If the RAF had been defeated in the Battle of Britain

The UKW-D (field re-wirable reflector) was first introduced in January 1944 by the Luftwaffe of all organisations! It replaced the existing reflectors (UKW-B and UKW-C)

It was sometimes used in conjunction with the Enigma Uhr (which replaced the patch cables at the plug board (Steckerbrett) and was broken within days of introduction by Bletchley Park) as in the Luftwaffe 'Red Key'.

The new rewirable reflector was mounted in place of the existing UKW-B or C, and was rather cumbersome. It required part of the machine to be disassembled. The operators didn't like it and as a result, the wiring was changed only once every 10 days, as per an updated key sheet.

Now the crucial part, at least for the British

Had UKW-D been used with all Enigma machines in the field, it would have posed a serious (and possibly fatal) threat to the British code breakers. Luckily, UKW-D wasn't distributed widely and was therefore only used for specific, important, messages. Like with the Uhr, the Germans had to be able to exchange messages with both UKW-D and non-UKW-D users, so they mixed messages with and without the devices, using the same basic key. This provided long cribs and made breaking both Uhr and UKW-D very easy once the basic key had been broken.

Once again it was German operational procedure which allowed this Enigma to be broken.

A special version of UKW-D was developed for the KM, for use with the four rotor M4 machine, but was only issued to units which had to communicate with the Luftwaffe. Once again the backwards compatibility issue and poor procedure compromised the potential gain in security.

The Luckenfullerwalze (gap-filling wheel) sometimes called the Wahlluckenwalze (selectable gap wheel) really was any code breakers nightmare. This was an Army development of the Enigma machine and had it been produced and distributed in time may well have secured encryption for the foreseeable future, unless the Germans gave the game away themselves.

Cheers

Steve

Milosh said:

Came across this on the U-boats (not sure where the data came from).

Click to expand...

Thanks. The reason I ask is I was always under the impression the Germans were determined to 'starve' Great Britain into submission.
From what I've read recently - they never at any stage of the war came close to achieving this?

The single greatest shortage in shipping type faced by the british was their tanker fleet. luckily for them German activities from the opening of the war played into the allied camp. From the first day of the war, the germans were forced to make good on shortages in their own merchant fleets by forced and illegal seizures of shipping from the neutrals, even those neutral transporting cargoes to German and german controlled ports. This short sighted policy led to some rather desperate expedient by the owners of the European merchant fleets. in the case of the Dutch large numbers of their merchant fleets were moved to the far east, or British controlled ports. in the case of the Norwegian tanker fleet , which the admiralty considered vital to the allied war effort, the planned actions in Norway by the britiah were postponed primarily because vital deals with the Norwegian controlling interests in their tankers, under the banner of a corporate entitiy known as "Nottraship" were not finalised until shortly before the Norwegian invasion.

The Norwegian Shipping and Trade Mission (Nortraship) was established in London in April 1940 to administer the norwegian merchant fleet outside German-controlled areas. Nortraship operated some 1,000 vessels and was the largest shipping company in the world amounting to some 3.5 million tons of shipping. By comparison, the Germans managed to forcibly seize under 1 million tons of mostly coastal rated shipping.

Notraship, and the tankers it controlled played a vital role in the fortunes of war, and was a major contribution to the Allied war effort.

The British politician Noel Baker, commented after the war that "If we had not had the Norwegian fleet of tankers on our side, we should not have had the aviation spirit to put our fighters into the sky. Without the Norwegian merchant fleet, Britain and the allies would have lost the war."

Koopernic said:

The Oerlikon guns could use 15 round clips, 60 round drums or 100 round drums and sizes in between. The 100 round drums are quite large and wouldn't fit into a wing but as the Fw 187 used fuselage mounted guns this wouldn't be a problem. I doubt it would have made the Fw 187 any less effective and they would have been replaced by belt fed MG 151/15 or MG151/20 soon enough.

