# Was the Zerstorer concept really that flawed?



## schwarzpanzer (Dec 14, 2006)

I was just wondering, if Me110's were used to soften up airfield defenses ahead of the bombers. You know, strafing aircraft, AA guns personell etc. Maybe having Me109's as high-alt top cover for dogfights.

Then maybe a second wave of bomb-equipped 110's to soften the defenses further.

Also, if they went ahead of the bomber group as escorts and met any attackers head-on and boomed and zoomed where possible, but not getting into dogfights.

They could also have been used as pathfinders and torpedo bombers?

I think it was silly that the best pilots were put in 110's though.

I would probaly uparmour the 110's too (forget maneuverability ).

One counter to this that I've heard before is that reliance on the 110 delayed development of the 109, especially drop-tank equipped Friedrichs.


----------



## Erich (Dec 14, 2006)

the a/c was a sitting duck against Allied and Soviet fighters. the best possible useage was in Reich defense as a bomber destroyer as the machine was an excellent weapons platform proved through all the experimentation it went through with the ZG's and NJG's. Again during daylight the a/c proved itself on a repeated basis as long as Allied fighters were not present.

for me in all other categories it was too slow a puss to be effective, and even as a night fighter when put on day light ops against US heavy bomber formations the Bf 110G-4's had an extremely hard time pulling up with speed to catch the B-17 and B-24's, with heavy radar, cannon and even fitted with the 21cm rocket launchers as well ...... yikes, shoot me please !


----------



## Twitch (Dec 14, 2006)

I feel the 110 was best when gunned up against the bomber stream too. The night fighters did well also.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 14, 2006)

Against bombers and as a night fighter she was not a bad aircraft. I think the 110 was not a bad design was just used improperly atleast at first.


----------



## Hunter368 (Dec 14, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Against bombers and as a night fighter she was not a bad aircraft. I think the 110 was not a bad design was just used improperly atleast at first.




Agreed. The only way it could of been used in the role "they" wanted to use it in was if it was produced 5 or so years before it was. Then Allied fighters would not been as good, bombers would of been slower.

But I agree Chris it was used poorly in real life.


----------



## twoeagles (Dec 14, 2006)

I would love to see some capable modeller kit-bash a 110, get rid of
the bird cage canopy, go single seat with a streamlined bubble...Now that
would shape up to be something lovely.


----------



## Smokey (Dec 14, 2006)

The FW 187 seems to have been so much better than the BF110 in almost every way. Does anyone know why it didn't go into service?








Focke-Wulf Fw 187 Falke "Falcon"


----------



## Glider (Dec 14, 2006)

I think that you are being a little hard on the 110. When it was designed and enetered service it was a capable fighter. In the Battles up to the BOB it proved itself a number of times. Compared to the other fighters it faced in France it had firepower and speed, being faster than almost every fighter it flew against. 
As long as it stuck to avoiding a turning battle it could handle itself well. It came unstuck in the BOB when it faced the faster Spitfires and Hurricanes that had an improved performance due to the availability of 100 octane fuel compared to the 87 (I think) that they had to use in France. Hurricanes in France couldn't run from the 110 and a number were shot down when they ran out of ammunition.
Clearly from the BOB onwards it was outclassed in daylight by almost all the fighters it faced.


----------



## Smokey (Dec 14, 2006)

When you look at the stats for the FW 187 the 110 does not compare well


----------



## delcyros (Dec 15, 2006)

The Fw-187 actually was in Luftwaffe service up to late 1943 in Norway.
After been used in the Industrieschutzstaffel in winter 40/41, the three pre production Fw-187A0 were send to Norway. It is not known whether or not they were involved in combat.
The decision not to use the plane may partly belong to political issues and to the fact that the Me-110 was ahaed in development. A mass production of the -187 would cause significant delays. You know, not always do receive the technically impressive designs the attention they deserve.


