Battle of Britain: Zeros instead of Me-109s

From intelsum 85
"the large ailerons make the ship highly maneuverable at speeds up to three hundred miles per hour indicated."

so you think that in the BoB time how many combats go over 300 mph indicated?

kielczyslaw said:

"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.
"[+]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.

Click to expand...

In the smaller campaigns of the Phoney War it was well documented that kill ratio of Bf110's v Hurricanes was no worse than around 1:1, and the recent very well documented book "Battle of France Then and Now" gives individual a/c fates showing a Bf110 v Hurricane kill ratio around 2:1 in favor of the 110 in that larger campaign; and the 110's ratio v Spitfires of Fighter Command during the Battle of France (the British fighter contingent in France itself was all Hurricanes) was also > 1.

As far as Bergstrom's figures for BoB, I don't have that book to analyze or defend it in detail; he's generally considered a reliable author AFAIK. But it's certainly not inconsistent if both German and British fighters achieved overall kill ratios>1 since the British fighters had many bomber targets and the German fighters did not.

And some of the other figures quoted in the thread compare total losses to all causes. Of course if a/c are lost to causes other than enemy fighters, they are still lost, but it just distorts the picture to evaluate the effectiveness of a given fighter unit or fighter arm by counting enemy losses they didn't cause, or losses of their own not caused by enemy a/c.

AFAIK most or all analyses have concluded that losses of British fighters caused by German fighters in the BoB considerably exceeded German fighter losses caused by British fighters*. And the 109 didn't have a greatly different fighter to fighter kill ratio in the campaigns prior to BoB than the 110 did. So Bergstrom's figures don't seem shocking in that context.

*and that was typical of most campaigns in 1940-42 at least, usually to a greater degree than in BoB.

Joe

JoeB there is a book like "Battle of France Than and Now" for the BoB?

kielczyslaw said:

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.

Click to expand...

I apologize, oh master, for not reading interpreting your words in 100% acuracy. Such mistake will not be repeated in future.
Of course, if you can explain why the Bf-110 would be the main thing to blame for LW loosing BoB, that would be appreciated wholeheartedly.

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.

Click to expand...

But I am dead serious on this.
Bf-110 was to fly over enemy territory, ready to kill what can, so he is flying offensively. There are many ways to be offensive, as I'm sure you know, and some are better than others.
As for RoC agility: great thing for a defender, not a necessity for a plane that is already high up. So I see the 110 to be hampered here in any way. You might want to check the heavy not-so-good climbers (P-51/-47, USN fighters) having no problems with renown climbers turners.
About speed: Bf-110 is reasonably fast for 1940, faster than Hurricane. Again, 110 fares well here.
As for disability to hit anything, maybe you are referring to the planes that could ill support the bombing campaigns of their respective air forces, by having insufficient combat range?

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.

Click to expand...

Here is tomo pauk absolutely correct.

There were two tactics of the LW at BoB! Close escort (Naher Begleitschutz) and free fighting/hunt (freie Jagd) over South England.
Two translate (freie Jagd) is a bit difficult. You can describe this as high altitude cover for the bombers but the fighter are not close to the bombers, but search there tragets individuel. It is very clear an offensive tactic because the fighters are not bound to the bombers.
This tactic was flown from the LW at the begining of BoB and at the end of BoB.
With this tactic the kill ratio of the LW fighter against the FC fighter was 3:1 for the LW fighters after Bergstrom. The heavy losses of the Bf 109 and Bf 110 were all at the time as the LW fighters had to flight close escort after the command from Göring.

Edit:

"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.

Click to expand...

The close escort tactic was only flown at BoB from the LW. At the France and Duenkirchen campaign the fighters could fly at high altitude with no bound to the bombers. The close escort tactic was a direct command from Göring at BoB!

[+]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.

Click to expand...

I can't understand your calculation.

The FC fighters achieved after Bergstrom 1300 confirmed kills, the LW fighters only 1200 confirmed kills and all his data's came from primary sources (lost lists of the RAF and lost lists of the LW)

FLYBOYJ said:

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."

Click to expand...

The Germans used metalic 50 gallon drop tanks on Heinkel He 51 during the Spannish civil war.

The paper mache drop tanks may have been a defective product (as the original poster disparaging puts) in 1939/40 but the Allies tried these themselves in 1943, Mustangs also had to abandon their carboard drop tanks for smaller metalic ones.

So the failute to prepare Me 109 E3 and E4 with a reliable tested drop tank system must surely be an oversight or simply lack of priority: beating (or rather surviving) against Poland, France must have figured way ahead of long range missions against the UK.

Siegfried said:

The Germans used metalic 50 gallon drop tanks on Heinkel He 51 during the Spannish civil war.

The paper mache drop tanks may have been a defective product (as the original poster disparaging puts) in 1939/40 but the Allies tried these themselves in 1943, Mustangs also had to abandon their carboard drop tanks for smaller metalic ones.

