PDA

View Full Version : 109 Question.



Worf101
08-30-2006, 12:27 PM
If their range was so short why didn't the bright boys who gaves us the V-1, V-2 and Me262 put droptanks on the bugger? I don't get this.. you need a long range (longer range then) fighter, your bombers are getting decimated and you don't think to extend it's operational range with a DT? Am I missing something or just late to the show?

Da Worfster

Xiolablu3
08-30-2006, 12:36 PM
They did, but it wasnt ready in time for the Battle OF Britian.

Kurfurst__
08-30-2006, 12:58 PM
In fact it was (109E-7s were around by early August), just too few in number.

Range of the 109F-K was perfectly enough for all of their tasks.

faustnik
08-30-2006, 01:06 PM
Originally posted by Worf101:
I don't get this.. you need a long range (longer range then) fighter, your bombers are getting decimated and you don't think to extend it's operational range with a DT?


Well, the LW thought it had a good long range fighter in the Bf110. Maybe this made increasing the range of the Bf109 seem less important?

p1ngu666
08-30-2006, 01:18 PM
yeah, and then they found out the 110 was more or less pants http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

kurfy, the droptank capacity was nearly the same as internal tankage wasnt it?

Viper2005_
08-30-2006, 01:30 PM
Range of the 109F-K was perfectly enough for all of their tasks.

Perhaps at least partly because you don't use aeroplanes to perform a task for which they lack sufficient range if you can possibly help it.

You can almost never have too much range/endurance in a fighter aeroplane.

Experience shows that given the capability a mission will emerge.

So, whilst I wouldn't say that the Bf-109 had an excessively short range (especially when compared with contemporary RAF fighters), I wouldn't say that it had enough range, because very few fighters (if any) have ever had that.

faustnik
08-30-2006, 01:36 PM
Originally posted by p1ngu666:
yeah, and then they found out the 110 was more or less pants http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

If "pants" means it sucked, yeah. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

What I'm saying maybe they had the illusion that they were covered for long range escort, and then found out they were very wrong. Only then would they scramble to find another solution.

****************

I wonder how much of a practical combat time increase the drop tank would give the Bf109s?

Divine-Wind
08-30-2006, 01:54 PM
Hey! The 110 kicked arse...

... Against B-17's. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

zugfuhrer
08-30-2006, 02:03 PM
LW hadn't planned for a strategic mission. They where primaly an supportforce for the army, a tactical airforce, and didnt need droptanks.

As it was, a Me-109 got 5-10 minutes for dogfight over London. In theory they got more but they always had to wait for the bombers.

If you look at the losses, there where more spitfires shoot down during BoB than 109:s.
RAF focused on the bombers and the 110:s.
The fighter wings wanted to make free hunt against the RAF fighters and did it very well.

When LW attacked the airdromes for RAF they did the right thing, but they overestimated the numbers of kills reported and thougt that RAF was crippled to death, and started to bomb London as revenge for the bombing of Berlin, "you can call me Meyer if a enemy aircraft attacks Berlin". Goering was a man of big pride. It was a intelligence error, and I think that Goering didnt want to hear bad news.

When bombing London they found out that RAF wasnt dead and the bombers suffered great losses.

Goering ordered the fighter wings to stay close to the bombers where spits and hurries could use their better turning performance.

The whole SeaLion was badly planned and wouldnt be realised eaven if LW would have forced RAF to stay on the ground, there where simply not so much wessels available to ship and support an invasion force.
I think that the German high command was shocked by their own succes and didnt plan furher than atacking France.

p-11.cAce
08-30-2006, 02:19 PM
I think that all to often we forget that the Luftwaffe was organized around the concept of tactical airpower, not strategic airpower. In fact the concept of "strategic bombing" was a relativly new one even into the early 40's.

When the Luftwaffe was working out their new offensive skills in the SCW they felt that the proper use of aircraft was as a tactical backup to the forces on the ground. War was not fought by bombing civilian population centers into submission (yet); but by opposing formed armies structured so that the primary fighting was between infantry men. Your artillery and a/c supported your mechanized infantry or attacked rear areas and support columns. This doctrine dictates the creation of close support aircraft, dive bombers, medium tactical bombers and highly manuverable (and short legged) fighters.

