German late war mysterious specifications

W

Wurger

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
25 October 2007
Messages
1,170
Reaction score
526
In Manfred Griehl's "Last days of the Luftwaffe" the author mentions official Entwicklungs-Haupt-Kommando (EHK) documents stating that, in early february of 1945, specifications were defined for a heavy fighter/destroyer, with a frontal sealed turret, six machine cannons, a trainable tail turret, automatic aiming devices and two turbojets. On 9th of March a tactical brake/especial flap to reduce speed rapidly from behind the target was demanded, and at the 2nd April, at Bad Eilsen, blind firing and advanced electronics were added. A four turbojet long range bomber was requested, to replace the Ju 287.

Does anyone have copies of those documents? What intrigues me most are the tactical brake, the "advanced electronics" and the perspective of two hitherto unknown jet aircraft projects.
 
It looks like some specifications for a night fighter fitted with a radar and turbojets...
 
Wurger said:
In Manfred Griehl's "Last days of the Luftwaffe" the author mentions official Entwicklungs-Haupt-Kommando (EHK) documents stating that, in early february of 1945, specifications were defined for a heavy fighter/destroyer, with a frontal sealed turret, six machine cannons, a trainable tail turret, automatic aiming devices and two turbojets. On 9th of March a tactical brake/especial flap to reduce speed rapidly from behind the target was demanded, and at the 2nd April, at Bad Eilsen, blind firing and advanced electronics were added. A four turbojet long range bomber was requested, to replace the Ju 287.

Does anyone have copies of those documents? What intrigues me most are the tactical brake, the "advanced electronics" and the perspective of two hitherto unknown jet aircraft projects.
Click to expand...

It was the Entwicklungshauptkommission, or Entwicklungs-Hauptkommission (it appears both ways in contemporary documents), rather than Entwicklungs-Haupt-Kommando. I'm not aware that it met during early Feb (getting the kommission's members together must have been a logistical nightmare since its membership included Willy Messerschmitt, Kurt Tank, Heinrich Hertel, Robert Lusser, Walter Blume and Gunther Bock. They did meet on Feb 27-28 however and discussed the 1-TL-Jager and the Nacht- und Schlechtwetterjager programmes. With the former, it was decided to go ahead with "Projekt Focke-Wulf Nr. 279" as the "sofortloesung" or 'immediate solution' and "Firma Messerschmitt soll Optimalloesung in schwanzloser Bauweise zu einem spaeteren Zeitpunkt bringen".
With the latter, new specs were issued to the companies at the meeting and a decision was deferred to the next meeting on March 20, giving the companies time to adapt their designs. I believe Griehl is making reference to Nacht- und Schlechtwetterjager, which Goering referred to in a meeting on Feb 22 as '2 TL-Projekt - Aufklaerer, Nachtjaeger, Zerstoerer, mittl. Bomber" - alongside "1 TL-Projekt - Jager" and "4 TL-Projekt". Those three were really the last three significant German development programmes of the war. It seems that the spec for Nacht- und Schlechtwetterjager changed several times during early 1945, much to the dismay of the companies trying to design it, so perhaps Griehl's turret-mounting project refers to an earlier spec.
 
Some initial specifications for a Schlechtwetter und Nachtjaeger were sent to aircraft companies on January 27, 1945 and the project was to be discussed on February 6 - maybe the specifications were made more precise then and Griehl refers to results of this meeting?
This project appears as 2 TL-Schlechtwetter und Nachtjaeger or TL-Schlechtwetterjaeger at later dates - but I believe some of the features mentioned by Griehl were not actually included in these specs, but were rather concepts or proposals to modify them.

The bomber project to replace Ju 287 was called the TL-Grossbomber, although no precise specs were known in early April yet.
 
Grzesio said:
Some initial specifications for a Schlechtwetter und Nachtjaeger were sent to aircraft companies on January 27, 1945 and the project was to be discussed on February 6 - maybe the specifications were made more precise then and Griehl refers to results of this meeting?
This project appears as 2 TL-Schlechtwetter und Nachtjaeger or TL-Schlechtwetterjaeger at later dates - but I believe some of the features mentioned by Griehl were not actually included in these specs, but were rather concepts or proposals to modify them.

