Talk:Messerschmitt Bf 110/Archive 1

Expanding article
Adding widescale updates to article. Stay tuned for more. --Evil.Merlin 03:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Even more stuff added. Need to update variants, and add some details on G versions. --Evil.Merlin 03:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

"Me" or "Bf" ?
In a previous version, this article said the "Me-110" designation was "erroneous". I fact-tagged it, particularly since the Bf-109 article said the designation "Me" was considered correct after 1938....now we have an edit saying it is 'familiarly' known as the Me-110. Which is it? If either is acceptable, then the 'Me' designation wasn't *merely* familiar (although it was familiar), it was offically sanctioned. ??? DMorpheus (talk) 17:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Me designation was never correct for Bf 108, 109 and 110. Messerschmitt tried to get it into official use but this was denied by the RLM. In fact they ordered every piece of paper from Mtt baring Me 109 or Me 110 designation to be delivered back to Mtt with notice "acceptance denied". And that's a fact. The allied side preferred to call them Me. The first aircraft to officially carry the Me designation was the Me 210, the Me 209 (first version, racer) may have it received as the very first one but that's hard to verify. --Denniss (talk) 07:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you have a source for that? I am sure I have read that either usage is acceptable. Just trying to clear this up consistently across both articles (110 and 109). Thanks. DMorpheus (talk) 18:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The RAF Bomber command diary uses Me110 (16/17 December 1943). A source is needed for the word "erroneously". If as User:Denniss "The allied side preferred to call them Me." then it is not up to Wikipedia to pass judgement on this "error". --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This is pedantic. Rather than saying it is erroneous without citation or explanation, why not include a tidbit explaining the difference in nomenclature?  Would anyone be opposed to adding such a sub-section about the difference between Bf. for Bayerischen Flugzugwerke and Me. for Messerschmitt? Pete71 (talk) 15:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the word "erroneously" should be used. Perhaps "alternatively" would be better. I quote from "The Hardest Day", Alfred Price, ISBN 0-304-35081-8.

"Author's Note ..... In several publications the abbreviations Bf 109 and Bf 110 are used, respectively, for the Messerschmitt 109 and 110 (Bf for Bayerische Flugzeugwerke). In official wartime Luftwaffe documents, however, the abbreviations 'Bf' and 'Me' both appear frequently; so both are correct. In this book the less cumbersome abbreviation 'Me' is used". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.42.139 (talk) 12:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I see the unjustified "erroneously" is still in place. Is anyone updating this? 86.31.215.204 (talk) 20:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The earlier aeroplanes were designed by Messerschmitt while he was working for Bayerische Flugzeugwerke, and so carried the 'Bf' prefix, e.g., Bf 108, Bf 109, Bf 110. The later machines were designed by Messerschmitt's own company, Messerschmitt Aktiengesellschaft (Messerschmitt AG), and were prefixed 'Me', e.g., Me 210, Me 410, Me 262, etc,.


 * To confuse matters more the RAF and USAAC/USAAF usually used the 'Me' prefix for all Messerschmitt designs during the war.


 * The RLM later changed their designation system so that the designer was credited in the designation, which is why the Focke-Wulf designations changed from 'Fw' to 'Ta' for the later versions of the Fw 190 - the 'Ta' standing for 'Kurt Tank'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.68.219 (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Geography
Augsburg, north of Munich

<-- Augsburg is not in the North of Munich. http://www.mathematik.uni-osnabrueck.de/imagemaps/deutschlandkarte.png —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.8.223.205 (talk) 13:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC) See: Augsburg; it is noted that the city is 50 miles northwest from Munich. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 13:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC).

