# Me-110 Underrated



## Zipper730 (Jul 20, 2016)

I remember something by Captain Brown which stated that the Me-110 got a bad rap and had it been used right it would have been impressive.

In what way?


----------



## parsifal (Jul 20, 2016)

It was roughly handled in the BoB, but was still and overall success. It was particularly useful on the eastern front and in the MTO where its range and bombloads made it very useful.

As a night fighter it was also very useful.

bombastic claims and expectations were made about it in the lead up to wart that frankly no twin engine escort fighter would be able to meet. I think it was these outlandish claiming that delivered a propaganda coup to the allies, who were not slow to exploit that.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Timppa (Jul 20, 2016)

parsifal said:


> It was roughly handled in the BoB...



Opening this can of worms, again:



> 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
> ...



Me110: Ill-used in BoB - Luftwaffe and Allied Air Forces Discussion Forum

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jul 20, 2016)

I would point out that even when used in the Jabo role, as practiced by Erprobungsgruppe 210, which is often considered a more correct use, the type could be on the end of a severe mauling if caught at a disadvantage. On 15th August the Gruppe attacked Croydon (which it thought was Kenley, an error of about four miles) and lost 8 of 22 attacking aircraft (36%) which is obviously unsustainable. The losses in air to air combat were mostly (all?) to Hurricanes not Spitfires.

The ratios claimed by Bergstrom should be treated with some caution. I'm not going into that now, it may be covered in one of the linked discussions which I have not read, and anyway any such discussion will just generate more heat than light.

The Bf 110 was certainly not a bad aircraft, it was a very good one, and one of the few that was in production before the war and at the end. It does get a bad rap from the BoB period and consequently may be under rated by those who don't bother to look at its valuable and successful service elsewhere and in other roles.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Thorlifter (Jul 21, 2016)

Sorry for my ignorance Steve, but what is a Jabo role?


----------



## stona (Jul 21, 2016)

Jabo is an abbreviation of 'Jagdbomber', literally fighter-bomber.

Erprobunggruppe 210 was formed in July 1940 and was not, as some have supposed, an elite unit. The two Bf 110 Staffeln were drawn from 1./ZG 1 and 3./StG 77. The third Bf 109 equipped Staffel had a nucleus drawn from 4./JG 186.
The Bf 109s started training for the Jabo role under the supervision of Hauptmann Karl Valesi, considered the foremost expert in the use of the Bf 109 in this role, he was seconded to the unit.
The Bf 110s trained under Oberleutnant Franz Fallenbacher, the crews already familiar with the type learning a new dive bombing technique, and those transferred from Ju 87s learning a new aircraft.

There is one outstanding history of the unit (from which the above is gleaned) and I cannot recommend it highly enough. Anyone with an interest in this unit and its operations should try to lay their hands on a copy of John Vasco's _"Messerschmitt Bf 110 Bombsights Over England - Erprobungsgruppe 210 in the Battle of Britain." _ It is not often that any book can be described as 'definitive' but this one can.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Jul 22, 2016)

Okay so the two basic flaws with the way the Me-110 was used was basically

They were tied to close escort rather than simply performing sweeps above and ahead of bombers which would allow more freedom of operation, and allow them to get the drop on enemy defenders

If they were allowed to do fast glide-bombing/dive-bombing attacks on radar installations and airfields rather than just send Stukas in


----------



## stona (Jul 22, 2016)

The first isn't really true. Both Luftwaffe fighters had considerable freedom of action in the early stages of the B o B, and even later still operated in other than escort roles.

The Bf 110 was used extensively to attack shipping and other 'ground' targets, not just by Erprobungsgruppe 210 which was specifically a fighter bomber unit, and yet still proved vulnerable to competitive single seat fighters flown by determined men.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## pbehn (Jul 22, 2016)

Zipper730 said:


> Okay so the two basic flaws with the way the Me-110 was used was basically
> 
> They were tied to close escort rather than simply performing sweeps above and ahead of bombers which would allow more freedom of operation, and allow them to get the drop on enemy defenders
> 
> If they were allowed to do fast glide-bombing/dive-bombing attacks on radar installations and airfields rather than just send Stukas in


Please do not judge the Bf110 solely on its performance in the BoB. In that conflict the LW came up against an integrated radar controlled defense. In the battles over Poland Holland, Belgium France and later Russia the LW did well at least in the start, and the Me110 was part of that. RADAR meant that the LW didnt take airfields by surprise, and they were attacking over a stretch of water. 

Bungays "The most dangerous enemy" goes into the performance of the Me 100 in some depth and at one point concludes that its strong point as an escort was that i was easier to shoot down than a bomber (maybe a bit harsh). However it also discusses in depth the achievements of Erprobungsgruppe 210 in precision air raid attacks. My understanding of German is that Erprobungsgruppe is a "test group" a sort of research and development squadron. They achieved a lot but they were a small part of the LW and their ideas techniques were still being formed. With better planning the Me110 could have had much more success but then the Gerrmans couldnt plan for a system they didnt know existed, in retrospect we can say they should have attacked the RADAR daily at the time they didnt realise the significance and the attacks they made seemed to have no effect.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 22, 2016)

Anybody using fighter bombers (single or twin engine) who got bounced from above was going to suffer losses. 
Not sure why the Bf 110 gets criticized for this, What other plane did the Germans have that could do the same job with fewer losses?
It sure wan't the JU-87. 
Or Flip it, what did the British (or Americans) have in 1940/41 that could have flown the same type missions (bomb load/speed/altitude/range) without suffering similar if not higher losses?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 22, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> Anybody using fighter bombers (single or twin engine) who got bounced from above was going to suffer losses.
> Not sure why the Bf 110 gets criticized for this, What other plane did the Germans have that could do the same job with fewer losses?
> It sure wan't the JU-87.
> Or Flip it, what did the British (or Americans) have in 1940/41 that could have flown the same type missions (bomb load/speed/altitude/range) without suffering similar if not higher losses?


That wswnt the point I was making, the Me110 performed well in ground attack but there were too few of them (trained crews). While t may have come off second best in the BoB it took part in sweeping the Russian air force off the field when Barbarossa started.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Jul 22, 2016)

I always thought the Bf 110 was a very pleasant aircraft with decent performance, but I never did see how anyone could have expected it to compete evenly against a single-seat fighter in one-on-one combat. It was obviously better at one-on-one combat than most light bombers, but once you get into dedicated fighters, it was going to be an uphill fight all the way.

I figured it would be a good bomber destroyer if the Bf 109s had the other side occupied at the time, but the Bf 109 was never going to able to escort the Bf 110s very far since it couldn't do ANYTHING very far. It was good at what it did, but long-range wasn't exactly the Bf 109's strong suit.

I tend to agree the Bf 110 has been somewhat unjustly maligned, but almost any twin was going to suffer a similar fate unless it was a dedicated fighter. The P-38 could give a decent account of itself, but not when carrying bombs. Ditto the Mosquito. Without the bomb load neither were exactly "easy" targets; but with a bomb load, they would both have been at a real disadvantage in fighter combat.

I think the Tu-2 and Pe-2 might have better at ground attack, but the Bf 110 was a good, reliable, decently hard-hitting airplane that was simply not quite a day air-superiority fighter.

As amply stated previously by others, there was no twin that was, Do 335 notwithstanding.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jul 23, 2016)

The best translation of 'Erprobungsgruppe' would be 'Experimental' or 'Test' Wing 210. As the name suggests it was intended to develop tactics for the Me 210, in a tactical support role to land forces, but the well known issues with the development of that type meant that the unit in fact operated the Bf 110 and Bf 109.

It would be unfair to over emphasise the role of Erpr.Gr.210 and its two Bf 110 equipped Staffeln, but we should also remember that the Bf 110 was not a plentiful aircraft in 1939/40. On the outbreak of war just three Gruppen were equipped with the type, less than 100 machines. They suffered their first losses in air to air combat against Polish fighters, an ominous sign, and also undertook their first ground support missions.
The Bf 110 did okay in Scandinavia in 1940, but losses to return fire from British bombers should have rung alarm bells.
By the time of the opening of the campaign in the west there were more than 300 Bf 110s available. They were swiftly into action and the diversity of roles is illustrated by attacks on 10th May by II/ZG 2 on Vissingen airfield, while I./2 provided an escort to troop carrying Ju 52s. On 11th May I./ZG 2 met the RAF for the first time when it was attacked by a section of Hurricanes which shot down two of the 110s, a sign of things to come.
I will quote John Vasco's comment on the action later around the Dunkirk pocket.

_"In the following days, the Zerstorer units began to meet Spitfires more frequently as the German land forces moved ever closer to the Channel coast, and Spitfire squadrons could operate from the southern airfields in England in support of the increasingly desperate Allied situation in France. During the period 21 to 25 May the losses were spread across the Zerstorer unit, and fairly minimal, but the pace began to pick up again on 26 May, the focus of Luftwaffe attacks turned to the Allied pocket around Dunkirk.
With attention now firmly on Dunkirk, the RAF effort from bases in England increased considerably, and the losses for the Bf 110 units in the following days would reflect this, as the limitations of combat with modern single-engined enemy aircraft became clear." _

He then lists these substantial losses. This was a lesson learned by the Bf 110 units but not by the Luftwaffe. The role of the Bf 110s in the BoB was varied and despite the losses they were not unsuccessful. It is a myth that 'fighter' Bf 110 units were themselves escorted by Bf 109s. These units were generally assigned to escort duties, frequently penetrating British defences far further than their short legged contemporaries in the Bf 109. Only the bomb carrying Ds and Es of Erpr.Gr. 210 received fighter escort.

The success of Erpr.Gr. 210 pointed to a future role for the Bf 110 as a strike aircraft, and the exploits of that unit, and ZG 1 on the Russian front from 1941 onward showed how good it could be at this.
The Bf 110 was also pressed into service from 1940 as a night fighter, a role for which it was never intended as neither the Germans , nor the British, had envisaged night time bombing campaigns. It excelled in the role
The Zerstorer units continued to serve in other theatres, from Iraq, the Mediterranean Theatre and across the entire Russian Front, they were not disbanded due to losses in the BoB, though a more realistic assessment of their capabilities against modern single -engined fighters had emerged. The death knell of the Zerstorer units didn't sound until mid 1944 when the units were thrown into daylight Defence of the Reich operations, and massacred by the Americans.

None of this makes the Bf 110 a bad aircraft. I would argue that it makes it a versatile, capable, rather good one. It did have its limitations, somewhat exposed in the Battles of France and Britain, and revealed tragically for the crews in 1944, but all aircraft have limitations. The Bf 110s were less restrictive than many other types.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
6 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## bobbysocks (Jul 24, 2016)

Shortround6 said:


> Anybody using fighter bombers (single or twin engine) who got bounced from above was going to suffer losses.
> Not sure why the Bf 110 gets criticized for this,.... ?



in a SE fighter its very difficult to see 360 degrees around you... in the 110 you have a rear gunner who has eyes on your 6. getting bounced from high and above shouldn't have been as big a surprise as low and behind I would think.


----------



## Pursuivant (Jul 25, 2016)

Zipper730 said:


> I remember something by Captain Brown which stated that the Me-110 got a bad rap and had it been used right it would have been impressive.



A WW2-era twin-engined aircraft is never going to win a maneuver dogfight against a decent contemporary single-engined fighter. And, the Bf-110 was a pre-war fighter kept in service long after it should have been retired due to the failure of the Bf-210. For those reasons, the Bf-110 was never the fastest or most maneuverable thing in the sky.

But, the Bf-110 was never intended as an air superiority fighter. It was specifically designed as a "zersteorer" - a bomber destroyer. Later, it was turned into a long-range escort fighter, fighter bomber and night fighter. When the Bf-110 was expected to play any other role, it was unfair to the aircraft and to its crews, and the casualty roles showed it.

Others have pointed out that the Bf-110 did a good job for an early/pre-war fighter in the Jabo role.

I'll point out that the Bf-110 was very effective against unescorted bombers. Bf-110 intercepts of unescorted British bombers early in the war forced the RAF to abandon daylight raids over Germany. Once equipped with radar as a night fighter, the Bf-110 destroyed more British bombers than any other type. Bf-110 attacks against US heavy bombers could be deadly if the bombers were unescorted. Bf-110 night fighters pressed into the day fighter role helped direct German attacks against US bomber formations. Only massive US air superiority kept the Bf-110 from being more effective during the Battle of Germany.

So, I think that what CPT Brown was talking about was the Bf-110's virtues in the role for which it was intended. If I recall, he wrote that the Bf-110 had no vices, was fairly reliable, reasonably fast, had decent endurance, and was exceptionally well-armed.

Clearly, the Germans felt the same way. The Bf110 was built in massive numbers and was adapted to a variety of roles other than the role fore which it was designed.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Jul 25, 2016)

Me 110 losses were not that bad actually. The biggest reason they were judged a failure was not so much the losses they suffered. It was the failure in their primary role of escort fighter. It was difficult to judge them a success in the "heavy fifghter" role, whatever that meant exactly. They were not able to fulfil the role of escort fighter when the time came to be tested in that role. neither were they themselves totally massacred either, just unable to fulfil the primary function for which they had been developed.


To be fair, no twin engine aircraft could fulfil that role that had been designed prewar. Some may argue that the P-38 was capable, but event this a/c was hard pressed in the long range escort role until very late in the war

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jul 25, 2016)

I always thought the prewar concepts interesting, "Heavy Fighter" being one of them, almost like ships, light cruiser, heavy cruiser or tanks, light, medium and heavy plus scouting tanks. Seems they had a different notion on how things were going to play out in the sky, can't blame them just a different perspective.

I always thought "Heavy Fighter" meant stuff like the P-38 or P-47... you know, heavy.


----------



## stona (Jul 25, 2016)

The 'zerstorer' concept emerged from an amalgamation of a high speed bomber and heavy fighter, the original bomber-destroyer. This was not practical in the mid 1930s and the Bf 110 emerged as a 'zerstorer whilst special fast bombers were specified. Unlike its planned successor the Bf 110 did not have an internal bomb bay. The designation 'zerstorer' was actually officially superceded by the term 'heavy fighter' in the Procurement Plan No.6 of January 1937, yet everyone else was still referring to the establishment of 'zerstorer' Wings!
As far as the Bf 110 is concerned the terms 'destroyer' and 'heavy fighter' are interchangeable.
Cheers
Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## AnkitaMishra (Jul 30, 2016)

pbehn said:


> Please do not judge the Bf110 solely on its performance in the BoB. In that conflict the LW came up against an integrated radar controlled defense. In the battles over Poland Holland, Belgium France and later Russia the LW did well at least in the start, and the Me110 was part of that. RADAR meant that the LW didnt take airfields by surprise, and they were attacking over a stretch of water.
> 
> Bungays "The most dangerous enemy" goes into the performance of the Me 100 in some depth and at one point concludes that its strong point as an escort was that i was easier to shoot down than a bomber (maybe a bit harsh). However it also discusses in depth the achievements of Erprobungsgruppe 210 in precision air raid attacks. My understanding of German is that Erprobungsgruppe is a "test group" a sort of research and development squadron. They achieved a lot but they were a small part of the LW and their ideas techniques were still being formed. With better planning the Me110 could have had much more success but then the Gerrmans couldnt plan for a system they didnt know existed, in retrospect we can say they should have attacked the RADAR daily at the time they didnt realise the significance and the attacks they made seemed to have no effect.



Bungays was idiot and he is not historian. My copy of his book Most Dangerous Enemy is full of "misleading", "not proved", "nonsence", "mistake" and even "lie".

Bf 110C and D-0 was good aircraft but can not stand a chance against Hurricanes and Spitfires in combat, unless in height and surprise advantage. Their pilots and gunners overclaimed a lot and British reports about cause of losses of their aircrafts, not mention serials etc, are very bad.


----------



## stona (Jul 30, 2016)

AnkitaMishra said:


> Bungays was idiot and he is not historian. My copy of his book Most Dangerous Enemy is full of "misleading", "not proved", "nonsence", "mistake" and even "lie".



I wouldn't go that far, but he does buy into and reinforce the popular myth of the BoB, so actively promoted at the time and ever after.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## pbehn (Jul 31, 2016)

AnkitaMishra said:


> Bungays was idiot and he is not historian. My copy of his book Most Dangerous Enemy is full of "misleading", "not proved", "nonsence", "mistake" and even "lie".
> 
> Bf 110C and D-0 was good aircraft but can not stand a chance against Hurricanes and Spitfires in combat, unless in height and surprise advantage. Their pilots and gunners overclaimed a lot and British reports about cause of losses of their aircrafts, not mention serials etc, are very bad.


AnkitaMishra you have made two posts in 5 years but I will bite anyway.

any books author has a point of view, in view of the lack of true facts and the passage of time some will always disagree. Bungay did say the Bf110 was a good aircraft but as an escort it did not have height or surprise.


----------



## Yiannis (Nov 30, 2019)

pbehn said:


> AnkitaMishra you have made two posts in 5 years but I will bite anyway.
> 
> any books author has a point of view, in view of the lack of true facts and the passage of time some will always disagree. Bungay did say the Bf110 was a good aircraft but as an escort it did not have height or surprise.



It seems that people fail to process data objectively. The 110 had the best victory to loss ratio, considering the fact that 110 victories were almost exclusively against spitfires and hurricanes in contrast to the victory/loss ratio of the British fighters as many of their victories were against bombers. The total victory number of the British fighters was 1,300 aircraft when the total german fighter loss was 730. Almost half. 

No British fighter was faster than the 110 at the time.

Also, you must consider the numbers. The RAF and FAA had more aircraft than LW available and more fighters in particular. 5,000 available planes and 9,000 pilots. Also the production rate of 300 of the British industry could not be matched by the Germans at the time.

Another factor is that when British aircraft/pilot force landed in Britain they were not considered a casualty as oppsosed to German.

The zerstorers were considered an expensive loss as qua tity was more important to the Germans so they chose to focus on producing more 109s with the same engines.

110 was a great aircraft.


----------



## tomo pauk (Nov 30, 2019)

Yiannis said:


> It seems that people fail to process data objectively.



Uh-oh. Some people or all of them? 
Luckily, seems that an arbiter is arrived, to separate grain from the chaff.



> The 110 had the best victory to loss ratio, considering the fact that 110 victories were almost exclusively against spitfires and hurricanes in contrast to the victory/loss ratio of the British fighters as many of their victories were against bombers. The total victory number of the British fighters was 1,300 aircraft when the total german fighter loss was 730. Almost half.



Methinks that you'd need to post far more detailed data to support the opinion that Bf 110 have had the best victory to loss ratio.



> No British fighter was faster than the 110 at the time.



Not even Spitfire?



> Also, you must consider the numbers. The RAF and FAA had more aircraft than LW available and more fighters in particular. 5,000 available planes and 9,000 pilots. Also the production rate of 300 of the British industry could not be matched by the Germans at the time.



Must? People here, as alsewhere, react very with joj when someone comes in and say them 'you must do this or that'.



> Another factor is that when British aircraft/pilot force landed in Britain they were not considered a casualty as oppsosed to German.



Agreed.



> The zerstorers were considered an expensive loss as qua tity was more important to the Germans so they chose to focus on producing more 109s with the same engines.



Zerstorers were expensive loss. Germany was already making far more of the far better aircraft (Bf 109s), the BoB only cemented that path - they were getting both quality and quantity that way.



> 110 was a great aircraft.



As proven by whom?


----------



## pbehn (Nov 30, 2019)

As with the Defiant, the Bf110 wasn't up to it as a fighter or escort fighter when S/E fighters were present but both found a nich as night fighters.


----------



## Shortround6 (Nov 30, 2019)

The 110 was also useful for photo-recon and as a light bomber/strike aircraft. 
It was useful and versatile. Whether than translates to great?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Yiannis (Nov 30, 2019)

tomo pauk said:


> Uh-oh. Some people or all of them?
> Luckily, seems that an arbiter is arrived, to separate grain from the chaff.
> 
> Some.
> ...



Proven by facts


----------



## Yiannis (Nov 30, 2019)

Tomo Pauk: Great proven by facts because first it shot down almost double fighters than it's own losses on enemy airspace while on escort and ground attack and while greatly outnumbered. 

More importantly also because this aircraft is responsible for the majority of the British night bomber raid casualties


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 30, 2019)

The _Luftwaffe_ had 237 serviceable Bf 110s during the start of the BOB . 223 were lost during the course of it.

Weal, John. _Messerschmitt Bf 110 Zerstörer Aces World War Two_

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 30, 2019)

Yiannis said:


> Proven by facts



Show us those facts...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Nov 30, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The _Luftwaffe_ had 237 serviceable Bf 110s during the start of the BOB . 223 were lost during the course of it.
> 
> Weal, John. _Messerschmitt Bf 110 Zerstörer Aces World War Two_


No dispute about that from my side, it is a fact. But the Spitfire and Hurricane strength and losses were actually worse, despite all the planes produced the front line strength started at circa 500 at the fall of France and ended up at circa 700 when the BoB ended. The difference is what effect they had on the battle, the Bf 110 wasn't a good fighter, it was cheaper than a bomber to lose but more expensive than a S/E fighter.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 30, 2019)

A good read and pretty fair IMO

Messerschmitt Bf 110

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Yiannis (Nov 30, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Show us those facts...


Great proven by facts because first it shot down almost double fighters than it's own losses on enemy airspace while on escort and ground attack and while greatly outnumbered.

More importantly also because this aircraft is responsible for the majority of the British night bomber raid casualties


----------



## BiffF15 (Nov 30, 2019)

Yiannis said:


> Great proven by facts because first it shot down almost double fighters than it's own losses on enemy airspace while on escort and ground attack and while greatly outnumbered.
> 
> More importantly also because this aircraft is responsible for the majority of the British night bomber raid casualties



He was asking for your proof. What info, and from where are you getting it, that allows you to arrive at your assertions.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 30, 2019)

Yiannis said:


> Great proven by facts because first it shot down almost double fighters than it's own losses on enemy airspace while on escort and ground attack and while greatly outnumbered.


First, claims or confirmed? And in what theater? Show us the numbers!!! Show us your references for that?


Yiannis said:


> More importantly also because this aircraft is responsible for the majority of the British night bomber raid casualties


Different role - there is no dispute where the aircraft finally excelled. In its original role is was a dismal failure, more on how it was deployed rather than the fault of the aircraft. The clip I posted speaks to that.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Yiannis (Nov 30, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> First, claims or confirmed? And in what theater? Show us the numbers!!! Show us your references for that?
> 
> Different role - there is no dispute where the aircraft finally excelled. In its original role is was a dismal failure, more on how it was deployed rather than the fault of the aircraft. The clip I posted speaks to that.


I said it was a great aircraft proven by facts. Do you dispute that?


----------



## Yiannis (Nov 30, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> First, claims or confirmed? And in what theater? Show us the numbers!!! Show us your references for that?
> 
> Different role - there is no dispute where the aircraft finally excelled. In its original role is was a dismal failure, more on how it was deployed rather than the fault of the aircraft. The clip I posted speaks to that.


Look at previous posts from others in here for references


----------



## Yiannis (Nov 30, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> First, claims or confirmed? And in what theater? Show us the numbers!!! Show us your references for that?
> 
> Different role - there is no dispute where the aircraft finally excelled. In its original role is was a dismal failure, more on how it was deployed rather than the fault of the aircraft. The clip I posted speaks to that.



From Timppa's previous post:
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


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 30, 2019)

Yiannis said:


> I said it was a great aircraft proven by facts. Do you dispute that?



It was great as a nightfighter. It failed in it's _Zerstörer_ role.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 30, 2019)

Yiannis said:


> From Timppa's previous post:
> 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:
> 
> ...



The Bf 110 as shown had the same victory to loss ratio as the Spitfire. The problem is it "should have" done better, at least according to Goering. As previously stated, some of its issues were due to tactics, but in reality it was not a maneuverable aircraft and was not able to hold its own against the newer wave of single engine fighters. It did not do well as a day interceptor.


----------



## Yiannis (Nov 30, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> It was great as a nightfighter. It failed in it's _Zerstörer_ role.


Failed how. It shot down 340 spirited and hurricanes for 196 losses while on escort and ground attack in enemy airspace and greatly outnumbered. No I don't perceive that as a failure. A smaller force was not prevented from carrying on bombing Britain. The Germans never stopped bombing Britain always outnumbered and with lesser casualties in all cases while the casualties of the British bombing Germany were greater at all times when usually again the Germans were outnumbered by the British as well as the rest allies. The stats don't convince me of your views.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 30, 2019)

Yiannis said:


> The stats don't convince me of your views.



They don't have to - the final outcome of the BoB is what I rest my case on.


----------



## Yiannis (Nov 30, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> They don't have to - the final outcome of the BoB is what I rest my case on.



The outcome of the war does not prove who was better. The Persians won at Themopylae mate that is not an argument.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 30, 2019)

Yiannis said:


> The outcome of the war does not prove who was better. The Persians won at Themopylae mate that is not an argument.



Well your opinion - bottom line the Bf 110 did not fulfill its role in the BoB. It did well in a ground support role and when faced with inferior opposition. As a night fighter it excelled, as a day interceptor it was an easy target for P-47s and P-51s.


----------



## Yiannis (Nov 30, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Well your opinion - bottom line the Bf 110 did not fulfill its role in the BoB. It did well in a ground support role and when faced with inferior opposition. As a night fighter it excelled, as a day interceptor it was an easy target for P-47s and P-51s.


The allies made 600,000 aircraft and lost almost half. The British alone outnumbered the Germans in all respects. The mustang is overrated as it appeared in vast numbers in the last year of the war against remnants and still they had 2,500 casualties. 17,000 mustangs produced. American industry was not being bombed and there were no shortages of any kind. If you compare the numbers and volumes involved you will probably question the effectiveness of allied weaponry in comparison to German.


----------



## Yiannis (Nov 30, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Well your opinion - bottom line the Bf 110 did not fulfill its role in the BoB. It did well in a ground support role and when faced with inferior opposition. As a night fighter it excelled, as a day interceptor it was an easy target for P-47s and P-51s.


Actually more p-47 and p-51 were shot down (5,000) than the Germans had fighters left. Not to count bombers and other aircraft destroyed.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 30, 2019)

Yiannis said:


> If you compare the numbers and volumes involved you will probably question the effectiveness of allied weaponry in comparison to German.


And in some cases I do but that's not what this discussion is about. The Bf 110 was not a bad aircraft (and probably was a bit underrated) but it was eclipsed.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 30, 2019)

Yiannis said:


> Actually more p-47 and p-51 were shot down (5,000) than the Germans had fighters left. Not to count bombers and other aircraft destroyed.


Now you're grasping at straws and coming across being pretty silly.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Yiannis (Nov 30, 2019)

Sorry, this is my opinion


----------



## Dana Bell (Nov 30, 2019)

There are lies, damned lies, and statistics. An aircraft can be judged a failure if it cannot perform the job for which it was designed. It can be considered a success if it is moved to a job that it is more capable of performing. Despite its range advantages over the 109, the Bf 110 could not protect German bombers from Spitfires and Hurricanes. It _could _sneak over the coast to drop a bomb or two. Directed by an efficient ground radar system it could destroy night bombers. 

Cheers,



Dana

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Yiannis (Nov 30, 2019)

Dana Bell said:


> There are lies, damned lies, and statistics. An aircraft can be judged a failure if it cannot perform the job for which it was designed. It can be considered a success if it is moved to a job that it is more capable of performing. Despite its range advantages over the 109, the Bf 110 could not protect German bombers from Spitfires and Hurricanes. It _could _sneak over the coast to drop a bomb or two. Directed by an efficient ground radar system it could destroy night bombers.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> ...




The LW had 230 by 110 then. It lost 196. These bf 110 shot down 340 spitfires and hurricanes when the RAF had thousands of both. I cannot see how you guys can come to such conclusions


----------



## Yiannis (Nov 30, 2019)

Dana Bell said:


> There are lies, damned lies, and statistics. An aircraft can be judged a failure if it cannot perform the job for which it was designed. It can be considered a success if it is moved to a job that it is more capable of performing. Despite its range advantages over the 109, the Bf 110 could not protect German bombers from Spitfires and Hurricanes. It _could _sneak over the coast to drop a bomb or two. Directed by an efficient ground radar system it could destroy night bombers.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> ...



Using the same 'argument' neither could the mustang protect their bombers


----------



## Dana Bell (Dec 1, 2019)

Hi Yiannis,

It seems we are questioning your statistics. You mention a great victory ratio when the RAF had thousands of Spitfires and thousands of Hurricanes. At what point in the BoB did Fighter Command have in excess of 2,000 Spits and 2,000 Hurries? If the RAF lost 1,023 aircraft during the Battle of Britain, and the Bf 110 downed 340 of them, you're claiming the Bf 110 was responsible for almost a third of all victories. Does that not make you question your own statistics?

Johnny Johnson wrote about his first encounter with the Bf 110 - the Germans immediately moved into a defensive circle to protect each others tails. Perhaps they scored some victories in these combats, but how well did they defend the bombers they were escorting?

I suspect your statistics, but more importantly I believe even Goering recognized that the 110 was a failure at defending his bombers from the RAF.

Cheers,



Dana

Just saw your Post #51. Did the P-51 force the Luftwaffe to change its tactics? Did Dowding state, "When I saw the Bf 110 over London I knew all was lost?"

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Yiannis (Dec 1, 2019)

No, I don't question statistics and they are not my own. 1079 spitfires and hurricanes were lost and 1/3 were shot down by 110s. The rest 2/3s by 109s. How do I question stats. It's simple math.

The RAF had more planes and were also producing at higher rates. What does any of that have to do anything with what Dowding said? You are trying to connect irrelevant things.


----------



## slaterat (Dec 1, 2019)

Yiannis said:


> The LW had 230 by 110 then. It lost 196. These bf 110 shot down 340 spitfires and hurricanes when the RAF had thousands of both. I cannot see how you guys can come to such conclusions



Where do you get the idea that there was " thousands of both" ? During the BoB Fighter command could rarely field more than 700 Hurricanes and Spitfires per day, (usually in the 600's). The Luftwaffe could field that many ME109's plus 275 ME 110's. It was the RAF that had the disadvantage of numbers.

The ME 110 was about 20 mph faster than a Hurricane, was heavily armed, had a large ammo load and was a good diver. Its disadvantages were a poor climb rate, terrible turn rate and poor acceleration. It did have a narrow flight envelope that it could be successful in, but when caught operating outside that envelope , it suffered badly.


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 1, 2019)

What's irrelevant, is an opinion that flies in the face of solid fact.
The Bf110 could NOT perform in the fighter/escort role as it lacked maneuverability against single engined fighters.
The Bf110 did NOT shoot down scores of hapless British fighters, no matter how hard one wishes (for whatever reason).

The reality is, the Luftwaffe and Aerio Reginautica failed to take control of British airspace...and thus LOST the Bob.

Had the Bf110 been as effective as "some" claim, then the outcome *may* have been different, hmmm?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Yiannis (Dec 1, 2019)

slaterat said:


> Where do you get the idea that there was " thousands of both" ? During the BoB Fighter command could rarely field more than 700 Hurricanes and Spitfires per day, (usually in the 600's). The Luftwaffe could field that many ME109's plus 275 ME 110's. It was the RAF that had the disadvantage of numbers.
> 
> The ME 110 was about 20 mph faster than a Hurricane, was heavily armed, had a large ammo load and was a good diver. Its disadvantages were a poor climb rate, terrible turn rate and poor acceleration. It did have a narrow flight envelope that it could be successful in, but when caught operating outside that envelope , it suffered badly.


 
The figures are not per day. They are figures of the period overall. In the period in question the Brits had more aircraft and were producing more and while on the defence. And they didn't stop the bombings. They never stopped the bombings


----------



## slaterat (Dec 1, 2019)

Yiannis said:


> The figures are not per day. They are figures of the period overall. In the period in question the Brits had more aircraft and were producing more and while on the defence. And they didn't stop the bombings. They never stopped the bombings



Ultimately the Luftwaffe and their bombers failed. You are talking in circles with your numbers, any way you want to count it monthly, daily ect the Luftwaffe had more operational aircraft during the BoB than Fighter Command. There was never more than 720 operational Hurricanes and Spitfires during the BoB.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dana Bell (Dec 1, 2019)

Hi Yiannis,

This is a bit like buying an argument in the Monty Python sketch...

My comment about Dowding was tongue-in-cheek. It was Goering who reportedly stated that the Mustangs over Berlin were a sign that all was lost.

On 15 August 65 He 111s escorted by 34 Bf 110s crossed the North Sea for an attack. A single RAF Spitfire squadron intercepted them - No 72 Sq. The 110s immediately formed defensive circles. The unescorted 111s then broke formation, with several dumping their bomb loads and running for home. That is NOT the performance of a successful escort.

That same day a single Hurricane pilot (No 213 Sq) tangled with four Bf 110s, downing three of them and claiming the fourth as a probable. That is NOT the performance of a successful escort.

That same day the Luftwaffe realized that the Bf 110 was NOT a successful escort, but would be required to continue to fly in that role for some time. When possible, the Luftwaffe advised that 109s should be assigned to escort the 110s, though that was apparently not possible. (See _Narrow Margin_ pages 206-208)

I appreciate that your statistics are not your own, but whose are they? I've been an archivist and historical writer/researcher for over 40 years, so please forgive my doubts about the statistics you've been provided. If you can't help us understand claims that would otherwise seem totally ludicrous, you'll have to understand that we simply can't accept your points.

Cheers,



Dana


----------



## Yiannis (Dec 1, 2019)

Emotion over logic. Ok. No worries. Enough said.


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 1, 2019)

Yiannis said:


> Emotion over logic. Ok. No worries. Enough said.


Fact over opinion.

Enough said.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Graeme (Dec 1, 2019)

Yiannis said:


> The allies made 600,000 aircraft and lost almost half



Where is that statistic from?
I had a look around and found this...

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Yiannis (Dec 1, 2019)

Graeme said:


> Where is that statistic from?
> I had a look around and found this...
> 
> View attachment 562430




Equipment losses in World War II - Wikipedia

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Dec 1, 2019)

Yiannis said:


> Using the same 'argument' neither could the mustang protect their bombers



They never really tried.

By the time the P-51 had arrived in large numbers in the ETO the tactics had changed and the goal of the P-51s wasn't to defend the bombers, but to destroy the Luftwaffe.

Which they did.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Yiannis (Dec 1, 2019)

wuzak said:


> They never really tried.
> 
> By the time the P-51 had arrived in large numbers in the ETO the tactics had changed and the goal of the P-51s wasn't to defend the bombers, but to destroy the Luftwaffe.
> 
> Which they did.



To destroy the LW or what was left of it on the ground cause they couldn't in the air so that they can protect their bombers.


----------



## Yiannis (Dec 1, 2019)

wuzak said:


> They never really tried.
> 
> By the time the P-51 had arrived in large numbers in the ETO the tactics had changed and the goal of the P-51s wasn't to defend the bombers, but to destroy the Luftwaffe.
> 
> Which they did.





wuzak said:


> They never really tried.
> 
> By the time the P-51 had arrived in large numbers in the ETO the tactics had changed and the goal of the P-51s wasn't to defend the bombers, but to destroy the Luftwaffe.
> 
> Which they did.


----------



## fubar57 (Dec 1, 2019)

Quoting Wiki will not earn you any points

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## rochie (Dec 1, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> Quoting Wiki will not earn you any points


but its on the internet so it must be true !

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Yiannis (Dec 1, 2019)

wuzak said:


> They never really tried.
> 
> By the time the P-51 had arrived in large numbers in the ETO the tactics had changed and the goal of the P-51s wasn't to defend the bombers, but to destroy the Luftwaffe.
> 
> Which they did.





fubar57 said:


> Quoting Wiki will not earn you any points



I earn more points than you who quote nothing and offer nothing as evidence but small talk. At least in wiki there is a bibliography for back up.


----------



## Stig1207 (Dec 1, 2019)

Yiannis said:


> No, I don't question statistics and they are not my own. 1079 spitfires and hurricanes were lost and 1/3 were shot down by 110s. The rest 2/3s by 109s. How do I question stats. It's simple math.
> 
> The RAF had more planes and were also producing at higher rates. What does any of that have to do anything with what Dowding said? You are trying to connect irrelevant things.



There are probably close to a dozen different figures in books and on the internet for Fighter Command losses in the BoB. What makes you think that your number of 1079 is the correct one? 
Even it is, then not all losses would be to Me 110's and 109's, but also to bomber gunners and other operational losses.
At the same time, it is extremely difficult to decide who or what exactly shot down which enemy aircraft in combats involving large numbers of aircraft. 

How many Hurricanes and Spitfires Me 110's have shot down in the BoB is really probably a qualified guess rather than an absolute fact.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Yiannis (Dec 1, 2019)

Stig1207 said:


> There are probably close to a dozen different figures in books and on the internet for Fighter Command losses in the BoB. What makes you think that your number of 1079 is the correct one?
> Even it is, then not all losses would be to Me 110's and 109's, but also to bomber gunners and other operational losses.
> At the same time, it is extremely difficult to decide who or what exactly shot down which enemy aircraft in combats involving large numbers of aircraft.
> 
> How many Hurricanes and Spitfires Me 110's have shot down in the BoB is really probably a qualified guess rather than an absolute fact.


 
If you do the math you'll find it. Do the math.


----------



## pbehn (Dec 1, 2019)

The only important figure in the BoB was the number of operational LW bombers.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Dec 1, 2019)

Pursuivant said:


> A WW2-era twin-engined aircraft is never going to win a maneuver dogfight against a decent contemporary single-engined fighter.


Perhaps the exception, but I’d put good odds on a P-38 Lightning in a close dogfight against most single-engined fighters. Even the Zero, as seen at Operation Vengeance.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Yiannis (Dec 1, 2019)

pbehn said:


> The only important figure in the BoB was the number of operational LW bombers.



Bob....The Germans never stopped bombing.


----------



## pbehn (Dec 1, 2019)

Yiannis said:


> Bob....The Germans never stopped bombing.


 It was halted when they LW effectively ran out of operational bombers. The massed raids on London were actually all they had left and all they could do. So many Squadrons had been reduced to just a few aircraft. Goerings LW had been reduced to about 200 serviceable bombers in the region and he couldnt afford to lose any more.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Yiannis (Dec 1, 2019)

pbehn said:


> It was halted when they LW effectively ran out of operational bombers. The massed raids on London were actually all they had left and all they could do. So many Squadrons had been reduced to just a few aircraft. Goerings LW had been reduced to about 200 serviceable bombers in the region and he couldnt afford to lose any more.


So no more bombings. It all ended there. The Germans didn't just switch to night bombings. They said oh well..let's stop now


----------



## pbehn (Dec 1, 2019)

Yiannis said:


> So no more bombings. It all ended there. The Germans didn't just switch to night bombings. They said oh well..let's stop now


Yes, they switched to night bombings which allows you to reduce losses but not hit anything other than cities. The night bombing was never a prelude to invasion or even a serious attempt to force surrender.


----------



## Yiannis (Dec 1, 2019)

pbehn said:


> Yes, they switched to night bombings which allows you to reduce losses but not hit anything other than cities. The night bombing was never a prelude to invasion or even a serious attempt to force surrender.



So why did the British started it.


----------



## fubar57 (Dec 1, 2019)

?


----------



## Kevin J (Dec 1, 2019)

Yiannis said:


> The LW had 230 by 110 then. It lost 196. These bf 110 shot down 340 spitfires and hurricanes when the RAF had thousands of both. I cannot see how you guys can come to such conclusions


There was an incident in 1941 off the Dutch coast where a squadron of Spitfires carrying long range tanks was annihilated by Me 110s, so yes it could be quite effective, and their tail gunners caused problems for Hurricanes.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Yiannis (Dec 1, 2019)

pbehn said:


> Yes, they switched to night bombings which allows you to reduce losses but not hit anything other than cities. The night bombing was never a prelude to invasion or even a serious attempt to force surrender.



There was never going to be an invasion that is ridiculous. It was a trick. Britain had the biggest navy in the world, the gia neo is not a river. The Germans didn't have the equipment to realize something like that. They only made a naval blockade with submarines and bombings to keep the British away from operarions in Norway the Mediterranean and North Africa.

The British started the night raids in the cities and Germany followed. There was no Bob or ending of bombings. That's war propaganda.

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## rochie (Dec 1, 2019)

Yiannis said:


> The British started the night raids in the cities and Germany followed. There was no Bob or ending of bombings. That's war propaganda.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Dec 1, 2019)

A true troll

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## rochie (Dec 1, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> A true troll


I actually think he believes what he posts!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 1, 2019)

Yiannis said:


> ...
> The British started the night raids in the cities and Germany followed. There was no Bob or ending of bombings. That's war propaganda.



So this is what it's all about.


----------



## Yiannis (Dec 1, 2019)

tomo pauk said:


> So this is what it's all about.



I could be wrong. But really, this is what makes sense given the facts. Would you try and invade Britain by sea without a navy? How would you ship the tanks over? Looking at the size of the armies in dday landings and what it took to get that force across , surely the Germans didn't have it. So, it doesn't make sense that they really intended something like that. It would have been really stupid to do such a thing whereas to bluff about it would be so logical.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 1, 2019)

Yiannis said:


> I could be wrong. But really, this is what makes sense given the facts. Would you try and invade Britain by sea without a navy? How would you ship the tanks over? Looking at the size of the armies in dday landings and what it took to get that force across , surely the Germans didn't have it. So, it doesn't make sense that they really intended something like that. It would have been really stupid to do such a thing whereas to bluff about it would be so logical.



Not what I was tring to point out. We have had before people that were trying to explain the reasoning for German ww2 actions with actions of other beigerents, and to paint the battles lost as actual German plan, rather to what it was.


----------



## Yiannis (Dec 1, 2019)

tomo pauk said:


> So this is what it's all about.



I' ve seen post war interviews of German pilots who said they were completely unaware of the term 'battle of britain' or that it ended or anything like that. They said never stopped bombing britain. To be honest with you. They are more believable. It makes more sense to me. They really didn't stop bombing Britain. They just switched to night raids iver cities because the British started it and that is a fact. So, how can I believe something that doesn't make sense and it can only serve as a moral boost fairy tale.


----------



## pbehn (Dec 1, 2019)

Yiannis said:


> I could be wrong. But really, this is what makes sense given the facts. Would you try and invade Britain by sea without a navy? How would you ship the tanks over? Looking at the size of the armies in dday landings and what it took to get that force across , surely the Germans didn't have it. So, it doesn't make sense that they really intended something like that. It would have been really stupid to do such a thing whereas to bluff about it would be so logical.


It all depends on destroying the RAF. if the RAF was destroyed what losses would the RN have taken without air cover. In fact in numerical terms the RAF single engine fighter force had been destroyed, they started with 500 and lost almost a thousand but still had 700 which caused much confusion on the German side.


----------



## fubar57 (Dec 1, 2019)

Almost a given that the average German was unaware of the term Battle of Britain
The Battle of Britain: Notes on the Origin of the Name - Ged Martin

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Dec 1, 2019)

Yiannis said:


> I' ve seen post war interviews of German pilots who said they were completely unaware of the term 'battle of britain' or that it ended or anything like that. They said never stopped bombing britain. To be honest with you. They are more believable. It makes more sense to me. They really didn't stop bombing Britain. They just switched to night raids iver cities because the British started it and that is a fact. So, how can I believe something that doesn't make sense and it can only serve as a moral boost fairy tale.


German pilots probably didn't take note of Winston Churchills speeches (my bold).

What General Weygand called the Battle of France is over. I expect that the *Battle of Britain is about to begin*. Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilisation. Upon it depends our own British life, and the long continuity of our institutions and our Empire. The whole fury and might of the enemy must very soon be turned on us. Hitler knows the he will have to break us in this island or lose the war. If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be free and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands. But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science. Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, this was their finest hour.”

(Speech to the House of Commons, 18 June, 1940)

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Yiannis (Dec 1, 2019)

pbehn said:


> German pilots probably didn't take note of Winston Churchills speeches (my bold).
> 
> What General Weygand called the Battle of France is over. I expect that the *Battle of Britain is about to begin*. Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilisation. Upon it depends our own British life, and the long continuity of our institutions and our Empire. The whole fury and might of the enemy must very soon be turned on us. Hitler knows the he will have to break us in this island or lose the war. If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be free and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands. But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science. Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, this was their finest hour.”
> 
> (Speech to the House of Commons, 18 June, 1940)



Well that is


pbehn said:


> German pilots probably didn't take note of Winston Churchills speeches (my bold).
> 
> What General Weygand called the Battle of France is over. I expect that the *Battle of Britain is about to begin*. Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilisation. Upon it depends our own British life, and the long continuity of our institutions and our Empire. The whole fury and might of the enemy must very soon be turned on us. Hitler knows the he will have to break us in this island or lose the war. If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be free and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands. But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science. Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, this was their finest hour.”
> 
> (Speech to the House of Commons, 18 June, 1940)



That was what Churchill said. Hitler said something else. Everyone tells their people what they want.


----------



## Kevin J (Dec 1, 2019)

Yiannis said:


> Well that is
> 
> 
> That was what Churchill said. Hitler said something else. Everyone tells their people what they want.


Politics, derived from the Greek words poly and tics, so politicians are basically blood sucking parasites.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Yiannis (Dec 1, 2019)

pbehn said:


> German pilots probably didn't take note of Winston Churchills speeches (my bold).
> 
> What General Weygand called the Battle of France is over. I expect that the *Battle of Britain is about to begin*. Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilisation. Upon it depends our own British life, and the long continuity of our institutions and our Empire. The whole fury and might of the enemy must very soon be turned on us. Hitler knows the he will have to break us in this island or lose the war. If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be free and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands. But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science. Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, this was their finest hour.”
> 
> (Speech to the House of Commons, 18 June, 1940)



Well that is what Churchil said.


tomo pauk said:


> Not what I was tring to point out. We have had before people that were trying to explain the reasoning for German ww2 actions with actions of other beigerents, and to paint the battles lost as actual German plan, rather to what it was.



The problem is that I see so much effort to present the Germans making 'mistakes' for losing to ridiculously overwhelming forces throughout the war when in fact we should be looking at the mistakes of the others who took so many casualties and delays against tiny forces. Mate, 1 million men with 25,000 vehicles and 15,000 aircraft managed to take a seaside town of Caen 10 km away from the beach on 16 July from a baby division only after carpet bombing the hell out it at night with 15,000 French citizen casualties and you call that what a triumph? A German mistake or plan? The plan was to take Caen on 6 of June. Anyway. Sorry, I can't buy that.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 1, 2019)

Yiannis said:


> The problem is that I see so much effort to present the Germans making 'mistakes' for losing to ridiculously overwhelming forces throughout the war when in fact we should be looking at the mistakes of the others who took so many casualties and delays against tiny forces. Mate, 1 million men with 25,000 vehicles and 15,000 aircraft managed to take a seaside town of Caen 10 km away from the beach on 16 July from a baby division only after carpet bombing the hell out it at night with 15,000 French citizen casualties and you call that what a triumph? A German mistake or plan? The plan was to take Caen on 6 of June. Anyway. Sorry, I can't buy that.



This is dead heat race between off-topic stuff and putting words in my mouth.
I will refrain discussing things with you from now on.


----------



## pbehn (Dec 1, 2019)

Yiannis said:


> Well that is what Churchil said.
> 
> 
> The problem is that I see so much effort to present the Germans making 'mistakes' for losing to ridiculously overwhelming forces throughout the war when in fact we should be looking at the mistakes of the others who took so many casualties and delays against tiny forces. Mate, 1 million men with 25,000 vehicles and 15,000 aircraft managed to take a seaside town of Caen 10 km away from the beach on 16 July from a baby division only after carpet bombing the hell out it at night with 15,000 French citizen casualties and you call that what a triumph? A German mistake or plan? The plan was to take Caen on 6 of June. Anyway. Sorry, I can't buy that.


That is what it was known as before the battle started because Churchill named it as such. It would be unlikely for Germans to use it, even today Germans see the whole island as "England" and "battle" isn't German. I believe the Germans referred to it as the Kanal Kampf. It isnt unusual for a battle to have different names on different sides, in fact it is quite common. 
At the start of the battle of Britain it was the German forces that were numerically superior in single and twin engine fighters.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Yiannis (Dec 1, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> Politics, derived from the Greek words poly and tics, so politicians are basically blood sucking parasites.



Politics, derived from the Greek word polite meaning citizen (civilised/polite) itself coming from the word Polis (Police) meaning City ( e.g.. Constantinou-Polis.

Politics is the government processes involving the polites (citizens) .The problem with politics as many philosopher put it at the time was and is demagoguery. 

Thank you Kevin. 

We have to filter out anything said by anyone in power cause they all suck at the end of the day and we pay the price and have to fight their wars in most cases. People die in the battlefield for visions of freedom or power of those who profit.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 1, 2019)

The etymology of the word "politics" is Greek...that much is true.

The rest about police, being polite and what-not is interesting, but not even close.


----------



## Yiannis (Dec 1, 2019)

tomo pauk said:


> This is dead heat race between off-topic stuff and putting words in my mouth.
> I will refrain discussing things with you from now on.



No hard feelings my friend. I didn't put words in your mouth. What I said was my words and yes I got off topic to prove a point. Didn't mean to hurt your feelings honestly. But you sounded like trying to profile me as something I am not or that I am trying to achieve something here. No. I just try to see things as they are and not as they are being served. 

An imperialist monarchist power ruling over most of the planet militarily was talking about democracy and fearing a supposed lunatic who supposedly wanted to rule the world instead...it sounds like a joke. The coloured had no rights in the U.S yet the Germans were only racist. It really doesn't add up, do you see where I am coming from? Propaganda both ways. I can't get emotional about it as I am not either German or British. My impartiality may sound as hostile I understand that but my intentions are purely truthseeking. I find WWII very fascinating from a historical point of view.


----------



## Yiannis (Dec 1, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> The etymology of the word "politics" is Greek...that much is true.
> 
> The rest about police, being polite and what-not is interesting, but not even close.



Are you a linguist? Ask a linguist before you loose a bet.


----------



## pbehn (Dec 1, 2019)

Yiannis said:


> Are you a linguist? Ask a linguist before you loose a bet.


 The word is lose not loose.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Yiannis (Dec 1, 2019)

pbehn said:


> The word is lose not loose.



The *Police* in Ancient *Greece*. The term “*police*” used by modern states to describe the body enforcing the law and maintaining order, comes from Middle French *police*, in turn from Latin politia, which is the latinization of the *Greek* politeia standing for “citizenship, administration, civil polity”.May 30, 2013

Look it up.

Yes it's lose, sorry

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Yiannis (Dec 1, 2019)

pbehn said:


> The word is lose not loose.



The *Police* in Ancient *Greece*. The term “*police*” used by modern states to describe the body enforcing the law and maintaining order, comes from Middle French *police*, in turn from Latin politia, which is the latinization of the *Greek* politeia standing for “citizenship, administration, civil polity”.May 30, 2013

Yes it's lose, sorry  my English is still better than your Greek.


----------



## pbehn (Dec 1, 2019)

Yiannis said:


> .
> 
> An imperialist monarchist power ruling over most of the planet militarily was talking about democracy and fearing a supposed lunatic who supposedly wanted to rule the world instead...it sounds like a joke. The coloured had no rights in the U.S yet the Germans were only racist. It really doesn't add up, do you see where I am coming from? Propaganda both ways. I can't get emotional about it as I am not either German or British. My impartiality may sound as hostile I understand that but my intentions are purely truthseeking. I find WWII very fascinating from a historical point of view.


Thanks, this conclusively resolves the issue of whether the Bf 110 was under rated.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Winner Winner:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Yiannis (Dec 1, 2019)

pbehn said:


> Thanks, this conclusively resolves the issue of whether the Bf 110 was under rated.



That's exactly right. Because I don't have to like or dislike whether it was or not. It's called objectivity.


----------



## fubar57 (Dec 1, 2019)

"A favorite of Reichmarshal Göring, the Messerschmitt Bf 110 _Zerstörer _was a sleek twin-engine plane with a top speed of almost 350 mph, slightly faster than the single-engine Hurricane and almost as fast as the Spitfire. But after early successes in Poland, the Low Countries, and France, the _Schnellbomber_ was woefully misused in the Battle of Britain. The extra fuel that it needed to escort bombers across the Channel made it less agile than the defending British planes, and it was required to fly more slowly to maintain support.

On August 15, 1940, the most intensive day of fighting, almost thirty Bf 110s were shot down. And of those flying across the North Sea from Norway and Denmark to participate in a surprise raid on north-eastern England, fully one-third were destroyed. The next day, eight planes were downed and on August 18, "the hardest day," when the Luftwaffe was determined to neutralize the Royal Air Force, another fifteen. That month alone, more than 120 Bf 110s were lost, a rate of attrition that could not be sustained. Weal cites a statistic that hardly seems credible: of 237 serviceable Bf 110s at the beginning of the Battle of Britain, no more than 14 remained at the end. So devastating were the losses that the plane was withdrawn from the British theater and redeployed as a night fighter, a role in which it was much more successful"

The Weal he is talking about is..." Messerschmitt_ Bf 110 Zerstörer Aces of World War 2_ (1999) by John Weal (p. 51)

Bf 110 Zerstörer

​

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Dec 1, 2019)

Yiannis said:


> That's exactly right. Because I don't have to like or dislike whether it was or not. It's called objectivity.


 If you are loose with your spelling you may lose the argument. BTW I didn't indulge in any discussion of Greek.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Dec 1, 2019)

This will take a while as I have to find the 110 units that served in the BoB and then go through this 65 page list of claims and I have 3 days of work left

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 1, 2019)

Yiannis said:


> No hard feelings my friend. I didn't put words in your mouth. What I said was my words and yes I got off topic to prove a point. Didn't mean to hurt your feelings honestly. But you sounded like trying to profile me as something I am not or that I am trying to achieve something here. No. I just try to see things as they are and not as they are being served.
> 
> An imperialist monarchist power ruling over most of the planet militarily was talking about democracy and fearing a supposed lunatic who supposedly wanted to rule the world instead...it sounds like a joke. The coloured had no rights in the U.S yet the Germans were only racist. It really doesn't add up, do you see where I am coming from? Propaganda both ways. I can't get emotional about it as I am not either German or British. My impartiality may sound as hostile I understand that but my intentions are purely truthseeking. I find WWII very fascinating from a historical point of view.


Yiannis - your political fecal matter will not be tolerated on this form. You want to seek truth about social political matters, go to another forum. I'm only going to warn you once!

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Yiannis (Dec 1, 2019)

pbehn said:


> If you are loose with your spelling you may lose the argument. BTW I didn't indulge in any discussion of Greek.



When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates


----------



## michael rauls (Dec 1, 2019)

Yiannis said:


> Actually more p-47 and p-51 were shot down (5,000) than the Germans had fighters left. Not to count bombers and other aircraft destroyed.


Fighters left at what date? Your mixing a continueum or total acrued number( lossed p51s and p47s) with a fixed number at a specific point in time( the number of fighters the Germans had left). We don't know the point in time your referencing and even if we did it would be a nonsequiter as the mediums used for comparison are different. Or Apples and Oranges as they say. If your saying that more allied fighters were shot fown than the Germans had left at the very end of the war well thats just a given. If the Germans had say 200 or 400 operational fighters left in March then obviously the total of allied fighter losses after a multi year war is going to exceed that regardless of equipment efacacy of either side............ 
Imho.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 1, 2019)

Yiannis said:


> 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
> ...




We seem to have a bit of confusion, assuming that these victory and losses are correct, they may include a number of other types of aircraft. 

since the claim is that "approximate figures the *authentic victories* _versus_ *actual air* *battle* *losses*" 

and yet we have 1300 British victories vs 730 German losses and 1120 German victories over 932 British losses we are either still dealing with considerable over claiming or we are dealing the the British shooting down a crapload of He 111, Ju 88s, Ju 87s, Do 17 and so on, While the Germans shot lesser number of Defiants, Blenheims a few Gladiators? and some other odds and sods. 
And of course no Spitfire or Hurricane was _*ever *_shot down by the defensive guns of the bombers _right_? 


Then we seem to have some confusion as to what losses are. 

From the Wiki page linked. 

for the British they give total losses. for the Americans they give both total "Total losses were nearly 95,000"

and operational , "including 52,951 operational losses (38,418 in Europe and 14,533 in the Pacific)" 

which leaves about 42,000 as combat losses, operational losses being from fuel exhaustion, engine failure, bad navigation, take-off and landing accidents, etc. 

Such losses, while important, have little to do with how well or poorly a plane did in actual combat although they have a bearing on operational readiness, resupplu, etc.
A plane with weak landing gear (Pick on the Buffalo here to get away from the Spitfire/109 arguments) is a bit different than a plane that was run into a ditch (or collided with a parked airplane) but all are (or could be) operational losses. 

When making claims, especially claims counter to popular opinion it helps to get some detailed facts/numbers and not these general overviews, which while interesting, hoave nowhere near the detail needed to prove or disprove the point/s being made.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dimlee (Dec 1, 2019)

I assume that "authentic victories" mean victories/kills confirmed by loss statistics of the other side.
As for the loss % share of the types other than 4 fighters mentioned, I do not see a problem there. 35% on the German side, 18% on the British.
Bergstrom's figures can be taken with the usual grain of salt, of course. But he is a professional in this field.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Yiannis (Dec 1, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> We seem to have a bit of confusion, assuming that these victory and losses are correct, they may include a number of other types of aircraft.
> 
> since the claim is that "approximate figures the *authentic victories* _versus_ *actual air* *battle* *losses*"
> 
> ...




Mate, you don't count right. The victories mentioned in the table regard all kills not just fighters. But looking at the fighter losses you can do the math of how many of these kills regard fighters


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 1, 2019)

I thought I counted just fine. Or at least well enough to point out the flaw in the argument using those figures. See 3rd paragraph in original post. 

The British figures describe a different situation than the German numbers. The British interceptors (of which there were more than just the Spitfires and Hurricanes) are shooting a large variety of aircraft and taking return fire from a large variety of aircraft. It is nowhere near a fighter vs fighter duel situation. 

The Germans on the other hand, while they to were dealing with a large variety of aircraft but not in the numbers the British were ( 2 squadrons of Defiants for example), were a lot more fighter vs fighter, ( The British were not sending large numbers of bombers over France and the Low countries in daylight). This is reflected in the lower German total kill numbers. 

Since the Situations were different, different target sets/missions, there are a lot more variables than just the types of fighter aircraft. 

The 110 was also hampered by bad tactics. It took a while for many air forces to realize that you could not effectively escort if the escorting fighters were cruising at the same speed as the bombers(for good range and ease of coordination. ) as it took too long to accelerate up to combat speed once the interceptors were sighted. This all to often gave a gift of "first bounce" to the interceptors. I don't know the acceleration of the 109 and 110 of the BoB era but the later Spit V could take two minutes to go from a cruise of bit over 200mph to full speed while in level flight, In many cases a flight of interceptors could have come, done a firing pass and be gone in 2 minutes regardless of the type of escort fighter. 

More details as to the actual argument would be nice as these simplified overviews don't actually shed much light on the subject.


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 1, 2019)

Yiannis, much like your Bf110 argument, your linguistics lack actual facts.

Polis in Greek (ancient or otherwise), literally means City or body of citizens. 
The term Politics comes from Aristotle and literally means "the affairs of the body of citizens".

The term Police stems from the ancient Greek word politics, meaning "administration of citizens".

I'm glad I was able to clear that up for you, now if it was just that easy to get you to grasp the actual facts regarding the Bf110...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Denniss (Dec 1, 2019)

Not reading through the whole thread but in short: the Bf 110 in Bob was not bad in the (free roaming) Zerstörer role but it was a terrible fail in the role as escort fighter it was pressed into by the dumb fat man.
Its speed was not bad but its acceleration was. Boom and zoom tactics was ideal for them, if a single engine fighter got onto its tail this was a major problem due to limited maneuverability and poor rear defense.
Many of thir BoB losses may originate from their use as fighter-bomber, although they often got engines with slightly more power for this role but if caught down low with no option to dive away it was game over.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Yiannis (Dec 1, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> Yiannis, much like your Bf110 argument, your linguistics lack actual facts.
> 
> Polis in Greek (ancient or otherwise), literally means City or body of citizens.
> The term Politics comes from Aristotle and literally means "the affairs of the body of citizens".
> ...



Mate you don't speak Greek. What you said was like correcting between John and Johnny. You don't seem to grasp that the word Πολίτης -citizen comes from the word Πόλις City and Πολιτεία politia means the society of that city also involving ita governance therefore Πολιτική politiki- politic(s) means the governance and in Greek it is also synonumous συνώνυμo to Policy.  don't try to correct me here

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Yiannis (Dec 1, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> I thought I counted just fine. Or at least well enough to point out the flaw in the argument using those figures. See 3rd paragraph in original post.
> 
> The British figures describe a different situation than the German numbers. The British interceptors (of which there were more than just the Spitfires and Hurricanes) are shooting a large variety of aircraft and taking return fire from a large variety of aircraft. It is nowhere near a fighter vs fighter duel situation.
> 
> ...



This means that more British fighters were shot down than spitfires and hurricanes


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 1, 2019)

Yiannis said:


> Mate you don't speak Greek. What you said was like correcting between John and Johnny. You don't seem to grasp that the word Πολίτης -citizen comes from the word Πόλις City and Πολιτεία politia means the society of that city also involving ita governance therefore Πολιτική politiki- politic(s) means the governance and in Greek it is also synonumous συνώνυμo to Policy.  don't try to correct me here



Yiannis - this will stop now or else you're gone! 

κατανοώ


----------



## pbehn (Dec 1, 2019)

Yiannis said:


> Mate you don't speak Greek. What you said was like correcting between John and Johnny. You don't seem to grasp that the word Πολίτης -citizen comes from the word Πόλις City and Πολιτεία politia means the society of that city also involving ita governance therefore Πολιτική politiki- politic(s) means the governance and in Greek it is also synonumous συνώνυμo to Policy.  don't try to correct me here


Mate, you just dont get it, the topic is the Bf110 and no one cares about interpretations of ancient Greek. The word police in English has many meanings and uses and across the world many others in other languages.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Dec 1, 2019)

Yiannis said:


> No British fighter was faster than the 110 at the time.



I'm no collector of Messerschmitt 110 data so any additional figures would be a help -- but here's a quick level speed sketch based on the 110C numbers from wwiiaircraftperformance: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me110/Me110C_data-sheet.jpg 







*Spitfire I (+12 boost)
Hurricane I (+12 boost)
Defiant I (+12 boost)*
Messerschmitt 110C2 (I placed a more 'Daimler-Benz shaped' curve on the points given)
*Blenheim IF (+5 boost)*

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Informative Informative:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## Yiannis (Dec 1, 2019)

pbehn said:


> Mate, you just dont get it, the topic is the Bf110 and no one cares about interpretations of ancient Greek. The word police in English has many meanings and uses and across the world many others in other languages.



You are playing around mate


----------



## pbehn (Dec 1, 2019)

Yiannis said:


> You are playing around mate


 No I am not, your pretentious nonsense is hard on the eyes. "Police" is a noun and a verb in English, within the UK what you think about the word "police" depends on whether you are a policeman a normal member of the public or a nutcase with a fake suicide vest on. Every country I worked in had a different idea of what police, policing and policeman meant, now get back on the subject of the Bf110 or I will block you.


----------



## michael rauls (Dec 1, 2019)

Yiannis said:


> No hard feelings my friend. I didn't put words in your mouth. What I said was my words and yes I got off topic to prove a point. Didn't mean to hurt your feelings honestly. But you sounded like trying to profile me as something I am not or that I am trying to achieve something here. No. I just try to see things as they are and not as they are being served.
> 
> An imperialist monarchist power ruling over most of the planet militarily was talking about democracy and fearing a supposed lunatic who supposedly wanted to rule the world instead...it sounds like a joke. The coloured had no rights in the U.S yet the Germans were only racist. It really doesn't add up, do you see where I am coming from? Propaganda both ways. I can't get emotional about it as I am not either German or British. My impartiality may sound as hostile I understand that but my intentions are purely truthseeking. I find WWII very fascinating from a historical point of view.


Certainly there was discrimination against various minorities in the US durring the 40s and for quite awhile after for that matter as was in most nations at the time, unfortunately. However, I think you have to compare nations at the same place in time and asserting a moral equivalence between what was going on in the US as wrong as some of it was to what was going on in Nazi Germany is beyond the pale.........
Imho

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Dec 1, 2019)

Yiannis said:


> This means that more British fighters were shot down than spitfires and hurricanes


The Defiant and Blenheim were fighters too. Apart from the well known losses of the two Defiant squadrons in the BoB wiki says this about the Blenheim The Bristol Blenheim was used by both Bomber and Fighter Commands. Some two hundred Mk I bombers were modified into Mk IF long-range fighters with 600 (Auxiliary Air Force) Squadron, based at Hendon, the first squadron to take delivery in September 1938. By 1939, at least seven squadrons were operating these twin-engined fighters and within a few months, some sixty squadrons had experience of the type. The Mk IF proved to be slower and less nimble than expected, and by June 1940, daylight Blenheim losses were to cause concern for Fighter Command. It was decided that the Mk IF would be relegated mainly to night fighter duties where No. 23 Squadron RAF, which had already operated the type under nighttime conditions, had better success.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Yiannis (Dec 1, 2019)

When those few available bf110s were reduced to zero it was impossible to see them fly of course.

They were too few. Yes, the Germans started with an advantage thought sufficient to be on the offensive during the day but they couldn't keep up with that advantage until they were outnumbered. British aircraft production was higher and so they decided they follow the Brits in night raiding.


----------



## Glider (Dec 1, 2019)

My father was a man of many sayings and a favourite was this.

_The Truth is never the wrong answer, but it can be inconvenient._

In this case the simple and to some inconvenient truth, is that both the RAF and the Luftwaffe recognised that their bombers couldn't undertake long range bomber missions in daylight over enemy territory, without suffering heavy unacceptable losses, and switched to night raids. The British recognised it first, but both reached the same conclusion.

Going back a little regarding who started the area bombing raids on cities, can I suggest people remember the terror raids on Guernica and Barcelona in the Spanish Civil War.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Dec 1, 2019)

Gotta favor to ask. I still have 3 night shifts to go and to speed things up, I was wondering if someone would be kind enough to post here the squadrons that had the 110s during the BoB. When I get home Wednesday morning I’ll start going through that PDF looking for 110 claims. Thanks in advance


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 1, 2019)

Glider said:


> Going back a little regarding who started the area bombing raids on cities, can I suggest people remember the terror raids on Guernica and Barcelona in the Spanish Civil War.


We could go back a little further and recall the Zeppelin raids on England during WWI.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Dec 1, 2019)

I'll throw in my 2 cents here. I think the Me110 is indeed under rated. It seems it is mostly critiqued entirely on its less than stellar performance in the BOB. 
It was very effective in other roles however, most notably as a night fighter.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## slaterat (Dec 2, 2019)

Dimlee said:


> I assume that "authentic victories" mean victories/kills confirmed by loss statistics of the other side.
> As for the loss % share of the types other than 4 fighters mentioned, I do not see a problem there. 35% on the German side, 18% on the British.
> Bergstrom's figures can be taken with the usual grain of salt, of course. But he is a professional in this field.



Very well but I do have problem with his numbers, lets take a look.



Yiannis said:


> 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



First of all, in fairness, he has a total loss for Hurricanes and Spitfires at 932, which is very close to 915 losses for all of RAF fighter Command during the BoB as stated in "The Narrow Margin"(Wood and Dempster) How does he then get to the figure of 1120 kills for the combined total for the 109 and 110? Is he including losses of Bomber Command over Germany?

Total victories for the Hurricane and Spitfires are given as 1300 by Bergstrom. 

German losses from combat, taken from the German Quartermaster general returns give a total of 1733 losses due to combat. This would be the minimum figure for German losses at the time. These losses are from the 10th of July to Oct 31, 1940.

This leaves us with at least 433 German combat losses not shot down by Hurricanes or Spitfires, a rather generous sum to be attributed to AAA and Defiants.

Bergstrom doesn't seem to have the same generous allowance for return fire from Luftwaffe bombers.

Other questions are also apparent when you don't have his full paper for review. For example what dates is he using for start and stop of the battle, how does he reconcile double claims between competing aircraft types ect. 

Frankly I see too many glaring problems with this study.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Yiannis (Dec 2, 2019)

Yes, it is obvious that total L


slaterat said:


> Very well but I do have problem with his numbers, lets take a look.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, it is obvious that the total bf100/10 kills are not exclusively against spitfire/hurricanes as the total spitfire/hurricane losses are less than the total German fighter kills.

On the other hand the total kills of spitfire/hurricanes exceed the losses of Meserschmits altogether, therefore the excess is German bomber kills. 

Of course there were British fighter casualties from the bomber gunners but as I said before...a spitfire forcelanding or retreating to a nearby airfield due to damage did not count as a casualty as opposed to a messerscmit forcelanding or having nowhere near to land in safety or escape. Fuel was a great consideration before deciding to follow a damaged spitfire away from the bombers and vice versa. A lightly damaged Me 109 was almost a certain casualty as opposed to a lightly damaged spitfire.

Furthermore, comparing the numbers involved, had the Germans had similar analogies of fighters against bomber raiders numbers later on in the war, things would have been even more deadly for the allied bombers despite their greater size, and armour as well as generous fighter escort.


----------



## Yiannis (Dec 2, 2019)

Yiannis said:


> Yes, it is obvious that total L
> 
> 
> Yes, it is obvious that the total bf100/10 kills are not exclusively against spitfire/hurricanes as the total spitfire/hurricane losses are less than the total German fighter kills.
> ...





slaterat said:


> Very well but I do have problem with his numbers, lets take a look.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Another consideration is also the fact that regardless of how it started, overall in that given set period the British outnumbered the LW that was on the offensive and also allowed for more waves against a given airfleet on a set course away from its bases plus the fact that the 109s would not go all the way as the zerstorers.


----------



## Yiannis (Dec 2, 2019)

Speed was more important then. The spitfire was better than the hurricane mainly because it was faster. And the BF 109 lasted throughout the war even though it was the oldest (yet very advanced) design exactly because with better ever engines it could increase its speed. Late BF 109 models like the k4 were faster than the mustang. The Americans also counted on speed (hit and run tactics) to deal with the nimble Japanese Oscars and Zeros.


----------



## wuzak (Dec 2, 2019)

Yiannis said:


> An imperialist monarchist power ruling over most of the planet militarily was talking about democracy and fearing a supposed lunatic who supposedly wanted to rule the world instead...it sounds like a joke.



Britain's government is formed by the majority of the members in the House of Commons, one of the two houses of Parliament. These members are elected by the public.

The House of Lords members are not elected.

England's Parliament had been sovereign for a couple of hundred years before the BoB. Parliament has the power to legislate, the Monarch does not. The Monarch has not been able to levy taxes for around 600 years - that was the job of Parliament (not democratically elected back then).

And it was the Prime Minster, as the head of Parliament, that declared war on Germany, not the king.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Dec 2, 2019)

Yiannis said:


> To destroy the LW or what was left of it on the ground cause they couldn't in the air so that they can protect their bombers.



?

They destroyed the Luftwaffe in the air and on the ground.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Yiannis (Dec 2, 2019)

wuzak said:


> Britain's government is formed by the majority of the members in the House of Commons, one of the two houses of Parliament. These members are elected by the public.
> 
> The House of Lords members are not elected.
> 
> ...


Churchill was appointed by King George VI


----------



## rochie (Dec 2, 2019)

Yiannis said:


> Another consideration is also the fact that regardless of how it started, overall in that given set period the British outnumbered the LW that was on the offensive and also allowed for more waves against a given airfleet on a set course away from its bases plus the fact that the 109s would not go all the way as the zerstorers.


you dont seem to understand that not all the RAF fighters were in 11 group south of London, so even if the RAF outnumbered the Luftwaffe over all, they rarely if ever outnumbered them in the local area of battle.
it was mostly the other way round as Dowding used his fighters in small groups avoiding the large set piece battle that might have incurred even bigger losses in pilots.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Dec 2, 2019)

Yiannis said:


> Churchill was appointed by King George VI


His party won the election and was therefore invited by his majesty to form a government when Chamberlain resigned. This is one of the arcane formalities of a constitutional monarchy. although the monarch "invites" an MP to form a government, he/she is advised who to invite and has no constitutional position to refuse the advice. The same process will occur after the next election on 12 December.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Dec 2, 2019)

pbehn said:


> His party won the election and was therefore invited by his majesty to form a government when Chamberlain resigned. This is one of the arcane formalities of a constitutional monarchy. although the monarch "invites" an MP to form a government, he/she is advised who to invite and has no constitutional position to refuse the advice. The same process will occur after the next election on 12 December.


We need a new national anthem over here, I propose "Shall I stay, or shall I go" lyrics by ABBA. This could take a 100 years.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Yiannis (Dec 2, 2019)

Kevin J said:


> We need a new national anthem over here, I propose "Shall I stay, or shall I go" lyrics by ABBA. This could take a 100 years.



The clash

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Dec 2, 2019)

Yiannis said:


> The clash


Kylie minogue


----------



## Stig1207 (Dec 2, 2019)

slaterat said:


> Very well but I do have problem with his numbers, lets take a look.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Lw losses July to October due to enemy action was 1385 aircraft and 404 operational losses not due to enemy action; of these 502 Me109's and 224 Me 110's were lost to enemy action. 
'Enemy action' would include enemy aircraft , AAA, destroyed on the ground by bombs / strafing, etc. 

Seeing as Bergstrom's 1300 victories is a round number, it could be that it is an assumption on his part as to how many Lw aircraft were shot down by Spitfires and Hurricanes.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Yiannis (Dec 2, 2019)




----------



## Yiannis (Dec 2, 2019)

Yiannis said:


>


----------



## Yiannis (Dec 2, 2019)

Yiannis said:


>





The mosquito, the lightning, the petlyakov, the black widow, the baufighter are all later designs produced in greater numbers and were designed and influenced by the zerstorer concept.

Most of them carried out roles similar, such as naval attack, ground attack, reconaissance, night fighter.. none of them made a better fighter, none of them shot down more planes, none of them sunk more ships or destroyed more tanks....some of them were great planes though and I think that the Me-110 was a great plane too.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Dec 2, 2019)

Yiannis said:


> Speed was more important then. The spitfire was better than the hurricane mainly because it was faster. And the BF 109 lasted throughout the war even though it was the oldest (yet very advanced) design exactly because with better ever engines it could increase its speed. Late BF 109 models like the k4 were faster than the mustang. The Americans also counted on speed (hit and run tactics) to deal with the nimble Japanese Oscars and Zeros.


The Spitfire was slightly faster, with a slightly better rate of climb, a slightly better rate of roll and slightly better visibility, it was also slightly less likely to burst into flames. Overall the Spitfire was much better at keeping a novice pilot alive on his first day, his first week and first month in combat. In the hands of a top pilot in the Battle of Britain a Hurricane could be just as effective as the Spitfire as 303 squadron showed. Since most kills were from bounces it was actually more capable in some aspects because of its armament (guns closer together), but that is only apparent when the pilot can fly and shoot.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Stig1207 (Dec 2, 2019)

This subject has also been discussed years ago here TOCH.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Dec 2, 2019)

Yiannis said:


> The allies made 600,000 aircraft and lost almost half. The British alone outnumbered the Germans in all respects. The mustang is overrated as it appeared in vast numbers in the last year of the war against remnants and still they had 2,500 casualties. 17,000 mustangs produced. American industry was not being bombed and there were no shortages of any kind. If you compare the numbers and volumes involved you will probably question the effectiveness of allied weaponry in comparison to German.



Wow, what a massive load of bovine fecal matter. You do realize that your first four sentences are total lies/fabrications right? No to mention the ridiculous nature of your last sentence.

But really, don't let facts get in the way of your spurious arguments.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Dec 2, 2019)

Yiannis said:


> The mosquito, the lightning, the petlyakov, the black widow, the baufighter are all later designs produced in greater numbers and were designed and influenced by the zerstorer concept.



Wrong in so many ways. Lets take them one at a time

Mosquito - designed as a bomber and PR plane not as a day fighter
PE2 (my assumption) - designed as a bomber / dive bomber not as a day fighter
Black Widow - designed as a night fighter again not as a day fighter
Beaufighter - This I will give you designed as a day fighter but found its niche as a night fighter and strike aircraft
Lightning - Again this I will agree with designed and largely used as a day fighter and I am confident shot down a lot more aircraft in daylight than the Me110

As an aside it is well known that the USAAF had a large team operating in the UK during the BOB and understandably they identified what they considered to be the best and worst of both sides both equipment, organisation and tactics. This was headed by Major General James Cheney. He inspected captured German aircraft and considered the Me109E to be at the peak of its development. That said, he gave the Me110 high marks calling it 'By far the most formidable and outstanding of the German planes that have been used in any quantity to date'. _Quote from The Burning Blue page 96_

The RAF totally disagreed with him on the aircraft but he did make a number of accurate observations and the recommendations he made were largely implemented. I do sometimes wonder on the impact on the development of the P38 had he not rated the Me110 so highly

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Dec 2, 2019)

Glider said:


> Wrong in so many ways. Lets take them one at a time
> 
> Mosquito - designed as a bomber and PR plane not as a day fighter
> PE2 (my assumption) - designed as a bomber / dive bomber not as a day fighter
> ...


