Bf-109 increased production - effects?

wiking85 said:

Not really, they were replaced by more horses. Including captured Russian ones. And yes I am aware of the limitations of horse supply. Funny that most of the armies of WW1 managed to use them without major issues and the Germans were able to march to the gates of Moscow, while the Wallies were logistically hamstrung at the German border with their trucks supply system.

Click to expand...

I might be missing something. The Wallies were hamstrung at whose border?

SaparotRob said:

I might be missing something. The Wallies were hamstrung at whose border?

Click to expand...

Germany's. Logistical problems all over the place despite having zero horses.

Of course, if the allies had horses the logistics would have been worse, having to provide feed and gasoline.

General staffs had figured out the max radius of action from supply points using horses without local supply (foraging/grazing) before Napoleon.
How far can you go before the the cart is just hauling food for it's own horses?
And extensions of that, Like the artillery cannot use it's horses to move food.
Horses are not trucks, they need to be feed every day. They also need more than grass or horses get sick and weak fairly soon. If you are depending on local fodder, you have to give the horses time to eat/graze and that is not time that they are "marching" or even resting. All of this was well known. Also how much water was needed and if water was available on the routes chosen in sufficient quantities. And that is clean water, not water that has been churned to mud by the first 900 horses at the watering hole. And in winter???
You also need a sizable support system. The Horses need shelter in bad weather, they need vets or at least some vet training. They need farriers (horse shoes and mobile blacksmith shops).

There were also different kinds/type of horses. Cavalry horses don't pull wagons well. Large draft horses are too specialized, They don't handle bad weather and poor food well.

By WW I most of this was well known. By WW II the Germans had thousands of men assigned to horse care. There are books written about it and how many mobile horse/vet hospitals there were. Some had a capacity of hundreds of horses and were transportable by rail.
You can't take a truck mechanic and make him horse handler/first line care giver any more than you can take a good horse handler and just drop him into a truck mechanic slot.

Both horse and truck transport systems can be overloaded and break down. And you can't change from one to the other in a few weeks or months in the middle of a campaign.
The German army had horse breeding programs and arrangements with horse farms/suppliers as did most other countries that used horses.
A big change was in WW I when the Army took so many horses from German agriculture that it crippled food production. While they knew how far you could travel with horses and how far they could travel per day or week very few wars until WW I lasted over the winter or for several years. With a short war some of the horses were returned after the summer campaigns and the long term civilian disruption was not as well studied. The British had similar problems in WW I. The whole subsidized truck thing where civilian truck owners were paid a yearly fee for their trucks so the Army could take them in case of need came from a long history of similar systems for calling in civilian horses in time of need (so the army didn't have to maintain the infrastructure of vets, care, shelter, etc in time of peace.) In time of war you need to leave a fair amount of the Breeding horses in place to ensure replacements. Deplete the breeding stock and you start running out of horses in the 2nd/3rd years.

truck logistics were relatively new in WW II, Most logistics had moved by rail in WW I with only short distances covered by truck/tractors. And WW II trucks were rather different than WW I trucks in terms of maintenance and life.

In 1939 Germany fielded around 3.8 million horses for the Wermacht. By early 1945 the number in use was still over 1 million.

The larger types used for hauling artillery needed more than a full bale of hay per day which, as the previous post noted, became
a severe logistical problem as the war went on.

The change to agriculture by large adoption of the internal combustion engine is often understated (especially today) as working
animals required feeding which averaged 50% of agricultural output.

The general fuel requirements of different types of transportation methods as given in How to Make War by James F. Dunnigan (Quill, 1988).

When supply is moved by sea or rail, the fuel required is not a significant factor. To move a ton of material 100 km by train requires 14 ounces of fuel. A large ship uses about half that amount. When material is moved by truck or air, it's a different story. By truck, 1 percent of the weight moved will be consumed as fuel for each 100 km traveled. By air, the cost will range from 2 to 5 percent, depending on the type of aircraft. Large commercial cargo jets are the most efficient. Helicopters are notorious fuel hogs and can consume 10 percent of their cargo weight for each 100 km traveled. Moving supply by animal, including humans, will have the same fuel costs as aircraft because of the food required. A recent innovation is the portable fuel pipeline, quickly laid alongside existing roads. It is twice as efficient as trucks, but is more vulnerable to attack. (p.454)

Having a more streamline approach with production in my eyes is significant. You are already starting with less materials.
Would you rather have an Me-110 or a Ju-88 on a mission to anywhere in Britain?
More 109's mean more familiarity with the airframe for everyone involved: ground crew, plant workers, etc. that means more ideas.
Germany had WAY too aircraft designers doing their own thing. Designers working together will help with finding solutions quicker. Cutting lots of red tape.
More familiarity = more efficiency and tricks.
Plenty of 109/190 pilots were shot down after switching over from bombers later in the War. I believe Erich Hartmann lost a wingman this way.
Germany put the better
-rated. pilots in bombers in Battle of Britain.

More 109/190 pilots will mean more trainers and instructors.
Even if Germany had made the training program more effective and rotated pilots somewhat like the Brits or Americans. Major George Petty did mock dogfighs in the states in 1944 against his brother on Leave said he outflew me in several scenarios. This was when he already had 20 plus kills.
Experience matters, sharing information and knowledge matters.
I mean what if Hans Joachim Marseilles never died and he actually becomes a trainer. Now imagine 6 full squadrons that were instructed and taught by him specifically. Does it change war? No, will more future generations of people not exist. Does it involve some of us? Definitely.
Natural Talent in "God-Given" way is a useful tool.
Bottom line is this.
YOU WILL HAVE LESS PEOPLE DOING MORE COMPLICATED THINGS THAT ARE NOT NECESSARY
Production increases because more time and energy is spent in specific tasks.

