|
|
|
ITALERI 1:72 MESSERSCHMITT BF 110C-3/4 |
Reviewer:
Kevin Ronayne (
kevin.ronayne@nuigalway.ie
)
Kit Review submitted:
18 July 2004
Date: 12th July, 2004
The Messerschmitt Bf 110 originated in a mid 1930's Luftwaffe requirement for a twin-engined heavy fighter. The main role of this proposed new aircraft was to be a bomber destroyer, which led to the term Zerstorer being applied to any twin-engined fighter design. The initial contenders were designs from Focke-Wulf, Henschel and the Bavarian Aircraft Works (Bayerische Flugzeugwerke AG, later to become Messerschmitt). After a change of requirements, the last design was left as the only contender. Three prototypes were ordered, with the first flying in May 1936. The development process eventually led to the first production aircraft (Bf 110 B-1 series) entering service in 1938. By the time Germany invaded Poland in September 1939, the C-1 series was in service. With more powerful engines than earlier versions, these were regarded by the Luftwaffe as being very good long-range fighters, despite misgivings about the earlier versions being too sluggish.
Early combat experience in Poland produced very good results for the Bf 110. The German crews learned to avoid in close-in dogfights with the Polish PZL P.11 fighters, and instead use their superior speed in high-speed passes. The Bf 110 C-1 had excellent performance compared to most contemporary single-engined fighters, but over France and especially Great Britain things were to change. The type had superior performance to the Hurricane, and was roughly equal to the Spitfire. When used in high-level fighter sweeps, the Bf 110 was a very effective opponent. However, when the Bf 110's were ordered to provide close escort cover for medium-level bomber raids, then they were at a serious disadvantage and accordingly suffered heavy losses.
Despite this serious setback, the Bf 110 was to enjoy a very long and successful career where it underwent continuous upgrading and modifications, with just over 6,000 being built. Partially, this was due to the failure of the Me 210 series, and the protracted development period of the much improved Me 410. However, the main key to the Bf 110's success was versatility, as it was to be used in no fewer than five different roles. The first was the day fighter role. Despite the losses suffered in the second half of 1940, the Bf 110 could still be a very effective fighter, especially where its long range could be made to count. It's performance and range also made it a natural for the reconnaissance role. It was also used as a bomber, with later versions carrying a bomb load of up to 1200 Kg.
The final two roles saw the Bf 110 return to the role it was originally designed for, which was that of bomber-destroyer. Starting in late 1940, the Bf 110 was used as a night fighter. Eventually, it was to become the most numerically important German night fighter, and was the preferred aircraft of the top night fighter aces including Heinz-Wolfgang Schnaufer (121 victories) and Helmut Lent (102 victories). Experienced pilots such as these preferred the Bf 110 to the larger Ju 88 which became the officially preferred night fighter in the later part of the war. The Bf 110 was more nimble than the Ju 88, although both aircraft were so weighed down with specialised equipment and radar arrays that they became very vulnerable to RAF Mosquito intruders.
The last role was that of day bomber destroyer, where the Bf 110 would find itself attacking bombers, instead of defending them as in 1940. It did not perform this role alone, as Me 410's and Ju 88's were also used as bomber destroyers against the American strategic bombers. These heavy fighters eventually became a vital part of the German defence system - the so-called Pulk-Zerstorer units, whose task it was to break up the bomber formations using heavy concentrations of firepower, including under wing mortars. Once a formation had been successfully attacked in this way, the disorganised survivors could be dealt with by single-engined fighters. This tactic initially proved very successful, as long as there were little or no escort fighters.
However, by early 1944 the Americans were introducing long-range escort fighters in great numbers. Also, they decided at this time to free up the fighters from close-in escort duties, thus allowing them to achieve maximum effectiveness. With the Americans having eventually relearned the lessons of the Battle of Britain, the result was the defeat of the Luftwaffe day fighter force, with the lumbering Pulk-Zerstorer units suffering catastrophic losses from which they never recovered.
A quick review of the available Bf 110 kits shows just how neglected this famous aircraft has been in 1/72 scale. The Airfix and Revell/Monogram toolings are both very old and quite crude. For about 20 years, the Matchbox kit was the best Bf 110 available! In the latter half of the 1990's, Italeri released a series of Bf 110 kits: this kit (the C-3/4), the G-4/R-3 night fighter, and the D-3 long-range fighter. The three kits use different but related sprues, with Italeri having sensibly planned for different versions from the outset. The basic mold on which all the kits are based is one of the last Italeri molds to feature raised panel lines. This kit has about 100 parts on two main light grey sprues and one small transparent sprue. The kit includes a full load of six bombs. Mold quality is quite good, with hardly any flash and a small amount of mold seam. The raised panel lines are heavier than on (say) an Airfix kit, but a few coats of paint will look after that.
