"Zerstorer" Hardback by John Vasco and Peter Cornwell - Coming from Wingleader in 2025

[Peter Kassak]

to support my theory that it is the same plane, small analysis:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/19qO...ew?usp=sharing

And the 3171 plane is different one, compare the font type of digit 8... it is wider on plane 3171.

[INM@RLM]

Re. #78 & #81: Probably everyone is a little confused by now.

#78 "Just to add my 2 cents... M8+FH on page 13. is the same a/c as on the pages 22 and 23" (for p.22, p.21 was the actual reference).
#81 "And the 3171 plane is different one" yet it is 3171 that is readable in the photo on p.21.

Whatever the detailed photo analyses of marking styles, none of this trumps the fundamental structural differences between the D-series and its forerunners.

PS Peter, I'll send you a copy of L.Dv.T. 2413/1 (Entwurf). (Downloaded from the cockpitinstrumente de site in May 2019. That domain is now defunct.)

[Peter Kassak]

page 13 and 23 (and 22 as well the one in the background) is the same. WNr 3135. see my graphics
page 21 is 3171, diffferent digit 8 in the code as that one on page 13 and 23.
is it clear now?

[INM@RLM]

Indeed getting there, Peter.

Going back and looking there is indeed a damaged M8+FH in the background of the photo on p.22, and if you say this was WNr. 3135 then that aligns with the rest of the evidence for the D-series.

My #76 though did not touch on the p.22 photo, but related only to the photos on pp.13, 21 & 23 in which each of the M8+FH portrayed is captioned as WNr. 3171.

WNr. 3135 therefore is part of a different conversation. Turning to that different aspect then, your posts highlight that at least two different Bf 110 Ds, 3135 & 3171, were marked as M8+FH and served with I./ZG 76 during the first eight months of 1940.

Your contention then, based on the analysis of better quality prints than the published reproductions here, is that the M8+FH on p.13 is actually the same M8+FH as that shown crashlanded on 2nd June in the photo on p.23, however, during recovery and repair it has now been stripped of its Dackelbauch.

Looking hard and long again at the photo on p.13, I now think you are correct. That is actually a D-series rear fuselage, rather than a C-series end cap. We don't see the dinghy cable release presumably because of the lack of resolution and the darkness of this area in the reproduction. My mistakes then.

So to summarize what I understand you to be saying is that:
M8+FH in the photos on p.13, in the background on p.22 and crashed on p.23 are all of WNr. 3135 and therefore none of these is of WNr. 3171,
whilst the M8+FH in the photo on p.21 with the readable WNr. of 3171 is a different and later successor aircraft.

Well, we both agree that the M8+FH on p.13 is not WNr. 3171 as captioned, and now your studies have concluded that the M8+FH on p.23 is also not WNr. 3171. Two more corrections for the Errata then rather than just one.

Does that about cover it?
Thank you for these corrections and clarifications.

[Peter Kassak]

Yes, exactlyy my thoughts but presented with more clearer words ...;-) thanks

[INM@RLM]

You are most welcome, Peter.

[INM@RLM]

It is only right and proper to give full credit where due. One point in Zerstörer (2025) does deserve particular recognition and highlighting. This is the definitive proof of WNr. 3371 as a Bf 110 strike variant in use with Erpr.Gr. 210 in the summer of 1940. That is evidenced by the excellent photo with the clearly readable WNr. of S9+AH on p.249(mid lft). This WNr. fills the last gap remaining in the identities of the sixteen Bf 110 D-3 variants delivered by Mtt Augsburg. Accordingly, it is at last now possible to present a clear and full picture of all the D-3s identities delivered by Augsburg. (Since no Lw. damage/loss record has ever been linked to WNr. 3371, this photographic confirmation - at this point at least - constitutes the sole and unique, keystone evidence for this particular identity.)

