Me-110 Underrated (1 Viewer)

[GrauGeist]

It was the first of it's kind...

And so was the Fw57 and Hs124.

Then, by 1938 (since the Bf110 was so amazing) the RLM wanted to replace it - enter the Me210 and Ar240.

But let's not allow facts to get in the way of a good story...please, carry on.

 

[rochie]

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



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:

View attachment 562750Europe 270

The Deutsches Technic Museum, Berlin.

View attachment 562751Bf 110

RAF Museum, Hendon.

View attachment 562752Bf 110 Schnaufer

Australian War Memorial.

View attachment 562753Bf 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.

The fuselage was at Duxford last time i saw it about 3 years ago

 

[GregP]

When the "Battle of Britain" was joined, the Germans embarked upon that campaign with 237 serviceable Bf 110s. In the course of the battle (generally September through October/November), they lost 223. Also, they produced a few during the months of the campaign, so the total available was always inching up by a bit at a time.

I don't care who you are, that is not a 4% loss rate, and that is NOT the way losses in a battle or campaign are calculated. They are calculated based on the number of aircraft available as a percent of force, and as the number of losses divided by the number of sorties if you really want a picture of the campaign. Aircraft lost to enemy aircraft are air-to-air losses in combat. Aircraft lost to flak are lost to AAC (anti-aircraft). Losses due to mechanical issues, running out of fuel, test flights, etc are operational losses.

 

[pbehn]

I don't care who you are, that is not a 4% loss rate, and that is NOT the way losses in a battle or campaign are calculated. .

I mentioned a 4% loss rate as it was around tha maximum BC could withstand long term for bomber missions, dunno how it got woven into the Bf110 story.

 

[GregP]

Hi pbehn,

Definitely not aimed in your direction. Just sort of thinking on the keyboard ...

 

[pbehn]

Hi pbehn,

Definitely not aimed in your direction. Just sort of thinking on the keyboard ...

I think I assumed an understanding that wasn't there.

 

[fubar57]

Anyhoo.....anyone know about this book.....

​

It's an oldish book, 1961. Just curious if its dated. Lots of great reviews and at 560 pages it looks pretty comprehensive. What I am interested in is the 2nd half of this book which might have some thoughts on the 110. One review....

"About half of this book is an overall view of the battle not too different from others but still very interesting. The other half is a day by day report of the battle, i.e. On this day, weather partly clouded, 100 German planes attacked at 5 pm. crossing the coast at Hastings, met by two squadrons of Spitfires and two squadrons of Hurricanes, the planes that survived the attacks bombed East London causing damage to a whiskey warehouse that burned all night, the RAF said that they shot down 48 German planes with a loss of twelve RAF planes killing 5 RAF pilots, the Germans said they lost 9 planes but shot down 26 British fighters, after the war the Germans daily reports said that 22 German planes were shot down.
More detail than you thought you wanted to know, but fascinating to see how much fighting was really going on."

 

[Shortround6]

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

It was NOT the first of it's kind as shown by several earlier posts.
I also mentioned that the Potez 630 flew one month before the Bf 110. If you want to disregard the much older airplanes.

Engines were around 580-700hp each (110 used Jimo 210s of about the same power) and the French Aircraft used two 20mm cannon in the bottom of the fuselage (or in gondolas)
Since the 20mm guns it used were considerably more powerful than the 20mm guns in the 110 perhaps it can be forgiven not having any machine guns in the nose.
Some later versions got four 7.5mm machine guns add under the wings but since they never fitted better engines than the small radials performance was lacking by 1939/40.

The twin engine multi seat fighter (or ???) combat plane was a concept that was written about fairly often in the period between the wars. It was much loved by theorists. But few, if any, air forces had the experience to show that the concept was flawed.

 

[GrauGeist]

An often overlooked heavy fighter that was developed about the same time as it's European contemporaries, is the Bell YFM-1 (which first flew mid-37).

It was intended to be a heavy fighter/interceptor...although it's performance did not meet expectations - but again, the 1930's was an age of untested theories.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

And even before the Bf 110...

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I think the Bf 110 was influenced by this!!!

 

[michael rauls]

Just an aside thought about the heavy fighter concept. There may be an aircraft I'm overlooking at the moment but as best I can think the p38 was the only twin engine fighter of the war to meet with substantial success in it's intended role as a fighter.
I think this speaks well of it's design as it overcame drawbacks apparently inherent in a multi engine fighter using technology of the time.

 

[Yiannis]

 

[Yiannis]

 

[Yiannis]

 

[Yiannis]

And even before the Bf 110...

View attachment 562786

Not in service, not operational, zero kills..same for other prototypes

 

[Yiannis]

It was NOT the first of it's kind as shown by several earlier posts.
I also mentioned that the Potez 630 flew one month before the Bf 110. If you want to disregard the much older airplanes.
View attachment 562772
Engines were around 580-700hp each (110 used Jimo 210s of about the same power) and the French Aircraft used two 20mm cannon in the bottom of the fuselage (or in gondolas)
Since the 20mm guns it used were considerably more powerful than the 20mm guns in the 110 perhaps it can be forgiven not having any machine guns in the nose.
Some later versions got four 7.5mm machine guns add under the wings but since they never fitted better engines than the small radials performance was lacking by 1939/40.

The twin engine multi seat fighter (or ???) combat plane was a concept that was written about fairly often in the period between the wars. It was much loved by theorists. But few, if any, air forces had the experience to show that the concept was flawed.

Zero kills, not in service, not operational

 

[Yiannis]

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

I 'suppose' there must have been many other kills by non ace status pilots.

 

[swampyankee]

Not in service, not operational, zero kills..same for other prototypes

Right. They're prototypes of a nation not at war. They weren't produced because they weren't considered useful enough to justify the expenditure. Rather obviously, an aircraft in service in a peacetime air force isn't going to get kills.

This does not mean that other air forces weren't influenced by the idea, maybe even producing thousands of aircraft inspired by the prototype. Aircraft designers and air force leaders didn't-- and don't-- operate in isolation.

 

[Yiannis]

When the "Battle of Britain" was joined, the Germans embarked upon that campaign with 237 serviceable Bf 110s. In the course of the battle (generally September through October/November), they lost 223. Also, they produced a few during the months of the campaign, so the total available was always inching up by a bit at a time.

I don't care who you are, that is not a 4% loss rate, and that is NOT the way losses in a battle or campaign are calculated. They are calculated based on the number of aircraft available as a percent of force, and as the number of losses divided by the number of sorties if you really want a picture of the campaign. Aircraft lost to enemy aircraft are air-to-air losses in combat. Aircraft lost to flak are lost to AAC (anti-aircraft). Losses due to mechanical issues, running out of fuel, test flights, etc are operational losses.

The 4% was mentioned by me initially when I said that the 200 bf110 lost in bob account for 4% of bf 110 production therefore a very small percentage rate and period to judge an aircraft that served almost a decade and fought till the end of the war inflicting numerous casualties if many sorts and excelling in other roles.