Correcting false/incorrection information on a Bf 110 D...

[John Vasco]

I refer to the post #76 in the 'Books and Magazines' sub-forum, thread "Zerstorer" Hardback by John Vasco and Peter Cornwell - Coming from Wingleader in 2025". My replies are in red beneath each comment

Specifically, comments made by INM@RLM.
1. '...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...'
For those that have the book, go look at the photo of M8+FH at the bottom of page 13. It DOES have the extended rear fuselage (which they claim is not there). It is not a C-2 nor C-4, INM@RLM is 100% wrong.
2. '...Might it then have been the case that Bf 110 C, WNr. 3171 was converted into Bf 110 D WNr. 3171...'
Whereas they proffer that 'might it then have been the case that Bf 110 C, W. Nr. 3171 was converted into Bf 110 D, WNr. 3171', that suggestion is foolish, and is only used to offer a contrary point. The batch of Bf 110s, 3166-3102, built by Messerschmitt between April and May 1940 were D-0s. (cf Petrick/Mankau, Messerschmitt Bf 110/Me210/Me410, page 324). Period. No need to make any such suggestion re it being a 'C'.
3.'...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...'
a) Hurrah, they concede 3171 was not a 'C'. Ergo, it was a 'D'.
b) The caption on page 13 is correct.

I have brought to the attention of Moderator Nick Beale the many errors that INM@RLM has posted in attempting to correct things in the book in their previous posts. But Nick has done nothing. Absolutely nothing! I have also pointed out to him the errors in their post #76, but Nick again has done nothing. Unfortunately, he has allowed this posting of incorrect information to go unchecked. In other words, he has abrogated the responsibilty granted to him as Moderator. Having raised the many points with him by PM, all I got in reply was rather sarcastic comments. Example: '...Just out of interest, why on earth would you imagine that I might give so much as one single, solitary fuck if you do?...' Thanks Nick! IMO, what I have seen here is a classic case of non-moderation - not removing false information from a post even when that information has been shown to be 100% incorrect. Make of that what you will...

[John Vasco]

So, some more responses from Moderator Nick Beale.

After saying I would make post #1 above on 17th December, Moderator Beale replied: 'Whatever turns you on'
I replied to that: 'Not a question of being turned on. That's a childish comment, and unbecoming of you.'
To which he replied: 'Nope, just an expression for which many alternatives are available, but the message is the same: suit yourself, up to you, knock yourself out, it's your funeral, whatever floats your boat, do as you think best.'

This is the shit level of Moderating that is going on on this forum. 'Knock yourself out', 'it's your funeral'. In other words, he's going to let any kind of garbage be posted on here and do jack-shit about it. Well if this place does close, then good riddance to this Moderator and some of the utter crap he has allowed to proliferate over the years...