The US and Britain developed the doctrine of tactical bombing in response to the defeat at Dunkirk. Without the possibility of facing the Wehrmarcht on the ground they switched to the development of strategic airpower - large, long range bombers and long legged fighters which could reach deep into the industrial areas of Germany. This was a new concept in warfare - that to defeat your enemy you would destroy not their army on the field of battle, but their infrastructure and manufacturing ability which supports that army.

So when we analyze the strengths and weaknesses of a particular a/c or military it is important to look deeper into the whys behind the decisions that are made - I assure you that rarely has any military decision in history been made due to ignorence or stupidity...though in hindsight it may appear to be so.

p1ngu666
08-30-2006, 03:05 PM
the LW thought they had destroyed airfields, but they where soon active again...

slipBall
08-30-2006, 03:15 PM
British radar, spoter's, and the tactic's used by Air Chief Marshal Sir Hugh Dowding, really threw a monkey wrench in the game plan's of Goering. Plus the 110 was a big failure

Xiolablu3
08-30-2006, 04:08 PM
Me110 kicked *** as a Nightfighter.

Also they should have used it for torpedos, would have been good at that.

In game its a great light bomber and I love it with the 37mm cannon for tank busting.

Xiolablu3
08-30-2006, 04:11 PM
Originally posted by p-11.cAce:
War was not fought by bombing civilian population centers into submission (yet); .

Actually that worked for the Germans on a number of occasions prior to Britian. They often sent in the bombers to terrorise the civilians - and it worked.

Hitler thought it would work again when he switched to bombing London

p1ngu666
08-30-2006, 04:38 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Me110 kicked *** as a Nightfighter.

Also they should have used it for torpedos, would have been good at that.

In game its a great light bomber and I love it with the 37mm cannon for tank busting.

pilots rated it as just about sufficent for night fighting bombers

if a mossie got on your 6 pretty good chance its game over http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

ju88 was better

p-11.cAce
08-30-2006, 04:46 PM
Hitler thought it would work again when he switched to bombing London


The first German attack on London actually occurred by accident. On the night of August 24, 1940, Luftwaffe bombers aiming for military targets on the outskirts of London drifted off course and instead dropped their bombs on the center of London destroying several homes and killing civilians. Amid the public outrage that followed, Prime Minister Winston Churchill, believing it was a deliberate attack, ordered Berlin to be bombed the next evening. Here (http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/timeline/about-blitz.htm)

luftluuver
08-30-2006, 09:13 PM
Interesting comments by 109 pilot, Walter Leisebein of JG52:

- Drop tanks were hated because even the rack reduced speed by some 20 km/h

- nobody used manual prop pitch except to feather the prop for gliding and belly landings. It was possible to use it but nobody saw any point in it as the automatic always was more effective

- radio communications were extremely bad, often did not work at all.

- He told that pilots were urged to use Methanol (MW50) only in emergency.
Theoretically the engine could sustain 10 minutes of use but that was a chance no one was willing to take. There were good engines who might tolerate even longer use and there were bad ones which seized up as soon as you activated Methanol.

- Quality of planes was still not a problem until the very last Messerschmitt. G-10 and K4 perhaps?

http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/ultimatebb....topic;f=144;t=005961 (http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=144;t=005961)

BfHeFwMe
08-30-2006, 09:28 PM
109K's range was very good, it didn't have to go far at all on it's one way journey. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif

La7_brook
08-30-2006, 09:37 PM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
Interesting comments by 109 pilot, Walter Leisebein of JG52:

- Drop tanks were hated because even the rack reduced speed by some 20 km/h

- nobody used manual prop pitch except to feather the prop for gliding and belly landings. It was possible to use it but nobody saw any point in it as the automatic always was more effective

- radio communications were extremely bad, often did not work at all.

