wuzak
Captain
The Beaufighter doesn't help the Luftwaffe.
Me-110 Underrated
- Thread starter Zipper730
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The Beaufighter doesn't help the Luftwaffe.
John Vasco
Senior Airman
It's all very well to say what you did in the first paragraph, and that would be fine if there was a 'level playing field' with all units taking part in the Battle from exactly the same start point. But that didn't happen. Galland's III./JG 26, for example, did not reach their base on the Channel coast until late July 1940. Another, I believe a Gruppe of JG 27, arrived later. Another still, JG 77 arrived at the end of August 1940. Meanwhile III./ZG 76 were in action early in July; Erprobungsgruppe 210 started combat missions on 13th July. Bf 110s in the reconnaissance units were flying recce missions constantly (and this is a particular area that has never been fully explored).
Yes, it would be good to make a better judgement call if one had the comprehensive number of sorties flown by each type, but that is not available, not least for the reason that the KTB for Luftflotte 2 has never surfaced (the one for Luftflotte 3 has). And the varying times of arrival of 109 units at the Channel Front complicates the attempt to arrive at a totally clinical assessment of missions v. losses. All we are left with is claims against losses, and with overclaiming taking place on both sides in almose equal measure (get some copies of the 'Battle of Britain Combat Archive' series to see what I mean), claims against losses is probably the closest rider we can get for actual performance.
And what has also to be borne in mind is the nature of aerial combat. No matter how good the pilot and aircraft, if one mistake is made, that could spell the end. Witness the number of Luftwaffe 'Aces' shot down (and a lot killed) on the Russian Front after amassing an impressive total of victories. One mistake, and they are gone. Tietzen of 5./JG 51 (19 victories), down into the Channel 18th August 1940, end of. Galland & Mölders, both lucky to get back to France in damaged 109s, Mölders wounded.
John Vasco
Senior Airman
Just as you say in a previous post that one should not take the Battle of Britain in isolation, I would bat that back at you and say that you cannot take the Med in 1941 for the Bf 110 in isolation, for the simple reason you have not considered the missions of Schnellkampfgeschwader 210 in the fighter-bomber and ground attack role in the successful German advances of 1941 on the Russian Front...
Glider
Captain
You certainly have a point when you say that without the records re number of sorties then there has to be an alternative and there is an alternative and that would be the amount of time each unit was in the front line. I have no idea if that is available but it is a potentially more accurate than claims.
You are of course correct when you say that all sides overclaimed but it's a mistake to believe that all sides overclaimed to a similar degree. Units that suffer heavier losses tend to overclaim more for a number of psychological reasons. Sometimes it's the culture of the unit or the nation or more likely the propaganda (PR) of the nations.
That said your posting does bring up one point that I hadn't thought of and that is the number of units that specialised in GA and Recc tasks.
I definitely acknowledge that, though I've read the combat histories for the MTO and I think I can say that the 110 didn't excel in the day time fighter role, at least over land. They may have had some success in maritime action, like I said previously, they were involved in some of the convoy battles and routinely tangled with Beaufighters and allied seaplanes, along with the Ju 88C. The latter had better range so were involved in a bit more of the fighting further out and over the Bay of Biscay and so forth. But I'd have to crunch the numbers to assess how well the 110 did in that maritime side of the Theater.
My impression overall was that the 110 was at least somewhat viable through 1941 in the daytime fighter role, though as you can see they started taking prohibitive casualties toward the end of the year (during the fighting around Operation Crusader). In Russia maybe it went on through 1942. But at some point the performance edge just wasn't enough to compensate for the other deficiencies of the design. They really needed a functional Me 210 around mid to late 1942.
My impression overall was that the 110 was at least somewhat viable through 1941 in the daytime fighter role, though as you can see they started taking prohibitive casualties toward the end of the year (during the fighting around Operation Crusader). In Russia maybe it went on through 1942. But at some point the performance edge just wasn't enough to compensate for the other deficiencies of the design. They really needed a functional Me 210 around mid to late 1942.
You may not have a sortie rate but in an environment like the BoB sorties without any claims or losses, or even damaged aircraft would be fairly unusual I think. If you look at claims, losses and damage reports you can get a fairly good idea of how often they were flying.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
To be honest, the RLM would have been better off ditching the Me210 in favor of the Ar240 (sans dive-bombing requirement).
The 240 in service would have filled the gap between the Bf110 and the Me410.
Interesting. Certainly looks good on paper. Rather lightly armed but presumably they would have added cannon if it went into production.
Arado Ar 240 - Wikipedia
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The Ar240C series had four fixed MG151/20 cannon and two MG131 (13mm) MG in each turret.