Some in here have said that's 30,000 more 109s and 190s……….
Let me ask you a question. If I'm Hitler, Am I going to give a DAMN about fuel in 1945 if I'm losing?
1943/1944 how many more bombers and fighters am I taking down?
How many more attacking Russians are taking out?
Was already declared a genocidal war right.
Oh hey I have an extra 500 FW 190's with bombs/rockets flying out today. Maybe I won't get overrun in this town today or in a month.


Many randoms to consider. And why haven't I found a Yak-3 with DB-6XX. That's a cool project. After all Germany made a AWESOME MesserSPIT!

Remember the BF109 was always quick to produce. I still think you can make an airframe just a quick with a bubble canopy, especially as war progresses.
More metal and fabrication workers, means more experience, more experience means quicker work times and efficiency.
Build time for 190 also goes down and having DB also helps as both are "power eggs"
Think JDM Integra and USD Integra front ends but from firewall and up.


Sorry for rant

JuniorJarhead09 said:

Having a more streamline approach with production in my eyes is significant. You are already starting with less materials.
Would you rather have an Me-110 or a Ju-88 on a mission to anywhere in Britain?
More 109's mean more familiarity with the airframe for everyone involved: ground crew, plant workers, etc. that means more ideas.
Germany had WAY too aircraft designers doing their own thing. Designers working together will help with finding solutions quicker. Cutting lots of red tape.
More familiarity = more efficiency and tricks.
Plenty of 109/190 pilots were shot down after switching over from bombers later in the War. I believe Erich Hartmann lost a wingman this way.
Germany put the better
-rated. pilots in bombers in Battle of Britain.

More 109/190 pilots will mean more trainers and instructors.
Even if Germany had made the training program more effective and rotated pilots somewhat like the Brits or Americans. Major George Petty did mock dogfighs in the states in 1944 against his brother on Leave said he outflew me in several scenarios. This was when he already had 20 plus kills.
Experience matters, sharing information and knowledge matters.
I mean what if Hans Joachim Marseilles never died and he actually becomes a trainer. Now imagine 6 full squadrons that were instructed and taught by him specifically. Does it change war? No, will more future generations of people not exist. Does it involve some of us? Definitely.
Natural Talent in "God-Given" way is a useful tool.
Bottom line is this.
YOU WILL HAVE LESS PEOPLE DOING MORE COMPLICATED THINGS THAT ARE NOT NECESSARY
Production increases because more time and energy is spent in specific tasks.

Some in here have said that's 30,000 more 109s and 190s……….
Let me ask you a question. If I'm Hitler, Am I going to give a DAMN about fuel in 1945 if I'm losing?
1943/1944 how many more bombers and fighters am I taking down?
How many more attacking Russians are taking out?
Was already declared a genocidal war right.
Oh hey I have an extra 500 FW 190's with bombs/rockets flying out today. Maybe I won't get overrun in this town today or in a month.


Many randoms to consider. And why haven't I found a Yak-3 with DB-6XX. That's a cool project. After all Germany made a AWESOME MesserSPIT!

Remember the BF109 was always quick to produce. I still think you can make an airframe just a quick with a bubble canopy, especially as war progresses.
More metal and fabrication workers, means more experience, more experience means quicker work times and efficiency.
Build time for 190 also goes down and having DB also helps as both are "power eggs"
Think JDM Integra and USD Integra front ends but from firewall and up.


Sorry for rant

Click to expand...

'...Germany put the better-rated. pilots in bombers in Battle of Britain...'

Have you any hard, factual, evidence to back up this contention?

John Vasco said:

'...Germany put the better-rated. pilots in bombers in Battle of Britain...'

Have you any hard, factual, evidence to back up this contention?

Click to expand...

Hi
Chapter Seven in 'Luftwaffe Handbook 1939-1945' by Alfred Price has this to say on the early training system in the Luftwaffe:


It is open to everyone to draw their own conclusions.

Mike

Well I see up until 1942 bomber pilots reconnaissance operators had more hours. Let's see those fighter pilots and dive bombers come out with 220-270 hours.
120 extra hours is 5 days…..:: 5 WHOLE 24 periods flying non stop. That's EXPERIENCE, that's tactics, that's strategy, the that's knowing the men who you fly with.
"Before I'm through with you you're gonna move like one man and think like one man, if you don't you'll be dead."
Whole lot of luck was involved in WW2 in living in dying.
Experience matters.
You can figure who will be better at what roles.

My dad had a roommate in college, who BUSTED HIS ASS to study in the same field. He spent hours doing assignments and checking his work, my Dad spent 1/2 that time and had better grades at graduation.

His roommate ends up being a Professor at the school, teaching those same courses they took together.

MikeMeech said:

Hi
Chapter Seven in 'Luftwaffe Handbook 1939-1945' by Alfred Price has this to say on the early training system in the Luftwaffe:
View attachment 827902
View attachment 827903
It is open to everyone to draw their own conclusions.

Mike

Click to expand...

Doesn't answer my question. No hard facts to show that better rated pilots went to bombers. In fact, that contention flies in the face of what I was told by Wolfgang Schenck in one of the many interviews I held with him. Schenck flew from the start of the war up to the last few weeks of the war, when he was appointed the last Inspector of Jet Fighters of the Third Reich. Bomber pilots were steady and reliable; the fighter pilots were the far better pilots in handling aircraft at a far greater speed than bombers.