96 pages. Two appendices, Luftwaffe Air-Sea Rescue Do 24 Squadrons and Dutch Navy Do 24 Aircraft Groups. Bibliography

Very nice book on an interesting aircraft. It tells the story of service of Do 24 with the Dutch navy (14 pages), the RAAF (4 pages), as transport plane supplying Germans at Narvik during the spring of 1940 (3 pages), service with the Seenotdienst (German Air-Sea Rescue Service) (34 pages) and KG 200 (1 page). Also its service with the French naval air service after the WWII (3 pages) and with the Spanish Air Force from 1944 to 1969 are told (2½ pages). Even services of single examples used in Sweden and the Soviet Union are mentioned (1 page). The British and Norwegian service (¾ page). The British used two Do 24s with German crews as rescue cover for mine clearing operations in Norwegian waters after the war, later the planes, still flown by Germans came under Norwegian control. There might have been two more Do 24s used by British locally at Bodo. Three Do 24s captured at Schleswig were flown to England for evaluation. One of those was test flown by Eric Brown, a famous British test pilot and in his book he tells that he liked it and concludes his assessment: “To me, the Do 24 was virtually viceless, and I certainly never met a German or Dutch pilot who had anything but praise for it…” But in fact he noticed earlier in the text that while generally its take-off characteristics were excellent “…Before we got up on the step the boat assumed a steep nose-up attitude, giving very poor view ahead, but once on the step that attitude decreased markedly…”. Development and production is dealt with on eight pages. 30 colour profiles, six of Dutch, 19 of German, two of Spanish, on each of Australian, Swedish and French ones, on 15 pages. Some combat reports of the Allies on Do 24 shoot downs. And a few German pilots and crewmembers recollections. (e.g. on pages 54-55). Even an appraisal by a RAAF pilot is there. It is the most critical assessment of the characteristics of Do 24 I have seen but even it is not overly critical.

Some especially interesting points for me were:
During the occupation of Corsica in July and August 1943, for troops transported there by Ju 52/3ms and Me 323s neither life vests nor dinghies were provided to.
Aircraft and boats of the Seenotdienst rescued 11,561 survivors from the sea during the World War 2 of which 3,815 were Allied personnel, the book gives also numbers per operational areas.

As a Finn I noticed that all Finnish place names are written correctly except Kupoio-Rissala, should be Kuopio-Rissala. 

I cannot say much on the colour profiles but I was surprised how light the ‘mud blue grey’ is in the profiles 5 to 7 i.e. Dutch Do 24K-1s in 1941-42 camouflage. It is lighter and greyer than the upper colour of the Do 24 I saw in 2005 at the Soesterberg Military Aviation Museum or the colour of the profile on the Do 24 site in 2001 and 2020.

Only error I noticed is not directly connected to Do 24. HMS Warspite did not participate the First naval Battle of Narvik which cut the German troops occupying Narvik out. During it five destroyers of the Royal Navy sank two German destroyers and the supply ship Rauenfels. She participated the Second naval Battle three days later when it attacked with nine destroyers and the other eight German destroyers were sunk as is told in the book.

Warmly recommended for those interesting in flying boat operations, the desperate fight of Dutch against Japanese in 1941-42, the activities of the Seenotdienst or Dornier Do 24 itself and its use.

Sources:
Brown, Eric Captain, Testing for Combat (Shrewsbury: Airlife, 1994).
Geust, Carl-Fredrik and Gennadiy Petrov. Red Stars Vol 2: German Aircraft in the Soviet Union (Tampere: Apali
​     Oy, 1998).

http://www.dornier24.com/  ex-http://masterdrew.topcities.com/pages/… Retrieved 29 November 2001.

Khazanov, Dmitriy & Medved, Aleksander, Bf 109E/F vs Yak-1/7 Eastern Front 1941 – 42 Osprey Duel 65 (2015) 80 pages, ISBN: 978 1 4728 0579 9

The book was a bit disappointment. It has its good points and generally while the situation is much improved since 1980s there is still lack of books on the Soviet side of the Great Patriotic War as they call the WWII on the Eastern Front from 22 June 1941 onwards. The book shows that while Yak-1 or Yak-7 were not in par with Bf 109F-4, IMHO the best short-range fighter in the world from mid-1941 to mid-1942, they were good, if somewhat rudimentary equipped low- and medium altitude fighters during that timeframe.

The book gives as usual in this series the basic information on the versions of Yaks and Bf 109 up to mid-1942, the strategic background and the pilot training, combat tactics and organization of the respective air forces. The biographs given are those of Mikhail Dmitrievich Baranov, an ace with 24 individual aerial victories and Hermann Graf, 206 aerial victories according the book, 212 aerial victories according to the most sources I have seen, e.g. Bergström et. al. Graf biography and http://www.luftwaffe.cz/graf.html . There is empty space worth of 15 lines on the page allocated to the Graf’s biography which could have been easily filled by more facts from Graf’s long combat career and e.g. his father’s occupation, he was a farmer, later a baker who served as an artilleryman during the WWI, not simply an artilleryman as given in the bio. And while JG(r) 50 was a specialist unit JG 11 wasn’t. The book illustrated some battle formations used by the VVS KA (the Soviet Army Air Force), they were standard “vic” based formations used rather universally before a pair and its multitudes became the new norm. The Combat part is somewhat vague but includes some interesting quotes from pilots’ memoirs.

On the pages 58 – 59 there is a good analyse on the problems faced by the Soviet fighter formation leaders during the early part of the Great Patriotic War; lack of radios, poor communications generally, too strict orders which limited formation leaders initiative, obsolete formations etc. But I doubt the claim that Soviet fighters were invariably being outnumbered even in the initial stages of the fighting on the Eastern Front, front was simply so long and there were too few German fighters to give adequate cover to everywhere along it.

The authors give as the total number of Bf 109s ranged against the Soviet Union as approximate 820, not much over the usually given figure of 793 single-engine fighters of which 619 were serviceable.

There are three maps on pages 36, 40 and 41. The first one gives information on the Luftwaffe and VVS KA (Army Air Forces) fighter strengths on the eve of the Operation Barbarossa on the very early morning of 22 June 1941 on the Eastern Front from the Gulf of Finland to the Black Sea. The number of VVS KA fighters, 4,226 is smaller than that given in Tomasz Kopanski’s Barbarossa Victims on page 13, namely 4 730. On the other hand, the number of Bf 109s readying to attack the Soviet Union is given as 824 which is a little more than 793 given in Balke’s and Bergström’s books. The number of Yak-1s given is identical in both this and Kopanski’s book. The second map shows the Soviet fighter units in the Moscow area on 30 October 1941. Based on my very limited sources of Soviet air forces it seems that some of the 6 IAK (fighter corps) Moscow Region PVO fighter units are left out, e.g. 16 and 34 IAPs equipped with MiG-3s. The map reveals the bases used and the fighter regiments and also shows which fighter regiments had Yak-1s in their strengths but doesn’t give any strength figures for the Soviet units shown. The last one gives the disposition of the VVS-KA fighter units in the Stalingrad region in October 1942, giving the number of Yaks and the identity of the IAPs (fighter regiments) for each IAD and SAD (fighter and mixed air divisions) in the region. Also given is the number of Bf 109s in the region (both Bf 109F-4s of the JG 3 and the Bf 109E-7/Us of the SchG 1). The number of  Bf 109 fighters is correct but according to the Michael Holm’s site (http://www.ww2.dk/air/jagd/jg3.htm etc.), most were in fact Bf 109G-2s, only III./JG 3 was still equipped with Bf 109F-4s. This is confirmed in the Prien’s & Stemmer’s Jagdgeschwader 3 “Udet” in World War II multivolume unit history. I./Sch.G.1 had exactly 28 Bf 109E-7/U-1s on 31.10.1942 plus Stab/Sch.G.1 had five more and on 1 October they have had 22+3 Bf 109E-7/U-1s according to Michael Holm’s site. So one can say that the number of Bf 109s given is the correct one but most of the fighters were in fact already Bf 109G-2s and F-4s were already a minority.

But the book has its problems. It is a bit misleading to compare the number of Bf 109s with the number of Yaks in service because in 1941 Bf 109 was the only single engine fighter in service with the Luftwaffe on the Eastern Front while Soviet air forces had, besides the huge number of older fighters, three types of modern single engine fighters in service. The most numerous of these in June 1941 was the MiGs, around 1,000 in service compared to 200+ Yak-1s. Those LaGG-3s which were with first–line units were with Moscow and Leningrad PVOs or in Far East. I don’t have exact number of LaGG-3s with first-line units, but the number of the modern single-engine fighters produced by 22 June 1941 was 2,030 (1,309 MiGs, 399 Yak-1s and 322 LaGG-3s). And even during the last six months of 1941 both MiG-3 and LaGG-3 productions were twice as high as the Yak production. Only in 1942 Yak became the most produced Soviet single engine fighter.

