# Most overrated german plane?



## aurelien wolff (Sep 20, 2018)

For you?


----------



## tomo pauk (Sep 20, 2018)

Ta 152. Partisans of it even go that far to lie about G limit.
Otherwise, Germany produced excellent aircraft, with many good sides and few flaws.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## taly01 (Sep 20, 2018)

Heinkel 219 claimed to be a super night fighter and Mosquito killer that Germans were too dumb to develop, fact is it was pretty ordinary. Designed for 2x 2200hp motors had to use 2x 1750hp............


----------



## GregP (Sep 21, 2018)

For me it is the Ta 152. The performance was excellent for a last-gen piston fighter, but not anything better than on par with all the last-gen Allied piston fighters. It was VERY good compared with the 1943 - 1944 fighter list, but so were ALL the last-gen pistons like the P-51H, P-47M/N, Tempest, Spitfire 21, Hornet, F8F-2 Bearcat, F7F Tigercat, and perhaps slipping in the Lavochkin La-9.

The Ta-152 has the distinction of being the best German piston fighter, to be sure (can't take that away from it), but was built in numbers too few to be of any wartime impact. It ALMOST made the war in decent numbers, but it was known as the Fw 190D-9 at the time, not as a Ta-152.

It's exactly like the Japanese Mitsubishi Ki-83, of which they only built 4 ... wonderful and interesting, but not of any impact due to non-participation and small numbers. At least the Germans managed to get the Ta-152 actually deployed and into combat! They get credit for that, anyway.

You'd never know it from the comments above, but I really LIKE the Ta-152. Liking it doesn't change its wartime impact, though.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## vikingBerserker (Sep 21, 2018)

I have to go with the Me 163. For all it's hype and resources it consumed, it achieved very little.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Madelman (Sep 24, 2018)

I'd add the Stuka in the list. Impressive effect from Spain till France but during BoB its weak points became evident. But its fame continued...

I've mixed thoughts on the Uhu. I really like its design concept and I think that it was a good night fighter but I've never been able to determine if it was really better than the Ju 88G-6. Of course the Mosquito MF Mk 30 was the best night fighter in ETO

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Sep 24, 2018)

Madelman said:


> I'd add the Stuka in the list. Impressive effect from Spain till France but during BoB its weak points became evident. But its fame continued...
> ...



I'm not sure that Stuka is over-rated, especially in the English-speaking world.


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 24, 2018)

taly01 said:


> Heinkel 219 claimed to be a super night fighter and Mosquito killer that Germans were too dumb to develop, fact is it was pretty ordinary. Designed for 2x 2200hp motors had to use 2x 1750hp............


Not sure how the Germans were too dumb to develop the He219. It was designed around an engine that was troublesome, just like several Allied designs, and had to go with an alternate. The RLM also drug their feet in it's development including inhouse politics between Milch and Kammhuber, creating critical delays.
As it stands, the He219 was a good performing aircraft, well armed and faster than the Ju88 and Bf110 nightfighters.



GregP said:


> The Ta-152 has the distinction of being the best German piston fighter, to be sure (can't take that away from it), but was built in numbers too few to be of any wartime impact. It ALMOST made the war in decent numbers, *but it was known as the Fw 190D-9 at the time, not as a Ta-152.*


Two different aircraft with a common ancestor. That is like saying that the P-51H was known as a P-51K.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 24, 2018)

I have to think about this one. They all had overrated aircraft. I just don't consider the Stuka or the He 219 to be one of them. I don't consider the Ta 152 either to be one. I certainly understand the arguments of those who do, and can see some validity to their points. 

I think for me it is a toss up between the Me 163 and the He 177. Maybe even the He 111.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Sep 24, 2018)

vikingBerserker said:


> I have to go with the Me 163. For all it's hype and resources it consumed, it achieved very little.



The Me.163 probably had negative value to the Luftwaffe, in that it consumed more resources than the bombers it might have shot down would have destroyed.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Sep 24, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> The Me.163 probably had negative value to the Luftwaffe, in that it consumed more resources than the bombers it might have shot down would have destroyed.



Absolutely agreed. In that sense however, you might as well throw in the Me 262 (I personally do not believe this aircraft was overrated), He 162, V1, V2, and anything else that was taking up valuable resources.


----------



## ssnider (Sep 24, 2018)

two points about projects taking up valuable resources. One Germany did not run out of guns, tanks or planes. They ran out of people to man them and fuel. Two every country had programs that were colossal waste of resources. The U.S. built a green field factory to build M7 tanks only to decide it was worse then the M4.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 25, 2018)

There is a difference between prototypes, either single or small numbers, and production programs of several hundred vehicles/aircraft that lead to little or no effective use. 

The US M7 falls sort of in between. The factory certainly didn't sit idle, it produced over 7000 M5 Halftracks and other material.


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 25, 2018)

The U.S. also had the uninterrupted industrial base, manpower and resources to engage in concepts and prototypes.

The Germans and the Japanese did not.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## taly01 (Sep 28, 2018)

Question is overrated by who? The Germans themselves or British or Russians etc
The British do take a glee in "their" victory over Germany and attribute mythic level epic equipment problems as the reason Germany lost. When its probably as simple as too many fronts.



> I've mixed thoughts on the Uhu..........but I've never been able to determine if it was really better than the Ju 88G-6.



The squadron stats show the He219 scored no better than the Me110G during late 44! But it probably was the best German n.f. (apart from lack of 3rd crew man for spotting etc) but seems to have been developed in a ridiculous number of variants.


----------



## parsifal (Sep 28, 2018)

Can I be a Sh*tstirrer and suggest ...all of them.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 28, 2018)

taly01 said:


> Question is overrated by who? The Germans themselves or British or Russians etc
> The British do take a glee in "their" victory over Germany and attribute mythic level epic equipment problems as the reason Germany lost. When its probably as simple as too many fronts..


You'll find that overall, the people who are die-hard critics (over-rated/under-rated) of aircraft are the new-age gaming fans and/or persons who have a short grasp of the war overall.
Their quest for instant gratification on the digital "battlefront" excludes any real knowledge of why the aircraft came into being, what it's original design was intended for, where it was deployed, the politics and high-command decisions that affected the aircraft's deployment, what the historical quality and quantity of it's adversary was and so on.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 28, 2018)

parsifal said:


> Can I be a Sh*tstirrer and suggest ...all of them.



I may be joining you in the bunker despite our past differences on this one Parsifal 

language can be subtle thing. I would note that William Green had 4 books called "*Famous* _________ of World War II".

Not Best or Greatest or some other superlative. 

Things are also not black and white, that is if a plane was not the best (or in the top 3) does NOT automatically demote it to rubbish. A number of planes were truly rubbish and deserve to keep that area for themselves. A large number of planes started as very good airplanes and were demoted to _near rubbish_ by the passage of time, newer better planes came along and air combat is a harsh and unforgiving arena. Using less than the best at any given time means a higher loss/casualty ratio. 
Or even just using much more fuel per ton of supplies moved. 

Some planes followed something like a bell curve. They got better as time went on, for a few years and then, despite modifications/improvements they fell behind the advancing "standards" of the world stage. Are they to be judged on the earlier and/or mid career triumphs or on their late career struggles to stay effective. 

Some planes performed very well in a somewhat limited arena, even doing a number of jobs, but would have failed miserably if forced to operate in a different theater of war than the one they made their name in. Think German or Russian aircraft trying to operate in the South Pacific or CBI theaters for instance. 
Or Japanese planes trying to operate on the Russian front, their long range was not needed and the sacrifices made to get long range (light construction and light armament) would result in high losses and less target effect per plane/fuel/ground crew used. 

A lot of german planes are overrated, that does not mean they were not effective at what they did or did not return good (but not great) value for the investment made in them. With the German proclivity of making scads of modifications to one airframe they are certainly a field day for modelers

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Agree Agree:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Sep 28, 2018)

Any of the famous ones that never made it into the air or full scale production. He100, He112, Fw187, Ta152 or Ta183 spring to mind. The less they did the better they seem to be especially when equipped with experimental or concept engines that had astonishing power to weight ratios.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Sep 29, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> You'll find that overall, the people who are die-hard critics (over-rated/under-rated) of aircraft are the new-age gaming fans and/or persons who have a short grasp of the war overall.
> Their quest for instant gratification on the digital "battlefront" excludes any real knowledge of why the aircraft came into being, what it's original design was intended for, where it was deployed, the politics and high-command decisions that affected the aircraft's deployment, what the historical quality and quantity of it's adversary was and so on.



I think that diehard fanboys of Luftwaffe aircraft predate on-line games and even the Internet. Some of the fanboyism is definitely political, in that it is held by people who support Hitler’s ideology.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## taly01 (Oct 1, 2018)

Ok I change to Me262 then, apart from poor servicability of engines never understood the choice of 4xMK108(30mm) at around 1840fps muzzle velocity. A single high velocity MK103(30mm) + 2xMG151/20 would have been more useful IMHO.


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 1, 2018)

taly01 said:


> Ok I change to Me262 then, apart from poor servicability of engines never understood the choice of 4xMK108(30mm) at around 1840fps muzzle velocity. A single high velocity MK103(30mm) + 2xMG151/20 would have been more useful IMHO.



Germans made calculations about Me 262 vs. a perspective jet-propelled bomber size of Mosquito and capable for 700 km/h, with two different cannon set-ups. One was the historical 4 x MK 108, another was proposed 2xMK 103 + 2xMG151/15. The historical set-up was judged to be superior, especially if computing sight was used.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 1, 2018)

Of course this is all subjective, and the German’s like everyone had their fair share of what one could call overrated, but how anyone can describe the first true operational jet fighter as overrated is beyond me. An aircraft that was armed well for the task it was assigned, and was good at what it did, both physically and psychologically.

It wasn’t perfect. What new technology is? It was the best of the early jets though. It wasn’t overrated at all. In fact, I bet it if had the stars and bars roundels on it’s wings, and still had the same issues, a different tune would be sung.

Just my two cents...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Oct 1, 2018)

taly01 said:


> Question is overrated by who? The Germans themselves or British or Russians etc
> The British do take a glee in "their" victory over Germany and attribute mythic level epic equipment problems as the reason Germany lost. When its probably as simple as too many fronts.
> 
> 
> ...




Everyone should “take glee” in the victory over Germany.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## KiwiBiggles (Oct 1, 2018)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Of course this is all subjective, and the German’s like everyone had their fair share of what one could call overrated, but how anyone can describe the first true operational jet fighter as overrated is beyond me. An aircraft that was armed well for the task it was assigned, and was good at what it did, both physically and psychologically.
> 
> It wasn’t perfect. What new technology is? It was the best of the early jets though. It wasn’t overrated at all. In fact, I bet it if had the stars and bars roundels on it’s wings, and still had the same issues, a different tune would be sung.
> 
> Just my two cents...


I've always regarded the 262 as overrated, simply because I don't think it was really ready for operations. At its state of development, it simply wouldn't have been fielded by the RAF or USAAF.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 1, 2018)

KiwiBiggles said:


> I've always regarded the 262 as overrated, simply because I don't think it was really ready for operations. At its state of development, it simply wouldn't have been fielded by the RAF for USAAF.



It would not have been fielded for the same reasons the P-80 and Meteor were not pressed into front line service. There was no need. They were thankfully winning the war...


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 1, 2018)

KiwiBiggles said:


> I've always regarded the 262 as overrated, simply because I don't think it was really ready for operations.



I can see where you're going with this, but I can't agree. Yes, the issues that affected it stifled its use, but at the time it was considered an enormous threat by the Allies and it wasn't until after the war that its problems became known to them. After it had been encountered in combat for the first time, the biggest fear the Allies had were that there were more of them than there actually were, but fear of this subsided over time. That didn't stop a general wariness of its capabilities, particularly when it was encountered in combat. As for how its regarded today, as Adler states, it was a jet fighter loaded with innovation. It represented the future of aerial combat.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## taly01 (Oct 1, 2018)

> The British do take a glee in "their" victory over Germany





> Everyone should “take glee” in the victory over Germany.



I forgot on International forums there are mis-understandings of British comedy

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Oct 1, 2018)

I call the Me 262 overrated because of a few glaring faults:

1) The engines were, as described, not ready for operations, for more than one or two reasons.
2) It could not effectively engage Allied piston fighters. They were FAR more maneuverable, and if the Me 262 slowed down to join combat, it was toast. It was left with "hit and run" tactics. Sometimes they worked, sometimes they didn't. More didn't than did, by long shot.
3) It was extremely vulnerable in the landing pattern, which is where a LOT got shot down.
4) The operational duration was laughably short.
6) The landing gear was almost a joke, being extremely slow to operate, making the Me 262 vulnerable for a long period of time, more than several minutes to lock up or down. To emulate that, the new-build Stormbirds use a Grumman S2F gear motor system that also takes forever to operate!

At the same time, it showed the way to the future as almost all early jets were variations on the theme, including the swept wings, central armament, and bubble canopy. It had moderate success against bombers due to heavy armament, but was a bust at almost anything else except going fast, which it DID.

Now, had the Me 262 joinjed combat with other early jets, we'd see it dogfighting fairly similarly to Korea some years later. It foretold the future, but was not what I call a big factor in WWII, being unable to bring the Allied bombing to a halt or even to slow down a single bomber stream. The Mustang and Spitfire contributed FAR more to the overall war efforts of the Allies than the Me 262 did to the German efforts, particularly the Spitifre, since it was there from start to finish, much like the Bf 109 was.

So, yes, the Me 262 was a game changer, just not the WWII game. It was unable to do that, but most of the second-generation early jet fighters were similar in layout to the Me 262, albeit with single engines since jets got developed enough to actually USE a single engine and get good performance. To me, the F-86 is THE early jet fighter, and it owed swept wings to the WWII German developments, including the Me 262.

Again, I LIKE the Me 262, but it's WWII war contribution wasn't exactly in the top tier for fighters. It was more a future tool than a WWII tool. Too bad it never got the chance to be developed into a more mature aircraft post-war. Imagine the Me 262 airframe with a single, axial-flow, J-47 engine. It could have been the F-86's main competitor, but was not even built at all after the war by the Allies that it terrorized during the last months of the war.

