For those making historic 1.98ata K-4 missions

[MiloMorai]

The following are the bases from which the 1.98ata K-4s flew from and the dates. (the dates are when first based there)

1.98ata was officially cleared for use 20-3-45

 

II./JG11

Zellhausen 17-12-44

Strasburg 23-1-45

 

I./JG27

Stormede 19-3-45

Helmstedt 30-3-45

 

III./JG27

Gutersloh 18-3-45

Goslar 29-3-45 

Halberstadt 8-4-45

 

III./JG53

Nellingen 23-3-45

Neuhausen ob Eck 26-3-45

 

IV./JG53

Reichenbach 2-4-45 (not relevant)

 

Some might be on the map and others might not be on the map as the map is not of a high enough resolution for place names.

 

 

 

 

 

[Talon_]

https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit?mid=1Ei8Vf2CKQaPje9F7sWpaPnwsXS0LFMec&ll=51.14740716477175%2C6.303172945799588&z=8

 

Here's the map mate

[MiloMorai]

1 hour ago, Talon_ said:

https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit?mid=1Ei8Vf2CKQaPje9F7sWpaPnwsXS0LFMec&ll=51.14740716477175%2C6.303172945799588&z=8

 

Here's the map mate

 

Thanks. That is better than the one Luke posted but his map is the Bodenplatte map.

[sevenless]

btw. it´s StÖrmede and GÜtersloh. It´s the "Umlaut" the whole world envies the germans. Like the one in MotÖrhead ?

 

II./JG11

OUT OF MAP Zellhausen 17-12-44

OUT OF MAP Strasburg 23-1-45

 

I./JG27

Stormede 19-3-45

OUT OF MAP Helmstedt 30-3-45

 

III./JG27

Gutersloh 18-3-45

OUT OF MAP Goslar 29-3-45 

OUT OF MAP Halberstadt 8-4-45

 

III./JG53

OUT OF MAP Nellingen 23-3-45

OUT OF MAP Neuhausen ob Eck 26-3-45

 

IV./JG53

OUT OF MAP Reichenbach 2-4-45 (not relevant)

Edited November 27, 2018 by sevenless

[EAF19_Marsh]

So just two gruppe of JG27?

 

7 hours ago, Talon_ said:

https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit?mid=1Ei8Vf2CKQaPje9F7sWpaPnwsXS0LFMec&ll=51.14740716477175%2C6.303172945799588&z=8

 

Here's the map mate

 

Really, it goes that far West? Crikey.

Edited November 27, 2018 by EAF19_Marsh

[Kurfurst]

DB 605 DB/DC engine card of 3 December 1944 with clearance for 1,98 ata rating.

 

 

22 December 1944 instruction to mark 1,98 ata setting with white C letter on the engine crankcase.

 

 

 

January 1945 2nd TAF intelligence report of crashed G-10 with Db 605DC employing 1,98 ata with C-3 fuel and methanol injection.

 

 

Records of meeting from 20 January 1945 on clearance for 1,98 ata have been giving mentioning that operational units having set the engines for 1,98 ata.

 

[EAF19_Marsh]

Oh Kurfy, again with the documents that prove nothing. You're such a card ?

 

I particularly like the idea that procedure for painting a letter on a cowling  = definitely used, while the RAF 'found' a 109 'definitely' running this setting despite the boost gauge not begin there. Reminds of of John Cleese's line in Holy Grail: "She turned me into a newt....well, I got better"

 

But, you said 1,600 K-4s at this setting; where is the data for that? It was such a shocking revelation - worthy of the best Net-flicks show - that I am still very excited to see the the documents for all 1,600 examples, which units, how many on strength versus operational etc.

 

Don't have that by any chance, do you?

 

 

[sevenless]

Can you guys please open up seperate threads to collect the available evidences about

 

a) 1,98 ata on the K4 and

 

b) Usage of 150 octane fuel with 2nd TAF in the ETO ?

 

That way something constructive might come out of all this ?

[Kurfurst]

I think I will look up 109K units, their strenght reports and bases for the period of December 44 - January 45 that is covered by the documentation above. 

 

I also have detailed sortie reports for the Western Front in February - April 1945, I hope this will be of use for makers of historical missions.

 

IMO one the historical missions that is very interesting is that of the sortie of Julius Meimberg, a veteran and Gruppenkommandeur of II/JG 53 in 26 December. He was attacked by three P-47s in his 109K, and managed to shot down all of them, despite being outnumbered. He was wounded in the process and had to make an emergency landing due to hits to his radiator. 

