If the aircraft had a high loss ratio, then it was probably a pig. 200 lost out of 300 in service, if your stats are right, is a disaster.

of course it gave good account, many aircraft did, more testament to the crews abilities though, even the hurricane gave a good account of itself and we all know what a pig that is (highest scoring aircraft in the batttle of britain)

Oh, what clap-trap; you've taken the revisionist line to an absurd degree :)

It was a good aircraft that has been unfairly maligned by historians, certainly, and the BoB was probably the worst way it could have been used (stemming from Fink and Osterkamp's gentleman's agreement about escort vs free hunting). It also probably accounted for more RAF aircraft than is generally stated (heavy armament and good crews plus most RAF pilots would tend to assume a 109 got them), but the idea that it got more kills than the 109 is risible, think of the exchange rate that would have meant given the numbers involved! :grin:

Also, as has been pointed out, the loss rate vs total operational strength is pretty bad (especially given the larger fuel supply and 2 engines meant probably fewer losses of damaged examples in the Channel). 200 is not a 'gaping number compared to their numbers', it's a disaster which - given the smaller numbers of 110s involved - suggests it was simply more vulnerable than a 109.

It's a good design that's got short shrift, but that doesn't mean it didn't do pretty badly over England even if it was not all due to the aircraft itself.

The Hurricane in 1940 was no pig. Many pilots prefered it, it was more rugged, a better gun platform and could turn inside a spitfire. By 1941 tho it certainly was outclassed and you have to feel sorry for the pilots who had to fly it.

During the Battle of Britain.
 

During the Battle of Britain very quickly they put some BF109 to escort the ME110, the only real defensive tactic of the Me 110 was to form a defensive circle and hope the enemy did not penetrate it. If a Me 110 can out maneuver a Spitfire or a Hurricane there is a mistake somewhere.

Have a nice simulation.
:evil:

I meant pig by comparison to its counterparts

I am fairly confident the 110, used with the advantage of superior tactics born from hindsight, will be a very deadly opponent. The late war B&Z crowd will probably be able to do wonders with it against planes with limited operational hight.

Rookie pilots who did not know their aircraft could easily be out-turned by a Bf-109 or even Bf-110.

But besides range, I don't see what advantages a Bf-110 had over a Bf-109.

Question: does CoD model the cannon drum reload? Or does it behave like a belt-fed gun?

Ive flown it for few hours after I saw this thread (thought it was pretty useless, like in IL-2).
I must say it exceeded my expectations by far, as I can score more kills with it than with BF-109. It has more ammo (3x60 rounds for each gun), the guns are centered, have higher ROF than 109, and is quite fast (faster than the Spit1). It cannot turn well and bleeds alot of airspeed, but when used in boom and zoom, it is in my hands the most effective plane in this game.

Loss ratio is only meaningful when pitted against the number of sorties flown; if you pick a long enough period, losses will sooner or later will be a very high percentage of the initial strenght.

Loss ratios are reflecting on the operations, not on the tactical performance of aircraft. The Battle of Britain was a light skirmish if you look at the casulties sustained, but a slaughter if you look at the odds for survival.

Fighter Command started out the Battle with some 900 fighters of all kinds on hand in July; by the end of October, it lost 1140 of them destroyed or written off and another 710 seriously damaged.. so if some 60% loss of the force in two months is 'disaster', how would you call loosing 120% of the initial force..?