Jump to content
US63_SpadLivesMatter

FW190 Better Or Just Different Than BF109?

Recommended Posts

I've read a lot of accounts where figures in the luftwaffe advocated replacement of the 109 with the 190.

 

It seems that many of these accounts center around the D-model 190s. As I understand it, by this time the 190 was running an in-line engine and out 109'd the 109 in many ways, even in its own element. Forgive me if I'm wrong on that.

 

But what did pilots and air theorists think of the models that we have in the game? Was the 190 a-series considered superior to the f and g-series 109's? Or were they merely considered different; each with its own niche where it excelled?

 

Was the 109 an obsolete design in their minds when the 190 rolled out of the factory? Or was there something more than fear of having to re-tool several aircraft factories; that the 109 still excelled in certain areas over the 190 and served a vital niche?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the important things to consider, when looking at the relationship between the Bf 109 and Fw 190 is the fact, that they were designed (and to a certain degree produced) by two competing private companies, both of which lobbied and tried to influence the nazi regime to their benefit. It was nothing like the Soviet Union, where you had competing design teams but ultimately a state-controlled centralized production. During the 1930s the main competition was between Heinkel and Messerschmitt - Focke Wulf was kind of a dark horse when it came to modern fighter designs. The Fw 190 was designed as a way to make use of the excellent and powerful BMW 801. It was built exactly for that engine, and that is the reason why it was ordered in the first place, because it didn't further drain the supply of Daimler-Benz or Jumo engines, which were already being used by other designs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

It was nothing like the Soviet Union, where you had competing design teams but ultimately a state-controlled centralized production.
 

I may be mistaken on this, but I was always under the impression that corporate fascism did just that. Now wartime economy certainly led to one company getting the contract over the other (you see this especially with Italy's Macchi fighters over Reggiane's more expensive fighter line).

In theory Fascist Corporatism was in fact a state-controlled centralized production, but a shortage of inline Daimler-Benz engines forced the germans to emergency produce FW190's which used the BMW radial  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for which was "better", it's a hard question to answer.

 

The Fw 190 obviously is a more modern, and in many was more refined, design, and is a good example of the direction that many fighter designs were going at the time: Towards heavier aircraft able to take more powerful engines and carry heavier armament in exchange for higher wingloading, reduced overall maneuverability and often worse handling at low speeds.

 

The 109 on the other hand had the advantage of being a tried-and-true design, that had been in large scale production for years, but still with potential for development, and which the entire Jagdwaffe was familiar with and trained to use effectively. Even if the Fw 190 was better across the board (which it wasn't) the very fact that the Bf 109 was already the backbone of the Luftwaffe would have been enough to keep the 109 is service for years.

 

The Fw 190 did have one major advantage over the Bf 109, which was valued very highly: For its size it could carry a huge payload and doubled very nicely as a fighter-bomber, something the Bf 109 wasn't really suited for. The Luftwaffe was looking to move beyond the Ju 87 and Bf 110, but had nothing to really replace them with (the Me 210 didn't look too promising) and the Fw 190 gave them just what they needed.

 

You can compare weak and strong points of the two designs until the cows come home, but in the end, the major factor that kept the 109 in production was the fact, that it was already sich an essential part of the Luftwaffe, that it couldn't be easily replaced. And the main reason the Fw 190 got the chance and was produced in such large numbers was, that it could fulfill a role, which the 109 wasn't suited for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I may be mistaken on this, but I was always under the impression that corporate fascism did just that. Now wartime economy certainly led to one company getting the contract over the other (you see this especially with Italy's Macchi fighters over Reggiane's more expensive fighter line).

 

In theory Fascist Corporatism was in fact a state-controlled centralized production, but a shortage of inline Daimler-Benz engines forced the germans to emergency produce FW190's which used the BMW radial

Not really. Production in Nazi Germany was still very much in the hands of privately owned corporations, many of which were in fact not German at all - A large chunk of German tank production during the war was undertaken by the German branch of U.S. owned Ford Motor Company (Henry Ford made huge profits that were collected after the war) Heck even the German branch of Coca-Cola continued in operation during the war (and invented Fanta in the process)

Messerschmitt, Heinkel, Junkers (well, not Junkers, thx for reminding me JtD), Focke Wulf etc. were all private firms competing for government contracts, just like in any other capitalist society.

