PDA

View Full Version : The ultimate Bf 110 battle, Hans Jabs 110 pilot supreme!



leitmotiv
09-21-2007, 07:23 PM
Does anybody have any sources for this fascinating brawl? Hans Jabs, the great night fighter ace, was caught alone on a daylight air test in his 110G by four Spit IXs on 29 April 1944, and he managed to clobber <span class="ev_code_RED">two</span> of them before being forced down. What an epic! And, he wasn't flying the lighter day version, but the heavy, draggy night fighter. If this was true, it puts paid to the conventional wisdom the 110 was a trussed turkey.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans-Joachim_Jabs

berg417448
09-21-2007, 07:59 PM
A description of events is in the book HORRIDO in chapter 10.

BerkshireHunt
09-21-2007, 08:21 PM
It's also in the Obermaier book (though 8 Spits are mentioned):
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y183/Minusmonas/jabs_001.jpg

stalkervision
09-21-2007, 09:26 PM
amazing that he did it with the draggy night fighter version! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

leitmotiv
09-21-2007, 11:19 PM
EIGHT Spitfires?!! This is getting even more interesting. I rate this the ultimate top gun challenge for IL-2. If a 110 user can pull off Jabs' feat---and live---he ought to get a free copy of BOBSOW.

stalkervision
09-21-2007, 11:58 PM
My next challange.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

leitmotiv
09-22-2007, 12:09 AM
Go for it!

Well, the story seems to be confirmed by:

GERMAN NIGHT FIGHTER ACES OF WORLD WAR 2. Jerry Scutts. Osprey, Oxford, 1998. See pages 59-61:

Scutts claims there were eight Spit IXs vs. Jabs' solitary 110G night fighter with his two man crew and a ham (!). "RAF records confirm that Jabs shot down two Spitfires." (page 61)

Astounding. Text says he was approaching Arnhem to land, saw the eight Spits, and he turned to face them firing. Hit one right off. Doesn't say how he got no.2. He then proceeded to land, he and his crew escaped, and the vengeful Spits blasted his crate. The ham did not survive.

Mr_Nakajima
09-22-2007, 01:31 AM
From 2nd Tactical Air Force, Volume 1, by Shores and Thomas:

Jabs was about to land his Bf 110 at Deelen airfield in Holland when he was spotted by a ranger patrol of six 132 Squadron Spitfires led by Sqn Ldr Geoffrey Page...

"Warned by his gunner, he was ready for the Spitfires which were going so fast that they overshot him. Pulling up the nose of his fighter, he got a short burst into Plt Off R.B. Pullin's aircraft, which crashed at once in flames. Flg Off J.J. Caulton had by now turned, and attacked the Messerschmidt head-on, but was also hit and had to crash-land on the airfield. More experienced and cautious than his wingmen, Page had curved in behind the night fighter and opened fire, whereupon Jabs also crash-landed, subsequently meeting the downed Coulton.

Page and Sgt Armour returned, reporting that they thought the two missing Spitfires had been brought down by the Airfield's flak defences. Many years later Page was to meet Jabs and become on friendly terms. Jabs recounted that he had been carrying bacon in his aircraft for his unit, but that this had been destroyed with the aircraft. Page at once sent him a side of bacon by way of recompense, in response to which Jabs telephoned him to say: ˜Geoffrey, I forgot to mention the case of brandy which was also on board!'"


There are photographs of the wreckage of Caulton's Spitfire and of Jabs and Caulton meeting each other immediately after the battle.

major_setback
09-22-2007, 03:01 AM
I don't know if this is from that fight:

http://www.luftwaffe39-45.historia.nom.br/ases/jabs1_gr.jpg

From: here (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.luftwaffe39-45.historia.nom.br/ases/jabs1.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.luftwaffe39-45.historia.nom.br/ases/jabs.htm&h=280&w=194&sz=12&hl=sv&start=3&um=1&tbnid=mhdTsn3QDZS64M:&tbnh=114&tbnw=79&prev=/images%3Fq%3Djabs%2Bcoulton%26svnum%3D10%26um%3D1% 26hl%3Dsv%26rls%3DGGLC,GGLC:1970-01,GGLC:en%26sa%3DN)

Bewolf
09-22-2007, 03:11 AM
Jabs recounted that he had been carrying bacon in his aircraft for his unit, but that this had been destroyed with the aircraft. Page at once sent him a side of bacon by way of recompense, in response to which Jabs telephoned him to say: ˜Geoffrey, I forgot to mention the case of brandy which was also on board!'"



LOL! way to go http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I never believed the Me110 was a "trussed turkey anyways". It had bad roll, but it was comparably fast and hard hitting. It shined several times during it's career and was only outclassed during the BoB, mainly cuz of bad tactics, and later in the war when more advanced single seaters came into beeing. There have been quite a lot of Me110 aces.

When the 110 first appeared in Il2 it was a descent fighter. It's much worse now, though.

