Bf-110 is THE fighter

[*Buzzsaw*]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

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..

Your argument the Me-110 gave a good account of itself is completely falacious, as proven by your own admittance the losses suffered by the Zerstorer Geschwader were in fact, unsustainable. As far as the claims of kills by 110 Geschwader, the actual losses by the RAF show there was an overclaim of at least 3-1.

In addition, Luftwaffe operational data shows the 110's were unable to fulfil their designed role as long range escorts for the bombers, and in fact, the Luftwaffe found it necessary to assign 109's to escort them. They were unable to operate over England alone in Free Hunt or Escort role without the protection of single engined fighters.

After the failure to act in the escort role, the 110's were then assigned the fighterbomber role, but again, did not succeed in achieving their task without serious losses.

The result was they were withdrawn from this role as well, and in the later stages of the daylight battle, it was the 109's who were assigned to the 'hit and run' fighterbomber missions against the southern English ports and factories, not the 110s.

As far as the 110's flight model in CLIFFS OF DOVER, it is clear they are overmodelled when compared to the Spitfire I and IA, even considering these aircraft are currently operating with the two pitch propellor arrangement.

For you to insist the current performance comparison is appropriate is clearly nonsense, especially considering your own site has the excerpt from the Luftwaffe's own August 8th 1940 comparison of a Me-110 with a two pitch Spitfire (+6 boost captured during the Dunkirk evacuation), which notes the Me-110 was inferior in speed and climb to the Spitfire except at sea level:

The plane Bf 110 C is speed-wise inferior to the Spitfire, superior to the Curtiss
and Hurricane. Regarding the climb performance is the Curtiss equal at ground level,
up to 4 km superior then inferior. Hurricane is inferior up to altitude 2 km, then
superior up to 6.5 km. Spitfire is equal at ground level, otherwise superior.

Kurfurst site page:

http://www.kurfurst.org/Tactical_tri...g_Aug1940.html

Obviously the game's aircraft Flight Model is in flux now, the Spitfire's, Hurricane's and 109's are clearly undermodelled as far as performance is concerned. The 110 may be the only aircraft modelled up to its historical level, and is thus showing an advantage.

Hopefully we will see the appropriate adjustments.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Friendly_flyer

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.

That's my take as well. I guess P-47/Tempest/P-51/190 veterans of the old Il-2 will be deadly with it..

[ATAG_Doc]

Originally Posted by lbuchele

It´s a new beast compared to Il2 in my opinion.
If used with B&Z tatics you can eat spitfires and hurricanes for lunch.
The visuals in this game are so incredible too,I was catching a Spitfire with diffficulty, almost in tree top height,with no hope to reach it,when decided to do a high yo-yo,and suddenly have a brief firing solution: give it a 2 sec burst and just saw one single hit in the left aileron when the spit was in a 90 degree turn.
It slowly turn even more to te left and crash to the ground exploding beautifully.
There are so many of this beautiful moments happening, but it´s really difficult to me to express in words because I´m not a native english speaking person...

Thanks sounds cool! You're pissing me off since I cannot get it yet!

[Triggaaar]

Originally Posted by lbuchele

If used with B&Z tatics you can eat spitfires and hurricanes for lunch.

This doesn't sound good. As others have said, it wasn't good enough as a fighter, and that's not because it had to fly slowly next to the bombers, it just wasn't as good as the Spit or Hurricane.

And the Hurricane, a pig? Sounds like you've been playing too much IL2 without reading any facts.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by *Buzzsaw*

Your argument the Me-110 gave a good account of itself is completely falacious, as proven by your own admittance the losses suffered by the Zerstorer Geschwader were in fact, unsustainable.

Well that's the historical fact, wheter you like it or not. It was discussed in lenght on a non-kiddie board.

Originally Posted by F19Gladiator

The blatant failure of the Bf 110 in air to air fighting in the BoB is often repeated in literature. Christer Bergström in his book ”Luftstrid över kanalen”(1), 2006, has analyzed the victory and loss statistics in the BoB and presents a different picture to the usually repeated "Bf 110 fighter BoB disaster" scenario.[/SIZE][/FONT]

The confirmed aerial victories achieved by Bf 109 units amounted to 815 while the Bf 110 units gathered 407 confirmed victories.
A comparison between confirmed victories and operational losses due to air battles gives at hand that in the period 8 August to end of October 1940:
Bf 109 units scored 815 victories to 489 losses – a ratio of 1,7:1
Bf 110 units scored 407 victories to 185 losses – a ratio of 2,2:1

In October the Bf 110 units even had a ratio of 3:1 while the Bf 109 units dropped to 1,4:1.

