Late war Bf 109 pictures source

[Marc-André Haldimann]

Hej Anders,

Thanks for confirming those identities issues;

The source for those errors is a faulty method I adopted to cross-check between published photographs and known W.Nr. numbers in the losses published, in this case by Lorant an Goyat 2005.

Thanks for addressing those points, I will rework accordingly the database. I will be glad for any other pointer regarding other "improbable" W.Nr.'s, my aim being to offer the best available data, based on available photographs.

Cheers
Marc

[Oberst]

One thing I'll say about the Mtt-Reg built G-10 machines (130 XXX batch), they are consistant in colours & paint scheme. From what I've seen anyways. I also starting to sway to the side of most were RLM 74/75 rather then RLM 75/82(83?).

[RolandF]

Hi all,
the Bf 109 tail units were fabricated by subcontractors; tailfin and rudder being produced by different wood-working factories to include also these industries into the Nazi war effort.
Those parts were pre-fabricated completely including camo and markings as can be seen in Merrick´s "Luftwaffe camo and markings" p.42 and D'Amico and Valentini's "Camo and markings of the ANR" p.117. Very often fin and rudder did not fit together concerning colour and colouring techniques as can be seen in the last example - a combination of mottled respectively stencilled camo on rudder resp. fin.
Fins with different camo were even produced side by side as can be seen on p.19 of Green's "Augsburg's Last Eagles". Fins with stencilled camo beside ones with mottled camo.
Mtt Regensburg production sites oftenly tried to compensate these different colour treatments by overspray with RLM 76.
The other point to be taken into consideration is the fact hat Mtt Regenburg wasn´t a homogenuous production site for the Bf 109G.
Fuselage production took place in "Gauting"(Hagelstadt), "Bürg"(KZ Flossenbürg) and KZ Mauthausen "Gusen").
Final assembly was in Regensburg-Obertraubling, Cham-Michelsdorf and Vilseck-Heringnohe.
Result were different camo schemes as can be seen examining the different placements of the Werknummern.
As long as it cannot be determined which Werknummern have been applied at the different production sites there will be little sense to establish any painting rules or regular schemes. Not to mention the different deliveries of the tail assembly.
Hope this helps

Regards

Roland

[Oberst]

Thanks for the information. Although confusing. W.Nr. 130 297 & W.Nr. 130 327 had the same camo scheme, so safe to assume 298 through 326 had the same? Made at the same sub-plant? Also, no evidence of RLM 76 overspray on either the above rudders.

Also I was under the impression that there were strick rules for painting, ie: Mtt-Reg / Erla / WNF had there own specific guidlines, and there sub-plants had to adhire by them.

[Rasmussen]

Originally Posted by Marc-André Haldimann

W.Nr. 490 xxx - 491 xxx

2. Bf 109 G-10 W.Nr. 490 383 "Rote 17", Lt. Josef Jordan, 6./JG 300, before 14 January 1945. Prien and Rodeike 1995, p. 158.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/2809206...57625208099917

Hello Marc,

you have to be more carefull with your research before you create new myths ... not all G-10 called Erla G-10 were Erla G-10 like #2. The Wnr. is wrong ... look on the chin bulges. I can't see your pictures but I fear there are some mistakes.

Regards
Rasmussen

[veltro]

To me, what Roland wrote makes perfect (although frustrating) sense.

Unless a production list will came out, detailing which Werke Nummern were produced in which site, it is almost impossible to make sense of different details apparently suggesting separate production sites (e.g. The position where the Werke Nummern were painted on each late-Bf 109...).

Concerning Erla G-10s there was some visual difference between earlier and later examples, like the removal of the antenna mast in later examples or the presence of standard (i.e. short) tailwheel in earlier ones...

Even here however, we should be able to understand the chronology of production of the 15x.xxx series compared to the 490-491.xxx ones and to be sure of how many production sites Erla had, or even id the switch of placement of the W.Nr. From top tail to mid position (in the 490-491.xxx batches) was due to different production sites or to the time of production.

Last but not least, a short note about tail & rudders: it is extremely true that most of the cases of application of such elements delivered from subcontractors and painted differently from the factory's camouflage, occurred at MTT and this already from late Bf 109 G-6 production (several of the tall-ruddered examples of G-6s supplied to Finland and Italy shows clear examples of this as well of the hasty 76 overspray to tone down the difference).

It is also true, that the much fewer cases in which this happened to Erla aircraft there was no overspray applied.

It would be extremely interesting to ascertain how many of these subcontractors there were and how was divided their supply to the various factories. As much interesting as finding copy of the painting directives they had received, since their finish appears amazingly consistent from early 1944 up to the end of the war...

Maybe this is only a foolish wish, but I'm somehow sure that such informations do exist and that sooner or later could be found.

[Oberst]

In the book JaPo Bf 109G-10, They say that Mtt-Reg produced a small number of G-10's totaling 121 aircraft, and were allotted W.Nr.130 000 - 130 500, between October 1944 and January 1945. So its fairly certain to say they were all manufactured in the same plant in my humble opinion.

[Rasmussen]

Originally Posted by veltro

Unless a production list will came out, detailing which Werke Nummern were produced in which site, it is almost impossible to make sense of different details apparently suggesting separate production sites (e.g. The position where the Werke Nummern were painted on each late-Bf 109...).

Hello Ferdinando,

IIRC we discussed detailed these things in the old 109Lair (now an dead forum) 10 years (or longer ) before. In those days I wrote that the position of Werknummer (on Erla a/c's) switched from the higher position to the position in the middle of the tail in the middle of December 1944 (independent from the production site). The same was it with the tail wheel (short/ longer) in February 1945. In most cases it depended from prerequisites of production and not from production site (regarding Erla).

Originally Posted by veltro

It would be extremely interesting to ascertain how many of these subcontractors there were and how was divided their supply to the various factories.

Quite simple --- there is an USSBS from Erla.

Best regards
Rasmussen

[veltro]

Thanks Rasmussen for reporting again here that "old" info (i did remember it too, but one thing is quoting someone else's info from memory and quite a different one if the the original owner of the info reports it personally...).

I'm also very glad to hear that such subcontractors' listing do exist (I guess that it would looks great in some publication), it would be perfect also to find (and know) the painting directives they received, because - as I have already said - the consistency of their application is truly remarkable.

[Marc-André Haldimann]

Originally Posted by Rasmussen

Hello Marc,

you have to be more carefull with your research before you create new myths ... not all G-10 called Erla G-10 were Erla G-10 like #2. The Wnr. is wrong ... look on the chin bulges. I can't see your pictures but I fear there are some mistakes.

Regards
Rasmussen

Agreed Rasmussen!

That's why I chose to go public: to be a common intelligence around this so intricate topic of late war Bf 109's... Thanks to the inputs of you all, this free for all fledgeling visual Encyclopedia of all W.Nr. documented Bf 109 G-6 through K-4 is gaining verified and solid ground.

Thanks again!
Marc