Battle of Britain

[Kuokkanen]

ORIGINAL: 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.

I was thinking about the same. Also Wikipedia says Bf 110 was used as a night fighter. As such it could have dropped Beaufighters and Mosquitos while escorting bombers.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Kuokkanen

ORIGINAL: 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.

I was thinking about the same. Also Wikipedia says Bf 110 was used as a night fighter. As such it could have dropped Beaufighters and Mosquitos while escorting bombers.

warspite1

The night fighter role came after the battle iirc - and I don't think the Beaufighter - and certainly not the Mosquito - had entered service in the summer of 1940 (and defo not to escort bombers)?

[rico21]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: rico21

The Butterfly Effect, during the battle was created on August 24 by a lost Heinkel 111, which drops its bombs on the London docks.
On the night of August 24, Berlin was bombed.
London becomes the main target instead of the RAF which can recover and gain the upper hand.
Vae Victis n ° 151.

warspite1

According to Bungay:

"The Luftwaffe's turn on London was a relief, but it was not critical. Even if the Luftwaffe had continued to pound the airfields, the counter-measures put in place and the robustness of the system would still have ensured its survival. Whether they attacked London or Biggin Hill or any other target made no difference whatever to the loss rate in the air. Some of the Luftwaffe's most successful days of air fighting, 11, 14 and 28 September, came after they turned on the capital".

Re the bit in bold. This suggests the RAF were losing and only after the move on London did the RAF recover and gain the upper hand. I'd be interested to see the source for that and at what point in the battle - in terms of kill ratios - the Germans ever came close to winning the battle.

The article suggests that the raids on London put unescorted bombers at the mercy of British (and foreign) fighter pilots.
He stresses the importance of radar and aerial detection coverage (the first in the world at the time).
The sources are among the best in the world since they are French.[:D]

[RangerJoe]

Radar and aerial detection did not shoot down any aircraft. I did enable interception of those aircraft. Even if it was only 6 Hurricanes against 150 German aircraft.

[rico21]

The article also talks about secret weapons.[;)]

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: rico21

The article also talks about secret weapons.[;)]

Well, that fighter worked nice in its debut.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

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.

Nah. Sorry. That doesn't cut it. No more so than saying that the Soviets made (and really liked) use of the P-39 for ground attack and therefore it should have been in the discussion of the best fighters for use in SoPac. Above 10,000 feet-commonly required for use in SoPac-that thing was a dog. Below 10,000 feet (commonly used on the Eastern Front) for ground attack, it had its charms.

Different front and different uses *must* be part of the discussion. If the discussion involves the best fighter in the Battle of Britain-as the fighter was used in the Battle of Britain-then the record of that airframe in that configuration and usage and employment is how it should be considered. Not some hypothetical spreadsheet about how it coulda/woulda/shoulda been used more effectively.

The Bf-110 in the Battle of Britain was one of the British's best ways of killing off German pilots.

I like to make a couple of points.

1) Different front and uses "*must*" not be part of the discussion at all. As the original poster stated. Only the aircraft itself should be evaluated.
2) And even if considering how it was used I disagreed that it was "was one of the British's best ways of killing off German pilots". Its kill per loss ratio during the battle suggests something entirely different.
3) And how is should have been used is not really all that hypothetical since it was used that way in the beginning of the battle. The use I suggest is not some theory. It is what it was built for. Tactic was changed because bomber losses mounted, and bomber losses might have decreased when the tactic changed but then the Bf 110 losses did increase. It is not because the Bf 110 was found wanting but because the leader (HG) preferred to sacrifice Bf 110s instead of bombers. It is not the fault of the aircraft when the commander decides to throw his fighters away for no real purpose at all.

Hi Orm,

Thank you for your reply. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. Your novel manuscript, that I am not privy to, does not jibe with anything I've read about the performance of the Bf-110. So I am not in a position to weigh the verity of your uncited source.

Cheers.

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Hey Ormster, can you give the title of the book you've got that info from please?