FluffyDucks2
09-22-2007, 06:54 AM
If you guys think the 110 is a trussed turkey, try coming into Warclouds server, the 110s REGULARLY clobber Spits, Tempests, Ponies and Jugs http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif as well as WIN maps by VAPORISING ground targets http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

Many, many Spit pilots have learned too late that going H2H with a 110 is SUICIDE http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

leitmotiv
09-22-2007, 07:08 AM
Thanks for the details, Mr_Nakajima. Looks like Jabs was a deadly gunslinger in the head-to-head shootout mode.

I had a Spitfire Vs vs 110Gs scenario I used to play which was wild. Separated the men from the boys.

Jabs had shot down several Spitfires in the B of B in his 110C.

JG53Frankyboy
09-22-2007, 08:58 AM
btw, has anyone some serious infos about the Bf110's performance charts.......... espacially the 110C

VMF-214_HaVoK
09-22-2007, 10:00 AM
When the 110 first appeared in Il2 it was a descent fighter. It's much worse now, though.

I disagree.

S!

mortoma
09-22-2007, 04:15 PM
This lends much credence to the notion that our 110 version has a questionable FM assigned to it. Even one single AI set to ace level would give me a hard time in any single-engined fighter, let alone the uber Spit!! And we won't even talk about what would happen in the case of a human piloted Spit against a 110 online!!

VW-IceFire
09-22-2007, 04:25 PM
Interesting story. I love the retort about the brandy after being sent the bacon. Good call http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I'll always remember a pair of 110 pilots online on a late war map made several Yak-3s and a couple of La-7s pay the price for their head on tactics with the 110s as they were met with a wall of extremely accurately delivered MK108 cannons. It was quite a scene as the duo of 110s survived many an attacker and continued to fight.

horseback
09-22-2007, 04:25 PM
Jabs was undoubtedly a virtuouso who took advantage of his opponents' mistakes, but I doubt that he believed that he was anything but lucky on this occasion. 9 out of 10 times, he would have ended up in the same condition as his load of bacon, but the dice happened to roll in his favor.

The 110 in the game does seem to be a gross overachiever compared to the historical record, especially in the hands of the ai. In real life, that guy in the back seat spent more time being excess ballast than as an effective gunner or spotter.

That better change in the Storm of War series.

cheers

horseback

leitmotiv
09-22-2007, 05:21 PM
As the old expression goes, "I'd rather be lucky than good", and Jabs, clearly, was both lucky and good.

Here is the list of Zerstorer aces, that is, Bf 110, Me 210, Me 410, day fighter aces, not those who scored at night:

http://www.luftwaffe.cz/zerstorer.html

249th_Maico
09-22-2007, 06:18 PM
I had a stint in IL2 with the 110. I sucked and had to give it up. But man...them guns can really reach out and touch someone. Against Ratas and other early eastern fronters, no problem... But get in a fight with a P-40 or anything else and its bye bye birdie for me. Maybe I will try again. I been working on my patients.

stalkervision
09-22-2007, 06:52 PM
He he he... flew a four on one mission. Me in a 110 and four spits again't me. Never guess who won.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

maybe I will download the screenshots sometime.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

leitmotiv
09-22-2007, 07:47 PM
I was surprised how well it did against Spit Vs, or Hurricane IIs (but if a Hur IIC gets a good shot at you---forget it). I grew to enjoy slugging it out with Spit Vs in a clean 110G without the MK108s or MG151 belly pack.

The annoying thing about the 110 in the game is that the gunner is impervious to G forces---he will be shooting with deadly accuracy even while the airplane is performing stunts which would render a gunner hors.

One thing I want in Bob the Sow is reloads for the MGFF cannons. In the C/D/E/F they were drum-fed (G was the first version to get the belt-fed MG151s) and each had two reloads for the gunner to fit in the breeches. Ought to be a no reload if you are pulling Gs factor.

Oktoberfest_WC
09-22-2007, 07:50 PM
Hello guys,

for anyone that thinks that the 110 is a bad bird in IL2, or for anyone who wants to join the 110 team we have flying regularly on Warclouds, that's the personnal stats I achieved on the WC server only flying in the 110.

In 3500 sorties :

2200 air victories with 39 air kill streak. When they got me at the end, I was attacked by 1 P38, 2 spits, 1 P47 and 1 P51 at 4500m. I couldn't bail because of the speed after I lost a wing in a dive trying to escape from them.

5800 ground targets destroyed.

We have 17 pilots that are flying regularly the 110 lately. But usually, only 5 to 10 tends to fly all the nights.

And this plane is thrilling ! Even if it's totally outclassed against 1944 birds.

S! to all!

leitmotiv
09-22-2007, 07:55 PM
I've heard about your Wunder 110s, Oktoberfest. If I had time for a squadron, I'd apply to join yours just to fly the 110. Cheers!

Kurfurst__
09-23-2007, 07:19 AM
Originally posted by horseback:
Jabs was undoubtedly a virtuouso who took advantage of his opponents' mistakes, but I doubt that he believed that he was anything but lucky on this occasion. 9 out of 10 times, he would have ended up in the same condition as his load of bacon, but the dice happened to roll in his favor.

Yeah but this was the 10th time. As for Jabs, I don't think he was particularly virtouso, simply his opponents made the same mistake you seem to do : underestimating the opponent, a forgetting some golden rules like : Never get in front of a 110. It was pure tactical error of the spit pilots that Jabs simply made use to the full.