- He told that pilots were urged to use Methanol (MW50) only in emergency.
Theoretically the engine could sustain 10 minutes of use but that was a chance no one was willing to take. There were good engines who might tolerate even longer use and there were bad ones which seized up as soon as you activated Methanol.

- Quality of planes was still not a problem until the very last Messerschmitt. G-10 and K4 perhaps?

http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/ultimatebb....topic;f=144;t=005961 (http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=144;t=005961) hmmm dont forget the best part 109s never lost any rudder or elevator control until around 800 km/h and you couldnt go faster with a 109 anyway. makes u think 109,s in game are just alittle handycap here u think?

horseback
08-30-2006, 10:00 PM
We're looking at this with the benefit of hindsight. In 1939, when the LW would have had to begin development of the droptank systems for the 109E, no one could have anticipated the Luftwaffe would need extra range for the 109 in order to subjugate Britain.

Even in the summer of 1940, most of the world expected the British to fold quickly after the fall of France; Hitler had threatened to bomb her cities to rubble and burn her industries to ash, and he'd followed through with that threat in other countries, notably Poland and the Netherlands.

The Bf 110 had not been exposed as the pretender it proved to be as a day fighter, and it was expected to do the heavy lifting in escorting the bombers and fending off the pitiful remnants of the RAF.

The Germans believed that they had destroyed much more of the British fighter force than they had, and probably didn't appreciate that even when aircraft are shot down, two out of every five of their pilots survived relatively unscathed and quickly returned to the air that much wiser in the ways of air combat.

It also doesn't seem to have occured to them right away that new aircraft could be built to replace the lost ones--or rather, how much more quickly the British could replace their aircraft than the Germans would until much later in the war.

Spending the hundreds of thousands of reichsmarks to make droptanks for fighters not needed to fly over Britain must have just seemed like a terrible waste to some bureaucrats in Berlin...

cheers

horseback

Charos
08-30-2006, 10:12 PM
Originally posted by La7_brook:
hmmm dont forget the best part 109s never lost any rudder or elevator control until around 800 km/h and you couldnt go faster with a 109 anyway. makes u think 109,s in game are just alittle handycap here u think?

There is no doubt a difference between "Stiffening of controls" and loss of full control due to high speed compressibility.

But having said that it would appear things have been done a little heavy handed to the BF109 ingame.

luftluuver
08-30-2006, 10:45 PM
horseback, the LW experimented with external tanks during the SCW. Not sure if they were dropable though.

luftluuver
08-30-2006, 10:49 PM
Originally posted by Charos:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by La7_brook:
hmmm dont forget the best part 109s never lost any rudder or elevator control until around 800 km/h and you couldnt go faster with a 109 anyway. makes u think 109,s in game are just alittle handycap here u think?

There is no doubt a difference between "Stiffening of controls" and loss of full control due to high speed compressibility.

But having said that it would appear things have been done a little heavy handed to the BF109 ingame. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, La7 brook does not seem to understand the difference.

Agree the 109 gets control lock-up too quickly. Should be more gradual.

Saburo_0
08-30-2006, 11:04 PM
Originally posted by p-11.cAce:
I think that all to often we forget that the Luftwaffe was organized around the concept of tactical airpower, not strategic airpower. In fact the concept of "strategic bombing" was a relativly new one even into the early 40's.

When the Luftwaffe was working out their new offensive skills in the SCW they felt that the proper use of aircraft was as a tactical backup to the forces on the ground. War was not fought by bombing civilian population centers into submission (yet); but by opposing formed armies structured so that the primary fighting was between infantry men. Your artillery and a/c supported your mechanized infantry or attacked rear areas and support columns. This doctrine dictates the creation of close support aircraft, dive bombers, medium tactical bombers and highly manuverable (and short legged) fighters.

The US and Britain developed the doctrine of tactical bombing in response to the defeat at Dunkirk. Without the possibility of facing the Wehrmarcht on the ground they switched to the development of strategic airpower - large, long range bombers and long legged fighters which could reach deep into the industrial areas of Germany. This was a new concept in warfare - that to defeat your enemy you would destroy not their army on the field of battle, but their infrastructure and manufacturing ability which supports that army.

