PDA

View Full Version : Did the Me-109e leaky plywood droptank ever exist?



stalkervision
10-31-2007, 07:00 AM
I have a running argument going with someone on another site that said it didn't? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif Also they imply a usable metal one did at the time of the battle of britain?

I quoted sources that said it did for example..

"I have also just found another confirming source for this in "THE BATTLE OF BRITAIN" by Richard Townsend Bickers. A very excellent source for BOB information.. A quote from the book..

" The Jagdflieger were aware that their BF 109 E's possessed sufficient endurance for a mere 20 minutes actual combat over Britain and that London represented the effective limit of their tactical radius. This embarrassing limitation had been foreseen and a jettisonable 66 Imp gal (300 liter) fuel tank had been developed and, in fact, manufactured in some numbers. However, produced from molded plywood, it was found to leak seriously after comparatively short exposure to the elements and its incendiary proclivity resulted in its rejection by BF 109E units."


Now the "disbeliever" wants a PRIMARY SOURCE that it did..

I have heard this leaky drop tank mentioned many times before by other authors when it comes to the 109e not having sufficent range to fly for extended times over england. The luftwaffe woudn't use it because it caught fire to easily and leaked although they were produced in large numbers..

Anyone have any more information on this plywood droptank?

stalkervision
10-31-2007, 07:00 AM
I have a running argument going with someone on another site that said it didn't? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif Also they imply a usable metal one did at the time of the battle of britain?

I quoted sources that said it did for example..

"I have also just found another confirming source for this in "THE BATTLE OF BRITAIN" by Richard Townsend Bickers. A very excellent source for BOB information.. A quote from the book..

" The Jagdflieger were aware that their BF 109 E's possessed sufficient endurance for a mere 20 minutes actual combat over Britain and that London represented the effective limit of their tactical radius. This embarrassing limitation had been foreseen and a jettisonable 66 Imp gal (300 liter) fuel tank had been developed and, in fact, manufactured in some numbers. However, produced from molded plywood, it was found to leak seriously after comparatively short exposure to the elements and its incendiary proclivity resulted in its rejection by BF 109E units."


Now the "disbeliever" wants a PRIMARY SOURCE that it did..

I have heard this leaky drop tank mentioned many times before by other authors when it comes to the 109e not having sufficent range to fly for extended times over england. The luftwaffe woudn't use it because it caught fire to easily and leaked although they were produced in large numbers..

Anyone have any more information on this plywood droptank?

luftluuver
10-31-2007, 07:13 AM
I quote from another board:

I read that stuff about German 'wooden' droptanks, too it usually appears in old Battle of Britain books from the 1960s, which are not very accurate. Frankly I doubt the story. Wood and Dempster is making one of these comments, but their comments on the LW are usually very negative, ill-founded and, not without bias.

Even in 1943 Bf 109G (light metal) droptanks found by the Brits were usually labelled 'Ju 87/NKF', which makes me think these 300 liter droptanks were taken over from the long range Ju 87 R and were available from the beginning.

The E-7 manual itself also shows quite clearly a light metal droptanks - and these manuals and their pictures were usually made before the type even made it into service, with pictures taken from prototypes etc.. I have never seen any primary reference to wooden LW droptanks, and I said, IMHO it`s another flower from the garden of BoB-literature, but I am ready to be corrected.

stalkervision
10-31-2007, 12:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
I quote from another board:

I read that stuff about German 'wooden' droptanks, too it usually appears in old Battle of Britain books from the 1960s, which are not very accurate. Frankly I doubt the story. Wood and Dempster is making one of these comments, but their comments on the LW are usually very negative, ill-founded and, not without bias.

Even in 1943 Bf 109G (light metal) droptanks found by the Brits were usually labelled 'Ju 87/NKF', which makes me think these 300 liter droptanks were taken over from the long range Ju 87 R and were available from the beginning.

The E-7 manual itself also shows quite clearly a light metal droptanks - and these manuals and their pictures were usually made before the type even made it into service, with pictures taken from prototypes etc.. I have never seen any primary reference to wooden LW droptanks, and I said, IMHO it`s another flower from the garden of BoB-literature, but I am ready to be corrected. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for the further info buddy. You have some very worthy points Imo. From what i have been able to find out further the germans did have drop tanks in the Spanish Civil war retrofitted to their biplane he-51's. They were well aware how to do it. I have a sneeking suspicion that as the article said "climate" had a lot to do with these plywood tank faliures. As anyone knows mosture and plywood don't mix to well. IMO the climate in Spain made these tanks a viable option if they were used there instead of metal tanks.

The whole subject is actually quite interesting.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Friendly_flyer
10-31-2007, 01:47 PM
I've read that the Bf 110 had a spare tank under the nose, made from fabric and plywood. It was not leaky, but highly flameable when empty (full of fumes). It worked in it's intended role, but was dropped after a few missions due to the hideous effect of a big blob of petrol fumes strapped under the belly while copious .303 with tracers where flying about.

Perhaps an author at some point had the two confused.

stalkervision
10-31-2007, 01:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Friendly_flyer:
I've read that the Bf 110 had a spare tank under the nose, made from fabric and plywood. It was not leaky, but highly flameable when empty (full of fumes). It worked in it's intended role, but was dropped after a few missions due to the hideous effect of a big blob of petrol fumes strapped under the belly while copious .303 with tracers where flying about.

Perhaps an author at some point had the two confused. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I have read now the 110 actually was equiped with drop tanks too! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

excellent info btw and appreciated greatly. Now I will have to look this one up too! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Daiichidoku
10-31-2007, 01:58 PM
BoB's "190bar" issue gestating?


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

stalkervision
10-31-2007, 02:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
BoB's "190bar" issue gestating?


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm afraid to ask what that is so I won't.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Daiichidoku
10-31-2007, 03:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
BoB's "190bar" issue gestating?


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm afraid to ask what that is so I won't.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


july 14th, 2008:
SoW:BoB official forums:

thread: why is Oleg Red Biased?
1st post: Oleg hates Germans, we have teh proofs 109 had drop tanks and orbited John O' Groats at 40,000ft for hours before returning to Berlin, the Russians were so impressed how the plywood bounced puny 303s off them, so they copied it and made deltawood

2nd post: yuo is wrong Nancy, besure, if Oleg says so, thats the way it is, ive named both of my sons and 3 daughters Oleg

3rd post: direct opposite of 2nd post

and so on, until Oleg gets so mad he never gives ANY 109 in SoW DTs

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

stalkervision
10-31-2007, 03:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
BoB's "190bar" issue gestating?


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm afraid to ask what that is so I won't.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


july 14th, 2008:
SoW:BoB official forums:

thread: why is Oleg Red Biased?
1st post: Oleg hates Germans, we have teh proofs 109 had drop tanks and orbited John O' Groats at 40,000ft for hours before returning to Berlin, the Russians were so impressed how the plywood bounced puny 303s off them, so they copied it and made deltawood

2nd post: yuo is wrong Nancy, besure, if Oleg says so, thats the way it is, ive named both of my sons and 3 daughters Oleg

3rd post: direct opposite of 2nd post

and so on, until Oleg gets so mad he never gives ANY 109 in SoW DTs

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif That's too funny! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Reading these ocassional gems makes me glad I am a member here.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Ratsack
10-31-2007, 06:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
...
The E-7 manual itself also shows quite clearly a light metal droptanks - and these manuals and their pictures were usually made before the type even made it into service, with pictures taken from prototypes etc.. I have never seen any primary reference to wooden LW droptanks, and I said, IMHO it`s another flower from the garden of BoB-literature, but I am ready to be corrected. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


The problem is that if the E-7 manual is the one that Kurfurst has shown before, it's from 1941. The tanks may have been available then, and yet not been available at the time of the BoB. Note that I am saying 'may': the point being that a document from 1941 doesn't really help us with this issue during the BoB.

If the manual is from Ausgust 1940, then that's a different matter.

cheers,
Ratsack

Blutarski2004
10-31-2007, 07:04 PM
Go here -


http://www.preservedaxisaircraft.com/Luftwaffe/relics/R...%20Messerschmitt.htm (http://www.preservedaxisaircraft.com/Luftwaffe/relics/Relics%20Messerschmitt.htm)


- and compare the photos of two ME109 drop tanks.

stalkervision
10-31-2007, 07:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
Go here -


http://www.preservedaxisaircraft.com/Luftwaffe/relics/R...%20Messerschmitt.htm (http://www.preservedaxisaircraft.com/Luftwaffe/relics/Relics%20Messerschmitt.htm)


- and compare the photos of two ME109 drop tanks. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They look quite a bit different don't they...? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Kurfurst__
11-01-2007, 04:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
The problem is that if the E-7 manual is the one that Kurfurst has shown before, it's from 1941. The tanks may have been available then, and yet not been available at the time of the BoB. Note that I am saying 'may': the point being that a document from 1941 doesn't really help us with this issue during the BoB.

If the manual is from Ausgust 1940, then that's a different matter.

cheers,
Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As some of you may recall, Ratsack had a very emberassing partisan stance on this and other matters in thread not that long ago. Just for the record and sake of historical facts I`d like to note, that when Ratsack claims the E-7 manual is from 1941, it`s a fabrication on his own initiative.

IMHO it`s quite possible that some BoB authors simply mixed up with Bf 110 tanks, or perhaps some earlier type used in the Spanish Civil War maybe (for, by all means, droptanks were nothing new in 1940). The earliest BoB book I can find it is Wood and Dempster`s 'The Narrow Margin'. While it`s an interesting day-to-day commentary of the Battle with some very neat statistical appendixes, the authors are not well-versed with aircraft (OTOH, few good sources existed when they wrote it) and are somewhat biased and prejudical.

In any case, E-7s, the first ones capable of carrying a droptank, came into operational service and action in August 1940, with 186 of them was completed by end of October 1940; total production up to June 1941 was 452, all but 30 until the end of March actually and many older Emils retrofitted to E-7 standards; the droptanks themselves were being tested on 109s a few months before BoB commenced IIRC.

To that date, I`ve never seen a wooden 109 droptanks myself.

Kurfurst__
11-01-2007, 04:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
Go here -

http://www.preservedaxisaircraft.com/Luftwaffe/relics/R...%20Messerschmitt.htm (http://www.preservedaxisaircraft.com/Luftwaffe/relics/Relics%20Messerschmitt.htm)

- and compare the photos of two ME109 drop tanks. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They look quite a bit different don't they...? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There were several different forms of the 300 liter droptank in existance, slightly different 'tail' shape etc.

JG52Uther
11-01-2007, 04:39 AM
The central 110 tank was called a Dackelbauch,and was,I think,a metal (aluminium?) tank covered by a wooden fairing.It was not a success.

JG53Frankyboy
11-01-2007, 04:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Friendly_flyer:
I've read that the Bf 110 had a spare tank under the nose, made from fabric and plywood. It was not leaky, but highly flameable when empty (full of fumes). It worked in it's intended role, but was dropped after a few missions due to the hideous effect of a big blob of petrol fumes strapped under the belly while copious .303 with tracers where flying about.

Perhaps an author at some point had the two confused. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I have read now the 110 actually was equiped with drop tanks too! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

excellent info btw and appreciated greatly. Now I will have to look this one up too! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

the main proplem of these, so called, "Dackelbauch" tanks under the fusealge was that than the 110 was not able anymore to carry bombs under the fuselage.
that was the main reason to drop this idea - and going to wingmounted droptanks.
btw there existed a field modification to carry one of the wingdroptanks under the fuselage - that was forbidden for the same reason....no bombs possible.

Kurfurst__
11-01-2007, 05:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG52Uther:
The central 110 tank was called a Dackelbauch,and was,I think,a metal (aluminium?) tank covered by a wooden fairing.It was not a success. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As per the old S-S 110 publication, the Dackelbauch modification (which makes the 110 look quite akin to the Mossies with the bulged bomb-bay) was made of fabric and wood, basically a single, huge 1200 liter wooden bulge attached to the belly. It was unsuccessful, and were replaced by underwing 300 (66 gallon) and 900 liter (198 gallon) aluminium drop tanks.

I guess we`ve found where the myth originates from. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Ratsack
11-01-2007, 05:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
The problem is that if the E-7 manual is the one that Kurfurst has shown before, it's from 1941. The tanks may have been available then, and yet not been available at the time of the BoB. Note that I am saying 'may': the point being that a document from 1941 doesn't really help us with this issue during the BoB.

If the manual is from Ausgust 1940, then that's a different matter.

cheers,
Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As some of you may recall, Ratsack had a very emberassing partisan stance on this and other matters in thread not that long ago.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're recollection is as odd, Kurfy, as your constant accusations of partisanship are thin and tedious. You provided the same picture from the same manual in an attempt to 'prove' that the Jagdwaffe were able to use drop tanks on their 109s during the Battle of Britain. Firstly, that's a different matter to the question under discussion here.

Secondly, the existence of a picture in a manual doesn't say anything about availability. It doesn't even demonstrate whether the tank pictured is standard or atypical.

Thirdly, your implicit claim that these tanks were available during the BoB gets very flaky when you consider the number of Jagdflieger who had to swim home for lack of fuel.

The manual sheds no light on the matter at all.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
IMHO it`s quite possible that some BoB authors simply mixed up with Bf 110 tanks, or perhaps some earlier type used in the Spanish Civil War maybe (for, by all means, droptanks were nothing new in 1940). The earliest BoB book I can find it is Wood and Dempster`s 'The Narrow Margin'. While it`s an interesting day-to-day commentary of the Battle with some very neat statistical appendixes, the authors are not well-versed with aircraft (OTOH, few good sources existed when they wrote it) and are somewhat biased and prejudical.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's also possible that they were simply right, too.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
...

To that date, I`ve never seen a wooden 109 droptanks myself. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As a matter of interest, I have a serious question for you if you can drop your little vendetta long enough to consider it. How would one identify a wooden or paper mache tank photographically? Consider, for example, that the cardboard tanks manufactured in the U.K. for the U.S. 8th Airforce were doped silver and otherwise looked like any other tank. Do you think you would recognize a wooden tank if you saw a picture of it?

cheers,
Ratsack

Ratsack
11-01-2007, 05:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
I guess we`ve found where the myth originates from. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I see that you've gone from voicing a qualified opinion that 'it's quite possible' that Wood & Dempster and others were wrong, to the certainty that they were wrong. I note also that you've done this on the basis of the fact that the 110 - a long range, twin-engine fighter - had unspecified problems with an under-fuselage tank. From your description of it, it sounds like what we'd call a conformal tank these days. That's a long way from a drop tank on the 109.

Nevertheless, full steam ahead and damn the torpedoes! From possibly wrong to confirmed myth in one easy step. This is the way to make history. Are you paying attention, Professor A.J.P. Taylor?
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif


cheers,
Ratsack

Kurfurst__
11-01-2007, 05:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
As some of you may recall, Ratsack had a very emberassing partisan stance on this and other matters in thread not that long ago. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Correction to the above :

Ratsack has a very emberassing partisan stance on this and other matters as in that emberassing thread not so long ago.

I`d leave partisanship and guesswork for others - here`s that famed pic from Bf 109 E-7 manual. Note the dent on the lower part of the aluminium tank.

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/E-7_alutbehalter.jpg

JG53Frankyboy
11-01-2007, 05:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG52Uther:
The central 110 tank was called a Dackelbauch,and was,I think,a metal (aluminium?) tank covered by a wooden fairing.It was not a success. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As per the old S-S 110 publication, the Dackelbauch modification (which makes the 110 look quite akin to the Mossies with the bulged bomb-bay) was made of fabric and wood, basically a single, huge 1200 liter wooden bulge attached to the belly. It was unsuccessful, and were replaced by underwing 300 (66 gallon) and 900 liter (198 gallon) aluminium drop tanks.

I guess we`ve found where the myth originates from. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
as far as i understand Mankau&Petrick this wood/fabric bulge was only the external, aerodynamic coverage of metall tanks - 1050 liters fuel and 106 liters oil.

Ratsack
11-01-2007, 05:32 AM
Yes, we know the aluminium tank existed.

Yes, we know there's a picture of it in the E-7 manual.

The picture doesn't mean there were no wooden ones.

The picture doesn't tell us when the alloy tanks became available.

The manual sheds no light on the matter.

Your constant bickering and re-hashing of an argument you lost months ago is, as I said before, tedious.

cheers,
Ratsack

Kurfurst__
11-01-2007, 05:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:

as far as i understand Mankau&Petrick this wood/fabric bulge was only the external, aerodynamic coverage of metall tanks - 1050 liters fuel and 106 liters oil. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mankau is most likely right, it`s an excellent, or should I say, the ultimate book on the Zestöers. I was just too lazy to wade through 400+ pages for a single piece of information. Indeed if it was a seperate oil/fuel tank it makes a lot of sense. Thanks! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

stalkervision
11-01-2007, 06:14 AM
This source mentions thar the E4/b had provisions for a drop tank. Another secondary source said it was a 215 kgs droptank..

http://wikipedia.ketsujin.com/index.php?title=Special:P...Messerschmitt_Bf-109 (http://wikipedia.ketsujin.com/index.php?title=Special:PdfPrint&page=Messerschmitt_Bf-109)

Kurfurst__
11-01-2007, 06:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
This source mentions thar the E4/b had provisions for a drop tank..

http://wikipedia.ketsujin.com/index.php?title=Special:P...Messerschmitt_Bf-109 (http://wikipedia.ketsujin.com/index.php?title=Special:PdfPrint&page=Messerschmitt_Bf-109) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The /B variants were equipped with a bombrack - I am not sure if they could carry a droptank since that would require some additional plumbing and modification (and, basically you`d call them E-7 then).

I would not put much faith in the source, ie. it states E-3s did not arrive until the fall of 1939, whereas in fact they entered production the same time as E-1s (if not sooner!), and substantial numbers were produced by the end of 1938 (in fact, the vast majority of Emils produced were E-3s at that time, E-1 production beig much slower initially). Both E-1s and E-3s arrived in numbers to Spain before the Civil War concluded.

