# The Best Fw-190 Variant...?



## cheddar cheese (Feb 17, 2005)

What do you think the best 190 variant is?


----------



## Napier Sabre (Feb 17, 2005)

In terms of looks or performance?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 17, 2005)

Performance  We done the thread on looks a while back...


----------



## plan_D (Feb 17, 2005)

D-9 for dogfighting, A-8/R-8 for bomber destroying.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 17, 2005)

FW-190 G-3, best german Figther-bomber.

2 x 300l droptanks

1 x AB 500 small arms dispenser.

2x Mauser Mg-151/20 with 200 rounds

Range circa 1200 km

What more do you need...?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 17, 2005)

Ill be going for the F-8 8)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 17, 2005)

All around the Fw-190D-9! She was the prettiest of the 190's and had great performance.

Type: Fighter Fighter/Bomber
Origin: Focke-Wulf Flugzeugbau Gmbh.
Models: D series
First Flight: Late 1942
Final Delivery: N/A

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engine: 
Model: Junkers Jumo 213A-1
Type: Water-Cooled Inverted V12 Number: One
Horsepower: 1,776 hp (2,240 hp Emergency Boost)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dimensions: 
Wing span: 34 ft. 5½ in. (10.50m)
Wing Surface Area: 196.99 Sq. Ft. (18.30m²)
Length: 33 ft. 5¼ in. (10.2m)
Height: 11 ft. 0¼ in. (3.35m)

Weights: 
Empty: 3,500 kg (7,720 lbs.)
Loaded: 4,840 kg (10,670 lbs.)
Performance: 
Maximum Speed: 440mph (704km/h)
Cruise Speed: N/A
Range: 560 miles (900km)
Initial Climb: 3,300 ft. (1000m) Per Minute
Endurance: N/A
Service Ceiling: 32,810 ft. (10,000m)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Armament: 
Two 13mm MG 131 above engine
Two 20mm MG 151/20 in wing roots

Bomb Load: 
One 1,100 lb. (500 kg) bomb on centerline.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments: 
The Dora 9 went into production in the Autumn of 1944. The mating of a bomber engine to a fighter airframe resulted in an extremely fast aircraft. Later the D-models were redesignated the Ta 152.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 17, 2005)

> the Fw-190D-9! She was the prettiest



as soon as i read that i didn't even bother reading the rest of that post...........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 17, 2005)

Dont tell me you think the A looks better? If you say that you are on crack!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 17, 2005)

you weren't here for that disscussion then?? yes the A was better looking..........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 17, 2005)

Actually I was here for it but you are not in your right mind the A was not as sleek looking and was more menacing looking, however the Dora was just beautfiful you are out of your mind! It also had better performance.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 17, 2005)

performance wise yes the D was better but in no way was the D better looking than the A...............


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 17, 2005)

Sorry my friend yes the D was better looking! But this can go on forever, believe what you may and to each there own.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 17, 2005)

you're only saying that because you know you're wrong........


----------



## Soren (Feb 17, 2005)

No one can be wrong about 'looks', as "Beauty is in the Eye of the Beholder"


----------



## Erich (Feb 17, 2005)

geez not again guys !!!  

the A-8 version was the heavy hitter against bombers, the Dora was used in interceptor work with P-51's and a stop gap till the Ta 152 could fill the ranks which never happened we know

▼


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 17, 2005)

Soren said:


> No one can be wrong about 'looks', as "Beauty is in the Eye of the Beholder"



Of course people can be wrong about looks  The poll _clearly_ showed that peeople prefer the D's sleek, beautiful styling to the A's Short, stubby styling  (Actually no, thats cruel to the A, it did look very good, just not as good as the D)

Anyway, lets get back off the subject of looks and on to the subject in hand


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 17, 2005)

Dont take me wrong, I think the A looked great but the Dora was just beautiful. And yes the Dora was a better aircraft too. As Erich said they were used for 2 different roles also, but the Dora was the better all around aircraft and yes Lanc looked better!


----------



## KraziKanuK (Feb 17, 2005)

The Dora 9 better than an A-9?


----------



## Soren (Feb 17, 2005)

Aaahh !! the A-9, that is one good looking plane !! Still like the Dora 9 better though !


----------



## Erich (Feb 17, 2005)

yes it was better than the A-9. althought the A-9 had more engine power than the A-8 and reduced armament mostly to lighten the load to intercept P-51's it still had problems maintaing consistant altitidue performance..........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 17, 2005)

You have to remember that the Dora was a more advanced version of the A series, so naturally it is better. As Erich has posted before though, the Dora was only an interem solution until the Ta-152 was ready. The Dora did see more combat though than the Ta-152.

And sorry Lanc the Dora is still better looking then the A.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 17, 2005)

Skins for the Dora´s fans:

Hans Rudel D-9








FW 190 D-9 W.Nr 500 666 'Yellow 15 + ' of 7./J.G. 301, Straubing, Germany, April 1945






FW 190 D-9 W.Nr 600 424 'Red 1 + ' of Lt. Heinz Sachsenberg, Staffelkapitän of the Platzschutzstaffel of J.V. 44, München-Riem, Germany, April 1945


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 17, 2005)

Allied Test of P-47D-4 against captured Fw-190 A-4


----------



## evangilder (Feb 17, 2005)

Great stuff, CB! Thanks for that!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 18, 2005)

Yeah great finds! 8)

Ive never liked the JV 44 Doras with the red identification stripes though, they look ridiculous


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 18, 2005)

> And sorry Lanc the Dora is still better looking then the A.



no it isn't...........


----------



## Nonskimmer (Feb 18, 2005)

You tell 'em, lanc!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 18, 2005)

yey you agree!!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 18, 2005)

Either that or he's humouring you


----------



## Nonskimmer (Feb 18, 2005)

I would never do that!  
I happen to agree with him...this time. :-"


----------



## Soren (Feb 18, 2005)

8)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 18, 2005)

Go hang your head in shame NS, youve shamed me.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Feb 18, 2005)

Never! I hold my head high, as I strut proudly through the throngs of people, shouting "I think the A looks better!!".


But the D looks ok too.


----------



## Soren (Feb 18, 2005)

To me the Dora 9 looks better !


----------



## evangilder (Feb 18, 2005)

I like teh A better as well. But I like radials!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 19, 2005)

Ok guys, you wana discuss looks do so here...

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=616



This thread is for the performance side of things...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 19, 2005)

i'm not saying it was the best just asking a question, was it the F that was developed to carry a torpedo??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 19, 2005)

No I think that was a version of the A-8 or A-9, cant remember...I think the F was developed as more of a focused dive-bomber than the A...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Feb 19, 2005)

ok thanks...............


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 19, 2005)

I like the F...all that armour


----------



## KraziKanuK (Feb 19, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> No I think that was a version of the A-8 or A-9, cant remember...I think the F was developed as more of a focused dive-bomber than the A...



A-5/U14 was the first to try a torp. This was Wk.N. 871, TD+SI.

The designations F-8/R14 and F-16/R14 were the Fs that could carry a torp.

None were used operationally.

Dive bomber? Not in the same sense as a Ju 87.

Would you call a Spit IX a dive bomber since it dived at a 60* angle?

edit: corrected spelling


----------



## cheddar cheese (Feb 19, 2005)

Yeah sorry I didnt mean dive bomber...Ground Attack...


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 25, 2005)

A collection of FW-190A-6/7/8 gumcameras, attacking figthers and Bombers.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 6, 2005)

Performance wise the Dora would outfly a A. The A-9 however had the largest punch I believe.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Mar 6, 2005)

yes and looked far better...........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 6, 2005)

Dude you wanna go into looks go find the thread that discusses it...keep it outta here


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 7, 2005)

The Dora was much better then the A here is some statistical things about it (though stats dont tell everything)

Type: Fighter Fighter/Bomber
Origin: Focke-Wulf Flugzeugbau Gmbh.
Models: D series
First Flight: Late 1942
Final Delivery: N/A

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engine: 
Model: Junkers Jumo 213A-1
Type: Water-Cooled Inverted V12 Number: One
Horsepower: 1,776 hp (2,240 hp Emergency Boost)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dimensions: 
Wing span: 34 ft. 5½ in. (10.50m)
Wing Surface Area: 196.99 Sq. Ft. (18.30m²)
Length: 33 ft. 5¼ in. (10.2m)
Height: 11 ft. 0¼ in. (3.35m)

Weights: 
Empty: 3,500 kg (7,720 lbs.)
Loaded: 4,840 kg (10,670 lbs.)
Performance: 
Maximum Speed: 440mph (704km/h)
Cruise Speed: N/A
Range: 560 miles (900km)
Initial Climb: 3,300 ft. (1000m) Per Minute
Endurance: N/A
Service Ceiling: 32,810 ft. (10,000m)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Armament: 
Two 13mm MG 131 above engine
Two 20mm MG 151/20 in wing roots

Bomb Load: 
One 1,100 lb. (500 kg) bomb on centerline.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments: 
The Dora 9 went into production in the Autumn of 1944. The mating of a bomber engine to a fighter airframe resulted in an extremely fast aircraft. Later the D-models were redesignated the Ta 152. 


Type: Ground Attack/close support fighter-bomber
Origin: Focke Wulf
First Flight:
Fw 190V1: June 1, 1939
Production Fw 190A-1: September 1940
Fw 190A-8/U11: January 23, 1944
Service Delivery:
Fw 190A-3: Autumn, 1941
Fw 190A-4: Summer, 1942
Fw 190A-5: Early 1943
Fw 190A-6: June 1943
Fw 190A-7: December 1943
Production: N/A (20,000+ for all Types)
SNCAC (France) built 64 Fw 190A-8s as the NC.900 in 1945.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engine:
Fw 190A-1:
Model: BMW 801C-1
Type: 14-cylinder air cooled, twin-row radial
Number: One Horsepower: 1,660 hp

Fw 190A-3:
Model: BMW 801Dg
Type: 14-cylinder air cooled, twin-row radial
Number: One Horsepower: 1,800 hp

Fw 190A-4 Fw 190A-8/F-8:
Model: BMW 801D-2
Type: 14-cylinder air cooled, twin-row radial
Number: One Horsepower: 1,730 hp at take-off*
*With MW50 water/Methanol injection could produce
2,100 hp for short periods.

Propeller Unit:
Fw 190A-8/F-8:
Type: VDM 9-12176A three blade, constant speed
Diameter: 3,300mm (10 ft. 11¾ in.)

Fuel: Fw 190A-8/F-8 
Capacity: 140 U.S. Gallons (530 liters)
Type: N/A

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dimensions:
Wing span: 10.5m (34 ft. 5½ in.)
Wing Surface Area: 18.3 sq. m (197 sq. ft.)
Length: 9.00m (29 ft. 6 in.)
Height: 3.96m (13ft.)
Stabilizer Span: 3,650mm (11 ft. 11¾ in.)
Wheel Track: 3,500mm (11 ft. 5¾ in.)
Weights: 
Empty: 3,060kg (6,750 lbs.)
Gross: 4,865kg (10,725 lbs.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Performance: 
Maximum Speed:
Fw 190A-4: 416 mph at 21,000 ft (With MW50)
Fw 190A-8/F-8: 400 mph at 22,000 ft
Range (Maximum Fuel): 1,370km (850 miles)
Range (Maximum Bomb Load): 610km (380 miles)
Climb to altitude: 9.35 Minutes to 6,100m (20,000 ft.)
Endurance:
2 Hours at 2,000m (6,500 ft.) at 280 mph (450 km/h)
Service Ceiling: 10,360m (34,000 ft.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Armament: 
Fw 190A-1:
Four 7.92mm MG 17 machine guns.

Fw 190A-2:
Two 7.92mm MG 17 machine guns above engine.
Two 20mm MG/FF cannon mounted in wing root.
Optional:
Two 7.92mm MG 17 machine guns in outer wings.

Fw 190A-3:
Two 7.92mm MG 17 machine guns above engine.
Two 20mm Mg 151/20 cannon mounted in wing root.
Two 20mm MG/FF cannon in outer wings.

Fw 190A-4/R6:
Two 20mm Mg 151/20 cannon mounted in wing root.
Two 210-mm WGr.21 rocket tubes

Fw 190A-8/F-8:
Two 20mm Mg 151/20 wing mounted cannon.
Two 13mm Mg 131 fuselage mounted machine guns.

Avionics:
Fw 190A-1:
FuG 7a radio


----------



## Erich (Mar 7, 2005)

The A-9 had the most engine power of the A series, but usually had a reduced armament to take on the P-51. The standard A-8 model till war's end had 4 2cm's in the wings and the heavier Sturm having the most punch with the outer 2cm replaced by the Mk 108 3cm cannon.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Mar 7, 2005)

Until the operational entrance of the Me-110 as the first standard night fighter of the Luftwaffe, different versions from powerfuls FW 190 were used in experimental form to evaluate the operation of the new radar of the FuG series.



Even some Me-109 they were provided with such radars like experimentation versions, like Me 109 G-6/N and Me 109 G-6/Y, used in the IV/NJG2 that took the FuG 350 "Naxos Z” radar.

The versions of FW 190 used as experimental night fighters were the A6, A7, A8 and F; the type of radar used (also the types and location of the Letzler antennas) were FuG 216, FuG 217 and FuG 218. The successes obtained by Me-110 (and later by the Heinkel 219 and the Me-262 B1A/U1) took to the cancellation of the FW 190 night fighter program, although given the necessities, some squadrons continued operating until the end of the war. But by mainly, it must consider that the different versions of Fw 190 were desperately required like diurnal versions than more nocturnal, since they was used not only like bomber interceptor, but for a great variety of other missions. 


It was perhaps by that reason that, from half of 1943, was introduced a new night aerial battle tactics: the Wilde Sau or . This strategy created by the bomber pilot Hajo Hermann consisted of which, day fighters turned nocturnal by the addition of radars, were guided at night towards the enemy formation with the help of ground radars. Once produced the interception, each one of the hunters had free election of their prey.
The purely evaluative nature of the NJG 10 explains the differences between the airplanes of the same unit respect to camouflages, radar types, location and types of antennas and until the strategy of attack used. On the matter, one thinks that the Fw 190 A6/R11 WN 550148 "white 11" was of the first night fighters being used successfully in this type of missions.







The emblem of the squadron consisted of a wild boar head (Wilde Sau) with the abbreviation "Jllo", abbreviation of Jägerleitoffiziere (Fighter Control Officer). According to the information that I could find, it seems that this badge was initially the personal emblem of one aircraft commander of the NJG 10, being later adopted like standard identification insignia of all the squadron.

The historical importance of NJG 10 was not given by the successes achieved in combat; non figure in annals of the Nachtjagd like outstanding as far as the number of kills, simply because its function was not to participate openly in combat but to evaluate the different tactics from night fighter that would be carried out by the remaining constituted fighter units for such aim. It is highly probable that these units have benefitted from the tactics contributed by NJG 10.

The cockpit, in wich the ammo counter is replaced with radar screen.






What was of the "white 11"? I could not find references about the final destiny of the airplane nor its pilot, Oberleutnant H.F. Kraus. A very spread photo shows him arming a cigarette in the horizontal stabilizer of its "white 11" in Werneuchen 






The certain thing was that the moral impact that produced in the allies the introduction of the new techniques of German night fighter was so great that they made very popular the emblem of NJG 10, to the point that, even at the present time, some North American squadrons and English electronic war uses the figure of a wild boar like emblem... Volunteer or not, a doubtless tribute to the NJG 10 men.


----------



## Erich (Mar 7, 2005)

CB, much of the information you have copied and pasted is old news and quite incorrect. I'll make an attempt to enlighten everyone very soon. some of the materails we have gotten straightened out in our forthcoming volumes: "Moskito-jagd über Deutschland".

Fritz Krause is still alive by the way......the pilot flying Weiße 11 for a very short term in the summer of 44, when 1./NJGr 10 did away with their Fw 190A's for the Bf 109G-6/AS. the Fw's were dumped to training schulen and the 109G-6/AS was able to achieve the necessary altitudes necessary to combat RAF heavy bombers, and even the Moskito.

The white background is from NJGr10 by the Wilde Sau label motif came from JG 300 which formed the cadre initially of NJG r 10 at least the single enigne fighter contingent. More on this in the first volume of JG 300 due to be released in two months or so.

Just so you and everyone is aware I have had close contact with nf vets for some 40 years with special emphasis on the single seat night actions; reason to finally put text/data to pen.

v/r

E ~


----------



## KraziKanuK (Mar 7, 2005)

Erich,

do you know the total NF score for each > Me110 and Ju88?

thanks


----------



## Erich (Mar 7, 2005)

KK since there is no official history of any of the NJG it is impossible to tell. A small book privately published on NJG 6 was done but still incomplete. in fact there was an English book just recently done on German night fighter claims but it is a dog with many gaps. Dr. Theo Boiten will produce his in 2006 so that is a must have and then we will get at least some good idea of just what a/c scored what..........

E ~


----------



## KraziKanuK (Mar 7, 2005)

Thanks Erich.

Can I ask then, which to the best of your knowledge, which was the most successful?

Another question, do you know if any Fw190F-16s were built?


----------



## Erich (Mar 7, 2005)

The Bf 110 probably had the most kills with the Ju 88 second. Overall the nachtjagd gruppen changed over to the Ju 88G-6 by march-april of 45 although some gruppen had both a/c even in the same staffel. NJG 1 stayed with the Bf 110G-4 almost entirely for the whole war, except for I./NJG 1 which was the unit to use the He 219 operationaly with limited success.

Fw 190F-16 ? not familiar with it. The F-8 and the lesser F-9's were used for the ground attack role somewhat replaced by the G variant for ground attack work on the Ost front.

E ~


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 8, 2005)

The Bf-110 and the Ju-88 were obviously better suited for night fighter duties then a Fw-190. I tried to do a search and find some info on it in several of my books and you are correct it is hard to find anything on total kills by night fighters. I did find numbers of individual kills but one can not go off of that.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Mar 8, 2005)

Erich said:


> Fw 190F-16 ? not familiar with it. The F-8 and the lesser F-9's were used for the ground attack role somewhat replaced by the G variant for ground attack work on the Ost front.
> 
> E ~



Thanks again Erich.

The F-16 was supposed to be have been produced from Dec 44, at least according to someone from the _White 1 Foundation_. I have only seen it as as possible production a/c beginning in March 45.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 8, 2005)

Never really heard of it.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Mar 8, 2005)

Erich wrote.



> CB, much of the information you have copied and pasted is old news and quite incorrect. I'll make an attempt to enlighten everyone very soon. some of the materails we have gotten straightened out in our forthcoming volumes: "Moskito-jagd über Deutschland".



I am starting to burn some books here


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 8, 2005)

Lets have a party.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 8, 2005)

Burning books? Reminds me of a certain political party


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 8, 2005)

Erich said:


> KK since there is no official history of any of the NJG it is impossible to tell. A small book privately published on NJG 6 was done but still incomplete. in fact there was an English book just recently done on German night fighter claims but it is a dog with many gaps. Dr. Theo Boiten will produce his in 2006 so that is a must have and then we will get at least some good idea of just what a/c scored what..........
> 
> E ~



As you said there is no official history of it but from what I have found so far there were but if you go to this website you can read up on some of the night fighter pilots http://www.luftwaffe.cz/nacht.html

Now the authenticity of this I am not sure of.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Apr 5, 2005)

A very rare clip, FW-190 attacking allied ground units in the western front.

Lunatic if you see this, look at the 20mm tracers, it left a big smoke trail behind, almost like a rocket, that is what I am saying about the FW-190 from the other video, seem no using 20mm ammo at all.


To run the video you will need Quicktime player or the latest Windows Media.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 5, 2005)

Very interesting!


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 6, 2005)

Nice 8)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 7, 2005)

Yeah good stuff!


----------



## Erich (Apr 7, 2005)

Adler did you note on Petr's site that a funny guy named Erich helped with it ? ....  

by the way the night ace Kurt Welter's bio is all mucked up. We have the straight poop on this stealth fellow for Moskito-jagd buch, and in fact I could probably write a bio on each one of the night aces if I had time.............but I do not. Paul Zorner and Heinz Rökker two of the leading night personalities are friends of mine

Pauke pauke


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 7, 2005)

Yeah actually I saw that.


----------



## Erich (Apr 7, 2005)

maybe of interest to some but for Martin Tino Becker I know his Bordfünker Karl Johanssen who is also a Ritterkreuz winner. Karl was able to give me precise details about the 9 kills they had on one March 45 eve where Karl shot down 3 RAF bombers with his single mg 131 in their Ju 88G-6. Interesting story which I shared with Petr so that he may put some biref notes on his site under Tino's bio. Incidently I have the full story on the B-17 crew that was lost on that night. the German crew also had a radio fire while they were in the middle of the RAF "heavies-bomber stream"


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 7, 2005)

Oh hey Erich sorry but I did not make it there last weekend, I have not forgotten though about your cousin and I am still going to check it out.


----------



## Erich (Apr 7, 2005)

no problemo, just go with your woman on a nice clear day and have plenty of wine and food and enjoy the mini-trip. wish we could be there as you explore. Maybe by 2009 ............


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 8, 2005)

CharlesBronson said:


> A very rare clip, FW-190 attacking allied ground units in the western front.
> 
> Lunatic if you see this, look at the 20mm tracers, it left a big smoke trail behind, almost like a rocket, that is what I am saying about the FW-190 from the other video, seem no using 20mm ammo at all.



Perhaps. Alternatively it was simply not using tracers many pilots chose to load only the mine ammo in the MG151/20, it made the gun more reliable and the tracer ballistics was very different from the mine round ballistics anyway.

The Germans were also known to use a wide variety of tracers throughout the war. Just because these make a lot of smoke does not mean all 20mm tracers did.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## reddragon (Apr 9, 2005)

Does the Ta-152 count as a variant? If so, I'd have to pick it.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 9, 2005)

i wouldn't call the Ta-152 a -190, it's a member of the same family, but it's not a varient of the -190..........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 9, 2005)

Yep. 190 variants are those such as the A, D, F, G etc...


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 9, 2005)

there was a G??


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 9, 2005)

Long range ground attack, I think. I think there was also a B and a C but im not sure on that, or what they were supposed to do.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 9, 2005)

i've heard of the C............


----------



## reddragon (Apr 9, 2005)

Well, I'll go with the 190D-12 with the Junkers Jumo 213 engine, then, although I still prefer the Ta 152.


----------



## Erich (Apr 9, 2005)

no D-12's operational myabe you mean a D-11 or a D-13 ?

my vote for Sturmbock A-8/R8


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 9, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Dont take me wrong, I think the A looked great but the Dora was just beautiful. And yes the Dora was a better aircraft too. As Erich said they were used for 2 different roles also, but the Dora was the better all around aircraft and yes Lanc looked better!



The Dora9 was faster, but I think the A6 was the best turning of the 190's. The A's also rolled better than the Dora or TA.

As for looks, that's just a matter of personal taste. I have a model of a 190A4 that I think looks awsome 8)

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Nonskimmer (Apr 9, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> As for looks, that's just a matter of personal taste. I have a model of a 190A4 that I think looks awsome 8)
> 
> =S=
> 
> Lunatic


For the second time today, I quite agree with RG!


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 9, 2005)

Nonskimmer said:


> RG_Lunatic said:
> 
> 
> > As for looks, that's just a matter of personal taste. I have a model of a 190A4 that I think looks awsome 8)
> ...



It's painted (as close as I could get) in a pattern they used to hide them under trees, a skyblue cover coat with a forest green pattern on top.


----------



## Soren (Apr 9, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
> 
> 
> > Dont take me wrong, I think the A looked great but the Dora was just beautiful. And yes the Dora was a better aircraft too. As Erich said they were used for 2 different roles also, but the Dora was the better all around aircraft and yes Lanc looked better!
> ...



RG, the "Dora" was the tightest turning FW-190, and this is a commonly known fact for those who have studied the plane or read detailed books about it.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 9, 2005)

Soren said:


> RG_Lunatic said:
> 
> 
> > DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
> ...



Hmmm... I've never actually read that. I've read comparisons of its performance to contemporary Allied fighters, all very sketchy on actual details. But I've yet to see a single source that actually says that the Dora was able to turn tighter than the Anton. It was faster and able to pull itself through a high speed turn better, but that is a different thing.

Care to give a specific source?

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Udet (Apr 9, 2005)

To elaborate a bit further on Soren´s last comment:

I have read thoroughly on most fighters of WWII, however it was not until i had a series of informal conversations with people with vast knowledge that i got enlightened on the following -meaning what i am going to comment here is not on any book i´d put my hands on so far-:

It was Kurt Tank´s creation, the Fw 190s, beginning with the A series, followed by the D version "Long Nose", ending with the Ta152s, that made the most brilliant line of evolution observed on any fighter which saw service in world war II, of any combatant nation.

The A´s had excellent medium and low altitude performance, having a not so wonderful high altitude performance. A radial engine and powerful cannon armament were other features.

The D and the final sample of the evolution in Tanks work, the Ta 152, while not having radial engines, had superior high altitude performance, and superb low altitude performance -proved by the records of the boys of JG301, who dealt with the dreaded Yaks accordingly-.

Of all other fighters which saw service, you name them, Spitfire, Bf109, P-51, P-47, Yaks, La´s, etc., no one had such a clear ascending line on most aspects like the Fw190s gained. 

Yes, most fighters became faster and heavily armed, but saw their manouvering affected to one degree or another (Spitfire, Bf109, P-47). Not the case with Kurt Tank´s work: his Fw190 chain of evolution not only became faster -faster than most enemy fighters-, they also became easier to handle for rookie pilots, extremely manouverable, in other words: they were going ahead.

It was kind of a consistent opinion to see even the latest P-47 versions of the war at serious disadvantage had the war been protracted and more 190Ds and Ta152s had become available for the jagdwaffe.

After hearing such opinions, i realized it is coherent with what i ve read. 

Therefore it is impossible for me to tell which Fw190 version was better. 

Like no other plane of the war, the Fw190s were simply seeing its line of evolution improving and improving, that is, rising on the chart like no other plane, friend or foe alike.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 10, 2005)

The F4U Corsair started good and got better with each evolution. So did the P-51, ending with the H model which was probably the single best high performance prop fighter developed in WWII. Likewise, the P-47 went through improvment after improvement, ending with the M and N models which were superb.

The Dora and Ta lines however, were somewhat compromized. For a variety of reasons, Tank's options were limited - he had to use the 190A as a basis of his design. This resulted in a less than optimal cooling system design for the Jumo engine.

Despite all the German hype of the Dora9, I've never seen any sign that Allied pilots were much aware of it. They had heard of the long nose FW, but that's about it. It is hard to know how competative it really was given all the late war German propoganda and Tank's self promotions.

And the idea that the Dora9 could out-turn the Anton seems outright silly. The higher weight and same wings, and the longer rear fuselage with no significant increase in elevator area implies a reduced rate of turn. It seems more likely it was able to out turn the Anton at high speeds, where the increase in leverage would be more important than the actual maximum rate of rotation about the horizontal axis.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## KraziKanuK (Apr 10, 2005)

You need to expand your reading RG.

Many Allied pilots have commented on that the only late war a/c that gave them any real trouble was the Dora. It is a wonder that any have heard of the Spit XIV since there was less than 1/2 the war time number (~750) produced than for the Dora(~1800).

