficulties in personnel and material retared the
final course of production further until the end of March, 1944. When
FOUR WEEKS LATER, the first batch was ready to leave the assembly works
at Leipheim, they were hit by a heavy American daylight raid on April 24."
(2)
He then goes on to describe his report to an armament conference in
April 1944.
The commando (Kommando to be exact) Galland established was
EKdo262 (Erprobungskommando 262). I was always under the impression
that Ekdo262 was established during end April-beginning May i.e. after
the first batch of A-1 models (Galland talked about above) was ready.
However, if Galland's narrative is taken to progress in chronological
order, the above indicates that Galland was operating EKdo with
pre-production aircrafts, or Me-262A-0 models. The first batch
seems to be the A-1 model that eventually went on to replace the
A-0 during the June-July period (at least those few a/c which
survived the bombing and transport)
It seems to me that the pilots must have had a minimum training
to go up against Mosquitoes one on one.
We then have a Kommando, with pilots reasonably trained, a name (Ekdo 262)
and aircraft in flyable conditions at Lechfield (the airfield next to
the Messerschmitt work at Augsburg) flying sorties against manned
enemy aircrafts (see below) i.e. Mosquitoes and getting kills.
Even arguing against what "reasonably training" means, those pilots
were getting kills (note the plural and see below) against trained
enemy pilots in aircraft supposedly immune from interception.
Speaks of the German's training level by itself.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[Added later]
In particular I'd like to hear the position of the previous poster
in respect to this his statement:
>The Gloster Meteor went into squadron service in July 1944 (i.e. BEFORE
>the Me262 entered service). They were successful against V1s, and later
A-0's were flying COMBAT mission against manned aircraft in late June.
>recorded combat against the 262, but successfully used on fighter sweeps.
>operations prior to July '44 were experimental and/or test units only.
>Roger Wallsgrove
Please clarify how many enemy planes (that's what fighter sweeps
are for) the Meteor downed in his "operational flights" to qualify
the sweep as successful.
Also explain how a Me-262A-0 going up and "bagging" a Lightning (see
text below) qualifies as "experimental/test" as opposed to "operational".
It must have looked VERY operational to the P-38 Lightning pilot.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We have satisfied requirements 1 and 3 above. Again:
I have provided you with pilots trained up to Allied par,
name of units, commander (see below), sorties against the enemy
and KILLS. Let's thus not quibble any more on the meaning of
operational and focus on whether the British had a squadron
performing similar functions before April-May 1944.
Again, to me, it doesn't get more operational than this. I'll bracket
the question so to make sure that eventual counter-arguments do not miss
this question.
**********************************************************************
* Can you provide a British jet squadron with similar qualifications *
* to those described above (including number 2. defensive missions) *
* before (with a bit of leeway) June 1944? *
**********************************************************************
If not the question is settled.
BUT, I always like to cross-check with what
limited references I have at my disposal.
Galland may have had pre-dated and distorted facts.
So I pulled out "Warplanes of the Third Reich": the ENCYCLOPEDIA of
German WWII aircraft. This 700 page tome, covers 131 aircraft of
all types: props, jets, rockets, gliders etc. etc. from the major
German design houses. The author has spent considerable time in
|------> William Green
germany touring design bureaus for historical material, drawing,
tech specs etc. etc., as well as discussing the early development
of the book with Prof. Enrst Heinkel himself.
With the exception of a few mistakes (someone
argued against the climb rates for the Me-109E in the past, and
there might be a few more), the depth of detail is astonishing.
Let's turn to the Messerschmitt section and look under Me-262.