It was certainly worth the development, but not for the country that developed it or for the war it was serving in.

Just my opinion, and yes, I'm very happy we have some flying today, even if on modern engines. I wish I could see one of them fly in person. It has a unique place in history.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 1, 2018)

GregP said:


> I wish I coudl see one of them fly in person. It has a unique place in history.



I got to see just that in Germany back in 2011. 

Bonus? 

Got to see it fly in formation with a Bf 109G-2 with original DB605.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 1, 2018)

taly01 said:


> Ok I change to Me262 then, apart from poor servicability of engines never understood the choice of 4xMK108(30mm) at around 1840fps muzzle velocity. A single high velocity MK103(30mm) + 2xMG151/20 would have been more useful IMHO.


The Germans realized that the rate of closure between the Me262 and it's target meant that it had a firing window of just a few seconds.

The idea was to maximize the fire-power and thus inflicting maximum damage on the enemy in that small window of time, all without a weight penalty. There were other armament configurations tried, but the 4 Mk108s delivered the best hitting power.


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 1, 2018)

GregP said:


> I call the Me 262 overrated because of a few glaring faults



Hmm, shall I repeat myself? naaah.



GregP said:


> So, yes, the Me 262 was a game changer, just not the WWII game. It was unhable to do that



Largely because of the regime operating it and the speed at which it was rushed into service. The faults of the aircraft were inevitable as you've pointed out, Greg, but I can't see it being overrated because of the impact these had on its career. It was the aircraft's potential as a design that makes it _not_ overrated. The problem with the Me 262 wasn't just the jet's own issues, but also that the Germans didn't have enough of them to make a difference to the status quo. It never was going to be anything more than it was in German hands because of the state of things in the Reich at the time when it entered combat. The Germans were losing and the '262 was not going to stop that, even if it didn't have those faults.

Dave is right about its intercept window; I remember reading about MiG-15s attacking B-29s during the Korean War suffering the same issues. The Me 163 also suffered the same thing owing to its high speed.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 2, 2018)

The interesting thing about the Me262, was that there were well over 1,400 aircraft built - that was certainly a considerable number, but it was conditional.

The problem was that the Luftwaffe lacked the pilots, fuel and infrastructure to put any more than several dozen up at a time. Their factories were being destroyed, transporting them to the front was difficult and training pilots in them was often times an initiation to battle.

I also see alot of comments regarding it being overrated because it was rushed into service. If that's the case, lets get out our lists and see how many Allied types were rushed into service before the bugs were worked out...who wants to start?


----------



## GregP (Oct 2, 2018)

We all have our opinions for reasons. One person's "overrated" might be another's "best in class." Doesn't mean we'll ever convince the other, but makes for lively discussion. I've seen a couple of planes that made both a 10 best list and a 10 worst list. Depends on who is making the list.

The evening news can't seem to get ANYTHING right about aviation when something bad happens. In the end, the war has been over since 1945, and it isn't worth cross words to fret over assigning a monicker like "overrated."

Maybe we need a thread about WWII fighters that were highly rated and absolutely deserving of same? I'd put the Spitffire, P-51, and Bf 109 right at the top of the list, in no particular order.


----------



## nuuumannn (Oct 3, 2018)

Yes, I agree Gerg, opinions are like a**holes - we all have them.

One thing that always makes me laugh is the Luft '46 crowds' claims that a great Gotterdammerung would have taken place had the war gone on for another year with hordes of these Wunderwaffen gorging the Allies ' eyes out. The reality was that yes, the Germans had heaps of novel, advanced and often bizarre aircraft on the drawing board and in design houses around the country, but the Me 262 demonstrated that a lot more was required to bring the Germans back from the brink than some clever aeroplane designs and another year's fighting. There's also the fact that the Allies were keeping a close eye on what was happening over there and new projects were being discovered and measures taken to nullify their effectiveness. The less than stellar impact of the Me 262, the Me 163, discovered before the twin jet fighter, and the Ar 234 is testimony to this. Engine factories, production facilities were being targetted and both the British and Americans had jet fighters waiting in the wings and with their industrial superiority meant that the Germans did not stand a chance, despite their apparent cleverness. Oh, and the US had the A-bomb and the means to deliver it. That kind'a puts the whole German superior technology thing into perspective.

But again, not a reason why the Me 262 should be considered underrated. It ushered in an entirely new perspective in fighter versus fighter combat; it, the Gloster Meteor and the Lockheed P-80 were the first equally and they all should be considered as the vanguard of every other jet fighter around today.


----------



## wuzak (Oct 4, 2018)

I think the most overrated German aircraft has to be the Fw 187.

Basically because its proponents give it performance that may have been achieved in later versions with better engines. Later versions that were never built.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Oct 4, 2018)

wuzak said:


> I think the most overrated German aircraft has to be the Fw 187.
> 
> Basically because its proponents give it performance that may have been achieved in later versions with better engines. Later versions that were never built.



The LW made some serious mistakes (which military organisation didnt) but they generally werent stupid. If the Fw187 was so good and a potential war winner why didnt the LW use it, why despite all the promises and prototypes did it get no further than mild disinterest.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 4, 2018)

At best, it was the wrong airplane at the wrong time. 

The single seaters flew in 1937 and were a rather expensive way to get a pair of MG 17s into action. Granted lots of planes were fitted with heavier armament in later versions. However you were going to get around 2 Bf 109s for every FW 187 built and that is not an attractive proposition for the Germans in 1938-39 no matter how much faster the Fw 187 is. 

The DB 601 wasn't being installed in anything at that time and DB 600s (with carburetors) were being fitted to some He111s.

The two seat FW 187 shows up in 1938. You still don't have much in the way of DB 601 production so lots of prototypes and service planes are making do with the Jumo 210. The FW 187 is now trying to compete with the Bf 110 and the tactical thinking of the time, not the tactical thinking of 1940/41. 
The 110 is already in small scale production so switching to the 187 means a loss of months in production. In 1938 nobody really knew what either plane should really be doing (number of roles) and the 110 was actually a "cheat" on an earlier requirement that called for a 3 man crew and an internal bombay. They kept the cockpit big enough for three men but left out the bomb bay. The 110 would be adaptable to a number of roles. 
The available guns in 1938-39-40 don't work well with the 187. Much is made of it's good range but the cannons run out of ammo just as quick as the cannon in a 109E-3. The 110 used the radioman and the extra size of the 110 to carry spare drums for the cannon and reload them. Not going to happen in a hi "G" combat situation but if there is a lull the 110's cannon can be made ready in a couple of minutes. They wee working on the guns that would become the MG 151 and solve this ammo problem in the late 30s but they are not available for service in 1939-40 when the real decision to put the 187 into service would have to be made. 

Much is made of how cheap the 109 was, just in raw materials and engines any proposed 187 is going cost twice as much as 109, is the extra range worth it? 
I would also note that much of the 187s speed advantage over the 109 disappears in late 1940/early 1941 when they clean up the 109 airframe and build the 109 F.


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 4, 2018)

Germans could've installed HS 12Y on the Fw 187 that became available once Czechoslovakia is under the German foot. Much easier to do than the DB 601, and provides extra 20% more power above 4 km over the best Jumo 211, the 211G. The low firing time for cannons can be circumvented with deletion of cannons and installing 10 MG-17s.

But then again, a Bf 109 with drop tank and 90 rd drums for cannons would've been a far better proposal for 1940. Or 4 Breda-SAFAT heavy MGs instead of the mixed weaponry it carried.


----------



## JohnWV (Oct 4, 2018)

Fw-190, just a hunch. I really think the 109 had more kills, how many
kills did Hartmann have with the Focke -Wulf?---John


----------



## Stig1207 (Oct 4, 2018)

None, Hartmann only flew the 109.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 4, 2018)

Well, they built a lot more 109s than 190s.
Total number deployed makes a big difference in simple box score.
And then you have the fact that several thousand 190s ( at a minimum) were built and deployed as fighter bombers. The 190F and G series. Yes some 109s were used as fighter bombers but to the extent the 190 was, special versions assigned to special attack groups in large numbers.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 4, 2018)

190, overrated? How so?


----------



## Milosh (Oct 4, 2018)

fastmongrel said:


> The LW made some serious mistakes (which military organisation didnt) but they generally werent stupid. If the Fw187 was so good and a potential war winner why didnt the LW use it, why despite all the promises and prototypes did it get no further than mild disinterest.



Also add politics. MTT had those in charge by the short and curlies.


----------



## Milosh (Oct 4, 2018)

justjohn said:


> Fw-190, just a hunch. I really think the 109 had more kills, how many
> kills did Hartmann have with the Focke -Wulf?---John



The 109 had a 2 year head start on the 190 and that head start was in the glory years of the Luftwaffe.


----------



## mad_max (Oct 5, 2018)

To me hands down the He-177. Too many issues combined with resources that could've been used elsewhere.


----------



## Milosh (Oct 5, 2018)

mad_max said:


> To me hands down the He-177. Too many issues combined with resources that could've been used elsewhere.



Depends on the engines mostly. The 606s gave problems but the 610s not so much.


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 5, 2018)

justjohn said:


> Fw-190, just a hunch. I really think the 109 had more kills, how many kills did Hartmann have with the Focke -Wulf?---John


There were a considerable amount of Experten who flew the Fw190.
One such Fw190 Experten that comes to mind, would be Gerhard Thyben, who had 157 victories to his credit in the 190. Add to that, is the notoriety of making the last Fw190 victory over an enemy when he downed a Pe-2 on 8 May 1945 - with his crew chief tucked away in the baggage compartment!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Oct 5, 2018)

mad_max said:


> To me hands down the He-177. Too many issues combined with resources that could've been used elsewhere.



The question is, was it overrated at all?

As far as I can tell, it has been largely thought of as a death trap.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## JohnWV (Oct 5, 2018)

Just my personal opinion, that's all. I am no expert nor do I claim to be.
Just from what I see. No biggie if you don't like my personal opinion.---John


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 5, 2018)

justjohn said:


> Just my personal opinion, that's all. I am no expert nor do I claim to be.
> Just from what I see. No biggie if you don't like my personal opinion.---John



Well, why in your opinion was it overrated?

I only as because:

1. It was a well respected aircraft.
2. Gave the advantage back to the Luftwaffe for a while when it was introduced to front line service.
3. Allied evaluations were favorable.
4. Was a versatile multirole aircraft.
5. Had great performance.

The number of kills tell only a small part ofthe story. The 109 for instance was in service longer, and built in much larger numbers. Of course it will have more kills. The 109 had more kills than the P-51. I doubt too many people will say the 51 was overrated for that reason either. See my point?


----------



## GregP (Oct 5, 2018)

In Erich Hartmann's biography, he stated that he flew the Few 190, just not in combat. He preferred to stay with the Bf 109 simply because he was so familiar with it and its handling characteristics. He didn't want to be finding out about the Fw 190's characteristics while flying it in combat.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Oct 5, 2018)

Milosh said:


> MTT had those in charge by the short and curlies.



Who or what is MTT???


----------



## Milosh (Oct 5, 2018)

fastmongrel said:


> Who or what is MTT???



Willy *M*esserschmi*tt* and company.


----------



## dedalos (Oct 5, 2018)

i would say than most major LW types were overrated
The Bf109 did score well but in reality had terrible aerodynamic characteristics,and received only a few of the possible improvements
The Fw190 was a very good fighter bomber , but as a fighter was totally outclassed in western Europe after early 1943. Terrible wing profile, bad engine, very high wingh loading.
The ju 88 was versatile ,COULD had been a great performer , but actually because of the unreasonable requirements of the RLM, its performance was actually bad. As a bomber could not penetrate the airspace of the western allies after 1942, the same as recce, as night fighter did score decently but could not face the mosquito
The Bf 110 was decent at CAS missions, inadequate as a NF, and terrible as a day air superiority fighter
The Ju 52 had very small load capability
It s not surprise that LW was defeated after 1941 o all fronts. It was not just a matter of quantity, it was also a matter of quality. RLM sacrificed quality in order to have aircraft easier to produce but simply inferior to the enemy.
On the other had Do217 had potential. it was quite fast on the weak B4 fueled BMW801s . In the form of the Do317B, essentially a 217 with DB610 engines, could be formidable.


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 5, 2018)

dedalos said:


> The Bf 110 was decent at CAS missions, *inadequate as a NF*...


Schnaufer, Lent, Sayn-Wittgenstein, Streib, Meurer, Rökker and a long list of others, would disagree...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Tieleader (Oct 5, 2018)

GregP said:


> In Erich Hartmann's biography, he stated that he flew the Few 190, just not in combat. He preferred to stay with the Bf 109 simply because he was so familiar with it and its handling characteristics. He didn't want to be finding out about the Fw 190's characteristics while flying it in combat.


I know he never flew combat in it but wasn't he also checked out in a Me 262?


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 6, 2018)

Hartmann was invited on several occasions to try the 262, but he declined each time out of loyalty to his Gruppen.
I believe (going on memory) that Galland or Bar (perhaps both?) got him to attend a conversion program at some point, but he still declined.
So in the end, Hartmann never flew the 262.


----------



## mad_max (Oct 6, 2018)

wuzak said:


> The question is, was it overrated at all?
> 
> As far as I can tell, it has been largely thought of as a death trap.



The pilots thought it was a torch, but the head honchos thought it was the next best thing to Cognac. The problem was that the pilots had no say in what was developed and were told to fly.


----------



## bada (Oct 8, 2018)

dedalos said:


> i would say than most major LW types were overrated
> The Fw190 was a very good fighter bomber , but as a fighter was totally outclassed in western Europe after early 1943. Terrible wing profile, bad engine, very high wingh loading.