Things are not very straightforward on the paint scheme front. This is partly because of the Italeri insistence on supplying only Model Master and FS codes, and partly because of inconsistencies, mainly between the instructions and the back cover illustrations. There are also issues with the subject aircraft identification. Some of these issues have already been covered in an inbox review of this kit on SMAKR by John Lacey. Jason Sou has also written a full review of the related G-4/R-3 kit, and I will refer to both of those during this review.
Markings for two Zerstorer Gruppen aircraft are supplied with the kit. In the instructions, these are described as:
No date or location information is given in the instructions. On the back cover of the box, there is a 4-way view of the 'sharks teeth' aircraft, and it is placed in France, 1940. However, here it is referred to as the first subject, i.e. a C-3 from 6/ZG.76. This was the aircraft that I chose to model - it's been a while since I built a kit of any aircraft with such markings. The question of what unit it was from will be revisited later. There is one point worth mentioning right here and now: if either of these subjects really was a C-3, then it probably shouldn't be carrying any bombs, as this capability was only introduced in the C-4/B. We can only assume that what Italeri is calling a C-4 was actually a C-4/B, as the base C-4 model didn't carry bombs either...
Not all of the Bf 110 kits are currently 'live' in the Italeri catalogue, but many direct order outlets may still have them all in stock. As with most Italeri kits, the cost should be reasonable - the asking price for any of these kits right now would be about 10 Euro if I were looking to get one of them.
The interior colour for this kit is given as FS34227 pale green, and that covers all areas, including cockpit, wheel wells, door interiors and undercarriage struts. For Italeri, FS34227 means (in effect) RLM 02 Grau, which in turn is Humbrol 31. An interior completely painted in RLM 02 would indicate an early-war aircraft - from 1941, cockpits were painted the much darker RLM 66 Schwartzgrau. However, we can't use this information to reliably work out the dates for either of these subjects, as Italeri always quotes the exact same interior scheme for all kits of Luftwaffe aircraft, even if the year is 1945. Be that as it may, the likelihood is that these are early war subjects, and that it is correct to use RLM 02 everywhere as indicated.
I want to gloss over the actual building of this kit as much as possible, given that there will be a lot to discuss in terms of paint schemes, colours and subject accuracy. To that end, I will focus mainly on the bad points, which is always a little bit unfair! The initial cockpit construction went smoothly, as did its attachment to the starboard fuselage half - the positional marks are only on this side. Attaching completed cockpit assemblies to the fuselage can often be problematic, so this was a welcome change. I had a problem with the rear machine gun that was not apparent at the time. It is a basic unit with the mount built in, although there is a separate part for the ammunition drums. When it came to attaching the main canopy, I found that I couldn't get it to fit. I realised that it wasn't really a problem with the canopy. I removed the machine gun, cut down the mount and reattached it, and that solved the problem.
The back cover, which manages to thoroughly confuse matters by mixing up the subject aircraft.
The main undercarriage appears at first to be a strong point of this kit. There are fully detailed roof sections for the main wheel bays, provided as separate parts. Each main undercarriage unit consists of a main strut with a side strut attached, a separate rear support strut, a scissors link, and the unusual horizontal strut across the front of the main strut that is attached to the inside front of the main undercarriage door units. The main doors (complete with rib detail) are easy to position correctly, partly because of this horizontal strut, but mainly because of the alignment pins and notches provided in the kit. The tires have the correct deep horizontal treads seen on the real aircraft, and the wheels are correctly canted inwards at the base.
So what is wrong? In the kit, the main legs are designed to attach to the roof of the wheel bays at a 90-degree angle - that is, in line with the aircraft's vertical axis. At first, I thought that this was correct, and the paint/decal guides were wrong to show the main legs sloping forward. Only when I looked closely at photos after completing the kit did I realise it was the other way around: the kit is wrong, and the illustrations are correct. Nowhere in the construction guide does it actually say that the legs should slope forward, and the parts are definitely not designed this way.
The name of this JPEG file suggests that this is an E-2. However, the same photo also appears in one of my main reference text, where it is described as a C-4/B. Whatever version it is, one thing is clear from this and other photos, which is that the main undercarriage legs slope noticeably forward, and are not in line with the Bf 110's vertical axis. The kit is wrong. The good news is that almost everything else visible in this photo is correctly reproduced in the kit. That includes the unusual cross strut connecting the two doors, complete with the curved end sections. The propeller spinners, blades and blade bases are all very accurate. The cowling profile just above and ahead of the oil cooler intake is also correctly reproduced, although the intake itself is 'solid' in the kit. One final point: technically, the Bf 110 had two ETC bomb racks under the fuselage, but the fairing covers them completely, as you can see in this picture.