Edited by Finkeren

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Messerschmitt, Heinkel, Junkers, Focke Wulf etc. were all private firms competing for government contracts, just like in any other capitalist society.

Junkers for example was state owned. Nazi stands for "national socialist", where socialist includes "state owned and controlled means of production". Covers large chunks of Nazi-German industries.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right about Junkers, but that was expropriated, because Hugo Junkers was deemed politically unreliable. It's a special case (though not the only one)

 

The very fact that the nazi ideology had "socialist" in its name didn't make Nazi Germany a socialist society by any stretch of imagination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Indeed, more a ' clever' way of 'branding' in order to appeal to, and unite the support of, people who would otherwise be in opposition. A powerful tactic in the politics of today too.

 

It was very Socialist in every way except relations with industry, and even this was run in a particular Nazi way. See Tooze, Wages of Destruction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Fw 190 was designed as a way to make use of the excellent and powerful BMW 801. It was built exactly for that engine

 

I have understood it a bit differently. Kurt Tank would have preferred inline engine, but because the DB engines were in high demand / short supply, he settled for radial engine to have a chance of success in the Air Ministry, because it would not compete for engines with Bf109's and Bf110's.

Edited by II./JG77_Kemp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Messerschmitt, Heinkel, Junkers (well, not Junkers, thx for reminding me JtD), Focke Wulf etc. were all private firms competing for government contracts, just like in any other capitalist society.

 

German government also announced a "rationalization" program sometime in 1938 or 1939, so that instead of competing against each other, Messerschmitt was tasked with fighter development and Heinkel was tasked with bomber development.

Edited by II./JG77_Kemp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Focke Wulf built this horrible Contraption for the Big State Trial Messerschmitt's 109 ended up winning. This was their attempt to build a Fighter later to use the DB series engines. It failed. The 190 was the 2nd Chance. 

 

 

 fb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Focke Wulf built this horrible Contraption for the Big State Trial Messerschmitt's 109 ended up winning. This was their attempt to build a Fighter later to use the DB series engines. It failed. The 190 was the 2nd Chance. 

 

 

 fb

I'm sure that was good for mowing the grass on runways. But I guess that was out of spec. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Junkers for example was state owned. Nazi stands for "national socialist", where socialist includes "state owned and controlled means of production". Covers large chunks of Nazi-German industries.

Not really. As almost all of the spoils Nazi Germany distributed amongst its most prominent chieftains, it was at least in part private and it was run by Heinrich Koppenberg. He had a big stake in Junkers. It was a staircase with in the years of 1940 and 1940 to refer to him as the boss of the GL. (head of the Reichsluftfahrtministerium). Losing party favor meant losing your wealth. (Same as Soviet Union.)

 

Even though you are correct in pointing out that Junkers was forced to give away his company to the state, there were certain individuals who de facto ran the shop and enjoyed the dividends as if they owned it. In this sense, running this state owned business like Junkers was by no means different than running the Bayerische Flugzeugwerke (BFW). Willy Messerschmitt grabbed that company through personal connections, as Nazi echelons liked him after his success with the Bf-108 Taifun.

 

German production and production rationale of that era is among the very little understood things. There’s some American literature about it, but I get the impression that it is often conceptually misunderstood because what “free market” meant in the USA had little in common with Nazi Germany.

 

If anyone cares about that and the more MBA type of rationale running those shops then we can have a discussion about that.

 

Other than that it is just important to know that all production lots were allocated by the GL. It was a centralized planning, very much like in Soviet Russia. State influence went even farther than that.

It forced smaller companies in complete dependence of larger companies in order to create a homogenous assembly line producing biggest lot sizes possible. Companies responded to that by trying to either become big enough (by accepting huge orders of a given type, regardless whether they can actually build it) to swallow a competitor or fight the respective plane type requiring the merger using personal ties to the GL.