Please explain further, as i consider the Wurger as the best fighter of WWII, being the most versatile airframe from WWII (as fighter) and the easiest to fly (HoTaS)
Outclassed after early43: by what? the spitty? the Poney? it depends of altitudes only. above 6Km yes until then it was still the most agile fighter, able to change azimuts no other airplane could follow and the speed of the allies were not greater, mostly equal. Then came the D-9....
Terrible wing profile: why do you think that? Like all wing designs it was a good compromise. Semi-laminar profile made for speed, the most rigid wing structure available able to cope with the tremendous rollrate without aerolasticity and the wing was still "active" at lower speed, not like the poney's wing that need high speed otherwise it stalls.
Bad engine: ???? 801D2 bad engine? no really? check the BMW production numbers and match it with the 190 airframes production numbers and all other planes that flew with those engines, you'll see they didn't build them like2 times the number of airframes. it's just like i'll say the pw2800 is a bad engine (from my pov, it is as it's too big and need large compressors or turbo pipings to run at decent power through the altitude range ,but technically it's very well build). the 801 evolved from41 untill to end from 1650ps to 2000ps without issues, keeping the same size, the same ease of maintenance and it's reliability.
Very high wing loading: like all high speed fighters, it also provides you a certain instability what is good for maneuvrability.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Oct 8, 2018)

German WW2 engine production numbers can be found here, http://www.enginehistory.org/Piston/WW2GermanProduction/WW2GermanProduction.shtml

Other a/c used the BMW801 besides the Fw190.


----------



## dedalos (Oct 13, 2018)

bada said:


> Please explain further, as i consider the Wurger as the best fighter of WWII, being the most versatile airframe from WWII (as fighter) and the easiest to fly (HoTaS)
> Outclassed after early43: by what? the spitty? the Poney? it depends of altitudes only. above 6Km yes until then it was still the most agile fighter, able to change azimuts no other airplane could follow and the speed of the allies were not greater, mostly equal. Then came the D-9....
> Terrible wing profile: why do you think that? Like all wing designs it was a good compromise. Semi-laminar profile made for speed, the most rigid wing structure available able to cope with the tremendous rollrate without aerolasticity and the wing was still "active" at lower speed, not like the poney's wing that need high speed otherwise it stalls.
> Bad engine: ???? 801D2 bad engine? no really? check the BMW production numbers and match it with the 190 airframes production numbers and all other planes that flew with those engines, you'll see they didn't build them like2 times the number of airframes. it's just like i'll say the pw2800 is a bad engine (from my pov, it is as it's too big and need large compressors or turbo pipings to run at decent power through the altitude range ,but technically it's very well build). the 801 evolved from41 untill to end from 1650ps to 2000ps without issues, keeping the same size, the same ease of maintenance and it's reliability.
> Very high wing loading: like all high speed fighters, it also provides you a certain instability what is good for maneuvrability.


 
My friend BMW 801 had terribly bad power to weight ratio. It weighted 1012 kgr and needed c3 fuel tp produced 1700 ps. 70 of those ps were absorbed by it s cooling fan. Even when was cleared for 2000ps after the summer 1944, it still was inferior. For comparisin the Homare 21 produced 2000hp from 810kgr, using inerior 92 octane fuel, and with smaller diameter. The BMW 801 on b4 fuel when used in bombers was just capable for 1560 ps.Above the 6000m the 801 was even worse.
The wing was terrible because although it was small, which means high wing loading, had very high drag. The Fw190A9 on 2400ps would barely touch 590km/h at sea level. The sea fury on the same power was over 60 km/h faster , despite the fact that it was a larger aircraft with more wetted area. The Fw 190D9 on 2100ps, and assuming that it was properly built, could just exceed 600kmh/h at sea level. The P51H on the same power was 60-70 km/h faster. The la7 on 250 ps less hp, claimed 620km/h( to be honest i have my doubts about the soviet claiming)
Yes, it had decent rate of roll, but thats a property that requires a well trained pilot, to convert it to desicive advantage in combat.
Finally after , the A5 version, the 190 was simply far too heavy for its size, resuting in bad power and wing loadings


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Oct 16, 2018)

dedalos said:


> For comparisin the Homare 21 produced 2000hp from 810kgr, using inerior 92 octane fuel, and with smaller diameter.


The Homare also never worked correctly. An impressive engine on paper, but a nightmare in operation


----------



## michael rauls (Oct 16, 2018)

dedalos said:


> i would say than most major LW types were overrated
> The Bf109 did score well but in reality had terrible aerodynamic characteristics,and received only a few of the possible improvements
> The Fw190 was a very good fighter bomber , but as a fighter was totally outclassed in western Europe after early 1943. Terrible wing profile, bad engine, very high wingh loading.
> The ju 88 was versatile ,COULD had been a great performer , but actually because of the unreasonable requirements of the RLM, its performance was actually bad. As a bomber could not penetrate the airspace of the western allies after 1942, the same as recce, as night fighter did score decently but could not face the mosquito
> ...


Hmmmm... I've never heard the Fw 190 discribed in any other than superlative terms by pilots on both sides. Not nescesarily saying you are wrong. Just never heard that perspective before.
And I don't think a high wing loading is nescesarily a bad thing in and of itself.
There are certainly those around here with much more aerodynamic knowledge than myself but as I understand it it's like most things in aircraft design a trade off. That is you gane in some areas but loose in others. I believe all other things being equal a higher wing loading would give you a quicker roll rate for example. One of the things the Fw190 was known for.
Not 100% sure about this but I am sure several people will be along shortly to correct me if im wrong.


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 16, 2018)

dedalos said:


> My friend BMW 801 had terribly bad power to weight ratio. It weighted 1012 kgr and needed c3 fuel tp produced 1700 ps. 70 of those ps were absorbed by it s cooling fan. Even when was cleared for 2000ps after the summer 1944, it still was inferior. For comparisin the Homare 21 produced 2000hp from 810kgr, using inerior 92 octane fuel, and with smaller diameter. The BMW 801 on b4 fuel when used in bombers was just capable for 1560 ps.Above the 6000m the 801 was even worse.
> The wing was terrible because although it was small, which means high wing loading, had very high drag. The Fw190A9 on 2400ps would barely touch 590km/h at sea level. The sea fury on the same power was over 60 km/h faster , despite the fact that it was a larger aircraft with more wetted area. The Fw 190D9 on 2100ps, and assuming that it was properly built, could just exceed 600kmh/h at sea level. The P51H on the same power was 60-70 km/h faster. The la7 on 250 ps less hp, claimed 620km/h( to be honest i have my doubts about the soviet claiming)
> Yes, it had decent rate of roll, but thats a property that requires a well trained pilot, to convert it to desicive advantage in combat.
> Finally after , the A5 version, the 190 was simply far too heavy for its size, resuting in bad power and wing loadings


What's all this about?

The Fw190 was not a large aircraft. All but the "D" had a 29 foot length and a *34* foot wingspan, two feet wider rhan the Bf109, and it's wing area was proportionate to it's airframe. The Fw190A was still a deadly adversary right to war's end, particularly at lower altitudes and it's heavy armament would tear up anything unfortunate enough to get in it's sights. 

Also using a P-51H in comparison to types that saw combat is reaching a little, because we could start citing a whole list of late-war types that had good performance, but never saw action.

As for the Ju52/3m, that's a type that entered service in 1931, so what can you expect? Their up-side is they used non-essential engines, were dependable and easy to manufacture...

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## fliger747 (Oct 21, 2018)

As a very experience jet pilot, my shot as an over rated aircraft, the ME 262. Fine airframe and weapon package but the Jumo 004 just wasn't ready for prime time. Besides lacking proper materials for an axial flow engine, the main drawback was lack of a real fuel control unit. In effect the throttle was just a valve letting fuel into the engine. The lean/rich range in acceleration/deceleration is very easy to exceed with rather unfortunate operational results. That and the atrocious low speed acceleration aspect which made them incredibly vulnerable on takeoff and landing. Definitely depended on maintaining high speed energy tactics. The speed advantage against bomber formations was a two edge sword, one could slice in and probably avoid the escorts but the firing time in a pass was very short. I knew a FAA inspector who flew B-50's in Korea, their defense against Migs? Toss out the flaps and slow way down! The speed however did give better possibility of several passes.


----------



## Thorlifter (Oct 21, 2018)

I don't consider the Stuka overrated at all. It suffered the same fate as all early participants in the war, it was simply outdated once superior aircraft and tactics were developed. It did it's job well....early on.

I'd lean towards the Me-163.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## CatTheCool (Oct 31, 2018)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Absolutely agreed. In that sense however, you might as well throw in the Me 262 (I personally do not believe this aircraft was overrated), He 162, V1, V2, and anything else that was taking up valuable resources.


The 262 did shoot down over 300 allied aircraft.....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 31, 2018)

CatTheCool said:


> The 262 did shoot down over 300 allied aircraft.....



And I don’t think it was overrated...


----------



## parsifal (Oct 31, 2018)

Its actually a hard question.

Overrated to me is an aircraft that has massive resources poured into it for little or no return. to me that rules out both the 109 and the 190 as both gave excellent returns of service 

Aircraft that I consider suspect include Me 210/410, He 219, He 177, Me 262 and Me 163. There are plenty of others to choose from. 

Truth is, every nation fielded dud aircraft. Germany did have a lot though, which I think can be traced back to their faulty procurement machinery.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Oct 31, 2018)

parsifal said:


> Its actually a hard question.
> 
> Overrated to me is an aircraft that has massive resources poured into it for little or no return. to me that rules out both the 109 and the 190 as both gave excellent returns of service
> 
> ...



Parsifal,

I agree very much so with your conclusion, particularly the bang for the buck methodology. I had refrained from posting in this thread due to being unable to pick just one. However I had been favoring the He177; 163 and 262 in no particular order. 

Of the aircraft you mentioned do you have any monetary numbers to go along with airframes?

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## parsifal (Oct 31, 2018)

I don't, but somewhere at home I have the amounts being spent by the air ministry on R&D, and it was staggering. approximately 2.5 times that being spent by Britain in the later years of the war. they didn't get 2.5 times the numbers of new aircraft, or other aircraft technologies. Result/conclusion....an awful lot of the LW budget got p*ssed up the wall for no benefit to the nation.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 1, 2018)

I agree with the He177 and Me163, but the Me262 was perhaps the most effective of all nation's jet fighter programs, even if it was muddied up by politics, delays and last minute priorities.

I know it's been said before, but the He280 was a HUGE missed opportunity by the RLM and it was that same cool approach to the jet program that made the Me262 late to the game.
It didn't help any, when the Me262 was finally being demonstrated and Hitler asked Messerschmitt if it could be a bomber and Willy without hesitation said "yes!".
The Ar234, a dedicated bomber, was about to enter production and the Me262 had no business in that role.

*IF* the RLM had played their cards right, they would have got behind the jet program in the early days, when Germany still had the upper hand. This would have seen the He280 enter service as a true fighter, the Me262 as a Heavy Fighter/Interceptor and the Ar234 as the dedicated bomber with the Hs132 as the precision bomber/dive bomber - all well before 1944.

There were other missed opportunities, like the Ar240, Fw187, Ta154 and so on...I don't think that the He219 was a waste but rather the RLM's doctrine that created waste. Mandating that virtually everything had to be capable of dive-bombing, to the point where I'm surprised that the Tiger Tank wasn't able to dive-bomb, created serious delays in development and production and was absolutely unnecessary.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Nov 1, 2018)

The Me 262 was easily the biggest R&D program of all the jet fighter programs of any nation, but it was far from the most efficient. In fact I am of the opinion that it was probably the least efficient program

The attached article provides a reasonable overview of the vastly different approaches to resource allocation for the development of jet engines, and demonstrates the massively greater resources the germans were prepared to expend

https://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/vie...redir=1&article=2648&context=utk_chanhonoproj

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Nov 1, 2018)

fliger747 said:


> As a very experience jet pilot, my shot as an over rated aircraft, the ME 262. Fine airframe and weapon package but the Jumo 004 just wasn't ready for prime time. Besides lacking proper materials for an axial flow engine, the main drawback was lack of a real fuel control unit. In effect the throttle was just a valve letting fuel into the engine. The lean/rich range in acceleration/deceleration is very easy to exceed with rather unfortunate operational results. That and the atrocious low speed acceleration aspect which made them incredibly vulnerable on takeoff and landing. Definitely depended on maintaining high speed energy tactics. The speed advantage against bomber formations was a two edge sword, one could slice in and probably avoid the escorts but the firing time in a pass was very short. I knew a FAA inspector who flew B-50's in Korea, their defense against Migs? Toss out the flaps and slow way down! The speed however did give better possibility of several passes.



Fliger,

I very much agree with your facts surrounding the 262 and it’s limitations engine wise. However, do you think there might be a little retrospectroscoptive in your analysis? Of course the engines fuel control was bad but it was the best they could do at the time. Imagine from a 1930s perspective looking at WW1 fighters with metal plates on the props for “protection “ vice a synchronizer. Or wooden fixed pitch props versus metal constant speed versions. My point is only that progress is incremental in aviation especially during wartime circa 1940-1945.

The Germans were trying, however the tsunami that was the Allies was growing massively and directly opposite of the Axis powers circa 42-43 and beyond.

I seem to remember the later Jumos had a much improved FC. I flew the mighty T37 in pilot training, and the throttle response in it was atrocious, with surges along the way if you cobbed in the power. However it could ingest a lot of bird and not get damaged. And it was a decade newer. The T38 engines fan blades would flex if you touched them, however they were very reliable inside their envelope. Just don’t get into iceing EVER. The throttle response in the Eagle, between the Electronic Engine Control (F100-100), and the FADEC version (F100-220) is night and day. Thrust went up, response way up, mileage up a hair, and reliability off the chart better. You have to start somewhere.

Even if the 262 had much better engines the spool up time would have been only marginally better, and acceleration would be along the same lines. The engines needed better metals for longevity. The Nazis needed many, many more to make even a small dent in the opposition. End result would not have changed tactics, vulnerabilities or outcome in my opine.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Nov 1, 2018)

parsifal said:


> The Me 262 was easily the biggest R&D program of all the jet fighter programs of any nation, but it was far from the most efficient. In fact I am of the opinion that it was probably the least efficient program
> 
> The attached article provides a reasonable overview of the vastly different approaches to resource allocation for the development of jet engines, and demonstrates the massively greater resources the germans were prepared to expend
> 
> https://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=13&ved=2ahUKEwjuz7O_v7LeAhUJO48KHc7RDB4QFjAMegQIBRAC&url=http://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2648&context=utk_chanhonoproj&usg=AOvVaw0MZWSnLbMIL7WKmNUNSPR0&httpsredir=1&article=2648&context=utk_chanhonoproj



From the German perspective, having been told they are the superior people, do you think their attitude could have been we will get past these pesky Allies with superior knowledge, tactics, and products? Could that be the driving force behind the wonder weapons and the dumping of massive coin into the R&D programs?