The 110 in the game does seem to be a gross overachiever compared to the historical record, especially in the hands of the ai.

Why, what is the 'historical record' of the 110? I am seriously curious, because I have not seen it yet anywhere.


In real life, that guy in the back seat spent more time being excess ballast than as an effective gunner or spotter.

Well he was not placed there to be gunner or a spotter for most of the time in the first place..

GH_Klingstroem
09-23-2007, 08:42 AM
being shot down in Warclouds by a bomber or a 110 i more due to the fact that the gunners are set on ACE level, meaning that they will hit u at impossible angles etc etc..

But sure there are good 110s drivers there but they cant touch me if I dont end up infront of them... Their gunners will however...

leitmotiv
09-23-2007, 01:41 PM
Even on Average, Bf 110 gunners shoot while the airplane is pulling Gs which would have had him stuck to the roof of the canopy or mashed against the side of the cabin, and will hit you almost unerringly. I stay below the tail unless I have made a rare gunner kill.

stalkervision
09-23-2007, 06:28 PM
Me-110 gunners in Il-2 are the "snazz"! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif Hell they shot down a plane for me without me even having to try.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

of course the silly spitfire pilot was following directly behind me about 100 ft away.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

horseback
09-23-2007, 08:09 PM
Why, what is the 'historical record' of the 110? I am seriously curious, because I have not seen it yet anywhere. Jeez, Kurfurst, have you never heard/read the expression "twin engine easy meat?" It was quite common amongst 8th AF fighter pilots, who yearned to find them and score quickly and easily, which they did every time the P-47's range increased up until the advent of the Mustang, which pretty much wiped the zerstorer gruppen out.
quote:
In real life, that guy in the back seat spent more time being excess ballast than as an effective gunner or spotter.

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Well he was not placed there to be gunner or a spotter for most of the time in the first place... </span> So he was originally supposed to be ballast? I understand that the guy in back was a radar operator in the nightfighters, but his function in dayfighter/zerstorers was to shoot or tell the pilot that he had company to the rear, and his usefulness was not equal to the weight penalty his inclusion imposed. The daylight 110 built as a single seater might have been twice as effective.

And still been easy meat for late war single seaters.

cheers

horseback

PS- I agree about the Spits being dumb enough to get in front of Jabs' guns, but the guy was a survivor of flying day combat in the 110 over England, so he really belonged among the elite -- and the elite always make you pay for your mistakes.

LEXX_Luthor
09-23-2007, 09:44 PM
249::
Against Ratas and other early eastern fronters, no problem...
I like to think the 110 is the ultimate very early war BnZ and escort fighter.

Kurfurst__
09-24-2007, 02:48 AM
Originally posted by horseback:
Jeez, Kurfurst, have you never heard/read the expression "twin engine easy meat?"

SHEESSH! P-38 guys may read this thread... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


It was quite common amongst 8th AF fighter pilots, who yearned to find them and score quickly and easily, which they did every time the P-47's range increased up until the advent of the Mustang, which pretty much wiped the zerstorer gruppen out.

But that's not a record, at least not an objective one. It's the combat record of the 110 in the late Reichsverteidugung, when schwarms of escort fighters appeared on the scene, and LW daylight did not have a field day either. What about Russia, Poland, France ? How many RAF fighters were shot down by 110s in 1940?

Record would be something like sorties flown, aircraft shot down and lost in combat, bombs dropped, trucks destroyed and so on. I don't see that record anywhere, just that the 110 is getting dubbed as 'easy meat' IRL, and complaining about it's isn't that 'easy meat' in the sim.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In real life, that guy in the back seat spent more time being excess ballast than as an effective gunner or spotter.

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Well he was not placed there to be gunner or a spotter for most of the time in the first place... </span>

So he was originally supposed to be ballast? I understand that the guy in back was a radar operator in the nightfighters, but his function in dayfighter/zerstorers was to shoot or tell the pilot that he had company to the rear, and his usefulness was not equal to the weight penalty his inclusion imposed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well he's official title was something like radio-operator/gunner. His first and foremost job was to handle the long-range radio, given the tasks set for the 110, a multirole, longer ranged fighter, hence the name 'destroyer' for this class. He could also navigate, something that is never ever a problem for sim players, but if you read SE veterans, they often had trouble finding out where the heck they were after combat, and how to get back to base - even over land. Oversea missions can be a tad more difficult. Multi-engine planes are full of such 'ballast' for some reason.


The daylight 110 built as a single seater might have been twice as effective.

Maybe yes, maybe no. How much weight gain that would be, 100 kg? Trouble is it was not designed to be pure daylight fighter, it was designed to be a plane that can do multiple things in the same airframe.


And still been easy meat for late war single seaters.

Maybe yes, maybe no. The trouble the 110 had was that it never got the more advanced engines unlike it's SE LW cousins, though it was under consideration, the 110 was not developed any further after early 1943, it was supposed to be replaced by more advanced types.

Bewolf
09-24-2007, 03:46 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And still been easy meat for late war single seaters.