What was not so optimal aboutf the Dora's coolant system?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 10, 2005)

Everything I have read confirms what Udet is saying about the evolution of the Fw-190 culminating in the Ta-152. I am not convinced that the P-51H was the greatest high alltitude aircraft produced in WW2 because it did not match up against a Ta-152H. The Dora was a magnificent aircraft and so was the Ta-152. Everything I have read about it says so and everything about the 152 leads to saying that it was the best high alltitude fighter to hit service during WW2.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 10, 2005)

As for the G that someone asking about earlier. Here is some info on it and other varients. Most of these below never made it into production or service.

Fw 190G-0 Pre-production Jabo 
Fw 190G-1 Jabo with Junkers bomb-rack 
Fw 190G-1/Trop Tropicalised Jabo 
Fw 190G-2 Jabo with Messerschmitt bomb-rack 
Fw 190G-2/Trop Tropicalised Jabo 
Fw 190G-2/N Nacht Jabo 
Fw 190G-3 Jabo with Focke-Wulf bomb-rack 
Fw 190G-3/Trop Tropicalised Jabo 
Fw 190G-3/R5 4 Fragmentation bombs carried under wings 
Fw 190G-3/N Nacht Jabo 
Fw 190G-4 Jabo with 3 ETC 503 bomb-racks 
Fw 190G-4/Trop Tropicalised Jabo 
Fw 190G-5 Planned Jabo 
Fw 190G-6 Planned Jabo 
Fw 190G-7 Jabo with drop tank? (NB. All G variants had drop tanks) 
Fw 190G-8 Jabo based on A-8 
Fw 190G-8/R4 GM 1 nitrous-oxide power-boost system 
Fw 190G-8/R5 BMW 801TU 
Fw 190G-9 Planned Jabo with BMW 801F 
Fw 190G-10 Planned Jabo with BMW 801F 
Fw 190H-1 Proposed high-altitude fighter 
Fw 190S-5 Two-seat trainer 
Fw 190S-8 Two-seat trainer 



> FOCKE-WULF 190G
> Almost concurrently with the start of production of Fw 190F close support attack version (Schlachtflugzeug), its derivative emerged from the production lines - an extended range fighter-bomber, Jabo-Rei (Jagdbomber mit vergrosserter Reichweite), designated Fw 190G. This version was an attempt to cope with the service units' need for a fighter with the capability of carrying ground attack weapons to distances considerably greater than 500-600 km (the range of a Fw 190F).
> 
> FOCKE-WULF 190G-1
> ...


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 10, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> You need to expand your reading RG.
> 
> Many Allied pilots have commented on that the only late war a/c that gave them any real trouble was the Dora. It is a wonder that any have heard of the Spit XIV since there was less than 1/2 the war time number (~750) produced than for the Dora(~1800).
> 
> What was not so optimal aboutf the Dora's coolant system?



Where do you get that 1800 figure for the Dora. I've reaseached the plane a few years ago, especially the cooling system, and I could only find evidence of less than 900 Dora models of all types delivered and fewer than that deployed (perhaps 600-750?). 440 mph performance was with GM1 boost, which there is no credible evidence was ever installed on a combat unit. Maximum speed using MW50 boost was 426 mph, and MW50 could not be used above 16,500 feet (though maximum speed was still achieved at just over 20,000 feet).

About 900 Spit XIV's were delivered to front line units before the end of the war.

As for the Dora cooling system...

1) It sits centered behind the prop (as do radial engines) which means a minimum 20% reduction in airflow over free stream air. Because the air is slowed down by 20+%, it is not sufficiently fast for climb cooling. To overcome this, a large bullet spinner is used, the air flowing around the spinnner is sped up. But this in turn is not optimal for high-speed cooling. A compromise had to be made in high speed cooling to provide sufficient climb speed cooling.

2) The annular design is fitted parallel to the airflow rather than perpendicular to it. This is not optimal because air passing through the forward part of the radiator gets hot and cannot pick up as much heat from the rear of the radiator.

There were actually two radiator systems for the Dora series. One was called the "segmented ring radiator", which was one of the most efficient radiator systems of the war and probably overcame most of the deficits. However, it was extremely expensive to produce, as each ring had to be hand fitted and built onto the engine block, and it was nearly impossible to repair in the field and was only used on prototypes and perhaps a few combat aircraft. Almost all the production Dora's had the annular radiator, which was much cheaper to produce and could be serviced in the field, but was no where near as efficient as the segmented ring design.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 10, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Everything I have read confirms what Udet is saying about the evolution of the Fw-190 culminating in the Ta-152. I am not convinced that the P-51H was the greatest high alltitude aircraft produced in WW2 because it did not match up against a Ta-152H. The Dora was a magnificent aircraft and so was the Ta-152. Everything I have read about it says so and everything about the 152 leads to saying that it was the best high alltitude fighter to hit service during WW2.



Well, who put the "extreme high altitude" requirement on the P-51H?

Well, we really don't know about the TA. It didn't see enough action, especially at high altitude, to have much of an evaluation on it. It was really just a combat prototype, rushed into service because of Germany's desperate position.

As for the Dora9, I agree it was a very fine fighter and competitive with its rivals, but there is nothing to indicate it was "superior". It seems to me this plane was really tuned for combat in the sea level to 28,000 foot range.

Everything I see indicates the F4U-4 was superior in just about every critical aspect - it was faster, climbed better, had at least as much firepower and more trigger time, was more durable, and turned better.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Soren (Apr 10, 2005)

Oh for christs sake RG, would you stop that Pro-U.S. attitude !!

Every U.S. plane is a "WINNER" in your eyes, and you have a very hard time seeing their shortcomings ! While you have very easy time seeing bad things about Axis aircraft ! 

If the Fw-190's and 109's were so bad compared to the Allied fighters, then how come they did so well considdering their situation ?

Germany had so many pilots flying the 190's and 109's who scored over 50 kills on the W-front, that it if they were flying "Inferior" planes these scores would have been TOTALLY impossible !

As for the Reference on the FW-190's and their seperate abilities; Go read every detailed book about it, and I will almost Garantee you that it is mentioned !



> and the longer rear fuselage with no significant increase in elevator area implies a reduced rate of turn.



I hope after re-reading this comment made by you, you will realize how stupid it was ! 

First of all the elevator area on the 190 wasnt that small, as it was very wide, but narrow. And secondly this elevator area has nothing to do with the 190's ability to turn !

Think about it, if all you needed for a better turn-rate was to increase the elevator area then it most certainly would have been made large on every fighter ! It just aint that easy !

The A6M "Zero" had a very small elevator area, but it outturned every Allied fighter it met !


----------



## KraziKanuK (Apr 10, 2005)

No RG, only ~750 Spit XIVs were delivered before VE-Day as I just resently had to go through StH and had a look at the serial numbers. A goodly proportion of those 750 were on ships going to other theatres.

Well you had better revise your Dora data base as the number produced was 1826.

Strange that the V21 exhibited low coolant temperatures during testing, dispite being, according to, not being very efficient.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 10, 2005)

Soren said:


> Oh for christs sake RG, would you stop that Pro-U.S. attitude !!
> 
> Every U.S. plane is a "WINNER" in your eyes, and you have a very hard time seeing their shortcomings ! While you have very easy time seeing bad things about Axis aircraft !
> 
> ...



The F4U-4 never served in the ETO. The P-47M and N's only served in tiny numbers. The P-51 and P-47D had already beaten the Germans, there was no need to post the best new fighters to the ETO in 1945.

Defense is easier than offense. The Germans were defending against allied aircraft that had flown hundreds of miles into enemy territory. The advantage lay entirely with the Germans.



Soren said:


> > and the longer rear fuselage with no significant increase in elevator area implies a reduced rate of turn.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



My point is there was no difference between the elevator on the 190A vs the 190D. The size is not important, only that it is the same on both planes.



Soren said:


> Think about it, if all you needed for a better turn-rate was to increase the elevator area then it most certainly would have been made large on every fighter ! It just aint that easy !



Of course there is more too it. Making the elevator too large means the pilot will not be able to work it at high speeds. There is an optimal size for a given aircraft, and this must also take into acount the leverage rations involved in the controls.



Soren said:


> The A6M "Zero" had a very small elevator area, but it outturned every Allied fighter it met !



Says who? W.r.t. the size and geometry used, the Zero elevator was large.

But anyway, that is beside the point. The issue is that the Dora and Anton elevators were the same size.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 10, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> No RG, only ~750 Spit XIVs were delivered before VE-Day as I just resently had to go through StH and had a look at the serial numbers. A goodly proportion of those 750 were on ships going to other theatres.



Something like 956 were produced during the war. Perhaps only 750 were deployed before VE day.



KraziKanuK said:


> Well you had better revise your Dora data base as the number produced was 1826.



Care to give a source? And don't give the number of assigned werknumbers, as we know that is not a reliable method of counting. Every source I've seen says less than 900 were delivered, and not all that were delivered saw combat.



KraziKanuK said:


> Strange that the V21 exhibited low coolant temperatures during testing, dispite being, according to, not being very efficient.



Under what conditions? Low coolant temp problems during cruise don't matter.

Also, the V21 was a prototype, so it probably used the segmented ring radiators. Many of the prototypes used this radiator.


----------



## Soren (Apr 10, 2005)

> The F4U-4 never served in the ETO. The P-47M and N's only served in tiny numbers. The P-51 and P-47D had already beaten the Germans, there was no need to post the best new fighters to the ETO in 1945.



Errr... where did this come from ? I never stated the F4U-4 being available in the ETO !



> Defense is easier than offense.



Yeah on the ground, but it really doesnt matter much in the air, there the numbers count !



> The Germans were defending against allied aircraft that had flown hundreds of miles into enemy territory. The advantage lay entirely with the Germans.



  You crack me up RG !  

What your saying is that the TOTALLY outnumbered and fuel starving German Luftwaffe had the advantage !  

RG there are "Finnish" 109 aces who have higher scores than the highest scoring Allied ace ! 



> My point is there was no difference between the elevator on the 190A vs the 190D. The size is not important, only that it is the same on both planes.



And your point is ? 

The "Dora" has a longer tail section optimizing its center of gravity, giving it the Advantage over the "Anton" in a T&B fight.



> Says who? W.r.t. the size and geometry used, the Zero elevator was large.



RG the elevators on the Zero werent at all big ! The stabilizers were huge though.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Apr 10, 2005)

The V21 had the same rad as the D-9. The D-13 had the other type.

Well you can go through StH and count the number of Spit XIVs produced, for I am not.

As for you references on Dora production, they are out of date. It was a posted on another board, taken from a German book, pg 438.


----------



## Soren (Apr 10, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> As for you references on Dora production, they are out of date.



Thats probably because they are from History Channel


----------



## Udet (Apr 11, 2005)

Further down my previous idea:

All of Kurt Tank´s machines were superb.

The Fw190 A´s, the A8 for instance, made a superior plane to the P-51.
It was only at high altitude where the Mustangs could experience less trouble fighting the Butcher Bird.

The bulk of the victories of the Mustangs over the Butcher Bird and the Bf 109 were by conducting the classical bouncing. A totally valid method to defeat your enemy.

Ever heard the famous phrase: "in love, as well as in war, absolutely everything is valid"?

Valid. Absolutely. You are there to beat your enemy with complete disregard of the means. 

But an entirely different story is to affirm the Mustangs defeated the Fw190 by means of technical superiority. That, you can not have it, for it was not true.

The versions which followed, Long Nose and the Ta152, simply filled the high altitude gap of their preceding relative, and continued to maintain clear superiority over the Mustang.

The most solid argument the allies display in sort of a desperate attempt to minimize the Ta 152 is that there are no recorded facts or evidence to confirm the 152s ever engaged the Mustangs. 

The Ta 152 was properly tested; tests which got documented and the outcome was as transparent as Caribbean sea water: it was a superior plane to even the Long Nose.

Saw combat in limited numbers and a plane with superb high altitude performance chewed the soviet Yaks at tree top level dogfïghts, an altitude where the Yaks are frequently considered as the best.

It is quite clear in my case. The most brilliant evolution belongs to Herr Tank creations.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 11, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> The V21 had the same rad as the D-9. The D-13 had the other type.



How do you know this. The first Dora's prototypes and I think the first try at production had the segmented ring radiators. They then tried to produce and field these but found they were too expensive to build and imposible to maintain. I doubt the D-13 had the segmented ring radiator, by then they'd given up on it.



KraziKanuK said:


> Well you can go through StH and count the number of Spit XIVs produced, for I am not.



956 were produced. How many were accepted, delivered, and deployed before VE day I do not know, but 700-750 seems reasonable.



KraziKanuK said:


> As for you references on Dora production, they are out of date. It was a posted on another board, taken from a German book, pg 438.



Page 438 of what book? That someone posted such info on another board out of an unknown book means exactly what?

The problem is that some people think assignment of werknumbers signifies production. It is clear this is not valid. Then their are acual records of units charged for, but this is not valid either. What counts is units actually accepted, delivered, and deployed.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 11, 2005)

Soren said:


> KraziKanuK said:
> 
> 
> > As for you references on Dora production, they are out of date.
> ...



_Bite me Soren!_

The only info I quote from THC or TMC are comments from actual WWII pilots and soldiers. I never quote their historian's analysis as it is often flawed.

So now you think we should take your word over an actual Luftwaffe Ace and a Tiger I crewman? Ha ha ha!


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 11, 2005)

That's total BS. The P-51 was simply a whole lot faster than the Butcher Bird. As long as they stayed fast they had the advantage, and there was no way the FW190A could overcome it.

The P-51 was made to "bounce" the enemy. You're trying to diminsh this by implying that "other than that" the P-51 was inferior is silly. P-51's flew over 500 miles into German held territory and beat the FW's over their own ground. That is the definition of superiority.

And Udet, have you ever actually seen one of these glowing test reports of the TA152? Or have you simply read second and third hand comments about what the test pilots are supposed to have said about it?

I have tried to aquire those test reports, w/o any luck. I even paid for an FIA search for them - no meaningful results were forthcomming.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Apr 11, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> How do you know this. The first Dora's prototypes and I think the first try at production had the segmented ring radiators. They then tried to produce and field these but found they were too expensive to build and imposible to maintain. I doubt the D-13 had the segmented ring radiator, by then they'd given up on it.
> 
> 956 were produced. How many were accepted, delivered, and deployed before VE day I do not know, but 700-750 seems reasonable.
> 
> ...



You think?  Oh well.  Got any documantation for proof? III./JG54 never commented on overheating, though it did comment on some oil leakage, when converting to the D-9. Test reports by Rechlin of production D-9s don't mention any cooling or maintainance problems either.

If I knew the name of the book I would have said so.  The person who posted the production list is involved with White 1 so there is no reason to doubt the numbers. Focke_Wulf alone had produced 1056 Doras by the end of March 1945. To these you can add those produced by the Consortium and Fiesler. (Genst.Gen.Qu.6 Abt (III C))

BTW, the Fw190A production is 13,291. 

There was no WNr listed, at all.  In the same vain, 750 Spit XIVs were NOT accepted, deleivered AND deployed.


----------



## Soren (Apr 11, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> _Bite me Soren!_



And your saying I can't take a joke ! Hahaha !  



> So now you think we should take your word over an actual Luftwaffe Ace and a Tiger I crewman? Ha ha ha!



Not at all, thats why I brought up all the quotes from WW2 pilots !


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 11, 2005)

Who said anything about "cooling problems"? It was just the normal operation of the aircraft. Multiple sources report that both the 190 and the 109 had very short full speed performance limits.

As for the number of Spit XIV's deployed, I can only account for a couple of hundred, so I suspect you are right. However, I still have not seen any source reference for deployment of more than a maximum of about 950 Dora's of all types. "Production" figures don't suffice because this does not account for aircraft destroyed by allied bombing in the factory after having been "completed" or those destroyed in transit. Also, the German's often considered a plane as "produced" when it was still lacking critical components, such as an engine, which was to be installed after delivery. Post-war study of production records also show a fair bit of hanky-panky going on in accounting, especially in the last year of the war.

The most valid measure of quantity is the number of servicable aircraft delivered to squadrons.

One thing is for sure - the Dora's were rare. Most Allied fighter pilots flying in 1944 and 1945 never even saw one. This belies the claim of any 1800 operational Dora's.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Soren (Apr 11, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> The P-51 was made to "bounce" the enemy. You're trying to diminsh this by implying that "other than that" the P-51 was inferior is silly. P-51's flew over 500 miles into German held territory and beat the FW's over their own ground. *That is the definition of superiority.*



Yeah if that definition includes bouncing helpless planes trying to land or take off, then yeah !  Or backstabbing the FW's while their concentrating on the bombers.

The P-51 wasnt even ONE bit superior to the FW-190, no on the other hand the FW-190 was superior to the P-51 ! Now if you take into considderation the situation the Germans were in by 44-45, then you would realize this ! 

_Once they got their hands on the machine, they found out that the "Dora-Nine", as they called it, was a superb aircraft. It was faster, climbed more rapidly, and handled better than an Anton, and almost certainly the best piston fighter to be fielded in numbers by the Luftwaffe. The Dora-Nine proved to be a nasty handful for American P-51Ds and late-mark RAF Spitfires._

Source: "Focke-Wulf Fw 190" by Malcolm V Lowe


----------



## Erich (Apr 11, 2005)

indeed the Dora or any of it's variants was a rare commoditiy, the RAF probably saw more in action from JG 2 and JG 26 than anyone.

JG 3 and 4 had theirs on the Ost Front and II./JG 301 on both fronts.

JG 6 fought against the US and were slaughtered 

I'll have German source figures later..........

♪♪


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 11, 2005)

Soren - P-51's always attacked. If those German aircraft were landing or taking off they were attacked. If they were attacking bombers, they were attacked. If they were trying to engage the P-51, they were attacked.

The P-51 was equally as fast as the Dora9, and it could sustain its high speeds much longer. It had better range. On paper the Dora9 had a better rate of climb, but that is decieving as it considers the P-51 climbing with full internal fuel (minus 25 gallons from the rear tank) at Military Power (no WEP climb figures are available), which tends to overstate the Dora climb advantage at the point of combat. But climb rate is really irrelevant, as the P-51's generally started with the alt advantage anyway. The P-51 was superior at all zoom manuvers, the Dora probably had the edge in non-zoom manuvers.

P-51 pilots consistantly report that at high speeds they had no trouble out-turning either the 190 or the 109, though the 190 was not as easy. On the otherhand, 109 and 190 pilots make the same claim - so in the end we must assume they were relatively even in terms of combat manuverability.

And the P-51 had more firepower, usuable at a longer range, and a much better gunsight. On the otherhand, the Dora was more durable.

Overall, they were very well matched opponents.

However, the original comment was w.r.t. the Anton, not the Dora. And in that matchup, the P-51 has most of the advantages.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 11, 2005)

Well every source that I have found says that 674 Doras were built but something like 13000 A were built and I am not sure of the F or the G varients.

RG as for you post about the "extreme high alltitude" label. What makes you think I labeled it that. I never said that. As for the P-51H and the Ta-152H Im sorry but atleast the 152 saw service and as far as I am concerned with everything I have studdied on it and what pilots have said there was nothing finer in the sky then the 152H and nothing could match it. Unless the 51H saw service against it (which it did not) you can not convince me that it was the best thing ever built and that it would outfly a 152H. As for the 51D's and 47's beating the Luftwaffe you are wrong my friend. The Hitler, Goering, and the Luftwaffe beat the Luftwaffe.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 11, 2005)

> As for the 51D's and 47's beating the Luftwaffe you are wrong my friend. The Hitler, Goering, and the Luftwaffe beat the Luftwaffe



 The irony being thats probably actually true.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 11, 2005)

It is actually.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 11, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Well every source that I have found says that 674 Doras were built but something like 13000 A were built and I am not sure of the F or the G varients.
> 
> RG as for you post about the "extreme high alltitude" label. What makes you think I labeled it that. I never said that. As for the P-51H and the Ta-152H Im sorry but atleast the 152 saw service and as far as I am concerned with everything I have studdied on it and what pilots have said there was nothing finer in the sky then the 152H and nothing could match it. Unless the 51H saw service against it (which it did not) you can not convince me that it was the best thing ever built and that it would outfly a 152H. As for the 51D's and 47's beating the Luftwaffe you are wrong my friend. The Hitler, Goering, and the Luftwaffe beat the Luftwaffe.



More P-51H's were available for WWII than TA152's. The fact that Germany was so badly on the ropes that it threw its prototypes into the air as they came off the production line, rather than methodically introducing them into service should not exclude contemporary designs from consideration. Besides, it was you who brought up the P-51H for comparison this time, so your objection is totally without merit on all grounds.

I agree the German high command hurt the Luftwaffe', but the P-47 and P-51 did their part too. It was the ability to put competitive fighters in the air, over Germany, more than anything else that beat the Luftwaffe'.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## KraziKanuK (Apr 11, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> Who said anything about "cooling problems"? It was just the normal operation of the aircraft. Multiple sources report that both the 190 and the 109 had very short full speed performance limits.
> 
> As for the number of Spit XIV's deployed, I can only account for a couple of hundred, so I suspect you are right. However, I still have not seen any source reference for deployment of more than a maximum of about 950 Dora's of all types. "Production" figures don't suffice because this does not account for aircraft destroyed by allied bombing in the factory after having been "completed" or those destroyed in transit. Also, the German's often considered a plane as "produced" when it was still lacking critical components, such as an engine, which was to be installed after delivery. Post-war study of production records also show a fair bit of hanky-panky going on in accounting, especially in the last year of the war.
> 
> ...



 Your the one who keeps insisting that the cooling system/rad of German a/c was not very efficient. In fact, you are the only source I have seen that states that high speed level flight was only a reality for a very short duration. No documentation from you to back it up your statement, though.

So now you squirm with excuses. From the beginning I said ~1800 produced and you said very much less than that. I never claimed ~1800 'operational' Doras. Doras were not as rare as the P-47M and P-80s.  All German fighters were rare from the fall of 1944. There was 1400-1500 servicable in early Jan 1945.

There was 910 Anton 9s produced so looks like people like W Green, of 109 cowl mounted MG151 fame, have their troubles reading.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 11, 2005)

Read the Soviet Fighter Tactics manual concerning the 190 and 109 cooling problems. I've posted it before, and it's on RING's website (see my post of that source for data). I've seen comments about limited full speed performance from other sources too, I'll try to locate them and post them for you.

No other prop fighter, before or since used annular radiators on a liquid cooled fighter engine. Tank did so because he had no choice, he had to fit the Jumo into his existing 190 design.

As for the 1400-1500 figure... where do you come up with these numbers from? You keep repeating higher numbers and disputing Green's data, but you still give no source.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Erich (Apr 11, 2005)

the 910 FW 190A-9 figure comes from my quote of the Peter Rodeike Fw 190/Dora/Ta 152 buch, still the classic and the authority on the Fw series.........


----------



## Udet (Apr 11, 2005)

RG_Lunatic:

It gets to the point when one should say to hell with this.

You have a clear and very massive conflict of interest when debating here. Also you are highly influenced by the propaganda of your country.

You are blidnfolded then uncapable yourself of seeing the whole photograph.



Of course am i trying to diminish the Mustang, placing it where it belongs.

A very fine and capable plane for sure. But it had its limitations, none of which appear to be part of your knowledge, RG.

Unless facing the Butcher at very high altitude, the Mustang is inferior to the Fw190.

A short burst of the Fw190 hitting the P-51 is way more lethal to Mustang, than a Mustang´s short burst hitting the Butcher.

Many many Butcher Bird pilots, even rookie pilots, swallowed the Mustangs.

It is clear everywhere, survability of the P-51 is a midget by the side of the 190´s.

Emil Lang for instance found the P-51s appealing and turned them into Golden VIP clients of his cannons (frequent fryer program members).

Whethere you like it or not, that is how the USAAF and RAF won the air war: by bouncing the German formations climbing to altitude or trying to land short of fuel after the flown sortie.

And even when bounced -numerically surpassed- the German pilots reacted accordingly and still managed to shoot down numbers of bouncers, proving they were not "ill-trained" and that their fighters were in equal terms, if not superior, to their enemy´s.

I ve read lots of books, articles and papers and the USAAF pilots gladly state "we bounced..." like hell, apparently forgetting for one moment, that bouncing does not require the skill a dogfight does, and also that bouncing does not put the aircraft capabilities at full test.

If my enemy is of my same height, weight and muscle mass, is easier for me to knock him out if a approach him from the rear with a baseball bat in my hands while he walks than to place myself right in front of him and challenge him.

Bouncing, whether you like it or not. In the end, it is your own business RG.

You want the whole cake, the typical anomaly observed on individuals suffering the victor´s drunkness syndrome.

"We had better pilots, better training, better tactics, better engines, better ammo, guns, cannons, gunsights, fueselages, intelligence.." that is a pathology.

You are a piece of a megalomaniac aren´t you? )

That your beloved country won is true, but it did not happen the way you were taught.


It also appears you conduct a deliberate avoidance of issues: why do you stick to your vision USAAF pilots did not know of the Doras?

The Ta152s never met USAAF fighters? What of the recorded fact of victories at very low altitude over Yaks during the last weeks of the war?

Well, many of them should be glad they did not meet them in numbers for many more of them would not have survived the war.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Apr 11, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> Read the Soviet Fighter Tactics manual concerning the 190 and 109 cooling problems. I've posted it before, and it's on RING's website (see my post of that source for data). I've seen comments about limited full speed performance from other sources too, I'll try to locate them and post them for you.



Like you did for that 152 data you were supposed to post.



> No other prop fighter, before or since used annular radiators on a liquid cooled fighter engine. Tank did so because he had no choice, he had to fit the Jumo into his existing 190 design.



Sure he had a choice, like putting it under the nose like the P-40/ Typhoon/Tempest.



> As for the 1400-1500 figure... where do you come up with these numbers from? You keep repeating higher numbers and disputing Green's data, but you still give no source.



Do you have some troubles? What the 1400-1500 figures are for are all LW fighters. (A. Price) For someone who claims to be so knowledgable, you do have a lack of basics.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Apr 11, 2005)

On the 190, from Rings site:

_"It can only work at full throttle for no more than 1 minute."_

Yes and this is for early versions of the A @ 1.42. Later models could operate at 1.65 for extended periods of time.

Simular for the 109.

You really should expand your knowledge base of German fighters.

To get you started, here is one on the 109F-4, http://www.beim-zeugmeister.de/zeugmeister/index.php?id=12&L=1


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 12, 2005)

Udet said:


> RG_Lunatic:
> 
> It gets to the point when one should say to hell with this.
> 
> You have a clear and very massive conflict of interest when debating here. Also you are highly influenced by the propaganda of your country.



Hmmm... I see it the other way. You and a few others keep trying to tout about how great German technology was. It had its strong points and its weak points, but for the most part it was inferior to Allied technology. Some German technology was more advanced, but when looking at the big picture, in the most important technologies such as radar, industrial process technology, and of course nuclear physics, the Allies had the significant advantage. But more than that, the German's just didn't seem to understand that at some point you have to stop striving for the ultimate in quality and focus on quantity and servicability - two things that never sunk into Germany's WWII thinking.



Udet said:


> You are blidnfolded then uncapable yourself of seeing the whole photograph.



No, you sit right up next to the part of the photo you like and think you are seeing the whole thing when you're not!



Udet said:


> Of course am i trying to diminish the Mustang, placing it where it belongs.



No, you are trying to elevate German aircraft to a stature they did not attain.



Udet said:


> A very fine and capable plane for sure. But it had its limitations, none of which appear to be part of your knowledge, RG.



Sure I do. But it is all relative.



