Re: Me110: Ill-used in BoB
 

Goran
I know where I am aiming, and I would say that post of Juha puts it in the shortest possible way. Sometimes it happens that after spending long years on research, someone remains incompetent. I note that any discussion with the man is senseless and waste of time.
That said, validity of discussed data is dubious to say the least, and I doubt if any accurate figure may be produced, partially due to losses of documents, and due to nature of combat.
I have read the article by Mr Price, and I think that you misunderstood what he meant, especially as he was (I believe) one of the first to describe phenomena of overclaim during the Battle for popular audience. Anyway, he meant long turning dog-fights of fighter-vs-fighter and not involvement of large number of aircraft in a limited space. Otherwise, he apparently had not searched long enough.
Finally, Me 110 was 'transfered' to other duties, and that means it was no more useful in its intended role, so it was removed from the inventory of day fighter units (please no discussion about difference between Jagd and Zerstoerer). Of course Mr Brown may have a different opinion, but then, does anyone know full background of decisions undertaken by the Luftwaffe's command?

Re: Me110: Ill-used in BoB
 

Gentlemen: Being a avid Bf110 enthusiast, I am finding this thread very interesting and informative with good information on both perspective's, Pro and Con. I would love to see this discussion continue, but hope that everyone can remain civil towards each other, as I have an uneasy feeling this may degenerate into another 'pissing match", the like's of which have occurred in the past. Thank you. Dean

Re: Me110: Ill-used in BoB
 

I've read that the 110 has poor acceleration compared to s/e fighters. Its maximum speed may have been greater than a Hurricane but I can see the problem if it was attacked while at cruising speed — it may not have had time to reach its maximum (and how manoeuvrable would it be when it got there?).

Rear gunner? One MG vs. eight, handheld vs. fixed, ring/bead sight vs. reflector. The guy had a hard job and I guess that the general rule about defensive armament applied, that cross-fire from a formation would be the most effective use of it. Also, I wonder how the Bf 110 was for blindspots to the rear. Still, some rear defence is better than none.

Re: Me110: Ill-used in BoB
 

Very intersting discussion.

I have only a couple data points to add. First the reference to the F4F over Guadalcanal left out the most important factors: namely that the slow climbing F4Fs had plenty of time to get an altitude advantage for a diving attack due to early warning (and were excellent gun platforms for such attacks), the Japanese were forced to use the same limited approach route and Zeros were at the limits of their endurance.

With regard to the Me 109 and Me 110 in the BoB one factor not mentioned is that the Me 109 did not have a self-sealing fuel tank but the Me 110 did. I don't want to make too much of this because the thick skin in the rear fuselage of the 109 plus its duralmin bulkhead behind the fuel tank provided pretty good protection from stern attacks. I asked the question about fuel tanks on this board more than a year ago but got no answer so I hope the foregoing research data is of interest.

RLD

Re: Me110: Ill-used in BoB
 

Hello Birgir
already in WWI there were tactics for fighter pilots how to minimized the effect of rear gunner and in addition there were those already mentioned, one vs 8 mgs etc. Also during G-manoeuvres gunner had difficulties to stay on his seat not talking on keeping his gun on target.

But I agree with Göran and Christer B that 110 was better than descripted in many English language books. When used in right way it could be dangerous opponent. Spitfire was better but Hurricane only by a small margin and at least the combats between 110s of III./ZG 26 and Hurricane I Trops in N Africa before 109s arrived indicated that. hey fought more or less a draw there, usually the side which saw the other first won. Now Mk I Trop was worse than Mk I so my conclusion is that Hurricane Mk I was slightly better than 110C/D. Only an oppinion of mine, I'm not trying to convince anybody.

On the Christer B's victories vs losses table, if one checks the Spitfire losses from his source, a table in Narrow Margin, at least the table in 1963 edition gives different losses IIRC.

Juha

Re: Me110: Ill-used in BoB
 

R.L. Dunn.

