Empire of Japan (1937) Fighter Aircraft – Number Operated 30
During the war with China, the Japanese Air Forces encountered enemy fighters that were much better than what they currently had in their inventory. As their modern fighters were either under development or only available in limited numbers, they tried to acquire new fighters from aboard. The options for acquiring such fighters were rather limited, and the Japanese turned to the Germans for a solution. This came in the form of 30 He 112 known in Japanese service as the A7He1.
The He 112 in Japanese service. Source: D. Bernard Heinkel He 112 in Action
A brief He 112 history
Before the Second World War, the Luftwaffe was in need of a new and modern fighter that was to replace the older biplane fighters in service, such as the Arado Ar 68 and Heinkel He 51. For this reason, in May 1934 the RLM issued a competition for a new and modern fighter plane. While four companies responded to this request, only the designs from Heinkel and Messerschmitt were deemed sufficient. The Heinkel He 112 was a good design that offered generally acceptable flight characteristics and possessed a good basis for further improvements. The Bf 109 on the other hand had slightly better overall flight performance and was much simpler and cheaper to build. Given the fact that the Germans were attempting to accelerate the production of the new fighter, this was seen as a huge advantage over the He 112. Ultimately it would not be accepted for service, and only 100 or so aircraft would be built. These would be mainly sold abroad, with those remaining in Germany used for various testing and evaluation purposes.
While the He 112 project was canceled by the RLM, to compensate for the huge investment in resources and time into it, Heinkel was permitted to export this aircraft. A number of countries such as Austria, Japan, Romania, and Finland showed interest, but only a few actually managed to procure this aircraft, and even then, only in limited numbers.
Attempts to make a deal with Japan
In 1937 a war between Japan and China broke out. While Japan had a better-equipped and more organized army, it faced stiff resistance. The Chinese were supported by the Soviet Union which supplied them with weapons and equipment, including aircraft. These caused huge concern within the Imperial Japanese Navy. Their newest fighters were either present only in small numbers or were still under development. As a temporary solution, IJN officials decided to approach Germany for assistance in the hope of acquiring new fighters.
For this reason, a military delegation was dispatched to Germany in the Autumn of 1937. Despite its later known fame, the German Air Force at that time was still in its early stage of rebuilding and realistically did not have much to offer, being in need of modern fighters themselves. This would come in the form of the Messerschmitt Me 109. Its competing Heinkel He 112 lost the competition but was allowed to be sold abroad if anyone was interested. It was probably for this reason that the Japanese delegation visited the Heinkel factory at Marienehe. There they had the choice to observe the He 112 V9 aircraft. They were generally satisfied with what they saw and placed an initial order for 30 He 11Bs. If these proved to be as good as they hoped they would be, another, larger order for 100 more aircraft was to be given. As a confirmation of this agreement, the Japanese delegation returned with one He 112 aircraft that was to be used for familiarization and evaluation.
One of the 30 He 112 sold to Japan in 1938, Source: D. Bernard Heinkel He 112 in Action
Naming Scheme
As this aircraft was expected to enter service, it was designated as A7He1 by the IJN. The capital ‘A’ stands as a designation for a fighter. The number ‘7’ represents that this aircraft was to supersede the type 6 designation fighter. He stands for the Heinkel, and lastly the ‘1’ stands for the first variant of this type. The Allied intelligence services discovered its existence within the IJP and awarded it the code name Jerry.
Testing In Japan
Four aircraft arrived in 1937, and the last one arrived at the end of 1938. As the first aircraft began to arrive, the IJN began testing the A7He1’s performance in contrast to other fighters that they had in inventory, namely the Mitsubishi A5M2. While the A7He1 proved to be some 65 km/h faster, in other regards such as climbing speed and general maneuverability it proved equal or even worse than the Japanese fighter. The Japanese were not satisfied with the A7He1 engine which was deemed too complex. These factors ultimately led the commission which examined it to propose that it should not be adopted, nor that any further orders should be given. After the arrival of the last A7He1, the order for an additional 100 aircraft was canceled.
Ultimate Fate
As the A7He1 was not adopted for service, the IJN had to decide what to do with the 30 aircraft. They still represent a financial investment that could not be simply discarded. Some of these were allocated to various research institutes for future studies and evaluation, the remainder were given to training schools. None were ever used operationally in combat either in China or in the Pacific.
Quite surprisingly given their age and the rather limited numbers that were acquired, a few He1 survived the war and were captured by the Allies. One example was found in Atsugi airfield near Honshu in early October 1945. Unfortunately, the fate of these captured aircraft is not known but they were likely scrapped at some point after the war.
Despite the limited number of acquired aircraft, some of them survived the war and were later captured by the Allies. Source: www.destinationsjourney.comAnother aircraft (on the left) is being photographed by the Allied soldiers. It is possible that it was the same aircraft as in the previous photograph just taken later when it was being scraped. Source: www.destinationsjourney.com
Technical Characteristics
The He 112 was an all-metal single-engine fighter. The monocoque fuselage consisted of a metal base covered by riveted stress metal sheets. The wing was slightly gulled, with the wingtips bending upward, and had the same construction as the fuselage with a combination of metal construction covered in stressed metal sheets.
During its development life, a great number of engines were tested on the He 112. For the main production version, the He 112 B-2, the 700 hp Jumo 210G liquid-cooled engine was used, and some were equipped with the 680 hp Jumo 210E engine. The He 112 had a fuel capacity of 101 liters in two wing-mounted tanks, with a third 115-liter tank placed under the pilot’s seat.
The landing gear was more or less standard in design. They consisted of two larger landing wheels that retracted into the wings and one semi-retractable tail wheel. The He 112 landing gear was wide enough to provide good ground handling and stability during take-off or landing.
The cockpit received a number of modifications. Initially, it was open with a simple windshield placed in front of the pilot. Later models had a sliding canopy that was either partially or fully glazed.
While the armament was changed during the He 112’s production, the last series was equipped with two 7.92 mm MG 17 machine guns and two 2 cm Oerlikon MG FF cannons. The ammunition load for each machine gun was 500 rounds, with 60 rounds each for the cannons. If needed, two bomb racks could be placed under the wings.
Conclusion
While the He 112 was often portrayed as a modern fighter, from the Japanese point of view it proved to be disappointing in any case. While expecting a potentially effective fighter that was better with everything they had, the He 112 proved to be quite the opposite. After the 30 aircraft arrived no further orders were given. This only serves to prove that the old saying the grass is always greener on the other side is correct once in a while.
He 112B-2 Specifications
Wingspans
29 ft 10 in / 9.1 m
Length
30 ft 2 in / 9.22 m
Height
12 ft 7 in / 3.82 m
Wing Area
180 ft² / 17 m²
Engine
One 700 hp Jumo 210G liquid-cooled engine
Empty Weight
3,570 lbs / 1,620 kg
Maximum Take-off Weight
4,960 lbs / 2,250 kg
Climb Rate to 6 km
In 10 minutes
Maximum Speed
317 mph / 510 km/h
Cruising speed
300 mph / 484 km/h
Range
715 miles / 1,150 km
Maximum Service Ceiling
31,170 ft / 9,500 m
Crew
1 pilot
Armament
Two 20 mm (1.8 in) cannons and two machine guns 7.92 mm (0.31 in) machine guns and 60 kg bombs
He 112 v5 as it was tested by Japan
Credits
Written by Marko P.
Edited by Henry H.
Illustrations by Godzilla
Source:
Duško N. (2008) Naoružanje Drugog Svetsko Rata-Nemаčaka. Beograd
J. R. Smith and A. L. Kay (1990) German Aircraft of the Second World War, Putnam
D. Monday (2006) The Hamlyn Concise Guide To Axis Aircraft OF World War II, Bounty Books
D. Bernard (1996) Heinkel He 112 in Action, Signal Publication
R.S. Hirsch, U, Feist and H. J. Nowarra (1967) Heinkel 100, 112, Aero Publisher
C. Chants (2007) Aircraft of World War II, Grange Books.
In the later stages of the Second World War, it was becoming apparent to both the Luftwaffe (English German Air Force) and the German Government that the Allied air forces were gaining air superiority. This realization saw them turn to new and fantastical ideas in a desperate attempt to turn the tide of the war. Some of these represented new improvements to existing designs, the introduction of the newly developed turbojet engine, and even more esoteric and experimental methods. In many cases, these were pure fantasies, unrealistic or desperate designs with no hope of success. Few of them reached any significant development, and among them were the works of Alexander Martin Lippisch. While Lippisch helped develop the Me 163, the first rocket-powered interceptor, his other work remained mostly theoretical. One such project was the unusual P 13a, ramjet-powered aircraft that was to use coal as its main fuel source. While some work was carried out late in the war and soon faced insurmountable technical problems, thus nothing came of the project.
Artistic presentation of how the P 13a may have looked. Source: Luftwaffe Secret Jets of the Third Reich
History
Before the start of the Second World War, aviation enthusiast and engineer Alexander Martin Lippisch, was fascinated with tailless delta wing designs. Lippisch’s early work primarily involved the development of experimental gliders. Eventually, he made a breakthrough at the Deutsche Forschungsinstitut, where he worked as an engineer. His work at DFS would lead to the creation of the rocket-powered glider known as the DFS 194. As this design was a promising experiment in a new field, it was moved to Messerschmitt’s facility at Augsburg. After some time spent refining this design, it eventually led to the development of the Me 163 rocket-powered interceptor. While it was a relatively cheap aircraft, it could never be mass-produced, mostly due to difficulties associated with its highly volatile fuel. In 1942, Lippisch left Messerschmitt and ceased work on the Me 163 project. Instead, he joined the Luftfahrtforschungsanstalt Wien (English: Aeronautic Research Institute in Vienna) where he continued working on his delta-wing aircraft designs. In May 1943 he became director of this institution, and at that time the work on a supersonic aircraft was initiated.
In the later war years, among the many issues facing the Luftwaffe, was a chronic fuel shortage. Lippisch and his team wanted to overcome this problem by introducing alternative fuels for their aircraft. Luckily for his team, DFS was testing a new ramjet engine. They were designed to compress air which would be mixed with fuel to create thrust but without a mechanical compressor. While this is, at least in theory, much simpler to build than a standard jet engine, it can not function during take-off as it requires a high airflow through it to function. Thus, an auxiliary power plant was needed. It should, however, be noted that this was not new technology and had existed since 1913, when a French engineer by the name of Rene Lorin patented such an engine. Due to a lack of necessary materials, it was not possible to build a fully operational prototype at that time, and it would take decades before a proper ramjet could be completed. In Germany, work on such engines was mostly carried out by Hellmuth Walter during the 1930s. While his initial work was promising, he eventually gave up on its development and switched to a rocket engine instead. The first working prototype was built and tested by the German Research Center for Gliding in 1942. It was later tested by mounting the engine on a Dornier Do 17 and, later, a Dornier Do 217.
The Dornier Do 217 was equipped with experimental ramjets during trials. Source: tanks45.tripod.com
In October 1943, Lippisch won a contract to develop the experimental P 11 delta-wing aircraft. While developing this aircraft, Lippisch became interested in merging his new work with a ramjet engine. This would lead to the creation of a new project named the P 12. In the early stage of the project, Lippisch and his team were not completely sure what to use as fuel for their aircraft, but ramjets could be adapted to use other types of fuel beyond aviation gasoline.
Unfortunately for them, LFW’s facilities were heavily damaged in the Allied bombing raids in June 1944. In addition to the damage to the project itself, over 45 team members died during this raid. To further complicate matters, the scarcity of gasoline meant that Lippisch’s team was forced to seek other available resources, such as different forms of coal. This led to the creation of the slightly modified project named P 13. In contrast to the P 12, the cockpit was relocated from the fuselage into a large fin. This design provided better stability but also increased the aircraft’s aerodynamic properties. The overall designs of the P 12 and P 13 would change several times and were never fully finalized.
The P 12 and 13 small-scale models, in both configurations, were successfully tested at Spitzerberg Airfield near Vienna in May 1944. The project even received a green light from the Ministry of Armaments. In the early stages of the project, there were some concerns that the radical new design would require extensive retraining of pilots. However, the wind tunnel test showed that the design was aerodynamically feasible and that the aircraft controls had no major issues. Based on these tests, work on an experimental aircraft was ordered to begin as soon as possible.
A proposed P 12 aircraft. Its designs changed greatly over time, before being finally discarded in favor of the letter P 13. Source: The Delta Wing History and Development
The DM-1 Life Saver
While working on the P 12 and P 13, Lippish was approached with a request from a group of students from Darmstadt and Munich universities. They asked Lippisch to be somehow involved in the P 12 and 13 projects. Lippisch agreed to this and dispatched one of his assistants under the excuse that for his own project, a wooden glider was to be built and tested. The previously mentioned student’s and Lippisch’s assistant moved to a small warehouse in Prier and began working on the Darmstadt 33 (D 33) project. The name would be changed to DM 1 which stands for Darmstadt and Munich.
At this point of the war, all available manpower was recruited to serve the German war effort. For young people, this often meant mobilization into the Army. One way to avoid this was to be involved in some miracle project that offered the Army a potentially war-winning weapon. It is from this, that numerous aircraft designs with futuristic, and in most cases unrealistic, features were proposed. Many young engineers would go on to avoid military service by proposing projects that on paper offered extraordinary performance in combat.
The students and Lippisch managed to nearly complete their DM1 test glider when the war ended. Source: airandspace.si.edu
While it was under construction, preparations were made to prepare for its first test flight. As it was a glider it needed a towing aircraft that was to take it to the sky. A Sibel Si 204 twin-engine aircraft was chosen for the job. However, this was not to be done like any other glider, being towed behind the larger aircraft. Instead, the DM-1 was to be placed above the Si 201 in a frame, in a similar combination as the Mistel project. The estimated theoretical speeds that were to be reached were 560 km/h (350 mph).
Allegedly, there were four different proposals for the DM’s that were to be fully operational. The DM 2 version was estimated to be able to reach a speed of 800-1,200 km/h (500 – 745 mph). The DM 3’s theoretical maximum speed was to be 2,000 km/h (1,240 mph) while the fate of the DM 4 is unknown. Here it is important to note that these figures were purely theoretical, as there were no supersonic testing facilities to trial such a design. It is unclear in the sources if these additional DM projects even existed, even if in only written form. We must remember that the whole DM 1 glider idea was made to help the students avoid military conscription and that Lippisch himself never saw the DM 1 as any vital part of the P 13.
In any case, the glider was almost completed by the time the war ended and was later captured by the Western Allies. Under the US Army’s supervision, the glider was fully completed and sent to America for future evaluation. It would then be given to the Smithsonian Institution.
A DM 1 test glider being under construction. Source: hushkit.netThe Siebel Si 204 was to be used as a carrier for the DM 1 glider for the expected first-flight tests. Due to the end of the war, this was never achieved. Source: www.silverhawkauthor.com
Work on the P 13
As the work on the P 13 went on, the name was slightly changed. This was necessary as different variations of the P 13 were proposed. The original P 13 received the prefix ‘a’ while the later project’s designation continued alphabetically for example P 13b. After a brief period of examination of the best options, the P 12 project was discarded in favor of P 13. The decision was based on the fuel that the aircraft should use. What followed was a period of testing and evaluation of the most suitable forms of coal that could be used as fuel. Initial laboratory test runs were made using solid brown Bohemian coal in combination with oxygen to increase the burn rate. The fuel coal was tube-shaped, with an estimated weight of 1 kg, and encased in a mesh container through which the granulated coal could be ejected. The testing showed serious problems with this concept. While a fuel tube could provide a thrust that on average lasted 4 to 5 minutes, its output was totally unpredictable. During the testing, it was noted that due to the mineral inconsistency of the coal fuel, it was impossible to achieve even burning. Additionally, larger pieces of the coal fuel would be torn off and ejected into the jet stream. The final results of these tests are unknown but seem to have led nowhere, with the concept being abandoned. Given that Germany in the last few months of the war was in complete chaos, not much could be done regarding the Lippish projects including the P 13a.
As more alterations to the original design were proposed its name was charged to P 13a. Here is a drawing of a P 13b that was briefly considered but quickly discarded. Source: The Delta Wing History and Development
In May 1945, Lippish and his team had to flee toward the West to avoid being captured by the advancing Soviets. They went to Strobl in Western Austria, where they encountered the Western Allies. Lippisch was later transported to Paris in late May 1945 to be questioned about his delta wing designs. He was then moved to England, and then to America in 1946. The following year, American engineers tested the DM 1 glider at the wind tunnel facility of the Langley Field Aeronautical Laboratory. The test seems promising and it was suggested to begin preparation for a real flight. A redesign of the large rudder was requested. It was to be replaced with a much smaller one, where the cockpit would be separated from the fin and placed in the fuselage. Ironically Lippish was not mentioned in this report, as technically speaking he was not involved in the DM 1 project. Nevertheless, he was invited for further testing and evaluation of this glider. If this glider and the Lippish work had any real impact on the US designs is not quite clear.
Despite no aircraft being ever completed, one full-size replica of this unusual aircraft was built after the war. It was built by Holger Bull who is known for building other such aircraft. The replica can now be seen at the American Military Aviation Museum located in Virginia Beach.
An interesting full-size replica of the P 13 located at the American Military Aviation Museum. Source: Wiki
Technical characteristics
DM 1
The DM 1 glider was built using wooden materials. Given that it was constructed by a group of young students, its overall design was quite simple. It did not have a traditional fuselage, instead, its base consisted of a delta wing. On top, a large fin was placed. The cockpit was positioned in front of the aircraft within the large vertical stabilizer. To provide a better view of the lower parts of the nose, it was glazed. The landing gear consisted of three small landing wheels which retracted up into the wing fuselage. Given that it was to be used as a test glider, no operational engine was ever to be used on it.
The DM 1 side view. In contrast to the later P 13a design, the pilot’s cockpit position was placed above the wings. This was necessary as the engine was to be added. Source: airandspace.si.eduA DM 1 was captured by the Allies after the war. Its unique shape is quite evident in this photograph. Source: WikiA good example of DM 1 (to the right) and P 13a models that showed the difference between these two. The P 13a could be easily distinguished by its engine intake and the different position of the pilot cockpit. Source: Wiki
A good example of DM 1 (to the right) and P 13a models that showed the difference between these two. The P 13a could be easily distinguished by its engine intake and the different position of the pilot cockpit. Source: Wiki https://imgur.com/a/QW7XuO5
P 13a
The P 13 is visually similar but with some differences. The most obvious was the use of a ramjet. This means that the front, with its glazed nose, was replaced with an engine intake. Here, it is important to note, that much of the P 13a’s design is generally unknown, and much of the available information is sometimes wrongly portrayed in the sources. The P 13a never reached the prototype stage where an aircraft was fully completed. Even as the war ended, much of the aircraft’s design was still theoretical. Thus all the mentioned information and photographs may not fully represent how the P 13 may have looked or its precise characteristics, should it have been finished and built.
The exact ram engine type was never specified. It was positioned in the central fuselage with the air intake to the front and the exhaust to the back. As the main fuel, it was chosen to use small pieces of brown coal which were carried inside a cylindrical wire mesh container. The total fuel load was to be around 800 kg (1,760 lbs). Combustion was to be initiated by using small quintiles of liquid fuel or gas flames. The overall engine design was changed several times during the work on the P 13 without any real solution to the issues of output consistency. Given that the ramjets could not work without an air thrust, an auxiliary engine had to be used during take-off, though a more practical use would be to tow the P 13 until it could start its engine. A rocket takeoff ran the risk of the engine failing to ignite, leaving the pilot little time to search for a landing spot for his unpowered aircraft.
An illustration of the proposed P 13a engine interior. The use of coal as fuel may seem like a cheap alternative but given that this kind of technology was never employed may be an indication of its effectiveness. Source: theaviationgeekclub.com
The wing construction was to be quite robust and provided with deflectors that would prevent any potential damage to the rudders. The wing design also incorporated a sharp metal plate similar to those used for cutting enemy balloons cables. These proposed properties of the wings are another indicator that the P 13 was to be used as an aircraft rammer. Another plausible reason for this design was the fact that given it had no landing gear the aircraft design had to be robust enough as not to be torn apart during landing. The wings were swept back at an angle of 60 degrees. The precise construction method of the wings (and the whole P 13 a on that matter) are not much specified in the sources. Given the scarcity of resources in late 1944 it is likely that it would use a combination of metal and wood.
A drawing of the P 13a interior. Its overall construction was to be more or less standard in nature. This could not be said for the aircraft’s overall shape design. Source: D. Sharp Luftwaffe Secret Jets of the Third Reich
The fin had to be enlarged to provide good flight command characteristics. In addition, given that the position of the cockpit was in the fin, it had to be large. The fin was more or less a direct copy of one of the wings. So it is assumed that it too would share the overall design. The fin was connected to the aircraft by using four fittings.
The cockpit design was to be simple and cheap to build. The pilot was to have plenty of room inside the large fin. The cockpit was provided with a large glazed canopy that provided a good view of the front and sides. The seat and the instrument panel were bolted to the cockpit floor and walls. These could be easily detached for repairs. The instrument panel was to include an artificial horizon indicator, altimeter, compass, and radio equipment, Given that it was to operate at a high altitude oxygen tanks were to be provided too. Despite being intended to fly at high altitudes the cockpit was not to be pressurized. Another unusual fact was that initially the P 13 was to have a crew of two, but this was quickly discarded.
A possible example of how the inside of the pilot cockpit may have looked. Source: D. Sharp Luftwaffe Secret Jets of the Third Reich
Here it is important to note that the version of the P 13 with the large fin is often portrayed as the final version of this aircraft. However, Lippisch never fully decided whether he should go for this version or the second that used a smaller fin with the pilot cockpit placed above the engine intake. Depending on the proposed version they are drastically different from each other. Lippisch, for unknown reasons, presented the British intelligence officer with the version that used the smaller fin and the American with the second version.
During its development phase, many different alterations of the P 13 were proposed. Isource: D. Sharp Luftwaffe Secret Jets of the Third Reich
Landing operations were a bit unusual. To save weight no standard landing gear was to be used. Instead, Lippisch reused the Me 163 landing procedure. As the P 13 was immobile on its own, a small dolly would be used to move the aircraft. Once sufficient height was reached the dolly was to be jettisoned. In theory, this was an easy process, but in practice, this operation offered a good chance of failure and was much less safe than conventional landing gear. Sometimes the dolly either failed to eject or it bounced off the ground hitting the Me 163 in the process, with often fatal consequences.
The Me 163 which did not have traditional landing gear, had to be prior to the flight, transported to the airfield before launching into the sky. Source: warbirdphotographs.com
The aircraft was to land with the nose raised up from the ground. This limited the pilot’s view of the ground. In addition due to its small size and in order to save weight, nontraditional landing gear was provided, instead, it carried a landing blade skid. To help absorb the landing impact, additional torsion springs were to be used. This bar had to be activated prior to the landing, it would emerge from beneath the aircraft fuselage, with the rotation point located at the front. Once released it was to guide the aircraft toward the ground. After that, the torsion springs were to soften the landing. This whole contraption seems like a disaster just waiting to happen and it’s questionable how practical it would be.
A drawing that showed how the P 13a was to land using a guiding landing blade skid. Source: D. Sharp Luftwaffe Secret Jets of the Third Reich
One interesting feature of the P 13 was that it could be easily disassembled into smaller parts which would enable effortless transport. Another reason was that due to the engine’s position in order to make some repairs or replacement of the engine, the remaining parts of the wing and the large fin had to be removed.
Was it an aircraft rammer?
The precise purpose of the P 13a is not quite clear, even to this day. Despite being briefly considered for mass production, no official offensive armament is mentioned in the sources. So how would the P 13a engage the enemy? A possible solution was that it would be used as a ram aircraft that was supposed to hit enemy aircraft damaging them in the process. In an after-the-war interrogation by British officers, Lippisch was asked if the P 13 was to be used as an aerial ram aircraft. Lippisch responded the following “
“.. The possibilities of using the P.13 as a ramming aircraft had been considered but Dr Lippisch did not think that athodyd propulsion was very suitable for this purpose owing to the risk of pieces of the rammed aircraft entering the intake. This would be avoided with a rocket-propelled rammer…”
This statement contradicts the building description issued by the LFW issued in late 1944. In it was stated the following about this potential use. “…Due to tactical considerations, among other things, the speed difference of fighters and bombers, preferably when attacking from behind, though the thought was given to the installation of brakes .. and although ample room for weaponry is present, the task of ram fighter has been taken into account – so that the ramming attack will not lead to the loss of the aircraft, thanks to its shape and static structure.”
This meant that this concept may have been considered by Lippisch at some point of the project’s development. The P 13 overall shape resembles closely to aircraft that was intentionally designed for this role. That said, it does not necessarily mean that the P 13 was to ram enemy aircraft. The use of such tactics was considered but their use was discarded, as it was seen as a futile and flawed concept. The project itself never got far enough to have an armament decided for it.
The precise method of how to engage the enemy aircraft is not clear as the P13a was not provided with any armament. It is sometimes referred to in the sources as it was to be used as a ram aircraft. Source: theaviationgeekclub.com
Conclusion
The Lippisch P 13 is an unusual aircraft project in nearly all aspects. Starting from its shape, which proved, at least during wind tunnel tests, that the concept was feasible. On the other hand, its engine seems to have simply been abandoned after discouraging test results. It is unlikely that such a combination would have worked to the extent that the P 13 designer hoped it would. During the testing, they could not find a proper solution to providing a constant thrust with sufficient force to reach a speed that was expected of it. So the whole concept was likely to be doomed from the start.
The DM 1 however, while it was never seriously worked on by Lippisch himself, managed to save a group of young students who used the project to avoid being sent into combat.
DM-1 Specifications
Wingspans
5.92 m / 19 ft 5 in
Length
6.6 m / 21 ft 7 in
Height
3.18 m / 10 ft 5 in
Wing Area
20 m² / 215 ft²
Engine
None
Empty Weight
300 kg / 655 lbs
Maximum Takeoff Weight
460 kg / 1,015 lbs
Maximum Speed
560 km/h / 350 mph (gliding)
Landing speed
72 km/h / 45 mph
Release altitude
8,000 m (26,240 ft)
Crew
1 pilot
Armament
None
Theoretical Estimated Lippisch P 13 Specifications
Wingspans
5.92 m / 19 ft 5 in
Length
6.7 m / 21 ft 11 in
Height
3.18 m / 10 ft 5 in
Wing Area
20 m² / 215 ft²
Engine
Unspecified ramjet
Maximum Takeoff Weight
2,300 kg / 5,070 lbs
Maximum Speed
1,650 km/h / 1,025 mph
Flight endurance
45 minutes
Fuel load
800 kg / 1,760 lb
Crew
1 pilot
Armament
None mentioned
Illustrations
The Lippisch DM-1, unnecessary to the overall project, it none the less allowed a group of students to escape military service.
A possible silhouette of the P13.
Credits
Article written by Marko P.
Edited by Henry H.
Ported by Marko P.
Illustrated By Medicman11
Source:
A. Lippisch (1981) The Delta Wing History and Development, Iowa State University Press
D. Nesić (2008) Naoružanje Drugog Svetsko Rata-Nemačka. Beograd.
D. Monday (2006) The Hamlyn Concise Guide To Axis Aircraft OF World War II, Bounty Books.
J. R. Smith and A. L. Kay (1972) German Aircraft of the WW2, Putham
B. Rose (2010) Secret Projects Flying Wings and Tailless Aircraft, Midland
D. Sharp (2015) Luftwaffe Secret Jets of the Third Reich, Mortons
Nazi Germany (1940)
Light Transport and Trainer – Number built: 1,175
While often seen as less exciting than their combat counterparts, transport and auxiliary aircraft provided vital services in moving cargo, and training new pilots. Light transports which could combine both duties were thus extremely desirable during the war as theaters stretched across continents and pilot attrition was high. Luckily for the Luftwaffe, the Siebel company provided them with a simple but effective aircraft that could easily fulfill both roles. This was the Si 204, which saw wide-scale use both during, and after, the conflict.
The Si 204. Source: www.airwar.ru/
Siebel company history
The story of Siebel began back in 1936 when Hans Klemm opened a new aircraft factory the, Flugzeugbau Halle GmbH. This company would go on to produce license-built aircraft, including the Focke-Wulf Fw 44, and Heinkel He 46. Between 1936 and 1937, a new project led by Hans Klemm was initiated. This was a light twin-engined transport aircraft designated as Fh 104. While the work was going on, Klemm decided to hand over the factory to well-known aircraft enthusiast Fritz W. Siebel. The same year the name was changed to Siebel Flugzeugwerke Halle GmbH. Under new management, the work on the renamed Siebel Fh 104 continued. The Siebel Fh 104 would prove to be a solid design and was pressed into Luftwaffe service as a communication and liaison aircraft. In 1942 the production of this aircraft was terminated, by which time only some 46 were built. The Siebel factory would survive the war and even produce a few new aircraft designs. It would continue to exist up to 1968 when it was merged with Messerschmitt-Bolkow GmbH.
