Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: PanzerIV on September 27, 2007, 05:48:50 PM
-
Nice German site on Bf109F, it is translated though, thought you all might enjoy it.
http://www.beim-zeugmeister.de/zeugmeister/index.php?id=7&L=1
-
Great info!
:aok
-
Certainly an interesting read...
As always I'm amazed at the cult like nature of the 109 affecionados. The 109F4 is undoubtably the best 109 ever built and one of the true "watermark" fighters...it's "raw numbers" {regardless of what they truely are} are insignificant when viewed in light of the historical accomplishments.
At the time of its introduction it was argueably the premeir fighter in the world. Unfortunately none of the planes real shortcomings were ever addressed in subsequent models.
The focus here is entirely on downplaying trivial discrepancies when the real issues of range, visibility, pilot ergonomics and control surface authority were never corrected....
-
"As always I'm amazed at the cult like nature of the 109 affecionados."
As always I'm amazed of this kind of BS. The 109 "affectionados" do not really differ from any other form of warbird fanboys. It's in your mind only, Snappy.
"the real issues of range, visibility, pilot ergonomics and control surface authority were never corrected"
Range? More fuel displacement? Where? In the wings? In the fuselage?
Visibility? The windshield was very small giving very little drag and I don't recall it to be a real issue to anybody but allied testpilots. Some German "aces" actually managed to get a few kills peeking through it.
Pilot ergonomics? How much less space is there than in Spitfire? What do you need the space for in a fighter? Plus the leg position is much better considering the G tolerance. Unfortunately not modelled in AH.
Control surface authority? What is wrong with it? Elevator authority maybe -because it can't be aileron authority because it was comparable to some very famous allied rides. The elevator authority issue is modeled in AH but again e.g. Spitfire's over sensitivity problem is not. The rudder had probably more authority than any other aircraft of that era had. But I guess you were referring to RL and not in the game?
It was a cheap and easily manufactured small airplane used by many countries even after the war and its shortcomings caused by its physical size were nothing special if compared to other contemporary warbirds. And it has a rather good service record to back that up. ;)
Yes, certainly interesting read.
-C+
-
Well, never underestimate the power of the selective quoting.
PS: And that applies to everyone including me...
-
Not true at all charge...
I'm a big fan of the 109D thru F. Each was tremendously ahead of its time. however the simple fact is that the plane was pushed beyond the point of diminishing returns.
1) Range is what it is...the 109 suffered tremendously. The lack of range was one of the primary reason the germans lost the BoB. This same lack of range greatly hampered bomber intercepts over germany, the 109's didnt have fuel to stya on station ong enough.
2) Visability was horrible, yes the galland hood was a big improvement but that came very late in the war. 109 had the worst visability of any "mainstay" fighter...
3) The 109 was very taxing to fly compared to many planes. One of the top expertain commnaded the "testbed" squad that handled captured allied craft. He commented it was easier to fly the mustang for 7 hours then the 109 for 1 hour.
4) Actually the rudder in the 109 was "overstressed" (searching for a word here) by the increasing power in the engine. The 109 was a tough bird to fly. The tremendous torque literally overpowered the control surface authority at low speeds which greatly complicated both emergency takeoff and landing procedures (yes the F4U and others had similiar issues)....but none were this bad. This problem got worse as more engine was stuffed into the plane.
Lets look at historical realities....
The 109F2/4 was in service during the circuses and rubarbs of 1942. The british had no real problems or concerns with the 109...it was considered an 'equal" and challenging adversary. when the 190 arrived it totally changed the balance of power forcing the british to create the spitIX while the british stopped almost all offensive sorties until it could be put in service. The 190 was markedly superior to the 109F....
The 109 was so badly overmatched on both the western and eastern fronts that Feb 1943 the lufftwaffe recommended officially that it be taken out of service and replaced by german manufactured G.55's or C 205's. The luftwaffe concluded that both were clearly superior to the 109G6.
The 109 was probably the best early war fighter in the game. It simply was overmatched by 1943. Thats simple historical fact...
-
Isn't it a bit sad that after 60 years we're still chest thumping about what plane is best? *sigh*
The 109 had a very long and distinghuised career, is built in large numbers and saw service into the 1960's. It saw service from the Luftwaffe, and very ironically, to the Israeli air force (Czech Avia variants) where they had to fight (even more ironic), Egyptian Spitfires. A VERY interesting bird and I like to read about it.
Anyway, it's nice to read something like this on an Axis bird. There is Allied info all over the net, but Axis stuff is few and far between.
Conveniently, I can read German so it's even better to look at the scans themselves. Thanks for posting.
-
"As always I'm amazed at the cult like nature of the 109 aficionados"
It's not so much the 109, it's the German war effort in general. The Germans have always had a certain kind of perversely glamorous attraction for some people. Back in the past, punks and bikers used to dress up with swastikas, iron crosses, and "stahlhelms" because it was transgressive to do so. Nowadays the same people are older, and they spend their time on alternative history sites, arguing about how Germany might have won the war. Or they trade videos of overweight modern-day men dressed as German soldiers, firing MG42s from the hip. Etc. It's geeky, and it's a little bit transgressive, and so it has a powerful appeal for people who don't get on with mainstream society; science fiction and fantasy fans, if you know what I mean. The kind of people who enjoy Warhammer 40,000.
Typically the re-enactor, enthusiast, amateur scholar etc justifies this by saying that he - and it is always a he - is merely honouring the brave fighting men, rather than supporting a particular political ideology. It ends up with the same people getting upset about Dresden and Rudolph Hess, and then calling their daughter Helga, and after that there's a short step towards the line of no return.
Besides, German kit typically looked meaner than Allied equipment. The 109 looks nastier than a Spitfire. It has a little square welding mask porthole where the man looks out. German bombers looked like evil insects. A Tiger tank looks dangerous, whereas a Sherman looks like a child's toy. German equipment was typically more angular than Allied equipment. The logos and iconography were starker. The words sound threatening; "minengeschoss" and "rüstsätze" and "obersturmbannführer" have a certain ring to them. The German officers wore long leather trenchcoats and big boots, who could fail to be seduced by that?
-
"You were bred and led yourself"
-
Originally posted by humble
Lets look at historical realities....
The 109F2/4 was in service during the circuses and rubarbs of 1942. The british had no real problems or concerns with the 109...it was considered an 'equal" and challenging adversary. when the 190 arrived it totally changed the balance of power forcing the british to create the spitIX while the british stopped almost all offensive sorties until it could be put in service. The 190 was markedly superior to the 109F....
Looking at the RAF casualties at that time, I would think that the british had indeed a lot of problems with the 109...
The 109 was probably the best early war fighter in the game. It simply was overmatched by 1943. Thats simple historical fact...
Sure, if you say so :rolleyes:
-
"however the simple fact is that the plane was pushed beyond the point of diminishing returns."
I have to agree with that to some extent and indeed there were planes that had more potential for upgrades. The design approach was probably not the best considering the direction the airwar in WW2 was going to but then again Germany didn't realize the demands such a prolonged war would put on airframe development -but I don't think any of the planes that took part in competition the 109 won could have done better. It was a good plane for short ranged interception role which took place -43 onwards but the pilot material could not handle such a demanding plane as well as they should have and the worsening situation and overwhelming numbers in the end emphasized this.
"It simply was overmatched by 1943"
According to losses it may seem so but that was not entirely the fault of the plane but worsening strategic situation -considering that the 109 did pretty well, IMO.
I agree that the F was a crest of its development when the size, weight and power were optimal and from that it started losing its advantages as the weight increased.
-C+
-
Originally posted by PanzerIV
Nice German site on Bf109F, it is translated though, thought you all might enjoy it.
http://www.beim-zeugmeister.de/zeugmeister/index.php?id=7&L=1
How does it fly in IL2? hehe
ack-ack
-
If you browse any of the military history think tanks and look at the historical records the common concensus is that the luwtwaffe "died" in 1943. Obviously alot of factors came into play here...but not the one's normally viewed by the mainstream. The US daylight bombing was just starting and the war in the east hadnt yet turned into a bloodbath for the germans.
Yet things had gotten so bad that the luftwaffe itself petitioned for all 109 production to cease in favor of the 190 and G.55 (and/or C 205). The simple reality is that the 109 had gone from a superior plane to a somewhat inferior one. The german losses at the kuban bridgehead were never really replaced and the loss of so many seasoned pilots never overcome.
This loss largely coincides with the introduction of the G series of 109 (and beyond). The luftwaffe recognized the planes "inferiority"{and again this is a lose term...it was still a formidable foe in the hands of an experienced pilot}. The decision to keep the 109 in production was a combination of politics and engineering. The G.55 took longer to build and required a more skilled workforce which translated to lower production at higher cost per plane.
If we view 1943 as the most pivotable year when either side still had the ability to win and then look at procurement we get interesting results.
The germans were the only side who relied entitrely on planes evolved in the 1930's (109 & 190)...
The Americans, British, Italians, Russians and Japanese all had 2nd and even 3rd generation designs either in service or just entering production.
Fundementally the germans we're relying on the same plane that fought in the spanish civil war in 1943....
-
Originally posted by Charge
"As always I'm amazed at the cult like nature of the 109 affecionados."
As always I'm amazed of this kind of BS. The 109 "affectionados" do not really differ from any other form of warbird fanboys. It's in your mind only, Snappy.
"the real issues of range, visibility, pilot ergonomics and control surface authority were never corrected"
Range? More fuel displacement? Where? In the wings? In the fuselage?
Visibility? The windshield was very small giving very little drag and I don't recall it to be a real issue to anybody but allied testpilots. Some German "aces" actually managed to get a few kills peeking through it.
Pilot ergonomics? How much less space is there than in Spitfire? What do you need the space for in a fighter? Plus the leg position is much better considering the G tolerance. Unfortunately not modelled in AH.
Control surface authority? What is wrong with it? Elevator authority maybe -because it can't be aileron authority because it was comparable to some very famous allied rides. The elevator authority issue is modeled in AH but again e.g. Spitfire's over sensitivity problem is not. The rudder had probably more authority than any other aircraft of that era had. But I guess you were referring to RL and not in the game?
It was a cheap and easily manufactured small airplane used by many countries even after the war and its shortcomings caused by its physical size were nothing special if compared to other contemporary warbirds. And it has a rather good service record to back that up. ;)
Yes, certainly interesting read.
-C+
Hehe, at last, a 109 thread, that immediately involves the dreaded Spitfire :D
Okay, visibility etc. It was corrected by getting bigger. Kind of like the Allies.
Ergonomics, - well controls got heavier. Cockpit stayed the same, - probably the tightest fit of a WW2 mainstream fighter. Seat position, - Racecar, - ahead of it's time. Only remedy in the same direction that I know of is the RAf's stepped pedals as well as their testings of pressure suits.
Control surface authority? At high speeds, where the going gets tough, completely no match for a Spitty in the elevator department (NB that the over-sensitivity was basically over-authority as well, and cured in the Spit V, by being made acceptably "heavier"), in the Roll plane at high speed better than what allied mainstream fighter by a noticable margin?
In the rudder plane? Always needing a boot, however nicely effective.
As for manufacture and maintenance, - THE KING!
And the Killing record? THE EMPEROR!
And the 109F from a 109 Pilots point of view? The only one I asked said "Highly maneuverable". "The best of them all, after the F, they became to heavy"
-
Thats one way to look at it.
The other way is that it didn't need huge alterations in design to remain competitive after F model, even though it meant more speed for the cost of other handling qualities. The Luftwaffe and specifically the pilots did not actually "recognize its inferiority" but realized that the G model was losing some of the desired qualities the design had in F model i.e. turn performance.
The first time 109 failed to live up to expectations was during the BoB because that role was not what is was designed for and I guess other countries were quickly to learn from that mistake. I still fail to understand why they could not simply put a drop tank in E3 and E4 models...
After reading Galland's last book I realized that the atmosphere during the war did not really support sensible fighter development and when the need was realized it was all too little and too late so the 109 had to do, and it did. The 262 for example was an interesting and remarkable design but considering the situation Germany was in, the fighter development would have demanded different allocation of resources and effort -but then again it would only have delayed the inevitable.
-C+
-
Looking at the RAF casualties at that time, I would think that the british had indeed a lot of problems with the 109...
The British had a lot of trouble with tactics at the time.
The Rhubarbs were generally offensive busy work. Like on the Eastern front, the Luftwaffe could generally hit and run when favorable or not engage. The raids were of minimal concern to the Germans from a damage perspective and the British formations, even though they were attacking, were more on the defensive than offensive in practical terms. They could be engaged on operational terms that did not stress the limitations of the 109 tactical fighter platform. This worked even better for a 190.
That was much less of an option in the defense of the Reich against the USAAF bombing campaign.
This is covered in good detail in "JG 26: Top Guns of the Luftwaffe" by Donald Caldwell.
As a 1 on 1 fighter the 109 generally managed to match up well throughout the war as did the Spitfire, which had similar limitations. However, after 1939 the limitations of single role aircraft became more pronounced That includes the 109s necessary counterpart the Stuka.
You couldn't add the firepower to a 109 to be a good bomber killer without suffering performance penalties due to airframe limitations. The same for extra fuel, and ground attack ordnance to enhance multi role capabilities. Aircraft like the Zero suffered even more because of power limitations.
FW190, Typhoon/Tempest, P38/47/51 etc. were far more versatile platforms that matcjed the fighter performance but went far beyond that. Mult-role also translated into benefits in resource allocation and production optimization.
Charon
-
Charon :aok
-
Humble is just doing his "troll the luftwaffles" again. (http://forums.desert-winds.org/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif)
-
:)
It took you awhile to get here....
1st, I've always stated that the 109 was the best plane in the world at the time of its introduction....by a wide margin.
2nd, The 109's development peaked with the F4 and went down hill after that...
3rd, continuing emphisis of the 109 after the F series contributed greatly to the demise of the luftwaffe...
I'm not "anti luftwaffe"...I'm just "pro reality"...
It's a factual statment that the luftwaffe itself officially asked for the 109 to be retired and the G.55 (or C 205) to replace it. This is a well documented historical fact...
It's a historical fact that the germans suffered a tremendous loss in april/may 1943 at the kuban bridgehead. A loss so staggering that its placed on the same level as Midway by military historians. This was a loss where the cream of the luftwaffe was matched against the VVS on even terms and soundly beaten.
The reality is that the 109 was a good plane, nothing more. As the war progressed the planes shortcomings were more and more telling....
-
"1st, I've always stated that the 109 was the best plane in the world at the time of its introduction....by a wide margin."--
That means a 109D(?) vs a SpitI and Hurry I, as well as a P36, I-16 and maybe some French aircraft?
While the 109 is really good there, - superior by a WIDE margin is something I would question. BTW, I put some of the better, rather than most common front line aircraft of 1939 or so as a comparison.
"2nd, The 109's development peaked with the F4 and went down hill after that..."--
Well, as a highly maneuverable aircraft, a dogfighter to the death, yes. I guess that most of the old LW aces will agree on that.
"3rd, continuing emphisis of the 109 after the F series contributed greatly to the demise of the luftwaffe..."--
Just second. It was a competible aircraft, easy on the maintenance, cheap and known in manufacture, known by the bulk of pilots.....getting out of emphasis actually with investments getting into all other sorts.....I think the demise of the LW had many other heavy sources than staying with their 109.
"It's a factual statment that the luftwaffe itself officially asked for the 109 to be retired and the G.55 (or C 205) to replace it. This is a well documented historical fact..."--
Never heard that. Sources? Would that have been a manufacture issue,- routing of engines (have read somewhere that you had Italian airframe production ready by the numbers but no DB's), or some logistic/political issue?
"It's a historical fact that the germans suffered a tremendous loss in april/may 1943 at the kuban bridgehead. A loss so staggering that its placed on the same level as Midway by military historians. This was a loss where the cream of the luftwaffe was matched against the VVS on even terms and soundly beaten."
I do not know the numbers there. It was a fight allright. But the LW forces already had much of their cream on the W-Front as well as in the desert. Bear in mind that although the incredible LW scores occured in the east, the LW was however not loosing at the same rate. LW lost roughly the same aircraft to the RAF air-to-air as on the eastern front in 1944. (according to LW loss records).
More things to this, is that at the Battle of Stalingrad and later (I belive) at Kursk, - the LW transported aircraft OFF the Eastern front into the med. Stalingrad and the Tunisian share the same campaign as well as Kuban-Kursk to the forthcoming Italian campaign.
Always was looking for LW losses in 1943, so E-Front figures would be nice to see.
Was the 109 a good plane? Oh yes. And a fast one. As with some others, however there were shortcomings. BUT THE KILLING RECORD GOES THERE....109.
-
The early 109 had mixed armorment and superior performance (neg G carb)...both later corrected in spitfire...
1943 trials have been posted here numerous times and easy to google
Kuban was a blood bath for the germans...lots posted but heres a link to one account from the german side...
Kuban (http://www.graf-grislawski.elknet.pl/kuban.htm)
I'm not aware of many german units going west in feb/april 1943...later yes.
-
Originally posted by humble
It's a historical fact that the germans suffered a tremendous loss in april/may 1943 at the kuban bridgehead. A loss so staggering that its placed on the same level as Midway by military historians. This was a loss where the cream of the luftwaffe was matched against the VVS on even terms and soundly beaten.
Oh really? How many aircraft and/or pilots lost the Lw there, and how many the soviets?... should be easy for you, since it's a 'historical fact' :)
-
Originally posted by Meyer
Oh really? How many aircraft and/or pilots lost the Lw there, and how many the soviets?... should be easy for you, since it's a 'historical fact' :)
Hmmmmm....
why not just read up on it yourself and make an informed decision. your comment is on par with saying the US didnt get hammered at pearl harbor, the battle of the bulge was a german victory or that pickett secured a tactical victory at cemetary ridge.
-
The problem is that all I've read on the subject doesn't even approach to point the conclusions that you made, so why don't you tell me what do I have to read? Or is it that you don't have the information to support your claims?
Come on, such a 'historical fact'.. how hard can't it be?
;)
I think that the casualties suffered by the USN at Pearl Harbour are well known, and also that the attack on the Ardennes failed, and.. well I don't know much of the ACW, but anyway, this has nothing to do with the issue: the Lw and Soviet losses over the Kuban area . Show us that.
-
So why dont you show me what you've read, put the URL's up. I've linked a dozen or more at various times. If you look in this thread you'll see a 1st hand account from a well recognized german ace....
"Grislawski immediately was briefed of the situation. III./JG 52 had recently been shifted to Taman Airdrome from Nikolayev in the Ukraine, where it had been re-equipped after its heavy losses in equipment during the retreat from the Terek sector down south in the Caucasus. II./JG 52, based at Anapa, had held the positions in the air over the Kuban bridgehead since February 1943; its pilots had shot down a large number of Soviet aircraft, but it also had cost the Gruppe severe losses."
" One of the II. Gruppe's pilots, Leutnant Helmut Lipfert, later recalled: "Things did not go well for II Gruppe at Anapa. There were few contacts with the enemy but many losses. And it was not just the beginners and young pilots who failed to return, but some of the old hands as well." It was obvious that the Soviets were gaining in on the German fighter pilots' initial advantage in air combat"
"Although the Germans had concentrated a powerful air corps in the Kuban Bridgehead, achieving a numerical superiority, they were unable to assume control of the air as during the previous years."
" But although the most experienced fighter pilots continued to achieve impressing victory scores--II./JG 52's Leutnant Heinrich Sturm was credited with five kills on 20 April--the air fighting grew more and more difficult each day. The Soviets were bringing in a steady flow of new aviation units, and they started to achieve a numerical superiority in the air. It also was evident that the Red Air Force had concentrated some of its most skillful airmen to this sector"
These are obviously recollections from a single perspective but seem to correlate well with all historical accounts.
"In many ways, the Russian use of air power in the battle of
Stalingrad and the follow-up campaign at the Kuban bridgehead stands as
a watershed period with respect to organization, implementation, tactics,
and tenacity. During the period from November l9, l942, to February 2, l943,
four Soviet Air Armies and the Air Force for Long-range Operations27
(AFLRO) flew nearly 36,OOO sorties in direct support of the defense, and
eventual counter-attack, at Stalingrad. From April l7 to June 7 of that year,
the Soviet Air Force finally established complete air superiority in driving
the Germans from the Caucasus region. It is difficult to grade the
performances of the two air forces at this point in the war - a depleted and
overstretched Luftwaffe which was facing a robust and ever-increasing Red
Air Force, but the fact remains that by all German accounts, the Soviet
pilots performed admirably by the mid-point of the conflict."
This is an excerpt from a white paper on the Russian airforce
here (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1995/SVA.htm)
One of hundreds you can find online that reference Kuban at some point.
The bottom line is simple, Kuban is where the russians confronted the luftwaffe and for the 1st time stopped them cold on "even" terms. In the beginning the germans had 2 to 1 superiority in numbers and by the end of the campaign the luftwaffe was no longer combat effective.
If you want to continue this then post links to what you "read" and give me an alternate perspective.
-
[qupte]snip[/quote]
So you don't have the losses... so much for the historical fact :rolleyes:
Yes I'm sure that the fight was heavy there.. but where wasn't it?
Here, some info from the Axis forum:
Some info about losses Bf 109 during April 17 –June 7 1943 over Kuban bridghead.
Units:
II./JG. 3, III./JG. 3, I./JG. 52, II./JG. 52, III./JG. 53, 13.(Slow.)/JG. 52, 15. (Kroat.)/JG. 52
Total losses:
Destroyed in air fight – 28 Bf 109
Destroyed by antiaircraft fire (guns) – 5 Bf 109
Non combat losses – 5 Bf 109
Destroyed from another reasons – 5 Bf 109
Damaged:
Damaged in air fight – 20 Bf 109
Damaged by antiaircraft fire (guns) – 9 Bf 109
Non combat damaged – 9 Bf 109
Damaged from another reasons – 18 Bf 109.
The mostly losses were in II./JG. 52:
10 Bf 109 (W/n 13688, 14309, 19251, 19454, 19489, 19525, 19527, 19550, 19709, 19745) were destroyed in air fight.
2 Bf 109 (W/n 19748, 19758) were destroyed by antiaircraft fire (guns)
2 Bf 109 (W/n 14470, 19512) were non combat losses
2 Bf 109 (W/n 13469, 14729) were destroyed from another reasons
10 Bf 109 (W/n 19335, 14822, 14956, 19440, 19700, 14847, 19444, 19735, 19598, 19769) damaged in airfights.
1 Bf 109 (W/n 13720) damaged by antiaircraft fire
3 Bf 109 (W/n 19235, 19920, 19744) non combat damaged
2 Bf 109 (W/n 19344, 14966) damaged from another reasons
Source: article from magazine: "Aviation and Time", N5, 2005
Oleg Kaminskyi - Messerschmitts over Cuban,
archival source: BA-MA: Gen.Qu.Mstr. 6. Abt.;'Flugzeugverluste und Unfalle bei fliegenden Verbande" (3.4-2.7.1943) Rl 2 III/1188-1190.
So, you have, over a 50 day period, a total of 43 destroyed 109s in five and half Gruppen. Of these, 28 in aerial combat...those are the "tremendous losses/blood bath" were you talking about? Doesn't seem too high to me.
And yes, the II./JG52 was the one having the most losses, and it is understandable the concern of Lipfert/Grislawski, etc, at that time.
-
Originally posted by humble
The bottom line is simple, Kuban is where the russians confronted the luftwaffe and for the 1st time stopped them cold on "even" terms. In the beginning the germans had 2 to 1 superiority in numbers and by the end of the campaign the luftwaffe was no longer combat effective.
.
Missed this.. the 'no longer combat effective' Luftwaffe, dominated the skies over Kursk later that year..
-
OK, show it to me......
This is another good overview on the kuban in that a tremendous amount of fighting was done by lendlease equipped VVS units....
This is an article focused on the 1st spitfireVb equipped regiment...
Spits over Kuban (http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/spit/index.htm)
-
Appendices Table 1. Combat work of the 216th SAD from 1–10 May 1943
Looks like the 16 and 57 GIAP alone shot down in ten days more fighters (31) than the Lw lost in fifty (28).. amazing. Perhaps the overclaiming have something to do with it ;)
Will post about Kursk tomorrow, GN.
-
Originally posted by Meyer
[qupte]snip
So you don't have the losses... so much for the historical fact :rolleyes:
Yes I'm sure that the fight was heavy there.. but where wasn't it?
Here, some info from the Axis forum:
So, you have, over a 50 day period, a total of 43 destroyed 109s in five and half Gruppen. Of these, 28 in aerial combat...those are the "tremendous losses/blood bath" were you talking about? Doesn't seem too high to me.
And yes, the II./JG52 was the one having the most losses, and it is understandable the concern of Lipfert/Grislawski, etc, at that time. [/B][/QUOTE]
LOL...
so your claiming a total of 28 combat losses over that period....
OK...lets start with the 16th Gaurds IAP....
The regiment began combat operations on 9 April, at the very beginning of the battle for the Kuban. This campaign is considered pivotal in the history of Soviet VVS. Over the course of two months of intense battles with the best fighter squadrons of the Luftwaffe, Soviet pilots won strategic superiority in the air. Approximately 1100 German aircraft were destroyed, some 800 of them in the air. Western historians call this battle the "Stalingrad" of the Luftwaffe.
"The pilots of the regiment fought combat operations of a corresponding nature with German fighters. The outcome of the battles in April: 289 Airacobra and 13 Kittyhawk combat sorties, in which were conducted 28 aerial engagements. Shot down were Bf-109E-14, Bf-109F-12, Bf-109G-45, FW-190-2, Ju-88-4, Do-217-1, and Ju-87-1. Of these, Guards Captain A. I. Pokryshkin shot down 10 Messers, Guards Senior Lieutenant V. I. Fadeev 12-Bf-109s, and Guards Senior Lieutenant G. A. Rechkalov 7 Messers and 1 Ju-88."
Now whats interesting is that these are all claims on the russian side of the air battle. Only claims where the plane actually came down were counted at that time...
"This delineated parsing of Messerschmitt kills by model is explained by the fact that in this period Soviet pilots received official credit only for aircraft downed over Soviet-controlled territory. Those destroyed on the German side of the front line were not counted, as a rule. Because of this method of counting, A. I. Pokryshkin, for example, was "shorted" 13 German aircraft (by the end of the war his actual score was 72 kills but of these only 59 were counted officially). A pilot received credit for an enemy airplane destroyed after confirmation by ground forces of its fall, with a tally of its location, type, and number. Frequently the ground unit removed and sent to the air unit the engine data plate."
So just from April 9th till the end of the month we have a single unit with 71 confirmed 109 kills as well as 20+ claimed but unconfirmed. In fact the top 3 aces in this one unit claimed more 109s then you say were lost in the entire period in question.
If we look at a second well regarded unit 45th IAP (later 100th Guards) we find the following....
"April aerial combats were particularly successful, when the pilots had a firmer grasp on their airplanes and tactics. During that month I. I. Babak shot down 14 fighters, Lieutenant Boris Glinka 3 fighters and 2 bombers, Senior Lieutenant Dmitriy Glinka 5 and 1, Sergeant I. Kudrya 5 and 1, Lieutenant N. Lavitskiy 1 and 2 respectively, and Senior Sergeant V. Sapyan 2 fighters. The regiment suffered losses as well, because its opponents were the "cream" of the Luftwaffe. 15 April 1943 is considered the "black day" of the regiment: D. Glinka and V. Sapyan were shot down at around 1300, and Senior Lieutenant M. Petrov and Sergeant Bezbabnov in the evening at around 1900. Erich Hartmann, a relatively new fighter pilot in III/JG 52, shot down one of the "evening" Cobras (41-38451 or 42-4606). This was the seventh kill (and first Airacobra) of the future top German ace of World War II, who finished his career in Soviet captivity with a score of 352 kills, some 345 of them on the Eastern front.
Altogether during two months of intense aerial combat over the Kuban, pilots of 45th IAP shot down 118 German aircraft, losing 7 Airacobras shot down and 8 damaged in combat or in accidents, 1 P-40E shot down and 1 destroyed in an accident. The regiment had the best results in the theater and was quickly, already by 10 May, re-equipped with new models of the Airacobra: P-39L, M, and N. The surviving intact old P-39D-2s (138416, 429, 456, and 458), P-39K, and P-40Es were handed off to the 16th Guards IAP and 298th IAP."
We have 30 fighter kills (no specific breakdown I could find)....
I have no clue who compiled your "list" but its complete fiction. Kuban was a meat grinder in whcih the luftwaffe lost over 1000 combat airplanes. No question that the russians absorbed tremendous losses as well. 28 planes would have been a good week loss wise....
source (http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/english/articles/romanenko/p-39/part2.htm)
-
Originally posted by Meyer
Looks like the 16 and 57 GIAP alone shot down in ten days more fighters (31) than the Lw lost in fifty (28).. amazing. Perhaps the overclaiming have something to do with it ;)
Will post about Kursk tomorrow, GN.
your clueless....
-
Battle of Kuban bridgehead was a rather long; while most air battles took place before the Battle of Kursk (April to July 1943), the operations continued until October when the Axis evacuated the Bridgehead.
-
No Humble, you are clueless and always have been. You claim to know this and that about the 109 and its history, but you always give your ignorance away by showing that you don't even know the simplest of things about the 109. Like here...
Originally posted by humble
The early 109 had mixed armorment and superior performance (neg G carb)...both later corrected in spitfire...
... you fail to realize that the 109's DB engines doesn't even have a carburettor. Everybody that has had even just a passing interest in the 109 knows this. It's even one of the few things Discovery Channel gets right! :lol
-
Originally posted by Viking
No Humble, you are clueless and always have been. You claim to know this and that about the 109 and its history, but you always give your ignorance away by showing that you don't even know the simplest of things about the 109. Like here...
... you fail to realize that the 109's DB engines doesn't even have a carburettor. Everybody that has had even just a passing interest in the 109 knows this. It's even one of the few things Discovery Channel gets right! :lol
No what I have is a general understanding of realities...