So the failute to prepare Me 109 E3 and E4 with a reliable tested drop tank system must surely be an oversight or simply lack of priority: beating (or rather surviving) against Poland, France must have figured way ahead of long range missions against the UK.

Click to expand...

It is a well known fact of the HE 51 using a metal drop tank during the Spanish Civil War.

The Allies versions was a lot more successful as they were rubber coated and a lot larger, 100 and 200 gallon and far as I know they were used right till the end of the war. The only limitation I know about them is they had a "shelf life" and would break down several hours after fuel was put into them, an actual "design intent!"

kielczyslaw said:

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

"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?
..

Click to expand...

The Me 110 was surely less likely to be bounced via boom and zoom tactics given the rear observer and gunner. The problem for the Bf 110 was that in turning flight the pursuing fighter tends to fall below the persued fighter and in this situation the rear gunner can not get his guns on the enemy: this problem is likely the reason for the Me 210 and Me 410 cheek guns.

The Me 110 was remarkable for its time: there were no Mosquitos, no P-38, no Beaufighters around.

The "Zerstoerer" concept started out as a self escorting fighter bomber designed to straff up and bomb enemy airfields before the main bomber force came in. Secondary roles were destruction of enemy bombers and bad weather fighter. Escort of bombers was never its intended roll. Immagine using a Beaufighter to escort Lancasters on missions!

When it opperated as a night fighter it was opperating withing its roll of bad weather fighter.

The Allies versions was a lot more successful as they were rubber coated and a lot larger, 100 and 200 gallon and far as I know they were used right till the end of the war. The only limitation I know about them is they had a "shelf life" and would break down several hours after fuel was put into them, an actual "design intent!"

Click to expand...

@ Flyboy
I can't understand your statement. The LW had 300l (66 Imp gallon) and 900l (200 Imp gallon)drop tanks, and all this drop tanks were in service till the end of the war. Mostly the large drop tanks for nightfighter missions, fighter bomber missions over the sea and the small ones for fighter bomber missions and reconnaissance missions.
Why do you say the Allies drop tanks were a lot more successful? To my opinion you need a mission where a drop tank can be used and the LW had different drop tanks for different missions right till the end of the war.

@ Siegfried

The "Zerstoerer" concept started out as a self escorting fighter bomber designed to straff up and bomb enemy airfields before the main bomber force came in. Secondary roles were destruction of enemy bombers and bad weather fighter. Escort of bombers was never its intended roll. Immagine using a Beaufighter to escort Lancasters on missions!

Click to expand...

This isn't quiet correct. At the advertisement of the destroyer 1936 from the LW (Wever and Wimmer) was required long range fighting and long range escort fighting. This is one of the main reasons why I'm that big supporter of the FW 187.

How many aircraft were shot down by Me110 rear gunners in the BoB ?

To shoot at another aircraft when you are behind them and you're both in a turn, and you have fixed forward firing guns, you have to turn tighter than them, that will quickly put you above them in a turn.

In my view loss of a Bf 110 is more significant than loss of a Hurricane as your losing 2 engines and buying 2 engines to replace.

That gonna cost plenty more in cash and time to replace. Also loss ratios more diddly squat if you're not achieving military objectives.

109 is all about the climb and time to intercept. Sticking a drop tank on will be like giving a fish a bicycle.

109 is all about the climb and time to intercept. Sticking a drop tank on will be like giving a fish a bicycle.

Click to expand...

Where do you see any interception missions from the Bf 109 at BoB? And why shouldn't the Bf 109 climb to the altitude with a drop tank, you can drop at the moment the Bf 109 arrived at the english coast?

DonL said:

@ Flyboy
I can't understand your statement. The LW had 300l (66 Imp gallon) and 900l (200 Imp gallon)drop tanks, and all this drop tanks were in service till the end of the war. Mostly the large drop tanks for nightfighter missions, fighter bomber missions over the sea and the small ones for fighter bomber missions and reconnaissance missions.
Why do you say the Allies drop tanks were a lot more successful? To my opinion you need a mission where a drop tank can be used and the LW had different drop tanks for different missions right till the end of the war.

Click to expand...

I'm talking about the "paper" 100 and 200 gallon drop tank used on P-47s and P-51s as opposed the the early "wood" drop tanks attempted to be used on the -109 and -110 (see my earlier post and the link THE LUFTWAFFE AND DROP FUEL TANKS 1939-40[!?] « War and Game )

At first one might be inclined to think the Zero would be of benefit to the Axis side in the BoB. The increased range and loiter time the Zero would bring could be a problem if the zeros were able to harass the RAF fighters as they attempted to rtb. The low speed maneuverability would also help out in the close escort role. Additonally the Zero seemed to be successful against the Spit and Hurri in the Far East.
However in the Far East ,the Zero was never up against the type of integrated air defense system that the UK possessed in 1940. With parity in fighter vs fighter numbers, that didn't occur in SE Asia, and the advantage of radar directed bounces , Hurricanes and Spitfires armed with 8 x.303s , and making diving attacks would provide a much different outcome. The Zero would find itself at a serious disadvantage, unable to escape by diving and unable to take a hit. I'd rather be in a 109.