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## parsifal (Nov 1, 2018)

I think it was a lack of discipline strangely enough. in Britain and America, at the beginning of the war (and even before) there was a ruthless weeding out of R&D projects unlikely to benefit the war effort. Tight controls on how much money and who did that development were imposed. The whole country was shifted over to a war footing in other words and every aspect of the national apparatus was geared towards the goal of winning the war. this was slightly less apparent in the US, but then they had the sinews to be able to afford that.

In germany, for a very long time, the nation was kept on more or less a peace footing. I know there have been many that have tried to quash that idea, but in certain areas it was very apparent. R&D was one of those. Though the national apparatus would not hesitate to crush or suppress thinking on ideological reasons without giving it a second thought, they also failed to regiment those R&D efforts from a centralised bureau. Nazi germany, contrary to the myth that hitler controlled everything, was really much more a series of semi autonomous fiefdoms, intensely corrupt with fiercely guarded turfs that more or less were run for the benefit of that fief leader, who in turn made sure that the efforts of his "kingdom" were primarily doing stuff that made Hitler happy. an unbelievably inefficient system. Japanese were similar but substituted this near feudal system of control with a duopoly.

Both systems were incredibly corrupt, which manifested itself in a number of ways. One of the ways was that whilst in the two democracies there was a genuine competitive tender system .....if you were the losing tender it was tough luck basically, in Germany, if you were the losing bidder you probably would get some consolation contract of some description....a tender process in which everyone except the country itself was a winner.....yippee!!!!!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Nov 1, 2018)

A lot is made about the short engine life of the 004, but it wasn't outlandish. Consider that the first generations of GE J47's, which first flew long after the war, had a TBO of 15 hours.


----------



## Milosh (Nov 1, 2018)

Late production 262s got a better fuel/throttle system. The throttle wasn't restricted to slow movement.


----------



## taly01 (Nov 2, 2018)

The WW2 German (and Japanese) aircraft industries are so interesting to armchair experts like me as they failed to keep pace technically due to poor planning decisions more than inability. The Germans seemed to have chosen the wrong high tech projects (Komet, Mistel, Moskito) whether bad luck or bad concept?? The Allies sure had some dud planes like the early Typhoon, Stirling and Helldiver but they had other designs to fallback on.

I can add the pilot-less plane  V1 as been overrated IMHO Its accuracy was very poor and was just a low yield nasty anti-civilian weapon. Now if they had made it as a fire-and-forget sea skimming anti-ship missile vs say anchored D-Day fleet etc it could have been useful!


----------



## wuzak (Nov 2, 2018)

Yes, the V-1 was inaccurate. But that was partly due to misinformation that the British fed back to the Germans through their double agents.

So the Germans did not have the ability to properly correct course and range of the weapons.

If, as you suggest, they were aimed at the post D-Day landing sites in Normandy they could have seen the fall of the bombs and made corrections. 

V-1s could have caused serious disruption in the unloading of soldiers and equipment at the temporary dock facilities if that was their target.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Nov 2, 2018)

dedalos said:


> My friend BMW 801 had terribly bad power to weight ratio. It weighted 1012 kgr and needed c3 fuel tp produced 1700 ps. 70 of those ps were absorbed by it s cooling fan. Even when was cleared for 2000ps after the summer 1944, it still was inferior.



Hello Dedalos,
How much of that 1012 Kg is the actual engine and how much is all the accessories, oil cooler, and cooling fan that are built into the "power egg"? No, the BMW 801 was not a light engine by any means and but wasn't as bad you might believe in the later D-2 versions. For some reason, the Germans never did change the designation even though the engine received quite a few improvements. (It is much like the Me 109G-6 which could describe vastly different aircraft depending on subtype.)

The Cooling Fan actually was much less power hungry than your description might imply.
At low forward speeds, it DID need about 70 PS to power it.
At practical speeds, there was enough air flow coming into the cowl to drive the fan and it drew no power at all from the engine.



dedalos said:


> For comparisin the Homare 21 produced 2000hp from 810kgr, using inerior 92 octane fuel, and with smaller diameter. The BMW 801 on b4 fuel when used in bombers was just capable for 1560 ps.Above the 6000m the 801 was even worse.



Technically, you are correct. In practical terms, the Ha-45 / Homare series engines had much shorter duration (5 minutes?) for its 2000 HP War Emergency Rating. Depending on the power adder in use, the BMW 801D-2 might have a WEP duration of 5 minutes or "as long as the emergency lasts".
Keep in mind that the durability and reliability of the BMW 801D-2 and Nakajima Homare were no where close.
The Homare / Ha-45 in service was quite unreliable and actual power output was often well below 1500 HP.
The other factor to consider is that although the Homare / Ha-45 was using 91 or 92 octane fuel, it was running Water Methanol injection at anything over cruise settings.
The Japanese didn't just use 91 or 92 octane fuel because they wanted to. It was the best that they had in a useful quantity and they had to use anti-detonant to keep things working.
Just to see how bad this can be, for the Ki 84 with 700 Liters of actual fuel, it also carried 130 Liters of Water Methanol.



dedalos said:


> The wing was terrible because although it was small, which means high wing loading, had very high drag. The Fw190A9 on 2400ps would barely touch 590km/h at sea level. The sea fury on the same power was over 60 km/h faster , despite the fact that it was a larger aircraft with more wetted area. The Fw 190D9 on 2100ps, and assuming that it was properly built, could just exceed 600kmh/h at sea level. The P51H on the same power was 60-70 km/h faster. The la7 on 250 ps less hp, claimed 620km/h( to be honest i have my doubts about the soviet claiming)



For what it's worth, the Wing profile of the FW 190 series was the same NACA 23000 series that was used on numerous other contemporary fighters. It wasn't a Laminar flow section but it was a pretty good balance between CoL and Drag which is why so many other designs used it.
What is your source for the 590 KPH on 2400 PS. I find this very interesting because the standard 190A-8 was not that much slower (about 570 KPH) on a lot less power. The claim for the Lavochkin La-7 is very suspicious as you have already pointed out, so I don't understand why it is worth quoting.
As for the Sea Fury and P-51H, neither one really made it into the war and both were next generation aircraft.
If you really like going in that direction, you should check out the Supermarine Spiteful / Seafang that wasn't in the war either but was quite a fast propeller driven fighter.



dedalos said:


> Yes, it had decent rate of roll, but thats a property that requires a well trained pilot, to convert it to desicive advantage in combat.
> Finally after , the A5 version, the 190 was simply far too heavy for its size, resuting in bad power and wing loadings



You are possibly the first person I have ever seen who did not regard Roll Rate as important.
Just about every direction change begins with a Roll.
The British tests of Faber's FW 190A against a Spitfire Mk.IX actually concluded that the FW was more maneuverable except for turning circles and the major advantage the FW had was in Roll Rate.
Some of the later Ground Attack versions of the FW 190 were actually fairly high powered and with reduced gun armament were considerably lighter than the normal fighter versions and were quite agile after dropping their ordnance.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 2, 2018)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Dedalos,
> How much of that 1012 Kg is the actual engine and how much is all the accessories, oil cooler, and cooling fan that are built into the "power egg"? No, the BMW 801 was not a light engine by any means and but wasn't as bad you might believe in the later D-2 versions. For some reason, the Germans never did change the designation even though the engine received quite a few improvements. (It is much like the Me 109G-6 which could describe vastly different aircraft depending on subtype.)
> 
> The Cooling Fan actually was much less power hungry than your description might imply.
> ...



1012 kg figure does not include oil system, but it does include cooling fan & it's drive. link
The BMW 801 'moved' thrugh almost a whole alphabet - A, B, C, D, E, F, G, J, L, M, N, R, S (some engines were series produced, other remained prototypes, some remained in 'paper' stage).
Cooling fan didn't used 70 PS flat-rated. Eg. at 5.7km, in Notleistung, it used 50 PS on the fully-rated 801D. The lower power setting, the lower power is consumed by the fan. We might recall that there was a bennefit due the tightly cowled engine that used a fan - a lower drag.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Nov 2, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> 1012 kg figure does not include oil system, but it does include cooling fan & it's drive. link
> The BMW 801 'moved' thrugh almost a whole alphabet - A, B, C, D, E, F, G, J, L, M, N, R, S (some engines were series produced, other remained prototypes, some remained in 'paper' stage).
> Cooling fan didn't used 70 PS flat-rated. Eg. at 5.7km, in Notleistung, it used 50 PS on the fully-rated 801D. The lower power setting, the lower power is consumed by the fan. We might recall that there was a bennefit due the tightly cowled engine that used a fan - a lower drag.



Hello Tomo Pauk,
Thanks for the link to a most interesting and detailed thread about the BMW 801.
I saw in one of your tables that the output at the propeller increased with forward speed.
Does this power increase reflect ram effect?
My understanding was that the airflow through the cowl opening was enough to drive or unload the fan at some forward speed that was not terribly high. I posted the number from my notes on another thread some time back. I can't seem to find my notes on this at the moment but IIRC, it was only about 170 - 200 MPH or so.


Although there were a lot of variants of the BMW 801 used on other aircraft, from late 1942 to the end of the war (with the exception of the A-9 and D series) the BMW 801D-2 was used. There were general improvements and those inherited from the prototypes that were never mass produced and various power adders, but the designation remained "D-2".

- Ivan.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 2, 2018)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Tomo Pauk,
> Thanks for the link to a most interesting and detailed thread about the BMW 801.
> I saw in one of your tables that the output at the propeller increased with forward speed.
> Does this power increase reflect ram effect?
> My understanding was that the airflow through the cowl opening was enough to drive or unload the fan at some forward speed that was not terribly high. I posted the number from my notes on another thread some time back. I can't seem to find my notes on this at the moment but IIRC, it was only about 170 - 200 MPH or so.



Ram effect was certainly present on the BMW 801, despite the narrow layout of ram air intake and the thing where fresh air suffered plenty of 'kicks' during it's path from prop to the start of the intake. Power should get just a bit of increase with ram effect, where most of the gains lay was (or it was supposed to) was rated height. The engine installation with outer ram air intakes were better in this regard, but those wee draggy on the BMW 801S, thus 'killing' the speed under the rated heights vs. the inner intakes.
I don't have exact figures on 'behavior' of the fan during actual flight.



> Although there were a lot of variants of the BMW 801 used on other aircraft, from late 1942 to the end of the war (with the exception of the A-9 and D series) the BMW 801D-2 was used. There were general improvements and those inherited from the prototypes that were never mass produced and various power adders, but the designation remained "D-2".
> 
> - Ivan.



Germans (RLM?) were against adopting the BMW 801E in production, since it was judged that production lines would've needed many of tooling replaced vs. the 801D. The 801S introduced improvements from the 801S (predominatly supercharger and heads) that were added to the basic 801D, and was serise produced from Autumn of 1944 on. 
BMW 801s seldom used 'power adders' in form of MW 50 or GM1, though the GM1 was used on some Ju-88s that have had BMW 801 installed.


----------



## pbehn (Nov 2, 2018)

wuzak said:


> Yes, the V-1 was inaccurate. But that was partly due to misinformation that the British fed back to the Germans through their double agents.
> 
> So the Germans did not have the ability to properly correct course and range of the weapons.
> 
> ...


In the peculiar world of intelligence, the Germans fitted transponders to some V1s which proved they were overshooting, however the Germans believed the "spies" they had on the ground and ignored the findings of the transponders. Perhaps the thought that all their spies were lying was too terrible to contemplate, so they didn't.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## taly01 (Nov 4, 2018)

The number of V1 built is staggering i have seen the figure of 30,000 given, add to that the crews involved in launching them etc and I think it was overrated.

I do know that the V1 tied up a lot of AAA and fighter resources but still I don't think they were *that* useful as they only targeted non-military targets, and no politician is bothered to fight to the last civilian. I say it was another one of those technologies that Nazi Germany fielded before it was really developed like the Komet, Hs293 TV guided missile etc


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 4, 2018)

The V-1 is one of the forebearers of today's cruise-missiles (the Kettering Bug is the Great-Grandfather of all) and like many other emerging technologies of WWII, it didn't have a period of maturation where it's accuracy and guidance systems could be perfected.
This works in the favor of the British (and later, Allied troops) who would have suffered far worse had the Germans been able to develop a more accurate aiming system.


----------



## swampyankee (Nov 4, 2018)

wuzak said:


> Yes, the V-1 was inaccurate. But that was partly due to misinformation that the British fed back to the Germans through their double agents.
> 
> So the Germans did not have the ability to properly correct course and range of the weapons.
> 
> ...



So, it's the fault of the British that the V-1 wasn't effective? Gee, talk about blaming the victims.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 4, 2018)

targeting London and targeting the Normandy beachheads are rather different things. 











A V-1 that misses the Mulberry docks or ships by 100ft or more is going to do relatively little damage. A V-1 that misses the Thames is going to hit _something. _

The Normandy beachhead/Mulberries were a much smaller target than London and despite being a high concentration of ships had much less density than large parts of London. 

How many V-1 *hits* on actual ships/docks/infrastructure would it have taken to seriously impede the transfer of material/supplies and how many V-1 would it have take to get those hits?


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Nov 4, 2018)

taly01 said:


> The number of V1 built is staggering i have seen the figure of 30,000 given, add to that the crews involved in launching them etc and I think it was overrated.
> 
> I do know that the V1 tied up a lot of AAA and fighter resources but still I don't think they were *that* useful as they only targeted non-military targets, and no politician is bothered to fight to the last civilian. I say it was another one of those technologies that Nazi Germany fielded before it was really developed like the Komet, Hs293 TV guided missile etc



Hello Taly01,
Of course this is an opinion, but I don't think the V-1 really counts as an overrated aeroplane,
An overrated weapon perhaps, but airplane it is not.
I figure it is best counted as ammunition. After all, missiles ARE ammunition, right?

I also don't believe it was such a bad idea. Most things have room for development and I believe that with a better guidance system, it would have been quite dangerous.