 

The weapon of choice for companies supplying the air force (and other war effort) was the in-house production depth. As long as a company could build a whole aircraft (Junkers, Focke-Wulf, Heikel, etc) they would survive. If not, they would be partnered up with a “whole” company and slowly but steady be limited to manufacture components. The worst fear of any head of company.

 

To understand the GL and most Nazi thinking of the time, you have to understand what they were thinking was the way optimal production was achieved. This was what you call today the economies of scale, not scope. In practice, this resulted in an effort to maximize lot sizes for manufacturing and to reduce the number of parts.

 

The cost of a product was not really measured in money, but in the ease of putting its components together. If you are pricing your product differently, then you will have different priorities when manufacturing the product. It is here, where the Germans differed from the Soviets (and the Americans, even though it is a similar Taylorian philosophy underlying their economic approach).

What remains as “difference” between the 109 and the 190 is that the 190 is just the more modern plane, a plane from the 40’s and not the 30’s; like the P-51 and the Spitfire.

Main difference was the selection of the engine where Kurt Tank had to resort to a large radial to start out as well as the inbuilt structural rigidity for flying at higher speeds, something that had to be tacked on the 109 same as it had to be tacked on the Spitfire.

 

Performance wise, as both were built with everything they could come up with the 190 and the 109 are very close. The incredibly short combat radius of the 109 was only once a real issue, over Britain in 1940. Then war turned against them, so this incurable shortcoming was becoming acceptable. The Spitfire in turn basically missed the air war over the Normandy from summer 1944 on and had to fly CAP/CAS missions. They had their encounters, but there was no point for any Luftwaffe pilot in the right mind to mess with them. The Spit IX was not fast enough to force an engagement. It was time for the Tempests. They had the range and the speed. The 109 in turn always found a customer, truly a buyer’s market for them from late ’44 on.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Sorry for the derailing, back to Fw 190 vs. Bf 109.

 

Exactly, so, who thinks the failure of the He-112 was caused by Political Favouritsm by Messerschmitt?

 

 he112v301.jpg

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly, so, who thinks the failure of the He-112 was caused by Political Favouritsm by Messerschmitt?

 

 he112v301.jpg

Taking the A model as an example isn't quite fair. The redesigned He 112 B was a more formideable and competetive design that had much better chances of becoming a standard fighter if it wasn't for the restrictions on engines by the RLM. Heinkel was forbidden to use Daimler Benz 601 engines for the He 112 production model. As result Heinkel had to chose between the older, less powerfull Jumo 210 and the more powerfull but way bigger Jumo 211 which had no chance of fitting into the current fuselage.

 

Calling it a failure might also be a little exegerated considering it was exported to allied countries and used for a variety of test programs (including the walter rocket engine) later aircraft designs would benefit from.

 

Anyway, in terms of beauty it definetly did match the 109 :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Taking the A model as an example isn't quite fair. The redesigned He 112 B was a more formideable and competetive design that had much better chances of becoming a standard fighter if it wasn't for the restrictions on engines by the RLM. Heinkel was forbidden to use Daimler Benz 601 engines for the He 112 production model. As result Heinkel had to chose between the older, less powerfull Jumo 210 and the more powerfull but way bigger Jumo 211 which had no chance of fitting into the current fuselage.

 

Calling it a failure might also be a little exegerated considering it was exported to allied countries and used for a variety of test programs (including the walter rocket engine) later aircraft designs would benefit from.

 

Anyway, in terms of beauty it definetly did match the 109 :)

Same for the 109, Stuka and Bf110. They were all powered by the JuMo-210. The first 1000+ Bf109s, A to D models were all JuMo-210 powered. 

And in the Fighter Competition the Bf109A faced the He-112A, so it is fair. 

