# Best German fighter for the Eastern Front



## wiking85 (Apr 1, 2013)

What was the best fighter that the Germans could have fielded on the Eastern Front? I know they kept weighing down their single engine fighters with heavier weapons to knock out the big bombers of the Western Allies, but on the Eastern Front maneuverability and speed was more important. What did they have or could they have fielded that would have kept up with the late generation Soviet fighters?


----------



## parsifal (Apr 2, 2013)

There are really only two contenders, the Bf109 and the FW190. Fighters on the eastern Front were important, but a far more important mission was the direct effects on the ground battle. There simply were never enough German fighters after 1942 to make much difference to Soviet operations or operational tempo. Thats not to say Soviet losses were not heavy. they were, but never enough to interfere with their operations. The Germans could deny sections of airspace to the Soviets, for longer periods, or wider sections of the front for shorter periods, but could never hope for long term air superiority after Stalingrad. They could inflict quite severe losses on the Soviets, but never enough to halt or curtail Soviet operations. 

The reality is that the germans, whatever choices they made as far as equipment was concerned, really could not have done a lot after 1943 to stop the Russians. however in my view, given perfect 20/20 hindsight, instead of wasting effort on trying to regain complete control of the air, the germans should have accepted that the primary mission for them after Stalingrad was not the Soviet air force but rather the application of survivable direct ground support. That would suggest to me that the best a/c suited to German priorities after 1942 was the FW-190 F8 Fighter Bomber


----------



## GregP (Apr 2, 2013)

Pretty well said, Parsifal. I concur, though the Bf 110 could have helped stem the tide, too, and was not all that useful in a daylight attack role in the west.


----------



## alejandro_ (Apr 2, 2013)

It would depend on the time frame. In 1941-42 my choice is the Bf 109 because Fw 190 was not reliable enough. After that I would pick the 190 because it was better suited for fighter-bomber tasks. The Fw 190 main disadvantage -drop in performance at high altitudes- was not an problem in the Eastern Front. The flight characteristics were also less demanding, and the wide landing gear would have certainly helped.


----------



## J dog (Apr 2, 2013)

alejandro_ said:


> It would depend on the time frame. In 1941-42 my choice is the Bf 109 because Fw 190 was not reliable enough. After that I would pick the 190 because it was better suited for fighter-bomber tasks. The Fw 190 main disadvantage -drop in performance at high altitudes- was not an problem in the Eastern Front. The flight characteristics were also less demanding, and the wide landing gear would have certainly helped.


I agree with this during early on the Fw 190 was still in its infancy and needed growing space so the obvious choice was the best plane that they had which is the Bf 109. Then later the kinks were worked out and the Fw 190 surpassed the Bf 109.


----------



## wiking85 (Apr 2, 2013)

What about the Bf109 series and its potential given the lower altitude requirement AND less need for heavy armament like the 30mm cannon? Could something like the K-series have been available for the eastern front sooner without the need for the two stage supercharged DB605L and 30mm cannon that was ditched anyway for the K4? 

From what I can tell the K-series was cleaned up compared to the G-series, so was much faster than anything the Soviets had at the time, but was hindered by having to drop the 30mm cannon due to the jamming problems and add 20mm cannon pods on the wings, which slowed it down. On the eastern front the 20mm guns were adequate, so it could have just mounted a 20mm on the engine mount in place of the 30mm, not needed the higher altitude modified engines, and just taken the clean up because it wasn't hunting heavily armored strategic bombers in the East.

Would the Me109K then have been just as good as the FW190D for the Eastern Front, since the K offered nearly 450mph?


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 2, 2013)

The Bf-109 always held a healthy performance advantage vs. Soviet fighters, especially above 3-4 km. Of course, any improvement is welcomed. The cleaning-up might help (better streamlining of 13mm installation, fully retractable tail wheel, wheel well covers...). The DB should use MW installation, it gives quite a boost at typical EF altitudes.
The K series was never featuring the two-stage DB-605, prototypes aside; it was always using the 30mm? The Eastern front provides plenty of opportunities for the 30mm to be used, mostly on Sturmoviks, but also at Pe-2 and US-built bombers.


----------



## riacrato (Apr 2, 2013)

Double post


----------



## riacrato (Apr 2, 2013)

I don't think the mk108 was ditched for the K. Only it was supplemented by the two mg151 with at least a few squadrons and for some time due to reliability concerns.

I don't think its that obvious that the FW 190 is superior for the east. The relative performance advantages (medium/high altitude power and climb and zoom) of the 109 seem to have given even mildly experienced german pilots a set of combat maneuvres that allowes them to come out on top unless surprised by the enemy. The FW 190 has its strengths, too (like mentioned ) but the Bf 109 pilot could nearly always dive, climb or simply accelerate away from trouble. Or at least thats what i get from many pilot accounts.

The 190 is maneuverable, but so are most Lavochkins and Yaks. It is heavily armed, but for the east the 109s armament seems to suffice. And at least its initial climb and acceleration is inferior to the 109 and probably some or most of the low weight soviet fighters.


----------



## wiking85 (Apr 2, 2013)

What about a FW190C with the DB603N? 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daimler-Benz_DB_603


> DB 603N (prototype with two-stage supercharger, C3 fuel)
> Power (max): 2800 PS (2762 hp, 2059 kW) at 3000 rpm at sea level
> Continuous: 1930 PS (1904 hp, 1420 kW) at 2700 rpm at sea level





tomo pauk said:


> The Bf-109 always held a healthy performance advantage vs. Soviet fighters, especially above 3-4 km. Of course, any improvement is welcomed. The cleaning-up might help (better streamlining of 13mm installation, fully retractable tail wheel, wheel well covers...). The DB should use MW installation, it gives quite a boost at typical EF altitudes.
> The K series was never featuring the two-stage DB-605, prototypes aside; it was always using the 30mm? The Eastern front provides plenty of opportunities for the 30mm to be used, mostly on Sturmoviks, but also at Pe-2 and US-built bombers.


Looks like I was thinking of the Me109 K-14, not the historical K-4.
http://me109.airwar1946.nl/family/109K.htm


----------



## GregP (Apr 2, 2013)

Fighting on the eastern front was almost all at low altitudes. If the Germans few high, the Soviets simply went under them and killed German troops in support of the ground mission. So the German had to come down and fight or stay high and watch their soldiers die. The Bf 109 was pretty good at altitude, but the Fw 190 was better at low altitudes and I think Parsifal is right ... Fw 190F would be the mount of choice. 

That natrually assumes a timeframe in which the Fw 190F was available. If not, then the only alternative really available was the Bf 109 since they had already abandoned the He 112 and He 100. The other realistic options were a DB engined D.520 derivative, A Caproni-Vizzola with a DB or a Macchi with a DB. Given the development time associated with starting up production of a derivative, I'd say the Bf 109 would have been chosen despite any potential advantages the others might possibly bring.

Of course, they COULD have brought in some dedicated ground attack planes like the Henschel HS.129, but it would have needed fighter protection from the Soviet single seat fighters during employment. Still. it would have been better at ground support action if it could have been protected. It had two 13 mm MG plus two 20 mm cannons and could take a centerline 30 mm armor-piercing cannon in lieu of bombs, giving it a hard punch. I don't think it would have done very well if it were the only aircraft employed since it wasn't a fighter and would have a hard time with the Yaks and Lavochkins.


----------



## wiking85 (Apr 2, 2013)

That's ignoring the threat that Soviet fighters posed to German attack and bomber aircraft. The FW190F was a dog and regularly hunted by Soviet fighters without trouble. This thread is asking which German fighter either was or could have been the best air superiority fighter against late war Soviet fighters like the La-7.
I'm currently suggesting their the historical Me109K-4 or prototype K-14. Also the hypothetical FW190C with DB603N engine looks like a beast a now altitude, as the 603N generated a continuous combat power of 1900hp and take off HP of 2800 with two-stage supercharger, but no mention of the MW50 fuel injector. Perhaps with that the 603N could have reached over 3000hp.

Now if you guys want to talk about ground attack aircraft or bombers, there are several other threads about those. I personally think the FW190F was the best thing the Germans had by 1944-45, as the Hs129 was too vulnerable, but that's outside the scope of this thread. The OP is focusing on fighter-fighter combat in the east in 1944-45.


----------



## GregP (Apr 2, 2013)

Sorry Viking, you didn't mention air superiority in the thread title or first post, so I assumed you wanted the best ground support plane because the Eastern Front was all about the ground unit success. As they did, so the country did. If you are just thinking of air superiority, I'd go with the Fw 190A model, probably an A-8. It wasn't a dog in any sense of the word. Later, when the D-9 became available, I'd transition right away. The Bf 109 was not up to fighting the Yak-3, Yak-9, and La-5 at under 15,000 feet, and the Fw 190 is the only other available choice, but the A, not the F, unless you wanted a ground support plane for that particular mission.

I really don't see any other real, live alternative unless we "what if" the Germans putting a French, Italian, or Japanese design into production. I also think that would take time the Germans wouldn't be willing to spend. Hence the Fw 190. As an outside possibility, they could have built IAR-80/-81's, but the Fw 190 would probably have been picked well before that option was even seriously considered.

Let's see, they had Messerschmitt, Heinkel, Junkers, Focke-Wulf, Blhom und Voss, Dornier, Arado, and a hand full of smaller firms. I wonder that Junkers, Arado, and Dornier weren't asked to design single-engine, single-seat fighters? Whatever the case, the Fw 190 would probably have been picked by the people in power at the time in Germany over an updated model from any of the Axis partners.


----------



## stona (Apr 2, 2013)

The answer is still the Fw 190.Pick a dash number according to date.
Ignoring the tactical situation which Parsifal accurately alluded too,the Luftwaffe was never going to achieve anything more than localised and temporary superiority,it was still the fighter most suited to operations in the East. It was far more robust than any of it's Bf 109 contemporaries and an air cooled radial engine is a big advantage in marginal operating conditions and with an uncertain supply chain.
You aren't going to see a Bf 109 G-14 before the summer of 1944,a G-10 before October and a K-4 around the same time. These are really late war types. The Luftwaffe had far more pressing problems in the West by then. There is no realistic way I can see that those dates could have been brought forward significantly,particularly given the parlous state of airframe and engine production by 1944.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## wiking85 (Apr 2, 2013)

As far as hypotheticals go the HE100 was redesigned for a 1944 reentry as a high altitude aircraft to compete with the Ta-152. Frankly though if the Germans had focused on lower/mid altitude designs who knows what would have been available. I think a DB603 FW190 (the C-series) would have been better bet in 1943-44 than the historical Me410 for all fronts. It was the D-series, just earlier.

Also why do you think the Me109 wasn't good enough against the Yaks and Lavochkins below 20k feet? The K-series seems like it would have been good enough.


----------



## stona (Apr 2, 2013)

The Bf 109 was good enough. It is a matter of logistics and serviceability. I think you'll have a better chance with the Fw 190 than the Bf 109,given the operating environment and supply problems in the East. There may well be data to support (or disprove) that supposition but I don't think I have it. It's just my opinion.

I don't think the late Bf 109s (G-14,G-10, K-4) are particularly relevant,anymore than the Fw 190 D or Ta 152.

Cheers
Steve


----------



## riacrato (Apr 2, 2013)

GregP said:


> The Bf 109 was not up to fighting the Yak-3, Yak-9, and La-5 at under 15,000 feet...


 
Hmm depending on version. At mil rating there is really very little to choose between e. g. Bf 109 G-2 and FW 190 A-4 under ~5,800m. Bf 109's performance is somewhat hampered at the time due to wep restrictions, but how much effect that really had is hard to tell for me at least. The Bf 109 still has a considerable edge in climb at all heights, which to me seems a more important advantage than a ~5-15km/h top speed difference. As is widely known many a Russian pilot looked with envy at the 109's ability fight in the vertical. A rather simple tactic that might not work so well with an FW 190 vs an La-5 (FN).

From reports it doesn't seem to me that the FW 190 was considered a markedly superior low altitude fighter (to the 109) by the pilots of either side in the east in 1942-1943.

For Bf 109 G-6 vs. FW 190 A-8, I think the Focke-Wulf ist now somewhat better, especially with C-3 injection. The DB605s performance increase due to WEP clearance is wasted somewhat by the Bf 109 airframe getting "dirtier".

In general one should note, I think, that while most of the combat may have taken place under 20,000 feet on the eastern front, it doesn't mean that one party may not have entered that combat from a somewhat higher altitude and with a considerable energy advantage. If you are better than your opponent 500-1000m higher, that's where you'll want to be flying most of the time, no? You can engage if you feel confident to win, or not if you don't. And if you 'boom and zoom', there's little the enemy can do.

Not trying to make a big case for the 109 here, overall I think FW 190 is the better choice from 1943 on. Simply due to robustness, "user friendlyness", flexibility and safety.


----------



## riacrato (Apr 2, 2013)

stona said:


> The Bf 109 was good enough. It is a matter of logistics and serviceability. I think you'll have a better chance with the Fw 190 than the Bf 109,given the operating environment and supply problems in the East. There may well be data to support (or disprove) that supposition but I don't think I have it. It's just my opinion.
> 
> I don't think the late Bf 109s (G-14,G-10, K-4) are particularly relevant,anymore than the Fw 190 D or Ta 152.
> 
> ...


I'll wait for someone to provide the numbers (or maybe dig them up myself later) but I think if you combine G-14, G-10 and K-4 strength in operations they will be more significant than FW 190 D. Ta 152 is a no-brainer.


----------



## GregP (Apr 2, 2013)

I think the Bf 109 wasn't up to low-altitude combat with the Yaks and Lavochkins becasue of all the low-altitude losses they experienced after the two Soviet birds showed up. Many a Bf 109 stalled and spun in trying to follow a Yak in a tight turn at low altitude, according to the Russians. They must be correct, at least in most of their assertions about the German fighters because they shot most of them down in the 1943 and onward timeframe.

It is possible the quality of the German pilots was the primary deciding factor as the war dragged on but, if so, then the aircraft isn't going to make any difference anyway. Either way, the survivability of the Bf 109 on the Soviet front after summer of 1943 was pretty low no matter how you cut it.

Just my take on it, especially after taking with guys who have flown both the Messerschmitt and the Yak-3. At low altitude, the Bf 109 compared very favorably with the P-40. It got its advantage up higher with the greater altitude capability provided by the DB engine. The Yak-3 and La-5 were very probably the top dogfighters of the war at low altitudes along with the A6M Zero. At low altitude, the superior rolling cability of the Fw 190 coupled with the rugged, air-cooled engine and more than adequate armament makes it my choice of the available German fighters. 

Naturally, that is just my opinion; others may choose as they think. They could be right. Anything goes in a "what if" world. Either way, they'd have to come down from altitude and fight in the weeds or the Soviet planes would simply decimate the German troops, so they would be stuck with a low-altitude war in any case, even a "what if," at least if it were to be realistic.


----------



## stona (Apr 2, 2013)

riacrato said:


> I'll wait for someone to provide the numbers (or maybe dig them up myself later) but I think if you combine G-14, G-10 and K-4 strength in operations they will be more significant than FW 190 D. Ta 152 is a no-brainer.



They will be, by a long way. 
None of them were in service before mid 1944. The G-10 and K-4 were around October 1944,the first few "Doras" around the same time (actually 20th September 1944). They are all irrelevant to the Eastern Front. In fact they are all irrelevant...period. The war was already lost.
The more Germany produced and put into the hands of undertrained pilots the more the allies shot down. A Bf 109 or Fw 190 flying a similar sortie on the East or West front was _seven times more likely to be shot down in the West._There were plenty of G-6s around in late '44 and early '45.

From Don Caldwell:







The Luftwaffe was minced,particularly by the USAAF,in the West,not the East

Cheers
Steve


----------



## davebender (Apr 2, 2013)

Performance of Me-109 equipped JG52 speaks for itself. No other figher type or fighter unit comes close in actual wartime accomplishments.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 2, 2013)

davebender said:


> Performance of Me-109 equipped JG52 speaks for itself. No other figher type or fighter unit comes close in actual wartime accomplishments.



wrong. perhaps in the narrow confines of german units, but the lae wing were the best individual unit of any nationality during the war.


----------



## steve51 (Apr 2, 2013)

Parsifal,
I'm curious on what you base your assertion about the Lae Wing. I know that the average number of flight hours of the pilots was quite high. Do you have other relevant statistics?


----------



## Erich (Apr 2, 2013)

too few in numbers on the Ost front with JG 51 and IV./JG 3 but the Fw 190Dora proved itself a match for all Soviet types............

guess you could also include the Me 262A-1a with which the Soviets did not know what to do with, it was also well suited for the ground attack role as well


----------



## riacrato (Apr 2, 2013)

GregP said:


> I think the Bf 109 wasn't up to low-altitude combat with the Yaks and Lavochkins becasue of all the low-altitude losses they experienced after the two Soviet birds showed up. Many a Bf 109 stalled and spun in trying to follow a Yak in a tight turn at low altitude, according to the Russians. They must be correct, at least in most of their assertions about the German fighters because they shot most of them down in the 1943 and onward timeframe.


I don't really get what you are trying to say with that. The FW 190 will likewise have a hard time following a Yak in a tight turn, as will a P-51, most of the time, that is. "They shot most of them down"? Sorry but that statement misrepresents the situation enormously. The VVS was still losing much more planes in combat in comparison to the LW until long after that. The ratio was simply improving due to inevitable improvements in training, tactics and technological quality.


> It is possible the quality of the German pilots was the primary deciding factor as the war dragged on but, if so, then the aircraft isn't going to make any difference anyway. Either way, the survivability of the Bf 109 on the Soviet front after summer of 1943 was pretty low no matter how you cut it.


And the survivability of the FW 190 was significantly better? Or that of the La 5? I doubt it, but if you can provide evidence to the contrary I'd be glad to see that.


----------



## wiking85 (Apr 2, 2013)

Erich said:


> too few in numbers on the Ost front with JG 51 and IV./JG 3 but the Fw 190Dora proved itself a match for all Soviet types............
> 
> guess you could also include the Me 262A-1a with which the Soviets did not know what to do with, it was also well suited for the ground attack role as well


Was it actually effective as a ground attack aircraft?


----------



## parsifal (Apr 2, 2013)

steve51 said:


> Parsifal,
> I'm curious on what you base your assertion about the Lae Wing. I know that the average number of flight hours of the pilots was quite high. Do you have other relevant statistics?



Lots of sources really, but here is one that might be of some interest

Nishizawa: Japan's Deadliest Combat Pilot—102 U.S. Air Force Kills


----------



## Jenisch (Apr 2, 2013)

Deleted.


----------



## Jenisch (Apr 2, 2013)

The 190 had some isolated advantages, but in overall the 109 was better.


