Author Topic: Me 410 bomb bay configurations  (Read 34963 times)

Offline moot

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 16330
      • http://www.dasmuppets.com
Re: Me 410 bomb bay configurations
« Reply #60 on: April 13, 2011, 02:49:15 PM »
I'm not done with the book.  It's 350 pages.

Yep 2x2 is all I've seen in pictures.  I've seen 3x2 (not 2x3) on a 110 where there's an extra pair of WG21s under the fuselage.. looked like it was below the cockpit (probably was - as far as you could work with the mortar angle).  I've seen 2x3 but those were 15cm, not 21.   The diagrams in Mankau stick em together (though that's only because the attach twigs are drawn so short) and that does make it look like they're only communication sketches, not precise documentation sketches; but on the other hand the pictures of DT/twin rockets aren't clear enough to make a case and again you'd have to see a pic with both DT & WG21s to know that the attach points could support both at the same time.

2x2*50kg are also in the table, they look roughly similar -- it's only a communication sketch.
Quote
I wonder if it was a test configuration that never actually made it.
 Why would it be listed as available if it's only a test configuration?  You've got pre-production status for other items - "Draft", "Mockup built", "In construction".

Quote
Any actual notes/commentary in the book about how such setups were used against US bombers?
There's no historical section in the book, only descriptions of the planes themselves.  I'll keep an eye out for passing references.

Ausbau column has what looks like eqpt removed to install a given conversion kit, and in other cases it'll say "bomb bay" if the kit is installed there.  
Bis like 'bis' street numbers yep, but why would it be there for a kit item that's mostly single items?  So I reckon it's more likely "more than" or "up to".
Someone shine the Lusche signal.

In Etwurf...  This one can't be taken for granted and unfortunately that prolly goes both ways - both items listed as 'available' and items listed as 'under construction' might not be.  I'm pretty sure I've seen the bomb bay 45min GM1 tank mentioned as used in the field, and the book says as much, and I'm pretty sure I've seen mention of that famous bombbay/nose-mounted 6xWG21 rotary as having gone into field use but with no records of how that worked out.  Also the table is missing all the gun packs originating from field mod, which show up in so many pictures: 2x and 4x20mm in the bay, 2x20mm under the fuselage.
... I sure wish the 4x MK108 is one of those 'under construction' that did make it to field use.

Also the LT 950 torpedo listed as available from Messer. AG despite it otherwise being referenced to, as far as I've seen yet, only for the "cancelled" Me 410 naval warfare subvariants.

Anyone know what Qu-Rost is?

I'm curious why R4M are absent in this panoply.





« Last Edit: April 13, 2011, 02:56:25 PM by moot »
Hello ant
running very fast
I squish you

Offline moot

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 16330
      • http://www.dasmuppets.com
Re: Me 410 bomb bay configurations
« Reply #61 on: April 14, 2011, 12:30:42 AM »
In the Werknummer tables you have prod batches bracketed e.g. from 420001 to 420041, labeled "von 420001 bis 420041".  So the 'bis' in the speed penalty column prolly means "up to" X kph loss.
Hello ant
running very fast
I squish you

Offline Guppy35

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 20385
Re: Me 410 bomb bay configurations
« Reply #62 on: April 14, 2011, 09:49:48 PM »
Careful Moot.  I see signs of Me-410 disease much similar to my Beaufighter disease.  Scares me how many books ended up on the shelf in the quest for info :)
Dan/CorkyJr
8th FS "Headhunters

Offline moot

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 16330
      • http://www.dasmuppets.com
Re: Me 410 bomb bay configurations
« Reply #63 on: April 14, 2011, 09:59:20 PM »
I bought the Mankau book last week and earlier this week bought the Stocker one too even though I don't have the cash for it.  :uhoh  Even paid for express delivery.
I am trying to do ZG 26 history right now..
Hello ant
running very fast
I squish you

Offline Charge

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3414
Re: Me 410 bomb bay configurations
« Reply #64 on: April 15, 2011, 01:58:21 AM »
Is that the long sought late cockpit variant I see in those sketches drawn over the early model cpit?

-C+
"When you wish upon a falling star, your dreams can come true. Unless it's really a giant meteor hurtling to the earth which will destroy all life. Then you're pretty much screwed no matter what you wish for. Unless of course, it's death by meteorite."

Offline moot

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 16330
      • http://www.dasmuppets.com
Re: Me 410 bomb bay configurations
« Reply #65 on: April 15, 2011, 02:28:45 AM »
I'm not sure, because as Krusty pointed out these sketches look like only communication sketches, not precise blueprint sketches... But those do look like a sketch elsewhere in the book for the Me 410 C.  I've got my hands full now, but I'll show a pic of it later.
Hello ant
running very fast
I squish you

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Re: Me 410 bomb bay configurations
« Reply #66 on: April 15, 2011, 11:59:44 AM »
Re: "Bis" = "up to" that's right. I can't help on Qu-Rost, that doesn't ring a bell. My German is very rusty.

re: R4Ms: this plane was mostly removed from combat by the time R4Ms were appearing on 190Ds and Me262s. The R4Ms were really more of a last-minute thing, from what I recall.