 

Meimberg claimed no less than 12 Thunderbolts between July 1944 - April 1945.

Edited November 27, 2018 by VO101Kurfurst

[MiloMorai]

1 hour ago, sevenless said:

btw. it´s StÖrmede and GÜtersloh. It´s the "Umlaut" the whole world envies the germans. Like the one in MotÖrhead ?

 

II./JG11

OUT OF MAP Zellhausen 17-12-44

OUT OF MAP Strasburg 23-1-45

 

I./JG27

Stormede 19-3-45

OUT OF MAP Helmstedt 30-3-45

 

III./JG27

Gutersloh 18-3-45

OUT OF MAP Goslar 29-3-45 

OUT OF MAP Halberstadt 8-4-45

 

III./JG53

OUT OF MAP Nellingen 23-3-45

OUT OF MAP Neuhausen ob Eck 26-3-45

 

IV./JG53

OUT OF MAP Reichenbach 2-4-45 (not relevant)

 

Thanks sevenless for the Umllat corrections and locations.

[EAF19_Marsh]

1 hour ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

IMO one the historical missions that is very interesting is that of the sortie of Julius Meimberg, a veteran and Gruppenkommandeur of II/JG 53 in 26 December. He was attacked by three P-47s in his 109K, and managed to shot down all of them, despite being outnumbered. He was wounded in the process and had to make an emergency landing due to hits to his radiator. 

 

Meimberg claimed no less than 12 Thunderbolts between July 1944 - April 1945.

 

In a K4 / 1.98 ata or just general? 'Cos otherwise that is not terribly relevant to the thread.

[IVJG4-Knight]

1 hour ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

Oh Kurfy, again with the documents that prove nothing. You're such a card ?

 

I particularly like the idea that procedure for painting a letter on a cowling  = definitely used, while the RAF 'found' a 109 'definitely' running this setting despite the boost gauge not begin there. Reminds of of John Cleese's line in Holy Grail: "She turned me into a newt....well, I got better"

 

But, you said 1,600 K-4s at this setting; where is the data for that? It was such a shocking revelation - worthy of the best Net-flicks show - that I am still very excited to see the the documents for all 1,600 examples, which units, how many on strength versus operational etc.

 

Don't have that by any chance, do you?

 

 

 

One of the uses of speaking fluent german is i know what some of the  german habbits were during the war.

 

Hartman tells that after getting shot down he took out one of the gauges that was in short supply back at the base .

There were all kinds of shortages .

 

Funny how Milo doesn't know this because he has "more books about german aircraft ". ? 

As for this idea "I particularly like the idea that procedure for painting a letter on a cowling  = definitely used" .

 

Yes but if you use this standard than the evidence of p47 vs 21 cannon rounds ( Robert Johnson ) is also not evidence.Is just a story.

 

Same with late war documents. In Germany some were destroyed , some were taken by the Allied powers and so on.

Someone told me Smithsonian had some useful info on this topic. 

 

 

 

This doesn't mean i'm adamant in receiving 1.98 boost .In multiplayer I can play g6 vs the latest allied fighters and get kills and have fun.

I have enough skill and practice to play even 109 with no mw50 vs p51 which i did in DCS .

 

 

 

 

 

[Kurfurst]

All good points Knight, but I think it would more useful to concentrating solid base research for 109K units and bases, so that mission makers may have an easier job to provide us missions that are both thrilling and historical.

[EAF19_Marsh]

Quote

 

Hartman tells that after getting shot down he took out one of the gauges that was in short supply back at the base .

There were all kinds of shortages .

 

 

I totally agree with you - that makes perfect sense and is very credible. It is the logic with which I have an issue; no gauge found = but it was 1,98 ata. If presented in a meaningful and intelligent way: good evidence that this 109 was running the higher rating because of points a,b and c (though not conclusive as gauge was missing) then I would be happy to support that position as not conclusive but reasonably argued.
 

Quote

 

Yes but if you use this standard than the evidence of p47 vs 21 cannon rounds ( Robert Johnson ) is also not evidence.Is just a story.

 

 

Again, you are quite correct. But if one person involved holds up flimsy or questionable evidence as absolute truth and refuses point-blank to acknowledge any deficiencies (cut-price lawyer approach springs to mind) then the utility of the debate crashes. Lots of poorly-documented things occurred, some more credible than others, but without some sense of objective distance then the whole things becomes without hope of synthesis.