Blutarski2004
11-01-2007, 01:54 PM
Go here for more explicit photos of a plywood droptank -

http://museum119.cz/nadrz/nadrz.htm

Kurfurst__
11-01-2007, 02:32 PM
Seems like an experimental installation for the Me 262 which was eventually not adapted.

I wonder what it has to do with droptanks for the Emil?

Whirlin_merlin
11-01-2007, 04:09 PM
Plywood aside.

Does anyone have good sources on 109 drop tank use during BOB?
I would genuinly be interested.

Blutarski2004
11-01-2007, 04:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Seems like an experimental installation for the Me 262 which was eventually not adapted.

I wonder what it has to do with droptanks for the Emil? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Simple. The tank is described as an "unknown" LW plywood drop tank. The Japanese gentleman ventured a "possible answer", which means he's not sure. You use the phrase "seems like", so you're not sure either.

I don't see the problem you are implying.

smokincrater
11-01-2007, 04:24 PM
The ME-110 vaiant with bulged ventral tank was the ME-110D-1/2.D-1 suffix being a figther verison and the D-2 being a recon version. They were made to escort bombers from Norway to targets in England.As noted above they were not much good and were replaced/modified in service back the standard C-4 day fighter and C-5 recon bird.

stalkervision
11-01-2007, 05:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
Go here for more explicit photos of a plywood droptank -

http://museum119.cz/nadrz/nadrz.htm </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

very interesting. Amazing you found this! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Xiolablu3
11-01-2007, 06:18 PM
Geeez, You guys should know by now that anything negative written about the Bf109 (even droptanks) is all a big Western conspiracy against the plane...

The Americans/British could admit that the Fw190, Mg42, Panther, stg44 etc etc were fantastic machines and equipment...

However the Bf109 was just SO SO good, there has been a big cover-up and smear campaign in the West as they simply can not admit what a phenomenal piece of equipment it was.

Remember though folks, its ONLY vs the Bf109.... Its OK to admit that the FW190/Me262/Mg42 and other weapons were fantastic.

smokincrater
11-01-2007, 06:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Whirlin_merlin:
Plywood aside.

Does anyone have good sources on 109 drop tank use during BOB?
I would genuinly be interested. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well if you had them I am sure some of them would have given them a go. Certainly it beats a swim back to France. But after they found that they leaked their thoughts probably dwelled on cutting short their flight rather be the main guest at their own funeral BBQ

Blutarski2004
11-01-2007, 07:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
Go here for more explicit photos of a plywood droptank -

http://museum119.cz/nadrz/nadrz.htm </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

very interesting. Amazing you found this! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Me too.

Ratsack
11-01-2007, 09:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Well if you had them I am sure some of them would have given them a go. Certainly it beats a swim back to France. But after they found that they leaked their thoughts probably dwelled on cutting short their flight rather be the main guest at their own funeral BBQ

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>


There are a few possibilities:

1. They may have had the tanks, but not had them where they needed them. The Yanks had that problem with drop tanks sitting in the US in late 1943, for example; or

2. They may have had the tanks, but not in sufficient numbers to use; or

3. They may have had the tanks, but not the requisite number of 109s with the conversion to use them; or

4. They may have had the tanks but they were not reliable (i.e., leaky plywood).

Whatever the actual case, the 109 units experienced problems with endurance when they were restricted to close escort. This, along with the losses due to inadequate endurance, indicates that tanks were not used on 109s in any significant way during the BoB.

cheers,
Ratsack

stalkervision
11-01-2007, 09:39 PM
What about the tanks demensions. Would it have fit a 109e? How do they compare to the bomb the 109e was known to carry?

http://museum119.cz/nadrz/2.jpg

stalkervision
11-01-2007, 09:42 PM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/84/Bf109E_3Seiten_neu.jpg/800px-Bf109E_3Seiten_neu.jpg

La7_brook
11-01-2007, 09:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Geeez, You guys should know by now that anything negative written about the Bf109 (even droptanks) is all a big Western conspiracy against the plane...

The Americans/British could admit that the Fw190, Mg42, Panther, stg44 etc etc were fantastic machines and equipment...

However the Bf109 was just SO SO good, there has been a big cover-up and smear campaign in the West as they simply can not admit what a phenomenal piece of equipment it was.

Remember though folks, its ONLY vs the Bf109.... Its OK to admit that the FW190/Me262/Mg42 and other weapons were fantastic. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> u forgot the king tiger , 262, nd the V2 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Copperhead311th
11-01-2007, 10:35 PM
<span class="ev_code_RED">WHERE YOU READ DROPTANKS MADE FROM WOOD? CLOSE THIS BOOK NEVER OPEN AGAIN!</span>

stalkervision
11-01-2007, 10:54 PM
I was just going over the book I saw the refrence to ABOUT the early plywood drop thank( The Battle of Britain by Richard Townsend Bickers (pg 68) and to my amazement there is a drawing of the 109e4 with a drawing of it's auxiliery equiptment and a early WOODEN DROP TANK IS SHOW THAT LOOKS EXACTLY LIKE THE PHOTO HERE!

http://museum119.cz/nadrz/2.jpg

Wish I could scan it in for you all and show you the drawing but I have no scanner.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Kurfurst__
11-02-2007, 04:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Seems like an experimental installation for the Me 262 which was eventually not adapted.

I wonder what it has to do with droptanks for the Emil? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

..... Simple. The tank is described as an "unknown" LW plywood drop tank. The Japanese gentleman ventured a "possible answer", which means he's not sure. You use the phrase "seems like", so you're not sure either. I don't see the problem you are implying. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh I see, a guy makes a photo with something that looks exactly like the experimental plywood droptank for the Me 262, which fact constitutes proof that it`s actually plywood droptank for the 109E and it was used too in 1940. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Again, what does it have to do with the Emil..? Where`s the connection?

The trouble with that tank, it`s far too big to fit under the Bf 109. It`s at least 2.5 meter long judging by the picture, and the actual droptank used on the 109s was 2177mm long, and even that left absolutely minimal ground clearance (for same reason, 500kg bombs were not used until the 109K and it`s tall tailwheel)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Whirlin_merlin:
Plywood aside.

Does anyone have good sources on 109 drop tank use during BOB?
I would genuinly be interested. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bf 109E-7s would be capable doing so, they were equipped with the rack and piping neccesary to carry the droptank. E-7s were introduced to service and combat in 26 August 1940. It`s somewhat unclear wheter E-7s had DB 601Aa or the more powerful DB 601N engines, or a mix of these two engines.

According to Rechlin`s 109E range tables, at 5km altitude using a the 300 liter single droptank extended range and endurance to 920km and 1h 50min at 500/520km/h, 1165 km and 2h 50min at 410/430 km/h, and 1325 km abd 3h 50min at 330/350 km/h cruise speed (droptank on/off).

http://kepfeltoltes.hu/071102/109E-7_droptank_www.kepfeltoltes.hu_.jpg

Blutarski2004
11-02-2007, 06:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Oh I see, a guy makes a photo with something that looks exactly like the experimental plywood droptank for the Me 262, which fact constitutes proof that it`s actually plywood droptank for the 109E and it was used too in 1940. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... I don't know what type of tank it is, or for what a/c. All I know is that is a LW drop-tank of plywood. I personally don't think that it looks "exactly" like the experimental 262 tank. Neither did the Japanese gentleman, and neither did you in your previous post.

As for relative sizes, go here -

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.cebud...%26rls%3Den%26sa%3DN (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.cebudanderson.com/images/droptank02.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.cebudanderson.com/droptanks.htm&h=495&w=450&sz=43&hl=en&start=22&um=1&tbnid=LqhMmEmPLX4HwM:&tbnh=130&tbnw=118&prev=/images%3Fq%3Ddrop-tank%26start%3D20%26ndsp%3D20%26svnum%3D10%26um%3D 1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dsafari%26rls%3Den%26sa%3DN)

to see the size of a 108-gal US drop-tank, which was about 1/3 greater capacity than the 75 gal (300-ltr) tank size under discussion. Reduce the height by 1/4 and it is still well over the height of the ground-crewman.

Kurfurst__
11-02-2007, 07:09 AM
In any case, I am quite certain that the picture you posted is not a Bf 109 droptank. It wouldn`t fit under the fuselage, and have some clearance, too. Even the standard 300 liter droptank had very little ground clearance.

What I can say for certain that all Bf 109 primary reference material and all pictures I have seen refer to the 300 liter aluminium droptank which`s shape we all know well, and there`s absolutely no picture or reference to plywood wooden droptanks I know of, or for that matter, anybody here.

It`s a bit like believing in a tooth fairy, believing in something nobody had ever seen. Rather irrational.

stalkervision
11-02-2007, 07:29 AM
The tooth fairy doesn't produce ACTUAL luftwaffe plywood droptanks and put them under kids pillows now does it.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

to go along with this plywood droptank refrence in the book it also show a very detailed cutaway drawing of a 109 e/4 and a drawing of this exact type of drop tank is show saying it is a "early type wooden droptank"

The artist apparently had pictures of the actual artifact he was drawing the tank from!

Kurfurst__
11-02-2007, 07:32 AM
Subject was originally the alleged existance '109E plywood droptanks', not 'Luftwaffe plywood droptanks', I believe. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Now, the tooth fairy certainly didn`t put any 109E plywood droptank under the pillow, now did she?
Until she does, I doubt, and with a good reason, that she even exists.

The only photograhpic evidence of 109E plywood droptanks so far :

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/wooden_droptanks.jpg

stalkervision
11-02-2007, 07:40 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Subject was originally the alleged existance '109E plywood droptanks', not 'Luftwaffe plywood droptanks', I believe. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Now, the tooth fairy certainly didn`t put any 109E plywood droptank under the pillow, now did she?
Until she does, I doubt, and with a good reason, that she even exists.

The only photograhpic evidence of 109E plywood droptanks so far :


http://museum119.cz/nadrz/2.jpg


I haven't seen any OTHER refrences to wooden plywood drop tanks of the luftwaffe except the Me-262 test. I highly doubt this drop tanks is from that test being it was so limited.

Do you have any other refrences to other planes used by the luftwaffe that were equiped with plywood drop tanks?

Kurfurst__
11-02-2007, 07:53 AM
So it`s a 109E droptank now.

May I ask, how did you arrive at that conclusion that it is for an Emil..?
How did it suddenly become a 109 droptank, used in mid-1940 nonetheless ?

Or is it just a picture taken somewhere with a guy standing beside a big brown thing?

stalkervision
11-02-2007, 08:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
So it`s a 109E droptank now.

May I ask, how did you arrive at that conclusion that it is for an Emil..?
How did it suddenly become a 109 droptank, used in mid-1940 nonetheless ?

Or is it just a picture taken somewhere with a guy standing beside a big brown thing? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I have seen it refrenced in three sources now the one main one being "The Battle of Britain" by richard townsend bickers who apparently was quite a ww2 aviation author. There is also a drawing of it that looks just like the photo of this "brown thing"

I am not making this up. Apparently some people at one time had actual real info on this. Because it was a failed project it appears it was forgotten after that by all but a very few people. Not an uncommon thing to happen btw..

luftluuver
11-02-2007, 08:10 AM
Of all the BoB 109 photos, and even profiles, I have seen, I have not found one with a drop tank. Lots with bombs, though.

stalkervision
11-02-2007, 08:18 AM
This whole thing is highly plausable given the fact there is a picture of an actual luftwaffe plywood drop tank.

Here is some other thing you would never believe is true either a 109 "food bomb" !

http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt07/food-drop.html

Have you seen any of these apparently they used quite a few and they were rsther large containers to sling under a 109!


I also KNOW for a fact from a direct source me-109's were used frequently to carry the pilot and three to six people in an emergency from harms way! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif True story!

Whirlin_merlin
11-02-2007, 08:31 AM
Come on Time-team we can do better than this.
Let's see what we've got.

1) Such things as German plywood drop tanks do appear to have existed. We even might have a photo of one but nothing linking it to a BOB era 109.
2) The E7 could carry a drop tank.

However so far I've seen nothing here or else where to state that they did during BOB, plywood, aluminium or made from recycled ladies underwear.

Blutarski2004
11-02-2007, 08:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
In any case, I am quite certain that the picture you posted is not a Bf 109 droptank. It wouldn`t fit under the fuselage, and have some clearance, too. Even the standard 300 liter droptank had very little ground clearance.

What I can say for certain that all Bf 109 primary reference material and all pictures I have seen refer to the 300 liter aluminium droptank which`s shape we all know well, and there`s absolutely no picture or reference to plywood wooden droptanks I know of, or for that matter, anybody here.

It`s a bit like believing in a tooth fairy, believing in something nobody had ever seen. Rather irrational. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... I suggest that your logic here is faulty. Absence of evidence dos not constitute proof.

No one has stated categorically that the droptanks in these photographs WERE for a ME109. The photos simply confirm the fact that wooden LW drop-tanks existed.

Since the specific employment of these wooden tanks remains unknown at the moment, the possibility logically exists that they MAY or MAY NOT have been used on ME109s.

Your argument that the wooden tanks pictured would not fit beneath a 109 is not supportable without knowledge of the exact shape and dimensions of the tank(s) in question - something that cannot be obtained from these photos.

As to Stalkervision's reference of a diagram purporting to show an "early type wooden droptank" fitted beneath a 109E4, unless you are prepared to argue that the authors generated it wholly from their imaginations, you must admit that it has some respectable merit as evidence.

Kurfurst__
11-02-2007, 09:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
..... I suggest that your logic here is faulty. Absence of evidence dos not constitute proof. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, I am sure one can go on with some arguements, counter arguements and the partisan attitude - but these are essentially rhetorics without substance.

I don`t see the need to. If people are claiming that plywood droptanks were used by early 109s in 1940, they should support the statement with evidence. If they can`t, they can stick with their beliefs if they want.

The complete lack of any evidence suggest that it`s an old fairy tale stemming from certain very old, historical, and not technical books on the BoB.

Unless, of course, you`re prepeared to accept and believe the existance of the tooth fairy - after all, there`s no evidence that she doesn`t exist, yes?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">No one has stated categorically that the droptanks in these photographs WERE for a ME109. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Stalkervision did.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The photos simply confirm the fact that wooden LW drop-tanks existed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

... then I ask for the 3rd time, what relevance this claim has to the subject

'Did the Me-109e leaky plywood droptank ever exist?'?

Or is it a red herring? A strawman arguement?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
Since the specific employment of these wooden tanks remains unknown at the moment, the possibility logically exists that they MAY or MAY NOT have been used on ME109s. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

... let`s discuss then 'Did 109Es flew with purple milka cows attached to fuselage flew in BoB?'

I can certainly show you pictures of purple milka cows. They may or may not have been used on Me 109s then.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Your argument that the wooden tanks pictured would not fit beneath a 109 is not supportable without knowledge of the exact shape and dimensions of the tank(s) in question - something that cannot be obtained from these photos. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Like I said, there`s no shortage of arguements, and this can be continued indefinietely .

Unfortunately, it does not make up for lack any actual evidence for the existance of plywood droptanks used on 109s in 1940.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As to Stalkervision's reference of a diagram purporting to show an "early type wooden droptank" fitted beneath a 109E4, unless you are prepared to argue that the authors generated it wholly from their imaginations, you must admit that it has some respectable merit as evidence. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am quite prepeared to argue that the authors generated it wholly from their imaginations. After all, it`s just a drawing, that claims to depict a droptank no primary source seem to show, on a 109E-4 nonetheless, a variant that had absolutely no way of using a droptank, having neither the fitting nor the plumbing.

In contrast, the E-7`s aircraft manual clearly shows the standard, well known metal droptank of the same design as that of the metal droptank for the Ju 87R that existed earlier.

It`s pretty easy to decide between documented evidence and basically nothing.

Kurfurst__
11-02-2007, 09:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Whirlin_merlin:
However so far I've seen nothing here or else where to state that they did during BOB, plywood, aluminium or made from recycled ladies underwear. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nothing..?

http://kepfeltoltes.hu/071102/109E-7_droptank_www.kepfeltoltes.hu_.jpg

It looks like a factory fresh Bf 109E-7, carrying the standard aluminium 300 liter droptank of the Ju 87, the same that is depicted in the Bf 109E-7 manual. And the manual`s photographs (and thus the existance of the 300 liter droptank) obviously preceed the operational debut of the E-7.

It`s pretty clear cut.

luftluuver
11-02-2007, 10:20 AM
Sure Kapt K, a photo taken at a factory for a manual. Now where are the photos of 109s with drop tanks <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">during</span> BoB.

Whirlin_merlin
11-02-2007, 10:26 AM
Sorry maybe I misunderstood, I thought the photo was from 1941. I'm curious if they were used during the Battle of Britian, by which I mean the summer and autumn of 1940. I know some use a different definition for the BOB but that's what I meant by BOB era.

JG53Frankyboy
11-02-2007, 10:52 AM
according to Jochen Priens "History of JG53, Vol.1" at least JG53 received its first Bf109E-7s in October 1940.
And that the JG53 used 300liter Droptanks first in November 1940 in combat action.

there is even a picture of a Bf109E-1 (at least with no wingcanons) with a droptank in the book - dated at 9.November 1940 , because the pilot in front shows his fresh IronCross , and the date when he received this is known.
unfortantly the picture shows the plane direct front , so you cant indentify the tanks shape.


even if November 1940 fits perfect in the Italian force's (that will be simulated in SoW:BoB) combat time , i dont expect a droptank as 109 option !
i just expect the -/B option , to simulate the fighterbomberraids.

