Battle of Britain

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: Orm

The Bf-110 was very good aircraft if it was allowed to do what is was designed to do. However, in the Battle of Britain it was seldom allowed to do that and the aircraft was needlessly sacrificed. And its reputation has suffered since. I can argue that the Bf-110 was the best available fighter for Germany during this campaign. That is if it was used properly. And definitely for this discussion when considering the parameters for the discussion are "This should be considered without radio direction finding, Dowding, tactics, Spanish civil war experience and solely on the aircraft performance." And, when judged solely on aircraft performance, for the Battle of Britain, it is my belief that it was better than the Bf 109. Might even be better than the Spitfire.

I've also been suffering from the propaganda that the Bf-110 was a bad fighter design. But I recently have re-evaluated my opinion. May I suggest that you all go back and look at the Bf-110 anew and consider if it deserves the bad reputation that it got.

How about the man who was born in Canton, China? He who attacked about 30 German aircraft and shot down 6 of them - according to the 20 B-17G crews whom he was protecting. He was flying a P-51B and he was the only fighter pilot there. He protected the bombers - even when he ran out of ammunition. But on 11 January, he shot down a FW-190A3, probably some Me109s and other aircraft including Me-110s. His plane was named "Ding Hao!"

He started out in the US Navy flying as a Navy Seaman Second Class. He refused a commission, left the service and went to China. After that, he later joined the air force. Prior to joining the US Army, he had shot down 6 Japanese aircraft. On 5 June 1944, he was presented with the Medal of Honor, the only fighter pilot in the 8th Air Force to receive one.

*Sarcasm*
Yes, that is very relevant. The P-51B was obviously the best fighter during the Battle of Britain. And, Rafe McCawley and Danny Walker seems to have had the assistance of a man born in Canton when they won the Battle of Britain.

[8|]

[Zorch]

ORIGINAL: Orm

The Bf-110 was very good aircraft if it was allowed to do what is was designed to do. However, in the Battle of Britain it was seldom allowed to do that and the aircraft was needlessly sacrificed. And its reputation has suffered since. I can argue that the Bf-110 was the best available fighter for Germany during this campaign. That is if it was used properly. And definitely for this discussion when considering the parameters for the discussion are "This should be considered without radio direction finding, Dowding, tactics, Spanish civil war experience and solely on the aircraft performance." And, when judged solely on aircraft performance, for the Battle of Britain, it is my belief that it was better than the Bf 109. Might even be better than the Spitfire.

I've also been suffering from the propaganda that the Bf-110 was a bad fighter design. But I recently have re-evaluated my opinion. May I suggest that you all go back and look at the Bf-110 anew and consider if it deserves the bad reputation that it got.

+1
The 110 was more than just a fighter.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: Orm

The Bf-110 was very good aircraft if it was allowed to do what is was designed to do. However, in the Battle of Britain it was seldom allowed to do that and the aircraft was needlessly sacrificed. And its reputation has suffered since. I can argue that the Bf-110 was the best available fighter for Germany during this campaign. That is if it was used properly. And definitely for this discussion when considering the parameters for the discussion are "This should be considered without radio direction finding, Dowding, tactics, Spanish civil war experience and solely on the aircraft performance." And, when judged solely on aircraft performance, for the Battle of Britain, it is my belief that it was better than the Bf 109. Might even be better than the Spitfire.

I've also been suffering from the propaganda that the Bf-110 was a bad fighter design. But I recently have re-evaluated my opinion. May I suggest that you all go back and look at the Bf-110 anew and consider if it deserves the bad reputation that it got.

How about the man who was born in Canton, China? He who attacked about 30 German aircraft and shot down 6 of them - according to the 20 B-17G crews whom he was protecting. He was flying a P-51B and he was the only fighter pilot there. He protected the bombers - even when he ran out of ammunition. But on 11 January, he shot down a FW-190A3, probably some Me109s and other aircraft including Me-110s. His plane was named "Ding Hao!"

He started out in the US Navy flying as a Navy Seaman Second Class. He refused a commission, left the service and went to China. After that, he later joined the air force. Prior to joining the US Army, he had shot down 6 Japanese aircraft. On 5 June 1944, he was presented with the Medal of Honor, the only fighter pilot in the 8th Air Force to receive one.

