In Defense of the Messerschmitt Bf 110
Vložit
- čas přidán 6. 06. 2024
- Get Started with War Thunder for Free on PC, PS5 or Xbox X|S here and unlock an exclusive bonus:
wtplay.link/militaryaviationw...
- Disclaimer: This video is sponsored by War Thunder
The Messerschmitt Bf 110 (Me 110) has not the best of reputations but while it certainly fell short of the expectations, was it really a bad plane?
- Check out my books -
Ju 87 Stuka - stukabook.com
STG-44 Assault Platoon - sturmzug.com
German Panzer Company 1941 - www.hdv470-7.com/
- Support -
Patreon: / milavhistory
Channel Memberships: / @militaryaviationhistory
PayPal: www.paypal.me/MilAvHis
- Museum -
RAF Museum London: www.rafmuseum.org.uk/
- Social Media -
Twitter: / milavhistory
Instagram: / milaviationhistory
- Sources -
BArch, RL 16-10/10 Lufttaktik Teil B6.
Betriebsanleitung Bf 110 C mit Anhang Bf 110 D-0, Messerschmitt A.G., February 1940
Flugstrecken Bf 110 D u. E mit DB 601A, February 1941.
D. (Luft) T.2110 F-4 Teil 0, Bf 110 F-4 Flugzeug-Handbuch, August 1943.
Dunn, Richard; Exploding Fuel Tanks - Sage of technology that changed the course of the Pacific air war, Richard Dunn, May 2011.
Forczyk, Robert; Bf 110 vs Lancaster 1942 - 1945, Osprey Publishing, United Kingdom, Oxford: 2013.
Franke, Hermann; Handbuch der neuzeitlichen Wehrwissenschaften - Dritter Band 2. Die Luftwaffe, Walter de Grunter & Co, Berlin: 1939.
Kehrt, Christian; Moderne Krieger - Die Technikerfahrungen deutscher Militärpiloten 1910-1945, Krieg in der Geschichte Band 58, Ferdinand Schöninigh, Germany, Paderborn, 1998.
Middlebrook, Martin; and Everitt, Chris; The Bomber Command War Diaries - An Operational Reference Book, 1939 - 1945, Penguin Books, United Kingdom, Harmondsworth: 1985.
Murawski, Marek J.; Messerschmitt Bf 110 Volume 1, Kagero Monographs Vol. 16, 2010.
Morgen, Eric B., Shacklady, Edward; Spitfire: The History, 5th impression, Key Books Ltd., Stamford, United Kingdom, 2000.
Radinger, Willy et al; Messerschmitt Me 109, 1998.
Stenograpischer Bericht über die GL-Besprechung, 27. April 1942.
Thetford, Own; Aircraft of the Royal Air Force 1918-57, Putnam, London: 1957.
TsAMO; Lufttaktik - Leitfaden für den Unterricht auf den Luft-Kriegsschulen, 1939.
TsAMO; Ausgegebene Umdrucke über Luftwaffenlehre, 7. Lehrgang, 1942.
Völker, Karl-Heinz; Die Deutsche Luftwaffe 1933-1939 - Aufbau, Führung und Rüstung der Luftwaffe sowie die Entwicklung der deutschen Luftkriegstheorie, DVA, Germany, Stuttgart, 1967.
Wehner, Jens; Technik können Sie von der Taktik nicht trennen - Die Jagdflieger der Wehrmacht, Campus Verlag, Deutschland, Frankfurt, 2022.
- Timecodes -
00:00 - War Thunder [Sponsored Segment]
00:35 - Intro
01:20 - Messerschmitt Bf 110
01:45 - Battle of Britain
02:50 - Bf 110 requirements & development
06:00 - The fighter 'of the future'
10:49 - The range problem
14:52 - Advantage: 2nd crew man
17:36 - War Thunder [Sponsored Segment]
17:43 - Transition to fighter-bomber
21:44 - Bf 110 Vs bombers
22:39 - Night fighter
26:40 - Comparison (Mosquito, P-38)
30:06 - War Thunder [Sponsored Segment]
31:29 - Outro
- Audio -
Music and Sfx from Epidemic Sound
#militaryaviationhistory #Bf110 #sponsored
For an aircraft that was designed for a relatively specific task, during a time of rapidly developing technology, I'd say that the 110 gave better service than perhaps it had a right to.
In the Netherlands we basically had an anti Bf-110. The Fokker G-1. It was not designed for long range escort, although it could. It was more like an endurance interceptor. One that would already be high up in the air on combat air patrol when the bombers would come. The Netherlands is a small country, so there would not be enough time for fighters to scramble before the bombers hit their targets. So, there was this doctorine. The Fokker G-1 did perform really well. But like a lot of good vehicles during the war, there were just not enough of them.
I think the germans didn't ahve the flexibility of the allies to move planes around to different places wher the obsolete plane had a margin of superiority for awhile.. 110 in Russia was effective...but not in Britain. Couldn't move ti to africa as same opponents as britain. Think of p38 going to the pacific, p40's fighting at low altitude to protect targets, and other 'tactical' applications to use the plane's strength until something better was available.
There are a couple of things to note about the Me 110.
1 It was in production and widespread service before the war started before 1939. The first Beaufighter Squadron became operational in September 1940. The Mosquito as reconnaissance aircraft wasn't till 1941 and the P-38 barely made 1942 in service.
2 Its hard to understand the Me 110 without the background from Rudiger Kosins book "The German fighter". Kosin designed a competing aircraft along with Focke Wulf. These were all 3 man aircraft. Messerschmitt submitted a non conforming tender for a two engine aircraft, the Me 110 because they calculated that a 3 man aircraft was simply to heavy.
The Purpose of the Me 110 was to
a/ Fly ahead of bombers to shoot down enemy fighters as they rose up.
b/ Fly low and attack enemy FLAK, airfields with bombs and powerful frontal armament to destroy airfield defenses and aircraft.
c/ Bad Weather Fighter. The Aircraft had an artificial horizon for instrument flying and a FuBl 2 blind landing system. The radio operator rear gunner also could navigate the aircraft by triangulating beacons and even use a an aeronautical sextant if needed. So the Me 110 could fly safely at night and in storms, something that would come in useful when it was used as a night fighter.
d/ attack bombers using its heavy armament.
3 During the Battle of Britain Hermann Goering ordered the Me 109 and Me 110 to close escort Luftwaffe bombers by flying in formation with them. This was to protect the bombers from RAF head on attacks. It made the Me 110 very vulnerable. When the aircraft was able to fly freely it was less vulnerable and seemed to hold its own quite often.
I keep thinking that Germans lose an important chance when decided not switch to the falke designed by Kurt Tankinstead of relying on the Me-110
Yes, the post BoB allied propaganda continues to denigrate the Me110, but it's kill ratio in the BoB was better than the other fighters, with the Hurricane being the worst.
In other words, when used as intended as a hunter, 110s were very effective in the BoB and their kill ratio would have been even higher. Suggested reading - Me110 books by John Vasco.
My father was a 110 pilot in the Hungarian Airforce. One time they were training over Lake Balaton. At this time my father was not piloting, but operating as the rear gunner. The pilot decided he would show off to the female bathers. He repeatedly dove the plane low to the water and on one occasion, one of the props clipped the water and the plane went into the lake. They came very close to being court martialed.
They came very close to being killed in that crash(!)
I thought "Top Gun," was just a film. Do you mean to say that fighter pilots really are that stupid?
