Me 410 bomb bay configurations

[Krusty]

Bumping an older thread:

Looks like the DTs take the same place the WGrs would. Kind of hard to tell, but looks like they're in the same spot (rather than inboard and outboard of each other)

[moot]

There's another pic where you clearly see the rockets attached on probably the exact same spot relative that iron cross.
Not the pic I remember, but you can almost estimate the attach point..

It's not clear enough.. That black area almost looks like the iron cross - if so, the attach point for these rockets is different.

[Krusty]

Damn, the links I used are broken already.

[Krusty]

Okay, let's try that again... different links here.

One of the broken images above was gun cam footage of a 410 being shot down, showing the placement of the rockets from directly behind. It's interesting to note how wide these DTs or WGrs have to be placed to get outside of those oil radiators.

I could not locate a copy of that image so I went about it another way. I think now they actually may exist side by side.

For general reference, here's the asisbiz link I got these from this time:
http://www.asisbiz.com/il2/Me-410/Me-410-Mixed/pages/1-Me-410A-Hornisse-03.html

If you look at another closeup of the WGr 21s you see where they are relative to the cross markings. They seem to stop just halfway into the cross.



Now we look at the drop tank hookup: It appears to also start midline of the cross, but it goes inward instead of out. They could be placed side by side, it looks like.



Very interesting!

Although it seems the DTs were rarely used, but I did read a description or two about using them to escort bombers from around Finland somewhere over to bomb northern UK.


As a random aside: I forgot it had dive brakes, until I saw this and remembered!

[moot]

Pretty compelling, but probably need clearer pictures of the actual mounts rather than going by paint, and/or service manuals where you can see these little attach points under the wing in detail.   EG it's not clear that in the above pics the DT's outer pair of support twigs aren't on the same attachment hardware as the WGr's inner twigs.  If they are, then we'd have to see in some manual that the hardware in the wing could take both at the same time.

[Krusty]

Fair point, and one I was pondering. However given the functionality they were taking from the Bf110 that it was replacing, I'd be inclined to believe both were an option at the same time... at least until further info becomse available (which I have not been able to find online).

I did find an interesting comment on 12oclockhigh forums:

For what it's worth, the first step to gaining ANY accurate understanding about the Me 210 is tearing out any reference to it by William Green, and by the many who followed the general tenor of his comments, and dumping it in the nearest garbage can.

For instance, he comments on page 610 of "The Warplanes of the Third Reich": "Me 210 V1, ..., when it made its initial flight on September 5, 1939 with Dr.-Ing. Hermann Wurster at the controls. This initial flight was considered to be successful only as much as its pilot succeeded in landing the prototype in the condition in which it left the ground.... The root cause of its unpleasent behaviour was believed to be the tail assembly, and the prototype was promptly returned to the experimental shop where the tail, with its endplate fins and rudders, was removed and replaced by an entirely new assembly comprising an inordinately large, centrally-mounted vertical surface, and a tapered tailplane of increased span. ... With this modification, the Me 210 V1 resumed flight testing on September 23, 1939."

His comments are accurate in only 2 matters of fact, the designation of the a/c and the name of the test pilot. Everything else is wrong, wrong, wrong! