Author Topic: Will 109s and Fw-190s be fixed before ToD release  (Read 10786 times)

Offline Wilbus

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4472
Will 109s and Fw-190s be fixed before ToD release
« Reply #180 on: February 20, 2006, 03:59:19 AM »
Nope Numbers alone sure don't win battles.

Numbers did win the war though. LW didn't fall apart untill 1944 or so, however, the large scale bombing raids didn't pick up pace before 1944 (although some serious bombing was done well before 1944).  LW was destroyed not only in the air but also on the ground due to lack of materials, pilots and fuel aswell as the idiotic leadership (thankfully) of the German high command (how about sending 900 fighters and fighter-bombers on a silly attack raid?)

You forget one important thing though Sable (unless I missed it and you typed it somewhere).

Sorties, indicate just that, sorties. While the US sorties of a raid would indicate the number of planes actually being sent out on that raid to and from Germany the German sorties indicate a very different thing.

The German sorties indicate, not the number of planes sent out to attack the incoming raid, but, the number of actual sorites flown. It was not uncommon (actually it was very common) for the german fighter pilots to fly two or even three sorties in a day as long as the country was under attack for this ammount of time, which it often was as the bombers turned around and headed back.

While the allies, in your example, may have reported some 300-350 fighters seen, they were infact the same fighters on their second sorties.
Rasmus "Wilbus" Mattsson

Liberating Livestock since 1998, recently returned from a 5 year Sheep-care training camp.

Offline Charge

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3414
Will 109s and Fw-190s be fixed before ToD release
« Reply #181 on: February 20, 2006, 04:57:34 AM »
"With regard to the 190A, it really was a poor performer at high alt by 1944/45 standards."

I concur. Small wing on a heavy a/c needs power and if the supercharger is optimized for lower altitude and starts to lose pressure... The 190A was a good bomber killer because its mechanical endurance and good default guns package. Otherwise it was out of its element up high.

-C+

edit: added "A" :)
"When you wish upon a falling star, your dreams can come true. Unless it's really a giant meteor hurtling to the earth which will destroy all life. Then you're pretty much screwed no matter what you wish for. Unless of course, it's death by meteorite."

Offline Wilbus

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4472
Will 109s and Fw-190s be fixed before ToD release
« Reply #182 on: February 20, 2006, 05:32:35 AM »
Yup, that the 190 A was a poor high altitude performer is a fact.

That doesn't mean it was a poor high altitude buff killer though. Only that it was uncapable against Allied fighters that performed well at higher altitudes (P47, 51, Spits etc).

Against bombers (unescorted) I'd say it was still very potent.
Rasmus "Wilbus" Mattsson

Liberating Livestock since 1998, recently returned from a 5 year Sheep-care training camp.

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Will 109s and Fw-190s be fixed before ToD release
« Reply #183 on: February 20, 2006, 11:30:29 AM »
Definately. Just fly straight and use yer firepower ;)
Weren't they escorted by 109's at high alt because of that, or was it because of gondola-carrying or extra armament?
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline Charge

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3414
Will 109s and Fw-190s be fixed before ToD release
« Reply #184 on: February 20, 2006, 11:59:29 AM »
The Sturmbocke's (extra armour and 30mm wing armament) were escorted by 109s because they were heavy and because the 190As in general were already breathing quite thinly so high their heaviness was pronounced in maneuvers.
Don't know how much more weight the "Sturmbockes" actually had compared to normal Antons...

-C+
"When you wish upon a falling star, your dreams can come true. Unless it's really a giant meteor hurtling to the earth which will destroy all life. Then you're pretty much screwed no matter what you wish for. Unless of course, it's death by meteorite."

Offline gatt

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2441
Will 109s and Fw-190s be fixed before ToD release
« Reply #185 on: February 20, 2006, 01:15:12 PM »
According to Weal's "Luftwaffe Sturmgruppen" (Osprey) the 190A-8/R2 (with 2xMk108 cannons)  was 200Kg heavier than the standard A8. This seems due to added weight of heavier cannons and armor plated ammo magazines.

I cannot say if this added weight includes also the armored glass plates added on front (+50mm) and side (+30mm) cockpit glass panels and the 5mm steel plates added on fuselage around the cockpit (source: "Sturmstaffel 1" by Eric Mombeek).

[edit] The 7mm and 13mm MGs were often removed from 190A-6, A-7 and A-8 used by Sturm units, so you should calculate this as well.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2006, 02:20:46 PM by gatt »
"And one of the finest aircraft I ever flew was the Macchi C.205. Oh, beautiful. And here you had the perfect combination of italian styling and german engineering .... it really was a delight to fly ... and we did tests on it and were most impressed." - Captain Eric Brown

Offline Wilbus

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4472
Will 109s and Fw-190s be fixed before ToD release
« Reply #186 on: February 20, 2006, 01:18:13 PM »
Let me dig up my book from all the moving boxes and I'll give you an exact weight difference due to armor. Not sure how much the guns added but it wasn't much at all, less ammo but larger shells. There is some weight differnce in the armament but not a whole lot.
Rasmus "Wilbus" Mattsson

Liberating Livestock since 1998, recently returned from a 5 year Sheep-care training camp.