So let me ask you this, can the 109D maintain fuel pressure during negative G manuevering?
My comment was functionally correct....
Even the 109 protype (109-V9) had 20mm cannon (initial production runs were 4 x 7.9mm due to jamming issues)...but the 109 was the 1st cannon armed fighter in the world if I'm not mistaken...
So factually my comments are correct on both counts and the 109 was significantly ahead of the spit 1 in two important area's
This is typical from you and your "friends". You simply ignore any and all real points of "debate" and look for trivial typo's or oversights to try and establish some false and childish one upmanship...
So big man since your "here" what are your thoughts regarding the luftwaffes own formal request to have the 109 replaced by the G.55? This is a pretty clear indication that even the luftwaffe knew the 109 was no longer capable as a front line fighter (in Feb of 43)....
I'd like your thoughts on that....
-
Originally posted by gripen
Battle of Kuban bridgehead was a rather long; while most air battles took place before the Battle of Kursk (April to July 1943), the operations continued until October when the Axis evacuated the Bridgehead.
This is a pretty decent overview of the general action...
Kuban overview (http://war.by-airforce.com/articles/Kuban-1943.html)
This was probably the most intense prolonged "furball" of the war. The luftwaffe suffered such severe losses they actually issued a general stand down order on June 7, 1943 to regroup. Meanwhile the russians lost ~350 planes on May 26th alone (german claims). Losses on both sides were staggering, the claim the germans lost a total of 28 109's to combat over the time frame from early april to june 7 is laughable. Both sides lost hundreds of fighters during that time frame....
-
Originally posted by humble
No what I have is a general understanding of realities...
No, what you have is an insatiable need to troll luftwaffe threads. This thread was started as an informative thread on the 109F ... not about Kuban, not about other model 109s and their supposed superiority or inferiority compared to other aircraft. You simply could not resist to demean 109 “affecionados” … I guess you mean ‘aficionados’ … and turn this thread into a flame fest.
You are pathetic.
-
Compared to the 1200+ of all sorts that the LW lost in the BoB on a 90(?) day scale?. That makes some odd 13 aircraft per day.
You have claims and you have losses. The LW loss recs are not complete, neither are their transfer recs. However, the biggest part of the Luftwaffe's fall did NOT occure in Russia.
And the 109 vs Russian aircraft in WW2? Well, from 1941 untill Lala a'la advanced the German Iron was normally faster, better armed and better used AFAIK. From a Huge margin down to a margin in the timescale.
And the numbers, not very favourable for the LW....
-
Oh, and to the 109F. The fighters facing it in the high-time in the fall of 1941 and into 1942 were:
P40
SpitV
(later Spit IX)
Hurry
I-16
LAGG-3?
Yak-1?
And some antiquities?
Please add. But the 109F is pretty much in the top there ;)
-
Originally posted by Laciner
Besides, German kit typically looked meaner than Allied equipment. The 109 looks nastier than a Spitfire. It has a little square welding mask porthole where the man looks out. German bombers looked like evil insects. A Tiger tank looks dangerous, whereas a Sherman looks like a child's toy. German equipment was typically more angular than Allied equipment. The logos and iconography were starker. The words sound threatening; "minengeschoss" and "rüstsätze" and "obersturmbannführer" have a certain ring to them. The German officers wore long leather trenchcoats and big boots, who could fail to be seduced by that?
This is a great quote. I've tried to put the...asthetics...of German equipment into words before, but this is far more eloquent.
Nice job.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Compared to the 1200+ of all sorts that the LW lost in the BoB on a 90(?) day scale?. That makes some odd 13 aircraft per day.
You have claims and you have losses. The LW loss recs are not complete, neither are their transfer recs. However, the biggest part of the Luftwaffe's fall did NOT occure in Russia.
And the 109 vs Russian aircraft in WW2? Well, from 1941 untill Lala a'la advanced the German Iron was normally faster, better armed and better used AFAIK. From a Huge margin down to a margin in the timescale.
And the numbers, not very favourable for the LW....
German losses at kuban were roughly 1000 of all types, russian losses probabably more....
There are dozens of white papers from just about every major world powers military aviation historians on the causes surrounding the decline of the luftwaffe, why not read one or two.
As a general rule all sides overclaimed, I'm sure this was true for both the russians and germans at kuban. As a general rule russian claims were a bit stricter since they had similiar guidelines to the german in WW1 where you needed infantry confirmation for a kill....
most significant case of overclaiming was actually luftwaffe in BoB where they were very exagerrated...which actually influenced some bad decisions on the germans part....
No question that 109F was dominant bird thru mid 1942. P-39 was clearly superior to the 109 at the lower altitudes where combat occured in the east. Once P-39 equipped VVS units got up to speed luftwaffe was facing a plane that was more then equal to the 109...
-
Originally posted by Viking
No, what you have is an insatiable need to troll luftwaffe threads. This thread was started as an informative thread on the 109F ... not about Kuban, not about other model 109s and their supposed superiority or inferiority compared to other aircraft. You simply could not resist to demean 109 “affecionados” … I guess you mean ‘aficionados’ … and turn this thread into a flame fest.
You are pathetic.
So your conceding that the luftwaffe itself recognized the 109 had reached its development apex with the 109F and lobbied for the g.55 instead....:aok
I've got nothing at against any "affectionado's"...what I got a laugh out of was a site thats comparing the 109 favorably vs the 190A2 and trying to discount everything that pointed to the 190's dominance. There's a big difference between being an "affecionado" and being delusional.
The 109 was a fine plane, clearly ahead of its time....in 1935. It held up well and was a fine plane. Even in 1944/45 in the hands of an experienced pilot it could more then hold its own in a fight. It was not however competative overall. It was progressively harder to fly (damm near unlandable with less then a seasoned pilot) had comparativly shorter legs, less effective (fighter to fighter) armorment and very poor visability compared to its counterparts.
The bottom line is that as early as Feb 1943 the luftwaffe wanted its production stopped. In fact had they succeeded in getting the g.55 produced instead the entire course of the war could have changed. The G.55 would have been a much more formidable foe for the allied fighters and potentially devestated allied bomber streams. The G.55II was already on the books with 5 x 20mm and could have been in production by 1944...
-
I'm not conceding anything because I haven't been arguing anything; you're simply not worth the effort. You can spew your simpleton logic and rewrite history all you like. You're nothing but a troll, and everyone can see it.
-
Keep in mind Viking is as biased pro-Luftwaffe as they come, and merrily trolls RAF threads.
An example of his bias is the ridiculous claim that the 2,000 Me410s had a greater impact on the war than the 7,000 Mosquitos while posting horribly erroneous views on Mosquito service. He claimed that 418 Squad's record was dismal and proof of how bad the Mosquito was.
In short, he is a troll of the first category.
-
Liar. Quote me if you can. I've never said those things.
-
Hmm..
Let it go dwn what comes to 109f and open new thread to pissin contest.
Seems to be personal for most eager posters;)
Nothing new or interesting, same old ...
-
Here Karnak, I'll even help you. Here's the thread in question:
http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=209700&perpage=25&pagenumber=1
Quote me ... liar.
-
Originally posted by -pjk--
Hmm..
Let it go dwn what comes to 109f and open new thread to pissin contest.
Seems to be personal for most eager posters;)
Nothing new or interesting, same old ...
Not personal for me. Just pointing him out for what he is, just one more in the series of "Anything German is superior" posters that we've had here. To his ilk, anybody who thinks that sometimes the German stuff was better and sometimes the Allied stuff was better is just biased in favor of the Allies.
-
You're such a liar Karnak (http://forums.desert-winds.org/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif)
-
Why all the hubbub about the 109? Anyone that knows anything about combat aircraft know that the P-38 was far superior in every aspect to any German aircraft. There was a reason why the Germans called the Lightning the Forked Tail Devil.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Viking
I'm not conceding anything because I haven't been arguing anything; you're simply not worth the effort. You can spew your simpleton logic and rewrite history all you like. You're nothing but a troll, and everyone can see it.
LOL....
The simple truth is that the luftwaffe itself realized 109 development had run its course by the end of 1942. They were totally hamstrung by the politics involving sir willie and the realities of semi skilled slave labor. If you want to see "simpleton" I'm sure they're is a mirror nearby.
Here you are "arguing" a point the luftwaffe conceded in 1942. :rofl :rofl
-
Originally posted by -pjk--
Hmm..
Let it go dwn what comes to 109f and open new thread to pissin contest.
Seems to be personal for most eager posters;)
Nothing new or interesting, same old ...
109F was an exceptionally good plane, my original response was simply that the original site linked went out of its way to down play GERMAN data that showed the 190A2 to be superior. It's not an unbiased overview but clearly an "affecionado" site to use someone elses term:)....
-
Not worth to lose any more time.. just want to post these (Strategy for defeat -Luftwaffe- Williamson Murray)
(http://img12.potato.com/loc620/th_80235_2007-10-02_233207_122_620lo.jpg) (http://img12.potato.com/img.php?image=80235_2007-10-02_233207_122_620lo.jpg)
(http://img125.potato.com/loc848/th_80240_2007-10-02_233222_122_848lo.jpg) (http://img125.potato.com/img.php?image=80240_2007-10-02_233222_122_848lo.jpg)
I thought everyone knows that you can't rely on claims to figure the other sides losses, but I was wrong :rolleyes:
Anyway, if it makes you happy, sure the Lw lost a thousand planes over Kuban..
-
The fact that the 109 scored more aircraft kills in WWII then any other fighter brings out a special kind of loathing.
Can you think of another WWII fighter that brings out so many attempts to discredit it?
-
Originally posted by Virage
The fact that the 109 scored more aircraft kills in WWII then any other fighter brings out a special kind of loathing.
Can you think of another WWII fighter that brings out so many attempts to discredit it?
:eek: :rolleyes:
Well that is to be expected since the Germans had only 2 fighter types and had a target rich enverment.
I have a good chuckle when the hob nailed booted crowd thinks the 109 was the absolute perfection of a fighter without any faults. No a/c is perfect, yet when these faults are pointed out they get their knickers all in a knot. :(
-
Originally posted by Meyer
Not worth to lose any more time.. just want to post these (Strategy for defeat -Luftwaffe- Williamson Murray)
[
Did you like that book? They have it at the library, but I can't decide if it's interesting enough to invest the time in.
Thanks.
-
Hi Toonces: I always have the same feeling with Williamson Murray's work: great data, not so great analysis. But judge it yourself :p
http://aupress.maxwell.af.mil/catalog/books/Murray_B12.htm
EDIT: this is the dnl link http://aupress.maxwell.af.mil/Books/Murray/Murray.pdf
-
Originally posted by humble
LOL....
The simple truth is that the luftwaffe itself realized 109 development had run its course by the end of 1942. They were totally hamstrung by the politics involving sir willie and the realities of semi skilled slave labor. If you want to see "simpleton" I'm sure they're is a mirror nearby.
Here you are "arguing" a point the luftwaffe conceded in 1942. :rofl :rofl
Not realizing that his troll has failed miserably, Humble continues to try to engage me in an off-topic debate. Sad that some people have such miserable lives that they have to troll this forum for kicks.
-
I have a good chuckle when the hob nailed booted crowd thinks the 109 was the absolute perfection of a fighter without any faults. No a/c is perfect, yet when these faults are pointed out they get their knickers all in a knot. :(
I don't get why this has to be all or nothing. Why do you suppose that people have to think the Bf-109 was God's gift to fighters in order to like it?
Do I think the Bf-109 was the best fighter of WWII, and simply owned in every way possible? No. Do I really like the plane? Yes.
What's wrong with that?
By the way, I know everyone's dissing the post-F model 109s, and I haven't studied this all out in terms of real-world WWII experience, but in Aces High II I really dig the Bf-109 K-4.
I hated the view at first and felt claustrophobic, but I set up good views and got used to it, and it's not that big a deal to me anymore. I learned fire discipline and good gunnery and now effectively use the 65-round 30mm cannon, against bombers or fighters. And you just gotta love the raw engine power the K-4 has.
Not suprisingly, my play style with the K-4 has evolved to a vertically-oriented one, and I don't mind going head to head with any plane in the game in a K-4.
I wish I had more historical material to read about good pilots and the K-4 and what they thought of it.
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
:eek: :rolleyes:
Well that is to be expected since the Germans had only 2 fighter types and had a target rich enverment.
I have a good chuckle when the hob nailed booted crowd thinks the 109 was the absolute perfection of a fighter without any faults. No a/c is perfect, yet when these faults are pointed out they get their knickers all in a knot. :(
Lets not forget how long it was in service.
Bronk
-
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=TFl8X4y9-94&mode=related&search=
I bet you have seen this already but here it is again. What is missing from this interview is Skip explaining the differences in in rudder authority between 109 and Mustang. He said that Mustang basically had to be flown directly towards the target to get a shot but in 109 you could easily just skid the plane and get that shot. Regrettably this is a shortened version but the original version is probably still around somewhere.
-C+
-
Originally posted by Bronk
Lets not forget how long it was in service.
Bronk
Yes that as well.
-
Humble:
"There are dozens of white papers from just about every major world powers military aviation historians on the causes surrounding the decline of the luftwaffe, why not read one or two. "
I did read some...books. Then I met some aces. Then I browswd the net. Then I read the forums. And just now, I looked at Meyer's graphs.
My conclusion still sits, the LW got busted by the W allied. Not on the eastern front.
-
Graphs are wondeful things aren't they....
Without any underlying documentation and out of context its not worth pursuing a dialog on but i'll certainly look at the source (book that is). It's certainly a better reality then "28" combat losses over 50 some days...
Using the "graphs" we have a total of 272 fighter losses in theater for april thru june. So if nothing else its relatively easy to conclude that the "28/45" number is obviously fiction.
Statistically the numbers dont add up in my mind for april/may. We know the germans were flying 1500+ sorties a day early and the russians were flying 1500+ sorties a day late (within that time frame). Those types of sorties levels are obviously not sustainable however this was a battle that had relatively limited lulls and air action was constant.
Now if we look at the numbers for the Med we see 247 fighter losses and a total of 572 for april alone. The main focus of fighting in the Med was obviously Tunisia and the convoy routes from Italy. I'm not aware that the german order of battle for the area could even field these numbers...let alons sustain those losses. II/JG 51 and II/JG 2 were the 1st luftwaffe units deployed to tunisia in response to torch. JG 27 had been moved back to Sicily after it got mauled at El Alamein leaving JG 77 as the only unit actually in N africa before the above mentioned arrivals. From my recollections March was actually the worst month for the luftwaffe with the fighting dragging on thru april and the last luftwaffe {JG 77} unit leaving for Sicily in May 1943.
Given the focus on the Kuban/Kursk battles in the East and the emerging threat of the 8th airforce in the west the claim that the luftwaffe (which I assume is the actual german not axis totals) lost more planes in the Med then in either the east or west during mid 1943 does not apprear factually sustainable under the german deployments. According to the charts the luftwaffe suffered just under 2000 combat losses from April to July in the Med?
Further the graph shows very low #'s for may/june in the east when we know for certain (historically) that the luftwaffe issued a general standdown order on June 7th due to heavy losses around Kuban. No question that Kursk was another blood bath. Historically the migration of luftwaffe fighter units west occured AFTER Kuban not before.
One of the real problems here is the unquestioned acceptance of relatively suspect source material. alot of whats been written for consumption is tailored to a specific audience. Here is a quote from a respected military historian on this issue "And, unfortunately, most of the monographic literature on the Russo-German air war reflects Germany’s point of view."
This comes from an interesting and unbiased "review" of a book on the subject at hand source (http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1974/may-jun/collins.html)
BTW, take a look at the footnotes....
Alot of the "real" analysis is available thru maxwell and other online sources. Its a much more even handed and analytical overview of a complex subject. not just a "historian" who wants to sell guys like Viking a book.
-
It's like watching a fly with no wings. It flaps and flaps its little stumps trying to fly ... but can't. While slightly amusing to watch I can't help feeling sorry for the poor little sod.
-
Here's a link to one of the articles above
The Russian Air Force in the Eyes of the German Commanders (http://www.maxwell.af.mil/au/afhra/numbered_studies/1012415.pdf)
Here is a link to the numbered articles available via maxwell...
Archives (http://www.maxwell.af.mil/au/afhra/numbered_studies/studies4.asp)
-
Originally posted by Viking
It's like watching a fly with no wings. It flaps and flaps its little stumps trying to fly ... but can't. While slightly amusing to watch I can't help feeling sorry for the poor little sod.
I'm still waiting for you to show me something....anything at all. An original source, an intellectual arguement, an actual point of debate. I'd call you "3rd rate" but I'd be insulting a lot of people in the middle of the bell shaped curve. As I stated the luftwaffe formally requested the cancellation of all production of the 109 in favor of the G.55 in 1943. They concluded that the G.55 and the C205 were clearly superior to the 109 and either would be an improvement. This is in direct conflict with your beliefs on the 109s "superiority".
I'm formally asking you again for your views and couterpoints on this specific subject. Since I'm "amusing" you should have no problem with a reasonable and articulate analysis of the luftwaffes position in this matter and a rational explanation for such an obvious error.
You wont respond becuase you cant. In fact you never respond to anyone's....
what I seem to get is snipets of info that support a specifc view. Often without contect or actual source. If a source is given its normally (but not always) from the "pulp fiction" section of aviation history.
My views ar just that, I'm certainly not omnipotent. They are however based on a fair amount of "research". Are they infallable of course not...but I'm right awhole lot more often then I'm wrong. Lets look at your whine on the 109 comments earlier...
I stated the 109 had a technological advantage with regard to forced fuel flow under neg G's. I also stated that the 109 was the 1st fighter designed from the protoype to field a mixed armorment backage of cannon & machineguns. given the relative overall performance (even) vs the spit I these two points make the 109 a significantly better plane IMO. you ignore the factual merits and attack a "typo". This is typical of someone with limited abilities who has to look for a way to discredit a source since you cant actually handle an intellectual debate.
So...we're back to the real point.
You are a proponent of the 109, you constantly champion the plane agaisnt all comers. The fact that the luftwaffe itself lost faith in the 109 and reached a point where it felt it had to find an alternative in late 1942 (actual trials were conducted in early 43) directly contradicts every position you have on the 109. So.........?
-
Now what this has done is raise some questions (for me) regarding the air war in the med in 1943. I've always viewed it as a bit of a sideshow to the "big wars". I'm unaware of any luftwaffe deployments on par with the east/west yet according to the graph the luftwaffe lost more planes in the Med then they did in either the east or west over the 1st 9 months of 1943.
If we look at the 1st 9 months of 1943 (recognizing that the germans did in fact move many units west) we see the following...
3,471 total losses in the MTO
3,300 total losses in the east
3,166 total losses in the west
At this point I dont know how accurate those numbers are (both graphs) but even so its alot of losses for the MTO (even if alot was transport/cargo)
-
Wiki article on the G.55, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_G.55#German_interest
-
Originally posted by humble
Graphs are wondeful things aren't they....
Without any underlying documentation and out of context its not worth pursuing a dialog on but i'll certainly look at the source (book that is). It's certainly a better reality then "28" combat losses over 50 some days...
Using the "graphs" we have a total of 272 fighter losses in theater for april thru june. So if nothing else its relatively easy to conclude that the "28/45" number is obviously fiction.
Kuban was not the entire east front.. one would think that such thing is obvious....
Now if we look at the numbers for the Med we see 247 fighter losses and a total of 572 for april alone The main focus of fighting in the Med was obviously Tunisia and the convoy routes from Italy.
Wrong, all aircraft, not just fighters
According to the charts the luftwaffe suffered just under 2000 combat losses from April to July in the Med?
Total losses, not just combat
.
Without any underlying documentation and out of context
You already have that, the documentation and the context.. "archival source: BA-MA: Gen.Qu.Mstr. 6. Abt.;'Flugzeugverluste und Unfalle bei fliegenden Verbande" (3.4-2.7.1943) Rl 2 III/1188-1190.", remember?
This should be regard as the ultimate proof.
-
So 6387 of LW losses against the western allieds against 3300 in the east.
From your numbers Humble in the months you cut out.
In that period BTW there were transfers from the east towards the west/med. That goes all the way back to Stalingrad, where the supply lines were transporters, and due to the happenings in N-Africa were shipped away from Stalingrad in the very most crucial point.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Humble:
"There are dozens of white papers from just about every major world powers military aviation historians on the causes surrounding the decline of the luftwaffe, why not read one or two. "
I did read some...books. Then I met some aces. Then I browswd the net. Then I read the forums. And just now, I looked at Meyer's graphs.
My conclusion still sits, the LW got busted by the W allied. Not on the eastern front.
No question you can argue the point alot of different ways. As I've stated before I feel the reliance on the 109 was the biggest factor. If the "allies" had just relied on the spit/hurricane or spit/tiffie you'd have the same problems. The allies would have been unable to successfully prosocute a strategic airwar (or even a good tactical one) with just spitXIV/XVI and tempests in 1944. Just not enough "airtime" or payload for the job...especially in an escort or defensive role. In the ned it goes back to the qoute on the mustang....
"It's not the mustangs performance, its the fact it could do it over Berlin that made the difference".
Buried somewhere in all the archives at maxwell are a couple of very interesting reads on the luftwaffe and events in the east. Basically it looked at the cadre's that were moved west in 43 and forwarded the view that the leadership, training, morale issues that plaqued the performance of these units after the move (most of them were very soundly trounced) had origins in the east. Basically the view was that these units were to a degree combat ineffective before the move. Seperate from the loss of high profile aces the germans took a beating in "seasoned" pilots that were the backbone of the various units. The overall quality of "OJT" training in these units was already suffering immensely before they went west.
-
Meyer...
1st, I appreciate your response....
a) While kuban wasnt the entire russian front it was the focal point for a major german offensive. The luftwaffe flew 1500+ sorties on the 1st day alone. I dont feel its unreasonable to stipulate that the bulk of losses (on both sides) were in that area over the time period in question.
b) I gave both numbers...247 fighter and 572 total. Now JG 27 had been moved back to Sicily in 12/42. JG 77 was in Africa and a couple of other units were sent in early 1943. Again I'm unaware of actual luftwaffe units in the MTO that could absorb 272 losses (or even field that many fighters). Now its possible more units were actually in Italy then I'm aware of...but I dont recall allied bombing of Italy being heavy enough to force those kind of losses on the luftwaffe.
c) I recognize that, I think I had 28/45 listed...
d) Is that an initial list, a revised list or an audited "source". It's obviously incorrect on its face. As you noted a single unit claimed more 109's then it has as lost. No question that claim records are always overstated...but by what factor? Historically russian claim records are closer then german records (from 1943 on), primarily since the germans were outhumbered and retreating. If you look at the claims for th units I posted (and look at the underlying documentation) you'll find most if not all actually have engine plate #'s etc.
Now obviously not all planes involved were german (dont think any luftwaffe units still flew the 109E for example). When you actually read the wealth of information available now from the soviets its apparent that aside from some obvious "politically correct hyperbole" they are even handed pragmatic accounts of events. That doesnt make them factually correct but it lends overall credence as a good faith rendition of events from one sides perspective.
They also have alot of detail...so your willingness to simply discount a well researched articulate narrative that highlights both good and bad simply because a singular source of questionable value and obvious error says it wasnt so?
Viewing this from the other side, the germans claimed over 350 kills on a single day (late May{26th I believe}). Would I argue that number is high....sure. However you can't argue that the russians launched a major attack and suffered severe losses.
Now the flip would be that the 16th claimed more 109G's in april then your source states the germans lost. Disregarding the fact that all kill claims accepted were on the russian side {and that specific documentation exists} it would appear that a claim of 28 total combat losses over a period of almost 2 months is clearly incorrect. If we accepted the 272 # as correct (i'm questioning that both as a total and the "reporting" dates). We know all the "big guns" on both sides were there so assuming 65% was kuban related we have ~175 german losses.
-
Originally posted by humble
I'm still waiting for you to show me something....anything at all. An original source, an intellectual arguement....the luftwaffe formally requested the cancellation of all production of the 109 in favor of the G.55 in 1943..
Original source on this would be nice (and Wikipedia is not original source..)
-
Originally posted by TimRas
Original source on this would be nice (and Wikipedia is not original source..)
I didnt post that link, however factually its pretty accurate. I posted sources in an other thread you should be able to find. Again dont attack the source (underlying facts are easily documented)...deal with the issue...which is that the luftwaffe wanted the 109 replaced.
-
Originally posted by humble
I'm still waiting for you to show me something....anything at all. An original source, an intellectual arguement..
...didnt post that link, however factually its pretty accurate. I posted sources in an other thread you should be able to find..
OK, no intellellectual and honest argument from you, buh, bye.
-
Originally posted by Angus
So 6387 of LW losses against the western allieds against 3300 in the east.
From your numbers Humble in the months you cut out.
In that period BTW there were transfers from the east towards the west/med. That goes all the way back to Stalingrad, where the supply lines were transporters, and due to the happenings in N-Africa were shipped away from Stalingrad in the very most crucial point.
No question units were moved...again the arguements arent all numbers based. If you look at just one unit (JG 77) they had over 2000 kills just from I/JG 77 and II/JG 77.
But if you look at those numbers they dont make sense. JG 77 was the only fighter unit in N Africa (from what I can find) by 23/april. The main german offensive in 1943 was in Feb. The germans flew a tremendous number of sorties in support of axis attacks at Kasserine. By April the german were in full retreat and evacuating N Africa. Most units had been moved and the logistics flow had slowed. Significantly more combat took place in Late Feb thru March then did in April.
Again the lack of underlying source material makes it tough to examine. At this point i'd say you have some "lag"...the MTO "spike" for april is actually for losses incurred earlier but not "entered in the system" till later. so from a book keeping point they are april...but they occured earlier. This would also help explain the discrepancy in the Kuban timeframe. The "spike" for Kursk actually being numbers from earlier. No way the losses at kursk over "3 days" came close to the losses (on either side) at Kuban.
I'd speculate we have a "date of record" logged on the recieving end....not the actual date of loss....
If we look at the unit histories it would seem to support this "lag". JG 27 was rotated to Sicily in 12/42. Other units were rotated in to support the Kasserine offensive but only stayed for a few months. Most german claims for victories were during this time frame (and you would assume corresponding losses). By april these units had been or were being withdrawn from combat and have zero or significantly fewer claims/sorties.
The historically documented facts on unit histories and losses just don't support the time line in the MTO (not questioning the raw numbers just the reporting).
-
Originally posted by TimRas
OK, no intellellectual and honest argument from you, buh, bye.
Yawn....
So your vikings ghost account or just a voice from the peanut gallery?
So i'll ask you the question, if the 109 is such a superior plane why did the Luftwaffe formally ask for it to be phased out in favor of the G.55 which it felt was clearly superior?
-
Originally posted by humble
if the 109 is such a superior plane why did the Luftwaffe formally ask for it to be phased out in favor of the G.55 which it felt was clearly superior?
Luftwaffe never asked for 109 to be phased out in favor of G.55.
It's true however that Luftwaffe was interested in G.55 production.
-
Originally posted by 2bighorn
Luftwaffe never asked for 109 to be phased out in favor of G.55.
It's true however that Luftwaffe was interested in G.55 production.
No the luftwaffe formally asked for all 109 production to be stopped and for those factories to switch production the the g.55. This is simple historical fact...
The request was denied on the basis that the G.55 was a much more complex design and would take more then double the production hours per plane. In addition there were concerns specific to the complexity of assembly and the relatively unskilled production force available.
Again this is historical fact.
-
I couldnt find what I was looking for but here is another perspective more in line with the mainstream...
german attrition (http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1983/Mar-Apr/murray.htm)
Murray touches on some of the other arguement. Basically the luftwaffe was attrited beyond recovery in the East...however he focuses on the campiagn in the west as the back breaker. The other view is that this attrition at the "NCO" level degraded these units beyond repair while still in the east.
As a side note the records here correspond with the 572 med losses for april. Again I dont see those losses reflected in unit histories (where I can find them)...so I still think there is a lag in reporting since alot more activity occured in Feb/March then April...
-
Humble:
A tickeling thing for you to dip into is perhaps exactly the Axis transfer of aircraft from the eastern front to the med.
This began already in 1942. Operation Torch sucked aircraft out of the BBQ of Stalingrad. Then on and on. Torch, - the fall of Tunisia, then Sicily, and after that, the Italian campaign.
Anyway, I had always thought that the LW got mostly grinded up in Russia from the mid-war, and was amazed to look at their loss records etc compared to their losses to i.e. the RAF in N-Africa.
I have no doubts since I did indeed browse the LW loss records from microfilm in the IWM London. I was absolutely stunned that the LW seemed to be loosing aircraft on a bigger scale in Tunisia than at Stalingrad!!!
Then to put some dressing on this, I stumbled on consistent reports of 190's in the Tunisian campaign (190's as mostly being considered a more dangerous opponent than the 109 by RAF pilots). I got into hot debates on the reliability on this. Then the second dressing, - a little mystery that discredits LW sources. A humble Stuka that was fished out of the Med recently and is now in a museum at Sinsheim Germany. The aircraft is quite intact, It is in desert camo, it belonged to Stg77 as well as I remember, and is registered in STALINGRAD.
So, according to the German documents it should have been in Stalingrad, there are no docs of it's loss, and it was fished out of the med wearing desert camo.
It points directly at that:
1: LW loss records were and are yet not complete
2: LW may have sent (and lost) nore aircraft to the med than they registeed.
-
Originally posted by humble
No the luftwaffe formally asked for all 109 production to be stopped and for those factories to switch production the the g.55. Instead of trying to document my delusional view I hide behind the lie: "This is simple historical fact...", like I always do.
Keep trolling Humble. It's very entertaining! :aok
-
Do not omit the German politics at the time. Willy Messerscmitt was being tossed around a bit. You had strong political forces working for and against camps, - the Willie camp, the Tank (190) camp, the Heinkel camp, and then the Junker's camp (Nazi-bossing destroyed Hugo Junkers, - it was Milch) etc.
Politics.... Do you see political influences in the fighter aircraft selected today????
