Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

837 Excellent

About VO101Kurfurst

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

2889 profile views
  1. Found a rather comprehensive overview of Luftwaffe operations over Normandy, by Oberst Walter Gaul. Includes details of sorties flown by day, night and by bomber, recon operations, types of missions and weapons loadout used. cc. 14 000 sorties were flown in June and 15 500 in July. Appearantly bombers used large amount of aerial sea mines (BM 1000, LMB - In July 1,644 L.M.B. and 993 BM 1000 were laid) for mining operations, torpedoes, circling torpedoes (LT 350) and guided glide bombs (Hs 293, "PX" - Fritz X?) and heavy anti shipping AP bombs (PC 1400, PC 1800). Contains also various useful appendixes on sorties flown by type of aircraft, aircraft bases, heavy artillery positions. https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/g/gaf-invasion-normandy.html
  2. If I read correctly the datasets kindly provided by @JV69badatflyski, which records the history of each and every XIV's fate from their data card records, there were only 44 Mk XIVe built in total (.50 variant) , with 15 lost to Enemy Action and 6 more to misc. reasons by the end of the war. I hope he does not mind if I post his table summary. The dates would indicate that the 'date of commencement of production' in April 1944 is a highly optimistic statement (and as is the general case with Spitfires), in this case it really means that they built a single prototype, followed by a very low rate of production, so this date its not to be taken as a face value for serial production. The first (and in that month, the only) Mk XIVe is issued to 91 Sqn. is RM 726 in mid July (between 11-20), then its transferred to 402. Squadron in early September 1944. Two more (RM 796 and 799) are issued to 41 Sqn in September, one (RM 806) in October to No 83 Sqn and so on - 19 Mk XIVe appears to have been issued in 1944 in all. The remaining 25 seem to start to be issued mostly in the 1945 period, including 5 issued to India in April 1945, and the maximum number in Squadron usage is cc 20, from late November 1944 till the end of the war, and are scattered amongst all Squadrons, with about half of them with 430 Sqn. Issues of Mk XIVe to Squadrons, via JV69badatflyski (note that the single issue of RM 726 to 91 Sqn in July 1944 is not included in the table for some reason, but included with No 402 listings). jún.44 júl.44 aug.44 szept.44 okt.44 nov.44 dec.44 jan.45 febr.45 Mars-45 ápr.45 máj.45 1--10 11--20 21--31 1--10 11--20 21--31 1--10 11--20 21--31 1--10 11--20 21--31 1--10 11--20 21--31 1--10 11--20 21--31 1--10 11--20 21--31 1--10 11--20 21--31 1--10 11--20 21--31 1--10 11--20 21--31 1--10 11--20 21--31 1--10 SQ-130 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 2 1 0 0 0 SQ-130 SQ-2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 4 4 4 5 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 2 2 2 1 SQ-2 SQ-350 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 SQ-350 SQ-401 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 SQ-401 SQ-402 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 3 4 4 4 3 3 3 4 4 3 1 1 3 3 3 0 0 0 SQ-402 SQ-41 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SQ-41 SQ-412 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SQ-412 SQ-430 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 6 5 8 10 10 10 9 9 9 10 9 9 9 8 6 SQ-430 SQ-610 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 SQ-610
  3. Except that they did not. To put it into perspective, Fighter Command flew 20 495 offensive day fighter sorties and lost 416 fighters (in addition to 108 daylight Bomber Command losses) in the process between July and December 1941. On the opposing side of the Channel, Luftflotte 3 day fighters (chiefly equipped with 109Fs) lost only 98 fighters in the same period, an very favourable exchange ratio of 4–5 to 1. In the course of the entire year of 1942 (January - December), when the Fw 190 was deployed in large numbers in the fast, the figures were as follows. During 1942, RAF fighter command flew 43 339 daylight offensive fighter sorties, and lost 587 fighters (Bomber command lost 62 bombers in the daylight). In addition the then fledling USAAF 8th AAF lost 30 heavy, 2 Light/Medium bombers, and just 10 Fighters on offensive missions. I am looking for LW losses in the West but it’s quite clear that they did not do better in 1942, when the 190 was introduced, than in the 2nd half of 1941, when the 109F was the mainstay fighter. In the 2nd half of 1941, the RAF was losing, on avarage, 87 fighters and bombers on avarage per month on daylight offensive operations; in the course 1942, the RAF and the USAAF lost cc. 57 fighters and bombers on avarage in every month on offensive daylight operations. Allied losses, in fact, went down and not up when the Fw 190 was introduced, but there were probably a lot more reasons to that than the introduction of a new fighter plane. The appearance of the 190 did not change the success rate of Western Luftwaffe fighter units in any meaningful way, however, it gave the RAF FC top brass a convinient excuse to stop and rethink operations that were never really working or achieving anything else at any time than to give the Germans easy pickings.
