Fw190 WN 160022 in Earl Miller thread

[MiloMorai]

That document you posted Crumpp is not from a primary source. A  primary source would be a document produced by Focke-Wulf Flugzeugbau GmbH, the RLM or the Luftwaffe.

Now care to produce a German document (ie. a primary source) with the designation A-5/U13 with any combat unit.

[Crumpp]

Now care to produce a German document (ie. a primary source) with the designation A-5/U13 with any combat unit.

Read the first page in the top left hand corner.  

Focke Wulf is a primary source on much of the information on the FW-190.  However the Luftwaffe is the primary source on Luftwaffe designations.

Crumpp

[MiloMorai]

Should have bolded the with any combat unit so you would see it Crumpp.

Your document is not a primary source showing a A-5/U13 designation in the quartermaster's 'books' with a combat unit.

And, there is no reference, that I can see, in the American document to the German primary document it was supposidly was translated from.

[Crumpp]

And, there is no reference, that I can see, in the American document to the German primary document it was supposidly was translated from.

It's there.  You can get a copy from Wright Patterson's archives if your a US Citizen.  Got a copy in my files.  You can't read German anyway Milo.

It is a primary source that the FW-190A5/U13 is the same thing as an FW-190G3.

Which is contrary to your earlier claims.
 

Your document is not a primary source showing a A-5/U13 designation in the quartermaster's 'books' with a combat unit.

Never claimed it was a primary source for the exact unit, Milo.  However IF:

1.  That WNr. FW-190 was captured in Sicily

AND

2.  The WNr. listing linked in this thread is correct

THEN

We have an FW-190A5/U13 serving in Sicily.

Crumpp

[MiloMorai]

No Crumpp, we have a Fw190G-3 in Sicily. The designation /U13 was used for the prototypes. I will take the word of a published professional researcher over yours, any day.

I asked for ANY LW unit that has a designation A-5/U13 on its books, which you have still failed to produce. You still have not produced ANY W.Nr. with the specific designation of Fw190A-5/U13.
 
Now what is the document number in the archives for the German document. You might be surprised about my German.

[Crumpp]

we have a Fw190G-3 in Sicily. The designation /U13 was used for the prototypes.

Don't think so.  Please produce a document saying that the FW-190A5/U13 was a single prototype ONLY and not a production Umrustsatz.

I don't think the prototype would have showed up in the Luftwaffe's report.  The prototype FW-190G8 certainly did not.  For that matter, neither did FW-190V5g, WNr. 0037, or ANY of the other prototype FW-190's of ANY series.  

The ONLY FW-190's listed on this document are service models because the document is a listing of ALL service models in the FW-190 series.

Now sometime over the lifecycle of the FW-190A5/U13 the Luftwaffe changed the designation of the entire series of long-range ground attack variants to the "G" series.  The variant then became known as the FW-190G3.

In fact to quote Griehl directly:

The prototype of this version, which was derived from the FW-190A5/U13, was WNr. 160420.

If the Werknummer listing here:

http://fw190.hobbyvista.com/werkn.htm

Is correct THEN

There were several hundred FW-190A5/U13's built before the designation was changed.

OR

The Werknummer listing is wrong and WNr. 160022 is not an FW-190G3 and those first several WNr. blocks listed under the FW-190G3's are in fact NOT WNr.'s assigned to FW-190G3's.

Crumpp

[MiloMorai]

Still with the reading problems Crumpp. I already gave you the W.Nr.s for the A-5/U13s. Now what are those W.Nr. for those hundreds of A-5/U13s you say were built. LOL, even your American document only states 85 produced which ended in Aug 1943.

Even Wolfgang Wagner says only 3 A-5/U13s were built.

You are the one convinced that the /U13 saw combat and have been asked repeatably to produce a primary source document but as yet you still have not produced a single primary source document saying what units used them. Note, it must be listed as a Fw190A5/U13 on the unit's books, or a primary source travel document for Fw190A5/U13s of any transfer flights from the factory to any unit.

You say the A5-/U13 saw combat, so it must have been a service model, so the LF should have documents. OBW, what document is 'this document'? Even the link only has /U3 and /U8 versions under the A-5 heading.

I would still like to have an explaination of how SKG10 could be testing /U13 a/c in NA when none had been made before they had left NA.

Heaven help us all if your 190 book ever gets published. It will set back 190 history at least 20 years.

[Crumpp]

LOL, even your American document only states 85 produced which ended in Aug 1943.

Your correct Milo.  I looked at the werknummer blocks and made a guess based on the numbers in the block before the G3 prototype.

