Were Bf.109s meant to be rail-transportable?

ME 109 on a railway wagon

Here is an extract from one of my 109 manuals showing the a/c on a rail wagon and being towed by a lorry. So yes they were meant to be transported by rail or road.
Paul B co writer of the Bf109 Haynes manual.

I find the drawing interesting to say the least, the railway wagon and aircraft are completely out of scale to each other. So i wouldnt say the ME 109 would fit like that, look at the size of those wings.

Mike Pannell

I’ve posted this on a LEMB thread started by the OP here on the same subject… but I thought you guys might like to see it too – check point #14 🙂

Cheers
Peter D Evans
LEMB Administrator

Orion, there are photographs of a rail spur into Boscombe Down, and even today it is possible to walk on the railway embankment inside the security fence.
The railway was the one that after Amesbury Station became the Larkhill Military railway and during WW1 served the airfield at Stonehenge.

For a good example of railways on airfields you need to look no further than RAF Henlow which had both a standard guage and an extensive narrow guage system.

Photo of BF 109’s on a railway carriage on ebay now. Item no 181051710666.

Dave

Yes, I would think one didn’t just transit a bunch of Messerschmitts across France on, say, VFR flight plans in 1937…

Agreed. I would imagine that it is a lot easier to conceal controversial arms shipments by boxing them up then shipping them by rail and then boat than by delivering by air over a suspicious neighbour.

Yes, I would think one didn’t just transit a bunch of Messerschmitts across France on, say, VFR flight plans in 1937…

Out of curiosity, how did the 109s of the Condor Legion get to Spain?

My guess would be crated, by ship.

Out of curiosity, how did the 109s of the Condor Legion get to Spain?

A bigger question, to me, is why should a vehicle as quickly transportable as an airplane be designed to ride a railcar? I can understand rail-transportable tanks or artillery pieces, but 300-mph airplanes?

There is also the point that by using a train, 40+ aircraft could be delivered by a crew of 3 men in one go – rail transport was about the economics of scale.

The importance of rail transport in warfare should not be overlooked – I once saw a TV documentary about AJP Taylor’s 1968 book “War by Timetable” – his basic premise concerned the key part that railway timetables played in starting World War I.

I seem to recall that in 1914 the Germans tried to stop their mobilisation but they couldn’t because there were more than 10,000 trains on the move and it was too difficult to stop them.

Factories would have been connected to the rail network and if Germany was anything like the UK at that time, most airfields would have been pretty close to a railway.
…

Being pretty close isn’t good enough, because th aeroplane would have to be off-loaded and onto a lorry. Most British fighters seemed to have been road-hauled on Queen Marys or directly flown to their bases when new.

You’d be pretty hard pressed to find an RAF fighter base which was directly connected to a railway. The only one I can think of at present is Boscombe Down although Hendon was during WWI, not WW2. There were a few bomber bases directly rail connected and Warton and Burtonwood were too.

ATB

But was this criterion specified in the Request for Proposal (or whatever the RLM called the document)? Or was it something that Willi figured on his own would be a good idea?

That’s what I’m trying to track down.

Here is an extract from one of my 109 manuals showing the a/c on a rail wagon and being towed by a lorry. So yes they were meant to be transported by rail or road.
Paul B co writer of the Bf109 Haynes manual.

I’d be surprised if this were the case because it would have to mean that every factory and every airfield would need a rail connection with appropriate loading and offloading facilities.

Having said that, I’m surprised that the 109 community hasn’t come forward with a definitive answer.

Regards

Factories would have been connected to the rail network and if Germany was anything like the UK at that time, most airfields would have been pretty close to a railway.

If they were hoping for export orders, the ability to fit in a box could have been pretty important. Can’t see flying out fighters to South America being feasible.

Okay, so far, we have a number of good opinions but no answer to the original question: Did the original 1933 Request for Proposals outlining the criteria that would produce the Bf.109 SPECIFY that the airplane had to be railway-transportable? (Admittedly, I wrote that “the bigger question” was why, but that has been suitably answered.)

The Haynes pseudo-“Owners Workshop Manual,” by Blackah and Lowe, says this is the case, and I’m trying to confirm that for an article on Willi Messerschmitt that I’m working on. I’ve heard all the theories about a lighter wing, etc., but that was the first time I’d read that the real reason for the narrow-tread gear was that it was required by the RFP.

I’d be surprised if this were the case because it would have to mean that every factory and every airfield would need a rail connection with appropriate loading and offloading facilities.

Having said that, I’m surprised that the 109 community hasn’t come forward with a definitive answer.

Regards

For the same reason that we shipped out Spits etc. to Burma in crates. If you have to transport a short range fighter over a great distance, it makes more sense to put it in a box and load it on a ship than to fly it there.

Fighter aircraft of the 1930s were not very good at flying over large expanses of water.

Spitfires in Burma in crates – never heard of that before……

A bigger question, to me, is why should a vehicle as quickly transportable as an airplane be designed to ride a railcar? I can understand rail-transportable tanks or artillery pieces, but 300-mph airplanes?

For the same reason that we shipped out Spits etc. to Burma in crates. If you have to transport a short range fighter over a great distance, it makes more sense to put it in a box and load it on a ship than to fly it there.

Fighter aircraft of the 1930s were not very good at flying over large expanses of water.

Since when were European railways considered narrow gauge? The track width was and is standard gauge. The loading gauge was greater than that in the UK.
.

1435 mm to be exact. The only narrow gauge track were local lines. Spain and Portugal has even wider gauge, 1668 mm.

The trackwide of the famous Sherman was made to fit just over the 1435 mm. So it was able to use railroadbridges without an problem.

Okay, so far, we have a number of good opinions but no answer to the original question: Did the original 1933 Request for Proposals outlining the criteria that would produce the Bf.109 SPECIFY that the airplane had to be railway-transportable? (Admittedly, I wrote that “the bigger question” was why, but that has been suitably answered.)

The Haynes pseudo-“Owners Workshop Manual,” by Blackah and Lowe, says this is the case, and I’m trying to confirm that for an article on Willi Messerschmitt that I’m working on. I’ve heard all the theories about a lighter wing, etc., but that was the first time I’d read that the real reason for the narrow-tread gear was that it was required by the RFP.

My understanding was, and is, that the underdeveloped engines ie the prototype engines, fitted to the 109 and Spitfire were a bit iffy at the time the aircraft were designed but both fighters, in order to beat their competition (He-100 & Hurricane), had to exceed 340mph in their prototype form with their existing engines. As a consequence both were made as light as possible which meant they had to have a single spar wing which, in turn meant the narrow undercarriage. Because the Spitfire’s design cycle had started after the 109 and the Merlin was giving more power than the DB, Mitchell could apply a stub wing to the Spitfire which gave a better undercarriage geometry albeit on a narrow track still.

By 1939-40 engines were giving enough power to equal and exceed the performance of the 109 and Spitfire and so new designs had a two spar wing, hence they could have a wide track undercarriage.

There is an excellent analysis of this in a series of articles by James Hay Stevens in The Aeroplane during 1954. Well worth reading!

Regards