Good thing you were not in the military then either you would not survive a day or a lot of mothers and wifes would be recieving visits from chaplins.
What of the Me 410?
- Thread starter Udet
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Good thing you were not in the military then either you would not survive a day or a lot of mothers and wifes would be recieving visits from chaplins.
Civettone
Tech Sergeant
What was the maximum speed of the Bf 110G Zerstörers?
Kris
Kris
This is just off the top of my head and therefore could be wrong but I believe the Max Speed for the Bf-110 were 350 mph (563 kph) at 22,950 ft (7,000m).
Civettone
Tech Sergeant
Gnomey, the site you refer to also categorises the Bf 110G as a night fighter. I want to know what the max speed of the Zerstörer is, so without the heavy electronics and the drag of the antenna's.
If it's 563 km/h, then that would be surprising regarding it's slower than the Bf 110C and barely faster than the heavier Bf 110G-4 Nachtjäger.
Unfortunately all the data I have of the Bf 110G are pointed at the NJ version.
Kris
If it's 563 km/h, then that would be surprising regarding it's slower than the Bf 110C and barely faster than the heavier Bf 110G-4 Nachtjäger.
Unfortunately all the data I have of the Bf 110G are pointed at the NJ version.
Kris
- Thread starter
- #227
The 563 km/hr figure is for the Bf 110 fitted with the DB 601 engines (the C version).
The G version did receive the more powerful DB 605 B engines used in the zerstörern. As far as i can recall, empty weight of the G version did not vary much when compared with the previous F version.
So a clean G version as used during daylight action against USAAF should have been somewhat faster than 563 km/hr.
The G version did receive the more powerful DB 605 B engines used in the zerstörern. As far as i can recall, empty weight of the G version did not vary much when compared with the previous F version.
So a clean G version as used during daylight action against USAAF should have been somewhat faster than 563 km/hr.
- Thread starter
- #228
Erich:
Do you really agree the Me 410 was a necessary item? It made a fearsome bomber destroyer, ok.
But would you say ZG 76 performed better in the bomber killing role if compared with the Bf 109 G-6s of JG 1 and JG 11 protecting northern Germany against the heavy bomber formations?
Do you really agree the Me 410 was a necessary item? It made a fearsome bomber destroyer, ok.
But would you say ZG 76 performed better in the bomber killing role if compared with the Bf 109 G-6s of JG 1 and JG 11 protecting northern Germany against the heavy bomber formations?
syscom3
Pacific Historian
What is a "super-mega"?
Udet, you make a rational argument for moving the LW pilots into the fighters. But that only holds for 1943 and part of 1944.
But once the allies pilot training program and P51/P38 deployments began in earnest, there was nothing the LW could do. The arithmatric of attrition was tilted heavily in the Allies favor.
- Thread starter
- #230
Super-mega? You. Or is there anyone else who could be called that? Remember i´ve come to the conclusion you are not human but some outerspace life form sharing part of its life with us here.
To business:
I hope my colleagues here do not miss the point as i am not putting the whole blame on the Me 410 for having wasted men and material that could instead have been put to a much much better use against the USAAF.
The Bf 110s still serving in daylight missions, and the unusually high number of bombers produced during 1944 with more than 2,000 bombers made. The number gets dwarfed when put by the side of the USA heavy bomber production figure for 1944 alone with some 15,000 machines.
Knowing the number of heavy bombers produced by the USA alone during 1944 makes German planners look even more unwise. What could ~2,000 bombers achieve for Germany during 1944? So when i say "unusually high" i am referring to the critical situation of Germany during such year.
I will not get tired of saying how come there are people who fail to see how unnecessary the Me 410 was...
"But once the allies pilot training program and P51/P38 deployments began in earnest, there was nothing the LW could do. The arithmatric of attrition was tilted heavily in the Allies favor."
Partially correct. Now, why do i say partially? Simple, USAAF losses remained heavy during the first half of 1944...also not forget that as late as in October 1943, the losses of USAAF pilots and crews at the hands of the Luftwaffe were so high even a nation with a large pool of replacements was confronted with the notion of not being capable to continue accepting such loss ratio.
So if the outnumbered and overstretched Luftwaffe proved capable of pushing them guys of the USAAF to begin wondering whether to continue accepting the death toll, think again of what could have been achieved if Me 210/410-Bf 110 production is cancelled and bomber production gets dramatically cut prior to the end of 1943....at minimum all that fuel the Steinbock raids swallowed during the first months of 1944 goes to the Jagdwaffe that could have had more fighters to face the oncoming aerial onslaught.
