Hi Grendel,
>Yup, good and correct information about 110s in real life, correcting that ever living misinformation about 110s fighter capabilities - or the claimed lack of.
A good method to assess a fighter's qualities independend of the historical circumstances has been used by Mike Spick in his books. He asks: "How would the plane have fared if it had fought on the opposite side?" :-)
In the case of the Me 110, I think it would have fared excellently. It had a much better endurance than the single-engined fighters, so it could have climbed to altitude at the first warning of an enemy attack - the Spitfire's short endurance meant they had to scramble against the bombers when the Luftwaffe's fighter spearhead was already uncomfortably close to their bases. With GCI support, the Me 110 could have avoided the escort formations, and it could have been vectored to engage the bomber formations (and the close escort) from superior altitude. Its cannon armament would have been devestating against the bombers (much better than the RAF's RCMGs!), and though the escort fighters might have been superior, it would have been much easier to escape from a fuel-limited Me 109 that was flying over enemy territory than it was historically to escape from a Spitfire deep in the latter's homeland.
In short, a heavy fighter like the Me 110 would have boosted the strength of the RAF considerably in the Battle of Britain. If the Westland Whirlwind hadn't been hamstrung by its unreliable engines, they might actually have had one!
Regards,
Henning (HoHun)