Maybe yes, maybe no. The trouble the 110 had was that it never got the more advanced engines unlike it's SE LW cousins, though it was under consideration, the 110 was not developed any further after early 1943, it was supposed to be replaced by more advanced types. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No maybe there. The 110 did get slaughtered when facing late war single engine fighters. It just was too outdated for these kinda fights by then.

I wholeheartly agree to its performance early in the war, though. I think it got a worse reputation then it deserves.

Kurfurst__
09-24-2007, 04:02 AM
Yes the 110 did get slaughtered when facing late war single engine fighters - but that is something that can't be judged irrespective of the circumstances - the impossible tactical situation of 1944/45, when those later war fighters were flying. The LW single engines had a hard time, too in that period, and the problem was not rooting in their technical capabilities.

The point I am making is that you can't judge how good or bad a figter was purely on a single aspect of it's 'historical record' - the historical record involves a lot of varibles, pilots, tactics, numbers and so on. Each of these factors in the big picture a lot more than pure technical aspects.

The comment was about a hypothetical single seater version of the 110 btw, not the actual 110.

Bewolf
09-24-2007, 04:59 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Yes the 110 did get slaughtered when facing late war single engine fighters - but that is something that can't be judged irrespective of the circumstances - the impossible tactical situation of 1944/45, when those later war fighters were flying. The LW single engines had a hard time, too in that period, and the problem was not rooting in their technical capabilities.

The point I am making is that you can't judge how good or bad a figter was purely on a single aspect of it's 'historical record' - the historical record involves a lot of varibles, pilots, tactics, numbers and so on. Each of these factors in the big picture a lot more than pure technical aspects.

The comment was about a hypothetical single seater version of the 110 btw, not the actual 110.

Point takken, let's just not drift off too much into "ifs" when taking actualy historical account into consideration. The 110 was not to be developed further, but the 210/410 was to take its place as its natural follow up.

And the 410 was a magnificent bird which would have done much better if the overall situation was not as bad as it was.

Bremspropeller
09-24-2007, 05:23 AM
Nah, the Fw 187 would have wiped the skies of Europe.

Another example where Focke-Wulf a/c outright embarrassed Messershi1t products http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

leitmotiv
09-24-2007, 09:31 AM
From reading my books about the 110, the Luftwaffe doubly blundered by producing it as their long-range escort because the stock 110C series had insufficent range to be a long-range escort. The D series with the various solutions for external tanks from the conformal belly tank to huge drop tanks was the solution to this problem.

The smaller Fw 187 in its single-seat incarnation would have been a nasty customer. With high altitude DB engines it would have been a super Whirlwind.

I wonder if the 2nd man in the original 110 series was primarly there to reload the drum-fed MGFF cannon so that it could keep fighting? Each gun had two drums for reloads. The 110 did not get the belt-fed MG151s until the G series. If this were the case, the two-man crew definitely was logical. The extra ammunition was a "force multiplier" and made the 110 the equivalent of three 109s in terms of ammunition.

horseback
09-24-2007, 03:46 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
Jeez, Kurfurst, have you never heard/read the expression "twin engine easy meat?"

SHEESSH! P-38 guys may read this thread... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">P-38 was a different animal entirely. It was not built to outmoded specifications, but according to some very forward looking ones for 1937-8. And yes, P-38 pilots were very much among the ones looking for the 'easy meat' twin engined stuff.</span>


It was quite common amongst 8th AF fighter pilots, who yearned to find them and score quickly and easily, which they did every time the P-47's range increased up until the advent of the Mustang, which pretty much wiped the zerstorer gruppen out.

But that's not a record, at least not an objective one. It's the combat record of the 110 in the late Reichsverteidugung, when schwarms of escort fighters appeared on the scene, and LW daylight did not have a field day either. What about Russia, Poland, France ? How many RAF fighters were shot down by 110s in 1940?

Record would be something like sorties flown, aircraft shot down and lost in combat, bombs dropped, trucks destroyed and so on. I don't see that record anywhere, just that the 110 is getting dubbed as 'easy meat' IRL, and complaining about it's isn't that 'easy meat' in the sim.

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">While I haven't had a chance to actually find figures for the 110 in aerial combat, it is instructive to note that 109 pilots complained of having to escort 110 'escort fighters' during the Battle of Britain.</span> <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">This would indicate to me that it was not exactly what Goerring and the boys had in mind. Having recently read Paul Richey's Fighter Pilot, and Fighter Boys, I got the distinct impression that while the RAF respected the 110's firepower, they weren't too concerned about metting them on anything like equal terms.</span>


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In real life, that guy in the back seat spent more time being excess ballast than as an effective gunner or spotter.

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Well he was not placed there to be gunner or a spotter for most of the time in the first place... </span>

So he was originally supposed to be ballast? I understand that the guy in back was a radar operator in the nightfighters, but his function in dayfighter/zerstorers was to shoot or tell the pilot that he had company to the rear, and his usefulness was not equal to the weight penalty his inclusion imposed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well he's official title was something like radio-operator/gunner. His first and foremost job was to handle the long-range radio, given the tasks set for the 110, a multirole, longer ranged fighter, hence the name 'destroyer' for this class. He could also navigate, something that is never ever a problem for sim players, but if you read SE veterans, they often had trouble finding out where the heck they were after combat, and how to get back to base - even over land. Oversea missions can be a tad more difficult. Multi-engine planes are full of such 'ballast' for some reason.