Bf 109E-3 was powered by a DB 601 A, not by a DB 601Aa.

On p. 22 there is a typo and a mistake in the last chapter, M-105P/PA produced 1,100 metric hp/ps/л.с. (1,085 hp) at 2,000 m alt. and 1,050 metric hp/ps/л.с. (1,036 hp) at 4000 metres. M-105PF produced 1,260 hp/ps/л.с. (1,243 hp) at 700 m, 1,180 hp/ps/л.с. (1,164 hp) at 2700 metres. So the full throttle/rated altitudes were lower than claimed in the book.

In Bf 109Fs its 7.92 mm MG 17s had 500 rpg, not 300 claimed in the book. Probably the error is because from Bf 109G-5/-6 onwards the two MG 17s with 500 rpg were replaced by two 13 mm MG 131s with 300 rpg.

The maximum speed of Bf 109F-4. The DB 601 E was initially restricted to 1,200 PS (1,184 hp) at 2,500 rpm; however, the full rating of 1,350 PS (1,332 hp) at 2,700 rpm (Start und Not that means Take-off and Emergency, allowed only for a short duration of 3 minutes) was cleared for service use by February 1942. With 1,184 hp Climb and Combat power maximum speed of a Bf 109F-4 was 660 km/h at 6,200 m according to the Datenblatt  109 F4 Augsburg, den 29.11.41. I don’t know if the speed is with or without compressibility correction, often German performance figures are given without compressibility correction. At that speed and altitude, the compressibility correction should IMHO reduce the attained speed about 15 km/h. In this case I think that the figure is without the compressibility correction because the maximum speed with 1,184 hp Climb and Combat power was given as 635 km/h at 6,000 m in the Datenblatt  109 F4 Augsburg, den 1.7.42. Anyway faster than 610 km/h given in the book and of course during 1942 even faster with Take-off and Emergency power, which gave extra 150 hp for maximum of 3 minutes. Also the ranges given to Bf 109 F-2 and F-4, 580 km and 560 km respectively, seems to be too short. A British test, dated 3rd Dec 1944, gave the maximum tactical range of Bf 109G (no information on subtype) with greater displacement DB 605 engine and the same amount of fuel as 615 mls/990 km without the 300 litres drop-tank and 1145 mls/1682 km with it. It also gives the fast cruise range of 450 mls/724 km without and 795 mls/1280 km with a drop-tank for the Bf 109G. Finnish experience was that the practical maximum range of Bf 109G-2/-6 was c. 750 km without a drop-tank because when flying lower, more economical speeds there were problems with spark plugs soothing and exhaust leakage into the cockpit. The Soviet data I have seen gives 650 km range for Bf 109F-4. Also the specification given in the table on the page to Yak-1b are the same but for the armament as given to normal high-back Yak-1 powered by a M-105PF tested at NII VVS in June 1942 in the Gordon’s book. According to Gordon Yak-1B was a bit lighter and 19 km/h faster than given in the table of this book. The information given on Yak-7B in the table and in Gordon’s book are almost identical.

On page 33 the ammunition load for the 20 mm MG 151/20 in Bf 109F-4 was given as 200 rounds. That is what could be loaded into a F-4 but at least Finns found out with their Bf 109Gs that the 200 rounds 20 mm belt was too heavy and often produced a breakage of the ammunition belt approximately halfway. When modifications didn’t eliminate the problem and Finns heard that Germans used to load their 109Gs only with approximately 130 rounds, Finns began to load the MG 151/20 of their 109Gs with 155 rounds (130 in the ammo box and 25 on the loading tray). Still more 20 mm rounds than in a Yak.
 
DB 605A engine didn’t immediately bring more power to Bf 109 because the use of the 1.42 ata boost which was needed for the 1,475 PS (1,455 hp) take-off and emergency power was banned most of the time up to autumn 1943, before that but some intervals maximum allowed boost was 1,30 ata producing maximum take-off power of 1,310 PS (1,292 hp). So at low and mid altitudes most of time before autumn 1943 Bf 109G had less power that Bf 109F-4 with heavier engine, only above circa 5,250 m DB 605A produced more power at 1.30 ata than DB 601E at 1.42 ata because the former had higher full throttle height but that was more important against the Western Allies than on the Eastern Front.

The book gives a bit too good picture on the pilot training in the Luftwaffe. Even if the Luftwaffe fighter pilots got some training on instrument flying, that wasn’t good enough for bad weather operations as the Luftwaffe learned in the West during the winter 1943/44.

On the page 43 the figure given as the Luftwaffe total losses between 1 May and 31 August 1942, 4,460 aircraft, is IMHO odd, the Quartermaster Generals Loss Returns gives the total losses of that time period as a little under 3,000 and that is the figure for all fronts plus a little under 2,400 damaged. According to Williamson Murray’s Luftwaffe p. 107 Table XXV, 53,7 % of the Luftwaffe total losses between 1 June and 31 August happened on the Eastern Front.  So the figure in the book doesn’t seem to fit the information from the Quartermaster Generals Loss Returns and Murray’s book. It may well be that the authors had access to better sources than I but according to the sources I have access the figure seems odd.  And the number given as the number of German single-engine fighters in the frontline, 554, must be that of on the Eastern Front. A right figure but maybe the definition “on the Eastern Front” would have been nice to be added to that sentence.

On the page 52 the authors claim that ”The highest  homogenous tactical fighter unit was the Luftflotte. As a rule, every Luftflotte consisted of three combat geschwader, the Luftflotte HQ, a HQ detachment and a Communication Company…” I’m totally lost with that. To my understanding a Luftflotte was area based and was flexible in size and number of subordinated units, and its size changed depending on need. And it was heterogeneous, usually consisting fighter, bomber, reconnaissance etc. units. The main Luftflotten in the East in 1941 (1, 2 and 4) were all more powerful than three Geschwadern, 2 and 4 significantly so. And on 27 July 1942 Luftflotte 1 was about the size of three combat Geschwadern but Luftflotte 4 was massively more powerful, some 11(+) combat Geschwadern. Same to Luftflotte 2 in Mediterranean area (over six combat Geschwadern). In West Luftflotte 3 had almost worth of five combat Geschwadern.

While on the page 57 the numbering of the items in the Bf 109F-4 cockpit colour drawing is sequenced logically that isn’t the case in the Yak-1B cockpit colour drawing on the page 56. I notice that the clock is missing from the Bf 109F-4 cockpit colour drawing, should be in the right top corner.

On the page 70 the claim of 45th IAP seems odd if the date isn’t a typo. The text gives an impression that the regiment claimed eight Bf 109s while losing only a single Yak-1 on 11 July 1942 while part of the Sevastopol air group but most of the air group including all flyable fighters had been evacuated on the night of 30 June/1 July to Kuban and the city itself had fallen on 1 July and the last bigger Soviet formation had surrendered on 4 July even if some scattered resistance to the south of the city continued until 9 July. Or maybe that combat happened after the unit was evacuated from Sevastopol, but in that case it would have been nice to be told by the authors where the combat took place.

The information given in the table “Leading Yak-1/7 Bf 109 killers 1941 – 42” on the page 75 is different in several cases from that given by Mikhail Bykov. e.g. the scores of Sultan Amet-Khan and Schirov are somewhat different and there is bigger difference in I. I. Kleschev’s case, namely 16 individual + 15 shared vs 13 + 10 and in this book it is claimed that K. S. Alekseyev and M. Avdeyev/Advdeev served with the VVS of the Red Banner Baltic Fleet when in fact they served with the VVS of the Black Sea Fleet.

On Further Reading, almost all of the Russian books are unknown to me but according to my understanding Bykov’s book is highly regarded as are Prien’s JG 53 book and his, Stemmer’s, Rodeike’s and Bock’s Die Jagdfliegerverbande der Deutschen Luftwaffe series, even if the latter series is almost purely based on German documents and so has almost purely the German point of view. But I’m surprised that Nowarra’s (in the book typed as Novarra) Die 109 is in the list. IMHO it is obsolete and unreliable source. I have used Willy Radinger’s and Walter Schick’s Messerschmitt Me 109 Alle Varianten: von Bf (Me) 109A bis Me 109E (1997) for information on the early Bf 109 versions, on the later ones I have used a bit old Prien’s and Rodeike’s Messerschmitt Bf 109 F, G & K Series (1993). It doesn’t have specifications, so those I have usually checked from copies of documents and en.wikipedia pages, wiki’s Bf 109 pages are good ones.