As a consequence of this definitive verification of WNr. 3371, it is now crystal clear that the six Bf 110 D-3 delivered with DB 601 A engines comprised these three pairs, each pairing separated by a single Bf 110 D-2 identity:
WNr. 3367 & 3368 (2) Bf 110 D-3
WNr. 3370 & 3371 (2) Bf 110 D-3
WNr. 3373 & 3374 (2) Bf 110 D-3

By contrast, the ten Bf 110 D-3/N deliveries with DB 601 Ns that followed were made up of an initial pair followed by two sequences of four each, each span being separated now by a pair of Bf 110 D-2 identities:
WNr. 3377 & 3378 (2) Bf 110 D-3/N
WNr. 3381 to 3384 (4) Bf 110 D-3/N
WNr. 3387 to 3390 (4) Bf 110 D-3/N
Similarly a pair of D-2 identities occupied the interval between these two groupings of D-3s.

(A separate post will set out in outline the evidence supporting each of these individual identities in use as a strike variant during 1940. There is also one D-3 identity that has been misreported since the Flugbuch of Balthasar Aretz erroneously included two flights in a WNr. 3372 on 5-Aug-40. See the original log book pages reproduced in Bombsights over England (1990) on p.96, with the same Flugbuch mentions in the tabulation in Bombsights over England (2002) on p.169. In reality this can only have been WNr. 3382, newly delivered to the Gruppe and subsequently recorded lost in early Oct-40 as S9+FH with 1./Erpr.Gr. 210.)

The delivery by Mtt of just a further sixteen examples of the D-series strike version in the three months after 30-Jun-40 represented a distinct and major downshift by comparison with Messerschmitt's Lieferplan Nr. 17c issued by Augsburg on 3-July-40. In response to a request from the RLM of 27-Jun-40, this latest Lieferplan had proposed that all 75 of the D-series still to be delivered by Mtt-A after 30-Jun-40 were now scheduled to be completed configured as a D-0/B strike variant. [See T177-19_0361 & _0362]
However, other later documentation shows that LP 17c was not the end of the story, but only part of a continuing evolution with further major changes being subsequently implemented at Augsburg during July 1940. Take WNr. 3347 as an example. The cover of the Lebenslaufakte for WNr. 3347 (discovered by RAF Intelligence in October 1944: see AIR 40/1887), recorded this aircraft being accepted as a D-0/B. So, precisely in accordance with the new LP 17c, WNr. 3347 when delivered and accepted by the BAL was configured as a strike variant. Yet WNr. 3347 was subsequently reported and photographically confirmed damaged on 13-Aug-40 as U8+EK of 2./ZG 26 (see Zerstörer (2025) table p.201 and more significantly the photo at p145 with the clearly distinguishable WNr.). The subsequent evidence then is that post-acceptance WNr. 3347 was stripped of its bombing capabilities and issued to a fighter unit. As a consequence of this remodelling, WNr. 3347 was later reported and counted as a D-2 in Messerschmitt's final 31-Oct-40 accounting of Augsburg's D-series deliveries. (The RLM presentation of these totals by sub-type is found in LP 18/3 whilst the later Messerschmitt company version with identical figures is at T177-19_0337.) However, the echo of the LP 17c decision continued to be reflected permanently on the cover of the Lebenslaufakte for WNr. 3347.
Since WNr. 3347 was approximately the third neubau Bf 110 delivered by Augsburg in July 1940, the same process of remodelling a D-0/B into a purely fighter configuration was likely also applied to more than a few of the Bf 110s being delivered by Augsburg during the earlier part of that month. The D-3 WNr. allocations set out above then evidence that in a further progression, later that month a much more selective logic was introduced to determine precisely which examples would now be completed configured by Augsburg as strike aircraft.
This post-acceptance remodelling to a fighter variant may also have been applied to WNr. 3344, the final example recorded on 3-Jul-40 as having been delivered in June 1940 as a D-0/B, because at the date the LP 17c decision was revised this aircraft had still to be collected by the Luftwaffe from Augsburg's factory airfield.