The bomber project to replace Ju 287 was called the TL-Grossbomber, although no precise specs were known in early April yet.
Click to expand...

I don't think the EHK met on Feb 6. According to the KTB der Chef TLR, Amtsgruppe E met on Feb 6 and rejected proposals from the EHK to continue certain lines of development - including the Hochleistungsjager programme (which was a high-altitude piston-engine or piston and jet-engine programme dating back to the middle of 1944), Mistel development, EZ 42 and "Stoersender" whatever that is. Speer and Saur regarded these developments as unnecessary and it was reported that the firms concerned had already ceased work on them. TL-Grossbomber is mentioned at this meeting but it's not clear whether this is a reference to the Ju 287 vs Me P 1107 vs H XVIII competition aka Langstreckenbomber.
What we can be reasonably sure of is that the replacement for the Ju 287 (which won the Langstreckenbomber competition) was likely to be the Junkers EF 130 which, according to Waldemar Voigt was supposed to be a combination of work already carried out by Messerschmitt on the P 1108 and the Horten H XVIII.
 
Thank you both for your input. Dan, I do not know that Amtsgruppe E document you state but it seems too scant in informations, e.g. when states a "störsender" (jammer). Which one? There were more than a dozen jammers under development or pproposed at that time, especially aimed at navigation devices (Gee and Loran) or 9 or 3 cm bombing radars. Also, The EZ42 gyro gunsight was about to enter mass prodution at the same time, but it was rebuffed by the Amtsgrupp E?
I am particularly aware of german effort dispersal on electronics but we all know that applies too to everything they did in WW2, including aircraft development. The multitude of items produced by Germany, most not managed centrally and sporting technically bold solutions, feeds many of our interest in the Luftwaffe. Take for instance a set of documents I have from the Tarnewitz E-Stelle: it includes some ordnance items, mostly well-known, but I know that there were many more trialled there and not referenced in available documents. There is surely much we do not know and, unfortunatelly, not at our grasp anymore.
 
Wurger said:
Thank you both for your input. Dan, I do not know that Amtsgruppe E document you state but it seems too scant in informations, e.g. when states a "störsender" (jammer). Which one? There were more than a dozen jammers under development or pproposed at that time, especially aimed at navigation devices (Gee and Loran) or 9 or 3 cm bombing radars. Also, The EZ42 gyro gunsight was about to enter mass prodution at the same time, but it was rebuffed by the Amtsgrupp E?
I am particularly aware of german effort dispersal on electronics but we all know that applies too to everything they did in WW2, including aircraft development. The multitude of items produced by Germany, most not managed centrally and sporting technically bold solutions, feeds many of our interest in the Luftwaffe. Take for instance a set of documents I have from the Tarnewitz E-Stelle: it includes some ordnance items, mostly well-known, but I know that there were many more trialled there and not referenced in available documents. There is surely much we do not know and, unfortunatelly, not at our grasp anymore.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, I don't have any Amtsgruppe E documents. The KTB der Chef TLR is effectively an official war diary recording brief details of all scheduled meetings and formal discussions on technical developments concerning aviation. It doesn't go into the level of detail you require, but it says what I said it says.
 
Re: German late war misterious specifications

A document only translates, at most, the knowledge of the writter, and many times is abbreviated. Much parallel work was being done in those days in Germany, and it`s appauling the sheer ammount of research being conducted, e.g. on electronics.

I know well the KTB der Chef TLR. Fot those who want to have a peek please see:

http://www.cdvandt.org/KTB-Chef-TLR.pdf
 
Re: German late war misterious specifications

Wurger said:
A document only translates, at most, the knowledge of the writter, and many times is abbreviated. Much parallel work was being done in those days in Germany, and it`s appauling the sheer ammount of research being conducted, e.g. on electronics.

I know well the KTB der Chef TLR. Fot those who want to have a peek please see:

http://www.cdvandt.org/KTB-Chef-TLR.pdf
Click to expand...

