HistoryNet.com RSS
ArmchairGeneral.com RSS

HistoryNet.com Articles
America's Civil War
American History
Aviation History
Civil War Times
MHQ
Military History
Vietnam
Wild West
World War II

ACG Online
ACG Magazine
Stuff We Like
War College
History News
Tactics 101
Carlo D'Este
Books

ACG Gaming
Boardgames
PC Game Reviews

ACG Network
Contact Us
Our Newsletter
Meet Our Staff
Advertise With Us

Sites We Support
HistoryNet.com
StreamHistory.com
Once A Marine
The Art of Battle
Game Squad
Mil. History Podcast
Russian Army - WW2
Achtung Panzer!
Mil History Online

Go Back   Armchair General and HistoryNet >> The Best Forums in History > Military/History Related Hobbies > Alternate Timelines > Xtreme Alternate History

Notices and Announcements

Xtreme Alternate History Alternatives to History with No Holds Barred!

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #16  
Old 10 Jul 15, 23:56
Draco's Avatar
Draco Draco is offline
Lieutenant General
Mexico
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Morelia, Mexico
Posts: 3,327
Draco is on the path to success [1-99] Draco is on the path to success [1-99] Draco is on the path to success [1-99]
The incursions last a few days during the rapid collapse of France. Switzerland cannot buy any better planes than the Bf 109 it has, much less from Britain, which is losing them faster than OTL and doesn't have enough for itself.

Even the US has a long waiting list for France, Britain, China, etc and even for lousy fighters which never catch up with this Bf 110.

That is precisely the point. The Bf 110 sent OTL to Iraq (and used in the BoB) were turkeys. 12 of these planes (which refueled in French Syria) would wipe out anything in Iraq on the first day and then help to kick the Limeys out of Iran.
Destroying the few Gladiators, etc, ensures that spares and fuel can be flown in and allow the capture of British bases, fuel, etc, It is much more difficult for the British to send decent planes to Iraq and Iran than for Germany with French cooperation. Keep in mind that the British don't have enough planes even fro much more valuable Malta, ALexandria and Crete and the time.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 11 Jul 15, 00:42
T. A. Gardner's Avatar
T. A. Gardner T. A. Gardner is offline
General of the Forums
United_States
5 Year Service Ribbon Most Significant/Influential Tank Campaign Most Significant/Influential Fighter Campaign Most Significant/Influential Multi-Role Aircraft C 
Greatest/Best Tank of WW2 Campaign 
 
Real Name: T. A. Gardner
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 34,379
T. A. Gardner has achieved enlightenment [1200+] T. A. Gardner has achieved enlightenment [1200+] T. A. Gardner has achieved enlightenment [1200+] T. A. Gardner has achieved enlightenment [1200+] T. A. Gardner has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
T. A. Gardner has achieved enlightenment [1200+] T. A. Gardner has achieved enlightenment [1200+] T. A. Gardner has achieved enlightenment [1200+] T. A. Gardner has achieved enlightenment [1200+] T. A. Gardner has achieved enlightenment [1200+] T. A. Gardner has achieved enlightenment [1200+] T. A. Gardner has achieved enlightenment [1200+] T. A. Gardner has achieved enlightenment [1200+] T. A. Gardner has achieved enlightenment [1200+] T. A. Gardner has achieved enlightenment [1200+] T. A. Gardner has achieved enlightenment [1200+] T. A. Gardner has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Draco View Post
The incursions last a few days during the rapid collapse of France. Switzerland cannot buy any better planes than the Bf 109 it has, much less from Britain, which is losing them faster than OTL and doesn't have enough for itself.

Even the US has a long waiting list for France, Britain, China, etc and even for lousy fighters which never catch up with this Bf 110.

