Bf 110s "needed their own escorts" a canard?

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

13 years 6 months

Posts: 629

The writer John Vasco, who seems to be something of a Bf 110 authority (he has written eight 110/Zerstorer/nightfighter books), claims that the old saw about Bf 110s being so vulnerable that these escort fighters "needed their own escorts" is something of a myth. From what I've read--admittedly I don't have any of his books--the claim came not from reality but from Goering's rantings when he was trying to blame others for his own judgmental failings. That in fact 109s really never "escorted" 110s and didn't have the endurance to do so in any case.

Any thoughts? (I'm doing a Bf 110 article for Aviation History Magazine.)

Original post

Member for

12 years 11 months

Posts: 6,535

In terms of dogfighting the convention was that the 110 couldn't cope with either the Hurricane or the Spitfire.

Member for

13 years 6 months

Posts: 629

Yes, I know, but that wasn't my question.

Member for

15 years 4 months

Posts: 957

It could be a recognition that the increased use of the Bf110 as a fighter-bomber (and hence with reduced radius) could lead to the use of Bf109s in the escort role for these missions. However, I think it a little unfair to point the finger at Goering in this case. The original requirement for which the Bf110 was put forward called for a multi-role aircraft capable of being a bomber, escort fighter and a reconnaissance machine. Messerschmitt chose to ignore most of the requirements in the interest of performance (offering the Bf161 and 162 Jaguar for the other roles). If there is any one single person most to "blame" for the adoption of the Bf110 then it is probably Udet. However, away from the propaganda of both sides it appears to have been a remarkably sound machine for the roles it was given, far from totally unsuccessful in fighting against single-seaters. It is ironic that the original requirement seems to have placed little emphasis on the interception of enemy bombers, which was surely the type's most successful role? Possibly this omission was because of the emphasis placed on the offensive use of air power rather than the defensive?

Member for

11 years 11 months

Posts: 37

Propaganda dies hard. Much of what is said about the Bf110 is just that. I would rate the aircraft as very dangerous.
The only Victoria Cross recipient of Fighter Command was awarded same for an action against the type.
Pat Pattle, arguably highest scoring RAF ace was lost in action against the type.
"Handle with care" would seem more appropriate than the "easy pickings" perception.

Looking forward to seeing your article, Stepwilk

Member for

19 years 10 months

Posts: 439

on the other hand if I had a £1 for every author that had 'gone native' and was desperately trying to prove that their favourite tank/plane/unit/Army were being maligned, were up to the job and not involved in warcrimes despite the mountains of evidence.... think David Irving, The Italian Army, the Ju-87......plus challenging the accepted view sells - sometimes there's value in the new research, sometimes not. How many times, for example, have you watched a documentary that showed 'new and startling evidence that changes bla bla bla' only to find out - naah, nothing new here?

Member for

12 years 11 months

Posts: 6,535

If, as you write, you know that, then you've answered your own question.

Member for

20 years 6 months

Posts: 7,025

Doesn't it also come down to the situation at the time , a good pilot that understands his aircraft will make it work better.

Member for

12 years 6 months

Posts: 374

Christer Bergström states in his book on the Battle of Britain that the Bf 110 was much more successful than stated in many books. The main reason for being retired was that it was needed to equip night fighter units, but it did score better than Bf 109 units. The issue is that very often, authors focus on the unsuccessful missions carried out with long range tanks that limited it's performance. When operating high and fast it was a dangerous enemy.

Some numbers provided in another discussion. The source is his book in Swedish, ”Luftstrid över kanalen”

Confirmed victories versus actual air battle losses, from July to October 1940

Bf 109 780 victories to 534 losses – a ratio of 1.5:1
Bf 110 340 victories to 196 losses – a ratio of 1.7:1

Member for

11 years

Posts: 107

There was definitely no canard. The tail was on the back end.

Member for

14 years 3 months

Posts: 187

Something odd with those figures. 780 + 340 gives 1120 LW combat victories. I thought the RAF fighter losses were around 100 less than this? I presume we are ignoring aircraft hit on the ground. Some sources show 115 Blenheims destroyed in the total RAF loss figure. Consider also that something like 12% of RAF casualties were attributed to return fire from bombers. There are many other ways a fighter can be lost in combat. So overall those “confirmed victories” looked suspiciously high.

