Fw 190 Production at Mimetall

[INM@RLM]

PS If you'd like to see a full and unvarnished copy of 'my' GFW D-9 study PM me an email address, Andy.

[INM@RLM]

Going back to post #1 here and the link to Hyperscale Forums with the 12-Jun-2025 post from Lynn Ritger with the words "Would now be a good time to point out that Mimetall didn't build a single Fw 190 D-9?"
In support of that position LR posted a German document showing the Fw 190 delivery position at 31-Dec-44.

A few clarifications:
Mimetall delivered no Fw 190s during 1944, but they did in 1945.
The first Mimetall Fw 190 deliveries were of 64 D-9s in Jan-45. The relevant Beitrag document setting out the Jan-45 aircraft deliveries can be can be found in BA-MA RL 3/1278.
As to how Mimetall fitted into the overall Fw 190 D-9 program, in this January report the Fw 190 deliveries from Con Aslau, WFG & MME are sub-totalled together and against the WFG/Weser figure is the handwritten note "ARB GEM".
A reasonable interpretation is that all three sources were grouped together because all were actually Arbeitsgemeinschaft Roland enterprises, and this grouping then provided an actual total that could be compared directly with the total Fw 190 D-9 planned for the month from WFG in delivery plan LP 227/1.

That MME/Mimetall was indeed also under the Arb.Gem. umbrella is also indicated by a progress report on aircraft deliveries made in the first Dekade of Feb-45 that is found in BA-MA RL 3/1047. This makes separate mention only of these Fw 190 production sources:
FW
Arb.Gem.
Ago
GWF
NDW
ArW
Note: no separate mention of MME/Mimetall.
The Arb.Gem section of this report also includes the words "Sonderzug mit Rümpfen soll spätestens am 12.2 von Nordenham nach Erfurt abgeben" (A special train carrying fuselages is scheduled to depart from Nordenham for Erfurt no later than February 12).

So, I have to modify my earlier thoughts some since it is pretty clear from the evidence above that MME was indeed part of the overall Arb.Gem. Roland activity, but was separated from the other WFG/Weser portions in being assigned a separate prefix-50 WNr. series. The reason for the introduction of the additional prefix was clearly because the volumes expected could no longer be accommodated by sub-dividing further the prefix-40 sequences, and self-evidently 50 comes after 40.

Bottom line: the LR statement in his 12-Jun-2025 post to the effect that MME delivered no Fw 190 D-9s is incorrect, and should never be quoted as being accurate.

[INM@RLM]

One necessary update to my post #7 above.

With some additional WNr. data that has been kindly shared, I now need to amend the statement that read "WNr. 400201 to 400275 = 75 from Arbeitsgemeinschaft Roland".

That was far too prescriptive anyway since - as confirmed by CIOS Report No.330, June1945 - Bremen-Hamburg Area - although we only have a cumulative Fw 190 D-9 delivery figure for this plant at end 31-Jan-45, a thin stream of Fw 190 D-9 deliveries from Nordenham continued up to war's end.

The better statement is: WNr. 400201 to around or at least 400320 (highest known record currently is for WNr. 400316) in a continuing sequence described as from Arbeitsgemeinschaft Roland but actually originating from Weser Nordenham.

The WFG Lemwerder sequence was almost certainly also a continuing sequence rather than a block with hard boundaries, but for the moment there seems little possibility of improving on that statement.

One can see why German delivery reporting generally did not employ the term Arb.Gem. Delivery reporting needed to distinguish performance by individual site and Arbeitsgemeinschaft Roland was by its inherent structure a multi-site umbrella organization.

[INM@RLM]

More haste less speed it seems. Having checked back to my main file I need to correct the early part of my clarifications set out in post #12 above.

The document posted by Lyn Ritger was not the (cumulative) "Fw 190 delivery position at 31-Dec-44" but only that for the month of December 1944.

My statement "Mimetall delivered no Fw 190s during 1944, but they did in 1945." must change to "Mimetall delivered Fw 190s beginning in December 1944 and this continued into 1945."