Field modifications
A list of the various field modifications (Rüstsätze) made to the Bf.110 type would be interesting. Drutt (talk) 11:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Bf 110 in the Battle of Britian
The introduction says : This flaw was exposed during the Battle of Britain, when several Bf 110 equipped units were withdrawn from the battle after very heavy losses. quoting De Zeng as a source. Can I ask you for a cite of the relavant text from this author, detailing these 'very heavy losses' and that which units were 'withdrawn' from the Battle as a result of losses? The article seems to be very heavy with weasel wording like 'fortunately', 'fatal' etc. Surely this can be improved to represent a more cool-headed, fact-oriented style? Kurfürst (talk) 11:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Given the performance of the Bf 110 against single engined-fighters it is no exaggeration to say the Bf 110s "fortunately" avoided single-engined fighters and engaged only Allied bombers. But in an attempt (I hope it will not be a vain one, like some many times before) at good faith I will correct these. In answer to your questions about which groups; units were permanently withdrawn. One was I./ZG 76 in September and redeployed as a nightfighter unit. This was after losing 7 out of 21 in one mission. The other was I./V. (Zerstörer)/LG 1 -which is in the article I created. Having lost 7 losses out of it remaining 10 on the 27/9/40 it was officially withdrawn from operations due to very high losses and ordered to fly to Vechta south west of Bremen on 29 September, and was officially redesignated I./N.J.G 3. Dapi89 (talk) 16:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your cooperation and correcting these. IMHO it is important to present the article as 'just the facts', without too much styling comments used. It seems to me that in each case these redeployment was also in connection with the units being deployed as nightfighters in the newly created night fighter arm, and it might not be correct to state that 'several' (ie. two..?) units were withdrawn because of losses, if we cannot decide if that was the main cause or that they were simply redeployed as nightfighters (at leas in the case of I/ZG 76). For example, IV./JG2 day fighter unit was also redeployed as a night fighter, the decision for which was made before the Battle, but which did not de facto until mid-July IIRC.
 * So how about this? : This flaw was exposed during the Battle of Britain, when some Bf 110 equipped units were withdrawn from the battle after very heavy losses and redeployed as night-fighters, a role which the aircraft was well suited. Or something like that.
 * I am also pleased to see you are talking a good faith approach. I hope that we can collaborate in a similiar fashion in the future as well. It is certainly my intent. I believe we both made many grave errors in the past. I see hope that this can improve. Cheers, Kurfürst (talk) 17:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you denying that the heavy losses were a catalytic factor in causing the units to be withdrawn? If they were successful in combat, do you not think they would have been left in combat?  They suffered crippling losses due to the significant disparity in performance between the Bf110 and the single-engine, single-seat fighters over England.  That is not even remotely controversial.  I seem to recall having read it in Sholto Douglas' memoirs, in Liddell-Hart and in many other sources.  It is a generally accepted fact that they were outclassed as day fighters. You seem to be carrying a torch for the aircraft. Me, I am passionate about the De Havilland Mosquito, I used to volunteer at the museum where the first prototype is preserved.  The Mosquito could outrun, out climb and out turn a Spitfire :-)  Guy (Help!) 20:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think I am incorrect in using "several". According to the Oxford dictionary it says more than two but not many.
 * As I have now discovered, 7(F)LG2 was also equipped with '110s in June-July 1940. This unit was also withdrawn, so this would make three. But no reason is given by de Zeng and co, so I would let that one go.
 * I appreciate your comments Guy, welcome! This is an accepted fact, and I think anyone who bothers to edit these pages carries a torch for the aircraft. I think I speak for us all, when saying, with tongue firmly against my cheek, the 1930s-40s was the pinnacle of aviations achievements!
 * On a side note I would refrain from taking too much notice in Liddell Hart's stuff. He has his critics, and respected ones. He is the self-proclaimed founder of the Blitzkrieg doctrine, and some of his writtings on military affairs have been debunked time and time again. Besides, who would want to be known as the father of Blitzkrieg? The most flawed operational (that pretends to be strategic) doctrine in the 2oth Century! :)
 * Kurfursts latest suggestion is sensible and very acceptable. More importantly it is factual. Dapi89 (talk) 22:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Can someone write in the fact that the Me110s frequently circled each other - kind of like in a Luftbery circle. Goering tried to boost morale by calling these "offensive circles", when they were really "defensive circles" It also gives rise to the misconception that Me110s are "bombers" that needed to be escorted by the Me109s (not true) Somebody? I don't know how to word it properly. TheStarter (talk) 09:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, the part about the Bf 109 escort (Bf not Me) is not true. Several references exist that say Bf 109s were ordered to escort bombers and Bf 110s. Dapi89 (talk) 11:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry Guy but much of what you say is not true.