They all have two engines though. I thought they were all based on a Vickers Vimy, I live and learn.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
4 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Dec 2, 2019)

Zipper730 said:


> I remember something by Captain Brown which stated that the Me-110 got a bad rap and had it been used right it would have been impressive.
> 
> In what way?


Compared against its contemporaries, the other two-seat twin-engined fighters designed pre-1939 I’d say the Bf 110 holds its own. True it‘s no DH Mosquito, but the Bf 110 can match well enough against the Fokker G.I, Potez 630, Bristol Beaufighter and almost beens like the PZL.38 Wilk as well as the Axis’ own Kawasaki Ki-45 and the later Nakajima J1N and IMAM Ro.58.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Dec 2, 2019)

Glider said:


> Wrong in so many ways. Lets take them one at a time
> 
> Mosquito - designed as a bomber and PR plane not as a day fighter
> PE2 (my assumption) - designed as a bomber / dive bomber not as a day fighter
> ...



I don't think the Lightning was designed to the same role as the Me 110. In fact it was designed as an interceptor.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 2, 2019)

Yiannis said:


> The mosquito, the lightning, the petlyakov, the black widow, the baufighter are all later designs produced in greater numbers and were designed and influenced by the zerstorer concept.






Glider said:


> Wrong in so many ways. Lets take them one at a time
> Mosquito - designed as a bomber and PR plane not as a day fighter
> PE2 (my assumption) - designed as a bomber / dive bomber not as a day fighter
> Black Widow - designed as a night fighter again not as a day fighter
> ...



For Yiannis' post to be true it requires our poor time machine to get quite a work out.. The zerstorer concept was actually an outgrowth of the multi-place combat aircraft favored by the French.
The Potez 630 and the Bf 110 both flew within a month of each other (the Potez was first) in 1936 however the Germans were *not* exactly using the 110 for propaganda. the 1938 Janes just has a very short (two sentences) description and it's first public appearance was at Nuremberg in Sept 1938. This is after some of the planes on the list started development.

"Lockheed designed the P-38 in response to a February 1937 specification" and it first flew Jan 27th 1939.

The Beaufighter started work about the time of the Munich crisis. (Sept 1938) but since the French had several designs of 2 engine multi seat aircraft and were much less reluctant to publicize them one does wonder who the British were copying.

The Black Widow, as stated by Glider, was a specialised night fighter and since the design work started in late 1940, no the Bf 110 night fighters did not inspire it's design.

The PE-2 was a derivative of the VI-100 high altitude escort fighter.(to escort the ANT-42/PE-8) first flown in Dec of 1939, work started when? Was modified to the light bomber/dive bomber configuration and fist flew in that form Dec 14th 1940. Since it used an internal bomb bay and the Bf 110 didn't one wonders how much of a copy it was?

Mosquito was, as glider has said, designed as bomber, it was never stressed to perform the hi "G" maneuvers used by fighters.

Perhaps the Bf 110 was inspired by the Bristol Bagshot 






1927.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Dec 2, 2019)

> Perhaps the Bf 110 was inspired by the Bristol Bagshot



Oh yes, Bristol Bagshot and the more conventional Westland Westbury were built to Specification 4/24, released in 1924 for a twin engined home defence fighter capable of carrying two 37mm COW (Coventry ordnance Works) cannon. The Westbury flew first, in October 1926, with the Bagshot flying in July 1927.

Related and possibly more ground breaking in design was the Boulton & Paul Bittern, built to a 1924 spec, 27/24 for a single seat twin engined night fighter. Although underpowered - the choice of powerplant could have been better, the Bittern was a shoulder wing semi cantilever monoplane of a design configuration ahead of its time. Because of its uninspring performance and the fact that only two were built, it remains little known. It had two fixed forward firing machine guns mounted in the fuselage, or two in flexible mountings designed to fire upwards into the bellies of night bombers - the father of the WW2 night fighter.

Boulton Paul Bittern - Wikipedia

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Dec 2, 2019)

Yiannis said:


> and were designed and influenced by the zerstorer concept.



Got any evidence of that?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 2, 2019)

Yiannis said:


> The mosquito, *the lightning*, the petlyakov, *the black widow*, the baufighter are all later designs produced in greater numbers and were designed and influenced by the zerstorer concept.



Yiannis - I believe you need to do some research, but you came to the right place to be educated. I'll address the P-38 and P-61

Bf 110

_The Ministry of Aviation (RLM, for Reichsluftfahrtministerium), pushed by Hermann Göring, issued a request for a new *multipurpose fighter* called the Kampfzerstörer (battle destroyer) with *long range and an internal bomb bay. The request called for a twin-engine, three-seat, all-metal monoplane that was armed with cannon as well as a bomb bay.*_

P-38

_Lockheed designed the P-38 in response to a February 1937 specification from the United States Army Air Corps. Circular Proposal X-608 was a set of aircraft performance goals authored by First Lieutenant Benjamin S. Kelsey (later Brigadier General) and First Lieutenant Gordon P. Saville (later General) for a* twin-engine, high-altitude "interceptor" having "the tactical mission of interception and attack of hostile aircraft at high altitude."*_

P-61

From wiki:

_In August 1940, 16 months before the United States entered the war, the U.S. Air Officer in London, Lieutenant General Delos C. Emmons, was briefed on British research in radar (RAdio Detection And Ranging), which had been underway since 1935 and had played an important role in the nation's defense against the Luftwaffe during the Battle of Britain. General Emmons was informed of the new *Airborne Intercept radar (AI for short), a self-contained unit that could be installed in an aircraft and allow it to operate independently of ground stations. In September 1940, the Tizard Mission traded British research, including the cavity magnetron that would make self-contained interception radar installations practicable, for American production.*_

_*Simultaneously, the British Purchasing Commission evaluating US aircraft declared their urgent need for a* *high-altitude, high-speed aircraft to intercept the Luftwaffe bombers attacking London at night. The aircraft would need to patrol continuously over the city throughout the night, requiring at least an eight-hour loiter capability. The aircraft would carry one of the early (and heavy) AI radar units, and mount its specified armament in "multiple-gun turrets". The British conveyed the requirements for a new fighter to all the aircraft designers and manufacturers they were working with. Jack Northrop was among them, and he realized that the speed, altitude, fuel load and multiple-turret requirements demanded a large aircraft with multiple engines.*_

_General Emmons returned to the U.S. with details of the British night-fighter requirements, and in his report said that the design departments of the Americans' aviation industry's firms possibly could produce such an aircraft. The Emmons Board developed basic requirements and specifications, handing them over towards the end of 1940 to Air Technical Service Command (ATSC) at Wright Field, Ohio. After considering the two biggest challenges—the high weight of the AI radar and the very long (by fighter standards) loiter time of eight hours minimum—the board, including Jack Northrop, realized the aircraft would need the considerable power and resulting size of twin engines, and recommended such parameters. The United States had two twin-row radials of at least 46 liters displacement in development since the late 1930s; the Double Wasp and the Duplex Cyclone. These engines had been airborne for their initial flight tests by the 1940/41 timeframe, and were each capable, with more development, of exceeding 2,000 hp (1,491 kW)._

_Vladimir H. Pavlecka, Northrop Chief of Research, was present on unrelated business at Wright Field. On 21 October 1940, Colonel Laurence Craigie of the ATSC phoned Pavlecka, explaining the U.S. Army Air Corps' specifications, but told him to "not take any notes, 'Just try and keep this in your memory!'" What Pavlecka did not learn was radar's part in the aircraft; Craigie described the then super-secret radar as a "device which would locate enemy aircraft in the dark" and which had the capability to "see and distinguish other airplanes." The mission, Craigie explained, was "the interception and destruction of hostile aircraft in flight during periods of darkness or under conditions of poor visibility."_

_Pavlecka met with Jack Northrop the next day, and gave him the USAAC specification. Northrop compared his notes with those of Pavlecka, saw the similarity between the USAAC's requirements and those issued by the RAF, and pulled out the work he had been doing on the British aircraft's requirements. He was already a month along, and a week later, Northrop pounced on the USAAC proposal._

_On 5 November, Northrop and Pavlecka met at Wright Field with Air Material Command officers and presented them with Northrop's preliminary design. Douglas' XA-26A night fighter proposal was the only competition, but Northrop's design was selected and the Black Widow was conceived._

*So share with us your references showing where these two aircraft were designed and influenced by the "zerstorer concept"! Maybe it's because they all had two engines? Maybe you should include the Arvo Anson in you list?!?*

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Dec 3, 2019)

slaterat said:


> This leaves us with at least 433 German combat losses not shot down by Hurricanes or Spitfires, a rather generous sum to be attributed to AAA and Defiants.



Looks like the AA guys were busy; there were only two squadrons that operated the Defiant in the BoB and their figures of kills and losses are as follows: 264 Sqn between 31 May and 28 August 1940 achieved 28 confirmed kills, with 17 combat losses between 31 May and 4 September 1940, 141 Sqn between 19 July and 17 September 1940 achieved 3 confirmed and 2 probables, with combat losses of 7 on 19 July 1940 - the incident known as 'The Slaughter of the Innocents'.

Out of its entire list of confirmed and probable kills, 264 Sqn shot down eight confirmed Bf 110s of a total of 102.33 kills between 12 May 1940 and 17 April 1942. No Bf 110 claims for 141 Sqn.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 3, 2019)

Still trying to figure out how the Pe-2 was included in the "list".

The Pe-2 was not intended (nor used) as a heavy fighter, it was a bomber from it's inception that was later multi-purposed, like the Tu-2 and Yer-2.


----------



## Yiannis (Dec 3, 2019)

The Bf 110 had performed almost all those roles. Now as seen in the gun camera video, the by 110 shooting at allied bombers...do we call it an interceptor in that role or a fighter? Or it doesn't really matter what we call it 

No designer would ignore the BF 110 when designing a similar twin engined aircraft


----------



## Yiannis (Dec 3, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> Still trying to figure out how the Pe-2 was included in the "list".
> 
> The Pe-2 was not intended (nor used) as a heavy fighter, it was a bomber from it's inception that was later multi-purposed, like the Tu-2 and Yer-2.



The bf110 was also a ground attacker


----------



## Yiannis (Dec 3, 2019)

Peter Gunn said:


> Wow, what a massive load of bovine fecal matter. You do realize that your first four sentences are total lies/fabrications right? No to mention the ridiculous nature of your last sentence.
> 
> But really, don't let facts get in the way of your spurious arguments.



Equipment losses in World War II - Wikipedia


----------



## Yiannis (Dec 3, 2019)

Yiannis said:


> Equipment losses in World War II - Wikipedia



World War II aircraft production - Wikipedia


----------



## Yiannis (Dec 3, 2019)

Yiannis said:


> Equipment losses in World War II - Wikipedia


----------



## Stig1207 (Dec 3, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> Gotta favor to ask. I still have 3 night shifts to go and to speed things up, I was wondering if someone would be kind enough to post here the squadrons that had the 110s during the BoB. When I get home Wednesday morning I’ll start going through that PDF looking for 110 claims. Thanks in advance



This post Me 110 units looks to be what you are after.


----------



## pbehn (Dec 3, 2019)

Yiannis said:


> The Bf 110 had performed almost all those roles. Now as seen in the gun camera video, the by 110 shooting at allied bombers...do we call it an interceptor in that role or a fighter? Or it doesn't really matter what we call it
> 
> No designer would ignore the BF 110 when designing a similar twin engined aircraft


If you start designing an aeroplane when the Bf 110 was shooting down bombers it will be in service in the jet age. The only thing these planes have in common is having two engines. They don't all have a single fuselage, since two are twin boom designs. The only one close is the Beaufighter, but that was development of the Beaufort torpedo bomber which was developed from the Blenheim light bomber before the Bf110 was seen at all.


----------



## Yiannis (Dec 3, 2019)




----------



## Yiannis (Dec 3, 2019)

pbehn said:


> If you start designing an aeroplane when the Bf 110 was shooting down bombers it will be in service in the jet age. The only thing these planes have in common is having two engines. They don't all have a single fuselage, since two are twin boom designs. The only one close is the Beaufighter, but that was development of the Beaufort torpedo bomber which was developed from the Blenheim light bomber before the Bf110 was seen at all.



They were still on the drawing board


----------



## Yiannis (Dec 3, 2019)

Just under 200 BF 110s were lost in Bob. Almost all they had available at the time. They lasted approx. 3 months escorting bombers. They shot down a good number of hurricanes for their failure, a few spitfire even who were cought off guard...not too bad being the only aircraft able to escort bombers. Not the super fighter the Germans hoped for but did carry out the mission. Nobody else had something equivalent at the time. A total of 5,000 fought throughout the war in many missions. A good ground attack and naval attack aircraft. Absolutely the highest scoring night fighter. Not too bad.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Dec 3, 2019)

Yiannis said:


> They were still on the drawing board


How do you put a Bf 110 on the drawing board and get a P-38 off it. Much of what governed aircraft design was not actual "aircraft design" but other issues. Engine power was constantly increasing but in 1938-40 you needed 2 engines to do many things. The P-38 was twin engine because you couldn't design an aircraft to do what was wanted with 1 engine at the time but you could a couple of years later. Radio design meant that verbal communication was very short ranged so you needed a "radio operator" actually a morse operator which obviously cannot be the pilot, two seats means 2 engines with 1938 engines. Cannon design meant that you didn't have belt fed cannon that could be put in the wings of an aircraft on the allied side until 1940-41, so cannon were put in the nose or belly of twin engine "heavy fighters". The Whirlwind was close to the Bf 110 heavy fighter concept but it first flew in 1938 so cannot possibly be a copy in any way. There is such a thing as convergent evolution, seen in biology where animals that do similar things look similar even though they not at all connected. It is the same with aircraft. Almost all twin engine d aeroplanes will look similar and will be pressed into doing similar things without having any connection.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Yiannis (Dec 3, 2019)

Speaking of numbers, it was already common knowledge that the hurricane is obsolete and even slower than the BF 110, and to be replaced by the spitfire. So, when did they build 15,000 hurricanes? I can understand 23,000 spitfires, but 15,000 Hurricanes?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Dec 3, 2019)

Yiannis said:


> Speaking of numbers, it was already common knowledge that the hurricane is obsolete and even slower than the BF 110, and to be replaced by the spitfire. So, when did they build 15,000 hurricanes? I can understand 23,000 spitfires, but 15,000 Hurricanes?


The Hurricane was not to be replaced by the Spitfire, both were to be replaced by the Typhoon/Tornado as planned in 1938, by 1940 the Merlin was producing almost as much power as the Vulture and the Sabre engine was running into problems too The Typhoon itself had issues so the Spitfire became the fighter of choice by default. The Hurricane was produced in such numbers mainly due to the absence of any other, where no first line fighters were opposing it, it was still effective in the ground attack role, anything with 4 cannon is.


----------



## Yiannis (Dec 3, 2019)

pbehn said:


> The Hurricane was not to be replaced by the Spitfire, both were to be replaced by the Typhoon/Tornado as planned in 1938, by 1940 the Merlin was producing almost as much power as the Vulture and the Sabre engine was running into problems too The Typhoon itself had issues so the Spitfire became the fighter of choice by default. The Hurricane was produced in such numbers mainly due to the absence of any other, where no first line fighters were opposing it, it was still effective in the ground attack role, anything with 4 cannon is.



Up to 1942? So they had how many in 1940.


----------



## pbehn (Dec 3, 2019)

Yiannis said:


> Up to 1942? So they had how many in 1940.


Who mentioned 1942 and what aircraft are you talking about?


----------



## Yiannis (Dec 3, 2019)

pbehn said:


> Who mentioned 1942 and what aircraft are you talking about?


Hurricane


----------



## pbehn (Dec 3, 2019)

Yiannis said:


> Hurricane


At which part of 1940? At the fall of France the RAF had about 250 in front line service, despite all that had been made up to then. Its main advantage was that it was easy to make and repair. Throughout the Battle of Britain a shortage of aircraft wasn't a problem, despite all S/E aircraft losses to all causes they finished with 200 more in frontline service (Spitfires and Hurricanes).


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 3, 2019)

Yiannis said:


> No designer would ignore the BF 110 when designing a similar twin engined aircraft



And you know this how?????







Kelly Johnson, as did Jack Northrop and Vladimir H. Pavlecka wrote extensively about the development of the P-38 and P-61 and never mentioned an influence of the Bf 110. You are grasping at straws and assuming things based on your lack of knowledge of this subject matter.

*"It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt!"*

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Dec 3, 2019)

Yiannis said:


> Equipment losses in World War II - Wikipedia


I'll reply to both your posts in one, by Wikipedia, the Allies produced 786,500 a/c whilst losing to all causes as far as I can tell, ~243,600 which is the U.S, U.K. and U.S.S.R. losses combined.

Hardly over half, in fact, one might say "one third" of all production was lost.

~786,500 Allied production (per Wiki)
- ~243,600 Allied losses (per Wiki)
-------------
~542,900
========


Mustang overrated? You need to do some serious research, I suggest you contact a forum member named drgondog, he has accurate figures for what 8 FC accomplished, and it wasn't against a worn out and outnumbered LW. In fact, when electing to do so, the LW directors could mass fighters and strike at a point of his choosing in the bomber stream and overwhelm the local Mustang escort. I suggest you read some after action reports --> HERE and find out how many times P-51's (and Thunderbolts) were out numbered sometimes as high as 50+ to 8. See this particular report from Col. Goodson. And no I didn't cherry pick an encounter report, I just clicked on one of Col. Goodson's at random.

You seem a fairly genial type of guy, if you're going to make blanket statements here, have solid data to back up your claims. In fact, ask here first, wiki is hardly the A number 1 resource but there are guys here that will dazzle you with the amount of knowledge and data they not only have but are willing to share freely, even happily to fellow enthusiasts and scholars alike.

Cheers.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Dec 3, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> And you know this how? Kelly Johnson, as did Jack Northrop and Vladimir H. Pavlecka wrote extensively about the development of the P-38 and P-61 and never mentioned an influence of the Bf 110. !"


 It is now a well known fact that they performed the worst piece of industrial espionage and counterfeiting in engineering history. Apart from the location and orientation of the engines and materials used what do they have in common?


----------



## michael rauls (Dec 3, 2019)

As to the p38 being inspired to some degree by the me110. I'm certainly no aeronautical engineer but aside from the number of engines these two aircraft seem about as different in design as you could get for two aircraft meant to fill even somewhat similar roles.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 3, 2019)

pbehn said:


> It is now a well known fact that they performed the worst piece of industrial espionage and counterfeiting in engineering history. Apart from the location and orientation of the engines and materials used what do they have in common?



They fly?

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 3, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> As to the p38 being inspired to some degree by the me110. I'm certainly no aeronautical engineer but aside from the number of engines these two aircraft seem about as different in design as you could get for two aircraft meant to fill even somewhat similar roles.


Not even close. The P-38 was designed to a pretty specific design spec. from the get go, it was to be a fighter/ interceptor. As the war began the P-38 fulfilled similar roles as the Bf 110 but that occurred more out of operational requirements than intention.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 3, 2019)

Some times the combat history (and success or failure) of an aircraft is dictated more by circumstances than any real attribute or combination of attributes of the aircraft.

The Germans had pretty much stopped bombing England at night after May of 1941. At least compared to the up to 12,000 sorties a month over the winter of 1940-41.
If the Germans are not flying bombers where the British night fighters are how are the British night fighters supposed to shoot them down?

The British on the other hand were supplying the German night fighters with thousands if not tens of thousands of potential targets every month for several years.
The Bf 110 did do a good job as a night fighter but it was operating in a target rich environment.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Dec 3, 2019)

Yiannis said:


> Speaking of numbers, it was already common knowledge that the hurricane is obsolete and even slower than the BF 110, and to be replaced by the spitfire. So, when did they build 15,000 hurricanes? I can understand 23,000 spitfires, but 15,000 Hurricanes?


The UK needed fighters and later fighter bombers The total number of Hurricanes Typhoons and Tempests produced was about the same as the number of Spitfires. In an ideal world there should have been less Hurricanes and more Typhoons and the Typhoon should have performed as the Tempest eventually did but sometimes sh!t happens and you don't get what you want when you want it.


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 3, 2019)

Yiannis said:


> The bf110 was also a ground attacker


So was the Ju88, A-20, B-25 and P-61 - none of which, were designed for the role.

Also claiming that other twin-engined aircraft were based on the Bf110 is sadly being misinformed.

Virtually every nation that designed and manufactured aircraft in the 1930's had a twin-engined "heavy fighter" concept at one point or another. It was the natural prograssion in aerial combat thinking, much like the heavy bomber could "get through" unescorted.

The French had the Potez 630, the Italians had the SM.91, the Soviets had the Pe-3, the Japanese had the KI-45 and J1N1, the British had the Whirlwind and Beaufighter, the Dutch had the G.1 and the list goes on.

Virtually ALL of these heavy fighters had their roots in the mid/late 1930's.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Dec 3, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> So was the Ju88, A-20, B-25 and P-61 - none of which, were designed for the role.
> 
> Also claiming that other twin-engined aircraft were based on the Bf110 is sadly being misinformed.
> 
> ...


It was basically a way to get 1000HP+ into an air frame before any single engine produced 1000HP+. In desperate times anything becomes a ground attack aircraft, the UK were looking at getting Tiger Moths and any other trainer to do it in 1940.


----------



## nuuumannn (Dec 3, 2019)

Yiannis said:


> Just under 200 BF 110s were lost in Bob. Almost all they had available at the time.



From Messerschmitt Bf 110 Zerstorer Aces of World War two by John Weal (Osprey, 2001);

"Numbers never tell the whole stroy but one Battle of Britain statistic is stark as it is sobering. The Luftwaffe had embarked upon the battle with 237 serviceable Bf 110 Zerstorer... and lost no fewer than 223 in the waging of it."



Yiannis said:


> Speaking of numbers, it was already common knowledge that the hurricane is obsolete and even slower than the BF 110, and to be replaced by the spitfire.



No, it wasn't common knowledge that the Hurricane was obsolete in 1940, because it wasn't and in terms of maximum speed, yes the Bf 110C was faster than the Hurricane I at height, but the Hurricane had quicker acceleration to its useful speeds, a faster climb rate and it was more manoeuvrable than the Bf 110, and was _not_ intended on being replaced by the Spitfire - the Hurricane's intended replacement was the Tornado and Typhoon. Three dubious statements in one sentence, none of which are back up by fact. I suggest you stick to fantasy novels.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Dec 3, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> No, it wasn't common knowledge that the Hurricane was obsolete in 1940, .


It couldn't be commonly known in 1940 because it isn't known now. The highest scoring ace in the battle flew a Hurricane, as did the highest scoring squadron and the Hurricane had the most victories overall on the RAF side. At the fall of France the Hurricane was exactly what was needed because it was easy to produce. The Bf 110 was not fighting Hurricanes or Spitfires it was fighting in the LW against a RADAR guided defence system which usually transferred the element of surprise and positional advantage from the attacker to defender. All this reversed when attacking France later but that is a different issue.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 3, 2019)

It was thought in middle of 1940 that fitting the Merlin XX engine would upgrade the Hurricane to near equality with the Bf 109. That is what started the Production of the Hurricane II with deliveries starting in Sept 1940. 

Going with similar type of thinking the Bf 109 (at least the E model) was obsolete in the middle of 1940.
Which was solved by the introduction of 109 F starting, in small numbers, in the fall of 1940. Germans had a bit more trouble introducing new engines than the British at this point in time.

I would note that the British considered the Spitfire MK I either obsolete or obsolescent in the summer of 1940 or they wouldn't have put the MK II into production.


----------



## pbehn (Dec 3, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> I would note that the British considered the Spitfire MK I either obsolete or obsolescent in the summer of 1940 or they wouldn't have put the MK II into production.


I think that was the way of the war, a plane was either uprated every 12-18 months or replaced by another type, despite all the Spitfires made there were rarely more than 1,000 in service.


----------



## Graeme (Dec 3, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> Virtually every nation that designed and manufactured aircraft in the 1930's had a twin-engined "heavy fighter" concept at one point or another.



I think we can go back even further - to 1917.

The Caudron R.11. 

Caudron R.11 - Wikipedia

Five machine guns - one ventral aiming backwards to strafe the ground. Dual controls (contributed to high morale). Fuel could be transferred from either tank and they could be jettisoned. Ground attack, reconnaissance and fighter escort.
Gunston described it "as one of the outstanding successful warplanes of its time".


----------



## swampyankee (Dec 3, 2019)

No good designer ignores anything in designing an aircraft.

On the other hand, the assumption that the Bf110 massively influenced US or British designers is just that -- an assumption -- without some sort of documentary evidence. There were quite a few twin-engined fighters designed contemporaneously with the Bf110; it was a fad. They were designed and fielded by, among others, the French and Dutch air forces. Indeed, the French Air Force had a twin-engined fighter in service in the First World War.

On that note, I continue to find it hilarious that Messerschmitt and Focke-Wulf used NACA airfoils on most of its designs. If the German engineers were so much better than anybody else, why didn't they use their own? (see The Incomplete Guide to Airfoil Usage)

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Dec 3, 2019)

michael rauls said:


> As to the p38 being inspired to some degree by the me110. I'm certainly no aeronautical engineer but aside from the number of engines these two aircraft seem about as different in design as you could get for two aircraft meant to fill even somewhat similar roles.



...and their design roles weren't that similar.


----------



## MikeMeech (Dec 3, 2019)

Hi

According to the British 'Stock Check' of aircraft on 1 June 1944, There were a total of 5,203 Spitfire V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, XII, XIV and 21. 2,350 serving in the Metropolitan Air Force, 481 with MAP. 187 in transit in UK or overseas. 2,185 overseas. Also 311 Spitfire PR types in total, 221 with Metropolitan Air Force. 18 with MAP. 72 overseas.

Spitfire fighters undergoing repair were 318 within Civilian Repair Organization, 80 under Controller Research and Development, and 52 having onsite modifications/repair. The numbers for PR versions were 14, 3 and 1. For obsolescent types still in service, Spitfire I & II there were 424 in the British Isles in RAF hands, 54 with MAP and 1 overseas.

I hope that is of interest.

Mike

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dimlee (Dec 3, 2019)

slaterat said:


> Very well but I do have problem with his numbers, lets take a look.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I see your point and I agree that we need to compare apples to apples, in this case - full "Bergrstrom's paper" and another one, as your mentioned German Quartermaster report, for reference. Otherwise, doubts remain and proper discussion is hardly possible.


----------



## Dimlee (Dec 3, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> The PE-2 was a derivative of the VI-100 high altitude escort fighter.(to escort the ANT-42/PE-8) first flown in Dec of 1939, work started when? Was modified to the light bomber/dive bomber configuration and fist flew in that form Dec 14th 1940. Since it used an internal bomb bay and the Bf 110 didn't one wonders how much of a copy it was?



I agree in principle. It was not "a copy" of Bf 110 certainly since it was designed before the Soviets got access to German aviation technology and no reference to Bf 110 influence is found (unless I miss anything) in any study of Petlyakov work.
Just to add some "trivia".
VI-100 was dual purpose from the start: escort fighter, and interceptor.
When the Red Army learned about LW combined warfare and realized the importance of Ju 87 and analysed the performance of VVS in the Winter War, some generals became obsessed with the idea of a dive bomber. At least 4 different teams were ordered to start work immediately, VI-100 was shelved not later June 1940 and eventually, Pe-2 was born. 
Petlaykov's team managed to return to VI-100 project (renamed to VI-2M 105K) around March 1941 but there was no time nor resources to develop it properly. Then, after the German invasion, twin-engine fighter projects were dropped - just to be demanded again when PVO (anti-air defence) existing fighters have demonstrated their weaknesses during first long-range LW bomber raids... Petlyakov was ordered to design interceptor modification of Pe-2 in 4 (four) days. It was called Pe-3 later. When Pe-3 production began, German troops were marching towards Moscow, VVS was in shambles and Red Army cried for as many "shturmoviks" as possible. Pe-3 was rushed to front line service as CAS aircraft. It was a probably bigger mistake than to deploy Bf 110 as bomber escorts... The rest is history.


----------



## Yiannis (Dec 3, 2019)

pbehn said:


> At which part of 1940? At the fall of France the RAF had about 250 in front line service, despite all that had been made up to then. Its main advantage was that it was easy to make and repair. Throughout the Battle of Britain a shortage of aircraft wasn't a problem, despite all S/E aircraft losses to all causes they finished with 200 more in frontline service (Spitfires and Hurricanes).



Ok, why so few in service despite all that made


----------



## pbehn (Dec 3, 2019)

Yiannis said:


> Ok, why so few in service despite all that made


 As soon as you start using them you start losing them, training and operational crashes, many were lost fighting in France and then just left in France as well as over Dunkerque. Spitfires were different, their numbers were low in Sept 1939 circa 120 in service, rose to 250 at the time France fell but by that time production had been ramped up and the new factory started up in the summer.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## eagledad (Dec 3, 2019)

Yiannis,

The attached file has the initial drawings that were considered by Hall Hibbard and Kelly Johnson, designers of the P-38. Which one of the 6 looks like a Me-110? The drawings can be found in:
“Lockheed P-38 Lightning, Production Line to Frontline”
by Michael O’ Leary page 9.

or https://p38assn.org/development.htm

FYI

Eagledad

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Stig1207 (Dec 4, 2019)

Dimlee said:


> I see your point and I agree that we need to compare apples to apples, in this case - full "Bergrstrom's paper" and another one, as your mentioned German Quartermaster report, for reference. Otherwise, doubts remain and proper discussion is hardly possible.



The German Quartermaster report figures given are 1789 operational losses of which 1385 were due to enemy action, see my earlier reply Me-110 Underrated .

As Slaterat pointed out it's odd that the exhange rates for the Spitfires and Hurricanes amount to 932 losses, but the exchange rates for the 109's and 110's are against losses of 1120 RAF fighters?!

The 780 Me 109 and 340 Me 110 victories look an _awful _lot like a 70/30 percentage split.


----------



## Yiannis (Dec 4, 2019)

The BF 110 was a pre-war aircraft designed as a heavy fighter/escort but ended up a multi-role aircraft that fought until the end.

5000 were produced, and after 200 were lost at Bob as no other aircraft could perform long range escort.

The rest 4800 excelled in all other roles such torpedo plane, naval attacker, graound attack, tank buster, dive bomber, reconnaisance, close air support, night fighter in all theatres of the War incurring heavy and numerous casualties including air kills.

It was the first of its kind, a twin engined destroyer with heavy armament and long range. Faster than hurricane or a stuka. The petlyakov dive bomber, the night fighter or naval attacker mosquito, the night fighter black widow and the ground attacker/tank buster baufighter are all different twin engined aircraft that appeared later on in the war to perform those roles that the BF 110 excelled in. 

Regardless of the the kills or no kills in Bob and the 4% loss (200) in what can be called a mistake or necessary evil considering the absence of other options to protect the day bombers, the BF 110 proved a useful aircraft to the LW both before and after Bob that inflicted heavy casualties of all sorts at a rate that ranks it high in many respects.


----------



## pbehn (Dec 4, 2019)

Yiannis said:


> The BF 110 was a pre-war aircraft designed as a heavy fighter/escort but ended up a multi-role aircraft that fought until the end.
> 
> 5000 were produced, and after 200 were lost at Bob as no other aircraft could perform long range escort.
> 
> ...


When talking about night fighter performance there are different ways to evaluate things. How did the Bf 110 do against the Mosquito in kills to losses over Germany?. What success did the Bf 110 have in dissuading the RAF from night bombing as opposed to the Beaufighter and Mosquito dissuading the LW from night bombing the UK. In the "Baby Blitz" of 1944 the LW lost 329 out of 524 aircraft while the RAF lost 24 to all causes.


----------



## Yiannis (Dec 4, 2019)

I said before that it was numbers alone that brought Germany to its knees. The German numbers attacking were too small for the defence force. On the other hand please give the casualties of the RAF night raid. And the numbers attacking and them the analogy with the defending LW force


----------



## Yiannis (Dec 4, 2019)

The Germans lost 200 BF110s and rhat was unbearable but it was ok for thousands of lancasters ro be lost...And never mind...


----------



## fubar57 (Dec 4, 2019)

?


----------



## Yiannis (Dec 4, 2019)

I hear all the time about the poor stuka that proved too slow etc as if allied bomber planes were supersonic... all bombers are slow....35,000 sturmovicks plus 10,000 il 10 sturmovicks (30,000 lost at least) were good....but the stuka (5,000 built) operated for 10 years 'proved too slow!' Yeah right


----------



## pbehn (Dec 4, 2019)

Yiannis said:


> The Germans lost 200 BF110s and rhat was unbearable but it was ok for thousands of lancasters ro be lost...And never mind...


Yes because on average losses were around 4% per raid and the UK could withstand those losses. The losses of Bf 110 were unsustainable AND they were not preventing even worse losses to the LW bombers. German bomber losses from the invasion of Poland through action in Netherlands Belgium Norway and France meant that it was a shadow of its former self, by the time it abandoned daylight operations in the BoB the LW was down to around 200 serviceable bombers and crews in theatre and in danger of being wiped out. Park was disappointed with the RAF in the raids on London, having stripped the escorts away they failed to destroy the bombers en mass, and the Bf 110 doesn't figure in the discussion.


----------



## pbehn (Dec 4, 2019)

Yiannis said:


> I hear all the time about the poor stuka that proved too slow etc as if allied bomber planes were supersonic... all bombers are slow....35,000 sturmovicks plus 10,000 il 10 sturmovicks (30,000 lost at least) were good....but the stuka (5,000 built) operated for 10 years 'proved too slow!' Yeah right


 It was withdrawn very early in the Battle of Britain because a "Stuka party" resulted in a squadron being decimated.


----------



## Yiannis (Dec 4, 2019)

pbehn said:


> Yes because on average losses were around 4% per raid and the UK could withstand those losses. The losses of Bf 110 were unsustainable AND they were not preventing even worse losses to the LW bombers. German bomber losses from the invasion of Poland through action in Netherlands Belgium Norway and France meant that it was a shadow of its former self, by the time it abandoned daylight operations in the BoB the LW was down to around 200 serviceable bombers and crews in theatre and in danger of being wiped out. Park was disappointed with the RAF in the raids on London, having stripped the escorts away they failed to destroy the bombers en mass, and the Bf 110 doesn't figure in the discussion.



Of course they could. With 600,000 planes for the allies all is possible.
But it's not convincing at all when we hear all the time that anything German proved either too bad or came too late in the war to make a difference and all those cliches used to undermine anything German as if it was quality and not quantity that brought victory to the allies.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 4, 2019)

The amount of proofs posted here for the case of Bf 110 being a great aircraft is overwhelming.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Dec 4, 2019)

Yiannis said:


> Of course they could. With 600,000 planes for the allies all is possible.
> But it's not convincing at all when we hear all the time that anything German proved either too bad or came too late in the war to make a difference and all those cliches used to undermine anything German as if it was quality and not quantity that brought victory to the allies.


 Daylight raids were unsustainable, the Wellington and Stirling (and MANY others) were withdrawn and replaced as their loss rate to bombs dropped was much worse than the Halifax and Lancaster. It was both quality and quantity, that is a fact. It is not "undermining anything German" and if you continue with this type of post I am outta here, its been done to death, please stick to facts.


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 4, 2019)

The 110 was a versatile aircraft that did perform well in a number of roles, however the list in post #201 was a real eye opener (and not in a good way0.

I am still agog at the Me 110 torpedo bomber?





Some skilled modelers plastic model doesn't count.

The Me 110 tankbuster/s?
How many and what units? 
Experimental weapons trials don't count. 
Some accounts say the 37mm gun was for attacking bombers?


The Me 110 dive bomber?
Depends on what you mean by dive I guess, but did the110 ever get dive brakes? 
They did stick dive brakes on some of the early Do 217s but they worked so well that Dornier packed alternative tail cones in the bomb bay when the planes were delivered for maintenance crews to swap the failed dive brake for. But at least they tried a dive brake. 

naval attacker? 
I am sure that the me 110 did attack some ships, so did the Avro Anson. 

Gross exaggeration and hyperbole means even true facts get lost in the noise.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
3 | Agree Agree:
2 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 4, 2019)

Now you have ruined it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Yiannis (Dec 4, 2019)

pbehn said:


> Daylight raids were unsustainable, the Wellington and Stirling (and MANY others) were withdrawn and replaced as their loss rate to bombs dropped was much worse than the Halifax and Lancaster. It was both quality and quantity, that is a fact.  It is not "undermining anything German" and if you continue with this type of post I am outta here, its been done to death, please stick to facts.



Yes it was both quality and quantity but if it were the same numbers the result would be different. That is what I am saying. I understand that this sounds bad or hostile but this is not my point. The BF 110 is being judged only by a three month period where 200 of them were lost. Any effort to show otherwise is met with mockery.

What more proof does anyone need to realise that we are talking about an aircraft that made it to the end. It made more kills as a night fighter than any other night fighter. We all know the casualty rate of the night bombers. If this is not great then ok we can compare it to the swordfish then. Yes it is underrated.


----------



## Yiannis (Dec 4, 2019)

Yiannis said:


> Yes it was both quality and quantity but if it were the same numbers the result would be different. That is what I am saying. I understand that this sounds bad or hostile but this is not my point. The BF 110 is being judged only by a three month period where 200 of them were lost. Any effort to show otherwise is met with mockery.
> 
> What more proof does anyone need to realise that we are talking about an aircraft that made it to the end. It made more kills as a night fighter than any other night fighter. We all know the casualty rate of the night bombers. If this is not great then ok we can compare it to the swordfish then. Yes it is underrated.



The Survivors: Messerschmitt Bf 110 Zerstörer


----------



## pbehn (Dec 4, 2019)

Yiannis said:


> Yes it was both quality and quantity but if it were the same numbers the result would be different. That is what I am saying. I understand that this sounds bad or hostile but this is not my point. The BF 110 is being judged only by a three month period where 200 of them were lost. Any effort to show otherwise is met with mockery.
> 
> What more proof does anyone need to realise that we are talking about an aircraft that made it to the end. It made more kills as a night fighter than any other night fighter. *We all know the casualty rate of the night bombers. *If this is not great then ok we can compare it to the swordfish then. Yes it is underrated.


Yes, the casualty rate is known, it was not unsustainable on the RAF side and half of losses were to flak. From the wiki page on Mosquito operations 

In 1943 Luftwaffe night fighters were causing serious losses by attacking the bomber streams over Germany. Consequently, the decision was taken to set up 100 Group within Bomber Command. This new Group commenced operations on 8 November 1943 under Air Cdr. E. B. Addison.[29] The Group's initial squadrons were No. 169 Squadron RAF and No. 239 Squadron RAF. Not long after, No. 141 Squadron RAF, based at RAF West Raynham, also joined them. On the night of 16/17 December, during the Battle of Berlin, one of their aircraft scored Bomber Command's first intruder success using the Serrate radar detector in a Mosquito NF.II, when they damaged a Bf 110 with cannon fire.[29][30][nb 12] No. 85 Squadron RAF was transferred to the Group on 1 May 1944, operating from RAF Swannington.[32] The top Mosquito ace of 100 Group was the distinguished Wing Commander Branse Burbridge, who made 13 claims during his time in this squadron, between 1944 and the end of the war in Europe.[33]
The 100 Group squadrons used progressively better marks of Mosquito according to their roles: NF XIXs and NF 30s were used for dedicated night fighter operations, providing escorts for the bomber streams; F Mk IIs and FB Mk VIs were used for "Flower" operations (patrolling enemy airfields ahead of the main stream and bombing to keep enemy night fighters on the ground as well as attacking night fighters in the landing pattern) and "Mahmoud" operations, in which, operating independently of bomber stream activity, the squadrons flew to assembly points for German night fighters and attacked them there. B Mk IVs and PR Mk XVIs were used for Electronic Intelligence (ELINT) operations, aiming to detect German radar and radio transmissions.
Some 258 Luftwaffe night fighters were claimed by the Group, for the loss of some 70 Mosquitos. The omnipresence of the potent night fighter threat led to what the Luftwaffe crews dubbed "Moskitoschreck" (Mosquito terror), since the German aircrews were never sure when or where they might come under attack. Indirectly this led to a high proportion of enemy aircraft and crew losses from crashes as night fighters hurried in to land to avoid the Mosquito threat, whether real or imagined.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Yiannis (Dec 4, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> The 110 was a versatile aircraft that did perform well in a number of roles, however the list in post #201 was a real eye opener (and not in a good way0.
> 
> I am still agog at the Me 110 torpedo bomber?
> View attachment 562749
> ...



You are right about the torpedo. Only drawings found, it needed a third engine.

In ground attack role especially in the eastern front it should have bombed or rocketed or gunned tanks too I suppose


----------



## pbehn (Dec 4, 2019)

Yiannis said:


> You are right about the torpedo. Only drawings found, it needed a third engine.
> 
> In ground attack role especially in the eastern front it should have bombed or rocketed or gunned tanks too I suppose




To me, as a plane it should be judged on how it did as designed up to 1941 which is generally favourable. After that it was put on a back burner. expecting great things of the 210, when the 210 wasn't a success the Bf 110 was pushed and stretched to do jobs mainly in the absence of anything better. it isn't being universally "dissed" here, but it was what it was.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Dec 4, 2019)

Yiannis said:


> Faster than hurricane or a stuka.



That's not saying much, the Avro Lancaster had a higher cruise and maximum speed than the Stuka.



Yiannis said:


> It was the first of its kind, a twin engined destroyer with heavy armament and long range.



This is true, it was an excellent and adaptable design built to a flawed requirement. Not surprisingly the Zerstorergruppen didn't last much longer after the BoB and the units were repurposed as night fighters, although the Pulk-Zerstorer (formation breaker) concept of disrupting USAAF bomber formations had merit, the Bf 110 was outclassed by the escort fighters. It is worth mentioning that its continued use, exemplary as it was, was because its intended replacement did not manifest into a good fighting machine. Goring once quipped that his headstone should read "he would have lived longer but for the Me 210!"

Bf 110 survivors:




Europe 270 

The Deutsches Technic Museum, Berlin.




Bf 110 

RAF Museum, Hendon.




Bf 110 Schnaufer 

Australian War Memorial.




Bf 110 Hess

And this engine not mentioned on the page you linked to, the other engine from Hess's Bf 110 is at Scotland's National Museum of Flight at East Fortune.

These are all my own images. Somewhere I have a 35mm print I took of Hess' Bf 110 fuselage at IWM Lambeth, but its hidden itself away somewhere.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Dec 4, 2019)

Yiannis said:


> You are right about the torpedo. Only drawings found, it needed a third engine.
> 
> In ground attack role especially in the eastern front it should have bombed or rocketed or gunned tanks too I suppose



It "_should have_" and you "*SUPPOSE*"?

Man you make a lot of blanket statements like this without any hard data to back them up, that's not really going to fly around here (not to mention that it's getting tiresome), we don't "suppose" much on this board.

In case you haven't noticed (and it seems you haven't) these fellows are attempting in a nice way to educate you with some fairly definitive data and all you're doing is making stale pronouncements like what you've just said is irrefutable and we can all move on because you've "educated" us on the correct points of history and the matter is closed.

I hate to break it to you but that's not happening.

According to you it seems we've all been duped by Allied propaganda into thinking that rather mediocre equipment of the Allies simply overwhelmed their far superior Nazi counterparts by sheer numbers alone. Sorry, the truth proves otherwise, and so far you've provided absolutely NO proof to the contrary.

In closing, I will adhere to the forums rules re: politics and not even touch upon your lunatic statements vis a vis racism made earlier in the thread.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 4, 2019)

> It was the first of it's kind...


And so was the Fw57 and Hs124.

Then, by 1938 (since the Bf110 was so amazing) the RLM wanted to replace it - enter the Me210 and Ar240.

But let's not allow facts to get in the way of a good story...please, carry on.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## rochie (Dec 4, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> That's not saying much, the Avro Lancaster had a higher cruise and maximum speed than the Stuka.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The fuselage was at Duxford last time i saw it about 3 years ago


----------



## GregP (Dec 4, 2019)

When the "Battle of Britain" was joined, the Germans embarked upon that campaign with 237 serviceable Bf 110s. In the course of the battle (generally September through October/November), they lost 223. Also, they produced a few during the months of the campaign, so the total available was always inching up by a bit at a time.

I don't care who you are, that is not a 4% loss rate, and that is NOT the way losses in a battle or campaign are calculated. They are calculated based on the number of aircraft available as a percent of force, and as the number of losses divided by the number of sorties if you really want a picture of the campaign. Aircraft lost to enemy aircraft are air-to-air losses in combat. Aircraft lost to flak are lost to AAC (anti-aircraft). Losses due to mechanical issues, running out of fuel, test flights, etc are operational losses.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Dec 4, 2019)

GregP said:


> I don't care who you are, that is not a 4% loss rate, and that is NOT the way losses in a battle or campaign are calculated. .


I mentioned a 4% loss rate as it was around tha maximum BC could withstand long term for bomber missions, dunno how it got woven into the Bf110 story.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Dec 4, 2019)

Hi pbehn,

Definitely not aimed in your direction. Just sort of thinking on the keyboard ...


----------



## pbehn (Dec 4, 2019)

GregP said:


> Hi pbehn,
> 
> Definitely not aimed in your direction. Just sort of thinking on the keyboard ...


I think I assumed an understanding that wasn't there.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Dec 4, 2019)

Anyhoo.....anyone know about this book.....





​It's an oldish book, 1961. Just curious if its dated. Lots of great reviews and at 560 pages it looks pretty comprehensive. What I am interested in is the 2nd half of this book which might have some thoughts on the 110. One review....

"About half of this book is an overall view of the battle not too different from others but still very interesting. The other half is a day by day report of the battle, i.e. On this day, weather partly clouded, 100 German planes attacked at 5 pm. crossing the coast at Hastings, met by two squadrons of Spitfires and two squadrons of Hurricanes, the planes that survived the attacks bombed East London causing damage to a whiskey warehouse that burned all night, the RAF said that they shot down 48 German planes with a loss of twelve RAF planes killing 5 RAF pilots, the Germans said they lost 9 planes but shot down 26 British fighters, after the war the Germans daily reports said that 22 German planes were shot down.
More detail than you thought you wanted to know, but fascinating to see how much fighting was really going on."

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 4, 2019)

Yiannis said:


> It was _the first of its kind_, a twin engined destroyer with heavy armament and long range.



It was NOT the first of it's kind as shown by several earlier posts.
I also mentioned that the Potez 630 flew one month before the Bf 110. If you want to disregard the much older airplanes. 




Engines were around 580-700hp each (110 used Jimo 210s of about the same power) and the French Aircraft used two 20mm cannon in the bottom of the fuselage (or in gondolas) 
Since the 20mm guns it used were considerably more powerful than the 20mm guns in the 110 perhaps it can be forgiven not having any machine guns in the nose. 
Some later versions got four 7.5mm machine guns add under the wings but since they never fitted better engines than the small radials performance was lacking by 1939/40. 

The twin engine multi seat fighter (or ???) combat plane was a concept that was written about fairly often in the period between the wars. It was much loved by theorists. But few, if any, air forces had the experience to show that the concept was flawed.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 4, 2019)

An often overlooked heavy fighter that was developed about the same time as it's European contemporaries, is the Bell YFM-1 (which first flew mid-37).

It was intended to be a heavy fighter/interceptor...although it's performance did not meet expectations - but again, the 1930's was an age of untested theories.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 4, 2019)

And even before the Bf 110...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 5, 2019)

I think the Bf 110 was influenced by this!!!


----------



## michael rauls (Dec 5, 2019)

Just an aside thought about the heavy fighter concept. There may be an aircraft I'm overlooking at the moment but as best I can think the p38 was the only twin engine fighter of the war to meet with substantial success in it's intended role as a fighter.
I think this speaks well of it's design as it overcame drawbacks apparently inherent in a multi engine fighter using technology of the time.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Yiannis (Dec 5, 2019)




----------



## Yiannis (Dec 5, 2019)




----------



## Yiannis (Dec 5, 2019)




----------



## Yiannis (Dec 5, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> And even before the Bf 110...
> 
> View attachment 562786


Not in service, not operational, zero kills..same for other prototypes


----------



## Yiannis (Dec 5, 2019)

Shortround6 said:


> It was NOT the first of it's kind as shown by several earlier posts.
> I also mentioned that the Potez 630 flew one month before the Bf 110. If you want to disregard the much older airplanes.
> View attachment 562772
> 
> ...



Zero kills, not in service, not operational


----------



## Yiannis (Dec 5, 2019)

ErprGr 210 (2 Aces with 15 Victories)
ZG 2 (1 Ace with 6 Victories)
ZG 26 (11 Aces with 81 Victories)
ZG 76 (6 Aces with 59 Victories)

Victories among Bf110 aces: 15 + 6 + 81 + 59 = 161 victories

I 'suppose' there must have been many other kills by non ace status pilots.


----------



## swampyankee (Dec 5, 2019)

Yiannis said:


> Not in service, not operational, zero kills..same for other prototypes


Right. They're _prototypes_ of a nation _not at war. _ They weren't produced because they weren't considered useful enough to justify the expenditure. Rather obviously, an aircraft in service in a peacetime air force isn't going to get kills. 

This does not mean that other air forces weren't influenced by the idea, maybe even producing thousands of aircraft inspired by the prototype. Aircraft designers and air force leaders didn't-- and don't-- operate in isolation.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Yiannis (Dec 5, 2019)

GregP said:


> When the "Battle of Britain" was joined, the Germans embarked upon that campaign with 237 serviceable Bf 110s. In the course of the battle (generally September through October/November), they lost 223. Also, they produced a few during the months of the campaign, so the total available was always inching up by a bit at a time.
> 
> I don't care who you are, that is not a 4% loss rate, and that is NOT the way losses in a battle or campaign are calculated. They are calculated based on the number of aircraft available as a percent of force, and as the number of losses divided by the number of sorties if you really want a picture of the campaign. Aircraft lost to enemy aircraft are air-to-air losses in combat. Aircraft lost to flak are lost to AAC (anti-aircraft). Losses due to mechanical issues, running out of fuel, test flights, etc are operational losses.



The 4% was mentioned by me initially when I said that the 200 bf110 lost in bob account for 4% of bf 110 production therefore a very small percentage rate and period to judge an aircraft that served almost a decade and fought till the end of the war inflicting numerous casualties if many sorts and excelling in other roles.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Yiannis (Dec 5, 2019)

swampyankee said:


> Right. They're _prototypes_ of a nation _not at war. _ They weren't produced because they weren't considered useful enough to justify the expenditure. Rather obviously, an aircraft in service in a peacetime air force isn't going to get kills.
> 
> This does not mean that other air forces weren't influenced by the idea, maybe even producing thousands of aircraft inspired by the prototype. Aircraft designers and air force leaders didn't-- and don't-- operate in isolation.



How does what you say prove me wrong. We are talking about an aircraft with air kills and aces. We are talking about an aircraft that came into service and did operate and was the first of it's kind to do so and then other air forces who were initially skeptic, as you admit, decided to follow and fund their own designs.


----------



## fubar57 (Dec 5, 2019)

Add to your 4% loss this one month battle

At the beginning of Operation Blau, on 28 June 1942, the Luftflotte 4 has 86 operational Zerstorers including fifteen Bf 110 which performed reconnaissance duties in three units – 3.(H)/31, 3.(H)/11 and 7.(H)/LG 2; the remaining 71 examples served on ZG1 and ZG2. Only one month later, ZG 1 and ZG 2 had lost 31 Bf 110s (all to Soviet fighters), plus five more of the recce units to the same cause. As a result, ZG 2 was disbanded, and all its surviving aircraft were transferred to ZG 1


----------



## Yiannis (Dec 5, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> Add to your 4% loss this one month battle
> 
> At the beginning of Operation Blau, on 28 June 1942, the Luftflotte 4 has 86 operational Zerstorers including fifteen Bf 110 which performed reconnaissance duties in three units – 3.(H)/31, 3.(H)/11 and 7.(H)/LG 2; the remaining 71 examples served on ZG1 and ZG2. Only one month later, ZG 1 and ZG 2 had lost 31 Bf 110s (all to Soviet fighters), plus five more of the recce units to the same cause. As a result, ZG 2 was disbanded, and all its surviving aircraft were transferred to ZG 1



The Russians lost more aircraft than the Germans ever made


----------



## fubar57 (Dec 5, 2019)

.....and your point is, regarding about a 45% loss in one month?


----------



## Yiannis (Dec 5, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> .....and your point is, regarding about a 45% loss in one month?



Mate there were single days where more b-17s were lost that all BF 110 in bob...


----------



## fubar57 (Dec 5, 2019)

You seem to like to avoid responding directly when called upon and change the subject. Many of the losses mentioned above were to the Lagg-3. Not the best Soviet fighter but the best they had at the time, mate

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Yiannis (Dec 5, 2019)




----------



## Yiannis (Dec 5, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> You seem to like to avoid responding directly when called upon and change the subject. Many of the losses mentioned above were to the Lagg-3. Not the best Soviet fighter but the best they had at the time, mate



You look at the tree, I look at the forest


----------



## Yiannis (Dec 5, 2019)

Yiannis said:


> You look at the tree, I look at the forest


 
I don't need to find examples of how 100,000 Russian aircraft were destroyed to match a tiny detail with which you attempt to I don't know what really.


----------



## Yiannis (Dec 5, 2019)

The sturmovick is said to be a great aircraft yet the it had the greatest loss rate than any German plane.


----------



## pbehn (Dec 5, 2019)

Yiannis said:


> Mate there were single days where more b-17s were lost that all BF 110 in bob...


They suffered unsustainable losses and changed what they were doing and what they were doing it with. Most air engagements were like that, the object being to inflict losses to make the other side give up. There were more Mosquitos and more Beaufighters produced by UK and commonwealth than Bf 110s. The discussion is descending into whataboutery.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 5, 2019)

Yiannis said:


> Zero kills, not in service, not operational



How does that change the fact that it flew before the 110 and therefore could not be a copy of it? 

You might also want to do a bit of research before you make such statements.

I don't know about the kills but they built about 80 of 630 version and more (at least 40) of the 631 version (Gnome-Rhone engines). If not in service what did they do with them? park them? They issued them to squadrons and groups, they flew as night fighters over the 1939-40 winter although, like most night fighters, they scored very few (if any) kills because they had no radar (Nobody else did at this time). 

So, in service and operational. 

The Germans did not invent the concept of a heavy fighter and vast bulk of the heavy fighters of the late 30s and early 40s were NOT copied from the Bf 110.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 5, 2019)

Yiannis said:


> fought till the end of the war inflicting numerous casualties if many sorts and_ excelling in other roles_.


I would note that gun armed anti-tank was not one of the roles it excelled in. The 110C-6 with the 30, MK 101 gun was only issued to one unit and may not have been the units sole equipement. No further C-6s were made. The 110 with 37mm gun was, _at best_, service trialed against the Russians. It was disliked and did not enter production.


----------



## Yiannis (Dec 5, 2019)

pbehn said:


> They suffered unsustainable losses and changed what they were doing and what they were doing it with. Most air engagements were like that, the object being to inflict losses to make the other side give up. There were more Mosquitos and more Beaufighters produced by UK and commonwealth than Bf 110s. The discussion is descending into whataboutery.



Sustaining hyundai losses does not the BMW worse


----------



## fubar57 (Dec 5, 2019)

Great response, mate. Again straying from the topic when things go sideways for you

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Dec 5, 2019)

Yiannis said:


> Sustaining hyundai losses does not the BMW worse


In the BoB the Bf 110 is not the topic of discussion, the topic is the LW bomber force it was supposed to protect. The losses of bombers AND Bf110s were unsustainable and so the LW gave up. As a bomber force the LW was at its peak before the Battle of France and despite all war time production it never regained that strength.


----------



## eagledad (Dec 5, 2019)

Yiannis said:


> Mate there were single days where more b-17s were lost that all BF 110 in bob...


Please tell me what day that was.

Eagledad

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 5, 2019)

Yiannis said:


> How does what you say prove me wrong. We are talking about an aircraft with air kills and aces. We are talking about an aircraft that came into service and did operate and was the first of it's kind to do so and then other air forces who were initially skeptic, as you admit, decided to follow and fund their own designs.



Again it was the NOT the first of it's kind and since it takes around two years from putting pencil to paper (there are exceptions) to first flight and another one to two years to got from first flight to service use *NO* multi seat twin engine heavy fighter that saw use in the late 30s or early 40s was a copy of the 110, they were not even inspired by the 110.
They were _concurrent _developments. Of which there were a lot of during the 30s and 40s.

The 110 was not revealed to the world until Sept of 1938 so getting anything copied from or inspired by it would take another few years.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Dec 5, 2019)

Yiannis said:


> Sustaining hyundai losses does not the BMW worse





eagledad said:


> Please tell me what day that was.
> 
> Eagledad


Possibly the day the Luftwaffe released its new Hyundai engined Fw 190s

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Dec 5, 2019)

Yiannis said:


> Mate there were single days where more b-17s were lost that all BF 110 in bob...


And which days were those? See there you go again with those BS blanket statements that I'm sure you think just ended the argument.

Here mate, since research and facts seem to be either alien or just hard for you:
‘Black Thursday’: The bleakest day for U.S. Army Air Forces in World War II > Maxwell Air Force Base > Display

60 by the way

How many 110's were lost in the BoB again?

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Dec 5, 2019)

Peter Gunn said:


> How many 110's were lost in the BoB again?




according to the latest figures......................................................59

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Dec 5, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> Add to your 4% loss this one month battle
> 
> At the beginning of Operation Blau, on 28 June 1942, the Luftflotte 4 has 86 operational Zerstorers including fifteen Bf 110 which performed reconnaissance duties in three units – 3.(H)/31, 3.(H)/11 and 7.(H)/LG 2; the remaining 71 examples served on ZG1 and ZG2. Only one month later, ZG 1 and ZG 2 had lost 31 Bf 110s (all to Soviet fighters), plus five more of the recce units to the same cause. As a result, ZG 2 was disbanded, and all its surviving aircraft were transferred to ZG 1


Ouch.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 5, 2019)

Yiannis said:


> Not in service, not operational, zero kills..same for other prototypes


It was still flying years before the Bf 110 with a similar role. The fact that it never saw combat is irrelevant.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 5, 2019)

Yiannis said:


> The Russians lost more aircraft than the Germans ever made


Again you seem to deflect facts when someone shows you're wrong!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 5, 2019)

Yiannis said:


> Mate there were single days where more b-17s were lost that all BF 110 in bob...


This thread is not about the B-17

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Dec 5, 2019)

Strange, I went back to the first page of this three (3) year old thread, and nowhere do I see any of us saying the Bf 110 was "bad"... "slow"... "useless" or any really disparaging remarks about it.

In fact, everyone here was remarking on what it did accomplish and how good it was considering how times and tactics had changed. What I read was a universal respect for a very fine looking/performing aircraft whose concept was flawed but still was adaptable to different missions as needed.

Why some numb nuts chooses to make an argument where there really wasn't any is beyond me.

My maternal grandfather was an alcoholic and when drunk... well... mean. One of the best pieces of advice my mother gave me was "Never argue with a drunkard, it's useless"

Now I'm not saying anyone here is hitting the sauce while typing but the effect is the same as if they were. Some people refuse to give up long cherished beliefs because they "Know" they are right and facts be damned.

_*I've noticed no response to my (as well as others) insertion of some pesky "Facts" into areas of this argument, to me that means only one thing.*_

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
3 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Admiral Beez (Dec 5, 2019)

Peter Gunn said:


> Some people refuse to give up long cherished beliefs because they "Know" they are right and facts be damned.


Much of the online forum community on all subject matters seeks only an echo chamber, IMO. They're not on a forum to be open to different POVs, but only to espouse their own and to receive kudos from those that agree, and to attack and belittle those that don't. It's the same mind as the threadjacker, who intentionally takes an ongoing discussion off topic or provokes personal exchanges that should be PMs.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 5, 2019)

Admiral Beez said:


> Much of the online forum community on all subject matters seeks only an echo chamber, IMO. They're not on a forum to be open to different POVs, but only to espouse their own and to receive kudos from those that agree, and to attack and belittle those that don't. It's the same mind as the threadjacker, who intentionally takes an ongoing discussion off topic or provokes personal exchanges that should be PMs.



Good point but lets not let the hard facts get in the way either!


----------



## swampyankee (Dec 5, 2019)

Yiannis said:


> How does what you say prove me wrong. We are talking about an aircraft with air kills and aces. We are talking about an aircraft that came into service and did operate and was the first of it's kind to do so and then other air forces who were initially skeptic, as you admit, decided to follow and fund their own designs.



What you said also proves absolutely nothing about the prototype aircraft. The only thing it says is that the Bf110 was not a completely novel idea, as others had tried the same concept before.

The idea the B110 being so novel, all other twin-engined heavy fighters were inspired by it has been shown false.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## javlin (Dec 5, 2019)

Peter Gunn said:


> Strange, I went back to the first page of this three (3) year old thread, and nowhere do I see any of us saying the Bf 110 was "bad"... "slow"... "useless" or any really disparaging remarks about it.
> 
> In fact, everyone here was remarking on what it did accomplish and how good it was considering how times and tactics had changed. What I read was a universal respect for a very fine looking/performing aircraft whose concept was flawed but still was adaptable to different missions as needed.
> 
> ...


I see 11 pages which I only read up to 11 now page 14 of someone wishing to write a new rendition of what they think history ought to be........

Reactions: Winner Winner:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 5, 2019)

Like I mentioned earlier, the Bf110 wasn't the first heavy fighter AND it was the result of a request by the RLM for a "kampfzerstorer", of which there were three submissions that the Bf110 was chosen from.
The other two were the Fw57 and Hs124.

I also keep seeing the Bf110 as being suggested as being unique because it saw combat - but the Potez 630 was used in combat and was the same age

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Dec 5, 2019)

FLYBOYJ said:


> And even before the Bf 110...
> 
> View attachment 562786


I admit that at first glance it really looked like a Ki46 to me, just a bit smaller

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (Dec 5, 2019)

Yiannis said:


> You look at the tree, I look at the forest



Someone's been at the kool aid again... Looks to me like y'all might be wasting your time arguing with this guy.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Airframes (Dec 5, 2019)

Yep, sick of all this b*llocks anyway.
Would be good as a Hollywood screenplay writer - never let the facts get in the way of a good story !

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Dec 5, 2019)

nuuumannn said:


> Someone's been at the kool aid again... Looks to me like y'all might be wasting your time arguing with this guy.


Had him pegged as a troll many posts ago

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 5, 2019)



Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Funny Funny:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Dec 5, 2019)

Yiannis said:


> Mate there were single days where more b-17s were lost that all BF 110 in bob...



I'm not sure if 60 is the biggest single day loss of B-17s for the 8th AF, but in terms of loss rate that was quite high (>20%), as was the August Schweinfurt/Regensburg raid.

Similar numbers were lost on some raids in early 1944, the big difference was that the 8th AF sent 1,000+ B-17s instead of around 300.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Dec 6, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> Had him pegged as a troll many posts ago


Wait...you're supposed to be the troll!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Dec 6, 2019)

fubar57 said:


> Had him pegged as a troll many posts ago



Takes one to...

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Csch605 (Dec 6, 2019)

Zipper730 said:


> I remember something by Captain BrGreat sucess from 193& to 1940 then bust. Some kown which stated that the Me-110 got a bad rap and had it been used right it would have been impressive.
> 
> In what way?


----------



## swampyankee (Dec 6, 2019)

Admiral Beez said:


> Much of the online forum community on all subject matters seeks only an echo chamber, IMO. They're not on a forum to be open to different POVs, but only to espouse their own and to receive kudos from those that agree, and to attack and belittle those that don't. It's the same mind as the threadjacker, who intentionally takes an ongoing discussion off topic or provokes personal exchanges that should be PMs.



Frequently -- nearly always -- xkcd has something relevant:




https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## tyrodtom (Dec 6, 2019)

This forum needs a comedy section.
The last 10 pages of this thread would fit right in.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Dec 6, 2019)

GrauGeist said:


> Wait...you're supposed to be the troll!





Peter Gunn said:


> Takes one to...

Reactions: Funny Funny:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Dec 7, 2019)

The Bf 110 was a VERY clever ploy to influence future history by making some argue in circles rather than get anything done. Perhaps it was really quite a clever propaganda tool?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Dec 9, 2019)

GregP said:


> The Bf 110 was a VERY clever ploy to influence future history by making some argue in circles rather than get anything done. Perhaps it was really quite a clever propaganda tool?



Mein Gott!!! And we fell for it hook line and sinker...

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Barrett (Dec 12, 2019)

"Ignore this space."

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Dec 12, 2019)

Barrett said:


> We dealt with the subject during my tenure as secretary of the fighter aces assn. (I unknowingly started the lasting feud between Lanphier & everybody else when I told him of the USAF study that reallocated victory credits for the Yamamoto mission. Short version: Rex did it.) Anyway, we considered comparing the WW I aces' records (we still had some in the 80s) with WW II, etc but decided it wouldn't work: avocados to coconuts with entirely different standards and criteria including "moral victories".) FWIW, I computed that the median score of all US aces was in the high 7 range, which meant that if there was a 50% error in crediting victories (easily within range) then our 1,400+ aces of all wars would automatically be cut in half. Nonetheless as this extensive thread demonstrates, it remains a topic of enduring interest.


 Wrong thread?


----------



## Barrett (Dec 12, 2019)

pbehn said:


> Wrong thread?


Yup, realized too late I couldn't delete the entire post,but have left it blank. What I get for having 2 screens open!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## John Vasco (Jun 19, 2020)

Interesting thread to catch up on...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## John Vasco (Jun 19, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> *1. The Me 110 tankbuster/s?*
> How many and what units?
> 
> *2. The Me 110 dive bomber?*
> ...



1. Schnellkampfgeschwader 210 & Zerstörergeschwader 1 against the Soviet Union. Look it up, there is a book about those two units...

2. Erprobungsgruppe 210 always attacked in a shallow dive. No dive brakes, and used the standard gunsight with an 'angle of dive' painted on the side cockpit window. Look it up, there is a book about this unit...

3. From 13th July 1940 to the start of the campaign against land targets in England on 12th August, Erprobungsgruppe 210 carried out attacks on shipping around the East Coast of England. Check out the book mentioned in 'Point 2'...

No gross exaggeration, hyperbole, and noise, just true facts.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 19, 2020)

John Vasco said:


> 3. From 13th July 1940 to the start of the campaign against land targets in England on 12th August, Erprobungsgruppe 210 carried out attacks on shipping around the East Coast of England. Check out the book mentioned in 'Point 2'...
> 
> No gross exaggeration, hyperbole, and noise, just true facts.


Covered very well in "The Most Dangerous Enemy" by Bungay. Erprobungsgruppe 210 showed promising results but had little effect on the battle, too little too late.


----------



## John Vasco (Jun 19, 2020)

pbehn said:


> Covered very well in "The Most Dangerous Enemy" by Bungay. Erprobungsgruppe 210 showed promising results but had little effect on the battle, too little too late.



Oh I covered it very well before Stephen, trust me...

Too little, *too late*? Are you sure?


----------



## pbehn (Jun 19, 2020)

John Vasco said:


> Oh I covered it very well before Stephen, trust me...
> 
> Too little, *too late*? Are you sure?


Of course, we are posting in English. The Me110 was batted out of the game, whatever EPG 210 did had absolutely no effect on the course of the battle. What is the title of your book?


----------



## Zipper730 (Jun 19, 2020)

Regarding the performance of the Bf 110C: If I recall it had a top-speed around 340-350 mph. What was the typical cruise-speed used in combat, the power on/off stall, the maximum normal rated g-load, and CL Max figures?

I'm also curious as to what the range figures were -- I've gotten conflicting range figures and I can't tell if these differences are based on drop tanks or not.



 John Vasco
, 

 Laurelix
, 
P
 pbehn
, 
S
 stona
, 

 swampyankee


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 19, 2020)

pbehn said:


> What is the title of your book?




*"Messerschmitt Bf 110: Bombsights Over England"*

I will stand by my comments made to the other person posting. 

Many aircraft had small numbers used in experimental combat trials. Likewise all manner of aircraft could drop bombs in an attack while descending fairly quickly (shallow dive) this did not make them "dive bombers" although I will admit that the definition of "dive bomber" is a little loose. 
The Wellington was cleared to drop bombs while diving at 50 degrees without the bombs hitting the aircraft on the way out, doesn't make it a dive bomber though  

A lot of German planes were used for attacks on shipping, many of the He 111s fitted with a 20mm gun in either the nose or front of the gondola/bathtub were used for "shipping" attacks. 

I happen to think the Bf 110 was a bit under rated by most people and part of it's worth was it's adaptability to some roles it was not originally intended for. However the poster most of us were disagreeing with seemed to think the 110 was the greatest thing since cold beer and sliced bread together.


----------



## Snautzer01 (Jun 20, 2020)

John Vasco has writen books about the Me110. I have a few. Trust me if i say, he is the leading expert on this subject.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## John Vasco (Jun 20, 2020)

pbehn said:


> Of course, we are posting in English. The Me110 was batted out of the game, whatever EPG 210 did had absolutely no effect on the course of the battle. What is the title of your book?



I posted this: "...Too little, *too late*? Are you sure?..."
Is the 13th July 1940 too late? That's when Erprobungsgruppe 210 carried out its first mission during the Battle of Britain. Too late - I don't understand what you mean. And of course, we are posting in English, given that it my first language.

The Me 110 wasn't batted out of the game. If you examine the losses of the Spitfire, Hurricane, Bf 109 and Bf 110, you will see that all four fighters battered the hell out of their opponents during the Battle. The losses of each ran into hundreds. Yet the 109 appears to get a 'free pass' despite the fact it got knocked down in massive numbers during the Battle. Truth be told, it was no more effective in protecting the Lw bombers than the 110. When you tie the 109 & 110, capable of 350 m.p.h., to close escort to bombers flying at around 200 m.p.h. (less into a headwind), while opposing fighters have no such speed constraint, those 109s and 110s are going to suffer losses they would otherwise not have had, had they been free to range ahead of the bombers at combat speed to intercept the intercepting RAF fighters.

I would suggest that the decisions of those higher up than unit level resulted in the Lw having no effect on the ultimate course of the Battle. 210's raids on the RDF stations on 12th August (when 3 were initially knocked out for some hours) should have been followed up with consistent attacks to wipe them out completely, but those higher up the chain decided not to do so. 210 was almost certainly the main protagonist in having Manston turned into an emergency landing ground by 24th August.

One can argue that whatever ANY LW unit did had no effect on the course of the Battle, for the simple reason that we won.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jun 20, 2020)

I don't think the Bf110 was underrated; it, like almost all twin-engined fighters of its era was not effective in fighter-vs-fighter combat, but it was _and reported to be_ effective in other roles. A more frequent problem with non-expert opinions on _Luftwaffe_ aircraft is that they're _*over*-_rated. Part of this is simply post-war propaganda exaggerating the danger of nazi Germany (as if it wasn't dangerous enough); part is post-war apologists who want to push the "Allies won by brute force and ignorance" meme. 

There may be as many as three _Luftwaffe_ aircraft that are under-rated: the Hs.123, Hs.129, and the He.219. The Bf.110 is not one of them.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 20, 2020)

All in all, I learn a lot from reviewing threads like these. When you guys try to educate the “un-educatable” I pick up a lot of knowledge without having to flaunt my ignorance.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Vincenzo (Jun 20, 2020)

IDK is the Bf 110 was underrated or overrated, but i know that it was a good fighter until 1941, they could fight with most of fighters they encountered, only v/s a very few it's in clear inferiority but is not hopeless. Take in the count the world was full of old fighters, some were 200s mph, and a 350 mph Bf 110 not need to dogfighting for get result, like as the US fighters in late war don't need dogfighting with the Zero and the Ki 43.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 20, 2020)

Seems like Bf 110C (engine DB 601A) was good for 326 mph per some German data (link, link).
Loss of one Bf 110 was twice as 'painful' for Luftwaffe logistics as it will be a loss of one Bf 109. Or, if the Bf 110 can't have a twice as favorable exchange ratio as Bf 109 during the BoB, it's a worse fighter than Bf 109.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jun 20, 2020)

tomo pauk said:


> Seems like Bf 110C (engine DB 601A) was good for 326 mph per some German data (link, link).
> Loss of one Bf 110 was twice as 'painful' for Luftwaffe logistics as it will be a loss of one Bf 109. Or, if the Bf 110 can't have a twice as favorable exchange ratio as Bf 109 during the BoB, it's a worse fighter than Bf 109.



maybe i've in mind data for a late variant with DB 601N (P) or E (F), however 325 mph is not few, (this are for combat&climb power? this deutsch...)


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 20, 2020)

Vincenzo said:


> maybe i've in mind data for a late variant with DB 601N (P) or E (F), however 325 mph is not few, (this are for combat&climb power? this deutsch...)



See the data sheet. Max speed was attained on 2x1025 PS - best power at critical altitude.


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 20, 2020)

Vincenzo said:


> IDK is the Bf 110 was underrated or overrated, but i know that it was a good fighter until 1941, they could fight with most of fighters they encountered, only v/s a very few it's in clear inferiority but is not hopeless. Take in the count the world was full of old fighters, some were 200s mph, and a 350 mph Bf 110 not need to dogfighting for get result, like as the US fighters in late war don't need dogfighting with the Zero and the Ki 43.


If you compare the Hurricane with the Me 110, they're fairly evenly matched. The Me 110 must boom and zoom, the Hurricane dogfight.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## John Vasco (Jun 20, 2020)

tomo pauk said:


> Or, if the Bf 110 can't have a twice as favorable exchange ratio as Bf 109 during the BoB, it's a worse fighter than Bf 109.



I'm still trying to find the logical premise path of this.

I fear I never will...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 20, 2020)

John Vasco said:


> I'm still trying to find the logical premise path of this.
> 
> I fear I never will...



It is really simple. You tell me what to post and I will post it. 
Really simple, I'm telling you.


----------



## Denniss (Jun 20, 2020)

Chart is marked as prelimnary
Speed is given for 5 min rated engine power
It's possible the chart is for the old DB 601A with 4km rated alt as the 4.5km is stated as "mit Stauerhöhung" (with rammed air effect).
A 4.5km-rated DB 601A on a Bf 110 would lead to max speed achieved at an alt above rated alt due to rating being with static air.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 20, 2020)

Denniss said:


> Chart is marked as prelimnary
> Speed is given for 5 min rated engine power
> It's possible the chart is for the old DB 601A with 4km rated alt as the 4.5km is stated as "mit Stauerhöhung" (with rammed air effect).
> A 4.5km-rated DB 601A on a Bf 110 would lead to max speed achieved at an alt above rated alt due to rating being with static air.



Thank you.
FWIW, Mankau & Petrick give 530 km/h for the Bf 110C, and, for the Bf 110F-2, 570 km/h (engine DB 601E).


----------



## John Vasco (Jun 20, 2020)

tomo pauk said:


> It is really simple. You tell me what to post and I will post it.
> Really simple, I'm telling you.



So, you lose a 109, you lose a pilot.
You lose a 110, you lose a pilot. You lose a Bordfunker as well.

Now, show me the mathmatical calculation that proves your theory of "...if the Bf 110 can't have a twice as favorable exchange ratio as Bf 109 during the BoB, it's a worse fighter than Bf 109...", when the consideration of the performance of an aircraft type versus another aircraft type is in how the two actually perform against laid-down criteria. Is it not? The VARIABLE is the quality and ability of the pilot.

As I posted previously, all four of the main fighters in the BoB battered the hell out of their opponents. The loss figures prove that. Furthermore, a damaged engine in a 109 usually meant they had to come down in England or risk ending up in the Channel. A damaged engine on a 110 meant on many occasions that the pilot got back to France on one good engine. I can provide you with examples if you wish...


----------



## swampyankee (Jun 20, 2020)

John Vasco said:


> I'm still trying to find the logical premise path of this.
> 
> I fear I never will...



I’m thinking it revolves around the fact that the Bf110 had twice as many engines and significantly greater empty weight than the Bf109.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 20, 2020)

John Vasco said:


> So, you lose a 109, you lose a pilot.
> You lose a 110, you lose a pilot. You lose a Bordfunker as well.
> 
> Now, show me the mathmatical calculation that proves your theory of "...if the Bf 110 can't have a twice as favorable exchange ratio as Bf 109 during the BoB, it's a worse fighter than Bf 109...", when the consideration of the performance of an aircraft type versus another aircraft type is in how the two actually perform against laid-down criteria. Is it not? The VARIABLE is the quality and ability of the pilot.
> ...