Many thanks [:)]

See point 4 in this article.
https://www.historyextra.com/period/sec ... luftwaffe/



I'll get back to you on the book after I've checked if there is an English version of it.

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Hi Orm,

Thank you for your reply. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. Your novel manuscript, that I am not privy to, does not jibe with anything I've read about the performance of the Bf-110. So I am not in a position to weigh the verity of your uncited source.

Cheers.

Fair enough. I didn't expect this discussion. Originally, I just wanted to say that I thought it wrong to dismiss this aircraft out of hand in a discussion about the fighters during the battle of Britain. Mainly because it was not as bad as its reputation suggests. And, more importantly, it actually had the range to actually fight an air battle over Britain as opposed to the Bf 109 which, basically, could fight the battle of the Channel and Kent.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Hi Orm,

Thank you for your reply. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. Your novel manuscript, that I am not privy to, does not jibe with anything I've read about the performance of the Bf-110. So I am not in a position to weigh the verity of your uncited source.

Cheers.

Fair enough. I didn't expect this discussion. Originally, I just wanted to say that I thought it wrong to dismiss this aircraft out of hand in a discussion about the fighters during the battle of Britain. Mainly because it was not as bad as its reputation suggests. And, more importantly, it actually had the range to actually fight an air battle over Britain as opposed to the Bf 109 which, basically, could fight the battle of the Channel and Kent.

Maybe it had the range but not the ability to be an escort fighter during the Battle of Britain. Maybe it could have performed well in the Sweep role but the enemy could have avoided it - or set up a trap.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Hey Ormster, can you give the title of the book you've got that info from please?

Many thanks [:)]

See point 4 in this article.
https://www.historyextra.com/period/sec ... luftwaffe/



I'll get back to you on the book after I've checked if there is an English version of it.

Couldn't open your link, sorry.

However, this was a very thorough discussion of the Me-110 before, during and after the Battle of Britain. Suffice to say that it reclaimed its potential later in the war, particularly as a nightfighter in the Me-110-G4 configuration.

https://www.historynet.com/how-the-me-1 ... aneuvering.


But in the Battle of Britain per se (the point of this thread), it was disastrous. "The Luftwaffe began the battle of Britain with 237 Me-110s. By the end of that fight, it had lost 223". Haven't seen any A2A kill comparatives that may suggest that it shot down this many Allied planes during BOB. Its comparatively poor dogfighting capabilities, large size and lack of maneuverability made it easy prey. It should not have been placed in a close escort, distant escort or any other type of escort role, but it was.

Could it have done better in a 'boom and zoom' mechanic? Quite possibly. But it wasn't used that way.

Worst plane ever? No. It had its charms. But best plane performance in the Battle of Britain? You've not shown anything to merit such a revisionist approach, Orm. I'll entertain your statistics to buttress your argument, but so far you've not shown us anything.

OP: I can't find much to differentiate the performance of the Me/Bf-109 and the Supermarine Spitfire Mk. I. As others have said, the Me/Bf-109 was put in an unenviable situation at the end of its operational tether. Even there, it held its own against the Spits. With the Spits' proximity to their own bases, radar plotting and other advantages, I'm surprised that the Brits didn't come out even further ahead than they did. Tough to identify a pure winner in the case of the airframes.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Hey Ormster, can you give the title of the book you've got that info from please?

Many thanks [:)]

See point 4 in this article.
https://www.historyextra.com/period/sec ... luftwaffe/



I'll get back to you on the book after I've checked if there is an English version of it.

Couldn't open your link, sorry.

However, this was a very thorough discussion of the Me-110 before, during and after the Battle of Britain. Suffice to say that it reclaimed its potential later in the war, particularly as a nightfighter in the Me-110-G4 configuration.

https://www.historynet.com/how-the-me-1 ... aneuvering.