The LUFTWAFFE document the USAAF translated does say 85 were produced in total.  

That means we know that from Werknummer 160022 to the prototype "G3" werknummer 160420 were produced as FW-190A5/U13.

Otherwise that entire werknummer block listed as FW-190G3's is incorrect.

Please produce some documentation showing the FW-190A5/U13 was produced as a single prototype.  The  LUFTWAFFE documentation I have says it was not.  It says it was an Umrustsatz.
In fact in all of Griehl's work I own the FW-190A5/U13 is simply listed as a ground attack varient that later became the G3.  That is exactly what this LUFTWAFFE document says.

Crumpp

[Guppy35]

Easy Milo  Crumpp's heart seems to be in the right place.  It's all about trying to learn and get more of the facts available and correct.

Nothing wrong with that.

Dan/Slack

[Flyboy]

exuce my ignorance but,

whats a 190G? never heard of a G moddel before, whats different about it?

[MiloMorai]

As long as he only puts documents in it and leaves out any of his comments or opinions, Dan. He sees only what he wants to see. It is questionable of what he says is fact or fiction, for he is evasive/forgetful when asked, for example, the file number of the German document in the archives at W-P.


JHC, Crumpp. Your problem is you have a hard time reading. I never said there was a single prototype /U13.  Go back and read more carefully, this time, my post where I gave you the W.Nr.s. Since you are such the Fw190 expert, you should have no trouble following the lineage of those W.Nr.

Just because the Germans assigned a block of numbers to an a/c does not necessarily mean there was an a/c produced for every single number in that block. Any who have any knowledge, know this. In fact, production did not always start with the first number in the block. Out of the possible 550 W.Nr. assigned to the G-3 (/U13 added to keep you happy) ONLY 85 were manufactured (as per your American document).

quote:That means we know that from Werknummer 160022 to the prototype "G3" werknummer 160420 were produced as FW-190A5/U13.

Another JHC, Crumpp quit being so dense.  Your own document says only 85 Fw190G-3(A-5/U13) were produced. Do you really know what you are talking about. It would seem not for you are claiming that 198, at least, /U13s were built.


As for Griehl's work, I have several other others which disagree with him.

No Crumpp, you are making the claim that the /U13 saw combat from the time SKG10 was in North Africa. It is up to you to produce primary source documention that the /U13 was in NA to back-up your claim. So far you have not. But since you can't produce this proof, you try to put the burden of proof on me. In fact, your claim of /U13s being in NA with SKG10 is ludicress(sp??).

[Crumpp]

No Crumpp, you are making the claim that the /U13 saw combat from the time SKG10 was in North Africa.

No Milo I am not.  I am saying that SKG 10 was conducting combat evaluations for beginnings of the FW-190G series during this time frame.

You need to drop your crappy attitude Milo.  I did not berate you or accuse you of wrongdoing when you were wrong on the variants or claimed an aviation fuel shortage when none existed. Stop acting like a child.

Since we have an FW-190A5/U13 in theater the question becomes "Why is it in Sicily?"

There are only a couple of possibilities on this aircraft that I can see:

1.  It is being ferried to the Eastern Front
      a.  Possible but not likely IMO - summertime ferry route is more direct AFAIK.  The wintertime and for southern portion of the eastern front ferry route probably come down this far south but not the summer.

2.  SKG 10 was conducting combat trials for the early G series around this time frame.  The more likely explanation is that the A/C was enroute to SKG10 or had just been delivered. II (-) & III SKG 10 were stationed at Montecervino during this time frame. Stab, II, and IV/SKG 10 were at Gerbini.   III/SKG was conducting the evaluations and the aircraft was captured at one of their airfields.

3.  The FW-190A5U13 was enroute to Schlachtgeschwader 2.

Crumpp

[MiloMorai]

To refresh your memory Crumpp, from your post on pg 1.

The FW-190A5/U13 was blanket redesignated as the FW-190G3. SKG 10 was testing several (of??) these A/C during the Tunisia campaign.

Notice the word Tunisia in your statement.  SKG10 had long since left Tunisia when the /U13 appeared. Tunisia is in North Africa.

Tell me Crumpp, how does one conduct 'combat evaluations' without being in/seeing combat?

You have still failed to produce a primary source document with the designation Fw190A-5/U13 showing the a/c was 'in theater'.


As for the southern ferry route. Why go to Sicily which is several hundred km out of the way to the south and west? Pull out a map of the eastern Med and you will see how ludicrous your supposition is. Never mind that the front line in the east was roughly from Lenigrad to Kiev to the Crimea in the later half of 1943.