John Vasco
Senior Airman
1. Time at the front does not mean continuous action at the front. There were days when little action occurred. There were days when some units flying a particular type were in action, and other days when other units flying the same type were in action. Time at the front does not take into account also the serviceability rates. Believe me, over 40 years, I've looked at this and concluded that one cannot come up with definitives, because those definitives are just not there.
2. As for overclaiming, although I am an Englishman, I have to say that the level of overclaiming by RAF fighter squadrons was every bit as high as the other side. Let me give you a couple of examples:
Over Dunkirk, 264 (Defiant) Squadron claimed 39 (thirty nine) victories in two actions on one day, 29th May. In the evening combat they claimed 18 destroyed and one damaged Ju 87s. Actual loss figure was 2 lost and 2 damaged.
16th August 1940. Between 43, 601, and 602 squadrons, 25 Ju 87s were claimed destroyed, with 14 claimed as damaged/probable, in one action. Total losses for Ju 87s for the action were 9 lost and 7 returned damaged.
Large whirling combats play a part, but it doesn't disguise the fact that overclaiming took place. It is not a mistake to state that both sides overclaimed to a similar degree. It was very similar. Get those books I have mentioned before, by Red Kite, and start going through them, and you will see what I mean.
Last edited:
The earlier RLM forgets the 2-engined day fighter idea, the better for German war effort.
Have surplus DB-601/605/603 emgines? Stick them on Fw 190s.
It didn't seem to be an easy nut to crack, but I don't think 2 engined fighters were doomed to fail. The Mosquito, though in a way more of a bomber, was arguably the best night fighter of the war, and the P-38 though it took a while to iron out all the design flaws and bugs, ended up being quite a good fighter.
But the Luftwaffe really needed an effective long range fighter around 1941 or 1942 at the latest. I suspect if the Me 210 had the more conventional type wings later used on the Me 410, it could have made a difference coming out in 1942. An effective long(ish) range escort fighter would have meant much more useful raids with their fairly capable Ju 88s and later designs. As it was by 1943 they were increasingly limited to short range strikes.
But the Luftwaffe really needed an effective long range fighter around 1941 or 1942 at the latest. I suspect if the Me 210 had the more conventional type wings later used on the Me 410, it could have made a difference coming out in 1942. An effective long(ish) range escort fighter would have meant much more useful raids with their fairly capable Ju 88s and later designs. As it was by 1943 they were increasingly limited to short range strikes.
I can't recall saying anything against 2-engined night fighters, where Mosquito excelled.
P-38 was quite good, if one have had enough of time to see it's bugs eradicated so it can deal with 1st line Axis fighters on level terms, and having economy big enough to sustain production and use.
'Long range fighter' term does not equal '2-engined day fighter' term. Let alone 'effective long range fighter'. Germany can have a 1-engined LR fighter if they want. Luckily, they didn't.
Problem with Me 210, apart from using twice the engines, crew and fuel, and more than twice the airframe vs. Bf 109 or Fw 190, was that it was an under-performer with a wrong fuselage (wing was good).
Agreed... that's pretty much what I said.
Agree a long range fighter can be 1 engined, see my post re: P-51 etc., agree we are lucky they didn't.
I thought the issue with the Me 210 was the weird back swept outer wing, and it was fixed when they put in a regular wing. All the complaints seemed to be about stability. If you had a reliable 380+ mph, high altitude and long range capable fighter in 1942 that would have been pretty helpful for the Luftwaffe I think. I mentioned it in the context of their need for a Long Range fighter simply not because I thought that required a twin engined aircraft, but because it was their best bet that I'm aware of in terms of being ready to go, unless maybe they took over the G.55 program early and somehow got it into large scale production. Was there some other candidate they could have
They chaged wing sweepback for the Me 410 for CoG reasons - the DB 603s were heavier than DB 605s. (same for same reasones was done with Hs 129A -> Hs 129B)
380 mph was achieved by Me 410, not by Me 210 (= 580 km/h, or 360 mph with DB 605 engines).
Germans can have DB 601N/601E/605A installed in Fw 190 and have a rangy performer that does not break the bank; Fw 190 carried 525L of fuel internally (+25% vs. Bf 109E-K), can carry drop tanks, and there is room in fuselage and wings for extra tanks (the A-8 and A-9 carried another 115L behind the pilot).
The Soviets (including Russians) developed mostly multipurpose front line fighters capable of doing various jobs. There were some interceptors but rare and none was produced in large numbers.
It just needs a 35KM stretch of water to transform all military thinking.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Keep in mind that the twin-engined types did have a place in service, just not large quantities.