 

bf_109B-1.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I have lost track of the thread now, are we referring to the "Dora" or the A’s when comparing the 190 to the 109?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest deleted@30725

You can look up performance figures, but the only reason I can see why the 190 would be preferred is because it had a better pit than later 109s, all the systems were automated by computer. Startup was done with internal starter, the canopy provided better visibility and the fighter had more firepower as standard. The 190 was also an easier plane to land by design.

 

I would guess they kept both in production because it wasn't till the end of the war with the fw 190 dora where they got the inline engine and could perform the high altitudes where the 190 was an older design by 5 years, but could do everything that was needed even if it wasn't the best at anything - That's at least why I'd keep both.

 

I found this though that sounds interesting about the 190:

 

"Brown commented the view from the cockpit was better than in the Spitfire, P-51 Mustang and the Bf 109 owing to the nose down position of the aircraft in flight. The sloping frontal windscreen provided 50mm of protection. A further 8mm armored seat and 13mm head and shoulder armour afforded the Fw 190 pilot great protection. Take off was easy; 10° of flap and power to 2,700 rpm and 23.5 lb in. boost made the run very similar to the Spitfire IX. Un-stick was found to be 112 mph and the fighter had a habit of swinging to port. Speed in the climb was set at 161 mph, a rate of 3,000 feet per minute.

 

Brown praised the lack of trimming requirements in flight. However, Brown criticized the lack of trim controls. If a member of the ground crew had moved the tab, or it had been adjusted from another source, it could result in an out-of-trim flight performance at high speeds.

 

Brown praised the high rate of roll. Aileron response was excellent from stall up until 400 mph (644 km/h), when they became heavy. The elevators were heavy at all speeds, particularly above 350 mph (563 km/h) when they became heavy enough to impose tactical restrictions on the fighter as regards to pullout from low-level dives. The heaviness was accentuated because of nose down pitch which occurred at high speeds when trimmed for low-speeds. Brown praised the fighter overall; its control harmony [control surfaces working at once] was superb.

 

The solid gun platform also made it a potent dogfighter. Brown listed some limitations; it was difficult to read and fly on instruments (why is not explained) and it had harsh stall characteristics. Stall speed was a high 127 mph (204 km/h). Stall came without warning. The port wing drops violently that the 190 almost inverts itself. If it was pulled into a G-turn it would spin into the opposite banking turn and an incipient spin was the result. Landing stall was much more easily dealt with; the intense buffeting resulted in the wing dropping to starboard gently, at roughly 102 mph (164 km/h)"

 

This link is a really interesting, detailed flight test of a 109G.

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/me109g.html

 

I could read this stuff all day, fascinating assuming its all true anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL.

 

I dropped into this thread thinking it was going to be a discussion regarding the Bf-109 vs FW-190.

 

Silly me!

Ah well, such is the nature of these things ...

 

(In fairness, I did find Finkeren's summary of the complementary roles of the 109/190 interesting and useful :) )

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, anyways, the 190 has a number of Upshots over the 109, but I think the 190 overall is more of a Replacement for the 110 than the 109. Germany had a quick little Fighter that worked well without total superiority. The 190 couldn't fill that Gap. 

It was the to the 109 what the P-38 was to the P-39. What the Typhoon was to the Spitfire, what the Hornet is to the Wasp, what the Omega is to the Vectra, The DC-4 is to the DC-3 etc.

 

It's a moot discussion. The wet dream of the Nazis was a single plane suitable for all purposes. They thought the lower the number of plane types (they envisioned 5 "standard types", even forgetting to include a trainer type) the more they could make of them. Problem was their production of airplanes was engine limited. And the output of engines was in turn limited by the availability of heavy tools. All they could do was use the capacity of engine production they had and glue the most suitable airframe to those engines. The Fw 190 only existed because there were unused bomber engines available in high numbers. (The to-be Bomber engine was the Jumo-222 that never worked out, killing all successors to their medium bombers. They never recovered from that failure and resorted to tinkering around with what they had, like welding together engine blocks.) So they might as well make those Fw190 airframes to get those engines airborne.