*Sarcasm*
Yes, that is very relevant. The P-51B was obviously the best fighter during the Battle of Britain. And, Rafe McCawley and Danny Walker seems to have had the assistance of a man born in Canton when they won the Battle of Britain.

[8|]

Are you referring to the P-40 pilots who took off from the USS Hornet and bombed Japan? [8|]

That P-51B pilot was defending bombers like the Me-109s were defending bombers during the Battle of Britain. Yet he did much better than the FW-190s, the Me-109s, the Me-110s, the Do-217, and any other type of fighter that he went against that day. In fact, the Me-110 was so good that they formed a defensive circle and he still shot them down. He attacked without ammo and they still ran away from the bombers.

Again, it all depends upon the pilot.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: GaryChildress



I had read somewhere about some controversy over a victory parade or something that the Poles weren't invited to participate in or something at the end of the war and one of the British commanders at the time commenting that the battle would have turned out the same had the Polish squadrons not been there and that sort of thing. I've heard there was a big stink having to do with the Poles not receiving proper credit that some felt they should have at the time. Is that true or is it mostly hype?

warspite1

As said, four books, two films and numerous documentaries - and not to forget Hugh Dowding's own thoughts on the subject that he had no trouble in making public - and the Poles have never been sidelined, downplayed or marginalised in any of them.

Was there pressure brought on by the Soviets not to include the Poles in the victory parade at the end of the war? It would appear so, and sadly that pressure was successful at the time. But that seems to confuse two separate issues.


By the way, I do love those that like to portray the British (French and Americans) and their treatment of Poland at the end of the war as some gross betrayal. I mean they NEVER bother to actually come up with an alternative as to what should have happened. They just throw mud in the usual holier-than-thou style but don't trouble to actually understand the situation and come up with what they think should have been done. The British (French and Americans) did NOT hand over Poland to the Communists. In case it escaped anyone's attention, Stalin was already in occupation having beaten the Red Army.

And what were the Western Allies to do? Go to war against the Soviet Union so soon after the end of the world's most bloody conflict? And with a country they were Allied to? How many British, French and American troops would have been up for that in 1945?

Short of threatening Moscow with nuclear destruction, there was NOTHING the Western Allies could do to save Poland.

Some of those Americans troops in Europe (and not just Patton) felt that they should have kept going because they figured that there would be a war with the Soviet Union anyway. There was not much that could for Poland have been done since the troops were stopped from going farther Eastward. Plus the local Polish Army had been knocked about in the Warsaw uprising when the Soviets did not advance. If the Americans would have taken Berlin and beyond up to the Polish border, something could have been done. Of course, the Americans may not have gone that far. Then again, that is speculation. If war would have broken out, think of Japanese T-34/85s . . .

warspite1

Well I don't believe for one nano-second there was a snowballs chance in hell of an attack on the USSR by the Western Allies. I also don't believe the troops would have stood for it - even if the leaders were dumb enough to even consider it (look at the Communist sympathy for the USSR when the war broke out in Britain, France etc.) and most of those conscripted troops had had enough and wanted to go home. They would have been praying for the end of Germany to achieve just that - and then - having done so, to be told they are now fighting the Soviets would have been unthinkable to a great many I suspect (and I am not talking about those with Communist leanings either). Imagine what the Soviets would have done in the Far East too. They wouldn't have invaded Manchuria for one thing. Of course that wouldn't matter ultimately to the fate of Japan but it would have been more costly in American lives if the Japanese suddenly receive help from the Soviets.

It would have been an utter betrayal and total madness.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: warspite1


warspite1

As said, four books, two films and numerous documentaries - and not to forget Hugh Dowding's own thoughts on the subject that he had no trouble in making public - and the Poles have never been sidelined, downplayed or marginalised in any of them.

Was there pressure brought on by the Soviets not to include the Poles in the victory parade at the end of the war? It would appear so, and sadly that pressure was successful at the time. But that seems to confuse two separate issues.