<span class="ev_code_PINK">Apparently the radios were more complicated than they became by midwar, when pilots were flying single engined planes extreme distances over the Pacific without a navigator/radio operator.</span> <span class="ev_code_PINK">I was not aware that there was any navigational equipment in the rear section of the 110; I expected that the escort duties it was designed for would assume the bombers providing that service.</span>


The daylight 110 built as a single seater might have been twice as effective.

Maybe yes, maybe no. How much weight gain that would be, 100 kg? Trouble is it was not designed to be pure daylight fighter, it was designed to be a plane that can do multiple things in the same airframe.

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">There is more to an extra crewman than his bodyweight. There is his whole area, the weight of his seat and support equipment, plus the extra drag and CG issues his presence must account for. The 110 was capable of good speed, but it had poor roll, acceleration and climb. Not the formula for a war winning fighter.</span>


And still been easy meat for late war single seaters.

Maybe yes, maybe no. The trouble the 110 had was that it never got the more advanced engines unlike it's SE LW cousins, though it was under consideration, the 110 was not developed any further after early 1943, it was supposed to be replaced by more advanced types. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">That may be part of it, but the design was quite ungainly from Day One. Messerschmitt relied on the power of the engines rather than any sort of design innovation or elegance.</span><span class="ev_code_YELLOW">The 410 was a step in the right direction, but not a long enough step by any means. It was fortunate for the American bombers that Kurt Tank's 187 was not given a closer look.</span>

cheers

horseback

JG6_Oddball
09-24-2007, 10:00 PM
I was really happy when i found out that JG6 was formed from units of ZG26 ...guess what they flew http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif 110 has always been one of my favorites...but the 110/210/410 all suffered from the same MAJOR problem...they were all underpowered, if they had the correct power to weight ratio there might have been a different history for them.

S!

Kurfurst__
09-25-2007, 01:45 AM
Originally posted by horseback:
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">P-38 was a different animal entirely. It was not built to outmoded specifications, but according to some very forward looking ones for 1937-8.

No, unfortunately the P-38 was built to the same outmoded specifications just for a different role. It was designed as a long endurance interceptor, specially for US needs. Hardly very forward looking in any way, just that the USAAF had little budget. You see th e P-38 is a twin engine for the same the Bf 110, it's task required such a large airframe that 1930's engine outputs just couldn't not cope without the help of a second engine. As such, the P-38 shared all the same disadvantages as any other twin engined plane. Large control forces, large inertia displaying first and foremost in sluggish roll rate.


And yes, P-38 pilots were very much among the ones looking for the 'easy meat' twin engined stuff.</span>

I thought the P-38 was re-assigned to ground pounding roles while others did that kind of optimistic job. *CAUGH* *CAUGH* like the 110 on the Eastern Front. No wonder Galland saw the P-38 as being something 'like our 110'.


<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">While I haven't had a chance to actually find figures for the 110 in aerial combat, it is instructive to note that 109 pilots complained of having to escort 110 'escort fighters' during the Battle of Britain. This would indicate to me that it was not exactly what Goerring and the boys had in mind. </span>

I know it sinks in slowly, but the 110 was not an 'escort fighter'. Never meant to be. Multirole aircraft for the umphteenth time, the big hit of the 1930s you know. Everyone wanted one, Willy and Hermann included. The 110 performed a myriad of other tasks in the BoB, it was a fighter, and it was a ground attack aircraft - and rather successfull in knocking out radar stations and other smaller targets.


Having recently read Paul Richey's Fighter Pilot, and Fighter Boys, I got the distinct impression that while the RAF respected the 110's firepower, they weren't too concerned about metting them on anything like equal terms.

That's why the combat record would be interesting. Obviously the 110 was not an equal to lighter and more nimble SE fighters on equal terms, it sacrificed manouverability for other properties for it's roles. That being said, the 110C was even a bit faster than the Hurricane, and using the proper tactics, I presume it was effective, especially in larger scale battles. Most fighters never saw what hit them anyway.


Apparently the radios were more complicated than they became by midwar, when pilots were flying single engined planes extreme distances over the Pacific without a navigator/radio operator.

Yes, and often getting lost and missing. Whole flights from carriers disappeared without a trace.


[/color] <span class="ev_code_PINK">I was not aware that there was any navigational equipment in the rear section of the 110; I expected that the escort duties it was designed for would assume the bombers providing that service.</span>

The 110 was designed as a multirole heavy fighter, not as an escort fighter. The bomber doctrine at the time for the LW was that the fast, monoplane 'Blitzbombers' would outrun enemy fighters anyway, no need for an escort. Well, they did in Spain and Poland with ease, and they still did that stunt over France. Fighter 'escort' materilized is fighter sweeps or not at all.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The daylight 110 built as a single seater might have been twice as effective.