Kurfurst__
11-02-2007, 10:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Whirlin_merlin:
Sorry maybe I misunderstood, I thought the photo was from 1941. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don`t know the date it is from, unfortunately the book from which I scanned it doesn`t say so. Given the factory letters still present, it`s most likely a new aircraft.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I'm curious if they were used during the Battle of Britian, by which I mean the summer and autumn of 1940. I know some use a different definition for the BOB but that's what I meant by BOB era. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It`s difficult to say for 100% certainity what we know the E-7 was capable of carrying the 300 liter droptanks (this quality of it being the reason it`s no longer called E-4).

We know the metal droptanks were there from the start (as the manual already has them as illustration, and those illustrations were made before plane saw service), plus we also know that were originally made for the the Ju 87 (most likely the long range 87R) earlier (those took part in the Norwegian campaign already). Given the tank was in production for some time, most likely they were available too.

We know they had the E-7 in service on 26 August 1940, and in combat 31 August 1940; we know that on 31 August they were first in combat (and suffered the first loss, there were just 32 E-7s in service, albeit this is just a few days after their introduction, and for some reason does not include JG 77.

We know losses occured from a Stab unit and from II/JG 2, so these units definietely had them.

We know the quarterly production summeries show between July and October 1940 that 186 E-7s were produced.
Many older ones that were damaged were probably retrofitted at the factory, but we can only guesswork how many. We know that 22 E-7s were lost and 8 damaged in the said period.

Those are the facts we know so far, and from which you can arrive at your conclusions.

My conclusion is there were indeed droptank carrying Bf 109Es in the BoB in September and October, which had sufficient range and endurance, but not in the numbers to make a difference. Given that no evidence emerged so far for plywood droptanks, I don`t think those existed or were used. There was a tried and tested Ju 87 droptank made out of aluminium available to be used, and that`s what the manual shows, after all.

Whirlin_merlin
11-02-2007, 11:03 AM
Thanks that's what I was asking about.
The lack of endurance is often cited as a major reason the LW failed to achieve it's objectives during BOB, drop tanks seem an obvious solution.
Had they been available in sufficint numbers and/or sufficent 109s been of a sort that could carry them it would have been significant.

Kurfurst__
11-02-2007, 11:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:

even if November 1940 fits perfect in the Italian force's (that will be simulated in SoW:BoB) combat time , i dont expect a droptank as 109 option !
i just expect the -/B option , to simulate the fighterbomberraids. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Disagree, E-7s were available from end of August for other units, besides, the very reason for introducing the E-7 into service was that it could carry an already existing droptank (that was around long before the E-7 appeared).

Out of the 546 new Bf 109s the German aviation industry delivered between July and October 1940, 186 or about 34% were E-7s, no doubt the ratio is even higher for August, September and October. Coincidentally, that`s about the same ratio as Spitfires : Hurricanes.. Having no E-7 with droptank for BoB is like saying having no Spitfires Mk IIs.

Though personally, if I`d have to choose between, I`d rather like to have an E-1 and E-4 combo for maximum fun and maximum historical representation (these two being the most numerous of all)! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

JG53Frankyboy
11-02-2007, 11:05 AM
sorry, i just talked about JG53 , of other units i have no "sources"

and i expect only ONE version of the 109 in SoW:BoB - same as with Spits and Hurries.
the il2 times are than over................

Kurfurst__
11-02-2007, 11:12 AM
I hope there will be an E-1, too. After all, E-1 and E-4 would be almost identical, requirering only very slight modifications of same 3D/FM model, and as a result achieving historical accuracy. Not to mention the four MG 17s with wagonloads of ammo would be absolutely FUN!

Probably just a dream, though, and we will get a single E-3 (which is totally inaccurate BTW, being the least important type at the start of BoB)

JG53Frankyboy
11-02-2007, 11:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
I hope there will be an E-1, too. After all, E-1 and E-4 would be almost identical, requirering only very slight modifications of same 3D/FM model, and as a result achieving historical accuracy. Not to mention the four MG 17s with wagonloads of ammo would be absolutely FUN!

Probably just a dream, though, and we will get a single E-3 (which is totally inaccurate BTW, being the least important type at the start of BoB) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yep, its totaly unclear how the SoW:BoB 109 will loke like..........
- witch canopy (most likely the early , more round one as WIP pictures showed...)
- rear-/headarmour
- frontarmour
- MG-FF or MG-FF/M
- DB601A-1 or Aa (i realy dont expect a DB601N)
- propeller system( strange enough the WIP pictures showed both, the frontpanel lever and the throttle thumbnob http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif )
- bombs ( -/B ) unclear, but highly likely
- fieldmod rearview mirror (there are a lot in the JG53 book)

Blutarski2004
11-02-2007, 11:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
..... I suggest that your logic here is faulty. Absence of evidence dos not constitute proof. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, I am sure one can go on with some arguements, counter arguements and the partisan attitude - but these are essentially rhetorics without substance.

I don`t see the need to. If people are claiming that plywood droptanks were used by early 109s in 1940, they should support the statement with evidence. If they can`t, they can stick with their beliefs if they want.

The complete lack of any evidence suggest that it`s an old fairy tale stemming from certain very old, historical, and not technical books on the BoB.

Unless, of course, you`re prepeared to accept and believe the existance of the tooth fairy - after all, there`s no evidence that she doesn`t exist, yes?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">No one has stated categorically that the droptanks in these photographs WERE for a ME109. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Stalkervision did.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The photos simply confirm the fact that wooden LW drop-tanks existed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

... then I ask for the 3rd time, what relevance this claim has to the subject

'Did the Me-109e leaky plywood droptank ever exist?'?

Or is it a red herring? A strawman arguement?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
Since the specific employment of these wooden tanks remains unknown at the moment, the possibility logically exists that they MAY or MAY NOT have been used on ME109s. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

... let`s discuss then 'Did 109Es flew with purple milka cows attached to fuselage flew in BoB?'

I can certainly show you pictures of purple milka cows. They may or may not have been used on Me 109s then.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Your argument that the wooden tanks pictured would not fit beneath a 109 is not supportable without knowledge of the exact shape and dimensions of the tank(s) in question - something that cannot be obtained from these photos. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Like I said, there`s no shortage of arguements, and this can be continued indefinietely .

Unfortunately, it does not make up for lack any actual evidence for the existance of plywood droptanks used on 109s in 1940.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As to Stalkervision's reference of a diagram purporting to show an "early type wooden droptank" fitted beneath a 109E4, unless you are prepared to argue that the authors generated it wholly from their imaginations, you must admit that it has some respectable merit as evidence. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am quite prepeared to argue that the authors generated it wholly from their imaginations. After all, it`s just a drawing, that claims to depict a droptank no primary source seem to show, on a 109E-4 nonetheless, a variant that had absolutely no way of using a droptank, having neither the fitting nor the plumbing.

In contrast, the E-7`s aircraft manual clearly shows the standard, well known metal droptank of the same design as that of the metal droptank for the Ju 87R that existed earlier.

It`s pretty easy to decide between documented evidence and basically nothing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



..... Rhetorical does not equal logic, Kurfurst.

Your length discourse boils down to this: All the sources which do mention LW use of plywood droptanks on ME109's during the BoB must have imagined it because you yourself have never seen any proof of it.

Foolish, but not unexpected.

Kurfurst__
11-02-2007, 11:58 AM
... Well you can`t blame me for not seeing 'all the sources' if you were unable to show any so far, now can you ?

Have to tell you, your characteristically primitive personal attacks won`t aid you any better in what your previously seen rhetorics, that you tend to mix up with logic, failed.

Blutarski2004
11-02-2007, 12:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
In this instance it is Blutarski who is proposing the hypothesis that requires evidence. This is a well established convention in Western thought. The philosopher Bertand Russell explained it as the Tea Pot analogy. It runs thus:

There may exist a china tea pot orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars. There may exist a person who fervently believes that this tea pot exists. However, the tea pot is too small for our telescopes to detect. Science cannot, therefore, prove that the teapot DOESN'T exist.

But when a normal person meets the lunatic who believes in the teapot, we don't believe him. If he wants to persuade us that the teapot exists, it's up to him to persuade, not up to us to provide proof that THE TEA POT ISN'T THERE.

Blutarski has provided us with a lot of teapots in this thread so far. He has thrown about a picture showing Me 262 prototype droptanks made from plywood around in his effort to muddy the water, and he has indulged in all manner of personal attacks. He has not, however, actually addressed the issue, which is 'Did the Me-109e leaky plywood droptank ever exist'.

The well-known consensus of aeronautical historians pilots, contemporary and modern, is that the Me-109E`s alleged leaky plywood droptank did not exist, however. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... However it endearing it might be to you, Russell's teapot analogy is utterly incorrect and completely inappropriate in this case.

The correct case is put thusly:

1. Several aero historians state that a plywood drop-tank [the "teapot"] was employed in some fashion for a short period of time beneath the ME109 during the BoB. One historian provides a diagram of same.

2. You choose to ignore that evidence and claim that "THE TEA POT ISN'T THERE" because there is no evidence that you arewilling to accept.

- Russell turned on his head. You'd be better off recruiting Lewis Carroll instead.

The illogic in your position is so colossally obvious as to beggar the imagination, as is your magic transformation from uncertainty about the nature of an unknown plywood tank to a sudden specificity of it being an experimental unit for an ME262. Talk about splashing around to muddy the waters.

Your argument is without a doubt a masterpiece of irrationality.

Blutarski2004
11-02-2007, 12:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
... Well you can`t blame me for not seeing 'all the sources' if you were unable to show any so far, now can you ?

Have to tell you, your characteristically primitive personal attacks won`t aid you any better in what your previously seen rhetorics, that you tend to mix up with logic, failed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... You seem to confuse criticism of your logic process as a personal attack. You need to work out the difference.

In any case, I see you have the projector fired up again, Kurfurst. That's usually indicative of an imminent plunge into the deep end of the Danube.

See ya.

Kurfurst__
11-02-2007, 12:48 PM
More fact-free rhetorics, as usual.

You keep making blurry references to 'all the sources', 'several aero historians' etc.

I`d like to see them, if that`s not a problem, and if you, even for a brief moment, can provide us with anything more substantial than your characteristically barren, pompous mouthing.

berg417448
11-02-2007, 12:59 PM
I was reading "Adolf Galland-The Authorised Biography" by David Baker. In the notes at the end of Chapter 13 I read the following:

"Just weeks earlier the Bf-109E-7 had begun reaching the Stafflen, although the variant would not see service with JG26 before early November. The E-7 was essentially equivalent to the DB601N poweredE-4/N but with fuselage shackles for either a 300 litre (66 gal) fuel tank or 330 kg (550 lb) of bombs. The light metal tanks were a great improvement on the compressed wood pulp type, but they did cut performance, and pilots jettisoned them if combat threatened."

Now I have no idea whether they really existed or were really used but when someone reads it in Adolf Galland's biography I can see why they might believe in them.

Whirlin_merlin
11-02-2007, 01:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by berg417448:
I was reading "Adolf Galland-The Authorised Biography" by David Baker. In the notes at the end of Chapter 13 I read the following:

"Just weeks earlier the Bf-109E-7 had begun reaching the Stafflen, although the variant would not see service with JG26 before early November. The E-7 was essentially equivalent to the DB601N poweredE-4/N but with fuselage shackles for either a 300 litre (66 gal) fuel tank or 330 kg (550 lb) of bombs. The light metal tanks were a great improvement on the compressed wood pulp type, but they did cut performance, and pilots jettisoned them if combat threatened."

Now I have no idea whether they really existed or were really used but when someone reads it in Adolf Galland's biography I can see why they might believe in them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The thot plickens.

luftluuver
11-02-2007, 01:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by berg417448:
I was reading "Adolf Galland-The Authorised Biography" by David Baker. In the notes at the end of Chapter 13 I read the following:

"Just weeks earlier the Bf-109E-7 had begun reaching the Stafflen, although the variant would not see service with JG26 before early November. The E-7 was essentially equivalent to the DB601N poweredE-4/N but with fuselage shackles for either a 300 litre (66 gal) fuel tank or 330 kg (550 lb) of bombs. The light metal tanks were a great improvement on the compressed wood pulp type, but they did cut performance, and pilots jettisoned them if combat threatened."

Now I have no idea whether they really existed or were really used but when someone reads it in Adolf Galland's biography I can see why they might believe in them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I guess that settles the question since Galland said so.

Interesting the Nov date.

pwnd again.

JG53Frankyboy
11-02-2007, 01:11 PM
just as a sidenote, Galland flew
http://www.aero.upm.es/es/alumnos/historia_aviacion/imagenes/tema21/6/av.jpg
in Spain
and
http://www.warbirdphotographs.com/LCBW6/Hs123-03f.jpg
in Poland

Kurfurst__
11-02-2007, 01:13 PM
Hmm, I`ve always had this feeling that the myth goes back to Spain, there some old LW biplanes used drop tanks. I believe Galland`s unit there was busy with ground attack missions, and they used those droptanks as improvised napalm bombs - smaller bomblets were fixed onto them, and the whole package was released onto enemy positions. Nasty.

JG53Frankyboy
11-02-2007, 01:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
................they used those droptanks as improvised napalm bombs - smaller bomblets were fixed onto them, and the whole package was released onto enemy positions. Nasty. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

already shown
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/viewtopic.php?t=348&postda...storder=asc&start=30

Kurfurst__
11-02-2007, 01:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by berg417448:
I was reading "Adolf Galland-The Authorised Biography" by David Baker. In the notes at the end of Chapter 13 I read the following:

"Just weeks earlier the Bf-109E-7 had begun reaching the Stafflen, although the variant would not see service with JG26 before early November. The E-7 was essentially equivalent to the DB601N poweredE-4/N but with fuselage shackles for either a 300 litre (66 gal) fuel tank or 330 kg (550 lb) of bombs. The light metal tanks were a great improvement on the compressed wood pulp type, but they did cut performance, and pilots jettisoned them if combat threatened."

Now I have no idea whether they really existed or were really used but when someone reads it in Adolf Galland's biography I can see why they might believe in them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I`d be careful, autobiographies, unit histories are seldom good sources for technical details. Baker`s book is excellent for Galland`s life, but for technical stuff... not so good, I have it too. As much I`d like it, the E-7 s were certainly not all powered by the DB 601N, it seems they used either the DB 601Aa and DB 601N engine. I guess the 330 kg bombs are some sort of typo? (250kg bombs were used).

One would have the check Caldwell for the E-7 and JG 26, unfortunately Caldwell is not as fruitful on this matter as Blutarski with rhetorics. His loss list are more usuful as they provide some firm data to start with, and indeed Caldwell records the first loss for an E-7 from JG 26 on the 15th November 1940. So it`s quite likely that as far as JG 26 go, it got it`s first E-7 in early November. JG 53 got them in October, and JG 2 as early as August/September 1940.

stalkervision
11-02-2007, 01:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by berg417448:
I was reading "Adolf Galland-The Authorised Biography" by David Baker. In the notes at the end of Chapter 13 I read the following:

"Just weeks earlier the Bf-109E-7 had begun reaching the Stafflen, although the variant would not see service with JG26 before early November. The E-7 was essentially equivalent to the DB601N poweredE-4/N but with fuselage shackles for either a 300 litre (66 gal) fuel tank or 330 kg (550 lb) of bombs. The light metal tanks were a great improvement on the compressed wood pulp type, but they did cut performance, and pilots jettisoned them if combat threatened."

Now I have no idea whether they really existed or were really used but when someone reads it in Adolf Galland's biography I can see why they might believe in them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I guess that settles the question since Galland said so.

Interesting the Nov date.

pwnd again. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif berg417448 ! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif


I read some stuff galland wrote but didn't find this particular quote! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif Galland does mention the drop tank problem but doesn't go into detail about it...

Btw my info is from "The First and the Last.the rise and fall of the luftwaffe" a direct translation from Adolph Galland..

If this was "the actual german airforce general adolph Galland" ?

Who feels that the "tooth fairy" appeared and just dropped an actual nice big pressed wood drop tank on Kurf! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Sorry Kurf, I was just looking for the truth here.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Kurfurst__
11-02-2007, 01:35 PM
Probably because it`s written by David Baker, and not by Adolph Galland... it comes from Baker`s Galland biography.

Blutarski2004
11-02-2007, 03:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
More fact-free rhetorics, as usual.

You keep making blurry references to 'all the sources', 'several aero historians' etc.

I`d like to see them, if that`s not a problem, and if you, even for a brief moment, can provide us with anything more substantial than your characteristically barren, pompous mouthing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... You're a laugh riot. No doubt about it!

Kurfurst__
11-02-2007, 03:12 PM
... and I've naively expected that you may actually come up with something substantial in your next post.

Blutarski2004
11-02-2007, 05:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
... and I've naively expected that you may actually come up with something substantial in your next post. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

..... There is really no point. You dismiss everything presented and make up your own wishful "reality". The quote from Baker's Galland biography is a perfect example of your behavior.

So spare me the melodramatic disappointment. It rings all too false.

Ratsack
11-02-2007, 05:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
In any case, I am quite certain that the picture you posted is not a Bf 109 droptank. It wouldn`t fit under the fuselage, and have some clearance, too. Even the standard 300 liter droptank had very little ground clearance.

What I can say for certain that all Bf 109 primary reference material and all pictures I have seen refer to the 300 liter aluminium droptank which`s shape we all know well, and there`s absolutely no picture or reference to plywood wooden droptanks I know of, or for that matter, anybody here.

It`s a bit like believing in a tooth fairy, believing in something nobody had ever seen. Rather irrational. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... I suggest that your logic here is faulty. Absence of evidence dos not constitute proof.

No one has stated categorically that the droptanks in these photographs WERE for a ME109. The photos simply confirm the fact that wooden LW drop-tanks existed.

Since the specific employment of these wooden tanks remains unknown at the moment, the possibility logically exists that they MAY or MAY NOT have been used on ME109s.

