Messerschmitt Bf 109 - The Unlikely Origin of The Famous German Fighter Plane

[@MilitaryAviationHistory]

*Sign up with special rewards and display true air power in War Thunder* PC, Console: wtplay.link/militaryaviationhistorywt Mobile: wtm.game/militaryaviationhistory

[@DruidTimer]

Just curious: Why are you not an air force officer and pilot?

[@chartreux1532]

One of my Grandfathers Brothers (aka Grand Uncle) flew the BF 109 mostly on the Eastern Front with the Jagdgeschwader 52 - first with the 8./JG 52 starting in 1940 and later the 12./JG 52 in i believe 1944. Was the only Pilot in our very much "Everyone was a WW2 Soldier" Family. Everyone else was either in the Wehrmacht or the Waffen-SS (and one in the Kriegsmarine in a U-Boat) He did survive the War but lost a few Fingers during an Incident on the Eastern Front in which his Cockpit got a straight Hit from some type of Heavy Machine Gun He died in 2014 at the Age of 94 from old Age in his Sleep, still got his Photo Album with lots of nice Pictures of the BF-109s he and his Comrades flew in I'm sure he would have enjoyed this Video. He served in the Bundeswehr Luftwaffe after WW2 and worked a lot with NATO and spoke perfect English as did some others of my Family Prost & Cheers from Berchtesgaden in the Bavarian Alps

[@xchrisx84x10]

​@@chartreux1532 that's amazing. You really should share those photos with us! Any thoughts on uploading them to your channel?

[@michaelguerin56]

Thank you, Christoph. Nice to have this clarity.

[@chris_bianchi13]

Thank you Chris, Merry Christmas from Pennsylvania!

[@VosperCDN]

The 109 is a trooper, serving through the entire war. I sort of relate it to the British Hurricane - both overshadowed by their bigger (in PR terms) brothers, but still capable of doing the job. And a Merry Christmas, and Happy New Year from Canada.

[@onlycartoons2012]

This video was informative, but not what I anticipated. I would like to see you explore the 109's history going all the way back to Germany's development of the 108 for the 1934 Rundflug competition. Those competitions from 1929 to 1933 deserve a video series of their own since the participants figured heavily in WWII aviation. For example, I believe Gerhard Fieseler was significantly influenced by the RWD-9 when it was time for him and his team to design the Fi-156 Storch. I have not sat down to compare the two side by side, but they do have the same general layout.

[@tsegulin]

The Luftwaffe thinking in the 1930s seems to presume either... defensive operations against enemy bomber force attacking German territory, requiring long range twin engine fighters ("destroyers") like the Bf-110 to fly out and reach them before they reached Reich territory and the short range single engine fighters like the Bf-109 to offer a sort of point or short range defence against enemy bombers who managed to get past the destroyers, and harass them as they returned home, or offensive operations where destroyers would escort Luftwaffe bomber forces over enemy territory defending the bombers against defensive single engine fighter forces. The Bf-109 first flew in 1935 and the Bf-110 in 1936 as I recall. It must surely have been obvious in mock combat between these two that the Bf-110 was vulnerable to attack by modern single engine fighters like the Bf-109 and that while their potential enemies might well be operating older biplane fighter designs in the mid 30s, they too would be developing modern, high performance monoplane fighters of the calibre of the Bf-109, bring the value of the offensive destroyer concept into question. This of course is what happened during the Battle of Britain. I've found that that when the Bf-110 is mentioned, it's usually cited as having been a failure as a bomber escort during the BoB, struggling to defend itself against RAF fighters much less the bombers it was escorting. Hence the Bf-109E - never designed with long range for an escort fighter role and lacking a drop tank capability in 1940 - found itself carrying the brunt of bomber defence. Yes, hindsight is 20:20 and a war against Britain was not part of Hitler's original plans but I would have expected OKL to appreciate that the bomber escort role of the Bf-110 against single engine enemy fighters was assuming the best case scenario and not planning for the worst. Your point about the autonomy of fighter squadrons is well taken. I've read Gunther Rall's autobiography and bios of Erich Hartmann and both mentioned (especially Rall) how the Jagdstaffel (at least on the Eastern Front) would routinely have to decamp and move to new locations every couple of weeks as the front shifted, which involved dragging heavy workshop equipment like lathes etc. every time this happened. They basically lived in tents, ready to move again once suitable new fields had been found. Certainly they were autonomous units. Future discussions about the Bf-109: Once it became clear that the Bf-109 was having to take the principal role of bomber escort fighter but lacked the necessary range, why did it take too long to develop and fit them with drops tanks to see their range extended for the Battle of Britain? I understand some attempts were made using some kind of compressed fibre material rather than waste scarce aluminium, but these drop tanks supposedly leaked fuel and pilots considered them a fire danger and refused to fly with them. Another great documentary - thanks Chris!