Udet said:


> Unless facing the Butcher at very high altitude, the Mustang is inferior to the Fw190.



Hmmm really... Well, how about speed?







(for full scale A-8 doc and P-51B test doc *click here*)

As you can see the P-51B was faster than the FW190A-8 at all altitudes. Between 7000 and 16000 feet it is about 28 mph faster, then for a brief span between 18000 and 22000 the advantage drops to about 20 mph, and above 22000 feet the P-51 is so much faster there is really no comparison. The P-51D was about 6 mph slower than the B, but its peak performance altitudes were lower due to a change in the first stage blower gearing, so its performance in the relevant altitude bands was about as advantagous over the A-8 as the B model.

For climb rate, the A-8 is taking about 40-50 seconds longer than the P-51B to reach 20000 feet (about the same as the P-51D when fully loaded with fuel). If you remove the outer guns the climb rate would be slightly better, but not much (2 x MK108 instead of MG151/20's increase climb time to 8000m by just 12 seconds).

So where is this supposed superiority?



Udet said:


> A short burst of the Fw190 hitting the P-51 is way more lethal to Mustang, than a Mustang´s short burst hitting the Butcher.



Well sure. If the cannon hit. But lets look at it realistically. The Anton armed with cannon in the outer panels was not much of a dogfighter, roll rate and turn rate were compromised. For those with only the two inner MG151/20's, the volume of fire is horrible by comparison:

2 x MG13 13mm's firing at 840 rpm sync'd = 1680 rpm = 28 rps.

2 x MG151/20 20mm's firing at 505 rpm sync'd = 1010 rpm = 17 rps

6 x .50 BMG's firing at 800 rpm = 4800 rpm = 80 rps.

The 13mm were weak, the 20mm fired slowly when sync'd through the prop. The total volume of fire was bad and the effective volume of fire was very bad. The P-51 had almost twice the volume of fire, and more than four times the volume of fire as compared to the 20mm.

And the .50's had much much better ballistics. P-51's using the K-14 gunsight could score on FW's at beyond 500 meters, where the FW max effective range was more like 200 meters. So sure, it took more .50 hits to finish off a FW than 20mm hits vs. the P-51, but they were much much easier to score. And once the FW had taken a few hits, it was probably going to be pretty easy to score more and finish it off.



Udet said:


> Many many Butcher Bird pilots, even rookie pilots, swallowed the Mustangs.



And visa versa. Didn't Yeager bag a few FW's on his seventh combat sortie?



Udet said:


> It is clear everywhere, survability of the P-51 is a midget by the side of the 190´s.



Yes, the P-51 was more vulnerable to enemy fire than the FW's. On the otherhand the P-47 was much more survivable than the FW.



Udet said:


> Whethere you like it or not, that is how the USAAF and RAF won the air war: by bouncing the German formations climbing to altitude or trying to land short of fuel after the flown sortie.



The USAAF attacked the German fighters where and when they could be found. They did not turn and run, even from larger formations of fighters that had altitude on them, when they should have.

And by the same token I could point out that many German kills were scored against USAAF fighters that were low on fuel and ammo and headed home.

And the Luftwaffe' fighter pilots had the advantage of being directed to the US fighters (and bombers) by radar and ground spotters.



Udet said:


> And even when bounced -numerically surpassed- the German pilots reacted accordingly and still managed to shoot down numbers of bouncers, proving they were not "ill-trained" and that their fighters were in equal terms, if not superior, to their enemy´s.



But in 1944 the Luftwaffe' outnumbered the P-51's, and they still got torn to shreads. During "Big Week", the Luftwaffe' was crushed by the USAAF and the USAAF did not have numerical superiority of fighters.

And I never said the Luftwaffe' pilots were ill trained, except perhaps at the very end of the war after all the vetrans had been killed off.



Udet said:


> I ve read lots of books, articles and papers and the USAAF pilots gladly state "we bounced..." like hell, apparently forgetting for one moment, that bouncing does not require the skill a dogfight does, and also that bouncing does not put the aircraft capabilities at full test.
> 
> If my enemy is of my same height, weight and muscle mass, is easier for me to knock him out if a approach him from the rear with a baseball bat in my hands while he walks than to place myself right in front of him and challenge him.
> 
> Bouncing, whether you like it or not. In the end, it is your own business RG.



And German pilots, especially Galland, were known to pass by attacking enemy fighters which spotted him, even if he had the advantage in altitude and position. The German's were the masters of bouncing the enemy - that's how most of the Experten got to be Experten!



Udet said:


> You want the whole cake, the typical anomaly observed on individuals suffering the victor´s drunkness syndrome.
> 
> "We had better pilots, better training, better tactics, better engines, better ammo, guns, cannons, gunsights, fueselages, intelligence.." that is a pathology.
> 
> You are a piece of a megalomaniac aren´t you? )



I never said all of these things. All I've said is the P-51 was more than a match for the Anton and the approximate equal of the Dora9.

But many of the things you list are true. The USA/British did have the better gunsights, did have better training for new pilots, and certainly did have better inteligence. About these things there is really no question.

You have it backwards, you are suffering from vanquished syndrome. "Our leadership was bad", "We didn't have any fuel", "We were outnumbered", etc..., etc..., excuse, excuse, excuse. 

The only way you can bolster your ego is to try to claim the German's were superior engineers and scientists. Well, I have two words to say to that - "ATOMIC BOMB"  



Udet said:


> It also appears you conduct a deliberate avoidance of issues: why do you stick to your vision USAAF pilots did not know of the Doras?



I didn't say that. Some reports of the "long nosed FW" were indeed made. But most USAAF fighter pilots in the ETO in late 1944 and 1945 never saw one.



Udet said:


> The Ta152s never met USAAF fighters? What of the recorded fact of victories at very low altitude over Yaks during the last weeks of the war?



And just when did USAAF pilots fly Yaks?



Udet said:


> Well, many of them should be glad they did not meet them in numbers for many more of them would not have survived the war.



The Ta152, just like almost all the German late-war designs, was self defeating. The Germans just "lost the plot". The didn't need the between 35 and 75 Ta152's that came out of over 2 years of design effort and substantial retooling, they needed a lot more Dora9's and 109G/K's.

You just don't get it. Sure the German's deployed a few very good weapons systems late in the war. So what? They were deployed in such miniscule numbers they were irrelevant. And the USA certianly had newer and better planes ready to go in small quantities at the same time, but unlike Germany we didn't throw them into the meat grinder as soon as they came off the production line. By about Fall of 1944 it was pretty clear Germany was beaten and no new technologies were deployed against it. Certainly there were more P-51H's ready to go in April 1945 than the sum of all TA production. It was just not worth it to deploy them along with the required logistics given that Germany was no longer a contender anyway.

The German's were obsessed with the idea that they would build tanks and aircraft that were so good that even a few of them would defeat the masses of only slightly inferior enemy weapons. The height of Ego, that they would use their superior intelects to make up for their inferior focus.

As for your comment about had their been more Ta152's - that would have required the war to last longer. The longer the war lasted, the worse things would have become for the Germans. For every additional pilot killed by a Ta152 hundreds more Germans would have died from Allied bombing. Is that what you wish had happened?

And on the off chance that the Germans had managed to start to stage some kind of a late-war comeback...






... it would have been even worse.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 12, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
> 
> 
> > Well every source that I have found says that 674 Doras were built but something like 13000 A were built and I am not sure of the F or the G varients.
> ...



What the hell is your point really? Did the P-51H see any service that would prove it was the greatest thing since bread and butter like you make it out to be? Nope sure as hell was not. *Again your objection is without any merit here! I dont give a flying *%@$ how many were available! What I care about is how it compared but you dont know anything about that because it did not ever get a chance to! I think the Ta-152H would have more then a match for you beloved P-51H had it been given a chance to prove itself. Can I prove it, No but neither can you prove your argument so give it up!*



RG_Lunatic said:


> Besides, it was you who brought up the P-51H for comparison this time, so your objection is totally without merit on all grounds.



Who the hell are you to tell me what has merit and what does not, tell me how yours does. You have not proven shit to me or probably anybody else except that as KrazyKanuk posted that you are very onesided in your reading and dont learn to much about anything of relevence unless it is about the *"GREATEST PLANE TO EVER FLY: THE ONE AND ONLY P-51!" or how GERMAN BRAINS WERE SMALLER AND THEY WERE INFERIOR IN EVERYTHING COMPARED TO THE USA*



RG_Lunatic said:


> I agree the German high command hurt the Luftwaffe', but the P-47 and P-51 did their part too. It was the ability to put competitive fighters in the air, over Germany, more than anything else that beat the Luftwaffe'.



Sorry there you go again. P-51 this and P-47 that. Why do you completly and consistantly forget about the British and there Hurricanes and the Spitfires? Hey they were fighting the war longer and they did most of the damage. Sorry I understand taht the Hurricane and Spitfire are not US made but they did more of the share. 

Again I am sorry but if Hitler and his government Goones had left the RG up to the developers and allowed more of Germanies more successfull and better designs to unfold much ealier and let them be used for there purposes as they were designed the Luftwaffe would have faired much better. Oh any by the way the fuel shortages of the Luftwaffe did more to hurt the Luftwaffe then your P-51 and P-47. 



RG_Lunatic said:


> Read the Soviet Fighter Tactics manual concerning the 190 and 109 cooling problems. I've posted it before, and it's on RING's website (see my post of that source for data). I've seen comments about limited full speed performance from other sources too, I'll try to locate them and post them for you.



First of all Soviet Fighter Tactics Manual? Give me a break please. The Soeviets did not know tactics if you had implanted them in your brain. The Soviet Airforce was slaughtered up until the very end. Erich Hartmann happened to fly one of these inferior Me-109's that they supposadly talked about in there Tactics Manual. I dont think it did them any good. And dont give me any crap about they Soviet Planes were inferior and the aircraft shot down were Il-2's Why have a Tactics Manual if it is not going to save you? Lastly what a great source you posted since you always want to talk about *"WHERE IS YOUR SOURCE" "THAT IS NOT AN AMERICAN SOURCE CANT BE TRUE!"* *This post of yours has no merit at all (sound familier)!*  



RG_Lunatic said:


> Hmmm... I see it the other way. You and a few others keep trying to tout about how great German technology was. It had its strong points and its weak points, but for the most part it was inferior to Allied technology. Some German technology was more advanced, but when looking at the big picture, in the most important technologies such as radar, industrial process technology, and of course nuclear physics, the Allies had the significant advantage. But more than that, the German's just didn't seem to understand that at some point you have to stop striving for the ultimate in quality and focus on quantity and servicability - two things that never sunk into Germany's WWII thinking.



Actually here again you are dead wrong. We just seem to think you know a hell of a lot less then you try to make us believe! Please stop! You are hurting my head with all this P-51 and P-47 crap! All this Germans were inferior crap along with the British and everyone else. The US technology was not as great as you make it out to be!



RG_Lunatic said:


> No, you are trying to elevate German aircraft to a stature they did not attain.



And you do the same to the US fighters. You are very one sighted and know a hell of lot less then you think you do! Yes I said it again because it is very true!



RG_Lunatic said:


> So where is this supposed superiority?



Theres more to just paper stats that you always come up with. If anyone ever writes an artical about how they flew against a Luftaffe aircraft and it gave them a hard time or was supierior to them, you call them a lyer! Sorry paper stats dont count, but again for someone who has never flown a combat aircraft you would not know this! 



RG_Lunatic said:


> And visa versa. Didn't Yeager bag a few FW's on his seventh combat sortie?



And there were many FW pilots who did the same thing. Oh wait not in your picture perfect world!



RG_Lunatic said:


> The only way you can bolster your ego is to try to claim the German's were superior engineers and scientists. Well, I have two words to say to that - "ATOMIC BOMB"



I have 6 words to say to that - "ALBERT EINSTEIN AND OTHER GERMAN SCIENTISTS!"

And RG as for the Ta-152 being a prototype being put into the sky to "alter the war" it was not a protype or experimental aircraft it is called "Evolution" and making a better aircraft then before! You can argue this fact all you want and I know after what I post below you are going to say that it is all lies about outflying P-51's but you know what can you prove it did not happen? No you can not! 

The Focke-Wulf Ta 152 name refers to the final developments of the Focke-Wulf Fw 190 aircraft which was redesignated with the 'Ta' in honor of Kurt Tank who headed the design team. The name started with the last Ta 152 models although only 67 production aircraft were delivered. The Ta 152H models were among the fastest fighters of the war, capable of speeds up to 755 km/h (472 mph). It is reported that Kurt, who occasionally test flew his own designs, encountered some P-51 Mustangs towards the end of the war when he was flying a 152 and was able to out-run them by engaging the methanol-water injection system of the engine - but it is not clear if the Mustangs actually saw him and pursued.
The total number of Ta 152 production is not well known but it should be ~150 aircraft of all types including prototypes.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 12, 2005)

> of all types including prototypes.



whice the germans always seemed to make tons of..........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 12, 2005)

The Fw190 alone went up to the V80


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 12, 2005)

we make 3 or 4, the protoypes then themselfs often being used in service or for some other perpose........


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 12, 2005)

The one thing that America and Russia were good at was numbers, they just overwhelmed Germany, Italy and Japan even though they had some very good equipment


----------



## Udet (Apr 12, 2005)

I wholeheartedly agree with DerAdler when he refers to the "Soviet Fighter Tactics Manual".

Noteworhty to mention is the fact ancient Chaikas and Ishaks are still included in a manual describing the combat tactics for planes of late 1943. (!)

It is just like if by late 1943 the Germans had had the Henschel Hs123 biplanes -while not exactly fighters, but rather used as bombers- included in their manuals, encouraging their pilots that depending on some specific circumstances of the engagement, they could manage to shoot down Spitfires or Thunderbolts. 

That is the kind of madness one can expect to find from such a regime as that of Stalin.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 12, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> RG_Lunatic said:
> 
> 
> > Besides, it was you who brought up the P-51H for comparison this time, so your objection is totally without merit on all grounds.
> ...



Hmmm.. first you bring up the Ta152 vs. P-51H as a hypothetical matchup, then when I reply to it you get upset because the P-51H didn't see actual combat... _What is your problem Alder?_

And I never said anything about German brains being smaller. The fact is Germany just had a smaller techno-industrial complex, and in the end that was what mattered.



DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> RG_Lunatic said:
> 
> 
> > I agree the German high command hurt the Luftwaffe', but the P-47 and P-51 did their part too. It was the ability to put competitive fighters in the air, over Germany, more than anything else that beat the Luftwaffe'.
> ...



Because the Hurricane's and Spitfire's were defensive fighters, they did not take it to and destroy the Luftwaffe'. They didn't have the range. 



DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Again I am sorry but if Hitler and his government Goones had left the RG up to the developers and allowed more of Germanies more successfull and better designs to unfold much ealier and let them be used for there purposes as they were designed the Luftwaffe would have faired much better. Oh any by the way the fuel shortages of the Luftwaffe did more to hurt the Luftwaffe then your P-51 and P-47.



And the same argument to a lesser degree for some and to a higher degree for others (Japan) could be made w.r.t. the Ordinance procurement process in every nation.



DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Oh any by the way the fuel shortages of the Luftwaffe did more to hurt the Luftwaffe then your P-51 and P-47.



Ummm... it was the P-51 and the P-47, along with the bombers, which created that shortage.



DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> RG_Lunatic said:
> 
> 
> > Read the Soviet Fighter Tactics manual concerning the 190 and 109 cooling problems. I've posted it before, and it's on RING's website (see my post of that source for data). I've seen comments about limited full speed performance from other sources too, I'll try to locate them and post them for you.
> ...



Ummm... I quote lots of German sources. The Soviet fighter tactics manual includes information about observed German aircraft and tested captured units. It was classified until after the fall of the Soviet Union.

I find it funny that in the same paragraph where you falsly accuse me of not considering the data from all sides you dismiss the Soviet data out of hand simply because its Soviet!  



DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> RG_Lunatic said:
> 
> 
> > Hmmm... I see it the other way. You and a few others keep trying to tout about how great German technology was. It had its strong points and its weak points, but for the most part it was inferior to Allied technology. Some German technology was more advanced, but when looking at the big picture, in the most important technologies such as radar, industrial process technology, and of course nuclear physics, the Allies had the significant advantage. But more than that, the German's just didn't seem to understand that at some point you have to stop striving for the ultimate in quality and focus on quantity and servicability - two things that never sunk into Germany's WWII thinking.
> ...



And the German technology was not as great as you make it out to be.



RG_Lunatic said:


> So where is this supposed superiority?





DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Theres more to just paper stats that you always come up with. If anyone ever writes an artical about how they flew against a Luftaffe aircraft and it gave them a hard time or was supierior to them, you call them a lyer! Sorry paper stats dont count, but again for someone who has never flown a combat aircraft you would not know this!



So when it supports your argument, stats and historical documents are valid. When it does not, they arn't. And just who is supposed to be "one sided" here?

I seem to detect a theme here - the test of validity of documents or other data is whether or not it supports your beliefs.



DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> RG_Lunatic said:
> 
> 
> > And visa versa. Didn't Yeager bag a few FW's on his seventh combat sortie?
> ...



Grrrrr... that was exactly my point. You have put this out of context. Udet claimed that there were many FW's who killed mulitple P-51's in a sortie, I was just pointing out that the reverse was also true.



DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> RG_Lunatic said:
> 
> 
> > The only way you can bolster your ego is to try to claim the German's were superior engineers and scientists. Well, I have two words to say to that - "ATOMIC BOMB"
> ...



If you study the Manhatten project, you will see that Albert Einstien had very little to do with it, and that only two members of the primary team were of German/Austrian descent. In all likelyhood, even without them the USA would have developed the A-bomb. Einstien's biggest contribution was his endorsement of the concept.

Of those members of lower levels of the Manhatten project team that were German, almost all of them were Jews - AND THEY WEREN'T REALLY GERMANS ANYWAY WERE THEY?



DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> And RG as for the Ta-152 being a prototype being put into the sky to "alter the war" it was not a protype or experimental aircraft it is called "Evolution" and making a better aircraft then before! You can argue this fact all you want and I know after what I post below you are going to say that it is all lies about outflying P-51's but you know what can you prove it did not happen? No you can not!
> 
> The Focke-Wulf Ta 152 name refers to the final developments of the Focke-Wulf Fw 190 aircraft which was redesignated with the 'Ta' in honor of Kurt Tank who headed the design team. The name started with the last Ta 152 models although only 67 production aircraft were delivered. The Ta 152H models were among the fastest fighters of the war, capable of speeds up to 755 km/h (472 mph). It is reported that Kurt, who occasionally test flew his own designs, encountered some P-51 Mustangs towards the end of the war when he was flying a 152 and was able to out-run them by engaging the methanol-water injection system of the engine - but it is not clear if the Mustangs actually saw him and pursued.
> The total number of Ta 152 production is not well known but it should be ~150 aircraft of all types including prototypes.



Yes, I do not consider Kurt Tank's unwitnessed account of how good his creation was to be credible. This would be true of any engineer/designer making such a claim - there is just too much personal agenda involved. Besides, down low the P-51 was faster than the Ta152, so it simply does not fit with what we know about the planes.

And that 472 mph figure is a Kurt Tank projected speed. There is no evidence any Ta152 ever achieved it in actual flight.

As for the prototype comment, you are taking it too literally. No the TA152 was not purely a prototype. But then, neither was the P-51H. The point was that deploying such aircraft in small numbers would have no impact on the outcome of the war. Therefore, the USA, which was winning the war did not rush them into service. Germany, which was loosing the war and was desperate, threw them into the meat grinder.

And as for US fighters, I really prefer the F4U-4 over the P-51 in most repsects.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Soren (Apr 12, 2005)

About the Fw-190 and P-51.

Read AFDU's test with the Fw-190A4 and P-51B. 

The AFDU's test revealed that the Fw-190A4 was equal in turning to the P-51B at slow speeds, and superior at high speeds. And in roll rate the FW-190A4 was very much superior.

The Fw-190D9 was superior in every aspect of flight to the P-51 except in diving, and this is scientifically and historically proven !

The "Dora" would outturn and outroll a P-51 anytime, and the "Dora" also had a better climbrate ! 

These are all facts wich are supported by "Reliable" Sources.

------------------------------------------------------

As for the Atomic Bomb........ _In 1938, three chemists working in a laboratory in Berlin made a discovery that would alter the course of history: they split the uranium atom._


----------



## Zamex (Apr 12, 2005)

Fw 190 V16 achieved 724 km/h in 7000 m, and with MW 50 even 750 km/h. So I dont see why Ta 152 could not reach 755.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 12, 2005)

Soren, would you care to provide that AFDU report? Or do you expect me to hunt it down too?


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 12, 2005)

Zamex said:


> Fw 190 V16 achieved 724 km/h in 7000 m, and with MW 50 even 750 km/h. So I dont see why Ta 152 could not reach 755.



I'm not saying it couldn't, just that I've not seen that it actually did.

One reason it might not be as fast as the fastest of the Dora series would be the wider wings make more drag.


----------



## Udet (Apr 12, 2005)

Even the heavy Sturmböcke Focke Wulf 190s, with the rough 250 kg of extra armour, reducing the maximun speed to some 625km/hr, in a one against one match could tangle with the P-51.

There are recorded and confirmed victories gained over the Mustangs by the Sturmböck kids.


----------



## blackeagle_I (Apr 12, 2005)

A perspective from Germany pilot about late version of 190A. 

I quote the following paragraphs from Ace High Forum. Crumpp, a well know FW190 enthusiast interviewed a Luftwaffe ace.


What a great conversation! Learned some great stuff and raised some new questions. Don't want to get too detailed as I am writing a book. 

Little background. This guy has plenty of confirmed kills. He flew Me-109's from the beginning up until the Bf-109G6. From there he transferred over to the FW-190A8 in 1944. His "training" on the FW was an orientation to the cockpit and a circuit around the field. He then took off and flew his first combat mission in the type. No additional training and no pilots manual. 

On fighting the airplane: 

He primarily TURNFOUGHT Mustangs, Yaks, and La 5's. Spitfires he fought in the vertical. None of them were a problem for the FW-190A in the dogfight. 

Aileron adjustment was extremely important to the turn performance of the type. There are THREE different ailerons that can be mounted on the FW-190A. Each has different hinge type and different performance. All were the pilot's choice to have mounted. He named the ones he preferred. 

Additionally his crew chief would mount the ailerons with a spacer, which gave them additional height. This came from a FW Technical bulletin. Said it helped with low speed performance. 

On the Flaps: 

He did not mention the exact speed. I will press him for that later. He was in a very talkative mood but is not completely comfortable with English. Between my German and his English though the points were made. 

He did use them in every engagement that he turned. They did decrease the turn rate considerably. 

On the Prop: 

The FW-190A8 had three props available for pilot use. Again it was the pilots choice. He preferred the broad chord wooden propeller. Said it had more flex and he felt it gave more of a bite in the air during low speed maneuvering. 

Normal Metal Prop - VDM 9-16176A 
Wide Chord Wooden Prop - VDM 9-12157H3 

Manual mentions some others, anybody got any info on this? 

On the boost systems: 

GM-1, MW-50, and C3 "emergency power" were ALL used on the FW-190A. The FW-190A8 was rated for 1.58ata/1.65ata for 10 minutes. He also mentioned another alcohol based boost system but I need more information from him on it. MW30 perhaps, I wrote the name down and it is not an MW system. I am thinking an EW system similar to the later 109's. 

GM-1 and MW-50 were more common than we would believe. This is confirmed by Dr Timken who has several of the systems laying around his hanger and they are listed on the FW-190 parts catalog. Anyway, I have more interviews with him later. 

Surprised to learn on the boost systems though was: 

He never used them! The alcohol based system took almost 3 minutes to develop power. He said bullets were much faster than all the boost systems. Roll and shallow dive was his best maneuver when an enemy fighter got on his six. He said the FW-190A8's dive acceleration would slam you to the back of the cockpit. He also said the acceleration when the second stage supercharger gear kicked in was very noticeable. Sounded like a modern automatic transmission. The supercharger would whine for a few seconds and followed by a "clunk" as the gear engaged. Then the acceleration would push you back. 

He mentioned several times "I feared no Mustang." Looking at his record, I have no doubt he did not! 

Oh he mentioned he always performed a 3 point landing and take off in the FW-190. Said prop strikes were common if you did not. 

Let me clarify this statement. After talking with him a few more times I want to say: 

He did NOT level turnfight these planes. He use a High Yo-Yo and a Low Yo-Yo to gain advantage. He would get in close and use the initial accelleration performance of the FW-190A8. Remember 1.58ata/1.65ata was a throttle setting on the FW-190A8 not a function of boost. 

He said you could drop the take-off flaps and considerable tighten the turn. First he would back off the throttle, drop flaps, and then increase the throttle. When fitted with the VDM 9-12157H3 the initial accelleration of the FW-190A8 was much better than his 109G6 and would easily overcome the drag of the flaps leaving you with plenty of energy to yo-yo. 

He also flew the 4 MG151's loadout.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 12, 2005)

Udet said:


> Even the heavy Sturmböcke Focke Wulf 190s, with the rough 250 kg of extra armour, reducing the maximun speed to some 625km/hr, in a one against one match could tangle with the P-51.
> 
> There are recorded and confirmed victories gained over the Mustangs by the Sturmböck kids.



Any plane could kill any plane if the situation were right. For purposes of these discussions, I assume we are talking about mutually aware combat, not instances where one plane sneaks up on the other without being spotted and blasts it out of the sky.

Interestingly, something around 90% of surviving pilots who were shot down in WWII reported they did not know the enemy plane was there and their first awarness they were under attack was when they started seeing tracers or taking hits. So the great majority of kills on all sides are really not the kind of kills we are discussing when we are trying to compare the relative merits of different fighters.

So can you document cases of FW190A kills that involved actual mutually aware combat where the FW managed to out manuver the P-51 and achieve the kill?

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 12, 2005)

Blackeagle,

I cannot take that supposed interview seriously.



> Surprised to learn on the boost systems though was:
> 
> He never used them! The alcohol based system took almost 3 minutes to develop power. He said bullets were much faster than all the boost systems. Roll and shallow dive was his best maneuver when an enemy fighter got on his six. He said the FW-190A8's dive acceleration would slam you to the back of the cockpit.



1) Water/alcohol injection does not take any 3 minutes to develop power. It simply allows higher manifold pressure to be attained without detonation. It is almost instantaneous (however long it takes to push the lever to a higher MP setting). On most systems, this is tied to the mp regulator and pushing the MP handle forward (or whatever control it's tied to) past a certain point initiates the water/alcohol injection.

GM-1 (nitros oxide) boost would even be more dramatic. On a car, you learn to put your head against the headrest before engaging it if you don't want a neck ache. It is instantaneous and you can really feel it!

2) No plane would "slam you back" in the cockpit in a dive. Gravity pulls on the pilot just as it does on the plane. None of the WWII prop planes got more dive acceleration from the engine than from their own weight, so the feel of being slammed into the back of the cockpit would be lower in a dive than in level flight or in a climb. Any experianced flyer would know this.

As for Yo-Yo manuvers, the FW had no special capaiblity in this regaurd. And furthermore, they are generally only effective if you have considerably more energy than your opponent.

I'd like to hear who this supposed German pilot was and confirm his existance as an actual WWII Luftwaffe' pilot. I seriously doubt he really exists. If he does, I seriously doubt this Crummp guy really interviewed him.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Udet (Apr 13, 2005)

RG, you ask for evidence? Let it be my pleasure:

Evidence 1.

