Talk:Messerschmitt Me 163 Komet
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Messerschmitt Me 163 Komet article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1, 2 |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
15th Image Appears to Have Inaccurate Description
editI noticed that the 15th image supposedly displays the typical appearance of the Me 163 after landing and before the dolly landing gear has been reattached. It would however appear that the Me 163 in the image already has the landing gear attached which would make the caption inaccurate. 2600:4040:A76F:3300:BC5E:1B1:2DF1:9A7 (talk) 17:44, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed, the caption doesn't match the image description at File:Me 163 at Melbourne c1950.jpg. More info at its Commons category. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:22, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
First paragraph inaccuracies maybe
editit states that it's the only rocket powered fighter but the Japanese j8m/ki-200 and the Russian bi-1 exist no? while I'm not 100% sure about the bi-1, the j8m has the same role as the me163 a rocket-powered fighter, interceptor Yakyakj (talk) 06:34, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
- The key word their is "operational" - Neither the J8M or the BI-1 entered service.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:52, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
Uncited editorialization in "operational history" section
editThe Operational History section contains this:
At the end of 1944, 91 aircraft had been delivered to JG 400, but a persistent lack of fuel had kept most of them grounded. It was clear that the original plan for a huge network of Me 163 bases would never be realized. Up to that point, JG 400 had lost only six aircraft due to enemy action. Nine Me 163s had been lost to other causes, remarkably few for such a revolutionary and technologically advanced aircraft.
The last aside here seems like unnecessary editorialization, and has no citation. It appears to have been added long ago by a non-signed-in user. Unsure if a 10% non-combat attrition rate is actually low or not compared to other aircraft of the era, but calling the Me 163 "revolutionary" when rocket-powered interceptors never became widespread seems like a stretch.
I suggest removing it, leaving something like this: "Up to that point, JG 400 had lost only six aircraft due to enemy action, and nine to other causes." Vinegarss (talk) 17:03, 28 October 2025 (UTC)