PDA

View Full Version : german fighter production..



p1ngu666
01-10-2006, 03:46 PM
anyone got the numbers of german fighters produced in the war years?
mostly curious about 44 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

thanks http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

p1ngu666
01-10-2006, 03:46 PM
anyone got the numbers of german fighters produced in the war years?
mostly curious about 44 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

thanks http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

berg417448
01-10-2006, 06:49 PM
There is a chart in the book "The Life and Death of the Luftwaffe" by Werner Baumbach. The chart shows that there were 25,285 fighters made by Germany in 1944.

p1ngu666
01-10-2006, 07:08 PM
ah thankyou http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

ImpStarDuece
01-10-2006, 07:39 PM
German wartime aircraft production, all types of aircraft, broken down year by year:

1939- 8,295
1940- 10,826
1941- 11,776
1942- 15,556
1943- 25,527
1944- 39,807
1945- 7,544

Although records for the last 8 months of the war are a little sketchy.

The Luftwaffe also had ~1,600-2,000 aircraft in service produced before 1939 (Bf 109, Ju 87, Ju 86, Ju 52, Fi 156, He 111) that wouldn't show up in those figures.

hop2002
01-10-2006, 08:07 PM
The British Bombing Survey Unit report gave the following figures, average fighter production per month:

1st quarter 1944: 1,236
2nd quarter 1944: 1,927
3rd quarter 1944: 2,779
4th quarter 1944: 2,645

Edit: single engined fighters only.

Kurfurst__
01-11-2006, 05:34 AM
109 new production airframes Jan1944-March 1945.

KEEP IN MIND IT DOES NOT CONTAIN REBUILT AIRFRAMES!

ie. it does not contain the number of those 109G-6 that at their factory overhaul were rebuilt for G-14, G-10 etc. Just the 100% fresh planes.

1944

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

932 715 804 1006 1065 1230 1348 1315 1665 1583 1463 1091

Total : 14 217


1945

Jan Feb Mar

1210 874 716

Total : 2800

BBB_Hyperion
01-11-2006, 09:41 AM
How about Fuel and Pilots ?

badatflyski
01-11-2006, 10:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BBB_Hyperion:
How about Fuel and Pilots ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

are the children under 16 able to fly a plane considered as "pilots"? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

are the ex-bomber pilots reconverted to fighters considered as pilots? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

...just jocking... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

p1ngu666
01-11-2006, 10:33 AM
luftlover sparked my interest

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> On the eve of Bodenplatte, the LW had the following servicable a/c:

A-8 - 258 (26.8%)
A-9 - 20 (2.0%)
D-9 - 167 (17.4%)
F-8 - 75 (7.8%)
G-14 - 136 (14%)
G-14/AS - 45 (9.9%)
G-10 - 52 (5.4%)
K-4 - 92 (9.6%)
G-6 - 2
G? - 35 (in NAGr)
262 - 24
234 - 6 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

327 109s

which got me thinking, was the average service life of a 109 in 44, 2 weeks? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

horseback
01-11-2006, 10:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">327 109s

which got me thinking, was the average service life of a 109 in 44, 2 weeks </div></BLOCKQUOTE>...only if they didn't take off. Consider how much effort the 8th Fighter Command put into destroying aircraft on the ground in the last few months of the war, due at least in part to the scarcity of aerial opposition--and the RAF was doing their part too, just not as noisily.

cheers

horseback

Abbuzze
01-11-2006, 01:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:


327 109s

which got me thinking, was the average service life of a 109 in 44, 2 weeks? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I´ve heard 20 hours of duty.Interesting fact, this was the time, when the 109G6 that were deliverd to the swiss starting to get unrelaiable...