Civettone rightfully strikes back and says not every rear gunner or bomber crewman will become a fighter pilot -no one by the way suggested such a thing-; ok, i give him that...but what about the pilots of the ~500 bombers that comprised the force to unleash the Steinbock business?
Convert them to fighter pilots, and if only half of them show the skills to become a decent fighter pilot you have 250 pilots...it is a four gruppen geschwader.
As for the rest of the guys who were bomber crews, send them to man the Flak defences of the Reich where they would habve been of greater help.
Of course during such time the Luftwaffe was sustaining the losses that in the end would erode its combat potential; it was a gradual process of losses that in the end would bleed the Luftwaffe and not a sole event such as the one called "Big Week".
"Big Week" is another dish comprising the mythology menu of the allies; there are others that are not necessarily related to air combat: the Brits and their "triumph" at Arras during Fall Gelb, and the US Army and its fairy tales of the "Siege of Bastogne" that includes a "gallant stand" against overwhelming odds that in reality were everything but overwhelming.
Erich another question. Why did you say Eduard Tratt´s claims of 3 P-38s are doubtful?
The response from the FG person might seem to support the notion Tratt´s claims have grounds right?
To business:
I hope my colleagues here do not miss the point as i am not putting the whole blame on the Me 410 for having wasted men and material that could instead have been put to a much much better use against the USAAF.
The Bf 110s still serving in daylight missions, and the unusually high number of bombers produced during 1944 with more than 2,000 bombers made. The number gets dwarfed when put by the side of the USA heavy bomber production figure for 1944 alone with some 15,000 machines.
Knowing the number of heavy bombers produced by the USA alone during 1944 makes German planners look even more unwise. What could ~2,000 bombers achieve for Germany during 1944? So when i say "unusually high" i am referring to the critical situation of Germany during such year.
I will not get tired of saying how come there are people who fail to see how unnecessary the Me 410 was...
"But once the allies pilot training program and P51/P38 deployments began in earnest, there was nothing the LW could do. The arithmatric of attrition was tilted heavily in the Allies favor."
Partially correct. Now, why do i say partially? Simple, USAAF losses remained heavy during the first half of 1944...also not forget that as late as in October 1943, the losses of USAAF pilots and crews at the hands of the Luftwaffe were so high even a nation with a large pool of replacements was confronted with the notion of not being capable to continue accepting such loss ratio.
So if the outnumbered and overstretched Luftwaffe proved capable of pushing them guys of the USAAF to begin wondering whether to continue accepting the death toll, think again of what could have been achieved if Me 210/410-Bf 110 production is cancelled and bomber production gets dramatically cut prior to the end of 1943....at minimum all that fuel the Steinbock raids swallowed during the first months of 1944 goes to the Jagdwaffe that could have had more fighters to face the oncoming aerial onslaught.
Civettone rightfully strikes back and says not every rear gunner or bomber crewman will become a fighter pilot -no one by the way suggested such a thing-; ok, i give him that...but what about the pilots of the ~500 bombers that comprised the force to unleash the Steinbock business?
Convert them to fighter pilots, and if only half of them show the skills to become a decent fighter pilot you have 250 pilots...it is a four gruppen geschwader.
As for the rest of the guys who were bomber crews, send them to man the Flak defences of the Reich where they would habve been of greater help.
Of course during such time the Luftwaffe was sustaining the losses that in the end would erode its combat potential; it was a gradual process of losses that in the end would bleed the Luftwaffe and not a sole event such as the one called "Big Week".
"Big Week" is another dish comprising the mythology menu of the allies; there are others that are not necessarily related to air combat: the Brits and their "triumph" at Arras during Fall Gelb, and the US Army and its fairy tales of the "Siege of Bastogne" that includes a "gallant stand" against overwhelming odds that in reality were everything but overwhelming.
Erich another question. Why did you say Eduard Tratt´s claims of 3 P-38s are doubtful?
The response from the FG person might seem to support the notion Tratt´s claims have grounds right?
Erich
the old Sage
the Me 410 was needed in addition to the single engine 109/Fw's of Jg 1 and 11, 26, 2 and other Reich defense units. the time of most vulnerability for twin engines including the nf force during daylight missions was forming up in staffel and Geschwader strength to form an attacking force and this is when they were attacked many times or before even firing off their 210mm rockets.
Single engine fighters could not do it alone as proven by the Bf 109G which was not enough even in numbers to take down the heavies, the Fw 190A was a more suitable gun platform and Bf 110G-2 and Me 410's even more so but were sluggish because of the overweight of another crewman, more fuel, more weapons and ammo.