In total then, and including the fourteen earlier examples of the Bf 110 D-0/B delivered between April and June 1940 (set out in post #73 above), Mtt Augsburg contributed a total of just thirty examples of the Bf 110 D-series strike aircraft, all of which likely ended up at some point on the strength of Erpr.Gr. 210.

This background goes some way then towards explaining why the missions flown by Erpr.Gr. 210, during July and August in particular, were always by such small formations. Even taking into account contributions from early deliveries of the four C-7s from Gotha and those later from MIAG (a strike variant without the dinghy fuselage extension), it was not until October 1940 that the situation was transformed by a plentiful supply of suitably configured strike aircraft finally becoming available to Erpr.Gr. 210. This change of circumstances was entirely the result of Augsburg having delivered 39 examples of the Bf 110 E-1/N by the end of September 1940. (4 in August and 35 in September: the Mtt A September 1940 BAL Report in BA-MA RL 3/1542 refers. Another 27 followed in October producing a total of 66 E-1/Ns delivered by the end of that month.) This flood of an even more updated strike version probably also accounted for why the last four the D-3/Ns were assigned a lower priority and so were not delivered by Augsburg until September 1940. (Evidenced in the same BAL report.)

Not material suitable for inclusion in a combat history perhaps, but that just happens to be where the most easily accessible version of the evidence actually sits. Meantime possibly a few points of interest here for those with a broader regard of Bf 110 history.

[INM@RLM]

Supporting evidence by individual identity as promised above in #87:
[Note: The Z table page references in brackets below indicate where this WNr. evidence appears in the Loss & Damage Tables of Zerstörer (2025).]

WNr. 3367 & 3368 (2) Bf 110 D-3 - both probably delivered in July 1940
WNr. 3367 reported 80% damaged on 21-Oct-40 with 2./Erpr.Gr. 210 (no unit code given). (Z table p.279)
WNr. 3368 reported 25% damaged on 31-Aug-40 with 2./Erpr.Gr. 210 as S9+EK. (NOT included in the Z table at p.207 but see BoB Then and Now Mk V p.612 although here it is identified as WNr. 3568: also explicitly corroborated as WNr. 3368 in Matti Salonen's databases)

WNr. 3370 & 3371 (2) Bf 110 D-3 - both probably delivered in July 1940
WNr. 3370 reported damaged on 31-Aug-40 with 2./Erpr.Gr. 210 as S9+DK. (Z table at p.207) Also recorded on 31-Aug-40 once by WNr. and with aircraft code 'D' in Flugbuch Balthasar Aretz - see tabulation in Bombsights over England (2002) on p.169.
WNr. 3371 photographed slightly damaged with a readable WNr. - see photo Zerstorer (2025) p.249(mid lft) Normally flown by Gr.Kdr. Martin Lutz. NB WNR. 3171 NOT INCLUDED IN ANY GQM LOSS OR DAMAGE RECORD.

WNr. 3373 & 3374 (2) Bf 110 D-3 - both probably delivered in July 1940
WNr. 3373 reported as total loss on 06-Sep-40 with 1./Erpr.Gr. 210 as S9+BH. (Z table p.260)
WNr. 3374 reported as total loss on 15-Aug-40 with Gr.Stab./Erpr.Gr. 210 as S9+BB. (Z table p.201) Gr.Adj. Fiedler killed.

WNr. 3377 & 3378 (2) Bf 110 D-3/N - both probably delivered in late July 1940
WNr. 3377 reported 10% damaged on 21-Aug-40 with 2./Erpr.Gr. 210 as S9+EK. (Z table at p.205) Also photographed on or just after 21-Aug-40 shown slightly damaged and with a clearly readable WNr. - see photo Bombsights over England (1990) p.55(btm). Also recorded twice by WNr. in Flugbuch Balthasar Aretz pages reproduced on p.96 op.cit. (on 4- & 8-Aug-40). [Same photo also in Bombsights Over England (2002) p.95(tp) and the same Flugbuch mentions in the tabulation in Bombsights over England (2002) on p.169 .]
WNr. 3378 reported as total loss on 27-Sep-40 with 1./Erpr.Gr. 210 as S9+DH. (Z table p.263) Gr.Kdr. Lutz killed.