For BoB, 109 with drop tanks seem like much better option than Zero IMO.

DonL said:

Where do you see any interception missions from the Bf 109 at BoB? And why shouldn't the Bf 109 climb to the altitude with a drop tank, you can drop at the moment the Bf 109 arrived at the english coast?

Click to expand...

Coz 109 was designed as an interceptor operating from it's own base as a bomber destroyer.

The fact it was doing what it did in BoB was simply unforeseen.

And you never plan for what wont happen.

Coz 109 was designed as an interceptor operating from it's own base as a bomber destroyer.

Click to expand...

I disagree. The Bf 109 was designed as an air supremacy fighter. The german doctrine were from the beginning offensive not defensive.
You can choose the Bf 109 as an fighter interceptor but for a bomber interceptor it was much too less armed.
And the Bf 109 had screwed up as a bomber interceptor as we all have seen from 1943 to 1945!

So I realy doubt that bomber interception was planed for the Bf 109.

DonL said:

I disagree. The Bf 109 was designed as an air supremacy fighter. The german doctrine were from the beginning offensive not defensive.
You can choose the Bf 109 as an fighter interceptor but for a bomber interceptor it was much too less armed.
And the Bf 109 had screwed up as a bomber interceptor as we all have seen from 1943 to 1945!

So I realy doubt that bomber interception was planed for the Bf 109.

Click to expand...

Agree - I would say the -109 morphed into an interceptor based on need rather than design.

slaterat said:

At first one might be inclined to think the Zero would be of benefit to the Axis side in the BoB. The increased range and loiter time the Zero would bring could be a problem if the zeros were able to harass the RAF fighters as they attempted to rtb. The low speed maneuverability would also help out in the close escort role. Additonally the Zero seemed to be successful against the Spit and Hurri in the Far East.
However in the Far East ,the Zero was never up against the type of integrated air defense system that the UK possessed in 1940. With parity in fighter vs fighter numbers, that didn't occur in SE Asia, and the advantage of radar directed bounces , Hurricanes and Spitfires armed with 8 x.303s , and making diving attacks would provide a much different outcome. The Zero would find itself at a serious disadvantage, unable to escape by diving and unable to take a hit. I'd rather be in a 109.

Click to expand...

Parity/superiority in fighter numbers and radar directed interceptions were the rule in Spit V v Zero contests over Australia and the fighter-fighter kill ratio was heavily in favor of the Zero.

According to war time happy talk on the Allied side designed to buck up the morale of Allied pilots and publics, Zeroes were easy to defeat with energy tactics, even by a/c which were barely if at all faster (like the Hurricane, and the Spit V's speed advantage in tropical conditions wasn't very great either). But this wasn't the reality. Zero units like any other fighter units were beatable, in Zero's case by much faster Allied fighters (like F4U or P-38, not P-40 or Hurricane) and heavy overall Allied numerical superiority. But just trying to shift to energy tactics had a limited effect. Indeed the standard doctrine of JNAF fighter units ca. 1941 was section based energy tactics based on their experience over China pre Pacific War when the Zero was strictly faster than its opponents (eg. Chinese AF Polikarpov types), although they would revert to individual manuever when that got the job done.

Any given hypothetical situation we might construct for Zero use over Europe ca. 1940 could have a less successful outcome than the Zero's (and Army Type 1) pretty consistent success over Hurricanes and Spitfires all the way through 1943. The Zero numbers in the hypothetical scenario might be quite inferior (after all, it's somewhat anachronistic to assume the Zero was available in any significant number at all in 1940; historically only a quite small number of Zero 11's were used for combat trials in China that year). The different climatic conditions might also change things. But IMO it's shown by history that just trying to counter early WWII Japanese fighter units (equipped w/ Navy Type 0 or Army Type 1) with energy tactics was easier said than done, though eventually doable under the right circumstances with considerably faster a/c than 1940 vintage RAF fighter, and also the relatively highly manueverable and damage resistant F4F achieved around 1:1 kill ratio v Zeroes. Theoretically such success or greater might also be doable with Hurricanes and early-mid mark Spits, rather than the 1:several kill ratio's they achieved v Zeroes/Type 1's in actual history, but I think one should use caution assuming such a vast change in a hypothetical scenario.

Joe

DonL said:

I disagree. The Bf 109 was designed as an air supremacy fighter. The german doctrine were from the beginning offensive not defensive.
You can choose the Bf 109 as an fighter interceptor but for a bomber interceptor it was much too less armed.
And the Bf 109 had screwed up as a bomber interceptor as we all have seen from 1943 to 1945!

So I realy doubt that bomber interception was planed for the Bf 109.

Click to expand...

Are there no bombers in service in the 1930s then? Certainly bombers were shot down and attacked like the Blenhiem and Wellington.
Maybe the 109 was designed to shoot down recon flying boats.