Bf-110/Wildcat: "Bad" Fighters or Poor (Pre-War-ish) Tactics?

[Bearfoot]

So conventional wisdom has these two aircraft being outclassed as fighters by their contemporary opponents, due to poor maneuverability. The Bf-110 remained outclassed as a air superiority fighter through the war, while with the Wildcat this state was temporary as in its variants quickly caught up in various aspects and very soon outmatched the Zero (which could be considered arguably obsolete even by 1942, any remaining mystic derived from coasting on its past reputation in engagements in China or vs. poorly-trained/prepared British/Commonwealth/European pilots in Southeast Asia in 1941).

 

Could this characterization be based on the fact that most pre-war and even early war fighter doctrine being based on fighting in the horizontal/turn-fighting? "Fighting in the vertical" as a doctrine developed only as the war progressed (though the concepts of energy fighting were developed more rigorously and formally in ways we understand it today by Boyd only post-war). If the Bf-110 had employed boom-and-zoom tactics in the BOB, or the early Wildcat the same with the Zero, and assuming pilots had not only the training but the discipline to follow through, would they have pulled it off against their opponents back in the day?

[Gambit21]

Your characterization of the Zero isn't correct, nor of the Wildcat in relation to the Zero, and you've managed to over-simply in both cases to boot, so it's not possible to have a conversation within that context.

I suggest reading Fire in the Sky by Eric Bergerud for starters - will help you catch up a bit. Your "conventional" wisdom might not be as conventional as you think, as even a little bit of reading on these

aircraft yields a more complex picture than "the Wildcat was outclassed because it was less maneuverable"  It has other shortcomings, but pilots learned to play to it's strengths, and it

could take a beating.

 

Second, trying to work the Bf-110 into the same conversation is pointless IMHO - apples and oranges.

 

That being said, the Zero was still viable into late 1943 at least, CERTAINLY not outclassed any time in 1942, and the Wildcat gave as good as it got even in the early war, despite being outclassed by the Zeke in most (but not all) respects.

 

Dinner is on the stove, and I simply don't have time to time a tome on the in's and out's of the Zeke vs Wildcat/Hellcat dynamic here tonight, and no interest in the Bf-110.

[Bearfoot]

Your characterization of the Zero isn't correct, nor of the Wildcat in relation to the Zero, and you've managed to over-simply in both cases to boot, so it's not possible to have a conversation within that context.

I suggest reading Fire in the Sky by Eric Bergerud for starters - will help you catch up a bit. Your "conventional" wisdom might not be as conventional as you think, as even a little bit of reading on these

aircraft yields a more complex picture than "the Wildcat was outclassed because it was less maneuverable"  It has other shortcomings, but pilots learned to play to it's strengths, and it

could take a beating.

 

Second, trying to work the Bf-110 into the same conversation is pointless IMHO - apples and oranges.

 

That being said, the Zero was still viable into late 1943 at least, CERTAINLY not outclassed any time in 1942, and the Wildcat gave as good as it got even in the early war, despite being outclassed by the Zeke in most (but not all) respects.

 

Dinner is on the stove, and I simply don't have time to time a tome on the in's and out's of the Zeke vs Wildcat/Hellcat dynamic here tonight, and no interest in the Bf-110.

 

Thanks. Always happy to learn. The conversation is "would different tactics, specifically, boom-and-zoom tactics helped the Bf-110 and the Wildcat in the early part of the war?". I don't think it is a stretch to have these in the same discussion. In fact, the question can be asked of any set of aircraft, spanning a century, though, of course, the answers may vary from aircraft to aircraft sufficiently or even necessarily, so it would take two different discussion to cover two different aircraft. And perhaps you misread what I wrote: I was describing "conventional" wisdom, not my own particular understanding of the aircraft and their pilot's performance (though I can see why the confusion would arise). I am familiar enough with both the successes and failures of each aircraft, and how the better pilots at least leverage the strengths of each aircraft against the weaknesses of the other --- in particular, the US Wildcats against the Zeros, especially during the Guadalcanal campaign. My question was inspired by precisely this, in fact: i.e., how the reputations of the aircraft were borne of misuse or lack of understanding of energy tactics. Sorry that you found this question and potential discussion so insipid or jejeune. You are certainly under no obligation to participate it any way. Enjoy your dinner. And thank you for noting "Fire in the Sky" -- I agree, good book and required reading.

Edited May 1, 2017 by Bearfoot

[Gambit21]

It's a fun discussion, just have to start from the proper baseline

OK - that's the last bit of typing I can get away with tonight - wife approaching!!!

[Yakdriver]

"would different tactics, specifically, boom-and-zoom tactics helped the Bf-110 and the Wildcat in the early part of the war?"

 

I personally doubt that swarms of diving 110s would have been able to keep the Spits away from the Heinkels and Dorniers for any length of time (minutes) over the course of a campaign (weeks).
the Spits and Hurries would just have done a quick dodge, and gotten back to use their shotgun pellets against the Lolwaffle.

