Bf-110 is THE fighter

[David Hayward]

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..

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.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by David Hayward

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.

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..?

[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.