When are you going to drop your snotty attitude Crumpp?


Again, what is the file number for the German document at W-P? One has to wunder why you will not produce it.

[Crumpp]

Let's examine the progress of your argument Milo.

Here you say there were NO FW-190A5/U13's in Sicily:

No Crumpp, we have a Fw190G-3 in Sicily. The designation /U13 was used for the prototypes. I will take the word of a published professional researcher over yours, any day.

We now know that is completely wrong.  Please post your published professional researcher finding on the FW-190A5/U13.  None of the published material I have says that about the FW-190A5/U13.  It was an Umrustsatz that was redesignated the FW-190G3.  I will almost guarantee your interpretation of what he is saying is wrong.

Here you demonstrate you do not even KNOW what an FW-190A5/U13 is much less have a clue when, how, and who was using them.

Fw190A5/U13 was a combo of /U2 and /U8. There was 3 prototype a/c only, W.Nr 817(V43), 855(V44) and 1083(V42).

No you said there were 3.  Obviously there were more FW-190A5/U13's than that.   Again made form a position of no clue.

Your problem is you have a hard time reading. I never said there was a single prototype /U13.

And another total falsehood statement below, which stems from your lack of understand but great desire to be viewed as an expert on this subject.

Explain how SKG10 could be testing /U13 a/c if they were not converted (???) to that configuration until 1944. SKG10 was long gone from NA by that time.

In 1944 some of the FW-190A5/U13's produced were brought up to U2 standards by the addition of Glare shields, exhaust shrouds, and special lighting.

Tell me Crumpp, how does one conduct 'combat evaluations' without being in/seeing combat?

Are you really this dense?  Are you saying III/SKG 10 was on Rest and Relaxation during the invasion of Sicily?  Other than a completely moronic statement that just seeks to inflame, I have no idea where this is coming from.

Kind of sucks when you get treated as you treat others doesn't it , MILO.  Do I really think you are trying to advance lies or stupid.  No.  I think your making honest mistakes like the rest of us.  Facts are the history is much more murky than one would think.

Assuming that the werknummer listing is correct then the
Facts of this mystery are:

1.  III/SKG 10 was conducting combat evaluations of the FW-190 that later became the G series during this time frame.

2.  We have an FW-190A5/U13 with ferry markings was found on III/SKG 10's airfield in Sicily.  This umrustsatz later became the FW-190G3.

3.  We know that a number of FW-190A5/U13's were produced based on:

    a.  The WNr. listing (assuming it is correct)
    b.  The FW-190 in questions WNr. is 160022 and listed as an FW-190G3 as are all the FW-190A5/U13 werknummers.
    c.  The prototype FW-190G3's WNr. is 160420

The missing werknummers that were used are in all probability FW-190A5U13's.

AS for:

Milo says:
Your own document says only 85 Fw190G-3(A-5/U13) were produced.

Then Crumpp agrees:
The LUFTWAFFE document the USAAF translated does say 85 were produced in total.

After examining both documents in further detail.
That is a tough claim to make.  The document breaks down production by factory and date on all the other varients.  The format listing is different for the FW-190G3 alone for some reason.  It does not explain what (a), (b), and (c) actually are in this case.  

For the other varients (non-G series) it breaks it down in a different format.

(c) Could refer to total FW-190G3 production AFTER the designation was changed

OR

(c) Could refer to the total production of FW-190A5/U13's BEFORE the designation was changed. (This is what I think but can't state for a fact)

OR

(c) Could refer to the total production of FW-190G3's INCLUDING FW-190A5/U13 redesignated as FW-190G3's.

It does say that production was halted before the quota was met.

The document does not say and the original it was translated from is no help in answering this question.

Crumpp

[MiloMorai]

The only one being dense, confused and clueless is you Crumpp. Your latest post certainly confirms this and is not worth replying to as every one can see that don't know whether you are 'coming or going'. Are you sure your mother language is English?

I thought you had that American translation. It would seem to me that you don't, since you are speculating on what (a), (b) and (c) are.

The only one trying to come across as an expert on the 190 is you Crumpp, but then you are an expert on every thing. So far you have shown that you are a very long way from being one.
 

While I am at it, what conclusions would you draw from this statement?

"In 1943 the Axis suffered even more catastrophic losses in the Mediterannean with 1,200 ships being sunk; and “in february only 25,000 tons had arrived instead of the 80,000 required""

LOL , a 55,000 tons shortage of supplies.