Bf 109 G14 v K4

[RedKestrel]

19 minutes ago, AeroAce said:

Well the plan was to get to Azerbaijan's oil but a silly man got distracted by a city that had no tactical importance just because it was named after some other silly man that the first silly man didn't like. Kinda lost an army and never took a step forward after that.

 

Darn I forget the name of that city though????

Tsaritsyn! No, wait, Volgograd. I'm sure it was one of those.

[MiloMorai]

The Attack on Oil and Further Dividends from the Oil Attack

 

https://archive.org/stream/unitedstatesstra00cent#page/20/mode/2up

[EAF19_Marsh]

Quote

Tsaritsyn! No, wait, Volgograd. I'm sure it was one of those.

 

Wiki says Sary Su

[Sgt_Joch]

On ‎5‎/‎31‎/‎2018 at 6:30 AM, EAF19_Marsh said:

 

And they never managed to produce in useful quantities, if I recall my Tooze.

 

no, synthetic oil production was significant, over 50% by 1944 and all LW avgas was synthetic. There was an interesting article on the german program which unfortunately is no longer available, but you can still find here:

 

http://luftwaffelovers.blogspot.com/2016/05/the-role-of-synthetic-fuel-in-world-war.html

Quote

Still, between 1938 and 1943, synthetic fuel output underwent a respectable growth from 10 million barrels to 36 million. The percentage of synthetic fuels compared to the yield from all sources grew from 22 percent to more than 50 percent by 1943. The total oil supplies available from all sources for the same period rose from 45 million barrels in 1938 to 71 million barrels in 1943.²⁷
In spite of shortages and other difficulties, production and supply, although never reaching the amounts contemplated by Göring, presented no serious problems until the spring of 1944.²⁸ This was accomplished by giving no claimant, including the armed forces, all of the fuel that he needed.

 

[EAF19_Marsh]

Quote

no, synthetic oil production was significant, over 50% by 1944 and all LW avgas was synthetic. There was an interesting article on the german program which unfortunately is no longer available, but you can still find here:

 

I addressed this on the other page at some length. In the quotation you gave, the 'never reaching the amounts'..' is the significant problem. It was supposed to remove the critical dependence on imports - at least until they could be exploited directly for Germany's benefit. This did not work, despite the significant effort pored into it (your link explores this in depth) and Tooze makes this a cornerstone of his book; they never had enough basic stuff (including food and manpower) to do all the things that were planned / required by what they were trying to do.

 

From your paper:

Quote

Yet a High Command study in May of 1941 noted that with monthly military requirements for 7.25 million barrels.... At the peak of their synthetic fuel production in 1943, when half of their economy and their armed forces ran on synthetic fuel, the Germans produced 36,212,400 barrels of fuel a year

 

So, yes it added to their stock but it never reached the degree required to make a difference to Germany's net fuel situation, hence my remark about 'useful quantities'

 

 

Edited June 1, 2018 by EAF19_Marsh

[sevenless]

 

 

[LukeFF]

1 hour ago, sevenless said:

 

 

 

? 

 

Discussed (and largely debunked) here: http://community.battlefront.com/topic/126432-this-guy-is-worth-a-watch/

[Venturi]

Gotta love that Combat MIssion Mg42 rate of fire though.

[sevenless]

37 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

 

?

 

Discussed (and largely debunked) here: http://community.battlefront.com/topic/126432-this-guy-is-worth-a-watch/

 

LOL! Didn´t know that was topic at other game forums also? Debunked? I guess that´s a question of perspective.

[LukeFF]

14 minutes ago, sevenless said:

 

LOL! Didn´t know that was topic at other game forums also? Debunked? I guess that´s a question of perspective.

 

The idea that oil was the only driving factor in Germany losing the war is crazy talk.

[sevenless]

6 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

 

The idea that oil was the only driving factor in Germany losing the war is crazy talk.

 

LOL! Then so be it.

[sevenless]

As a more academic view on the "oil crisis topic" at hand you might be interested in this:

 

TURNING POINT: A HISTORY OF GERMAN PETROLEUM IN WORLD WAR II AND ITS LESSONS FOR THE ROLE OF OIL IN MODERN AIR WARFARE
Shawn P. Keller, Major, USAF
AY11 Spring Independent Elective
Advisor: Dr. Michael May

 

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/1020261.pdf

 

Quote from the conclusions:

 

