How good was the Me-110?

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

Author	Comment
Ed	How good was the Me-110?	Lead	[-]
Posts: 2337 (17-Jun-2008 02:39:19) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	The USAAF P-38 was, without a doubt the best twin engine fighter of WWII, although it did have its growing pains. But, how good was the Lufteaffe Me-110 as a twin engine fighter? I know it was not as manuverable as the P-38 (neither was the Bf-109), but the Me-110 was fast and was also used as an early night fighter. Ed
Duncan Albermarle		#1	[-]
Posts: 116 (17-Jun-2008 03:43:06) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	There is a performance difference between a single-seat fighter (like the P-38) and a multi-seat fighter (like the Bf-110). The Bf-110 was better compared to the Mosquito.
CliffS		#2	[-]
Posts: 526 (17-Jun-2008 05:49:50) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Duncan Albermarle wrote: There is a performance difference between a single-seat fighter (like the P-38) and a multi-seat fighter (like the Bf-110). The Bf-110 was better compared to the Mosquito. In which role? They followed different developmental and deployment paths. The Bf-110 was first tested in combat as a heavy, long-range escort fighter during the Battle of Britain. It failed in this task against the more manoeuvrable Hurricane and Spitfire. It achieved greater success in a defensive role later in the war, mainly as a night-fighter. The Mosquito was a fast, versatile fighter-bomber capable of low-level hit-and-run raids against ground targets, using bombs or rockets plus a heavy nose armament of 4x20mm cannon. I think a closer comparison to the Zerstorer, would be the Bristol Beaufighter. Either way, the P-38 would have outclassed the Bf-110 in a dogfight. Cheers, Cliff
Dave Bender	Bf-110 was better compared to the Mosquito	#3	[-]
Posts: 6596 (17-Jun-2008 22:47:14) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	The Me-410 would be the German competitor to the Mosquito. Both entered service in large numbers during 1943. Both were designed to serve as a night fighter and night intruder. The Bristol Beaufighter would be a better comparison to the Me-110. But you must be careful to match aircraft models during the same year as both aircraft types were produced over a 5+ year time frame. The American A-20 also more or less fills the same combat role as a night fighter and light bomber. The American P-38 compares with the Fw-187 which Germany decided not to mass produce. Give the Fw-187 DB601 engines and the P-38 would have some serious competition as a long range twin engine day fighter. As for the original question, the Me-110 was a fine aircraft. The problem was misuse by Luftwaffe leadership. You would not expect an A-20 or Beaufighter to dog fight with Spitfires. Why would you expect the Me-110 to be capable of this?
emc		#4	[-]
Posts: 3858 (17-Jun-2008 23:00:48) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Dave Bender wrote: The Me-410 would be the German competitor to the Mosquito. Both entered service in large numbers during 1943. Both were designed to serve as a night fighter and night intruder. The Bristol Beaufighter would be a better comparison to the Me-110. But you must be careful to match aircraft models during the same year as both aircraft types were produced over a 5+ year time frame. The American A-20 also more or less fills the same combat role as a night fighter and light bomber. The American P-38 compares with the Fw-187 which Germany decided not to mass produce. Give the Fw-187 DB601 engines and the P-38 would have some serious competition as a long range twin engine day fighter. As for the original question, the Me-110 was a fine aircraft. The problem was misuse by Luftwaffe leadership. You would not expect an A-20 or Beaufighter to dog fight with Spitfires. Why would you expect the Me-110 to be capable of this? I wouldn't be planning on using a P-70 or Beaufighter to escort a bomber group, either. But, I've got to agree: the major problem with the Me-110 was how it was used by the Luftwaffe, not the aircraft itself. I think it's fair to say that the Me-110 was a reasonably good, albeit not great, aircraft which was misused, at least partly because the Luftwaffe thought it was much better than it actually was.
Dave Bender	Luftwaffe thought it was much better than it actually was	#5	[-]
Posts: 6597 (17-Jun-2008 23:15:52) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	The Luftwaffe did not think this through. During 1939 to 1940 the Luftwaffe primarily used the Me-110 as a long range day fighter. If that was the pre-war intent then they should have produced the Fw-187 instead.
jlyons97		#6	[-]
Posts: 1523 (17-Jun-2008 23:20:10) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	One of the more successful 'uses' to which the Me-110 was put, was that of preventing the development of a long-range single seat competitive RAF day fighter. The '110's performance in BoB convinced Portal that no long range fighter could ever be competitive with a shorter range one. He convinced the PM and others, and won the argument. Thus the very obvious solution to a problem that had arisen as soon a Blenheims started being slaughtered over France in 1941, a long range Spitfire, was never done. It could have been done, but wasn't. Apologists having been trying to deny this issue for decades.
