Me110s against RAF fighters.

[NickM]

Originally Posted by John Vasco

To Stovepipe & Juha,

1. As Nick Beale has quite rightly pointed out, the assigned objective would be important. Close escort to lumbering bombers until intercepted by RAF fighters would have set the Bf 110 crews at a grave disadvantage.
2. There is a major difference between claims by Bf 110 units, and the actual losses suffered by their opponents. Try checking III./ZG 26 claims on 18th August 1940, for example, against what actually happened. So one must not ascribe 100% veracity to all that was claimed (and yes, I know that applies to all combat units in all air forces).

TOTALLY off the subject John but I just noticed your links below...You're a part of the British Invasion????

[Juha]

Hello John
1. Yes, close escort duty was especially problematic for 110 because it, as Hurricane, had poor acceleration. And of course it didn't help that it wasn't a great turner.
2. Absolutely, that’s why I operate with real results not with claims.


Juha

[John Vasco]

Originally Posted by Juha

Hello John
1. Yes, close escort duty was especially problematic for 110 because it, as Hurricane, had poor acceleration. And of course it didn't help that it wasn't a great turner.
2. Absolutely, that’s why I operate with real results not with claims.


Juha

Juha,

1. It wasn't so much that the 110 had poor acceleration when doing close escort duty, rather that being tied to bombers doing 140-160 mph, they were in trouble when confronted by RAF fighters probably doing at least 200-250 mph+.

2. I would be interested to see the drfinitive real results of this contention of yours:
"in BoF:
Hurricane dest by Bf110 v Bf110 dest by Hurricane: 63:37, 1.7:1
Spitfire dest by Bf110 v Bf110 dest by Spitfire: 15:6, 2.5:1
Total 1.81:1"

Not because I want to contest it with you, but because I would be most interested to see the full breakdown of all those day's combats supporting the above claims. It would certainly cast the Bf 110 in a different light for many people.

The problem I have with claims, you see, is that in studying them, many times they are totally wide of the mark. I know this is going over old ground that has been done to death on here previously, but my example of ZG 26 being serial overclaimers (as were JG 2 in 1940) is borne out by factual losses by the RAF. Equally, 74 Squadron appear to claim 'rather highly and optimistically' during the BoB (try working out their claims for 11th August 1940, for example). Whereas the examples may be claims honestly lodged, it does mean that for researchers, the path along which one goes in pursuit of claim verification is fraught with danger.

I hope I have explained my points sufficiently for you - I fell that I am rambling somewhat.

[John Vasco]

Originally Posted by NickM

TOTALLY off the subject John but I just noticed your links below...You're a part of the British Invasion????

Nah, I was too young for that. Only started gigging in 1969.

This is what I am up to now: http://www.honeydripperbluesband.co.uk/

Apologies for OT...

[Juha]

Hello John
1. I understand, close escort was difficult assigment to all but especially to 110 because it was both sluggish in acceleration and poor turner.
2. As I wrote in my earlier it was JoeB, who is also a member of this board, who had made the calculations from The BoF Than and Now, not me. I have found him knowledgeable and reliable and so I used his calculations which he gave in another board.

Juha

[steve51]

Gentlemen,
Those figures from JoeB, given by Juha, were counted up from daily combat results from the book, 'Battle of France, Then and Now'. They are not claims but admitted losses from both sides.

[Nick Beale]

Originally Posted by John Vasco

This is what I am up to now: http://www.honeydripperbluesband.co.uk/

There seems to be a strong aviation/rhythm 'n' blues crossover for some reason (me included). Like the sound of the band, but how things have changed — couldn't imagine "Blind Lemon Jefferson is available for … corporate functions" somehow!

[John Vasco]

Originally Posted by steve51

Gentlemen,
Those figures from JoeB, given by Juha, were counted up from daily combat results from the book, 'Battle of France, Then and Now'. They are not claims but admitted losses from both sides.

So... all the RAF losses are not necessarily due to action against Bf 110s, then?

[steve51]

John Vasco,
I apoligise for being unclear. The losses given by Juhu are the losses from bf110s. There were compiled from admitted losses during combat with bf110s. There were engagements where multiple German aircraft types were involved, and if there was a question about the source of the loss, it was not included. It would seem that given the tactical environment of the BoF, the bf110 could hold its own against the English fighters.
Steve Brown

[Juha]

Hello John
Steve already explaned the fundamentals of JoeB's calculations and the smallness of the numbers should have given that away anyway.
JoeB's figures to 109 vs British fighters
In BoF:
Hurricane dest by Bf109 v Bf109 dest by Hurricane: 151:74, 2.04:1
Spitfire dest by Bf109 v Bf109 dest by Spit: 32:24, 1.33:1

I must add that one other participant of that thread had made same calculations and had come to same conclusion, that 110s did surprisingly well during the BoF.

Juha