Author Topic: Bf-109F Ordinance  (Read 11246 times)

Offline GScholz

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8910
Re: Bf-109F Ordinance
« Reply #120 on: July 21, 2013, 10:16:18 AM »
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."

Offline MiloMorai

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6864
Re: Bf-109F Ordinance
« Reply #121 on: July 21, 2013, 10:38:51 AM »
It says 1.42 ATA. I was wondering if you had a source that says 1.42 ATA was restricted prior to December 1941?

See page 4 ???

Offline GScholz

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8910
Re: Bf-109F Ordinance
« Reply #122 on: July 21, 2013, 09:16:29 PM »
Got it. Thanks.
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Re: Bf-109F Ordinance
« Reply #123 on: July 26, 2013, 02:33:50 AM »
F-4
WNF: 1046  built between 5.41 and 12.41
Erla: 795 built between 6.41 and 8.41
Erla: 219 built between 8.41 and 12.41
Total: 2060

F-1 production from 8.40 to 2.41
F-2 production from 2.41 to 8-41 > 1334 a/c

http://www.ww2.dk/oob/statistics/se28641.htm
28.5.41
E - 439
F-1/2 - 669
F-4 - 74
F - 23

So Krusty, why is there 74 F-4s, with the units they were assigned to?

Do I smell a pwn?

LOL pathetic troll attempt there... Just because they were BUILT doesn't mean they saw service... Hell the F-0 prototypes were combat tested over the UK in 1940 (some even shot down) -- does that mean it was in widespread service? Hell no.

Instead of looking up production dates, try looking up actual deployment dates. No [combat] unit had F-4s until the very end of 1941 or the beginning of 1942. One of the main problems Messerschmitt had was actually producing enough F models and getting them out to units. There was much delay, much testing before they were ever sent out. It was a major issue with the F series. Only with the later Gs did production really get streamlined and become more efficient (from a parts-to-final-squadrons perspective).
« Last Edit: July 26, 2013, 02:35:35 AM by Krusty »

Offline MiloMorai

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6864
Re: Bf-109F Ordinance
« Reply #124 on: July 30, 2013, 04:57:09 PM »
Quote
nstead of looking up production dates, try looking up actual deployment dates. No [combat] unit had F-4s until the very end of 1941 or the beginning of 1942.

How about you you due a little more research Krusty.

So no combat units had Bf109F-4s before the end of 1941 or the beginning of 1942.  :bhead

Stab JG1, III./JG52 and III./JG77 had Bf109F-4s at the end of June 1941. :)

Stab JG1 was based at Jever Germany.
III./JG52 was based at Bukarest-Pipera Hungary.
III./JG77 was based at Bacau Romania.

Offline Megalodon

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2272
Re: Bf-109F Ordinance
« Reply #125 on: August 02, 2013, 12:06:23 AM »
240 copies ... I would like to have it back in my choices for the BF109F-4 and the egg as well!


 Ty,
Okay..Add 2 Country's at once, Australia and France next plane update Add ...CAC Boomerang and the Dewoitine D.520

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Re: Bf-109F Ordinance
« Reply #126 on: August 02, 2013, 02:53:56 AM »
How about you you due a little more research Krusty.

So no combat units had Bf109F-4s before the end of 1941 or the beginning of 1942.  :bhead

Stab JG1, III./JG52 and III./JG77 had Bf109F-4s at the end of June 1941. :)

Stab JG1 was based at Jever Germany.
III./JG52 was based at Bukarest-Pipera Hungary.
III./JG77 was based at Bacau Romania.

If that's true, show me a photo. So many of them were around in June there should be dozens of photos. The Germans loved to take photos of all their planes, especially the new ones that arrived in units. I can't blame them. I'd have done the same.

Of the hundreds of photos I've looked over in the past month, EVERY single F-4 wasn't until much later. All earlier dates are prior versions of the -F such as F-2 (the most common).

Show me that. I'm not so sure you can, because all the records show that JG2 and the channel squadrons got priority on all 109F improvements. They got the latest and greatest variants simply because they were holding the line against much tougher opponents than any other front. This is widely agreed upon. They were the first to use the F in combat, and with every successive variant were the first to get it.