I don't think you can be sure that a hypothetical Ju 89 would have been only armed with a single MG FFM in the tail. One reason the Luftwaffe didn't have large turrets is because their aircraft were too small to carry them. That wouldn't be the case with the Ju 89.

You can see some kind of tail turret concept here on this Ju 89.

Obviously by 1940 this aircraft has Jumo 211 engines or DB601 engines of around 1100hp and its speed and armament would be more evolved. It would be much better than the Fw 200 and would almost be able to out run Fairy Fulmars and limit Hurricanes to a tail chase.

Click to expand...

In 1940 the Germans had 3 aircraft guns in service with a 4th coming in at the end of the year it very small quantities.
1. the MG 17-7.9mm fixed gun which fired from a belt and used a closed bolt for synchronization.
2. the MG-15-7.9mm flexible gun which used the 75 round saddle drum and fired open bolt. May have used many of the same parts as the MG 17
3. the MG FF cannon and the nearly identical MG FF/M in 20mm. using a variety of magazines. The flexible guns used the smaller ones as they are lighter, and the lower weight and size made the gun more maneuverable.
4. the MG 151/15 showed up late in 1940 a a fixed gun in a few aircraft like He 115 floatplanes and Do 217s

The Germans seemed to have real problem with turrets. and lets not use the excuse of the planes being too small. The Grumman TBF used power turret

and the Blenheim used a powered mount/turret (not full 360 degree rotation.) we will leave the Defiant and Roc out of this.

I could be wrong but the first german turret seems to be the FW 19 mounting a single MG 15 gun and hydraulically powered (?) mounted on some early FW 200s. Replaced by a non powered cupola type mount for a short period of time before being brought back. Production problems or service problems?
Early Do 217s get an electric turret mounting a single MG 131 in the late winter/early spring of 1941. I don't have details but it looks a little dodgy to me, some of these German turrets seem to have a few degrees of manual lateral traverse? in addition to the power traverse?

In any case you seem to want planes for 1941 and later instead of planes for 1940. The Germans built 26 FW 200s by the end of Dec 1940. If you want more long range recon planes in the summer or early fall of 1940 just build a few (6?) more FW 200s a little early. First Fulmars go into action in Aug 1940 in the Med. It takes quite a while for them to show up in the western approaches.

The Ju 89 was non-starter. whatever it's attributes were in 1937 it's day had come and gone by 1940

It used a wing of roughly 35-66% larger than the 5 most common Allied 4 engine bombers and 53% larger than the FW 200. Aerodynamically this was a 4 engine JU 86 and not a 4 engine Ju 88. Note the Junkers "double wing" as used on the Ju 52. Drag is going to be way higher than any of those six aircraft.
Look up pictures of tail gun positions for the JU 290, most or all of the planes in service used a single gun in a manual mount several years after 1940. There were powered mounts turrets but they all seem to be experimental.

You want to shoot down Blenheims and Hudsons (and Ansons)over the Bay of Biscay in 1940? hang a drop tank under each wing of a Bf 110 and have at it. No need for anything better as Coastal Command won't see a Beaufighter until about 1942.

Koopernic said:

The plausible deniability effort was quite extensive so anyone would have had difficulty.

Nevertheless the Germans never stopped improving and modifying their system. These efforts would have sent Bletcheley Park blind but for the strange failure to distribute the modifications fully.

Doenitz himself was suspicious and some within the cryptography branches knew enigma was vulnerable if the engineering effort was put in. One officer worked out that an enigma code could be cracked with 50,000 Hollerith punch cards. The Germans had mathematical and statistical punch card machine normally used in accounting and statistics that could search, sort and collate punch cards but also accumulate statistical data and patterns. They were computers. I've seen these envelop like slips running and to process 20 cards a second is nothing for these machines. So some people knew of the danger but each time they were talked down and the seniors assured that all had been checked and was OK. The Germans however did persistently take action, such as introduce a partially rewiredable keyboard (which stopped Polish efforts) and introduce a 4th rotor to naval enigma. It just wasn't enough.
.