-
Originally posted by Angus
Then the second dressing, - a little mystery that discredits LW sources. A humble Stuka that was fished out of the Med recently and is now in a museum at Sinsheim Germany. The aircraft is quite intact, It is in desert camo, it belonged to Stg77 as well as I remember, and is registered in STALINGRAD.
So, according to the German documents it should have been in Stalingrad, there are no docs of it's loss, and it was fished out of the med wearing desert camo.
It points directly at that:
1: LW loss records were and are yet not complete
2: LW may have sent (and lost) nore aircraft to the med than they registeed.
Quite intact seems a little optimistic :)
(http://i2.flugzeugbilder.de/59/91/1173717066.jpg)
And there´s nothing misterious about that Stuka, yes it belonged to 4./StG 77 and fought in Russia, then was transferred to an Ergänzungskampfstaffel in France, remember that it was a B version, quite old by 1944. Was lost in august 16 1944 in the mediterranean attacking ships. It was rescued, partially, from 60 m deep in St Tropez.
So don´t jump too early to conclusions :)
-
I wouldn't read too much into the so-called desert camo on the Ju87 Angus.
Ju87Bs were being used as nocturnal bombers and had a similar scheme if viewed in black and white. Never mind the 60 years under water.
Oh yes, some parts of the SU are quite desert like.
-
Meyer:
That is new to me! When I saw that aircraft at Sinsheim some few years back there was a text there claiming that is was not clear why it was in the med since LW records showed it to be from Sth77 supposedly in Stalingrad.
I surfed the net and found just that. I even posted it on this forum!
At the time I was looking into the reported sights of 190's in the med (at the fall of Tunis), and got involved in hot debates with Crumpp about it.
Anyway, my theory was that in the falling of Tunisia aircraft were being tossed from the eastern front (as they indeed were), as replacements and/or additions in that particular case of emegency (evac and escort) so I guess "Ergänzungskampfstaffel" is quite a good word. My point on that Stuka was fact vs available document, - i.e. although the information available at the time pointed out that it should have been in Stalingrad, - well the fact still remained that it was fished out of the med.
About the 190's I never completely found out. There were several sightings and engagements, but I did not find a claim on them. The allied pilots reporting them were veterans BTW, and I immediately had 3-4 cases. By best bet was that either they were also "Ergänzung" from the easter front, from Italy, or simply jabos quickly modded as much as possible and pressed into escort uses. I recall Crumpp being very stiff about this, claiming they were missighted and being Italian RE's.
Anyway, nice to have things reveiled. TY Meyer.
And Milo, - It did indeed look as if in desert colour. More so than on the picture. And pretty intact when you think what it went through ;)
Anyway, bottom line, sent from the East to see it's fate in the med.
-
BF 109 first flew before any other major fighter type of the war which could, during the war, over perform it in any performance category that actually mattered. There are also many fighter types that flew after it that could never match its performance, P-40, F4F and the Hurricane series for example.
For a fighter that was the first one to fly* from its generation in time when military aviation developed in a mind boggling rate and yet remained competitive throughout the war.
Gloster Gladiator first flew in 1934 and was one of the last fighters of its generation. The first jet flew five years later and five more years from the first jet, worlds first jet fighter was in operational service. During a time like this one year is a long time of development.
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.
If such a decision would have been made it would have resulted in a operational and war economical catastrophe. To just switch several factories to produce a new fighter type would have been a mammoth task and taken many months out of the production. G.55 would have taken a lot more strategic material per plane and been slower to produce because of its construction, size and because of the way the undercarriage was laid out compared to the 109. G.55 has almost 5 square meters larger wing area than the 109 and around 570kg higher weight compared to a early production G-6. The end result would have been a fighter which would have been slower with worse climb rate than 109 when using the same engine. The only real operational advantage I can see would have the ability to carry those three cannons better. Development of the DB603 had its share of problems and I doubt they could have put G.56-standard fighter into production much earlier than 109K-4 production. Anyway...this is all ifs coulds and woulds. I know that for example Kurt Tank wanted to produce G.55 in Germany but I have never heard anything about totally replacing 109 production. It would have been a war economical suicide.
BF 109 was a very suitable fighter for the germans because of their very limited recourses compared to its enemies. It is very well known that roughly 2 109s could be built with the expense of one 190. BF 109 as a design also suffered greatly from the lack of resources. For example K-4 was already seen as aircraft with a mixed construction of wood and metals. The use of steel and wood made the planes heavier than they would have been if aluminum alloys would not have been replaced with these materials. If Germany would have had the same strategic resources as the allies did in the end of the war 109K-4 for example would have been a totally different fighter aircraft even if the basic design would have remained basically same.
The bottom line is that 109 managed to remain competitive throughout the war which many fighters that flew their first flights before the war could not do. In the end of the war it hardly was the best fighter aircraft because of many many reasons but its performance still remained close to the latest allied fighters. That's IMO a pretty remarkable achievement by a plane that was the first of its generation in a time when military aviation developed in quantum leaps.
*(I-16 can be argued to be the first one as well...but the operative fighters had an open cockpit.)
-
Excellent writeup Wmaker. I agree completely. :)
-
I saw that Stuka a few years ago. Recently scanned some old negs with that bird on it. Seems like they have changed the display a bit.
-
A Summary Of Humblisms from The Cloud-Cuckoo-Land:
Originally posted by humble
Actually the P-39 was the most feared russian plane on the eastern front...German units were often under orders to avoid combat with P-39 equipped units
Yet things had gotten so bad that the luftwaffe itself petitioned for all 109 production to cease in favor of the 190 and G.55 (and/or C 205). The simple reality is that the 109 had gone from a superior plane to a somewhat inferior one. The german losses at the Kuban bridgehead were never really replaced and the loss of so many seasoned pilots never overcome
The early 109 had mixed armorment and superior performance (neg G carb)...
Kuban was a meat grinder in whcih the luftwaffe lost over 1000 combat airplanes..
As a general rule russian claims were a bit stricter since they had similiar guidelines to the german in WW1 where you needed infantry confirmation for a kill....
No the Luftwaffe formally asked for all 109 production to be stopped and for those factories to switch production the the g.55. This is simple historical fact...
:D
-
Hehe, nice summary
109 carb....now what kind was that one?
:D
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.:rolleyes:
-
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.:rolleyes:
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...
-
most of the G.55 stuff you see on wiki, ubi etc originated here G.55 history (http://xoomer.alice.it/g55/G55his.htm#his3). 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.
-
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.
-
"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.
-
"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+
-
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 .
-
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
-
The people who did 'order' not to engage the P-39, also thought this:
(http://img153.potato.com/loc835/th_27150_1_122_835lo.jpg) (http://img153.potato.com/img.php?image=27150_1_122_835lo.jpg)
They appeared to be really impressed with the P-39
-
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.
-
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...
-
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 :rolleyes:
-
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.
-
That will leave only the wing for the numbers. ROC is after all a function of power and LIFT.
Hauling 20% more weight at the same ROC with less power does indeed point at a very good wing design.
BTW, British pilots reports give great respect to the Italian aircraft. The Italians were skilled flyers and their aircraft seemed to be highly maneuverable. They would often be more agressive than the LW, - which also means engaging into a fight from a worse position.
I have some points on some engagements etc. Can post if there is interest for the material.
Anyway, Meyer, since you easily wrapped up what once was a mystery about a Stuka, would you kindly lend me a hand in chasing one or two other mysteries?
(If they stay mysteries for as little time as the Stuka did, I'll be even merrier!)
And Milo, maybe up for some digging too?
-
Originally posted by Charge
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.
The claims will be allways a fuzzy subject. The losses are easier because even in the case of LW considerable amount of records survived. The loss records are fairly complete until end of 43, after that things get fuzzier. Note that despite fairly complete records up to year 43, it's still difficult to define when and where a plane was exactly lost because writing of happened often considerably later.
-
Meyer did you come across the, I believe was a RLM, report about 1.98ata on his site? In this report, it was questioned why go to 1.98 because the airframes were so badly constructed.
I left out selective in my other post.
Over at the Ubi forum he claimed the Spit cockpit was smaller than the 109 because the canopy was smaller.:rolleyes: Now that is one large leap. He even claimed the MK Is, IIs and early Vs did not have bulged canopies. Strange that Spitfire: The History has photos of pre-BoB Spits with bulged canopies. A mod issued 27-7-40. #283, is for bulged canopies.
As I said. ;) ;)
Angus, digging for what?
-
Digging for 2 things.
1: 190's in the Tunisian area 1942/43
2: LW loss records for 22nd of November 1942 in the med. That would actually be 15th to 30th to allow some margin. I am looking for a 109.
-
Get the book Fw190 in North Africa Angus.
http://www.amazon.com/Focke-Wulf-Fw-190-North-Africa/dp/1903223458
There is another book by Shores (forget the name) but it costs a fortune that lists the losses in the Med for both sides.
-
Is that one by Shores and Ring?
If that is the one, it's hard to catch.
-
Originally posted by Angus
That will leave only the wing for the numbers. ROC is after all a function of power and LIFT.
Hauling 20% more weight at the same ROC with less power does indeed point at a very good wing design.
I don't know much about aerodynamics, but I think that horse has been beaten to death by the experts.. and their position is that ROC is not a function of lift, but thrust and weight
check this thread (http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=150423&perpage=25&highlight=climb%20power%20lift&pagenumber=1)
Since both fighters have the same propeller, and the Mtt enjoys an 100ps and -20% weight advantage, the drag should be really similar (the report states an small edge in speed for the 109), all points out to that the 109 should have a higher ROC. Perhaps the answer is that they were probably climbing at an speed closer to the best climb for the G55.. just speculating here
Originally posted by Angus
Anyway, Meyer, since you easily wrapped up what once was a mystery about a Stuka, would you kindly lend me a hand in chasing one or two other mysteries?
(If they stay mysteries for as little time as the Stuka did, I'll be even merrier!)
And Milo, maybe up for some digging too?
Sorry can't help you there... but regarding specific Lw losses you should ask in the TOCH board (http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/forumdisplay.php?f=8), there's a good chance that somebody knows that.
I support Milo's advice for the 190 book, but what exactly are you looking for?
-
Originally posted by gripen
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.
That's true, but the Lw already had a very good DB603 powered potential fighter: the 190.
-
Originally posted by Meyer
That's true, but the Lw already had a very good DB603 powered potential fighter: the 190.
The fate of the DB 603 powered Fw 190s gives some idea how realistic were the plans to produce the DB 603 powered Fiats. However, it does not change the fact that they were seriously considering the production of these.
The change to the desired larger airframe than the Bf 109 should had been done much earlier, say 1942, before the production of the Bf 109G expanded and tied the needed resources. The developement of the engines was just too slow and other planned replacements (like Me 309 etc.) were more or less failures.
-
"I support Milo's advice for the 190 book, but what exactly are you looking for?"
I am looking for the fights between the RAF and the LW at the fall of Tunisia. The LW involved the bulk of their transport capacity for the evacuation, and never recovered from them.
There were some reports of scruffles between RAF fighters and 190's, which also were reported to be mixed with 109's.
The RAF pilots involved were of some renown, such as Neville Duke, Duncan Smith, Evan Mackie and some time before Anthony Bartley and Tony Jonsson. All familiar enough with the 190 to be able to recognize one.
However, Crumpp was firm about no 190's being in the area at the time, - the only ones possible being jabos. He claimed that those sightings were probably Re's from the Italian.
I had my doubts, since LW records were not complete, and stumbled across that Stuka case at the same time. After all, it was war, and lots of crazy things going on, and even today various facts are popping up.
-
Originally posted by Meyer
I don't know much about aerodynamics, but I think that horse has been beaten to death by the experts.. and their position is that ROC is not a function of lift, but thrust and weight
check this thread (http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=150423&perpage=25&highlight=climb%20power%20lift&pagenumber=1)
Since both fighters have the same propeller, and the Mtt enjoys an 100ps and -20% weight advantage, the drag should be really similar (the report states an small edge in speed for the 109), all points out to that the 109 should have a higher ROC. Perhaps the answer is that they were probably climbing at an speed closer to the best climb for the G55.. just speculating here
Sorry can't help you there... but regarding specific Lw losses you should ask in the TOCH board (http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/forumdisplay.php?f=8), there's a good chance that somebody knows that.
I support Milo's advice for the 190 book, but what exactly are you looking for?
Oh, be careful in the lift department there, since there is two basic kinds of drag.
And BTW, lift is indeed quite a factor in ROC, but I forgot to mention the weight.
So, something 20% heavier with less power climbing at the same rate will point at either wing surface and/or airfoil.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Oh, be careful in the lift department there, since there is two basic kinds of drag.
Well, since the AoA during a sustained climb, is pretty much the same as in level flight, I don't think the drag would be much different in both situations, depending of course of the speed
And BTW, lift is indeed quite a factor in ROC, but I forgot to mention the weight.
With all due respect, I think I'm gonna stay with Hitech and Badboy's opinions:
Lift does not effect climb rate, only power. Basicly in any normal climb the lift generated = the weight of the air plane (btw is only close the amout of lift goes down the steaper you climb).
Adding more lift makes the plane loop.
It is the power that is pulling you up the hill. Think of lift like the tires of your car. They holds the car up just like lift does. But it is the engine that pulles it up the hill.
HiTech
I would like to point out that Hitech has already posted a perfectly correct response… Aircraft climb with their engines not their wings! Climb angle depends on specific excess thrust and climb rate on specific excess power. The lift only influences the speed at which it all happens
-
LOL, we're not getting each other on this one. Anyway, A.o.A. is higher in climb. And the price to pay there is induced drag, which is referred to as LIFT induced drag. The other one, being parasite drag, which will start weighting more with increased speed.
Most of our WW2 favourites have the best ROC at speed WAY lower than top speed.
Now if you start reducing their wings with the same power, eventually they won't fly at all. Same happens if you weight them up enough.
What was the answer to increase ceiling on the same power? To lower wingloading and/or Spanloading. You see, you can have different lift with the same power....and weight.
-
Originally posted by Angus
"I support Milo's advice for the 190 book, but what exactly are you looking for?"
I am looking for the fights between the RAF and the LW at the fall of Tunisia. The LW involved the bulk of their transport capacity for the evacuation, and never recovered from them.
There were some reports of scruffles between RAF fighters and 190's, which also were reported to be mixed with 109's.
The RAF pilots involved were of some renown, such as Neville Duke, Duncan Smith, Evan Mackie and some time before Anthony Bartley and Tony Jonsson. All familiar enough with the 190 to be able to recognize one.
However, Crumpp was firm about no 190's being in the area at the time, - the only ones possible being jabos. He claimed that those sightings were probably Re's from the Italian.
I had my doubts, since LW records were not complete, and stumbled across that Stuka case at the same time. After all, it was war, and lots of crazy things going on, and even today various facts are popping up.
II/JG2 got to Tunis in response to Operation Torch late in November 42. It was the first unit to have 190s there. 1st FG 38s ran into them in December 42. They were based at Biskra.
What 109 are you looking for Angus? Looking through Shores book "Fighters over the Desert" I'm seeing claims of 109s during that time frame. JG77 or 27
-
Dan, III./ZG2 was transferred to Sidi Ahmed from Sicily Nov 15 1942. On Nov 25 it made its 1st claim, said to be a Spitfire, as did JG 2 with 2 Spitfires.
III./ZG also lost 2 Fw190 in a bombing raid on Nov 17. III./ZG lots several more (~12) in the following days but JG2 lost a 190 on Nov 26 at the same base.
There was also possibly Ekdo 19 which operated A-3s from Bengahzi in Nov 42.
Are you sure about the JG2 base?
-
Originally posted by Meyer
The people who did 'order' not to engage the P-39, also thought this:
(http://img153.potato.com/loc835/th_27150_1_122_835lo.jpg) (http://img153.potato.com/img.php?image=27150_1_122_835lo.jpg)
They appeared to be really impressed with the P-39
Did Galland ever encounter a P-39? Considering 1/2 the top 10 soviet aces flew the P-39 long after they had "political" pressure to switch to the la-5N or other soviet built planes its record speaks for itself. The p-39 "order" is documented multiple places (just like the G.55 stuff). If we look at the two american pilots most familiar with the P-39 (Bob Hoover & Chuck Yeager) both thought it was an exceptional plane. Further the british combat tests showed the P-39 as clearly superior to the 109 at mid to lower alts. Requiring only 720 degrees to completely circle the 109 while superior in the dive and zoom (but inferior in sustained climb)...
Combine that with the documented reality that P-39 deliveries and supply were Stalins greatest concern/demand in the "big 3" meeting of that time period.
This also goes back to the "yak" arguement. i'm only aware of one guards unit flying the yak during the time frame in question. If we look at the soviet units most involved as "air supremacy" units the best known were flying the P-39. These units also had the best pilots by and large. If we look at historical facts the brunt of the heaviest fighting involved the P-39 equipped VVS units. Regardless of what actual german losses were its pretty clear that the guards units inflicted a significantly disproportionate share. Given the disparity in experience and training (seperate from anyones thoughts on speific plane strength andweakness) its logical that the germans (facing a battle of attrition for the 1st time) would seek to limit losses vs the most experienced VVS units (unless engagement was absolutely required). We see this here all the time in FSO type scenarios. If you can accomplish your mission and get out your less likely to engage the enemy if you know its a group like the 56th if you can avoid it. Simply discretion being the better part of valor. I'm unaware of any yak equipped unit in middle 1943 that would force that kind of respect.
In addition if you go back and look at the actual combat records of the P-39 at port morseby it performed better then the spits did under very unfavorable circumdstances...
-
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.:rolleyes:
No, you're wrong. Only the pre-production 109B-0's (3 flew operationally in Spain) and the first 30 production 109B-1's had the Jumo 210D with carburettor. After the 30 first production planes the engine was changed to the Jumo 210G which was fuel injected and fitted with a variable-pitch Hamilton Standard propeller. This was in July 1937. With the exception of prototype aircraft all subsequent German produced 109's had fuel injected engines (Jumo 210G (109B-1), 210Ga (late 109B-2, all 109C and 109D). The Jumo 210D does not have a negative-G capable carburettor. The 109D was an interim version with many of the innovations of the 109E, but powered by the available Jumo 210Ga engines due to development/production delays of the DB 601 engine. Messerschmitt really wanted the DB 600 (carburettor) engine instead, but priority was given to the bombers and the Bf 110 at this time (1938). The first 109E's were delivered to the Luftwaffe in early 1939 and flew with the DB 601A-1 fuel injected engine fitted with a three-bladed variable-pitch propeller.
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Dan, III./ZG2 was transferred to Sidi Ahmed from Sicily Nov 15 1942. On Nov 25 it made its 1st claim, said to be a Spitfire, as did JG 2 with 2 Spitfires.
III./ZG also lost 2 Fw190 in a bombing raid on Nov 17. III./ZG lots several more (~12) in the following days but JG2 lost a 190 on Nov 26 at the same base.
There was also possibly Ekdo 19 which operated A-3s from Bengahzi in Nov 42.
Are you sure about the JG2 base?
No on the base :)
Comment in the 1st FG history was they downed 2 190s flying out of Biskra. I was typing fast and didn't double check that part :)
-
As for the "Luftwaffe wanting G55's instead of 109's" the documented tests done with German an Italian fighters paints a different picture.
http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/Tactical_trials/109G-4_Guidonia/109G-4_vergl_Estelle-Guidonia_de.html
If my German serves me right the comments on the G55 are (and i paraphrase):
Torque forces are high. The rudder effectiveness could have been better. Roll rate is somewhat poorer than 109G. Turns very good. Unstable gun platform. It could not be determined if the plane tended to stall to a particular side. Stall characteristics similar to Spitfire. Good visibility to the sides and rear. Not suited to carry external ordnance due to position of radiator and undercarriage.
Combat test 109G-4 vs. Fiat G55:
Under 2000m the G55 climbed slightly better on climb-power, the 109G-4 then overtook the G55. Above 5000m the G55 was again slightly better in climb on climb-power. 109G-4 is somewhat faster in level flight. G55 turns somewhat better than 109G-4. Both planes were considered equally fast in a dive.
Notes: This was an early G55 with reduced armament. The take-off weight was 3700 kg. Both planes were powered by the DB 605.
-
Originally posted by humble
Did Galland ever encounter a P-39?
Probably not, but since he was the 'General der Jagdflieger' IMO his opinion is the reflect of most Lw pilots
. The p-39 "order" is documented multiple places (just like the G.55 stuff).
I see..just like the G.55 stuff, so nowhere
Further the british combat tests showed the P-39 as clearly superior to the 109 at mid to lower alts. Requiring only 720 degrees to completely circle the 109 while superior in the dive and zoom (but inferior in sustained climb)...
[/b]
What test?
In addition if you go back and look at the actual combat records of the P-39 at port morseby it performed better then the spits did under very unfavorable circumdstances...
yeah well... if you look at the fight in the mediterranean you get another picture.
Regarding the "success" of the P-39, in the east front, here is some food for thought:
Combat losses of P-39s in the VVS-KA:
1942: 49
1943: 305
1944: 486
1945: 190
(+124 in the VVS-VMF)
Combat losses of the Jagdverbände in the east front:
1942 707
1943 1,135
1944 972
-
Originally posted by Angus
LOL, we're not getting each other on this one. Anyway, A.o.A. is higher in climb. And the price to pay there is induced drag, which is referred to as LIFT induced drag. The other one, being parasite drag, which will start weighting more with increased speed.
Most of our WW2 favourites have the best ROC at speed WAY lower than top speed.
Yers yes I know that... am not that ignorant in the subject ;)
And, are you sure about the change of AoA in a climb?:
Angle of Attack in a Climb
Lift in a climb is slightly less than weight. But, for the small climb angles of most aircraft, lift is almost equal to weight.
Therefore, the angle of attack required in a climb or descent will be the same as the angle of attack required in level flight.
From here (http://selair.selkirk.bc.ca/aerodynamics1/Performance/climb.html)
-
Better take up what engine was used in what 109 (C and D) with Radinger and Schick then, for that is what they state Viking.
R&S have more credibility than you do and what they stated is backed up by another reference.
-
Dan, maybe the Americans used a different place name for I can't find Biskra in the 190 book.
Fw190 losses, 8 Nov > 13 May 1943
<5% - 110
5 > 30% - 30
31 > 60% - 70
61 > 100% - 121
Over 61% damage is considered a write-off. Not all were combat losses.
Pilot losses, 8 Nov > 13 May 1943
KIA - 36
MIA/POW - 5
WIA - 28
-
If they state that Messerschmitt put a two year old engine with less hp than the Jumo 210G engine already powering the 109B and C ... then I suggest you take their claim with a grain of salt.
* Jumo 210 A (1934)
Vergasermotor, Startleistung um 600 PS
* Jumo 210 B/C (1935)
Vergasermotor, Startleistung 470 kW / 640 PS bei 2.700 U/min
* Jumo 210 D/E (1936)
Vergasermotor, Startleistung 507 kW / 680 PS bei 2.700 U/min
* Jumo 210 Da/Ea
Wie Jumo 210 D, aber mit Zweiganglader für bessere Höhenleistung
* Jumo 210G (1937)
Jumo 210D mit direkter Benzineinspritzung, Startleistung 537 kW / 730 PS bei 2.700 U/min
* Jumo 210 Ga
Jumo 210 G mit Zweiganglader für bessere Höhenleistung
-
Are you calling R&S liars viking?
The spec sheet in the book shows no appreciable difference in top speed, well within the acceptance % for new a/c. RoC suffered somewhat in the 109D.
-
I've lost the track, no idea what's the subject anymore... nevermind :)
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
II/JG2 got to Tunis in response to Operation Torch late in November 42. It was the first unit to have 190s there. 1st FG 38s ran into them in December 42. They were based at Biskra.
What 109 are you looking for Angus? Looking through Shores book "Fighters over the Desert" I'm seeing claims of 109s during that time frame. JG77 or 27
Looking for a 109, probably a G downed at Bone, registered (take that with a grain of salt since the RAF intelligence officer was not there), date 22.nd of November 1942. Pilot and aircraft captured. Pilot POW.
Shores has this listed in his book Aces High.
Allied pilot was my old friend Tony Jonsson of 111 sqn RAF. (Spit Vb trop)
Never found a match. But there are many LW losses that I have not found anyway. MIA that need a reference perhaps?
And Meyer:
"Combat losses of the Jagdverbände in the east front:
1942 707
1943 1,135
1944 972"
TY, cool to have those. Amazingly low numbers though.
-
Angus, check out this link, http://jg26.vze.com/
See 'Luftwaffe Aircraft Losses By Theatre September 1943 - October 1944'
-
Too late for Torch losses. But good to have the link, nice website. :aok
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Are you calling R&S liars viking?
No. I'm calling them human.
-
Ehm, Viking, - are you well linked in the 109 loss department?
It's sad, there is lots of research being done in many places. There are some findings, but when most things are probably about to get tracked and settled, everybody involved from the times of WW2 will be dead.
:(
-
No, sorry. Except for the Norwegian sites I gave you earlier I have no interest in LW losses.
This list looks promising though:
http://luftwafferesearcher.homestead.com/Online.html
I hope it is of some help. :)
-
That one looks interesting allright.
Chasing hitory....a lot of fun ;)
TY
-
I didn't read the whole thread, but I've noticed a reference to the G.55 Wiki page. Being the one who wrote most of that page, I can tell you that the part regarding German interest is based on the books reported at the end of the page (specifically, for what I wrote, Arena and Vergnano-Alegi).
As for the Luftwaffe requesting to phase out the 109, I'd stick with what 2BigHorn said: the RLM was very interested in producing the 55. You may say there's no difference with Luftwaffe or that it is just a subtle distinction, but that is what history says... and nothing is said about the 109.
About the page regarding Guidonia tests: is it possible to have a translation? And, btw, Viking:
"Turns very good. ... Stall characteristics similar to Spitfire."
Then it says that it climbed better than the 109 for most part of their envelope and turned better than it.... I'd kill to have a plane like that!
-
Originally posted by Gianlupo
"Turns very good. ... Stall characteristics similar to Spitfire."
Then it says that it climbed better than the 109 for most part of their envelope and turned better than it.... I'd kill to have a plane like that!
Well it says that from SL to 2km the G55 was a little better, then from 2m to 5km the 109 gains advantage, and then the G55 again is somewhat better.. anyway the differences are say to be really small.
And yes the G55 was a little superior in "kurvenflug", but also a little slower.And as Viking said, roll rate was worse than the 109.
I didn't read the whole thread, but I've noticed a reference to the G.55 Wiki page. Being the one who wrote most of that page, I can tell you that the part regarding German interest is based on the books reported at the end of the page (specifically, for what I wrote, Arena and Vergnano-Alegi).
As for the Luftwaffe requesting to phase out the 109, I'd stick with what 2BigHorn said: the RLM was very interested in producing the 55. You may say there's no difference with Luftwaffe or that it is just a subtle distinction, but that is what history says... and nothing is said about the 109.
Thanks, that makes a lot of sense. A question, do you know if the Lw was interested in produce the G55 in Italy or Germany?
-
Originally posted by Angus
Looking for a 109, probably a G downed at Bone, registered (take that with a grain of salt since the RAF intelligence officer was not there), date 22.nd of November 1942. Pilot and aircraft captured. Pilot POW.
Shores has this listed in his book Aces High.
Allied pilot was my old friend Tony Jonsson of 111 sqn RAF. (Spit Vb trop)
Never found a match. But there are many LW losses that I have not found anyway. MIA that need a reference perhaps?
Nothing mentioned in Fighters over the Desert during any of the November dated listings. No mention of 111 squadron as well.
Strange. That's Shores work too
-
On the injected Jumo engine.
Olivier Lefevre (Butch2K), noted 109 expert:
There were issues with the injector on the Jumo G and the engine severely underperformed.
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
Nothing mentioned in Fighters over the Desert during any of the November dated listings. No mention of 111 squadron as well.
Strange. That's Shores work too
Indeed! Anyway, the riddle stands.
I have even browsed LW archives at the IWM, but they were very tatty. I checked the squadron's ops book at the PRO, but it was incomplete due to the absence of the 111 sqn "spy", - to his great frustration as he put it.
My best guess is a wrong date, - things were really hectic at the time and place, and if I recall right I spotted some events that did not match to the data I had. (I have the sqn leaders autobiography as well, and a lot of it is in a diary form)
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
On the injected Jumo engine.
Olivier Lefevre (Butch2K), noted 109 expert:
There were issues with the injector on the Jumo G and the engine severely underperformed.
Ok, that might be a good reason to revert to the D. Does Butch have any sources for this? And when is his book coming out?
-
Originally posted by Meyer
Well it says that from SL to 2km the G55 was a little better, then from 2m to 5km the 109 gains advantage, and then the G55 again is somewhat better.. anyway the differences are say to be really small.
And yes the G55 was a little superior in "kurvenflug", but also a little slower.And as Viking said, roll rate was worse than the 109.
Thanks, that makes a lot of sense. A question, do you know if the Lw was interested in produce the G55 in Italy or Germany?
The intention was to simplify the construction of the G.55 and to have both German and Italian factories to produce it. In fact, delegations of Italian designers were sent in Germany to review the design of the 55 airframe under the light of the more modern german construction techniques and to rationalize the Italian production system.
Btw, regarding the Centauro performance, what I wrote between quotes was what really mattered... think about it: a plane who climbs like a 109, dives like a 109, but turns better and has stall characteristics similar to a Spitfire! With 3 20mm and 2 12,7mm! Heck, even with 1 single 20 and 4 12,7 it would be a dream of a mid-war fighter! :)
-
Originally posted by humble
The p-39 "order" is documented multiple places..
Just show one.
Originally posted by humble
Further the british combat tests showed the P-39 as clearly superior to the 109 at mid to lower alts.
The British rejected the P-39 eventually (unlike the P-40) and sent them "back to sender" or to Russia.
-
Originally posted by Gianlupo
The intention was to simplify the construction of the G.55 and to have both German and Italian factories to produce it. In fact, delegations of Italian designers were sent in Germany to review the design of the 55 airframe under the light of the more modern german construction techniques and to rationalize the Italian production system.
