bobbysocks
Chief Master Sergeant
was researching something else and fell upon this. opinions of the he 162 project by galland, messerschmitt and others.
from the site: Freeman Army Air Field
will have to do this in several installments
SECRET. A.D.I.(K) Report No. 340 / 1945
THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION HAS BEEN OBTAINED FROM P/W. AS THE
STATEMENTS MADE HAVE NOT BEEN VERIFIED, NO MENTION OF THEM
SHOULD BE MADE IN INTELIGENCE SUMMARIES OF COMMANDS OR
LOWER FORMATIONS, NOR SHOULD THEY BE ACCEPTED AS FACTS UNTIL
COMMENTED ON IN AIR MINISTRY INTELIGENCE SUMMARIES OR SPECIAL
COMMUNICATIONS.
ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST THE VOLKSJÄGER.
1. The following information on the Volksjäger project was obtained from captured documents and from interrogation of Generalleutnant Galland, General der Jagdflieger
(A.O.C. fighters), and General Feldmarschall Milch who was Generalluftzeugmeister until June 1944 and was thereafter transferred to the Speer Ministry.
2. The captured documents which were found in the possession of Herr Seiler, the Chairman of the Messerschmitt concern, apparently form part of a dossier prepared by Messerschmitt in order to demonstrate the all around superiority of the Me.262 over the Volksjäger and to defend themselves against possible future charges of inefficiency in the production of the Me. 262.
3. The attached Appendix contains a full translation of one of the documents which includes an interesting memorandum drawn up by Professor Messerschmitt on the inferiority of the Volksjäger as compared with the Me. 262. The originals both of this document and the others which are mentioned later in this report are being listed and circulated by A.D.I. (K). Documents Section.
The Parentage of the Volksjäger.
4. The actual conception of the Volksjäger project appears to be a subject for considerable controversy and the attribution of paternity is rendered difficult by the mutual denial of responsibility by all concerned, when the project was ultimately realized to have been a failure.
5. According to Galland's account, the person responsible for the formulation of the idea of a cheap single jet fighter capable of mass production was Hauptdienstleiter Saur, head of the Jägerstab and later of the Rüstungsstab, aided and abetted, if officials of the Messerschmitt concern are to be believed, by a number of R.L.M. personalities including General Ing. Lucht, Oberst Diesing and Oberstleutnant Kneemeyer.
6. In a document drawn up by the Messerschmitt concern, however, attacking the Volksjäger project, the responsibility is shifted by Saur himself to the shoulders of Generaldirektor Frydag, the head of the main commission for airframes as well as a Heinkel official. This document, which was drawn up in April 1944 and therefore gave all those concerned ample opportunity for being wise after the event, shows that Saur when challenged with his responsibility for the misguided project with a suggestion that its originator was a criminal, declared that Frydag was the person who was really to blame.
7. The same document shows that in April 1945 Frydag was interviewed at Murnau by Professor Messerschmitt and two other leading members of the Messerschmitt firm and was taxed to his face with his share in the development of the Volksjäger plan. Frydag is said to have maintained an imperturbable demeanor throughout the attack made on him and to have declared that he never supported the scheme, but on the contrary had always been definitely opposed to it.
8. He in his turn attributed the conception of the idea to Saur and the R.L.M. and stated that the plan was submitted to Göring and later to Hitler without his advice being asked. Later, when the decision that such an aircraft was to go into production, had been made, he submitted and lent his cooperation.
9. It is evident from this interview and from other documents that the Messerschmitt company strove from the first to oppose the Volksjäger, and in the Murnau interview Frydag rather ingenuously remarked that he had to consider the interests of Heinkel who were responsible for designing the aircraft.
10. In this connection Milch, although he had no personal connection with the whole
project, was of the opinion that such a type had first been conceived by Heinkel in an attempt to retrieve their reputation and their financial position, both of which had been compromised by the outstanding failure of the He.177.
11. According to Milch, Heinkel and Frydag may then have injected into Saur's mind the idea of building masses of such an aircraft. Saur being an energetic and forceful individual and an extremely capable salesman is then credited with having sold the idea to Göring and later to Hitler with the assistance of various R.L.M. officials.
12. Final judgment must be left pending until further evidence becomes available, but it is at least interesting to see how, under the shadow of impending defeat, none of the leading figures concerned was willing to accept the responsibility for the conception of the Volksjäger project and with what eagerness they sought to pass the baby to another of their number.
The Development of the Volksjäger.
13. Galland states that once the decision had been taken to create a cheap single-jet fighter capable of mass production, the four or five leading aircraft firms were invited to submit designs and tenders under conditions of the utmost secrecy. The whole scheme was in fact kept so secret that even Galland, who as A.O.C. fighters might have expected to be kept informed of what was intended, was actually given no inkling of the plan until late summer of 1944, when he was summoned to a meeting presided over by Göring at which the Heinkel design was to be considered.
