[INM@RLM]

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.