[@MilitaryAviationHistory]

Regarding the Bf 110 vs single-engine fighters. I have enough sources dated 1939 or previous that detail that dogfights versus fighters should not be carried out. There is however the assumption that the performance of these aircraft can exceed that of the fighter, thus yielding some advantages. The role typecasting explained in this video shows the prevailing assumption of what a Zerstörer would do. The case of BoB Bf 110 is an interesting one and I aim to make a video about it. Thanks also for the drop tank idea, I dotted it down.

[@fridrekr7510]

@@MilitaryAviationHistory Please make more videos on the Zerstörer doctrine and heavy fighters in general like the Bf-110, Me-210/410, and Ju-88. They seem to be a deadend and largely flawed concept, but that's what makes it so interesting to see how they ended up adapting these platforms that, more or less, stayed in use to the end despite not being deployed in their intended role for long.

[@jaykita2069]

@@fridrekr7510 Agreed that discussing the doctrines in place before WW2 would have significant impacts on the outcome. If the 109 had not been available (say if HE51s were deemed good enough to hold onto the support roles while 110 production expanded earlier that '39) it might have changed the war significantly. Such a review would greatly illuminate current situations (ie, if there weren't a huge batch of A-10s ready to receive Soviet armor what would close air support in Afghanistan have looked like?)

[@Blackjack701AD]

I was in AFJROTC in high school and we had to do a project about a military aircraft, any aircraft from any period. I was the only one who didn't do an American plane, choosing the BF-110 (playing too much Panzer General at the time). I still remember the look of fury in the lead instructor's face (a retired USAF Lt. Colonel) when I put up my poster!

[@CthulhuInc]

great - now i have to listen to my kiss album "zerstörer" - happy holidays, chris! 😛

[@paultraynorbsc627]

Thanks for sharing a informative video Chris

[@thunderstorm8926]

It’s interesting because the assessment team and Hitler picked the FW-187 Falke and not the ME-109,who at the time had landing gear issues.

[@TR4Ajim]

I believe the 109s narrow track gear was a design requirement. They want the wings to be “removable” to ease rail shipment, yet allow the fuselage to still be easily moved. That also led to the 109 to be so small and narrow. Also Messerschmidt had close “political” ties within the RLM. It is this relationship that also led to the FW-187 being forbidden to use the DB engine it was designed for. Apparently the reason was given that all the DBs were for 109 production. So the FW-187 was forced to use a lower powered Junkers engine. When the 187 was redesigned to accept the Junkers engine, plenty of DB engines were suddenly available for the Bf110.

[@thunderstorm8926]

@ the failure of the ME-109 Gear was it not holding up the plain on landing. RLM pretended not to believe the great speed numbers even with the smaller engines on the FW-187 Falke , RLM forced them to put gauges out side on the engines to check . Why Hitler didn’t step in and support the assessment team is strange .