----------



## steve51 (Apr 2, 2013)

Parsifal,
Thanks for the link. I think we're getting away from the subject of the tread, but there's no question that the Lae Wing was a remarkable collection of excellent pilots.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 2, 2013)

As a dedicated fighter, i have no issue calling the 109 the best available. But a dedicated fighter was NOT what was required, especially after air superiority had been irretrievably lost. A better option was a multi-role aircraft. However dreaming up an exotic, not yet in production type is simply going to play havoc with the numbers, and in the end, numbers count far more than any theoretical performance advantage.

All of these constraints lead to the inescapable conclusion that the 190 was the best choice for the eastern front. It was available in quantity, could effectively undertake both the air superiority and CAS roles and was a better mount for poorly trained pilots. We read a lot about the uber german aircrew, hardly anything about the hastily trained crews that really struggled. and I have 60000 reasons to say that the Germans werent always the super efficient aerial killers that post war propaganda triesd to portray them as.


----------



## wiking85 (Apr 2, 2013)

Jenisch said:


> The 190 had some isolated advantages, but in overall the 109 was better.


Why? By what measure?


----------



## Jenisch (Apr 2, 2013)

wiking85 said:


> Why? By what measure?



The 109 was equal or faster than the Anton, but it climbed much better.


----------



## Jenisch (Apr 2, 2013)

Parfisal,

The airframe of the 190 was better, the problem was the engine power. The Lavochkin had a similar output, but was much ligther (and the La-7 was faster). In order to be effective, the Fw would need a more powerful engine (preferably radial).


----------



## wiking85 (Apr 2, 2013)

Jenisch said:


> The 109 was equal or faster than the Anton, but it climbed much better.


What about the Dora? The 109s that were faster were contemporaries of the Dora, not the Anton. But even the late Anton's kept up with the Me109Gs and Ks.



Jenisch said:


> Parfisal,
> 
> The airframe of the 190 was better, the problem was the engine power. The Lavochkin had a similar output, but was much ligther. In order to be effective, the Fw would need a more powerful engine (preferably radial).


Why radial? The FW190D was the fastest and it had a liquid cooled inline.


----------



## Jenisch (Apr 2, 2013)

wiking85 said:


> The 109s that were faster were contemporaries of the Dora, not the Anton.



If you pick the 109 G-2, you already have an overall better plane. The 109 pilot can maneuver, he can outclimb the enemy. You need to have a relevant speed advantage if your plane is heavier, otherwise you are obligated to use less flexible tactics.



> But even the late Anton's kept up with the Me109Gs and Ks.



The late war Antons were outclassed. "Ah, but they would shoot you down". This is not the problem, I'm not with charts at the momment, but it's just a matter of you verify them; the speed of the late war Antons was inadequated even for the Russian Front.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 2, 2013)

Jenisch said:


> Parfisal,
> 
> The airframe of the 190 was better, the problem was the engine power. The Lavochkin had a similar output, but was much ligther (and the La-7 was faster). In order to be effective, the Fw would need a more powerful engine (preferably radial).



190s were never really bettered in 1 on 1 situations with the rusians. Air superiority was a "nice to have" not an "essential" on the Eastern front. What was important was the application of massed CAS at the point of breakthrough. The Russians reognized that al they needed to do was keep the german fighters busy long enough for their Sturmoviks to get through and provide the force multipliers needed by their assault teams to break through the German front lines. It was a bonus for them to keep the rather meagre German counter CAS forces away and shoot down afew if they could. on all counts the russians were successful in those missions. The Germans could never hope to do anything other than a pinprick here or there. 

What might have made some difference for the germans was if they could get more CAS into the battle that was survivable. The best instrument readily available for that was the FW190 airframe. It was a very effectivfe ground support weapon, the 109 was less so. Both the 190 and the 109 were efective fighters, but because the 190 was more adept at the FB role, it comes out as the more effective type for the EF overall.


----------



## Marcel (Apr 3, 2013)

You guys do it all wrong. Instead of the old performance stuff about which we already have millions of threads, you should consider robustness and abillity of the engine and airframe to cope with the very low temperatures. Which aircraft did cost the least manhours to keep it flying under the very harsh conditions at the Eastern front? Which one was still able to take off from a bumpy, very muddy runway or snow?


----------



## GregP (Apr 3, 2013)

Hi Riacrato, apparently we have read different references. I have about 45+ years of reading about it and talking with people who fly and flew both the Me 109 and the Fw 190. I have no need to defend my views; they are my views regardless. Maybe you should continue reading about it as I will. Perhaps we will come to a similar conclusion in time ... or not.

The Fw 190 wrested superiority from the Spitfire immediately after it was released and it took an update to the Spitfire to regain near parity. The Russians shot down both in droves from 1943 onward and considered the Bf 109 an easier target.

If you think otherwwise, please do so in peace. After talking with pilots of both, I choose the Fw 190. If you don't, I suppose we talked with different people and read different books ... that's all. Nothing overly important about it.


----------



## delcyros (Apr 3, 2013)

but the strange thing is, the russians always considered the -190 easier to combat than the -109. Testified by Yakolev the head of the Yak design team and Prokryshkin.
In the west, the Fw is considered a more potent fighter A/C but in the east, the -109 was recognized as more dangerous.
An MW-50 boosted Bf-109G10/14 is nothing to sneeze about at medium altitudes.
Late war, most missions were air defensive and the Luftwaffe fell back on better prepared airfields in the Reich, hungary or occupied Poland and Czechia.


----------



## stona (Apr 3, 2013)

More power in the Dora?

"Before us we see the Focke-Wulf 190 with no radial engine but an inline job,a Jumo 213.....The engine provides a mere 1800-1900 hp,that's not even as much as the older Fockes! And with this we shall enter the fray once more and win the war?"

From Hans Dortenmann's diary.

He did change his mind.

"...even now the machine proves its superiority with every flight. Enormous climbing ability,far better acceleration in a dive,significantly higher cruising speed and_ definitely improved turning capability compared to a Fw 190 or a 109_. Slowly we are getting enthusiastic about the Dora 9."

Steve


----------



## Kryten (Apr 3, 2013)

I would have to say the Fw190, why?

1, wider undercarriage allowing operations on poor eastern fields.
2, vastly better visibility for the pilot.
3, longer range
4, superior firepower.
5, radial engine, more robust.
6, best roll rate of any fighter of ww2

Me109 was past it's sell by date in reality by 43.


----------



## GregP (Apr 3, 2013)

The Bf 109 was never bested 1 on 1 by the Russians? 

I bet there are an older generation of Russian fighter pilots who would disagree. It was bested by the Yak-3, Yak-9, La-5, La-5FN, and La-7. The La-7 was thought by the Russians superior to any non-Russian Allied piston aircraft and shot down Me-262's in addition to propeller aircraft.


----------



## wiking85 (Apr 3, 2013)

GregP said:


> The Bf 109 was never bested 1 on 1 by the Russians?
> 
> I bet there are an older generation of Russian fighter pilots who would disagree. It was bested by the Yak-3, Yak-9, La-5, La-5FN, and La-7. The La-7 was thought by the Russians superior to any non-Russian Allied piston aircraft and shot down Me-262's in addition to propeller aircraft.


You mean the Russians thought they were better than everyone else? Never! (sarcasm)
They Soviets shot down 1 Me262 with the La-7. The P51 shot down many. 
La-5/7 vs Fw 190: Eastern Front 1942-45 (Duel): Dmitriy khazanov, Jim Laurier, Gareth Hector: 9781849084734: Amazon.com: Books
This book disagrees that the La-7 was better than the FW190. The Fw190 also wasn't better than the La-7; they each had their abilities, but the La-7 was very tempermental and was frequently broken down and waiting for repair. 
The Me109 even later in the war was able to keep up speed-wise and Soviet pilots had a lot of respect for the aircraft even later in the war when German pilot quality dropped like a stone.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavochkin_La-7


> The twin ShVAK armament inherited from the La-5 was no longer powerful enough to bring down later, more heavily armored German fighters, especially the Focke-Wulf Fw 190, in a single burst, even when Soviet pilots opened fire at ranges of only 50–100 meters (160–330 ft).[7]
> 
> The 156th Fighter Air Corps of the 4th Air Army was the next unit to receive the La-7 in October 1944. At one point during the month, they had fourteen aircraft simultaneously unserviceable with engine failures.[7] By 1 January 1945 there were 398 La-7s in front-line service of which 107 were unserviceable.[9] By 9 May 1945 this had increased to 967 aircraft, of which only 169 were unserviceable.[10] For the invasion of Japanese Manchuria, 313 La-7s were assigned and only 28 of these were unserviceable on 9 August 1945.[11]


----------



## delcyros (Apr 3, 2013)

GregP said:


> The Bf 109 was never bested 1 on 1 by the Russians?
> 
> I bet there are an older generation of Russian fighter pilots who would disagree. It was bested by the Yak-3, Yak-9, La-5, La-5FN, and La-7.



1944 to 1945 Bf-109G6, and -109G14 with Db-605AM engines for medium altitudes had a top speed in clean fighter configuration of 413 mp/h at 16,404ft and 352mph at SL (on B4 fuels). They were also lightened up and considered very maneuverable and responsive, unless they served with gunpods, drop tanks or bombs.

Interestingly, the 1943 -109G2 wasn´t much slower either at 410mph. One may add that even the 1942 Bf-109F4 exceeded 400mph top speed.

How fast were La-5, La-7, Yak-9 and Yak-3 at these altitudes? I guess a couple of planes were faster at higher altitudes but medium altitude performance is a different aspect.


----------



## Marcel (Apr 3, 2013)

Speed is nothing if your engine won't start..........


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 3, 2013)

Tossing the Yak-9 and La-5 in the same group with Yak-3 and La-7 is what puzzles me. 
The only war-time Yak-9 that was really a performer was the Yak-9U (with VK-107), with 2000+ produced (war time total ~ 15000 Yak-9s), and it served in the last 12 months of the war. The Yak-9 fighters with VK-105 engines were having performance at the BoB level, ie. comparable with Spitfire I/II and Bf-109E. The La-5 was in the ballpark with those Western fighters, both Soviet types introduced during the winter of 1942/43.
The engines installed in La-5FN, La-7 and Yak-9U were plagued with problems at 1st, the VK-107 being wholly de-bugged earlier than ASh-82FN.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 3, 2013)

The Russians lost over 130000 aircraft during th war, to (very) roughly 60000 German aircraft. However 2/3 of German losses were on the western front, so in effect, and extremely roughly, we see the Germans losing about 20000 aircraft on the eastern front, to roughly 7 times that number for the russians. During 1941, the Russians lost over 30000 a/c and in 1942 about 20000, whilst German losses in the east in that 41-42 period was around 1500-2000. I dont think the 41-42 los rates ought to be considered when assessing overall performance, because many Russian a/c were caught on the ground and destroyed by land forces. Same thing happened in reverse 43-5 for the germans, but never on such a massive scale. 

So, in that period 43-5, I estimate that the Germans lost maybe 18000 aircraft to the Russians 80000. That means, the Russians were losing 4 a/c for every one German. No doubt things got worse as the war drew closer to final victory. During Kursk for example, Bergstrom reports that in fighter combats, the german fighter arm was achieving victory rates of around 9 or 10 to 1. Total losses for all types to all causes 5-18 July were around 200 for the germans to about 920 for the Soviets. But as percentages of the total force structures available to each side, the germans were suffering unsustainable losses, whilst the Russians were not. The VVS emerged from Kursk with valuablke lessons learned, and numerically as strong as it went in, the germans did not. VVS training was a huge part of this disprportionate loss rates.....an average of about 20 hours pilot training is simply not enough, and this was being addressed by the end of the year (my best estimate is that the average Soviet pilot had about 100 hours by the end of 1943 a he entered front line operations. by comparison, german training times were plumetting by that time, during Kursk it was around 200-250 hours, by the end of the year, with the crisis over the Reich, it was down to about 150 hours....the qualitative edge in pilots for the germans was narrowing by that stage).

There is no sustainable argument in my view that can establish the Soviet manpower or technology was superior qualitatively in that period. But that doesnt mean the Soviets were not important or decisive. They hit upon a particulalr strategy and pursued it relentlessly. The Germans, in the end, had no solution to Soviet doggedness, but it cannot be said the germans were overpowered by quality.


----------



## wiking85 (Apr 3, 2013)

parsifal said:


> The Russians lost over 130000 aircraft during th war, to (very) roughly 60000 German aircraft. However 2/3 of German losses were on the western front, so in effect, and extremely roughly, we see the Germans losing about 20000 aircraft on the eastern front, to roughly 7 times that number for the russians. During 1941, the Russians lost over 30000 a/c and in 1942 about 20000, whilst German losses in the east in that 41-42 period was around 1500-2000. I dont think the 41-42 los rates ought to be considered when assessing overall performance, because many Russian a/c were caught on the ground and destroyed by land forces. Same thing happened in reverse 43-5 for the germans, but never on such a massive scale.
> 
> So, in that period 43-5, I estimate that the Germans lost maybe 18000 aircraft to the Russians 80000. That means, the Russians were losing 4 a/c for every one German. No doubt things got worse as the war drew closer to final victory. During Kursk for example, Bergstrom reports that in fighter combats, the german fighter arm was achieving victory rates of around 9 or 10 to 1. Total losses for all types to all causes 5-18 July were around 200 for the germans to about 920 for the Soviets. But as percentages of the total force structures available to each side, the germans were suffering unsustainable losses, whilst the Russians were not. The VVS emerged from Kursk with valuablke lessons learned, and numerically as strong as it went in, the germans did not. VVS training was a huge part of this disprportionate loss rates.....an average of about 20 hours pilot training is simply not enough, and this was being addressed by the end of the year (my best estimate is that the average Soviet pilot had about 100 hours by the end of 1943 a he entered front line operations. by comparison, german training times were plumetting by that time, during Kursk it was around 200-250 hours, by the end of the year, with the crisis over the Reich, it was down to about 150 hours....the qualitative edge in pilots for the germans was narrowing by that stage).
> 
> There is no sustainable argument in my view that can establish the Soviet manpower or technology was superior qualitatively in that period. But that doesnt mean the Soviets were not important or decisive. They hit upon a particulalr strategy and pursued it relentlessly. The Germans, in the end, had no solution to Soviet doggedness, but it cannot be said the germans were overpowered by quality.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_of_the_Reich
Apparently 18,000 German aircraft were destroyed on the ground/at factories during the 1942-45 campaign over Germany. Not sure if your destruction numbers include them or all the aircraft that were captured/destroyed in the ground campaigns of 1943-45 in the East and West. I know that German armor loss figures include those captured at the end of the war, so it stands to reason that the Luftwaffe loss figures might include those overrun on the ground, just as Soviet losses include the 1941-42 losses on the ground.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equipment_losses_in_World_War_II


> Germany: Estimated total number of destroyed and damaged for the war totaled 116,875 aircraft, of which 70,000 were total losses and the remainder significantly damaged. By type, losses totaled 41,452 fighters, 22,037 bombers, 15,428 trainers, 10,221 twin-engine fighters, 5,548 ground attack, 6,733 reconnaissance, and 6,141 transports


Again not sure if this includes those lost in the bombing of production facilities, bases, etc. or were captured in ground operations.


----------



## Jenisch (Apr 3, 2013)

parsifal said:


> VVS training was a huge part of this disprportionate loss rates.....an average of about 20 hours pilot training is simply not enough



I live in a flight school where taildraggers are used, and the wind is strong (conditions which might be found in Russia). With 20 hours at the maximum the majority of the students would conduct their solo flight. And with this flight time, the landings of some of them are really not what you could call "good", even with frontal wind. I will mention, however, that understanding of flight theory is usually not strong among the cases I personally know, which might contribute with some degree to their lack of skill. 

In actual fact, before the war the Soviet pilots received 50 hours of flight training. Shooting and aerobatic practical training programs were removed to avoid accidents.


----------



## wiking85 (Apr 3, 2013)

Jenisch said:


> I live in a flight school where taildraggers are used, and the wind is strong (conditions which might be found in Russia). With 20 hours at the maximum the majority of the students would conduct their solo flight. And with this flight time, the landings of some of them are really not what you could call "good", even with frontal wind.
> 
> In actual fact, before the war the Soviet pilots received 50 hours of flight training. Shooting and aerobatic practical training programs were removed to avoid accidents.



Axis and Soviet air operations during Operation Barbarossa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> The officer corps was decimated in the Great Purge and operational level effectiveness suffered. The 6,000 officers lost and then the subsequent massive expansion schemes, which increased the number of personnel from 1.5 million in 1938 to five million in 1941 flooded the VVS with inexperienced personnel and the infrastructure struggled to cope. It still left the VVS short of 60,000 qualified officers in 1941. Despite the expansion of flight schools from 12 to 83 from 1937 to June 1941, the schools lacked half their flight instructors and half of their alloted fuel supplies. Combined with these events, training was shortened a total of seven times in 1939-1940. The attrition and loss of experienced pilots in Barbarossa encouraged a culture of rapid promotion to positions beyond some pilots' level of competence. It created severe operational difficulties for the VVS.[81][82]
> 
> The process of modernisation in the VVS’ frontline strength had started to gain pace and strength. The alleged technical primitivism of Soviet aircraft is a myth. The Polikarpov I-16 fighter and Tupolev SB bomber was just as capable as foreign aircraft. In 1941, the Ilyushin Il-2, Yakovlev Yak-1, Lavochkin-Gorbunov-Gudkov LaGG-3, Petlyakov Pe-2 and Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-3 were comparable to the best in the World.[50] Only 37 Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-1 and 201 MiG-3s were operational on 22 June, and only four pilots had been trained to fly them.[83] The attempt to familiarise pilots with these types resulted in the loss of 141 pilots killed and 138 aircraft written off in accidents in the first quarter of 1941 alone.[64] On 31 August, the first foreign aircraft arrived. The Curtiss P-40 Warhawk was among those handed over but the Soviets did not have Russian-language manuals. The type was evaluated and made it into operations in September/October 1941.[84]



Apparently accidents were a significant issue, but not that much more than that of the Germans according to Williamson Murray; if anything there was just a lack of instructors and massive expansion going on while Stalin purged the VVS.