@@paulbeesley8283 yeah, stupid can be found everywhere.
@@ElGrandoCaymano time of war, so close to being shot!
But... did he pick up ?? You're not telling us the good bit !
In the village that I grew up in, we had a night fighter ace who shot down nine British heavy bombers. He of course flew the Bf-110G and he survived the war. So the plane can't have been all bad.
What's his name?
It was the most successful night fighter of the war, if not one of it's best.
The Luftwaffe took awhile to figure that out and, I'm not sure whether to be thankful that fewer british airmen died or mournful that more german civilians did.
Was it Mr. Zorner? I read the book he wrote about his time night fighting and really liked it, since I feel first hand acocunts of this kind of warfare are rare.
That is the sort of job I would expect it to be good for.
I would also expect it to use the forward firing cannons to destroy approaching B17s.
The problem would be any fighter escort so it would be necessary to dodge them.
In my village, when i was a child, there was an old guy driving his bike with rubber boots summer or winter. He had psychological problems and was very wired. People called him "fastest flyer of Germany" (schnellster flieger deutschlands) because he was flying the fastest plain during wwII. (most likely me262?)
As a child i didn't understand what that meant. Now i regrett not having talked to him about it.
The rapid advances in aviation technology really makes looking into these designs fascinating. So many "good idea at the time" projects that quickly were obsolescent.
The only Aircraft that doesn't really fit into this is the Swordfish. It was outdated at the time it was designed
The British obsession with turret fighters is a good example.
The 110 was not designed for night fighting, but turned out to be superb at it. It demands respect in that arena.
Yep it was a solid design perfect for that role , even if not designed for that.
Just like the defiant
@@ridleymain9234 More like the Beaufighter.
Curious question. How does the requirements for night-fighters differ to day-fighters?
@@gabrielho1874 At a guess I’d say stable platform with room for a radio/radar operator, good communication between crew members, reasonable turn of speed and patrol time.
I’m sure there are other aspects I’ve missed.
*Hope you enjoy this one!* Two brief points:
- Regarding the third crew member (with radar). Depending on what book you read, it's either said it stayed with two, or it had three. I looked at the manual, and the language is ambiguous. It talks about a radar operator (with a different noun - hence why I went with a 'third'), but it does not specify as far as I can tell whether this person also doubles as the gunner or not. I think there might be some flexibility, theoretically there is enough room even with Schräge Musik for two in the back BUT I also have my doubts looking at the seat. As multiple books disagree with each other and the manual doesn't help, I'll move on to verify this with some NJ files when I can.
- the backgun was changed from a single 7.92mm MG-15 to a double 7.92mm MG-81Z. I didn't think that was important enough to mention in the grand scheme of things, but maybe someone would like to have it pointed out...so there you go
You’re the 🐐 of historians Chris!!!! The best of the best of the best!!!!
Sounds like the same fog of war concerning the TBM Avenger's third crewman. He was meant to be there, but exigencies often bumped him for extra fuel.
Pin this post please Chris - it's very useful, thank you.
Rudiger Kosins "The German Fighter" has much information on the contract as the Ar 234 aerodynamacist designed a competitor to the Me 110.
Regarding comparisons; a good comparison would have been the Fokker G-1 "Jacht-kruiser" ("jagd-Kreuzer"; Hunting Cruiser") which was developed with a similar role as the Bf-110 with the first flight only 10 months after the Bf-119. Unfortunately many of them where destroyed on the ground by the German surprise attacks, but those that survived did a decent job of defending the country. Eight were able to enter combat but they were reduced to three at the end of the first day. Despite that they won 14 confirmed aerial kills and a further 167 "kills" of Ju-52 transports on the ground. Due to the air superiority of the much more numerous German fighters the G-1 was reduced to performing ground attacks, which it seems to have done quite well seeing how many "Auntie Ju"s they managed to destroy.
After the defeat of the Netherlands the German Luftwaffe used 35-40 G-1s in the Flugzeugführerschule (B) 8 as training aircraft for crews destined to fly the Bf-110 (those numbers includes those that were being build by Fokker or were already completed but without weapons available).
I'm sure there will be (favourable) reports on its performance written by the Luftwaffe or they wouldn't have utilised it as an advanced trainer.
The only contemporary equivalent of the Bf-110 I can come up with is the Dutch Fokker G1 "Jachtkruiser" ("Jachtkreuzer"/"hunt cruiser") which caused a sensation at its unveiling at the 1936 Paris Air Salon where it was given the nickname (Grim) Reaper. It had a similar 2-3 men crew, with eight .303 Browning machine guns in the nose in stead of the four .331 of the Bf-110 but could be equipped with two 23 mm Madsen canon combined with two machine guns. For defence it had a single rear facing machine gun like the Bf-110. It carried less fuel, had less powerful radial engines, but was also much lighter than the Bf-110 resulting in a similar top speed, but longer range. Being lighter I suspect it would have been a little more nimble than the Bf-110 but no match against the Bf-109.
Fokker had built 63 units but only 23 aircraft were operational as the necessary armament was no longer being supplied. After the surprise attack by German forces on the airfields only nine remained operational, reduced to three being deemed still airworthy after day 1. Yet despite those small numbers they managed to score 14 aerial kills and damage or destroy many of the German Ju-52's that had landed in the Netherlands. After defeating the Netherlands, Germany took possession of the remaining G1's and used them as training aircraft for future Bf-110 crews.
I think if the BF 110 had been primarily used for bomber interception and ground attack there'd be a different take on its WW2 performance. But that's not how it worked out. I've always liked twin-engine fighters, especially the P-38, and the BF 110 will always be an aircraft on my "Must Have" list.
The mosquito is much further up my list than those two.
I love to think Mosquito was a twin-engine fighter (atually interceptor) as well. So beautiful.
Don't forget about the F7F Tigercat...
Don’t forget the TIE fighter (twin ion engine) :->
@@bravalloy it wasn't much of a day fighter. It could do virtually everything else.
Regardless of how good or bad it was, I think it's a beautiful aircraft.
I do too.
I made a kit model of it a very long time ago and doing so makes you appreciate it's fine lines and proportions.
So do I. I had a model ME 110 as a kid.
Definitely. It's my second-favourite twin-engine fighter, behind the P-38. :)
Im more of a fan of the rounded design of its successor, Me-410. But the 110 is a beauty nonetheless.
Agreed, as airplane obsessed kid the 110 was my favorite its beautiful
Two engine heavy fighters are my favourite WW2 aircrafts and Bf 110 is on top of my list. Such a beautiful machine.
The basic concept is pretty much the same as with modern multirole fighters. Two engines, 2 crew members, long range and capable for aerial combat as well as ground strikes. When Bf110 was made the technology just wasn´t ready for the concept to work in all of the aspects.
Tbh it also suffers from the same drawbacks. Most twin seater fighters are carrier planes, where the second crewman historically is more necessary, and you want two engines to avoid ditching in the water if an engine fails.
-The technology was there in 1937 Germany to make a twin engine fighter competitive with a single engine fighter though I agree it was a challenge. What was lacking was the Luftwaffe doctrine and that came out of lack of DB601 engines. That twin engine fighter would have been Kurt Tank's Fw 187 and aircraft which with the same engines was 100kmhr faster and had 80% more range than the Me 109. An aircraft's dog fighting ability is determined by 1 Power to Weight Ratio 2 Wing Loading 3 Aerodynamic efficiency & Speed. Of these power to weight ratio is probably the more important. The Me 110 was simply too heavy to compete with a single engine aircraft because of the two seat requirements. I read that the structural and other provisions made to allow a second crew member to be carried added over 800lbs to the Me 110 weight. A purpose designed twin engine single seat fighter can be built with the same power to weight ratio as a single, even better.
