That was until Bf 110G2 with MG 151/20 or am I wrong?
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
That was until Bf 110G2 with MG 151/20 or am I wrong?
Reluctant Poster
Tech Sergeant
- 1,624
- Dec 6, 2006
The Ohio was hit by a torpedo, had two aircraft crash on it, suffered a direct hit right by the torpedo hit that broke its back, was straddled by 2 near misses that lifted it bodily out of the water, plus numerous other near misses and still made it to harbor. Sinking it with one 250 kg bomb is beyond belief.
Glider
Captain
I would appreciate that if you could. My understanding was that the primary long range fighter used over the Bay of Biscay was the Ju88. Originally I wasn't expecting that as if the Me110 had a good range then that would have been the first choice of fighter. I have some books on combat in that area and have an interest as it's the one area where aircraft who normally fought at night, fought in daylight. Me110's are mentioned, but only rarely.
Any information or books you could recommend would be welcomed.
I have the book but my emphasis was being equal, that they clearly were not.
That I agree with you also she did have extra strength added to her before she sailed to protect her from near misses which would have helped considerably.
Some yes, but far from the majority as extra fuel or equipment was often considered to be the more valuable.
You can debate how many they claimed at Anzio vs. how many they actually got (some of their victories may have actually been Bf 109s), but it's clear that they were engaging Fw 190s routinely by then, some of which were shot down and they (the P-40s) were not in turn suffering heavy losses in air to air combat (the way say, a unit of Hurricanes, or even early Spit Vs would have done by that time).
I only see one incident where the late model P-40s suffered significant losses in combat to FW 190s and that was the 33rd Fighter group in February of 1943, and it was an ambush basically where they were caught in a bad position. P-40 equipped units encountered Fw 190s intermittently from that point through being phased out in mid 1944, though they mostly engaged Bf 109Gs and MC 202 / 205s.
Who says interchangable parts are the criteria which determines when an aircraft becomes a different plane. A Beaufighter is a different aircraft from a Beaufort to me but it's also basically just a Beaufort with a bunch of guns added on.
A P-36 and a P-40L or N are obviously different in appearance, in performance, in capability, in cost, in manufacturing processes, and in many of the design features, even though they share the same lineage and the wings are very similar. The P-36 was relegated to the remote tertiary front in India at the same time that the P-40L was on the front line against crack German fighter units in Sardinia, Sicily and Tunisia. A Bf 109D and a 109K, or a Spit I and a Spit XIV are also different, but they too share the same lineage with their earlier versions. There is no objective way to prove that one is a different aircraft than the other, or at what point it becomes a different aircraft (or doesn't). Clearly they are both different and the same in some ways. This was very common with WW2 aircraft, whether they share the same official designation or not.
It's to a large extent, subjective. Pretending to confidently know where to make that distinction is isn't on the level.
Shortround6
Major General
It is subjective. It has to be.
What is the difference between a Hurricane I with a fabric covered wing and a Hurricane I with a metal skinned wing?
They changed a lot of the internal parts on the metal wing but the shape, size and airfoil stayed the same, the plane flew the same, except it had a higher dive limit. just about any other performance criteria was the same.
For the P-36/P-40 I would very much like to know what changes "in manufacturing processes" there were? Curtiss stopped using rivets?
What "design features" changed aside the change in engine and guns? Export Hawk 75s could carry a 500lb bomb under the fuselage and a varity of light bombs under the wings, like three 50lb bombs on each side while carrying the 500lb under fuselage. so it is not the ability to carry bombs. Which in the case of the Hawk 75 was somewhat limited by the power of the engines it was sold with.
Cost is a pretty useless metric to base any design was a change of plane decision on. Costs on the whole Hawk series bounced around like a ping pong ball and often depended on the total number of planes in an order as to the cost for each plane, large orders were lower in cost per plane. Some contracts included more spare parts than others so the cost "per plane" changed for that reason alone.
Is a taller fin and rudder enough to call a plane new? I would think not.