By the way, I do love those that like to portray the British (French and Americans) and their treatment of Poland at the end of the war as some gross betrayal. I mean they NEVER bother to actually come up with an alternative as to what should have happened. They just throw mud in the usual holier-than-thou style but don't trouble to actually understand the situation and come up with what they think should have been done. The British (French and Americans) did NOT hand over Poland to the Communists. In case it escaped anyone's attention, Stalin was already in occupation having beaten the Red Army.

And what were the Western Allies to do? Go to war against the Soviet Union so soon after the end of the world's most bloody conflict? And with a country they were Allied to? How many British, French and American troops would have been up for that in 1945?

Short of threatening Moscow with nuclear destruction, there was NOTHING the Western Allies could do to save Poland.

Some of those Americans troops in Europe (and not just Patton) felt that they should have kept going because they figured that there would be a war with the Soviet Union anyway. There was not much that could for Poland have been done since the troops were stopped from going farther Eastward. Plus the local Polish Army had been knocked about in the Warsaw uprising when the Soviets did not advance. If the Americans would have taken Berlin and beyond up to the Polish border, something could have been done. Of course, the Americans may not have gone that far. Then again, that is speculation. If war would have broken out, think of Japanese T-34/85s . . .

warspite1

Well I don't believe for one nano-second there was a snowballs chance in hell of an attack on the USSR by the Western Allies. I also don't believe the troops would have stood for it - even if the leaders were dumb enough to even consider it (look at the Communist sympathy for the USSR when the war broke out in Britain, France etc.) and most of those conscripted troops had had enough and wanted to go home. They would have been praying for the end of Germany to achieve just that - and then - having done so, to be told they are now fighting the Soviets would have been unthinkable to a great many I suspect (and I am not talking about those with Communist leanings either). Imagine what the Soviets would have done in the Far East too. They wouldn't have invaded Manchuria for one thing. Of course that wouldn't matter ultimately to the fate of Japan but it would have been more costly in American lives if the Japanese suddenly receive help from the Soviets.

It would have been an utter betrayal and total madness.

True, it would have been madness but I only repeated what I heard and read.

[GaryChildress]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: GaryChildress

ORIGINAL: warspite1

warspite1

Stephen Bungay (The Most Dangerous Enemy) summed it up rather well:

It is ironic that the British and the Germans swapped the characteristics they commonly attribute to each other

He then lists five examples which I won't repeat as they are frankly too long - but include Leadership, carefully prepared, but flexible, system, discipline and control, team work, determination and ruthlessness. I would recommend this book to anyone interested in the battle.

As for the Poles, it is not an Untold Story [8|] - I've read four books on the Battle of Britain, seen two films and untold numbers of documentaries. The contribution of the Poles, Czechs, and all those who took part from within the Commonwealth, and from without, is never covered up, marginalised or in anyway downgraded. Dowding is on record as stating the battle may not have turned out the same without them. I've posted previously on these forums pictures of the tasteful Polish war memorial in North London and do so again here. [&o][&o][&o]

I had read somewhere about some controversy over a victory parade or something that the Poles weren't invited to participate in or something at the end of the war and one of the British commanders at the time commenting that the battle would have turned out the same had the Polish squadrons not been there and that sort of thing. I've heard there was a big stink having to do with the Poles not receiving proper credit that some felt they should have at the time. Is that true or is it mostly hype?

warspite1

As said, four books, two films and numerous documentaries - and not to forget Hugh Dowding's own thoughts on the subject that he had no trouble in making public - and the Poles have never been sidelined, downplayed or marginalised in any of them.

Was there pressure brought on by the Soviets not to include the Poles in the victory parade at the end of the war? It would appear so, and sadly that pressure was successful at the time. But that seems to confuse two separate issues.


By the way, I do love those that like to portray the British (French and Americans) and their treatment of Poland at the end of the war as some gross betrayal. I mean they NEVER bother to actually come up with an alternative as to what should have happened. They just throw mud in the usual holier-than-thou style but don't trouble to actually understand the situation and come up with what they think should have been done. The British (French and Americans) did NOT hand over Poland to the Communists. In case it escaped anyone's attention, Stalin was already in occupation having beaten the Red Army.

And what were the Western Allies to do? Go to war against the Soviet Union so soon after the end of the world's most bloody conflict? And with a country they were Allied to? How many British, French and American troops would have been up for that in 1945?