Text on each aircraft is broken up in three section: Introduction and
Testing History, Specifications and Operational History. Under
Introduction and Testing we read:
"Sixteen of the pre-production Me262A-0 fighters were finally accepted
by the Luftwaffe during the course of APRIL 1944, and the remaining
seven were officially taken on charge during the following month, some
of these (meaning 16+7) going to the Erprobungsstelle at Rechlin for
the official test programme, but the majority being issued to the
Erprobungskommando 262 which, FORMED AT LECHFELD WITH 15 AIRCRAFT
UNDER HAUPTMANN THIERFELDER, was charged with the dual task of
evolving suitable operation tactics and training a cadres of jet
fighter pilots."(3)
Under Operational Career we read:
"The distinction of flying the first operational sorties with the
Me-262A-1a was to go to the Erprobungskommando (Test Detachment) 262
|------> [NOTE, not counting the ones flown with the A-0
already]
ESTABLISHED AT LECHFELD IN APRILL 1944 UUNDER THE COMMAND OF
HAUPTMANN THIERFELDER. EKdo initially possessed a nucleus of
Meeserchmitt test pilots, and its task included the training of
service pilots and the development of suitable operational tactics, the
LATTER BEING PUT INTO PRACTICE FROM LATE JUNE WHEN THE FIRST EXPERIMENTAL
INTERCEPTIONS OF HIGH-FLYING ALLIED PHOTO-RECONNAISSANCE AIRCRAFT WERE
PERFORMED. TWO LIGHTNINGS AND A MOSQUITO (see Galland above about the
first kills) HAD BEEN CLAIMED BY EKdo 262." (4)
The chapter continues by describing the Me-262 chasing a Mosquito
The book reports the engagement date as July 25, 1944, indicating
that it was the first Allied photographic report of the Me-262. Meaning
the kills above were obtained BEFORE this date, i.e. in June as
outlined above.
Again, I'm really at loss trying to classify a mission with a kill
"not operational".
"Flown by Flt.Lt. A.E. Wall, the Mosquito was at 29,000 ft. in the
vicinity of Munich on July 25, 1944 when the observer warned the pilot
that a twin-engined aircraft was closing with them rapidly 400 yards
astern. Surprised because Mosquitos on solo high-altitude reconnaissance
missions had hitherto enjoyed an immunity from interception, Flt.-Lt.
Wall immediately gave the engines full throttle, but the enemy aircraft
,which he now saw to be an Me-262, rapidly passed the Mosquito and turned
in to attack. He immediately began a tight turn to starboard, but one
minute later the Me-262 was 2000 yards astern and once more closing fast.
At 800 yards the Messerschmitt's pilot opened fire, but Flt.-Lt. Wall
evaded the attack by commencing a gentle turn to port and tightening it
as soon as the German pilot was committed. The Mosquito turned inside
the Me-262 forcing its pilot to break away. This manoeuvre was repeated
four times, and on each occasion the German pilot opened fire without
scoring any hits. On the fifth pass the Me-262 went into a shallow
dive from 800 yards astern and came up to attack from below, but once
again Flt.-Lt. Wall succeeded in evading its firing pass. However, as
things were becoming decidely uncomfortable, he dived for the sanctuary
of some cumulus below, emerging from the cloud three/four minutes later
to see no sign of the Me262.
IT IS OF INTEREST TO NOTE THAT TWO DAYS LATER, ON JULY 27,
NO.616 SQDN. OBTAINED OPERATIONAL CLEARANCE FOR ITS GLOSTER METEOR I
FIGHTERS AT MANSTON, AND PERFORMED ITS FIRST "DIVER" PATROL AGAINST
FIESELER FI103 MISSILES. IF R.A.F. FIGHTER COMMAND
HAD PERSISTED IN ITS ORIGINAL INTENTION OF WORKING UP NO. 616 SQUADRON
FOR HIGH-ALTITUDE AIR COMBAT, THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT THAT THE OPERATIONAL
DEBUT OF THE FIRST BRITISH JET FIGHTER WOULD HAVE BEEN DELAYED 2/3 MONTHS,
BUT THE TASK OF INTERCEPTING THE FI 103 WAS RELATIVELY MODEST BY
COMPARISON". (5)
I don't necessarily agree with Green's last statement, that's why
I have included my definition #2 for operational status at the beginning
of the post. But I have yet to find a more reliable reference to convince
me that Gloster Meteors were flying intercept mission as early as
May 1944 and definitely by the end of June as EKdo 262 did.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
[Added later]
[Missed the author here]
>> first date for service
>>> entry for the Meteor and the 262?
>Meteor 12 July 1944 (1 flight with 616 sqn)
>>
>> Me262 According to "German A/C of WWII"
>> by Putnams the ME262 was in service wth EK 262 in the summer of 1944
>20 July 1944.
