Battle of Britain: Bf110 losses and victories

[magnu]

The men who flew them weren't inexperienced if boom and zoom tactics would have worked that's what they would have used. Instead every RAF account from the BOB I have ever read of encounters with the type speaks of them forming defensive circles which really says everything you need to know about what the actual pilots thought of their chances in combat with Hurricanes and Spitfires.

 

[Frantish]

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.

It is not the number of missions, but the types of missions (and those are very hard to find).
Overall all three flew roughly the same number, statistically inconsequential.

Comparing: (Loss % / Force %)
Dornier Do-17z 444/348 192 destroyed (79 damaged, 247 killed, 297 missing, 114 wounded) 25.7% / 24.8%
Junkers Ju-88 447/330 303 destroyed (128 damaged, 397 killed, 476 missing, 104 wounded) 40.6% / 24.5%
Heinkel He-111 900? 252 destroyed (96 damaged, 368 killed, 473 missing, 108 wounded) 33.7% / 50.3%
total 1791 747 destroyed (303 damaged, 1012 killed, 1246 missing, 326 wounded) 41.7% of total
Dornier Do-17 Depot / Facts
(Listed here, http://cte.jhu.edu/projectbuilder/popup_PrintTour.cfm?TourID=483, but the full page is locked, )

Supporting data
Graph

Conclusion
The losses by the Ju-88 is so high compared to Do-17 and He-111 at (correction: ) BEST they are equivalent, and at worst to be especially vulnerable to defending fighters

 

[Frantish]

The men who flew them weren't inexperienced if boom and zoom tactics would have worked that's what they would have used. Instead every RAF account from the BOB I have ever read of encounters with the type speaks of them forming defensive circles which really says everything you need to know about what the actual pilots thought of their chances in combat with Hurricanes and Spitfires.

The 110 pilots on average had more combat experience then the RAF, if that is what you mean.
Experience is not the same as stupid, and it is not clear if the RAF pilots correctly saw them use defensive circle or something else mistaken by the RAF as a defensive circle (any LW reports?).

Regardless, a defensive circle is not the best tactic to apply with a 110, and likely (but not certain) a contributor for high 110 loss.

Conversely, the published reports could be due to pilots who survived 110 engagements.
It is possible (and hard to confirm) that 110's doing BnZ tactics decimated the RAF formations, leaving:
1. Few RAF pilots to report the BnZ tactics (over the poor Def Cir).
and/or
2. Suppressed by the High Command for positive propaganda reasons.
(yes, both the above is conjecture)

The latter is something done by all sides that clouds the truth to today and is well known.

 

[Glider]

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.

Taking each point one at a time

1 True the Me110 does have a high ceiling but when did they ever fly at 35,000ft when escorting He111 with a max altitude of approx 22,000ft, Ju88 at approx 27,000ft, Do 17 at around 19,000ft, Ju87 at 26,000ft
2 The only defenders that count are Spitfires and Hurricanes and the Hurricane was faster by 10-15mph at 5,000ft and 3-4 mph slower at 20,000 ft para 46 Me110 tactical trials, the spitfire faster at all altitudes
3 True but where possible Spitfires went for the escorts and Hurricanes the bombers
4 True but you have to point them at the target first
5 True but there were many other times when the Gunner was ignored. In a contest between 8 x LMG in the wing and one hand held by the Tail Gunner the money is on the fighter.

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.

Against fighters that are as good or better than you in a climb you are on to a loser. The Me110 doesn't accelerate as well or dive as well.

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.

The AVG had a speed advantage over the Oscar of about 40-60mph and more in a dive. The Me110 is slower than the Spit and about the same as the Hurricane a major difference.

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 don't know me very well do you. Attached is the summary of the Tactical trials held between the Me110 and Hurricane 1 and Spitfire 5B. I would appreciate a retraction that my items are false.

You concluded with:

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!

My statement read as you rightly quoted 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.
This is because the two RAF aircraft in the test were a Spitfire V and a Hurricane 1. I was only pointing out that it was a Spitfire V in the test but that if a Hurricane 1 can match an Me110 then I am sure that a Spitfire 1 would do so as well. Its a fair comment and made because I didn't want people to make a false assumption that the Spitfire in the test was a Mk1.

PS I did give my source when I said Quote from the Me110 Tactical trials As I said earlier I await your retraction.

 

[The Basket]

Also the 110 is a big old bird so will be pricey in comparisons to a single engined single seater.

So the bill to replace loss for loss will be far higher than a 109.