As much as i love the G2, IMHO...  from 1941 onwards the idea of the long range Zerstörer fighter, no matter how high they come from, no matter how numerous and skilled they were was doomed.
Except against Möbelwagen once the escorts had to leave. THAT was proper Zerstörer country...

 

The right tool for the right job, and the right skills to apply the knowledge.
Sending them against Spits and Ratas, P-40s and Yaks is just a bad idea.

It´s all useless though, because even if we had accurate answers to these questions, they will not be applicable in the game due to generally poor teamwork and plane numbers involved in scenarios.

[busdriver]

From what I've read, Wildcat pilots were fairly well versed in the practice of "high side" gunnery passes, which I infer to mean they grasped the notion of an energy/vertical fight. The development of the Thatch Weave might lead one to infer that the lack of experienced combat pilots led to horizontal maneuvering. Tactics evolve. Some air forces evolve faster.

 

Ref the Bf-110, at the outset of the Battle of Britain the RAF fighter force was not particularly adept at split plane maneuvering, especially when you account for their 3 plane Vics and scripted attacks. Tactics evolve. I'm hard pressed to see how the 110 would be an improved air-to-air fighter by using the vertical in an energy fight. I'd posit that my favorite WWII airplane the Mosquito was significantly superior to the 110, but absent its interceptor role was not air-to-air killing machine. 

[Asgar]

first of all the Bf 110 is not an air superiority fighter. it's a multirole heavy fighter. in the early war it was focused more on escort and did very well against hurricans and spitfires until it was ordered to fly close escort (on the wingtips of the bomber) giving up their advantage in speed and altitude. Later, for example on the easter front, they focused more on ground attack roles, but were still quite effective in air to air combat, since they don't had to follow the stupid orders of Göring like they had to over Britain. Stop watching the "History" channel

Edited May 1, 2017 by 6./ZG26_Asgar

[Elem]

It's a fun discussion, just have to start from the proper baseline

OK - that's the last bit of typing I can get away with tonight - wife approaching!!!

 

Are you a Man or a Mouse? Squeak to me! ;-)

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

 

 

Stop watching the "History" channel

But thats my favorite channel, better than Comedy Central or HBO... you can hear a true story there mate.

 

 

 

. The Bf-110 remained outclassed as a air superiority fighter through the war, while with the Wildcat this state was temporary as in its variants quickly caught up in various aspects and very soon outmatched the Zero (which could be considered arguably obsolete even by 1942, any remaining mystic derived from coasting on its past reputation in engagements in China or vs. poorly-trained/prepared British/Commonwealth/European pilots in Southeast Asia in 1941).

Wildcat actually did not catch up with a Zero. F4F-4 was even considered worse as all the additional armament, protection and new features added to the weight of it. You could say that FM-2 was a different story but it came much later when it was easier to find a Hellcat around than a Zero. 

I'd say that if anything, it was Zero that was getting away. By June 1942 a new variant, model 32, was introduced with Sakae 21 engine, "clipped" wings, 100 round drum magazine for 20 mm cannons and couple other changes. By the end of 1942 a new version with extended range arrived, this one had long barrel 20 mm Type 99 cannons, standard Zero wings, but ailerons were improved by addition of balance tabs reducing the stick forces at high speed operations. 

Then in August 1943 you get A6M5 model 52 which is a whole different story. 

[BlitzPig_EL]

One thing to remember about the Wildcat was that the Brewster Buffalo was the Navy's initial choice over the Wildcat because the Buffalo out performed the Wildcat.

 

The Buffalo's demise as the Navy's main fighter was because of several reasons.  One, it was much harder to maintain than the F4F, two, Brewster could not produce them fast enough to meet their contract obligations, and, three, as they tried to ramp up production, quality suffered.

 

The F2 also suffered just as the Wildcat did from the Navy adding all kinds of heavy radio equipment and other things that really degraded performance.

 

Naval aircraft are always designs of major compromise, because of that little problem of flying off of ships.  The Western naval powers chose robust construction over performance for most of the war, the IJN chose higher performance and longer range with the attendant sacrifice of lack of armor and self sealing tanks to achieve that goal.  For the first couple of years that choice was the correct one.

 

We are fortunate that Japanese industry, and military flight training establishments could not keep up with the attrition they faced because of the Allies ability to out produce and overwhelm Imperial Japan.  Which is oddly what Japan did to the other players in Asia in the late 30's and the initial stages of the greater Pacific war.

 

The BF 110 is from a different planet in this discussion.   Tactics or not, when faced with real, high performance single seat fighters, it was meat on the table.

Edited May 1, 2017 by BlitzPig_EL

[Blitzen]

I have wondered for years if the pre-war Luftwaffe did 'top gun " exercises pitting the 109 against the 110 ? It is probably doubtful as they were committed to the long range fighter concept come what may when the 110 was being developed in 1934-35, but still one would have thought that if they did the glaring inadequacies of the 110 in fighter vs. fighter conflict would have been immediately noticed.As for anticipating its night fighter role , probably not ...after all hadn't Goering declared that no bomber would ever bomb the Reich ( day or night,,,)

[Yakdriver]

 

 

The BF 110 is from a different planet in this discussion. Tactics or not, when faced with real, high performance single seat fighters, it was meat on the table.

