Bf 109F info

[humble]

The documentation regarding the G.55 and luftwaffe interests isnt hard to find...if you want to actually find it. In fact there are multiple sources and one is right in the foot notes on the "source" above.

Petersons own thoughts and comments are available as well in multiple places. The fact that such a simple easily verifiable fact is so widely discounted here speaks volumes....

I have zero interest either way in anything regarding the 109 or the russians. It was a fine plane for its time, its time just ended in 1942 (and the luftwaffe knew it). As for the russians, well if you actually read whats avialable they were suprisingly pragmatic and got everything they could out of what was available.

The G.55 is one of those interesting footnotes in history. No question it was a political impossibility. In fact I'm amazed that an actual set of combat trials even occured (this by itself is a major admission of the luftwaffes concerns regarding the 109). The fact that it proceeded beyond that and reached the "discussion" stage literally was risking getting shot {remember Stalingrad had fallen, Tunisia was all but lost and Hitler was rampently looking for any "defeatism"}. That in the end it reached a point where a "formal" request was broached and actual production issues were researched & discussed shows how serious the luftwaffe was.

The germans had more 109s then quality pilots from 1943 on. Even if production was split just having a few hundred 5 x 20mm G.55's would have inflicted tremendous losses on the allied bomber streams in the fall of 43...maybe enough to alter the course of the war.

[humble]

Timras...

with the exception of the "carb" typo (info was factually correct but the spit had carb 109 was fuel injected) I'll stand behind every one of them...

In fact I challenge you disprove any single one within the context it was written in....

1) P-39 was most important plane on soviet side and luwtwaffe ordered pilots to not engage (early to mid 1943)

2) Again this is just historical fact. You can argue some particular points but the luftwaffe asked for the G.55 to be produced in place of the 109...

3) The 109 did have mixed armorment ( yes I-16 could be valid alternative but not really a contempory of spit/109 in my mind)

4) No true accurate record of luftwaffe losses exists, in most (not all) cases russian counts are documented with actual plane wrecks. In addition not all losses were actually Luftwaffe. The Axis had alot of other combatants. Romanian losses alone were pretty severe...

5) you ever read anything on the russians? Please post rules for a claim from the german side. In fact the germans overclaimed as much if not more then anyone else. German overclaims during the BoB actually contributed to the german loss.


Pick anyone and prove me wrong...just one. But dont just say it...prove it.

[MiloMorai]

The Bf109C used a Jumo 210G fuel injected engine.

The Bf109D used a Jumo 210D carburetor engine.

One would think the 109 fanboys would now this.

[humble]

Originally posted by MiloMorai
The Bf109C used a Jumo 210G fuel injected engine.

The Bf109D used a Jumo 210D carburetor engine.

One would think the 109 fanboys would now this.

So am I wrong in the 109D's ability to handle neg G's and maintain fuel flow? My understanding is that the 109D could in fact use a neg G dive just like the E could...

[humble]

most of the G.55 stuff you see on wiki, ubi etc originated here G.55 history. The actual german tests and some additional notes are usually on the net (urls seem to wander) and are documentable in the footnotes on this site. Functionally this is a pretty accurate history. In the end the production time and complexity killed it more then anything else.

[gripen]

Originally posted by Wmaker

I've yet to see a primary source which states that the Luftwaffe wanted to replace 109 production with G.55. It has been asked from humble on this thread and he fails to produce a source again and again.

There is some primary docs on that; IIRC memo on meeting between Göring and LW staff. However, I don't think that it would have been realistic even if the G.55 with the DB 603 would have been ready to production late 43/early 44. Huge amount of resources were tied to the large scale production of the Bf 109G and change would have caused delays in delivery while the demands were increasing all the time.

[Angus]

"1) P-39 was most important plane on soviet side and luwtwaffe ordered pilots to not engage (early to mid 1943)"

Was it really? I would think that maybe it was the most important aircraft in a short window of time. But later there were such numbers of La's, Yak's and the naughty Il-2.
As for the engagements, I see 18 P-39's on Rall's kill list in 1943. He must have forgot, since he even managed to shoot 2 one once in the same minute.
Then to the claims and losses. Always inflammable material. But the LW seem to have been fairly accurate, and after the BoB, - so was the RAF. I have no idea of the Russians. Anyway the Russian losses were massive while the LW losses were very much less on the eastern front than the other ones. 1944 they lost some 4 aircraft to the western allies for each on for the Russians.

