Bf 110 Werk-Nr. 4356

[Evgeny Velichko]

John:
I could add, that as well as I know, ETC50 bombracks were found on the crashplace, and in Your book there are some photoes of S9+TN in flight, wich are showing a Bf110E aircraft. So I suggest it was built as a E variant.

[John Vasco]

Originally Posted by Stig Jarlevik

Thanks John

Very interesting scenario. I don't think I realized that the difference in real life was in fact so small between the two versions. That a C-2 could be upgraded to a C-4 seems very likely while making a D into an E would be a lot more difficult.
Wonder why they in fact changed the sub-version title in this case and not just continued with a D-x?

Anyway your explanation is very much plausible and I have made an explicit note about it in relevant places.

May I ask if this is the first D-3 WNr that this change can be noticed or are there any lower (or indeed higher) WNrs where this also can be seen?

Thanks again John for taking the time to enlighten all of us
Very much appreciated!!

Cheers
Stig

As I said in my post, Stig, available components were used without regard to the fine details, which researchers and interested people nowadays examine in fine detail. There is a photo that Fernando and I used in our 'Messerschmitt Bf 110 C, D and E: An Illustrated Study' on page 105 that defies accurate description - not just a sub-variant, but an actual variant. Here's that photo:


Regarding a 'D' W. Nr. aircraft becoming an 'E' at the factory stage of construction, as I said, with the factory having the component parts available and the machinery to fit those parts (given that the 'E' was being built at the same time as the 'D'), it's easy to see that airframes could be put on the 'E' production line for the fitment of the latest improvements, and coming off the productionline at the end, the paperwork that accompanied the aircraft would reflect its final form.

I haven't delved deeply into cross-referencing the W. Nr. of D-3s initially allocated with their variant when appearing in the loss lists, but that might be an interesting task, given what I discovered about the C-2/C-4.

[Dan History]

John,

Given your interest in the Bf 110, you might be interested in the following Russian language links concerning the discovery of the aircraft which forms the subject of this thread. This occurred relatively recently, as Evgeny mentioned:

http://iskatelklada.tuapse.ru/razdel...-110-4356.html

and

http://trizna.ru/forum/topic/38074-%...B%D0%BA%D0%B0/

I can translate some of this content, should you want me to.

Regards,

Dan

[John Vasco]

Dan,
Thanks for those links - appreciated. It would be interesting to see what the comments are in those links, so if you or Evgeny (or both of you) can translate any or all of the Russian text, that would be great.

[John Vasco]

Originally Posted by Rottler

Hello Stig,

let us wait for an answer to your post #5.

Regards
Leo

I believe I have answered it fully.

Any further comments from you?

[Rottler]

I have read your interesting interpretations which are not in agreement with the Petrick/Mankau book.

Your listed WNr. in the comparison of the variant C-2 during production and the variant C-4 from the loss lists are correct.
The following Bf 110 C-2 were listed in the Gen.Qu. loss lists as C-2 too:
2121, 3111, 3225, 3235, 3533, 3541, 3548.
Therefore it is not sure that your called C-2 were upgraded to the C-4 specification during the production. For example the Miag built aircraft 3533, 3541 and 3548 were lost as C-2 and not upgraded to C-4 standard, the 3532, 3534, 3536, 3545 and 3563 were built as C-2 and lost as C-4.
According to the Mankau/Petrick book page 176 many C-2 were afterward upgraded to C-4 standard, but not during the production.
Word for word: " Da .... in den Verlustmeldungen Maschinen als C-4 bezeichnet werden, die als C-2 gebaut wurden, sind Bf 110 C-2 nachträglich auf den Stand C-4 gebracht worden."

According to the C-Amts plan from 1 November 1940 FW were supposed to built 94 Bf 110 E-2. In the loss lists are about 73 allocated FW WNr. which appeared in the D-3 variant. Actually FW had delivered only 21 Bf 110 E-2, WNr. 4381-4400. Therefore the FW built WNr. 4356 was a Bf 110 D-3 (compare Mankau/Petrick pages 190, 324 and 325).

The variant "Bf 110 F" in the Gen.Qu. loss report is inexplicable.

I am no specialist for the Bf 110, I have only quoted the Petrick/Mankau book.

Regards
Leo

[John Vasco]

Rottler/Leo,
I realise that English is not your first language, and so I made allowances for that in the other thread in which we had a discussion recently.

I believe you have misunderstood the point I was making with my reply in this thread. I was NOT saying all C-2s ended up as C-4s. I was saying that during the production run, things changed (i.e. the improved MG-FF/M 20 mm. cannon being available), and so what was a 'C-2' initial batch of W. Nr. resulted in the end with some of those airframes being upgraded to C-4 specifications and therefore they left the factory as C-4s. I do know that C-2s in the W. Nr. batches left the factory as C-2s, BUT NOT ALL OF THEM DID. Upgrades were also carried out 'in the field', not only for the fitment of 20 mm. cannons, but also for the fitment of armoured windscreens, for example.

Similarly, it appears to me that some of that last batch of D-3s built by FW were actually upgraded to E-2 specifications and therefore left the factory as E-2s.

I have tried to be as clear as possible in my replies to you. Why do I get the feeling that you are arguing with me simply for the sake of argument, rather than trying to grasp the simple statements I make?

[Rottler]

Hello John,

I have not intended to comment this theme in addition to my comment to Stig Jarlevik in post #6.
In post #15 you have encouraged me to give a further comment. I have nothing to add to my yesterday's reference to the Mankau/Petrick book.

I have taken notice of the results of your research (WNr. 4356 = Bf 110 E-2) and your statements and bring this discussion for my part to an end.

Regards
Leo

[John Vasco]

I have the Petrick/Mankau book also.

I have nothing to add to my posts either.

Regards,
John V.