Dive-bombing Me 110?

[SpicyJuan11]

Hi, I have a couple questions pertaining to the Me 110. Could the Me 110 dive-bomb as well as the Ju 87? If not, what would it take? How would it look like? What would it take for the Me 110 to completely replace the Ju 87 as well as be a good CAS aircraft (something like a Hs 129 Ju 87 hybrid)?

 

[stona]

No it couldn't. The Me 210 was supposed to replace the Ju 87, but we all know how the wheels fell off that particular project.

Cheers

Steve

 

[Shortround6]

You need a new plane.

Dive bombers needed either an awful lot of drag (Biplane with or without fixed landing gear) or dive brakes to limit the speed of the dive. They also needed to be strong enough to stand up to the 5-6 G pull-outs on a day to day, consistent basis.

That is just the basic requirement. Stability in the dive ( as in not drifting left or right, not tucking under or trying to pull out, not rolling on axis of the plane) while diving are all nice things of a dive bomber to do.

The Bf 110 might have been able to be a very good dive bomber. On the other hand a number of aircraft designed to be dive bombers turned out not to have the needed flight characteristics. Also please look at some of the German bombers and troubles that trying to turn them into dive bombers caused. And some of them were only supposed to dive at 60 degrees, not 75 to 90 degrees.

 

[SpicyJuan11]

No it couldn't. The Me 210 was supposed to replace the Ju 87, but we all know how the wheels fell off that particular project.

Cheers

Steve

Huh, okay, I always was under the impression that the 210 was meant to be a replacement of the 110 (and that wasn't just because of the name ).

You need a new plane.

Dive bombers needed either an awful lot of drag (Biplane with or without fixed landing gear) or dive brakes to limit the speed of the dive. They also needed to be strong enough to stand up to the 5-6 G pull-outs on a day to day, consistent basis.

That is just the basic requirement. Stability in the dive ( as in not drifting left or right, not tucking under or trying to pull out, not rolling on axis of the plane) while diving are all nice things of a dive bomber to do.

The Bf 110 might have been able to be a very good dive bomber. On the other hand a number of aircraft designed to be dive bombers turned out not to have the needed flight characteristics. Also please look at some of the German bombers and troubles that trying to turn them into dive bombers caused. And some of them were only supposed to dive at 60 degrees, not 75 to 90 degrees.

Well I thought it would have been easier to make a fighter-bomber a dive-bomber than a heavy bomber But what about a dedicated CAS variant of the Me 110? That surely would've been better than the Hs 129, right?

 

[GrauGeist]

There were occasions, especially on the Eastern Front, where the Bf110s were pressed into dive-bombing missions. The Bf110 wasn't designed for this role and the results were far from impressive.

 

[Shortround6]

A lot depends on what someone's definition of "dive-bomber" is. The JU-87 would dive pretty much vertically and even with it's high drag airframe and fixed landing gear it needed dive brakes for more drag. I say pretty much vertically because some dive bombers, while diving at an attitude of 90 degrees due to lift from the wing the flight path was actually closer to 80 degrees. A few dive bombers, like Vultee Vengeance had wings set at 0 degrees incidence to minimize this. This made the plane fly nose up in "level" flight.
Some people count anything from 60 degrees and up as dive bombing and some people include shallower angles. Fighters don't make good dive bombers "as is" because they are too low drag and build up speed too quickly in a dive and don't have the time to correct the aim a true dive bomber has. One reason they added dive brakes to the A-36 when they turned the Mustang into a dive bomber.

A lot of planes were pressed into doing things like, shall we say medium angle bombing, but results were usually pretty poor unless they had really trained in the mission or technique. That means practice bombing runs using practice bombs so the pilots can figure out where the bombs hit in relation to the sight. Diving at the ground and practicing pulling out is NOT practicing dive bombing although it might make for fewer aircraft hitting the ground in combat.

 

[wiking85]

Yeah the Me210 was to replace the Ju87 AND Bf110. Also the Bf110 could glide bomb up to 60 degrees and was pretty accurate in the hands of guys like ErpG 210

 

[pbehn]

A Dive bomber achieves best accuracy diving vertically which presents the best target for ground fire. Dive bombers therefore perform best against undefended or you may say unimportant targets. The Bf110 i believe performed well in the BoB when used as a fighter bomber by one well trained group but that was not dive bombing. The 110 with 2 water cooled engines and a pilot in between, originally designed as a high speed heavy fighter is not a good starting point for a dive bomber.

