Battle of Britain

[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.

[Zorch]

What if the Dutch had some Bf-110s? Is that in any of the AE mods?

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Zorch

What if the Dutch had some Bf-110s? Is that in any of the AE mods?

No. I think John III has several mods with the Japanese flying Me-262s in 1943, but none with the Dutch flying Bf-110s.

[Zorch]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: Zorch

What if the Dutch had some Bf-110s? Is that in any of the AE mods?

No. I think John III has several mods with the Japanese flying Me-262s in 1943, but none with the Dutch flying Bf-110s.

To make it fair John III should give the Allies F-8 Sabres and B-47s. [8D]

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Zorch
F-8 Sabres

Dood.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Orm
With that argument you can claim that the French were the best as well since they won the war.

No can do. Vichy brought their overall record for the conflict down to .500. One on the winning team, one on the losing team. They have to get averaged together.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Zorch

The Bf-110 was akin to the P-38 - not a good dog-fighter, but very good when used properly.

To be fair, the Allies in the Pacific Theater had few good dog-fighters. By very definition, the Allied techniques specifically precluded a manuevering fight with Oscars and Zeroes, as that was a losing strategy. The Allies did have a number of great fighters (including later models of the P-38) that performed very well in the A2A arena.

"Best fighter" does not = "Best (manuevering) dog-fighter".

[Zorch]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: Orm
With that argument you can claim that the French were the best as well since they won the war.

No can do. Vichy brought their overall record for the conflict down to .500. One on the winning team, one on the losing team. They have to get averaged together.

Vichy was an expansion franchise that folded. They weren't playing in the Premier League.

[Zorch]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: Zorch
F-8 Sabres

Dood.

Be honest - you just wanted to use that smiley.

[RangerJoe]

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 don't think that the Soviets used it for ground attack but as a regular fighter. At least from what I read.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Orm


This is, in my humble opinion, a flawed contest because the 110 is excluded. It is like asking "which is the bestest football player of the decade? Lionel Messi, or Neymar? Modric can also be considered, but not Ronaldo."

warspite1

Sorry but having a best fighter of 1940 competition without the Bf-110, is like going deer hunting without an accordion.

[:D]

Well, since someone did bring back up deer hunting and accordions:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UU1b_D4pLu4

[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.

[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.

[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.

[warspite1]

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.

warspite1

I have looked at what books I have and I can't see anything that suggests the Bf-110 kill ratio was higher than the Bf-109 or the Spitfire. But logically how can it be? If the Bf-110 was capable of such a feat then it by definition, was the air superiority fighter of the battle. If it was better than the Spitfire and Hurricane then why did these aircraft need protection from the Bf-109. Why weren't they simply assigned the Bf-109 role?

In terms of performance, it was fast (I believe faster than the Hurricane?) but in terms of acceleration and manoeuvrability, it was poor. The Germans themselves stated "it would take a prize wrestler to move the joystick at the speeds flown in combat".

Bungay quotes an incident against the Swiss in June 1940. A Swiss Bf-109 shot down a Bf-110 that encroached into Swiss airspace. Goring got upset and sent 32 Bf-110's into Swiss airspace to provoke a combat. They were attacked by 14 Bf-109's. The Swiss shot down 4 Zerstorer for the just one damaged aircraft in return.

I am still puzzled by the kill ratios [&:]

[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.

[Simulacra53]

<snip>

[Simulacra53]

Never mind.

[warspite1]

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

Many thanks [:)]

[Zorch]

This can be settled by a reenactment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d67rhIzUhhk