----------



## loomaluftwaffe (Dec 15, 2006)

and the dudes back at the RLM asked for a rear gun in the specification


----------



## mkloby (Dec 15, 2006)

Glider said:


> I think that you are being a little hard on the 110. When it was designed and enetered service it was a capable fighter. In the Battles up to the BOB it proved itself a number of times. Compared to the other fighters it faced in France it had firepower and speed, being faster than almost every fighter it flew against.
> As long as it stuck to avoiding a turning battle it could handle itself well. It came unstuck in the BOB when it faced the faster Spitfires and Hurricanes that had an improved performance due to the availability of 100 octane fuel compared to the 87 (I think) that they had to use in France. Hurricanes in France couldn't run from the 110 and a number were shot down when they ran out of ammunition.
> Clearly from the BOB onwards it was outclassed in daylight by almost all the fighters it faced.



What would I rather have in a dogfight - an 110 or a small SE figther... I'm going w/ the single engine. I'd take maneuverability over a speed increase any day.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Dec 15, 2006)

I'm kinda thinking the other way. A long ranged, ground attack fighter, armed with a rear gunner that could boom and zoom and go head to head with a fighter if need be. Also it could be used as a nightfighter. It would need to have a lot of power and armour though. Kinda like a cross between a P38/Mosquito and Il-2, a WW2 A10 if you will. The FW was good, I know it was very sturdy and it would possibly be a better starting point. The thing is, how aerodynamic was it, compred to the 110? and how was it at low altitude?

I think the FW190 F/G proved this concept later in the war?

BTW Erich, what does a/c stand for?

Also, how about replacing all bombers, Ju87 and He111 included, with the Ju88 - as it could fulfill both roles. I think standardisation was a trick Germany missed in the BoB.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 15, 2006)

a/c stands for aircraft.

The Fw-187 would have been a much better fighter than the 110 hands down. I think mostly it did not recieve its recognition and put into mass production for political reasons and because the factories were allready geared to the Bf-109 and the Bf-110.


----------



## Gnomey (Dec 15, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> a/c stands for aircraft.
> 
> The Fw-187 would have been a much better fighter than the 110 hands down. I think mostly it did not recieve its recognition and put into mass production for political reasons and because the factories were allready geared to the Bf-109 and the Bf-110.



Yep, the "Falke" was a much better fighter than the BF-110. I always believed that it wasn't selected because Goering/Hitler didn't particular like Focke-wulf and much prefered Messerschmitt to the extent of taking the worse plane just because it was a Messerschmitt.


----------



## Glider (Dec 15, 2006)

mkloby said:


> What would I rather have in a dogfight - an 110 or a small SE figther... I'm going w/ the single engine. I'd take maneuverability over a speed increase any day.



Standard FIghters in France were Hurricanes lucky to make 300 mph, MS406 lucky to make 290 mph, Curtis Hawk 300 mph, Blocke and Dewoitine around 320.
The Dewoitine was the largest threat but only available in small numbers. The 110 at 340 has a good advantage and as I said would be a fool to dogfight but keep its speed up. Its what they could and did do.

After all, its only what the USA did to the Japanese with a similar speed advantage in the P40!!

That said the point was that when it was designed and entered service it was better than most fighters and the equal to the rest.


----------



## mkloby (Dec 15, 2006)

D.520 i'm showing [email protected],030'
P-40B [email protected],000'
Bf 110C [email protected],965'
Hurricane Mk I [email protected],000'
Not exactly a hefty speed advantage. Especially when you factor in the fact that once a 110 climbed like a porker and could not regain potential energy easily once engaged.


----------



## Glider (Dec 15, 2006)

To be exact I have the following
Me110c4 348mph
Curtis Hawk 75A-3 311mph (The last ones delivered to France)
D520 325mph
Hurricane 1 325mph (but considerably less in France due to the fuel available where around 310 was the norm)
MS406 290mph (its most numerous opponent)
Obviously I have left out the PZL's, Fokker D21, Gladiators etc the 110 also faced, as they were clearly outclassed

So I would defend the speed difference and point out that the P40 also climbed like a porker when faced with a Zero. Similar tactics would and did pay dividends for the 110 in the Battle for France where it was a formidible foe.


----------



## mkloby (Dec 16, 2006)

Glider said:


> To be exact I have the following
> Me110c4 348mph
> Curtis Hawk 75A-3 311mph (The last ones delivered to France)
> D520 325mph
> ...



A couple knots is no big difference - that was my only point. It's short lived success was not due to it's SLIGHT speed advantage.


----------



## Glider (Dec 16, 2006)

I totally agree that when the single engined fighters caught up with the 110 then it came badly unstuck.