"Schlageter" Emil Lang (The Bully), flying his Fw190 A-8, fried four (4) Mustangs in quick succesion TWICE.


Evidence 2.

"Pitt" Bauer, of JG 300, flying his Fw190 A-8 destroyed 3 Mustangs in less than 6 minutes.

Evidence 3.

This time, against the P-47, which in my view deserves far greater praising than that the Mustang has got.

Egon Mayer, JG 2, flying a Butcher Bird shot down 4 P-47s in real quick succesion.


While i agree with you many pilots never knew what hit them, there are cases where of course the rule does not apply.

You are not going to suggest flights of Mustangs got "bounced" in such a manner they´d not notice their nemesis shooting down 3 or 4 of their own flock one after another are you?

Furthermore if the Mustang was "so clearly superior" to the Butcher Bird, how come most Fw190s and Bf109s engaging them -yes after taking their losses as well- would return to their base?

What kind of logical explanation do you have for this when the Mustang squadrons engaged were conducting free sweeps?

If it was so superior -additionally enjoying a true far greater range and numerical superiority on most engagements- why did not they continue to pursuit the German guys wherever they might go? Or if they did, how come they could not get them all? Perhaps because neither the Butcher Bird and the Bf109 pilots were that easy to catch?

As to the victories gained over by Mustangs by the Sturmbock kids, they were not that rare.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 13, 2005)

Udet said:


> While i agree with you many pilots never knew what hit them, there are cases where of course the rule does not apply.



But probably none of those cases.



Udet said:


> You are not going to suggest flights of Mustangs got "bounced" in such a manner they´d not notice their nemesis shooting down 3 or 4 of their own flock one after another are you?



It happened all the time, to both sides. If an enemy plane got in position behind and below a fight group, and picked off the tail end charlie, no one else might notice for quite a while.



Udet said:


> Furthermore if the Mustang was "so clearly superior" to the Butcher Bird, how come most Fw190s and Bf109s engaging them -yes after taking their losses as well- would return to their base?



"Most" combatant aircraft usually returned to base after an engagement, so this question is just silly.



Udet said:


> What kind of logical explanation do you have for this when the Mustang squadrons engaged were conducting free sweeps?



Well, first off this usually happend when the P-51's were headed home, after expending their ammo on ground targets. Also, the Luftwaffe' had a distinct advantage in that they had radar and ground spotting directing their fighters to the US aircraft. And radar tracking often could tell the German fighters that a flight would be found headed home in a given area, knowing it was pretty well spent.



Udet said:


> If it was so superior -additionally enjoying a true far greater range and numerical superiority on most engagements- why did not they continue to pursuit the German guys wherever they might go? Or if they did, how come they could not get them all? Perhaps because neither the Butcher Bird and the Bf109 pilots were that easy to catch?



Because that is an unrealistic expectation of any air combat. It is very hard to successfully pursue all enemy fighters if they are trying to escape. Also, the FW was a very good diver, and the US planes would have been loath to go low early in their sortie. And of course it was well known that German pilots would lead US fighters who did follow them down to near the ground into AA traps. And finally, even though the P-51 had great range, by the time it had gone into Germany and executed its primary mission, fuel was limited. Often the option to give up altitude and continue an extended pursuit would have meant not being able to return to base, which was hundreds of miles away.



Udet said:


> As to the victories gained over by Mustangs by the Sturmbock kids, they were not that rare.



So? You do admit the Luftwaffe' position was the advantageous position right? Flying over their own territory, having radar and ground spotters, and not having flown for hours to get into the combat area nor having hours of return flight in front of them, were all advantages to the German pilots. Offense is harder than defense - the Germans tried to do to England what the US did to Germany in the BoB, and they failed even though the task was easier!

Just look at Big Week, the US had fewer P-51's than the Luftwaffe had defensive fighters, but took fewer losses. In that week, something like 1000 Luftwaffe' fighters were destroyed, and 1/3rd of the Luftwaffe' pilots were killed. How do you explain that?

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 13, 2005)

As for the P-47 deserving "greater praise" than the P-51, well in some respects I agree. But, it didn't have the range to take the fight to the Luftwaffe' who were hiding deep in Germany. That was something the P-51 alone was able to do.

Clearly, the Anton was superior to the P-47C (unmodified), but the P-47D with water injection enjoyed a small advantage, and with water injection and the paddle prop, a significant one.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## blackeagle_I (Apr 13, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> In that week, something like 1000 Luftwaffe' fighters were destroyed, and 1/3rd of the Luftwaffe' pilots were killed. How do you explain that?
> Lunatic



Did Luftwaffe fighters suffered 1000 destroyed in that week?


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 13, 2005)

blackeagle_I said:


> Did Luftwaffe fighters suffered 1000 destroyed in that week?



The "Big Week" campaign actually lasted about 5 weeks, that is what they called the start of the "kill the Luftwaffe'" campaign in late Febuary and the name has kinda stuck. I should have stated it better. Over that 5 week period, prior to the switch to tactical operations at the start of April in preperation for D-Day, the German's lost about 1000 fighters.



> On February 20, 1944, five days of coordinated USAAF/RAF assaults on the German aircraft industry began, that historians later named "The Big Week". On that day, the first thousand-plane raid took place, with fighter plane factories at Brunswick, Oschersleben, Bernberg, and Leipzig being attacked. The cost of the "Big Week" was heavy, with 244 heavy bombers and 33 fighter planes being lost. However, these raids played an important role in helping to reduce the strength of the Luftwaffe, paving the way for the D-Day landings. The onset of bad weather brought an end to the "Big Week", which was merciful since crews were exhausted and losses had been high. Nevertheless, during this offensive, the back of the Luftwaffe was broken. After this date, the Luftwaffe was never able to throw up the same amount of strength that it had before, and was generally effective only on sporadic occasions or when targets of critical importance were being attacked.
> http://home.att.net/~jbaugher2/b17_21.html



=S=

Lunatic


----------



## evangilder (Apr 13, 2005)

There is a huge difference between 1000 planes in 1 week and 1000 planes in 5 weeks. Are those 1000 planes claimed, or 1000 confirmed with Luftwaffe records? I am not trying to nitpick, but get a clear picture, because claims versus actual kills were often quite different.


----------



## Erich (Apr 13, 2005)

Big Week one of the biggest slaughters of US heavy bombers during February 1944. Historical references have tried to cover this up for 60 years and there is no true book on this interesting of subjects.

According to official Freiburg BA/MA losses reports of the JG's and ZG's during February 20-25th aka Big Week there were :

145 German crew KIA
250 German a/c shot down with 60-100 % loss

believe the lies if you will, another indication to me that American researchers have not done their homework and that US overclaiming was much more than anyone has ever thought possilbe...........

v/r E ~


----------



## evangilder (Apr 13, 2005)

That is why I asked if they were claimed or verified. I know claims were very often just that, _claims_. I understand that some people get caught up in patriotic fervor, but in the interest of real history, the numbers should be accurate. Otherwise it paints an unrealistic picture.


----------



## Erich (Apr 13, 2005)

you may find this of interest, during Big week that the US 8th AF alone claimed 376 German a/c, not counting what the US 15th AF claimed for the week.

One of the largest combined losses was over 70 US a/c on the 25th of February when the US 8th and 15th AF were assaulted in numbers of single and twin engines, many wrong ID's of Ju 88's carrying and firing rockets as well as Heinekl 111's.

for now.........


----------



## evangilder (Apr 13, 2005)

Wow! Is that 70 aircraft of all types, or just the heavies?


----------



## Erich (Apr 13, 2005)

all types and I do not have all totals of 15th AF heavies or fighters confirmed. Big week lasted from 20-25th of February and not another 5 weeks as the Berlin raids of the first week of March 44 are seperate and were to be the cuase in Allied eyes the demise of the Berlin factory and moral of the German populace but it did not work. In any case it probably built up the defiance heven more of the Berliners as more single 105mm and 88mm's were brought to the city ring on rail cars for future defence and the more single engine fightes were brought to the area of Jüterbog and three other airfields in defence both day and night of Berlin in 44-45.

I've studied this part of the air war both day/night for over 25 years and their is so much confusion , actually mis-information that no-one of English speaking skills has taken the time to correct losses and claims of the Allies during the heavy attacks during the winter-s[pring of 44.
One scna paperback book on big week with a ton of errors and the famous Berlin March 6 raid by Ethell which has been reprinted a half dozen times, still the authority on the raid, but what about the other days of death ? There is plenty of German archival docs available if someone would take the time for serious study the comparisions from boths sides would be quite revealing, and this is one of the prime reasons I do not loiter on the many so-called expert web-sites full of old and inaccurate findings.

This was a reason why we started up our web-site on the summer-fall battles of 1944 over the Reich. Funny how many US veterans eyes were opened up when we did correspondance via phone, first person and letter interviews and related the German documentation to them. they had no idea what was "on the other side".

Erich ♪


----------



## Soren (Apr 13, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> Soren, would you care to provide that AFDU report? Or do you expect me to hunt it down too?



Sorry but this one isnt available on the Internet (As far as a know at least)


----------



## evangilder (Apr 13, 2005)

I applaud your efforts to correct the information that is out there.


----------



## Erich (Apr 13, 2005)

side notation............is everyone aware that nearly 70 US 8th AF a/c were downed by single and twin engine Luftwaffe a/c on 11 January 1944. This is documented too and actually in a new book by a Dutch author through Hikoki publications. I have been researching this air-battle with another Dutch friend for over 8 years


----------



## Erich (Apr 13, 2005)

7-7-44

Blitzschlacht über Oschersleben which is covered in brief detail on our web-site. 59 US heavies shot dwon from the 8th and 15 US AF which crossed over one another's bomb route by accident, something not found in US written sources. The culprit, over 3/4r's shot down by SturmFw's of IV.Sturm/JG 3 and II.Sturm/JG 300, the remainder by Me 410B's


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 13, 2005)

The 1000 aircraft figure relates to Big Week and the following daylight air campaign until April 1, 1944. Also, it includes aircraft destroyed on the ground.

Erich, do you have loss figures for both sides? It would be interesting to know the total USAAF (fighters and bombers) and Luftwaffe losses for this period (Feb 20 - Apr 1). It would also be interesting to know how many USAAF aircraft were lost to fighters and how many to flak.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 13, 2005)

I just heard a different figure, which claims the luftwaffe' lost 1/3rd of its fighter aircraft and 1/5th of its pilots during "Big Week".

Erich, are you saying these figures are incorrect?


----------



## Erich (Apr 13, 2005)

RG as I said in those 5 days my figures are from "official German Documental sources via Freiburg and Aachen, Berlin. Including inidvidual Geschwader operational histories.

If you consider what you have given there would have been absolutely no-one to put up any counter to any P-47's, P-38's and P-51's as well as fighting the Heavies. All new recruits would of either been at Schule or shot down in combat.............the Schwere Flak would of been the only thing during March and April and half of May, and we know that is quite untrue

by the way slightly getting back to the Dora production figs, there 1805 produced but it is not truley known how many went to operational units and schule

E ~


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 14, 2005)

And that was largely the case. In 64 combat sorties during WWII, Chuck Yeager only saw German aircraft in flight on 5 of his sorties. Such claims of not being able to find German fighters in the air are common from early Summer 1944 till the end of the war.

The figures quoted were:

1/3rd of Luftwaffe' aircraft and 1/5th of the pilots were lost during Big Week. By the end of March, 1944, the Luftwaffe' had lost over 1000 pilots including 28 Experten.

I'm looking for good info on actual losses, so I can confirm or disprove the figures listed above, but so far, I've not found too much.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 14, 2005)

As for those Dora production figures, can you qualify the defintion of "production"? As we have discussed before, werknumber allocation is a very poor method for determining actual German production. So are factory accountings. Deliveries, acceptances, and of course deployments, in that order, are the much preferred data.

Pilot accounts don't seem to support the idea of anywhere near even 1000 Dora's having been in operation, let alone almost 2000. If there really were that many, where were they?

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 14, 2005)

Soren said:


> RG_Lunatic said:
> 
> 
> > Soren, would you care to provide that AFDU report? Or do you expect me to hunt it down too?
> ...



Can you give me the name, number, and date of the report? And the author if that info is available?

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## evangilder (Apr 14, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> The figures quoted were:
> 
> 1/3rd of Luftwaffe' aircraft and 1/5th of the pilots were lost during Big Week. By the end of March, 1944, the Luftwaffe' had lost over 1000 pilots including 28 Experten.



Where were those figures quoted? Losing 1,000 _pilots_? Typically, losing 1,000 pilots means that more airplanes were lost than that as some of the pilots survive. Is it 1,000 pilots, or planes? Those number seem inflated if it is aircraft, even moreso if it is pilot figures.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 14, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> As for those Dora production figures, can you qualify the defintion of "production"? As we have discussed before, werknumber allocation is a very poor method for determining actual German production. So are factory accountings. Deliveries, acceptances, and of course deployments, in that order, are the much preferred data.
> 
> Pilot accounts don't seem to support the idea of anywhere near even 1000 Dora's having been in operation, let alone almost 2000. If there really were that many, where were they?
> 
> ...



If you had read what he posted you would have seen that he said of the number of Dora's built it is unknown how many actually made into line units or to the schools. But I myself also have never heard of anymore then 700 being built also, so I do not know either.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 14, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> And that was largely the case. In 64 combat sorties during WWII, Chuck Yeager only saw German aircraft in flight on 5 of his sorties. Such claims of not being able to find German fighters in the air are common from early Summer 1944 till the end of the war.
> 
> The figures quoted were:
> 
> ...



That was mostly do to the fact that the factories that built the fighters were put out of action for several months because of The Big Week.



> Big Week was the name given later to the coordinated six-day air offensive (ARGUMENT) launched in February 1944 by RAF Bomber Command and the US Strategic Air Forces in Europe (USSTAF) as part of the Combined Bomber Offensive.
> 
> USSTAF had been formed under General Spaatz on 1 January 1944. It comprised the Eighth and Ninth US Army Air Forces, based in the UK, and the Fifteenth USAAF which was based in Italy. The previous year Eighth USAAF had suffered heavy losses during raids on Schweinfurt and elsewhere. Consequently, US daylight raids deep into Germany had been suspended until long-range fighters to escort the bombers had been delivered, and good weather made the raids viable.
> 
> ...


----------



## KraziKanuK (Apr 14, 2005)

Me262 production - 1433 produced, 936 delivered. (611 damaged or lost due to Allied causes > 114 repaired)

This was done *under* American supervision. Do you dispute these numbers RG?

.............

from http://www.maxwell.af.mil/au/afhra/wwwroot/aafsd/aafsd_index_table.html 

Table 159, ETO losses Feb 1944

heavy bombers - 271

a/c - 170
AAA - 81
other - 20

lt/med bombers - 19

a/c - 4
AAA - 14
other - 1

fighters - 103

a/c - 69
AAA - 13
other - 21

Table 167, e/a claimed destroyed ETO

Feb 1944 - 741

Table 159, ETO losses Mar 1944

heavy bombers - 345

a/c - 178
AAA - 112
other - 55

lt/med bombers - 15

a/c - 2
AAA - 94
other - 4

fighters - 191

a/c - 54
AAA - 46
other - 91

Table 167, e/a claimed destroyed ETO

Mar 1944 - 910


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 14, 2005)

Thats a lot of downed aircraft.


----------



## Erich (Apr 14, 2005)

KK it must be my Opa eyes but I do not fully understand your tables. Are you stating that in some figures for daylights ops only very few US heavies ? shot down by fighters, and this is from US tabletures ?

RG yes it is confimred through German sources 1805 Doras produced but as I saiad not know what by werk nummer or even how many issued to front line Schule or Operational Geschwader. In another posting I have shown as to what operative units the Dora 9 and 11 were given to and what was on hand but I did not state as I do not know just how many in numbers......in fact no one knows as it is never explained nor stated. In ragerdance to one particualr heavily engaged unit IV./JG 26 ex III./JG 54 the first unit that accepted the type. Neither unit in their written histories tell just how many a/c came on board. All we have is a sketch of the over all loses by diary.

I also can give the number via German sources from 20 February to March1944's end of claims and losses by total numbers but you must give me a couple of weeks as there are other priorities like work..............puke !


----------



## KraziKanuK (Apr 14, 2005)

Erich,

Table 159, ETO losses Feb 1944

heavy bombers - 271

*by* a/c - 170 (62.7%)
*by* AAA - 81 (29.9%)
*by* other - 20 (7.4%)

Table 159, ETO losses Mar 1944

heavy bombers - 345

*by* a/c - 178 (51.6%)
*by* AAA - 112 (32.5%)
*by* other - 55 (15.9%) 

Does the *by* help?

Yes, these are USAAF numbers from *Army Air Forces Statistical Digest*.


----------



## Erich (Apr 14, 2005)

har har the info is right in front of me as I just pulled it up......and I have anothe 1/2 hr before I blast off into space....

giddy with excitement

Veluste im Einsatz

20 Feb.

44 kia 74 a/c lost

21 Feb.

24 kia 30 a/c lost

22 Feb.

25 kia 53 a/c lost

24 Feb.

33 kia 45 a/c lost

25 Feb.

19 kia 48 a/c lost //// Big week ends
____________________________________________________

For all missions flown in 1944 and this includes non combat ops and inclusion of accidnets at base, schule, etc........

Verluste der Tagjagdverbände März 1944, nur Reichsverteidigung, West und Süd

299 kia
5 captured
143 wounded
10 missing

583 aircraft shot down and with 60-100% loss
284 a/c with minor damage

21 aircarft lost on base due to accidents as total write offs.
34 aircraft at base with minor damage.

a/c and personell losses from the holdings of RL 2 listings at Freiburg, Verlustlisten
__________________________________________________________

if my math is correct.............

that is: 444 crewmen killed 
that is: 833 Luftwaffe aircraft shot down in combat as complete loss. 

1000 ? I suppose it is close .....according to what US sources are investigated and quoted the last 30 odd years.

thoughts ?


----------



## evangilder (Apr 14, 2005)

That's still a 17% difference. I suppose you could say they rounded, but I have a feeling they rounded kills up and losses down.


----------



## Erich (Apr 14, 2005)

KK yes I can put it into my foggy mind. Will tell you that it should read more by fighters than flak as a percentage.

I have the claims of heavy bombers by individual German Luftwaffe gruppen but this will take time to gather and produce, this during the February dates of "Big Week". March too.................


----------



## Erich (Apr 14, 2005)

Evan yes for propaganda reasons I am sure to boost the ever failing moral during early 44.

Here is an interesting cases for October 1943

the infamous Münster mission.

on 10 October 1943 8th AF bombers and fighters claimed a total of 202 Luftwaffe fighters.

in reality the Luftwaffe lost a total of 27 a/c

on 14 October 1943 for Schweinfurt mission the 8th AF bombers and fighters claimed a total of 200 Luftwaffe fighters.

in reality the Luftwaffe lost a total of 38 a/c


----------



## evangilder (Apr 14, 2005)

Overclaims were very common. That is why I asked for clarification from RG if that number was claimed, or confirmed. But to call your examples overclaims is kind of underkill. Those are way overinflated!


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 14, 2005)

evangilder said:


> RG_Lunatic said:
> 
> 
> > The figures quoted were:
> ...



Admittely the source, "Target Berlin", is less than spectacular. That is why I'm trying to verify or disprove these figures.

According to Gunther Rall (interviewed) after this period the Luftwaffe' had only about 700 fighters to defend W. Europe.

Why would you think those figures are unreasonable? The Luftwaffe' got pounded in the Spring of 1944 and it was never able to recover.


----------



## evangilder (Apr 14, 2005)

Because claims are always more than what is confirmed after the fact.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 14, 2005)

Erich said:


> if my math is correct.............
> 
> that is: 444 crewmen killed
> that is: 833 Luftwaffe aircraft shot down in combat as complete loss.
> ...





RG_Lunatic said:


> 1/3rd of Luftwaffe' aircraft and 1/5th of the pilots were lost during Big Week. By the end of March, 1944, the Luftwaffe' had lost over 1000 pilots including 28 Experten.



Which implies that the Luftwaffe' had about 2300 planes and pilots on the W. Front at the start of big week. If they lost 444 in the first 5 days, 1000 is not unreasonable by the end of March.

Or are you saying that is the sum of losses in 1944? If that is true, then where was the 10,000 plane strong Luftwaffe'?

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 14, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> Me262 production - 1433 produced, 936 delivered. (611 damaged or lost due to Allied causes > 114 repaired)
> 
> This was done *under* American supervision. Do you dispute these numbers RG?



Actually I think there were a few more airframes produced, but fewer delivered _with engines_. If you go through this site:

http://www.stormbirds.com/werknummer/

It appears that over 1500, perhaps as many as about 2400, Me262 airframes were constructed. However, going through the database of individual aircraft records yeilds only about 300 that may have seen combat.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## KraziKanuK (Apr 14, 2005)

Those numbers (Me262) are for fully finished a/c delivered from the factories.

I don't know where you got the 300 number from but almost 800 were with JV 44, JG 7, KG51 and KG(J)54.


----------



## Erich (Apr 14, 2005)

you forget the EJG 2 and 3 gruppen and the home defence factory units.

RG I am not quite sure where you are going. I quoted you the losses sustained by the twin engine and single engine fighter gruppen for Big week that was from 20-25 of FEbruary, no longer than that and also for the whole month of March 44.
If you are wanting comp[lete loss and claims figures for all of 1944 I could ablige but it is going to cost you.........
Your 2500 or so figure just may include night fighters as they were used in the winter of 43-March of 44 then withdrawn back to the night skies.

To be frank nothing will ever agree, overclaiming was done on both sides, the Allies due to bolstering the bomber crews ego's gave multiple kills to gunners of the smae German a/c downed. This is a proven fact. 

so much German material is still lost and I have said on more than one occassion that claims by Luftwaffe pilots were not officially granted in the fall of 44 till wars end and the only way to even come close is to research through the GErman GEschwader histories but not all of them are covered in print and if they are some are so brief we do not have dates, hours or even what they shot down. The ZG units for 43 through 44 are not even covered except just briefly in mention of an important air battle. III./ZG 26 ops in very brief details are covered from Freiburg as is almost not worht mentioning, same goes for the day ops of twin engine fighter units, they just are not there.... 

To be perfectly honest I wouldn't believe anything that Günther RAll quotes now as he is up there in years and his mind has been warped. He is good for his memoires still on his own personal scored on the Ost front but when I interviewed him for his II./JG 11 skills and especially his Kommodore activites for JG 300 he hadn't a clue


----------



## Erich (Apr 14, 2005)

RG :

re-read my post. they did not lose 444 crewmen in 5 days. Only 5 days of battle in Big week with a loss of 145.

299 for all of March KIA


----------



## Udet (Apr 14, 2005)

As Erich very rightly put it, the so called "Big Week" is full of crap.

RG: how much more evidence will you think you´d be requiring to accept the USA and Britain had a propaganda as prolific as that of the soviets?


It is god dam useless to repeat the German losses were very high on several battles of 1944, but those of the allies were as terrible as one can think.

Actually losses of pilots and airmen for the USAAF and RAF combined were HIGHER than those the German jagdgruppen were sustaining in 1944, since a good chunk of the enemy planes destroyed were heavy bombers with lots of guys inside of them. In the meantime, the Luftwaffe was losing mainly single engine fighters and some twin engined ones.

RG: the guys on the side you belong have spent more than half a century trying to find an alleged so called "definitive-decisive" massive battle when the Luftwaffe got finally "broken" by the "gallant, heroic, superbly trained gentle chivalrous boys" of the USAAF flying their "infinitely superior planes".

I am pleased to inform you such a "decisive" moment is nowhere to be found, for there is none.

The Luftwaffe got defeated slowly; it was a gradual process of accumulated losses and substantial numerical superiority of the enemy that defeated the Luftwaffe.

The Luftwaffe got its back broken in early 1944? Hogwash.

Read further on the accounts of units such as JG 300, JG 301 just to name a couple -units which operated throughout 1944 with several mixed succeses-. And do not forget to spy even further on the job (mid/late 1944) of the Sturmböck kids of JG 3, JG 4 and JG 300 who sent a high number of enemy heavy bombers to the ground.


----------



## evangilder (Apr 14, 2005)

Udet, I agree that there was no defining moment or battle that broke the Luftwaffe. It was a war of attrition and the losses were heavy on both sides. The Luftwaffe put up one hell of a fight to the end and it is clear from the numbers shown that the allies did not have "superior" airplanes. They were actually fairly evenly matched.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Apr 14, 2005)

RG wanted the name of the source for the number of Doras produced >> Rodieke's "Focke Wulf Jagdflugzueg".

If he is real quick,


----------



## Erich (Apr 14, 2005)

this is the ultimate book on the Fw 190, Dora and Ta 152 except for J.Y. Lorants OOP title on the a/c, and by the way it will be republished into English from the French in time.....

v/r E ♪


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 15, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> Those numbers (Me262) are for fully finished a/c delivered from the factories.
> 
> I don't know where you got the 300 number from but almost 800 were with JV 44, JG 7, KG51 and KG(J)54.



That only about 300 Me262's of all flavors saw combat operations in WWII is a well established number. Something around 2300 werknumbers were allocated, most of which involved an airframe being at least partially constructed. About 1500 airframes were completed, to varying degrees, many missing critical components which were to be delivered in the field (such as engines). Of these 1500, I don't know exactly how many ever saw engines, but a large number of those that did suffered engine failures prior to or upon their first flight.

If you go through the werknumber database I gave the link for, you can see the details on all 262's which were actually delivered, and its fate. Unfortunately, it does not always indicate if the plane flew combat or not. But, it is apparent that the units were normally delivered to the JG's and they conducted the first flight - many of them indicate loss due to engine failure on test flight.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 15, 2005)

If there were soooo many Anton's and Doras flying, how did the allied bombers manage to wipe out German oil production in the Spring of 1944? If the Luftwaffe' didn't get its ass kicked in Spring 1944, where were they on D-Day?

It doesn't make any sense.


----------



## Zamex (Apr 15, 2005)

Here are the production nubmers of Fw 190. Numbers in italics are estimated. All other data according to FW factory production book:


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 15, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> KraziKanuK said:
> 
> 
> > Those numbers (Me262) are for fully finished a/c delivered from the factories.
> ...



Well over 1400 were fully completed but very few saw service probably around 300.



> Over 1,400 Me-262s were built, but only a relatively small portion of them ever saw action. Fuel was scarce, and Allied aircraft strafed and bombed at will. It appears that the Luftwaffe never had more than 200 on strength at any one time. The Me-262 shot down about 150 Allied aircraft, versus the loss of 100 Me-262s in action, an uninspiring war record.
> http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avme262.html#m2





> Although little more than 500 Me 262s had been produced by December 1944, by the end of the war the total had risen to about 1.430. Probably less than a quarter of these saw frontline service, and losses among them were quite heavy, even though relatively few losses were realised in combat. Despite this, their destruction of Allied bombers and fighters was greater than one for one, and JV 44, the top-scoring Me 262 interceptor unit, achieved some 50 kills' in little more than a month's operations in 1945. In air-to-air combat the Me 262 never engaged its British counterpart, the twin-jet Gloster Meteor (which was slower and less well armed); conversely, many Me 262s were destroyed by Allied Mustang, Spitfire, Tempest and Thunderbolt piston-engined fighters.
> http://www.fiddlersgreen.net/AC/aircraft/Messerschmitt-Me262/me262_info/m262_info.htm



Are these eneough sources for you or are you not going to believe it either because it goes against what you are saying here?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 15, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> If there were soooo many Anton's and Doras flying, how did the allied bombers manage to wipe out German oil production in the Spring of 1944? If the Luftwaffe' didn't get its ass kicked in Spring 1944, where were they on D-Day?
> 
> It doesn't make any sense.