Thanks for the info
... think about it: a plane who climbs like a 109, dives like a 109, but turns better and has stall characteristics similar to a Spitfire! With 3 20mm and 2 12,7mm! Heck, even with 1 single 20 and 4 12,7 it would be a dream of a mid-war fighter! :)
[/b]
Yes that sounds very nice, but it could also be put in this way: a plane that climbs to 8000m like a 190, turns worse and is also slower than the Fw :D
Also interesting is the fact that the visibility was regarded inferior to both german fighters..
But don't get me wrong, I think it was a very good fighter. But it doesn't offer substantial advantages over the 109/190.
-
Why was the G55 produced in so few numbers? Too close to the Italian surrender?
-
Originally posted by Viking
Why was the G55 produced in so few numbers? Too close to the Italian surrender?
Yes. Only some tens were built before the Armistice; after it, production went on in North Italy but at very slow pace.
EDIT:
Originally posted by Meyer
Yes that sounds very nice, but it could also be put in this way: a plane that climbs to 8000m like a 190, turns worse and is also slower than the Fw :D
Rolls worse, maybe? ;)
Also interesting is the fact that the visibility was regarded inferior to both german fighters..
Where does it say this? Trusting Viking's translation (I don't know German! :p): "Good visibility to the sides and rear."
-
Originally posted by Gianlupo
Rolls worse, maybe? ;)
[/b]
Yes that too :) The report states that while the G55 is better than the 109 in "kurven" fight, it is worse than the 190. But, as I said before, that could mean a different kind of turnfight as we think
Where does it say this? Trusting Viking's translation (I don't know German! :p): "Good visibility to the sides and rear." [/B]
Here: Die Sichtverhältnisse sind etwas
schlechter als bei der Bf 109 G 4 und der Fw 190 A 5.
Viking quoted another part, where it says that the forward view is limited, but to the sides and rear is good.
I'm not that good in german either, but with an online translator you can get an idea: http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/trurl_pagecontent?lp=de_en&url=http%3A%2F%2Fkurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com%2FTactical_trials%2F109G-4_Guidonia%2F109G-4_vergl_Estelle-Guidonia_de.html
-
Thanks! :)
Originally posted by Meyer
The report states that while the G55 is better than the 109 in "kurven" fight, it is worse than the 190. But, as I said before, that could mean a different kind of turnfight as we think
Yep, it should be a different kind of turnfight... the 190 turns worse than a 109... at least, that's the sensation I get in this game! :D
EDIT: yes, it has to be some different kind of turnfight... the 55 has a much lighter wingloading than the 190. Btw... the translation says: "In turning-flight combat the airplanes were equivalent." (G.55 vs FW 190) I'm afraid you looked at the 205/190 comparison. ;)
-
Originally posted by Gianlupo
EDIT: yes, it has to be some different kind of turnfight... the 55 has a much lighter wingloading than the 190. Btw... the translation says: "In turning-flight combat the airplanes were equivalent." (G.55 vs FW 190) I'm afraid you looked at the 205/190 comparison. ;)
Oops... yes sorry, you are correct.
-
Hi,
none of the tested italian planes was usable for ground attacks, this the testers saw as a major drawback.
The G55 was the only airframe in the test to be comparable to the german planes(109G4/190A5), IF it get the DB603.
With the italian DB605A the plane wasnt better than the german planes and with the weight of two more cannons the plane would have needed the more strong engine, otherwise it wouldnt be any better than the 109 with gunpods or the 190A5 with two more cannons.
As we know the DB603 came very late and the DB605 in the 109 got much more power.
Regarding the 109F, i doubt it was the best 109. It was the 109 with the badest oponets in comparison to its own performence, just like the 109D in Spain.
The 109F vs the 1943/44 SpitIXc, P47D, P51B, La5F, P38J and specialy B17, B24, IL-2, Pe-2 etc would have been more hopeless than the 109G, which was still very comparable in clean condition, specialy later with MW50.
The best 109 imho was the 109G14AS. It had all possible Rüstsätze, a clean surface and much power over a very wide altitude range.
The german HQ wanted to get rid of the 109, not cause the design itself was to old, but cause the design wasnt made for the task they did need it.
If the Luftwaffe would have had 1000 4-Mots and would have bombed england, the RAF HQ would have sayed the same regarding the Spitfire and P51.
The 109 was made as a short range interceptor to face fighters and twin engined planes in an tactical airwar. In this role the 109 did shine till the end(as topcover for the "schwere Gruppen", over Russia).
When the 109F saw service the main airwar still was mainly tactical nature(ground support) and the Luftwaffe Pilots was on the top of their skill and the oponets often was without training(russia/US pilots over Africa) and/or with worse planes(I-16, Yak1, Mig3, Lagg3, P40C-E, P38G, HurriII).
This made the 109F to one of the best planes of its time, but not to the best 109.
The undercarriage problem is imho much overrated. What pilots should fly a modern high performence fighter?? For sure nothing else than at least seasoned skilled pilots. The normal young german pilots from 1944/45 probably would have crashed the P51´s with full rear tank short after take off and would have had a stallfest with the Spit´s and specialy CW Spits.
The 109 was good till the end. Imho the long stop regarding an effective development of the DB605 (42-early 44 same power) was the main problem of the 109, not the airframe itself.
Specialy in 1943 the allied planes of all nations got a major boost regarding the power(SpitVLF, SpitIXc, La5F, P47D, P38H), while the DB605A, same like the BMW801D-2 did stuck almost two years with the same power.
The MW50 and AS or D for the DB605 simply came to late. With MW50 already at in mid of 1943, the escort fighters would have had much more problems to catch a 109 with 3 cannons also the La5´s have been even more in trouble.
As we can see in the comparison between the german and italian planes, the 109 airframe still made the best out of the DB605A. With MW50 the 109 was up to date again, not absolut the best anymore, but still comparable.
Greetings,
Knegel
-
Originally posted by Gianlupo
About the page regarding Guidonia tests: is it possible to have a translation?
Gian PM me your e-mail address and'll send you a translation (in italian) of the whole Rechlin document.
-
"none of the tested italian planes was usable for ground attacks, this the testers saw as a major drawback"
Yet just as good for strafing as a 109F.
Think about nitpicking. The least of the LW's worries would have been more fighters.
As for the DB 603, didn't it get tested within the 109 airframe eventually? And with not impressive results?
-
Angus, what 109 was good for ground attacks? :D ;)
-
Ever see a 109 attacking a P 47?It looks like a fruit fly trying to hump a hippo.Well....a fruit fly with a huge noodle.:rofl
-
Originally posted by Angus
As for the DB 603, didn't it get tested within the 109 airframe eventually? And with not impressive results?
No, 109's airframe could not mount the DB603 without major modifications. The G.55 was the only DB605A powered fighter able to do it.
It would be interesting to see the 3 cannons armed G.55 compared with the gunpods armed 109G-2 or early G-6. I'd pick the italian fighter anyway. She was faster and with much more ammo load.
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Angus, what 109 was good for ground attacks? :D ;)
From the 109E-4b onwards they all had impressive air-ground ordnance options.
Originally posted by gatt
No, 109's airframe could not mount the DB603 without major modifications. The G.55 was the only DB605A powered fighter able to do it.
It would be interesting to see the 3 cannons armed G.55 compared with the gunpods armed 109G-2 or early G-6. I'd pick the italian fighter anyway. She was faster and with much more ammo load.
The G.55 was not faster than any 109G, even if the 109 carried gun pods.
Originally posted by DrDea
Ever see a 109 attacking a P 47?It looks like a fruit fly trying to hump a hippo.Well....a fruit fly with a huge noodle.:rofl
That's the beauty of the 109 (and Spitfire). Tiny plane, big engine, big guns. :)
-
Originally posted by Viking
The G.55 was not faster than any 109G, even if the 109 carried gun pods.
The G.55 top speed at 7,4Km was 620Km/h. This at the limited rate of 1.3ATA and 2.600rpm. Was the gunpods armed 109G faster? Hmmmm ...
-
Yes I believe so. The G.55 had a top speed of 385 mph, the 109G-2 (without gun pods) did 405 mph. I don't know exactly how mush speed is lost on the 109G by carrying the pods, but 20 mph seems a lot. I might be wrong. :)
-
Originally posted by Viking
Yes I believe so. The G.55 had a top speed of 385 mph, the 109G-2 (without gun pods) did 405 mph. I don't know exactly how mush speed is lost on the 109G by carrying the pods, but 20 mph seems a lot. I might be wrong. :)
Viking, have you evidence of the engine settings which have been used to get (may I say ... pods-less ;)) to 405mph at altitude?
-
I don't really know. I would guess 1.42 ata. However it is inconsequential. If the G.55 was limited to 1.3 ata then "that is that" as they say. The question was if the G.55 was faster than a 109G, not if it would be faster with a better engine. :)
Also the G.55 engine is listed as a Fiat R.A 1050 Tifone (license-built Daimler-Benz DB 605A-1) liquid-cooled inverted V-12, 1,085 kW (1,475 hp).
The DB605A-1 is listed with a maximum power of 1,475 PS at 1.42 ata @ 2,800 rpm.
My conclusion is that the G.55 did 385 mph at 1.42 ata @ 2,800 rpm. Not 1.3 ata.
-
Hm... tested G.55 carried 1x20mm, 4x12,7mm and 625l fuel (internally) while tested G-4 carried 1x20mm, 2x7,9mm and 400l fuel (internally). At similar load the Bf 109G would had been considerably slower and slower climbing plane than the G.55, not even mentioning the ability of G.55 to carry cannons internally in the wing and external loads (like torpedo). Basicly the G.55 was far more capable airframe than the Bf 109.
-
The German report posted earlier said the G.55 could not carry external ordnance due to the placement of the landing gear and radiator, and that this was seen as a major drawback for the Germans. The torpedo carrying version was modified to the extent it was given a new designation: G.57. None were produced. Since the G.55 could not carry external ordnance it was limited to 650 litres of fuel. The 109G could carry 700 litres of fuel with one drop tank. Some versions could carry two drop tanks for a total of 1000 litres (very little used tough).
That the G.55 was a good climber is not surprising: It had less wing loading. The Spitfire also climbed better than the 109 at the same power, even if it was a heavier plane. The 109 however was always faster at the same power. Speed is life.
-
Hm... the tested G.55 was an early series version. The later variants had racks under wing (see here (http://www.airwar.ru/image/i/fww2/g55-i.jpg)).
-
Ok. What could the late-G.55 carry externally?
-
2x160kg bombs are claimed but apparently the racks could have been used for something else as well. However, even with internal fuel the G.55 had probably about same range as the Bf 109G with one 300l external tank due to lower drag. With 3x20mm the G.55 would have done pretty much everything better than the Bf 109G (namely the G-6 or later models including the K-4) with similar ordnance assuming the same engine and much better assuming the DB 603.
-
"With 3x20mm the G.55 would have done pretty much everything better than the Bf 109G (namely the G-6 or later models including the K-4) with similar ordnance assuming the same engine and much better assuming the DB 603."
Bait (TM). :aok
-C+
-
Originally posted by Viking
My conclusion is that the G.55 did 385 mph at 1.42 ata @ 2,800 rpm. Not 1.3 ata.
Ah, we've been researching this issue for years: the G.55 (like the C.205) has always been officially tested with the DB605A or Ra1050 at 1.3ATA and 2.600rpm and with those settings she got to 620Km/h at 7Km+. This comes from the 3 cannons armed flight manual.
However, we found the 1944 operating instructions of the G55 with the maximum settings clearly allowed. RA and ANR probably gave the full settings OK to the C205's and the G55's DB605A slightly later than the Luftwaffe, in the very late 1943 or beginning of 1944 that is.
I guess that with "supergiri" allowed the G.55 could have performed better.
-
Originally posted by Viking
From the 109E-4b onwards they all had impressive air-ground ordnance options.
Compared to what the other German fighter, the Fw190, could carry, the 109 carried next to nothing.
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Compared to what the other German fighter, the Fw190, could carry, the 109 carried next to nothing.
Next to nothing is just another MiloMoron bait.
The Fw 190 was indeed better suited for ground attack, and the 190G and F took over most JaBo roles from the 109. However to say that the 500 kg bomb the 109 could lug around is "next to nothing" to the very same 500 kg bomb the Fw 190F lugged around ... is more than just a little dishonest. Even for you Milo. Sure, the Fw 190F could also carry a 250 kg bomb under each wing for a total of 1000 kg; the 109 never did this (to my knowledge). However if the 109 had to soldier on in the JaBo role in stead of the 190 it probably would have. It certainly could carry the load.
(http://www.luchtoorlog.be/img/me109g/g23.jpg)
Bf 109G-2/R1 with 500 kg bomb and two wing mounted 300 litre drop tanks.
-
Well, late variants (like K-4 and G-10) weighed more with one 30mm cannon than early G models with 3x20mm and rarely carried other external load than one 300l tank. Basicly the limits of the airframe were reached.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Also the G.55 engine is listed as a Fiat R.A 1050 Tifone (license-built Daimler-Benz DB 605A-1) liquid-cooled inverted V-12, 1,085 kW (1,475 hp).
Yep, true, but you have to consider that the Italian built version of the Daimler Benz engines are normally listed in stats with the nominal output of their "German parent", while they yielded less horsepower than that.
It's remarkable that the Petersen report clearly ascribed the worse speed performance to the Italian built engine, not to the airframe.
You can't conclude that the plane performance were registered at 1.42 ATA only because of what is listed in specs. ;)
As for the Jabo matter, as you wrote, the Germans concern was mostly due to the position of the radiator, that didn't allow to carry ordnance under the fuselage. But, as Milo stated, the G.55, like all the others Italian fighters, could carry ordnance under wing, particularly 2 160 Kg GP bombs or 2 100 liters drop tanks. It could be used as an effective Jabo and strafer.
Another note, about weight: the Centauro tested was a Serie 0, with 1 20mm and 4 MGs in the nose, so it was somewhat lighter than the Serie I with 3 20mm and 2 MGs. But, as the German report states, the difference in weight was not going to harm the performance as it usually happened in the German fighters. In fact, IIRC, the difference in weight was only 20 Kg.
Finally, dear Knegel, you can't really say that the DB605 powered G.55 wasn't better than German planes: the only drawback, performance-wise, was its speed in level flight. In climbing, diving and turning it was equal if not better than the 109 and the 190. Speed is not everything; and, in the comparison against the 190, it's written that the distance gained by the Focke Wulf was 800 m/~890 yards in 4 minutes of flying.. not a big advantage, in a tail chase!
One last word, gentlemen. Don't forget that the G.55 was a new design whose full potential was still to be developed, while the 109 design was, by 1943, an already full developed design, with little space for true improvement.
And a request: the report linked above says that a detailed report of the 4th and 5th comparative flights were written by Ing. Beauvais... has anyone a copy of that report?
EDITed some typo.
-
Assuming that a G.55 with an engine operating at 1.3ata could do 385mph at altitude (does anyone have test data for this or a speed chart?), I think it is safe to assume that with 1.42ata it could go about as fast as a 1943 Bf109g-6 (~395mph). So now you have a fighter with the same speed performance as a 109 but which was easier to fly, possibly had better high speed handling (is this documented anywhere), and had heavier internal armament than the Bf109g-6. Also, assuming the ability to fit it with a 30mm hub cannon and a MW-50 system, the G.55 now has the same performance potential as the 109g and k did. Notice we're doing a lot of assuming here?
Ok, now for some practical questions about a German G.55:
Hypothetically, if Germany did decide to switch over to the G.55, when would the version with the DB605A engine have entered service? Are we talking mid 1943 or mid 1944? Also, I'm not sure of the fuel tank arrangement, but would the internal configuration of the G.55 have allowed for a MW-50 system to be fitted? Without MW-50, the DB605 tops out at ~1450hp or so, and the G.55 does 385-400mph at 22000 with the DB605A or maybe 405-415 at 27000 with the DB605AS engine.
Presumably, had it been in German production, the high altitude DB605AS engines would have been fitted asap, or some kind of GM-1 system would have been investigated to give better altitude performance. IMO a DB603 powered G.55 would never have materialized before 1945 at the earliest, but a Jumo 213A powered variant (same engine as the Fw190D) could have been a possibility assuming that there were enough Jumo 213s to go around. While we're speculating though, it is possible that a Ta152A (basically a Fw190D with slightly larger wings, cowl mounted 20mms, and a engine mounted 30mm) could have been in production by the time a Jumo powered G.55 was available. This all assumes that the Germans could afford to slow fighter production while waiting for factories to switch over to a new type, which they could not since they were fighting, and losing, a 2 (or 3 depending how you look at it) front war and had heavy bombers hitting their factories. Whoever was in charge just decided that they could not afford to have fewer fighters for several months, therefore Germany continued to build Bf109s and Fw190s instead of G.55s and Ta152As.
-
Poor PNG Schulzie, again with the insults.:(
The Fw190 could carry 4 times what the 109 could carry. So nice of you to be so selective.
-
Originally posted by gripen
Basicly the limits of the airframe were reached.
I hear this myth perpetuated by people like you all the time. Who stated this lie?
The 109G-2 weighed 7054 pounds (3200 kg) fully loaded (no external). As I have shown it also could carry in the order of a 1000 kg externally.
The 109K-4 weighed 7432 pounds (3374 kg) fully loaded (no external).
So from 1942 to late 1944 the 109 gained no more than 174 kg weight; a mere 5.4% increase. By comparison it's engine power increased by 35.6%. The K-6 bomber destroyer and K-14 high altitude fighter in development at wars end would have been truly amazing planes.
The 109 had not reached its "limits" by far.
http://www.adlertag.de
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
The Fw190 could carry 4 times what the 109 could carry. So nice of you to be so selective.
Lol, really? I'm not saying you're wrong, but please show me a Fw 190 with 4000 kg external load.
-
I think he is roughly right Viking. One probably also has to include guns & ammo though. Or is it the difference between clean (dry) weight and max load?
I recall a 190 variant both being gunned up as well as carrying some cookie of impressive weight. Like 2 tonnes?
Anyway, the 190 carries more. I'll put my money on that being a structural issue rather than aerodynamic though.
And BTW, aces of the 109 lik Rall refer to the G series onwards as "too heavy". It was the F that was the true lady there....
-
Originally posted by Viking:
I hear this myth perpetuated by people like you all the time. Who stated this lie?
Thanks for your kind words...
Originally posted by Viking:
The 109G-2 weighed 7054 pounds (3200 kg) fully loaded (no external).
The G-2 (the G-4 in the test was nearly similar) weighed around 3050kg fully loaded with no external load, note that wing canons were actually carried externally and weight with these was around 3200kg. With 300l tank and wing canons weight was close to 3450kg (there is about 50kg variation depending on source and equipment).
The K-4 weighed around 3350kg fully loaded with no external load (around 3600 with 300l tank), with wing canons weight would had been around 3500kg and around 3750kg with 300l tank, note that wing cannons were rarely seen in the K-4 or G-10 but the 300l tank was very common (almost standard for certain missions).
Note also that the G.55 was able to carry comparable load internally at around same weight.
Originally posted by Viking
As I have shown it also could carry in the order of a 1000 kg externally.
You have shown experimental installation and note that in that case wing canons could not be carried. Basicly you take tidbits from here and there and combine these at most favorable way.
-
Holy-Moly, - went reading up, and found something.
190G. Available before the F. Sent to Tunisia (and USSR) already in Nov 1942. Unit in Tunisia was SG 2 based at Zarzoun.
I would suspect they had a juiced up engine. Anyway they had a strengthened UC and were able to carry a 1800 kg bomb. (4K cookie).
That was the 190G-1, - I do not know of other 190G variants.
Anyway, were these perhaps pressed into escort duties? Any more info on these units?
-
Yes gripen, and Angus, like Barbi, Scholz has difficulty differentiating between the theoretical and what was actually carried by the 2 a/c on combat operations.
-
Do you have some data on the 190G?
-
Ahh, some crops on 190G:
"The "FW-190G" was a long-range Jabo variant, built in parallel with the F-series, and generally similar except for the deletion of cowling guns to decrease weight and extend range. In fact, the G-series actually entered production before the FW-190F, initially seeing action in North Africa at the end of 1942. Like the F-series, the G-series were basically equivalent to A-series aircraft fitted for the Schlacht role. The "G-1" was based on the A-4, while the "G-2" was based on the A-5. The "G-3" was bit more of a custom item, with an autopilot and a fuel injection system. The G-8 was based on the A-8. "
"The FW 190G-1 was a long range fighter-bomber variant based on the A-4 airframe and used the BMW 801D-2 engine. Internal armament was reduced to the cowl mounted MG and the 2-20mm cannon in the wing roots. The landing gear was strengthened to accommodate a heavier bomb load (up to 3,968 lbs.!) and the wings had provision for 66 gallon drop tanks. The JU 87 Stuka dive-bomber was rapidly becoming obsolete and the FW 190 was required to fill the gap. The G-2 and G-3 were similar to the G-1 with different rack configurations for underwing stores."
Looks to me like a bird one could easily push into escort duties over the med, -in bad times.
-
Hi,
we have an direct comparison between Fiat G55 and 109G4, and in this comparison the G55 was around 25km/h slower than the G4, climb was about the same. A low wingload simply have its price. So the G55 without cannons had around the speed of the G4 with gunpods, but a better climb.
The 622km/h of the G55 in 7500m isnt that much at all, the 109G5 with gunpods came close to this already 1500m below.
The tactical comparison and complusion of the testers is rather clear documented.
The 109G4 and 190A5 had a better flight characteristic, while the G55 had was able to carry more guns inside the plane(than the 109) and the Db603 did fit. While the tested version couldnt carry bombs, the later version only had a similar bombload like the 109G. The testers found that the smaler wingoad of the G55 dont brought the expected result in high altitude, cause the less good powerload.
So what would the G56 have been be good for?? Since the FW190 Airframe seems to be better( 2 x 13mm, 4 x 20mm, or 2 x 20mm + 2 x 30mm + many loadout ), why wasting badly needed DB603s or Jumos for an other new airframe, where the flightperformence wasnt better(dont forget, also the G56 with 3 cannons and plating would have been more heavy)??
Only if the DB603 would have been available in 1943, the G56 would have been a solution for high alt tasks.
The Luftwaffe did need a real 4-Mot interceptor and the G56 for sure wasnt able to do this task, even the 190A7/8/9´s had trouble to bring them down and the pilot home at same time.
The two solutions to be successful and survive vs the escort fighters and tail gunners was 1. a overloaded piston engine fighter + topcover and here the clean 109´s did perform very well, and 2. the Jets.
The piston engined fighters of all nations was on the top end of the possibilitys, against the overwhelming number of allied escort fighters, in combination with the tough 4-mots, even the Ta152H in big numbers wouldnt have made a different, the G55/56 for sure not. While the 262, available in early 44, or the slowly gathered 1000 109´s and 190´s, senceless wasted(250 pilots) while Bodenplatte, would have made a different.
Since the tests was made in early 43, i guess all DB605A´s did use 1,34ata, for the MC205n this is documented.
Greetings,
Knegel
-
A low wingload ONLY has a price with increased wing area. So an aircraft with a lower wingloading, if being structurally rigid, will have more upgrade possibilities before it stops flying. (added weight).
It stops maneuvering before it stops flying
-
Originally posted by Angus
I think he is roughly right Viking. One probably also has to include guns & ammo though. Or is it the difference between clean (dry) weight and max load?
I’m only thinking of externally carried stuff. On planes like these this is usually limited more by the size of the bomb/equipment and the placement of the hardpoints/pylons. Like on the 109G-2/R1 I showed you earlier, they had to fit a large “tail wheel” just aft of the wings (it fell off after take-off) just to fit the big 500 kg bomb under the fuselage.
Originally posted by Angus
I recall a 190 variant both being gunned up as well as carrying some cookie of impressive weight. Like 2 tonnes?
Yes a 1.8 ton bomb (as you mention later). Again this big bomb was not limited by its weight, but by its size. The 190G needed an extra tail wheel to fit the bomb under the fuselage (like the 109).
Originally posted by Angus
Anyway, the 190 carries more. I'll put my money on that being a structural issue rather than aerodynamic though.
Sure, but small planes with strong structures like the 109/190/Spitfire are more limited in what they can carry by their small size. It’s difficult to fit enough stuff on them to max out their load capacity. (This was less of a problem on the 190 than on the 109.)
Originally posted by Angus
And BTW, aces of the 109 lik Rall refer to the G series onwards as "too heavy". It was the F that was the true lady there....
I think this is more of a psychological effect on perception. Here in Aces High I remember the luftwobbles were making a lot of noise after a patch. They all thought the LW planes had become slower/worse … However what had really happened was that some of the other planes had become better.
I think this is much the same thing that happened to the 109F and 109G. The 109F enjoyed superior performance to its opponents (also better pilot quality) in 1941, especially in Africa. The 109F and its pilots had it relatively easy. The 109G on the other hand struggled against its opponents; the allies had caught up in aircraft performance and pilot quality, and as the war dragged on the allies would enjoy a greater and greater superiority. This gives the impression (to the LW pilots) that the 109F was a “lady” while the 109G was a “dog”. What actually happened was that the allied aircraft went from “dog” to “lady”.
I’ve always thought the people saying “the F was the best 109” must be seriously deficient in their abilities for rational thought. If the F was better than the G the Luftwaffe would never have accepted the G. To think that an air force would use progressively worse and worse versions of a plane when they could just stick with the “good” one, is … well, dumb.
Originally posted by gripen
Thanks for your kind words...
My words were neither kind nor unkind. Also there was a typo in my post; it should say “who started this lie?” not “who stated this lie?”. No offence intended.
Originally posted by gripen
The G-2 (the G-4 in the test was nearly similar) weighed around 3050kg fully loaded with no external load, note that wing canons were actually carried externally and weight with these was around 3200kg. With 300l tank and wing canons weight was close to 3450kg (there is about 50kg variation depending on source and equipment).
The K-4 weighed around 3350kg fully loaded with no external load (around 3600 with 300l tank), with wing canons weight would had been around 3500kg and around 3750kg with 300l tank, note that wing cannons were rarely seen in the K-4 or G-10 but the 300l tank was very common (almost standard for certain missions).
I have already stated one source for the numbers I posted (http://www.adlertag.de). Also my book “Hitler’s Luftwaffe” states on the 109:
Empty weight: G-series: 2667 kg to 2800 kg. K: 2722 kg. A difference of 55 kg between the lightest G and the K.
Loaded weight: G-series: usually 3400 kg. K: usually 3375 kg. What “usually” means is not clarified, so these numbers are not very relevant, but I throw them out here anyways.
What’s your source?
And where do you think all the extra weight comes from? What makes the 109K-4 hundreds of kg’s heavier than the 109G-2? According to the Motorenmuster the difference in engine weight is only 40 kg. The gun package is about equal in weight (the K-4’s might even be lighter due to smaller ammo load). They have the same wings and fuselage with only minor changes. Fuel capacity is the same. The K-4 had the Erla hood and transparent Galland armour, but I don’t know if this weighed more than the early canopy and steel armour. Where does all the extra weight come from? Did the Luftwobbles get fatter? ;)
Originally posted by gripen
You have shown experimental installation and note that in that case wing canons could not be carried. Basicly you take tidbits from here and there and combine these at most favorable way.
The 109G-2/R1 was not “experimental”, but a Rustsatz that was used operationally. Many units had a small number of R1 equipped 190G-2’s for special missions, and they were also used for anti-shipping duties in the Med and in Norway.
Here‘s the Flugzeugbestand und Bewegungsmeldungen for II./JG53. You’ll notice a small number of R1’s in 1942. In 1943 the 190 took over these roles.
EDIT: Lol, forgot the link: http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/biijg53.html
Originally posted by MiloMorai
Yes gripen, and Angus, like Barbi, Scholz has difficulty differentiating between the theoretical and what was actually carried by the 2 a/c on combat operations.
Actually I have stated what was usually carried by the 109 in JaBo roles, and what could maximum be carried (and was carried in limited numbers) if the 190 hadn’t taken over the JaBo role. Also I have stated what the 190F/G usually carried, and what it could maximum carry (1.8 ton bomb). So I think I have shown that the 109’s max ~1000 kg external load was far from “next to nothing” compared to the 190’s max 1800 kg. Just like the Spitfire the 109 could and did carry an impressive amount of bombs compared to its small size until more suitable planes took over the ground attack role. I guess this won’t stop you from trolling though. (http://forums.desert-winds.org/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif)
-
Schultz, have joined Barbi's new board yet? That is the one where all the aryan supremacists hang out.
Typical load for the 109 was 250kg. Typical load for the 190 was 3-4 times that. Even the typical load for the Spit was 2 times what the 109 carried. Now you can keep trying all you want with your 'special' 109s but I still say it is next to nothing.
-
Say what you will troll boy ... it makes no difference. The truth is my shield.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Empty weight: G-series: 2667 kg to 2800 kg. K: 2722 kg. A difference of 55 kg between the lightest G and the K.
Loaded weight: G-series: usually 3400 kg. K: usually 3375 kg. What “usually” means is not clarified, so these numbers are not very relevant, but I throw them out here anyways.
What’s your source?
Large number various Mtt specsheet, FAF documentation on Bf 109G. "Lentäjän Näkökulma 2" etc. Besides even the Guidonia specsheet gives flying weight of the G-4 as 3092kg (the G-4 being slightly heavier than G-2).
Originally posted by Viking
And where do you think all the extra weight comes from? What makes the 109K-4 hundreds of kg’s heavier than the 109G-2?
Strenthtened and changed sructure (particularly wing around landing gear and thicker skin), wooden tail was heavier (needed tare weighs, 35kg in the G-6), additional and changed equipment (MW50, MK108, MG131s, radio, changed and strenghtened landing gear system), heavier engine + about endless list of smaller things...
Originally posted by Viking
The 109G-2/R1 was not “experimental”, but a Rustsatz that was used operationally. Many units had a small number of R1 equipped 190G-2’s for special missions, and they were also used for anti-shipping duties in the Med and in Norway.
