If the RAF had been defeated in the Battle of Britain

rochie said:

I thought the 110's job was to range ahead of its own bombers and clearing the path of enemy fighters ?

Click to expand...

It had several jobs. I think Rudiger Kosn lists them in his Book "The German Fighter"
1 Range ahead of own bombers to attack rising enemy fighters.
2 Strafe up enemy fighters and air defenses on the ground before they can takeoff.
3 Use its heavy fire power to bring down enemy bombers.
4 bad weather fighter ie operation in bad visibility (obviously night) with instruments and navigation aids.
5 the original zerstoerer spec called for bombs to be carried internally and a 3 man crew but Bf 110 could carry external bombs. The Bf 110 was actually a non conforming submission to the zerstoerer spec.

Because the RAF was using head on attacks on the bombers Goering had the Me 110 and Me 109 in close formation to thwart RAF head on attacks. Obviously the Me 110 would tend to win this type of duel but it made the Luftwaffe fighters very vulnerable particular the Bf 110 which had slow acceleration compared to a single and not quite as good a maneuverability.

If used in the 'range ahead of own bombers' I imagine it was reasonably successful as it can have the tactical freedom of moving at a faster speed and is said to have a superior exchange ratio versus the British fighters. Bf 110 are less likely to be 'bounced' due to the observers eyes and if there are enough Bf 110 around they can support each other due to good radio communication. Down side their large size means they are seen earlier.

In a turning dog fight the British fighter would end up below the Bf 110 where the observer couldn't engage the attacking fighter. The heavy maneuvering preventing aiming or even reloading of magazines. The observer was helpless. The Me 210/410 was supposed to fix this with its hydraulically powered guns, ability to fire below.

Koopernic said:

What relevant data do you have. All the relevant data shows it carried the fuel needed at the speed needed.

Click to expand...

And what relevant data do you have for a production, in service aircraft? Pre-production and prototypes ARE NOT in service aircraft, especially paper versions.

Fw-187 could have been German P-51?

Subject's been discussed before. Personally I think the Fw 187 is one of the most overrated unicorns ever discussed, you mileage may vary however.

This is what I have for the Bf109E for range and endurance.(numbers converted to Imperial)w/o dt

9842ft
max continuous: 2200rpm, 282.7mph, 1.00hr, 280mi
max economy: 1300rpm, 186.4mph, 2.05hr, 410mi

16,404ft
max continuous: 2400rpm, 282.7mph, 0.55hr, 286mi
max economy: 1400rpm, 186.4mph, 1.50hr, 413mi

19,865ft
max continuous: 2400rpm, 310.7mph, 1.10hr, 323mi
max economy: 1600rpm, 223.7mph, 1.40hr, 395mi

Peter Gunn said:

Personally I think the Fw 187 is one of the most overrated unicorns ever discussed, you mileage may vary however.

Click to expand...

It is, and a complete red herring. We have no idea what the performance of a true, mass produced service version might have been and extrapolating from the few (and various types) made leaves plenty of room for conjecture.

Conjecture is conjecture, no matter how well informed! Can anyone think of any WW2 aircraft that actually met the performance figures in service which were touted by the manufacturer to get the contracts? There must have been some, but I can't think of any.

Cheers

Steve

Mosquito

Spitfire did, so did P-51, also the P-40 after some tweaks.

Some of those mentioned didn't initially live up to expectation, even the prototype Spitfire was slower than hoped for.
Cheers
Steve

IIRC Supermarine expected 350 mph Spitfire. When the prototype was clocked at 349 mph, their comment was something along 'well, we can settle for that'. Once rear-facing exhausts were fitted, it went at 360 mph, still on same 1030 HP.
P-40 was also expected to make 350 mph. The 1st flight tests were dissapointing, but after a few alterations of radiators' locations it went to 350 mph. The P-40B was also good for 350 mph. Same as the small and light Bf 109E, kinda showing how the Emil was aerodynamically dirty.
P-51 lived up to the expectation of a 'better P-40'.

The trouble/s I have with the Fw 187 is that so much is ill informed conjecture or conjecture based on rose tinted glasses.