-The problem with the Fw 187 was that in 1937/38 Erhardt Milch is worried about the lack of DB601 engines. He would rather have 2 Me 109E than 1 Fw 187. The Me 110 did a lot of jobs due to the second seat so he allowed it only to proceed in development with the Jumo 210 engine which doomed it to second rate performance.
-Had the Fw 187 with DB601 engines replaced 75% of Me 110 in the Battle of Britain then the Luftwaffe would have had: a/ an aircraft that could escort bombers all the way to maximum range. 2 had an fighter than could roam over all of Britain (not just 35%) and 3 had a twin engine fighter vastly faster than Me 109E, Me 109F and Spitfire I/II/III.
-It would have changed the course of the Battle of Britain. May even have allowed Luftwaffe air superiority out into the Bay of Biscay changing the u-boat war and given the Luftwaffe a high speed reconnaissance aircraft.
-
It would make sense to compare the 110 to the Bristol Beaufighter, a somewhat more contemporary design which was also multi-purpose and like the 110 quite successful.
they were directly opposing Bf110 in the night fighter role. both beaus are an intresting story of their own btw...
Oops I just posted the same comment lol
I would argue that the Beaufighter was a far more effective and versatile aircraft.
Was the Me110 ever used as a maritime strike aircraft.?..rockets, cannon, bombs and torpedoes ?
In this role, the Beau contributed to perhaps the most one sided, successful and ruthless naval victory the allies won..at the Bismark Sea.
@@ericgrace9995 true, i bet the 110 saw action against ships in norway but rather rarely on purpose. most of that was for the Ju87/88 i guess.
I was thinking the same but no-one would consider using the Beau as a bomber escort...or did they?
This channel is part of why I feel I was lucky to live long enough (age 64) to live in the Golden Age of WW2 Histriography!! These are the kind of distinct, unique air war analysis that makes this channel great!!!!!!!! (I like peanut brittle!)
Fantastic, detailed video on this plane! You always deliver such brilliant attention to detail :D
I've always had a soft spot for the Bf 110, and often felt it was treated harshly by some. It was developed during a time of rapid technological development and transition, it often faced unsuitable opponents, and it was often used for missions it was not initially designed for.
Hello there, Rex I love your videos and I also love the BF110 it's a beautiful aircraft.
Yeah, but how many of those environmental or usage problems existed because it was designed for a role that didn't actually exist in the real world?
@@filmandfirearms I understand the aircraft was designed for a role that didn't exist I was just saying asthetically the aircraft is good looking
I can absolutely recommend Rex's channel. Very similar excellent research and production quality as this one.
Now can you do a video examining the combat record of the Bf 110? Namely, kills/claims vs losses in the major battles in which it participated, the tactics used, and the aces that flew it? Consider it a Part 2 to this video.
I have purchaced two model kits in 1/72 scale: a B17 F and a BF 110. My plan is to recreate, in the form of an in-flight "hang-o-rama" the mess a BF110 made of a B17 during a very prolonged rear attack while reducing the distance to about 30 meters. The pilot strafed and strafed while pumping the rudder, causing unbelievable damage to the rear gunner, ball turret and engines.
Would have been interesting to hear about the Bristol Beaufighter in comparison as well, Also designed as long-range fighter, also went into ground attack, nightfigher (and torpedo bomber role) (the Mosquito was designed as unarmed fast bomber and reconnaissance aircraft, and only later found into the role as fighter).
But the Beau is also from 1939 and not from 1934 like the 110.
Probably because the beaufighter didn't have the misfortune to actually be used as a fighter to give it a bad name . Plus the Beaufighter was beloved of the RAAF , if you had anything bad to say about it you'd have a bunch of angry Australians commenting
@@mathewkelly9968 In the tropics probably the better choice than the Mossie, I heard they rotted away in record time.
The Beau had air-cooled radials, way better in the ground attack role, and so on.
We are not disagreeing, we are just stating different aspects.
@@feedingravens : Okay, so I am splitting hairs.
Mossies in the Far East did initially have the problem of "rotting away." This was because they were not designed for the high humidity and high temperatures of the tropics. The issue was the glue IIRC. This was eventually corrected.
There was at least one Mark of Beaufighter that had RR Merlins on them. By most accounts this Mark was not highly regarded as the Merlins made the Beaufighter feel underpowered.
@@rokuth That is not hair-splitting - that is exchanging information that the other may not have heard about.
It is called COMMUNICATION - a rare happening in today's world.
Like Paul Simon wrote in 'Sound of Silence":
people talking without speaking
people hearing without listening
Not what is happening here. I learn, and maybe I can also bring some interesting stuff.
By the way the Focke-Wulf Ta 154, also made of wood, also suffered from insufficient glues...
@@feedingravens : Have you heard Disturbed's version of the song? I actually kinda prefer it to Simon & Garfunkel's original.
Thanks Chris. I'm looking forward to a video with with you in the cockpit of rhe Bf 110 and Bernhard in the radio operator/gunner's seat, shouting at the Tommys'.
With him, there certainly will be shouting
Developed from about 8 years later as a heavy fighter, The Dornier Pfeil was one twin arrangement that potentially worked well because the push-pull engine arrangement put the engines close to the roll axis of the aircraft. Agility could therefore be much closer to that of a single engined fighter but with a substantial thrust advantage.
Problem with the Do 335 is that it actually flew like a brick, courtesy of the plane weighing an absolute crapton with relatively tiny wings to carry all that weight. The only thing "better" than a traditional twin engine design was the good roll rate.
@@builder396 Source for the 335 behaving like a brick, please.
From my memory, I recall test pilots really liked it.
The war thunder flight model is wrong. Also, there are fighters like the LaGG-3 that not only had a heavy wooden frame with very poor surface finish, but also a very weak engine to power it, so it is difficult to fly like a brick especially with 2 powerful engines@@builder396
WT player detected. Show sources.
@@masterdynamo6457 Most known information comes from US testing post-war, but the flight model in-game is definitely wrong.
I had to write a report on an airplane in my high school AFJROTC class. Most students picked US aircraft but I picked the Bf 110. I could tell my retired USAF LTC instructor was less than pleased that I picked a non-US aircraft but he gave me a good score on the report.
Great anecdote.
It reminded of a visit to The Evergreen Museum, and looking at their P38. A stocky rooster of a volunteer strutted over an challenged, "What aircraft shot down the first enemy aircraft of WW2?".
He started a victory grin when I began with, "You have me there as I can't recall the model, but it was a Polish biplane fighter.".
He was initially speechless, then slapped his leg and laughed, "You have got to be Canadian!".
We had a long, enjoyable conversation.
It's curious--the first flight of the P38 was only three years after that of the Bf110--1939 versus 1936. And yet the two aircraft had vastly different reputations!
I wonder how much of that was down to the way they were used? I do know that the 38 fared much less well in the European theater than in the Pacific, so perhaps part of it was the conditions?
Some was obviously due to the incredibly fast progress of aircraft development at that time.
And then the P-38 would have been better if it had been designed a year or two later, after the NACA aerodynamic studies Greg discussed. Things were changing incredibly fast.
