Bf-110 is THE fighter

[lbuchele]

Yes, it´s like a german P38, but not so sexy, of course...

[bongodriver]

it didn't do so well in real life though, I think they withdrew it during the battle of britain and made it a night fighter because they lost so many.

[Anvilfolk]

Originally Posted by bongodriver

it didn't do so well in real life though, I think they withdrew it during the battle of britain and made it a night fighter because they lost so many.

Read that too. Can't remember exactly why. Bad turning ability? Maybe speed (although with two engines that sounds strange).

Then they used it for low-level bombing experimentally, and it worked wonders. I don't think the technique was widely adopted though, for some reason.

[bongodriver]

Read that too. Can't remember exactly why. Bad turning ability? Maybe speed (although with two engines that sounds strange).

Yep...not very manouverable, and being quite large with 2 engines and quite heavy (not being made of wood a la mosquito) made it slow.

[JG3_Hartmann]

And you can build nearly two 109´s out of one 110. So I would stick to the smaller plane. ^^

The huge problem was that they used the wrong tactics. "Enger Geleitschutz" (the fighters staying near the bombers) instead of "Freie Jagd" (Search and Destroy)

[Rattlehead]

Originally Posted by bongodriver

it didn't do so well in real life though, I think they withdrew it during the battle of britain and made it a night fighter because they lost so many.

That was because they were throttled back, by order, to escort the bombers. The 110 lacked the acceleration of the single-engined planes and was a sitting duck against enemy fighters as a result of the throttling back.

But when given license to roam they were quite formidable, at least against the Hurricane.

[bongodriver]

That was because they were throttled back, by order, to escort the bombers. The 110 lacked the acceleration of the single-engined planes and was a sitting duck against enemy fighters as a result of the throttling back.

But when given license to roam they were quite formidable, at least against the Hurricane.

not fully convinced by that, they would have all the free licence they wanted if being attacked, from what I read they just couldn't defend themselves let alone the bombers, an escort fighter doesn't just keep formation with the bombers, they break off and fight when the formations are attacked.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by bongodriver

it didn't do so well in real life though, I think they withdrew it during the battle of britain and made it a night fighter because they lost so many.

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..

[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..?