Oil proved to be Germany's undoing.  However, evidence presented clearly shows that 
Germany did not simply ignore their petroleum situation during the build-up for war.  Indeed, 
concerns about the Reich’s lack of natural resources were at the forefront of planning 
considerations from beginning to end. In Case BLUE for example, Germany’s desperate oil 
situation was actually the critical planning factor driving overall strategy for the summer 1942 
campaigns in the East.  Germany’s failed oil plan helped seal the fate of its military for two 
reasons.  First, poor leadership and planning denied the Reich the oil production and reserve 
goals it had set for itself in the 1936 Four Year Plan.  Second, Hitler and his military planners 
grossly miscalculated the operational capability of their force in light of their available petroleum 
resources.  This was particularly evident in Operation BARBAROSSA when the war Hitler 
promised would be over ‘within months’ lingered on into the brutal Russian winter.  Germany’s 
oil and fuel reserves never recovered from the blow.  Once the Caucasus slipped from Hitler’s 
grasp and Allied bombs began raining down on the German synthetic fuel industry in mid-1944, 
it was only a matter of time before the oil was gone.  In the end, Germany simply ran out of gas.  

[MiloMorai]

The Germans had lots of gas because of eating sauerkraut.?

[FTC_Riksen]

9 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

?

 

Discussed (and largely debunked) here: http://community.battlefront.com/topic/126432-this-guy-is-worth-a-watch/

 

Funny how you say largely debunked when no one in that thread actually posts any hard facts that state otherwise while the author of the video shows plenty of hard facts and statistics to back it up. Is it just crazy talk because you can't prove otherwise or just trying to lead people to dismiss that great video based on your OPINION of the war?

[unreasonable]

9 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

The idea that oil was the only driving factor in Germany losing the war is crazy talk.

 

I agree - imagine that the German geologists had got it wrong and someone accidentally found a huge oil reserve right under Berlin in the 1930s, in time for production and refining to be in place for the war. What practical difference would it have made to the German war effort? The army would not have suddenly become completely mechanized - Germany was chronically short of men with basic mechanical skills, had a tiny motor industry and was short of a variety of other resources like chrome and rubber. Apart from that, it was still tied to the idea of short wars and quick victory.

 

The GAF did not fail to get air superiority over the UK due to fuel shortages, it just was not big enough to do the job. Typhoon did not grind to a halt because of fuel shortages but due to attrition of the whole range of German capabilities and the difficulty of converting the railway network quickly. The  U-Boat campaign was defeated by technological and doctrinal factors: nothing to do with fuel. 

 

By concentrating on attacking fuel the allies perhaps shortened the war by a few weeks: but strategically the Germans had already lost comprehensively before that happened. It is all just another variant on the theme that the Germans were the masters of war but the allies somehow cheated.

 

 

[HagarTheHorrible]

2 hours ago, unreasonable said:

 

I agree - imagine that the German geologists had got it wrong and someone accidentally found a huge oil reserve right under Berlin in the 1930s, in time for production and refining to be in place for the war. What practical difference would it have made to the German war effort? The army would not have suddenly become completely mechanized - Germany was chronically short of men with basic mechanical skills, had a tiny motor industry and was short of a variety of other resources like chrome and rubber. Apart from that, it was still tied to the idea of short wars and quick victory.

 

The GAF did not fail to get air superiority over the UK due to fuel shortages, it just was not big enough to do the job. Typhoon did not grind to a halt because of fuel shortages but due to attrition of the whole range of German capabilities and the difficulty of converting the railway network quickly. The  U-Boat campaign was defeated by technological and doctrinal factors: nothing to do with fuel. 

 

By concentrating on attacking fuel the allies perhaps shortened the war by a few weeks: but strategically the Germans had already lost comprehensively before that happened. It is all just another variant on the theme that the Germans were the masters of war but the allies somehow cheated.

 

 

 

It might have made the world of difference,.................or not.

 

Germany got within a inch of reaching Moscow ( debatable if that might have knocked  Russia out of the war after all Napoleon was a little miffed on that one).    Was the German advance hamstrung by large parts of it's Army reliant on horses or Shanks's mare (foot), maybe less criticle in Western Europe but in the wide open , energy sapping, spaces of Russia ?  If the Tanks relied on the Infantry and the Infantry had to walk, for the he most part, then Russia was invaded less in a Blitz and more at an amble, in many ways no different to the pace of Napoleons Grand Army ?  The battles might have been classical Blitz Krieg but maybe not the invasion as a whole ?

[Ehret]

3 hours ago, unreasonable said:

By concentrating on attacking fuel the allies perhaps shortened the war by a few weeks: but strategically the Germans had already lost comprehensively before that happened. It is all just another variant on the theme that the Germans were the masters of war but the allies somehow cheated.

 

They were blind when facing the grand strategic situation. To wage a war, not just a war but the total one, against the enemy they could not hit back... It could make sense when re-negotiations were the goal and prior gains could be used as the bargaining card. But no - H. literally burned such a chance.

[EAF19_Marsh]

Quote

But no - H. literally burned such a chance.

