Me110: Ill-used in BoB

[Juha]

I’d be careful on Christer’s analyzes.
Now at first I have to admit that I’ve not read the book, only leafed through it in one bookshop and noticed, as I have guessed, that he claimed that according to British John Alcorn’s deep study 303 Sqn was the worst overclaimer during the BoB even if when Christer gleefully posted on this board, IIRC on the old version, that British John Alcorn had made a study on the BoB and have proved that 303 Sqn was the worst overclaimer during the BoB, I informed him, and I must do that at least twice before he accepted the fact, that Alcorn had acknowledged that he had used outdated material in his study and had made a new one using better base material and according to the newer study 303 wasn’t the worst overclaimer. To me publishing accusation which one knows is wrong shows a bad researcher moral.

Christer’s selectiveness on facts is also shown on Bf 110s

in a tread in The Forum of the 1.Jagdmoroner Abteilung
http://www.1jma.dk/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=3371
Actual losses in the Battle of Britain

which no seems to went to cyber cemetery but on which on this board there was a thread on Christer’s “original” interpretation on RAF’s Cat 2 damage classification.
On 04 July 2004 : 22:00:20 message

Christer had opinion when trying to proof accuracy of 109 pilots claim during the BoB, Quote: “The twin-engine Me 110 crews with their rear gunners were just as notorious for huge overclaims as any bomber crews of any air force.”

On the other hand when he tried to proof the effectiveness of Bf 110s he tended to forget Bf 109s, see: http://forum.skalman.nu/viewtopic.php?t=28706
Forumindex » Militär teknikhistoria » Bf 110 - ett misslyckande?

Christer Bergström Från: Sverige 11 Feb 2007 19:52

…John Foreman skriver i sin bok ”Fighter Command War Diaries”, vol. 2, sid 44, om det uppdrag som ZG 26 flög den 28 september 1940: ”Det sista anfallet genomfördes mot 10 Groups område när en stor formation närmade sig Southampton. Denna visade sig bestå av Bf 110r och de invecklades i strid med tre Hurricane-Squadrons utanför Selsey Bill. Hurricaneplanen fick stora problem med dessa tvåmotoriga jaktplan. Trots brittiska anspråk på tre förstörda och en skadad, gick inte en enda Messerschmitt förlorad. De tyska flygarna lyckades skjuta ned inte mindre än sex Hurricanes, där fem av piloterna också gick förlorade.”…

The problem is that The BoB Then and Now Mk V allocated only one Hurricane plus one badly damaged, which force-landed back at base, a/c repairable, to Bf 110s and 5 to Bf 109s and one damaged because it run out of fuel. And well before publication of ”Luftstrid över kanalen”(1), 2006 when he was repeatedly informed, also on this board, that Mason’s Battle over Britain, on which he based his earlier analysis, was outdated and The BoB Then and Now was clearly more up do date I informed him that Mk V was the edition he should look after and he thanked me on info and wrote that he had ordered a copy of it. So he’d have been aware of the difference.

After that flood of words, IMHO LW needed 110s to escort bombers outside the range of 109. The effectiveness of 110 escorts varied but sometimes they were effective sometimes FC pilots noted that 110s concentrated too much to their own safety. So at least part of ZG Gruppen was needed to escort work, because it was the bombers which could delivery really hard blows on key industrial targets.

Juha