Oh, that's a very good point!!!
On our Discord server there was a good point made by comparing the Bf110 to some of its real contemporaries, e.g. a French Potez etc. That might be a good call for a future video, to see how it compares within its development timeframe but since it saw service up to 1945, in this video I focused on that part of the story
@@MilitaryAviationHistory i am curious ... What if me-110 and p-38 faced each other .. Who would have won ?
BF110 gets a bad rep because of Propaganda. For example the Germans didn't call the P38 the Fork Tailed Devil. The was entirely fabricated. P38 had a poorer performance in combat in Europe than the Bf110, yet the Bf110 gets so much flak.
So to be frank, few if any twin engine fighters held up. But the Bf110 gets unfair flak when compared to it's peers.
Thank you Chris. The Bf 110 is one of the German planes that fascinates me the most. In the Mediterranean theatre it was indeed quite useful for long-range missions at sea, especially providing cover to Axis convoys or Italian surface warships
I am a scale model airplane builder.
Always love the BF110.
Building one right now.
Revell 1/32 BF110 c2/c7 (ex. Dragon).
Thank you for the video. Very informative .😀
The Me-110 was useful attacking airfields in France during the Battle of France, as I recall. Most of the AA was rifle caliber machine guns that were few and far between as air fields were quickly moved away from the fast moving front.
Did you forget about the Bristol Beaufighter ? A really capable fighter/ fighter bomber and night fighter. Very underrated, in my opinion.
The Bf 110 was a good aircraft, although not for the purpose for which it was designed.
The Bf 110 was a good night fighter and was effective against shipping, out of range of British land based fighters.
My mother was working in the Vickers factory in Weybridge when it was bombed and strafed by 110s. 83 people killed and over 400 injured.
I was employed by BAe at Weybridge in the late 1970s. If one looked carefully the damage could still be seen.
Your video on the Bf 110, reminded me of a Wars of the World videos on powered gun turret fighters, namely, the Defiant. It was a great idea in the 30's prior to the break out of WW II. It did great at the start of the war, but the technology advancement demand in aviation, soon had the Defiant useless.
I love the “In Defence” series. Making that a playlist would be awesome.
I've always had a soft-spot for twin-engined planes, with the large variety of designs. They tend to get overlooked in favor of single- or four-engined planes.
Thanks Chris, very concise analysis of an aircraft which when designed seems very ahead of its time, compared say to the Bristol Blenheim
as I guess a near contemporary ; that too had a problem by the time it reached combat conditions finding a role to suit the numbers already produced
and likewise easy prey for single engine fighters. Thanks also for the info new to me was the introduction of schrage musik on the Peenemunde raid, which I believe
later was sufficiently successful to make the RAF in a state of denial about it , because crews did not know what hit them.
My late uncle when I was a kid soaking up all the jingoistic stuff as schoolboys did then ( still do ) told me he had to bale out of a burning Lancaster .
I had showed him a book about the RAF and it’s Luftwaffe opponents and although he was very reticent about it all remarked on the
Accuracy of the name Zestorer ( destroyer) when I showed him the write up on the Me 110.
The later electronic countermeasures race between bombers, nightfighter and escorts is truly fascinating also.
Just shows the colossal efforts and brainpower’s devoted to war and weapons in such times by both sides. I wish we could summon up that level of
Effort now to solve the problems of our entire planet and pdq !!
Very nice study, Christian!!! The long range destroyer concept makes for the Potez 63 or PZL Wilk or Fokker G.I to be the most correct comparison to the Bf 110 performance or success, I believe. And surely it was the best of the bunch. To my knowledge, the other twin engine fighters you mentioned were not designed as destroyers. The P38 was a high speed high altitude fighter designed from the beginning with turbos, that in the end were the main factor in the design solutions employed. A very good design, highly successful, but a very different design propposal, and thus, not comparable. The Mosquito was perhaps the ultimate schnellbomber of the war, and also a powerfull night fighter, but again, a bird of a different kind. Lastly, the excellent He219, in my opinion the best night fighter of the entire war, was a product of very different requirements and thus, not in the same league. So, I think perhaps it would be a good idea to put together the theoretical concept of the heavy fighter and the technical solutions provided to it by 1934, as I mentioned in the beginning. The Bf110 was a fine airplane, an honest response to a very difficult requirement and a real workhorse throughout the conflict. Not the best suited for most of the many roles it played, however, it was there in ops until the very end. A plane to respect, no doubts about this. Kind regards from Brazil.
Yes! For reasons i do not understand myself, i love the German Zerstorers. Great to see a documentary where they are not just considered Hurricane fodder.
Question though: would the Bf110 have performed better in the Battle of Britain if, instead of escorting close to the bomber formations, they would have flown ahead of the bombers in Clear-the-Skies missions and employ Boom-and-Zoom tactics?
well perhaps they could have, but likely not any better than any other fighter in comparison. boom and zoom requires an initial position of superiority, which just about any fighter can beat any fighter. starting with a comfortable altitude advantage would make up enough of a performance disparity with anything, so it doesn’t really mean much if a plane is doing well when it always begins with the upper hand. unfortunately RAF pilots learned that Luftwaffe pilots were trying to force these sorts of engagements, so they climbed more than they needed to in order to maintain initiative. another thing with boom and zoom tactics is that you might not be so un-pressured that you can repeatedly make calm passes without having to lose energy. let’s say one were to attack a hurricane aboard a 110, and is able to make a pass. unfortunately the damage was not critical and you will have to make another pass and finish the job. so you turn around, but unfortunately there was another hurricane that was not engaged and did not lose any energy like you did making the manoeuvres to attack his friend in the first pass and then now turn around to go again. so they are now close enough to force you to defend and stop conserving energy, from which point you are defenceless to the lighter aircraft. all it takes is a tiny bit of pressure to completely ruin the BF-110’s boom and zoom, and this goes for just about any era aircraft of similar stature and performance. regardless the BF-110 served well, especially as a night fighter and it is a favourite of mine.
Well, I do see where you are coming from, but not really. 110 has poor dive control characteristics and both RAF machines are far better in acceleration department. This plus British radar, doesn’t hand as much advantage as one may think. 109 is cheaper, better and it works,
@@left_ventricle yes, the 109 would do twice as well in any situation than the 110. but ultimately the 110 was designed with range in mind, and a fighter is better than no fighter.
@@tunaconsuma - honest question. If you turn like that, are you still booming and zooming? I would have accelerated in a straight line for a bit, and then started climbing back up. Turning close to your target to finish it is getting you closer to dogfighting, and that was kind of the anti-goal.
@@spencerdawkins yes. in this scenario i imagined that the 110s would attempt to reclaim some energy by climbing away. but they’d eventually turn around to re-engage, and the now unpressed and aware hurricanes would be able to pursue the Luftwaffe crews. while they’d likely still make some distance, the BF-110 had poor dive characteristics so the initial energy advantage would not be significant if the pilot was trying to manouvre his aircraft on target and bleeding speed as he made adjustments. while they’d still be faster than the hurricanes of course, the hurricanes would still be the faster climbers and keep the gap tight enough that the BF-110s are not free enough to re-commit without bleeding what remains of their energy advantage and falling victims to the hurricanes which would easily defeat them once they weren’t significantly faster.