- Ivan.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 4, 2018)

Along with Stuka - I don't think that people were singing praises to the V1. Thus it can hardly be seen as over-rated.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Nov 4, 2018)

tomo pauk said:


> Along with Stuka - I don't think that people were singing praises to the V1. Thus it can hardly be seen as over-rated.



I suppose that along the same lines, one must ask "Overrated by WHOM?"
Are we discussing an inflated opinion of its worth by the people using it in combat?
Are we discussing some mystical abilities credited to the weapon by those who had to oppose it?
Are we looking at the impact of the aircraft on the course of the war?
Do we adjust this expectation based on the number of aircraft that were actually manufactured or those that were used operationally? 
Are we looking at the cost of the program as compared with the results?

The answers are quite different depending on the criteria for evaluation.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Nov 4, 2018)

I think over-rated, in this context, might be seen to mean: It is "overrated" if the cost to the government in money, people, and resources was "a lot more" than the wartime results would warrant. That is, had they known what the wartime results would eventually be, they would likely not have expended the resources to make it in the first place, or "the cost-to-benefit ratio was too high."

I believe the cost-to-benefit ratio of the V-1 was too high, along with same for the V-2, Me 163, Me 262, Me 264, and at least the Tiger tank. The Germans would have been better off concentrating on the Fw 190 series and making actual improvements to the Bf 109 family than what really happened (V-2, Me163, Me 262, Me 264, Hs 132, Tiger tank, etc.). They literally pissed away major portions of scarce resources on projects that contributed NOTHING to the war effort, and didn't even seem to THINK about logistics on the Russian Front and other places. They also never had strategic bombing airframes at all. The closest they came was the Me 264 and He 277, and they dropped Me 264 after making viable airframes. Had they built the He 277 instead of the He 177, they might again have had a viable strategic bomber.

Something always seemed to make them turn away from the path that would have helped make a difference to the outcome of the war. I really wonder if we know the full story, or if they were massively infiltrated by people chosen to bring Hitler down by getting close and offering very bad advice. Wildly successful infiltrators that are not uncovered during the operation are very rarely exposed after the fact, at least by competent agencies.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 4, 2018)

Ivan1GFP said:


> I suppose that along the same lines, one must ask "Overrated by WHOM?"
> Are we discussing an inflated opinion of its worth by the people using it in combat?
> Are we discussing some mystical abilities credited to the weapon by those who had to oppose it?
> Are we looking at the impact of the aircraft on the course of the war?
> ...



I think about being overrated as "having a higher opinion of (someone or something) than is deserved". Granted, 'by whom' is an important qualifier, in my opinion that would mean the sources or 'sources' of information that is supposed to be widely available to the wide audience. (professionals are supposed to have a more level opinion about the gear they used or tested) Talk about books that try to appeal to anyone, magazines and other newspapers, and today it is much more about the 'net and it's consumers. So we have people talking about Hellcat all but winning the Pacific war just by itself, people lying about Ta 152 G limit and such, Il-2 and Hs 129 destroying whole tank divisions, XP-39 making 400 mph, 5 Shermans = 1 Tiger etc - even today after 75+ years worth of reserach (and 'research').

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Nov 4, 2018)

GregP said:


> I think over-rated, in this context, might be seen to mean: It is "overrated" if the cost to the government in money, people, and resources was "a lot more" than the wartime results would warrant. That is, had they known what the wartime results would eventually be, they would likely not have expended the resources to make it in the first place, or "the cost-to-benefit ratio was too high."



Hello GregP,
Cost is a subjective thing. Perhaps opportunity cost is a better consideration here.
If you were the leader of a Germany being bombed night and day and pressed on multiple fronts, then what use is it to save money when it will be worthless in a couple years? Spend it now while you still have a chance.
Perhaps the Allies had a more clear vision of when the war was going to end, but from the German side, I don't see how they could have determined the time even if the outcome was not in doubt.
As for programs that were going to pay off during the war, if we use the same evaluation for Allied Programs, then the Atomic Bomb was pretty worthless as were Allied Jets. That assumes accurate predictions of the duration of the war though.
The Germans had already made that mistake earlier in not designing a worthy successor to the Me 109 and FW 190 series on the expectation that they would not need them. They got lucky in that the 190D turned out as well as it did and gave them a viable fighter to the end of the war.



GregP said:


> I believe the cost-to-benefit ratio of the V-1 was too high, along with same for the V-2, Me 163, Me 262, Me 264, and at least the Tiger tank. The Germans would have been better off concentrating on the Fw 190 series and making actual improvements to the Bf 109 family than what really happened (V-2, Me163, Me 262, Me 264, Hs 132, Tiger tank, etc.). They literally pissed away major portions of scarce resources on projects that contributed NOTHING to the war effort, and didn't even seem to THINK about logistics on the Russian Front and other places. They also never had strategic bombing airframes at all. The closest they came was the Me 264 and He 277, and they dropped Me 264 after making viable airframes. Had they built the He 277 instead of the He 177, they might again have had a viable strategic bomber.



While I am in agreement with most of your selections, I believe the Me 262 had merit as did the Tiger tank. Without the Me 262, there were no next generation fighters. I believe the Me 109 series was at the limit of its development with the K series and the FW 190 was getting pretty close to its limit as well and there wasn't much after that until you got to the Me 262. The "fighter rationalization" selection of the 190D, I believe was a recognition of the immediate needs you are describing but one has to wonder how long the stretched 190 was going to work if the war went several more years.
As for the Tiger, I don't see why it was such a bad idea. The Panther was certainly a better tank all around when things were finally sorted out, but it also came later than the Tiger and the next step down would have been Panzer IV and Panzer III, both of which were at the limits of their designs and not superior to their competition. The Panther also had much weaker armour anywhere but from the front.
I don't believe the Germans felt they needed a strategic bomber force for the kind of war they were expecting to fight. The Soviets also did not develop a strategic bomber force or much of anything other than short ranged tactical and ground support aircraft at the time.



GregP said:


> Something always seemed to make them turn away from the path that would have helped make a difference to the outcome of the war. I really wonder if we know the full story, or if they were massively infiltrated by people chosen to bring Hitler down by getting close and offering very bad advice. Wildly successful infiltrators that are not uncovered during the operation are very rarely exposed after the fact, at least by competent agencies.



There is a very interesting book called "The German Generals Talk" by a fellow named Blumentritt. In it he gives reasons for the many poor decisions that were made by those in command. My take from this book was that for the most part, although the highest ranking officers in the German military were about the same age as those of other nations, they did not have the same experience in command as their Allied equivalents. Taking Goering and Udet as examples: was there anything in their background that would have given them the necessary experience to direct the creation, organization and operation of an entire Air Force? Both were certainly good pilots, but prior military experience as a Squadron Command is hardly enough. Same applies to the old friends brought in by Goering.
No need at all to feed a person bad advice when he is so inexperienced that he cannot make good decisions.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 4, 2018)

The Tiger I wasn't really a bad idea. It was never intended as a general issue tank. They did tend to over complicate it but the British, French, Russian and American Armies were all fooling around with large, heavy special purpose tanks at about the same time (or within a few years) and the Tiger was one of the better Heavy tanks of the war as just about all of them suffered from mobility problems of several kinds, short range and difficulty being recovered. This is very general as I am comparing/including the French Char B1 and Russian KV (and predecessors) through to the American M-26. so there is a 5 year or more span for things to ebb and flow a bit. 
The Panther was a more literal replacement for the MK III and MK IV and as such was perhaps too big and expensive? 
The Tiger II was a different story, using the same engine as the 45-56 ton tanks in a 75 ton tank is a breakdown waiting to happen with very little patience. 

The Germans did have a strategic bomber. It just wasn't 4 engine and was bit dated. The He 111 was ever bit a strategic bomber as the Wellington except the the Germans only grudgeling improved it during/after the BoB as they waited for the next Vundar bomber (and waited..........and waited...........and waited.......and.......) . 
The British built over 3800 Wellingtons with 1675hp Hercules engines. He 111s with high powered engines were built in handfuls by comparison.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Nov 5, 2018)

Tiger was unquestionably a backward step for the resilience of german armoured formations. Whilst individually these vehicles were peerless engineering marvels, well protected and requiring an inordinate expenditure of resources to deal with the, their individual unit costs, on a real basis, was such that they contributed to the dilution of strength for each of the panzer formations. Tiger was never an easy tank to build, never an easy tank to use and limited in several areas (notably range and mobility) that damned it to mediocrity throughout its career.

Cost is the first demerit of the tank. There will always be massive disagreements as to the final unit cost of the tiger. Suffice it to say it was exorbitant. Massively so….some sources suggest that at least 30 T-34s could be had for the same cost as a single Tiger I. Tigers are known to have an exchange rate of about 10:1 in battle, but those odds shortened considerably if total losses are compared. Many tigers were lost to mechanical breakdowns running out of fuel as the hordes of T-3s simply bypassed them.

The second limitation affecting the Tiger was its very limited range….may 87 miles maximum. As suggested above, this led to many tigers simply being abandoned after running out of fuel and severely limited the type in any offensive roles

The third constraint affecting the type was its distinct lack of mobility. It had difficulty crossing may bridges, it suffered heavy losses in boggy terrain, it was never great in rough terrain

Other adverse issues was its slow turret traverse

The tiger was probably one of the best heavy tanks of the war, but was not suited to the impoverished german Army 1942-45. There were definite penalties to numbers as a result of the tigers introduction. Moreover, whilst everyone was toying with the concept of a super heavy tank they fell out of favour after the war almost immediately in favour of the “main battle tank” which favoured an all round compromise between the often competing demands of protection, firepower and mobility. Whilst heavy tanks might concentrate on one or two of these facets at the expense of the other(s), this was found to be less than ideal after the war. Tiger was no exception to that.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 5, 2018)

Let's stop and think for a moment, about how big of a waste Germany's next generation of fighters, bombers and tank, etc. would have been *IF* they had the industrial base, raw materials, resources AND weren't being bombed day and night.

I see a great deal of speculation about how their rockets and jets were a waste and how they should have stuck to five or six year old fighters to defend their nation instead of looking for alternatives.

Sorry, but that's bullsh*t. They were involved in a total war and in such a situation, you use whatever means you have on hand to try and defeat the enemy.

The U.S. had jets, the U.S. had television-controlled drones, the U.S. had dozens of one-off prototype fighters and such, yet I don't see anybody stating that the U.S. was "wasting resources" on these projects.

Germany had Jets, the U.S. had Jets, Britain had Jets, Japan had Jets - so out of all these, only Germany was wasting resources?
Germany flew the first jet-powered aircraft. Germany had the world's first combat jet. Germany was the only one who actually fielded jets in battle.
So in retrospect, had the German high command dedicated their resources when the jet program was first proposed to them in the late 30's, they would have had a fighter, a heavy fighter, a bomber and a dive-bomber at their disposal while they still held European proper.

The only thing wasted, was an opportunity.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Nov 5, 2018)

The new technologies were a waste an it is not bullsh*t to condemn them for it. The new technologies were years away from coming to fruition and would have suffered massive delays and poor serviceability rates as indeed they did historically as the inevitable kinks were ironed out. these 'kinks" extended to the poor rates of output at least in AFV production

the crisis which germany faced after her defeat in front of Moscow and a little later in the Caucasus at the time of halders dismissal was immediate and serious , hitler is documented as acknowledging this, and if had at least a dim idea of the crisis, so much moreso should have the rest of the Nazi leadership. but all of them allowed their arrogance to cloud their judgement. the sad thing is that in 1941 total defeat for germany was still possible to avoid total defeat. There was still time to snatch a draw from total defeat but some reality needed to be fed into the German perspective. nowhere was this more true than in the choices in force structure .

militarily, in thumbnail, before Moscow, the germans needed to pull up for winter. they needed to prepare for the coming winter. They needed to give ground whilst they still possessed the mobility to do so. 

In 1942, about the last thing they needed was another poorly thought out offensive fought with inadequate resources, perhaps some spoiling attacks, whilst defensive lines and adequate reserves and stockpiles were built up. above all else, the adoption of a static line would have allowed the germans the opportunity to somewhat normalise their logistics. had the germans concentrated all their efforts on existing technologies, the densities of materiel at the front would have been far greater then they were historically, whereas Russian advantages would have continued to suffer acute problems with experience. manpower, drained at the rate of 40000 per week with a replacement rate of 10000 per week, whilst ever germany opted for expensive offensives would have stabilised as well. A dug in, well supplied, rested, well equipped with normalised manning levels, could easily have blunted the soviet counteroffensive, and stood a good chance of forcing the Russians to the peace table, at least for a while . without Russia, the germans stood a reasonable chance of blunting the allied offensives as well, especially if the shattered Italians could be rebuilt. 

its a long shot. im the first to acknowledge that. But shooting for the impossible, including re-equipment with untied and problematic new technologies was about the worst choice they could have made. other nations, like the Russians realised that in 1942 and made do with "stretching" existing hardware. both the british and US were similar. US procurement was particualalry mindful of the need for standardisation

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 5, 2018)

parsifal said:


> Tiger was unquestionably a backward step for the resilience of german armoured formations. Whilst individually these vehicles were peerless engineering marvels, well protected and requiring an inordinate expenditure of resources to deal with the, their individual unit costs, on a real basis, was such that they contributed to the dilution of strength for each of the panzer formations. Tiger was never an easy tank to build, never an easy tank to use and limited in several areas (notably range and mobility) that damned it to mediocrity throughout....................The tiger was probably one of the best heavy tanks of the war, but was not suited to the impoverished german Army 1942-45. There were definite penalties to numbers as a result of the tigers introduction. Moreover, whilst everyone was toying with the concept of a super heavy tank they fell out of favour after the war almost immediately in favour of the “main battle tank” which favoured an all round compromise between the often competing demands of protection, firepower and mobility. Whilst heavy tanks might concentrate on one or two of these facets at the expense of the other(s), this was found to be less than ideal after the war. Tiger was no exception to that.



answered in new thread here to avoid derailing this one.
Tiger tank from aircraft thread;


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Nov 5, 2018)

parsifal said:


> Tiger was unquestionably a backward step for the resilience of german armoured formations. Whilst individually these vehicles were peerless engineering marvels, well protected and requiring an inordinate expenditure of resources to deal with the, their individual unit costs, on a real basis, was such that they contributed to the dilution of strength for each of the panzer formations. Tiger was never an easy tank to build, never an easy tank to use and limited in several areas (notably range and mobility) that damned it to mediocrity throughout its career.