The reason no deliveries from MME/Mimetall were mentioned in this Fertigungsstand report posted by LR is because it is a high-level report setting out the position in summary and at Programme level.
The Mimetall Fw 190 deliveries made in December 1944 are included but they are hidden within the total given for Arb.Gem.

That can be established by comparing these Fertigungsstand report figures with those in the more detailed monthly reporting titled Beitrag zur Beschaffungsmeldung for Dec 44.
Two points in passing here:
1. The Beitrag zur Beschaffungsmeldung report series replaced the RLM C-Amts Monatsmeldung series when the Speer Ministry of Armaments and War Production assumed responsibility for aircraft production from the RLM and the Air Ministry.
2. The Dec-44 report for aircraft deliveries that is missing from RL3/3733 in the BA-MA, does survive and was very fortunately found by Steve Coates in the IWM under document reference FD5562/45. For some reason it seems this document was not selected for repatriation to Germany. Mistakes happen.

So the Fertigungsstand for the month of Dec-44 evidences 126 Fw 190 delivered by Arg.Gem. split between 84 x D-9s and 42 A-8/-9s. (You arrive at these sub-type totals by adding up the delivery figures for each Dekade.)

For the same month the Beitrag presents a sub-total of 132 Fw 190 described as "Gesamt: Arb.Gem".
This comprises:
8 x A-8 from MME/Mimetall
74 x D-9 from MME
14 x A-8 from WFG
36 x D-9 from WFG
Add those up and the sub-total of 132 is split 22 x A-8s and 110 D-9s

So there is an overall difference of 6 between the two sets of figures, and the D-9 figure is understated by at least 20 with the A-8s overstated by the same quantity. Mistakes happen.
The bottom line though is that categorically most of this Arb.Gem. output came from MME/Mimetall.

You can perform the same exercise on the Fertigungsstand and Beitrag figures for January 1945, and here again Mimetall accounts for most of the Arb.Gem. output. The difference between the two sets of figures here narrows to just 1 with 108 in the Beitrag, and 107 in the Fertigungsstand, which in this case gives no split between sub-types.

As to the surprise inclusion of A-8 deliveries from plants intended to exclusively deliver D-9s, this points to blips in the supply of Jumo 213s and of the extra fuselage section required for the D-9, with the labour available then being used to build the far more available assemblies and engines of the A-8.

[Leo Etgen]

Hi INM@RLM

Many thanks for your detailed and very informative posts regarding the production of the Fw 190 D-9. It is great to see research such as this being done and shard with all and certainly helps our understanding of what was happening in regards to the manufacturing effort of the German aviation industry at the time which is complicated by the profusion of shadow factories building components which were then shipped to a main production center where final assembly and flight testing would take place. I think that this is possibly what we are seeing with Arbeitsgemeinschaft Roland / Weser Flugzeug Gesellschaft in which components from the later were assembled by the former. I believe JaPo noticed that the fuselage of a Mimetall associated aircraft wreck was fitted with a data plate which included an ordnance code known to be of Weser so this very much seems to be the case. These 500-series aircraft had a distinctive camouflage pattern with late RLM 76 variant undersides and also the gun cowling with a small bulge on the lower panel line which were quite different from those usually found on the Weser associated machines so there certainly were differences between the two. They had also began appearing in service in 1944 as JG 2 lost seven fighters and JG 26 lost four fighters of the 500-series during Operation Bodenplatte. I will take the opportunity to ask your opinion regarding a couple of mysteries I have with the Fw 190 A-8: According to Focke Wulf Jagdflugzeug by Rodeike the 350-series were built by Focke Wulf Aslau and the 380-series were built by Arado. The manufacturer of the 690-series was unknown at the time but we now know these were produced by Leichtbau GmbH Budweis. Could you confirm if the information regarding the 350- and 380-series is correct as I have seen some statements that these were produced / assembled by Weser and Mimetall respectively?

Horrido!

Leo

[INM@RLM]

Starting at the bottom first, Leo. We don't have to rely on opinions here.

In BA-MA RL 3/4139, along with at least some of those for the Ta 152, you will find the FoWu company-issued 'Kennziffer der Nachbaufirmen Fw 190, Stand von 15.12.1944'. (Evidently a document not available to Peter Rodeike those many years ago. We really need an updated edition of his book in English given the progress in discoveries since.) This document does get a mention though on p.472 of JaPo II.
There:
prefix-35 for the Fw 190 A-8 is given as "Arb. Gem. WFG, Nordenham"
and prefix-38 for the Fw 190 A-8 is given as "Mimetall-Erfurt"

This will also be the source for the statement that
prefix-69 for the Fw 190 A-8 was "Leichtbau Budweis".

While we're here, the Fw 190 D-9 prefixes were listed in this document as:
40 = "Arb. Gem. WFG, Nordenham"
50 = "Mimetall-Erfurt"
60 = "Fieseler'

Where it gets into opinion is that despite the document stating that prefix-40 denoted simply "Arb. Gem. WFG, Nordenham", hence likely implying a single production source, the Werk-Nummer identity evidence for this prefix is that it was split into at least three distinct, separated sub-sequences each of which can be traced to a different physical location. So in my own judgement, the common connection for each of these is that all of the fuselages used were built at Weser Nordenham. (That 190 fuselages were built at Nordenham is documented in the CIOS report already mentioned.) Then, in addition to final assembly of complete D-9s at Nordenham itself, these fuselages were also despatched to a number of other final assembly locations under the Arb. Gem. WFG umbrella. (I already cited the Feb-45 document evidencing the railing of fuselages from Nordenham to Erfurt clearly for use by Mimetall.)

I did not see that data plate reference in JaPo so if you find a page number for it that it would be useful.
There is a photo of the airframe data plate from Fw 190 D-9, WNr. 400255 at Urbanke: Green Hearts p.196. The Fertigunskennz. is MDL which is indeed that for Weserflug, Nordenham.

The practice of building sub-assemblies at multiple different plants to be brought together for final assembly at one location goes right back to the Ju 88 program planning of 1938, so there was nothing new in the concept. However, this was only feasible to the degree that an aircraft had been designed as separate modules. That was a key element of the Fw 190 design but had not even featured on the landscape when the Bf 109 was designed. What was the newer element in this was the transfer of flight testing away from the airfields at the production plants and its dispersal often across more than one testing site. OK, enough I think for one post.

[INM@RLM]

Actually there is one more thing worth mentioning here. If you turn to JaPo II p.456 you will find the statement "Acrft noted as formally delivered in the "Mitteilung WFG. Flugzeug-Übernahmeurkunden für Fw 190 A-8 / D-9 (Endmontagekopf Lemwerder, W.A. 1 1 xx)" of 15 Feb 45." noted against multiple identities in the WNr. 401 3XX sequence.
[Statement of WFG. Aircraft acceptances of Fw 190 A-8 / D-9 (from Final Assembly Point Lemwerder]
So there is this documentary proof of separate final assembly locations being recognized within WFG and then these being formally categorized as Endmontageköpfe, plus that this specific WNr. sequence came from Lemwerder and not Nordenham.

[Leo Etgen]

Hi INM@RLM

Many thanks for your detailed answers once again and the confirmation that the 350-series and 380-series were indeed built / assembled by Weser and Mimetall. I must have seen that document somewhere at some time and then the information became hazy but it's great to have the original source for it. I totally agree that is is time for an update of Focke Wulf Jagdflugzeug by Rodeike or something similar although McDermott has published a set of books on the paint, markings and production of the radial engined Fw 190 covering those produced by Apparatebau GmbH Oschersleben, Arado, Fieseler and Norddeutschen Dornier Werk which are excellent though I haven't seen that the volume covering Focke Wulf has been released yet. I searched for the information published in JaPo and found it on page 215 of Focke Wulf Fw 190D Camouflage & Markings but to be honest it was not a data plate of a 500-series machine but rather the same aircraft that you mentioned in your post, Fw 190 D-9 (W.Nr. 400 255), with the ordinance code identifying it as manufactured by Arbeitsgemeinschaft Roland. Note that they identified Weser Flugzeug Gesellschaft as a contractor to Arbeitsgemeinschaft Roland in that book which was quite confusing to me at the time as each was producing a separate series of fighters but now makes sense.

Horrido!

Leo

[INM@RLM]

Glad you enjoy a little more light, Leo.

Arbeitsgemeinschaft Roland was an almost deliberately confusing entity. In the matter of aircraft deliveries it is best thought of a hydra with many, many heads. When in doubt revisit the founding principle: this was not a single aircraft manufacturer but a sprawling organization established to repurpose and redirect the resources of manufacturers that had produced bombers and were now required to produce fighters, doing this without disrupting the existing fighter aircraft manufacturers.

The McDermott books are interesting but he seem to very deliberately steer clear of the Fw 190 D-series.

And to repeat, the Lyn Ritger statement in his 12-Jun-2025 post to the effect that MME delivered no Fw 190 D-9s is simply incorrect, and should never be quoted as being accurate.

[lritger]

I heard y'all were talking about me over here, LOL.

Re, Mimetall stuff... here's the thing.

Mimetall was the final assembly point for airframes in the 500xxx series and they show as such on the Bauaufsichtluft acceptance reports... but despite protestations to the contrary, the aircraft were not regarded as PRODUCED by Mimetall. The actual components were produced by Weserflug Nordenham and sent to Erfurt where they were put together and went through the Einflug/BAL process. And I want to be super clear here, that sounds absolutely stupid on the face of it... it's over 400km between Nordenham and Erfurt. It honestly makes no sense to me either, but I am simply relating precisely what is in the documentation held at BA-MA.

Let's start here - this is the Fertigungstand (completion status) for each manufacturer in Sonderausschuß F4 (Focke Wulf's production ring) as of 30 Jan 1945. The report is laid out very clearly - which is not always the case, as anyone who's spent any time deciphering wartime documents will tell you! - and the various firms building different variants of the 190 are seen on the left, with individual columns for the various Baureihen going from left to right.



Notice Mimetall is blank.

That means - in very clear terms - that no airframes were considered PRODUCED by Mimetall in January 1945. Note I said PRODUCED, not ACCEPTED.

The same applies to December 1944:



Once again all of the fields for Mimetall are blank, entirely bereft of any information whatsoever. But oddly, look at Arb Gem (Arbeits Gemeinschaft) - those totals are much higher than expected. So what gives?

I have yet to find the "Rosetta Stone" doc which lays out the exact responsibilities of each supplier - I have such Zentralfertigung docs for Messerschmitt but haven't found ones for Focke Wulf yet. What I can do is show you documents from Direktor Kalkert at Mimetall noting that airframes delivered from Weserflug were found to have problems and thus deliveries were halted as of 11 Dec 1944:



The real "smoking gun" was this communication from the director at Weserflug Nordenham on 24 Jan 1945 who says "I have just been informed by my final assembly plant, Mimetall, the local BAL is refusing acceptance of aircraft without the MW 50 system"

But don't take my word for it, here's the document itself - there's plenty of German speakers on this forum, tell me if I'm wrong, but I don't think I am.



I mean... if both Weserflug and Mimetall regarded Mimetall as the final assembly point for airframes actually BUILT by Weserflug, who am I to contradict them?

Again, I must emphasize this sounds borderline insane, particularly given the distances involved, so I do not blame anyone for their incredulous reaction - I had a similar reaction when going through these files. And bluntly, Mimetall did not show up on any of the PRODUCTION reports because they were too busy trying to get their tooling in order to build the Ta 152.

Anyways, there's the info, there's the actual data from both Weserflug Nordenham/Roland Arbeits Gemeinschaft and Mimetall themselves, I'm not "inventing" this or pulling it out of thin air.

It would be interesting to know where those airframe components were painted... I haven't found a single hint in the files yet.

Cheers,

Lynn