  4. Whatever the case is with individual planes, the video of the downed 109K certainly shows that the current cocpit model is not wrong per se, and at the very least it corresponds to (some? all?) historical examples.
  5. As I understand the 109s with the tall vertical stabilizer and rudder (besides it presumably being lighter at high speed due to the Flettner) were also cleared for higher diving speeds, i.e. qual to that of the 109K (Vne=850 kph as opposed to Vne=750 kph). So that may be a noticable difference.
  6. In the 109K Flight Handbook, Part 9A there is a picture of the cocpit instruments, but there is only two ammo counters - I suppose that ammo counters were for the MG 131 only on the 109K.
  7. True for the ASM, but for Late /AS (cc 1945) appears to have been equipped with ASB/ASC series engines with the same output as the DB/DC. The ASB/ASC appears to be some kind of A/D series hybrid (upgraded A series engine blocks with D series parts?) as shown by the K-4 like oil system bulges on the lower cowling chin of late G14/AS. note - DB and DC is simply a marking coming into use in the end of 1944 for different boost used for the SAME 605 D series engine. In other words there is only DB 605D which received different subdesignations (mainly for the groundcrew’s information) during its development as max boost went from 1,75, 1,8, and 1,98. You could simply ‘convert’ one into the other (i.e. DB into a DC and vica versa) by a few tenths of mm adjustment in the fuel flow valve, and of course increase the manifold pressure settings (plus of course use the correct spark plugs and fuel). This itself probably takes an hour or two for the crew in the field because you need to remove the supercharger assembly to access the said fuel flow screw, as I have been told by an actual 109 mechanic. So it you consider that in the winter months many Ks had their wheel well covers removed and operated with fixed tailwheels, natural performance variance in between serial production place, there was a marginal difference in performance between late G-14/AS, G-10 and K-4. They all had the same supercharger, same ratings and roughly the same aerodynamics. Thats also logical as the /AS was just a step in until the improved 605D could be produced, and the G-10 was brought alive by the desire that factories would not have to retool for K airframe production, as the K different in many small details from the G airframe.
  8. K-4 is only listed with the MK 108. The K-10 was supposed to be the variant with the Mk 103mot (a slightly modified mk103 variant, for which some drawings exist, i believe it was streamlined in the barrel-receiver area to fit into an engine cannon installation), but it was not built, only a rough project drawing indicates its planned existence. In any case, 109 further development was dropped altogether in March 1945 in favor of jets (which was in any case a highly optimistic assumption). The MK 108 and MG 151 had slightly different installation. The MG 151 had its ammo box in the port wing root, the MK 108 had it right above the cannon, in the fusalage. Not impossible to do, as its still a 109, and you probably have the space in the wing, but its not a simple ‘field swap’, you probably need done this in the factory as a conversion, with gun, ammo box mountsX Note that MK 108 109Gs were designated officially as /U4 and listed as such in every case, signifying that they were significant modifications. They were a different series than the rest of them standard MG 151 armed variants.