Now let's go through a list of other (mostly minor) problems that I encountered:
Despite these various problems, the use of filler was restricted to a couple of minor areas. The finish of some of the kit parts may appear somewhat rough, but the kit mostly goes together very well.
These are worth a separate section by themselves. There are two large bombs on a centreline rack, and two smaller bombs underneath each wing. The smaller bombs each have a pylon with two separate crutch units. Each of the six bombs has the same construction flaw - you need to cut away part of the base on one of the fins (on the bomb half with just one fin) to get the two halves to fit together properly. None of the bombs have any fin struts (for increased rigidity), although the smaller bombs may not have had them anyway. The instructions are that all of the bombs are to be painted black.
Note that I didn't say anything about the actual size of the bombs - the instructions are of no help in this regard. When I bought this kit back in the mid-1990's, my first reaction on looking at the bombs was 'they are not the right size'. The C-4/B could carry two 250 Kg bombs under the fuselage. The C-7 was a development of the C-4/B that could carry two 500 Kg bombs. According to all of the best references that I have, it was only with the E-1 version were under wing racks introduced, specifically for four 50 Kg bombs. The larger bombs supplied with this kit are neither one thing nor the other based on my measurements - they seem to be too large to be 250 Kg bombs (which is what they should be), and too small to be 500 Kg bombs.
The under wing bombs are even more puzzling, if that were possible. There is a popular three-view plate of a C-4/B from ZG.26 based at Palermo near the end of 1940, painted in a tropical scheme, and carrying six black-painted bombs in the same configuration as this kit. The accompanying notes say that these are two 250 Kg and four 100 Kg bombs. This doesn't match the earlier statement that under wing bombs were not carried by this version. Even if they were carried, would they not have been 50 Kg bombs? And did the Germans even use 100 Kg general-purpose bombs? Apart from this plate, I can find no reference to such bombs anywhere. And there's more: the under wing bombs supplied with the kit are a different shape to those illustrated in the plate - the latter bombs are much thinner. Finally, the bombs in the kit look much too large to be 50 Kg or even 100 Kg.
© Kevin Ronayne 2005
I should say that the same references which describe the evolution of the Bf 110 bomb load, also include the plate of the Palermo aircraft, which flatly contradicts it on several points as I have just described. References - where would we be without them!
Let's get back to our game of 'guess the correct unit'! The photograph below is included in on of my reference texts, which identifies the aircraft as being from II Gruppe of ZG.26, during the Battle of France in 1940. The time and location seem correct, but what about the unit? The reference notes that the sharks' teeth marking were peculiar to this Gruppe of ZG.26 (‘Haifischgruppe’). In his inbox review of this kit, John Lacey stated that it was ZG.76 that used this decoration. The best online site for German WW II unit markings states that II Gruppe of ZG.76 used this marking, which is more specific. The kit subject from ZG.76 is from 6 Staffel, which would be in II Gruppe. On the other hand, the kit subject from ZG.26 is from 3 Staffel, and that would surely be in I Gruppe. For what it's worth, this aircraft has the same first two letters (M8) as the Italeri subject with this nose decoration.
But there's more! The Bf 110's sent to support the Iraqis in 1941 were composed of 4 Staffel ZG.76 - 4 Staffel would have been in II Gruppe. Many people will be aware of a plate that depicts one of these aircraft with hastily applied Iraqi markings. This plate also shows the aircraft with 'sharks teeth'! Of course, the same reference that includes the above photograph also includes the Iraqi plate, therefore showing aircraft from two different units with the same decoration. Maybe both units did use it at some point in time - I really don't know.
Is it any wonder that Italeri got confused about which subject was which?
It never rains but it pours. When Italeri want to confuse you, they go the whole hog. Not only are they completely confused about which subject is which, but they also manage to screw up the paint schemes. John Lacey suggested in his inbox review that the correct scheme for these subjects would be RLM 74/RLM 75 over RLM 76. I think this is wrong, mainly as this fighter scheme was only introduced in 1941, and these subjects appear to be from 1940. Italeri always quote the same underside colour for Luftwaffe subjects, regardless of what it actually was, so this can be very confusing. You have to look at the topside camouflage (among other things) to work out the correct colours.