(2:28) (Part 1) Me 110: Claimed Victories: 674; Authentic Victories: 290; Own Losses: 196; Authentic V/L ratio: 1.5; Better than of any other Fighter Aircraft during that battle (Me 109 and Spitfire: 1.4, Hurricane: 1.2); From: The Battle of Britain: An Epic Conflict Revisited (Christer Bergström);
(Part 2) One should consider, that the Me 110 was the mainstay of figher escort in the depths of England (due to better range and navigation), dealing mostly with enemy fighters, while the Me 109 had to turn around and thus had lesser chances of engagement, which leads to higher losses in comparison to the available aircraft and crews, than for the 109 (Me 110 were far fewer than 109s). This is the reason why the availability of 110s shrank during the battle (not enough crews were trained nor aircraft produced), but on the 'battlefield' it was a dangerous opponent, which took a toll on the enemy interceptors.
(Part 3) The Me 110 was not a pushover, as often described, its crews were superior, cannon armament (well combined with the plane as a stable firing platform) was fully available only on the 110s (only a few variants of 109s had cannons, 4x 7,92mm was also common, british SE-fighers had .303 MGs only), mutual cover tactics of Me 110 formations was good, the best results were achieved by surprise top bounces. The rear gunners/radio operators did a determined work too, even though they had to use a single MG15 - moral effect, damaging effect, tactical surprise (pilots not expecting return fire). My words, based mainly on The Battle of Britain: An Epic Conflict Revisited (Christer Bergström);
(Part 4) The manouverability of the Me 110s was closer to that of single engine fighers, than two-engined aircraft. It takes 4 turns of Spitfires to get on the back of a lonely 110 after maximum turns, which means that the difference is slim. Power-on Stall speeds were lower than of Me 109, due to better slipstream of TE-aircraft than SE-aircraft, significant at low speeds: proven, by lower landing speeds, which are a reference to power-on stall speeds, although at a lower power setting. Turning circle and (sustained) turning times were a bit worse than 109E, but better than 109F. 110s loose speed faster than a 109 in maximum turns, but has good control at the reached low speeds, resulting in some interesting overshoot-defensive maneuvers, when bounced by faster SE-fighters, known well by Zerstörer, later Night Figher Pilots. From: various 1st hand documents, a British Flight Report on a captured Me 110, some Pilot's Memories in "Bf 110" by Michael Ziefle.
(Part 5) obvious shortcomings: double (or triple) the price and maintenance of a Me 109 (two enginges, two crew members), larger size - easier to aquire and hit, significantly lower roll rate than SE aircraft; Lower maximum turn rate, lower sustained turn rate, but not exceedingly so; Futhrermore, there was little room for max speed improvement in the Me 110: it's parasitic drag component was (obviously and objectively) higher than that of the Me 109, visible in lower 'best climb speeds', thus at early war it was barely able to be in touch of a Me 109's aerodynamics and max speed (110C and E 530-540 km/h, vs 109E 560-570 km/h), while later in the war the 110 was already outdated in this respect (110F: 565km/h (lightly armed), 110G: 585 km/h (lightly armed), 109G2 (typical): 650-660km/h, 109G6: 630-640km/h, etc. at rated altitude, similar picture at low altitudes) - note the similar engines and "almost" the same as, but vastly different performance - a consequence of the larger component of the parasitic drag in the overall drag composition, as well as inability to improve the 110's aerodynamics any further.
Good! You do know a lot about the Me110. The Germans would have profitted from having you in their staff!
@@oswaldoramosferrusola5235 the sources I use actually quote the German staff, so they knew their job. It is actually (older) historians, who for a lot of time didn't want to escape the narrow-minded narratives of WW2.
I was going to mention the Beaufighter, but noticed that it first flew three years after the Me110. Sometimes you can make a good bit of kit, but timing catches you out.
The P38 Lightning squadrons of the USAF often got their clocks cleaned by German single seat fighters, yet it enjoys a reputation not entirely deserved. The BF110 was an earlier design which made its situation worse as the war went on, but it was very good in certain roles, and as several Spitfire pilots who tackled a Bf110 night fighter on a daytime beer run in Holland discovered, it could be quite dangerous. I forget the German pilot's name. He lost his plane and the beer, but the Brits lost 3 state of the art Spitfires with 1 veteran pilot killed and 2 captured. He could not outfly those Spitfires, but all those guns in the nose made for accurate shooting on head on encounters. It was a good train killer in Northern Russia I understand too.
The Germans didn't call the P38 Lightning the Fork-Tailed Devil for nothing. The P38 certainly deserves it reputation.
@@michaelfloyd1127 Yeah, the Americans made up a name for it and cannot decide if it was the Germans or Japanese that supposedly called it that. The P38 could not compete with single engine fighters as the war progressed and it is on record as the last plane shot down by a biplane (an Italian made biplane with a German pilot that was hunting Tito's partisans). Please show me a single WWII document where the Germans supposedly called it the "Fork Tailed Devil."
P-38's used in Europe had a LOT of technical issues that took them out of the fight. A well running 38 was a match for ANY German plane of the time. They did not 'get their clocks cleaned'. Later versions were much better but were used mostly in Pacific.
@@michaelfloyd1127 The Germans DID NOT!!!! That's all made up American/Lockheed PR-bullshit!
@@billenright2788 Actually, they did not stand up well to single engine fighters which is why the US needed to develop long distance single engine aircraft and the P38s were diverted to the Pacific. The type did see some success over the Mediterranean interdicting transports, but any long range fighter could pull that off. Clearly you have bought into the the hype. P38s in Europe never measured up to the successes the type had in the Pacific and took much higher losses (some due to pilot error when pilots were bounced and they struggled to properly manage a multi-engine plane). And by the way, this is even when not questioning the inflated claims made by their pilots which were often double to triple their actual success rate when compared against the internal loss reports of the units they fought. It is also incidentally the last plane to be shot down by a biplane and also by a U-boat (technically after the Germans surrendered because the U-boat was turned over to the Japanese and the German crew, in custody of the Japanese, acted in self-defense when the Japanese panicked and failed to man the guns). It was more capable than the Bf 110 being newer technology, and I would say capable, but not as good as people think.
I think it was the best ground attack / bomber defense / nightfighter ACFT designed in 1934 :) and IMO the best looking German WWII ACFT. Great video!
One aircraft the the Bf 110 could be compared to (but seldom is) is the Westland Whirlwind.
Both are twin engined "fighters", with a long range, and a heavy armament.
While the Westland Whirlwind is often overlooked for a variety of reasons (principally that is was never produced in large numbers) it actually had a very good combat record.
If the 110 was compromised by anything, it was by being "too" heavy - designed to also be a bomber and have a crew of 2 (or 3).
As a single seat, lighter, more nimble fighter, the Whirlwind was more focused, and succeed in that role better as a result.
Certainly as regards the "Dayfighter" role.
On the other hand, the 110 became a quite competent night fighter.
So... swings and roundabouts - and very much about playing to an aircrafts strengths, rather that just throwing whatever you have got at a problem.
In a way, the 110 was compromised by falling between two saddles, it wasn't focussed enough to be a good fighter (against 'modern' opposition), and was an early attempt at an attack bomber that was surpassed by later designs.
Good Video! Just 2 points to share:
1. As a retired U.S. Air Force member, that's what ships and tanks were considered - targets.
2. As for the Bf110, Wars are fought with what you have on hand or can get very quickly. o7
I appreciate this fresh take on the BF-110. I learned many things watching this video. Like (I suspect) many people, I have watched other content which trashed the plane due to the missing context about its design period. Thanks for helping to fill in the gaps of history with your perspective and access to the source materials.