On D-Day there were 2 sorties flown but the rest of the pilots in the area believe it or not were on furlow back in Germany. I am surprised you had not read this before RG.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Apr 15, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> KraziKanuK said:
> 
> 
> > Those numbers (Me262) are for fully finished a/c delivered from the factories.
> ...



Since no P-80 or P-51H saw combat we can write them off as someones vivid imagination.  

Every 262 was test flown before delivery to a combat unit. They were also flown to the combat units.

I did go through the link, which I knew of a long time ago. Do a search by 'unit' and see what turns up. Seems someone has a double standard.

I don't know why you keep mentioning WNr?


----------



## cheddar cheese (Apr 15, 2005)

Zamex said:


> Here are the production nubmers of Fw 190. Numbers in italics are estimated. All other data according to FW factory production book:



Nice table there! 8)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 15, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> RG_Lunatic said:
> 
> 
> > KraziKanuK said:
> ...



Very well said!


----------



## Erich (Apr 15, 2005)

a couple of things..........

there were more than 2 sorites flown by the Luftwaffe on D-day, only 2 over the beach head.

second the oil production facilities were not smashed in the spring of 1944 but by winter of 44-45. My cousin was KIA on 26 November 44 in one of the crucial battles over the Misburg manufacturing plants which was going storng and had been rebuilt numerous times and even after this November incident though production was severly reduced after this particular raid


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 15, 2005)

That is actually what I was talking about Erich. 2 sorties over the beaches.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 15, 2005)

i thought it went without saying


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 15, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Well over 1400 were fully completed but very few saw service probably around 300.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



????

These figures basically agree with what I'm saying, only about 300 or so Me262's saw action in WWII.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 16, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> RG_Lunatic said:
> 
> 
> > If there were soooo many Anton's and Doras flying, how did the allied bombers manage to wipe out German oil production in the Spring of 1944? If the Luftwaffe' didn't get its ass kicked in Spring 1944, where were they on D-Day?
> ...



You mean they sent all the thousands of pilots in the area of on Furlow right at the time they were expecting an invasion? Do you really believe that?


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 16, 2005)

Erich said:


> second the oil production facilities were not smashed in the spring of 1944 but by winter of 44-45. My cousin was KIA on 26 November 44 in one of the crucial battles over the Misburg manufacturing plants which was going storng and had been rebuilt numerous times and even after this November incident though production was severly reduced after this particular raid



My point was that if they didn't suffer heavy losses in the Spring where were they in the late Spring and Summer? German oil production was hit hard in the late Spring/Early Summer 1944. Why weren't they able to defend their oil resources?


----------



## Soren (Apr 16, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
> 
> 
> > RG_Lunatic said:
> ...



Actually the invasion came ealier than expected.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Apr 16, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> You mean they sent all the thousands of pilots in the area of on Furlow right at the time they were expecting an invasion? Do you really believe that?



When did a JG, JG 26 in this case, have 1000s of pilots?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 16, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> These figures basically agree with what I'm saying, only about 300 or so Me262's saw action in WWII.



And no one here was contesting that. We were contesting that more then 300 were built. Nobody ever said that more then 300 saw service.



RG_Lunatic said:


> You mean they sent all the thousands of pilots in the area of on Furlow right at the time they were expecting an invasion? Do you really believe that?



Whoever said that there were thousands of pilots in the area?


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 16, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> RG_Lunatic said:
> 
> 
> > These figures basically agree with what I'm saying, only about 300 or so Me262's saw action in WWII.
> ...



And I never disputed that around 1450 were officially produced. I just don't think that a plane can really be counted as "produced" unless it is flyable. As I said before, about 2400 airframes were laid down, about 1450 were produced, about 800 were delivered (many with non-working engines), only about 300 saw combat service plus a number of prototypes flew as test planes (perhaps 50?).



DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> RG_Lunatic said:
> 
> 
> > You mean they sent all the thousands of pilots in the area of on Furlow right at the time they were expecting an invasion? Do you really believe that?
> ...


[/quote]

Well, if you look at German fighter production from Nov. 1943 to Apr. 1944, there should have been well over 10,000 new fighter planes available. If the Luftwaffe' was not suffering heavy losses of planes and pilots during this period - where were they on D-Day?


----------



## Soren (Apr 16, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> Well, if you look at German fighter production from Nov. 1943 to Apr. 1944, there should have been well over 10,000 new fighter planes available. If the Luftwaffe' was not suffering heavy losses of planes and pilots during this period - where were they on D-Day?



Many were stuck on the ground because of fuel shortage, and even more pilots were on furlow.

You'll be surprised how much the LW was restricted by fuel shortage during the 44-45 period !


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 16, 2005)

Fuel shortages would not have really started for aircraft bases until mid-summer or so. The strategic fuel resources were not specifically targeted in a big way until after D-Day. Tactical fuel resources were targeted, but again, why wasn't the Luftwaffe' defending those?


----------



## Soren (Apr 16, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> Fuel shortages would not have really started for aircraft bases until mid-summer or so. The strategic fuel resources were not specifically targeted in a big way until after D-Day. Tactical fuel resources were targeted, but again, why wasn't the Luftwaffe' defending those?



RG the German army was in fuel shortage already in 43 ! Why else do you think it was so important for the German army to get those oil resources in the Caucasus ?


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 17, 2005)

Oil was in short supply in terms of supporting major ground offensives, but there was pleanty for conducting defensive air operations. The Luftwaffe' didn't suffer from such shortages until the Fall of 1944.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 17, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> Well, if you look at German fighter production from Nov. 1943 to Apr. 1944, there should have been well over 10,000 new fighter planes available. If the Luftwaffe' was not suffering heavy losses of planes and pilots during this period - where were they on D-Day?



Please tell me you dont actually believe that those 10000 were all in Normandy?  Lets see there was the Eastern Front, the Med, and the air defence of Germany.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 17, 2005)

Of course not. But really, they were no where to be found on the W. front. The defense of Germany in late summer 1944 consisted of something like 700 fighters. Of those 10,000, you'd expect at least a few thousand to have been allocated to the W. front. Had the Germans been able to put up 3000 fighters to intercept the US bomber formations, they'd have wiped out those formations.

The only logical explanation here is that the Luftwaffe' did not have the planes or pilots available to mount such interceptions, or to operate against the allies in Normandy during D-day. The only logical explanation for that would be losses.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 17, 2005)

There were two complete Jagd Geschwader in the vicinity of Normandy on D-Day and most of the pilots were on leave back in Germany. A 3rd JG (I believe it was JG II/3 was on its way to Normandy on June 6, 1944 but did not arrive on time and when it did arrive there airfield had been destroyed and they could not land there.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 17, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> There were two complete Jagd Geschwader in the vicinity of Normandy on D-Day and most of the pilots were on leave back in Germany. A 3rd JG (I believe it was JG II/3 was on its way to Normandy on June 6, 1944 but did not arrive on time and when it did arrive there airfield had been destroyed and they could not land there.



And how many planes is in a JG?


----------



## KraziKanuK (Apr 17, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> And how many planes is in a JG?



JG = 3 or 4 Gruppen (wing)
1 Gruppen = 3 or 4 staffel (squadron)
1 staffel = 12 a/c

each stab = 4 a/c (JG stab and each Gruppen stab)


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 17, 2005)

Okay, I have some figures:

West 
Jan-May 1944 - day fighters: strength = 1491, losses = 5694
Jun-Oct 1944 - day fighters: strength = 1135, losses = 6412

Those are pretty nasty loss rates!

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## lesofprimus (Apr 17, 2005)

Are those combat losses or operational losses???????


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 17, 2005)

oh my god you're back!!

where you been les?? you here to stay?? and more to the point did you miss me??


----------



## KraziKanuK (Apr 17, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> Okay, I have some figures:
> 
> West
> Jan-May 1944 - day fighters: strength = 1491, losses = 5694
> ...



And American losses for 1944 was 15,675 a/c vs Germany.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 17, 2005)

lesofprimus said:


> Are those combat losses or operational losses???????



All losses.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 17, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> RG_Lunatic said:
> 
> 
> > Okay, I have some figures:
> ...



Umm... I only included "day fighter" losses. For all aircraft types, it rises to 10,745 in the Jan-May period, and 11182 from June to Oct., a total of almost 22,000 planes, not counting losses Nov. and Dec.

And besides, offense is harder than defense. And the USA knew it would win a war of attrition. It counted on it.


----------



## Soren (Apr 17, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> And besides, offense is harder than defense.



RG,

That is the oldest excuse in the book !

In aerial warfare the typical offense and defence rules all goes out the window, and especially in the case at the W-front ! In aerial warfare everyone is attacking each other, and its the guys with the most fuel and supply's who has the upper hand.

The Allies had all the advantages in 44-45, as their supply's were more than sufficient, while the Germans had severe fuel shortages wich severely limited their fighting capability. Plus the fact that the German industry was unmercyfully bombed day and night, and to top it off the Russians were coming in unstoppable masses from the east, while from the south more Allies were on the way. 

Give the Germans full fuel supply in 44-45, and the Allies would have gotten a severe beating, and thats even if they reached their goal or not.

Take the Ardenne offensive for example... In the initial stages where there was still some fuel to go on, the German beat the living daylight out of the Allies. But the succes soon stopped as fuel ran out and many viechles had to be abandoned, as 90% of all the AFV's and supply's stood still.

Fuel is the life-line of an army, and without it, it cannot function. 

Btw RG, already by mid 43 the Germans were in fuel shortage, and this had already been forseen by the German high command in early 42. This is why the conquest of the Caucasus region was so important for the Germans.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 17, 2005)

The Luftwaffe' didn't start suffering from significant fuel shortages until the Fall of 1944 - and this occured because they failed to protect Germany's fuel resources.

You've got to be kidding me as far as your argument about offense and defense being equal. For offense in this case, the USA had to to load up bombers plus escort fighters and send them 500-800 miles into enemy territory and back. The defender, Germany, had only to send their fighters up to shoot down the bombers. The bomber fleet alone was a huge vulnerability the Germans did not face (in this period).

On top of that, the Luftwaffe' had the support of ground radar and ground spotters to locate the US formations and direct them to them. And, when a Luftwaffe' plane was hit by an allied fighter or bomber it had a much better chance of successfully returning to base than did its counterpart. And finally, the Luftwaffe' was not facing flak/AA except for occassional friendly fire incidents.

Offense is harder than Defense, it's obvious.

As for your argument about the Battle of the Bulge, it was not from a shortage of fuel that the Germans failed to reach their objective, it was from an inability to get that fuel to the Panzers. This is always the issue with Blitzkrieg, even today. Supply lines get stretched thin and become increasingly vulnerable and logistics become increasingly difficult. The Germans could only load so much fuel on their Panzer's and support vehicles, when that ran out they were finished. And also the weather broke so any attempts to ferry fuel forward were hopeless.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 17, 2005)

Exactly, that's why the Luftwaffe failed against Britain in 1940


----------



## KraziKanuK (Apr 17, 2005)

Soren, 

Luni is right. offence requires at least a minimum 3:1 advantage over the enemy.

Luni,

The Germans did not have enough fuel to re-supply their units in the Bulge. They were relying on capturing Allied fuel to keep the offence going.

I only posted the US losses to put the German losses in perspective. Do you know what the British losses were?


----------



## Soren (Apr 17, 2005)

I was talking "WHILE IN THE AIR", the *typical* offense and defence rules go right out thw window ! And the guy's with the most fuel, supplies and numbers of a/c's, definitely has the upper hand.

One should bear in mind how many LW aircraft actually were shot to peaces while helpless on the ground because of fuel shortage !

Few allied aircraft were shot down on the ground or while landing or taking off, however this was common for the Germans.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 17, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> Luni,
> 
> The Germans did not have enough fuel to re-supply their units in the Bulge. They were relying on capturing Allied fuel to keep the offence going.
> 
> I only posted the US losses to put the German losses in perspective. Do you know what the British losses were?



The Germans carried as much fuel as they could with their offensive force. If they could have carried more, they would have. They lacked the capacity to support a supply chain that could provide them with fuel, and so their plan was to try to grab the fuel depot. To get one gallon of fuel to the combatants in an ongoing offensive typically costs 3 or more gallons - that's what the German's didn't have.

No I don't know what British losses between Jan and Oct 1944 were, do you have a figure?


----------



## Erich (Apr 17, 2005)

for Normandie. JG 2 and JG 26 were the only wings present on D-day. then came JG 1, JG 3, I./JG 5, I. and II./JG 11, III. and IV./JG 27, II./JG 53 and III./JG 54 on the 7th of June 44.........3-4 other gruppen came later in June to August of 44 for defence duties until pulled back into Germany


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 18, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> Okay, I have some figures:
> 
> West
> Jan-May 1944 - day fighters: strength = 1491, losses = 5694
> ...



Please dont tell me you are trying to say that those losses were in Normandy. I am sorry but there were only 2 JG's in Normandy at the time. The West is a hell of a lot more then just northern France! Erich even confirmed that there were only 2 JG's in Normandy on D-Day the rest were still in Germany until they were brought foward.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 18, 2005)

No, those losses were for the entire "West", which includes all areas of conflict with the W. Allies.

On the "Western Front" (as opposed to defense of Germany or the MTO) the figures are:

Jan-May 1944 -
day fighters: strength = 259, losses = 1628
all aircraft: strength = 1240, losses = 3435

Jun-Oct 1944 -
day fighters: strength = 581, losses = 2714
all aircraft: strength = 1348, losses = 4696

=S= 

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 19, 2005)

That sounds better then 15000 for the western front!


----------



## Erich (Apr 19, 2005)

the western front was the time before 1943 and then included Normandie only and then the Ardenne. Trying to simplify western losses-Reich defence against the Western Allies is almost impossible as in the late summer of 1943 onward till wars end the defence of the Reich or Reichsverteidigung came into play where all a/c units were involved in different roles....

E ♪


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 20, 2005)

You also have to take into account that 1943 and onward the Luftwaffe was increasingly more and more being attacked over German held territory and not on the offensive over England or elsewere.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Apr 21, 2005)

Aditional information:

JG-26 claims on 6 june of 1944, this JG was mostly equipped with FW-190 A-8









Losses.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 22, 2005)

Only two of those were actually over the beaches. Priller was one of the pilots who flew on the sorties but I am not sure who the other was.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Apr 22, 2005)

It was Wodarczyk.


The pair took off into the gray skies at 0800. Priller's only orders to Wodarczyk were to stick close. They headed west at low altitude, spotting Spitfires above them as far east as Abbeville. Near Le Havre the duo climbed into the solid cloud bank. When they emerged, the ships of the largest assault landing in history were spread before their eyes. After a shouted "Good luck!" to Wodarczyk, Priller dove for the beach at 650 kph (400 mph). The British soldiers on Sword, the easternmost of the five landing beaches, jumped for cover as the two fighters roared overhead at fifty feet, their machine guns and cannon clattering. The fleet's antiaircraft guns opened fire with every gun that could track them, but the Focke-Wulfs flew through the barrage unscathed. After traversing the beach, the two pilots climbed for the clouds, honor satisfied. Their D-Day mission, the most famous in the history of the Geschwader thanks to Cornelius Ryan's book The Longest Day and the resulting movie, was over.

The two Focke-Wulfs landed on Creil, and Priller went to see Major Bühligen, the Kommodore of the Richthofen Geschwader. Bühligen had no more fighters than did Priller. Only one of his Gruppen was immediately available; another was en route from Brittany, and the third was in Germany for rebuilding, and had not yet been released to return to France. After several telephone calls to 5th Jagddivision headquarters, Priller got a decision on relocating his Geschwader. The Second Gruppe could continue north to Guyancourt, near Paris. The First and Third Gruppen could stay at Creil and Cormeilles until the arrival of the rest of the JG 2 aircraft made things too crowded, and would then move south to bases in the Paris region. Priller made arrangements for Bühligen's radiomen to contact his four road convoys, and returned to the business of fighting the Allies.

Although Priller and Wodarczyk may have been the first German pilots to fly over the beachhead, they were by no means the only ones to contact the enemy on this day. Bühligen himself scored the first victory for JG 2, a P-47 over the Orne Estuary, at 1157. I/JG 2 was active over Caen from noon, and III/JG 2 joined in after it arrived at Cormeilles from Brittany. For the day, the Richthofen Geschwader claimed three P-47s, five P-51s, and nine Typhoons, for the loss of nine Fw 190s. The P-51s included an entire flight of four 4th Fighter Group aircraft, bounced while strafing a convoy near Rouen.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 23, 2005)

> *COMBAT CHRONOLOGY OF THE US ARMY AIR FORCES* {june 1944}
> ...
> 
> TUESDAY, 6 JUNE 1944
> ...



For the number of sorties flown losses were actually quite low.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## KraziKanuK (Apr 23, 2005)

This by a guy who specializes in the Dora and says "only one type of radiator
(segmented ring) on D-9's". Other Doraphiles agree.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 23, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> This by a guy who specializes in the Dora and says "only one type of radiator
> (segmented ring) on D-9's". Other Doraphiles agree.



????

I never said that. The segmented ring was barely used. It was too expensive to build and too difficult to maintain. Each segment must be built into the plane one at a time. The annular radiator was used for almost all production units, and as its name implies, it was laid out longitudinally (front to back).

Besides, what does that matter? I'm quoting loss data from a USAAF report which shows that about 50 fighters were lost out of something many thousands of sorties (1880 for the 8th, 2000+ planes flying ? sorties each for the 9th).

See my post on Luftwaffe' overclaiming to see the relevance.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## KraziKanuK (Apr 24, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> KraziKanuK said:
> 
> 
> > This by a guy who specializes in the Dora and says "only one type of radiator
> ...



Go back a few pages.

You dispute what Doraphiles say and this from an expert on American a/c who that did not know the P-39 originally had a turbocharger.

I suggest you look at this link, http://www.airwar.ru/other/draw_fw.html, the file 33.jpg in the' Focke-Wulf Fw.190d9' zip file.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 24, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> You dispute what Doraphiles say and this from an expert on American a/c who that did not know the P-39 originally had a turbocharger.
> 
> I suggest you look at this link, http://www.airwar.ru/other/draw_fw.html, the file 33.jpg in the' Focke-Wulf Fw.190d9' zip file.



First off, I've never studied the P-39 in detail, and the nature of the boost system that was deleted was not the sigificant detail in what I posted - that it was deleted was. I was unsure of its nature, but did not care to look it up. (BTW: be on gaurd from now on KK, I will call you on every error you make no matter how trivial or irrelvant).

Second off, I have studied the Dora9.

Third off - you are wrong if you think that .jpg file details a segmented ring radiator. In fact, you are wrong if you think it details any kind of glycol radiator. What it does do is detail the fan, oil cooler, and ram air scoop shapes, and regulators to control airflow. Go ahead and find a slavik -> english translator page and check it out.

So much for your "doraphile" status!


----------



## KraziKanuK (Apr 24, 2005)

> Second off, I have studied the Dora9.
> 
> Third off - you are wrong if you think that .jpg file details a segmented ring radiator. In fact, you are wrong if you think it details any kind of glycol radiator. What it does do is detail the fan, oil cooler, and ram air scoop shapes.



One does not have to study the P-39 in detail to know the the P-39 had the *turbo*charger removed.

No fan showing in any of the drawings. The drawing of the Jumo 213A shows the radiator, only. The drawing of the Jumo 213E/F shows the radiator, only. The drawing of the DB603E shows the radiator and the oil cooler at the top and this is the ONLY drawing that shows a oil cooler. Now tell me where the oil cooler was on the Dora with the Jumo213. We will see how much you have studed the Dora, besides the fact that you say the Dora had a fan. 

Take a little trip to Dayton and take a real close look at the production Dora they have.

Still waiting for that Ta152H data.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 24, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> KraziKanuK said:
> 
> 
> > This by a guy who specializes in the Dora and says "only one type of radiator
> ...



I am sure that overclaims were conducted by the Luftwaffe. I dont think that there was an airforce that did not overclaim but whos to say that that USAAF did not under quote there losses there. I know the other airforces did it so whose to say that the USAAF did not either.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 24, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> > Second off, I have studied the Dora9.
> >
> > Third off - you are wrong if you think that .jpg file details a segmented ring radiator. In fact, you are wrong if you think it details any kind of glycol radiator. What it does do is detail the fan, oil cooler, and ram air scoop shapes.
> 
> ...



I just didn't bother to look it up since it was not relevant to the point being made. You make a big shit about nothing.



KraziKanuK said:


> No fan showing in any of the drawings. The drawing of the Jumo 213A shows the radiator, only. The drawing of the Jumo 213E/F shows the radiator, only. The drawing of the DB603E shows the radiator and the oil cooler at the top and this is the ONLY drawing that shows a oil cooler. Now tell me where the oil cooler was on the Dora with the Jumo213. We will see how much you have studed the Dora, besides the fact that you say the Dora had a fan.
> 
> Take a little trip to Dayton and take a real close look at the production Dora they have.



It does not show any radiator detail.

The oil cooler sits in front of the rest of the cooling system. I thought there was a fan behind the oil cooler but perhaps not.



KraziKanuK said:


> Still waiting for that Ta152H data.



Hmmm didn't I post it already? The translated manual is avial on this forum. What data are you awaiting?


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 24, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I am sure that overclaims were conducted by the Luftwaffe. I dont think that there was an airforce that did not overclaim but whos to say that that USAAF did not under quote there losses there. I know the other airforces did it so whose to say that the USAAF did not either.



USAAF loss reports were extremely accurate. They also were not public till well after the war. Why would the USAAF under report losses? In fact, there are documents showing each loss by BU number and pilot in very specific detail. It is very easy to know if a plane was lost or not, it is much harder to know if a kill was really made. Most nations kept fairly accurate records of losses, though these are not always very available and mis-information was more often than not reported at the time.

See the thread I created about the Luftwaffe' overclaiming. It was substantial. I'd not make a big deal about it except for the claims that the Luftwaffe' kill claiming system was so much more "accurate" than that of other nations.. which it turns out is apparently pure bunk.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## KraziKanuK (Apr 24, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> KraziKanuK said:
> 
> 
> > > Second off, I have studied the Dora9.
> ...



Your were the one making it an issue with the P-39. Instead of saying 'oops, meant turbo' you pull the weasel thing.

So much for you studying the Dora.  You thought there was a fan?  The oil cooler sits in front of the rest of the cooling system?   You just proved you swing a big full shovel. For the next time you try to BS people, the Dora with the Jumo used a heat exchanger unit that was located beneath the engine.

Forget about the Ta152H stuff, for I know where that belongs.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 25, 2005)

Heat exchanger below the engine? Oh really... can you point it out please?






And what do you think a radiator is... a heat exchanger! But as you can see, they are on the sides of the engine.






Nope... the oil cooler definitely does not sit in front of the engine! Ummm... where is it again?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 25, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> I just didn't bother to look it up since it was not relevant to the point being made. You make a big s**t about nothing.



No you just dont like the fact that some one knows more about it!  



RG_Lunatic said:


> Why would the USAAF under report losses?



Why would anybody it happens. The more higher up it goes the more *bunked* it gets as you like to put it. All I am saying is that everyone did it.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Apr 25, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> Heat exchanger below the engine? Oh really... can you point it out please?
> 
> 
> And what do you think a radiator is... a heat exchanger! But as you can see, they are on the sides of the engine.
> ...


You have to ask? It is in the picture oh 190D expert. 

A radiator typically uses air to carry away the heat, while a 'heat exchanger' uses another medium. Now you can go right ahead and squirm with semantics all you want but the Jumo A Doras used a radiator to cool the engine and an heat exchanger for the oil.

Luni you were the one that claimed the oil cooler was in front. You do not remember saying this? "_The oil cooler sits in front of the rest of the cooling system. I thought there was a fan behind the oil cooler but perhaps not._" Oh dearie me, _oldtimers_ you have and even in 'black and white' a couple of times so that you could refresh your memory.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 25, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> RG_Lunatic said:
> 
> 
> > Heat exchanger below the engine? Oh really... can you point it out please?
> ...



I don't claim to be a 190D "expert". Not on the bottom of the engine it's not.



KraziKanuK said:


> A radiator typically uses air to carry away the heat, while a 'heat exchanger' uses another medium. Now you can go right ahead and squirm with semantics all you want but the Jumo A Doras used a radiator to cool the engine and an heat exchanger for the oil.



And both used air to carry away the heat.



KraziKanuK said:


> Luni you were the one that claimed the oil cooler was in front. You do not remember saying this? "_The oil cooler sits in front of the rest of the cooling system. I thought there was a fan behind the oil cooler but perhaps not._" Oh dearie me, _oldtimers_ you have and even in 'black and white' a couple of times so that you could refresh your memory.



I thought there was a fan behind it because of info on the Tempest cooling system. Apparently I mis-interpreted this info. However, I still see nothing that indicates the oil cooler on the Dora is not in the form of a ring behind the spinner and the annular radiators sit alongside the block.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Apr 25, 2005)

Luni, for someone who has studied the Dora, you really don't have a clue what you are talking about. Yes the heat exchanger, using engine coolant to remove the heat, is attached to the bottom of the engine.




> I thought there was a fan behind it because of info on the Tempest cooling system. Apparently I mis-interpreted this info. However, I still see nothing that indicates the oil cooler on the Dora is not in the form of a ring behind the spinner and the annular radiators sit alongside the block.


Are you now saying the Tempest had a cooling fan?

I suggest you get new glasses. Sit alongside the engine block? The coolant rad site in the cowling in the nose, just in front of the gear reduction casing. It is NO WHERE near the engine block!

To help you, http://www.albentley-drawings.com/fw190d.htm







Look at the engine in the bottom right corner and you wil see the heat exchanger for the oil. Notice the engine coolant line from the radiator.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 25, 2005)

KraziKanuK said:


> Luni, for someone who has studied the Dora, you really don't have a clue what you are talking about. Yes the heat exchanger, using engine coolant to remove the heat, is attached to the bottom of the engine.



Oh come on! You are being silly. You complained about my saying it was a "radiator" based cooling system, claiming it was a "heat exchanger", which was somehow different. What liquid cooled engine does not use such a system? What air-cooled engine has a radiator?



KraziKanuK said:


> > I thought there was a fan behind it because of info on the Tempest cooling system. Apparently I mis-interpreted this info. However, I still see nothing that indicates the oil cooler on the Dora is not in the form of a ring behind the spinner and the annular radiators sit alongside the block.
> 
> 
> Are you now saying the Tempest had a cooling fan?



The Tempest II did.



KraziKanuK said:


> I suggest you get new glasses. Sit alongside the engine block? The coolant rad site in the cowling in the nose, just in front of the gear reduction casing. It is NO WHERE near the engine block!
> 
> To help you, http://www.albentley-drawings.com/fw190d.htm
> 
> ...



Umm... that little tiny radiator is no where near large enough to cool that engine. That is the oil cooling radiator. The engine radiator has to be at least as large in volume as one, and probably both, of the Bf109 radiators, probably even larger than that. A radiator that small, no matter how efficient, cannot shed enough heat for an engine generating that much power.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Apr 25, 2005)

You're just squirming because you didn't use the the correct word.

