Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Kurfürst on March 13, 2005, 12:24:41 PM
-
An article was posted on the following address, correcting some errorsin the article presented on the Spitfire Performance testing page. Apart from the correction of errors, it also contains various information that could be of interest. The URL has been also posted on various aviation forums.
http://www.kurfurst.atw.hu/articles/MW_KvsXIV.htm
Bon apetit. :aok
-
I would view the site, but i know what it's gonna say already.
-
Then you know there are two sides of the coin.
-
Just another of his usual rambling rants.
Complete waste of time.
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
An article was posted on the following address, correcting some errorsin the article presented on the Spitfire Performance testing page. Apart from the correction of errors, it also contains various information that could be of interest. The URL has been also posted on various aviation forums.
http://www.kurfurst.atw.hu/articles/MW_KvsXIV.htm
I've often wondered about testing parameters of these fighters, and wheather they were standardised or weather they were not not from country to country. I can't imagine how much crap the people that make this game had to sift through just get what they have.
The Lw would have to be very diffucult to assess for many reasons. One that comes to mind is that they had so many variants within one model. Another would have to be that alot of 109s and 190s were tailored to the pilot in many ways. Germans cannot resist tweaking things. The 109 may always be a bit of an enigma, but it certainly does not help when there are so many biased and predjudiced bits of info out there. German engineering was a bit superior to that of American or British, and in those days were about even with the Russians whom I beleive were just a little ahead on number crunching at that time. They all had one thing in common though, they designed what THEY thought was important in a fighter, and one the biggest earmarks of propaganda and nationalistic pride is that they mess with the numbers in areas that THEY deem the most important even if the enemy did not put much value on them.
I don't know why there is so much debate over 109s and spits. They are like peanutbutter and jelly, sure, you'll find them in the same sandwitch, but they are of different substance. Why can't they just be happy focusing on the supiority of their pilots.
These wobbly numbers remind me of these 2 old ranchers that used to put their posts out an extra foot every time they mended fence. It finally got so bad that they had to call a surveyor in to fix the mess. Left to their own devises, they would have traded places eventually.
-
I can't open the page.
-
Hi Karnak,
>I can't open the page.
Use Monopoly Explorer like the rest of us ;-)
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
It works fine for me with IE 6.0, maybe you can`t access the webspace provider, i don`t know, but it seems to work for others - some 620 hits up to now..
-
I'm only getting banners at the top of the page, no content comes visible at all.
-
It works fine for me, just a little slow to start loading.
-
Hi Kurfürst,
>It works fine for me with IE 6.0, maybe you can`t access the webspace provider, i don`t know, but it seems to work for others - some 620 hits up to now..
Hm, are you sure that people who only get a black page are not included in those 620 hits?
I tried two or three times to load the page with my favourite browser Opera, but no luck. Changing to my least favourite browser Internet Explorer brought the page up on the first try.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
Well all I can do is to note 'it`s best viewed with IE', or upload it to a server you can recommend... i dont like M$ either, but as long as their product work, I`ll use it. OK-ok, it doesn`t work, it`s more correct to say it works with anything.
One the second tough, black page... the background is black, so maybe some of you have your browser set with black fonts on a black background. Or maybe it`s a disable popup - I can`t do anything about the latter.
Here`s a light background/black text version :
http://www.kurfurst.atw.hu/articles/MW_KvsXIV_W.htm
And please note parts which you may be disagree with, if underlined by evidence, I promise to change it.
-
Worked for me, just took a bit of time.
Have to look into the data later ;)
-
At wars end the following RAF squadrons were flying Spit XIVs: 453, 414, 222, 430, 130, 610, 41, 268, 350, 401, 2, 451, 412, 322, 215, 402, 91, 403, 322.
He also forgets about the serious German fuel supply problems in 1945. C3 was required by the 190s. C3 was required for 1.98ata boost by the 109s.
"As for the fuel supply, I own copies showing detailed stockpile status for February-April 1945... But yes the C3 was definitely scarce.
As of March 1945 only a handful of 109 gruppen were using C3 for their mounts, one of the few being the II/JG11 which were responsible for testing the 605DB/DC over January-March 1945. According to a document dated late January 1945 coming from DB the 1.80 had just been cleared following serious troubles (pre-ignition) reported by the unit testing the 1.80 ata boost. It is also noted that following the clearance of the 1.8ata boost the 1.98ata operational tests could now begin but with concern about the sparkplugs thermal resistance IIRC. C3 was not used by 109 units until the 1.98ata boost was cleared, they relied on B4+MW-50 so that C3 could go to the 190 units. And even after the clearance only few gruppen got it because of shortages due not only to C3 production but also to C3 delivery to the units.
