Re: "Zerstorer" Hardback by John Vasco and Peter Cornwell - Coming from Wingleader in 2025
 

'...Stab ZG 76 = Major Walter Grabmann (52, 62/4 & 107) - so not Hptm Erich Groth
II./ZG 76 = Hptm Erich Groth (76, 136 & 158) - so not Hptm. Friedrich-Karl Dickoré
the missing III./ZG 76 (96,136 & 158) = Hptm. Friedrich-Karl Dickoré...'

No errors at all. What ARE you talking about? THIS: '...so not Hptm. Friedrich-Karl Dickoré...' is a load of bollocks! And what is this 'missing' III./ZG 76 that you talk about?

Re: "Zerstorer" Hardback by John Vasco and Peter Cornwell - Coming from Wingleader in 2025
 

As for this: '...First, Erpr.Gr. 210 was not even formed until 1st July (p.110), and that was at Köln-Ostheim in Germany. The Gruppe only arrived at Denain on 10th July (again p.110). (First Channel combat mission flown 13th July)...' I stated that, are you thick? I first published all of that information in 1990!

Given your obvious attempt to discredit Peter Cornwell and myself, and the work, by posting shite, I will not waste another second on you replying in this thread.

Re: "Zerstorer" Hardback by John Vasco and Peter Cornwell - Coming from Wingleader in 2025
 

There is one other point in John's post #52 perhaps worth a double-check.
His comment was: "Perhaps you have looked at a different document than Petrick/Mankau, since their book shows that the block 3311-3418 only commenced production/completion from July 1940."

Well, it is definitely true that July is the start date of the 3311-3418 block given on p.324 in the tables at the end of Mankau & Petrick. However, what has then been missed is what appears elsewhere in M&P that fixes the start date for deliveries from this block far more precisely. First, on p.182, in the section specifically dealing with the Bf 110 D-0/B sub-type, M&P have: "In June 1940 the General Staff ordered that a portion of the new Bf 110s rolling off the assembly lines were to be equipped with the ETC 500. As an emergency measure Messerschmitt consequently fitted 13 Bf 110 D-0s (W.Nr. 3321-3324, 3336-3344) with ETC 500s, removing the belly tanks in the process. These machines were designated as Bf 110 D-0/Bs."
The June delivery dates for all 13 of these D-0/Bs are then confirmed on p.23: "6/40 The Messerschmitt company delivers the first 13 production D-0/B aircraft with ETC 500 racks."
So it was these references that formed the basis of my review comment in regard to WNr. 3322/3321.
[All page references in this post are from the Schiffer edition in English. In photos it is very easy to distinguish one of these D-0/Bs from the succeeding D-3 & D-3/N fighter-bomber versions because the rivet line under the forward fuselage where the Dackelbauch had been attached is very clearly apparent.]

An earlier than July start date for block 3311-3418 deliveries is also corroborated by the RLM's Delivery Plan LP 18/1 from the Bundesarchiv. In that document Messerschmitt reported a total of 103 Bf 110 Ds delivered by end-June 1940. The Ds had been introduced at Mtt only after C-2 series production had completed at Augsburg, and the first Bf 110 D delivery was WNr. 3134 in March 1940 (M&P p.181). This machine fell within the Messerschmitt Bf 110 block that began with WNr. 3000 and ended with WNr. 3202. Arithmetically then this first 3xxx block only included 69 Ds (i.e. 3202 minus 3133). Accordingly the balance of 34 D deliveries by the end June 1940 had to have come from the next Messerschmitt block beginning with WNr. 3311. As indicated by M&P, these 34 spanned WNr. 3311 to 3344, the end coinciding exactly with the delivery of the last of these D-0/B assembly line conversions. (Although aircraft were built in WNr. order when a single assembly line was in use, it was not always the case that they were also delivered in WNr. order. However, M&P are telling us that this was actually the situation in regard to the span WNr. 3311 to 3344.)

The almost complete lack of surviving manufacturers' delivery documentation requires that the delivery span dates given for most blocks in the tables on pages 324/7 of Mankau & Petrick are no more than educated guesses based on the dated WNr. identities found in loss records and log books. (M&P are perfectly open about their approach here - see p.323.) In some periods many identities linked with Werk-Nummern can be found, but in others these can be distinctly thin on the ground. It is not entirely surprising then that some inconsistencies have arisen between sections of M&P's text and their tables.