Maybe yes, maybe no. How much weight gain that would be, 100 kg? Trouble is it was not designed to be pure daylight fighter, it was designed to be a plane that can do multiple things in the same airframe. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">There is more to an extra crewman than his bodyweight. There is his whole area, the weight of his seat and support equipment, plus the extra drag and CG issues his presence must account for. The 110 was capable of good speed, but it had poor roll, acceleration and climb. Not the formula for a war winning fighter.</span> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bombers win wars. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Besides, the same recipe you'll find everywhere at the time, in the UK, France, the USSR, Italy, Japan etc. All built similiar heavy fighters, the in 1940, so I guess there was a good reason why putting a 2nd crewmember there.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And still been easy meat for late war single seaters.

Maybe yes, maybe no. The trouble the 110 had was that it never got the more advanced engines unlike it's SE LW cousins, though it was under consideration, the 110 was not developed any further after early 1943, it was supposed to be replaced by more advanced types. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">That may be part of it, but the design was quite ungainly from Day One. Messerschmitt relied on the power of the engines rather than any sort of design innovation or elegance.</span>[color:YELLOW]The 410 was a step in the right direction, but not a long enough step by any means. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Uhm, all twin engined planes rely on the power of the engines to haul around their sizeable asse(t)s, that's why they were built twin engine after all! As for ungainly, well, which twin engined plane was not ungainly in comparison of SE fighters, in operational service in 1939? The 110 was quite simply the best of that class, by miles, the others were even worse.. bad design idea? Maybe, but then again the designers in the 1930s had to cope with the available limited engine powers available to them. Bad design? No. It just bears the stigma of being a twin engine, and all the stuff that comes with it. Of course it was supposed to be replaced by the Me 210 in 1941 already, but the RLM pushed so hard for putting into production that bird that it was insufficinetly tested, so the 110 had to take on it's tasks once again.

As for the 410, it may be a distant cousin, but it was an entirely different bird. While the 110 was a heavy fighter capable of doing other tasks (including that of a bomber), the 210/410 was built from the start as fast bomber, Kampfzestöer or literally Bomberdestroyer, a fast bomber that is also capable of heavy fighter tasks if needed. Never meant to be a full-time fighter.


It was fortunate for the American bombers that Kurt Tank's 187 was not given a closer look.

Maybe. But then again, they would have another a 190 that uses two engines, same arguement as with against the P-38. Neither I am sure about the validity of these 'what-if FW 187' and 'what-if He 112' arguements. They seem to me partisan opinions that are probably originating to the sore loosers of the those big fat RLM orders . AFAIK the aircraft offered by the rival firms were seeming promising, but far from being ready.

leitmotiv
09-25-2007, 12:25 PM
Afraid you are smoking bad weed again, K. The Bf 110 was not designed as a "multi-role" aircraft. As a matter of fact, the idea of using it as a bomber was the brain-child of Erich Rubensdorffer, and his ErPrGr210 was established to test the concept in summer 1940.

The Bf 110 was designed to be a Zerstorer---destroyer of enemy interceptors/breakthrough fighters for the bombers. The Zerstorergruppen were elite units with higher prestige than the Bf 109 Jagdgruppen. It was designed to escort bombers, and escort was their sole job. What is not generally known is that they had very sophisticated tactics for seeing the bombers through to the target. In the summer of 1940, several of the Gruppen had aircraft modified to carry bombs---the same experiments were being carried out on Bf 109s. The Bf 110 completely lacked armor, and the dedicated ground attack versions, starting with the E of late 1940, were built with armor to protect against ground fire.

The best authority on the Bf 110 is John Vasco, and he has written several classic works on Bf 110 operations:

(1) (with Peter Cornwall) ZERSTORER: THE MESSERSCHMITT 110 AND ITS UNITS IN 1940

(2) BOMBSIGHTS OVER ENGLAND: THE HISTORY OF ERPROBUNGSGRUPPE 210 LUFTWAFFE FIGHTER-BOMBER UNIT IN THE BATTLE OF BRITAIN

(3) THE STING OF THE LUFTWAFFE (the history of SKG 210 and ZG1)

The standard work on the technical history of the Bf 110 is the massive:

MESSERSCHMITT Bf 110/Me 210/Me 410 by Mankau and Petrick

FluffyDucks2
09-25-2007, 01:17 PM
Originally posted by GH_Klingstroem:
being shot down in Warclouds by a bomber or a 110 i more due to the fact that the gunners are set on ACE level, meaning that they will hit u at impossible angles etc etc..

But sure there are good 110s drivers there but they cant touch me if I dont end up infront of them... Their gunners will however...


Your first statement is rubbish. I can assure you I get most of my kills with my dual MK108s http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Kurfurst__
09-25-2007, 04:09 PM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
Afraid you are smoking bad weed again, K.

< giggle >


The Bf 110 was not designed as a "multi-role" aircraft.

Amazing since the original RLM specifications from 1932 called for the following roles to be performed by the new type :

1, Two-seat fighter
2, Reconnaissance
3, Light bomber

With 2 hours endurance, and a range of 1000 km.

Mankau and Petrick, Page 154. The book leit' allagedly read. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

See also :


'Die Auslegung als Zestöer, Fernerkunder und Bomber kommt bei allen Entwürfen vor und ist keine Messerschmittspezialität. Ob die Idee, den Flugzeugtyp für drei Aufgaben zu verwenden, im RLM selbs enstand, oder durch Firmenideen hineingetragen wurde, ist nicht zu klären, sie is aber schon im Rüstungflugzeug II von 1932 verankert.'

