Was the Zerstorer concept really that flawed?

Glider said:

I totally agree that when the single engined fighters caught up with the 110 then it came badly unstuck.

What I have always wondered is how would the Whirlwind have managed in the BOB which it only just missed. With its speed and firepower would it have avoided the 109's and made it through to the bombers which would have been vulnerable to those 4 x 20. Or would the 109's have done to it what we did to the 110. We will never know

Click to expand...

Those 20mm would have been great at taking down bombers - all concentrated in the nose, whatever it hit was taking to take some frightful damage. What I'm more interested in is if they used uprated Rolls engines in the bird, then what kind of performer we'd have on our hands.

The 110 was one of many planes that was conceived as one thing before the war and employed in the way it was needed in actuality during the war. It was fine against all the European air arms which had lesser crates but against more modern ones like British fighters it was poor. During the BoB Galland was so pissed that the 109s had to fly top cover for the 110s which were supposedly flying escort of r the bombers.

When the USAF entered the fray the early Thunderbolt pilots had a name for it if it ventured out in daylight in a fighter role- meat on the table.

I don't conveive for a second that the Whirlwind would have bested the 109s either. The only twin that proved capable of holding its own was the P-38.

The whole twin engine concept was a bankrupt pre-war concept because aero engines were lacking on power. Stick two on a crate and it cheats the formula. But aero engine development lept ahead so fast in power production that single engine fighters proved the ultimate top gun.

Think Twitch has most of it. Power plants were not effective enough in producing the thrust required to become effective against single engined fighters. The 110 was an attempt to produce a long range fighter. In that it failed. But it was one of many attempts to deal with the same problem.

The problem was simple. Fighters (or Pursuit Aircraft) were and are (to a certain extent) defensive aircraft. Bombers are offensive weapons. Doctines in the 30s and early 40s called for fighters to be Interceptors or Army support aircraft. Bomber escort was not considered a major part of their job description (for lack of a better word) because theories said the bomber "would always get through". Either by speed (The Blenheim) or by firepower (the Flying Fortress), the bomber would get through. Reality was different. The Blenheim was nowwhere near fast enough nor was the B17 heavily armed enough.

The concept of a long range fighter was worked on by many countries but, and somewhat oddly, only put into mass production before general hostilities by Fascist or Axis Countries. A point that speaks volumes. Anyway, the Germans and Japanese both worked on the idea of a long range, air superiority fighter. The Germans came up with the 110, the Japanese with the Zero. Both had serious drawbacks that later came up in combat operations.

The long range fighter is a an Offensive Weapon. It carries the fight over the enemies bases and production centers. The Germans and Japanese introduced production aircraft to the idea but it really fell the the USAAF to get the job done right. In practice, the Mustang was the aircraft that gain air superiority. The Mustang's flaws may've shown up if it was in an Interceptor role, then again, maybe not. But as a long range escort, intruder and air supremecy platform, it was outstanding.

I'm so-so on the idea that the P38 was a great air supremecy weapon. It did it well in the Pacific but less effective in Europe. The Mustang did it well in both Theatres. The T-Bolt had decent leggs when developed, but not on the same level as the Mustang.

Lastly, I like the Whirlwind. Thought it was a very cool looking aircraft. Wonder how it would've performed with better engines.

Me I have always liked the Arado 440 more it would do 460 MPH and all the test pilot's are said to have love flying it.

Thanks for the info DerAdler.


I think the He162(?) 'Uhu' was probably the best Zerstorer?

Don't forget that most modern jet designs are twin-engined...

I think another engine gives a much petter performance, versus the extra drag/weight? The more efficient the engine, the more this is the case, but I feel the Me110 was a waste of DB engines. I 'd have used a (BMW?) radial, or maybe a Ju 211.

What I was meaning was something that could loiter and strafe unarmoured ground/sea targets and grounded/taxiing planes.

I think replacing the 4 7.92 MG's for 2 20mm cannons may also have been wise, if possible?

I've given the 'Crikey' thought before too, but as a bomber interceptor. I don't think the Hispano cannon was too reliable in the BoB though.