 

[Frantish]

Taking each point one at a time

1 True the Me110 does have a high ceiling but when did they ever fly at 35,000ft when escorting He111 with a max altitude of approx 22,000ft, Ju88 at approx 27,000ft, Do 17 at around 19,000ft, Ju87 at 26,000ft
2 The only defenders that count are Spitfires and Hurricanes and the Hurricane was faster by 10-15mph at 5,000ft and 3-4 mph slower at 20,000 ft para 46 Me110 tactical trials, the spitfire faster at all altitudes
3 True but where possible Spitfires went for the escorts and Hurricanes the bombers
4 True but you have to point them at the target first
5 True but there were many other times when the Gunner was ignored. In a contest between 8 x LMG in the wing and one hand held by the Tail Gunner the money is on the fighter.
...

Against fighters that are as good or better than you in a climb you are on to a loser. The Me110 doesn't accelerate as well or dive as well.
...

The AVG had a speed advantage over the Oscar of about 40-60mph and more in a dive. The Me110 is slower than the Spit and about the same as the Hurricane a major difference.

...

You don't know me very well do you. Attached is the summary of the Tactical trials held between the Me110 and Hurricane 1 and Spitfire 5B. I would appreciate a retraction that my items are false.

My statement read as you rightly quoted 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.
This is because the two RAF aircraft in the test were a Spitfire V and a Hurricane 1. I was only pointing out that it was a Spitfire V in the test but that if a Hurricane 1 can match an Me110 then I am sure that a Spitfire 1 would do so as well. Its a fair comment and made because I didn't want people to make a false assumption that the Spitfire in the test was a Mk1.

PS I did give my source when I said Quote from the Me110 Tactical trials As I said earlier I await your retraction.

Ok, let me start from the bottom, going up.

I made the assumption you had good data, and it sounded like an RAF review, but a title reference of Me110 Tactical trials would be dismissed by any school teacher (let alone professor). At least is should say the author or authority, and best with date:
"Me110 Tactical trials", RAF FAE, 1942.

But I admit to sometimes not doing a good job to listing my resources too.

On the subject of Altitudes.
"Bf-110 at 35,000ft, when escorting He111 with a max altitude of approx 22,000ft, Ju88 at approx 27,000ft, Do 17 at around 19,000ft, Ju87 at 26,000ft"

If you are an escort, what better way to watch your charge then to be about 2 miles above the formation watching for EA? (10 mile visibility is typical baring clouds, and as a pilot I can easily spot aircraft 2 to 4 miles away (less if they are dark / camouflaged)
Goerings order of "close escort" was the doom of many 110 becuase the one advantage they had was gone.

Even if the Hurricane is faster below 5000ft, but the engagements occurred much higher. Again a case of correct tactics.

The bottom line to my argument all along is if the 110 was used strictly to its advantages it would have done quite well against the RAF, which again had limited numbers of the one real threat, the Spitfire.
The LW did not, and they suffered large losses.

Bottom line, it is the tactics and pilots, not just the machine.

S!

 

[Glider]

Ok, let me start from the bottom, going up.

I made the assumption you had good data, and it sounded like an RAF review, but a title reference of Me110 Tactical trials would be dismissed by any school teacher (let alone professor). At least is should say the author or authority, and best with date:
"Me110 Tactical trials", RAF FAE, 1942.

But I admit to not doing a good job to listing my resources too.

You haven't quoted any source, in particular for your comments about the speed of the Hurricane.

On the subject of Altitudes.
"Bf-110 at 35,000ft, when escorting He111 with a max altitude of approx 22,000ft, Ju88 at approx 27,000ft, Do 17 at around 19,000ft, Ju87 at 26,000ft"

If you are an escort, what better way to watch your charge then to be about 2 miles above the formation watching for EA? (10 mile visibility is typical baring clouds, and as a pilot I can easily spot aircraft 2 to 4 miles away (less if they are dark / camouflaged)

Two very obvious points:-
a) RAF fighters are camouflaged so your spotting is going to be a lot less than 2 to 4 miles and you are 3 miles above the planes your going to escort?
As a glider pilot I have lots of experience of how poor the lookout is of the average pilot and even good ones. One near miss I saw but was not involved in concerned two Red Arrows and another the Aerostars who forced me into an emergency landing in a field after I took evasive action and lost height. As you would expect my glider was white and I have Zero faith in the average pilots lookout.

The following may be of interest. On most of these days gliders were in the circuit so it wasn't just a navigation error.
As you might expect the problem hasn't gone away and every flying club in Essex has received reminders and a piece of cable asking them how they would like to fly into it.
Essex Suffolk Gliding Club

b) I don't know where you are based but do you know how many cloudless days there are in the UK?

Even if the Hurricane is faster below 5000ft, but the engagements occurred much higher. Again a case of correct tactics.