That is precisely the point. The Bf 110 sent OTL to Iraq (and used in the BoB) were turkeys. 12 of these planes (which refueled in French Syria) would wipe out anything in Iraq on the first day and then help to kick the Limeys out of Iran.
Destroying the few Gladiators, etc, ensures that spares and fuel can be flown in and allow the capture of British bases, fuel, etc, It is much more difficult for the British to send decent planes to Iraq and Iran than for Germany with French cooperation. Keep in mind that the British don't have enough planes even fro much more valuable Malta, ALexandria and Crete and the time.
You might want to read up on things. Two Me 110 were shot down by Gladiators that caught them taking off.
A half dozen other German planes were damaged and written off in surprise attacks on their airfields by Blenheim's and Hurricanes with 20mm cannon. Since the Germans have no early warning system, no means of mounting standing patrols, they are vulnerable to such strikes by the British, again regardless of what sort of planes they have.
The same problem the British had versus Japan in Burma (where you call the British idiots) is the problem the Germans have in Iraq (where, I suppose, the Germans are the idiots).

The Germans withdrew the Ju 90 and Ju 52's for Crete and after that operation decimated their numbers the "fly in stuff" isn't going to happen.

Actually, it proved much easier for the British to fly in aircraft to attack the Germans in Iraq as they had a well established set of airfields and supply dumps in that part of the Middle East that the Germans entirely lacked.

You also ignore that in the original timeline, against "inferior" British aircraft the Germans lasted just THREE (3) days in combat before they had taken prohibitively heavy losses (> 30%). In less than a month of operations they were finished.

I guess, you could say the Germans were the idiots in Iraq (by your standards in previous threads). Your cute little airplane wouldn't change that.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 11 Jul 15, 11:40
Draco's Avatar
Draco Draco is offline
Lieutenant General
Mexico
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Morelia, Mexico
Posts: 3,327
Draco is on the path to success [1-99] Draco is on the path to success [1-99] Draco is on the path to success [1-99]
You have a completely distorted idea of what happened OTL.

Junck had 12 Bf 110 turkeys and 5 He 111 in Mosul on 15 May.

A lone He 111 found and attacked a British column on May 15.

Gladiators entered French Syria and strafed 2 damaged He 111 in Palmyra.

Friendly Iraqis shot down an He 111 with Blomberg.

The Germans attacked RAF Habbaniya on 16 May with 6 Bf 110 Turkeys and 3 He 111 Dodoes. They surprised RAF and destroyed a Gladiator and an Audax. The LW lost a Dodo.

On 17 May 3 Bf 110 strafed Kingcol's column.

RAF did not attack the LW in Mosul until 17 May with 2 Hurricanes from Egypt (RAF in Iraq having only even more obsolete planes) and 6 Blenheims and destroyed only 2 planes and damaged 4. RAF lost a Hurricane.

2 Gladiators destroyed 2 Bf 110 taking off in Baghdad (far from the base in Mosul, where the AAA was).

Back to this scenario:

Since the Bf 110s have a crew of 1, logistics are simpler than OTL

On 16 May 6 much faster and smaller Bf 110 arrive in Habbaniya long before the 3 He 111 and destroy the planes on the ground and the AAA with fragmentation bombs and strafing. The 3 He 111 drop their bombs unchallenged and all survive. Only a Gladiator survives the attack.

My cute, little Bf 110 accelerates and climbs much faster than a Bf 110 and is a much smaller target, so an extremely slow Gladiator stands little chance of shooting her down with two .303 MGs during TO in Baghdad.

Even if the Gladiator manages to shoot out an engine, the Bf 110 can outfly it, for she has more power and a smaller wing without wires and struts, a retractable undercarriage and a enclosed cockpit.

When the 2 Hurricanes and 6 Blenheims attack Mosul a CAP Bf 110 (which uses much less fuel to stay aloft than the OTL Bf 110) destroys a Hurricane and 3 Blenheims, making things easier for the AAA and allowing another Bf 110 to take off, so that only a damaged Blenheim arrives in Habbaniya and a LW plane is lost.

RAF has no serviceable fighters left. The Iraqis take Habbaniya with LW and CR.42 support and WM advice.