First of all heavy fighters in a defensive circle is ridiculous as a concept to begin with and any plane in a defensive circle, even Spit of Bf109 becomes inefficient and that is something that is a fact (compared to what you are saying)as was realized to e.g. allied pilots in Africa by the actions of Herr Marseille. If you make assumptions of aircraft's relative performance on the basis of such tactical restriction you are bound to be wrong. It was eventually realized that such "heavy fighter" doctrine was not efficient in modern aircombat and such aircraft were eventually phased out in pure fighter use. Take Westland Whirlwind for example. The concept itself was rather good, but with too low powered engines, and later on the Whirlwind was totally phased out, probably because it was realized that for the proper use of the twin-engined aircraft there already was a better option available: Mosquito.

If you compare the contemporary aircraft on paper you may notice that Bf110 is not significantly worse considering power-loading, wing-loading, speed, armament or armour. It has to be kept in mind that even during the Battle of Britain the Luftwaffe was learning things (the hard way) in a new situation and the defensive circle was one of the blunders of the thinking of that time. It was actually thought that an "offensive circle" threatened a large area around it tying defenders when, in fact, the mobility of the aircraft involved was reduced and they came to realize that the attitude of such formation was only defensive at best, but even in that it was very inefficient in its rigidness and was not much used later on, except by the Russians. If you fly in a circle above enemy territory you are not flying "escort" to bombers but trying to establish a local air-superiority, a thinking that was another blunder in German strategy of the time.

When receiving heavier equipment and armament the airframe began to show it age but it was seen that in night fighter role the weaknesses were acceptable. Later on it became evident that a Bf110 in NF configuration was no match for Mosquito in combat, but such situations were quite rare as you are not supposed to turn fight at night after all, but it happened occasionally and usually the Mossie was more victorious in these engagements.

Secondly, the claim for "Mossie" being superior to Spitfire is, mildly said, peculiar. It probably could outrun earlier models of Spitfires (I, II, V) and maybe in favourable conditions outclimb them if the angle was shallow so that it could maintain its speed advantage but at Spitfire's best climb angle its best competitors were found elsewhere than in twin engined camp. Mosquito was probably able to hold a respectable turn rate with speed but even with that a Spitfire could either match its turn or opt to easily turn inside it with its superior turn radius. There is a story about a Mossie visiting Malta during its defensive fighting and a mock dogfight between Hurricane 2 and Mossie which the Mossie "won" due to its much greater top speed when it could choose when to engage and when to run. --FockerWulfer (talk) 14:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately many an aircraft's reputation has stood or fallen upon whether it is good enough to stand and fight the opposition, or fast enough to run away. This has applied to many otherwise 'good' aircraft, and indeed this factor may apply in one use, theatre, etc., but not apply in another. So the Me 110 whilst no doubt a good aeroplane, was unfortunate during the Battle of Britain in coming up against fighters such as the Hurricane and Spitfire that were both faster, and more manoeuvrable, than the 110. Thus it (the Me 110) was unable to stand and fight against these two types (and also the Defiant) with a reasonable chance of winning, and was also unable to run away. In these circumstances the unfortunate get shot down. This situation has applied to many types, such as the RAF's Fairey Battle, the Brewster Buffalo, etc., and is often no reflection on a types inherent flying qualities. Often it's just a matter of luck in the types of opposition they are eventually pitched against. The Luftwaffe during 1940 did at least have the advantage of more experienced pilots, as many had already served in the Spanish Civil War. But against modern single-engined fighter such as the RAF had, the 110 had no usable advantage other than pilot experience, and often this was not enough. Same situation with the Ju 87. It's the opposition you come up against that counts, and the RAF was a first-rate air force, with first-rate aircraft and equipment, whereas the ones the Luftwaffe had faced previously had not been.


