Me-110 Underrated

[pbehn]

Bungays was idiot and he is not historian. My copy of his book Most Dangerous Enemy is full of "misleading", "not proved", "nonsence", "mistake" and even "lie".

Bf 110C and D-0 was good aircraft but can not stand a chance against Hurricanes and Spitfires in combat, unless in height and surprise advantage. Their pilots and gunners overclaimed a lot and British reports about cause of losses of their aircrafts, not mention serials etc, are very bad.

AnkitaMishra you have made two posts in 5 years but I will bite anyway.

any books author has a point of view, in view of the lack of true facts and the passage of time some will always disagree. Bungay did say the Bf110 was a good aircraft but as an escort it did not have height or surprise.

 

[Yiannis]

AnkitaMishra you have made two posts in 5 years but I will bite anyway.

any books author has a point of view, in view of the lack of true facts and the passage of time some will always disagree. Bungay did say the Bf110 was a good aircraft but as an escort it did not have height or surprise.

It seems that people fail to process data objectively. The 110 had the best victory to loss ratio, considering the fact that 110 victories were almost exclusively against spitfires and hurricanes in contrast to the victory/loss ratio of the British fighters as many of their victories were against bombers. The total victory number of the British fighters was 1,300 aircraft when the total german fighter loss was 730. Almost half.

No British fighter was faster than the 110 at the time.

Also, you must consider the numbers. The RAF and FAA had more aircraft than LW available and more fighters in particular. 5,000 available planes and 9,000 pilots. Also the production rate of 300 of the British industry could not be matched by the Germans at the time.

Another factor is that when British aircraft/pilot force landed in Britain they were not considered a casualty as oppsosed to German.

The zerstorers were considered an expensive loss as qua tity was more important to the Germans so they chose to focus on producing more 109s with the same engines.

110 was a great aircraft.

 

[tomo pauk]

It seems that people fail to process data objectively.

Uh-oh. Some people or all of them?
Luckily, seems that an arbiter is arrived, to separate grain from the chaff.

The 110 had the best victory to loss ratio, considering the fact that 110 victories were almost exclusively against spitfires and hurricanes in contrast to the victory/loss ratio of the British fighters as many of their victories were against bombers. The total victory number of the British fighters was 1,300 aircraft when the total german fighter loss was 730. Almost half.

Methinks that you'd need to post far more detailed data to support the opinion that Bf 110 have had the best victory to loss ratio.

No British fighter was faster than the 110 at the time.

Not even Spitfire?

Also, you must consider the numbers. The RAF and FAA had more aircraft than LW available and more fighters in particular. 5,000 available planes and 9,000 pilots. Also the production rate of 300 of the British industry could not be matched by the Germans at the time.

Must? People here, as alsewhere, react very with joj when someone comes in and say them 'you must do this or that'.

Another factor is that when British aircraft/pilot force landed in Britain they were not considered a casualty as oppsosed to German.

Agreed.

The zerstorers were considered an expensive loss as qua tity was more important to the Germans so they chose to focus on producing more 109s with the same engines.

Zerstorers were expensive loss. Germany was already making far more of the far better aircraft (Bf 109s), the BoB only cemented that path - they were getting both quality and quantity that way.

110 was a great aircraft.

As proven by whom?

 

[pbehn]

As with the Defiant, the Bf110 wasn't up to it as a fighter or escort fighter when S/E fighters were present but both found a nich as night fighters.

 

[Shortround6]

The 110 was also useful for photo-recon and as a light bomber/strike aircraft.
It was useful and versatile. Whether than translates to great?

 

[Yiannis]

Uh-oh. Some people or all of them?
Luckily, seems that an arbiter is arrived, to separate grain from the chaff.

Some.


Methinks that you'd need to post far more detailed data to support the opinion that Bf 110 have had the best victory to loss ratio.

Just look at previous posts from others in here. There is a table with victory to loss ratios.

Not even Spitfire?

At the time yes.

Must? People here, as alsewhere, react very with joj when someone comes in and say them 'you must do this or that'.

Must be objective, must consider facts yes. Must.

Agreed.



Zerstorers were expensive loss. Germany was already making far more of the far better aircraft (Bf 109s), the BoB only cemented that path - they were getting both quality and quantity that way.

Yes, they utilised them much more effectively right after.

As proven by whom?

Proven by facts

 

[Yiannis]

Tomo Pauk: Great proven by facts because first it shot down almost double fighters than it's own losses on enemy airspace while on escort and ground attack and while greatly outnumbered.

More importantly also because this aircraft is responsible for the majority of the British night bomber raid casualties

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The Luftwaffe had 237 serviceable Bf 110s during the start of the BOB . 223 were lost during the course of it.

Weal, John. Messerschmitt Bf 110 Zerstörer Aces World War Two

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Proven by facts

Show us those facts...

 

[pbehn]

The Luftwaffe had 237 serviceable Bf 110s during the start of the BOB . 223 were lost during the course of it.