 

Having both the 109 and the 190 at hand while still suffering from a compulsory drive "to reduce plane type number" they were actively opting to discontine the 109. The problem was, if they did so, they would simply have lacked all those 109 that were produced in huge numbers while not increasing the output of the 190 (or any of the jets). They chose the 190 for the simple reason of the higher endurance and better armament. Against the American heavies, you need all the firepower you can have. And for the rest, it is a good enough plane.

 

The greatest failure of the Germans back then was to put everything on one card. The "can do everything Bomber(-B)" as well as a "can do everything fighter". In their last year the specification of can do "everything" slimed down to keeping up with the Johneses while getting vulched all day long. So if you started out with a plane type that actually very well suited for that like the 109, then the situation may be hopeless, but it could have been worse.

 

The irony is today, militatry services all over the worldlove these overly complex aircraft (say, F-35) that should be good at everything but basically can do almost nothing properly, except providing corporate wellfare.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a moot discussion. The wet dream of the Nazis was a single plane suitable for all purposes. They thought the lower the number of plane types (they envisioned 5 "standard types", even forgetting to include a trainer type) the more they could make of them. Problem was their production of airplanes was engine limited. And the output of engines was in turn limited by the availability of heavy tools. All they could do was use the capacity of engine production they had and glue the most suitable airframe to those engines. The Fw 190 only existed because there were unused bomber engines available in high numbers. (The to-be Bomber engine was the Jumo-222 that never worked out, killing all successors to their medium bombers. They never recovered from that failure and resorted to tinkering around with what they had, like welding together engine blocks.) So they might as well make those Fw190 airframes to get those engines airborne.

 

Having both the 109 and the 190 at hand while still suffering from a compulsory drive "to reduce plane type number" they were actively opting to discontine the 109. The problem was, if they did so, they would simply have lacked all those 109 that were produced in huge numbers while not increasing the output of the 190 (or any of the jets). They chose the 190 for the simple reason of the higher endurance and better armament. Against the American heavies, you need all the firepower you can have. And for the rest, it is a good enough plane.

 

The greatest failure of the Germans back then was to put everything on one card. The "can do everything Bomber(-B)" as well as a "can do everything fighter". In their last year the specification of can do "everything" slimed down to keeping up with the Johneses while getting vulched all day long. So if you started out with a plane type that actually very well suited for that like the 109, then the situation may be hopeless, but it could have been worse.

 

The irony is today, militatry services all over the worldlove these overly complex aircraft (say, F-35) that should be good at everything but basically can do almost nothing properly, except providing corporate wellfare.

Correct,

 

but with a twist, in that the Germans believed that the war would be quick, so why bother investing heavily in new weapons and technology, I remember reading that the Germans were so sure of this that there was pretty much a ban on developing pretty much anything that couldn't be complete in less than 1 year.

 

This seems to ring true with what we observe about Germany during WW2 in regards to weapons. Which is some great ideas, with no impetus to use and further devlop them, and no thought of working TOGETHER to win,

 

but rather constant competition, with a hierarchy who loved parades and pompous music.

 

The Fw190 was seen as a back up fighter for when the 109 eventually outlived it's usefulness, 

 

The Me309 was slowly developed using the companies money without any government directive for a new fighter, taking 2 full years from first design to first flight (compared to 4 or so months for the p51), and when it finally flew with weapons was inferior to the me109G that it was slated to replace....

 

And then you look at things like engine development, the Jumo 213 was first run in 1940, yet it wasn't seen as production ready until 1943!!!!! imagine fw190D's in 1942.... or enlargened he100D1's using that engine.....

 

I could go on and on, but this pretty much sums it up.

 

 

Edited by novicebutdeadly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's also the issue of Nazi leadership not being openly truthfull with industry leaders about their plans for the future. It might seem that Germany in the late 30's built up their industry to be war ready, while the rest of the world was slacking behind, being unwilling to prepare for war (and Stalin even felt comfortable enough to send his Generals to the Gulag). In reality, this is a half truth.