I wouldn't count a clipped wing tip either. Or a change in guns.
However one might look at a series of changes done a few at a time over a number of variants and a similar number of changes done all at once a bit differently.
A P-39 and a P-63 are totally different aircraft even if they used the same gun layout and same engine set up (added a 2nd stage) because they changed the fuselage, the wing (both airfoil and structure) and the tail.
Heck, even the XP-39E was a different airplane even if they kept the P-39 designation.
hard to tell in the picture but the plane was 1.75 ft longer than a standard P-39.
Shortround6
Major General
A Bf 110C-1 was supposed to weigh about 13,300lb normal loaded (it could weigh more in overload), so a 200lb (dressed and with parachute) crewman is about 1.5%. leaving the crewman on the ground is going to do very little.
However in the design process the extra man needs a cockpit to sit in (longer fuselage), more oxygen tanks, a slightly bigger wing to keep the same stalling speed and a few other changes that can run up the weight of the airplane if it is actually built. The weight of a single rcmg and 500-600 rounds of ammo is actually fairly minor.
Well then quit trying to pretend you know exactly when it is or isn't a different fighter. If it's subjective (which I agree it is) by definition it's up to multiple interpretations.
Shortround6
Major General
Yes, I understand, oh great boss of the internet.
Astounding. Just recently, I read about Japanese pilots throwing the radios out of their Reisens/Zeros. Now, the radios were apparently pretty crappy anyway, but I doubt they weighted anything near a full second crewman. Of course, the Reisens weighted like what, a third of the Me-110?
Glider
Captain
I think its worth remembering that it isn't just x amount of extra weight, it's where the weight is on the aircraft that has an impact. An extra crewman in an Me110 close to the pilot would have little impact in itself as it is basically on the centre of gravity. Put an equivalent weight in the wings or near the tail and the impact would be far more significant
Glider
Captain
I would appreciate any examples of the Me110 operating over the Bay of Biscay. Since my last posting I have been trying to look into this and have come up with nothing. My resources are far from all encompassing but I have failed to find anything, no losses where the Me110 was mentioned as the attacker or any claims. Interestingly I have found a number of instances where the Fw190's were operational over the Bay, which I admit I didn't expect, but not the Me110.
Any help welcome
I will check my sources, I could be wrong. I thought Shores in MAW covered some action in the Bay but he doesn't.
The Jabos over Anzio were flying multiple ground attack missions per day, running the gaunlet of Allied fighter cover and they weren't sticking around for a fight, once bombs were dropped/ jettisoned it was back to base and load up for the next mission.
Oh, is this a case of (for the allies) air superiority but not yet air supremacy?
In 1944 it was what I would call "Contested Allied Air superiority" - as in, the Allies were able to bring so many aircraft and of such good quality (Spit IX in particular) that the Germans were struggling. If they sent a big force they could achieve local air superiority very briefly, enough to be able to get a high-speed bomb run in.
That is what Stig1207 is referring to regarding the Fw 190s - several Fw units in Italy at this time were actually bomber units, with pilots who had formerly flown Stukas and had transitioned to the Fw but were not necessarily given a lot of fighter training. That doesn't mean they couldn't fight but shooting down enemy planes wasn't their main mission. The reason is that the Fw 190 being so much faster, could survive in the new environment whereas the Stuka really no longer could. A Fw 190 could swoop in and drop some bombs and be gone before a flight of Ju 87s would even be ready to make their dive.
That said, I don't think all of the Fw 190s operating in Italy during the time of Anzio were in these bomber units. There were also Fw 190 fighter units operating in the Med, for example JG 2. JG 2 left the area in 1943 but I believe II./JG 2 was brought into JG. 53 to help stiffen air defense in the Med. I'm not sure if they kept their Fw 190s or transitioned to Bf 109s. I will check my sources. 1944 was already a screaming emergency for the Germans especially on the Russian Front. The battle at the Anzio beachhead lasted all the way from January 1944 to June 5 1944, and you know what happened the day after that. So the Germans were routinely moving units around like little fire brigades.