What I have always wondered is how would the Whirlwind have managed in the BOB which it only just missed. With its speed and firepower would it have avoided the 109's and made it through to the bombers which would have been vulnerable to those 4 x 20. Or would the 109's have done to it what we did to the 110. We will never know


----------



## mkloby (Dec 16, 2006)

Glider said:


> I totally agree that when the single engined fighters caught up with the 110 then it came badly unstuck.
> 
> What I have always wondered is how would the Whirlwind have managed in the BOB which it only just missed. With its speed and firepower would it have avoided the 109's and made it through to the bombers which would have been vulnerable to those 4 x 20. Or would the 109's have done to it what we did to the 110. We will never know



Those 20mm would have been great at taking down bombers - all concentrated in the nose, whatever it hit was taking to take some frightful damage. What I'm more interested in is if they used uprated Rolls engines in the bird, then what kind of performer we'd have on our hands.


----------



## Twitch (Dec 20, 2006)

The 110 was one of many planes that was conceived as one thing before the war and employed in the way it was needed in actuality during the war. It was fine against all the European air arms which had lesser crates but against more modern ones like British fighters it was poor. During the BoB Galland was so pissed that the 109s had to fly top cover for the 110s which were supposedly flying escort of r the bombers.

When the USAF entered the fray the early Thunderbolt pilots had a name for it if it ventured out in daylight in a fighter role- meat on the table.

I don't conveive for a second that the Whirlwind would have bested the 109s either. The only twin that proved capable of holding its own was the P-38.

The whole twin engine concept was a bankrupt pre-war concept because aero engines were lacking on power. Stick two on a crate and it cheats the formula. But aero engine development lept ahead so fast in power production that single engine fighters proved the ultimate top gun.


----------



## timshatz (Dec 20, 2006)

Think Twitch has most of it. Power plants were not effective enough in producing the thrust required to become effective against single engined fighters. The 110 was an attempt to produce a long range fighter. In that it failed. But it was one of many attempts to deal with the same problem.

The problem was simple. Fighters (or Pursuit Aircraft) were and are (to a certain extent) defensive aircraft. Bombers are offensive weapons. Doctines in the 30s and early 40s called for fighters to be Interceptors or Army support aircraft. Bomber escort was not considered a major part of their job description (for lack of a better word) because theories said the bomber "would always get through". Either by speed (The Blenheim) or by firepower (the Flying Fortress), the bomber would get through. Reality was different. The Blenheim was nowwhere near fast enough nor was the B17 heavily armed enough. 

The concept of a long range fighter was worked on by many countries but, and somewhat oddly, only put into mass production before general hostilities by Fascist or Axis Countries. A point that speaks volumes. Anyway, the Germans and Japanese both worked on the idea of a long range, air superiority fighter. The Germans came up with the 110, the Japanese with the Zero. Both had serious drawbacks that later came up in combat operations. 

The long range fighter is a an Offensive Weapon. It carries the fight over the enemies bases and production centers. The Germans and Japanese introduced production aircraft to the idea but it really fell the the USAAF to get the job done right. In practice, the Mustang was the aircraft that gain air superiority. The Mustang's flaws may've shown up if it was in an Interceptor role, then again, maybe not. But as a long range escort, intruder and air supremecy platform, it was outstanding. 

I'm so-so on the idea that the P38 was a great air supremecy weapon. It did it well in the Pacific but less effective in Europe. The Mustang did it well in both Theatres. The T-Bolt had decent leggs when developed, but not on the same level as the Mustang. 

Lastly, I like the Whirlwind. Thought it was a very cool looking aircraft. Wonder how it would've performed with better engines.


----------



## johnbr (Dec 20, 2006)

Me I have always liked the Arado 440 more it would do 460 MPH and all the test pilot's are said to have love flying it.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Dec 31, 2006)

Thanks for the info DerAdler.


I think the He162(?) 'Uhu' was probably the best Zerstorer?

Don't forget that most modern jet designs are twin-engined...

I think another engine gives a much petter performance, versus the extra drag/weight? The more efficient the engine, the more this is the case, but I feel the Me110 was a waste of DB engines. I 'd have used a (BMW?) radial, or maybe a Ju 211.