This.


send her against twins and viermots.
But against single engine fighters she encountered...
Nope. toast.

[Asgar]

[Y29.Layin_Scunion]

I have wondered for years if the pre-war Luftwaffe did 'top gun " exercises pitting the 109 against the 110 ? It is probably doubtful as they were committed to the long range fighter concept come what may when the 110 was being developed in 1934-35, but still one would have thought that if they did the glaring inadequacies of the 110 in fighter vs. fighter conflict would have been immediately noticed.As for anticipating its night fighter role , probably not ...after all hadn't Goering declared that no bomber would ever bomb the Reich ( day or night,,,)

Here is an example of such in 1940 on the Western Front

 

Info at your fingertips.

[ShamrockOneFive]

Looking at the F4F-3/4 and A6M2 specs for the first time in a long time and its pretty interesting how the two aircraft deal with the same sort of basic conditions (operating as a fighter off of a carrier) deck in very different ways. The two have fairly similar top speeds with the Zero slightly exceeding the F4F-4 in the entire altitude range except at sea level. Its a closer match with the F4F-3 for top speed although the Zero is still superior for climb.

 

I'm really hoping we get both versions of the Wildcat in the Battle of Midway. I suspect a lot of pilots would prefer to fly the earlier version with its slightly better performance (despite the lower firepower).

 

I had some really fun battles between these two in IL-2: 1946. I remember finding the Wildcat to be better there than I had expected it to be as its turn rate wasn't as terrible as I thought it might be and the over the nose visibility to be superb. You couldn't turn with a Zero but you just needed to draw enough lead to put some bullets in his direction and it was an instant kill if you were on the mark. And of course the Zero was a dogfight pilots dream and a ton of fun to fly so long as you didn't get more than a couple of bullets in your direction. A real challenge on both sides.

[Inkophile]

As far as Wildcats and Zeros go the Wildcats did have superior manoeuvrability at very high speeds as it retained manageable control heaviness both in roll and pitch, while the Zero became extremely heavy on the controls, losing both effective roll and pitch. Of course the Wildcat pilots tried to exploit that when able both with Hit-and-Climb and Hit-and-Run Boom and Zoom attacks, and of course tried to deny the absolutely superior Zero a chance to catch up.

 

However a lot of the time the Zeros were as high or even higher than the Wildcats, and in those situations it wasn't exactly fun to be a Wildcat pilot. That's where horizontal fighting with Thach Weave and everything come into play.

Edited May 2, 2017 by Inkompetent

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Most of the data for Zero top speed are in ballpark of 330-337 mph numbers, but they dont include the overboost which tops it around 345 mph. Yeah, it's about right that Zero will be a bit faster than Wildcat. Not drastically, but visibly.

 

 

 

You couldn't turn with a Zero but you just needed to draw enough lead to put some bullets in his direction and it was an instant kill if you were on the mark.

  

I hope its not going to be that way here as well. While pilot and fuel tanks lack protection, the way Zero was so easy to disintegrate in old Il-2 was exaggerated. Or simplified. Now that we have more advanced technology we can expect more advanced effects and higher fidelity damage models. 

[BlitzPig_EL]

Many whines from the Blue Plane Camp inbound.

 

Be sure.

[LukeFF]

Many whines from the Blue Plane Camp inbound.

 

Be sure.

And comments like this add nothing but animosity to the discussion.

[BlitzPig_EL]

Luke, it's the truth though, and it's not my intention to stir things up, those feelings are already there, and they will come out, both here on the forum, and in the chat online when the two planes meet and the the Zekes don't simply all explode in mid air when a Wildcat enters the same map sector.

 

It's based on my experience on the introduction of the Pacific types in the original sim, and the reaction to them based on the characteristics of the aircraft as passed down in lore since the end of the war.

 

You will see.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

People always find a reason to complain Blitz. Makes no difference which side they fly. No need to get into that. 

 

http://arawasi-wildeagles.blogspot.com/2016/01/mitsubishi-a6m-zero-rabaul-pt1-video.html

 

http://arawasi-wildeagles.blogspot.com/2016/01/mitsubishi-a6m-zero-rabaul-pt2-video.html

 

In 3rd minute of the video in the second link you can see damage cause by .50 cal hits in flap and fuel tanks area of the inner section of the wing. BMG leaves nice big holes, easy to spot even at that poor quality. The material itself is pretty cool and shows some rare footage from Rabaul. 

[Bearfoot]

People always find a reason to complain Blitz. Makes no difference which side they fly. No need to get into that. 

 

http://arawasi-wildeagles.blogspot.com/2016/01/mitsubishi-a6m-zero-rabaul-pt1-video.html

 

http://arawasi-wildeagles.blogspot.com/2016/01/mitsubishi-a6m-zero-rabaul-pt2-video.html

 

In 3rd minute of the video in the second link you can see damage cause by .50 cal hits in flap and fuel tanks area of the inner section of the wing. BMG leaves nice big holes, easy to spot even at that poor quality. The material itself is pretty cool and shows some rare footage from Rabaul. 

 

Great stuff!