Agreed on the reliability of Tiger tanks. The other issue that you hadn't mentioned was that when there was a breakdown, it takes a Tiger to tow a Tiger. This kind of thing is pretty normal for the introduction of any new weapon system though. The excellent Panther was no exception.
The big problem here was that the weapons carried by the Panzer III and Panzer IV were inadequate for the opposition especially on the Eastern front. The alternative was towed PAK or Sturmgeschutz and the like for any chance of killing even some of the early Russian heavies.



parsifal said:


> Cost is the first demerit of the tank. There will always be massive disagreements as to the final unit cost of the tiger. Suffice it to say it was exorbitant. Massively so….some sources suggest that at least 30 T-34s could be had for the same cost as a single Tiger I. Tigers are known to have an exchange rate of about 10:1 in battle, but those odds shortened considerably if total losses are compared. Many tigers were lost to mechanical breakdowns running out of fuel as the hordes of T-3s simply bypassed them.



Comparing the cost of the Tiger I to a Soviet T-34 is entirely unfair. The Germans never could have built even the T-34 at that kind of cost. From Wikipedia (yeah, my apologies), the cost of a Tiger appears to be about twice the cost of a Panther and a Panther is about 1.5 times the cost of the older Medium tanks, so the actual comparison of Tiger versus something like a Panzer IV would be about 3 to 1.
Along the same lines of general mechanical failure, the T-34 was not exactly a durable weapon either. It wasn't made to be.
Germany never could fight the war of attrition that the Soviets were willing to fight.



parsifal said:


> The second limitation affecting the Tiger was its very limited range….may 87 miles maximum. As suggested above, this led to many tigers simply being abandoned after running out of fuel and severely limited the type in any offensive roles
> 
> The third constraint affecting the type was its distinct lack of mobility. It had difficulty crossing may bridges, it suffered heavy losses in boggy terrain, it was never great in rough terrain
> 
> Other adverse issues was its slow turret traverse



No argument about slow turret traverse. Hopefully a good Tiger driver would realise there are other options such as pivoting the vehicle.
As for mobility, the weight caused problems without a doubt, but the ground pressure of a Tiger is actually not that high as compared to other tanks. Its cross country performance isn't particularly bad.
Every tank has issues in a bog. The wonderfully mobile Soviet T-34 didn't do well in that kind of situation either.

Your 87 Mile range is under very specific (probably cross country) conditions. 
Range is certainly short, but actually quite comparable to other German tanks.
On roads, they just about all have a 120-140 mile range.
Panzer IV, Panther, Tiger, they are all about the same: short!



parsifal said:


> The tiger was probably one of the best heavy tanks of the war, but was not suited to the impoverished german Army 1942-45. There were definite penalties to numbers as a result of the tigers introduction. Moreover, whilst everyone was toying with the concept of a super heavy tank they fell out of favour after the war almost immediately in favour of the “main battle tank” which favoured an all round compromise between the often competing demands of protection, firepower and mobility. Whilst heavy tanks might concentrate on one or two of these facets at the expense of the other(s), this was found to be less than ideal after the war. Tiger was no exception to that.



With the situation in Germany in 1942, what would you propose be built instead of Tiger?
Panzer III was good for no more than self propelled guns at this point.
Panzer IV was armed with pop guns.
The Germans certainly had no hope of matching quantity or performance with existing mediums but at least with superior quality of a heavy and superior training of their crews, they had some small chance.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Nov 5, 2018)

Going away from tanks, one may consider that, by 1944, Germany had no chance of victory that didn’t involve satanic intervention.

Any weapon development was somewhat akin to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. 

Regarding the most over-rated, a title for which there is a lot of competition due to 70+ years of fanboys and myth, I’d place the Me163 near the top of the list.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dimlee (Nov 5, 2018)

Regarding V-1 and A-4(V-2) and costs.
David Irving's book "Mares Nest" contained some costs analysis of both programs.
(Yes, Irving is _controversial_, etc....).
I attach appendix from 2001 edition of that book.


----------



## taly01 (Nov 5, 2018)

I think David Irving ruffled feathers because he actually looked at archive documents himself in Germany and Russia rather than following the old known stories about WW2 and its personalities, many legends that dated back to the 1950's when the archives were closed. His book on 1945 Dresden bombing also showed a rather bad light on civilian area bombing by both RAF and USAAF in this case. The V1 and V2 program was also not a nice thing and probably kept British resolve to keep area bombing germany right till the end.

But from that document costs I get, (adding on cost of warhead & fuel to V1 as ~200GBP as that was not in the bill of construction.) 

Lancaster loaded ~30,000 GBP (6 x 2000lb bombs)
V2 ~10,000 GBP (2200lb bomb)
V1 ~300 GBP (1900lb bomb)

Now certainly a Lancaster is best value with 6x the bomb load, known accuracy and re-usability unlike the V1/2, although it can be intercepted while the V2 cannot.


----------



## ssnider (Nov 5, 2018)

taly01 said:


> I think David Irving ruffled feathers because he actually looked at archive documents himself in Germany and Russia rather than following the old known stories about WW2 and its personalities, many legends that dated back to the 1950's when the archives were closed. His book on 1945 Dresden bombing also showed a rather bad light on civilian area bombing by both RAF and USAAF in this case. The V1 and V2 program was also not a nice thing and probably kept British resolve to keep area bombing germany right till the end.
> 
> But from that document costs I get, (adding on cost of warhead & fuel to V1 as ~200GBP as that was not in the bill of construction.)
> 
> ...


Seems like a lot of the associated costs of using the Lancaster is not included. For example the cost of crew training etc. prorated over expected life of the plane. Also a 2000 lb bomb cost about 100 GBP. It took about 1.7 tons of fuel to 1 ton of bombs. https://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/bitstream/2123/664/2/adt-NU20050104.11440202whole.pdf


----------



## taly01 (Nov 7, 2018)

> For example the cost of crew training etc. prorated over expected life of the plane


Good point, the V1 didn't need trained crews just a few techs and some tractor drivers LOL. 

Actually this brings up the He162 Volksjager, supposedly built as a cheap fighter to be used by barely trained pilots, its hard to find any reference that they shot down more than a handful of planes.


----------



## wuzak (Nov 7, 2018)

taly01 said:


> Good point, the V1 didn't need trained crews just a few techs and some tractor drivers LOL.
> 
> Actually this brings up the He162 Volksjager, supposedly built as a cheap fighter to be used by barely trained pilots, its hard to find any reference that they shot down more than a handful of planes.



Not sure that the He 162 was ever rated that highly,, certainly not enough to be overrated.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Hansie Bloeckmann (Nov 8, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> I think that diehard fanboys of Luftwaffe aircraft predate on-line games and even the Internet. Some of the fanboyism is definitely political, in that it is held by people who support Hitler’s ideology.


 I tend to agree--except for the pilot-less V series rockets used by Germany as the Allies were fast closing in-- we should remember that all the aircraft flown by the Axis and the Allies in the ETO were flown by humans, with all their flaws and strong suits thrown into the mix.. Germany lost a fair amount of their most experienced pilots early on in WW11- The Allies were able to draw upon pilots from: England, Canada, Australia, and after Dec. 1941, The USA. I wish to "tread lightly" here, when I venture a guess that the Luftwaffe was very surprised when the famed "Red Tail" P-51 Mustangs were piloted by men that their Nazi idealogy deemed to be inferior to Aryans- Jesse Owens in 1936 in Berlin non-withstanding--


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 8, 2018)

The Germans were being dealt a hard blow by "untermensche" long before they encountered Black personnel in the U.S. Army and Army Airforce, via Polish pilots in the RAF and by the Red Army and VVS.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Nov 8, 2018)

This is getting off toping again, but the policies and viewpoints of the Nazis was hardly consistent.
As many as 150,000 Jews and Germans of Jewish descent served in the German military and often rose to very high ranks.
One has to also wonder that if the other races were considered inferior, why did Germany support China up until their Japanese allies got upset about it. Why were they even allied with the Japanese to begin with?
Seems like just about every ethnic group had representation in the German SS units.

- Ivan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Nov 8, 2018)

On the other hand, the German military forces in France routinely murdered captured French soldiers of African descent.


----------



## taly01 (Nov 9, 2018)

> when I venture a guess that the Luftwaffe was very surprised when the famed "Red Tail" P-51 Mustangs were piloted by men that their Nazi idealogy deemed to be inferior to Aryans---



The Tuskegee airman is maybe another thread for Over-rated combat units, instead of wartime hyper-inflated propaganda we now got it 50 years after that they never lost a bomber under their escort, AFAIK this myth started from a newspaper article back in WW2, the newspaper man probably saw no bombers were lost in a mission and it then became never-ever lost a bomber. At least 25 bombers being escorted by the Tuskegee Airmen over Europe during World War II were shot down. But I give full respect to the 66 Tuskegee Airmen that died in combat.


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Nov 9, 2018)

Full respect to the Tuskegee unit, the obstacles and hardship they faced just GETTING to combat, was heroic enough. The myth that they shot down the first Me 262 seems to persist as well. But yes, that is another thread


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Nov 9, 2018)

Would the He 100 count as over rated? It's performance was leaked, with much propaganda fan-fare, but achieved nothing. Besides posed photo's, neatly lined up on the airfield, painted in fictitious unit markings.


----------



## BiffF15 (Nov 9, 2018)

Clayton Magnet said:


> Would the He 100 count as over rated? It's performance was leaked, with much propaganda fan-fare, but achieved nothing. Besides posed photo's, neatly lined up on the airfield, painted in fictitious unit markings.



So does that mean it was fake news? 😉

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 9, 2018)

The He100 would have competed for existing DB601 engine production that was earmarked for needed types like the Bf109 and Bf110.

Since the He100 was built around the DB600 series engine, it wouldn't have been feasible to redesign it for a Jumo, thus the type was cancelled.

Not sure how it can be seen as over rated. The Germans propagandized a great many things and the He100 was seen as a useful subject at the time.


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Nov 9, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> Not sure how it can be seen as over rated. The Germans propagandized a great many things and the He100 was seen as a useful subject at the time.


The type was eventually abandoned, but it did exist. And was proclaimed to be the greatest fighter in the world, capable of astonishing speeds. However in reality, it achieved nothing useful, and faded into obscurity. Perhaps it was deliberately over-rated by the Germans, as they had no intention of producing it, but it was over-rated none the less. Or maybe not.
I have always liked it, based on looks alone, and find it a shame that it wasn't developed further. Although the evaporative cooling system was a dead end for combat aircraft


----------



## Clayton Magnet (Nov 9, 2018)

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say the He 113 was over rated?

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 9, 2018)

Clayton Magnet said:


> Perhaps it would be more accurate to say the He 113 was over rated?


lol...that may be more accurate! 

In regards to the He100 (the real one), as I said before, it was a matter of not enough engines to go around.

The pre-production type did have incredible speed, but even once the conventional cooling replaced the evaporative system and weapons were added, it was still a top performing machine.

It's not that the Germans didn't want another fighter, it's just a matter of Daimler not being able tp keep up with the demand. The Fw190 was able to get the green light because it used the BMW132/801.

If we look at the early aircraft being developed, the majority planned on a DB600/601 powerplant at one point or another, but as has been mentioned already, Daimler simply couldn't keep up.

The He111 is a classic study on this, as they had nearly every type of engine germany produced fitted at one point or another, short of jet engines.


----------



## special ed (Nov 10, 2018)

If I may throw in a bit of trivia from a book, one reason the German intel believed their spies rather than the V-1 transponder (post 86 and 89) was because the British convinced all of the newspapers to give erroneous reports of V-1 hits, confirming what the double agents reported.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tyrodtom (Nov 10, 2018)

Transponders or accurate spy reports of where the V1's were impacting one day isn't going to help much on where to aim them the next day. The wind speed and direction changes daily, and that has a tremendous effect on a missile that spends it's entire flight time at lower altitudes.

The weather has almost no effect on a V2 however, the spy reports and transponders would help adjust their aim.
But by late in the war most of the German agents in Britain had either been turned, or hung.


----------



## special ed (Nov 10, 2018)

According to more than one book and also several videos, the British claim all German agents were captured and turned, in exchange for their lives. This, then, leaves the question why was the newspaper cooperation necessary. On a separate question, not exactly in line with this thread, I would like to know what happened to the Zero in Atlanta which was on exhibit in a house which was in an area of downtown going commercial. I was sent to Atlanta for eight weeks training with my company and on free time and weekends walked around downtown(no car). In an area of light business, were some old row houses and one had a sign that claimed " See a Zero shot down at Pearl Harbor". Being young and naive, I thought I would see it someday. This was 1966 and it was there at least three more trips until about 68 or 69 when the whole area was knocked down to put up buildings. I still regret the procrastination. Does anyone remember this?


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Nov 10, 2018)

special ed said:


> If I may throw in a bit of trivia from a book, one reason the German intel believed their spies rather than the V-1 transponder (post 86 and 89) was because the British convinced all of the newspapers to give erroneous reports of V-1 hits, confirming what the double agents reported.



Hello Special Ed,
That sounds very much in line with the rest of British influence over their own media reporting.
Another example is during the Battle of Britain in which the inflated claims of British pilots was reported as fact even though a simple count of the crashed aircraft would suggest that the exchange rate was much closer. This is not to take anything away from the British pilots who fought the battle. From what I have seen, just about all victory claims are inflated, usually by a factor of about 3 claims to one actual kill.


Hello GrauGeist,
Regardng He-100, one has to wonder if there was some other reason (a valid performance reason) why the He-100 was not developed. 
Regardless of the limitations on engine production, it seems to me that it would have been a good candidate for the successor to the Me 109 if not the FW 190 and until production actually got underway, it would not have required a significant number of engines.
Who knows, perhaps it would eventually have been developed with a JuMo 213?

- Ivan.