 

This is my day-job, by the way: I just got off a call discussing the data surrounding fighter aircraft programme cost estimation for a current multi-billion dollar campaign. The truth may not out, but it can be reasonably identified and specific pieces of paper may or may not hold the actual story. People who's jobs depend on this kind of reasoning know this to be true. People who have an amateur chip on their shoulder do not. Therein lies the difference.

 

Quote

All good points Knight, but I think it would more useful to concentrating solid base research for 109K units and bases

 

Those 1,600 1.98 a/c that you mentioned a few days ago - you do have the specific evidence for that, don't you?

Edited November 27, 2018 by EAF19_Marsh

[MiloMorai]

17 minutes ago, IVJG4-Knight said:

Hartman tells that after getting shot down he took out one of the gauges that was in short supply back at the base .

There were all kinds of shortages .

 

Funny how Milo doesn't know this because he has "more books about german aircraft ". ? 

 

 

What are flapping your gums about??

[MiloMorai]

These are the K-4 units that participated in Bodenplatte:

I./JG2, II./JG3, I./JG4,  III./JG4,  IV./JG4, II./JG11, III./JG26, I./JG27, III./JG27, S./JG53, II./HG53, I./JG77, III./JG77

 

For units that converted to the K-4 post Bodenplatte see, http://www.ww2.dk/

[NZTyphoon]

12 hours ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

IMO one the historical missions that is very interesting is that of the sortie of Julius Meimberg, a veteran and Gruppenkommandeur of II/JG 53 in 26 December. He was attacked by three P-47s in his 109K, and managed to shot down all of them, despite being outnumbered. He was wounded in the process and had to make an emergency landing due to hits to his radiator. 

 

Meimberg claimed no less than 12 Thunderbolts between July 1944 - April 1945.

Kurfurst is mistaken about Meimberg flying a 109K-4 on 26 December '44. According to Jochen Prien Jagdgeschwader 53: Volume 3: January 1944 - May 1945 quoting a then Fw Fritz Aldemann, who was a mechanic in charge of another pilot's aircraft:

 

Quote

"Since his own machine was apparently unserviceable on this day, prior to take off Major Meimberg demanded Hptm. Hammer's aircraft: however, the latter was very attached to his 'Yellow 1' and had ordered it reported unserviceable, 'just in case,' even though it was in tip-top condition...Major Meimberg brushed aside my objections..."

Prien:

In fact, Alfred Hammer's aircraft was the same Bf 109G-14/AS that he had been issued at Hustedt at the end of July 1944...(Pages 997-998)

 

The casualty list at the end of the chapter shows the 109 flown by Meimberg  was a G-14/AS 166 297 'Yellow 1' (page 1006). During the same encounter 5 other 109s of II./JG 53 were shot down by P-47s.

As it is, the list of the 41 109s lost by JG 53 during Bodenplatte, as presented by Prien, shows 1 109K-4 (332 362 'Blue 8' of 8./JG 53) plus 25 G-14s and 14 G-14/AS (Page 1021).

Edited November 27, 2018 by NZTyphoon
Prien shows Bodenplatte 109K shot down was blue 8

[EAF19_Marsh]

Fake news, probably.

 

Still awaiting the 1,600 K-4 1.98 ata evidence.

Edited November 27, 2018 by EAF19_Marsh

[IVJG4-Knight]

12 hours ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

 

I totally agree with you - that makes perfect sense and is very credible. It is the logic with which I have an issue; no gauge found = but it was 1,98 ata. If presented in a meaningful and intelligent way: good evidence that this 109 was running the higher rating because of points a,b and c (though not conclusive as gauge was missing) then I would be happy to support that position as not conclusive but reasonably argued.
 

 

Again, you are quite correct. But if one person involved holds up flimsy or questionable evidence as absolute truth and refuses point-blank to acknowledge any deficiencies (cut-price lawyer approach springs to mind) then the utility of the debate crashes. Lots of poorly-documented things occurred, some more credible than others, but without some sense of objective distance then the whole things becomes without hope of synthesis.

 

This is my day-job, by the way: I just got off a call discussing the data surrounding fighter aircraft programme cost estimation for a current multi-billion dollar campaign. The truth may not out, but it can be reasonably identified and specific pieces of paper may or may not hold the actual story. People who's jobs depend on this kind of reasoning know this to be true. People who have an amateur chip on their shoulder do not. Therein lies the difference.

