Battle of Britain: Zeros instead of Me-109s

[FLYBOYJ]

That won't help unless you have a factory producing 500 drop tanks per day during 1940. Which means Germany would need to build the factory during 1938. The guy responsible for Luftwaffe operational doctrine needs to think this through two years prior to the BoB.

It doesn't (didn't) take two years to set up a factory to build a stamped or spun formed aluminum tank that could be massed produced, and this would also be an item where you would have multiple suppliers.

 

[davebender]

What if the Luftwaffe orders mass production of drop tanks on the day Britain and France declare war? Will they be available in quantity by July 1940?

 

[Milosh]

What if the Luftwaffe orders mass production of drop tanks on the day Britain and France declare war? Will they be available in quantity by July 1940?

Sure there could. One stamping machine could most likely produce one half of a tank every minute. I will let you do the math.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

What if the Luftwaffe orders mass production of drop tanks on the day Britain and France declare war? Will they be available in quantity by July 1940?

If 3 or 4 suppliers were identified to make these correctly - YES.


THE LUFTWAFFE AND DROP FUEL TANKS 1939-40[!?] « War and Game

"The Germans did develop a drop tank for the Bf 109 prior to the invasion of France. Unfortunately, the design was rather hasty and the tank (made of plywood) tended to come 'unglued' (great shades of Ta 154!) when in use. The design allowed for about 70 gallons of fuel to be carried. Because of the leakage problems and the potential that resulted in it being a fire hazard it went unused. The original intent was that the Bf 109E-7 could use this tank to extend its range for use in both the French campaign and later against Britain.

This is another case of a single German manufacturer building a defective product on the spur of the moment and when the product fails to meet service requirements there is no suitable alternative. By the time the problem(s) comes to the attention of higher levels of command and is dealt with the operational effects have already caused debilitating losses.

Look at the same problem with the Bf 110. The D model with the Dackelbauch tank suffered a number of losses from explosions occurring when the tank emptied and the remaining fuel – air mixture was exposed to a spark. If anything, the technical incompetence of the Luftwaffe's technische Amt in providing suitable and adequate equipment and aircraft to that service was a disgrace. The Göring had the stupidity to place such non-technical officers such as Ernst Udet in command of this critical branch of the Luftwaffe only shows his own incompetence as a leader."

 

[Tante Ju]

There was a aluminium droptank for the Ju 87 R type, 300 liters. I think it was first used Norway? Certain available by BOB.. so I guess they could use this droptank without much problem, indeed if there was tank, there supposed to be a tank factory somewhere.. I think it was failure to adopt this tank quickly enough for Me 109.

 

[The Basket]

The first Luftwaffe fighter the He-51 and ground attack Hs 123 had drop tanks in Spanish civil war so hardly a jump for the 109 to ha e them too.

Maybe the 109 drag penalties were too severe and never advanced for drop tanks in the underpowered first generation 109.

 

[wheelsup_cavu]

I always wondered what would have happened if the Japanese and Germans had been willing to collaborate and the Japanese fleet had been deployed to the Atlantic? No clue how they would have got there unless they sailed around Africa since the Suez Canal was not available but I would think that the French ports would have been able to supply the fleet after they arrived?

Knock England out of the war and then annex their Asian colonies at the surrender table.


Wheels

 

[Vincenzo]

Sorry but I can't agree with your statement davebender that the Germans needed more 110. Whenever they were used during BoB they were always suffering heavy loses. 110's were doing great work as fighter-bomber units, with insist on bomber role, but not as a pure fighter or (even worse) as an escort fighter.
What the Germans needed the most was greater number of 109's and a better bombing tactic.
The endurance of 109 was never a problem during the BoB because RAF never moved it's squadrons beyond the Emil's combat range.

Tante Ju, I can't agree with you either. 110 destroying a lot of Spitfires and Hurries? Check dogfight reports day by day and you will see that 110 had a win/loss rate of 1/5 or even worse. LW had to apply at least such rate on it's favor to defeat RAF. And it didn't have nor sufficient amount of fighters ready to fight nor production possibilities to let their loses be that high.
.

The ratio of 110 vs british fighter in BoB was near 1:1, i think you used RAF claims

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The ratio of 110 vs british fighter in BoB was near 1:1, i think you used RAF claims

Older discussion...