But in the Battle of Britain per se (the point of this thread), it was disastrous. "The Luftwaffe began the battle of Britain with 237 Me-110s. By the end of that fight, it had lost 223". Haven't seen any A2A kill comparatives that may suggest that it shot down this many Allied planes during BOB. Its comparatively poor dogfighting capabilities, large size and lack of maneuverability made it easy prey. It should not have been placed in a close escort, distant escort or any other type of escort role, but it was.

Could it have done better in a 'boom and zoom' mechanic? Quite possibly. But it wasn't used that way.

Worst plane ever? No. It had its charms. But best plane performance in the Battle of Britain? You've not shown anything to merit such a revisionist approach, Orm. I'll entertain your statistics to buttress your argument, but so far you've not shown us anything.

OP: I can't find much to differentiate the performance of the Me/Bf-109 and the Supermarine Spitfire Mk. I. As others have said, the Me/Bf-109 was put in an unenviable situation at the end of its operational tether. Even there, it held its own against the Spits. With the Spits' proximity to their own bases, radar plotting and other advantages, I'm surprised that the Brits didn't come out even further ahead than they did. Tough to identify a pure winner in the case of the airframes.

The British did not have enough trained pilots in reserve. They send pilots to active squadrons with 10 hours or so in Spitfires.

The Spitfire and the Hurricane could out turn the Me-109 but the carb would die when they dived but the Me-109 had a fuel injected engine so it could dive away from trouble.

The Hurricane with the wooden propeller was slow accelerating, but when it was given a better propeller it was much better. The Hurricane had a thicker wing which slowed its speed and dive but it was very stable and easier to fly. A much better gun platform for shooting down enemy bombers than the Spitfire which was harder to handle.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Hi Orm,

Thank you for your reply. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. Your novel manuscript, that I am not privy to, does not jibe with anything I've read about the performance of the Bf-110. So I am not in a position to weigh the verity of your uncited source.

Cheers.

Fair enough. I didn't expect this discussion. Originally, I just wanted to say that I thought it wrong to dismiss this aircraft out of hand in a discussion about the fighters during the battle of Britain. Mainly because it was not as bad as its reputation suggests. And, more importantly, it actually had the range to actually fight an air battle over Britain as opposed to the Bf 109 which, basically, could fight the battle of the Channel and Kent.

warspite1

I would comment on the range question as follows:

Too much is made of the range. Don’t get me wrong, the short range could have impacted the pilots as there was little margin for error, and the extra time could have allowed some benefit. But what was the practical effect? Was the lack of range going to stop the Germans from gaining air superiority over the invasion beaches? Was the lack of range going to stop the Bf-109 from dog-fighting over the south-east of England? Was the lack of range going to stop the Germans from escorting its bombers against many of the key aircraft factories in the south? Well, no. The lack of range would have been a hindrance if the German goal was long term economic warfare – but not to achieve its goal of wiping the RAF from the skies over the southeast of England. And remember, that was the Luftwaffe’s job. If the Luftwaffe shot down RAF fighters over Kent, in the numbers expected, the RAF would have had to keep bringing reserves south until there were none – or give up the south. It was quite simple – the Luftwaffe had to clear the skies to set up the conditions for an invasion – not to fight a battle over Britain.

The Bf-109 had seven seconds worth of ammunition for its canon. Extra range would not have altered that. As the British found, machine guns alone (for which the Bf-109 had sixty seconds worth of ammunition) were not as effective. I would be interested to know how many German Bf-109 pilots that engaged in combat over the skies of southeast England ever came home with any unused ammunition…. My guess (and it is my opinion) is not many – and certainly no cannon ammunition.

But effectiveness of an air superiority fighter still comes back to the kill ratios. Does this thing kill more enemy than is killed itself? And the idea that the Bf-110 had the best kill ratio I just don’t understand given just everything written about the battle, and everything written about the aircraft’s performance and inability to dog-fight. For example it’s been suggested that the Bf-110 was initially used in its proper role and only when it was ordered to stick closely to the bombers did it begin to suffer. But if that is the case then what is being argued is that the Bf-110 kill ratio (apparently the best of all fighters) must have been even higher initially (because later losses when used incorrectly would have dragged that ratio down to ‘only’ 1.5). So what would the kill ratio have been before the ‘dumb’ Germans stopped it from being used effectively? And if it was proving to be such an effective killer then why stop using it in that way?

