Bf 110G and Me 410

[Andy Fletcher]

I've been having a lively discussion with a friend of mine about the ability of late model Bf 110s (G-2/G-4 etc) and the Me 410A to sustain damage and survive.

I know when Bf 110G-2s and Me 410s encountered Allied day fighters they were invariably shot down in large numbers but was this because of any inherent structural weakness and inability to withstand damage or as I contend because of lack of performance and hence their inability to fight on equal terms or to escape.

How would a Bf 110G or Me 410 compare to a Mosquito FB.VI or P-38H in terms of ability to sustain damage and survive, I realise that this is probably a difficult question to answer as so many variables effect combat and a single bullet or shell is capable of bringing down an aircraft but as a generalisation how would they compare.

Best Regards

Andy Fletcher

[obdl3945]

Andy...

Many of the mid- to late-war Bf110Gs and the Me410s were, as you probably know, Pulk-zerstörer intended to break up large daylight formations of Allied bombers over Reich territory. As such, they were often equiped with various combinations of heavy cannon and twin WGr.21 rocket tubes under the wings, not to mention external fuel tanks. As such, whatever their manoeuvrability and handling qualities, they would have been further reduced as a result of accommodating these fittings. Single-engined Allied fighters of the late-1943 onwards period would have been faster and more manoeuvrable. Larger twin-engined machines like the P38 Lightning (P38J - max. 414mph at 25,000ft) and Mosquito FB. MkVI (max. 380mph at 13,000ft) would have had an advantage of speed and manoeuvrability, plus a heavy punch in their nose armament - 1 x 20mm Hispano cannon and 4 x .5in Browning machine guns for the Lightning and 4 x 20mm cannon and 4 x .303in machine guns for the Mosquito.

The Bf110 is rightly recognised as a potent destroyer and night-fighter despite its performance shortcomings in the Battle of Britain, especially as later in the war, much of its use over Europe was against heavier, less manoeuvrable four-engined bombers, where its capablilities were ideal against such opposition. The basic Bf110G-2 had a speed of 342mph at 23,000 feet and basic offensive armament of 2 x 20mm MG151 and 2 x 30mm MK108 cannon in the nose.

The Me410 was also a capable machine, which in its bomber-destroyer role, could pack so many weapons into its nose, it's a wonder it managed to get off the ground, one such combination comprising the standard 2 x 7.9mm MG17 machine guns and 2 x 20mm MG151 cannon in the nose, plus an addition 2 x 7.9mm MG17 machine guns and four x 20mm MG151 cannon in the lower nose and bomb bay respectively. Although at its inception, the Me410 was anticipated as having a maximum speed of 419mph at 36,000ft, it should be stressed that the initial variant was to be similarly armed offensively as the Me210A-1, namely 2 x 7.9mm MG17 machine guns and 2 x MG151 cannon in the nose.

I would argue that although all four of these machines were capable, and able to be heavily armed, the Messerschmitts probably tended to lack something in speed and be a bit less manoeuvrable and when burdened down with their heavy offensive armament, were rather easy targets.

[Andy Fletcher]

Thanks Ob.d.L., I realise that 110s and 410s were lacking in the performance to fight with Allied fighters on equal terms but were they shot down in large numbers because they were (relatively) easy targets (as I contend) or because of inherent structural weakness. I was wandering how 110s and 410s compared to Mossies and Lightnings in terms of ability to sustain damage.

To my way of thinking it doesn't matter how strongly built/heavily armoured a plane (or any other target) is if it can be hit often enough it will fail eventually (obviously not an aircraft but just look at the Bismark as an example).

Wolfgang Falck in the foreword to John Vasco's & Peter Cornwell's "Zerstörer" seems to me to imply that the Bf 110s vunerability in combat was caused by its lack of performance compared to Hurricanes and in particular Spitfires as opposed to inability to sustain damage. I realise that the Bf 110C/D of the Battle of France/Britain period is a very different beast to the Bf 110G-2 but surely the Bf 110G-2 (and the Me 410) would be able to sustain much higher levels of damage due to increased armour etc.

Best Regards

Andy Fletcher

[obdl3945]

Andy...

I do believe that the Messerschmitts were disadvantaged largely due to their heavy equipment and inability to react sufficiently quickly to attack. Whether through increased weaponry or simply by design, I feel there is also an element of lack of manoeuvrability involved. However, I can't say for example, that a Bf110G would be less likely to survive battle damage than a Mosquito. As you inferred, a well-aimed shell could easily bring down a seemingly better aircraft, but similarly, a capable pilot can do wonders with a difficult machine, irrespective of where the difficulty lies, be it inherent structural problems, or extensive battle damage. A Mosquito or Lightning would be hard-pushed, I suspect, to fare any better if caught in the sights of the Messerschnmitts' forward-firing weapons.

I know of no structural problems with either Messerschmitt aircraft unlike, for example, the Focke-Wulf Fw200 Condor which had a rear-fuselage weakness, inherent in its design due to being descended from an airliner. To fly easily, effortlessly and unhindered during peacetime is obviously not the same as being flung around the skies over the North Atlantic in mortal combat, and doubtless the latter compounded the Condor's problems, especially when landing back at base, when many a machine broke its back when the fuselage failed. All of which confirms your point, that this is a difficult question to answer, and that people will always disagree on the finer points. I, for example, happen to think the Ju87 Stuka and Do335 are aesthetically attractive aircraft, when viewed at a certain angle, and that the Bv141 is, how can I say, interesting in its design... but the poor Arado Ar240 was the ugliest duckling to come off the drawing boards... ! (laughs) Hope you're still talking to your friend...

[Andy Fletcher]

Ob.d.L.,

Thanks for your input, I don't normally ask such subjective questions but I just wandered if there were any facts available that could prove or disprove my or my friends arguements.

The FW 200C you site is a good example of what I'm talking about, it was noted for its back breaking, many is the photo of a Condor broken in two on landing.

As for my friend lets just we're agreeing to disagree at the moment.

Cheers

Andy Fletcher