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aircraft-requests/battle-britain-bf110-losses-victories-21704.html

 

[davebender]

Japan wanted to control China. How is Germany going to assist that effort?

 

[kielczyslaw]

The ratio of 110 vs british fighter in BoB was near 1:1, i think you used RAF claims

Yes, of course. And that's why the Germans moved most of the 110 to night fighter squadrons and stopped to use them as escort fighters. Where's logic in that?

If the 110 had been that successful the Germans would've won the BoB. Even Ernst Udet, the man who pushed the idea of Zerstorer through RLM, changed his mind about the usage of heavy fighters in a conventional dogfight. They lack of speed, climb, maneuverability and, i total, agility to be a good fighter. The only thing they've had was the range and firepower.

I don't know what claims you have used, but they don't seem to be very reliable.
I used claims of RAF that have found confirmation in LW losses and the opposite.
If you used the Germans claims, don't forget that they considered, after their pilots claims, RAF to be defeated in September 1940. How badly they were surprised seeing dozens of "RAF's fifty last operational fighters" greeting them over the England skies every day .

 

[tomo pauk]

Yes, of course. And that's why the Germans moved most of the 110 to night fighter squadrons and stopped to use them as escort fighters. Where's logic in that?

When flying close escort (flying at bombers' cruising speed altitude) puts any fighter in disadvantage. Neither 109 nor 110 were immune to that.

If the 110 had been that successful the Germans would've won the BoB.

Sliver bullets seldom win wars. For the Bf-110 (or any fighter) to 'win' the BoB on it's own, apart from technical tactical advantages, one needs numbers. Bf-110 was pretty even in technical sector, but high command orders managed to mess the tactical stuff (with orders for close escort), and it surely did not numbers on it's side.

Even Ernst Udet, the man who pushed the idea of Zerstorer through RLM, changed his mind about the usage of heavy fighters in a conventional dogfight. They lack of speed, climb, maneuverability and, i total, agility to be a good fighter. The only thing they've had was the range and firepower.

That Bf-110 might not be the best design of feasible ones for 1940, that holds the truth. But claiming that it lacked speed, in BoB, is rather silly. Since it was flying offensively, the not-so-good rate of climb is hardly a disadvantage in practical terms. German mistake was to not allow it to fly at 20000 ft and above (so he may boom'n'zoom), but that has nothing to do with plane itself.
Range firepower are among crucial assets if one is to fly over enemy held territorry, so saying 'only' for that categories is bordering with reality. And we can add the fire duration for cannons, 3 times longer than Bf-109.

I don't know what claims you have used, but they don't seem to be very reliable.
I used claims of RAF that have found confirmation in LW losses and the opposite.
If you used the Germans claims, don't forget that they considered, after their pilots claims, RAF to be defeated in September 1940. How badly they were surprised seeing dozens of "RAF's fifty last operational fighters" greeting them over the England skies every day .

The topic of claiming overclaiming deserves a forum for itself

 

[DonL]

Yes, of course. And that's why the Germans moved most of the 110 to night fighter squadrons and stopped to use them as escort fighters. Where's logic in that?

If the 110 had been that successful the Germans would've won the BoB. Even Ernst Udet, the man who pushed the idea of Zerstorer through RLM, changed his mind about the usage of heavy fighters in a conventional dogfight. They lack of speed, climb, maneuverability and, i total, agility to be a good fighter. The only thing they've had was the range and firepower.

I don't know what claims you have used, but they don't seem to be very reliable.
I used claims of RAF that have found confirmation in LW losses and the opposite.
If you used the Germans claims, don't forget that they considered, after their pilots claims, RAF to be defeated in September 1940. How badly they were surprised seeing dozens of "RAF's fifty last operational fighters" greeting them over the England skies every day

You should look a bit more sophisticated about the Bf 110!
Alsö I'm no big fan of the Zerstoerer concept you can't compare Zerstoerer and Heavy Fighter, that's other philosophies.
A P-38, a Westland Whirlwind and a FW 187 are other planes and concepts as a Bf 110, though to say the heavy fighter is in general inferior is very wrong.