A fellow member is right on the money in the post #310 - Germany/RLM invested twice the number of engines, cooling systems, propellers and raw pounds worth of airframes to make Bf 110 vs. how much they invested in Bf 109. It will took more to train a fighter pilot for a 2-engined aircraft than for a 1-engined aircraft. The 2-engined aircraft will use twice as much fuel than it will the 1-engined aircraft (provided about the same engines and similar aerodynamic properties). The undercarriage will be heavier & more expensive, the flight controls might require power boost; 4 fuel tanks vs one. German industry will have far heavier task to replace combat losses of the Bf 110s than it was the case for Bf 109s.
So if the return of investment for Bf 110s is not way, way better than what it was for the 1-engined fighters in use in the crucial air campaign of ww2 (BoB), the Bf 110 is a worse fighter than those.

Same day-fighter math applied to Japanese (Ki-45 vs. Ki-43), for the US once Merlin Mustang was in use vs. P-38 (even the P-47 started loosing the appeal), and for the British (Whirlwind vs. Hurricane and Spitfire).


----------



## pbehn (Jun 20, 2020)

John Vasco said:


> I posted this: "...Too little, *too late*? Are you sure?..."
> Is the 13th July 1940 too late? That's when Erprobungsgruppe 210 carried out its first mission during the Battle of Britain. Too late - I don't understand what you mean. And of course, we are posting in English, given that it my first language.
> 
> The Me 110 wasn't batted out of the game. If you examine the losses of the Spitfire, Hurricane, Bf 109 and Bf 110, you will see that all four fighters battered the hell out of their opponents during the Battle. The losses of each ran into hundreds. Yet the 109 appears to get a 'free pass' despite the fact it got knocked down in massive numbers during the Battle. Truth be told, it was no more effective in protecting the Lw bombers than the 110. When you tie the 109 & 110, capable of 350 m.p.h., to close escort to bombers flying at around 200 m.p.h. (less into a headwind), while opposing fighters have no such speed constraint, those 109s and 110s are going to suffer losses they would otherwise not have had, had they been free to range ahead of the bombers at combat speed to intercept the intercepting RAF fighters.
> ...


My post said too little, too late and I am sure! You cannot make one part of the expression bold and not the other. Yes they were there at the start, but what EPG 210 worked on had to be perfected and part of LW strategy before the battle started. By batted out of the game I meant it was proved uncompetitive with single engined fighters as a fighter. In total, its losses amounted to all its front line strength at the start, what was left in service represented what had been produced during the battle, substantially less than produced which is unsustainable. By the end Spitfire and Hurricane numbers were substantially more. If the Bf 110 was used as a precision ground attack weapon things may have been different. However "Erprobungsgruppe" has a clue in its name, it was a test unit ( from my knowledge of German where I worked but not in 1940), experimenting with a new use for the Bf110. To have a dramatic and game changing effect many or most Bf 110 should have been used that way. But then you must remove many units from the Battle of France with their kills and in the Battle of Britain with their kills because they were bombers. I agree they should have concentrated on the RADAR stations and they should have concentrated on airfields. Having Manston downgraded to an emergency field by late August sums up the issue, it was closer to LW airfields in France than it was to London, it should have been rendered inoperable in the first few days. From German intelligence they won. They eliminated the front line strength of the RAF during the battle but completely underestimated British production of fighters and pilots. Their lack of "intelligence" in the military sense also meant they successfully wrecked airfields that were nothing to do with defence, like coastal command fields a complete waste of effort. 

All this is a "what if". The German military in all other battles had rolled up the opposition. Once you over run the first airfields, even if planes and pilots escape you have the spares ground crew and any plane that couldnt fly that day. Very quickly you have the opposition on the run and less and less effective. When the LW came up against the channel it was a different opponent and a different situation. They never really understood the role of RADAR, when they knocked some out and they were still intercepted they gave up trying. Did they not consider that they overlapped? Even their intelligence told them they did. To really knock a hole in it you need to take three out side by side along the coast and keep them out then the middle one is the hole. 

I think the fall of France took everyone by surprise, most of all Germany. They hadnt considered at all what they would do or how they would attack UK because they didnt expect to be in that situation. They hadnt come across a defence system using RADAR as the basis for command and control, even when it was over they (or Goering) were pretty much unaware of what happened and how it happened.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## John Vasco (Jun 20, 2020)

tomo pauk,

1. You still haven't answered the query I raised against this: "...if the Bf 110 can't have a twice as favorable exchange ratio as Bf 109 during the BoB, it's a worse fighter than Bf 109..."

2. You have moved on to this: "...twice the number of engines, cooling systems, propellers and raw pounds worth of airframes..."

Doesn't fool me. Answer the original point I raised with you. If the 110 can't have a twice as favourable exchange ratio as Bf 109 during the BoB, it's a worse fighter. Sorry, but that kind of logic is simply, fatally flawed, because you cannot prove it for a second.

And then you move on to production cost. Again, sorry, but what has production cost got to do with performance? The answer is 'nothing'. The two are not inter-dependent in any way.

"...So if the return of investment for Bf 110s is not way, way better than what it was for the 1-engined fighters in use in the crucial air campaign of ww2 (BoB), the Bf 110 is a worse fighter than those..." Again, you are simply making a statement with no proof to back up your assertion. You set investment against performance - there are so many variables that you cannot arrive at any logical conclusion.

As for training, well that is relative also. The pilots of 3./StG 77 who moved to 2./Erpr. Gr. 210 at the beginning of July 1940 went from flying the single-engined Ju 87 to flying the Bf 110 D fighter-bomber on 13th July on the first combat mission. Quite a swift conversion...

Oh, one final thing for you to consider:
Bf 109 losses in the BoB: 534,
Bf 110 losses in the BoB: 196.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 20, 2020)

John Vasco said:


> tomo pauk,
> 
> 1. You still haven't answered the query I raised against this: "...if the Bf 110 can't have a twice as favorable exchange ratio as Bf 109 during the BoB, it's a worse fighter than Bf 109..."
> 
> ...


No Hurricane pilot was worried taking on a Bf 110 in combat 1 on 1.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## John Vasco (Jun 20, 2020)

pbehn said:


> My post said too little, too late and I am sure! You cannot make one part of the expression bold and not the other. Yes they were there at the start, but what EPG 210 worked on had to be perfected and part of LW strategy before the battle started. By batted out of the game I meant it was proved uncompetitive with single engined fighters as a fighter. In total, its losses amounted to all its front line strength at the start, what was left in service represented what had been produced during the battle, substantially less than produced which is unsustainable. By the end Spitfire and Hurricane numbers were substantially more. If the Bf 110 was used as a precision ground attack weapon things may have been different. However "Erprobungsgruppe" has a clue in its name, it was a test unit ( from my knowledge of German where I worked but not in 1940), experimenting with a new use for the Bf110. To have a dramatic and game changing effect many or most Bf 110 should have been used that way. But then you must remove many units from the Battle of France with their kills and in the Battle of Britain with their kills because they were bombers. I agree they should have concentrated on the RADAR stations and they should have concentrated on airfields. Having Manston downgraded to an emergency field by late August sums up the issue, it was closer to LW airfields in France than it was to London, it should have been rendered inoperable in the first few days. From German intelligence they won. They eliminated the front line strength of the RAF during the battle but completely underestimated British production of fighters and pilots. Their lack of "intelligence" in the military sense also meant they successfully wrecked airfields that were nothing to do with defence, like coastal command fields a complete waste of effort.
> 
> All this is a "what if". The German military in all other battles had rolled up the opposition. Once you over run the first airfields, even if planes and pilots escape you have the spares ground crew and any plane that couldnt fly that day. Very quickly you have the opposition on the run and less and less effective. When the LW came up against the channel it was a different opponent and a different situation. They never really understood the role of RADAR, when they knocked some out and they were still intercepted they gave up trying. Did they not consider that they overlapped? Even their intelligence told them they did. To really knock a hole in it you need to take three out side by side along the coast and keep them out then the middle one is the hole.
> 
> I think the fall of France took everyone by surprise, most of all Germany. They hadnt considered at all what they would do or how they would attack UK because they didnt expect to be in that situation. They hadnt come across a defence system using RADAR as the basis for command and control, even when it was over they (or Goering) were pretty much unaware of what happened and how it happened.



An excellent post, pbehn!
I'll answer some points.
First paragraph:
I highlighted too late because I was surprised at that, given 210 were already in action on 13th July.

Too little - yes as far as deploying far more Bf 110 units as fighter-bombers. But the concept was in its infancy. It was worked up at Rechlin, and Hauptmann Karl Valesi was seconded from Rechlin to the unit (3. Staffel) because of the work he had done on the Bf 109 E as a fighter-bomber there.

I'm not so sure of this: "...it was proved uncompetitive with single engined fighters as a fighter..." It knocked down its share in the Western Campaign in the Spring of 1940, and also in the Battle of Britain. That is not to say it didn't get knocked down in numbers itself, because it did, but as I pointed out, lossed for all four main fighters in the BoB ran into hundreds.

And yes, 'Erprobungsgruppe 210' was, as its name implies, a test unit. I believe the speed of the German victory caught the Luftwaffe High Command by surprise. From working up the Me 210, matters changed to the Bf 109 and Bf 110 as fighter-bombers. In transferring 1/.ZG 1 to 1./Erpr. Gr. 210, they took their Bf 110 C-6s with them (single 30 mm, cannon in place of the two 20 mm. cannon), and 1./Erpr. Gr. 210 did not get their first fighter-bombers until early August, with the first mission being flown as fighter-bombers on 11th August.

It is also a fact British aircraft production (and repair through the Civilian Repair Organisation [CRO]) totally out-performed German production.

And I agree it was a mistake to back off the RDF stations. The German High Command simply did not know the workings of the 'command and control' in place within RAF Fighter Command. But I believe the ordinary aircrews did. Edmund Ernst (1./Erpr. Gr. 210, PoW 6th September 1940) once said to me, in so many words 'Mr. Vasco, once we took off and headed over the Channel, we knew you were watching us. We knew young lads like us were climbing into fighters, taking off, and being guided on to us. It had happened too often for it to be coincidence. That fear in the pit of your stomach was always there'.

Second paragraph:
Yep, all other campaigns had been in support of the ground forces. Advancing and moving forward from base to base. Suddenly, a 'static' campaign, with no movement of a 'front'. Fighting on their own, not co-ordinating. On the other hand, we had our battle lines drawn, backed up by the then most modern defence system in the world.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## John Vasco (Jun 20, 2020)

pbehn said:


> No Hurricane pilot was worried taking on a Bf 110 in combat 1 on 1.



I don't know how you can say that unequivocally. One mistake and you were in front of two cannon and four MGs...

And Hurricane pilots were shot down by 110s. Check out information in the 'Battle of Britain Combat Archive' series (Red Kite) for examples.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 20, 2020)

John Vasco said:


> I don't know how you can say that unequivocally. One mistake and you were in front of two cannon and four MGs...
> 
> And Hurricane pilots were shot down by 110s. Check out information in the 'Battle of Britain Combat Archive' series (Red Kite) for examples.


I can say it because it is true. However most "kills" in the BoB were not fair fights, both sides were looking for a bounce or an ambush that was given to them by cunning, guile, experience, RADAR, planning or luck. No FW 190 pilot would want to be on the receiving end of a Mosquito fighter bombers 4 cannon and 4 Mgs but a competent experienced pilot would back themselves in an FW190. Statistically a Hurricane pilot will spot a Bf110 before he is spotted, it is lighter and has better rate of turn and climb and generally faster.


----------



## Admiral Beez (Jun 20, 2020)

John Vasco said:


> So, you lose a 109, you lose a pilot.
> You lose a 110, you lose a pilot. You lose a Bordfunker as well.


Did the Germans consider a single seat, high performance Bf 110?


----------



## swampyankee (Jun 20, 2020)

John Vasco said:


> tomo pauk,
> 
> 1. You still haven't answered the query I raised against this: "...if the Bf 110 can't have a twice as favorable exchange ratio as Bf 109 during the BoB, it's a worse fighter than Bf 109..."
> 
> ...



A sustained war will _always_ involve, and likely center around, attrition, which will mean that the amount of resources required are critical. A Bf110 took approximately twice the amount of resources as did a Bf109, so the _Luftwaffe_ could only afford half the loss rate of Bf110s vs Bf109s. Bluntly, this doesn't seem like a terribly complex logical sequence: if an aircraft requires twice the resources to produce it has either generate twice the exchange rate. 

Your choice: 1000 Bf109s or 500 Bf110s. Which is likely to inflict more attrition on enemy fighter aircraft?


----------



## Vincenzo (Jun 20, 2020)

in the cost-benefit analysis we need to count that somewhere you can have a 110 but not a 109, or you can have a 109 for X minutes or a 110 for Y minutes, you can attack/photograph that installations with a 110 but not with a 109, or the same installation with more weapon load. it is out of doubt that a two engine aircraft is more expansive to build and use in comparison with a single engine, if the engine are the same

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 20, 2020)

Vincenzo said:


> in the cost-benefit analysis we need to count that somewhere you can have a 110 but not a 109, or you can have a 109 for X minutes or a 110 for Y minutes, you can attack/photograph that installations with a 110 but not with a 109, or the same installation with more weapon load. it is out of doubt that a two engine aircraft is more expansive to build and use in comparison with a single engine, if the engine are the same



This starts to get into the light fighter vs heavy fighter argument.
The 110 (in 1940) carries twice the machine gun ammo and 3 times the cannon ammo of a 109 into the combat area. Since both planes carried a ridiculous amount of machine gun ammo (nearly a minutes worth) that may need some compromise. Few 110s may have gotten to their 3rd set of drums of cannon ammo but a number might have made it to the 2nd set of drums. 
How valuable was the ability of the 110s to talk to the bombers by radio? 
How valuable was the ability of the 110 to communicate with their bases or listening stations much further away than a 109 could could? 
The 110 had more operational radius than a 109 if neither had drop tanks, touched on by Vincenzo along with the fact that for fighter bomber duties (also mentioned by Vincenzo) one 110 equaled two 109s in bomb load. 

The Germans were getting extra capabilities for the extra cost, question is if was enough, but it any case it wasn't a pure 2 to 1 ratio in favor of the 109.

Reactions: Like Like:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jun 21, 2020)

pbehn said:


> I can say it because it is true. However most "kills" in the BoB were not fair fights, both sides were looking for a bounce or an ambush that was given to them by cunning, guile, experience, RADAR, planning or luck. No FW 190 pilot would want to be on the receiving end of a Mosquito fighter bombers 4 cannon and 4 Mgs but a competent experienced pilot would back themselves in an FW190. Statistically a Hurricane pilot will spot a Bf110 before he is spotted, it is lighter and has better rate of turn and climb and generally faster.



And FB VIs did shoot down some Fw 190s.


----------



## John Vasco (Jun 21, 2020)

swampyankee said:


> 1. A sustained war will _always_ involve, and likely center around, attrition, which will mean that the amount of resources required are critical.
> 
> 2. A Bf110 took approximately twice the amount of resources as did a Bf109, so the _Luftwaffe_ could only afford half the loss rate of Bf110s vs Bf109s. Bluntly, this doesn't seem like a terribly complex logical sequence: if an aircraft requires twice the resources to produce it has either generate twice the exchange rate.
> 
> 3. Your choice: 1000 Bf109s or 500 Bf110s. Which is likely to inflict more attrition on enemy fighter aircraft?



1. Of course attrition is a factor. That is a 'given' is it not?

2 & 3. Battle of Britain loss rates (as posted previously):
Bf 109 losses in the BoB: 534,
Bf 110 losses in the BoB: 196. 
I would suggest the exchange rate is in favour of the Bf 110, not the Bf 109.

2 & 3 (continued). You say this: "...if an aircraft requires twice the resources to produce it has either generate twice the exchange rate..." And I will quote tomo pauk again: "...Or, if the Bf 110 can't have a twice as favorable exchange ratio as Bf 109 during the BoB, it's a worse fighter than Bf 109..." in order to kill two birds with one stone. The Spitfire required half as much time and resources again than the Hurricane to produce. So, in the BoB, it had to generate 'twice the exchange rate(your words), or as tomo pauk stated (with regard to the Bf 109 v. Bf 110) if it doesn't have a twice as favourable exchange ratio [...] it's a worse fighter. Well, extrapolating both your points, taking them to their logical conclusions, and examining the facts, the Spitfire shot down less enemy aircraft in the BoB than the Hurricane, ergo (applying both your statements) the Spitfire was a worse fighter than the Hurricane.
Now do you see how flawed both statements are. For the simple reason that once you get a fighter to front-line status and that fighter is then in combat with the enemy, there are so many variables that come into play that you cannot simply say that production costs dictate such-and-such, and as a result this one should do better than that one. It is a 100% fatally flawed premise to do so.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jun 21, 2020)

pbehn said:


> No Hurricane pilot was worried taking on a Bf 110 in combat 1 on 1.



That is simply not true. The Bf 110 was a formidable opponent and any Hurricane pilot would be well aware of its devastating armament. I can give you examples of Hurricane pilots saying exactly that.
Once a Bf 110 headed back to France a Hurricane pilot had the added problem of trying to catch it. They often failed, again, plenty of examples.


----------



## John Vasco (Jun 21, 2020)

Admiral Beez said:


> Did the Germans consider a single seat, high performance Bf 110?



I honestly don't know the answer to that.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## John Vasco (Jun 21, 2020)

pbehn said:


> I can say it because it is true. *However most "kills" in the BoB were not fair fights, both sides were looking for a bounce or an ambush that was given to them by cunning, guile, experience,* RADAR, planning or luck. No FW 190 pilot would want to be on the receiving end of a Mosquito fighter bombers 4 cannon and 4 Mgs but a competent experienced pilot would back themselves in an FW190. Statistically a Hurricane pilot will spot a Bf110 before he is spotted, it is lighter and has better rate of turn and climb and generally faster.



What I have highlighted is true, from speaking to pilots on both sides. Many still have this romantic notion of 'duelling knights of the air', when in fact it was most times brutal, and as you describe. That is why, when tying fighters to close escort of far slower bombers, height and high speed were sacrificed. And also, on many occasions, pilots on both sides recounted (RAF Fighter Command pilots in their combat reports, and Lw fighter pilots in their interrogation reports) that suddenly their aircraft was hit and the only thing to do was to get out (in so many words). A classic case in point being Oberleutnant Gerhard Schöpfel of JG 26 shooting down four Hurricanes of 501 Squadron, moving in behind their formation and picking them off one-by-one without even being noticed.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Jun 21, 2020)

John Vasco said:


> 1. Of course attrition is a factor. That is a 'given' is it not?
> 
> 2 & 3. Battle of Britain loss rates (as posted previously):
> Bf 109 losses in the BoB: 534,
> ...



There is a tendency from a lot of people to use figures such as above to prove one point or another and I should emphasise I am not having a pop at any individual poster such as John, this is a general statement.

A better example would be a breakdown of looses (and successes) compared to the number of aircraft involved both by numbers and sorties. Whilst better than an individual statistic, this is still less than perfect as the type of operation and its inherent risk is a significant and almost impossible factor to quantify.

I don't pretend to know the number of Me110 compared to the Me109 but my understanding was that there were a lot more Me109's and they flew more frequently. If anyone has more details on this I would be happy to be corrected.

If I can use a more modern example of the last point. In the first Gulf War RAF Tornado's had much higher losses than other coalition forces and a number of armchair experts were saying that this proved how poor an attack aircraft it was. The fact that in the early stages of the conflict, the RAF Tornados were concentrating on airfields, always one of the most dangerous targets to attack, that they were much further into enemy airspace than other coalition forces and due to that, often had little or none of the support forces such ECM specialist and Wild Weasel aircraft that other airforces enjoyed, were often ignored.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## John Vasco (Jun 21, 2020)

Glider said:


> A better example would be a breakdown of looses (and successes) compared to the number of aircraft involved both by numbers and sorties. Whilst better than an individual statistic, this is still less than perfect as the type of operation and its inherent risk is a significant and almost impossible factor to quantify.



This is spot on.

Some German 109 units moved to the Channel coast later than others (and 110 units). Case in point, JG 77, who moved to the Channel Front in late-August 1940 and on their first mission suffered several losses. Same happened to some RAF squadrons who moved down into 11 Group during the Battle and took a beating in their first mission or two. I think 616 is one example.

So yes, variance of time in the Front line also has a role to play. Good point, Glider.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 21, 2020)

John Vasco said:


> tomo pauk,
> 
> 1. You still haven't answered the query I raised against this: "...if the Bf 110 can't have a twice as favorable exchange ratio as Bf 109 during the BoB, it's a worse fighter than Bf 109..."
> 
> ...



Pray tell, where in this thread's last few pages I used the word 'performance' when saying Bf 110 was a worse fighter (even it was not a performer)?
I was looking at Bf 110 vs. Bf 109 math from a RLM/LW point of view, not trying to win a bar bet in 21st century. RLM was investing the money/engines/fuel/worktime/etc. If the RLM/LW does not get far more from a given number of Bf 110s than it will get from the same number of Bf 109s, the Bf 109 is a better fighter in their eyes (or, Bf 110 is worse than Bf 109) - as proven by late 1940, when they curbed down production of Bf 110s, since it didn't lived up to the expectations and boosted production of Bf 109s.



> "...So if the return of investment for Bf 110s is not way, way better than what it was for the 1-engined fighters in use in the crucial air campaign of ww2 (BoB), the Bf 110 is a worse fighter than those..." Again, you are simply making a statement with no proof to back up your assertion. You set investment against performance - there are so many variables that you cannot arrive at any logical conclusion.



I've arrived at a logical conclusion, so did the RLM.



> As for training, well that is relative also. The pilots of 3./StG 77 who moved to 2./Erpr. Gr. 210 at the beginning of July 1940 went from flying the single-engined Ju 87 to flying the Bf 110 D fighter-bomber on 13th July on the first combat mission. Quite a swift conversion...



Thank you.



> Oh, one final thing for you to consider:
> Bf 109 losses in the BoB: 534,
> Bf 110 losses in the BoB: 196.



Can we weight that against achievements, like number of actual kills, or vs. number of sorties or duration of sorties, or vs. enabling the bomber force to effectively attack British assets during the BoB while being covered by respective fighters?



John Vasco said:


> So, you lose a 109, you lose a pilot.
> You lose a 110, you lose a pilot. You lose a Bordfunker as well.
> ...



BTW - you also loose a rear gunner with a Bf 110.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jun 21, 2020)

tomo pauk said:


> BTW - you also loose a rear gunner with a Bf 110.



the Bordfunker, is the radio operator and used also the rear MG


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 21, 2020)

Vincenzo said:


> the Bordfunker, is the radio operator and used also the rear MG



Yes, indeed. I stand corrected.


----------



## Snautzer01 (Jun 21, 2020)

Does range come into this? With or with out droptanks or Dackelbauch ? I could understand that with limited range one would go for a twin. P-38 comes to mind. In my eyes same general design ( yes i know hundreds of differences )


----------



## John Vasco (Jun 21, 2020)

tomo pauk said:


> 1. Pray tell, where in this thread's last few pages I used the word 'performance' when saying Bf 110 was a worse fighter (even it was not a performer)?
> I was looking at Bf 110 vs. Bf 109 math from a RLM/LW point of view, not trying to win a bar bet in 21st century. RLM was investing the money/engines/fuel/worktime/etc. If the RLM/LW does not get far more from a given number of Bf 110s than it will get from the same number of Bf 109s, the Bf 109 is a better fighter in their eyes (or, Bf 110 is worse than Bf 109) - as proven by late 1940, when they curbed down production of Bf 110s, since it didn't lived up to the expectations and boosted production of Bf 109s.
> 
> 
> ...



1. You enter into discussion into the relative merits of the 109 v. the 110, and 'performance' does not come into it? Really? The whole ongoing discussion is about the relative performance merits. Or have you forgotten that?
And you introduce math (sic) into the equation. Were the Staff personnel, ground personnel and flying personnel considering the mathematics of every single thing they did, on the ground and in the air? Seriously? Come on, please don't obfuscate, and introduce matters that are only at best tangential to the matter being discussed.
And you say this: "...as proven by late 1940, when they curbed down production of Bf 110s, since it didn't lived up to the expectations..." I don't know where you got that information from, because here is the real information:
From Bf 110 B production to March 1941 - 1627 Bf 110s built.
From April 1941 to end of production - 4406 Bf 110s built.
(Source: Bf 110, Me 210, Me 410 by Heinz Mankau & Peter Petrick, pages 324-326)
I don't see nearly tripling production as 'curbing down'...

2. Ah, but this is what I repied to: "...So if the return of investment for Bf 110s is not way, way better than what it was for the 1-engined fighters in use in the crucial air campaign of ww2 (BoB), the Bf 110 is a worse fighter than those..." And I replied: "...Again, you are simply making a statement with no proof to back up your assertion. You set investment against performance - there are so many variables that you cannot arrive at any logical conclusion..." I repeat, your are making a statement with no proof. It is NOT a logical conclusion you arrive at. It is a financial opinion - no more, no less.

3. Thank you in return.

4.
Yes we can, from the latest research, as follows:
Spitfire: Claims - c560 Losses - 394 Ratio - 1.42:1
Hurricane: Claims - c715 Losses - 603 Ratio - 1.19:1
Bf 109: Claims - c760 Losses - 534 Ratio - 1.42:1
Bf 110: Claims - c290 Losses - 196 Ratio - 1.48:1
Given that overclaiming was pretty much the same on both sides, the Bf 110, with regards to claims-to-losses, fared no worse than the other three main fighters.
(Source of information: Christer Bergstrom - The Battle of Britain, an epic conflict revisited.)

5. The role of 'Bordfunker' encompassed both radio operator and rear gunner. It was only with the night-fighter variants with radar that the function was split, one manning the radar equipment, the other the rear gun, so it became a crew of three.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 21, 2020)

John Vasco said:


> 1. You enter into discussion into the relative merits of the 109 v. the 110, and 'performance' does not come into it? Really? The whole ongoing discussion is about the relative performance merits. Or have you forgotten that?
> And you introduce math (sic) into the equation. Were the Staff personnel, ground personnel and flying personnel considering the mathematics of every single thing they did, on the ground and in the air? Seriously? Come on, please don't obfuscate, and introduce matters that are only at best tangential to the matter being discussed.
> And you say this: "...as proven by late 1940, when they curbed down production of Bf 110s, since it didn't lived up to the expectations..." I don't know where you got that information from, because here is the real information:
> From Bf 110 B production to March 1941 - 1627 Bf 110s built.
> ...



Let's talk about performance then. For investing twice of everything, the Bf 110 was offering less speed and rate of climb.
I was not the one introducing the math, RLM did it (not just them, for the respective airforces).
Yes, I stand corrected wrt. production of the Bf 110s after 1940. OTOH, what was made were mostly for roles other than day fighters - eg almost 2240 of Bf 110G-4 (night fighters) is in that total of 4406. There was also 494 recon machines produced between 1939 and 45. So let's not pretend that 110 lived up to the expectations from 1938-40.

Granted, Bf 110 was a good night fighter, a far better use of resoureces than the 20000+ of heavy flak produced.



> 2. Ah, but this is what I repied to: "...So if the return of investment for Bf 110s is not way, way better than what it was for the 1-engined fighters in use in the crucial air campaign of ww2 (BoB), the Bf 110 is a worse fighter than those..." And I replied: "...Again, you are simply making a statement with no proof to back up your assertion. You set investment against performance - there are so many variables that you cannot arrive at any logical conclusion..." I repeat, your are making a statement with no proof. It is NOT a logical conclusion you arrive at. It is a financial opinion - no more, no less.



Your opinion, that you're certainly entitled to.



> 4.
> Yes we can, from the latest research, as follows:
> Spitfire: Claims - c560 Losses - 394 Ratio - 1.42:1
> Hurricane: Claims - c715 Losses - 603 Ratio - 1.19:1
> ...



Thank you again.
Bf 110 again does not seem to justify the investment.*



> 5. The role of 'Bordfunker' encompassed both radio operator and rear gunner. It was only with the night-fighter variants with radar that the function was split, one manning the radar equipment, the other the rear gun, so it became a crew of three.



Yes, you are right.

* German fighters were killing mostly RAF fighters during the BoB. Considering aircraft weight, price and ability to be reinforced by new production of Bf 110, the kills vs. loss ratio by Bf 110 is negative, at about 1:1.32. So is the number of crew lost - 196x2= 384 > 290 (when we grant 100% loss rate for the crews for both sides). Number of engines/powerplants lost for both sides - the same ratio.

Please note that Spitfire's kill to loss ratio was ~23% better than that of Hurricane.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 21, 2020)

John Vasco said:


> What I have highlighted is true, from speaking to pilots on both sides. Many still have this romantic notion of 'duelling knights of the air', when in fact it was most times brutal, and as you describe. That is why, when tying fighters to close escort of far slower bombers, height and high speed were sacrificed. And also, on many occasions, pilots on both sides recounted (RAF Fighter Command pilots in their combat reports, and Lw fighter pilots in their interrogation reports) that suddenly their aircraft was hit and the only thing to do was to get out (in so many words). A classic case in point being Oberleutnant Gerhard Schöpfel of JG 26 shooting down four Hurricanes of 501 Squadron, moving in behind their formation and picking them off one-by-one without even being noticed.


But RADAR planning and luck were too, Park tried to place his squadrons to get a bounce and to make sure they weren't caught climbing by the LW. The LW planned to catch the RAF by surprise and Bob Doe with a dead engine found himself descending through a German squadon so he opened fire and shot one down on his way though.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 21, 2020)

stona said:


> That is simply not true. The Bf 110 was a formidable opponent and any Hurricane pilot would be well aware of its devastating armament. I can give you examples of Hurricane pilots saying exactly that.
> Once a Bf 110 headed back to France a Hurricane pilot had the added problem of trying to catch it. They often failed, again, plenty of examples.


I said 1 on 1 which was a very rare case in the BoB. Yes it had devastating armament but so did many aircraft, within a year the Hurricane had 4 x 20mm cannon but that wasnt enough to make it a competitive fighter.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 21, 2020)

wuzak said:


> And FB VIs did shoot down some Fw 190s.


Yes they did, there are few planes ever made that would survive 1 seconds worth of 4 cannon and 4 MGs but the only sensible course for a mosquito pilot would be to get out of there. unless you are against a novice or have some other conspicuous advantage your chances of getting that shot in are much less than his of hitting you.


----------



## John Vasco (Jun 21, 2020)

pbehn said:


> But RADAR planning and luck were too, Park tried to place his squadrons to get a bounce and to make sure they weren't caught climbing by the LW. The LW planned to catch the RAF by surprise and Bob Doe with a dead engine found himself descinging through a German squadon so he opened fire and shot one down on his way though.



I agree that RDF 'planning' had an important role to play, and luck also.

But controllers did not always get it right with the RDF information given to them. Witness the 12th August when Erprobungsgruppe 210 were over the Channel to attack the RDF sites, and control designated it as an 'X' raid. WHen control phoned one of the stations a few minutes later to ask what was happening, they were told 'Your X-raid is bombing us!'
Also 31st August when 85 Squadron were held on the ground at Croydon so long that they barely took off on time.
When the information was interpreted correctly, it gave our fighters a good chance to engage on equal terms, or better...

As for luck, I think it played a part for all those who came out the other end at the end of the war. I interviewed several who had gone the distance from start to finish, and all agreed luck had a part to play in their survival.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 21, 2020)

John Vasco said:


> I agree that RDF 'planning' had an important role to play, and luck also.
> 
> But controllers did not always get it right with the RDF information given to them. Witness the 12th August when Erprobungsgruppe 210 were over the Channel to attack the RDF sites, and control designated it as an 'X' raid. WHen control phoned one of the stations a few minutes later to ask what was happening, they were told 'Your X-raid is bombing us!'
> Also 31st August when 85 Squadron were held on the ground at Croydon so long that they barely took off on time.
> ...


Of course controllers don't get it right, it is known in warfare that things go FUBAR. But the same is true on both sides. The LW made some very well executed raids in the BoB on airfields of Coastal and Bomber command. They were also making raids and developing tactics that were based on the RAF being down to their last 50 aircraft (an exaggeration but things like that were said) They were making raids to deliver the knock out blow to an enemy that was numerically as strong as ever.


----------



## John Vasco (Jun 21, 2020)

tomo pauk.

"...For investing twice of everything..." And there you go talking about investment/investing again. You are fixated on finance. Why???

"...I was not the one introducing the math, RLM did it..." Yes you were! The RLM have not posted once in this thread!!!

"...Your opinion, that you're certainly entitled to..." You don't answer the point, again. You don't like being challenged about facts, do you...?

"...German fighters were killing mostly RAF fighters during the BoB. Considering aircraft weight, price and ability to be reinforced by new production of Bf 110, the kills vs. loss ratio by Bf 110 is negative, at about 1:1.32..." You seem to have hit upon a new mathematical formula previously unknown to man. Weigh, price (AGAIN!!!) and ability - what the hell hs that got to do with claim-to-loss ratios? Come on, you're just making things up as you go along, aren't you?

"...Yes, you are right..." I think I do know a little bit about the Bf 110...


----------



## John Vasco (Jun 21, 2020)

pbehn said:


> Of course controllers don't get it right, it is known in warfare that things go FUBAR. But the same is true on both sides. The LW made some very well executed raids in the BoB on airfields of Coastal and Bomber command. They were also making raids and developing tactics that were based on the RAF being down to their last 50 aircraft (an exaggeration but things like that were said) They were making raids to deliver the knock out blow to an enemy that was numerically as strong as ever.



True. The Lw plastered the wrong airfields at times. It was a classic military case of 'Not knowing what is going on over the other side of the hill'. And yes, their Intelligence Section (read Beppo Schmid) got things absolutely wrong, divorced from the reality of the situation. And so they continued to press against an enemy they thought was getting weaker, when the reality was they were getting stronger numerically. Stephen Bungay shows in 'The most dangerous enemy' that RAF Fighter Command had more aircraft and pilots at the end of October 1940 than they had going into the Battle at the start of July 1940.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 21, 2020)

John Vasco said:


> tomo pauk.
> 
> "...For investing twice of everything..." And there you go talking about investment/investing again. You are fixated on finance. Why???
> 
> ...



Seems like you think that aircraft were just materializing from thin air, all while not receiving well (to say at least) when someone disagrees with your assessment of this or that aircraft.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 21, 2020)

John Vasco said:


> True. The Lw plastered the wrong airfields at times. It was a classic military case of 'Not knowing what is going on over the other side of the hill'. And yes, their Intelligence Section (read Beppo Schmid) got things absolutely wrong, divorced from the reality of the situation. And so they continued to press against an enemy they thought was getting weaker, when the reality was they were getting stronger numerically. Stephen Bungay shows in 'The most dangerous enemy' that RAF Fighter Command had more aircraft and pilots at the end of October 1940 than they had going into the Battle at the start of July 1940.


I think we have all seen movie footage of the plotting rooms in the Battle of Britain, everyone so cool and composed. Last week I saw some actual footage, it was complete chaos at times. Things did go FUBAR at times but generally they didn't, throughout the conflict though it is clear that Park Dowding and Chruchill had a much better grasp of what was happening than Kesselring and his colleagues while Goering was close to being clueless.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 21, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> Regarding the performance of the Bf 110C: If I recall it had a top-speed around 340-350 mph. What was the typical cruise-speed used in combat, the power on/off stall, the maximum normal rated g-load, and CL Max figures?
> 
> I'm also curious as to what the range figures were -- I've gotten conflicting range figures and I can't tell if these differences are based on drop tanks or not.
> 
> ...


Why would you expect me to know that and why do you want to know, what is a cruise speed in combat?


----------



## John Vasco (Jun 21, 2020)

tomo pauk said:


> *Seems like you think that aircraft were just materializing from thin air*, all while not receiving well (to say at least) when someone disagrees with your assessment of this or that aircraft.



What ARE you talking about...?

My assessment of the 110 is that it performed as well as the other three fighters in the BoB, and also got knocked about just like the other three did, as the loss figures show. What's not to understand? I do believe you just want to argue, constantly...


----------



## Zipper730 (Jun 21, 2020)

pbehn said:


> Why would you expect me to know that and why do you want to know, what is a cruise speed in combat?


You're a knowledgeable member on the forum; the variables I asked for were to help determine some parameters of maneuvering performance; There's a cruise speed based on where the induced and parasitic drag merge, and there's a speed you'd typically fly for long-range escort and fighter-sweeps that are below the maximum speed, but above the cruise speed, and I'm not sure what you call that, so...

Reactions: Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 21, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> There's a _cruise speed based on where the induced and parasitic drag merge_, and there's a speed you'd typically fly for long-range escort and fighter-sweeps that are below the maximum speed, but above the cruise speed, and I'm not sure what you call that, so...




You are getting a bit hung up on you numbers and/or formula.

See: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/P-40B_41-5205_PHQ-M-19-1227-A.pdf 

for just part of the possible cruising speeds for a P-40B.

Max continuous (fastest cruising speed) was at 2600rpm. and at 15,000ft that was 950hp
speeds are given for 720hp, 600hp, 480hp and 400hp but there is nothing saying that the plane could not be flown at power settings and speeds in between those settings. they are all *cruise speeds.* 

Now as far as the part of your post highlighted in italics above, the speed you are referring to is seldom used as a cruising speed. It is near the climbing speed of an aircraft as it allows for the most surplus power to be used for climbing. However many planes use speeds a bit above the actual speed where the induced and parasitic drag curves cross as the speed is often so slow that good stability or control effectiveness is not quite adequate and an extra 10-30mph makes the plane easier to fly. 

Take a look at the figures for the P-40. at 15,000ft it will "cruise" at 236mph using 400hp with the engine running at 2000rpm. 

At 15,000ft they used 176mph true airspeed for climbing. Nobody was going to cruise at 176mph over enemy territory as it takes way too long to get up to effective fighting speed and in fact 236mph was too slow. 

You also have no reserve of energy at that low a speed and are really depending on the engine to pull you around the turn. If you try to pull much over a 2 G turn your stall speed is getting rather close to the your airspeed. Many fighters bled off air speed as they turned (and often had to descend in a spiral turn), if the fighter enters the turn at 300mph is had a lot more speed (kinetic energy) to bleed off before having to start descending.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 22, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> You're a knowledgeable member on the forum; the variables I asked for were to help determine some parameters of maneuvering performance; There's a cruise speed based on where the induced and parasitic drag merge, and there's a speed you'd typically fly for long-range escort and fighter-sweeps that are below the maximum speed, but above the cruise speed, and I'm not sure what you call that, so...


Using 300MPH as a round number for calculation it takes 5 minutes at 300MPH to cross the narrowest part of the English Channel. If the range of RADAR is 100 miles that takes 20 minutes to cover. The speed chosen to cruise at depends on the mission much more than the actual qualities of the aeroplane, whatever it is and what type of aircraft. There were many Bf110s and many missions all different, the _Dackelbauch_ versions had such a huge belly tank they were mistaken for bombers.


----------



## stona (Jun 22, 2020)

pbehn said:


> I said 1 on 1 which was a very rare case in the BoB. Yes it had devastating armament but so did many aircraft, within a year the Hurricane had 4 x 20mm cannon but that wasnt enough to make it a competitive fighter.



The Bf 110 out performed the Hurricane in just about everything but turning at any sort of altitude.

Everyone seems to love Eric Brown's opinions on various aircraft. Of course, he had one on the Bf 100 too.

"_In the Battle of Britain the Bf 110 fell far short of anticipation and its limited success was to lead to a widespread belief that it was an unsuccessful design. This was in fact, far from the case, for the Messerschmitt strategic fighter was *not* the indifferent warplane that its showing during the Battle of Britain led many to believe. It was an effective warplane but inadequate understanding on the part of the Führungsstab of the limitations of the strategic fighter category led to its incorrect deployment with the result that the Zerstörergruppen suffered some 40 per cent attrition within less than three weeks of the launching of Adlerangriff_.”


----------



## Dimlee (Jun 22, 2020)

Financials, performance, effectiveness as a weapon...
There was a difficult period in the history of the Soviet VVS. End 1941 and the 1st half of 1942, when pilots with better pre-war training were in small and ever-dwindling numbers and new recruits were given the absolute minimum of hours. Fighters of so-called "new types" as Mig-3, Yak-1, LaGG-3 did not meet expectations for many reasons, including poor production quality, a lack of new tactics, deficit of instructors. Pilots, assisted by political officers, sent petitions to Moscow asking to resume production of I-16 and I-153. "At least they are good in a turning" was the typical phrase I read in a number of books.
If those pilots were more confident of I-16 as a more effective weapon (and of own chances of survival) and considering that I-16 was cheaper than any of "new type" fighters and in 1942 it was not produced at all, so its "cost" would be just spare parts and logistics... Can we say that I-16 was a "better" fighter than Yak-1 in that period? Not a rhetoric question, since VVS veterans continued to disagree on it 60 years after the war.

P.S. It would be nice to have kill/loss stats for "old" and "new" VVS fighters in that period, of course. But I did not see any reliable research of that.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Jun 22, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> You are getting a bit hung up on you numbers and/or formula.


Probably true!


> Max continuous (fastest cruising speed) was at 2600rpm. and at 15,000ft that was 950hp
> speeds are given for 720hp, 600hp, 480hp and 400hp but there is nothing saying that the plane could not be flown at power settings and speeds in between those settings. they are all *cruise speeds.*
> 
> Now as far as the part of your post highlighted in italics above, the speed you are referring to is seldom used as a cruising speed. It is near the climbing speed of an aircraft as it allows for the most surplus power to be used for climbing. However many planes use speeds a bit above the actual speed where the induced and parasitic drag curves cross as the speed is often so slow that good stability or control effectiveness is not quite adequate and an extra 10-30mph makes the plane easier to fly.


I based a statement 

 drgondog
said in a thread about the P-51 Mustang.

That said: What kind of cruise speeds would one have typically seen the Bf.110 variants used in the BoB use for traditional fighter-sweeps (if applicable), long-ranged fighter-sweeps and long-ranged bomber-escort missions? I'm curious how this compares with the Hurricane and Spitfire in speeds used during typical interception missions.



stona said:


> The Bf 110 out performed the Hurricane in just about everything but turning at any sort of altitude.


So the best tactics would have been to stay high and fast whenever possible?


> Everyone seems to love Eric Brown's opinions on various aircraft. Of course, he had one on the Bf 100 too.
> 
> "_In the Battle of Britain the Bf 110 fell far short of anticipation and its limited success was to lead to a widespread belief that it was an unsuccessful design. This was in fact, far from the case, for the Messerschmitt strategic fighter was *not* the indifferent warplane that its showing during the Battle of Britain led many to believe. It was an effective warplane but inadequate understanding on the part of the Führungsstab of the limitations of the strategic fighter category led to its incorrect deployment with the result that the Zerstörergruppen suffered some 40 per cent attrition within less than three weeks of the launching of Adlerangriff_.”


So, what led to this inadequate understanding of how to use this type of aircraft? Was it as simple as matters of doing successfully in the earliest days of the war?


----------



## Greyman (Jun 23, 2020)

stona said:


> The Bf 110 out performed the Hurricane in just about everything but turning at any sort of altitude.



I'd say that's a bit generous towards the 110.

Hurricane was 10-15 mph faster under about 12,000 feet.
Hurricane could out-dive a 110C (though the result was delayed if the Merlin initially cut).
I have no data on the 110's roll rate but I would assume the Hurricane would be better in that respect. No automatic pitch control would also be a big strike against the 110C in the dogfight department.

I haven't come across any good climb figures for the 110C. I understand it was similar to the Hurricane but it would be interesting to see any numbers.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Jun 23, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> So, what led to this inadequate understanding of how to use this type of aircraft? Was it as simple as matters of doing successfully in the earliest days of the war?



I don't collect a lot of 110 information but this further quote from Brown makes sense.

_"It should be borne in mind, however, that the Führungsstab had never envisaged deploying Hermann's "Destroyer" other than in conditions of local Luftwaffe superiority if not supremacy; a situation such as that in which the Bf 110 found itself over Southern England had not been foreseen. No designer, however talented, had come up with a magic formula enabling a large and heavy twin-engined long-range fighter to compete in terms of agility with contemporary single-engined short-range single-seaters. The forward-firing armament of the Bf 110 was certainly lethal but lacking the manoeuvrability of its RAF opponents, it could bring this armament to bear only if it could employ the element of surprise or if it encountered an unwary novice -- a commodity of which admittedly RAF Fighter Command was in no short supply at that stage of the conflict. Its acceleration and speed were inadequate to enable it to avoid combat if opposed by superior numbers of interceptors ... But if the Bf 110 received a mauling in the Battle of Britain it gave a good account of itself on many battlefronts in the years that followed."_

Also I find Brown's statement that _'... I was certainly never to meet a German pilot that disliked it -- an accolade indeed"_ very noteworthy.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 23, 2020)

Greyman said:


> I'd say that's a bit generous towards the 110.
> 
> Hurricane was 10-15 mph faster under about 12,000 feet.
> Hurricane could out-dive a 110C (though the result was delayed if the Merlin initially cut).
> ...


Home Page
Scroll down this and it will give you sufficient data to see how a Hurricane Ia compares with a ME110C in combat, the Hurricane must turn and burn, the Me 110 boom and zoom.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 23, 2020)

Greyman said:


> Also I find Brown's statement that _'... I was certainly never to meet a German pilot that disliked it -- an accolade indeed"_ very noteworthy.


He didn't interview the ones who were shot down over Kent.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 23, 2020)

Kevin J said:


> Home Page
> Scroll down this and it will give you sufficient data to see how a Hurricane Ia compares with a ME110C in combat, the Hurricane must turn and burn, the Me 110 boom and zoom.



I strongly advise double and triple checking data from games/flight simulators.
The armament section of the Hurricane I section has a number of errors for example. Errors that conflict with just about every other source, which casts doubt upon any other data.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 23, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> I strongly advise double and triple checking data from games/flight simulators.
> The armament section of the Hurricane I section has a number of errors for example. Errors that conflict with just about every other source, which casts doubt upon any other data.


But it does give you a pretty good idea about these fighters capabilities.


----------



## Mike Williams (Jun 23, 2020)

Hurricane I and Bf 110 level speeds from data I have in hand:

Reactions: Informative Informative:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mike Williams (Jun 23, 2020)

Hurricane I and Me 110 C-1 time to climb:

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jun 23, 2020)

Kevin J said:


> But it does give you a pretty good idea about these fighters capabilities.



That's presuming that the information loaded into the simulation is accurate. Even if it is, many of the low-end simulations (which will include *all* of the games) don't include quite a lot of the aircraft dynamic behavior, especially near stall, control harmony (or lack thereof), or control forces. I suspect most of them would also have quite crude models of damage tolerance.

That said, if the static performance information is correct, a properly written simulation will give reasonably accurate relative rankings.


----------



## Glider (Jun 23, 2020)

An observation on the climb chart. I am sure that I have read a tactical comparison report that stated that whilst the climb rate was better for the Hurricane (+12lb boost) the Me110 could climb at a steeper angle which made it impossible for the Hurricane to follow. Pilots were advised to not follow it in a climb, but use the best performance of the Hurricane and re-initiate combat when they had the advantage.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 23, 2020)

from the website the Hurricane I. 
Guns:

type/ammo.....................................................ROF..................Duration................_WB Punch_..................Muzzle Velocity................Ammo/Gun
Primary:4x.303 Browning MG..............*15.1/s*......................*.23.3s*..................._7.6x.30cal/ping_............*.2,600ft/s*...............................*350*
Secondary:4x.303 Browning MG........*15.1/s*......................*.23.3s.*.................._7.6x.30cal/ping_.............*2,600ft/s*...............................*350*

numbers in bold are in error. I have no idea what ._WB Punch _is_._

correct numbers are................................19-20/s....................16.7s.....................---------------...............2,440fps...................................334

Those are the numbers you will find in most sources. 

Numbers for the IIC
Primary
:2x20mm Hispano-Suiza Cannon...........*11.2/s*.................*8.1s*.............................2.8x20mm/ping............*2,790ft/s*..................................90

Bolded numbers are in error. correct 10.0/s..................9.0 seconds.............-----------------..............2880fps.....................................90

Likewise many of the gun numbers for the Spitfire show similar errors. Compounded by the problem of only 3 Spitfires in the game so some of their details get "blended"
LIke MK Vb's getting the 20mm ammo load of the Vc (Vbs had drums) 

The gun/ammo details are not hard to find and if the game can't get those right (not talking past the decimal point but 10-25% changes in rate of fire) then what am I to think of the performance data?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Vincenzo (Jun 23, 2020)

I've not found other german primary sources on the speed of Bf 110
but it's available online the Vultee analisys that report a max speed of 365 mph at 19,000 feet, the engines are reported as DB 601 A, the data on the engine are in accord on the german data on the DB 601A-1, there is only a 2500 rpm for TO power that i'm not aware.
it's available also a in english report, from test of captured plane, of april '42 by D.E. Morris with a speed of 340 mph at 22,000 feet, engine reported as DB 601, w/o letter designation


----------



## John Vasco (Jun 23, 2020)

pbehn said:


> He didn't interview the ones who were shot down over Kent.



I interviewed a few...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 23, 2020)

John Vasco said:


> I interviewed a few...


And?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## John Vasco (Jun 23, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> So, what led to this inadequate understanding of how to use this type of aircraft? Was it as simple as matters of doing successfully in the earliest days of the war?



Commanders of bomber units insisting that their fighter escort flew close escort to them, so that they would feel more protected. These Commanders carried the day with the result that Bf 109 & Bf 110 units had to fly close escort, meaning a lot slower than anywhere near their best speed. It's all in Stephen Bungay's book, and Christer Bergström's.

Instead of carrying out forward interception, finding and attacking, shooting down, and disrupting the enemy formations, the Lw fighters on close escort were at a distinct disadvantage given that the RAF fighters were under no such speed constraint.

The Luftwaffe High Command got it badly wrong, thank God...

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## John Vasco (Jun 23, 2020)

pbehn said:


> And?



Every one to a man were happy flying the Bf 110. But they were not happy at flying close escort knowing, as I posted above, the potential fatal constraint it placed upon them.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 23, 2020)

This should not be a surprise for us to find out now as the British ran into the same problems early in the "Lean into France" campaign. Flying at long range cruise speeds was finally judged to near suicidal even for Spitfires. It took a Spitfire V about 2 minutes to go from a cruise speed of just over 200mph to full speed.

German fighters, of any type, putzing along at bomber cruise speeds would be flying too slow to successfully engage attacking fighters with the amount of warning time they had. 
Starting every fight in a much lower energy state than your opponents is not a good way to fight.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Agree Agree:
3 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 23, 2020)

The surprise is that Goering was behind it. As planes got faster everything became more spaced out. Between two close and too far what is "just right" became bigger because times had changed. In WW1 if you spotted an enemy you had much more time to do something. The finger four or schwarm formation was considered better because things were faster so a looser formation is better. The RAF did a reasonable job of protecting the beaches at Dunkerque but few on the ground would agree, the conflicts took place out of sight of those on the ground who only saw the ones who got through, have a feeling there was something of this in German bomber crew complaints about protection.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jun 23, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> This should not be a surprise for us to find out now as the British ran into the same problems early in the "Lean into France" campaign. Flying at long range cruise speeds was finally judged to near suicidal even for Spitfires. It took a Spitfire V about 2 minutes to go from a cruise speed of just over 200mph to full speed.
> 
> German fighters, of any type, putzing along at bomber cruise speeds would be flying too slow to successfully engage attacking fighters with the amount of warning time they had.
> Starting every fight in a much lower energy state than your opponents is not a good way to fight.


Which to me, highlights just how valuable the Mustang was that it was able to cruise at a reasonably good clip and still get the mileage needed to go deep into Germany.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
3 | Funny Funny:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mike Williams (Jun 23, 2020)

Glider said:


> An observation on the climb chart. I am sure that I have read a tactical comparison report that stated that whilst the climb rate was better for the Hurricane (+12lb boost) the Me110 could climb at a steeper angle which made it impossible for the Hurricane to follow. Pilots were advised to not follow it in a climb, but use the best performance of the Hurricane and re-initiate combat when they had the advantage.



That’s in good agreement with the Tactical Trials I have although here the engine boost and r.p.m. for each aircraft are not mentioned.

Some snippets: “It was found that there is little difference between the rates of climb of the Me.110 and Hurricane, but the Hurricane fell away when it attempted to follow and shoot on the climb, owing to the much steeper angle of the Me.110.”

“At 5,000 ft. the Hurricane was 15 – 20 m.p.h. faster than the Me.110 but at 20,000 ft. the Me.110 was 2 or 3 m.p.h. faster than the Hurricane."

It appears that operating the pitch of the propellers on the Me110 was a real headache as was maintaining proper engine rpm while engaged in combat (see paragraph 37).

I might treat this report with some reserve since the Me 110 was captured after a forced landing, the superchargers were modified to bring the engines up-to-date and the camera was removed and replaced with ballast to represent the weight of the two cannon and ammo.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
6 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Jun 23, 2020)

John Vasco said:


> Commanders of bomber units insisting that their fighter escort flew close escort to them, so that they would feel more protected.


Was this based on the bomber commanders or Goering himself? Also, was this idea based on earlier experience in the Spanish civil war?


> Instead of carrying out forward interception, finding and attacking, shooting down, and disrupting the enemy formations, the Lw fighters on close escort were at a distinct disadvantage given that the RAF fighters were under no such speed constraint.


Would they have been able to fly as far at the higher speeds necessary for this?

It does seem our victory over the Germans was largely due to ineptitude on their part.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 23, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> Would they have been able to fly as far at the higher speeds necessary for this?
> 
> .


Calais to London is 100 miles approx. However some major raids on London were plagued with head winds which slowed the bombers dramatically and gave the escorts a headache flying that slow.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## John Vasco (Jun 23, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> 1 Was this based on the bomber commanders or Goering himself? Also, was this idea based on earlier experience in the Spanish civil war?
> 
> 2 Would they have been able to fly as far at the higher speeds necessary for this?
> 
> 3 It does seem our victory over the Germans was largely due to ineptitude on their part.



1 Bomber Commanders. I'll find the reference to the meeting for you.

2 If the Luftwaffe were looking for total air superiority over an invasion area, they would not have been looking to fly as far as London, but rather only as far as the English Channel coast. That would have increased the 109s' combat time considerably. It would not have proved to be any constraint on the 110.

3 I think Stephen Bungay calls it the 'cock-up theory'. The less you do (i.e. you keep things simple), the less cock-ups, the more likely you are to win.
And ineptitude, yes I agree. Previously, right up to the end of the Western Campaign in the Spring of 1940, there were clear goals. For the Battle of Britain, there appears to be hesitancy, and a case of not quite knowing what to do next. For just over a month there were attacks on shipping in the Channel and up the south-easy coast of England. Then the attacks on the airfields and the land targets. Then on 7th September the major attacks on London. Doesn't seem t have been a single coherent strategy. Perhaps down to the fact that a negotiated peace was hoped for - an acquiescent British Empire leaving Germany free to do as it wished. When that didn't happen, what next? Well, knock out Fighter Command as a prelude to invasion. Which, in its wake, brough out disagreements across the three German forces. It is as well for us that that happened. Coupled with poor intelligence on the German side, and attrition that could not eventually be sustained, as well as a host of other factors.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 23, 2020)

John Vasco said:


> 1 Bomber Commanders. I'll find the reference to the meeting for you.
> 
> 2 If the Luftwaffe were looking for total air superiority over an invasion area, they would not have been looking to fly as far as London, but rather only as far as the English Channel coast. That would have increased the 109s' combat time considerably. It would not have proved to be any constraint on the 110.
> 
> ...


Goering doesn't seem to have known what he was up against in any way. Numerically in terms of RAF strength and ability to replenish, tactically, he didn't know how the RAF worked or even where it was. Because of that he didnt have strategy or plan. If he had been systematic in pushing the RAF back from Maston and Dover then spreading further in and along I could see it working. Goerings problem was with intelligence, until shortly before he gave up he and lots of others were convinced they were winning. Its like hitting mike Tyson with two body shots, two jabs, two shots to the head then trying the wild haymaker to knock him out.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 23, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> It does seem our victory over the Germans was largely due to ineptitude on their part.


Goering didn't really have a clue. He had no idea of how much he had lost of "his" Luftwaffe until he was told at the end of the battle of France, the losses to all reasons were huge. It is part of strategic bombing that the bomber force is "bait" to attack a target that the enemy must defend and destroy the defences. This is OK as long as you do destroy the defenders but Goering wasn't doing that. The LW was drawing up defenders and getting shot down. The very last raids on London had a bomber to fighter ratio that was huge because bombers were so much harder to keep in service. He gave up before he had lost the last of his bombers and their crews wiped out and it all petered out as the attacks migrated into the night time Blitz, which did nothing to advance any German invasion.


----------



## wuzak (Jun 23, 2020)

Peter Gunn said:


> Which to me, highlights just how valuable the Mustang was that it was able to cruise at a reasonably good clip and still get the mileage needed to go deep into Germany.



I think you've missed the point.

If the P-51 was tied closely to the bombers, it would not be able to cruise at the higher speeds and would be at a disadvantage when contact was made with enemy fighters.

The Spitfire could cruise at a higher speed if necessary. It was a recommendation from tactical trials with a captured Fw 190 that Spitfire Vs over Europe fly at higher cruise speeds. The higher cruise speed gave some chance, low cruise speed gave little to none.


----------



## gjs238 (Jun 24, 2020)

wuzak said:


> I think you've missed the point.
> 
> If the P-51 was tied closely to the bombers, it would not be able to cruise at the higher speeds and would be at a disadvantage when contact was made with enemy fighters.
> 
> The Spitfire could cruise at a higher speed if necessary. It was a recommendation from tactical trials with a captured Fw 190 that Spitfire Vs over Europe fly at higher cruise speeds. The higher cruise speed gave some chance, low cruise speed gave little to none.



I didn't read Peter Gunn's post that way.
I don't read him advocating tying the P-51 closely to the bombers.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jun 24, 2020)

gjs238 said:


> I didn't read Peter Gunn's post that way.
> I don't read him advocating tying the P-51 closely to the bombers.



I didn't read his post as advocating that either.

The point that Shortround made was that the Bf 109s and 110s were tied to the bombers and had to use a cruise speed lower than they otherwise would. Similarly, in the "Lean into France" campaign the Spitfires were tied to the bombers and had to use a slower cruise speed than otherwise.

The 109s, 110s and Spitfires had the capability of using higher cruise speeds, but weren't allowed to, thus putting them at a disadvantage.

Yes, P-51s could fly farther than those, and it could fly at higher cruise speeds, thanks to its aerodynamics. But it was also given the freedom to do so, through the use of the relay system and a different mission aim (from early in 1944) of destroying the enemy air force rather than defending their own bombing force.

My point is that had the P-51 been hamstrung by the same tactics used by the 109, 110 and Spitfire it would have been less effective.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Jun 24, 2020)

Wuzak, the P-51s were hamstrung for a time til there was a command change. This command change then had the P-51s hunting the Lw.

John Vasco knows what he is talking about, John Vasco (Author of Messerschmitt Bf 110)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jun 24, 2020)

No point missed 

Were not the Mustangs (and Thunderbolts) initially tied to close escort and later sent on more of a search and destroy type of mission? Also, even when cruising with the bomber stream, were not Mustangs crisscrossing over the bombers at higher speeds so as not to get caught with their pants (or speed) down? One of you more learned gentlemen can correct me on that if I'm wrong.

Not really meaning to derail the thread, it was just an observation. 

P.S. so John, how came you to have such an interest in the Bf 110?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## glennasher (Jun 24, 2020)

After Doolittle took over from Eaker, things took a turn for the better. Doolittle understood what Eaker apparently missed, that they had to destroy the Luftwaffe before they could be more effective with the bombers. Doolittle was the one who turned the fighters loose.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jun 24, 2020)

Peter Gunn said:


> No point missed
> 
> Were not the Mustangs (and Thunderbolts) initially tied to close escort and later sent on more of a search and destroy type of mission? Also, even when cruising with the bomber stream, were not Mustangs crisscrossing over the bombers at higher speeds so as not to get caught with their pants (or speed) down? One of you more learned gentlemen can correct me on that if I'm wrong.
> 
> ...



The P-51s also didn't have to escort the bombers all the way to target and back, thanks to the relay system.

If I am not mistaken, there was less than a month between the P-51 first arriving in combat and Doolittle taking over.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## John Vasco (Jun 24, 2020)

Peter Gunn said:


> P.S. so John, how came you to have such an interest in the Bf 110?



It's a bit of a long story.

When my son was 2-2½ (1979/early-1980), I started making model aircraft again to hang from his ceiling. I'd always had an interest in the Battle of Britain, and so made models of the main fighters: SPitfire, Hurricane, 109 & 110. I also started reading up on the Battle and got numerous books from the library. Now, in these books the same event was recounted, but different books said completely different things. So, I thought, rather stupidly, I could do as good as that! Everything you wanted to know about the Spitfire, Hurricane, etc. had been published almost to saturation point, so I looked on the German side, and one particular unit kept cropping up with a rather unusual role in the Battle of Brtitain: Erprobungsgruppe 210 and its fighter-bombers. Someone MUST have written about that unit, I thought, but after a thorough search, nothing. So I then set out to find out as much as I could on the unit. Writing to publishers to contact authors, etc.. By 1983 I had gathered some information, but not a lot. One last shot - I wrote to the Gemeinschafet der Jagdflieger and asked for my letter of help to be published, which they did. I got ONE reply, from a former membr named Karl-Fritz Schröder. If anyone was instrumental in my work on Erprobungsgruppe 210, 'Bombsights over England', seeing the light of day, it was Karl. He told me there was a bi-yearly reunion involving Erprobungsgruppe 210 former members called the 'Wespentreffen', and invited me to attend the following year, which I did. There I met other former members, who put me in touch with other former members, and so the 'domino effect' kicked in. I had also gathered loads of info from the other side by visiting the Public Record Office (PRO), now the National Archive, and getting into the Fighter Command combat reports and airfield ORBs. I also obtained a complete set of Namentliche Verlustmeldungen of Erpr. Gr. 210 from the Deutsche Dienststelle in Berlin (Karl opened the door for me on that one!). So I wrote the whole thing and offered it to several publishers - they all rejected it. SO I got a bank loan and published it myself.

During my research, I contacted Peter Cornwell, THE pre-eminent Battle of Britain researcher (Battle of Britain Then and Now loss/damage tables), and visited him. I mentioned to him that I was thinking of diong all of the Bf 110 units in 1940 as my next project, and he suggested we do it together. And so, as well as attending the Wespentreffen in the 1980s, me and Peter were zipping around Germany and Austria every year interviewing and copying the photos of the Bf 110 veterans we could track down, and who were prepared to meet us, Like Wolfgang Falck and Hans-Joachim Jabs. We had some hilarious adventures along the way. I published our work 'Zerstörer' in 1995.

With 'Bombsights' selling out its 1,000 print run, I offered a second edition to Schiffer, and they accepted, and asked if I had anything else. So I told them I had rather a lot of photos of SKG 210/ZG 1, 1941-44, would they like to do a photo history? Yep, they would, so those two volumes were published in 2001 & 2002. Theythen asked if I could do a 'Profiles' book on the 110, and I said yeah, if the right profiles artist came along. Well, an internet contact in Brazil sent me an e-mail with a profile done by his friend and asked for my comments. 'Give me this guy's feckin' e-mail address!' That is how I got in contact with Fernando Estanislau, and we did the 'Profiles' book together. So I was up to around 3 in the morning every night for years chatting to Fernando, exchanging views (we did not always agree on things!) settling on the aircraft photos to use, and going through every single variant & sub-variant of the 110. We have never met - everything has been done via the internet.

After that, hey presto, publishers started coming to ME with projects on the Bf 110, and so over the years I've done stuff for Ian Allan, who then sold the rights on to Crecy without ever telling me, and most recently a two volume series on every Bf 110 Staffel in the Battle of Britain.

It's been one hell of a ride, but I wouldn't have missed it for the world. Who else has ever stood on the doorstep of Wolfgang Falck's house in St. Ulrich am Pillersee in Austria on an early Spring evening, and having the door open and be greeted by the man himself saying to me and Peter Cornwell 'Ah, you are the two mad Englishmen Jabs told me about!'. We had met Jabs a few days earlier, and then there was a big Nightfighter reunion that they both attended. I can imagine Jabs saying to him: 'I had two mad Englishmen visit me the other day, Vasco & Cornwell', and Falck saying,'They're coming to see me Sunday night!'

So, there's the story of how I started, and ended up, putting out a lot on the Bf 110. Phew!

Covers of my two latest, if you are interested.











I can also post some sample pages of the above if you wish.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
8 | Like Like:
7 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 24, 2020)

A great story, and one that was lucky to occur when it did so you could talk to the men involved.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 24, 2020)

John Vasco said:


> It's a bit of a long story.
> 
> When my son was 2-2½ (1979/early-1980), I started making model aircraft again to hang from his ceiling. I'd always had an interest in the Battle of Britain, and so made models of the main fighters: SPitfire, Hurricane, 109 & 110. I also started reading up on the Battle and got numerous books from the library. Now, in these books the same event was recounted, but different books said completely different things. So, I thought, rather stupidly, I could do as good as that! Everything you wanted to know about the Spitfire, Hurricane, etc. had been published almost to saturation point, so I looked on the German side, and one particular unit kept cropping up with a rather unusual role in the Battle of Brtitain: Erprobungsgruppe 210 and its fighter-bombers. Someone MUST have written about that unit, I thought, but after a thorough search, nothing. So I then set out to find out as much as I could on the unit. Writing to publishers to contact authors, etc.. By 1983 I had gathered some information, but not a lot. One last shot - I wrote to the Gemeinschafet der Jagdflieger and asked for my letter of help to be published, which they did. I got ONE reply, from a former membr named Karl-Fritz Schröder. If anyone was instrumental in my work on Erprobungsgruppe 210, 'Bombsights over England', seeing the light of day, it was Karl. He told me there was a bi-yearly reunion involving Erprobungsgruppe 210 former members called the 'Wespentreffen', and invited me to attend the following year, which I did. There I met other former members, who put me in touch with other former members, and so the 'domino effect' kicked in. I had also gathered loads of info from the other side by visiting the Public Record Office (PRO), now the National Archive, and getting into the Fighter Command combat reports and airfield ORBs. I also obtained a complete set of Namentliche Verlustmeldungen of Erpr. Gr. 210 from the Deutsche Dienststelle in Berlin (Karl opened the door for me on that one!). So I wrote the whole thing and offered it to several publishers - they all rejected it. SO I got a bank loan and published it myself.
> 
> ...


Great post. By coincidence, since I cannot face any more BLM or CV-19 news I watched an episode of "The World at War" last night. It had night fighter pilot Wilhelm Herget explaining night fighter tactics, I don't know if you met him. However the piece was introduced by an explanation of the Kammhuber line and said "The LW was acutely aware of the lesson RADAR equipped fighters had taught it during the Battle of Britain. But when did they learn that lesson? During or after? How much were the actual pilots aware of the part played by RADAR at the time in the BoB.


----------



## Zipper730 (Jun 24, 2020)

pbehn said:


> Calais to London is 100 miles approx. However some major raids on London were plagued with head winds which slowed the bombers dramatically and gave the escorts a headache flying that slow.


I assume that many fighter & Zerstorer units were based at Calais?


> Goering doesn't seem to have known what he was up against in any way. . . Goerings problem was with intelligence, until shortly before he gave up


I'm curious why he had shortcomings with intelligence? Also, why didn't he simply ask his subordinates to report to him what's going on? If I was in charge of something that serious -- I would want to be kept posted.


> He had no idea of how much he had lost of "his" Luftwaffe until he was told at the end of the battle of France


Wait, I thought France fell prior to the Battle of Britain?


> It is part of strategic bombing that the bomber force is "bait" to attack a target that the enemy must defend and destroy the defences. This is OK as long as you do destroy the defenders but Goering wasn't doing that.


I'd be okay with using bombers as bait, but I'd want heavy fighter cover (I'd prefer them to make it home), a series of feints.



John Vasco said:


> Bomber Commanders. I'll find the reference to the meeting for you.


Okay. I'm surprised that over 1-2 months they wouldn't have changed tactics, though it proved beneficial to the UK (as well as the US).


> If the Luftwaffe were looking for total air superiority over an invasion area, they would not have been looking to fly as far as London, but rather only as far as the English Channel coast. That would have increased the 109s' combat time considerably. It would not have proved to be any constraint on the 110.


I kind of forgot about the fact that the goal of the German high command was essentially to pave the way for a coastal-invasion (yes, I know that sounds stupid), so much as a way to knock them out of the war. For that, you'd want to extend out to the British side of the channel, and probably a certain number of miles inland from that point.

Since the British would fight this with everything they got with fighter-command, and retaliate with bomber-command: Attacking the fighter-bases would hamper flight-operations (I'm not sure what the policy was on all sides regarding strafing airplanes on the ground), and attacking the bomber-bases would prevent retaliatory-strikes of increasing magnitude (if sufficient headway was achieved, I would imagine the RAF would have more quickly switched their attacks into the cities in full force).

For these missions, the Bf.110 would be able to fly out at cruise speeds similar to the outbound interception speeds used by the Hurricane without incident in terms of range?


> 3 I think Stephen Bungay calls it the 'cock-up theory'. The less you do (i.e. you keep things simple), the less cock-ups, the more likely you are to win.


Also known as K.I.S.S.


> And ineptitude, yes I agree. Previously, right up to the end of the Western Campaign in the Spring of 1940, there were clear goals. For the Battle of Britain, there appears to be hesitancy, and a case of not quite knowing what to do next. For just over a month there were attacks on shipping in the Channel and up the south-easy coast of England. Then the attacks on the airfields and the land targets. Then on 7th September the major attacks on London. Doesn't seem t have been a single coherent strategy. Perhaps down to the fact that a negotiated peace was hoped for


That seemed to be a big thing, actually. I'm surprised they were so stunned that they'd oppose it, though it's probably a good thing: The Germans would have plowed all over the place with minimal resistance; then extended and extinguished the British for good.

We wouldn't have been able to attack Germany in any real way, and the Japanese demonstrated they could plow across the Pacific with the same ease that Germany plowed over Europe.


> When that didn't happen, what next? Well, knock out Fighter Command as a prelude to invasion. Which, in its wake, brough out disagreements across the three German forces. It is as well for us that that happened.


What kind of disagreements?


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 25, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> I'm curious why he had shortcomings with intelligence? Also, why didn't he simply ask his subordinates to report to him what's going on? If I was in charge of something that serious -- I would want to be kept posted.


In a totalitarian regime, it is often unhealthy to report negative data.
So Goering (who already lived in a vacuum) did not have a black and white assessment of the situation. It went further up, though, as Hitler was not always given hard details because of his temper tantrums.

This was not unique to the Third Reich, though, the Japanese and the Soviet leaders did not take negative reports very well, either.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Jun 25, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> I assume that many fighter & Zerstorer units were based at Calais?



Assume incorrectly.

https://www.bing.com/images/blob?bcid=SBiD6sTec3sBqxcxoNWLuD9SqbotqVTdP0k


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jun 25, 2020)

John,

Great story, thanks for sharing, I'm always interested to see how someone sets out on a journey like this. Good job.


John Vasco said:


> I can also post some sample pages of the above if you wish.


YES PLEASE!

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## John Vasco (Jun 25, 2020)

Peter Gunn said:


> John,
> 
> Great story, thanks for sharing, I'm always interested to see how someone sets out on a journey like this. Good job.
> 
> YES PLEASE!



PART ONE:














The above caption mainly covers another photo of A2+LK on the opposite page.

PART TWO:




S9+AH was the Bf 110 of Martin Lutz, Staffelkapitän of 1./Erpr. Gr. 210, later third Gruppenkommandeur. He pranged this one, so being the Boss, he comandeered another from the unit, S9+DH, and on 27th September 1940 was shot down and killed in S9+DH in a raid against The Parnall Aircraft Factory at Yate, near Bristol.















With this last photo, the only info myself and a Swedish researcher (who I had liaised with for years) had was the in the first sentence of the caption. It took many weeks to arrive at the position of the unit, the aircraft, and most importantly, who the pilot was addressing the groundcrew upon return from a cambat mission over southern England.

Profiles by Fernando Estanislau.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
4 | Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dimlee (Jun 25, 2020)

I hope those great books will be published in electronic format in the future.
Currently, I can find only hardcovers on Amazon...


----------



## John Vasco (Jun 25, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> What kind of disagreements?



Zipper,
Rather than type out a long post, here's four pages from Stephen Bungays 'The most dangerous enemy' which highlights the differences of opinions between the three German armed forces.










Hope this helps.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## John Vasco (Jun 25, 2020)

Dimlee said:


> *I hope those great books* will be published in electronic format in the future.
> Currently, I can find only hardcovers on Amazon...



Thank you for your very kind words - appreciated.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 25, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> I assume that many fighter & Zerstorer units were based at Calais?
> I'm curious why he had shortcomings with intelligence? Also, why didn't he simply ask his subordinates to report to him what's going on? If I was in charge of something that serious -- I would want to be kept posted.
> Wait, I thought France fell prior to the Battle of Britain?
> I'd be okay with using bombers as bait, but I'd want heavy fighter cover (I'd prefer them to make it home), a series of feints.
> ?


Most airfields at Calais were Bf 109 they had the shortest range so were closest to the coast. 

Books are written on things like intelligence and its use. As I remember, his reports on UK fighter production were old and so underestimated strength, same with pilot training. At the start his idea of RAF strength was correct, but believing claims and not believing production had changed in UK meant he was increasingly deluded about the RAF he was facing. Numerically the RAF increased slightly in strength through the battle wile Goering and many top staff believed it was almost eliminated. Such thinking becomes self reinforcing, the appearance of the Duxford wing in the battle 50 aircraft together was seen as proof that this desperate measure was a last throw of the dice, the fabled "last 50 airplanes". 

From the invasion of Poland Germany had been making aircraft and losing them. It seems that Goering was mainly concerned with production and combat losses, but the LW had many other losses other than combat losses, a lot of accidents and planes being cannibalised. When France (and Belgium) fell that was the end of campaigns in Poland Netherlands Norway Belgium France and Goering had only paid a passing interest because they were winning. When he visited France and totted up the numbers of planes *actually available *a huge number were missing from his mental picture. As a bomber force the LW was at its strongest before the France campaign, it never regained that strength at any time later.
Towards the end of the BoB the ratio of fighters to bombers was huge, but the S/E fighters didnt have the range and the twin engined fighters were instructed to stay close to the bombers, I suspect to ensure there was something there at all times.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 25, 2020)

Milosh said:


> Assume incorrectly.
> 
> https://www.bing.com/images/blob?bcid=SBiD6sTec3sBqxcxoNWLuD9SqbotqVTdP0k


Its a great map. I mentioned the distances purely to illustrate how short the actually were. Most airfields in and around Calais were for Bf109 because they had the shortest range. Manston was closer to those LW airfields than many RAF airfields than many RAF fields in 11 group. It doesn't matter where the Bf 110 fields were (unless you are attacking them). To attack London you have to take the shortest route because of the 109s, the bombers and Bf 110s had ample range. However they were most of the time in range of Chain home as your map shows, forming up at Cap Griz Nez is also in range of Chain Home low. For the 109s who weren't actually at Calais, they had to take off and form up, then form up at the RDV with the bombers and then chug into a head wind across the channel, when things went wrong with timing some were getting low on fuel before they crossed the English coast.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Jun 25, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> In a totalitarian regime, it is often unhealthy to report negative data.
> So Goering (who already lived in a vacuum) did not have a black and white assessment of the situation. It went further up, though, as Hitler was not always given hard details because of his temper tantrums.


Okay, so the fact that he had inaccurate data was because his subordinates were afraid of reprisals? This probably proved a major disadvantage for the Germans, Japanese, Soviets.



Milosh said:


> Assume incorrectly.
> 
> https://www.bing.com/images/blob?bcid=SBiD6sTec3sBqxcxoNWLuD9SqbotqVTdP0k


I appreciate the effort, but the link doesn't load.



John Vasco said:


> Zipper,
> Rather than type out a long post, here's four pages from Stephen Bungays 'The most dangerous enemy' which highlights the differences of opinions between the three German armed forces.


