Me-110 Underrated

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Add to your 4% loss this one month battle

At the beginning of Operation Blau, on 28 June 1942, the Luftflotte 4 has 86 operational Zerstorers including fifteen Bf 110 which performed reconnaissance duties in three units – 3.(H)/31, 3.(H)/11 and 7.(H)/LG 2; the remaining 71 examples served on ZG1 and ZG2. Only one month later, ZG 1 and ZG 2 had lost 31 Bf 110s (all to Soviet fighters), plus five more of the recce units to the same cause. As a result, ZG 2 was disbanded, and all its surviving aircraft were transferred to ZG 1
Ouch.
 
Strange, I went back to the first page of this three (3) year old thread, and nowhere do I see any of us saying the Bf 110 was "bad"... "slow"... "useless" or any really disparaging remarks about it.

In fact, everyone here was remarking on what it did accomplish and how good it was considering how times and tactics had changed. What I read was a universal respect for a very fine looking/performing aircraft whose concept was flawed but still was adaptable to different missions as needed.

Why some numb nuts chooses to make an argument where there really wasn't any is beyond me.

My maternal grandfather was an alcoholic and when drunk... well... mean. One of the best pieces of advice my mother gave me was "Never argue with a drunkard, it's useless"

Now I'm not saying anyone here is hitting the sauce while typing but the effect is the same as if they were. Some people refuse to give up long cherished beliefs because they "Know" they are right and facts be damned.

I've noticed no response to my (as well as others) insertion of some pesky "Facts" into areas of this argument, to me that means only one thing.
 
Some people refuse to give up long cherished beliefs because they "Know" they are right and facts be damned.
Much of the online forum community on all subject matters seeks only an echo chamber, IMO. They're not on a forum to be open to different POVs, but only to espouse their own and to receive kudos from those that agree, and to attack and belittle those that don't. It's the same mind as the threadjacker, who intentionally takes an ongoing discussion off topic or provokes personal exchanges that should be PMs.
 
Much of the online forum community on all subject matters seeks only an echo chamber, IMO. They're not on a forum to be open to different POVs, but only to espouse their own and to receive kudos from those that agree, and to attack and belittle those that don't. It's the same mind as the threadjacker, who intentionally takes an ongoing discussion off topic or provokes personal exchanges that should be PMs.

Good point but lets not let the hard facts get in the way either!
 
How does what you say prove me wrong. We are talking about an aircraft with air kills and aces. We are talking about an aircraft that came into service and did operate and was the first of it's kind to do so and then other air forces who were initially skeptic, as you admit, decided to follow and fund their own designs.

What you said also proves absolutely nothing about the prototype aircraft. The only thing it says is that the Bf110 was not a completely novel idea, as others had tried the same concept before.

The idea the B110 being so novel, all other twin-engined heavy fighters were inspired by it has been shown false.
 
Last edited:
Strange, I went back to the first page of this three (3) year old thread, and nowhere do I see any of us saying the Bf 110 was "bad"... "slow"... "useless" or any really disparaging remarks about it.

In fact, everyone here was remarking on what it did accomplish and how good it was considering how times and tactics had changed. What I read was a universal respect for a very fine looking/performing aircraft whose concept was flawed but still was adaptable to different missions as needed.

Why some numb nuts chooses to make an argument where there really wasn't any is beyond me.

My maternal grandfather was an alcoholic and when drunk... well... mean. One of the best pieces of advice my mother gave me was "Never argue with a drunkard, it's useless"

Now I'm not saying anyone here is hitting the sauce while typing but the effect is the same as if they were. Some people refuse to give up long cherished beliefs because they "Know" they are right and facts be damned.

I've noticed no response to my (as well as others) insertion of some pesky "Facts" into areas of this argument, to me that means only one thing.
I see 11 pages which I only read up to 11 now page 14 of someone wishing to write a new rendition of what they think history ought to be........
 
Like I mentioned earlier, the Bf110 wasn't the first heavy fighter AND it was the result of a request by the RLM for a "kampfzerstorer", of which there were three submissions that the Bf110 was chosen from.
The other two were the Fw57 and Hs124.

I also keep seeing the Bf110 as being suggested as being unique because it saw combat - but the Potez 630 was used in combat and was the same age
 
1575594834230.png
 
Mate there were single days where more b-17s were lost that all BF 110 in bob...

I'm not sure if 60 is the biggest single day loss of B-17s for the 8th AF, but in terms of loss rate that was quite high (>20%), as was the August Schweinfurt/Regensburg raid.

Similar numbers were lost on some raids in early 1944, the big difference was that the 8th AF sent 1,000+ B-17s instead of around 300.
 
I remember something by Captain BrGreat sucess from 193& to 1940 then bust. Some kown which stated that the Me-110 got a bad rap and had it been used right it would have been impressive.

In what way?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back