Bf-109E-1 vs E-3,E-4 differences?

[Alte Hase]

Hi all,

I've been trying to find the external and armament differences between the Bf109 E-1,E-3 and E-4.Different sources give different differences (like panels differing, head armour, guns etc). If anyone has a simple answer and maybe even a few top/side views, I'd really appreciate it!

Thanks!

[A4K]

No simple answer, depending on the context.

Each version had certain features introduced (head armour, armoured windscreens, redesigned canopy, etc) as you know already, but in practice many earlier marks were retrofitted with the later modifications, making external identification almost impossible without reseraching the Werk Nummer.

For example, read that the BF 109E-4 was not so numerable in the Battle of Britain as is commonly thought, rather many photos of 'E-4s' are actually E-1s and -3s with later E-4 mods.

(Have a few detail drawings etc if you need them btw)

[Denniss]

Production changes:
E-1 -> E-3: replacement of the wing-MGs with 2cm MG FF guns.
E-3 -> E-4: first to start production with armor (ballast in the tail was removed as CoG moved rearwards), new canopy and MG FF/M guns

canopy, armor and cannons were also retrofitted to older versions

[Alte Hase]

Thanks guys! I've done some further research and I noticed the E-1 also lacked the underwing bulges that are present on E-3 and E-4 models. Obviously this is related to the different guns. Was this lack of underwing gun bulges standard on E-1s?

[Airframes]

Yes, standard on standard E1s, as the bulges covered the cannon ammo drums, and were also the access panels to the drums. The E1 had MGs slightly further inboard, so no bulges. Of course, if upgraded to E3/E4, then the bulges would be there, with the cannons slightly outboard of the original MG position, and visible protruding from the wing, where the MGs just had open ports, no gun barrels visible.
This gives some idea of the possible complexities of identifying the different models. The examples at the RAF Museum and Duxford are good examples, as neither are what they outwardly appear to be !