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 10, 2018)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello GrauGeist,
> Regardng He-100, one has to wonder if there was some other reason (a valid performance reason) why the He-100 was not developed.
> Regardless of the limitations on engine production, it seems to me that it would have been a good candidate for the successor to the Me 109 if not the FW 190 and until production actually got underway, it would not have required a significant number of engines.
> Who knows, perhaps it would eventually have been developed with a JuMo 213?
> ...


There's been speculation that Heinkel was having political issues with the RLM, but the facts don't really bear this out. Heinkel, in his own memoirs seemed a little bitter toward the RLM, both for the He100's fate and the He280's failure to be adopted.
This bitterness may have been aimed more at the RLM's inability to seize and act on opportunities early on more than anything.
In regards to the engine supply issue, Daimler was manufacturing their DB600 series more as a cottage industry than a mass-manufacturer and their output didn't really ramp up in earnest until later on.
This saw quite a few types that were designed around the DB601 wither on the vine as the engines were ear-marked for the Bf109/Bf110.
Otherwise, types like the Fw187, He100 and Bf162 may have had a chance.

As far as the Jumo goes, the He100 was designed specifically for the installation of the Daimler engine and altering it to accept a Jumo211 would require an extensive and costly redesign.


----------



## swampyankee (Nov 10, 2018)

tyrodtom said:


> Transponders or accurate spy reports of where the V1's were impacting one day isn't going to help much on where to aim them the next day. The wind speed and direction changes daily, and that has a tremendous effect on a missile that spends it's entire flight time at lower altitudes.
> 
> The weather has almost no effect on a V2 however, the spy reports and transponders would help adjust their aim.
> But by late in the war most of the German agents in Britain had either been turned, or hung.


The brilliant XX program: “H! You have a choice: send the nazis what we tell you or be hanged as a spy or traitor.”


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Nov 10, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> In regards to the engine supply issue, Daimler was manufacturing their DB600 series more as a cottage industry than a mass-manufacturer and their output didn't really ramp up in earnest until later on.
> This saw quite a few types that were designed around the DB601 wither on the vine as the engines were ear-marked for the Bf109/Bf110.
> Otherwise, types like the Fw187, He100 and Bf162 may have had a chance.
> 
> As far as the Jumo goes, the He100 was designed specifically for the installation of the Daimler engine and altering it to accept a Jumo211 would require an extensive and costly redesign.



Hello GrauGeist,
I had actually never heard of the Bf 162 before. From a quick read, it does not appear to offer that much of an advantage over existing types to justify production. The FW 187 and He 100, especially the He 100 as I see it (in hindsight) had more potential a the next generation single seat fighter.
I was thinking JuMo 213 as eventually installed in FW 190D, but that engine was off in the future and Junkers had pretty severe issues in trying to increase power, Who in 1941 would have predicted the eventual success of the JuMo 213 evolution of a "Bomber Engine"?
Perhaps an engine swap would have needed a bit of redesign, but it can't be any worse than the Ki 61 going from inline to radial or the FW 190 going from radial to a DB 603 and then a JuMo.

- Ivan.


----------



## Ascent (Nov 10, 2018)

My understanding of the reporting of V1 hits was that they reported actual hits but were selective about which ones they reported.

Basically the ones that were accurate weren't reported but the ones that fell short were so the Germans gradually increased the range meaning that most overshot.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Nov 10, 2018)

Ascent said:


> My understanding of the reporting of V1 hits was that they reported actual hits but were selective about which ones they reported.
> 
> Basically the ones that were accurate weren't reported but the ones that fell short were so the Germans gradually increased the range meaning that most overshot.


That is a bit dishonest, is it allowed?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tyrodtom (Nov 10, 2018)

There's more to hitting a target than just range, there's azimuth too. 
And without accurate weather predictions, even a 150 mile flight can vary quite a bit from it's intended flight path.
But then the London metropolitan area was a pretty big target.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Nov 10, 2018)

tyrodtom said:


> There's more to hitting a target than just range, there's azimuth too.
> And without accurate weather predictions, even a 150 mile flight can vary quite a bit from it's intended flight path.
> But then the London metropolitan area was a pretty big target.


I think they were all targeted on Tower Bridge but only because it is in the centre of London.


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 10, 2018)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello GrauGeist,
> I had actually never heard of the Bf 162 before. From a quick read, it does not appear to offer that much of an advantage over existing types to justify production. The FW 187 and He 100, especially the He 100 as I see it (in hindsight) had more potential a the next generation single seat fighter.
> I was thinking JuMo 213 as eventually installed in FW 190D, but that engine was off in the future and Junkers had pretty severe issues in trying to increase power, Who in 1941 would have predicted the eventual success of the JuMo 213 evolution of a "Bomber Engine"?
> Perhaps an engine swap would have needed a bit of redesign, but it can't be any worse than the Ki 61 going from inline to radial or the FW 190 going from radial to a DB 603 and then a JuMo.
> ...


The Bf162 had potential but the Ju88 was able to use either inline or radials, whereas the Bf162 was designed around the DB600, like the Henschel Hs127 and these last two would require extensive refitting to accept a Jumo211.
The Ju88 V1 and V2's performance were impressive with the DB600, but again, the DB600 was in high demand, so V3, V4 and V5 were fitted with the Jumo211 as an alternative and the performance was acceptable.
It was later fitted with the Jumo213 and the BMW801.


----------



## wuzak (Nov 10, 2018)

tyrodtom said:


> There's more to hitting a target than just range, there's azimuth too.
> And without accurate weather predictions, even a 150 mile flight can vary quite a bit from it's intended flight path.
> But then the London metropolitan area was a pretty big target.



If their range is off and they have no way of correcting, it doesn't really matter how accurate the azimuth is.

Weather reconnaissance was something also denied the Germans, at that stage of the war, because of the British defences and the war situation for Germany demanding a greater defensive emphasis.


----------



## GregP (Nov 10, 2018)

The RLM did not like Ernst Heinkel ... it is well documented. His He 100 was not proceeded with largely because the Nazis in general, and the RLM in particular, were not fond of Ernst. He was a bit too independent and not very fond of the Nazi party, but they DID represent business. So, he did business with them. He would have preferred not to, but Germany was being run by them and, to sell in Germany at the time, meant selling to the Nazis.


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 10, 2018)

Heinkel was highly respected within the RLM and had quite a few of his types in service with the Luftwaffe (as well as the Japanese) ranging from trainers and transports to bombers...as has been stated, the high demand for the DB601 was what killed the He100.

The RLM told Heinkel that if he were to use the Jumo211 engine instead, they would be interested in the He100, but Heinkel declined because he felt it would require extensive work and would be inferior in performance.

And again, there simply weren't enough engines - none of Daimler's factories ever met the 300 engines per month goal.
Production totals for the DB600 are 2,281 units (1934 - 1937).
Production totals for the DB601x are 19,180 (1937 - 1943).

A good book that covers this is "German Aircraft Industry and Production" by Vajda & Dancey


----------



## tyrodtom (Nov 10, 2018)

wuzak said:


> If their range is off and they have no way of correcting, it doesn't really matter how accurate the azimuth is.
> 
> That can be said of either, if the azimuth is off, it doesn't matter how accurate the range is.


----------



## Ascent (Nov 11, 2018)

When I said about them reporting the short falls I meant the agents. If they reported a V1 going in where nothing had been hit and the Germans found out then they would have known their agent was compromised whereas if they just reported the ones that fell short, well they were actual hits so the Germans would know they were getting good intelligence. The fact they were only getting selective information probably wouldn't have occurred to them.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Nov 11, 2018)

Ascent said:


> When I said about them reporting the short falls I meant the agents. If they reported a V1 going in where nothing had been hit and the Germans found out then they would have known their agent was compromised whereas if they just reported the ones that fell short, well they were actual hits so the Germans would know they were getting good intelligence. The fact they were only getting selective information probably wouldn't have occurred to them.



This suggests that the dispersion along the major axis was extremely high if even after continually correcting for the targeting information that was supplied, they continued to have Buzz Bombs fall short.

- Ivan.


----------



## swampyankee (Nov 11, 2018)

Ascent said:


> When I said about them reporting the short falls I meant the agents. If they reported a V1 going in where nothing had been hit and the Germans found out then they would have known their agent was compromised whereas if they just reported the ones that fell short, well they were actual hits so the Germans would know they were getting good intelligence. The fact they were only getting selective information probably wouldn't have occurred to them.



I wonder if the Germans figured out the existence of the XX program during WW2. On the other hand, if they had, would it have made a difference? If they can't tell if an agent who is sending them information is compromised, when does information supplied get so devalued as to be worthless?

Incidentally, the Germans tried something similar, but they used their intelligence personnel to impersonate captured spies (who had been tortured and killed). Since spies used telegraphy to transmit, the people at the receiving end knew that the information was compromised as people transmitting by Morse have individual styles -- their "fist" -- which is distinguishable by a skilled operator.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Nov 11, 2018)

An Operational Research Group study figured that 86% of bombs that landed did so within 30 miles of target centre.

Average range error was 4.6 miles, average line error was 6.2 miles (Bombs landing outside a 30 mile radius weren't counted in this average).

These figures were for the ground-launched weapons at an average of 140 miles to the target -- during Phase I of the flying bomb campaign (13 June to 5 September).

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Nov 11, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> I wonder if the Germans figured out the existence of the XX program during WW2. On the other hand, if they had, would it have made a difference? If they can't tell if an agent who is sending them information is compromised, when does information supplied get so devalued as to be worthless?
> 
> Incidentally, the Germans tried something similar, but they used their intelligence personnel to impersonate captured spies (who had been tortured and killed). Since spies used telegraphy to transmit, the people at the receiving end knew that the information was compromised as people transmitting by Morse have individual styles -- their "fist" -- which is distinguishable by a skilled operator.


The Germans did do it successfully in Holland and France. Englandspiel - Wikipedia

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Nov 11, 2018)

Yes, he had many design is service. That doesn't mean they were the preferred design. It means the Nazis had a small number of aircraft firms from which to choose, and some of the more disliked firms made some very good airplanes. Credit the German procurement arm for buying from those they preferred not to when the quality of the products offered was demonstrated.

Willy Messerschmitt was virtually hated by the Nazis at first, but had dozens of design in service. Milch hated Willy.


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 11, 2018)

Germany actually had a large aircraft industry base prior to, and during, WWII

AGO
Akafleig
Arado
Argus
Bachem
BFW/Messerschmitt
Blohm & Voss
Bücker
Daimler-Benz
DFS
Dornier
Erla
Fiesler
Flettner
Focke-Achgelis
Focke-Wulf
Göppingen
Gotha
Heinkel
Henschel
Horton
Hütter
Junkers
Klemm
Lippisch
Siebel
Siemens-Schuckert
Skoda-Kauba
SNCASO
Weserflug
WNF
Zeppelin

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Nov 11, 2018)

Actually, they didn't. They had a few firms capable of large production contracts and many smaller firms. Most of the firms you list above had very few significant warplanes, and you know it.

I suppose a firm like Skoda-Kauba qualifies as an aircraft builder, but it's like saying Stavatti Aerospace here in the U.S.A. is an aircraft maker. Yes, they exist, but no, they don't have any planes in service. I'd give you Arado, Messerschmitt, Dornier, Focke-Wulf, Heinkel, and Junkers as major firms. The rest are fighting for a few crumbs of production and collectively don't amount to much in the way of war-winning aircraft. The HA 129 was decent, but not vital. Thank the stars that Blohm & Voss made ships, or they'd have starved from what was purchased and built. Yes, their big flying boats were impressive, but they amount to much overall, and didn't contribute much to the war effort, aside from a few deliveries of supplies thaht never really made a difference anywhere.

Sure, they had a few in there, but the aircraft firms in question could have been dispensed with for virtually no war impact.

Messerschmitt and Heinkel weren't popular. Heinkel was personally unpopular at the RLM and Messerschmitt was personally on the wrong side of Milch, who never wanted ANYTHING from Messerschmitt. He was overruled, fortunately for the Luftwaffe. Later on, they just treated Willy like the initial dislike of him never happened. He was wise enough to let it go. I doubt if he'd have been allowed to leave Germany alive to contribute his expertise to the Allies effort.

However, opinions vary and you may consider all the above firms to be players. The war is long over, and it doesn't matter much, so the import is minimal either way. I concede they had a decent list of firms, but think the actual players were VERY few, and Messerschmitt wasn't even initially considered as one, even when he was with Bayerische Flugzeugwerke (BFW). Before the competition, the Bf 109 was given no real chance of winning a production contract. It as only AFTER the Bf 109 proved such a good airplane that BFW was considered and awarded the win. So, the six firms above viable for major contracts shrink to five or less if you turn the clock back to 1935 and look at the political reality of the time.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 11, 2018)

If the war is long over and it doesn't matter, why are you here?

The germans had quite an aviation industry but they didn't have the intuition to move away from a cottage industry mindset. You cannot start a world war with a few thousand fighters on hand.

And many of those firms I listed, subcontracted out to primary designs, like Erla, Fiesler and others did for the Bf109. For the Fw190, there was also quite a few subcontractors, like AGO, Arado, Dornier, Mimetall and Weserflug. The French factory license-built transports and performed repairs.

The list goes on, but the Germans did nothing different than the U.S. did, by subcontracting out to aircraft smaller firms for whole aircraft, parts and compenents.

And back to Heinkel...he was most certainly held in high regard with the RLM. A vast majority of his designs were a vital part of the prewar Luftwaffe. The Japanese also held him in high regard, as they purchased his designs and aircraft and had his engineers as special advisors involved with their aircraft industry.

As far as the Ha129 comment goes...are you trying to say *Hs129*, as in the Henschel ground attack aircraft?

Bottom line, is all the manufacturers contributed to the German war effort, the majority of types don't get any press, because they were transports, liasons, trainers and so on.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Nov 11, 2018)

War is war, once the dogs of war are unleashed all bets are off. Adolf unleashed the dogs of limited military campaigns on 1st September 1939, he himself was in no way prepared for total war. Despite kicking off the conflict at a time of his choosing Adolfs military production quickly fell behind, despite controlling most of western Europe he was being out produced in many areas like fighter and bomber aircraft by the UK alone in 1940. But by 1941 he was also at war with USA and Russia.