The first aircraft to come out of the o Siebel Flugzeugwerke production was the Siebel Fh 104 Source: hwww.armedconflicts.com
The Siebel 204
Following the success of the Fh 104, Siebel received a request from the Luftwaffe officials in 1939 to design and build a new twin-engine, 8-passenger transport aircraft. So Siebel and his team of engineers began working on such a design. While they may have used the experience gained while working on the Fh 104, their next project was a completely new design. The first prototype Si 204 V1 (D-AEFR) was completed in early 1940, and was flight tested on the 25th of May the same year. Sources disagree about the year when the maiden flight was made. For example, D. Nešić and M. Fratzke mentioned that it happened in 1941 while M. Griel placed it in 1940. The test flight proceeded without any major issues, so the development of this aircraft carried on. In October 1940 the Si 204 V2 (D-IMCH) was flight tested. Both of these would serve as bases for the pre-production A-0 series which were to be operated by the German Lufthansa airline. The first prototype was scrapped in 1942 while the second remained in use up to early 1944 when it was lost in an accident.
Following its successful testing, the first production version known as Si 204A was built. It was powered by two 360 hp, or 465 hp depending on the source, Argus As 410 engines. The Si 204A-0 and A-1 were put into production in 1941, the precise numbers are not clear but were likely limited. As the war dragged on these were mainly used for crew training, a role to which they proved well suited.
The Luftwaffe was generally satisfied with the Si 204A’s performance as a trainer but requested that a new version of it be built. This version was dedicated to various crew training tasks including; radio navigation, instrument flying, bombing, and communication. Other requests were made regarding its front canopy design and stronger power units. For this reason, the engines were replaced with two 600-hp Argus As 411 12-cylinder engines. Additionally, the original stepped canopy was replaced with a fully glazed canopy.
The new version was to be designated Si 204D. The fate of the skipped B and C versions is unclear, but these were likely only paper projects. The Si 204V3 and V4 served as bases for the Si 204D aircraft. Both were flight tested in early 1941, withhe V3 being lost in an accident during mid-1942 while the fate of the V4 is not known.
Technical characteristics
The Si 204 was designed as a low-wing, twin-engine, all-metal transport, and training aircraft. Its fuselage was made of round-shaped formers each connected with a series of metal bars. These were covered with sheet metal plating. On the fuselage sides, there were four rectangular windows.
The wings and tail units were also of an all-metal construction. The wings were built using only a single spar. The dihedral tailplane was divided into two fins and rudders, which were located on their tips.
In the last months of the war, due to shortages of resources, Siebel attempted to replace some metal components using wooden materials. The end of the war prevented any of these wooden components from ever being used.
The pilot and his assistant were positioned in the front. As many German bombers had a fully glazed canopy, to help with the training and adaptation of new pilots, the Si 204 was also equipped with such a designed canopy. It largely resembled the one used on the He 111. Thanks to it the pilot had an excellent view during the flight.
As mentioned earlier, Si 204D was powered by two 600 hp Argus As 411 12-cylinder engines, these used two variable pitch blade propellers. The maximum speed achieved with these engines was around 364 km/h. With a fuel load of 1.090 liters, the maximum operational range was around 1.800 km.
The landing gear was more or less a standard design. It consisted of three wheels. The landing gear retracted back into the engine nacelles. These were not fully enclosed and part of the wheels was exposed. The tail wheel was not retractable.
While initially designed as a passenger transport aircraft, the Si 204 would be primarily used for crew training. For this reason, its interior compartment could be equipped with different training equipment depending on the need. Including radio, radar, or navigation equipment.
The Siebel 204D side view. Its overall design is quite similar to the German he 111 bombers. Source: www.airwar.ruSiebel pilot cockpit interior. The pilot and his assistant had an excellent view of the surrounding thank to the large glazed cockpit. Source: www.airwar.ruThe Siebel 204D had standard landing gear. The two front wheels retracted back into the engine nacelles. These were not fully enclosed and part of the wheels was exposed. Source: www.airwar.ru
Production
Despite being Siebel’s own design, the factory itself lacked production capabilities as it was already heavily involved in the manufacturing of other designs including the Ju 88. The actual production was redistributed to two occupied foreign factories. The first were the SNCAC factories located in Fourchambault and Bourges in France, which came under German control after the successful end of the Western Campaign in 1940. The second production center was located at the Czechoslovakian Aero factory, which was also occupied by the Germans even before the war started. Other companies like BMM and Walter were also involved in the production of this aircraft.
The production numbers were initially low, for example, the SNCAC only managed to build five aircraft per month during 1942. From 1942 to 1944 this company produced some 150 Si 204D aircraft. Czechoslovakian production capabilities proved to be better, managing to manufacture some 1007 such aircraft by the end of the war. The total production of all versions during the war is around 1.175 aircraft according to H. A. Skaarup. This number, as is the case with many German production numbers, may be different in other sources.
Service
As mentioned earlier the Si 204 was mainly used for crew training for various roles, transportation, and glider towing. While there is quite limited information on their precise service life, it appears to be quite a successful design and was praised by the Luftwaffe pilots. By the end of the war, some were even equipped with various radar equipment including FuG 217R and FuG 218V2R tail warning radars to train night fighter pilots. Interestingly the Si 204 was employed for the training of further Me 262 pilots.
It is often mentioned that the Si 204 was the last Luftwaffe aircraft to be shot down. Near Rodach in Bavaria, just a day before the Germans capitulated to the Allies. That kill is accredited to Lieutenant K. L. Smith, a pilot of a P-38 Lightning from the 474th Fighter Group. How valid this claim is difficult to know precisely due to the general chaotic state in Germany at that time.
During its service life, the Si 204 proved to be an effective aircraft, completely suited for its designated role. Source:www.airwar.ru
Combat adaptation attempts
For fighting against Partisan movements in occupied Europe, older or modified aircraft were often reused, preserving the more modern aircraft for the front line use. The Si 204 was seen as tempting for such a modification, so the Siebel engineers tried to develop a fully armed combat version of this aircraft. To fulfill this role some extensive modifications were needed.
Inside its front fuselage, two 13 mm MG 131 heavy machine guns were placed. Each was supplied with 500 rounds of ammunition, stored in a metal ammunition bin. These were to be operated by the pilot. For this reason, he was provided with a Revi 16A-type gun sight. For protection against enemy aircraft, on top of the fuselage, a fully glazed turret armed with one 13 mm MG 131 was added. The turret movement was electrically controlled. Elevation was -10 to +80 while it could achieve a full 360 rotation.
The interior of the Si 204 received a bombing bay that could carry 12 70 kg bombs. External bomb racks with a capacity ranging from 50 to 500 kg were added. The pilot seat received armor plates for his protection from enemy fire on the Si 204E. Due to its relatively slow speed, using this aircraft against a well equipped enemy was dangerous, so it was to be restricted to night bombing action only.
In 1944 two prototypes were completed and tested. Besides these two, the number of Si 204E’s built is unknown. Given its experimental nature, possibly only a few prototypes were ever completed. Allegedly these saw limited action fighting the Belarusian Partisans. The extent to which they were used in this role if used at all, remains unknown.
The Siebel 204E could be easily distinguished by its glazed turret, located on the fuselage top. This version is somewhat obscure as it is not known how many were built and if they ever saw action in combat. Source: www.silverhawkauthor.com
Carrier proposal
With the Allies slowly getting the upper hand in the air over Europe, the Luftwaffe became ever more desperate to find a solution to this problem. Mass production of cheap fighters was seen as a possible solution. One such project was proposed by Professor Alexander Lippisch, best known for designing a series of glider fly-wing designs. He was also involved in designing various bizarre aircraft projects, including the unusual P 13a aircraft.
A drawing of Professor Alexander Lippisch P 13a fighter. Source: D. Sharp Luftwaffe Secret Jets of the Third Reich
While working on the P 13, Lippish was approached with a request from a group of students from Darmstadt and Munich universities who wanted to avoid conscription to join his work. Lippisch agreed to this and dispatched one of his assistants under the excuse that for his own project, a wooden glider was to be built and tested. They together managed to build an experimental DM-1 glider.. However, this aircraft was not to be towed like any other glider. Instead, the DM-1 was to be placed above the Si 201 on brackets and carried. However, nothing came of this project, and no such attempt at deploying the glider was made as the war ended.
Professor Alexander Lippisch’s work involved designing unusual and unorthodox aircraft designs including the Li DM 1. Source: Professor Alexander Lippisch’s work involved designing unusual and unorthodox aircraft designs including the Li DM 1. Source: www.fiddlersgreen.net
After the war
When the war ended, the Si 204 would see more service in the hands of many other nations. The advancing Allies managed to capture a number of fully operational aircraft. These were immediately put to use either as transport, liaison, and evaluation purposes. At least one Si 204D was extensively used by the British pilot Captain Eric Brown, who was the chief test pilot of the Royal Aircraft Establishment at Farnborough. He was involved in a British project tasked with taking over German war research installations and interrogating technical personnel after the war.
He was generally impressed with the Si 204D’s overall performance, performing many flights on it. He later wrote about its performance. “The Si 204D was really a viceless airplane to handle, with inherently good stability about all three axes and good harmony of control. It was very well equipped for its tasks, and the later model I flew had an autopilot fitted. Like all German aircraft of that era, it was a mass of electrics, with extensive circuit breaker panels, and all very reliable. However, the one thing the Germans never got right was wheel brakes, and the Sievel was no exception..”
A group of six or more Si 204 was captured by the Allies. Source: www.asisbiz.com
The Siebels that were moved to Farnborough were extensively used during 1945 for various roles, like communication, providing navigational guidance, and transporting pilots to various captured Luftwaffe airfields. The last operational flight of the Si 204D at this base was recorded at the start of 1946.
After the war, the Si 204 saw the most common use in French and Czechoslovakia, which actually continued to produce this aircraft. In French service, these were known t as NC 700, powered with As 411 engines, NC 701 ‘Martinet’, powered by two Renault 12S engines, and NC 702, a modified version of the Si 204A. In total the French constructed over 300 aircraft of this type. Some would see service in French Asian and African colonies. The last operational flight was carried out in 1964. Two NC 702’s would be given to Maroko in 1960, but their use and fate is unknown.
After the war, the French sold 7 NC 701 to Poland. They were used mainly for mapping photography. These were operated until the mid-1950s’ before being put out of service.
By mid-1960 some 5 French-built Siebels were given to the Swedish National Geographic Institut. These were mainly used for taking meteorological photographs.
The second country that produced the Si 204 was Czechoslovakia. They were built in two versions, the C-3 for the army and C-103 for civilian use. Both were mainly operated in their original transport roles. From 1945 to 1950 some 179 would be built.
The Soviets also managed to capture an unknown number of operational Si 204. These were briefly pressed into service before being replaced by domestic-built designs.
Switzerland also operated at least one Si 204D. This aircraft and its crew escaped from Germany on the 7th of May 1945 and landed at Belp near Bern. The Si 204D would remain in Switz use under the B-3 designation.
Soviets operated an unknown number of Si 204. Their use was brief as it was replaced with new Soviet-built designs. Source: www.armedconflicts.comDuring late 1945 and early 1946 the Si 204 were used by the Western Allies for transport and evaluation. Source: www.airwar.ru
Production Versions
Si 204 – Prototype series
Si 204A – Transport and training version built in small numbers
Si 204B and C – Unknown fate, but likely paper projects only
Si 204D – Model with a new glazed cockpit and powered with a stronger engine
204E – Experimental modification for combat operational use
Flying carrier – One Si 204 was to be modified as a carrier for the Doctor Alexander Lippisch experimental all-wing fighter, but was never fully implemented
Operators
Germany – Most produced planes were used by the Luftwaffe primarily used for crew training
Czechoslovakia – Produced some 179 additional aircraft for military and civilian use
France – Over 300 modified aircraft (with French engines) were produced in France and saw wide service up to 1964.
Soviet Union –Operated some captured Si 204
Poland – Brought 7 NC.701 from France after the war
Macoro – Operated two French NC 702
Sweden – Operated five French-built Siebels
Switzerland – Used at least one Si 204 under the designation B-3
American and Great Britain – Both briefly operated a number of captured Si 204 after the war
Surviving aircraft
Today there are a number of partially or wholly survived aircraft Si 204. For example, the French Aviation Museum in Paris had one Si 204A and another located in the Escadrille du Souvenir close to Paris. One Si 204 is located at Sweden Lygvapen Museum.
Conclusion
While Germany in the Second World is better known for designing and producing a series of combat aircraft, their auxiliary aircraft are often overlooked. The Si 204 was one such case, despite its successful design, it is rather poorly documented in the sources. Its design was a success which can be seen in its after-war use, most notably by the French up to the mid-1960.
Si 204 D Specifications
Wingspans
21.33 m / 70 ft
Length
12 m / 39 ft 3 in
Height
4.25 m / 14 ft
Wing Area
46 m² / 495 ft²
Engines
Two Argus As 411 engines
Empty Weight
1.500 kg / 3.300 lbs
Maximum Takeoff Weight
3950 kg / 8,710 lbs
Climb Rate to 1 km
In 3 minute 30 seconds
Maximum Speed
364 km/h / 226 mph
Cruising speed
340 km/h / 210 mph
Range
1,800 km / 1,120 miles
Maximum Service Ceiling
7,500 m / 24,600 ft
Crew
Pilot and his assistants plus eight-passenger
Armament
None
Illustrations
Si-204DSi-204E
Credits
Article written by Marko P.
Edited by Henry H. & Stan L.
Ported by Marko P.
Illustrated By Ed Jackson
Sources
D. Nešić (2008), Naoružanje Drugog Svetskog Rata Nemačka Beograd
H. A. Skaarup (2012) Axis Warplane Survivors
D. Mondey (2006). The Hamlyn Concise Guide To Axis Aircraft OF World War II, Bounty Books.
D. Donald (1998) German Aircraft Of World War II, Blitz Publisher
J. R Smith and A. L. Kay (1972) German Aircraft of the Second World War, Putnam
Jean-Denis G.G. Lepage (2009), Aircraft Of The Luftwaffe 1935-1945, McFarland & Company Inc
Captain E. ‘Winkle’ Brown (2010) Wings of the Luftwaffe, Hikoki Publication
M. Griehl (2012) X-Planes German Luftwaffe Prototypes 1930-1945, Frontline books
T. H. Hitchcock (1998) Jet Planes Of The Reich The Secret projects, Monogram Aviation Publication
In the years prior to the Second World War, in Europe, there was significant interest in the development of aircraft intended to be used for breaking various world records. International competitions and exhibitions of new aircraft technology were quite common in this period. While at first glance this may seem like a hobby or sports event, in reality, these were often used for propaganda purposes to glorify a nation’s own aviation industry as superior to those of other countries. Achieving the greatest possible speed was often regarded as a clear measure of engineering supremacy over other countries. Germany was one of these, which took up the task in the late 1930s to achieve the greatest possible speed. They successfully achieved with the Me 209, an excellent record-setter, but completely unsuited for military use.
History of the Me 209
Due to restrictions imposed by the Western Allies, the Germans were partially limited from researching certain aircraft technologies. This did not stop them, however, as German aviation enthusiasts and aircraft manufacturers found numerous ways to bypass these restrictions. In the early 1930s the German aircraft industry worked at full capacity in order to increase the production of ever-needed new aircraft designs, but also introduced a series of new technologies. When the Nazis came to power in 1933, huge investments were made in order to build one of the most modern air forces in the world. Thanks to these resources, the Germans introduced a series of excellent aircraft designs that would dominate the skies over Europe in the first years of the war.
Some of these aircraft were specially modified so that they could be reused as propaganda tools. Their purpose was to achieve as many world records as possible. On the other hand, these were never actually accepted for service. One aircraft developed by Heinkel, the He 100, managed to achieve great success by reaching a speed of 764 km/h. However, this was not enough in the minds of the leading officials of the Reichsluftfahrtministerium – RLM ( German Air Ministry) who wanted something more imposing to show to the world. Adolf Hitler himself wanted to show off the superiority of the German aviation industry. So to win worldwide prestige in aviation, in 1937 Messerschmitt was instructed by the RLM to begin developing an experimental aircraft that set the world speed record. Given its specialized nature as a high-speed record-breaker, Messerschmitt received production orders for three prototype aircraft.
Willy Messerschmitt and his team of engineers began working on such a project, codenamed P.1059 in the early stage of development, soon after the requisite was made and the first working prototype was now under the designation Me 209 V1 (D-INJR).
The Me 209 mock-up in its early development stage. Most evident is the unusually rear-positioned pilot cockpit. Source: ww2fighters.e-monsite.com
The Prototype Development
The Me 209V1 prototype made its maiden flight at the start of August 1938. This flight was rather short at only 7 minutes. It was flown by the Messerschmitt chief engineer J. H. Wurster who was also a pilot. It was initially planned to use the experimental DB 601ARJ engine. As it was not yet available, a more orthodox 1,100 hp DB 601A engine was used instead. Almost from the start, the Me 209V1 was shown to be a troublesome design. Numerous issues were detected during flight testing. Some of these included the aircraft’s tendency to abruptly dive in mid-flight, the controls being heavy and hard to work with either in the air or on the ground, cockpit ventilation was poor, engine overheating problems were evident due to insufficient cooling, and cockpit visibility was quite limited. During landings, the Me 209 showed that it had a high sinking rate which usually led to a harsh landing, potentially causing damage to the landing gear. Despite all of this, which would in other circumstances lead to a sure cancellation of the project, the RLM officials urged that the Me 209 development should go on.
The side view of the Me 209V1 prototype. Interestingly the Messerschmitt workers did not even border apply any paint job to it. The natural aluminum color is quite evident in this photograph.
The second prototype Me 209 V2 (D-IWAH) was completed in early 1939. It was flight-tested for the first time on the 8th of February 1939. At that time Wurster gave up his position as the Messerschmitt test pilot to Fritz Wendel. On the 4th of April, there was an accident where this aircraft would be lost. After a short flight, the pilot Fritz Wendel was preparing for a landing approach on Haunstetten airfield. Suddenly, and without warning, the engine stopped working and the aircraft rapidly lost altitude. In another version of this event, the engine stopped working shortly after take-off. Regardless of which event was true, the aircraft was lost but surprisingly the pilot Fritz Wendel survived the forced landing without injury.
The Me 209V2 aircraft during its construction. While it was to be used for breaking the world record, its early demise meant the V1 had to be used instead. Source: ww2fighters.e-monsite.com
In the meantime, with the loss of the V2 aircraft, the testing continued using the first prototype which was finally equipped with the DB 601ARJ engine. This engine was rated for 1800 PS on take-off, with its emergency power setting reaching 2,465 PS.
A New World Record
As the V2 was lost and the other two prototypes were still under construction, it was devised to use the V1 aircraft for the anticipated world record flight. On the 26th of April 1939, while piloted by Fritz Wendel, the Me 209V1 reached a phenomenal speed of 755 km/h. It would take nearly 30 years before the record was beaten by a modified American Grumman F8F-2 in 1969.
German Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels was quick to exploit this successful flight. Goebbels propaganda machine soon published this news as a great success of the German aviation industry. To hide the experimental nature of the Me 209, in propaganda news it was renamed Bf 109R. This was also done to deceive the general foreign public that this was an actual operational fighter. Shortly after that, all further work on beating the speed record was strictly forbidden. Following this success, Me 209 V3 (D-IVFP) was completed and flight-tested in May 1939. Its flight career would end shortly as its frame was mostly used for various testing and experimentation duties.
Technical Characteristics
The Me 209 was a low-wing, all-metal, single-seat, experimental record-breaking aircraft. Unfortunately due to its experimental nature, not much is mentioned about its precise construction in the sources.
The fuselage and the wings were made of a metal frame covered in aluminum sheets. The rear tail unit had an unusual design with the rudder being greatly enlarged. This was done to help the aircraft design cope with propeller torque.
The Me 209 landing gear consisted of two landing gear units that retracted outward towards the wings. The Me 209 used a more common type of landing gear that retracted inward to the wings. To the rear, a sliding skid was placed at the bottom part of the large tail fin. The skid was connected with a spring to the tail unit and could be completely retracted to reduce the drag.
The cockpit was placed quite to the rear of the aircraft fuselage. This design had a huge flaw, as it severely restricted the pilot’s front view. The canopy of this cockpit opens outwards to the right. It was likely taken directly from Messerschmitt’s early design of the Bf 109. In an emergency, the canopy could be jettisoned.
The Me 209 was to be powered by the DB 601ARJ engine, a twelve-cylinder, liquid-cooled V-12 engine. This engine used a Messerschmitt P8 three-bladed propeller. The engine cooling system was rather unusual. As the Messerschmitt engineer wanted to avoid using a standard radiator to avoid unnecessary drag, they came up with a new design. The engine was cooled with water, which was nothing unusual, but the way the water itself was cooled was quite a new and complicated process. The hot water steam from the engine was redistributed to the wings through pipes. Once in the wings, through a series of specially designed openings, the hot water stream would be condensed back to a liquid state. The cooled water would then be brought back to the engine, where the process would be repeated again and again. The negative side of this system was the constant loss of water due to evaporation, which depending on the conditions like speed may differ widely from 4 to 7 liters per minute. Due to this huge loss in a short amount of time, the aircraft had to be equipped with a 200 (or 450) liter water container. With this water load capacity, the Me 209 had an endurance time of only 35 minutes.
The Me 209 cockpit canopy opens outwards to the right. This design had a flaw as it could not be left open during takeoff or landing. In an emergency, the canopy could be jettisoned. Source: ww2fighters.e-monsite.comThe Me 209 was to be powered DB 601ARJ engine which used a Messerschmitt P8 three-bladed propeller Source: aviadejavu.ruThe rear view of the Me 209V1, where the enlarged vertical stabilizer could be seen. Its purpose was to help the aircraft cope with propeller torque. Source: ww2fighters.e-monsite.com
Attempt To Develop a Combat Version of Me 209
In May 1939 the Me 209 V4 (D-IRND) was flight tested. While the previous prototypes were to be used for beating international world records, the V4 was an attempt to adopt the Me 209 for potential military use. It was not requested by the RLM but instead a Messerschmitt private venture.
This prototype would receive a military code CE-BW in 1940. Its design was modified to include new and enlarged wings. The racing engine was replaced with a military model, the 1,100 hp DB 601. Due to the limitations of the wing-mounted cooling system, it had to be replaced with conventional radiators, which were changed several times in the Me209 V4’s development. The wing design was also changed as it was somewhat larger and longer than that used on the original Me 209. These were also provided with an automatic leading-edge slat.
In addition to its new purpose, it was to be equipped with offensive armament. The sources disagree on its precise armament. According to, D. Myhra (Messerschmitt Me 209V1) it consisted of two 7.92 mm MG 17 machine guns placed above the engine, a 2 cm cannon that would fire through the propeller shaft, and two 3 cm Mk 108 cannons to be installed in the wings. The potential use of this wing-mounted armament is quite questionable for a few reasons. The installation of such a cannon would not be possible given the limited room inside the wings. In addition, the MK 108 would be introduced to service in the later stages of the war, years after the Me 209 V4 was tested.
Authors J. R. Smith and A. L. Kay (German Aircraft of the WW2) on the other hand mentioned that the wing armament was to consist of two MG 17 machine guns, but this had to be abandoned as there was no room in the wings for them.
During testing of the much modified Me 209V4 it was shown to have weaker general flight performance than the already produced Bf 109. Attempts to further improve it by installing a stronger engine failed, as the Me 209 was still underpowered as its airframe was designed around a phenomenally powerful engine. Despite all this work the Me 209V4 was simply not suited for use as a fighter and thus the project had to be abandoned.
The Me 209V4 was a failed attempt to introduce to service a new and improved fighter aircraft that would potentially replace the Bf 109. It was not requested by the RLM but was instead Messerschmitt’s own private venture. Source: www.luftwaffephotos.com
The Fate of the Me 209 prototypes
Following the completion of its original goal, the Me 209V1 aircraft was given to the Berlin Air Museum in April 1940. While initially the Messerschmitt workers simply kept the natural aluminum color for the Me 209. This was not appropriate for an exhibit; it would be repainted in dark blue with its code painted to its fuselage sides. Interestingly during its brief service, the Me 209 was often nicknamed by its crew as Fliegend Eber (Eng. flight boar).
The Me 209V1 just prior to being allocated to the Berlin Air Museum in April 1940. The pilot is Fritz Wendler, and next to him it is Willy Messerschmitt. Source: ww2fighters.e-monsite.coml
In 1943 the Berlin Air Museum was hit during an Allied bombing raid and many aircraft were lost. The Me 209V1 was damaged but its fuselage was left relatively intact. It and other exhibits were moved to Poland for safekeeping, where it was simply forgotten. It was not until 1967 that Norman Wiltshire from the International Association of Aviation Historians actually discovered its remains during his visit to the Polish Air Museum in Krakow. The preserved Me 209V1 fuselage is still located at the Polish Museum, despite many attempts by the Germans to buy it back. The Me 209V3 was completely destroyed in one of many Allied bombing raids of Germany, while the V4 was scrapped at the end of 1943.
Me 209 fuselage at the Polish Aviation museum in Krakow, Poland Source: www.wikiwand.com
Japanese Interest
Despite being obvious from the start that the Me 209 would not enter production, a Japanese attaché showed interest in the project. In 1943 he approached the RLM officials with a request for technical data and that one aircraft to be shipped to Japan. In the end, it appears that nothing came of this and no Me 209 was ever sent to Japan.
An Me 209 but not a Me 209
As the war progressed, Messerschmitt engineers were trying to design a new piston-powered aircraft that would replace the Bf 109. That would initially lead to the creation of the Me 309 which proved to be a failure, and in 1943 a new project was initiated named Me 209. This project, besides having the same name, had nothing to do with the original Me 209 record holding aircraft. The first prototype of this new design was designated Me 209V5 in order to avoid confusion with the previous Me 209 aircraft design. It used many components of the already existing Bf 109G and had a fairly sound design. The few prototypes built would receive the designation Me 209A (sometimes referred to as Me 209II) designation. Despite their improved performance over the Bf 109G, the Luftwaffe opted for the Fw 190D instead, which proved to be a better use of the Junkers Jumo 213 engine.
The Me 209A, besides the name, had nothing in common with the first Me 209 aircraft. Source: www.luftwaffephotos.com
Production
Production of the Me 209 was carried out by Messerschmitt at Ausburg. The RLM ordered three prototypes to be built which were completed by 1938. The fourth prototype was Messerschmitt’s own project which ultimately proved to be a failure.
Production Versions
Me 209 V1 – First prototype was successfully managed to break the world speed record.
Me 209 V2 – Lost in a landing accident
Me 209 V3 – Third prototype that did see limited use
Me 209 V4 – This prototype was intended to serve as a base for a new fighter, but due to its poor performance, this project was canceled.
Conclusion
Despite its problematic design, it managed to reach an extraordinary speed of 755 km/h and thus set a record that would take decades to be beaten. For this alone, the Me 209 held a great place in aviation development and achievement history. That same could not be said for its attempt to be modified and used as a fighter aircraft. Despite a series of modifications and improvements, it was simply unfit to be used in this role.
Me 209V1 Specifications
Wingspans
7.8 m / 25 ft 6 in
Length
7.3 m / 23 ft 8 in
Wing Area
10.6 m² / 115 ft²
Engine (early rating)
1,800 hp DB 601ARJ
Maximum Takeoff Weight
2,512 kg / 5,545 lbs
Maximum Speed
755 km/h / 470 mph
Flight duration
35 minutes
Crew
1 pilot
Armament
None
Me 209V4 Specifications
Wingspans
10 m / 32 ft 11 in
Length
7.24 m / 23 ft 9 in
Wing Area
11.14 m² / 120 ft²
Engine
1,100 hp DB 601A
Maximum Takeoff Weight
2,800 kg / 6.174 lbs
Maximum Speed
600km/h / 373 mph
Cruising speed
500 km/h / 311 mph
Climb rate per minute
1,125 m / 3,690 ft
Maximum Service Ceiling
11,000 m / 36.080 ft
Crew
1 pilot
Armament
One 2 cm cannon and two 7.92 mm MG17 machine guns with additional weapons that were to be installed in the wing
Gallery
Me 209 v1Me 209 v4
Credits
Article written by Marko P.
Edited by Henry H. and Ed
Ported by Henry H.
Illustrated by Ed
Source:
D. Nesić (2008) Naoružanje Drugog Svetsko Rata-Nemačka. Beograd.
R. Jackson (2015) Messerschmitt Bf 109 A-D series, Osprey Publishing
J. R. Smith and A. L. Kay (1972) German Aircraft of the WW2, Putham
D. Myhra (2000) Messerschmitt Me 209V1, Schiffer Military History
M. Griehl () X-planes German Luftwaffe prototypes 1930-1940, Frontline Book
E. M. Dyer (2009) Japanese Secret Projects Experimental Aircraft of the IJA and IJN 1939-1945, Midland
A diagram of the improved rocket interceptor. (Nevingtonwarmuseum)
When the Me 163B entered service, it was a unique aircraft by virtue of its rocket engine. It was used as a short range interceptor for German air defense, and while it could achieve extremely high speeds, its overall design left much to be desired. These faults included a highly restrictive view from the cockpit, a lack of retractable landing gear, and limited operational endurance. In order to address some of these issues, Messerschmitt engineers developed the Me 163C.
History
While the Me 163B Komet proved to be a remarkable design, it was quite dangerous to fly and there was plenty of room for improvement. In order to make the whole aircraft as cheap as possible, some limitations had been introduced. To save weight, the aircraft had rather small dimensions which, in turn, limited the fuel load that could be stored inside. This led to a limited powered flight time of fewer than 8 minutes. In combat operations, this proved to be insufficient, but there was little that the German engineers could do to improve this. Adding internal or external auxiliary fuel tanks was not possible given the design restrictions.