I looked at my copy of Bergstrom’s The Battle of Britain. He gives different numbers there.

Bf109 shot 760 vs loss 534 with a ratio 1.4:1
Bf 110 shot 290 vs 196 with a ratio of 1.5:1

So not much in it between the two types.( The actual ratios are 1.423 and 1.480, depending on how you round up, so actually even closer).

If the 110 had shown such promise as a pure fighter aircraft over the 109 then why was there no trimmed-down single-crewman version, like a Whirlwind or P38?

Who actually said the 110 needed escorts? Is stating this was said also an old canard?:p

Member for

13 years 6 months

Posts: 629

Who actually said the 110 needed escorts? Is stating this was said also an old canard?

I find that many casual WWII enthusiasts, if that's the proper term, respond to a mention of the 110 by saying, "Oh, yeah, that's the Messerschmitt that was so ineffectual as a bomber escort that it needed an escort itself."

If you insist on a citation, my friend Bob said it. Or was it Zeke? Can't remember...

Member for

17 years 11 months

Posts: 2,024

The only area that it seems to have been disadvantage was, as is pointed out above, 'dogfighting'.
That said, wasn't the aim of most fighter pilots of both sides, to arrive behind the enemy, unseen, and shoot them down. In that situation the Bf-110 would have been very effective.

Member for

12 years 11 months

Posts: 6,535

Patrick Bishop, "Fighter Boys" writes concerning an encounter between Hurricanes and ME110s over Metz, Northern France on the 29th March:

Three RAF pilots frpm No.1 squadron, flying Hurricanes had intercepted three 110s at around 25,000ft. There followed a dogfight.

The Me 110s once attacked 'proved very manoeuvrable, doing half rolls diving out, coming up in stall turns'. All three 110s were shot down.

The RAF pilots named as Stratton, Walker and Clowes concluded in their post battle report that 'the 110s were not as fearsome as their name Destroyer would suggest'. The report went onto state that as a result of this battle that the 'Me110 altho' very fast and manoeuvrable for a twin engine aircraft, can easily be outmanoeuvred by a Hurricane'.

If you take the above quote as unexceptional, then the answer to the OPs question is yes, the 110 needed the protection of more agile single seater fighters when operating in the fighter role.

Member for

14 years 6 months

Posts: 2,536

Didn't 110's form a defensive circle that was difficult to penetrate?
Also could it be argued that Hurricanes needed Spitfire escort to deal with the 109's while the Hurricanes took on the bombers?

Member for

18 years 3 months

Posts: 2,025

Anyone actually flown a 110 in recent times? was it ever evaluated during the war? if so what was the opinion? stats can be misleading you might think they relate to RAF's frontline fighters. but unless specified, could be anything including barrage balloons….

Member for

11 years 10 months

Posts: 352

he report went onto state that as a result of this battle that the 'Me110 altho' very fast and manoeuvrable for a twin engine aircraft, can easily be outmanoeuvred by a Hurricane'.

If you take the above quote as unexceptional, then the answer to the OPs question is yes, the 110 needed the protection of more agile single seater fighters when operating in the fighter role.

The comments regard the manoeuverability of the Bf110 versus the Hurricane, not its speed. The Bf110 being faster than the Hurricane might not have needed an escort if speed was used as a defense.

Much would depend on how the Luftwaffe instructed its Bf110 pilots on the type's do's and don'ts. I would assume one of the big don'ts was not to get in a dogfight with nimble single seat fighters.

Member for

12 years 11 months

Posts: 6,535

The evidence suggests that if the 110 could not compete in the fighter to fighter role then in either the bomber role or the fighter, and accompanied by slower bombers and bearing in mind Goering's caveat, a fighter escort would be required

Member for

11 years 10 months

Posts: 352

And if the Bf110 has to give up its superior in speed so 'slower bombers' could keep up it suggest the type wasn't used to its full advantage.

Member for

18 years 1 month

Posts: 1,966

Did the RAF Mosquito need a fighter escort?

Member for

17 years 11 months

Posts: 2,024

Did the RAF Mosquito need a fighter escort?

The Banff Strike Wing Mosquitos were often escorted by 19 Squadron Mustangs in operations off Norway in late 1944 and early 1945.