Bf-110 successor

You are mixing things up again. The Zerstorer was not supposed to be a dive bomber or a schnellbomber. That it could not do those jobs is as well as planes designed to do those jobs is not a big surprise and no discredit to the design. Those planes could not do the Me 110s job either. Ju 87s even attempting to escort He 111s or Do 17s??? Please.

The fact that a 2200-2400hp airplane with a 400sq ft wing could not carry as many bombs as as a 2200-2400hp airplane with a 600 sq ft wing isn't exactly a surprise either. Now stick a few guns in the nose of a Ju 88 with 1200hp engines and see how far you get escorting the He 111s or Do 17s.

The Zerstorer's job was to range AHEAD of the bomber fleets and attack enemy airfields and installations and do it beyond the range of single engine fighters. Close escort was not part of the design. The coming of the radar chain rather ruined the chances of surprise. The requirement to use the same radio as the He 111 used dictated the second or third seat.

The Zerstorer's job was taken over by more powerful single engine aircraft that simply could not have been built at the time it was conceived. I don't know if 1941-44 radios had more range and were simpler to operate for their weight than 1937-1940 radios.

You are describing a fighter sweep. A job which could be performed better by the smaller and probably less expensive Fw-187.

Yep, except once again you only focus on the parts you want to focus on. The Fw 187 could not carry the required radio and radio operator in th swingle seat version. It also would have been limited to 1/3 the ammo for it's cannon.

davebender said:

Why do you want to repeat the failed Zerstorer experiment?

Click to expand...

I'm not trying to do anything like that.
You can read in the post you're quoting that one of the perceived missions is night fighting. A plane that is Hornet-sized has wing area some 10% greater than your favourite, the Fw-187, or the P-38. Ie. the smallest airframe able to carry the crew of two, radar set and decent armament. Further, Germany lacks a long range, high performance fighter. Unless they don't adopt the radical layout (a-la Do-335, or Ki-64), my proposal is their best bet (the unavailability of 2000 Hp engine really bites the Germans from early 1942 on - they've 'dropped the ball', TM Shortround6 ). The long range fighter can do much for Axis cause in MTO and Eastern front, and can be a better fighter-bomber than the SE fighter. A smaller airframe can put the DB-601/605s into a good use; the larger airframe needs DB-603 or BMW-801 (better to install those in Ju-88/-188/Fw-187/Do-217). BTW,

The Ju-87 and Ju-88 were superior light bombers.

Click to expand...

when the Ju-88 become a light bomber?

Tante Ju said:

The RLM wanted a 110 which carry bombs, internal in fuselage. They redesigned the 110 with a bomb bay, that become the 210.

And while Willy did mess up with the 210 - largely because he invested millions in jigs and did not want to waste that money - the RLM was also responsible, ordering the aircraft into production before proper testing was done.

Click to expand...

I'd not be too hard on RLM on ordering 210s before proto flew. There was a war going on and 110 was found wanting in heavy fighter role and there was need for a fast bomber. Other nations made similiar decisions, British had done that in several cases already during its hectic rearmament period just before the war and some of their decisions were dismal failures, for ex Botha. RAF found out that it had over 500 dangerously underpowerd and so unuseable torpedobomber/GP a/c and pushed then to the Training Command were they killed several traineers.

Do they need a high performance day fighter with more range then a Fw-190A carrying two 300 liter drop tanks?

Siegfried said:

...As far as the Me 11o is concerned, I believe modern analysis of losses now show that it had at least a 1:1 exchange ratio with the British single seat fighters during the BoB and if given tactical freedom might have actually come out in front. The Me 109G2 managed 370mph, which made it slightly faster than any P-40 fielded and certainly faster than aircraft such as the Beaufighter.

Click to expand...

Hello Siegfried
while I agree with most you say on 210. I really doubt that 110 had "at least a 1:1 exchange ratio with the British single seat fighters during the BoB". 110 did very well during the Battle of France and had then clearly positive exchange rate vs British fighters, but not during the BoB. British might well have learned something from BoF and might have treated 110 more respectfully during the BoB, after all 110 had very powerful front armament in 1940. 110 had a bad start when during the Channel combat period the participating 110s fought under fighter commanders and of course those decided that 109s did the distant cover and free hunting jobs and 110s got the close escort job and suffered accordingly.

Juha

davebender said:

Do they need a high performance day fighter with more range then a Fw-190A carrying two 300 liter drop tanks?

Click to expand...

IIRC most 190A fighters were plummed for only one 300 L dt.