Offline gatt

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2441
Will 109s and Fw-190s be fixed before ToD release
« Reply #187 on: February 20, 2006, 01:44:17 PM »
From the 190A-8 flightbook: total weight of armour for the 190A-8/R8 attack fighter (oil cooler, oil tank, windscreens, panels, seat, head, bulk, ammo boxes) was 248,8Kg. The manual is very detailed indeed.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2006, 02:22:01 PM by gatt »
"And one of the finest aircraft I ever flew was the Macchi C.205. Oh, beautiful. And here you had the perfect combination of italian styling and german engineering .... it really was a delight to fly ... and we did tests on it and were most impressed." - Captain Eric Brown

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Will 109s and Fw-190s be fixed before ToD release
« Reply #188 on: February 20, 2006, 01:48:39 PM »
Yes, but how much weight is removed with the removal of same parts for the outboard MG151/20s? What is the net weight gain?

Offline gatt

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2441
Will 109s and Fw-190s be fixed before ToD release
« Reply #189 on: February 20, 2006, 02:09:44 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Krusty
Yes, but how much weight is removed with the removal of same parts for the outboard MG151/20s? What is the net weight gain?


Ok:

The normal 190A-8 had an overall armour of 138Kg instead of the 248Kg of the R/8 attack model.

The net effect of the Mk108s and ammo addition is about +64Kg.

The 2x13mm MG and ammo, often removed, weighted about 130Kg.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2006, 02:25:42 PM by gatt »
"And one of the finest aircraft I ever flew was the Macchi C.205. Oh, beautiful. And here you had the perfect combination of italian styling and german engineering .... it really was a delight to fly ... and we did tests on it and were most impressed." - Captain Eric Brown

Offline HoHun

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2182
Will 109s and Fw-190s be fixed before ToD release
« Reply #190 on: February 20, 2006, 03:41:59 PM »
Hi Sable,

>I make the assumption of all of these units making contact because they all  claimed kills and/or suffered losses.  

OK, that's reliable enough for establishing a force ratio. If it had been the USAAF count alone, I'd have had my doubts.

>From '42 to '44 Luftwaffe pilot quality dropped, tactics were actually worse, and the aircraft had hardly improved at all - at the same time the opposite had occured on the allied side.  This was the difference between the aerial defeat at Dieppe and the victory over Germany.

Well, we're not so far apart. It's only the Dieppe yardstick I disagree with. I'll try to explain:

The Dieppe yardstick fails because it shows the RAF operating below 100% effectiveness. Assuming the RAF to be at 100%, we would have to conclude that the Luftwaffe in 1942 as operating at 300%, and see a great decline in 1944.

However, the truth is that the RAF might have been at 75% with regard to training and tactics, and at 75% again with regard to figher aircraft - the Spitfire V really was behind the curve in 1942. The multiplication - just to illustrate the principle, not because I believe the results are accurate - indicates a 56% fighting effectiveness for the RAF. The Luftwaffe on the other hand might have been at 120% in training and tactics, and at 120% with regard to the fighter aircraft - in 1942, the Fw 190 was way ahead of the pack. End result: Luftwaffe 144% vs. RAF 56%, not quite a 3:1 advantage, but close.

Now what about 1944? No cherry picking tactics for the Jagdwaffe now because the bombers do so much damage that interception is a must. A slight decrease in piloting skill due to the losses of the past two years. Make it 100% effectiveness in training, 90% in fighters because the Me 109 and the Fw 190 were slightly behind the curve now. Their oppponents, the USAAF pilots, by mid-1944 had reached a high level in fighting skills as well, and the "sacrifice" of the bombers means they get to be the cherry pickers, giving them the 120% training and tactics effectiveness previously owned by the Luftwaffe. Their P-51 arguably was the best fighter in the European theatre, so fighters score 110%. End result: USAAF 132% vs. Luftwaffe 90%.

Let's have a closer look at the results of the 1944 battle: The USAAF loss of 30 bombers and 13 fighters means that they lost more than 300 men, 73 of them highly qualified pilots and co-pilots, 133 aero engines and 43 airframes, mostly expensive multis. The Luftwaffe lost 78 single-engine airframes with as many aero engines, and 55 pilots. In tactical terms, this is a Luftwaffe victory since the USAAF losses are considerably heavier than theirs. In strategical terms, it is a Luftwaffe defeat because the USAAF could replace the losses while the Luftwaffe couldn't.