OTL Junck received even more Turkeys and lost 14 and 5 Dodos (one to the Iraqis).
With useful Bf 110s he would have had a far superior force to RAF Iraq by the time the CR-42 arrive to be used for ground support.

It is surprising that RAF left tens of thousands of troops in nearby Crete without planes, but sent 2 Hurricanes and 6 Blenheims all the way to Mosul.

It is interesting that 12 short ranged CR.42s made the journey to Iraq, but no Bf 109s, Stukas or even Hs 123s were sent. It is also interesting that not a single Ju-88 was sent (much better than the outdated He 111).

After losing hundreds of expensive Turkeys in W Europe and over Britain and the Med, 14 were wasted in Iraq for no gains, a few months Before Barbarossa. The much better Bf 110 would have cost less, produced much more and survived much better for Barbarossa.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 11 Jul 15, 12:15
T. A. Gardner's Avatar
T. A. Gardner T. A. Gardner is offline
General of the Forums
United_States
5 Year Service Ribbon Most Significant/Influential Tank Campaign Most Significant/Influential Fighter Campaign Most Significant/Influential Multi-Role Aircraft C 
Greatest/Best Tank of WW2 Campaign 
 
Real Name: T. A. Gardner
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 34,379
T. A. Gardner has achieved enlightenment [1200+] T. A. Gardner has achieved enlightenment [1200+] T. A. Gardner has achieved enlightenment [1200+] T. A. Gardner has achieved enlightenment [1200+] T. A. Gardner has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
T. A. Gardner has achieved enlightenment [1200+] T. A. Gardner has achieved enlightenment [1200+] T. A. Gardner has achieved enlightenment [1200+] T. A. Gardner has achieved enlightenment [1200+] T. A. Gardner has achieved enlightenment [1200+] T. A. Gardner has achieved enlightenment [1200+] T. A. Gardner has achieved enlightenment [1200+] T. A. Gardner has achieved enlightenment [1200+] T. A. Gardner has achieved enlightenment [1200+] T. A. Gardner has achieved enlightenment [1200+] T. A. Gardner has achieved enlightenment [1200+] T. A. Gardner has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
Where was my "distortion?" Did the Luftwaffe in Iraq last three days in operation with 30% + losses or not? Was the Luftwaffe in Iraq all but completely liquidated and their airbases under threat by advancing ground forces in under a month or not?

The details you give above don't change any of that.
Your blather about coulda, woulda, shoulda,

Quote:
OTL Junck received even more Turkeys and lost 14 and 5 Dodos (one to the Iraqis).
With useful Bf 110s he would have had a far superior force to RAF Iraq by the time the CR-42 arrive to be used for ground support.

It is surprising that RAF left tens of thousands of troops in nearby Crete without planes, but sent 2 Hurricanes and 6 Blenheims all the way to Mosul.

It is interesting that 12 short ranged CR.42s made the journey to Iraq, but no Bf 109s, Stukas or even Hs 123s were sent. It is also interesting that not a single Ju-88 was sent (much better than the outdated He 111).

After losing hundreds of expensive Turkeys in W Europe and over Britain and the Med, 14 were wasted in Iraq for no gains, a few months Before Barbarossa. The much better Bf 110 would have cost less, produced much more and survived much better for Barbarossa.
Is irrelevant wishful thinking on your part. It does nothing to refute the original history and my original post.

The Luftwaffe in Iraq was defeated in days and your proposed replacement for the Me 110 being used instead would not have changed that.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 11 Jul 15, 12:54
Draco's Avatar
Draco Draco is offline
Lieutenant General
Mexico
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Morelia, Mexico
Posts: 3,327
Draco is on the path to success [1-99] Draco is on the path to success [1-99] Draco is on the path to success [1-99]
You forgot to mention that the LW attacked twice before RAF did and You simply cannot understand that it is easier to kill turkeys than hawks.

You also forgot to mention that RAF lost 50% of the modern fighters just arrived in Iraq during its first attack against turkeys.