Plus there was another purge in 1941-42:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purge_of_the_Red_Army_in_1941


> Soviet industry was highly productive, and on the eve of Barbarossa, possessed at least 9,576 frontline aircraft which made it the largest air force in the World. However, its equipment, like that of the Red Army, was largely obsolescent and suffering from prolonged use. The Great Purges had also hit aircraft manufacturers, and the loss of personnel ended the Soviet lead in aircraft design and aeronautics. At least one designer was shot for a charge of sabotage on the crash of an aircraft, and many designers were sent to Gulags.[77] Indeed, the Head of the VVS, Yakov Alksnis was shot and 400 to 500 aero engineers were arrested from the Commissariat of Aviation Industry. Some 70 were shot and 100 dies in forced labour camps. The others were later put into prison workshops, and allowed to continue their work. The aviation industry was disrupted, severely, and while the damage caused was later patched up in 1941, months of idleness and disorganisation contributed to the disasters in 1941.[78]


----------



## Jenisch (Apr 3, 2013)

WWII Aviation Accident Stats—Amazing


----------



## Jenisch (Apr 3, 2013)

> The Polikarpov I-16 fighter and Tupolev SB bomber was just as capable as foreign aircraft



This is a joke, specially in the case of the I-16. If the I-16 was employed by experienced pilots with the proper tactics, it could fare better than usually was historically. Even so, the flexibility for the pilots flying it was limited, and the German could engage and desingage at will. The I-16 vs the 109F match was probably worse than a Zero vs a Hellcat.


----------



## wiking85 (Apr 3, 2013)

Jenisch said:


> This is a joke, specially in the case of the I-16. If the I-16 was employed by experienced pilots with the proper tactics, it could fare better than usually was historically. Even so, the flexibility for the pilots flying it was limited, and the German could engage and desingage at will. The I-16 vs the 109F match was probably worse than a Zero vs a Hellcat.


I assume the author means that the type was just as good as the equivalent western models, which the Me109 wasn't, as it came a design generation later.


----------



## Jenisch (Apr 3, 2013)

wiking85 said:


> I assume the author means that the type was just as good as the equivalent western models, which the Me109 wasn't, as it came a design generation later.



Yes.


----------



## bob44 (Apr 3, 2013)

This thread has been very informative. Many things that I do not know about the Russian front.


----------



## delcyros (Apr 4, 2013)

Marcel said:


> Speed is nothing if your engine won't start..........


 
Which brings us to yet another important aspect. Bf-109G14 and late G6 with DB-601AM attained slightly -or notably higher top speeds (depending on where You look at) using the normal B4 grade fuels, while the Fw-190A -and most of the high performance -190D were entirely dependent on higher grade C3 fuels. The latter was less aviable in late war and more needed in the defense of the Reich against more capable higher altitude opponents.

If You want to boost mid altitude performance further, go on and use a cleaned up Bf-109G10, or -K4 airframe with Db-601AM or Db-601DM, in combination with C3 fuels.

But with B4 beeing more common, the Bf-109G becomes logistically more feasable on the Eastern front and frees up C3 for the west. Even less refined, J3 diesel fuel could be used for jets but the only jet which makes sense against the East late war in the defensive role is the He-162A in my mind, and those jets appeared unfrequently.


----------



## stona (Apr 4, 2013)

Actually about 60% of fuel production in 1944/5 was C3.

Technical Report 145-45 - Table of Contents

The shortage was of both grades of fuel,combined with an inability to move fuel already produced to where it was needed.

The engine/fuel situation was much more complicated as well.

The Fw 190 D used B4 fuel in its Jumo 213.

Dietmar Hermann:

"The condition representative of standard production Fw 190 D-9’s during 1945 is as follows: Jumo 213A operating at 1.8 ata with B4 fuel MW 50"

Whenever a fuel triangle is visible it is usually a factory standard "B4 OKt 87" or rarely a simple "B4".

Also later versions of the DB 605 (I don't think you meant 601  ) could use B4 fuel.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## GregP (Apr 4, 2013)

Hey Bob,

Don't believe everything you read.

In the Spanish Civil War, the I-16's didn't meet any Bf 109F's. They fought Bf 109B and C models, and weren't overwhelmed by the Bf 109, but by the numbers of them. Individually, the I-16 was a match for the Bf 109 B / C as an aircraft. Whether or not it was during the fight was determined by the pilots. The I-16 was quite good, but had reached its development potential while the Bf 109 was just getting developed into a combat-ready fighter. With the arrival of the Emil model, the I-16 was outclassed.

The Soviet Union stayed with the I-16 longer than was advisable and, by the time it DID meet with the Bf 109F on the Russian Front, it WAS oboslescent. They continued with it while they developed the Yaks, Lavochkins, and MiGs. And the Soviet Union didn't get shot down in droves in the 1943 - 1945 timeframe ... that's when THEY shot down a LOT of Germans. 

That's what my readings have indicated and that's what was said to be by several former WWII Russian pilots as well as at least 3 more modern former Soviet pilots who were out of the cockpit and visiting the USA to purchase modems for their communication network said. One in particular said his instructors, who were former WWII fighter pilots, said that while the Germans frollicked early in the war, the Soviet pilots would hunt them down in packs after mid-1943. The Soviets particularly enjoyed attacking German airfields in bad weather when the Germans were grounded but the Soviets were operating. By summer of 1944, the Germans were still there, but were basically being systematically eliminated as they were found. By early 1945, they were almost gone on the Russian Front and only a small handful were still operational. Near the end, the resistance that existed was almost all ground forces with only the occasional odd German fighter to deal with.

Numbers aside (accurate records for them don't exist in Russia), the Soviet Air Force after mid-1943 was a better force than the Luftwaffe, especially at lower altituides where they mostly operated. The MiG-3 was one of the few higher-altitude fighters in Soviet service. Most of the rest had single-stage superchargers and were good up to about 16,000 - 18,000 feet, after which the Bf 109 and Fw 190 had the edge. So the Soviets declined to go up and fight, instead prefgerring to attack German troops and force the Luftwafee down to fight. It worked and the Luftwaffe was slowly worn down in the last year and a half of the war.

Coincidentally, during this same period, the germans pilots in the west were also becomming less capable and less trained. We know their pilot quality declined in the West ... does anyone really think they sent the better pilots to the Russian Front an saved the new, green guys to defend the Reich? It also declined in the East as the Soviets got better planes and better tactics. Sorry, the Luftwaffe wasn't the best in the world in mid-1944 and was in decline everywhere while still being able to field the occasional good day filled with exploits of the "experts." Years of war will do that to you when the supply of pilots isn't keeping up with attrition.


----------



## Erich (Apr 4, 2013)

my previous thoughts are still with me the Fw 190Dora as mentioned by it's pilots and the Soviets desired in getting their hands on 1-2 ASAP. and yes Wiking the 262 was used in the ground attack role by KG(J) 6 and another KG as well as JG 7 armed with altered head R4M's for ground attack work. from JG 7 pilots the rockets just vaporized Soviet MT's. one must conclude that some Soviet armor even J-Stalins were brewed in the course of these late war ops but personal accounts are very very few.....with the chaos of the end of the war near.


----------



## riacrato (Apr 4, 2013)

Delcyros, are you surd about the doras and c3 fuel? I thought most ran on b4 still.
Erich, do you mean r4m with hollow charge (i think panzerblitz was the name)? I thought these were very very rarely used and mostly by fw 190f. It's an interesting topic as i think the combination of fighter bomber with hollow-charge, fin stabilized rocket salvos was probably the best way to attack tanks with ww2 technology. But i'm ignored in all those let's-build-the-ww2-warthog threads with that


----------



## Jenisch (Apr 4, 2013)

GregP said:


> Hey Bob,
> 
> Don't believe everything you read.
> 
> ...



That's what I was saying in the other topic. In the Russian Front there was also other problem: the size of the front. For example, on May of '43 the Germans had 454 single-seat fighters in the East. The Russians? 6,777  

What 500 extra fighters to the Germans in the East meant? Nothing! If they put them in one place of the front, the Russians can easily cover the problem. But if the Germans spread them, they were useless. And the Russians did just that: they overhelm in the Germans in a determined sector, forcing them to move forces from a place to the other, and then they break them in a weak point. Again I will remind people that in the air battles over Kuban, when the LW was still in the majority in the East, the Germans could not handle the VVS. And the VVS was becoming ever stronger.


----------



## Juha (Apr 4, 2013)

delcyros said:


> 1944 to 1945 Bf-109G6, and -109G14 with Db-605AM engines for medium altitudes had a top speed in clean fighter configuration of 413 mp/h at 16,404ft and 352mph at SL (on B4 fuels). They were also lightened up and considered very maneuverable and responsive, unless they served with gunpods, drop tanks or bombs.
> 
> Interestingly, the 1943 -109G2 wasn´t much slower either at 410mph. One may add that even the 1942 Bf-109F4 exceeded 400mph top speed.
> 
> How fast were La-5, La-7, Yak-9 and Yak-3 at these altitudes? I guess a couple of planes were faster at higher altitudes but medium altitude performance is a different aspect.



How Soviets saw it, look then with a grain of salt but informative anyway.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 4, 2013)

Jenisch said:


> That's what I was saying in the other topic. In the Russian Front there was also other problem: the size of the front. For example, on May of '43 the Germans had 454 single-seat fighters in the East. The Russians? 6,777
> 
> What 500 extra fighters to the Germans in the East meant? Nothing! If they put them in one place of the front, the Russians can easily cover the problem. But if the Germans spread them, they were useless. And the Russians did just that: they overhelm in the Germans in a determined sector, forcing them to move forces from a place to the other, and then they break them in a weak point. Again I will remind people that in the air battles over Kuban, when the LW was still in the majority in the East, the Germans could not handle the VVS. And the VVS was becoming ever stronger.




Not sure where your figures for the soviets are coming from, they are not correct, or at best not very accurate, and your german figures appear distinctly rubbery as well, and dont seem to include the very substantial minor axis contributions as well. 

At Kursk, just one month later, the germans committed 729 fighhter a/c to the offensive, whilst the Soviets had in place 526 (16VA), 474 (2VA) and 206 (17VA) as of 4 July 1943. Theree were, however, huge disparities in the reserves available, the germans had virtually none, the Russians had more than a 8 weeks supply, based on standard rates of attrition. Even at this stage of the war, the germans were able to achieve superiority of numbers at the schwerepunkt, because they were prepred to leave large sections of the front unprotected, and were much more efficient at concentrating their forces. the germans tended to move their air forces around the front, fire brigade style, which gave them great flexibility and effctiveness despite the numbers,but did come at a cost, in higher attrition rates than perhaps they should have.

As for much of the fighting, the turning point came once the germans lost the initiative in the ground war. No longer were Germans able to ignore large sections of Soviet activity....the Soviets could and did strike any section of the the line at any time, this caused much dilution of effort for the germans and lessened the impact of their air forces at the critical points. .


----------



## Juha (Apr 4, 2013)

I vote for 109G, generally Soviet pilots thought 109 more dangerous opponent than 190. The standard armament of 109G was enough against VVS fighters and most bombers but on light side against Il-2 which happened to be the most numerous a/c in the East. 109G-x/R6 was the answer of that problem but had problems with best late war VVS fighters.

On 262A as ground attack plane, not sure, at least in West British ground troops seems to have barely noticed their best efforts. And early jet engines were very thirsty at low altitude.

Juha


----------



## stona (Apr 4, 2013)

riacrato said:


> Delcyros, are you surd about the doras and c3 fuel? I thought most ran on b4 still.
> Erich, do you mean r4m with hollow charge (i think panzerblitz was the name)? I thought these were very very rarely used and mostly by fw 190f. It's an interesting topic as i think the combination of fighter bomber with hollow-charge, fin stabilized rocket salvos was probably the best way to attack tanks with ww2 technology. But i'm ignored in all those let's-build-the-ww2-warthog threads with that



The Jumo 213 ran on B4 fuel.

The evidence gathered by both British (and American) ORS,particularly that attached to the RAF's 2nd TAF would indicate that attacking tanks with rockets from the air was inefficient bordering on useless.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Erich (Apr 4, 2013)

@ riacrato

no it was the R4M nearly transformed, a 8.8cm Panzerschreck armored head was used with filler and was quite deadly to anything it hit.

a side note the Fw 190F SG units also used the Panzerschreck tubes with multi-barrels under each wing as experimentation before smaller and multiple rockets on racks became available.

since there was so much Soviet armor available as targets we are never going to know the totals hit by the LW on the Ost front and if really they were effective or not. much can be said in the way of LW tactics as it was ever changing with heavy single cannon versus rocket armed A/C. LW A/F's on the Ost front were quite a bit closer to the enemy's action so a fuel concern was just not a prob though A/F's had to be moved almost weekly to daily. in fact the only rocket - ground attacks by Me 262's that I know of were done on the Ost front, bombing on the other hand - yes in the West.


----------



## GregP (Apr 5, 2013)

On the Russian front, how many Bf 109K's were encountered by any Russian fighter? They saved most K's for Reich defense. I'd think more E, F, and G than anything else, with the bulk being Gustavs. The La-5FN redressed the altitude capability and the La-7 simply outperformed the Luftwaffe equipment that was fighting on the Russian front at typical combat heights on that front. IIRC, they only lost 218 La-7's in the whole war to combat, including mechanical losses. In any case it was under 250, and it was in the fight for over a year.

Sure, the 109 had a speed advantage up high, but the Soviets didn't go up and fight there ... they made the Germans come down and fight. The relevant information is from about 12 - 15,000 feet downward. Most of what I've read written by Russian says the Fw 190 was more dangerous than the Bf 109, but I could simply have read the books that say that while you read the ones saying the opposite. 

Either way, I don't think German fighters were taken lightly by Russian fighter pilots unless they had an overwhelming numerical advantage as well as positional advantage. Being confident in your skills doesn't mean taking the opponent lightly, and the highest-scoring aces in the Luftwaffe were ON the Russian front, so I'd think they would have respect while trying to knock them down, knowing thath a mistake could cost quite dearly.

Conversely, the Germans probably formed a low opinion of Soviet equipment and pilots in the opening phases of the war and had to reappraise when better equipment and pilots began to show up. By mid-1944, I doubt any German pilots toook Russian fighters lightly, particularly when facing numerical superiority by the Russians and aggressive tactics from the beginning of the encounter.

I'm sure it was "interesting" on both sides, but the Russians were very familiar with Russian winter conditions and what it took to operate in them. The Germans were used to a much more mild winter and were no doubt surprised many times after summer 1943 by Russian aerial attacks when they thought the weather would mean a stand down for the day.

I can tell you this from experience, Russian winter grease maintains its lubricity in severe cold when normal grease becomes more like locktight red stud set. Their radiators don't help much in an arid desert at 125°F, but are very adequate in severe cold. The winter of 1944 - 1945 was probably the hardest test the Luftwaffe ever faced, and the weather played a significant role in their defeat, in part due to inadequate cold-weather procedures and products. There is a BIG difference between a German winter and one in the Russian steppes. Without adequate procedures, you can find yourself buried after a short sleep in a tent, nevermind the aircraft. The weather is one reason why most Russian piston aircraft use compressed air for starting and for other airframe tasks ... it is unaffected by cold. If you have air pressure, you can spin the engine over in the morning.


----------



## Juha (Apr 5, 2013)

GregP said:


> On the Russian front, how many Bf 109K's were encountered by any Russian fighter? They saved most K's for Reich defense...



Most of the LW fighters were sent to the East after Ardennes offensive, so also most of the 109Ks, so answer is many.

Juha


----------



## stona (Apr 5, 2013)

Juha said:


> Most of the LW fighters were sent to the East after Ardennes offensive, so also most of the 109Ks, so answer is many.
> Juha



There wasn't much left of the Jagdwaffe after "Bodenplatte".Anyway there was only four months of the war left. Less than 40 Bf 109 Ks were lost on 1/1/45 which,in the context of total Luftwaffe losses that day,gives an idea of how relatively rare they were. There were just over 300 Bf 109 Ks on the books at the end of January 1945. That represents about 1/4 of the total number of Bf 109s and a much smaller fraction of total fighter strength. I don't think that the average Soviet pilot had much chance of meeting one.
Total production was only about 1,600!
I don't think "many" is the right answer.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## alejandro_ (Apr 5, 2013)

> On the Russian front, how many Bf 109K's were encountered by any Russian fighter? They saved most K's for Reich defense. I'd think more E, F, and G than anything else, with the bulk being Gustavs.



As Juha said, there were quite a few Bf 109 K operating in the Eastern Front, you can find a reference on a combat between Yakovlevs and K in the book "Nest of Eagles: Messerschmitt Production and Flight-testing at Regensburg 1936-1945".


----------



## riacrato (Apr 5, 2013)

stona said:


> Total production was only about 1,600!
> I don't think "many" is the right answer.
> Cheers
> Steve


 
Compared to what, 1000 mk xiv spitfires?
1, 600 is certainly not a few either.


----------



## stona (Apr 5, 2013)

alejandro_ said:


> As Juha said, there were quite a few Bf 109 K operating in the Eastern Front, you can find a reference on a combat between Yakovlevs and K in the book "Nest of Eagles: Messerschmitt Production and Flight-testing at Regensburg 1936-1945".



"Many","quite a few". What do we mean here?

I've already posted that only about one in four Bf 109s listed in January 1945 was a K. That was a total of about 300. If someone wants to dig up how many of those were serviceable and on which front they were deployed I wish them luck.

Very few units were equipped exclusively with the Bf 109 K but flew some amongst their other aircraft. Only four "Gruppen" were entirely converted to the Bf 109 K.

I'm sure that there were combats between the Soviets and Bf 109 Ks but the type comprised a very small minority of Luftwaffe fighters in service,Eastern Front (if you can call it that in early 1945) included. A Soviet pilot was most likely to come up against a Fw 190 A or an earlier Bf 109 sub type.

Let's look at some real numbers for Luftwaffe losses as opposed to guess work.

Of the 420 losses of fighters in the East in the ten days from 20/1/45 to 30/1/45 from the surviving GenQu returns only 30 are Bf 109 K-4s. That's about one in fourteen.
Those numbers are close,anyone whose counted down these lists will know why I'm not claiming that they are exact. I've only done it once on this occasion to give a good idea whilst not losing the will to live!

Around 5,500 G-14s of various types were built but I doubt that a Soviet pilot would distinguish the early ones from a G-6. Somewhere around 2,500 G-10s and 1,500 K-4s were built,though again I doubt that a Soviet pilot could tell the difference.They certainly could have had no clue which engine was fitted 
This is in the context of over 12,000 G-6s built,the last block in December 1944.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Milosh (Apr 5, 2013)

stona, could you be confusing the 4 Gruppen that were authorized to use 1.98 ata?

LuftFlotte 6 on the Eastern front, 19-3-1945,
Kurfürst - Luftflottenkommando 6, Führungsabteilung I. (Ia Flieg) - Ausrüstung der Jagdverbänden. H.Qu., des 19.3.1945.


----------



## stona (Apr 5, 2013)

Baureihe translates as series or more broadly type. There are three gruppen equipped with the K-4 on that list,III./JG 3,III./JG 4 and III./JG 77. The other unit,which was in the west was III./JG 26.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## tyrodtom (Apr 5, 2013)

Another difference that helped the Russians in nthe very cold weather was that a lot of their aircraft was equiped with a Hucks type starter. That was just a fitting on the propeller hub that mated to a fitting on special starting trucks. They could get any engine turning over, as long as they get the truck started.
You can see the fitting on the IL-2, Laggs, several twin engine Soviet aircraft also. 
I don't know if it was the primary starting method for these aircraft or a standby.