The instructions and the rear cover quote two different upper colour schemes, neither of which is correct when you 'translate' from the Italeri FS/Model Master colours to RLM standards. The instructions specify a splinter camouflage of FS34092 European Green/FS 34097 Field Green. In effect, this means RLM 70/RLM 71. This was the standard WW II Luftwaffe splinter scheme for just about everything except fighters! The back cover quotes a scheme of FS34092 European Green/FS 34227 Pale Green. This would equate to a scheme of RLM 70/RLM 02, which is closer, but still not correct! The contrast between RLM 70 and RLM 02 would have been so high as to make the camouflage of questionable value. The correct scheme is RLM 02, but with RLM 71 as the darker colour (and lighter than RLM 70). The undersides would have been RLM 65. RLM 71/RLM 02 over RLM 65 is Hu 30/Hu 31 over Hu 65. Simple!
On the instructions, both subjects have the same splinter scheme. But the aircraft shown on the back cover has a different splinter scheme. Of course, since you don't expect this to happen, it is very easy to get caught out like I did. For some reason, I starting switching between the instructions and the back cover during painting - maybe because the back cover had a starboard elevation view which the instructions lacked. It took a while before I realised I was trying to paint two different splinter schemes on the one kit! There are other little differences as well, such as where the demarcation between the splinter camouflage and underside blue should be on the engine cowlings. I'm willing to bet that the detail shown on the back cover is correct, where the demarcation line runs along the exhaust stack - this is also shown in the photograph of the aircraft with the 'sharks teeth'. That photo also shows the spinner tips being painted a light colour. The instructions say that the spinners of both aircraft are to be painted completely white. However, the back cover views show just the tips painted yellow for the 'sharks teeth' aircraft, which seems to tally with the photo.
The decals were excellent, but as usual you will have to bring your own Swastikas. A fair amount of stencilling is provided, including those horrible little numeric markings for the rear segments of the fuselage. The under wing crosses should be partially covered by the outer bomb pylons. I say 'should be' because there are no diagrams or artwork that show this. I judged where to place the crosses and cut away a certain amount before placing them next to the pylons. Fitting the 'sharks teeth' decals was somewhat of an adventure, but I got there in the end. All decals were overcoated with Humbrol MattCote to seal them in and give a uniform matt finish.
I think I've already covered most of the major accuracy issues. This seems to be a very accurate model of the actual aircraft, but with a big question mark over the bombs. Detail is good, but obviously not up the 'current' standards of Revell, Tamiya et al. The way in which the engine exhaust stacks are oriented seems to suggest that this version of the Bf 110 might have had a 'handed' configuration. However, this was not the case, and the kit correctly has both propellers turning in the same direction. The fuel caps on the wings are too near the wing root as far as I can see, which is a minor flaw. The kit features an armoured windscreen, which I believe was first used on the C-4. This is another reason not to build any subject that you know for certain to be a C-3. The famous plate of the Palermo-based C-4/B that I mentioned earlier plate doesn't (apparently) show an armoured windscreen. However, I think we can safely say that this plate is not the most reliable source of information available! Apart from everything else, it purports to show a C-4/B, yet has the extended tail cone that was first used on the D-3! This means that it quotes the wrong length for C-series aircraft. The correct length is about 11.90 m, with the wingspan being about 16.25 m. The kit appears to measure up on both counts.
© Kevin Ronayne 2005
This kit is certainly a very good starting point for some of the early-war Bf 110 models, but be careful about just what version you want to build, especially if and when it comes to loading the kit with bombs. Obviously, you've got to be sure about the subject markings and paint schemes as well, since Italeri obviously are not! Ideally, I would like Revell Germany to produce a new Bf 110 tooling which would eclipse this one. They may eventually have to do this, since they can't get their hands on the Italeri tooling. Still, for the moment I look upon it as the glass being half-full as opposed to half-empty, when you think of what we had before these Italeri kits were released.
The one disappointment for me is that Italeri have not released a Pulk-Zerstorer variant. However, it would probably be easy to modify the G-4 night fighter kit to this standard, and the under wing WfrGr 21 mortars can be obtained from a variety of sources, including Italeris own Me 410 kit.
My starting point for information was (as usual) my two standard Luftwaffe reference works:
The Warplanes book is an excellent reference, but it contains so much information that it inevitably ends up contradicting itself in places, as I discovered in this and other reviews. There is very little on the web that is not contained in these references. For more detailed information on the Bf 110, you are looking at very specific books and journal articles on the Bf 110. The air war over Europe (and especially over Germany) has always been one of my specialist subjects, so I have plenty of general articles that refer to the Bf 110 in one way or another.
The images came from Rod's WarBirds, which is attached to the WarBird Pictures site. The World War II Day by Day site contains an extensive section on German unit emblems - both land- and air-based. The link to these sections is on the home page. Even with lists sorted by unit number, it can still take a while to find what you're looking for.
SMAKR Home
| What's New | Submissions
| Information Requests | News | Links
| Reference Corner | Site
Info
1/72 Reviews | 1/48
Reviews | INBOX Reviews