Me 163B rocket interceptor, accepted into limited service. (militaryimages.net)
The position and layout of the cockpit also offered a number of issues. Most importantly, it provided the pilot with a limited field of view behind his aircraft. Another issue was the lack of retractable landing gear. The Me 163 was instead forced to use a two-wheeled detachable dolly. This was intentionally done in order to reduce weight.
Once the aircraft was in the air, the dolly was jettisoned. There were accidents regarding this system when, for example, the dolly refused to be detached from the aircraft, or even worse, when it bounced off the ground and hit the aircraft from below. On landing, the Me 163 was to use a simple retractable landing skid, placed beneath the fuselage. After landing, the aircraft was immobile and became an easy target for enemy fighters. For this reason, a normal retracting landing gear unit was desirable, but once again for the same reason as the fuel load, this could not be implemented.
To redress the previously mentioned issues, engineers at Messerschmitt began working on an improved version, the Me 163C. It incorporated a longer fuselage, an improved cockpit, and had an engine with two combustion chambers. The development of this version likely started in late 1944 or early 1945.
Production and service
The precise development history, and how many aircraft of this version were built, are the subject of considerable speculation. The fact that there are no photographs of it complicates the matter further. Most sources mentioned that only a few incomplete airframes were built by the Germans. In some sources, for example B. Rose’s Secret Projects Flying Wings and Tailless Aircraft, it is mentioned that three prototypes were completed and flight-tested in early 1945. Source E. T. Maloney and U. Feist on the other hand, mentions that only a few pre-prototype airframes were built by the time the war ended in Europe. So there are two completely different accounts in the sources.
Technical characteristics
The Me 163C, like its predecessor, was designed as a high-speed, rocket-powered, swept-wing, tailless aircraft. Given its experimental nature and its late development into the war, not much is known about its precise technical characteristics. Its overall construction would probably be similar to the previous version, with its fuselage being built of metal, and possessing wooden wings. The semi-monocoque fuselage was longer and was now 7 m compared to the original 5.84 m length.
The Me 163C was to be powered by an improved Walter 109-509C or an HWK 109-509A-2 rocket engine. In the case of the first engine, it could generate a thrust of some 1.500 kg. An auxiliary HWK 509 rocket engine would be used to provide additional endurance once the aircraft reached its cruising altitude. The maximum speed of the Me 163C was estimated at 915 km/h while the operational range was 125 km.
While the introduction of retractable landing gear was desirable, the Me 163C was not to be equipped with one, but it still received some modifications in this regard. It was to have a fully retractable tail wheel located at the bottom of the tail assembly.
The cockpit was completely redesigned. It received a fully glazed bubble-type canopy. This offered the pilot a much improved all-around view. In addition, there were provisions for pressurization equipment.
The armament used on this aircraft is not quite clear in the sources. It would have consisted of either two 2 cm MG 151 with 100 rounds of ammunition for each cannon, two 30 mm MK108 cannons with 60 rounds, or less realistically, four 30 mm MK108 cannons with 40 rounds of ammunition.
Note the redesigned canopy, auxiliary engine, and extended fuselage. (www.walterwerke.co.uk)
Cancelation of the project
While the precise development of this aircraft is unclear, most sources agree on the reasons why it was not adopted, beyond the obvious end of the war. Basically, there were two main reasons for this. First, was the lack of landing gear. The Me 163C still had to take off and land using the take-off dolly and the landing skid. This was far from perfect as the dolly, as mentioned, could potentially damage the aircraft itself after release, and the use of a sliding skid made the aircraft immobile after landing. Lastly, the auxiliary engine only extended the operational flight by an additional 1-minute, which was deemed insufficient. It was for these reasons that the Me 163C would not be adopted, and instead the development of the much improved Me 163D was prioritized.
Conclusion
Given its experimental nature, it’s late introduction, and the disagreement between sources, it is quite difficult to make the final decision on the general properties of this aircraft. Given that the project was canceled by the Germans, it is likely that besides a few experimental prototypes, no actual production aircraft were be assembled. Regardless it served as a stepping stone for the next version, the Me 163D, which was built, but it too would not be adopted for service due to the end of the war.
Me 163C Specifications
Wingspans
32 ft 2 in / 9.8 m
Length
23 ft 1 in / 7 m
Height
3 m / ft in
Wing Area
220 ft² / 20.41 m²
Engine
Walther HWL 509C-1 liquid fuel rocket engine with a max thrust of 1.500 kg
Empty Weight
4,850 lbs / 2,200 kg
Maximum Takeoff Weight
11,680 lbs / 5.300 kg
Maximum Speed
570 mph / 915 km/h
Operational range
78 mil / 125 km
Engine endurance
12 minutes
Maximum Service Ceiling
40,000 ft / 12,200 m
Crew
One pilot
Armament
Two 20 cm MG 151 (100) / Two 30 mm MK108 cannons 60
The Me 163C Rocket powered interceptor.
Credits
Article written by Marko P.
Edited by Henry H. and Medicman11
Ported by Marko P.
Illustrations by Carpaticus
Source:
D. Nešić (2008) Naoružanje Drugog Svetsko Rata-Nemcaka. Beograd.
E. T. Maloney and U. Feist (1968) Messerschmitt Me 163, Fallbrook
M. Emmerling and J. Dressel (1992) Messerschmitt Me 163 “Komet” Vol.II, Schiffer Military History
J.R. Smith and A. L. Kay (1990) German AIrcraft of the Second World War, Putnam
W. Spate and R. P. Bateson (1971) Messerschmitt Me 163 Komet, Profile Publications
M. Ziegler (1990) Messerschmitt Me 163 Komet, Schiffer Publishing
D. SHarp (2015) Luftwaffe secret jets of the Third Reich, Mortons Media Group
M. Griehl (1998) Jet Planes of the Third Reich, Monogram Aviation Publication
B. Rose (2010) Secret Projects Flying Wings and Tailless Aircraft, Midland
The enigmatic and misunderstood ‘Messerspit’ test aircraft lies at the center of a number of theories, its original purpose largely forgotten. (google.uk)
Introduction
Few aspects of the Second World War have been so misunderstood, misrepresented, and pushed into near mythology as the Luftwaffe’s test programs. Their discussion in less academic circles is dominated by rampant speculation from those who indulge in sensationalist historical stories. With respect to that, one might be surprised to find the bizarre photographs of a Spitfire Mk. VB with a Daimler Benz engine to be one of the few remaining genuine artifacts from an obscure Luftwaffe test program. With so little information publicly available, naturally, the odd plane’s origins, purpose, and performance have been drowned in a sea of speculation. However, while it is often erroneously claimed that the so-called ‘Messerspit’ was some bizarre attempt to combine the best aspects of the two planes, in reality, the aircraft was converted to settle a technical argument which had been raging in Luftwaffe research and development circles since 1942.
Engine Trouble
The history of fighter engine development is one of ceaseless improvement in power and weight which are largely achieved through improving methods of design, production, and the use of better materials. In the case of the Luftwaffe, it was not long until the chase for power was subsumed by the need to develop engines which could more reliably run on inferior materials. Following the end of the battle of Britain in the autumn of 1940, the Luftwaffe soon found itself short of several key materials necessary in building heat and corrosion resistant alloys, most notably nickel, tin, and, later, chromium and cobalt. Nearly all of these materials were available only in limited quantities across Europe, with tin, used in heavy duty piston bearings, being almost totally unavailable. This was further exacerbated by the transition to synthetic gasoline and lubricants, whose properties differed enough from their petroleum counterparts to cause trouble.
In order to cope with the restricted access to these materials, Sparrmetall economy alloys were introduced to ensure the aviation industry would have access to enough materials, albeit ones which would cause a slate of problems. The Bf 109E had nearly finished its production run before the transition to the new materials began and was soon being phased out by the new F model in late 1940, and there the trouble began. The new production DB 601N engines in these would make use of high octane C3 synthetic fuel. However, the engine was neither designed nor properly tested around this, and had instead been developed around the petroleum based C2. Beyond this, its nickel-poor, and thus corrosion prone exhaust valves, coupled with its more fragile piston and crank bearings, would soon create a web of issues that would take weeks to sort out.
A cut away of the troublesome DB 601N engine. (Flight Magazine)
The C3 fuel reacted chemically with the 109F’s rubber bag tank, and, if stored in the tank long enough, would ruin the anti-knock qualities of this fuel. When run on this degraded fuel, these engines soon suffered absolutely horrible mechanical problems, chief of which were violent vibrations which could thoroughly wreck them. The C3 fuel could also cling to the chamber walls after failing to thoroughly disperse through the fuel injectors, and then escape into the oil system. In most other aircraft, the fuel would simply boil away, but the Daimler Benz engine ran cooler than most, and thus the fuel would eventually dilute the oil until it failed to act effectively as a lubricant, resulting in increased wear or catastrophic engine failure in the worst cases.
Expecting the issue to be one of a mechanical nature, the fuel and bag were not seen as the obvious culprit. Rather, the engine mount, the air intake position, and the cooling system were suspect. This guess would be partially correct in the case of the intake. Eventually, they tracked the fuel degradation to the tank and adjusted the fuel injectors. The unreliable engine was then phased out for the DB 601E, which ran on the more common B4 fuel and was installed in the subsequent Bf 109F-3 and 4 models. Almost all Bf 109’s built after this point were run on this more common, lower performance fuel. Prior to this, the F series were restricted from running at emergency power and were at a considerable handicap in combat for much of 1941 and 42. Regardless of this impediment, many Luftwaffe fighter squadrons often found these their most successful years.
The Bf 109G initially provided no real advantage over its predecessor, and its unreliable engine would prove a particular liability in less than ideal settings, like this G-2 in Finland. (asisbiz)
Problems would resurface again when it came time to re-engine the 109 with the new DB 605A. Developed from the DB 601E, the new engine was to be a marked improvement, with its larger displacement, improved supercharger, and higher compression ratios promising a considerable increase in power. However, new material restrictions would sharply curtail the use of molybdenum, tungsten, and especially cobalt. Supplies of which practically dried up when Germany’s largest source in French North Africa had been lost after Operation Torch. Problems new and old emerged, the most egregious of which were exhaust valve failures, which were due to the low nickel content of the components, resulting in rapid corrosion and cracking. There were also lubrication failures, which were made worse after the switch was made from ball to sleeve bearings. The first Gustavs would enter service in early 1942, though they soon had their performance limited, off and on, to prevent engine failure rates from reaching unmanageable levels. As a result of these limitations, the Gustav was initially slower than the plane it was supposed to replace.
Problems were made even worse when the materials in the engines at Daimler Benz’s testing and development facilities did not match those on the production line, leading to considerable delays in destructive testing. It would eventually receive the improvements to allow it to use its emergency power setting, as exhaust valves were chrome plated and the oil scavenge system was improved, but it was clear that any major future increase in engine performance was only possible after a costly and extended development cycle. The DB 605A would finally be released from all restrictions in August of 1943, almost two years after the first Gustav left the factory.
The Blame Game
The DB 605’s flaws would be magnified in the light of a cascade of engine failures. The most publicized incident involved the loss of ace pilot Hans Marseille, who was lost in action after his engine caught fire and he died trying to escape his aircraft. (asisbiz)
Continued development of the Bf 109 was in a very precarious place, as performance improvements were expected without any major increases in engine power. These goals were largely unachievable for the time being, and thus most of those involved would try placing the fault with some other party when the unrealistic plans fell through. Willy Messerschmitt would place the blame with Daimler Benz, whose engines, he claimed, had cooling requirements that were too high, and thus required the use of larger, drag inducing radiators. In part, he was correct in that Daimler Benz’ engines ran cooler, though in doing so, he seems to have neglected issues with the plane’s radiators, which were supplied by other firms. The Bf 109 was fitted with radiators that operated under considerably lower pressures and temperatures than those used on Allied fighters, and were thus very robust, but less efficient. To his frustration, Messerschmitt was unable to increase the efficacy of the system without more efficient, high pressure radiators, which his suppliers were unable to provide.
In 1942, Messerschmitt began an increasingly adversarial correspondence with Fritz Nalinger of Daimler Benz on the state of his engines, and would request that he permit the engine to run at higher temperatures. In a letter sent in December of that year, he would draw a comparison between the ailing DB 605A and the powerful Merlin 61, then in service with the RAF. He placed particular emphasis on the higher operating temperatures and its use of radiators that were 55% smaller than those in service on the Bf 109. He would leave out that British aircraft designers were working with high pressure radiators which were far more efficient than those on his own aircraft.
At a conference with Göring at Carinhall in March of 1943, Messerschmitt would openly lay blame on Daimler Benz and Nalinger, largely reiterating the points from his correspondence. Nalinger would defend the firm by stating they had put their primary focus in designing the engine in reducing the frontal area and maintaining a high power to weight ratio, but he largely side stepped Messerschmitt’s Merlin 61 comparison by extolling the promise of the still in development DB 628. At the end of the meeting, it had become clear that both men would need to work against one another to defend their own reputations. By then, the Bf 109G had been flying for well over a year under strict engine power restrictions.
The Hybrid
To try and prove Messerschmitt wrong, Daimler Benz planned a simple and clear demonstration. They would install one of the firm’s engines in a Spitfire to show that the DB 605A did not require a large radiator to run. The Spitfire in question was EN830, a Mark Vb which had crash landed in the German occupied Jersey Islands in November of 1942. Its pilot, Lieutenant Bernard Scheidhauer, crash landed his plane after being struck by ground fire during a rhubarb raid over Northern France and a fuel leak prevented him from returning to Britain. After ditching his plane, Lieutenant Scheidhauer attempted to destroy the aircraft when it became clear that he was not on a British held channel island, however, there was insufficient fuel to burn the Spitfire. Scheidhauer was subsequently sent to Stalag Luft III, in Poland. He was among those murdered by the Gestapo after the legendary mass escape.
A standard Spitfire Mk Vb. (wikimedia)
The plane was subsequently taken in hand by the Luftwaffe, repaired, and used for trials at the Rechlin test center. It was later pulled from storage for Nallinger’s tests sometime in late 1943. The plane was re-engined with a DB 605A, though much of the rest of the aircraft was left as it was, save for the radio and armament, which were stripped out. All of the work was done at the Daimler Benz Untertürkheim factory in Stuttgart, after which it was delivered to the Luftwaffe for testing at the nearby airfield at Echterdingen. It was no simple effort to re-engine an aircraft, but it seemed to have been managed well. Testing began in the spring of 1944, with the report on the aircraft being finished May 10th.
The modified aircraft retained much of the same equipment, save for the weapons, which were removed. The avionics were likely all replaced with German alternatives. (Valengo)
The plane flew quite well and proved Nallinger right in that the DB 605A could work using a significantly smaller radiator area. It also made for an interesting comparison with the Bf 109’s radiators, as it was found that the high pressure model fitted to the Spitfire Mk V was 50% smaller but provided only 4% less cooling capacity. The tests also showed that the ‘Messerspit’ was about 25 km/h faster at lower altitudes than the original Spitfire Mk Vb thanks to its fluid coupling supercharger, which proved more efficient at low altitude. Between 4 and 6 km in altitude, the standard Mk V proved faster, before its single stage supercharger again proved less capable than the fluid coupling type on the DB 605A. The hybrid aircraft proved to be between 10 to 20 km/h slower than a Bf 109G-6 at all altitudes save for above 10.5 km, where the ‘Messerspit’ held a slightly higher speed and service ceiling. The experimental aircraft also out climbed the Bf 109 at all altitudes, however, this data is not particularly useful as the plane was unarmed and no ballast to account for its absence was installed.
Overall, the experiment produced mixed results, but proved Messerschmitt right. On one hand, the DB 605 ran effectively throughout the tests using radiators significantly smaller than were found on the Bf 109G. On the other, the type of high pressure radiator used on the Spitfire was not something that could be replicated, owing to numerous material and industrial limitations. In the end, it was Daimler Benz’s requirements that the DB 605 run cooler, and the inability of German radiator manufacturers to produce high temperature, high pressure models, that kept the Bf 109 from achieving greater performance. Following the end of the tests, the aircraft was placed in storage and was likely written off after an 8th Airforce bombing raid on the airfield at Etcherdingen on August 14, 1944.
The Ultimate Fighter?
Unfortunately, due to this unique aircraft’s strange appearance and obscurity, it has been at the center of a number of bizarre theories. Perhaps the most popular of these theories is that the Germans were trying to build a plane that blended the strengths of both the Spitfire and the Bf 109. Some go as far as to claim that the Germans had managed to build something superior to both. This first theory can immediately be written off. By early 1944, neither the Bf 109 nor the Spitfire were considered state of the art, or at the forefront of design in either country. They simply would not be considered an acceptable starting point for any new aircraft design.
However, beyond that, the ‘Messerspit’s’ performance was not particularly impressive for its day. In the official tests, it was compared to both an early Spitfire Mk Vb, which was thoroughly obsolete by the end of 1943, and a Bf 109G-6, which was mediocre by the standards of early 1944. Even then, it compared rather poorly with the G-6, possessing only a higher service ceiling while being considerably slower at almost all but the most extreme altitudes, where it held a slim advantage. To add to this, this low altitude performance gap with the Mk Vb only exists when its Merlin 45 engine is limited to +9 lbs of manifold pressure. When that engine was cleared to run at +16 lbs in November 1942, the Mk V exceeded the DB 605A powered ‘Messerspit’ at altitudes below 5.5 km in linear speed by a margin similar to the Bf 109G-6.
Spitfire Mk IX, Fw 190A-8, Bf 109G-6, P-51B (world war two photos, asisbiz, National Archives)
Aircraft (Manifold pressure)
Top Speed at Sea level (km/h)
Low blower/Speed (km/h)
high blower/Speed (km/h)
Maximum Output (hp)
Spitfire LF Mk IX Spring 1944 (18 lbs)
540
617 at 3.2km
655 at 6.7km
1720
Spitfire Mk VB Mid 1942 (9lbs)
460
N/A (single stage, single speed)
605 at 6.1km
1415
‘Messerspit’ Late Spring 1944 (1.42 ata)
488
N/A (variable speed SC)
610 at 6.5km
1454
Bf 109G-6 Mid 1943 (1.42 ata)
510
N/A (variable speed SC)
620 at 6.5km
1454
Bf 109G-6AS Early 1944 (1.42 ata)
506
N/A (variable speed SC)
653 at 8.3km
1415
Fw 190A-8 Early 1944 (1.42 ata)
558
578 at 1.5km
644 at 6.3km
1726
P-51B-15 w/ wing racks Early 1944 (67” Hg)
586
656 at 3.1km
685 at 7.2km
1720
*Values for the Spitfire Mk IX and Mustang indicate use with 100 Octane fuel and not high performance 150 octane, which became fairly common after mid-summer 1944 amongst the strategic fighter forces based in England. Likewise, Bf 109G-6 and Fw 190 performance does not reflect the use of MW50 or higher power clearances, respectively, as they were not in widespread use at the time of the tests. Unrelated, the P-51B-15 made for 627 km/h at 6.5 km with wing racks.
Compared to other contemporary frontline fighters of its day, its performance was far less impressive. The contemporary Spitfire Mk IX, with its Merlin 66 running at 18 lbs manifold pressure, outstripped the hybrid aircraft at all altitudes by a much wider margin than the Bf 109G-6. A further comparison with the Fw 190A-8 and P-51B-15 also demonstrates the continued extreme disparity in linear speed against more modern fighters. While the aircraft did demonstrate a very high climb rate, approximately 21 m/s at sea level (a Spitfire Mk IX made for 23 m/s), this can be explained by the lack of any weapons aboard. The Mk Vb was initially equipped with 2 Hispano 20 mm cannons and four .303 caliber Browning machine guns. The absence of these, and other pieces of equipment, reduced its weight by over 300 kg compared to the Mk Vb used in RAF and Luftwaffe performance trials. This resulting lightening of the aircraft, and the subsequent loss of drag with the removal of the protruding wing cannons, more than explains its high climb rate. The plane’s performance overall was very modest, and frankly did not compare well to any of its contemporaries. In the end, despite being a fusion of the Bf 109 and Spitfire, it compared rather poorly to either one.
Another theory presupposes that the plane was part of an effort to actually produce Spitfires for the Luftwaffe. The foundations for nearly all of these claims rest with an often misunderstood quote from the battle of Britain. When Reichsmarschall Herman Göring asked fighter group commander Adolf Galland if there was anything he needed, Galland responded “I should like an outfit of Spitfires for my squadron”. Galland would later clarify in his memoirs that he meant this rhetorically. In truth, he wanted a plane which could serve better as a bomber escort, something he felt the RAF’s Spitfires were better suited to, with their better visibility and low speed handling, than his own Bf 109’s, which he felt were more capable on offensive patrols. Beyond that, reverse engineering and then manufacturing an aircraft which was designed around the industrial standards and practices of another country was totally unfeasible. It also seems rather implausible that anyone would go to the trouble of building an airplane on the basis of an off hand remark made three years earlier.
Construction
A fore view of the experimental plane. (frankenplane)
The ‘Messerspit’ was built using the airframe of a later production Spitfire Mk Vb. The Mk V differed from earlier models in that it used a heavier engine mount to keep up with increases in output from new engines. It was otherwise much the same as the Mk I’s and II’s which preceded it. These planes were fairly innovative during the interwar period, being all-metal and using a semi-monocoque structure, though these features were soon made commonplace in the earliest days of the Second World War.
The fuselage contained the engine, behind which sat the fuel tank, the firewall, and then the cockpit. The tail boom was of a semi monocoque construction and contained the oxygen bottles, and radio. Aboard the ‘Messerspit’, the engine mount had to be reworked to accommodate a DB 605A, the fuel tank was likely changed to fit the new volume, and the instruments and most of the electronics were swapped for German versions. The radio appears to have been removed entirely. In all likelihood, Lt. Scheidhauer most likely smashed the instrument panel when he knew his plane was in enemy territory. Beyond that, they would have needed to convert the voltage to the German standard, and simply replacing all the equipment would have proven easier than modifying all of the existing components. There were also some instruments, like the DB 605’s RPM governor readout, that would not have had a British analogue.
The wings were elliptical with a large surface area, which granted the aircraft an excellent rate of climb and low wing loading. On the ‘Messerspit’, the inboard pair of 20 mm cannons and the outboard four .303 caliber Browning machine guns were removed and the ports were faired over. Most importantly, the radiator under the starboard wing was connected to the DB 605A engine’s oil and coolant lines. The wings were otherwise unchanged. Generally speaking, the better wheel brakes, greater visibility out the bubble canopy, and its wider wheel base would have likely made this a far more pleasant plane to fly than a Bf 109G.
A DB 605A mounted in a preserved Bf 109G-6 (wikimedia)
The engine was a Daimler Benz DB 605A, an inverted, 35.7 liter, V-12. The reason for it being inverted was to ensure the propeller shaft was as low as possible. This would enable a low mounted, centerline cannon to fire through its center without its recoil seriously jeopardizing the aircraft’s stability. They were able to achieve this using direct fuel injection, which was fairly common practice in German aviation by the start of the war, though rare elsewhere. The engine also possessed a high level of automation, which let the pilot manage the engine and most of its associated systems just through the throttle lever. These were essentially a series of linkages between components that adjusted one another as the pilot increased or decreased engine power. As such, it did not possess a true engine control unit, as was used in the BMW 801. Perhaps most impressively, the engine used a single stage, centrifugal supercharger which used a hydraulic coupling for variable transmission. The fluid coupling supercharger automatically adjusted itself barometrically, and was easily the most impressive feature of the engine, allowing it to smoothly adjust for boost as the plane climbed or descended. This allowed the aircraft to avoid the engine performance gaps between certain altitudes that were otherwise encountered with engine superchargers with multiple stages and fixed speed settings. These gaps were the result of running the supercharger at fixed, unnecessarily high speeds for a given altitude.
The engine used B4 87 octane aviation gasoline, as most of the C3 high performance stock was dedicated to squadrons flying Fw 190s. In comparison to the Merlin 45, which was originally in the Spitfire Mk.Vb, it produced 150 bhp more at sea level thanks to the fluid coupling supercharger, which saw lower pumping losses compared to the Merlin 45. The Merlin 45’s supercharger was geared to medium altitude use, and allowed the engine to outperform the DB 605A between approximately 4 and 6 km.
A DB605A mounted in a Bf 109G, cowling removed. (Norwegian air museum)
In spite of these innovative features, the engine’s output was fairly modest for its day. It produced up to 1475 PS, though this was only possible after several major modifications, such as replacing the exhaust valves for chrome plated sets and modifying the oil scavenge system by adding additional pumps and a centrifuge to improve flow and reduce foaming, respectively. Between 1942 and late 1943, the high power settings on almost all of these engines were disabled in order to keep failure rates manageable. The supercharger too would eventually lag behind its contemporaries, as despite its smoothness, its volume became a bottleneck. This was most apparent in comparison to the two-stage, intercooled models of the Rolls Royce Merlin engine. Some later models would mount an enlarged supercharger, taken from the larger DB 603, though the upgrade was not universal. Nearly all would be equipped with an anti-knock boost system in the form of MW50 in the weeks after the ‘Messerspit’s’ tests, which would boost output up to 1800 PS, though the corrosive mixture of methanol and water decreased the engine’s lifespan. Engines with the larger supercharger were designated DB 605AS, those with the boost system being DB 605M, and those with both were 605ASMs. These upgrades gave late war Bf 109’s a good degree of performance after nearly three years of mediocrity. Neither of these upgrades were present on the ‘Messerspit’.
The engine measured 101.1 × 71.9 × 174 cm, had a bore and stroke of 154 mm (6.1 in.) x 160 mm (6.3 in.), and weighed 745 kg (1,642 lb). The aircraft was equipped with the prop spinner from a Bf 109G, used the same supercharger scoop, and was likewise fitted with a two meter VDM propeller. The engine cowling of this aircraft seems to have been built for requirement.
Spitfire Mk V with DB 605A
Specification
Engine
DB 605A
Engine Output
1475PS
Gross Weight
2740kg
Maximum speed at Sea Level
488 km/h
Maximum speed at Critical Altitude
610 km/h
Max climb rate at sea level
21 m/s
Max climb rate at FTH at ~6.5km
11 m/s
Crew
Pilot
Wingspan
11.23 m
Wing Area
22.5 m^2
Conclusion
Another view of the experiment (Aviationhumor)
In the end, the ‘Messerspit’ was built to serve a single, fairly mundane purpose. It was never meant to set records, achieve any kind of technical breakthrough, or somehow be an unbeatable synthesis of two planes that had already seen their day in the sun. Above all, it was never meant to see combat nor produce a plane that would. Its only battlefield would be a corporate one.
Illustration
The Spitfire Mk V mit DB 605A, better known as the “Messerspit”.
Sources:
Primary:
Bf 109G-2 Flugzeug Handbuch (Stand Juni 1942).Der Reichsminister der Luftfahrt und Oberbefehlshaber der Luftwaffe, Berlin. November 1942.
Bf 109G-4 Flugzeug Handbuch (Stand August 1943). Der Reichsminister der Luftfahrt und Oberbefehlshaber der Luftwaffe, Berlin. September 1943.
Bf 109G-2 Flugzeug Handbuch (Stand August 1943). Der Reichsminister der Luftfahrt und Oberbefehlshaber der Luftwaffe, Berlin. October 1943.
Daimler-Benz DB 605 Inverted V-12 Engine. National Air and Space Museum Collection. Inventory number: A19670086000.
Flugzeug Flugleistungen Me 109G-Baureihen. Messerschmitt AG Augsburg. August 1943.
Horizontalgeschwindigkeit über der Flughöhe: Normaljäger Fw 190A-8. Focke-Wulf Flugzeugbau G.m.b.H. November 1943.
Leistungen Me 109G mit DB 605 AS. Messerschmitt AG. Augsburg. 22, January 1944.
P-51B-15-NA 43-24777 (Packard Merlin V-1650-7) Performance Tests on P-38J, P-47D and P-51B Airplanes Tested with 44-1 Fuel. (GRADE 104/150). 15 May, 1944.
Spitfire V Steigleitungen. Daimler Benz. Versuch Nr. 1018105428. Baumuster DB.605A. May 1944.
Spitfire Mk. VB W.3134 (Merlin 45) Brief Performance Trials. Aeroplane and Armament Experimental Establishment Boscombe Down. June 1941.
Spitfire Mk. VC AA.878 (Merlin 45) Climb, speed, and cooling tests at combat rating. Aeroplane and Armament Experimental Establishment Boscombe Down. 25 November, 1942.
Spitfire L.F. IX. RAF Aircraft Data Card, 2nd Issue. 28, October 1943. The performance of Spitfire IX aircraft fitted with high and low altitude versions of the intercooled Merlin engine. Aeroplane and Armament Experimental Establishment Boscombe Down. March 1943.
USAAF 8th Airforce Bombing Raid Records.
Secondary:
Scheidhauer, Bernard W.M. Traces of War.
Douglas, Calum E. Secret Horsepower Race: Second World War Fighter Aircraft Engine Development on the Western Front. TEMPEST, 2020.
C. Douglass, personal communication, November 25, 2022.
Price, Alfred. The Spitfire Story. Silverdale Books. 2nd Edition, 2002.
