Battle of Britain: Bf110 losses and victories

[ricardo]

Hello everybody...

Long time since my last post...

I need some help ... or should I say.. clarification:

The Luftwaffe admitted the loss of 223~229 Bf110's during the Battle of Britain.

Sources:

1- Statistics of the Battle of Britain
2- Osprey Aircraft of the Aces 25 Bf110 Zerstorer Aces of ww2 page 51 (last paragraph)

On the other hand...

There were Bf110 victories as well. So I did a brief search on the internet to find out the total victories by Bf110 pilots I found this:

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

What about those Bf110 pilots who scored between 1 ~ 4 victories over the RAF???

Now I wonder if we leave these numbers alone we have: 161 victories for 229 losses is not a dramatic failure.... or maybe all the Bf110 pilots were "overclaiming"??? Anyway I wonder how many victories were confirmed by "non-aces" Bf110?

I don't mean to change history, just wondering how "poor" did the Bf110 perform during the BoB, but the statistics above show that there were little difference between losses and victories.

I appreciate your help.

cheers

Ricardo

 

[FlyingPencil]

depends on how they flew them

 

[Frantish]

Look how well the P-38 did.
In 1940 the 110 was much like the P-38, not as good relatively speaking, but no slouch.

As long as the 110 jock did not dog fight with the enemy units (EA), but instead "boom and zoom" attacks (diving from alt, unloading full firepower at target, and then climb away to set up for next pass), using its speed to get away, while the tail gunner would pepper any EA that would slowly close in (a diving 110 is faster then a level flying Spitfire)

 

[The Basket]

I would be careful saying that kill claims equals aircraft losses.

I wouldn't go there.

Only RAF records.

 

[Maximowitz]

You could always buy the book "Zerstorer" by John Vasco and Peter Cornwell. Virtually the whole story of the Bf110 units during the Battle of Britain is in there.

 

[davebender]

If the statistics on that page are correct then the Ju-87 was not a dramatic failure either. I would hazard a guess that both the USN and IJN lost at least 74 dive bombers in a single day at the Battle of Midway.

 

[lesofprimus]

Overclaiming was rampant during the BoB, as well as the entire War.... Take those numbers with a grain of salt... The 110's were easy meat for the RAF...

 

[Maximowitz]

Overclaiming was rampant during the BoB, as well as the entire War.... Take those numbers with a grain of salt... The 110's were easy meat for the RAF...

Bf110: Ill used in the Battle of Britain?

 

[The Basket]

Interesting discussin on the Me 110.

Saying that it could have done well...

But at full throttle carrying a bomb load...its range will be very short...

Sort of against the reason for having it in the first place.

 

[renrich]

The US and the Japanese did not lose 74 dive bombers that were shot down during any one day of the Battle of Midway.

 

[Lucky13]

Personally, even if it's not BoB here, I think that the best use of the '110, was as a nightfighter.

 

[davebender]

I'm under the impression most Me-110s were used in that role. From about mid 1940 onward a bunch of Me-110 day fighter units were absorbed into the rapidly growing German night fighter force. Those not transferred to the Nachtjadg were mostly recon aircraft and a few specialist fighter-bomber units.

 

[Frantish]

The 110 fallacy is similar to the Do-17 "easy-to-kill" fallacy.

A quick look at loss statistics during the BoB show a much higher higher Ju-88 losses then Do-17's, even taking into consideration there was slightly more 17's then 88. Same comparing 111 with 88's. Simple ratio shows 88's suffered the most losses of the 3.

Poor performance of the 110 in BoB is largely due to failure of tactics and command.

 

[Glider]

Look how well the P-38 did.
In 1940 the 110 was much like the P-38, not as good relatively speaking, but no slouch.

As long as the 110 jock did not dog fight with the enemy units (EA), but instead "boom and zoom" attacks (diving from alt, unloading full firepower at target, and then climb away to set up for next pass), using its speed to get away, while the tail gunner would pepper any EA that would slowly close in (a diving 110 is faster then a level flying Spitfire)

The Me 110 was outclassed by the Hurricanes and Spitfires. Lets compare the Me110 to the P38. The P38 didn't shine in Europe but it did very well against the Japanese. It had a significant speed avantage over the Japanese opposition, the Me110 is slower than a Spitfire and not much faster than a Hurricane.