Forget it, it takes some brains to see that 12 hawks on 16 May defeat 2 Hurricanes, 6 Blenheims, a few Aurix and 18 Gladiators instead of RAF defeating 12 Turkeys.

According to Wiki's Gladiator entry, the 2 turkeys did get aloft in Baghdad before being shot down by the Gladiators. That would never happen with faster and faster climbing planes. So that is 2 more Bf 110s and 2 fewer Gladiators on that day and those Bf 110 are a few miles from Habbaniya and can do a lot of damage.
With those BF 110 in Baghdad and Mosul surviving Junck would start moving the AAA and planes from Mosul to Baghdad and promptly dispatch the remaining RAF, even before the CR.42 arrive for ground support.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links

  #21  
Old 11 Jul 15, 14:15
T. A. Gardner's Avatar
T. A. Gardner T. A. Gardner is offline
General of the Forums
United_States
5 Year Service Ribbon Most Significant/Influential Tank Campaign Most Significant/Influential Fighter Campaign Most Significant/Influential Multi-Role Aircraft C 
Greatest/Best Tank of WW2 Campaign 
 
Real Name: T. A. Gardner
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 34,379
T. A. Gardner has achieved enlightenment [1200+] T. A. Gardner has achieved enlightenment [1200+] T. A. Gardner has achieved enlightenment [1200+] T. A. Gardner has achieved enlightenment [1200+] T. A. Gardner has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
T. A. Gardner has achieved enlightenment [1200+] T. A. Gardner has achieved enlightenment [1200+] T. A. Gardner has achieved enlightenment [1200+] T. A. Gardner has achieved enlightenment [1200+] T. A. Gardner has achieved enlightenment [1200+] T. A. Gardner has achieved enlightenment [1200+] T. A. Gardner has achieved enlightenment [1200+] T. A. Gardner has achieved enlightenment [1200+] T. A. Gardner has achieved enlightenment [1200+] T. A. Gardner has achieved enlightenment [1200+] T. A. Gardner has achieved enlightenment [1200+] T. A. Gardner has achieved enlightenment [1200+]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Draco View Post
You forgot to mention that the LW attacked twice before RAF did and You simply cannot understand that it is easier to kill turkeys than hawks.

You also forgot to mention that RAF lost 50% of the modern fighters just arrived in Iraq during its first attack against turkeys.

Forget it, it takes some brains to see that 12 hawks on 16 May defeat 2 Hurricanes, 6 Blenheims, a few Aurix and 18 Gladiators instead of RAF defeating 12 Turkeys.

According to Wiki's Gladiator entry, the 2 turkeys did get aloft in Baghdad before being shot down by the Gladiators. That would never happen with faster and faster climbing planes. So that is 2 more Bf 110s and 2 fewer Gladiators on that day and those Bf 110 are a few miles from Habbaniya and can do a lot of damage.
With those BF 110 in Baghdad and Mosul surviving Junck would start moving the AAA and planes from Mosul to Baghdad and promptly dispatch the remaining RAF, even before the CR.42 arrive for ground support.
Everything you just babbled is irrelevant to Luftwaffe losses overall. The details don't matter. The Germans lost over 30% of their strength in three days of operational use and were essentially completely hors de combat in less than 30.