Radinger, W. & Otto W. Messerschmitt Bf 109F-K Development Testing Production. Schiffer Publishing. 1999.
Spitfire EN 830. Lostaircraft.com
Galland, Adolf. The First and the Last. Bantam. 1979.
Nazi Germany (1933)
Anti-Aircraft Gun – 19,650 Built
8.8 cm FlaK 18/36/47 in the Anti-Tank role Source: T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle Panzer Tracts No. Dreaded Threat The 8.8 cm FlaK 18/36/47 in the Anti-Tank role
With the growing use of aircraft during the First World War, many nations developed their own anti-aircraft weapons. Initially, these were mostly crude adaptations of existing weapons systems. During the interwar period, the development of dedicated anti-aircraft guns was initiated by many armies. Germany, while still under a ban on developing new weapons, would create the 8.8 cm Flak 18 anti-aircraft gun. The gun, while originally designed for the anti-aircraft role, was shown to possess excellent anti-tank firepower. This gun would see action for the first time during the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939) and would continue serving with the Germans up to the end of World War II.
This article covers the use of the 8.8 cm Flak gun in the original anti-aircraft role. To learn more about the use of this gun in its more famous anti-tank role visit the Tank Encyclopedia website.
World War One Origins
Prior to the Great War, aircraft first saw service in military operations during the Italian occupation of Libya in 1911. These were used in limited numbers, mostly for reconnaissance, but also for conducting primitive bombing raids. During the First World War, the mass adoption of aircraft in various roles occurred. One way to counter enemy aircraft was to employ one’s own fighter cover. Despite this, ground forces were often left exposed to enemy bombing raids or reconnaissance aircraft that could be used to identify weak spots in the defense.
To fend off airborne threats, most armies initially reused various artillery pieces, sometimes older, or even captured guns, and modified them as improvised anti-aircraft weapons. This involved employing ordinary artillery guns placed on improvised mounts that enabled them to have sufficient elevation to fire at the sky. These early attempts were crude in nature and offered little chance of actually bringing down an enemy aircraft. But, occasionally, it did happen. One of the first recorded and confirmed aircraft kills using a modified artillery piece happened in September of 1915, near the Serbian city of Vršac. Serbian artilleryman Raka Ljutovac managed to score a direct hit on a German aircraft using a captured and modified 75 mm Krupp M.1904 gun.
A captured Krupp gun was modified to be used for anti-aircraft defense by the Serbian Army during the First World War. Other warring nations also employed similar designs during the war. [telegraf.rs]On the Western Front, the use of these improvised and crude contraptions generally proved ineffective. Dedicated anti-aircraft guns were needed. This was especially the case for the Germans who lacked fighter aircraft due to insufficient resources and limited production capacity. The Germans soon began developing such weapons. They noticed that the modified artillery pieces were of too small a caliber (anything smaller than 77 mm caliber was deemed insufficient) and needed much-improved velocity and range. Another necessary change was to completely reorganize the command structure, by unifying the defense and offensive air force elements, into a single organizational unit. This was implemented in late 1916. This meant that the anti-aircraft guns were to be separated from ordinary artillery units. The effect of this was that the new anti-aircraft units received more dedicated training and could be solely focused on engaging enemy aircraft.
The same year, trucks armed with 8 to 8.8 cm anti-aircraft guns began to appear on the front. While these had relatively good mobility on solid ground, the conditions of the Western Front were generally unsuited for such vehicles, due to difficult terrain. With the development of better anti-aircraft gun designs, their increased weight basically prevented them from being mounted on mobile truck chassis. Instead, for mobility, these were placed on specially designed four-wheeled trailers and usually towed by a K.D.I artillery tractor.
Both Krupp and Ehrhardt (later changing their name to Rheinmetall) would develop their own 8.8 cm anti-aircraft guns, which would see extensive action in the later stages of the war. While neither design would have any major impact (besides the same caliber) on the development of the later 8.8 cm Flak, these were the first stepping stones that would ultimately lead to the creation of the famous gun years later.
The Krupp 8.8 cm anti-aircraft gun. [Wiki]As the newer German anti-aircraft guns became too heavy to be used in more mobile configurations by mounting them on trucks, they had to be towed instead. Source: W. Muller The 8.8 cm FLAK In The First and Second World War
Work after the War
Following the German defeat in the First World War, they were forbidden from developing many technologies, including artillery and anti-aircraft guns. To avoid this, companies like Krupp simply began cooperating with other arms manufacturers in Europe. During the 1920s, Krupp partnered with the Swedish Bofors armament manufacturer. Krupp even owned around a third of Bofors’ shares.
The Reichswehr (English: German Ground Army) only had limited anti-aircraft capabilities which relied exclusively on 7.92 mm caliber machine guns. The need for a proper and specialized anti-aircraft gun arose in the late 1920s. In September 1928, Krupp was informed that the Army wanted a new anti-aircraft gun. It had to be able to fire a 10 kg round at a muzzle velocity of 850 m/s. The gun itself would be placed on a mount with a full 360° traverse and an elevation of -3° to 85°. The mount and the gun were then placed on a cross-shaped base with four outriggers. The trailer had side outriggers that were raised during movement. The whole gun when placed on a four-wheeled bogie was to be towed at a maximum speed of 30 km/h. The total weight of the gun had to be around 9 tonnes. These requirements would be slightly changed a few years later to include new requests such as a rate of fire between 15 to 20 rounds per minute, use of high-explosive rounds with a delay fuse of up to 30 seconds, and a muzzle velocity between 800 to 900 m/s. The desired caliber of this gun was also discussed. The use of a caliber in the range of 7.5 cm was deemed to be insufficient and a waste of resources for a heavy gun. But despite this, a 7.5 cm Flak L/60 was developed, but it would not be adopted for service. The 8.8 cm caliber, which was used in the previous war, was more desirable. This caliber was set as a bare minimum, but usage of a larger caliber was allowed under the condition that the whole gun weight would not be more than 9 tonnes. The towing trailer had to reach a speed of 40 km/h (on a good road) when towed by a half-track or, in case of emergency, by larger trucks. The speed of redeployment for these guns was deemed highly important. German Army Officials were quite aware that the development of such guns could take years to complete. Due to the urgent need for such weapons, they were even ready to adopt temporary solutions.
Krupp’s first 8.8 cm Flak 18 prototype. [8.8 cm Flak 18/36/37 Vol.1]Krupp engineers that were stationed at the Sweden Bofors company were working on a new anti-aircraft gun for some time. In 1931, Krupp engineers went back to Germany, where, under secrecy, they began designing the gun. By the end of September 1932, Krupp delivered two guns and 10 trailers. After a series of firing and driving trials, the guns proved to be more than satisfactory and, with some minor modifications, were adopted for service in 1933 under the name 8.8 cm Flugabwehrkanone 18 (anti-aircraft gun) or, more simply, Flak 18. The use of the number 18 was meant to mislead France and Great Britain that this was actually an old design, which it was in fact not. This was quite commonly used on other German-developed artillery pieces that were introduced to service during the 1930s. The same 8.8 cm gun was officially adopted when the Nazis came to power. In 1934, Hitler denounced the Treaty of Versailles, and openly announced the rearmament of the German Armed forces.
Production
While Krupp designed the 8.8 cm FlaK 18, aside from building some 200 trailers for it, was not directly involved in the production of the actual gun. The 8.8 cm Flak 18 was quite an orthodox anti-aircraft design, but what made it different was that it could be mass-produced relatively easily, which the Germans did. Most of its components did not require any special tooling and companies that had basic production capabilities could produce these.
Some 2,313 were available by the end of 1938. In 1939, the number of guns produced was only 487, increasing to 1,131 new ones in 1940. From this point, due to the need for anti-aircraft guns, production constantly increased over the coming years. Some 1,861 examples were built in 1941, 2,822 in 1942, 4,302 in 1943, and 5,714 in 1944. Surprisingly, despite the chaotic state of the German industry, some 1,018 guns were produced during the first three months of 1945. In total, 19,650 8.8 cm Flak guns were built.
Of course, like many other German production numbers, there are some differences between sources. The previously mentioned numbers are according to T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle (Dreaded Threat: The 8.8 cm FlaK 18/36/47 in the Anti-Tank role). Author A. Radić (Arsenal 51) mentions that, by the end of 1944, 16,227 such guns were built. A. Lüdeke (Waffentechnik Im Zweiten Weltkrieg) gives a number of 20,754 pieces being built.
Year
Number produced
1932
2 prototypes
1938
2,313 (total produced at that point)
1939
487
1940
1,131
1941
1.861
1942
2.822
1943
4,302
1944
5,714
1945
1,018
Total
19,650
Design
The gun
The 8.8 cm Flak 18 used a single tube barrel that was covered in a metal jacket. The barrel itself was some 4.664 meters (L/56) long. The gun recuperator was placed above the barrel, while the recoil cylinders were placed under the barrel. During firing, the longest recoil stroke was 1,050 mm, while the shortest was 700 mm.
The 8.8 cm gun had a horizontal sliding breechblock which was semi-automatic. It meant that, after each shot, the breach opened on its own and ejected the shell casing, enabling the crew to immediately load another round. This was achieved by adding a spring coil, which was tensioned after firing. This provided a good rate of fire of up to 15 rounds per minute when engaging ground targets and up to 20 rounds per minute for aerial targets. If needed, the semi-automatic system could be disengaged and the whole loading and extracting of rounds done manually. While some guns were provided with a rammer to help during loading the gun, it was sometimes removed by the crew.
This particular gun is equipped with a loading rammer with a new round which is ready to be loaded into the chamber. [Pinterest]For the anti-tank role, the 8.8 cm Flak was provided with a Zielfernrohr 20 direct telescopic sight. It had 4x magnification and a 17.5° field of view. This meant a 308 m wide view at 1 km. With a muzzle velocity of 840 m/s, the maximum firing range against ground targets was 15.2 km. The maximum altitude range was 10.9 km, but the maximum effective range was around 8 km.
The dimensions of this gun during towing were a length of 7.7 m, width of 2.3 m, and height of 2.4 meters. When stationary, the height was 2.1 m, while the length was 5.8 meters. Weight in firing position, it weighed 5,150 kg, while the total weight of the gun with the carriage was 7,450 kg. Due to some differences in numbers between sources, the previously mentioned 8.8 cm Flak performance is based on T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle (Panzer Tracts Dreaded Threat The 8.8 cm FlaK 18/36/47 in the Anti-Tank role).
When stationary, the gun had a height of 2.1 meters, which offered a relatively large target for enemy gunners. Good camouflage and well-selected positions were vital for its crew’s survival. [defensemedianetwork.com]
The Gun Controls
The gun elevation and traverse were controlled by using two handwheels located on the right side. The traverse handwheel had an option to be rotated at low or high speed, depending on the need. The lower speed was used for more precise aiming at the targets. The speed gear was changed by a simple lever located at the handwheel. To make a full circle, the traverse operator, at a high-speed setting. needed to turn the handwheel 100 times. while on the lower gear, it was 200 times. With one full circle of the handwheel, the gun was rotated by 3.6° at high speed and 1.8° at low speed.
Next to it was the handwheel for elevation. The handwheel was connected by a series of gears to the elevation pinion. This then moved the elevation rack which, in turn, lowered and raised the gun barrel. Like the traverse handwheel, it also had options for lower and higher rotation speed, which could be selected by using a lever. During transport, in order to prevent potential damage to the gun elevating mechanism, a locking system was equipped. In order to change position from 0° to 85°, at high speed, 42.5 turns of the handwheel were needed. One turn of the wheel at high speed changed the elevation by 2°. At lower speed, 85 times turns of the handwheel were needed. Each turn gave a change of 1°.
The two control handwheels. The front handwheel is for traverse while the rear one is for elevation. Source: W. Muller (1998) The 8.8 cm FLAK In The First and Second World Wars, Schiffer Military
Sometimes, in the sources, it is mentioned that the traverse was actually 720°. This is not a mistake. When the gun was used in a static mount, it would be connected with wires to a fire control system. In order to avoid damaging these wires, the guns were allowed to only make two full rotations in either direction. The traverse operator had a small indicator that informed him when two full rotations were made.
The 8.8 cm Flak at its maximum elevation. Source: T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle Panzer Tracts No. Dreaded Threat The 8.8 cm FlaK 18/36/47 in the Anti-Tank role
The 8.8 cm fuze setter is located on the left side of the gun. Two rounds could be placed for their time fuse settings. These were usually done manually but the gun controls could also be connected to an external control system.
The 8.8 cm fuze setter. [Pinterest]
The Kommandogerat 36
The fire control system Kommandogerat 36 (Stereoscopic Director 36) was an important device when using the 8.8 cm guns in an anti-aircraft role. This piece of equipment actually is a combination of a stereoscopic rangefinder and a director. It uses a 4-meter-long, stereoscopic rangefinder. It has a magnification of 12 to 14x with a reading case ranging from 500 to 50,000 meters. When the unit was being transported, the stereoscopic rangefinder would be disengaged and placed in a long wooden box. If for some reason the Stereoscopic Director 36 was not available or not working, a smaller auxiliary Stereoscopic Director 35 could be used instead.
The 8.8 cm guns were usually used in a square formation consisting of four guns. Inside this squire was a command post, which would usually have additional range-finding equipment and instruments. These four gun’s positions were also connected to the battery unit command.
The Stereoscopic Director 36 was a vital piece of equipment that provides the necessary acquisitions of targets. [waralbum.ru]Common 8.8 cm anti-aircraft employment was a square formation with four guns. Source: W. Muller The 8.8 cm FLAK In The First and Second World War
Mount
The mount which held the gun barrel itself consisted of a cradle and trunnions. The cradle had a rectangular shape. On its sides, two trunnions were welded. In order to provide stability for the gun barrel, two spring-shaped equilibrations were connected to the cradle using a simple clevis fastener.
Carriage
Given its size, the gun used a large cross-shaped platform. It consisted of the central part, where the base for the mount was located, along with four outriggers. The front and the rear outriggers were fixed to the central base. The gun barrel travel lock was placed on the front outrigger. The side outriggers could be lowered during firing. These were held in place by pins and small chains which were connected to the gun mount. To provide better stability during firing the gun, the crew could dig in the steel pegs located on each of the side outriggers. This cross-shaped platform, besides holding the mount for the main gun, also served to provide storage for various equipment, like the electrical wiring. Lastly, on the bottom of each outrigger, there were four round-shaped leveling jacks. This helped prevent the gun from digging in into the ground, distributing the weight evenly, and to help keep the gun level on uneven ground.
A close-up view of the dismantled 8.8 cm Flak cross-shaped platform. The two folding side outriggers are missing. The central octagonal base would later be replaced with a much simpler square-shaped one. Source: German 88-mm AntiAircraft Gun Materiel, US War Department Technical ManualThe side outriggers could be lowered during firing. In order to provide better stability during firing the gun, the crew could dig in the steel pegs located on each of the side outriggers. At the bottom of each outrigger were round-shaped leveling jacks. Their purpose was to prevent the gun from digging into the ground and to keep the gun level on uneven ground. Source: German 88-mm AntiAircraft Gun Materiel, US War Department Technical ManualThe side outriggers are fully raised during transport. [o5m6.de]To prevent damaging the gun during transport, a large travel lock was installed on the front outrigger. Source: German 88-mm AntiAircraft Gun Materiel, US War Department Technical Manual
Bogies
The entire gun assembly was moved using a two-wheeled dolly, designated as Sonderanhanger 201. The front part consisted of a dolly with single wheels, while the rear dolly consisted of a pair of wheels per side on a single axle. Another difference between these two was that the front dolly had 7, and the rear had 11 transverse leaf springs. The wheel diameter was the same for the two, at 910 mm. These were also provided with air brakes. While these units were supposed to be removed during firing, the crew would often not remove them, as it was easier to move the gun quickly if needed. This was only possible when engaging targets at low gun elevations. Aerial targets could not be engaged this way, as the recoil would break the axles. The front and rear outriggers would be raised from the ground by using a winch with chains located on the dollies. When raised to a sufficient height, the outriggers would be held in place by dolly’s hooks. These were connected with a round pin, located inside of each of the outriggers.
The two trailer units were connected to the front and rear outriggers by using simple hooks, which would quite easily be disengaged. Source: German 88-mm AntiAircraft Gun Materiel, US War Department Technical ManualThe front view of the Sonderanhanger 201 dolly could be easily identified by the use of only two wheels. The chain’s winch would be used to raise the outriggers. Source: German 88-mm AntiAircraft Gun Materiel, US War Department Technical Manual
Firing with both trailer units still connected to the gun as possible, but it raised the height of the gun and prevented it from engaging air targets. [o5m6.de]Later, a new improved Sonderanhanger 202 model was introduced (used on the Flak 36 version). On this redesigned version, the two towing units were redesigned to be similar to each other. This was done to ease production but also so the gun could be towed in either direction when needed. While, initially, the dolly was equipped with one set of two wheels and the trailer with two pairs, the new model adopted a doubled-wheeled dolly instead.
Protection
Initially, the 8.8 cm Flak guns were not provided with an armored shield for crew protection. Given its long-range and its intended role as an anti-aircraft gun, this was deemed unnecessary in its early development. Following the successful campaign in the West against France and its Allies in 1940, the Commanding General of the I. Flakkorp requested that all 8.8 cm Flak guns that would be used at on the frontline receive a protective shield. During 1941, most 8.8 cm Flaks that were used on the frontline were supplied with a 1.75 meter high and 1.95 meters wide frontal armored shield. Two smaller armored panels (7.5 cm wide at top and 56 cm at bottom) were placed on the sides. The frontal plate was 10 mm thick, while the two side plates were 6 mm thick. The recuperator cylinders were also protected with an armored cover. The total weight of the 8.8 cm Flak armored plates was 474 kg. On the right side of the large gun shield, there was a hatch that would be closed during the engagement of ground targets. In this case, the gunner would use telescopic sight through the visor port. During engagement of air targets, this hatch was open.
Most guns were initially not provided with a shield. Given its original purpose, this is not surprising. Source: T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle Panzer Tracts. Dreaded Threat The 8.8 cm FlaK 18/36/47 in the Anti-Tank roleMost guns that were issued for field use would be provided with a large 10 mm thick front armored shield. The wire cover on the top was used for camouflage. Source: T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle Panzer Tracts Dreaded Threat The 8.8 cm FlaK 18/36/47 in the Anti-Tank roleOn the left side of the gun shield, there was a hatch that would be used for the gunner to find his aerial targets. [worldwarphotos.info]
Ammunition
The 88 mm FlaK could use a series of different rounds. The 8.8 cm Sprgr. Patr. was a 9.4 kg heavy high-explosive round with a 30-second time fuze. It could be used against both anti-aircraft and ground targets. When used in the anti-aircraft role, the time fuze was added. The 8.8 Sprgr. Az. was a high-explosive round that had a contact fuze. In 1944 the Germans introduced a slightly improved model that tested the idea of using control fragmentation, which was unsuccessful. The 8.8 Sch. Sprgr. Patr. and br. Sch. Gr. Patr. were shrapnel rounds.
The 8.8 cm Pzgr Patr was a 9.5 kg standard anti-tank round. With a velocity of 810 m/s, it could penetrate 95 mm of 30° angled armor at 1 km. At 2 km at the same angle, it could pierce 72 mm of armor. The 8.8 cm Pzgr. Patr. 40 was a tungsten-cored anti-tank round. The 8.8 cm H1 Gr. Patr. 39 Flak was a 7.2 kg heavy hollow charge anti-tank round. At a 1 kg range, it was able to penetrate 165 mm of armor. The 8.8 cm ammunition was usually stored in wooden or metal containers.
The 8.8 cm Flak used large one-piece ammunition. It was stored in either wooden or metal containers. [defensemedianetwork.com]
Crew
The 88 mm Flak had a crew of 11 men. These included a commander, two gun operators, two fuze setter operators, a loader, four ammunition assistants, and the driver of the towing vehicle. Guns that were used on a static mount usually had a smaller crew. The two gun operators were positioned to the right of the gun. Each of them was responsible for operating a hand wheel, one for elevation and one for the traverse. The front operator was responsible for traverse and the one behind him for elevation. The front traverse operator was also responsible for using the weapon gun sight for targeting the enemy. On the left side of the gun were the two fuse operators. The loader with the ammunition assistants was placed behind the gun. A well-experienced crew needed 2 to 2 and a half minutes to prepare the gun for firing. The time to put the gun into the traveling position was 3.5 minutes. The 8.8 cm gun was usually towed by an Sd.Kfz. 7 half-track or a heavy-duty six-wheel truck.
The 8.8 cm guns that were used for supporting ground units had a fairly large crew. [Pinterest]The Sd.Kfz. 7 half-tracks were the primary towing vehicles for this gun. [defensemedianetwork.com]Six-wheeled heavy-duty trucks would sometimes be used due to the lack of half-tracks. They did not offer the same driving performance. [worldwarphotos.info]
Flak 36 and 37
While the Flak 18 was deemed a good design, there was room for improvement. The gun itself did not need much improvement. The gun platform, on the other hand, was slightly modified to provide better stability during firing and to make it easier to produce. The base of the gun mount was changed from an octagonal to a more simple square shape. The previously mentioned Sonderanhanger 202 was used on this model.
Due to the high rate of fire, anti-aircraft guns frequently had to receive new barrels, as these were quickly worn out. To facilitate quick replacement, the Germans introduced a new three-part barrel. It consists of a chamber portion, a center portion, and the muzzle section. While it made the replacement of worn-out parts easier, it also allowed these components to be built with different metals. Besides this, the overall performance of the Flak 18 and Flak 36 was the same. The Flak 36 was officially adopted on the 8th of February 1939.
As the Germans introduced the new Flak 41, due to production delays, some of the guns were merged with the mount of a Flak 36. A very limited production run was made of the 8.8 cm Flak 36/42, which entered service in 1942.
In 1942, the improved 88 mm Flak 37 entered mass production according to T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle. On the other hand J. Ledwoch (8.8 cm Flak 18/36/37 Vol.1 Wydawnictwo Militaria 155) state that the Flak 37 was introduced to service way back in 1937. Visually, it was the same as the previous Flak 36 model. The difference was that this model was intended to have better anti-aircraft performance, having specially designed directional dials. The original gunner dials were replaced with the “follow-the-pointer” system. It consists of two sets of dials that are placed on the right side of the gun. These received information about the enemy targets from a remote central fire direction post connected electrically. This way, the gun operator only had to make slight adjustments, such as elevation, and fire the gun.
The necessary information about the enemy targets was provided by a Funkmessgerate ( Predictor) which was essentially a mechanical analog computer. Once the enemy aircraft were spotted, their estimated speed and direction were inserted into this computer which would then calculate the precise position and elevation. This information would be sent to any linked anti-aircraft batteries by a wire connection. One set of the dials would then show the crew the necessary changes that need to be done to the elevation and direction of the enemy approach. The crew then had to manually position the gun elevation and direction until the second dials indicators matched the first one. The funkmessgerate computer also provided correct fuse time settings. In principle, this system eased the aiming task of the crew and at the same time improved accuracy. When used in this manner the Flak 37 could not be used for an anti-tank role.
The last change to this series was the reintroduction of a two-piece barrel design. Besides these improvements, the overall performance was the same as with the previous models. From March 1943 only the Flak 37 would be produced, completely replacing the older models.
The 8.8 cm Flak 37 introduced the use of specially designed directional dials, which help the crew better adjust the gun. Source: Norris 8.8 cm FlaK 16/36/37/ 41 and PaK 43 1936-45
Organization
German air defense was solely the responsibility of the Luftwaffe, with the majority of 8.8 cm guns being allocated to them. The German Army and Navy also possessed some anti-aircraft units, but these were used in quite limited numbers. The largest units were the Flak Korps (Anti-aircraft corps). It consisted of two to four Flak Divisionen (Anti-aircraft divisions). These divisions, depending on the need, were either used as mobile forces or for static defense. These were further divided into Bigaden (brigades ) which consisted of two or more Regimenter (Regiments). Regiments in turn were divided into four to six Abteilunge (Battalion). Battalion strength was eight 8.8 cm guns with 18 smaller 2 cm guns. To complicate things a bit more, each Battalion could be divided into four groups: Leichte (Light, equipped with calibers such as 2 cm or 3.7 cm), Gemischte (mixed light and heavy), Schwere (Heavy equip with a caliber greater than 88 mm) and Scheinwerfer (Searchlight).
Mobile War
Initially, operations and crew training was carried out by the Reichswehr. They were organized into the so-called Fahrabteilung (Training Battalion) to hide their intended role. By 1935, the German Army underwent a huge reorganization, one aspect of which was changing its name to the Wehrmacht. In regard to the anti-aircraft protection, it was now solely the responsibility of the Luftwaffe. For this reason, almost all available 8.8 cm guns were reallocated to Luftwaffe control. Only around eight Flak Battalions which were armed with 2 cm anti-aircraft guns were left under direct Army control.
In Spain
When the Spanish Civil War broke out in 1936, Francisco Franco, leader of the Nationalists, sent a plea to Adolf Hitler for German military equipment aid. To make matters worse for Franco, nearly all his loyal forces were stationed in Africa. As the Republicans controlled the Spanish navy, Franco could not move his troops back to Spain safely. So he was forced to seek foreign aid. Hitler was keen on helping Franco, seeing Spain as a potential ally, and agreed to provide assistance. At the end of July 1936, 6 He 51 and 20 Ju 57 aircraft were transported to Spain under secrecy. These would serve as the basis for the air force of the German Condor Legion which operated in Spain during this war. The German ground forces operating in Spain were supplied with a number of 8.8 cm guns.
These arrived in early November 1936 and were used to form the F/88 anti-aircraft battalion. This unit consisted of four heavy and two light batteries. Starting from March 1937 these were allocated to protect various defense points at Burgos and Vittoria. In March 1938, the 8.8 cm guns from the 6th battery dueled with an enemy 76.2 cm anti-aircraft gun which were manned by French volunteers from the International Brigades. While the 8.8 cm guns were mainly employed against ground targets they still had a chance to fire at air targets. For example, while defending the La Cenia airfield, the 8.8 cm guns from the 6th battery prevented the Republican bombing attack by damaging at least two SB-2 bombers on the 10th of June 1938. Three days later one SB-2 was shot down by an 8.8 cm gun. In early August another SB-2 was shot down by the same unit. The performance of the 8.8 cm gun during the war in Spain was deemed satisfying. It was excellent in ground operations, possessing good range and firepower.
An 8.8 cm Flak gun in Spain.[weaponsandwarfare.com]
During the Second World War
Prior to the war, the 8.8 m guns could be often seen on many military parades, exercises, and ceremonies. The first ‘combat’ use of the 8.8 cm Flak in German use was during the occupation of the Sudetenland in 1938. The entire operation was carried out peacefully and the 8.8 cm gun did not have to fire in anger.
Prior to the war, the 8.8 cm guns war could have been often seen on military parades, exercises, and ceremonies. Source: W. Muller The 8.8 cm FLAK In The First and Second World Wars
The Polish campaign saw little use of the 8.8 cm guns. The main reason for this was that the Polish Air Force was mostly destroyed in the first few days of combat. They were mainly used against ground targets. In one example, the 8.8 cm guns from the 22nd Flak Regiment tried to prevent a Polish counter-attack at Ilza. The battery would be overrun while the crew tried to defend themselves, losing three guns in the process. The 8.8 cm Flak gun also saw service during the battles for Warsaw and Kutno.
The 8.8 cm followed the Germans in their occupation of Denmark and Norway. One of the key objectives in Norway was the capture of a number of airfields. Once captured, the Germans rushed in Flak guns including the 8.8 cm, to defend these as they were crucial for the rather short-ranged German bombers. On the 12th of April 1940, the British Air Force launched two (83 strong in total) bombing raids at the German ships which were anchored at the Stavanger harbor. Thanks to the Flak and fighter support, six Hampden and three Wellington bombers were shot down.
Following the conclusion of the Polish campaign, the Germans began increasing the numbers of the motorized Flak units. Some 32 Flak Batteries were available which the Germans used to form the 1st and 2nd Flak Corps. 1st Corps would be allocated to the Panzergruppe Kleist, while the second was allocated to the 4th and 6th Army. The Luftwaffe, as in Poland (September 1939), quickly gained air superiority over the Allied Air Forces. Despite this, there was still opportunity for the 8.8 cm guns to fire at air targets. During the period from the 10th to 26th May 1940, the following successes were made against enemy aircraft by flak units that were part of the XIX Armee Corps: the 83rd Flak Battalion brought down some 54, 92nd Flak Battalion 44, 71th Flak Battalion 24, the 91st Flak Battalion 8, 36th Flak Regiment 26, 18th Flak Regiment 27, and 38th Flak Regiment 23 aircraft. During the notorious German crossing near Sedan, a combined Allied air force tried to dislodge them. The strong Flak presence together with air fighter cover, lead to the Allies losing 90 aircraft in the process.
Following the Western Campaign, the 8.8 cm guns would see extensive service through the war. Ironically they would be more often employed against enemy armor than in the original role. Given the extensive Allied bombing raids, more and more 8.8 cm would be allocated to domestic anti-aircraft defense. One major use of 8.8 cm Flak was during the German evacuation of Sicily, by providing necessary air cover for the retreating Axis soldiers and materiel to the Italian mainland.