While I say JG2 and JG26 were the FIRST to receive the F-1 as a unit (this happened in March and April of 1941, there is no doubt about these dates), some individual experten aces used early model F-0s during the Battle of Britain, scoring kills and even getting shot down. These are really 1-off special cirucumstances and preferential treatment for the highest-scoring of aces. And those are units getting preferential treatment! JG27, fighting the lion's share in Africa, was only receiving F-1s and F-2s in September 1941. You're talking about Eastern Front stuff. Eastern Front got no preferential treatment with regards to delivery of 109Fs. Soviet craft were so inferior and so easy to kill they saw it as less needing than the units fighting US and RAF enemies.

Are you suggesting the entirety of the developmental cycle went from F-1 FIRST delivery to F-4s already in combat in less than 2 months? Hardly likely, since production lines were still pumping out F-1s and later F-2s for months to come. In June of 1941 the gruppenkommandeurs of JG26 were still flying F-2s (as evidenced by photographs). Position and rank had perks in the Luftwaffe. Leadership often meant access to the best equipment.

Doesn't add up.

Also, you're trying to tell me that Galland himself, the guy who selfishly pampered himself with the best latest and greatest fighter that was available (multiples, for his own personal use) was still using F-2s in on December 5, 1941, "just because"? 6 months after the F-4 was available (according to you)? His personality wouldn't allow it. He kept himself personally stocked with the best tools, but at a widely photographed event his personally modified F-2s are available for all to see. Not F-4s. And they weren't for show -- he was flying every day or as much as he could to rack up his kill tally in a competition with Molders.

Again, IMO it doesn't add up. The only way I can see it happening is some favortism giving a lone experten/ace pilot here or there an F-4 to play with, but that doesn't really count now does it? Same way F-0s seeing combat in the BOB don't really count because it was a limited number and based on favortism. Not a full squadron or even gruppe.

As for the units you list:
Of all JG1, 52, and 77, I can find dozens upon dozens of identifiable F-4 variants in photographs, but NONE before 1942. Before 1942, they are using F-2s or late-model Es.

JG52 got some 109F-4s in October 1941. Even then it wasn't complete, it was staggered inclusion amongst the F-2s. In July 1941 they were newly-equipped with F-2s for the upcoming Barbarossa campaign. They had just transitioned from 109Es. In early 1942 they still had many F-2s on hand as seen in photographs.

JG77 also got 109F-4s. Meanwhile the only photos of their 109F-4s are from 1942 in Sicily or Crimea. Even so, they were still flying Es as well. In August of 1941 photographic evidence shows staffelkapitan of 7./JG2 (and noted ace) Egon Mayer was still using an F-2.


In fact, the ONLY reference I can find that mentions an F-4 loss in July of 1941 is of JG2's geschwaderkommodore (Balthasar), supposedly when his wing sheared off during a wild maneuver. This was only reported on very early F-2 variants and super-early F-4s and was fixed in production before many could be affected. Considering the wing had to be redesigned and strengthened, this problem was mostly only seen on early F-2s before they fixed it on the production lines. Much like the weakened tail. I think this entry from the "aces of..." book is in error, because the Osprey book dedicated to JG2 shows they had F-2s on hand 24 hours before Balthasar's death. The Osprey book also shows the first combat loss of 109Fs for JG2 was on 17 June 1941 (this specifically the F-2s they had just been converting to). This is further supported by the fact that noted ace and commander of III./JG2, Hans "Assi" Hahn, was still flying an F-2 well into August 1941, based on photographic evidence.

It *IS* possible Balthasar got the one and only F-4 available at the time because of his status and rank. But that hardly is representative of what the rest of the Luftwaffe was flying at the time. Much like the F-0s that scored kills during the Battle of Britain, it doesn't mean the 109F was "in service" at that time.