Offline moot

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 16330
      • http://www.dasmuppets.com
Re: Me 410 bomb bay configurations
« Reply #67 on: April 15, 2011, 10:58:44 PM »
Qu Rost is external rack. Click for full size




« Last Edit: April 15, 2011, 11:08:25 PM by moot »
Hello ant
running very fast
I squish you

Offline moot

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 16330
      • http://www.dasmuppets.com
Re: Me 410 bomb bay configurations
« Reply #68 on: April 16, 2011, 04:35:02 AM »
Above I meant to write that Qu Rost is the external rack for 4x50kg

The 410C nose shape

Quote
Using the technical guidelines for the Kampfzerstorer (bomber destroyer/heavy figher) from 7 August 1942 as a basis, Messerschmitt began development of a follow-on to the Me 410 with the designation Me 410 C. In Feb '43 the Me 410 entered into that circle of aircraft that would be powered by the fighter/heavy fighter standardized engine with forward radiators.  It was established in March that the DB 603 G would form the basis of this powerplant. It was planned in June that production of the Me 410 using the standardized powerplant would begin on 1 January 1945, and defelopment of the Me 410 with standardized powerplant was considered a closed matter.
  The new C series was also to have had a new forward fuselage with redesigned cockpit and DF installation.

The D would have used the same nose shape, and have ~20m wingspan.  The front end of the canopy ahead of the cockpit looks more like the He 219's.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2011, 04:40:25 AM by moot »
Hello ant
running very fast
I squish you

Offline moot

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 16330
      • http://www.dasmuppets.com
Re: Me 410 bomb bay configurations
« Reply #69 on: April 18, 2011, 09:24:30 AM »
It reads like the 8x20mm config never existed.  Dasso is reported in particular, at a time when the top brass were discussing which gun package could make the 410 more useful.  This is at a time when the BK5 had teething troubles with its ammo belt - a few prototype/production iterations were needed before a reliable solution was eventually found, and when the MK103 suffered delay after delay as well (manufacturing quality, industrial sites damaged, hi-alt temperature problems, more mfg quality problems).  It's at this time that the quad-20mm field mod is brought up and a standardization team is put on the job.  In weighing the attractiveness of the quad-20mm package, Dasso's AAR/anecdotal performance is described: alongside other ZG26 Hornets, he hoses down bombers and lights them on fire where BK5-equipped Hornets either miss or hit for no damage (poke a hole like duds).

There is no clarification in Mankau for these loadouts:

- MK 108 "R2".  Mankau/Petrick themselves say they wonder where the other authors of Me 410 literature found this and other "conversion kits".  Nowhere in Mankau is such a 2x108 package mentioned, nor do I recall seeing a single pic of this config.  It only shows up in Janusz Ledwoch's book on p.14 described in Czech (?) and in a recap table p.29 as "Me 410A-2/R2".  And considering the other nomenclature errors (will explain this one in a separate post), Ledwoch did what everyone except Mankau did: took field mods and gave them official designations.  So the question is where he found evidence of MK 108s equipped in the bomb bay.

- The WG21 revolver.  Famously reported to have blown off the test platform's fuselage panels, in Mankau you find it described this way, in a report dated either the same day or one day after the reported test's failure:
Quote
In the planning point of attack tactics against bombers it is mentioned that whole salvos can be fired from the launcher into the formation; the seven barrel weapon is now available.
Emph added -- typo or .. ?
Then at the end of this same book you have a table that lists a six barrel revolver as still in development.

- The external fuselage "WT151" (this designation never used in Mankau) pod that looks like a direct "copy-paste" of the one found e.g. on the 190A (2nd-last row on this page) - probably ignored by Messerschmitt development teams because it's basically a duplicate of internal WB151A pod (2x151/20) at a major cost in speed... So why was this thing ever used when there was the internal /U2 hardware?  Scrounging?  Or so they could put bombs in the bay?  In this last case, the drawings found in the literature would have to be wrong: they illustrate the WT151 barrels as in the way of opening the bomb bay.... Unless the bomb bay opening action retracted the doors upwards at the same time as it rotated them open (they don't, see this vid at 1'04").  So this one can probably be ignored, it serves no purpose.

