Spitfire XIV vs Bf-109 K-4 vs La-7 vs Yak-3

[CORSNING]

jim,
I only posted what was written in the book. Hey man, I thought it was a little out there also. And the crack you made about the site I consider the best, well I consider this the best site to find out the truth about WW2 aircraft. If you make a wrongful statement there is a wealth of knowledge in the members on this site and someone is always willing to help you see the right information.
And finally to answer your question, NO, I do not know the strength of the Luftwaffe on the Eastern Front in late 1944-45.
Please enlighten us.
And by the way, I stand firm on the figures posted until corrected with better official documentation.

 

[Milosh]

CORNSING, OoB for the Lw Luftwaffe Orders of Battle 1945

The Luftwaffe on the Eve of Overlord, 31 May 44

Serviceable Aircraft Strengths
Single-engined fighters 1063
Twin-engined fighters 151
Night fighters 572
Fighter-bombers 278
Ground-attack aircraft 352
Night harassment aircraft 305
Twin-engined bombers 840
Four-engined bombers 97
Long-range reconaissance aircraft 153
Short-range and army cooperation aircraft 210
Coastal aircraft 123
Transport aircraft 719
Kampfgeschwader 200 (misc. aircraft 65

Total 4928

Luftwaffe Order of Battle, 10 January 1945

Serviceable Aircraft Strengths

Single-engined fighters 1462
Night fighters 808
Ground-attack aircraft 613
Night harassment aircraft 302
Multi-engined bombers 294
Anti-shipping aircraft 83
Long-range reconaissance aircraft 176
Short-range and army cooperation aircraft 293
Coastal aircraft 60
Transport aircraft 269
Misc. aircraft (KG 200) 206

Total 4566

Luftwaffe Order of Battle, 9 April 1945
Serviceable Aircraft Strengths

Single-engined fighters 1305
Night fighters 485
Ground-attack aircraft 712
Night harassment aircraft 215
Multi-engined bombers 37
Long-range reconaissance aircraft 143
Short-range and army cooperation aircraft 309
Coastal aircraft 45
Transport aircraft 10
Misc. aircraft (KG 200) 70

Total 3331

Note this is serviceable aircraft strengths which is typically 60-70% of aircraft on hand.

 

[CORSNING]

Thank you Milosh. See there, I told you this site was the best filled with great people. Hey, where did jim go?

 

[jim]

Thank you Milosh. See there, I told you this site was the best filled with great people. Hey, where did jim go?

I went to my bed! Yopu know there s a time diference between europe and America
1) About 1000 La 7s saw active service during WW2. There were 400 on 1/1/45 . So every single example scored on average more than 3 kills?!?
2) La7 entered limited service mid seprember 1944. Initially it was grounded due engine and wings problems. I suspect that winter would limit flying further . Any way was typically in action for the last 280 days of the war. So la 7 units were scoring on average over 11 kills every single day of their operational life!!!!???? That quite a claim even for soviets!
3)If we we make the unreasonable assumption that La 7s did not shot down night fighters ,night ground attack planes, or the aircrafts that were operating against the western alleis and were out of range(eg Jg26,Jg2, JG27,JG7) , La7s alone, according to you, shot down the entire eastern front lw a couple of times during their service life
Yhe fact that something is written in a book does not mean that we have to accept it without judging it . Especially such redecilous claims

 

[fastmongrel]

CORSNING Possibly the kill claims for the La-7 have been added to the claims for the La-5. The Russians might have considered the La-7 as just another mark of the La family like a Spit Va and a Vc or IX and not bothered to split the 2 sets of figures.

 

[CORSNING]

Woa there Jimmy boy,
There is no according to me in any of my post #399. As I said "what I have been able to come up with so far". If you look at the post I believe I made it clear that the information about kills was from Erik Pilawskii's book. I continued in a following post admitting I thought the numbers were out there in space. I was looking for some knowledgable help in finding the truth.

 

[Vincenzo]

Milosh in the 45 orbats there are not twin engine fighters, we all are sure that there were twin engine fighters in '45 so you missed the line?

 

[parsifal]

Getting accurate figures on losses on the eastern front is always problematic. Both sides have incomplete records, and both make fantastically inaccurate claims as to how many opponents were shot down.