There is of course the Ju88 and Mosquito, but they had many roles - I'm concentrating on ground attack.

A Zerstorer escort could be used to attack head-on any planes going to the bombers, or trying to limp/run away.

That Arado sounds good johnbr.8)

The Meteor also made a good ground attack plane too.

I know that Mustang pilots attacked targets of opportunity after a bomber raid, I mean kind of like that - only before, to 'soften them up'.

It could still have been good if after the BOB it was re-designed as a battlefield support plane like the AC-130 with a big cannon, rockets and guns. Considering that the Allies didn't have anything like it really, it could have made a really useful weapon even in 1944 and the Overlord, by providing strafing runs on Allied Shipping and doing its own long-range scans of the Coast off Normandy. It could certainly have made D-Day a bit nastier for the Allies...

Twitch said:

The 110 was one of many planes that was conceived as one thing before the war and employed in the way it was needed in actuality during the war. It was fine against all the European air arms which had lesser crates but against more modern ones like British fighters it was poor. During the BoB Galland was so pissed that the 109s had to fly top cover for the 110s which were supposedly flying escort of r the bombers.

When the USAF entered the fray the early Thunderbolt pilots had a name for it if it ventured out in daylight in a fighter role- meat on the table.

I don't conveive for a second that the Whirlwind would have bested the 109s either. The only twin that proved capable of holding its own was the P-38.

The whole twin engine concept was a bankrupt pre-war concept because aero engines were lacking on power. Stick two on a crate and it cheats the formula. But aero engine development lept ahead so fast in power production that single engine fighters proved the ultimate top gun.

Click to expand...

Going to disagree on this.

I read a series of interviews with some Whirlwind pilots recently and they universally loved the aircraft, and were quite disappointed to go to Typhoons or even Spitfires. The general view was that, at low level, the aircraft was better than the 109 and a match for the 190A.

The Whirlwind was supposedly more manouverable than the Spitfire Mk V up to 15,000 feet. It was 15-20 mph faster down low, rolled better, had better vision and a nastier armament. Rate of turn was inferior and it was about 200 ft/min slow in rate of climb.

If it wasn't for Rolls-Royce decision to kill the Peregrine engine programme, it would of been a superlative low-medium alt fighter. The proposed Mk II, with 1100 hp engines, new props and a new exhaust ejector system would of been capable of more than 390 mph (calculated top speeds were around 415 mph, but I think they were a little generous).

The two Whirlwind squadrons desperately tried to get themselves reassigned to the Western Desert in 1942, because they felt that they could do a far better job than the Kittyhawks and Hurricanes that the Desert Air Force was struggling along with.

I think that they could have been just as good as single-engined fighters. It is just that they weren't upgraded enough and worked on. The P-38 Lightning is an example that when the concept was kept up to date with watching developments that it could work and keep pace with single-engined plane developments. A lot of modern air superority fighters are twin-engined such as the F-15 Eagle. Even a single-engined plane needs constant watch and attention and upgrades to remain competitive. The Me-110 was a step behind on each upgrade and it showed. As a gunship platform however, it would have provided sterling service with heavy cannons mounted, a WW2 AC-130 Gunship if you like...

I think it's mostly a matter of timing.
The 'zerstorer' concept, that is a heavy fighter able to destroy bombers, do ground attack and hold on with opposing fighters, needed an aircraft in proportion superior to the average level of pure fighters.
The Bf110 had this superiority for a very short time, then the fighters closed the development gap.

Possibly the best zerstorer was the Me 262, who had such a clear edge in performances to perform all the zerstorer roles. (ok, in normal conditions, with the situation in 1945 not even the F15 would had been successful...)

Superiority that was timed too, pending the introduction of 'real' fighters with jest engines

In effect the 262 was more the 'new' Bf110 than the new 109.

The Ameisenbaer could have been a real prop zerstorer, but all this late prop airplane were just a swansong after the jet introduction.

Okay, still what do others think about my points? Could at least some of the Bf-110s been better used for Battlefield Support?