>Mike Campbell
It seems we have two posters agreeing on the July 12 date, as the
establishment of 616Sqd. I would like to know the reference, if
possible. If you are right, then I may have found another error
in Mr. Green's book. It also seems to me that the July 20
date applies to A-1a models, forgetting A-0 were already flying
with the unit at that time. Both e-mail and post are fine, thanx.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
I excuse myself for boring some of the reader out there, but having
seen this argument been thrown back and forth for the past two years,
I felt every bit in here is necessary to press my point home.
I'm very open to corrections and counter arguments if supported by
well researched or first hand (document or in person) references
pointing to precise dates and event.
Finally English is not my first language (Italian is) and spelling
is not my forte so go easy on me!
Sources:
(1)-(2)
Galland, A., "The First and the Last", Bantan Books, New York, 1991.
[ISBN 0-553-26726-4, Paperback, Adolf Galland]
(3)-(5)
Green, W., "Warplanes of the Third Reich", Galahad Books, New York, 1990.
[ISBN 0-88365-666-3, Hardcover, Good solid reference, covers by manufacturer
and types, William Green]
Roberto Roveda
rov...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
.sig under construction
Brian Raven
rov...@doc.cc.utexas.edu writes:
[Interesting article on first operational deployment of Me-262 and
Gloster Meteor]
Just to add a little to the discussion here are some quotes (without
permission) from "Me 262 Combat Diary", current on loan from my local
library.
p29 "...permission was granted to form an experimental figher unit at
Lechfeld. On December 15th, 1943, Haptman Werner Thierfelder was
appointed to command Erprobungskommando 262, which would form at
Lechfeld when pilots and planes became available."
p31 "Early in May ,1944, many pilots from Bf110-equiped Stab and III
Gruppe Zerstorergeschwader 26 were ordered to join
Erprobungskommando 262 at Lechfeld for conversion to the jet and to
develop suitable tactics."
p32 "...on June 3rd, the III Gruppe of Oberst Wolf-Dietrich Meister's
KG51 Edelveiss was ordered to relinquish its Ju88 bombers and to
proceed toLechfeld to commence conversion to the new type."
p33 "Ekdo 262 had begun operational testing in June, however, scrambling
aircraft to intercept Allied photo-reconnaissance aircraft in their
area."
p34 "On July 26th, the first official report of an engagement with an
Me262 (Intellegence Report No. 2256) was submitted by a Royal
Air Force crew."
[There follows a description of the engagement very similar to that
quoted in the previous article, with the addition that the
Mosquito landed at Fermo, Italy. The book cites this as the first
recorded claim for the Me262 by Lt Schreiber of Ekdo 262.]
p34 "Next day, (July 27th) the nine Me262s comprising 3rd Staffel of
KG(J)51 were sent out to Chateaudun under the command of Hauptmann
Wolfgang Schenk to commence operations against the Allied beach
heads. The unit operating independantly would be known as "Kommando
Schenk"... "
I suppose it all comes down to what you mean by "operational" and
whether you consider Ekdo 262 or Kommando Schenk to be the first
operational Me262 units. If the latter then it looks as if the Me262 and
Meteor became operational on the same day, assuming your quote from
Green's book is correct about the Meteor. I don't feel I am sufficiently
qualified or informed to say. Comments anyone?
As an aside, regarding the speed record of 616mph claimed for the Meteor
in 1945 by a previous poster, I add the following quote from the same
book:
p33 "On July 6th [1944], the Me262 V-12 prototype, minus armament and
with a specially-modified flattened cockpit hood, was given a speed
trial over Leipheim airfield. Flown by test pilot Gert Linder this
aircraft, Werke Nummer 130008, coded VI+AG, was clocked at the
phenominal speed of 624 mph, well over 150 mph faster than any
Allied fighter in service."
Source:
John Forman & S. E. Harvey "Me262 Combat Diary: The story of the Me262
in battle", Air Research Publications 1990 ISBN 1-871187 08 7
--
Brian Raven | B. F. Raven Limited
Phone: +44 (0)1707 269857 | 26C Homestead Road, Hatfield, Herts.,
email: bra...@oskar.demon.co.uk | AL10 0QW
Mike Campbell
> First let's define "operational deployment". There seem to be
> three classifications running around:
> 1. Operational units established on paper.