Click to expand...

The scientists on the Manhattan project had a similar system of punch cards for calculation. This was used to calculate the critical mass needed for a chain reaction to be sustaining. In a calculation that was a mix of pysics mathematics and statistics they repeatedly ran a calculation to see if the reaction was progressing in one way (hot) or another.(cold) all done with a card system. Don't ask me to explain it, it was damned clever though.

Punch cards were the way forward at the time!
Many machines were developed after the war which were clearly derivatives of Enigma. One, the Russian/Warsaw Pact 'Fialka' used punch cards in place of the plug board (Stekkerbrett) of Enigma.
Other improvements included 10 wheels, rather than 3 or 4 on the Enigma, more frequent wheel turn-overs, adjacent wheels moving in opposite directions and wheel wiring which could be changed in the field. Another weakness of Enigma was also solved, a letter could be encoded onto itself, impossible with Enigma.
Cheers
Steve

stona said:

Punch cards were the way forward at the time!
Many machines were developed after the war which were clearly derivatives of Enigma. One, the Russian/Warsaw Pact 'Fialka' used punch cards in place of the plug board (Stekkerbrett) of Enigma.
Other improvements included 10 wheels, rather than 3 or 4 on the Enigma, more frequent wheel turn-overs, adjacent wheels moving in opposite directions and wheel wiring which could be changed in the field. Another weakness of Enigma was also solved, a letter could be encoded onto itself, impossible with Enigma.
Cheers
Steve

Click to expand...

That was why the goings on in Bletchley park were kept secret long after the war and the never told the Russians they were breaking Enigma. I remember
being shown how card systems work as a start to a discussion about computing, it is amazing what can be done when that is all you have.

Below I've attached a google map to which I've hand marked the plausible escort range of the Me 109E both with and without a 300 Litre drop tank and also the Fw 187. I've used 1/3rd of the maximum cruise speed range as the operational radius leaving 1/3rd for forming up, combat and reserve.

I think it proves the impossibility of the Luftwaffe "winning" it's air campaign over Britain.

I doubt that important English cities such as Liverpool, Manchester, Sheffield ever saw an Me 109 if they did it was with a machine that had flown at a very slow speed.

Unless the RAF went insane it would simply withdraw its important bases and factories outside of Me 109 range and wait it out while practising ambushes against unescorted Luftwaffe bombers till it regained its strength. The Luftwaffe couldn't prevent Britain's sea trade on the western approaches.

The Luftwaffe clearly lacked a doctrine for a long-range fighter because it didn't even equip its Me 109 with drop tanks it had invented in WW1. (Siemens-Schuckert SSW D.VI 3055 had a drop tank.)

The range of the Me 109E was about 700km/420 miles. It had just over 400L of fuel and the 300L drop tank added about 60% range. At economical cruising speeds, the ferry range might go up about 50% but this would get the Me 109 shot down. The Bf 110 had only about 20% more range, with drop tanks it's about the same as the Fw 187 without. When carrying 2 x 900L (220 gallons) drop tanks the latter Me 110s had impressive range but this was really only good for loitering and combat patrol above a convoy since they had to be jettisoned upon engaging in combat. They extended loiter time but not combat radius.

Fw 187 had 1200km range on internal fuel with around 1300 Litres and 2100km with drop tanks.

The Fw 187 was a case of the Luftwaffe having the technology to carry out a vital function that it hadn't recognised.

So although drop tanks dramatically would have improved the Luftwaffe war of attrition on Fighter Command the effect on Britain overall is minimal.

Red is Me 109 Radius of Action.
Pink is Me 109 radius of action with drop tank.
Green is Fw 187 Radius of Action. Also about range of Me 110 with drop tanks.
Blue is Fw 187 radius of action with drop tanks.



Below is some Data for the Fw 187 taken from the Dietmar Herman Book (transl Peter Petrick).