AFAIK 1.98ata boost was cleared late February but it seems to have been slowly introduced into service, I suspect the adjustments needed on the engine and the change of sparkplugs type (supply problems ???) took longer than expected. From other documents I know that C3 and B4 had severe quality problems beginning in late 1944. While it was not much of a problem with low boost, it had some serious effect on higher boost, so it might also have slowed down the introduction of 1.98ata boost. At least DB documents underlined the need for cleaner fuels than those in use at that time. You can safely assume that by March 1945 1.98 ata boost was being introduced, unfortunately I do not have much details for April 1945, but I doubt it would have changed much, given the situation."
He tries to imply that all of II./JG11 was testing at 1.98ata but he say only one staffel (11 a/c) was on strength in Jan 1945 that had K-4s. The LW had only 79 flyable a/c (6 staffels) in April 1945, some of which were Gs, while there was 19 Spitfire XIV squadrons.
-
"The LW had only 79 flyable a/c (6 staffels) in April 1945, some of which were Gs, while there was 19 Spitfire XIV squadrons."
sources and references ? Your claim that the LW had only 79 flyable a/c is outright laughable, and the claim about 19 Spitfire squadrons is just as silly.
the fun thing of all, that the XIV squadron info comes from Neil stirling and mike williams. :D Now according to Milo, both Neil and Mike are liars.
It`s also not nice calling butch a liar for stating II/JG 11 was responsible for the testing.
As for the alleged 'scarcity' of C-3, there is no single evidence pointing towards this, in fact even the Italians were denied from being supplied with the lower quality B-4, and were supplied with C-3 instead.
The Fischer Tropsch archieves note that 2/3s of the avgas production in Germany was C-3.
-
Typical Barbi. He puts dowm MW but then turns around and uses his site. :(
Then he can't remember what he puts in his own article.:( That is to be expected. :(
If you weren't so cheap Barbi you would have bought 'Spitfire: the History' and you could have gone throught the serial numbers and seen where the Mk XIVs went. :(
After saying I called Butch a liar, he then turns around and calls Butch a liar (re fuel supply). :lol :aok
Barbi sure likes to use the word liar a lot.:rolleyes:
I should add that 750 Mk XIVs had been delievered before war end.
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
....I should add that 750 Mk XIVs had been delievered before war end.
..not to mention a significant number of F.21s also
-
So no reference, no source, just the usual incoherent hysteria.
-
120 of 3000 F21 built
Source : http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/spit8.html
Is the RAF Site credible enought for you ?
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
So no reference, no source, just the usual incoherent hysteria.
I can't help your lack of reading comprehension Barbi for sources were given.
To refresh you, "Then he can't remember what he puts in his own article. That is to be expected.
If you weren't so cheap Barbi you would have bought 'Spitfire: the History' and you could have gone throught the serial numbers and seen where the Mk XIVs went."
Do you not consider yourself a reference source? :eek:
The only 'incoherent hysteria' is by you Barbi. :lol
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
So no reference, no source, just the usual incoherent hysteria.
You see, this is the kind of non-producticve stuff that is just a direct insult to those trying to have a discussion with you. I'll certainly grant that the tone is negative on both sides, but you are the driving force for it. You frequently post with no content other than an insult. This is the kind of behavior that risks banning.
You really should buy Spitfire: The History (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0946219486/qid=1110994731/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/102-4154929-3188953?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)
Who knows, after reading it you might come to appriciate the Spitfire along side the Bf109. They're both great fighters with interesting stories.
-
937 Spit XIVs were built, Source "Spitfire in Action" page 39 Squadron Signal.
In the ETO the following Spit XIV Sqn were operational in the ETO by *November 1944* with the 2nd Allied Tactical Air Force on the Continent: Nos 610, 91, 322, 41, 130, 350, 403, 2 (8 Squadrons). Source "Late Marque Spitfire Aces" Opsrey, pages 32-33. More were added by wars end (Milos post looks accurate to me), and 37 RAF Sqns eventually flew they type. Source "Spitfire in Action" page 39, Squadron Signal.
Along with the Hawker Tempest they formed the backbone of the RAFs air superiority fighters in Europe. Source "Late Marque Spitfire Aces" Opsrey, page 33.
You can verify the above in your own time, there are any # of credible sources for Spit XIV squads at wars end, and for the #s at varying stages.
*As for #s of operational 109K-4s flown during the war, somebody else can find that data. I have seen quotes on what units used "some" of them without any strengths given. This is mainly due to the difficulty of finding info on the LW in the last 6 months of the war.*
"So no reference, no source, just the usual incoherent hysteria."