Another squirm, mentioning the Tempest II, since it is a aircooled radial, when the discussion is about the liquid cooled Dora.  

Keep it up, for it shows how really clueless your are about the engine cooling systems of the Jumo powered Dora. Better do some more studying.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Apr 26, 2005)

you tell 'im..............



RG Lunatic said:


> I don't claim to be a 190D "expert".



we all know that's not true.............


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 26, 2005)

Wow this convo is really getting interesting. I am going to start selling tickets.


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 26, 2005)

Can I buy one?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 27, 2005)

Sure for a hundred dollars.


----------



## mosquitoman (Apr 29, 2005)

20p maybe


----------



## CharlesBronson (Apr 29, 2005)

One of the most sucessful operations carried out by the FW-190 was the operation "donnerkeil" ( thunderbolt) wich was tha air cover for the channel dash, made by the biggest german Battlecruisers.

The action took place in 12th february 1942.

By midnight the Gneisenau and the Prinz Eugen had reached the Elbe River and sanctuary; the Scharnhorst followed at 1030 the next morning. No British shell, bomb, or torpedo had touched a German ship.

The British lost seventeen fighters, twenty RAF bombers, and the six Fleet Air Arm Swordfish. Seven fighters were lost or written off from the three Jagdgeschwader engaged; the only pilots lost were four from JG 26. Operationally, the German victory had been complete, and the damage to British prestige, incalculable. After the war, Adolf Galland called the operation the "greatest hour" of his career. 






Focke-Wulf Fw 190 A-2 Stab, Jagdgeschwader 26 Coquelles, France February 1942.


----------



## Anonymous (Apr 29, 2005)

There is no question the British goofed the channel dash intercept. They ignored the intial contact reports because they didn't believe it was happening.

But also you must admit the German's had many advantages. The weather provided fog for cover for a good part of the "dash", and the German fighter cover for all but a small part of the dash (as they passed by Calaise) had a much shorter range to fly.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Apr 30, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> There is no question the British goofed the channel dash intercept. They ignored the intial contact reports because they didn't believe it was happening.
> 
> But also you must admit the German's had many advantages. The weather provided fog for cover for a good part of the "dash", and the German fighter cover for all but a small part of the dash (as they passed by Calaise) had a much shorter range to fly.
> 
> ...



That still makes it a success.


----------



## evangilder (Apr 30, 2005)

Agreed Adler. The US made a butt-load of mistakes wrt Pearl Harbor. The mini-sub was sunk, no one thought too much about it. The flight was picked up on radar. No one thought much about it, mis-interpreting it to be an expected flight of B-17s. Does that mean that Pearl Harbor was not a success for the Japanese? Not in my book. 

In war, things get misinterpreted, misjudged and generally FUBAR'd. Sometimes superior tactics win the battle, sometimes it is taking advantage of someone else's screw-up, sometimes it is just dumb luck. Victory is victory, no matter how it happens. On that day, the Germans got a victory, no matter what the particulars are. 

To quote Sean Connery "Losers always whine about their best, but the winner goes home and fucks the prom queen."


----------



## CharlesBronson (Apr 30, 2005)

More information about " Donnerkeil".

JG-26 claims. 12/2/42


----------



## CharlesBronson (Apr 30, 2005)

Other defensive battle well made by the FW was the air attack against the Dieppe raid launched by the allies in august 19 1942.

The Fw-190 was mostly A-2/A-3. In those days with the exception of a handful of pressurizated Bf-109G-1 from Höhe ( high altitude)staffels the JG-2 and JG-26 was completely equipped with the Tanks design.

Focke-Wulf Fw 190 A-3
Stab, III Gruppe, Jagdgeschwader 2
Morlaix, France





For the support of operation "Jubilee" Allies tand could rely on around-the-clock assistance from RAF Spitfires, Hurricanes, Typhoons and Mustangs. 48 squadrons of Spitfires took part, including 42 equipped with Spitfire Vs, two with Spitfire VIs, and four with Spitfire IXs.[1] Support for the mostly Canadian landing force was also provided by R.A.F. bomber units, along with the Spitfires of the American 31st FG and the B-17s of the 97th BG. However, Allied numerical superiority and the intruduction of these new fighters( Mustang, TyphoonIb and Spit Mk-IX) did not prove enough to secure the skies over Dieppe on 19 August 1942. 

North American Mustang Mk. I
613 Squadron, Royal Air Force
Twinwood Farm, Berdfordshire, august 1942






Hawker Typhoon Mk.IB R7679
No.56 Sqn RAF






The aerial battles fought over Dieppe demonstrated the potency of the Focke-Wulf 190 as a fighter and fighter-bomber. 

The pilots of J.G. 2 and J.G. 26 had to respond quickly to a surprise enemy landing supported by a strong air element, and judging from victory and loss records, they did sweeped most of his oposition. 

J.G. 2 lost eight pilots killed or missing, and six pilots wounded, and in return the Geschwader claimed destruction of 67 enemy aircraft. J.G. 26 lost six pilots killed or missing, and claimed a total of 38 enemy aircraft destroyed.

I am scanning some more info, I will post it later.

All color profiles from.
http://www.ipmsstockholm.org


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 1, 2005)

Dieppe deffinatly was a good time for the Fw-190. The Fw-190s proved to be a great fighter aircraft especially considering they numerically outnumbered.



> Introduction
> On Wednesday, 19 August 1942, the Allies launched a major cross-channel attack, with landings taking place at the French port of Dieppe. The Luftwaffe played a major role in countering this raid, and the air battle over Dieppe proved to be one of the Focke-Wulf 190's finest hours. The two German fighter units involved, J.G. 2 and J.G. 26, both called upon three FW 190 fighter Gruppen, along with FW 190-equipped Jabostaffeln. Other Luftwaffe units involved in the day's fighting included II./K.G. 40 with Do 217 E-2s, K.G. 2 with Do 217 E-4s, and 1.(F)/123 with a variety of single and twin-engined reconnaissance types (including a single FW 190 A-3). The Allies considered air cover essential to the success of their landings, and they could rely on around-the-clock assistance from RAF Spitfires, Hurricanes, Typhoons and Mustangs. 48 squadrons of Spitfires took part, including 42 equipped with Spitfire Vs, two with Spitfire VIs, and four with Spitfire IXs.[1] Support for the mostly Canadian landing force was also provided by R.A.F. bomber units, along with the Spitfires of the American 31st FG and the B-17s of the 97th BG. However, Allied numerical superiority did not prove enough to secure the skies over Dieppe on 19 August 1942.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Anonymous (May 1, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Dieppe deffinatly was a good time for the Fw-190. The Fw-190s proved to be a great fighter aircraft especially considering they numerically outnumbered.



I am curious Alder - just how numerically outnumbered were they? Please take sortie time into account.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## CharlesBronson (May 1, 2005)

The total strenght of german fighters was about 200 aircraft due most of the olders Bf-109 and Ju-88 designs went to the east to support the operation " Blau" , the attack against Sebastopol and Stalingrad and also to support Rommel in Afrika.

I have no very exact numbers in the allies side but it was circa 450-500 aircraft including the very firts B-17 operating in the ETO.

Other thing. the most succesful experte in the 19 august was J. Wurmheller who destroyed 7 aircraft, 6 spitfire and one Typhoon.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 1, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
> 
> 
> > Dieppe deffinatly was a good time for the Fw-190. The Fw-190s proved to be a great fighter aircraft especially considering they numerically outnumbered.
> ...



Yes the British had to do the same thing that the Germans had to when they flew over England. They had less time on station so in that case I will agree with you.


----------



## CharlesBronson (May 3, 2005)

Some profiles of V-12 190s.


Focke-Wulf Fw 190 D-9
6. Staffel, II. Gruppe, Jagdgeschwader 2
Rommelhausen-Stockheim, Germany
Spring 1945







Focke-Wulf Fw 190 D-9
6. Staffel, II. Gruppe, Jagdgeschwader 6
Germany
Spring 1945







This is D-13...Anybody knows the armament and cuantity of this version ?







Despite the big size and weight of the Jumo engine, stetically is a very very good looking plane, too bad we never will see a BD-603 powered Dora version.


----------



## Anonymous (May 3, 2005)

I believe the standard armament of the D-12 was two MG151/20's in the wing roots and one MK108 firing through the prop hub - I would assume the D-13 would be the same but???

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 4, 2005)

The Fw-190D-12 was fitted with a fixed armament of 2 × 20 mm MG 151/20 cannon in the wing roots and 1 × 30 mm MK 108 cannon between the cylinder banks of the engine. A sheathing of armor was designed and installed to protect it from anti-aircraft fire during low-level missions.

Fw-190D-13 

Not sure on accuracy of this source though.



> The Focke-Wulf Fw-190D-13 was "the ultimate Dora," in that it was the final development of the basic Focke-Wulf fighter to see operational service, with at least one example serving with JG26 during the final month of the war. Powered by the same Jumo 213E engine that was used by the Ta-152H and Fw-190D-11, the Fw-190D-13 was armed with one 20mm motorkannon and two MG151 20mm cannon in the wingroots.
> 
> Major Franz Goetz, last Geschwader Kommodore of JG26, flew the Fw-190D-13 during April, 1945, marked as "Yellow 10," his "lucky number" during his career as a 67-victory experte with JG53. He scored no victories with the airplane, as the unit only made five combat sorties during that month.
> 
> ...


----------



## CharlesBronson (May 4, 2005)

Thanks boys.

So this is the only operational D-13, nice.


----------



## Erich (May 4, 2005)

............... maybe ................


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 5, 2005)

Exactly maybe, as I said the validity of my source is uncertain.


----------



## Erich (May 5, 2005)

I do not want to say much at all on this topic on the Doras as Jerry Crandall will cover the a/c types in his book on the Dora with much new information. Granted, D-9's, D-11's and D-13's were in action and with several units : JG 2, JG 3, JG 4, JG 6, JG 11, JG 26-JG 54, JG 51, JG 301, protection unit Würger Staffel, and others....

E ♪


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 5, 2005)

I did not think the D-13's were used that extensivley, Wow


----------



## Erich (May 6, 2005)

they wern't. The Dora 9 was commonly used along with some D-11's


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 6, 2005)

That is what I thought.


----------



## CharlesBronson (May 6, 2005)

A little more on Doras.

The Fw 190D-10 was an experimental version of the D-9 with an engine-mounted MK 108 cannon and two MG 151 cannon in the wing roots. Only two of these were built. 

The Fw 190D-11 was powered by the Jumo 213F with MW 50 boost. The fuselage-mounted guns were eliminated, and there were two MG 151s in the wing roots and two MK 108s in the outer wings. Only seven prototypes were built. 

The Fw 190D-12 was a fighter-bomber variant, which differed from the D-9 by having a three-stage supercharged Jumo 213F-1 engine rated at 2060 hp for takeoff mounted in a new, more extensively armored cowling. Armament was one engine-mounted 30-mm MK 108 cannon and two 20-mm MG 151s in the wing roots. Although primarily a ground-attack plane, the D-12 also made an effective fighter and could attain 730 km/h at 37,000 feet when MW 50 boost was used. Production began in March 1945 at the Arado and Fieseler plants, but only a few were delivered. 

The D-13 differed from the D-12 by having a Jumo 213EB engine and by having a 20-mm engine-mounted MG 151 cannon in place of the 30-mm MK 108 unit. However, only a couple of prototypes were built.


----------



## Erich (May 6, 2005)

D-11's were sent to operative units. not real sure about D-12's though we can assume that Rüdel and a few othere ground attack aces probably flew them


----------



## CharlesBronson (May 6, 2005)

D-12 or maybe D-9s.


----------



## Erich (May 7, 2005)

remember that during Unternehmen Bodenplatte on 1-1-45 that Dora units such as JG 2 had their D-9's bombed up to tackle Allied airifields as did JG 6's Dora 9's.


----------



## KraziKanuK (May 7, 2005)

Charles,

the Jumo 213F had a 2 *stage*, 3 *speed* supercharger. The first 200 engines had the 3rd gear blocked off. It developed 2100hp with MW50. MW50 use was good to 6km.

From a Fw performance graph, the D-12 did 695kph @ 10.5km using the 213E engine. Another graph with the 213F had the D-12 doing 725kph @ 31,000ft.

ref. Hermann's "Long Nose" book.

Can you elaberate on the 'more extensively armored cowling'.

You sure about the D-12 being a ground attack a/c? I have the D-11 being so with the D-12 being a high altitude fighter.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 7, 2005)

From what I got the D-10 was never built, and the D-11 only had 7 prototypes built. I do believe that the 7 prototypes did see service toward the end of the war and maybe even Bodenplatte. I think the D-12 was ground attack. All of my sources atleast say so.



> The Fw 190D-12 was the definitive ground attack fighter. It was powered by 1 × Jumo 213F, rated at 1,750 hp (1.305 kW) for take-off or 2,060 hp (1.536 kW) with the MW HD high-pressure methanol/water power-boost system. It had a three-stage supercharger, was fitted with a fixed armament of 2 × 20 mm MG 151/20 cannon in the wing roots and 1 × 30 mm MK 108 cannon between the cylinder banks of the engine. A sheathing of armor was designed and installed to protect it from anti-aircraft fire during low-level missions.
> None of these aircraft were used operationally, probably because of a lack of fuel.
> http://www.xs4all.nl/~fbonne/warbirds/ww2htmls/fockfw190.html



Here is another list of the Fw-190 varients:

By the end of World War II, hundreds of versions of the FW 190 and Ta 152 family had appeared, and within these tables I have identified over 150 different designations. It must be noted that some of these variants were very similar (e.g. installation of a different type of radio resulted in a new designation for an FW 190). 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FW 190 A, B, C, D and E

Variant Entered Service Role/Remarks Sources

FW 190 A-0 No Pre-Production Fighter Rodeike, p.22 
FW 190 A-0/U1 No FW 190 V5 and V6, small wing, BMW 801 C-0 or C-1, four MG 17, FuG VIIa Rodeike, pp.26-27 
FW 190 A-0/U2 No Small wing, BMW 801 C-0, C-1 or D, two MG 17, two MG 131, FuG VIIa Rodeike, p.27 
FW 190 A-0/U3 No Large wing, BMW 801 C-0 or C-1, four MG 17, two MG FF/M, FuG VIIa XXV Rodeike, pp.26-27 
FW 190 A-0/U4 No BMW 801 C-0 or C-1, four MG 17, two MG FF/M, FuG VIIa, ETC 501 bomb rack Rodeike, pp.26-27 
FW 190 A-0/U5 No BMW 801 C-0 or C-1, two MG 17, two MG 151/20, FuG VIIa Rodeike, pp.26-27 
FW 190 A-0/U6 No Not built, Wright engine Rodeike, pp.26-27 
FW 190 A-0/U10 No BMW 801 C-1, two MG 17, two MG FF-G2, two MG 151/20, FuG VIIa Rodeike, p.27 
FW 190 A-0/U11 No BMW 801 C-1, four MG 17, two MG FF/M, FuG VIIa Rodeike, p.27 
FW 190 A-1 08.41 Fighter, BMW 801 C-1, FuG VIIa, FuG 25, four MG 17, two MG FF/M Rodeike, pp. 28 55 
FW 190 A-1/U1 New Engine - BMW 801 D-2 
FW 190 A-2 Fighter, BMW 801 C-1 or C-2 Rodeike, p.56 
FW 190 A-2/U1 Auto Pilot Equipment 
FW 190 A-3 Fighter 
FW 190 Aa-3 .42 Fighter for Turkey 
FW 190 A-3/U2 Underwing RZ 65 AT rockets 
FW 190 A-3/U4 01.43 Recon fighter with two Rb 12.5/7 x 9 cameras 
FW 190 A-3/U7 09.42 Light-weight high-altitude fighter 
FW 190 A-4 08.42 Fighter 
FW 190 A-4 Trop 12.42 Tropicalised fighter and fighter-bomber 
FW 190 A-4/U3 03.43 Fighter-bomber with ETC 501 bomb-rack; later re-designated FW 190 F-1 
FW 190 A-4/U4 Reconnaissance fighter with two R 12.5/7 x 9 cameras 
FW 190 A-4/U8 04.43 Fighter-bomber with underwing drop tanks; later re-designated FW 190 G-1 
FW 190 A-4/R1 Fighter with FuG 16ZE radio 
FW 190 A-4/R6 Fighter with two WGr.21 underwing rocket launchers 
FW 190 A-5 01.43 Fighter 
FW 190 A-5/y 06.43 
FW 190 A-5/U1 03.43 Fighter-bomber 
FW 190 A-5/U3 03.43 Fighter-bomber with ETC 501; later re-designated FW 190 F-2 
FW 190 A-5/U4 Reconnaissance 
FW 190 A-5/U7 Two external MK 103 30 mm cannon or two internal MK 108 30mm cannon 
FW 190 A-5/U8 03.43 Fighter-bomber with underwing racks; later re-designated FW 190 G-2 
FW 190 A-5/U9 Basis for A-7 
FW 190 A-5/U10 Several armament test beds produced by AGO, basis for FW 190 A-6 
FW 190 A-5/U11 Bomber-destroyer with external/internal mountings of MK 103/108 30 mm cannon 
FW 190 A-5/U12 06.43 Two underwing WB 151 containers holding two MG 151 20 mm cannon each 
FW 190 A-5/U13 Fighter-bomber, served as prototype for G-series 
FW 190 A-5/U14 Torpedo-bomber 
FW 190 A-5/U15 Torpedo-bomber 
FW 190 A-5/U16 Bomber-destroyer with wing mounted MK 103/108 30 mm cannon 
FW 190 A-5/U17 Fighter-bomber with ETC 501 bomb-rack, prototype for FW 190 F-3 
FW 190 A-5/R1 FuG 16ZE radio 
FW 190 A-5/R6 03.44 Two WGr 21 underwing rocket launchers 
FW 190 A-6 06.43 Fighter 
FW 190 A-6/R1 Two underwing WB 151 containers with four MG 151 20 mm cannon 
FW 190 A-6/R2 Bomber-destroyer with two outboard MK 108 30 mm cannon 
FW 190 A-6/R3 Bomber-destroyer with two MK 103 30 mm cannon in underwing pods 
FW 190 A-6/R4 BMW 801 TS 
FW 190 A-6/R6 01.44 Two WGr 21 underwing rocket launchers 
FW 190 A-6/R11 Night-fighter 
FW 190 A-7 12.43 Fighter 
FW 190 A-7/R1 03.44 Two underwing WB 151 containers with four MG 151 20 mm cannon 
FW 190 A-7/R2 03.44 Bomber-destroyer with two outboard MK 108 30 mm cannon 
FW 190 A-7/R3 Bomber-destroyer with two underwing MK 103 30 mm cannon 
FW 190 A-7/R4 Bomber-destroyer 
FW 190 A-7/R6 01.44 Two WGr 21 underwing rocket launchers 
FW 190 A-8 03.44 Fighter 
FW 190 A-8/U1 Two-seat trainer and high-speed liason aircraft 
FW 190 A-8/U3 Upper component of Mistel 
FW 190 A-8/U11 Torpedo-bomber 
FW 190 A-8/R1 Two underwing WB 151 containers with four MG 151 20 mm cannon 
FW 190 A-8/R2 04.44 Bomber-destroyer with two outboard MK 108 30 mm cannon 
FW 190 A-8/R3 Bomber-destroyer with two underwing MK 103 30 mm cannon 
FW 190 A-8/R4 12.44 BMW 801 TS and engine boosting system 
FW 190 A-8/R5 Engine boosting system 
FW 190 A-8/R6 04.44 Two WGr 21 underwing rocket launchers 
FW 190 A-8/R7 Sturmjäger with additional internal and external armour plating 
FW 190 A-8/R8 .44 Sturmjäger with additional internal and external armour plating
and outboard MK 103 30 mm cannon 
FW 190 A-8/R11 Dirty weather fighter with BMW 801 TU/TS 
FW 190 A-8/R12 Combination of R2 and R11 with BMW 801 D-2 
FW 190 A-8D/NL Higher emergency power 
FW 190 A-9 09.44 Fighter 
FW 190 A-9/R1 Two underwing WB 151 containers with four MG 151 20 mm cannon 
FW 190 A-9/R2 Bomber-destroyer with two outboard MK 108 30 mm cannon 
FW 190 A-9/R3 Bomber-destroyer with two underwing MK 103 30 mm cannon 
FW 190 A-9/R4 BMW 801 TS and engine boosting system 
FW 190 A-9/R6 09.44 Two WGr 21 underwing rocket launchers 
FW 190 A-9/R11 Dirty weather fighter BMW 801 TS 
FW 190 A-9/R12 Combination of R2 and R11 
FW 190 A-10 No Jabo with BMW 801 TS/TH 
FW 190 B-0 No Proposed high-altitude fighter 
FW 190 B-1 No Proposed high-altitude fighter 
FW 190 C-0 No Proposed high-altitude fighter 
FW 190 D-0 No Pre-production FW 190 D-9 
FW 190 D-9 09.44 Fighter 
FW 190 D-9/R11 Dirty weather fighter with FuG 125 radio 
FW 190 D-10 No Fighter 
FW 190 D-11 Fighter 
FW 190 D-11/R20 PKS 12 radio 
FW 190 D-11/R21 FuG 125 radio 
FW 190 D-12 Fighter-bomber 
FW 190 D-12/R5 Fighter-bomber 
FW 190 D-12/R11 Dirty weather fighter 
FW 190 D-12/R21 MW 50 injection 
FW 190 D-12/R25 Jumo 213EB 
FW 190 D-13 .45 Fighter 
FW 190 D-13/R5 Fighter-bomber 
FW 190 D-13/R11 Dirty weather fighter 
FW 190 D-13/R21 MW 50 injection 
FW 190 D-13/R25 Jumo 213EB 
FW 190 D-14 No Fighter converted from D-9 and D-12 
FW 190 D-15 No Fighter with DB 603 
FW 190 E No Proposed reconnaissance aircraft 



FW 190 F, G, H, and S FW 190 F-1 03.44 Re-designated FW 190 A-4/U3 fighter-bombers 
FW 190 F-2 10.43 Re-designated FW 190 A-5/U3 fighter-bombers with ER 4 bomb-rack 
FW 190 F-3 05.43 Fighter-bomber with underwing ETC 250 bomb-racks 
FW 190 F-3/R1 Simplified bomb-release gear 
FW 190 F-3/R3 Two underwing MK 103 30 mm cannon 
FW 190 F-4 No Cancelled fighter-bomber 
FW 190 F-5  No Cancelled fighter-bomber 
FW 190 F-6 No Cancelled fighter-bomber 
FW 190 F-7 No Proposed fighter-bomber with fuselage MG 131 13 mm machine-guns 
FW 190 F-8 04.44 Fighter-bomber based on A-8 
FW 190 F-8/U1 Two-seat trainer 
FW 190 F-8/U2 Torpedo-bomber 
FW 190 F-8/U3 Torpedo-bomber 
FW 190 F-8/U4 Torpedo-bomber 
FW 190 F-8/U5 Torpedo-bomber 
FW 190 F-8/U14 Torpedo-bomber 
FW 190 F-8/U15 Torpedo-bomber 
FW 190 F-8/R1 05.44 Four ETC 50 underwing bomb racks 
FW 190 F-8/R2 Two MK 108 30 mm cannon in underwing pods 
FW 190 F-8/R3 Two MK 103 30 mm cannon in underwing pods 
FW 190 F-8/R5 Long-range version of F-8/R3 
FW 190 F-8/R8 
FW 190 F-8/R11 
FW 190 F-8/R13 Night fighter-bomber 
FW 190 F-8/R14 Torpedo-bomber with BMW 801 TU 
FW 190 F-8/R15 Torpedo-bomber with BMW 801 D-2 
FW 190 F-8/R16 Torpedo-bomber 
FW 190 F-9 .45 Fighter bomber, armoured version of A-9 with BMW 801 TS 
FW 190 F-10 No Unbuilt fighter-bomber 
FW 190 F-11 No Unbuilt fighter-bomber 
FW 190 F-12 No Unbuilt fighter-bomber 
FW 190 F-13 No Unbuilt fighter-bomber 
FW 190 F-14 No Unbuilt fighter-bomber 
FW 190 F-15 Fighter-bomber entering production in May 1945 
FW 190 F-16 Fighter-bomber with more armour 
FW 190 F-16/R14 Proposed torpedo-bomber with BMW 801 TJ 
FW 190 G-0 No Pre-production fighter-bomber 
FW 190 G-1 01.44 Re-designated FW 190 A-4/U8 fighter-bomber with Junkers bomb-rack 
FW 190 G-2 10.43 Re-designated FW 190 A-4/U8 fighter-bomber with Messerschmitt bomb-rack 
FW 190 G-2/N Night fighter-bomber 
FW 190 G-3 10.43 Fighter-bomber with Focke-Wulf bomb-rack 
FW 190 G-3/w 11.43 Fighter-bomber 
FW 190 G-3 Trop Tropicalised fighter-bomber 
FW 190 G-3/R5 Four Fragmentation bombs carried under wings 
FW 190 G-3/N Night fighter-bomber 
FW 190 G-4 Fighter-bomber with three ETC 503 bomb-racks 
FW 190 G-4 Trop Tropicalised fighter-bomber 
FW 190 G-5 No Planned fighter-bomber 
FW 190 G-6 No Planned fighter-bomber 
FW 190 G-7 No Planned fighter-bomber 
FW 190 G-8 03.44 Fighter-bomber based on A-8 
FW 190 G-8/R1 05.44 Fighter-bomber 
FW 190 G-8/R4 Fighter-bomber with GM 1 nitrous-oxide power-boost system 
FW 190 G-8/R5 03.44 Fighter-bomber with BMW 801 TU 
FW 190 G-9 No Planned fighter-bomber with BMW 801 F 
FW 190 G-10 No Planned fighter-bomber with BMW 801 F 
FW 190 H-1 No Proposed high-altitude fighter 
FW 190 S-5 Two-seat trainer 
FW 190 S-8 Two-seat trainer 



Ta 152
Ta 152 A-1 No Fighter with FuG 24 radio 
Ta 152 A-2 No Fighter with FuG 24 radio 
Ta 152 B-1 No Proposed fighter 
Ta 152 B-2 No Proposed fighter 
Ta 152 B-3 No Armoured fighter-bomber 
Ta 152 B-4 No Fighter 
Ta 152 B-4/R1 No Two machine-gun, two cannon 
Ta 152 B-4/R2 No Five cannon 
Ta 152 B-5 No Ta 152 V53 
Ta 152 B-5/R11 No Ta 152 V19, V20 V21 
Ta 152 C-0 Short wing-span fighter 
Ta 152 C-1 Short wing-span fighter 
Ta 152 C-2 Short wing-span fighter with improved radio equipment 
Ta 152 C-3 Short wing-span fighter with revised armament 
Ta 152 E-2 No Reconnaissance 
Ta 152 H-0 Pre-production fighter 
Ta 152 H-0/R11 Fighter with engine boost 
Ta 152 H-0/R21 Fighter with engine boost 
Ta 152 H-0/R31 Fighter with engine boost 
Ta 152 H-1 .45 Fighter  
Ta 152 S-1 No Two-seat trainer 



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abbreviations 
The U in a designation like FW 190 A-5/U8 stands for Umrüst Bausätze 
The R in a designation like FW 190 A-4/R6 stands for Rüstsätze


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 7, 2005)

Here is some info on the Jumo 213

*Junkers Jumo 213*



> The Jumo 213 was a World War II-era V-12 liquid cooled aircraft engine, a development of Junkers Motoren's earlier design, the Jumo 211. The design added two features, a pressurized cooling system that required considerably less cooling fluid that allowed the engine to be built smaller, and a number of improvements that allowed it to run at higher RPM. Although these changes sound fairly minor, they boosted power by over 500 hp, making it one of the most sought-after engine designs in the late-war era.
> 
> When the Jumo 211 entered production in the late 1930s it used a normal liquid cooling system based on an "open cycle". Water was pumped through the engine to keep it cool, but the system as a whole operated at outside air pressure, or slightly greater. Since the boiling point of water is effected by pressure, this meant that as the aircraft climbed the temperature of the cooling water had to be kept quite low to avoid boiling. This meant that the water removed little heat from the engine before having to be move to the radiator to cool it. In contrast, the Daimler-Benz DB 601 used a pressurized system that ran at the same pressure at all altitudes, and actually had a boiling point of about 110°C. This allowed it to use considerably less water, and the engine itself to be smaller. Although otherwise similar in most respects, the 601 was smaller and lighter than the 211, making it popular in fighter designs. The 211 was relegated to "secondary" roles in bombers and transports.
> 
> ...


