Talk:Heinkel He 219 Uhu

"Mythical" status?

By my reckoning, this is by no means one of the "famous" aircraft of WW2. It has not been widely heard of by the public, and only aircraft like the Spitfire, Mustang, Flying Fortress, Focke-Wulf (190) and Me-109 deserve such a description. This article reads as though it is describing one of the most important aircraft of the Second World War. In fact, the Uhu was merely another german might-have-been late war project that made little to no contribution to the Axis war effort. Like many such weapons, its reputation is based on sparsity of evidence - the 219 was no wonder-weapon, and was not remotely equal to aircraft like the Mosquito. Clearly, this article has been heavily influenced by a bias towards the He-219, and we should tone down the praise that's being so librally heaped on an undeserving and unremarkable aircraft. --Corinthian 11:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

All that counts (with your empire having gone) is that the much over-appreciated Mosquito keeps it "mythical" status, at any price, and might this be by backbiting one of the most sophisticated prop-planes of the whole war. It is sufficent already to watch the design of the Mosquito, which, much unlike the He-219, really does not look like something out of `close encounters`...In fact, its design betrays utter backwardness if compared with the Heinkel. Besides, the Mosquito, although its contribution to the allied war effort was considerable (something I do not deny, albeit much if not most of the `Mosquito-impact` was merely a psychlogical one - in fact, its bomb-load, resulting from the light-weight design of the plane, was everything but impressive, and for the very same reason, Mosquitos resisted poorly to enemy (german) fire), was NO `untouchable`plane at all. Losses of all Mosquitos due to enemy fire during the war add up to several hundreds, if not more than a thousand units. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.21.228.165 (talk) 21:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Mosquito losses to German aircaft are around 160, around 10 to He 219s.

I believe you're wrong about the Mosquito, actually they performed similarly with some of the guns removed from the He 219. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.65.124.128 (talk) 20:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

They're "wrong about the Mosquito" re: the six which the article claims were shot down in '43. Not even the Heinkel folks made that claim when they drew up their list of He 219 Abschuesse in July '44 - first claim for a Mossie was May '44. The original list is "out there" on the net, and reproduced in English in one of standard He 219 books - possibly Remp's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.130.4.94 (talk) 08:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

in fact, its bomb-load, resulting from the light-weight design of the plane, was everything but impressive, - LOL - actually a Mosquito carried the same bomb load to Berlin as a B-17 (4,000lb) but around 100mph faster, a round-trip to Berlin and back took around four hours. Some Mosquito crews of the Light Night Striking Force could do a trip to Berlin and be back again and in the pub before the 'heavies' took-off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.120.10 (talk) 21:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

It is utter nonsense to equate a Mosquito bomb load with the bomb load of a B-17, as the different seizes and the mission weights of the two planes easily reveal: Mosquito B IV bomb load was 227 Kg, later B IV Versions (with redesigned and enlarged inner bomb bay) up to 1814 kg, FB VI versions 226 kg bomb load in inner bay, 452 kg underwing (which however had a negative impact on the speed of the aircraft), Mk IX 1815 kg in inner bomb bay, Mk XVI alike. In fact, no Mosquito could carry more than roughly 1800 kg of bombs. Bomb load of the B-17 was a minimum of 2724 kg (for very long range missions), with some versions carrying up to 5800 kg (hence three times the bomb load of a Mosquito) [all data are referred to "Combat Planes" by Bill Gunston]. Add to this the relatively small numbers of Mosquito deployed in individual attacks (compared to the heavy US and british bombers at least), and you easily see the impact of the Mosquito raids (at least in terms of physical destruction) having been very minor compared with the results of the aerial bombardments of the `bomber streams`. In German, the common expression for the Mosquito raids was `Störangriffe` (nuisance attacks) which in the beginning due to frequent air raid warnings and the English habit to launch night attacks in order to minimize losses caused much psychological stress (civilians had to run for the shelters at night), but in the late stages of the war this particular kind of attack was largely ignored. [Mosquito losses]: Although I have not found any precise loss figures and even though the Mosquito was the plane with the best loss record of all allied air gear in WW II with many Mosquito having been deployed to the Pacific theater of war, considering that more than 6700 Mosquito were manufactured throughout the war a loss of only appr. 160 Mosquito `over Germany` (= 2,6% of the total production turnout) seems to totally unrealistic regarding the usual mission/loss ratio in WW II and the fact that Mosquito saw permanent action in German skies during the war (v.Mudra, 23.05.2012 02:05 CET). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.20.33.0 (talk) 00:17, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

All very dramatic, sadly, equally as inaccurate. The B.IV's load was four times what you claim, the data cards for the IX and XVI clearly state they could carry 2x500s on the wings in addition to the 4,000 lb-er.

