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

[Jaws2002]

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.

 

 

That is true, but the availability of Bf-110, convinced the German high command, that they don't need to extend the range of the Bf-109. We all know how that turned out.

     Had the Bf-109 used drop tanks, It would have fared a lot better over Britain.

     Then when you think of the enormous resources used on the twin engine fighter fleet, Had they diverted all that energy and resourced towards building more single engine fighters and extending the range of the available ones, the results of the battle may have been a lot different.  

[BlitzPig_EL]

It's funny that if you turn the tables a bit that the view from the German side about twin engine fighters is pretty much the same.

They considered the P 38, which was probably the best twin engine fighter of the war that saw widespread use, to be a just a big lumbering target.  But even the P 38's original design was not as a pure day fighter, it was designed to compete for the USAAC's call for a high altitude bomber interceptor, a contest that it won over the Bell P 39.

 

In the end the USAAF came to the same conclusion about the P 38 that Jaws mentions above about he Bf110.  It was too costly to operate compared to the P 51 and they were very quickly scrapped at the end of the war because of that.

 

We can juggle the numbers all we want, but in the end the reality was that the Bf110's real success came as a night bomber interceptor and in the ground attack role, not as a day fighter.

 

Arguments to the contrary are only partially valid in the utterly unrealistic world of video games.

[Stig]

Full discussion about Bf110 during BoB at 12.oCH.

 

 

The participants in this discussion are not unamimously in agreement with Bergström's viewpoint regarding the Bf 110 during the BoB.    

[Freycinet]

 

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..

 

 

Yes, I know he did. I just wanted to complete the picture for those who think the Bf-110 was a dud. In the 110 a German ace scored more victories than any Allied ace in WWII!

 

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

 

That is why its name is "Zerstörer", which is German for "destroyer".

[III/JG53Frankyboy]

just as a sidenote, there were fights between swiss Bf109E and german Bf110C over Switzerland 1940!

And IIRC the outcome was not in favour for the 110

I have to check the book for details later.

[ST_ami7b5]

 

HEINZ-WOLFGANG SCHNAUFER

This German pilot, nicknamed “The Night Ghost of St. Trond”, with 121 victories was the most successful night fighter of WWII. On the 21st of February 1945, piloting a Messerschmitt Bf 110 G-4, he managed to shoot down seven heavy RAF bombers within 20 minutes.

 

[Inkophile]

HEINZ-WOLFGANG SCHNAUFER

This German pilot, nicknamed “The Night Ghost of St. Trond”, with 121 victories was the most successful night fighter of WWII. On the 21st of February 1945, piloting a Messerschmitt Bf 110 G-4, he managed to shoot down seven heavy RAF bombers within 20 minutes.

 

 

Absolutely no one has disputed their effectiveness as night-interceptors, so I quite fail to see why that discussion is even continuing. The only debate is their day-time usefulness and the already established fact that they are [edited] for air superiority, so I'd say I fail to see the point of the others that still even try to discuss that too.

 

EDIT: Sorry that you were the one getting the quote, but it's a good example of this discussion not going anywhere since half-way down page 1.

Edited May 8, 2017 by SYN_Haashashin

[ZachariasX]

Yes, I know he did. I just wanted to complete the picture for those who think the Bf-110 was a dud. In the 110 a German ace scored more victories than any Allied ace in WWII!

 

That is why its name is "Zerstörer", which is German for "destroyer".

I never said that the Bf110 is a bad aircraft. On the contrary. It is a very sound design. It versatile use is a testament to its qualities. Fending off Spitfires in daylight is however not the best use for that aircraft. Thus "out of specification". A conclusion made by the Germans as well.