Short of threatening Moscow with nuclear destruction, there was NOTHING the Western Allies could do to save Poland.

Yes. All that sounds very true. But there will always be some who will want to stick it to the Western Allies and paint us as the bad guys.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Orm

The Bf-110 was very good aircraft if it was allowed to do what is was designed to do. However, in the Battle of Britain it was seldom allowed to do that and the aircraft was needlessly sacrificed. And its reputation has suffered since. I can argue that the Bf-110 was the best available fighter for Germany during this campaign. That is if it was used properly. And definitely for this discussion when considering the parameters for the discussion are "This should be considered without radio direction finding, Dowding, tactics, Spanish civil war experience and solely on the aircraft performance." And, when judged solely on aircraft performance, for the Battle of Britain, it is my belief that it was better than the Bf 109. Might even be better than the Spitfire.

I've also been suffering from the propaganda that the Bf-110 was a bad fighter design. But I recently have re-evaluated my opinion. May I suggest that you all go back and look at the Bf-110 anew and consider if it deserves the bad reputation that it got.

warspite1

I’d be interested to hear why you believe the Bf-110 was a better fighter than the Bf-109 and possibly the Spitfire.

[MickM2]

My only experience of 110s is Panzer Corps where they are very good at picking up the crumbs after the 109s have feasted. If Panzer Corps have modelled them correctly.

[nicwb]

I had the impression the 110 was ok at absorbing punishment which made it more suitable for going after unescorted bombers bombers such as in 1942-43 ?

[RangerJoe]

Yes, they were called a Zerstorer.

[GaryChildress]

ORIGINAL: MickM2

My only experience of 110s is Panzer Corps where they are very good at picking up the crumbs after the 109s have feasted. If Panzer Corps have modelled them correctly.

Panzer Corps has such a high level of abstraction, that I would doubt anything can be gleaned off Panzer Corps as to the actual performance and value of the Bf 110 in combat.

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Orm

The Bf-110 was very good aircraft if it was allowed to do what is was designed to do. However, in the Battle of Britain it was seldom allowed to do that and the aircraft was needlessly sacrificed. And its reputation has suffered since. I can argue that the Bf-110 was the best available fighter for Germany during this campaign. That is if it was used properly. And definitely for this discussion when considering the parameters for the discussion are "This should be considered without radio direction finding, Dowding, tactics, Spanish civil war experience and solely on the aircraft performance." And, when judged solely on aircraft performance, for the Battle of Britain, it is my belief that it was better than the Bf 109. Might even be better than the Spitfire.

I've also been suffering from the propaganda that the Bf-110 was a bad fighter design. But I recently have re-evaluated my opinion. May I suggest that you all go back and look at the Bf-110 anew and consider if it deserves the bad reputation that it got.

warspite1

I’d be interested to hear why you believe the Bf-110 was a better fighter than the Bf-109 and possibly the Spitfire.

Why the Bf 110 could be considered the best fighter during the Battle of Britain.

- It had the range to actually fight over Britain. In contrast to the Bf 109 which suffered negatively during this campaign since it had to operate on its maximum range. The BF 110 could reach targets in Scotland when the Bf 109 had to struggle to reach London.
- It had massive front firepower so it usually did severe damage when it hit an enemy aircraft. It also had lots of ammunition so it could fire more than twice that the single engines could.
- It was build for a high-side guns pass which it was excellent. Close to "untouchable" when it performed such attacks.
- It was also superior when used as "high escort" where Bf 110 squadrons were sent well ahead of the bombers to clear the skies of enemy aircraft
- However, it was later forced into the role as a "close escort" where none of its strengths came to use. In addition of being "sitting ducks" the fighter was somewhat weaker in turning dog fights.
- Despite this misuse of the BF 110 it had the best kill/loss ratio of all fighters during the Battle of Britain. 1.5 shot down enemy aircraft per Bf 110 lost. Or so I have read.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Orm

The Bf-110 was very good aircraft if it was allowed to do what is was designed to do. However, in the Battle of Britain it was seldom allowed to do that and the aircraft was needlessly sacrificed. And its reputation has suffered since. I can argue that the Bf-110 was the best available fighter for Germany during this campaign. That is if it was used properly. And definitely for this discussion when considering the parameters for the discussion are "This should be considered without radio direction finding, Dowding, tactics, Spanish civil war experience and solely on the aircraft performance." And, when judged solely on aircraft performance, for the Battle of Britain, it is my belief that it was better than the Bf 109. Might even be better than the Spitfire.

I've also been suffering from the propaganda that the Bf-110 was a bad fighter design. But I recently have re-evaluated my opinion. May I suggest that you all go back and look at the Bf-110 anew and consider if it deserves the bad reputation that it got.

warspite1

I’d be interested to hear why you believe the Bf-110 was a better fighter than the Bf-109 and possibly the Spitfire.

Why the Bf 110 could be considered the best fighter during the Battle of Britain.

- It had the range to actually fight over Britain. In contrast to the Bf 109 which suffered negatively during this campaign since it had to operate on its maximum range. The BF 110 could reach targets in Scotland when the Bf 109 had to struggle to reach London.
- It had massive front firepower so it usually did severe damage when it hit an enemy aircraft. It also had lots of ammunition so it could fire more than twice that the single engines could.
- It was build for a high-side guns pass which it was excellent. Close to "untouchable" when it performed such attacks.
- It was also superior when used as "high escort" where Bf 110 squadrons were sent well ahead of the bombers to clear the skies of enemy aircraft
- However, it was later forced into the role as a "close escort" where none of its strengths came to use. In addition of being "sitting ducks" the fighter was somewhat weaker in turning dog fights.
- Despite this misuse of the BF 110 it had the best kill/loss ratio of all fighters during the Battle of Britain. 1.5 shot down enemy aircraft per Bf 110 lost. Or so I have read.

warspite1

Some interesting points. Not borne out by Bungay's book - which paints a very different picture - but that is just one source. Where is Neilster when you need him? I think I'll PM him - he knows a lot about aircraft.

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Some interesting points. Not borne out by Bungay's book - which paints a very different picture - but that is just one source. Where is Neilster when you need him? I think I'll PM him - he knows a lot about aircraft.

Please do PM Neilster. I would really like his input. [:)] [&o]

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Some interesting points. Not borne out by Bungay's book - which paints a very different picture - but that is just one source. Where is Neilster when you need him? I think I'll PM him - he knows a lot about aircraft.

Please do PM Neilster. I would really like his input. [:)] [&o]

warspite1

Done

[Orm]

Anyway. I think my points are strong enough for the Bf-110 to be included as a contender in a contest of the best fighter during the Battle of Britain.

Although I am sure it wouldn't win the popular vote in such a contest. It has to bad reputation for that. And it isn't as cool as the Spitfire or Bf 109. [:D]

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Orm

Anyway. I think my points are strong enough for the Bf-110 to be included as a contender in a contest of the best fighter during the Battle of Britain.

Although I am sure it wouldn't win the popular vote in such a contest. It has to bad reputation for that. And it isn't as cool as the Spitfire or Bf 109. [:D]

warspite1

The Bf-110 had some qualities as a fighter bomber (see what the Erprobugsgruppe 210 did with it) and was badly misused. But it can't be considered the best air superiority fighter surely? and that - I thought - is what the OP meant. Although perhaps he didn't.

[Orm]

The numbers I have in one source in kill/loss ratio. So going by that ratio it was the best air superiority fighter. Although I would like to have those figures verified.

1.5 Bf 110
1.4 Spitfire
1.4 Bf 109
1.2 Hurricane

[Freyr Oakenshield]

Why, the 109 of course...! Just look at that sexy yellow nose AND those slender tempting wings on the right and left... it was simply the best, better than all the rest...

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Orm

The numbers I have in one source in kill/loss ratio. So going by that ratio it was the best air superiority fighter. Although I would like to have those figures verified.

1.5 Bf 110
1.4 Spitfire
1.4 Bf 109
1.2 Hurricane

warspite1

But are those kills all fighters? It would seem unlikely because yes, if it killed more fighters than killed it, then it is the superior air superiority fighter. That goes against everything I've ever read about this aircraft - German and British sources. I wonder if there are a number of Blenheim/Wellington bombers in the kills.