Kurfurst__
01-11-2006, 02:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
luftlover sparked my interest

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> On the eve of Bodenplatte, the LW had the following servicable a/c:

A-8 - 258 (26.8%)
A-9 - 20 (2.0%)
D-9 - 167 (17.4%)
F-8 - 75 (7.8%)
G-14 - 136 (14%)
G-14/AS - 45 (9.9%)
G-10 - 52 (5.4%)
K-4 - 92 (9.6%)
G-6 - 2
G? - 35 (in NAGr)
262 - 24
234 - 6 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

327 109s

which got me thinking, was the average service life of a 109 in 44, 2 weeks? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I found it interesting too. If as said on the eve of Bodenplatte there were a mere 327 Bf 109s servicable in the entire Luftwaffe from Belgian border to Poland down to Italy (+520 FW190s), I just wonder, just how the Germans could suddenly raise 800+ servicable fighters alone in the Ardennes region that participated in Bodenplatte...? Kinda make me wonder about the validity of Mr. luftluuuver's numbers. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">quote:
Originally posted by p1ngu666:


327 109s

which got me thinking, was the average service life of a 109 in 44, 2 weeks? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well the avarage loss rate of the fighters was about 4-5% per sortie in Dec, so they'd loose one on every 20-25 sortie flown. Granted not everybody flew a sortie every day, so the lifespan should be around 1-3 months on avarage, say two months.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
I´ve heard 20 hours of duty.Interesting fact, this was the time, when the 109G6 that were deliverd to the swiss starting to get unrelaiable...? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep, it was a part of a kind of 'deal' between the Swiss and Germans. A German Bf 110 nightfighter with all the latest radar mislanded there, and Goering was not very happy about it. The Swiss were hard pressed from both sides to reveal/destroy the technological secrets it held. In the end the Swiss made a deal with the Germans : they'd get a dozen or two 109Gs, in exhange they blow up the 110 to pieces. That they did, deal is deal, they got the 109s. Of course nobody said they'd get the best examples produced... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif They got the worst ones, but given how they (forced out) to obtain them, they shouldn't complain imho.

BTW, there was also another odd one with the Swiss, they received some export 109E for their airforce, but then I believe there was some dispute between the Reich and the Swiss, and Goering sent some 'sightseeing group' of bombers with 110s in escort... Swiss Emils shot down a couple of 110s iirc.

hugohugo37
01-11-2006, 06:05 PM
So just to bring together the two threads going on here-

Even though some 14,000 fighters were produced in 1944, they could only scrape together around 850 on Jan 1, 1945.

Wow. So many were destroyed on the ground as has been said. Fuel was a big issue at this time though wasn't it? Is it possible that many were just sitting around at or near the factory due to fuel/pilot scarcity? I would imagine that finding bases for all of them would have been a problem as well.

If you've ever played a late war Eastern front Luftwaffe campaign, you see how hard it is to survive. The enemy has just about every advantage. You keep getting scenarios in which your group of four fighters are jumped by like 16 VVS fighters. It's virtually impossible to survive. It just makes one wonder, how did ANY LW pilots survive the war. Were they even really flying missions toward the end? How many bases did the LW have in the last few months of the war? Were any of them operating without constant harrassment?

I like this thread.

Kurfurst__
01-11-2006, 06:28 PM
Planes are written off for every cause during a war, some 20-40% of the losses are non enemy related, then there's aging, cannibalization and 's**t-handed rookies'..

The LW in total had about 2500 fighters on hand at that time in December, and that's only the first line units; 2nd line units had about 1/3 more of that. And that's still not whole picture, the rest that was not issued was put in aircraft storage centers to be issued. It's the same in all airforces. Reserves must be created, and anyway there's no point of piling up all the fighters you have in reserve on the airfields so the enemy can shoot them.


On 31 January 1945 the combat units of the Luftwaffe and their associated Erganzungs Einheiten, had 1435 Bf 109s with the first line units, 527 with the 2nd line units, plus the rest in storage. Of other fighters, 1058 were in first line, 359 in 2nd line units, plus the storage. Thus 3379 were single engine fighters, but of those only 2493 were in actual combat units, without the storage.
Alltogether there were 6597 planes of all kinds with first line units, and another 1631 with the second line units.