----------



## delcyros (Apr 5, 2013)

I am not sure why everybody is so amazed about the high altitude Bf-109K when it goes to eastern front issues. At low and medium altitude, both the late production run Bf-109G6 and the standart Bf-109G14 with DB-605AM and B4 fuels on 1.7 ata are similarely fast as Bf-109K or -109G10 with DB-605ASM. Both, -G6 and -G14 served in great numbers.

The -109G14 was specified with 654 km/h (405mph) using two gunpods and 665km/h (413mph) without them at full pressure height of 5000m (16,404ft). This is for standart A/C, not those with specially treated surface.
Late G6´s may be minimally faster with straked engine cowling.

An early ´44 -G14 with MW-30 boost on B4 fuel rather than MW-50 boost clocked 652km/h in clean condition (rather than 665), which is within variances for individual A/C. 

In flight tests, the La-7 attained 658 km/h (409mph) at 5900m, making the standart LW Bf-109G-14 indeed faster at 5000m and slower at higher altitudes.

Special surface treament could improve performance further. If You want a really fast medium altitude Bf-109, use the late G6 production or -G14 airframe with straked cowling and DB-601AM, and finally pay special care to surface treatment and clean fighter configuration.

[+] clean fighter configuration: 665 km/h
[+] special surface treatment: +1.27%
[+] straked engine cowling: +0.966%

These A/C should attain ~680km/h (422mph) at 5000m. That´s also faster than Fw-190D9´s at this altutude.


----------



## GregP (Apr 5, 2013)

Special surface treatment in the field in Russia? Book or better performance when operating from a farmer's field with only basic tools with which to do maintenance? C'mon, that didn't usually happen even in temperate climates when in the field, much less the largely rural Soviet areas from which the Germans were operating. They were probably more concerned with digging latrines than special surfac preparations and a few extra knots of airspeed. Special maintenace was possible and maybe probable at an airfield near a logistic source of spare parts, but not far from manicured runways, aircraft shelters, and an aircraft wash rack. If they had water in Russia, it was probably for drinking, not for washing airplanes!

When attacking, the Russians came in low and were difficult to detect at any significant range, even with radar since they flew low. Have you ever tried to start a Bf 109 by hand in cold weather ... quickly? Compared with a battrey-started plane in a temperate climate, they were a bear to get running in cold weeather. We had trouble on a beautiful day in Chino! And it started fine the afternoon before. The attack would be over before most of the planes on the ground even got running, much less airborne. They were operating largely from unimproved, usually never before used ground ... at least never before used by an aircraft. The planes were dirty, the finishes made less than ideal by weather, and the conditions were crude. I seriously doubt book performance was even achieved most of the time on either side.

The battles on the Eastern Front constituted the largest military confrontation in history. They were characterized by unprecedented ferocity, wholesale destruction, mass deportations, and immense loss of life variously due to combat, starvation, exposure, disease, and massacres. The Eastern Front, as the site of nearly all extermination camps, death marches, ghettos, and the majority of pogroms, was central to the Holocaust. Of the estimated 70 million deaths attributed to World War II, over 30 million, many of them civilians, died on the Eastern Front. The Eastern Front was decisive in determining the outcome of World War II, eventually serving as the main reason for Germany's defeat. It resulted in the destruction of the Third Reich, the partition of Germany for nearly half a century and the rise of the Soviet Union as a military and industrial superpower. The Russian Front lasted from June 1941 through May 1945.

The Germans started the invasion with 3.7 million troops in June 1941 against 2.7 million Soviet troops. A year later the Germans still had 3.7 million troops (now 80% of their strength) on the Russian front against 5.3 million Russian troops. By mid-1943 it was 3.9 million Germans against 6.7 million Soviets and was still close to that number but slight less on both sides in 1944. By early 1945 there were only 2.3 million tired and hungry German troops against 6.5 million Soviet troops that were eager to get to Germany right through the German troops. The failure to capture Stalingrad in 1942 was the reversal of German intrusion into the Soviet Union and after that time, the Germans were basically in withdrawal mode while still in contact with the Russian troops. There were plenty of targets for any air power.

I might believe special maintenance in 1941 but, but the time of the failure to capture Stalingrad in 1942, survival was much more important. The air force strength largely mirrored the troop strength. In the last 9 months of the war, there were probably 2 - 3 or 4 times the number of Soviet aircraft in the air as German, and they were modern types flown by aggressive pilots relative to Soviet pilots of only two years before. It was not a good last year and a half or so for the Luftwaffe, and they certainly did not enjoy mass success as they retreated to Berlin and surrendered. 

Even Erich Hartmann's squadron had a heartbreaking time as the war ran down to the end. This was not a good experience for the Luftwaffe after winter 1942.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 5, 2013)

Ellis gives total Luftwaffe losses 1 january 1945 to 31 march 1945 at 8478. Those loss numbers are staggering. Statistically, LW losses in 1944 saw the proportion of fighters as a percentage of total losses for the LW at just under 50% of the total losses being suffered by the LW, to all causes. If 1945 figures are proportionally similar, then roughly 4000 fighters are going to be lost by the LW. The Russians by that stage were accounting for about 30% of total German aircraft losses by that stage of the war. That puts the total German losses inflicted by the Russians at about 1300 in 1945. If 30 Me 109Ks are a part of that overall mix, i agree with Steve, the Russians arent even going to notice.


----------



## stona (Apr 5, 2013)

And yet from September 1943 until October 1944 the Luftwaffe never had more than 24% of its day fighters in the East. The reason is fairly obviously the pressure from the USAAF and the deployment of the majority of the Jagdwaffe on the Western Front,Italy and the Balkans and in Reich Defence. 

It is important to seperate the fighters from total Luftwaffe strength. The Luftwaffe deployed many types in the East which simply couldn't survive in the West. Typically about 45% of total Luftwaffe strength was deployed on the Eastern Front throughout this period.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## delcyros (Apr 5, 2013)

> C'mon, that didn't usually happen even in temperate climates when in the field, much less the largely rural Soviet areas from which the Germans were operating. They were probably more concerned with digging latrines than special surfac preparations and a few extra knots of airspeed. Special maintenace was possible and maybe probable at an airfield near a logistic source of spare parts, but not far from manicured runways, aircraft shelters, and an aircraft wash rack. If they had water in Russia, it was probably for drinking, not for washing airplanes!



Aren´t You are over-exagerating here, Greg?
For the final 6 months of ww2, about the period when the La-7 entered service (operational trials in sept. 44 in one squadron at the Baltic with regular service starting in oct. 44), the Luftwaffe was operating very close to and at it´s logistical baseground, geographically. It wasn´t employed in Steppe airfields anymore but already fell back on the better prepared airfields in Eastern Prussia, eastern Germany, Czechia, Slovakia and Hungary. That doesn´t mean special surface treatment was regular, but I didn´t stated that, I made the point that it was possible and indeed this is evidenced by two accounts (I know of) from ground crews working at Fürstenwalde airfield in 1945.
Straked cowling was a replacement part for -G6, -G10 and -K4 and could have been installed in -G14, too. Bf-109K are not necessary to beat the Yak´s and La´s. The MW-50 boosted Bf-109G6 and -14 are just fine for this purpose in low and medium altitude ranges.
In low / medium altitude, these A/C enjoi a healthy performanc edge over Yak-9, Yak-3, La-5 and La-5FN and are still competetive with La-7.


----------



## stona (Apr 5, 2013)

The finish and fit of late war German aircraft was poor. The RLM complained about it and there are several accounts from pilots who grumbled and moaned about it too.

The aircraft were checked thoroughly on delivery to the units and frequently faults were found.
This is_ after _acceptance by the "BAL". Mutterings about sabotage were not uncommon at frontline units.

None of this precludes a unit or pilot taking special care of particular airframes but given the frantic operations late in the war and the short lifespan of the average airframe it would surely be an exception rather than the rule.

Cheers
Steve


----------



## davebender (Apr 5, 2013)

What do you mean by "late war"? 

The quality of most German made products took a nose dive when Allied ground forces started rampaging through industrial centers. Just as Soviet quality got even worse (if that was possible) when German ground forces captured or issolated pre-war industrial centers such as Kharkov and Leningrad. Nothing you can do about that. But in Germany's case the bottom didn't fall out of industrial production until 1945.


----------



## Juha (Apr 5, 2013)

stona said:


> There wasn't much left of the Jagdwaffe after "Bodenplatte"...



1300+ serviceable day fighters on 9 Apr 45, at least more than during the BoB.

Juha


----------



## Juha (Apr 5, 2013)

stona said:


> "Many","quite a few". What do we mean here?
> 
> I've already posted that only about one in four Bf 109s listed in January 1945 was a K. That was a total of about 300. If someone wants to dig up how many of those were serviceable and on which front they were deployed I wish them luck.
> 
> Very few units were equipped exclusively with the Bf 109 K but flew some amongst their other aircraft. Only four "Gruppen" were entirely converted to the Bf 109 K.



20.3.45 there seems to have been 12 Gruppen equipped with 109G-10, 9 with G-14 and 9 with K-4.




stona said:


> Around 5,500 G-14s of various types were built but I doubt that a Soviet pilot would distinguish the early ones from a G-6.



No wonder because G-14 was basically G-6 with MW-50.



stona said:


> Somewhere around 2,500 G-10s and 1,500 K-4s were built,though again I doubt that a Soviet pilot could tell the difference.They certainly could have had no clue which engine was fitted



Agree, it seems that many of German pilots flying them were unware were they were flying G-10 or K-4, much less were they fighting against Yak-9M or -9D


----------



## Jenisch (Apr 5, 2013)

And how many night-fighters?


----------



## Juha (Apr 5, 2013)

Jenisch said:


> And how many night-fighters?



480

Juha


----------



## Jenisch (Apr 5, 2013)

Christos military and intelligence corner: Eastern Front Aircraft Strength and Losses 1941-45

According to this link, the VVS had 8,078 single-seat fighters in January of '45. If the previous years are considerated, the Soviet numerical advantage is also abysmal. This is why I mentioned in the other thread that even in absence of the American long-range fighters, the Russians could still defeat a stronger LW in the East. 

Note: I understand that quality was a problem for the VVS, but from 1942 onwards, the VVS learning curve grow steadily.


----------



## Jenisch (Apr 5, 2013)

I still didn't read Stalingrad: The Air Battle: 1942-January 1943, by Bergstor. However, reading a review of the book, I confirmed my suspicious of the last post:



> Drawing upon a wealth of German and Russian archival material and personal accounts, Bergstrom chronicles the momentous developments on the Eastern Front from early 1942 to January 1943, events that resulted in the destruction of the 6th Army at Stalingrad. Luftwaffe and Red Air Force units were key players in the sometimes titanic land battles waged during this time. Equipped with superior aircraft flown by combat-experienced crews using proven tactics, German fighter, bomber, ground-attack and recce units overwhelmed the opposition, lending valuable support to the Panzers while decimating their poorly-trained and -led VVS contemporaries operating a smorgasbord of biplane and monoplane designs. While Russian units were being re-equipped with more potent aircraft such as IL-2s, Pe-2s, Yak-1s, LaGG-3s, etc., they often lacked time to develop effective tactics before thrown into battle. Yet despite wholesale slaughter of VVS units, Germany, as Bergstorm relates in the book, couldn't hope to win the war of attrition Stalin was willing to wage. In time Luftwaffe bombers and fighters, their numbers dwindling, became fire-brigades, switched back and forth across fronts to provide needed - if temporary - strength to a threatened location or air support for a new offensive. Germany's transports were likewise called upon for tasks - such as the aerial resupply of Stalingrad - beyond their capabilities. In the end, quantity conquered quality.


----------



## GregP (Apr 5, 2013)

Stupid post, so I removed it. Slap me, please.


----------



## Jenisch (Apr 5, 2013)

GregP said:


> Yeah I guess the superior Germans really did win that battle, huh?



I hope you didn't understand me incorrectly, Greg, because I agree with you.


----------



## GregP (Apr 6, 2013)

Hi Jenisch, I was being sarcastic to the ones who still believe the Germans won the battles despite the fact that they were retreating and losing the war ... not to you ... peace and good feelings. I told myself not to be sarcastic and failed. Sorry, won't happen again.

The Soviet Union wasn't exactly a model of innovation or of command innovation, but they did basically stop the German advance and then push them back to Berlin. I'd say that despite any rumors to the contrary, the Soviet Union did a credible job in the lasy year and a half of the war.

Let's hope North Korea doesn't somehow drag everyone into another one.


----------



## Jenisch (Apr 6, 2013)

GregP said:


> I was being sarcastic to the ones who still believe the Germans won the battles despite the fact that they were retreating and losing the war



When Germany was sucked into a war of attrition, she could not hope to win. The fanboys must learn that higher kill scores, nice medals, planes and uniforms don't necessarily won wars.

As for NK, don't worry with them for the near future, they are just a rabid dog from Russia and China.


----------



## stona (Apr 6, 2013)

Juha said:


> 20.3.45 there seems to have been 12 Gruppen equipped with 109G-10, 9 with G-14 and 9 with K-4.



Which nine Gruppen? I've given the four that were definitely totally Bf 109 K equipped. There were Ks with other units as evidenced in loss returns,but that doesn't mean they had totally converted.

The Luftwaffe had about 1,300 fighter in June 1944 too. Production increases barely kept up with ever increasing attrition. The problem is their distribution. In June '44 they were hopelessly diluted and this never really changed.

Western Front 425
Norway 40
Reich Defence 370
Eastern Front 475
Balkans 65

Never anywhere near enough in one place at one time. The numbers altered from time to time but the percentage distribution from May '44 until the end of the war remained similar.

For the BoB the Luftwaffe had 1,171 fighters which it could bring to bear against the RAF (as of August 1940). It had a total strength of 1736 as of May 1940. It was taking on one air force on one front which was equipped with roughly 650 serviceable fighters.

Yes,that is less for the BoB, but you are splitting hairs. Totals can be misleading. In 1944/45 in no theatre did the Luftwaffe have even 50% of the fighters available that it had employed against the RAF in the BoB _and it lost that battle. _That's the quantative argument. Now ask yourself what sort of quality the Jagdwaffe of 1944/45,with its 100 or so extra fighters,widely distributed,had compared with that of 1940. This particularly after the cull of Bodenplatte.

Add to that that in 1944/5 the Luftwaffe wasn't facing 600/700 fighters,it was facing many,many thousands. Someone else can do the maths. It was a spent force,hopelessly inadequate for the task at hand.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Juha (Apr 6, 2013)

Hello Steve


stona said:


> Which nine Gruppen? I've given the four that were definitely totally Bf 109 K equipped. There were Ks with other units as evidenced in loss returns,but that doesn't mean they had totally converted.



III./JG3, 4, 27, 53 and 77, I./JG 77, IV/JG 53, in one message on one discussion board Kurfürst gave in addition of those of II./KG(J) 6 and 55.



stona said:


> The Luftwaffe had about 1,300 fighter in June 1944 too. Production increases barely kept up with ever increasing attrition. The problem is their distribution. In June '44 they were hopelessly diluted and this never really changed.
> 
> Western Front 425
> Norway 40
> ...



After Bodenplatte most fighter units were transferred to the East



stona said:


> For the BoB the Luftwaffe had 1,171 fighters which it could bring to bear against the RAF (as of August 1940). It had a total strength of 1736 as of May 1940. It was taking on one air force on one front which was equipped with roughly 650 serviceable fighters.



29.6.40 LW had 1107 serviceable SE fighters, ok they had then also Zerströder units



stona said:


> Yes,that is less for the BoB, but you are splitting hairs. Totals can be misleading. In 1944/45 in no theatre did the Luftwaffe have even 50% of the fighters available that it had employed against the RAF in the BoB _and it lost that battle. _That's the quantative argument. Now ask yourself what sort of quality the Jagdwaffe of 1944/45,with its 100 or so extra fighters,widely distributed,had compared with that of 1940. This particularly after the cull of Bodenplatte.
> 
> Add to that that in 1944/5 the Luftwaffe wasn't facing 600/700 fighters,it was facing many,many thousands. Someone else can do the maths. It was a spent force,hopelessly inadequate for the task at hand.



IIRC only JG 2, 26 and 53 were left in the West after Bodenplatten, there were 881 serviceable fighters in the East on 9 Apr 45 without possible some of 40 in Norway which might have faced VVS up north. We all know the quality decline of LW but IMHO we are now talking on numbers. And LW was badly overstretched already in late 1942

Juha


----------



## stona (Apr 6, 2013)

Juha said:


> 881 serviceable fighters in the East on 9 Apr 45 without possible some of 40 in Norway which might have faced VVS up north.
> Juha



Which pretty much sums up what I was saying. That is way less than they had for the BoB and they started that with less than the BoF! It was downhill all the way. How many fighters did the Soviets have opposing them?

The total number of fighters in the ETO,including Mediterranean,both RAF and USAAF (obviously not all available or flying against Germany) puts these German numbers into perspective 12,764. 

I'm not sure that all those 7 or 9 Gruppen had converted to the K-4. I'd like to see some evidence for that. There is presumably a list somewhere? There were 318 K-4s available (Prien)at this time so at around 35 per gruppe it might be possible.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Juha (Apr 6, 2013)

stona said:


> Which pretty much sums up what I was saying. That is way less than they had for the BoB and they started that with less than the BoF! It was downhill all the way. How many fighters did the Soviets have opposing them?



Yes, 226 less than on 29.6. and 39 less than on 28.9.40. Soviet had c. 8000 SE fighters in Jan 45, meaning maybe 6000 - 6400 serviceable.




stona said:


> I'm not sure that all those 7 or 9 Gruppen had converted to the K-4. I'd like to see some evidence for that. There is presumably a list somewhere? There were 318 K-4s available (Prien)at this time so at around 35 per gruppe it might be possible.



Not sure that all were fully equipped with K-4s but most probably were and the rest were mainly equipped with K-4s, Milosh link gives the 3 under LFl 6 control, Kurfürst gave as his source "Fritz X. Kober - Jakob Maria Mathmann: The Messerschmitt Bf 109 Vol. 2. Schiffer Publishing, 1996. English edition". I haven't seen the books, so I put "it seems" in my message. There ise also a list on Poruba's and Janda's Messerschmitt Bf 109K, JaPo, which gives only 5 Gruppen as mainly equipped but of the 3 mentioned on the docu to which Milosh gave his link only one is given as mainly equipped in the Japo book list, I tended to believe more the docu.

Juha


----------



## Milosh (Apr 6, 2013)

The G-10 might be the 'poor mans K-4' but its performance was more or less the same as the K-4.