 

 

Those 1,600 1.98 a/c that you mentioned a few days ago - you do have the specific evidence for that, don't you?

 

It's most refreshing to see someone respond in an elegant manner .

Based on what i know c3 fuel in the tank + mw50 = 1.98 . There would be no reason to use that combination for another reason. 

From what i understand based on the (January 1945 2nd TAF intelligence report of crashed G-10 with Db 605DC ) both those substances were found in the respective tanks.

I also read in a german magazine (Flugzeug Classic )that based on their research 1.98 ata declared combat ready as of end of march 1945 .

Anyway from a logical perspective it's much harder to prove a negative.Seems more logical to me (even if the evidence is not 100% black and white obvious) to believe that it was used. That doesn't mean i'm 100% sure.

If i use the same 100% sure standard .The p47 story doesn't hold up at least to me personally  .

 

I analized the 21 hits vs P47 situation below.

This is a test of 10 20mm hits vs P47:
A means it goes down withing 5 minutes
B means the plane fails to return to base if the base is 2 hours flight time or more.

m 96,97 used in the test 
have 7,7 to 10 grams or tetryl with a relative affectiveness factor of 1.25

 

          mk 151 german cannon of FW 190 .
Minnengeschosspatrone contain 18,6 g PETN  filling with relative effectiveness factor 1.66 (wikipedia )

Mineshell would probably not be the only type of ammo used .It would probably be a mix of Mineschell , HEI but even the HEI wouldn't be weeker 

 than the one presented in the test.

      AFAIK german ww2 mineshell had thinnner casing and was able to pack more ecsplosive and be more effective in combat , look at the test and how close the effectiveness of 30 mm mk108 is compared to 37 mm amarican cannon .

also the explosive used were more powerfull accoridng to pilot testimony and from what i can see based on the relative effectiveness factor

It's verry probable that a german mk 151 would have a more damaging effect .

The test calculates probability for 10 random hits not aimed.
Also the test is for just 10 hits .20 hits would induce even more damage.

 

 

      Seems to me like the 21 hits vs p47 would not be the rule but rather the exeption

.

Edited November 27, 2018 by IVJG4-Knight

[MiloMorai]

The G-10 could have been using 1.90ata.

 

Anyways, your post has no relevance in this thread.

Edited November 28, 2018 by MiloMorai

[MiloMorai]

On ‎11‎/‎27‎/‎2018 at 4:35 AM, VO101Kurfurst said:

I think I will look up 109K units, their strenght reports and bases for the period of December 44 - January 45 that is covered by the documentation above. 

 

I also have detailed sortie reports for the Western Front in February - April 1945, I hope this will be of use for makers of historical missions.

 

Dec 31 '44 is known (serviceable)

II./JG2 - 7 III./JG3 - 5 I./JG4 - 2 III./JG4 - 10 IV./JG4 - 2 II./JG11 - 4 III./JG26 - 13 I./JG27 - 14 III./JG27 - 14 S./JG53 - 1 II./JG53 - 0  I./JG77 - 1 III./JG77 - 18

[FTC_Riksen]

On 11/27/2018 at 7:00 PM, MiloMorai said:

The G-10 could have been using 1.90ata.

 

Anyways, your post has no relevance in this thread.

 

It does. If there is proof or suspicion of 1.98 ata usage from Dec 44 then you statement "1.98ata was officially cleared for use 20-3-45" would not apply and, therefore, to make historical missions, as you say, the mission creator would have to consider the clearance of this new ata no?

 

I know you and K don't like each other and you guys keep posting threads after threads to provoke each other but if you guys maybe just try to put that aside for a moment, I bet you guys could understand each others views and, at least, consider the possibilities for all the matters associated with high octane fuel usage for the Allies as well as the 1.98 ata. A lot of acceptable evidence in WWII is based on suspicion or probability and not 100% proof because we all know a lot of documents are missing or have been destroyed. I agree with you when you say there is no Black and White conclusion about the usage of 1.98 ata but you are dismissing the possibility based on what has been posted and your hatred for the other antagonist individual. Are the documents definite proof? No. But, again, they raise the possibility that there MIGHT have been and therefore the topic is not clear. That is the only conclusion we can draw from this IMHO.

[MiloMorai]

Knight's post rambles on about the P-47 > no relevance to the thread.

 

A not full staffel of II./JG 11 tested 1.98ata for ~3 weeks. from late Dec '44.