That is what Stig1207 is referring to regarding the Fw 190s - several Fw units in Italy at this time were actually bomber units, with pilots who had formerly flown Stukas and had transitioned to the Fw but were not necessarily given a lot of fighter training. That doesn't mean they couldn't fight but shooting down enemy planes wasn't their main mission. The reason is that the Fw 190 being so much faster, could survive in the new environment whereas the Stuka really no longer could. A Fw 190 could swoop in and drop some bombs and be gone before a flight of Ju 87s would even be ready to make their dive.
That said, I don't think all of the Fw 190s operating in Italy during the time of Anzio were in these bomber units. There were also Fw 190 fighter units operating in the Med, for example JG 2. JG 2 left the area in 1943 but I believe II./JG 2 was brought into JG. 53 to help stiffen air defense in the Med. I'm not sure if they kept their Fw 190s or transitioned to Bf 109s. I will check my sources. 1944 was already a screaming emergency for the Germans especially on the Russian Front. The battle at the Anzio beachhead lasted all the way from January 1944 to June 5 1944, and you know what happened the day after that. So the Germans were routinely moving units around like little fire brigades.
From what I am reading the following Fw 190 units operated in Italy:
2. and 3./JG 2 operated in Italy with Fw 190A-8
SG 4 (fighter bomber) 190F or G
SG 2 (fighter bomber FW 190F or G (looks like 1943 only)
Schnellkamfgeschwader 10 (fighter bombers?)
Seenotflotille 20 Fw 190A-8 (naval?)
Sonderverband Einhorn Fw 190F-9
NF 11 Fw 190A-8 (Night fighter? Recon?)
As far as claims go, it's hard to estimate for Anzio because unlike at say, Sardinia, both Spitfires and P-40s were operating over the same battlefield simultaneously. But Stg1207 is making assumptions - you have several days where Spitfire pilots made 3 or 4 claims, and P-40 pilots made 10 or 15 claims, actual German losses were 5 or 6 aircraft and he assumes all of the P-40 claims were 100% imaginary and all of the Spitfire claims were 100% accurate. I think that's unlikely.
But what we certainly don't see are large numbers of P-40s getting slaughtered in action against Fw 190s or late model 109s at the time of Anzio, or against MC 205 or 202 fighters. I know of one incident in Feb 1943 in which the 33rd FG got massacred by some Fw 190s of JG 2, but that was their first encounter with the 190.
2. and 3./JG 2 operated in Italy with Fw 190A-8
SG 4 (fighter bomber) 190F or G
SG 2 (fighter bomber FW 190F or G (looks like 1943 only)
Schnellkamfgeschwader 10 (fighter bombers?)
Seenotflotille 20 Fw 190A-8 (naval?)
Sonderverband Einhorn Fw 190F-9
NF 11 Fw 190A-8 (Night fighter? Recon?)
As far as claims go, it's hard to estimate for Anzio because unlike at say, Sardinia, both Spitfires and P-40s were operating over the same battlefield simultaneously. But Stg1207 is making assumptions - you have several days where Spitfire pilots made 3 or 4 claims, and P-40 pilots made 10 or 15 claims, actual German losses were 5 or 6 aircraft and he assumes all of the P-40 claims were 100% imaginary and all of the Spitfire claims were 100% accurate. I think that's unlikely.
But what we certainly don't see are large numbers of P-40s getting slaughtered in action against Fw 190s or late model 109s at the time of Anzio, or against MC 205 or 202 fighters. I know of one incident in Feb 1943 in which the 33rd FG got massacred by some Fw 190s of JG 2, but that was their first encounter with the 190.
I would argue air superiority. If the other side cannot even contest the airspace for a short time at a specific location, that would IMHO be air supremacy, no?
Regarding Germany moving around assets by the end of the war, didn't they find out that experience didn't translate well between the fronts? I think I remember reading that fighter units that acquitted themselves quite well on the Eastern Front were shredded to pieces when send against the western allies.
