Me-110 Underrated

[Greyman]

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

I'm no collector of Messerschmitt 110 data so any additional figures would be a help -- but here's a quick level speed sketch based on the 110C numbers from wwiiaircraftperformance: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me110/Me110C_data-sheet.jpg

Spitfire I (+12 boost)
Hurricane I (+12 boost)
Defiant I (+12 boost)
Messerschmitt 110C2 (I placed a more 'Daimler-Benz shaped' curve on the points given)
Blenheim IF (+5 boost)

 

[Yiannis]

Mate, you just dont get it, the topic is the Bf110 and no one cares about interpretations of ancient Greek. The word police in English has many meanings and uses and across the world many others in other languages.

You are playing around mate

 

[pbehn]

You are playing around mate

No I am not, your pretentious nonsense is hard on the eyes. "Police" is a noun and a verb in English, within the UK what you think about the word "police" depends on whether you are a policeman a normal member of the public or a nutcase with a fake suicide vest on. Every country I worked in had a different idea of what police, policing and policeman meant, now get back on the subject of the Bf110 or I will block you.

 

[michael rauls]

No hard feelings my friend. I didn't put words in your mouth. What I said was my words and yes I got off topic to prove a point. Didn't mean to hurt your feelings honestly. But you sounded like trying to profile me as something I am not or that I am trying to achieve something here. No. I just try to see things as they are and not as they are being served.

An imperialist monarchist power ruling over most of the planet militarily was talking about democracy and fearing a supposed lunatic who supposedly wanted to rule the world instead...it sounds like a joke. The coloured had no rights in the U.S yet the Germans were only racist. It really doesn't add up, do you see where I am coming from? Propaganda both ways. I can't get emotional about it as I am not either German or British. My impartiality may sound as hostile I understand that but my intentions are purely truthseeking. I find WWII very fascinating from a historical point of view.

Certainly there was discrimination against various minorities in the US durring the 40s and for quite awhile after for that matter as was in most nations at the time, unfortunately. However, I think you have to compare nations at the same place in time and asserting a moral equivalence between what was going on in the US as wrong as some of it was to what was going on in Nazi Germany is beyond the pale.........
Imho

 

[pbehn]

This means that more British fighters were shot down than spitfires and hurricanes

The Defiant and Blenheim were fighters too. Apart from the well known losses of the two Defiant squadrons in the BoB wiki says this about the Blenheim The Bristol Blenheim was used by both Bomber and Fighter Commands. Some two hundred Mk I bombers were modified into Mk IF long-range fighters with 600 (Auxiliary Air Force) Squadron, based at Hendon, the first squadron to take delivery in September 1938. By 1939, at least seven squadrons were operating these twin-engined fighters and within a few months, some sixty squadrons had experience of the type. The Mk IF proved to be slower and less nimble than expected, and by June 1940, daylight Blenheim losses were to cause concern for Fighter Command. It was decided that the Mk IF would be relegated mainly to night fighter duties where No. 23 Squadron RAF, which had already operated the type under nighttime conditions, had better success.

 

[Yiannis]

When those few available bf110s were reduced to zero it was impossible to see them fly of course.

They were too few. Yes, the Germans started with an advantage thought sufficient to be on the offensive during the day but they couldn't keep up with that advantage until they were outnumbered. British aircraft production was higher and so they decided they follow the Brits in night raiding.

 

[Glider]

My father was a man of many sayings and a favourite was this.

The Truth is never the wrong answer, but it can be inconvenient.

In this case the simple and to some inconvenient truth, is that both the RAF and the Luftwaffe recognised that their bombers couldn't undertake long range bomber missions in daylight over enemy territory, without suffering heavy unacceptable losses, and switched to night raids. The British recognised it first, but both reached the same conclusion.

Going back a little regarding who started the area bombing raids on cities, can I suggest people remember the terror raids on Guernica and Barcelona in the Spanish Civil War.

 

[fubar57]

Gotta favor to ask. I still have 3 night shifts to go and to speed things up, I was wondering if someone would be kind enough to post here the squadrons that had the 110s during the BoB. When I get home Wednesday morning I'll start going through that PDF looking for 110 claims. Thanks in advance

 

[GrauGeist]

Going back a little regarding who started the area bombing raids on cities, can I suggest people remember the terror raids on Guernica and Barcelona in the Spanish Civil War.

We could go back a little further and recall the Zeppelin raids on England during WWI.