[ZachariasX]

I think it's really silly to put the Wildcat and the Bf-110 in the same dicussion. They are very different planes. So here's my rant.

 

First of all the Wildcat. It is a very conventional design as a single engined fighter. The only shortcoming that the Wilcdat has is, that the better is the enemy of the good. At the price of pilot safety in combat, Jirō Horikoshi made an extremely high performing aircraft, the Zero. And that one had higher performance than the Wildcat in some respects. It doesn't mean at all that the Wildcat is a bad aircraft. On the contrary, it is probably one of the finest carrier aircraft ever, when your metric is how well it flys (in terms of handling) and how reliable it is.

 

Simple performance figures don't tell you about if you have a small carrier full of these aircraft, how many can operate at given weather conditions. The "great aircraft" that can't get airborne, because it is "under maintenance" is the worst aircraft you can have (see also "sortie rate" related to stealth fighters...) becuase it is not there. The Wilcat in turn was a very dependable aircraft. And yes, it didn't have the performance that it would allow you to shoot Zeros piloted by aces without any proper education in air combat. Yes, they had to learn to use that aircraft. But it brought them not only to battle, it also brought many home when they wouldn't have made it in other aircraft. Eric Brown though of it as one of the finest carrier aircraft. Operationally, the Wildcat was very much on par with the Zero once pilots learned how to make use of it.

 

 

The Bf-110 is a very different story. It is a political bastard. Aircraft types are products of fashion like shoes are for ladies. Now it's this one, then that one, and the most expensive is the best. (Someone said F-35?) Twin engined fighter were the "must" in the early thirties. Chairbone made that up having a Destroyer in the air, like shooting down everybody. They came up with that in the 30's when peple would still think warmly of two seaters like the Bristol fighter.

 

In short, it was an age, where people had little idea of what they were doing, but they certainly didn't lack imagination. Fighters were Bendix-racers armed with a pistol or something comparable. But the Destoyer had to feature real weapons. And the salesman honestly promised that it would destroy the enemy. Newspapers were happy. "Destroyer!" What a headline. Chairbone was happy. Willy was happy. Pilots were happy, because the Bf-110 is actually a benign and good aircraft per se. It's just that once they also made real fighter aircraft, it was completely out of specification for a day fighter. As night fighter it found a new purpose, mostly due to the fact that intrinsically, it is a good aircraft. (You don't want to fly a very obstinate design at night whith those kinds of instruments.) Not a terribly high performing aircraft, but good enough for that purpose.

 

The Me-210 in contrast was a bad aircraft. It might have been faster, but it was an aircraft that wanted to kill the pilots. The context of "sortie rate" comes up here again. There's more to an aircraft than 20 mph additional speed. So that one was a dud. And the Me-410 was nothing but late.

 

[Freycinet]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz-Wolfgang_Schnaufer

 

So, the Bf-110 wasn't much of a fighter? - Well a German ace still achieved 121 victories in only 164 missions, exclusively flying the 110. All victories came against planes of the Western Allies. Not bad for a crap fighter, and it stacks up pretty well against the record of any Allied ace...

[busdriver]

Freycinet my friend, I think ZachariasX was referring to the notion of day fighter versus day fighter, rather than nachtjagd versus Bomber Command. Peter Hinchcliffe wrote IMO a very interesting book Schnaufer, Ace of Diamonds.. I recently purchased Martin Bowman's new two volume set Nachtjagd Defenders of the Reich 1940-1943 and German Night Fighters Versus Bomber Command 1943-1945. Not as in depth as Gerhard Aders or Theo Boiten, but I enjoy Bowman's titles.

 

[ShamrockOneFive]

Most of the data for Zero top speed are in ballpark of 330-337 mph numbers, but they dont include the overboost which tops it around 345 mph. Yeah, it's about right that Zero will be a bit faster than Wildcat. Not drastically, but visibly.

 

 

 

  

I hope its not going to be that way here as well. While pilot and fuel tanks lack protection, the way Zero was so easy to disintegrate in old Il-2 was exaggerated. Or simplified. Now that we have more advanced technology we can expect more advanced effects and higher fidelity damage models. 

 

I was maybe being a bit dramatic in my characterization. And you're absolutely right that I expect to see the damage model up to the usual IL-2 standards which has been pretty fantastic. If the 6 .50cals on a P-40 can chew up a Bf109 in a few very short bursts I expect the Zero will fare just a little bit worse than that.

Luke, it's the truth though, and it's not my intention to stir things up, those feelings are already there, and they will come out, both here on the forum, and in the chat online when the two planes meet and the the Zekes don't simply all explode in mid air when a Wildcat enters the same map sector.

 

It's based on my experience on the introduction of the Pacific types in the original sim, and the reaction to them based on the characteristics of the aircraft as passed down in lore since the end of the war.

 

You will see.

 

We definitely saw that bit from Pacific Fighters when it came out too. Some folks expected the Zero to just up and go down in flames if you shot anywhere near them.

 

Aim and proper deflection shooting technique was still very much was required then and I fully expect it to be now. Just with more fidelity on the damage mode and flight models.