-Indeed?
As for the 109K-4 itself (and the 109G-10), they were, by all accounts, the pinnacle of fighter design, and their performance is a reflection of that. They certainly were on par with anything in the world in 1945 from the data I have seen?, both in terms of speed and climb rate. I cant recall anybody credible claiming otherwise (including authors on Spitfire books). If you want to endlessly bicker over +/- 10 mph at a given alt, fuel type, boost pressure, go ahead...
-
¦¬þ
(http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/no91.jpg)
on the 16th of April, they blew up a submarine
-
Originally posted by Squire
As for the 109K-4 itself (and the 109G-10), they were, by all accounts, the pinnacle of fighter design
Just a reminder, by that time, Messerchmitt itself was well ahead of 109K technology or any Supermarine product: Me 262. Who knows how much effort was put into 109 enhancings when they already had operational jets.
-
Point taken on the jets.
You can also add the Fw 190D-9, Tempest V, and F4U-4 to the list of very impressive late war fighters. Each type having qualities that made them special given certain circumstances.
-
'Die angegabenen Leistungen werden mit gut gebauten Serienmachinen sicher erreicht.', or 'The above given performances are certainly going to be reached with well-built serial production machines.'
How well built would they be since 'slave' labour was used? Now I know I will hear no 'slave' labour was used but Willey went to prison for using 'slave' labour.
There was also sabatoge by the 'slave' labour and if caught it was off to the gas chambers for the culprits.
It is a dream that the K-4 was well built, as a whole.
-
Originally posted by Squire
937 Spit XIVs were built, Source "Spitfire in Action" page 39 Squadron Signal.
[/B]
937 including post-war production, in comparison to
1700 K-4,
1400 Me 262s,
2600 G-10s
5000 + MkIX etc.
Now, in your opinion, which type was more common is service?
After all, this is the part you cannot seem to able to accept, that XIVs were few around.
Originally posted by Squire
In the ETO the following Spit XIV Sqn were operational in the ETO by *November 1944* with the 2nd Allied Tactical Air Force on the Continent: Nos 610, 91, 322, 41, 130, 350, 403, 2 (8 Squadrons).Originally posted by Squire
Ahem, 322 operated a mix of recce FR XIVs and Mustangs and was performing recce missions.
On my site I note the following, 7 FIGHTER XIV squadrons of them :
"In comparison, according to Neil Stirling, as on of 14th December 1944, there were altogether 120 Spitfire Mk. XIVs. with the operationally fit Squadrons:
- 41 Squadron,
-130 Squadron,
-350 Squadron,
-402 Squadron,
-610 Squadron,
-430 Squadron
-2 Squadron
I`d rather trust Neil in this subject.
The case is quite clear, there were 120 XIVs with units at that including the reserves, and 314, three times as many K-4 not including reserves.
More were added by wars end (Milos post looks accurate to me),
Post the evidence, the squadron number, and the date of conversion, the source, . Then the article will be updated.
If not, nothing will change just because someone on a BB *thinks*, *feels* that there were more.
and 37 RAF Sqns eventually flew they type.Source "Spitfire in Action" page 39, Squadron Signal.
Post-war... should I include modern day LW and RAF Tornado Geschwaders and Squadrons too?
Along with the Hawker Tempest they formed the backbone of the RAFs air superiority fighters in Europe. Source "Late Marque Spitfire Aces" Opsrey, page 33.
(http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/2taf150_112044.gif)
30 old Spitfire IX, XVI squadrons, only 5 Spit XIV squadrons.
5 or so Tempest units with the 2nd TAF.
FYI, these 5 Squadrons are equivalent of one or two Gruppes of the LW in number - each gruppe contained 3-4 Staffels, or Squadrons..
K-4 Gruppes : 3-4 Squadrons each
III. / JG 3 Bf 109 K-4
III. / JG 4 Bf 109 K-4
IV. / JG 4 Bf 109 K-4
I. / JG 27 Bf 109 K-4
II. / JG 53 Bf 109 K-4
III. / JG 53 Bf 109 K-4
IV. / JG 53 Bf 109 K-4
II. / KG(J) 6 Bf 109 K-4
II. / KG(J) 55 Bf 109 K-4
Almost all the rest were to convert to K-4 at this time.
You can verify the above in your own time, there are any # of credible sources for Spit XIV squads at wars end, and for the #s at varying stages.