IMHO the conclusions are mostly correct, the main problems of the VVS were inadequate training, organisational and control problems and obsolete combat tactics. Yaks, while not equal to Bf 109F-4 were still fairly well-matched to it at lower altitudes, which were the main combat altitude band on the Eastern Front, and had its strong points, e.g. being able to turn tighter. And as always in combat it was vital to try to use own strengths against opponent’s weaknesses.

Sources:
the Quartermaster Generals Loss Returns
Kennblatt für das Flugzeugmuster Bf 109 Baureihe F-1 und F-2 mit DB 601 N Motor Berlin 1941
Ladeplan Me 109 F-4/Z
Datenblatt  109 F4 Augsburg, den 29.11.41
Datenblatt  109 F4 Augsburg, den 1.7.42
L. Dv.T. 2109 F-2 und F-4/Wa Bf 109 F-2 und F-4 Bedienungsvorschrift - Wa

Balke, Ulf, Der Luftkrieg in Europa. Die operativen Einsätze des Kampfgeschwaders 2 im Zweiten Weltkrieg,
    Teil 1 (Koblenz: Bernard & Graefe , 1989).
Bergstrom, Christer, Barbarossa - The Air Battle: July–December 1941 (London: Chevron, 2007).
Bergström, Christer, Mikhailov, Andrey, Black Cross / Red Star Air War Over the Eastern Front, Volume 2,
    Resurgence January–June 1942 (Pacifica, California: Pacifica Military History, 2001).
Bergström, Christer, Antipov, Vlad, Sundin, Claes, Graf & Grislawski—A Pair of Aces (Hamilton MT: Eagle
    Editions, 2003).
Gordon, Yefim, Soviet Air Power in World War 2 (Hinckley: Midland Publishing, 2008).
Khazanov, Dmitriy and Medved, Aleksander, MiG-3 Aces of World War 2 (Oxford: Osprey Publishing, 2012).
Kopanski, Tomasz, Barbarossa Victims. Luftwaffe kills in the East (Redbourn: Mushroom Model Publishing,
   2001).
Mellinger, George, LaGG and Lavochkin Aces of World War 2 (Oxford, Osprey Publishing, 2003).
Mellinger, George, Yakovlev Aces of World War 2 (Oxford, Osprey Publishing, 2005).
Murray, Williamson, Luftwaffe (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1985).
Pitkänen, Mika ja Simpanen, Timo, 20 mm Suomessa - Aseet ja ampumatarvikkeet ennen vuotta 1945 / 20
    mm in Finland - Weapons and Ammunition prior to 1945 (Tampere: Apali, 2007).
Prien, Jochen & Stemmer, Gerhard, Jagdgeschwader 3 “Udet” in World War II Vol. I: Stab and I./JG3 in Action
   with the Messerschmitt Bf 109 (Atglen, PA: Schiffer Publishing 2002).
Radinger, Willy and Schick, Walter, Messerschmitt Me 109: das meistgebaute Jagdflugzeug der Welt.
    Entwicklung, Erprobung und Technik. Alle Varianten:  von Bf (Me) 109A bis Me 109E (Oberhaching: Aviatic
    Verlag, 1997).
Raunio, Jukka, Lentäjän Näkökulma II (Kuorevesi: Jukka Raunio 1993).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Bf_109_variants#E-3
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Bf_109_variants#Bf_109F
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Bf_109#Specifications_.28Bf_109_G-6.29
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_Graf
http://www.luftwaffe.cz/graf.html
http://www.ww2.dk/air/jagd/jg3.htm
http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/bstjg3.html
http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/bijg3.html etc.
http://www.ww2.dk/air/attack/schg1.htm
http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/schlacht/bstschg1.html
http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/schlacht/bischg1.html
/results-of-the-soviet-turn-times-tests.html

Hard-bound, 206 pages incl. 4 pages of colour profiles.
ISBN : 0-7643-1876-4.

I am a bit disappointed with this book, maybe I had too high expectations. It is a good book with many good qualities. It is solidly based on documents and IMHO generally gives very objective appraisal on the qualities of the Fw 190Ds. It also has many facsimiles of original type drawings, performance charts etc.

But there are some weak points, firstly the layout is too “airy”, i.e. there are too much white on many of the pages. While there are many interesting drawings on different Fw 190C and D prototypes and paper studies there are also some identical or almost identical drawings and graphs, e,g., those on pages 28, 31 and 35. And photos like that of the Fw 190 V53 on pages 82 and 89. There are also some annoying typos, MK 103 being printed when the weapon in question is the more compact MK 108 etc.

While interpreting the Focke-Wulf Flugzeugbau G.m.b.H.’s performance chart on page 104 Hermann seems to have took the curve of Fw 190A-8 Notleistung (WEP) with increased boost pressure as that of Fw 190D-9. The curves of A-8 Notleistung and that of D-9 are mostly overlapping but IMHO the Hermann’s error is clear. I checked my interpretation against the 25 Oct 1944 performance chart of A-8 Normaljäger and 24 March 1945 climb graph of D-9 and IMHO my interpretation seems to be true.

The specification table of Fw 190 the D-9/R14 Torpedo-carrier on the page 109 there are two lines for To/from target at height of 3000 m, one with combat power and other with cruising power but strangely that with 2 x 220 l Doppelreiter gives same from target speed in both cases, the other three speeds given give circa 50 km/h difference between combat and cruising power as logic demands. Probably there is/are error(s) in one or both of the from target speed(s) shown.

In the table comparing Fw 190 D-9, P-51 D and Spitfire Mk XIV on the page 122, the wing loading given for Spitfire Mk XIV is much too high, the true one is only 55 per cent of that given. Because correct figures for the gross weight and the wing area are given the error was easy to spot. When for the lightest plane with the biggest wing area is given the highest wing loading, one instantly notice that something is wrong. The low level climb rate given is a little bit too low for Spitfire Mk XIV using 100/130 grade fuel and +18 lbs boost but on the other hand the times to altitudes are clearly more optimistic than the figures in the Aircraft Data Sheet for Spitfire Mk XIV and in Morgan’s and Shacklady’s book but are identical to those achieved during the tests of the Mk XIV prototype JF319. Also if one uses the weight and the wing area given in the table to calculate the wing loading for Fw 190D-9 one gets somewhat poorer figure than the one given in the book.

Fw 190 D-13 vs Tempest Mk V, the wing loading given to Tempest Mk V is a bit under 4 per cent too good. Late Mk Vs had the Sabre IIB engines with max. power of 2,420 hp, max. speed at FTH was almost identical but S.L. speed was better, being something around 620 km/h with 11 lbs boost. And in an RAE test even better and the RAE estimated that with better paintwork on the wing leading edges 650 km/h would have been achievable. Interestingly the Aircraft Data Sheet for Hawker Tempest Mk V Series II powered by a Sabre IIB engine gives time to 6,096 m as 7 min 30 sec. So strangely higher power didn’t produce better time to altitude, also the max. rate of climb was only circa 20,5 m/sec so less than given in Hermann’s table. While the comparison between Fw 190 D-13 and Tempest Mk V is understandably because of the mock dogfight flown between the two types just after the war, maybe better comparison against Fw 190 D-13 would has been Tempest Mk II, of which 50 production aircrafts had been produced by the VE-Day. They were ear-marked for Far East, so didn’t see combat service. Tempest Mk II was somewhat faster and climbing better than Mk V (708 km/h at 4,572 m, 4.5 min to 4,572 m). Or comparison with Spitfire Mk 21, which was the last Spitfire version to reach squadron service before the VE-Day (711 km/h at 6,645 m, 22,6 m/s, 2.6 min to 3,292 m, 4.05 min to 4,877 m, 5.15 min to 6,096 m, 9.9 min to 9,754 m, 11.15 min to 10,363 m).