Okay, so the basic plan called for the following
​I. Kriegsmarine​A. Provide an invasion fleet to move army units ashore​B. Protect the invasion fleet from the Royal Navy and shore-based artillery​II. Luftwaffe​A. Prevent the RAF from intervening​B. Attack coastal points and support landing Army units.​C. Attack Royal Navy vessels​D. Disrupt transportation lines​III. Heer​A. Storm-ashore & attack any remaining resistance​B. Capture England.​​It seemed the Luftwaffe didn't see the invasion as being a feasible idea, the Kriegsmarine didn't think it would be possible, Hitler felt that the UK was ready to give up and wanted to carry out the invasion faster than his experts wanted to, and saw the threat of problems with the USSR.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 25, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> Okay, so the fact that he had inaccurate data was because his subordinates were afraid of reprisals? This probably proved a major disadvantage for the Germans, Japanese, Soviets.
> 
> I appreciate the effort, but the link doesn't load.
> 
> ...


If someone like Hitler tells you he wants a plan, you come up with a plan. They had plans to bomb the USA and build massive broad gauge railways all over Europe. They stopped work on the railways in 1945, because to say "this isn't gonna happen" is defeatism and will get you shot.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 25, 2020)

Yiannis said:


> No, I don't question statistics and they are not my own. 1079 spitfires and hurricanes were lost and 1/3 were shot down by 110s. The rest 2/3s by 109s. How do I question stats. It's simple math.
> 
> The RAF had more planes and were also producing at higher rates. What does any of that have to do anything with what Dowding said? You are trying to connect irrelevant things.



I think a fair amount was shot down by defensive Gunners on bombers.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 25, 2020)

Schweik said:


> I think a fair amount was shot down by defensive Gunners on bombers.


I got lost at "the RAF had more planes".


----------



## Schweik (Jun 25, 2020)

Yiannis said:


> Well that is what Churchil said.
> 
> 
> The problem is that I see so much effort to present the Germans making 'mistakes' for losing to ridiculously overwhelming forces throughout the war when in fact we should be looking at the mistakes of the others who took so many casualties and delays against tiny forces. Mate, 1 million men with 25,000 vehicles and 15,000 aircraft managed to take a seaside town of Caen 10 km away from the beach on 16 July from a baby division only after carpet bombing the hell out it at night with 15,000 French citizen casualties and you call that what a triumph? A German mistake or plan? The plan was to take Caen on 6 of June. Anyway. Sorry, I can't buy that.



If you don't like those results how do you feel about the invasion and conquest of Crete?


----------



## Schweik (Jun 25, 2020)

pbehn said:


> If you are loose with your spelling you may lose the argument. BTW I didn't indulge in any discussion of Greek.


If you're going to be pedantic be correct!


----------



## pbehn (Jun 25, 2020)

Schweik said:


> If you're going to be pedantic be correct!


It is Muphreys law.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
3 | Funny Funny:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 25, 2020)

wuzak said:


> ?
> 
> They destroyed the Luftwaffe in the air and on the ground.



And the luftwaffe destroyed most of the Russian air Force on the ground in the early days of Barbarossa Japanese destroyed most of the Anglo American air forces on the ground during Pearl Harbor, the invasions of Malaya, Philippines etcetera. When the Allies won the initiative they did the same thing back to the Axis. That is generally how it is done if you have the capability.


----------



## Milosh (Jun 25, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> I appreciate the effort, but the link doesn't load.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jun 26, 2020)

Sure. And they wouldn’t ignore the other twin-engined fighters that preceded it, going back to WWI. The would also look at non-military aircraft.


----------



## Snautzer01 (Jun 26, 2020)

John Vasco said:


> PART ONE:
> View attachment 586143
> 
> 
> ...


Are you planning to write some more?


----------



## Dimlee (Jun 26, 2020)

Schweik said:


> And the luftwaffe destroyed most of the Russian air Force on the ground in the early days of Barbarossa



No, not the most. Old myth.


----------



## John Vasco (Jun 26, 2020)

Snautzer01 said:


> Are you planning to write some more?



No, over 10 books on the Bf 110, I think I have exhausted it all.


----------



## Snautzer01 (Jun 26, 2020)

Shame. But understandable. Perhaps another type?


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 26, 2020)

Brewster B-239/339??


----------



## swampyankee (Jun 26, 2020)

pbehn said:


> It is Muphreys law.
> View attachment 586197


Murphy's


----------



## pbehn (Jun 26, 2020)

swampyankee said:


> Murphy's


Nope, Muphrys law is that when you pull someone up on spelling or grammar you will always spell or punctuate incorrectly yourself. A variation on Murphys law where anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Muphry's law - Wikipedia

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## John Vasco (Jun 26, 2020)

Snautzer01 said:


> Shame. But understandable. Perhaps another type?



At my age, there's nothing in the tank to start on something new.

So I'll just continue to participate in, and hopefully help, forums with information on the 110.

I STILL haven't found that bloody elusive pic of Rubensdörffer's 110!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Snautzer01 (Jun 26, 2020)

John Vasco said:


> At my age, there's nothing in the tank to start on something new.
> 
> So I'll just continue to participate in, and hopefully help,forums with information o the 110.
> 
> I STILL haven't found that bloody elusive pic of Rubensdörffer's 110!


Well keep an eye out for my eBay Messerschmitt Me110, one can never know. If there is a profile i will keep an extra eye out for possibles


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 26, 2020)

John Vasco said:


> At my age, there's nothing in the tank to start on something new.
> 
> So I'll just continue to participate in, and hopefully help,forums with information o the 110.
> 
> I STILL haven't found that bloody elusive pic of Rubensdörffer's 110!


Hey, that didn’t stop Caiden. Save some effort and make stuff up.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 26, 2020)

pbehn said:


> Nope, Muphrys law is that when you pull someone up on spelling or grammar you will always spell or punctuate incorrectly yourself. A variation on Murphys law where anything that can go wrong will go wrong. Muphry's law - Wikipedia


..and my favorite, interchangeable parts aren’t.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Husky (Jun 26, 2020)

SaparotRob said:


> ..and my favorite, interchangeable parts aren’t.



And, friendly fire isn't

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## John Vasco (Jun 26, 2020)

SaparotRob said:


> 1, Hey, that didn’t stop Caiden.
> 
> 2. Save some effort and make stuff up.



1. Who's Caiden? Would he be a certain someone who did Bf 109 books in th e1960s/70s?

3. I leave that to others. Wait 'til we hit the main period of the 80th anniversary of the Battle of Britain in a couple of months time. It's already been building up. I've been called various names for saying that James Nicholson (249 Squadron) did not shoot at a Bf 110 on 16th August, thereby getting the VC in a burning Hurricane. Also, one lady, who to me obviously in love with the photos of Hans-Joachim Marseille, called me a jerk after she said Marseille did not fly in the West, and I pointed out that he flew in the BoB with Lehrgeschwader 2. Hell. Man, what do I know about the Battle of Britain over her, apart from 40 years worth of research into it! 

It's gonna be an interesting high summer!

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 26, 2020)

Looking forward to it. I got a lot of reading to catch up on!


----------



## John Vasco (Jun 26, 2020)

SaparotRob said:


> Looking forward to it. I got a lot of reading to catch up on!



If I may recommend a series of books on the Battle of Britain: Battle of Britain Combat Archive series published by Red Kite. They have just published Volume 8, and they have reached the end of August 1940. Price per volume is £20, so I suggest you get them on a 'drip' basis, one at a time. But a word of caution. If you get Volume 1, you will be drawn into Volume 2, then 3, then 4, they are so good.

And I declare an interest in them, insofar as I am a contributor with regard to the Bf 110. However, the contributors include other such names as: Dave Brocklehurst Mbe (Owner of the Battle of Britain Museum in Hawkinge), John Foreman, Niger Parker ('Luftwaffe Crash Archive' series), Mark Postlethwaite, Chris Goss, Andy Saunders, Mark Kirby, Andy Long (look out for his book on the Boulton Paul Defiant, coming soon), & Steve Vizard. Kirby & Vizard may not be known to most, but they were active in the aviation archaelogy field since the 1970s, and their knowledge and (photo) collections are incredible.

And here's a link to their website showing the series: WingLeader - Aviation Books and Collectables

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 26, 2020)

John Vasco said:


> 1. Who's Caiden? Would he be a certain someone who did Bf 109 books in th e1960s/70s?



And a P-38 and P-47 book as well as a few others.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Graeme (Jun 26, 2020)

Another...

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 26, 2020)

I read Samurai by Saburo Sakai with Masatake Okumiya(?). (I already misspelled Caidin.) That had to be over fifty years ago. I just have always enjoyed saying Masatake Okumiya.


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 26, 2020)

I do plan on reading The First Team by Lunstrom. The first eight months of the PTO holds a special interest for me. Lots of Buffaloes.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Jun 27, 2020)

FLYBOYJ said:


> And a P-38 and P-47 book as well as a few others.
> 
> View attachment 586316



I remember seeing that airplane at the TICO Airshow (Titusville Cocoa Beach) in the 70s. I think it was advertised as Hitlers Private Plane.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 27, 2020)

Interesting thread, I enjoyed reading it.

I know Martin Caidin was something of a nut, and played a bit fast and loose with some of his aviation history, but I kinda like the guy. He was quite accomplished. And he was one of us so to speak, he loved military aircraft and WW2.

Interesting analysis of the Bf 110 but I think only looking at the Battle of Britain is rather a chronic problem in evaluating aircraft. Or more precisely, looking over the BoB very carefully, then skipping ahead to some time around 1943 or 1944 when the war is basically past the tipping point. This has been done with many aircraft types (the Stuka and Ju 88 are two others which get a kind of distorted record from this type of analysis)

I believe I saw one post in the thread looking at Bf 110 units on the Russian Front around mid-war, and they didn't do so well. I would say roughly the same thing seemed to happen in the MTO.

From what I have read about it, Bf 110 units were quite successful in early battles, notably in France, where a lot of the fighters were a bit slower and the Bf 110 was a feared strafer. Obviously they struggled and in fact got slaughtered in the BoB (which I think is quite clear despite all the heroic attempts to bend the interpretation in this thread). I believe they initially did well in Russia but toward the end of 1942 started to face faster fighters and began to take increasingly untenable casualties. They were used as a night fighter there but it wasn't as big a part of the fight on the Russian front as in the West.

In North Africa Bf 110 units were successful initially, they were the first German fighters sent to the region, and they proved very dangerous opponents for Gloster Gladiators, and seemed to do Ok against the Mk I Hurricanes. After MK II Hurricanes & Tomahawks arrived in the Theater toward the end of 1941 the Bf 110s were getting wrecked, and they had to be pulled out of daytime combat. You can see some of those battles in the thread I posted on combat outcomes, I'll try to find a link and some summaries.

After that 110 was doing maritime patrols mostly, and saw some action against Convoys, including occasionally against Fleet Air Arm planes and increasingly, tangling with Beaufighters. Some of this was quite bloody though I think overall the Beaufighter units got the better of Bf 110 units. For whatever reason, the Zerstorer / maritime patrol role seemed to be more effectively done by Ju 88Cs.

Clearly the Bf 110 eventually had a niche as a Night Fighter, but was it better in that role than a Mosquito? I don't think so. I really don't think they should have made so many. It just seemed like it was always about 20-30 mph too slow given the other inherent limitations of a twin engined fighter. I wouldn't go so far as to say they didn't fear combat with a Bf 110, I think any air combat would be potentially terrifying, but I think a lot of more experienced Allied pilots were fairly confident they could take down 110s if they saw them coming. The 110 just didn't seem to retain energy well, obviously wasn't maneuverable (poor roll etc.) and didn't seem to be able to climb above it's opponents, which were typically quite agile aircraft. That meant that unless the 110 started in a higher E state and kept it up somehow (against the odds) they were basically doomed. I believe this was true in the MTO and also Russia. The long overdue replacement, the 210, was even worse, and they didn't get that sorted out until they got the new wing. By that time there were Mustangs, Thunderbolts and late model Spitfires all over the place and they were just too vulnerable, though they did prove capable of gunning down the heavy bombers.

Could it do well as a ground attack Jabo type role? Yes to a point. Having two engines definitely does help get pilots home after a dangerous mission. But being a very large aircraft isn't ideal when facing AAA at a low level, not being super fast isn't great either, and neither is having fairly vulnerable in-line engines. I think the FW 190 was better in the ground attack role, it was faster down low, a smaller target, more agile and even more heavily armed.

All in all, I don't think the 110 was underrated, except as a night fighter and even there, it was (I would say) capable rather than superb. A lot of the success is attributable to good pilots and effective tactics.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 27, 2020)

BiffF15 said:


> I remember seeing that airplane at the TICO Airshow (Titusville Cocoa Beach) in the 70s. *I think it was advertised as Hitlers Private Plane.*
> 
> Cheers,
> Biff



Probably another Caidan "truth stretching"

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Jun 27, 2020)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Probably another Caidan "truth stretching"


I always understood that there was a converted FW 200 Condor as his official transport

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jun 27, 2020)

Glider said:


> I always understood that there was a converted FW 200 Condor as his official transport


Yeah but that fact wouldn’t sell tickets to this air show

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Jun 27, 2020)

Having once been inside a Ju52, getting Goering in would have been worth paying good money to see

Reactions: Funny Funny:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 27, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> This should not be a surprise for us to find out now as the British ran into the same problems early in the "Lean into France" campaign. Flying at long range cruise speeds was finally judged to near suicidal even for Spitfires. It took a Spitfire V about 2 minutes to go from a cruise speed of just over 200mph to full speed.
> 
> German fighters, of any type, putzing along at bomber cruise speeds would be flying too slow to successfully engage attacking fighters with the amount of warning time they had.
> Starting every fight in a much lower energy state than your opponents is not a good way to fight.



That is interesting, as a benchmark of straight line acceleration. But I believe in battle this is not what fighter pilots did - a Spitfire would do a wingover and dive down to pick up speed, then zoom back up to altitude. Most American pilots would do a Split S or a wingover. I don't know for sure but I believe German pilots would do the same if they were caught slow. The other part of an energy state or E of course is _altitude_. So it makes sense for escorting fighters which do have to stay with the bombers to fly higher, quite a bit higher, so that they can dive down to catch interceptors coming up from below. So long as someone spots the enemy in time, even a shallow dive can help enormously in picking up speed.

Historically at least some of the escorts would fly above the formation - for the German Bf 109s units in North Africa, who were operating in much smaller numbers than the BoB, it usually meant at least one _Schwarm_ or two _Rotte_ (4 fighters) out of a flight of 12 which would always be flying top cover. Interceptors would often be coming up from below, especially if they were relatively slow climbing planes like a Hurricane or a P-40. So some of the escorts could dive down on them even if they were flying with the bombers. The main tactical problem with 'tight escort' I believe was in not giving them the freedom to take off after the enemy planes.

It was a balance of problems - clever interceptor pilots would use lures to draw away escorts so that the bombers could be more easily attacked. This is what the 49th FG did to Zeros attacking Darwin. Aircraft which could dive pretty well could get away with this tactic to some extent - they shot down a lot of G4M's despite the Japanese raids coming in at an altitude where the US fighters could barely fly. They would attack in flights of four and draw off the Japanese escorts while diving away, and then another flight would hit the bombers. The British had learned to attack from out of the Sun and when Spitfires arrived in N/A the better Spitfire units would attack enemy formations from two directions at once, one from close to the same altitude, another one obliquely from above, from out of the Sun. A lot of this tactical chess game depends on how vulnerable the bombers are. This is where bomber defensive guns, and or performance / maneuverability comes into play. If the bombers can hold their own for a few minutes, it gives the escort fighter pilots more realistic flexibility. If the bombers are highly vulnerable the escorts can't risk getting too far away, because an enemy fighter can slip in and decimate the bomber formation in seconds.

For this reason the Germans in North Africa and the Med stuck increasingly to using Stukas, Ju 88s and even Bf 109 'Jabos' for bombers, while keeping their more vulnerable He 111's, SM. 79s and so on restricted to night time or maritime patrol duties. Interestingly I don't remember seeing Bf 110s being assigned to a lot of Jabo units ...( ?) Maybe John Vasco can correct me on that. The Ju 87s seemed to be good at evading attacks, breaking up their formations and twisting and turning with their big wings and dive brakes. They also had a trick with their engines where they would emit smoke that made it look like they had been hit. The Ju 88s were fast, pretty well armed and also maneuverable and seemed to have a fairly good survival rate as well.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 27, 2020)

German pilots in North Africa hated flying escort missions though and complained bitterly about it.


----------



## Milosh (Jun 27, 2020)

Diving out of the sun to attack had been around since WW1.



Schweik said:


> using Stukas, Ju 88s and even Bf 109 'Jabos' for bombers,



Sch.G.2 and SKG10 were Focke-Wulf units.


----------



## Schweik (Jun 27, 2020)

Milosh said:


> Diving out of the sun to attack had been around since WW1.



No doubt, the future was there already, but it was not always evenly distributed  DAF pilots didn't get the opportunity that often in the early days because they tended to fly patrols at quite low altitude, as low as 6,000-8,000 ft. which the German pilots considered their biggest setback. They also were not generally flying in pairs / figure four formation even though that had been worked out during the BoB or earlier.

Later when the Spitfire, P-38, and Merlin / P-40 units showed up they sometimes got the drop on German fighters while flying high cover. The best opportunity was when the Germans were escorting bombers because most of the bombers (notably Stukas) didn't fly that high.



> Sch.G.2 and SKG10 were Focke-Wulf units.



Those came later, I'm talking about the early days, 1941 to mid 42. By 1944 there were many more FW units as several of the Stuka squadrons had converted to them.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## John Vasco (Jun 28, 2020)

Schweik said:


> Obviously they struggled and in fact got slaughtered in the BoB (which I think is quite clear despite all the heroic attempts to bend the interpretation in this thread).



I think you have fallen into the trap of believing all that was written decades ago concerning the performance of the Bf 110, without referencing it to the performance of the other main fighters in the BoB.
Take a look at this:





If the Bf 110 'got slaughtered' in the BoB, then it can be said that the Spitfire, Hurricane andBf 109 equally got slaughtered. All three, one might say, performed equally as badly as the Bf 110.

And whereas overclaiming comes into play, overclaiming was similar across both the Luftwaffe and Fighter Command.

The fact is, all four main fighters in the Battle of Britain hammered the hell out of their opponents. Yet the 109 is lionised as some kind of superb fighter; the Spitfire equally so. The Hurricane is seen as the workhorse that did its bit; the 110 as being poor. The 109 is never shown as a fighter that got absolutely battered in the skies of England in 1940.

Make your own mind up...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
3 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Snautzer01 (Jun 28, 2020)

Is it known how many missions per type?


----------



## Glider (Jun 28, 2020)

As I have mentioned before these stats are meaningless without some estimate re the number of sorties each type flew and other information. For instance I believe there were roughly three times as many Me109's compared to Me110's and the 109's flew far more missions which means that the %age loss ratio of the Me110 was far worse than the Me109.

A good number of the RAF fighters were shot down by the bombers defensive fire which was far from an ineffective. Looking at these stats it would seem that the Bombers didn't shoot any fighters down.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jun 28, 2020)

Schweik said:


> Clearly the Bf 110 eventually had a niche as a Night Fighter, but was it better in that role than a Mosquito?



That's not really the question, at least for the Luftwaffe.

Was it better than the Do 217 night fighter or the Ju 88 night fighter? Were there any better options?

And if it wasn't better, was it more available?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jun 28, 2020)

Schweik said:


> That is interesting, as a benchmark of straight line acceleration. But I believe in battle this is not what fighter pilots did - a Spitfire would do a wingover and dive down to pick up speed, then zoom back up to altitude.



So, while they are doing that, how many bombers have they lost?


----------



## Schweik (Jun 28, 2020)

Basically what Glider said. You can pull one set of statistics and draw almost any conclusions you want to. But I see a similar pattern in North Africa. The fighting is much less intense than the BoB (though it ramps up a bit in December) but it's enough combat to get a sense of how it was going for each side. Overall the British were taking a drubbing, but the Bf 110 does not seem to shine.

Based on the stats I already transcribed for June - December 1941, we see a similar number in total loses for the Bf 109 and Bf 110

28 x Bf 109s were lost and only 26 x Bf 110.

But if you look at the number of claims and missions where they saw action (in which either a claim was made or a loss was taken) the picture looks a bit different.

Just quickly eyeballing these numbers so I could be off slightly. But by my count:

whereas the Bf 110s only saw "action" on 20 days and only made 12 claims in those 5 months.
Bf 109s saw "action" on 131 days in that 5 month period, and claimed 54 in June, 14 in July, 25 in August, 34 in September, 30 in October, 65 in November, and 112 in December - for 221 claims.

So the both the per-sortie rate for the 110s and the claim to loss rate is really bad, and for whatever reason they don't seem to have seen much air to air combat during that period.

The losses for the Bf 110s basically also represent the entire contingent. Which may be why they didn't fly that much. For example they saw action in 8 days in November, but lost 13 Bf 110s.

Here is my count:
14 June 1941 – Bf 110 lost

30 June 1941- 2 x Bf 110 lost (unit 7.ZG 26) claimed 2 fighters. 2 x Allied fighters lost

11 August 1941 – Bf 110 lost to Tomahawk

21 August 1941 2 x Bf 110 lost to Tomahawks (7 & 8 ZG.26)

14 September 1941 Bf 110 lost

15 November 1941 Bf 110 lost to Hurricanes

16 November 1941 Bf 110 lost to Tomahawks (caught on a ferry flight)

20 November 1941 5 x Bf 110 lost to Tomahawks

22 November Bf 110 lost to Flak

23 November Bf 110 lost to Hurricane

24 November 3 x Bf 110 lost to Tomahawks and Hurricanes (9.ZG 26)

25 November 3 x Bf 110 – Claimed 2 fighters out of 6 enemy claims (6 fighters were shot down)

26 November Claimed 1 fighter out of 2 (2 fighters lost)

4 December Bf 110 lost to Hurricane

8 December 3 x Bf 110 lost to Hurricanes

9 December Bf 110 lost to Tomahawks (7./ZG 26) 2 Claims, 1 verified

11 December – Claimed 1 Beaufighter (this was apparently a Blenheim)

12 December – Claimed 4 Marylands (confirmed)

13 December – Claimed 2 Blenheims (confirmed)

24 December 2 x Bf 110 lost


----------



## Schweik (Jun 28, 2020)

wuzak said:


> That's not really the question, at least for the Luftwaffe.
> 
> Was it better than the Do 217 night fighter or the Ju 88 night fighter? Were there any better options?
> 
> And if it wasn't better, was it more available?



That is a fair question. I don't know the answer. I guess the two different versions of comparison are, how good was the 110 on a world stage compared to aircraft on the other side as well as one's over where available to the luftwaffe.the other is as you stayed in terms of whether they should have kept building it. It does seem that the 110 was an effective night fighter I wouldn't deny that. ju88 may have ultimately been a little bit more versatile but it too had a similar problem in that the major upgrade or the new version that was supposed to replace it didn't really quite work out maybe wasn't just developed quick enough.


----------



## BiffF15 (Jun 28, 2020)

Schweik said:


> That is interesting, as a benchmark of straight line acceleration. But I believe in battle this is not what fighter pilots did - *a Spitfire would do a wingover and dive down to pick up speed, then zoom back up to altitude.* Most American pilots would do a Split S or a wingover. I don't know for sure but I believe German pilots would do the same if they were caught slow. The other part of an energy state or E of course is _altitude_. So it makes sense for escorting fighters which do have to stay with the bombers to fly higher, quite a bit higher, so that they can dive down to catch interceptors coming up from below. So long as someone spots the enemy in time, even a shallow dive can help enormously in picking up speed.
> 
> .



Schweik,

If a plane uses altitude to gain energy (dive) then zoom climbs back to altitude he will arrive where he started at almost the same speed (assuming he went to full power). If your plan is to not accelerate until you sight the enemy you are assuming you have perfect visual look out skills. What they might have done is dive to accelerate then cruise climb at a higher speed. This also assumes they spot the enemy far enough away so as not to give up altitude to your opponents. Lots of assumptions here that does not make for a long life in combat.

Best business practice is to cruise at a high enough speed to make up for poor visual look out skills / late visual pickup. That allows a relatively quick accel to combat speed without giving up altitude. Giving up altitude or allowing your opponent to attack from above is a very poor choice, and will cost you dearly particularly with piston engined fighters. The guy holding the high ground will arrive at the fight noticeably faster, which opens follow up maneuvers that are unavailable to the slower / lower guy. The high ground adversary, arriving at the fight at high speed courtesy of gravity and power can take a snap shot, then either zoom back up to safety, blow through and go after the bombers, or execute high energy maneuvers that are not an option for the slower guy.

I read somewhere that the Russians went full power in close proximity to where they expected combat and didn’t slow down until well clear fuel allowing. Premise was it made interceptions more difficult which is still true today.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 28, 2020)

wuzak said:


> So, while they are doing that, how many bombers have they lost?



I think I addressed that in my post a couple of posts above. But if it boils down to sticking around trying to slowly accelerate in a straight line at 200 miles an hour then really what you're suggesting is trade a fighter for a bomber. That was actually done in certain theaters during certain periods but I don't think it's a great strategy. Diving to pick up some speed will probably happen a lot quicker than the two minutes Shortround6 was talking about. Probably more like a minute. but even if it's the same amount of time you're talking about the difference between bombers being only defended by the top cover for 2 minutes with the other fighters basically sitting ducks, versus fighters diving for some speed and entering the fight ready to compete. It pretty much boils down to how vulnerable to bombers are. If you've got Blenheims or Ki 21s apparently they really need theclose escort all the time because they go down very quickly. if you've got Boston's or Baltimore's... Or Ju 88's, Pe 2's whatever, maybe they can hold out a little longer. You might lose one or two but if the whole escort gets shot down and the bombers are at the mercy of the interceptors and it's just a matter how much ammunition do the latter still have...


----------



## Schweik (Jun 28, 2020)

BiffF15 said:


> Schweik,
> 
> If a plane uses altitude to gain energy (dive) then zoom climbs back to altitude he will arrive where he started at almost the same speed (assuming he went to full power). If your plan is to not accelerate until you sight the enemy you are assuming you have perfect visual look out skills. What they might have done is dive to accelerate then cruise climb at a higher speed. This also assumes they spot the enemy far enough away so as not to give up altitude to your opponents. Lots of assumptions here that does not make for a long life in combat.
> 
> ...



I hear where you're coming from Biff but I think you're talking about the ideal situation. How do you handle it if you have bombers that have an effective ceiling of 12000 or 19000 ft and can't cruise faster than 200 miles an hour, and are too vulnerable to survive being attacked for 5 minutes.


----------



## Milosh (Jun 28, 2020)

Schweik said:


> They also had a trick with their engines where they would emit smoke that made it look like they had been hit.


The smoke is incomplete combustion due to rich mixture and was used even before the MTO.


----------



## BiffF15 (Jun 28, 2020)

Schweik said:


> I hear where you're coming from Biff but I think you're talking about the ideal situation. How do you handle it if you have bombers that have an effective ceiling of 12000 or 19000 ft and can't cruise faster than 200 miles an hour, and are too vulnerable to survive being attacked for 5 minutes.



Schweik,

You cruise faster and zigzag. Or you use shuttle ops like the 8th did. Or you fly above your opponents max altitude (if possible) and use gravity to arrive at the fight with high energy. Or you launch in the dark to arrive over the target at first light (limiting the threat window to target area and RTB). Or you hit the opponents airfield prior to them launching (requires good intel and no early warning). Or you find another target so as not to feed your sheep to the wolves. 

Or you accept the losses, which unfortunately happened.

I’m not talking ideal situation as much as I’m talking tactical employment common sense. If all you have is bloody knees / elbows, no masks or fins, and a small spear maybe you shouldn’t go in the deep water “hunting “ sharks (or feeding them depending on your perspective).

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Jun 28, 2020)

wuzak said:


> That's not really the question, at least for the Luftwaffe.
> 
> Was it better than the Do 217 night fighter or the Ju 88 night fighter? Were there any better options?
> 
> And if it wasn't better, was it more available?


Taking this a stage further. Remembering that the 110 was the first and arguably most important Luftwaffe night fighter for the first 18-24 months of the war. The one you should compare it against, is the often overlooked (as in here) Beaufighter.


----------



## Dimlee (Jun 28, 2020)

BiffF15 said:


> I read somewhere that the Russians went full power in close proximity to where they expected combat and didn’t slow down until well clear fuel allowing.



Probably it was about new tactics developed by Pokryshkin and some other innovating and "out of box" thinking pilots. They were helped by more reliable engines becoming more available, in the lend leased aircraft, and improved domestic engines as ASh-82F/FN.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 28, 2020)

BiffF15 said:


> Schweik,
> 
> You cruise faster and zigzag. Or you use shuttle ops like the 8th did. Or you fly above your opponents max altitude (if possible) and use gravity to arrive at the fight with high energy. Or you launch in the dark to arrive over the target at first light (limiting the threat window to target area and RTB). Or you hit the opponents airfield prior to them launching (requires good intel and no early warning). Or you find another target so as not to feed your sheep to the wolves.
> 
> ...



Flying higher is what I suggested. A lot of the other options like weaving at higher speed uses too much fuel for a Bf109. If you are a Luftwaffe commander it's not really an option because the 110's can't really do the escort job (and their range isn't that great either).

in a way you might say that the American fighters like a p51, p38 & even the p-47, Corsair and Hellcat kind of lived up to the heavy fighter role better than a 110. Very good at escort, capable of bomber destroying, versatile for all sorts of other missions.

P-40 & Wildcat / Martlet were kind of in between- medium range, medium firepower, too slow climbing to be good interceptors, but good in the escort role, quite capable of knocking down bombers, and able to hold their own with Axis fighters.

Going to higher speed / power in the battle area seems to have been widely adopted. It reduced the effective range but increased survival rates. US medium bombers both in Pacific & MTO used to go into a shallow dive heading into the battle area and come in at high speed, & exit the same way. They had pretty low loss rates in those Theaters.


----------



## Schweik (Jun 28, 2020)

Glider said:


> Taking this a stage further. Remembering that the 110 was the first and arguably most important Luftwaffe night fighter for the first 18-24 months of the war. The one you should compare it against, is the often overlooked (as in here) Beaufighter.



Beaufighter was only used as a night fighter through 1942 when it was replaced by the Mosquito. Through that point I think it did pretty well - how it compares in the NF role compared to the 110 I don't know. Would be interesting to hear. How did the 110 do as a night fighter after 1942? Was it still competetive!?

I think Beaufighter proved a more versatile "heavy fighter" as it turned to be very effective in anti - ship, strafing, & maritime patrol. Held its own reasonably well in the Pacific against Japanese fighters. Did rather well against 110's & other Axis planes in the MTO too, though no match for a 109.

EDIT: The Beaufighter also had excellent range (~1600 miles) which is one of the most desirable characteristics for a "heavy fighter". It's only real setback was that it wasn't so great at higher altitudes and therefore not as fast as some others like later model Bf 110 and certainly the Mosquito (this also being probably the main limitation for the Beaufighter as a night fighter).


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 28, 2020)

A lot of the British losses in the "lean into France" period were fighters essentially doing fighter sweeps. 
Sometimes they used a few bombers as "bait" but then had a number of squadrons of fighters ready to bounce the Germans.
Germans weren't fooled that often and usually only engaged when they had the advantage. 

The acceleration may have been straight line but then the attacking fighters weren't going to flight straight and level either while the Spitfires dove and climbed or tried to perform other tricks. 
The Spitfire pilots were instructed to fly at the fastest possible cruise that would give them the range/endurance to perform the mission while in enemy territory. Flying at economical cruising speed gave too much advantage to the enemy.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 28, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> A lot of the British losses in the "lean into France" period were fighters essentially doing fighter sweeps.
> Sometimes they used a few bombers as "bait" but then had a number of squadrons of fighters ready to bounce the Germans.
> Germans weren't fooled that often and usually only engaged when they had the advantage.
> 
> ...


The problem with leaning into France was you were attacking something the defenders didn't feel obliged to defend unless it was their air base or a German military unit. Cruising about looking at French cathedrals didn't trouble the Germans at all they quickly learned to just fight when all things were in their favour.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 28, 2020)

Schweik said:


> Beaufighter was only used as a night fighter through 1942 when it was replaced by the Mosquito. Through that point I think it did pretty well - how it compares in the NF role compared to the 110 I don't know. Would be interesting to hear. How did the 110 do as a night fighter after 1942? Was it still competetive!?




"The 414th, 415th, 416th and 417th Night Fighter Squadrons received more than 100 "reverse Lend-Lease" Beaufighters. They arrived in the Mediterranean during the summer of 1943, achieving the first victory on July 24. Through the summer, they conducted daytime convoy escort and strike missions, but thereafter flew primarily at night. Although purpose-built American P-61 Black Widow night fighters began to replace them in December 1944, USAAF Beaufighters continued to fly night cover for Allied forces in Italy and France until the closing days of the war. "

From Bristol Beaufighter > National Museum of the United States Air Force™ > Display 

In British service the Beaufighter was not replaced by the Mosquito as the the primary nightfighter until the Autumn of 1943. However this does not mean the Beaufighter vanished from the night sky in Europe (or at least the Med.) No 255 Squadron for example didn't begin to re-equip with Mosquitos until Feb 1945.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 28, 2020)

pbehn said:


> The problem with leaning into France was you were attacking something the defenders didn't feel obliged to defend unless it was their air base or a German military unit. Cruising about looking at French cathedrals didn't trouble the Germans at all they quickly learned to just fight when all things were in their favour.



True but the point is that many of the British fighters used in these raids weren't even tied to slow bomber formations and yet still found they had to cruise at high speed to reduce losses even with flexibility of maneuver. 
At times they had several squadrons of Spitfires "escorting" a handful of Whirlwinds.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jun 28, 2020)

Schweik said:


> Flying higher is what I suggested. A lot of the other options like weaving at higher speed uses too much fuel for a Bf109. If you are a Luftwaffe commander it's not really an option because the 110's can't really do the escort job (and their range isn't that great either).
> 
> in a way you might say that the American fighters like a p51, p38 & even the p-47, Corsair and Hellcat kind of lived up to the heavy fighter role better than a 110. Very good at escort, capable of bomber destroying, versatile for all sorts of other missions.
> 
> ...


Is there any chance you could take note of time lines and dates? The p51, p38 & even the p-47, Corsair and Hellcat didn't live up to the title of "heavy fighter" or anything else until they got into service, the Bf110 trounced them all in 1939, and 1940 and 1941 and for the most part 1942 because they weren't there. and by 1944 jets were the top performers.


----------



## Schweik (Jun 28, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> "The 414th, 415th, 416th and 417th Night Fighter Squadrons received more than 100 "reverse Lend-Lease" Beaufighters. They arrived in the Mediterranean during the summer of 1943, achieving the first victory on July 24. Through the summer, they conducted daytime convoy escort and strike missions, but thereafter flew primarily at night. Although purpose-built American P-61 Black Widow night fighters began to replace them in December 1944, USAAF Beaufighters continued to fly night cover for Allied forces in Italy and France until the closing days of the war. "
> 
> From Bristol Beaufighter > National Museum of the United States Air Force™ > Display
> 
> In British service the Beaufighter was not replaced by the Mosquito as the the primary nightfighter until the Autumn of 1943. However this does not mean the Beaufighter vanished from the night sky in Europe (or at least the Med.) No 255 Squadron for example didn't begin to re-equip with Mosquitos until Feb 1945.



The British and American Beaufighter "night fighter" squadrons continued to fly largely maritime missions through 1943, though they may have done some night fighting I don't believe that was their main mission. Shores says as much in one of his books.


----------



## Schweik (Jun 28, 2020)

pbehn said:


> Is there any chance you could take note of time lines and dates? The p51, p38 & even the p-47, Corsair and Hellcat didn't live up to the title of "heavy fighter" or anything else until they got into service, the Bf110 trounced them all in 1939, and 1940 and 1941 and for the most part 1942 because they weren't there. and by 1944 jets were the top performers.



Excellent destruction of the straw man, but I never once claimed P-51s or any of the others were flying in 1939-41. And by 1941 the Bf 110 was already doing rather poorly as I have shown from combat data from that year. As we all know for medium ranged fighters the Allies were basically stuck with P-40s and Wildcat / Martlets until the Spit VIII arrived, unless you want to count the Fulmar but it wasn't really quite up to par.

But since you bring it up, I'll expand on the point I was making. Early fighters were mostly interceptors (short range, light, usually good to great climb rate). The "heavy fighter" was supposed to have longer range though the Bf 110 never really did as far as I know. But when they did arrive on the battlefields, the P-51 at ~ 1,600 mile range, the P-38 at ~1,300 miles, the p-47 and Corsair at ~1,000 miles, and the Hellcat at ~940 miles were all well beyond the typical range of any interceptor. They were all heavy and none were superb climbers, but they were all fast, heavily armed and had long range by WW2 standards. I am aware that actual combat ranges weren't nearly so long but just to compare like with like, the Bf 109 at ~350 miles range isn't going to be a really viable escort, and the Fw 190 was about the same.

The Germans struggled to find an aircraft for this escort role. The Bf 110 never really had great range, it was improved and yes they put huge drop tanks on them, but it never got to the point of the fighters mentioned above. The Me 210 had much better range potentially but it took too long to shake out the bugs and get a new wing, even if the Hungarians liked it right out of the gate. For more general purpose 'heavy fighters' in the sense of bomber destroyers the Bf 110 and various German night / heavy fighter types did well as long as they had interceptors to escort them, but you are back to the problem of the short endurance of the interceptors. The Germans also did alright in the long range coastal patrol role mainly with Ju 88s (1100 mile range), the Condor and some of their float planes.

The Italians mostly had the same problem the Germans did, if not quite as bad (the Re 2000 series had decent range as did the excellent Fiat G.55. Maybe the Germans should have made more of an effort to get those into production, but they were probably too late).

The Russians had mostly interceptor types though they eventually made a long range Yak 9 variant, albeit not perfect.

The Japanese of course went another way and their fighters had good (Ki-43) to superb (A6M) range, except for the Ki-61. But they weren't sufficiently well protected for sustained attrition warfare. I still think an A6M would be a more dangerous escort fighter for the Battle of Britain than a Bf 109E.

Anyway I just think it's an interesting way to think about it.


----------



## Schweik (Jun 28, 2020)

Late model Corsairs did climb quite well but that is later in the game...


----------



## Glider (Jun 28, 2020)

Schweik said:


> The British and American Beaufighter "night fighter" squadrons continued to fly largely maritime missions through 1943, though they may have done some night fighting I don't believe that was their main mission. Shores says as much in one of his books.


The Beaufighter was also used against the Japanese until the end of the war. One shot down a B29 in a blue on blue incident towards the end of the war.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jun 28, 2020)

Glider said:


> Taking this a stage further. Remembering that the 110 was the first and arguably most important Luftwaffe night fighter for the first 18-24 months of the war. The one you should compare it against, is the often overlooked (as in here) Beaufighter.



The Beaufighter doesn't help the Luftwaffe.


----------



## John Vasco (Jun 29, 2020)

Glider said:


> As I have mentioned before these stats are meaningless without some estimate re the number of sorties each type flew and other information. For instance I believe there were roughly three times as many Me109's compared to Me110's and the 109's flew far more missions which means that the %age loss ratio of the Me110 was far worse than the Me109.
> 
> A good number of the RAF fighters were shot down by the bombers defensive fire which was far from an ineffective. Looking at these stats it would seem that the Bombers didn't shoot any fighters down.



It's all very well to say what you did in the first paragraph, and that would be fine if there was a 'level playing field' with all units taking part in the Battle from exactly the same start point. But that didn't happen. Galland's III./JG 26, for example, did not reach their base on the Channel coast until late July 1940. Another, I believe a Gruppe of JG 27, arrived later. Another still, JG 77 arrived at the end of August 1940. Meanwhile III./ZG 76 were in action early in July; Erprobungsgruppe 210 started combat missions on 13th July. Bf 110s in the reconnaissance units were flying recce missions constantly (and this is a particular area that has never been fully explored).

Yes, it would be good to make a better judgement call if one had the comprehensive number of sorties flown by each type, but that is not available, not least for the reason that the KTB for Luftflotte 2 has never surfaced (the one for Luftflotte 3 has). And the varying times of arrival of 109 units at the Channel Front complicates the attempt to arrive at a totally clinical assessment of missions v. losses. All we are left with is claims against losses, and with overclaiming taking place on both sides in almose equal measure (get some copies of the 'Battle of Britain Combat Archive' series to see what I mean), claims against losses is probably the closest rider we can get for actual performance.

And what has also to be borne in mind is the nature of aerial combat. No matter how good the pilot and aircraft, if one mistake is made, that could spell the end. Witness the number of Luftwaffe 'Aces' shot down (and a lot killed) on the Russian Front after amassing an impressive total of victories. One mistake, and they are gone. Tietzen of 5./JG 51 (19 victories), down into the Channel 18th August 1940, end of. Galland & Mölders, both lucky to get back to France in damaged 109s, Mölders wounded.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## John Vasco (Jun 29, 2020)

Schweik said:


> And by 1941 the Bf 110 was already doing rather poorly as I have shown from combat data from that year.



Just as you say in a previous post that one should not take the Battle of Britain in isolation, I would bat that back at you and say that you cannot take the Med in 1941 for the Bf 110 in isolation, for the simple reason you have not considered the missions of Schnellkampfgeschwader 210 in the fighter-bomber and ground attack role in the successful German advances of 1941 on the Russian Front...


----------



## Glider (Jun 29, 2020)

John Vasco said:


> It's all very well to say what you did in the first paragraph, and that would be fine if there was a 'level playing field' with all units taking part in the Battle from exactly the same start point. But that didn't happen. Galland's III./JG 26, for example, did not reach their base on the Channel coast until late July 1940. Another, I believe a Gruppe of JG 27, arrived later. Another still, JG 77 arrived at the end of August 1940. Meanwhile III./ZG 76 were in action early in July; Erprobungsgruppe 210 started combat missions on 13th July. Bf 110s in the reconnaissance units were flying recce missions constantly (and this is a particular area that has never been fully explored).
> 
> Yes, it would be good to make a better judgement call if one had the comprehensive number of sorties flown by each type, but that is not available, not least for the reason that the KTB for Luftflotte 2 has never surfaced (the one for Luftflotte 3 has). And the varying times of arrival of 109 units at the Channel Front complicates the attempt to arrive at a totally clinical assessment of missions v. losses. All we are left with is claims against losses, and with overclaiming taking place on both sides in almose equal measure (get some copies of the 'Battle of Britain Combat Archive' series to see what I mean), claims against losses is probably the closest rider we can get for actual performance.
> 
> And what has also to be borne in mind is the nature of aerial combat. No matter how good the pilot and aircraft, if one mistake is made, that could spell the end. Witness the number of Luftwaffe 'Aces' shot down (and a lot killed) on the Russian Front after amassing an impressive total of victories. One mistake, and they are gone. Tietzen of 5./JG 51 (19 victories), down into the Channel 18th August 1940, end of. Galland & Mölders, both lucky to get back to France in damaged 109s, Mölders wounded.



You certainly have a point when you say that without the records re number of sorties then there has to be an alternative and there is an alternative and that would be the amount of time each unit was in the front line. I have no idea if that is available but it is a potentially more accurate than claims.
You are of course correct when you say that all sides overclaimed but it's a mistake to believe that all sides overclaimed to a similar degree. Units that suffer heavier losses tend to overclaim more for a number of psychological reasons. Sometimes it's the culture of the unit or the nation or more likely the propaganda (PR) of the nations.

That said your posting does bring up one point that I hadn't thought of and that is the number of units that specialised in GA and Recc tasks.


----------



## Schweik (Jun 29, 2020)

I definitely acknowledge that, though I've read the combat histories for the MTO and I think I can say that the 110 didn't excel in the day time fighter role, at least over land. They may have had some success in maritime action, like I said previously, they were involved in some of the convoy battles and routinely tangled with Beaufighters and allied seaplanes, along with the Ju 88C. The latter had better range so were involved in a bit more of the fighting further out and over the Bay of Biscay and so forth. But I'd have to crunch the numbers to assess how well the 110 did in that maritime side of the Theater.

My impression overall was that the 110 was at least somewhat viable through 1941 in the daytime fighter role, though as you can see they started taking prohibitive casualties toward the end of the year (during the fighting around Operation Crusader). In Russia maybe it went on through 1942. But at some point the performance edge just wasn't enough to compensate for the other deficiencies of the design. They really needed a functional Me 210 around mid to late 1942.


----------



## Schweik (Jun 29, 2020)

Glider said:


> You certainly have a point when you say that without the records re number of sorties then there has to be an alternative and there is an alternative and that would be the amount of time each unit was in the front line. I have no idea if that is available but it is a potentially more accurate than claims.
> You are of course correct when you say that all sides overclaimed but it's a mistake to believe that all sides overclaimed to a similar degree. Units that suffer heavier losses tend to overclaim more for a number of psychological reasons. Sometimes it's the culture of the unit or the nation or more likely the propaganda (PR) of the nations.
> 
> That said your posting does bring up one point that I hadn't thought of and that is the number of units that specialised in GA and Recc tasks.



You may not have a sortie rate but in an environment like the BoB sorties without any claims or losses, or even damaged aircraft would be fairly unusual I think. If you look at claims, losses and damage reports you can get a fairly good idea of how often they were flying.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 29, 2020)

Schweik said:


> They really needed a functional Me 210 around mid to late 1942.


To be honest, the RLM would have been better off ditching the Me210 in favor of the Ar240 (sans dive-bombing requirement).
The 240 in service would have filled the gap between the Bf110 and the Me410.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 29, 2020)

Interesting. Certainly looks good on paper. Rather lightly armed but presumably they would have added cannon if it went into production.

Arado Ar 240 - Wikipedia


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 29, 2020)

The Ar240C series had four fixed MG151/20 cannon and two MG131 (13mm) MG in each turret.


----------



## John Vasco (Jun 29, 2020)

Glider said:


> You certainly have a point when you say that without the records re number of sorties then there has to be an alternative and there is an alternative and that would be the amount of time each unit was in the front line. I have no idea if that is available but it is a potentially more accurate than claims.
> You are of course correct when you say that all sides overclaimed but it's a mistake to believe that all sides overclaimed to a similar degree. Units that suffer heavier losses tend to overclaim more for a number of psychological reasons. Sometimes it's the culture of the unit or the nation or more likely the propaganda (PR) of the nations.
> 
> That said your posting does bring up one point that I hadn't thought of and that is the number of units that specialised in GA and Recc tasks.



1. Time at the front does not mean continuous action at the front. There were days when little action occurred. There were days when some units flying a particular type were in action, and other days when other units flying the same type were in action. Time at the front does not take into account also the serviceability rates. Believe me, over 40 years, I've looked at this and concluded that one cannot come up with definitives, because those definitives are just not there.

2. As for overclaiming, although I am an Englishman, I have to say that the level of overclaiming by RAF fighter squadrons was every bit as high as the other side. Let me give you a couple of examples:
Over Dunkirk, 264 (Defiant) Squadron claimed 39 (thirty nine) victories in two actions on one day, 29th May. In the evening combat they claimed 18 destroyed and one damaged Ju 87s. Actual loss figure was 2 lost and 2 damaged.
16th August 1940. Between 43, 601, and 602 squadrons, 25 Ju 87s were claimed destroyed, with 14 claimed as damaged/probable, in one action. Total losses for Ju 87s for the action were 9 lost and 7 returned damaged.

Large whirling combats play a part, but it doesn't disguise the fact that overclaiming took place. It is not a mistake to state that both sides overclaimed to a similar degree. It was very similar. Get those books I have mentioned before, by Red Kite, and start going through them, and you will see what I mean.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 29, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> To be honest, the RLM would have been better off ditching the Me210 in favor of the Ar240 (sans dive-bombing requirement).
> The 240 in service would have filled the gap between the Bf110 and the Me410.



The earlier RLM forgets the 2-engined day fighter idea, the better for German war effort. 
Have surplus DB-601/605/603 emgines? Stick them on Fw 190s.


----------



## Schweik (Jun 29, 2020)

It didn't seem to be an easy nut to crack, but I don't think 2 engined fighters were doomed to fail. The Mosquito, though in a way more of a bomber, was arguably the best night fighter of the war, and the P-38 though it took a while to iron out all the design flaws and bugs, ended up being quite a good fighter. 

But the Luftwaffe really needed an effective long range fighter around 1941 or 1942 at the latest. I suspect if the Me 210 had the more conventional type wings later used on the Me 410, it could have made a difference coming out in 1942. An effective long(ish) range escort fighter would have meant much more useful raids with their fairly capable Ju 88s and later designs. As it was by 1943 they were increasingly limited to short range strikes.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 29, 2020)

Schweik said:


> It didn't seem to be an easy nut to crack, but I don't think 2 engined fighters were doomed to fail. The Mosquito, though in a way more of a bomber, was arguably the best night fighter of the war, and the P-38 though it took a while to iron out all the design flaws and bugs, ended up being quite a good fighter.



I can't recall saying anything against 2-engined night fighters, where Mosquito excelled.
P-38 was quite good, if one have had enough of time to see it's bugs eradicated so it can deal with 1st line Axis fighters on level terms, and having economy big enough to sustain production and use.



> But the Luftwaffe really needed an effective long range fighter around 1941 or 1942 at the latest. I suspect if the Me 210 had the more conventional type wings later used on the Me 410, it could have made a difference coming out in 1942. An effective long(ish) range escort fighter would have meant much more useful raids with their fairly capable Ju 88s and later designs. As it was by 1943 they were increasingly limited to short range strikes.



'Long range fighter' term does not equal '2-engined day fighter' term. Let alone 'effective long range fighter'. Germany can have a 1-engined LR fighter if they want. Luckily, they didn't.
Problem with Me 210, apart from using twice the engines, crew and fuel, and more than twice the airframe vs. Bf 109 or Fw 190, was that it was an under-performer with a wrong fuselage (wing was good).


----------



## Schweik (Jun 29, 2020)

tomo pauk said:


> I can't recall saying anything against 2-engined night fighters, where Mosquito excelled.
> P-38 was quite good, if one have had enough of time to see it's bugs eradicated so it can deal with 1st line Axis fighters on level terms, and having economy big enough to sustain production and use.



Agreed... that's pretty much what I said.



> 'Long range fighter' term does not equal '2-engined day fighter' term. Let alone 'effective long range fighter'. Germany can have a 1-engined LR fighter if they want. Luckily, they didn't. Problem with Me 210, apart from using twice the engines, crew and fuel, and more than twice the airframe vs. Bf 109 or Fw 190, was that it was an under-performer with a wrong fuselage (wing was good).



Agree a long range fighter can be 1 engined, see my post re: P-51 etc., agree we are lucky they didn't. 

I thought the issue with the Me 210 was the weird back swept outer wing, and it was fixed when they put in a regular wing. All the complaints seemed to be about stability. If you had a reliable 380+ mph, high altitude and long range capable fighter in 1942 that would have been pretty helpful for the Luftwaffe I think. I mentioned it in the context of their need for a Long Range fighter simply not because I thought that required a twin engined aircraft, but because it was their best bet that I'm aware of in terms of being ready to go, unless maybe they took over the G.55 program early and somehow got it into large scale production. Was there some other candidate they could have


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 29, 2020)

Schweik said:


> ...
> I thought the issue with the Me 210 was the weird back swept outer wing, and it was fixed when they put in a regular wing. All the complaints seemed to be about stability. If you had a reliable 380+ mph, high altitude and long range capable fighter in 1942 that would have been pretty helpful for the Luftwaffe I think. I mentioned it in the context of their need for a Long Range fighter simply not because I thought that required a twin engined aircraft, but because it was their best bet that I'm aware of in terms of being ready to go, unless maybe they took over the G.55 program early and somehow got it into large scale production. Was there some other candidate they could have



They chaged wing sweepback for the Me 410 for CoG reasons - the DB 603s were heavier than DB 605s. (same for same reasones was done with Hs 129A -> Hs 129B)
380 mph was achieved by Me 410, not by Me 210 (= 580 km/h, or 360 mph with DB 605 engines). 
Germans can have DB 601N/601E/605A installed in Fw 190 and have a rangy performer that does not break the bank; Fw 190 carried 525L of fuel internally (+25% vs. Bf 109E-K), can carry drop tanks, and there is room in fuselage and wings for extra tanks (the A-8 and A-9 carried another 115L behind the pilot).


----------



## Dimlee (Jun 29, 2020)

Schweik said:


> The Russians had mostly interceptor types though they eventually made a long range Yak 9 variant, albeit not perfect.



The Soviets (including Russians) developed mostly multipurpose front line fighters capable of doing various jobs. There were some interceptors but rare and none was produced in large numbers.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 29, 2020)

Dimlee said:


> The Soviets (including Russians) developed mostly multipurpose front line fighters capable of doing various jobs. There were some interceptors but rare and none was produced in large numbers.


It just needs a 35KM stretch of water to transform all military thinking.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 29, 2020)

tomo pauk said:


> The earlier RLM forgets the 2-engined day fighter idea, the better for German war effort.
> Have surplus DB-601/605/603 emgines? Stick them on Fw 190s.


Keep in mind that the twin-engined types did have a place in service, just not large quantities.
The Ar240 was certainly a step up from the Bf110 and definately better than the Me210, which took up a great deal of time and effort to iron out issues that were never resolved (until the Me410, of course).


----------



## pbehn (Jun 29, 2020)

Schweik said:


> Excellent destruction of the straw man, but I never once claimed P-51s or any of the others were flying in 1939-41. And by 1941 the Bf 110 was already doing rather poorly as I have shown from combat data from that year. As we all know for medium ranged fighters the Allies were basically stuck with P-40s and Wildcat / Martlets until the Spit VIII arrived, unless you want to count the Fulmar but it wasn't really quite up to par.
> 
> But since you bring it up, I'll expand on the point I was making. Early fighters were mostly interceptors (short range, light, usually good to great climb rate). The "heavy fighter" was supposed to have longer range though the Bf 110 never really did as far as I know. But when they did arrive on the battlefields, the P-51 at ~ 1,600 mile range, the P-38 at ~1,300 miles, the p-47 and Corsair at ~1,000 miles, and the Hellcat at ~940 miles were all well beyond the typical range of any interceptor. They were all heavy and none were superb climbers, but they were all fast, heavily armed and had long range by WW2 standards. I am aware that actual combat ranges weren't nearly so long but just to compare like with like, the Bf 109 at ~350 miles range isn't going to be a really viable escort, and the Fw 190 was about the same.
> 
> ...


Early anything was lighter because it was lower powered. A Typhoon had a similar bomb load to a 1939/40 Do 17, similar weight and power but one engine and one pilot and 4 cannon. Early fighters were light and short ranged because early engines had less than 1000BHP, that's why the Bf 110 had two engines and also why the P-38 had two engines. Your whole argument is based on the Germans couldn't do what the Americans did. But it was proved in the Battle of Britain that was the case before the USA entered the war. The Do 17 was too light. The He 111 was too slow and under powered. Its best bomber was also its best long range fighter and also one of its best night fighters. The Ju88 was similar to the Mosquito, but it wasn't a strategic bomber. And although 15,000 were made how does that compare to the number of Mosquitos, Beaufighters, Lancasters Wellingtons Halifaxes and many others made only by the British, excluding those made by USA and USSR. The LW as a bomber force was at its peak BEFORE the Battle of France. It never had huge fleets of bombers to escort so why even think about an "escort fighter". The difference was the Channel and the Med. Once they were crossed even for the USA and British the important fight was close range supporting a ground advance across France Belgium and Netherlands into Germany.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 29, 2020)

Some of this overlooks the fact that the Bf 110 was a basically a 1935 design. First flight was on 12 May 1936.

What was meant by long range in 1935/36 and what was meant in 1940/41 may be rather different. As was what was possible. Let's remember that the P-38 got two engines because as single 1500hp engine didn't seem to be available at the time the _initial design _work was being done. The Lockheed team thought that 1500hp (single engine) would be needed to meet the specification for an interceptor capable of flying at the desired speed and altitude while carrying the same weapons load for two hours as a 1000hp plane that only had one hour of endurance. 
The Germans faced a similar problem. With the available engines (and fuel) what performance could be had using a single engine and what performance could be had using two engines? The Prototypes used DB 600 engines. DB failed to deliver either enough of these engines or failed to elemiated problems so that early production used even lower powered Jumo 210s. 

DB also failed to develop and build higher power engines in a timely fashion for much of WW II. They promised a lot but often failed to deliver in a timely manner. In part because of the fuel situation. 

This lead to the 110 being underpowered for much of 'it's career. The same could be said of the 109 at times and may be a reason the 109 stayed around so long. A larger, more capable fighter would need a larger, more powerful engine which the Germans did not have in the quantities needed at certain times. 

The whole "light fighter" vs "heavy fighter" argument is bogus. The later fighters were much more capable in a number of areas. The closest you are going to get to a light weight late war war fighter (using a late war engine and not a 1940 left over) is the Grumman F8F-1. Over 7000lbs empty and almost 9400lbs loaded but clean. with about the same armament as as the F4F-3. That is what happens when you use an engine that weighs 2350lbs and then add an appropriate propeller and accessories. I would note that the F8F-1 was designed to a lower load factor than just about any other US piston powered fighter.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 29, 2020)

> The whole "light fighter" vs "heavy fighter" argument is bogus.



You'll have to forgive me, but just because you say something doesn't make it so. I was talking about light and heavy fighters on the basis of empty weight, and while the average weights increased as the war progressed, there were indeed still light and heavy fighters, and those in between. It's not just a matter of early and late war fighters. I would say looking at these numbers from prominent late war day fighters, there were indeed distinct and recognizable categories. The lightweight fighters have a gross weight that is lighter than the empty weight of the heavy fighters, in fact some of the heavy fighters are more than twice the weight of some of the lighter fighters. I'd say that's a noticeable difference.

*Light*
Ki-61 - Empty 5,798 / Gross 7,650 lbs
Ki-44 - Empty 4,643 / Gross 6,094 lbs
Ki-84 - Empty 5,864 / Gross 7,940 lbs
N1K1 - Empty 5,855 / Gross 8,598
Yak 9 - Empty 5,020 / Gross 6,327 lbs
Yak 3 - Empty 5,172 / Gross 5,864 lbs
La 5FN - Empty 5,743 / Gross 6,984 lbs
Bf 109G- Empty 4,954 / Gross 6,940 lbs
Bf 109K4 - Empty 6,261 / Gross 7,052 lbs
Spitfire VIII LF - Empty 5,800 / Gross 7,767 lbs
Spitfire IX LF - Empty 5090/ Gross 7,400 lbs
*
Heavy*
P-38L - Empty 12,800 / Gross 17,500 lbs
P-47D- Empty 10,000 / Gross 14,500 lbs
F4U-1A - Empty 9,205 / Gross 14,669 lbs
F6F-5 - Empty 9,238 / Gross 12,598 lbs
Tempest - Empty 9,158 / Gross 11,574 lbs

*Medium*
P-51D - Empty 7,635 / Gross 9,200 lbs
Spitfire XIV - Empty 6,600 / Gross 8,500 lbs
Fw 190 - Empty 7,652 / Gross 9,100 lbs


----------



## Schweik (Jun 29, 2020)

pbehn said:


> Early anything was lighter because it was lower powered. A Typhoon had a similar bomb load to a 1939/40 Do 17, similar weight and power but one engine and one pilot and 4 cannon. Early fighters were light and short ranged because early engines had less than 1000BHP, that's why the Bf 110 had two engines and also why the P-38 had two engines. Your whole argument is based on the Germans couldn't do what the Americans did. But it was proved in the Battle of Britain that was the case before the USA entered the war. The Do 17 was too light. The He 111 was too slow and under powered. Its best bomber was also its best long range fighter and also one of its best night fighters. The Ju88 was similar to the Mosquito, but it wasn't a strategic bomber. And although 15,000 were made how does that compare to the number of Mosquitos, Beaufighters, Lancasters Wellingtons Halifaxes and many others made only by the British, excluding those made by USA and USSR. The LW as a bomber force was at its peak BEFORE the Battle of France. It never had huge fleets of bombers to escort so why even think about an "escort fighter". The difference was the Channel and the Med. Once they were crossed even for the USA and British the important fight was close range supporting a ground advance across France Belgium and Netherlands into Germany.



You seem to have a knack for turning everything into a nationalistic contest. I was just pointing out differences. One kind of fighter is relatively good for long range escort and ground attack, another type is good as an interceptor / frontal aviation fighter. I'm not saying a P-51 is better or worse than a Bf 109, I'm saying they are different. If the Germans ever built an effective long range escort fighter, please point it out I'd love to read about it.

My point about the utility of the escort fighter, since it apparently isn't obvious, is that it allows greater use of whatever bombers you had. The Ju 88 was a good bomber, though contrary to what you seem to be saying they did not do well in the BoB. Still working out some teething and training issues, apparently. They did do well on the Russian Front, at least initially, and they did well in the MTO, also initially. But by late 1941 in the MTO and late 1942 in Russia, they were starting to find Ju-88s too vulnerable to be used in areas where they might encounter Allied fighters, unless they had an escort (or there was local air superiority).

Contrary to what you suggest above, there are quite important targets for bombers other than Strategic or Tactical - there are operational targets. C3I - trains, supply depots, road networks, bridges, ports, supply convoys, tank and truck columns moving through the rear. Anglo-American fighter-bombers and light / medium bombers (whatever you call an A-20 / DB-7 and later an A-26) were quite effective at causing major problems for the Germans particularly with supply interdiction. This was arguably the issue in the MTO. Airfields were another target of great importance, but they were not always within reach of the German fighters. Allied bombers were able to stage beyond the range of Axis fighters and attack Axis air bases, eventually this is how they achieved air superiority. Far more Axis aircraft were destroyed on the ground in this way than were shot down in the air.

The Germans were still able to launch some devastating raids with their Stukas, Ju-88s and some of their other bombers (Do-217 with radio guided missiles were pretty deadly) but only when they either caught the Allies napping or they were within the very short range of the Bf 109 / Fw 190s and could muster enough strength to wrest temporary air superiority, (which got harder and harder as you get through 1942 and into 1943). In the MTO during much of the fighting, the German bombers were often sitting idle because the viable targets were too far away for the fighter cover they had. This was particularly painful during some of the convoy fights and when the Germans were desperately trying to bring in supplies with nearly helpless Ju-52s, that got shot down like so many geese. It was also a problem during the big land battles taking place because the Allies had fairly effective CAS while the Germans had considerably less so as time went on (particularly after Kasserine pass).

So yeah, I think a longer range fighter would have been beneficial for the Germans, and they could have gotten a lot more mileage out of those 15,000 Ju-88s they built than they in fact did. So we are lucky they didn't sort it out.


----------



## Schweik (Jun 29, 2020)

Dimlee said:


> The Soviets (including Russians) developed mostly multipurpose front line fighters capable of doing various jobs. There were some interceptors but rare and none was produced in large numbers.



I mean interceptor in the sense of light weight and short ranged.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 30, 2020)

Schweik said:


> You'll have to forgive me, but just because you say something doesn't make it so. I was talking about light and heavy fighters on the basis of empty weight, and while the average weights increased as the war progressed, there were indeed still light and heavy fighters, and those in between. It's not just a matter of early and late war fighters. I would say looking at these numbers from prominent late war day fighters, there were indeed distinct and recognizable categories. The lightweight fighters have a gross weight that is lighter than the empty weight of the heavy fighters, in fact some of the heavy fighters are more than twice the weight of some of the lighter fighters. I'd say that's a noticeable difference.



It is still bogus. Most of your "light fighters", even the late war versions, were moderately updated designs of early war or prewar aircraft. some of them were using legacy engines. The Russian VK-105 engine was kept for production reasons, not because it was anywhere near a first class engine by the later part of of the war. When you have a crap engine you build light fighters (with light armament) because that is all the engine power will allow and still give you useable performance. 

For the American fighters (many of your heavy fighters) they were carrying a huge load of guns and ammo.

P-38L............1235lbs 
P-47D...........1237lbs
F4U-1A.........1300lbs
F6F-5.............1353lbs

to do that needed lots of power and the Americans had engines (or a pair of engines) that allowed them to do that. Maybe it was overkill, but it was part of the design. 

If you need two light fighters to get the same gun power and ammo as one heavy fighter into the battle area the reason for the light fighter tends to fall apart. Countries continued to build them because the production lines for the engines and airframes were already set up and in some cases there was no replacement engine at a suitable level of development to switch to. 

You can split aircraft into categories based on weight, but it tells you nothing about their capabilities or usefulness. Except that large is usually more capable.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 30, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> It is still bogus. Most of your "light fighters", even the late war versions, were moderately updated designs of early war or prewar aircraft. some of them were using legacy engines. The Russian VK-105 engine was kept for production reasons, not because it was anywhere near a first class engine by the later part of of the war. When you have a crap engine you build light fighters (with light armament) because that is all the engine power will allow and still give you useable performance.



Ki-44, Ki-61 and Ki-84 were all new designs, not incremental improvements of 'legacy' designs. N1K1 was an adaptation of a float plane design but it wasn't from the pre-war. The La 5FN and Yak 3 were adapted but so radically that they were also basically new designs. I think you could say the Spit IX and VIII were significantly different from the 1940 versions, as was the Bf 109K. Both had quite powerful engines - the engine on the Spit IX could haul around the much heavier P-51 for example. And most of the aircraft in my list were quite heavily armed. Ki-84 had 2 x 20mm with 150 rounds each, plus two 12.7mm with 350 rounds each, the N1K1 had similar. La 5FN had two 20mm cannons with 200 rounds. The 109 K had a 30mm cannon plus 2 13mm, and the option for two more 20mm in gondolas. The Spits had various armament but 2 x 20mm plus 4 x .303 or 2 x 20mm plus 2 x 12.7mm are also pretty effective.

We have compared the six .50s armament of US fighters to cannon armed fighters many times, we know the limitations of the HMG compared to the cannons. I don't think the mid to late war American fighters were wildly more heavily armed, with the possible exception of the P-47.

But I don't think any of that matters. So what if they were older designs? They still had a niche, and they still had quite similar traits (for example in terms of rate of climb and range). All this is, is another way to look at the design parameters. The only thing 'bogus' is your attempt to claim it's irrelevance. There were clearly, objectively, different categories. And yet they could still compete. Does anyone deny that a Yak-3, a Bf 109 K, or a Spit IX could hold their own with a P-38 or an F6F?



> For the American fighters (many of your heavy fighters) they were carrying a huge load of guns and ammo.
> 
> P-38L............1235lbs
> P-47D...........1237lbs
> ...



Again... so what? Even if you really believe that the 'heavy' fighters were vastly more heavily armed, isn't that part of the difference between the heavy fighter concept and an interceptor? I don't believe any of the aircraft I listed, with the possible exception of the earlier mark Ki-61 and the Ki-44, were particularly undergunned or had any trouble shooting down enemy aircraft due to their armament. All of them are fairly well regarded designs.



> If you need two light fighters to get the same gun power and ammo as one heavy fighter into the battle area the reason for the light fighter tends to fall apart. Countries continued to build them because the production lines for the engines and airframes were already set up and in some cases there was no replacement engine at a suitable level of development to switch to.



I don't think that is actually true. The Soviets for example had their choice of Allied planes. They certainly could have used P-47s if they wanted them, they were given some to evaluate. They concluded it wasn't really a fighter. For their battlefield, which didn't involve a lot of high altitude combat, the Yak-3 was a far better fit. And that is the aircraft they chose. It's also the aircraft the Normandie -Neiman squadron chose when given their option of any type (including Spitfires, P-39s or Kingcobras).



> You can split aircraft into categories based on weight, but it tells you nothing about their capabilities or usefulness. Except that large is usually more capable.



I don't think you can categorically say that the larger aircraft on that list were more capable than the smaller. That would be a gross oversimplification and objectively incorrect. Each type of fighter, and anyone can clearly see there were indeed light, medium and heavy fighters, had different capabilities. Nor can you say that the size or weight of the aircraft says nothing about their capabilities. Of course it varied by individual aircraft, but generally speaking the lighter aircraft had a faster rate of climb, better acceleration, were a bit more agile, but were limited by shorter range. The heavier aircraft had longer range, maybe a bit more protection, and perhaps slightly more firepower. If you want I can calculate an average rate of climb, top speed, ceiling, and range for each group. I think that would be revealing.

My argument is that ideally, many countries could have used both types of aircraft. By the latter half of the war, the Anglo-Americans had the best of both worlds because they had an excellent interceptor in the Spitfire, but also had superb escort fighters in the Mustang and the others. They had potent carrier aircraft. The Soviets concentrated on their interceptor / frontal aviation type (lightweight, short range) fighters, though they did create a longer ranged version, the light, short ranged fighter was the best adapted to their battlefield. The Japanese kept their fighters light even after they incorporated heavier guns, armor and protected fuel tanks. Probably in part due to pilot preference. The Germans ultimately stuck with the increasingly sophisticated variants of their original Bf 109, not because they just had the factory lines going - it was no Hawker Hurricane, but because nothing else ultimately surpassed it in terms of capability (such as rate of climb and high altitude performance). The Fw 190 was a great fighter but it didn't do as well at higher altitudes and didn't climb as well, ultimately the improved version came too late.

Circling back to the subject of the thread, I think the Germans could have really used a _good_ heavy fighter. Whether a twin engined or single engined type doesn't really matter. What they needed was something that could compete with the Allied types but also had sufficient range to be a good escort fighter.


----------



## swampyankee (Jun 30, 2020)

There were "lightweight" fighters, _e.g._, the Caudron C.714, which were intended to be cheap in comparison with the non-light fighters, _e.g._, the Dewoitine D.520. I don't think this sort of distinction makes sense with _any_ of the single-engined fighters mass produced and used through the war: these were designed to performance specifications and were not built as an alternative to some hypothetical "heavy" fighter.


----------



## Snautzer01 (Jun 30, 2020)

Schweik said:


> Ki-44, Ki-61 and Ki-84 were all new designs, not incremental improvements of 'legacy' designs. N1K1 was an adaptation of a float plane design but it wasn't from the pre-war. The La 5FN and Yak 3 were adapted but so radically that they were also basically new designs. I think you could say the Spit IX and VIII were significantly different from the 1940 versions, as was the Bf 109K. Both had quite powerful engines - the engine on the Spit IX could haul around the much heavier P-51 for example. And most of the aircraft in my list were quite heavily armed. Ki-84 had 2 x 20mm with 150 rounds each, plus two 12.7mm with 350 rounds each, the N1K1 had similar. La 5FN had two 20mm cannons with 200 rounds. The 109 K had a 30mm cannon plus 2 13mm, and the option for two more 20mm in gondolas. The Spits had various armament but 2 x 20mm plus 4 x .303 or 2 x 20mm plus 2 x 12.7mm are also pretty effective.
> 
> We have compared the six .50s armament of US fighters to cannon armed fighters many times, we know the limitations of the HMG compared to the cannons. I don't think the mid to late war American fighters were wildly more heavily armed, with the possible exception of the P-47.
> 
> ...


They did, Fw190


----------



## Schweik (Jun 30, 2020)

swampyankee said:


> There were "lightweight" fighters, _e.g._, the Caudron C.714, which were intended to be cheap in comparison with the non-light fighters, _e.g._, the Dewoitine D.520. I don't think this sort of distinction makes sense with _any_ of the single-engined fighters mass produced and used through the war: these were designed to performance specifications and were not built as an alternative to some hypothetical "heavy" fighter.



I never said there was a conscious decision to make lightness or heaviness a fundamental design feature, but those were certainly parameters which came into play. If you made a production fighter with a 12,000 lb loaded weight you know damn well it will have different characteristics than a fighter with a 6,000 loaded weight. Ultimately the priorities of the mission defined how the fighters turned out - not necessarily any particular focus on weight. There was sometimes such a focus, but it was largely the result of the culture of the pilots who would sometimes reject heavier fighters.

The point though is that if you make a fighter specification for an aircraft with a 1,200 mile range and relatively heavy armament, it's probably going to end up being a heavy fighter, objectively, whether that was a conscious decision or not. The only one from the list which seems to have managed to be both light weight and pretty long range is arguably the Ki-84. If you want a fighter that can climb 4,000 feet per minute and be highly maneuverable, you are probably going to need a lightweight aircraft with an empty weight under 6,000 lbs. There are a lot of differences between aircraft in those two weight categories. The only exception I can think of is a late war Corsair which though heavy could climb very well. The F8F which was really a postwar aircraft, was a conscious decision to make a more lightweight fighter, probably with an eye toward intercepting kamikazes. But by then the piston engined era was ending.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 30, 2020)

Snautzer01 said:


> They did, Fw190



What was the range of a Fw 190


----------



## pbehn (Jun 30, 2020)

Schweik said:


> You seem to have a knack for turning everything into a nationalistic contest. I was just pointing out differences. One kind of fighter is relatively good for long range escort and ground attack, another type is good as an interceptor / frontal aviation fighter. I'm not saying a P-51 is better or worse than a Bf 109, I'm saying they are different. If the Germans ever built an effective long range escort fighter, please point it out I'd love to read about it.
> *That's because you do, all your examples of a heavy fighter are from the USA. How about the Beaufighter, Mosquito and Typhoon?*
> My point about the utility of the escort fighter, since it apparently isn't obvious, is that it allows greater use of whatever bombers you had. The Ju 88 was a good bomber, though contrary to what you seem to be saying they did not do well in the BoB. Still working out some teething and training issues, apparently. They did do well on the Russian Front, at least initially, and they did well in the MTO, also initially. But by late 1941 in the MTO and late 1942 in Russia, they were starting to find Ju-88s too vulnerable to be used in areas where they might encounter Allied fighters, unless they had an escort (or there was local air superiority).
> *When did this become obvious? Which of your heavy fighters was designed as a long range escort? I didn't say the Ju88 did well in the BoB quite obviously the campaign was halted. The Beaufighter shot down its first daylight victory in October 1940 and its first night time kill in Nov 1940.By March 1941, half of the 22 German aircraft claimed by British fighters were by Beaufighters; during the night of 19/20 May 1941, during a raid on London, 24 aircraft were shot down by fighters against two by anti-aircraft ground fire.[11] The Ju88 was getting vulnerable because the Beaufighter was shooting it down from Norway to the Bay of Biscay. It had 4x20mm cannon six x.303mgs could carry rockets and torpedos. THAT is a heavy fighter.*
> ...


The Beaufighter, Mosquito and Spitfire sorted out the Ju88 by day and night as bombers and fighters. The P-51 was without doubt the best long range escort, it made sense to use them and P-47s to attack airfields as part of a heavy bomber raid, but they did suffer increased losses, because it is watercooled single engine plane with little armour. It makes no sense at all to have a design brief for a single engine plane to stooge about around Zwickau and Stuttgart looking for targets of opportunity armed with 4 or 6 0.5" MGs. The P-51B/C as an escort started to be introduced in mid 1943, after much of the LWs bomber and transport strength had been lost in Stalingrad, and while Germany was losing at Kurk and Allemein. The P-51D was introduced after D-Day, the fall of Rome and Bagration getting started.


----------



## Schweik (Jun 30, 2020)

I did mention the Mosquito numerous times in this thread, it was arguably the best night fighter of the war and good in many other roles as well, but it was not an effective daytime escort fighter for use in bomber escort. I also mentioned the Beaufighter several times - it was a good plane in a number of roles too but it was not (as far as I'm aware) used for daytime bomber escort either, nor could it handle top quality enemy daytime fighters on a regular basis, certainly not Bf 109s. The Typhoon didn't really become very useful or see much action until after D-Day. I also did mention the Tempest in my list.

Yes I'm quite well aware the Mustang came late in the war and had some limitations. So what? You seem to be confusing me for other people you have had much more nationalistic arguments with in past.

The Spitfire could certainly handle the Ju-88 if it was around, but the Ju 88 had longer range and could reach things that Spitfires couldn't protect, like quite often convoys.


----------



## Schweik (Jun 30, 2020)

I missed some of this earlier because it was hidden inside the quote. You know how to use the quote tag right?



pbehn said:


> *When did this become obvious? Which of your heavy fighters was designed as a long range escort? I didn't say the Ju88 did well in the BoB quite obviously the campaign was halted. The Beaufighter shot down its first daylight victory in October 1940 and its first night time kill in Nov 1940.By March 1941, half of the 22 German aircraft claimed by British fighters were by Beaufighters; during the night of 19/20 May 1941, during a raid on London, 24 aircraft were shot down by fighters against two by anti-aircraft ground fire.[11] The Ju88 was getting vulnerable because the Beaufighter was shooting it down from Norway to the Bay of Biscay. It had 4x20mm cannon six x.303mgs could carry rockets and torpedos. THAT is a heavy fighter. *



Like I said already, I had a lot of praise for the Beaufighter, and already mentioned it's use as a Night fighter and great utility in Coastal patrol (including in the Med) I just didn't see it as being a viable daytime escort, which is really what was most needed by the Luftwaffe IMO. I believe I actually addressed everything you brought up about the Beaufighter (IIRC originally in an objection because I had been talking about the Mosquito as a night fighter instead...)