 * In the Me 110's case it really came into its own as a radar-equipped night fighter later in the war, at-which it was more than adequate, at least until the Mosquito arrived on the scene. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 20:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Better read a bit about air combat in BoB - the Bf 110 was successful on free hunt missions and shot down many Hurries and Spits. But if catched on a JaBo mission deep down it was not easy to survive. Later on they were forced to fly close escorts for the bombers so they lost the only advantage they had: attack from above with high speed, use its powerful forward armament, then either climb back for another run or fly away. --Denniss (talk) 20:30, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The author of the book ”Luftstrid över Kanalen” från 2006, Christer Bergström, makes some interesting claims after have gone through the source material: that the ratio for the Bf 110 was far better than for the Bf 109 even before removing losses of Bf 110 bombers and Bf 110 with the Dackelbauch undroppable drop-tanks. For instance II./ZG 76 ”Haifischgruppe” is given a ratio of 5:1 in kills/losses, which after correcting for the Luftwaffe overreporting (LW claimed 3 058 during the battle of Britain, while RAF recorded 915 losses. RAF on the other hand claimed 2 698 kills, while LW registered 1 733 losses) it is still a 5:3 ratio. ZG 76 was also the first to reach 500 kills. The only thing that really spelled doom for the Bf 110 was close escort, but then again it was a mission the Bf 109 didn't fare much better in. Link to a forum in which Christer is discussing the matter, run through google translate for convenience of the non-Swedish speakers BP OMowe (talk) 00:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Added it now. BP OMowe (talk) 21:29, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * "Later on they were forced to fly close escorts for the bombers so they lost the only advantage they had: attack from above with high speed," - they never had the advantage of height. The RAF Chain Home system could detect Luftwaffe aircraft while they were still forming up over France, and so RAF fighters always had plenty of time to scramble and gain a height advantage. That's something that puzzled the Luftwaffe aircrews, because there were always RAF fighters ready to meet them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.115.56 (talk) 17:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Development and Operational History
The above needs to be expanded and cited. The Op history in the "night" section will be to a greater extent given the contribution by the type to the campaigns. It will be done in due course. If anyone has god sources for the technical design and development immediately available please add them! Dapi89 (talk) 11:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The Bf110s over Bucharest in picture are probably not 110Gs due to older style propeller spinners but more likely Fs if the picture is really dated 1944. Maybe it would be good to remove the variant designation if it cannot be determined from the picture? --FockerWulfer (talk) 14:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Reflist problem
Why doesn't the Reflist|2 command work? This isn't the first page that I've seen that has this problem. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The |2 bit of Reflist|2 doesn't work with Internet Explorer - is that what you are seeing?Nigel Ish (talk) 22:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope, Firefox; where it's worked with other pages that I've made. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Odd - seems to work when I look at it in Firefox.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Incomplete sentence
"Gordon Gollob, future General der Jagdflieger." Okay, so what did he do, or why is he mentioned?

Georgejdorner (talk) 21:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

in the three months of 1944
At the end of the section "Night fighter operations" reference is made to "the three months of 1944". I am guessing this should either read "the first three months of 1944" or "the last three months of 1944". But I'm not going to hazard a guess which it is. Can anyone check and correct this? Or, alternatively, make a more informed guess than I can? Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Just noticed this has been fixed by Nigel Ish. Thanks!  Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Me 110 first flight
Hello, I'd like some help on the issue of attributing the first flight of the Me 110 to the correct person. This mess all started with aviation "historian" William Green publishing that my father, P. Rudolf Opitz, made that flight on 12 May 1936. Unfortunately, Dad passed away at age 99 on 1 May 2010 without ever having been able to publicly get the first flight of the Me 110 issue resolved on a widespread publicly accepted level. Dad always said that the Messerschmitt Chief Test Pilot (at the time), and coincidentally also the designer of the Me 110 was Dr. Hermann Wurster, and that it was Dr. Wurster who made the first flight of that aircraft type on 12 May 1936. Dad wrote William Green with this information, only to have him reply (paraphrased) "Tough, I have different information." This, when both Dr. Wurster and Dad were both still alive. What kind of "historian" was this that could have resolved this issue by directly asking both parties to this issue, and chose to ignore the facts?? All other articles and references on the subject quote William Green as their source. (as the one used here in Wikipedia does)