What I was meaning was something that could loiter and strafe unarmoured ground/sea targets and grounded/taxiing planes.

I think replacing the 4 7.92 MG's for 2 20mm cannons may also have been wise, if possible?

I've given the 'Crikey' thought before too, but as a bomber interceptor. I don't think the Hispano cannon was too reliable in the BoB though.

There is of course the Ju88 and Mosquito, but they had many roles - I'm concentrating on ground attack.

A Zerstorer escort could be used to attack head-on any planes going to the bombers, or trying to limp/run away.

That Arado sounds good johnbr.8) 

The Meteor also made a good ground attack plane too.

I know that Mustang pilots attacked targets of opportunity after a bomber raid, I mean kind of like that - only before, to 'soften them up'.


----------



## HealzDevo (Jan 21, 2007)

It could still have been good if after the BOB it was re-designed as a battlefield support plane like the AC-130 with a big cannon, rockets and guns. Considering that the Allies didn't have anything like it really, it could have made a really useful weapon even in 1944 and the Overlord, by providing strafing runs on Allied Shipping and doing its own long-range scans of the Coast off Normandy. It could certainly have made D-Day a bit nastier for the Allies...


----------



## Jabberwocky (Jan 22, 2007)

Twitch said:


> The 110 was one of many planes that was conceived as one thing before the war and employed in the way it was needed in actuality during the war. It was fine against all the European air arms which had lesser crates but against more modern ones like British fighters it was poor. During the BoB Galland was so pissed that the 109s had to fly top cover for the 110s which were supposedly flying escort of r the bombers.
> 
> When the USAF entered the fray the early Thunderbolt pilots had a name for it if it ventured out in daylight in a fighter role- meat on the table.
> 
> ...




Going to disagree on this. 

I read a series of interviews with some Whirlwind pilots recently and they universally loved the aircraft, and were quite disappointed to go to Typhoons or even Spitfires. The general view was that, at low level, the aircraft was better than the 109 and a match for the 190A. 

The Whirlwind was supposedly more manouverable than the Spitfire Mk V up to 15,000 feet. It was 15-20 mph faster down low, rolled better, had better vision and a nastier armament. Rate of turn was inferior and it was about 200 ft/min slow in rate of climb.

If it wasn't for Rolls-Royce decision to kill the Peregrine engine programme, it would of been a superlative low-medium alt fighter. The proposed Mk II, with 1100 hp engines, new props and a new exhaust ejector system would of been capable of more than 390 mph (calculated top speeds were around 415 mph, but I think they were a little generous).

The two Whirlwind squadrons desperately tried to get themselves reassigned to the Western Desert in 1942, because they felt that they could do a far better job than the Kittyhawks and Hurricanes that the Desert Air Force was struggling along with.


----------



## HealzDevo (Jan 23, 2007)

I think that they could have been just as good as single-engined fighters. It is just that they weren't upgraded enough and worked on. The P-38 Lightning is an example that when the concept was kept up to date with watching developments that it could work and keep pace with single-engined plane developments. A lot of modern air superority fighters are twin-engined such as the F-15 Eagle. Even a single-engined plane needs constant watch and attention and upgrades to remain competitive. The Me-110 was a step behind on each upgrade and it showed. As a gunship platform however, it would have provided sterling service with heavy cannons mounted, a WW2 AC-130 Gunship if you like...


----------



## Parmigiano (Jan 29, 2007)

I think it's mostly a matter of timing.
The 'zerstorer' concept, that is a heavy fighter able to destroy bombers, do ground attack and hold on with opposing fighters, needed an aircraft in proportion superior to the average level of pure fighters. 
The Bf110 had this superiority for a very short time, then the fighters closed the development gap.

Possibly the best zerstorer was the Me 262, who had such a clear edge in performances to perform all the zerstorer roles. (ok, in normal conditions, with the situation in 1945 not even the F15 would had been successful...)

Superiority that was timed too, pending the introduction of 'real' fighters with jest engines 

In effect the 262 was more the 'new' Bf110 than the new 109. 

The Ameisenbaer could have been a real prop zerstorer, but all this late prop airplane were just a swansong after the jet introduction.


----------



## HealzDevo (Jan 30, 2007)

Okay, still what do others think about my points? Could at least some of the Bf-110s been better used for Battlefield Support?


----------