 

I also think that the mere ratio of scores vs. losses only tels half the story. It would be if "the fighters mission consist of shooting down aircraft, everything else is rubbish." But if you wage an air war, you are interested in the best way possible for force projection. For this you need the right tool. But I do not think that the Germans would have fared better in BoB had they allocated ressources to the Bf109 exclusively. Although it took twice the engines to make one aircraft, the limiting factor was still aircrew, not airframes. Something that didn't change well into 1945. Planning for a lot of aircraft, but not for an corresponding increase of training airfields and training aircraft would lay the seed of their demise. In 1940, on average the Bf110 was certainly good enough to qualify as a fighter aircraft. the differences to other aircraft were still small. But the writing on the wall was there. It was obvious how much progress there was with single engine fighters and what you could make from the Bf110. I think it was a good idea to not use it as an offensive fighter anymore while they still had the trained aircrew for them. Thus, I don't see the Bf110 "beaten" over England in 1940. But I see some folks got wiser before real damage happened.

 

I'll be very interessted to read the books suggested by Panzerbar. But so far I have nothing of substance at hand indicating good purpose for the Bf110 (and successors) in offensive air to ground missions (but there must be info on that). Sporadic raiding of enemy positions far out of reach of your boots on the ground may be an entertaining sport, but in the large scale of things it is utterly irrelevant. When the British sent their aircrews to have a trashing in the rhubarb counter-air patrols, they at least hoped to improve their doctrine fighting a modern air war. They even invested some Blenheims (a known, well liked diet of Bf109's) to attract some opposition. Else, the Germans might just have let them fly there, over France. (Andyestheywantedtoattrittheenemyandthingslikethat)

 

But if you reach a stage where your only hope is to put a bomb here and there, then even in wartime, road traffic on the whole causes probably more harm to civilians on the whole than your bombs.

 

To me, I find it very instructive how much use a plane finds besides its intended role. The Bf110 was at least tried once for about everything. The 210, although quick for its time was not something people wanted. 500 planes is not much for production numbers. The 410 was better as a defensive weapon against havy bombers. I don't know if any daring German ever tried to dive bomb with it, but the books will tell me (I hope). The problem of the 210 and 410 is that if you are facing Mustangs, you're at a very serious disadvantage. Up at 7000 m P-47 would be equally superior in a fight. Same as later Mark Spitfires.

 

The P-38 was indeed a similar fashin victim as the 110 was in the quest of having an interceptor to make that Douhets bomber "doesn't get through". It took a while to make that one working. Not having a tail gunner helped to make a plane that actually had the speed and climb to act as interceptor, something the Bf110 only had up to 1940.

[III/JG53Frankyboy]

red cross/red star books also tell the usefullness of the few Bf110 Groups in groundcombat at eastern front!

[Dutchvdm]

red cross/red star books also tell the usefullness of the few Bf110 Groups in groundcombat at eastern front!

To bad they are way to expensive, and the new prints have yet to come out.

 

Grt M

[ZachariasX]

red cross/red star books also tell the usefullness of the few Bf110 Groups in groundcombat at eastern front!

I will look it up. Thnx.

[ZachariasX]

BC/RS seems to have contoversial reviews. Anyone who has the series also thinks the authors "biased"?

[Cybermat47]

Also,

 

Hmm, interesting stuff. I'll definitely look into this more.

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

BC/RS seems to have contoversial reviews. Anyone who has the series also thinks the authors "biased"?

 

The authors are a Swede and a Russian I think. I have read volume 1 and 2 and really enjoyed it... learned quite a few things I didn't expect about the Eastern Front. The only thing I think someone would expect as "bias" is some mentions here and there of "brave resistance of Russian soldiers"... but other than that... I think it's fairly objective. The book is very critical on Stalin's regime, it concludes that was the main reason of the deterioration of the Soviet Armed Forces (in terms of tactics and organization) responsible for Operation Barbarrossa initial results. The only thing the book gets wrong imho is that it presents the Yak-1 as an equivalent to the Bf 109F, and as we can see it isn't correct. Even with the upgraded 1942 variant we have in the sim, the Friedich is still bit ahead (still having a 1941 Yak-1 is way way better than having a I-153/I-16 or an early LaGG-3 with production problems).

 

I like that it presents quite a bit of quotes from pilots/generals from both sides, and that helps imho to preserve objectiveness.