 

I honestly think it'll be a great duel. These two types fight differently and every time I try and justify the Zero as the superior fighter I come back to the compromises in its design and vice versa with the Wildcat. When fought to their strengths these two do well and when fought to their weaknesses they do poorly and though that is probably universal in air combat... I feel it to be especially true with these two.

 

That won't stop the complaining from a few though

[707shap_Srbin]

 

 

it was completely out of specification for a day fighter.

This "outdated" fighter had better kill/death rate compare to Bf109E during Battle of Britain.

 

 

 

The Me-210 in contrast was a bad aircraft. It might have been faster, but it was an aircraft that wanted to kill the pilots.

From late 1941 to spring 1942, it was dangerous aircraft, killed many exellent pilots during trials and evaluations. As many other aircrafts. P-38, for example, killed more test pilots, then Me210.

 

In late 1942, when Me210A with long fuselage entered combat in Afrika, it had exellent effectiveness, and was much loved by its crews. 

[ZachariasX]

This "outdated" fighter had better kill/death rate compare to Bf109E during Battle of Britain.

The Brits thought less of it as they thought of the 109. But it is certainly true that for the Brits the 110 had the label "Handle with care!".

 

But a better kill/death ratio?

How many sorties?

How many kills?

 

Same for the 109?

 

A better kill/death ratio to me sounds much more like that, even with damage, the 110 is much more likely to make it back then the 109 flying at the very edge of their combat radius. Did the better "return rate" qualify for a higher percentage of sucessful missions? Telling from the sources I have, it precisely didn't.

 

When I said a "plane out of specification", it doesn't mean "outdated". It means wrong tool for the task. A plane is outdated when there is newer aircraft with higher performance for the same task. So, yes, for an air superiority fighter it was definitely outdated. But not for other uses. Once they put in decent radio equipment, it was not outdatd at all as a night fighter. Much on the contrary. But already in 1940 there was the writing on the wall that it may not be so cool anymore taking the 110 against well armed single engine fighters in broad daylight. To deal with fighters, it had to be fast enough to intercept them. And it just coudn't. It could be a handful for a Spit should the Spit chose to mingle with them. But the choice is the Spitfires.

 

How much use the 110 found other than being an air superiority fighter is a testament to how good the airframe actually was. And that is the problem with it's supposed sucessor, the 210.

 

From late 1941 to spring 1942, it was dangerous aircraft, killed many exellent pilots during trials and evaluations. As many other aircrafts. P-38, for example, killed more test pilots, then Me210. In late 1942, when Me210A with long fuselage entered combat in Afrika, it had exellent effectiveness, and was much loved by its crews.

This is surprising to read. But, this coming from you, can you elaborate? I didn't find any sources telling such.

 

There is however wiki, I quote:

 

Deliveries to front-line units started in April 1942, and the plane proved to be even less popular with pilots. Production was stopped at the end of the month, by which time only 90 had been delivered. Another 320 partially completed models were placed in storage. In its place, the Bf 110 was put back into production.

 

That to me is the antithesis of "popular".

 

If I read Eric Browns comment on the Me 410 (in my understanding basically a Me 210C with the more powerful DB603A engines) the I read things like that:

 

[... Just after taking off...] ...At the same time, the undercarridge had to be retracted  before 240 km/h was reached. This was a critical period, as an engine failure below 250 km/h meant almost certain disaster as the Me 410 could not be prevented from falling away in uncontrolled spiralling dive. [...]

 

[...] ...it fell short of the Mosquito in most performance respects and far short of its British contemporary on the score of manoevrability. It was one of those aeroplanes that gave, in my view, a knife-edge feeling to its pilot; it was certainly about the last aeroplane that I would have wished upon myself if returning to base in bad weather after losing an engine! [...]

 

Even with the longer tail, the directional instability plus the remaining tendency to spin (despite the slats) he considered a major limitaton.

 

In addition to that, if you have a twin engined aircraft that only flies remotely well on one engine, you can fairly well consider it a bad aircraft. The Me-110 fies well with just one engine. The Mosquito flies very well on one engine and with the grossly overpowered Sea Hornet you could do on one engine what you could do with both. The Do-217, being overweight, was also a nightmare to fly on one engine.

 

Having said that (or: typed it), I'd be keenly interested in a source telling something nice about the Me-210. The Hungarians were happy with it. But what did they replace when introducing the Me 210?

 

90 aircraft completed in Germany and 272 in Hungary (wiki) puts also a bad light on that crate.

[707shap_Srbin]

Production tables for Me210/410

 

 

 

Books, related:

 

 

Messerschmitt Me 210/Me 410 Hornet

 

Messerschmitt Bf 110/Me 210/Me 410: An Illustrated History

 

And for Me210A in Afrika, look here:

Waffen-Arsenal S-43 - Zerstorer Me-210 Entwicklung und Einsatz

 

Petrick's both books are exellent veiw on Me210/410 operations.

III./ZG1 was the only ZerstorerGruppe, operated with Me210's, from october 1942 to autumn 1943, when it was reequipped with Me410's and renamed into II./ZG26, under command of greatest zerstorer ace Hptm. Eduard Tratt.