Now here's the funny thing about the 110 (I'm torn between calling it the "One-Ten" or the "One One Oh") in the IL2 series of games. In real life, The P47s, P51s, and Spits would just 'massacre' any 'Zerstorer' they caught unescorted, but in the games, the 'Twins' always put up a surprisingly good fight, particularly if you're tasked with escorting bombers.
My stuka book came a couple days ago and though I'm super busy I'm loving every sentence. Thank you so much for your part in writing it.
Why thank you, very happy to hear you like it :)
Weirdly it's always been one of my favourite Luftwaffe aircraft. Love to see one fly again.
You spent too much time with the Tau'ri.
@@builder396 It's a far cry from some of the nicer planets, but it's not without it's charms. ;)
Fantastic video as always mate. My signed copy of Stuka arrived yesterday. Super happy with it
As always an excellent analysis and production
Fun fact: Apparently Messerschmitt developed a bomber version of the 110. It used the same wings, engines and tail but had a different fuselage. However it was never taken further
'...Apparently Messerschmitt developed a bomber version of the 110. It used the same wings, engines and tail but had a different fuselage. However it was never taken further...' Wherever did you get that information? Bf 110 fighter-bombers were used extensively in the Battle of Britain from 13th July 1940 onwards, by Erprobungsgruppe 210. You need to read modern books on the type...
The Bomber Version of the Bf 110 was the Bf 162 "Jaguar", only three? prototypes were built..., there was also a recon Version the Bf 161...
Interesting airplane, that developed and evolved as Germany made it useful for different tasks. Great video Chris.
Love to seee the quality on the videos improving 👏👏👏
To quote from the video German War Files - Night Fighters (uploaded by geesdub): “It would be wrong to think that such an type originated in the mid-30’s. In fact, the need for such an aircraft was seen as early as the First World War.”
From the data you present about the Bf110, it spent it’s whole career as a solution looking for a problem
Well, if you are equipped with a hammer... every problem looks like it might just happen to be a nail. 😉
They really didn’t know what to do with them In the end
I am curious about the 110's ability to perform bombing missions, since AFAIK it did not have a proper bombsight for level / shallow dive bombing, and did not have the proper controls etc. for Stuka-like dive bombing. Any info ?
Look for SKG 210, the intended test unit for the Me 210, that ended doing 110 Jabo missions over England in 1940, they used 109s too.
A good book on the matter: "Messerschmitt Bf 110: Bombsights Over England Erprobungsgruppe 210 in the Battle of Britain"
Also search for : "REMEMBERING THE 88: A TIMELINE OF THE 4TH SEPTEMBER 1940 AIR RAID"
Hi Chris, good video i enjoyed it, one thing though you forget to mention is that the Luftwaffe was an intergrated part of the german attack i.e the air support part and only had range to cover the army so had to move to keep up with it, had the 110 had better engines and been updated with armour and bigger tanks it might have done better. i will agree that at the time it came out a good aircraft but by ww2 showing its age.
Amazingly well researched and presented! Congratulations to the presenter on his hard work and very educational videos. Thanks
Well they werent entirely wrong when they thought twin engined planes were the future of air combat. They were just a few decades off. Nowadays being a single engined plane is seen as the disadvantage.
Tell that to F16 Viper Drivers my friend!
@@FelixstoweFoamForge Why do you call the Fighting Falcon "Viper"?
But McGee is right, single engined aircraft is (unjustly!) regarded as inferior.
@@johanmetreus1268 The official name is the fighting falcon, but it had already been named viper by the test flight crews. The Air Force tried to keep public information using the official name until the 2000s, but they gave up at some point, and all anyone connected with them ever calls them now is the Viper.
@@danielbond9755 One learn something new every day, cheers!
I have fond memories of the Bf 110. It was one of the first planes I build in the 80's. It looked cool I believed then and now. ^^
You built a Bf 110? Really?
@@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935 Yes! I build the world's biggest plane!
.....what did you think Pinky?
Afraid that I know little about the subject of these planes, so I’m learning a lot. Many thanks for your thoroughness. I’ve read more about tank warfare and agree that I wouldn’t choose being in a tank for certain.
A good detailed video of the aircraft and the environments it was flying in.
I’ve seen some accounts of Bf 110 crews during the Invasion of Norway that are just incredible. Great video Bis. Love the series.
The Destroyer concept was finally achieved with the de Havilland Hornet according to Winkle Brown
Seems like it was always up to the engine seems like the heavy Fighters were always under power like the 210 and Westland whirlwind for just two more examples of the many
Great vid. I always refer back to the exploits of ERPRO 210 during the Battle of Britain when the BF-110 is being considered. While it fell short in the fighter role during the aerial dogfights of 1940, ERPRO 210 used the BF-110 as a supremely effective intruder aircraft showing that the focus on training the aircrew to use their machines for the best suited purpose was the best way to get optimized results from any air-frame. The BF-110 was at its best even in those early days after the fall of France in the ground attack role, which would be mirrored by the Blenheims, Beauforts, Beaufighters and Mosquitoes of the RAF. The USAAF would jump right over the 'Heavy Fighter' concept and utilize the B-25 Mitchells (in the Mediterranean Theatre) and B-26 Marauders for the same duties that the BF-110 proved so adept at in the early parts of the war. Even the eventual Douglas A-26 Invader proved that the USAAF wasn't soured on the 'Heavy Fighter' concept and those flew through the Korean conflict and the Viet Nam War as well. They even fly today as Fire Fighting Slurry Bomber aircraft here in the US and Canada.
The 'Heavy Fighter' may have been flawed in some of its initial conceptualizations but when used within a scope of practice that played to the strengths of the design and minimized its weaknesses - it was a truly valuable air asset on both sides of the conflict and the Messerschmitt BF-110 was a ground breaking design in that category. No apologies required - its service record speaks for its versatility and longevity.
Again, thank you for all your hard work in putting this content out for us.
"I'm fresh out of sauerkraut," bruder? Tee hee heee..that is why I watch the whole video...even the adverts are funny. That was a really interesting, unbiased, and well-informed discussion of that maligned old kite. Well done, und vielen dank!
As War Thunder players, my buddies and I have a saying. "Why do we play tanks? So we can earn enough points to take out planes and kill tanks!"
THIS. THIS RIGHT HERE.
That was the main reason I stopped playing war thunder. I don't like playing planes and sometimes it feels like that ever bomb hitting "near" you, will kill you. Even if there is a small hill between your tank and the bomb. 😡
>War Thunder players
My condolences...
Did they try converting some 110's to radial engines to make them less vunerable to enemy fire? Not to mention the weight loss from removing the cooling system.
I have not seen anything but they did make a Me 109 with radial (Me 109X) and Fw 187 was considered.
German radial engines were less develloped and much less powerfull than the traditional engines. Equipping a 110 with radial engines would have massively cut into its performance and altitude capabilitys. If you want a real life example look at the S-199 wich was a Bf 109 equipped with a radial engine.
@@zafranorbian757 Radial engines they had seemed to work for the short nosed FW-190. It's not like the 110 was expected to fight against single engine fighters, by that time just ground attack and bomber interceptor.
