Me-110 Underrated (1 Viewer)

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

Basically what Glider said. You can pull one set of statistics and draw almost any conclusions you want to. But I see a similar pattern in North Africa. The fighting is much less intense than the BoB (though it ramps up a bit in December) but it's enough combat to get a sense of how it was going for each side. Overall the British were taking a drubbing, but the Bf 110 does not seem to shine.

Based on the stats I already transcribed for June - December 1941, we see a similar number in total loses for the Bf 109 and Bf 110

28 x Bf 109s were lost and only 26 x Bf 110.

But if you look at the number of claims and missions where they saw action (in which either a claim was made or a loss was taken) the picture looks a bit different.

Just quickly eyeballing these numbers so I could be off slightly. But by my count:

whereas the Bf 110s only saw "action" on 20 days and only made 12 claims in those 5 months.
Bf 109s saw "action" on 131 days in that 5 month period, and claimed 54 in June, 14 in July, 25 in August, 34 in September, 30 in October, 65 in November, and 112 in December - for 221 claims.

So the both the per-sortie rate for the 110s and the claim to loss rate is really bad, and for whatever reason they don't seem to have seen much air to air combat during that period.

The losses for the Bf 110s basically also represent the entire contingent. Which may be why they didn't fly that much. For example they saw action in 8 days in November, but lost 13 Bf 110s.

Here is my count:
14 June 1941 – Bf 110 lost

30 June 1941- 2 x Bf 110 lost (unit 7.ZG 26) claimed 2 fighters. 2 x Allied fighters lost

11 August 1941 – Bf 110 lost to Tomahawk

21 August 1941 2 x Bf 110 lost to Tomahawks (7 & 8 ZG.26)

14 September 1941 Bf 110 lost

15 November 1941 Bf 110 lost to Hurricanes

16 November 1941 Bf 110 lost to Tomahawks (caught on a ferry flight)

20 November 1941 5 x Bf 110 lost to Tomahawks

22 November Bf 110 lost to Flak

23 November Bf 110 lost to Hurricane

24 November 3 x Bf 110 lost to Tomahawks and Hurricanes (9.ZG 26)

25 November 3 x Bf 110 – Claimed 2 fighters out of 6 enemy claims (6 fighters were shot down)

26 November Claimed 1 fighter out of 2 (2 fighters lost)

4 December Bf 110 lost to Hurricane

8 December 3 x Bf 110 lost to Hurricanes

9 December Bf 110 lost to Tomahawks (7./ZG 26) 2 Claims, 1 verified

11 December – Claimed 1 Beaufighter (this was apparently a Blenheim)

12 December – Claimed 4 Marylands (confirmed)

13 December – Claimed 2 Blenheims (confirmed)

24 December 2 x Bf 110 lost
 
wuzak said:
That's not really the question, at least for the Luftwaffe.

Was it better than the Do 217 night fighter or the Ju 88 night fighter? Were there any better options?

And if it wasn't better, was it more available?
Click to expand...

That is a fair question. I don't know the answer. I guess the two different versions of comparison are, how good was the 110 on a world stage compared to aircraft on the other side as well as one's over where available to the luftwaffe.the other is as you stayed in terms of whether they should have kept building it. It does seem that the 110 was an effective night fighter I wouldn't deny that. ju88 may have ultimately been a little bit more versatile but it too had a similar problem in that the major upgrade or the new version that was supposed to replace it didn't really quite work out maybe wasn't just developed quick enough.
 

Schweik,

If a plane uses altitude to gain energy (dive) then zoom climbs back to altitude he will arrive where he started at almost the same speed (assuming he went to full power). If your plan is to not accelerate until you sight the enemy you are assuming you have perfect visual look out skills. What they might have done is dive to accelerate then cruise climb at a higher speed. This also assumes they spot the enemy far enough away so as not to give up altitude to your opponents. Lots of assumptions here that does not make for a long life in combat.

Best business practice is to cruise at a high enough speed to make up for poor visual look out skills / late visual pickup. That allows a relatively quick accel to combat speed without giving up altitude. Giving up altitude or allowing your opponent to attack from above is a very poor choice, and will cost you dearly particularly with piston engined fighters. The guy holding the high ground will arrive at the fight noticeably faster, which opens follow up maneuvers that are unavailable to the slower / lower guy. The high ground adversary, arriving at the fight at high speed courtesy of gravity and power can take a snap shot, then either zoom back up to safety, blow through and go after the bombers, or execute high energy maneuvers that are not an option for the slower guy.

I read somewhere that the Russians went full power in close proximity to where they expected combat and didn't slow down until well clear fuel allowing. Premise was it made interceptions more difficult which is still true today.

Cheers,
Biff
 
wuzak said:
So, while they are doing that, how many bombers have they lost?
Click to expand...