Taken all in all then, very sad but still a book very much worth buying. Had this new edition of 'Zerstörer' followed the conventional approach of first correcting the errors of the first edition, this work would have achieved very much more. The exchanges here may provide some insight into why that didn't happen. May the future hold better.

Re: "Zerstorer" Hardback by John Vasco and Peter Cornwell - Coming from Wingleader in 2025
 

This post links directly to #73 above and only indirectly to the new edition of 'Zerstörer'. It is placed here only as another example of why not everything in Mankau & Petrick should be taken as gospel. Since this topic is super-nerdy, best perhaps that most readers save their time and stop at this point.

There is a small error in the M&P statement "As an emergency measure Messerschmitt consequently fitted 13 Bf 110 D-0s (W.Nr. 3321-3324, 3336-3344) with ETC 500s, removing the belly tanks in the process." The last aircraft, WNr. 3344 was not in fact a D-0/B since Matti Salonen's database of Lw losses records WNr. 3344 as Bf 110 C, G9+MM, that became a total loss with 4./NJG 1 on 27-Apr-41. Since the D-0/Bs were only slightly less rare than hens' teeth, and all were required immediately to equip two Staffeln of Erpr.Gr. 210, the survival of even one machine to subsequently serve as a night fighter smacks of the purely whimsical.
In reality then just twelve D-0/Bs were delivered in June 1940, making a total of fourteen in all, not fifteen. These then were: WNrn. 3167 in April, 3175 in May and 3321-3324 (4) & 3336-3333 (8) in June. [All M&P p.182]

It's not possible to confirm the total of Bf 110 D-0/B deliveries directly in any RLM Delivery Plan because of the reclassifications ordered by the Lw. General Staff on 26-Jul-40. The new order eliminated the D-0/B designation, and instead introduced the D-2 sub-type, described as the variant that could be equipped with two external drop tanks, plus either bombs or a Dackelbauch, and only produced by Mtt Augsburg (M&P p.25). That meant the surviving D-0/Bs all now officially became D-2s since each of the D-0/Bs had indeed been converted from examples that had first been fitted with a Dackelbauch. (An accidental bureaucratic irony given that Erpr.Gr. 210 would next receive the D-3 sub-type, to which it was possible to attach drop tanks and bombs but never a Dackelbauch.)

Consequently when LP 18/3 of 1-Nov-40 reported deliveries of the D-series from Messerschmitt - all now completed - these did not mention the D-0/B at all but instead these were presented as:
83 D 0
52 D 2
21 D 2 with DB 601 N
6 D 3
10 D 3 with DB 601 N
6 D 4 (initially designated as the D-1)
Breaking these totals back to individual identities leads to the conclusion that - in accordance with the criteria for the new D-2 variant - the D-0/Bs were indeed now included within the total count of 52 D 2s, and also that it was more likely that there were 14 of these D-0/Bs rather than the 15 listed in M&P. (The latter point is not definitive at this stage since there are still gaps amongst the individual identities; just that on balance 14 does appear the rather more likely D-0/B total.)

In similar fashion the D-0/R1 & /R2 (Rüstzustände I & II) sub-variants (M&P pp.180/1) were now combined together here in the D 0 total of 83, the split most likely being 33 to 50 in accordance with the General Staff instruction of 25-Jun-40 that required two out of five to be fitted with a Dackelbauch (M&P p.22). (R I & II indicated respectively delivered fitted with and without a Dackelbauch. So the reality is that there were only just enough of Rüstzustand I to equip I./ZG 76, and - as beautifully evidenced now in 'Zerstörer' at p.120 - one of those Rüstzustand I examples was sent to ZG 2 in error.)

Entirely understood though that one would not expect to find this level of detail in a combat history.

Re: "Zerstorer" Hardback by John Vasco and Peter Cornwell - Coming from Wingleader in 2025
 

There are a couple of erroneous Bf 110 Stkz. that were reported inaccurately in the Lw. Loss records of the 1940 period, and - as evidenced in this second edition of 'Zerstörer' - continue to escape correction in publications.