Dave Bender	Long range Spitfire was never done	#7	[-]
Posts: 6598 (17-Jun-2008 23:54:02) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Germany made a similiar mistake. They badly needed a single engine fighter with longer range. A Fw-190 equipped with a DB601 engine could have filled that role. The Luftwaffe elected not to build an additional DB601 engine plant during the late 1930s, to provide the engines that Dr. Tank wanted to use on the Fw-190 series.
lynn1212		#8	[-]
Posts: 634 (18-Jun-2008 01:14:20) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	the 110 was the result of the misguided "destroyer" concept which envisioned a fast well armed craft. its function was as a long ranged escort and interceptor. a poorly thought out idea that ended up with a plane that was easy meat for any real fighter in the daytime. it was useful for night interceptor , intruder , recon, and did find use as an interceptor against unescorted bombers or with top cover as a rocket launcher. as a pure fighter it was a loss
Admiral Beez		#9	[-]
Posts: 4556 (18-Jun-2008 05:44:39) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Ed wrote: The USAAF P-38 was, without a doubt the best twin engine fighter of WWII, Ed I'd put a few twin engine fighters up against the P-38 and take my chances, though to the P-38's credit, only latecomers facing low production numbers can compete one-on-one with the P-38. For starters, let's throw in the Dornier Do 335 Pfeil and Messerschmitt Me 262, two twins that should give the P-38 a run for its money.
jhack	The F4F and ME-110	#10	[-]
Posts: 100 (18-Jun-2008 19:32:43) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I realize the Wildcat and the ME-110 are two completely different airplanes, but I've wondered if a change in tactics could have helped Destroyer pilots in the Battle of Britian. U.S. Navy Pilots took a heavier, slower, less maneuverable, heavily armed fighter into combat against a lighter more maneuverable opponent in 1942 and came out on top much of the time. Could better tactics such as the Thatch Weave, and better more creative pilots have helped the ME-110 deal with the Spitfire or Hurricane. Wow, my 100th post, took me long enough.
Dave Bender	P-38 was, without a doubt the best twin engine fighter of WW	#11	[-]
Posts: 6603 (19-Jun-2008 00:37:29) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	For shooting down Lancaster bombers at night? I don't think so. The P-38 was capable only if used properly. Just like the Me-110 and most other aircraft.
Desertfox.historypolitics...		#12	[-]
Registered Member Posts: 79 (19-Jun-2008 04:46:31) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	A change in tactics could have certainly helped the Me-110. They where tied down to the bombers, effectively eliminating all their advantages (speed, firepower) and maximizing their disadvantages (agility, acceleration). Had the Me-110s been able to use hit and run tactics, they would have been alot more succesful, much like the P-47s over Germany later on.
emc		#13	[-]
Posts: 3859 (19-Jun-2008 05:25:24) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	jlyons97 wrote: One of the more successful 'uses' to which the Me-110 was put, was that of preventing the development of a long-range single seat competitive RAF day fighter. The '110's performance in BoB convinced Portal that no long range fighter could ever be competitive with a shorter range one. He convinced the PM and others, and won the argument. Thus the very obvious solution to a problem that had arisen as soon a Blenheims started being slaughtered over France in 1941, a long range Spitfire, was never done. It could have been done, but wasn't. Apologists having been trying to deny this issue for decades. With the same constraints on available engines, and unit cost, a shorter ranged fighter can always have higher performance than one with longer range, when sufficiently within its operational envelope. Obviously, taking this too far (Me163, Bachem Natter) results in aircraft which, while capable of incredibly rates of climb, or feats of maneuver, can't get into position for an intercept or do anything even vaguely resembling "patrolling." This is why the Mirage III rather quickly lost its rocket pack, and the main reputed shortcoming of the F11F and English Electric Lightning. To jhack: congratulations on your thousandth post. I think that the F4F was one of the most undervalued US aircraft of the ww2 era. Like many US aircraft, it was designed with the belief that roll response was critical for good maneuverability, and it could roll quite quickly. While the Zero had a tighter sustained turn radius and greater sustained turn rate, the F4F, especially at higher speeds, could probably initiate a turn faster than could a Zero. Indeed, at low altitude, I think it likely that a Wildcat (especially an FM-2 Wildcat) would have a fair chance against any piston-engined aircraft to see service before 1945.
jlyons97	Get a grip...	#14	[-]
