Me-110 Underrated

[Yiannis]

The BF 110 was a pre-war aircraft designed as a heavy fighter/escort but ended up a multi-role aircraft that fought until the end.

5000 were produced, and after 200 were lost at Bob as no other aircraft could perform long range escort.

The rest 4800 excelled in all other roles such torpedo plane, naval attacker, graound attack, tank buster, dive bomber, reconnaisance, close air support, night fighter in all theatres of the War incurring heavy and numerous casualties including air kills.

It was the first of its kind, a twin engined destroyer with heavy armament and long range. Faster than hurricane or a stuka. The petlyakov dive bomber, the night fighter or naval attacker mosquito, the night fighter black widow and the ground attacker/tank buster baufighter are all different twin engined aircraft that appeared later on in the war to perform those roles that the BF 110 excelled in.

Regardless of the the kills or no kills in Bob and the 4% loss (200) in what can be called a mistake or necessary evil considering the absence of other options to protect the day bombers, the BF 110 proved a useful aircraft to the LW both before and after Bob that inflicted heavy casualties of all sorts at a rate that ranks it high in many respects.

 

[pbehn]

The BF 110 was a pre-war aircraft designed as a heavy fighter/escort but ended up a multi-role aircraft that fought until the end.

5000 were produced, and after 200 were lost at Bob as no other aircraft could perform long range escort.

The rest 4800 excelled in all other roles such torpedo plane, naval attacker, graound attack, tank buster, dive bomber, reconnaisance, close air support, night fighter in all theatres of the War incurring heavy and numerous casualties including air kills.

It was the first of its kind, a twin engined destroyer with heavy armament and long range. Faster than hurricane or a stuka. The petlyakov dive bomber, the night fighter or naval attacker mosquito, the night fighter black widow and the ground attacker/tank buster baufighter are all different twin engined aircraft that appeared later on in the war to perform those roles that the BF 110 excelled in.

Regardless of the the kills or no kills in Bob and the 4% loss (200) in what can be called a mistake or necessary evil considering the absence of other options to protect the day bombers, the BF 110 proved a useful aircraft to the LW both before and after Bob that inflicted heavy casualties of all sorts at a rate that ranks it high in many respects.

When talking about night fighter performance there are different ways to evaluate things. How did the Bf 110 do against the Mosquito in kills to losses over Germany?. What success did the Bf 110 have in dissuading the RAF from night bombing as opposed to the Beaufighter and Mosquito dissuading the LW from night bombing the UK. In the "Baby Blitz" of 1944 the LW lost 329 out of 524 aircraft while the RAF lost 24 to all causes.

 

[Yiannis]

I said before that it was numbers alone that brought Germany to its knees. The German numbers attacking were too small for the defence force. On the other hand please give the casualties of the RAF night raid. And the numbers attacking and them the analogy with the defending LW force

 

[Yiannis]

The Germans lost 200 BF110s and rhat was unbearable but it was ok for thousands of lancasters ro be lost...And never mind...

 

[fubar57]

?

 

[Yiannis]

I hear all the time about the poor stuka that proved too slow etc as if allied bomber planes were supersonic... all bombers are slow....35,000 sturmovicks plus 10,000 il 10 sturmovicks (30,000 lost at least) were good....but the stuka (5,000 built) operated for 10 years 'proved too slow!' Yeah right

 

[pbehn]

The Germans lost 200 BF110s and rhat was unbearable but it was ok for thousands of lancasters ro be lost...And never mind...

Yes because on average losses were around 4% per raid and the UK could withstand those losses. The losses of Bf 110 were unsustainable AND they were not preventing even worse losses to the LW bombers. German bomber losses from the invasion of Poland through action in Netherlands Belgium Norway and France meant that it was a shadow of its former self, by the time it abandoned daylight operations in the BoB the LW was down to around 200 serviceable bombers and crews in theatre and in danger of being wiped out. Park was disappointed with the RAF in the raids on London, having stripped the escorts away they failed to destroy the bombers en mass, and the Bf 110 doesn't figure in the discussion.

 

[pbehn]

I hear all the time about the poor stuka that proved too slow etc as if allied bomber planes were supersonic... all bombers are slow....35,000 sturmovicks plus 10,000 il 10 sturmovicks (30,000 lost at least) were good....but the stuka (5,000 built) operated for 10 years 'proved too slow!' Yeah right

It was withdrawn very early in the Battle of Britain because a "Stuka party" resulted in a squadron being decimated.

 

[Yiannis]

Yes because on average losses were around 4% per raid and the UK could withstand those losses. The losses of Bf 110 were unsustainable AND they were not preventing even worse losses to the LW bombers. German bomber losses from the invasion of Poland through action in Netherlands Belgium Norway and France meant that it was a shadow of its former self, by the time it abandoned daylight operations in the BoB the LW was down to around 200 serviceable bombers and crews in theatre and in danger of being wiped out. Park was disappointed with the RAF in the raids on London, having stripped the escorts away they failed to destroy the bombers en mass, and the Bf 110 doesn't figure in the discussion.

Of course they could. With 600,000 planes for the allies all is possible.
But it's not convincing at all when we hear all the time that anything German proved either too bad or came too late in the war to make a difference and all those cliches used to undermine anything German as if it was quality and not quantity that brought victory to the allies.

 

[tomo pauk]

The amount of proofs posted here for the case of Bf 110 being a great aircraft is overwhelming.

 

[pbehn]

Of course they could. With 600,000 planes for the allies all is possible.
But it's not convincing at all when we hear all the time that anything German proved either too bad or came too late in the war to make a difference and all those cliches used to undermine anything German as if it was quality and not quantity that brought victory to the allies.

Daylight raids were unsustainable, the Wellington and Stirling (and MANY others) were withdrawn and replaced as their loss rate to bombs dropped was much worse than the Halifax and Lancaster. It was both quality and quantity, that is a fact. It is not "undermining anything German" and if you continue with this type of post I am outta here, its been done to death, please stick to facts.

 

[Shortround6]

The 110 was a versatile aircraft that did perform well in a number of roles, however the list in post #201 was a real eye opener (and not in a good way0.

I am still agog at the Me 110 torpedo bomber?

Some skilled modelers plastic model doesn't count.

The Me 110 tankbuster/s?
How many and what units?
Experimental weapons trials don't count.
Some accounts say the 37mm gun was for attacking bombers?


The Me 110 dive bomber?
Depends on what you mean by dive I guess, but did the110 ever get dive brakes?
They did stick dive brakes on some of the early Do 217s but they worked so well that Dornier packed alternative tail cones in the bomb bay when the planes were delivered for maintenance crews to swap the failed dive brake for. But at least they tried a dive brake.

naval attacker?
I am sure that the me 110 did attack some ships, so did the Avro Anson.

Gross exaggeration and hyperbole means even true facts get lost in the noise.

 

[tomo pauk]

Now you have ruined it.

 

[Yiannis]

Daylight raids were unsustainable, the Wellington and Stirling (and MANY others) were withdrawn and replaced as their loss rate to bombs dropped was much worse than the Halifax and Lancaster. It was both quality and quantity, that is a fact. It is not "undermining anything German" and if you continue with this type of post I am outta here, its been done to death, please stick to facts.

Yes it was both quality and quantity but if it were the same numbers the result would be different. That is what I am saying. I understand that this sounds bad or hostile but this is not my point. The BF 110 is being judged only by a three month period where 200 of them were lost. Any effort to show otherwise is met with mockery.

What more proof does anyone need to realise that we are talking about an aircraft that made it to the end. It made more kills as a night fighter than any other night fighter. We all know the casualty rate of the night bombers. If this is not great then ok we can compare it to the swordfish then. Yes it is underrated.

 

[Yiannis]

Yes it was both quality and quantity but if it were the same numbers the result would be different. That is what I am saying. I understand that this sounds bad or hostile but this is not my point. The BF 110 is being judged only by a three month period where 200 of them were lost. Any effort to show otherwise is met with mockery.

What more proof does anyone need to realise that we are talking about an aircraft that made it to the end. It made more kills as a night fighter than any other night fighter. We all know the casualty rate of the night bombers. If this is not great then ok we can compare it to the swordfish then. Yes it is underrated.

The Survivors: Messerschmitt Bf 110 Zerstörer

 

[pbehn]

Yes it was both quality and quantity but if it were the same numbers the result would be different. That is what I am saying. I understand that this sounds bad or hostile but this is not my point. The BF 110 is being judged only by a three month period where 200 of them were lost. Any effort to show otherwise is met with mockery.

What more proof does anyone need to realise that we are talking about an aircraft that made it to the end. It made more kills as a night fighter than any other night fighter. We all know the casualty rate of the night bombers. If this is not great then ok we can compare it to the swordfish then. Yes it is underrated.

Yes, the casualty rate is known, it was not unsustainable on the RAF side and half of losses were to flak. From the wiki page on Mosquito operations

