bf110 exchange ratio

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

J
The point that I am making which you them made yourself....

Somehow the Germans believed the Bf 110 was so vital that a modern replacement had to be built..and it would go into production straight away.

This is not clever. That don't mean the 210 or the 410 couldn't have its bugs ironed out...it does mean that a disaster that didn't need to happen happened.

If you look at the Fw 190 program which also went bad...no big deal...give it another year and fixed.

It was the unreality of the 210 project...not the metal.
 
Last edited:

Unreality? Who knew the Zerstorer concept was fatally flawed? There were doubts, but no proof at the time a replacement for the Bf 110 was considered, the Battle of Britain had yet to be fought. As I mentioned in the above post, most of the problem was the inexperience of the crews, not the airframe. Once the fuselage was increased in length the major problem was solved.
 
You're missing the point.

The original prototype was flawed which led to the fallout.

Not the fix. As other posters have noted...only after fixes were made was the 210 ok.

And you said yourself....the 110 has not seen combat or even matured as a design and yet its replacement was top priorities.

That don't make sense to me. Replacing the 110 and modernizing is ok but how the Germans did it was not right.
 
The Basket said:
And you said yourself....the 110 has not seen combat or even matured as a design and yet its replacement was top priorities.

That don't make sense to me. Replacing the 110 and modernizing is ok but how the Germans did it was not right.
Click to expand...

And there you have it. The problem was the concept, not the aircraft itself. Replacing the Bf 110 was pointless, the 110/210/410 series should have been terminated in 1941 and all resources given to the development of the far more useful Ju 88 series.

Far too many chiefs and not enough Indians ruined the Me 210/410. When there was a purpose for it the aircraft wasn't there. When it was there the role had gone.
 
I agree with Max. It was the concept. First flight of the 210 was September 2, 1939 - well before the destroyer concept was tested or proven to be flawed.

and 410 is best looking of all 3!
 
I admit that I have alwys thought of the Me 210/410 as a strike aircraft not a destroyer, with its internal bomb bay and good performance it was pretty well designed for the role. However it seemed to me to be forced into roles for which it wasn't suited for i.e. bomber destroyer for which it payed the price. Had you forced the Mosquito into a bomber destroyer role against escorted bombers it would have had a similar lack of success.

If the RAF had been using the Me 410 in the Far East it had a significant chance of achieving a lot more than the Mosquito. It was fast enough to stay out of most trouble, had fewer blind spots and of course rear firing guns to defend itself and a respectable bomb load. Then a lot of people would have considered it to be a fine aircraft.

I cannot help but feel that its reputation was due to the situation it found itself in, as much as any performance or design issue.
 
First flight of the 210 was September 2, 1939 - well before the destroyer concept was tested or proven to be flawed.
Click to expand...
The Me-210 / Me-410 was a very different aircraft. It was intended as a light bomber right from the beginning complete with bomb bay, dive brakes and Stuvi 5B bombsight.

If not for the night fighter mission I think the Me-110 Zerstorer program would have died an eary death. Meanwhile the Me-210 / Me-410 light bomber program would continue.
 
That's the problem with forums like these.

All hindsight...

The British had the Beaufighter which was considered more successful...even though similar to the 110.

I certainly consider the 110 successful and achieved much.

Just not the unrealized dreams of the 1930s.
 
IMHO a bit too much emphasis is placed on fighter vs fighter engagements... but fighters are built to fight bombers and other aircraft, that is their role first and foremost, fighting enemy fighters is just a necessary evil of the process.

Fighter pilots make movies, bomber pilots make history.
 
davebender said:
More successful in what role? Certainly not as a day fighter or night fighter.
Click to expand...

As a strike aircraft and in particular anti shipping missions I would say that the Beaufighter has a clear advantage.
As a day and night fighter they were both pretty similar. Later versions of the 110 had a better performance but the Beaufighter did well in the day fighter role over the Bay of Biscay. So its a case of swings and roundabouts in the fighter role.
 
The Beaufighter is not considered the 'failure' the Bf 110 is...

Even thou similar...

Maybe the dogfighter role tarred the 110 any glory it got.
 
davebender said:
More successful in what role? Certainly not as a day fighter or night fighter.
Click to expand...

Its a debateable subject, admittedly, we would need to look at the performance details of each aircraft. Each held advantages over the other. the Beau had superior firepower with ten 20mm cannon, plus a rear gunner. The 110 was faster, I am not sure about turning, climbing or diving. It is also debateable as to which aircraft was more stable in the air, though the Beau had a tendency to swing on takeoff.

As to radar, its a no contest. British AI radar held a very large technological edge over German sets until the very end of the war. Moreover, radar was being fitted to Beaufighters, long before anything similar was being done to the 110. From memory, the earliest AI sets were being fitted and used in an operational capacity from the latter part of 1940. They began to achieve meaningful results from early 1941, as the LW bomber losses over Britain clearly show.

By comparison, German airborne radar was not fitted and used operationally until the latter part of 1941. Moreover whilst british radar has its share of critics, it was generally able to produce clearer images and had better ranges than German equivalents until later in the war. The Germans IMO had superior passive detection systems, and the operarations of their radarless intruders in the 1940-41 period indicate good pilot efficiency.

So I reject the flippant remarks by both sides in this debate. It cannot be stated easily that the beau was superior to the 110 without further investigation, and neither can it be stated that the 110 was better than the beau for the same reasons
 
That strikes me as a strange weapons mix.

Nose mounted weapons are inheritly more accurate and 4 x 20mm cannon provide plenty of firepower. So why add the weight of 6 rifle caliber machineguns and ammunition in the wings? The same weight could be used for something more useful like fuel or armor.
 

IIRC the 303s were often used for aiming purposes - they were set to converge where underwing rockets would strike. I suppose they could also be used for sighting the cannons in a similar fashion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

W
What if the Me109Z instead of Bf110?
Replies
11
Views
1K
Admiral Beez
A
K
Highest Power/Weight ratio engine
Replies
6
Views
4K
GregP
S
What if the Bf110 only have one pilot?
4 5 6
Replies
101
Views
7K
GrauGeist
S
Wing-aspect-ratio
2
Replies
35
Views
4K
GregP
G
Schnaufer Bf110 G-4
Replies
9
Views
2K
Crimea_River
Menu
Log in
Register