Indeed. But with regard to the mysterious specification, it would appear to be something to do with the beginnings of Nacht- und Schlechtwtterjager (or perhaps the end of Hochleistungsjager).
 
Still, it was intended to be a heavy fighter/destroyer as Griehl mentions. What would be a "frontal sealed turret"? The tactical brake would be quite interesting and accord to the night fighter tactic of rearward approach. By those days, though, frontal attack was being considered. This matches with development of centimetric radar. Those EHK documents are most interesting, once known in full.
 
ah yes , about 13 years on after asking the question elsewhere , here comes the Fw-290 .
 
first things first . So many years back and the details are a bit hazy but ı once had a booklet for spotters . Must have been early 1944 as it mentioned the "coming Invasion" . Had the He-113 , definitely mentioned that the long nosed 190 had been engaged in combat over Europe , had a very vague reference to '290 but nothing about the Fiat G-55 . My question then was whether what was generally taken as the best Italian fighter of the war was similarly engaged but reported as a German ? A further subtype of Kurt Tank's finest ? ı actually joined a now defunct site to ask that , my very first post anywhere , too .

only to stress that FW-290 existed in the Allied mind . Even if as a totally realistic suggestion that the langnase or Ta-154 would be that . Ju-290 in service since '42-43 and Allies would have known there should have been no repetition . Hence , this "was" a cover for something important , to explain how it would get so out of hand in 1946-47 . Formed after the 190 shock of 1941 , if you think this is bad , 290 will be a lot worse line of reporting , a yearning , a psychological need to fill the slot .

the required and standart notice ; that ı won't have the proof for what comes next . ı have searched the web , after seeing this . FW-290 is not the thing from that What If Speculative Modelling thread , with no negative attitude against the thread participants , one was not shot down by Robert S. Johnson's wingman on January 30th, 1943 , nor multiples were taken out in March / April 1944 . Though any true What Iffer would know ı , of all people , have two distinct 'proofs' that P-47Ns were reported for the Big Week and later as in "They looked remarkably heavy and fierce, and a lot like P-47's" or "This squadron [487th FS, 352 FG if ı get that right] engaged three FW-190s with longer noses and seemingly elliptical wings" on February 3rd, 1944 . ı won't be exactly popular to mind that they were supposed to be flown by Luftwaffe , first seen as motherships to Foo Fighters during the second Schweinfurth raid . All of them finally shot down , as soon as the pilot claiming one knew his gun camera film was unusable , but he had wingman co-operation , a story that began as an explanation for what was a disaster of the times .

people must understand this is a case study , for "real" people who are in the intelligence , on how people can see what they want to see . Am not real in that sense and have no doubts that there was real work on jet powered "all-weather" heavy fighters in Germany of 1945 . Especially the one that "got away"... Reality and fiction mix hard , but ı can honestly say , only for the one that got away that some of the numbers do not add up . Frontal turret and the tail turret not on same platform , but seperate projects , latter an attack type . If frontal turret , only 2 guns . Without turrets up to 6 "apertures" or gun locations , all of them fixed . 4 revolver cannons - in case of unavailability 6 Mk-108s that might well be taken from damaged planes . No drawings as ı asked this online about how a few of German engineers "reverse engineered" during interrogation after the Allied Victory . Design teams were shared between the Allies and for those not taken life must have seemed stark . Hence one poster in 2008 mentions the possibility of the FW-290 as a "small" rocket powered test plane . Remember the blind describing an elephant ? Became so real that the French mounted discrete expeditions to the Black Forest to find buried blueprints ; on the basis of one interrogated German who had a colleague that took them and the colleague was unfortunately killed , but the engineer might fill in all the blanks if he was employed for the next decade . The French even gave a name as well , which ı don't know . But ı have hearsay that Ian Fleming was tempted to write one , even possibly instead of Moonraker , but it might have ruffled Paris in the wrong way .

Grey Havoc said:
Wurger said:
What would be a "frontal sealed turret"?
Click to expand...