Edited May 6, 2017 by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard

[LukeFF]

 

 

The only thing the book gets wrong imho is that it presents the Yak-1 as an equivalent to the Bf 109F, and as we can see it isn't correct. Even with the upgraded 1942 variant we have in the sim, the Friedich is still bit ahead (still having a 1941 Yak-1 is way way better than having a I-153/I-16 or an early LaGG-3 with production problems).

 

It's been a while since I've opened my BC/RS books, but I think the authors said the Yak-1 was more or less equal to the 109 E, not the F - which would be a fairly accurate assessment. 

[707shap_Srbin]

 

 

In the 110 a German ace scored more victories than any Allied ace in WWII!

Remark: at night.

 

But there was a pilot, who scored in Bf110/Me410 in a day missions - Hptm. Eduard Tratt. He ended up with a 38 victories. 

[ZachariasX]

Remark: at night.

 

But there was a pilot, who scored in Bf110/Me410 in a day missions - Hptm. Eduard Tratt. He ended up with a 38 victories. 

Wiki quotes him with downing 5 P-38 Lightnings. Most impressive.

[707shap_Srbin]

http://zg1wespen.proboards.com/thread/224/eduard-tratt

 

 

 

29
Me410A-1Stab II./ZG26
P-38
13.11.1943
11.50
West of Quakenbrück

33
Me410A-1
Stab II./ZG26
P-38
10.02.1944
11.40
Area of Zelle
2/Lt. Royal D. Frey of the 20th FG, 55th FS (P-38J-10-LO 42-67855)

34
Me410A-1
Stab II./ZG26
P-38
11.02.1944
12.50
West of Bingen
2/Lt. Leonard S. Smutko (79th FS in P-38J-10-LO 42-67821)

35
Me410A-1
Stab II./ZG26
P-38
11.02.1944
12.55
West of Bingen
2/Lt. Melvin H. Orr (79th FS in P-38J-10-LO 42-67848)

36
Me410A-1
Stab II./ZG26
P-38
11.02.1944
13.00
West of Bingen
 

[wtornado]

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

 

Info at your fingertips.

 

The Bf-110 had it's share of victories and losses and I compare it to the P-38 lighting more.

 

I say the Bf-110 was like the P-38 in the sense that when the enemy had good single engine

fighter pilots around you were in trouble for both aircraft.

 

This is why I say that.

 

The same could be said about the P-38 Lighting during the North Africa campaign

against the experienced Luftwaffe pilots for those who know their history the losses

were so severe in the Desert campaign that the P-38 was withdrawn from the front

and not many know that.

 

It was the 14 FG that suffered so many aircraft and pilot losses that they had to take

aircraft from other Fighter Groups to continue the fight only to be withdrawn from the front.

P-38 from the African front.

 

I think the Wildcat with a good fighter pilot in its sit was a good match for a Zero pilot

it was tactics that gave the Wildcat victories.

 

The first rules was to never furball with a Zero you would lose.

 

You would dive strike and zoom away get alt give yourself a good tactic position.

 

I think that the F4F was good and with tactics like the Thach weave helped the little fighter.

 

By the end of 1943 most of the experienced Japanese fighter pilots were dead that did not help either.

[Dutchvdm]

The Bf-110 had it's share of victories and losses and I compare it to the P-38 lighting more.

 

I say the Bf-110 was like the P-38 in the sense that when the enemy had good single engine

fighter pilots around you were in trouble for both aircraft.

 

This is why I say that.

 

The same could be said about the P-38 Lighting during the North Africa campaign

against the experienced Luftwaffe pilots for those who know their history the losses

were so severe in the Desert campaign that the P-38 was withdrawn from the front

and not many know that.

 

It was the 14 FG that suffered so many aircraft and pilot losses that they had to take

aircraft from other Fighter Groups to continue the fight only to be withdrawn from the front.

P-38 from the African front.

 

I think the Wildcat with a good fighter pilot in its sit was a good match for a Zero pilot

it was tactics that gave the Wildcat victories.