----------



## special ed (Nov 11, 2018)

Bucker and Arado built trainers just as our minor companies such as Stearman, Ryan and Vultee built trainers. Vega built B-17s. PBYs were built by Boeing Canada, Vickers Canada, and the Naval Aircraft factory. Most of these smaller companies built other models and subcontracted assemblies, just as was done in Germany.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Gemhorse (Nov 12, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> Not sure how the Germans were too dumb to develop the He219. It was designed around an engine that was troublesome, just like several Allied designs, and had to go with an alternate. The RLM also drug their feet in it's development including inhouse politics between Milch and Kammhuber, creating critical delays.
> As it stands, the He219 was a good performing aircraft, well armed and faster than the Ju88 and Bf110 nightfighters.



I believe the He-219 was a reincarnation of an earlier aircraft, dating back to when they first began testing remotely-controlled barbettes on Bf-110's in 1938 which involved Arado, Rheinmetall-Borsig and the Deutsche Versuchsanstalt fur Luftfahrt - The tests were successful but they wanted a faster aircraft so to cut a long story short, they used the Arado Ar-240, which evolved into an A,B & C with a number of variants, trying-out all sorts of engines etc, including the one that was supposed to be for the Heinkel He-219 'Uhu' , the 1900hp DB-603G - There were 3 variants of the Ar-240's proposed to have these engines, the Ar-240C-4 reconnaissance aircraft became the Ar-440 which was proposed to be fitted with 2x 2000hp DB627A/B engines, but it was all suspended in 1943 - The amazing thing about these aircraft is the wing planform and twin-tail section are all obviously (to me, anyway,) fore-runners of the He-219 design -

My favourite aircraft is the De Havilland Mosquito, (more so now since we are restoring & building them down here), but their role as Nightfighter is my passion, the Nightfighter War my meat & grissle ~ Consequently, the Luftwaffe nightfighters are also of great interest to me and the He-219 was a highly evolved and progressive aircraft - Like most things that were great about their WW2 aircraft, it was probably too little of them, too late...

If I have one aircraft I disliked it was because it was disliked perhaps by it's own pilots & crew, and that would be the Heinkel He-177 - It was another failure of Goering/ Milch/ RLM that they didn't really put enough effort into big bombers and when they did venture at it they were pretty disastrous - Bloody good for the rest of us though !!

Cheers ~

(PS : There is supposed to be an umlaut over the 'u' in Deutsche Versuchsanstalt fur Luftfahrt , but I'm not familiar as to how to do that - I believe it indicates a 'plural ' nature to the name ~ )

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Nov 12, 2018)

I am here because I am interested in WWII aviation. I work on them every weekend. Why are YOU here?

When I say it doesn't matter much, I mean the war is over and decided. We can cuss and discuss and the war is STILL over, and the results won't change. So, I'd rather discuss and not argue these days. Hope you feel the same, at least on that point.

Yah, Hs 129, quite obviously. If you have been paying minimal attention for the last few years, you'll know I make a few typos. It shouldn't be "news" to anyone.

We'll have to agree to disagree on the German aviation industry, but that's no big thing. With the industry they had, they made some very good aircraft. Off hand I'd say they were amazing, especially considering the fact that they were being bombed for the last 2 1/2 years or so of the war.

Nothing to complain about other than the vast effort expended on prototypes that apparently were built to explore new ground rather than prosecute the war effort.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 12, 2018)

Relax...


----------



## GregP (Nov 12, 2018)

Am relaxed ...

Actually, Adler, you might be a bit interested in this ... I'm taking a sabbatical from the O-47 I was working on and helping out on the Ha.1112 Buchon. I'm working on making the front half of the port tip rib. It got damaged in "hangar rash" handling after the groundloop accident in the year 2000. It's fun to fabricate repairs that look like new when you finish, isn't it? The slat is held on by two bolts. One is a 12-point bolt and the other is an internal wrenching bolt. Both are SAE rather than metric, so I'm assuming some earlier owner retrofitted them as I expected them to be metric. We find interesting stuff every weekend on it.

The primary guys on it already moved the hydraulic pump in back of the pilot and moved the battery to the firewall to compensate. They made a new instrument panel and put new transparencies in the windscreen / canopy frame. They had to fab a new battery box and I got to help with that. Not much room actually. The systems on this the Buchon are primitive and easy to improve upon. Then again, the systems may be the result of years of "hacking" by former owners. Difficult to tell since we don't generally look up something unless we have to work on it or modify it for some reason.

In the end, we are fabricating a new lower cowling that looks MUCH more like a Bf 109G, complete with carbon fiber oil cooler scoop, than an He.1112. Can't change the location of the spinner since it still has a Merlin in it, but the lower cowling will look much better than a stock Buchon when it is flying again.


----------



## ClayO (Nov 12, 2018)

GregP said:


> I think over-rated, in this context, might be seen to mean: It is "overrated" if the cost to the government in money, people, and resources was "a lot more" than the wartime results would warrant. That is, had they known what the wartime results would eventually be, they would likely not have expended the resources to make it in the first place, or "the cost-to-benefit ratio was too high."
> 
> I believe the cost-to-benefit ratio of the V-1 was too high, along with same for the V-2, Me 163, Me 262, Me 264, and at least the Tiger tank. The Germans would have been better off concentrating on the Fw 190 series and making actual improvements to the Bf 109 family than what really happened (V-2, Me163, Me 262, Me 264, Hs 132, Tiger tank, etc.). They literally pissed away major portions of scarce resources on projects that contributed NOTHING to the war effort, and didn't even seem to THINK about logistics on the Russian Front and other places. They also never had strategic bombing airframes at all. The closest they came was the Me 264 and He 277, and they dropped Me 264 after making viable airframes. Had they built the He 277 instead of the He 177, they might again have had a viable strategic bomber.



This is where we get into the comparison of the airplane vs. the weapon. For instance, the Me 262 was a ground-breaking airplane, a far better bomber destroyer than any other German airplane; but without high-temperature metals for the engines, an effective pilot training program, enough pilots to train, and a clear purpose from the start of the development cycle, it was doomed to never live up to its potential.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## spicmart (Sep 18, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello GrauGeist,
> I had actually never heard of the Bf 162 before. From a quick read, it does not appear to offer that much of an advantage over existing types to justify production. The FW 187 and He 100, especially the He 100 as I see it (in hindsight) had more potential a the next generation single seat fighter.
> I was thinking JuMo 213 as eventually installed in FW 190D, but that engine was off in the future and Junkers had pretty severe issues in trying to increase power, Who in 1941 would have predicted the eventual success of the JuMo 213 evolution of a "Bomber Engine"?
> Perhaps an engine swap would have needed a bit of redesign, but it can't be any worse than the Ki 61 going from inline to radial or the FW 190 going from radial to a DB 603 and then a JuMo.
> ...



Why do you think that the He 100 had more development potential than a Me 109? The airframe was even smaller, the same dimensions as the Yak-3. Every upgrade would have taken more modifications than the Me 109. 
And installing a Jumo 213 into a He 100 would not have been possible as this engine was too big and too heavy even for the Me 109.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Sep 18, 2019)

spicmart said:


> Why do you think that the He 100 had more development potential than a Me 109? The airframe was even smaller, the same dimensions as the Yak-3. Every upgrade would have taken more modifications than the Me 109.
> And installing a Jumo 213 into a He 100 would not have been possible as this engine was too big and too heavy even for the Me 109.



Hello Spicmart,

The service capable versions of the He 100 were about 35 MPH faster than the contemporary Me 109 and carried similar or heavier armament. (It tended to vary with each version.)
With better aerodynamics, not only is level speed greater, but range and ceiling were also better than the contemporary Me 109.

The aircraft had a wide track landing gear which didn't have the geometry problems inherent in the splayed gear of the 109. This hopefull would have reduced the number of landing accidents.
The He 100 was definitely smaller in overall dimensions, but seemed to have quite a lot of adaptability with the various sizes of wings, engines and cooling systems that were used for speed records and for service models.
Engines could have gone the same route as they did for the Me 109 with the DB 605 series.

The bottom line as I see it is that the Me 109, especially before the 109F was not a very aerodynamic design and there were some issues such as its maneuverability at high speed that were never corrected even on later versions. The He 100 had a lot more performance with no more engine power than the 109E and seems like it offered more potential for development. Other folks also managed to do more with the same power. Just do a quick comparison between the Me 109E, Kawasaki Ki 61-I and Macchi C.202. All fly with near equivalent engines generating about the same output. The 109E is slower by 15-20 MPH.

- Ivan.


----------



## BiffF15 (Sep 18, 2019)

GregP said:


> For me it is the Ta 152. The performance was excellent for a last-gen piston fighter, but not anything better than on par with all the last-gen Allied piston fighters. It was VERY good compared with the 1943 - 1944 fighter list, but so were ALL the last-gen pistons like the P-51H, P-47M/N, Tempest, Spitfire 21, Hornet, F8F-2 Bearcat, F7F Tigercat, and perhaps slipping in the Lavochkin La-9.
> 
> The Ta-152 has the distinction of being the best German piston fighter, to be sure (can't take that away from it), but was built in numbers too few to be of any wartime impact. It ALMOST made the war in decent numbers, but it was known as the Fw 190D-9 at the time, not as a Ta-152.
> 
> ...



Greg,

The inline Fw-190 are my favorites as well! I also think there was a good chance that more were not made due to political sway by a competing aircraft manufacturer...

I also like your highlighted comment above. However it wasn’t hard to deploy Luftwaffe fighters in late war Germany, just have to roll them outside the factory door... 😉

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 18, 2019)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Perhaps an engine swap would have needed a bit of redesign, but it can't be any worse than the Ki 61 going from inline to radial or the FW 190 going from radial to a DB 603 and then a JuMo.



On the He 100 the upper cowl was actually the engine mount. It might have been possible to redesign the airplane to use the Jumo engine with less work than converting the Ki 61 to the radial but it wasn't going to be trivial either.

The He 100 also used the surface radiator system. We can argue for weeks about if it was steam or hot water or what but 






even if this is not strictly accurate there was a large area of airframe that was part of the cooling system/s (fuselage and vertical fin were part of the oil cooling system) 
Which means it was rather vulnerable to gun fire. The fuel tanks were in the wings, and not really in the wing roots. That space was occupied by the single MG 17 on each side. 
Since these were pre-war aircraft there is little evidence that armor or self sealing tanks were ever fitted. Large flat tanks tend to be heavy for their capacity (and loss capacity quicker) than thicker tanks when self sealing is used. 
Most of the later He 100s were supposed to be fitted with a 20mm MG/FF through the prop hub. How many were actually fitted is subject to question but more importantly we have no information on how well they worked. Messerschmitt was not able to get a through the hub gun to work until the 109F in the fall of 1940. Can Heinkel do better with the same engine and gun? 
Assuming the gun works (at least an acceptable amount of the time) you had a single 20mm gun with 60 rounds of ammo and the two machine guns, (500rpg?) Which means a lot less armoment than a 109E. About the same as a 109F-0, let;s assume that the HE 100 would have received the MG 151 at the same time the 109F did. The 109Fs were not well armed aircraft with any of the cannon options, at least 3 gun versions.
There was a proposed He 100 with a slightly bigger wing which was supposed to take two MG 17s on each side in the wing root. Construction may have started but I don't know if it ever flew. 
The He 100 may have been wide track with all the advantages that implies, however there are a few disadvantages. 
Like no space for a centerline store (bomb or drop tank) which means, unless you go for the hardpoint/store under each wing (and the drag) range is limited to internal fuel.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 18, 2019)

BiffF15 said:


> *However it wasn’t hard to deploy Luftwaffe fighters in late war Germany, just have to roll them outside the factory door..*. 😉

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Sep 18, 2019)

Hello Shortround6,

I actually hadn't suggested the idea of a JuMo 213 in the He 100, but as you say, just about anything is possible with enough work.
The version of He 100 that I was thinking of didn't use evaporative cooling any more. It had a retractable radiator of more conventional configuration. I don't have a book handy, Wikipedia calls this version He 100D-1 and they eventually served in the factory defense role at Heinkel.
There is also mention of the space between the wings being widened for the radiator. Depending on location, perhaps this would also allow for a centerline ordnance rack.
Performance was quite a lot less than D-0 at ONLY 390 MPH or so which is why I was claiming only about a 35 MPH advantage over the Me 109E.

As I see it, all of these aircraft were just prototypes and perhaps a little stretch for equipment required for operations may have degraded performance a bit, but the design looked like a pretty good place to start.

- Ivan.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 18, 2019)

There is a fair amount of disagreement on the cooling system and/or radiators on the last planes. (the D-1?) 

Some sources say the under fuselage radiator replaced the surface cooling system, others say it supplemented it. 





That is a might small radiator for an 1100hp class engine and while it is retractable the basic streamlining sucks. One also wonders where the oil cooler is. No, the small inlet under and behind the prop spinner isn't it. 

I do have the book "Heinkel He 100 Record Breaker"




and it sides with the retractable radiator being a supplement camp.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 18, 2019)

If memory serves right, the oil cooling system was similar to the water cooling system - thus, no large oil cooler as in conventional types.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 18, 2019)

The oil "cooler" was suspended in a tank of alcohol behind the pilot's seat and the alcohol was circulated under the skin panels of the fuselage top deck behind the cockpit and the vertical fin, some sources the horizontal stabilizer too (?) 

If the Jumo 211 had different cooling requirements than the DB601 (even leaving aside the whole steam condenser thing) like the Merlin and Allison need different radiators and oil coolers, then redesigning the plane becomes a lot more difficult as so much of the design and structure had been to integrate the cooling systems as much as possible into the airframe.


----------



## GrauGeist (Sep 19, 2019)

As much as I love the He100 (I really do), I don't see it as a practical combat platform.

Extremely high maintenance and extremely vulnerable in a battlefield environment (not to mention it's weak landing gear issues that were never resolved), it's negatives far outweigh it's pluses.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (Sep 19, 2019)

Hello Shortround6, GrauGeist,

Thanks for the additional details.
I wonder if a more practical design based on He 100 would have ended up with features and performance similar to Ki 61....

- Ivan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------

