Author Topic: A valid 110 model for BOB, and a model revamp.  (Read 1224 times)

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23048
Re: A valid 110 model for BOB, and a model revamp.
« Reply #30 on: August 11, 2011, 03:22:49 PM »
I thought one of the reasons the 110's suffered such high loses was BECAUSE they were tied to close escort duties and lost the initiative in combat with the RAF interceptors?  I'll admit that it's been a while since I read up on the BoB so I'll take your word to the contrary if I'm mistaken.
That order certainly didn't help it, but the signs of problems were there in the Battle of France and came to the fore in the Battle of Britain, even prior to the close escort order.  It wasn't like it was doing fine until that order was given.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline gyrene81

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11629
Re: A valid 110 model for BOB, and a model revamp.
« Reply #31 on: August 11, 2011, 03:39:18 PM »
That order certainly didn't help it, but the signs of problems were there in the Battle of France and came to the fore in the Battle of Britain, even prior to the close escort order.  It wasn't like it was doing fine until that order was given.
you're talking about the issues 3 seat a and b models that used the jumo engines. they didn't suffer as heavy losses in france and poland as the c models did against the spits and hurricanes. mostly due to the obsolete aircraft they were pitted against. it wasn't until the bob that the luftwaffe realized the aircraft were doomed as escort fighters. i believe it was the loss of some 200+ in one month that brought that realization to the forefront.

still, for a supposedly poor performing aircraft with a bad combat record the germans sure made a large number of them and used them in many different roles.
jarhed  
Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. - Terry Pratchett

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23048
Re: A valid 110 model for BOB, and a model revamp.
« Reply #32 on: August 11, 2011, 06:48:25 PM »
The Bf110 was very successful as a night fighter.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Re: A valid 110 model for BOB, and a model revamp.
« Reply #33 on: August 11, 2011, 07:14:41 PM »
It was successful, but not a good performer. It didn't take much to be a good night fighter. Bombers didn't fly as fast as they do in AH. I've heard that it was quite unstable with the giant antennae on the nose, and a bit of a handful.

As for its track record during BOB, I don't think you can comment about it being slaughtered because everything the Germans learned up to that point was totally ignored and orders handed down from the top micromanaging every facet of the mission profile. They were hamstrung. It would be like telling a P-51D squadron to only fly below 250mph and to aggressively out-turn anything they see. The end results may suggest the airframe itself was bad but it was more doctrine.

I don't think it was all that GREAT per se, but given that the Western powers were in a race to see who could fight the fastest and highest, the 110C-4 was definitely in the top ranks of speed and altitude performance. If they BnZed the RAF to death the results may very well have been different.

Same thing applies to the Fw190 -- fast and high but turns not so good. IT ended up wiping Spitfires from the skies for about a year or so until the RAF could counter it with the Spit9. If the Fw190 were forced to only fly low close escort inside the bomber stream it wouldn't have done any better than the 110C.

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23048
Re: A valid 110 model for BOB, and a model revamp.
« Reply #34 on: August 11, 2011, 07:58:33 PM »
Krusty,

Bf110s were not told to do that until the bomber losses were not dropping and were unsustainable.  People keep acting like the close escort order was for the entire BoB, but it wasn't and the Bf110 did poorly before that as well.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline Guppy35

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 20387
Re: A valid 110 model for BOB, and a model revamp.
« Reply #35 on: August 11, 2011, 08:58:51 PM »
It was successful, but not a good performer. It didn't take much to be a good night fighter. Bombers didn't fly as fast as they do in AH. I've heard that it was quite unstable with the giant antennae on the nose, and a bit of a handful.

As for its track record during BOB, I don't think you can comment about it being slaughtered because everything the Germans learned up to that point was totally ignored and orders handed down from the top micromanaging every facet of the mission profile. They were hamstrung. It would be like telling a P-51D squadron to only fly below 250mph and to aggressively out-turn anything they see. The end results may suggest the airframe itself was bad but it was more doctrine.

I don't think it was all that GREAT per se, but given that the Western powers were in a race to see who could fight the fastest and highest, the 110C-4 was definitely in the top ranks of speed and altitude performance. If they BnZed the RAF to death the results may very well have been different.

Same thing applies to the Fw190 -- fast and high but turns not so good. IT ended up wiping Spitfires from the skies for about a year or so until the RAF could counter it with the Spit9. If the Fw190 were forced to only fly low close escort inside the bomber stream it wouldn't have done any better than the 110C.

Krusty your leather Lederhosen is showing again.
Dan/CorkyJr
8th FS "Headhunters

Offline B-17

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2672
Re: A valid 110 model for BOB, and a model revamp.
« Reply #36 on: August 11, 2011, 09:46:46 PM »
Speaking of Rolling (Karnak)

Is it just me, or does the 262 roll REALLY slowly?

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23048
Re: A valid 110 model for BOB, and a model revamp.
« Reply #37 on: August 11, 2011, 11:22:42 PM »
Speaking of Rolling (Karnak)

Is it just me, or does the 262 roll REALLY slowly?
Honestly, I am not at all the one to ask about the Me262 either historically or in game.  I really prefer pistons to turbines.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Re: A valid 110 model for BOB, and a model revamp.
« Reply #38 on: August 12, 2011, 01:04:48 AM »
Krusty,

Bf110s were not told to do that until the bomber losses were not dropping and were unsustainable.  People keep acting like the close escort order was for the entire BoB, but it wasn't and the Bf110 did poorly before that as well.

I don't know about the 110C but specific to the 109E it WAS most of the BOB. The reason they had only 5 minutes over the target to fight was because they had to circle and form up and stay with the bomber formations as the bombers zig-zagged over France making their way in to the target. They had to rendevouz and if the timing was off they burned more gas waiting.

The Bf109 pilots could have and would have caused a lot more hurt to the RAF if they had just gone in in hunter killer mode and killed the RAF. The squadron leaders were practically begging for the freedom/permission to do so, but were not allowed.

I can only imagine 110C specific orders being just as strict.

P.S. Guppy I'm not saying it's a great plane, just that if you look at it from pure speed and alt, it's not without merit. Doctrine overruled capability. It has qualities the RAF wanted in their own aircraft, but were unable to produce in time. (i.e. whirlwind)
« Last Edit: August 12, 2011, 01:06:23 AM by Krusty »

Offline gyrene81

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11629
Re: A valid 110 model for BOB, and a model revamp.
« Reply #39 on: August 12, 2011, 09:38:21 AM »
Krusty,

Bf110s were not told to do that until the bomber losses were not dropping and were unsustainable.  People keep acting like the close escort order was for the entire BoB, but it wasn't and the Bf110 did poorly before that as well.
actually karnak, by the time the 110c made it to full production the luftwaffe command mistakenly determined it was ideally suited to the role in spite of the shortcomings. you are right that the close escort order was not for the entire bob, can't remember what squadron it was but in one month it lost ~220 out of ~230 110s while they tried to fly close escort. soon after that the 110s were pulled from escort duty and the 109s became bomber escorts.
jarhed  
Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. - Terry Pratchett