Juha

The Me-110C operated under exceptionally difficult circumstances during the BoB. After Me-109s turned back for lack of drop tanks Me-110s were typically outnumbered at least 5 to 1 by RAF fighters that also had the advantage of ground control radar. I doubt any WWII era fighter aircraft could prevail under those circumstances. Even Me-262s had a tough time when the odds got that lop sided.

Do they need a high performance day fighter with more range then a Fw-190A carrying two 300 liter drop tanks?

Click to expand...

LW bothered with Ju-88C in the LR day fighter role, even in MTO (to chase Coastal command planes). The transports from Sicily to Tunis were many times being mauled by Allied fighters. Axis bombers from 1942, if they were to operate at really long ranges (within their capabilities), were not to expect any escort provided.
Fw-190s were being produced, yet the stated above holds true; while 2 x 79 US gal tanks on the Wurger looks like 'almost P-51 with 2x75 US gals', in practice it was not the case.

So yes, I'd say that LW needed the high performer, with long legs.

davebender said:

The Me-110C operated under exceptionally difficult circumstances during the BoB. After Me-109s turned back for lack of drop tanks Me-110s were typically outnumbered at least 5 to 1 by RAF fighters that also had the advantage of ground control radar. I doubt any WWII era fighter aircraft could prevail under those circumstances. Even Me-262s had a tough time when the odds got that lop sided.

Click to expand...

IIRC LW bombers in daytime in 40 over GB usually operated inside 109 range and British CH radars didn't "see" behind, only forward, so when LW clanes crossed the GB coast they disapeared from CH radar screens and the tracking of them was the duty of the Observer Corps, later known as the Royal Observer Corps, so when the 109s turned back, usually with the bombers, they were not under radar surveilance. And I would like to know your source to that 1:5.

Juha

Zerstorer Gruppe
A history of V/(Z)LG I 1939 - 1941
Ludwig von Eimannsberger

davebender said:

Zerstorer Gruppe
A history of V/(Z)LG I 1939 - 1941
Ludwig von Eimannsberger

Click to expand...

Hello Dave
Thanks for the info!

IIRC V./(Z)LG 1 was the worst suffering 110 Gruppe during the BoB. Haven't read the book, so on what the writer based the claim?

Juha

Juha said:

Hello Siegfried
while I agree with most you say on 210. I really doubt that 110 had "at least a 1:1 exchange ratio with the British single seat fighters during the BoB". 110 did very well during the Battle of France and had then clearly positive exchange rate vs British fighters, but not during the BoB. British might well have learned something from BoF and might have treated 110 more respectfully during the BoB, after all 110 had very powerful front armament in 1940. 110 had a bad start when during the Channel combat period the participating 110s fought under fighter commanders and of course those decided that 109s did the distant cover and free hunting jobs and 110s got the close escort job and suffered accordingly.

Juha

Click to expand...

Hello Juha,


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

[+]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/Battle-Brita...239325&sr=1-21

Edit:

As all know I'm not a fan of the Zerstoerer concept and especially the Bf 110/210/410 aircrafts. But till 1940/1941 the Bf 110 was an equal match to the british fighters if it could play her good parts.
No close cover missions and the possibility to attack from altitude.

I think with the FW 190 and the Ju88 there was no real role for the Zerstoerer concept, so to my opinion the FW 187 was the better alternative, because it was the much better fighter (long range fighter), with the possibility to carry a heavy armament and light bombs!
To me the fighter performance is much more important then the heavy armament, because the Ju88 and the FW190 could compensate a not built Bf110/210/410. But nothing could compensate till 1944 a long range FW 187 fighter.

Hello Don
Well, having argued with Christer many times and knowing that when he tried to argue how accurate 109 pilots claims were he can argue "The twin-engine Me 110 crews with their rear gunners were just as notorious for huge overclaims as any bomber crews of any air force." On the other hand when arguing that 110s were very effective he usually gave only 110 claims and FC losses forgeting to mention that there had been also 109s around and claiming victories. On the top of all that he had made claims like this: "Cat. 3 is an immediate total destroyed, e.g. missing; Cat. 2 is severely damaged beyond repair and scrapped, i.e. also a total loss.)" So I really don't take his arguments very seriously.

I don't have anything against 110 and had thought from 70s that it was better heavy fighter than many books in English claim and as I have earlier wrote: "...during early combats in North Africa Vokes filter Hurricane Mk Is and Bf 110Cs/Ds fought a draw, if in their combats there were winners they were usually those who saw their opponents first.