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 7, 2005)

That a pretty nice comprehensive overview of the Fw-190. Good job!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 7, 2005)

I try my best! MUHAHAHAHAHAH


----------



## KraziKanuK (May 7, 2005)

DerAdler,

you relize that not all those variants were produced, some being only paper designs. 

Kurt Tank's bio says the D-12 was a high altitude fighter. This fits very nicely since a 2st/3sp engine was used.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 7, 2005)

Yes I know. If you look at the list I posted if there is no *date next to the design (that ist the date that it entered service as stated in the post)* it will say *No and that No means that it never entered service as it says in the post.*


----------



## KraziKanuK (May 7, 2005)

is this where you got the list from? http://fw190.hobbyvista.com/variants.htm

A good Focke-Wulf site. Bookie is Andrew Arthy of _Focke-Wulf Fw190 in North Africa_ ISBN 1-903223-45-8


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 7, 2005)

Yes, i also have it in several books of mine about the 190.


----------



## CharlesBronson (May 7, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> That a pretty nice comprehensive overview of the Fw-190. Good job!



That is all about  

Another pictures of a D-11, absolutly beatiful plane.


----------



## Erich (May 7, 2005)

toadd what is already a NO

there was NO A6/R11

NO A7/R6 and in fact only A-7 and A-7/MK or R2 designation was produced for this variant

NO A-8/R1 or R3, R6, R7 or R12 on ops.

NO A-9/R1, R3, R6, and in fact just like the A-7's there was only the A-9 fighter and all weather A-9/R11 that my cousin flew on operations....also A-9/R2 with outboard 3cm Mk 108's. The Mk 103 long rods were never used on any operations with any variant.

Bookies site is ok and I have given him a turck load of info in the pat on the Würger....

E ♪


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 8, 2005)

I have actually read some sources on some of these, now the validity of them I am not sure. Some of my sources say they did not exist as you say Erich and some actually give some info on them.

*Fw-190A6/R11*

All weather and night fighter. Some planes were equipped with FuG 217 Neptun J-2 radar.
http://www.jg2.org/plane_descriptions/fw190a6.htm

The majority of A-6s were deployed in the West in Defence of the Reich missions against Allied bomber formations, with some finding there way to Nachtjäger (night fighter) units defending against nocturnal RAF bomber attacks. Some A-6 nachtjägers were equipped with FuG 217 Neptun radar (the R11 Rüstsätze, or field conversion) to help pilots locate bombers in the dark. During 1944 the single-engined night fighters were gradually replaced by twin-engine radar equipped aircraft like the Ju.88G and Bf110G.
http://www.kitparade.com/features00/fw190a6ir_1.htm

Fw 190A-6/R11 - all weather and night fighter, with anti-reflection strips, landing light, autopilot device PKS 12 and heated windscreen windows. 
http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/fw190.html


*Other then that the the only varients of the A-6 that I know of are these:*



> *Fw 190A-6/U3* Fighter-bomber, fitted with one ETC 501 underfuselage rack and 2 × ETC 250 underwing racks for a max load of 1 × 1,102 lb (500 kg) SC-500 and 2 × 551 lb (250 kg) SC-250 bombs or 2 × 66 Imp gal (79.25 US gal; 300 liter) drop tank for additional range.
> 
> *Fw 190A-6/R1* Bomber-destroyer, armed with 2 × 20 mm MG 151/20 cannon and 2 × 0.312 in (7.92 mm) MG 17 guns, with an additional 4 × 20 mm MG 151/20 cannon in two WB 151A twin-gun containers scabbed under the wings.
> 
> ...



*Fw-190A-7/R6*

I have actually only found 3 Rustsatze made to it and only about 70 to 80 A-7's built:

There is evidence that this particular plane was used for dog fighting with allied fighters. There is no information about the number of A-7 planes with this equipment. Probably it was a field modification performed on the pilots' or Staffel staff's request. Apart from standard A-7 models there were three modification kits (Rustsatz) provided : R1, R2, R3.
http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/fw190.html

One source does list a R6 with the other 3:



> Fw 190A-7/R1 Bomber-destroyer, armed with 2 × 20 mm MG 151/20 cannon and 2 × 0.312 in (7.92 mm) MG 17 guns, with an additional 4 × 20 mm MG 151/20 cannon in two WB 151A twin-gun containers scabbed under the wings.
> 
> *Fw 190A-7/R2* Bomber-destroyer,armed with 2 × fixed 30 mm MK 108 cannon in the outboard wing positions, 2 × 20 mm MG 151/20 cannon in the inboard wing positions, and 2 × 0.312 in (7.92 mm) MG 17 guns on the upper nose. Max take-off weight was 9,215 lb (4.180 kg).
> 
> ...



Fw-190A-8/R-1, or R3, R6, R7 or R12 on ops:

The Fw 190A-8, like previous models, could be equipped with different Rustsatz kits: R1, R2, R3, R4, R6, R7, R8, R11, R12; but R1, R3 and R4 were abandoned shortly thereafter and generally R2, R6, R7 and R8 kits were used. Some of the R11 and R12 modifications produced in small quantities had small differences in the equipment (e.g. MG 131 machine guns tube was covered by a plate for reflection limitation, some got more the more efficient BMW 801 TU engines and FuG 125 Hermine radio navigation device). The variant with radar most often had a FuG 218 Neptune J-3 device. 
http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/fw190.html

*Fw-190A-9*

I too have not found anything other than the original disputed souce to confirm this.

*As a matter of fact all of these sources can be disputed. *


----------



## Erich (May 8, 2005)

lets go back here.

The A-6/R11 was a night fighter not a dirty weather fighter and the correct designation was A-6/N with FuG 217 flown by 1./NJGr 10 and II./JG 300 units

There were no A-7's with underwing rocket mortars

There was defiantely NO A variant with Mk 103's used for bomber destroying neither the A-6/R1 with twin 2cm's. It was an A-5 variant used by JG 1 and JG 11, a friend of the familie flew one in 1943 until shot down and killed over the North sea chasing a B-17.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 8, 2005)

Well then there are a lot of incorrect sources out there.


----------



## Erich (May 8, 2005)

and it all stems from the bogus Wiliam Green Warplanes of the third reich back in the 1960's.

I have made attempts to correct and yes there were prototypes of all variants but not all flew on operations nor sent to operative units.

Loss reports from the Jagdgeschwaders also point this out very clearly 

E ~


----------



## Anonymous (May 8, 2005)

Is it not possible that Erich refers to production units where some sources included field kit installations?


----------



## CharlesBronson (May 8, 2005)

This is an R-11 or what ?


----------



## Erich (May 8, 2005)

Actually I am going over the losses and it appears as to what I have mentioned is quite true. The A-5 variant with the underwing 2cm's besdies the inboard 2cm's was the A-5/U12 and was used in the summer of 43 till May of 44 when the A-7 and A-8 varinats took over.

A-7/R2's or MK's were in JG 1 and JG 11 along with several R-6 4's whatever that was. That precise designation was apllied in the late winter-very early spring to lost A-7.s

C.B. where did you get those funny looking profiles ?

Yes that is suppose to be Fritz E. Krauses 1./NJGr 10 A-6/N, the a/c is overall light blue-grey. the wappenshiled is white not yellow. FuG 217 aeirals along the fuselage and on the wings. I or someone else posted a foto of him and the machine elsewhere on the forums

He never received the RK but Hans Krause did while flying Bf 110G-4's in NJG 101 and later in NJG 4 flying the great Ju 88G-6.

Ehlers a/c is also bogus the camo is all wrong, and the red rumpfband is a wide red band

E ~


----------



## Erich (May 8, 2005)

to point out some particulars from friend Herr Krause


----------



## CharlesBronson (May 9, 2005)

I have those save to hard disk for some time, i really dont remember wich site I took from.

Incidentally, I had posted some information and pictures of this plane wich ( according to your sources) was wrong also.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1082&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=40


----------



## Erich (May 9, 2005)

I was wrong ? what source that I use that was wrong CB ? I'd like to know to correct it. The machine was flown by Fritz Krause not by RK winner Hans Krause. Fritz flew the a/c in the summer of 44 and then it was moved out to be replaced by the more nimble and faster Bf 109G-6/AS units and the Fw's were either given away to other field units or several kept as hacks....

E


----------



## Erich (May 9, 2005)

CB sorry had to re-read your statement..........I have had severe insomnia now for over a month


----------



## CharlesBronson (May 9, 2005)

Not uncommon at your age


----------



## Anonymous (May 9, 2005)

Erich said:


> CB sorry had to re-read your statement..........I have had severe insomnia now for over a month



You might want to try Sleepy-Time Tea - worked for my sister. Also, you might try cooling down your bedroom - almost everyone sleeps better in a colder room.

If that doesn't work, get a script for Restril or another sleeping pill. Lack of sleep can seriously effect your health, especially for older people who often suffer from insomnia.


=S=

Lunatic


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 9, 2005)

Erich said:


> and it all stems from the bogus Wiliam Green Warplanes of the third reich back in the 1960's.
> 
> I have made attempts to correct and yes there were prototypes of all variants but not all flew on operations nor sent to operative units.
> 
> ...



Yeah that is pretty much what I said up there. That most of them were just prototypes and many of them like those that had a NO next to them never left the drawing board or atleast did not reach operational status.


----------



## CharlesBronson (May 10, 2005)

This week in history: About 60 years ( and two days) ago, the FW-190 last victory in East:

Scaned from Osprey book.


----------



## Erich (May 10, 2005)

the Luftwaffe ace is question was Gerhard Thyben


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 11, 2005)

Good article there, very interesting.


----------



## CharlesBronson (May 13, 2005)

Other colorful profiles of radial engine FW-190s.


















Pics from:

http://www.rlm.at/start.htm


----------



## Erich (May 13, 2005)

I've talked to Simon at length about his a/c profles and he is one of the best European aviation artisits out there.

The second Fw 190A-8 is incorrect though and I have told him this. Maxi's Schwarze 8. the number 8 is actually a bit bigger and the prop is black with a yellow spiral.

the last a/c actually has more blue in the overall appearance of the background.

E ~


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 16, 2005)

Still good pictures though. I have always like the winter schemes.


----------



## CharlesBronson (May 17, 2005)

Anybody can tell me about the meaning of the little flags below the cockpit of this FW-190A-5...?


----------



## lesofprimus (May 18, 2005)

If anyone can its Erich, unless its the artists creativity.......


----------



## Erich (May 18, 2005)

Fritz Losigkeit's bird when he was Gruppenkommandeur of I./JG 1 in the spring of 1943 although am not too sure of the black white stripes this early in 1943 on the cowling. the flags have been seen photographically on his other machines and they indicated the Allied nations that he fought against.

Fritz was a Ritterkreuzträger and made it through the war and died just several years ago. 750 missions, 68 kills, 13 of these being on the western front.

E ~


----------



## lesofprimus (May 18, 2005)

Did other pilots do the same thing with the flags E?


----------



## Erich (May 18, 2005)

not that I am aware of. The only other symbols were used on the tail and rudder. verticle strips with date and then a colored roundel symbol for RAF, a white star representing the USA and a red star for Soviet Union, many times embellished with a ribbon and iron cross or Knights cross with the total kill numbers placed over or within the Knights cross at the time of the awarding. Subsequent vertical kill marks were used to an appropriate number and then the rudder/tail was repainted with new markings for victory total.

E ~


----------



## lesofprimus (May 18, 2005)

Yea yea, i know all that for the kills and whatnot.... But the Theatres Served In gimmick that he did..... Something totally original in Nazi Germany????

Wow..


----------



## Schöpfel (May 18, 2005)

WIth respect to flags painted under the cockpit: The JG 26 War Diary, page 133 has the following caption under a photo: _The BF 109E-7 of the 3rd Staffel's Lt. Robert Menge. Note the row of flags beneath the cockpit; these represented the European nations Menge helped to conquer._ I recall seeing similar photos elsewhere.


----------



## Erich (May 18, 2005)

actually the presetnation of flags under the cockpit was quite rare, praobly no more than a dozen machines flown by different pilots used this..........understand also that Fritz was also a pilot in JG 262 and this could of been carried as I mentioned on his other craft and then copied by other pilots ? just a thought.

Now the useage of personal motifs such as girl freinds/wives names was quite common as well as familie coat of arms or the township the pilots were from.

A huge rarity on night fighters I might add though....


----------



## CharlesBronson (May 18, 2005)

Thanks very much Erich 

This forum rules 8)


----------



## plan_D (May 18, 2005)

What's the white flag!?! It looks like the Jap Flag...


----------



## lesofprimus (May 18, 2005)

I love learning new stuff........


----------



## Udet (May 18, 2005)

Erich, two questions:

What´s the gear located under the wing (outboard position) of the Fw190 A-8/R11 of NJGr .10?


What is the "*Gr*" on NJGr? Gruppe? (a "specialized" gruppe?)

I feel ignorant asking this.
While I have seen it hundreds of times when reading on Luftwaffe units i have not bothered to ask.

I also recall a unit J*Gr* 20.

The "typical" denomination would be JG where J=Jagd and G=Geschwader. Also the standard denomination for nightfighter units would be NJG.

As most know, gruppen in Geschwadern denomination is designated using roman numerals and arabic numbers to designate staffeln. So what would the "Gr" stand for?


----------



## Erich (May 18, 2005)

the A-8/R11 is actually a A-8/N

the N stands for Neptun and in the case of the wonderful profile the Neptun FuG 218 radar which was only fitted on a scant few machines in 1./NJGr 10

yes the Gr in this case stands from gruppe which had 3 staffels. NJGr 10 had single eninge jobs in the 1st and twin engine in the 2nd and 3rd staffels

NJGr would be a night fighter gruppe and NJGr 10 tested new equipment and radar devices. the first staffel for part of it's operations flew anti-mossie ops in the Fw 190 A-6,7, and A-8 and then accepted 109G-6/AS, later G-14/AS and then finally G-10's into it's ranks.

JGr - jagdgeschwader gruppe with the same reasoning behind it. a test unit for new a/c and weapons.

there was a JGr 10, JGr 25 and 50 and the last two had the r removed for propaganda reasons to show the Allies they were supposed full on Jagdgeschwaders. JGr 10 tested different rockets ( air to air) throughout it's career.

E ~


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 19, 2005)

Really good stuff, I didn't know any of this stuff before, to be honest it never occured to me.


----------



## Erich (May 19, 2005)

JGr 10 were fitted with both Bf 109G's and Fw 190A's all in the testing role with different armament configurations to be used against Allied bombers.
JGr 25 and 50 both had Bf 109G's and experiments with the Br 210mm rocket and underwing gondola 2cm weapons and then some un-armored G's for use to chase down day time Mossies of which they were NOT successful. JGr's 25 and 50 were disbanded.....due to lack of success

E ~


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 19, 2005)

Okay now here is my real question. You said they were disbanded. What did they do with them? Did they combine them into other units, I seriously doubt they just got rid of them.


----------



## Erich (May 19, 2005)

the a/c were given to other field units and the pilots dispersed to other Geschwadern.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 19, 2005)

Okay that is what I figured.


----------



## CharlesBronson (May 26, 2005)

*Tough bastard:*  

Chief mechanic Unteroffizier Rommer inspect "his" FW-190A-4 wich returned from ops in Severkaya in mid- 1943, with 2 cilinders heads shot away in the radial BMW engine.
despite the cronic damage to the powerplant, the pilot returned safely and make a perfect " three point landing".


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 27, 2005)

Good plane, well taken care of. I have always learned if you take care of her, she will come through for you when you really need it.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 27, 2005)

Nice pic! 8)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 31, 2005)

I have always liked pics of the ground crews working on there aircraft. It shows a different side of what goes on behind the scenes. The poeple who keep them up in the air.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jun 6, 2005)

*Operations of FW-190s from JG-26 in D-Day:*


by Don Caldwell

The Geschwader was far below its authorized strength in aircraft and pilots, but was in its best shape in months. Obstlt. Priller's Geschwaderstab and the First and Second Gruppen were equipped almost entirely with the Fw 190A-8. An improved Fw 190A-7, it would become the Fw 190 model built in the greatest numbers, 1334 eventually rolling off the production lines. The Fw 190A-8 retained the A-7's powerful armament of four wing-mounted MG 151s and two cowling-mounted MG 131s, although some examples had the outer wing cannon removed to save weight. It had a new radio with homing capabilities and a new 25 gallon fuel tank behind the cockpit. In the R4 variant this fuel tank was replaced by a nitrous oxide tank in a system called GM-1 boost, which increased top speed by as much as 36 mph at altitudes above 8000 meters (26,000 feet). The Fw 190A-8 had the same 1700 HP BMW 801D-2 engine that had powered the Fw 190A-3 in 1942, so the boost was necessary to remain competitive with improved Allied fighters. GM-1 raised the fighter's critical altitude from 5500 to 6300 meters (18,000 to 20,700 feet) at which height its maximum speed was 656 km/h (408 mph). At low or medium altitudes the performance of this fighter was comparable to that of the four principal Allied types, and its pilots, even the new ones, had a great deal of confidence in their mount.

......The Third Gruppe was still flying its old Bf 109G-6 Beulen (boils), so named from the bulbous fairings covering the breeches of their cowling-mounted MG 131 machine guns. While still an effective dogfighter, the Bf 109 was showing its age, and lacked the speed necessary to initiate combat or escape from Allied fighters. An experienced pilot could use its ability to climb and turn to regain the advantage if caught by surprise; inexperienced pilots, who were the great majority, were easy targets.

......As the Allies completed their preparations for the invasion, the Germans still had no clue as to its date or location. Rain and mists covering France in early June led to a reduction in the Wehrmacht state of readiness. The First Gruppe kept up its routine of flying from its northern bases to Trier or Metz in the morning, and returning in the evening. The Second Gruppe continued training at Mont de Marsan. The Third Gruppe remained on Nancy-Essey, and was scrambled a few times. Contact was not sought with the enemy.

......On 4 June the Allied air forces kept up a blizzard of attacks on tactical objectives in France. In England, the assault craft had been loaded and were on their way to the Normandy beaches when an urgent message from SHAEF was received postponing the D-Day landings one day, from 5 June to 6 June, to take advantage of a predicted improvement in the weather. The convoys put back into port, still unobserved by the Luftwaffe.

Jagdgeschwader 26 got word of the Normandy invasion via a telephone call to Obstlt. Priller at his Lille-Nord command post. Priller was told that JG 26 had been put under the command of the 5th Jagddivision, and that he should begin transferring his Gruppen to bases nearer to the beachhead area. Orders were quickly passed to the nearby First Gruppe and to the Third Gruppe at Nancy-Essey to get their operational fighters airborne and en route to the JG 2 airfields at Creil and Cormeilles. His staff was told to load their trucks and head south toward Poix. The First and Third Gruppe truck convoys were already on the road with those units' ground staffs, but were unfortunately headed in the wrong direction. The First was going to Reims in anticipation of a permanent base move; the Third was moving southeast to join its flying units at Nancy. Priller had fought the orders for these transfers into the French interior, but had lost. The convoys were located by radio and told to stop. Hptm. Naumann's Second Gruppe pilots had already taken off from Mont de Marsan and Biarritz at 0700 and had reached Vrox, where they awaited further orders. Beyond telling the Second Gruppe ground staff to pack up, Priller had no orders at the moment; the unexpected Allied landing site had upset all the Luftwaffe plans. Having done all he could, Priller and his wingman, Uffz. Heinz Wodarczyk, headed for their Focke-Wulfs, which as usual were parked just outside the command post. The first Luftwaffe response to the invasion was underway.

......The pair took off into the gray skies at 0800. Priller's only orders to Wodarczyk were to stick close. They headed west at low altitude, spotting Spitfires above them as far east as Abbeville. Near Le Havre the duo climbed into the solid cloud bank. When they emerged, the ships of the largest assault landing in history were spread before their eyes. After a shouted "Good luck!" to Wodarczyk, Priller dove for the beach at 650 kph (400 mph). The British soldiers on Sword, the easternmost of the five landing beaches, jumped for cover as the two fighters roared overhead at fifty feet, their machine guns and cannon clattering. The fleet's antiaircraft guns opened fire with every gun that could track them, but the Focke-Wulfs flew through the barrage unscathed. After traversing the beach, the two pilots climbed for the clouds, honor satisfied. Their D-Day mission, the most famous in the history of the Geschwader thanks to Cornelius Ryan's book The Longest Day and the resulting movie, was over.

......The two Focke-Wulfs landed on Creil, and Priller went to see Major Bühligen, the Kommodore of the Richthofen Geschwader. Bühligen had no more fighters than did Priller. Only one of his Gruppen was immediately available; another was en route from Brittany, and the third was in Germany for rebuilding, and had not yet been released to return to France. After several telephone calls to 5th Jagddivision headquarters, Priller got a decision on relocating his Geschwader. The Second Gruppe could continue north to Guyancourt, near Paris. The First and Third Gruppen could stay at Creil and Cormeilles until the arrival of the rest of the JG 2 aircraft made things too crowded, and would then move south to bases in the Paris region. Priller made arrangements for Bühligen's radiomen to contact his four road convoys, and returned to the business of fighting the Allies.

......Although Priller and Wodarczyk may have been the first German pilots to fly over the beachhead, they were by no means the only ones to contact the enemy on this day. Bühligen himself scored the first victory for JG 2, a P-47 over the Orne Estuary, at 1157. I/JG 2 was active over Caen from noon, and III/JG 2 joined in after it arrived at Cormeilles from Brittany. For the day, the Richthofen Geschwader claimed three P-47s, five P-51s, and nine Typhoons, for the loss of nine Fw 190s. The P-51s included an entire flight of four 4th Fighter Group aircraft, bounced while strafing a convoy near Rouen.

......After sitting on the ground at Creil and Cormeilles for three hours waiting to be serviced, the First Gruppe began flying small missions, some jointly with I/JG 2. Uffz. Hans-Werner Winter of the 3rd Staffel either got lost or was chased east by Allied fighters, and was shot down and killed by the Abbeville Flak. Fhr. Gerhard Schulwitz was missing for a day after being shot down by naval gunfire, but returned with slight injuries. Fhj.-Uffz. Friedrich Schneider of the 2nd Staffel was also hit by naval gunners, and belly-landed on Beaumont-le-Roger. By late afternoon, the JG 2 armorers had fit some of the Focke-Wulfs with launchers for 21 cm rockets, and Lt. Kemethmüller led his 4th Staffel in the first rocket attack by the Geschwader on land targets; they had been trained for this at Cazaux. The 2nd Staffel leader, Oblt. Kunz, scored the day's only air victory for the Geschwader, downing a Mustang southeast of Caen at 2055. This was probably a 4th Fighter Group P-51 that had aborted from a mission to Dreux with a bad magneto and was attempting to reach the Allied lines to force-land.

......The Third Gruppe had reached the JG 2 bases by 0930, but did not begin flying combat missions until nearly noon. It is known that they tangled with Spitfires, claimed no victories, and sustained no losses or damage. The fragile Messerschmitts probably stayed well away from the beachhead.

......The Second Gruppe lost one aircraft on its takeoff from Biarritz. Lt. Hans Bleich was caught in Lt. Glunz's propwash and crashed, suffering slight injuries. Those Focke-Wulfs that reached Vrox flew north in two separate formations. One flew directly to the new Second Gruppe base at Guyancourt, where they landed before 1115. They did not fly again this day, probably because there was no-one there to service the aircraft. Lt. Glunz led eight aircraft to Cormeilles. While en route, Glunz spotted a flight of P-51s attacking ground targets near Rouen and led a bounce. They were spotted, and the Mustangs broke into the attack. One pair boxed in Uffz. Erich Lindner and shot him down. He attempted to bail out, but caught his parachute on the cockpit framing; he pulled it loose in time and fell free, landing with only slight injuries. Glunz holed one Mustang's wing, but was unable to get an advantage, and both sides broke away. After servicing at Cormeilles, Glunz's group reached Guyancourt by 1700.

......The OKL in Berlin believed at first that the Normandy landings were only a diversion, and did not order the fighters in Germany westward until afternoon. The Bf 109s and Fw 190s began arriving at their assigned bases near nightfall, and none played any role in the day's operations. The effort by the 5th Jagddivision totaled 121 combat sorties, all by JG 2 and JG 26. Fliegerkorps II reported fifty-one sorties, all by SG 4. According to one source, the 8th Air Force and the Allied Expeditionary Air Force (AEAF) flew 14,000 combat sorties on 6 June; the American 56th Fighter Group flew an unprecedented eleven combat missions.


----------



## Erich (Jun 6, 2005)

indeed June 6th was a busy day.

17 kills claimed by JG 2 and 1 by 2./JG 26 by Oblt. Franz Kunz agasint a P-51 at UN 5: 800metres, 5km S.E. of Caen at 20.55hrs.

Hauptman Mihlan also shot dow a P-51 south of La Bazoge at 500 metres west of Mortain. He was flying in Stab III./SG 4. 

12 B-24's were claimed by JG 301, 6./JG 51 and members of JG 53 in the S.E. part of Europe / Rumania, near the Ploesti oil fields..

June 7th over Normandie was an incredibly active day as it appears the Luftwaffe had a chance to "wake up". claims for 50 Allied fighters alone...

E ~


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 6, 2005)

Excellent info. I knew there was more to it that just Pips little run down the beach.. Thx..


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 8, 2005)

I think Pips run down the beach was just the only aircraft that actually flew down the beach head.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jun 8, 2005)

There were a couple guys that got shot down by the shipboard AA fire, but im pretty sure ur right adler, it was the only strafe run down the beach head..


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 8, 2005)

for all the good he did, but atleast he tried and i can imagine how much scarier it'd make it to be shot at from above......


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 9, 2005)

Imagine being shotdown over the beach head and landing in the whole rain of bullets and all.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 9, 2005)

nice to take cover behind though, priller would proberly end up getting shot though........


----------



## Erich (Jun 9, 2005)

just to add this tidbit. As on the 6th of June the Jagdgeschwaders were in the state of moving from one airfield to another. prime for the Allies no doubt as resistance by the Luftwaffe was ever so slight. Again that was to change as many fighter duels raged over the bocage country and inland some at very low altitude....during June-August of 44.


for 9th of June there were no aerial combat claims by the Luftwaffe over Normandie as the focus was on heavy B-24 formations by the US 15th AF attacking München. 16 were shot down with another 12 shot out of formation. A big day for Bf 109G-6 equipped I./JG 302, JG 77, JG 4 and JG 53.