 

The first rules was to never furball with a Zero you would lose.

 

You would dive strike and zoom away get alt give yourself a good tactic position.

 

I think that the F4F was good and with tactics like the Thach weave helped the little fighter.

 

By the end of 1943 most of the experienced Japanese fighter pilots were dead that did not help either.

 

Both are beautiful aircraft as well. The P-38 is one of the few US aircraft i would really like to see in this sim. Like for the PTO. 

 

Grt M

[senseispcc]

The BF110 and the following 210 and 410 where obsolete non tested theories of pre-war air combat of twin engines heavy fighters and nearly every nation had at least one of them; USA P-38, UK Blenheim MK IF  and Beaufighter without forgetting the Whirlwind, France Potez 630,  USSR Yak 4, Holland Fokker G.1, Japan Kawasaki KI-45, Italy the Savoia-Marchetti S.M.91 and others, USA the only that really was a nearly success the P-38 that did fly the all WW but with a lot of modifications and evolutions. I forgot a lot but most of them did not see a long service or no service in WW2.

The 3 twin engine jet engine fighters of WW2 had no impact on air battle of WW2, even the Me-262 arrived too late and in too little numbers.

I do not speak here of the night fighters that are a complete different problem! 

And I did not forget the Mosquito fighter that was more a intruder than a real fighter and was made to destroy individual targets of opportunity.

I do not include also the Do 335 pull push twin engines aircrafts neither the USA P-75, Duch Fokker D.XXIII.

Twin engines fighters during was never a real success story du their lack of manoeuvrability in one against one combat, and the rear firing gunner did not help a lot. And None was really faster than a single engine one. And even the P-38 was not a fast climber. So if if you are in a slower, bigger, not manoeuvrable (less than your enemy) and worse of all bad climber aircraft in a time where sight is the only way to discover your enemy, you nearly always loose the battle.

And the Me110 was a propaganda object of the 3^rd Reich and it still works in the spirit of the people.   

[Wulf]

Interestingly, Eric Brown had some quite complementary things to say about the Bf 110 in his Wings of the Luftwaffe book.  He doesn't suggest it was a world-beater but he nevertheless seems to have thought it a much better machine than it's post BoB reputation would suggest.

[ShamrockOneFive]

I note from that list that nearly all of the heavy fighters became either strike aircraft or bomber destroyers or both. Several of them quite successfully too. The P-38 is perhaps one of the exceptions but even it was increasingly loaded up with 500lb or 1000lb bombs and/or HVAR rocket packs.

 

Increasingly I think we're moving away from the original Wildcat discussion but I think this highlights the dramatic difference between the rend towards the twin engine heavy fighter which ended up proving to be difficult or not useful in their original purpose in combat and the Wildcat which was designed as a naval aviation fighter and which actually worked out fairly well. Even under tough conditions it still did fairly well and its direct successor had an exemplary record (though some of that is situation as well). The Wildcat and its pilots are, I think, highly underrated. By the time the Hellcat showed up some of the most significant battles of the Pacific had already been fought. It's a case of not being the best fighter but being good enough and present in enough numbers with enough good pilots and tactics to fight at least evenly.

[ZachariasX]

Interestingly, Eric Brown had some quite complementary things to say about the Bf 110 in his Wings of the Luftwaffe book.  He doesn't suggest it was a world-beater but he nevertheless seems to have thought it a much better machine than it's post BoB reputation would suggest.

BoB just unveiled how much propaganda an whishful thinking there was. But I don't think the Germans, even after BoB, thought of the 110 as a bad aircraft. Neither did the British. They just thought that the 109 was the more effective aircraft when it came to messing around with Spitfires an Hurricanes. I have the impression that the idea of the 110 being "bad" is something that the casual audience is reading into that.