Data for the DB601 and DB605 engined versions of the Fw 187 is limited as it was lost but we do have some.

Speeds of the of the Fw 187V4 and Me 110B-0 both with Jumo 210G engines. By this time the Fw 187 had a second cockpit seat added. Both in equal combat trim.

Me 110 speed sea level 380kmh
Fw 187 speed sea level 466kmh (Fw 187 86 kmh faster)

Me 110 speed at critical altitude of 4000m 455kmh
Fw 187 speed at critical altitude of 4600m 545kmh (Fw 187 90 kmh faster)

So the Fw 187 has a significant aerodynamic advantage and twice the range. (1450KM versus 635KM)

Compared to the Me 109D also with the same Jumo 210 engine, the Fw 187 was 35kmh faster at sea level and 40kmh at altitude.

Fw 187 v5, in 1939 with a DB601 engine installed achieved 635km/h (394mph) at sea level. This is the speed of a Tempest V or P-51D with 150PN fuel at sea level.

This was with the Focke Wulf steam cooling system. A word on this. It used normal radiators but they could be smaller and hotter than normal radiators. It was not related to the Heinkel system that tried to cool the steam in the wing leading edges and return the water with 22 small scavenge pumps.

The system worked as follows:
1 Pressurized hot water came out of the engine at 6.5 bar
2 The water goes into an evaporator with a centrifuge to separate water from steam that has flashed when the pressure was released, the hot water isn't carrying much heat and is returned to the header tank whereas the steam is fed to the radiator.
3 It was tested on a 'spinning bench in all flight attitudes, then it was tested on an Me 110 and then it was tested on the Fw 187V5

Below is the Fw 187 V5 you cn see the split flaps for the steam radiator outlet. Obviously ordinary radiators could have been used but with a little more air flow. I think these systems were attractive because without glycol the water tended to form bubbles that interfered with cooling.
Below can be seen the characteristic inverted lines of the DB601 on the Fw 187 V5 CJ+NY^

Below an 'ordinary' Jumo 210 with the more normal lines of that engine

Dietmar Herman attributes the Luftwaffe failure to use the Fw 187 due to the refusal to admit that the zerstoerer concept had been a failure in the BoB. Putting in to production the Fw 187 would have been an admission of this. Instead the Me 210/Me 410 debacle developed.

Koopernic said:

Fw 187 had 1200km range on internal fuel with around 1300 Litres and 2100km with drop tanks.

The Fw 187 was a case of the Luftwaffe having the technology to carry out a vital function that it hadn't recognised.

Click to expand...

It had recognized the vital function, it was using the Bf 110 to address it. A bit imperfectly to be sure and even more imperfectly when the 110s were ordered to stay close to the bombers.

Koopernic said:

Below is some Data for the Fw 187 taken from the Dietmar Herman Book (transl Peter Petrick).

Data for the DB601 and DB605 engined versions of the Fw 187 is limited as it was lost but we do have some.

Speeds of the of the Fw 187V4 and Me 110B-0 both with Jumo 210G engines. By this time the Fw 187 had a second cockpit seat added. Both in equal combat trim.

Me 110 speed sea level 380kmh
Fw 187 speed sea level 466kmh (Fw 187 86 kmh faster)

Me 110 speed at critical altitude of 4000m 455kmh
Fw 187 speed at critical altitude of 4600m 545kmh (Fw 187 90 kmh faster)

So the Fw 187 has a significant aerodynamic advantage and twice the range. (1450KM versus 635KM)

Click to expand...