Anyway, I had asked advice on this topic here before, and was told that the information presented here has to be from sources other than the person directly involved, and I was given some direction to take. What I have come up with is as follows: 1) Rudolf Opitz personal flight log book page from 12 May 1936 shows he was practicing touch and go landings at Darmstadt- Griesheim and Wiesbaden in a single engine aircraft that day.  He did not fly a Me 110 until years later. 2)  German Aviation historian Peter F. Selinger has obtained a copy of Dr. Hermann Wurster's personal log book page from 12 May 1936 which clearly shows the first flight of the Me(NOT bf!!)110 prototype with location, take-off and landing times, etc. 3)  Based on his possesion of log pages from both parties, as well as conversation with Rudolf Opitz, Peter Selinger publihed in his eulogy to Rudolf Opitz that Dr. Wurster had indeed made the first Me 110 flight when Rudolf Opitz at the time did not even posess the "heavy multi-engine" license required to fly such an aircraft.  This was written in tribute to Rudi's character which was always to have the truth recorded correctly, even if it meant quashing untrue legends about him that were flattering. The eulogy was published in two German aviation magazines: ("LUFTSPORT", 2/2010, page 19) and ("DER ADLER", 06/2010, page 40)

My questions now are: Is this enough documentation to make an edit? Who is allowed to make the edit? I'm sure that the rest of you out there are interested in the truth being published, so is there anyone who has any helpful comments or advice??

Thanks, Michael R. Opitz —Preceding unsigned comment added by MRO50 (talk • contribs) 03:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Green was probably using official Bayerische Flugzeugwerke contemporary documentation as his source. Unfortunately that trumps personal stories, even though the personal story may actually be more accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.115.56 (talk) 17:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Whatever Green was using as a source, it was wrong and Mike Opitz, who I happen to know, is absolutely right. The pilot on the first flight was Dr. Hermann Wurster, who had recently become BFW's chief pilot. For a source, since Mike isn't good enough for you (typical Wikipedia silliness), you can read all about it on page 156 of the huge tome "Willy Messerschmitt: Pioneer of Aviation Design," part of the quite authoritative History of German Aviation series.96.248.62.13 (talk) 22:27, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Operator: Iraq & Syria
Add Iraq and Syria as operators because they were used by the Iraqi and Syrian air force in 1941 albeit in German hands 213.123.135.235 (talk) 22:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, they did not use them. German aircraft operated by german crews under german command just marked with iraqi/syrian colors. --Denniss (talk) 01:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Rudolf Hess' flight
Shouldn't Rudolf Hess' flight be mentioned on this page? Hardtofindausername (talk) 21:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Bf 110H
Based on these two websites (http://www.wwiivehicles.com/germany/aircraft/fighters/messerschmitt-bf-110g-h.asp) (http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/final-bf-110-variant-any-help-appreciated-22530.html) some Bf 110H prototypes were delivered to the Luftwaffe. The variants include:

Bf 110H-1 Heavy Fighter, strengthened fuselage, undercarriage and wing attachments, retractable tail wheel, DB 605E engines and a modified nose carrying 2x30 mm cannons

Bf 110H-2 Fighter bomber, equipped with GM-1

Bf 110H-3 Reconnaissance

Bf 110H-4 Night fighter, new flame dampeners armed either with 2 MG FF cannons or 1 Mk 108 in a Schräge Musik arrangement