In the occupied Balkans, the 8.8 cm Flak was a rare sight until late 1943 and early 1944. The ever-increasing Allied bombing raids forced the Germans to reinforce their positions with a number of anti-aircraft guns, including the 8.8 cm Flak. Some 40 8.8 cm Flak guns were used to protect German-held Belgrade, the capital of Yugoslavia. Most would be lost after a successful liberation operation conducted by the Red Army supported by Yugoslav Partisans. The 8.8 cm Flak guns were also used in static emplacements defending the Adriatic coast at several key locations from 1943 on. One of the last such batteries to surrender to the Yugoslav Partisans was the one stationed in Pula, which had twelve 8.8 cm guns. It continued to resist the Partisans until the 8th of May, 1945.
Some of the 8.8 cm guns were destroyed or abandoned. Source: A. Radić Arsenal 51
Defense of the Fatherland
While the 8.8 cm Flaks would see service supporting the advancing German forces, the majority of them would actually be used as static anti-aircraft emplacements. For example, during the production period of October 1943 to November 1944, around 61% of the 8.8 cm Flak guns produced were intended for static defense. Additionally, of 1,644 batteries that were equipped with this gun, only 225 were fully motorized, with an additional 31 batteries that were only partially motorized (start of September 1944).
When the war broke out with Poland, the Luftwaffe anti-aircraft units had at their disposal some 657 anti-aircraft guns of various calibers. The majority were the 8.8 cm with smaller quantities of the larger 10.5 cm and even some captured Czezh 8.35 anti-aircraft guns. An additional 12 Flak Companies equipped with the 8.8 cm guns were given to the navy for the protection of a number of important harbors. The remaining guns were used to protect vital cities like Berlin and Hamburg. The important Ruhr industry center was also heavily defended.
The majority of the 8.8 cm Flak guns built would be used in static defense without the cross-shaped platform. These would mostly be destroyed by their crews to prevent their capture when the Allies made their advances into Germany. Source: W. Muller The 8.8 cm FLAK In The First and Second World Wars
One of the first enemy aircraft shot down over German skies were British Wellington bombers. This occurred on the 4th of September 1939 when one or two enemy bombers were brought down by heavy Flak fire. These intended to bomb vital German naval ports. In early October 1939, in Strasbourg, a French Potez 637 was shot down by the 84th Flak Regiments 8.8 cm guns. One Amiot 143 and a Whitley aircraft were shot down in Germany in mid-October. During December 1939 British launched two bombing raids intended to inflict damage on German ports. Both raids failed with the British losing some 17 out of 36 Wellington bombers.
After Germany’s victory over the Western Allies in June, the Germans began forming the first Flak defense line in occupied territories and coastlines. These were not only equipped with German guns but also with those captured from enemy forces.
A 8.8 cm by the Atlantic coast in 1941. This crew had already achieved two kills, judging by the kill marks on the barrel. Source: W. Muller The 8.8 cm FLAK In The First and Second World Wars
Due to the poor results of their daylight bombing raids, the British began to employ night raids. These initially were quite unsuccessful with minimal damage to Germany’s infrastructure and industry. The Flak defense of Germany was also quite unprepared for night raids, unable to spot enemy bombers at night. The situation changed only in 1940 with the introduction of ground-operated radar. Thanks to this, the first few months of 1941 saw German Flak units bring down 115 enemy aircraft.
In 1942 the British military top made a decision to begin the mass bombing of German cities. The aim was to “de-house” (or kill) workers, damage infrastructure to make urban industrial areas unusable, and try and cause a moral collapse as was the case in 1918. Implementation of this tactic was initially slow due to an insufficient number of bombers. In addition, vital targets in occupied Europe were also to be bombed. In May 1942, the British launched a force that consisted of over 1,000 aircraft causing huge damage to Germany, killing 486 and injuring over 55,000 people.
In 1943 several huge events happened. The German defeats in East and North Africa led to huge material and manpower losses, while the Allies were preparing to launch massive bombing raids mainly intended to cripple Germany’s production capabilities. In response, the Germans began increasing their number of Flak units. At the start of 1943, there were some 659 heavy Flak batteries, which were increased to 1,089 by June the same year. Due to a lack of manpower, the Germans began mobilizing their civilians regardless of their age or sex. For example, in 1943 there were some 116,000 young women who were employed in various roles, even operating the guns. Near the end of the war, it was common to see all-female crews operating Flak batteries. In addition in 1944 some 38,000 young boys were also employed in this manner. Ironically, while all German military branches lacked equipment, the anti-aircraft branch had spare equipment and guns, but lacked the manpower to operate them. To resolve this, foreign Volunteers and even Soviet prisoners of war were pressed into service. The downside was the general lack of training, which greatly affected their performance.
In the first few months of 1944, the Allied 8th and 15th Air Forces lost some 315 bombers with 10,573 damaged, all attributed to the heavy Flak. In 1944 (date unspecified in the source) during an attack on the heavily defended Leuna synthetic oil refinery, some 59 Allied bombers were brought down by the heavy Flak guns. By 1944 the number of heavy anti-aircraft guns that were intended for the defense of Germany reached 7,941. By April 1945 the Flak guns managed to shoot down 1,345 British bombers. The American 8th lost 1,798, while the 15th Air Force lost 1,046 bombers due to German Flak defence by the end of the war.
The last action of the 8.8 cm Flak guns was during the defense of the German capital of Berlin. Due to most being placed in fixed positions, they could not be evacuated and most would be destroyed by their own crews to prevent capture. Despite the losses suffered during the war, in February 1945, there were still some 8,769 8.8 cm Flak guns available for service.
The Flak provided necessary and crucial defense of vital industrial centers. Source: W. Muller The 8.8 cm FLAK In The First and Second World Wars
Effectiveness of the 8.8 cm Guns in Anti-aircraft Role
Regarding the effectiveness of the 8.8 cm anti-aircraft guns with the necessary number of rounds needed to bring down enemy aircraft. Author E.B. Westermann (Flak German Anti-Aircraft Defenses 1914-1945) gives us a good example and comparison between three main German anti-aircraft guns. The largest 12.8 cm Flak on average fired some 3,000 rounds to take down an enemy aircraft. The 10.5 cm gun needed 6,000 and the 8.8 cm 15,000 rounds (some sources mentioned 16,000). This seems at first glance like a huge waste of available resources, but is it right to conclude that?
According to an Allied war document dated from early 1945, they mentioned a few interesting facts about German flak defense. According to them, in 1943 some 33% of bombers destroyed by Germany were accredited to heavy Flak gunfire. In addition, 66% of damage sustained by their aircraft was also caused by the heavy Flak fire. In the summer of 1944, this number increased. The majority (some 66%) shot down enemy bombers were accredited to the heavy Flaks. And of 13,000 damaged bombers some 98% were estimated to be caused by the Flaks. Here it is important to note that by this time, Luftwaffe fighters lacked the ability to attack bomber formations en mass. Therefore this increase of aircraft shot down by the Flaks may be explained by this.
In addition, we must also take into account two other functions that these guns had which are often overlooked. They did not necessarily need to bring down enemy bombers. It was enough to force the enemy fly at higher altitudes to avoid losses. This in turn led to a huge loss of accuracy for the bombers. Secondly, the enemy bombers were often forced to break formation when sustaining heavy Flak fire, which left them exposed to German fighters. The shrapnel from the Flak rounds could not always directly bring down a bomber, but it could cause sufficient damage (fuel leaks for example) that the aircraft, later on, had to make an emergency landing, even in enemy territory. The damaged aircraft that made it back to their bases could spend considerable time awaiting repairs. Lastly, the Flak fire could incapacitate, wound or even kill bomber crews. Thus there was a huge psychological effect on enemy bomber crews. B-17 gunner Sgt W. J. Howard from the 100th Bomb Group recalled his experience with the German Flak. “All the missions scared me to death. Whether you had fighters or not you still had to fly through the flak. Flak was what really got you thinking, but I found a way to suck it up and go on.”
Hitler was quite impressed with the 8.8 cm performance. On the 28th of August 1942, he stated: “The best flak gun is the 8.8 cm. The 10.5 has the disadvantage that it consumes too much ammunition, and the barrel does not hold up very long. The Reich Marshall Göring continually wants to build the 12.8 into the flak program. This double-barreled 12.8 cm has a fantastic appearance. If one examines the 8.8 from a technician’s perspective, it is to be sure the most beautiful weapon yet fashioned, with the exception of the 12.8 cm”.
Despite the best German efforts, the Flak’s effectiveness greatly degraded by late 1944. The reason for this was the shortage of properly trained crews. At the start of the war, the Germans paid great attention to crew training, which lasted several months. As the Flak guns were needed on the front, less experienced and trained personnel had to be used instead. In the later stages of the war, these crews received only a few weeks of training, which was insufficient for the job they had to perform. Lastly, Allied bombing raids eventually took their toll on German industry, greatly reducing the production of ammunition, which was one of the main reasons why the anti-aircraft defense of Germany ultimately failed. Of course, a proper analysis and conclusion could not be easily made and would require more extensive research, a wholly different topic on its own.
Self-Propelled Versions
When used as anti-aircraft weapons, the 8.8 cm guns were in most cases used as static defense points. Despite this, the Germans made several attempts to increase their mobility by placing the 8.8 cm guns on various chassis. One of the first attempts was by mounting the 8.8 cm gun on a VOMAG 6×6 truck chassis. The small number built was given to the 42nd Flak Regiment which operated them up to the end of the war.
The VOMAG truck was armed with 8.8 cm guns. Source: W. Muller The 8.8 cm FLAK In The First and Second World War
The truck chassis offered great mobility on good roads, but their off-road handling was highly problematic. So Germans used half-tracks and full-track chassis. Smaller numbers of Sd. Kfz 9 armed with the 8.8 cm gun were built. Attempts to build a full-track vehicle were made but never went beyond a prototype stage. The 8.8 cm Flak auf Sonderfahrgestell was a project where an 8.8cm gun was mounted on a fully tracked chassis with a folding wall, but only one vehicle would be built. There are some photographs of Panzer IV modified with this gun, and while not much is known about them they appear to be a field conversion, rather than dedicated design vehicles. There were even proposals to mount an 8.8 cm gun on a Panther tank chassis, but nothing would come from it in the end.
Some 12 Sd. Kfz. 9 were modified by receiving an 8.8 cm gun. [worldwarphotos.info]The 8.8 cm Flak auf Sonderfahrgestell Pz.Sfl.IVc prototype.[uofa.ru]The strange-looking Panzer IV armed with this gun. [armedconflicts.com]Mounting the 8.8 cm gun on railroad cars was a common sight in Germany at early stages of the war. There was various design that may differ greatly from each other. [defensemedianetwork.com]
Usage after the war
With the defeat of Germany during the Second World War, the 8.8 cm Flak guns found usage in a number of other armies. Some of these were Spain, Portugal, Albania, and Yugoslavia. By the end of the 1950s, the Yugoslavian People’s Army had slightly less than 170 8.8 cm guns in its inventory. These were, besides their original anti-aircraft role, used to arm navy ships and were later placed around the Adriatic coast. A number of these guns would be captured and used by various warring parties during the Yugoslav civil wars of the 1990s. Interestingly, the Serbian forces removed the 8.8 cm barrel on two guns and replaced them with two pairs of 262 mm Orkan rocket launcher tubes. The last four operational examples were finally removed from service from the Serbian and Montenegrin Army in 2004.
The 8.8 cm Flak in the Yugoslavian People’s Army service, during military training near the capital in 1955. Source: A. Radić Arsenal 51Two 8.8 cm Flak guns were reused by replacing the gun with two 262mm rocket launchers. While not a success, these two remained in use up to 1998. [srpskioklop.paluba.info]
Conclusion
The 8.8 cm Flak was an extraordinary weapon that provided the German Army with much-needed firepower during the early stages of the war. The design as a whole was nothing special, but it had a great benefit in that it could be built relatively cheaply and in great numbers. That was probably its greatest success, being available in huge numbers compared to similar weapons of other nations.
Its performance in the anti-aircraft role was deemed satisfying, but still stronger models would be employed to supplement its firepower. The 8.8 cm anti-air gun’s effectiveness was greatly degraded toward the end of the war, which was caused not by the gun design itself but other external forces. These being mainly the lack of properly trained crews and shortages of ammunition.
8.8 cm Flak 18 Specifications:
Crew: 11
(Commander, two gun operators, two fuze setter operators, loader, four ammunition assistants, and the driver)
Weight in firing position:
5150 kg
Total weight:
7450 kg.
Dimensions in towing position:
Length 7.7 m, Width 2.2 m, Height 2.4 m,
Dimensions in deployed position:
Length 5.8 m, Height 214 m,
Primary Armament:
8.8 cm L/56 gun
Elevation:
-3° to +85°
Gallery
The Flak 88 mm gun in towing postion
Flak 88 in firing position
Credits
Written by Marko P.
Edited by by Ed Jackson & Henry H.
Illustrations by David B.
Sources
J. Norris (2002) 8.8 cm FlaK 16/36/37/ 41 and PaK 43 1936-45 Osprey Publishing
D. Nijboer (2019) German Flak Defences Vs. Allied Heavy Bombers 1942-45, Osprey Publishing
T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle Panzer Tracts No. Dreaded Threat The 8.8 cm FlaK 18/36/41 in the Anti-Tank role
T.L. Jentz and H.L. Doyle (2014) Panzer Tracts No. 22-5 Gepanzerter 8t Zugkraftwagen and Sfl.Flak
W. Muller (1998) The 8.8 cm FLAK In The First and Second World Wars, Schiffer Military
E. D. Westermann (2001) Flak, German Anti-Aircraft Defense 1914-1945, University Press of Kansas.
German 88-mm AntiAircraft Gun Materiel (29th June 1943) War Department Technical Manual
T. Anderson (2018) History of Panzerwaffe Volume 2 1942-45, Osprey publishing
T. Anderson (2017) History of Panzerjager Volume 1 1939-42, Osprey publishing
S. Zaloga (2011) Armored Attack 1944, Stackpole book
W. Fowler (2002) France, Holland and Belgium 1940, Allan Publishing
1ATB in France 1939-40, Military Modeling Vol.44 (2014) AFV Special
N, Szamveber (2013) Days of Battle Armored Operation North of the River Danube, Hungary 1944-45
A. Radić (2011) Arsenal 51 and 52
While A. Lüdeke, Waffentechnik im Zweiten Weltkrieg, Parragon
J. Ledwoch 8.8 cm Flak 18/36/37 Vol.1 Wydawnictwo Militaria 155
S. H. Newton (2002) Kursk The German View, Da Capo Press
W. Howler (2002 France, Belgium and Holland 1940, Ian Allan
J. S. Corum (2021) Norway 1940 The Luftwaffe’s Scandinavian Blitzkrieg, Osprey Publishing
Nazi Germany (1943)
Night fighter – Approximately 2,520 Built
A Ju 88G-1 in transit. [Boiten]Developed from converted fighter versions of the Ju 88A-4 medium bomber, the Ju 88G would take up a growing role in the German night fighter force, as it saw its greatest successes in the Spring of 1944, and its decline in the Autumn of that same year. While built mostly as a result of the German aviation industry’s failure to produce a new specialized night fighter design, the Ju 88G would nonetheless prove to be a valuable asset, one that far exceeded the capabilities of its predecessors and was well suited for mass production.
Hunting in the Dark: 1943
1943 was a year of highs and lows for the Luftwaffe’s night fighter force, one that saw their tactics change considerably to match those of RAF’s Bomber Command. The year started with the Luftwaffe continuing the heavy use of its long standing fixed network of defensive ‘Himmelbett’ cells. These contained searchlights, radar, and night fighters that coordinated to bring down raiders. This chain of defenses stretched across the low countries through northern Germany in a network known more broadly as the ‘Kammhuber line’, named after its architect and initial commander of the German night fighter force, Josef Kammhuber. However the British would develop tactics to shatter this line and employ countermeasures to blind the radars used both by flak and fighter directors, and night fighters.
They employed what became known as the ‘bomber stream’, deploying their aircraft in a long and narrow formation in order to penetrate as few of the Luftwaffe’s defensive boxes as possible. It was a simple but effective tactic, a night fighter could only intercept so many planes, and the cells were quickly overwhelmed. When they coupled this tactic with radar reflecting chaff, which they called ‘window’, the result was the near total collapse of the German air defenses during the July raid against the city of Hamburg. With German radar scopes clouded by the resulting interference, they were unable to direct gun laying radar for their anti-aircraft guns, and night fighters could not be vectored onto their targets, much less find anything using their on-board radar systems. Virtually defenseless and in the grips of a hot, dry summer, Hamburg suffered a level of destruction eclipsed only by the raid on Dresden when the war was coming to a close.
The Himmelbett system provided expansive coverage but could easily be overwhelmed by a concentrated stream of enemy aircraft. [Price]The Luftwaffe’s disaster over Hamburg forced them to reform their strategy and develop new detection systems that would be unaffected by the newest RAF countermeasures. Kammhuber was sacked, though not exclusively as a result of the raid, and a new system of night fighter control was to be the primary means of nightly strategic air defense. Instead of the heavy focus on the fixed Himmelbett boxes, night fighters would be assembled over beacons before being directed towards bomber streams. This would ensure there would be no bottlenecks and would allow the full strength of the night fighter force to, as it was hoped, be brought against the enemy in mass. They would also employ new equipment, modifying their Wurzburg radars, used for fire and aircraft direction, with a chaff discriminating device, and replacing the older Lichtenstein (B/C) aerial search radars with the new SN-2.
In the winter of 1943, Bomber Command set out to try and knock Germany out of the war. They launched a series of large-scale raids against major industrial cities and the capital, with Sir Arthur Harris, its C-in-C, believing he could end the war without the need for a costly invasion of the continent (Overy 339). The Luftwaffe’s new weapons and tactics would quickly prove their worth during what later became known as the ‘first Battle of Berlin’. Bomber Command held that a loss rate of 5% represented “acceptable losses” and significantly higher values could spell trouble for continuous operations (Brown 309). Between August and November of 1943, the casualty rates during the “1st Battle of Berlin” sat at 7.6-7.9%, figures which would climb slowly over the following months (Overy 342). However, while most Luftwaffe planners were enthusiastic about the new air defense methods, they would have to confront a growing concern in the service: they were reliant on considerably dated night fighter designs.
The Search for a New Design
Left to right: Ta 154, He 219, Ju 188. [avionslegendaires.net & Wikipedia]Throughout much of 1943, the night fighting mission was taken up mostly by variants of the Bf 110, followed by the Ju 88, and in much smaller numbers the Do 217 and He 219. In order to address the lack of a mass produced, specialized night fighter design, three new proposals were introduced. The first being the Ta 154 “Moskito,” a wooden, dedicated night fighter design which hoped to capture the same success as the British aircraft which bore the same name. The second, the He 219, was a specialized night fighter design championed by the very man who had devised the Himmelbett system, Josef Kammhuber. Lastly the Ju 188, a bomber that at the time still lacked a night fighter version, was proposed for conversion (Aders 72).
The Ta 154, despite high hopes for the project, never came to fruition as a result of its troubled development. The He 219 was sidelined by Generalflugzeugmeister (Chief of Procurement and Supply) Erhard Milch, who opposed increasing the number of specialized airframes in favor of mass production of multipurpose designs (Cooper 265). To make matters worse for the project a number of technical issues prolonged development, the aircraft took around 90,000 hours to produce, and with comparatively little support from the Luftwaffe, few were built (Cooper 325). The aircraft would, however, still be employed with the Luftwaffe, but in limited service. The Ju 188 design that likely would have received Milch’s support simply never materialized.
With the failure to find a new design, it was clear that the brunt of future night fighting would fall on existing designs, in particular the Ju 88. In early 1943, it was on this design that hopes were placed for a high performance, specialized night fighter that would become available to the Luftwaffe the following year (Cooper 266).
The Old 88
Left to right: Ju 88A-4, Ju 88C-6, Ju 88R, Ju 88G-1. [Asisbiz]Originally entering service as a medium/dive bomber in 1939, the Ju 88A was a state of the art, if somewhat conservative, design that was exceedingly versatile and easily modifiable. The airframe was sturdy, aerodynamically clean, and modular, with many components capable of being modified without necessitating major revisions to its overall design. This is perhaps nowhere more evident than the self-enclosed combined engine-radiator assemblies that allowed the powerplant and its associated cooling systems to be easily removed or replaced via connecting plates and brackets (Medcalf 106, 107, 191).
Not long after its teething period subsided, the Ju 88 proved itself in a number of roles and was employed as a night fighter early in the war, as some bombers were converted to Zerstorer (long range fighter/ground attack aircraft) at Luftwaffe workshops. Several of these aircraft were subsequently handed off to night fighter squadrons by the end of 1941, the first set with their dive brakes still equipped (Aders 31). However, by the end of 1941, small quantities of serial-built Ju 88C fighters were being delivered, with a larger production run following in the subsequent years. The type would eventually take up a growing position in the night fighter force (Medcalf 166, 178). Owing to their origins as converted aircraft, the Ju 88C-6 series retained virtually the same airframe as their bomber counterparts, with some minor alterations. The bombardier and their equipment were removed and an armament of three 7.92 mm MG17’s, a 20mm MG 151/20, and a pair of 20mm MG FF cannons were installed in the nose of the aircraft and in the “gondola” beneath the nose that would have otherwise carried the bombsight and ventral gunner (Medalf 319).
The night fighting capabilities of the C-6 were good but its shortcomings were becoming more apparent as the war progressed. By early 1943, it was considered relatively slow and this was particularly worrying in the face of the RAF’s growing use of the Mosquito as a bomber and pathfinder, an aircraft which no German night fighter in service was able to effectively intercept. When flying at high speeds and altitudes, catching these aircraft was often more a matter of good fortune than anything else. In mid 1943, an interim design known as the Ju 88R was introduced in the hopes of alleviating some of the deficiencies of the preceding series. Despite remaining very capable in the anti-heavy bomber role, it had no hope of intercepting the Mosquito. While the Ju 88R proved to be significantly faster thanks to the use of the much more powerful BMW 801 engines over the older Jumo 211Js, it still failed to fulfill the anti-Mosquito role that its planners hoped to achieve.
While the aircraft offered greater performance and was favored by pilots, it was still very much a simple conversion, much like the C series it was supplementing, and it was clear additional modifications were necessary to better realize the airframe’s potential. In particular, its greater engine power meant the aircraft could reach higher speeds, but that power also enabled the aircraft to exceed the limits to which the rudder was effective (Aders 73). However, despite the disappointments of the year and the failure to secure a brand-new night fighter design, the hope that a new model of specialized Ju 88 would be entering service was soon realized.
Gustav
The Ju 88G would provide the Luftwaffe with a high performance night fighter that also allowed them to consolidate existing production lines. [Asisbiz]By the end of 1943, work on the new night fighter was complete and the Luftwaffe was preparing to receive the first planes by the end of the year. The new Ju 88G-1 was developed as the successor to the previous C and R series night fighters, both consolidating production and vastly improving performance.
The Ju 88V-58 was the primary prototype for the Ju 88G-1 and first flew in June of 1943 (Aders 258). It sat between the older Ju 88R series aircraft and the later Ju 88G in design and appearance, using the same basic airframe as the Ju 88R and its BMW 801 power plants. However, it also incorporated the vertical stabilizer designed for the Ju 188, used a new narrower, low drag canopy from previous fighter models, and removed the “gondola” which carried a portion of the aircraft’s armament in previous models (Aders 132; Medcalf 191, 192). The armament was significantly improved with the addition of a mid-fuselage gun pod which mounted four MG 151/20 20 mm cannons, making use of the space otherwise taken up by bombing gear, with another pair of cannons installed in the nose of the aircraft. However, the nose mounted pair were removed later on due to issues regarding the muzzle flash of the guns affecting the pilot’s vision, a resulting shift in the aircraft’s center of gravity, and interference with nose mounted radar aerials (Medcalf 191).
After this series of changes to the aircraft’s fuselage, armament, and the subsequent addition of an SN-2c radar, the Ju 88G went into production. 6 pre-production Ju 88G-0 aircraft and 13 Ju 88G-1s were completed by the end of 1943 (Medcalf 178). The production switch between the previous Ju 88R and 88C models to the G was relatively smooth, with the first three aircraft delivered to the Luftwaffe in January of 1944. Production and deliveries of the new model increased sharply over the following weeks thanks to the aircraft sharing most of its components with older models (Aders 129). Mass production was carried out rapidly, with 12 planes completed a month later in January, roughly doubling the next month, and rising to 247 aircraft in June, before gradually falling as the production of its successor, the G-6, began to supersede it (Medcalf 240).
The Ju 88G-1 went into production with an offensive armament of four forward facing 20 mm MG 151/20 cannons in a pod mounted ventrally near the center of the aircraft. Upward facing cannons in the fuselage, in a configuration referred to as ‘Schräge Musik’, were often installed later at field workshops. These upward facing weapons were of particular use against British bombers, which had forgone ventral defensive guns. This armament was a marked improvement over the three 20 mm cannons and three MG 17 7.92 mm machine guns carried by the preceding C6 and R series (Medcalf 319).
The aircraft was powered by the much more powerful BMW 801 G-2 engines producing 1740 PS, a huge boost up from the Jumo 211J, 1410 PS, on the Ju 88C-6. This allowed the aircraft to reach 537 km/h at an altitude of 6.2 km, quite a considerable improvement over the Ju 88C-6’s 470 km/h at 4.8 km (Junkers Flugzeug und Motorenwerke 7, 12, Medcalf 319). The engines were unchanged from that of the previous Ju 88R model, though it was able to make better use of them thanks to the enlarged vertical stabilizer which granted better control and stability at high speed.
G-6
The G-6 would incorporate more powerful engines and standardize several common modifications made to the previous model. [albumwar2]To build on the success and production base of the first design, work began on a successor. Retaining the same airframe, the G-6 would be powered by the Junkers Jumo 213 A-1 and would standardize the use of equipment commonly added to the G-1 at Luftwaffe workshops. To this end several new prototypes were produced, these being Ju 88V-108, V-109 which included the MW50 boost system, and Ju 88V-111 which served as a production prototype (Medcalf 192).
The aircraft carried with it several key improvements over the initial model. It was faster, better armed, and possessed a more advanced set of electronic warfare equipment. However, it’s top speed is difficult to ascertain given the limited number of sources on the aircraft. It was able to achieve 554 km/h (344 mph) at 6km (19685 ft) without the use of the MW50 boost system, and after the war Royal Navy test pilot Eric Brown was able to reach a top speed of 644km/h (400mph) at an altitude of 9,145 meters in tests (30,000ft) (Medcalf 319, Eric Brown 195). In all likelihood, this was a testing aircraft that was using either Jumo 213E or 213F engines, as 9km was well above the full throttle height of the Jumo 213A. Alternatively, some of these engines may have made their way into very late production G-6 aircraft.
The new standardized equipment included an upward firing pair of 20 mm cannons, the FuG 350 Naxos Z radar detector, and they would later be the first night fighters to be equipped with the new SN-2R and Naxos Zr tail warning equipment. They also carried the new Neptun radars for twin engine fighter use and were the only aircraft that made use of the SN-3 and Berlin search radars (Medcalf 319, 324; Aders 181).
The SN-2R was a rearward facing radar aerial added to the SN-2d search radar sets that would warn the crew of pursuers. It helped to significantly improve survivability along with the new Naxos Zr, which could now warn the crew of enemy night fighter radar emissions. These systems quickly showed their worth. Ju 88G-6’s fared better in the presence of enemy night fighters than the He 219’s and Bf 110’s, which lacked standardized tail warning equipment (Aders 181).
Late G-6’s were also equipped with the FuG 120A Bernhardine. This device was intended to make use of a nationwide network of high powered transmitters that would have been unjammable by the RAF’s electronic warfare equipment. The system would provide the altitude of a bomber stream, its location on a grid map, its course, strength, and the recipient night fighter’s bearing from the ground station. All of this information was relayed in coded messages by means of a teleprinter in the cockpit of the night fighter. It was mostly foolproof, but the system was not fully operational by the war’s end (Medcalf 325; Price 237, 238).
Pilot’s Remarks and General Flight Characteristics
As with the rest of the Ju 88’s in the night fighter service, the plane had the ergonomics and handling characteristics that were so sought after by pilots. The sorties they faced by this point of the war were as long as two hours and as such undemanding flight characteristics were a crucial feature of any night fighter (Aders 23). Stability, well balanced controls and the ability to fly well on one engine were crucial factors, and having them made the Ju 88G a highly rated aircraft among the force (Aders 31, 132). Its reinforced airframe also came in useful, as its earlier use as a dive-bomber required a high tolerance for g-forces that made it capable of pulling off hard maneuvers without risk of damaging the airframe in the process. The addition of the Ju 188’s vertical stabilizer also improved handling markedly, as the newer design provided much smooth rudder controls over the previous version, which had ones unchanged from older bomber models and were quite stiff once the aircraft was brought up to speed (Medcalf 304).
Ju 88G-1 flown by Roland Beamont. [asisbiz.com]The G-1 handled exceedingly well, with controls that were well balanced and responsive. Praise for the Gustav’s handling could even be found outside the ranks of the Luftwaffe, as Roland Beamont, an RAF fighter pilot and post war test pilot, had a chance to take one up and evaluate how it performed at RAF Tangmere in the summer of 1945. Beamont found the aircraft undemanding, with gentle controls and that, on landing, the aircraft “could be steered on the approach as gently and responsively as any fighter”. Equally as important, he found the aircraft needed very little adjustment in the air, with only very minor trimming of control surfaces needed for smooth operation in regular flight. In a rare chance, he even found an opportunity to have a mock battle with another RAF pilot, Bob Braham, flying a DeHavilland Mosquito. Beamont found the 88 was able to hold its ground for some time, but eventually letting up when he began to reach the limits of the unfamiliar plane so low to the ground and in the wake of Bob’s plane, which promptly outmaneuvered him.
Despite his praise for the aircraft’s flight characteristics, he felt the structural cockpit framework was very restrictive of the pilot’s vision. In a summary of his first flight and a second on July 16th, he claimed “It has remained in my rating as one of the best heavy piston-engined twins of all time and a very pleasant flying experience.” (Medcalf 294, 295). Much like Beamont, most Luftwaffe pilots were very satisfied with the aircraft (Aders 132).
Famed Royal Navy pilot Capt. Erik ‘Winkle’ Brown would also be among the few allied pilots to have the opportunity to fly both the G-1, and subsequent G-6 model. Capt. Brown felt the aircraft possessed largely the same excellent handling characteristics as the Ju 88A-5 he’d flown prior. He praised the aircraft for its easy ground handling, thanks to its excellent brakes, it’s good handling during climbs, and light controls at cruising speed (Brown 190).
Capt. Brown would spend more time with the G-6 and was able to put one through more demanding tests. Having previously flown several versions of the Ju 88, Brown was particularly impressed by the aforementioned high speeds achieved by a Ju 88G-6 (Werk-nr 621965) he’d flown in tests. The aircraft remained in line with his general, glowing remarks over the Ju 88. “It was a pilot’s airplane, first and last, it demanded a reasonable degree of skill in handling and it responded splendidly when such skill was applied. There was a number of very good German aircraft but, with the exception of the Fw 190, none aroused my profound admiration as did the Junkers ‘eighty-eight’ (Brown 195).”
Perhaps the simplest but greatest advantage the aircraft had in night fighting was in the close proximity of the crewmembers, which allowed them easy communication in the event of intercom failure or emergency. It also allowed the pilot to be seated beside their radar operator, with the flight engineer seated directly behind him, an ideal arrangement providing both easy communication and good situational awareness, which became a necessity as bomber streams became the hunting grounds for RAF night fighters (Aders 132).
While it inherited the benefits of the original design, it also had its flaws, the most obvious of which was the poor visibility due to the bars of the reinforced cockpit frame, and the troublesome landing gear which had a tendency to buckle if the aircraft was brought down too hard (Medcalf 75). The landing gear was a hydraulically actuated set that rotated 90 degrees so that the wheels would lie flat within their nacelles. This greatly reduced drag, as the shallower landing gear bays contributed far less to the frontal area of the plane, but they could be broken in forced landings or careless flying. These types of accidents were typically handled by the airfield ground staff, though handing off the plane to a recovery and salvage battalion could prove necessary in the event of a forced landing or a particularly bad accident (Medcalf 62).
Lichtenstein SN-2
Early combined SN-2 with the wide-angle attachment; compared to a later model on Ju 88G. These large aerials came to be known as the ‘Hirschgeweih’(stag antlers). [Bauer, Rod’s Warbirds]Perhaps the most important feature of the Ju 88G, its radar, was easily the weakest point of the aircraft in comparison to its contemporaries in foreign service. Unlike the British or Americans, the Germans lacked any major production of centimeter band search radars, forcing them to rely on meter band types. In practical terms, the meter band radar carried with it several major disadvantages, the most evident and visible of which were the large aerial antennas which protruded from the aircraft’s fuselage and created significant drag. In tests by the Luftwaffe’s Rechlin test pilots, it was found that the Lichtenstein (B/C) decreased the maximum speed of a Bf-110 by 39.9 km/h (Aders 44). Another major disadvantage was its inferior ability to cut through ground clutter, leading to very poor performance at lower altitudes and making it useless near ground level (Aders 163, 200).
The standard Ju 88G-1 was equipped with the Lichtenstein SN-2c, also designated as FuG 220. This airborne radar set was designed by Telefunken for naval service and originally rejected by the Luftwaffe earlier in the war. Its initial rejection was based on its extreme minimum range of 750 meters, which meant that any target would disappear off the scopes long before the pilot would be able to see it (Aders 79, 80). Its later adoption was a matter of the previous air search radar having a relatively short maximum range, and that the SN-2 would be unaffected by the chaff that made the previous sets useless (Brown 309). However, due to the shortcomings of the original SN-2, the device was coupled with a simplified version of the older Lichtenstein FuG-212 radar to track targets within the large minimum range of the new system. The resulting set up required the use of 5 radar scopes and was an exceedingly cumbersome display, with three scopes devoted to the older Lichtenstein set and two for the SN-2 (Price 196).
The two scope SN-2c display, the “peaks” represent radar contacts. Left is azimuth and range, right is elevation. The range demarcations are 2 km for both sides, the radar will not display contacts beyond the 5th demarcation.[Bauer]The SN-2 carried by the 88G was an improved model which had its minimum range decreased to an acceptable distance, allowing it to drop the excess equipment for the far simpler SN-2c, which required only two scopes (Aders 122). The system had a frequency range of 73/82/91 MHz, a power output of 2.5 kW, an instrumented range of 8km, a minimum range of 300 m, a search angle with an azimuth of 120 degrees, an elevation of 100 degrees, and a total weight of 70 kg. While the system had a maximum instrumented range of 8km, its practical detection range was tied to the altitude at which it was operating and the size of the target. For example, if searching for a heavy bomber traveling at the same altitude, and with the maximum antenna aperture towards the Earth being roughly 30 degrees, and at an operating altitude of 5km, the slant range of the radar can be placed roughly at the system’s maximum range of 8km (Bauer 12, 13). This range increases or decreases correspondingly with the altitude of the aircraft or its target, with the device being virtually useless near ground level.
One SN-2c was eventually recovered by the RAF when an inexperienced crew landed their plane at RAF Woodbridge as a result of a navigation failure, which allowed the British to develop both effective chaff and electronic jamming countermeasures for it (Price 221). This same aircraft would be the one given such a good review by Roland Beamont, its registration code being 4R+UR.
The SN-2 would see further development even as its usefulness declined in the face of widespread jamming and chaff which targeted its operating bands. The SN-2d was the most immediate development which helped to some degree. Its operating frequencies were shifted to the 37.5-118 MHz dispersal band to make use of its still usable frequencies that were not fully targeted by RAF jamming efforts. It would later be combined with the SN-2R tail warning radar and, very late in the war, made use of low drag ‘morgenstern’ aerials and an aerodynamic nose cone which fit over it (Aders 244).
Late War and Experimental Radars
Left to right: Fug 218 Neptun, Lichtenstein FuG 220 SN-2 with a low drag array, FuG 240 Berlin with its parabolic antenna set behind a removable nose cone. [Rod’s Warbirds, Asisbiz,ww2aircraft.net] The FuG 217/218 Neptun radar setswere developed and built by FFO. These had been initially developed for use in single engine night fighters, but were later adapted for use aboard twin engine aircraft. They were largely a stop gap following the RAF jamming efforts against the SN-2, as any new aerial search radar was months away. These series of radars came in a variety of configurations as they were further developed and pressed into wider service.
The Neptun 217 V/R was a search radar that could switch between two frequencies between 158 and 187 MHz, had a search angle of 120 degrees, a maximum range of 4 km with a minimum of 400 meters, and a total weight of 35 kg. The subsequent Neptun 218 V/R search radar included four new frequency settings along the same range, had a maximum range of 5km with a minimum of 120 meters, a power output of 30kW, weighed 50kg, and possessed the same search angle as the previous model. Both radars could be mounted in a “stag antler” array with the preceding Neptun 217 V/R also having a “rod” type mounting arrangement, which consisted of individual antennas attached to the airframe. As with the SN-2, tail warning sets were produced which were found in the form of the standalone Neptune 217 R and Neptun 218 R sets, or as a component of the Neptune 217 V/R and Neptun 218 V/R combined search and tail warning radars. (Aders 245, 246).
The FuG 228 SN-3 was developed by Telefunken and was visually similar to the SN-2 but with thicker dipoles. The device operated on a frequency range of 115-148 MHz, had a power output of 20kW, a maximum range of 8km with a minimum of 250m, a search angle with an azimuth of of 120 degrees, an elevation of 100, and a total weight of 95kg. Some sets also made use of a low drag “morningstar ” array that used ¼ and ½-wavelength aerials. 10 sets were delivered for trials and may have been used in combat (Aders 245).
The FuG 240 Berlin was another radar developed by Telefunken and their last to see operational use during the war, it also being the first and only centimetric aerial search radar to see service with the Luftwaffe. It operated on a wavelength of 9 to 9.3 cm, an output of 15kW, had a maximum range of roughly 9 km, a minimum of 300 m, a search angle of 55 degrees, weighed 180 kg, and had no serious altitude limitations (Aders 246, Holp 10). While only twenty five Berlin sets were delivered to the Luftwaffe they made successful use of them in March of 1945 (Aders 246; Brown 317). While these new devices were free of the heavy jamming the SN-2 faced, they lacked the larger production base of the SN-2 which continued to be fitted to new night fighters until the end of the war.
Passive Sensors
While the SN-2 radar was somewhat mediocre, this deficiency was offset by other devices that were often installed aboard which could supplement it, these being the FuG 227Flensburg and FuG 350 Naxos Z. Developed by Telefunken, Naxos was able to detect the emissions of British H2S ground mapping radar and other devices with frequencies in the centimeter band. This would enable a night fighter equipped with the system to home in on RAF aircraft that were using ground mapping radar to direct bomber streams to their targets. The Naxos Z set was capable of detecting emissions at up to 50 km, enabling them to find pathfinders or simply other bombers in the stream as the ground mapping radar became more commonplace among the aircraft of Bomber Command (Price 176, Medcalf 325). Subsequent models would expand the reception band to allow the device to detect British centimetric aerial intercept radar and combine the system with tail warning equipment to alert aircrews to the presence of British, and later American, night fighters, with the series working within the 2500 mHz to 3750 mHz band (Medcalf 325). These included the Naxos-Zr, used exclusively in Ju 88s, with the aerial contained within the fuselage, the Naxos ZX, which further increased the detectable frequency ranges, and the Naxos RX, which was a version of the previous type which coupled it with tail warning equipment (Aders 248, 249). This was solely a directional sensor and would give the operator the azimuth of the target, but not its altitude or range.
Naxos indicator, each notch represents a detected emission [Bauer]Flensburg was another passive device, this one made by Siemens. While Naxos detected the emissions from RAF ground mapping radar, Flensburg picked up the tail warning radar of RAF bombers, a device codenamed Monica. With later versions operating on a tunable frequency band of 80 mHz to 230 mHz, it allowed aircraft equipped with it to detect virtually all bombers traveling within a stream should their rear warning radar be active (Medcalf 325). Among the captured pieces of equipment in Ju 88G [4R+UR], this was evaluated by the RAF and found to be an exceedingly useful tool for detecting and closing in on their bombers. The aircraft with the device was evaluated by Wing Commander Derek Jackson in a series of tests with both a single RAF Lancaster bomber and a small group of five planes flying over a considerable distance. He found that, in both cases, he was able to home in on the bombers with the Flensburg device alone from as far as 130 miles away without any issues even when the aircraft were in close formation, where there was hope that several of the tail warning radars operating closely together might have confused the device (Price 222).
In all, 250 Flensburg sets were produced, alongside roughly 1,500 Naxos-Z sets, and though only the latter became standard equipment, both saw extensive use among Ju 88 night fighters (Aders 124). These devices proved incredibly successful in combination with SN-2 and, for several months, allowed the German night fighter forces to achieve great operational success. However, they eventually fell behind again one final time after the successful British efforts to counter the Luftwaffe’s sensors and tactics in the months following the landings in France (Brown 319). In the end only Naxos remained the only reliable means of detecting raiders as, unlike Monica, they could not do without their H2S ground mapping radar.
Initial Deployments
Field use of the aircraft began shortly after the delivery of the first pre production aircraft, which were quickly sent out to units equipped with older models of Ju-88s, often being placed into the hands of formation leaders. In this way, its introduction into service was gradual, with the first aircraft already being in the hands of more experienced pilots before more deliveries allowed for the entire unit to transition away from older models. Prior to July of 1944, Gruppe IV of NJG3, II and III of NJG6, and I of NJG7 were supplied with large numbers of G-1s, followed by a gradual supply to NJG2, Gruppe IV of NJG 5, III of NJG3, and NJG100. It should also be noted that these aircraft could be found in the inventories of most units, even those that did not fully transition over fully to their use (Aders 131).
For the first three months of 1944, the Luftwaffe inventory had only a single digit number of operational G-1s but, by April and May, mass deliveries of the aircraft began, with 179 planes available in May and 419 by July (Aders 272). A total 1,209 Ju 88G-0s and G-1s were delivered to the Luftwaffe between December of 1943 and October of 1944, with the aircraft and its successor, the Ju 88G-6, becoming the mainstay of the German night fighter force for the remainder of the war (Medcalf 178, 240).
Zahme Sau: Winter through Spring
As a heavy radar equipped night fighter, the Ju 88G would serve the Luftwaffe as “Zahme Sau” (Tame Boar) interceptors. They differed from “Wilde Sau” (Wild Boar), in that they were to receive guidance toward enemy bombers from a series of ground based stations in a system known as Y-Control. With information collected from various search radars and passive radio and radar detectors scattered throughout much of Western Europe, ground control operators would direct interceptors toward bomber streams (Price 175, 178).
For much of 1944, a typical mission for a Zahme Sau pilot would go as follows. First, they would take off and head for an assembly point marked by a radio/searchlight beacon. Then, they would wait their turn before receiving radio commands directing them towards a bomber stream. The fighters were led away from the beacons by their formation leaders, but rarely did all a gruppe’s fighters actually reach the target in close order. Lastly, upon reaching the stream, they would attempt to merge with it and then begin to search out targets with on board sensors. In addition to direct guidance, Y-control gave a running commentary on a bomber stream, describing its course and the altitude range the staggered bombers flew at (Aders 102, 103,195). This running commentary was particularly useful later on when night fighters more commonly flew alone and the use of the signal beacons was restricted.
This system would see the effectiveness of the Luftwaffe’s night fighters reach its zenith in the spring. Building upon their successes of the previous winter they would inflict heavy losses on Bomber Command. Between November of 1943 and March of 1944, Bomber Command would lose 1,128 aircraft prior to the temporary withdrawal from large scale operations over Germany. During the raid on Nuremberg in April of 1944, 11.9% of raiders failed to return home in what became the costliest raid of the entire war (Overy 368). Thankfully for the Allies, the Luftwaffe would never see this level of success again, as Bomber Command shifted to support Operation Overlord at the end of May. While Arthur Harris wished to continue his large-scale area bombing campaign over Germany, he would relent to pressures from higher offices and place his forces in support of the coming operation to liberate France. The subsequent raids against various rail yards across coastal France would prove a well needed respite for Bomber Command. The short distance the raiders flew over hostile territory meant that Luftwaffe night fighters had fewer opportunities for interception, and thus Bomber Command’s losses were comparatively light.
RAF Tactics and Changing Fortunes
Avro Lancaster and DeHavilland Mosquito NF MK XVII. [Flickr]Following Overlord, Bomber Command returned to Germany better equipped and prepared for the challenges ahead. A typical late war Bomber Command heavy raiding force was composed mostly of Lancaster and Halifax heavy bombers which were supported by airborne radar and radio jammers, night fighters, decoy formations composed of trainee squadrons, and chaff dispersing aircraft. In addition to the aforementioned Lancaster and Halifax, the B-17 and B-24 were also used by both the USAAF and RAF as electronic warfare platforms during these raids, though in much smaller numbers. Several variants of the DeHavilland Mosquito would be used as pathfinders, bombers, and nightfighers. The pathfinders were particularly troublesome as they could outpace any interceptor, save for a night fighter variant of the Me 262 that was introduced near the end of the war. While goals of the heavy bombers were straightforward, the supporting forces’ goal was to disorient Luftwaffe ground controllers and engage their night fighters to reduce operational losses and tie up enemy aircraft (Aders 194, 195).
Locating the stream proved difficult, but if a fighter was to infiltrate it, they were mostly free of electronic interference and would encounter little resistance. While successful infiltration often meant good chances for kills, most night fighters would end up returning to base having expended most of their fuel in the search.
Various derivatives of the FuMG 402 Wasserman radar, a long range early warning and fighter control radar built by Siemens. Later versions were capable of frequency changes within the 1.9-2.5 m, 1.2-1.9 m, and 2.4-4.0 m ranges (Aders 251). [cdvandt]While the Luftwaffe’s system was still holding steady it soon faced a new challenge, as from December 1943 onward, German night fighter pilots would also have to contend with the long-range Mosquito night fighters of the RAF’s 100 Group. Tasked with supporting bombing raids through offensive action, they operated by seeking out German night fighters over raid targets, at night fighter assembly points, and lastly to seek out enemy aircraft near the stream itself (Sharp & Bowyer 289).
By the beginning of May 1944, 100 Group possessed only about a hundred Mosquitos, though the number would grow larger and they would begin to replace their older and less capable aircraft (Sharp & Bowyer 290, 291). In the Autumn of 1944, the Mosquitos began to carry equipment to track German night fighters by activating their Erstling IFF (Identify Friend or Foe System) by mimicking the signals of German search radars. With this new gear and their bolstered numbers, they had tied down much of the Luftwaffe night fighter force by the winter of 1944. Eventually, the Germans left their IFFs off, which made tracking their own planes extremely difficult, and forced them to abandon the use of the assembly beacons which were frequented by the Mosquitos (Aders 196). Understandably, the Mosquito became the source of constant anxiety for Luftwaffe night fighter crews. The Mosquito typically made its appearance during takeoffs, landings, and when the often unsuspecting German night fighters were transiting to and from their targets. Under such circumstances, the use of tail warning and radar detecting equipment aboard the Ju 88G was both an important defensive tool, and a serious morale booster.
Despite its earlier successes, the Luftwaffe’s night fighter force’s effectiveness began its decline in August of 1944 in the face of general disruptions to their detection and communication capabilities as the Allies deployed radar and radio jammers to the continent (Aders 194, 195, 197). This loss of early warning radar coverage would prove a decisive blow to the Luftwaffe, one that they never recovered from.
Blind and Deaf: Autumn into Winter
As summer turned to autumn, night fighter bases were increasingly harassed by Allied daylight fighter bombers, which forced the Luftwaffe to disperse their forces to secondary airfields. While these “blindworm” locations were free of prowling Mosquitos and fighter bombers, they were not without their disadvantages. While these fields were well camouflaged, their rough landing fields could be hazardous and they were not cleared for night landings. This forced many night fighters to land at their more well-constructed bases after their nightly sorties and return to the camouflaged fields in the evenings. The result was a rise in losses as the aircraft were occasionally caught by Allied fighters on their flight back. Through late 1944 and into 1945, German night fighter losses were most commonly the result of interception in transit or being hit on the ground. While at first only bases in Belgium and the Netherlands were threatened, Allied fighters would appear in growing numbers over the skies of Western and Southern Germany, as would the recon aircraft that periodically uncovered the “blindworm” bases (Aders 197).
A Ju 88G caught in transit. [asisbiz.org]In September of 1944 the night fighter force flew a total of 1,301 sorties against approximately 6,400 enemy aircraft, of which they brought down approximately 76, representing a loss rate of 1.1%. Bomber Command losses had fallen significantly from the 7.5% of the previous year, and from last April’s catastrophic high of 11.9%. As such, Bomber Command losses were once again well below the 5% attrition threshold for continuous operations (Aders 197).
By the start of winter, the RAF and USAAF had largely succeeded in jamming most of the Luftwaffe’s early warning radars, y-control radio services, and through the use of chaff and jammers, made the standard SN-2 search radar useful only in the hands of experts. This had the overall effects of ensuring the night fighter force was slower to respond in-bound raiders, more likely to be sent against diversionary formations, and that night fighters were far less likely to make contact with the bomber stream after being vectored toward it. By winter, it had become clear for the Luftwaffe that the after hours war over Western Europe had been irrevocably lost.
While the night fighter force had some success in finding alternatives to their models of the SN-2 air search radars there was no hope of recouping their past successes. Between the chronic fuel shortages, marauding RAF Mosquitos, mounting ground and transit losses, and the compromised performance of most of the Luftwaffe’s ground based radars, the situation had become unsalvageable. Its decline was final, and in February of 1945, the force disintegrated as the Allies took the war into Germany (Aders 201). After almost a year following its greatest successes, the Luftwaffe’s night fighter force finished the war mostly grounded for lack of fuel and as night harassment forces in support of Germany’s depleted and hard pressed army (Aders 206).
Large numbers of German night fighters were captured as the Allies overran their airfields, many left intact. Lacking flame dampeners or exhaust stains, these planes have likely never been flown. [flickr]
On the Offense
In conjunction with their interception duties, many units equipped with Ju 88Gs would conduct night ground attack operations against Allied forces in France against the Normandy beachhead, and later across the Western front in support of Operation Wacht am Rhein at the end of 1944.
On the night of August the 2nd, 1944, the first of these operations were carried out against various targets, including the disembarkation area at Avranches and the Normandy bridgehead. The operation code-named ‘Heidelburg’ was conducted by elements of NJG’s 2, 4, and 5.These attacks were conducted without the use of bombs and were regarded by some as absurd due to the extreme danger in conducting low level strafing runs at night, and with only limited preparations being made before the operation (Boiten P4 25). The attacks would be carried out until the night of the tenth with the night fighters taking considerable, but inconsistent, losses.
On the night of the sixth, one Ju 88G would claim an unusual victory in this period as during their return flight, Lt. Jung of 6./NJG2. Jung and his R/O Fw. Heidenrech detected and closed in on P-38 of the 370th fighter squadron at around 2:30 near Falaise, which they subsequently downed. Not all the aircraft had the same luck as Jung, as during the same night another Ju 88G of his Gruppe would be brought down by an Allied night fighter. The aircraft proceeded to crash into a Panther tank belonging to the 1st SS Panzer Division, resulting in a two hour traffic jam during that unit’s counter attack on Mortain (Boiten P4, 28). The overall impact these missions had were largely undefinable due to the inability to accurately survey the damage inflicted.
While infrequent attacks were carried out during the Autumn of 1944, the Luftwaffe’s night fighters would not be committed to any major ground attack operations until the end of the year. On the night of December 17th, several night fighter squadrons would be called upon for night ground attack operations in support of Operation Wacht Am Rhein. This action saw roughly 140 Ju 88’s and Bf 110’s of at least seven Gruppen being committed to what was to become the Battle of the Bulge (Boiten P3, 65).
This abandoned Ju 88G-6 was modified for ground attack missions, its radar had been removed and racks for bombs had been added. An AB 500 cluster bomb unit lies in the foreground. [Rod’s Warbirds]These night raids did considerable damage and sowed confusion amongst rear-echelon services, as vehicles initially traveled with undimmed lights and many facilities failed to observe black out conditions. This was especially true against rail and road traffic which, until then, felt safe traveling at night. These mistakes placed otherwise safe trucks, trains, depots, and barracks in the sights of night fighters sent on massed area raids, and armed reconnaissance patrols. These attacks were typically carried out by strafing, and bombing in the case of modified aircraft, which were equipped with ETC 500 bomb racks. During the nightly ground attack operations during the Battle of the Bulge, these modified aircraft typically carried a pair of AB 250 or AB500 cluster bombs which themselves contained either SD-1 and SD-10 anti-personnel submunitions.
These attacks were particularly effective on the odd night with higher visibility. On the night of the 22nd of December, 23 Bf 110G’s and Ju 88G’s belonging to the I. and IV./NJG 6 flew interdiction missions around Metz-Diedenhofen. Owing to the good weather that night they were able to successfully attack several targets, which included some 30 motor vehicles credited as destroyed, and several trains which they attacked north of Metz. They were joined that night by seven aircraft from I.NJG4 which undertook low level strafing attacks, for which they were credited for the destruction of one locomotive, four motor vehicles, and a supply dump. Additionally, they were credited for damaging another locomotive, six motor transport columns, and five single motor vehicles. Losses amongst the night fighters were uncharacteristically light that night, with only Bf 110 G-4 2Z+VK having been lost during the raids (Boiten 73).
Ground crew with an engine heater prepare a Ju 88G-1. [Asisbiz]The operational conditions during these raids were generally very poor, both a result of the weather, which had infamously grounded most aircraft during the initial stages of the battle, and Allied electronic interference. While the navigational aids and avionics of their aircraft made them effectively all weather capable, the harsh weather and Allied jamming of navigation beacons and radio communications proved serious challenges to Luftwaffe night fighter crews. The difficult nature of the missions themselves made for little improvement, as they typically flew at low altitudes under weather conditions which reduced visibility. The sum of all of these factors made for missions which brought on significantly more fatigue than the typical bomber interception mission.
Throughout the battle, the Ju 88G would prove an exceptional night ground attack aircraft or ‘Nachtschlachter’. With its powerful engines, cannons, large payload, and exceptional de-icing systems, the aircraft could carry out attacks under very harsh winter conditions. Several of these aircraft would have their radar removed and were used exclusively for this mission until the end of the war. A number of former night fighters would even serve with the bomber squadron KG2, with their cannon armament removed, as night attack aircraft (Medcalf Vol.2 618).
The raiders encountered few night fighters as several RAF Mosquito night fighter units had been withdrawn to requip with the new Mosquito NF Mk. XXX. Between the two USAAF squadrons with their P-61’s and the remaining RAF units, there were few Allied night fighters in the area (Aders 200). However, Luftwaffe losses to AAA were high thanks to the advanced centimetric gun-laying radars in use with the US and British armies. In the end the night fighters were able to cause disruptions behind allied lines, but the price paid was steep, with 75 aircraft being lost over 12 nights (Boiten P5 3).
Operation Gisela:
The Ju 88G would play an exclusive role in the last major Luftwaffe night action of the entire war, in a large-scale intruder mission dubbed Operation Gisela. This operation was likely formulated after Maj. Heinz-Wolfgang Schnaufer discovered that night fighting conditions on the other side of the ‘front’ were far more favorable. He later submitted a proposal to his fighter division to attack Allied bombers over the North sea, where there would be relatively little electronic and chaff interference, and where the bombers would least suspect an attack. However, the CO of the 3rd fighter division would instead propose to attack the bombers at their airfields when they were landing.
In any case the British intelligence services got wind of the plan as was made clear by the broadcasting of the song ‘I dance with Gisela tonight’ over a propaganda station. The attack would be postponed several times until early March, 1945 (Aders 205).
About 100 Ju 88G’s were dispatched in three waves to follow a bomber stream as it departed for home. Upon reaching their destination the first wave would down twenty two bombers, however the fires from the wrecks would ruin the chances of the subsequent waves. While many bombers were saved by flying to different airfields after being alerted by the flames, eight more were wrecked attempting to land at darkened airstrips. However, the night fighters would face a dangerous return trip as they had to chart a course using dead reckoning and astral navigation due to their signal beacons being jammed (Aders 205). In the end, the night fighters would suffer a similar level of losses to the bombers they were hunting as a result of ground fire, crashes resulting from low level flight, and navigation failures. Operation Gisela would end in failure with no subsequent missions being attempted.
Construction
Fuselage
Wing connecting system [Ju 88A-4 Bedieungsvorscrift. [1941], 46]The Ju 88A-4 was the most widely produced bomber variant and provided the foundations for the C, R, and G types. It was a fairly conventional all metal aircraft in its construction, and, while it pushed few technical boundaries, it was state of the art and versatile. It was primarily made of sheet aluminum fastened by rivets, with cast parts used for load bearing elements. Some use of Elektron magnesium alloy was made to further reduce weight, with sparing use of steel where strength was required, particularly in the landing gear assemblies and fuselage connecting elements. The fuselage cross section was rectangular with rounded corners and clad in large sheet aluminum stampings. It used a semi-monocoque structure made up of formers and bulkheads joined by connectors that ran front to aft, with the outer aluminum skin riveted to both elements, which allowed it to bear some of the structural load. Its structural load factor was 4.5 with a 1.1 multiplier for the first wrinkle, 1.3 for yield, and 1.8 for failure. In service, it proved very sturdy, with Junkers engineers claiming after the war that there had been no reported major structural failures over the service life of the airframe (Medcalf 41,43,73).
Eventually, the construction process had been improved to the point where the fuselage could be built from sub-assemblies that would become the upper and bottom halves of the fuselage. These would then be joined together after the internal components were fitted. Wing construction followed a similar process, making heavy use of sub assemblies, followed by equipment installation, skinning, and painting. An early model Ju 88 took roughly 30,000-man hours to complete. By the end of 1943, this number remained about the same for the Ju 88G-1. While this may seem unimpressive at face value, the night fighter carried an airborne radar system and a much more sophisticated set of avionics (Medcalf 41-43; Adders 183).
Wings and Stabilizers
The Ju 88’s wings were the heaviest part of the aircraft, comprising much of its total structural weight at over 1200 kg. A pair of massive main spars ran from the root to the wing tip, a rear spar ran across the entire span of the wing to support the flaps and ailerons, and two forward spars ran from the engine nacelles to the fuselage to transfer thrust from the engines and support loads from the landing gear. These spars were joined by relatively few airfoil shaped ribs and stiffened with corrugated aluminum (Medcalf 41-43). The wings were joined to the fuselage by means of four large ball connectors, which made for easy assembly and alignment. (Medcalf 73).
The vertical stabilizer was fixed to the fuselage by means of the same ball-screw connectors as the wings. Installing it was simple, with the rudderless stabilizer being fitted to the fuselage, and the rudder fin being affixed afterwards. The horizontal stabilizers did not use the same fitting system. Instead, they were each inserted into the fuselage by two spars which were then bolted together. This process was virtually the same on both the Ju 88A and the Ju 188, save for the latter having a fin which was 42% larger by area and a rudder which was 68% larger than the previous model (Ju 88A-4 Bedienungsvorschrift-FL Bedienung und Wartung des Flugzeuges; Ju 188E-1(Stand Juni 1943); Medcalf 123). The Ju 88G would incorporate the larger vertical stabilizer from the Ju 188 to improve stability and control at high speed.
Ju 188 vertical stabilizer assembly. [Ju 188E-1(Stand Juni 1943)]As previously stated, the landing gear could prove troublesome due compromises in its design. During early prototyping, JFM (Junkers Flugzeug- und Motorenwerke) redesigned the landing gear into a single strut that would rotate so that it would lie flat beneath the wing when retracted. While this did remove the frontal area that would have seriously impacted the aircraft’s high speed performance, it came at the cost of added complexity and made for a far less robust landing gear arrangement (Medcalf 74, 75). Differing from earlier series, the Ju 88G’s landing gear frames made use of welded cast steel instead of light weight alloys.
The G-1 carried a maximum of 2835 liters (620 gallons) of fuel, with the subsequent G-6 likely having a reduced fuel capacity considering its shorter endurance (Report No. 8 / 151).
Engines and De-icing Systems
The Ju 88R’s BMW 801 engines and engine mounting plate. [Wikimedia]Among the most notable features of the Ju 88 were its use of unitized engine power units and its novel de-icing system. The unitized engine installation incorporated both the engine and associated cooling system into a single module that could be installed or removed from the aircraft relatively quickly, and made storage of components easier. These “kraftei” arrangements existed for the BMW 801 G-2, and, later, Jumo 213 A-1 engines. These engines were fitted with VDM and VS-111 propellers respectively.
Engine Type
Arrangement
Bore
Stroke
Displacement
Weight
Maximum Output
Maximum RPM
Fuel type
BMW 801 G-2
Radial 14
156 mm
156 mm
41.8 liters
1210 kg
1740 PS
2700
C3, 95 octane
Junkers Jumo 213 A-1
Inverted V-12
150 mm
165 mm
35 liters
820 kg
1775 PS [2100 PS MW50]
3250
B4, 87 octane
(Medcalf 323; Ju 88S-1 Flugzeug Handbuch 3, Smith & Creek 687; Jumo 213 13)
The aircraft was also equipped with a de-icing mechanism which took in air, ran it through a heat exchanger around the exhaust ejector stacks, drove it through channels in the wings, and then out over the ailerons (Rodert & Jackson). As the BMW 801 had no exhaust stacks compatible with this system, they made use of a petrol-fired heater to supply air to the de-icing system on the Ju 88G-1 (Report No. 8 / 151).
On left: Exhaust stack heat exchanger. On Right: the wing channel flow area. [Rodert & Jackson]
Cockpit
The crew arrangement on all Ju 88 models would set the entire crew within the canopy and in close contact with one another. The bombardier ,or radar operator, sat to the pilot’s right, a flight engineer/gunner at the pilot’s back, and a ventral gunner sat beside the flight engineer or in a prone position inside the “gondola”, where his weapon was located. Aboard the Ju 88G, the ventral gunner’s position had been omitted with the removal of the gondola, however the positions of the other crew members remained largely unchanged. While these close quarters arrangements were somewhat claustrophobic, they ensured easy communication between the pilot and the rest of the crew at all times. It also made for a much simpler bail out procedure, as half the canopy would detach and allow for a quick escape for all aboard. In the Ju 88G, the crew entered the aircraft through a hatch below the cockpit.
Ju 88G-1 instrument panel. The cables for the radar display are on the right. [albumwar2]The Ju 88G’s cockpit differed heavily from previous fighter versions as a result of added instrumentation and alterations to some of the aircraft’s existing controls. Among the new additions were ammunition counters with space for representing up to six guns, and a Zeiss Revi C.12/D gunsight. This sight differed from previous sets by its new elevation controls and its lack of an anti-glare shield. The front of the canopy was protected by a 10mm armor plate, with the windscreen itself being comprised of four panes of armored glass. The three in front of the pilot were electrically heated to prevent frost formation (Report No. 8 / 151). Work was also done to revise the controls to bring them more in line with other Luftwaffe fighters, perhaps most usefully by the addition of an automatic engine control system and manual propeller pitch control switches being added to the throttles (Brown 194).
Armament
The gunpod of the Ju 88G. [Asisbiz, Ju 88 G-1 Schusswaffenlage Bedienungsvorschrift-Wa]The aircraft’s initial armament consisted of four Mg 151/20 cannons and a defensive MG 131. The cannons were mounted in a ventral pod between the aircraft’s wings and supplied by ammunition belts that occupied the space used as a bomb bay on bomber variants of the airframe. The ammunition belts were loaded with an equal proportion of high explosive ‘mine-shot’, armor piercing, and general purpose high explosive shells. The single 13 mm MG 131 was placed at the rear of the canopy within an armored glass mount and supplied with 500 rounds of armor piercing and high explosive shells in equal proportion (Ju 88G-1 Schusswaffenlage Bedienungsvorschrift-Wa). An armament of upward firing 20mm cannons, being either the MG FF or MG 151/20, were often installed at Luftwaffe field workshops prior to their inclusion to the design in the production run of the G-6 model.
In addition to its cannons, the aircraft could mount ETC 500 underwing racks for bombs and fuel tanks. These racks could each support bombs weighing over 1000kg, though bomb loads in service were light compared to those carried by bomber variants of the Ju 88. These were universal pylons that were added to existing aircraft, an alteration that was fairly simple given the design commonalities with the older Ju 88A-4, and newer Ju 88S medium bombers.
Avionics
In addition to its complement of detection devices, the aircraft carried a variety of tools to aid in navigation and ground direction. Ju 88G’s were typically equipped with the following devices: FuB1 2 (Blind approach receiver), Fug 10P (radio set), FuG 25 (IFF), FuG 101 (Radio altimeter), and the FuG 16zy (radio set).
The FuB1 2 was a blind landing system that guided the aircraft onto a runway by way of two radio beacons placed at 300 m and 3000 m away from one end of the airstrip. It was a tunable device so that airfields could possess separate frequencies between 30 and 33.3 mHz. The aircraft itself carried the Eb1 2 beacon receiver, the Eb1 3F beam receiver, the FBG 2 remote tuner, the AFN 2 approach indicator, the U8 power supply unit, and either a mast or flush antenna (Medcalf 324).
The FuG 10P was a radio developed by Telefunken and was coupled with the Pielgeräte 6 radio direction finder. The device consisted of numerous transmitters and receivers capable of operating at various ranges. One pair, E10 L and EZ 6, operated at between 150-1200kHz, and another, S10 K and E10 K, between 3-6mHz. Other components included the U10/S and U10/E power supply units, and the fixed antenna loading unit AAC 2. Numerous versions existed and made use of various other components. Much of this system was later removed during the production run of the Ju 88G-6 (Medcalf 324).
The FuG 25 “Erstling” was an IFF system manufactured by GEMA that would respond with coded impulses to the ground-based Wurzburg, Freya, and Gemse radar systems up to a range of 100 km. The receiver operated on a frequency of 125 mHz and the transmitter at 160 mHz. The entire unit was contained within the SE 25A unit, with the BG 25A control box in the radio operator’s station (Medcalf 324).
FuG 101 was a radio altimeter designed by Siemens/LGW with a maximum range of 150-170 m and operated on a frequency of 375 mHz at 1.5 kW. Accuracy was within 2 m and the entire system weighed 16 kg. It consisted of the S 101A transmitter, E 101A receiver, U 101 power supply unit, and the pilot’s panel indicator (Medcalf 325).
The FuG 16zy “Ludwig” was a radio manufactured by Lorenz and used for fighter control and directional homing, operating on a frequency range of 38.5 to 42.3 MHz. In Ju 88 night fighters it usually accompanied the Fug 10P radio gear which sat just below the defensive machine gun at the rear of the canopy. It could be set to different frequencies for the Y-control communication system: Gruppenbefehlswelle [between aircraft in formation], Nachischerung und Flugsicherung [between the pilot and the ground control unit], and Reichsjagerwelle [running battle commentary] (Aders 242). It was composed of the S16 Z Tx transceiver, E16 Z and U17 power supply systems, and the loop phasing unit ZWG 16 along with the antenna (Medcalf 324).
The FuG 120A ‘Bernhardine’ was a radio positioning device designed by Siemens to provide navigational assistance and bomber stream intercept information to night fighters by means of a teleprinter in the aircraft’s cockpit. It was intended to overhaul the night fighter force’s air to ground communication infrastructure which faced significant signals interference from the RAF, but the war ended before it entered large scale service. Aircraft could be directed over a range of 400km with position bearings accurate within .5 degrees from ground stations (Medcalf 325, Price 238, 239).
Emergency Equipment
The emergency equipment carried by the Ju 88G. [Ju 88S-1 Flugzeug Handbuch]The Ju 88G would share the same emergency gear as the Ju 88S, this being stowed in a compartment at rear of the fuselage. The largest items of the set were an inflatable raft and an emergency radio beacon, with the contents of the entire compartment being sealed in a waterproof cloak (Ju 88S-1 Flugzeug Handbuch 64).
Production
Junkers Flugzeug und Motorenwerke AG was the sole manufacturer of the Ju 88G and, as was the case with most late war German aircraft, production was conducted at major plants in conjunction with dispersal facilities. The primary production facility for the Gustav was at Bernburg, with two dispersal plants at Fritzlar and Langensalza, each of which would eventually be able to assemble 75 aircraft every month, these being half the capacity of the main Bernburg plant (Medcalf 241, 247).
As with all major fighter projects at the time, large-scale mobilization of labor and material resources was managed by the Jagerstab, an office which built direct links with the RLM (Reichsluftfahrtministerium, the German Air Ministry), regional government officials, and industrialists in order to marshal resources for expanding fighter production. The office was created in response to increasing Allied raids against Germany’s aviation industries and the growing disparity in numbers, which began to strongly favor the Allies as they built up their forces in anticipation for the landings in France. The office was headed by Albert Speer, Minister of Armaments and War production, and aided by Erhard Milch, Generalluftzeugmeister (Air Master General). In spite of the rapidly deteriorating wartime conditions facing all German industries, the office was successful in boosting production, but relied on desperate and illegal measures (Medcalf 229,232). In the fall of 1944, a minimum 72-hour work week was standard, as was the use of forced labor under conditions that were especially poor at the dispersal sites. The acceptance of rebuilt and used parts became ever more commonplace. This, however, did little to offset the clear superiority of the Allies in the air after the Summer of 1944 (Medcalf 247).
Up until April of 1944, the aircraft was built in parallel with decreasing numbers of Ju 88C-6 and Ju 88R, as production at Bernburg transitioned over to the Gustav. Production of the Ju 88G-1 ceased in October as the factories shifted over to the Ju 88G-6 (Medcalf 240). The Bernburg plant was hit twice by the USAAF’s Eight Air Force in February of 1944, which resulted in total stoppages for only a few days, after which production quickly resumed. However, there was a projected loss of over a hundred aircraft per month compared to the averages of the previous year, with a full recovery requiring several months (Medcalf 229).
Ju 88 Production
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
1943
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
13 (+6 pre-production)
1944
12
26
47
169
209
247
239
143
88
10
–
–
5*
14*
138*
189*
222*
308*
178*
1945
168*
35*
19*
Ju 88G-6 production*
Ju 88G-0 Werk Nummern: 710401 through 710406
Ju 88G-1 Werk Nummern: 710407 through 714911
Ju 88G-6 Werk Nummern: 620018 through 623998
Ju 88G-7 Werk Nummern: 240123 through 240125 (~3 built)
Ju 88G-10 Werk Nummern: 460053 through 460162 (~30 built, converted to mistel air to ground weapons)
Variants:
G-0: Preproduction aircraft, the same as G-1
G-1: Production night fighter, powered by BMW 801 G-2 engines
G-2: Proposed zerstorer, powered by the Jumo 213A, was to carry a single MG 131, four MG 15’s, and two MK 103’s. No radar.
G-3: Proposed night fighter, powered by DB 603, same armament as the G-1
G-4: Proposed night fighter, powered by Jumo 213A, with GM-1 boost system
G-5: Proposed night fighter, powered by Jumo 213A
G-6: Production night fighter, powered by Jumo 213A
G-7: The same as G-6 except with Jumo 213E engines with three speed, two stage intercooled superchargers. Output: 1726 HP (1750 PS) unboosted, 2022 HP (2050 PS) with boost at 3250 RPM. Weight: 28,946 lbs (13,130 kg). Speed: 650 km/h at 7.9 km. Experimental.
G-10: Same as G-6 but with an extended fuselage.
(Medcalf 319, 178, 240; Green 448-482; Smith & Creek 687)
Conclusion:
Only a handful of Berlin centimeter band radars would enter service with the Luftwaffe near the end of the war. The system improved the aircraft’s performance across the board, lacking the drag inducing aerials of the SN-2, and it was untroubled by allied jamming or the altitude limitations of older systems. [wikimedia]The Ju 88G would prove a valuable asset to the Luftwaffe’s night fighter forces through its zenith, in the spring of 1944, until its collapse nearly a year later. From a production standpoint the aircraft was phenomenal. It made use of existing supply chains and components from Ju 88 variants that had long been in service prior to its introduction, allowing for a near seamless transition into mass production. In terms of its performance, the initial model would prove exceptional, being far faster and easier to fly than the existing night fighter workhorses, the aging Bf 110G and Ju 88C. The subsequent G-6 model would prove to be even more impressive with the addition of more powerful engines and standardized tail warning equipment.
While the aircraft did have its downsides and couldn’t solve every problem the night fighter service faced, it effectively fulfilled its purpose, and became the most numerous night fighter model in German service by the war’s end.
Specification Charts:
Classification
Aircraft type
Engine
Engine output
Loaded weight
Range
Maximum Speed
Bomber
Ju 88A-4
Jumo 211J
2×1400 PS (2x 1380 hp)
14000 kg, 30864lbs
2430 km, 1510 mi
440 km/h (5.5 km), 273mph (18044ft)
Zerstorer/Night fighter
Ju 88C-6
Jumo 211J
2×1400 PS (2x 1380 hp)
–
–
470 km/h (4.8 km), 292mph (15748ft)
Zerstorer/Night fighter
Ju 88R-2
BMW 801D
2×1740 PS (2×1716 hp)
–
3450 km, 2144 mi
550 km/h (6.2km), 341 mph (20341ft)
Night fighter
Ju 88G-1
BMW 801G
2×1740 PS (2×1716 hp)
12005 kg, 26466lbs
2870 km, 1783 mi
537 km/h (6.2km), 333mph (20341ft)
Night fighter
Ju 88G-6
Jumo 213A
2x 1775 PS [2100 PS], (2×1750 hp [2071 hp])
12300 kg, 27116lbs
~2400km, 1491 mi
554 km/h (6.0km), 344mph (19685ft)
(Medcalf 323, 319, 320; Smith & Creek 687)
*only the G series was tested with radar and exhaust flash hiders fitted, when equipped with these devices the C and R series flew at values lower than the ones presented on this chart
[] denotes performance with the MW50 boost system
Ju 88G-1 (Ju 88G-6)
Specification
Engine
BMW 801 G-2 (Jumo 213 A-1)
Engine Output
2×1740 PS (2x 1774PS [MW50: 2100PS]) : 2×1706 hp (2×1750 hp [2071 hp])
(Ju 88 G-2, G-6, S-3, T-3 Bedienungsvorschrift-Fl 66, 69 Part II; Ju 88G-1,R-2, S-1,T-1 Bedienungsvorschrift-Fl 49, 53 part II; Report No. 8 / 151: Junkers Ju 88 G-1 Night Fighter 2; Medcalf 323, 319, 320)
*Top speeds reflect only the initial production models and do not take into account any boost systems.
BMW 801 G-2 Low supercharger gear (January 1944)
At Height
Output
RPM
Manifold Pressure
Maximum power (3 minutes)
0.9 km
1740 PS
2700
1.42 ata
Combat power (30 minutes)
1.1 km
1540 PS
2400
1.32 ata
Maximum continuous
1.6 km
1385 PS
2300
1.20 ata
Low power, greatest efficiency
2.2 km
1070 PS
2100
1.10 ata
Low power
2.3 km
980 PS
2000
1.05 ata
BMW 801 G-2 High supercharger gear (January 1944)
At Height
Output
RPM
Manifold Pressure
Maximum power (3 minutes)
6.0 km
1440 PS
2700
1.30 ata
Combat power (30 minutes)
5.6 km
1320 PS
2400
1.32 ara
Maximum continuous
5.8 km
1180 PS
2300
1.20 ata
Low power, greatest efficiency
5.7 km
990 PS
2100
1.10 ata
Low power
5.7 km
905 PS
2000
1.05 ata
Engine rated for C3 ~95 octane fuels
(Ju 88S-1 Flugzeug Handbuch 3)
Radar System
Practical Maximum range
Minimum range
Search angle-azimuth
Search angle-elevation
Frequency
Output
Array
Other notes
FuG 220 Lichtenstein SN-2c & SN-2d
8km (instrumented)
Altitude dependent
300m
120 degrees
100 degrees
73/82/91 MHz later changed to 37.5-118 MHz dispersal band
2.5kW
Stag antler (Hirschgeweih), few examples of low drag morningstar array (Morgenstern)
SN-2d had a narrower beam width, was combined with tail warning radar, and performed better against jamming. Standard production radar for the Ju 88G.
FuG 217 Neptun V/R
Altitude dependent
400m
120 degrees
–
Two click stop frequencies of 158 amd 187 MHz
–
Rod or stag antler
FuG 217R was the tail warning radar component
FuG 218 Neptun V/R
Altitude dependent
120m
120 degrees
–
Six click stop frequencies between 158-187 MHz
–
stag antler
FuG 218R was the tail warning component
FuG 228 Lichtenstein SN-3
Altitude dependent
250m
120 degrees
100 degrees
115-148 MHz
20kW
Stag antler, morningstar
ten sets built
FuG 240/1 Berlin N-1a
~9km
300m
55 degrees
–
9-9.3cm (3,250-3,330 MHz)
15kW
Parabolic antenna
25 sets built, 10 delivered for service, 1945
This chart is only for operational and experimental radar usage aboard the Ju 88G, it does not include earlier radars or specialized sets designed for other aircraft.
*The morgenstern (eng. morningstar) aerial is often misidentified as a separate search radar or exclusive to either the SN-2d or SN-3, it is a low drag aerial arrangement compatible with either device.
Ju 88G-1 [4R+UR], 7. Staffel/NJG2 flown by Hans Mackle, WNr. 712273. This is a relatively early production Ju 88G equipped with an FuG 220 SN-2c search radar and a FuG 227 Flensburg radar detector.Ju 88G-6 [C9+AC], Stab II./NJG5 Hans Leickhardt, 1944. This late production G6 used a rare “morningstar” low drag array for its SN-2d combined search and tail warning radar set. While the SN-2’s faced considerable jamming and chaff interference, the series still was still improved upon, focusing on its still usable bands and developing more aerodynamically efficient antennas. This plane was also equipped with a Naxos radar detected which was installed within the fairing over the cockpit.Ju 88G-1 [2Z+HM], 4. Staffel/NJG6 Aschaffenburg, Germany 1945. While this is a relatively early production Ju 88G it was later refitted with the SN-2d as can be seen from the angle on the nose mounted dipoles and the tail warning array. This aircraft also received a pair of upward firing cannons and a Naxos radar detector.Junkers Ju 88G-6 [C9+AR], 6. Staffel/NJG5 Dubendorf, Switzerland, 1945. A late war Ju 88G-6 equipped with a FuG 218 G/R Neptun combined search and tail warning radar set, and while it lacks the fairing typically used for installing the Naxos radar detector there was by this point a fuselage mounted model designed for the Ju 88G. Unlike the SN-2R, the FuG 218R tail warning radar sits at the top of the vertical stabilizer rather than below it.Junkers Ju 88G-6 [4R+EP], 6. Staffel/NJG2 Fritzlar 1945. This aircraft is a good example of the lax camouflage regulations for the Luftwaffe’s night fighters. While aircraft were delivered in white-grey liveries the air and ground crews were free to devise their own patterns.Ju 88G-6 [C9+HB], 1. Staffel/NJG5, 1945. This aircraft was equipped with an extremely rare FuG 240 Berlin centimeter band search radar. While it presented many major improvements over previous Luftwaffe aerial search radars, only a few were delivered near the end of the war. The radar’s parabolic antenna sits behind the wooden nose cone which created far less drag compared to the ‘antlers’ that were used by the older meter band radars. This aircraft and others that carry late war radar sets are typically misidentified as Ju 88G-7’s. Due to the overlap between that type and very late production G-6’s, identifying them can only be done through their Werk-Nummer.With its nose mounted Mg 151/20, Hptm. Johannes Strassner’s Ju 88G had perhaps the most peculiar Schräge Musik arrangement of any night fighter. (Boiten P4 30) [Asisbiz]One of the most obvious differences between the Gustav and other Ju 88 fighters was the removal of the nose mounted weapons to a ventral pod, where muzzle flashes would not disturb the pilot, and the empty area that once served as a bomb bay would offer a much larger capacity for ammunition. Also visible here is the larger vertical stabilizer. [warbirdphotographs.com]A Flensburg aerial, one of several mounted to a Ju 88G [asisbiz.com]The capture of a Ju 88G-1 proved to be one the most valuable Allied intelligence coups of the war and, for the Germans, a source of endless trouble. [i.pinimg.com]Many of the Luftwaffe’s ‘blindworm’ makeshift airfields were later overrun by allied forces, here American personnel inspect Ju 88G-6’s and Bf 110G-4’s hidden in a forest clearing. [SmallScaleArt]Despite its growing obsolescence and degraded performance in the face of RAF jamming efforts, the SN-2 saw continued development. Its last versions used morningstar aerials encased within wooden nosecones to reduce drag.[Asisbiz]
A restored Ju 88G-1 fuselage in the Berlin Technikmuseum. (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-eWzHzdTpJNo/TVqQOv6IFHI/AAAAAAAACVI/gvX4yAaLL_0/w1200-h630-p-k-no-nu/ju88berlin0.jpg )
Primary Sources
Air Intelligence 2 (g) Inspection of Crashed or Captured Enemy Aircraft Report Serial No. 242 dated 16th July 1944 Report No. 8 / 151: Junkers Ju 88 G-1 Night Fighter. 1944.
Fw-190 A-5/A-6 Flugzeug-Handbuch (Stand August 1943). Der Reichsminister der Luftfahrt und Oberbefehlshaber der Luftwaffe, Berlin. December 8, 1943.
Handbuch fur die Flugmotoren BMW 801 MA-BMW 801 ML-BMW 801C und BMW 801D Baureihen 1 und 2. BMW Flugmotorenbau-Gessellschaft m.b.H. Munich. May, 1942.
Junkers Flugmotor Jumo 213 A-1 u. C-0. Junkers Flugzeug und Motorenwerke Aktiengesellschaft, Dessau. December, 1943.
Ju 88S-1 Flugzeug Handbuch. Junkers Flugzeug und Motorenwerke A.G., Dessau. 1944.
Ju 88A-4 Bedienungsvorschrift-FL Bedienung und Wartung des Flugzeuges. Der Reichsminister der Luftfahrt und Oberbefehlshaber der Luftwaffe, Berlin. July 19, 1941.
Ju 188E-1 (Stand Juni 1943). Junkers Flugzeug und Motorenwerke Aktiengesellschaft, Dessau. June 1, 1943.
Ju 88G-1 Schusswaffenlage Bedienungsvorschrift-Wa (Stand Oktober 1943). Der Reichsminister der Luftfahrt und Oberbefehlshaber der Luftwaffe, Berlin. November, 1943.
Ju 88 G-1,R-2, S-1,T-1 Bedienungsvorschrift-Fl (Stand November 1943). Der Reichsminister der Luftfahrt und Oberbefehlshaber der Luftwaffe, Berlin. December 1, 1943.
Ju 88 G-2, G-6, S-3, T-3 Bedienungsvorschrift-Fl (Stand September 1944). 1944.
Rodert, L. A., & Jackson, R. (1942). A DESCRIPTION OF THE Ju 88 AIRPLANE ANTI-ICING EQUIPMENT (Tech.). Moffett Field, CA: NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR AERONAUTICS. 1942.
Secondary Sources
Aders, Gebhard. German Night Fighter Force, 1917-1945. Stroud: Fonthill, 2016.
Bauer, A. O. (2006, December 2). Some Aspects of German Airborne Radar Technology, 1942 to 1945 [Scholarly project]. In Foundation for German Communication and Related Technologies. Retrieved from https://www.cdvandt.org/
Bauer, Arthur O. “Stichting Centrum Voor Duitse Verbindings- En Aanverwante Technologieën 1920-1945.” Foundation for German communication and related technologies (History of Technology), December 2, 2006. https://www.cdvandt.org/.
Boitens, Theo. Nachtjagd Combat Archive 24 July – 15 October 1944 Part 4. Red Kite . 2021.
Boitens, Theo. Nachtjagd Combat Archive 16 October – 31 December Part 5 1944. Red Kite . 2021.
Boitens, Theo. Nachtjagd Combat Archive, 1 January – 3 May 1945. Red Kite . 2022.
Brown, L. A radar history of World War II: Technical and military imperatives. Bristol: Institute of Physics Pub. 1999
Brown, Eric Melrose. Wings of the Luftwaffe. Hikoki, 2010.
Cooper, M. The German Air Force, 1933-1945: An Anatomy of Failure. Jane’s Pub, 1981.
Green, William. The warplanes of the Third Reich (1st ed.). London: Doubleday. pp. 448–482, 1972.
Manfred Griehl, Nachtjäger über Deutschland, 1940-1945: Bf 110, Ju 88, He 219 (Wölfersheim-Berstadt: Podzun-Pallas-Verlag, 1999).
Medcalf, William A. Junkers Ju 88 Volume One From Schnellbomber to Multi-Mission War Plane. Manchester, UK: Chevron Publishing Limited , 2013.
Medcalf, William A. Junkers Ju 88 Volume Two The Bomber at War Day and Night Operational and service history. Manchester, UK: Chevron Publishing Limited , 2014.
Holpp, Wolfgang. “The Century of Radar.” EADS Deutschland GmbH
Holm, M. (1997). The Luftwaffe, 1933-45. Retrieved February, 2021, from https://www.ww2.dk/
Overy, Richard James. The Bombing War: Europe 1939-1945. London: Penguin Books, 2014.
Price, Alfred. Instruments of Darkness: the History of Electronic Warfare, 1939-1945. Barnsley, S. Yorkshire: Frontline Books, 2017.
Sharp, C. Martin, and Bowyer Michael J F. Mosquito. Bristol: Crecy Books, 1997.
Smith, J. R., & Creek, E. J. (2014). Focke-Wulf Fw 190, Volume 3: 1944-1945. Manchester: Crecy Publishing.
The Ju 87A [warbirdphotographs.com]Prior to the Second World War, the Germans were experimenting with how to increase the accuracy of air bombing attacks. One solution was to use dive attacks, which greatly increased the chance of hitting the desired targets. By the mid-30s, a number of German aircraft manufacturing companies were experimenting with planes that could fulfill these dive bomb attacks. The Junkers Ju 87 proved to be the most promising design and would be adopted for service. The Ju 87 would become one of most iconic aircraft of the Second World War, being feared for its precise strikes, but also for its unique use of sirens for psychological warfare.
History
After the First World War, the Germans began experimenting with ideas on how to make aircraft more precise during ground attack operations. The use of conventional bombers that dispatched their payload from straight and level flight could effectively engage larger targets, such as urban centers, industrial facilities, infrastructure, etc. This method was less effective for destroying smaller targets, like bunkers or bridges. A dive-attack, on the other hand, provided a greater chance of hitting smaller targets and, to some extent, reduced the chance of being shot down by ground based enemy anti-aircraft fire. This concept of dive-attack aircraft would be studied and tested in detail by the Germans during the 1930s. These aircraft would be known as Sturzkampfbomber (dive-bomber), but generally known as Stukas.
The development of such aircraft was greatly hindered by the prohibitions imposed by the Treaty of Versailles. To overcome this, some German companies simply opened smaller subsidiaries in other countries. In the case of the Junkers, a subsidiary company known as Flygindustri was opened in Sweden. There, they developed a K 47 two-seater fighter in 1929. It was tested for the role of dive-bomber and proved successful. But its price was too high for the German Luftwaffe to accept, so it was rejected.