You know what, I`d rather stick to the numbers that were posted by Neil and the OOBs for the 2nd TAF from various books as I feel no need to include made-up fantasy XIV squadrons by fans. And yes, we should include the Mk 21s as well - even if the didn`t differ at all in performance from XIVs, even if according to all Spit literature they didn`t saw any combat, their ww2 activity being limited to a few examples doing operational trials.
*As for #s of operational 109K-4s flown during the war, somebody else can find that data. I have seen quotes on what units used "some" of them without any strengths given. This is mainly due to the difficulty of finding info on the LW in the last 6 months of the war.*
WW2.dk is a credible source for them, they list all types for all LW units from 3.42 to 12.44. Collect the data and you can get the picture. I did. The K-4s number was 200 in October, November and December, and went up to 314 in January. G-10s not counted. The source is given on the site btw.
As for the 109K-4 itself (and the 109G-10), they were, by all accounts, the pinnacle of fighter design, and their performance is a reflection of that. They certainly were on par with anything in the world in 1945 from the data I have seen?, both in terms of speed and climb rate. I cant recall anybody credible claiming otherwise (including authors on Spitfire books). If you want to endlessly bicker over +/- 10 mph at a given alt, fuel type, boost pressure, go ahead... [/B]
You should send that to Mr. Williams, after all, it`s him who spent a lot of time manipulating the existing evidence to make one plane look godly and the other miserable, instead of just honestly presenting the information. Which I merely pointed out. Speaking of him, I wonder where he hides now. :D
And btw... any of you gentlemen come up with credible information and I will include it. The point of the internet is to learn, and my objective is get things right, not to get up a stupid fansite of my fav aircraft and tell the world it was the best in everything, the opposition sucked, and i can prove that with lies and manipulation, which is what williams does on his little site.
You can do this, or leave the matter alone.. or just hang around admire the convincing power of poor Milo`s posts. :lol
-
Hi Mando,
>Just a reminder, by that time, Messerchmitt itself was well ahead of 109K technology or any Supermarine product: Me 262. Who knows how much effort was put into 109 enhancings when they already had operational jets.
I believe Messerschmitt personally worked on the Me 262 and its derivatives with increased wing sweep that were supposed to break Mach 1.
Still, the Me 109 got a lot of engineering attention as well even late in its life. The RLM insisted on standardization, realizing that 16 subtypes in 82 variations were in production at the same time, and demanded a substantial performance increase at the same time.
As a result, Ludwig Bölkow was made leader of a taskforce with Richard Bauer, the Me 109's original chief designer, as his right hand and ten exerienced engineers - the development bureau, as the task force was called, had a staff of 140 people in total.
They moved away from Regensburg and started to work at Wiener Neustadt early in 1943 and were responsible for continuous development of the Me 109 after the introduction of the G-6 (I estimate). The improvements found on the late Gustavs resulted from the work of Bölkow's crew, but the final, standardized version of course was the K-4.
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
-
*I simply included the total # produced of XIVs as the source I have gives the #.
*7 Sqns with F.XIV (91, 610, 41, 403,130, 350, 322) and 2 with the F.R.XIV (430 and 2). 9 in total, with 2nd ATAF from November 44 untill wars end. Thats just squadrons in the ETO with 2 ATAF. I dont have an exact breakdown of other deployments handy.
*Your list of LW a/c is also total #s produced as well, not delivered, or used operationally. It was how many squadrons that could sortie a/c that is the issue.
"K-4 Gruppes : 3-4 Squadrons each"
The strengths varied widely, as an internet source this one site isnt bad:
http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/flugbew.htm
The units you list are for the entire LW 109 day fighter OOB, East and West front. In any case I made no claim regarding 109K-4 production. The 109G-10 and 109K-4 were being produced for the 109 JGs, so its not a big controversy many saw service. Pilot and fuel shortages were the big factor in 1945 for the LW. It was not airframes they ran out of.
As for the RAF, it deployed more than enough Spit XIVs and Tempests and Mustang IIIs to perform the missions that were required of them, and the majority of 1945 sorties flown by the RAF were air-ground in nature, for obvious reasons. It was never tasked with "deploy as many Spit XIVs as the entire LW day fighter strength possessed", and I have never heard anybody claim that they were ever asked to do that.
*As for "30 old Spitfire IX, XVI squadrons", the LF IXs and XVIs were no more "old" than the 109G-6 (late model), or 109G-14, or Fw190A-8 or Fw190F series of fighters the Jagdwaffe possessed from the Spring of 1944 to the beggining of 1945.
-
LOL Barbi, you only want to believe what fits your twisted reality.