 

Almost all Me410 aces started their war with III./ZG1 in Afrika. Dassow was the most known

Here is his aircraft. He flew with Stab III./ZG 1.

 

Another unit, used Me210's, was Erpr.Staffel 210. It flew over England (sic!), doing hit-n-run attacks and recoon flight. For several month in 1942 (sic!) britains could not intercept it even once! First Me210 fell down only to new appeared Typhoon. 

This is the aircraft wich was shot down. Pilot - W.Maurer, >10 victories veteran of BoB, parachuted into captivity.

Edited May 3, 2017 by I./ZG1_Panzerbar

[ZachariasX]

Oh, thanks for those refernces. Something to add to the library.  

[Stig]

This "outdated" fighter had better kill/death rate compare to Bf109E during Battle of Britain.

 

 

 

That's disputed though, isn't it? How the kill/loss ratios come about for the BoB anyway is a bit of a mystery me, seeing as the RAF doesn't seem to know how many fighters they lost,

At any rate, there are a handful of different numbers floating around.

[Jaws2002]

first of all the Bf 110 is not an air superiority fighter. it's a multirole heavy fighter. in the early war it was focused more on escort and did very well against hurricans and spitfires until it was ordered to fly close escort (on the wingtips of the bomber) giving up their advantage in speed and altitude. Later, for example on the easter front, they focused more on ground attack roles, but were still quite effective in air to air combat, since they don't had to follow the stupid orders of Göring like they had to over Britain. Stop watching the "History" channel

 

 

 

The 110 never really had speed advantage over the Spitfire. Worse climb. worse speed worse maneuverability. Sooner or later those things are going to work against you.

Hitler was stuck on the "Zerstorer" idea and in the end, wasting resources on Twin engine Zerstorers was a big mistake and hurt them the most, in hte most critical moment: Spring/Summer 1944. 

 The Me-410 program wasted over 2000 DB 603 engines, that could have been used in the FW-190C as early as mid 1943. Anyone who thinks the Germans did better with 1100 Me-410's than they could have done with 2200 FW-190C's needs to have his head examined.

 

The Zerstorer program was a huge waste of top of the line engines.

Edited May 5, 2017 by Jaws2002

[J2_Trupobaw]

So conventional wisdom has these two aircraft being outclassed as fighters by their contemporary opponents, due to poor maneuverability.

 

One phrase, three fallancies.

 

 

"Fighter" is an English term that should not be applied to Bf-110 except in mistranslation. The German equivalent word for Fighter was Jeager, which Bf-110 was not. It was a destroyer (literally), interceptor(using more modern term), not a "fighter". Especially not air superiority fighter. 

 

"Outclassed by contemporaries". In what? Despite "fight" in English term, the role of a fighters (let alone a Zerstorers) is not to fight each other, except on airquake servers. Fighters existed  to prevent enemy, bombers, recons, transports and other planes that have impact on ground war from doing their jobs. Then, sometimes, in case of Jeagers, to stop enemy fighters from doing the same. 

 

Bf-110 predated monoplane single-engine fighters. It was product of 1930s, answer to  "bomber will get go through" problem. Built alongside same general lines as "uncatchable" two engine bombers of 1930s, but designed to catch them and destroy them rather than carry bombs. 

 

Finally, "maneuvrability". You don't need that to catch a bomber and blow it from the sky. If you need maneuvrability, you're using Zerstorer for wrong job. Which Germans did a lot. 

Bf-110 was, without doubt, used outside its comfort  zone for most of the WW2 (especially Battle of Brittain, where it was shoehorned into escort/air superiority role where only targets were single engine fighters, things it was not built to destroy). When it finally got bombers it was intended to stop, during Defence of the Reich, it was overwhelmed by single engine fighters, without adequate escort from friendly single engine fighters. 

 

 

For one time when Bf-110 was used in intended role of bomber destroyer, see Battle of the Heligoland Bight . In one 1939 battle Germans proved that bomber will not get through, and made British give up daytime bombing raids on Germany for years. One could argue that giving British bloody enough nose that their bombers stopped coming at all is vindication of Bf-110s purpose already; their stopped enemy bombers from doing their jobs by simply existing. Of course, you get no kills if enemy doesn't come to airspace you're protecting.

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Heligoland_Bight_(1939)

 

As a thought experiment, just imagine British having Bf-110s during Battle of Britain, supported by single seaters. That is the enviroment it was designed for - waves of medium bombers for Zerstorer to stop while single-engines tie each others up in duels. 

Edited May 5, 2017 by Trupobaw

[Cybermat47]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz-Wolfgang_Schnaufer

 

So, the Bf-110 wasn't much of a fighter? - Well a German ace still achieved 121 victories in only 164 missions, exclusively flying the 110. All victories came against planes of the Western Allies. Not bad for a crap fighter, and it stacks up pretty well against the record of any Allied ace...

 

Those are literally all bombers at night.

 

Major Schnaufer was one hell of a pilot and warrior, but if he'd gone up against Spitfires, P-51s, or Yaks, in daylight, he would have been toast - not because of any lack of skill, but because the Bf-110 wasn't effective against other modern fighters. Just look at what happened in the Battle of Britain - the Luftwaffe started with between 237-289 110s, and lost about 223.