There is also this,
Kurfürst - OKL, GdJ-Grp. Qu-, Br. B. Nr. 1561/45 g.Kdos. von 20. März 1945.

which lists 5 Gruppen having the K-4.

Though it says III./JG27 has G-10s, Kurfurst has edited this entry, and another source (Six Months to Oblivion) has this unit with K-4s.


----------



## stona (Apr 6, 2013)

For sure the three on Milosh's list and III./JG 26 were K-4 equipped,fully converted. K-4s were delivered to _22 other Gruppen _but none of these were fully converted. 

JG 11 lost quite a few towards the end of the war,so must have had a substantial number in service. 

Cheers
Steve


----------



## Juha (Apr 6, 2013)

Milosh said:


> The G-10 might be the 'poor mans K-4' but its performance was more or less the same as the K-4.
> 
> There is also this,
> Kurfürst - OKL, GdJ-Grp. Qu-, Br. B. Nr. 1561/45 g.Kdos. von 20. März 1945.
> ...



Thanks Milosh, that is the same list that K posted in 2005, I counted 9 Gruppen with K-4s


----------



## Erich (Apr 6, 2013)

JG's 300 and 301 were also in the west after the order to send Reich defence gruppen to the Ost front post January 15, 1945, though the mentioned JG's also fought against Soviet forces. the same can be said of the LW NF force several gruppen fought on both fronts.,,,,,,,,,,,,,the figure of 480 NF's is hypothetical at best, as it is still unclear though having on hand what condition what were they in.


----------



## delcyros (Apr 6, 2013)

Milosh said:


> The G-10 might be the 'poor mans K-4' but its performance was more or less the same as the K-4.


 

Both, the G10 and K4 had DB-605 derivates with high altitude optimised supercharger (Db-605 ASM/ASC), which had less power at medium altitude (except the 2000hp DB-605DCM running at 1.98ata) than the Db-605 AM of the late -G6 and standart -G14.
There is little to choose from a MW-50 boosted G6/-G14 (on 1.7 ata) and the -G10 or -K4 (1.8 ata) in the low to medium altitude range interested here (G14 beeing slightly faster). The performance difference exist - but at altitudes larger than 5500m, where the -G10 and -K4 clearly are faster.

Compared with the many late -G6, and -G14 aviable, how many servicable La-7 had the VVS at it´s disposal in 1945?
The january ´45 list gives 298 La-7 (all of them with 2x 20mm Shvak), increasing to 798 planes at may 9th, 1945 (including those serving in Manchuria and Slovakia). Compared to the thousends of La-5F, La-5FN and Yak-9, this number doesn´t appear to be very large.

Working from the performance data of soviet and german sources, respectively, I cannot see where the La-5FN or La-7 outperform the basic Bf-109G6 or -G14 with MW-50 boost and Db-605AM:





(note: MW-30 was initially aviable early in 1944 and soon replaced by MW-50. The Bf-109 figures are on 1.7 ata and B-4 fuel, the soviet figures on increased "forza" power)
The 1945 produced La-7 with 3x Berezin 20mm and further increased low altitude performance was somehow faster at SL and 2 km/h faster at optimum altitude. But then again, this compares unfavourably with Bf-109G and -K derivates on 1.98 ata using Db-605 DCM, which appeared in the same timeframe.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 6, 2013)

Del, the Soviets give better performance values for the La-7 than what can be read on your graf. The 'forsage' is available only in low compressor gear, so in both compressor gears the La-7 can beat the 670 km/h mark. 
The K-4 (with 1.98 ata) should beat the 720 km/h mark.


----------



## Juha (Apr 6, 2013)

Erich said:


> ...the figure of 480 NF's is hypothetical at best, as it is still unclear though having on hand what condition what were they in.



480 is number of serviceable night fighters but I agree that it is largely hypothetical because usually only the experienced crews flew missions in 45 because of lack of adequate fuel supply.

Juha


----------



## delcyros (Apr 7, 2013)

tomo pauk said:


> Del, the Soviets give better performance values for the La-7 than what can be read on your graf. The 'forsage' is available only in low compressor gear, so in both compressor gears the La-7 can beat the 670 km/h mark.


 
Yes, but that´s for 1945 and most post war manufactured La-7, not for those which actually saw some (though never much...) service in ww2. The first improved La-7 was manufactured in january 1945 and may or may not have appeared in march or april 45 on front units, though russian sources disagree on this point. Speed figures attained in production trials from 1944 and 1945 manufactured La-7 fall short of those produced in 1945 and 1946 (see below). Keep also in mind, that the speed figures attained in these trials are not corrected for compressibility effects.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 7, 2013)

If it's not too much a problem for you, could you please point me to the tests (somewhere at the Internet , there La-7 pdf was being pointed out on in this forum not long ago). Gordon Khazanov give 612km/h at SL and 658 at 5900m (for 1944 production) and 613km/h at SL and 661 at 6000m (for 1945 production).



> Keep also in mind, that the speed figures attained in these trials are *not* corrected for compressibility effects.



Any good data about that?


----------



## GregP (Apr 9, 2013)

The charts on the previous page show the K-4 as being rpetty fast, but don't show that it was flying in a straight line when going that fast. To fight, it had to slow down to under 340 mph or the pilot wasn't going to be doing much maneuvering.

So,the K-4 pilot can run TO and fight or FROM one, but isn't fighting much at anything above 340 mph, and he was working hard at the 340 mph. The P-51 and La-5/7 were still maneuverable at 400+ mph, as was the Fw 190 ... at least in roll.

This is the primary reason I maintain the Bf 109 was "long in the tooth" ... the basic handling flaws were never fixed and it was saddled with the same handling in 1944 - 1945 as it had in 1940. The heavy ailerons and elevator at high speeds COULD have been fixed but weren't, and trim could have been added to both aileron and rudder and weren't. There was really no excuse for NOT fixing the simple issues. Even if they never fixed the narrow-tack gear, the trims and high speed forces could have been worked.

If they had been fixed, it would have been a premier fighter to the end. Who knows, they may also have done quite better than they did late in the war.


----------



## stona (Apr 9, 2013)

Slightly veering away from the topic but to change the landing gear track on the Bf 109 would have involved a major redesign. Surely other issues (like trim tabs operable by the pilot) could have been easily addressed.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## GregP (Apr 9, 2013)

If some of the basic issues had been fixed, it would have remained right near the top of the fighter heap. It remained solid, but gradually lost ground to other designs as they matured and faults were corrected.

Another case of "could have been ..." but in THIS case, it "should have been."


----------



## Milosh (Apr 9, 2013)

Late war 109s had a Flettner tab on the rudder which eased the forced required by the pilot. Flettner tabs were tried on the ailerons but received mixed reviews by pilots but certainly increased the roll rate.


----------



## GregP (Apr 11, 2013)

They'd have to fit a trim in order to really help the rudder load, not just a Flettner tab, though that probably DID help a lot. Still, without trim, the pilot would have to hold rudder pressure even with the tab.

I can't see why aileron and rudder trim were not fitted since all the WWII aircraft I know of, except for the Fw 190, exhibit strong trim changes with speed. For some reason the Fw 190 doesn't seem to have much pitch change with speed changes. All the rest DO, and in all axes. That's from Planes of Fame pilots who fly a lot of different warbirds. 

I know of at least ONE warbird pilot who landed with the trim tab when his elevator control failed in flight. I bet that was a hairy few minutes. If the Bf 109 rudder or aileron control failed in flight, you'd probably have to step over the side for a nylon letdown, assuming you could get the speed down a bit with elevator so bailing out was possible.


----------



## Milosh (Apr 11, 2013)

All the control surfaces of the 109 had a trim tab. They just weren't adjustable in flight.

The 190 had +2/-3 degrees of cockpit adjustable pitch change for the stab.

Not all WW2 fighters had cockpit adjustable trim tabs for all 3 axis.


----------



## GregP (Apr 12, 2013)

Yah, I know, but most had both rudder and elevator. The Cadillacs had aileron trim, too, especially if the trim changed with speed. Most stable aircraft are trim sensitive.

Heck, go trim a Cessna 172 at 110 knots and then try to slow-fly at 60 knots without retrimming. You'll be pulling pretty hard just to fly level!

In something like a Sea Fury, you can't hold it level without elevator trim. Ditto the P-51, which is VERY trim sensitive.


----------



## tyrodtom (Apr 13, 2013)

I remember when I was taking flight training in a 172, I complained to the instuctor about all the trimming I was having to do. 
He let me try different speeds without trimming, he heard no more complaints from me.


----------



## delcyros (Apr 13, 2013)

> If it's not too much a problem for you, could you please point me to the tests (somewhere at the Internet , there La-7 pdf was being pointed out on in this forum not long ago). Gordon Khazanov give 612km/h at SL and 658 at 5900m (for 1944 production) and 613km/h at SL and 661 at 6000m (for 1945 production).



I received years ago, either from Crumpp or Henning the source for the tabulated data presented here:
[urlhttp://www.desertstar.co.uk/warbirds/http___www.btinternet.com_~fulltilt_PerformLa5La7.pdf[/url]

They also pointed me to the problem that the russian file contains indicated airspeed readings but no discussion of position error or compressibility effects. Even though compressibility is not to much of an issue at around 600 km/h it contributes to errors of roughly 8 to 12 km/h.
In this, these production trials are not exceptionally exotic. German production trials, for that matter, didn´t differentiated too but noted whether or not compressibility was included. However, then again, some didn´t mention this, too (e.g. Bf-109F4 on 1.42 ata attaining 670 km/h was most likely not accounted for compresibility).


----------



## GregP (Apr 13, 2013)

Hi Milosh,

Fixed trim tabs are not very user friendly and are mostly set at the factory.

As I'm sure you are aware, I was talking about adjustable trim tabs. The trim changes a LOT in flight for most WWII fightgers (even bombers for that matter). The Bf 109 in particular really needs an adjustable rudder trim tab. It never got one. It also never got enough fuel, a decent canopy with good visibility all around, and never did have the control force leverage ratios adjusted so you could get good high speed handling. All these things were very possible and should have happened during the war.

That does nothing to detract from the war performance it exhibited, but it could have been much better. Then again, so could the Hellcat, which wasn't progressively improved beacause it might interrupt production, so it wasn't just a German thing ... it happened everywhwere because there was a world war on at the time. It is quite possible the production pressures for Germany were far and away higher than for the USA, and that goes along way toward explaining things ... but there were so many versions with so many different modifications that some of the basic faults should have at least been explored in prototype form. I KNOW they made several with wide track landing gear and several with radial engines ... why not fix the real faults while you are at it?


----------



## stona (Apr 13, 2013)

GregP said:


> Hi Milosh,
> 
> Fixed trim tabs are not very user friendly and are mostly set at the factory.



Later,often adjusted at the squadron for the Luftwaffe.

While everyone is pointing out the problems with fixed trim tabs on German aircraft it's worth remembering that aileron trim on the Spitfire involved hammering the trailing edge of the ailerons!

Cheers

Steve


----------



## riacrato (Apr 13, 2013)

I have read comments from German pilots complaining about a lot of deficiencies of the 109: landing gear, lack of control at high speeds, view to the rear... i don't recall anyone ever complaining about the lack of inflight adjustable trim. Seems to me like a feature you don't miss if you don't know it exists. German pilots were used to having to work the rudder when speed changed. The "airfoiled" horizontal stabilizer also helping to reduce the problem.


----------



## tyrodtom (Apr 13, 2013)

I think you meant to say airfoiled vertical stabilizer.


----------



## Civettone (Jun 4, 2013)

I have my doubts about the controls freezing up at high speed. They were very heavy, but it seems to me that this was more a problem for the Allied post-war test pilots than for the Luftwaffe pilot, who were used to it. I do not believe that they simply froze.

The Bf 109F has always been described as a near-perfect fighter plane in terms of handling (in the air). With max speed of 660 km/h, I fail to see why a Bf 109G-14 with a similar maximum speed would suddenly be a flying like a brick?

Kris


----------



## Civettone (Jun 4, 2013)

And as to the topic at hand, what about the VL Pyorremyrsky ? Similar but better and safer than the Bf 109G, plus made out of wood.

If not, I think I would prefer the cheap Bf 109K as well. Not the K-4, but the K-2. The K-4 had a pressurized cockpit for higher altitudes. The K-2 did not and I guess it would make the plane a little bit lighter.

As all combat took place at low level, a Bf 109G-14 with a DB 605AM would be perfect. There would be no point in having the DB 605 AS or D, a simple AM would suffice. By 1945 the best would be the BF 109K-2 with a DB 605ASB, but flying on C3 without MW 50, because of the lack of methanol by then. (Of course also avgas was lacking, but methanol was much more important.)


Kris


----------



## Civettone (Jun 4, 2013)

double post


----------



## altsym (Jun 4, 2013)

Civettone said:


> I have my doubts about the controls freezing up at high speed. They were very heavy, but it seems to me that this was more a problem for the Allied post-war test pilots than for the Luftwaffe pilot, who were used to it. I do not believe that they simply froze.
> 
> The Bf 109F has always been described as a near-perfect fighter plane in terms of handling (in the air). With max speed of 660 km/h, I fail to see why a Bf 109G-14 with a similar maximum speed would suddenly be a flying like a brick?
> 
> Kris


I will be talking to my good friend Theo Nau tonight about the subject of Controls of the BF 109 @ High Speed. He flew a BF 109G-14/AS with JG 11 JG 77. I'll report what he said in a couple days (perhaps a new thread). Yes he may not a young man anymore, but his mind is as sharp as a tack.


----------



## Mike Williams (Jun 4, 2013)

Civettone said:


> By 1945 the best would be the BF 109K-2 with a DB 605ASB, but flying on C3 without MW 50, because of the lack of methanol by then. (Of course also avgas was lacking, but methanol was much more important.)Kris



Hello Civettone, Do you have a source regarding the lack of methanol in 1945?

Thanks.


----------



## Tante Ju (Jun 5, 2013)

Civettone said:


> If not, I think I would prefer the cheap Bf 109K as well. Not the K-4, but the K-2. The K-4 had a pressurized cockpit for higher altitudes. The K-2 did not and I guess it would make the plane a little bit lighter.
> 
> Kris



K-2 essentially became the G-10. The K-4 was NOT pressurized!


----------



## Civettone (Jun 5, 2013)

altsym said:


> I will be talking to my good friend Theo Nau tonight about the subject of Controls of the BF 109 @ High Speed. He flew a BF 109G-14/AS with JG 11 JG 77. I'll report what he said in a couple days (perhaps a new thread). Yes he may not a young man anymore, but his mind is as sharp as a tack.


Wow, that would be awesome !!




Mike Williams said:


> Hello Civettone, Do you have a source regarding the lack of methanol in 1945?
> 
> Thanks.


Hi Mike, I get it from the USSBS reports. You can find the part on methanol here: Appendix A. Strategic Air Attack on the German Chemical Industry



Tante Ju said:


> K-2 essentially became the G-10. The K-4 was NOT pressurized!


I stand corrected. The K and G-10 were very similar. But for one, the retractable tail wheel was not present on the G-10. But then again, maybe some Ks still had the non-retractable one. Production standards were an illusion by then.

Kris


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 5, 2013)

K-4 also featuring wheel well covers, unlike the G-10?


----------



## Tante Ju (Jun 5, 2013)

What I was meant that the K-2 was supposedly the one in the K-series with 20mm cannon. The tossed that one out and went for all MK 108 armed -4 series. The G-10 become a sort of a doubler for the canceled K variant, I read somewhere that the original K-2 serial numbers were eventually assigned to G-10 production - probably not a coincidence. Of course the G-10 did not have the wheel fairings (main or tail). It did have however the K series engine and generator in a G airframe, essentially a G/K hybrid (which is pretty useful stuff from the maintaince POV, if you have both in a unit).


----------



## Mike Williams (Jun 5, 2013)

Civettone said:


> Hi Mike, I get it from the USSBS reports. You can find the part on methanol here: Appendix A. Strategic Air Attack on the German Chemical Industry
> Kris



Thanks for the link Civettone! The material is very interesting and informative.


----------



## Civettone (Jun 5, 2013)

Mike, I am glad that I can return the favour of sharing info 


Kris


----------



## Denniss (Jun 7, 2013)

The G-10 was basically a K-series engine installed into a G-series airframe.


----------



## Jenisch (Jun 7, 2013)

As I already expressed earlier in this topic, I tend to pick the 109 for the East. The plane was superior to the 190 in the vertical, which was a good advantage. It also could engage in maneuver fight with the Russian planes, something the Fw 190 would found itself in trouble.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 8, 2013)

But thats just it...what instances are there where the 190 was "in trouble" it was outnumbered, and the Russians werent really gunning for air superiority. however losses were always heavily one sided in favour of the Germans, 190 or 109. Its just there were not enough of them, and not enough losses on the Russians, to make any difference.


----------



## Jenisch (Jun 8, 2013)

I'm talking about performance. After the La-5FN arrived, the 190 became inferior to the 109. The Russians themselfs say that. There are people who try to refute this, but the La-5FN was ligther than the 190 with equal or more power, and hence it climbed better. Thus, the 109 had more flexibility to fight. The Americans arrived at the same conclusion when evaluated the Ki-84 against their planes (although operational Ki-84s were different than the optimum tested US ones).


----------



## Milosh (Jun 8, 2013)

I think one has to be careful with the Fw190 on the Eastern Front. Many of those Fw190s were the 'F' model with SG units and these definitely would be under performers, tho there were several aces in the Fw190F.


----------



## Civettone (Jun 8, 2013)

Just adding this 
VL Pyorremyrsky






Kris


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 8, 2013)

Maybe the Italian series 5 fighters would offer more, the MC.205 series III (the one with wing cannons) seem like one that would gave the VVS machines a good run for their money.


----------



## Jenisch (Jun 8, 2013)

Pauk, the G-56 seems to be a good machine, but I don't have charts for it's climb and speed performance compared to the late 109s. As for what Italy could have provided for the East, the G-56 would be something.


----------



## davebender (Jun 8, 2013)

Not for ground attack and that's what Fw-190F was designed to do.

Rudel stated that he was not afraid of Soviet fighter aircraft when flying Fw-190F. However he wasn't afraid when flying Ju-87 either.


----------



## Milosh (Jun 8, 2013)

davebender said:


> Not for ground attack and that's what Fw-190F was designed to do.



Due try to clue in Dave > *Air to Air* combat.


----------



## riacrato (Jun 9, 2013)

Civettone said:


> Just adding this
> VL Pyorremyrsky
> 
> 
> ...


From what little information there is available that aircraft (with only two hmgs) seems to be about as fast as a Bf 109 G-6 with the MG151 gondolas... doesn't seem like a good trade.

Always surprised me since it looks rather clean. Then again, it has about 15% more wing area...