The problem of the Bf 110 at BoB was the wrong tactics from the LW, to close escort the Bomber and not escort as high cover. This wrong tactic was bad for the Bf 109 and fatal for the Bf 110. The Bf 110 had quite good chances against "normal" fighters, if it could attack from altitude with surprise, that was often proved at the battle of France, Duenkirchen, Mallta and Norway with the right tactic and not the very wrong close cover tactic from BoB

 

[FLYBOYJ]

There were over 220 Bf-110s lost during the BoB. I doubt -110s shot down 220 RAF aircraft.

 

[DonL]

After Christer Bergstroms Book Luftstrid över kanalen (2006). In english Battle of Britain (2007)
An analys about Bf 109, Bf 110, Spitfire and Hurricane at BoB.


[+]Bf-109 squadrons achieved 815 kills to ~534 losses= kill ratio 1,52 zu 1
[+]Bf-110 squadrons achieved 407 kills to ~196 losses= kill ratio 2,07 zu 1

Edit:

[+]Spitfire: 550 achieved kills to 329 losses - kill ratio 1,7 zu 1
[+]Hurricane: 750 achieved kills to 603 losses - kill ratio 1,2 zu 1

Note: The mission of the german fighters was first to hunt/fight british fighters, the mission of the british fighters was first to fight the german bomber.

Note from Bergstrom:
When used as a high altitude escort (Bf 110), not being tied to close escort to the bomber force, it made effective diving attacks on RAF fighters using surprise, high speed and it's heavy nose armament to score victories.
Long range and an extra pair of eyes was also helpful in air battle, the range enabling to wait for the right moment to strike and the extra pair of eyes increasing the situational awareness of the pilot in an air battle. Wrongly used as a close bomber escort the disadvantages with slow acceleration and climb in comparison with the Spitfire and Hurricane negated the Bf 110s strengths, which was also proven by high losses on several such instances.

Note from Bergstrom:
Bergstrom discussed the significance of the data analysis, including the difficulties, whether Bf-109 and Bf-110 and Spitfire and Hurricane were correctly identified each of the reports. But he comes to the conclusion that at least 25-30% of all losses by the RAF must originate with the Bf-110 armed groups, so that the data structure can be mapped correctly.

The complete book based on primary sources and the datas are not claims but confirmed kills/losses from primary sources.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/9197589683/?tag=dcglabs-20

 

[Vincenzo]

Actually i've not specifically data on 110 victories, but actually RAF loss more fighter of Luftwaffe, lw loss around 500 109 and 220 110, raf loss around 1000 SE fighters and around 50 Blenheim, both lw and raf are actually loss not enemy claims, calculating relatively few loss from bombers we can tell that over 900 SE RAF fighters were losses from lw fighters, if 110 ratio was 1:1 the 109 ratio is around 1 for 1.35 raf SE fighters maybe this too low? if we put 110 ratio to 1:0.8 the 109 ratio up to 1:1.45. so i think is right tell the 110 ratio was near 1:1 (taking 1:0.8 as near)

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Just another source for comparison, very similar numbers...

http://cz-raf.hyperlink.cz/BoB/stat.html#types

 

[kielczyslaw]

"When flying close escort (flying at bombers' cruising speed altitude) puts any fighter in disadvantage. Neither 109 nor 110 were immune to that."

True if you're doing it wrong way like LW did...

"Sliver bullets seldom win wars. For the Bf-110 (or any fighter) to 'win' the BoB on it's own, apart from technical tactical advantages, one needs numbers. Bf-110 was pretty even in technical sector, but high command orders managed to mess the tactical stuff (with orders for close escort), and it surely did not numbers on it's side."

I didn't write that 110 would won the BoB but that Germans would won it. Read rather what I've written than what you think I've written, please.
I meant that if the 110 had been that good the LW, with all it other means (109 for example) would've won the BoB.

"That Bf-110 might not be the best design of feasible ones for 1940, that holds the truth. But claiming that it lacked speed, in BoB, is rather silly. Since it was flying offensively, the not-so-good rate of climb is hardly a disadvantage in practical terms. German mistake was to not allow it to fly at 20000 ft and above (so he may boom'n'zoom), but that has nothing to do with plane itself.
Range firepower are among crucial assets if one is to fly over enemy held territorry, so saying 'only' for that categories is bordering with reality. And we can add the fire duration for cannons, 3 times longer than Bf-109."