Your argument that the wooden tanks pictured would not fit beneath a 109 is not supportable without knowledge of the exact shape and dimensions of the tank(s) in question - something that cannot be obtained from these photos.

As to Stalkervision's reference of a diagram purporting to show an "early type wooden droptank" fitted beneath a 109E4, unless you are prepared to argue that the authors generated it wholly from their imaginations, you must admit that it has some respectable merit as evidence. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Correct in every particular.

The most important point is the one you left to last: OUR lack of photographic evidence doesn't mean that previous authors - such as Townsend, or Wood & Dempster, and now Baker - didn't have access to sources that support what they wrote. It just means that WE haven't found a photograph of what they're talking about.

I've never seen a photograph of Julius Caesar, either.

cheers,
Ratsack

Kurfurst__
11-02-2007, 05:09 PM
Mouth, more mouth.

Still waiting for evidence.

Ratsack
11-02-2007, 05:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Whirlin_merlin:
However so far I've seen nothing here or else where to state that they did during BOB, plywood, aluminium or made from recycled ladies underwear. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nothing..?

http://kepfeltoltes.hu/071102/109E-7_droptank_www.kepfeltoltes.hu_.jpg

It looks like a factory fresh Bf 109E-7, carrying the standard aluminium 300 liter droptank of the Ju 87, the same that is depicted in the Bf 109E-7 manual. And the manual`s photographs (and thus the existance of the 300 liter droptank) obviously preceed the operational debut of the E-7.

It`s pretty clear cut. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's a factory plane. There's nothing on it - no operational or unit markings - that might help us date this.

You claim THIS as evidence of 109s flying with drop tanks during the BoB?

It's a pity that Galland's dead. We could ask him to explain to you why most of JG26 had the cheery red light in their cockpits several times during BoB.

cheers,
Ratsack

Ratsack
11-02-2007, 05:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
...

We know the metal droptanks were there from the start (as the manual already has them as illustration, and those illustrations were made before plane saw service)... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, you do NOT know that from that picture in the manual. Let me spell out for you what you don't know about that shot:

1. when it was taken;
2. whether that tank was the standard type;
3. how many of them there were available; and

4. you've not stated which revision of the manual you're looking at. That photo proves only that the E-7 could take a tank. We ALREADY KNEW that. It says nothing about when.

And finally, what on Earth makes you so confident that the manual would be available BEFORE the type entered service. The differences between the E-7 and the E-4 are fairly small, and there was a war on. I consider it quite possible that the E-7 was issued to units as available, and that the technical material distributed with it was probably confined to the differences. A full-blown manual would probably wait until there was time to complete it.

cheers,
Ratsack

Kurfurst__
11-02-2007, 05:21 PM
I wonder if any P-51s ever run out of fuel during escort mission and failed to return to base.

If so, it constitutes absolute and irrefutable proof that no P-51, ever, used droptanks over Germany.
If we follow the simpleton logic of R above, of course.

Thankfully, most of us don`t and simply understand that JG 26 did not receive E-7s until early November 1940, appearantly. JG 2 on the other hand had them in the end of August, JG 53 in September.

Ratsack
11-02-2007, 05:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
...the very reason for introducing the E-7 into service was that it could carry an already existing droptank (that was around long before the E-7 appeared). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So you gone from 'could carry the Ju-87's droptank' to 'the very reason for introducing the E-7 into service was that it could carry an already existing droptank '.

Source, please.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
... about 34% were E-7s, no doubt the ratio is even higher for August, September and October. Coincidentally, that`s about the same ratio as Spitfires : Hurricanes.. Having no E-7 with droptank for BoB is like saying having no Spitfires Mk IIs. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Disagree. You've presented no evidence of a 109 carrying a drop tank during August or September 1940. And no, as discussed, a picture of a 109 in factory markings, with no date, does not constituted evidence.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Though personally, if I`d have to choose between, I`d rather like to have an E-1 and E-4 combo for maximum fun and maximum historical representation (these two being the most numerous of all)! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I quite agree.

cheers,
Ratsack

Ratsack
11-02-2007, 05:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
In this instance it is Blutarski who is proposing the hypothesis that requires evidence. This is a well established convention in Western thought. The philosopher Bertand Russell explained it as the Tea Pot analogy. It runs thus:

There may exist a china tea pot orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars. There may exist a person who fervently believes that this tea pot exists. However, the tea pot is too small for our telescopes to detect. Science cannot, therefore, prove that the teapot DOESN'T exist.

But when a normal person meets the lunatic who believes in the teapot, we don't believe him. If he wants to persuade us that the teapot exists, it's up to him to persuade, not up to us to provide proof that THE TEA POT ISN'T THERE.

Blutarski has provided us with a lot of teapots in this thread so far. He has thrown about a picture showing Me 262 prototype droptanks made from plywood around in his effort to muddy the water, and he has indulged in all manner of personal attacks. He has not, however, actually addressed the issue, which is 'Did the Me-109e leaky plywood droptank ever exist'.

The well-known consensus of aeronautical historians pilots, contemporary and modern, is that the Me-109E`s alleged leaky plywood droptank did not exist, however. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... However it endearing it might be to you, Russell's teapot analogy is utterly incorrect and completely inappropriate in this case.

The correct case is put thusly:

1. Several aero historians state that a plywood drop-tank [the "teapot"] was employed in some fashion for a short period of time beneath the ME109 during the BoB. One historian provides a diagram of same.

2. You choose to ignore that evidence and claim that "THE TEA POT ISN'T THERE" because there is no evidence that you arewilling to accept.

- Russell turned on his head. You'd be better off recruiting Lewis Carroll instead.

The illogic in your position is so colossally obvious as to beggar the imagination, as is your magic transformation from uncertainty about the nature of an unknown plywood tank to a sudden specificity of it being an experimental unit for an ME262. Talk about splashing around to muddy the waters.

Your argument is without a doubt a masterpiece of irrationality. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is classic.

I am offended that Kurfurst should attempt to misuse in this way my post about him in a different thread on a different matter. But if imitation is flattery, then plagiarism must be, what? I shudder to think.

You're again right in every count, Blutarski. There is not 'no evidence' of the wooden drop tank. There's just 'no evidence that Kufurst will consider'. That's par for the course.

cheers,
Ratsack

Kurfurst__
11-02-2007, 05:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:

The most important point is the one you left to last: OUR lack of photographic evidence doesn't mean that previous authors - such as Townsend, or Wood & Dempster - didn't have access to sources that support what they wrote. It just means that WE haven't found a photograph of what they're talking about. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, there`s plenty of examples where Wood and Dempster simply don`t now what they are talking about at all. The funniest example is where they actually quote a pre-Battle German intelligence assessment of enemy in it`s full, which mentions, amongst others, that the 109F is superior to the current British fighters.

Wood and Dempster go as far as actually overrulling what the LW intel officier said about the 109F (what does he know anyway?!) and 'corrects' it in a footnote, categorically stating that the 109F 'did not take part in the battle'. Unfortunately wrong, the type was just entering production in July 1940, and the first examples arrived in early October... evidenced by photograhps, noted by dr. Prien etc. They have few other classic, like the 'hub cannon' on the 109E (they even quote fictionary ammo capacities for the MGs when the cannon is installed), which of course never realised.

Simply to put, they are blatantly wrong.

The same Wood and Dempster, without any reference for it, makes the claim about plywood droptanks.

Kurfurst__
11-02-2007, 06:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
...

We know the metal droptanks were there from the start (as the manual already has them as illustration, and those illustrations were made before plane saw service)... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, you do NOT know that from that picture in the manual. Let me spell out for you what you don't know about that shot:

1. when it was taken;
2. whether that tank was the standard type;
3. how many of them there were available; and

4. you've not stated which revision of the manual you're looking at. That photo proves only that the E-7 could take a tank. We ALREADY KNEW that. It says nothing about when.

And finally, what on Earth makes you so confident that the manual would be available BEFORE the type entered service. The differences between the E-7 and the E-4 are fairly small, and there was a war on. I consider it quite possible that the E-7 was issued to units as available, and that the technical material distributed with it was probably confined to the differences. A full-blown manual would probably wait until there was time to complete it.

cheers,
Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh I see.... in your speculation that aircraft are being sent to operational units without any description of their completely new subsystems (ie. piping and droptank attachment. I guess they figured out on the field on their own.

The story goes on : after a couple of month they were operating the aircraft, they`ve got a manual, that however showed pictures of a E-7 that showed illustration of a droptank that was in fact non-standard, and in fact, completely unavailable to units.

Now of course in reality, all the 109 manuals I own show pictures of final prototypes of the said aircraft. The manuals of course preceed the operational introduction of the aircraft, and in cases there are even preliminary manuals issued long before the aircraft is actually getting into service. These manuals are fairly constant in their content over the years, for example the 109G manuals of 1943 have exactly the same illustrations as the first ones. Changes are usually just strike through with a pencil instead of a complete re-print, and 'Deckblatts' ('bottom sheets') were issued that contained the changes as ammendements, even the smallest.

The statements you make on 109e manuals also make it totally obvious you have no single idea how they`re structured. But, when was the last time your total ignorance of the subject prevented you from making declarations how things actually worked...?

For example, you say :

'The differences between the E-7 and the E-4 are fairly small'.

If that`s so, care to list them ?

Blutarski2004
11-02-2007, 06:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
In this instance it is Blutarski who is proposing the hypothesis that requires evidence. This is a well established convention in Western thought. The philosopher Bertand Russell explained it as the Tea Pot analogy. It runs thus:

There may exist a china tea pot orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars. There may exist a person who fervently believes that this tea pot exists. However, the tea pot is too small for our telescopes to detect. Science cannot, therefore, prove that the teapot DOESN'T exist.

But when a normal person meets the lunatic who believes in the teapot, we don't believe him. If he wants to persuade us that the teapot exists, it's up to him to persuade, not up to us to provide proof that THE TEA POT ISN'T THERE.

Blutarski has provided us with a lot of teapots in this thread so far. He has thrown about a picture showing Me 262 prototype droptanks made from plywood around in his effort to muddy the water, and he has indulged in all manner of personal attacks. He has not, however, actually addressed the issue, which is 'Did the Me-109e leaky plywood droptank ever exist'.

The well-known consensus of aeronautical historians pilots, contemporary and modern, is that the Me-109E`s alleged leaky plywood droptank did not exist, however. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... However it endearing it might be to you, Russell's teapot analogy is utterly incorrect and completely inappropriate in this case.

The correct case is put thusly:

1. Several aero historians state that a plywood drop-tank [the "teapot"] was employed in some fashion for a short period of time beneath the ME109 during the BoB. One historian provides a diagram of same.

2. You choose to ignore that evidence and claim that "THE TEA POT ISN'T THERE" because there is no evidence that you arewilling to accept.

- Russell turned on his head. You'd be better off recruiting Lewis Carroll instead.

The illogic in your position is so colossally obvious as to beggar the imagination, as is your magic transformation from uncertainty about the nature of an unknown plywood tank to a sudden specificity of it being an experimental unit for an ME262. Talk about splashing around to muddy the waters.

Your argument is without a doubt a masterpiece of irrationality. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is classic.

I am offended that Kurfurst should attempt to misuse in this way my post about him in a different thread on a different matter. But if imitation is flattery, then plagiarism must be, what? I shudder to think.

You're again right in every count, Blutarski. There is not 'no evidence' of the wooden drop tank. There's just 'no evidence that Kufurst will consider'. That's par for the course.

cheers,
Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... The other gaping logic hole here is the claim that because the E7 was known to have commonly used the 300 liter aluminum drop-tank, it did not ever use the plywood unit.

This one could co-star on the "Wizard of Oz", if you get my drift.

Korolov1986
11-02-2007, 07:14 PM
Wooden luftwaffle droptanks != VVS deltawood planes

Copperhead311th
11-02-2007, 07:45 PM
YAWN. Lame.

highlight of the entire thread was my Oleg quote wisecrack. gee you LW boys really need to relax. i mean daaaaamn you all are an uptight bunch. i guess if i had to fly that German BS all the time i'd be a lil uptight too. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

stalkervision
11-02-2007, 08:25 PM
kurf..

"Oh I see.... in your speculation that aircraft are being sent to operational units without any description of their completely new subsystems (ie. piping and droptank attachment. I guess they figured out on the field on their own.

The story goes on : after a couple of month they were operating the aircraft, they`ve got a manual, that however showed pictures of a E-7 that showed illustration of a droptank that was in fact non-standard, and in fact, completely unavailable to units.

Now of course in reality, all the 109 manuals I own show pictures of final prototypes of the said aircraft. The manuals of course preceed the operational introduction of the aircraft, and in cases there are even preliminary manuals issued long before the aircraft is actually getting into service. These manuals are fairly constant in their content over the years, for example the 109G manuals of 1943 have exactly the same illustrations as the first ones. Changes are usually just strike through with a pencil instead of a complete re-print, and 'Deckblatts' ('bottom sheets') were issued that contained the changes as ammendements, even the smallest."

SV &gt; This presupposes no added pages were included to the original manual later as improvments were developed and came into general use and were printed in a whole new manual doesn't it? I believe some original aircraft were modified in the field to take the leaky tank and it was found extreamly faulty and abandoned till a newer better sucessful design was developed and was printed in a newer manual.

Heck that is a common thing in war time. The original Patriot missile DID NOT have anti-missile capability. This was only added during the gulf war. Therefore the original manuals didn't mention it. Added pages or an entirely seperate section were I am sure sent to our troops till this capability was in widespread use in the patriot system as it were being modified on the fly in the field I am sure. Only later did new manuals come out with this capability included as they came from the factory now. This is a common practice in war as systems are upgraded continually. I forget all the "on the fly" improvments to soviet aircraft that went on right at the airbases even. I read it was a huge amount!

I even know of a radar system put into emergency operation during that war that was only manned by the companies technicians and original development guys it was so new. You can bet there were no manuals written for that at the time till later on either... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I also remember the mention of tech guys and engineers going to the european theater with the new "wide bladed prop" for the p-47. It wasn't standard on the planes as yet. Only when the pilots of the p-47's tried this improvement out and gave it a thumbs up did this improvment become widespread in newer aircraft.

The leaky drop tank IMO was tried out in a very limited war emergency driven fashion and abandoned. There may not even have been a manual whatsoever or even add on pages, only tech guys modifing some planes to use it. The modification wasn't all that hard from what I have seen. Only when a new drop tank of metal construction which was much more successful was developed and came into general use was this development included in later manuals imo..

This is how it usually works isn't it?

I remember reading about the original tests of the 109. The undercarrage was so flimsy the plane kept collapsing on the rough ground! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

The Me-109 techs did a on the spot improvment to the 109 by splaying the wheels out farther. Only then would the luftwaffe consider the 109 in the competition.

That was not written in any manual either but saved the bacon for old willy don't you know.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

stalkervision
11-02-2007, 09:11 PM
One more story about "on the fly war tech development"

At the "skunk works" many many times important parts were developed and produced for new aircraft without even DRAWINGS of the original parts being done at the time to produce them! Only later when the part worked out was the drawing made for the part in question to be produced and included in the original manual. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

luftluuver
11-02-2007, 10:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Mouth, more mouth.

Still waiting for evidence. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes we still are waiting for proof from you Kapt K. You have yet to post any photo of an operational 109 during BoB with a drop tank mounted, of what ever construction material.

Seen many photos of E-7s with bombs but none with drop tanks.

Has anyone seen any RAF combat reports, or any other reports, of 109s during BoB dropping tanks.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">wonder if any P-51s ever run out of fuel during escort mission and failed to return to base.

If so, it constitutes absolute and irrefutable proof that no P-51, ever, used droptanks over Germany.
If we follow the simpleton logic of R above, of course. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Agh, but there is photographic evidence of operational P-51s with drop tanks.

luftluuver
11-02-2007, 10:54 PM
Werner Molders flew his first mission in a F-1 on Oct 25 1940.

The first loss (WNr 5635) was on Nov 11 1940 when Oblt Georg Claus failed to return from a mission off the British coast.

The end date for Bob is considered to be the end of Oct.

So the F-1 made a cameo appearance during the last week of BoB. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Gibbage1
11-03-2007, 01:08 AM
Give it up guys. Kurfy still denies the B-35 was ever built, let alone flew, even WITH photographic proof. He lives in his own blue shaded 109 wonder world, and nobody can pull him out. Not even Galland himself.

Never debate a crazy man. It will just drive you insane.

Ratsack
11-03-2007, 01:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
...

We know the metal droptanks were there from the start (as the manual already has them as illustration, and those illustrations were made before plane saw service)... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, you do NOT know that from that picture in the manual. Let me spell out for you what you don't know about that shot:

1. when it was taken;
2. whether that tank was the standard type;
3. how many of them there were available; and

4. you've not stated which revision of the manual you're looking at. That photo proves only that the E-7 could take a tank. We ALREADY KNEW that. It says nothing about when.

And finally, what on Earth makes you so confident that the manual would be available BEFORE the type entered service. The differences between the E-7 and the E-4 are fairly small, and there was a war on. I consider it quite possible that the E-7 was issued to units as available, and that the technical material distributed with it was probably confined to the differences. A full-blown manual would probably wait until there was time to complete it.

cheers,
Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh I see.... in your speculation that aircraft are being sent to operational units without any description of their completely new subsystems (ie. piping and droptank attachment. I guess they figured out on the field on their own. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, my speculation is that they would not necessarily have waited for the production of a complete manual before issuing the equipment. A few pages of information on the new systems would probably suffice in this case.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
The story goes on : after a couple of month they were operating the aircraft, they`ve got a manual, that however showed pictures of a E-7 that showed illustration of a droptank that was in fact non-standard, and in fact, completely unavailable to units. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, that's your take on what I said. I said the picture tells us nothing about availability, or whether that was the normal tank. It doesn't. The picture doesn't mean it was available, and it doesn't mean that it wasn't. As I say way back on the first page, the manual sheds no light on the matter either way.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
... The manuals of course preceed the operational introduction of the aircraft, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Prove it.