This is rubbish, the bomb load of the Mosquito was `either 1800 kg in bomb bay` OR 2 500kg bombs on the wings and less than 500 kg in the bomb bay.

Here's the relevant par of the data card. Feel free to point out your "500 kilos on each wing, less than 500 kilos in the bomb bay" load.

http://i899.photobucket.com/albums/ac192/limits46/5k.jpg

Mossies lost over Germany and occupied territories air-to-air (did you read that part?) as follows. Not all have a matching LW claim, no doubt some friendly fire involved. Feel free to post the Mossies you feel should be included to make the total less unrealistic.

W4055 W4063 W4056 DK294 DK299 W4089 DK289 DK295 DD677 DK308 DK309 W4065 DK303 DK322 DK329 DK326 DK325 DK339 DK317 DZ341 DZ463 DZ362 DZ469 W4054 DZ416 DZ522 DZ487 DZ380 DZ470 DZ536 DZ406 DZ694 DZ386 DZ316 DZ523 DZ758 DZ432 DZ308 DZ753 DZ685 DZ688 LR501 DD743 HJ786 HX808 HJ782 DZ379 HJ655 DZ745 DZ375 HK123 HJ790 LR405 HJ658 HK118 ML912 LR438 HJ656 DZ354 HP861 MM232 HJ660 DZ440 HJ707 HX922 HP911 DZ647 MM247 LR424 LR345 LR349 MM475 MM505 LR266 DD616 DD779 ML958 LR421 MM256 HK501 DZ610 DZ649 NS950 DZ608 MM125 LR332 DZ609 NS938 NS913 NT182 NT129 KB329 NS989 HJ941 DD787 MM147 PF380 LR431 MM136 HP973 HR131 MM708 MM728 MM587 LR433 PF386 MM360 NS521 MM233 MM300 KB227 DZ254 MM126 KB359 MM306 LR406 KB239 MM231 MM586 MM643 NS656 MM184 TA400 NS654 NS953 MM628 LR327 MM351 PZ346 NT224 HK529 ML998 PZ385 MM705 NS791 KB222 PZ351 PZ190 PZ419 PZ442 PZ460 PZ348 MM640 HR632 PF392 KB367 KB390 RF971 HR141 RS633 PF466 RV341 KB185 KB349 KB481 RF590 KB502 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.184.172.35 (talk) 13:34, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

This list refers to Mosquito lost air-to-air (it does not include losses due to AA-fire which probably were higher given the outstanding speed and manoeuvrability of the plane) but nonetheless seems to be quite doubtful to me. Production figures of 6700 Mosquito throughout the war clearly hint at much higher losses, since it is little probable that more than 1000 Mosquito still were in combat service by the time the war ended in Europa in early May 1945.

No, production figures of 6,710 throughout the war (about 1/3 of that total in 1945) clearly hint at the Mosquito being required for a variety of roles in all theatres. By the end of April 1945 there were 960 Mosquitos in front-line squadrons in the ETO alone, quite apart from the squadrons in the MTO and the rapidly-growing force in Asia. By the end of the war in Europe, More than 5 times as many FB.VIs, the most numerous variant, had been produced than had been lost on operations. By the end of the Pacific war, FB.VI production was more than 6 times operational losses.

The soviet army finished the war with 5000-6000 T-34 tanks by May 1945, out of some 100,000 produced.

So what? Seriously, is that the best you can do? The T-34 had heavy losses so the Mosquito must have had them too? Not content with inaccuracy and speculation, you've passed well and truly into the realms of the irrelevant.