14. P/W states that he opposed cogent arguments against the adoption of such a type, but that he was overruled and that the project was adopted and forthwith recommended to Hitler by Göring and Saur. A curious light is thrown on these events by a document which purports to record the interrogation of Flugbaumeister Malz, of the S.E. and T.E. fighter section of Fl.-E-2, the R.L.M. department dealing with the development of aircraft types.
15. Malz is recorded as having made the astounding statement that when Lucht, Diesing and Kneemeyer made their decisive report on the 162 to Göring certain technical documents required to support their case lacking and that in consequence Malz was ordered to have faked pictures of the 162 prepared by a cinema expert on such subjects. The faked pictures included views purporting to show the 162 above the clouds and executing a roll.
16. These fakes must have served their purpose, for the Heinkel design was accepted in September 1944 and thereafter went ahead with extreme rapidity. The blueprints are said to have been ready in November and the first two machines of this type took to the air in the following month. It is interesting to note that the aircraft was said to have been put into production straight from the drawing board and that no prototype in the accepted sense was built.
Opposition to the Project.
17. Galland states that he was not alone in his opposition to the Volksjäger but that he was seconded by such eminent designers as Professor Messerschmitt and Dr. Kurt Tank of Focke Wulf. In view of his position his own objections were naturally based mostly on technical grounds; he considered the aircraft to represent a retrograde step as compared to the Me. 262, on account of the Volksjäger's short range, light armament and restricted field of view and the small quantity of ammunition which it could carry.
18. From the point of view of production, P/W considered that in view of the superior performance of the Me.262 as compared to the 162, any surplus manufacturing capacity which had become available by cessation of bomber production should be made available for building the former aircraft.
19. As will soon be seen from the attached Appendix, Professor Messerschmitt put forward a very closely reasoned and plausible case against the 162, based partly on the same tactical arguments as those of Galland and partly on the impossibility of bringing the aircraft into production in sufficient numbers in time for the decisive spring battles of 1945. The conclusion of Messerschmitt's argument was that the 162 should therefore be dropped and that the production capacity set free should be used to bolster up the unsatisfactory Me.262 output, a view in which he may not have been entirely objective.
20. According to Galland, all these arguments were defeated at the decisive meeting presided over by Göring by the opposition of the production planners who argued that for technical reasons it would be impossible for factories scheduled to manufacture the Volksjäger to switch over to the Me.262.
A.D.I.(K) and
U.S. Air Interrogation. S.D. Felkin
26th June 1945 Group Captain
from the site: Freeman Army Air Field
will have to do this in several installments
SECRET. A.D.I.(K) Report No. 340 / 1945
THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION HAS BEEN OBTAINED FROM P/W. AS THE
STATEMENTS MADE HAVE NOT BEEN VERIFIED, NO MENTION OF THEM
SHOULD BE MADE IN INTELIGENCE SUMMARIES OF COMMANDS OR
LOWER FORMATIONS, NOR SHOULD THEY BE ACCEPTED AS FACTS UNTIL
COMMENTED ON IN AIR MINISTRY INTELIGENCE SUMMARIES OR SPECIAL
COMMUNICATIONS.
ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST THE VOLKSJÄGER.
1. The following information on the Volksjäger project was obtained from captured documents and from interrogation of Generalleutnant Galland, General der Jagdflieger
(A.O.C. fighters), and General Feldmarschall Milch who was Generalluftzeugmeister until June 1944 and was thereafter transferred to the Speer Ministry.
2. The captured documents which were found in the possession of Herr Seiler, the Chairman of the Messerschmitt concern, apparently form part of a dossier prepared by Messerschmitt in order to demonstrate the all around superiority of the Me.262 over the Volksjäger and to defend themselves against possible future charges of inefficiency in the production of the Me. 262.
3. The attached Appendix contains a full translation of one of the documents which includes an interesting memorandum drawn up by Professor Messerschmitt on the inferiority of the Volksjäger as compared with the Me. 262. The originals both of this document and the others which are mentioned later in this report are being listed and circulated by A.D.I. (K). Documents Section.
The Parentage of the Volksjäger.
4. The actual conception of the Volksjäger project appears to be a subject for considerable controversy and the attribution of paternity is rendered difficult by the mutual denial of responsibility by all concerned, when the project was ultimately realized to have been a failure.
5. According to Galland's account, the person responsible for the formulation of the idea of a cheap single jet fighter capable of mass production was Hauptdienstleiter Saur, head of the Jägerstab and later of the Rüstungsstab, aided and abetted, if officials of the Messerschmitt concern are to be believed, by a number of R.L.M. personalities including General Ing. Lucht, Oberst Diesing and Oberstleutnant Kneemeyer.