Just a quick tally:
aces of north africa and mediterranean: 20 different 109F-4s profiled, earliest by a long shot was Nov 1941, all others in 1942.
aces of the russian front: 8 109F-4s profiled, none earlier than 1942.
aces of the western front: 5 109F-4s profiled, earliest date being "autumn 1941"... (not very specific)

Offline R 105

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 978
Re: Bf-109F Ordinance
« Reply #127 on: August 02, 2013, 08:15:09 AM »
Noooooooooo! Why would you do that to such a beautiful aircraft!?  :cry :huh

 I agree the 109F-4 is the best flying 109 in the set and I would hate to see attachments that would mess with the lines of the wings.. I love that little bird.









 :P

Offline MiloMorai

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6864
Re: Bf-109F Ordinance
« Reply #128 on: August 02, 2013, 08:36:49 AM »
Oblt Lossnitz of 8./JG52 crashed his Bf109F-4, WNr 7020, into the ground and was killed on July 1 1941. This a/c came from the block 6999-7660 produced from 5.41 and 12.41 at WNF.

Please note that Balthasar was flying WNr 7066 (from the block 6999-7660 produced from 5.41 and 12.41 at WNF). The next loss of a Bf109F-4 was on Oct 21 1941 (WNr7075). In Dec 1941, loss reports of Bf109F-4s increased.

Also note that a Bf109E-4/B (WNr2657) was lost by I./JG2 on July 7 1941 as well as several Bf109E-7s of I./JG2 also lost in July 1941. There was even a loss of a Bf109E-7 in Nov 1941 by I./JG2 as well as a Bf109E-4.

http://www.ww2.dk/misc/jg2loss.pdf

Now what were you saying about priority.

I guess you missed the photos of Hptm Franz von Werra of I./JG53 and Major Hans Truenbach of Stab JG52 Krusty. :)

I repeat,
F-4
WNF: 1046  built between 5.41 and 12.41
Erla: 795 built between 6.41 and 8.41
Erla: 219 built between 8.41 and 12.41

F-1 production from 8.40 to 2.41 Note F-1 production ended in Feb 1941

F-2 production from 2.41 to 8-41

172 a/c built between 1.41 and 4.41 at WNF
192 a/c built between 2.41 and 5.41 at Erla

As can be easily seen, WNF began building Bf109F-4s in May 1941 as Bf109F-2 production had ended in April 1941.
Erla began building Bf109F-4s in June 1941 as Bf109F-2 production had ended in May 1941.

Also note that Radinger/Otto say the bf109F-4 entered service in June 1941.

I guess those 74 Bf109F-4s on the Luftwaffe books on June 28 1941 were some sort of typo error.

http://www.ww2.dk/oob/statistics/se28641.htm
http://www.ww2.dk/oob/statistics/se27941.htm
http://www.ww2.dk/oob/statistics/se271241.htm

Offline Megalodon

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2272
Re: Bf-109F Ordinance
« Reply #129 on: August 02, 2013, 10:47:07 AM »
Jg27 september 41


 By Late 41 the Soviets had allready givin us 2 109F-4 for inspection, here at Wright Field in late 41

« Last Edit: August 02, 2013, 11:00:06 AM by Megalodon »
Okay..Add 2 Country's at once, Australia and France next plane update Add ...CAC Boomerang and the Dewoitine D.520

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Re: Bf-109F Ordinance
« Reply #130 on: August 02, 2013, 08:00:06 PM »
Milo, I personally don't trust that website. It doesn't list any references and IMO is too general in most cases (simply listing 109F for most, not going into specifics by what models are used in most cases including 109Es as well).


And, there were 109Es still flying combat in late 1942, so what's your point? We're not talking about how long 109Es served. We're talking how EARLY 109F-4s served widespread. If you recall this discussion was about the power restriction settings and when the 109F-4 woul have encountered such restrictions. A single plane doesn't really count, and if you see I said that very thing in the previous post I made with my reasoning. A single unrepresentative example doesn't mean that the vast majority of 109F-4s suffered prolonged power restrictions -- because the vast majority did not.


Megalodon, EB-1 was turned over in 1943. Your book is WAY off. And your photo with the guns has oft been attibuted to an F-1 in almost all other sources. The center gun is another rifle-caliber gun because the MG/FF was too unreliable. MG151/20s were MUCH longer and larger than the MG17s mounted above them. Barrel length for an MG17 was about 25 inches, but for the MG151/20 it was 43 inches (and longer for the MG151, at 45 inches).