In a nearly 6 years lasting war of attrition, mass production of war material was required to replace permanent losses. If - according to what you state - only 160 Mosquito got lost in air-to-air combats (and, referring to your figure, another some 300-400 by ground/AA-fire), there would have been no need for such a high turnout on the assembly lines in the Mosquito factories and the material and the production-capacity could have been spared for other tasks. However it is true that the 1st Mosquito loss achieved by a German twin-engined night fighter (Me 110 G-4/R4 - until mid 1944 the Me 110 was the main opponent of the Mosquito in the night air battles over the `Reich`) occurred as late as in June 1943, when cadet Kellermann managed to down a pathfinder-Mosquito above Kiel. Göring himself congratulated Kellermann for this victory, which emphasized the outstanding character of this event. And even after this incident, Mosquito losses by the `Nachjagdgeschwader` remained somewhat exceptional. which in part was due to the ill-fated design of the Me 110, the backbone of of the German night fighters. But Mosquito were less invulnerable in daylight missions when they had to face German single-engined fighters, which in their more sophisticated versions could be counted as equal with the Mosquito.

The test pilot Eric "Winkle" Brown flew the He 219 and didn't have a very high opinion of it, saying that he thought it 'underpowered'. That may well be so, as at 29,000lb it's around four tons heavier than the Mosquito (20,000-22,000lb) with similar power. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.68.219 (talk) 20:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

It's also worth remembering that the He 219's status comes from being compared to other German nightfighters. It did have pretty remarkable performance when compared to a Do 217 or Bf 110.Intothatdarkness (talk) 20:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Total production of Mosquito will also have allowed for supply to other theatres of war, training aircraft, aircraft lost to grouond accidents, aircraft damaged and later not considered repairable, aircraft that were judged worn out and replaced before they failed, aircraft lost in bad weather. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The article no longer refers to any "Mythical" status - please remember this is not a forum - these discussions do not seem to be related to imrpoving the article.Nigel Ish (talk) 10:16, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Normal bomb load to Berlin for a B-17 was 4,000lb - 4 x 1,000lb, or 8 x 500lb, or 16 x 250lb, or equal weight in incendiaries. In contrast a Mosquito B.IX or B.XIV could carry a 4,000lb HC 'Cookie' to Berlin and be back on the ground around four hours after taking off. Sometimes LNSF Mosquitoes would bomb Berlin twice, going out and returning and being bombed-up and refuelled, before taking off again the same night with a new crew. On a number of times in Winter with longer hours of darkness, the same aircraft made three trips with three different crews. Presumably the Germans who referred to `Störangriffe` (nuisance attacks)' didn't live anywhere near where the 'Cookies' were going off. When an unexploded one was discovered in Koblenz a few years ago the authorities had to evacuate everyone who lived within a mile of it while it was defuzed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 18:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

The German authorities evacuated 45,000 people from Koblenz due to the bomb found in 2011, half the city's population. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.220.131 (talk) 16:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Between 1943 and 1945 total losses of bomber, PRU, and night fighter Mosquitoes to German fighters came to 50 (fifty) aircraft - footnote here at page 166; [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 16:36, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

That looks to be a little on the low side. Mosquito day bombers, operating in the year from May 1942, had 48 losses from 726 sorties. (Sharp & Bowyer p.213.) The night bombers, in the two years from May 1943, had 108 losses from 26,255 sorties. (op cit pp.321, 323.) That's not including night-fighter or fighter-bomber losses or the PRU. Enemy fighters would usually account for more than flak. Still, the He219 does not seem to have had much effect on Mosquitos. The Light Night Striking Force's biggest attack on Berlin, on 21/22 March 1945, saw 139 Mosquito sorties dispatched, many of them accounted for by the same aircraft making two trips in the one night, with just a single loss, and that was an aircraft that returned early with technical trouble and crashed on landing. (op cit p.320, Chorley vol.vi p.143.) German fighters failed to make a single interception.