It's fairly typical for all airforces, for example I have the no of MKXIVs with unis - 120 - towards the end of 1944, but about 200+ that time were just waiting in aircraft storage centers to be issued to Sqns or as replacements (why, dont ask me). There are always more planes than pilots to fly them, and reserves are always needed.

luftluuver
01-11-2006, 10:47 PM
Kurfurst, if you have a validity problem with the numbers, talk to John Manrho. Those are the number of <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">SERVICABLE</span> a/c available for Bodenplatte, as taken from his book of the same name.

Care to explain why, if as you claim that the LW had so many a/c in storage, that the Gruppen did not have a full compliment of a/c? The units should have had 2665 a/c but only had 1446 onhand (54.3%) of which 986 were servicable (37%).

The 190 units had a better servicablity ratio than the 109 units. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Luftwaffe Order of Battle
10 January 1945

Serviceable Aircraft Strengths

Single-engined fighters - 1462
Night fighters - 808
Ground-attack aircraft - 613
Night harassment aircraft - 302
Multi-engined bombers - 294
Anti-shipping aircraft - 83
Long-range reconaissance aircraft - 176
Short-range and army cooperation aircraft - 293
Coastal aircraft - 60
Transport aircraft - 269
Misc. aircraft (KG 200) - 206
Total - 4566

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/2072/LWOB45.html

Alfred Price. Luftwaffe Data Book, 1997

There was no safe places in Germany in 1945 to store a/c. Of the 1433 Me262s built, some 611 were damaged or lost completely to Allied bombing. Some 114 were salvaged with a net loss of 497 a/c. That is a 35% loss. (numbers from a Mtt report done for the Americans)

Kurfurst__
01-12-2006, 06:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
Kurfurst, if you have a validity problem with the numbers, talk to John Manrho. Those are the number of <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">SERVICABLE</span> a/c available for Bodenplatte, as taken from his book of the same name. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for the clarficiation, so the numbers you posted refer to the fighters deployed in Bodenplatte only, not the LW in general.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The units should have had 2665 a/c but only had 1446 onhand (54.3%) of which 986 were servicable (37%). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

986 servicable out of 1446 is 37%, well that's truely unorthodox math skills. 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">The 190 units had a better servicablity ratio than the 109 units. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Source ?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Luftwaffe Order of Battle
10 January 1945 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, now I see it, you are comparing two different dates, 10th Jan vs 31st Jan, of course your numbers doesn't make any sense (but does any of your posts?).

WOLFMondo
01-12-2006, 06:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
and the RAF was doing their part too, just not as noisily.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wouldn't be so surehttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. Read up on your RAF history Horseback, you'll find the 2nd TAF late in the war was doing almost nothing but attacking airfields day and night and had most of North west Germany all to themselves. There was nothing else to blow up on the ground apart from parked up planes!

luftluuver
01-12-2006, 06:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">986 servicable out of 1446 is 37%, well that's truely unorthodox math skills. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

986/2665 x 100 = 37% servicable of the authorized compliment.

To make you happy, 986/1446 x 100 = 68% of onhand strength. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Oh, now I see it, you are comparing two different dates, 10th Jan vs 31st Jan, of course your numbers doesn't make any sense </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You think that the numbers would have increased 3 weeks later? Dilusional dreamer. 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">Source? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Manrho's book, pgs 276-277.

stathem
01-12-2006, 07:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
and the RAF was doing their part too, just not as noisily.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wouldn't be so surehttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. Read up on your RAF history Horseback, you'll find the 2nd TAF late in the war was doing almost nothing but attacking airfields day and night and had most of North west Germany all to themselves. There was nothing else to blow up on the ground apart from parked up planes! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mondo, I suspect that that from Horseback was a compliment on RAF modesty and understatement, not a dig.