One source I stumbled across published these figures and made some comments about them

Comparison of losses:

Year/ Luftwaffe/ SU Airforce/ Ratio


1941 2,800 10,300 3.68
1942 2,299 7,800 3.39
1943 3,128 11,200 3.58
1944 2,913 9,700 3.33


Totals 11,140 39,000 3.50

Regarding losses there is always a striking difference between the LW and the SU. The Soviet force always suffers more losses despite having a large numerical advantage in the period 1943-45. For both forces 1943 is the year of worst losses.

These losses are for losses ihn the air. Losses on the groubd are not included, and the LW lost a much greater percentage on the ground as the war progresed. Conversely the VVS lost many6 aircraft on the ground early in the war. bWe dont know how may of those LA-7 claims are for aircraft shot up on the ground. From memeory the LW was losing around 4-500 a/c in non-combat related incidents or on the ground each and every month in 1944, for the Eastern Front.

Another thing missing is the losses per sortie statistic. Unfortunately I don't have data for sorties in the East, with one exception. Historian Gröhler in "Stärke, Verteilung und Verluste der deutschen Luftwaffe im zweiten Weltkrieg" gives for the Eastern front in 1944 0,00703 losses per sortie with the equivalent number in the West being 0.0537.

Usually a loss rate over 5% means an airforce cannot continue to operate efficiently. On the other hand a rate of ~1% in 1944 when the Soviet airforce had such a quantitative advantage is very low. It definitely doesn't paint a very good picture of the Soviet pilots.

For anyone who wants to learn more about the airwar in the East I can recommend the books of Christer Bergström.

 

[Juha]

CORSNING Possibly the kill claims for the La-7 have been added to the claims for the La-5. The Russians might have considered the La-7 as just another mark of the La family like a Spit Va and a Vc or IX and not bothered to split the 2 sets of figures.

Having once leafed through Erik Pilawskii's book I doubt that, the La-7 section was one of the reasons I left the book on bookseller's shelf. Too much reliance on Soviet claims. IMHO La-7 was a very good fighter, the best VVS had with La-5FN but not nearly that good against late war 109s.

 

[spicmart]

Does somebody has detailed knowledge how the Fw 190D-9 would have faired against those soviet fighter being also an excellent low and medium alt fighter?
The stats favor the La-7 being significantly lighter (almost 1000 Kg TOW)and having a better to power to weight ratio.
It should have been superior in every department sans diving and said to being unequalled in its realm?
So does the Dora stand a chance?

 

[Juha]

Does somebody has detailed knowledge how the Fw 190D-9 would have faired against those soviet fighter being also an excellent low and medium alt fighter?
The stats favor the La-7 being significantly lighter (almost 1000 Kg TOW)and having a better to power to weight ratio.
It should have been superior in every department sans diving and said to being unequalled in its realm?
So does the Dora stand a chance?

Of course Dora stand a chance, it rolled very well and was sturdier

 

[spicmart]

The La-7 was said to have excellent control harmony as good as the 190`s and was supposed to have as good a roll rate.
Yet a good equipment, even it makes a plane heavier, can relieve a pilot from his workload.

 

[CORSNING]

parsifal, thank you for the information sir.

juha, I was studying the fw 190D-9 just before I started researching for this thread. When I get home tonight I'll see what I can dig up.

Thanks to all you Guys for your efforts on the information you have posted, Jeff.

 

[CORSNING]

spicmart,
I didn't forget you buddy. The following information for the Fw 190D-9 comes from a Focke-Wulf graph in Deitmar Hermann's book Longnose. Information for the Bf 109K-4 comes from a graph on Kurfurst's sight. Both A/C are using MW-50. The D-9 is powered by the Jumo 213A and the K-4 is powered by the DB605D.
Altitude is in meters and speed/climb is in mph/fpm.


Altitude.Fw 190D-9....Bf 109K-4

.....0.....380/4428.....378/4830
1000.....392/4298.....397/4840
2000.....404/4124.....411/4645
3000.....409/4103.....420/4440
4000.....419/3985.....428/4235
5000.....429/3493.....437/4035
6000.....429/2991.....446/3435
7000.....422/2499.....442/2950
8000.....416/1987.....438/2450
9000.....405/1485.....432/1940

Both A/C are using B4 fuel and 1.8ata boost.