 

[GregP]

Almost any warplane can be a limited dive bomber. That is, you can add a bombs or bombs, climb to some preferred height, roll or push over and dive at a target, release the bomb, and pull out. To be a good dive bomber you have to be able to aim pretty accurately at the target and hold the dive long enough to do that function.

The Bf 110 was VERY adaptable and could certainly carry a bomb and dive at a target and release the bomb. But it would soon gain enough speed to render pulling out questionable and the accuracy achieved was not good. It could not stay in a steep dive for long and the pilot would have to dive, acquire the sight picture, pickle, and pull out before exceeding Vne. For any sustained use, it would have had to be redesigned with sustained dive speed control, dive bombing strength, sights, and some other dive bombing considerations in place. The result, while possibly resembling a Bf 110, would probably not be able to be built on the same assembly line.

So I'd say you could use the Bf 110 in a pinch if nothing else was avialable, and you might scare the hell out of a few guys. But you wouldn't get typical dive bombing type results and you might lose a plane or two in the process just from the pilots not being familiar with dive bombing and the plane not being streed for it. You would be much better off, if you HAD to use the Bf 110 as a bomber, using it as a level bomber or as a bomber from a shallow dive angle. That, at least, isn't far out of the specifications of the airframe.

The Mosquito was designed as a fast, unarmed bomber. It was adaptable enough to wind up as that fast, unarmed bomer ... an armed fighter, a recon plane, a pathfinder, and even a night fighter with a circular, segmented speed brake mounted all round the fuselage. It probably could have had the speed brake made larger for use as a dive bomber, but the UK already HAD dive bombers. So did Germany.

 

[SpicyJuan11]

Almost any warplane can be a limited dive bomber. That is, you can add a bombs or bombs, climb to some preferred height, roll or push over and dive at a target, release the bomb, and pull out. To be a good dive bomber you have to be able to aim pretty accurately at the target and hold the dive long enough to do that function.

The Bf 110 was VERY adaptable and could certainly carry a bomb and dive at a target and release the bomb. But it would soon gain enough speed to render pulling out questionable and the accuracy achieved was not good. It could not stay in a steep dive for long and the pilot would have to dive, acquire the sight picture, pickle, and pull out before exceeding Vne. For any sustained use, it would have had to be redesigned with sustained dive speed control, dive bombing strength, sights, and some other dive bombing considerations in place. The result, while possibly resembling a Bf 110, would probably not be able to be built on the same assembly line.

So I'd say you could use the Bf 110 in a pinch if nothing else was avialable, and you might scare the hell out of a few guys. But you wouldn't get typical dive bombing type results and you might lose a plane or two in the process just from the pilots not being familiar with dive bombing and the plane not being streed for it. You would be much better off, if you HAD to use the Bf 110 as a bomber, using it as a level bomber or as a bomber from a shallow dive angle. That, at least, isn't far out of the specifications of the airframe.

The Mosquito was designed as a fast, unarmed bomber. It as adaptable enough to wind up as that fast, unarmed bomer ... an armed fighter, a recon plane, a pathfinder, and even a night fighter with a circular, segmented speed brake mounted all round the fuselage. It probably could have had the speed brake made larger for use as a dive bomber, but the UK already HAD dive bombers. So did Germany.

View attachment 294101

Hm okay, interesting. Now what about a dedicated CAS variant? Would it also require significant factory retooling?

 

[GregP]

The Bf 110 was supposed to be a "Zerstorer" or heavy fighter. It was realized in the Battle of Britain that the Bf 110, a heavy fighter itself, needed a fighter escort as it was not able to handle the fast and agile enemy single-seat fighers all by itself. So although it DID have forward-firing guns and it WAS a heavy fighter, it wasn't going to survive long, one-on-one with a Spitfire or Spitfire(s). Way more often plural.

So, a dedicated Combat Air Support version was certainly possible, but the Bf 110 was already fitted with two 20 mm cannons plus four 7.9 mm MG forward and two 7.92 mm MG on aft flex mount. It had a good ammunition supply and, with local air superiority ... could give a gound unit a very hard time or harass the crap out of armor, assuming it wasn't shot down. The Bf 110 was fitted with numerous adaptions, almost as many as the very adaptable Ju 88.