 

Although it was known to the German industry leaders that a (short) war of some sort might happen, but the entire production planings for the first two years of war were not suitable for war at all, but just for letting the successful industry lobbyists fill up (in a very profitable way) Germany with thousands of fighter and bomber planes. They planned for batch size in thousands while taking no serious attempt in increasing the number of airfields, flight schools, repair centers etc.

 

When war broke out, it came to a shock to Koppenberg, head of Junkers at the time. He realized right away that the nation went into war with basically single-serving aircraft and only a handfull of aircrew. They may have had more aircraft than the competition, but if you only count aircraft that can be operated, have a crew and can be maintained, numbers didn't look so good anymore. You have no use for 1000 airplanes per month when schools produce 200 pilots in the same time.

 

War rendered previous priduction plans obsolete and future design failures, mostly in the form of the Jumo-222 and the Ju-188 and the Me-210 made a logical and reasonable production plan impossible. In the meantime they used what they had and mostly enjoyed the economies of scope that they never cared for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I have lost track of the thread now,

 

Lol Custard! :salute:

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually tend to agree with Wulf.

 

But aaaaaaanyways, thank you to those who responded in line with original topic. It was very informative and has given me some new insights that I can use to inform my further readings regarding WW2 aviation and industry.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few thoughts:

 

- IMHO The Fw190 was all round a much better plane than the 109, except at altitude where it was hamstrung by it's engine. 

 

- Contra Klaus_Mann: the universal tendency to ever larger political entities is offset by the tendency for them to break up when they get too large to control. Eventually they fail to take sufficient account of local circumstances, regional interests get restive, the centre wastes too much money on corruption and ceremony and eventually cannot resist the wish of local elites for independence. See Roman Empire, the Caliphate, Inca empire, Holy Roman Empire, USSR, EU. There is nothing inevitable about global government.

 

-  "Just by looking at Regular Children in their Daily Attire from most European Countries you wouldn't be able to tell where they are from." If they are female, you would be able to tell perfectly well whether they were Muslim or not. Your prediction of "Culture Death" is a little premature.  

 

- Wulf gives his location as New Zealand - I have no idea if he is a Kiwi or not, but NZ was never a penal colony, although many of the immigrants who settled it may well have been criminals on the run from the authorities, or Scottish, which amounts to much the same thing. ;)

Edited by unreasonable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No such thing as culture death unless an entire people are exterminated.  More like culture change which in some ways is cool but in others it isn't.  After all, who wants to go down a town high street wondering which of the 20 coffee shops one should go in?

 

As for the 109 v 190...

 

The 109 is sleek and beautiful, but the 190 is kinda dirty looking and sexy.  Who cares about the combat attributes.

 

All round beauty goes to the Spitfire though. 

 

:)

 

von Tom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me the fat slow planes are the most beautiful, the AN 2 , Grumman Avenger, Dauntless and devastator. The I 16 , I-153 , HS 123 , HS 129 , SB 2 . These are the planes I want to fly and like to look at. In DCS the MI 8 is my favorite, no wonder I get shot down a lot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You forgot the Stuka, you Monster. 

 

 

And the Po-2 is the most beautiful, and not juding by external appearance of course, Plane flown by the most beautful, not juding by external appearance of course, Women, not excluding Trans, Demi, Semi, well basically anything but Cis White Males, out there, who were also very talented, funny, creative and intelligent Persons. 

And don't give me that Pe-2 also being flown by Night Witches Crap, IT'S 2017 GODDAMIT you racist sexist homophobic xenophobic islamophobic Deplorables. 

 

Sovet-letchitsi-u-U-2_1942-1.jpg

Edited by 6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is this not already Locked anyways? I like the Hands off Approach by the Mods in all honesty, at least on this one. And the Discussion is still Civilized and well mannered. 

And this in a 190 Thread. Miracles and Wonders. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is this not already Locked anyways? I like the Hands off Approach by the Mods in all honesty, at least on this one. And the Discussion is still Civilized and well mannered. 

And this in a 190 Thread. Miracles and Wonders.

