Fw 190 - numbers for A-8 and A-9

[JtD]

So we can bin your claim that the A-9 was the most numerous 190A of 1945.

However, as already requested by Fruitbat and ignored by you, it would be interesting to see some evidence that supports your new claim.

Rodeike states that most of the A-9 built by Focke Wulf in Cottbus were R11 all weather variants, as were some built in Wismar. Additionally the Erfurt production possibly were A-8, designations vary. Since you are so picky to rule out any A-8 that does not come as the standard fighter variant, we might want to do the same with the A-9 and end up, conservatively, at 110 A-9's produced in standard fighter configuration. That's about the same ratio you chose for the A-8. Now as you are contradicting Rodeike's accepted research, it would be nice to see some source that shows for instance how no Cottbus built A-9's came as R11.

[MaxGunz]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

2500 * .85 = 375

I think you need a new calculator.

I don't have trouble with your reasoning but you should check your math before clicking 'post'.

I also see the usual pattern of two people arguing different things. It is like circles on a map.. how to tell what the overlaps mean when the circles have different criteria.

Maybe A-8's as air superiority fighters were fewer than total A-8's but when did that become the comparison? I was reading A-8's, not A-8 sub-types.

FB, A-8 production for all of 1944... when did A-9 production get into swing that year? I see A-8's in the hundreds from II/44 and wonder how many were still in use 9 months later? Ditto for early A-9's.

Aren't there people with unit strength figures or is that too incomplete?

If it's about what was more used, I don't think that should control player choice. Show that the type was in short supply or that certain units only had them (should not be hard, then the player can pick the unit).

If it's about what was more used, that would be good to know in mission design what AI's to place and the tasks they are assigned. But when in IL2 will players encounter A-8's without massed B-17's coming right around the corner? Last sim I could run that could have even a taste of that was EAW.

Come to think about it.. on the newer decked-out PC's, might there be enough power to fill the skies with AI bombers and escorts? 4.4?

[MiloMorai]

the following is from a graphic I have of Fw190A production:

A-8 - A-9

Mar 82 - 0
Apr 347 - 2
May 492 - 15
Jun 430 - 21
Jul 502 - 70
Aug 648 - 30
Sep 465 - 122
Oct 293 - 14
Nov 482 - 99
Dec ? - ?
Jan 328 - ?

total 4060 - 373

This does not include the numbers for the R8 and R11 versions for the A-8 and A-9.


A-8/R11(/R2) - A-9/R11

Jun (103)
Jul (180)
Aug (202)
Sep 14 (159) - 56
Oct 79 (123) - 80
Nov 33 (80) - 58
Dec ? (?) - ?
Jan 73 (51) - ?

total 199 (898 ) - 194

[Crumpp]

Originally Posted by MaxGunz

I think you need a new calculator.

I don't have trouble with your reasoning but you should check your math before clicking 'post'.

I also see the usual pattern of two people arguing different things. It is like circles on a map.. how to tell what the overlaps mean when the circles have different criteria.

Maybe A-8's as air superiority fighters were fewer than total A-8's but when did that become the comparison? I was reading A-8's, not A-8 sub-types.

FB, A-8 production for all of 1944... when did A-9 production get into swing that year? I see A-8's in the hundreds from II/44 and wonder how many were still in use 9 months later? Ditto for early A-9's.

Aren't there people with unit strength figures or is that too incomplete?

If it's about what was more used, I don't think that should control player choice. Show that the type was in short supply or that certain units only had them (should not be hard, then the player can pick the unit).

If it's about what was more used, that would be good to know in mission design what AI's to place and the tasks they are assigned. But when in IL2 will players encounter A-8's without massed B-17's coming right around the corner? Last sim I could run that could have even a taste of that was EAW.

Come to think about it.. on the newer decked-out PC's, might there be enough power to fill the skies with AI bombers and escorts? 4.4?

Only about 15% of the a8's produced concurrently with the a9 were normal fighter variants. The 375 is the approximate number of a8 normal fighters and the way I wrote it is confusing.

The math adds up. I just did not include the step of subtracting the all weather and assault ship production from the total.

The point being an unit flying FW190A's normal fighters in 1945 was more likely to be operating A9's.

A large portion of FW190a8 production fed the grist mill of the sturm units and to a lesser extent, the all weather units.

[Crumpp]

The subtype makes all the difference max guns. Normal fighters are not going to be using assault ships or all weather fighters.

Assault ships are not suitable for defense against enemy fighters and all weather aircraft are not ideal.

Both subtypes are specialized aircraft built for specific missions. They went to special units to perform those missions.

Both mission experienced a significantly higher than normal wastage rate in comparison to normal fighter. It is not surprising the production numbers.

[MiloMorai]

As of March 19 1945

Stab J.G. 301 FW 190 A-9/R11
I./J.G. 301 FW 190 A-9/R11
II./J.G. 301 FW 190 A-9/R11
III./J.G. 301 FW 190 A-9/R11

http://fw190.hobbyvista.com/oob.htm

/R11 is for all weather

[fruitbat]

Originally Posted by JtD

So we can bin your claim that the A-9 was the most numerous 190A of 1945.

However, as already requested by Fruitbat and ignored by you, it would be interesting to see some evidence that supports your new claim.

Rodeike states that most of the A-9 built by Focke Wulf in Cottbus were R11 all weather variants, as were some built in Wismar. Additionally the Erfurt production possibly were A-8, designations vary. Since you are so picky to rule out any A-8 that does not come as the standard fighter variant, we might want to do the same with the A-9 and end up, conservatively, at 110 A-9's produced in standard fighter configuration. That's about the same ratio you chose for the A-8. Now as you are contradicting Rodeike's accepted research, it would be nice to see some source that shows for instance how no Cottbus built A-9's came as R11.

Very interested to see your answer and even more so, some actual evidence to support it for once as i have seen none so far at all but claims, particularly regarding JtDs post quoted above Crump, as both him and Milo have shown A9's in R11 configurations as well in roughly the same ratio as A8's.

Good to see you abandoned your initial claim as well, that the A9 was the most common Anton in 45, and changed your claim to now be most common 'normal fighter'. As Milos and JtD's posts show, this may well be questionable as well unfortunately for you.

[Crumpp]

The last FW-190A8 lost to air combat was on 25 Febuary. They were not the most prevelent Anton in JG301 at that time.

The sole FW-190A8 lost in March crashed on the transfer flight back to the depot. That last part of 1945 is kind of hard to read. There is only FW-190A8 listed and it is the one that crashed on the transfer flight.

[Crumpp]

Crumpp says:

The FW-190A9 was most common of the Antons in 1945.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...5&postcount=18

From Page 2, that is the one you are talking about as not being a true statement, right friutbat??

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

You also do not have the production details for the blocks. Almost all the FW-190A8's produced in the later part of 1944 are all weather variants or assault ships.

Oskar Bösch went thru 13 FW190A8's during his time with IV/JG3 Sturm. His unit had a 500% casualty rate.

Both are specialized variants for specific units and neither is designed as an air superiority variant.

Prove these comments with some properly sourced info - seeing as you claim to have the production records its up to you to post them; showing the loss records of one Jagdgeschwader simply shows that that one unit was equipped with A-9s, nothing more.