Offensively? Close escort offensively? I hope you're not saying that seriously.
Rate of climb, speed and agility are the most important things in dogfight. For what would you use your great range and firepower if you won't be able to aim at anything? You will only give your enemy more time to shot you down.

"You should look a bit more sophisticated about the Bf 110!
Alsö I'm no big fan of the Zerstoerer concept you can't compare Zerstoerer and Heavy Fighter, that's other philosophies."

Ok, in that term you're right. My bad.

"A P-38, a Westland Whirlwind and a FW 187 are other planes and concepts as a Bf 110, though to say the heavy fighter is in general inferior is very wrong."

From those you've mentioned only P-38 was produced in greater numbers and had some successes as a fighter, though not over Europe. Bf 110 was great as a night fighter. But as a typical dogfighter it was nothing compared to contemporary single engined fighters. So were any of the heavy fighters.

"The problem of the Bf 110 at BoB was the wrong tactics from the LW, to close escort the Bomber and not escort as high cover. This wrong tactic was bad for the Bf 109 and fatal for the Bf 110. The Bf 110 had quite good chances against "normal" fighters, if it could attack from altitude with surprise, that was often proved at the battle of France, Duenkirchen, Mallta and Norway with the right tactic and not the very wrong close cover tactic from BoB"

Wrong. Tactics during conficts before BoB was exactly the same. The only difference (if I can say "only") was that the enemy was slightly inferior to LW and to RAF later on. 110 was slightly superior to any of its adversaries at that time. Things changed when it had to fight with Spitfires and Hurries.

"The Bf 110 had quite good chances against "normal" fighters, if it could attack from altitude with surprise"

And there exist any fighter that would not benefit from such situation?

"[+]Bf-109 squadrons achieved 815 kills to ~534 losses= kill ratio 1,52 zu 1
[+]Bf-110 squadrons achieved 407 kills to ~196 losses= kill ratio 2,07 zu 1

Edit:

[+]Spitfire: 550 achieved kills to 329 losses - kill ratio 1,7 zu 1
[+]Hurricane: 750 achieved kills to 603 losses - kill ratio 1,2 zu 1"

I doubt those ratios to be true. Summing up this will give 3,59 to 1 for LW and 2,9 to 1 for RAF. However, I can find that RAF had greater loses than LW only once during the BoB, and those numbers are taken not from pilots claims but from planes lost lists of both sides.

"But he comes to the conclusion that at least 25-30% of all losses by the RAF must originate with the Bf-110 armed groups, so that the data structure can be mapped correctly."

I think that this statement tells us a lot about this book...

 

[bowfin]

My theory about the Zero in the Battle of Britain is that the Zero would probably shoot down just a few more British fighters (at best) than the Me-109, but the real difference would be in the amount of German bombers it would have saved. Here are a few other points, some may not be valid:

Zeros wouldn't have to mix it up with one eye on the fuel gauge. Very few fights end because the Zero has to cut and run because of empty tanks.

Zeros could arrive before the bombers got over target, start a fur ball with the waiting British fighters to preoccupy them, and thn leave after the bombers turned around.

A squadron of Zeros could even fly some rhubarb missions of their own, reaching training bases and other places that would have been out of range for the Me-109. Think of a squadron of Zeros tearing into a training flight of prospective RAF pilots.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

My theory about the Zero in the Battle of Britain is that the Zero would probably shoot down just a few more British fighters (at best) than the Me-109, but the real difference would be in the amount of German bombers it would have saved. Here are a few other points, some may not be valid:

Zeros wouldn't have to mix it up with one eye on the fuel gauge. Very few fights end because the Zero has to cut and run because of empty tanks.

Zeros could arrive before the bombers got over target, start a fur ball with the waiting British fighters to preoccupy them, and thn leave after the bombers turned around.

A squadron of Zeros could even fly some rhubarb missions of their own, reaching training bases and other places that would have been out of range for the Me-109. Think of a squadron of Zeros tearing into a training flight of prospective RAF pilots.

All wishful thinking providing Spitfire and Hurricane pilots would be lured into fighting with the Zero at speeds below 200 mph. Above that its fabled maneuverability disappears and its control surfaces become concrete. I think the RAF would have figured this out very quickly. No self sealing tanks, no armor protection, I see the BoB ending weeks earlier with the RAF as the victors.