And the “what if” part. Hermann claims that DB 603 E powered Fw 190 would have been possible year earlier than historically happened. That is based on the claim made on pages 30 and 174, that DB 603 G was in full production by 1944 and that it entered service in April 1944 in the Messerschmitt Me 410 B-1 heavy fighter and the Heinkel He 219 A-5 night fighter. There is some disagreement about production of DB 603 G, but it seems that the series production of it began at the end of 1944 at the earliest. Mankau and Petrick state in their Messerschmitt Bf 110/Me 210/Me 410 book that while Me 410 B series was planned to be fitted with DB 603 G in reality when the Me 410 B production began in May 1944 they were powered by DB 603 As and that Me 410 Bs never got the planned DB 603 Gs. The history of DB 603 G powered He 219s is more ambiguous but it seems that series production He 219s got DB 603 Gs near the end of 1944 at the earliest. Griehl and Dressel in their Flugzeug Profile write that He 219A-0s and most of A-2s, A-5s and five first A-7s were powered by DB 603 A. And in their Luftwaffe Album while writing that the first He 219 A-7 was given service trials in July 1944 and that the forerunner of the He 219 A-5/R-3 He 219 V 28 arrived at Venlo in June 1944, for the prototype trials it was fitted with DB 603 Gs. On the other hand in the table of the He 219 versions and subtypes they claim that He 219 A-5/R-3 subtype was powered by DB 603 Es. But again in the table they give a different information, according to it most A-7 subtypes were powered by DB 603 G plus one subtype with Jumo 213 E and one with Jumo 222A.  According to Green’s and Swanborough’s article all He 219s flown to the UK and transported to the USA were powered by DB 603 As. Aders writes that series production of DB 603 G powered He 219s began only in January 1945.

The DB 603 had run into difficulties being able to get near the demanded 100 h between overhauls only in 1944. Initially, the engines often had to be replaced after 40 hours of operation. Because of the problems DB 603 production schedules and production types were constantly changing. The large-scale production of the DB 603 E began only during the later part of 1944, not at the beginning of 1944 as Hermann claims on the page 184. According to Mankau and Petrick it was planned to begin the large scale DB 603 E production at the beginning of 1944  but already in October 1943 Daimler Benz had informed Generalluftzeugmeister Milch that the beginning of the production was to be delayed to April and in January 1944 it was known that the beginning of the production was postponed into June 1944 and that the initial lot was only sufficient to cover Do 335 and He 177 aircraft and so the Me 410 and He 219 would have to continue using the DB 603 A. And then in May 1944 the expectations were that in June there would be 200 DB 603 AAs available (DB 603A with the 603 G supercharger) and the AA would be the production model during the summer and the first Me 410s powered by DB 603 E would begin roll off the assembly line in September. So IMHO the claim that DB 603 E powered Fw 190 would have been possible year earlier than historically happened isn’t realistic. And the performance of Jumo 213 A and DB 603 A were almost identical and one should also remember, that there were not enough DB 603 As around before very late of 1943, numerous Dornier Do 217 M and N airframes waited for months their power plants and one reason given to the low production rate of He 219 was the lack of DB 603s. With hindsight we know that the high production rate of Me 410 was a mistake but the leaders of the Luftwaffe saw it as a very important plane and so its high priority was a given fact to the production planners. Only after Me 410 production ceased there were DB 603s available to Fw 190 versions.

I have the recollection that contrary to the claim in the caption on the page 191 Soviets didn’t use Fw 190 D-9s against Germans, even though the naval aviation of the Red Baltic Fleet took into service some captured ones.
 
Colour profiles are not at the level one uses to see at this age of digitalization. They look more like water colour works. Some show their object as having light grey fuselage base colour, when Deboeck et al Focke-Wulf Fw 190D Camouflage and Markings Part I shows the same plane having RLM 76 light blue base colour. Some are given a different Werk Nummer when compared the ones given in  Deboeck et al book. A few colour profiles are close to those in Deboeck et al book, e.g., the only known Fw 190D-13 “Yellow 10” of Stab/JG 26 but again, while Deboeck et al gives the base colour of the sides of the fuselage as RLM 76 light blue, in Hermann’s book it is given as light grey. Also photos could be sharper, even in fairly inexpensive softback Osprey the Aircraft of Aces identical photos are reproduced better.

While the book is not as good as I expected it is still a good book on Fw 190Ds. My worst complains are on “what if” subjects and even these got me dig deeper into history of the He 219, which has always interested me. The main focus of the book is handled well. It gives very good information on its subject. There isn’t much on the operational use but that wasn’t what I was looking for from this book. I was looking for information on the technical aspects of the plane and I got that.


A.I.2.(g) Report No. 2360 German Aero-Engine Development 22 June 1945
Air Publication 2458C – P.N. Pilot’s Notes for Tempest V Sabre IIA Engine July 1944 (St. Annes-on Sea: AIR
    DATA PUBICATIONS)
http://www.gyges.dk/He219%20manual.pdf

Aders, Gebhard, History of the German night fighter force 1917-1945 (Somerton: Crécy Books, 1992).
Bowyer, Michael J. F., Interceptor Fighters for the Royal Air Force (Wellingborough: Patrick Stephens, 1984).
Brown, Eric, Heinkel’s Nocturnal Predator, Air International Volume 9 Number 1 July 1975.
Deboeck, Marc, Larger, Eric, Poruba, Tomás̆, Focke-Wulf Fw 190D Camouflage & Markings Part I and II
    (Hradec Králové: JaPo, 2005 and 2007).
Dressel, Joachim and  Griehl, Manfred, The Luftwaffe Album: Fighters and bombers of the German air force
    1933 – 1945 (London: Arms and Armour, 2000)
Green, William and Swanborough, Gordon, Heinkel’s Nocturnal Predator…the He 219, Air Enthusiast Forty
    September - December 1989.
Griehl, Manfred, Do 217̶̅―317—417 An operational history (Shrewsbury: Airlife, 1991).
Griehl, Manfred, Dressel, Joachim, Flugzeug Profile Nr. 10 He 219 (Illertissen: Flugzeug Publikation).
Hentschel, Georg, Die geheimen Konferenzen des Generalluftzeugmeisters. Ausgewählte und kommentierte
    Dokumente zur Geschichte der deutschen Luftrüstung und Luftkrieges 1942 – 1944 (Bernard &
    Graefe Verlag 1989).
Jackson, Robert, Hawker Tempest and Sea Fury (London: Blandford Press, 1989).
Mankau, Heinz & Petrick, Peter, Messerschmitt Bf 110/Me 210/Me 410 An Illustrated History (Atglen, PA:
    Schiffer Publishing, 2003).
Morgan, Eric B.  and Shacklady, Edward, Spitfire: The History (Stamford: Key Publishing, Fifth impression
    (revised), 2000).
Price, Alfred, The Spitfire Story (London: Cassell & Co, Revised Second Edition, 2002).


http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a8-25oct44.jpg
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190d9-climbchart-flugmechanik-24-3-45.jpg
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-XIV-ads.jpg
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/JF319-climb.jpg
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14climbchart.jpg

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/tempest/tempest-v-ads-sabre-IIb.jpg
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/tempest/tempest-v-rdt1a-level.jpg
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/tempest/tempest-v-rdt1a-climb.jpg
http://www.hawkertempest.se/index.php/thetempest/2014-05-12-18-28-30/markv
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/tempest/tempest-V.html
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/tempest/tempest-II-cfe.html
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-21.html
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/150-grade-fuel.html
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/engines-cleared-for-150.jpg
http://www.meiermotors.com/index.php/aircraft/klassische-motoren/mercedes-benz-db603e
http://www.deutsches-museum.de/en/collections/machines/power-engines/combustion-engines/internal-combustion-engines/aircraft-engines/aircraft-engine-db-603-e-1944/

http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?disc=169401;article=3306;title=German%20Night%20Fighter%20War%201939-1945;pagemark=20 ejection seats / He219 A-7
       Regrettably already for years defunct German Night Fighter War 1939 – 1945 site
http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/showthread.php?t=51 HE-219 and DB 603G Engines
http://www.luftwaffe-experten.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=11277 Details for He219A-2 WNr.290126?
      You must sign in for access to this site.
http://www.luftwaffe-experten.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=1689 Details on Heinkel He219A-7
       WNr.310193 You must sign in for access to this site.

http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/showthread.php?t=1462  Fw 190 C and Me 410 DB 603s
http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/showthread.php?t=51&page=2  He 219 and the DB 603G
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/engines/db-605-db-603-a-7886.html DB 605 X DB 603

A very good purchase, this collection of articles proceeds chronologically through the first part of the year 1945. 130 A-4 size pages. At first it gives the development of the situation in the autumn of 1944 followed by an article on the Operation Bodenplatte, the surprise attack against Allied airfields on January 1, 1945 by the Luftwaffe.