It was a good-flying, robust, reliable, pleasant, adaptable aircraft.

It just wasn't a good combat aircraft in the same sky with enemy single-seat fighters ... except at night. It was probably the most successful night fighter of the war. Not what it was designed for, but it found a niche.

Here is a list of the main variants from Wiki:

Bf 110 A: Prototypes with two Junkers Jumo 210 engines.
Bf 110 A-0: The designation of the first four pre-production aircraft.
Bf 110 B: Small-scale production with two Jumo 210 engines.
Bf 110 B-0: First pre-production aircraft, similar to B-1.
Bf 110 B-1: Zerstörer, four 7.92 mm (.312 in) MG 17 machine guns and two 20 mm MG FF cannons, nose-mounted.
Bf 110 B-2: Reconnaissance, both MG FF cannons removed, and various camera models added.
Bf 110 B-3: Trainer. MG FF cannons removed, and extra radio gear added. Some war weary B-1 were later refitted as B-3s.
Bf 110 C: First major production series, DB 601 engines.
Bf 110 C-0: Ten pre-production aircraft.
Bf 110 C-1: Zerstörer, DB 601 B-1 engines.
Bf 110 C-2: Zerstörer, fitted with FuG 10 radio, upgraded from FuG III.
Bf 110 C-3: Zerstörer, upgraded 20 mm MG FFs to MG FF/M.
Bf 110 C-4: Zerstörer, upgraded crew armor.
Bf 110 C-4/B: Fighter-bomber based on C-4, fitted with a pair of 250 kg (550 lb) ETC 250 bomb racks and upgraded DB 601 Ba engines.
Bf 110 C-5: Reconnaissance version based on C-4, both MG FF removed, and Rb 50/30 camera installed, uprated DB 601P engines.
Bf 110 C-6: Experimental Zerstörer, additional single 30 mm (1.18 in) MK 101 cannon in underfuselage mount, DB 601P engines.
Bf 110 C-7: Fighter-bomber based on C-4/B, two ETC-500 centerline bomb racks capable of carrying two 500 kg (1,100 lb) bombs, uprated DB 601P engines.
Bf 110 D: Heavy fighter/fighter-bomber, extreme range versions based on C-series, prepared to operate with external fuel tanks. Often stationed in Norway.
Bf 110 D-0: Prototype utilizing C-3 airframes modified with 1,050 L (277 US gal) belly-mounted tank called Dackelbauch ("dachshund's belly" in German).
Bf 110 D-1: Long-range Zerstörer, modified C series airframes with option to carry Dackelbauch belly tank and underwing drop tanks.
Bf 110 D-1/R1: Long-range Zerstörer, Dackelbauch ventral tank, option to carry additional wing mounted 900 L (240 US gal) drop tanks.[12]
Bf 110 D-1/R2: Long-range Zerstörer, droppable 85 L oil tank under the fuselage instead of Dackelbauch ventral tank, two wing mounted 900 L (240 US gal) drop tanks.[12]
Bf 110 D-2: Long-range Zerstörer, two wing-mounted 300 L (80 US gal) drop tanks and centerline mounted bomb racks for two 500 kg (1,100 lb) bombs.
Bf 110 D-3: Long-range Zerstörer, lengthened tail for rescue dinghy. Either two wing-mounted 300 L (80 US gal) or 900 L (240 US gal) drop tanks could be fitted. Optional fitting of ETC 500 bombracks (impossible with 900 L drop tanks).
Bf 110 D-4: Long-range recon, both MG FF removed, and Rb 50/30 camera installed, two wing-mounted 300 L or 900 L drop tanks.
Bf 110 E: Mostly fighter bombers, strengthened airframe, up to 1,200 kg (2,650 lb) bombload.
Bf 110 E-0: Pre-production version, Daimler-Benz DB 601B engines, pair of ETC50 bomb racks fitted outboard of engines, armament as C-4.
Bf 110 E-1: Production version of E-0, DB 601P engines.
Bf 110 E-2: DB 601P engines, rear fuselage extension same as for D-3.
Bf 110 E-3: Long-range reconnaissance version, both MG FF removed, and Rb 50/30 camera installed.
Bf 110 F: Same as the E, again strengthened airframe, better armor, two 993 kW (1,350 PS) DB 601F engines.
Bf 110 F-1: Fighter-bomber.
Bf 110 F-2: Long-range Zerstörer, often used against Allied heavy bombers.
Bf 110 F-3: Long-range reconnaissance version.
Bf 110 F-4: The first real night fighter (specially designed for this usage, 3-crew).
Bf 110 G: Improved F-series, two 1,085 kW (1,475 PS) DB 605B engines, tail rudders increased in size.
Bf 110 G-1: Not built.
Bf 110 G-2: Fighter-bomber, fast bomber, destroyer, often used against Allied heavy bombers. (often equipped with rockets).
Bf 110 G-2/R1: Bf 110 G-2: armed with a BK 3,7 under the fuselage.
Bf 110 G-3: Long-range reconnaissance version.
Bf 110 G-4: Three-crew night fighter, FuG 202/220 Lichtenstein radar, optional Schräge Musik, usually mounted midway down the cockpit with the cannon muzzles barely protruding above the canopy glazing.
Bf 110 H: The final version, similar to the G, was cancelled before any prototypes were ready after important documents were lost a bomb-raid on the Waggonbau Gotha-factory, which was leading the H-development.