As we all know, there are lies, damned lies and statistics, but something is very odd about that kill ratio……

Finally, as for the link, I picked up this:

It is a fact that just when RAF Fighter Command was on the brink of destruction as a result of German air raids against its ground organisation

That's an interesting 'fact'. I'd love to see them try and substantiate that 'fact' with some evidence....

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: warspite1
As we all know, there are lies, damned lies and statistics, but something is very odd about that kill ratio……

You know, it wouldn't surprise me if-through the whole war-the Me-110's kill ratio was 1.5:1. Once you get away from dogfighting over Britain, it had a nice run as a nightfighter and shot down droves of (mostly British) bombers for scant loss. It took the Brits a long time to figure out the Schrage Musik attacks on their night bombers and that likely led to 'scores' sufficient to offset previous lopsided losses.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: warspite1
As we all know, there are lies, damned lies and statistics, but something is very odd about that kill ratio……

You know, it wouldn't surprise me if-through the whole war-the Me-110's kill ratio was 1.5:1.

warspite1

Which has what to do with Orm's book and the 1.5:1 kill ratio stated to have been achieved during the Battle of Britain?

Besides which, if the 'good times' of Night-Fighting and the Russian Front only pushed the ratio up to 1.5:1 for the whole war, then what the hell would their ratio for the Battle of Britain have been [X(]

I guess this is what being in the Twilight Zone is like

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzlG28B-R8Y


Damn I wish I hadn't clicked on that link... reminds me of Tower of Terror and that is where I would have flown out to this week had Covid- not reared its ugly head [:(]

[The Land]

It didn't matter a great deal, the Royal Navy had such overwhelming superiority that whatever happened in the sky, there was never a serious risk of German invasion of Britain. Both sides focused on the "Battle of Britain" for propaganda reasons (particularly on the British side) but the matter was actually settled in Scapa Flow in 1919.

[MickM2]

I didn't expect this thread to have so many tangents especially as I tried to rein it in from the start. So in summary the 109s dived better and the spits turned quicker. But so did bi planes and we saw what happened to bi planes in the Polish, French and Russian campaigns to the hands of the dreaded 109s. What gave spits the advantage was the turn at speed which bi planes could never achieve. Spits would fire at the bombers and hit some. 109s would come to the rescue but spits would just turn away and the 109 dive would be inconsequential in this theatre. So in the Battle of Britain Sptitfires were the superior fighter and even though 110s were excluded from the brief I bow to their impact and their robust grace. Here is a toast to all those who fought in the Battle of Britain.

[Rebel Yell]

ORIGINAL: Neilster

"Where is Neilster when you need him? I think I'll PM him - he knows a lot about aircraft."

Sorry, but I'm busy and many of these comments are moronic.

So true and should have been the final post.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Rebel Yell

ORIGINAL: Neilster

Sorry, but I'm busy and many of these comments are moronic.

So true and should have been the final post.

warspite1

Why do you suggest that a post that adds nothing (other than a cryptic statement about many ((unspecificed) comments being moronic) be the final post?

There is nothing in the thread, as far as I know, that is against the rules of the forum, just a bunch of posters happy to give their views, opinions and comment on an interesting topic. So what's got you so upset you want it ended?

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Rebel Yell

ORIGINAL: Neilster

Sorry, but I'm busy and many of these comments are moronic.

So true and should have been the final post.

warspite1

Why do you suggest that a post that adds nothing (other than a cryptic statement about many ((unspecificed) comments being moronic) be the final post?

There is nothing in the thread, as far as I know, that is against the rules of the forum, just a bunch of posters happy to give their views, opinions and comment on an interesting topic. So what's got you so upset you want it ended?

Also, how does that make it moronic?