On the other hand, from 1942 to 1945 Mosquito night fighters with ADGB, 2nd TAF and 100 Group shot down about 643 German aircraft in air-defence or bomber-support sorties (Sharp & Bowyer pp494-507), and that doesn't include kills by fighter-bombers on Intruder or Ranger missions. Only about seven of the night-fighter kills were He219s, but then there were only a couple of dozen 219s in service at any one time anyway. The 219, though technically impressive, was never a problem for the RAF. The pressure imposed on the Luftwaffe and German industry by Bomber Command meant that Germany could not afford to slow night-fighter production by re-tooling for the 219, so it remained a boutique, niche product. Khamba Tendal (talk) 17:24, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

The figure of 50 aircraft losses quoted above almost certainly refers to Mosquitoes operating at night at medium to high altitudes and does not include the losses of Fighter Bomber (FB) Mosquitoes operating by day and at much lower altitudes. The figure only refers to aircraft shot down by German fighters. I suspect the original source would have used the term 'night fighter's if it were not for the likelihood that some of the 'fighters' may have been 'Wilde Sau' day fighters operating at night.

With the introduction of the two-stage Merlin engines on the Mosquito B.IX and B.XVI these aircraft became pretty much immune from fighter attack at-altitude from all except the Me 262 so a figure of fifty losses is IMHO plausible. These two Mosquito variants could cruise at 350 mph.

I wouldn't say 'immune' exactly. It depended if the crew saw the fighters coming and had time to accelerate away. Mosquito B.IX LR501, of 1409 Met Flight, was shot down from 28,000ft over Mayenne, France, in daylight, on 14 June 1943, by a pair of Fw190s. Both crew bailed out and survived. Flt Sgt D. Durrant, pilot, was PoW. Fg Off R. Taylor, navigator, evaded. (W.R. Chorley, Bomber Command Losses of the Second World War, Vol.IV: 1943, Midland Publishing, Hinckley, 1996, ISBN 0-904597-90-3, p.185.) This was, however, the only Bomber Command Mosquito lost in the ten-day period from 11/12 June to 21/22 June 1943. (Chorley, op.cit., pp.174-197.) And Fighter Command's Intruder Mosquitos don't appear to have suffered any losses in that period either. (C. Martin Sharp & Michael J.F. Bowyer, Mosquito, Crecy Publishing, Wilmslow, 1995, ISBN 0-947554-41-6, pp.343-4.) So the suggestion that Heinkel 219s shot down six Mosquitos in those ten nights appears to be a fabrication. Indeed it doesn't seem that the German pilots ever made any such claims. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:05, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

RAF metrological flights were required to fly at set speeds and attitudes for lengthy periods in order to obtain barometric readings and other measurements, so it is possible they were simply not paying attention to what was going on around them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.53.180 (talk) 19:00, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Production numbers

Does anybody have verifyable sources about production numbers ? I found in a german discussion board the following info:

• 106 A-0 with DB 603A
• 15 A-0 with DB 603AA
• 89 A-2 with DB 603AA
• 210 A-7 with DB 603E
• 5 D-1 with Jumo 213E (prototypes), engine installation tested in A-2 fuselelage

Source is stated as Ernst Heinkel AG delivery plan from December 15, 1944 with deliveries as of December 11, 1944. --Denniss 22:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe those numbers are orders, not actual production. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.100.120 (talk) 23:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

"Deutsche Kampfflugzeuge des Zweiten Weltkriegs" (Dörfler, 2002, p. 104.)

"lnsgesamt entstanden 268 Uhu, und hinzu kamen noch 20 Versuchsflugzeuge, die die Truppe einsatzbereit machte. Weitere sechs Maschinen, die in keiner offiziellen Unterlage geführt sind, wurden bei l./NJG 1 aus Ersatzteilen und Austauschbaugruppen zusammengebaut."

