[ArtieBob]

Rasmussen-“In January 1944 nobody spoke about the K - 2 but the K-2/R3”



You are possibly correct in saying “nobody” spoke about the K-2 in January, but in April, May and June of 1944, The K 2 and K 4 were included, both in the Lieferplan program 225 vom 12.1.43 as well as the modified plan(m.Vorl. bzw Rückst.) in these documents, the K 3/R2 also appears twice, but not the K 2/ R3. Are you certain you have not transposed the numerals? In all of the various production data I have seen for Bf 109 Neubau subtypes, NONE mentions the R3 modification. The K3/R2 would have been a AHöRei which would parallel the G 5/R2 and IMHO seems to make more sense.



Rasmussen-“And regarding the K's the statements of your documents are "old" for sure source-"secret information number 86” from 25.January 1944…”



You are certainly incorrect in saying my information is “old”, the documents I have referenced appear to be published less than 30 days after each month’s end. C-amts data published in April, May and June 1944 is certainly more up to date for March, April and May than the January document you have referenced.



Rasmussen-“The same with the G-5/R2 - source: "Programm vom 19.7.44" from 25.7.44 with the addition "(diese Fz werden bei Erla Antwerpen auf G-5/R-2 umgerüstet. AS-Motoren werden aus Serienbeständen von Werk I entnommen.)" A lot of this G-5/R2/AS were found in Antwerpen on September 03 (or 04?),1944, W.Nr.'s are known. So the text "scheduled not built" cannot be right. “



First, do you understand the meaning of Neubau? These are aircraft accepted immediately off the production line as the subtype noted. Once accepted, if the aircraft was modified, it then entered the “Umbau” category. Your example concerning the G 5/R2 states you are apparently not cognizant of that. “diese Fz werden bei Erla Antwerpen auf G-5/R-2 umgerüstet.” Antwerp was an Erla repair and modification center, not a Neubau production facility, so it is highly probable that G 5/R2 aircraft found there would have been “Umbau” Also, to me, “umgerüstet”, would also indicate that what I have just indicated is correct.



I am not certain if you have a good command of English or German, possibly both. But to indicate the data that is contained on the documents referenced is wrong indicates to me that either you do not understand what is being said or that I am lying about the content. First, I confirm that the content is as I have presented, less typo errors, correct. I believe John Beaman has a copy made from the C-AMT material I obtained from NARA, College Park and he should be able to confirm the data I have presented as being a true and accurate abstracting of the contents.



As I said earlier, this item was really a test, it seems to me that most of the initial comments were negative. Even when I explained in greater detail, attempts trying to “prove” that this data was “old” or “wrong” continued.. What crap! The data is simply the data, and other than my typos, it is what the RLM published in 1944 and 1945 and as such is probably no more prone to error than the data that originated from the Erla factory or any other WWII German aviation documents. Remember, you have two organizations looking at the same situation from different POVs. Also, trying to parse Luftwaffe information to high precision is most of the time probably misleading, the data is just not that accurate.



Best regards,



Artie Bob