 

A gambler. He was warned (directly and indirectly) by his General Staff that certain operations were either very low probability of success or downright nuts (Sealion and Barbarossa respectively). Halder contemplated assassinating him before the attack on France.

 

But since May 1940 went far better than anyone could have dreamed, critique of wider strategic issues or what was or not possible become less and less logical. The Marcks report about how Barbarossa was very unlikely to succeed fell in the face of optimism and lack of intellectual planning on how the USSR was really going to be defeated (or whther there were better alternatives in 1941). Oil supplies were part of this issue (as were other raw materials). It was a case of 'when we win' not 'is this the best way to win' or 'what happens if we do not win this campaign'. That bit them on the arse.

[Blackhawk_FR]

Does the K4 was ligher than G14? If anybody have good infos about masses, I'm interested. 

[Kurfurst]

49 minutes ago, F/JG300_Faucon said:

Does the K4 was ligher than G14? If anybody have good infos about masses, I'm interested. 

 

The K4 is heavier, it normal take off weight is 3362 kg, the G-14 is a bit lighter, 3250-ish IIRC. Thought the Mk108 variant is even closer.

 

I did some comparison between the performance of the G14, G14/AS and K4, I will try to find it and post it.

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

Are these your charts you meant kurfurst?

 

Edited June 3, 2018 by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard

[Kurfurst]

Yup, thanks for finding them for me! 

 

Keep in mind though the colored lines for _climb_ are only my rough guesstimates, I have adjusted known values (based on values derived from other tests though( from original Messerschmitt calculations of gondola carrying G-14/U4 and G-14/AS to get a rough idea how the 'clean' birds would perform. 

 

Also the 1.98ata K-4 performance curves are not present there, as the original idea was to show some guys who were complaining on the DCS forum for G-14s instead of the (1.8ata only) DCS K-4 to be a bit more careful what they wish for... since the G-14 is pretty hot down low. 

Edited June 3, 2018 by VO101Kurfurst

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

Sheriff tested the speed and climbrate of the G-14 in game, I compared the in game speed with your data from August 1944 flight trial.

 

 

 

 


 

 

 

The thing with DCS and G-14 vs P-51 is that although the G-14 is more maneuverable and better climber it's slower than K-4, so P-51 pilots would have it easier for hit and run tactics, and since they are already outclimbed and outmaneuvered by K-4 the G-14 wouldn't make that much of a difference in this regard I think.

 

If you could update your charts showing the G-10 as well it would be a nice sum-up of the late 109 performance ^_^

 

 

 

Edited June 3, 2018 by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard

[HR_Zunzun]

12 hours ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

Sheriff tested the speed and climbrate of the G-14 in game, I compared the in game speed with your data from August 1944 flight trial.

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 


 

 

 

The thing with DCS and G-14 vs P-51 is that although the G-14 is more maneuverable and better climber it's slower than K-4, so P-51 pilots would have it easier for hit and run tactics, and since they are already outclimbed and outmaneuvered by K-4 the G-14 wouldn't make that much of a difference in this regard I think.

 

If you could update your charts showing the G-10 as well it would be a nice sum-up of the late 109 performance ^_^

 

 

 

 

Same feelings here.

Much rather fight the g14 with the mustang than the k4. With the spit is similar.

[150GCT_Veltro]

G14 with red gear.

Edited June 5, 2018 by 150GCT_Veltro

[303_Bies]

On 5/27/2018 at 2:08 PM, RoflSeal said:

While maximum horsepower is the same at 1800hp, the K-4 has a higher 30min combat setting of 1.45ata producing 1450hp instead of 1300hp in the G-14. This added with the much cleaner airframe means the K-4 will have a much higher combat cruise speed.

Are you sure 1.45ata was allowed as 30 min combat power?

 

In DCS Bf109K-4 with DB 605 DB (B4 + MW50) it has 1.35 ata combat power for 30 min.

[=362nd_FS=RoflSeal]

2 minutes ago, bies said:

Are you sure 1.45ata was allowed as 30 min combat power?

 

In DCS Bf109K-4 with DB 605 DB (B4 + MW50) it has 1.35 ata combat power for 30 min.

 

 

I believe that is a typo on ED's part considering on Pg112 of the manual, combat and climb power is mentioned at 1.45 ATA

[Godspeed]

Take off with K4 is harder.

K4 is better in air.

Edited August 19, 2018 by Godspeed

[Legioneod]

24 minutes ago, Godspeed said:

Take off with K4 is harder.

K4 is better in air.

109s are easy to fly in this game, I've never really had trouble taking off in them and I doubt the K4 will be any different. DCS k4 and 190 always gave me trouble when taking off, for some reason I could never do it. The P-51 and Spit were no problem after a little practice but the German aircraft are still very challenging for me.