 

[SpicyJuan11]

The Bf 110 was supposed to be a "Zerstorer" or heavy fighter. It was realized in the Battle of Britain that the Bf 110, a heavy fighter itself, needed a fighter escort as it was not able to handle the fast and agile enemy single-seat fighers all by itself. So although it DID have forward-firing guns and it WAS a heavy fighter, it wasn't going to survive long, one-on-one with a Spitfire or Spitfire(s). Way more often plural.

So, a dedicated Combat Air Support version was certainly possible, but the Bf 110 was already fitted with two 20 mm cannons plus four 7.9 mm MG forward and two 7.92 mm MG on aft flex mount. It had a good ammunition supply and, with local air superiority ... could give a gound unit a very hard time or harass the crap out of armor, assuming it wasn't shot down. The Bf 110 was fitted with numerous adaptions, almost as many as the very adaptable Ju 88.

It was a good-flying, robust, reliable, pleasant, adaptable aircraft.

It just wasn't a good combat aircraft in the same sky with enemy single-seat fighters ... except at night. It was probably the most successful night fighter of the war. Not what it was designed for, but it found a niche.

Here is a list of the main variants from Wiki:

Bf 110 A: Prototypes with two Junkers Jumo 210 engines.
Bf 110 A-0: The designation of the first four pre-production aircraft.
Bf 110 B: Small-scale production with two Jumo 210 engines.
Bf 110 B-0: First pre-production aircraft, similar to B-1.
Bf 110 B-1: Zerstörer, four 7.92 mm (.312 in) MG 17 machine guns and two 20 mm MG FF cannons, nose-mounted.
Bf 110 B-2: Reconnaissance, both MG FF cannons removed, and various camera models added.
Bf 110 B-3: Trainer. MG FF cannons removed, and extra radio gear added. Some war weary B-1 were later refitted as B-3s.
Bf 110 C: First major production series, DB 601 engines.
Bf 110 C-0: Ten pre-production aircraft.
Bf 110 C-1: Zerstörer, DB 601 B-1 engines.
Bf 110 C-2: Zerstörer, fitted with FuG 10 radio, upgraded from FuG III.
Bf 110 C-3: Zerstörer, upgraded 20 mm MG FFs to MG FF/M.
Bf 110 C-4: Zerstörer, upgraded crew armor.
Bf 110 C-4/B: Fighter-bomber based on C-4, fitted with a pair of 250 kg (550 lb) ETC 250 bomb racks and upgraded DB 601 Ba engines.
Bf 110 C-5: Reconnaissance version based on C-4, both MG FF removed, and Rb 50/30 camera installed, uprated DB 601P engines.
Bf 110 C-6: Experimental Zerstörer, additional single 30 mm (1.18 in) MK 101 cannon in underfuselage mount, DB 601P engines.
Bf 110 C-7: Fighter-bomber based on C-4/B, two ETC-500 centerline bomb racks capable of carrying two 500 kg (1,100 lb) bombs, uprated DB 601P engines.
Bf 110 D: Heavy fighter/fighter-bomber, extreme range versions based on C-series, prepared to operate with external fuel tanks. Often stationed in Norway.
Bf 110 D-0: Prototype utilizing C-3 airframes modified with 1,050 L (277 US gal) belly-mounted tank called Dackelbauch ("dachshund's belly" in German).
Bf 110 D-1: Long-range Zerstörer, modified C series airframes with option to carry Dackelbauch belly tank and underwing drop tanks.
Bf 110 D-1/R1: Long-range Zerstörer, Dackelbauch ventral tank, option to carry additional wing mounted 900 L (240 US gal) drop tanks.[12]