It wouldn't be hard to build a better twin engine fighter than the Bf 110. That isn't the problem. The problem comes with statements like the "FW 187 could be the Luftwaffe P-51". Ot that the Fw 187 was a lot cheaper than the Bf 110 while using the same engines, props, weapons, radios, etc. Yes the airframe/wing is smaller and should be cheaper but the overall cost of the airplane?

And that brings us back to the Luftwaffe P-51 claim. One reason the US jumped all over the Merlin P-51 was that it was much cheaper than the P-38 and P-47 and yet did the same job (remember that thousands were on order before a Merlin P-51 escorted it's first bomber), There is no way that a twin engine fighter grossing over 12,000lbs clean is going to be "Cheap" or be manufactured in the numbers that single engine fighters are.

As mentioned before the 109 gained around 450kg empty going from the Jumo models to the 109E despite the difference in engine weight being only about 170kg (?). Some of this may be due to strengthening of the airframe which I will assume the the Fw 187 doesn't need as it was designed for the DB 600/601 of some sort and had to revert to the Jumo 210 due to engine shortages. However that doesn't do away with the need for bigger props, bigger radiators, oil coolers, etc to suit the bigger engines.

One of the "Paper" studies of the Fw 187 has a version with DB605A engines (with a longer fuselage and slightly modified wings) and that study has the plane weighing 5660kg empty or empty equipped (with a heavier armament). but the DB 605 is a lot heavier than the DB601.
However we are left looking at a plane that is over 10% heavier empty equipped than the Jumo powered planes were loaded.

Where does the DB601A powered version lie on this spectrum? Where between the 4900kg loaded for the V4 and the 7200kg for the loaded (but clean ) DB605A powered version?
Some promoters boast of the excellent maneuverability of the FW 187, which may be quite true for the versions flying at under 5000kg, but what happens at 6000kg and above?

Going back to the P-51, the P-51 had 180 gallons for it's engine to start with or 680 liters, but it made it's reputation using a a further 321 liters in the rear tank (actually more like 140 or so liters in the rear tank when the drop tanks were dropped) and drop tanks.
The fictitious FW 187 can certainly use drop tanks but it's internal fuel of 1300 liters (or less) split between two engines is not going to give Mustang like operational radius.

I would note that a fictitious FW 187 at 6000kg would be remarkable similar to an Early P-38 in size, weight, power (at least somewhat below 20,000ft ) and internal fuel capacity.(edge to the FW 187)
Adjust as needed for the P-38 having 1150hp ?

Here are some numbers for exhaust thrust From Rolls Royce using a Hurricane II and Merlin XX engine.

altitude.............speed............MAP............propshaft power......charge flow......back pres......exhaust velocity........exhaust HP........% of shaftpower
15,000ft.........325mph..........48.24in................1048hp..............140.5lb/m............23.2in..........1395fps.....................86.5.................8.25%
20,000ft.........335mph..........48.24in................1073hp..............144lb/m...............22.3in..........1695fps.....................113.0..............10.53%
20,000ft.........340mph..........50.67in................1126hp..............151lb/m...............23.2in...........1788fps.....................126.8.............11.17%
25,000ft.........330mph..........42.12in................ 960hp..............129.1lb/m............19.6in...........1840fps.....................107.2.............11.16%
30,000ft.........317mph..........34.30in..................788hp..............107.2lb/m............16,3in...........1901fps......................89.0...............11.44%

Now please note that the higher the plane flies the less back pressure on the exhaust system (due to falling air pressure) and the higher the exhaust gas velocity. note that at 15,000ft and 30,000ft the thrust is almost the same, While the mass dropped to about 76.3% the gas velocity increase by about 36% Thrust is mass times velocity but thrust is not Horsepower. to get HP you have to figure in the velocity of the airplane vs the velocity of the escaping gas.

The table I got this from does list 35,000ft but doesn't go any lower than 15,000ft, but I think we can see the trend. The closer you get to sea level the higher the back pressure and the lower the exhaust gas Velocity.

Trying to use a constant as high as 13% for exhaust thrust at all altitudes doesn't line up with this. I would also note that the British are using a richer mixture than the Germans at high speed and the charge weight will be higher per shaft HP.
You don't get good fuel economy and high charge weight at the same time.