> 2. Combat against unmanned aircraft.
> 3. Combat against manned aircraft.
> Obviously the German didn't have to contend with the second option, but
Lots of stuff deleted (it was a very large post after all!!)
Your arguments are quite good, except for one thing - your definition
of "operational" is not well supported except by your own thoughts on
the matter.
For example there was an operational training unit of Poles in the RAF
during the BoB which engaged enemy bombers on sight while on a
training flight. They routinely carried ammo because of the
possiblity of encountering the Luftwaffe, and they seized their
opportunity - they were DECLARED operational a short time later.
The term "operational" is not, IMHO, for you to define. It is for the
respective airforces to define. The units mentioned were operational
when the RAF and Luftwaffe declared them operational.
Accidental encounters do not make a training development unit
operational. Nor does having hot-shots in such units deliberately
looking for enemy to shoot down.
> "Sixteen of the pre-production Me262A-0 fighters were finally accepted
> by the Luftwaffe during the course of APRIL 1944, and the remaining
> seven were officially taken on charge during the following month, some
> of these (meaning 16+7) going to the Erprobungsstelle at Rechlin for
> the official test programme, but the majority being issued to the
> Erprobungskommando 262 which, FORMED AT LECHFELD WITH 15 AIRCRAFT
> UNDER HAUPTMANN THIERFELDER, was charged with the dual task of
> evolving suitable operation tactics and training a cadres of jet
> fighter pilots."(3)
So this unit was tasked with training and tactical development. No
doubt the pilots were itching to try their hand against the allies,
but eagerness does not an operational unit make.
> Again, I'm really at loss trying to classify a mission with a kill
> "not operational".
Why? If a training a/c encounters an enemy a/c, does that make the
training mission into an a-a combat mission?
Given the date - mid-44 - it would be expected that any Luftwaffe a/c
which could carry armament would do so. Given this, and the nature of
the 262 itself, I don't think it's surprising that encounters
happened.
Mike
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mike Campbell, + Four hostile newspapers are more to
Blenheim, + be feared than a thousand bayonets.
New Zealand +
mi...@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz + -Napoleon
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Murray Palmer
>
>In article 2...@apollo.it.luc.edu, nav...@luc.edu (na) writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>I vaguely remember they were used against V-1's. Is it true?
>>
>
>pilot shooting down V-1's. They had to go so fast to shoot the
>things that when they blew up they'd fly straight through the
>fire-ball, and always end up upside down. No-one could figure
>out why. Then someone came up with the theory that as the fireball
>area was a partial vacuum, the engine torque was rotating the plane
>rather than just the propellor.....
>
>Geoff./
>
>
> It came on strength after the war and
was used up into the late 50's.
A friend of mine used to fly them after
he got off the Spitfires. He said they
were quite an aircraft.
Germany flew the only jet powered a/c.
The only jets used during the war were
the Me 262 and the Heinkel 208 (the 208
say very little service).
There was a ME 163 which was a rocket plane
not a jet. It only had three min. of fuel on
board but it could reach 40,000ft. in less
than 3 min.
Murray
>
Andrew Muir
: >
: >The meteor was never used during WWII
: > It came on strength after the war and
: was used up into the late 50's.
: A friend of mine used to fly them after
: he got off the Spitfires. He said they
: were quite an aircraft.
: Germany flew the only jet powered a/c.
: The only jets used during the war were
: the Me 262 and the Heinkel 208 (the 208
: say very little service).
: There was a ME 163 which was a rocket plane
: not a jet. It only had three min. of fuel on
: board but it could reach 40,000ft. in less
: than 3 min.
: Murray
:
Murray, you should have read some of the prior days postings. The Meteor
was indeed used in WWII, though maybe not as moemorably as the ME-262.
Meteors chased "doodle bugs" and flew ground attack missions on the
continent.
PS. You also missed the Arado AR-234 "Blitz" (first operational jet
bomber - and i believe the last German aircraft to overfly the UK), and
while it did not see combat, two P-80s were in the Italian theater for a
demonstration tour prior to the cessation of hostilities.