A speed difference of 3-5 mph is nothing and easily within the parameters of one aircraft to another of the same type and to bet the lives on ypur pilots on it would be rash to say the least.

The bottom line to my argument all along is if the 110 was used strictly to its advantages it would have done quite well against the RAF, which again had limited numbers of the one real threat, the Spitfire.
The LW did not, and they suffered large losses.

Bottom line, it is the tactics and pilots, not just the machine.

S!

You stick to your tactics and I am confident that the Me110 losses would have been huge, the RAF given you a medal and the surviving bomber crews that you were escorting, would be sticking pins in effigies of you.

PS I am still waiting for a retraction that I was making things up

 

[Frantish]

....
PS I am still waiting for a retraction that I was making things up

....

What I wrote and I believe the issue:
"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."

The spirit of my comment still stands, in that you failed to properly introduce the source (and still have not properly listed the source) and pulled select quotes out of the source, called "contextomy" or "quote mining", and could be tantamount to a false statement, although most times it is seen as a misleading statement.

For the comment "looks like some of the items are outright false.", that is a poor choice, make that wrong words to use and I apologize.
Stupid and will not do that again.

Apology accepted?


Oh.
PS:

 

[Jerry W. Loper]

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)

Considering how many books have been written about the Battle of Britain and the aircraft that fought in it, if the Me-110 had acquitted itself well as a fighter in A-A combat during the Battle, we would've read about it by now.

 

[davebender]

I wouldn't call the Me-110 outclassed just because it (and the Luftwaffe in general) performed poorly during July through September 1940 over Britain.

 

[lesofprimus]

Quote:
Originally Posted by lesofprimus
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.

I actually like the 110 alot guys, dont get me wrong... I will retract my previously erroneous statement and revise it with this one:
From the onset of hostilities concerning The Battle for Britain, it was proven that the 110 was an inferior dogfighter/escort for German bombers...

Ive read that there were several RAF boys who could easily enter into the 110 circle and bag one or 2... I think the Luftwaffe boys pretty much stopped doing it after some bad losses in July...

There are many instances where 110 units flying low level did severe damage to the RAF on the ground... AAA taught these boys some hard lessons over these airfields tho... Carried a hellova punch...

 

[Frantish]

Considering how many books have been written about the Battle of Britain and the aircraft that fought in it, if the Me-110 had acquitted itself well as a fighter in A-A combat during the Battle, we would've read about it by now.

..but it did not becuase either LW command, or the pilots, likely both, used it as a dogfighter, and naturally it was swatted from the sky (screaming for 109 escorts).

It is interesting to note it was called a ZESTROYER (Destroyer), different from a Jagde (sp?), or Fighter. That suggests a purpose or tactic different from dogfigthing, but I have never seen an explanation why the different name (other then just "Heavy fighter", so why not call it Groß Jadg ?).

A similar example is the Me-262.
Had they been forced to be bombers, likely it would be seen as a failure. But some realized the stupidity of the leadership and used them as they where meant to be.

 

[Glider]

Frantish
Many thanks

An interesting thought is how would the Me110 had done had the RAF been equipped with them, instead of the Hurricane. Having a fast aircraft with considerable firepower that didn't have to hang around the bombers and could head inland at max speed without worrying about fuel after one pass. If the escorts went after them the escort would of course have the advantage, but would leave the bombers without cover.

We could have a situation where one aircraft is a liability to the Germans but a positive boon to the RAF

 

[Jerry W. Loper]

Frantish
Many thanks

An interesting thought is how would the Me110 had done had the RAF been equipped with them, instead of the Hurricane. Having a fast aircraft with considerable firepower that didn't have to hang around the bombers and could head inland at max speed without worrying about fuel after one pass. If the escorts went after them the escort would of course have the advantage, but would leave the bombers without cover.

We could have a situation where one aircraft is a liability to the Germans but a positive boon to the RAF

Well, if the RAF had swapped the Me-110 for the Hurricane, that would mean that RAF's Fighter Command would be equipped with twice as many Me-110s as Spitfires, while the Luftwaffe's single seat fighter would still have been the Me-109. IMO, the Me-110 would have been less of a match for the Me-109 (than the Hurricane was), and Fighter Command would have suffered heavier losses.

 

[Frantish]

Frantish
Many thanks

An interesting thought is how would the Me110 had done had the RAF been equipped with them, instead of the Hurricane. Having a fast aircraft with considerable firepower that didn't have to hang around the bombers and could head inland at max speed without worrying about fuel after one pass. If the escorts went after them the escort would of course have the advantage, but would leave the bombers without cover.

We could have a situation where one aircraft is a liability to the Germans but a positive boon to the RAF

I am glad its resolve. I am not here to make enemies.