 

The thread didn't even go belly up after I threw in the Spitfire for comparison. Something is broke here, I don't know what it is (but it's good this way).

 

But should I ever need representative pictures of certain aircraft, I'll ask Klaus...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Junkers for example was state owned. Nazi stands for "national socialist", where socialist includes "state owned and controlled means of production". Covers large chunks of Nazi-German industries.

Hugo Junkers was dispossessed by the Nazis in 1933 - in contrast to most of the German managers he took position against them before 1933 and was seen as "politically untrustworthy". It would be fragmentary to call the other well-known aircraft constructors like Heinkel, Focke or even Messerschmitt followers of the Nazis, it has been a complex network. With the exception of Junkers those man were inadequately educated for the high positions they filled in, true nerds. Those men were deep into what they did, brilliant constructors, often with a very modest lifestyle. They often were educated to become nerds, willing subjects of any regime presenting itself as proud and patriotic. (btw - I can't find any brilliance in today's managers except their brazenness to grab money. Let's see if those today's "leading men" will show more responsibility than the German managers did during the Nazi time)

 

If one is really interested in that complex topic, there is an enormous book presenting the big picture and lot's of details of the German aircraft industry:

 

Lutz Budraß

Flugzeugindustrie und Luftrüstung in Deutschland 1918 – 1945

Düsseldorf 1998

Schriften des Bundesarchivs, Bd. 50

 

I doubt this opus was translated - if there is any recent book in English about the German aircraft industry until 1945 I'll be glad for a hint.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we maybe get back OT? There is a thread now to continue the political stuff. A newbie looking for AC info will likely be pretty frustrated burrowing through all of this stuff.

 

Maybe a MOD can move all the political and ethics debate here as well:

 

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/28409-about-thread-globalization-cultural-death-politics-sociology/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK gents.. because we are all adults.. and there were actually some historic points to ponder in this thus far 2 page thread... I have decided to not delete or edit anything.. but this thread needs to get back onto AVIATION.. 

 

OK?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

....Snipp...

 

If one is really interested in that complex topic, there is an enormous book presenting the big picture and lot's of details of the German aircraft industry:

 

Lutz Budraß

Flugzeugindustrie und Luftrüstung in Deutschland 1918 – 1945

Düsseldorf 1998

Schriften des Bundesarchivs, Bd. 50

 

I doubt this opus was translated - if there is any recent book in English about the German aircraft industry until 1945 I'll be glad for a hint.

No, it is not. Unfortunately, it is also sold out in German and only avialble as used book. Amazon currently lists only one copy for 250$. I paid for my (almost new) copy about 300$. For anyone interested how the German aviation industry worked, there is simply no alternative to it. They really should Kindle that one.

 

It may be a somewhat dry read compared to other books on the topic. But for anyone interessted in MBA stuff like sourcing, supply chain management, etc., it is the only real scource where you can retrace the organizations and the decisions made.

 

It also shows rather clearly that those profilic poster boys that produced a lot of first hand accounts had in effect very little say and influence in the larger context, often even being completely blind to certain realities. This disconnect is a great base for many of those popular conspiracy theories being around of "what might have happened if [insert conspiracy theory of your liking]".

 

Also the recurring theory that "Germany couldn't do this" because they "didn't have that" often enough fails to see that "misallocation" does not equal "unavailable" and you can clearly see the organizational limits of the criminal Nazi oligarchy.

 

Personally, I think there is lots to be learned from that book. The aviation industry was the single largest industry at the time in Germany. You can do case studies on Toyota or whatever, but this one is really interesting. Mechanisms of what works out and what doesn't still apply today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surprised no one bought up the point that Nazi Germany might have kept making the Bf-109 because it would be cheaper to just keep making the Bf-109, instead of retooling for a newer plane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surprised no one bought up the point that Nazi Germany might have kept making the Bf-109 because it would be cheaper to just keep making the Bf-109, instead of retooling for a newer plane.

The Germans did not care so much for for costs in terms of money, but they did care for lot sizes. Big lot sizes means it came cheap to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...