=========================================================================
"Comanche" ___
Andy Muir / \
Aircraft Structural Design __________________\___/__________________
Engineer at large / \
"See First, Shoot First, Win" (/_____\)
_____ / | | \ _____
/**** / |___| \ ****\
\ / \ /
\_____/
=========================================================================
--
rov...@sneezy.cc.utexas.edu
listed below. I would like to point out I'll try to maintain my
post on a very moderated tone. Meaning, without the benefit of
the tone of voice, some quotes are read out of context and the
discussion degenerates. My intention is to elicit and give
information in a friendly way, even if the quote doesn't sound
(should say read) so.
In article <797126...@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz>,
Mike Campbell <mi...@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz> wrote:
>In article <3lrkaj$o...@doc.cc.utexas.edu> rov...@doc.cc.utexas.edu writes:
>Your arguments are quite good, except for one thing - your definition
>of "operational" is not well supported except by your own thoughts on
>the matter.
>For example there was an operational training unit of Poles in the RAF
....
>possiblity of encountering the Luftwaffe, and they seized their
>opportunity - they were DECLARED operational a short time later.
>The term "operational" is not, IMHO, for you to define. It is for the
>respective airforces to define. The units mentioned were operational
Ok, so please look up the criteria deemed necessary by
the RAF and Luftwaffe to make the unit operational and post them (along
with references of course). I didn't have such information so I took
an educated guess as to what those criterias were. If you have any
specific objections or proof of further criteria which a unit has
to satisfy to be operational then post them. It seems to me that
if the Luftwaffe (not me) went through the trouble of establishing:
1. a name
2. a leader
3. a home field (Lechfeld)
4. 10-15 A-0 planes (of the original 22-23 A-0's)
5. a specific combat mission
(intercepts against photographic recon planes)
6. A chain of command going up all the way to Galland
it was for some operational purpose. Your burden of proof is to
give me the extra requirement which prevented the Luftwaffe from
qualifying Ekdo 262 as "operational". Or you can specifically
dispute why one of the 6 categories above doesn't make a unit
operational. I have given you 6 which gave the Luftwaffe
every reason to give Ekdo operational status.
I thought I had bracketed the question so that it wouldn't get
deleted, so here it goes again. By Luftwaffe (not mine!) standard
Ekdo 262 was operational. That is unless you quote the contrary from
a Luftwaffe general staff officer (like I did for Galland
in my previous post).
Can you provide a similar Allied jet fighter squadron which operated
combat mission (I'll take "Diver Patrols" as well) in June?
We also need to keep in mind that the definition of operational was
very, very different bewteen the German and the Allies. The German
routinely established units which had "experimental names", but in
reality were combat-ready formations. A case in point is
Lt. Gen. Helmut Foerster's Lehrdivision (TRAINING division)
assigned to Air Command East Prussia under the command of
General der Flieger Wilhelm Wimmer. Mitcham (see reference
below) calls the Lehrdivision "(the best trained unit in the Luftwaffe)"
(pg.67) during the opening of the Polish campaign. I suppose because
of the name you would not call the Lehrdivision "operational".
So you see, the Luftwaffe doesn't conform to British standard of
what is operational and not. The Luftwaffe may name their units
"training" or "experimental" and assign them fully operational combat
mission as both the Lehrdivision carried out in Poland and Ekdo 262
against reco planes (a mission at the very, very least at par with
intercepting FGZ76 flying bombs) over the Reich in June.
>Accidental encounters do not make a training development unit
^^^^^^^^^^
>operational. Nor does having hot-shots in such units deliberately
^^^^^^^^^^
>looking for enemy to shoot down.
In my original post (and the following post from Brian),
there was not one single word about "accidental" encounters.
In case you've missed the three reference cited (Galland, Green
and the Me262 Combat Handbook) let me restate that the purpose of Ekdo 262
was to conduct mission against recon planes. It was not a case of
"Ok, you go up and fly around/train for a while. IF a plane shows up
then you engage". The German knew (either form radar, observation
from their own aircraft or maybe spies(??)) that these specially
fitted fighter-bomber were conducting reco missions. They were
waiting for them and were sending up the Me-262 with the express
purpose to intercept. Thus the three reference stated invalidate
the argument of the "accidental encounters" as well as the Polish
squadron above.