Unfortunately the speeds/ranges quoted in the Dietmar Herman Book are a at odds with performance figures in William Green's old books, sometimes a little and sometimes a lot. Green did have a number of errors but Herman seems to be a bit selective and doesn't give speed or altitude for a lot of his range figures. There is also the "smell" test. He lists the 110 at 1270 liters of fuel with the fw 187 having 1110 liters, a 14% advantage in fuel for the 110 yet we are to believe the 110 using the same engines can fly only 44% as far? Green lists the range of a 110B-1 as 1070 miles. perhaps this is an error and should be 1070km? Cruise is given by Green as 198mph, an odd speed as it doesn't come out to an even KPH or even a multiple of 5 ( I doubt cruise speeds were given as 318kph)

I would also note that the planes were NOT in equal combat trim. In the chart (on page 68 of the book) the armament is listed as 12 x 20 MG/FF (an obvious typo) and 2 x 7.92 MG 17 (two less than the 110) . Chart is supposed to be for the Fw 187 V4, in other places in the book it is stated that that the 4 machine gun armament was added later and that the V4 and A series aircraft were originally built with two machineguns (in addition to the cannon).
Difference in armament (and drag of the gun ports)

Might explain Green's listed speed of 329mph (530kph?) for the A-0.

Specification sheet on page 63 is a bit suspect. Only in that it is calculated and not from tests. I am sure the it is the best information that Herman could get and I am not trying to imply anything about him. I would note that the FW engineers were claiming 13% additional engine "performance" due to exhaust thrust which is more than RR got from a Merlin XX using more boost and at higher altitudes (less back pressure at the exhaust outlets).

[QUOTEFw 187 v5, in 1939 with a DB601 engine installed achieved 635km/h (394mph) at sea level. This is the speed of a Tempest V or P-51D with 150PN fuel at sea level.[/QUOTE]

nice. except these were not "standard" DB601 engines. They were rated at 1350PS for one minute at sea level. A level of power the DB601 would not see in service until the "E" model and the cooling system would be higher drag on any service aircraft for several years after 1939.

I would note that Green gives the following ranges for a Bf 110C
At max continuous cruise
483 miles at sea level at 262mph.
528 miles at 16,400ft at 304mph.
565 miles at 22,970ft at 301mph

and 680 miles at 217mph at 13,780ft at economical cruising speed. I would note that 680 miles is 1094 km which is not that far off from the 1070 number given for the Jumo powered 110, coincidence or bad translation?

The above numbers show why a range figure without speed and altitude is almost worthless.

I have no doubt the Fw 187 with it's smaller, lower drag airframe could out perform and fly further on the same amount of fuel than the Bf 110, but believing some of the figures in Herman's book takes faith to a new level. Again, he is presenting manufacturers estimates and not actual test data so I am making no accusations against him, plenty of Western Aircraft companies put out some rather bogus figures (390mph XP-39, 360mph single seat Defiant, 370mph Beaufighter and a lot more).

Once again the unicorn that is the Fw 187 prances onto the stage as a world beater, even though relevant data suggests otherwise.

I would note that the 109 gained about 450kg in empty equipped weight going from the Jumo 210 powered versions to the E-1 with DB 601 which is a whole lot more weight the difference in the dry weight of the engines.
Again I don't doubt that the Fw 187 would be a better daylight fighter than the 110 if using the same engines, I just doubt that it is going to fall as high on the performance charts as some of it's boosters claim.



BTW if anybody can come with performance for the 110 from pilots manuals/charts it would be appreciated.

Before looking at fantasy aircraft or increased range for the Bf 109 one would do well to look at the objectives the Luftwaffe was attempting to achieve, helpfully, if vaguely, laid out for us in a Fuhrer order. One might then ask how exactly the fantasy aircraft and drop tank (or at least auxiliary tank) equipped Bf 109s would have enabled the rest of the Luftwaffe to achieve those objectives.
Cheers
Steve

German bomber armament in 1940 is best described as dismal bordering on pathetic.
adding guns (and gunners) might not have reduced losses that much but most German bombers made a Hampden look good.
The He 111 had decent range for what they were trying to do. and a decent bomb load for the time but three RCMGs is little better than WW I.
adding 2-3 guns (one of them that fixed gun in the tail) wasn't much of a "fix". Unless you carried more crew either the dorsal gunner or ventral gunner had to man the waist gun/s which doesn't really increase the firepower that much and calls for a rather athletic crew
Better reconnaissance and post raid photo assessment (a job for the 110) might have increased the effectiveness instead of assuming that one or two raids was enough for most targets.