Remote controlled turret, perhaps?
Click to expand...

as for sealed turret , is the German word somewhat interchangeable with isolated ? Germans developed radars in "modern" radomes by the end , the word Berlin comes to my mind . If the turret was seperated from the radar bay , it would perhaps help to decrease the vibrations transmitted forward ?
 
You mean the Blohm & Voss P 215? This did not have a front turret but one armament variant had a mechanism for tilting the package of its four MK 108 slightly upwards (Geradbahnschuss). Not sure if this was meant for attacking from below or for extending the range of the MK 108.
 
1945 Luftwaffe -
Technical Guidelines for the Night and Bad Weather Fighter Competition

Wurger said:
What would be a "frontal sealed turret"?
Click to expand...
It's probably just a translation error. The guidelines only mentioned a "Waffenkanzel." Another word for gun bay.

Wurger said:
The tactical brake would be quite interesting and accord to the night fighter tactic of rearward approach.
Click to expand...
In the guidelines (February 27, 1945), these are referred to as "Strahlbremsen" and "taktische Bremsen" in the context of combating four-engine night bombers. The "Strahlbremse" is also mentioned, along with the drogue chute for slowing down the aircraft after landing. Perhaps the "Strahlbremse" was a kind of thrust reversal and the "taktische Bremse" an air brake.


April 1945
Technical Guidelines for the Night and Bad Weather Fighter Competition
(This supersedes the guidelines of February 27, 1945.)

Distrubtion List:
Arado, Blohm & Voss, Dornier, Heinkel, Junkers, Messerschmitt

Bad-weather fighter for day and night operation with blind-firing system and full blind-flight capability, including blind landing, with a crew of three.

Crew in a pressurized cabin with ejection seats, without any separating components. Crew armor against 20mm frontal fire. The front cabin area will be fitted with flat armored glass for better visibility.

The required maximum speed is 900 km/h at an altitude of 10 km. A flight duration of two hours at full power at 10 km, including climb, is also required. Only TL engines are suitable for achieving the required maximum speed. The following engines are available: Jumo 004, BMW 003, and HeS011 with performance upgrades.

The arrangement and number of engines is unrestricted. The use of lower quality fuels must be taken into account. Additionally, the aircraft's use as an interceptor with an additional special engine (rocket or "Lorin" ramjet propulsion) must be considered.

Drogue chute or "Strahlbremse"
for shortening the landing runway.

The forward armament consists of four MK 108 guns or two MG213/30 and two more MG213/30 Rüstsatz. The gun bay is designed to accommodate new developments and various weapon configurations, including the installation of R4M rockets or 5cm guns, etc.

The sighting system consists of an EZ42 with "Bremen" radar ("Elfe" and "Gnom" automatic fire control).

The "Bremen" radar can be replaced with the "Fug 280 Kiel".

An oblique armament with two MK 108 cannons is also planned.

Defense armament will be omitted unless it proves possible to combine the oblique and rear armament in a way that allows for in-flight switching.

An additional bomb load of 2 x 500 kg is to be provided.

Construction must be kept as simple as possible. Wood should be used as the primary building material. Good maintenance and repair by the troops must be taken into consideration. Parking the aircraft outdoors must be possible.

Sources:
Technical Guidelines for a Night and Bad Weather Fighter
February 27, 1945 - April 1945
(4 different versions)
Source:
Bundesarchiv
Signatur: RL 3/2568
Page: 195 - 210


Bad Eilsen, March 23, 1945
Statement on the question of the necessary flight duration and range of night fighter aircraft
Source:
Bundesarchiv
Signatur: R 3/3900
Page: 50 - 53
 
Last edited:
Chef-TLR:

[1] January 22, 1945 - January 28, 1945
Night Fighter:
The technical guidelines were sent to industry on January 27. A project meeting is scheduled for February 6, 1945.

[2] February 26, 1945 - March 4, 1945
Night and Bad Weather Fighter:
In a meeting at EHK on February 27-28, 1945, company projects were presented. The General der Jäger expressed new demands. New guidelines were to be issued to the companies by March 20, 1945.