As to Tratt you do not have the rest of the story ............ yet. he may have shot down 1 P-38 but I do not believe 3. It appears that 109's and possibly 190's caught the P-38's in the dive and zoom attacks. there is no doubt a flight of P-38's also tangled with Me 410's shooting down two destroyed and 2 damaged. If I can get this mission report from the official 20th fg history you will see what I mean even in a distorted form... I feel Tratt and those in II./ZG 26 flying heavily laden cannon armed bomber killing Me 410's did not have the means to engage the P-38's in a fair dogfight. Again I am trying to piece this together where you can make your own decision
Single engine fighters could not do it alone as proven by the Bf 109G which was not enough even in numbers to take down the heavies, the Fw 190A was a more suitable gun platform and Bf 110G-2 and Me 410's even more so but were sluggish because of the overweight of another crewman, more fuel, more weapons and ammo.
As to Tratt you do not have the rest of the story ............ yet. he may have shot down 1 P-38 but I do not believe 3. It appears that 109's and possibly 190's caught the P-38's in the dive and zoom attacks. there is no doubt a flight of P-38's also tangled with Me 410's shooting down two destroyed and 2 damaged. If I can get this mission report from the official 20th fg history you will see what I mean even in a distorted form... I feel Tratt and those in II./ZG 26 flying heavily laden cannon armed bomber killing Me 410's did not have the means to engage the P-38's in a fair dogfight. Again I am trying to piece this together where you can make your own decision
- Thread starter
- #232
syscom3
Pacific Historian
But in Jan 1944, the P51 and P38 production was in high gear and pilots were there to fly them. And that doesnt count the newer models of the P47 with drop tanks. The US had so much industrial capacity, that loss's could be made good.
Thats only 250 pilots..... the US was producing that many every week. Don't forget if the loss's in the ETO were abnormally high, then pilots earmarked for the PTO and CBI would be diverted to this theater.
The big week was a contributor to the decline of the LW, not the sole cause. It just so happened that the P51's and P38's gave the LW no respite anywhere over Germany, and wore them down by attrition.
- Thread starter
- #234
Civettone
Tech Sergeant
Remember ... the day fighter Bf 110G !!!
Kris
Kris
- Thread starter
- #236
Erich
the old Sage
no I do not have the max for the Bf 110G
Monogram Close-up 18 Bf 110G:
A G-2 is quoted with 465 km/h at sea level and 561 km/h at 5.8 km.
A G-4 with FuG 202 with 426 and 510 at the same alts.
Armament is listed as 4xMG 17, 2x MG 151, MG 81Z and Rüstsatz M1 (dual MG 151 belly gun pack)
Max Endurance range at 6km is given as 900km for G-2 and 880 for G4 on internal fuel, 1300/1270 with 2x300l drop tanks.
All speed values are given as maximum combat speed at sea level and at critical altitude of 5.8 km. The only given critical altitude in engine data is climb and combat power with 5.8 km. Probably these speed values are for climb and combat and not max speed with take-off and emercency power.
A G-2 is quoted with 465 km/h at sea level and 561 km/h at 5.8 km.
A G-4 with FuG 202 with 426 and 510 at the same alts.
Armament is listed as 4xMG 17, 2x MG 151, MG 81Z and Rüstsatz M1 (dual MG 151 belly gun pack)
Max Endurance range at 6km is given as 900km for G-2 and 880 for G4 on internal fuel, 1300/1270 with 2x300l drop tanks.
All speed values are given as maximum combat speed at sea level and at critical altitude of 5.8 km. The only given critical altitude in engine data is climb and combat power with 5.8 km. Probably these speed values are for climb and combat and not max speed with take-off and emercency power.
- Thread starter
- #239
It should not be that difficult to find the proper performance data if you keep in mind we are referring to the Bf 110. It was not a rare plane, and saw service in significant numbers during the war.
So, if the data Deniss posted is correct, then it means the Bf 110 of 1944 did not observe any improvements when compared with the Bf 110s that saw service during 1940 over England?
I mean, i am quite confident when affirming the Bf 110 had absolutely nothing to do in daylight combat service during 1944, it is just it´d be stunning to discover Deniss information is correct.
Civettone
Tech Sergeant
Is Monogram data reliable?
To me it is also strange that the G-2 would be slower than the C-1 though it had much stronger engines.
Kris
To me it is also strange that the G-2 would be slower than the C-1 though it had much stronger engines.
Kris