All you are doing is adding details to the overall conclusion. RAF losses are a different matter entirely. The fact remains that the Luftwaffe was decimated in a matter of days by a combination of the RAF and operational losses as I first stated.
Also, you have failed to present any evidence whatsoever that using your "überplane" would have made any difference. I have argued it wouldn't. The losses would still be the same and the Germans would lose the air war in Iraq in a matter of days.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 11 Jul 15, 14:24
deadkenny's Avatar
deadkenny deadkenny is offline
Major
Canada
5 Year Service Ribbon 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 937
deadkenny is on the path to success [1-99] deadkenny is on the path to success [1-99] deadkenny is on the path to success [1-99] deadkenny is on the path to success [1-99] deadkenny is on the path to success [1-99] deadkenny is on the path to success [1-99] deadkenny is on the path to success [1-99]
I wanted to first look into it a bit before commenting on this aspect, however, I do not agree with the OP premise that the larger wing area somehow made the 110 'less maneuverable'. Quite the contrary, a smaller wing area results, all else being equal, in higher wing loading and therefore less maneuverability. Decreasing weight (and it would not have required a major redesign to eliminate the rear gunner / gun) would increase maneuverability, but simply reducing wing area would actually have the opposite effect.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 11 Jul 15, 15:54
Draco's Avatar
Draco Draco is offline
Lieutenant General
Mexico
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Morelia, Mexico
Posts: 3,327
Draco is on the path to success [1-99] Draco is on the path to success [1-99] Draco is on the path to success [1-99]
Quote:
Originally Posted by deadkenny View Post
I wanted to first look into it a bit before commenting on this aspect, however, I do not agree with the OP premise that the larger wing area somehow made the 110 'less maneuverable'. Quite the contrary, a smaller wing area results, all else being equal, in higher wing loading and therefore less maneuverability. Decreasing weight (and it would not have required a major redesign to eliminate the rear gunner / gun) would increase maneuverability, but simply reducing wing area would actually have the opposite effect.
The Bf 109 had a higher wing loading than the Bf 110 (173 ft2 for 1 man and engine vs 414 ft2 for 2 men and engines) yet it was far more maneuverable thanks in part to automatic slats. Even inexperienced Swiss pilots shot down Bf 110s with Bf 109s.

The only thing weighing the same in the OTL and my Bf 110is the 2 engines, everything else is lighter (crew, weapons, ammo, landing gear, canopy, fuselage, oxygen, chutes, wing, armor, etc,). So wing loading is not that different (and can be even lower with deployed slats). For similar wing loading a huge wing and a heay plane result in much lower rate of roll.

Moreover, speed and survivability are far more important than maneuverability as the diving P-40 or Wildcat repeatedly proved on the Zero or Ki-27 or 43.
A slow OTL Bf 110 with a low rate of climb or a Gladiator or Hurricane would stand no chance against the suggested Bf 110, which can leave behind a Spitfire if it happens to attack her.

Last edited by Draco; 11 Jul 15 at 16:04..
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 11 Jul 15, 16:22
the ace's Avatar
the ace the ace is offline
General of the Forums
Scotland
5 Year Service Ribbon Most Significant/Influential Fighter Campaign Most Significant/Influential Multi-Role Aircraft C 
 
Real Name: Andrew
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Perth
Posts: 5,555
the ace is a glorious beacon of light [700]
the ace is a glorious beacon of light [700] the ace is a glorious beacon of light [700] the ace is a glorious beacon of light [700] the ace is a glorious beacon of light [700] the ace is a glorious beacon of light [700] the ace is a glorious beacon of light [700] the ace is a glorious beacon of light [700] the ace is a glorious beacon of light [700] the ace is a glorious beacon of light [700] the ace is a glorious beacon of light [700] the ace is a glorious beacon of light [700] the ace is a glorious beacon of light [700] the ace is a glorious beacon of light [700] the ace is a glorious beacon of light [700]
Quote:
Originally Posted by JAG View Post
Errr.... no.

The Bf-110 was intended as a bomber, a light one, that would do CAS, airfield interdiction and escort, it was even supposed to have a bomb bay but Messerchmitt cheated, they didnt fit one and still got the contract.

If the requirement seems concocted by the feverish mind of a drug addict is because it was, this was Gorings pet and the sole reason the turd got made in spite of Wever begging him to kill it.

Any mission it could do, another aircraft could do it better, usually the Ju-88.

A Fw-187 would have done better as a escort fighter and interceptor, the Ju-88 could have assumed the other missions, and no Me-210 to stink the skies in addition.

No, the Bf 162 was a Schnellbomber which competed with the Ju 88, but the larger aircraft won the contract - the less said about the competing Hs 127, the better.