Weal, John. Messerschmitt Bf 110 Zerstörer Aces World War Two

No dispute about that from my side, it is a fact. But the Spitfire and Hurricane strength and losses were actually worse, despite all the planes produced the front line strength started at circa 500 at the fall of France and ended up at circa 700 when the BoB ended. The difference is what effect they had on the battle, the Bf 110 wasn't a good fighter, it was cheaper than a bomber to lose but more expensive than a S/E fighter.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

A good read and pretty fair IMO

Messerschmitt Bf 110

 

[Yiannis]

Show us those facts...

Great proven by facts because first it shot down almost double fighters than it's own losses on enemy airspace while on escort and ground attack and while greatly outnumbered.

More importantly also because this aircraft is responsible for the majority of the British night bomber raid casualties

 

[BiffF15]

Great proven by facts because first it shot down almost double fighters than it's own losses on enemy airspace while on escort and ground attack and while greatly outnumbered.

More importantly also because this aircraft is responsible for the majority of the British night bomber raid casualties

He was asking for your proof. What info, and from where are you getting it, that allows you to arrive at your assertions.

Cheers,
Biff

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Great proven by facts because first it shot down almost double fighters than it's own losses on enemy airspace while on escort and ground attack and while greatly outnumbered.

First, claims or confirmed? And in what theater? Show us the numbers!!! Show us your references for that?

More importantly also because this aircraft is responsible for the majority of the British night bomber raid casualties

Different role - there is no dispute where the aircraft finally excelled. In its original role is was a dismal failure, more on how it was deployed rather than the fault of the aircraft. The clip I posted speaks to that.

 

[Yiannis]

First, claims or confirmed? And in what theater? Show us the numbers!!! Show us your references for that?

Different role - there is no dispute where the aircraft finally excelled. In its original role is was a dismal failure, more on how it was deployed rather than the fault of the aircraft. The clip I posted speaks to that.

I said it was a great aircraft proven by facts. Do you dispute that?

 

[Yiannis]

First, claims or confirmed? And in what theater? Show us the numbers!!! Show us your references for that?

Different role - there is no dispute where the aircraft finally excelled. In its original role is was a dismal failure, more on how it was deployed rather than the fault of the aircraft. The clip I posted speaks to that.

Look at previous posts from others in here for references

 

[Yiannis]

First, claims or confirmed? And in what theater? Show us the numbers!!! Show us your references for that?

Different role - there is no dispute where the aircraft finally excelled. In its original role is was a dismal failure, more on how it was deployed rather than the fault of the aircraft. The clip I posted speaks to that.

From Timppa's previous post:
Christer Bergström continues to discuss the matter as well as comparing Spifire and Hurricane relative performances and some of the RAF unit's performance, RAF Bomber command losses, coastal command and the Fleet Air Arm..
When finally comparing the scores by Bf 109 and Bf 110 units as mentioned above with the estimated true losses by each side for the period July-October 1940 it turns out that in approximate figures the authentic victories versus actual air battle losses where:

Spitfire 550 victories to 329 losses – a ratio of 1,7:1
Hurricane 750 victories to 603 losses – a ratio of 1,2:1
Bf 109 780 victories to 534 losses – a ratio of 1,5:1
Bf 110 340 victories to 196 losses – a ratio of 1,7:1

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I said it was a great aircraft proven by facts. Do you dispute that?

It was great as a nightfighter. It failed in it's Zerstörer role.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

From Timppa's previous post:
Christer Bergström continues to discuss the matter as well as comparing Spifire and Hurricane relative performances and some of the RAF unit's performance, RAF Bomber command losses, coastal command and the Fleet Air Arm..
When finally comparing the scores by Bf 109 and Bf 110 units as mentioned above with the estimated true losses by each side for the period July-October 1940 it turns out that in approximate figures the authentic victories versus actual air battle losses where:

Spitfire 550 victories to 329 losses – a ratio of 1,7:1
Hurricane 750 victories to 603 losses – a ratio of 1,2:1
Bf 109 780 victories to 534 losses – a ratio of 1,5:1
Bf 110 340 victories to 196 losses – a ratio of 1,7:1

The Bf 110 as shown had the same victory to loss ratio as the Spitfire. The problem is it "should have" done better, at least according to Goering. As previously stated, some of its issues were due to tactics, but in reality it was not a maneuverable aircraft and was not able to hold its own against the newer wave of single engine fighters. It did not do well as a day interceptor.

 

[Yiannis]

It was great as a nightfighter. It failed in it's Zerstörer role.

Failed how. It shot down 340 spirited and hurricanes for 196 losses while on escort and ground attack in enemy airspace and greatly outnumbered. No I don't perceive that as a failure. A smaller force was not prevented from carrying on bombing Britain. The Germans never stopped bombing Britain always outnumbered and with lesser casualties in all cases while the casualties of the British bombing Germany were greater at all times when usually again the Germans were outnumbered by the British as well as the rest allies. The stats don't convince me of your views.