I have been involved in large-scale acquisitions for the largest enterprises, and I know for a fact that full documentation was often available only after operational introduction of new equipment. Field officers were trained, and interim materials were provided, but in some cases the comprehensive manuals were fully six months late.

cheers,
Ratsack

Kurfurst__
11-03-2007, 03:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
No, my speculation is that they would not necessarily have waited for the production of a complete manual before issuing the equipment. A few pages of information on the new systems would probably suffice in this case. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK, so we`ve established it`s a speculation, ie. pure hogwash that has no factual basis.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">No, that's your take on what I said. I said the picture tells us nothing about availability, or whether that was the normal tank. It doesn't. The picture doesn't mean it was available, and it doesn't mean that it wasn't. As I say way back on the first page, the manual sheds no light on the matter either way. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well we can establish then the Bf 109E-7 manual (and various pictures of the E-7 with a droptank mounted) shows the same light metal droptank that was available for the Ju 87R many months before the E-7, the same used on all subsequent 109s after.

You imply this tank was nor available, nor standard, nor used.

It doesn`t show any plywood tank. In fact, there`s no existing evidence of a plywood tank for the 109 at all.

You claim this plywood tank that nobody have seen or presented evidence for it`s existance was the only one available, and it even leaked.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">... The manuals of course preceed the operational introduction of the aircraft, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Prove it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh yes, sure.

Let see it, you have presented absolutely nothing to support your partisan opionion, which you keep changing all the time as the evidence slowly corners you. First, it was no single 109E, ever, had anything but plywood droptanks in the whole of 1940. Now it has changed to August/September only... It will probably take some time until you drop September, too, and then proceed claiming you`re right, and in fact this was the thing you claimed all the time. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Thing is, you have proven to be incapable to provide any sort of evidence, yet you ask others to provide evidence disproving the unsupported claims you have made.

Unfortunately, the burden of proof for the alleged existance of plywood droptanks, and for the claim that the manuals pictures came well after the E-7, is upon you.

Speculation, and genarally just barren mouthing without a substance, like above, would not suffice, altough we all know we can`t expect anything more than just that from you, really.

Kurfurst__
11-03-2007, 03:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
One more story about "on the fly war tech development"

At the "skunk works" many many times important parts were developed and produced for new aircraft without even DRAWINGS of the original parts being done at the time to produce them! Only later when the part worked out was the drawing made for the part in question to be produced and included in the original manual. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The trouble is that the Bf 109E-7 was not an 'on the fly war tech development'.

The light metal 300 liter droptank itself was around in the spring of 1940, and was used in the Norwegian campain. It was tested on the 109E well before the escort duties presented problems, it wasn`t some sort of reaction to complaints from pilots about the lack of endurance in the BoB, the development begun even before the BoB begun. The analogue with the Patriot etc. is false, since the Patriot did not have the said capability from the start, the E-7 did, droptanks were not a retrofit to, it was a new subtype which was designated E-7 and not E-4 because it had the preparations for a droptank as factory standard.

And of course, the speculation that the pictures in the E-7 manual were added in retrospect, and what they show is non-standard, non-available droptank (which funnily enough turns up on every picture showing a 109E with a droptank), is just that, speculation.

Whirlin_merlin
11-03-2007, 05:25 AM
Can we try to keep this civil fellas.

It's amazing that after less than 70 years, which is still living memory for some, that already so much information is lost.

I can see why Kurfurst is so sceptical about these plywood drop tanks, although they appear to be refered to by more than one source we have no definative evidence that these things existed in the BOB era/theater.
However we are in almost as bad a state with even aluminium drop tanks, yes the E7s could carry them, yes E7s were coming into service during BOB and yes it would be logical to use drop tanks if you could.
And yet we can't find direct reference or a photo etc of their use during the actual battle. Well we do have them refered to in the Galland book but surely we cant cherry pick which bits of the quote are true.

As it stands and thinking towards SOW:BOB it seems to me that there is no case to add any sort of drop tank, even aluminium unless anyone can find evidence on how widspread their use was.

JG53Frankyboy
11-03-2007, 05:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
Werner Molders flew his first mission in a F-1 on Oct 25 1940.

The first loss (WNr 5635) was on Nov 11 1940 when Oblt Georg Claus failed to return from a mission off the British coast.

The end date for Bob is considered to be the end of Oct.

So the F-1 made a cameo appearance during the last week of BoB. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

in the same category are falling the italians - who Maddox decided to include in its game - i actually always wondered why http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

anyway, i dont expect (and actually dont want "see" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ) a Bf109F or Droptanks (if made of wood or metal http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ) for the 109s in the game release - they dont fit the typical BoB situation !

btw
http://www.franky.fliegerhospital.de/JG53%20Droptank.jpg

luftluuver
11-03-2007, 06:10 AM
Frank, I have my doubts that is an E-1 in the photo because there is no big hole in the centre of the spinner. That is, unless it got the new spinner.

Nice photo btw. What is the source?

Of note is the drop tanks did not arrive til Nov 1940.

stalkervision
11-03-2007, 06:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
One more story about "on the fly war tech development"

At the "skunk works" many many times important parts were developed and produced for new aircraft without even DRAWINGS of the original parts being done at the time to produce them! Only later when the part worked out was the drawing made for the part in question to be produced and included in the original manual. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The trouble is that the Bf 109E-7 was not an 'on the fly war tech development'.

The light metal 300 liter droptank itself was around in the spring of 1940, and was used in the Norwegian campain. It was tested on the 109E well before the escort duties presented problems, it wasn`t some sort of reaction to complaints from pilots about the lack of endurance in the BoB, the development begun even before the BoB begun. The analogue with the Patriot etc. is false, since the Patriot did not have the said capability from the start, the E-7 did, droptanks were not a retrofit to, it was a new subtype which was designated E-7 and not E-4 because it had the preparations for a droptank as factory standard.

And of course, the speculation that the pictures in the E-7 manual were added in retrospect, and what they show is non-standard, non-available droptank (which funnily enough turns up on every picture showing a 109E with a droptank), is just that, speculation. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I'm not talking about the e7 but about the e4/b which I believe was modified "on the fly and in the field" by some 109 technicians and on a few aircraft to take the plywood tank. When it was tested in the field by these techs and luftwaffe pilots and personel and proved really leaky and dangerous it was withdrawn is all. The plane already had a bomb release rack and by some very simple modifications which IS the 109 drop tank fuel delivery system btw from what I have seen in drawings of it, the planes were given that interim capability. It didn't work out so they were modified back to original standards till the system could be perfected which it later was but not in time for BOB..

There are way to many refrences to this "presswood tank" to say it didn't exist. Heck a luftwaffe plywood tank has even showed up now! It was a field modification that didn't work out and was dropped till it it was perfected is all.

Kurfurst__
11-03-2007, 06:20 AM
Jochen Prien and Peter Roedeicke notes in their definitive book two dates about the introduction of the 109F to Stab/JG51, October 6 or alternativelz 25, when Mölders took his first sortie the Friedrich - of course Wood /Dempster and Ratsack disagree, pointing out the 109F just wasn`t therehttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

Prien and Roedeicke also show two photos of Mölder`s 109F-1, WNr 5628, one shortly after it arrived with the factory`s letters on it at an unspecified date (save October), the next, taken somewhere between October 29 and December 1, shows it with full tactical markings and 54 victory bars on the tail.

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/109F_introduction.jpg

Great scan BTW, thanks, so it seems JG 53 got it`s it first droptanks in November. Is it from Prien`s excellent JG-series? The plane in the background is an E-1, appearantly already modified to carry it by 9th November 1940.

Does the book lists the first E-7 loss date for JG 53?

Kurfurst__
11-03-2007, 06:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
Frank, I have my doubts that is an E-1 in the photo because there is no big hole in the centre of the spinner. That is, unless it got the new spinner. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wings have machineguns holes, not cannons stubs, it`s an E-1.

stalkervision
11-03-2007, 06:29 AM
This picture is proof that earler 109's even to the e 1 series could be modified in the field to take the system.

http://www.franky.fliegerhospital.de/JG53%20Droptank.jpg

Kurfurst__
11-03-2007, 06:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
There are way to many refrences to this "presswood tank" to say it didn't exist. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There are way too many referenes to the 109K, that does 452 mph, climbs to 5000m in 3 minutes, has an MK 103 in the engine and two MG 151s above the cowling to say it didn`t exist.

And yet, it quite simply didn`t exist. William Green made an error in the 1960s, and others, who didn`t bother to do research themselves, copied the error.

Same thing with plywood droptanks it seems. None of the serious, acknowledged authors on the 109 mention it anywhere, it stems from Wood/Dempster (or perhaps goes even more back), who had a lot of factual errors about technical aspects in his book. Just look at the description of aircraft at the end of the book. Full of funnies, that are long considered wrong.

Of course that`s not the primary profile of the book, so it`s understandable. For the same reason, you have to be careful with history channel, biographies, commentaries of campaigns if tell about something the authors don`t know very well, not being their field of study.

Trouble is, any and all references to the alleged plywood tanks comes from these latter types of sources, often copying the other.

luftluuver
11-03-2007, 06:32 AM
Don't see 1 drop tank fitted in any of the photos in the book. Neither do I see a rack for carrying a bomb or drop tank.

Whirlin_merlin
11-03-2007, 06:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Jochen Prien and Peter Roedeicke notes in their definitive book two dates about the introduction of the 109F to Stab/JG51, October 6 or alternativelz 25, when Mölders took his first sortie the Friedrich - of course Wood /Dempster and Ratsack disagree, pointing out the 109F just wasn`t therehttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

Prien and Roedeicke also show two photos of Mölder`s 109F-1, WNr 5628, one shortly after it arrived with the factory`s letters on it at an unspecified date (save October), the next, taken somewhere between October 29 and December 1, shows it with full tactical markings and 54 victory bars on the tail.

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/109F_introduction.jpg

Great scan BTW, thanks, so it seems JG 53 got it`s it first droptanks in November. Is it from Prien`s excellent JG-series? The plane in the background is an E-1, appearantly already modified to carry it by 9th November 1940.

Does the book lists the first E-7 loss date for JG 53? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Isn't alot of this confusion just because of differences in when people concider the Battle of Britian to have ended?

The RAFs own site gives a date of 31stOctober, which is what most British historian's work on.
I understand that many German Historians use May 41.
However in this case I go with 'History is written by the victors.' To me the later date seems a bit of a 'We didn't really loose you know, we decided to stop and have a pop at Russia instead.' kind excuse.
Which makes the 'Freddies' pretty much irrelevent to BOB really, and the drop tanks too if they arrived in November after it was over. Of cource neither is irrelevent in the wider context of the on going conflict between the RAF and the LW.

stalkervision
11-03-2007, 06:46 AM
I don't know about the k4 "not existing" I have an awful lot of information that says it did and some pictures of it to prove it even but lets resolve one question at a time shall we? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif I believe I will stick to this one topic for now and let you all argue the k-4 out. Oleg says the k4 existed and it is modeled in the game so that is proof enough for me.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

All I know is we have many refrences to the plywood tank by different authors and an actual plywood tank that was built by the germans. That is pretty good proof plywood tanks existed and may have been used on the 109 too! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Kurfurst__
11-03-2007, 06:48 AM
I don`t say the Friedrich has too much relevance for the BoB, apart from a nice trivia, that it was there, and a few highly successfull aces got it as a kind of 'reward'.

I don`t think we should de-rail the discussion by adding BoB to it... suffice to say, October 31 is an arbitrary date, on which nothing special happened, nor on the day before or after, and they also forgot to tell the Luftwaffe about it.

As for the droptanks, it seems fairly logical to me that JG 53 didn`t receive any, if they had no aircraft to carry them until November either.

JG53Frankyboy
11-03-2007, 06:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
Frank, I have my doubts that is an E-1 in the photo because there is no big hole in the centre of the spinner. That is, unless it got the new spinner.

.............. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

exactly , why, when it is possible to add the droptank ability, should it not be possible to add the new spinner cap too (as nothing more its was)
anyway, as the sole external optical difference of the E-1 to the other Emils are the lack of the Wingcanon barrels............its not always 100% sure if the visible plane is a E-1 (as most authors are claiming) or anohter version with with canons removed for maintenance http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

its out of this
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51NRKGPQMNL._SS500_.jpg

Kurfurst__
11-03-2007, 06:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
I don't know about the k4 "not existing" I have an awful lot of information that says it did and some pictures of it to prove it even but lets resolve one question at a time shall we? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course it existed. It just didn`t exist in the form many authors claim it did - with MK 103, cowl MG 151s etc. And, no German paper from WW2 seems to mention them with these guns, no pcture of them exists.

Quite analogue to the mysterious 109E plywood droptank that no German source from WW2 seems to mention, no pcture of them exists, and is only appearing in the books of some not-so-reliable authors.

luftluuver
11-03-2007, 06:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
I don`t say the Friedrich has too much relevance for the BoB, apart from a nice trivia, that it was there, and a few highly successfull aces got it as a kind of 'reward'.

I don`t think we should de-rail the discussion by adding BoB to it... suffice to say, October 31 is an arbitrary date, on which nothing special happened, nor on the day before or after, and they also forgot to tell the Luftwaffe about it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
So the Battle of France did not end til late 1944 by that logic when the Allies finally kick the Germans out of France. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Kurfurst__
11-03-2007, 07:10 AM
Of course... Nothing special happened, save for the French surrender in June 1940. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

stalkervision
11-03-2007, 07:10 AM
I have now found a picture of galland's personel e4/n with gallad standing next to it and it is equiped with a drop tank. It says it was modified to take the aluminium tank so the e4's could be easily modified in the field.

Kurfurst__
11-03-2007, 07:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
I have now found a picture of galland's personel e4/n with gallad standing next to it and it is equiped with a drop tank. It says it was modified to take the aluminium tank so the e4's could be easily modified in the field. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think nobody here debates that older aircraft could be retrofitted to comply with E-7 standards. There are many pictures proving this.

JG53Frankyboy
11-03-2007, 07:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
I don`t say the Friedrich has too much relevance for the BoB, apart from a nice trivia, that it was there, and a few highly successfull aces got it as a kind of 'reward'.

I don`t think we should de-rail the discussion by adding BoB to it... suffice to say, October 31 is an arbitrary date, on which nothing special happened, nor on the day before or after, and they also forgot to tell the Luftwaffe about it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
So the Battle of France did not end til late 1944 by that logic when the Allies finally kick the Germans out of France. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

anyway, Maddox decided for his game that the BoB is ending not at 31.Ocotber - because otherwise , as i already said, he would have wasted his teams time in programming the italian stuff http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
this was the first combat in that the italien fighters were in:"In the afternoon on 8 November 22 Fiat G.50s of the 20o Gruppo flew an offensive patrol between Dungeness, Folkestone, Canterbury and Margate. They reported a combat with four RAF fighters, but didn't submit any claims."

but i still dont expect and dont want droptanks & Friedrichs in his game http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


@Kurfürst:
OT here, but do you have your numbers of Emilversion at the beginning of the BoB to hand ?
thx in advance http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Kurfurst__
11-03-2007, 07:18 AM
Yup, but not exactly at the start, but for end of August (anyway, that`s about when the real stuff started). From memory, it was about 300-300 E-1/E-4 some 100 or so E-3, and some 35 E-7s (given they were just introduced a weak ago at the time). Plus the change like E-5 etc. I can give you more precise numbers later, and the exact number of 109Es produced until the end of June 1940.

JG53Frankyboy
11-03-2007, 07:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
....................

Does the book lists the first E-7 loss date for JG 53? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

12.October 1940, Bf109E-7 of 4./JG53 , WerkNummer 5903 , damaged (5%) in Aircombat


the last lost E-1 was reported at 23.Novmeber 1940 btw ! Lt.Otto Zauner of 5./JG53 by Hurricanes over GB , pilot became PWO.

JG53 last combat loss in 1940 (JG53 left the channel for some month now) was an E-4 on 2.December 1940, shoot down by a Spitifre over Dungeness.

Kurfurst__
11-03-2007, 07:31 AM
Interesting thanks, so JG 53 got E-7s in about early October I presume?

Whirlin_merlin
11-03-2007, 11:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__: and they also forgot to tell the Luftwaffe about it.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would have thought they would have noticed the stinging sensation
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

luftluuver
11-03-2007, 11:55 AM
Where are the photos taken between July and Oct 31 1940 of operational 109s with drop tanks?

Where are the reports of drop tank usage between between July and Oct 31 1940?

Ratsack
11-04-2007, 12:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
...
You imply this tank was nor available, nor standard, nor used.
... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, I don't imply that they weren't available during the BoB. I know that they weren't, because if they were, they'd have been used. They weren't. What I'm speculating about is why.

cheers,
Ratsack

Ratsack
11-04-2007, 12:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
... First, it was no single 109E, ever, had anything but plywood droptanks in the whole of 1940...[/i] </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope. That's you saying stuff I didn't ever say, and attributing it to me. Totally untrue.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">you ask others to provide evidence disproving the unsupported claims you have made. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, the claim is yours. You say the manuals precede service introduction. In fact, you said 'certainly' precede introduction. That's a positive claim to fact. If it's fact, it should be easily demonstrated.

I note that instead of presenting the data that would prove your contention, you instead ask me to prove the negative.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Unfortunately, the burden of proof for the alleged existance of plywood droptanks, and for the claim that the manuals pictures came well after the E-7, is upon you. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, it's not. Not in either particular. There are several sources for the existence of plywood tanks already quoted in this thread. You seem to be taking the position that none of them - including the biography of Galland - are to be taken seriously. In that case, the burden of proof rests with you to demonstrate that they're wrong in this particular. You've not begun to do that.

Regarding the use of alloy drop tanks during the BoB, your position seems to be that the existence of the manual for the E-7 and some undated factory pics of the E-7 constitute proof. They don't.