No one has stated that the G-2/R1 was experimental but the installation of The SC 500 with additional wheel (the plane in picture is BD+GC, whic was one of the G-0s and later modified for test purposes). The G-2/R1 usually carried one EC 250 (250kg), besides, even in that form it was a rare bird.
Originally posted by Viking
Say what you will troll boy ... it makes no difference. The truth is my shield.
Well, I quess you mean "... selective truth is...".
-
Originally posted by TUXC
Assuming that a G.55 with an engine operating at 1.3ata could do 385mph at altitude (does anyone have test data for this or a speed chart?), I think it is safe to assume that with 1.42ata it could go about as fast as a 1943 Bf109g-6 (~395mph). So now you have a fighter with the same speed performance as a 109 but which was easier to fly, possibly had better high speed handling (is this documented anywhere), and had heavier internal armament than the Bf109g-6. Also, assuming the ability to fit it with a 30mm hub cannon and a MW-50 system, the G.55 now has the same performance potential as the 109g and k did. Notice we're doing a lot of assuming here?
Ok, now for some practical questions about a German G.55:
Hypothetically, if Germany did decide to switch over to the G.55, when would the version with the DB605A engine have entered service? Are we talking mid 1943 or mid 1944? Also, I'm not sure of the fuel tank arrangement, but would the internal configuration of the G.55 have allowed for a MW-50 system to be fitted? Without MW-50, the DB605 tops out at ~1450hp or so, and the G.55 does 385-400mph at 22000 with the DB605A or maybe 405-415 at 27000 with the DB605AS engine.
Presumably, had it been in German production, the high altitude DB605AS engines would have been fitted asap, or some kind of GM-1 system would have been investigated to give better altitude performance. IMO a DB603 powered G.55 would never have materialized before 1945 at the earliest, but a Jumo 213A powered variant (same engine as the Fw190D) could have been a possibility assuming that there were enough Jumo 213s to go around. While we're speculating though, it is possible that a Ta152A (basically a Fw190D with slightly larger wings, cowl mounted 20mms, and a engine mounted 30mm) could have been in production by the time a Jumo powered G.55 was available. This all assumes that the Germans could afford to slow fighter production while waiting for factories to switch over to a new type, which they could not since they were fighting, and losing, a 2 (or 3 depending how you look at it) front war and had heavy bombers hitting their factories. Whoever was in charge just decided that they could not afford to have fewer fighters for several months, therefore Germany continued to build Bf109s and Fw190s instead of G.55s and Ta152As.
Well, two prototypes of DB603A engined G.55s have been tested with excellent results. I mean 685Km/h at 7Km with a limited rate of 1.510cv at 2.500rpm. Time to 6Km was 5'45" at the same rate. It was a real beast, armed with 3x20mm cannons and 800rds (300+250+250).
So, I guess that the LW would have gone in that direction. Italy was not able to produce the DB603 due to the lack of right tools and plants but Germany probably still was during 1944.
Another problem was that the G.55 production required, IIRC, much more hours than a 109G.
-
Originally posted by Angus
A low wingload ONLY has a price with increased wing area. So an aircraft with a lower wingloading, if being structurally rigid, will have more upgrade possibilities before it stops flying. (added weight).
It stops maneuvering before it stops flying
Hi Angus,
A low wingload always have its price. The Zero is one extreme example(light weight but no protection), the Hurri is another (bad powerload, bad drag load = slow, bad climb).
The G55 has a by far more big wing and more weight.
The upgrade possibility need at 1st a better engine, but the DB603 came a "bit" late. The tactics of the late WWII airwar did lead to a more heavy wingload anyway. The 109K dont had a extraordinary wingload. The 190 and P38 was heavy wingloaded.
The G55 with increased weight due to more cannons was like the P40, a nice airframe, but to few power.
Greetings,
Knegel
-
Viking:
"Originally posted by Angus
And BTW, aces of the 109 lik Rall refer to the G series onwards as "too heavy". It was the F that was the true lady there....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think this is more of a psychological effect on perception"
Think what you think, but when it comes to a 275x killer a'la 109 that jumps straight from 109F to 109G, that is what he THOUGT.
And Knegel, if you lower wingloading within the same airframe and same power, the only thing you pay for is??????? Yes, - Diving.
The top speed will not be effected, the ROC, ROT, even Roll-rate, and also acceleration are all going to improve.
-
Hi Viking,
i though you be a 109 expert, then you should known where the more weight of the K4 cmes from.
Already the G6 had around 100kg more weight than the G2. The big MG´s made much of this.
The K4´s T/O weight got increased much by the additional weight of the MW50 system and fuel(around 70kg MW509.
More big wheels and the 30mm also made some kg.
But as you say, the loadout wasnt that bad at all. It also could carry rocket tubes or wingguns and 4 x 50kg or 1 x 250kg.
The 190F and G mainly took off with 1 x 250kg + 4 x 50kg or 1 x 500kg, thats by far not 3 - 4 times what the 109 did carry, in best case it was 2-3 times as much(500kg + 4 x 50kg).
btw. some british pilots also did like the flight character of the SpitIXc more than that of the Spit14, nevertheless the 14 was the better weapon, cause it was faster. Same goes for the P51B vs P51D, early P47D vs late P47D, 190A4 vs 190A9 and A6M5 vs Ki61.
Regarding the bad "109G" Hermann Graf wrote that it is more rumor than anything else. He was very happy about the more power and he was a close in dogfighter.
Also the FAF pilots didnt complain that much.
Hi gatt,
at that time the FW190D9/ Ta152H, P51D, Spit8 , Spit14 , 109K and P47´s was faster up there. Even the G14AS made 680km/h in 7500m.
The DB603 came to late anyway, even the 190 should get it as early as possible, but only in mid/end 1944 it got the Jumo213. The FW190D12 made 700km/h + with the DB603E and it had 4 x 20mm.
The problem of the axis airforces was a missing DB603, Jumo213 or only DB605AM in mid/end 1943. At that time the west allieds had a power advantage due to the Merlin66/67 and its brothers, resulting in an bad disadvantage for the axis inline engine powered planes.
Due to the missing power, the smalest available airframe was the only available solution to stay comporable.
In early/mid 44 (one year to late) the 109´s got what they needed and they was comporable again.
Greetings,
Knegel
-
Originally posted by Angus
And Knegel, if you lower wingloading within the same airframe and same power, the only thing you pay for is??????? Yes, - Diving.
The top speed will not be effected, the ROC, ROT, even Roll-rate, and also acceleration are all going to improve.
Smaler struktural limit or pilot protection or less weapons/rounds is the price. To make that clear i took the Zero as example.
It depends to the situation if the changed highspeed dive and E-managemant is good or bad.
The real Vmax in most cases will be better for the smaler wingloaded plane, but the more heavy plane will keep a speed above Vmax for a longer timespan. (this oly cause for exact the same aiframe).
Since we clearly talk about two very different airframes here, all this isnt very relevant here anyway.
Greetings,
Knegel
-
Understand, - I said WITHIN THE SAME AIRFRAME AND POWER.
Apple to Apple. Any WW2 aircraft will perform better aerodynamically (with the exception of diving) if it is able to loose some weight.
(Say you dump some fuel, the radio and the armour, and cut down on the guns and ammo)
Kind of works like in AH with the different loadouts :D
-
Originally posted by gatt
Well, two prototypes of DB603A engined G.55s have been tested with excellent results. I mean 685Km/h at 7Km with a limited rate of 1.510cv at 2.500rpm. Time to 6Km was 5'45" at the same rate. It was a real beast, armed with 3x20mm cannons and 800rds (300+250+250).
So, I guess that the LW would have gone in that direction. Italy was not able to produce the DB603 due to the lack of right tools and plants but Germany probably still was during 1944.
Another problem was that the G.55 production required, IIRC, much more hours than a 109G.
Solid numbers. About the same as an early Fw190D. I was thinking the G.55 would need the later DB603E to get a top speed like that. For some reason I thought the DB603A had the same power output as the DB605A instead of a few hundred hp more. Do know the date of that test and have the original performance data for the DB603A powered G.55 by any chance?
-
DB 603...wasn't it used in a post-war 109?
-
Originally posted by Angus
DB 603...wasn't it used in a post-war 109?
No, guess you are thinking in the Avia S199 with the Jumo 211 http://www.clubhyper.com/reference/s199ng_1.html
-
Originally posted by TUXC
Do know the date of that test and have the original performance data for the DB603A powered G.55 by any chance?
The sign you see on the lower right corner is from Ing. G.Gabrielli, chief Fiat designer and father of the G.55.
(http://premium1.uploadit.org/Federico//G56_official_test_01.jpg) (http://www.uploadit.org)
-
Good stuff gatt, thanks for sharing. The DB603 powered G.55 certainly would have been a formidable fighter had the production issues been worked before things were too desperate to risk disrupting 109 production.
-
Ah, Knegel, you posted while my reply was underway. (coffee break)
"The real Vmax in most cases will be better for the smaler wingloaded plane, but the more heavy plane will keep a speed above Vmax for a longer timespan. (this oly cause for exact the same aiframe)."
You're referring to top level climb I presume? Now the heavier aircraft will pay there slowly because of higher induced drag as well as weight. Not sure what you mean with the timespan though, - in a zoom? Bear in mind that although a heavier aircraft pulls from a level flight at top speed into zoom, it will have lower top speed to begin with.
If you weight up the same airframe with same power, you will loose top speed as well as ROC. There is no magic there. And that's why aircraft designers always strive to have the aircraft as light as possible.
And Meyer, - yes, it was the Avia. How much different is the Jumo from the DB 603? And did DB 603 not fit the 109?
Anyway, this G55 looks like a naughty aicraft with lots of potential.
A triple cannon-pack centrally as well as ord and a top speed of 680 km/h with some nice characteristics......evil :t
-
Angus, the DB603 did not fit the 109 at all.
BTW, be careful guys, the DB605A engined G.55 its not the DB603A engined G.56.
The first was a decent 1943 fighter and a good hi-alt bombers interceptor, compared with the 190A and the 109G with pods.
The latter could have been an excellent 1944 fighter from all points of view.
-
BRING IT TO AH!
-
AFAIK they never put a Db 603 in the 109, but I'm not so sure that they couldn't.
The 603 was slightly bulkier and about 25cm longer. Let's not forget that there were prototypes with BMW801 and Jumo 213. The Jumo 213 was longer than the 605, but shorter compared to the 603. How good would be that marriage is another thing.
To make it short: Bf 109 + DB603= Me 209 :)
Of course, the Fiat was more "603 ready" than the 109.
About the late 109 versions not carrying gondolas: I don't think that has something to do with structural problems, but another issues. The fight was a lot harder to the Lw pilots in late 44/45, than 1 year before, and also I don't think that the G-6/U4 used much the Rustsatze VI...there's less need of gondolas in the Mk108 armed 109s.
-
Weights and HP's?
I read somewhere that the AVIA had torque problems. Why so, if it's just a question of HP? Was it an engine torque issue together with the propeller, - was the HP max reached at another RPM?
(just too lazy to look it up :D)
-
Originally posted by Meyer
About the late 109 versions not carrying gondolas: I don't think that has something to do with structural problems, but another issues. The fight was a lot harder to the Lw pilots in late 44/45, than 1 year before, and also I don't think that the G-6/U4 used much the Rustsatze VI...there's less need of gondolas in the Mk108 armed 109s.
The G-14s (basicly same as G-6) did carry wing canons more or less regularly. However, it's difficult to say when a G-14 (or G-6) has the MG151 or the the MK108.
-
Originally posted by gripen
The G-14s (basicly same as G-6) did carry wing canons more or less regularly.
Hmm...everything that I have read suggests that wing cannons were VERY rare in G-14s.
-
Originally posted by Knegel
Hi Viking,
i though you be a 109 expert...
Lol me? Hardly. I'm just an amateur plane geek. Don't have time for more. :)
-
Originally posted by Wmaker
Hmm...everything that I have read suggests that wing cannons were VERY rare in G-14s.
I could dig up at least couple pictures of the G-14s with wing canons but that does tell how common these were. However, there is very little difference between the G-6 and the G-14 (without MW50) so I don't see any particular reason why those should have been very rare in the G-14s. Even with MW50 the G-14 was about 100kg lighter than the K-4 (or G-10) and about 200kg without MW50. After all the G-14 was just an (failed) attempt to standardize the production of the G-6 based airframes.
-
"I don't see any particular reason why those should have been very rare in the G-14s."
Maybe because of the role they were mostly used in?
"After all the G-14 was just an (failed) attempt to standardize the production of the G-6 based airframes."
Failed? How so?
-C+
-
Originally posted by Charge
Maybe because of the role they were mostly used in?
I don't know if there was any difference in the roles where the G-6 and G-14 were used. These were partially produced same time in the same factories and were used partially same time in the same units.
Originally posted by Charge
[standardization]
Failed? How so?
There never was standard G-14; variation was infact even larger than in the case of the G-6.
-
The Luftwaffe was a mess at the time.
I was under the impression that the K-4 was the the standardisation attempt, not the G-14, though.
-
Originally the G-14 was planned to be a standardized version of the G-6 airframe with MW50. The K-4 was to be standard version with the DB 605D and all the planned improvements. The G-10 was planned to be version of the G-6 airframe with the DB 605D.
In practice the G-14 was produced in wider variety of engines than the G-6 (with and without MW50) and large variation of other equipment and features (several different tails, engine coverings etc.). The standardization went better with the K-4 and G-10 but even in these wide variation of features can be found. There are pictures of some strange hybrid versions (possibly recycled airframes) of the late Bf 109 which have some features from all these three versions.
-
My understanding is that AS engined G14s were used as specialized escort interceptors or escorting various pulk zerstörers so they did not have gondies. My guess is that when G14s started replacing the worn out G6s the specialization of 109s had mostly shifted to escort role.
It is claimed that e.g. the "tall tail" was one of the standardized items but AFAIK the tail assembly could be taken from an older machine if needed explaining discrepancy in film material of 109s -if they are identified correctly in the first place, so a reliable identification would need WNr info. Engine cowling changed at some point but I have seen only two types. The older type used in G6 had differences between normal to AS and tropicalized versions but the one with a vent under right MG bubble is claimed to be standard in G14.
The tail switching probably needed some kind of ballasting but I remember reading that this kind of exchange was done to some Finnish G6s. Not sure though...
-C+
-
Originally posted by gripen
I could dig up at least couple pictures of the G-14s with wing canons but that does tell how common these were. However, there is very little difference between the G-6 and the G-14 (without MW50) so I don't see any particular reason why those should have been very rare in the G-14s.
Prien & Rodeike have arrived to that conclusion in their research. Whether they were rare or "very rare" or what not is of course subjective and I'm sure even their research isn't without errors but unless there is newer proof that says otherwise I tend to believe them.
-
Originally posted by Wmaker
Prien & Rodeike have arrived to that conclusion in their research. Whether they were rare or "very rare" or what not is of course subjective and I'm sure even their research isn't without errors but unless there is newer proof that says otherwise I tend to believe them.
Majority of the G-14s were with AS engines so these were rarely seen with wing canons, the gondolas were rare in the G-6/AS as well. However, there is even pictures of such planes (IIRC one colour picture taken after war can be found from Flight journal).
Originally posted by Charge
My understanding is that AS engined G14s were used as specialized escort interceptors or escorting various pulk zerstörers so they did not have gondies. My guess is that when G14s started replacing the worn out G6s the specialization of 109s had mostly shifted to escort role.
Wast majority of the G-6s were produced with the DB 605A while the majority of the G-14s were with AS engine so one can of course argue that these planes were used for different tasks. But I don't think that tasks of the LW radically changed despite the proportions of the engines used changed. And there were G-14s with standard DB 605A (without MW50) as well.
Note that first specialized high altitude units (like JG50) used pretty much standard G-5s or G-6s, sometimes with gondolas or rockets. Naturally these rarely met escort fighters.
-
Well, leaving the gondies behind could make the difference between life and death when running away from a swarm of P51's over Europe in 1944.....
-
Originally posted by gripen
Majority of the G-14s were with AS engines...
I really don't know where you got this from but according to the estimates by Prien & Rodeike out of around 5500 G-14s built about 1000 were G-14/AS's. So accoring to their research G-14s with 605A/AM engines were the vast majority.
Again, P&R thought they were rare, do you have source that says differently?
Originally posted by gripen
the gondolas were rare in the G-6/AS as well. However, there is even pictures of such planes
There is also pics of G-6s with "Brasov's bulges" as well as with K-like landing gear doors. Like you said these kind of pictures doesn't really prove anything either way.
-
Originally posted by Wmaker
I really don't know where you got this from but according to the estimates by Prien & Rodeike out of around 5500 G-14s built about 1000 were G-14/AS's. So accoring to their research G-14s with 605A/AM engines were the vast majority.
According to J-C Mermet: "Messerschmitt Bf 109 G-1 through K-4" most of the G-14s were AS versions though he does not give exact numbers (probably no one knows for sure). Mermet's study was published 1999 while Prien&Rodeike was published 1993.
Originally posted by Wmaker
Again, P&R thought they were rare, do you have source that says differently?
I can only refer on photo evidence and the fact that wing canons were fairly common the G-6 (the G-14 being very similar).
-
Counting new production of the G-14s from Artie Bob's listings gives 2689 G-14s and 1377 G-14/ASs. However, the problem with that listing is that the AS planes were often recycled airframes; there is listed only one G-6/AS.
-
G 14AS Mttr 303 - 379 - 101 - 203 - 211 - 62 - 11 = 1270
G 14AS Erla 95 - 9 - 3 - * - * - * - * - * = 107
New production from Sept 44 to Mar 45.
Other new production G-14 > 2689.
From this thread, by ArtieBob, post 28
http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/showthread.php?t=2462&page=3&highlight=109+neubau
34% of new G-14 production was AS.
-
Looking further the same listing reveals that apparently large part of G-6 production August-September 1944 is listed as G-14s because there is only the G-6/U2 listed but no G-6/U3 (or G-6/MW50 as called by Mermet). The G-6s and G-14s were produced under same Wnr. bocks so the subject is really fuzzy. In addition, the lack of knowledge on recycled airframes makes analysis pretty much impossible.
-
Hi,
afaik the G14 was the late G6 with MW50, at the time when the G14 got introduced also the G6 mainly didnt use the gunpods that often, at least not while the homeland defending task. In oposite to 1943 now the 190A´s was there in higher numbers to attack the Bombers, while the 109´s HAD to do the topcover task against the much increased number of escort fighters.
All datasheets i saw regarding the G14 show MW50 + DB605A or AS, somewhere i did read that most remaining G6´s got MW50 as well.
The G14-U4 was just 45kg more light than the K4 and 14kg comes from the more big MW50 load. The "normal" G14 was 90kg more light, still 14kg less MW50.
Angus,
the high torque moments of the Avias was a result of the used bomber propeller, which had very big blades, even with a flat propeller angle, this big blades had a big amount of drag(against the rotation) and therefor torque was rather big.
Greetings,
Knegel
-
"Angus,
the high torque moments of the Avias was a result of the used bomber propeller, which had very big blades, even with a flat propeller angle, this big blades had a big amount of drag(against the rotation) and therefor torque was rather big."
Ah, designed for a bigger aircraft as well as a different power curve (engine torque) then I'd belive.
BTW, as a sidenote, did the LW bombers have counter-rotation?
-
Originally posted by Knegel
afaik the G14 was the late G6 with MW50, at the time when the G14 got introduced also the G6 mainly didnt use the gunpods that often, at least not while the homeland defending task. In oposite to 1943 now the 190A´s was there in higher numbers to attack the Bombers, while the 109´s HAD to do the topcover task against the much increased number of escort fighters.
I think G-6/G-14 supposed difference has been covered earlier. Regarding the rest, does the rarity of the gondolas actually speak for the larger airframe like the G.55 which could carry comparable load internally?
Originally posted by Knegel
All datasheets i saw regarding the G14 show MW50 + DB605A or AS, somewhere i did read that most remaining G6´s got MW50 as well.
For various reasons there were a lot G-14s without the MW50. In practice the factories tried to produce planes from what ever parts were available; as an example there is photo evidence of K type airframe with the DB 605AS.
Basicly there is plans and then there is reality. Often these are not similar.
Originally posted by Knegel
The G14-U4 was just 45kg more light than the K4 and 14kg comes from the more big MW50 load. The "normal" G14 was 90kg more light, still 14kg less MW50.
These values comes from the datasheet dated 13.8.1944 ie before the production of the K-4 was started. In January 1945 Mtt listed weight as 3400kg.
-
"Regarding the rest, does the rarity of the gondolas actually speak for the larger airframe like the G.55 which could carry comparable load internally?"
Good question but IMO, not necessarily. Germans obviously thought that a fighter should be small even if it meant less armament and less fuel, and more importantly (although not such a serious issue IRL) less wing area.
Now why is that?
-C+
-
Originally posted by Charge
Good question but IMO, not necessarily. Germans obviously thought that a fighter should be small even if it meant less armament and less fuel, and more importantly (although not such a serious issue IRL) less wing area.
Now why is that?
-C+
Ta152H, Do335, Bv155 were not small, so the Germans changed their minds.
-
Originally posted by Charge
Now why is that?
-C+
Less wing area = more speed. Speed is life.
Smaller plane = cheaper to produce. G.55 cost 15,000 man-hours, P-51 cost 70,000 man hours, B-17 cost 330,000 man-hours.
A 109 cost only 7000 man hours to produce, so for the same production cost of one B-17 the Germans could build 47 Bf 109's. If all economies were equal one P-51 would face 10 Bf 109s over Germany.
Despite the fact that many think the 109 was the epitome of German engineering quality, in reality it was the Volkswagen of WWII fighters. It's engine - while technically advanced - was made from crap and lasted only 160 hours. The fuselage lasted only 300 hours (G series) before it had to be overhauled or even replaced.
That is the reason behind the 109's success. It was built extremely cheap, but still had competitive performance compared to fighters tens of times its production value.
-
More things to haul, more maneuverability at lower ends of speed basically.
And BTW, the 109 greatests asset IMHO was exactly the way it was put together, especially for maintenance.
Would ponder on these hours though, - after all they used slave labour for a part of it, so were those registered?
And how many hours for an operable He-177 :D
-
Originally posted by gripen
I can only refer on photo evidence and the fact that wing canons were fairly common the G-6 (the G-14 being very similar). [/B]
I too have seen many G-6 'gunboats' with the gondolas.
-
Yes of course... the G-6 used the gondolas. But that doesn't mean that the use of the RVI wasn't very rare in the G-14...and IMO you wouldn't see many gondolas in the G-6's in late 44...
-
Originally posted by Charge
Good question but IMO, not necessarily. Germans obviously thought that a fighter should be small even if it meant less armament and less fuel, and more importantly (although not such a serious issue IRL) less wing area.
Now why is that?
Starting from the Bf 109F and Fw 190A, the Germans tended to increase wing area during the developement, particularly in the case of the high altitude variants. The Fw 190 is a good example how slightly larger airframe than the Bf 109 can carry considerably more internally without drag of the external load, the G.55 is another good example.
Originally posted by Viking
Less wing area = more speed. Speed is life.
Smaller plane = cheaper to produce. G.55 cost 15,000 man-hours, P-51 cost 70,000 man hours, B-17 cost 330,000 man-hours.
A 109 cost only 7000 man hours to produce, so for the same production cost of one B-17 the Germans could build 47 Bf 109's. If all economies were equal one P-51 would face 10 Bf 109s over Germany.
Despite the fact that many think the 109 was the epitome of German engineering quality, in reality it was the Volkswagen of WWII fighters. It's engine - while technically advanced - was made from crap and lasted only 160 hours. The fuselage lasted only 300 hours (G series) before it had to be overhauled or even replaced.
That is the reason behind the 109's success. It was built extremely cheap, but still had competitive performance compared to fighters tens of times its production value.
I think that none of these claims are exactly true and some are extremely untrue.
What are the sources for the man hours and are the numbers comparable?
Regarding the Bf 109 production and costs, "Willy Messerscmitt: Pioneer of Aviation Design" by Ebert-Kaiser-Peters gives an interesting and IMHO well founded view based on primary sources and views of Mtt insiders. And the book also explains how the listed man hours are counted.
Originally posted by Meyer
Yes of course... the G-6 used the gondolas. But that doesn't mean that the use of the RVI wasn't very rare in the G-14...and IMO you wouldn't see many gondolas in the G-6's in late 44...
It's pretty much impossible to say something sure, at least some photographic evidence exist. Regarding the altitudes, relatively largest proportion of air battles at high altitude took place probably in spring 1944 (land fronts were quiet then) and at least Finnish air force got most of the wing cannon armed G-6s after that.
-
Originally posted by gripen
I think that none of these claims are exactly true and some are extremely untrue.
What are the sources for the man hours and are the numbers comparable?
The G.55 number comes from the Wikipedia article on said plane. The B-17 number comes from a post war USAF document regarding development and production costs of US war planes in the 1950's (with comparison to WWII planes). The P-51 number is more dubious since it came from another discussion forum without sources. 70,000 man hours sounds a lot compare to the Axis planes, but compared to the B-17 it fits, also when comparing Dollar price per unit (P-51: $51,000 - B-17: $200-something-thousand). Anyone have a better source for this? The 109 number I found in an online article on the development of the 109. However from the article on the G.55 it states:
"Early production of G.55 required about 15,000 man-hours; while there were estimations to reduce the effort to about 9,000 man-hours, the German factories were able to assemble a Bf 109 in only 5,000 man-hours."
So the G.55 could have been made for 9000 man hours, and the 109 for 5000?
-
"Starting from the Bf 109F and Fw 190A, the Germans tended to increase wing area during the developement, particularly in the case of the high altitude variants."
190 early models came with two wings which the larger one was finally selected (also caused by the change from 139 to 801). With 109 the wing area got smaller after 109E but the proile was altered. With TA152H the 190 series lost what was the best characteristic of the series: high speed maneuverability and G tolerance. Its assets were altitude, and high speed, not maneuverability.
"The Fw 190 is a good example how slightly larger airframe than the Bf 109 can carry considerably more internally without drag of the external load, the G.55 is another good example."
Regarding the gun armament I only know that Galland had a special 109F model with MG FFs in the wings and the gondola attachment still required a big opening in the wing for the clip, so leaving the wing guns out of design was a choice which was not dictated by the structure. But of course 109 was such a small airplane that when the need for bigger armament became issue there simply was not ample of room in the fuselage. But it surely was a brainfart to put a huge bump in the cowling when it could have been done better as was evident in Gallands other F which already had 13mms with a lot smaller, streamlined bump. So he actually had two special models with different armaments which neither of then was produced as such but slightly altered, but not to the better but to the worse.
Again it can be seen that a design is a compromise and surely there are "sweet spots" in design where limitations and demands meet and if we consider, say P51 and Bf109, the difference is clear: P51 is an escort fighter, large enough to carry lots of internal fuel and long low drag wing to enable low fuel consumption on cruising, whereas Bf109 is clearly a short range interceptor.
I can't comment on G55.
-C+
-
Originally posted by Charge
With 109 the wing area got smaller after 109E but the proile was altered.
Um ... the wing area was increased by the addition of the rounded wingtips. 109F has a slightly larger wing area than the 109E.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Um ... the wing area was increased by the addition of the rounded wingtips. 109F has a slightly larger wing area than the 109E.
...simply untrue.
-
My mistake.
-
the German factories were able to assemble a Bf 109 in only 5,000 man-hours
Was the man hours for the P-51 just assembly time or did it include all the sub assembly times?
A 109 cost only 7000 man hours to produce
It only took another 2000 hours to produce all the component parts for the 109?
-
I have no idea.
-
I find it hard to belive that a USA monocoque structure from a massive assebly line would need so much more hours than a 109. The USA had the finest assembly lines for fighters and bombers alike in the world at the time. However they might have been a bit into advanced features, which is not bad now is it?
The British were doing things differently, with lots of subcontractors and such. The early Spitfires for instance, AFAIK required 3 times the work of a 109. Not sure of the Hurricane, - the difference would be because of trained crew and such, the Hurricane coming from the old "bipe" concept while the Spitfire was a new business in fighters. So this all probably has a variation pr. model/year.
-
You would be surprised Angus about the number of small contractors (1 and 2 person operations) in the USA. Many worked out of a shed in the their backyard. Some of these 'backyard' shops did work on the A-bomb (not that they knew what they were making was for).
-
IIRC constructing the fuselage of 109 was very simple. It was just aluminum sheets pressed into forms and connected and you just inserted a few ribs and that was it. The conventional method then was to make a structure and then cover it with sheet aluminum. IIRC that is...
-C+
Ed. Found a pic: http://www.fighterfactory.com/restoration/messerschmitt-bf-109.php
-
Didn't know that!
So was it mostly when it came to small/specialized parts, or was it a whole big thing in the system?
BTW, it does not seem ineffective to me, - and today, just open up your computer and try to fathom from how many parts of the world it comes!
-
My God, these manhour numbers thrown around are ridiculous.
In January of 1945, North American made some major changes to their tooling system as too many employees were standing around idle waiting for manufacturing tools and jigs. On a typical day, about 6,000 employees working 10 hours shifts each day were rolling out 10 Mustangs per day. After increasing the number of manufacturing tools and jigs and adding to the work force, 9,500 employees were pushing out 17 P-51s a day.
So, if you work the numbers, assembly times was initially 6,000 hours per P-51, decreasing to 5,588 manhours by July.
Yet, according to Lee Atwood, "The final 5,000 P-51 airplanes were built for 4/10ths of an hour per pound and sold for $17,000 each, less government furnished equipment: engine, armament, etc." So, the basic airframe, less engine, prop, guns, radios and various other components weighs about 5,580 lb. 5580 x .4 = 2,232 manhours. Installation and testing of equipment listed above must make up the balance of time. As you can guess, I have to do some speculation and make some assumptions.
Check out this document (http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/111/01/Sohler.pdf)
Meanwhile, on Long Island...