Posts: 1525 (19-Jun-2008 05:26:23) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Dave Bender wrote: For shooting down Lancaster bombers at night? I don't think so. The P-38 was capable only if used properly. Just like the Me-110 and most other aircraft. Any twin engine fighter could shoot down Lancasters. What bothers you past the point of cogent discussion is that the P-38 was not only competitive with its single engine peers in daylight, but that one of its pilots outscored all his western contemporaries, period.
jlyons97	"I think it likely that a Wildcat (especially an FM-2	#15	[-]
Posts: 1526 (19-Jun-2008 05:32:36) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Wildcat) would have a fair chance against any piston-engined aircraft to see service before 1945." And a bit beyond the beginning of 1945 based on the evidence. FM-2s were doing in their opposite number fighters right up to VJ-Day. Other than the engine, this was a 1941 airplane still playing with the big boys long after its contemporaries were back in training commands, or scrapped.
emc		#16	[-]
Posts: 3860 (19-Jun-2008 05:37:56) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	jlyons97 wrote: Dave Bender wrote: For shooting down Lancaster bombers at night? I don't think so. The P-38 was capable only if used properly. Just like the Me-110 and most other aircraft. Any twin engine fighter could shoot down Lancasters. What bothers you past the point of cogent discussion is that the P-38 was not only competitive with its single engine peers in daylight, but that one of its pilots outscored all his western contemporaries, period. The best twin-engined piston fighter ever was either the Twin Mustang or the Tigercat; either could quite easily mix it up with any piston-engined fighter to see service in ww2 (but probably not with the Bearcat or Seafury, which didn't). I believe the F7F missed ww2 service by a few weeks (iirc, some Tigercat squadrons were worked up and being deployed on VJ Day), and Twin Mustang by a few months, but they're both in the realm of "too late." The P-38 was a great airplane, but not a perfect one, and it wasn't until some aerodynamic and control system mods (boosted controls, maneuver flaps) and some lessons from Tony Levier that it was really able to demonstrate greatness. Considering that quite a few of the early radar-equipped night fighters (P-70, Beaufighter, Mosquito) were based on bomber aircraft, arguing for the Me-110's greatness as a fighter based on its use as a night fighter is a bit of a stretch. It wasn't a bad airplane, but as a day fighter and as a "fighter destroyer," it was a failure. Last Edited By: emc 19-Jun-2008 05:41:10. Edited 1 times.
jhack	Thanks emc	#17	[-]
Posts: 103 (19-Jun-2008 08:41:13) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	but it was my hundreth post not thousandth post. At the rate I'm going, the Air Force will replace the KC-135 before I get to 1,000 posts. I've always thought the Wildcat was undervalued too. The reason I brought it up here though was that it was a case of talented fighter pilots taking a slower, less maneuverable plane and using tactics to defeat the faster opponent. In this case the Wildcat had the advantage of being tougher and more heavily armed than the Zero. I don't know that the ME-110 was tougher than a Spitfire or Hurricane, but I think it was more heavily armed than the early versions of the british planes. As Desertfox wrote, inflexible tactics tied the 110 to the bombers, but could it have been effective in the daytime with more creative tactics or better pilots?
Red Admiral		#18	[-]
Posts: 1882 (19-Jun-2008 10:23:49) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	The best twin-engined piston fighter ever was either the Twin Mustang or the Tigercat de Havilland Hornet should be able to beat both in the fighter role. Very good maneuverability, excellent speed and climb with masses of power available. It was Eric Brown's favourite piston aircraft to fly.
emc		#19	[-]
Posts: 3861 (19-Jun-2008 13:47:32) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Red Admiral wrote: The best twin-engined piston fighter ever was either the Twin Mustang or the Tigercat de Havilland Hornet should be able to beat both in the fighter role. Very good maneuverability, excellent speed and climb with masses of power available. It was Eric Brown's favourite piston aircraft to fly. I could say I forgot the Hornet, but that's not quite true. I just didn't think of the Hornet as a fighter, per se. I stand corrected.
Dave Bender	F4F, especially at higher speeds	#20	[-]
Posts: 6605 (19-Jun-2008 14:23:23) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Off topic as this is about the Me-110. However.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F4F_Wildcat The F4F-3 is the Wildcat that counts as it was the version widely available during December 1941. Unfortunately the F4F-3 was neither fast nor heavily armed. Not to mention a poor rate of climb. D.520s, MC.202s, Yak-1s, Me-109Fs, Fw-190As and Spitfire Mk Vs would have eaten it for lunch. Even the much maligned Me-110D was faster and had a superior rate of climb. Fortunately for the U.S. Navy the Wildcat was rarely used in Europe. The Wildcat could cope with obsolescent A6M2s and Ki-27s.

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

How good was the Me-110?

How good was the Me-110?

Quick Reply