This  12 pages article is good but of course if one wants a definite account of the operation the real thing, Manhro’s and Pütz’ excellent Bodenplatte book is a must, but that is of course not surprising. The text is informative and the photos are well-chosen. The figures of the LW losses are clearly taken from Manhro’s and Pütz’ book but they are only partially given, the infomation that 47% of the LW losses were by Allied AA and 23% were by Allied fighters is only a partial truth because according to the Manhro’s and Pütz’ book in addition 5% of the losses were by either Allied AA or Allied fighters and 11% were to unknown causes. The German flak, contrary to the old myth, contributed only 5% of the German losses.

The story of the shooting down of three Mistels by four P-51 Mustangs from the 55th Fighter Group on Feb 3, 1945 is a good one. It gives besides the good information on the combat a brief history of the Mistel and the planned attack on Scapa Flow by Mistels and flare-dropping Ju 88s and 188s and the fates of the four Mustang pilots during the last few months of the war. Out of the four one was shot down by the deadly German Flak and went missing, possibly murdered by furious civilians, another became a prisoner of war when his attempt to rescue a friend downed by Flak failed and one was killed either because he stalled at low level or because of he was shot down by ground fire.

Squadron Leader Clive Rowley has written an interesting article on the Australian ace Tony Gaze’s life. While serving in the RAF Gaze got 1½ jet kills while flying Spitfire XIVs before being posted on May 1, 1945 to command ‘A’ Flight of 616 Squadron on Meteor III jets. Naturally the eight pages article concentrates on his combat career and its ups and downs. The only complain I have is that Me 262s of KG 51 is sometimes given as a Me 262 of JG 51, which is totally wrong, JG 51 was a conventional fighter unit equipped in 1944 – 45 with Bf 109Gs and fighting in the Eastern Front, the only exception was the IV./JG 51 which during the last month of the war was equipped with Fw 190s, before that it also had Bf 109Gs. Also the KG(J) 51,  which Rowley sometimes uses, is wrong, the unit was a bomber/fighter-bomber unit not a fighter unit formed out of a bomber unit. Rowley gives a different WNr. and code to Gaze’s Me 262 victim, 500064 and 9K+CL than John Foreman and S. E. Harvey in their a bit dated Me 262 Combat Diary, 110615 and 9K+NL but the unit and the pilot are same even if both give the unit designation wrongly. Smith and Creek agree with Foreman and Harvey in the WNr., they don’t give the code, and give the unit designation rightly. But Andreas Brekken’s/Aviation History Society Norway’s webpage agree with Rowley see http://www.ahs.no/ref_db/lw_loss_public.asp?lossid=103175, so while both Andreas and Smith & Creek are very good researchers in this case I tend to believe Andress in that at least in loss documents the WNr. and code is given as 500064 and 9K+CL.

The eight pages Natter article is very good.

Yaks over Köningsberg, the story of the French Normandie-Niemen fighter regiment operations over Kaliningrad area/East Prussia in the early part of 1945, pure chronology based only information from one side other than the OoB of the Luftwaffe’s Luftflotte 6 on the 11 January 1945. One notice on it, while it is true that ground-attack versions of Fw 190s could be used as pure fighters as the author writes they were handicapped by the weight of their extra armour. In the introduction part of the article unit’s pilot losses during its early part of existence are compared to the claimed victories which is doubly misleading, firstly over-claiming was common in all air forces and secondly pilot losses were fewer than aircraft losses. Luckily in the main part of the article which tells the story of its participation to the fighting over East-Prussia also those losses where pilots survived are mentioned.

Ram Them! is a good blow-to-blow article on the Sonderkommando Elbe’s ramming attacks on April 7, 1945 with well-chosen B/W photos. It concentrates to the action between SKdo Elbe and USAAF heavy bombers and doesn’t spend much space on the fighter vs fighter combats between Luftwaffe fighters and USAAF escorts, mentioning only a couple air victories achieved by P-51 pilots or delve much the moral/ethical discussion amongst German commanders on the advisably of ramming attacks. But that is quite understandably, in a short article like this it is good to have a clear focus. The author is in opinion that only ten bombers were lost to the Elbe pilots while Weir in his book on the subject writes that USAAF seems to have lost 13 bombers to the Sonderkommando Elbe pilots. Also according to Caldwell’s Day fighters book Sonderkommando Elbe pilots got 13 or 14 bombers. According to Freeman’s The Mighty Eight War Diary at least eight and according to Boehme’s JG 7 history twelve heavy bombers at most. In the end of the article there is a short note on the Oberst Hajo Herrmann’s final wartime scheme – Sonderkommando Bienenstock, demolition teams flown on Fieseler Fi 156 Storck light STOL planes behind enemy lines.

King of Fighters The Best Single-seater of 1945.
The author rightly pointed out the importance of pilot quality in fighter combat and so paper figures were not all important The article claims that Bell P-63 Kingcobras were used against Germany in small numbers by the Soviets but because of the lack of corroborating evidence Yefim Gordon in his Soviet Air Power in World War 2 (2008) and in his and Sergey Komissarov’s US Aircraft in the Soviet Union and Russia (2008) writes that he/they stick(s) to the generally accepted version of events that the Kingcobras did not see combat on the Soviet-German front. So in its place there should be Bell P-39Q or N, if one Lend-Lease Eastern Front plane is wanted to be included. And why not, P-39 was widely used by Soviets until the end of the war and three (2nd, 3rd and 5th) of their five top aces got most of their kills while flying Airacobra.
While generally acceptable article but on the Soviet fighters there are a number of points on which I have a different view. The maximum climb rate given for the Spitfire LF Mk. IX (4,470 ft/min) seems to be that of the much rarer HF Mk. IX, which was lower than that of the real one for LF Mk IX, namely 5,080 ft/min at sea level and 4,725 ft/min at 2,000 ft with the boost of +25 lb/sq.inch. while using 100/150 grade fuel, and with +18 lb/sq.inch boost (100/130 grade fuel) 4,620 ft/min at sea level. As for Spitfire Mk. XIV the given 4,700 ft/min is correct for +18 lb/sq.inch boost, but during the last 1½ months of the war in Europe +21 lb/sq.inch boost was allowed with 100/150 grade fuel making possible the climb rate of almost 5,100 ft/min at sea level. On the contrary the rate of climb given to Tempest Mk. V (4,700 ft/min) seems to be optimistic, the maximum figure I have seen is 4,380 ft/min at sea level.
On Republic P-47 Thunderbolt the Spitfire version to which it and North American P-51 Mustang are compared is missing, the claims made are true only when the US planes are compared to Spitfire Mk. XIV, Spitfire LF Mk. IX was slower than P-51D at all altitudes and slower than P-47D at medium and high altitudes. And both mentioned US fighters zoomed better than any WWII era Spitfire. And not only Mustang but all WWII fighters powered by liquid-cooled engines were vulnerable to even light battle damage to their cooling system.
Contrary to claim of the author, P-38L didn’t lack stopping power, its armament, while not exceptionally heavy, was a good average for a late war fighter.
Lockheed P-80A had the same six .5 M2 as P-51D Mustang but its machine guns were all concentrated to the nose giving more concentrated and effective fire pattern.
While the first Lavochkin La-7s that reached combat zone had max speed of 406 mph and rate of climb 3,396 fpm, the late La-7s from late 1944 onwards had max speed of 418 mph and rate of climb 4,762 fpm , so in early 1945 and under 2,000m only Hawker Tempest was faster than it and Bf 109K-4 had equal speed. Spitfire Mk. XIV with +21lb boost became faster at little under 3,000 m and with +18lb boost at little under 4,000 m. Spitfire Mk XIV with +21lb boost out climbed it at all altitudes as did Bf 109K-4, but Spitfire Mk. XIV with +18lb only above appr. 1,500 m. La-7 was an excellent low- and medium altitude fighter and these were the altitudes where most of the Eastern Front air combats were fought. It suffered from engine unreliability which arose from the engine installation not from the engine itself. And while roll-over bar was recommended for production La-7s, according to Ves̆ts̆ík’s Lavoc̆kin La-7 book it wasn’t installed and that seems to be the case. But it isn’t all bad, according to the article La-7 had bigger spinner than La-5FN, I don’t remember seeing that information before but when I measured the spinners from the line drawings in Gordon’s Lavochkin’s Piston-Engined Fighters the results confirmed that. So at least according to the line drawings the information is correct. A pair more complains; the second photo seems to shows a Lavochkin La-5F not a La-7 and La-7 was powered by Shvetsov ASh-82FN not by ASh-82FNV, maybe the author means Shvetsov M-82FNV which was the prototype/pre-production version of the engine of which was installed in La-5FNs and La-7s. Its production version was at first designated as Shvetsov M-82FN but soon re-designated as Shvetsov ASh-82FN to honour its chief designer Arkadiy Shvetsov.
On Yak-3 there is a bit different problem, according to Gordon’s Soviet Air Power book the max. speed of it was 398 mph not 407 mph given in the article, but performance, especially the maximum level speed, of the partly wooden Soviet fighters varied even more than the metal Western ones. And I have seen Soviet/Russian graphs showing both 401 and 405 mph as the maximum speed for Yak-3. But again it is the maximum rate of climb that is my main problem, the table in the article shows 3,650 fpm while Soviet graphs showed 4,330 fpm, which is the rate of climb that would explain why Soviet pilots had so high regard on that little fighter and why German pilots thought it being so dangerous opponent. It seems that the author has got his Soviet aircraft specifications from Wikipedia, where somebody has calculated the Soviet rates of climb by simply using the time to altitude information from Gordon’s Soviet Air Power book and converting it to a rate of climb by dividing the altitude (16,400 ft) by the time needed to reach it. The results definitely aren’t the maximum rates of climb of those planes.
While as I wrote above, it seems that Bell P-63 Kingcobra didn’t see combat in Europe during the WWII, the climb data given in article seems to be too low, the internet site says 3,600 ft/min, according to Dean it was even better. This is in line with the time to height information in Gordon’s and Wagner’s books.  According to Dean P-63 had the best rate of climb of the all USAAF fighters seeing series production during WWII.  Otherwise the description of P-63 is ok and rightly pointed out reasons why USAAF didn’t use it as a combat plane, the lack of range and high altitude performance, it was low and middle altitude fighter.
Focke-Wulf Fw 190A-9, the speed given is that without compressibility correction which is the way how German data was rather often given, so almost 10 mph too optimistic when compared other planes whose maximum speeds are usually given with compressibility correction. Also its rate of climb seems to have given as 2,350 ft/min, which is same as given in Kens’ and Nowarra’s old Die deutschen Flugzeuge 1933-1945 and Wood’s/Gunston’s Hitler’s Luftwaffe for Fw 190A-8  when a German document I have seen gives 11.7 m/s which converts to 2,303 ft/min for Fw 190A-9. The same document gives only 9.7 m/s, that is 1,909 ft/min, for Fw 190A-8 but also 14.0 m/s (2,756 ft/min) with emergency power with increased boost.  On the other hand 3,445 ft/min for Fw 190A-8 with 1.42 ata boost is given in my very poor copy of the Focke-Wulf Flugzeugbau-Flugmechanic-L graph dated 12 Jan 1944. The maximum RoC isn’t better with 1,68 ata but this higher boost gives significantly better RoC between 1.500m and 5.500m. The figure 2,677 ft/min A-8 1.32 ata is given in Focke-Wulf Flugzeugbau-Flugmechanic-L graph dated 13 Nov 1943. A Soviet test gives maximum 3,563 ft/min with special power and 3,150 ft/min with the combat power (probably means Steig- und Kampfleistung) but the Fw 190A-8 used in it was without outer wing cannon and also had smaller fuel load and was 314 kgs lighter than the standard Fw 190A-8 in German flight tests graphs. I admit that Fw 190A-9 was a hard nut to open and in the end I didn’t find a reliable source for its rate of climb but IMHO the maximum RoC of a normal Fw 190A-9 fighter should be at least 3,445 ft/min.
The speed of Fw 190D-9 given seems to be some 8 mph optimistic relative to the delivered production aircraft because it assumes the installation of the engine gap seal. On the other hand, the speculation that the speed without MW50 might has been as low as 360 mph is rather odd, Soviet data gives that speed as appr. 390 mph, and Soviet data for Fw 190s tended to be clearly lower than values in German or Western Allied documents. Also the rate of climb value given, 3,300 ft/min, is rather conservative, in early 1945 Fw 190D-9 was capable to 3,405 ft/min with take-off power and 4,232 ft/min with special emergency power (Sonder-Notleistung).
I would not call Messerschmitt Bf 109 as long-suffering. On the Bf 109K-4, only the Bf 109K prototype had a slightly bulged canopy, the production machines had the standard Erla/Galland canopy.
The DB605DM was cleared up to 1.75ata, the DB605DB pushed the limit up to 1.8ata, and both could be sustained with use of either B4 fuel + MW-50 (as mentioned in various documents, even if it was an afterthought in the DM case) or with C3 fuel. With 1.8 ata boost and 2,800 rpm 605DB produced 1,850 ps/1,825 hp. Without MW-50 with B4 fuel it produced 1,430 ps/1,410 hp. However the DB605DC max power, with 1.98 ata boost and 2,800 rpm could be achieved only with use of C3+MW-50. It then produced 2,000 ps/1,973 hp. Problems were the scarcity of methanol for the MW-50 and the limited supply of high octane C3 for Bf 109 units because Fw 190As and Fs could use only it, so usually Bf 109 units had to be content with lower octane B4.
The given range seems to be too short when compared to the Spitfires but the same figure is given in Poruba’s and Janda’s Messerschmitt Bf 109K book. On the other hand Martinek’s article gives the range of Bf 109G-10 as 650 km, which converts into 404 miles and G-10, while otherwise very similar to K-4, had fixed tailwheel and lacked the outer wheel well covers (but often the tailwheel was locked down and outer wheel well covers removed in operational K-4s) so it’s range should have been shorter than that of K-4 or when compared to a K-4 with modifications just given in parentheses, the same. A plane had many different ranges depending on engine settings used and the flight altitude but IMHO the 404 miles range is truer when compared the ranges of Spitfires given in the article.
Messerschmitt Me 262 part is OK but again there was no KG(J) 51, it was simply KG 51.
Messerschmitt Me 163, MK 108 wasn’t slow firing with its 650 rounds/min rate of fire but it had fairly low muzzle velocity, 540 m/s (1,770 ft/s).
On the conclusion part of the article, IMFO Meteor III wasn’t non-operational but because of snaking and its poor rate of roll it wasn’t a top-class fighter in 1945. In the end the author concludes that the choice for the title of the best fighter in the ETO has to be made between Spitfire XIV and Me 262 and he chooses Spitfire XIV. I agree, that if the choice is made without thinking of the range and the combat altitude, the choice is between the two but even with the haste and desperate situation in which Me 262 was rushed into service and all the problems which followed from that, Me 262 would have dominated the duel between these two planes if the combat had begun from equal positions. Spitfire might survive because of its better horizontal manoeuvrability and acceleration but to win it should have to surprise the Me 262 or the Me 262 pilot should have to make a bad error.
So while otherwise passable article on the late war fighters in ETO it fails badly on the Soviet planes.

Then Wee Willie Ran out of Luck, an excellent article on the “career” of the Boeing B-17G-15-BO 42-31333 Wee Willie” and some of the numerous crews who flow combat mission on it during its 128 missions. Also showing the dramatic pictures of its fiery end on April 8, 1945 over Stendal on its 128th mission. My only complaint is that I’d have liked information on what was done to it at the completion and modification centre at Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Next article is on Hans-Guido Mutke’s dive on April 9, 1945. IMHO a bit unnecessary article because we had only Mutke’s word on the incident and he came into public with his story only 44 years after the incident. But this article takes only two pages and also tells how Mutke flying the Me 262A-1a/R1 “White 3” WNr. 500071 ended in Switzerland on 25 April 1945. The plane is nowadays at the Deutsches Museum in München.

Canadians against the Komet. An interesting article, but it still does not give a definite answer what was the target of the only combat use of the Sondergerät SG 500 Jagdfaust. Not that I criticize the author, it is often impossible to dig out the truth because of the overclaiming and conflicting eyewitness report. The lack of the Luftwaffe records doesn’t help, more so when we talked about the last months of the war with all the chaos on the German side. The author things that the Me 163 pilot Fritz Kelb attacked one of the Lancasters of 433 Squadron RCAF or 405 Squadron RCAF. According to Ethell’s & Price’s book, Kelb shot down a B-17. Different Wiki articles give different victim. Wiki article on Me 163 says “resulting in the destruction of a Halifax bomber, although other sources say it was a Boeing B-17”, Wikiarticle on Sondergerät SG 500 Jagdfaust says that “Fritz Kelb downed an RAF Lancaster using it.”

Then a two pages article on the well-known combat between a Piper L-4 Grasshopper and Fieseler Fi 156 Storch.