> *And now we come to the other side of the discussion, after the superiority of the P-51 in all things we get German wonder weapons. What happened to the Italian battle fleet? What happened to German surface raiders? How many aircraft and ships did the Beaufighter take out from Malta? What about Tallboys and Grand Slams and Upkeep? Centimetric radar? How about the role of the Mosquito and Tempest in countering the V1 and V2 threat as interceptors and attacking launch sites? *



You are turning this into (yet another) generalized UK vs. US or whoever else argument. I am not playing that game. Intercepting V2s or dropping Tallboys has nothing to do with heavy fighters to be honest. I never claimed P-51 was the best fighter of the war, let alone that it was a better bomber than a Lancaster or a better V1 killer than a Tempest. I was talking about different roles and suitability for different roles.

Look I'm not claiming "heavy" fighter vs. "light" vs. "medium" (or you could even also add "ultra light") is some groundbreaking new theory or that it in any way overrules any other more conventional way of looking at WW2 fighters, nor am I trying to wade into yet another nationalistic debate over who had the best toys, I just think it's an interesting angle from which to consider fighter design. And that this relates to the saga of the Bf 110.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 30, 2020)

Schweik said:


> I did mention the Mosquito numerous times in this thread, it was arguably the best night fighter of the war and good in many other roles as well, but it was not an effective daytime escort fighter for use in bomber escort. I also mentioned the Beaufighter several times - it was a good plane in a number of roles too but it was not (as far as I'm aware) used for daytime bomber escort either, nor could it handle top quality enemy daytime fighters on a regular basis, certainly not Bf 109s. The Typhoon didn't really become very useful or see much action until after D-Day. I also did mention the Tempest in my list.
> 
> Yes I'm quite well aware the Mustang came late in the war and had some limitations. So what? You seem to be confusing me for other people you have had much more nationalistic arguments with in past.
> 
> The Spitfire could certainly handle the Ju-88 if it was around, but the Ju 88 had longer range and could reach things that Spitfires couldn't protect, like quite often convoys.


You were talking about heavy fighters weren't you? Both the Beaufighter and Mosquito could sink ships and were ranging huge distances to counter Ju88s and Condors long before the P-51B/C became operational. The Typhoon helped put an end to Fw190 tip and run raids on south England in 1942/43 as the only plane that could catch an Fw 190, before D-Day it was used to do all the things you said were useful for a P-51, with twice the destructive power in 4 cannon, up to a ton of bombs or 8 rockets and about half a ton of armour, which still didn't stop numerous losses before and after D-Day.


----------



## Schweik (Jun 30, 2020)

pbehn said:


> You were talking about heavy fighters weren't you? Both the Beaufighter and Mosquito could sink ships and were ranging huge distances to counter Ju88s and Condors long before the P-51B/C became operational. The Typhoon helped put an end to Fw190 tip and run raids on south England in 1942/43 as the only plane that could catch an Fw 190, before D-Day it was used to do all the things you said were useful for a P-51, with twice the destructive power in 4 cannon, up to a ton of bombs or 8 rockets and about half a ton of armour, which still didn't stop numerous losses before and after D-Day.



I challenge you to find anywhere in this forum where I ever said the Beaufighter or the Mosquito was a bad plane.

The Typhoon was fine as a low-altitude interceptor, despite all the issues, but it was not a long ranged fighter suitable for escorting heavy or medium bombers, IMO.

The original context was the success (or lack thereof) of the Bf 110. I think the Bf 110 was pretty good at a lot of the same things that the Beaufighter was good at (night fighting, ground attack, coastal patrol), except the Beaufighter had a much longer effective range so it was better in that (quite important) respect. But neither of them could really hold their own in combat with enemy day-fighters, at least not in Europe*. Neither one could really fight at high altitude either. My point is that the Germans really needed was a "heavy fighter" that could escort the bombers they had to their full range, their best being arguably the Ju 88. 

That said, I'm sure they would have been delighted with an aircraft that had all the capabilities of the Beaufighter (esp. range). I just think they needed something a bit more like what came toward the second half of the war. Obviously it was a hard nut to crack because many of the Allied heavy fighters struggled to reach their real potential. But the Germans never got there, and I don't think it was due to a lack of sufficient engines (everyone struggled with engines to some extent) but probably more just the nature of their system and their bureaucracy, and maybe to some extent dumb luck.

In other words what I see here is a big gap in the Luftwaffe War machine from roughly early 1942 onward. The Anglo-Americans saw the same lack or need, though for somewhat different reasons (I don't think long range Strategic bombing would have really worked for the Luftwaffe, at least not in the West. Maybe on the Russian Front).

* Beaufighters did Ok against Japanese fighters, maybe not well enough to be a bomber escort but well enough to do unescorted strikes of their own sometimes.


----------



## Schweik (Jun 30, 2020)

Lighter weight fighters (4,000 - 6,500 lbs empty) may have been far more common in the early part of the war, but they clearly kept their niche right up to the end, as some of the best piston engined fighters in 1944 or 1945 fit into this category. I would include Bf 109 K4, Spit Mk 24, Ki-84, La 7 and Yak 3 in this category. F8F Bearcat too though it was only operational post-war.


----------



## Milosh (Jun 30, 2020)

pbehn said:


> The Typhoon helped put an end to Fw190 tip and run raids on south England in 1942/43 as the only plane that could catch an Fw 190, before D-Day it was used to do all the things you said were useful for a P-51,


First Mustangs arrived in the UK, Liverpool, on October 24, 1941.


----------



## Schweik (Jun 30, 2020)

Another good post-war example of the "Heavy fighter" which occurs to me is the P-82 "Twin Mustang" - sorry hope not to trigger anyone. As goofy looking as it was it seems to have had some success, it's only real merit being range and speed, though as always with two engine planes the second engine can contribute to survival on long missions (on the other hand it's more stuff to break so they can also contribute to mission aborts).


----------



## pbehn (Jun 30, 2020)

Milosh said:


> First Mustangs arrived in the UK, Liverpool, on October 24, 1941.


And were of no use at all to escort a fleet of bombers into central Germany.


----------



## pbehn (Jun 30, 2020)

Schweik said:


> I challenge you to find anywhere in this forum where I ever said the Beaufighter or the Mosquito was a bad plane.
> 
> The Typhoon was fine as a low-altitude interceptor, despite all the issues, but it was not a long ranged fighter suitable for escorting heavy or medium bombers, IMO.
> 
> ...


Your criteria for heavy fighters and light fighter is that they must be a P-51 in all escort scenarios and therefore a P-51 is best. The P-51 was not a heavy fighter in either weight or armament, but is top of the tree as a heavy fighter because it was an escort fighter without peer? If German aircraft with radio or wire guided missiles were "pretty deadly" what were RAF aircraft with Tall Boys torpedos, bombs and depth charges? As a real heavy fighter what about a B-24 with centimetric radar and searchlights closing the Atlantic gap and bringing the Battle of the Atlantic to a close.


----------



## Milosh (Jun 30, 2020)

pbehn said:


> And were of no use at all to escort a fleet of bombers into central Germany.



They would get further than any Brit a/c and were fast enough to catch the 190s..


----------



## pbehn (Jun 30, 2020)

Milosh said:


> They would get further than any Brit a/c and were fast enough to catch the 190s..


But not higher, I believe their first kill was at Dieppe.


----------



## Schweik (Jun 30, 2020)

pbehn said:


> Your criteria for heavy fighters and light fighter is that they must be a P-51 in all escort scenarios and therefore a P-51 is best. The P-51 was not a heavy fighter in either weight or armament, but is top of the tree as a heavy fighter because it was an escort fighter without peer?



You are good at winning arguments against phantoms, which is important because it must be scary to be plagued by phantoms. 

As for the discussion I've been contributing to, please note my post upthread where I grouped the fighters into different categories.

Me-110 Underrated

You'll notice the P-51 isn't in the list of "heavy fighters", I have it under "medium fighters". It just happened to have an extraordinarily long range and high speed, as we know they lucked out with the design in many respects. But the "heavies" on the list could fulfill a similar role, albeit they got up to the same operational range more gradually. 



> If German aircraft with radio or wire guided missiles were "pretty deadly" what were RAF aircraft with Tall Boys torpedos, bombs and depth charges?



What does any of that have to do with fighters of any kind? Where did I ever give you the impression that I was disparaging "Tall Boys" or RAF aircraft because I gave moderate praise to one German type? Can you please show me where I said RAF aircraft were ineffective against maritime targets? What point are you trying to make?

Are you perhaps confusing this thread with another one?



> As a real heavy fighter what about a B-24 with centimetric radar and searchlights closing the Atlantic gap and bringing the Battle of the Atlantic to a close.



Interesting idea but we know B-24s, regardless of how they were equipped, could not hold their own against German (or for that matter, Italian) day-fighters. If the Germans had a truly long range fighter, equivalent to a P-51 or a P-38, they probably could have wiped out the B-24s.


----------



## Schweik (Jun 30, 2020)

For sake of clarity, here is how I would break it down:

Empty weight

Below 4,000 "ultra light"
4,001 - 6,500 "light"
6,501 - 8,000 "medium"
8,001 - 15,000 "heavy"
15,001+ "super heavy"

This would put the Mosquito, Westland Whirlwind, Ki-45 and the Bf 110 within the "heavy" category but the Beaufighter and Me 210 in the "super heavy"


----------



## pbehn (Jun 30, 2020)

Schweik said:


> Interesting idea but we know B-24s, regardless of how they were equipped, could not hold their own against German (or for that matter, Italian) day-fighters. If the Germans had a truly long range fighter, equivalent to a P-51 or a P-38, they probably could have wiped out the B-24s.


Your fixation with a P-51 being the solution to all ills knows no bounds, how will it find anything in the dark? It had great range for a high performance fighter not in terms of stooging around in the mid Atlantic.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 30, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> Keep in mind that the twin-engined types did have a place in service, just not large quantities.
> The Ar240 was certainly a step up from the Bf110 and definately better than the Me210, which took up a great deal of time and effort to iron out issues that were never resolved (until the Me410, of course).



Twin engined types certainly have had roles to play - bombing the enemy, firing rockets, toting the torpedoes. As day fighters for Axis forces - that's resources not well spent.
Ar-240 was every bit as troublesome machine as the early Me 210.



Shortround6 said:


> ...
> The Germans faced a similar problem. With the available engines (and fuel) what performance could be had using a single engine and what performance could be had using two engines? The Prototypes used DB 600 engines. DB failed to deliver either enough of these engines or failed to elemiated problems so that early production used even lower powered Jumo 210s.
> 
> DB also failed to develop and build higher power engines in a timely fashion for much of WW II. They promised a lot but often failed to deliver in a timely manner. In part because of the fuel situation.
> ...



A good part of Bf 110 being underpowered was that it was big & heavy, with an airfoil thicker than on the P-38 or Mosquito.



> The whole "light fighter" vs "heavy fighter" argument is bogus. The later fighters were much more capable in a number of areas. The closest you are going to get to a light weight late war war fighter (using a late war engine and not a 1940 left over) is the Grumman F8F-1. Over 7000lbs empty and almost 9400lbs loaded but clean. with about the same armament as as the F4F-3. That is what happens when you use an engine that weighs 2350lbs and then add an appropriate propeller and accessories. I would note that the F8F-1 was designed to a lower load factor than just about any other US piston powered fighter.



P-63A: about 9000 lbs loaded with max ammo, fuel, ADI, but clean.
La-7: between 7150 - 7300 lbs loaded, clean
Spitfire XIV: 8400-8500 lbs
Yak-3U: 6150 lbs
Yak-9U: 7000 lbs
Bf 109K: 7400 lbs
Japanese late war fighters were also light.

F8F-1 might be seen as a lightweight fighter only in the eyes of Americans, and one can have a competitive fighter without resorting to 18 cyl 2800 cu in engine.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 30, 2020)

pbehn said:


> Your fixation with a P-51 being the solution to all ills knows no bounds, how will it find anything in the dark? It had great range for a high performance fighter not in terms of stooging around in the mid Atlantic.



My fixation? Lol

I would say if you needed a night fighter, send a night fighter. One with good range preferably. Either day or night though the Germans would know where the Wolf Packs are gathering so they could send out fighter cover to protect them.

Any long range fighter would do in that scenario. The Me 210 if the stability problems were fixed (or an Me 410 just 2 years earlier) would be a good candidate, it had a decent range, and we know it could knock down unescorted B-24s.

Of course at truly extreme range you probably would revert to aircraft which weren't fighters at all. But the British Isles would have been much more vulnerable it the Germans had fighters with a 1,000+ mile range.


----------



## gjs238 (Jun 30, 2020)

Schweik said:


> For sake of clarity, here is how I would break it down:
> 
> Empty weight
> 
> ...



"Super heavy" seems like a euphemism for an attack aircraft or light bomber.
Ex: A-20 Havoc, A-26 Invader, Beaufighter, Martin Baltimore, etc., etc.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 30, 2020)

A lot of the faster more capable bombers around the weight range also did duty as fighters & vice versa. Including some of the ones you mentioned, or say the Ju 88.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 30, 2020)

Another good example of a postwar 'heavy fighter' in the "super heavy" category (definitely too heavy for carrier ops within it's design specs) is the F7F Tigercat. 460 mph and 1,200 mile range, very heavily armed, and a 4,500 fpm climb rate. In production from 1944. Apparently it never went into combat because it failed carrier trials. Seems like it would have been a good fighter for the Marines or something.

EDIT: fixed name after being corrected, I had put in the wrong name as a typo.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jun 30, 2020)

Schweik said:


> Interesting idea but we know B-24s, regardless of how they were equipped, could not hold their own against German (or for that matter, Italian) day-fighters. If the Germans had a truly long range fighter, equivalent to a P-51 or a P-38, they probably could have wiped out the B-24s.



Nor could the B-17 hold its own against the German fighters.

As for wiping them out, that's a numbers game. If they send 100 it may be possible, but if they send 1,000 it would be unlikely.

And why do you need a long range fighter for defensive purposes in the ETO? So you can fly around for a while having expended all your ammo?

The raids on Schweinfurt had the 8th AF under attack almost constantly from the time the escorts returned to base until meeting up with the escorts on the return trip. The fighters were based in France and Germany, and when they had expended their ammo they could rearm and refuel while the bombers continued on their way into the next wave of defenders.

The Schweinfurt raid had 20% loss of the bombers, though many that returned to base were deemed unserviceable/unsalvageable, so badly were they damaged.

Increasing the range of the escort fighters reduced the window in which the bombers would be undefended. It eventually forced the Luftwaffe to move their defences back to Germany, rather than remaining in occupied Europe. This, I think, played into the 8th AF's hands, as engaging the escorts earlier could have forced them to ditch their drop tanks, making them unable to continue the escort to the target.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 30, 2020)

We are getting a bit confused here.

twin engine bombers used as "fighters" rather depends on what you mean by "fighter" or what mission it was trying to do. 
Many such planes were used as night intruders or night "fighters" which means they were being used to shoot down (intercept) bombers. 
Some were used for over water/maritime patrols where they could be reasonably sure they were out of range of single engine/single seat fighters. 
Very few people actually tried to use converted bombers to counter single seat fighters in daylight. 
One very basic problem is that bombers are not stressed to pull fighter type maneuvers or even high G turns let alone have the control response or power to permit such maneuvering. 
Yes some bombers could actually loop or roll but the diameter of said loop was going to be much larger than a true fighter. 

Mosquitos did shoot down a few German fighters but they generally did not go hunting for them. 


As far as the F8F-1 goes, Design work started in Aug of 1943 and an order for two prototypes was placed Nov 27th 1943. They may not have gotten it into service/combat in WW II but it was designed with the combat experience of 1942/43 to help guide things. 

The Americans may well have screwed up keeping the .50 cal as long as they did. However I was referring to the weight of the armament. If the customer (army or navy) wants 1200-1400lbs worth of guns/ammo and accessories, you are going to wind up with a a heavy fighter, there are not a lot of ways around that. Please note the US got "lucky" as they had no (or darn little) combat experience to guide them when these choices were made. The heavy armament turned out to be rather useful to the Navy later in the war when when CAP aircraft could make multiple intercepts before running low on ammo ( 700lbs of .50 cal ammo is good for something). I am not saying the multiple intercepts were always successful, I am saying the USN was not faced with the same problem as the Japanese were at Midway when the CAP planes had only limited firing time. The F6F prototypes flying within weeks of Midway, the USN design requirements were not shaped (at least very much) by Midway. 

As for "Late war" fighters. 
P-63A: Design work started before June 27, 1941 when the USAAF placed an order for two prototype XP-6s, this is after placing an order for 3 XP-39Es in Feb 1941 (XP-39E is P-39D fuselage with laminar flow wing) 

La-7: Work started in the summer of 1943 but it was more of a product improved LA-5 than a new design and the La-5 dates from late 1941/early 1942 and is a re-engined Lagg-3.

Spitfire XIV: Much as I like the Griffon engined Spitfires it is a bit of stretch to call them "late war" even though that is when they were used. Again, an evolution aircraft rather than a new aircraft. 
Yak-3U: Project canceled Oct, 1945. two 20mm cannon. 
Yak-9U: Well, sort of, basic airframe and aerodynamics can be traced back to the Yak-1 (I-26) of 1939/40. the VK-107 actually dates from that era, it just took until 1944/45 to get some sort of reliability out of the engine. Russian accounts differ, One page will say problems solved another will say, it was capricious and frequently failed. While production of the engine was started in 1942 but problems were such that not only was production small in numbers during the war but production was stopped from Sept 1945 to Dec 1945 and again from April of 1946 to Oct of 1946. Plane carried one 20mm gun with 120 rounds and two 12,7mm guns with 200rpg. Not exactly first class armament in 1944/45. 


Bf 109K: 7400 lbs A late war fighter? used late in the war but hardly a mid to late war design.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 30, 2020)

Schweik said:


> Another good example of a postwar 'heavy fighter' in the "super heavy" category (definitely too heavy for carrier ops within it's design specs) is the F7F *Tigershark*. 460 mph and 1,200 mile range, very heavily armed, and a 4,500 fpm climb rate. In production from 1944. Apparently it never went into combat because it failed carrier trials. Seems like it would have been a good fighter for the Marines or something.



Did you mean the Grumman F7F *Tigercat*?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 30, 2020)

wuzak said:


> Nor could the B-17 hold its own against the German fighters.



I never said it could.



> As for wiping them out, that's a numbers game. If they send 100 it may be possible, but if they send 1,000 it would be unlikely.



My understanding of the Battle of the Atlantic is that it was fought by relatively small numbers of aircraft.



> And why do you need a long range fighter for defensive purposes in the ETO? So you can fly around for a while having expended all your ammo?



As I stated before, I was thinking more in terms of Operational capabilities, so really more MTO and Russia. The Germans didn't have a really good Strategic bomber nor did it pay to try to attack the integrated air defenses in Britain. I think winning wars (or doing better) in their Southern and Eastern fronts would have helped far more.


----------



## wuzak (Jun 30, 2020)

Schweik said:


> I would include Bf 109 K4, Spit Mk 24, Ki-84, La 7 and Yak 3 in this category.



The Spitfire 24 was post war - entered service in 1946.

The Spitfire 21 started in service in 1945, and the Spitfire 22 later that year.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jun 30, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> We are getting a bit confused here.
> 
> twin engine bombers used as "fighters" rather depends on what you mean by "fighter" or what mission it was trying to do.
> Many such planes were used as night intruders or night "fighters" which means they were being used to shoot down (intercept) bombers.
> ...



In addition to the Mosquito, I was referring to for example, the Beaufighter or Ju 88C, which were used basically as long range fighters over areas beyond the range of the regular day fighters. That said, as I pointed out upthread, the Beaufighter could and did sometimes take on Zeros in the Pacific.



> As far as the F8F-1 goes, Design work started in Aug of 1943 and an order for two prototypes was placed Nov 27th 1943. They may not have gotten it into service/combat in WW II but it was designed with the combat experience of 1942/43 to help guide things.
> 
> The Americans may well have screwed up keeping the .50 cal as long as they did. However I was referring to the weight of the armament. If the customer (army or navy) wants 1200-1400lbs worth of guns/ammo and accessories, you are going to wind up with a a heavy fighter, there are not a lot of ways around that. Please note the US got "lucky" as they had no (or darn little) combat experience to guide them when these choices were made.



See, I don't really buy that. The P-39, P-40 (E or later), P-51D or later, F4F-4, F6F and F4U all basically had the same armament, six heavy machine guns (four in some variants), and yet there was quite a notable difference in weight. Yes some had more ammunition but that alone isn't enough to change the specs that much. The P-38 had 4 HMGs and 1 cannon, which really isn't that much heavier I don't think. Only the P-47 with it's 8 guns had a notably heavier armament.



> As for "Late war" fighters.
> P-63A: Design work started before June 27, 1941 when the USAAF placed an order for two prototype XP-6s, this is after placing an order for 3 XP-39Es in Feb 1941 (XP-39E is P-39D fuselage with laminar flow wing)



P-63 wasn't on my list due to short range.



> La-7: Work started in the summer of 1943 but it was more of a product improved LA-5 than a new design and the La-5 dates from late 1941/early 1942 and is a re-engined Lagg-3.














By the time you get from LaGG-3 to La 7 it's a very different aircraft.



> Spitfire XIV: Much as I like the Griffon engined Spitfires it is a bit of stretch to call them "late war" even though that is when they were used. Again, an evolution aircraft rather than a new aircraft.



Again, very different beast than a BoB era Spit I. Yes there were incremental changes but there were a lot of them and they certainly added up. 



> Yak-3U: Project canceled Oct, 1945. two 20mm cannon.


 I didn't specify which Yak-3, but the 3U was an experimental version with a radial engine. The main variant had 1 x 20mm cannon (the excellent ShVak) with 150 rounds and 2 x 12.7mm machine guns with 170 rounds each.



> Yak-9U: Well, sort of, basic airframe and aerodynamics can be traced back to the Yak-1 (I-26) of 1939/40. the VK-107 actually dates from that era, it just took until 1944/45 to get some sort of reliability out of the engine. Russian accounts differ, One page will say problems solved another will say, it was capricious and frequently failed. While production of the engine was started in 1942 but problems were such that not only was production small in numbers during the war but production was stopped from Sept 1945 to Dec 1945 and again from April of 1946 to Oct of 1946. Plane carried one 20mm gun with 120 rounds and two 12,7mm guns with 200rpg. Not exactly first class armament in 1944/45.



It's heavy enough, being all concentrated in the nose. It was sufficient to shoot down plenty of Bf 109s, Fw 190s and a couple of Mustangs if my memory doesn't fail me. But being a light interceptor / frontal aviation type fighter, it's not meant to be carrying boxcars full of ammunition.



> Bf 109K: 7400 lbs A late war fighter? used late in the war but hardly a mid to late war design.



Again, 109K is a big difference from the Spanish Civil War era 109D


----------



## Schweik (Jun 30, 2020)

As for whether a Spit XIV or Bf 109 K4 qualifies as a late war fighter, I think we have seen across many design histories, when it comes to production of wartime aircraft, timing is tricky. Aircraft designed in 1943 or 1944 often didn't make the cut.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 1, 2020)

Schweik said:


> See, I don't really buy that. The P-39, P-40 (E or later), P-51D or later, F4F-4, F6F and F4U all basically had the same armament, six heavy machine guns (four in some variants), and yet there was quite a notable difference in weight. Yes some had more ammunition but that alone isn't enough to change the specs that much. The P-38 had 4 HMGs and 1 cannon, which really isn't that much heavier I don't think. Only the P-47 with it's 8 guns had a notably heavier armament.



You are not counting the weight of the ammunition. 
P-40L and early Ns had four guns and often 201rpg (why the odd round I have no idea), but ,50 cal ammo weighs about 30lbs per hundred rounds. P-38s often flew with less than full ammunition bins but they would hold 500rpg and that load was what the plane was designed for. Over 600lbs of of .50 cal ammo compared to the 240lbs of ammo in a stripper P-40. 
A P-40E carried 423lbs of ammo for it's six guns. 
F4F-3 had 4 guns with 430rpg, f4F-4 had six guns with 240rpg. 
P-39s had 200-215rpg for the ,50sin the cowl and up to 1000rpg for the .30s in the wings although 300rpg was a more common load. P-39s with .50 cal guns in the wing pods had 300rpg for each under wing gun.
The FM-2 Wildcat reverted to four guns with 430rpg so the F6F was carrying roughly 50% more weight in guns and ammo. AHT says 433 lbs for the guns in the F6F and 720lbs for the ammo. 
P-51Ds had 400rpg for the inboard guns and 270rpg for the outer guns. 

just counting gun barrels doesn't tell the whole story.

BTW Japanese/Italian 12.7mm ammo was about 6.5lbs per hundred lighter than American 12.7mm ammo. 
20mm ammo varies from a low of 163 grams per loaded round (not shell) to a high of 290 grams per loaded round or 100 rounds of the heaviest is 28bs heavier than 100 rounds of the lightest. Russian 20mm ammo is about 183 grams per round, Hispano ammo is about 257 grams per round. This does not include links. 







Schweik said:


> By the time you get from LaGG-3 to La 7 it's a very different aircraft.



They changed the airfoil? 
They changed the wing area?
They changed the plan form?
They changed the fuselage from the cockpit back? 
They made major changes to the landing gear? 

Sorry, not buying it. 



Schweik said:


> It's heavy enough, being all concentrated in the nose. It was sufficient to shoot down plenty of Bf 109s, Fw 190s and a couple of Mustangs if my memory doesn't fail me. But being a light interceptor / frontal aviation type fighter, it's not meant to be carrying boxcars full of ammunition.



Japanese shot down planes with a pair of .303/7.7mm. doesn't mean it was world class armament does it? 

Russians had problems with engine power. they were forced to use small fighters with light armament to keep performance up and use many of them to get enough guns/ammo into the air. We are also back to the nose mounted armament somehow being a magical scheme that negates poor guns sights, poor training and poor or mismatched ballistics. 

Of the WW II fighters only the P-39s with 20mm guns and the P-38 really had ballistically matched nose guns, at least at most realistic air to air ranges.


----------



## Schweik (Jul 1, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> You are not counting the weight of the ammunition.
> P-40L and early Ns had four guns and often 201rpg (why the odd round I have no idea), but ,50 cal ammo weighs about 30lbs per hundred rounds. P-38s often flew with less than full ammunition bins but they would hold 500rpg and that load was what the plane was designed for. Over 600lbs of of .50 cal ammo compared to the 240lbs of ammo in a stripper P-40.
> A P-40E carried 423lbs of ammo for it's six guns.
> F4F-3 had 4 guns with 430rpg, f4F-4 had six guns with 240rpg.
> ...



Yeah but we are talking about a difference of a few hundred pounds here, not 5,000 lbs. And as we know from many previous disscussions, the stripped down P-40s were only a few hundred planes for a few months, once the German - Italian fighter threat subsisded a bit they went back to 6 guns. They could put in more or less guns and more or less ammunition as they needed to. And the difference as you noted is ~200 lbs for ammo, maybe another ~100 or so for the guns.



> They changed the airfoil?
> They changed the wing area?
> They changed the plan form?
> They changed the fuselage from the cockpit back?
> They made major changes to the landing gear?












Well lets see. They made the LaGG-3 mostly out of laminated birchbark plywood to save on duralumin (or whatever the Russians called their alloy). By the time you get to the La 7 they were no longer so short on Strategic metals so the La 7 had wings and fuselage much made more of metal alloy - including metal wing spars.
They cut down the back turtle deck of the fuselage yes, and made the La 7 have a kind of bubble cockpit.
They did a lot of little things like vastly improving the gunsight and cockpit controls, moving control surface balances inside the fuselage etc., which all add up.
Whereas the armament of the LaGG -3 ended up at 1 cannon and 1 HMG, the La 7 had _three_ 20mm cannon, all in the nose.
Aside from the metal spars, the wing was also changed by the addition of intake ducts in the wing roots
The aircraft was better streamlined, the fuselage was thinner, and it has a fully retractable tail wheel.
The engine went from in-line to a fuel injected radial and increased by 700 hp
Empty weight increased by 1,000 lbs and gross weight of the aircraft increased by almost 2,000 lbs.



> Sorry, not buying it.



Maybe you aren't trying hard enough?



> Japanese shot down planes with a pair of .303/7.7mm. doesn't mean it was world class armament does it?



Well, we have had this debate before a few times. The idea of 'moving mud', that all you need to win is heavier ordinance, doesn't wash for me. We have discussed this with bombers and with fighters. To me the proof is in the pudding. The Soviet fighters made after 1943 were not suffering appalling losses - the guys flying the Yak 3s and the La 7s weren't being wiped out like those poor guys flying the original LaGG-3s. And we all know that very heavily armed Hawker Hurricanes were no match for nimble, lightly armed Ki-43s. And circling back to the subject of the thread, very heavily armed Bf 110s and Me 210s were basically dead meat up against Spitfires. It's all about striking a balance between accuracy, agility, and firepower.



> Russians had problems with engine power. they were forced to use small fighters with light armament to keep performance up and use many of them to get enough guns/ammo into the air. We are also back to the nose mounted armament somehow being a magical scheme that negates poor guns sights, poor training and poor or mismatched ballistics.



The engine on the La 5FN and the La 7 was producing between 1,850 and 1960 hp, I would say that is plenty. Everyone had problems with engine development, and I know you want to argue that the Soviets made light aircraft because they sucked at engines, I think they did it at least partly because the light interceptor / frontal aviation type fighter was ideal for their actual needs. As I pointed out before, they were offered P-47s and could have had them, probably without cost, but they rejected them. They weren't suitable for their tactical environment, even though you might think the P-47 was vastly better than a Yak 3 or an La 7, the Soviets definitely didn't.



> Of the WW II fighters only the P-39s with 20mm guns and the P-38 really had ballistically matched nose guns, at least at most realistic air to air ranges.



I think three 20mm guns in the nose of a fighter hits pretty hard, call me crazy.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 1, 2020)

Schweik said:


> Whereas the armament of the LaGG -3 ended up at 1 cannon and 1 HMG, the La 7 had _three_ 20mm cannon, all in the nose.
> 
> <SNIP>
> 
> I think three 20mm guns in the nose of a fighter hits pretty hard, call me crazy.



All firing through the propeller, reducing rate of fire.

Also had less muzzle velocity than the Hispano II (790m/s for HE round vs 860m/s), lower projectile weight (95g vs 130g) and lower HE content (6g vs 8g).

The Russian 20mm cannons had higher rate of fire than the Hispano II (13rps vs 10rps), but this would reduce when firing through the propeller.

The Russian 20mm cannons had about 1/2 the power of the Hispano II.

Data from WORLD WAR 2 FIGHTER GUN EFFECTIVENESS

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Jul 1, 2020)

Only after Jan '45 did the La-7 have 3 cannons.


----------



## Glider (Jul 1, 2020)

Milosh said:


> Only after Jan '45 did the La-7 have 3 cannons.


Plus if I remember correctly, it depended on which factory made them due to a shortage of the cannons. A good proportion (which I do not know) only carried 2 cannons of a different type


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 1, 2020)

As noted by others (thanks) the LA-7 had two different gun set ups. The ones with 3 guns show up late, they use the new lighter, B-20 cannon instead of the ShVAK gun. Weight of 3 B-20s was less than two ShVAK guns. Production shortages of the B-20 gun meant that the Moscow factory making LA-7s didn't change over to 3 guns for a number of months after the other factory. The 3 gun fighters carried 170 rpg instead of the 200rpg of the 2 gun fighters due to ???? weight? space?
The later LA-9 which was a total redesign got four guns in the fuselage, B-20s at first and then four NS-23 but ammo was only 75 rpg.

BTW the Lagg-1 prototype carried one 23mm gun, two 12.7mm machine guns and soon had two 7.62mm guns added. The 23 mm gun didn't work out but it shows the Russians were interested in heavy armament as do the I-16s with a 20mm gun in each wing with 1000 hp (or less) engines.

LA-7 carried 610 liters of fuel inside. The LA-5 had 454 liters?

The Russian fighters suited the Russian conditions but in some cases, the conditions/tactics had to suit the fighters. Stalin called for more range, it wasn't quite a simple as just sticking in more fuel tanks. Improved performance with only marginal increases in power could only be accomplished with the help of keeping the aircraft as light as possible. 

If we are to believe that the LA-7 differed greatly from the Lagg-3 then we have to believe that the P-40N differed greatly from the P-40C or bubble top Spitfires differed greatly from some earlier ones or that a metal wing Hurricane differed greatly from the fabric covered wing versions. The wing structure was totally different on the two Hurricanes but you could fit either wing to the same fuselage and it made little difference to performance or flying characteristics except for a higher diving speed.
LA-7 got metal spar/s instead of wood ones? big deal.


----------



## Schweik (Jul 1, 2020)

Considering the La 7 was introduced to combat in Sept 1944 for combat trails in small numbers, and most of the operational units were in action from 1945, I don't think it's such a stretch. I don't know the exact numbers of how many had two guns vs. three but I believe the majority had three. It was a late war, and basically a 1945 fighter as far as WW 2 goes.

As for your examples, I assume you aren't implying that a Hurricane II was as far removed from a Hurricane I as a Spitfire 21 was from a Spitfire I? 

As for P-40s, a more apt comparison would be a P-36 to a P-40L or N. But even that isn't quite as radical of a difference as an early Merlin Spt vs. a Griffon Spit, an a LaGG-3 to an La 7, or a Bf 109D to a 109K in terms of either design changes or performance increase.

All of this is just a half-assed attempt to shoot down a solid and self evident observation. The "light fighters" aren't just modified versions of earlier models, they weren't just early war fighters. A lot of newer and even postwar designs were made lightweight. And it's not just a response to a lack of engine power. There was a role for the lightweight fighter, clearly. 

and 1,100 hp to 1,900 hp horsepower isn't a marginal increase in power. They actually sorted out the range with the even more reworked postwar La 9 fighter, which had a two stage supercharger, a laminar flow wing, and a 1,000 mile range, but still weighed in at under 6,000 lbs empty. And _four_ 23mm guns.


Overall like the somewhat similar Bearcat it seemed to represent a continued interest in lighter weight fighter design. The issue of lighter and heavier fighters continued well into the jet age of course and remains with us today. Compare a Mirage III or MiG 21 to an F-4 or an F-16 to an F-111.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 1, 2020)

Schweik said:


> Of course at truly extreme range you probably would revert to aircraft which weren't fighters at all. But the British Isles would have been much more vulnerable it the Germans had fighters with a 1,000+ mile range.


This is all hind sight in terms of what happened and technical development. In 1939/40 who had a s/e fighter with 1000mile range, or a competitive twin engine fighter. Who had commissioned one and for what? If the Germans could choose any engine in service anywhere in 1939 which one would give them their fighter with 1000+ mile range?

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## glennasher (Jul 1, 2020)

I used to be a light fighter, but now I'd surely be classified as a heavyweight. Does this count?

Things evolve with time, that's how it is. Like people, they hardly get lighter, though.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Funny Funny:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jul 1, 2020)

pbehn said:


> This is all hind sight in terms of what happened and technical development. In 1939/40 who had a s/e fighter with 1000mile range, or a competitive twin engine fighter. Who had commissioned one and for what? If the Germans could choose any engine in service anywhere in 1939 which one would give them their fighter with 1000+ mile range?



Well I don't think the engine mattered that much. It was more a factor of how much fuel they could fit in the airframe without harming flying characteristics, and how much they could reduce drag while retaining good lift. But I can think of several early-war aircraft which had quite long range.

The A6M zero and Ki-43 both had a 1,000 mile range and I believe that was indeed part of the design requirement. 
The Fairey Battle, though not successful, had a 1,000 mile range.
The Beaufighter (first flight 1939, first confirmed kill 1940) eventually had a 1,600 mile range and long range was also a design requirement for that aircraft. 
The Dutch Fokker G.1 had almost a 940 mile range, and had development continued it probably would have exceeded 1,000 miles.
The Pe-3 (heavy fighter derivative of the Pe-2, developed in 1941) had a range of 930 miles
The P-38 lightning didn't get into production until 1941 but it's first flight was 1939. It achieved a 1,300 mile range.
The F2A Buffalo (operational 1940) had a range of 965 miles which is in the ball park.

Some of the aircraft listed above, other than the Zero may not initially have had a 1,000 mile range, most took some tweaking to get to that point, but they eventually got there (by mid-war in most cases) and the long range was clearly a design goal. I could probably come up with a few more examples if I really needed to.


----------



## pbehn (Jul 1, 2020)

glennasher said:


> I used to be a light fighter, but now I'd surely be classified as a heavyweight. Does this count?
> 
> Things evolve with time, that's how it is. Like people, they hardly get lighter, though.


People don't but machines go up and down in size and weight, they get bigger and heavier until a re design using smaller fittings like radios, radar and guns and stronger materials more compact engines. The Lancaster was designed as the Manchester medium bomber but carried more, further and higher than the Stirling designed as a heavy bomber. In fact the bomb bays are about the same length and the defensive armament is the same, the Stirling just carries a huge amount of redundant metal and space.


----------



## Dimlee (Jul 1, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> The 3 gun fighters carried 170 rpg instead of the 200rpg of the 2 gun fighters due to ???? weight? space?



Just to clarify about the cannons on Lavochkin fighters: 
La-5 - 220 rpg
La-5F - 200 rpg
La-5FN - 170 rpg
La-7 - 170/180 rpg 2xSHVAK cannons
La-7 - 170 rpg 3xB-20 cannons. Tests in 1944, serial production since summer 1945. B-20 was less reliable than SHVAK.


----------



## pbehn (Jul 1, 2020)

Schweik said:


> Well I don't think the engine mattered that much. It was more a factor of how much fuel they could fit in the airframe without harming flying characteristics, and how much they could reduce drag while retaining good lift. But I can think of several early-war aircraft which had quite long range.
> 
> The A6M zero and Ki-43 both had a 1,000 mile range and I believe that was indeed part of the design requirement.
> The Fairey Battle, though not successful, had a 1,000 mile range.
> ...


So which one is going to revolutionise the LW campaign in 1940?


----------



## wuzak (Jul 1, 2020)

Schweik said:


> As for P-40s, a more apt comparison would be a P-36 to a P-40L or N. But even that isn't quite as radical of a difference as an early Merlin Spt vs. a Griffon Spit,



What's the big difference was there between the Spitfire I and XII, or even the XIV?

And why is that a bigger change than going from a radial engine to an in-line engine?


----------



## Schweik (Jul 1, 2020)

pbehn said:


> So which one is going to revolutionise the LW campaign in 1940?



Well that is into the realm of pure speculation, but I would say if they had something like an A6M, that would have helped a great deal during the BoB. Or if they had made the Bf 110 more like the Beaufighter or the Fokker G.1, with the same DB engines but either double the fuel (ala Beaufighter) or just thinner wings and better streamlining (G1), sufficient to achieve a range of 1,000 miles or more, I would say it might have helped a bit too. 

That of course is very hard to estimate because nothing of the sort was ever done. There were some design problems with the 110 which they clearly could and did work out, but just didn't manage to do quickly enough for a variety of reasons. All the existence of the other long range fighters shows us is that it was indeed possible, by means a variety of different approaches, to achieve a long range fighter (heavy or light) in 1940.


----------



## Schweik (Jul 1, 2020)

wuzak said:


> What's the big difference was there between the Spitfire I and XII, or even the XIV?
> 
> And why is that a bigger change than going from a radial engine to an in-line engine?



I'm not sure diving into all the differences between a Spit I vs. say a Spit XIV or 21 or postwar 24 (I never mentioned the XII I don't believe) would be worth the effort. Nobody seems to concede any of the points I make here even when they are decisively proven. I think there are obvious differences, there were a lot of incremental changes but they added up to a (IMO) completely different aircraft (by the F.21 it's new engine, new wing etc.). But obviously this conclusion is somewhat subjective and there is room to believe what you want.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 1, 2020)

Schweik said:


> The A6M zero and Ki-43 both had a 1,000 mile range and I believe that was indeed part of the design requirement.


Those max. ranges were possible when using drop-tanks for the A6M2 onward and KI-43-II onward.



Schweik said:


> The Beaufighter (first flight 1939, first confirmed kill 1940) eventually had a 1,600 mile range and long range was also a design requirement for that aircraft.
> The Dutch Fokker G.1 had almost a 940 mile range, and had development continued it probably would have exceeded 1,000 miles.
> The Pe-3 (heavy fighter derivative of the Pe-2, developed in 1941) had a range of 930 miles.
> The P-38 lightning didn't get into production until 1941 but it's first flight was 1939. It achieved a 1,300 mile range.


All twins and has been discussed earlier, have the ability to carry more fuel/weight than a S/E fighter.


----------



## Schweik (Jul 1, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> Did you mean the Grumman F7F *Tigercat*?



Yes. Corrected.


----------



## Schweik (Jul 1, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> Those max. ranges were possible when using drop-tanks for the A6M2 onward and KI-43-II onward.



So what? Plumbing for drop tanks and working out the details of using them are part of what made a long range fighter. Same for Mustangs or P-38s. Or Corsairs, Hellcats, P-47s etc. A6M's also could and did sometimes fight with their drop tanks still attached.



> All twins and has been discussed earlier, have the ability to carry more fuel/weight than a S/E fighter.



Again, so what? The thread is about the 110 and the concept of the 'heavy fighter'. Clearly you could make a single engined (and lightweight) fighter that could manage 1,000 miles range, even with a relatively weak engine. You could also do it with a twin engined aircraft but that was a bit more of a challenge in terms of streamlining and weight management. But it could be done as we can clearly see. Making a twin engined fighter competitive with single engined types was harder but also not impossible as we know.

I would go so far as to say that with it's short range, the Bf 110 was kind of an outlier. This was probably due to the overly thick wing and some other streamlining / drag issues. Fixing all that (which I think is "just" a matter of design) would have improved it's combat performance too.


Oh and I Ieft a few more early long ranged fighters off the list -

Ki-45 had a 1,200 mile range.
Potez 630 had a 930 mile range.
Mosquto (first flight 1940) had a 1,300 mile range
Martin Maryland 1,300 mile range


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 1, 2020)

Ok, let's discuss the "so what?" factor, then.
The A6M and KI-43, were lightly armed and did not have self-sealing tanks. Once these were installed in later variants, their range took a hit.

There has to be a trade off at some point. The Luftwaffe wasn't looking to travel long expanses of ocean to patrol/engage enemy A/C. Their short-coming was certainly range, but the Bf109's wing and fuselage was designed more as a performance-oriented type and left little in the way for additional fuel capacity.
And as it happens, the more robust He112 had perhaps the best range of all the Luftwaffe fighters in 1940/41
-


----------



## pbehn (Jul 1, 2020)

Schweik said:


> So what? Plumbing for drop tanks and working out the details of using them are part of what made a long range fighter. Same for Mustangs or P-38s. Or Corsairs, Hellcats, P-47s etc. A6M's also could and did sometimes fight with their drop tanks still attached.


When were drop tanks fitted to P-51s? Was it late 1940 or early 41?


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Jul 1, 2020)

Schweik said:


> German pilots in North Africa hated flying escort missions though and complained bitterly about it.


The private charging the machine gun nest on D Day (or any day) had more to complain about than any fighter pilot. I get tired of hearing how hard done by fighter pilots were. They were soldiers and soldiers have to do things that might not be good for them but are good for others on the team. If a Hurricane shoots down a 109 instead of a 111 that’s a win for the Germans.


----------



## Schweik (Jul 1, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> Ok, let's discuss the "so what?" factor, then.
> The A6M and KI-43, were lightly armed and did not have self-sealing tanks. Once these were installed in later variants, their range took a hit.



According to what I can find, the A6M5 (self sealing tanks, armor, bigger guns) had an 1,100 mile range. Obviously depending on the cruise speed etc. It was quite a good fighter just came out too late. The Ki-84 (self sealing tanks and armor, 2 x 20mm and 2 x 12.7mm guns) had a 1,300 mile range. Also good, also too late. And of course (sorry Pbehn) the Mustang. So while yeah it's trickier to pull off long range and heavier protection and armament, it's certainly not impossible.

Also my understanding is that early in the BoB neither the Spitfires nor the Bf 109s had significant armor or self sealing tanks either until part way through the engagement. Am I wrong about that? Personally I think the A6M2 would have done quite well in the BoB even without such protection, but that is another discussion entirely.



> There has to be a trade off at some point. The Luftwaffe wasn't looking to travel long expanses of ocean to patrol/engage enemy A/C. Their short-coming was certainly range, but the Bf109's wing and fuselage was designed more as a performance-oriented type and left little in the way for additional fuel capacity.



I would agree the Bf 109 probably couldn't have been made into a long range fighter. It was very small (7 foot shorter wingspan than an A6M) and that is part of why it was so fast. he question is could they have done it with the 110 (with a better design or redesign). I think the answer is yes because the Me 210 eventually, once the bugs were ironed out (whether the problem was the wing or something else seems to be another debatable issue I guess) did meet the requirements they needed, just way too late.



> And as it happens, the more robust He112 had perhaps the best range of all the Luftwaffe fighters in 1940/41
> -



Better, but still not all that great if Wikipedia is right (680 miles?)


----------



## Schweik (Jul 1, 2020)

Reluctant Poster said:


> The private charging the machine gun nest on D Day (or any day) had more to complain about than any fighter pilot. I get tired of hearing how hard done by fighter pilots were. They were soldiers and soldiers have to do things that might not be good for them but are good for others on the team. If a Hurricane shoots down a 109 instead of a 111 that’s a win for the Germans.



I never said they had a good reason to complain. Issues of that nature were a major bone of contention between the Luftwaffe and Afrika Korps throughout the North African campaigns. The fighter units were arguably only interested in fighting in optimal conditions. At any rate, this is what many complained about.


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Jul 1, 2020)

Graeme said:


> Another...
> 
> View attachment 586317


Your missing the greatest achievement of Caiden‘s career:

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jul 1, 2020)

That opening sequence was so cool, it seemed to promise something a lot more interesting than what the show usually delivered....

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Snautzer01 (Jul 1, 2020)

Reluctant Poster said:


> Your missing the greatest achievement of Caiden‘s career:



Probably less imagination in that then in his aviation books.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Jul 1, 2020)

Reluctant Poster said:


> The private charging the machine gun nest on D Day (or any day) had more to complain about than any fighter pilot. *I get tired of hearing how hard done by fighter pilots were. *They were soldiers and soldiers have to do things that might not be good for them but are good for others on the team. If a Hurricane shoots down a 109 instead of a 111 that’s a win for the Germans.



Fighter pilots are a bunch of whiners!

Ask me how I know...

😉

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
3 | Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jul 1, 2020)

pbehn said:


> This is all hind sight in terms of what happened and technical development. In 1939/40 who had a s/e fighter with 1000mile range, or a competitive twin engine fighter. Who had commissioned one and for what?



Long range fighter was a function of mentality - the air services/forces that were against it will never have it. 
Japanese A6M Type 11 did almost 7 hours on 180 kt = 1260 nm, or 1450 miles, in 1940, with under 1000 HP under the hood. No need for a 2-engined fighter.



> If the Germans could choose any engine in service anywhere in 1939 which one would give them their fighter with 1000+ mile range?



They have at least one in their own country - DB 601A, use it just like Japanese did it.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 1, 2020)

Schweik said:


> That opening sequence was so cool, it seemed to promise something a lot more interesting than what the show usually delivered....



The opening film of the crash was real.

Caiden was a good writer; he just wasn't a good historian.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jul 1, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> ...
> As for "Late war" fighters.
> P-63A: Design work started before June 27, 1941 when the USAAF placed an order for two prototype XP-6s, this is after placing an order for 3 XP-39Es in Feb 1941 (XP-39E is P-39D fuselage with laminar flow wing)
> 
> ...



Bf 109K was a late war fighter. Nobody said that it needs to be a late was design. Same for late-war Spitfires, Yak-9U, P-63, etc.
If the armament of Soviet fighters was nothing to brag about, the less we say about the armament of the post-war fighter (F8F-1), the better. A 2300 HP engine for four HMGs?? Reminds me of many British tanks featuring 12 cylinders, but also a 2pdr as main gun.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Jul 1, 2020)

swampyankee said:


> The opening film of the crash was real.
> 
> Caiden was a good writer; he just wasn't a good historian.


Here is the real crash
NASA Lifting Body Crash, 1967

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 1, 2020)

Dimlee said:


> Just to clarify about the cannons on Lavochkin fighters:
> La-5 - 220 rpg
> La-5F - 200 rpg
> La-5FN - 170 rpg
> ...




Thank you.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 1, 2020)

Schweik said:


> I'm not sure diving into all the differences between a Spit I vs. say a Spit XIV or 21 or postwar 24 (I never mentioned the XII I don't believe) would be worth the effort. Nobody seems to concede any of the points I make here even when they are decisively proven. I think there are obvious differences, there were a lot of incremental changes but they added up to a (IMO) completely different aircraft (by the F.21 it's new engine, new wing etc.). But obviously this conclusion is somewhat subjective and there is room to believe what you want.



The 21 had new wings and many other revisions, so much so that a new name was considered.

But earlier Griffon Spitfires didn't change that much compared to their Merlin counterparts.


----------



## Schweik (Jul 1, 2020)

wuzak said:


> The 21 had new wings and many other revisions, so much so that a new name was considered.
> 
> But earlier Griffon Spitfires didn't change that much compared to their Merlin counterparts.



The Griffon Spits are very different birds from the original Spitfire. Even between say the Spit I and the Spit IX or VIII, the changes are substantial. It's a lot of little things, but I would say when you add up all the changes, it's quite significant. Certainly the performance and capabilities changed enormously between a Spit I and a Spit VIII.

But there is some subjectivity in that, so feel free to look at it however you like. It doesn't change the overall point.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 1, 2020)

Schweik said:


> Oh and I Ieft a few more *early long ranged fighters* off the list -
> 
> Ki-45 had a 1,200 mile range.
> Potez 630 had a 930 mile range.
> ...



No, you left out ONE long range fighter.

and listed three bombers. 

Putting a battery of forward firing guns in a bomber can give you "fighter" in name. But said "fighter" has some rather severe limits. 

The Martin Maryland was rated at 6 "G"s Ultimate load factor. or about 4 "G"s in service. Obviously you don't want to try dog fighting sing seat fighters. 

BTW listing ranges without either speed or altitude is near useless.



Schweik said:


> he A6M zero and Ki-43 both had a 1,000 mile range and I believe that was indeed part of the design requirement.
> The Fairey Battle, though not successful, had a 1,000 mile range.
> The Beaufighter (first flight 1939, first confirmed kill 1940) eventually had a 1,600 mile range and long range was also a design requirement for that aircraft.
> The Dutch Fokker G.1 had almost a 940 mile range, and had development continued it probably would have exceeded 1,000 miles.
> ...



You are also listing a few bombers in here. Who cares if the Battle could fly 1000 miles? It isn't a fighter by any stretch of the imagination. 

A lot of American fighters at the beginning of the war had long "book" or "yard stick" ranges. Navy planes, like the Buffalo had some truly astonishing ranges but were useless in Europe, much like the ranges the A6M2 and Ki 43 had. 

The P-40B is listed as having a optimum "range" of 1010 miles at 202mph at 15,000ft and a "practical" range of 805miles at the same speed and altitude. However both of these "ranges" were obtained by calculation and not flight testing and both calculations were made by magically levitating the plane to 15,000ft with a warmed up engine. 
Useful perhaps for comparing the design to another design that calculated the range the same way but obviously not a real range/radius that could be used in combat. 
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/P-40B_Official_Performance_Summary.jpg 

The PE-3 had range, after that things go downhill.

and please quit wasting our time with comparisons like this.

"Compare a Mirage III or MiG 21 to an F-4 or an F-16 to an F-111" 

In the case of the F-16 and F-111 they first flew 10 years apart and used engines and avionics from different generations. 

Which versions of the other 3 and again, what do you want the fighters to do? The Mirage and Mig 21 don't operate off carriers and until many years after they were designed and they could be equipped with avionics several generations newer than what they first carried they were pretty much daylight only fighters. You also needed multiple Miriages or Mig 21s to carry the same missile load as most F-4s. 

comparing apples to watermelons and aircraft from different generations does not prove your argument.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jul 2, 2020)

You are grasping at straws. Ki-45 was a fighter. We all know Mosquito was a fighter among it's many other roles, and not just at night either. The Potez 630 was a heavy fighter which was also used as a bomber. The Maryland was basically a bomber, and never really developed as dedicated fighter but like many high performance bombers it was _used_ as a fighter on more than one occasion, there was even an Ace who flew one. I included it as an example because obviously if it had been given uprated engines and a few heavy guns (and stripped out some of the bomber bits like one of the crewmen) it could have been a fighter. You know as well as I do that many of these aircraft were used in both bomber and fighter roles as well as for other purposes. And if the single-engined Fairey Battle could fly 1,000 miles with an early mark Merlin engine, so could a fighter with the same powerplant.

More to the point, in bringing up that list, I was answering a *very specific question*: who could make a fighter that could fly 1,000 miles ("with what engine") in 1939/40. I pointed out multiple fighters. You are trying to pick at a couple from the list and spin it into a completely different context - i.e. quality. This is a typical tactic in these debates (why it is even a debate I really have no idea, because I know you know better).

And no, I'm sorry, but I know for a fact that you are incorrect when you claim that fighters couldn't safely fly at relatively low cruise speeds over land that they did over sea. You have have tried to bring that up before. But it was done for years in the Western Desert, in China and Burma, and in Russia too. Only the cripplingly slow aircraft like the Blenheim which apparently had a cruise speed around 100 mph were called into question over cruise speed. The typical tactic was to use the most economical speed until they got close, and then speed up when they were close to the target area, but in the MTO in 1940, 41 and 42, and even into 1943 they flew slow during bomber escort. Just like Bf 109s escorting Stukas into Britain.

I specifically didn't include any aircraft which I knew had an actual range of substantially less than 1000 miles (like the Tomahawk).

And actually homeboy, the F-111 was a ten year earlier design (1964 vs. 1974) but F-111s and F-16s flew operationally at the same time. I saw them both flying when I was in the service at Ramstein airbase in Frankfurt in 1985. They used F-111s to bomb Libya the same year. The contrast in size was quite startling, that is what made me think of it. The F-111 had to take off on afterburner. It was impressive but also conveyed the impression that something wasn't quite right. The F-16 by comparison was effortless. I can't believe they designed something that beautiful in the 70's.

Mirage III or MiG 21 were short ranged interceptors. The F4 Phantom was a heavy fighter. That was my point. Kind of like comparing a P-38 with a Bf 109. The F4 may have had more capabilities in some respects and carried more ordinance, but a MiG 21 was no push over for F4 pilots, as we well know, or for that matter an archaic MiG 17 or 19. (It didn't help that a lot of the ordinance on the early F4s didn't work all that well...)


----------



## Kevin J (Jul 2, 2020)

Schweik said:


> You are grasping at straws. Ki-45 was a fighter. We all know Mosquito was a fighter among it's many other roles, and not just at night either. The Potez 630 was a heavy fighter which was also used as a bomber. The Maryland was basically a bomber, and never really developed as dedicated fighter but like many high performance bombers it was _used_ as a fighter on more than one occasion, there was even an Ace who flew one. I included it as an example because obviously if it had been given uprated engines and a few heavy guns (and stripped out some of the bomber bits like one of the crewmen) it could have been a fighter. You know as well as I do that many of these aircraft were used in both bomber and fighter roles as well as for other purposes. And if the single-engined Fairey Battle could fly 1,000 miles with an early mark Merlin engine, so could a fighter with the same powerplant.
> 
> More to the point, in bringing up that list, I was answering a *very specific question*: who could make a fighter that could fly 1,000 miles ("with what engine") in 1939/40. I pointed out multiple fighters. You are trying to pick at a couple from the list and spin it into a completely different context - i.e. quality. This is a typical tactic in these debates (why it is even a debate I really have no idea, because I know you know better).
> 
> ...


I think our colleague who introduced the Fairey Battle into the discussion should have written Fairey Fulmar. IIRC the Miles M20 had a 1200 mile range. So the Brits did have them.


----------



## Glider (Jul 2, 2020)

Kevin J said:


> I think our colleague who introduced the Fairey Battle into the discussion should have written Fairey Fulmar. IIRC the Miles M20 had a 1200 mile range. So the Brits did have them.


I admit the thought of the Battle as a fighter, did bring a smile to my face.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jul 2, 2020)

Kevin J said:


> I think our colleague who introduced the Fairey Battle into the discussion should have written Fairey Fulmar. IIRC the Miles M20 had a 1200 mile range. So the Brits did have them.



Fulmars range isn't long enough. But basically something like a Fulmar.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 2, 2020)

Schweik said:


> The Griffon Spits are very different birds from the original Spitfire. Even between say the Spit I and the Spit IX or VIII, the changes are substantial. It's a lot of little things, but I would say when you add up all the changes, it's quite significant. Certainly the performance and capabilities changed enormously between a Spit I and a Spit VIII.
> 
> But there is some subjectivity in that, so feel free to look at it however you like. It doesn't change the overall point.



The Mk IX was, essentially, a Mk V with a 2 stage Merlin.

The Mk XII was, essentially, a Mk V with a Griffon.

The Mk V was, essentially a Mk I or II with a Merlin 45.

The Spitfire XIV was, essentially, a Mk VIII with a Griffon.

The Mk VIII (and VII) were based largely on the Mk III, which was designed to use the Merlin XX.

The wings were very much the same between all of them. There was some changes to way some parts were made, and modifications to the gun bays. An example is the E-wing - designed for 4 x 20mm or 2 x 20mm and 2 x 0.50" the outer .303" bays could no longer be used. But they remained within the structure.

The fuselage remained the same, at least behind the firewall. There was no stretching of the fuselage, like some other types. Even the tail fin was the same, though the rudder chord increased in size.

I should hope that later marks of the design had more performance and capability. Otherwise the development effort was wasted.

And I should expect that all aircraft produced for a period of time would have a myriad of improvements.

In US production there were many changes within a variant.

Take the P-38J
P-38J-1-LO - service test
P-83J-5-LO - added 55 USG leading edge fuel tanks
P-38J-10-LO - changed the windscreen, now incorporating the armoured glass
P-38J-15-LO - revised electrical system
P-38J-20-LO - modified turbo regulators
P-38J-25-LO - electrically operated dive brakes and boosted ailerons

Lockheed P-38J Lightning 


Or the P-40N
P-40N-1-CU - first N production block. Lighter construction than predecessors.
P-40N-5-CU - modified cockpit canopy
P-40N-6-CU - N-5 fitted with reconnaissance cameras in the field
P-40N-10-CU - winterized, 4 gun versions
P-40N-15-CU - relocated battery, new landing lights, 6 guns and larger capacity wing tanks
P-40N-20-CU - new engine variant, with automatic engine control unit
P-40N-25-CU - revised instrument panel and non-metal self-sealing fuel tanks
P-40N-30-CU - electrical system revisions
P-40N-35-CU - changes in the carburetor, the instruments, the lighting, the lubrication system, and featured updated electrical systems, and a new radio and ADF equipment.
P-40N-40-CU - new engine variant, metal covered ailerons, improved self-sealing fuel tanks, automatic propeller control, new radio and oxygen equipment, and flame-damping exhausts

The block system wasn't used for early models, being introduced part way through P-40F production. The P-40F-5 was the block that introduced the longer rear fuselage, which was used on all subsequent models.

Curtiss P-40N Warhawk
Curtiss P-40F Warhawk 

So, quite a few changes in one variant.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Jul 2, 2020)

swampyankee said:


> The opening film of the crash was real.
> 
> Caiden was a good writer; he just wasn't a good historian.



In terms of an aviation historian he was more there for entertainment but compared to the general milieu of historians he was about average for the time. 
He did a good job of humanising Saburo Saki when distrust and anger was still high. For that I salute him.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jul 2, 2020)

BiffF15 said:


> Fighter pilots are a bunch of whiners!
> 
> Ask me how I know...
> 
> ...


OK, I'll bite. How?

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Timppa (Jul 2, 2020)

Dimlee said:


> Just to clarify about the cannons on Lavochkin fighters:
> La-5 - 220 rpg
> La-5F - 200 rpg
> La-5FN - 170 rpg
> ...



Can you please cite your sources.
Milos Vestsik's books on La-5 and La-7 cites the ammo count as Shortround6 said.
(Gordon/Khazanov - books unfortunately are not as bolt and nuts thing)


----------



## pbehn (Jul 2, 2020)

Peter Gunn said:


> OK, I'll bite. How?


He was that thang.


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jul 2, 2020)

pbehn said:


> He was that thang.


What? NO! Biff? Our little Biffer? Has he been telling tall tales again?

I keep telling him to stay on his medication so these things don't happen...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 2, 2020)

tomo pauk said:


> Long range fighter was a function of mentality - the air services/forces that were against it will never have it.
> Japanese A6M Type 11 did almost 7 hours on 180 kt = 1260 nm, or 1450 miles, in 1940, with under 1000 HP under the hood. No need for a 2-engined fighter.
> 
> 
> ...


It is also a function of geography. Japan is an Island group, how far away from another nation? Or any place that actually made aircraft? How far away from where they planned to use aircraft? The distances in the Pacific were huge. Talk of 700 or 1000 miles range in Europe makes no sense. From Wick at the tip of Scotland it is just over 1000 miles to Milan, just over 1100 miles to Marseilles. It is 760 miles to Berlin. In the Battle of Britain the closest airfields were almost within sight of each other in perfect weather. The major concentration of forces were about 100 miles apart, I just don't see how a plane with 1000 miles range will improve anything. The LW was made to support a ground advance. At Dunkerque in 1940 the LW were at the limit of their practical range because they hadn't moved from home bases, but the German army were also at their limit for a rapid advance, against a defending force. You cant sent tactical bombers and fighters to a battle front a thousand miles away so why make an aircraft for it? Whatever they do they can only do it every other day, even if they survive. There was no time before 1945 that you could float above enemy airspace at 200MPH and live for long, unless in a well protected raid.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jul 2, 2020)

If you have an aircraft that can fly with a combat range of 1,000 miles, as distinct from an aircraft with a combat range of 400 miles, you can:

Fight over the target twice as long (combat endurance). This is probably the single most important thing.
Fly mission with a greater margin of safety in terms of getting back to base without running out of fuel.
Escort bombers to targets (like aircraft factories, radar stations, airfields, fuel storage, railyards, bridges, ports) which are further away from the (intended or actual) battlefield but directly relevant to it.
Escort bombers to attack maritime targets farther out to sea (beyond the Channel, like convoys bringing raw materials or supplies from Atlantic into North Sea zones).
Conduct fighter sweeps much deeper over enemy territory, to catch any aircraft as they are forming up.
Conduct fighter sweeps which attack from less obvious directions, or from multiple directions at once.
Escort bomber missions which attack from less obvious directions, or from multiple directions at once

And if we are talking about something beyond the Battle of Britain, i.e. where there is an actual land battle taking place such as over the Med or on the Russian Front

Escort bombers to attack troops moving up to the battle area, not just directly over the battlefield.
Escort bombers to attack supplies / logistics in the operational area beyond the battlefield.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 2, 2020)

Schweik said:


> If you have an aircraft that can fly with a combat range of 1,000 miles, as distinct from an aircraft with a combat range of 400 miles, you can:
> 
> Fight over the target twice as long (combat endurance). This is probably the single most important thing.
> Fly mission with a greater margin of safety in terms of getting back to base without running out of fuel.
> ...


But in 1940 they were met at the coast, they didn't even plan a mission to knock out UK industry apart from aircraft factories in Southampton and Kent. The Radar stations are not distant targets they are the first thing you come across, the Germans could see the RADAR installation at Dover and still didn't knock it out. Within Days of D-Day taking place engineers were constructing airfields for the RAF and USAAF because there is no point in your fighter support being based over 100 miles away. Not only does it take a lot of time to get there and back the pilots dont know what to hit.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 2, 2020)

There is an awful lot of use of the retrospectroscope here.

We are also mixing up different countries needs, abilities, and design considerations/requirements.
We are also tending to ignore the state of the art and more importantly the actually availability of communications and navigation equipment in the years leading up to 1940 (and for some years after that depending on nation). 

we also have advocates of cheap, light fighters but they seem to want these cheap-light aircraft to be equipped with the latest and greatest communications/navigation gear if not equipement that would not exist for several years. 

One reason fighters stayed with bombers in Spain and China was that the fighters had no radios (mostly) and were depending on the bombers for navigation. How long that persisted into WW II changed from country to country. Sending your fighters 4-500 miles into enemy territory if they can't reliably find their way back is not a good plan. 

different countries had different strength requirements for aircraft which meant different structural weights for a given power engine and size aircraft. The US may have had one of the strictest requirements at 12 "G"s ultimate load for fighters A few other nations may have been higher (Italy?) for fighters. There were requirements not just for a "pull out" load but also negative loads and yaw and perhaps other directions/factors. US attack planes (A-20) may have been around a 6 G load factor and larger bombers were somewhere in the 4G load range.
This is as originally designed. Other countries had different requirements. 

A lot also depends on how much different countries were willing to "bend" some of these requirements. The Merlin Mustangs were a 12 G aircraft (actually 8 Gs in service with a 50% overload safety margin *but at only 8000lbs. *A 9000lb Mustang was operating at about a 7.1 G limit. When Mustang pilots got G suits there were reports/stories of planes landing with several more degrees of wing dihedral than they took off with 

as this affects aircraft design the P-40 gained about 300lbs of weight in the wing structure over the P-36 as the plane grew from 6000lbs to over 8,000lbs. 
Hawk 75s for export were rated at 12 Gs ultimate load when powered with the Cyclone engine but dropped to 11.5 Gs when powered by the heavier Twin Wasp. The 12 G rating could be restored at extra cost and extra weight according to Curtiss advertising material. 

Things in general were also changing fast. 
The spec sheet for the P-36C claims an optimum (read theoretical) range of 1080 miles (after being magically levitated to *10,000*ft with a warm engine) at 200mph using 380hp and burning 31 gallons and hour at a weight of 5800lbs.
The P40-B specification sheet already referred to says optimum (read theoretical) range of 1010 miles (after being magically levitated to *15,000*ft with a warm engine) at 202mph using 322hp and burning 24 gallons and hour at a weight of 6833lbs.
Please note the P-40B could also hold 160 gallons if it's tanks were full but at a higher weight. 

another problem we are running into seems to names or classifications. Just because you stick a battery of fixed machine guns (or cannon) in a plane doesn't really make it a "fighter" in the common use of the term. Different countries used somewhat different names for the same type of aircraft or included different aircraft in the the same general description. Or they changed over time. The P-36 was called a Pursuit aircraft, not fighter or interceptor. However the P-40B is described as a Pursuit interceptor on it's official summery of characteristics
The interceptor was apparently added later as the plain P-40 (no letter) is still a pursuit.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Mad Dog (Jul 2, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> I remember something by Captain Brown which stated that the Me-110 got a bad rap and had it been used right it would have been impressive.
> 
> In what way?



When used in it's original intended role, that of sweeping ahead of the bombers to catch enemy interceptors in the climb, it was a very successful aircraft. It not only had the range to get the job done, it had decent armament and excellent climb and level speed, even at altitude. Allowed to use their speed and height advantage, Bf110 units in the BoB weren't scared to attack Hurricanes or Spitfires, they just tried to avoid getting into turning fights where the big twin was at risk. 
The Bf110s biggest issue was it was expensive for resource-strapped Germany to make in numbers. It was forever being cancelled in expectation of a better, simpler-to-make and cheaper replacement, only to be put back into service as the ME210 and ME410 faltered. But it's main problem was you could build two Bf109s for less money, time and material than one Bf110, and the Luftwaffe was always losing the numbers game after 1940. The Bf110 stayed in production for roles that the Bf109 couldn't perform, namely long-range day interceptor over the Med, radar-carrying night-fighter over Europe, and heavy weapons carrier for ground-attack.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 2, 2020)

A few further notes,
In Jan of 1940 a French agent was trying to purchase 30 extra wing sets for the Hawk 75 fighters already delivered for repairs, this is over and above the the amount of spare parts that had been contracted for initiatially, which was the equivalent of 50 air frames in money value, for 200 complete airframes. The French even asked if the US Army would delay delivery of their aircraft so the french order for replacement wings could be expedited. (request not granted). However this alarmed the US Army that they too might suffer higher than expected wing consumption. The US Army requested that their Military Intelligence Division look into the matter. The MID reported that damage due to enemy gunfire was negligible, damage due to wartime airdromes is not a direct cause. A high rate of landing accidents was the major cause along with insufficient spare parts. 

We have very little information on the attrition of many aircraft due to differences in construction or operation. We hear (read) about instances of landing gear or structural failure on landing or take-off runs on rough fields but we don't know the the actual percentages to compare one plane to another. And descriptions like "rough field" don't help. Rough compared to what? concrete or a British rolled grass field (which sometimes were totally constructed, that is a layer of gravel for drainage, a layer of dirt, the sod on top and the whole rolled or compacted as it was built, rather far from using a grass meadow) or a hastily bulldozed strip? 

A figure of merit when comparing "like" aircraft is the percentage of useful load to the gross weight for a clean aircraft (external loads can get weird) as it shows how well the designer did at accommodating the "load" which for fighter aircraft would be the crew, fuel, oil, operational equipment and the armament. This could vary from the low 20% area to the low 30% area. 
However without knowing what was considered normal load and what was considered overload things can get a bit weird. Like the US Navy considering 110 gallons of fuel in a Buffalo as "normal" and 160 gallons as "overload".

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Jul 3, 2020)

Peter Gunn said:


> OK, I'll bite. How?



Because my wife told me!

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jul 3, 2020)

pbehn said:


> It is also a function of geography. Japan is an Island group, how far away from another nation? Or any place that actually made aircraft? How far away from where they planned to use aircraft? The distances in the Pacific were huge. Talk of 700 or 1000 miles range in Europe makes no sense. From Wick at the tip of Scotland it is just over 1000 miles to Milan, just over 1100 miles to Marseilles. It is 760 miles to Berlin. In the Battle of Britain the closest airfields were almost within sight of each other in perfect weather. The major concentration of forces were about 100 miles apart, I just don't see how a plane with 1000 miles range will improve anything.



In other words - you've questioned existence of fighters with 1000 mile range, and when pointed out that such fighters existed, now there is no need for them? C'mon.



> The LW was made to support a ground advance. At Dunkerque in 1940 the LW were at the limit of their practical range because they hadn't moved from home bases, but the German army were also at their limit for a rapid advance, against a defending force. You cant sent tactical bombers and fighters to a battle front a thousand miles away so why make an aircraft for it? Whatever they do they can only do it every other day, even if they survive. There was no time before 1945 that you could float above enemy airspace at 200MPH and live for long, unless in a well protected raid.



I see that 'tactical-only' Luftwaffe myth is alive and well, despite 1000 mile capable Bf 110s, He 111s, Do 17s and Ju 88s. 
Nobody is asking that a fighter floats over enemy airspace at 200 mph.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 3, 2020)

tomo pauk said:


> In other words - you've questioned existence of fighters with 1000 mile range, and when pointed out that such fighters existed, now there is no need for them? C'mon.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I questioned that it would improve the prospects of the LW in 1940. A raid by He 111s and Ju88s on Manchester escorted by Bf110s isn't going to go well in daylight


----------



## Schweik (Jul 3, 2020)

That's why a more capable (and genuinely long ranged) fighter would have been quite helpful.


----------



## pbehn (Jul 3, 2020)

Schweik said:


> That's why a more capable (and genuinely long ranged) fighter would have been quite helpful.


If it were possible, in 1940.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jul 3, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> There is an awful lot of use of the retrospectroscope here.
> 
> We are also mixing up different countries needs, abilities, and design considerations/requirements.
> We are also tending to ignore the state of the art and more importantly the actually availability of communications and navigation equipment in the years leading up to 1940 (and for some years after that depending on nation).



I'm really not doing any mixing up of anything. The limitations of navigation and communications gear were what they were. Nations which decided and managed to create long range fighters (including single seat fighters like the Zero) figured out ways to deal with these limitations, or they failed and suffered accordingly. By and large they succeeded. The Japanese for example managed to carry out very long range air strikes in the early days of the war with great success and precision, despite not having radios in many of their (mostly single-engined) fighters.



> we also have advocates of cheap, light fighters but they seem to want these cheap-light aircraft to be equipped with the latest and greatest communications/navigation gear if not equipement that would not exist for several years.



We seem to have someone here mixing up arguments made regarding light weight fighters of the early war with lightweight fighters from mid war and the end of the war.... and mixing all those with arguments about (usually but not always heavier weight) long range fighters. As I have shown in previous posts, it is objectively the case that there was a niche for both lightweight and long range fighters which continued to exist throughout WW2, and there were fighters designed, produced and deployed operationally which fit into these niches, sometimes both simultaneously. Not everyone was able to do it, hence the speculative side of the argument, but all I was pointing out was that the need was there and that some did manage to pull it off.

Early war fighters obviously had fewer bells and whistles than late war, that is hardly news.



> different countries had different strength requirements for aircraft which meant different structural weights for a given power engine and size aircraft.



Requirements are part of what determined who did and didn't get useful aircraft to fight with, every bit as much as design.



> When Mustang pilots got G suits there were reports/stories of planes landing with several more degrees of wing dihedral than they took off with



That actually happened with a wide variety of aircraft, it was one of the things which determined if an airframe was 'clapped out' and needed to be sent back to the rear for training, or in some cases 'donated' to the Soviets rather cynically.



> as this affects aircraft design the P-40 gained about 300lbs of weight in the wing structure over the P-36 as the plane grew from 6000lbs to over 8,000lbs.
> The spec sheet for the P-36C claims an optimum (read theoretical) range of 1080 miles (after being magically levitated to *10,000*ft with a warm engine) at 200mph using 380hp and



Please note that I never included any version of the P-40 in any list of either lightweight OR long ranged fighters. You definitely didn't need to magically levitate an A6M or a Beaufighter to get it to fly 1,000 miles.



> another problem we are running into seems to names or classifications. Just because you stick a battery of fixed machine guns (or cannon) in a plane doesn't really make it a "fighter" in the common use of the term. Different countries used somewhat different names for the same type of aircraft or included different aircraft in the the same general description. Or they changed over time. The P-36 was called a Pursuit aircraft, not fighter or interceptor. However the P-40B is described as a Pursuit interceptor on it's official summery of characteristics
> The interceptor was apparently added later as the plain P-40 (no letter) is still a pursuit.



Fighter is a broad category, while "pursuit" is more of a pre-war concept which was held over for a little while into the war. There were fighters meant to destroy other fighters and win air superiority, fighters meant to fight at high or low altitude, fighters meant for escort, and fighters meant to destroy bombers or recon planes far out to sea, fighters meant to fly at night and so forth. All of the aircraft I listed as fighters, with the exception of the Battle, were at some point or another used to shoot down enemy aircraft during the day.

How versatile a fighter was could be a major aspect of the design and how good it actually was. Some great fighters were very much niche specialists, while some somewhat mediocre fighters (and other types of aircraft) turned out to have a much longer useful life than expected due to their versatility for a wide variety of missions.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jul 3, 2020)

pbehn said:


> If it were possible, in 1940.



Well.... the A6M is one example.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jul 3, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> A few further notes,
> In Jan of 1940 a French agent was trying to purchase 30 extra wing sets for the Hawk 75 fighters already delivered for repairs, this is over and above the the amount of spare parts that had been contracted for initiatially, which was the equivalent of 50 air frames in money value, for 200 complete airframes. The French even asked if the US Army would delay delivery of their aircraft so the french order for replacement wings could be expedited. (request not granted). However this alarmed the US Army that they too might suffer higher than expected wing consumption. The US Army requested that their Military Intelligence Division look into the matter. The MID reported that damage due to enemy gunfire was negligible, damage due to wartime airdromes is not a direct cause. A high rate of landing accidents was the major cause along with insufficient spare parts.
> 
> We have very little information on the attrition of many aircraft due to differences in construction or operation. We hear (read) about instances of landing gear or structural failure on landing or take-off runs on rough fields but we don't know the the actual percentages to compare one plane to another. And descriptions like "rough field" don't help. Rough compared to what? concrete or a British rolled grass field (which sometimes were totally constructed, that is a layer of gravel for drainage, a layer of dirt, the sod on top and the whole rolled or compacted as it was built, rather far from using a grass meadow) or a hastily bulldozed strip?
> ...



If I catch your drift successfully (I'm not certain I do) then I concede the point that we don't necessarily know if we are comparing like with like when looking at aircraft ranges. They are measured different ways, so if we decided to explore this subject more deeply a more serious survey of the range, cruise speeds, navigation equipment and so forth may be advisable, as well as some analysis of actual combat histories to determine how far they really flew on missions.

So while I think the basic point I was making, or the two points about light and long range fighters, are valid, a deeper dive into the specific examples would certainly give us a more detailed and nuanced picture, in terms of looking at WW2 planes from this particular angle.