As well I didn't make any claim about there being
hot-shots in the unit. I capitalized the text just to emphasize
that the unit had a leader. It may be because german rank name
sound rather "snobbish" (I can't find the right word offhand) in
English. Finally calling pilots hot-shots is rather awkward
in my opinion. Yes, some of them have a care-free attitude
but in WWII pilots from both sides lived with the constant
and very real danger of death, and many Allied ones indeed died
so that you and me are now free to exchange facts on the
Internet. It's not justice to call a pilot (regardless of the
side) about whom we know little, hot shot.
This just to clarify a couple of points that were never
mentioned in my post.
>So this unit was tasked with training and tactical development. No
>doubt the pilots were itching to try their hand against the allies,
>but eagerness does not an operational unit make.
Tactical development. Ekdo 262 was a nucleus of supposedly
very experienced pilots that needed little familiarizing with
the plane, or had already flown with the aircraft before it was
officially accepted by the Luftwaffe, during the test program.
When the training was OVER and deemed
sufficient Ekdo 262 was cleared for operational intercept missions
against enemy manned aircraft in June. May I point out again that
tactical development unit in the Luftwaffe were considered
combat ready, operational unit as I have quoted from the
source above (Mitcham).
> > Again, I'm really at loss trying to classify a mission with a kill
> > "not operational".
>Why? If a training a/c encounters an enemy a/c, does that make the
>training mission into an a-a combat mission?
But it's not a training mission, it's an a-a combat mission.
As I said above the Me-262 were not put in the air for a leisure flight
with the instruction to engage eventual enemy a/c they encountered.
They went up with the express purpose of getting rid of the reco bird,
hence a combat, operational mission.
>Given the date - mid-44 - it would be expected that any Luftwaffe a/c
>which could carry armament would do so. Given this, and the nature of
>the 262 itself, I don't think it's surprising that encounters
>happened.
Of course not, the German flew with the express purpose of
setting up such encounters.
>Mike
Standard disclaimer for spelling and language applies.
As well, I hope I managed to keep the tone to an acceptable level.
My source for the above:
Mitcham, Samuel W., "Men of the Luftwaffe", Presidio Press, Novato, CA, 1988.
Chris Valentine
(Murray Palmer) wrote:
> In article <3llnhv$g...@erinews.ericsson.se>, ts...@resumix.portal.com
(Guest Account for TSAC) says:
> >
> >In article 2...@apollo.it.luc.edu, nav...@luc.edu (na) writes:
> >>In article <3kqn0f$m...@er5.rutgers.edu>, she...@eden.rutgers.edu
(Dmitri Gennadievitch "Alex" Artemenko) says:
> >>>
> >>>I vaguely remember they were used against V-1's. Is it true?
> >
> >Dunno 'bout Meteors, but I do remember a story from a Spitfire
> >pilot shooting down V-1's. They had to go so fast to shoot the
> >things that when they blew up they'd fly straight through the
> >fire-ball, and always end up upside down. No-one could figure
> >out why. Then someone came up with the theory that as the fireball
> >area was a partial vacuum, the engine torque was rotating the plane
> >rather than just the propellor.....
> >
> >Geoff./
Fantastic story! Typhoons were also used against V-1s because of their
higher speed. I'm pretty sure SOP was to try to turn them (the V-1s) over
rather than shoot at them, out over the Channel.
> >The meteor was never used during WWII
> > It came on strength after the war and
> was used up into the late 50's.
> A friend of mine used to fly them after
> he got off the Spitfires. He said they
> were quite an aircraft.
> Germany flew the only jet powered a/c...
[snip]
> Murray
My Dad was based briefly at RAF Manston at the same time as the Meteors
were there - they *were* used during the War, but I don't know in what
role. They had the strictest security he'd experienced at any base, and he
was moved about all over the shop.
Chris.
Multimedia Enabling Technologies,
The Knowledge Media Institute,
The Open University, UK
http://kmi.open.ac.uk/