According to the Grumman Historical Center:
In March of 1945, Grumman employed 17,731 people. Approximately 9,250 assembled F6Fs. That month (26 working days), these folks delivered 605 Hellcats. That's a average of 23.27 F6Fs every day. Grumman worked two 12 hour shifts. 9250 x 12 = 111,000 manhours / 23.27 = 4770 manhours per F6F. Both the numbers delivered and manhours per fighter were records for American fighter manufacturers during WWII.
My regards,
Widewing
-
From reading that document I get the distinct impression that the plant in question was just an assembly plant. As has been suggested by others the parts that plant assembled were produced by sub-contractors. Did they have a foundry there? Did they actually make major components of the aircraft, or did they just assemble P-51 "kits" made elsewhere?
Messerschmitt AG produced most of their planes themselves. They had foundries, mills, quarries and even a munitions factory in Kempten. In addition to the tens of thousands of workers they had slave-labourers assigned them by the SS. I don't know exactly how many factories and workers Messerschmitt AG had across Germany but there were many; the Bf 109 was a through and through Messerschmitt product from the foundries that made the aluminium to the Regensbuerg assemby line that put everything together. Only the engines, armament and certain instruments were produced outside Messerschmitt AG
I have identified Messerschmitt factories, works and labour-camps in: Regensburg, Obertraubling, Chemnitz, Kempten, Flossenburg, Asbach-Baumenheim, Augsburg-Pfersee, Burgau, Durach-Kottern, Fischen, Gablingen, Horgau-Pfersee, Kaufering, Lauingen, and Moosach. This list is likely not complete.
In 1944 Messerschmitt AG (including Erla plant) made nearly 40 Bf 109s every day, in addition to 110s, 410s, 163s, 262s, 321s, and 323s.
-
Can this thread die already?
Please?
-
Originally posted by Viking
From reading that document I get the distinct impression that the plant in question was just an assembly plant. As has been suggested by others the parts that plant assembled were produced by sub-contractors. Did they have a foundry there? Did they actually make major components of the aircraft, or did they just assemble P-51 "kits" made elsewhere?
Messerschmitt AG produced most of their planes themselves. They had foundries, mills, quarries and even a munitions factory in Kempten. In addition to the tens of thousands of workers they had slave-labourers assigned them by the SS. I don't know exactly how many factories and workers Messerschmitt AG had across Germany but there were many; the Bf 109 was a through and through Messerschmitt product from the foundries that made the aluminium to the Regensbuerg assemby line that put everything together. Only the engines, armament and certain instruments were produced outside Messerschmitt AG
I have identified Messerschmitt factories, works and labour-camps in: Regensburg, Obertraubling, Chemnitz, Kempten, Flossenburg, Asbach-Baumenheim, Augsburg-Pfersee, Burgau, Durach-Kottern, Fischen, Gablingen, Horgau-Pfersee, Kaufering, Lauingen, and Moosach. This list is likely not complete.
In 1944 Messerschmitt AG (including Erla plant) made nearly 40 Bf 109s every day, in addition to 110s, 410s, 163s, 262s, 321s, and 323s.
So your saying it took 5000 hours from raw materials (as in dig up materials from the groud) to produce a 109?
-
I don't know what that number actually represents.
-
And are the hours supplied by the Todt organization included in the 109?
And then to repeat myself:
"The USA had the finest assembly lines for fighters and bombers alike in the world at the time."
-
Originally posted by Angus
And are the hours supplied by the Todt organization included in the 109?
I don't know what "I don't know" means in Iceland, but here it means "I don't know". ;)
Originally posted by Angus
And then to repeat myself:
"The USA had the finest assembly lines for fighters and bombers alike in the world at the time."
Who are you quoting?
-
I quoted myself :D
As for the Todt labour, it took some courtroom work to bring some of it properly into the daylight, so I would think it's very probable that those hours are not counted in the late 109 production, - from German sources.
I don't know. Ég veit ekki ;)
-
So you have inspected both the American and German (and lets not forget the Russians) production lines and found the Americans to be the most efficient? Riiiight ;)
Jeg vet ikke for faen! :D
-
Har du en murbrikka i hodet? Who brought us the "fliessband" ???
Hehe, I love languages...sometimes. :D
-
Originally posted by Viking
So the G.55 could have been made for 9000 man hours, and the 109 for 5000?
Nope, read the book (mentioned above) "Willy Messerscmitt: Pioneer of Aviation Design" by Ebert-Kaiser-Peters and "Flugzeugindustrie und Luftrüstung in Deutschland 1918-1945" by L. Budraß.
These seem to be hours only the time needed to build and assemble airframes in the assembly line. The hours needed to build components coming from elsewhere are not included (engine, propeller, coolers, landing gear, instruments, armament etc.).
I don't have Budraß in hand right now but IIRC this airframe production time varied between something over 10000h in the beginning production and 4500h in the end of the production. As for comparison similar value for the Me 262 was 6400h. Based on US numbers it's probable that similar number for the P-51 might have been considerably lower. Like the Me 262, the P-51 was designed for mass production from the beginning and the P-51 was built in large and well organized production plants, same can't be said about the Bf 109.
Originally posted by Charge
190 early models came with two wings which the larger one was finally selected (also caused by the change from 139 to 801). With 109 the wing area got smaller after 109E but the proile was altered.
The original wing for the Fw 190A was something like 15m2. As the weight of the prototypes increased, the V5 got first original small wing and (V5k) and later new larger 18,3m2 wing (V5g) and the later became standard. The high altitude variants were originally designed and tested with new 20m2 wing but that was increased as well to the 23,3m2 (Ta 152H), while the Ta 152C had 19,5m2 wing.
The Bf 109F prototypes had originally 15,1m2 wing but that was increased to 16,1m2 in the production planes with rounded wing tips (one of the many quick and dirty fixes of the Bf 109). In the case of the high altitude variants, the Bf 109H got originally 21,3m2 wing but that was increased as well in the BV 155 (I don't have numbers in hand).
-
Logical wing increase for high alt jobs.
After all, what's the use of high top speed well under ceiling if your enemy is cruising above you like nothing. That is a completely reverse fighter tactic, - only defensive.
-
Originally posted by gripen
I think G-6/G-14 supposed difference has been covered earlier. Regarding the rest, does the rarity of the gondolas actually speak for the larger airframe like the G.55 which could carry comparable load internally?
Nope, it simply speak for the need of an air superiority fighter, not another bomber destroyer.
Since there wasnt a DB603 available in big numbers, there couldnt be a G56.
The german fighters was so smal, cause the available engines dont had that much power and was smal. When the fighters got developed there wasnt a Jumo or Db603, although documents from 1941 already saw this engines as successor of the BMW801 for the FW190, but as we know, this engines came very late. With the size of the G55, the 109 would have been another Hurricane, Spitfire, P40 or G55, while the allied planes got particular much stronger engines in 1943. As result the "big" 109 would have been lost. With the disadvantage in power the 109´s still could disengage by diving and they was still fast(at least faster than the G55).
When germany got powerfull big engines they also created more big fighters, like the Ta152, Do335, Me309 etc, but that was in 1944, already much to late. And actually the Luftwaffe had a very big fighter from the beginning, the 110, strangewise this construction didnt follow the way of the 109, of an heavy wingload, otherwise the Luftwaffe would have had a german "P38" already in 1939. Not to manouverable, but very fast. A single seat version also would have been very interesting(200 -300 kg less weight right away).
Last but not least, the wingload absolutly dont matter, its the lift, produced by the wing that matter and due to the slats the 109 did produce the max lift of a more big wing. Most tests which refer to a bad turning 109 refer to the heavy elevator anyway, not to the smal wings, while the experienced pilot could use the trim to overcome this problem. Hermann Graf wrote about it and also Hartmann often did refer to the trim before making manouvers, while most experienced pilots simply didnt turnfight anyway. They used the good vertical behaviour, the speed and the excellent slow speed handling(specialy important while high alt fights).
Originally posted by gripen
For various reasons there were a lot G-14s without the MW50. In practice the factories tried to produce planes from what ever parts were available; as an example there is photo evidence of K type airframe with the DB 605AS.
I doubt there was many G14´s without MW50, while the G´s got the MW50 Rüstsatz. If a G14 was without MW50 it must have been very late in the war, or it was a AS only used for the high alt task, above rathed altitude, where the MW50 mainly gave weight, but in general the MW50 equipment was installed.
btw, was the 109´s able to use the MW50 tank as aux tank?? Never did read about it, unlike to the 190A´s, but they had fuel inside their "Sondernot-Tanks" anyway.
Originally posted by gripen
Basicly there is plans and then there is reality. Often these are not similar.
I dont found any proov that the reality wasnt similar to the plans regarding the G14´s and K4´s. There was variations, but where are the proofs that this variations was normal??
If the G14 dont had MW50 equipment, it would have been nothing else than the late G6 or G6AS, also they got the wooden tail and a "Erla Haube".
Originally posted by gripen
These values comes from the datasheet dated 13.8.1944 ie before the production of the K-4 was started. In January 1945 Mtt listed weight as 3400kg.
The 3400kg is a rounded calculation value that we see in many german tests, or do you think the K4 had exact 3400kg?? In the datasheets we also see a 3300kg 109G14, while the exact weight was below this.
In the datasheet from 13.8.1944 you can also find this rounded weight of 3300kg for comparison and calculations, while the take off weight vary up and down, depending to the plane.
Greetings,
Knegel
-
Originally posted by Knegel
Nope, it simply speak for the need of an air superiority fighter, not another bomber destroyer.
Fighting against enemy fighters was plain waste of men and material for the Germans 1944-1945. And larger airfarme could have done even that better if they really wanted to do that.
Originally posted by Knegel
With the size of the G55, the 109 would have been another Hurricane, Spitfire, P40 or G55, while the allied planes got particular much stronger engines in 1943. As result the "big" 109 would have been lost.
The airframe with wing around 18-20m2 would have been able to carry considerably heavier armament and more fuel than the Bf 109 and could have same or better performance with similar power. Note that even in it's cleanest form the Bf 109K was still a bumpy plane (with short combat range and not so optimal armament).
Originally posted by Knegel
I doubt there was many G14´s without MW50...
There is plenty of evidence of the G-14s without MW50; factory documentation as well as captured planes + plenty of pictures.
Originally posted by Knegel
The 3400kg is a rounded calculation value that we see in many german tests, or do you think the K4 had exact 3400kg??
Detailed weight breakdown by kg per kg for 3400kg can be found from Ebert-Kaiser-Peters (p. 249).
-
Originally posted by gripen
Fighting against enemy fighters was plain waste of men and material for the Germans 1944-1945. And larger airfarme could have done even that better if they really wanted to do that.
Fighting against enemy fighters was the only way to offer te possibility for the "Schwere gruppen" to reach the bombers and to get home without to many losses. The topcover strategy was absolut normal untill the LW completely broke appart in early 1945(after Bodenplatte)
Originally posted by gripen
The airframe with wing around 18-20m2 would have been able to carry considerably heavier armament and more fuel than the Bf 109 and could have same or better performance with similar power. Note that even in it's cleanest form the Bf 109K was still a bumpy plane (with short combat range and not so optimal armament).
Yes, but the flight tests show that the clean 109G made more out of the engine power than the G55, at least regarding the flight performence.
The G56 still was to slow and not manouverable enough to fight the US fighters, while the K4 could. The 190A8 on the otherside was better armned than the G56 and with GM1 or the later BMW801 engines they was good enough to attack the bombers in 24000k alt. The G56 with only 3 cannons and the DDB603 was much more heavy than the G55, so the flight performence must have suffered as well.
Originally posted by gripen
There is plenty of evidence of the G-14s without MW50; factory documentation as well as captured planes + plenty of pictures.
How do you see on a picture if there is MW50 or not??
Originally posted by gripen
Detailed weight breakdown by kg per kg for 3400kg can be found from Ebert-Kaiser-Peters (p. 249).
And where the 30kg got added and what sources E-K-P did use??
Greetings,
Knegel
-
Hehe, this got me pondering, - Knegel:
"With the size of the G55, the 109 would have been another Hurricane, Spitfire, P40 or G55"
While Hurricane and Spitfire in the early years shared the same engine the performance was quite different. Anyway, what's wrong with performing "just" like a Spitfire??? How about saying "Just lika a p51" anyway?
And here:
"The german fighters was so smal, cause the available engines dont had that much power and was smal."
DB 605 ended up with what, - 2000 hp? Almost a Griffon. And in 1944, when a P51 encountered a 109, was there much difference in power?
In 1942, - say autumn, when a 109 met a Spit IX, was there much difference in power? Well, at 37K there may have been, and anyway, at the high alt the wingloading starts becoming crucial.
-
"Fighting against enemy fighters was plain waste of men and material for the Germans 1944-1945."
AFAIK it was the other way around. The orders to avoid enemy fighters gnawed the axis fighting morale to a point where allied fighter pilots became more and more aggressive and axis pilots more and more defensive so that axis pilots lost confidence in engaging allied fighters and it was the fighters that finally killed their aces and pilots.
"And larger airfarme could have done even that better if they really wanted to do that."
I don't really agree. There is no benefit of having a large airframe interceptor. E.g. the TA had a very adequate armament for any job and it had less guns than 190A8. Almost the same airframe but longer wings for high alt job. Besides you can't have better performance with bigger airframe and same engine power -there has to be compromises. If a fighter is designed for a particular job it has advantages over a fighter that is modified to do the same job and possibly the airframe tampered to a level where the original cleanness of its airframe is disturbed. But I do agree that the 109 began suffering because of its size to some degree in the latter part of conflict.
It would be really nice to see a Lednicher type detailed drag analysis of a few 109 models where the design was more or less significantly changed. Say, E4, F4, G6, K4.
-C+
-
What Fw190As got GM-1?
-
Originally posted by Knegel
Fighting against enemy fighters was the only way to offer te possibility for the "Schwere gruppen" to reach the bombers and to get home without to many losses. The topcover strategy was absolut normal untill the LW completely broke appart in early 1945(after Bodenplatte)
There are some cases when such tactics were succesfull but in generally this was a failure, top cover and "Shwere gruppen" suffering enermous losses in the hands of escort fighters.
Originally posted by Knegel
Yes, but the flight tests show that the clean 109G made more out of the engine power than the G55, at least regarding the flight performence.
That was a G-4 in the test while at winter-spring 1944 the germans were mostly using the slower and heavier G-6. Besides, with external tank the G-4 probably performed much worse than the G.55 with comparable load.
Originally posted by Knegel
The G56 still was to slow and not manouverable enough to fight the US fighters...
Probably untrue based on numbers but no reason argue about plain speculation.
Originally posted by Knegel
The 190A8 on the otherside was better armned than the G56 and with GM1 or the later BMW801 engines they was good enough to attack the bombers in 24000k alt.
There is very little evidence on combat use of GM-1 in the Fw 190s and the later BMW 801s were litterally late.
Originally posted by Knegel
How do you see on a picture if there is MW50 or not??
Several details; colour of the landing gear, hatches and stencils. Sometimes some equipment is visible in a damaged/repaired plane.
Originally posted by Knegel
And where the 30kg got added and what sources E-K-P did use??
There is no direct source claimed for that chart. There is a long list of sources listed in the end of book (including company records and W. Messerschmitt's personal documents). Kaiser worked for the Mtt during war (continued after war). The listing is following:
5% Nutzlast (170kg)
14% Brennstof (476kg)
13% Ausrüstung (442kg)
40% Triebwerk (1360kg)
28% Flugwerk (952kg)
-
Originally posted by Charge
AFAIK it was the other way around. The orders to avoid enemy fighters gnawed the axis fighting morale to a point where allied fighter pilots became more and more aggressive and axis pilots more and more defensive so that axis pilots lost confidence in engaging allied fighters and it was the fighters that finally killed their aces and pilots.
The point is that with larger airframe the Germans would have been more succesfull. With these small airframes with external loads they were slower and less maneuverable. Without external loads they were probably unable to intercept high flying bombers in most cases.
Originally posted by Charge
I don't really agree. There is no benefit of having a large airframe interceptor.
The advantages of the G.55 over the Bf 109G as an interceptor are clear; heavier armament and longer range with internal load.
-
"The advantages of the G.55 over the Bf 109G as an interceptor are clear; heavier armament and longer range with internal load."
Yes, and you don't need either of those in an interceptor role 109 needed to fit in. If there was no 190 the situation would have been quite a bit worse and G.55 would have been better choice but perhaps only for guns part. The vulnerability of the liquid cooled engine would have remained the same and you would not have much benefit from extra fuel except longer loitering times. The G.55 was probably a great fighter and in the Mediterranean the fuel capacity and heavy armament would have been essential due to lack of other bomber interceptor.
-C+
-
Originally posted by Charge
Yes, and you don't need either of those in an interceptor role 109 needed to fit in.
Could you explain what was the supposed interceptor role where 1 canon and less than one hour combat endurance was enough?
I think that in spring 1944 the Germans would have needed a single type capable to deal with high flying bombers and the escort fighters. In practice they have few types which could deal with the bombers (Bf 110, Me 410, Fw 190) but these could not deal well with the escorts.
-
Hi Angus,
even the Spitfire was rather slow with the same poweroutput like the 109.
The high power DB605´s came very late, actually to late, while the critical year(1943) and specialy while time of construction there wasnt a powerfull inline engine available. Missing power was the main problem of the Luftwaffe fighters in the critical year of 1943.
Hi gripen,
you talk about the droptanks like they couldnt get dropped. The advantage over the inbuild tank is clear, the pilot could get rid of the extraweight, BEFORE combat.
The test show a 109G4, yes, but the test also show the rather bad armned G55. With 3 x 20mm it would be more heavy as well, this would reduce the performence as well.
If the DB603 would have been abailable, the FW190/Ta152 would have made a much better airframe than the G55. As the Jumo powered 190/152´s show, but also the tested planes with DB603, they was as good or better than the G55.
The 109G6 did count as good high alt fighter, which was able to fight the US fighters. It was able to outmanouver them in a dogfight, what the G6 did miss in comparison to the US fighters was speed, not manouverability. The G55 was more slow and not more manouverable, they would have had even more problems and 3 x 20mm wasnt enough to attack the 4mots anyway, even the 4 x 20mm of the FW190 often wasnt strong enough to do the job in one run.
Only with an more strong engine the G55(G56) could have been comparable to the US fighters, but this engines simply came much to late. in mid/late 1944 the game already was over.
The topcover/attack group tactic did work very well from the end of 1943 till mid 1944, afterward the number of escortfighters was so extremely high, even the 262´s had trouble to get to the Bombers and faster and more manouverable planes than the G56 got hunted down.
The real high losts started mid 44 and had its peak on 2nd November 44, where around 500 german fighters had to face around +1000 4mots and a even higher number of escorting fighters, of course under such circumstances every tactic will fail. At that time the quality of the pilots already did suffer badly, as result, even without escorting fighters, it was already very difficult to get a group into a good attacking position.
Willi Resche wrote about the problems and advantages of the topcover/attack group tactic. Without topcover the "schwere Gruppen" was lost, not cause their planes was so heavy, but cause they wasnt able to get as one group behind the 4Mots. But this was the only way, for a normal skilled pilot, to attack the pulks without to many losses. Further more most of the "schwere Gruppen" dont had good fighter pilots, mainly former Zerstörer or Bomber Pilots, without any experience regarding dogfight.
The JG302 got one group specialy for the topcover task from JG50, when this group came, the losses of the schwere Gruppen decreased. Of course also this top cover group had losts, which dont got filled with experienced pilots, the result is clear.
170kg Nutzlast?? How fat the pilots was?? Looks like he took Goerings weight. Nutzlast normaly is pilot + chute = 100kg, and so we have 3330kg again, oh wait, in your list the chute must be included in "Ausrüstung", so Nutzlast is only the pilot, with around 70kg, so we are back at 3360kg.
Greetings,
Knegel
-
Originally posted by Knegel
you talk about the droptanks like they couldnt get dropped.
The G.55 in the test climbed as well as the G-4. So in practice the G.55 has clear advantage until the 109 drops the tank even in the case of the G-4. In the case of the G-6, the advantage is larger.
Originally posted by Knegel
The test show a 109G4, yes, but the test also show the rather bad armned G55.
The G.55 in the test had 1x20mm + 4x12,7mm while the G-4 had 1x20mm and 2x7,9mm so the G.55 was considerably heavier armed.
Originally posted by Knegel
With 3 x 20mm it would be more heavy as well, this would reduce the performence as well.
In the case of the G-6 with 3x20mm and 2x13mm + external tank the performance would be reduced much more.
Originally posted by Knegel
If the DB603 would have been abailable, the FW190/Ta152 would have made a much better airframe than the G55.
This is mostly speculation; the fact is that the LW did show considerable interest on the G.55 with the DB 603.
Originally posted by Knegel
The 109G6 did count as good high alt fighter, which was able to fight the US fighters.
Only the G-6/AS could compete in some degree with the allied fighters at high altitude. There is no reason to believe that the G.55 would have been worse with same engine.
Originally posted by Knegel
The topcover/attack group tactic did work very well from the end of 1943 till mid 1944...
Not true given the large losses suffered by the LW against 8th AF during winter/spring 1944. The peak months being March to May.
Originally posted by Knegel
The real high losts started mid 44...
The Battle of Normandy started 6th June and the activity in the Mediterranean and East front increased considerably during the summer as well. So these have nothing to do with tactics used againts US high altitude bombers.
Originally posted by Knegel
Willi Resche wrote...
Willi Reschke started operations 20th June 1944 ie after the air superiority over the reich was decided. He was shot down 8 times, one of the few survivors of the JG 302.
Originally posted by Knegel
170kg Nutzlast?? How fat the pilots was?? Looks like he...
Please cut the crap; the terms are not the same as used in the GL/C sheets so we don't know what is exactly included for each weight item.
-
Knegel:
"Hi Angus,
even the Spitfire was rather slow with the same poweroutput like the 109.
The high power DB605´s came very late, actually to late, while the critical year(1943) and specialy while time of construction there wasnt a powerfull inline engine available. Missing power was the main problem of the Luftwaffe fighters in the critical year of 1943."
I tend to disagree with you on this. The closest to compare are actually Spit I and 109E, where power, weight and topspeed are almost identical (you have to compare a CS screw to be true in comparison for the Spitfire, but actually top speed is less there).
You have the HP very close if you run the Merlin on 100 octs, the 109 is lighter, the Spitfire AFAIK will climb better, and top speed is very close.
As for power in Engines, the LW already has the powerful 190 BEFORE the USA enters the fray, and the US aircraft used by the British were not powerful single engined fighters. So for the engine power, I see Germany at no disadvantage before the arrival of the Napier-Sabre and Griffon. However, I don't take engine durability/powerloss into account, there the DB was probably at disadvantage.
If you look at the 109F it has roughly the same power as the Spit V, the 109G-2 - G6 has close to Spit IX, and the G-10 - K has close to the Spit XIV, - the ballpark swinging within the 10% depending on altitude with the Spitfire being a heavier aircraft all the time.
ROC is close, so is top speed, 109 dives better, etc etc. But very much the same ballpark, and I definately don't see a punishment for a slightly lower wingloading any more then I see a general benefit in lower weight.
-
"Could you explain what was the supposed interceptor role where 1 canon and less than one hour combat endurance was enough? "
Could you explain what are the desired qualities of an interceptor?
-C+
-
Depends on the time of alarm. In the case of a very short alarm, high ROC and good maneuverability. In the case of the German Reich in 1944 or so-ish, heavy firepower and good maneuverability at a high speed. Ideally a 190. Wham-Bam and play roll&floppy-fish OTW to terra firma.
-
Hi Angus,
The G1-G6 had alredy more than 100HP less power than the SpitIXc with Merlin61, the Merlin 66/67 was even more powerful.
Afaik the Spit14 with 2050hp was roundabout as fast as the 109K4 with 1850hp.
The SpitV with DB605A and only 2730 kg was 25km/h slower at sea level, than the 109G with 3100kg, this disadvantage decreased to 10km/h in 6800m and in 10600m the light weight of this Spit made it faster.
The 109F4 in early 1942 already had a similar performence like the 109G6 in early 1944, while the SpitIXc in early 1944 made a very big jump from the SpitV in 1942. Also the performence jump of the P51A to P51B/C/D was not smal. Also the P38J had much more power than the P38G, the 1944 P47D´s had at least 300HP more than the 1943 P47C´s. The russian fighters made a similar jump in 1943, while the DB605A and the BMW801D more than one year(end of 1942 -early/mid 1944) dont got more power.
Hi Gripen,
you wrote:
````````````````````````````````````````````````````
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Knegel
The topcover/attack group tactic did work very well from the end of 1943 till mid 1944...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not true given the large losses suffered by the LW against 8th AF during winter/spring 1944. The peak months being March to May.
``````````````````````````````````````````````````
The peak moth clearly was November/Dezember 1944. JG301 lost 145 planes in this two month, while this unit lost 107 planes from janurary till end of october.
Afaik this picture is the same in all home defence units.
The G55 was more slow than the G4 and the armament of the G4 was good enought to fight all fighters, while the armament of the G55 still wasnt good enough to fight bombers and its speed was to bad to fight the US fighters. And of course the 109 did need to drop the tank to get the advantage, same the P51´s had to do, thats not a disadvantage, thats the advantage of an droptank.
The G55 was 25km/h more slow than the 109G4 and the rollratio was more bad, while the G4 already was more slow than the US planes and just as fast as the early SpitIX´s.
The G55 simply missed power to be a good plane, its powerload was bad, its speed was bad, its visibility was even more bad than that of the 109, its rollratio was bad and its armament was not good enough to attack 4mots. What should it have been good for??
The clean 109G could do all as good or better than the G55, the smaler firepower dont matter, cause it was still good enough to fight fighters, while the loss in flight performence was bad, cause the performence of the 109G already made it very hard for teh pilots.
btw, end of 43 and early 44 there was no G6AS, the normal G5/6 made the top cover task. And this tactic already did work very well while BoB, where the Spits made the topcover, while Hurris did attack the Bombers.
Only the Jets had a so outstanding performence to be able to fly low without topcover, otherwise the topcover tactic got used successfully by all nations(hurris did cover P40´s, mig3´s did cover Lagg3´s, Spits did cover hurris etc). Always when a fighter, same like a bomber or fighter bomber had to bring himself below the enemy fighters, to be able to fulfill the order, a topcover was neccesarry to minimize the losses.
The G55 only can be seen as a possible high alt fighter in combination with the DB603, in combination with the "poor" DB605A the smal 109 airframe was a better solution. And in altitudes below 7000m the 190 airframe was much better.
Greetings,
Knegel
-
Originally posted by Charge
Could you explain what are the desired qualities of an interceptor?
Against the B-17s heavy armament is obviously desired as well as enough fuel to climb 30k and to do something sensible there. Good climb rate with desired load would be good too.
Originally posted by Knegel
The peak moth clearly was November/Dezember 1944. JG301 lost 145 planes in this two month, while this unit lost 107 planes from janurary till end of october.
Basicly the losses of the JG 301 tells just how badly the tactics worked. The relevant statistics can be found from the USAAF statistical digest; heavy bomber losses to enemy aircraft Jan to Dec 1944 at ETO:
1. 139
2. 170
3. 178
4. 314
5. 211
6. 112
7. 80
8. 61
9. 137
10. 36
11. 50
12. 28
Note that in December USAAF did over 16000 effective heavy bomber sorties while in April (the hardest fighting month) a bit below 10000.
Enemy aircraft claimed by fighters Jan to Dec 1944 at ETO:
1. 203
2. 341
3. 469
4. 418
5. 596
6. 470
7. 407
8. 551
9. 586
10. 202
11. 492
12. 867
The picture should be quite clear, the hardest fighting months based on heavy bomber losses to enemy airplanes being March to May 1944. Late 1944 the LW units were unable to cause large losses to heavy bombers, in practice LW pilots were mostly just dying bravely that time.
Originally posted by Knegel
The G55 was more slow than the G4 and the armament of the G4 was good enought to fight all fighters, while the armament of the G55 still wasnt good enough to fight bombers and its speed was to bad to fight the US fighters.
Rather selective quoting; the LW used mostly the standard G-6 at spring 1944 which was in clean condition about as fast as the G.55, the later being obviously better climber as well as more maneuverable and better armed (note that 3x20mm armamant for the G.55would have increased weight less than 50kg).
Originally posted by Knegel
The G55 simply missed power to be a good plane, its powerload was bad, its speed was bad, its visibility was even more bad than that of the 109, its rollratio was bad and its armament was not good enough to attack 4mots. What should it have been good for??
It would have been obviously better than the G-6 with similar power plant (the powerplant of the tested G.55 was worse than original DB 605A). Besides, it was the G.55 with the DB 603 which got the most attention of the LW.
-
Hi,
i talk about the peak of losses of the "Reichsverteidung", not about the peak of combat and losses of the 8th AF.
Your datas say exact what i say, the losses for the Jg´s was most big in Nov/dez 1944, with smalest success, and already increased in August/September, although the heavyest fights was in early 1944.
This show that the topcover tactic did work better than to fight without. Although the superiority of the USAF already was extreme, the JG´s still was successfull and the losses often was a result of the tail gunners.
Of course the topcover tactic cant work perfect against an oponent with much more planes in target area.
The 4mots alone was a challenge, with an additonal numerical advantage of escorfighters in combat area such fights cant be without losses.
Acording to Reschke the 12/Jg51(then 4/302), which came to the JG302 as topcover unit in early June 44, was a real win. The losses decreased for around 1 month, while the kills increased, until the good pilots of the 12/JG51 was dead.
Maybe the german HQ much to late did decide to use special topcover units?
The german HQ never managed to make one mass attack against a big bomberstream. Instead of that they did spread their groups from Dutch to Berlin and Hamburg to Wien, attacking one after the next. In this way the escort most had the numerical advantage in combat area. In combination with the tactical advantage, the rather smal number of topcover fighters of cours wasnt able to bind all escort fighters.
Topcover is vital for groups with an tactical disadvantage, this got proven by the topcover of the B17´s and also already while BoB.
If our arguments would be right it would have been better to produce only but more 4mots, to fly only with them to germany.