Piston Engine Zenit, a good and impartial article on Focke-Wulf Ta 152. At first a very short overview of the development and production of the Ta 152 followed by a description of its combat use at JG 301.  But the author forgot the very brief JG 11 part, it got 4 to 6 Ta 152s near the end of April 1945, but during its last movement during the war, from Neustadt-Glewe to Leck, two out of a formation of four Ta152s from the Stab JG11 were shot down by Spitfires during the transfer flight and the third had to make a belly-landing at Lech airfield.

Then an article on a murder of a shot down USAAF P-51 pilot.

And then the article which gave the tittle of this publication, Spitfires Over Berlin, the story of a Spitfire XIV formation from 350 (Belgian) Squadron combating with Focke-Wulf Fw 190s over the western fringes of Berlin. The Belgian side is well told but there is next to nothing on the German side, so very one-sided story. Besides the quotes from the Allied pilots’ combat reports the other interesting point is a couple photos showing rather battered Spitfire XIVs of the 350 (Belgian) Squadron, fitness of some parts of the engine cowling seemed to have been rather poor.

On the other hand the next article on the activities of the Luftwaffe on April 24, 1945 is interesting, even if the situation was hopeless to Germans and fuel reserves were very low, the Luftwaffe flew over 800 combat sortie on that day, of which nearly 500 were fighter sorties, almost 250 fighter-bomber, ground-attack and anti-tank sorties and some 90 recce, most flown by Fw 190s and Bf 109s. With only six pages it is only a short overview as the author himself admit but very interesting one.

The Ringmaster’s Grand Finale. April 26, 1945: JV44 and Adolf Galland.  The article is a good one, so I have nothing to complain on it but the subject. JG 7 was much more important Me 262 fighter unit than Galland’s JV 44 but much less well known, at least in English speaking world, so I would have been much more eager to see an article on the former unit.

Then a nice article on the Heinkel He 162A and the only possible air kill achieved by a He 162A pilot. It also gives information on the all nine fatal accidents suffered by He 162A pilots during its use in WW2, a couple more French and British pilots died in He 162A accidents after the war but that is outside the scope of this publication. These is even a photo of the wreck of Flying Officer Tom Austin‘s Tempest V JN877 but it is also clearly stated that we will probably never know for sure if Leutnant Rudolf Schmitt shot down the Tempest because of the time difference and not even the place where the Tempest crashed was exactly a match with the combat area reported by Schmitt. Austin reported that he had suffered a catastrophic engine failure and some sources say that the loss was allocated to a German AA unit. There are several fairly small photos of He 162As but what I miss is a photo showing the ventilation disc on the port side of the canopy of He 162.

The last but one article, Final Dogfight May 8, 1945 gives one probably answer but in fact there were later air combats in Europe, mostly friendly fire cases. USAAF Lockheed F-5 photo-reconnaissance planes (unarmed version of the famous Lockheed P-38 Lightning fighter plane) of the 39th Photographic Reconnaissance Squadron/10th Photographic Group, belonging to the 9th U.S. Air Force were then operating from Y-10 airfield in Wiesbaden, Germany.
On 8 May 1945, the unit was on a Prisoner-of-War Camp Pin-Pointing Mission in Dresden airspace, i.e. in the area recently seized by Soviet troops. Several Soviet Yak fighters of the 106th Guards Fighter Air Regiment from Cottbus airfield attacked Captain Malcolm L. Nash. Second Lieutenant Lazuta wrongly took Nash´s F-5E for a German Focke Wulf Fw 189 (twin-fuselage plane like F-5), and shot it down in Reichenbach area, approx. 40 kilometres West of Dresden. Captain Nash made a belly landing in the field. Though he escaping serious injury his F-5E was totally demolished.
On 9 May 1945 afternoon, the 39th Photo-Reconnaissance Squadron sent six Lockheed F-5s to search for the missing Capt. Nash. Two of the F-5s piloted by 1/Lt Thomas P. Petrus and 2/Lt. Thomas Jackson, flew as far as Prague. By coincidence, this happened when six Soviet US built Bell P-39 Airacobras patrolled the area. They were part of the 100th Guards Fighter Air Regiment. Soviet fighters covered Soviet tanks advancing to Prague, and one of them, Major Vasilyi A. Pschenitchnikov, took the American twin-fuselage F-5 for a German Fw 189 and shot down the plane over Prague. While 1/Lt Petrus, suffering heavy burns, saved his life on parachute, Maj. Pschenitchnikov on his return added to his score the kill of „Fw 189“, his thirteenth and the last WW2 kill.
There was also at least one another dogfight on 9 May: Ju88, from possibly II/KG200 (144032), was attacked and damaged by FAA fighters over Skagerrak.
And on 11May 1945 Anson XII PH539 of the Desert Air Force Communication Flight was attacked by three Yak fighters while off course. It force-landed in a field near Graz, Austria and struck trees.

The last article is Aftermath May 9, 1945 and beyond. It is on the Allied war booty planes and scientific intelligence during the last days of the war and immediate afterwards. There is a list of the Watson’s Whizzers’ Me 262s and a list of the German aircraft captured by the British and US. Surprisingly it seems that  British gave all four Focke-Wulf 190Ds they had captured to US while they kept few 190As and F-8s plus a two of the three Ta 152Hs themselves.  Not surprisingly there are many night-fighters, mostly Junkers Ju 88G-6s but I was a little surprised of the number of Messerschmitt Me 163Bs captured by British, at least 23.

All in all I am very positively surprised at this purchase, almost all articles are good and interesting with well-chosen pictures, almost all them clear even if some are rather small in size. It gives interesting and many-sided picture of the last five months of the air war on the Western Front. Only major complains is the lack of articles on the Soviet Air Forces and the underestimations of the performance of Soviet fighters.

Main sources:
Motorenmustern for DB 605D series engines

Boehme, Manfred, JG 7 The World’s First Jet Fighter Unit 1944/1945 (Atglen, PA: Schiffer Publishing, 1992).
Caldwell, Donald, Day Fighters in Defence of the Reich A War Diary, 1942 – 45 (Barnsley: Frontline Books,
               2011).
Dean, Francis H., America’s Hundred-Thousand The U.S. Production Fighters of World War II (Atglen, PA:
               Schiffer Publishing, 1997).
Ethell, Jeffrey & Price, Alfred, World War II Fighting Jets (Shrewsbury: Airlife Publishing, 1994).
Foreman, John and Harvey, S. E., Me 262 Combat Diary (New Malden: Air Research Publications, 1990).
Freeman, Roger A., The Mighty Eight War Diary (London: Arms and Armour Press, 1990).
Gordon, Yefim, Lavochkin’s Piston-Engined Fighters (Hinckley: Midland Publishing, 2003).
Gordon, Yefim, Soviet Air Power in World War 2 (Hinckley: Midland Publishing, 2008).
Hermann, Dietmar & Wunderlich, Markus, Die kurze Karriere der Focke-Wulf Ta 152, Flugzeug Classic, Apr.
                2010.
Kens, Karlheinz and Nowarra, Heinz J., Die deutschen Flugzeuge 1933-1945 (München: J.F. Lehmann Verlag,
                2. Ausgabe, 1964)
Manhro, John and Pütz, Ron, Bodenplatte The Luftwaffe’s Last Hope (Crowborough: Hikoki Publications,
                2004).
Martinek, Josef, ‘Bf 109G-10 – the most agile “Gustav”’, Zlínek, No. 4 / Vol. III.
Murawski, Marek J., JG 1 “Oesau” 1944-1945 (Lublin: KAGERO, 2002).
Poruba,T and Janda, A, Messerschmitt Bf 109K (Hradec Králové: JaPo, 1997).
Price, Alfred, The Spitfire Story (London: Cassell & Co, Revised Second Edition, 2002).
Shores, Christopher and Williams, Clive, Aces High (London: Grub Street 1994).
Smith, J. Richard and Creek, Eddie j., Me 262 Volume Three (Crowborough: Classic Publications, 2000).
Ves̆ts̆ík, Milos̆, Lavoc̆kin La-7 (Praha: MBI, 2000).
Wagner, Ray (Ed.), American Combat Planes (Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., New
               Revised Edition, 1968)
Weir, Adrian, The Last Flight of the Luftwaffe (London: Cassell & Co, 2000).
Wood, Tony/Gunston, Bill, Hitler’s Luftwaffe. A pictorial and technical encyclopedia of Hitler’s air power in
               World War II (:Leisure Books, Reprinted, 1984).