Mankau and Petrick, Page 13. The book leit' allagedly read. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


As a matter of fact, the idea of using it as a bomber was the brain-child of Erich Rubensdorffer, and his ErPrGr210 was established to test the concept in summer 1940.

As noted the original RLM specifications for Rüstungflugzeug II from 1932 called for ability to perform bomber operations as well. See Mankau and Petrick, Page 154. See also Mankau and Petrick, Page 22, notes :
April 1940, the first Bf 110 D, equipped with ETC bomb racks by Messerschmitt is sent to Rechlin test station for test purposes.

Erprobungskommando 210, or Ekdo 210 ('ErPrGr210' never existed...) was originally set up as a test unit for the Me 210 (obviously, given the name), which was developed more along the Kampfzestöer - ~fast bomber/destroyer - concept from the start. However, the 210 was delayed, so Ekdo 210 pilots were given other jobs.


The Bf 110 was designed to be a Zerstorer---destroyer of enemy interceptors/breakthrough fighters for the bombers. The Zerstorergruppen were elite units with higher prestige than the Bf 109 Jagdgruppen. It was designed to escort bombers, and escort was their sole job.

< Giggle >


The Bf 110 completely lacked armor, and the dedicated ground attack versions, starting with the E of late 1940, were built with armor to protect against ground fire.

< Giggle >


The best authority on the Bf 110 is John Vasco...

ROFLOL !!!!!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


The standard work on the technical history of the Bf 110 is the massive:

MESSERSCHMITT Bf 110/Me 210/Me 410 by Mankau and Petrick

Amazing listing of authors you've obviously never read... Go back to the kindergarten, where you belong, and where you can boast as the smart guy with an half-min amazon search, directly copied over with the original all-capital letters.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif You were hard to be taken seriously until now, and this day only reinforced your reputation of a frustrated nutjub who always coming back for more self-emberassment.

leitmotiv
09-25-2007, 04:23 PM
Selective use of sources is the sign of an idiot, an amateur, and a child. No Bf 110 unit was trained for ground attack missions prior to ErPrGr210. No Bf 110 was used for bombing prior to the same. No Bf 110 was designed to withstand ground fire until the late 1940 E version. The Bf 110s fitted with the ETC racks in summer 1940 were testing the theory. The Avro Manchester's specification was for a dive bomber. It was never used as a dive bomber.

Kurfurst__
09-25-2007, 04:37 PM
Mouth. And more mouth.

9.39

... Infolge der geringen Luftgegenwehr bleiben die Einsätze als Begleitschutz für die Bomber und als Zestöer gegen feindliche Bombenangriffen selten. Die Maschinen werden daher auch zur Erdkampfunterstützung eingesetzt.

26.11.39

Es wird über die Erprobung der Bf 110 für Nachtjagdzwecke berichtet.

4.40.

Beim Angriff auf Dänemark und Norwegen... werden hauptsächlich gegen Bodenziele eingesetzt.

See Mankau Page 21.


And so on, it's the same stuff about the lack of armor from nutjob. Go on and emberass yourself even more.

JG52Uther
09-25-2007, 05:03 PM
'ErPrGr210' never existed'
really? I have always seen it referred to as that. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Kurfurst__
09-25-2007, 05:18 PM
Erprobungsgruppe 210 existed of course, it just wasn't abbrevated like that.. Erpr.Gr.210 perhaps, but leit' just doesn't get even basic German grammar, like the rest of his facts, he makes them up on the run.

F19_Orheim
09-25-2007, 05:20 PM
hmm.. by the looks of it, leit is in trouble... where's the popcorn???*s*

DmdSeeker
09-25-2007, 05:28 PM
I've read of 110's being used as bomber in Poland.

That predates 1940 by a bit.

leitmotiv
10-07-2007, 06:26 AM
No, not in trouble, was just too busy to have the time to check Kurfurst's citation, and it was most interesting. He cited the prospective specification for a multi-purpose aircraft which dated from 1932 as if it was the specification for the Bf 110: "Role: a) two-seat fighter b) reconnaissance c) light bomber [my emphasis]" page 154, MESSERSCHMITT Bf 110/Me 210/Me 410: AN ILLUSTRATED HISTORY by Mankau and Petrick. This was not the specification for the 110, and, in fact, the authors note under it: "No aircraft based on these tactical guidelines was ever built." (page 154). The actual specification for the Bf 110 is right next to it on the next page: "Role: heavy fighter [my emphasis]"---the specification does not mention bombing, ground attack, or even bomb armament. The development of the 110 into a ground attack aircraft is of some interest, and required reading the text at the beginning of the book based on Air Ministry minutes. "The Bf 110 subsequently became a pure Zerstorer complemented by the Bf 161 high-speed bomber with a wider fuselage, a type which was turned into a reconnaissance platform in late 1935 [my emphasis---the Bf 161 was a bomber prototype based on the Bf 110 which never entered production]." (page 15). The minutes from June 1940 are especially interesting (all page 23): the first 13 production Bf 110s with bomb racks had just been delivered to Erprobungsgruppe 210 "for the purpose of developing fighter-bomber tactics." Further on is where the authors get to the origin of the conversion of the 110 from Zerstorer to ground support aircraft in mid-1940: "[Authors' italics] As early as 1938, it was abundantly clear to the majority of leaders within the Luftwaffe and the RLM that the Bf 110 heavy fighter was unable to hold its own against lighter interceptors. Its main role was to engage the enemy's air force and other targets on the ground. For this purpose, heavy rear-firing defensive armament was considered essential, something the Bf 110 lacked. Thus the contract for a new development known as the Me 210...." And, here the authors explain why in 1939 and 1940 (except for the fighter-bomber units testing the Bf 110 from mid-year) the Bf 110 was still used as a penetration fighter, the Zerstorer: "The Bf 110's use as an escort fighter flew in the face of conventional wisdom and is evidence of the ruthlessness of the Nazis (read: Goring), even against their own people." This is demonstrated by Goring's reaction to the loss of50 110s over Britain in three days of the German air offensive in August 1940: "Although this makes it obvious that the Bf 110 is unable to fulfill its role as heavy fighter, in an operations conference on 19 August Goring nevertheless orders its continued use as such, but with fighter escort." (page 25).