Kurfurst__
01-12-2006, 07:26 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">Source? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Manrho's book, pgs 276-277. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Marho books seem to simply state more FW 190s were deployed for the operations, not that their servicibility rates were higher (by any meaningful margin).

luftluuver
01-12-2006, 08:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Marho books seem to simply state more FW 190s were deployed for the operations, not that their servicibility rates were higher (by any meaningful margin). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

190
onhand - servicability

A-8 &gt; 347 - 268 &gt; 79.5%
A-9 &gt; 27 - 20 &gt; 74%
D-9 &gt; 220 - 167 &gt; 75.9%
F-8 &gt; 104 - 75 &gt; 72.1%

688 - 530 &gt; <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">79.3%</span>

109
onhand - servicability

G-14 &gt; 191 - 138 &gt; 72.3%
G-14/AS &gt; 172 - 117 &gt; 68%
G-10 &gt; 74 - 52 &gt; 70.3%
K-4 &gt; 167 - 89 &gt; <span class="ev_code_PINK">53.3%</span>

604 - 396 &gt; <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">65.6%</span>

A 13.7% difference is not meaningful?

Notice the K-4 had the worst servicability. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

There was a mere 84 more 190s than 109s.

WOLFMondo
01-12-2006, 08:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stathem:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
and the RAF was doing their part too, just not as noisily.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wouldn't be so surehttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. Read up on your RAF history Horseback, you'll find the 2nd TAF late in the war was doing almost nothing but attacking airfields day and night and had most of North west Germany all to themselves. There was nothing else to blow up on the ground apart from parked up planes! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mondo, I suspect that that from Horseback was a compliment on RAF modesty and understatement, not a dig. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In which case apologies to horseback.

Its been one of those days.

Kurfurst__
01-12-2006, 08:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luftluuver:
A 13.7% difference is not meaningful? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not really, servicabilty varied from day to day and theatre to theatre. A list that contains only about 1/3 of the total 109s and 2/3s if the total 190s is not going to tell you the big picture. Alred Price shows some examples how the servicibilty varied, ie. on 10th January it was the oppostie with about 73% of the 109s in LW being operational, and 64% of the FW 190s.

Overall on avarage it seems 70% of the planes were ready for service at any time, which is remarkably good considering the difficulties they faced. On the eve of Bodenplatte, as per your data 72,45% was ready for action.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Notice the K-4 had the worst servicability. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Planes that see a lot of action have worser servicibilty than those which see less action, of course.

Say on 9th April the Luftflotte Reich had 361 Fw 190s, out of which 197 was servicable (54,5%), and 208 Bf 109, out of which 154 were servicable (74%).

luftluuver
01-12-2006, 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__:
Planes that see a lot of action have worser servicibilty than those which see less action, of course. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So the A-8s and D-9s did not see a lot of action? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

So the G-14s, G-14/AS and G-10s did not see a lot of action? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

You questioned the servicablity ratio of the 190s and 109s for the Bodenplatte operation. You wingle more than a worm on a fishing hook. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

luftluuver
01-12-2006, 11:06 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 luftluuver:
A 13.7% difference is not meaningful? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Alfred Price shows some examples how the servicibilty varied, ie. on 10th January it was the oppostie with about 73% of the 109s in LW being operational, and 64% of the FW 190s. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

109 onhand - servicable

944 - 692 &gt; 73.3%

Courland &gt; 20 - 16 &gt; 75%
A-H-B &gt; 93 - 78 &gt; 83.9%
Poland &gt; 108 - 78 &gt; 72.2%
Germany west &gt; 512 - 359 &gt; 70.1%
Norway &gt; 57 - 47 &gt; 82.5%
Germany central &gt; 154 - 114 &gt; 74.%

190 onhand - servicable

1635 - 1252 &gt; 76.6% (edit. addition error fixed)

Courland &gt; 116 - 108 &gt; 93.1%
A-H-B &gt; 135 - 109 &gt; 80.7%
Poland &gt; 380 - 337 &gt; 72.2%
Germany west &gt; 762 - 507 &gt; 66.7%
Norway &gt; 86 - 70 &gt; 81.4%
Germany central &gt; 156 - 121 &gt; 77.6%

The 190 has a servicability ratio 3.3% better than the 109. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

The 190 made up 63.4% of the German onhand se a/c. (190+109)

The 190 made up 62.1% of the German servicable se a/c. (190+109)

luftluuver
01-16-2006, 05:33 AM
Going into 1945, the 109 became secondary in importance to the 190 for the LW.