Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ArtieBob
1.)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.
2.)
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.
|
to 1.)
Yes, I'm sure that I didn't transposed the numerals. Here the original text of the January - document:
"Die 1160 Fz Bf 109K-2 werden als K-2/R-3 ausgeliefert.
Grund: Bauunterlagen für K-2 sind grundsätzlich auf Einbau des Motors DB 605D abgestellt. Da aber bei Erla noch DB 605A - Motoren einzubauen sind, kommt für Erla nur die Baureihe K-2/R-3 in Frage."
And the writer of this document didn't transposed the numerals because in the same document is another point the description of the change between the K-3/R-2 and K-1/R-2. So he knew what he wrote :-).
to 2.)
I don't understand why an answer here in TOCH not confirmed the own position is an personal attack (see the Emmerling/Grabowski discussion). I'd never say YOUR informations are old or you are an liar I said that the informations used by RLM are "old" or "wrong" or "incomplete". Maybe my English isn't the best and often I'm searching for the right word without the chance to find it (like in this posting too) but my German is one of the best - I'm a native speaker :-).
So I repeat it again - many of the numbers used in this documents are NOT confirmed by Erla calculation reports to the RLM.
And you can be sure I can prove this statement W.Nr. by W.Nr. and BAL date by BAL date for most of the reported numbers.
2 example:
a.)
July 1944: (let's talk about Neubau G-5 not Neubau G-5/R2)
"your" RLM list --- no G-5, no G-6, no G-14 (nothing ??)
Erla report --- 8 G-5, 71 G-6 , 186 G-14 (most of them were G-6MW 50 - in principle G-14)
from reasons of time only the G-5:
W.Nr. 110 519 BAL: July 31, 1944
W.Nr. 110 520 BAL: July 31, 1944
W.Nr. 110 551 BAL: July 31, 1944
W.Nr. 110 553 BAL: July 31, 1944
W.Nr. 110 554 BAL: July 31, 1944
W.Nr. 110 555 BAL: July 31, 1944
W.Nr. 110 557 BAL: July 31, 1944
W.Nr. 110 559 BAL: July 31, 1944 ---- 8 machines like reported
Now it's possible to say the a/c' s were accounted for August but there you can't find numbers in "your" RLM list and another number in the Erla reports (again confirmed by W.Nr. and so on). September machines G-5 are not reported by BAL Erla.
b.)
March 1945:
"your" RLM list --- 4 G-10
Erla Report --- 5 G-10
and here the numbers:
W.Nr. 491 400 BAL: March 30, 1945
W.Nr. 491 474 BAL: March 16, 1945
W.Nr. 491 495 BAL: March 08, 1945
W.Nr. 491 496 BAL: March 07, 1945
W.Nr. 491 506 BAL: March 01, 1945 ---- 5 machines and not 4 like the RLM list stated
That's the reason why I stated these numbers are "wrong" or "incomplete" --- in all probality would be "different" the best word. I know the small differences reported in pilot logs and this official dates (in most of the cases not more then one day) but the official date was the day where the a/c was takenover and the day where booked out (insurance, render accaunt and so on).
I don't know the reasons for this differences. So I would be happy to learn more if someone had an explaination (but without personal attacks like in another thread).
Best wishes
Rasmussen