And btw... any of you gentlemen come up with credible information and I will include it. The point of the internet is to learn, and my objective is get things right, not to get up a stupid fansite of my fav aircraft and tell the world it was the best in everything, the opposition sucked, and i can prove that with lies and manipulation, which is what williams does on his little site.
:rofl
Why won't you believe 'Spitfire: The History'?
There was less than a 1000 Me262s delivered. One only has to look at the number sent on mission, typically staffel or less, to see there were very few used operationally.
FYI, these 5 Squadrons are equivalent of one or two Gruppes of the LW in number - each gruppe contained 3-4 Staffels, or Squadrons..
K-4 Gruppes : 3-4 Squadrons each
As of Dec 31 1944
III./ JG 3 Bf 109 K-4 > 8
III./ JG 4 Bf 109 K-4 > 26
IV./ JG 4 Bf 109 K-4 > 7
I./ JG 27 Bf 109 K-4 > 14
II./ JG 53 Bf 109 K-4 > 5
III./ JG 53 Bf 109 K-4 > 0
IV./ JG 53 Bf 109 K-4 > 0
http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/bjagd.htm
So of those 700 or so K-4s produced til the end of 1944 ONLY 60 were with operational units and not all would be servicable. That is only equivelent to 3 squadrons of Mk XIVs.
I see nothing honest in Barbi, as the above shows. Those listed JGs (from his post) should have had at least 252 K-4s 'on strength'. Another example of his manipulating and twisting of data to further his agenda.
As for his research ability, he did leave off II./JG27 (0 K-4), III./JG27 (26 K-4s), I./JG77 (1 K-4), III./JG77 (27 K-4s), I./JG4 (2 K-4s). So now we have 116 K-4s, or ~ 1/7th of those produced, deployed to operational units.
It would be worth going through that website for the G-14s and G-10s to see how many were really in service.
-
Since the LW according to Barbi had ample fuel, ample boost, ample planes and had lost very few pilots over the war, then why wasn't the sky full of them untill the last days of the war?
Thousands of Uberboosted 109K's, D9's, Jets etc, mostly flown by experts (Since the LW lost only 6K pilots in the war?)......:confused:
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
So of those 700 or so K-4s produced til the end of 1944 ONLY 60 were with operational units and not all would be servicable. That is only equivelent to 3 squadrons of Mk XIVs.I see nothing honest in Barbi, as the above shows. Those listed JGs (from his post) should have had at least 252 K-4s 'on strength'
[/B]
They did had about 200.
K-4 Strenghts were on 1st Dec 1944, minus other types :
II. / JG 2 2
III. / JG 3 9
I. / JG 4 0*
III. / JG 4 36
III. / JG 26 35
I. / JG 27 15
II. / JG 27 4
III. / JG 27 38
IV. / JG 27 4
Stab / JG 53 0*
II. / JG 53 0*
I. / JG 77 0*
III. / JG 77 68
II. / KG(J) 6 2
Stab / KG(J) 27 0*
II. / KG(J) 27 0*
----------------------------
Total : 213
*On 31st December, it totalled 196 w. including these units which received Ks later in dec.
"Those listed JGs (from his post) should have had at least 252 K-4s 'on strength'. Another example of his manipulating and twisting of data to further his agenda.
It`s only an example of your intelligence, taking the unit list from March 1945, and look up the December figures for those units, and crying around that it isn`t a match. Of course it doesn`t.
To qoute KARNAK from here http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=144605&pagenumber=3 :
"You really, really, really need to educate your self before spouting of the sheer idiocy you just did. You obviously know absolutely nothing about the subject you are now potificating about. Nothing you have ever posted before has ever revealed your ignorance and bias more than this post."
I think the qoute just fits your case here. I think it`s a very constructive to qoute Karnak, constructive discussion mean a lot to him so I am learning his ways to improve mine.
@Angie,
What`s your point? Or your post was just supposed to give us an example what is it like when post of others get distorted to their extreme in the angiebangie mind, and this is the reaction that follows when history doesn`t match what angiebangie imagines about it ? You know the saying, 'when you have nothing to say, just don`t say anything.' You should really think about that, angie.
bah.
-
Oh, dear, again
Barbi/Izzy/Kurfurst:
"What`s your point? Or your post was just supposed to give us an example what is it like when post of others get distorted to their extreme in the angiebangie mind, and this is the reaction that follows when history doesn`t match what angiebangie imagines about it ? You know the saying, 'when you have nothing to say, just don`t say anything.' You should really think about that, angie.
bah"
Well, my point is that despite all the high German production numbers and low German loss rates you supply as data, vs. say the few and futile RAF planes on the field. the LW was but a shadow of it former self from the autumn 1944 onwards. It was also manned largely with rather raw pilots. Hence the occurence of allied fighter pilots flying a whole T.O.D. 1944/1945 without ever engaging in combat.