Christer Bergström continues to discuss the matter as well as comparing Spifire and Hurricane relative performances and some of the RAF unit’s performance, RAF Bomber command losses, coastal command and the Fleet Air Arm..
When finally comparing the scores by Bf 109 and Bf 110 units as mentioned above with the estimated true losses by each side for the period July-October 1940 it turns out that in approximate figures the authentic victories versus actual air battle losses where:

Spitfire 550 victories to 329 losses – a ratio of 1,7:1
Hurricane 750 victories to 603 losses – a ratio of 1,2:1
Bf 109 780 victories to 534 losses – a ratio of 1,5:1
Bf 110 340 victories to 196 losses – a ratio of 1,7:1

Bergström continues by discussing the validity of the data including the difficulties in identifying if a Bf 109 or 110 shot down a RAF fighter, however, the outcome is that minimum 25-30% of all British aircraft losses inflicted by Luftwaffe fighters were scored by Bf 110s.
The “Total failure of the Bf 110 as a fighter aircraft in the BoB” is perhaps another BoB Myth worth reassessing?

The fact is that on several occasions the Bf 110 units performed better than the Bf 109 units on a particular day. When deployed tactically correct using the advantages the Bf 110 offered the Bf 110 was still a lethal weapon in air-to-air fighting which I believe Christer Bergström is able to show.
When used as a high altitude escort, not being tied to close escort to the bomber force, it made effective diving attacks on RAF fighters using surprise, high speed and it’s heavy nose armament to score victories.
Long range and an extra pair of eyes was also helpful in air battle, the range enabling to wait for the right moment to strike and the extra pair of eyes increasing the situational awareness of the pilot in an air battle.

The rest of you post I don't care, its the usual blabbering and nonsense...

[David Hayward]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

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..?

I thought you meant that a total of 300 saw service in the battle. Obviously that is different from the number which started the battle.

In any case, the losses don't really matter. What was really important is whether the aircraft could do the job assigned to it. The answer is clearly NO. The 110 was so ineffective that, as stated by others, the Germans had to use 109s to escort their 110s. It takes a lot of lipstick to make that pig look good.

[bongodriver]

Hey don't get me wrong, I love the Hurri, but by comparison it was somewhat inferior....hence 'pig', I have had the chance to speak with a few contemporary warbird display pilots (Charlie Brown for example), and in his own words he described it as a 'pig' by comparison to the spit.

[David Hayward]

When used as a high altitude escort, not being tied to close escort to the bomber force, it made effective diving attacks on RAF fighters using surprise, high speed and it’s heavy nose armament to score victories.

Indeed, when given every possible advantage, including an escort of 109s, I'm sure the 110 could be quite effective.

[Blue 5]

The fact is that on several occasions the Bf 110 units performed better than the Bf 109 units on a particular day. When deployed tactically correct using the advantages the Bf 110 offered the Bf 110 was still a lethal weapon in air-to-air fighting which I believe Christer Bergström is able to show.
When used as a high altitude escort, not being tied to close escort to the bomber force, it made effective diving attacks on RAF fighters using surprise, high speed and it’s heavy nose armament to score victories.
Long range and an extra pair of eyes was also helpful in air battle, the range enabling to wait for the right moment to strike and the extra pair of eyes increasing the situational awareness of the pilot in an air battle.

That's a perfectly reasonable argument, the problem is that Kurfust seems to take x occurred with y frequency and turn it in to an indication of why x was the norm. Clearly, by all kill claim and loss data on both sides, the 110s had more bad days that good. Does not make it a bad aircraft, just mis-employed.

[Jatta Raso]

for all i know the 110 was faster than British fighters at top speed, but with low acceleration, and if caught up it had to stay and fight; under those conditions it was quite doomed as it bleeds energy fast during turning maneuvers, and had a wider turning radius than both Hurricanes and Spits. not much they could do with low speed except forming defensive circles or dropping all sorts of ordnance and hit the deck to make a run for it (against experient opponents that is).

true enough, soon they had to be escorted by 109s. i don't think they faced their best campaign scenario so they could show their best abilities though