[Charge]

"But the LW seem to have been fairly accurate, and after the BoB, - so was the RAF."

To be honest, I have often though how difficult it actually was for LW to check the claims as they were constantly retreating on the eastern front and possible wrecks were left behind enemy lines. But of course there were lots of targets, too...

There was a strange incident here in Finland of Brewster pilots claiming they shot down German Stukas but there are no mention of such instance or loss reports of Stukas from that time period. So I guess at the ending phases the LW loss reports may have been quite inaccurate.

-C+

[Angus]

I have heard a claim of USSR shootings of Ju52's en masse, which were apparently not there. However there were "commisar" demands of results.

You get the picture I think.
Loss records are yet incomplete.
Claims are bigger numbers, ans sometimes politically demanded .

[Meyer]

Seems relevant http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/Tactical_trials/109G-4_Guidonia/109G-4_vergl_Estelle-Guidonia_de.html

Unfortunately the part where the Fiat was way better than the 109 seems to be  missing

In fact I challenge you disprove any single one within the context it was written in....

1) P-39 was most important plane on soviet side and luwtwaffe ordered pilots to not engage (early to mid 1943)

Why would anybody need to disprove such ridiculous statements? Why don't you try to prove it for once?

1) P-39 most important soviet plane? when, how???

2) show us that order...

I could go on over the other 'facts' but they're already covered

[Meyer]

The people who did 'order' not to engage the P-39, also thought this:

 

They appeared to be really impressed with the P-39

[MiloMorai]

Originally posted by Meyer
Seems relevant http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/Tactical_trials/109G-4_Guidonia/109G-4_vergl_Estelle-Guidonia_de.html

Unfortunately the part where the Fiat was way better than the 109 seems to be  missing

quote:
1) P-39 was most important plane on soviet side and luwtwaffe ordered pilots to not engage (early to mid 1943)

Wasn't it one of the Yaks that this so-called order was issued? Personally I think this was mis-interepted and was just a warning about the capabilities of the new Yak.

Do you really think Kurfurst would be truthful knowing his history for fabrication, manipulation and lies? His new board will be a gathering of 'yes' persons. Any that questions the revisionist history he spews of the 109 and/or nazi Germany on his private soapbox will be given the boot.

[Meyer]

Originally posted by MiloMorai
Wasn't it one of the Yaks that this so-called order was issued? Personally I think this was mis-interepted and was just a warning about the capabilities of the new Yak.
 

Yes I think that sounds plausible. Either way, AFAIK so far nobody could point to an actual document that show that 'order', so it is kind of a mistery, and posibly of soviet origin.

About your feelings about Isegrim/Kürfurst, I won't comment on that. Personally I don't think the material he puts on his web is manipulated or fabricated, or anything like that.

many interesting things in the report, such as the 190 being equivalent to the G-55 in 'Kurvenkampf', and the latter somewhat better than the 109.. but then, it would be interesting to know what exactly 'Kurven' means, or how it was tested.
Another puzzling is the fact that the G-55, with the same engine and 600kg heavier (almost 20%) than the 109, his ROC was almost equal to that of the Mtt. Was the G-55 engine delivering more power? (perhaps at 1.42 ata?) many questions...

[Meyer]

Oops, missed the part where says that the italian engine delivered 100ps lesser than the Db in the 109.. which could mean that the latter was running at 1.42ata, and the 'italian' one at 1.3... so, a the G55 climbed roughly the same as the 109, even if it was 20 percent heavier, and with minus 100ps.. this is getting more confusing

[gripen]

Originally posted by Meyer

Unfortunately the part where the Fiat was way better than the 109 seems to be  missing

It was the DB 603 powered variant of the G.55 which was seen most promissing of the Italian fighters by LW.

Note that the even the DB 605 powered variant is quite impressive given it carried internally heavier armament and more fuel than the Bf 109.