If the material you've got justifies your level of confidence about your claims, it would be a relatively simple exercise for you to present that material and settle the issue. But you haven't. You have form in this area, where you 'quote' from publications, claim the figures quoted mean a particular thing, and then never present the actual data that supports your particular contention.

Just to be clear, it is you, Kurfurst, who is making three positive claims to fact:

1. that the plywood tanks referred to in the literature are fiction; and
2. that E-7s used alloy drop tanks during the BoB; and
3. that the manual you've got preceded service introduction of the E-7.


cheers,
Ratsack

luftluuver
11-04-2007, 03:41 AM
Right Rat, he has yet to prove that drop tanks were used during BoB (before Oct 31 1940) with definitive proof.

This just like his 1.98ata, where 'cleared' becomes 'used' with circumstantial evidence but no definitive proof. Yet when shown definitive proof that 100pn fuel was in wide spread use during BoB and 150pn fuel was also in widespread use, he poopaws the evidence.

OMK_Hand
11-04-2007, 09:17 AM
From "The Battle of Britain. A German Perspective
Lt Col Earle Lund, USAF"

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/ETO/BOB/BoB-German/index.html

"Note: Experimental use of external fuel tanks occurred during the Spanish conflict, but serious further development was not continued."

Then:

"It had long been recognized (since the days of the Condor Legion) that lack of suitable range was a critical limitation of the Me109. No mention of this is apparent in German self-criticism of the time, even though Erhard Milch had recommended months before the battle that cheap drop tanks should be developed. Milch's proposal "had been followed up too late, with the result that the crews were untrained in their use and reluctant to employ them." In fact, a month earlier on 15 August at a meeting with the three luftflotten generals, Goering had criticized the fact that the fighters were "refusing to use drop tanks unless they were armour-plated." Both Milch and Jeschonnek were present at the meeting."

Which takes us to Milch via David Irwing (bit of a nutter after the holocaust denial thing... oh well. ˜The rise and fall of the Luftwaffe' was apparently written directly from Milche's diaries.)

"It was only now, for example, as the attack began, that the Germans realized
from intercepted wireless orders that the RAF fighter squadrons were radar-
controlled from the ground; and it was only now that Göing discovered
that the Me 110 twin-engined fighter (of which he had no fewer than two hundred)
was useless as a daylight escort for the bomber forces since it was inferior
to the agile Spitfire and Hurricane. But the Me 109 single-engined fighter could
barely reach London and Milch's early recommendation, made many months
before, that cheap drop tanks should be fitted to extend the Me 109's fuel endurance
had been followed up too late, with the result that the crews were untrained
in their use and reluctant to employ them.
This was a very late hour to make such discoveries."

"At noon on the 15th (August)... the fighters were refusing to use the drop tanks unless they were armour-plated; and most important of all: ˜How can we establish radio-telephone contact between the bombers and their fighter escort?"

So drop tanks were around, but no-one would use them. Does 'cheap' and ˜not serious' equal 'made out of wood'?

stalkervision
11-04-2007, 09:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OMK_Hand:
From "The Battle of Britain. A German Perspective
Lt Col Earle Lund, USAF"

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/ETO/BOB/BoB-German/index.html

"Note: Experimental use of external fuel tanks occurred during the Spanish conflict, but serious further development was not continued."

Then:

"It had long been recognized (since the days of the Condor Legion) that lack of suitable range was a critical limitation of the Me109. No mention of this is apparent in German self-criticism of the time, even though Erhard Milch had recommended months before the battle that cheap drop tanks should be developed. Milch's proposal "had been followed up too late, with the result that the crews were untrained in their use and reluctant to employ them." In fact, a month earlier on 15 August at a meeting with the three luftflotten generals, Goering had criticized the fact that the fighters were "refusing to use drop tanks unless they were armour-plated." Both Milch and Jeschonnek were present at the meeting."

Which takes us to Milch via David Irwing (bit of a nutter after the holocaust denial thing... oh well. ˜The rise and fall of the Luftwaffe' was apparently written directly from Milche's diaries.)

"It was only now, for example, as the attack began, that the Germans realized
from intercepted wireless orders that the RAF fighter squadrons were radar-
controlled from the ground; and it was only now that Göing discovered
that the Me 110 twin-engined fighter (of which he had no fewer than two hundred)
was useless as a daylight escort for the bomber forces since it was inferior
to the agile Spitfire and Hurricane. But the Me 109 single-engined fighter could
barely reach London and Milch's early recommendation, made many months
before, that cheap drop tanks should be fitted to extend the Me 109's fuel endurance
had been followed up too late, with the result that the crews were untrained
in their use and reluctant to employ them.
This was a very late hour to make such discoveries."

"At noon on the 15th (August)... the fighters were refusing to use the drop tanks unless they were armour-plated; and most important of all: ˜How can we establish radio-telephone contact between the bombers and their fighter escort?"

So drop tanks were around, but no-one would use them. Does 'cheap' and ˜not serious' equal 'made out of wood'? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


"So drop tanks were around, but no-one would use them. Does 'cheap' and ˜not serious' equal 'made out of wood"

Very very possible IMO since it has been mentioned they were known to leak and be a fire hazard and the crews didn't want to use them because of these reasons. Drop tanks were used successfully in Spain Galland says though. Probably because they weren't made of "pressed plywood" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Thanks for the further info buddy.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Xiolablu3
11-04-2007, 02:08 PM
You cannot blame the 109 pilots for not wanting to use un-armoured fuel tanks.

There is an account of a flight of Bf110's being intercepted just before they jettisoned their drop-tanks some time in the BOB. Some of them just exploded in mid air, as the fume filled drop-tanks were hit by .303 incendary.

I forget which battle/day it was on but I distictly remember reading about it, possibly in one of my Fighter pilot biographies.


YOu would think, however, that even with poor quality tanks, that 99% of the time, they would jettison them before combat. Only when bounced unexpectedly would this be a problem, and the BOB was a time of massive formations and squadron sized battles, ie. the enemy was usually sighted well before battle.

Were they perhaps as much worried by possible take-off accidents as enemy action? AFter all, the Me109 didnt have the best take-off record. A full leaky drop tank in a take off accident would be dangerous, I would imagine.

stalkervision
11-04-2007, 02:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
You cannot blame the 109 pilots for not wanting to use un-armoured fuel tanks.

There is an account of a flight of Bf110's being intercepted just before they jettisoned their drop-tanks some time in the BOB. Some of them just exploded in mid air, as the fume filled drop-tanks were hit by .303 incendary.

I forget which battle/day it was on but I distictly remember reading about it, possibly in one of my Fighter pilot biographies.


YOu would think, however, that even with poor quality tanks, that 99% of the time, they would jettison them before combat. Only when bounced unexpectedly would this be a problem, and the BOB was a time of massive formations and squadron sized battles, ie. the enemy was usually sighted well before battle.

Were they perhaps as much worried by possible take-off accidents as enemy action? AFter all, the Me109 didnt have the best take-off record. A full leaky drop tank in a take off accident would be dangerous, I would imagine. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is very possible. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Gibbage1
11-04-2007, 05:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by OMK_Hand:
So drop tanks were around, but no-one would use them. Does 'cheap' and ˜not serious' equal 'made out of wood'? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If they were made of cheap leaking wood, I could see why they would not want to fly with them!

Also, dont you think "armored" could be a poor translation from German to English? Maybe they were talking about re-enforced fuel tanks? Like metal around the wood? Heck, some pilots considered Aluminum to be armor. One thing is for sure, they were scared of those fuel tanks. I also dont think there ever was such a thing as a "armored" fuel tanks. The US and Japanese used a LOT of fuel tanks and not many accounts of pilots refusing to fly with them, even the Japanese paper tanks!!!

Kurfurst__
12-01-2007, 12:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
... First, it was no single 109E, ever, had anything but plywood droptanks in the whole of 1940...[/i] </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope. That's you saying stuff I didn't ever say, and attributing it to me. Totally untrue. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

... Should I quote you then..?


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">you ask others to provide evidence disproving the unsupported claims you have made. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, the claim is yours. You say the manuals precede service introduction. In fact, you said 'certainly' precede introduction. That's a positive claim to fact. If it's fact, it should be easily demonstrated. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Certainly not. I said that manuals usually precede service introduction. Usually, because I haven`t seen a single manual that didn`t.

You, OTOH, categorically stated the Emil manual showing the metal droptank from the Stuka, is from 1941.

Now THAT IS a positive claim.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I note that instead of presenting the data that would prove your contention, you instead ask me to prove the negative. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, it`s a claim you made about the manual`s date was a your kneejerk reaction when you first saw it and wished to dismiss it.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Unfortunately, the burden of proof for the alleged existance of plywood droptanks, and for the claim that the manuals pictures came well after the E-7, is upon you. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, it's not. Not in either particular. There are several sources for the existence of plywood tanks already quoted in this thread. You seem to be taking the position that none of them - including the biography of Galland - are to be taken seriously. In that case, the burden of proof rests with you to demonstrate that they're wrong in this particular. You've not begun to do that.[/QUOTE]

Well I have not seen several sources the existence of plywood tanks; Galland`s biography in particular states that the metal droptanks are better than plywood droptanks, it says nothing about wheter the latter was ever used during the BoB (though such were used on LW biplanes Galland flew in the Spanish Civil war).

Now as for Wood and Dempster goes, who claim these 'horribly leaking plywood tanks' on the 109E, it`s difficult to get past the fact that, when it becomes to technical details, their book is just horridly unreliable.

They seem to be under the impression that there were Spitfires around with four MGs, supposed to be called Mk Is, while the eight-gun Spitfires were called Mk IAs; when it comes to the 109E variants, they are even more confused, ie. I quote them directly on Bf 109E variants :

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
E-1 : DB 601A of 1050 HP. Armament : two machine guns in the cowlings and two 20mm cannon in the wings*.
E-1/B : Carried 4 x 110 lb or one 550 lb bomb. Machine guns only.*

E-3 : Main variant in Battle of Britain**. DB 601Aa. Additional cannon through airscrew hub***, but this was generally removed by July 1940.

E-4 : Engine cannon deleted.*** Wing cannon fitted. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

* Naturally, the E-1 only carried MGs, just like the E-1/B.
** That`s pretty much shows W&D has never seen a strenght report from the LW units showing the subtype breakdown, ie. the E-4 was the main variant, followed by the E-1, and then the E-3 and finally, E-7.
*** The hub cannon was of course never fitted, therefore it could not be removed either; W&D seems to be under the impression the E-3 carried 4 MGs, and 'optionally' a cannon in the hub, which was however removed, and the E-4 was the one to fit wing cannons...

Now Wood & Dempster also claims there have been plywood droptanks in the BoB on 109. They horribly leaked, too. Perhaps due to vibration from the non-existing hub cannons. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Regarding the use of alloy drop tanks during the BoB, your position seems to be that the existence of the manual for the E-7 and some undated factory pics of the E-7 constitute proof. They don't. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am afraid you`ve misunderstood me. What consitutes proof to very high probability of their use is that the alloy droptanks were evidently available before, and during the BoB (they were used by Stukas already), and the 109E-7 that could carry them was also evidently available from late August.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Just to be clear, it is you, Kurfurst, who is making three positive claims to fact:

1. that the plywood tanks referred to in the literature are fiction; </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I see. You`re confused of what constitutes a positive claim. Hint : this one doesn`t.

It`s a negetive claim, stating that no such thing existed, it`s made up by authors, and some other authors repeated the error ever since. You on the other hand claim they existed, ie. a positive claim.

Now, isn`t that analogue to our old lunatic friend claiming the existence of teapot orbiting (plywood droptank) out in the deep space (positive claim), being told it just doesn`t exist (negative claim)? Since we cannot really prove that something doesn`t exist, perhaps our friend should show us something that proves the thing exist indeed. But so far he was unable to.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">2. that E-7s used alloy drop tanks during the BoB; and
3. that the manual you've got preceded service introduction of the E-7. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now I`d love to see you quoting me on that. Until then, here`s some food for thought.

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/JU87R-droptank_May-June_France.jpg

In addition, Wood and Dempster themselves enter a self contradiction about these droptanks, showing a similiar picture of two III/StG 2 long-range Ju 87R Stukas on page 131, noting that :

'Early in July Fighter Command intelligence reports noted that JU 87 dive bombers had appeared off Portland carrying long-range fuel tanks under the wings to extend their radius of action. The two long-range Stukas shown here were from III/St.G. 2. "Immelmann". Use of long range tanks, however, made no difference to the fate of the Ju 87 in the Battle as, due to heavy losses, the type was withdrawn in August.'

Nota bene, these are the same light metal droptanks depicted in the Bf 109E-7 manual. I am struggling to find a reason why the Germans would use an unreliable plywood tank, of which no picture seems to exist from 1940, when their Stukas were flying happily with the same droptank shown in the E-7 manual months before and during the Battle of Britain. And, it`s rather unlikely that there has been shortage of these droptanks, given the fact that Stukas, which appearantly suffered no shortage of these droptanks, were using them for months, and their withdrawal from action coincided with the operational introduction of the E-7 - ie. lot`s of idle Stukas and their droptanks laying around. The Germans problems in using these droptank was that too few E-7s were around, not that they did not have suitable droptanks.

Kettenhunde
12-01-2007, 03:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Paper tanks were light and easy to handle compared to metal tanks. These 108-gallon ones also held more fuel. Using paper also denied the Germans scrap metal when they were dropped by Allied Fighters. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.cebud...%26rls%3Den%26sa%3DN (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.cebudanderson.com/images/droptank02.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.cebudanderson.com/droptanks.htm&h=495&w=450&sz=43&hl=en&start=22&um=1&tbnid=LqhMmEmPLX4HwM:&tbnh=130&tbnw=118&prev=/images%3Fq%3Ddrop-tank%26start%3D20%26ndsp%3D20%26svnum%3D10%26um%3D 1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dsafari%26rls%3Den%26sa%3DN)

What in the world is the big deal here? All sides during the war used or developed "wood" for their DT's. There are some very good reasons for using it as a construction material. All DT's leak especially when shot. All fuel tanks leak for that matter! They have to be vented. Go fill an aircraft up to the top of the tanks and taxi around.

How this becomes a basis for an argument of "my cartoon is better than your cartoon" is something unique to gamers.

All the best,

Crumpp

Sergio_101
12-01-2007, 04:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
I have now found a picture of galland's personel e4/n with gallad standing next to it and it is equiped with a drop tank. It says it was modified to take the aluminium tank so the e4's could be easily modified in the field. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think nobody here debates that older aircraft could be retrofitted to comply with E-7 standards. There are many pictures proving this. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dang, I find myself agreeing with Turfy again.
Not a good thing but.....
Recycling Bf-109 remains was a common occourance on the production lines.
Retrofitting a Bf-109.... to be a Bf-109.... was also very common.
(Note that some of those parts did not need to travel far to be re-used! They sort of fell from the sky)

Truth is that wasting finished airfraft parts in a war of attrition
was just plain stupid. Even the USAAC/USAAF blended wrecked aircraft
into what we knew as "Frankenbirds".
Remanufacturing US planes on the production lines was out of the question
because of the great distances.

A famous Frankenstein "Frankenbird" is the B-17D "Swoose Goose" in storage
at the Smithstonian US Air and Space Museum.
The Goose is an assembelage of parts from B-17A through B-17G, but the primary
airframe is a B-17D.(B-17D main fusealge B-17C tail, B-17B and B-17A wings, B-17F nose and B-17G engines/turbosuperchargers).
This historic aircraft was likely the first US bomber ever to drop bombs in anger
during WWII. It should be restored and placed on display.

As to the leaky wooden tanks, I have seen it in print many times, and doubted it.
But, the Allies also used pressed paper drop tanks with great success.
Why not? The Krauts had their backs against the wall. Try anything.

Sergio

Sergio_101
12-01-2007, 04:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
Right Rat, he has yet to prove that drop tanks were used during BoB (before Oct 31 1940) with definitive proof.

This just like his 1.98ata, where 'cleared' becomes 'used' with circumstantial evidence but no definitive proof. Yet when shown definitive proof that 100pn fuel was in wide spread use during BoB and 150pn fuel was also in widespread use, he poopaws the evidence. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The US Esso tanker, US flagged as well, "SS Beacon Hill" arrived with a full load of "commercial 100 grade"
light California av gas.

The tanker arrived a few weeks before the BOB heated up, and allowed for the increase in manifold pressure
on Merlin engined fighters

(Cedit Graham White Allied aircraft Piston Engines of WWII page 49, line 6)
"The use of 100 octane fuel allowed an increase in manifold pressure from 42.6 to 48.2 in Hg, this increase in manifold pressure improved power from
1030 to 1160 hp. Later in mid 1940 a further increase in manifold pressure was authorised to 54.3 in Hg yeilding a power of 1310 hp at 3,000 rpm.
(End credit)

That 115/145 grade fuel and "150 grade" was in common use is also a non issue.
It was in widespread use in ETO from mid 1944 on, and some US fighter groups
tweaked their engines to make use of it.

Also (as a cover I'm sure) the Esso Av Gas was intended for use
in the Pan Am Clipper flying boats then in service on regular trans atlantic runs.
Funny that the fuel was the top choice for Air Racers of the late 1930's
and the highest PN fuel available at that time.
Pan Am demanded the best.....(NOT!)