The P38 had a huge advantage in the dive, the Me110 doesn't have nearly such an advantage.

The Me110 doesn't have a climb advantage over the RAF fighters. So the question is how can you 'boom and zoom' to use your phrase if the opposition is at least as fast as you, can climb at least as well as you, can match you in a dive and turn inside you.

Your best bet is as a precision strike aircraft which was tried in the BOB. Sometimes it worked and sometimes the Me110 was hammered.

You are basing your plan on the assumption that the Me110 starts higher, not likely if the defenders have warning (radar) and can climb a lot faster than you.

Quote from the Me110 Tactical trials
para 54 The Hurricane 1 and Spitfire Vb were able to turn inside the Me110 at all hights.
para 55 The initial acceleration of the me110 in a dive was better than the SPitfire and the Hurricane but both were able to catch the Me110 and hold it with ease.
para 58 The angle of climb of the me110 is steaper than the Hurricane I and the Spitfire but these aircraft should not try to follow the me110 in a climb as they will not be making the best use of their own rates of climb, which in the case of the Hurricane 1 is equal to the Me 110 and in the Spitfire is considerably superior.
The Spitfire in the test was a 5b but if a Hurricane 1 can match the Me110 I am confident a Spitfire 1 will as well.

 

[lesofprimus]

Agreed Glider, the 110 from the very outset of hostilities in 1939 was outclassed... The Luftwaffe knew this, the pilots that flew them knew this, and the RAF knew it too...

In Sept 1940, they started escorting the 110's with 109 top cover... If that doesnt tell u it was outclassed, and not about tactics, I dont know what would...

 

[Maximowitz]

In Sept 1940, they started escorting the 110's with 109 top cover... If that doesnt tell u it was outclassed, and not about tactics, I dont know what would...

Not true. Read "Zerstorer" by Vasco Cornwell to see this myth finally laid to rest.

 

[Glider]

The 110 fallacy is similar to the Do-17 "easy-to-kill" fallacy.

A quick look at loss statistics during the BoB show a much higher higher Ju-88 losses then Do-17's, even taking into consideration there was slightly more 17's then 88. Same comparing 111 with 88's. Simple ratio shows 88's suffered the most losses of the 3.

Poor performance of the 110 in BoB is largely due to failure of tactics and command.

I don't know the figures for the Do 17 and the Ju88 but before making such a statement I suggest you try to find the loss ratio for the number of missions flown, not the number of aircraft in the battle.

 

[Frantish]

The Me 110 was outclassed by the Hurricanes and Spitfires. Lets compare the Me110 to the P38. The P38 didn't shine in Europe but it did very well against the Japanese. It had a significant speed avantage over the Japanese opposition, the Me110 is slower than a Spitfire and not much faster than a Hurricane.

The P38 had a huge advantage in the dive, the Me110 doesn't have nearly such an advantage.

The Me110 doesn't have a climb advantage over the RAF fighters. So the question is how can you 'boom and zoom' to use your phrase if the opposition is at least as fast as you, can climb at least as well as you, can match you in a dive and turn inside you.

Your best bet is as a precision strike aircraft which was tried in the BOB. Sometimes it worked and sometimes the Me110 was hammered.

You are basing your plan on the assumption that the Me110 starts higher, not likely if the defenders have warning (radar) and can climb a lot faster than you.

Quote from the Me110 Tactical trials
para 54 The Hurricane 1 and Spitfire Vb were able to turn inside the Me110 at all hights.
para 55 The initial acceleration of the me110 in a dive was better than the SPitfire and the Hurricane but both were able to catch the Me110 and hold it with ease.
para 58 The angle of climb of the me110 is steaper than the Hurricane I and the Spitfire but these aircraft should not try to follow the me110 in a climb as they will not be making the best use of their own rates of climb, which in the case of the Hurricane 1 is equal to the Me 110 and in the Spitfire is considerably superior.
The Spitfire in the test was a 5b but if a Hurricane 1 can match the Me110 I am confident a Spitfire 1 will as well.

