HE 162 Volksjager

[Butcher]

I'm not saying there wasn't a reason for being held back, or anything like that. And correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't only 4 aircraft make ground-attack sorties? Unless they were at it for a while, I still don't think that being in service without fighting, and making a few ground-attack sorties matches confirmed aerial kills.

If the He-162 had served in squadron strenght since, say Novemeber 1944, even if nothing else but the time in service chagned, I don't think there would be any possible argument for the Meteor III over the Salamander. As it is, I feel the Meteor's main argument is that it was in official service for a longer period of time, despite the fact that it saw less, and lighter fighting than the Salamander.

Both saw combat, both fired guns in anger - problem is does He-162 fit the bill to be added in aces high? (not saying it didn't) but i haven't seen AAR's or combat reports on the He-162, frankly I never researched it ever, I don't even believe I have one book on it.

From what I do know it was pressed into combat April 1945, pressed meaning rushed into combat, I do know Heinz Bar was the CO of the squad that tested it, far as JG-1's record of combat action I really don't know exactly how many were in combat strength or even seen combat.
Frankly I can't comment on the He-162, from what little information I know and so late in the war, it would be inline with the Ta-152.

Karnak, where did the Meteor ever engage FW-190s? I keep seeing this "fairy tale" and after countless AAR's of the Meteor squadron posted in France, not one ever mentioned combat action against a German aircraft "period", unless it went unrecorded.
Few books I have on the meteor strictly say it never seen "Air to air engagements" period (other then buzz bombs).

[Tank-Ace]

Karnak, unless the Meteor pilots were under threat from the buzz bombs, like if they had proxy fuzes and would blow up if a meteor got too close, or something, then thats not quite combat. IMO, combat implys that the other side is shooting at you, or at least in your general direction. The buzz bombs were being launched off at cities, not at the meteors. Really, unless you would say destruction of any enemy ordnance, be it bombs, rockets, or even bullets, before it reaches the target is combat, regardless of the circumstances, even if the one who fired the bullet is miles away and not shooting at you, then shooting down buzz bombs isn't combat.


They weren't being shot at the Meteors, the Meteors weren't really under threat of destruction besides from pilot error or mechanical failure, therefore shooting buzz bombs isn't true combat.


The ground-attack missions, and Fi-156 i'll give you.

[Butcher]

Really, unless you would say destruction of any enemy ordnance, be it bombs, rockets, or even bullets, before it reaches the target is combat, regardless of the circumstances, even if the one who fired the bullet is miles away and not shooting at you, then shooting down buzz bombs isn't

I am so not touching this comment with a 1000 ft stick.

[Karnak]

Buzz bombs had a tendency to explode, oddly enough, and if they did so they sometimes took out the intercepting aircraft. It was a dangerous job.  It wasn't at all like the disposal of unused ordnance you portray it as.

From page 67, Terror in the Starboard Seat:
We drifted in over the coast and pretty soon our circle of lights showed up.  He did a circuit and landed and parked.  A flashlight bobbed around under my wing, the door opened, and ladder came up and with it a blurred face.
"Where have you been?" asked Hal.
"We got a doodlebug."
"From pretty close." Hal observed.
"That's been mentioned." Sid said.
I climbed down the ladder.  Sid followed and took Hal's flashlight and played it on the wings and nose.  There wasn't an inch of paint anywhere.  The Mosquito was black. No roundel, no number, no letters, no nothing.

[Tank-Ace]

How close were they firing at those things from  ?

[Butcher]

How close were they firing at those things from  ?

Meteor had 20mm cannons, there are a few gun cam videos of them shooting at V-1 rockets, the explosion is not the main problem, the debris from the explosion was the serious issue.

Tipping was far safer, assuming it could be done, the story behind the first tip is quite interesting, its captured also in a few photos.

[titanic3]

You never felt an explosion go off near you?

 

How close were they firing at those things from  ?

A few years ago, a couple of kids on my block somehow let an entire pack of fireworks go off on 4th of July, the thing weighed probably 20 or 30 lbs? The whole nighborhood felt it going off.

Now these things carried 1,900lb of explosives....I wouldnt be surprised if they were still in the "danger zone" 800 yards away.

[danny76]

A bit questionable then, IIRC. Weren't only 4 aircraft released for ground attack missions, while the rest shot at buzz bombs (IMO, it doesn't really count as combat, since the buzz bombs weren't trying to blow them up), and flying patrol over friendly airspace.


IIRC, didn't make any kills (on actual aircraft, buzz bombs don't count IMO) either, correct? Shouldn't that alone put the Salamander ahead of the Meteor III from a combat-perspective.

I would suggest the pilots risking their lives would think it was combat, whatever your opinion may be on the subject .

[Rino]

     So I imagine a Tiger tank firing on an infantry unit with no AT weapons isn't in combat

[Scherf]

How close were they firing at those things from  ?