10th of June a different scene aappeared over Normandie as the Luftwaffe arose to defend it's territory over Normandie. 5 kills to Ffw 190A-8 equipped III./JG 54. Addi glunz while in 6./JG 26 shot down 3 P-47's in the area of Lisieux at 2500-4000metres.....

Ploesti was also attacked and JG 77 arose to meet the 15th AF


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 10, 2005)

I have found a lot of info about aerial encounters like this through books and on the net but what I want to know Erich is where you get this info on particular days like you have. It is really good stuff.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jun 22, 2005)

*Tactical trials:*

FW-190A-4 vs P-47C


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jun 23, 2005)

Good find there.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jul 17, 2005)

One of the first sturmbock used by Major Dahl:






He gained his 128th and last victory, a USAAF P-51 Mustang near Dillingen, on 26 April 1945. Walter Dahl survived the war but died on 25 November 1985 at Heidelberg, aged 69. 
Walter Dahl shot down 128 enemy aircraft in 678 missions, including about 300 ground-attack missions. He claimed 30, possibly 36, four-engined bombers and 34 Il-2 Stormovik ground attack aircraft. Dahl also achieved 2, possibly as many as 9 victories, flying the Me-262. He recorded 84 victories over the Eastern Front.


----------



## Erich (Jul 17, 2005)

friend actually this is not Dahl's SturmFw. this is a machine, maybe Staffelkäpitan of 11.Sturm/JG 3 during July of 44. The 13 is actually black.

Dahl's yes would of had a blue 13 but the rumpfband would of been red not white and also without the IV.thr gruppe ~ marking. Soince he was Kommodore of JG 300 there would of been no marking over the defence Reich red band. Dahl's victories of been under scrutiny for years and indeed becasue of his high standing position could easily of claimed other pilots victories of his Stab or claimed without his wingman present.

Adler answering your June 10th posting yes much reading and interviewing veterans plus having the oppourtunity to check on US bomb group histories through the bomb group representatives and of course the overseas research contacts for many years, before NAM and after, comparing notes and finding what actually happened and not depending solely on old books for the information. The result of tedious effort, some of it painful and unfulfilling but at least the last 7-9 years with the net available more and more of those hard efforts can be gleaned in a much easier fashion, none of this wait 6 months for a reply or unanswered phone calls. there is still much being uncovered, and to stick with Charles posting waiting for the volume 1 of JG 300 to be available...sometime in august last I heard. the French version is out and is doing well. Dahl's SturmFw's and A-8's will be in the two volumes.

Erich


----------



## Erich (Jul 17, 2005)

here is the photo in question. Dahl visited IV.Sturm/JG 3 right after the many victories the SturmFw unit of JG 3 at their base on 7-7-44. Dahl is with a couple of staff members and future ace Konrad Bauer of 5.Sturm/JG 300. Willi Moritz, Gruppenkommandeur - of IV.Sturm/JG 3 is also present watching the SturmFw's of JG 3 coming in to land.


----------



## Erich (Jul 17, 2005)

here is a shot of Mr. happy maybe has just got himself a kill, but then maybe a bogus claim ? this is a shot of 1 of his several Fw 190A's that he flew.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jul 17, 2005)

Very interesting  

Recently I had made a comparative between some profiles of FW-190A-8 of Ospreys "FW-190 aces of the Western Front", the Simon Schatz art, and others that I picked in the Internet.....and none of it machted, damn


----------



## Erich (Jul 17, 2005)

Charles the pic in question, and please do not trust Osprey but keep an open mind.

IV.Sturm/Jg 3 SturmFw's had the white band with the ~ over it indicating IV. th gruppen. also 11th staffel had the white trim over the exhuast Adlerflügeln. Of note is the Scheuklppen, the protective armored glass on the canopy as II.Sturm/JG 4 removed theirs after theier second aerial encounter and JG 300 never used them...


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jul 17, 2005)

Good photo ¡¡

Notable the "all black" overpainting applied....not very skillfully .


----------



## Erich (Jul 17, 2005)

The Tarpain covers the blue-black engine cowling which was another noted itme of IV.Sturm/JG 3. 12th staffel had a yellow stripe around the exhuast eagle. 2./JG 51 which later became 16.Sturm/JG 3 had a red stripe and also a red stripe over black spinner. 12th staffel had a yellow stripe over the spinner-black background. 10th and the 11th sturm were the same although 10th staffel had white numbers and 11th staffel had black


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 17, 2005)

Very confusing....


----------



## Erich (Jul 17, 2005)

10-12th staffels and then 2./JG 51 from 7-7-44 till August 10, 1944 then it was changed from
10th to the 13th st.
11th to the 14th st.
12th to the 15th st.
2./JG 51 to 16th st.

the colors were removed from theSturmFw's and they then appeared in the boring two toned greys with all spinners of the 4 staffels black with white stripe for ID. The individual a/c numbers stayed the same colours though at : white, black, yellow and red.

the heavy armor seemed to stay as well including the armored glas on the canopies, drop tank as standard. nealy all A-8/R2's and later R8's had the cowling mg 131's removed and the troughs faired over with aerodynamic pieces as the four cannon were enough to take out the ehavy bombers. Standard fare on II.Sturm/JG 4 and II.Sturm/JG 300 Sturms. Sturms of JG 4 wore the black/white/black defence bands through the war from end of August onward...... their first battle was on 11th of September 1944.
JG 300 first wore the rust colored red bands and then at December 44's end the blue/white/blue defence band on all a/c.

a little better now ?


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jul 18, 2005)

dear Erich:

Do you have any picture of Major H.G Kornatzki´s Sturmbock ...?


----------



## Erich (Jul 18, 2005)

only of him in the cockpit and in his dress tunic. Do not know of any photo of just his SturmFw. Sadly he perished on the second mission of II.Sturm/JG 4 on 12 September 44, in Green 2, werke nummer 681424 A-8/R2 in air combat near Zilly by Halberstadt. II.Sturm/JG 4 were to lose 6 SturmFw's this date, 1 of them was on a bad landing approach at Flugplatz Welzow


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 18, 2005)

Erich said:


> Adler answering your June 10th posting yes much reading and interviewing veterans plus having the oppourtunity to check on US bomb group histories through the bomb group representatives and of course the overseas research contacts for many years, before NAM and after, comparing notes and finding what actually happened and not depending solely on old books for the information. The result of tedious effort, some of it painful and unfulfilling but at least the last 7-9 years with the net available more and more of those hard efforts can be gleaned in a much easier fashion, none of this wait 6 months for a reply or unanswered phone calls. there is still much being uncovered, and to stick with Charles posting waiting for the volume 1 of JG 300 to be available...sometime in august last I heard. the French version is out and is doing well. Dahl's SturmFw's and A-8's will be in the two volumes.
> 
> Erich



Thats great! Thanks for all the info that you have. I am sure that we all take some knowledge from it.


----------



## Erich (Jul 18, 2005)

well the forums is a great place for all of us to learn..........none of us have all the information but we work together

E


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 19, 2005)

Agreed. 

I am just waiting for something to come along that I have some info on!!!!


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jul 19, 2005)

Erich said:


> only of him in the cockpit and in his dress tunic. Do not know of any photo of just his SturmFw. Sadly he perished on the second mission of II.Sturm/JG 4 on 12 September 44, in Green 2, werke nummer 681424 A-8/R2 in air combat near Zilly by Halberstadt.



I ve extracted this profile from the Osprey "aircraft of the aces " series, it teorically shows the paint layout of the A-6 "early Sturmbock" presented to Kornatzki the 1/1/1944 when it take command.

But ( as you say before) probably is not too accurate.






This craft had increased armor but only 4 x 20 mm and not the external MK-108.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 20, 2005)

Wheather acurate or not they are nice profiles. One just has to take them with a grain of salt.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jul 27, 2005)

Is good to know that at list one of the last Doras is still flyable.

Yellow 10 was built early in 1945 by Arbeitsgruppe (Work Group) Roland. This was actually a group of companies responsible for building different components of the FW-190 from dispersed locations. The final assembly point not being known at this time.

This is the "gelbe 10" owned by Franz Gotz, when it was captured bearing the star designation.






Major Götz had flown Yellow 10 operationally right up to the last days of the war. By May, the remnants of JG 26 had found themselves flying armed reconnaissance missions from Schleswig airfield near the Danish border. By the end of hostilities, Major Götz had surrendered Yellow 10 to the RAF at Flensburg Airfield.

Geschwader Kommodore Major Franz Gotz, a Knight's Cross holder





And the inmaculate estate post- restoration of this german warbird.











Here showing the muzzles of the 3 x 20 mm Mauser and the 16 mm guncamera. The cowling ring armor was 15 mm thick.






For more info check:

http://www.clubhyper.com/reference/fw190d13jc_1.htm


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 28, 2005)

Good stuff I did not know that any Doras were still flying.


----------



## evangilder (Jul 28, 2005)

Yes, good stuff. Nice shots too! 8)


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 28, 2005)

Woah that Dora looks fantastic...


----------



## Erich (Jul 28, 2005)

I've seen Gelbe 10 and in fact almost hopped into the cockpit as I was so jazzed, only at the last minute did I step off the fuselage and wing emplored by my wife and two young kids at the time, back in the early 90's.

Good friend Jerry Crandall of Eagle-Editions and the Champlin fighter museum staff repainted the bird in the closest combination of colours that they could find. In reality the prop is not as bright green as shown in the pics but overall a black-green with white Spiralschnauze. would love to see this bird again.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 31, 2005)

How much of it is original.


----------



## Erich (Aug 2, 2005)

nearly all of it. there was some pieces removed back in Arizona and am not sure where Gelbe 10 has been relocated too...Seattle or Texas I think. the A/C is flyable though. The unit was tested under the RAF at wars end with a German ace piloting agasint an RAF pilot flying ? to see the handling characteristics of the Dora. It proved superior to the RAF craft.

E ~


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 2, 2005)

Some other pics of Gelbe 10...


----------



## evangilder (Aug 2, 2005)

Nice shots! I notice one was copyright Steve Barber. Funny, I know that guy. But I'm sure he's cool with it here.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Aug 2, 2005)

They are great shots.


----------



## lesofprimus (Aug 2, 2005)

Hey, I coulda just cropped his name outta there, but I give props when I can... Its a great kite and a hellova paint job...


----------



## evangilder (Aug 2, 2005)

Yep it sure is. 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 3, 2005)

i think it looks like a model in some of them shot lol...........


----------



## Smokey (Aug 3, 2005)

Probably the paint job which is alot more dramatic than the low visibilty grey modern jets use
Looks damn cool


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 3, 2005)

Hey Erich do you know what kind of RAF aircraft they tested it against.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Nov 7, 2005)

Interesting 3d cutaway art about the Dora.
















I really love this japanese ilustrators. you can found more in here:

http://www2.cc22.ne.jp/~harada/english/fwindex_e.html


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 7, 2005)

Wow that is nice.


----------



## Erich (Nov 7, 2005)

Wow the markings are all wrong ! that is suppose to be yellow 15 not blue as 8th staffel never had any doras in JG 301

thanks Charles for the almost naked Dora, very interesting how it may have looked without the skin


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 7, 2005)

Nice pics Charles and Les! 

Really interesting site there Charles, some really good 3D art on it.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 7, 2005)

I agree the markings may be wrong but it is still very interesting.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Nov 7, 2005)

> Wow the markings are all wrong



Yuo have to take it as the thing they are Erich, some good 3D art, not accurate pieces of history.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 7, 2005)

That one is pretty cool too. Where do you get these.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 7, 2005)

I just answered that question when I went back up and read the first post. Sorry about that.


----------



## Erich (Nov 7, 2005)

yes I know, just too opinionated about everything !


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 7, 2005)

Arent we all to an extent.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Dec 4, 2005)

Very interesting pics of Fw-190 testing ejector seat.


----------



## Gnomey (Dec 4, 2005)

Interesting pics CB.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Dec 4, 2005)

Good finds! 8)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 4, 2005)

Good pics I dont think I have seen those before.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Dec 4, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Good pics I dont think I have seen those before.


They have been published in some 190 books of many years ago with photos of the Draeger seats. Nowarra's book of 1965 is one.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 4, 2005)

Cool thanks.


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Dec 5, 2005)

Does anyone know if the Fw-190 ever went operational in the interceptor role with a six 20mm cannon layout? I saw one in a book that had two pod mounted Mg151/20 on each wing, and a 20mm in each wingroot, designed to bring down B-17's, but i dont know if it was an experimental or saw action, does anyone out there know anything more?


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 5, 2005)

It was called the Fw-190A-8/R1, and it carried 2 underwing WB 151 containers with 4X MG 151 20mm cannon, on top of the 2X wingroot 20mm....


----------



## Erich (Dec 5, 2005)

sorry to have to correct you Les but the only six 2cm packed to kill bomber destroyer was the Fw 190A-5/U12 used by JG 1 and I./JG 11. Staffelkapitän Oberleutnant Hans Pancitius of 3./JG 11 flew one and was lost over the north seas chasing returning B-17's. He was a friend of the familie. I./JG 11 used them to quite a success but during the summer of 43 and into the fall it was outclassed by the A-6 and the heavier A-5/U12 was Thunderbolt point 50 fodder. the sucka was just too unwielding in flight and too slow in a fighter vs fighter combat.

there was never an A-8/R1 except in a mock-up

now you know the story behind that heavy mama


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 5, 2005)

U are right about the A-8/R1....
I forgot that the Fw 190A-8, like previous models, could be equipped with different Rustsatz kits: R1, R2, R3, R4, R6, R7, R8, R11, R12; but R1, R3 and R4 were abandoned shortly thereafter and generally R2, R6, R7 and R8 kits were used....

Fw 190A-5/U12 - proposal for heavier armament consisting of six MG 151/20 E cannons. They were mounted under the wing in two additional WB 151/20 pods with two cannons in each pod; complete armament could be 2x1 MG 17, 2x1 MG 151/20 E and 2x2 MG 151/20 E. It was also a model for Rustsatz 1 (R1) kit for Fw 190A; two planes (BH+CC, W.Nr. 150813 and BH+CD, W.Nr. 150814) with such armament were completed.

Fw 190A-6/R1 - attack fighter with armament increased to six cannons and two machine guns (2x1 MG 17, 2x1 MG 151/20 E and 2x2 MG 151/20 E), by mounting of the WB 151/20 underwing pylons with cannons. This modification was based on the A-5/U12 version. In spite of previous plans, only a few planes with this armament were in Luftwaffe service units (e.g. in JG 11).


----------



## Erich (Dec 6, 2005)

Les there were no A-6/R1's they were all A-5/U12's primarily in 2nd and 3rd staffels of JG 11 of at least 35 a/c made if not more not just two prototypes you mentioned......the production or I should say the service of these units was in early summer of 43 till fall of 43 when they were phased or destroyed within the gruppen. the next heavy prduction unit as a bomber killer was the A-7/MK with outboard 3cm's the grandfather of the A-8/R2 and R-8. the A-7/MK was in JG 1 and in I./JG 11, primarily 2nd staffel and the bomber killer was quite lethal


----------



## CharlesBronson (Dec 15, 2005)

Fw-190 in pursuit, the B-17 is already in flames.









> Fw 190A-5/U12 - proposal for heavier armament consisting of six MG 151/20 E cannons. They were mounted under the wing in two additional WB 151/20 pods with two cannons in each pod; complete armament could be 2x1 MG 17, 2x1 MG 151/20 E and 2x2 MG 151/20 E. It was also a model for Rustsatz 1 (R1) kit for Fw 190A; two planes (BH+CC, W.Nr. 150813 and BH+CD, W.Nr. 150814) with such armament were completed



There is a profile of A-5-U/12 in here

http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/1998/12/stuff_eng_profile_fw190.htm

Focke-Wulf Fw 190 A-5/U-12
2. Staffel, I. Gruppe, Jagdgeschwader 11
Husum, Schleswig-Holstein
Early 1944


----------



## Erich (Dec 15, 2005)

one of ace Erich Hondt's mounts although the profile is not quite correct. Again I point out the JG 11 I. gruppe had quite the notable success in flying this bird


----------



## CharlesBronson (Dec 21, 2005)

Nice pic of a restored FW-190S: 8)


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Dec 22, 2005)

very interesting, not often you see them!


----------



## Gnomey (Dec 22, 2005)

the lancaster kicks ass said:


> very interesting, not often you see them!


That is true, looks like a 2 seater as well. Nice pic CB!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 26, 2005)

Gnomey said:


> the lancaster kicks ass said:
> 
> 
> > very interesting, not often you see them!
> ...



The Fw-190S was the 2 seat trainer version of the Fw-190. I believe they built FW-190S-5 and an Fw-190S-8. I believe the first purpse built Fw-190 trainer was the E-1 commonly mistaken as a S-1.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 10, 2006)

In this page there is plenty of nice Fw-190 pictures, including the prototipes and the late variants.

http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/w...review/winter_2001_2002/web_gallery/index.htm


Fw-190V1-V3 ??





FW-190G-2.







JG-1.


----------



## Nonskimmer (Jan 10, 2006)

Great pics, including the Fw-190S.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 11, 2006)

Nice pics, I like the one of the cowling. Shows the different German paint jobs that were around.


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 11, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Nice pics, I like the one of the cowling. Shows the different German paint jobs that were around.


Yes it is a good one, nice pics CB.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 11, 2006)

The best two fighters of the war:


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 11, 2006)

very nice shot, that's the first time i've seen a -190 in RAF colours i think..........


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jan 11, 2006)

Ive seen them, got a couple of RAF Doras somewhere, but not in flight...Great pic!


----------



## Gnomey (Jan 11, 2006)

Nice pic CB!


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 11, 2006)

The firts Fw-190 to be "delivered".

http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/w..._2001_2002/web_gallery/images/fw-190_0093.jpg

23rd of June, 1942, Oberleutnant Armin Faber, Gruppenadjutant of III/JG 2 mistook the Bristol Channel for the English Channel and landed at an RAF Base in Pembrey, Wales. There is suspicius about the real causes that make this FW-190A-3 landed in Britain, but the fact is that Faber shoot down one of the Spitfires Mk-V that was send to intercept him in that late afternoon, eventualy he make a roll over the airfield in sign of victory.

The A-3 in his original markings.






It was a lucky strike for the RAF, because the worry about the new german desing was enormous....even the SAS had a plan for stole one called "Airthief".


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 12, 2006)

Good pic up there. I like the P-47 and Fw-190 in formation.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 12, 2006)

CharlesBronson said:


> The firts Fw-190 to be "delivered".
> 
> http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/w..._2001_2002/web_gallery/images/fw-190_0093.jpg
> 
> ...



even if he did think it was the english channel surely he should've gone back to an airfield in the south west of england, as this would appear to be france, if he thought the bristol channel was the english channel then landing in wales would appear to be landing in england!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 12, 2006)

I think he just made a stupid mistake, but then again I know how easily it can be to get disoriented when flying and that is with modern navigational equipment.


----------



## gaussianum (Mar 1, 2006)

According to "Fighters of World War II", edited by Donald Pleasance, the fastest of all the A-series was the FW-190 A-6/R4, with turbocharged BMW 801 TS, which gave it a top speed of 428mph (683 Km/h).

Was this engine used on subsequent versions? It would seem to be a winner. If not, why wasn't it?

From my uninformed point of view, it would seem that the Antons reached their zenith with this model. But I don't know what the specific role of this variant was.

What do you experts think?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 2, 2006)

Not that I am an expert, but I will check out my books when I get home from the field. More than likely though someone else will check this out and get you answer before I can in 2 weeks.


----------



## KraziKanuK (Mar 2, 2006)

No production 190 ever used a turbocharger. This 'T' for turbocharger is another of the those WW2 myths.

The only 190s to have a tc were the ones nicknamed _Kanguruh_. These were iV12 powered.

GM-1 (/R4) was not used on the 190s; the Ta152H-1 was the only Tank fighter that did use GM-1.

This board is a wealth of info on the 190,
http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewforum&f=8


----------



## gaussianum (Mar 2, 2006)

Thanks guys,

Still, is the top speed correct? Or didn't the A-6/R4 exist? Is the R4 exclusively synonymous with GM-1 boosting?

I thought the RuestSaetze kits included many things, but I'm probably wrong.

Surely, something must've clocked that speed.

Yes, that CWOS forum is very good.


----------



## Bf109_g (Aug 17, 2006)

D-9 for me.


----------



## Jaws (Aug 21, 2006)

In performance the D was great at low and mid altitude but had the same handicap the A models had at high altitude. The power loss with altitude was not as bad as the Antons but not far off.

In my opinion the whole inline engine experiment was a bad road they went on, because sometime in 1943 they had to stop development of piston engines that were not in production.

With this move they lost two aero engines that had the potential to change something when it mattered the most.
Right after introduction of BMW 801D in production and getting it installed in the FW-1`90 the BMW team started working on a replacement.
It was called BMW-802. was similar with the 801 but had 18 cylinders instead of 14. Two rows of 9 instead two rows of 7.
there are some pictures of this engine around:




And some specs:

18-cylinder supercharged two-row radial engine 
Bore: 156 mm (6.14 in) 
Stroke: 156 mm (6.14 in) 
Displacement: 53.7 L (3,280 in³) 
Dry weight: 
Components
Valvetrain: One intake and one sodium-cooled exhaust valve per cylinder 
Supercharger: Gear-driven single-stage three-speed 
Fuel system: Fuel injection 
Performance
Power output:

1,912 kW (2,563 hp) for takeoff 
1,176 kW (1,575 hp) at 12,000 m (39,000 ft) 



Since the FW-190 with BMW-801 was so successful in early stages the work on the 802 went really slow, and was 1943 by the time they had the engine in testing.
The 802 was impressive in what it offered. It was rated at 2600HP for take off and was said it could easily reach 3000hp during it's life.
The most impressive thing about this engine was the high altitude performance obtained from a gear-driven supercharger. The engine could reach 1600HP at 12000m. This is a lot of power over the old 801 with only about 30% increase in weight.

This engine IF  They kept working at it like they did with the 801 could have been put in mass production in 1943.
Now if you install this thing in the ,let's say, FW-190 A6 airframe. Extend the wings a little to bring back the wing loading to A2-4 standards, You have on your hands an aircraft that could have done it all for the LW. Low altitude fighter, Jabo, Mid alt bomber intercept and High altitude fighter and all in between. Could have been right there with the very best of them at any altitude.
The FW-190 airframe was well built from the start and could have worked with that engine with only minor changes. 
This thing could have retired the Bf-109, and that would have allowed them to produce, maintain and upgrade, a single piston engine fighter aircraft all over the map.

I'm sure they could have produced a lot of them if they concentrated all resources wasted in making and upgrading the fw-190 A, FW-190D, Ta-152, Bf-109G14/14 AS, G10, K4, and all those old engines they were trying desperately to get more juice out of: BMW, Jumo, DB-601, DB-603.


----------



## johnbr (Aug 21, 2006)

Jaws that is lot of good info on the bmw 802 it is very hard to find good info on it.Do you no how many they made.I no they made over 250 of jumbo 222 and it steal would not work.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Dec 29, 2006)

Some aditional pics of the High altitude fighter *Fw-190A-3/U7*. This variant was an atemp to increase the Fw-190A performance well over the 7000 meters . (when the supercharger became a litle clumsy) 







This aircraft had his outer wings MG-FF cannons deleted to save weight. The nose Mg-17s were deleted also and faired over.








The most obvious characteristic was the double venturi tipe air intakes, wich used the ram effect form the airscrew to improve the breathing of the BMW 801 engine.







About 3 or 4 of this variant were manufactured and used by the JG-26 in ealy 1943. It seems that there was also some A-4/u7 and A-5 /U7 but I am not have info about it.

All pictures extracted from: "Höhere jäger und Kampfflugzeuge" waffen arsenal.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 29, 2006)

Nice pics.


----------



## R-2800 (Dec 29, 2006)

never seen them before


----------



## CharlesBronson (Dec 31, 2006)

In the Osprey boobk "FW-190 aces of the western front" there was an A-5 with this U7 tubes modifications, but I am not sure if that is correct.


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 31, 2006)

NIce lookin plane...


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 2, 2007)

Yeap, but complete useless as a comouflage.


----------



## Erich (Jan 2, 2007)

Graf had an ego like many high scoring Luftw pilots, why do you think his Fw 190 was painted thusly ? come an get yours Soviet fliers


----------



## davparlr (Jan 2, 2007)

The best was the Dora. The one with the biggest impact A-2 or A-3.


----------



## ChrisMAg2 (Jan 2, 2007)

johnbr said:


> Jaws that is lot of good info on the bmw 802 it is very hard to find good info on it.Do you no how many they made.I no they made over 250 of jumbo 222 and it steal would not work.



From what I remember, not more then two hand full (9 IIRC) of the BMW 802 were built. All were only prototyps and studies, as they nevers saw contact to a real a/c frame. Of the BMW 803 (4000 hp class and not for single engined a/c) only two prototypes were built to run on a testbed. One 803 survived the war and is now back to DMM, Oberschleißheim. Other projects like BMW 804, 805 never made it off the drawing board/ were terminated.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 3, 2007)

:


Erich said:


> Graf had an ego like many high scoring Luftw pilots, why do you think his Fw 190 was painted thusly ? come an get yours Soviet fliers



With 212 kills my ego would be in the clouds too  . 








However most of the kills wre done in the East and few or none of the western shoot downs were on the Fw-190, so i think the use of this aircraft was rather anecdotic.

His old time friend *Alfred Grislawki *also use a FW-190 an managed to shoot down several 4 engined bombers in the western front.

*The A-7 "white one" of A.G in the JG 1.*







Grislawki "explaining" an air victory with his hands.









> The best was the Dora. The one with the biggest impact A-2 or A-3


.


My favorites would be the A-6 for use against fighters and the A-8/R2 for antibomber use.


----------



## CharlesBronson (May 13, 2007)

*FW-190G, long range escort and fighter bomber.*




















Source: The History of German Aviation: Kurt Tank-Focke Wulf's Designer and Test Pilot/ wolfgang Wagner/Schiffer military.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jun 17, 2008)

Probably someother guy posted this in the video section but still I find amazing how this Fw-190 Dora recovers from the "nosedive" in its take off from very muddy terrain.  











Is a Wochenschau that worth to watch.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDDHvwpoQXo_


----------



## KrazyKraut (Jun 19, 2008)

Awesome footage 

The best in their days were imo the A-2 followed by the A-5, as they (overall) had a certain edge over their Allied counterparts at the time. The Dora, while superior to earlier Focke-Wulfs only equalized an advantage that was build up by the Allies with the P-51. My personal opinion.


----------



## Dark Matter (Jul 10, 2009)

FW-190 D-13 is the best! 8)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 10, 2009)

SILVERFISH1992 said:


> FW-190 D-13 is the best! 8)



Why?

If you are going to open a very old thread, then tell people why you think it is the best. Try and start up a conversation. Don't just dig up an old thread and post anything in it.


----------



## Dark Matter (Jul 10, 2009)

I am sorry, I didnt look at the age of the thread.
I think its the best becuase it had a heated windscreen, a new radio, it had a special all weather autopilot and a hydraulic boost system for the ailerons.


----------



## Dark Matter (Jul 10, 2009)

Plus, it could reach 400 MPH at sea level!


----------