6. In a document drawn up by the Messerschmitt concern, however, attacking the Volksjäger project, the responsibility is shifted by Saur himself to the shoulders of Generaldirektor Frydag, the head of the main commission for airframes as well as a Heinkel official. This document, which was drawn up in April 1944 and therefore gave all those concerned ample opportunity for being wise after the event, shows that Saur when challenged with his responsibility for the misguided project with a suggestion that its originator was a criminal, declared that Frydag was the person who was really to blame.
7. The same document shows that in April 1945 Frydag was interviewed at Murnau by Professor Messerschmitt and two other leading members of the Messerschmitt firm and was taxed to his face with his share in the development of the Volksjäger plan. Frydag is said to have maintained an imperturbable demeanor throughout the attack made on him and to have declared that he never supported the scheme, but on the contrary had always been definitely opposed to it.
8. He in his turn attributed the conception of the idea to Saur and the R.L.M. and stated that the plan was submitted to Göring and later to Hitler without his advice being asked. Later, when the decision that such an aircraft was to go into production, had been made, he submitted and lent his cooperation.
9. It is evident from this interview and from other documents that the Messerschmitt company strove from the first to oppose the Volksjäger, and in the Murnau interview Frydag rather ingenuously remarked that he had to consider the interests of Heinkel who were responsible for designing the aircraft.
10. In this connection Milch, although he had no personal connection with the whole
project, was of the opinion that such a type had first been conceived by Heinkel in an attempt to retrieve their reputation and their financial position, both of which had been compromised by the outstanding failure of the He.177.
11. According to Milch, Heinkel and Frydag may then have injected into Saur's mind the idea of building masses of such an aircraft. Saur being an energetic and forceful individual and an extremely capable salesman is then credited with having sold the idea to Göring and later to Hitler with the assistance of various R.L.M. officials.
12. Final judgment must be left pending until further evidence becomes available, but it is at least interesting to see how, under the shadow of impending defeat, none of the leading figures concerned was willing to accept the responsibility for the conception of the Volksjäger project and with what eagerness they sought to pass the baby to another of their number.
The Development of the Volksjäger.
13. Galland states that once the decision had been taken to create a cheap single-jet fighter capable of mass production, the four or five leading aircraft firms were invited to submit designs and tenders under conditions of the utmost secrecy. The whole scheme was in fact kept so secret that even Galland, who as A.O.C. fighters might have expected to be kept informed of what was intended, was actually given no inkling of the plan until late summer of 1944, when he was summoned to a meeting presided over by Göring at which the Heinkel design was to be considered.
14. P/W states that he opposed cogent arguments against the adoption of such a type, but that he was overruled and that the project was adopted and forthwith recommended to Hitler by Göring and Saur. A curious light is thrown on these events by a document which purports to record the interrogation of Flugbaumeister Malz, of the S.E. and T.E. fighter section of Fl.-E-2, the R.L.M. department dealing with the development of aircraft types.
15. Malz is recorded as having made the astounding statement that when Lucht, Diesing and Kneemeyer made their decisive report on the 162 to Göring certain technical documents required to support their case lacking and that in consequence Malz was ordered to have faked pictures of the 162 prepared by a cinema expert on such subjects. The faked pictures included views purporting to show the 162 above the clouds and executing a roll.
16. These fakes must have served their purpose, for the Heinkel design was accepted in September 1944 and thereafter went ahead with extreme rapidity. The blueprints are said to have been ready in November and the first two machines of this type took to the air in the following month. It is interesting to note that the aircraft was said to have been put into production straight from the drawing board and that no prototype in the accepted sense was built.
Opposition to the Project.
17. Galland states that he was not alone in his opposition to the Volksjäger but that he was seconded by such eminent designers as Professor Messerschmitt and Dr. Kurt Tank of Focke Wulf. In view of his position his own objections were naturally based mostly on technical grounds; he considered the aircraft to represent a retrograde step as compared to the Me. 262, on account of the Volksjäger's short range, light armament and restricted field of view and the small quantity of ammunition which it could carry.
18. From the point of view of production, P/W considered that in view of the superior performance of the Me.262 as compared to the 162, any surplus manufacturing capacity which had become available by cessation of bomber production should be made available for building the former aircraft.
19. As will soon be seen from the attached Appendix, Professor Messerschmitt put forward a very closely reasoned and plausible case against the 162, based partly on the same tactical arguments as those of Galland and partly on the impossibility of bringing the aircraft into production in sufficient numbers in time for the decisive spring battles of 1945. The conclusion of Messerschmitt's argument was that the 162 should therefore be dropped and that the production capacity set free should be used to bolster up the unsatisfactory Me.262 output, a view in which he may not have been entirely objective.
20. According to Galland, all these arguments were defeated at the decisive meeting presided over by Göring by the opposition of the production planners who argued that for technical reasons it would be impossible for factories scheduled to manufacture the Volksjäger to switch over to the Me.262.
A.D.I.(K) and
U.S. Air Interrogation. S.D. Felkin
26th June 1945 Group Captain