I see the Bf 110 in 1940 in similar situation as regards relative performance as the P-38 and P-47 in 1943-44. Big, fast at altitude, but sluggish compared to ligther s.e. fighters. (I wonder about the diving charachteristic. Can´t recall any reference to that anywhere). What the Zerstörer had on the P-38 was the rear-gunner.

One light machine gun doesn´t amount to much, BUT, it is a more flexible weapon than fixed guns, and what matters is not the number of bullets fired, but the number of bullets that hit the target. Remember a certain scotsman named Jock McLuckie? He fought off a whole flight from JAAF premier fighter regiment, killing one major ace (Kato), wounding another, (Yasuda), and damaging the plane of the third, (Otani). The rest fled.
From the accounts I have read on the air-warfare (primarily in the early part of WW2, when rear armament is light,) I am struck by the contrast between actions when rear-gunners are a non-factor, and when they are very effective. I can only conclude that it is the skill of individual gunner (vis-a-vis the skill of the attacking pilot) that is the differentiating factor. I cannot recall any instance of effective rear defence by Zerstörer gunners. Thus I suspect that they were little trained, and held in low regard by their respective pilots, but John Vasco should know something about that issue.

Juha. A rear gunner is trying to get a bead on a pursuing plane in horizontal turning contest. Do you know how much he is constrained by G-forces and slipstream? Is there a zone, outside of which he is unable to get his gun to bear on the pursuer. (e.g. 15 degrees, 30, 45, or some other figure.) Is there any known quantification of this window of opportunity?

Re: Me110: Ill-used in BoB
 

I was once told by a Spitfire pilot (who flies the Temora Aviation Museum's Spitfire on showdays) that a standard rate level turn at 45 degrees exerts 3g at 300mph. That's fairly easy to picture and just gives an idea of G forces.

So if a pilot can function fully between 3 to 5g then there is no reason why a gunner cannot. However the limiting factor for the gunner is fighting the slipstream force acting aginst him.

Mick Mannock (of WWI fame) instructed his pilots that the best way to attack a single two-seater is to dive in fast from above left quarter, steady as if to shoot, and then quickly swing across to the two-seaters opposite quarter. The Se.5 could swing across from one side to the other faster than the rear gunner could drag his gun across against the force of the slipstream, especially if the two-seater pilot was manoeuvering at the time. And thats at only speeds of around 100mph.

So at speeds in excess of 250mph the forces acting against the rear gunner in a Me110 would be quite severe. A gunners effectiveness would possibly be more a function of strength than anything else.

Re: Me110: Ill-used in BoB
 

I fully agree with Dean in both his points. Thanks to all for the excellent input.

Birgir, since only the barrels of the MG 81Z (Bf 110G) protrude, limitations aside from those of the gun mount, with a max. elevation of 48 degrees and 50 degrees to each side, would depend on the amount of G the pilot was pulling.

On the Me 210/410 the max. vertical movement was +80 degrees to -41 degrees, and sideways field of fire was -3 degrees to + 40 degrees. Since the movement of the weapons (one MG 131 per side) was combined electrical/mechanical, the maneuvers the pilot was performed would be the main source of problems for the gunner; as well as the need to resist jerking the aiming handle and causing a jam in the mechanism.

Re: Me110: Ill-used in BoB
 

Hello Jim
one must remember that gunner in 110 wasn’t strapped as pilot onto his seat, otherwise he couldn’t use his gun effectively. After all he needed to align his head with the gunbarrel to take a proper aim. There are cases that even gunners of 410s didn’t stay on their seats during hard defensive manoeuvring in 44.

Hello Birgir
now P-38 was surprisingly good turner, read 109 pilots comments on Tunis air combats in 42/43. It was also excellent climber. E. Brown might have some on 110 dive behaviour. IIRC 110 suffered as 109 the heaving of controls at high speeds but was surprisingly docile at lower speeds.

Juha

Re: Me110: Ill-used in BoB
 

Dean,

Good call, and I agree that this thread deserves to continue without degrading into something less constructive. Word in advance, for a change I'm thinking of setting examples and not locking threads.