  9. The K-4 had MK 108 motor cannon as default, there are only two aircraft that may be exceptions. Both were test machines, and are not representative of serial production. One is a supposed to be a K-2 WNr. 600056, this was sent to Tarnetwitz weapon testing station, the other is an early production aircraft (note that the earliest production were typically used for various in-house and LW trials only) Wnr. 330112, also for Tarnewitz. That is all. There simply wasn't an MG 151/20 armed serial production K-4. That would have been the K-2, but it was never serially produced. It is not a coincidence, that they 'started' the K series production by jumping to '4' already. Its called a K-4 for the very reason it has MK 108 as the default and only option. The K-2 that would have been the MG 151 version and was allocated the WNr. 6xx xxx serial numbers, the K-4 the MK 108 version. However the K-2 was eventually canceled in the spring of 1944 and instead the G-10 took its place and its assigned serial blocks. This way Regensburg could switch to K airframes while the others could keep producing hybrid G/K airframes (G airframe, K internals) without production loss. The designation system in the LW had a strict logic behind them. Letters indicated the airframe type and the numbers the equipment state (including engine, radio equipment, weapons). If you changed some equipment in the aircraft, the designation would change. All other weapon variables would have had different designation, but these were all canceled or were not proceeded with. Hence the K-4 designation always means a K series airframe, and the -4 indicated the DB 605D engine, two MG 131 and 1 MK 108, basic FuG 16ZY radio set etc. Its like this in all official listing for the K-4, no expections. Besides the K-2, there were other planned, but never materialized versions. The K-6 would have been a heavily armed and armored heavy fighter variant (3 MK 108s, two of them inside the wings + 2 x MG 131, also tripled the armor weight), but with the same DB 605D engine; K-8/10 were either recon variants or with a potent MK 103mot, but it keeps getting mixed even in the original papers. K-14 would have been the same style heavy fighter as the K-6 but with a super high altitude two staged DB 605L; this latter was a backup project for the Ta 152 and was canceled in late 1944 since the Ta was proceeding well. But like the K-2, neither these were produced. You will have to wait for a G-10 expansion for an MG 151/20 armed one, or a G-6/ASM or G-14/AS if it makes it to BoN, since its pretty much the same thing as the G-10 for practical purposes.
  10. Its a modification tested for the G-4 at the start of 1943 with a centrally mounted 20mm gondola (originally intended for the Me 163) in addition to the wing mounted gondola. There was some talk about at Luftflotte 3 in early 1943 to equip G-3s with it with the MGs removed to lighten the plane, and G-4s for normal night and day fighter duties, but in the end the idea was dropped and this modification never seems to have been standardised or used.
  11. More specifically, for the ~Normandy period, for ADGB and 2nd TAF, 1st of May 1944. 16+2 aircraft, though in practice I have never seen more than 12 flying at one time. Even that is rare. Earlier 12+1 sorties occured (+1 being tail end Charlie) Bombers had different IE and some certain 2nd TAF documents state 20 a/c per Squadrons, so perhaps that was sometime non-official practice with extra reserves. Fighter Command as of January 1944. Coastal Command, May 1944.
  12. Usually 20-22 aircraft for fighter squadrons, 12 being the operational aircraft that flew tactical missions, the rest being reserves/spares.
  13. It worked as a boundary layer separator, to reduce/eliminate turbulant airflow inside the raditor ducting. I haven't seen anything on why its use was discontinued on G and K series. Perhaps it was a wartime simplification, or simply did not give as much benefit to justify the added complexity.
  14. To add to the thread, this is what annoys me about the 109F 3D model - missing boundary layer ducting. Messerschmitt Bf 109 F and G/K water cooler system With boundary layer extraction duct on the F series Without boundary layer suction channel in the G/K series Copyright 2012 by Helmut Schmidt
  • Create New...