Bf109 Neubau 1/44 to 3/45

[ArtieBob]

I was off teaching today, but here are replies in sequence:



General:

There are two sources for this data, C-AMT Monatsmeldung and the Gen .Qu.(6 Abt.III C) Flugzeugverteilung for various months from Jan 44 to Mar 45. The data as far as I can tell represents neubau Flugzeug accepted by the Luftwaffe (which would mean after flight test acceptance by BAL).



There is an error in positioning for two rows. The Mttr G 14AS row should total 1270 and the Erla G 14 AS row should total 107.



The bold numbers represent data that was not specific as to location. In some cases this seems pretty clear as no plant other than WNF built G 8 /R5s. Others are possibly split between more than one location. The overall subtype totals should not change.



G.Hopp- You are correct on the positioning of two rows (see above), my mistake when trying o reformat so I could post the table as an attachment here.



Rasmussen- As I noted (see above), two rows were mispositioned, but only two, so the numbers from my data show 107 Erla G 14AS produced, as the bold numbers indicate, the split by plant could be off for Dec 44 , Feb and Mar 45. I had to make a choice of how to present the data, this was my compromise.

Rasmussen- “ I guess the documents are to "old" and wrong or incomplete in many parts”. Hell no! The sources were chronologically correct, from RLM sections that had to do with production and distribution and more definitive than any other overall documentation I have seen! My sources are now identified, where did you get your information?



Olve Dybvig- please note that my table agrees with the data at SIG Norway for Jan-Mar 44 (the only months of the Monatsmeldung that are posted at that site).



Dénes- This being Luftwaffe data, it does not include aircraft directly accepted by Hungary, also, as clearly stated, does not include production prior to Jan 1944 or after Mar 45.



Kurfurst-I frankly don’t care what the Japo 109K book says, where did they get their information? Other than my typo errors incorrectly positioning two lines of data, I have simply tabulated data from two primary sources. I have cross checked these sources against other primary sources and so far, the correlation is very good.



This was sort of a test to see what sort of response presenting some data from primary sources would elicit from the board. I am not going to say a lot more other than when dealing with primary data, one needs to be very careful what you are really looking at. I also believe that in looking at Luftwaffe production data, you must recognize the difference between Neubau, Umbau and Reparatuer. Also prototypes and in some instances null series apparently are not included in totals. Finally, there are a number of reasons some of the numbers may be off, if you can’t figure out how small variances could occur for yourself, then I’m not going to waste my time helping you. The table was a project done during free time when I couldn’t be doing much else, I really don’t give a __ about Bf 109s.



Best regards,



Artie Bob

[Rasmussen]

Originally Posted by ArtieBob

I was off teaching today, but here are replies in sequence:



There is an error in positioning for two rows. The Mttr G 14AS row should total 1270 and the Erla G 14 AS row should total 107.



Rasmussen- As I noted (see above), two rows were mispositioned, but only two, so the numbers from my data show 107 Erla G 14AS produced, as the bold numbers indicate, the split by plant could be off for Dec 44 , Feb and Mar 45. I had to make a choice of how to present the data, this was my compromise.

Rasmussen- “ I guess the documents are to "old" and wrong or incomplete in many parts”. Hell no! The sources were chronologically correct, from RLM sections that had to do with production and distribution and more definitive than any other overall documentation I have seen! My sources are now identified, where did you get your information?

Hello Artie Bob,

my sources are the original monthly calculation reports from Erla to the "Reichsminister der Luftfahrt und Oberbefehlshaber der Luftwaffe" in Berlin W8, Leipziger Str.7, from 01/44 - 04/45. So the line of G-14/AS was the following: August - 28, September - 95, October - 9, November - 3. This number is crosschecked for example by the original "Lieferung Bf 109 nach Plan 227 laut Besprechung mit F2 am 4.12.44 u.6.12.44" from 6.12.44 where in the column "Lieferung bis 30.11.44" is written "135". So the point can be that the RLM taked over 107 a/c but Erla delivered for sure 135 a/c.

And regarding the K's the statements of your documents are "old" for sure - source: "secret information number 86" from 25.January 1944 regarding "RLM Lieferplan 225/1 vom 1.12.43, Besprechung der Arbeitsgruppe 109 am 21.1. in Regensburg". 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.

Best wishes
Rasmussen

[Dénes Bernád]

Hello Artie Bob,

My reply - and I believe others' too - was not directed against you, by any means. It merely added new information/corrections, and thus updated your list drawn from primary sources.

Perhaps, I should have included a thank-you for your kind effort to post primary material here. The fact that I forgot to do it is solely due to the fast pace we are all living, which often means cutting corners.

On a positive side, your post generated a lively debate on a concrete issue, which is more than welcome here. Eventually, we all will hopefully learn from this thread.

Thank you, again, for your time and effort. I certainly hope more similar posts will follow.

[George Hopp]

Fact: there was planned to built by Erla the K - 2 ... but: the plan was from November 1943. In January 1944 nobody spoke about the K - 2 but the K-2/R3. In May the complete K-2/R3 production plan was shelved.

Off topic: If you look at the reports on the initial development of the 109K, you will see that it was simply meant to be a more streamlined 109G, still with the DB 605A, and usually equipped with GM-1. And, production was to begin in Jan '44. I guess that the developmental test results of the DB 605AS, as well as of the DB 605G (later DB 605AM) must have changed enough minds that the initial 109K was not proceeded with. At first the new additions to the 605A engine were used individually. The DB 605AS with its 603 supercharger, was installed into already built 109Gs, starting in early 1944, as Umbaus, to create a better high-level fighter. Then the DB 605AM was installed to create the 109G14 and a better low-level fighter. And finally, the 603 supercharger and methanol injection were combined in the DB 605D to be installed in the new 109K (as well as the 109G10), to create a more capable low-, medium-, and high-level fighter.

[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!!