These are to be found at:
table at p.280, the Stkz of C-5, WNr. 2229 is given as MI+ZC; this is actually be NJ+ZC.
table on p.262, the Stkz. of C-5, WNr. 2231 is given as MJ+ZE; this is actually NJ+ZE.
[The Mankau & Petrick table at p.329 evidences NJ+ZW as C-6, WNr.2249, also at least eight other Bf 110 from the NJ+Z_ sequence are also known, each linked with a Werk-Nummer.]

In passing, a Stkz. that was not included in the first edition has been added for W.Nr. 3367. However, in the photo caption on p.271 this is given as RG+FC, whilst in the table at p.279 it appears as TG+FC. TG+FC is correct.

Re: "Zerstorer" Hardback by John Vasco and Peter Cornwell - Coming from Wingleader in 2025
 

There is one photo caption in the new edition of 'Zerstörer' that has the potential to create considerable confusion. This is the photo of M8+FH at the foot of p.13, captioned as: "Bf 110 D, M8+FH, W.Nr. 3171, the 'Dackelbauch' fairing has not yet been attached under the fuselage."

In fact it is most unlikely that a task requiring extensive precision riveting and as substantial as fitting a 'Dackelbauch' to a Bf 110 D might have ever been performed at unit level. Further, the aircraft in this photo is definitely not Bf 110 D, M8+FH, W.Nr. 3171. That certainty stems from comparison with the two photos presented soon after on pages 21 and 23, of what are verifiably Bf 110 D-0 Rüstzustand I, M8+FH, W.Nr. 3171, fitted very obviously with a 'Dackelbauch', and with the WNr. readable on the rear fuselage in one of these.

That the M8+FH in the photo on p.13 is not the same M8+FH as that in the photos on the following pages is evidenced directly by the distinctly different manner in how the fuselage Stkz. was painted over before application of the unit code. Nor is the aircraft in the photo on p.13 a Bf 110 D since it clearly lacks both the rear fuselage extension with the dinghy compartment, and the associated pull-cable to the cockpit area embedded in the upper port fuselage. This is in fact a C-2 or C-4 of 1./ZG 76, most likely dating from the period prior to the reequipment of I./ZG 76 with the Bf 110 D i.e. the variant that I./ZG 76 held at the launch of the Scandinavian campaign.

Might it then have been the case that Bf 110 C, WNr. 3171 was converted into Bf 110 D WNr. 3171, and also been repainted as part of that process? There are three main objections to such a hypothesis.

Regarding the possibility in principle of converting a Bf 110 C into a Bf 110 D there are several self-evidently fundamental challenges. The Bf 110 D required the installation of extensive additional oil and fuel lines along with the wiring and controls for the multiple pumps needed to draw fuel from the underwing drop tanks, as well as fuel and oil from the 'Dackelbauch' (or from an external teardrop, 75 litre supplementary oil tank that could be fitted further back down the fuselage underside when no 'Dackelbauch' was present). Accommodating the dinghy of the D-series also required extensive structural changes. Taken together these alterations were so extensive and complex that it was simply an impractical proposition to convert a Bf 110 C into a Bf 110 D even at a major aircraft plant, leave aside the possibility of attempting such a task at unit level. So apart from the half-handful of Bf 110 C examples used to develop the Bf 110 D and E versions, there is no evidence that any other such conversions were ever effected.

Second, it is relatively straight forward to reconstruct the most likely identities of the Bf 110 D-0 Rüstzustand I examples as WNrn. 3134 to 3148 (15), 3152 to 3162 (11), 3166, 3168 to 3171 (4), 3181 & 3311. All were newly built aircraft, most of which were reported delivered amongst the 29 Bf 110 D Neubauflugzeuge of April 1940.

Lastly the Flugzeugzuweisungen include a sheet recording aircraft taken on charge by I./ZG 76 on 30-May-40 in these words: "5 Bf 110 D an I./ZG76 (Luftfl. 5) gegen Abgabe von 5 weiteren Bf 110 C an Luftfl. 3" [RL_2_III_611_0024]. In other words, as Bf 110 D's arrived on the strength of I./ZG 76, a matching quantity of Bf 110 Cs was being transferred out to other units, rather than being converted into Bf 110 Ds at ZG 76.

