Me 410 bomb bay configurations

[moot]

Wanted to keep this stuff for the main thread but..
First of all I see more than enough reasons to split into A and B: A full range of historical, fun and non-redundant loadouts.  A 410 model in both midwar and late war.  So right away my loadouts will look different, e.g. peashooter MG on 410A, MG131 on B model.

The 1000 kg bomb can only be a certain type.  I'm not sure which one but there was variety of 1 ton bombs and IIRC only one fits.  Also there's mention that the bombs would be slightly ajar if you tried to fit in at least some of the half ton bombs.  There's mention a few times (and never explicit contradiction as far as Ive seen) that 1800kg bomb was fitted too, and at least 1 mention of 2x1000kg. I need more time to figure this one out from literature. 

The drop tanks were fitted to models as early as.... IIRC A-2 variants.  So I think this one (being so innocuous tactically and making what I expect is so little difference since internal tanks were so large already) is safe to make available to all AH models.

4xWgr21 yep, and IIRC 15cm rockets I've only seen on Me 210s.

Putting 2x151/20 on centerline as a pod is a good idea.  Even if it could give some loadouts I've never seen like bombs@bay + pod@belly, I think it fits exactly with HT's given philosophy.  I could be wrong but thats what it looks like to me.  I was gonna say there's one potential problem - I didnt remember seeing guns anywhere but on the right hand gun column, but now I remember 109 gondies, so that shouldn't be a problem.

I don't see why single model makes more sense.  The two planes are pretty much identical save for stronger undercarriage on the B model.  Which you might prefer for a lighter Me410A as single model, but then continuing this criteria means we don't get the B model's options and that's where most of the fun toejam is.

Yes DTs were outside the engines, but now that you mention it I don't visually remember the exact attachment gizmos.

damn.. looking at it now with the "gondola" pack in a separate column, it's all so simple compared to the mess of historical notes I'm still not done compiling so I could "show my math".... KISS

[moot]

Also you can't fit all those bomb bay cfg's in AH's standard 6 slots per loadout column.  And there's only 3 columns. So even if we agreed on a single model, you would lose about half of the loadout variety due to hangar selection constraint

edit...  Krusty you sneaky little bast'd..  I see what you did there. 

[moot]

It seems there were 30 single seaters made, and although it's not clear if GM1 was actually used nor if the planned 4,000 lbs weight reductions were actually implemented, there seems to be reports of multiple pilots of II./ZG26 who gave their opinion (ie it saw squadron use) of the plane - dislike of no defensive guns.  Other changes: antenna mast deleted, 80 kg ballast in rear fuselage, fuel tank in rear part of crew compartment, rear end of canopy faired over, and reportedly just 20kph difference at altitude although that's also not clearly with/without GM1.  The aircraft were flown with and without WGr rockets.

I have one pic of this plane and there's another one (you can clearly see faired-over turrets) in the Mankau/Petrick book.


...

Also you can't fit all those bomb bay cfg's in AH's standard 6 slots per loadout column.  And there's only 3 columns. So even if we agreed on a single model, you would lose about half of the loadout variety due to hangar selection constraint

There might not be such a limit.  The B-29 and Ju88 have 7 slots for their bombs.

[Krusty]

You beat me to it, many things have more than 6 options. There was never a limit to any particular SLOT, so to speak. There was an overall limit on the number of options you could give to any given plane -- but if I recall that limit was increased right around the time we got the B-25s.

[Krusty]

I don't see why single model makes more sense.  The two planes are pretty much identical

That is why it makes sense....

Aside from stripped down field mods like you list with the rear guns and second crew removed, what specific loadouts were you thinking as the fun ones, to paraphrase?

Assuming a basic stock frame, not lightened, without all the weapons removed, etc.


P.S. As for the 1000kg, yes, I know that's a special small finned version -- but naturally that small-finned version would be the one added to AH for the 410 in this scenario.

[moot]

Fun loadouts is probably all but a few of em.. I'm going to list em here and argue a bit, then finish up the research work and post everything in a new thread.



WT=belly
WB=bomb bay
-A = 2x
-V = 4x
FDL = turrets

You can't fit all the loadouts in one model.
There's no reason to not split em up.  There's no extra work that I can see other than extra weight for stronger undercarriage.  And a bit of cosmetic work if we get the single seater.

[Krusty]

I don't think you should have the turrets removable, any more than you should on the 110G or the Ju87 or the A-20G.