[@TR4Ajim]

@@thunderstorm8926due to the narrow track, the 109 was a handful on landings but especially takeoffs. The combination of engine torque and a relatively small rudder. It was a FW design decision to mount some of the gauges on the inner engine covers, not RLM. This was because Kurt Tank wanted the slimmest fuselage possible to save weight and for aerodynamic efficiency. Plus the machine guns were mounted on both sides of the pilot position. As a result the cockpit was extremely cramped (smaller than the 109s!).

[@thunderstorm8926]

@@TR4Ajim the landing gear failure on the ME-109 was an issue during that time. FW-187 Falke has many stories about the gauges on the engine and design being the main reason. But my main point was the RLM didn’t believe the assessment team or the numbers. Who was lying ? Was the assessment team of pilots going to have to use the plane in combat or a group of bureaucrats? I personally have to side with the Pilots assessment team . Very strange situation

[@AndrewGraziani-k7d]

How effective single engine aircraft could be in a variety of rolls is one of those revelations a county would have loved to have had in the 30s.

[@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935]

Were there any heavy fighter ideas in the pre war Heinkel He 51 biplane fighter era?

[@MilitaryAviationHistory]

Yes, though one can argue about the definition. Sometimes it is traced back to twin-seaters in WW1 that were meant to be multipurpose: self-sufficient in offense (fixed forward MGs) and defense (gunner), plus able to do recon and light bombing.

[@gwtpictgwtpict4214]

@@MilitaryAviationHistory From a British perspective the F.2B Bristol Fighter immediately springs to mind.

[@Ulrich.Bierwisch]

@@gwtpictgwtpict4214 I think the Sopwith 1½ Strutter is a typical example for the Idea of a multi role fighter/bomber plane.

[@paultraynorbsc627]

Merry Christmas Chris ⛄⛄

[@whya2ndaccount]

Chris, Happy Christmas from sunny Australia.

[@chuck.reichert83]

We need to find a way to get you to Virginia Beach and over to the Military Aviation Museum.

[@horrido666]

When I was stationed at Coleman Barracks in 1985, I bought a BF109 plastic model kit from the local hobby shop in Mannheim. Coleman Barracks is an old Luftwaffe base, afterall. I thought it would be fitting. When I got it back to the barracks, I found that the swastikas have had been cut out of the decal sheet. The kit went together just fine anyway. Imagine if one of those bud lite guys had something like that happen to something they were into.

[@rogerw3818]

I would think someone who was stationed in Germany would know that Germany officially outlawed the swastika about forty years before your arrival. Bud Lite didn't have anything to do with it.

[@jonremmers1828]

@@horrido666 I went into a model shop in Oldenburg, Germany when visiting relatives. They had a nice display of built models there. ALL svastikas was covered with black electric tape in a blunt, almost demonstrative way. The electric tape made an interesting contrast to the meticulously built models😆

[@kalks4334]

U literally wrote you are into swastikas wtf

[@Ulrich.Bierwisch]

I was into building those models in the 70'th in Germany. In the beginning, it was allowed to put them on historic models. Actually it wasn't officially allowed, there where no complains about it. Then there was a case where somebody complained about a swastika on a thing that wasn't an old book or picture and a court decided that the rules where they are allowed had to be interpreted in a way that toys, models and everything where it isn't needed to help to understand the historic context, is not allowed. So they where cut out or modified everywhere. I'm fine with that. We really don't want to see them all over the places and even more, we don't want to give the Nazis we have (unfortunately there is a growing number) a loophole to use models or whatever to decorate places with swastikas.

[@MarcosElMalo2]

Bud-lite drinkers? You need to question yourself about why you are obsessed with transsexuals. Do a deep and honest self appraisal. If you can figure out whatever quirk of your personality or kink in your sexual desires causes you to think about transsexuals when the topic of model planes comes up, you’ll be happier and emotionally healthier.

[@jimmarshall807]

Merry Christmas!

[@jims4539]

Best wishes for Christmas and the New Year. Thanks for you videos.