----------



## riacrato (Jun 9, 2013)

Milosh said:


> I think one has to be careful with the Fw190 on the Eastern Front. Many of those Fw190s were the 'F' model with SG units and these definitely would be under performers, tho there were several aces in the Fw190F.


There's an interview with a Russian pilot who said that after dropping their bombs the fighter-bomber FW 190s were just as dangerous as any FW 190. I don't quite remember all of it but the interviewer seems to have been referring to the FW 190F but to me it was unclear if the interviewee was aware of that or if he thought of FW 190As with bomb racks. In any case it will be hard to impossible for any attacker to discern between the two, a definitive advantage for the FW 190F. And at low level, the performance difference is not that great.


----------



## Jenisch (Jun 9, 2013)

There's also the problem of the F's being flown by pilots from previous strike planes, and hence they had less skill than the fighter pilots.


----------



## Civettone (Jun 9, 2013)

riacrato said:


> From what little information there is available that aircraft (with only two hmgs) seems to be about as fast as a Bf 109 G-6 with the MG151 gondolas... doesn't seem like a good trade.
> 
> Always surprised me since it looks rather clean. Then again, it has about 15% more wing area...


The wood also made it heavier. It would have gotten the same armament as the Bf 109G, so also with the MG 151. The MG 151 wing gondolas did not detract much from top speed, around 12 kmh IIRC. But handling must have been better, as well as climb and turn rate. Plus, it had a wide landing gear, which made it safer for TO/L.

Kris


----------



## davebender (Jun 9, 2013)

> problem of the F's being flown by pilots from previous strike planes, and hence they had less skill than the fighter pilots.


You don't encounter Fw-190Fs @ 25,000 feet. They will normally be below 4,000 meters. Low altitude experience in Hs.129s or Ju-87s should be a plus. Certainly more pertinent to Fw-190F pilot survival then previous experience flying Me-109G at high altitude.


----------



## Civettone (Jun 9, 2013)

Would you guys say the Fw 190A was superior to the La-5FN? They seem very similar to me. 


Kris


----------



## DonL (Jun 9, 2013)

That is very difficult to say.

After testflights of german test pilots with the La-5FN, they had much respect for the La-5FN, but there were some things they critized. (partly heavily)

1. The La-5FN was very difficult to fly from the usability (engine management etc.), some german pilots stated, they must use or press so much buttons, that it was very difficult to concentrate to fly, especially at combat, here they gave the FW 190 A a huge advantage.
2. Also the FW 190 had an advantage at altitide above 4000m and was faster in a dive.
3. The La-5FN could better turn (FW 190 better role) was faster at very low altitudes (0-4000m) and could climb faster.

In summary the german testpilots stated it was equal to the FW 190A, but the FW 190A had advantages at high altitudes, diving and general a/c handling.


----------



## Civettone (Jun 9, 2013)

Then it seems clear to me that, given the low altitude fights on the Eastern Front, the advantage lies with the Lavochkin ...


Kris


----------



## Jenisch (Jun 9, 2013)

The plane tested by the Germans was worn out. The La-5FN was superior to Antons (perhaps with exception of the A-9). If the La had enough speed and altitude, it could force the 190 to vertical maneuvers, where it would lose.


----------



## DonL (Jun 9, 2013)

> *The plane tested by the Germans was worn out*. The La-5FN was superior to Antons (perhaps with exception of the A-9). If the La had enough speed and altitude, it could force the 190 to vertical maneuvers, where it would lose.


Source for this claim?
My sources says nothing for worn out. In summary they were equal, there is no special report by the whole LW at the east (other to special reports at the west to P51, P47, Spitfire), that the JG's had special problems to deal with the La-5FN. There were no big losses of FW 190A to the La-5FN till the end of the war.


----------



## davebender (Jun 9, 2013)

WWII Soviet equipment had serious quality control problems. For example T-34/76 had a life of about 100 hours before the engine croaked.

With service life that short one could argue it arrived worn out from the factory.


----------



## tyrodtom (Jun 9, 2013)

And yet they pulled a T34 out of a swamp in latvia a few years ago. It had been sumerged almost 70 years at the bottom since the Germans shoved it there at the end of the war. It was captured, used, and thrown away.
But they washed it off, changed fluids, and it ran. loose clearances on some internal engine parts may not make for the best efficiency, but it's not all bad.
Like the AK-47, tolerances sometimes so loose you can pick up some, shake it hard, and hear parts rattling, but it's hard to jamb.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 9, 2013)

I doubt that is true. Sure, there were QA issues in Soviet armament, but saying the average service life of T-34/76 engines was "about 100 hours" across the board is not supported by the observable facts. It might be more accurate to say "some (ie a few) examples of T-34s, under certain conditions, or from certain sources were of indifferent quality". 

T-34s, properly serviced put together and run correctly were extremely reliable. Tanks built at the end of the war were still operatiing 35 years later. 

Compared to german equipment, T-34w were very reliable. How many Panthers at Kursk remained operational for more than a few days, breaking down rather than being knocked out. Out of the 200 or so committed, less than 40 made it from the rail head to the battle area. Does that mean we should say the panther was a low quality tank, or suffred relaibility issues.....of course not....just that initial batch had problems.... 

During the opening phases of Barbarossa, after only about 1500 miles per tank, what were the avergae servicibility rates of German tanks operating in the eastern Front conditions? Does that make German tanks unsuitable across the board to the East Front conditions....no there were spares issues in that firstr camapaign and engines were not protected from the extreme conditions (cold, dust and power demands mostly)....but I would not say the german tanks were unrelaible or unsuited. They just needed to be adapted a little to suit the conditions. Same deal with the T-34. 

There were reasons for these equipment failures on the eastern front. And whilst Soviet QA was somewhat lacking, ther was nothing wrong with the design, and the QA issue was a minor factor in the short life spans of engines. Its just another examp0le of a beat up in this place to try and pedal an agenda I suggest


----------



## altsym (Jun 9, 2013)

70 years underwater, changed the fluids and it ran. I call extreme BS on that one. The engine would be locked tighter then a Nuns a-hole.


----------



## tyrodtom (Jun 9, 2013)

altsym said:


> 70 years underwater, changed the fluids and it ran. I call extreme BS on that one. The engine would be locked tighter then a Nuns a-hole.



I guess I let my memory run away from me on that one.
But if you'll just google T34 in swamp, you'll be surprized.
Rust is a chemical reaction, Latvia, submerged in a swamp, covered with thick muck, cut off from oxygen, and low temperatures, rust sleeps.


----------



## Juha (Jun 9, 2013)

tyrodtom said:


> I guess I let my memory run away from me on that one.
> But if you'll just google T34 in swamp, you'll be surprized.
> Rust is a chemical reaction, Latvia, submerged in a swamp, covered with thick muck, cut off from oxygen, and low temperatures, rust sleeps.



Yes, that's true
a photo on a Valentine just pulled out from riverbed in Poland after some 67 years there

A Link to an article http://www.warhistoryonline.com/war...world-war-ii-found-in-polish-warta-river.html


----------



## Civettone (Jun 9, 2013)

parsifal said:


> I doubt that is true. Sure, there were QA issues in Soviet armament, but saying the average service life of T-34/76 engines was "about 100 hours" across the board is not supported by the observable facts. It might be more accurate to say "some (ie a few) examples of T-34s, under certain conditions, or from certain sources were of indifferent quality".
> 
> T-34s, properly serviced put together and run correctly were extremely reliable. Tanks built at the end of the war were still operatiing 35 years later.


this is simply not true. Soviet tanks suffered from horrible reliability. I cannot even begin to count how many accounts I have read of Russian (and German) tankers. What is more, there are a lot of Soviet technical reports, from factories and test centres, which show that the quality of these machines was the bare minimum as they were not expected to have a long lifespan. You can check some of these reports out on the 'russian battlefield' website. Also, you will find accounts of Soviet tankers praising those British and American tanks for their superior quality (in operation).

You say that these Soviet tanks were still being used 35 years after the war. This is also not true. Most of the tanks which have survived for so long were either build after the war or brough up to the new standard. But _during_ the war Soviet tanks and aircraft had serious quality deficiencies which were overlooked due to their expected low life expectancy. And that proved to be the correct way. 

Pulling a tank out of a riverbed and making it work is impressive but is no evidence that these were extremely reliable vehicles. Rugged, yes 
Kris


----------



## tyrodtom (Jun 9, 2013)

I think the Russian view on it during the war was if the tank was likly only going to survive battle 1 month ( that's just a WAG) why spend all the extra production time on it to make the mechanicals outlast the hull.


----------



## Juha (Jun 9, 2013)

Finns used their war-booty T-34s till 1961 and IIRC when US military examined the T-34 sent to them during WWII their noticed that while the exterior was rough critical components had numerous inspection stampson them and were in good quality. Very early T-34s were mechanically very unreliable, especially clutch and gearbox were failure-prone but very soon reliability improved. KVs were clearly more problematic than T-34s. Of a/c engines IIRC Klimovs M-105 family was fairly reliable in Finnish service but M-63s were were disappointing, lacked reliability and seldon produced procure power.

Addum: Finns also used war-booty T-26s till 1959-60 but thought that it was less reliable than Vickers 6ton tank, which Finns also had and of which T-26 was a licence production version. Especially the British engine was more reliable than the Soviet one.


----------



## altsym (Jun 9, 2013)

@ Juha; I read the link, seen nothing about just 'changing the fluids and it ran'. Oxygen deprived or not, I know enough that theres no way the cam/rod/crank bearings survived that environment, and two dissimilar metals, like the valves valve seats, more then likely fused together, as would the piston to the cast iron cyl. wall.

Neat find though.


----------



## tyrodtom (Jun 9, 2013)

altsym said:


> @ Juha; I read the link, seen nothing about just 'changing the fluids and it ran'. Oxygen deprived or not, I know enough that theres no way the cam/rod/crank bearings survived that environment, and two dissimilar metals, like the valves valve seats, more then likely fused together, as would the piston to the cast iron cyl. wall.
> 
> Neat find though.


That's what I meant by my memory ran away from me,  I wasn't accurate. 
Thru the many articles , but all are from translations. They got the engine to run , what was replaced, is hard to determine. Some say no parts were replaced, some say skate rollers were replaced. 
I'm a fairly experienced amature race mechanic ( 20 years), but I still haven't figured out what skate rollers are.


----------



## Jenisch (Jun 9, 2013)

DonL said:


> My sources says nothing for worn out.














From the book Luftwaffe Test pilot, by Hans Lerche.


----------



## Juha (Jun 9, 2013)

altsym said:


> @ Juha; I read the link, seen nothing about just 'changing the fluids and it ran'. Oxygen deprived or not, I know enough that theres no way the cam/rod/crank bearings survived that environment, and two dissimilar metals, like the valves valve seats, more then likely fused together, as would the piston to the cast iron cyl. wall.
> 
> Neat find though.



Of course there was nothing on engine running because it was a different recovery, a Valentine not T-34, I put the link because it was the source of my photo and in the article there are more photos on the Valentine recovery. Maybe Tyrodtom means this recovery:
LiveLeak.com - WW2 tank recovery Ukraine


----------



## altsym (Jun 9, 2013)

Ok, I have to say that T-34 is in remarkable condition. Maybe the engine only needed cleaning and a few parts. Thanks for the link!

@ tyrodtom; I think your right about that V-2 engine


----------



## Juha (Jun 10, 2013)

Jenisch said:


> View attachment 235525
> 
> 
> View attachment 235526
> ...



So 40-70km/h slower than La-5FN in Soviet tests


----------



## Juha (Jun 10, 2013)

altsym said:


> Ok, I have to say that T-34 is in remarkable condition. Maybe the engine only needed cleaning and a few parts. Thanks for the link!
> 
> @ tyrodtom; I think your right about that V-2 engine



Hello Altsym
one important part of the video for me was the mg magazines because I saw same type mags during my milit service


----------



## Jenisch (Jun 10, 2013)

Juha said:


> So 40-70km/h slower than La-5FN in Soviet tests



Yeah. That's something. But any plane would start to lose the specifications after some use . I have doubt if with the wooden ones it was more quickly, and if yes how more. There's also the question if operational data corresponded with the test one.


----------



## Civettone (Jun 10, 2013)

Usually, production aircraft did not reach projected maximum speed.

Quality control in SU was very limited, especially for aircraft and tanks. Most important was to get it to the front. Same thing happened with German war production towards the end. So many parts missing or malfunctioning. And of course sabotage. In the last months experienced Luftwaffe crews would inspect the delivered aircraft and chose which ones were safe to fly. 

Kris


----------



## Juha (Jun 10, 2013)

That 40-70km/h difference was with production La-5FNs randomly selected for testing, but of course after use and standing long time in open reduced performance of all frontline fighters, and yes wooden ones more than metal planes, I assume. And in combat the habit of many Soviet fighter pilots to fly the cockpit at least partially open also reduced speed.


----------



## tyrodtom (Jun 10, 2013)

I've seen lots of photos with various pilots cruising out to battle areas with the canopy back, hot weather, and low altitude makes for a hot cockpit.
I'm sure when they could they'd keep the canopy back , but slide it forward when they entered combat.
But sometimes they would be surprised ,cruising unaware with the canopy back. Surely none of them entered combat with it open deliberatelY?
Some pilots could be hard headed, maybe they valued the added visibility of a open canopy more they they thought they needed the added speed with it closed.


----------



## Juha (Jun 10, 2013)

At least early in the war the quality of Soviet plexiglass was indifferent and in some types the cockpit was at least initially hard to open in higher speeds, these were the main reasons for Soviet fighter pilots´habit to flew with at least partially open cockpit in combat zones, early Italian planes had the same problem. One of the small things which had their effects on actual performance that are not shown in specs


----------



## Jenisch (Jun 10, 2013)

Other thing are the Russian tactics: they only started to do figher sweeps after mid-1944. Before this, they were not allowed to pursuit German planes. Instead, they shoud only escort strike planes and cover the ground forces. Also, for most of the war only the squadron leader had a radio transmitter. The rest only had a receptor. And early in the war few fighters had radio at all.


----------



## Denniss (Jun 10, 2013)

Test report states some supercharger problems on this La-5FN but it's not known whether this was a built-in defect or from wear. Even in soviet tests the performance varied a lot.
Airframe, especially wings, was stated to be in good condition though.


----------



## davebender (Jun 10, 2013)

IMO instances of wartime sabotage were greatly exaggerated. Typically it's the excused used for defective equipment when nobody wants to take responsibility. The excuse was especially common in Soviet Union where failure to deliver required quantities of operational equipment would get you killed.


----------



## tyrodtom (Jun 10, 2013)

If you've done much reading at all on restoration of wartime German equipment, one thing you'll hear often is reports of faults found that were suspected sabotage.
A lot of the slave workers didn't have much hope of surviving the war, lots of times the Germans would execute substitute people as a example, not those guilty of sabotage.
So if you were a slave worker, it didn't matter if you commited sabotage or not, you could be hung because someone commited sabotage, and you were chosen to pay for it.

Not a lot of critical thought put into it, like a lot of the 3rd Reichts policies toward non-Germans.


----------



## davebender (Jun 10, 2013)

A lot of the Soviet workers didn't have much hope of surviving the war, lots of times Stalin would execute substitute people as a example, not those guilty of sabotage.

Now the statement makes more sense. Stalin sent thousands to die in the Gulag for being "economic wreckers". A few American engineers even went to the Gulag charged with this crime.


----------



## tyrodtom (Jun 10, 2013)

davebender said:


> A lot of the Soviet workers didn't have much hope of surviving the war, lots of times Stalin would execute substitute people as a example, not those guilty of sabotage.
> 
> Now the statement makes more sense. Stalin sent thousands to die in the Gulag for being "economic wreckers". A few American engineers even went to the Gulag charged with this crime.



Evidently to you, that excuses the German's methods. To you hard labor, and hanging are equal treatment.

Dave it's always been strange to me that you seem to think you can whitewash the 3rd Reichts excesses with Stalin's.


----------



## altsym (Jun 10, 2013)

wrong thread lol


----------



## Jenisch (Jun 10, 2013)

I can be wrong, but I have the impression that the conditions of Soviet workers were worse in the first 2 years of the war. From 1943 onwards, with victory more secure and plenty of LL aid (including food) the things should have improved (altought maybe not to the point of Western countries).


----------



## parsifal (Jun 11, 2013)

Civettone said:


> this is simply not true. Soviet tanks suffered from horrible reliability. I cannot even begin to count how many accounts I have read of Russian (and German) tankers. What is more, there are a lot of Soviet technical reports, from factories and test centres, which show that the quality of these machines was the bare minimum as they were not expected to have a long lifespan. You can check some of these reports out on the 'russian battlefield' website. Also, you will find accounts of Soviet tankers praising those British and American tanks for their superior quality (in operation).
> 
> You say that these Soviet tanks were still being used 35 years after the war. This is also not true. Most of the tanks which have survived for so long were either build after the war or brough up to the new standard. But _during_ the war Soviet tanks and aircraft had serious quality deficiencies which were overlooked due to their expected low life expectancy. And that proved to be the correct way.
> 
> ...



I dont doubt there were instances of poor workmanship in Soviet equipment. But it is a long way from saying there weer QA issues here and there, and then claiming this was a problem of strategic significance, or that the T-34 was an unrelaibale tank, or even your claim that they were not expected to last that long. 

by comparison, German equipment failures were of strategic significance, and quite horrible, whether you want to measure that "horribleness on an isolated or in comparsison to the Soviets. The relief effort of Stalingrad failed because of equipment failures in German equipment, the assault on Moscow faltered in part because of the numerous breakdowns and failures of German equipment, I have already mentioned the Panther failures at kursk. The initial deployments of Tigers outside of Leningrad saw failure after failure of the tanks, and the list goes on and on. I have yet to find evidence of equipment failures of Soviet that were of strategic significance, or at least on the same scale as those I have mentioned on the German side.

Some years ago I had the honour of looking over an ex-soviet Whiskey class SS. I was struck by the high quality workmanship. Terrible design, (it was based on a German Type VII after all) but as well made as any conventional sub that I have ever seen. Doesnt prove anything other than to say that at least some Soviet manufactures were of good quality. then again, I had a friend who had the misfortune of owning one of those lada Nevas, terrible design AND a terrible construction as well. So on my own observation I would have to say that at bes Soviet equipment was patchy. But thats a ling way from saying all Soviet equipment was poor. And the historical records show that. Especially for the T-34. 