The Ar240 was certainly a step up from the Bf110 and definately better than the Me210, which took up a great deal of time and effort to iron out issues that were never resolved (until the Me410, of course).
Early anything was lighter because it was lower powered. A Typhoon had a similar bomb load to a 1939/40 Do 17, similar weight and power but one engine and one pilot and 4 cannon. Early fighters were light and short ranged because early engines had less than 1000BHP, that's why the Bf 110 had two engines and also why the P-38 had two engines. Your whole argument is based on the Germans couldn't do what the Americans did. But it was proved in the Battle of Britain that was the case before the USA entered the war. The Do 17 was too light. The He 111 was too slow and under powered. Its best bomber was also its best long range fighter and also one of its best night fighters. The Ju88 was similar to the Mosquito, but it wasn't a strategic bomber. And although 15,000 were made how does that compare to the number of Mosquitos, Beaufighters, Lancasters Wellingtons Halifaxes and many others made only by the British, excluding those made by USA and USSR. The LW as a bomber force was at its peak BEFORE the Battle of France. It never had huge fleets of bombers to escort so why even think about an "escort fighter". The difference was the Channel and the Med. Once they were crossed even for the USA and British the important fight was close range supporting a ground advance across France Belgium and Netherlands into Germany.
Shortround6
Major General
Some of this overlooks the fact that the Bf 110 was a basically a 1935 design. First flight was on 12 May 1936.
What was meant by long range in 1935/36 and what was meant in 1940/41 may be rather different. As was what was possible. Let's remember that the P-38 got two engines because as single 1500hp engine didn't seem to be available at the time the initial design work was being done. The Lockheed team thought that 1500hp (single engine) would be needed to meet the specification for an interceptor capable of flying at the desired speed and altitude while carrying the same weapons load for two hours as a 1000hp plane that only had one hour of endurance.
The Germans faced a similar problem. With the available engines (and fuel) what performance could be had using a single engine and what performance could be had using two engines? The Prototypes used DB 600 engines. DB failed to deliver either enough of these engines or failed to elemiated problems so that early production used even lower powered Jumo 210s.
DB also failed to develop and build higher power engines in a timely fashion for much of WW II. They promised a lot but often failed to deliver in a timely manner. In part because of the fuel situation.
This lead to the 110 being underpowered for much of 'it's career. The same could be said of the 109 at times and may be a reason the 109 stayed around so long. A larger, more capable fighter would need a larger, more powerful engine which the Germans did not have in the quantities needed at certain times.
The whole "light fighter" vs "heavy fighter" argument is bogus. The later fighters were much more capable in a number of areas. The closest you are going to get to a light weight late war war fighter (using a late war engine and not a 1940 left over) is the Grumman F8F-1. Over 7000lbs empty and almost 9400lbs loaded but clean. with about the same armament as as the F4F-3. That is what happens when you use an engine that weighs 2350lbs and then add an appropriate propeller and accessories. I would note that the F8F-1 was designed to a lower load factor than just about any other US piston powered fighter.
What was meant by long range in 1935/36 and what was meant in 1940/41 may be rather different. As was what was possible. Let's remember that the P-38 got two engines because as single 1500hp engine didn't seem to be available at the time the initial design work was being done. The Lockheed team thought that 1500hp (single engine) would be needed to meet the specification for an interceptor capable of flying at the desired speed and altitude while carrying the same weapons load for two hours as a 1000hp plane that only had one hour of endurance.
The Germans faced a similar problem. With the available engines (and fuel) what performance could be had using a single engine and what performance could be had using two engines? The Prototypes used DB 600 engines. DB failed to deliver either enough of these engines or failed to elemiated problems so that early production used even lower powered Jumo 210s.
DB also failed to develop and build higher power engines in a timely fashion for much of WW II. They promised a lot but often failed to deliver in a timely manner. In part because of the fuel situation.
This lead to the 110 being underpowered for much of 'it's career. The same could be said of the 109 at times and may be a reason the 109 stayed around so long. A larger, more capable fighter would need a larger, more powerful engine which the Germans did not have in the quantities needed at certain times.
The whole "light fighter" vs "heavy fighter" argument is bogus. The later fighters were much more capable in a number of areas. The closest you are going to get to a light weight late war war fighter (using a late war engine and not a 1940 left over) is the Grumman F8F-1. Over 7000lbs empty and almost 9400lbs loaded but clean. with about the same armament as as the F4F-3. That is what happens when you use an engine that weighs 2350lbs and then add an appropriate propeller and accessories. I would note that the F8F-1 was designed to a lower load factor than just about any other US piston powered fighter.