I think I addressed that in my post a couple of posts above. But if it boils down to sticking around trying to slowly accelerate in a straight line at 200 miles an hour then really what you're suggesting is trade a fighter for a bomber. That was actually done in certain theaters during certain periods but I don't think it's a great strategy. Diving to pick up some speed will probably happen a lot quicker than the two minutes Shortround6 was talking about. Probably more like a minute. but even if it's the same amount of time you're talking about the difference between bombers being only defended by the top cover for 2 minutes with the other fighters basically sitting ducks, versus fighters diving for some speed and entering the fight ready to compete. It pretty much boils down to how vulnerable to bombers are. If you've got Blenheims or Ki 21s apparently they really need theclose escort all the time because they go down very quickly. if you've got Boston's or Baltimore's... Or Ju 88's, Pe 2's whatever, maybe they can hold out a little longer. You might lose one or two but if the whole escort gets shot down and the bombers are at the mercy of the interceptors and it's just a matter how much ammunition do the latter still have...
 

I hear where you're coming from Biff but I think you're talking about the ideal situation. How do you handle it if you have bombers that have an effective ceiling of 12000 or 19000 ft and can't cruise faster than 200 miles an hour, and are too vulnerable to survive being attacked for 5 minutes.
 

Schweik,

You cruise faster and zigzag. Or you use shuttle ops like the 8th did. Or you fly above your opponents max altitude (if possible) and use gravity to arrive at the fight with high energy. Or you launch in the dark to arrive over the target at first light (limiting the threat window to target area and RTB). Or you hit the opponents airfield prior to them launching (requires good intel and no early warning). Or you find another target so as not to feed your sheep to the wolves.

Or you accept the losses, which unfortunately happened.

I'm not talking ideal situation as much as I'm talking tactical employment common sense. If all you have is bloody knees / elbows, no masks or fins, and a small spear maybe you shouldn't go in the deep water "hunting " sharks (or feeding them depending on your perspective).

Cheers,
Biff
 
wuzak said:
That's not really the question, at least for the Luftwaffe.

Was it better than the Do 217 night fighter or the Ju 88 night fighter? Were there any better options?

And if it wasn't better, was it more available?
Click to expand...
Taking this a stage further. Remembering that the 110 was the first and arguably most important Luftwaffe night fighter for the first 18-24 months of the war. The one you should compare it against, is the often overlooked (as in here) Beaufighter.
 
BiffF15 said:
I read somewhere that the Russians went full power in close proximity to where they expected combat and didn't slow down until well clear fuel allowing.
Click to expand...

Probably it was about new tactics developed by Pokryshkin and some other innovating and "out of box" thinking pilots. They were helped by more reliable engines becoming more available, in the lend leased aircraft, and improved domestic engines as ASh-82F/FN.
 

Flying higher is what I suggested. A lot of the other options like weaving at higher speed uses too much fuel for a Bf109. If you are a Luftwaffe commander it's not really an option because the 110's can't really do the escort job (and their range isn't that great either).

in a way you might say that the American fighters like a p51, p38 & even the p-47, Corsair and Hellcat kind of lived up to the heavy fighter role better than a 110. Very good at escort, capable of bomber destroying, versatile for all sorts of other missions.

P-40 & Wildcat / Martlet were kind of in between- medium range, medium firepower, too slow climbing to be good interceptors, but good in the escort role, quite capable of knocking down bombers, and able to hold their own with Axis fighters.

Going to higher speed / power in the battle area seems to have been widely adopted. It reduced the effective range but increased survival rates. US medium bombers both in Pacific & MTO used to go into a shallow dive heading into the battle area and come in at high speed, & exit the same way. They had pretty low loss rates in those Theaters.
 
Glider said:
Taking this a stage further. Remembering that the 110 was the first and arguably most important Luftwaffe night fighter for the first 18-24 months of the war. The one you should compare it against, is the often overlooked (as in here) Beaufighter.
Click to expand...

Beaufighter was only used as a night fighter through 1942 when it was replaced by the Mosquito. Through that point I think it did pretty well - how it compares in the NF role compared to the 110 I don't know. Would be interesting to hear. How did the 110 do as a night fighter after 1942? Was it still competetive!?

I think Beaufighter proved a more versatile "heavy fighter" as it turned to be very effective in anti - ship, strafing, & maritime patrol. Held its own reasonably well in the Pacific against Japanese fighters. Did rather well against 110's & other Axis planes in the MTO too, though no match for a 109.

EDIT: The Beaufighter also had excellent range (~1600 miles) which is one of the most desirable characteristics for a "heavy fighter". It's only real setback was that it wasn't so great at higher altitudes and therefore not as fast as some others like later model Bf 110 and certainly the Mosquito (this also being probably the main limitation for the Beaufighter as a night fighter).
 
Last edited:
A lot of the British losses in the "lean into France" period were fighters essentially doing fighter sweeps.
Sometimes they used a few bombers as "bait" but then had a number of squadrons of fighters ready to bounce the Germans.
Germans weren't fooled that often and usually only engaged when they had the advantage.

The acceleration may have been straight line but then the attacking fighters weren't going to flight straight and level either while the Spitfires dove and climbed or tried to perform other tricks.
The Spitfire pilots were instructed to fly at the fastest possible cruise that would give them the range/endurance to perform the mission while in enemy territory. Flying at economical cruising speed gave too much advantage to the enemy.
 