 

I love the 110, but it works best as a bomber destroyer and ground attacker.

 

As Trupobaw says, a more accurate term for the 110 would be "destroyer", rather than "fighter".

Edited May 5, 2017 by Cybermat47

[707shap_Srbin]

 

 

Just look at what happened in the Battle of Britain - the Luftwaffe started with between 237-289 110s, and lost about 223.

Just look how many Bf109's were lost during BoB. Several Gruppen were just 3-4 serviceble Bf109's in october '40. I./JG54, for example. Bf109 losses were much higher then Bf110 losses. But Bf110's were hardly needed to create NJG's in late 1940, so most new aircraft went not to ZG Gruppen, but to NJG, thus depleting ZG units. THAT was hardest blow to Bf110 in BoB, not Spitfires and Hurricanes.

 

Bf110 shot down more Spits and Hurries, then lost to Spits and Hurries fire, almost twice number. Think of it. 

[Wulf]

 

Bf110 shot down more Spits and Hurries, then lost to Spits and Hurries fire, almost twice number. Think of it. 

 

 

Where does that information come from?  If you are correct, the 110 was clearly one of the better fighter aircraft in the Battle, if not the best.   That seems a bit odd given what we know about the performance characteristics of the type.

Edited May 5, 2017 by Wulf

[Cybermat47]

Just look how many Bf109's were lost during BoB. Several Gruppen were just 3-4 serviceble Bf109's in october '40. I./JG54, for example. Bf109 losses were much higher then Bf110 losses.

 

The number of operational Bf-109s before the battle was also much higher.

 

 

 

But Bf110's were hardly needed to create NJG's in late 1940, so most new aircraft went not to ZG Gruppen, but to NJG, thus depleting ZG units. THAT was hardest blow to Bf110 in BoB, not Spitfires and Hurricanes.

 

Bf110 shot down more Spits and Hurries, then lost to Spits and Hurries fire, almost twice number. Think of it.

 

There was only a single NJG operational when the 110 was suffering it's heaviest losses over Britain, while there were three ZGs in service, and the two Bf-110 Staffeln of Erprobungsgruppe 210. I can't find a source that tells me the strengths of the 110 units and when they got new aircraft, so I would assume that the forces attacking Britain would receive priority. If the NJGs succeeded, Germany would be defended. If the ZGs and ErpGr 210 succeeded, the war would have ended.

 

Did the Bf-110 shoot down a lot of Spits and Hurris, or were the pilots just overclaiming, like almost every other pilot does when they only have a split second to process what's going on?

 

After all, many RAF pilots reported shooting down He-113s in the BoB, and the He-113 didn't even exist.

Edited May 5, 2017 by Cybermat47

[707shap_Srbin]

 

 

Christer Bergström in his book ”Luftstrid över kanalen”(1), 2006, has analyzed the victory and loss statistics in the BoB and presents a different picture to the usually repeated "Bf 110 fighter BoB disaster" scenario.[/size][/font]

 

The confirmed aerial victories achieved by Bf 109 units amounted to 815 while the Bf 110 units gathered 407 confirmed victories.

A comparison between confirmed victories and operational losses due to air battles gives at hand that in the period 8 August to end of October 1940:

Bf 109 units scored 815 victories to 489 losses – a ratio of 1,7:1

Bf 110 units scored 407 victories to 185 losses – a ratio of 2,2:1

 

In October the Bf 110 units even had a ratio of 3:1 while the Bf 109 units dropped to 1,4:1.

 

Christer Bergström continues to discuss the matter as well as comparing Spifire and Hurricane relative performances and some of the RAF unit’s performance, RAF Bomber command losses, coastal command and the Fleet Air Arm..

When finally comparing the scores by Bf 109 and Bf 110 units as mentioned above with the estimated true losses by each side for the period July-October 1940 it turns out that in approximate figures the authentic victories versus actual air battle losses where:

 

Spitfire 550 victories to 329 losses – a ratio of 1,7:1

Hurricane 750 victories to 603 losses – a ratio of 1,2:1

Bf 109 780 victories to 534 losses – a ratio of 1,5:1

Bf 110 340 victories to 196 losses – a ratio of 1,7:1

 

Bergström continues by discussing the validity of the data including the difficulties in identifying if a Bf 109 or 110 shot down a RAF fighter, however, the outcome is that minimum 25-30% of all British aircraft losses inflicted by Luftwaffe fighters were scored by Bf 110s.

The “Total failure of the Bf 110 as a fighter aircraft in the BoB” is perhaps another BoB Myth worth reassessing?

 

The fact is that on several occasions the Bf 110 units performed better than the Bf 109 units on a particular day. When deployed tactically correct using the advantages the Bf 110 offered the Bf 110 was still a lethal weapon in air-to-air fighting which I believe Christer Bergström is able to show.

When used as a high altitude escort, not being tied to close escort to the bomber force, it made effective diving attacks on RAF fighters using surprise, high speed and it’s heavy nose armament to score victories.

