Most Overrated aircraft of WWII.....?

[John Vasco]

No - not until you can make a comparison that has sorties thrown in there. If the -110 was in the air just as much as the Spitfire, -109 or Hurricane, I'd buy that but until that is known I personally question these numbers as how effective the -110 really was.

Well you need to look into the Battle of Britain in great detail then.

And do you throw in all of the fighter-bomber Bf 110 sorties flown by Erprobungsgruppe 210 (Gruppenstab and two Staffeln)? Their role was to get in, bomb, and get back, not get embroiled in combat unless it was impossible to avoid. And does the period of time come into it? Elements of JG 27 (Bf 109) were withdrawn before the end of the Battle due to heavy casualties. JG 77 (Bf 109) didn't enter the Battle until late-August and initially got hammered. As soon as you start to introduce 'catch-all' restrictions, you lose sight of what actually happened. Don't fall into that trap.

And you also need to consider the words 'pro rata'. The details of claims v. losses IS 'pro rata'...

 

[John Vasco]

The raid from Norway was escorted by Bf 110D-0s and -1s with the Dachelbauch conformal belly tank which greatly affected maneuverabilty, and were not easily jettisoned.

The Dackelbauch was not jettisonable at all.

And it greatly affected speed and performance. The two pilots I interviewed who had flown the Dackelbauch, Hans Jäger and Hans-Ulrich Kettling, both considered the Dackelbauch was a dreadful variant to fly because of this.

 

[Greg Boeser]

Well, I am relying on Squadron/Signal Aircraft no. 30 Messerschmitt Bf 110 Zerstoerer in Action, which I consider a definative source, and it says that the Dackelbauch was theoretically jettisonable. It also says that it had a tendency to hang up and explode.

 

[John Vasco]

Well, I am relying on Squadron/Signal Aircraft no. 30 Messerschmitt Bf 110 Zerstoerer in Action, which I consider a definative source, and it says that the Dackelbauch was theoretically jettisonable. It also says that it had a tendency to hang up and explode.

Unfortunately, that book is way out of date on so many things. It is not a definitive source. I could recommend more up to date books on the Bf 110, but modesty forbids...

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Who cares? The D-1 is a cool model though.

Well, talking about its effectiveness as an escort fighter was the gist of my post. You presented a cogent reply, and so I was hoping to learn about comparative stats. But if you're not into it, it's all good.

 

[Greg Boeser]

Right. I was pointing out that the Bf 110s used from Norway were hamstrung by their configuration.
Imagine flying Hurricanes into battle with ferry tanks bolted to their wings. Oh, wait, they did that in Burma. Once.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Right. I was pointing out that the Bf 110s used from Norway were hamstrung by their configuration.
Imagine flying Hurricanes into battle with ferry tanks bolted to their wings. Oh, wait, they did that in Burma. Once.

On the other hand, I was asking about how they did in the south without those tanks. I think it was a pertinent question deserving more than a glib answer.

 

[Greg Boeser]

You will need someone with far greater knowledge on the subject than me. I tend to be attracted to the unusual, the unique. My knowledge is broad, but shallow.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Well you need to look into the Battle of Britain in great detail then.

And do you throw in all of the fighter-bomber Bf 110 sorties flown by Erprobungsgruppe 210 (Gruppenstab and two Staffeln)?

Does the data you posted include in claims vs losses include Erprobungsgruppe 210 (Gruppenstab and two Staffeln?

Their role was to get in, bomb, and get back, not get embroiled in combat unless it was impossible to avoid. And does the period of time come into it? Elements of JG 27 (Bf 109) were withdrawn before the end of the Battle due to heavy casualties. JG 77 (Bf 109) didn't enter the Battle until late-August and initially got hammered. As soon as you start to introduce 'catch-all' restrictions, you lose sight of what actually happened. Don't fall into that trap.

I get that - but if you're going to make an across the board comparison then you're going to lump everything into one basket or break out those -110s who were not engaged in an air-to-air role

And you also need to consider the words 'pro rata'. The details of claims v. losses IS 'pro rata'...

It could only be truly proportional if all aircraft saw at least the same amount of sorties and that's why I think that has to be considered

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

You will need someone with far greater knowledge on the subject than me. I tend to be attracted to the unusual, the unique. My knowledge is broad, but shallow.

Fair enough, no sweat.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

The Dackelbauch was not jettisonable at all.

And it greatly affected speed and performance. The two pilots I interviewed who had flown the Dackelbauch, Hans Jäger and Hans-Ulrich Kettling, both considered the Dackelbauch was a dreadful variant to fly because of this.

John, you'd know this -- were -110s used as escorts in the south without that tank?

 

[John Vasco]

It could only be truly proportional if all aircraft saw at least the same amount of sorties and that's why I think that has to be considered

I can only come to the conclusion that you are mis-interpreting the term 'pro rata'.

You feed in more fighters/squadrons. You get more victory claims. You suffer more losses. Pro rata. You can argue against it all you like, but you would be wrong, for the stated reasons in the first three sentences in this paragraph.

