Jump to content
=BAIT=CG_Justin

Me 410 and Mosquito

Recommended Posts

Quote

K-4 production till end of 1944: 854 (total by end of the war cc. 1600)

 

This was about Mossies and 410s, Kurfy. Clue in the title.

 

Now, to your litany of figures: important to notice that your numbers refer to produced but not necessarily delivered, delivered but not necessarily operational, operational but not necessarily available based on lack of extant fuel or spares. Anyway, you said 1.98 ata was around 1,600 - still not seen the proof of this that you vowed to be true.

 

You do this every time and it gets boring. Even you know this, but insist on ignoring it. You know for a fact that the units you listed had some K-4s, not all from October. You know that they had operational issues. You know that sortie generation was very low. You know all of these things but yet the same tired crap comes out again and again. I especially like your comment 'during the war', ie: might have got some before May 8th '45, not necessarily relevant, operational, used or anything else.

 

Spitfire XIV production actually runs to around 600 units, which given the absence of devastated infrastructure, Allies' abundance of POL and availability of ground services e means that they could be used unlike the last, desperate slave-labour built examples of Willy and Tank's aircraft hidden among the trees alongside the remains of aerodromes.

 

But feel free to ignore realities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, 77.CountZero said:

I tought they made 900+ of them in 1944, how many of thouse D9s and K4s never got to front , or how many were 1.98s we have in game now :)

 

Which one? The XIV was produced till the end of the war, and a few months past beyond that, totalling about 950ish IIRC, which includes the fighter recce FR types, but most of these were produced in 1945 and most of them never saw action in WW2. Production in 1944 was rather slow, and by the end of 1944 there was indeed just a little over 300 produced.

 

Now as for 109Ks and 190Ds at the front, refer to this post/thread: 

 

34 minutes ago, 77.CountZero said:

quick check and there was around 90 K4s on dec31 in bobp area, and 6 spit14 squadrons (thats 70-100 of them ), so its basicly same exept we get one and not other as there is lack of types you can have on axis side when its 5x5 dlcs, just one is more important as it destroyed jet, if only hitler know that he would have his pilots asking for spitfires insted 109s 😄

 

The ones that happened to be around and participated in the Bodenplatte operation, yes. But the map runs September 1944 to April 1945, not just on 1st January 1945.

 

At the start of December 1944, 198 K-4s and 124 D9s were present with operational units (located everywhere in the LW, but at this point AFAIK all were on the Western Front and in Germany, by the end of December 1944 the number of K-4s dropped to 159 as a result of some heavy engagements, but D-9s increased to 238. The next data available is 314 K-4s at the end of January 1945.

 

Now somewhat less were in the NW Europe area map we have of course and not all that were produced were sent immidiately to units, servicability varied from day to day, which is quite normal considering how hectic the action was and that a few weeks is needed before a plane rolls of the factory door and is being delivered to a unit. Nobody was rushing to replace perfectly good, worked up and combat ready 109Gs and 190As that were already at the units with those new 109Ks and 190Ds. That would mean the unit would need to be shipped different replacement parts, new planes needed to be checked and worked up, pilots instructed on the differences etc., all meaning a temporary loss of a few days of operational readiness. 

 

As for the RAF rooster, it is sadly lacking the Typhoon and the XIV, but I guess the Developers had to draw the line somewhere - the RAF had at the time two common types (IX/XVI and Typhoon) and two rarer über types, the XIV and Tempest. In the end they gave us a common one in the form of the Spitfire IX, and a rarer über type, the Tempest. They might have choosen the XIV instead of the Tempest, but it is probably the better compromise since instead of another Spitfire at least we get something different, the Tempest. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

6 spit14 squadrons (thats 70-100 of them ),

 

That's closer to 6 x 24 given the large number of a/c and additions to the RAF structure that occurred during 1944, but never mind.
 

Quote


ocated everywhere in the LW, but at this point AFAIK all were on the Western Front and in Germany, by the end of December 1944 the number of K-4s dropped to 159 as a result of some heavy engagements, but D-9s increased to 238

 

 

On the WF? You seem conveniently unsure about this just when it suits you.

 

Quote

we have of course and not all that were produced were sent immidiately to units, servicability varied from day to day, which is quite normal considering how hectic the action was and that a few weeks is needed before a plane rolls of the factory door

 

In the German case, that would be a large percentage of produced aircraft given that they lacked the fuel / etc. for direct transfer flights. See earlier comment. Try reading on this.

 

Quote

That would mean the unit would need to be shipped different replacement parts, new planes needed to be checked and worked up, pilots instructed on the differences etc., all meaning a temporary loss of a few days of operational readiness

 

A few days? Either you do not understand military operations or you are simply lying. Look at sortie rates vs. nominally operational a/c - Caldwell does a good job of this for you, should you be short of time.

 

Quote

Two rarer über types, the XIV and Tempest

 

So, just to check, your proof about the '1,600 1.98 ata K-4s'? Or the 190D-9s Ex-42? Honestly, you wouldn't know an objective debate if it bit you on the arse. You work in law, by any chance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually CZ it was Spitfire IXs from RCAF 401 Sqd. WNr 170093 flown by Hptm. Hans-Christoff Buttman. A few days earlier a P-47 attacked a 262 and claimed it destruction but it had run out of fuel and crashed.

 

As for the D-9 numbers, if one adds the WNr one gets the 1805 number.