@@richardcutts196 The USA didn't start the war with the PW R-2800 fully developed either or even operational. The BMW 801 did quite well considering the issues with bombing and adequate alloying materials. The standard BMW801D had a single stage two speed supercharger. A variant called the BMW801R had two stage supercharger with independent drive and inter-cooling. It was to be used on a variant of the Ta 152C. It was almost as long as the inline DB603 and Jumo 213 due to the inter-cooling. (a little less because it don't need a radiator) . There was also. Bombing destroyed the plans and tooling before production could begin. There was also the BMW 801TJ and BMW801TQ were turbo charged variants with the BMWTJ seeing service on the Ju 388. The 801TJ outperformed any Amercian radial in terms of altitude and the Ju 488 with it would have had a service ceiling of 48500ft perhaps 50000 with the TQ.
@@williamzk9083 I'm mearly pointing out that if you're going to do ground attack, a radial engine is a better choice because it doesn't have a radiator to get punctured. Also you save weight, without a radiator and all it's liquid and plumbing.
Very informative and interesting video as always my friend.Thank you
Hallo Chris :)
Thanks for this informative view on the BF110. It was very interesting and i always learn something new. Oh and a sidenote - i love that i as a warthunder player with about 4000h playtime can also get something out of your link :)
Cheers from Switzerland
No need for a defense video for me! I have always admired it - beautiful, liked by its pilots and successful in a range of roles. Wonderful aircraft.
Compared to the Beaufighter, Ki-45 & P38, the 110 comes up short in pretty much every parameter (speed, range, firepower, serviceability).
Yeesss. It also was designed BEFORE the war. While all three of those were designed DURING the war.
@@glenmcgillivray4707 Not so. The Ki-45 & P38 both first flew in January 1939 & the Beaufighter in July 1939, ALL prior to WW2.
@@GARDENER42 compared to a design developed 5 years earlier? It was a time of rapid development.
@@glenmcgillivray4707 That's NOT what you originally said & still isn't true.
Beaufighter had its origins in a 1935 specification.
Ki-45 development began in 1937 as did the P38.
ALL were pre war designs & thus with little or no benefit from combat experience, yet they performed significantly better than the 110. Heck, the Westland Whirlwind, despite its issues was a better aircraft than the 110.
@@GARDENER42 I understand the Beaufighter originated from the Beaufort bomber and was a bit of a failure. But redeveloped with the same wing and engines and developed into a heavy fighter which was not finished till the outbreak of war.
It's also a question of what technologies were put into each design. And what stage they were in when pushed into mass production.
It's also true the Beaufighter is known for its low altitude performance using superchargers. The 110 was supposed to perform as a high altitude fighter escorting bombers.
Let's not forget the Zero was superior in maneuvering and range because they sacrificed diving performance and toughness for light weight.
The 110 was expected to perform as a dive bomber while using superior firepower to defeat fighters.
Thus it was built tough, but wasn't built to the same expectations as our contemporary P38 which I believe took years to get the engines right before it was useful in Europe and the Pacific.
Different designs. Different goals. Same German over engineering making life complicated.
Okay worked for a gentleman who served as a P38 flight instructor during the war. 1st thing I thought of was the P38 but that is not really an apples to apples comparison because of the 4th dimension : Time
The P38 in the ETO was a somewhat un refined plane largely flown by novice pilots.I can recommend Both Robin Olds Biography and Martin Caidin's book on the plane. The plane had an advantage over everything it went up against. No engine torque it could and did get out of almost any one on one. dogfight by turning away from its pursuit in the direction the other plane's better turning side. And it also usually had a speed advantage so all things being not equal it could break off from most fights if needed. Even the Mossie did not have counterotating engines.
From reading Biggles as a youngster I always rather liked the Bf110.
If I was a World War 2 plane (?!), it was the one I'd want to be.
The story I remember was from the desert, and daring raids done in radio silence against a small force of 109s and a single 110. I think. It was a long time ago.
But the does a bit of everything plane was rather attractive.
I would like to see 'In Defence of the He 112'
The most sucessful pilot in WW2, Heinz-Wolfgang Schnaufer, flew Bf110. 121 victories total, with app100+ 4 engined. That adds up to app 550 aircraft engines and app 800 aircrews shot down, more than double the score of Erich Hartmann
interesting way of looking at it. Logistically it is compelling. But then you look at multiple accounts of pilots trying to get multiple kill credit for shooting down cargo planes full of pilots and stuff like that. But it becomes near impossible to measure objectively that way.
Also, a single engine airplane couldn't do Strategic bombing, so yes 4 engines takes more resources, but without those 4 engines, that mission wouldn't be possible in the first place. And replacing that bomber with 4 single engine planes wouldn't do it either. Also, logistically speaking, more engines makes the price per engine go down and helps improve mass production. So I find your perspective interesting from a purely logistical point of view, I can't see it being used as an objective metric of success concerning Ace pilots and what that means.
Being an Ace is about defeating the enemy at a favorable rate such that if attrition was the name of the game, the side with the most Aces would ultimately win (in a purely idealistic and hypothetical way). It's a measure of success and prowess of the individual, not a statement about logistics.
I fell in love with the Bf-110 back in the 1990's while playing Their Finest Hour: The Battle of Britain on my Amiga 500. I discovered that flying the Zerstorer gave me a fighter with spectacular firepower that handled better than the Spitfire, but only when using the mouse. Usin the joystick turned it back into a lumbering yabo.
The video is well made! The Me 110 as a Zerstörer was designed with multi-role in mind, in order to use more non-standard/sophisticated tactics against the enemy, hence, as a 'jack of all trades' it's strengths were spread over a wide spectrum of abilities, while not perfect in any regard. The development year was clearly a limiting factor: 1935. As in my previous comment, it is somewhat underestimated as an air-to-air platform, especially early war, the late war air-to-air, specifically day-anti-bomber missions, were futile and overestimated. As a night fither during the late war it did well, couldn't be really replaced by newer designs - was a reliable platform, like a 'kalashnikov', as an example - able to start and climb, even during bad weather and partily frozen wing (has superior climb rate to all his descendants). Overall, it was a nice design, not complicated or costly, with maintenance and mass-production in mind. It is not a specialised design for performing specific tasks, like the Mosquito as example. Most of its day-jobs were taken over by the Fw 190.
I think, that the range comparison at (11:15) is not apples-to-apples, the exact speed is unclear here - Germans never measure the all-out-maximum flight distance on most economical speed. The Spitfire and Hurricane have a range, similar to the 109, which itself might cruise a lot longer for than 630 km, if at economic levels. There is a british report on a 109F, pointing at specifics. The Spitfire has 85 imp. gallons of fuel, apr. 386 litres, which is even less fuel than the Me 109, while having a higher consumption. That range shown is by far not in the equivalernt power setting and speed than the 109, rahter is a max-distance flight at lower speeds and perfect pitch settings, has nothing to do with battle-reliable specs. The Hurricane has The range of the Me 110 is roughly 1,4 times that of the Me 109 (apr. x1,55 more fuel, but apr. x1,1 lower maintained speeds at simmilar consumption rate/power setting), w/o external tanks. So it dominates here in this table, but it is far from what later escort warplanes could perform.
Our impression of the Luftwaffe even today is heavily influenced by the perspective of the British, and Americans flying from Britain. Like the Stuka, the 110 went on hurting the Allies for years. Short range 'legends' like the Spitfire did vety little apart from dominate the English Channel and a strip of occupied Europe about 20km wide.
LOL!!! Just go and read how the poor Spits were MASSACRED in 1941-42 whenever they tried to fly over France, THEY SUFFERED 4 TO 1 LOSSES!!!