The G55 wasnt more manouverable than the 109, the comparison clearly say that the rollratio was less good and the turn only a little bit better in high alt.
I doubt the G55 engine in the test had 100PS less power than the german DB605A, a 600kg more heavy plane cant climb same good with less power, thats simply impossible. Or the G55 dont had the full fuel load when it took off. Since the 109 did climb better in medium altiude, it might be that here the german engine was better, while it must have been the other way around in low and high alt.
The G55 airframe dont had anything special, it was good, but not outstanding. The speed performence of the G56 isnt better than that of the FW190D or Ta152C with similar engine, while the 190 was more manouverable.
Greetings,
Knegel
-
Originally posted by Knegel
i talk about the peak of losses of the "Reichsverteidung", not about the peak of combat and losses of the 8th AF.
As usual, you tend to change argument when your original argument has failed. Originally you claimed that:
"Fighting against enemy fighters was the only way to offer te possibility for the "Schwere gruppen" to reach the bombers and to get home without to many losses. The topcover strategy was absolut normal untill the LW completely broke appart in early 1945(after Bodenplatte)"
The statistics show clearly that such tactics were a failure. There were some succesful cases against lower flying B-24 formations but these mean nothing in big picture.
Originally posted by Knegel
Your datas say exact what i say, the losses for the Jg´s was most big in Nov/dez 1944, with smalest success, and already increased in August/September, although the heavyest fights was in early 1944.
As usual, you are unable to read statistics; the losses of the German units and USAF fighter claims are for all kind of operations while the heavy bomber losses for enemy fighters tell directly how succesful the opposition was. Probably large parts of the LW losses were not from operations against heavy bombers and large part of the USAF claims were not from escort missions.
Originally posted by Knegel
Acording to Reschke the 12/Jg51(then 4/302), which came to the JG302 as topcover unit in early June 44, was a real win. The losses decreased for around 1 month, while the kills increased, until the good pilots of the 12/JG51 was dead.
Statistics do not show anything like that in summer 1944. Note that Reschke did fly about 70 combat missions and was shot down 8 times, that tells a lot about the enviroment they were fighting that time. In practice only few pilots survived from the units using such high risk tactics (particularly JG 300, JG 301, JG 302).
Originally posted by Knegel
Maybe the german HQ much to late did decide to use special topcover units?
The fact is that when they tried it, it was a failure despite some initial success.
Basicly there was no sense to use planes which could not deal with escort fighters. So obviously the best and most simple solution would had been a plane with enough good enough armament to fight against bombers and good enough performance to fight against escorts if needed (obviously not desired option). As an example the Ta 152H would had been good but also the G.55 would have been obviously better option than the G-6 and it (G.55) would have been better than the Fw 190 at high altitude.
Originally posted by Knegel
The G55 wasnt more manouverable than the 109, the comparison clearly say that the rollratio was less good and the turn only a little bit better in high alt.
Selective quoting as usual; the comparable 109 is the G-6 and the G.55 could do about everything as well or better, particularly at comparable load (assuming same armament and comparable fuel load).
-
"Against the B-17s heavy armament is obviously desired as well as enough fuel to climb 30k and to do something sensible there. Good climb rate with desired load would be good too."
109 could be armed with a 30mm cannon?
109 didn't have enough fuel to climb to 30k?
What sensible do you do at 30k?
Good climb rate? So 109 with a 30mm would have a worse climb rate than G.55? By how much? is it worth mentioning?
Was the G.55 armored so it could attack the bombers with as good protection as the radial engined FW190?
You can claim anything you want from loss statistics but the fact(TM) remains that LW was starting to be very thinly stretched so I don't really know what is it you see from those statistics. Bad tactics? Bad aircraft? Bad pilots? Or just plain overwhelming numbers of opposition?
-C+
PS. Gripen, maybe it would have been beneficial for you to fly with us "Der Grosse Schlag" scenario so some practical realities of the air battle of that era would have been easier to understand. That is of course if HTC got it right in their modeling... ;)
-
Originally posted by Charge
109 could be armed with a 30mm cannon?
Yes, but it was not a particularly good air to air canon; slow fire rate combined with low velocity, difficult to hit anything except at short range. It seems to be modeled rather well in the AH; very effective if you get close enough but at longer range at least I did better with 3x20mm (tested that couple years ago with AH G-10).
Originally posted by Charge
109 didn't have enough fuel to climb to 30k?
Yes, but giving the time to start and form the formations, more than half of the internal fuel is likely to be burned in the climb and with combat endurance of about 1 hour there is not much fuel for combat left. This is why there is so often Bf 109s with external tank in the gun camera films.
Originally posted by Charge
What sensible do you do at 30k?
For most late war LW pilots the most sensible thing was probably to hit the silk right away (particularly if the escorts appeared). Anyway, if purpose was to attack bombers then finding them, planning the attack, maneuvering for attack and attacking; at most cases that takes quite a lot of time particularly if flown in formation.
Originally posted by Charge
Good climb rate? So 109 with a 30mm would have a worse climb rate than G.55?
According to quoted test the G.55 climbed as well as the G-4 despite heavier armament and more fuel. There is no competion assuming that the Bf 109s usually needed external tank.
Originally posted by Charge
Was the G.55 armored so it could attack the bombers with as good protection as the radial engined FW190?
Probably not, the G.55 airframe certainly can take some more armour if needed. However, the fate of the "Sturmbock" units indicate that it was a bad idea in practice despite some initial success.
Originally posted by Charge
You can claim anything you want from loss statistics but the fact(TM) remains that LW was starting to be very thinly stretched so I don't really know what is it you see from those statistics. Bad tactics? Bad aircraft? Bad pilots? Or just plain overwhelming numbers of opposition?
That was response to Knegel's claims regarding the tactics and success and the statistics should give a clear picture on that.
BTW you seem to have a lot questions.
Originally posted by Charge
Gripen, maybe it would have been beneficial for you to fly with us "Der Grosse Schlag" scenario so some practical realities of the air battle of that era would have been easier to understand. That is of course if HTC got it right in their modeling... ;)
I've not flown AH for couple years, currently I've been flying the Il-2 because it's better suited for a occasional virtual pilot like me (sometimes I have pauses like couple months). Generally I liked the flight modeling in the AH more, particularly the response of controls.
-
"I've not flown AH for couple years, currently I've been flying the Il-2 because it's better suited for a occasional virtual pilot like me (sometimes I have pauses like couple months). Generally I liked the flight modeling in the AH more, particularly the response of controls."
Same here! Il-2 is a candy, and the gunnery is a challenge, but I never got the "touch" for the FM like in AH.
Then to the climb and fuel thing. 109 has roughly the endurance of a Spitfire. Spitfires flew 30K missions and even 40K missions from England to France, - without DT's. (Spit IX) AFAIK. I can only see 1 problem for a 109 to get that altitude and intercept over Germany, and that's NOT the fuel, just the risk of being jumped on the way up, - same problem as RAF had over England in 1940. (with a twist though, RAF had a very short warning time, while the Germans had a long one, but there were deep penetrating fighters around)
Basically, even without DT, a 109 should fly for more than an hour, and only use what, - less than 20 minutes, - and once at 30K, the mixture is weak (or low injection), and TAS is rather high in relation to the fuel burn.
(or was the carburettor perhaps better in adjusting at high alt, - perhaps ?)
Anyway, 109's WERE after all used as high alt escorts protecting the 190's from Allied fighters, while the 190 could better shoot, flop out of harm's way, and dive to the Mutterland.
-
Hi Gripen,
like so often you start to discredit others to let look your arguments better.
I didnt change my arguments a bit, the statistics dont show that the tactics was a failsure, they clearly show that the LW had less losses with more success in early 1944, than late 1944.
The topcover tactic got prooven as good working by many nations as i did explain before. The reason for the high losses wasnt the topcover tactic, it was rather the reason for relative small losses and relative good success.
btw, if the numbers you posted are for all kind of looses, they are absolut not relevant here, so why you did post them??
Sounds like you do what you claim i do.
The reason for the high losses was the numerical advantage of the USAAF and the needed overload of the schwere Gruppen to be successfull against the 4mots.
The 3 x 20mm got prooven as not good enough against the 4mots, the MK108 was much more effective(btw, the gun had the similar rps like the HispannoII).
The G55 for sure wasnt able to attack the bombers successful and to fight with the fighters as needed.
Only the 262 was able to do what you think was the best tactic, and of course a so advanced plane dont need topcover(once it took off).
It looks to me you dont have a good understanding of the topcover tactic.
The topcover wasnt flying right above the "schwere Gruppen" to protect them, instead they did fly in front to lure the escort away from the 4mots.
Only if the schwere Gruppen was able to get as one group behind the bombers they could be successfull without high losses by the bomber gunners.
If there was no topcover no successfull attack could happen, cause it need much time and skill to lead a group of 12-24 planes into a position, where all reach the gunner range at same time. While this minutes of aproach the attackers was easy targets and such a formation was fast destroyed.
Every plane with an performence that isnt MUCH better than the oponets fighters and that have to fly below the enemys fighters need topcover.
Also the Ta152H in big numbers wouldnt have been successful, cause they would have to fly bellow the escort to attack the Bombers, with this tactical disadvantage even slightly advanced fighter would have been dead meat against a high number of escorting fighters.
The higher flying plane have extreme advantages, thats the most kown rule of aircombat, the G55 wasnt able to overcome this.
Due to its outstanding performence only the 262 and 163 was able to minimize this problem, but even they had to speed up above Vmax, before attacking the bombers, to be able to leave the diving P51´s behind them. As result it was rather difficult to get a clean shot.
btw. Willi Reschke got 8 times shot down mainly by tailgunners.
You should get some arguments that proof the topcover system wrong, instead of getting personel. Strangewise you say the statistics proof that this tactic was bad, while you say your numbers are not realy valid, if i use them. :rolleyes:
I made my point, now you can go on to discredit me to make your arguments looking better.
Greetings,
Knegel
-
Knegel:
"The reason for the high losses was the numerical advantage of the USAAF and the needed overload of the schwere Gruppen to be successfull against the 4mots.
The 3 x 20mm got prooven as not good enough against the 4mots, the MK108 was much more effective(btw, the gun had the similar rps like the HispannoII).
The G55 for sure wasnt able to attack the bombers successful and to fight with the fighters as needed.
Only the 262 was able to do what you think was the best tactic, and of course a so advanced plane dont need topcover(once it took off). "
While I agree with you mostly here, I cannot see why the G55 wouldn't have worked. BTW, how was it's dive (escape) speed?
And then you mention the TA152:
"Also the Ta152H in big numbers wouldnt have been successful, cause they would have to fly bellow the escort to attack the Bombers"
Wooot? They were AFAIK high performance- specialized high-alt aircraft. Surely they would have been used in interceptions either LEVEL AND FASTER or ABOVE the escorts, intercepting at advantage of hight and being able to extend UPWARDS! Wasn't that the whole idea?
-
Originally posted by Knegel
like so often you start to discredit others to let look your arguments better.
The problem is that I can't find much sense from your varying arguments, the bomber losses went down months before your claimed peak period or the time Willi Reschke went to operations.
Nothing indicates that the top cover tactics worked (except couple rare cases). The statistics simply show that increasing number of capable escort fighters and better tactics cut the bomber losses.
Note that it's up to you to prove your arguments.
Originally posted by Knegel
The G55 for sure wasnt able to attack the bombers successful and to fight with the fighters as needed.
Well, it probably could have done both better than the G-6.
-
I would think that the top cover idea was a rather sensible one, - trying to scatter enemy fighters before the bombers got hit, - even on their high 12, - by heavily armed 190's. Would anyone have a better idea?
One thing comes to mind here, - Park's method, which was harassing LW bombers with smaller packs of fighters (for flexibility, since time was very little). Then smack them with the bigger pack when deeper inland.
This will force the escorts down, and since they are outside radar cover and over hostile territory, they may possibly have to head back as well as loosing contact anyway.
Only drawback I would see for the LW would be that the numbers were not particularly favourable, and maybe too much resources would be drawn into this. So, I guess the top-cover could be analyzed as a variant to the big wing theory....
-
Angus,
From spring 1944 onwards the 8th AF could send around 1000 escorts out and after that there is very few cases when the LW fighters could cause considerable losses to the heavy bombers regardless the tactics the LW used. There were couple cases when the LW had some success, the most famous being the case of the 492nd BG in 7th July 1944. But even in that case the success of the LW was not caused by the use of topcover tactics but the failed escort tactics; basicly the LW managed to hit that part of a long bomber stream which had no escorts. But if you look USAF ETO loss statistics of July 1944 (80 known lost to enemy airplanes) it's clear that such cases were rare.
-
Hehe, my great uncle flew escorts as far as to Berlin in 1944. He said that from the autumn onwards it was rare seeing anything of the LW, and since the tradition was to attack only under favourable conditions, and there weren't any, then.....
But in June 1944 there was quite a racket, when the desperate LW sent up anything they could muster. Often gaggles of up to 50-60 aircraft.
I remember a description where a squadron of 12 engaged such a gaggle scoring a kill, having a loss, and as far as I recall, that was all. But some balls!
-
Originally posted by Angus
Knegel:
"The reason for the high losses was the numerical advantage of the USAAF and the needed overload of the schwere Gruppen to be successfull against the 4mots.
The 3 x 20mm got prooven as not good enough against the 4mots, the MK108 was much more effective(btw, the gun had the similar rps like the HispannoII).
The G55 for sure wasnt able to attack the bombers successful and to fight with the fighters as needed.
Only the 262 was able to do what you think was the best tactic, and of course a so advanced plane dont need topcover(once it took off). "
While I agree with you mostly here, I cannot see why the G55 wouldn't have worked. BTW, how was it's dive (escape) speed?
And then you mention the TA152:
"Also the Ta152H in big numbers wouldnt have been successful, cause they would have to fly bellow the escort to attack the Bombers"
Wooot? They were AFAIK high performance- specialized high-alt aircraft. Surely they would have been used in interceptions either LEVEL AND FASTER or ABOVE the escorts, intercepting at advantage of hight and being able to extend UPWARDS! Wasn't that the whole idea?
Hi Angus,
for a plane that have to operate below the enemys fighters, to do the needed job, its not enough to be a bit better than the enemy fighters.
Even the 262 had to make a dive, started some km above and behind of the bombers, to accelerate to an speed where even a diving P51 had problems to follow.
Only if the number of interceptors is 1/3 higher than the number of escort fighters, a effective interception against 4mots was possible without high losses. Due to the badly splitted and spreaded german JG´s this rarely was the case in combat area.
The only real advantage of the G55 over the 109G6 was the better armament, which still wasnt good enough to attack 4mots, while the 109G´s armament was good enough to bring fighters down.
Both planes was not good enough to fight P51, P47´s or P38´s that have a initial altitude advantage. Even when the fight started at same altitude both planes had problems in 8km alt against the P47 and P51.
The rollratio is a vital point of an plane to be able to evade an attack, much more important than the turn performence. If your plane turn better, the enemy only need enough lead to hit you, while his attack, if he dont hit, you for sure dont got any advantage, cause you did bleed energy while the hard turn. If your plane roll faster, the enemy cant follow you at all, while you dont need to waste energy in a hard turn. The G6 already wasnt the best regarding this, the G55 was even less good.
Only the 190 was able to fight in disadvantage for quiet a while, due to its outstanding roll ratio. Since it couldnt outrun a higher P47 or P51, this advantage is gone at ground level.
Gripen,
my arguments got prooven by the successful usage of topcover(escort) everywhere and by all nations, if the escorted planes had to operate in an
tactical disadvantage against the enemys fighters.
The success of this tactic while the intercept over the Reich only can been seen in a relative way. There was no way to be realy successful at all, but without a topcover, to bind the enemy fighters, the losses would have been even more big, with less succsess. At least thats what pilots say who was there.
The statistics only say that the Luftwaffe wasnt successful in 1944, the reason for this is for sure not the used topcover tactic and for sure not the german airframes. A numerical disadvantage in combat area, a to smal engine power and a decreased pilot skill was the reason for the high losses.
With the DB605DM or Jumo213E already in 1943, the picture could have been a different, while the numerical advantage in 1944 would have been the same, as result even better engines only would have made a delay.
The G55 wouldnt have made any different, maybe the 262 in big numbers would have.
Greetings,
Knegel
-
I agree with you on the idea of topcover as something that made sense. And the topcovering aircraft could even make a slash if such was the case.
After all, the 190's with their heavy versions could not have an altitude advantage over the allied escorts (who had several brilliant high alt fighters as a "stock"), close escort had turned out bad, so there is only one thing left, - everyone attacking the bombers, preferrably head on, and then diving for the ground...
I'd have tried top cover...
BTW, the RAF used vertical "stacking" in N-Africa as a response to the 109F being good at alt, as well as the 190's being faster at medium-low alt. The high alt cover (the "top of the stack") was there to intervein. However, that was with more similar odds, as well as fighter-to-fighter. But it worked quite well. I can dig up the story if you like.
But then the Ta 152. I mean that one had incredible alt performance and packed a punch. Why would it have to fly below the escorts? It would rather dive through the escorts? And it's top speed at high alt was quite good right? And as a top cover, nothing would beat it!
As for the G.55, it has better high alt performance than the 190 and possibly the 109 as well?
-
Originally posted by Knegel
my arguments got prooven by the successful usage of topcover(escort) everywhere and by all nations, if the escorted planes had to operate in an
tactical disadvantage against the enemys fighters.
Everyone used top cover but it means usually just that part of the formation is located higher than other planes. My original point was that for the LW 1944-45 fighting against escorts was waste of men material. At spring 1944 the LW sent large and relatively slow moving (compared to P-51s) formations of heavily armed planes (Fw 190s, Me 410s etc.) escorted by large number of G-6s (which was generally in disadavantage against the P-51 at high altitude) as top cover against US heavy bomber formations which were escorted by large number of fast moving escort fighters. The results were not good for the LW, according to Galland the LW lost about 1000 pilots in the defence of the Reich during spring 1944. Basicly the LW used the tactics which maximized their own losses in other words they gave the US escorts lot of targets.
Originally posted by Knegel
The success of this tactic while the intercept over the Reich only can been seen in a relative way. There was no way to be realy successful at all, but without a topcover, to bind the enemy fighters, the losses would have been even more big, with less succsess.
What if the LW had chosen to use large number of smaller and faster moving formations which were looking for oppurnity to hit and run? Also these smaller formations could have a top cover but whole point is to avoid fighting against escorts. Note that in the most succesful cases the LW could avoid the escorts.
Originally posted by Knegel
The statistics only say that the Luftwaffe wasnt successful in 1944, the reason for this is for sure not the used topcover tactic and for sure not the german airframes.
Statistics actually say that used tactics were certainly wrong. Regarding the airframes; the G-6 was the mainstay of the LW during spring 1944 and the G.55 could have done practically everything better. Note that Willi Reschke claimed majority of his heavy bomber claims in the Bf 109 (apparently most in the G-6?).
-
"What if the LW had chosen to use large number of smaller and faster moving formations which were looking for oppurnity to hit and run? Also these smaller formations could have a top cover but whole point is to avoid fighting against escorts. Note that in the most succesful cases the LW could avoid the escorts."
Like Park's tactics ,- for he had no time. Turned out just fine, because when the big LW formations were jumped all the time, the escorts were scattered, and sometimes forced low, and forced to burn a lot of fuel.
Imagine what the Allied faced flying to Berlin in daylight, from Britain. They spend HOURS over enemy territory, something like 2x3!
Interesting thought, - I mentioned it before anyway. How would you have played the LW's resources as "King of the LW" Gripen?
-
Originally posted by Angus
How would you have played the LW's resources as "King of the LW" Gripen?
I have two different ways to answer:
Purely tactical view: Do exactly what I described above; large number of small formations looking opportunity to strike fast and hard to harasse escorts as well bombers. Head on attacks preferred to avoid losses due to defence armament of the bombers.
Purely sensible view: The war was allready lost spring 1944, every day fighting continued resulted just more loss of human life and destruction of country. So anything which wasted maximum amount of LW resources to shorten the war. In additon full support to true german patriots like Stauffenberg and Bonhoeffer who at least tried to end the madness.
In a way there is some irony in the fact that the LW actually chose the tactics which wasted maximum amount of their resources.
-
"Purely sensible view" lol ... "purely traitorous way" is more like it. Human life or destruction of property is inconsequential to your duty as a soldier. The duty of a soldier to give his utmost effort in combating the enemy is at its most important when your side is losing.
A war is never lost until someone capitulates and in the spring of 1944 Germany might very well have succeeded in obtaining a bargained peace if the German leadership had sought it. That Hitler never did so is not something you could have known at the time.
If you had destroyed the Luftwaffe by spring of 1944 Graf von Stauffenberg would have nothing to bargain with if he had succeeded in replacing the German leadership.
You would be a traitor, noting more.
-
Viking,
After year 1943 pretty much any one with a bit of common sense knew that Germany was going to lose. As an example Finnish leaders started secret contacts with Soviets spring 1944 to reach the peace which eventually happened autumn 1944 (after major battles in Carelian Isthmus) once German military existence in Scandinavia has weakened enough. Also large part of higher German officers knew that the situation was hopeless, particularly after Casablanca the negoatiations were not an option. Real traitors were the Nazi leaders who were willing pull everything with them to the Hell.
Nowadays Stauffenberg is seen as a hero in Germany and I'm a bit curious if you see him as a true patriot as me or as a traitor?
Note that Bonhoeffer was not a soldier but a theologian and worked also for the Abwehr. His main subject of study was ethics.
-
Graf von Stauffenberg was both a traitor and a hero. He is a classical example of the old saying "one man's hero is another man's traitor". He is a traitor to the people he swore allegiance to, and a hero to modern Germans for turning against the Nazis.
However ... Graf von Stauffenberg would NEVER have done what you proposed. The German "rebels" would NEVER have handed the allies the victory like you propose by squandering resources or otherwise giving in. They were after all German patriots. They tried to grab power from the Nazis and negotiate an armistice with the allies using the remaining strength of the Wehrmacht as a bargaining chip; threatening to fight "to the last man". And I think they would have if it came to that. You see Graf von Stauffenberg was a soldier. He understood his duty. You clearly do not.
Graf von Stauffenberg did not disagree with the Nazi's expansionist politics, nor did he disagree with the Nazi's nationalistic politics. He even supported the use of Poles as slave workers in German agriculture, and the systematic German colonization of Poland. However he was a Catholic and strongly disliked the mistreatment of religious groups, especially Jews, under the Nazis. If not for the Nazis racial and anti-religious aspects Graf von Stauffenberg would probably have been a die-hard Nazi.
-
Viking, - I would say that Stauffenberg was a hero in his attempt to release the German nation out of a no-sense-of-realism-war-of-thugs.
I remember what Rall told me of going back to the high command of Germany (incl. Hitler), - "They were living in luxury and having no idea of what was going on at the fronts" and adding, after the war, when the truth about the whole business unfolded, "We had, as soldiers and fighter pilots for our country, been BETRAYED".
No less.
Stauffenberg had his feet on the ground, his heart for his nation, and quite some balls.
BTW, - along with others. The attempt to kill Hitler lead to some quick 5.000 executions. All Germans.
Gripen:
"Purely sensible view: The war was allready lost spring 1944, every day fighting continued resulted just more loss of human life and destruction of country. So anything which wasted maximum amount of LW resources to shorten the war. In additon full support to true german patriots like Stauffenberg and Bonhoeffer who at least tried to end the madness."
Well, you had the propoganda of magic weapons, as well as the thug's grip on your throat. The allies were bombing Gemany flat wherever you wanted. How do you want to leave the party?
This
-
And Viking:
"However ... Graf von Stauffenberg would NEVER have done what you proposed. The German "rebels" would NEVER have handed the allies the victory like you propose by squandering resources or otherwise giving in. They were after all German patriots. They tried to grab power from the Nazis and negotiate an armistice with the allies using the remaining strength of the Wehrmacht as a bargaining chip"
Which Allies? I think you should understand what I refer to?
-
Viking,
So what is actually your opinion; a patriot or a traitor?
How about Canaris? He directly gave information to British intelligence so was he a traitor or a patriot. Note that Canaris, Bonhoeffer as well as Stauffenberg were part of the same movement of German resistance.
You don't seem to say your opinion.
My opinion is that anything which helped to shorten war - including direct sabotage of German war machine - was indeed a patriotic action by a German citizen that time, sensible in other words. Sad thing is that so few Germans realized the situation.
Angus,
I think that most higher rank German officers could see the reality behind the propaganda.
-
Hehe, nice meeting you Gripen, in this form, you've studied much.
On the topic of Canaris, his turn against his "nation" started on an intelligence tour in Poland, where he was horrified about what he saw (already mass executions and villages being "raized&burned").
Anyway, Canaris carried some evedence to the top, he probably beliving that this was the fault of troops going ape rather than the command of brutality.
Well, he was stopped by Keitel (Canaris was heading for Hitler), with an advice, - don't go further, these were fuhrer orders.
Canaris was hanged, close to the allied lines, if I remember correctly it was after the Allies had passed the Rhein. He was found by allied troops.
And if my memory serves me, Keitel was hanged after the Nurnberg trials.
Not much to do with the 109F though.
BTW, my history text there is absolutely from memory. Would be nice to know if I made an error there, since the "backland" is both from books, internet, discussions, and more books. I didn't look up on this, so I am curious if it will hold up for scrutiny.
-
Oh, may I add that Canaris was in Poland in 1939. Already in 1939 he wanted to see Hitler about the thing. Out of memory again, - but this:
One has to realize that Germany was just as civilized (if not more) as anyone else in Europe at the time. Well, "Civilized".
You know, I have met and got to know a few people that were on the German side in WW2. They normally shake their heads when Hitler's name comes around. Most or all would have it ended before.
And Viking, "The German "rebels" would NEVER have handed the allies the victory like you propose by squandering resources or otherwise giving in"
Okay, enlighten me what the whole plot(s) was/were about.?????
-
Originally posted by Angus
Which Allies? I think you should understand what I refer to?
The western allies. If a peace settlement could be made with them, then perhaps the reds could be persuaded too. At least the war would be reduced to one front.
-
Originally posted by gripen
Viking,
So what is actually your opinion; a patriot or a traitor?
How about Canaris? He directly gave information to British intelligence so was he a traitor or a patriot. Note that Canaris, Bonhoeffer as well as Stauffenberg were part of the same movement of German resistance.
You don't seem to say your opinion.
To me he is neither. I'm not German. If I was German I would probably view him as a hero. In fact I'm glad he didn't succeed. If he had succeeded the German people might not have been made to suffer as greatly as they surely deserved. In my opinion the German people forfeit their right to exist when they allowed the Nazis to commit such horrors in their name. I would not have been as merciful as uncles Sam and Joe.
Originally posted by gripen
My opinion is that anything which helped to shorten war - including direct sabotage of German war machine - was indeed a patriotic action by a German citizen that time, sensible in other words. Sad thing is that so few Germans realized the situation.
Sabotaging you own troops ability to fight, just to shorten a war is an act of treason and insanity. If what you say is sensible why didn't you Finns sabotage your own military in '39 surely you could see that you would eventually lose? Oh ... that's right .... you fought on and made the Russian pay so dearly for every kilometer that in the end they were willing to make peace.
Q. E. D.
-
Originally posted by Viking
The western allies. If a peace settlement could be made with them, then perhaps the reds could be persuaded too. At least the war would be reduced to one front.
There was no such option after Casablanca, the policy of unconditional surrender was declared public there. British intelligence also made this clear to Canaris.
Originally posted by Viking
In fact I'm glad he didn't succeed. If he had succeeded the German people might not have been made to suffer as greatly as they surely deserved. In my opinion the German people forfeit their right to exist when they allowed the Nazis to commit such horrors in their name. I would not have been as merciful as uncles Sam and Joe.
I don't agree. Large part of the people who died in the last year of war were not Germans. And I don't support collective punishment.
Originally posted by Viking
Sabotaging you own troops ability to fight, just to shorten a war is an act of treason and insanity.
That is exactly what Canaris did and so indirectly also Stauffenberg.
Originally posted by Viking
If what you say is sensible why didn't you Finns sabotage your own military in '39 surely you could see that you would eventually lose?
Our Military was eventually succesfull enough and supported by sensible leaders and solid nation. Same can't be said about the Third Reich.
Originally posted by Viking
Oh ... that's right .... you fought on and made the Russian pay so dearly for every kilometer that in the end they were willing to make peace.
The Russians made peace only to finish the business later due to risk that war might expand.
-
Originally posted by gripen
There was no such option after Casablanca, the policy of unconditional surrender was declared public there. British intelligence also made this clear to Canaris.
Nothing was set in stone. With Hitler gone there were possibilities for diplomacy.
Originally posted by gripen
I don't agree. Large part of the people who died in the last year of war were not Germans. And I don't support collective punishment.
What you support is of no consequence; you weren't there. The allies sure as hell believed in collective punishment. Every major German city got to know that for a fact.
Originally posted by gripen
That is exactly what Canaris did and so indirectly also Stauffenberg.
"Indirectly" lol ... The funny part is that you probably believe the bull crap you shovel. Graf von Stauffenberg was part of the German military aristocracy, a nobleman officer. What you're saying would be a betrayal to everything he was brought up to believe in. He was for German expansionism, he was for German supremacy, he was for German nationalism, he was for enslavement of other people ... he just was too religious to be a Nazi. Graf von Stauffenberg wanted to get rid of Hitler long before Germany lost the war, and if that had happened Germany would still have fought on. Graf von Stauffenberg thought Hitler was an idiot, and a danger to the Reich because of his inadequacies as a military leader. He wanted Hitler gone to replace him with competent military leadership, not to stop the war.
Originally posted by gripen
Our Military was eventually succesfull enough and supported by sensible leaders and solid nation. Same can't be said about the Third Reich.
If Graf von Stauffenberg had been successful then the Reich would probably have a lot more sensible leadership. Of course by that time you would already have betrayed them to the enemy.
By your insane philosophy the Russians should have betrayed their leaders and military in 1941/42 and the Germans would in all likelihood have won the war. I'm glad the Russians weren't as stupid as you.