I think they should be a stock option because that's how the plane was designed and built. Nor would I really like to see removing the MG131s in the nose of the B for the same reason. You can't up a P-38 with just the 20mm, and you can't up a spitfire with just the cannons. In the spirit and standards already set in place I would like to see the stock loadout be more standard.

EDIT: Although, you do bring up a couple good points, like mixing DTs and rkts and mixing wb151t and 4x50kg... I could live without mixing the bombs and gunpods, because they're normally mutually exclusive mission profiles, but the DTs+WGrs is a good addition.

Other than that (at least so far on your work in progress) they're the same loadouts with the exception of the removed MGs on the B and the lighter MG17s on the A. I think you can fit all the loadouts on one plane.

Same as the P-38G and Spit5 and Fw190A5 can be planes in the EWA I think that either 410A or 410B is a candidate for the MWA.

[moot]

1- 30 of those single seater A's were built.  Did the turret-less 110G & co have that many built, as model variants dedicated to them?  The single seater A's weren't field conversions.  And they existed only as 4x151.  That's another thing to figure out- if they "should" be only as 4x151, then you (general you) need to figure out how to exclude that config from the rest of the A configurations.

2- The 131's were removed for some models.  Same with MG 17s.  One of the best e.g.'s is the first U4's: they had the BK5 only.

3- There's a standard model up there:  MG17 or 131 + MG151 and nothing else on the rest of the plane.

4- DT+rockets is probably a mistake, I'd made the above thing a while back.  I'm pretty sure they've got the same attach point. Yep they do.

5- A single model 410 probably couldn't get into MW without losing MK103 and BK5.  Literature says BK5 operational no earlier than Feb 44.  MK 103 as late as June 44. It's not going to be a LW hotrod and probably not all that hot in MW either, especially without MK103 and BK5, but then you not only have that restriction but also the single model loadout restrictions.  Unless you make em stretch out into a dozen+ slots for internal.  Or put internal items into "centerline".  All that just to keep it as a single model .... for what reason again?

Show me how you fit all the bombs and guns in one plane.  You can't without losing bombs, or guns.

[MORAY37]

I hope all of this work means a 410 finds a foothold in the next plane.

[moot]

No kidding.. I'm still not done figuring it all out (what gunsights for what model, which configurations had which cockpit glass panel configurations... same deal with exhaust shrouds, armored windscreen..), and I don't even have the two best books on the plane.

[MORAY37]

No kidding.. I'm still not done figuring it all out (what gunsights for what model, which configurations had which cockpit glass panel configurations... same deal with exhaust shrouds, armored windscreen..), and I don't even have the two best books on the plane.

I have dreams of the G.55, Me410 and Beaufighter being introduced at the same time.  It will never happen (at least until every American variant is modeled  ), but I guess I can dream.

[Krusty]

Don't take this the wrong way, I do enjoy the discussion so if I seem argumentative or anything, it's unintentional:

1- 30 of those single seater A's were built.  Did the turret-less 110G & co have that many built, as model variants dedicated to them?  The single seater A's weren't field conversions.  And they existed only as 4x151.  That's another thing to figure out- if they "should" be only as 4x151, then you (general you) need to figure out how to exclude that config from the rest of the A configurations.

30... out of over 1000 made. And they didn't leave the factory that way, I bet. Hence, field conversion (even if at the depot or squad level). It goes against the general HTC philosophy so far as we have seen it.

Unless you make em stretch out into a dozen+ slots for internal.  Or put internal items into "centerline".  All that just to keep it as a single model .... for what reason again?

Show me how you fit all the bombs and guns in one plane.  You can't without losing bombs, or guns.

You don't need dozens of slots for the bomb bay/internal setup. They're the same setups over and over. Most of the differences you list are non-standard weight removal type suggestions.

A number of 190As also flew without MGs in the nose. Heck this was the standard on the 109G series to make up for the weight of the DT plumbing. However, on the A it was still a nonstandard setup more like a field mod.

While I won't deny it would be cool to have the best of the best, for the 410 it was never a spitfire. I would personally be fine with one that did not allow us to remove the basic guns package as long as we get the plane itself.

EDIT: I will state for the record: It is the additions that interest me, rather than the subtractions.

[moot]

Krusty I just told you they came from the factory that way.  Not field mods.  You've decided this variant can't be allowed without even having any evidence whatsoever that it fails your own criteria.