Edited August 19, 2018 by Legioneod

[Cpt_Siddy]

On 6/1/2018 at 8:10 PM, LukeFF said:

 

?

 

Discussed (and largely debunked) here: http://community.battlefront.com/topic/126432-this-guy-is-worth-a-watch/

 

Yah, HAHA. We all know the real reason Germoney lost WW2 is because Hortler was a poopy head and Russian bias in latest 1.004 update by God in "Real-Life" MMO when all Russians turned Hive mind and got "ignore living standards perk +1". 

Edited August 19, 2018 by Cpt_Siddy

[Bremspropeller]

On 5/28/2018 at 5:37 PM, BlitzPig_EL said:

Switch the C-47 for an A-20 G and I'm OK with the 410.

 

The A-20 is very cool, but why not an A-26? That thing is cool-squared.

On 6/4/2018 at 10:18 AM, 150GCT_Veltro said:

G14 with red gear.

 

That is the most beautiful 109 I have ever seen.

It looks so...angular. Just great!

[sevenless]

2 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

The A-20 is very cool, but why not an A-26? That thing is cool-squared.

 

If they would have more ressources the A26 Intruder and the B26 Marauder could very well be considered. Unless then we get the A20 and the B25, which also was used by the Brits as Mitchell II and III. Those Me 262s need some targets after all.

[Bremspropeller]

Historically, the 262 and the B-26s had their own little kind of thing going over southern Germany. The B-26 (just like the B-25) would fit on any war theater.

The A-26 is just a in a whole different Mojo-league, though.

 

In general, you can't go wrong with any of the US mediums. They're all great airplanes to begin with.

[Legioneod]

5 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

Historically, the 262 and the B-26s had their own little kind of thing going over southern Germany. The B-26 (just like the B-25) would fit on any war theater.

The A-26 is just a in a whole different Mojo-league, though.

 

In general, you can't go wrong with any of the US mediums. They're all great airplanes to begin with.

I vote for the B-26 marauder, it's a true medium bomber unlike the A-20 and A-26, though the A-26 could carry a larger bomb load.  The B-26 would be perfect for Bodenplatte, I wish they were doing it rather than the B-25.

Edited August 19, 2018 by Legioneod

[sevenless]

21 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

The B-26 would be perfect for Bodenplatte, I wish they were doing it rather than the B-25.

 

If they would have decided for B26, they couldn´t give the Brits their Mitchells II/III. I guess that was one reason to decide for the B25. Another point might have been the usage of the B25 in the Pacific, who knows.

[Legioneod]

1 minute ago, sevenless said:

 

If they would have decided for B26, they couldn´t give the Brits their Mitchells II/III. I guess that was one reason to decide for the B25. Another point might have been the usage of the B25 in the Pacific, who knows.

Probably did it for use with the Pacific but who knows, either way I'm a bit disappointed it's not a B-26. Hope we get the Marauder in a future expansion, it hasn't really ever been done before in any game that I've played.

[303_Bies]

13 hours ago, RoflSeal said:

I believe that is a typo on ED's part considering on Pg112 of the manual, combat and climb power is mentioned at 1.45 ATA

It can't be a typo because everything differs, WEP 1.75 or 1.8 ata, combat 1.35 or 1.45 ata, economy 1.05 or 1.15 ata. There are two different variants of DB605DB engine.

[Asgar]

7 minutes ago, bies said:

It can't be a typo because everything differs, WEP 1.75 or 1.8 ata, combat 1.35 or 1.45 ata, economy 1.05 or 1.15 ata. There are two different variants of DB605DB engine.

there is only one DB engine to my knowledge but there is also a DC engine that was also used in the K4 (as well as teh DM engine)

[Kurfurst]

The DCS K-4 manual large follows and translates the historical early K-4 manual which has ratings for the DB 605DM, an early D series engine fitted to first K-4s.

 

This had 1,75 ATA limit for max power (MW50) and 1,35 ata for the 30 min rating.

 

However the in game K-4 has the later DB 605 DB engine configuration which had its ratings increased to 1,8 / 1,45 ATA.

 

It just that the DCS manual and the actual config of the plane do not correlate very well with each other.

[kalbuth]

2 hours ago, bies said:

It can't be a typo because everything differs, WEP 1.75 or 1.8 ata, combat 1.35 or 1.45 ata, economy 1.05 or 1.15 ata. There are two different variants of DB605DB engine.

I fly the DCS K4 following the DB 605 DB real operational values (aka 1.35 normal flight, 1.45 combat setting) without any issue, the DCS plane reacts correctly to these values. Most certainly an error in the DCS manual in the very table you outlined