Note 1.: As far as I know the D-9 figures are from actual flight testing.

Note 2.: As far as I can tell the speed figures for the K-4 are from actual flight testing but the climb figures may be calculated. I can't read German worth a broken dick or I would be more positive on the K-4.

juha,
I originally bought Erik's book because I was building Russian 1/72 models at the time. Erik's book helped considerably with over a dozen models. He does tend to get carried away when he speaks of there performance though.

 

[Juha]

Hello Corsning
IMHO it would have been more accurate to use DB605DB/ASB graph for 109K-4 using B4 fuel plus MW50 which gives appr. 595/370mph at SL and appr. 713km/h/443mph at FTH which are fairly close the GLM/C-E2 datacard info for 109K-4 with 1.8ata and MW50 (580km/h/360mph at SL and 710km/h/440mph at FTH), especially because in the graph the compression effect was not taken into account in the calculations. Not that that would have had much effect in real world where +-3% marginal was common in acceptance tests.

Juha

 

[CORSNING]

Juha,
God bless you. I've already started to do a work up on the DB and DC engined K-4 and will post as soon as I can but right now work tomorrow is calling me so I have to go to bed. God bless you all and have a good night. I'll see what I can do about terrorizing you all tomorrow. And by the way Juha you are probably right, its just that German junk throws me off, from time to time.

 

[jim]

A would like to ask a question.
La 7 weas faster at SL than K-4 1,8. According to Corsing s datas 11mph , according to Juha s wishes 29mph
1) Both aircrafts HAVE 1850 HP
2) la 7 has very good cowling surface but a RADIAL engine while K-4 an in line engine.
3) La7 has a bubble canopy , which is useful but druggier than the classic canopy of the K-4
4)La 7 has a wing surface of 17,59 m2 vs 16,05m2 of the K-4
5) Both aircrafts have fuselages of similar size, fully covered landing gear , and generally are well streamlined
6) La 7 has 3 20mm gun ports on the nose. K4 has two 13mm openings
7) All russian fighters use rather outmoded wing profiles( i think so,if wrong correct me)

The question is: Where the speed advantage of La 7 comes from? the difernce, according to juha , is almost 50Km/h!!!
propellers efficiencies deont explain anything. K4 had a brand new desigh and even if La 7 s was even better the 29mph gap is huge to be explaned by propellers efficiencies alone
And the phenomenon gets even better. K4 ,even with 2000ps, is still much slower. Even if careful construction is achieved ,and K4 gets the 12 kph bonus reported in Kurfusts site, still is far behind La 7
Even the better supercharger of K4 , which provides better power curve ,fails to provide k4 with a speed anywhere near the La 7 before the medium altitudes area.
Any logical explanation?
PS Even the allien P51 in order to achieve speeds similar to la 7s needs laminar flow wing, very advanced cooling system design, exceptional construction quality, super-duper fuels and sometimes sanding.

 

[Vincenzo]

From George on Allaboutwarfare i've this data for the La 7 45210139
at wer (forced) 597 km/h SL, 646 km/h at 2 km, 636 km/h at 3,3 km, 626 km/h at 4,7 km, 632 km/h at 5 km, 655 km/h at 6,1 km
for the 45213276 at wer
616 km/h SL, 665 km/h at 2, 655 km/h at 3,25 km, 644 km/h at 4,65, 651 km/h at 5km, 677 km/h at 6,25 km
the former is a june '44 plane the later is a april 45 plane

add: of 5 La 7 test data in the George file the 45213276 is fastest, is also fastest of average of early, mid and late La-7, this obviously
the alone data for a fastest La 7 it's for calculated speed this are: 630 km/h SL, 670 km/h 2 km, 655 km/h 4,7, 661 km/h 5, 680 km/h 6

the tables are in russian and i don't speack russian so maybe i've missinterpreted some

 

[Tante Ju]

High altitude propeller used on 109K may explain low level speeds. 109 airscrew had to be optimized between 0 - 8 km, La -7 airscrew for half that altitude range at best, because engine was essentially low-altitude only.

 

[tomo pauk]

Hi, Vincenzo,
Could you please provide a link to the tables?