Some of your data (not saying all) or maybe rather the conclusions being drawn from it don't match history. Dead simple.
Maybe it is the missing parts, but it seems to me that in Izzyworld the skies were full of expertly flown uberfighters untill the Fuhrer accidentally plonked some lead through his head.
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/bjagd.htm
What about reading the introduction?
http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/bintro.htm (http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/bintro.htm)
I would say it is an unfinished work based on incomplete documents.
-
You don't know the difference between month start and month end Barbi?
"As of Dec 31 1944 "
Now tell me where you stated the date in your post? Note that the RAF memo is date Nov 1944 which was then followed by your incomplete list of K-4 units. I did go on and add to your list, but then you missed that because you went into one of your beserker rages.
Using your new list (excluding the KG(J) units) there should have been between 432 and 576 K-4s with those units. Yet there was between 1/4 and1/3 of those 700 odd produced in 1944 in operational units (207 on Dec 1 and 149 on Dec 31). Another example of dishonest misrepresentation by you.
Ah MANDO,
quote by Barbi "WW2.dk is a credible source for them" :eek: Missed that, you did.
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
quote by Barbi "WW2.dk is a credible source for them" :eek: Missed that, you did.
Yes, it seems credible, but also incomplete. Probably only 43 list is finished or almost finished.
-
(http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/Dr.jpg)
By faustnik in the il2forums.
gripen
-
Originally posted by MANDO
Yes, it seems credible, but also incomplete. Probably only 43 list is finished or almost finished.
If it has Barbi's seal of approval, then it should be good enough for the rest of us. ;)
There is the odd error.
-
Good point Mando.
I remember looking up a certain Stuka, which was supposed to have been at Stalingrad, - yet it was fished out of the Med, and if my memory serves me, it was already wearing desert camo.
I can probably link a picture of it if needed.
Anyway, that said, the website is not to blame, but the actual data, which seams to be incorrect. Well, there is always the fog of war etc. Fact remains that late war LW documents were largely destroyed and perhaps there were some that were not quite complete/accurate enough anyway.
-
Oh, forgot something.
I looked through the LW loss records at the film archive in the IWM, London. It's rather a mess!
Oh, - there was some more, but it's dinnertime, so bye for now ;)
-
Originally posted by bunch
¦¬þ
(http://www.fourthfightergroup.com/eagles/no91.jpg)
on the 16th of April, they blew up a submarine
Just to add to Bunch's post. One of the two 91 Spit 21 drivers mentioned. F/O Johnny Faulkner.
I got the image from F/L H.D. Johnson who was in on that Submarine sinking with his room mate Bill Marshall.
Dan
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/810_1111114394_faulkner91.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Angus
Well, my point is that despite all the high German production numbers and low German loss rates you supply as data, vs. say the few and futile RAF planes on the field. the LW was but a shadow of it former self from the autumn 1944 onwards.
[/B]
And from what did you drawn this conclusion? LW strenght reports? LW sorties? Aircraft production? Number of pilots trained? I guess not, so we might as well say you have just no real idea.
Or perhaps there are more reliable sources for that, like, your faint memories of reading some book 6 years ago where somebody, forgot his name, said something like he didn`t see many German fighters in 1944.. or was it 43?
I see a great contrast between mine and your research method.
It was also manned largely with rather raw pilots. Hence the occurence of allied fighter pilots flying a whole T.O.D. 1944/1945 without ever engaging in combat.
[/B]
The LW had a large number of rookie pilots in it`s ranks, so allied fighter pilots didn`t see them. I don`t get the connection, sorry.
Some of your data (not saying all) or maybe rather the conclusions being drawn from it don't match history. Dead simple.
[/B]
What data my dear? What conclusions? Can you list some or you are fighting your windmills again, having visions or something like that ?
Maybe it is the missing parts, but it seems to me that in Izzyworld the skies were full of expertly flown uberfighters untill the Fuhrer accidentally plonked some lead through his head.
No, as I pointed out it`s just the angie`s distorted reception.
What facts I post are without any emotional load in them. Numbers, strenght reports and such. This shouldn`t excite any normal person or put under emotional stress. When someone starts to show a pattern of always forming the same extremely distorted perception on it, while others don`t, I guess the problem is within that single person`s mindset and way of handling this conflict of disagreement.
