Quote:
|
Actually, it gave a pretty good account of itself. Recent studies of actual kills vs. actual losses suggest that it did just as well if not better than 109s. But 110s were few in number compared to the numerous 109s (roughly 300 vs 1000+ 109s), and their losses (200 or so) compared to their number were severe for the heavy fighter arm. Every 110 that fell, it left a gaping hole; when a 109 was lost it was just one member of a big hive..
|
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!
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.