Question on Bf110D "Dackelbauch'. (1 Viewer)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Great question and equally great answers. Sorry to jump in late Terry. I was ready to consult my Vasco book when I read that you already have it. I didn't need to get out of my chair!
 
Roger. I'll vector Victor to Over, over !

Thanks Jim, but I think I probably have the same photos, as well as some of the tank being installed.
 
From the Crowood Aviation Series book...

View attachment 306506


Geo

I don't know what the sources are for that! At a meeting at the RLM on 19th August 1940 the question of designation for the various versions of the Bf 110 D-0 was raised with an emphasis on designations that could not be garbled in telex messages. A few days later, on the 26th, the following designations were agreed:

D-0: Two external tanks, dackelbauch.

D-2: Two external tanks, either equipped for bombs or Dackelbauch. Produced by Mtt. Augsburg.

D-3: Two external tanks, equipped only for bombs. Produced by Focke-Wulf, Miag, Gotha.

Unfortunately this was not always the nomenclature used. For example Erprobungsgruppe 210 used the designation D-0/B for what were aircraft identical to the bomb equipped (non-dackelbauch) version of the D-2.
There was a lot of overlap in the designations and resultant confusion. Many aircraft given one designation in the documents of the manufacturer are given a different one in loss reports. It is fair to say that if the Luftwaffe's own record keepers were uncertain at the time, we have little chance today!

To confirm what Denniss has already said, in all the references I have looked at this week-end, I can find NO mention of the cannon armament being removed from any of these sub-types.

Cheers

Steve
 
Good stuff Steve, and I agree about the sometimes contradictory and/or confusing type designations.
Like you, I haven't seen any reference to the cannons being removed, and in the photo mentioned, of the tank being fitted, they are clearly visible under the floor of the rear cockpit.
Additionally, in the book "Luftwaffe Fighters Bombers - The Battle of Britain" (a compilation of the two, earlier, separate volumes) by Chris Goss, which I received a couple of days ago, there is a photo in the chapter dealing with the I/ZG76 mission of 15th August, 1940, looking forward from the Borfunker's position, where the cannon ammo drums can just be seen. Now it may be that this photo is not a 'Dackelbauch' (or it could even be a 'stock' photo), but as the former Luftwaffe contributors to the book provided the photos, relevant to their accounts, there's a reasonable chance that it is a 'D'.
 
From 'Bombsights over England'

A British report of an attack by the Bf 110 C-6s (the ones with a 30mm cannon which could not carry bombs at this time,hence no mention of bombing) on Dover.

"After passing M A/S B.8 the MEs circled around to port and flew up astern of M A/S B.8. The leading aircraft opened fire eith four machine guns of approximately .303 calibre and two cannon firing explosive shells, assumed to be 20mm..."

As Vasco says, the reference to two 20mm cannon would be because the British Intelligence Services would have been unaware of the half dozen 30mm cannon equipped C-6s, whilst being fully aware of the normal Bf 110 armament of four machine guns and two cannon (20mm).By implication the bomber version of the Bf 110, which we'll call a D-0/B, did still carry the cannon armament as did the dackelbauch equipped version.

If more evidence were needed Karl Stoff of 1./Erp.Gr. 210 recalled that Hauptmann Lutz sank an 'English armed look-out ship' with 'his 2cm cannon', an event confirmed by the gun camera footage from his aircraft.

A British CEAR on Glaeske and Schweda's aircraft, shot down after a raid on Croydon, is unequivocal about the armament.

"Armament standard 5 machine guns and 2 20mm cannon"

Other CEARs for this units 'Jabo' 110s (like that for Ruger and Ernst's S9+BH shot down following a raid on Brooklands) report the 20mm cannons too. This one underestimated the bomb load at 2 x 50 Kg whereas it was most likely 2 x 500 Kg. That might be an easily made typo.

Cheers

Steve
 
Last edited:
Thanks Steve. I've just finished 'flipping through' "Bombsights..." again, and saw that piece. It appears that the ETC racks had chutes/ejector ports linked to the fuselage ejector apertures, which are not always clearly seen in photos, but are very apparent on those moulded parts in the three 1/48th scale kits I have (1x Fujimi, 2 x Eduard), so there wouldn't have been a problem firing the 20mm's with the rack in place.
If my memory is correct, the ammo drums contained 60 rounds, so the 'tank' within the Dackelbauch would have to have the capacity to receive and contain at least this amount of spent cases.
Must have been a real b@ll ache though, after an 'Op', having to remove the Dackelbauch in order to empty the spent cases !!
 
Must have been a real b@ll ache though, after an 'Op', having to remove the Dackelbauch in order to empty the spent cases !!

Is it possible that the Dackelbauch had small access panels to allow the removal of the spent cases?
I ask this because the Aussie Wirraway collected all the spent cases and clips in the area forward of the front spar and between the wheel wells and had a roughly 15cm/6in square panel to allow removal.
 
As I'm about to start work on my 1/ZG76 'Dackelbauch', I've just re-read this thread, in order to make sure about the cannons.
Something which might have lead to the presumed error regarding the removal of the cannons has been mentioned in some accounts of the August 15th, 1940 raid on the north east of England, where 1/ZG76 provided escort to KG26.
These accounts state the the rear machine gun (MG15) on the Bf110Ds was removed in order to save some weight on the long flight across the North Sea.
This is not correct - the MG15 and it's associated racks of ammo drums was retained, as evidenced by the account by Oblt. Hans-Ulrich Kettling, who's rear gunner, Ogfr. Fritz Volk, returned fire during the first attack by Spitfires of 41 Sqn.
Perhaps this has lead to some confusion regarding cannons/machine guns, or perhaps some authors have assumed, because of the location of the huge belly tank, that the cannons would be inoperable.
Thanks again to all who have contributed to the answer to my initial question.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back