The Battle of Britain is the perfect scenario to test the point in the above paragraph.

So the 'same amount of sorties' is a red herring. It doesn't stand up to objective and logical examination. My second paragraph does.

 

[John Vasco]

John, you'd know this -- were -110s used as escorts in the south without that tank?

Thump: Yes. It was only the Bf 110 Ds of I. Gruppe, Zerstörergeschwader 76 that escorted the bombers in the early afternoon raid of 15th August 1940 against the north-east coast of England that had the Dackelbauch fitment. The Bf 110 units based in France flew Bf 110s with the standard fuel capacity, as their range was sufficient for escort against the airfields, and later, the bombing raids against London from 7th September 1940. Not a problem. The problem was for the Bf 109s, who had a shorter range, and the trip to London and back (without any auxiliary fuel tank) meant combat over London was severely limited.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I can only come to the conclusion that you are mis-interpreting the term 'pro rata'.

Not at all - "pro rata" = proportional

You feed in more fighters/squadrons. You get more victory claims. You suffer more losses. Pro rata.

Only if your additional fighter squadrons are ACTUALLY in the air and ACTUALLY engaged in combat. Less sorties, less losses = PRO RATA

You can argue against it all you like, but you would be wrong, for the stated reasons in the first three sentences in this paragraph.

Well I'm showing you my point

The Battle of Britain is the perfect scenario to test the point in the above paragraph.

So the 'same amount of sorties' is a red herring. It doesn't stand up to objective and logical examination. My second paragraph does.

And you're ignoring the fact that the more sorties flown will bring the more chances of combat and show how effective/ ineffective the fighter really is. 10 Hurricanes fly 100 sorties and shoot down 30 enemy aircraft but lose 5 of their own - 10 Spitfires fly 100 sorties and bring down 80 aircraft and lose 3 of their own, statistically which is more effective example?

 

[John Vasco]

Not at all - "pro rata" = proportional

EXACTLY! Thank you for agreeing to what I said!

Only if your additional fighter squadrons are ACTUALLY in the air and ACTUALLY engaged in combat. Less sorties, less losses = PRO RATA

Well I'm showing you my point

And you're ignoring the fact that the more sorties flown will bring the more chances of combat and show how effective/ ineffective the fighter really is. 10 Hurricanes fly 100 sorties and shoot down 30 enemy aircraft but lose 5 of their own - 10 Spitfires fly 100 sorties and bring down 80 aircraft and lose 3 of their own, statistically which is more effective example?

Once again, you are agreeing with my point! Go read it in my previous post! Pro rata!!!

Your last paragrpah is hypothetical. I don't do hypothetical. 40+ years of research into the Battle of Britain means I deal with facts, and deal with them objectively, without any bias one way or the other (I am English, but that does not colour or impact on how I examine the evidence and ultimately put it forward).

If you cannot see the simple logic of 'pro rata' and how it applies to the fighters in the Battle of Britain, their operations, their claims and their losses, then there really is no point in continuing the discussion with you, as you are displaying a closed-mind to anything but your own views.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Who the hell pissed in your Cheerios? Why the attitude?

You can get your point across without being a pompous ass.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

EXACTLY! Thank you for agreeing to what I said!

Once again, you are agreeing with my point! Go read it in my previous post! Pro rata!!!

Your last paragrpah is hypothetical. I don't do hypothetical. 40+ years of research into the Battle of Britain means I deal with facts, and deal with them objectively, without any bias one way or the other (I am English, but that does not colour or impact on how I examine the evidence and ultimately put it forward).

If you cannot see the simple logic of 'pro rata' and how it applies to the fighters in the Battle of Britain, their operations, their claims and their losses, then there really is no point in continuing the discussion with you, as you are displaying a closed-mind to anything but your own views.

I'm not the one being closed minded here, I am open to your statistics but putting I'm in what I believe is a major consideration when comparing claims to loss ratios. We'll agree to disagree and I advise you to curtail your attitude if you want to continue to play in the sandbox!

 

[Greg Boeser]

Would it be too much to ask that the moderators behave, you know, moderately?
I don't see Mr. Vasco being out of line at all. But I have noticed a tendency for some individuals to lose their cool when their sacred cow is being challenged. Threatening to cancel someone because you don't accept their argument is so uncool.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Would it be too much to ask that the moderators behave, you know, moderately?
I don't see Mr. Vasco being out of line at all. But I have noticed a tendency for some individuals to lose their cool when their sacred cow is being challenged. Threatening to cancel someone because you don't accept their argument is so uncool.

I believe we are and point blank I'm telling you to MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS!

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Would it be too much to ask that the moderators behave, you know, moderately?
I don't see Mr. Vasco being out of line at all. But I have noticed a tendency for some individuals to lose their cool when their sacred cow is being challenged. Threatening to cancel someone because you don't accept their argument is so uncool.

I have no problem being challenged and will accept being corrected, in this situation there is no "sacred cow" here. As you know however, we will not tolerate crappy attitudes and rude behavior. I hope I made myself abundantly clear!!!!