Long range and an extra pair of eyes was also helpful in air battle, the range enabling to wait for the right moment to strike and the extra pair of eyes increasing the situational awareness of the pilot in an air battle.

 

Also, 

 

 

In the summer of 1934, the leadership of the still secret Luftwaffe presented a study that suggested what at that time was quite revolutionary: a twin-engined fighter, heavily armed with automatic cannons as well as machine guns, to protect the bombers against enemy fighter interception. The idea was to dispatch these twin-engined fighter aircraft in advance, at a high altitude over the intended bombing target area, to clear the air of enemy fighters before the bombers arrived.

 

In fact, when used in that way, the Messerschmitt Bf 110 was quite successful. Actually, the Bf 110 appears to have had a better ratio of shot down enemy aircraft to own combat losses than any other fighter type during the Battle of Britain. Yet in most accounts of the Battle of Britain, the accomplishments of the Bf 110 have been nearly totally neglected (although admittedly this is largely a result of the inaccessibility of sources on this aircraft). Investigations of the available material have enabled a completely different picture to be drawn of the Bf 110 during the Battle of Britain.

 

Bf 110 fighter units sustained some very heavy losses on various occasions. In most cases, however, this was when the Bf 110 fighters were ordered to fly slow, close-escort missions to German bombers. In those cases, there was no difference between what the Bf 110 suffered and what the Bf 109 suffered. There are numerous cases where Bf 109 units were absolutely thrashed by RAF fighters because they had to fly on foolishly slow close-escort missions. 

[707shap_Srbin]

Full discussion about Bf110 during BoB at 12.oCH.

 

Did the Bf-110 shoot down a lot of Spits and Hurris, or were the pilots just overclaiming, like almost every other pilot does when they only have a split second to process what's going on?

 

RAF fighter claims over Me110:

July (from 10th) 1940: 22 destroyed, 10 probably destroyed.
Aug. 1940: 182 destroyed, 88 probably destroyed, 96 damaged.
Sept. 1940: 191 destroyed, 65 probably destroyed, 89 damaged.
Oct. 1940: 20 destroyed, 4 probably destroyed, 12 damaged.

 

Total: 415 destroyed, 167 probably destroyed, 197 damaged. 

 

--------------

Comparing to actual losses (from all reasons, Luft.Kampf, Flak, accidents e.t.c.):
July/1940

Erpr.Gr.210 – 4 lost, 2 damaged
V.(Z)/LG1 – 2 lost, 3 damaged
Stab./ZG2 – no losses
I./ZG2 – 1 lost
II./ZG2 – no losses
Stab./ZG26 – no losses
I./ZG26 – no losses
II./ZG26 – no losses
III./ZG26 – 4 lost, 1 damaged
Stab./ZG76 – no losses
I./ZG76 – no losses
II./ZG76 – 1 damaged
III./ZG76 – 4 lost

Total for July/1940 – 15 lost, 7 damaged

Aug/1940
Erpr.Gr.210 – 15 lost, 7 damaged
V.(Z)/LG1 – 17 lost, 7 damaged
Stab./ZG2 – 1 lost
I./ZG2 – 12 lost,10 damaged
II./ZG2 – 10 lost, 6 damaged
Stab./ZG26 – 2 damaged
I./ZG26 - 17 lost, 7 damaged
II./ZG26 – 9 lost, 4 damaged
III./ZG26 – 7 lost,4 damaged
Stab./ZG76 – 1 lost
I./ZG76 - 8 lost,1 damaged
II./ZG76 – 12 lost, 1 damaged
III./ZG76 – 11 lost, 2 damaged

Total for Aug/1940: 120 lost, 51 damaged

Sept/1940
Erpr.Gr.210 – 7 lost
V.(Z)/LG1 – 17 lost, 4 damaged
Stab./ZG2 – 1 lost
I./ZG2 – 10 lost, 2 damaged
II./ZG2 - 6 lost
Stab./ZG26 – 1 lost
I./ZG26 – 7 lost, 1 damaged
II./ZG26 – 8 lost, 3 damaged
III./ZG26 – 11 lost, 4 damaged
Stab./ZG76 – no losses
II./ZG76 – 9 lost, 2 damaged
III./ZG76 – 12 lost, 4 damaged

Total for Sept /40: 89 lost, 20 damaged

Oct/1940
Erpr.Gr.210 – 4 lost, 2 damaged
Stab./ZG26 no losses
I./ZG26 – 1 lost, 1 damaged
II./ZG26 – 4 lost
III./ZG26 – 4 lost
Stab./ZG76 no losses
II./ZG76 – 1 lost
III./ZG76 – 1 lost, 2 damaged

Total for Oct/40: 15 lost, 5 damaged

Total losses of Zerstorerwaffe during Battle of Britain, July – October 1940:
Lost – 239 Bf110
Damaged – 83 Bf110

Edited May 5, 2017 by I./ZG1_Panzerbar

[[_FLAPS_]Grim]

I guess keeping losses down helps with that ratio. A two engine plane with more then 10min fuel over AO has a better chance to come back home over the channel.