But we never got to that point because some folks decided that the very notion was so heretical it needed to be strangled in the crib so to speak.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 3, 2020)

Ok, let's suppose, for the sake of the argument, that the Luftwaffe realized that the He112 was quite capable of longer ranges (especially if using drop-tanks for the ingress) to escort bombers into Britain and used them instead of the Bf109.

It wouldn't change the outcome of the Bob, because the RLM (and the chief fat bastard) did not have a cohesive strategy that included striking the RADAR network as well as sweeping the airfields before hitting strategic manufacturing centers (and/or shipyards) in force.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 3, 2020)

Such fighters (1000 mile range) obviously existed. 
However were such fighters built to the same standards as US or some European fighters?
Were they equipped to the same standards?
Were they armed to the same standards? 

Ki 43, if equipped with two 12.7mm machine guns carried about 100lbs of guns and about 100lbs of ammo (90lbs ammo plus links?) plus mounts/ammo boxes etc. A Spitfire II was carrying over 400lbs of guns and ammo. A P-40B was carrying around 600lbs (granted some of that was the over abundance of ammo for the cowl .50 guns). Ki 43s with less armanet were carrying less weight. 

A P-40B, if loaded with 160 US gal of fuel should have been able to warm up and reach some sort of cruising altitude on 40 gallons leaving 120 gal for the trip. Estimated range at 200mph was around 800 miles at a specific consumption of 0.56lb/hp/hr which actually not that great. most engines should be able to be leaned out to get under 0.50 lb/hp/hr. optimoum fo rthe P-40B was supposed to be 0.45lb/hp/hr.

However the P-40B was judged as unsuitable for combat in NW Europe in 1941 when they showed up and were shipped off to Russia or North Africa or the Far East. 
P-40Cs got a drop tank but increased operational equipment (like better/heavier self sealing fuel tanks) further hurt performance. 

The Japanese aircraft may have been built to a lower strength standard which means a lower structural weight. 

Most of the single engine fighters in 1939-41 that could get close to 1000 mile range did have to "float" for most of the trip at 200mph or less. Obviously if the trip was shorter they could use more speed. 

Please note that a Spitfire V, if measured the same way as some of these aircraft (magicly levitated to cruising altitude with a warm engine) was good for about 650 miles so obviously large adjustments have to be made to get to operational ranges/radius.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 3, 2020)

Was this magical levitation device located at Muroc Airfield?


----------



## Schweik (Jul 3, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> Ok, let's suppose, for the sake of the argument, that the Luftwaffe realized that the He112 was quite capable of longer ranges (especially if using drop-tanks for the ingress) to escort bombers into Britain and used them instead of the Bf109.
> 
> It wouldn't change the outcome of the Bob, because the RLM (and the chief fat bastard) did not have a cohesive strategy that included striking the RADAR network as well as sweeping the airfields before hitting strategic manufacturing centers (and/or shipyards) in force.



Fair point - one new aircraft type probably wasn't enough to win the war, or even the Battle. It might have made it even more fraught though, and it was a 'close run thing' after all...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 3, 2020)

SaparotRob said:


> Was this magical levitation device located at Muroc Airfield?



A number of american aircraft ( I don't know about others) were rated with "yardstick" ranges for comparison purposes. They simply figured out what the fuel burn was for a given speed/altitude and then divided that into the total fuel capacity for the length of flight and then multiplied the cruise speed by the hours of endurance to get this range. 
no allowance made for warm up, take-off, climb to altitude or even powered decent at the end of the "flight". Basically it tells you that fighter A might have a range 20% longer than fighter B but in neither case do you know what distance they can actually travel. Unfortunately AHT uses these theoretical ranges quite a bit.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jul 3, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> Please note that a Spitfire V, if measured the same way as some of these aircraft (magicly levitated to cruising altitude with a warm engine) was good for about 650 miles so obviously large adjustments have to be made to get to operational ranges/radius.



You seem to be implying that most of the aircraft we discussed have an unrealistic range estimate, but you haven't actually shown that. I say again - neither the A6M nor the Beaufighter needed to be levitated anywhere to fly 1,000 miles.

As far the range actually goes, all we have to do is compare like with like. It doesn't matter much they are all based on being magically at 15,000 feet first or all from takeoff plus time for warmup, they just all need to be roughly the same criteria. We know that the Bf 109 did not have enough range or endurance for escort missions in the BoB, and for example often had to turn back for home after only a few minutes of combat. So a fighter with similar combat capability and say, twice or three times the range (for whatever specific design reason) would have helped their cause. Objectively.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 3, 2020)

It is 636 miles from Duxford to Prague, 449 miles from Lille France to Edinburgh. Why on earth do you need a 1000 mile range? How far did the tip and run Jabo raids penetrate into UK airspace 1942/43? I no longer know what the discussion is, do you think Fairey Battles would have helped the LW just because they can cover a long distance?


----------



## buffnut453 (Jul 3, 2020)

tomo pauk said:


> I see that 'tactical-only' Luftwaffe myth is alive and well, despite 1000 mile capable Bf 110s, He 111s, Do 17s and Ju 88s.
> Nobody is asking that a fighter floats over enemy airspace at 200 mph.



There's more to strategic capability than just reach. You actually have to deliver effects once you get there. What bomb load could any of the bombers carry out to 1,000 miles? According to Wikipedia (yes, I know, but it's all I have to hand at the moment), the Do17 had a combat radius of 628 miles with 1,100 lb bomb load. Extending that range would require a reduction in bomb load...and 1,100 lbs is a very long way from being a strategic load. It certainly isn't going to deliver a strategic effect.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 3, 2020)

Schweik said:


> You seem to be implying that most of the aircraft we discussed have an unrealistic range estimate, but you haven't actually shown that. I say again - neither the A6M nor the Beaufighter needed to be levitated anywhere to fly 1,000 miles.
> 
> As far the range actually goes, all we have to do is compare like with like. It doesn't matter much they are all based on being magically at 15,000 feet first or all from takeoff plus time for warmup, they just all need to be roughly the same criteria. We know that the Bf 109 did not have enough range or endurance for escort missions in the BoB, and for example often had to turn back for home after only a few minutes of combat. So a fighter with similar combat capability and say, twice or three times the range (for whatever specific design reason) would have helped their cause. Objectively.



True but the Beaufighter had no business trying to fight single engine fighters. Not saying it didn't on occasion. 

The Zero was a great piece of engineering and a great airplane. But part of it's range seems to have been an element of luck. The Sakae engine being able to run at a cruise setting at lower than normal lean mixture without overheating or causing problems. Since this engine was actually the 2nd choice we wonder what the performance might have been otherwise.
One source claims the early Zero could cruise at 180 kts (altitude not given) at 16.4 US gallons and hour but increasing to 190kts meant 24.04 US gallons an hour and 200kts meant 26.15 gallons an hour. At max rated power it used 91.14 gallons an hour. 

Spitfire V could cruise at 225mph using 29 imp gallons an hour, but at full boost (16lbs) it burned 150 imp gal an hour (180 US gal) 

The early Zero held about 141 US gallons inside the plane according to one source. 
The Spitfire held about 101 US gallons.
The P-40B held 160 gallons. 
The Zero had 84-87.2 gallons underneath.


----------



## Schweik (Jul 3, 2020)

pbehn said:


> It is 636 miles from Duxford to Prague, 449 miles from Lille France to Edinburgh. Why on earth do you need a 1000 mile range? How far did the tip and run Jabo raids penetrate into UK airspace 1942/43? I no longer know what the discussion is, do you think Fairey Battles would have helped the LW just because they can cover a long distance?



I think if you really are confused, you are confused on purpose. I've already pointed out why the range would help. Range is an indicator for endurance. Are you or are you not aware that both range and endurance were considered major limitations for the Bf 109 during the Battle of Britain?

Also keep in mind, it's you and a couple of others who keep continuously bringing this back to the BoB, I was talking about the whole war. But the BoB is fine to look at if you prefer because it is a classic case of exactly what I'm talking about. If the Bf 110 had worked out as an escort fighter, and / or if the 109 had say twice or three times the range it did, I think it's very hard to argue that it wouldn't have helped the Germans.


----------



## Schweik (Jul 3, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> True but the Beaufighter had no business trying to fight single engine fighters. Not saying it didn't on occasion.



I would say the chief limitation for the Beaufighter was it's low ceiling. It couldn't escort certain types of raids. However Beaufighter itself worked pretty well as an attack plane, so I could see low level raids by Beaufighters, escorted by Beaufighters flying a little higher and 'cleaner', as being quite effective. I bet Beaufighters could hold their own against Hurricanes at least as well as Bf 110s, probably a bit better. They did Ok against Zeros, MC 200s etc. on a few occasions.



> The Zero was a great piece of engineering and a great airplane. But part of it's range seems to have been an element of luck. The Sakae engine being able to run at a cruise setting at lower than normal lean mixture without overheating or causing problems. Since this engine was actually the 2nd choice we wonder what the performance might have been otherwise.



Interesting but basically irrelevant.



> One source claims the early Zero could cruise at 180 kts (altitude not given) at 16.4 US gallons and hour but increasing to 190kts meant 24.04 US gallons an hour and 200kts meant 26.15 gallons an hour. At max rated power it used 91.14 gallons an hour.
> 
> Spitfire V could cruise at 225mph using 29 imp gallons an hour, but at full boost (16lbs) it burned 150 imp gal an hour (180 US gal)
> 
> ...



Ok so it looks like we are starting to delve into the elements that contribute to range. You are mentioning here fuel capacity and the ability for the engine to fly at low RPM. I would also add to that altitude capability (higher altitude cruising generally uses up less fuel and allows faster flight at lower power), overall drag (draggier airframes require more power to keep the speed up, so things like tail wheels, various protrusions for guns or engine fittings, even rear view mirrors and radio masts can all make a diffeence) and wing efficiency (a balance between drag and lift of the wing). 

And then of course, weight. The tradeoff between carrying more fuel and having less weight to carry. This is the basic difference between the light and heavy fighter.

Finally there are also things like plumbing. 

Fuel capacity is a good place to start though as is the 'average' fuel burn rate during combat, because that tells us a bit more about endurance.


----------



## Schweik (Jul 3, 2020)

buffnut453 said:


> There's more to strategic capability than just reach. You actually have to deliver effects once you get there. What bomb load could any of the bombers carry out to 1,000 miles? According to Wikipedia (yes, I know, but it's all I have to hand at the moment), the Do17 had a combat radius of 628 miles with 1,100 lb bomb load. Extending that range would require a reduction in bomb load...and 1,100 lbs is a very long way from being a strategic load. It certainly isn't going to deliver a strategic effect.



Mosquitoes could carry a fairly heavy bomb load out to a good range with an internal bomb load, up to 4,000 lbs 3,000 miles
Wellingtons could carry 2,000-4,500 lbs internally up to 2,000 miles or more
G3M could carry a 1000+ lb bomb load over 2,500 miles
G4M could carry a 2000+ lb bomb load over 1,500 miles
Ju 88 could carry a 2000 lb bomb load internally roughly 1,000 miles, external stores limited the range more
He 111 could carry a 1000 lb bomb load internally about 1,400 miles
The CANT 1007 could carry a 2000 lb bomb load internally about 1,000 miles
The DB-7 / A-20 could carry a 1000 lb load internally about 900 miles


----------



## Dimlee (Jul 3, 2020)

Timppa said:


> Can you please cite your sources.
> Milos Vestsik's books on La-5 and La-7 cites the ammo count as Shortround6 said.
> (Gordon/Khazanov - books unfortunately are not as bolt and nuts thing)



I prefered the articles from "Mir Aviatsiyi" and "Voina v vozdukhe" in 1990s and early 2000s. They were based on information provided by people who participated in the development, such as Semyon Alekseyev.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jul 3, 2020)

Schweik said:


> Mosquitoes could carry a fairly heavy bomb load out to a good range with an internal bomb load, up to 4,000 lbs 3,000 miles
> Wellingtons could carry 2,000-4,500 lbs internally up to 2,000 miles or more
> G3M could carry a 1000+ lb bomb load over 2,500 miles
> G4M could carry a 2000+ lb bomb load over 1,500 miles
> ...



I can't understand the point you're making. Tomo Pauk made a statement indicating that the long-held view of the Luftwaffe was a tactical rather than strategic air arm was a myth. For evidence, he provided quote of 1,000 mile range for a number of German aircraft. 

My point is that long range does not necessarily equate with a strategic capability. In order to have strategic capability, you also have to deliver a strategic punch once you arrive over the target, and 1,100 lbs is not a strategic punch.


----------



## pbehn (Jul 3, 2020)

Now you have Wellingtons flying 2,000 miles It is 2,100 miles from London to Cairo. Why was the Wellington replaced?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 3, 2020)

The He 111 was good for around 400 miles radius with about 4400lbs of bombs, that is a realistic radius. 
It was also about as good as an early Wellington. correction welcome.

The 110 had more range than the 109 but it couldn't be used quite like a 109. The two planes were not interchangeable.



Schweik said:


> Ok so it looks like we are starting to delve into the elements that contribute to range. You are mentioning here fuel capacity and the ability for the engine to fly at low RPM. I would also add to that altitude capability (higher altitude cruising generally uses up less fuel and allows faster flight at lower power), overall drag (draggier airframes require more power to keep the speed up, so things like tail wheels, various protrusions for guns or engine fittings, even rear view mirrors and radio masts can all make a diffeence) and wing efficiency (a balance between drag and lift of the wing).



All true, so let's look at a few of these "details" like the Zero's supercharger having a critical altitude several thousand feet lower than the Merlin, (Model 21 Zero vs MK I Spit, later Spits get better, so does the Zero when it gets the two speed supercharger but that isn't till when?) ), many of these long ranges are actually done at a relatively low altitude. Less fuel burned in the climb, IF the supercharge has two gears the lower gear will use less power. At low rpm the supercharger uses less power/heats the intake charge less. But is all a juggling act. airflow through the supercharger is proportional to the square of the speed of the impeller. 





Schweik said:


> And then of course, weight. The tradeoff between carrying more fuel and having less weight to carry. This is the basic difference between the light and heavy fighter.



but not the only difference. A MK I Spit went 5875lbs with a wooden prop. useful load is given as 1585lbs. 
200lbs for the pilot & chute
646lbs for fuel
54lbs for oil 
685 lbs for Military load. Guns, ammo, gun sight, even the radio or large part of the radio installation.

The structure was 1890lbs and the powerplant was 2035 of which the engine was only 1412lbs. 

this plane had no armor, no self sealing, no IFF. A Spitfire II went 6172lbs with the bells and whistles of the summer of 1940. 

You can swap some military equipment (guns/ammo) for more fuel for the same weight but there are some other things that need to stay.

as far as light fighters go, you can't pick lighter pilots, or use smaller parachutes, the radios are the same. There is only so much you can take-out. 

there are a lot of fixed weights in a fighter unless you change the engine. Look at the Spitfire again, ANY plane using the Merlin III engine is going to have just about the same powerplant weight if not heavier (due to using a real propeller and not a hunk of tree). The light fighter cannot use a smaller radiator or use less cooling fluid. (296lbs for the cooling system).


----------



## Schweik (Jul 3, 2020)

buffnut453 said:


> I can't understand the point you're making. Tomo Pauk made a statement indicating that the long-held view of the Luftwaffe was a tactical rather than strategic air arm was a myth. For evidence, he provided quote of 1,000 mile range for a number of German aircraft.
> 
> My point is that long range does not necessarily equate with a strategic capability. In order to have strategic capability, you also have to deliver a strategic punch once you arrive over the target, and 1,100 lbs is not a strategic punch.



Tomo may be focused on Strategic air war, but that is a sideshoot from an earlier argument about Operational warfare, which is more what I was referring to. Destroying radar stations, airfields, training facilities, trains and railyards, bridges and so forth. Aircraft factories and merchant ship convoys are probably more Strategic but that would be helpful too. A few 250 or 500 lbs bombs can destroy any of these kinds of targets if they hit accurately.

Most of the aircraft I mentioned, including the He 111 and the Ju 88, could carry far heavier payloads for shorter trips. The Ju 88 in particular was also capable of dive bombing and was therefore considerably more accurate than most level bombers. So I guess it depends on what you mean by Strategic capability. Allied bombers flying missions from 1940 through 43 dropped many _many_ tons of bombs, but did not necessarily have much Strategic impact on the war. Only a few of the more precision strikes really had far reaching effects. Most of those bombs contributed to 'de-housing' as the euphemism went.

But the main limitation for the Germans _wasn't_ their bombers. German bombers for example destroyed a plethora of Operational targets and quite a few Strategic ones in Russia early in Operation Barbarossa. Including many aircraft factories, which forced the relocation of Soviet factories across the Urals causing immesurable disruption and contributing to the chaotic circumstances in Soviet aircraft factory and the poor build quality of many Soviet aircraft in the first 18 months or so of the Soviet- German war (as just one example, the factory making the original version of the Yak-3 was destroyed delaying that project by a couple of years, which is a small but fairly substantial Axis Strategic victory I would say). 

The idea that you need tons and tons of bombs or that 'mud moving' is the key to success in Strategic warfare is another debate we have had here many times. I think precision is more important than bomb load, ultimately, though there were times when really big bombs were needed.

The main point though is that the limitation to German Strategic warfare such as there was one, was that their best fighter was a short range interceptor / frontal aviation type bird, not capable of escorting bombers on those longer missions. So once the Allies stiffened their fighter defenses, such as with PVO units in the Soviet Union, it seriously curtailed their ability to conduct Operational or Strategic missions.


----------



## Schweik (Jul 3, 2020)

pbehn said:


> Now you have Wellingtons flying 2,000 miles It is 2,100 miles from London to Cairo. Why was the Wellington replaced?



Easy! Because WW2 ended! Wellingtons were produced and still used through 1945.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jul 3, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> The He 111 was good for around 400 miles radius with about 4400lbs of bombs, that is a realistic radius.
> It was also about as good as an early Wellington. correction welcome.



Obviously with a heavier load it couldn't fly as far. I was quoting figures for a relatively light load of 1,000 lbs. If you quadruple the load yes it shortens the range. But an He 111 could also carry a torpedo quite far (at about 2,000 lbs) which also made it dangerous against maritime targets. Torpedo's did cause more drag though as it was external on an He 111. The Wellington (also a torpedo carrier potentially) has a far greater range, from my understanding. And I believe it could fit a torpedo internally ? Correct me if I'm wrong.



> The 110 had more range than the 109 but it couldn't be used quite like a 109. The two planes were not interchangeable.



Agreed, and that was the problem. If the 110 had air to air combat capabilities more like the 109, or even more like say, an A6M, it could have been a lot more dangerous to the Allied cause.



> All true, so let's look at a few of these "details" like the Zero's supercharger having a critical altitude several thousand feet lower than the Merlin, (Model 21 Zero vs MK I Spit, later Spits get better, so does the Zero when it gets the two speed supercharger but that isn't till when?) ), many of these long ranges are actually done at a relatively low altitude. Less fuel burned in the climb, IF the supercharge has two gears the lower gear will use less power. At low rpm the supercharger uses less power/heats the intake charge less. But is all a juggling act. airflow through the supercharger is proportional to the square of the speed of the impeller.



And yet the A6M had no problem flying all the way to Darwin and arriving at ~25,000 ft from I believe 500 + miles away, they were flying over the Owen Stanley range on several occasions in New Guinea, and they conducted far longer trips sometimes in the Solomon's etc., (Rabal to Guadalcanal is 620 miles each way) also arriving at high altitude.



> but not the only difference. A MK I Spit went 5875lbs with a wooden prop. useful load is given as 1585lbs.
> 200lbs for the pilot & chute
> 646lbs for fuel
> 54lbs for oil
> ...



Again, in terms of estimating whether an aircraft is a light or heavy fighter, all that matters is whether you are comparing like with like.



> there are a lot of fixed weights in a fighter unless you change the engine. Look at the Spitfire again, ANY plane using the Merlin III engine is going to have just about the same powerplant weight if not heavier (due to using a real propeller and not a hunk of tree). The light fighter cannot use a smaller radiator or use less cooling fluid. (296lbs for the cooling system).



That's why fighter design was and still is hard  Which is what makes it all fun and interesting.

I agree you can't have everything, especially not early on. Early war fighters are going to have _some_ limitations. But we do see some examples of fighters where they managed to thread the needle and get a lot of the desired characteristics into the same airframe.


----------



## pbehn (Jul 3, 2020)

Schweik said:


> Easy! Because WW2 ended! Wellingtons were produced and still used through 1945.


Not as bombers, you are taking maximum range and maximum bomb load and inferring that something useful could be done at extreme range. 1000lb is not sufficient to be anything other than a nuisance.


----------



## Schweik (Jul 3, 2020)

Also worth pointing out, despite that lower critical altitude A6M2's didn't have a tough time against Spit V's over Darwin. We know there were many extenuating circumstances, but I think it's a safe bet that an A6M2 was competitive with a Spit I.


----------



## Schweik (Jul 3, 2020)

pbehn said:


> Not as bombers, you are taking maximum range and maximum bomb load and inferring that something useful could be done at extreme range. 1000lb is not sufficient to be anything other than a nuisance.



The maximum bomb load of a Wellington is 4500+ lbs, and the maximum range is 2,500+ miles. Contrary to what you are suggesting, I did not combine maximum range with maximum bomb load in my post. But I think the Wellington which had a large internal bomb bay could carry a 2,000 lb or more bomb load for quite a long distance.

You may think that 1,000 or 2,000 lbs of bombs is insufficient to do anything more than cause a nuisance, but I don't agree.

I happen to know a little bit of the operational history of the Wellington in the MTO and the CBI, and I know that it was in fact capable of conducting successful missions at quite a long distance. For example flying raids from Malta to Crete (~600 miles), Alexandria to Tobruk (~700 miles) and Protville, Tunisia to the vicinity of Crete (~900 miles). They also flew missions quite a bit further in China and over the Atlantic. They were effective enough in strikes, for example sinking ships and submarines, wrecking airbases and destroying planes on the ground and so forth, that they were one of the more valuable Operational assets in the Allied arsenal in the MTO without a doubt.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 3, 2020)

Again we are mixing timelines and capabilities and intent and what planes could do late in life. 

Some of these aircraft can be broken down into several "models" like the Wellington.

Pegasus engines, early Hercules, late Hercules, rather different capabilities when you go from a bit over 1000hp per engine to over 1600hp per engine.
But the 1600hp engines weren't even a gleam in the designer's eye (or in the air ministries) in 1935-36 When the Wellington was first worked on.

Same for some of the German planes. The JU-88 especially. The ones available in 1940 weren't really that good. You had the A-1 and A-2 versions. They had 1200hp engines, a small wing and a max gross weight of 22,840lbs (correction welcome). the A-4 was in works with 1320hp engines, 5 ft more wing span, about 20 sq ft more wing area, a beefed up under carriage and a max gross weight of 30.685lbs (Corr. wel.) unfortunately for the Germans. the 1340hp engines were late in showing up and 1940 saw a number of A-5 bombers built which used the big wing and higher gross weight with the old engines. 

If we want to talk about 1938-41 lets do that, and keep in mind what was possible or likely to be possible in those years, and realize there was quite and change even in those years. If we want to talk about 1942-44 (or pick a year or group of years) lets do that. Otherwise we are trying to compare this 






to what most us have in our pockets now. 



Schweik said:


> Also worth pointing out, despite that lower critical altitude A6M2's didn't have a tough time against Spit V's over Darwin. We know there were many extenuating circumstances, but I think it's a safe bet that an A6M2 was competitive with a Spit I.



and here we are, the Spit's over Darwin, while having better engines than the Spit I were not allowed to use the boost settings the Spit I was using in the BoB. Granted it had a better supercharger.


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 3, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> A number of american aircraft ( I don't know about others) were rated with "yardstick" ranges for comparison purposes. They simply figured out what the fuel burn was for a given speed/altitude and then divided that into the total fuel capacity for the length of flight and then multiplied the cruise speed by the hours of endurance to get this range.
> no allowance made for warm up, take-off, climb to altitude or even powered decent at the end of the "flight". Basically it tells you that fighter A might have a range 20% longer than fighter B but in neither case do you know what distance they can actually travel. Unfortunately AHT uses these theoretical ranges quite a bit.


That sounds like a good starting point for performance comparisons. Perhaps too optimistic for real use. Thanks!


----------



## Dimlee (Jul 3, 2020)

Schweik said:


> (as just one example, the factory making the original version of the Yak-3 was destroyed delaying that project by a couple of years, which is a small but fairly substantial Axis Strategic victory I would say).



Sorry, it's just me nitpicking as usual. 
This is probably about the factory 292 in Saratov which was destroyed in June 1943 during the operation Carmen II.
Since the first Yak-1M(future Yak-3) prototype rolled out in February 1943 and the factory managed to restore its pre-bombing output rate in October, we can assume that Yak-3 program was delayed by 4 months at least. There was also Tbilisi factory but I don't know if that one was involved in 1943.
Nevertheless, your example is very good and valid since those bombing raids in May-June 1943 have done considerable damage to the Soviet industry and logistics. Real strategic victory for Luftwaffe, indeed.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 3, 2020)

Schweik said:


> Mosquitoes could carry a fairly heavy bomb load out to a good range with an internal bomb load, up to 4,000 lbs 3,000 miles


Not until 1944 which makes any talk of what the British or Americans should have done in 1942 rather pointless. Yes the Mosquito was amazing but lets remember that in 1941 they built 12 bombers, 9 fighters and a few recon planes, in 1942 they built 131 Mosquito bombers, 297 fighters and a few more recon planes. the Mosquito did not come into it's own until 1943. 



Schweik said:


> Ju 88 could carry a 2000 lb bomb load internally roughly 1,000 miles, external stores limited the range more



when? A-2 was good for 620 miles at 217mph unless they put a fuel tank in the bomb bay. You want the 1000 mile range the interanl bomb laod was ten 50 kg bombs. 



Schweik said:


> The DB-7 / A-20 could carry a 1000 lb load internally about 900 miles



DB-7s had P & W R-1830 engines (DB-7As got the big engines) All A-20s got the big engine, Fuel capacities ranged from 325 gallons to 725 gal while still leaving the lower bomb bay free. 
Gross weight went from about 15,000lbs to just under 27,000lbs. 

We do have to be specific as to exactly which model of the plane in question we are referring to.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jul 3, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> Not until 1944 which makes any talk of what the British or Americans should have done in 1942 rather pointless. Yes the Mosquito was amazing but lets remember that in 1941 they built 12 bombers, 9 fighters and a few recon planes, in 1942 they built 131 Mosquito bombers, 297 fighters and a few more recon planes. the Mosquito did not come into it's own until 1943.



I show the first bomber variant, the Mosquito Mk IV (operational late 1941) as having a 1,100 mile 'normal' range with a 4,000 lb bomb load and a maximum range of ~2,000 miles with an (unspecified) lighter load. And presumably at quite a nice clip in terms of cruise speed, as well as a good (pretty high) altitude. So assuming that is correct it exceeds both the 1,000 mile benchmark and 1,000 bomb load considerably.

Admittedly not in time for the BoB but that was not my limitation.



> when? A-2 was good for 620 miles at 217mph unless they put a fuel tank in the bomb bay. You want the 1000 mile range the interanl bomb laod was ten 50 kg bombs.



I think you are muddying the waters a bit here. The A-5 was flying in 1938, came off the assembly line in June of 1940, and did fly in the Battle of Britain. The A-5 had the bigger wing and a longer range. My sources say 1,500 miles. Did they have enough of them for the BoB? Perhaps not. But that is besides the point. We are talking about design capabilities here, not the actual history of the war which are all pretty familiar with.

Maximum bomb load for the Ju 88 was actually over 6,000 lbs but more typically they carried about 3,300 lbs. And clearly A-5s were flying quite long missions routinely from the operational history in the MTO, for example Crete to Malta.

Longer range and Operational strikes tend to be a little less well defended and more vulnerable than either Tactical or major Strategic targets. A lot of time it's a matter of opportunity like spotting a train or a merchant ship heading to it's destination. For targets like these, or for airfields or radar stations etc., a few medium sized bombs can do real damage. Ports are often vulnerable too especially those not so close to the enemy.

The big dividing line in terms of long range for bombers is basically how big was the internal bomb bay. But already in 1940 we had several bomber types around the world which did have both long range and a reasonable internal bomb carrying capability. So in my opinion, the notion that there weren't any bombers which could do long range strikes is bollocks.


----------



## Schweik (Jul 3, 2020)

Dimlee said:


> Sorry, it's just me nitpicking as usual.
> This is probably about the factory 292 in Saratov which was destroyed in June 1943 during the operation Carmen II.
> Since the first Yak-1M(future Yak-3) prototype rolled out in February 1943 and the factory managed to restore its pre-bombing output rate in October, we can assume that Yak-3 program was delayed by 4 months at least. There was also Tbilisi factory but I don't know if that one was involved in 1943.
> Nevertheless, your example is very good and valid since those bombing raids in May-June 1943 have done considerable damage to the Soviet industry and logistics. Real strategic victory for Luftwaffe, indeed.



Ok, pardon my error, I was going from memory and didn't double check the dates. How about bombing raids in 1941 and 1942? Were those not damaging to Soviet industry and logistics?


----------



## pbehn (Jul 3, 2020)

Schweik said:


> I show the first bomber variant, the Mosquito Mk IV (operational late 1941) as having a 1,100 mile 'normal' range with a 4,000 lb bomb load and a maximum range of ~2,000 miles with an (unspecified) lighter load. And presumably at quite a nice clip in terms of cruise speed, as well as a good (pretty high) altitude. So assuming that is correct it exceeds both the 1,000 mile benchmark and 1,000 bomb load considerably.
> 
> Admittedly not in time for the BoB but that was not my limitation.
> .


You need a Mosquito with modified bomb bay and two speed two stage engines, the 4,000 cookie was for blowing off rooves.
from the Mossie.org site


*B.IX* Bomber. First high altitude unarmed bomber. Merlin 72 intercooled engines with two speed, two stage superchargers. Capacity for four 500lb bombs in the fuselage and two 500lb bombs on the wings or extra fuselage fuel tanks and 50 gallon jettisonable wing tanks. A few were converted to take one 4000lb bomb in the fuselage with two 50 gallon jettisonable wing tanks which were later in 1944 replaced by 100 gallon jettisonable wing tanks subject to a weight limitation of 25,200lb. A Pathfinder version was developed by the RAF.


----------



## Schweik (Jul 3, 2020)

I don't think you need a 4,000 lb cookie (or two stage superchargers) for the Mosquito to be an effective bomber. Obviously aircraft got more formidable as the war went on, but a Mosquito IV or a Ju-88 A-5 were quite capable of doing serious damage to the enemy.

My understanding that the expanded bomb bay for the 'cookie' bomb was due to the size of the bomb, the earlier variants could already carry a substantial bomb load including (but not only) in their internal bomb bay.


----------



## pbehn (Jul 3, 2020)

Schweik said:


> I don't think you need a 4,000 lb cookie (or two stage superchargers) for the Mosquito to be an effective bomber. Obviously aircraft got more formidable as the war went on, but a Mosquito IV or a Ju-88 A-5 were quite capable of doing serious damage to the enemy.
> 
> My understanding that the expanded bomb bay for the 'cookie' bomb was due to the size of the bomb, the earlier variants could already carry a substantial bomb load including (but not only) in their internal bomb bay.


If the 2,000 lb bomb load of a Mosquito was capable of serious damage, what were the B-17, B-24, Lancaster Halifax and Stirling all about?


----------



## tomo pauk (Jul 3, 2020)

pbehn said:


> I questioned that it would improve the prospects of the LW in 1940. A raid by He 111s and Ju88s on Manchester escorted by Bf110s isn't going to go well in daylight



Bf 110s can't provide the numbers needed, LW needs an 1-engined fighter powered by DB 601A, with ~500L + 300L (600l?) in drop tanks.



buffnut453 said:


> There's more to strategic capability than just reach. You actually have to deliver effects once you get there. What bomb load could any of the bombers carry out to 1,000 miles? According to Wikipedia (yes, I know, but it's all I have to hand at the moment), the Do17 had a combat radius of 628 miles with 1,100 lb bomb load. Extending that range would require a reduction in bomb load...and 1,100 lbs is a very long way from being a strategic load. It certainly isn't going to deliver a strategic effect.



Combat radius is not range. The 1450 mile range (as in early Zeros) works to perhaps 500 miles of combat radius for a ww2 fighter, and perhaps a bit more for a bomber. He 111H-4 (BoB vintage) was capable for 2000-2500 km range with 2x1000 kg of external bombs.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 3, 2020)

Schweik said:


> I show the first bomber variant, the Mosquito Mk IV (operational late 1941) as having a 1,100 mile 'normal' range with a 4,000 lb bomb load and a maximum range of ~2,000 miles with an (unspecified) lighter load. And presumably at quite a nice clip in terms of cruise speed, as well as a good (pretty high) altitude. So assuming that is correct it exceeds both the 1,000 mile benchmark and 1,000 bomb load considerably.
> 
> Admittedly not in time for the BoB but that was not my limitation.



Please check your sources, I don't care about Mosquitos and the Bob but I do care about other arguments where people claim the Mosquito could have replaced the B-17. 
The first 10(?) Mosquito bombers were rated at a 1000lb bomb load (four 250lb bombs) as they had not yet shortened the tail fins on the 500lb bombs to fit the bomb bay. 
No Mosquito carried 4000lbs until they carried the 4000lb cookie and they needed to bulge the bombay doors to do that. They did go to 3000lbs fairly quickly, Four of the shortened 500lb bombs in the bomb bay and one under each wing. 
Going operational is also subject to question. This goes for many planes. First issued to an "operational" squadron or first used in combat/dropped bomb on the enemy? 

First combat use of the Mosquito _bomber_ may have been the day after the 1000lb raid on Cologne, June 1st 1942? 





> I think you are muddying the waters a bit here. The A-5 was flying in 1938, came off the assembly line in June of 1940, and did fly in the Battle of Britain. The A-5 had the bigger wing and a longer range. My sources say 1,500 miles. Did they have enough of them for the BoB? Perhaps not. But that is besides the point. We are talking about design capabilities here, not the actual history of the war which are all pretty familiar with.
> 
> Maximum bomb load for the Ju 88 was actually over 6,000 lbs but more typically they carried about 3,300 lbs. And clearly A-5s were flying quite long missions routinely from the operational history in the MTO, for example Crete to Malta.



Trying to de-muddy the waters. The JU-88A-5 was an interim model built when the engines promised for the A-4 either didn't show up in time or showed up in insufficient numbers. 
JU-88s have more than the usual German combinations of fuel tanks and bomb racks. Standard JU-88 bomb bay held eighteen 50kg bombs in the forward bay and 10 in the aft bay. 
A 268imp gallon tank could be mounted in the forward bay of both the early Planes and the A-4/5. apparently a 249 gal (?) tank could be mounted in the aft bay of the A-4/5 for a total of 886 imp gallons. I will leave it to others to sort out the range with bombs if both bomb bays are full or what the bomb load might be if you are already carrying almost 6400 pounds of fuel. Or perhaps the extra fuel that I think was in the rear bay was in drop tanks? In any case the ability of the JU-88 to carry a large bomb load over long ranges(or even medium) is highly suspect. 



> Longer range and Operational strikes tend to be a little less well defended and more vulnerable than either Tactical or major Strategic targets. A lot of time it's a matter of opportunity like spotting a train or a merchant ship heading to it's destination. For targets like these, or for airfields or radar stations etc., a few medium sized bombs can do real damage. Ports are often vulnerable too especially those not so close to the enemy.
> 
> The big dividing line in terms of long range for bombers is basically how big was the internal bomb bay. But already in 1940 we had several bomber types around the world which did have both long range and a reasonable internal bomb carrying capability. So in my opinion, the notion that there weren't any bombers which could do long range strikes is bollocks.



In 1940 one of the better long range bombers was the Whitley as evidenced by it's strike against Genoa Italy, Unfortunately the Whitley was so slow that several hours of the trip (beginning and possibly the end) had to be flown in day light so it was not a distance that was practical on a regular basis. 

But the problem is not bombers flying long ranges, that was easy, it was getting fighters to go with them _using the engines and fuel/s of the day. _This while meeting the structural strength standards of the country buying them.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 3, 2020)

tomo pauk said:


> Bf 110s can't provide the numbers needed, LW needs an 1-engined fighter powered by DB 601A, with ~500L + 300L (600l?) in drop tanks.
> 
> .


I sort of agree but most of all they needed a plan, that was planned a long time before the fall of France. Germany didn't have the stuff needed to either bomb the UK into submission or invade because as far as I can see they never thought about either until early 1940.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 3, 2020)

When discussing the successes of the Mosquito also discuss the losses. The famous raid on Goerings radio transmission was by two flights of three aircraft. The first got in and out the second had one shot down that is a loss rate of 33% or 16.5%. Not sustainable at all.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 3, 2020)

Not sure why the Mosquito's max. load keeps getting compared to a B-17's. Two different types with two different mission profiles.

The B-17 typically carried 8,000 pounds of bombs on missions about 500 miles or less and carried 4,500 pounds of bombs on missions of 800 miles. It could also carry much more if the mission was short range.

Yes, the Mosquito could carry a 4,000 bomb, the B-17 could carry two.
The P-47 and Typhoon could carry over 2,000 pounds of bombs AND fight their way out of a bad situation - so it would seem that the P-47 is more value-packed and two Thunderbolts could do the job of one Mosquito then, right?


----------



## Milosh (Jul 3, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> Not sure why the Mosquito's max. load keeps getting compared to a B-17's. Two different types with two different mission profiles.
> 
> The B-17 typically carried 8,000 pounds of bombs on missions about 500 miles or less and carried 4,500 pounds of bombs on missions of 800 miles. It could also carry much more if the mission was short range.
> 
> ...


But could the P-47 carry that load as far as a Mossie?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 3, 2020)

The Mossie was a wonderful airplane. 

However this 4000lb nonsense in regards to the B-17 comes from a General talking to a war correspondent and telling her that a Mosquito could carry the the same bomb load to Belrin as the B-17. That was published and has stuck ever since. But the Mossie didn't carry the 4000lb bomb until some point in 1944. and the average bomb load of the B-17 was 4000lbs only if you average the weight of a HE load (5000lbs) with the weight of an incendiary load ( much closer to 3000lbs). Mossies rarely carried incendiaries. You couldn't fit very many in the bomb bay. 
There were only two squadrons using Mossies as day bombers in 1942, and one of them didn't start operations until the fall.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jul 3, 2020)

Nobody should have been carrying incendiaries to bomb cities. The problem with all the heavy bombers is that they barely hit anything they were supposed to or anything of any military value. Mosquitoes as bombers had the extra advantage of being much more precise. I also think their overall loss rate in the war compares pretty well to a lot of other bomber types. Of course on extremely fraught precision missions like hitting gestapo headquarters or prisons losses are going to be a little higher.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 3, 2020)

Schweik said:


> Also worth pointing out, despite that lower critical altitude A6M2's didn't have a tough time against Spit V's over Darwin. We know there were many extenuating circumstances, but I think it's a safe bet that an A6M2 was competitive with a Spit I.



The Spitfire I had one big advantage over the A6M2 in 1940.


Availability.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 3, 2020)

Schweik said:


> Mosquitoes could carry a fairly heavy bomb load out to a good range with an internal bomb load, up to 4,000 lbs 3,000 miles



Any Mosquito flying 3,000 miles would have a bomb bay full of auxiliary fuel tanks and 0 bombs.


----------



## pbehn (Jul 3, 2020)

Schweik said:


> Nobody should have been carrying incendiaries to bomb cities. The problem with all the heavy bombers is that they barely hit anything they were supposed to or anything of any military value. Mosquitoes as bombers had the extra advantage of being much more precise. I also think their overall loss rate in the war compares pretty well to a lot of other bomber types. Of course on extremely fraught precision missions like hitting gestapo headquarters or prisons losses are going to be a little higher.


They frequently hit what they were supposed to that's why Germanys cities and industries were destroyed and they had no oil and precious few aircraft.


----------



## pbehn (Jul 3, 2020)

wuzak said:


> Any Mosquito flying 3,000 miles would have a bomb bay full of auxiliary fuel tanks and 0 bombs.


True, but a round trip of 3,000 miles takes you to N Africa.


----------



## Schweik (Jul 3, 2020)

wuzak said:


> The Spitfire I had one big advantage over the A6M2 in 1940.
> 
> 
> Availability.



I'll just leave this here.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Jul 3, 2020)

Why?


----------



## pbehn (Jul 3, 2020)

fubar57 said:


> Why?


Because he doesn't want to discuss that only 100 were made that year I think. If they were so good why didn't the Germans make them?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jul 3, 2020)

pbehn said:


> They frequently hit what they were supposed to that's why Germanys cities and industries were destroyed and they had no oil and precious few aircraft.



So they were knocking out German oil in 1940? 41? 42?


----------



## pbehn (Jul 3, 2020)

Schweik said:


> So they were knocking out German oil in 1940? 41? 42?


You never knock out oil production you reduce it, oil installations were under attack throughout the war. It was you who said nothing was hit, not me. Battleships and submarine pens and various rocket sites were also hit by the people who couldn't hit anything. If I took you seriously I would get annoyed because you insult brave, talented and capable men, who did things you claim were not done.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 3, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> Please check your sources, I don't care about Mosquitos and the Bob but I do care about other arguments where people claim the Mosquito could have replaced the B-17.
> The first 10(?) Mosquito bombers were rated at a 1000lb bomb load (four 250lb bombs) as they had not yet shortened the tail fins on the 500lb bombs to fit the bomb bay.
> No Mosquito carried 4000lbs until they carried the 4000lb cookie and they needed to bulge the bombay doors to do that. They did go to 3000lbs fairly quickly, Four of the shortened 500lb bombs in the bomb bay and one under each wing.
> Going operational is also subject to question. This goes for many planes. First issued to an "operational" squadron or first used in combat/dropped bomb on the enemy?
> ...



The wing bombs became available on the Universal Wing, which was developed for the FB.VI. That was introduced sometime in 1943, and brought into B.IV production. The B.IX and B.XVI used this wing also.

Prior to this, wing bombs and wing auxiliary tanks were not available.

The proposal to carry the 4,000lb bomb was in late 1943, and first operations were in 1944. The B.IV was not well suited to this due to CoG problems. The B.XVI was much better, and most were fitted with the bulged bomb bay.

The bulged bomb bay also enabled 2 x 1,000lb TIs (target indicators) to be carried (by 627 squadron), which were the same size as the 1,000lb MC bomb. The earlier 1,000lb GP bomb could be carried inside the standard bomb bay, not that it was very often.


----------



## Schweik (Jul 3, 2020)

pbehn said:


> Because he doesn't want to discuss that only 100 were made that year I think. If they were so good why didn't the Germans make them?



Well that's not precisely what were discussing is it? The question was, could the Germans have built a "good" long range fighter in the early or mid-war, which you pushed into meaning the BoB. Ok!

The 1000 mile+ range of the Zero, among others I mentioned, proves that it could have been done, even though you & others suggested it was impossible.

t was suggested there were no 1000 mile range fighters and I pointed out that there were several.

Then it was claimed that there weren't any long ranged bombers to escort, which I pointed out was incorrect, and in fact absurd.

Then it was suggested the A6M couldn't hang in the BoB. I pointed out they handled up on Spit V at Darwin. Then you said they weren't available in 1940, which is horseshit. Now you are complaining they only had 100, which is irrelevant because we were talking about the Germans designing a long range fighter.

Though I do think the Zero would have done great in the BoB on either side.


----------



## Schweik (Jul 3, 2020)

pbehn said:


> You never knock out oil production you reduce it, oil installations were under attack throughout the war. It was you who said nothing was hit, not me. Battleships and submarine pens and various rocket sites were also hit by the people who couldn't hit anything. If I took you seriously I would get annoyed because you insult brave, talented and capable men, who did things you claim were not done.



What a joke. So it insults the men who flew the Fairey Battle to point out it was a lousy airplane? How about the poor guys flying Blackburn Roc's? Is that my fault? Lol. All we do in this forum is talk about the capabilities of one aircraft or another, somehow you are suddenly offended if someone points out a plane wasn't good at something? You better go back and get mad at 20 years worth of posts by thousands of different people. Give me a break


----------



## pbehn (Jul 3, 2020)

Schweik said:


> What a joke. So it insults the men who flew the Fairey Battle to point out it was a lousy airplane? How about the poor guys flying ng Blackburn Roc's? Is thaty fault? Lol.


No you say people didn't do what they actually did. To be honest, you have bored the ass off me. It is just endless whatabout and Kudav.


----------



## Schweik (Jul 3, 2020)

pbehn said:


> No you say people didn't do what they actually did. To be honest, you have bored the ass off me. It is just endless whatabout and Kudav.



Feel free to block me mate, I don't find your signal to noise ratio very high myself.


----------



## fubar57 (Jul 3, 2020)

Kids.....kids... kids


----------



## Schweik (Jul 3, 2020)

The Norden bomb sight didn't work as advertised in field conditions.

Unescorted bombers couldn't handle Luftwaffe fighters.

Night bombing was incredibly inaccurate. On numerous occasions they even hit the wrong city.

"De housing" became a policy because of the poor accuracy of high altitude level bombing.

Serious damage to the oil industry didn't take place until late in the year, and that was mainly by low level raids with horrific losses.

Just a few facts to chew on.


----------



## Schweik (Jul 3, 2020)

None of which has anything to do with the Bf 110, light fighters, or long range fighters, except to the extent that the lack of a long range escort fighter early in the war contributed to the lack of success of the early years of Strategic bombing. And perhaps worth noting, the Mosquito actually could hit targets and didn't need an escort.


----------



## fubar57 (Jul 3, 2020)

Mustangs and Mosquitos

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 3, 2020)

Interesting...so if Allied bombers didn"t hit any targets, then the "shortage of German fighters due to factories being destroyed by bombing" must be a myth...


----------



## Schweik (Jul 3, 2020)

fubar57 said:


> Mustangs and Mosquitos



"_On 31 January 1943, 105 Squadron became the first Mosquito unit to bomb Berlin. Hermann Goering, head of the Luftwaffe, was due to address a parade in the morning and the raid effectively disrupted it. 139 Squadron then flew over Berlin in the afternoon and gave the parade being addressed by Dr Goebbels the same treatment. This very effectively gave the lie to Goering's boast that no enemy aircraft would fly unscathed over Berlin. _"

I show the first Mosquito raid all the way to Berlin and back on 19 September 1942, I believe that was unescorted too. 

The raid on the the Burmeister and Wain Deisel factory in Denmark on 27 January 1943 was by 8 Mosquitos dropping 32 x 500 lb bombs, that to me is 4 x 500 lb bombs for each plane, flying a distance roughly 600 miles each way, or more depending on the route they took.

Not the difference between "didn't need escorts" and "never flew with escorts". Obviously that depended on the type of mission.


----------



## fubar57 (Jul 3, 2020)

Schweik said:


> And perhaps worth noting, the Mosquito actually could hit targets and didn't need an escort.



Note that you said the above....period.


----------



## Schweik (Jul 3, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> Interesting...so if Allied bombers didn"t hit any targets, then the "shortage of German fighters due to factories being destroyed by bombing" must be a myth...



I don't mean literally they never hit a single target, but I don't think they were able to inflict significant damage on the German aircraft industry until they had escorts flying with them into the heart of Central Europe and back in 1944, and then it still took a while to show results, they were still making German planes in large numbers to the very end of 1944, and production didn't end completely until the very end of the war. They did make over 30,000 Bf 109s right? Even 1,200+ Me 262s. How many V-1s and V-2s did they make? German industry seemed to be making a lot of stuff in spite of all those tons of huge bombs being dropped all over the place.












Other stuff too. Like tanks. Looks to me like arms production kept increasing until 1945.

German armored fighting vehicle production during World War II - Wikipedia

The first big Strategic problem the Germans started having was with oil. The biggest hit from Strategic bombing was against oil refineries but that was again, mostly low-level missions and very costly, ala the Ploesti raids. The biggest effect of the Strategic bombing was one of attrition, but I think the Soviets also had a role in that as did the war in the Med.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 3, 2020)

Schweik said:


> The Norden bomb sight didn't work as advertised in field conditions.



That was because of the hype that the USAAC pushed the Norden bomb sight after, frankly, unrepresentative tests.




Schweik said:


> Unescorted bombers couldn't handle Luftwaffe fighters.



That is true, but is probably better to say that the self-defending bomber was a myth.




Schweik said:


> Night bombing was incredibly inaccurate. On numerous occasions they even hit the wrong city.



That depends what year you are talking about. 

In 1941 that was very much true.

In 1944, not so much. By 1944 with navigational aids and the adoption of pathfinders, night bombing by the RAF was as precise as daylight bombing by the 8th AF.




Schweik said:


> "De housing" became a policy because of the poor accuracy of high altitude level bombing.



No, the dehousing policy came about because of the inability to hit a precision target at night - in 1941.




Schweik said:


> Serious damage to the oil industry didn't take place until late in the year, and that was mainly by low level raids with horrific losses.



Late in what year?

Late in 1943, I presume you are talking of the B-24 raids on Ploesti (was actually mid 1943)?

Late in 1944, when the oil campaign was in full swing? You do know that there were two competing campaign objectives prior to D-Day - the Transportation Plan and the Oil Plan? The Transportation Plan, which was designed to restrict movement of materials, equipment and personnel through occupied Europe, had priority and Oil targets could only be hit when Transport targets were not available, due to weather, or such. The Oil Plan did not come into full force until the latter half of 1944. And rarely from low level.


----------



## Schweik (Jul 3, 2020)

wuzak said:


> That was because of the hype that the USAAC pushed the Norden bomb sight after, frankly, unrepresentative tests.



Agreed! They also wasted nearly an ocean of money on it. Not to say it didn't work, it was a good bombsight for the early 1940s, but there were two many random factors (like clouds, wind) in the real world to work as advertised. It was nowhere near the miracle weapon they thought it would be.



> That is true, but is probably better to say that the self-defending bomber was a myth.



However you prefer to word it.



> That depends what year you are talking about.
> 
> In 1941 that was very much true.
> 
> In 1944, not so much. By 1944 with navigational aids and the adoption of pathfinders, night bombing by the RAF was *as precise as daylight bombing by the 8th AF*.



Which is to say not very precise. But I would certainly agree that the night bombing system had improved dramatically by 1944.



> No, the dehousing policy came about because of the inability to hit a precision target at night - in 1941.



And I would say was quickly adopted by the Americans when they realized the results of their own (very poor) bombing accuracy.



> Late in what year?
> 
> Late in 1943, I presume you are talking of the B-24 raids on Ploesti (was actually mid 1943)?
> 
> Late in 1944, when the oil campaign was in full swing? You do know that there were two competing campaign objectives prior to D-Day - the Transportation Plan and the Oil Plan? The Transportation Plan, which was designed to restrict movement of materials, equipment and personnel through occupied Europe, had priority and Oil targets could only be hit when Transport targets were not available, due to weather, or such. The Oil Plan did not come into full force until the latter half of 1944. And rarely from low level.



That was a typo, I meant "Late in the war". The first Ploesti raid was in mid 1943 but my understanding is that most of that damage was fixed pretty quickly. Losing North Africa may have hurt them as well. From what I remember the Romanian Oil fields weren't really being heavily damaged until 1944, though I'm prepared to be wrong about that.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 3, 2020)

And out of those 1,200 (+/-) Me262s, only 500 or so made it to the front...a large portion of the airframes produced were destroyed in bombing raids and ground attack missions...


----------



## wuzak (Jul 3, 2020)

Schweik said:


> I don't mean literally they never hit a single target, but I don't think they were able to inflict significant damage on the German aircraft industry until they had escorts flying with them into the heart of Central Europe and back in 1944, and then it still took a while to show results, they were still making German planes in large numbers to the very end of 1944, and production didn't end completely until the very end of the war. They did make over 30,000 Bf 109s right? Even 1,200+ Me 262s. How many V-1s and V-2s did they make? German industry seemed to be making a lot of stuff in spite of all those tons of huge bombs being dropped all over the place.



Maybe, just maybe, German industry wasn't working at full capacity before the bombs started falling on the factories. Which meant that there was a lot of spare capacity that could be used after bombing started.

The other question is: how many aircraft could they have produced without interference from bombing?




Schweik said:


> The first big Strategic problem the Germans started having was with oil. The biggest hit from Strategic bombing was against oil refineries but that was again, mostly low-level missions and very costly, ala the Ploesti raids. The biggest effect of the Strategic bombing was one of attrition, but I think the Soviets also had a role in that as did the war in the Med.



It wasn't until mid 1943 that 8th AF numbers were big enough for a big raid into Germany. The #1 priority was ball bearing production, #2 was aircraft production.

In August the 8th AF launched the double strike mission to Schweinfurt (bearings) and Regensburg (Messerschmitt factory). Though the mission was, in many ways, a disaster, enough damage was done by the raid that production was slowed significantly. But the Germans had a stockpile of ball bearings and many applications could be redesigned to use plain bearings. Even so, German representatives were sent to Sweden to secure supply of bearings (as were the British).

A more significant effect could have been obtained had the 8th AF the numbers to mount a follow up raid within a week or two. Or if RAF Bomber Command could have hit the factories the night after (off bombing Peenumunde).

Bombing against oil facilities was not "mostly low level". The Ploesti raid in 1943 was an outlier in that regard.

Much of the Allied effort against oil targets was directed at the synthetic fuel plants. These not only produced fuels, but side products such as fertiliser and the building blocks for explosive compounds. Bombing these plants had the side effect that by the end of 1944 German munitions would sometimes be partly filled with cement dust because not enough explosive was available.


----------



## Schweik (Jul 3, 2020)

Well production did fall off in 1945. And there was an oil shortage certainly by 1943, bad one by 1944


----------



## Schweik (Jul 3, 2020)

Also problems with using slave labor which has a lot of downsides


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 3, 2020)

Schweik said:


> Well that's not precisely what were discussing is it? The question was, could the Germans have built a "good" long range fighter in the early or mid-war, which you pushed into meaning the BoB. Ok!
> 
> The 1000 mile+ range of the Zero, among others I mentioned, proves that it could have been done, even though you & others suggested it was impossible.
> 
> that was suggested there were no 1000 mile range fighters and I pointed out that there were several.



It was possible. Now was it practical? 
and where you are flying does make a big difference. Not many AA guns in the China Sea between Formosa and the Philippines. 
Germans lost 109s and 110s due to bullet holes in the radiators. What would the losses have been for planes without self sealing fuel tanks, the heck with fires, just have 20 or more gallons leak out on the several hundred mile trip home. How many German pilots were saved by back armor? 
The British, at least in the BoB, knew when the Germans were coming and were often already at 25,000ft or higher when they arrived. Likewise the Germans often had lots of warning about High altitude allied raids. 
Would either the British or Germans have purchased a plane with the strength factor of the Zero? 
Max dive speed of the early ones was about 390mph . They had to put thicker, heavier wing skin plating on the later ones to increase the dive speed. Would any european country have built a plane with a such a restriction in order to get range? 
Aerodynamic loads go up with the square of the speed. A faster plane has to be built heavier, everything else being equal, which it seldom is. 

Part of the Zero's success was it took a while to figure out what it _could not do. _Once the allies figured that out the successes of the Zero started to taper off. 

listing bombers with built in guns as possible fighters just means, yes they have range, but can they really fight single seat fighters or are they in much more trouble than the historic 110s? An escort fighter has to be able to at least hold it's own and not just be a slightly more difficult target than the bombers for the defenders.


----------



## Milosh (Jul 4, 2020)

A good site on Mosquito production, DH home


----------



## Milosh (Jul 4, 2020)

The attack on oil, http://www.usaaf.net/surveys/eto/ebs11.htm

_Further Dividends From the Oil Attack, http://www.usaaf.net/surveys/eto/ebs12.htm_


----------



## Milosh (Jul 4, 2020)

*Oil campaign chronology of World War II *

Oil campaign chronology of World War II - Wikipedia


----------



## wuzak (Jul 4, 2020)

Milosh said:


> The attack on oil, http://www.usaaf.net/surveys/eto/ebs11.htm
> 
> _Further Dividends From the Oil Attack, http://www.usaaf.net/surveys/eto/ebs12.htm_




I got an error with those links.


----------



## Milosh (Jul 4, 2020)

wuzak said:


> I got an error with those links.



Damn!!! Does this work? United States Strategic Bombing Survey: Summary Report (European War)

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jul 4, 2020)

Milosh said:


> Damn!!! Does this work? United States Strategic Bombing Survey: Summary Report (European War)



Yes, thankyou.


----------



## Schweik (Jul 4, 2020)

Thanks I'll read through that.


----------



## Schweik (Jul 4, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> It was possible. Now was it practical?
> and where you are flying does make a big difference. Not many AA guns in the China Sea between Formosa and the Philippines.
> Germans lost 109s and 110s due to bullet holes in the radiators. What would the losses have been for planes without self sealing fuel tanks, the heck with fires, just have 20 or more gallons leak out on the several hundred mile trip home. How many German pilots were saved by back armor?
> The British, at least in the BoB, knew when the Germans were coming and were often already at 25,000ft or higher when they arrived. Likewise the Germans often had lots of warning about High altitude allied raids.
> ...



First, lets remember the context. I was not suggesting, or even implying, that Japan should have literally sent all their A6Ms to Hamburg via a fleet of submarines.

The original context of the discussion was the failings of the Bf 110. Some people still apparently are stuck on whether the Bf 110 was actually successful or not. I say as a day fighter it was unsuccessful.

And I also say, the Luftwaffe had a need for a long range day fighter which could hold it's own with Allied fighters.

This has been compressed into just the BoB as with so many aviation discussions of WW2, but I think the a long range escort fighter of some type could have really helped their war effort probably through 1942, and maybe halfway into 1943. After that it was definitely too late.

Luckily for us they didn't.

Since the debate got redirected into a BoB discussion, and people claimed that fighters with a 1,000 mile range didn't exist, or that bombers with a 1,000 mile range didn't exist, or that bombers that could fly 1,000 miles couldn't do any harm... I provided examples demonstrating those claims to be false. I also showed multiple examples of long range fighters from the early and late war, as well as immediately postwar since most of the truly late war designs didn't make it into combat in time to see action.

For the early war period, the Zero is one of the prime examples. Of course the airframe had some limitations, but I think those tend to be exaggerated. So to that.

Re: Armor. My understanding is that early in the BoB, fighters on both sides lacked armor, and I also know that some of the fuel tanks on the British fighters weren't fully protected until years later. Like the one between the engine and the pilot. Am I wrong about that?

Regarding flaws or how quickly the Zero was defeated. This tends to be exaggerated a lot too. I believe A6M2s were still posing a challenge to Spitfires in 1943.

Yes by mid 1942 certain pilots and certain units had figured out methods to contend with the Zero so that an encounter wasn't tantamount to certain doom, but that didn't mean the threat went away or that the A6M (or the Ki-43 for that matter) had become a pushover by then. Nor did faster planes like P-38s, F6Fs and F4Us guarantee victory. The A6M was certainly an aged design by 43, especially since the A6M3 model wasn't much of an improvement over the -2, but it was still a dangerous opponent. Greg Boyington was shot down by a Zero in 1944 and he was not the only Ace shot down late in the war by early model Japanese fighters.

For the BoB scenario, the question would be how fast the other side could adapt itself to the extraordinary capabilites of the A6M, including it's astonishing range.

The biggest difference with Japanese fighters in general by 1943 or 44 was actually the pilots, and the lack of trained aircrew in general which was certainly telling by that point. The Germans were facing a similar problem though not quite as desperately.

None of this changes the fact that it was clearly _possible_ to make an effective long range fighter even in 1940. Certainly by 1942 it was comfortably within the realm of possibility IF priorities and politics didn't get in the way and IF the designers were up to the challenge. Aircraft like the A6M show us it was possible as early as 1940. Fighters like the Ki-84, P-47, P-51, F4U, P-38, and so on show us clearly that it was _plausible_ by the mid-war (whether they got their designs into action and up to speed in time was another matter).

Of course, it's very tricky to get sorted out in time to be useful, and it also meant engines had to be improved which was probably the most technologically challenging part of the whole thing. And that is part of why it didn't happen during the war, why the Bf 110 fell behind as a design in 1940 (despite the great bravery of their crews Pbehn) and never caught up. The other reasons were more due to politics (Messerschmitt's cozy relationship with Hitler for example), bureaucracy, bad design decisions, bad luck, and mistakes.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 4, 2020)

Just a reminder about the 1,000 mile range: this was not nessecarily a combat radius.

The IJN's G4M had a range of over 1,000 miles (and a ferry range close to 3,000 miles) but this dropped considerably depending on it"s loadout.

The IJN's A6M type also had a range of aboit 1,100 miles, but that is under optimum conditions and should not be considered it's combat radius.

The USN's SBD had a range in excess of 1,100 miles but that range is determined by it's mission. For example: if the SBD was scouting ahead of the fleet, it was in optimal range loadout, if it was carrying it's max. loadout of 2,250 pounds of bombs, it's combat radius was greatly reduced.


----------



## Schweik (Jul 4, 2020)

Agreed. The operational history examples I cited are mostly about 500-600 miles away depending on type.

1000 mile range is just a benchmark so as to compare like with like. Many of these same aircraft had a ferry range of 1500 to 2000 miles or more. Combat radius depends on so many factors but could be from 170 to 600 miles for a fighter with a 1000 mile range, depending on the aircraft & the nature of the mission.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 4, 2020)

Schweik said:


> Re: Armor. My understanding is that early in the BoB, fighters on both sides lacked armor, and I also know that some of the fuel tanks on the British fighters weren't fully protected until years later. Like the one between the engine and the pilot. Am I wrong about that?



Yes, they did.



> As delivered, this aeroplane was fitted with a bullet proof windscreen, armour plating over the fuel tank, and a domed top on the sliding hood to allow of more headroom for the pilot.



Spitfire Mk I N.3171 Trials Report 

The report was dated March 1940.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jul 4, 2020)

Is that armor plating over the fuel tank aluminum?


----------



## Schweik (Jul 4, 2020)

From the wiki: 

"To improve protection for the pilot and fuel tanks a thick laminated glass bulletproof plate was fitted to the curved, one piece windscreen and a 3 mm thick cover of light alloy, capable of deflecting small calibre rounds, was fitted over the top of the two fuel tanks. From about mid-1940, 73 pounds (33 kg) of armoured steel plating was provided in the form of head and back protection on the seat bulkhead and covering the forward face of the glycol header tank.[28] In addition, the lower petrol tank was fitted with a fire-resistant covering called "Linatex", which was later replaced with a layer of self-sealing rubber. "

3mm of "light alloy" (Duralumin or equivalent I presume) being able to deflect rifle caliber bullets is highly debatable. In fact (and I know we debated this before on here) I would say extremely unlikely even at an oblique angle, unless you were quite far away (probably 800 meters or more). A regular .30 caliber bullet can penetrate up to 6mm of steel, more with AP bullets. 

From the above I assume that I was correct in that early Spitfires didn't have armor (aside from the 3mm aluminum), and it sounds like only the bottom tank had self-sealing protection even after armor was added. Spitfires didn't always have bullet proof windscreens as late as 1942. Seems to have been a matter of unit or pilot preference, as it had a cost in drag (until they made it integral).


----------



## Glider (Jul 4, 2020)

Schweik said:


> First, lets remember the context. I was not suggesting, or even implying, that Japan should have literally sent all their A6Ms to Hamburg via a fleet of submarines.
> 
> The original context of the discussion was the failings of the Bf 110. Some people still apparently are stuck on whether the Bf 110 was actually successful or not. I say as a day fighter it was unsuccessful.
> 
> ...


----------



## Glider (Jul 4, 2020)

For those getting excited about the impact of the Zero in the BOB I think I am right in saying that the only Zero's that existed in mid 1940 were a few which were sent to China in May/June 1940, about a dozen. I don't know the production details but when Japan attacked the USA they were still equiping some fighter units with the Zero so the number 15 months earlier would have been very limited.


----------



## Schweik (Jul 4, 2020)

And as a reminder, I did not suggest Japan send every Zero they had to the Germans to fight the BoB, the Zero is brought up chiefly to provide an example of an effective long range fighter, to show that it was possible to put one into production (and into action) as early as 1940.


----------



## Glider (Jul 4, 2020)

Schweik said:


> And as a reminder, I did not suggest Japan send every Zero they had to the Germans to fight the BoB, the Zero is brought up chiefly to provide an example of an effective long range fighter, to show that it was possible to put one into production (and into action) as early as 1940.


I recognise that but some people do tend to get carried away

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Vincenzo (Jul 4, 2020)

Glider said:


> For those getting excited about the impact of the Zero in the BOB I think I am right in saying that the only Zero's that existed in mid 1940 were a few which were sent to China in May/June 1940, about a dozen. I don't know the production details but when Japan attacked the USA they were still equiping some fighter units with the Zero so the number 15 months earlier would have been very limited.



Japanese wiki give us the monthly production for type
Type 11
May '40: 5
June: 3
July: 9
August: 8
September: 9
October: 19
November: 7

Type 21
November: 16
December: 19

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jul 4, 2020)

Another good early example of a viable long range fighter design which I brought up before is the Beaufighter, although it is just short of being an ideal escort fighter. Could they have made a faster, lighter weight version of it? Say two cannon instead of four & a pair of machine guns in the nose, scratch the wing machine guns, two speed supercharger when it becomes available, thinner and maybe slightly shorter wings ... something a bit more like a hybrid between a Westland whirlwind and a Beau. 

I know the Whirlwind was much smaller but I mean some design midpoint. All you need with the Beau is to increase speed by about 30 mph and ceiling by ... a bunch. Ten thousand feet. But a two speed supercharger should do that.

Even the historical Beaufighter could do long range low altitude raids. The famous Paris raid is a great example. 

Big planes don't do great against heavy integrated air defenses especially at low altitude but something like a Beaufighter would have been very helpful for the Luftwaffe in North Africa or Russia I think.


----------



## Dimlee (Jul 4, 2020)

Schweik said:


> Ok, pardon my error, I was going from memory and didn't double check the dates. How about bombing raids in 1941 and 1942? Were those not damaging to Soviet industry and logistics?



Damaging, of course.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jul 4, 2020)

Schweik said:


> From the wiki:
> From the above I assume that I was correct in that early Spitfires didn't have armor (aside from the 3mm aluminum), and it sounds like only the bottom tank had self-sealing protection even after armor was added. Spitfires didn't always have bullet proof windscreens as late as 1942. Seems to have been a matter of unit or pilot preference, as it had a cost in drag (until they made it integral).



Well, that's what you get from Wikipedia.

The armour over the upper tank was called 'deflection armour. The tanks were protected from the front by the engine and from the rear by the pilots armour. The defection armour was intended to do exactly that, deflect oblique strikes.

The 'bullet resistant' windscreen fitted to Spitfires in service in September *1939* and then fitted on production line. Spitfires delivered to Boscombe Down for various tests in October and November 1939 all had the add on panel fitted as factory standard. The Supermarine drawing for the 'add on' screen (Drawing 30030 sheet 33) is held by the RAF museum. The first internally-armoured screen was fitted to the Mk. III, and the "Spitfire III type windscreen and hood" were fitted from 26/4/41. The mod was not retrospective, and was production-line only, but how many had had their screens fitted before that date, and retained them until they were finished is impossible to judge. It is not easy to say overall which Mk Vs had the external and internal 'armoured' screens. From photos, it appears that all Spitfire Vs, for tropical use, had the new screens. Castle Bromwich built a lot of Vbs before they got the internal screens onto their production line. Westland was just getting into Spitfire production, but got it on their Vs pretty quickly (so very few if any Vs from Westlands had the external add on). No Spitfire _fighter_ was without a bullet resistant windscreen in 1942.

These are the dates on which some of the features relevant were introduced to the production lines.

Pilot's rear armour 19/10/39
Additional armour under pilot's seat 16/12/41 (Mk V production)
Linatex covering for lower tank 25/4/40. The self sealing lower tank on 27/7/40.
Armoured glycol tank 6/6/40
Fireproof bulkhead behind pilot 20/11/40

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jul 4, 2020)

Ok I guess it's a matter of _how_ bullet resistant. There was an add-on external windscreen or something right?


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 4, 2020)

So is it underrated or not?

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jul 4, 2020)

As a night fighter? Maybe. As a day fighter? Nope.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 4, 2020)

Schweik said:


> As a night fighter? Maybe. As a day fighter? Nope.


Works for me.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Jul 4, 2020)

Schweik said:


> Re: Armor. My understanding is that early in the BoB, fighters on both sides lacked armor, and I also know that some of the fuel tanks on the British fighters weren't fully protected until years later. Like the one between the engine and the pilot. Am I wrong about that?



No hard data for German fighters, I only have British intel reports based on crash surveys. 

Between 9 Jul 40 and 5 Nov 40 -- 232 x Me 109 wrecks examined.
8-mm bulkhead behind petrol tank, ie: 5ft behind pilot (usually fitted)​8-mm trapezium-shaped plate behind pilot's head (usually fitted)​2.5-inch armoured windscreen (sometimes fitted)​self-sealing tanks (possible, but not usually found, especially early on)​
Between 15 Aug 40 and 20 Oct 40 -- 85 x Me 110 wrecks examined.
11-mm upper plate and 9-mm lower plate in front of pilot (not found on crashes until 26 Aug)​2.?-inch armoured windscreen (sometimes fitted)​self-sealing tanks (always fitted)​rear armour found in only one example (a reconnaissance variant)​

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 4, 2020)

I am not saying the Germans should have magicly had hundreds of Zero's in 1940.

What I am trying to say is that the Japanese designers made certain choices to get the long range. Some of these choices (but perhaps not all) would have been available to any other fighter design team in any other country. However would some of those choices been acceptable to the generals/air ministries buying the planes? 
Could the Americans, British, Germans or French and Italians have built a 1000 mile range fighter in 1938-40 gien their available engines, their structural strength requirements, desired dive speeds? Once these nations started fitting some sort of protected tanks and some pilot armor performance tended to drop in 1940. 
For the British the MK II Spitfire with the Merlin XII showed little or no performance increase over the early MK I Spitfire due to the increased weight and drag of the now standard protection and, increased ammo (not much) and extra electronics (the IFF). There are performance figures for early Spitfires with a fixed fuel tank under one wing. Changing to internal linkage (which there may have been room for) would restore most (all?) of the lost speed but the same can not be said of the loss of climb rate. ANd climb rate is an indicator of the ability to sustain speed in turns. a poor climbing plane winds up descending fairly soon after starting a turning contest. A good climbing plane could very well wind up having to descend but not quite as soon and would not have to descend at quite the same rate while doing the same turn. 

Without lighting the structure and making it weaker what avenue/s did some of these countries have for making a ling range fighter? 


As for the Beaufighter, a lot of them had 2 speed engines. Not sure on some of the real early ones with Hercules engines but the MK II with Merlin XX engines certainly did. Quite of number of the middling Beaufighters did, Some of the later ones had the two speed supercharge locked in low gear for low altitude missions. I would also note that a Hercules XVI engine on 100 octane could make about 300hp more at most altitudes than a Hercules III engine on 87 octane could so be careful as to what combat examples you pick to show that the Beaufighter would have made some sort of day fighter for air to air combat. It was a very large airplane for a "fighter"

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jul 4, 2020)

So partly protected at first...


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 4, 2020)

You want to to know what aircraft was most underrated? Not the Hurricane (the Rodney Dangerfield of the RAF). It was afforded a place of honor in the Battle of Britain flight. Not the P-40 nor the Buffalo. It’s the KI-43 Hayabusa. I never knew about it until I saw a model of it in Thailand in Royal Thai livery. “Nice looking plane. Not a Zero. Must be crap.” The opponents it faced identified it as something else. Losses were written up as losses to Zeros. It scored more victories than its famous cousin. Even the unassailable Caidin chalked up Allied losses to the wrong plane. The KI-43 Hayabusa, the Rodney Dangerfield of IJAAF.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 4, 2020)

The closest the U.S. had to a fighter with a thousand mile range in the late 30's, was the SBD, oddly enough. Yes, it entered service in spring of '40, but it's design and development were late 30's.

Then there was the Seversky P-35A, which had a 950 mile range, it lacked armor and self-sealing tanks.
And an offshoot of the P-35, was the 2PA-B3 (A8V1), which was a two-seater designed for the Imperial Japanese Navy, who purchased 20. This R-1820 powered aircraft had a range of 1,950 miles.

So an Allied single-engine type with a thousand mile range by 1940 was not impossible.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jul 4, 2020)

Nice looking plane the P35. I was always struck by the similarity to the Re 2000

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jul 5, 2020)

Interesting, I had never heard of it. Great example Seversky A8V - Wikipedia

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jul 5, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> I am not saying the Germans should have magicly had hundreds of Zero's in 1940.
> 
> What I am trying to say is that the Japanese designers made certain choices to get the long range. Some of these choices (but perhaps not all) would have been available to any other fighter design team in any other country. However would some of those choices been acceptable to the generals/air ministries buying the planes?



Typically that was the major problem preventing better aircraft from being produced, more than the design limitations. Procurement policy took different directions in different nations and each had their strength and weaknesses.



> Could the Americans, British, Germans or French and Italians have built a 1000 mile range fighter in 1938-40 given their available engines, their structural strength requirements, desired dive speeds? Once these nations started fitting some sort of protected tanks and some pilot armor performance tended to drop in 1940.



Performance dropped, but engine power steadily increased and it tended to equal out over time more or less, as in the case of the Mk II Spitfire. I think it is clear that in terms of design and production capability, it was possible to do so. But the decision didn't go in that direction right away. Basically of our six major aircraft producing powers: Russia, Germany, Italy, Britain, Japan and the US, The European powers focused more on interceptors or short range / frontal aviation types. It was the latter two which seemed to recognize the need for a long range fighter earliest which makes sense given geography. The Japanese initially focused on a long range escort fighter because of their experiences in China. The US foresaw a need to patrol long distances, envisioning the protection of their shorelines and places like the Panama canal. But once they got into it the long distances in the Pacific proved that need, and the longer (medium) ranged fighters they already had were helpful in the Med and elsewhere as well as for Allies in Lend Lease.



> For the British the MK II Spitfire with the Merlin XII showed little or no performance increase over the early MK I Spitfire due to the increased weight and drag of the now standard protection and, increased ammo (not much) and extra electronics (the IFF). There are performance figures for early Spitfires with a fixed fuel tank under one wing. Changing to internal linkage (which there may have been room for) would restore most (all?) of the lost speed but the same can not be said of the loss of climb rate. ANd climb rate is an indicator of the ability to sustain speed in turns. a poor climbing plane winds up descending fairly soon after starting a turning contest. A good climbing plane could very well wind up having to descend but not quite as soon and would not have to descend at quite the same rate while doing the same turn.



That is a complex issue worthy of a deeper discussion...



> Without lighting the structure and making it weaker what avenue/s did some of these countries have for making a ling range fighter?



Well ultimately it boiled down to threading the needle. Use lighter materials, design intelligently. Find ways to save weight, improve efficiency, reduce drag. The A6M was actually a stronger airframe than most people give it credit for. It was a carrier aircraft after all, and had a once-piece construction method rather than having the wings bolted on separately. It was very streamlined as well. The designers of the P-51 like Ed Schmüd as we know found all kinds of ways to reduce drag and improve speed and range.

Personally I think the design and engineering challenges could be met by most of the major nations, the bigger issue was the purchasing commissions, corporate bureaucracy, air force leaders and so forth having sufficient vision and prescience to know what they wanted and what was really going to be needed.



> As for the Beaufighter, a lot of them had 2 speed engines. Not sure on some of the real early ones with Hercules engines but the MK II with Merlin XX engines certainly did. Quite of number of the middling Beaufighters did, Some of the later ones had the two speed supercharge locked in low gear for low altitude missions. I would also note that a Hercules XVI engine on 100 octane could make about 300hp more at most altitudes than a Hercules III engine on 87 octane could so be careful as to what combat examples you pick to show that the Beaufighter would have made some sort of day fighter for air to air combat. It was a very large airplane for a "fighter"



I am aware of the 2 speed engines etc. with the later model Beaus, and I see the limitation in the day fighter role, but if you look at the Operational history, Beaufighters, especially late model ones, did pretty well in a few scrapes. Pacific Victory Roll seems to be down right now for some reason but if you have a look at that some time it shows a fairly impressive tally. In the MTO they seem to have fallen prey to Bf 109s a bit more when they encountered them, the difference is probably speed - Beaufighter was close to the same speed as a Zero down low but much slower than a 109F or G.