That's how the outcome of the war was determined by numbers. The quality of pilots and equipment is a force multiplier, but the Luftwaffe didn't fall all that much behind in that regard. In fact, with the Me 262, they made a credible attempt at taking the lead once again.

However, there is a limit to what you can achieve with force multipliers, and in the end, the air war was totally dominated by numbers.

I share your point of view with regard to the situation after Big Week, but the Luftwaffe was already engaged in a battle of attrition they could not realistically expect to win, almost regardless of the tactical outcome. They had not fallen back that much behind their 1942 effectiveness, but the USAAF in 1944 had closed the gap and in fact overtaken. At the same time, the Allies were throwing superior forces at the Luftwaffe, with the confidence of a power that could make good the inevitable losses and actually increase their strength while inflicting losses on the enemy in a magnitude he couldn't replace. The exchange ratio actually wasn't that important for the Allies - the attrition rate was.

I hope that makes it a bit more transparent what I think of when I talk about numbers being decisive :-) They were not the only factor, but they were really the dominant factor in 1944 and '45.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)

Offline Charge

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3414
Will 109s and Fw-190s be fixed before ToD release
« Reply #191 on: February 20, 2006, 04:03:59 PM »
So that small weight increase does not really explain the need for escorts other than the 109s gave 190s time to close up on bombers without the need to fear the escorts interfering.

I think that it was not the R8 that needed the escort but the rocket equipped R6s. The rocket tubes were so bulky that they had serious effect on handling.
Also the R1 and R2 might be more sluggish than regular A8 because of the extra drag because of cannons in underwing gondolas.

-C+
"When you wish upon a falling star, your dreams can come true. Unless it's really a giant meteor hurtling to the earth which will destroy all life. Then you're pretty much screwed no matter what you wish for. Unless of course, it's death by meteorite."

Offline gatt

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2441
Will 109s and Fw-190s be fixed before ToD release
« Reply #192 on: February 20, 2006, 04:24:08 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Charge
So that small weight increase does not really explain the need for escorts other than the 109s gave 190s time to close up on bombers without the need to fear the escorts interfering.

I think that it was not the R8 that needed the escort but the rocket equipped R6s. The rocket tubes were so bulky that they had serious effect on handling.
Also the R1 and R2 might be more sluggish than regular A8 because of the extra drag because of cannons in underwing gondolas.

-C+


Rocket and related tubes add *a lot* of both weight and drag.

Whats weird is that in Mombeek and Weal books are described engagements between Sturm 190As and bombers up to 26-27.000ft. Try to do it with an AH2's A-8 with 30mm .... LOL  :rofl :eek: :huh
"And one of the finest aircraft I ever flew was the Macchi C.205. Oh, beautiful. And here you had the perfect combination of italian styling and german engineering .... it really was a delight to fly ... and we did tests on it and were most impressed." - Captain Eric Brown

Offline Bruno

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1252
      • http://4jg53.org
Will 109s and Fw-190s be fixed before ToD release
« Reply #193 on: February 20, 2006, 04:55:09 PM »
Quote
The total comes to 632 fighters (all Bf109s and Fw190s). Luftwaffe serviceability tended to run around 50%, and 8th AF intellegence reported that around 300-350 Luftwaffe fighters were seen. It seems likely that this was a fairly accurate estimate of the number of LW sorties flown that resulted in contact. In terms of fighter odds, we are looking at around 1.5:1 in the actual combat area, as opposed to over 4:1 seen in the previous battle.


Your assumption as to the numbers of LW fighters put into the air to intercept the various Allied bomber raids on 8 April '44 is very much on the high side.

The LW never sent up one large formation of all available fighters to hit one point along the bomber streams. Just like all allied escort fighters weren't combined at one point covering the bombers. They were spread out and on 8 April the Allies were hitting many targets over the Reich. Mostly the targets were split between airfields  and industry across western Europe (255 bombers of the 3rd Bombardment Division were targeting airfields through out; the bombers of the 2nd Bombardment Division were targeting aircraft industries). The LW only had the numbers to form into 3 or 4 Gefechstverband of a max of 50 - 60 fighters each (typical numbers were much lower, sometimes as few as 20 per Gefechstverband). It only stands to reason that large portions of the Allied escort fighters never saw the enemy, the same is true of the LW dayfighters. A good number never made contact with the enemy.

 Just as an example:

A Gefechstverband made up of Sturmstaffel 1 and elements of I., II., IV., flying a mix of FW 190-A6s / A-7s and 109Gs (about 60 fighters) intercepted B-24s of the 2nd Bombardment Division NW of Braunschweig. A 'massive' air battle ensued over Fallersleben in which the 'sky was filled with swirling P-51s, P-38s, Bf-109s and FW 190s'.  