Bf 110 D-1/R2: Long-range Zerstörer, droppable 85 L oil tank under the fuselage instead of Dackelbauch ventral tank, two wing mounted 900 L (240 US gal) drop tanks.[12]
Bf 110 D-2: Long-range Zerstörer, two wing-mounted 300 L (80 US gal) drop tanks and centerline mounted bomb racks for two 500 kg (1,100 lb) bombs.
Bf 110 D-3: Long-range Zerstörer, lengthened tail for rescue dinghy. Either two wing-mounted 300 L (80 US gal) or 900 L (240 US gal) drop tanks could be fitted. Optional fitting of ETC 500 bombracks (impossible with 900 L drop tanks).
Bf 110 D-4: Long-range recon, both MG FF removed, and Rb 50/30 camera installed, two wing-mounted 300 L or 900 L drop tanks.
Bf 110 E: Mostly fighter bombers, strengthened airframe, up to 1,200 kg (2,650 lb) bombload.
Bf 110 E-0: Pre-production version, Daimler-Benz DB 601B engines, pair of ETC50 bomb racks fitted outboard of engines, armament as C-4.
Bf 110 E-1: Production version of E-0, DB 601P engines.
Bf 110 E-2: DB 601P engines, rear fuselage extension same as for D-3.
Bf 110 E-3: Long-range reconnaissance version, both MG FF removed, and Rb 50/30 camera installed.
Bf 110 F: Same as the E, again strengthened airframe, better armor, two 993 kW (1,350 PS) DB 601F engines.
Bf 110 F-1: Fighter-bomber.
Bf 110 F-2: Long-range Zerstörer, often used against Allied heavy bombers.
Bf 110 F-3: Long-range reconnaissance version.
Bf 110 F-4: The first real night fighter (specially designed for this usage, 3-crew).
Bf 110 G: Improved F-series, two 1,085 kW (1,475 PS) DB 605B engines, tail rudders increased in size.
Bf 110 G-1: Not built.
Bf 110 G-2: Fighter-bomber, fast bomber, destroyer, often used against Allied heavy bombers. (often equipped with rockets).
Bf 110 G-2/R1: Bf 110 G-2: armed with a BK 3,7 under the fuselage.
Bf 110 G-3: Long-range reconnaissance version.
Bf 110 G-4: Three-crew night fighter, FuG 202/220 Lichtenstein radar, optional Schräge Musik, usually mounted midway down the cockpit with the cannon muzzles barely protruding above the canopy glazing.
Bf 110 H: The final version, similar to the G, was cancelled before any prototypes were ready after important documents were lost a bomb-raid on the Waggonbau Gotha-factory, which was leading the H-development.

Ok cool, thanks.

 

[Shortround6]

Hm okay, interesting. Now what about a dedicated CAS variant? Would it also require significant factory retooling?

CAS is another catch-all anacronym that covers an awful lot of ground and is much abused.

Are you looking for a truck/horse drawn wagon strafer? A tank killer? A bridge buster? Bunker buster? Something can take out supporting artillery batteries?.

Four 7.7mm and two 20mm cannon make a pretty fair strafer. Adding a pair of 250 or 500kg bombs will certainly take on a variety of targets. Adding a few 50KGbombs might be possible.

Adding armor to the cockpit and under the engines might be doable. The more extensive the the more likely it is that it is a factory job. The more weight you add the worse the climb and turn get.

The Hs 129 was certainly a 'dedicated" CAS aircraft and it had 4 different armament set ups to suit it to the target of the day (or hour). Four-six 50kg bombs aren't as sexy as a 30mm armour piercing cannon so those pictures don't show up as much.