[@smyrnamarauder1328]

Video idea: Me 210 Ca-1 vs Bf 110G

[@michaelfrank2266]

Decades ago I created a WWII board game. Interesting to know how much I "accidentally" got right with the dynamics of the air forces. Thanks Chris. Now I got something I can tell my Bestie who helped me playtest the game to death.

[@fantasia55]

name of game?

[@michaelfrank2266]

@@fantasia55 Name of the game does not matter. There is only one copy. Mine.

[@nl1733]

Intriguing finds, Good job! Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year

[@CaptainBanjo-fw4fq]

2:00 Is that the same background music as the Tex Talks Battletech?

[@johnharris6655]

The first plane ever flown by the Israeli Air Force were Czech made Bf-109s. There is a great documentary called "Above and Beyond" and it talks about how Jewish American WW2 vets became the first pilots for the IAF flying really bad 109s.

[@shaneintheuk2026]

This makes me wonder about the Lancaster v B17 comparison. The former must have been significantly cheaper to make and run per ton of bombs carried as the bomb load was significantly heavier. Also the investment in manpower was reduced by having smaller crews.

[@gort8203]

The Lancaster could only bomb at night due to lack of defensive firepower. It flew at lower altitudes and carried more bombs instead of guns and the crewmembers to operate them carried by the B-17. Most comparisons of these airplanes are comparing apples to oranges.

[@dukecraig2402]

It's a myth that the Lancaster carried significantly heavier bomb loads than the B17, the myth comes from fanboys who like to claim that the Lancaster used to carry its maximum weight on missions and that the B17 only carried 4,000 lb loads, neither is true. The designers of the Lancaster did not have a magic wand that enabled them to defy the laws of physics, the Lancaster and B17 both had almost identical empty and almost identical fully loaded weights, therefore the same weight in bombs affected each one very similarly in regards to speed, range and altitude, now if you want to load any bomber with its maximum weight first you have to make sure you have enough range to get to your target, also since every 5,000 ft decrease in altitude doubled your chances of getting hit by the Germans radar laid 88's then go right ahead and put the maximum bomb load in them, most of your bombers will get shot down by AA from flying so low before they even get to the target and the remaining ones will get shot down coming off of it. Almost identical power engines, almost identical empty and loaded weights means that Lancaster's and B17's carried almost identical bomb loads to the same target. And before you go bringing up those earthquake bombs only specially modified Lancaster's could carry them, that's another way people get bamboozled into thinking the Lancaster could carry more weight than the B17, video creator's like to make it sound like standard Lancaster's could carry those earthquake bombs, they couldn't, the floors had to be ripped out of them for the bombs to fit and all the defensive guns had to be removed to lighten them up enough to carry them, the bomb bay of the Lancaster was long but it was shallow, the top of the bomb bay was the floor inside the fuselage, as such the bomb bay was only one bomb deep and didn't stack bombs 5 or 6 deep like the B17, the USAAF could have done modifications to the B17 or B24 to carry those earthquake bombs but they didn't as that was an RAF program, it wasn't because they couldn't carry them and the Lancaster could, they just didn't do it. The most common load for a B17 on a deep penetration mission was not 4,000 lbs, Wikipedia is a poor source for information and is where people get that malarkey from, the average load for a deep penetration mission was twelve AN/M-64 500 lb general purpose bombs, which actually weighed 531 lbs, so that's 6,372 lbs on a mission to Berlin, I've seen the record for a mission to Berlin where they carried over 8,500 lbs to it, what the circumstances were and if for some reason they flew lower altitude on that particular mission I don't know as I only saw the load out record, and it wasn't during the last weeks of the war when the Luftwaffe was virtually non existent, it was in mid 44 when that mission was flown, on the rare occasions when B17's only carried 4,000 lbs the reason had nothing to do with a weight limitation, and Lancaster's would have had a similar load on the same mission, they were incendiary bomb mission's, as the incendiary bombs were 100 lbs each and the B17 had 42 bomb stations inside (when 40 were loaded with 100 lb bombs 2 stations were blocked and unavailable) that's the reason those mission's only carried 4,000 lbs, not because that was all the weight the B17 could carry, Lancaster's had the same issue with an incendiary load out, only so many bomb stations available which made for a light load out mission. The B17 however could always fly higher than Lancaster's with the same amount of weight, or when empty, because the version of the Merlin engine in Lancaster's only had single stage superchargers and like most USAAF aircraft in WW2 the B17 had the vastly superior supercharger/turbo configuration, it varies a little with altitude but generally with the same amount of weight in bombs B17's could fly about 5,000 ft higher than Lancaster's. And you are indeed right about Lancaster's being cheaper, that was because it lacked the features the B17 had, it only a couple .303 guns compared to the B17 that bristled with the vastly superior .50 cals, only one engine had a generator on it wherein the B17 had one on each engine and every one of them was capable of meeting all the B17's electrical needs, but with the Lancaster lose that one engine that has the generator and it loses all electrical power, the B17 had two sets of controls because it had a copilot which the Lancaster lacked, making the B17 not only more survivable but also easier to fly because the copilot could take half the duties during high load situations like take off and landing and during battle, and he could relieve the pilot so he could rest or eat or go to the bathroom, the list of features that the B17 had that the Lancaster lacked goes on and on, like anything else you get what you pay for, the B17 was more expensive but it was also multitudes more accurate making it more cost effective in the long run. The maximum internal load of a Lancaster was 14,000 lbs. The maximum internal load of the B17 was 12,600 lbs, however with its wing racks its maximum bomb load was 17,600 lbs, so the B17 actually had a higher maximum bomb load than the Lancaster. Another nonsense claim in Wikipedia is that the Lancaster's maximum internal load of 14,000 lbs was "the most of any bomber of the war", I guess Wikipedia never heard of the B29 which they incorrectly state had a 20,000 lb bomb load, not only is that more but it's also wrong, along with their claim that 20,000 lbs was for "low altitude short range mission's", the reality is a standard B29 could carry 30,000 lbs much higher, faster and further than an empty Lancaster could, once again Wikipedia is a very poor source for information, quoting numbers from them will get you in trouble every time.

