Bf-110 Zerstorer. Battle of Kursk (1943)

[notaire2]

Die Luftangriffe waren sehr effektiv gegen sowjetischen Panzer.

[tranmere789]

In fact total Soviet tank losses in operation Citadel amounted to 1 614 tanks totally destroyed, the vast majority to German tanks and assault guns. Further detailed research has shown air power only accounted for 2-5% of Soviet tanks destroyed in the battle of Kursk. This equates to at most around 80 tanks. Again, even if this is a low estimate, where are the hundreds of tanks destroyed by German ground attack aircraft?

[functio1]

It's not strictly true that the Bf110 was 'useless' as a dogfighter. If it had a tactical advantage, it could prove effective. For example, pilots such as Theo Weissenberger and others from JG5 had some success with it as a day fighter.

[EmperorLjas]

1:06

The commentator says the IL2 was shot down, but all I could see was just bits of it's armor falling off.

[unkowndrunkenfrankli]

thats pure propaganda for you , my friend

[tomato6999]

ruskys whooped the german in the battle of kursk

[blaa94]

truly

[blaa94]

true

[mistersmith6000]

Did the 110 take down more bombers than the 109 or 190?

[terryjohn]

MOSTLY bf109 S

[mistersmith6000]

109? I guess so...they made more and they were faster. Just started wondering if the 110 was destructive bc of its guns in the nose against unescorted bombers. Once the p47s and 51s came along they were sitting ducks I guess.

[terryjohn]

@mistersmith6000 the FW 190'S WERE USED too but at 22.000 were slower than me 109s.the mustang and p47's wrecked havoc on them so some me 109's acted as top cover for FW 190'S

TERRY

[terryjohn]

1.46 i know how he felt. got one at last.

Horrido.

[mauriciobbarros]

fantastic!

[tranmere789]

Battle of Kursk is a myth. It took less than two weeks and was big mess. Casualties on both sides were much smaller thant "Great Patriotic War" legend are arguing. In fact Germans had only 1081 tanks and 376 "sturm-types" ready on 3rd of july for Zitadelle, total 1457. Not 2700 as conventional wisdom is arguing. Losses of Soviet were hardly even 85 000 while germans lost 27 000 before Hitler stopped. And why? Because Italy fell down in knees and Hitler had to move divisions to Italy.

[trent8002003]

The Zerstorer was quite useless as a dogfighter. It was effective only agst slow movers like other 2 engine bombers or ground attackers like the IL 2.

[zerstorer335]

Honestly, it wasn't really meant to be a dogfighter. Really it was a "heavy" figher, carrying heavier weapon loads and (sometimes) armor than a standard fighter, but lighter and more maneuverable that a standard bomber.

[trent8002003]

That's where its rationale is flawed. A fighter is a fighter. Inevitably, you're thrown in agst other fighters regardless of whether you're "heavy' or not. Once you're up agst other fighters, you have to dogfight. No other way out. The "heavy" fighter concept makes sense only in nightfighting, which is where the zerstorers excel.

[pajiad191]

It was built to be a dogfighter, it was drafted as a counter to the Spitfire which had a higher speed and better turning ratio than the Bf-109. To counter this they produced the 110 which featured two engines and a rear firing machine gun. It failed in this role as it was extremely large and made an easy target. It was most highly prized as a night fighter later in the war and perhaps as a ground attack fighter on the Eastern front early in the war.

[JSLegoMaster]

aha, well not a dogfigther. But against heavy bombers such as the B17 or B24, it's the ultimative plane. Late wersions had a 37mm MK! one shoot from that 550S/min canon is death toa allied bomber. And the Bf110 is very fast for a bomber. 550Km/h!

[trent8002003]

I agree with its heavy fire power, esp the version with the 37mm canon and the underbelly MG151 20mm canons, the Zerstorer could be deadly agst the B17s and the B24s - until of course the arrival of the Mustang and the Thunderbolt.

[zerstorer335]

It's very similar to having different classes of naval vessels. Destroyers, Battleships (if there are any still out there), Cruisers, Frigates, Carriers, etc., all have different strengths and weaknesses. The idea was to bring them together to maximize those strengths and compensate for their weaknesses. Here, fighers would likely take on the escorts so that the "zerstorers", with their cannons that could fell a bomber with only a few hits, could go for the bombers.

[trent8002003]

That sounds like a sensible strategy. Along the same vein, the Hurricanes and the Spitfires were subject to the same division of labour in the Battle of Britain - theoretically. In practice, it was general mayhem in an air battle. Everything was mixed up. Goering executed this strategy poorly agst Britain leaving the poor Zerstorers to be badly mauled by single engined fighters.

[Wildplaces7676]

It did well in the "nightfighter" role as well.

[terryjohn]

Jazz musik-

[CaptHawkeye]

@trent8002003 It wasn't really intended to dogfight anyway. The 110 was a product of a time when biplanes were still commonplace and it was expected it would use its speed to jump an enemy and then run away after it had made its attack. Fighting the RAF was to be honest, beyond what the design was intended for or capable of. It's just that the Luftwaffe had built a ton of them during the 30s so what else were they going to do with them?

[trent8002003]

@CaptHawkeye Then why sent them to sure defeat agst Hurricanes and Spitfires. If the Me110 was meant only to deal with big planes, then they shouldn't never have been deployed over Britain agst the obviously agile and advanced Hurris and Spits esp after these were already proven wicked dogfighters over France and Norway. The fact that they were used in the battle of Britain showed that the Luftwaffe had been under the illusion that the Zerstorers could hold their own agst single seaters.

[CaptHawkeye]

@trent8002003 Zerstorers were used in the Battle of Britain mainly because the Luftwaffe had so many of them. There were more 110s than 109s and they couldn't just *not* use them.

The Spitfire never served in France and the Hurricane was only deployed in very tiny numbers. The RAF basically saw no action during the invasion of France. Fighter command had precisely zero interest in risking Airgroups for a lost cause and besides that, the RAF was low on recruits until September.

[trent8002003]

@CaptHawkeye The Spits were used to cover the Dunkirk retreat and Hurricanes were used extensively in France and other parts of Europe before losses caused Dowding to decide to pull them back to conserve strength for the Battle of Britain. In any case, the Luftwaffe were not ignorant of the presence of either type. The Zerstorers were sent in NOT because there were there. You mean Goring knew they'd be slaughtered and still sent them in just because there were scores of them. Please.

[CaptHawkeye]

@trent8002003 You're getting worked up over nothing. Chillax.

Yes, 110s were sent in "Because they were there" the Nazis built over 3000 of them for christ sake. What are they going to do leave them for Crete? Goring had no idea the 110 would get slaughtered over Britain that's why it participated in the first place!

Oh dear, the LW encountered the Hurri and Spit over Dunkirk. Yes i'm sure a single battle that they WON would do a lot to make them really fear those planes.

[stanthology]

You had better email this to yourself before some jackass gets offended by it and they take it off!

[terryjohn]

AT ENDI GOT ONE .HORRIDO

TEZZ