It should be noted that the LW at this point were ordered not to engage the allied fighters but to push through to the bombers. Schmid in summarizing operations for April '44:

Quote
The daylight air warfare over the Reich with the increased American offensive action had brought about a psychological effect on all Luftwaffe command staffs and dominated them. Nowhere, at no command headquarters, neither at OKH, nor at OKL, nor the staff of the General der Jagdflieger, nor at Luftflotte Reich, nor at the headquarters of I. Jagdkorp was an adequate plan under consideration for operations to gain air superiority by a victorious fighter battle. the attention of all responsible commanders was focused only on one danger - the Flying Fortress and their bomb loads. The persistent demand for destroying American bombers by an incessant commitment of fighters originated with the Führer.


Oberst Johannes Kogler, Kommodore of Jagdgeschwader 6 stated:

Quote
Orders were given to leave Allied fighters alone and concentrate on the bombers. This command led to a vicious spiral of disaster. The Luftwaffe concetrated on the bombers and were shot down by Allied fighters. The American fighters learned that they were safe against attack and became bolder and more effective. The Luftwaffe headed for bomber formations which supposedly were unescorted, but you ran into fighters anyway and in the end they were all over the place. The Luftwaffe developed an inferiority complex which got worse each day, but High Command woul dnot relax its order.


What Kogler is talking  about is that the Allied fighters had freedom of operation, with little fear of the LW attacking them while forming up or en route to the escort / patrol area. They were able use this freedom to stay on the offensive while the Luftwaffe fighters were ordered to attack the bombers and as such were an easier target.

The LW through the use of radar, ground observation, recce etc.. were able on many occasions to establish areas of local control on certain sections of the bomber stream but these control was only temporary and within minutes Allied fighters would be vectored in. With the LW restricted to attacking the bombers they had to just accept this.

When folks talk about 'numbers' defeating the LW  they aren't referring to the total numbers/ ratio of fighters in a given air battle. They refer to the the total number of fighters / sorties flown over the course of the air war over western Europe. The LW were never in the position to inflict upon the western allies losses great enough to win air superiority. The battle of attrition was always a great advantage for the Allies.

Not only was attrition a factor but the lack of the total number of day fighters available for Reichsverteidigung meant that units were 'scattered across the Reich'. As such they had to fly long distances to reach the bombers and / or to form up with other units. Many times LW fighters ran low on fuel before they made contact, or intercepted the bombers late, or missed them all together.

Willi Unger of 11./JG 3 stated:

Quote
The operational bases of our fighter units in Reichsverteidigung were spread all over Germany. Attempts to maintain strength at critical times and in critical areas were made by the rapid deployment of fighters to northern or southern Germany. Several Gruppen from various airfields would combine in the air and were then led from the ground to attack the approaching bombers. This did not always work. The bombers often cheated by flying towards one town then changing course to bomb a completely different target. As the endurance of our fighters flying with an auxiliary drop tank was a maximum of 2.5 hours, we were often forced to break off. There was no question of German fighters having the advantage, only disadvantages, since the numbers of American escort fighters were far superior to us and they also operated at higher altitude.


The allied fighter pilots were able to build up experience while growing their numbers. The direct opposite was happening with the LW. This is a direct result of the allied numerical superiority.

Christer Bergström wrote an article:

The effect of Allied numerical superiority in the air over Normandy in 1944

While it focuses on the period right around D-day it goes to demonstrate the effect of Allied numerical superiority on the LW.

Finally Schmid stated in March '44:

Quote
...the striking power of the few remaining daylight fighter units assigned to Reichsverteidigung remained unbroken. Whenever weather conditions permitted the concentrated employment in close combat formation in a single area, noteworthy success was achieved in bringing down enemy aircraft and keeping our own losses to a reasonable limit. The success of our defensive operations over Berlin on 6 and 8 March gave ample evidence of the fighting morale of our fighter pilots and of their ability to execute effective combat despite the technical inferiority of their aircraft... If the Reichsverteidigung had 1000-1200 fighters available, it would doubtless have been in a position to alter the situation in the air, at least by day, in Germany's favor within a ver short period of time, assuming of course, that there was no appreciable increase in American fighters.


Allied numerical superiority in the air over western Europe was key in the battle of attrition, it was key in spreading the LW out all over Western Europe, it was key to the D-day landings and it was key in allies gaining air superiority ...

I didn't read anything past the post I quoted you from. So if others brought up the same points I did then great. Just take my contribution with this post with a grain of salt...

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Will 109s and Fw-190s be fixed before ToD release
« Reply #194 on: February 20, 2006, 05:25:48 PM »
Bruno:
Thanks for your input here. Well, we've had our scruffles and probably will, but the data you just put in as well as your analysis was very much in the line I am reading up on.
Are you guys stuck on that date very much, or something more general?
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)