So you are right, views are influenced by brit propaganda...
As a War Thunder player, i do like the in-game representation. Early version are very nice to fly in Sim, with deep ammo reserves and nice flight characteristics (even if it is a bit clumsy, it does pack a punch, so good versus those bomber-only players). The autocannon is a fun toy, amazing at ground pounding, while comfortably hard to use in dogfights, so it feels rewarding.
>As a War Thunder player
My condolences...
@@jpetras16 Only 3k hours, so not that bad :/
Good Presentation, I just finished reading the "Stuka - The Doctrine of the German Dive-Bomber" Book a great read.
As to the BF-110 it was a good airframe I think it needed a bit more Horsepower and better fuel system internally, Belt fed cannons and a medium altitude bombing capability similar to the B-26 Marauder. I think the medium altitude band would have led to less losses and a better range profile than down low bombing. A formation with target marking at low altitude by a fast single seat fighter could have plastered a Russian forward airfield and been gone before a reaction force could have been airborne. Add single seat fighter cover for the withdrawal.
They could have easily made a single seat version, that deleted all but the most basic radio equipment (as carried by single engine aircraft), as well as the seat/gun for the rear crewman. Then the space where the second crewman was, could be used for another internal fuel tank that would be selected first, to help with CoG and weight concerns. This reduction in weight and increase in range would have alleviated some of the drawbacks encountered in the BoB.
Good presentation sir. Most of what you talked about I was aware of to one degree or another. Enjoy the deep dives like this. Thank you.
I can't watch your videos without remembering you you singing"cotto, eye'd Joe" ;)
But I truly enjoy your content, keep it up !
From “Wings of the Luftwaffe” by Capt. Eric Brown, RN: Bf-110G-4c/R3 Specification
Performance: max range internal fuel 560mls (900km) with 2 66imp gal/ 300 l drop tanks 808 mls. Based on other data in the book it’s presumed this was set at 19,685 ft (6,000m) ASL. He cites the cruise speed at FL 180 as 305 mph based on his flight testing.
An air war fought largely with short-range interceptors, with one of the combatants having home field advantage. Doctrine that emphasized protecting the bomber crews, who were still getting the most promising recruits, instead of the destruction of the fighters opposing them (which in contrast, was the primary mission of 8th Air Force years later). The arrival of constant speed propellers on the RAF fighters beginning in August 1940. And consistent underestimation, by the Germans, of Fighter Command’s strength and the force multiplier that Chain Home represented. All these factors worked against the pairing of 109s and 110s in the Battle of Britain, against Hurricanes and Spitfires used in the role that played to their strengths.
Great video as always, and your War Thunder Decal will make a great addition to my collection.
I think the best comparison to the Me110 is the Beaufighter. It’s from a similar period and did about as well. It was also phased out of daytime operations and switched to a nightfighting role.
Good video, I always loved the bf110, but it made me wonder how the later ME 210 and 410 fit in, if the doctrine was changing ? You could probably get another video out of exploring the evolution of Zerstroyer doctrine, I'd watch.
I love how whenever a new video of his shenanigans with Bo time comes out I get a fresh sampling of this channel
When we moved into our new House in the early 70's I found a few old Airfix models in a box , and one was the Bf 110 , luv'd it ever since
Thanks Chris for another fine video.
A very good reality check of capabilities and rolls.
Great video. I was wondering if you could perhaps do a video on the BF 110 as it served in the Atlantic against enemy shipping. That would be very interesting. I know you did an episode about the FW 200 Condor, but I believe the 110 served in this role too. Thanks!
For aircraft that were much closer contemporaries to the Bf 110 there are the Potez 630 and Fokker G1 and, even if they'd stuck around longer, I can't see them having much different trajectories to the 110 and would have been equally outclassed by the P-38, Mosquito and He 219.
The Bristol Beaufighter was conceived at a similar time to the ME110 (in the late 1930's). It was used for some of the same roles as the ME110, ground attack and night fighter. It also was no match for a single engine fighter in the day.
As I understand it, the 110 had a lit if roles it was supposed to fill and as such, it didn't do any of them well... I have always been a fan of the P-38, and I also think it would've done somewhat better in a Battle of Britain scenario... Assuming that Goring wasn't meddling with things. Allowing for the difference in development time, I believe this to be the case because the P-38 had a far narrower development goal-- that of being an interceptor. (Other roles were added later. ) Of course the P-38 had a whole bunch of other issues that had to be fixed.
I met BF 110 G4 night fighter pilot Martin Drewes. After war he moved to Brasil and wrote an wonderful book "Sombras da Noite" (Shadows of Night) describing combats in Battle of Britain, Iraq, Syria and against bombers over German. His score is 52 planes shot down using only versions of BF 110.
The Bf 110 is one of those planes that didnt really outperform fighters in fighting or bombers in bombing, but it was a great platform to attach just about anything to, especially all manner of weaponry, and get it in the air, and the Me 410 built on that quality and enhanced it with an integrated weapons bay. It was that one plane that could constantly get adapted for new purposes with relatively little effort, and fitted with relatively heavy equipment with relatively little loss of performance, because it had a genuinely good airframe.
Other nations didnt really have planes that could be adapted quite that far, even though similar adaptations for radar, bombs or other equipment were made to allied planes, there are almost no cases of any *single* plane being fitted with such a wide variety of equipment on short notice. Allied planes always adapt one aircraft at a time, using whatever was "close enough" to mount whatever they needed in the way they needed it.
The only other planes that approached this kind of versatility were generally also German themselves, like the successor Me 410, the Ju 88 and the Do 217.
Thanks for sharing Chris
I very much like this series. It Shows that the pub Version of understanding of airplanes (and many other things) does not cut it.
i love the 110, it may have been outdated quick in some areas, but it also had so much tasks it had to do, i like doing Jabo missions over the channel frontmap in War Thunder EC Sim
Always like your quality material Sir. Priceless "Rule of Thumb" regarding fuel tanks @ approx 14:00
I have always considered the Bf 110 a relative success as a night fighter. Especially considering the rumored expense of the He 219 and the troubles Messerschmitt was having with a replacement.
Very interesting analysis, thank you very much Chris. One of my favourite planes, and indeed it does need some extra love. I would suggest a follow up video, with a more in-depth comparison of the Luftwaffe twins (including the Bf-110) with the other equivalent planes (both from Allies and Axis Air Forces). I am thinking in particularly of a comparison with the three Bristol "B"s (Blenheim, Beaufort & Beaufighter), that entered service in 1937, 1939 & 1940 if I am not mistaken. While the technology of the older models (and even of the very successful Beaufigher) was not much different than the Bf-110, their tactical and operational use may have been much more successful, for various reasons, so some good comparisons could be made there. Also Russian types, as well the Kawasaki Ki-45 could be another interesting comparison. I would also risk a comparison with the Star Wars Y-Wing, but OK, this may be an idea for a different channel 😃😃
Hi Chris, excellent episode as usual. I always likes the lines of the BF-110. BTW Stuka book has landed 👍
awesome, enjoy!
In the 1980s I had a very early "high-tech" flight simulator for WWI and WWII. The Bf 110 was my favorite plane ever since I flew it and got shot down 19 out of 20 times... still loved it. For WWI, my favorite was the F.E.2b... again, not a good survival plane, but my love for pusher planes has never waned.
The 110 has still been my favorite and my life dream would be to make and fly a reproduction of both the Bf 110 and F.E.2b.