I would predict an RAF heavy fighter (Beaufort for example?) tasked with attacking the bombers only and well escorted with Spits or Hurris to protect them would have put a stop to the LW before they even started.

I have seen and have pictures (ebay purchase) of 111's, 17's, and 88's full of holes that made it back to France, thus the huge effort by the RAF to install 20mm.

Then with the mass bombing of Germany, how the LW put more and more 20mm in the LW, and those still had a difficult time to take down B-17's and like.


It is odd. When WW2 started, everyone was still doing WW1 style air combat. Rifle caliber machine guns (7~8mm), maneuver combat, even though the aircraft technology had vastly improved. That is for another thread.

S!

 

[Frantish]

Well, if the RAF had swapped the Me-110 for the Hurricane, that would mean that RAF's Fighter Command would be equipped with twice as many Me-110s as Spitfires, while the Luftwaffe's single seat fighter would still have been the Me-109. IMO, the Me-110 would have been less of a match for the Me-109 (than the Hurricane was), and Fighter Command would have suffered heavier losses.

Only in a 110 vs 109 case.
With an escort of Spits with 110, then the 110 could focus on destroying the bombers while the Spit kept the 109 away (of course some 109 would take down a 110).

The Defiant comes to mind. IIRC, a group of Defiant's did attack the LW bombers by flying below and off to side, allowing the gunner the perfect angle to hit vital parts (Scharge Musak anyone??), but they had not escorts to protect them and were at least forced to disengage.
If anyone knows the incident in detail, please post!

Looking at Wiki, I found a prime example of how crucial the tactic is:
Boulton Paul Defiant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

According to the book The Turret Fighters by aviation historian Alec Brew, 264 Sqn. developed a counter against single-seat aircraft such as the Bf 109. By flying in an ever-descending Lufberry circle, Defiant crews sacrificed the advantage of height but eliminated the possibility of attack from underneath, while giving 360° of defensive fire.[12] This tactic was used successfully by 264 Sqn. but when the Defiants of 141 Sqn. were committed to combat a few months later during the Battle of Britain, it chose to ignore their advice with devastating consequences. On 19 July 1940, seven out of nine Defiants of 141 Sqn. sent to cover a convoy off Folkestone were shot down and the remaining two only survived, one badly damaged, due to the intervention of Hurricanes of 111 Sqn.

An article about it called it "fatally flawed", yet at first it did very well, and could have continued to serve well with the 264's tactic.
How one particular aspect of a vehicle becomes its virtue or its mill stone.

 

[davebender]

When WW2 started, everyone was still doing WW1 style air combat.

I don't think that is correct. The Luftwaffe experimented with the Rotte (2 aircraft) and Schwarm (4 aircraft. A pair of Rotte) during the Spanish Civil War. They also worked out dive zoom tactics for the Me-109. These aerial combat techniques were standardized by 1939.

Back to the Zerstorer....
As I understand it the heavy fighter was something of a fad during the mid 1930s. The Netherlands produced a few Fokker G.Is, Britain procured the Bristol Beaufighter, Japan produced the Ki-45, Germany produced the Me-110 and Poland was working on the PZL.38.

Once the war started Britain and Germany wasted little time converting their Zerstorer / heavy fighter aircraft to night fighters. Japan converted the Ki-45 into an interceptor of heavy bombers. That was the end of the Zerstorer concept.

 

[Shortround6]

The Americans were fooling around with the Airacuda, The French had several twin engine multi-seat fighters, I am not sure if the Italians had anything in the late 30s.
I am also not sure that the British really believed the Bristol Blenheim fighter and Beaufighter could take on single seat fighters in daylight.

I would also note that not all 20mm cannon were the same. The MG/FF in the 110 was a low velocity weapon of somewhat limited practical range. It's effective range was little better than rifle caliber MG from a chance of hit point of view although it obviously hits harder. Trying to use the 7.92mm MGs as "sighter's" doesn't work very well due to differences in trajectories and times of flight. The guns were also fed from 60 round drums and after 7-8 seconds of firing time required the rear gunner to swap drums on the cannon. A full drum weighed over 60lbs. To be fair the first 400 or so Beaufighters had the same problem only times two. It has been noted by some writers and crewmen that the early Beaufighters rarely had four working cannon after the first drums were used up.

 

[davebender]

MG/FF in the 110 was a low velocity weapon of somewhat limited practical range.

Until fighter aircraft received a gyrostabilized gun sight maximum effect combat range was only about 300 meters and good pilots typically opened fire at half that distance. So I don't think low velocity was a major problem for aircraft cannon during 1939 to 1943.

 

[Milosh]

I wouldn't call the P-38 and P-47, which were heavier than the Bf110, light fighters like the Spit, 109, P-51 etc.