I would concede though for a true escort fighter type you would probably need a bit smaller and lighter airframe. The Beaufighter had 10 guns, two crew and a 1,600 mile range. I think as I mentioned before, 4 guns, a 1,000 mile range, and the higher altitude capable engines might have been an interesting experiment. The zippy Whirlwind had a wingspan of 45 ft, whereas the Beaufighter was 57 ft. Maybe the modified Beau could have a thinner wing around 52 ft like the P-38 Lightning, and perhaps inline engines like the Merlin XX on the Mark II. If they could get the weight down to ~15,000 lbs you might have something there. How much do 2 x 20mm cannons and 4 x .303 machine guns weigh with ammo?

Of course all rank speculation there, for which I apologize. I do have a weakness for that kind of thing.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jul 5, 2020)

Look at that bad boy. Beau Mk II Gibraltar 1944







Improve that somewhat awkward looking engine cowling a bit (I think there is a good deal of room for improvement there), add some jet effect with the exhaust, maybe a slightly pointier nose, reduce the size of that navigators bubble somewhat, and (the hard part) make the wings a bit thinner and about 5 feet shorter. Drop the wing guns and go down to two cannon instead of four. And then maybe you have something really interesting.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jul 5, 2020)

Schweik said:


> Ok I guess it's a matter of _how_ bullet resistant. There was an add-on external windscreen or something right?



It was a laminated glass panel, similar to those used in aircraft by all nations during (and after) WW2.











Any number of aircraft developed before the war used an add on or applique panel like this for additional pilot protection. Almost all eventually fitted the protection internally for aerodynamic reasons.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jul 5, 2020)

Schweik said:


> I would concede though for a true escort fighter type you would probably need a bit smaller and lighter airframe. The Beaufighter had 10 guns, two crew and a 1,600 mile range. I think as I mentioned before, 4 guns, a 1,000 mile range, and the higher altitude capable engines might have been an interesting experiment. The zippy Whirlwind had a wingspan of 45 ft, whereas the Beaufighter was 57 ft. Maybe the modified Beau could have a thinner wing around 52 ft like the P-38 Lightning, and perhaps inline engines like the Merlin XX on the Mark II. If they could get the weight down to ~15,000 lbs you might have something there. How much do 2 x 20mm cannons and 4 x .303 machine guns weigh with ammo?



The Beaufighter was supposed to be a quick program for a cannon armed fighter using the wings of the Beaufort mated to a new fuselage.

If you are starting with a new wing then it will be a completely new design and would probably take longer to get into service.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jul 5, 2020)

Like I said, I know it wouldn't have been easy. But the Beau seems like a good place to start, and it was around through the whole war so there was some time to work on it and get it right. Ultimately they didn't have a need for it due to the Mustang or (the fully viable version of) the P-38. But it took a while before those were available.


----------



## Elmas (Jul 5, 2020)

Some points, by my personal point of view, must be remembered.

A - The evolution of the bomber was favoured by Air Staffs and so, by mid-30s’ bombers had a speed similar, if not higher, of that of the contemporary biplane fighters (SM-79 – CR-32, to cite an Italian example), and the amount of strategical damage done by the bombers of that era was certainly enormously over estimated, as Guernica taught certainly false lessons.

B - When the idea of an high performance fighter arose, the engines of that period just permitted tiny aeroplanes with a limited range. The initial specification for MC-200 fighter (840 HP) initially required just one 0,50 MG and one hour of autonomy, increased to two later. Me 109 was designed, like the whole Luftwaffe, with tactical purpose of destroy every possible enemy interference, at a close distances from their bases, when tactical planes like Ju-87 and He-111, where “at work”. That proved wonderfully with Poland, France and the first stage of the Russian campaign.

C - In the early-mid ‘30s, when all these planes ( Spitfire – Me 109 – Me 110) were conceived and designed, the French Army was considered, of course wrongly, as many of the ideas of the period, the strongest in the world, and nobody seriously believed that Wehrmacht could install their bases in the Calais area, almost at a walking distance from England (was not for the sea...)

D -To escort bombers to some particular (tactical) targets, but always on the front scenario, like a concentration of troups of an important airport or rail junction, a fighter with a sufficient range was needed, and that range could only be accomplished, in those times, only by a twin engine plane.

It is not, by my personal point of view, that Me 110 was wrong or underrated. When German soldiers put their feet to soak in the English Channel the war turned from tactical to strategic, a war that Wehrmacht, and much less Luftwaffe, was not at all prepared to fight.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 7, 2020)

Schweik said:


> Basically of our six major aircraft producing powers: Russia, Germany, Italy, Britain, Japan and the US, The European powers focused more on interceptors or short range / frontal aviation types. It was the latter two which seemed to recognize the need for a long range fighter earliest which makes sense given geography. The Japanese initially focused on a long range escort fighter because of their experiences in China. The US foresaw a need to patrol long distances, envisioning the protection of their shorelines and places like the Panama canal.



I agree that the Americans and Japanese focused on longer range fighters. 
However the US never used it's initial long range fighters in combat. Or used very few of them. By the time the US actually got into the war the need for protection, at least in US eyes, trumped the need for range. 
P-38 went from 400 gallons internal unprotected to 300 gallons protected. went back to 410 gallons on the P-38J
P-39 went from 200 gal on the prototype ( maybe?) to 170 gals in the YP-39 and P-39C but capacity fell to 120 gallons with the self sealing tanks.
P-40 went from 180 gal to 160gal in the P-40B to 148 gal in the P-40E as better protected tanks were fitted, later P-40s got slightly increased internal capacity although like the P-39, some models had rather restricted capacity in an effort to improve performance. (120 gals on some L's and N's) 
Early F4F-3 and -3As had 160 gallons in unprotected tanks, this dropped to 147 gallons with the initial protected tanks and then to 144 gallons with the F4F-4. FM-2s had even less. 
The older P-36 could hold 160-163 gallons but performance figures are usually for 105 gallons with the 58 gallon tank behind the pilot being an overload ferry tank. 

However for context the US Army specification that lead to the B-26 bomber called for ".... a bombload of 3000 pounds was to be carried over a range of 2000 miles at a top speed of over 300 mph and at a service ceiling exceeding 20,000 feet." Now the B-26 as built didn't come close to that desired range but shows the difficulty any designer of a hypothetical escort fighter would have been up against. The US army was _asking_ for 2000 mile range _medium_ bombers and even longer range heavy bombers in 1939. 




Schweik said:


> The A6M was actually a stronger airframe than most people give it credit for. It was a carrier aircraft after all, and had a once-piece construction method rather than having the wings bolted on separately. It was very streamlined as well.



It may have been stronger than many people give it credit for, and it may have stood up fairly well with good pilots. But that does not mean it was as strong as US or other western aircraft. There are two reasons for limiting dive speeds, 1 is the plane has control difficulties at high speeds. the 2nd is that parts start falling off the aircraft. They increased the dive speed of the Zero twice during it's career. If the early all metal Zero was limited to about the same dive speed as the fabric covered wing Hurricane what was the reason if it wasn't strength? 



Schweik said:


> Personally I think the design and engineering challenges could be met by most of the major nations, the bigger issue was the purchasing commissions, corporate bureaucracy, air force leaders and so forth having sufficient vision and prescience to know what they wanted and what was really going to be needed.



In some cases you may be right however some nations were a tight spot with less than first class engines (France and Italy) and Britain had the double whammy of believing that monoplanes were a passing American fad and variable pitch propellers were the work of Satan.  
or at least believing on fighters that the increase in performance of the change in pitch would be canceled out by the increased weight of pitch change mechanism. 
If a country believed that a long range single seat, single engine fighter would be out performed (think out maneuvered rather than speed or climb) by the enemy short range interceptor with like power than perhaps building a long range twin engine fighter that could boom and zoom (although not using that phrase) instead of maneuver was a viable alternative.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Greyman (Jul 8, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> If the early all metal Zero was limited to about the same dive speed as the fabric covered wing Hurricane what was the reason if it wasn't strength?



Control forces appear to be the main issue. Also one report stated _"Both cylinder head and oil temperatures get too low for safe operation in prolonged dives."_

Re: strength ... thread here - A6M3 safe loading factor

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jul 8, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> I agree that the Americans and Japanese focused on longer range fighters.
> However the US never used it's initial long range fighters in combat. Or used very few of them. By the time the US actually got into the war the need for protection, at least in US eyes, trumped the need for range.
> P-38 went from 400 gallons internal unprotected to 300 gallons protected. went back to 410 gallons on the P-38J
> P-39 went from 200 gal on the prototype ( maybe?) to 170 gals in the YP-39 and P-39C but capacity fell to 120 gallons with the self sealing tanks.
> ...



All interesting, and fuel capacity is at least one way to try to estimate a baseline for range, but it's probably at least as limited as the USAAF method of levitating to a specific altitude and then measuring the resulting distance. Other factors you and I have mentioned or discussed before already include drag, engine RPM settings, engine critical altitude, and wing efficiency, and in addition to that there are also propeller type and settings and probably other "intangibles". In many cases, the effective range depended on how the aircraft was operated.

One of the best examples of this was with the P-38. Obviously with the high performance turbo-supercharged engine it could be quite the fuel hog. Even with the 400 gallon fuel capacity P-38s still needed to reach far across the Pacific to attack their targets (and to escort bombers). But they were struggling. Enter Charles Lindbergh. In July 1944, Lindbergh, who was something of an aviation genius albeit with some questionable political ideology, made a semi-legal visit to USAAF units in the Pacific, and began flying missions with the 475th Fighter squadron in New Guinea. At the time the P-38 had a flight endurance of 6-8 hours (depending how much high throttle was used) and a combat radius of 300 miles. Crew chiefs noticed that Lindbergh always had much more fuel than the other pilots when they returned. After some investigation and discussion Lindbergh's tweaks increased this to 8-10 hours and 500-600 miles. His method was simple in retrospect: reduce the standard 2,200 rpm to 1,600, set fuel mixtures to "auto-lean," and slightly increase manifold pressures. Conventional wisdom said this would cause detonation but it didn't. And this did not reduce cruise speed incidentally.

Similarly, mere fuel capacity apparently doesn't tell us the whole story with the various single-engined fighters. Though it only had 28 more gallons of fuel, the F4F-3 had a range of 860 miles and a combat radius of about 275 miles (without drop tanks), whereas the P-39D had a range of 390 miles (clean) and a radius of about 120 miles. Hence the constant complaints by US and Allied commanders about the viability of the aircraft. Drop tanks increased basic range to 600 - 700 miles (depending on who you believe), but the aircraft was still considered too short legged to be of much use as an escort or for example as a fighter bomber. I really don't know why the difference was so wide but I would guess that the Wildcat had a more efficient and certainly larger wing.

The P-40 fell somewhere in between with a range of 650 miles and a radius of 250 miles (or 200 miles for the P-40L). With drop tanks and an optimized flying regime they could make 850 miles range and roughly a 400 mile radius with a P-40e in the Pacific.

Of the three, only the P-38 came close to the combat radius of the A6M (up to 600 miles with the external tank), and only with the tweaks from Lindbergh. But both the Wildcat and the P-40 had considerably better range than most of the European or Russian fighters.



> However for context the US Army specification that lead to the B-26 bomber called for ".... a bombload of 3000 pounds was to be carried over a range of 2000 miles at a top speed of over 300 mph and at a service ceiling exceeding 20,000 feet." Now the B-26 as built didn't come close to that desired range but shows the difficulty any designer of a hypothetical escort fighter would have been up against. The US army was _asking_ for 2000 mile range _medium_ bombers and even longer range heavy bombers in 1939.



The Marauder was also required to carry a couple of tons of guns and ammunition. The more lightly armed Martin Maryland II (updated from French to British standards) had a range of about 1,200 -1,300 miles with armor and could make over 310 mph. And of course the early war B-17, originally designed to patrol the Coasts of the United States, also had quite a good range too. So it did make sense to have some long legged fighters.



> It may have been stronger than many people give it credit for, and it may have stood up fairly well with good pilots. But that does not mean it was as strong as US or other western aircraft. There are two reasons for limiting dive speeds, 1 is the plane has control difficulties at high speeds. the 2nd is that parts start falling off the aircraft. They increased the dive speed of the Zero twice during it's career. If the early all metal Zero was limited to about the same dive speed as the fabric covered wing Hurricane what was the reason if it wasn't strength?



Sometimes the issue with dive speed limiations is construction strength so to speak (arguably this was the case with some of the Russian fighters), sometimes it's more the shape and size. One thing the early Zero (A6M2) and Hurricane had in common was big wings. The A6M2 had a span of 39' 4". The Hurricane had a span of 40'. I think that had something to do with speed limitations, as the later marks of the zero had shorter wings, the A6M5 had a 36' span.

Not that wing span alone would account for speed limitations or problems at higher speeds but I don't think either the Zero or the Hurricane were designed with such high speeds in mind (so much faster than the engine could take them in level flight), or the problems which came with it, whereas later fighters were designed to deal with such problems. On the P-40 and some other aircraft, I think they just lucked out with wing designs which worked well at higher speeds. And high speed in a dive turned out to matter a lot for escape.

I'm not sure what the dive speed limitation was for the F4F.



> In some cases you may be right however some nations were a tight spot with less than first class engines (France and Italy) and Britain had the double whammy of believing that monoplanes were a passing American fad and variable pitch propellers were the work of Satan.
> or at least believing on fighters that the increase in performance of the change in pitch would be canceled out by the increased weight of pitch change mechanism.



I could be wrong but I think France was well on their way to making some quite powerful variants of the old HS 12Y engine. No telling how they would have worked out of course. And needless to say, every nationality had their blind spots in terms of predicting what the machines of war would actually need.



> If a country believed that a long range single seat, single engine fighter would be out performed (think out maneuvered rather than speed or climb) by the enemy short range interceptor with like power than perhaps building a long range twin engine fighter that could boom and zoom (although not using that phrase) instead of maneuver was a viable alternative.



Without a doubt. The problem in that case basically came down to making a two seat fighter that took advantage of it's larger size to achieve greater range, which the Bf 110 basically didn't manage to do very well, and which was faster than the single seat types, which it was up to the Battle of France but fell behind on by the BoB, and never caught up.


----------



## Schweik (Jul 8, 2020)

I should add regarding the wings, that they had NACA data to go by in the US and this was also used I believe with some European aircraft.


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 8, 2020)

Schweik said:


> I should add regarding the wings, that they had NACA data to go by in the US and this was also used I believe with some European aircraft.



By quite a few European aircraft, including most of Messerschmitt’s.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jul 8, 2020)

This book has an article by an USAF major who gives an interesting baseline at a particular snapshot in time, November of 1943. By this time drop tanks were standard and cruise speed and other best practices had been worked out, improving range substantially. He lists the following combat radii:

P-39 - 310 miles
P-40 - 445 miles
P-38 - 575 miles
P-47 - 445 miles

There was a perceived need in the Pacific Theater to improve range for a "well armored fighter" to at least 600 miles. On some extreme fuel / endurance regime, P-38s were able to fly much longer missions up to 900 miles (such as by using huge 330 gallon drop tanks), but this was not routine.

After Lindbergh's assistance and new methods had spread, (he cites Sept 44 here) he says the P-38 range for routine missions was improved to 795 miles when doing fighter sweeps or medium bomber escort missions (carrying 425 gallons of fuel internally and 330 in external tanks) and 690 miles for heavy bombers (due to having to climb to higher altitude? Or due to lower cruise speed? I'm not sure) He also mentions they could fly a bombing mission carrying two 1,000 lb bombs and 425 gallons of internal fuel for a radius of 375 miles. For extreme range missions using 165 gallon and 330 gallon fuel tanks, they managed to reach as far as 1,400 miles.

By this point P-47's range had increased to the point that they had a radius of 690 miles carrying 370 gallons internal and 330 external. Apparently they sometimes flew missions with one external wing fuel tank and one bomb (!) which gave them a reach of 518 miles, or they could manage 320 miles with two 1,000 lb bombs.

This invites a very crude comparison. If you combine internal and external fuel for the basic / fighter sweep ranges,

P-38 755 gallons / 795 miles (1.05 miles per gallon)
P-47 700 gallons / 690 miles (1.01 miles per gallon)

... it looks like the P-38 was a bit more fuel efficient. That makes sense to me because in spite of having a greater wingspan and being a bit larger, I think the P-38 is more streamlined and probably less draggy. At any rate I think this implies that fighters consumed fuel at different rates, not that it should be a surprise.

There is a lot more data in there about fuel consumption and methods of fuel conservation (which were more complex than I earlier suggested) for P-38s.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Jul 8, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> I agree that the Americans and Japanese focused on longer range fighters.
> However the US never used it's initial long range fighters in combat. Or used very few of them. By the time the US actually got into the war the need for protection, at least in US eyes, trumped the need for range.
> P-38 went from 400 gallons internal unprotected to 300 gallons protected. went back to 410 gallons on the P-38J
> P-39 went from 200 gal on the prototype ( maybe?) to 170 gals in the YP-39 and P-39C but capacity fell to 120 gallons with the self sealing tanks.
> ...


I didn't know the fuel loads were so substantially affected by self-sealing tanks, though they clearly provided a very useful role and allowed us to take a great deal of abuse compared to Japanese aircraft.

As an aside, I remember a system the USSR developed that involved pumping engine exhaust into the tanks to help inert them -- how did that work compared to self-sealing?


> However for context the US Army specification that lead to the B-26 bomber called for ".... a bombload of 3000 pounds was to be carried over a range of 2000 miles at a top speed of over 300 mph and at a service ceiling exceeding 20,000 feet." Now the B-26 as built didn't come close to that desired range but shows the difficulty any designer of a hypothetical escort fighter would have been up against. The US army was _asking_ for 2000 mile range _medium_ bombers and even longer range heavy bombers in 1939.


It seemed that the option for a twin-speed supercharger wouldn't have been available in the time-table, but it would have jacked the altitude up past 20000' without difficulty. I guess as a short-term goal, one could have fitted the plane with a single-stage twin-speed supercharger until a twin-speed arrangement was ready, but it would have required boldness.


----------



## Schweik (Jul 8, 2020)

Injecting CO2 into the tanks was a common method (but I think mostly used in bombers) to help prevent flashover and explosions. It was more of an addition to having self sealing tanks though not an alternative.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 8, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> I didn't know the fuel loads were so substantially affected by self-sealing tanks, though they clearly provided a very useful role and allowed us to take a great deal of abuse compared to Japanese aircraft.


Self-sealing tanks were bulky due to the thick material used to seal the tank when punctured.
Different nations used various methods, but all variations added weight and reduced capacity.


----------



## Schweik (Jul 8, 2020)

Most ended up being basically a rather thick layer of rubber or something similar inside the tank which is why it reduces internal volume. Earlier attempts coated the outside of the tank but they didn't seem to work as well.


----------



## Milosh (Jul 8, 2020)

Schweik said:


> Injecting CO2 into the tanks was a common method (but I think mostly used in bombers) to help prevent flashover and explosions. It was more of an addition to having self sealing tanks though not an alternative.


The A6M injected exhaust gasses into the fuel tank.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jul 8, 2020)

Interesting, I wasn't aware. Didn't seem to help that much...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 8, 2020)

The self-sealing material was usually natural rubber, rubberized leather or rubberized cloth placed on the outside of the tank, not inside as the rubber swells when it gets in contact with the fuel, sealing the hole or greatly reducing fuel loss if the object hitting the tank was larger than rifle caliber.


----------



## Denniss (Jul 8, 2020)

Soviets also fed cooled exhaust gases into the fuel tanks in many of their combat a/c. Don't know how common self-sealing tanks were.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 8, 2020)

You have two different things going on.

The introduction of inert gas to the fuel tank lessens the risk of fire in a partially empty tank. 
It does nothing to reduce the risk of fire from leaking fuel and does nothing to help preserve the fuel for the trip home or at least to friendly territory. 

A lot of the high fuel capacities of the early American fighters are the result of integral tanks. Most of which, or all, could not be made self sealing and required actual tanks to be installed in the aircraft. These tanks could then have either external or internal protection.


----------



## Schweik (Jul 8, 2020)

My understanding is that most of the self-sealing fuel tank protection by the mid war was internal.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 8, 2020)

Schweik said:


> Crew chiefs noticed that Lindbergh always had much more fuel than the other pilots when they returned. After some investigation and discussion Lindbergh's tweaks increased this to 8-10 hours and 500-600 miles. His method was simple in retrospect: reduce the standard 2,200 rpm to 1,600, set fuel mixtures to "auto-lean," and slightly increase manifold pressures. Conventional wisdom said this would cause detonation but it didn't. And this did not reduce cruise speed incidentally.



Lindbergh gets a lot of credit, how much is deserved I don't know. Tony Levier was doing similar demonstrations in Europe in the summer of 1944 (?) and while _Conventional wisdom _might have said it would cause detonation that is NOT what Allison was saying at the time and it was NOT what Lockheed was saying at the time. But what did they know, they only built the engines and the aircraft and could not possibly be as smart as the Army Air Corp instructors. 
BTW the British had figured out the low rpm-high boost thing back in 1941 or 42. Maybe other people had done it even sooner? 
A Spitfire MK V could cruise at 10,000ft at 281mph true at either 2650rpm and +2lbs boost or 2000rpm and +3 3/4lbs boost, the first used 47imp gallons an hour and the 2nd use 42imp gal/hr. British published a number of altitude-speed rpm and boost numbers for various conditions. 





Schweik said:


> Similarly, mere fuel capacity apparently doesn't tell us the whole story with the various single-engined fighters. Though it only had 28 more gallons of fuel, the F4F-3 had a range of 860 miles and a combat radius of about 275 miles (without drop tanks), whereas the P-39D had a range of 390 miles (clean) and a radius of about 120 miles.



Please make sure you are comparing like to like. especially combat radius at that has all kinds of conditions. 
http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/F4F-4_Wildcat_ACP_-_1_July_1943_(Tommy).pdf 

range on internal fuel 860 statute miles at 161mph at 5,000ft.
combat radius on internal fuel 105 nautical miles. 
Conditions for combat radius are given on page 2. 

Point of bringing up the B-26 is to show what the planers were looking for, not what the actually got. The original B-26 requirement didn't have the top turret,it had a five man crew and four .30 cal guns. By the time the plane actually flew it had the twin .50s up top and a single .50 in the tail and could carry two 2000lb bombs, It was also much faster than the original requirement but much shorter ranged. 
But note that the requirement that lead to the B-26 was put a couple of months before the P-40 (no letter) was even ordered. With the engines of early 1939 (or what is promised) what kind of fighter do you build for a 2000 mile mission? please remember that 100/130 fuel is almost science fiction. The US is just turning to 100/100 fuel (as later tested) from 91 octane fuel.


----------



## Schweik (Jul 8, 2020)

I don't necessarily see Lindbergh as an innovator here, so much as someone being sent to spread best practices. Needless to say somebody as wealthy, well-connected, and publicity seeking as Charles Lindbergh may well have embellished the story and some of his friends may have gone along with it. They certainly covered up some of the things he was up to. Patriotic exploits in the Pacific can help offset some of his highly questionable antics at the beginning of the war.

Pre-war they still thought that the bomber always gets through so they may not have been thinking so much of the need for escort fighters. That became increasingly apparent however to people who were paying attention as the war warmed up from the regional conflicts in Spain in Manchuria, Ethiopia, etc and moved into Poland, France, Greece. And Britain.

By then, it was clear there was a need.

But already in the very beginning of the war the Americans had some medium ranged fighters, and they did come in handy.

As for the specific combat radius of the Wildcat, my understanding is that combat radius increased through a combination of adding a bit more fuel sometimes with better engines, better flying practices / flying optimization. I believe I can find some sources to back up my numbers for the wildcat, I already provided one for the army fighters.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jul 9, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> Part of the Zero's success was it took a while to figure out what it _could not do. _Once the allies figured that out the successes of the Zero started to taper off.



Bingo! Same as with the Bf 110, Mosquito for the Germans, Fw 190 for the British and any other combat aircraft that represents a new, hitherto unknown threat.



Schweik said:


> Look at that bad boy.



Yes, really bad boy. Beau IIs had lots of nasty handling issues, a virtual death trap in an engine out situation and a real handful on the ground. Ground loops were common and incidents and accidents at OTU level were high; 255 Sqn, in conversion from Hurricanes and Defiants to the Beau II lost two COs in accidents over two days during its operational conversion onto the type, which delayed the squadron's reintroduction into service. 409 Sqn also lost its CO in an accident shortly after conversion, too.

Regarding the Bf 110 (lots of thread drift here) and the useful range of German fighters in the BoB, it is worth noting that had the Luftwaffe had Spitfires or Hurricanes instead of the Bf 109, its range issues would have still existed. Nevertheless, whatever fighters the Germans had or would have liked wouldn't have made much difference to the outcome.

The BoB wasn't lost because the Germans didn't have a long range escort fighter, it was lost because the Germans had no real clue how much or little damage they were doing, nor had they any means of interpreting their raids, which led to a misunderstanding of the strategic situation overall, which led to ill-advised decisions. Doesn't matter how good your bombers are (or their escort fighters) if they are not hitting the right targets and doing the damage desired to achieve the required air superiority, something the Luftwaffe never did over Britain.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jul 9, 2020)

Schweik said:


> ... but something like a Beaufighter would have been very helpful for the Luftwaffe in North Africa or Russia I think.



It would have been more useful than the Bf 110?

The Bf 110 was used very effectively in the East, and to a lesser extent North Africa. It's also superior in most respects to the Beaufighter, which was a borderline death trap with generally poor performance. I would not swap my Bf 110 for an aircraft that could barely make 320 mph or 20,000 feet, thank you very much.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jul 9, 2020)

The main advantage of the Beau on paper is range, I show 1,700 miles. I show 530 miles for the Bf 110.

Whatever the difficulties in learning how to fly the beaufighter, which does not seem to be a major rarity in higher performance aircraft especialty early in the war, the bullfighter also seems to have had a good combat record right up to the end.and I'm talkin about looking at claims versus losses for example in shores Mediterranean air war series and records from the Pacific.

I don't know what its advantage was in combat but beaufighters seem to have done pretty well against BF 110 in the Med.


----------



## Schweik (Jul 9, 2020)

I gather with drop tanks range for the 110 got a lot better, so a detailed comparison / breakdown between the two types, especially over time, is welcome if anybody wants to make the effort.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 9, 2020)

Schweik said:


> I gather with drop tanks range for the 110 got a lot better, so a detailed comparison / breakdown between the two types, *especially over time,* is welcome if anybody wants to make the effort.



This is a major problem comparing the 110 and Beaufighter or indeed trying to assess the twin engine strategic fighter in general. 
The Bf 110 pre-dates the Beaufighter by several years, especially in the planning stages. 
The 110 was planned around 1000hp engines but do to shortages intitial production had 700hp engines to the extent that in Poland about 25% of the 110s employed there had the lower powered engines.
The Beaufighter came out of the gate with engines just under 1400hp. A level of power the 110 would not see until 1941 when most production got the DB601F engines. 
The Beaufighter was _estimated _ to do 360mph when ordered. Prototype did 330 and first service aircraft did 323mph (AI radar aerials?). Night Blitz Beaufighters go into service with a gross weight of around 20,000lbs. 
First Beaufighters don't go to the Med until April/May of 1941. The RAF being rather desperate to replace the Blenheim fighters that have been doing the long range over water escort job/s. 
The 110 gets DB 605 engines (1475hp) in the summer of 1942 with the "G" series. 
The Merlin powered Beaufighters were built to cover an anticipated shortage of Hercules engines. The Reason for the rather kludgy installation is that is a power egg. Also used on some bombers. This was not an attempt to improve performance. 

This is a bit scattered (or more than a bit) but shows that trying to compare the 110 and the Beaufighter has a lot of difficulties with timing and intended missions and actual missions/opposition.


----------



## DarrenW (Jul 9, 2020)

Schweik said:


> This invites a very crude comparison. If you combine internal and external fuel for the basic / fighter sweep ranges,
> 
> P-38 755 gallons / 795 miles (1.05 miles per gallon)
> P-47 700 gallons / 690 miles (1.01 miles per gallon)
> ...



I can understand why this seems logical but I believe the true reason for the better fuel economy of the P-38 was different fuel management techniques and not aerodynamics. Every drag coefficient figure that I've seen for the two aircraft tend to slightly favor the P-47.


----------



## Schweik (Jul 9, 2020)

DarrenW said:


> I can understand why this seems logical but I believe the true reason for the better fuel economy of the P-38 was mostly due to better fuel management techniques and not aerodynamics. Every drag coefficient figure that I've seen for the two aircraft tend to slightly favor the P-47.



Who knows? They are actually pretty close, and both had a lot of drag. I'd be willing to bet the disparities are a lot wider with most of the other smaller fighters.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jul 9, 2020)

Schweik said:


> I gather with drop tanks range for the 110 got a lot better, so a detailed comparison / breakdown between the two types, especially over time, is welcome if anybody wants to make the effort.



It got two drop tanks, 198 litres each, so about an extra 100 US gallons. Hess managed a one way flight of about 1,800Km/1,100miles in 1941, flying from Augsburg in a dog leg over the North Sea to Scotland, flying right across Scotland before doubling back and finally abandoning his Bf 110 over Eaglesham Moor.

The Bf 110 cruised (at 3,900m/13,000') not much slower that the Beaufighter's _maximum_ speed!


----------



## Schweik (Jul 9, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> This is a major problem comparing the 110 and Beaufighter or indeed trying to assess the twin engine strategic fighter in general.
> The Bf 110 pre-dates the Beaufighter by several years, especially in the planning stages.
> The 110 was planned around 1000hp engines but do to shortages intitial production had 700hp engines to the extent that in Poland about 25% of the 110s employed there had the lower powered engines.
> The Beaufighter came out of the gate with engines just under 1400hp. A level of power the 110 would not see until 1941 when most production got the DB601F engines.
> ...




Choosing a yardstick to measure combat aircraft by can always be a challenge, but giving them credit for how early or late their design was seems a bit less interesting to me. 

My understanding is that Beaufighters were introduced (combat trials) in 1940.

What would be interesting between Beaufighter and 110 (to me) would be to compare speed at different altitudes. 

WW2 Aircraft Performance has some data on the Beaufighter VI and TF X, unfortunately no earlier ones.

Beau VI shows 312 mph at 4,000 ft, 327 mph at 10,000 ft, and 330 mph at 20,000 ft. That isn't bad, particularly for the lower altitude.
Beau T.F.X (Torpedo version?) is less impressive at 286 mph at 4,000 ft, 303 mph at 8,000 and at 9,200 which appears to be the ceiling

According to this chart I see Bf 110C at 292 mph at 1,200 meters, 304 mph at 3,000 meters 326 mph at 4,000 meters.
According to this chart, Bf 110G-2 (which I think is one of the bigger engine variants) shows 267 mph at Sea Level, 292 mph at 2,000 meters - 4,000 mtrs, reaching a peak of 316 mph at about 5,000 meters before tapering off. Am I reading this wrong? Maybe that is a night fighter or bomber destroyer?

Anyway the above to me looks like the Beaufighter is a bit faster, particularly down low.



> This is a bit scattered (or more than a bit) but shows that trying to compare the 110 and the Beaufighter has a lot of difficulties with timing and intended missions and actual missions/opposition.



Well one way to compare them that I would consider valid is that they fought against each other routinely in the Med. If I have time I'll dig up some specific examples of that since the nature of these encounters apparently aren't general knowledge.


----------



## DarrenW (Jul 9, 2020)

I definitely agree that the P-38 was extremely clean for a twin-engine aircraft. Because of the larger wing it's induced drag was higher than the P-47, but the slim twin-boom design and V-line engines limited overall fuselage drag which kept overall drag similar to single-engine radial fighters of the day like the F4U, F6F, and P-47.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 9, 2020)

DarrenW said:


> I can understand why this seems logical but I believe the true reason for the better fuel economy of the P-38 was different fuel management techniques and not aerodynamics. Every drag coefficient figure that I've seen for the two aircraft tend to slightly favor the P-47.



My quick investigation is similar: the P-47 has a lower zero-lift drag coefficient than the P-38. That the P-38 has a greater Cd0 isn't surprising: it's got a lot of wetted area, with the two engine nacelles and the pilot pod. I suspect (hope!) that its designers chose this configuration because of the volume required for the turbochargers. With a more compact engine, _e.g._, a two-stage Merlin, a configuration more like the Hornet's would be superior.

Full disclosure here: I'm not a big fan of the P-38, mostly because there were far too many omissions in detail design and flight testing, leading to problems in service which should never have happened. The low critical Mach number may be excusable, but pilots getting frostbite wasn't.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jul 9, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> Please make sure you are comparing like to like. especially combat radius at that has all kinds of conditions.
> http://www.alternatewars.com/SAC/F4F-4_Wildcat_ACP_-_1_July_1943_(Tommy).pdf
> 
> range on internal fuel 860 statute miles at 161mph at 5,000ft.
> ...



I agree combat radius can be different depending on a bunch of specifics. As promised, I checked some sources & I get the following.

*From British / RN sources *
Martlet I (F4F-3?) range 870 miles here)
Martlet II (F4F-4?) range 850 miles here
Wildcat II range 795 miles here
Wildcat III range 890 miles here
Wildcat IV range 695 miles here
Wildcat VI range 595 miles here

*From USN sources*
F4F-3 range 880 (clean) and 1280 (overload (drop tanks?)) here
F4F-4 range 830 (clean) 1050 (one drop tank) 1275 (two drop tanks) here It also mentions combat radius as 105 / 245 / and 325 miles respectively.

Now I don't know the precise differences in the British nomenclature for F4F-3, F4F-4, FM-1, and FM-2, but it's clear there were rather dramatic differences in range for different types of Wildcat. The US Navy didn't start putting drop tanks on them until late 1942 IIRC. Not sure if / when the RN did.

I can see fro the above though that the earlier Wildcat / Martlet seems to have a better range and I do know that the F4F-3 had a better range (and was better in just about every way, except folding wings) than the F4F-4. 

First Team which is a good resource gives the combat radius of the F4F-3 as "about 200 miles" and it says here that the F4F-4 had a radius of "perhaps 175 miles"
Another book says 200-250 miles, with 250 miles being the "outer radius"
I have another source which isn't online which says 275 miles.

So it looks like the range declined either marginally or substantially between the early war F4F-3 (which is what I specifically mentioned) and the somewhat unfortunate replacement the F4F-4. What constituted an operational radius depended a lot on the type of mission being intended. On a basic escort mission especially from a land base, I would argue 275 miles is pretty close to the mark. If they are expected to fly escort, then maybe intercept enemy bombers, then find a carrier in the growing darkness that has probably moved many miles from the launch position, you probably want to give them more extra fuel.

When the Hellcat arrived it had an improved range of 1,100 miles / 1,500 ('overload') flying at 200 mph and a radius of 335 -340 miles.

I was reading about the Bf 110 D1 which had the "Daschhund belly" wooden fuel tank beneath the cockpit, with an extra 238 gallons of fuel. These were used for escorting maritime convoys. Definitely improved range there but probably at a substantial cost to performance and vulnerability.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Airframes (Jul 9, 2020)

Certainly affected performance, _and _vulnerability.
When the dachelbauch '110's were used as escort for the He111s attacking the north east of England, in August 1940, not only were they a "handful" to fly on the long leg across the North Sea from Norway, wallowing about as the fuel,was used, they proved to be very dangerous too.
At least two were seen to violently explode when attacked by the waiting Hurricanes and Spitfires, as the fuel vapours in the huge belly tank erupted.
This has been described by the RAF pilots involved, and also by surviving '110 aircrew from that disastrous raid, including a crew who were shot down, but managed to belly land in County Durham, having already witnessed the demise of their comrades over the sea.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jul 9, 2020)

Airframes said:


> Certainly affected performance, _and _vulnerability.
> When the dachelbauch '110's were used as escort for the He111s attacking the north east of England, in August 1940, not only were they a "handful" to fly on the long leg across the North Sea from Norway, wallowing about as the fuel,was used, they proved to be very dangerous too.
> At least two were seen to violently explode when attacked by the waiting Hurricanes and Spitfires, as the fuel vapours in the huge belly tank erupted.
> This has been described by the RAF pilots involved, and also by surviving '110 aircrew from that disastrous raid, including a crew who were shot down, but managed to belly land in County Durham, having already witnessed the demise of their comrades over the sea.



To me this kind of proves the need for a longer range Bf 110


----------



## stona (Jul 9, 2020)

The 'Dackelbauch' was a fairing that covered a 1,050 litre fuel tank and a 106 litre oil tank. A small fairing was riveted to the aircraft and the 'Dackelbauch' then fixed with clips I've forgotten the name of.
It obviously was not jettisonable, which did make the aircraft vulnerable.
Later a large underbelly tank was used, but never approved as it prevented bombs being carried under the fuselage. Later the two droppable wing tanks (and a fixed auxiliary oil tank towards the rear of the fuselage) were adopted.

Lifting a 'Dackelbauch' into position.






I found this on my computer, but I think it comes from Vasco and Estanislau's book on the Bf 110. John Vasco has already contributed his expertise to this thread.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jul 9, 2020)

I have a model of a Bf 110 with two huge wing tanks, I think it's late '42 or early '43 vintage.


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 9, 2020)

Schweik said:


> I have a model of a Bf 110 with two huge wing tanks, I think it's late '42 or early '43 vintage.


Is it a model from Aroura?


----------



## Schweik (Jul 9, 2020)

I think it was an Airfix, but I don't remember, I made it a couple of years ago. Might have been Eduard or Zvezda or something. I didn't keep the box so it would be hard to figure out at this point.


----------



## stona (Jul 9, 2020)

Schweik said:


> I have a model of a Bf 110 with two huge wing tanks, I think it's late '42 or early '43 vintage.



I guess you mean the tanks with fins, like these.






Other options were available, as on a model I made a few years ago.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 9, 2020)

Schweik said:


> Choosing a yardstick to measure combat aircraft by can always be a challenge, but giving them credit for how early or late their design was seems a bit less interesting to me.



Part of this discussion was about if the Germans got good value from the 110 compared to the 109. The 110 first flew in May of 1936 and the Beaufighter first flew in July of 1939. Unless the men at Bristol really screwed up a 3 year newer, larger, heavier and more powerful airplane _should_ be better at a number of roles. WIther the Beaufighter was better than the 110 is a different argument that the two 109s are better than one 110 argument though. 
I would note that the reason that the RAF was using Beaufighters against Bf 110s was that the men at Messerschmidt had stuffed up the Me 210 (first flew just a few months after the Beaufighter) and the Bf 110 was forced to stay in production while Messerschmidt took one to two years to sort out the Me 210 fiasco. 



Schweik said:


> My understanding is that Beaufighters were introduced (combat trials) in 1940.


They were used as night fighters in the fall of 1940. Production (but not necessarily issue to squadrons) was
End of July, 8 Beaufighters including prototypes/development aircraft.
Aug=23 Beaufighters built
Sept=15 Beaufighters built
Oct= 19 Beaufighters built
I don't have numbers for Nov and Dec but another site says 111 built by the end of the year. 



Schweik said:


> What would be interesting between Beaufighter and 110 (to me) would be to compare speed at different altitudes.



and here we run into the different years, different engines and different armament and/or antennas. 



Schweik said:


> According to this chart, Bf 110G-2 (which I think is one of the bigger engine variants) shows 267 mph at Sea Level, 292 mph at 2,000 meters - 4,000 mtrs, reaching a peak of 316 mph at about 5,000 meters before tapering off. Am I reading this wrong? Maybe that is a night fighter or bomber destroyer?


The 605 was the bigger engine.
I have no idea why that chart shows the speeds it does as the next item on the list has the 110G-2 doing 576kph at 6.5 km. http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me110/Bf110G-2_data.jpg 

Most people figure the 110G was a 340-350mph airplane at altitude if not encumbered by much in the way of radar aerials. 

It did climb much better than the Beaufighter VI though. Reaching 6000 meters (just under 20,000ft ) several minutes faster.


----------



## Denniss (Jul 9, 2020)

In the other chart the G-2 may have been equipped with rocked pods (just Nebelwerfer is readable), speed is with Kampfleistung (30min rating) and not full power.
Plus the speed chart does not look right, it looks like a two-speed supercharged engine but not like one with fluid supercharger coupling

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jul 9, 2020)

How does the later model 110F or G without rocket pods or radar antenna compare in speed to the Beaufighter at low altitude?


----------



## Glider (Jul 9, 2020)

If it helps I have the following stats for the Beaufighter 1F from Air International 1974
Sea Level 306mph
323 at 15,000ft
Max Cruising at 15,000 ft 272mph
initial climb 1,850 ft/min
time to climb 10,000ft 5.8min
time to climb 20,000ft 14.1min
service ceiling 16,500ft
normal range 1,170 miles at 187mph at 5,000ft

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 9, 2020)

Part of the Beaufighters performance at low altitude comes from having engines optimized for low altitude. 
The Hercules III on 87 octane fuel was rated at
1375hp for take-off, 2800rpm/4lbs boost
1410hp at 2750ft, 2800 rpm/4lbs boost in medium supercharge (low gear)
1250hp at 16,740ft, 2800rpm/4lbs boost fully supercharged (high gear) 
If Lumsden is to be believed.


----------



## Schweik (Jul 9, 2020)

well I'm pointing out the low altitude performance because somebody was saying that it's slow cause it couldn't beat 330 miles an hour. But that too is a function of where the engine is optimized to perform. 300 miles an hour on the deck is not bad for the early or even mid-war.


----------



## Greyman (Jul 9, 2020)

Beaufighter Mk.I is one of those tricky ones (like the Typhoon Mk.I) where the maximum speed can vary 30 mph depending on what improvements it had along its service life.

different nacelles
better finish
flush riveting
different escape door
different air intakes
different undercarriage doors
All this without getting into the different engines fitted (Herc III, Herc X, and Herc XI) and the settings changes as time went on.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jul 9, 2020)

I think that (more or less / equivalent) was the case with most WW2 combat aircraft


----------



## Glider (Jul 9, 2020)

If I can add to the previous posting. The Beaufighter VI fitted with Hercules VI has the following stats at Mean Weight

Mean Weight 19,600lb (max weight went up to 21,600lb)

Max Speed
325 at 8,500ft
333mph at 15,600ft

Engine rating
1,670 in M gear at 7,500ft
1,500 in S gear at 17,000ft

Range at economical cruise speed 243mph
Mk VIf 1,480 mile
MkVIC with wing tanks 1,810 miles

A brief comment on the use of 87 octane fuel in the Beaufighter. By the time the Beaufighter was in service 100 octane fuel was standard across all front line use in the RAF. As such any stats based on 87 octane fuel are always interesting but in practical terms for combat are not applicable.

Hope this helps

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Vincenzo (Jul 10, 2020)

it's strange that the best speed altitude is lower of FTH?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 10, 2020)

It is a puzzle. More so because the speed is at an odd altitude and not an even 1000ft or 5,000ft interval.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jul 10, 2020)

My experience with RAF data sheets is that they sometimes list the rated altitude too high, by several thousand feet too high.
For example, the data sheet for the Merlin-powered Beaufighter lists 1125 HP at 20500 ft (!!), that seem to be taken from the provisional power chart. The data sheet for Lanc II from mid-1944 lists Hercules VI as providing 1410 HP at 14500 ft, vs. data sheet for Beaufighter VI from late 1941 listing the same engine as providing 1500 HP at 17000 ft.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 10, 2020)

Even Lumsden needs a very careful reading as whoever compiled the tables at the end or typeset or proof read was not very careful. sometimes columns are moved over or rows are out of line making a quick read subject to mistakes.
at any rate most of the later engines (VI, XVI) seem to be good for 1510-1545hp at 2800rpm, 8.25lbs boost at 15,500ft. 
The XI is listed at 1510hp at 2800rpm +6.75lbs at 11,250ft (?) 

many Hercules engines are listed twice, once with 87 octane and another line with 100 and/or 100/130. 

to show problem/s the Hercules XVII is shown as having a normal, continuous climb rating of 1695hp at 2800rpm rolleyes using +8.25lbs boost at 250ft on 87 octane in high gear. 
The XVII used a cropped impeller and was often locked in low (medium supercharge) gear but was a 1943 engine. So why list it with 87 octane fuel?
It appears that the data for the Full power rating (5min) in medium supercharge was put in the wrong column under the 30min climb full supercharge heading.


----------



## Schweik (Jul 11, 2020)

Anyway I think it's clear the Beaufighter had some advantages over the 110. Not to say it was categorically superior or anything, and the 110 may have been a better Night Fighter, but I think the Beau had a bit of an edge for daytime combat, at least once the design had matured a little. And anyone who thinks a 1,000 mile range advantage doesn't mean anything is delusional.


----------



## stona (Jul 11, 2020)

Schweik said:


> And anyone who thinks a 1,000 mile range advantage doesn't mean anything is delusional.



It's irrelevant if the fight is a couple of hundred miles away. In the 1934 'zerstorer' 'Tactical Guidelines' an endurance of 2,000 km was desirable, but more telling was the ability to reach an altitude of 7 Km before over flying the front lines, *distance to front lines 50 km. *

All designs are compromises. To get eight guns in a Spitfire fuel capacity and hence endurance was reduced. These trade offs are made intentionally. The RLM did not require 1,000 miles of range for the role for which the Bf 110 was intended.

The large 900 litre auxiliary tanks used on Bf 110s from 1940 were exactly the same as those already used by the Ju88. In July 1940 the manufacturers were instructed to deliver the tanks with the support braces (only used on the Bf 110) included in the packaging, so that the tanks could be used on both types.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 11, 2020)

Timing is important. The 110 was designed around 1000hp engines, this at a time when the 109 was already in existence (prototypes) with a 700hp engine. The 109 didn't get the DB 601 engine for almost 2 years after work started on the 110. 
The Beaufighter was designed around 13-1400hp engines and still couldn't climb well. Even with the Hercules VI it was not a good climbing airplane. 
However for most of it's roles fast climb was not really needed. 
Let's remember that the Beaufighter was a "sports model" Beaufort. Skinny body with big engines using the Beaufort wing and tail. Production versions differed but that was the basic concept. 
You had the wing area to both support and house large fuel tanks. And the engine power to move the fuel load. 

We have gotten a bit of topic from the 110 being under rated to a 110 vs Beaufighter comparison.


----------



## Schweik (Jul 11, 2020)

How else do you assess the merits of an aircraft if you can't compare it to another similar one? When I spoke about this in theoretical terms I was told it was impossible to build a long range fighter in the early war, (which is nonsense) when I provide examples I'm told they are invalid. Which is also nonsense.

I also really don't understand why an earlier design date matters so much either. Many of the early war designs (like the Bf 109, one of the earliest) continued to be viable in their roles through consistent upgrading, through the end of the war. Even if they had certain fundamental design limitations. Germany had one of the major issues basically in hand- the availability of good engines. Of course they had problems with design and development, high performance engines were near the pinnacle of technology in the 40's. But they never hit a dead end where they just couldn't get enough horsepower. The problem with the 110 was a fundamental design issue, and one which they never really fixed, or rather fixed far too late.

When assessing other designs I don't see this canard being brought up all the time.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Jul 11, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> Timing is important. The 110 was designed around 1000hp engines,



A report from Rechlin dated 15 August 1939, just one month before the beginning of the war, may cast some light on this.

_"The powerplant of the Bf 110 C in no way meets the conditions expected of a modern engine system. *One problem in development was the circumstance in which an aircraft designed to accommodate two 20 liter engines then had to be fitted with two 30 liter engines without any modification to the airframe.* The system can be considered suitable for operations once the deficiencies listed on the page opposite have been rectified." _

My bold.

There is some debate about which engine the A series of the Bf 110 would have had if it had gone into production. While it is true that the V3 got the DB 600 engines the B series production used the Jumo 210, as did the A-0 pre-production series. B series production was intentionally limited in anticipation of the start up of production of the DB 601.

The C series was the first to get the DB 601 and the much increased fuel consumption was one of the factors reducing endurance. That happens when you go from a 20 litre to a 30 litre engine. In September 1938 Goering wrote to Udet and Milch asking that the 'heavy fighter', meaning the Bf 110, should be developed so that its range would cover 'England'. This was a reflection of the change in Germany's strategic situation. The front line might not be 50 Km away. This may be what led to the development of the D series.

The Bf 110 B just missed the war, being withdrawn from front line units in July1939 and relegated to flight training schools. The Chief of training reported that he had received Bf 110 Bs on 7 July.


----------



## Schweik (Jul 11, 2020)

What prevented them from making a long range version in 1941 or 42? Were they unable to put a lot of fuel in the wings? What was the real problem with the 210? I always thought it was the backward swept wing causing stability issues but I've been told that's incorrect.

Can somebody break down the internal fuel capacity of the Beaufighter vs the Bf 110?


----------



## Vincenzo (Jul 11, 2020)

stona said:


> The Bf 110 B just missed the war, being withdrawn from front line units in July1939 and relegated to flight training schools. The Chief of training reported that he had received Bf 110 Bs on 7 July.



I thought they were used in the western front in the '39


----------



## stona (Jul 11, 2020)

Vincenzo said:


> I thought they were used in the western front in the '39



The notice of their withdrawal is in the minutes of a meeting at the RLM, as reproduced in Mankau and Petrick's 'Messerschmitt Bf 110/Me 210/Me 410'.

On 27th August 1939 the Luftwaffe had 23_ operational_ Bf 110 Bs in its inventory.

John Vasco notes that though the B series found its way to front line units (ZG 26, and 1,[1(Z)/LG 1), 'By the summer of 1939 the B variant was being withdrawn from the front line and passed to training units'.


----------



## Schweik (Jul 11, 2020)

Dammit I missed that meeting. I hope Goering took notes...

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 11, 2020)

Schweik said:


> What prevented them from making a long range version in 1941 or 42? Were they unable to put a lot of fuel in the wings? What was the real problem with the 210? I always thought it was the backward swept wing causing stability issues but I've been told that's incorrect.
> 
> Can somebody break down the internal fuel capacity of the Beaufighter vs the Bf 110?



The swept wing was probably due to a too-far aft center of gravity.


----------



## Denniss (Jul 11, 2020)

The Me 210 was originally designed with a certain aspect of instability to be more maneuverable in certain (dogfight) situations. But it proved to be difficult to handle even for experienced pilots especially during low speed flight (Take-off and landings). Imagine what happended with not so experienced pilots at the controls - Crash Boom Bang. Mtt was forced back to the drawing board and amongst other fixes they lengthened the tail section. Further improvements led to the Me 210C (of which most were assembled in Hungary) and Me 410

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 11, 2020)

Schweik said:


> How else do you assess the merits of an aircraft if you can't compare it to another similar one? When I spoke about this in theoretical terms I was told it was impossible to build a long range fighter in the early war, (which is nonsense) when I provide examples I'm told they are invalid. Which is also nonsense.



The problem just pre-war and in the early part of the war was that you could 

1. Build a high performance fighter with short range. 
OR
2. Build a low performance fighter with long range.

Yes the Beaufighter had fantastic range. Now use the MK I version to escort bombers into France or the Ruhr trying to fight BF 109s in daylight. 





Schweik said:


> I also really don't understand why an earlier design date matters so much either. Many of the early war designs (like the Bf 109, one of the earliest) continued to be viable in their roles through consistent upgrading, through the end of the war. Even if they had certain fundamental design limitations. Germany had one of the major issues basically in hand- the availability of good engines. Of course they had problems with design and development, high performance engines were near the pinnacle of technology in the 40's. But they never hit a dead end where they just couldn't get enough horsepower.



Early designs are almost always going to be worse because so much in aerodynamics, structure, metallurgy was changing so fast not to mention engines and fuel and for the British, especially propellers. A few other nations didn't start the war with the best propellers either. 
Just consider Flaps and structure, the US went from this in 1933





to this in 1942.





The Flaps went from plain flaps to double slotted Fowler flaps. So a few years difference in start of design work can make big differences. 
This first flew July 17th 1935




Same experimental 14 cylinder two row Curtiss radials that were in the Hawk 75 prototype and went nowhere and the props were two position, The plane was rebuilt with 9 cylinder Cyclones and constant speed props. 
Wing was fabric covered from the main spar to the trailing edge. When first tested it was the fastest military plane in the US. 


The 109 remained viable because Germany's enemies very obligingly delivered the 109s targets close to the 109 airfields.
The Germans also went through about 3 generations of cannon and two generations of Machine guns in the 109 and they still had trouble as bomber interceptors. 
Using 5 gun 109s to attack the bombers and 3 gun 109s to "escort" the 5 gun 109s is a sign that all is not well in fighter land. 
The Germans were often a step behind the British as far as engine power goes, Sometimes they caught up and things were somewhat equal and then the British surged ahead again. 
This is in regards to the DB 601 and Jumo 211 engines, The BMW 801 did beat the single stage Merlins and the less said about the Sabre in 1941-42 the better. 
Both the 601E and the 605 had to be derated for a number of months after introduction which certainly didn't help things. 





Schweik said:


> The problem with the 110 was a fundamental design issue, and one which they never really fixed, or rather fixed far too late.



Care to tell us what this fundamental issue was? 


as far as what engine the 110 was designed to use, different accounts say different things. This is not helped by the crappy delivery of DB 600 engines in 1935-36-37. 
Some accounts say the V3 got the DB 600 engines, some accounts say the V1 had them, 
one account lists

V1.....Jumo 10D (jumo 210)
V2.....Jumo 210B
V3.....DB 600A
V4.....Jumo 211 (?)
V5.....not listed Prototype A-0 so probably Jumo 210s
V6.....DB601A
V7.....prototype of the 110B-0 with Jumo 210Gs
V8.....test of Me P 6 airscrews Jumo 210G

The Bf 161V1 got DB 600 engines
The Bf 161V2 got Jumo 210s

The Bf 162V1 got DB600 engines
The Bf 162V2 and V3 got Jumo 210s. 

He 111Bs were being built at the end of 1936 with DB600 engines. 
The Prototype He 118 dive bomber crashed by Udet in June of 1936 was powered by the DB 600.

The Jumo 211 entry for the Bf 110 could very well be a typo. 
Other accounts of the Bf 161 and Bf 162 may differ, point is that most of these planes were _designed _for the DB 600 engine and were using the Jumo 210s for flight trials to discover/sort out handling problems.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jul 12, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> The problem just pre-war and in the early part of the war was that you could
> 
> 1. Build a high performance fighter with short range.
> OR
> 2. Build a low performance fighter with long range.



Interesting, and not entirely unreasonable way to put it. Though as with anything in WW2 aviation, the Devil is in the details.

In 1940 the Bf 109 and the Spitfire were the two best fighters in the world, from a point of view of any air to air engagement. The only possible rival would be the A6M just entering the war, with the F4F Wildcat following after that. The main advantage that the 109 and the Spit had over all others, including the Zero, was their engines. They had good, powerful, and simultaneously low-drag engines that gave good performance at altitude. That, IMO, is not the only thing but probably the main thing that makes the Spit and the 109 stand above the other modern contenders: the D.520, the Yak -1, the P-36, MC. 200, G.50 and so on.

I would argue that the engine is the one real limiting factor, the rest is basically putting out the right specs, having the right designers and having a little luck.



> Yes the Beaufighter had fantastic range. Now use the MK I version to escort bombers into France or the Ruhr trying to fight BF 109s in daylight.



Well you have a point, but I think you are oversimplifying a bit. We saw already that even with it's limited range, and the risk of tangling with Spitfires, there was sufficient need for Bf 110s to escort long range bomber missions that they risked doing it with extremely hazardous and draggy wooden fuel tanks. And while the Bf 110 didn't do fantastically well against British Spitfires and Hurricanes, it wasn't catastrophically bad (so long as you didn't load it down with one of those dog bellies). It wasn't like Blackburn Skuas or Fairey Battles going up against 109s for example, or F2A's tangling with Zeros.

If your fighter is 30 or 40% as good as the enemy fighters, but still in the ball game so to speak, that means that you can still use them in places where the enemy has fewer fighters and you can achieve local situational and / or numerical superiority. And if you have all that extra range you can hit them where they are ill prepared, which will in turn force them to spread their interceptor force that much thinner. Again the 110 was not outstanding but it was in the game. If it's legs were a little longer it would have been more useful.

And the Beaufighter was probably a bit better than the 110 at least within certain altitude bands (and that would basically just depend on how they tuned the engines). So I think it too could be viable. in the sense of being and example of an aircraft that the Germans could have matched. Beaufighters did fly missions over France sometimes and did tangle with 109s quite a bit in the Med, not with great success but not necessarily catastrophic losses every time either.

I don't know if they ever put external fuel tanks on a Whirlwind but something a bit more like that might have been more viable as an escort fighter if it just had the range. In terms of both range and fighting capability, even with it's tiny engines, it was roughly midway between your two poles (high vs. low performance). All you really needed was a medium performance aircraft with medium or long range and that would have helped - especially if it could fight at altitude.

And lets remember, the need for the useful escort fighter did not end with the Battle of Britain. It may have been pretty hard in 1940 but it was easier by 1941 and easier still by 1942. Another good example kind of mid-range performance by early war standards would be the Pe-2 / Pe-3. With only 1100 hp engines it made 330 - 340 mph and had a 900 mile range. It was stressed for dive bombing so it could make the tight turns, and they managed to fit a 20mm ShVak and two 12.7mm HMG in the nose of the Pe-3bis. If you had say a DB 601 or a Merlin XX in that thing with an extra two or three hundred horsepower in each nacelle, you could make a single seat day fighter variant that I suspect could give most front line fighters a challenge.

Another one worth looking at is the Japanese Ki-45. It too was saddled with relatively weak engines - 1,050 hp Mitsubishi Ha102 radials. And with that, it managed 340 mph, a 1,200 mile range, and it was quite maneuverable. Armament was the same as the Pe-3bis, a 20mm gun and two 12.7mm HMG. But it was just a _liitle_ too draggy and the engines were a _little_ too weak to handle single seat fighters like the P-40s they ran into in China. However, you take that same basic design, put a pair of reliable 1,300 hp inline engines in it, (or the 1,500 hp radials like on the Beaufighter) and you have now entered the realm of viability as a heavy fighter. Yes you need to add armor and self sealing tanks, but you have a bit of extra range to play with there and with an extra 600 hp or so, it shouldn't break the bank.



> Early designs are almost always going to be worse because so much in aerodynamics, structure, metallurgy was changing so fast not to mention engines and fuel and for the British, US.



Yeah I am familiar with those aircraft. Not all the 1930's vintage planes were as primitive as all that.



> The 109 remained viable because Germany's enemies very obligingly delivered the 109s targets close to the 109 airfields.



I think this is ultimately what drove the differences we do see - the top priorities were for the interceptor / frontal aviation types, for the British, for the Germans, and for the Russians. The Americans and Japanese were fighting over the vast distances of the Pacific. But the decision to stick with just the shorter range aircraft would eventually become a problem, and long before the war was over.



> The Germans also went through about 3 generations of cannon and two generations of Machine guns in the 109 and they still had trouble as bomber interceptors.
> Using 5 gun 109s to attack the bombers and 3 gun 109s to "escort" the 5 gun 109s is a sign that all is not well in fighter land.
> The Germans were often a step behind the British as far as engine power goes, Sometimes they caught up and things were somewhat equal and then the British surged ahead again.
> This is in regards to the DB 601 and Jumo 211 engines, The BMW 801 did beat the single stage Merlins and the less said about the Sabre in 1941-42 the better.
> Both the 601E and the 605 had to be derated for a number of months after introduction which certainly didn't help things.



The Germans were running up against the limitations of their home run 1930's prewar fighter design. You won't get any argument from me on that. That's why I think they needed that long range fighter, or a viable 'heavy fighter' if you will. Because those were what proved best at knocking down the heavy bombers, yet they too had to be escorted to survive.



> Care to tell us what this fundamental issue was?



I don't know but I can guess - in the broad sense the failure to fit sufficient fuel in that big airframe to give it the longer range it needed, and more specifically I gather there was a problem with the wing being too thick and maybe not efficient enough.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 12, 2020)

Schweik said:


> In 1940 the Bf 109 and the Spitfire were the two best fighters in the world, from a point of view of any air to air engagement. The only possible rival would be the A6M just entering the war, with the F4F Wildcat following after that. The main advantage that the 109 and the Spit had over all others, including the Zero, was their engines. They had good, powerful, and simultaneously low-drag engines that gave good performance at altitude. That, IMO, is not the only thing but probably the main thing that makes the Spit and the 109 stand above the other modern contenders: the D.520, the Yak -1, the P-36, MC. 200, G.50 and so on.



The British thought that a long range single engine fighter was impossible in the late 30s and given the "conditions" in England at the time they were right. the conditions include the refusal of the air ministry to approve anything but fixed pitch propellers for fighters. This meant long take-off runs and slow cimb outs, The British also had small airfields (although not that much smaller than many other countries) which meant that you needed a big wing to get even a 5-6000lb fighter off the ground. Big wing means more drag than a small wing, in general. British got constant speed props fitted in the nick of time (just a few weeks) before the BoB. Other countries weren't quite as stubborn/stupid. Other conditions include the requirement for no more than 38lbs/sq/in tire pressure to keep from putting ruts in the grass fields (main reason some british bombers had rather large tires.) Other Countries may have had a few requirements of their own. Most of the 1930s fighters got several hundred pounds of protection added which hurt performance and nullified small increases in power. 
The American P-40 shows the results if things don't go exactly right, Stick a good (not great) V-12 (low drag) engine in a P-36, it carries about 60% more fuel (but not for combat?) than either a Spit or 109E,
It is a fast as either the Spit MK I or the 109E but due to weight and size it won't climb for crap (talking about the long nose planes as they existed in 1940/41) and the two .50s and four .30s don't show much of an advantage. The Allison actually made as much or slightly more power in the mid teen altitude range as some early model DB601 engines. 109s performance wasn't so much due to the engine as it was a small and "light" aircraft. If you have around 1000-1050hp at 14-16,000ft there is only so much you can do. Of course redoing the 109E into the F made a large difference but there you have "new" knowledge working for you. 




Schweik said:


> I would argue that the engine is the one real limiting factor, the rest is basically putting out the right specs, having the right designers and having a little luck.



The engine (and prop) are a major part but again, if the engines are fairly equal you need a really good design to show a big advantage.



Schweik said:


> And the Beaufighter was probably a bit better than the 110 at least within certain altitude bands (and that would basically just depend on how they tuned the engines). So I think it too could be viable. in the sense of being and example of an aircraft that the Germans could have matched. Beaufighters did fly missions over France sometimes and did tangle with 109s quite a bit in the Med, not with great success but not necessarily catastrophic losses every time either.



It doesn't really matter what the Beaufighters could do on their own. If the mission is to escort bombers and the escort fighters (Beaufighters or 110s) can barely defend themselves what is defending the bombers? The 110s could not defend the bombers, if the Beaufighters cannot defend the bombers but are spending all their effort at not being shot down themselves they have failed as escort fighters despite their range. What versions of the Beaufighter were in the Med? some MK Is but please remember the MK VI got rather more powerful engines. 



Schweik said:


> Yeah I am familiar with those aircraft. Not all the 1930's vintage planes were as primitive as all that.



Just showing the advances made in 7-9 years. 7 years between the A-14 twin and the A-26. so even 2-3 years can make a big difference in airframe design, high lift devices and powerplants.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jul 12, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> The problem just pre-war and in the early part of the war was that you could
> 
> 1. Build a high performance fighter with short range.
> OR
> 2. Build a low performance fighter with long range.



The time just pre-war and early war shows that where performance took hit on a fighter, it had nothing to do with range.
Either the air ministries were of opinion that another set of wings on a fighter was a way to go (Italy, mostly; Czechoslovakia). Or, that they will not pay for retractable U/C (or/and the designers/companies were not eager to implement retractable U/C) - Poland, Japan in mid-1930s, Netherlands, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia. Or where the fighter was company's 1st monoplane (Hawker) so the wing was too big & thick, fuelage too, and radiator placement was appalling. Or where engine installation and overall streamlining was a rush job (Bf 109E). Or where it was expected that a new fighter also sings, dances, and cooks so it ended up bigger than many 2-engined A/C (Fulmar), while being powered by the 3rd or 4th best engine the country makes. Or - let's halve the firepower of the day and install a turret on a fighter (Defiant). Most of those aircraft didn't have drop tanks as option, even if that was a known thing to exist by mid-1930s, so the range remained short where that was the case.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jul 12, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> The British thought that a long range single engine fighter was impossible in the late 30s and given the "conditions" in England at the time they were right. the conditions include the refusal of the air ministry to approve anything but fixed pitch propellers for fighters. This meant long take-off runs and slow cimb outs, The British also had small airfields (although not that much smaller than many other countries) which meant that you needed a big wing to get even a 5-6000lb fighter off the ground. Big wing means more drag than a small wing, in general. British got constant speed props fitted in the nick of time (just a few weeks) before the BoB. Other countries weren't quite as stubborn/stupid. Other conditions include the requirement for no more than 38lbs/sq/in tire pressure to keep from putting ruts in the grass fields (main reason some british bombers had rather large tires.) Other Countries may have had a few requirements of their own. Most of the 1930s fighters got several hundred pounds of protection added which hurt performance and nullified small increases in power.



I'm not suggesting that designers had to somehow overcome bad requirements from their national aviation boards etc., as I said before it's a matter of both the designer / aircraft and engine companies ability, _plus_ the specs which is often the major stumbling block. Referring to Tomo's post, look at the Firefly and the FAA. They seemed to consistently make requirements which prevented the development of useful aircraft. Or the Germans insistence that every new bomber be able to dive bomb like a Stuka.



> The American P-40 shows the results if things don't go exactly right, Stick a good (not great) V-12 (low drag) engine in a P-36, it carries about 60% more fuel (but not for combat?) than either a Spit or 109E,
> It is a fast as either the Spit MK I or the 109E but due to weight and size it won't climb for crap (talking about the long nose planes as they existed in 1940/41) and the two .50s and four .30s don't show much of an advantage. The Allison actually made as much or slightly more power in the mid teen altitude range as some early model DB601 engines. 109s performance wasn't so much due to the engine as it was a small and "light" aircraft. If you have around 1000-1050hp at 14-16,000ft there is only so much you can do. Of course redoing the 109E into the F made a large difference but there you have "new" knowledge working for you.



I couldn't really assess it in terms of BoB era, because the P-40 wasn't quite ready by then, but later in 1941 when the fighting in the Med started, those early P-40 B/C / Tomahawk IIA / IIB types were apparently able to hold their own against Bf 109s, even with abyssmally bad tactics (not flying in pairs etc.). Their main limitation by that point, as compared to say Spit V or 109E7 etc., was the relatively low critical altitude of the single speed Allison engine. This was why the RAF decided they were unsuitable for combat in NW Europe. I'm sure it wouldn't have mattered as much if the aircraft had been 1,000 lbs lighter, but essentially it was the same limitation as the D.520, Yak-1, and others I mentioned. The Engine didn't perform well above 12,000 or 15,000 ft.

Also the early (long nose / Tomahawk) variants didn't have a particularly bad rate of climb, it was usually rated as somewhere between 2,500 ft and 3,000 ft per minute. That notorious deficiency was first felt with the D/E ("Kittyhawk") models, especially until they improved the engine power (with a climb rate of sometimes under 2,000 ft per minute). And yet the extra range did help quite a bit. They were certainly able to escort bombers, and the German pilots themselves noted that they were very effective at it.



> The engine (and prop) are a major part but again, if the engines are fairly equal you need a really good design to show a big advantage.



My point was that a lot of countries were able to make good designs, including the twin engined fighters I mentioned, and the others like the D.520, Yak etc. The biggest stumbling block was usually the engine.



> It doesn't really matter what the Beaufighters could do on their own. If the mission is to escort bombers and the escort fighters (Beaufighters or 110s) can barely defend themselves what is defending the bombers? The 110s could not defend the bombers, if the Beaufighters cannot defend the bombers but are spending all their effort at not being shot down themselves they have failed as escort fighters despite their range. What versions of the Beaufighter were in the Med? some MK Is but please remember the MK VI got rather more powerful engines.



I refer again to the anecdote about Bf 110s being used to escort He 111s to raids on Scotland etc., seemingly so necessary that they were willing to risk flying with a 'dog belly'. Obviously there was some perceived utility. And the other solution is if you can't win complete air superiority and your bombers can't quite hang in the environment you are entering, like Blenheims over Libya in 1941, then you put bombs on your fighters. Some fighters carry the bombs and the others fly cover. That seemed to work with Kittyhawks.



> Just showing the advances made in 7-9 years. 7 years between the A-14 twin and the A-26. so even 2-3 years can make a big difference in airframe design, high lift devices and powerplants.



Yeah I get you, my point is that some of the early designs were more modern than others, and the reverse was also true.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 12, 2020)

I will go back and pick on the British, since in 1938-39 they had the best V-12 engine available (highest critical altitude.) 

A lot of things interrelate early in design process when things are still on paper and you can stretch certain things with an eraser and new pencil line. There was certainly space (volume) in a Spitfire for more fuel. But like I said earlier the fixed Pitch prop rather limited the take off from small fields if you added weight. I have mentioned the tire pressure more than once. If you make the plane heavier (more fuel) you need to either pump up the tires a bit more (forbidden under the British "rules") or you need to fit larger tires to spread the weight out. The larger tires are heavier, they may require lumps or bumps to fit them in the plane. Larger tires on a Hurricane may not be a problem (thick wing to hide them in) larger tires on a Spitfire _might_ be a problem. See late model 109s for an extreme example. While the bigger tires cause other problems? Will you need to beef up the landing gear (or attachment points) to handle the extra weight of the fuel and tires? In peacetime small changes often rippled out quite far, In war people were often told to shut up and get on with it (or words to that effect) and things were added without any changes to landing gear, tires or beefing up airframes until proven necessary (things broke more often). I would note that this is not purely hypothetical. The Whirlwind was granted an exception and allowed to use 42lbs/sq/in in it's tires to avoid redesigning/enlarging the rear of the engine nacelles to accommodate larger tires. 
Were there any other restrictions/requirements that increased weight could have screwed up?
Please note Britain's first long range fighter (Blenheim with gun pack) had some serious issues in the MK IV version. (1400 mile range) in that it had to dump the fuel in the outer wing tanks before trying to land. The landing gear and brakes designed for a 12,500lb plane were not up to the job for a 14,000lb + airplane and hundreds of pounds of fuel had to be dumped before even trying for an emergency landing. Yes Spitfires did get steadily heavier but what was allowed in 1942/43 was not what would be allowed in 1938. 
Most but not all of Britain's problems in designing a long range single engine fighter were self inflicted. But please consider that between improved Merlins and better fuel a Two stage Merlin engine had a much better power to weight ratio than an early Merlin running on 87 octane. 



Schweik said:


> I couldn't really assess it in terms of BoB era, because the P-40 wasn't quite ready by then, but later in 1941 when the fighting in the Med started, those early P-40 B/C / Tomahawk IIA / IIB types were apparently able to hold their own against Bf 109s, even with abyssmally bad tactics (not flying in pairs etc.). Their main limitation by that point, as compared to say Spit V or 109E7 etc., was the relatively low critical altitude of the single speed Allison engine



The P-40 engine didn't change from the P-40 no letter to the P-40C. The P-40 was ordered in the Spring of 1939 even if deliveries didn't take place until the summer of 1940. 

however some of the "book" numbers for the P-40 need a vigorous shake of the salt cellar. 
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/P-40B_41-5205_PHQ-M-19-1227-A.pdf 
has some nice test numbers but please note the weight. then compare to 
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/P-40/P-40B_Official_Summary_of_Characteristics.jpg 

the test plane was running at the *design weight*. but the design weight was about 500lbs below the normal gross weight and normal gross weight only counted 120 US gallons of fuel 
(about 3 imp gallons more than a Hurricane).

Using it as an example of what was _possible _in 1939/40. The C15 Allison had one of the higher critical altitudes of 1939/early 1940 period. (higher than any French or Italian engine and higher than most versions of the DB601 used until the fall of 1940). The P-40B at normal gross (not the reduced weight used for the performance tests) was about 16-1700lb heavier than the 109 or around 30% heavier. That is the 109s altitude advantage, not anything particularly noteworthy about the DB601 engine. 

P-40s in the desert held their own in part because much of the desert fighting was done at lower altitudes than was common over England or europe in 1940-42. And in part because at those lower altitudes the Allison tolerated a fair amount of of over boosting.


----------



## Schweik (Jul 13, 2020)

The stat block you linked from WW2Aircraftperformance showing the rate of climb of close to 3,000 fpm up to 10,000 ft is basically what I usually see for the P-40B, the P-40C which had heavier (but better protected) fuel tanks and some other weighty gear was closer to around 2,800 fpm or thereabouts, but that along with the 352 mph top speed was still reasonable for 1941.



> P-40s in the desert held their own in part because much of the desert fighting was done at lower altitudes than was common over England or europe in 1940-42. And in part because at those lower altitudes the Allison tolerated a fair amount of of over boosting.


Yeah but (and it's amusing which sides of this we are on right now) I don't think they were necessarily overboosting the Tomahawks. As best I've been able to determine, that came later with the Kittyhawks when the rated power of around 45" HG was way too low for the amount of weight it was carrying. And far less power than the new engines could handle, it turned out.

Part of the thing with the extra fuel in a long or medium range fighter (compared to an interceptor / frontal aviation type) means that the fighter may have _too much _fuel for a fight until it's flown for a while. Kind of like the P-51 with the fuselage tank full. It can fly but it's probably not a good idea to fight until you burn some of that fuel. When they had to use P-40s to scramble to intercept targets over their own airfields like in China, Java and so on, they often put in less fuel, and if it's on an escort mission it's probably going to (as you so often note) warm up, taxi out, takeoff, climb to altitude, form up and then fly halfway to the target before they are likely to hit any enemy fighters, hence the 120 gallons isn't necessarily unrealistic. That ~400 lbs of fuel made a difference as it was right on the edge of the weight limit for the engine, with the cutoff being a horsepower to weight ratio of at least 0.15 and a rate of climb of at least 2,500 fpm

The early Kittyhawk (P-40D/E) fell below both of those thresholds until they figured out the boost issues. 

P-40B had *0.153* hp to lb (at that loaded weight of 6,835 lbs), at the heavier weight it's *0.143*.
P-40E flying at 45" Hg (1,150 hp) had *0.138* (at a loaded weight 8,280 lbs)
P-40E flying at 56" Hg (1,470 hp) was *0.177* which is pretty decent for a fighter of that era, and burning fuel on the way to the target that will improve.
though a Bf 109E had closer to *0.2* and I think the Spit I was close to that. And they get better as they burn fuel too.

The Bf 110 C4 (according to this) had a decent power / mass ratio of* 0.155*

I thought the Critical Altitude for the Spit I and II was around 16,000 ft, is that incorrect? If that is correct it's about 3-4,000 ft higher than the V-1710-33 (depending on who you believe)

Didn't the DB 601 have the hydromatic supercharger gear?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jul 13, 2020)

Beaufighter VI looks like it had a power / mass ratio of 0.157 and an initial climb rate of 2300 fpm. I would assume the Beaufighter I wouldn't be that far off from that because HP was close and the weight was less.


----------



## Koopernic (Jul 13, 2020)

Denniss said:


> In the other chart the G-2 may have been equipped with rocked pods (just Nebelwerfer is readable), speed is with Kampfleistung (30min rating) and not full power.
> Plus the speed chart does not look right, it looks like a two-speed supercharged engine but not like one with fluid supercharger coupling



The Me 110G2 had a speed of 369mph. With flame dampers and radar aerials the speed dropped to 346mph. Even more was lost with drop tanks and their attachment points. At one point the aircraft had to carry both SN-2 radar and Lichtenstein C2 radar which cost nearly 100kmh in total. 369mph is not a bad speed and I imagine it could have been used as a torpedo bomber as it could also lift 4400lbs of bombs.

The slow speed and modest range (it often carried drop tanks) meant a long interception time and RAF spoof raids often burned up time. By the time the deception was discovered the Me 110 was in the wrong location and could not find the real bomber stream.

The Beaufighter, despite its slower speed, was less effected by the drag of the radar it carried because of the greater power. British Radar appears to have been heavier and bulkier by a factor of 4 (300lbs easily) but it had much less external drag even in the non microwave versions. it didn't matter, the Beaufighters had plenty of internal space. This is one reason Britain had airborn radar so early, the space in the Beuefighter.

One of the Me 110 early specification tasks was 'bad weather fighter' which means night fighter, It could be fitted with navigation homing and triangulation equipment as well as FuBl blind landing equipment and had an operator to do the triangulations etc.

The range was too limited to make it an efficient night fighter but it was there when needed. The Luftwaffe didn't have good night fighters till the Ju 88R (with BMW 801) and the purpose bult Ju 88G1.

It should be noted that the Wurzburg radar was in service in 1941 and could easily position an Me 110 to within 300ft of a bomber.

Interestingly the Me 110 never received water methanol injection equipment like the Me 109G14 did.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Elmas (Jul 13, 2020)

I was wondering how a Mosquito with 1935/6 engines could have been.