30... out of over 1000 made

That's about the same proportion as the other variants.  EG B2/U2 there were only about 50 of those.  Yet that's where the most variety is.

Only one of the loadouts are possibly non standard - B2/U2 with MG131 removed.  Everything else is from the factory.

The only other thing non standard in there is the A1/U3 which would probably need its own .plane model, not because it's non standard but because it's got an extra fuel tank where the gunner would be and only flew with 4x20 IIRC, and having it along with the rest of the A model variations means a player could take the bombs or non-A1/U3 options with the FDL delete.  So I guess you get your wish on that one without having to show how your wish makes sense.

B2/U2 without MG131s is the only 'delete' option in there, and it was done, and HT's "loadout philosophy" is consistent with the way it was done.  An actual field mod would be the quad MG17s a B2/U2/R5 used which had to be bootstrapped, unlike everything in configs I've suggested.
Not removing the 131s on U2/R2 means players will have mixed 13/20/30 mm ballistics.
Not offering the basic bombless "standard" options means players have to ditch a couple of bombs, which isn't good for score, regardless how little or much it matters to you.  You don't design a game to inherently screw over a player's score. 
There's no particular variant name for the bomber configs, many bombers were switched to destroyer and vice versa.  Some if not all B6's went from anti-shipping to Air-Sea rescure ops to destroyer. All A1 and B2 variants were ordered for conversion to /U2 standard in May 43.  It was a poopstorm of configs almost the whole time.

4x 50kg (on shackles that disappear when bombs not loaded)

Did they?  How's that not a "weight removal type suggestion"?

You don't need dozens of slots for the bomb bay/internal setup. They're the same setups over and over.

They're pretty much the same as you suggested (which doesn't add up either- why have both MG17 and MG131 as options?), and if you put them into a single plane with HTC's 3 column setup you do end up nearer a dozen than just 6 or 7. 

While I won't deny it would be cool to have the best of the best, for the 410 it was never a spitfire.

?? 

I would personally be fine with one that did not allow us to remove the basic guns package as long as we get the plane itself.

That's a non argument. What are you saying, that the pilots didn't do this?  Or that because you wouldn't do it, that that trumps the historical choice many pilots/crews made, and trumps what AH players might want to do?  Again, what's the reason that it "must" be a single model?  Why give players less historical choice rather than more?

[Krusty]

Krusty I just told you they came from the factory that way.  Not field mods.

Sorry 'bout that.. It's been a long day and I'm rather tired.
You didn't explicitly say built where, at whose factory, and for what reasons. Just "these weren't field mods" which I didn't really know how to take.

I'll reply to the rest of your post there later on, right now can't think very well.

Frankly I like the plane as a whole. Picking it apart looking for the lightest version goes against the actual plane that I want included in the game. It would be like trying to get a P-47M added before we have a D40 or even D11.

[moot]

"Just "these weren't field mods" which I didn't really know how to take."

Uh... That they weren't field mods?  I don't have all the info yet.  Hopefully I can dig it up by this weekend cause I'm starting to get tired of making so little progress on this.

I'm not picking the 410 apart.  Where am I doing that?  On the contrary I'm trying to work out how to get the most out of it, starting with the most common and most fun authentic configurations. If we stick to picking only configs that were A) authentic and most common and B) fit inside the hangar without contradicting each other (ie allowing "non-factory" configs because of the AH hangar constraints), we might not get more than a handful of the 410's historical, useful, and fun variety.  Which is the Me 410's main attraction.
What configuration 410 isn't in the last tentative hangar selection I posted above?  This is what I'm trying to get at.  Tell me that straight up and we won't be going in circles anymore.

I don't see how the proverbial 47M Me 410 configuration is stepping on the D11's toes.  The early variants of both A and B are there: a pair of machineguns and a pair of 20mm cannons.  The most common and popular variants are there too: both early and late BK5 cfg's (BK5 on its own and BK5 with 131+151 in the nose), all of the bomb bay guns cfg's (2x and 4x 20mm, MK103 and MK108), as well as the WT pod for someone who wants to keep extra firepower with his bombs at the cost of a worse CoG (WT pack is .... actually now that I look I notice the WT can't be combined with bombs because the bay doors are totally in the way..).. and on top of whatever exact range of gun choices end up being feasible with the HTC hangar format, there's a whole range of bombs too.  DTs and rockets are totally unrestricted.

Really I don't see how it's not already pretty far into accommodating a max of options.