 

I also have the impression that combat sim pilots are extremely dismissive of the importance that an aircraft has a good handling and are safe to operate. On the other hand aircraft that seemingly have (some) great specs are admired, even though they are design failures that are mainly out to kill the pilot. Always having a perfectly serviced aircraft, always flying in fair weather (otherwhise it is "not fun" and servers remain empty) gives no understanding of the beauty of having a dependable aircraft. But if you have mainly 18 year old boys with, say, in average 200 hours airtime and they have to enter the fray in any weather and operating from airstrips that are at hand, you will love when an aircraft has the habit of bringing its crew home. Both the 110 and the P-38 were such aircraft, contributing a lot to their success. Returning aircrews contribute a lot to a kill/death ratio.

 

It took the americans a while to make good use of the P-38. Just looking at the highest scoring aces flying those aircraft I find problematic if it is used to assess the quality of a given aircraft. The highest scoring American aces flew the P-38, but that hardly made the P-38 "twice as good as the P-51". But it does prove that you can make use of almost anything if you know how to do it as well as having the luxury of choosing the operational environment. With the 110 they tried about any use, since they felt comfortable using it in any condition. Imagine a Me210 as tow plane...

 

When sitting at the controls of a real aircraft, I always notice that some aircraft give you a sense of confidence, while with other aircraft, you get a feeling right away that they are more delicate. This sense of confidence has a tremendous impact on how you feel flying with it. In our terms, it translates directly into increased maneuvrability. I guess this is one of the things that made the Mosquito or the Lancaster such great aircraft.

 

How much this sense if confidence has on how you fly real world aircraft is well shown with the Piper Cub. It is a fantastic aircraft, still today. Flying it feels so natural that often enough people try things with it that shouldn't be tried with any aircraft and crash it. The Cub is not "more maneuvrable" on paper than a Cessna of today, but in the real world, things look different. Just look what they do with it, youtube is full of videos of Cubs and SuperCubs doing things you wouldn't be doing with other aircraft.

 

The Wilcat and the 110 were such good aircraft as well. Although faster, the 210 and 410 were not such aircraft.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Since it's also about Wildcat and not only about Bf 110 I'm going to just drop this fresh video here:

 

[wtornado]

It is funny but I am not really interested in the Pacific war.

 

It was pretty well one sided after Pearl Harbour.

 

And yessssssss there were big air battles and heavy losses

but Navy wise not much to say other than heavy losses for

the Japanese.

 

I don't know what was worse the Battle of Midway or the Tokyo Express

slaughters or the Japanese Burma Indian campaigns with the  33rd and

15th Japanese divisions complete annihilations.

 

Decisive battles were too short and sweet.

[Gambit21]

It is funny but I am not really interested in the Pacific war.

 

It was pretty well one sided after Pearl Harbor.

100% incorrect.

I suggest you do a bit of reading on Guadalcanal and the Solomon Islands campaign for starters.

[JtD]

191 F4F/FM-2 were lost to enemy aircraft in WW2 according to the USN own records. I don't think the figure would be the same if the Wildcat had truly been a "bad" fighter. 1327 claims on the other side of the balance sheet.

[von-Luck]

It certainly wasn't a great fighter and it undoubtedly was out performed. Bismarck's video does an adequate job of describing the situation. The F4F wasn't the fighter we wanted but it was the fighter we had so we made it work. Now in this sim I would expect it to be a frustrating experience of attempting to enter a battle with higher E despite the zero being a better performing craft. I am anticipating tough times as people begin to learn exactly what that entails. There is precious little room for mistakes when you pilot the F4F.

 

von Luck

[PatrickAWlson]

The P38 succeeded as a fighter in the Pacific because it had a significant speed and high altitude performance advantage over its opponents.  Not only was the Zero not fast, but it was not terribly handy once it reached its upper limits.  

 

Over Europe it did not have these advantages, which made its weaknesses (roll rate was the biggest one) more pronounced.  Still a great ground attack plane that could hold its own in the air when called upon to do so, but not a plane that could dictate terms the way it did in the Pacific.

 

Same plane, different place, different conditions, different results.