In sum then, No, it was not the case that Bf 110 C, WNr. 3171 was converted into Bf 110 D WNr. 3171, and the evidence is such that any possibility of routinely converting a Bf 110 C into a Bf 110 D can be firmly ruled out. The bottom caption on p.13 is simply incorrect.

Despite the many defects though it bears repeating that this is still an otherwise excellent and indeed essential work for those with a close interest in these events.

Re: "Zerstorer" Hardback by John Vasco and Peter Cornwell - Coming from Wingleader in 2025
 

Footnotes for the interested.
For those that wish to view for themselves the documents used by M&P across their pages 181/2, these can be found in NARA Microfilm T-177-19, Section RLM 228 (begins image T177-19_0266, Microfilm Frame 3704484)
The key documents they used were:
Image Reference Microfilm Frame Document Date
T177-19_0362 3704579 03-Jul-40 = Evidences Bf 110 D-1 identities as WNrn. 3149-3151 & 3163-3165, and Bf 110 D-0/B as WNrn. 3167, 3175, 3321-3324 & 3336-3344, all included in total of 103 Bf 110 Ds delivered before end-June 1940
T177-19_0409 3704627 09-Feb-40 = Telex from Mtt Augsburg confirming building of 134 Bf 110 C-2 and that the first Bf 110 D Null will be WNr. 3134
T177-19_0551 3704768 18-Apr-40 = Together 0551 & 0552 set out Bf 110 D planning for WNrn. 3134-3202 & 3311-3328, with actual deliveries to 1-Apr-40 also noted
T177-19_0552 3704769 18-Apr-40
[Columnar presentation above is governed by the software in use but hopefully will still be understandable.]
Despite what is stated in T177-19_0362, in the final outcome it is not arithmetically possible to arrive at the totals of 83 D-0 and 52 D-2 deliveries from Mtt reported in LP 18/3 of 01-Nov-40 unless WNr. 3344 is corrected to being a Bf 110 D-0, Rüstzustand II rather than the D-0/B evidenced in this document that was produced only very shortly after these June 1940 deliveries had actually been effected.

For the RLM Delivery Plans:
LP 18/1 is found in BA-MA RL 3/1015
and LP 18/3 in BA-MA RL 3/991

Re: "Zerstorer" Hardback by John Vasco and Peter Cornwell - Coming from Wingleader in 2025
 

Just to add my 2 cents... M8+FH on page 13. is the same a/c as on the pages 22 and 23...However the time line is reversed, as the plane from page 13 is post bruchlandung recovery and the plane awaits the new dackelbauch to be fitted in. Having the better photo of the crashlanded plane one can simply compare the marking behind the M8 code which is a match to that one on page 13. And the W.Nr. is 3135.

Re: "Zerstorer" Hardback by John Vasco and Peter Cornwell - Coming from Wingleader in 2025
 

[quote=INM@RLM;348437][For those that wish to view for themselves the documents used by M&P across their pages 181/2, these can be found in NARA Microfilm T-177-19, Section RLM 228 (begins image T177-19_0266, Microfilm Frame 3704484)

This reel as with all of the other T177 reels is downloadable as a single PDF or as individual images from the NARA website: https://catalog.archives.gov/id/332786884

Re: "Zerstorer" Hardback by John Vasco and Peter Cornwell - Coming from Wingleader in 2025
 

To Peter's #78. WNr. 3135 would make it the second D-0 built by Mtt-Augsburg, delivered early April 1940.
What Peter sets out in this post is fine in theory, but it fails to explain why the example on p.13 does not exhibit the fuselage structural changes of the Schlauchbootanlage that I mentioned as only being introduced with the D-series. Those new additions were listed in the Fz.Handbuch for the D-series and are also evidenced in the "Beschreibung und Einbau der Zusatzanlagen für das Flugzeugmuster Bf 110 D", reference L.Dv.T. 2413/1 (Entwurf).
Besides, as I also mentioned, the WNr. of the M8+FH mit Dackelbauch is readable as WNr. 3171 in the photo on p.21 (not p.22 as given in #78).
Nice to know that some of this thread is still be being read though. :-)