Sergio

stalkervision
12-02-2007, 02:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kettenhunde:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Paper tanks were light and easy to handle compared to metal tanks. These 108-gallon ones also held more fuel. Using paper also denied the Germans scrap metal when they were dropped by Allied Fighters. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.cebud...%26rls%3Den%26sa%3DN (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.cebudanderson.com/images/droptank02.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.cebudanderson.com/droptanks.htm&h=495&w=450&sz=43&hl=en&start=22&um=1&tbnid=LqhMmEmPLX4HwM:&tbnh=130&tbnw=118&prev=/images%3Fq%3Ddrop-tank%26start%3D20%26ndsp%3D20%26svnum%3D10%26um%3D 1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dsafari%26rls%3Den%26sa%3DN)

What in the world is the big deal here? All sides during the war used or developed "wood" for their DT's. There are some very good reasons for using it as a construction material. All DT's leak especially when shot. All fuel tanks leak for that matter! They have to be vented. Go fill an aircraft up to the top of the tanks and taxi around.

How this becomes a basis for an argument of "my cartoon is better than your cartoon" is something unique to gamers.

All the best,

Crumpp </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess this say it all..

tools4foolsA
12-03-2007, 04:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">There is an account of a flight of Bf110's being intercepted just before they jettisoned their drop-tanks some time in the BOB. Some of them just exploded in mid air, as the fume filled drop-tanks were hit by .303 incendary.

I forget which battle/day it was on but I distictly remember reading about it, possibly in one of my Fighter pilot biographies. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Remember that one too...

But I think it was 110 with the Dacfkelbauch tank which is not a drop tank, rather a fixed auxiliary tank. No armor.
Good luck.

I think that's why the 'Dackelbauch' proved a failure...

As for the 109 drop tanks:

Sure there were some planes around that could carry drop tanks.

Sure there were some drop tanks around, those of the Ju87 being the ones.

But how many were around?

The qoute of the Milch book above states that there was no cheap drop tank in numbers.

Could that mean that there were only precious few of those ju87 tanks?

Having only few tanks, now could that mean that pilots were maybe advised NOT to drop the tank in combat? To bring it back home for further use?

That would well explain the pilots reluctance to use the tanks - and them demanding the tanks being amoured if they have to RTB with the tanks.

If they were allowed to drop the tanks they wouldn't care if they armoured or not, no?

So end of the day maybe we had some machines to use tanks, few tanks to use and pilots not using them for a obvious reason.

*****

Ratsack
12-03-2007, 04:21 AM
Who resurrected this pile of sh1te?

Look, Kurfurst, you are denying the existence of a plywood droptank that is positively documented by several authors. The basis of your claim amounts your statement that you can't understand why they wouldn't have used the Ju-87 tanks. That's nice: you don't understand.

Nevertheless, the tanks are recorded to have existed, and been abortively used during the BoB. Your position on that aspect of the argument amounts to nothing more than an assertion that those authors were wrong.

So we've got you not understanding why they'd not use the Stuka tanks, and a claim that other authors are wrong.

That's it.

Ratsack

Kurfurst__
12-03-2007, 05:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Squeeky voice from down under a pile-of-sh1te :

Who resurrected this pile of sh1te? Look, Kurfurst, you are denying the existence of a plywood droptank that is positively documented by several authors. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

'Several'? 'Documented'? Well, would you kindly list these for us.

I can only positively identify Wood/Dempster, but they have no fair idea about what Spitfire or Me 109E to have existed to start with, they have no idea that the 109F was used in the Battle, and they are making up fictional variants of them - and yes, they are the only ones around claiming leaky plywood droptanks in use during the BoB, without providing a single shred of evidence.

Now, as opposed to them, we know from primary German and British sources that :

- that light alloy droptanks were available before the BoB, developed for the Ju 87R Stukas.
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/JU87R-droptank_May-June_France.jpg

- that these Ju 87R Stukas were used, and sighted with their light alloy droptanks, during the BoB
'Early in July Fighter Command intelligence reports noted that JU 87 dive bombers had appeared off Portland carrying long-range fuel tanks under the wings to extend their radius of action. The two long-range Stukas shown here were from III/St.G. 2. "Immelmann". Use of long range tanks, however, made no difference to the fate of the Ju 87 in the Battle as, due to heavy losses, the type was withdrawn in August.'

- that the Bf 109E-7 was introduced in late August 1940, see strenght reports by the LW Quartermaster.

- that the Bf 109E-7s used the same light alloy droptanks developed for Stukas, ie. see manual :
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/E-7_alutbehalter.jpg

- ...and photographic evidence :
http://kepfeltoltes.hu/071102/109E-7_droptank_www.kepfeltoltes.hu_.jpg

- there`s photographic evidence from November 1940 Bf 109E-1s using that light alloy tank, too :
http://www.franky.fliegerhospital.de/JG53%20Droptank.jpg

- that subsequent Bf 109s, used the same light alloy droptanks developed for Stukas, too see:
http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/Tactical_trials/109...9Gtrop_WdimPerf.html (http://kurfurst.allaboutwarfare.com/Tactical_trials/109G2_britg2trop/MET-109Gtrop_WdimPerf.html)
JETTISONABLE FUEL TANK:

One jettisonable fuel tank, type Ju 87/NKF. Capacity
65 gallons, weight 55 lb.; test pressure 8.5 lb/sq.in.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The basis of your claim amounts your statement that you can't understand why they wouldn't have used the Ju-87 tanks. That's nice: you don't understand. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can perfectly understand that the 109E-7 and subsequent Bf 109 variants used the same droptank originally developed for the Ju 87R, and these droptanks are documented above to be used during the BoB. But, since you appearantly still feel yourself capable of making up another partisan excuse on the run as to why those droptanks, laying around there, would not be used, I am all ears to hear it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">So we've got you not understanding why they'd not use the Stuka tanks, and a claim that other authors are wrong.

That's it.

Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, we`ve got a lot more than that, and even you`d have been capable of noticing it, provided your head would have not stuck up in your @***. But, 'Mr. Lunatic', I am afraid your teapot orbiting the Mars just do not exist.

Ratsack
12-03-2007, 06:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
...
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">So we've got you not understanding why they'd not use the Stuka tanks, and a claim that other authors are wrong.

That's it.

Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, we`ve got a lot more than that, and even you`d have been capable of noticing it, provided your head would have not stuck up in your @***. But, 'Mr. Lunatic', I am afraid your teapot orbiting the Mars just do not exist. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah, I see you've resorted to personal insults and attacks. Situation normal, then.

Kurfy, the situation is as I described above. You are simply claiming Wood & Dempster, and Galland's biographer, and Hooten, all got it wrong. Pictures and happy snaps post-dating the matter in question don't help you.

It doesn't constitute 'history' for you to denigrate the work of any historian with whom you happen to disagree. I've just finished a discussion with you in another thread where you slandered Anthony Beevor as a poor researcher and next door to a liar. You were shown to be comprehensively wrong on that score, too.

I am frankly at a loss as to why this stuff exercises you so.

Ratsack

Kurfurst__
12-03-2007, 06:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
Kurfy, the situation is as I described above. You are simply claiming Wood & Dempster, and Galland's biographer, and Hooten, all got it wrong. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now that would be a double lie, wouldn`t it.

First of all I`ve noted Wood and Dempster is simply wrong on the account; this is evidenced by the lack of any evidence to their claims on plywood tanks in their book or anywhere else, as well as their incompetence on technical matters. It was shown they were making up completely fictionary Bf 109E, Spitfire variants, being ill-informed of the 109F etc.

You failed to address this.

I don`t recall claiming Galland's biographer, and Hooten being all wrong; which brings us to your second lie : the former certainly does not say anything you claim he does, and I don`t recall if you had been able to quote Hooton (or anyone else for that matter) to support your claims either.

So basically the nature of your second lie is making up the contents of some of the author`s works you refer to, but never quote. I have asked you, several times in this thread, to quote your references.

You failed or refused every time. Now, what does that tell us..?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
Pictures and happy snaps post-dating the matter in question don't help you. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You mean you will happily ignore any and all evidence presented while failing to provide anything on your own. This ain`t news though. When you have emberassed yourself completely the last couple of times, the situation was exactly the same. In particular I recall your hysteria about the introduction date of the 109E-3, which you claimed could have not possible happened when it actually did, and carried on with your 'I will have the last word'-type partisan sillyness you demonstrate again in this thread.

Frankly, I cannot understand that if this matter of being wrong on the subject frustrates you so much, than why do you frustrate yourself further instead of admitting of being wrong about it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It doesn't constitute 'history' for you to denigrate the work of any historian with whom you happen to disagree. I've just finished a discussion with you in another thread where you slandered Anthony Beevor as a poor researcher and next door to a liar. You were shown to be comprehensively wrong on that score, too. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

... and now I believe you must be smoking something funny, or, making your 3rd lie in this post. I gave up counting totals for the thread.

I think the first one was the 'E-7 manual is from 1941, so it doesn`t count'. You`ve made that one up, too, have you not...?

Ratsack
12-03-2007, 06:33 AM
Geez, Kurfy, give it a rest. You've got nothing except insults and histionics on this. You've denigrated Wood & Dempster, you've all but called Beevor a liar, and you expect me to keep doing your research? Get real. Regarding Hooten, I've quoted it to you before, but if you're too lazy to find it, here's a hint: it's in the chapter Bomben auf England. Go and look it up if your crusade to re-write history exercises you so much.

As all can see, you have nothing except insults for all who disagree, and your failure to comprehend how reality might be other than you would like it to have been. That's nice for you, but it's not history: it's histrionics, as I said.

Ratsack

Kurfurst__
12-03-2007, 06:40 AM
Once again, you failed to address anything, and just come up with anything substantial. And please quote me where I called Beevor a liar, liar.

All who disagree? Gee, Rattie, when will you realize that you`re the sole partisan here refusing to come out of the woods - nobody else is arguing here but you, without any substance in your arguements.

If you kindly read this thread, you`ll find that readers seem to acknowledge and share my scepticism for plywood droptanks.

The problem is, and this is why these alleged plywood droptanks are so utterly important to you, is that you`ve deeply emberrassed yourself on the matter in another older thread (that got locked when you`re so much out of arguements and were so desperate that you started to call me a holocaust denier), and grow so frustrated over it you just can`t let it go.

luftluuver
12-03-2007, 06:42 AM
Where are the Mods with the padlock?

This thread, like so many others, has gone downhill with the participation of Kurfurst.

Ratsack
12-03-2007, 06:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In particular I recall your hysteria about the introduction date of the 109E-3, which you claimed could have not possible happened when it actually did, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And since you kindly raise this again, the hysteria was all yours, Kurfy. It was you, if you recall, that constantly spammed about three threads until they were locked, simply because you didn't like the conclusions I drew. You were quite free to start your own discussion. You were even free to be civil, but you chose not to be, instead starting in with accusations of red bias and partisanship etc.

I think a few participants in this thread will remember your appalling behaviour over that period and read your comments in light of it. It is a poor light indeed.

Regarding the introduction date of the E-3, the situation still stands as it did when the first thread was locked. You claim it was introduced before the war started: in 1938 if memory serves. The sources I have read state its introduction to be late 1939. When I queried you as to the source of your figures, you typed in a list of numbers that you claimed to represent 109 production. I asked you their provenance, and you claimed they were official records of deliveries.

What you never produced, although I asked for it, was a scan or a true citation for the information in that document/s showing that:

1. the figures were for 109 deliveries; and
2. that they included 109 E-3s.

You simply asserted that they did.

If it was somebody more trustworthy than your good self making these claims, I'd have happily accepted them at face value for the purposes of a net discussion. But given your well-earned reputation for mendacity I asked for the citations.

You never provided them. And that's where it's stood ever since.

Again, it would have been very easy for you to do so and settle the issue, but you preferred to spew invective.

I see you're taking the same path now. Good oh.

Ratsack

Ratsack
12-03-2007, 07:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
...please quote me where I called Beevor a liar, liar. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

With pleasure.

The context was a matter relating to the air attacks on Stalingrad. I wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I'm happy to be corrected on that if I'm wrong, though. I'll have a look at a couple of sources sitting my shelf later and come back. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

To which you replied:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Fine, just not Beevor please (though I have no idea wheter he even addresses the matter) that`s a horrible book and author. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Stathem asked you to elaborate on the Beevor comment.

To which you replied:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
He makes no (primary) research, that`s the problem, he seems to just take off books on the subject off the shelf, read them, and summarizes them (and carrying over their errors) without any source criticism in a book published under his own name. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I then wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
... in relation to Beevor, it's doing him a grave injustice to say he does no serious research of primary sources. I have his book Stalingrad open in front of me. Not having read it since 1999, but seeing your comments above, I opened to his end-notes so I could see what he was citing. I picked a chapter at random, and it turned out to be the notes for the last pages of Chapter 13, appearing on p. 460 of my edition:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
p. 214 'The ice flows collide...', Grossman Papers, RGALI 618/2/108
P. 214 Volga steamers, Grossman Papers, RGALI 618/12/21 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
And so it goes on: I was going to type them all out, but you can go and have a look yourself if you feel strongly about it. On that page there were fourteen references for the end of Ch. 13, and of those, all but 3 were from primary sources. Two of the secondaries were quotes from Richtofen's diary, cited in another publication. Included in the primary sources was at least one conversation with one of the players.

The other chapters are similar. So it looks to me that he's done quite a bit of primary research. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

To which you replied:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">...I also wonder just how many of Beevor`s primary references were just taken from the other books he read, along with the text... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here you insinuate – ˜I wonder just how many...' – that Beevor has not actually seen the primary sources he has cited. Given that Beevor has cited the primary source, if he had done what you were insinuating he had done, he would be lying in his citation.

You all but called him a liar. It is clear that you either have a very short memory, or it is you who are the liar.
Even worse, you all but called him a liar just to avoid changing your original slander of him.

As I said, I wonder why you become so exercised by this subject matter that you are so willing to drip vitriol and lie and carry on as you do. Are you well?

Ratsack

PS - nice edit, Kurfurst.

Kurfurst__
12-03-2007, 07:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In particular I recall your hysteria about the introduction date of the 109E-3, which you claimed could have not possible happened when it actually did, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And since you kindly raise this again, the hysteria was all yours, Kurfy. It was you, if you recall, that constantly spammed about three threads until they were locked, simply because you didn't like the conclusions I drew. You were quite free to start your own discussion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It`s a nice story, the problem is it`s again just a lie and had been made up; perhaps over the time you even succeeded telling you it was this way, but any kind reader can verify your ridiculusly self-emberassing behaviour in that thread.

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/156...451047065#1451047065 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/1561005835?r=1451047065#1451047065)

People may witness Ratsack`s behaviour matching exactly how he described my alleged behaviour.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
You were even free to be civil, but you chose not to be, instead starting in with accusations of red bias and partisanship etc. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Readers may draw further conclusions about Ratsack`s credibility by comparing the contents of the thread at the link with the way Ratsack describes it.

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/1561005835/p/6

This is the first line of Ratsack`s first post to me in that thread :

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:

I think you are the one with the very clear bias here. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now, calling the other party 'partisan' was started by Ratsack, when he grew angry that Bewulf noted :

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bewulf:

Kurfürst is right in one regard though. He brought a lot of pretty convincing sources. No matter the insults thrown around or percieved spins, but in this so far he has the better standing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

To which the reply was a lenghty amount of rhetorics failing to address the issue :

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/1561005835/p/13


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bewulf:

Kurfürst is right in one regard though. He brought a lot of pretty convincing sources. No matter the insults thrown around or percieved spins, but in this so far he has the better standing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I disagree, Beowulf. I posted one reference for the plywood drop tanks earlier today. It's not my job to ensure Kurfy reads what is sent.

Regarding the E-3, Kurfy is clutching at straws. He is using a test of a prototype and a very weak inference drawn from WkNrs to conclude that more than a thousand E-3s were delivered before the commencement of hostilities. [ Take note that this is actually a lie, the source and exact listing s of the 109E deliveres were listed not long before on that thread, Ratsack just ignored them ]

If that were the conventional view, I agree, it would be up to me to provide counter evidence. However, it is not the conventional view. The vast majority of historians of the aeronautical aspects of the war agree that the E-3 was introduced in the second half of 1939. Do a Google search if you are skeptical. I invite you to do so.

So in this instance it is Kurfy who is proposing the hypothesis that requires evidence. This is a well established convention in Western thought. The philosopher Bertand Russell explained it as the Tea Pot analogy. It runs thus:

There may exist a china tea pot orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars. There may exist a person who fervently believes that this tea pot exists. However, the tea pot is too small for our telescopes to detect. Science cannot, therefore, prove that the teapot DOESN'T exist.

But when a normal person meets the lunatic who believes in the teapot, we don't believe him. If he wants to persuade us that the teapot exists, it's up to him to persuade, not up to us to provide proof that THE TEA POT ISN'T THERE.

Kurfy has provided us with a lot of teapots in this thread so far. He has arbitrarily extended the Battle of Britain from June to December 1940 and beyond (and then invoked Kershaw when questioned on it), he has claimed Bf 109 Fs in the Battle of Britain, he has claimed more than 1,000 Bf 109s of a type that most historians agree was not produced until after July 1939 were nevertheless delivered by the end of August that year.

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Kurfurst's partisanship for the 109 is no secret.</span>In that context, I make no apologies for offending his sensibilities in this respect.

...

So I strongly disagree with your view that Kurfurst has provided more information. He has thrown a lot of data around in his effort to muddy the water, and he's indulged in all manner of personal attacks. He has not, however, actually addressed himself to the issue, which is arguing to the criteria I expounded in my first post. He is welcome to disagree with those criteria, and start his own thread.

cheers,
Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


As we can see, self-dillusion, the resorting to various sorts of personal attacks, lies, making up and distorting the statements of others that watermark Ratsack`s posts is not anything new, it has been a watermark of Ratsack`s post, with which later he will deny and blame it for others.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I think a few participants in this thread will remember your appalling behaviour over that period and read your comments in light of it. It is a poor light indeed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Readers may draw further conclusions about Ratsack`s credibility by comparing the contents of the thread at the link with the way Ratsack describes it. The link is http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/1561005835/p/13

It starts with Ratsack calling me 'very biased', by page 13 he is getting very frustrated and start using expressions like 'luntic', 'partisan', and eventually the thread gets locked by Bearcat when Ratsack lower it to a scale of accusation of Holocaust denial, and otherwise repeating themselves on page 18 that they still can`t see the references posted to them for about half dozen instances. It`s really a sad show of self-emberassment.