While the Fw 187 had its good points, fitting a rear gun would've been a nightmare, and a 187 drawn into a conventional dogfight would've suffered.
__________________
Indyref2 - still, "Yes."
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 11 Jul 15, 18:49
JAG's Avatar
JAG JAG is offline
First Sergeant
Chile
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Santiago
Posts: 237
JAG is on the path to success [1-99] JAG is on the path to success [1-99]
Quote:
Originally Posted by the ace View Post
No, the Bf 162 was a Schnellbomber which competed with the Ju 88, but the larger aircraft won the contract - the less said about the competing Hs 127, the better.

While the Fw 187 had its good points, fitting a rear gun would've been a nightmare, and a 187 drawn into a conventional dogfight would've suffered.
You are confusing the Zerstorer and Schnellbomber competitions, they may have started as one, but when Me presented the Bf-110 without the required bomb bay the specification was split in two, the fast bomber and the Zerstorer tailored for the Bf-110. The 110's competitors were the Fw-57 and the Hs-124, with Messer and Henschel presenting new models for the Schnellbomber based on the designs created for the first and now defunct multirole program, the Bf-162 and Hs-127.





Just remember that the BF-110 was a three-seater, a left over from its "light bomber" origins that would allow it to carry a radar operator later in the war.

The Fw-187 btw didnt need a rear gunner, it was an idiotic leftover requirement by Udet/Goring from the original bomber specs that would keep on crapping German designs all the way to the Me-410.
__________________
"'Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

- Steven Weinberg

Last edited by JAG; 11 Jul 15 at 19:01..
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 11 Jul 15, 20:20
deadkenny's Avatar
deadkenny deadkenny is offline
Major
Canada
5 Year Service Ribbon 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 937
deadkenny is on the path to success [1-99] deadkenny is on the path to success [1-99] deadkenny is on the path to success [1-99] deadkenny is on the path to success [1-99] deadkenny is on the path to success [1-99] deadkenny is on the path to success [1-99] deadkenny is on the path to success [1-99]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Draco View Post
The Bf 109 had a higher wing loading than the Bf 110 (173 ft2 for 1 man and engine vs 414 ft2 for 2 men and engines) yet it was far more maneuverable thanks in part to automatic slats. Even inexperienced Swiss pilots shot down Bf 110s with Bf 109s.

The only thing weighing the same in the OTL and my Bf 110is the 2 engines, everything else is lighter (crew, weapons, ammo, landing gear, canopy, fuselage, oxygen, chutes, wing, armor, etc,). So wing loading is not that different (and can be even lower with deployed slats). For similar wing loading a huge wing and a heay plane result in much lower rate of roll.

Moreover, speed and survivability are far more important than maneuverability as the diving P-40 or Wildcat repeatedly proved on the Zero or Ki-27 or 43.
A slow OTL Bf 110 with a low rate of climb or a Gladiator or Hurricane would stand no chance against the suggested Bf 110, which can leave behind a Spitfire if it happens to attack her.
Well, you managed to pretty well entirely miss the point of my post. I was not comparing the maneuverability of the 109 v. 110, or suggesting that wing loading was the only factor that affected maneuverability. The point was that, all else being equal, lower wing load would result in greater maneuverability and a greater wing area would, all else being equal, result in a lower wing load. So your suggestion from the OP that the 110 was less maneuverable because of its greater wing area is exactly wrong. Nor would simply 'trimming' the wing area that you were on about in posts earlier in the thread improve the situation, all else being equal. It would be improved by increasing power and decreasing weight.