As an escape reaction, a fantasy reality is being made up by his mind to help over his personality, unable to face the frustration of being wrong without damage. So that he could endure the crisis, the mind helps out him by lying to him, creating a nice little world with strong black and white contrast; in our case the points of others gets distorted to some extreme end, so much that not even an immature personality can have any doubt that it`s wrong, false, and if it`s wrong and false then he is right, not neccesary because he can prove his own way - probably he couldn`t -, but because he can see the other guy is wrong, and so he gets his inner peace.
Well that`s only my amateurish opinion, the real experts probably know and can help you a lot more with that. I think you should really see someone about these conflicts in you. Honestly.
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Using your new list (excluding the KG(J) units) there should have been between 432 and 576 K-4s with those units. Yet there was between 1/4 and1/3 of those 700 odd produced in 1944 in operational units (207 on Dec 1 and 149 on Dec 31). Another example of dishonest misrepresentation by you.
I fail to see any coherence or point in this garbage above.
-
Originally posted by gripen
By faustnik in the il2forums.gripen
Great gripen, I see you added your input here as well.
Mind if I qoute a few people from the thread you took that nice picture? I already asked faustnik to use it on my site.
BBB_Hyperion :
"At least this article has some proofable points and reference sources as well and some conclusions make sense."
SkyChimp
"Nice job, Isegrim. A little personal, but otherwise very rational and well thought out. And nice to look at, too. I'll save that on to my favorites."
RedNeckerson
"Looks great Kurfurst. Keep up the good work. Do you plan on expanding the site in the future? "
karost
"Kurfurst, that is a good work , Thanks. I like to read a good history inoformation from a difference source point out the same thing ( like bf 109K ) so we can learn what the fact is look like in BF 109s."
Looks like pretty good, huh ?
I may also add that poor Milo wanted to start the same flamefest as here on the LEMB forums (he couldn`t at ubi, because he is already banned from there :lol ), and HoHun put him right back to his place.. I appreciate that HoHun, thanks!
-
Oh, more of archives.
Isn't the Bundesarchive in Koblenz supposed to be the best one for loss reporst etc, or generally the LW stuff?
And then, from Milo:
"You don't know the difference between month start and month end Barbi?
"As of Dec 31 1944 " "
Now, that is a tricky date, for this is the status before operation Hermann or Bodenplatte, so basically the LW sported their full power in the morning of January the 1st.
It was as much as they could, for they had been saving fuel and holding aircraft from ops in the preceeding weeks.
All is well documented.
-
"It was as much as they could, for they had been saving fuel and holding aircraft from ops in the preceeding weeks.
All is well documented."
You are the first one who documented this. Any idea how many sorties flown in December, Angus?
-
Out of my head, no.
Honest answer :)
But really, the LW aimed at a maximum strike that morning, and the aircraft taking off was as close as they could get to full strength.
Knew an old RAF jock who flew escorts to Magdeburg, Berlin etc in 1944/45.
It was dead boring and cold.
On these long escorts he did not mention being intercepted, although I know he had a scruffle with 262's.
I would sell an organ to get a hand on his logbooks, but I guess I won't have to.....
-
From Butch's board
hi kurfürst
cool down a bit. we had some nice documents a time ago in the 109 research forum.
there i translated a some german stuff for butch.
here is a rough translation giving you some interesting points.
1.)Boost 1,8ata with B4 fuel
Reason for the meeting were the problems in “field” and at the serial production facility “Genshagen” because of the “white flame” effect during the use of the
Higher output. First it is shown by Hr. Dr. Scherenberg how the “white flame”
followed by burned pistons, develop. Because of the results of the engine knocking test the lower quality of the fuel is the main reason for the problems.
DB has allready solved the problem with adjusting the ignition timing by 5°(???) .
This allowes the use of “Sondernotleistung” and the 1.45 and 1.80ata settings.
But because of later ignition , 50PS are lost during the “Sondernotleistung”,
Where the 1,45 ata setting doesn’t lose power.
DB although mentions the problems with the bad fit of the valvesitrings or
the plug thread , that where reasons for the glow-ignition too. But because
of improovments in the production these failurs are said to be canceled.
All agreed and the decision was done, that all engines should get the new ignition time. The lose of power is not so critical. But, because of hints from DB (DaimlerBenz), there should be test flight with 5 planes within all alts, but especially above rated alt, to get knowledge about the power loose above rated alt.
END SHEET ONE
This will be done at II/JG11. It is asked, if the ignition timing can be set on old value
if better fuel quality is back. Answer is delayed till it is for sure that only better fuel is used, and if it is shown, that later ignition does have no influence on the planes perfromance. DB mentions that the later ignition point although is better for the plugs that have a thermal problem at all.