 

[michael rauls]

I'll throw in my 2 cents here. I think the Me110 is indeed under rated. It seems it is mostly critiqued entirely on its less than stellar performance in the BOB.
It was very effective in other roles however, most notably as a night fighter.

 

[slaterat]

I assume that "authentic victories" mean victories/kills confirmed by loss statistics of the other side.
As for the loss % share of the types other than 4 fighters mentioned, I do not see a problem there. 35% on the German side, 18% on the British.
Bergstrom's figures can be taken with the usual grain of salt, of course. But he is a professional in this field.

Very well but I do have problem with his numbers, lets take a look.

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

First of all, in fairness, he has a total loss for Hurricanes and Spitfires at 932, which is very close to 915 losses for all of RAF fighter Command during the BoB as stated in "The Narrow Margin"(Wood and Dempster) How does he then get to the figure of 1120 kills for the combined total for the 109 and 110? Is he including losses of Bomber Command over Germany?

Total victories for the Hurricane and Spitfires are given as 1300 by Bergstrom.

German losses from combat, taken from the German Quartermaster general returns give a total of 1733 losses due to combat. This would be the minimum figure for German losses at the time. These losses are from the 10th of July to Oct 31, 1940.

This leaves us with at least 433 German combat losses not shot down by Hurricanes or Spitfires, a rather generous sum to be attributed to AAA and Defiants.

Bergstrom doesn't seem to have the same generous allowance for return fire from Luftwaffe bombers.

Other questions are also apparent when you don't have his full paper for review. For example what dates is he using for start and stop of the battle, how does he reconcile double claims between competing aircraft types ect.

Frankly I see too many glaring problems with this study.

 

[Yiannis]

Yes, it is obvious that total L

Very well but I do have problem with his numbers, lets take a look.



First of all, in fairness, he has a total loss for Hurricanes and Spitfires at 932, which is very close to 915 losses for all of RAF fighter Command during the BoB as stated in "The Narrow Margin"(Wood and Dempster) How does he then get to the figure of 1120 kills for the combined total for the 109 and 110? Is he including losses of Bomber Command over Germany?

Total victories for the Hurricane and Spitfires are given as 1300 by Bergstrom.

German losses from combat, taken from the German Quartermaster general returns give a total of 1733 losses due to combat. This would be the minimum figure for German losses at the time. These losses are from the 10th of July to Oct 31, 1940.

This leaves us with at least 433 German combat losses not shot down by Hurricanes or Spitfires, a rather generous sum to be attributed to AAA and Defiants.

Bergstrom doesn't seem to have the same generous allowance for return fire from Luftwaffe bombers.

Other questions are also apparent when you don't have his full paper for review. For example what dates is he using for start and stop of the battle, how does he reconcile double claims between competing aircraft types ect.

Frankly I see too many glaring problems with this study.

Yes, it is obvious that the total bf100/10 kills are not exclusively against spitfire/hurricanes as the total spitfire/hurricane losses are less than the total German fighter kills.

On the other hand the total kills of spitfire/hurricanes exceed the losses of Meserschmits altogether, therefore the excess is German bomber kills.

Of course there were British fighter casualties from the bomber gunners but as I said before...a spitfire forcelanding or retreating to a nearby airfield due to damage did not count as a casualty as opposed to a messerscmit forcelanding or having nowhere near to land in safety or escape. Fuel was a great consideration before deciding to follow a damaged spitfire away from the bombers and vice versa. A lightly damaged Me 109 was almost a certain casualty as opposed to a lightly damaged spitfire.

Furthermore, comparing the numbers involved, had the Germans had similar analogies of fighters against bomber raiders numbers later on in the war, things would have been even more deadly for the allied bombers despite their greater size, and armour as well as generous fighter escort.

 

[Yiannis]

Yes, it is obvious that total L


Yes, it is obvious that the total bf100/10 kills are not exclusively against spitfire/hurricanes as the total spitfire/hurricane losses are less than the total German fighter kills.

On the other hand the total kills of spitfire/hurricanes exceed the losses of Meserschmits altogether, therefore the excess is German bomber kills.

Of course there were British fighter casualties from the bomber gunners but as I said before...a spitfire forcelanding or retreating to a nearby airfield due to damage did not count as a casualty as opposed to a messerscmit forcelanding or having nowhere near to land in safety or escape. Fuel was a great consideration before deciding to follow a damaged spitfire away from the bombers and vice versa. A lightly damaged Me 109 was almost a certain casualty as opposed to a lightly damaged spitfire.

Furthermore, comparing the numbers involved, had the Germans had similar analogies of fighters against bomber raiders numbers later on in the war, things would have been even more deadly for the allied bombers despite their greater size, and armour as well as generous fighter escort.