[@kentl7228]

How about a video on the top 10 dogfight aces in the Commonwealth Boomerang or Bolton Paul Defiant?

[@appaho9tel]

you can't find 10 aces in these planes! Or you mean got shot down 10 times

[@Cadcare]

imo what you say makes sense and the 'Swallow' in the room and in support of your argument is the use of the Me 262.

[@billballbuster7186]

The Bf-110s despite having the best pilots, were cut to pieces by the RAF in the Battle of Britain, so much so the aircraft was placed as a low priority in 1941. It was such a failure that many books skip over the the 1940 period entirely and concentrate on its service as a night fighter. The German Air Force was a Tactical one built to support the Army abd never really changed its focus. The other great failure was the Ju-87 Stuka which was withdrawn as it needed fighter escort to fly over the UK.

[@Schaneification]

In EUROPE , Air Faces were based on a Short range covering the Front lines . They did not think of a long range bombing campaign's .

[@robbwatson2088]

I've never understood the German fascination with the 110....until now. Lol Cheers

[@augustosolari7721]

Weird to think that, even though the Luftwaffe is always described as being myopic towards strategic thinking, with its bias towards medium and dive bombers, it seems that in terms of fighter doctrine, initially the strategic perspective (long-range escort fighters) prevailed over the tactical one.

[@carlcarlton764]

Disclaimer: I post before watching the entire video. Even if you think point defense interceptors are not that important you still realize you need some. For protecting forward bomber bases from enemy bombers. Viola, small and light fighters. Range? Not that relevant.

[@mattheweagles5123]

Merry Christmas! Also I'd be interested in more about the heavy fighter concept, where did the idea come from and did other air forces also get in on the idea.

[@FrancisFjordCupola]

I think it's good for people to hear what normal German sounds like.

[@erickent3557]

Wow, never knew ZGs didn't have organic support. Was it the Luftgau that managed airfield infrastructure?