The problem with leaning into France was you were attacking something the defenders didn't feel obliged to defend unless it was their air base or a German military unit. Cruising about looking at French cathedrals didn't trouble the Germans at all they quickly learned to just fight when all things were in their favour.
 


"The 414th, 415th, 416th and 417th Night Fighter Squadrons received more than 100 "reverse Lend-Lease" Beaufighters. They arrived in the Mediterranean during the summer of 1943, achieving the first victory on July 24. Through the summer, they conducted daytime convoy escort and strike missions, but thereafter flew primarily at night. Although purpose-built American P-61 Black Widow night fighters began to replace them in December 1944, USAAF Beaufighters continued to fly night cover for Allied forces in Italy and France until the closing days of the war. "

From Bristol Beaufighter > National Museum of the United States Air Force™ > Display

In British service the Beaufighter was not replaced by the Mosquito as the the primary nightfighter until the Autumn of 1943. However this does not mean the Beaufighter vanished from the night sky in Europe (or at least the Med.) No 255 Squadron for example didn't begin to re-equip with Mosquitos until Feb 1945.
 

True but the point is that many of the British fighters used in these raids weren't even tied to slow bomber formations and yet still found they had to cruise at high speed to reduce losses even with flexibility of maneuver.
At times they had several squadrons of Spitfires "escorting" a handful of Whirlwinds.
 
Is there any chance you could take note of time lines and dates? The p51, p38 & even the p-47, Corsair and Hellcat didn't live up to the title of "heavy fighter" or anything else until they got into service, the Bf110 trounced them all in 1939, and 1940 and 1941 and for the most part 1942 because they weren't there. and by 1944 jets were the top performers.
 

The British and American Beaufighter "night fighter" squadrons continued to fly largely maritime missions through 1943, though they may have done some night fighting I don't believe that was their main mission. Shores says as much in one of his books.
 

Excellent destruction of the straw man, but I never once claimed P-51s or any of the others were flying in 1939-41. And by 1941 the Bf 110 was already doing rather poorly as I have shown from combat data from that year. As we all know for medium ranged fighters the Allies were basically stuck with P-40s and Wildcat / Martlets until the Spit VIII arrived, unless you want to count the Fulmar but it wasn't really quite up to par.

But since you bring it up, I'll expand on the point I was making. Early fighters were mostly interceptors (short range, light, usually good to great climb rate). The "heavy fighter" was supposed to have longer range though the Bf 110 never really did as far as I know. But when they did arrive on the battlefields, the P-51 at ~ 1,600 mile range, the P-38 at ~1,300 miles, the p-47 and Corsair at ~1,000 miles, and the Hellcat at ~940 miles were all well beyond the typical range of any interceptor. They were all heavy and none were superb climbers, but they were all fast, heavily armed and had long range by WW2 standards. I am aware that actual combat ranges weren't nearly so long but just to compare like with like, the Bf 109 at ~350 miles range isn't going to be a really viable escort, and the Fw 190 was about the same.

The Germans struggled to find an aircraft for this escort role. The Bf 110 never really had great range, it was improved and yes they put huge drop tanks on them, but it never got to the point of the fighters mentioned above. The Me 210 had much better range potentially but it took too long to shake out the bugs and get a new wing, even if the Hungarians liked it right out of the gate. For more general purpose 'heavy fighters' in the sense of bomber destroyers the Bf 110 and various German night / heavy fighter types did well as long as they had interceptors to escort them, but you are back to the problem of the short endurance of the interceptors. The Germans also did alright in the long range coastal patrol role mainly with Ju 88s (1100 mile range), the Condor and some of their float planes.

The Italians mostly had the same problem the Germans did, if not quite as bad (the Re 2000 series had decent range as did the excellent Fiat G.55. Maybe the Germans should have made more of an effort to get those into production, but they were probably too late).

The Russians had mostly interceptor types though they eventually made a long range Yak 9 variant, albeit not perfect.

The Japanese of course went another way and their fighters had good (Ki-43) to superb (A6M) range, except for the Ki-61. But they weren't sufficiently well protected for sustained attrition warfare. I still think an A6M would be a more dangerous escort fighter for the Battle of Britain than a Bf 109E.

Anyway I just think it's an interesting way to think about it.
 
The Beaufighter was also used against the Japanese until the end of the war. One shot down a B29 in a blue on blue incident towards the end of the war.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)

Similar threads

Spitfire vs Me-109
Replies
3
Views
1K
PAT303
P
Questions Bugging Me on Jet Engines
Replies
11
Views
1K
Engineman
E
An early 'Me 209' instead of the Me 309?
2
Replies
21
Views
854
TM06
Z
Large gun Me 109
2 3
Replies
47
Views
3K
Engineman
E
T
P-47 roll rate - a bit of new (to me) info
Replies
1
Views
581
Shortround6
S
Menu
Log in
Register