Against Spits 110s were clearly more underdogs but the combats were not necessary entirely one-sided- On 8 Oct 43 7 Spit Mk Vs from 453 Sqn fought against 8 Bf 110G-2s from II./ZG 1 SW of Scilly Islands, end result was 5 110s and 2 Spits lost. [FlyPast 2/97 pp. 42-43]"

In this site Nikademus has given info on later combats and clearly Hurricanes later got upper had as did P-40s, P-38s and to my surprise also Beaufighter, but there was very few 110 vs Beau combats in NA, Beau won 2:4.

Juha

Thank you Juha for this interesting post.

I have read parts of Bergstroms Book through a friend and at the internet he was quoted as a good and serious reasearcher but after your post I must qualify this new.

I'm also no fan of the Bf 110 and I agree with your summary about the Bf 110 and so my argumentation to built the Fw 187 after BoB instead of the Bf 110 get much stronger.
As I said above with the FW 190, FW 187 and Ju88 the Zerstorer concept is obsolete after BoB/1940, simply because their is no role or mission that the Zerstoerer can do better then the other aircrafts.

Amen.

Me-210 development was still in the early stages during the summer of 1940. That's when RLM needs to reassess what they actually need based on recent combat experience. And what they need is a purpose built night fighter aircraft powered by readily available DB601/DB605 engines to replace Me-110s and Do-215s currently performing that mission.

DonL said:

Hello Juha,


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

[+]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/Battle-Brita...239325&sr=1-21

Edit:

As all know I'm not a fan of the Zerstoerer concept and especially the Bf 110/210/410 aircrafts. But till 1940/1941 the Bf 110 was an equal match to the british fighters if it could play her good parts.
No close cover missions and the possibility to attack from altitude.

I think with the FW 190 and the Ju88 there was no real role for the Zerstoerer concept, so to my opinion the FW 187 was the better alternative, because it was the much better fighter (long range fighter), with the possibility to carry a heavy armament and light bombs!
To me the fighter performance is much more important then the heavy armament, because the Ju88 and the FW190 could compensate a not built Bf110/210/410. But nothing could compensate till 1944 a long range FW 187 fighter.

Click to expand...

DonL said:

Thank you Juha for this interesting post.

I have read parts of Bergstroms Book through a friend and at the internet he was quoted as a good and serious reasearcher but after your post I must qualify this new.

I'm also no fan of the Bf 110 and I agree with your summary about the Bf 110 and so my argumentation to built the Fw 187 after BoB instead of the Bf 110 get much stronger.
As I said above with the FW 190, FW 187 and Ju88 the Zerstorer concept is obsolete after BoB/1940, simply because their is no role or mission that the Zerstoerer can do better then the other aircrafts.

Click to expand...

So what is it: Zerstoerer concept works (Bf-110s fly high fast, on long ranges, dive on defenders, pull up repeat if needed, extra pair of eyes is beneficial over enemy airspace*; it is well suited as a bomber destroyer), or Zerstoerer concept does not work? What do we call a Fw-187 (hypothetical - the one with DB-601s)? What part of the blame should be pointed against the concept, vs. the execution of the concept (= Bf-110 in that role)?

*think I've just described the P-47/-51/-38, obviously without that extra pair of the eyes

So what is it: Zerstoerer concept works (Bf-110s fly high fast, on long ranges, dive on defenders, pull up repeat if needed, extra pair of eyes is beneficial over enemy airspace*; it is well suited as a bomber destroyer), or Zerstoerer concept does not work? What do we call a Fw-187 (hypothetical - the one with DB-601s)? What part of the blame should be pointed against the concept, vs. the execution of the concept (= Bf-110 in that role)?

*think I've just described the P-47/-51/-38, obviously without that extra pair of the eyes

Click to expand...

To me tomo pauk, the FW 187 is more heavy fighter then Zerstoerer! Clearly the FW 187 had much more fighter performance then the Bf 110 and was equal in climb, dive, roll rate and level speed to the one engine fighters. The compromise was, that the FW 187 was smaler and had not the possibility of such heavy armament and the payload was a littlebit less compare to the Bf 110, but much better then single engine fighters of these days.

If you built a single seat or two seat FW 187 is counting on the missions. You have the opportunity two built both, but both aircraft had much more fighter performance as the Messerschmitt aircrafts.
For example for sea missions you are in need for a two seater.

What combat aircraft was Focke Wulf building prior to mid 1941? Building the Fw-187 from 1939 onward would give them experience at mass production of fighter aircraft.

If desired the plant can be converted to Fw-190 production during 1942. However I think a Fw-187 powered by DB601E engines would fly rings around a Fw-190A powered by the early model BMW801 engine. In a fair competition it might be the Fw-190A program that gets canceled.