Your last point regarding the trade-offs in aircraft performance characteristics is true to some degree, however, it is also inconsistent with your earlier posts.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 12 Jul 15, 04:08
flash's Avatar
flash flash is offline
General
UK
Most Significant/Influential Tank Campaign Most Significant/Influential Fighter Campaign 
 
Real Name: Tony.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: newcastle
Posts: 5,080
flash has a spectacular aura about [400]
flash has a spectacular aura about [400] flash has a spectacular aura about [400] flash has a spectacular aura about [400] flash has a spectacular aura about [400] flash has a spectacular aura about [400] flash has a spectacular aura about [400]
Instead of inventing the wonder fighter that is the ME110 DRACO why not give the 109 drop tanks?
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 12 Jul 15, 09:50
Draco's Avatar
Draco Draco is offline
Lieutenant General
Mexico
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Morelia, Mexico
Posts: 3,327
Draco is on the path to success [1-99] Draco is on the path to success [1-99] Draco is on the path to success [1-99]
Quote:
Originally Posted by deadkenny View Post
Well, you managed to pretty well entirely miss the point of my post. I was not comparing the maneuverability of the 109 v. 110, or suggesting that wing loading was the only factor that affected maneuverability. The point was that, all else being equal, lower wing load would result in greater maneuverability and a greater wing area would, all else being equal, result in a lower wing load. So your suggestion from the OP that the 110 was less maneuverable because of its greater wing area is exactly wrong. Nor would simply 'trimming' the wing area that you were on about in posts earlier in the thread improve the situation, all else being equal. It would be improved by increasing power and decreasing weight.

Your last point regarding the trade-offs in aircraft performance characteristics is true to some degree, however, it is also inconsistent with your earlier posts.
The point is that nothing else is equal other than the engines. The plane is much lighter.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 12 Jul 15, 10:02
Draco's Avatar
Draco Draco is offline
Lieutenant General
Mexico
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Morelia, Mexico
Posts: 3,327
Draco is on the path to success [1-99] Draco is on the path to success [1-99] Draco is on the path to success [1-99]
Quote:
Originally Posted by flash View Post
Instead of inventing the wonder fighter that is the ME110 DRACO why not give the 109 drop tanks?
The Bf 109 used drop tanks, Goering just didn't make enough of them before the BoB.

However, the Bf 109 was dangerous enough to take off with a full fuel and ammo load (owing to the extremely narrow undercarriage and often rough, muddy or frozen airfields at the front), even more so with drop tanks.

Even with drop tanks, a single engine plane has a shorter range than a twin engine, single seat plane. It is also slower and it goes down if the single engine, propeller or the cooling system fail.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 12 Jul 15, 16:24
Nebfer's Avatar
Nebfer Nebfer is online now
Captain
United_States
5 Year Service Ribbon 
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Titusville
Posts: 781
Nebfer is on the path to success [1-99] Nebfer is on the path to success [1-99] Nebfer is on the path to success [1-99] Nebfer is on the path to success [1-99] Nebfer is on the path to success [1-99] Nebfer is on the path to success [1-99]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Draco View Post
The Bf 109 used drop tanks, Goering just didn't make enough of them before the BoB.

However, the Bf 109 was dangerous enough to take off with a full fuel and ammo load (owing to the extremely narrow undercarriage and often rough, muddy or frozen airfields at the front), even more so with drop tanks.

Even with drop tanks, a single engine plane has a shorter range than a twin engine, single seat plane. It is also slower and it goes down if the single engine, propeller or the cooling system fail.

Beuhahahahahaha

Entertaining fact
Bf-109G Landing Gear track was 2.06 meters
Spitfire was 1.68 meters

And it was not dangerous to take off or land at all, it's supposed loss rate to landing/take off accidents is highly exaggerated.

Case point, JG 54 used both planes in 1943 and 44
I./JG54: 91 planes lost to accidents 74 to combat, this unit flew Fw 190s during this time it lost 208 planes to all causes
II./JG54: This unit used both aircraft at the same time frame AFAIK
Fw 190: 113 lost to all causes, 30 to accidents, 22 to combat
Bf 109: 93 lost to all causes 16 lost to accidents, 38 to combat
III./JG54: 176 lost to all causes, 51 to accidents and 78 to combat.

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtop...art=75#p867424

AFAIK
The US AAF lost over 3,700 aircraft in Europe to non combat losses in about 30 months of combat (out of some 18,000 total losses).
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links

Reply

Please bookmark this thread if you enjoyed it!


Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 18:54.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.