Luftwaffe and Allied Air Forces Discussion Forum

Luftwaffe and Allied Air Forces Discussion Forum (http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/index.php)

- Luftwaffe and Axis Air Forces (http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/forumdisplay.php?f=8)

- - Me110: Ill-used in BoB (http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/showthread.php?t=15776)

Re: Me110: Ill-used in BoB

Thank you for that, Juha.

Re: Me110: Ill-used in BoB

Very interesting discussion, gents!

I am not an expert on Bf110 in BoB period, so cant add much.

But looking through early stages of Barbarossa, Bf110 units played a huge role in Luftwaffe operations even with only 4 Gruppen active on front. And I beleive theyr good result in escort/free hunt/ground attack missions was because of they played theyr missions in wright way, as it supposed during BoB (but not did all the time during it because of various reasons).

Also, 1 addition:
"Abwehrkreis" were widely used (and I can say - with good success) all through Ostfront fights untill Citadel operation ended, when last Gruppe (I./ZG1) was transferred to Reich.

Re: Me110: Ill-used in BoB

Quote:

Originally Posted by Birgir Thorisson (Post 80294)

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?

Do German sources reveal anything about rear gunners claiming kills?

I can only think of one simulator when it comes to quantification of all of this.
It's called IL-2: 1946. In some modified versions there are 10 flyable subtypes of the Bf110.
In my simming experience the Bf110 is a very potent weapon which, when used the "Rubensdoerffer way" has very good chances of making it home in one piece, mainly because of the speed at which you leave the target area after attacking.
Simulations involving 32 human players show that an incoming formation flown (as over the BoB fields such as Croydon, Biggin Hill etc) is virtually unstoppable.

In a re- enactment of an attack on Hawkinge, best tactics for the Gruppe proved those were the Erpr.Gr. flew around its targets and then attacked from the "hinterland", i.E. from the rear. Headed for its target in a shallow dive, approaching 600Km/h, dropping their bombs at very low level, keeping the heading and the energy of the shallow dive to get away heading home, and if needed the 109's could fend off enemy fighters, however they had their eyes on the fuel gauge and cannot dogfight for more than 5 minutes.

This re- enactment was run several times and even when the defenders knew what would happen the Erpr.Gruppe broke through and got away with it.

What if all Bf110's would have been assigned to this type of airfield attack?
What if these attacks would have been carried out underneath the "freie jagd" missions?
That would have been Fighter Command's biggest single threat indeed.

If this (very realistic) sim is anything to go by, the Bf 110 was deployed the wrong way most of the times, ill- used as the topic starter states. :D

Re: Me110: Ill-used in BoB

From this page:
http://www.raf.mod.uk/bob1940/index.html

RAF fighter claims over Me110:

July (from 10th) 1940: 22 destroyed, 10 probably destroyed.
Aug. 1940: 182 destroyed, 88 probably destroyed, 96 damaged.
Sept. 1940: 191 destroyed, 65 probably destroyed, 89 damaged.
Oct. 1940: 20 destroyed, 4 probably destroyed, 12 damaged.

Total: 415 destroyed, 167 probably destroyed, 197 damaged.

What was actual losses from enemy fighters of Zerstorer Gruppen?

Re: Me110: Ill-used in BoB

Low level high speed attacks on airfields are a potentially powerful tactic. Such attacks on German airfields, largely by the Eighth Air Force, were important in the defeat of the German day fighter force in the period between October 1943 (when it defeated the US daylight bomber offensive) and June 1944 (when it proved ineffective against the invasions). Nor was it limited to the Second World War. In the last decade of the Cold War the RAF stressed using Tornados low-level attacks on main operating bases in East Germany as its primary counter-air approach.

A few caveats. The counter to such attacks includes lots of ground-based point air defenses. The British did not have these in 1940. The Germans did in 1944, even more in 1945. Also remember that such attacks are not going to be accurate. So, to be effective, you either need to keep attacking, day after day, or do something else (like arrange for your army to park a tank on the enemy's runway, as the Germans were able to do in France 1940). Remember also that blowing up Hurricanes and Spitfires on the ground may have looked good in summer 1940, but that was not what the British were running out of. Such attacks would have been most effective targeting things such as operations rooms and support facilities, but even if they had had the accuracy, the limits of German intelligence precluded effective targeting.

Re: Me110: Ill-used in BoB

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidIsby (Post 109101)

Low level high speed attacks on airfields are a potentially powerful tactic.

SKG210 and ZG26 prooved it in 1941 on the Eastern Front.

Re: Me110: Ill-used in BoB

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evgeny Velichko (Post 109092)

BTW: comparing to actual losses (from all reasons, Luft.Kampf, Flak, accidents e.t.c.):
July/1940

Erpr.Gr.210 – 4 lost, 2 damaged
V.(Z)/LG1 – 2 lost, 3 damaged
Stab./ZG2 – no losses
I./ZG2 – 1 lost
II./ZG2 – no losses
Stab./ZG26 – no losses
I./ZG26 – no losses
II./ZG26 – no losses
III./ZG26 – 4 lost, 1 damaged
Stab./ZG76 – no losses
I./ZG76 – no losses
II./ZG76 – 1 damaged
III./ZG76 – 4 lost

Total for July/1940 – 15 lost, 7 damaged

Aug/1940
Erpr.Gr.210 – 15 lost, 7 damaged
V.(Z)/LG1 – 17 lost, 7 damaged
Stab./ZG2 – 1 lost
I./ZG2 – 12 lost,10 damaged
II./ZG2 – 10 lost, 6 damaged
Stab./ZG26 – 2 damaged
I./ZG26 - 17 lost, 7 damaged
II./ZG26 – 9 lost, 4 damaged
III./ZG26 – 7 lost,4 damaged
Stab./ZG76 – 1 lost
I./ZG76 - 8 lost,1 damaged
II./ZG76 – 12 lost, 1 damaged
III./ZG76 – 11 lost, 2 damaged

Total for Aug/1940: 120 lost, 51 damaged

Sept/1940
Erpr.Gr.210 – 7 lost
V.(Z)/LG1 – 17 lost, 4 damaged
Stab./ZG2 – 1 lost
I./ZG2 – 10 lost, 2 damaged
II./ZG2 - 6 lost
Stab./ZG26 – 1 lost
I./ZG26 – 7 lost, 1 damaged
II./ZG26 – 8 lost, 3 damaged
III./ZG26 – 11 lost, 4 damaged
Stab./ZG76 – no losses
II./ZG76 – 9 lost, 2 damaged
III./ZG76 – 12 lost, 4 damaged

Total for Sept /40: 89 lost, 20 damaged

Oct/1940
Erpr.Gr.210 – 4 lost, 2 damaged
Stab./ZG26 no losses
I./ZG26 – 1 lost, 1 damaged
II./ZG26 – 4 lost
III./ZG26 – 4 lost
Stab./ZG76 no losses
II./ZG76 – 1 lost
III./ZG76 – 1 lost, 2 damaged

Total for Oct/40: 15 lost, 5 damaged

Total losses of Zerstorerwaffe during Battle of Britain, July – October 1940:
Lost – 239 Bf110
Damaged – 83 Bf110

What was a coparing Me110 losses to Bf109 losses?

Note: it was a hard choice for Luftwaffe HQ what to do - reinforce heavy beaten daylight Bf110 Gruppen or create and even full equip 4 existing nightfighter Bf110 Gruppen. Choice was - part of I./ZG76, last of V./LG1, I.&II./ZG2 were reformed into night fighters. Day light Bf110 forces siezed in number, but could be reinforced better with Bf110D & E's.