----------



## Snautzer01 (Jul 13, 2020)

Koopernic said:


> The Me 110G2 had a speed of 369mph. With flame dampers and radar aerials the speed dropped to 346mph. Even more was lost with drop tanks and their attachment points. At one point the aircraft had to carry both SN-2 radar and Lichtenstein C2 radar which cost nearly 100kmh in total. 369mph is not a bad speed and I imagine it could have been used as a torpedo bomber as it could also lift 4400lbs of bombs.
> 
> The slow speed and modest range (it often carried drop tanks) meant a long interception time and RAF spoof raids often burned up time. By the time the deception was discovered the Me 110 was in the wrong location and could not find the real bomber stream.
> 
> ...


You do know a vey big percentage of night kills were done by bf110 crews? The germans had no good nightfighter untill...the bulk of all were shot down with 110. Weakpoint was not the fighter but the Himmelbett system.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jul 13, 2020)

Afaik the Bf 110G-2 was a Zerstoerer not a Nachtjaeger, the G-4 was a Nachtjaeger

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jul 13, 2020)

Does anyone know the range of the Gloster F.9/37


----------



## Greyman (Jul 13, 2020)

No range figures -- but for what its worth it carried 170 imp gallons of fuel.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jul 14, 2020)

Schweik said:


> What prevented them from making a long range version in 1941 or 42? Were they unable to put a lot of fuel in the wings? What was the real problem with the 210? I always thought it was the backward swept wing causing stability issues but I've been told that's incorrect.
> 
> Can somebody break down the internal fuel capacity of the Beaufighter vs the Bf 110?



Beaufighters were carrying 550 imp gals of fuel internally early on - 2500L - and later 682 imp gals - 3100 liters. The drop tanks up to 200 gals were later the options.
Bf 110C was carrying up to 965 kg of fuel internally (~ 1270L, or, obviously, ~635L per engine); similar was fuel tankage for Bf 110B (Jumo 210 engines) - 1220L. External tanks were more than making the Bf 110s the long-range fighters, to the best of my knowledge the 2x900 L was maximum. The ungainly belly tank was holding 1050 L of fuel (and some engine oil). It was possible to carry both belly tank and wing tanks.

One wonders how good/bad would've been a German fighter with same fuel-per-engine tankage as the Bf 110, but on just 1 engine. Or a British fighter powered by single Hercules and 225 imp gals.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jul 14, 2020)

Elmas said:


> I was wondering how a Mosquito with 1935/6 engines could have been.



Certainly faster than the fastest bombers of the day - Do 17, SB-2, Blenheim. Plus, faster than any fighter in service (perhaps not faster than latest I-16?).

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Jul 14, 2020)

tomo pauk said:


> Beaufighters were carrying 550 imp gals of fuel internally early on - 2500L - and later 682 imp gals - 3100 liters. The drop tanks up to 200 gals were later the options.
> Bf 110C was carrying up to 965 kg of fuel internally (~ 1270L, or, obviously, ~635L per engine); similar was fuel tankage for Bf 110B (Jumo 210 engines) - 1220L. External tanks were more than making the Bf 110s the long-range fighters, to the best of my knowledge the 2x900 L was maximum. The ungainly belly tank was holding 1050 L of fuel (and some engine oil). It was possible to carry both belly tank and wing tanks.
> 
> One wonders how good/bad would've been a German fighter with same fuel-per-engine tankage as the Bf 110, but on just 1 engine. Or a British fighter powered by single Hercules and 225 imp gals.


Stick the Hercules power egg on the Miles M20 or retain the Merlin, add 2 x 60 IMG drop tanks and then you've got your long range fighter. Alternatively wait for the Merlin powered Mustang, maybe even longer for the MB5.


----------



## Schweik (Jul 14, 2020)

tomo pauk said:


> Beaufighters were carrying 550 imp gals of fuel internally early on - 2500L - and later 682 imp gals - 3100 liters. The drop tanks up to 200 gals were later the options.
> Bf 110C was carrying up to 965 kg of fuel internally (~ 1270L, or, obviously, ~635L per engine); similar was fuel tankage for Bf 110B (Jumo 210 engines) - 1220L. External tanks were more than making the Bf 110s the long-range fighters, to the best of my knowledge the 2x900 L was maximum. The ungainly belly tank was holding 1050 L of fuel (and some engine oil). It was possible to carry both belly tank and wing tanks.
> 
> One wonders how good/bad would've been a German fighter with same fuel-per-engine tankage as the Bf 110, but on just 1 engine. Or a British fighter powered by single Hercules and 225 imp gals.



I suspect the historical reality is they could have made them, but because of the way the war was going (the direct survival impetus so to speak) militated toward the fastest best performing interceptor / frontal aviation fighter possible, and because the British could get longer range aircraft from the Americans, they just didn't prioritize a longer range fighter enough in time to get anything into action during the war, really. Plus the British had the Mosquito.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jul 14, 2020)

By late 1942 it was starting to dawn on the Germans that they were in a death struggle with the Soviets that they might not win, and they were beginning a long phase of increasingly desperate crisis management so clarity of Strategic thinking may have been affected.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jul 14, 2020)

Schweik said:


> By late 1942 it was starting to dawn on the Germans that they were in a death struggle with the Soviets that they might not win, and they were beginning a long phase of increasingly desperate crisis management so clarity of Strategic thinking may have been affected.





Schweik said:


> I suspect the historical reality is they could have made them, but because of the way the war was going (the direct survival impetus so to speak) militated toward the fastest best performing interceptor / frontal aviation fighter possible, and because the British could get longer range aircraft from the Americans, they just didn't prioritize a longer range fighter enough in time to get anything into action during the war, really. Plus the British had the Mosquito.



??
Bf 110B, with 610L of fuel per Jumo 210, was in service in early 1939. Not sure what 1942 has to do with anything.


----------



## Schweik (Jul 14, 2020)

tomo pauk said:


> ??
> Bf 110B, with 610L of fuel per Jumo 210, was in service in early 1939.



Forgive me, what is your point? Are you saying it had very good range?



> Not sure what 1942 has to do with anything.



The end of 1942 was Stalingrad. The Germans were in a bit of trouble from that point onward. Probably hard to completely relax and make good long term plans....

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jul 14, 2020)

To clarify my positions, my understanding is that the Bf 110 lacked a good range throughout the war and was a bit sub-par in daytime air to air combat after 1940. The other points are built from that basic premise.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 14, 2020)

tomo pauk said:


> Certainly faster than the fastest bombers of the day - Do 17, SB-2, Blenheim. Plus, faster than any fighter in service (perhaps not faster than latest I-16?).



From Wiki

"The first 136 Fairey-built Battles were the first to be powered by the *Merlin I* engine.[2] By the end of 1937, 85 Battles had been completed and a number of RAF squadrons had been re-equipped with the type, or were otherwise in the process of re-equipping"
The Merlin I had the ramp style head. 890hp for take-off. 



Kevin J said:


> Stick the Hercules power egg on the Miles M20



Which power egg?

The one with the Hercules III or the one with the Hercules VI engine?

1250hp at 16,750ft is just not enough from a radial engine with a really crappy cowl. 





Carb intake at 12 o'clock, crap for exhaust thrust, high drag plus the oil cooler hanging out at 6 0'clock. 

The Miles M 20 used a Merlin XX poweregg and had a bit more power than a Merlin III several thousand feet higher and had the benefit of around 100hp of exhaust thrust at high speed in the upper teens. 

Please see the P-36 tests and P-40 tests for the difference in power needed for a radial engine of the time and a V-12 engine of the time when installed on the same airframe. 
Unless you can also introduce cowling/radial cooling knowledge from several years after 1940-41 the Hercules is a non-starter. Also please note a Hercules is several hundred pounds heavier than a Single stage Merlin + radiator + coolant. 

Another strike against the quick and dirty stick a power egg on it idea, Beaufighter used a 12ft 9 in propeller. 

Hercules powered fighter might want a different reduction gear? 

An escort fighter has to be able defend the bombers, not just fly along side them. That is where the 110 gets part of it's bad reputation. The 100 could certainly fly alongside the bombers, it could not defend them while doing so.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 14, 2020)

Schweik said:


> To clarify my positions, my understanding is that the Bf 110 lacked a good range throughout the war and was a bit sub-par in daytime air to air combat after 1940. The other points are built from that basic premise.



Did it have the range to get to most of it's targets or could it be modified to do so fairly easily?
Yes the big belly tank was a mistake. could later versions carry under fuselage ordnance plus drop tanks? 

German range requirements were less than that of the allies. Germans could base in captured countries, Allies had to fly over the captured countries in order to hit Germany proper. 

Just about any twin engine fighter was sub par in air to air combat vs single engine fighters.
However single engine fighters are not the only aircraft that need engaging. 
Could 110s perform maritime patrol or strike missions better than 109s or 190s? 
Could 110s do bomber intercepts in the early years better than 109s?

The 110 was another German aircraft that did not have a smooth development curve. by that I mean it's development was somewhat in fits and starts as it supposed to be taken out of production at least once if not several times and then reinstated when the desired replacement turned out to be a turkey. This did NOT help later models stay up to date or as competitive as they might have been.


----------



## Kevin J (Jul 14, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> From Wiki
> 
> "The first 136 Fairey-built Battles were the first to be powered by the *Merlin I* engine.[2] By the end of 1937, 85 Battles had been completed and a number of RAF squadrons had been re-equipped with the type, or were otherwise in the process of re-equipping"
> The Merlin I had the ramp style head. 890hp for take-off.
> ...


You Americans just don't understand English sarcasm.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jul 14, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> Did it have the range to get to most of it's targets or could it be modified to do so fairly easily?
> Yes the big belly tank was a mistake. could later versions carry under fuselage ordnance plus drop tanks?
> 
> German range requirements were less than that of the allies. Germans could base in captured countries, Allies had to fly over the captured countries in order to hit Germany proper.



Only if you convinced yourself that their only target was England



> Just about any twin engine fighter was sub par in air to air combat vs single engine fighters.



What about a late model P-38?

I know these are rhetorical but I'll answer anyway....



> However single engine fighters are not the only aircraft that need engaging.



For the mid-war, this is one of the real issues. Not so much single-engined fighters per se, but the first string vs. the second string. In Russia, second line fighters were manning most of the PVO units. that were protecting the operational targets in the rear areas, at least until some time in 1943 when they started getting some Spit IXs. Those clapped out Hurricanes, I-16s and LaGG-3s could take out bombers but a heavy fighter might be a problem. In the and the Bay of Biscay, the Atlantic, and in the MTO, you had Strategically vital convoys guarded by aircraft carriers which were in turn protected by Gladiators, Skuas, Sea Hurricanes, Fulmars and so on. Many of these were almost wiped out, a few were turned around. Even a Bf 110 could protect bombers from those if it could reach the target area. And that might have made a big difference... SS Ohio barely made it into port and sank in the slip.






One more bomb definitely would have done her in...

In Egypt, Algeria, Libya, Tunisia, Allied forces were bringing in supplies and staging for major offensives largely unscathed. The Germans could have done a lot more damage if they had a good escort fighter.



> Could 110s perform maritime patrol or strike missions better than 109s or 190s?



Yea but, not as well as Beaufighters. And that was actually a problem. Nor could they escort Ju 88s to their maximum range.



> Could 110s do bomber intercepts in the early years better than 109s?



Unescorted bombers, sure. Anything else? Not so much.



> The 110 was another German aircraft that did not have a smooth development curve. by that I mean it's development was somewhat in fits and starts as it supposed to be taken out of production at least once if not several times and then reinstated when the desired replacement turned out to be a turkey. This did NOT help later models stay up to date or as competitive as they might have been.



Well every aircraft has stories like that. Look how long it took to upgrade the Spit after the V.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 14, 2020)

Schweik said:


> Yea but, not as well as Beaufighters. And that was actually a problem. Nor could they escort Ju 88s to their maximum range.



You are the one who wants to turn this into a 110 vs Beaufighter argument. 
You can't turn a 110 into Beaufighter, it isn't big enough, it isn't heavy enough and the Germans didn't have an engine even the Hercules III catagory until 1941 and as relayed by koopernic in another thread, the BMW 801 was nowhere near reliable enough for long range missions in 1941. So that puts you into 1942. 

applying 1941-42 standards to a plane that first flew in in May of 1936 seems a bit unfair ( See P-40s built in 1941-42 compared to FW 190s and Typhoons) 

Not being able to escort Ju 88s to their max range is not that big a deal. Ju-88s operating at max range have about zero bomb load. 
So pick a worthwhile bomb load and try to find out how far a JU-88 could actually carry it. If it is more than 10 50 kg bombs the bombs go on the outside which really screws up the speed/range. 

and if the 110 doesn't have enough gun armament then the Ju-88C-2 was a real failure and the C-4 only a marginal improvement.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jul 15, 2020)

Schweik said:


> Forgive me, what is your point? Are you saying it had very good range?
> 
> 
> 
> The end of 1942 was Stalingrad. The Germans were in a bit of trouble from that point onward. Probably hard to completely relax and make good long term plans....



It have had a very good range.
Discussing 1942 is all good and well, Germany needs to kick UK out of the war by 1940/41 in order to stand chances.



Schweik said:


> To clarify my positions, my understanding is that the Bf 110 lacked a good range throughout the war and was a bit sub-par in daytime air to air combat after 1940.
> ...



I think we all agree with that.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Jul 15, 2020)

Schweik said:


> Well every aircraft has stories like that. Look how long it took to upgrade the Spit after the V.



How long did it take?


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Jul 15, 2020)

Milosh said:


> How long did it take?


Over a year. Spitfire V in combat March 1941. Spitfire IX June 1942.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jul 15, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> You are the one who wants to turn this into a 110 vs Beaufighter argument.



No, I don't think that's a valid assertion. I brought up the Beaufighter initially because I was told it was impossible to build a long range fighter in 1940. The Beau and the Zero are probably the two best counter examples to disprove that specious claim. But here I'm referring to the Beaufighter specifically because particularly in the maritime war from the Bay of Biscay to the Aegean, the Beaufigher was operating as probably the main competitor to the Bf 110 and frankly by the end of 1942 it was dominating those spaces.



> You can't turn a 110 into Beaufighter, it isn't big enough, it isn't heavy enough and the Germans didn't have an engine even the Hercules III catagory until 1941 and as relayed by koopernic in another thread, the BMW 801 was nowhere near reliable enough for long range missions in 1941. So that puts you into 1942.



I don't think it's necessary to turn a 110 into a Beau to improve it's range. Much smaller aircraft than the Beaufighter (see Mosquito) _or_ the 110 (see P-38) managed much better range than the 110 and had better flight characteristics and performance to boot. It's a fairly low bar.



> applying 1941-42 standards to a plane that first flew in in May of 1936 seems a bit unfair ( See P-40s built in 1941-42 compared to FW 190s and Typhoons)



And yet, P-40s were still flying front line combat missions, and tangling with Fw 190s as late as Anzio in 1944. Meanwhile, the 1930's vintage Bf 109 was competitive until the end of the war. So was the Spitfire. The Beaufighter and Zero were still dangerous in 1942 or 43 or 44 even though they were 1940 designs.



> Not being able to escort Ju 88s to their max range is not that big a deal. Ju-88s operating at max range have about zero bomb load.



Ah, but you are being a little bit literal minded here my friend, was that an accident? Ju 88s were flying bombing missions, air strikes, against ground targets and ships, until Allied fighters showed up to dissuade them. Sometimes they had to do it anyway and took heavy losses. A worthy escort fighter would have helped.



> So pick a worthwhile bomb load and try to find out how far a JU-88 could actually carry it. If it is more than 10 50 kg bombs the bombs go on the outside which really screws up the speed/range.



To sink a ship like the Ohio a 1,000 bomb load was sufficient.



> and if the 110 doesn't have enough gun armament then the Ju-88C-2 was a real failure and the C-4 only a marginal improvement.



When did I ever say, imply, or suggest that the 110 had insufficient gun armament?

But since you bring it up, the Beau had 10 guns to the 110s 6.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jul 15, 2020)

tomo pauk said:


> It have had a very good range.



I don't agree and I don't think you've shown that it did.



> Discussing 1942 is all good and well, Germany needs to kick UK out of the war by 1940/41 in order to stand chances.



Germany almost won the Battle of the Mediterranean. If they had an effective long range fighter they might have done so. Long range fighter would have also helped in the Russian war by allowing better interdiction of Operational and Strategic targets. Even against England, they could have had a greater impact against the convoys at least.





> I think we all agree with that.



In that case I don't understand your first comment.


----------



## Dimlee (Jul 15, 2020)

Schweik said:


> In Russia, second line fighters were manning most of the PVO units. that were protecting the operational targets in the rear areas, at least until some time in 1943 when they started getting some Spit IXs.



More likely, until some time in spring 1942 when PVO began to receive Yak-7/7a (Yak-7b since end summer).

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jul 15, 2020)

But could a Yak 7 intercept a high flying Ju 88?


----------



## Kevin J (Jul 15, 2020)

Schweik said:


> But could a Yak 7 intercept a high flying Ju 88?


Only a Mig-3, Spitfire IX, Thunderbolt or Kingcobra. Hurricane IIc, P-40M/N went to PVO too.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jul 15, 2020)

In order to do effective damage, the Ju 88 needed to dive bomb, which brought them down low. But they were often doing that at Malta and Hurricanes seemed unable to catch them.

I think there were also some high(er) altitude Yak variants right?


----------



## Kevin J (Jul 15, 2020)

Schweik said:


> In order to do effective damage, the Ju 88 needed to dive bomb, which brought them down low. But they were often doing that at Malta and Hurricanes seemed unable to catch them.
> 
> I think there were also some high(er) altitude Yak variants right?


Yes, the Yak-9U appeared late in the war.


----------



## Dimlee (Jul 15, 2020)

Schweik said:


> But could a Yak 7 intercept a high flying Ju 88?



Flying how high. 
They did intercept German bombers in some cases. They could not intercept high flying recon aircraft of Theodor Rowehl units.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dimlee (Jul 15, 2020)

Schweik said:


> In order to do effective damage, the Ju 88 needed to dive bomb, which brought them down low. But they were often doing that at Malta and Hurricanes seemed unable to catch them.
> 
> I think there were also some high(er) altitude Yak variants right?



Yak-9PD in 1943. Some of them climbed up to 11,000 m. They tried and failed to intercept Ju 86Rs over Moscow in 1943-1944.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jul 15, 2020)

Dimlee said:


> Yak-9PD in 1943. Some of them climbed up to 11,000 m. They tried and failed to intercept Ju 86Rs over Moscow in 1943-1944.



That should be sufficient to intercept a regular Ju 88 though. Thanks.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jul 15, 2020)

Schweik said:


> I don't agree and I don't think you've shown that it did.



On 2400 rpm (max power & max consumption setting for 1939 vintage DB 601A) and 6 km altitude, the Bf 110C was supposed to do 1040 km. The Bf 109E was supposed to do 520 km under same conditions. All for internal fuel. Both aircraft will cruise on less aggressive power settings, of course, the long use of max rpm is not healthy for engine life.
So I'd still say that range of Bf 110C was very good.



> Germany almost won the Battle of the Mediterranean. If they had an effective long range fighter they might have done so. Long range fighter would have also helped in the Russian war by allowing better interdiction of Operational and Strategic targets. Even against England, they could have had a greater impact against the convoys at least.



Yes, Germany still needed rangy aircraft, even if by early 1942 the question was not who will win, but when will Axis loose.



> In that case I don't understand your first comment.



Sorry, I've misspoke. Te range was good, performance was not worth of investment.


----------



## Schweik (Jul 15, 2020)

1000 km maybe pretty good (I would say 'medium' range) for 1940 but it's really not very impressive by 41 or 42


----------



## wuzak (Jul 15, 2020)

Schweik said:


> I don't think it's necessary to turn a 110 into a Beau to improve it's range. Much smaller aircraft than the Beaufighter (see Mosquito) _or_ the 110 (see P-38) managed much better range than the 110 and had better flight characteristics and performance to boot. It's a fairly low bar.



You think a Mosquito was "much smaller" than the Beaufighter?




Schweik said:


> To sink a ship like the Ohio a 1,000 bomb load was sufficient.



1,000lb or 1,000kg?

1 bomb of 1,000lb/kg, or 2 at 500, or 4 at 250?

What is the range of a Ju 88 with such a bomb load? Given that if the larger size bomb is required, it has to be carried externally.


----------



## Schweik (Jul 15, 2020)

wuzak said:


> You think a Mosquito was "much smaller" than the Beaufighter?



Beaufighter / Mosquito 

57' 10" (17.63 m) / 54' 2 " (16.51 m) - Wingspan 
503 Sq Ft (46.7 Sq m) / 454 Sq Ft (42.2 Sq m) - Wing Area
41' 4" / 44' 6" (13.56 m) - Length
15,592 lb / 14,300 lb - Empty Weight

"much" is a subjective term, but I'd estimate it was about 10% smaller. The wing in particular, which is usually where most of the fuel goes, is just about 90% the wing area of a Beaufighter.

My original point which you may have forgotten was that you didn't need to turn a Bf 110 into a Beaufighter to give it long range. The Me 210, for all it's faults, had nearly twice the range and fuel capacity (2,500 liters vs 1,200) of a Bf 110 with a somewhat smaller wing.



> 1,000lb or 1,000kg?
> 
> 1 bomb of 1,000lb/kg, or 2 at 500, or 4 at 250?
> 
> What is the range of a Ju 88 with such a bomb load? Given that if the larger size bomb is required, it has to be carried externally.



My understanding is that the normal practice with the Ju 88 on a long range strike was to put extra fuel in the internal bomb bays and carry 250 kg bombs on the external hard points, two 250 kg bombs is about 1,100 lbs. And a hit with a 250 kg bomb can sink a ship like the SS Ohio, which is what they needed to do most.

It could carry much more (up to 2,000 kg for an A4, according to this source) but that wouldn't be as common for a long range strike.

I don't know the precise range of a Ju 88 carrying a bomb load, but the "normal range" was listed as over 1,200 miles, and I know that Ju 88 units stationed in Crete did strikes on Malta which is around 400 miles I think round trip. No Bf 109 could make that journey, though of course they could fly from Sicily.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 15, 2020)

Schweik said:


> No, I don't think that's a valid assertion. I brought up the Beaufighter initially because I was told it was impossible to build a long range fighter in 1940. The Beau and the Zero are probably the two best counter examples to disprove that specious claim. But here I'm referring to the Beaufighter specifically because particularly in the maritime war from the Bay of Biscay to the Aegean, the Beaufigher was operating as probably the main competitor to the Bf 110 and frankly by the end of 1942 it was dominating those spaces.



For an example of a poor long range fighter see the Blenheim IF. Yes it could fly 1000 miles but it's ablitiies against single engine (or the BF 110 ) in daylight are certainly subject to question. Before you poo-poo this notion please remember that in Jan 1940 Blenheim IFs equipped 17 squadrons in Britain, More than any other other fighter (Hurricanes equipped 15 squadrons) A number of these squadrons were re-equipped with Hurricanes and Spitfires before the BoB.

The "specious claim" needs a little clarifying. You could build long range fighters (1000 miles) before 1940, they just weren't likely to be very good. So does that mean impossible to build a 1000 mile fighter or impossible to build one that would be effective. Two different arguments.





> I don't think it's necessary to turn a 110 into a Beau to improve it's range. Much smaller aircraft than the Beaufighter (see Mosquito) _or_ the 110 (see P-38) managed much better range than the 110 and had better flight characteristics and performance to boot. It's a fairly low bar.



Not really,
empty weight of a 110C-1..............9,775lbs.
empty weight of a 110G-4c..............11,220lbs.
Empty weight (tare) of a Mosquito NF II........13,431lbs.
Tare weight. Beaufighter MK VI.......... 14,900lbs
empty weight of a YP-38......................11.196lbs.
empty weight of a P-38J........................12,780lbs.

and just for laughs.
empty _equipped _weight of a Me 210A-1.....15,586lbs
empty _equipped _weight of a Me 410A-1.....16,574lbs

Granted empty _equipped_ is heavier than just empty or tare weight. The 110 was considerably lighter than the planes it is being compared to and was designed with smaller engines (not the Jumo 210, but the almost 1000hp DB600).



The Mosquito NF II is delivered to the first service squadron in Jan of 1942. What was the boost level allowed for the Merlin 21 at that time?



> And yet, P-40s were still flying front line combat missions, and tangling with Fw 190s as late as Anzio in 1944.



They were tangling with FW 190, were they posting a positive kill ratio?



> Meanwhile, the 1930's vintage Bf 109 was competitive until the end of the war. So was the Spitfire.


ROFLMAO.

Bf 109C/Ds were competitive until the end of the war?
Spitfire Is with fixed pitch props were competitive at the end of the war?

Yeah, I took it the wrong way on purpose. The 109 was not competitive, it was _useful_ when fitted with a 1944 engine and 1942/44 guns. There had also been a major redesign with the "F" version. Late model Spits used engines that were like science fiction to an aircraft designer in the mid to late 30s.





> Ah, but you are being a little bit literal minded here my friend, was that an accident? Ju 88s were flying bombing missions, air strikes, against ground targets and ships, until Allied fighters showed up to dissuade them. Sometimes they had to do it anyway and took heavy losses. A worthy escort fighter would have helped.



No accident, I am simply tired of being told how great the range of the JU-88 was.
see the last post on this page for a loading chart on the Ju-88 from Tomo.
On German bombers
The max range often quoted is with both internal bomb bays fitted with fuel tanks and and no external bombs.





> To sink a ship like the Ohio a 1,000 bomb load was sufficient.


She seems to have survived quite a few bomb loads, some of which were delivered by Ju 87s.





> When did I ever say, imply, or suggest that the 110 had insufficient gun armament?



Me "Could 110s perform maritime patrol or strike missions better than 109s or 190s? "

you "Yea but, not as well as Beaufighters. And that was actually a problem. Nor could they escort Ju 88s to their maximum range. "

for quite a while Coastal Command Beaufighters used their guns and guns alone for maritime patrol and Maritime strike. The first torpedo carrying Beaufighters were issued to No 254 Squadron in Nov 1942. The first strike wing comprised this squadron, another squadron with gun only Beaufighters and a 3rd squadron whose Beaufighters carried a pair of 500lb bombs.
I would note that the 110 actually carried bombs several years before the Beaufighter did. Granted only a small number of 110s were used as fast bombers but until the end of 1942 no Beaufighters carried bombs.


----------



## Schweik (Jul 15, 2020)

I'm well ware of Blenheim "Fighters"

It's funny, I have a distinct memory of myself arguing in this forum that a late model Spit or 109 was substantially different from the 1940 model, and was more or less shouted down. I also remember you arguing a few times that a P-36 and a P-40F were the same plane. 

Implying that I was ever arguing or suggesting or implying that any aircraft should be able to compete in WW2 _unchanged_ from 1940 to 1945, without substantial improvements in engines, guns, armor, communication systems, streamlining, etc. etc. etc., is specious. So pick yourself up off the floor and dust yourself off.

The basic design of the 109 was the same, it was substantially improved enough that it was certainly _different_ by 1945, and at what point it becomes a new plane is certainly a point worth discussing, (I can see both sides of that) but I would expect the same thing from a 'good' heavy fighter as well. If the 210 had worked out it would have been that fighter for the 110. 

See my post above on the range and bomb carrying capacity of the Ju 88

Beaufighters were not carrying bombs or torpedoes initially partly because the plane they were developed from, the Beaufort, was still operational and still pretty effective.


----------



## Schweik (Jul 15, 2020)

As for Bf 110 and P-38 - I was comparing _size_ not weight.

Wing area of a P-38 was 327.5 ft
Wing area of a Bf 110 was 413.3 ft

Wing span of the P-38 was 52'
Wing span of the Bf 110 was 53'

Length of the P-38 was 37' 10"
Length of the Bf 110 was 39' 7"

Again, how you define "much' is subjective, but the P-38 was smaller. Most importantly it had far less space in the wings which is where, ultimately with most successful WW2 aircraft, the gas usually goes.


----------



## Schweik (Jul 15, 2020)

The Beaufort, which incidentally is another favorite of mine, had the same range as the Beaufighter.

Bristol Beaufort - Wikipedia

"Over the next 11 months, the Beaufort force, now usually accompanied by Beaufighters, was instrumental in crippling the convoy supply lines that were vital to Rommel's _Afrika Korps_. "


----------



## SaparotRob (Jul 15, 2020)

Did Bf-110’s engage with Grumman Martlets?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 15, 2020)

Schweik said:


> I don't know the precise range of a Ju 88 carrying a bomb load, but the "normal range" was listed as over 1,200 miles,



The JU-88A-1 using the wing tanks is listed as having a range of 620 miles at 217mph at 18,500ft. (369imp gallons) When using the forward bomb bay for fuel ((268 imp gallons)the range is given as 1055 miles. 
The A-1 didn't put fuel in the rear bay.

The JU-88A-4 with the bigger wing and more powerful engines is listed at 1112 miles with 647imp gallons and 1696 miles with 886 imp gallons. Actual speed, altitude and exact configuration will change these a bit. The A-4 used the same size wing tanks as the A-1.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 15, 2020)

Schweik said:


> It's funny, I have a distinct memory of myself arguing in this forum that a late model Spit or 109 was substantially different from the 1940 model, and was more or less shouted down. I also remember you arguing a few times that a P-36 and a P-40F were the same plane.




As far as the P-36 and P-40F goes. The airframe of the P-40F was beefed up. The landing gear lost the doors. And after that, just about all the changes were internal with most taking place forward of the firewall. Later P-40Fs did get the extended fuselage. But the wing stayed the same shape and airfoil. The wing root fairings stayed the same, the cockpit/canopy stayed the same, the vertical stabilizer and rudder stayed the same, the horizontal and elevators stayed the same and in the same location even after the vertical stabilizer and rudder where moved back 20 inches. the fuel tanks even stayed pretty much in the same locations and only changed a bit in capacity due to the self sealing employed. 
The "P-40" is rather unique in the fact that the airframe differed so little despite the variety of engines used in it making it useful as a comparison tool for different types/configurations of engines (at least over a few year period).
Please show me how I am wrong about the P-36/P-40. 

The 109 went through at least two major revisions, the first when they replaced the Jumo 210 with the DB 601. The second when they did the F model. Your sources may vary,
one of mine (and it could be in error) gives the following changes for the "F"

No changes to the wing profile, taper or _basic_ structure. However.
The leading edge slats were reduced in span.
The ailerons were reduced in span but increased in cord so the area stayed the same.
The ailerons were no longer interconnected with the flaps.
The ailerons were changed from slotted to the Frise type. 
The wing span was first reduced and then the wing tips changed to rounded restoring most of the lost area. 
The Radiators were changed from the type used in the E.
deeper more symmetrical engine cowl with bigger spinner. 
Supercharger inlet moved outboard fro better RAM.
New type of propeller of slightly smaller diameter.
The rudder area was slightly reduced.
The vertical stabilizer's symmetrical section was replaced by a cambered section to reduce the amount of rudder needed while climbing. 
the tail plane lost the struts and was relocated slightly lower and more forward of the original location. 
The tailwheel was made semi retractable
six degrees more rake was added to the landing gear. 

A lot of planes got modified some. The 109F was not a totally different plane than the 109E but obviously a fair amount of new tooling was needed and a lot of parts no longer interchanged.


----------



## Schweik (Jul 16, 2020)

SaparotRob said:


> Did Bf-110’s engage with Grumman Martlets?



They were in the same area - some Martlets operated in the Med both on carriers and briefly from land, but I haven't seen any examples of them fighting. They didn't seem to get in that many engagements, the main combat that Wildcats saw was a short but fairly intense battle against the French at the time of the Torch landings.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jul 16, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> The JU-88A-1 using the wing tanks is listed as having a range of 620 miles at 217mph at 18,500ft. (369imp gallons) When using the forward bomb bay for fuel ((268 imp gallons)the range is given as 1055 miles.
> The A-1 didn't put fuel in the rear bay.
> 
> The JU-88A-4 with the bigger wing and more powerful engines is listed at 1112 miles with 647imp gallons and 1696 miles with 886 imp gallons. Actual speed, altitude and exact configuration will change these a bit. The A-4 used the same size wing tanks as the A-1.



I was going by this page which is usually pretty good, though the range they are quoting is without bombs and probably both bomb bays full of fuel

Junkers Ju-88 - Technical pages - German U-boats of WWII - Kriegsmarine - uboat.net

I have some books on the Ju 88 but I hesitate to go look for them unless it's really necessary.


----------



## Schweik (Jul 16, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> As far as the P-36 and P-40F goes. The airframe of the P-40F was beefed up. The landing gear lost the doors. And after that, just about all the changes were internal with most taking place forward of the firewall. Later P-40Fs did get the extended fuselage. But the wing stayed the same shape and airfoil. The wing root fairings stayed the same, the cockpit/canopy stayed the same, the vertical stabilizer and rudder stayed the same, the horizontal and elevators stayed the same and in the same location even after the vertical stabilizer and rudder where moved back 20 inches. the fuel tanks even stayed pretty much in the same locations and only changed a bit in capacity due to the self sealing employed.
> The "P-40" is rather unique in the fact that the airframe differed so little despite the variety of engines used in it making it useful as a comparison tool for different types/configurations of engines (at least over a few year period).
> Please show me how I am wrong about the P-36/P-40.
> 
> ...



They aren't the same, the canopy by the way did change. They didn't dramatically change the wing because it was a good design to begin with, but they certainly changed the wing armament. That said, I don't want to debate the P-40 _again_ in this particular thread, we can do it in some other one.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 16, 2020)

Schweik said:


> They didn't dramatically change the wing because it was a good design to begin with, but they certainly changed the wing armament.


Changed the wing armament on F4Fs, F4Us (four 20mm cannon) some F6Fs, Hurricanes, Spitfires. and others, Few people claim changing the wing armament changed the aircraft to a new type of aircraft. 
BTW the XP-36D (serial 38-174) was used to test two ,30 cal guns in each wing with 500rpg and a pair of .50 cal guns in the fuselage with 200rpg. The XP-36E (Serial 38-147) was used to test either three or four .30 cal guns in each wing with 500rpg, the single .50 cal gun in the cowl was not operational. The XP-36F (serial 38-172) was used to test both a pair 23mm Madson cannon with 100rpg in underwing pods and at a different point in time a pair of 20mm Hispano guns. (around April 16th 1940). With the Madsen cannon the speed fell to 265mph.


----------



## Schweik (Jul 16, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> Changed the wing armament on F4Fs, F4Us (four 20mm cannon) some F6Fs, Hurricanes, Spitfires. and others, Few people claim changing the wing armament changed the aircraft to a new type of aircraft.
> BTW the XP-36D (serial 38-174) was used to test two ,30 cal guns in each wing with 500rpg and a pair of .50 cal guns in the fuselage with 200rpg. The XP-36E (Serial 38-147) was used to test either three or four .30 cal guns in each wing with 500rpg, the single .50 cal gun in the cowl was not operational. The XP-36F (serial 38-172) was used to test both a pair 23mm Madson cannon with 100rpg in underwing pods and at a different point in time a pair of 20mm Hispano guns. (around April 16th 1940). With the Madsen cannon the speed fell to 265mph.



Ok so you are doubling down on the late model P-40 is the _same_ aircraft as a P-36, no debate, no wiggle room,











... while the late model Bf 109 is a completely different aircraft from an early 109.











At the same time. You are arguing both of these points at the same time. No debate, no wiggle room.

Your confidence is impressive. If you can really convince yourself of that, you are in sync with the times, I'll give you that one.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 16, 2020)

Schweik said:


> Ok so you are doubling down on the late model P-40 is the _same_ aircraft as a P-36, no debate, no wiggle room,



Nice picture. I believe I have already noted that the later P-40s got the extended fuselage/tail? and we do know they changed the engine which changed the nose contours.
So that proves..............? for other changes?
I believe I have acknowledged that they beefed up the structure. The wing gained about 300lbs for instance so no you can't take a P-36 wing and stick an P-40 fuselage and engine on it and hang a 500lb (or 1000lb) bomb from each wing.







> ... while the late model Bf 109 is a completely different aircraft from an early 109.
> At the same time. You are arguing both of these points at the same time. No debate, no wiggle room.



You can debate it, just use facts and not profile pictures which ignore the 5 changes I listed for the wings,
I listed changes from the E to the F, you posted a drawing of a late G or K?



> Your confidence is impressive. If you can really convince yourself of that, you are in sync with the times, I'll give you that one.



when facts fail go for personal attacks. Nice.


----------



## Snautzer01 (Jul 16, 2020)

Wrknr 332660 is a k4 from jg53.

Both of you, please keep it nice. It is a fun discussion. No need to let it spin out of control.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jul 16, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> Nice picture. I believe I have already noted that the later P-40s got the extended fuselage/tail? and we do know they changed the engine which changed the nose contours.
> So that proves..............? for other changes?
> I believe I have acknowledged that they beefed up the structure. The wing gained about 300lbs for instance so no you can't take a P-36 wing and stick an P-40 fuselage and engine on it and hang a 500lb (or 1000lb) bomb from each wing.
> 
> ...



Pretty much any fighter design which progressed and in some form or another saw combat from the 30's to 1945 had to change _a lot_. Whether you call that a new aircraft or not is subjective. If they changed 18 things on a P-40 and 21 things on a Bf 109 and 25 things on an La 7, where you do draw the line? Do you evaluate based on construction / tooling, performance, design what? There are many ways to look at it therefore it's easy to entrench hard positions if you really want to.



> when facts fail go for personal attacks. Nice.



You are a smart guy but this is a very hard position built over some very soft ground.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jul 16, 2020)

Schweik said:


> 1000 km maybe pretty good (I would say 'medium' range) for 1940 but it's really not very impressive by 41 or 42



Let me spell this out:
- 1000 km is long range for German needs when Bf 110 was being conceived & 1st used - it can cover all of Poland and big chunk of France. From France/Belgium/Netherlands, it can cover England.
- 1000 km range was achieved at aggressive engine setting - 2400 rpm and as much boost as supercharger can provide at 6 km. Go down to usual cruise settings (engine RPM between 1600 and 2000 rpm) and range is markedly improved.
- 1000 km range is double what Bf 109E will do.
- By 1941/42, the big drop tanks were in use, and you know that.


----------



## Schweik (Jul 16, 2020)

I understand what you are saying, and I know you know what you are talking about, but I still don't get it. Yes 1,000 km is longer than a Bf 109 - or a Spitfire or a Hurricane or a Yak-1. It's about the same as an LaGG-3. But If you are considering the idea of long range as a world standard, it's not that long, especially once you get into the mid-war. Yes I am aware the Bf 110 got big external fuel tanks, but so did every other aircraft and the 110 never did seem to have sufficient range to reach it's long range targets, at least from the perspective I'm mostly seeing it from in the Med or the Bay of Biscay.

Not to beat a dead horse but the Beaufighter had a 2,800 km range, A6M had 2,600 km range (with a drop tank) P-38 had close to 2,000 km and so on.

I'd call the 110 a "medium ranged aircraft" by the standards of say, 1941. But I can agree to disagree.


----------



## tomo pauk (Jul 16, 2020)

Schweik said:


> I understand what you are saying, and I know you know what you are talking about, but I still don't get it. Yes 1,000 km is longer than a Bf 109 - or a Spitfire or a Hurricane or a Yak-1. It's about the same as an LaGG-3. But If you are considering the idea of long range as a world standard, it's not that long, especially once you get into the mid-war. Yes I am aware the Bf 110 got big external fuel tanks, but so did every other aircraft and the 110 never did seem to have sufficient range to reach it's long range targets, at least from the perspective I'm mostly seeing it from in the Med or the Bay of Biscay.
> 
> Not to beat a dead horse but the Beaufighter had a 2,800 km range, A6M had 2,600 km range (with a drop tank) P-38 had close to 2,000 km and so on.
> I'd call the 110 a "medium ranged aircraft" by the standards of say, 1941. But I can agree to disagree.



So we'd count the drop-tank outfitted P-38 and Zero under long-range fighters, but not the drop-tank outfitted Bf 110? In the same time let's conviniently forget that before late 1940 there was no operative Zero, let alone any operative P-38. No operative Yak-1 or LaGG-3 either.
There was no world classification or standard what is and what is not a long-range fighter. 

Soviet fighters were doing 1000+- km on cruise setting, they didn't not have had drop tanks that were standard for Bf 110 by the time the new gen of Soviet fighters were around; no, not every other aircraft received drop tanks.

But again comparing one fighter from 1939 with another that is from 1941 is not a new vogue on this forum.


----------



## Schweik (Jul 16, 2020)

But isn't there a 1941 and 1942 and 1943 version of the Bf 110? Lets compare like with like, I'm not trying to play any tricks. But I know if the aircraft has say, a 1,000 km range without drop tanks, adding the drop tanks will only improve the range so much, because when the external tanks run out, it still has to make it back to base.

I'm not trying to give you a hard time, I think we just mean different things by the same terms. If a Bf 110 has the same range as a Beaufighter or a P-38 comparing with or without fuel tanks (so long as it's like with like) that is big news to me. It's not that easy to get precise figures for different flight configurations so I'd be glad to see more data. My perspective is mainly from the operational histories I've read from Russia and the Med, the Bay of Biscay and to a lesser extent the Battle of Britain. That is what I'm basing my comments on. If I'm missing something obvious then I apologize.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 16, 2020)

Schweik said:


> Pretty much any fighter design which progressed and in some form or another saw combat from the 30's to 1945 had to change _a lot_. Whether you call that a new aircraft or not is subjective. If they changed 18 things on a P-40 and 21 things on a Bf 109 and 25 things on an La 7, where you do draw the line? Do you evaluate based on construction / tooling, performance, design what? There are many ways to look at it therefore it's easy to entrench hard positions if you really want to.
> 
> 
> 
> You are a smart guy but this is a very hard position built over some very soft ground.




The XF4U had something like 600 or 800 changes before going into production, The Main visual differences are slightly longer nose and cockpit being moved back to fit in the fuselage fuel tank. After that changes to the F4U's airframe were minor. Changing from six .50 cal guns to four 20mm cannon may have required a slew of engineering drawings but the wing span, cord, airfoil, size of the flaps and ailerons all stayed the same.
Likewise on the P-36/P-40. 
By the time you even get to the P-40 the Hawk 75 airframe was on it's 6th or 7th engine/power plant. It had gone from 3760lbs empty to 5,417lbs empty for the XP-40 and from 4843lbs loaded to 6,260lbs normal gross weight. 

So are all the Hawk 75 versions separate aircraft or different versions/models of the same aircraft?
Wing is unchanged in size and shape, tail is pretty much unchanged, fuselage from the firewall back (except for the XP-37 and YP-37s) is pretty much unchanged. 
Airframe may be beefed up to handle the higher weights. 
Export Hawk 75s got four gun wings (2 to a side) well before the P-40B did so the gun and ammo layout and access hatches/doors predate P-40B. 

XP-40 is the 10th production P-36A airframe, serial 38-10. 
The 4th P-36A was turned into the XP-42





from the firewall back it was a standard P-36A. 

SO when does the P-40 become a significantly different plane than the Hawk-75/P-36? 

With the XP-40?
With the P-40 though P-40C?
With the P-40 D & E?
With the late P40F and the P-40Ks with the extended fuselage?


----------



## Glider (Jul 16, 2020)

Schweik said:


> No, I don't think that's a valid assertion. I brought up the Beaufighter initially because I was told it was impossible to build a long range fighter in 1940. The Beau and the Zero are probably the two best counter examples to disprove that specious claim. But here I'm referring to the Beaufighter specifically because particularly in the maritime war from the Bay of Biscay to the Aegean, the Beaufighter was operating as probably the main competitor to the Bf 110 and frankly by the end of 1942 it was dominating those spaces.


I think you will find that that the Me110 hardly ever, if indeed ever operated over the Bay of Biscay with the exception of an occasional mission. The Beaufighter fought the Ju88c over the Bay and did indeed dominate the Ju88.


> And yet, P-40s were still flying front line combat missions, and tangling with Fw 190s as late as Anzio in 1944. Meanwhile, the 1930's vintage Bf 109 was competitive until the end of the war. So was the Spitfire. The Beaufighter and Zero were still dangerous in 1942 or 43 or 44 even though they were 1940 designs.


There is a whole world of difference between 'tangling with Fw190's in a P40 in 1944' and 'Being Dangerous in 1944' compared to being on a roughly equal footing.


> To sink a ship like the Ohio a 1,000 bomb load was sufficient.


Normally I would agree with you, but clearly you haven't read up on the damage the Ohio took getting to Malta


> But since you bring it up, the Beau had 10 guns to the 110s 6.


The vast majority of Beaufighters had the 4 x 20mm and the LMG's were replaced with various things depending on the version


----------



## Schweik (Jul 16, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> The XF4U had something like 600 or 800 changes before going into production, The Main visual differences are slightly longer nose and cockpit being moved back to fit in the fuselage fuel tank. After that changes to the F4U's airframe were minor. Changing from six .50 cal guns to four 20mm cannon may have required a slew of engineering drawings but the wing span, cord, airfoil, size of the flaps and ailerons all stayed the same.
> Likewise on the P-36/P-40.
> By the time you even get to the P-40 the Hawk 75 airframe was on it's 6th or 7th engine/power plant. It had gone from 3760lbs empty to 5,417lbs empty for the XP-40 and from 4843lbs loaded to 6,260lbs normal gross weight.
> 
> ...



I think it's a ridiculous question. It's both, and neither - by the time you get to the end of that line it's clearly a different aircraft, but it's also from the same lineage. Same as the Bf 109, the LaGG-3 / La 7, the Spitfire, and a host of other fighters. A lot of small and moderate changes eventually make for a big difference, collectively. I think it's patently ridiculous to simultaneously claim that the P-36 and P-40L or N are the same aircraft, but the Bf 109D and G-14 or K-4 are _completely_ different planes. I am not trying to be rude but I can't take that seriously and I don't believe that you believe it yourself.

And I have 20+ books on the P-40 on my bookshelf some of which get into every detail of the production and development. As you also do I have flight manuals for early and late model P-40s, and I could drag all that out and go through every single systems change from 1936 to 1944, but I really don't want to get into yet another fruitless debate about the P-40 and then be accused of derailing the thread with discussions of that particular plane. If you really, _reall_y want to get into this specific debate I would consider wading into it, but only in another thread. I don't want to debate it here. 

And let me ask you a question, if I proved you wrong, by some pre-determined metric, would you admit it?


----------



## Schweik (Jul 16, 2020)

Glider said:


> I think you will find that that the Me110 hardly ever, if indeed ever operated over the Bay of Biscay with the exception of an occasional mission. The Beaufighter fought the Ju88c over the Bay and did indeed dominate the Ju88.



I can cite some examples



> There is a whole world of difference between 'tangling with Fw190's in a P40 in 1944' and 'Being Dangerous in 1944' compared to being on a roughly equal footing.


Well, again I can cite some examples - some of the units operating over and around Anzio, notably the 79th FG, seems to have shot down a fair number of Fw 190s, more than they lost to them. Most of the latter were flying fighter bomber missions at the time. But I don't think that really matters, you couldn't say the P-40 wasn't competitive there. I can post some combat records from MAW IV in the other thread on combat histories.



> Normally I would agree with you, but clearly you haven't read up on the damage the Ohio took getting to Malta



I have, but I also know most of the other ships were sunk by Stukas which don't carry a very heavy bomb load. Ohio was just lucky and had a very brave crew.



> The vast majority of Beaufighters had the 4 x 20mm and the LMG's were replaced with various things depending on the version



Some were replaced with .50 HMG


----------



## tomo pauk (Jul 16, 2020)

Schweik said:


> But isn't there a 1941 version of the Bf 110? Lets compare like with like, I'm not trying to play any tricks. But I know if the aircraft has say, a 1,000 mile range without drop tanks, adding the drop tanks will only improve the range so much, because when the external tanks run out, it still has to make it back to base.



Bf 110 in 1941 has drop tanks, and can also carry the belly tank. 2x900L tanks = 2x238 US gal tanks.
Drop tanks can increase range by a large margin, even the 50% increase vs. internal fuel brings a major improvement in range. see here



> I'm not trying to give you a hard time, I think we just mean different things by the same terms. If a Bf 110 has the same range as a Beaufighter or a P-38 comparing with or without fuel tanks (so long as it's like with like) that is big news to me. It's not that easy to get precise figures for different flight configurations so I'd be glad to see more data.



Beaufighter - 550 imp gals for 1500 mile range (later with more fuel - 622, 682, and late in the war even more - 882 imp gals with drop tank included). Bf 110 with extra tanks - 660 gals with two big drop tanks (270 imp gals of that internally - that's about 50% more per engine vs. Bf 108E-K, most of the Spitfires and Hurricanes; a bit more fuel per engine than Japanese 1-engined fighters). Beaufighter with Hercules will be draggier. P-38: 250 imp gals (later more, 341 imp gal); drop tanks of different sizes. Will be most streamlined between the three. Range of P-38 D-H without drop tanks was not that great by standards of the day, even if it would've been okay for LW needs of 1940.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 16, 2020)

The Beaufighter rather inherited it's long range, also it's size. 
Blenheim I was good for about 1000 miles.
Blenheim IV was good for about 1400 miles. got fuel tanks in the wings outboard of the engines.

Beaufort used somewhat modified Blenheim wings. More in construction than in airfoil or size/shape (minor differences) but much more aluminium fittings and forgins than steel tube and plate. Both lighter and stronger. Despite large fuselage and more powerful engines it managed 1600 mile range.

Beaufighter was the "Sports" Beaufort. The concept was to take the Beaufort wing and tail and stick a skinny fighter fuselage in the mix and use bigger engines. The final details meant you really couldn't use Beaufort wing parts in a Beaufighter but again, the wing was generally the same shape and size and airfoil. 

I would note (again) that they _estimated_ this wing would be good for 360mph at altitude using the Hercules engine with two speed supercharger. They were off by about 30 mph. British were using the wrong drag figures for estimating speeds in the high 300 to 400mph range. The wing could sure hold a lot of fuel though. The shortfall in performance meant that the Beaufighter, useful as it was in many roles, could not be used as a day fighter in contested airspace (meaning europe). The wing did provide a lot of lift though and Beaufighters went from around 20,000lbs gross weight to a bit over 25,000lbs gross weight.

the 110 was, at times, playing 2nd fiddle to new improved airplanes and modifications/upgrades were pretty much the minimum to keep it useful. The Me 210 made it's first flight Sept 5th 1939, 4 days after the invasion of Poland. Are Messerschmitt engineers figuring out how to make the 110 better or are they trying to get the 210 to fly without crashing. The Germans tended to ignore useful/usable aircraft while they chased after shiny new toys that all too often broke with very little use. 

A comment on the P-38. Until the J it carried 1135 liters in inside protected tanks. Yes it had less drag than 110 but it's reputation for range came from it's early use of drop tanks(early fo the US) It had been designed for just over 1500 liters but the fitting of self sealing tanks forced the reduction.


----------



## Schweik (Jul 16, 2020)

So is a Beaufighter X a Blenheim ?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 16, 2020)

Nope, 

You can't actually interchange most or all of the parts, but the form of the wing was inherited for good or bad.


Good was that Blenheim MK I was practically an STOL machine at 12,500lbs and with 725hp take-off engines and two pitch propellers. As the Blenheim gained weight it still allowed the plane to take-off and land using a respectable sized airstrip at increasing weights on the same power. MK IV could carry 468imp gallons in the wing tanks (Blenheim V got more powerful engines for take-off but went over 17,000lbs.)
The Beauforts engines were under 1100hp for take off even with 100/130 fuel and weight went to over 21,000lbs, good thing the wing was high lift  
Wing also had lots of volume for fuel. Beaufort at least the Australian ones could carry 554 IMP gallons in the wing. 
The JU 88 carried 369 imp gallons in the wing for comparison. 

So the Beaufighter "inherited" it's wing and fuel capacity. 

The bad part was the rise in drag in the mid 300 to 400mph speed range.


----------



## Stig1207 (Jul 17, 2020)

Schweik said:


> Well, again I can cite some examples - some of the units operating over and around Anzio, notably the 79th FG, seems to have shot down a fair number of Fw 190s, more than they lost to them. Most of the latter were flying fighter bomber missions at the time. But I don't think that really matters, you couldn't say the P-40 wasn't competitive there. I can post some combat records from MAW IV in the other thread on combat histories.



The USAAF P-40 units overclaimed against Fw 190s over Anzio well above the norm, according to MAW IV. It's difficult to say how many the P-40s did shoot down as most of the losses were attributed to Spitfires, which also overclaimed just not as much as the P-40s. It might only be a couple of Jabos actually shot down by P-40s, but it might be more than Fw 190s shot down P40s, as SG4 didn't make any claims.


----------



## Acheron (Jul 17, 2020)

Any consensus here if the rear-gunner of the Me 110 was worthy the extra weight?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 17, 2020)

Rear gunner was also the radio operator. 
The 110 carried a much longer ranged and complicated radio than the 109. 
He was also the loader for the 20mm cannon. The 110 carried a 60 round drum on each cannon plus two extra drums. I don't know how often they got to the 3rd drum but without the rear gunner the 110 would have had no more cannon ammo than the 109.


----------



## Milosh (Jul 17, 2020)

Some 110's had a 3rd crew member.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jul 17, 2020)

Milosh said:


> Some 110's had a 3rd crew member.


Afair the F-4 and G-4 the night fighter version


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 17, 2020)

It was designed for a 3 man crew for certain missions. Most of time it carried only 2 men but this is what helped it be a good night fighter. A large enough cockpit to hold the equipment and let the crew function.


----------



## Dimlee (Jul 17, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> He was also the loader for the 20mm cannon. The 110 carried a 60 round drum on each cannon plus two extra drums. I don't know how often they got to the 3rd drum but without the rear gunner the 110 would have had no more cannon ammo than the 109.



That was until Bf 110G2 with MG 151/20 or am I wrong?


----------



## Reluctant Poster (Jul 17, 2020)

Schweik said:


> Beaufighter / Mosquito
> 
> 57' 10" (17.63 m) / 54' 2 " (16.51 m) - Wingspan
> 503 Sq Ft (46.7 Sq m) / 454 Sq Ft (42.2 Sq m) - Wing Area
> ...


The Ohio was hit by a torpedo, had two aircraft crash on it, suffered a direct hit right by the torpedo hit that broke its back, was straddled by 2 near misses that lifted it bodily out of the water, plus numerous other near misses and still made it to harbor. Sinking it with one 250 kg bomb is beyond belief.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (Jul 17, 2020)

Schweik said:


> I can cite some examples


I would appreciate that if you could. My understanding was that the primary long range fighter used over the Bay of Biscay was the Ju88. Originally I wasn't expecting that as if the Me110 had a good range then that would have been the first choice of fighter. I have some books on combat in that area and have an interest as it's the one area where aircraft who normally fought at night, fought in daylight. Me110's are mentioned, but only rarely.
Any information or books you could recommend would be welcomed. 




> Well, again I can cite some examples - some of the units operating over and around Anzio, notably the 79th FG, seems to have shot down a fair number of Fw 190s, more than they lost to them. Most of the latter were flying fighter bomber missions at the time. But I don't think that really matters, you couldn't say the P-40 wasn't competitive there. I can post some combat records from MAW IV in the other thread on combat histories.


I have the book but my emphasis was being equal, that they clearly were not.




> I have, but I also know most of the other ships were sunk by Stukas which don't carry a very heavy bomb load. Ohio was just lucky and had a very brave crew.


That I agree with you also she did have extra strength added to her before she sailed to protect her from near misses which would have helped considerably.




> Some were replaced with .50 HMG


Some yes, but far from the majority as extra fuel or equipment was often considered to be the more valuable.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jul 17, 2020)

Stig1207 said:


> The USAAF P-40 units overclaimed against Fw 190s over Anzio well above the norm, according to MAW IV. It's difficult to say how many the P-40s did shoot down as most of the losses were attributed to Spitfires, which also overclaimed just not as much as the P-40s. It might only be a couple of Jabos actually shot down by P-40s, but it might be more than Fw 190s shot down P40s, as SG4 didn't make any claims.



You can debate how many they claimed at Anzio vs. how many they actually got (some of their victories may have actually been Bf 109s), but it's clear that they were engaging Fw 190s routinely by then, _some_ of which were shot down and they (the P-40s) were not in turn suffering heavy losses in air to air combat (the way say, a unit of Hurricanes, or even early Spit Vs would have done by that time). 

I only see one incident where the late model P-40s suffered significant losses in combat to FW 190s and that was the 33rd Fighter group in February of 1943, and it was an ambush basically where they were caught in a bad position. P-40 equipped units encountered Fw 190s intermittently from that point through being phased out in mid 1944, though they mostly engaged Bf 109Gs and MC 202 / 205s.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jul 17, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> Nope,
> 
> You can't actually interchange most or all of the parts, but the form of the wing was inherited for good or bad.



Who says interchangable parts are the criteria which determines when an aircraft becomes a different plane. A Beaufighter is a different aircraft from a Beaufort to me but it's also basically just a Beaufort with a bunch of guns added on.

A P-36 and a P-40L or N are obviously different in appearance, in performance, in capability, in cost, in manufacturing processes, and in many of the design features, even though they share the same lineage and the wings are very similar. The P-36 was relegated to the remote tertiary front in India at the same time that the P-40L was on the front line against crack German fighter units in Sardinia, Sicily and Tunisia. A Bf 109D and a 109K, or a Spit I and a Spit XIV are also different, but they too share the same lineage with their earlier versions. There is no objective way to prove that one is a different aircraft than the other, or at what point it becomes a different aircraft (or doesn't). Clearly they are both different and the same in some ways. This was very common with WW2 aircraft, whether they share the same official designation or not.

It's to a large extent, subjective. Pretending to confidently know where to make that distinction is isn't on the level.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Acheron (Jul 17, 2020)

Out of curiosity, didn't the extra weight from the second crewman perceivably worsen the plane's performance or was that not much of an issue in a heavy plane like the Me 110?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 17, 2020)

Schweik said:


> It's to a large extent, subjective. Pretending to confidently know where to make that distinction is isn't on the level.


It is subjective. It has to be.

What is the difference between a Hurricane I with a fabric covered wing and a Hurricane I with a metal skinned wing?

They changed a lot of the internal parts on the metal wing but the shape, size and airfoil stayed the same, the plane flew the same, except it had a higher dive limit. just about any other performance criteria was the same.

For the P-36/P-40 I would very much like to know what changes "in manufacturing processes" there were? Curtiss stopped using rivets?

What "design features" changed aside the change in engine and guns? Export Hawk 75s could carry a 500lb bomb under the fuselage and a varity of light bombs under the wings, like three 50lb bombs on each side while carrying the 500lb under fuselage. so it is not the ability to carry bombs. Which in the case of the Hawk 75 was somewhat limited by the power of the engines it was sold with.
Cost is a pretty useless metric to base any _design was a change of plane_ decision on. Costs on the whole Hawk series bounced around like a ping pong ball and often depended on the total number of planes in an order as to the cost for each plane, large orders were lower in cost per plane. Some contracts included more spare parts than others so the cost "per plane" changed for that reason alone. 

Is a taller fin and rudder enough to call a plane new? I would think not. 
I wouldn't count a clipped wing tip either. Or a change in guns.

However one might look at a series of changes done a few at a time over a number of variants and a similar number of changes done all at once a bit differently. 

A P-39 and a P-63 are totally different aircraft even if they used the same gun layout and same engine set up (added a 2nd stage) because they changed the fuselage, the wing (both airfoil and structure) and the tail. 
Heck, even the XP-39E was a different airplane even if they kept the P-39 designation.





hard to tell in the picture but the plane was 1.75 ft longer than a standard P-39.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 17, 2020)

Acheron said:


> Out of curiosity, didn't the extra weight from the second crewman perceivably worsen the plane's performance or was that not much of an issue in a heavy plane like the Me 110?


 A Bf 110C-1 was supposed to weigh about 13,300lb normal loaded (it could weigh more in overload), so a 200lb (dressed and with parachute) crewman is about 1.5%. leaving the crewman on the ground is going to do very little.

However _in the design process_ the extra man needs a cockpit to sit in (longer fuselage), more oxygen tanks, a slightly bigger wing to keep the same stalling speed and a few other changes that can run up the weight of the airplane if it is actually built. The weight of a single rcmg and 500-600 rounds of ammo is actually fairly minor.


----------



## Schweik (Jul 17, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> It is subjective. It has to be.



Well then quit trying to pretend you know exactly when it is or isn't a different fighter. If it's subjective (which I agree it is) by definition it's up to multiple interpretations.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 17, 2020)

Yes, I understand, oh great boss of the internet.


----------



## Acheron (Jul 18, 2020)

Shortround6 said:


> A Bf 110C-1 was supposed to weigh about 13,300lb normal loaded (it could weigh more in overload), so a 200lb (dressed and with parachute) crewman is about 1.5%. leaving the crewman on the ground is going to do very little.
> 
> However _in the design process_ the extra man needs a cockpit to sit in (longer fuselage), more oxygen tanks, a slightly bigger wing to keep the same stalling speed and a few other changes that can run up the weight of the airplane if it is actually built. The weight of a single rcmg and 500-600 rounds of ammo is actually fairly minor.


Astounding. Just recently, I read about Japanese pilots throwing the radios out of their Reisens/Zeros. Now, the radios were apparently pretty crappy anyway, but I doubt they weighted anything near a full second crewman. Of course, the Reisens weighted like what, a third of the Me-110?


----------



## Glider (Jul 18, 2020)

I think its worth remembering that it isn't just x amount of extra weight, it's where the weight is on the aircraft that has an impact. An extra crewman in an Me110 close to the pilot would have little impact in itself as it is basically on the centre of gravity. Put an equivalent weight in the wings or near the tail and the impact would be far more significant


----------



## Glider (Jul 19, 2020)

Schweik said:


> I can cite some examples


I would appreciate any examples of the Me110 operating over the Bay of Biscay. Since my last posting I have been trying to look into this and have come up with nothing. My resources are far from all encompassing but I have failed to find anything, no losses where the Me110 was mentioned as the attacker or any claims. Interestingly I have found a number of instances where the Fw190's were operational over the Bay, which I admit I didn't expect, but not the Me110.

Any help welcome


----------



## Schweik (Jul 19, 2020)

Glider said:


> I would appreciate any examples of the Me110 operating over the Bay of Biscay. Since my last posting I have been trying to look into this and have come up with nothing. My resources are far from all encompassing but I have failed to find anything, no losses where the Me110 was mentioned as the attacker or any claims. Interestingly I have found a number of instances where the Fw190's were operational over the Bay, which I admit I didn't expect, but not the Me110.
> 
> Any help welcome



I will check my sources, I could be wrong. I thought Shores in MAW covered some action in the Bay but he doesn't.


----------



## Stig1207 (Jul 21, 2020)

Schweik said:


> You can debate how many they claimed at Anzio vs. how many they actually got (some of their victories may have actually been Bf 109s), but it's clear that they were engaging Fw 190s routinely by then, _some_ of which were shot down and they (the P-40s) were not in turn suffering heavy losses in air to air combat (the way say, a unit of Hurricanes, or even early Spit Vs would have done by that time).
> 
> I only see one incident where the late model P-40s suffered significant losses in combat to FW 190s and that was the 33rd Fighter group in February of 1943, and it was an ambush basically where they were caught in a bad position. P-40 equipped units encountered Fw 190s intermittently from that point through being phased out in mid 1944, though they mostly engaged Bf 109Gs and MC 202 / 205s.



The Jabos over Anzio were flying multiple ground attack missions per day, running the gaunlet of Allied fighter cover and they weren't sticking around for a fight, once bombs were dropped/ jettisoned it was back to base and load up for the next mission.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Acheron (Jul 21, 2020)

Stig1207 said:


> The Jabos over Anzio were flying multiple ground attack missions per day, running the gaunlet of Allied fighter cover and they weren't sticking around for a fight, once bombs were dropped/ jettisoned it was back to base and load up for the next mission.


Oh, is this a case of (for the allies) air superiority but not yet air supremacy?


----------



## Schweik (Jul 21, 2020)

In 1944 it was what I would call "Contested Allied Air superiority" - as in, the Allies were able to bring so many aircraft and of such good quality (Spit IX in particular) that the Germans were struggling. If they sent a big force they could achieve local air superiority very briefly, enough to be able to get a high-speed bomb run in.

That is what Stig1207 is referring to regarding the Fw 190s - several Fw units in Italy at this time were actually bomber units, with pilots who had formerly flown Stukas and had transitioned to the Fw but were not necessarily given a lot of fighter training. That doesn't mean they couldn't fight but shooting down enemy planes wasn't their main mission. The reason is that the Fw 190 being so much faster, could survive in the new environment whereas the Stuka really no longer could. A Fw 190 could swoop in and drop some bombs and be gone before a flight of Ju 87s would even be ready to make their dive.

That said, I don't think all of the Fw 190s operating in Italy during the time of Anzio were in these bomber units. There were also Fw 190 fighter units operating in the Med, for example JG 2. JG 2 left the area in 1943 but I believe II./JG 2 was brought into JG. 53 to help stiffen air defense in the Med. I'm not sure if they kept their Fw 190s or transitioned to Bf 109s. I will check my sources. 1944 was already a screaming emergency for the Germans especially on the Russian Front. The battle at the Anzio beachhead lasted all the way from January 1944 to June 5 1944, and you know what happened the day after that. So the Germans were routinely moving units around like little fire brigades.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jul 21, 2020)

From what I am reading the following Fw 190 units operated in Italy:

2. and 3./JG 2 operated in Italy with Fw 190A-8
SG 4 (fighter bomber) 190F or G
SG 2 (fighter bomber FW 190F or G (looks like 1943 only)
Schnellkamfgeschwader 10 (fighter bombers?)
Seenotflotille 20 Fw 190A-8 (naval?)
Sonderverband Einhorn Fw 190F-9
NF 11 Fw 190A-8 (Night fighter? Recon?)

As far as claims go, it's hard to estimate for Anzio because unlike at say, Sardinia, both Spitfires and P-40s were operating over the same battlefield simultaneously. But Stg1207 is making assumptions - you have several days where Spitfire pilots made 3 or 4 claims, and P-40 pilots made 10 or 15 claims, actual German losses were 5 or 6 aircraft and he assumes all of the P-40 claims were 100% imaginary and all of the Spitfire claims were 100% accurate. I think that's unlikely.

But what we certainly don't see are large numbers of P-40s getting slaughtered in action against Fw 190s or late model 109s at the time of Anzio, or against MC 205 or 202 fighters. I know of one incident in Feb 1943 in which the 33rd FG got massacred by some Fw 190s of JG 2, but that was their first encounter with the 190.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Acheron (Jul 21, 2020)

Schweik said:


> In 1944 it was what I would call "Contested Allied Air superiority" - as in, the Allies were able to bring so many aircraft and of such good quality (Spit IX in particular) that the Germans were struggling. If they sent a big force they could achieve local air superiority very briefly, enough to be able to get a high-speed bomb run in.
> 
> That is what Stig1207 is referring to regarding the Fw 190s - several Fw units in Italy at this time were actually bomber units, with pilots who had formerly flown Stukas and had transitioned to the Fw but were not necessarily given a lot of fighter training. That doesn't mean they couldn't fight but shooting down enemy planes wasn't their main mission. The reason is that the Fw 190 being so much faster, could survive in the new environment whereas the Stuka really no longer could. A Fw 190 could swoop in and drop some bombs and be gone before a flight of Ju 87s would even be ready to make their dive.
> 
> That said, I don't think all of the Fw 190s operating in Italy during the time of Anzio were in these bomber units. There were also Fw 190 fighter units operating in the Med, for example JG 2. JG 2 left the area in 1943 but I believe II./JG 2 was brought into JG. 53 to help stiffen air defense in the Med. I'm not sure if they kept their Fw 190s or transitioned to Bf 109s. I will check my sources. 1944 was already a screaming emergency for the Germans especially on the Russian Front. The battle at the Anzio beachhead lasted all the way from January 1944 to June 5 1944, and you know what happened the day after that. So the Germans were routinely moving units around like little fire brigades.


I would argue air superiority. If the other side cannot even contest the airspace for a short time at a specific location, that would IMHO be air supremacy, no?

Regarding Germany moving around assets by the end of the war, didn't they find out that experience didn't translate well between the fronts? I think I remember reading that fighter units that acquitted themselves quite well on the Eastern Front were shredded to pieces when send against the western allies.


----------



## Schweik (Jul 21, 2020)

Yes I think that was an issue. Probably not as much in the Med or Italy as going from Russian Front to defense of the nation, meaning fighting Yaks and Sturmoviks at 5,000 ft. to fighting P-51s and P-47s to get at B-17s and B-24s at 25,000 ft.


----------



## Stig1207 (Jul 22, 2020)

Schweik said:


> As far as claims go, it's hard to estimate for Anzio because unlike at say, Sardinia, both Spitfires and P-40s were operating over the same battlefield simultaneously. But Stg1207 is making assumptions - you have several days where Spitfire pilots made 3 or 4 claims, and P-40 pilots made 10 or 15 claims, actual German losses were 5 or 6 aircraft and he assumes all of the P-40 claims were 100% imaginary and all of the Spitfire claims were 100% accurate. I think that's unlikely.
> 
> But what we certainly don't see are large numbers of P-40s getting slaughtered in action against Fw 190s or late model 109s at the time of Anzio, or against MC 205 or 202 fighters. I know of one incident in Feb 1943 in which the 33rd FG got massacred by some Fw 190s of JG 2, but that was their first encounter with the 190



I am not assuming anything, just repeating what is written MAW IV, and neither were the P-40 claims 100% imaginary nor the Spitfire claims 100% accurate; but you know that, we've both read the same book.

From memory, there don't seem to be a lot of encounters between P-40 units (USAAF and RAF) and JG2 in the MTO.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 22, 2020)

Stig1207 said:


> From memory, there don't seem to be a lot of encounters between P-40 units (USAAF and RAF) and JG2 in the MTO.


Mostly because the bulk of Jg2 was stationed in France until 1944 - only a few elements (II gruppe) were sent to North Africa in '42/'43 and they operated under Jg53's authority.


----------



## Stig1207 (Jul 22, 2020)

GrauGeist said:


> Mostly because the bulk of Jg2 was stationed in France until 1944 - only a few elements (II gruppe) were sent to North Africa in '42/'43 and they operated under Jg53's authority.



I/Jg 2 also operated over southern France (Corsica?) and in Italy late winter / spring 1944.


----------



## Andrew Arthy (Jul 22, 2020)

Hi,

Here is a quick summary of FW 190 units serving in the Mediterranean:

Fighter Units
- II./J.G. 2 arrived in Tunisia in early November 1942, and left for France in mid-March 1943
- I./J.G. 2 arrived in southern France in January 1944, then moved to Italy in late-February 1944. It returned to southern France in April 1944, and then back to northern France. The 4. _Staffel_ had Bf 109s, and the _Gruppenstab_, 1., 2. and 3. _Staffeln _had the FW 190.
- _Jagdgruppe Süd_ operated some FW 190s over southern France between late-1943 and June 1944, before moving to Germany

Reconnaissance Units
- N.A.Gr. 13 arrived in Tunisia in November 1942, and returned to France in December 1942
- N.A.Gr. 13 operated FW 190s from southern France in 1944, flying off the Italian and Corsican coasts

Fighter-Bomber Units
- III./Z.G. 2 arrived in Tunisia in early November 1942, and was re-designated III./S.K.G. 10 on 1 December 1942. It subsequently served over Tunisia, Sicily and Italy, and left Italy in October 1943
- _Stab_ Sch.G. 2 arrived in Tunisia mid-March 1943, and subsequently served over Sicily, Sardinia, Corsica and Italy. It was re-designated _Stab_ S.G. 4 in October 1943, and left Italy for the Eastern Front in early July 1944
- I./Sch.G. 2 converted from the Bf 109 to the FW 190 in April-May 1943, served over Sicily and Sardinia, and left for Austria in August 1943
- II./Sch.G. 2 arrived in Tunisia mid-March 1943, subsequently served over Sicily, Sardinia, Corsica and Italy, and was re-designated I./S.G. 4 in October 1943. It then served over Italy, and left for the Eastern Front in early July 1944
- _Stab_ S.K.G. 10 arrived in Sicily in mid-June 1943, served over Sicily, and left for the Western Front in September 1943
- II./S.K.G. 10 arrived in Sicily in mid-June 1943, and served over Italy until re-designation as II./S.G. 4 in October 1943. It then served over Italy, until leaving for the Eastern Front in early July 1944
- IV./S.K.G. 10 arrived in Sicily in mid-June 1943, and served over Sicily and Italy until leaving for the Western Front in August 1943

There were no FW 190 fighters operating over Anzio in the first month, only S.G. 4 fighter-bombers.

As for Bf 110s over the Bay of Biscay, on 8 October 1943 there were three engagements between II./Z.G. 1 and Allied fighters. Spitfires were sent out on dedicated anti-Bf 110 patrols, and eight Bf 110s were shot down, with two others landing with damage. In return, the RAF lost two Spitfires destroyed and one damaged. II./Z.G. 1 left France for Austria in October/November 1943.

Cheers,
Andrew A.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
3 | Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jul 22, 2020)

So there were FW fighter units as well as Jabos


----------



## Glider (Jul 23, 2020)

Schweik said:


> So there were FW fighter units as well as Jabos


If I remember correctly only one and they had a significant impact on the allied losses doing far better than the Fw190 GA units. Their training and experience being the main reason for thier relative success


----------



## Schweik (Jul 23, 2020)

JG 2 came in with a bang in early 43, and did some serious damage on a couple of days, but I don't remember any major impact when they were (apparently) there again in 1944. I know that one of them killed Antoine de Saint-Exupéry in his P-38 / F-5B. If they were in Italy in Feb 44 then it's a safe bet that they tangled with P-40s of the 79th FG at some point or other.


----------



## Acheron (Jul 23, 2020)

Schweik said:


> I know that one of them killed Antoine de Saint-Exupéry in his P-38 / F-5B. If they were in Italy in Feb 44 then it's a safe bet that they tangled with P-40s of the 79th FG at some point or other.


According to wikipedia, the exact circumstances of de Saint-Exupéry's death are still unknown, is it not up to date?


----------



## Schweik (Jul 23, 2020)

It's still debated, and probably always will be, but like many others I believe the last guy who claimed to have shot him down was probably correct.


----------



## Milosh (Jul 23, 2020)

Bases of I./JG2 from the time it started to receive Fw-190s,

10.5.42 - 8.11.42 Tricqueville***** Bf 109F/G, Fw 190A
8.11.42 - 25.1.43 Marseilles-MarignaneBf 109G, Fw 190A
1.43 - 3.43 St. Brieuc 
3.43 - 6.43 Tricqueville
6.43 -Evreux & Beaumont-le-Roger
11.43 - 1.44 Conches******Fw 190A
1.44 - 20.2.44 Aix*******Fw 190A
20.2.44 - 24.2.44 ViterboFw 190A
24.2.44 - 8.3.44 ViglianelloFw 190A
8.3.44 - 26.3.44 CastiglioneFw 190A
26.3.44 - 8.4.44 DiavoloFw 190A8.
4.44 - 12.5.44 AixFw 190A
12.5.44 - 7.6.44 Cormeilles-en-VexinFw 190A
7.6.44 - 13.7.44 CreilFw 190A
13.7.44 - 8.44 HusumFw 190A8.
44 - 4.9.44St. TrondFw 190A
4.9.44 - 3.45 MezhausenFw 190A

Jagdgeschwader 2


----------



## Milosh (Jul 23, 2020)

Schweik said:


> JG 2 came in with a bang in early 43, and did some serious damage on a couple of days, but I don't remember any major impact when they were (apparently) there again in 1944. I know that one of them killed Antoine de Saint-Exupéry in his P-38 / F-5B. If they were in Italy in Feb 44 then it's a safe bet that they tangled with P-40s of the 79th FG at some point or other.


There is no claim of a P-38 on 31-7-44.
http://don-caldwell.we.bs/jg26/claims/tonywood.htm


----------



## Andrew Arthy (Jul 23, 2020)

Hi,

Nick Beale has written a comprehensive study of the loss of Antoine de Saint-Exupéry: Rippert and Saint-Exupéry (page 1). The German pilot who claimed to have shot him down was Horst Rippert of _Jagdgruppe _200, but aside from Rippert's own post-war account, there is no evidence that he actually did so, and most of the relevant German documents survive in one form or another.

Nick has also extensively covered I./J.G. 2's service in Italy in 1944 here: JG 2 introduction, including an analysis of the unit's success.

Cheers,
Andrew A.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Schweik (Jul 23, 2020)

Unless something new has emerged, from what I remember the Axis records are lost or missing, and the conclusion they made against the Rippert claim is based on the idea that the US didn't intercept any radio chatter about it. Am I wrong about that?


----------