WNr. 3381 to 3384 (4) Bf 110 D-3/N - most or all of these likely delivered in August 1940
WNr. 3381 reported damaged on 22-Aug-40 with 2./Erpr.Gr. 210 as S9+GK. (Z table p.205) Then reported as total loss on 31-Aug-40 with 2./Erpr.Gr. 210 also as S9+GK. (Z table p.207)
WNr. 3382 reported as total loss on 05-Oct-40 with 1./Erpr.Gr. 210 as S9+FH. (Z table p.278)
WNr. 3383 reported as total loss on 05-Oct-40 with 1./Erpr.Gr. 210 as S9+GH. (Z table p.278)
WNr. 3384 WNr. readable on S9+HH of 1./Erpr.Gr. 210 in photo taken in Sep-40 in Zerstörer (2025) p.237 [also reproduced in Bombsights Over England (2002) on pp.118/9 with caption confirming the WNr. as clearly readable on the original print.]

WNr. 3387 to 3390 (4) Bf 110 D-3/N - comprised most or all of the four D-0/B examples not reported by the BAL as delivered by Mtt-Augsburg until September 1940
WNr. 3387 noted in the table in Mankau+Petrick: Bf 110/Me 410 p.329 as "8.40 - 9.40 Erprobungsträger ETC 1000 - und Bombenrevi-Einbau; Erprobung in Rechlin".
WNr. 3388 reported as total loss on 27-Sep-40 with 1./Erpr.Gr. 210 as S9+JH. (Z table p.263)
WNr. 3389 noted in Mtt-A BAL Report for Sep-40 in BA-MA RL 3/1542. [Still reported there as a D-0/B (N)] "Werk-Nr. 3389, die im Monat August an Firma MTT.A.G. zu Austauschversuchsen abgeliefert wurde, wurde nach Umbau auf N-Motor im September 40 an die Trupple abgeliefert." = Werk-Nr. 3389, which was made available to the firm MTT.A.G.in the month of August for interchangeability trials, was delivered to the troops in September 1940 after conversion to the N-series engine."
WNr. 3390 reported as total loss on 04-Sep-40 with Gr.Stab./Erpr.Gr. 210 as S9+AB. (Z table p.259) Gr.Kdr. Boltenstern killed.

Note: WNr. 3398 reported lost as S9+EH on 5-Oct-40 (Z table p.278) can only have been a transposition of WNr. 3389. There is no other GQM record for WNr. 3398, however looking at records in the span from WNrn. 3392 to 3416 this aircraft was almost certainly assigned to ZG 26. (In BoB Then and Now Mk V p.675 this loss is identified as WNr. 3598 and it is also included as WNr. 3598 in Matti Salonen's databases.) With the wholly independent contemporary identification by Mtt Augsburg of WNr. 3388 delivered configured as a Bf 110 D strike variant, and now with foreknowledge of the very small quantity of aircraft carrying the strike sub-type designation, the balance of evidence indicates that both WNr. 3398 and 3598 are corruptions or misreads/misreports of what was actually WNr. 3389.

Since the new D-2 and D-3 designations were not introduced until late in July 1940 it is readily apparent that the aircraft data plates borne by all of the D-3s and probably at least some of the D-3/Ns were still stamped as examples of the D-0/B. Consequently how these aircraft were reported subsequently by sub-type would have depended very much on how quickly or indeed whether unit technical records had yet been updated with the revised designations.

One other point apparent in this listing is how members of the Erpr.Gr. 210 Stab managed to secure the newest of aircraft deliveries for their personal use, two Gr.Kdr. and one Gr.Adj. being lost in these examples. Not too unreasonable perhaps though in a unit that was very much led from the front.