The Luftwaffe admitted the loss of 223~229 Bf110's during the Battle of Britain (to the end of October) .

Sources:
1- "Statistics of the Battle of Britain"

2- "Osprey Aircraft of the Aces" 25 Bf110 Zerstorer Aces of ww2 page 51 (last paragraph)

On the other hand...

There were Bf110 victories as wel but losses clearly outweighed victories. The Me110 aces between them claimed 161 victories, break down is as follows:

ErprGr 210 (2 Aces with 15 Victories)
ZG 2 (1 Ace with 6 Victories)
ZG 26 (11 Aces with 81 Victories)
ZG 76 (6 Aces with 59 Victories)
Victories among Bf110 aces: 15 + 6 + 81 + 59 = 161 victories

These claims don't include shoot downs by non-aces

Beginning in early September 1940, some German air units equipped with the twin-engined fighter plane Messerschmitt Bf 110 were withdrawn from the English Channel to be used as night fighters. Sometimes this has been regarded as a 'degradation' of the Bf 110. Clearly the Me110 was inferior in accelaration, climb and horizontal manouverability to the spitfire and a little less marginal against the hurricane. But the 110 was not without some strengths either.

In fact, the withdrawals were more the result of heavy pressure from Hitler and the German population to put an end to the night raids against Berlin and other German cities. The LW chose the Me110 apparently because the type had some night compatible instrumentation, the crews had some basic training in night flying, and the weaknesses bedevilling the type in day fighter combat were not relevant to the night battlefield. The 110 in September was still considered a very potent fighter.

The myth that the 110 was a complete failure as a day fighter stems more from the expectations made of it rather than any concrete failures in air combat.

The twin-engined, long-range fighter Bf 110 was the result of the war games conducted under Göring's supervision in the winter of 1933/34. These showed that the prevailing view by then that "the bombers will always get through" – the notion that regardless of intercepting fighters and air defence a sufficient number of bombers always would get through to their assigned targets, where they were expected to cause enormous damage – was incorrect.

In the summer of 1934, the leadership of the still secret Luftwaffe presented a study that suggested what at that time was quite revolutionary: a twin-engined fighter, heavily armed with automatic cannons as well as machine guns, to protect the bombers against enemy fighter interception, it being expected the Me110 would range far ahead of the bomber formations and demolish with firepower the more nimble SE fighters likely to range against it. This was the era of the Bristol Bulldog, with aircraft like the Gloster gladiator being developed at about the same time, remember. The idea was to dispatch these twin-engined fighter aircraft in advance, at a high altitude over the intended bombing target area, to clear the air of enemy fighters before the bombers arrived.

In fact, when used in that way, the Messerschmitt Bf 110 was quite successful. Actually, the Bf 110 appears to have had a better ratio of shot down enemy aircraft to own combat losses than any other fighter type during the Battle of Britain. Yet in most accounts of the Battle of Britain, the accomplishments of the Bf 110 have been nearly totally neglected (although admittedly this is largely a result of the inaccessibility of sources on this aircraft). Investigations of the available material have at least suggested enabled a different picture to be drawn of the Bf 110 during the Battle of Britain.

Bf 110 fighter units sustained some very heavy losses on various occasions. In most cases, however, this was when the Bf 110 fighters were ordered to fly slow, close-escort missions to German bombers. In those cases, there was no difference between what the Bf 110 suffered and what the Bf 109 suffered. There are numerous cases where Bf 109 units were absolutely thrashed by RAF fighters because they had to fly on foolishly slow close-escort missions. In this way, Bf 110-equipped I./ZG 26 lost six aircraft over the North Sea on 15 August 1940, just as Bf 109-equipped I./JG 77 lost five aircraft on 31 August 1940, to pick just two examples.