 

FW - 424

GFW - 75

ArbGem - 20

ConAslau - 14

MME - 64

 

For 597 units produced excluding Dec '44, Feb and March '45 for which there are no numbers. so ~800 total is possible.

 

As for the impressive list of Luftwaffe units it has to be remembered that they were never up to Establishment strength. On Jan 1 1945, the K-4 units in Bodenplatte had an Establishment strength of 820 and only 90 Serviceable out of the 166 Onhand.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should add that the RAF didn't need large numbers of Spitfire XIVs as the Luftwaffe was well under control with USAAF P-38s, P-47s and P-51s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, MiloMorai said:

Should add that the RAF didn't need large numbers of Spitfire XIVs as the Luftwaffe was well under control with USAAF P-38s, P-47s and P-51s. the vast majority of it being tied up by the Red Air Force.

Fixed that for you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Diggun said:

Fixed that for you!

 

Nope.

 

For June - Oct '44 Lw had 1135 fighters in the West and lost 6412 a/c. In the East, it was 364 fighters and 1035 lost. Just over 3 times as many Lw fighters in the West.

 

An airplane flying a combat mission in the West was 7.66 times more likely to be destroyed than one on a similar mission in the East. It is clear that the burden of sacrifice was borne by the Luftwaffe aircrew on the Western Front and over the Reich, not on the Eastern Front.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JG25 and 50 were - I thought - disbanded owing to relative lack of success (though JG50 had some very successful operations, particularly first Schweinfurt).

 

Mossies are far from uncatchable, just difficult in reality owing to their altitude, speed and the 109 endurance unless vectored very efficiently. That they did suffer losses is evidence that the German defences were not incapable, but that it was difficult.

 

I would buy a 410 / Mossie pack for both the a/c but also to support the wider project.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I'm probably about to commit high heresy, but after the whole Battle of Britain thing, why did Germany need a zerostorer? It just seems like a solution in desperate search of a problem... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Voyager said:

Ok, I'm probably about to commit high heresy, but after the whole Battle of Britain thing, why did Germany need a zerostorer? It just seems like a solution in desperate search of a problem... 

 

Light strike, long-range recce, night-fighter. And - crucially - it was a mature design in production.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

 

Light strike, long-range recce, night-fighter. And - crucially - it was a mature design in production.

 

That covers why they kept the 110 going, but why the 210, rather than, say, a longer ranged 190 varient? Or a 209 with the DB603 and extended payload/fuel tankage? 

 

Why the focus on two seater twin fighters? The firepower wasn't better than the single seats, and its a2a performance wasn't competitive with the single seaters either. 

 

The Mosquito came from a very different idea, basically packing the bomb load of a medium bomber into something with near fighter straight line speed. I don't see the 210/410 bringing that kind of payload or speed to the party. 

Edited by Voyager

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Voyager said:

 

That covers why they kept the 110 going, but why the 210, rather than, say, a longer ranged 190 varient? 

 

Sure there are experts around here, but I would suggest: Willy M’s cache as of 1942, poor industrial governance, the [perceived] utility of a larger, twin-engined, multi-crew airframe and the relative immaturity of the 190. Also other things, but that’s my brief thoughts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Voyager said:

That covers why they kept the 110 going, but why the 210, rather than, say, a longer ranged 190 varient? 

 

That is the Fw-190G. Part of the Jabo-Rei initiative. AFAIK, they made some 900 of this series between 1942 to 44.

 

It‘s just that from then on they didn‘t have to fly far anymore to get theirs, hence other variants became the sensible thing to produce.

Edited by ZachariasX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to underline what I said above: never underestimate the momentum of an existing industrial plan. Changing your aircraft buld strategy is time-comsuming and expensive, plus at the mercy of politics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess the Zerstorer concept was a sound idea on paper and worked in the right context, but not really in practice. The 210/410 seems more a case of assuming the 110 was flawed, rather than that particular approach to long-ranged heavy fighters. 

 

‘The 110 isn’t working - we need to improve the design’; rather than ‘the idea isn’t working - we need to rethink the concept’. 

 

 

Also the Mosquito was a private design by Geoffrey de Havilland and the Air Ministry were sceptical of the value of it until they saw what it could do. So there was a lot less bureaucratic interference and scope creep involved in it’s design - it was a fast, light bomber that was then discovered to have utility for other roles, not the ‘design by committee’ heavy fighter but make it a bomber but make it a zerstorer but make it an interceptor but make it a recon plane issue that German designs often seemed to suffer from. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Willy himself did a lor of titting about with the 210 development (and 109 replacements).  The 210 was supposed to be less long-range fighter and more multi-role (Epgr. 210 - the low-level precision bombing unit - was named for the expected transition on to type). It might have been useful had it worked 1941-42 but by 1943 it had lost some of its relative value.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, SShrike said:

Both very promising aircraft but hampered by supply and political issues. 

"Building small engines, anyone? Anyone??"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ZachariasX said:

"Building small engines, anyone? Anyone??"

Whirlwind, yes, but is looks like the Fw-187 was based on the same engines as the Bf-110,and had they stopped trying to make it into a zerostorer, may have actually been able to full that escort fighter role that they tried to use the 110 for. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Voyager said:

Whirlwind, yes, but is looks like the Fw-187 was based on the same engines as the Bf-110,and had they stopped trying to make it into a zerostorer, may have actually been able to full that escort fighter role that they tried to use the 110 for. 

The 187 initially was to use the DB engine but due to its short supply the ended up using a Jumo instead. 

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...