The total production is 268, and added another 20 prototypes for use. Another six that are not listed in any official document, were assembled from spare parts and replacement assemblies at l./NJG1. The 294 is the number including this non regular.--Sicmn (talk) 08:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Six assembled from spare parts is an often repeated myth, not verified by anything. You can't assemble complete aircraft just from spare parts as there was no replacement main fuselage existing for any aircraft - these would have been built anew with a new serial number. There have never been 20 prototypes of the He 219, AFAIR there were 4 pure prototypes and others were taken from A-0 production. 268x He 219 is from a postwar collection for the allies which is known to have missed lots of aircraft. Currently known production is 106 A-0 + 15 A-2 + 5 D-1 at Wien-Schwechat, 23 A-0 + 85 A-2 + 57 A-7 at Rostock-Marienehe. There were more A-2 delivered than ordered, most likely because of shortages of DB 603E engines. D-1 and A-7 were delivered in 45. The huge delivery of 35 A-7 in 1/45 lets one believe a train with DB 603E engines arrived in later December or early January. In November 15 (presumably A-0) were rebuilt to A-2 standard (AKA engine upgrade to DB 603AA). Numbers may be inflated by 10-15 aircraft that were accepted by Luftwaffe inspectors (taken-over in Lw service) but destroyed while still at the factory.--Denniss (talk) 21:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I understand.--Sicmn (talk) 11:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Sources

It appears that a lot of the text has been lifted and simply paraphrased from the Smithsonian site [3]. That page has a copyright notice on it. What is the correct approach? Plagiarism isn't acceptable obviously. The source should at least be referenced. Any ideas?

How about to start signing your entries on talk page(s) so one can know to whom it is they respond? Azx2 02:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Survivors

You should be aware that the Smithsonian's UHU, described as having been obtained by the U.S. Operation Lusty at "Grove, South Jutland, Germany" must refer to "Einsatzfliegerhorst Grove, Central Jutland, Denmark (current Karup Air Base)" - this seems to be important to fix since the error apparently has been lifted from the Smithsonian's site.

The airfield after capture in 1945 was known as 'RAF Grove' and presumably this Uhu was one supplied to Watson by the British, the Luftwaffe commander having surrendered the airfield to Eric "Winkle" Brown who was a test pilot who had just flown over from the RAE, Farnborough.

Wreckage of a HE-219 has just been salvaged off the coast of Denmark. These days it's transported to a museum in Aalborg to be displayed for the audience. News: http://www.nordjyske.dk/artikel/10/2875/28/4128262/4/sj%E6ldent-krigsfly-trukket-op-af-havet The museum: http://www.forsvarsmuseum.dk/

¡Dios mío! Is there any update on this salvaged He 219? I couldn't access the article but am tremendously interested by this topic and dream of the Uhu. Would very much like to see one in person some day. Please tell us more about the aircraft found off coast of Denmark. Azx2 02:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

More info on this bird is here. Seems to have been a Rostock-built He 219 with DB 603E engines but no definite information found to confirm this as an A-7. --Denniss (talk) 03:06, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Change the picture order?

Photographs of the He 219 are rare, but would it make sense to put the photo of the German He 219 at the top of the article, as it is a German plane? Sure, the British He 219 is a useful photograph, but I think it would be better to put it further down the article, perhaps in the operators section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.246.121.24 (talk) 11:01, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.247.22 (talk) 11:14, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

The photo of the British-captured aircraft was for a while the only picture in the article, hence it was placed in the header. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.172.235 (talk) 19:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

"Detachable ventral tray"?

I don't claim to know, but I do not see how the ventral tray on the He 219 could be "detachable" as it claims at the bottom of the page. The front is stepped where the muzzles are, and the rear blends into the rear ventral fuselage line without any sort of break. The only way the gun tray could be detachable is if there was a second "real" step some distance behind the first, and when the tray was removed it would in essence move the "step" backwards to the new step, which would look even more awkward than the stepped belly does already. The fuselage would have to suddenly get deeper just behind the trailing edge, or something. Also I quibble with the "significantly more streamlined nacelles" part. I had to look very closely to register how they actually differed from the Ju 88's nacelles and radiators after I read that, and as far as I can tell the main difference is that the leading edges of the annular radiator cowl are subtly more rounded, and the intake area itself is slimmer and more constricted, due to a larger spinner and/or a tighter cowling. It can't be that much tighter however. Strictly honest, I'd say that it ought to be "subtly more streamlined", not "significantly" more.70.16.213.25 (talk) 10:08, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

The weapons bay is detachable but the airframe was designed with it in mind so it closely fits into the airframe, ending roughly mid fuselage near the end of the wing. --Denniss (talk) 11:07, 20 November 2018 (UTC)