The Junkers K 47 was a two-seater fighter from 1929. While showing to possess good dive-attack characteristics, due to its price, it was not adopted for service. [Wiki]As a temporary solution, the Germans adopted the He 50 in 1932. The following year, a more comprehensive test of the dive-bombing concept was undertaken at airbase Juterbog-Damm. During these trials, Ju-52 bombers were used. The overall results were disappointing, thus development of a completely new dedicated design was prioritized by the Germans. For this, Luftwaffe officials placed an order with all aircraft manufacturers to present their models for the dive-bomber competition.
In late 1933, the Junkers dive-bomber development project was carried out by engineer Herman Pohlmann. He stressed the importance of an overall robust aircraft design in order to be able to withstand steep diving maneuvers. Additionally, it should have had fixed landing gear and be built using all-metal construction.
The next year, a fully completed wooden mock-up with inverted gull wings and twin tail fins was built by Junkers. Officials from the German Aviation Ministry (Reichsluftfahrtministerium RLM) inspected the mock-up during late 1934, but they were not impressed and didn’t place a production order. Despite this, Junkers continued working on the project. Junkers soon began construction of a full scale prototype. Due to many delays with the design, construction of the project dragged into October 1935. The first prototype received the Ju 87 V1 designation, bearing serial number 4921. Somewhat surprisingly, it was powered by a 640 hp Rolls-Royce Kestrel 12 cylinder engine. The first test flight was completed in September 1935 by test pilot Willi Neuenhofen. While the first flight was generally successful, the use of a foreign engine was deemed unsatisfactory and it was requested that a domestic built engine be used instead. The V1 prototype would be lost in an accident when one of the twin tail fins broke off during a dive test near Dresden. Both the pilot Willi Neuenhofen and the second passenger, engineer Heinrich Kreft, lost their lives. The examination of the wreckage showed that the fin design was too weak and thus had to be replaced with a simple conventional tail fin.
The V1 prototype could be easily identified by its twin tail fin design. [warbirdphotographs.com]Ju 87 V2 (serial number 4922 and with tail code D-UHUH (later changed to D-IDQR) was built with the 610 hp Jumo 210 A engine and had a redesigned tail fin. Another addition was the installation of special slats that could be rotated at 90° forward, perpendicular to the underside of the wing, acting as dive brakes. The V2 also received a specially designed bomb release mechanism, meant to avoid accidentally hitting the lowered radiator and the propeller. When the pilot activated the bomb release during a dive, the specially designed cradle would simply swing forward. In essence, this catapulted the bomb safely away from the plane while still maintaining its trajectory toward the target. There were a number of delays with the redesign of the airframe, which led to V2’s first flight being made during late February 1936. While the test flight was successful, the Luftwaffe officials showed some reluctance with regards to the project, given the fate of the first prototype. Nevertheless, the Ju 87, together with the He 118, Ha 137 and Ar 81, were used in a dive-bomber competition. The initial results favored the Heinkel, but when the He 118 was lost during one of its test flights together with the engine problems, the RLM proclaimed the Ju 87 as the winner.
The unsuccessful He 118 aircraft. [Wiki]The Ju 87 V2 prototype. [warbirdphotographs.com]Winning the competition for the new dive-bomber design, Junkers was instructed to build more prototypes to improve the overall performance of the Ju 87. The V3 (serial number 4923 and designation D-UKYQ) received a number of modifications. It had an enlarged tailfin, added counterweights on the elevators, a modified landing gear, and a redesigned engine cowl to improve forward visibility. The first test flight was made in March of 1936.
The V4 (serial number 4924 and with D-UBIP) was further modified by once again increasing the size of the tailfin, adding forward firing machine guns, a rear defensive machine gun, and again redesigning the front engine compartment. It was powered by the Jumo 210 Aa engine. It was flight tested for the first time in June 1936. During its test flight, the maximum cruising speed achieved was 250 km/h (155 mph). The RLM would become increasingly concerned about the Ju 87 design, as this cruising speed was the same as that of the older He 50. Despite this, the handling and resilience of the whole airframe were deemed satisfactory. The V4 prototype would later serve as the base for the A-0 pre-production series. The last prototype, V5 (serial number 4925), was built in May 1936. It was built to test the installation of the DB 600 and Jumo 210 engines.
The V4 prototype, which served as base of the A-0 pre-production series. In addition, it was the first Ju 87 aircraft to see real combat action during the Spanish Civil War. [warbirdphotographs.com]
The Ju 87 ‘Anton’ Introduction
Following the success of the prototype series, the RLM officials issued orders for more Ju 87 aircraft. This would lead to a small production run of between 7 to 10 aircraft of the Ju 87A-0 pre-series aircraft (A for Anton, according to the German phonetic alphabet). While the first A-0 aircraft were to be built starting in November 1935, due to a number of delays, the actual production began in the spring of 1936. Following a series of tests conducted on the A-0 aircraft at the end of 1936, it was determined that these planes, equipped with the Jumo 210 Aa engine, were underpowered. A number of the A-0 aircraft would receive a new 680 hp Jumo 210 D engine as an upgrade. The A-0’s rear fuselage was also lowered to provide the rear gunner with a better firing arc. For the radio equipment, two ‘V’ shaped antennas were placed around the cockpit.
Further development led to the Ju 87A-1, which was powered by the Jumo 210 D as standard. The A-1 series was able to carry one 250 kg (550 lbs) bomb in its standard two man crew configuration. Alternatively, it could carry one 500 kg (1100 lbs) bomb but, in this case, the rear machine gunner had to be left behind.
The last version of the series was the Ju 87A-2. It was slightly improved by adding better radio equipment. In addition, the engine performance was improved, along with a new two-stage compressor, and a new propeller.
Technical Characteristics
The Ju 87A was designed as a single-engined, twin-seat all metal dive bomber. Its fuselage was built by connecting two oval-shaped sections with a simple structure design. The longerons consisted of long shaped strips which spanned across the longitudinal direction of the aircraft. These had a ‘U’ shape which was connected to the duralumin skin by rivets.
For construction of the Ju 87’s wings, Junkers engineers employed the doppelüger (a double wing construction). This meant that the full-span ailerons were hinged near the trailing edge of the wings. Another feature of the wings was that they had an inverted gull design. This was done intentionally by the Junkers engineers in an attempt to provide the crew members with the best possible all around visibility. The Ju 87 fuselage and wings were covered with a combination of duralumin and magnesium alloy sheeting. While the V1 prototype was equipped with twin tail fins, the A-series was equipped with a more orthodox tail design. The tailplanes had a rectangular shape, while the rudder had a square shape.
Rear view of the Ju 87A [asisbiz.com]The landing gear was fixed. It consisted of two larger front wheels, with one smaller tailwheel to the rear. The front landing gear and wheels were covered in large protective fairings, sometimes known as “spats.” This arrangement would prove to be problematic, and would later be replaced with a much simpler design.
The Ju 87 had a distinguishable fixed landing gear, protected by a larger housing. This design would be simplified in later version. [asisbiz.com]The Ju 87 engine was mounted specifically to provide easy access for replacement or maintenance. It was powered by an inline Jumo 210 D water cooled engine, with a variable pitch propeller with a 3.3 m diameter. The fuel capacity was 480 liters, placed in two tanks. The fuel tanks were located in the center part of the curved wings.
The Ju 87 had a large cockpit where the pilot and the rear gunner were positioned in a back-to-back configuration. The center of the canopy assembly was reinforced by a durable section of cast magnesium, meant to provide better structural integrity. The cockpit was also protected with a fire-resistant asbestos firewall. On the A-series, the pilot was responsible for operating the radio equipment. This task would be allocated to the rear gunner in later versions. The radio equipment consisted of a FuG VII radio receiver and transmitter.
The Ju 87A-1 was armed with one forward mounted 7.92 mm MG 17 and a rear positioned MG 15, also firing 7.92 mm, fitted on a flexible mount. The offensive armament consisted of either a 250 kg or 500 kg bomb (550 to 1100 lbs). When the larger bomb was used, the rear crew member had to be left behind. A small number of aircraft were equipped with bomb racks for four 50 kg (110 lbs) mounted under the wings. These were actually used for training purposes, as the bombs were actually made of concrete.
Diving Operation
The Ju 87 pilot would commence the dive-bombing run once the target was identified. The target would be located through a bombsight which was placed in the cockpit floor. The attack would usually be carried out from an altitude of less than 4,600 meters. The aircraft would then be rolled around by the pilot until it was upside down. The Ju 87 would then engage its target at an angle of attack of 60 to 90°, with a speed of 500 to 600 km/h (310-370 mph). During these dive-bombing runs, there was a chance the pilot could temporarily lose consciousness due to extensive G-forces. If the pilot was unable to pull up, a ground collision was a strong possibility. To avoid this, the Ju 87 was equipped with automatic dive brakes that would simply level out the plane at a safe altitude. Once the plane reached a level flight, the brakes would then disengage. The Ju 87 was also equipped with warning lights that informed the pilot when it was time to release the bomb.
Germans conducted extensive research to determine how much G-force a pilot could endure without any medical problems. The testing revealed that the pilot could overcome a 4G force without problems. At 5G , the pilot would experience blurred vision. The maximum G-forces were noted to be 8.5 G but only for three seconds. Any more could lead to extensive injuries or even death.
Illustration of a Ju 87 dive-attack run. Source Pinterest
Organization
The Ju 87 were used to equip the so-called Sturzkampfgeschwader or simply StG (dive-bomber flight unit). The StG was divided into three Gruppen (groups). Each of these groups was further divided into three Staffel (squadrons).
In Combat
The Ju 87 saw its first combat action during the Spanish Civil War that lasted from 1936 to 1939. The Germans saw this war as the perfect place to test their new aircraft designs. For this reason, one V4 prototype was secretly disassembled and transported on a passenger ship to Spain in August 1936. It was part of the experimental unit (Versuchskommando) VK/88 (or VJ/88, depending on the source) of the Condor Legion. The overall performance or even the use of this aircraft is generally unknown. During this conflict, it received the designation 29-1. It may have taken part in the Battle of Bilbao in June of 1937, after which it was shipped back to Germany.
In early 1938, three more aircraft of the A-1 series were shipped to Spain. These received the 29-2, 29-3, and 29-4 designations. They were given to the 1st Staffel of Sturzkampfgeschwader 162 (dive bomber wing). While only three aircraft were used by this unit their original designations were often replaced with higher numbers in an atempt to decive the enemy. The initial pilots of these aircraft were Ernst Bartels, Hermann Hass, and Gerhard Weyert. The Germans would replace them with new crew members after some time, in the hope of increasing the number of pilots with experience operating the aircraft under combat situations.
Their initial base of operations was an airfield near Zaragoza, Spain. There were some problems with the forward landing gear covers, which would dig into the ground on the sandy soil of the airfield. To resolve this issue, the crews simply removed them. The use of a larger 500 kg bomb required the removal of the rear gunner, so the smaller 250 kg bomb load was more frequently used.
In March 1938,, the three Ju 87s attempted to attack retreating Spanish Republican units at the Aragon with somewhat limited success. The attacks were less successful, mainly due to the inexperience of the pilots. From July 1938 on, the Ju 87 showed more promising performance during the Spanish Republican failed counterattack at the Ebro River and Mequinenza. By October, all three Ju 87 As were shipped back to Germany.
A Ju 87A during the Spanish Civil War [Wiki]The overall performance of the A-series was deemed insufficient for combat operations early on. This, together with the fact that the improved Ju 87B version was becoming available in increasing numbers, leading to a withdrawal of the A version from service. These would be reallocated to training units, and would be used in this role up to 1944.
The Ju 87A would see only limited combat service, being mostly allocated to training units [warbirdphotographs.com]
In Hungarian Service
During the war the Germans provided their Hungarian ally with four Ju 87A aircraft. These were used mostly for crew training in later stages of the war.
Hungarian Ju 87A [Hungarian Air Forces 1920-1945]
Production and Modifications
Production of the Ju 87 ended by the summer of 1938. By that time, some 262 were built by the Junkers factories located in Dessau (192) and Bremen (70). These numbers are according to M. Griehl (Junkers Ju 87 Stuka). Author D. Nešić (Naoružanje Drugog Svetsko Rata-Nemačka), on the other hand, notes a number of 400 aircraft being built.
The main versions were:
Ju 87 Prototype series – Five prototypes were built and used mostly for testing.
Ju 87A-0 – A small pre-production series.
Ju 87A-1 – Main production version.
Ju 87A-2 – Slightly improved A-1 aircraft.
Conclusion
While the Ju 87A fulfilled the role of dive-bomber well, it was shown to be inadequately developed to meet military requirements. For this reason, it was mainly issued for crew training. Its main success was that it provided the German with an excellent base for improvement and development of further aircraft. It also provided the German pilots with valuable experience in such dive-bombing flights.
Ju 87A-1 Specifications
Wingspans
45 ft 3 in / 13.8 m
Length
35 ft 4 in / 10.78 m
Height
12 ft 9 in / 3.9 m
Wing Area
104 ft² / 31.9 m²
Engine
Junkers Jumo 210D 680 hp engine
Empty Weight
5,070 lbs / 2,300 kg
Maximum Takeoff Weight
7,500 lbs / 3,400 kg
Fuel Capacity
480 liters / 127 US gallons
Maximum Speed
200 mph / 320 km/h
Cruising speed
170 mph / 275 km/h
Range
620 miles / 1,000 km
Maximum Service Ceiling
22,970 ft / 7,000 m
Crew
One pilot and the Rear Gunner
Armament
One forward mounted 7.92 mm MG17 and one 7.92 mm MG15 positioned to the rear
One 550 lb (250 kg) bomb for two-seaster
Or one 1100 lb (500 kg) bomb in the single-seater configuration.
Gallery
Illustrations by Carpaticus
Ju 87A with an unusual winter camouflageJu 87A-1 from the Dive bomber school 1, operated during winter 1940-1941Ju 87A used for pilot training in late 1939Ju 87 A-1 1st Staffel of Sturzkampfgeschwader 162 during the Spanish Civil War
Credits
Article by Marko P.
Edited by Stan L. & Ed J.
Illustrations by David Bocquelet & Carpaticus
M. Griehl (2006) Junkers Ju 87 ‘Stuka’, AirDOC.
M. Guardia (2014) Junkers ju 87 Stuka, Osprey Publishing
D. Nešić (2008). Naoružanje Drugog Svetsko Rata-Nemačka. Tampoprint S.C.G. Beograd.
D. Monday. (2006). The Hamlyn Concise Guide To Axis Aircraft OF World War II, Bounty Books.
Z. Bašić (2018) Građanski Rat U španiji 1936-1939, Čigoja Štampa.
G. Sarhidai, H. Punka and V. Kozlik. (1996) Hungarian Air Forces 1920-1945, Hikoki Publisher
Nazi Germany (1938)
Tactical Reconnaissance Aircraft – 13-18 Built
The Second Bv 141 Prototype (V1) – Colorized by Michael Jucan
During the Second World War, the Germans would design and build a number of unusual aircraft (the Me 163 or the He 111 Zwilling, for example), but none was so unorthodox and strange as the Bv 141. In order to provide good visibility for its reconnaissance role, the crew gondola was completely separated from the aircraft’s fuselage. While small numbers were built, during testing it was shown to have decent flying characteristics for its completely unconventional design.
History
In 1937, the German Ministry of Aviation (Reichsluftfahrtministerium RLM) issued a request to all German aircraft manufacturers for a new single-engine reconnaissance aircraft with provision for three crew members. Great attention was to be dedicated to having a good all-around visibility. In addition, the aircraft would also have to be able to act as a light attack, and smokescreen laying aircraft. Three aircraft manufacturers responded to this request, Arado, Focke Wulf, and Blohm und Voss. Of these, Blohm & Voss would submit the most distinctive design to say at least.
While at first glance, the Ha 141 (as it was known at the start of the project, with the ‘Ha’ designation stands for Hamburger Flugzeugbau) appears to be created by someone with no experience whatsoever in aircraft design. This was not actually the case. In reality, the Ha 141 was designed by Dr. Ing. Richard Vogt, who was Chief Designer at Blohm und Voss for the new reconnaissance aircraft. The Ha 141 was to have an unusual design, as the crew was put into a well-glazed gondola, with the fuselage with and engine to the left. During his initial calculations, Dr. Vogt predicted, successfully, that the large crew gondola would act as a counterbalance to the long left-side engine fuselage.
When Dr. Ing. Richard Vogt presented his plans to the Ministry of Aviation, the officials were quite uninterested in such an unorthodox design, and the story of the Ha 141 would have ended there. Not willing to give up on his idea so easily, the Blohm und Voss company financed the construction of the first prototype with its own funding. The prototype was completed early in 1938 and the name was changed to Bv 141. It made its maiden flight on the 25th of February that year. The flight went well, without any major problems. The only issue was a slight oscillation of the landing gear. When it was presented to the Luftwaffe officials, they were surprised by its performance and ordered a production run of three more prototypes. Interestingly, after some negotiations with Blohm & Voss, their prototype was included in this order and two more aircraft were actually built. The first prototype was marked as V0 and would be later rebuilt into the Bv 141 V2 prototype and tested with the BMW 139F engine. The Luftwaffe officials only requested that the crew gondola be completely redesigned, internally and externally, to incorporate a larger working space, and to be almost completely glazed, quite similar in design to the Fw 189. Bv 141 V1, actually the second produced aircraft, was used to test the aircraft’s general flight performance. The V3 made its first test flight on 5th October 1938 and was used mainly to test the BMW 132N engine.
After the first prototype was shown to the Luftwaffe officials order few more to be built for future testing [luftwaffephotos.com]By 1939, an additional two more aircraft were built. The V4, that was to be sent to the Erprobungstelle Testing Center at Rechlin, had an accident during landing. After the repairs were made, it was finally flight tested at Rechlin. It performed well and it was liked by the pilots that had the chance to fly it. It also underwent a number of different weapon tests. Once all these tests were completed, the V4 prototype was chosen for modification into the first A-series. After that, a small series of the A version, five aircraft in total, were built and used mostly for testing and development of new improvements at Rechlin. Some were stationed at Aufklärungsschule 1 (Training School 1) at Großenhain. While the A-2 would be rebuilt into a training airframe in May 1942, the fate of the remaining aircraft of this series is unknown. Likely, all were scrapped. Depending on the sources the A-series aircraft were powered by a 1,000 hp BMW Bramo 323 radial engine.
A rear view of the Bv 141 V4 prototype. [luftwaffephotos.com]Following these tests, the Bv 141 received positive reports about its overall performance. There were also discussions about its mass production. Despite this, the whole project was officially canceled on 4th April 1940. The main reason was the Luftwaffe high officials’ distrust of the design. The official reason for rejection of the Bv 141 was noted as ‘underpowered,’ despite its good performance.
Technical Characteristics
The Bv 141 was a uniquely designed single-engine all-metal aircraft. It did not have a standard fuselage, with the engine in the front and the crew behind it. The crew gondola and the fuselage with the engine were completely separate from each other. Both were located slightly off the center of the wings. The crew gondola was placed on the right, with the engine to the left.
The glazed crew gondola is quite visible here [luftwaffephotos.com]The first A-series aircraft had a wingspan of 15 m (49 ft 3 in). The Bv 141 was initially powered by a 865 hp BMW 132N 9-cylinder radial engine. It used a constant speed propeller. Behind the engine, the 490 l fuel tank was placed.
Close up view of the initially used 865 km/h BMW 132N engine. While weaker than the later engine used, its performance was much better and offered a much more pleasant flight. [luftwaffephotos.com]The tail design was changed during the Bv 141’s development. Initially, a standard tail design was used. This would later be replaced with a forward leaning, asymmetric tailplane, offset to port side. The unusual shape of the new tailplane had the intent of providing the rear gunner with the best available firing arc. It only had one elevator, which had a larger surface area than the previous model. Surprisingly, the aircraft’s good performance was left unchanged after the introduction of the asymmetric tailplane.
The landing gear was more or less standard for its time. The front landing gear consisted of two large wheels that retracted outwards into the leading edges of the wings. To the rear, there was a small landing wheel that retracted to the back and slightly protruded out of the fuselage.
The landing gear on the Bv 141 were standard type at the time, consisting of two forward landing wheels and one smaller to the rear [luftwaffephotos.com]The first crew gondola had fewer glazed surfaces than the later used models. In general, it provided the crew with excellent front, rear, and right-side views of the surroundings. The left view was partly obscured because of the engine.
The Bv 141 pilot front gondola interior [luftwaffephotos.com]The armament consisted of four 7.92 mm machine guns. Two MG 17 forward firing fixed machine guns were placed in the forward nacelle. These were operated by the pilot, who used a Revi aim sight. To the rear, one defensive MG 15 was placed in a small circular cupola atop of the Bv 141. The last MG 15 was positioned to the rear of the aircraft. The Bv 141 could also carry four 50 kg (110 lb) bombs.
The pilot was positioned on the left side of the englazed nose of the gondola. Next to him was the position of the observer, who also acted as bombardier in case the Bv 141 was used for ground attack. The observer also had the job of operating the radio and the machine gun placed in the small circular cupola. Interestingly, because he performed different tasks, his seat was connected to two tracks which enabled him to move freely inside the gondola without getting up. The third crew member operated the rear defensive machine gun.
The Bv 141 pilot had a large glazed gondola where the crew was positioned. It offered a good all round view (except to the right side where the engine was). [luftwaffephotos.com]The front view of the first Bv 141 prototype built by Blohm und Voss. [luftwaffephotos.com]
Last Hope for Production
With the cancelation of the Bv 141A series due to allegedly poor engine performance, Dr. Ing. Richard Vogt immediately began working on an improved version. In order to address the concerns made by the Luftwaffe regarding its engine, the Blohm & Voss designers decided to use the stronger 1,560 hp BMW 801A 14-cylinder two-row engine. Unbeknownst to them, this decision would actually doom the whole project.
With the new engine, other changes to the overall design had to be made. The wings had to be reinforced and their span increased to 17.46 m (57 ft 3 in). In addition, the leading and trailing edges had to be redesigned. The rear part of the fuselage’s design was also changed. The landing gear was also improved by adding much stronger landing gear wheels. The armament appears to have been reduced to three machine guns (the sources are not clear here), while the bomb load remained the same.
The top view of one of few built Bv 141B series. While intended to improve the Bv 141A series performance, it was never achieved successfully. [luftwaffephotos]All these changes would lead to the development of the Bv 141B series. The first mock-up was completed in February 1940. The first test flight was made on the 9th January 1941. This time, the Luftwaffe officials showed interest in it, especially after installing the much stronger engine. While Blohm & Voss received permission to build five aircraft of the B-series, the order was increased by five more. Initial calculations showed that it could reach speeds up to 480 km/h (300 mph), at least in theory. Almost immediately, the Bv 141B aircraft proved to be plagued with many problems. The controls were difficult to use and the plane was prone to mechanical faults, especially regarding the landing gear and the hydraulic systems. A huge issue was also created by the strong vibrations that occurred during the test flights. In addition, during firing trials, it was noted that cordite fumes would accumulate in the cockpit from the guns.
The Luftwaffe’s initial enthusiasm for this unusual aircraft quickly faded away. While the tests on the Bv 141 would go on for a few more years, the Fw 189 would be chosen instead. Despite this setback, Dr. Vogt would continue on working on similar and improved designs during the war. Due to urgent requests for more ‘normal’ planes, he was ultimately forced to abandon his work and, besides some proposals, he never got a chance to build another such aircraft during the war. The last mention of the Bv 141 B-10 was in May of 1944, when it was used to tow another unusual design from Blohm and Voss, the experimental Bv 40 armed glider.
A group of three Bv 141 aircraft during one of many test flights [luftwaffephotos]
Operational Use
The Blohm und Voss Bv 141 [luftwaffephotos.com]The second BV 141B prototype was allocated to Aufklärungsschule 1 (Reconnaissance Training Unit) in 1941, stationed at Grossenhain. It appears that its performance was deemed satisfactory, as more aircraft were requested in order to form at least one operational test unit for use on the Eastern Front. This was never implemented, mostly due to two reasons. The Blohm und Voss factories were redirected to higher priority projects, and since the Fw 189 was accepted for service, there was no real need for another reconnaissance aircraft.
Some sources, like the book Aircraft of World War II by C. Chant, mention that it was used in test flights over the UK and the Soviet Union during its short operational service.
Use After the War
The fate of the small number of Bv 141s produced is not known. While the majority were scrapped, some managed to survive until war’s end. One Bv 141 was actually captured by the Soviet Forces near the end of the war. This aircraft would be flight tested by the British pilot Captain Eric Brown. He was the chief test pilot of the Royal Aircraft Establishment at Farnborough. He was involved in a British project tasked with taking over German war research installations and interrogating technical personnel after the war.
The single Bv 141 was relocated to an auxiliary airfield near the town of Meissen. When Captain Brown arrived, Soviet soldiers were already taking anything that was of use from the airfield and destroying everything else. After making a request to the Soviets to see if the aircraft could be flown, the Soviets approved. He was instructed to conduct a short flight around the airfield, and to beware of possible engine malfunctions due to the general poor state of the aircraft.
Captain Eric Brown described the flight with the Bv 141 as follows. “With the flaps set to start, there was surprisingly little take-off swing, although I had expected rather a lot. The run was short, but I found the undercarriage took a long time to retract, although I suspected the hydraulics were sluggish after a long period of disuse.
The climb was mediocre at a speed of 189 km/h (112 mph) and, remembering my Russian instructions, I did not go above about 915 m (3,000 ft). Cruising speed at that height was 325 km/h (202 mph). It was at this speed that I decided to try out the theory behind the asymmetric layout of the 141, namely that in the event of attack, the aircraft could be stood on its wing tip and held there in straight flight, thus giving the gunner in the cone of the nacelles a tremendous field of fire.
Frankly, I was sceptical of this claim of edge-on straight flight, but it proved to be, as near as damn it, true. I then stepped up the power, increasing the speed to 360 km/h (224 mph), but just as I rolled the aircraft on to its port side, the engine suddenly backfired heavily and oil pressure began to drop. This terminated any short handling session, as I considered discretion better than providing the Russians with their eagerly awaited spectacle.
I therefore turned straight into the landing pattern with the engine throttled well back, and lowered the undercarriage immediately at about 610 m (2,000 ft) to give it time to lower in case it got temperamental. I had both flaps and the undercarriage lowered by about 305 m (1,000 ft), across wind of the final approach, turning on to finals at 150 m (490 ft) at 145 km/h (90 mph) and easing the speed off to 130 km/h (80 mph) over the airfield boundary.
I stopped the engine at the end of the landing run, as it was obviously very sick. …. In retrospect, I am really glad to have had the unique opportunity of even a short flight in the Bv 141B, because it left me with the realisation that it was not as bad an aircraft as its development history seemed to suggest. It had good, effective controls, although it had poor lateral stability, which would have made it unpleasant to fly in turbulence at low level. Maybe this and the fact that its competitor, the Fw 189, had excellent flying characteristics, were the real reasons for its demise before reaching operational production. “
Allegedly, according to some internet sources, at least one Bv 141 was captured by the British forces. It was then shipped to England for evaluation, but its fate is unknown.
Production
How many Bv 141s were produced is not clear in the sources. The number ranges from 13 to 18 aircraft being built. This includes at least three prototypes, five of the slightly improved A series and some 10 B series aircraft. The last Bv 141B was delivered in mid-May 1943.
Ha 141 Prototype – The first prototype was built as a Blohm & Voss private venture.
BV 141A – Slightly improved version.
BV 141B – Powered by a much stronger engine and with many other modifications, especially to the wing design.
Operators
Germany – A few aircraft were used experimentally by the Luftwaffe.
Soviet Union – After the War, the Soviets managed to capture one Bv 141B, but its fate is unknown.
United Kingdom – Possibly captured one, which was allegedly shipped to England for evaluation.
Conclusion
The BV 141 initially demonstrated generally good flight characteristics, despite its unusual and radical design. The desire to further improve the flight performance, and distrust by the Luftwaffe eventually killed the project. The extensive redesign of the Bv 141B series simply had too many problems that were never completely resolved. The Luftwaffe was also reluctant to invest more time in it, especially as the more orthodox Fw 189 was being introduced into service. In the end, while it was not put into production, the BV 141 was nevertheless an interesting design and certainly deserves a spot in aviation history.
Bv 141B Specifications
Wingspans
57 ft 3 in / 17.56 m
Length
45 ft 9 in / 13.9 m
Height
11 ft 9 in / 3.6 m
Wing Area
570 ft² / 52.9 m²
Engine
One BMW 801 A-0 1.560 HP 14 cylinder radial engine
Empty Weight
10,360 lbs / 4,700 kg
Maximum Takeoff Weight
13,450 lbs / 6,100 kg
Fuel Capacity
470 l
Climb Rate to 6 km
In 8 minute 48 second
Maximum Speed at 5.000 m
272 mph / 438 km/h
Cruising speed
250 mph / 400km/h
Range
745 miles / 1,200 km
Maximum Service Ceiling
32,810 ft / 10,000 m
Crew
Pilot, observer and the rear gunner.
Armament
Two forward fixed 0.3 in (7.92 mm) machine guns and one same caliber machine gun placed to the rear.
Empire of Japan (1937)
Nazi Germany 