[3] March 5, 1945 - March 15, 1945
2-TL Bad Weather and Night Fighter:
Gen.Qu.6.Abt. submitted additional requirements and proposals to the Technical Guidelines issued by the Chef TLR in a letter dated March 9, 1945:
a.) In-flight switching the oblique armament to rear armament
b.) Rear armament with blind firing system as standard equipment.
c.) Development of a tactical brake.

[4] March 16, 1945 - April 4, 1945
2-TL Bad Weather Fighter:
The meeting of the EHK in Bad Eilsen from March 20 to 24 clearly established that the demands made by the General der Jagdflieger, particularly regarding flight duration and defensive armament, could not be met. The demands of the "Waffenseite" are based on the current state of night fighting and do not take equipment development into account. Crucial for the deployment of high-quality TL fighter aircraft is the development of new armament systems that allow for successful firing without adjusting airspeed.
Joint review by company representatives revealed that the original TLR demand of February 27, 1945, must be implemented. The demands subsequently revised by TLR were distributed on April 2, 1945. EHK considers an optimal Otto-engine fighter to be necessary, in contrast to TLR.

[5] March 16, 1945 - April 4, 1945
8-234:
Project investigations by the company to quickly convert 8-234 C-5 into a long-range night fighter. Requirements: Speed not less than 600 km/h, 3 hours of flight time at an altitude of approximately 6 km. The investigations will be available for discussion in approximately 10 days.

[5] March 16, 1945 - April 4, 1945
Night Fighter Project:
Meeting with the DW company about a new night fighter project. The prototype is designated Do 350.

Source:
Bundesarchiv
Signatur: RL 3/2567
[1] Page: 131
[2] Page: 237
[3] Page: 269
[4] Page: 301
[5] Page: 303
 
moin1900 said:
Chef-TLR:

[1] January 22, 1945 - January 28, 1945
Night Fighter:
The technical guidelines were sent to industry on January 27. A project meeting is scheduled for February 6, 1945.

[2] February 26, 1945 - March 4, 1945
Night and Bad Weather Fighter:
In a meeting at EHK on February 27-28, 1945, company projects were presented. The General der Jäger expressed new demands. New guidelines were to be issued to the companies by March 20, 1945.

[3] March 5, 1945 - March 15, 1945
2-TL Bad Weather and Night Fighter:
Gen.Qu.6.Abt. submitted additional requirements and proposals to the Technical Guidelines issued by the Chef TLR in a letter dated March 9, 1945:
a.) In-flight switching the oblique armament to rear armament
b.) Rear armament with blind firing system as standard equipment.
c.) Development of a tactical brake.

[4] March 16, 1945 - April 4, 1945
2-TL Bad Weather Fighter:
The meeting of the EHK in Bad Eilsen from March 20 to 24 clearly established that the demands made by the General der Jagdflieger, particularly regarding flight duration and defensive armament, could not be met. The demands of the "Waffenseite" are based on the current state of night fighting and do not take equipment development into account. Crucial for the deployment of high-quality TL fighter aircraft is the development of new armament systems that allow for successful firing without adjusting airspeed.
Joint review by company representatives revealed that the original TLR demand of February 27, 1945, must be implemented. The demands subsequently revised by TLR were distributed on April 2, 1945. EHK considers an optimal Otto-engine fighter to be necessary, in contrast to TLR.

[5] March 16, 1945 - April 4, 1945
8-234:
Project investigations by the company to quickly convert 8-234 C-5 into a long-range night fighter. Requirements: Speed not less than 600 km/h, 3 hours of flight time at an altitude of approximately 6 km. The investigations will be available for discussion in approximately 10 days.

[5] March 16, 1945 - April 4, 1945
Night Fighter Project:
Meeting with the DW company about a new night fighter project. The prototype is designated Do 350.

Source:
Bundesarchiv
Signatur: RL 3/2567
[1] Page: 131
[2] Page: 237
[3] Page: 269
[4] Page: 301
[5] Page: 303
Click to expand...

Please give us a direct link,I found this yesterday ?.
 

Attachments

  • 1.png
    1.png
    14.5 KB · Views: 5

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom