Fw-190A-8/R2 and Fw-190A-8/R8 - the difference

[seesul]

If I understood well, both these versions were Sturmbocks.
But, what was the difference between those 2 versions and which one was heavier/heavier armoured?
Can anyone post the detailed info please?
Some sources say R2 was heavier and R8 was lighter, some sources say to the contrary...

[seesul]

Erich,

looking at this table, the R8 seems to be lighter. A friend of mine sent it to me, I guess it is from the Peter Rodeike´s book.

[Erich]

all the cockpit armor was in place on the R8 as well as; JG 3's Scheuklappen, so there is some weight added, also the armor glas in general was standard on the R-8 as it was on the R2, so the chart omits that but why ? no the R8 was heavier if engine armor and leading edge wing protection was added, plus if the mg 131's were left on ............. yikes, as I said a lumbering old cow across the skies in search of bomber(s)

[lesofprimus]

Lumbering cow for sure bein all armored up like that, and easy pickings for the Mustangs....

But damn, the times they got through the fighter escort were horrible on US bomber crews....

[lesofprimus]

Erichs' post from the other thread...

Neil may know more quickly than I and may have some different opinions as well on the R2 vs the R8. the R8 was suppose to be the standard SturmFw variant in November 44's end with the cowling fairings and no mg 131's the R2 could have them or could be removed and the cowlings faired over. the R2 flown by JG 301 especially in III. gruppe had no armor-extra but had outboard 3cm cannon and the mg 131's over the cowling.

in JG 3, 4 and 300 the R2 had all the armor plating/ fittings but the R8 had the extra armor butted around the engine as well as the ammo boxes and some had leading wing edges armored...........as you might guess a real slow clumsy doof crate flying on the missions and when engaged by Us P-51's, was doomed

the Panzer-Scheuklappen was standard on most Sturms in JG 3 but was removed in nearly all cases from JG 300 crates. JG 4 removed the canopy coverings after their disaster on 11 September 1944, although striking hard on the US 100th bg they were slow and shot down by return fire of the B-17's and US escorts from the 339th fg. Excess icing was a major concern forming between the armor glas covers and the canopy glas

[Erich]

D ~

this is one of the reasons why JG 301 when refitted with new Fw's, the III gruppe for one but the R2 was strewn out here and there into the I. and II. gruppe as well....................the heavy armor was removed so at least there may have been some chance to combat the nimble Mustang. There are pics of R2's of JG 301 with side fuselage Panzerplatten fitted

[seesul]

Hmm, thank you guys, as I can see there is a nice mess between those versions. Even from Geschwader to Geschwader the same subvariants varied...
Anyway, is there any German document that explains the differences between standard R2 and standard R8?

Thx

[lesofprimus]

To combat the heavy bombers, the Fw 190 was modified with bolt-on 5 mm armor plates called "Panzerplatten" on the fuselage sides. Additional 30 mm armored glass panels were added on the canopy and extra glass was added to the windshield quarter-panels. The outboard 20 mm wing guns were replaced by HK 108 30 mm cannons. This combination was the Fw 190 A-8/R8 "Sturmbock" (Ram). In an effort to save some weight, the 13 mm machine guns that were mounted over the engine were often removed.

[seesul]

Yep Dan, this I´ve found on the net too. But compare it to the table and there´s no 30 mm additional glass on R8 mentioned....
Some sources say the R8 was the mix of R2 with R7 and became the heaviest (and ultimate) Sturmbock version. But according to the Peter Rodeike´s book R8 seems to be lighter (with less armor plates) than R2.
That´s why I started this thread as this makes me crazy...the more you´ll search on the web the more confused you´ll be in this matter...

So, can anyone summarize the real and official differences?

[FalkeEins]

Hi Roman,

... we tried to do that a while ago on another board but ended up going round in circles...

Difference between Fw190A-8/R2 and A-8/R8? - Luftwaffe Experten Message Board

you probably need to register to read this though

IIRC the designation 'R8' didn't appear until November 1944 - it was basically an 'administrative' device to tie up the various Sturm modifications, but was long since superceded by what had been happening in the field. Incidentally Rodeike doesn't identify any of the pctures in Sturm section of his book as the 'R8' version, nor do any appear in the loss lists (or very few IIRC)

[seesul]

Thank you Neil for this link but I have to say I´m more confused than before, but also my limited English is in the game. I´d need more time for reading and understanding this thread.
Anyway, I got a big question on you- can you (or someone else) please clearly summarize the most important differences between R2 and R8 and also since when both variants were used?
I´d like to translate one clear summary for my Czech friends but can´t by now as I´ve read a lot of confusing opinions.
Big thanks in advance!

[FalkeEins]

Roman,

I'm just as confused as you are mate ! But as far as I'm concerned the standard Sturmbock was the R2, although you will find some who reckon that the R8 was the variant that added the armour, while the R2 was the variant with the MK 108..there was also the option of additional armour with the R8 (as Erich says) and the possibility of the uprated engine (TS/TU) with the armoured oil cooler as in Rodeike's table.. HOWEVER ..the R8 desgination didn't appear officially until November 1944 - if you read the JG 300 book you'll see that most of the Sturm pilots have given up on the armour options by then.. look at the loss lists; there are no R8s. Less than a month after FW issued the Baubeschreibung dealing with the R8, ie in December 44 ,attacking bombers was no longer a priority mission for the Sturmgruppen...so R8 for me is a red herring/cul de sac/misnomer/not worth talking about....

[seesul]

Aha, thank you Neil. I´m glad to be not the only one confused. And thanks for the explanation.
Don´t you have a copy of some german documents speaking about R2 and R8 specs?

And one question more- in the link you´ve posted you wrote:
'' .. the Sturmflugzeuge ALREADY mounted the supplementary armour canopy, wing and fuselage armour referred to in the FW Entwicklungsmitteilung dated 20.10.1944 - there is no increased armour protection in addition to that mounted on the R2 - ( and no such thing as a 'standard R2' in the field either I might add ) - the only new element here is the following reprised in point (d);

"Das Triebwerk BMW 801 TU bzw. TS is nach Moeglichkeit anstelle des 801 D Triebwerkes einzubauen..Grund verstaerkte Panzerung fuer Kuehler...

..in other words - as I initially stated - the increased armour referred to was the result of mounting the TU/TS power egg with its enhanced oil cooler protection..

According to this document the A-8/R2 was re-designated A-8/R8''

Did you mean the last sentence as it is or ''According to this document the A-8/R8 was re-designated A-8/R2''

[FalkeEins]

..no, not more documents, other than what is in the Rodeike book and posted on that forum. For me the problem IS the documents...they were issued as the Sturm mission was losing its raison d'être. As I say R2 was the chief variant, R8 was an 'updated' variant..so as far as I'm concerned that sentence was written as I understood the German language documentation that I have been able to consult..

[seesul]

Thx Neil!
I just noted that German document in by you posted link. This is very clear. I´d just like to know when it was dated.

So, without reading Rodeike´s book and going out from this document I can say that (officialy):

R8=R2 ( with 2x Mk108 and 2x Mg151 )
plus - Dreieckseitenscheiben (30mm), Panzer Windschutz vorn (15 mm)
minus - 2x Mg131

Do you see it so as well?