There were also occasions when Bf 110s were absolutely thrashed by RAF fighters when flying independent missions against Fighter Command airfields and other targets as anyone who has read a history of Erprobungsgruppe 210 would know.
The disastrous intervention of Luftflotte 5 in the Battle on August 15th, and the decimation of the Bf 110s involved had little to do with the escort role and much to do with the types inability to defend itself from, or, more critically, escape determined attacks from single engine fighters. They couldn't fly in a defensive circle over the North Sea, or anywhere else, indefinitely.
It is simply not the case that a mythical order from Goering caused the lack of tactical freedom which led to the failure of the Bf 110. On the other hand the Bf 110 was not as bad as often portrayed today, though it was nowhere near as good as the Germans thought.
Cheers
Steve

As an aside, the fact that the P-40, despite being heavier and bulkier than the Bf109, was so close in performance to the latter is a fairly telling counterpoint to the superiority of German designers.

Question in regards to rear gunners with single, rifle caliber machine guns: how effective were they? Did the really stop fighter attacks or were they more useful as extra eyes and the gun just a morale booster?

stona said:

There were also occasions when Bf 110s were absolutely thrashed by RAF fighters when flying independent missions against Fighter Command airfields and other targets as anyone who has read a history of Erprobungsgruppe 210 would know.
The disastrous intervention of Luftflotte 5 in the Battle on August 15th, and the decimation of the Bf 110s involved had little to do with the escort role and much to do with the types inability to defend itself from, or, more critically, escape determined attacks from single engine fighters. They couldn't fly in a defensive circle over the North Sea, or anywhere else, indefinitely.

Click to expand...

Bf 110s from Norway were sort of a special case.


Add the drag of this tank (1050 liters/231imp gal) to even a Mosquito and see what happens. Even if empty the 110s from Norway were trying to fight with hundreds of liters more fuel in the normal fuel tanks than 110s that had flown from Belgium or France.
A bit like a Spitfire trying to fight with the 170 gallon tank still attached, even if empty.

The 110s days as a day fighter were numbered, Over England with an increasing number of Spitfires (and better ones) the 110 was outclassed sooner than in NA or on the Russian front. But there too better fighters showed up. However over England in the summer/fall of 1940 the 110 could still play an improtant part IF used correctly.

The concept of the Bf 110 was sound but to make it work it has to be developed as quickly as the opposition. Between 1939 and 1940 the Bf100s opponent in the RAF went from twin blade prop Hurricanes on 85 octane fuel to the Spitfire MkII guided by RADAR. Updating the engines and airframes is obviously a much bigger task.

Shortround6 said:

However over England in the summer/fall of 1940 the 110 could still play an important part IF used correctly.

Click to expand...

So how do you use it?

Whenever it came up against single engine fighters it was in trouble. This could be attacking ports/shipping, as a fighter bomber (where it did enjoy some success by avoiding interception, but when it did come up against single engine fighters.... disaster) or as a bomber escort.

The Luftwaffe concept of clearing a way for the bombers was impractical as the RAF fighters had no need to engage a formation of Bf 110s ahead of the bombers, they would simply attack the bombers. The bombers were always the priority for all RAF fighters. If the Bf 110s escorted the bombers more closely they once again became vulnerable, relatively easy to avoid or out manoeuvre.

The Bf 110 losses in the last half of 1940 speak for themselves.

Cheers

Steve

stona said:

So how do you use it?

Whenever it came up against single engine fighters it was in trouble. This could be attacking ports/shipping, as a fighter bomber (where it did enjoy some success by avoiding interception, but when it did come up against single engine fighters.... disaster) or as a bomber escort.

The Luftwaffe concept of clearing a way for the bombers was impractical as the RAF fighters had no need to engage a formation of Bf 110s ahead of the bombers, they would simply attack the bombers. The bombers were always the priority for all RAF fighters. If the Bf 110s escorted the bombers more closely they once again became vulnerable, relatively easy to avoid or out manoeuvre.

The Bf 110 losses in the last half of 1940 speak for themselves.

Cheers

Steve

Click to expand...

It requires good timing between the 110s and the bombers. The 110s cannot arrive too early and they cannot arrive with and flying at the same speed as the bombers ( that wouldn't work for Mustangs in 1944). The 110 was never going to equal the Spitfire but had some chance against the Hurricane, which did after all, make up the majority of the British fighter strength. Granted the 110s could no more "pick" their opponents than the British could actually use Spitfires against 109s and Hurricanes against bombers.