[INM@RLM]

A footnote to a footnote.

The internal Focke-Wulf company report 'Monatsmeldung für Juli 1940' dated 9-Aug-40 (from the VFW archives) adds some detail to my post #87 comment that "... the same process of remodelling a D-0/B into a purely fighter configuration was likely also applied to more than a few of the Bf 110s being delivered by Augsburg during the earlier part of that month."

Chronologically Focke-Wulf was the second of only three Bf 110 manufacturers to build the Bf 110 D-series (of the four active during 1940). This July report evidences that FoWu commenced D-series deliveries only on 27th, 28th and 31st July 1940 with WNr. 3301-3310 followed by WNr. 3799 - 3804. All except WNr. 3301 were reported as D-0 deliveries; WNr. 3301 delivered on 28-July being reported instead as a D-0/B variant. (So, Yes, WNr. 3301 was delivered as a D-0/B a day later than the deliveries of WNr. 3302-3306 as D-0s.)

Joining these dots logically, and echoing what was evidenced above at Mtt Augsburg with WNr. 3347, around the same time as Mtt had been notified by the RLM letter of 27th June, FoWu had also been instructed to deliver their D-series examples as the D-0/B variant rather than the D-0 sub-type specified in Lieferplan 18 that was otherwise coming into effect on 1st July 1940.
That changeover to the D-0/B was then reversed at a point in July when it had become too late at FoWu to apply this alteration to WNr. 3301 before it was delivered, but still sufficiently early for all the other D-series delivered by FoWu during late July to actually be recorded as D-0s.

FoWu delivered its last C-4, WNr. 3300, on 10-July, 1940. There was then an interval of over a fortnight before deliveries of the Bf 110 D began at FoWu. A reasonable and fair conclusion then is that the subsequent instruction to FoWu to revert their D-series deliveries to the D-0 sub-type, was notified to the company around 20-July-1940.

One further conclusion also follows logically: the new decision to also revert most of Mtt D-series deliveries to the D-0 variant was most probably notified to Augsburg at or around the same time. This likely timing then suggests that around two thirds of Mtt's July deliveries - so around 22 of the 34 D-series delivered by Augsburg that month - were probably reported delivered as D-0/Bs and only post-delivery were these stripped of their bomb racks and reverted to the D-0 subtype (the sub-type that was then rechristened as the D-2 later in July).
[Complicated? Indeed, but there lies the fascination. There is no 1940 loss record and of course no Lebenslaufakte cover to confirm whether FoWu's WNr.3301 was subsequently reverted to a D-0. However it can be deduced that this was indeed what happened since this aircraft was reported damaged in December 1941 with I./NJG 1 as a Bf 110 D-1. Also worth noting is that the cover of the Lebenslaufakte for FoWu's WNr. 3305 - a document also captured by the Allies in 1944 - identified this aircraft as a Bf 110 D-1 rather than a D-0. Whether the D-0 designation at the date of delivery had been noted earlier on this cover and then been struck through later is something that is now lost, but it would appear that this was probably the case.]

That July Bf 110 deliveries from FoWu continued to be reported up to the 9th of August date of this report as only either D-0s or D-0/Bs, also confirms that the newest decision to dramatically cut back the scale of Bf 110 D-0/B deliveries was taken separately from and at a date earlier than the decision recorded in the minutes of the GL meeting of 26-July, 1940 to entirely restyle all Bf 110 D-series sub-type designations.

To methodically correct some of the errors and the multiple internal contradictions published in Mankau+Petrick, later this year I'm planning on pulling together an Excel file titled something like "How to read a 1940 Bf 110 WNr.". I have no clue though as to whether this study might also be of interest to others (or even whether these posts are still being read). However, should anyone wish to see a copy this study once it is ready, please PM me here, with your email address and "How to read a 1940 Bf 110 WNr." in the message title. Sharing will be by scc on an email sent to myself, so the confidentiality of all distribution email addresses will be preserved.