ME 109g-6 u4 arnaments?

[RalphZimmer]

Dear all,
Very interesting discussion!


I recall reading the following designations somewhere – it might be from a G-6/U4 manual I read some years ago in the then „Außenstelle des militärgeschichtlichen Forschungsamtes“ at Potsdam:
- G-6/U4: (MK108 in the engine)
- G-6/U5(IIRC): (U4+ 2 MK108 in gondolas)
There was a mention that the use of MG151 gondola weapons was forbidden. Unfortunately I am not at home to check my notices.

In my opinion Kurfürsts comments concerning Rüstsätze/Rüstzustände/Umrüst-Bausätze are correct – there would be no sense in changing the designation of an aircraft without lasting changes in its structure.

Therefore the different possible “Rüstsätze“ are not used in its designation as they where interchangeable in the field. Instead they are mentioned in the type´s manual, e.g in the manual for the G-6/U4 the possible Rüstsätze R3 (fuel tank) etc. were listed.

Thus I think there were (at least) three different types of variants/subvariants:
1) “Rüstsatz” (sing., plural: “Rüstsätze”: field-conversion-kits.
These were not mentioned in the aircrafts designation as the necessary plumbing/wiring was installed at the factory.

In each manual I saw the possible “Rüstsätze“ for the special subtype are listed (IIRC in Part 0).


2) “Rüstzustand” (sing., plural: “Rüstzustände”): actual equipment situation, which where installed not at unit at level. These required extensive changes which were not possible at unit level. The designation of the subtype was changed too. Examples are the recce variants G-4/R3 and G-6/R3 with two drop tanks under the wings.
As the Rüstzustand is part of the types designation, it is mentioned in the title of the corresponding manual.



3) “Umrüst-Bausatz” (sing., plural: “Umrüst-Bausätze”) (perhaps factory conversion kits?), which were not changeable at unit level, too.
As the Umrüst-Bausatz is part of the types designation, it is mentioned in the title of the corresponding manual.


The differences between “Rüstzustände and Umrüst-Bausätze are not perfectly clear to me, as both were carried out at the factory.
Perhaps the difference lies in the timing of the conversion, as the german “Umrüst-Bausatz” implies? In this case the conversion of an airframe to a “Rüstzustand” was carried out while under production, while an Umrüst-Bausatz was fitted afterwards?

Another designation that puzzles me is the “/R1” as in G-6/R1. These are sometimes mentioned in loss lists from Prien et al and were recorded at units in North Africa around 1942/43. I never heard of a Rüstzustand 1 but neither thought, that adding the Rüstsatz 1 (ETC) would alter the types designation, too. Perhaps also a habit of a technical officer or his clerk? Is there anybody to solve this?

Greetings from Essen
Ralph Zimmer