Perhaps the 110s could flown higher than the bombers and dive down on the attacking British fighters?
And every British fighter trying to shoot down a BF 110 is a fighter that is not trying to shoot down a bomber.
However the Germans cannot play this game for very long unless they play it very well, trading twin engine fighters for single engine fighters is no way to win a war of attrition.

An alternate role for the Me110 might be low-level intruders, using their heavy firepower in low-level sneak attacks against RAF airfields? They could cause havoc as RAF fighters are coming into land short on fuel or are sitting on the ground being rearmed and refueled. Lots of potential damage to be done. But they'd have to come in at low level to avoid detection. The Luftwaffe did, eventually, employ such tactics but including them as part of a broader operational plan including traditional bombers escorted by single-engine fighters could have multiplied the challenges that Fighter Command had to address.

buffnut453 said:

An alternate role for the Me110 might be low-level intruders, using their heavy firepower in low-level sneak attacks against RAF airfields? They could cause havoc as RAF fighters are coming into land short on fuel or are sitting on the ground being rearmed and refueled. Lots of potential damage to be done. But they'd have to come in at low level to avoid detection. The Luftwaffe did, eventually, employ such tactics but including them as part of a broader operational plan including traditional bombers escorted by single-engine fighters could have multiplied the challenges that Fighter Command had to address.

Click to expand...

They did employ low level approaches in a fighter bomber role, rather than intruder role. They did manage to avoid detection and enjoy some success, but when they were caught the result was predictable, heavy losses for the Bf 110s.

The Bf 109s were most effective by arriving at a superior altitude to the bombers and the intercepting British fighters, putting them in a position to break up the RAF attacks and often force an engagement by using their advantageous position to attack the would be attackers. Given Fighter Command's basic tactical unit was a single squadron this did sometimes work, but often another squadron would arrive unopposed with the escort committed (another argument against the Big Wing, better to make frequent harassing attacks as the bombers approached, to break up the formations and prevent them bombing their targets, or at least preclude accurate bombing).
I simply can't see any reason to adopt a similar tactic for a big twin like the Bf 110, unless there really is no other use for it. It would also negate the only defensive tactic the type had, a defensive circle, given that it certainly couldn't outrun a Spitfire and might struggle against a Hurricane, depending on the situation.

Cheers

Steve

Speed of the 110 seems to be between that of the Hurricane and Spitfire. Climb, depending on altitude might only be a bit behind the Hurricane (at altitudes where only 6lbs boost can be employed.) Wing loading might be just under a 109E-3. and it had slats

Roll response and indeed, response to other control inputs could very well have been below par. And most fights were going to devolve to lower altitudes where the British use of higher boost would show more advantage.

Part of what started this discussion on the 110 is the often made claim that if the Fw 187 had been used instead of the 110 then the RAF would have been defeated, England would have been invaded and civilization as we know it would have ceased to exist.

Most proponents of the FW 187 want to use the higher powered engines and claim all the performance benefits and not accept the lower quantity of ammo, and the weight gain that would affect maneuverability/handling.
The 110C-2 was carrying around 160kg more ammo than either the 110C-1 or the Fw187A-0. How much of this extra was ever used (or even carried?) I don't know, 1000 rounds for each 7.9 fixed machine gun? 2 spare drums for each 20mm cannon.
Some answers can be found here http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me110/Me-110_Tactical_Trials.pdf.
The Hurricane I and Spitfire Vb were the comparison planes.

The captured and rebuilt 110 had trouble flying above 20,000ft due to fault/s in the engines.
However one item of note is that the propellers were NOT really constant speed and required adjustment by the pilot in flight to get best performance from the engines or to keep from damaging them, pitch change was slow and the pilots fingers (plural) had to kept on the switches. I believe this was also the case with the early 109s? but in the case of the 110 there are two props to take-care of.
Any actual FW 187 of the same era would have been fitted with same props and controls and suffered the same limitations.

I would note that a FW 187 flying at 5800kg (700kg less than a 110c-2) would have a wingloading of just under 40lbs sq/ft and any hope of outmaneuvering a Spitfire is long gone.