 

"1.)Boost 1,8ata with B4 fuel

Reason for the meeting were the problems in “field” and at the serial production facility “Genshagen” because of the “white flame” effect during the use of the Higher output. First it is shown by Hr. Dr. Scherenberg how  the “white flame” followed by burned pistons, develop. Because of the results of the engine knocking test the lower quality of the fuel is the main reason for the problems. DB has allready solved the problem with adjusting  the ignition timing by 5°(???) . This allowes the use of “Sondernotleistung” and the 1.45 and 1.80ata settings. But because of later ignition , 50PS are lost during the “Sondernotleistung”, Where the 1,45 ata setting  doesn’t lose power. DB although mentions the problems with the bad fit of the valvesitrings or the plug thread , that where reasons for the glow-ignition too. But because of improovments in the production these failurs are  said to be canceled.

All agreed and the decision was done, that all engines should get the new ignition time. The lose of power is not so critical. But, because of hints from DB (DaimlerBenz), there should be test flight with 5 planes within  all alts, but especially above rated alt, to get knowledge about the power loose above rated alt.

END SHEET ONE

This will be done at II/JG11. It is asked, if the ignition timing can be set on old value if better fuel quality is back. Answer is delayed till it is for sure that only better fuel is used, and if it is shown, that later  ignition does have no influence on the planes perfromance. DB mentions that the later ignition point although is better for the plugs that have a thermal problem at all. It is mentioned too, that the performance lose will  be decrease with increasing engine run time , means with less oil lose. It indicates too, that new engines with less oil usage are better in performance than the ones with at first high usage and the lower usage of oil.  From the troop should be taken 1 engine with 15-20h for oil consumption and performance tests to be done in Genshagen. Because the b4 fuel is mostly used in the east, the order for the new ignition point/time should get out asap by…

 

2.)1.98 boost with c3 fuel the first report shows, that the test with the 1.9, and 1.98 boost had negative results. Then a telegram from Rechlin was shown (they tested 4 engines) that criticized the clearing of the Sondernotleistung by  Gen. Ing. Paul direct from the company to A.Galland bevor sufficient tests were done. Rechlin although defend themselves, that they did NOT give the new boost free for the Troop. (looks like some thought they did). DB on  the other hand shows their positive test results for the 1.9 , 1.98 usage. They say, that the clearance for the 1.98 boost was given with the same TAGL (?) (think a kind of order) as the 1.8 ata boost was cleared..both on  the same day!.

 

SHEET THREE

It was then decided (after hearing all the reports) than currently only II/JG11 should test the 1.98 boost and that the 1.9ata engine test should be finished when the engines failed. (so no more test after them). JG  should then only get 1.8 ata engine supplies. Heavy punnishment is threaten when this order is not followed The 1.98 clearance decission may only come from department 4 of general staff. It is suggested that some recon  planes should be equiped with 1.98 boost. Decission was not done. To disburden the current 1.98 and 1.9 engines it is suggested to give them the new ignition time too. So, all engines flowen with the sondernotleistung will  Be set to the new ignition point/time. The JG’s in field complain about the plug failurs. Especially in the last time the number of failurs increased. DB reports about improoved plug modells and better quality control e.g. with x-ray controlling. Again DB points

 out that the cooling of the 109 is insufficient and wishes that the LW will solve this problem asap. This was mentioned by Gen.-Ing Paul and arrangements where done instandly. DB points out that the performance of the  “cell” (fuselage/wings) is extremely bad, and even worser J. It makes no sense to increase the power output of the engine when on the other side the plane quality is decreasing dramatically. Is is reported that a coparison  of a 109 with a mustang was arranged for Mr. Sauer, but he failed to come. The result of the comparison was, spoken of produktion quality only, shocking for the 109.

 

SHEET FOUR

At the end of the meeting, from Mr. Dr. Scherenberg points out that DB allready is testing a boost up to 2.3ata (J). But it can be not juged in any way because of only a low test base at the moment."

[FTC_Riksen]

Thank you for the translation Milo. I appreciate all your effort here but what are you referring to when you mention sheets? Could you please direct me to the docs you are referring to abd their corresponding dates when you get a chance?

 

Thank you Sir!

[MiloMorai]

Not my translation Riksen.

 

It is something I picked up MANY years ago. It is the transcript of a meeting held sometime in Dec, I would think. Sorry it was so long ago can't remember where I got it from but it was probably in some 1.98ata thread.