So when we analyze the strengths and weaknesses of a particular a/c or military it is important to look deeper into the whys behind the decisions that are made - I assure you that rarely has any military decision in history been made due to ignorence or stupidity...though in hindsight it may appear to be so.

Strategic bombing was believed to be very powerful in the US & UK before the war. "The bomber will always get through." And yet the stategic campaign against Germany was only succesfull as a 2nd front and did little to speed the end of the war. Now attacking roads and rail infrastructure was a different story.

Oh, and I wonder if the Germans thought they'd knock France out so quickly ? And that the UK would continue to fight?

La7_brook
08-30-2006, 11:15 PM
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 Charos:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by La7_brook:
hmmm dont forget the best part 109s never lost any rudder or elevator control until around 800 km/h and you couldnt go faster with a 109 anyway. makes u think 109,s in game are just alittle handycap here u think?

There is no doubt a difference between "Stiffening of controls" and loss of full control due to high speed compressibility.

But having said that it would appear things have been done a little heavy handed to the BF109 ingame. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, La7 brook does not seem to understand the difference. u think ?

horseback
08-30-2006, 11:17 PM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
horseback, the LW experimented with external tanks during the SCW. Not sure if they were dropable though. I tend to look at these things from the perspective of a defense contractor. I see lots of paperwork, contract negotiations, planning for X amount of materials, Y numbers of engineers and draftsmen, Z technicians, plus facilities for manufacturing, and so on. Topping it off is a big wince at all that work being done without a copying machine or computers. In German.

Experimenting with 109B/C models may not have applied very well to making the preparation necessary for adapting hundreds of 109Es for tanks. The Emil was a significant change from the earlier 109s' design, in terms of engine installation and cooling systems.

That would involve considerably more than just making a rack to hold the tank and a release system. There would have to be plumbing installed to get the fuel from the tank to the engine and possibly some provision for keeping the tanks pressurized. I seem to remember all kinds of problems having to be overcome when the USAAF wanted to put belly tanks on the P-47, and Republic had to put together kits for retrofitting the system to aircraft already deployed. These sorts of projects take months to get accomplished.

Then there's the matter of the tanks themselves, design and manufacturing, the materials to be used (Germany was not really a wealthy country at that time) and who was going to build them. Again, a substantial investment of time and money for a need that was unexpected.

Hitler and his boys honestly expected to have the Brits come to terms after a lttle blustering and free reign to assault Russia by the end of 1940, and planned accordingly. But they were politicians first and foremost, and didn't fully appreciate the nuts and bolts aspects of waging war.

cheers

horseback

Abbuzze
08-31-2006, 12:28 AM
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 Charos:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by La7_brook:
hmmm dont forget the best part 109s never lost any rudder or elevator control until around 800 km/h and you couldnt go faster with a 109 anyway. makes u think 109,s in game are just alittle handycap here u think?

There is no doubt a difference between "Stiffening of controls" and loss of full control due to high speed compressibility.

But having said that it would appear things have been done a little heavy handed to the BF109 ingame. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes, La7 brook does not seem to understand the difference.

Agree the 109 gets control lock-up too quickly. Should be more gradual. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe a bit OT, but the real 109 didn´t run into high speed compressibility soon, even the stiffening /lock of controlls is a result of wrong trim, nevertheless steering forces were higher compared to other fighters.
109´s were tailheavy, so at crusing speed you trim nose down - if you go with this setup in a dive, with increase of speed you could imagine what happend. Vice versa with wrong trimset it was not possible to hold the 109 in any serious dive! Just a shallow dive was possible. In fact the il2 layout with the trim could be very realitic, even if some people don´t understand this.

Kurfurst__
08-31-2006, 02:37 AM
Originally posted by horseback:
Experimenting with 109B/C models may not have applied very well to making the preparation necessary for adapting hundreds of 109Es for tanks. The Emil was a significant change from the earlier 109s' design, in terms of engine installation and cooling systems.

That would involve considerably more than just making a rack to hold the tank and a release system. There would have to be plumbing installed to get the fuel from the tank to the engine and possibly some provision for keeping the tanks pressurized. I seem to remember all kinds of problems having to be overcome when the USAAF wanted to put belly tanks on the P-47, and Republic had to put together kits for retrofitting the system to aircraft already deployed. These sorts of projects take months to get accomplished.

Again, that's nice for brainstroming, but... the facts are that the first 109 with ability to carry droptanks was the Bf 109E-7. In entered service late August 1940, o the first and was able to mount a 300 liter droptank to supplement the 400 liter internal tank capacity. By August 31 1940, some 32 E-7s were around. The droptank itself was BTW appears to be originally developed by Junkers for the long range JU 87R, which was in service for some time. Fuel was forced into the the main tanks from the droptank continously, via pressurized air tapped from the supercharger.

Obviously the droptanks, and the mechanism was developed quite some time before the Battle of Britiain, as you told it was months preceeding the introduction of the 109E-7 into service, ie. coming up with the idea, designing and refining the system, altering the production lines, producing and shipping the planes to operational units. It appears that there were plenty of foresight, and the results were just ready when they were needed, it just took some time to be around in numbers. Sidenote, by 1940, development was not going into the Emil anymore, as a matter of fact most of the Bf 109F development work was done already in 1939, in 1940 it was just the final touches and setting up the production line. I'd not be surprised if the droptank carrying ability was to the Emil would originate from the in-development 109F, that entered production July 1940..

I tend to feel that the whole criticism for the lack of droptanks is a bit unfair. After all, few monoplane fighters of the time had droptanks available in mid-1940, the 109 being one of the first WW2 piston monoplane fighters for a droptank was developed and use.


Then there's the matter of the tanks themselves, design and manufacturing, the materials to be used (Germany was not really a wealthy country at that time) and who was going to build them. Again, a substantial investment of time and money for a need that was unexpected.

Again as said the droptanks were long experienced back then in the 1930 in quite a few countries, the JU 87 R was using before the french campaign. As for Germany, as the worlds 2nd largest economy and aluminium producer at the time could not afford droptanks, but when it could afford the Luftwaffe etc... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif This idea about sparing alumium in the droptanks I only seen from Allied planners, who got that notion from somewhere that Germans should be denied of that 20 kg worth of alumium from the droptanks and started to make sometimes troublesome paper etc. DTs to be used on escort mission.

ploughman
08-31-2006, 04:08 AM
Originally posted by Saburo_0:


...Strategic bombing was believed to be very powerful in the US & UK before the war. "The bomber will always get through." And yet the stategic campaign against Germany was only succesfull as a 2nd front and did little to speed the end of the war.


Yes. But strategic bombing of a most pitiless type was decisive against Japan. Go figure.

luftluuver
08-31-2006, 04:43 AM
The droptank itself was BTW appears to be originally developed by Junkers for the long range JU 87R, which was in service for some time. The R, a sub variant of the B, began coming off the production lines in 1939. The first operational use was in Norway with I./StG 1 in 1940.

Bearcat99
08-31-2006, 06:28 AM
Goering was an idiot... Hitler was crazy....

BOA_Allmenroder
08-31-2006, 07:36 AM
You know sometimes I have to laugh at all this.

Some folks are staring so hard at the trees that you are missing the forest.

The reason the 109s range was so limited is the same reason the Spits was: they were both designed as 'point' interceptors, not escorting fighters.

The design of the aircraft ensivisioned them placed to protect friendly target areas not to gain air superiority over bad guy land.

This is the answer to the endurance question in fighters like these.

Remember, the 109 was a 1930's design and subject to 1930s thinking about air warfare.

p1ngu666
08-31-2006, 08:37 AM
yep it was prewar thinking, and it wasnt until the latest generation of fighters (spit, hurri, 109 etc) the bombers probably WOULD of got through, as they where faster..

Abbuzze
08-31-2006, 10:28 AM
The 109 was never planed as a point interceptor, at the end it wasn´t even an intercepter, It was a short range air superiority fighter, with the duty to cover the ground attack and middle bomber in tactical use.

At the end the both air strategies of US/GB and Germany were a result of WWI.

Germans sent airships and bombers to GB. So british people sufferd under the terror of bombings without the possibilty to do the same to the enemy. With this experiance they started to develop a bomberfleet with a long range. But what were the results for the germans? They learnd that bombing was not succsessfull. Cost money people but no chance to win a war with this. BUT they also used groundattack planes in WWI - with succsess! So a tactical airforce was developed between the wars.
And I have to say this strategy is not wrong! It was the way the Red Army and VVS won the war.

horseback
08-31-2006, 11:08 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Again, that's nice for brainstroming, but... the facts are that the first 109 with ability to carry droptanks was the Bf 109E-7. In entered service late August 1940, o the first and was able to mount a 300 liter droptank to supplement the 400 liter internal tank capacity. By August 31 1940, some 32 E-7s were around. The droptank itself was BTW appears to be originally developed by Junkers for the long range JU 87R, which was in service for some time. Fuel was forced into the the main tanks from the droptank continously, via pressurized air tapped from the supercharger.

Obviously the droptanks, and the mechanism was developed quite some time before the Battle of Britiain, as you told it was months preceeding the introduction of the 109E-7 into service, ie. coming up with the idea, designing and refining the system, altering the production lines, producing and shipping the planes to operational units. It appears that there were plenty of foresight, and the results were just ready when they were needed, it just took some time to be around in numbers. Sidenote, by 1940, development was not going into the Emil anymore, as a matter of fact most of the Bf 109F development work was done already in 1939, in 1940 it was just the final touches and setting up the production line. I'd not be surprised if the droptank carrying ability was to the Emil would originate from the in-development 109F, that entered production July 1940.. 32 examples of a droptank capable fighter makes it a demonstration project in August, with useful numbers of equipped fighters and sufficient droptanks to supply them for daily operations over England still some time away. The hundreds of E-1, E-3, and E-4 109s that were operational on the Channel still needed to be retrofitted and supplied with tanks. Having the solution on paper doesn't mean much if the tooling for immediate production and ditribution is not in place.
I tend to feel that the whole criticism for the lack of droptanks is a bit unfair. After all, few monoplane fighters of the time had droptanks available in mid-1940, the 109 being one of the first WW2 piston monoplane fighters for a droptank was developed and use. I agree completely. I merely wanted to highlight the time constraints involved with a largely unforeseen need-or rather one that was unappreciated by the people who sign the checks.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Then there's the matter of the tanks themselves, design and manufacturing, the materials to be used (Germany was not really a wealthy country at that time) and who was going to build them. Again, a substantial investment of time and money for a need that was unexpected.

Again as said the droptanks were long experienced back then in the 1930 in quite a few countries, the JU 87 R was using before the french campaign. As for Germany, as the worlds 2nd largest economy and aluminium producer at the time could not afford droptanks, but when it could afford the Luftwaffe etc... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif This idea about sparing alumium in the droptanks I only seen from Allied planners, who got that notion from somewhere that Germans should be denied of that 20 kg worth of alumium from the droptanks and started to make sometimes troublesome paper etc. DTs to be used on escort mission </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I'll take your word for Germany being the world's second largest economy in 1940, but the British domestic industrial capacity clearly outproduced Germany in war materials those critical early war years. In a world just recovering from the Great Depression, every economy was still a bit shaky, and it looks to me as though a lot of wartime decisions by the German leadership, especially during the early going, were based more on (perceptions of) economy rather than military requirements.

Again, though, the issue of having enough aircraft and droptanks available for the Battle of Britain was the subject, and I think my points are still valid; the need was not anticipated and the necessary numbers of 'long range' 109s and their droptanks were not available in the key months of August and September 1940.

cheers

horseback