That was actually one of the difficulties of dealing with the V-1 at night: judging range in the FB.VIs (staring into a furnace surrounded by dark sky) was extremely hard. The radar-equipped night-fighter Mossies (as opposed to the Mk.1 Eyeball-equipped intruders) had an advantage, as the wireless op could give the pilot a rough distance in as far as the radar set's minimum range.

[fullmetalbullet]

Karnak, unless the Meteor pilots were under threat from the buzz bombs, like if they had proxy fuzes and would blow up if a meteor got too close, or something, then thats not quite combat. IMO, combat implys that the other side is shooting at you, or at least in your general direction. The buzz bombs were being launched off at cities, not at the meteors. Really, unless you would say destruction of any enemy ordnance, be it bombs, rockets, or even bullets, before it reaches the target is combat, regardless of the circumstances, even if the one who fired the bullet is miles away and not shooting at you, then shooting down buzz bombs isn't combat.


They weren't being shot at the Meteors, the Meteors weren't really under threat of destruction besides from pilot error or mechanical failure, therefore shooting buzz bombs isn't true combat.


The ground-attack missions, and Fi-156 i'll give you.

when you or the other side is shooting at you thats considered by the military as engaged in combat.  seeing combat is a different story it can range from doing something that does damage to the enemies will to fight (propoganda) destruction of ability to make war (hitting factories, interdiction of supplies so on so forth) and generaly being at threat from the enemy in most jobs in the military.

Everyone keeps saying oh vehicles and planes must have seen combat. well seeing combat and engaging in combat are 2 different things in the eyes of the military.

if i joined the military a few years ealier and went to iraq and didnt shoot my rifle once at the enemy, in the eyes of the military i saw combat. if i shot at insurgents in a fire fight no matter how small the fire fight that is engaging in combat.

So you really cant say something never saw combat if it never fired its weapons at the enemy. which both the He-162 was in combat and engaged in combat before the war ended. same with the meteor it was in combat and engaged in air support and interdiction roles.

[RRAM]

If the standard for "seeing combat" is firing at something that's firing you back, I guess the modern AEGIS-based ships aren't designed for combat as their main purpose then.
I mean, because they were mostly designed as carrier escorts, to shoot down enemy ASMs directed at their protected carrier. So, noone would be shooting at them, right?. They'd just be doing "enemy weapon disposal" roles, right?. What's a Ticonderoga under that particular standard of what combat is?

So,if the Meteor wasn't in combat because their main use was to shoot down V-1s directed at cities and not at them, I guess a Tico is just an auxiliary ship. Not a combat unit. Yet last time I checked it was a fearsome guided missile cruiser. Guess that's a gross classification error, then?

What an argument. A farce, plain and simple. You see combat as soon as you fire your weapons in anger to the enemy. That the enemy in this case used to be a straight-flying drone is STILL combat. Even more when you had almost 2000lbs of explosives going off and a pretty big cloud of shrapnel to avoid if you were skilled enough to hit it. Not exactly "putting yourself in the line of fire" ,but I'd call that a pretty god-damned dangerous job. And certainly qualifies as combat.

The meteor saw combat. Intensively. Has as much a right to be in this game as the Salamander has. Or maybe more, given it was in service for much longer.

[Rich52]

A bit questionable then, IIRC. Weren't only 4 aircraft released for ground attack missions, while the rest shot at buzz bombs (IMO, it doesn't really count as combat, since the buzz bombs weren't trying to blow them up), and flying patrol over friendly airspace.


IIRC, didn't make any kills (on actual aircraft, buzz bombs don't count IMO) either, correct? Shouldn't that alone put the Salamander ahead of the Meteor III from a combat-perspective.

Many combat pilots never made kills against the enemy. Are they still "combat Pilots"? I'd also say blowing up a buzz bomb, most of all tipping them, sounds pretty hazadous to me. The Meteor passes the test, in MOHO. Of course the TU-2 must come first.

[Karnak]

Many combat pilots never made kills against the enemy. Are they still "combat Pilots"? I'd also say blowing up a buzz bomb, most of all tipping them, sounds pretty hazadous to me. The Meteor passes the test, in MOHO. Of course the TU-2 must come first.

Of course.  Both the Meteor and He162 ought to be way down the list.  Tu-2 would be nice to have at or near the top of the list.

[Tank-Ace]

I'm not saying the Meteor didn't see combat, I'm saying that (personally) I think the He 162 saw more. It certianly saw more intense combat, and that counts for something as well.


But what I'm questioning is wether simple service length trumps combat usage. Sorry to anyone who gets offeneded, but going out into the fight, and engaging an enemy who is actively trying to kill you will always count for more than blowing up buzz bombs.

I don't think, and again sorry to anyone who gets offended, that blowing up buzz bombs is the equal of actually engaging enemy aircraft in aerial combat. The Fi-156 and the ground attack missions make up for some of that, but still not all of it (at least in my mind).


So that leaves the question: does service lenght trump combat usage?