[@paultraynorbsc627]

Thanks

[@thomasknobbe4472]

Given what we know about the influence of individual personalities on the choices of aircraft the Luftwaffe favored for bomber production, who can we credit, or perhaps blame, for the early emphasis on the destroyer? Was this Goering's baby, as has been implied in other videos?

[@paoloviti6156]

In practice the Me 110 was very much the "brainchild" of Herman Hermann Göring as an prestige elitist fighter group but despite the debacle over England because of wrong tactics overall it was quite successful especially as a night lighter that achieved impressive results... Very interesting this video and an excellent 👌 job👍👍👍 Merry X-mas

[@hughbeein1265]

Entirely based on WWI end of war tactics. Fascinating.

[@borislavpavlov9348]

Good job, that explains a lot. I wonder how Jabo Bf 109s and field conversion kits fit into this scheme of thinking and what documents are there on them?

[@thepetrologist]

Greetings m’lord. I hope you have had a fine day. I happen to be an experienced simulator pilot and I agree with all your points.

[@MsZeeZed]

Exellent present, that’s going to change much of what I understand about the Luftwaffe 🙀

[@1960alftupper]

Interesting Greg Baughen's critical history of the RAF talks of the RAF planners desire for heavy fighters (Zestor bomber destroyer type) rather than single engined fighters. If the war had broken out later these would have dominated over single engined fighters.

[@ethanmckinney203]

The British concept of the heavy fighter focused heavily on turret fighters. There's a book on their designs that shows just how insane things got. The assumption that a turret fighter would need quad 20mm Hispano-Suizas was pretty nuts. The belief that a design armed carrying a quad turret that large would work is even more nuts.

[@1960alftupper]

@ethanmckinney203 yes I've seen those designs but the ME210... The ME 110 failed replacement was carrying remote control turrets etc and was probably in the same class as the British designs that didn't get off the drawing board.

[@ethanmckinney203]

@@1960alftupper No, the Me210 was nothing like the British turret fighter concepts. It was simply an improvement on the rear defensive gun on the Bf110. The 13mm guns barbettes had very limited coverage (around +/- 35 degree and 35 degrees to the side), with only one gun able to come to bear on (nearly) any target. The aiming system was overcomplicated for the limited benefit it provided.

[@ivanconnolly7332]

Were damaged E series models ever reengineered as an F , for example .

[@enscroggs]

If the Bf-100 squadrons had no integral logistics train of their own, how did they function? Were they expected to glom onto bomber formations and use their logistics? There's a gap here I haven't understood.

[@erickent3557]

I believe each air district (Luftgau) was in charge of airfield operations/readiness, including logistics; so perhaps ZG and KG units relied on their host airfield to maintain supply.

[@keithplymale2374]

I wonder if this rough field requirement of the fighter caused NATO to always push for that in fighters more than the reported rough field ability of Soviet fighters?

[@sachinmesta4238]

Luftwaffe had many weapons, there was a German weapon that had an 88 mm gun in the nose of the plane, I believe they might have tried to dampen the recoil, I just wonder why was such a weapon not used in say anti aircraft role? It could have destroyed the B-17 bombers from stand off distance without the risk of flying near the bombers to take them down. If that could have a AA shell, that could have created havoc. They used such a weapon on Stuka with 37 mm cannon for anti tank and also Henschel 129. Could they not have modified a Dornier Do-17 or Do-217 to do that?

[@guillaumekalfon9117]

Eye opening, danke

[@philipdavis7521]

I'm quite curious as to why the 110 was so much more expensive to build - I'd always thought of the 109 as a sophisticated aircraft (the racehorse in comparison to the FW-190's warhorse, as I think Kurt Tank put it).

[@gort8203]

The 109 was very small and was a simple aircraft. It didn't even have rudder and aileron trim to ease pilot work load. The BF 110 was larger with twice as many expensive engines and more instrumentation, as well as more guns, more complex systems, and provision for an extra crewmember. No mystery as to why is cost more.