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spitfire-IX.html
http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14v109.html
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-63/P-63.html
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/leistungsdaten-1-10-44.jpg
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190d9test.html
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/Methanol.pdf
http://users.atw.hu/kurfurst/articles/MW_KvsXIV.htm  
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daimler-Benz_DB_605#Variants
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Me_163_Komet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jagdfaust
http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/showthread.php?t=40780
http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/showthread.php?t=7258

Smith, J. Richard and Creek Eddie J., Me 262 Volume One. Classic Publications Burgess Hill, West Sussex 1997. ISBN 0 9526867 2 4. 224 pages, Dimensions: 30.6 x 22.8 x 2 cm

Simply an excellent book, full of relevant information, technical drawings and specifications. It is also a book for modelers, plenty of good quality b/w and some colour photographs, many colour profiles and an appendix on Luftwaffe’s camouflage and markings. Unfortunately difficult and very expensive to get nowadays.

This volume, the first of four, covers development of the Me 262 from its initiation to the eve of the beginning of its operational testing, in other words to the end of 1943 but the development history is taken to mid- 1944, with information on the use and careers of the ten prototypes and the first seven pre-production aircraft (Me 262 S1 – S7) and the initial production methods.

The book begins with good survey of Willy Messerschmitt’s career and the history of his firm, altogether 26 pages.
Then followed a 16 pages thorough chapter on the German jet engine development, which covers well the three jet engines that influenced the design of the Me 262 (BMW P3304, BMW P3302 (BMW 003) and Jumo 004). The BMW 003A, a different engine from the P3302, which flew in later Me 262 development aircraft, is also discussed, even if it did not influence the airframe design.  The story of the development of Me 262 itself began on the page 56. The book has many photographs of wind-tunnel models that were prepared to evaluate the several stages of airframe design that began with what looks like a straight-wing Me 309 derivative or cousin and ended with the swept-wing fighter that went to production. Also other descriptions of technical matters is very good e.g. the descriptions of Zeiss TSA 2D and Lofte 7H bomb sights

There are four appendices:
Appendix. 1. Camouflage and Markings
Appendix. 2. Me 262 Prototype Flights
Appendix. 3. German Reaction Engine Designation System
Appendix. 4. Messerschmitt Personalities and Company Organization. This is an extensive list of Messerschmitt personalities, often accompanied with a micro biography.

For modellers the Appendix 1 is interesting, for those interested in Me 262:n development the Appendices 2 and 4 are very useful.

Difficult to find something to criticize but there is always something.  
The index could be more detailed and there are some annoying typos. Also when the writers wonder why Hitler didn’t cancel his order to concentrate initially purely on the Me 262 Jabo/bomber versions soon after the D-Day when the main reason behind his reasoning, the ability of Jabo/bomber version to bomb invading Allied troops on the beaches, had disappeared they forget the effect of the Operation Fortitude, which kept Germans waiting for the “main landing” because it deluded them to believe that the D-Day was only a diversion. And there are some errors when the authors write on some side topics, e.g. the claim that LW was able to fly only about 100 sorties on D-Day, when the right figure is 300+. Also their claim on the effectiveness of the ‘Big Week’ seems to be based on what Allied thought they had achieved, at least German aircraft production figures don’t show the level of production drop in March1944 mentioned in the book.

And thanks to Arno for lending his copy.

Forczyk’s book is IMHO good. For its size it gives a good background information, describes enough the actions and gives good overview on the importance of Focke-Wulf Fw 200C to the Battle of Atlantic and reasons for its early successes and its ultimate failure against Allied convoys. The two maps convey very well the essentials of Condors’ anti-convoy operations and the four tables are clear and convey well the essential information as do the diagrams on anti-aircraft systems of armed merchant ships  and low-level attack  tactic used by Condors. But there is at least one mistake in the table “Condor losses by cause”. The 3rd column header “AA from land/merchant ship” should be “AA from merchant ship/ land” or the numbers in the column should be reversed.

Typically to Duel series there is chronology and two minibiographies, that of Edgar Petersen, quite self-evident choice and that of Eric Brown, the very famous test pilot, maybe not so self-evident choice but Brown was one of the Martlet pilots on the Royal Navy’s  first escort carrier HMS Audacity whole of its short career and claimed two Fw 200 Condors. And the arrival of escort carriers was really the turning point  in the Fw 200 Condors vs Atlantic convoys battle.

Forczyk is more in home with Condor than with Royal Navy's  weapon systems. Contrary what Forczyk writes, 12pdr(3”) wasn’t the main heavy AA gun of Royal Navy in 30s, 4” was and at the end of decade 4.5” dual purpose gun had entered  in service. 12pdr might be the most common heavy AA gun installed onto merchant vessels during the WWII but that is a different thing.  And the rate of fire wasn’t the main problem of 2pdr pom-pom besides the unreliability of early versions, it wasn’t significantly lower than that of excellent 40mm Bofors, but the fairly low muzzle velocity of the pom-pom was.

The Royal Navy had begun to understand the need for anti-aircraft protection of Great Britain’s merchant shipping by late 30s and sloops constructed in late 30s had powerful AA armament. Bittern-class sloops, 2 of the 3 ships had six 4" AA guns (3x2), HACS AA fire control director, four .5" AA guns (1x4) and Egret-class sloops, 3 ships, 8 x 4-inch AA guns (4x2), Fuze Keeping Clock AA fire control system, 4 x .5-inch AA (1x4) were commissioned 1936 – 39 and just nearing completion were first of the  Black Swans, 12 were launched between 1939 and 1943, including four for the Royal Indian Navy; twenty-five Modified Black Swans were launched between 1942 and 1945, including two for the Royal Indian Navy. Their armament was 6 × QF 4 in (102 mm) Mk XVI AA guns (3 × 2), Fuze Keeping Clock AA fire control system, 4 × 2pdr AA pom-pom plus 4 × 0.5-inch (12.7 mm) AA machine guns (original), 12 × 20 mm Oerlikon AA (6 × 2) (modified). The first of Black Swans was commissioned on 3 November 1939 and the second on 27 January 1940 and 3 more during the first part of 41, i.e. at the height of the Condor menace.

Also there were the Hunts of which 19 were commissioned in 1940. They were modeled on the 1938 escort sloop Bittern. The Hunt class was to ship the same armament of three twin Mark XIX mounts for the QF 4-inch (102 mm) gun Mark XVI. The guns were controlled by a Fuze Keeping Clock AA fire control computer when engaging aircraft plus a quadruple QF 2 pounder mount Mark VII. While sloops were restricted to speeds under 20knots by a treaty Hunts were small destroyers with top speed of 27 knots (50 km/h). The first twenty were ordered in March and April 1939. They were constructed to Admiralty standards, as were contemporary destroyers, unlike the frigates which conformed much more to mercantile practice. The demanding specifications in an overworked Admiralty design department resulted in a major design miscalculation. When the detailed calculations were done the centre of gravity was lower than expected and the beam was increased. As the first ships were being completed it was found that the design was as much as 70 tons overweight, top heavy, leaving them dangerously deficient in stability. The first twenty ships were so far advanced in construction that it was necessary to remove the 'X' 4 inch mount and add 50 tons of permanent ballast. These ships became the Type I group, and had the multiple 2 pounder gun relocated from behind the funnel to the more advantageous 'X' position. The design deficiency of the Type I was rectified by splitting the hulls lengthwise and adding a 2½ foot section, increasing the beam and the margin of stability sufficiently for the designed armament to be shipped. These ships became the Type II group. Under the 1939 Emergency War Programme 36 more Hunts had been ordered: three of these were completed to the original (Type I) design.

The main problem for the RN was that the unexpected collapse of France and occupation of Norway by Germany not only opened opportunity for Condors to attack against southern convoy routes but also allowed medium-bomber anti-shipping attacks in Irish Sea and in the waters around Ireland, so these ships were urgently needed besides the North Sea also in this new danger area.

Analyze seems otherwise good, but near the end the 20mm Oerlikon fixation goes to annoying dimensions. Even after Forczyk has told that the more powerful anti-aircraft protection of convoys had forced KG 40 to abandon the low-level attacks and with the new Fw 200C-4 version, which was equipped with the good Lofte 7B bombsight, it began to bomb from 3,000m (10,000ft) to avoid light automatic AA fire, he still regard the number of Oerlikons as measurement of how good AA defense a convoy had.

Another small error in the book is that the first escort carrier with a hangar deck wasn’t HMS Biter but both HMS Archer and HMS Avenger  had begun to escort convoys already during the spring 1942.

In spite of some errors the book is a good introduction to Fw 200 Condor and its use as maritime bomber and reconnaissance bomber and the Allied efforts to combat this menace.