Originally posted by gripen
The Russians made peace only to finish the business later due to risk that war might expand.
Then why didn't they "finish the business later"? The continued existence of Finland defeats your argument.
-
"Nothing was set in stone. With Hitler gone there were possibilities for diplomacy."
Now there my nose tells me that you're right. Especially after Stalin had a conflict with Churchill about Poland.
Actually, things like that happened on a mini-scale. Will dig one event up this afternoon.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Nothing was set in stone. With Hitler gone there were possibilities for diplomacy.
Nothing indicates that; Roosevelt announced policy of unconditional surrender, the Brits made this clear to Canaris as well Stauffenberg & Co despite their interest on Poland and other eastern European countries.
Originally posted by Viking
What you support is of no consequence; you weren't there. The allies sure as hell believed in collective punishment. Every major German city got to know that for a fact.
It was choice of the Nazi leaders to be punished. Canaris, Stauffenberg, Bonhoeffer and others tried to stop that madness. The allies just used what ever instruments they had available.
Originally posted by Viking
"Indirectly" lol ... The funny part is that you probably believe the bull crap you shovel.
Stauffenberg was just part of German resistance, he probably knew well what Abwehr was doing. Note that Canaris started work against Nazi goverment at very early stage; Stauffenberg was indeed a latecomer despite he has became the symbol of resistance. From ethics point of view I see Bonhoeffer as symbol of German resistance; he was against the Nazis right from the beginning supporting the passive resistance, during war he started to support more active methods being part of the Abwehr.
Originally posted by Viking
If Graf von Stauffenberg had been successful then the Reich would probably have a lot more sensible leadership. Of course by that time you would already have betrayed them to the enemy.
If the resistance had been successful, the Abwehr and Canaris would have been center part of new German leadership.
Originally posted by Viking
By your insane philosophy the Russians should have betrayed their leaders and military in 1941/42 and the Germans would in all likelihood have won the war. I'm glad the Russians weren't as stupid as you.
What I'm saying follows the ethics of Bonhoeffer ie sometimes a person must make difficult choices between bad and and even more bad options, including killing and betraying others.
Interesting thing is that used LW tactis against the US bomber offensive resulted about maximum waste of most valuable resource of the LW ie experienced pilots.
Originally posted by Viking
Then why didn't they "finish the business later"? The continued existence of Finland defeats your argument.
They were planning to finish the business autumn 1940 but Hitler (their ally that time) refused saying that he did not want troubles in Scandinavia. In reality secret negoations between Finland and Nazi Germany were going on that time. In a way Hitler saved Finland as a part of his big war game (a year earlier he had given us to Soviets).
-
Canaris was shocked with the brutality applied in Poland. He went in a furious mode to see Hitler about it (He saw mass executions of civilians), but was stopped by Keitel with the words like "I wouldn't take this any further, - these were the Fuhrer's orders. That's when it sort of started.
As for an unconditional surrender, - yes, that was the agreement, - but there would still have been 3 possibilities for the Germans.
1. Offering conditional surrender to the W-Allies only.
2. Offering unconditional surrender to the W-Allies only.
We may be smart, but I really wouldn't be so sure if that wouldn't be a tempting thing. If both declined, -
3. Fall back rapidly on the W-Front.
The whole idea of overthrowing Hitler from power was after all twofold AFAIK. To end the war, yes, - and to avoid Germany falling under the USSR.
And here's the story I promised:
STRANGE! Prior to the capture of Wismar in northern Germany, the German 102nd Infantry Division had made contact with the British and offered to surrender. Instead they were asked to continue holding a 20km line at Bad Doberan against the Russians who were approaching the town. As soon as Wismar was fully in British hands the Division could then withdraw to the west, thus avoiding capture by the Russians. Here we have a German Division, as prisoners of war, but still fighting against the Russians (our allies) and under the orders of a British officer!. It was a strange war!!
ALLIES. On May 3, 1945, the British 6th. Airborne and the US 7th. Armoured, captured the north German town of Wismar. The actual capture was carried out by men of the 1st Canadian Parachute Battalion led by Lt.Col.Fraser Eadie and under the command of Brigadier-General Hill of the 6th Airborne. Outside the town were the Russian front lines from where drunken soldiers, fuelled by a mixture of vodka and rocket fuel, were flocking into town in search of wine, women and song. The main hospital in Wismar was now occupied by the Paras. That night, a group of Russians soldiers approached the main gate of the hospital and demanded that all the German nurses be brought out. Told that no women were here they pushed the sentry aside and entered the courtyard. A half dressed Para poked his head out of a window and shouted "They are our girls, get lost" Suddenly a shot rang out followed by the rattle of a British Sten gun. The drunken Russians scattered as shooting broke out on all sides. It was all over in minutes, the Russians retiring to their own lines. In the cobbled courtyard of the hospital lay the bodies of six dead Soviet soldiers.
-
Angus,
At 20th July 1944 the center of the eastern front had allready collapsed and the best part of German armed forces bleeding in Normandy; allies had taken Caen and decisive operation Cobra starting in few days. So there was not much else than major retreat anyway in near future.
We can only speculate what would have happened if the German resistance had been successful; even in the case of unconditional surrender the Germans would have probably at least tried to slow down the Soviets. However, for the east european countries this would had given much better possibilities to resist Soviet influence, not even mentioning how many lives would had been saved and how much destruction would had been avoided.
Note that splitting of the Germany was decided later in the Yalta conference (February 1945) as well as status of the then Soviet occupied Poland; July 1944 the Soviest had reached only eastern parts of prewar Poland which were given to SU allready in the Tehran conference (Nov-Dec 1943).
-
Yes, yes, yes, Gripen, but say 25th of July, or 1st of August being either a deal or a fallback from the German army, the war (in Germany) would have fulfilled the wish of the Anglo-American forces, - all of Germany would have fallen to them already in 1944. The Germans would just have had to open up beyond the Rhine.
Would you think they would have had the USSR have all of Poland after that? It would have been a completely different deal in Yalta....
-
Most of us have grown up in the world of cold war where the SU was the main enemy of the western democracies. However, the situation was very different during WWII; the Nazi Germany was the enemy and the Su was an ally which did hardest work against german war machine. Despite Churchill and Roosevelt were obviously against the communism and expansion of influence of the SU, nothing indicates that they were willing to have some kind deal with Germany even if the resistance had succeed; changing the goverment would have not removed the existence of concentration camps etc.
Notable thing is that when Canaris presented the plans of the German resistance to the Brits via Bonhoeffer summer 1942 (ie before Casablanca), Churchill and Eden refused all co-operation. Same happened when Canaris presented similar plans in summer 1943 to the British intelligence, this time Roosevelt refused.
Summer 1944 Polish home army was still intact and ready to start uprising. Only legitime goverment of Poland was the one in London and Stalin would agree the free elections for Poland at Yalta conference so the situation would have been much better. Anyway, the SU formed a puppet goverment for Poland on 21th July so the situation was changing fast. Basicly, longer the Germans kept on fighting, larger the influence of the SU in the post war europe.
-
If I ponder on this as a reality, then had the German resistance succeeded in killing Hitler and taking over, only two alternatives would have been left to keep the Russians out, - unconditional surrender to the W-Allies, or a complete fallback on the W-Front.
Any of those would have ended the war with no Russians in Germany...
And bear in mind, the British had the motive for a grudge, for the German-USSR alliance lasted almost 2 years. Stalin was not to be particularly trusted.
You can see this from the war itself, - there were high hopes around MOperation Market-Garden, that the war would be over at Christmas, with the British and U.S. in Berlin, NOT the Russians.
If I was Churchill, and the news are out that Hitler is dead, there is a new boss called Stauffenberg, and he wants to open the gates, I have no doubts that I would have gone through them.
-
Hi,
Stauffenberg isnt a hero for the germans today, how can he be, what has he done??
Even if he would have been successful, to kill a oponent with a hidden bomb, while he could have done it with an pistol, isnt what a hero do. A hero is willing to give his life for the task that need to be done, Staufenberg wasnt willing to do that, as result many had to die.
If a smal guy, who dont would have had the possibility to meet Hitler, would have used a bomb or poisen, ok, this smal guy would have been a hero.
Canaris was even more poor. He was willing to sacrifice many smal german soldiers, who simply fought for their nation, but he was to much a coward to kill Hitler by himself.
Many of the guys who organized the assassination attempt on Hitler had the possibility to kill him fast and safe, many of them was high ranked officiers, who was so proud about their code of honour, many of them was mebers of the NSDAP and helped Hitler, many of them dont had problems to send others(friend and foe) into death.
This cowards shal be heros??
What was the Scholls and also Schindler and the lot of others who realy fought against the Nazis then?? They are the young generations heros.
Viking,
it looks to me you dont know much about the power of propaganda, specialy at an time when a objective education wasnt available(lately i see similar mechanisms working in some of our "free world countrys") and the main thinking in the white world was racialist and anti-Semitic.
At that time most white people was racists and many people in europe was anti-Semits, that wasnt only in germany. Germany got many helping hands in the occupied and allieds countries, even in the USA and England was rather big NAZI partys. Even big parts of the Churches helped the Nazis.
In the USA, long after WWII, a not white person dont had the same rights like a white one. Long after WWII the childrens of the red idians still got seperated from their familys, not allowed to speak their language and to follow their religion(in the 1970th this did change), before WWII this was even more worse, same count for england and france, not to talk about what did happen in russia and poland.
It also was well known long before WWII what the Nazi party and specialy Hitler was up to do. Why noone did act at that time?? The contract of Versaille didnt allowed germany to have a big army, why noone took care for that?
Simple answer, at that time not many found the Nazi ideas bad.
Noone did listen to Charly Chaplin, Albert Einstein and the lot of other exil germans. Later many of the guys, who did criticize Hitler, got called Kommunists.
And most strange, after WWII most real Nazis did remain in their position, tolerated by the allieds, while people like Schindler got ignored, after his work for the jew´s got public.
And where was the so called free democratic world in 1939 and after the war, when the baltic nations, finnland and poland did call for help??
The Lithuanians fought a hopeless partisan war till 1955.
Many people today still forget that Russia did attack poland, the baltic nations and finnland also in 1939, why England and france did declair the war only to germany is still a miracle for me.
One mistake, of most people of the older german generation was ignorance, and missing phantasie, regarding how evel people can be. Exact the same mistake the allied goverments made before WWII, as result they are same guilty like 90% of the germans.
A second mistake was deep racism, based on an incredible arrogance of the white man and christs, since many hundret years, as i wrote above, this wasnt only a german problem.
The young german generation is aware of the older generations mistakes, i rarely see the same awareness in other countrys.
Hi gripen,
------------------------------------------------
"Everyone used top cover but it means usually just that part of the formation is located higher than other planes. My original point was that for the LW 1944-45 fighting against escorts was waste of men material. At spring 1944 the LW sent large and relatively slow moving (compared to P-51s) formations of heavily armed planes (Fw 190s, Me 410s etc.) escorted by large number of G-6s (which was generally in disadavantage against the P-51 at high altitude) as top cover against US heavy bomber formations which were escorted by large number of fast moving escort fighters. The results were not good for the LW, according to Galland the LW lost about 1000 pilots in the defence of the Reich during spring 1944. Basicly the LW used the tactics which maximized their own losses in other words they gave the US escorts lot of targets."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course topcover is a waste of material, as i pointed out before, it need a very advanced plane performence to be able to operate below the enemys fighters without topcover. The G55 wasnt such a plane, as result also the G55 would have needed topcover. The only realistic possibility to defend germanys citys successful, would have been the 262.
Where do you got the information from that there was large numbers of topcover in early 1944??
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"What if the LW had chosen to use large number of smaller and faster moving formations which were looking for oppurnity to hit and run? Also these smaller formations could have a top cover but whole point is to avoid fighting against escorts. Note that in the most succesful cases the LW could avoid the escorts."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually thats what the germans did! they was spreaded all over the Reich and did attack the pulks in rather smal groups. Rarely two Gruppen did engage at same time the same Bomberformation, as result the escort had in most cases the numerical advantage. If a pulk was alone and got attacked, they could call the escort, while german JG´s couldnt communicate.
In eraly 44 the bomber formations still was rather smal, often with 150-300 Bombers, while the Lutwaffe still had a lot of fighters. Never they did attack such a formation with 200-400 fighters at same time, always they came one group after the next.
The main problem was the 4mots and the need to attack them in one unit. Every attack of a single plane was very dangerus. The Schwere Gruppen dont got the extraplating and guns for fun.
Afaik the number of topcover over the Reich at all times was rather smal, they only should bind the escort, until the schwere Gruppe could maouver into a good position. In many cases even this wasnt possible cause the numerical advantage of the escort.
Topcover is only another word for escort. The B17´s had their topcover, cause they had to operate in tactical disadvantage, so had the schwere Gruppen, while, unlike to the 4Mots, fighters in a disadvantage have real problems to protect themself.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Statistics actually say that used tactics were certainly wrong. Regarding the airframes; the G-6 was the mainstay of the LW during spring 1944 and the G.55 could have done practically everything better. Note that Willi Reschke claimed majority of his heavy bomber claims in the Bf 109 (apparently most in the G-6?)."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How you be able to see wrong tactics in the statistic is a miracle for me. You seems to ignore that the escorting US fighters was on "free hunt", cause their high nuber they was allowed to scan the area and to follow the germans to their bases and even without escort the bombers caused heavy losses. Around the Bombers they only had to spread the attacking groups to minimize the bomber losses.
A numerical disadvantage and missing pilot skill isnt a wrong tactic as such.
The only real bad tactic i can see is the missing "big" attack, where all JG´s attack a Bomberstream at same time in same area.
The LW HQ did what the british HQ did in the desert, they did splitt the forces and made them more weak. With this bad tactic a rather smal group of enemys always will have the numerical advantage in combat area.
The test clearly show that the G55 dont had real advantages to the 109G, only in high altitude it got close to the G6. In low altitude it must have been even more slow, also the G56 wasnt that fast at sea level(550km/h).
For an US fighter, who attack with an initial advantage, there virtually wouldnt have been any different between 109 and G55, only the more big target would have been nice. Nothing would have changed.
Greetings,
Knegel
-
Knegel, I absolutely and wholeheartedly disagree with you, and think you have to read up a bit.
Some stuff here:
There was a plot to kill Hitler with sidearms. When it came to date, it was already beyond possible, - sidearms were banned.
(Interesting sidenote, - Erich Hartmann was stopped on his last trip to Hitler and asked to deliver his gun, Erich got angry and said that if he was not trusted, he would leave. He got through...but he was Hartmann, and they might have been keeping an eye on him....being alone as well)
Stauffenberg had seen fire, performed well, and was bold enough to carry a bomb to the Fuhrer.
A sheer co-incidense saved Hitler. Stauffenberg was supposed to survive this btw, an important element in the plot. And when they killed him, he didn't exactly go down weeping....
Canaris was a thinker, and turned against NAZISM when he saw what was going on in Poland. Now, not being in favour with the USSR either, he secured his position with information exchange with the British intelligence, - Canaris had his part aparently with the Wehrmacht's success on the eastern front with his British aquired information about USSR strongpoint. After all, Britain was almost at war with the USSR.
Canaris had 2 foes, Heydrich and Himmler. It is even belived that Heydrich was killed (A Brit job) to hold on to Canaris.
Heydrich BTW was one upright bastard-die-hard-nazi and one of the driving persons behind the Wansee agreement, - "Die Endlösung".
Himmler was sly, and tried to save his own arse in the end, he held on to Canaris as a possible card at the war's end, he was dealing with the Swedish Folke Bernadotte with negotiations, he even had some prisoners let loose as a bargain.
So, back to Stauffenberg and Canaris. They tried to speed up the fall of the Nazi empire. For the Good of Germany. Their opponents had most of the cards, and had plunged a good part of the world, including Germany into the darkest of hours.
And if you want Heroes of another sort, go google....start with Scholl perhaps?
-
Originally posted by Angus
Any of those would have ended the war with no Russians in Germany...
I think that there would had been troops from SU in Germany every case, even if the Western allies had reached Berlin first because the allies were going to occupy the country anyway. However, the situation would had been very much different because destruction of the country would had been much smaller.
Originally posted by Knegel
This cowards shal be heros??
Stauffenberg can be seen as a latecomer to the German resistance but Canaris and Bonhoeffer realized the nature of Nazi regime very early and risked and gave everything to stop it. This is by the way first time I hear younger generation German calling Canaris as a coward. Perhaps you should tell your opinion about Bonhoeffer (who worked for Canaris) as well?
Originally posted by Knegel
What was the Scholls and also Schindler and the lot of others who realy fought against the Nazis then?? They are the young generations heros.
IMHO Canaris probably fought more effectively against Nazis than any other German. Schindler saved some people so did Canaris as well, the White rose did some leaflets.
Originally posted by Knegel
Of course topcover is a waste of material, as i pointed out before, it need a very advanced plane performence to be able to operate below the enemys fighters without topcover. The G55 wasnt such a plane, as result also the G55 would have needed topcover.
If compared to the G-6, the G.55 was probably much better for both tasks (top cover and attacking bombers).
Originally posted by Knegel
Actually thats what the germans did! they was spreaded all over the Reich and did attack the pulks in rather smal groups.
Actually the Germans were going towards heavily armed and armoured Fw 190s which attacked from rear in large formations to avoid concentrated return fire from the bombers. The losses were extremely high with these tactics, as an example Boesch's unit is claimed to suffered some 350% losses, 3 survivors known.
Originally posted by Knegel
How you be able to see wrong tactics in the statistic is a miracle for me.
Poor results combined with high losses.
Originally posted by Knegel
The test clearly show that the G55 dont had real advantages to the 109G, only in high altitude it got close to the G6.
The test shows that the G.55 would had done pretty much everything better than the G-6 being about as fast, more maneuverable, carrying more fuel and heavier armament at same engine output.
-
Hi,
they was able to bring a bomb into Hitlers HQ, but not a pistol??
Sounds like a real bad excuse to me.
Anyway, if Canaris was so early against Hitler, he could have done the job much more early. Canaris sacrificed many brave german soldiers and many of the civilian germans as well. Thats cheap terrorism and treasonnot mainly against the germans not against Hitler.
Who isnt willing to sacrifice himself shouldnt sacrifice others.
He, same like the others, could have done the job already in 1938-39, why he(they) didnt??
Canaris did work as effective against Hitler as Schindler and the White Rose, they all didnt work direct againt Hitler, but he did work more effective angainst germany.
While Canaris, same like others, had a good position to kill Hitler very early, without to sacrifice others, but he, like the others, simply wasnt willing to die for a better germany, cause their idea of a good germany wasnt that far away from Hitlers.
To try to kill Hitler in1944, when it was MUCH to late(for many Millions and germany), always will have the smell of "the rats leave the sinking ship" or "They saw their goods and chattels floating away".
In 1938 KZ´s and killing "non aryans" already was reality and afaik the anti-Semitism and the 6 million dead Jews are the main reason to disagree with the Nazis, while Canaris and the other Officiers seemed to have more a problem with the bad military leadership and the obvious resulting "bad" end of the war for germany and their own goods and chattels.
You shouldnt set Bonhoeffer on one stage with Canaris!
Bonhoeffer never did agree to the Nazi Racism/anti-Semitism and was working against the Nazis right after they took the goverment and he never was in a mighty position like Canaris. Bonhoeffer is on one stage with the White Rose.
Greetings,
Knegel
-
Hi Gripen,
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Actually the Germans were going towards heavily armed and armoured Fw 190s which attacked from rear in large formations to avoid concentrated return fire from the bombers. The losses were extremely high with these tactics, as an example Boesch's unit is claimed to suffered some 350% losses, 3 survivors known."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This was the only effective tactic against the 4mots with relative smal losses, the problem was to get into a attacking pisition with a complete group.
Single attacks from the rear was hopeless and did lead to much higher losses, while a successfull headon attack only was possible without escort, cause it did need even longer to manouver into a good frontal attack position that into a rear position, further more it need a rather high pilot skill to shoot a bomber down while a headon attack.
Attacks from 7-11oc and 2-5oc also was out of range for an normal skilled pilot and even a good skilled pilot had problems while this to bring a bomber down.
The problem was that much to late the "schwere Gruppen / topcover tactic" got developed. If they would have had this while Schweinfurth and even in early 1944, the US losses would have been much more big.
I think its realy the other way around to what you say, much to long the german JG´s had to fight in tactical disadvanatge, without or a to smal topcover.
Regarding the G6/G55 you now change your arguments like you need them. Once you say the clean 109 wasnt needed, cause the topcover was a waste of material, then you say the G55 could do both better, while the test show a better 109G4 flight performence and the clean G6 wasnt that far behind the G4 (at least the FAF pilots dont saw a different between the even more light G2 and G6). And the claim, the G55 could done have both better, is like to say a 5,5year old boy can fight a 20year old man better than a 5 year old boy could do.
Greetings,
Knegel
-
A front attack doesn't need so much superior speed. The closure speed is insane, so the key factor is a stable plane with heavy firepower.
A set up for attack may need some fuel. The more, the better.
A lower wingloading will give you both of those benefits, - carrying more as well as alt performance improving and ROC (if you work with the same weight).
Anyway, Knegel:
"they was able to bring a bomb into Hitlers HQ, but not a pistol??
Sounds like a real bad excuse to me."
Would you have had the brass to pull that one yourself? Do you think that you would have been quick enough in a room full of people, and possibly an armed guard behind you? Come on.....
It took balls to bring a bomb rather than a gun anyway, - a gun could be a forgivable careless thing, but a bomb was very absolute. And what I mentioned before, - Stauffenberg was supposed to survive. He was the person to fit as a "face".
As for Canaris, you seem to be confused. Here is something from Gripen:
"IMHO Canaris probably fought more effectively against Nazis than any other German. Schindler saved some people so did Canaris as well, the White rose did some leaflets."
I'll agree on that one. Canaris loved his country and got to discover the beastly nature of the regime he was working for. That was already in 1939, - long before "the final solution" and such things, even in Spain, the Nazis were excercizing mass executions. Poland was the beginning of those on a big scale, and both the LW and the SS were "applied" for the job. LW got targets to wipe out, SS were simply given a long leash.
Canaris saw that, tried to protest through official channels, and had to back with that. Even that was brave, and might have been the beginning of suspicions against him (main enemies Himmler and Heydrich), - but he was smart enough to duck them.
As an effective fighter against the Nazi regime I'd probably put him on top. And I'd call him a Hero, for he didn't jump from the ship, which he very much could have done. Nope, he carried on as he could with the hope that Germany could get through without being in ruins.
The real bandits that kept pumping "brave German soldiers" into the meatgrinder was after all, the hot beliving Nazi regime.
Guys like Rall will actually go as far as calling the Nazi regime "traitors to the people". As a pilot, finding out what was going on in the occupied countries as well as home in Germany (after the war), he described it as having been used and betrayed.
Here is something of interest for you Knegel, - something that emphasizes the regime's sense of realism as well as their grip on things to the very end.
Some days before Berlin fell, I think actually just right before Hitler took the "pop" solution, Schindler got a letter from Berlin. It was a complaint about the quality of his production, and with a threatening tone - he would have to quickly improve his quality of production or......
And BTW, Schindler was a Czech....well, Sudet? Not a German.
Now about the time:
"To try to kill Hitler in1944, when it was MUCH to late(for many Millions and germany)"
Not too late! Not at all!!! And exactly because of many Millons of lives AND Germany. Page up casualties, say from November 1944 to May 1945, - quite a bit I'd say. From all sides except the pacific. Think of all the damage done, the raizing of cities, and the absolute depletion of just about everything after the war.
1944 was a message of realizm. Any idiot could see that Germany was going to loose. (If not living in the Alps and reading only edited papers :D) You had the Allies gaining foothold in France (with hopes of the war being over before Christmas) and the Russians going on at train-speed. . . .
-
Originally posted by Knegel
Anyway, if Canaris was so early against Hitler, he could have done the job much more early.
The purpose was to remove the Nazi regime from power and that would have needed much more than just killing one of them. Canaris was the most valuable member of the resistance so why risk him for that. Notable thing is that in some of the plans of resistance the purpose was just to arrest Hitler and other Nazi leaders.
Originally posted by Knegel
Canaris sacrificed many brave german soldiers and many of the civilian germans as well.
The German war machine was the main instrument of the Nazi regime and eventually the destruction of the German war machine removed the Nazis from power. And the German war machine contained many small soldiers.
Besides, it was actually the Nazi regime who sacrified millions of Germans (in addition to millions of others killed) and led the country to the destruction (just like Canaris had afraided even before the war).
Originally posted by Knegel
Thats cheap terrorism and treasonnot mainly against the germans not against Hitler.
Canaris was one of the bravest, boldest and most sensible German of those times. His last know message sent by tapping to another prisoner:
"Badly mishandled. Nose broken at last interrogation. My time is up. Was not a traitor. Did my duty as a German. If you survive, please tell my wife."
Originally posted by Knegel
To try to kill Hitler in1944, when it was MUCH to late...
The resistance (with Canaris) tried that many times earlier (including suicide attack). And of course it was late but not too late.
Originally posted by Knegel
You shouldnt set Bonhoeffer on one stage with Canaris!
Bonhoeffer worked for Canaris. And what Canaris did followed Bonhoeffer's ethic guidelines. Both were among the most important Germans of their times.
Originally posted by Knegel
This was the only effective tactic against the 4mots with relative smal losses
The head on attacks had obviously the best kill/loss rate as seen during Schweinfurt raids while the heavy fighter tactics caused enermous losses to LW once the escorts were present.
Originally posted by Knegel
Once you say the clean 109 wasnt needed, cause the topcover was a waste of material,
Nope, what I said is that fighting the escorts was waste of men and material and single canon was too weak against bombers (three being at least adequate).
Originally posted by Knegel
then you say the G55 could do both better, while the test show a better 109G4 flight performence and the clean G6 wasnt that far behind the G4 (at least the FAF pilots dont saw a different between the even more light G2 and G6).
Nope, what I said is that the G.55 could do about everything better than the G-6. And some FAF pilots actually saw the difference between the G-2 and the G-6. Later being notably slower and behind in other performance aspects except firepower and radio. Some also thought that the G-2s were better built.
-
"A front attack doesn't need so much superior speed. The closure speed is insane, so the key factor is a stable plane with heavy firepower.
A set up for attack may need some fuel. The more, the better.
A lower wingloading will give you both of those benefits, - carrying more as well as alt performance improving and ROC (if you work with the same weight)."
Actually, that is not entirely true.
If you go for a head on attack you need to be a good shot to score hits because of the closure rate, the gun effect being good because of closure rate and lack of armour for frontal attack.
Getting in a perfect HO position has more to do with good recon and ground control. Once you attack you need to be fast, not maneuverable -after all the bombers are flying straight... If you are flying a slow plane you will never get a second chance if the separation grows too big after HO attack.
Both FW190 and Bf109 were considered as excellent gun platforms because of their stability in flight. Besides stability has little to do with wingloading. It is more about elevator function and COG in relation to other loadings of the airframe in flight and the general wing design such as sweep angle and dihedral.
It is actually quite practical to have a DT if you have the luxury of fighting above your own soil. You can run the main tanks to desired amount and just dump the excess fuel (and weight) when you get into a fight. However, I do not have evidence if such fuel management took place IRL.
***
"Nope, what I said is that fighting the escorts was waste of men and material and single canon was too weak against bombers (three being at least adequate)."
Interesting. And I said that not fighting, or not being able to fight, the escorts was one of the factors that caused the huge losses in the long run along with growing discrepancy in numbers.
Both 20mm and 30mm cannons in Bf109 were very well enough to bring down a bomber, it is another matter where to find people to be able to score those hits (20/4 BTW for those weapons). Again the vulnerability of a liquid cooled engine is harder to overcome.
It would be really interesting to play the DGS with half the LW and see how well they would do. After all Der Grosse Schlag never took place as the forces Galland was trying to gather were scattered here and there and the effect LW nearly achieved in Schweinfurt was never achieved again. Again, not fault of 109 and 190 designs. Of course, say, 262 would have been better... What other plane would have had better performance in their place, other than G.55? Even some allied plane?
Another question: If we have two wing designs, both with exactly the same weight but the other is 20% larger than the other, which one is stronger?
-C+
-
Charge:
" If you are flying a slow plane you will never get a second chance if the separation grows too big after HO attack. "
Did the HO'ers not normally only have one go? Anyway, a good ROC might help out there, as well as maneuverability might prove useful if you want to do anything about the escorts apart from diving to the deck....
"Another question: If we have two wing designs, both with exactly the same weight but the other is 20% larger than the other, which one is stronger?"
The smaller one of course, - providing that the design is the same.
The benefit of a larger wing (well, wingloading can also be less with less weight) would be more ROC, better alt performance, more payload, and better maneuverability, especially at altitude, payed with less top speed lower, and less initial diving speed...etc.
-
Originally posted by Charge
Interesting. And I said that not fighting, or not being able to fight, the escorts was one of the factors that caused the huge losses in the long run along with growing discrepancy in numbers.
Your original reply was:
"AFAIK it was the other way around. The orders to avoid enemy fighters gnawed the axis fighting morale to a point where allied fighter pilots became more and more aggressive and axis pilots more and more defensive so that axis pilots lost confidence in engaging allied fighters and it was the fighters that finally killed their aces and pilots."
The point is that these relatively large formations of heavily armed and armoured Fw 190s with their Bf 109 top covers were rather easy targets for the US escorts. They (LW) attacked from rear so the attack needed more time, large formations were easier to see and with such load the FWs were really not capable to fight with the escorts and their (LWs) top covers were also forced to fight. Thus the enermous losses and poor results.
What I say is that they should have used large number of smaller formations of normal fighters which do fast attacks (preferably from front) and generally try to avoid the escorts (but were capable to fight with them if needed). And for that an airframe like the G.55 would have been more suitable than the G-6. And given the performance of the Fw 190 at high altitude, the G.55 would had an advantage over to Fw 190 as well.
-
You mean the 190A series then?