Perhaps a more detailed request or list of targets might lead to a more specific answer.

 

[SpicyJuan11]

CAS is another catch-all anacronym that covers an awful lot of ground and is much abused.

Are you looking for a truck/horse drawn wagon strafer? A tank killer? A bridge buster? Bunker buster? Something can take out supporting artillery batteries?.

Four 7.7mm and two 20mm cannon make a pretty fair strafer. Adding a pair of 250 or 500kg bombs will certainly take on a variety of targets. Adding a few 50KGbombs might be possible.

Adding armor to the cockpit and under the engines might be doable. The more extensive the the more likely it is that it is a factory job. The more weight you add the worse the climb and turn get.

The Hs 129 was certainly a 'dedicated" CAS aircraft and it had 4 different armament set ups to suit it to the target of the day (or hour). Four-six 50kg bombs aren't as sexy as a 30mm armour piercing cannon so those pictures don't show up as much.

Perhaps a more detailed request or list of targets might lead to a more specific answer.

Ok, what I was thinking was something along the lines of a Hs 123-129 hybrid. It would have the same (if not, a bit less) armor protection than the Hs 129, have a Mg FF/Mg 151/20 for rear protection (alternatively eliminate the rear gunner and replace it with more radio equipment), have an increased frontal armament (perhaps two 30mm/Bk 37. Standard missions would be tank busting, and infantry support. Thoughts?

 

[GregP]

I thought you asked about a CAS Bf 110 ...

 

[SpicyJuan11]

I thought you asked about a CAS Bf 110 ...

Oh, was what I was suggesting not exactly fit for CAS operations?

 

[GregP]

Nahhh ... I just misunderstood. No worries. Cheers.

 

[kool kitty89]

You need a new plane.

Dive bombers needed either an awful lot of drag (Biplane with or without fixed landing gear) or dive brakes to limit the speed of the dive. They also needed to be strong enough to stand up to the 5-6 G pull-outs on a day to day, consistent basis.

Aside from adding dive breaks, wasn't strengthening the landing gear (and the raising/lowering mechanism) for use as dive breaks also more practical/efficient in some cases? (the F4U did that, but I'm not sure what else) It seems like being able to set the prop to flat pitch (or even reverse thrust) would be useful for breaking in the air and on the ground too, but I have no idea if that sort of mechanism was ever used in the timeframe. (I know some props could do flat pitch at least, and if genuinely flat, that should even avoid causing overspeeding the engine on power-off dives)

Given the G limits, fighters would tend to be closer to dive bomber requirements than level bombers, so bomb racks and dive brakes (or substitutes) would be the main additions needed along with pilot experience. Fighters with good power (at low alt) to weight ratios and low drag (with breaks closed, obviously), and low wing loading would probably be best here given the ability to quickly accelerate to competitive combat speeds and/or climb. (heavy planes with high power loading and possibly high wing loading and strengths in boom and zoom energy tactics would be poor here)

 

[pbehn]

Please dont tell me that a mosquito dive bomber is being discussed!

 

[GregP]

The Mosquito was a bomber (and a fighter, etc.) and it could dive, but I am unaware of any dive bomber version. It was strong enough to take the stress of a dive bomb-type pullout, but was also slick enough to get over Vne in a steep dive, even with power off.

So, for it to be a dive bomber would mean it had to get to a suitable altitude (OK), slow WAY down (not a Mosquito "good spot"), push over or roll and pull down (OK), line up (OK), and dive at the target unil a proper aiming sight picture is seen (VERY bad task for a slick plane with little time to do it), release before reaching Vne (tough in a Mosquito) and pull out (ok, assuming no overspeed and not too low). If you DID ovespeed, you were in some "difficulty" right now.

You might try it once or twice after a drunken bet in the bar, but the dedicated dive bombers were actually designed to do it ... so the Mosquito was very wisely NOT selected for this mission.

The German Ju-87 even had automatic pullout after bomb release in case the crew had passed out from g-force. That was certainly a good feature in a dive bomber, especially if YOU were a crew member. Of course if you were right behind your leader, you also might hit him during the auto pullup if you were too close.

Maybe they passed out from those sirens that were fitted to the wheel spats ... naaahhhh.