With regard to the 35 year claim, I was thinking of the Syrian Army, which retained their T-34/85 in frontline service until after the 1973 Yom Kippur....thats about 30 years, which is not a bad service record. They retired their PzkPfw IVs after the 1967 war


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 11, 2013)

parsifal said:


> by comparison, German equipment failures were of strategic significance, and quite horrible, whether you want to measure that "horribleness on an isolated or in comparsison to the Soviets. The relief effort of Stalingrad failed because of equipment failures in German equipment, the assault on Moscow faltered in part because of the numerous breakdowns and failures of German equipment, I have already mentioned the Panther failures at kursk. The initial deployments of Tigers outside of Leningrad saw failure after failure of the tanks, and the list goes on and on. I have yet to find evidence of equipment failures of Soviet that were of strategic significance, or at least on the same scale as those I have mentioned on the German side.



There is "quality" in "quantity". The Germans often tried to introduce tanks (or other weapons) in small batches. A few mechanical failures and things turn pear shape very quickly. The Russians tended to use things in masses large enough that even a number of mechanical failures left a large quantity of "runners". If you have a large enough _reserve_ of runners you still have enough tanks (or other items) to 'complete the strategic objective' a number of days later. One reason the Soviets had such a large number of tanks during the cold war was as a "reserve". They _knew_ 30/40% of the initial wave would be side lined in about 4-5 days with mechanical break downs. 
I am afraid this method doesn't tell us much about the _individual_ reliability of the tanks. 



parsifal said:


> Some years ago I had the honour of looking over an ex-soviet Whiskey class SS. I was struck by the high quality workmanship. Terrible design, (it was based on a German Type VII after all) but as well made as any conventional sub that I have ever seen. Doesnt prove anything other than to say that at least some Soviet manufactures were of good quality. then again, I had a friend who had the misfortune of owning one of those lada Nevas, terrible design AND a terrible construction as well. So on my own observation I would have to say that at bes Soviet equipment was patchy. But thats a ling way from saying all Soviet equipment was poor. And the historical records show that. Especially for the T-34.



I am not sure how a post war built submarine tells us much about a war time built tank. The Russians could build decent stuff at times. Build quality of tanks may have been much different in 1942 than in 1944/45. We know that "some" T-34s went into action with spare transmissions strapped to the rear deck ( no 360 degree traverse of the turret) which doesn't argue for high reliability. Later T-34s used a 5 speed instead of the early 4 speed, a different transmission might ( or might not) change things considerably. 



parsifal said:


> With regard to the 35 year claim, I was thinking of the Syrian Army, which retained their T-34/85 in frontline service until after the 1973 Yom Kippur....thats about 30 years, which is not a bad service record. They retired their PzkPfw IVs after the 1967 war



No tank lasts 30-35 years if it is actually being driven and not being used as a gate guard without spare parts. Syrian T-34/85s were post war Czech built and there were a bunch more T-34 parts floating around in the 60s and 70s than there were German MK IV parts.


----------



## tyrodtom (Jun 11, 2013)

Come on guys, I come from a bunch of people that can keep cars going forever. New engines in old cars, adapting newer engines to bulldozers, transmissions, rearends, whole suspensions.
I know a tank is a more complicated undertaking, but i'll bet those tanks retired in the 60s had went thru many engines and transmissions, and who knows how many suspension overhauls.

Sometimes I wonder how many people on this forum has ever got grease under their fingernails.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 11, 2013)

T-34-85, belonged to Bosnian Serb Army, picture from 1996:

File:Serbisk T-34 85 trekkes tilbake.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## tyrodtom (Jun 11, 2013)

tomo pauk said:


> T-34-85, belonged to Bosnian Serb Army, picture from 1996:
> 
> File:Serbisk T-34 85 trekkes tilbake.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Is that rubber mats laid over that T34 ? In the hope of giving stand off from shaped charges maybe ?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 11, 2013)

tyrodtom said:


> Come on guys, I come from a bunch of people that can keep cars going forever. New engines in old cars, adapting newer engines to bulldozers, transmissions, rearends, whole suspensions.
> I know a tank is a more complicated undertaking, but i'll bet those tanks retired in the 60s had went thru many engines and transmissions, and who knows how many suspension overhauls.
> 
> Sometimes I wonder how many people on this forum has ever got grease under their fingernails.



Tank reliability is pretty low no matter who's they were. it is like comparing poor to bad to really bad. 

When the Leopard and AMX 30 were first coming on the scene in the 60s an awful lot was made of how fast engine or power pack changes could be done "in the field" with the aid of a vehicle with a 3-5 ton crane. Apparently this was considered a faster way of keeping tanks in service than pulling them back to even a unit depot/repair shop with a tank transporter. If this was a selling feature of a 60s tank one can only imagine what the engine/powerpack life was for most WW II tanks. 

Tanks without spare parts become useless pretty quick. Or modified to use engines, transmissions, suspensions, tracks that parts can be gotten for.


----------



## Tante Ju (Jun 11, 2013)

I don't think that engine/powerpack lifespan was really the problem, IIRC Spielberger notes even the Panther's engine could sustain 1500 km before maintenance. The running gear needed more frequent maintenance, the notoriously flimsy final drive of the Panther could take iirc only a couple of hundred kilometers - which was probably a bigger problem, replacing the final drive does not strike me as an easy job, the engine itself was quite accessible and quick to replace. Each and every one of them had a weak spot, the T-34 had a very poor gearbox, and tracks weren't particularly good either.

But I totally agree about bad vs very bad. Tanks are heavy machines, the stresses are enormous and as such something is bound to bread down frequently.


----------



## Civettone (Jun 11, 2013)

Maybe you guys should take a look at this ...
Evaluation Of The T-34 And Kv Tanks By Engineers Of The Aberdeen Proving Grounds
Evaluation of The T-34 and KV Tanks By Engineers of the Aberdeen Proving Grounds - ENGLISH.BATTLEFIELD.RU - ENGLISH.BATTLEFIELD.RU
Very negative.
Final conclusion: "Despite the advantages of the use of diesel, the good contours of the tanks, thick armor, good and reliable armaments, the successful design of the tracks etc., Russian tanks are significantly inferior to American tanks in their simplicity of driving, manoeuvrability, the strength of firing (reference to muzzle velocity), speed, the reliability of mechanical construction and the ease of keeping them running."



Shortround6 said:


> Tanks without spare parts become useless pretty quick. Or modified to use engines, transmissions, suspensions, tracks that parts can be gotten for.


Plenty of spare parts available for T-34s, T-55s and Shermans. Maybe that also helps to explain why they were/are in service for so long.


Again, the reputation from the reliable T-34 comes from Soviet propaganda and from post-war experiences of upgraded or newly built T-34/85s.
Kris


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 11, 2013)

Tante Ju said:


> I don't think that engine/powerpack lifespan was really the problem, IIRC Spielberger notes even the Panther's engine could sustain 1500 km before maintenance.



For perspective, when my wife can't take the train to work I drive her about 100km _EACH WAY_. Panther engine would last a week and half. Panther transmission and clutches in rush hour traffic in NY City would last ???? 



Tante Ju said:


> But I totally agree about bad vs very bad. Tanks are heavy machines, the stresses are enormous and as such something is bound to bread down frequently.


----------



## Tante Ju (Jun 11, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> For perspective, when my wife can't take the train to work I drive her about 100km _EACH WAY_. Panther engine would last a week and half. Panther transmission and clutches in rush hour traffic in NY City would last ????



I guess the transmission would be taxed, but you can probably save a lot on brake and clutch wear by not using them at all while maintaining a steady, if somewhat bumpy driving style.


----------



## rinkol (Jun 11, 2013)

There is a British account of an interview with a captured German General who reported that Hitler, on being shown a T34, immediately insisted that it could not possibly be any good, an impression based on the poor finish. The General's observation was that, if you looked at the places where it mattered, that the finish was in fact very good. I suspect the Aberdeen report may have also been influenced, at least to some extent, by superficial perceptions. The bottom line was that the T34 could be manufactured in huge numbers and it was good enough to give its users practical chances. To put things in context, for most of the war the German tank production was surprisingly low (there was a proliferation of designs, most of which were produced in prototype form only or in very small numbers) and, until later in the war, many of the tanks produced were incapable of taking on a T34. Also, the relatively long range provided by the diesel engine was of particular value on the eastern front.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 11, 2013)

tyrodtom said:


> Is that rubber mats laid over that T34 ? In the hope of giving stand off from shaped charges maybe ?



I'd guess that was the purpose, in the former brotherly republics there was utter abundance of such weaponry.h 

Here is the T-55 'Leopard' with similar device: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v399/OkoII/vojKn.jpg


----------



## bobbysocks (Jun 11, 2013)

tyrodtom said:


> Is that rubber mats laid over that T34 ? In the hope of giving stand off from shaped charges maybe ?



i dont think a rubber mat is going to do aything to foil the penetration of a shaped charge....what i think they are for is traction in certain types of mud. they look the appropriqate width for sliding under the tracks. certain combinations of wet clay and soil can stop even tracked vehicles...


----------



## parsifal (Jun 11, 2013)

could be for camourflage or deception. Break up the silhouette of the tank to make recognition of the vehicle more difficult. If you cant ID the vehicle type, you are going to be cautious and that might give the tank owner time to do something

Alternatively it might be some kind of attempt at insulation. T-34/85s and i suspect T-55s are pretty uncomfortable especially in extreme hot or cold conditions.


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 11, 2013)

Wow, I feel like a six year old lost at the mall. The T-34 was a great tank but I doubt that it was even in the top two of being the best German fighter for the eastern front. Maybe the best Russian fighter on the eastern front.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 11, 2013)

point taken....this all arose because of the claim there were systemic failures in Soviet equipment that, by implication meant we could not rely on the published performance figures for the LA5 (and other Soviet aircraft)........


----------



## Jenisch (Jun 11, 2013)

Evaluation of The T-34 and KV Tanks By Engineers of the Aberdeen Proving Grounds - ENGLISH.BATTLEFIELD.RU - ENGLISH.BATTLEFIELD.RU


----------



## parsifal (Jun 12, 2013)

I notice the Aberdeen tests were undertaken using a 1941 type T-34, with the problematic two man turret and dodgy gearbox.......


----------



## Jenisch (Jun 12, 2013)

The T-34 was certainly improved. I have the impression that the 85 was equal or perhaps better than the Panzer IV.


----------



## vinnye (Jun 12, 2013)

I would have thought that the T34-85 was more on a par with a Panther?


----------



## Tante Ju (Jun 12, 2013)

No... much weaker gun (ca. on par with the Pz IV's long 75mm), much less armor, smaller ammo load... the Panther was pretty much in a class with itself anyway.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 12, 2013)

parsifal said:


> I notice the Aberdeen tests were undertaken using a 1941 type T-34, with the problematic two man turret and dodgy gearbox.......



Getting back to part of the original thread skew. Here is part of our question on build quality. Several different factories building pretty much the same tank (at least chassis) over a number of years that range from peace to war to desperate war/factory being moved to winning the war and back to peace and then new production lines set up in peace time ( cold war?) in eastern European countries. "Following the end of the war, a further 2,701 T-34s were built prior to the end of production. Under license, production was restarted in Poland (1951–55) and Czechoslovakia (1951–58), where 1,380 and 3,185 T-34-85s were made, respectively, by 1956" wiki. 
Now, what was the build quality of the T-34??? 

My _part_ answer----- which factory and _WHEN?_

On this forum we argue over which factory built better Merlins for crying out loud.
It should be easy to accept that _build_ quality of some Russian equipment was rather variable. It wasn't all to post war quality and it wasn't all late 1941/early 1942 'shove it out the door-anything is better than nothing' desperation.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 12, 2013)

"Jenisch
The T-34 was certainly improved. I have the impression that the 85 was equal or perhaps better than the Panzer IV."

"vinnye
I would have thought that the T34-85 was more on a par with a Panther?"



Tante Ju said:


> No... much weaker gun (ca. on par with the Pz IV's long 75mm), much less armor, smaller ammo load... the Panther was pretty much in a class with itself anyway.



We are now getting into _design_ vs build quality. 

this might be better in a separate thread if one does not already exist?


----------



## Milosh (Jun 12, 2013)

T-34 factories T-34 Medium Tank Production

First Factory No.183 - Charkovskiy Traktornyj Zawod (ChTZ), Kharkov
Second Factory No.183 - Uralskiy Tankovyj Zawod No.183 (UTZ), Nizhniy Tagil
STZ Factory – Stalingradzkiy Traktornyj Zawod
No.112 Factory – Krasnoye Sormovo, Gorky
No.174 Factory (Voroshilov Plant), Omsk
CzKZ – Czelyabinskiy Traktorniy Zavod (Czelyabinsk Tractor Factory) then Czelyabinskiy Kirovskiy Zawod
UTZM – Uralskiy Zavod Tyazhelogo Mashinostroyenya im. Ordzhonikidze or Uralmash (Ordzhonikidze Ural Heavy Machinery Factory)

There was certainly different build quality depending on the factory. One could tell which factory a T-34 came from for example by the turret.


----------



## Juha (Jun 12, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> Getting back to part of the original thread skew. Here is part of our question on build quality. Several different factories building pretty much the same tank (at least chassis) over a number of years that range from peace to war to desperate war/factory being moved to winning the war and back to peace and then new production lines set up in peace time ( cold war?) in eastern European countries. "Following the end of the war, a further 2,701 T-34s were built prior to the end of production. Under license, production was restarted in Poland (1951–55) and Czechoslovakia (1951–58), where 1,380 and 3,185 T-34-85s were made, respectively, by 1956" wiki.
> Now, what was the build quality of the T-34???
> 
> My _part_ answer----- which factory and _WHEN?_
> ...



As I wrote earlier, Finns used their war-booty T-34s till 1961. On the other hand Finns thought that T-26 was less reliable than the original Vickers 6 ton tank, which Finns called T-26E after they began use captured T-26s in large scale, after all T-26 was the most common tank in Finnsh service during WWII.


----------



## Civettone (Jun 12, 2013)

Juha, the Finnish were masters at making due with what they had. Especially amazing what they pulled off during the Winter War when they were short on pretty much anything!
It is also telling that the Finnish used relatively more captured Soviet material than the Germans did. The Germans captured hundreds of fully operational tanks, but it is my impression that they used them until defect and did not care much about repairing them if spare parts were not easily at hand. The Finns did not have this 'luxury'.
Neither did the Germans and they should have set up more extensive repair facilities and spare parts production for the thousands of captured tanks, guns and ... planes. 

Kris


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 12, 2013)

We may want to move the "t-34" discussion to:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/ww2-general/russia-marks-anniversary-its-best-tank-22320.html

AS most of what is being posted now has little relation to Soviet fighters let alone German ones.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 12, 2013)

I concur...


----------



## parsifal (Jun 12, 2013)

I agree, but point out that the sub debate arose because claims were being made that Soviet build quality was so bad that the difference between design speed of the factory made La5 and the theoretical design specs was as much as 70 KPH.


----------



## Jenisch (Jun 12, 2013)

parsifal said:


> I agree, but point out that the sub debate arose because claims were being made that Soviet build quality was so bad that the difference between design speed of the factory made La5 and the theoretical design specs was as much as 70 KPH.



Posts 168 and 169.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 12, 2013)

This is _somewhat_ borne out by some Russian writers. Unfortunately, like many other Russian items, there were a number of different 'series' of aircraft produced with somewhat different detail specifications but with the same designation. Not ALL LA-5s before the LA-5F was built were built to exactly the same standard. And so on through the rest of the designations. 

From page 41 of "Soviet Combat Aircraft of the Second World War" vol. 1 by Yefim Gordon and Dmitri Khazanov;

" Series production aircraft were considerably inferior to the prototype in speed, being some 28.4 to 31mph ( 40 to 50km/h) slower. On the one hand this is understandable as the LaGG-3 M-82 prototype lacked the radio antenna, bomb carriers, and leading edge slats fitted to the production aircraft. But there were other contributory causes, particularly insufficiently tight cowlings." It goes on to say that the openings were found and and eliminated. 

From page 42: " Many defects in design and manufacture had not been corrected."

" In combat the Soviet pilots flew the LA-5 with the canopy open, the cowling side flaps fully open and the tailwheel down, and this reduced its speed by another 18.6 to 24.8mp ( 30 to 40 km/h). as a result, on 25th September 1942 the State Defence Committee issued an edict requiring that the La-5 be lightened, and that its performance and operational characteristics be improved."

On Page 44 (although it is not entirely clear if these tests apply to the 5F or the 5, using 4 series produced aircraft a number of test were done resulting in the following modifications:
"
* the engine cowling joints were sealed;
* the shape of the oil cooler ducts was improved;
* a new inlet pipe was fitted;
* the area of the exhaust pipe cross-section was increased;
* the tailwheel doors were stiffened."
The test results showed that speeds equal to the those of the LaGG-3 M-82 prototype, which the series-built aircraft had failed to match, could be attained."

It goes on to describe modifications to the M-82 engine _BEFORE_ the fuel injected M-82FNV engine. 

Now if you take an aircraft that was 40kph slower than the prototype and fly it with the canopy and cowl flaps open and tail wheel down you can easily be 70kph slower than the prototype although a fair part of the speed difference is NOT to build quality. 

Reading this book ( and it's companion volume) you will find that MANY Russian aircraft did not meet the performance numbers of the prototypes. 

And regarding build quality it was found on some LaGG-3s that 30kg of adhesive could be stripped away without any negative effect on structural strength and that is just in the tail, rear fuselage and fin area. (page 36)


----------



## Jenisch (Jun 12, 2013)

This is very interesting, Shortround. The LW report seems to be correct therefore. I actually underestimated the report prepared by the LW for it's pilots. The data obtained in the test with the captured Lavochkin was certainly cross checked with operational estimatives of it's performance.


----------



## Juha (Jun 12, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> This is _somewhat_ borne out by some Russian writers. Unfortunately, like many other Russian items, there were a number of different 'series' of aircraft produced with somewhat different detail specifications but with the same designation. Not ALL LA-5s before the LA-5F was built were built to exactly the same standard. And so on through the rest of the designations.
> 
> From page 41 of "Soviet Combat Aircraft of the Second World War" vol. 1 by ;
> 
> ...



As I wrote, series production La-5FN, with fuel-injection M-82FN engine, was clearly faster in Soviet tests than the LW figures, all this can be found in the Yefim Gordon's and Dmitri Khazanov's book, in text and on the tables at the end of the book or in Gordon's newer Lavochkin's Piston-Engined Fighters (2003). The La-5FN proto achieved 595km/h at s.l. and 648km/h at 6,300m and


----------



## bobbysocks (Jun 12, 2013)

Juha said:


> As I wrote earlier, Finns used their war-booty T-34s till 1961. On the other hand Finns thought that T-26 was less reliable than the original Vickers 6 ton tank, which Finns called T-26E after they began use captured T-26s in large scale, after all T-26 was the most common tank in Finnsh service during WWII.



the Fins were successful with buffalos too...i dont know what kind of fairey dust they sprinkled on their equipment but they seemed to have it by the ton. 

for the best german fighter you would have to decide whether you want speed or agility or a compromise of both. and that boils down to taste. personally i like an old 109F. it might not have the speed as a G but but it was more nimble.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 13, 2013)

Their success might stem from the greater levels of technical proficiency and standards of education. Finn soldiers could read and write, and knew they had to check the oil and water levels in their tanks before using them. Russian equipment had to be simple and able to put up with the most horrendous levels of abuse because of the low levels of education in tyheir society (and lots of other reasons too).