Just a quick reference for you:
http://www.dark-history.eu/images/The%204%20guns%20in%20a%20FW-190A-6.jpg

There's no way that's an F-4 with that guns setup.

Offline Wmaker

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5743
      • Lentolaivue 34 website
Re: Bf-109F Ordinance
« Reply #131 on: August 02, 2013, 08:26:57 PM »
The center gun is another rifle-caliber gun because the MG/FF was too unreliable. MG151/20s were MUCH longer and larger than the MG17s mounted above them. Barrel length for an MG17 was about 25 inches, but for the MG151/20 it was 43 inches (and longer for the MG151, at 45 inches).

It is not a rifle calibre gun. It is a Mauser cannon. The mounting plate with which the cannon would be attached to the engine is there and easily recognizeable (clearly illustrated in Me109's fuselage weapons manual). The mounting unit brings the back clearly behind the engine and that is one reason why not more of the barrel is visual. Again, what is visible behind the barrel in that engineless 109 pic isn't part of the gun but part of the mounting unit.


Source: http://www.preservedaxisaircraft.com/Luftwaffe/Engines/DB.htm
The back end of the cannon reaches far behind the engine.

MG151/20 attached to the mounting unit:

It can be seen how the mounting unit "reduces" the amount of barrel that would be visible beyond the firewall when engine is not attached.

And of course due to the angle from which the photo is taken from it appears that the muzzle of the cannon is at the same distance from the firewall as the machine gun muzzles. Of course even the machine gun muzzels themselves aren't at the same distance from the firewall as the guns are staggered.
« Last Edit: August 02, 2013, 08:55:43 PM by Wmaker »
Wmaker
Lentolaivue 34

Thank you for the Brewster HTC!

Offline MiloMorai

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6864
Re: Bf-109F Ordinance
« Reply #132 on: August 02, 2013, 09:59:38 PM »
This is what you said Krusty,

Quote
I'm not so sure you can, because all the records show that JG2 and the channel squadrons got priority on all 109F improvements.

This not true and why I showed Bf109Es with JG2.

To general?

I lumped the Es together but the undesignated Fs are only 3% of the Fs.
28.5.41
E - 439
F-1/2 - 669
F-4 - 74
F - 26

So the site is not specific enough for you Krusty. Is this specific enough for you from the same site?
http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/bijg2.html

On 28.6.41, 6%  (74 out of 1213) of the fighters force were Bf109F-4s. Only Stab/JG2, Stab/JG26, Erg./JG51, Erg./JG53 and  Erg./JG54 (26 a/c) don't have a designation number for the F.
On 27.9.41, 28% (323 out of 1137) of the fighter force were Bf109F-4s. Only Erg./JG51 and Erg./JG52 (12 a/c) don't have a designation number for the F.

Offline Megalodon

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2272
Re: Bf-109F Ordinance
« Reply #133 on: August 02, 2013, 11:41:11 PM »




The Book is wrong, :old:
Okay..Add 2 Country's at once, Australia and France next plane update Add ...CAC Boomerang and the Dewoitine D.520

Offline Wmaker

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5743
      • Lentolaivue 34 website
Re: Bf-109F Ordinance
« Reply #134 on: August 03, 2013, 03:41:52 AM »
From the same page? The same page that says they were around in June 1941? Yeah... same error. Same authors making the same mistake.

Prien & Rodeike have tens upon tens years under their belt in researching Luftwaffe combing through German war archives. The first found losses per variant come from the German loss report documents. The proof won't get much more definate than that.

If you are going to just casually mention "Same authors making the same mistake", you are going need to present explicit evidence on how and why they are wrong and why you are right.

Your personal "I think so" reasoning won't cut it. You are not a source of any kind. As said before, I'll take their word over yours any day of the week.
« Last Edit: August 03, 2013, 04:13:37 AM by Wmaker »
Wmaker
Lentolaivue 34

Thank you for the Brewster HTC!