[Gambit21]

What Patrick said. ^

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

191 F4F/FM-2 were lost to enemy aircraft in WW2 according to the USN own records. I don't think the figure would be the same if the Wildcat had truly been a "bad" fighter. 1327 claims on the other side of the balance sheet.

I dont think anyone would come up with assumption that Wildcat was a bad aircraft. It was not, though performance wise its own pilots admitted limitations and areas it simply could not compete with opposition. Still, machine is part of the one big puzzle in which pilot, tactics, organization and numerous other factors play important roles. 

 

Also, to Navy Wildcats one has to add Marine units which also contributed to the events. 

[JG13_opcode]

191 F4F/FM-2 were lost to enemy aircraft in WW2 according to the USN own records. I don't think the figure would be the same if the Wildcat had truly been a "bad" fighter. 1327 claims on the other side of the balance sheet.

Some of that has to be attributable to tactics and doctrine, though. The Thach Weave pretty much neutralized the A6M's maneuverability advantage.

[JtD]

191/1327 aren't the USN figures, but complete for US service, including Marines. My bad.

 

If no one would come up with the assumption that the Wildcat was a bad aircraft, why is the topic title asking just that? Just posting the figures because I think they speak volumes.

[PatrickAWlson]

Wildcat required team tactics to succeed.  It's greatest advantage was that it was much tougher than a Zero.  In a duel or set of duels the Zero is going to come out on top because the Wildcat will never get guns to bear.  With teamwork, the Wildcat is bringing guns to bear and the odds of bringing down the Zero before the Zero brings down his target are not bad.  Not an ideal way to fight but effective enough, especially when the long term industry/manpower advantage is squarely in your favor.

[Gambit21]

Some of that has to be attributable to tactics and doctrine, though. The Thach Weave pretty much neutralized the A6M's maneuverability advantage.

It really didn't

[JG13_opcode]

It really didn't

Sure it did. It basically created the entire concept of the drag and bag. US pilots were still using that tactic in Korea.

 

When you change the terms of the engagement from 1v1 maneuvering contests to section vs section drag and bags, maneuverability becomes much less important than armament and speed.

Edited May 12, 2017 by JG13_opcode

[=ARTOA=Bombenleger]

Oh damn someone already posted it, Im sorry. Edited May 12, 2017 by =ARTOA=Bombenleger

[Gambit21]

Sure it did. It basically created the entire concept of the drag and bag. US pilots were still using that tactic in Korea.

No.

It had it's place as a defensive tactic once you messed up and had a Zeke on your 6, but it did not neutralize the Zeke or it's maneuverability advantage.

That would be a gross oversimplification of how air combat progressed in the Pacific. Not to mention that any pair of Zeke pilots worth their salt could easily counter that maneuver.

It's strictly a defensive tactic and assumes the wing man doesn't have a Zeke of his own to worry about. Not to mention relies on the Zeke not filling you full of 20mm before your wingy brings his guns to bear,

and further also assumes the Zeke doesn't yo yo or otherwise fly out of plane to mess up your shot.

 

It's a last ditch defense, and gets way more credit than it deserves.

Edited May 12, 2017 by Gambit21

[busdriver]

No.

It had it's place as a defensive tactic once you messed up and had a Zeke on your 6, but it did not neutralize the Zeke or it's maneuverability advantage.

That would be a gross oversimplification of how air combat progressed in the Pacific. Not to mention that any pair of Zeke pilots worth their salt could easily counter that maneuver.

It's strictly a defensive tactic and assumes the wing man doesn't have a Zeke of his own to worry about. Not to mention relies on the Zeke not filling you full of 20mm before your wingy brings his guns to bear,

and further also assumes the Zeke doesn't yo yo or otherwise fly out of plane to mess up your shot.

 

It's a last ditch defense, and gets way more credit than it deserves.

Your fighter pilot experience and interpretation/reading of air-to-air tactics is different than mine. Last ditch maneuver? I think you misunderstand the purpose. I encourage students of the history of air combat to open their copy of Shaw's Fighter Combat to page 211 and re-read his explanation.

 

YMMV of course.