Bf 110H-5 Single seat version, radio operator position removed

Bf 110H-6 Bf 110G-4/R9 equipped with DB 605E engines

I hope that these facts are helpful in expanding this page Hardtofindausername (talk) 22:14 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * No Bf 110H and no prototyes ever built. All development ceased after important documents were lost in a bombing raid on the Waggonbau Gotha factory which was leading the H development. --Denniss (talk) 16:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Then that should be written down on the page as the reason why the 110H wasn't built right? Hardtofindausername (talk) 21:44 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Added it, but references are needed. BP OMowe (talk) 21:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Bf 110G-2 Specifications...MG 151/20 ammo
It says in the specifications for the Bf 110G-2 that there were two MG 151/20 cannon, with "750 rpg (350 + 400)". What does that mean? I thought the whole point in belt-fed guns was to make reloading in flight unnecessary. Why would they divide the ammo load into two halves? Even if they did, for space constraints, or something, how is one man supposed to load a box or belt of 400 20mm rounds alone in a cramped cockpit? That's why belts usually come in easily handled sizes of 100 or 50 rounds. And why would they give it an initial load of 350 rounds, if a 400 round reload will fit in the same place? Or does the rear crewman take and attach fresh 50rd belts every few minutes as the ammo is eaten up? None of these sound very practical; reloading ammo drums in flight is a pain in the ass, but it's a hell of a lot easier than loading an ammo belt-box with ammo belts in flight, attaching links, folding the belt to fit in the box, etc. And if the whole box is swapped, again, a 4 round box obviously fits in that spot, why not just use two 400 round boxes? If they did have an initial load and then a reload, I'd expect the initial load to be larger, because one can fill the ammunition feed chutes with extra ammo, in addition to a 350 round magazine box, giving you that extra 50 rounds capacity, while the in air reload would be restricted to only what fits in the box, some of which would have to be used to fill the feed chutes, reducing the total to 350.

My suspicion is that there are no reloads, and that it's actually supposed to be 750 rounds TOTAL, for BOTH guns, and for some reason (space constraints, etc), one gun is given 50 rounds more than the other. I mean, really...1,500 rounds of 20mm ammo is a MASSIVE ammunition load. A 4 x 20mm Typhoon has like 140 rpg, for 560 rounds total. A P-61 has 800 rounds (4 x 200 rpg), and it's a massive and powerful aircraft (admittedly, it also has the .50cal turret and ammo to carry around, at least by design). Somehow, 350 and 400 rounds per gun, respectively, seems far more plausible to me. And if it really IS 750rpg, it would seem to make more sense to load it all at once into a single box..45Colt 01:14, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 400 for one gun, 350 for the other. Space constraints limited supply for one gun.--Denniss (talk) 09:17, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 23:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Yugoslav Bf 110
It seems that at on the 1st of April 1941, a Bf 110 mistakenly landed in Yugoslav territory and was subsequently interned and according to witness testimony, it was re-painted in Yugoslav camouflage. The Bf 110 was supposedly a Bf 110 C-4 from 7./(F)/LG 2 and was shot down after the German invasion in a friendly fire incident by AA with the pilot surviving.

Sources include a 13-year old forum thread and what I assume is a modelling website http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/showthread.php?t=4681 http://yumodelclub.tripod.com/history_of_yugoslav_aviation/bf-110.htm

For what it's worth, there's also a profile of the Bf 110 on Wings Palette (http://wp.scn.ru/en/ww2/f/318/77/0).

Are these sources reliable enough for the information to be added to the article? Hardtofindausername (talk) 10:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Forums are generally not considered reliable sources....they fall under the heading of self-published sources. Same with tripod.com. Cheers! Skyraider1 (talk) 13:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Forgot to mention that this forum shares its source on the Bf 110, which is the "Militaria i Fakty" (http://ksiegarnia-historyczna.home.pl/pl/c/AJAKS-Militaria-i-Fakty/166) magazine (specifically . Have only found one site which has reviewed it so far (http://www.missing-lynx.com/reviews/other/mif.htm) and it doesn't seem to refer in any way to its historical accuracy.


 * (Some Croatian Google searches apparently lead to a forum which is quite similar to the one linked above: http://www.airgroup2000.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5069)


 * Have a nice day! Hardtofindausername (talk) 14:41, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

What kind of relevance should this single Bf 110 have which was in Yugoslav hands for just some days ?


 * Simply for the sake of completion, that's all. Hardtofindausername (talk) 14:38, 20 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Doesn't fit into any article section nor criteria for inclusion. --Denniss (talk) 09:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

ENGVAR
This article was written in British English. --John (talk) 19:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC)