Question about Bf 109K-4

[Flammenwerfer]

Thnx ArtieBob for your answer.

You noticed the pilot's experience factor. I agree with it, but I rather intend not to jugde both types (let's treat Fw 190D-9 and Ta 152H-1 fighters together as Focke-Wulfs): Bf 109K-4 and Focke-Wulfs, and decide which aircraft was better, but I just want to say in my opinion Bf 109K-4 could compare and fight as good as Focke-Wulfs. Right, I know all technical data and performances these fighters and I realize that Bf 109K-4 with his 727 kph maximum speed, excellent climb rate and not bad armament was not worse than Focke-Wulfs.

I read that Third Reich produced 190 Ta 152H-1, 650 Fw 190D-9 and ca. 1000 Bf 109K-4. Still I would want to know the effectiveness in fight (air victories) each of them. But this would be hard.

My good well-known Luftwaffe expert describes Bf 109K-4 as the piece of scrap with powerful engine. Fw 190A was more developmental than Bf 109, which production should be ended at F version (I heard such as opinion too). But I think until Fw 190D and Ta 152H versions Bf 109 was better high-level fighter than Fw 190A (f.e. Bf 109G-10, predecessor of Bf 109K-4).

Ok, Bf 109K-4 as the costruction type in the end 1944 belongs to the past, but due to his speed&climb I think was not much worse than both Focke-Wulfs. The one thing I want to know is the keeping it in production was a mistake or not?

Regards

Flammenwerfer

[ArtieBob]

That is really a pretty easy question, once you accept the premise that late in 1944, the question is whether Germany should have continued to build any aircraft at all. If you were going to build aircraft that you no longer provide with either properly trained crews or fuel, then it mattered very little what type you built, so one is just as good as another if the only thing you are doing is sating the goverment and military's desires for numbers (we built 5000 a/c this month, of course there are only resources to use 1000 of them).

For Germany as a nation, the best thing that could have been done by Fall 1944 was to seek peace under the best conditions it could. That would have saved a lot of German lives and resources. By that time there was no real possibility that any of the original objectives of the war could be attained and it was time to cut their losses. But governments rarely make very good decisions in such times and many of the mistakes made by Nazi Germany have been repeated several times over in the interim by many nations, continuing possibly even to today.

[Kutscha]

Originally Posted by Flammenwerfer

I read that Third Reich produced 190 Ta 152H-1, 650 Fw 190D-9 and ca. 1000 Bf 109K-4.

You need to revise your production numbers. D-9 > ~1800, K-4 > ~1700. For the Ta 152H-0/H-1 only 43 from known WkN, with maybe 67 total (includes prototypes??).

Be careful with K-4 performance numbers. The best performance was obtained at 1.98ata but this required C3 + MW50. Normal boost was 1.80ata. It is questionable on how many of the 4 Gruppen authorized to use 1.98ata with 140 a/c (79 operational) {as of beginning of April 1945} were really converted to be able to use 1.98ata. There is also the question of C3 deliveries to these Gruppen.

Your friend has a point. It was noted in some German correspondence that 109 airframes were of poor quality at the time 1.98 was being cleared for operational use in late Feb/early March 1945.

The G-10 and K-4 came off the production lines at the same time > Oct 1944.

[Primoz]

Poor quality was a very widespread problem in the Luftwaffe. The quality of Bf 109 airframes certainly varied a lot. This is hardly surprising considering the general conditions (lack of raw materials, poor quality fuel, slave labor, dispersed production etc.). Don't forget the extensive exhaust staining on German aircraft; all versions of the Jumo 211 and the BMW 801 being very "dirty".

In general, I agree with ArtieBob's considerations - but I'd like to point out that in late 1944 there was no other option for Germany but unconditional surrender (at least after Graf Stauffenberg's bomb failed to kill Hitler).

[gibsonfndr]

"The one thing I want to know is the keeping it in production was a mistake or not?"
Very interesting indeed.
According to Galland's book, it certainly was not a mistake (or am I totally wrong ?)
the k4 would've been as good as any other plane flown by properly trained pilots, with proper tactics AND proper petrol.Hitler's obsessions made the plane useless but it made ANY plane useless.
Now as for what the Germans should've done, it's quite a different topic. surrender in 44 ? sure but ... what about "not invading Russia until UK was knocked out" ? or "not declaring the war to the US after Pearl Harbor" ? you can't rewrite history, can you ?

[George Hopp]

Unfortunately, after the Casablanca declaration of "Unconditional surrender" the Germans might as well fight to the bitter end since there were now no other options left open to them. What I mean is, that regardless of when the Germans surrendered, their world would be destroyed.

Although none of the 109s was ever as competent a bomber killer as the 190, it was definitely more maneuverable than the radial-engined 190 (see Nick Beale's "Ghost Bombers" web site). So, it was meant to be the top cover to the bomber killing 190s, to defend against the USAAF escort fighters.

Was it as maneuverable at the 190D? I don't know, and perhaps someone else has data on this. It certainly was not as maneuverable as the Ta 152H at altitude.

Should the 109K have been produced? Why not? Until there was large-scale production of another high-altitude fighter, the GAF needed something there. Yes, there were all sorts of problems, including shortage of personnel; but, until the last day, would anyone dare to quit their work of planning and producing?

[robert_schulte]

Off topic, but an interesting question:

Had Germany surrendered on lets say 15 Sep 1944, when the Western front was nearing the German border (like the unconditional surrender in 1918, when the military administration realized, that the war was lost), what had become of the East Europian countries, like Hungary;Romania and - yes, Poland, when the Eastern front was still far away from there? Would there have been a chance, to establish a non-communist government in those countries?

Regards,
Robert