Gilder, the errors or omissions in your points are:

1. The 110C has a higher alt celling then Hurricane I or Spit Ia, so neither of them could intercept.
2. 3/4 of the RAF defenders where Hurricane's, Defiant's, and others which was slower then the 110.
3. The prime RAF target was the bombers, not fighters.
4. 110 has concentrated firepower that offered longer range and powerful cannons.
5. A tail gunner, and there are records of that single MG-15 forcing pursuers to break off from attack.

When I said "Correct tactics", it was using and alt advantage well over the bombers, zooming in to attack the Spit and Hurricanes attacking the bombers, taking advantage of its no-convergence (horizontal) and fire at longer range and keep firing longer, finally pulling up and away from the attack. Any Spit or Hurri that attempted to pursue would likely (unless they had some alt and position advantage) would spend a long time closing in on the 110, and be peppered by the 110 TG.

Sound like the same tactic the AVG did in China against the Japanese??
Absolutely, and they dominated the skies simply by avoiding all turn fight engagements and trading alt for speed to make a slash attack and zoom away (boom and zoom). Of course eventually the 110 would lose its built up speed, but the Hurri will be in the dust, and the Spit would have to chase it far, risking being a stilling duck for another 110 or 109.

As to what you provided, they are what is known as "Sweeping Generalization Fallacies", taking individual performance characteristics as supporting proof the 110 was a terrible fighter. And it looks like some of the items are outright false.

(BTW, what is your source?)
para 54 The Hurricane 1 and Spitfire Vb were able to turn inside the Me110 at all hights.
Known and accepted, and given the 110 is a larger airplane it is plausible (however a poorly designed single engine aircraft could have a larger turn circle).

para 54 The Hurricane 1 and Spitfire Vb were able to turn inside the Me110 at all hights.
para 55 The initial acceleration of the me110 in a dive was better than the SPitfire and the Hurricane but both were able to catch the Me110 and hold it with ease.

If the Hurri is known to be about 20~30 mph slower then the 110, how could it ever catch up with it?

para 58 The angle of climb of the me110 is steaper than the Hurricane I and the Spitfire but these aircraft should not try to follow the me110 in a climb as they will not be making the best use of their own rates of climb, which in the case of the Hurricane 1 is equal to the Me 110 and in the Spitfire is considerably superior.

Here we have an Vx and Vy comparison, where the 110 can climb at a steeper angle (due to 2 engines) then the Hurricane or Spitfire. A well trained and smart RAF pilot would climb at Vy (which would be faster then the 110 can in pure climb performance) at a safe distance from the 110, gain alt advantage, and attack.
However most RAF pilots had little experience and would press the attack to their disadvantage, setting up a perfect target for the 110 rear gunner
Para 58 basically support that tactics argument. It is not the machine, but the pilot that determines the winner.

You concluded with:

The Spitfire in the test was a 5b (vs 110) but if a Hurricane 1 can match the Me110 I am confident a Spitfire 1 will as well.

This is a "Hasty Generalization Fallacy", saying if the RAF Spit Vb can catch the 110, then all RAF aircraft could match the 110.
How can anyone make an accurate scientific assertion comparing an old aircraft with a newer one of a different model?

Your posts is not much different then saying man never walked on the moon by using a few select examples from questionable sources.

S!

 

[Frantish]

Agreed Glider, the 110 from the very outset of hostilities in 1939 was outclassed... .

A "Hasty Generalization Fallacy" and "Sweeping Generalization Fallacy" all rolled into one.

In 1939 the LW dominated the skies over much of the skies.
It wasn't until the BoB, mid 1940, did the LW realize the 110 was in trouble.

But when Operating Barbarossa started, once again the 110 was on top (yes, because most of the Russian AF was inferior).

This would be a correct statement:

"The rapid advancement of aircraft performance was well known by all sides, and it was only a matter of time before it was removed from frontline service"
Does it say the 110 was outclassed? No, but that it was expected that SOMEONE would make something that would render it inferior enough to remove from service, even their own designers might the the cause of its demise.

 

[Njaco]

Battle of Britain statistics