The Germans were not a day late and dollar short on power turrets, they were weeks/months late and hundreds of dollars short. Somewhat fixed by 1941 (but the 111 doesn't get a power turret until 1942?)

The Do 17 was sort of a super Blenheim
Nice plane but a strategic bomber it was NOT. Max range as given by Green was 720 miles with an 1100lb bomb load (that is with a 197 imp gallon tank filling one bomb bay.) tactical radius with 2200lbs of bombs was 210 miles?
Doesn't matter what kind of super escort you give them, you are going to have to come back to the same targets a number of times.

Hitler's strategic objective was to get Britain out of the war. How he achieved that really didn't matter much to him, he just wanted Britain out of the fight.

We can all agree that Sealion was doomed to failure militarily...but the threat of invasion certainly diverted British resources from other activities and created several invasion scares which, at least at the local/regional level, generated confusion and some doubt/fear. The key piece that's missing from events as they played out is any escalation of those local/regional fears into a broader, national-level fear that the UK was destined to lose the war.

To me, the key question is what, if anything, would have led the UK towards that more national-level fear that things were going awry? Defeating the entire RAF was obviously impossible because RAF aircraft could simply be pulled back out of range of single-engine Luftwaffe fighter coverage, thus making it much harder for the Luftwaffe. However, any such move would have been tacit acceptance that the air battle had been lost in 11 Group's area of operations, which clearly would leave London entirely exposed. For 11 Group to fold would have required a concerted effort on the RAF radar stations and the supporting Group and Sector C3 nodes...but these probably weren't difficult targets to locate or, frankly, to neutralize (the possible exception being 11 Gp's bunker at Uxbridge).

Would such a turn of events prompted a more general fear within the UK Government and the wider population? Perhaps. While propaganda may have papered over some of the cracks, it would pretty soon become apparent that forward airfields in 11 Group were being abandoned, leading to questions in the House of Commons about Churchill's leadership. Could a vote of no-confidence in Churchill's Government have resulted in a more compliant, appeasement-centric Government? I think it's certainly a possibility, and that would achieve Hitler's strategic objective without the need for Operation Sealion and without having to destroy the entirety of the RAF.

Just my two penn'orth. I know I keep repeating it but, equally, we've banged on for several pages now about how implausible Sealion was from a military execution perspective.

I would be interested if others had ideas of any additional potential tipping points that might have taken Britain out of the fight and hence secured Hitler's strategic objective for the campaign in the West.

".... Could a vote of no-confidence in Churchill's Government have resulted in a more compliant, appeasement-centric Government? I think it's certainly a possibility, and that would achieve Hitler's strategic objective without the need for Operation Sealion and without having to destroy the entirety of the RAF."

That is the $$$ real question. The crowds greeted Mr, Churchill enthusiastically, but .... they also cheered Mr Maisky, the Societ Ambassador ... funny thing about crowds.

I agree retreat from forward airfields would have been very political and publicly understood .... but a successful multi U-boat penetration of Scapa Flow with loss of 8 or 10 capital ships would have shaken the British public to the roots, IMO. All participating U boats in the Scapa Flow attack naturally were lost ... but .... the mission was always suicidal.

Shortround6 said:

...
BTW if anybody can come with performance for the 110 from pilots manuals/charts it would be appreciated.

Click to expand...

Somting like this: linky1, linky2?

Thank you, If I am reading it correctly (a very big IF) the 2nd table show that with 965kg of fuel (1270 liters)
the 110C-2 was supposed to fly 1040km at 518kph at 6000 meters altitude using 875PS per engine?
Or 646 miles at 321-322mph at 19,685 ft?
Granted that may very well be a 'yardstick' range and not count warming up, take off and climb to 6000 meters but it rather boggles the mind
that the Jumo powered version with the much lower powered engines would fly hundreds of km less on the same fuel.
Unless I am missing something.