- The BT400 and LT950 torpedoes are listed in the Messerschmitt table at the end of the Mankau book as available.  There's no details given on these two, other than :
Quote
In a planning point on toss bombing using the TSA steep-angle bombsight it was established that the 410 is probably capable of making torpedo attacks at wavetop altitudes if we have electronic range-finding eqpt avail. to us.  Test with reducing the trajectory have been carried out with very positive results. It depends on using the fins presently found on air dropped torpedoes and finding a way to attach the ["Lufttorpedo"?] body.  It seems that this can be accomplished in short order.
This page says the glider part (at least) of the LT950 was first used in '43 and over 300 were produced.  This page (German, no English version) seems to say that no BT torpedoes saw action.  The BT400's own page isn't clear.  The LT950's own page neither.  There's one picture of an Me 210 (DI+NF WNr 0194) "near Gdynia (Gotenhafen-Hexengrund), 1942" carrying one, on p.30 of K. Janowicz' Kagero book.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2011, 10:12:03 AM by moot »
Hello ant
running very fast
I squish you

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Re: Me 410 bomb bay configurations
« Reply #70 on: April 18, 2011, 12:50:04 PM »
Well we know of the 1 famous example of 8x MG151/20s, so I'd be willing to think they weren't devoting much thought to something already tried and true.

I don't think they were for use with bomb loadouts. Too much drag, probably. I would imagine such a possible setup would only be for closed-door armament loadouts (i.e. gun tray inserts). As you say I also think the barrels might get in the way of the opening doors.

However, the doors do rotate inwards, not just down and out. They swing in and fold up along side the bombs. This can be seen in photos and diagrams.



They pivot about halfway in it looks like (like old style garage doors) and if you look at that photo you'll see the end result on the rear fuselage edge isn't projecting too bad from the lower wing:

.

Now, how far it swings out WHEN rolling back? I don't know. I can imagine it could get in the way of the gun pod.

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Re: Me 410 bomb bay configurations
« Reply #71 on: April 18, 2011, 01:11:02 PM »
- MK 108 "R2".  Mankau/Petrick themselves say they wonder where the other authors of Me 410 literature found this and other "conversion kits".  Nowhere in Mankau is such a 2x108 package mentioned, nor do I recall seeing a single pic of this config.

Now THIS is an interesting observation. The Mk108 was fast on the road to becoming the main Luftwaffe weapon of choice, on all planes from bomber hunters (Fw190s) to fighters (109s). Almost all new planes I can think of had them, Ta152s, Do 335s, He162s, 262s, any number of twin engined planes.

I can't imagine they would overlook the main choice of bomber busting when looking to outfit these planes.

Logically speaking, there are 2 options: They did, or they didn't.

If they did use 30mm, photos may simply be luck of the draw. Example:



Are those empty 20mm gun ports? Or are there 30mm behind them? The 30mm were rather short.

The diagrams, the loadouts, the finer details (drawings, number of rounds per gun, etc) all speak towards "they were used" but the photos suggest it's not quite so clear. Seeing empty gunports on the nose is not common, as you mention.

If they did NOT, why not? Was there some mechanical reason not to? Why ignore the best most dangerous weapon in the arsenal (not counting the Mk103 in all its teething problems) when these planes were taking up WGr21s and 6x or 8x 20mm... Why ignore the 30mm?

Fascinating thought, either way.


P.S. Is this some sort of funky 30mm installation here?




Might just be a misleading photo. Doesn't look like the typical 20mm barrels. Looks like it could be Mk108s, but they would have to be pushed all the way up to the front of the doors to stick out that far. I seem to recall the drawings had them further back in the bomb bay on a tray.

Offline Charge

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3414
Re: Me 410 bomb bay configurations
« Reply #72 on: April 18, 2011, 03:38:46 PM »
I wonder why the guy standing next to that internal bomb rack is holding a piece of ammo belt of a MK103...

http://www.cockpitinstrumente.de/img/Mun%203%20Sammlung%20MK%20103%20108%20131gross.jpg

-C+
"When you wish upon a falling star, your dreams can come true. Unless it's really a giant meteor hurtling to the earth which will destroy all life. Then you're pretty much screwed no matter what you wish for. Unless of course, it's death by meteorite."

Offline Krusty

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 26745
Re: Me 410 bomb bay configurations
« Reply #73 on: April 18, 2011, 04:31:26 PM »
I wonder why the guy standing next to that internal bomb rack is holding a piece of ammo belt of a MK103...

http://www.cockpitinstrumente.de/img/Mun%203%20Sammlung%20MK%20103%20108%20131gross.jpg

-C+

Are you sure it's not MG151/20?

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/weapons-systems-tech/36309d1299757668t-mg-151-20-shell-colors-151_20-steering.jpg

I don't know the relative size vs a man's hand, but they look a little the same.

Offline MiloMorai

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6863
Re: Me 410 bomb bay configurations
« Reply #74 on: April 18, 2011, 07:12:49 PM »
The MK103 fired a 30x184B round.

The MG151/20 fired a 20x82 round.

A hand is typically 3" to 4" (75mm to 100mm) across 4 fingers.