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 13, 2013)

"technical proficiency" extends to the support system. Keeping tanks and aircraft going requires parts and mechanics. Parts can be made (sometimes) by skilled machinists in small numbers in small shops, like cottage industries. Such a system could not keep hundreds or thousands of tanks going but could keep a few dozen going.


----------



## gjs238 (Jun 13, 2013)

parsifal said:


> Their success might stem from the greater levels of technical proficiency and standards of education. Finn soldiers could read and write, and knew they had to check the oil and water levels in their tanks before using them. Russian equipment had to be simple and able to put up with the most horrendous levels of abuse because of the low levels of education in tyheir society (and lots of other reasons too).


 Wasn't there a similar issue with the SVT-40?


----------



## Denniss (Jun 14, 2013)

Juha said:


> As I wrote, series production La-5FN, with fuel-injection M-82FN engine, was clearly faster in Soviet tests than the LW figures, all this can be found in the Yefim Gordon's and Dmitri Khazanov's book, in text and on the tables at the end of the book or in Gordon's newer Lavochkin's Piston-Engined Fighters (2003). The La-5FN proto achieved 595km/h at s.l. and 648km/h at 6,300m and


Speed figure is from a modified variant, called La-5 "Doubler", production a/c were at 573/620 km/h. With standard power sealevel speed was 530 to 545 km/h (early/later production).


----------



## altsym (Jun 14, 2013)

Civettone said:


> Wow, that would be awesome !!


Sadly, Theo's wife Ilse passed away and I didn't feel it was appropriate to ask about the flight characteristics of the G-14/AS.


----------



## Civettone (Jun 15, 2013)

Rightly so ! 



Kris


----------



## Juha (Jun 16, 2013)

Denniss said:


> Speed figure is from a modified variant, called La-5 "Doubler", production a/c were at 573/620 km/h. With standard power sealevel speed was 530 to 545 km/h (early/later production).



La-5 "dooblyor" was the 2nd proto, and was close to the production La-5FN, which however didn't have the metal spars like the dooblyor had, but as already mentioned also in the case of La-5FN the production machines were slower than the protos. The reason why I gave the specs of dooblyor was to show that the proto was even faster than production La-5FNs and significantly faster than the speeds attained during LW test on the captured La-5FN.


----------



## Snautzer01 (Jun 18, 2013)

LA5FN (translated) Rechllin report


----------



## Juha (Jun 18, 2013)

And this is how Soviets saw it, roc and max speed


----------



## Civettone (Jun 18, 2013)

What is that double line of the La-5FN under 2 km? Some kind of WEP or injection?



Kris


----------



## Tante Ju (Jun 18, 2013)

I think its "forsahz" or WEP of 5FN.


----------



## Denniss (Jun 18, 2013)

The -F data looks ok, the -FN data is a bit optimistic and ~10 km/h too high.


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 18, 2013)

Denniss said:


> The -F data looks ok, the -FN data is a bit optimistic and ~10 km/h too high.



Not really, the latter La-5FNs M-82FN engines were producing the 1,850 hp closer to the La-7s ASh-82FN of 1944, late in 1943.While it is true that earlier -5FNs were iffy, they were still well liked compared to the LaGG-3s their pilots had been flying.


----------



## Juha (Jun 18, 2013)

Denniss said:


> The -F data looks ok, the -FN data is a bit optimistic and ~10 km/h too high.



But entirely possible, well inside +-3% and 109G-4 is fairly close a bit too slow at low level and bulged differently than usually at mid altitudes but max speed fairly accurate. On the other 
hand 190A-5 way too slow, much like La-5FN in LW tests.

Juha


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 19, 2013)

CORSNING said:


> Not really, the latter La-5FNs M-82FN engines were producing the 1,850 hp closer to the La-7s ASh-82FN of 1944, late in 1943.While it is true that earlier -5FNs were iffy, they were still well liked compared to the LaGG-3s their pilots had been flying.



The M-82FN and ASh-82FN are the two names for the same engine, the 1st following the pre-ww2 Soviet nomenclature (M-number-modification) and later following the mid war nomenclature (initials of the main constructor and then number modification).


----------



## altsym (Jun 19, 2013)

I terms on the general altitude where air combat took place in the East, I go with the BF 109K-series. That's a plane that should have come out 10 months earlier.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 19, 2013)

Any plane coming out 10 months earlier during the ww2 should be the world-beater.


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 19, 2013)

Ten months is a very long time in a rat race war.


----------



## Civettone (Jun 19, 2013)

altsym said:


> I terms on the general altitude where air combat took place in the East, I go with the BF 109K-series. That's a plane that should have come out 10 months earlier.


Good point. The streamlined fuselage of the Bf 109K was completely ready in early 1944. The streamlined fuselage without bulges was tested, so were the wheel covers. Retractable tail wheel should never have been a problem. 

Just by streamlining the fuselage the Bf 109 would have become 20 km/h faster. 
Kris


----------



## Civettone (Jun 19, 2013)

dp


----------



## parsifal (Jun 20, 2013)

20kmh? Im not saying no to that, but it seems a lot of speed increase, for not a lot of change....


----------



## riacrato (Jun 20, 2013)

according to Messerschmidt:

rest of main wheel covers (Restabdeckungen): ca 11-14 km/h
improved MG131 installation (verbesserter MG 131-Einbau): 7-9 km/h [another test said 6 km/h, but this wasn't at full throttle height iirc]
retractable tail wheel (Spornganzein): 3-4 km/h
------------------------------------------------------
total: 21-27 km/h

This might be a bit optimistic, but 20 km/h average doesn't seen unrealistic. It would've made the Bf 109 G-6 a ~660-670 km/h fighter, not bad, but not up to Mustang level just yet. Now with ADI added...


----------



## altsym (Jun 20, 2013)

Just look at the forward part of this Erla built BF 109K-4 (captured after May 8, 1945). 






Everything on this aircraft is about speed.


----------



## Civettone (Jun 20, 2013)

... and it made the Bf 109 beautiful again! 


Kris


----------



## altsym (Jun 23, 2013)

Not sure if anybody noticed looking at pics of Eastern front BF 109G K series in various publications, but there are some that have '100' inside the fuel triangle rather then the 'C3'. Perhaps that could be the 'new C3' rated at 150 octane, maybe used with 1.98ata DB 605D/AS like II./JG 11 used in the west? IIRC some of those A/C also had the '100' fuel triangle.


----------



## Civettone (Jun 23, 2013)

When is this 'improved C3' supposed to have been introduced? I have never seen it mentioned next to C3, so I assume it became the new C3?

But then again, how common was this improved fuel? 

It is all the more remarkable as by then, the Germans were struggling to produce any fuel at all.

Kris


----------



## nuuumannn (Jun 23, 2013)

I know these are not entirely relevant to this thread, but I liked what you said about the Bf 109's looks, Kris, even if this is a 'G-2.


----------



## altsym (Jun 24, 2013)

Civettone said:


> When is this 'improved C3' supposed to have been introduced? I have never seen it mentioned next to C3, so I assume it became the new C3?



Here's the report:


----------



## Denniss (Jun 24, 2013)

report talks about C2 and C3, AFAIR C2 was oil-based while C3 was completely synthetic.
Just checked some photos at Falcon's site and E-/F-series predominantly use 87 and C-3 but some manufacturers may have used B-4 and 100 instead.


----------



## altsym (Jun 24, 2013)

Yeah C2 is natural octane C3 is synthetic with the allied equivalent of 130. The C3 in the report above is allied equivalent of 150.
See the WNF built 109's in the book Janda-Poruba, Messerschmitt 109G-10/U4.


----------



## stona (Jun 24, 2013)

altsym said:


> Everything on this aircraft is about speed.



And yet it was far from being aerodynamically as efficient as some of its contemporaries. It was a good job that it was small and had very powerful motors bolted on the front 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/Hoerner-Me_109.pdf

Steve


----------



## Tante Ju (Jun 24, 2013)

Name me any other aircraft apart from Mustang and Yakovlev aircraft as aerodynamically effizient...


----------



## altsym (Jun 24, 2013)

Why does everybody also use the G-6 as a reference.. plenty of other 109's during 1944. G-14/AS, G-10, K-4. 

DB 605 DC/ASC *without* MW for base-setting 1,98ata and 1,8ata 
K-4 = 3400kg (7480lbs)
720km/h (448mph) @ 7200 meters (23,622ft)
590km/h (367mph) @ sea level
640km/h (398mph) @ 12000 meters (39,370ft)

That can't be all attributated to the engine alone.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 24, 2013)

Tante Ju said:


> Name me any other aircraft apart from Mustang and Yakovlev aircraft as aerodynamically effizient...



I think we have been over this before and a MK V Spit uses just about the same amount of fuel to cruise as a 109F. At some altitudes and speed the the 109F comes out ahead and at some altitudes and speeds the Spitfire MK V does and they are usually within 2-3 percent of each other. _IF_ the DB engine is more efficient that doesn't say much for the airframe. 

Small does not mean efficient, it means small. A small but less efficient aircraft can have the same drag (speed for power) as a larger but more efficient aircraft.


----------



## Tante Ju (Jun 24, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> I think we have been over this before and a MK V Spit uses just about the same amount of fuel to cruise as a 109F. At some altitudes and speed the the 109F comes out ahead and at some altitudes and speeds the Spitfire MK V does and they are usually within 2-3 percent of each other. _IF_ the DB engine is more efficient that doesn't say much for the airframe.



Yes but your thesis was wrong, is wrong still... comparing apples to oranges does not help it. A comparison of airframe effiency is basically: power used, speed achieved, fuel consumed (if range efficiency is measured). You basically compared random powers at different speeds, i.e. not nearly the same or comparable conditions.



Shortround6 said:


> Small does not mean efficient, it means small.



And vica versa - big does not mean more efficient, it just means big. If a small aircraft is capable of fullfilling the same duties its just means more efficient IMO. 



> A small but less efficient aircraft can have the same drag (speed for power) as a larger but more efficient aircraft.



In this case however the small aircraft mentioned had less drag than the larger but also less efficient aircraft, and had the same or better capabilities. Comparisons of power available / speed / range achieved reveals this. There is well known example of DB experiement with DB powered Spit vs same DB powered 109.


----------



## Civettone (Jun 24, 2013)

To come back to the original topic ... I believe tuning the engine to low altitude performance would be a massive advantage on the Eastern front. I know the Russians and British had engines which were tuned for low altitude, but I have never heard of such a thing for German engines, except for some 1945 prototypes. 

Copied this from a post by Vanir:


> Indeed the smaller blower in the Aa, which other than the blower is a 601A-1 engine, actually let the motor spin to its maximum emergency rating more easily and for longer.
> The normal maximum rating of the 601A-1 is actually 1.3ata/2400rpm for 5min. During take off only (under 1000m) you could press it to 1.4ata at the same rpm but it rattled a lot and was under blower effiency height which is about 2000 metres.
> The Aa blower lowers this to about 1500 metres maximum efficiency and helps it spin easier in thick air. Under 1000m the Aa will spin the 601 to 2500rpm/1.4ata instead of 2400rpm which is worth about 100hp.
> 
> ...



Of course, the Germans started using methanol injection, but only in 1944. It seems they could have gotten some advantage out of producing a version, optimized for low altitude.

Kris


----------



## Milosh (Jun 25, 2013)

Civettone said:


> Of course, the Germans started using methanol injection, but only in 1944. It seems they could have gotten some advantage out of producing a version, optimized for low altitude.
> Kris



MW was for low altitude use (below FTH). GM1 was for high altitude power boost (above FTH).


----------



## stona (Jun 25, 2013)

Tante Ju said:


> Name me any other aircraft apart from Mustang and Yakovlev aircraft as aerodynamically effizient...



Did you read the figures for total drag?

Steve


----------



## Tante Ju (Jun 25, 2013)

You mean rough estimates based on pessimistic data... I am pretty sure the Bf 109 is well within the top 5 minimum drag fighter aircraft of WW2. 
Yak 3 and Mustang are the other two strong contenders, and perhaps Fw 190, La 5/7 series.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 25, 2013)

Civettone said:


> To come back to the original topic ... I believe tuning the engine to low altitude performance would be a massive advantage on the Eastern front. I know the Russians and British had engines which were tuned for low altitude, but I have never heard of such a thing for German engines, except for some 1945 prototypes.
> 
> _ Copied this from a post by Vanir:
> Indeed the smaller blower in the Aa, which other than the blower is a 601A-1 engine, actually let the motor spin to its maximum emergency rating more easily and for longer.
> ...



While the RR has deliberately designing some Merlins to perform better at low altitudes, the only Soviet engine tuned specifically for such a work might be the Mikulin AM-38, used on Sturmoviks. The Klimov engines were, as good/bad they were, were still equipped with single stage superchargers, while turning low RPM - thus expecting good high altitude performance would be too much. The full throttle height for the M-105P, second gear, was at 4000m, making ~1050 PS there, ie. in the ballpark with DB-601A series. Late versions were beefed up (150-200 kg weight gain), in order to use more boost, of course at lower altitudes. The VK-105PF was managing ~1180 PS at 2500m, the VK-105PF-2 making ~1240 PS at 2200m.
Later Klimov engines (106, 107, 108 ) were to use greater RPM (up to 3000 rpm), were feturing better high altitude performance, but it took plenty of time to get the VK-107 in production and use, other two never used in service?

edit: stating that Klimovs should have higher FTH than DBs, while implying that Klimovs have had more supercharger gears is misleading, DB's supercharger have had infinite number of supercharger drive ratios. Ie. it was not featuring the single-speed supercharger, like many V-1710s and Mikulins have had.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 25, 2013)

The two speed supercharger is one way the Russians got more power out of the M-105 compared to the Hispano. There were a couple of Hispano engines with low geared superchargers that changed the FTH ( critical altitude) from around 3600 meters down to 1250 meters, they picked up around 100hp at low altitudes. Less power to the supercharger, less heating of the intake charge. Same reason the AM-38 picked up _some_ power compared to teh AM-35. The Russian two speed drive allowed them to do this and still keep around 1050hp at 4000 meters (looking at your chart). It was not the only improvement but a single speed drive would have hurt them at one height or the other. 
A lot of Wright engines had an upper FTH of 3100-4000 meters and used "low" gear for extra take-off/low altitude power rather than high altitude performance. (Merlin X and XX engines did the same thing, thats why they were primarily bomber engines)


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 25, 2013)

The Soviets also beefed up the M-100 (licence produced Hispano 12Y engine), from circa 450 kg to 570 (M-105, some weight was due to 2-speed supercharger drive, some for counter-balanced crankshaft), and then to 620 with the VK-105PF variant. That allowed increase in RMP, from 2400 to 2600, later to 2700. More RPM means more power at all altitudes, and, unlike the Mikulins or bread-and-butter V-1710s, the two speed supercharger was installed in time.
The AM-38, in the AM-38F version, was making ~1450 HP at 1000m, vs. 1150 for the AM-35/35M. Too bad neither AM-37 nor AM-39 were never introduced. 1st one featuring intercooler (and other improvements?), 1400 HP between 4-5000 m, second one being two speed (and two stage?? help!) development, capable for 1650 HP at 1000m, and 1500 HP at almost 6000m.


----------



## Civettone (Jun 26, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> The two speed supercharger is one way the Russians got more power out of the M-105 compared to the Hispano. There were a couple of Hispano engines with low geared superchargers that changed the FTH ( critical altitude) from around 3600 meters down to 1250 meters, they picked up around 100hp at low altitudes. Less power to the supercharger, less heating of the intake charge. Same reason the AM-38 picked up _some_ power compared to teh AM-35. The Russian two speed drive allowed them to do this and still keep around 1050hp at 4000 meters (looking at your chart). It was not the only improvement but a single speed drive would have hurt them at one height or the other.
> A lot of Wright engines had an upper FTH of 3100-4000 meters and used "low" gear for extra take-off/low altitude power rather than high altitude performance. (Merlin X and XX engines did the same thing, thats why they were primarily bomber engines)


Is that also what powered the Spitfire's LF versions?
Again, I am left with the question why this would not have been possible with the DB 601 and 605. Or was the DB centrifugal supercharger so different?

Kris


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 26, 2013)

The DB engines used a hydraulic drive to the supercharger. At low altitude it 'slipped' and drove the impeller at about 7 times crankshaft speed and as the plane the gained altitude it tightened up until, at the full throttle height ( or critical altitude) the impeller was turning at about 10 times the crankshaft speed. The power needed to drive a centrifugal supercharger goes up with the square of the speed of the impeller. The DB engine was using about 1/2 the power at sea level or low altitude to drive the supercharger as it was at 5700 meters (DB605A). looking at the power curve chart for the DB 605A it goes from 1475hp (or PS, I know they are not quite the same) to about 1550 at just over 2000 meters (throttle fully open but supercharger at slow speed) and then drops to 1355 at 5700 meters ( supercharger at full speed). The Supercharger drive was 'saving' for the propeller about 200 PS (?) at low altitude. 

The low altitude Spitfires used a high altitude gear ratio but cropped ( cut down) the impeller diameter to lower the tip speed and cut the power requirement that way. Since they were single speed superchargers they worked well at low altitude but LOST the ability to make large power at 5-6000 meters. 
This may be OK if you have _enough_ fighters so that you can use different ones at different altitudes but would have been unnecessary _if_ the Spitfire had been fitted with a 2 speed Merlin like the XX. 

Since the DB series engines already had a supercharger drive that freed up a fair amount of power at low altitude designing and fitting them with an even smaller supercharger or lower gear wouldn't have picked up a lot of power. ( French Hispano engines had a FTL of 3600-4000 meters or where using a "high" gear just like the early American Allison with it's FTH of 15000ft with 1040hp (P-40C).

The DB 605 may not have been able to use anymore power at low altitude. The curve shows the power rising from sea level to 2100 meters. Engines were often restricted at low altitudes to prevent over boosting and wrecking the engine. I don't know if the DB 605A was restricted at low altitude because of fuel limits ( detonation if boosted over 1.42 ata), cooling problems ( radiator can't cope with the extra heat of making more power) or if higher pressures in the cylinder would lead to exceeding the strength limits of certain parts. 

Please note that by changing the gear ratio or speed of the supercharger impeller the total power made by the engine _in the cylinders_ doesn't change (much) it just gets redistributed. 

Most, if not all of the single speed supercharged engines could make _way_ more boost at low altitude than they could survive.


----------