Shortround6 said:

In 1940 the Germans had 3 aircraft guns in service with a 4th coming in at the end of the year it very small quantities.
1. the MG 17-7.9mm fixed gun which fired from a belt and used a closed bolt for synchronization.
2. the MG-15-7.9mm flexible gun which used the 75 round saddle drum and fired open bolt. May have used many of the same parts as the MG 17
3. the MG FF cannon and the nearly identical MG FF/M in 20mm. using a variety of magazines. The flexible guns used the smaller ones as they are lighter, and the lower weight and size made the gun more maneuverable.
4. the MG 151/15 showed up late in 1940 a a fixed gun in a few aircraft like He 115 floatplanes and Do 217s

The Germans seemed to have real problem with turrets. and lets not use the excuse of the planes being too small. The Grumman TBF used power turret
View attachment 474528
and the Blenheim used a powered mount/turret (not full 360 degree rotation.) we will leave the Defiant and Roc out of this.

I could be wrong but the first german turret seems to be the FW 19 mounting a single MG 15 gun and hydraulically powered (?) mounted on some early FW 200s. Replaced by a non powered cupola type mount for a short period of time before being brought back. Production problems or service problems?
Early Do 217s get an electric turret mounting a single MG 131 in the late winter/early spring of 1941. I don't have details but it looks a little dodgy to me, some of these German turrets seem to have a few degrees of manual lateral traverse? in addition to the power traverse?

In any case you seem to want planes for 1941 and later instead of planes for 1940. The Germans built 26 FW 200s by the end of Dec 1940. If you want more long range recon planes in the summer or early fall of 1940 just build a few (6?) more FW 200s a little early. First Fulmars go into action in Aug 1940 in the Med. It takes quite a while for them to show up in the western approaches.

The Ju 89 was non-starter. whatever it's attributes were in 1937 it's day had come and gone by 1940
View attachment 474529
It used a wing of roughly 35-66% larger than the 5 most common Allied 4 engine bombers and 53% larger than the FW 200. Aerodynamically this was a 4 engine JU 86 and not a 4 engine Ju 88. Note the Junkers "double wing" as used on the Ju 52. Drag is going to be way higher than any of those six aircraft.
Look up pictures of tail gun positions for the JU 290, most or all of the planes in service used a single gun in a manual mount several years after 1940. There were powered mounts turrets but they all seem to be experimental.

You want to shoot down Blenheims and Hudsons (and Ansons)over the Bay of Biscay in 1940? hang a drop tank under each wing of a Bf 110 and have at it. No need for anything better as Coastal Command won't see a Beaufighter until about 1942.

Click to expand...

Those Junkers flaps are also quite prone to icing up in weather. Bluntly, the more you read about German aircraft design the more you realize how overrated their designers are.

Shortround6 said:

Thank you, If I am reading it correctly (a very big IF) the 2nd table show that with 965kg of fuel (1270 liters)
the 110C-2 was supposed to fly 1040km at 518kph at 6000 meters altitude using 875PS per engine?
Or 646 miles at 321-322mph at 19,685 ft?

Click to expand...

You read it correctly

Granted that may very well be a 'yardstick' range and not count warming up, take off and climb to 6000 meters but it rather boggles the mind
that the Jumo powered version with the much lower powered engines would fly hundreds of km less on the same fuel.
Unless I am missing something.

Click to expand...

The Bf 110B have had almost the same internal fuel capacity - 927 kg in 4 tanks. I too don't believe that the 110B will be incapable to match the range of the 110C sans drop tanks. FWIW ('Uebungfall' - training 'mode'; 'Einsatzfall' - service 'mode'):

Petrick & Mankau give the 1200-1400 km range and 3-3.5 h endurance for the Jumo 210-powered Bf 110B.