In 1943 Luftwaffe night fighters were causing serious losses by attacking the bomber streams over Germany. Consequently, the decision was taken to set up 100 Group within Bomber Command. This new Group commenced operations on 8 November 1943 under Air Cdr. E. B. Addison.[29] The Group's initial squadrons were No. 169 Squadron RAF and No. 239 Squadron RAF. Not long after, No. 141 Squadron RAF, based at RAF West Raynham, also joined them. On the night of 16/17 December, during the Battle of Berlin, one of their aircraft scored Bomber Command's first intruder success using the Serrate radar detector in a Mosquito NF.II, when they damaged a Bf 110 with cannon fire.[29][30][nb 12] No. 85 Squadron RAF was transferred to the Group on 1 May 1944, operating from RAF Swannington.[32] The top Mosquito ace of 100 Group was the distinguished Wing Commander Branse Burbridge, who made 13 claims during his time in this squadron, between 1944 and the end of the war in Europe.[33]
The 100 Group squadrons used progressively better marks of Mosquito according to their roles: NF XIXs and NF 30s were used for dedicated night fighter operations, providing escorts for the bomber streams; F Mk IIs and FB Mk VIs were used for "Flower" operations (patrolling enemy airfields ahead of the main stream and bombing to keep enemy night fighters on the ground as well as attacking night fighters in the landing pattern) and "Mahmoud" operations, in which, operating independently of bomber stream activity, the squadrons flew to assembly points for German night fighters and attacked them there. B Mk IVs and PR Mk XVIs were used for Electronic Intelligence (ELINT) operations, aiming to detect German radar and radio transmissions.
Some 258 Luftwaffe night fighters were claimed by the Group, for the loss of some 70 Mosquitos. The omnipresence of the potent night fighter threat led to what the Luftwaffe crews dubbed "Moskitoschreck" (Mosquito terror), since the German aircrews were never sure when or where they might come under attack. Indirectly this led to a high proportion of enemy aircraft and crew losses from crashes as night fighters hurried in to land to avoid the Mosquito threat, whether real or imagined.

 

[Yiannis]

The 110 was a versatile aircraft that did perform well in a number of roles, however the list in post #201 was a real eye opener (and not in a good way0.

I am still agog at the Me 110 torpedo bomber?
View attachment 562749
Some skilled modelers plastic model doesn't count.

The Me 110 tankbuster/s?
How many and what units?
Experimental weapons trials don't count.
Some accounts say the 37mm gun was for attacking bombers?


The Me 110 dive bomber?
Depends on what you mean by dive I guess, but did the110 ever get dive brakes?
They did stick dive brakes on some of the early Do 217s but they worked so well that Dornier packed alternative tail cones in the bomb bay when the planes were delivered for maintenance crews to swap the failed dive brake for. But at least they tried a dive brake.

naval attacker?
I am sure that the me 110 did attack some ships, so did the Avro Anson.

Gross exaggeration and hyperbole means even true facts get lost in the noise.

You are right about the torpedo. Only drawings found, it needed a third engine.

In ground attack role especially in the eastern front it should have bombed or rocketed or gunned tanks too I suppose

 

[pbehn]

You are right about the torpedo. Only drawings found, it needed a third engine.

In ground attack role especially in the eastern front it should have bombed or rocketed or gunned tanks too I suppose

To me, as a plane it should be judged on how it did as designed up to 1941 which is generally favourable. After that it was put on a back burner. expecting great things of the 210, when the 210 wasn't a success the Bf 110 was pushed and stretched to do jobs mainly in the absence of anything better. it isn't being universally "dissed" here, but it was what it was.

 

[nuuumannn]

Faster than hurricane or a stuka.

That's not saying much, the Avro Lancaster had a higher cruise and maximum speed than the Stuka.

It was the first of its kind, a twin engined destroyer with heavy armament and long range.

This is true, it was an excellent and adaptable design built to a flawed requirement. Not surprisingly the Zerstorergruppen didn't last much longer after the BoB and the units were repurposed as night fighters, although the Pulk-Zerstorer (formation breaker) concept of disrupting USAAF bomber formations had merit, the Bf 110 was outclassed by the escort fighters. It is worth mentioning that its continued use, exemplary as it was, was because its intended replacement did not manifest into a good fighting machine. Goring once quipped that his headstone should read "he would have lived longer but for the Me 210!"

Bf 110 survivors:

Europe 270

The Deutsches Technic Museum, Berlin.

Bf 110

RAF Museum, Hendon.

Bf 110 Schnaufer

Australian War Memorial.

Bf 110 Hess

And this engine not mentioned on the page you linked to, the other engine from Hess's Bf 110 is at Scotland's National Museum of Flight at East Fortune.

These are all my own images. Somewhere I have a 35mm print I took of Hess' Bf 110 fuselage at IWM Lambeth, but its hidden itself away somewhere.

 

[Peter Gunn]

You are right about the torpedo. Only drawings found, it needed a third engine.

In ground attack role especially in the eastern front it should have bombed or rocketed or gunned tanks too I suppose

It "should have" and you "SUPPOSE"?

Man you make a lot of blanket statements like this without any hard data to back them up, that's not really going to fly around here (not to mention that it's getting tiresome), we don't "suppose" much on this board.

In case you haven't noticed (and it seems you haven't) these fellows are attempting in a nice way to educate you with some fairly definitive data and all you're doing is making stale pronouncements like what you've just said is irrefutable and we can all move on because you've "educated" us on the correct points of history and the matter is closed.

I hate to break it to you but that's not happening.

According to you it seems we've all been duped by Allied propaganda into thinking that rather mediocre equipment of the Allies simply overwhelmed their far superior Nazi counterparts by sheer numbers alone. Sorry, the truth proves otherwise, and so far you've provided absolutely NO proof to the contrary.

In closing, I will adhere to the forums rules re: politics and not even touch upon your lunatic statements vis a vis racism made earlier in the thread.