Bf109 Neubau 1/44 to 3/45

[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

[John Beaman]

I can confirm what ArtiBob says about these documents as I have copies. As he says, the data was posted about 30 days after the end of each month and corrections to previous totals were made along the way. It was very current.

What is also interesting is to note that the documents and formating change along the way, in effect, evolving to fit the needs of the reports. They were also done on different typewriters along the way.

I think it was quite generous of ArtieBob to take the time to make the table and post it even though a couple of lines were mis-formated. It takes time to work though such documents and compile such a table.

[George Hopp]

I agree completely with John's assessment of Art's efforts.

[vzlion]

Thank you Artie Bob for taking the effort to post this info in the first place and again for taking the time to explain it. I for one appreciate it.
Thanks,
Walt

[Rasmussen]

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

[Ruy Horta]

Lets not spoil an interesting thread, I think we are all enthusiatic about the content.

Thanks Artie!

Personally the high K-2 numbers come as a surprise, almost as high as K-4 production.

OTOH it is good to see the same month gap between production of the K-2/4 and G-10 "bastard" aircraft, although that single september G-10 spoils the party somewhat.

Perhaps I am being silly but I never realized that the ratio between K-2 and -4s was almost 1:1.

Guess I am spending too much time on other theatres of operations!!

[George Hopp]

Originally Posted by Ruy Horta

Personally the high K-2 numbers come as a surprise, almost as high as K-4 production.

I'm not certain if you are serious or not, Ruy. But, if you are, please look at Artie's response to my question about the K-2 production line, which was that this was actually G14 production. It appears that there were only ever 1 or 2 K-2s ever built. And, they were a totally different chicken than was the K-4. In fact, I think I made mention of this in an earlier comment.

All the best,
George

[Ruy Horta]

ah, was afraid I missed something in the thread (poor excuse for a moderator).

Well at least the world is back to what it was before this shock!