Perhaps you now understand better, why Ratsack has such a partisan stance on droptanks.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
Regarding the introduction date of the E-3, the situation still stands as it did when the first thread was locked. You claim it was introduced before the war started: in 1938 if memory serves. The sources I have read state its introduction to be late 1939. When I queried you as to the source of your figures, you typed in a list of numbers that you claimed to represent 109 production. I asked you their provenance, and you claimed they were official records of deliveries.

What you never produced, although I asked for it, was a scan or a true citation for the information in that document/s showing that:

1. the figures were for 109 deliveries; and
2. that they included 109 E-3s.

You simply asserted that they did. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Readers may draw further conclusions on Ratsack`s credibility upon visiting the same links :
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/1561005835/p/13
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/1561005835/p/16

Note that I gave detailed breakdown of the E-1/E-3 production in the thread, in fact, several times :

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst:
Delivered up to 31.12.1938

Bf 109E-1 : 14
Bf 109E-3 : 153

On strenght with first line LW fighter units 8 January 1939 : 104 Bf 109Es

Delivered up to 31.03.1939

Bf 109E-1 : 183
Bf 109E-3 : 325

On strenght with first line LW fighter units 13 April 1939 : 328 Bf 109E

Delivered up to 31.08.1939

Bf 109E-1 : 522
Bf 109E-3 : 603
================
Total : 1125

On strenght with first line LW fighter units 30 September 1939 : 948 Bf 109Es </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

For those who doesn`t bother, I`ll quote myself where I gave the exact references, too :

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst:

In any case, the production figures for E-1 and E-3 are from:

RLM Flugzeugbeschaffungs-Programm Nr. 7a von 01.04.1938
RLM Flugzeugbeschaffungs-Programm Nr. 8 von 01.07.1938
RLM Flugzeugbeschaffungs-Programm Nr. 10 von 01.01.1939
RLM Flugzeugbeschaffungs-Programm Nr. 11 von 01.04.1939
RLM Flugzeugbeschaffungs-Programm Nr. 15 von 01.09.1939

Which covers Bf 109 deliveries between 30.11.1937 and up to 31.08.1939. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That was what I`ve posted. Now, it`s another matter that for the next 6 page or so, plus this page, Ratsack was hysterically repeating he had seen nothing. Also note that some other people participating in the thread confirmed the validity of my figures, naturally Ratsack, all alone with his partisan stance, ignored that one too.

Also note, above else, that while Ratsack is hysterically denying the thing, and making clouded references to, as usual, 'most historians', 'several sources', but never actually naming specifically or quoting just one, he simply makes up things.

Now, as to checking wheter the E-3 was around by early 1939 (as I`ve shown him), it`s fairly easy; even Wood and Dempster has photographs of E-3s from the Spanish Civil war; more recently, Lynn Ritger has dealt with the subject in his recent work :

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/109E_spain.jpg

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If it was somebody more trustworthy than your good self making these claims, I'd have happily accepted them at face value for the purposes of a net discussion. But given your well-earned reputation for mendacity I asked for the citations.

You never provided them. And that's where it's stood ever since. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

See above.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Again, it would have been very easy for you to do so and settle the issue, but you preferred to spew invective.

I see you're taking the same path now. Good oh.

Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

See above. Rhetorics, partisan attitude, but no substance.

Ratsack
12-03-2007, 07:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
...

*snip*

Originally posted by Kurfurst:
Delivered up to 31.12.1938

Bf 109E-1 : 14
Bf 109E-3 : 153

On strenght with first line LW fighter units 8 January 1939 : 104 Bf 109Es

Delivered up to 31.03.1939

Bf 109E-1 : 183
Bf 109E-3 : 325

On strenght with first line LW fighter units 13 April 1939 : 328 Bf 109E

Delivered up to 31.08.1939

Bf 109E-1 : 522
Bf 109E-3 : 603
================
Total : 1125

On strenght with first line LW fighter units 30 September 1939 : 948 Bf 109Es



For those who doesn`t bother, I`ll quote myself where I gave the exact references, too :

quote:
Originally posted by Kurfurst:

In any case, the production figures for E-1 and E-3 are from:

RLM Flugzeugbeschaffungs-Programm Nr. 7a von 01.04.1938
RLM Flugzeugbeschaffungs-Programm Nr. 8 von 01.07.1938
RLM Flugzeugbeschaffungs-Programm Nr. 10 von 01.01.1939
RLM Flugzeugbeschaffungs-Programm Nr. 11 von 01.04.1939
RLM Flugzeugbeschaffungs-Programm Nr. 15 von 01.09.1939

Which covers Bf 109 deliveries between 30.11.1937 and up to 31.08.1939.

*snip*

See above. Rhetorics, partisan attitude, but no substance. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK. This is where we stood when the first thread was locked. You've provided a list of numbers. T o wit, those above. Very nice for you. You can type.

You claim they represent Bf 109 E deliveries. I'm sure that's nice for you, too.

You claim these alleged Bf 109 E deliveries include Bf 109 E-3s. I'm sure that's very nice for you, too.

So far, what you've presented is you telling me those numbers include 109 E-3s. Why on Earth would any body not believe you, Kurfurst, on your naked word?

I said in my post immediately above:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">What you never produced, although I asked for it, was a scan or a true citation for the information in that document/s showing that:

1. the figures were for 109 deliveries; and
2. that they included 109 E-3s. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is indeed where we STILL stand. You have printed out the names of publications that you claim contain the data above, and you further claim that these publications explicitly say that those data include Bf 109 E-3s. You haven't quoted where they say that they're E-3s. I'm just supposed to take your word for it. You haven't even cited a page number where it says so. You haven't cited the provenance of these documents, either. Are they faxes of originals, or are they in a secondary publication, or what?

None of that is there. Only your word.

Ratsack

Ratsack
12-03-2007, 08:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It starts with Ratsack calling me 'very biased', by page 13 he is getting very frustrated and start using expressions like 'luntic', 'partisan', and eventually the thread gets locked by Bearcat when Ratsack lower it to a scale of accusation of Holocaust denial, ... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is priceless!
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Don't ever leave, Kurfurst. The place would not be the same without your surreal view of things.

luftluuver
12-03-2007, 08:01 AM
When it comes to credibility, Ratsack is Mount Everest and that of Kurfurst is the Marianas Trench. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Kurfurst__
12-03-2007, 08:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
...please quote me where I called Beevor a liar, liar. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

With pleasure.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Fine, just not Beevor please (though I have no idea wheter he even addresses the matter) that`s a horrible book and author. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">...I also wonder just how many of Beevor`s primary references were just taken from the other books he read, along with the text... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here you insinuate – ˜I wonder just how many...' – that Beevor has not actually seen the primary sources he has cited. Given that Beevor has cited the primary source, if he had done what you were insinuating he had done, he would be lying in his citation.

You all but called him a liar. It is clear that you either have a very short memory, or it is you who are the liar. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now that`s really reaching isn`t it. I am afraid as to the question of which one us is a liar, that has been already settled.

You claimed that I`ve called Beevor a liar. Now funnily, you`ve not mentioned this claim of yours in the original thread when Beevor was discusses; now, that was when you`ve run out of partisan arguements here, and start to change subject to something else, discrediting and ad hominem attacks, as usual.

Anyway, to prove this, you`ve quoted two relevant quotes from me.

In the first, I told you Beevor`s horrible books and is a horrible author.
Now calling someone a poor author is certainly not the same as calling him a liar.

In the second I note that I am not sure how many of the listed primary references had been researched in person by the author, instead of carried over from other authors.
Again, noting that someone may be using secondary sources in his book is certainly not the same as calling him a liar. Many (popular) authors do this.

You claim either one of these equals calling Beevor a liar. I pass the judgement on this to others, but IMHO that makes you a liar, not me or Beevor.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Even worse, you all but called him a liar just to avoid changing your original slander of him. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now I wonder how your sudden fascination of Beevor is connected to plywood droptanks etc.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As I said, I wonder why you become so exercised by this subject matter that you are so willing to drip vitriol and lie and carry on as you do. Are you well? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That would be another personal attack, supposed to make up for a valid arguement.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">PS - nice edit, Kurfurst. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And I guess that would be a lie.

Kurfurst__
12-03-2007, 08:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
...

*snip*

Originally posted by Kurfurst:
Delivered up to 31.12.1938

Bf 109E-1 : 14
Bf 109E-3 : 153

On strenght with first line LW fighter units 8 January 1939 : 104 Bf 109Es

Delivered up to 31.03.1939

Bf 109E-1 : 183
Bf 109E-3 : 325

On strenght with first line LW fighter units 13 April 1939 : 328 Bf 109E

Delivered up to 31.08.1939

Bf 109E-1 : 522
Bf 109E-3 : 603
================
Total : 1125

On strenght with first line LW fighter units 30 September 1939 : 948 Bf 109Es



For those who doesn`t bother, I`ll quote myself where I gave the exact references, too :

quote:
Originally posted by Kurfurst:

In any case, the production figures for E-1 and E-3 are from:

RLM Flugzeugbeschaffungs-Programm Nr. 7a von 01.04.1938
RLM Flugzeugbeschaffungs-Programm Nr. 8 von 01.07.1938
RLM Flugzeugbeschaffungs-Programm Nr. 10 von 01.01.1939
RLM Flugzeugbeschaffungs-Programm Nr. 11 von 01.04.1939
RLM Flugzeugbeschaffungs-Programm Nr. 15 von 01.09.1939

Which covers Bf 109 deliveries between 30.11.1937 and up to 31.08.1939.

*snip*

See above. Rhetorics, partisan attitude, but no substance. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK. This is where we stood when the first thread was locked. You've provided a list of numbers. T o wit, those above. Very nice for you. You can type.

You claim they represent Bf 109 E deliveries. I'm sure that's nice for you, too.

You claim these alleged Bf 109 E deliveries include Bf 109 E-3s. I'm sure that's very nice for you, too.

So far, what you've presented is you telling me those numbers include 109 E-3s. Why on Earth would any body not believe you, Kurfurst, on your naked word?

I said in my post immediately above:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">What you never produced, although I asked for it, was a scan or a true citation for the information in that document/s showing that:

1. the figures were for 109 deliveries; and
2. that they included 109 E-3s. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is indeed where we STILL stand. You have printed out the names of publications that you claim contain the data above, and you further claim that these publications explicitly say that those data include Bf 109 E-3s. You haven't quoted where they say that they're E-3s. I'm just supposed to take your word for it. You haven't even cited a page number where it says so. You haven't cited the provenance of these documents, either. Are they faxes of originals, or are they in a secondary publication, or what?

None of that is there. Only your word.

Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Oh well, I guess this sums it up and gives a good insight into how much Ratsack is able to detach himself from reality.

I am sure the scan from Lynn Ritger`s book show up in everybody elses computer, and in their brains, too, just as well as anyone can check the picture of an E-3 in Spain (ie. well before WW2 started) in Wood and Dempster`s book.

That leaves us with one sad partisan crying in the woods, but won`t coming out.
But, who cares about that, really. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Ratsack
12-03-2007, 08:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
...

You claimed that I`ve called Beevor a liar. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No. I proved it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Now funnily, you`ve not mentioned this claim of yours in the original thread when Beevor was discusses... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

On the contrary. I mentioned it in the other thread and pursued the matter to the point of saying:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">:

Regarding Beevor, I suggest you open his book on the Spanish Civil War, and perhaps you`ll revise your PoV when you see what kinds of mistakes he makes. Stalingrad is undoubtedly Beevor`s best work, the others are avarage or even below-avarage, unless you`re telling me that he can be an expert of the Stalingrad operations, the Siege of Berlin, the attack on Crete, the Resistance and the Spanish Civil war, all at the same time. If he can, he is truely exceptional. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



This paragraph doesn't make sense to me. You start off saying that he's made mistakes in his history of the Spanish civil war. O.K., I'll take that under advisement since I've not read it. You then say that Stalingrad is his best work. Alright. But then you go on to say the others are average or worse because he can't possibly be expert on all subjects at once. This is the bit that doesn't make sense: you seem to be saying that they must be worse because he can't be expert in all those fields. Have you read any of them?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">:
I also wonder just how many of Beevor`s primary references were just taken from the other books he read, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



In the end notes I referred to above, he cited the other works in three instances. It would be dishonest for him to do otherwise, but I see no reason to suppose he has. As I just said, on those occasions where he'd cited a source in a secondary or tertiary publication, he cited the secondary or tertiary source.

I see no reason to denigrate his scholarship in this way.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
...when you`ve run out of partisan arguements here, and start to change subject to something else, discrediting and ad hominem attacks, as usual. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have no need to change subjects, or resort to personal attacks. You do both with such ease I could never compete.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Anyway, to prove this, you`ve quoted two relevant quotes from me. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's true, at least. I do that because the context was important. You were denigrating an historian who has written one of the most widely acclaimed books on Stalingrad in English, in the context of a discussion of Stalingrad. That's important.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
In the second I note that I am not sure how many of the listed primary references had been researched in person by the author, instead of carried over from other authors. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Implying that he does this without citing the other authors.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Again, noting that someone may be using secondary sources in his book is certainly not the same as calling him a liar. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Suggesting he does so without citing the secondary source IS.

For an historian what you have just written is blasphemy. A serious historian will always cite his or her sources, be they primary or otherwise. For an historian to claim a primary source when none has been used is akin to pissing on the altar during high mass.

There is no shame in using secondary sources. But it is the depths of dishonesty for an historian to do so without citing them, as you suggested Beevor had done.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
You claim either one of these equals calling Beevor a liar. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Q.E.D.

stalkervision
12-03-2007, 08:29 AM
I find this photo another pretty good indicator luftwAffe plywood fuel tanks were real. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://museum119.cz/nadrz/2.jpg

It might be a fake though.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I now starting to believe in reality it is actually a geman..

"Beer-brewin-plywood-takin" for fermenting german hops at luftwaffe airfields..

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Ratsack
12-03-2007, 08:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
... more recently, Lynn Ritger has dealt with the subject in his recent work :

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/109E_spain.jpg
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>



Um, Kurfy dear, is this the picture from Lynn Ritger's book to which you refer?

Because if it is, I have some very sad news for you. This is not a Bf 109 E-3. Captions are not everything. You have to LOOK. Have a squizz at where the oil cooler on any Bf 109 E would be...um, yes, um, where that great, big radiator housing is.

Um.

To spell it out for the Bf 109 illiterate, that radiator housing is a feature of Bf 109s powered by the Junkers Jumo 210 engine. This is the motor that graced the Bf 109 from the B series until the C. The D series is not at issue here, but the E series introduced the Daimler Benz DB 601 engine to the Bf 109 family. This involved an extensive redesign of the nose and the cooling system. It also introduced A THREE BLADED PROPELLER!!!!!

Not only is that plane most definitely not an E-3, it is not even an Emil!

Now go and get these bloody citations, Kurfy. You're just making a spectacle of yourself here.

Ratsack

Kurfurst__
12-03-2007, 08:43 AM
Where did that post go, Ratsack? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

stalkervision
12-03-2007, 08:43 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/de/Bf109B_3Seiten_neu.jpg/800px-

Ratsack
12-03-2007, 08:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Where did that post go, Ratsack? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just where it was, Kurfy dear.

Ratsack

Kurfurst__
12-03-2007, 08:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
... more recently, Lynn Ritger has dealt with the subject in his recent work :

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/109E_spain.jpg

I am sure the scan from Lynn Ritger`s book show up in everybody elses computer, and in their brains, too, just as well as anyone can check the picture of an E-3 in Spain (ie. well before WW2 started) <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">in Wood and Dempster`s book</span> .

Um, Kurfy dear, <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">is this the picture from Lynn Ritger's book </span> to which you refer?

Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

He can`t even read, I am afraid.

Ratsack
12-03-2007, 08:45 AM
So you have a piece of text that says they had E-3s in Spain, and above it is a picture of a Bf 109 B-2 or C. That's really convincing.

Not.

The phrase you are looking for in English is, 'I am very sorry, Ratsack.'

cheers,
Ratsack

Kurfurst__
12-03-2007, 11:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
So you have a piece of text that says they had E-3s in Spain, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/109E_3_Spain.jpg

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/109E_3_Spain2.jpg

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e133/Kurfurst/109E_3_Spain3.jpg

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The phrase you are looking for in English is, 'I am very sorry, Ratsack.'

cheers,
Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am very sorry, Ratsack. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Blutarski2004
12-03-2007, 01:24 PM
Go here -

http://www.zi.ku.dk/personal/drnash/model/spain/bf109.html

T_O_A_D
12-03-2007, 01:32 PM
Any more personal attacks and this topic gets closed too.

The rest of you might consider an ingore on your least favorite posters.

Just replying and getting caught up in the moment could lead to you release from the topic too.

I like a good discussing and even an argument, but with text a person should be able to find the time for restraint and more inteligent words, to express ones feelings, unlike in real life when the foul just spills out vocally without thinking.

stalkervision
12-03-2007, 02:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
Go here -

http://www.zi.ku.dk/personal/drnash/model/spain/bf109.html </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Ratsack
12-03-2007, 09:35 PM
Finally, something germaine to the argument. These images push delivery of the E-3 back to April / May 1939, given that some are taken after the end of the war.

Good, that's six months earlier than I had it. It's also well into 1939.

Ratsack

flyingloon
12-04-2007, 05:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
And please quote me where I called Beevor a liar, liar.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
i read that bit as well kurf, that you posted about beevor, may not have actually called him a liar but you did make the claim that it was all secondary sources with no criticism or analysis of sources. and it was then shown that the majority of his sources were primary...

edit, nm, covered all ready