[@dr.johannesmunch891]

Zu Kriegsbeginn standen für einsitzige Jäger keine Maschinenkanonen zur Verfügung. Die Naben-MK der Bf-109 ließ sich erst mit deutlicher Verzögerung realisieren.

[@JohnnyCirucci]

This covers the national strategies and operational requirements of the Luftwaffe (and very well) but what I want to know is "What explains the 109's advanced performance?" The United States and Soviet Union started the war with woefully obsolete aircraft and, arguably, the United States NEVER produced high-performance inline, water-cooled engines. The Allison-engined P-51s and P-38s were slaughtered in the skies over Europe. The Communists probably liked the P-39 because it was GIFTED to them and it had a massive cannon firing through the propeller hub. Supermarine and Rolls Royce produced the Spitfire by constantly learning and adapting to win floatplane races. But how did Willie Messerschmidt pull off the 109? "German engineering" alone???

[@henrycobb]

Germany was preping to fight the Soviets, dah? Then why don't either the light or heavy fighter plans show how they would be based to do so?

[@christopherwestern9223]

Can you do a video on drop tanks? We know the USA used them, but what about Britain? Did they use them and if so, was it only over Europe or did they use them on the carriers/Pacific? Did the Japanese even use them considering the range there aircraft already had? I swear i have seen pictures of a Zero with one.... Or USSR, did they have any? I would think not. The front lines always seemed to be near enough to an airfield. And did Germany or Italy have drop tanks? My guess would be, maybe at the start. But found out they didn't really need them. And if possible, as many pictures or video clips of drop tanks on anything that's not American (i have seen enough of those, lol). Thanks, love your work. I always learn so much.

[@petercollingwood522]

Ah. A fellow Tintin fan I see!

[@kidmohair8151]

and a very merry regional equivalent to you too!

[@janmale7767]

I still don't quite understand the role of the Zerstörer?

[@gort8203]

That's because the role is not substantially different than it was for the allies. Heavy fighters were a focus in the 1930s due to the limited performance a single engine fighter could achieve at that time. Heavy fighters can have greater range and heavier armament than light fighters. Light fighters provide air superiority and ground support over the battlefield, heavy fighters range further into enemy territory on offensive operations, or intercept incoming enemy bombers and down them with their heavy armament. The German zerstorers didn't deliver the performance potential of a twin engine fighter because of the additional weight and drag of extra crewmembers and defensive armament. The US and UK had a better heavy fighter concept with the P-38, Whirlwind, and even the FB versions of the Mosquito. Germany made the mistake of choosing the BF-110 over the Fw-187, and the Me 410 that followed it was not much of an improvement.

[@jarikinnunen1718]

B-17 developing started at early 1930`s. What for?

[@kestrels-in-the-sky]

The same reason people still develop military tech now while at peace “because he might develop something stronger than my stuff and I want to develop something incase he does that I’m sure me developing something won’t make him develop something so I have to develop something…”

[@DelfinoGarza77]

You are too smart for me, but i think you are trying to say hitler is bad, and i agree with that a lot.

[@JaxiPaxified]

I highly prefer you reading in English and showing the text in german. It's super difficult to read while you talk another language. Just something i noticed :)

[@mikeullrich4607]

Background music of any kind blocks the ability of some people to hear voice. So unlistenable.

[@mikael5938]

5 years before mustang. germans where so much ahead of america. same niw where j35s j20s su57s much better then f35.

[@WALTERBROADDUS]

That's really not so.

[@SpaceGhost1701]

You look like you're on the brink of a mental breakdown.

[@cedhome7945]

Can't wait for the analysis of the drone war and development from Ukraine as this is relevant at the moment. It must be a jucy topic for academic research

[@25myma]

It's funny how all these peaceful dictators are all about defense from their countless enemies but then go on producing attack aircraft or hypersonic missiles and dare you to catch them if you can.