Very well but I do have problem with his numbers, lets take a look.



First of all, in fairness, he has a total loss for Hurricanes and Spitfires at 932, which is very close to 915 losses for all of RAF fighter Command during the BoB as stated in "The Narrow Margin"(Wood and Dempster) How does he then get to the figure of 1120 kills for the combined total for the 109 and 110? Is he including losses of Bomber Command over Germany?

Total victories for the Hurricane and Spitfires are given as 1300 by Bergstrom.

German losses from combat, taken from the German Quartermaster general returns give a total of 1733 losses due to combat. This would be the minimum figure for German losses at the time. These losses are from the 10th of July to Oct 31, 1940.

This leaves us with at least 433 German combat losses not shot down by Hurricanes or Spitfires, a rather generous sum to be attributed to AAA and Defiants.

Bergstrom doesn't seem to have the same generous allowance for return fire from Luftwaffe bombers.

Other questions are also apparent when you don't have his full paper for review. For example what dates is he using for start and stop of the battle, how does he reconcile double claims between competing aircraft types ect.

Frankly I see too many glaring problems with this study.

Another consideration is also the fact that regardless of how it started, overall in that given set period the British outnumbered the LW that was on the offensive and also allowed for more waves against a given airfleet on a set course away from its bases plus the fact that the 109s would not go all the way as the zerstorers.

 

[Yiannis]

Speed was more important then. The spitfire was better than the hurricane mainly because it was faster. And the BF 109 lasted throughout the war even though it was the oldest (yet very advanced) design exactly because with better ever engines it could increase its speed. Late BF 109 models like the k4 were faster than the mustang. The Americans also counted on speed (hit and run tactics) to deal with the nimble Japanese Oscars and Zeros.

 

[wuzak]

An imperialist monarchist power ruling over most of the planet militarily was talking about democracy and fearing a supposed lunatic who supposedly wanted to rule the world instead...it sounds like a joke.

Britain's government is formed by the majority of the members in the House of Commons, one of the two houses of Parliament. These members are elected by the public.

The House of Lords members are not elected.

England's Parliament had been sovereign for a couple of hundred years before the BoB. Parliament has the power to legislate, the Monarch does not. The Monarch has not been able to levy taxes for around 600 years - that was the job of Parliament (not democratically elected back then).

And it was the Prime Minster, as the head of Parliament, that declared war on Germany, not the king.

 

[wuzak]

To destroy the LW or what was left of it on the ground cause they couldn't in the air so that they can protect their bombers.

?

They destroyed the Luftwaffe in the air and on the ground.

 

[Yiannis]

Britain's government is formed by the majority of the members in the House of Commons, one of the two houses of Parliament. These members are elected by the public.

The House of Lords members are not elected.

England's Parliament had been sovereign for a couple of hundred years before the BoB. Parliament has the power to legislate, the Monarch does not. The Monarch has not been able to levy taxes for around 600 years - that was the job of Parliament (not democratically elected back then).

And it was the Prime Minster, as the head of Parliament, that declared war on Germany, not the king.

Churchill was appointed by King George VI

 

[rochie]

Another consideration is also the fact that regardless of how it started, overall in that given set period the British outnumbered the LW that was on the offensive and also allowed for more waves against a given airfleet on a set course away from its bases plus the fact that the 109s would not go all the way as the zerstorers.

you dont seem to understand that not all the RAF fighters were in 11 group south of London, so even if the RAF outnumbered the Luftwaffe over all, they rarely if ever outnumbered them in the local area of battle.
it was mostly the other way round as Dowding used his fighters in small groups avoiding the large set piece battle that might have incurred even bigger losses in pilots.

 

[pbehn]

Churchill was appointed by King George VI

His party won the election and was therefore invited by his majesty to form a government when Chamberlain resigned. This is one of the arcane formalities of a constitutional monarchy. although the monarch "invites" an MP to form a government, he/she is advised who to invite and has no constitutional position to refuse the advice. The same process will occur after the next election on 12 December.

 

[Kevin J]

His party won the election and was therefore invited by his majesty to form a government when Chamberlain resigned. This is one of the arcane formalities of a constitutional monarchy. although the monarch "invites" an MP to form a government, he/she is advised who to invite and has no constitutional position to refuse the advice. The same process will occur after the next election on 12 December.

We need a new national anthem over here, I propose "Shall I stay, or shall I go" lyrics by ABBA. This could take a 100 years.