So the 110 fighter-bomber evolution story is complicated. It was not designed to be a fighter-bomber but to be a penetration fighter to escort bombers. They were Goring's darlings. The Luftwaffe upper echelon wanted it converted into a support aircraft to stand-in until the Me 210 was available, but Goring overruled them. The authors never explain what Goring's reaction was when the bulk of 110s made after June 1940 were being produced with the central bomb rack to carry heavy bombs.

I found Kurfurst's need to "win" to the point of misrepresenting a source instructive. I think anybody who considers using anything from him should consider this.

Kurfurst__
10-07-2007, 08:10 AM
Little comment is needed on this late-come seizure.

Mankau and Patrick in their book on Zestöer-type aircraft for some reason found it important to start the story of the 110 by quiting the original specification from 1932 from which the 110`s specifications had grown out - 'somewhat' related to the subject of 110 perhaps, or perhaps giving some idea what the original role from this class of aircraft was expected.

Now if we take leitmotiv`s take on it, it has actually nothing to do with the 110s origins and perceived role, though the controversy of why then Mankau and Petrick quotes in their book on the 110 remains to be answered.

Furthermore, the fact that even after a month has passed for his lately response, he was unfurtunately incapable finding a quote from the book to underline his claim that the 110 was originally meant 'to be a penetration fighter to escort bombers.',

or as he put in his characteristically primitive first post ... :

'It was designed to escort bombers, and escort was their sole job.'

Perhaps it`s worth recapping my original post below, in which I made a simple statement, which led to leit's series of seizures :


The 110 was designed as a multirole heavy fighter , not as an escort fighter.

In comparison, the original 1932 specifications speaks of multiple roles (two-seat fighter, recce, light bomber) for this class, and the latter specifications for the 110s simply as a heavy fighter. It is an intriguing question what was the LW`s idea of the role(s) to be performed by a 'heavy fighter' - perhaps the same ones as in 1932..? At least we know for certain that they used the 110 was heavily utilized in the role of reconnaissance and the role of a light bomber and attack aircraft.

Neither specification - should I say of course? - speaks of any escort duties.
Compare with the 'escort was their sole job'-funny.

Nevertheless of course here on zoobi there will be always some keeping parrotting the same and the louder the more clearly it becomes clear it has no basis. Now of course it is possible that Mankau and Patrick forgot to state that important 'fact' in their book about escort, as are the LW`s decisionmakers who 'forgot' to leave any trace to the coming generations about an explicit desire at the time of the birth of 110 and Zestorers to perform escort duties for bombers, and we can only find Messerschmitt 'strange' to give them, desptite these mysterious demands for an escort fighter that simply did not have the range for escort duties in the first place..

Or perhaps we can just toy with the less exicting, but nevertheless rather more sensible idea that Luftwaffe didn`t want the 110 to perform as an escort at all in the start. And that perhaps someone here is a frustrated, funny person who has no idea what he`s talking about.

This is not to say German doctrine for the Zestorers and their intended and actual role did not change from 1932 till 1945. Naturally it did, and quite drastically. But, the ideas circulating about their possible tasks and roles at the time they were conceived are very well documented.

leitmotiv
10-07-2007, 09:08 AM
I thought you were an idiot, but in truth you are just pathetic, dreary, and inutterably boring.

Blutarski2004
10-07-2007, 12:32 PM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
I thought you were an idiot, but in truth you are just pathetic, dreary, and inutterably boring.


..... To be fair, it must also be said that Kurfurst is also reliably predictable.

leitmotiv
10-07-2007, 01:28 PM
Sad. An obsession with being "right" is the vice of a child. Adults prefer to learn from their peers.

Kurfurst__
10-07-2007, 01:39 PM
Well at least Blutty caught him when that seizure came again.

http://www.ridge-art.com/paintings/2_clowns_pastel.jpg

Blutarski2004
10-07-2007, 02:34 PM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
Sad. An obsession with being "right" is the vice of a child. Adults prefer to learn from their peers.


..... I think that sums it up neatly.