It is mentioned too, that the performance lose will be decrease with increasing engine run time , means with less oil lose. It indicates too, that new engines with less oil usage are better in performance than the ones with at first high usage and the lower usage of oil. From the troop should be taken 1 engine with 15-20h for oil consumption and performance tests to be done in Genshagen. Because the b4 fuel is mostly used in the east, the order for the new ignition point/time should get out asap by…
2.)1.98 boost with c3 fuel
the first report shows, that the test with the 1.9, and 1.98 boost had negative results.
Then a telegram from Rechlin was shown (they tested 4 engines) that criticized the
clearing of the Sondernotleistung by Gen. Ing. Paul direct from the company to A.Galland bevor sufficient tests were done. Rechlin although defend themselves, that
they did NOT give the new boost free for the Troop. (looks like some thought they did). DB on the other hand shows their positive test results for the 1.9 , 1.98 usage.
They say, that the clearance for the 1.98 boost was given with the same TAGL (?)
(think a kind of order) as the 1.8 ata boost was cleared..both on the same day!.
SHEET THREE
It was then decided (after hearing all the reports) than currently only II/JG11 should test the 1.98 boost and that the 1.9ata engine test should be finished when the engines failed. (so no more test after them). The JG should then only get 1.8 ata engine supplies. Heavy punnishment is threaten when this order is not followed. The 1.98 clearance decission may only come from department 4 of general staff.
It is suggested that some recon planes should be equiped with 1.98 boost. Decission was not done. To disburden the current 1.98 and 1.9 engines it is suggested to give them the new ignition time too. So, all engines flowen with the sondernotleistung will
Be set to the new ignition point/time.
The JG’s in field complain about the plug failurs. Especially in the last time the number of failurs increased. DB reports about improoved plug modells and better
quality control e.g. with x-ray controlling. Again DB points out that the cooling of the
109 is insufficient and wishes that the LW will solve this problem asap. This was mentioned by Gen.-Ing Paul and arrangements where done instandly.
DB points out that the performance of the “cell” (fuselage/wings) is extremely bad,
and even worser J. It makes no sense to increase the power output of the engine when on the other side the plane quality is decreasing dramatically. Is is reported that a coparison of a 109 with a mustang was arranged for Mr. Sauer, but he failed to come.
The result of the comparison was, spoken of produktion quality only, shocking for the 109.
SHEET FOUR
At the end of the meeting, from Mr. Dr. Scherenberg points out that DB allready is testing a boost up to 2.3ata (J). But it can be not juged in any way because of only a low test base at the moment.
greets
wastel
-
Holy cow Milo.
Nice point about the boost clearings. I heard of this and mentioned some long time ago on the board, but got flogged to death by the messer boys ;)
Anyway, it was all about a 109 Pilot being rather disappointed with the engine life and quality of later 109's, they "burned out" rather fast, and there was not always the time and resources to keep them steady.
It was verbal, but I am in the position now to ask about this from first hand, so I'll do it and post.
(That is ATA/SQN/YEAR, but limited to maybe a squad or two to begin with)
Anyway, best of luck all
-
Angus,
you can get the german version here, http://www.spitfireperformance.com/6730.zip
-
Old news, Milo right now is copycating stuff by wastel on butch`s board to look smart, and trying to incite some flames there as well. Pathetic as always.. I wonder how old are you milo, spending your whole day in such way..
This one is interesting :
"Because the b4 fuel is mostly used in the east, the order for the new ignition point/time should get out asap by… "
So much about shortage of C-3.
-
Originally posted by Kurfürst
Old news, Milo right now is copycating stuff by wastel on butch`s board to look smart, and trying to incite some flames there as well. Pathetic as always.. I wonder how old are you milo, spending your whole day in such way..
This one is interesting :
"Because the b4 fuel is mostly used in the east, the order for the new ignition point/time should get out asap by… "
So much about shortage of C-3.
You do have a rather vivid imagination Barbi. :(
Now what is wrong in posting a translation of what is on MW's site? You in a snit because it shows that 1.98 is not so easy a conversion as you would like us all to believe?
How can you come to the conclusion there was no C3 shortage for nothing was said in the passage would indicate this? Remember that the 190 required C3. Are you saying that the 190 would sit on the ground because C3 went to 109 units? Sure, whatever you say.
"It is asked, if the ignition timing can be set on old value if better fuel quality is back."
This passage says the German fuel was crappy. You should talk to Crumpp about fuel quality.
-
If the LW had ample fuel to the war's end, say alone high quality fuel, why did they have to use oxen to pull aircraft around the ramps?
Really, never heard anything else than there were severe fuel shortage problems from late 44 onwards.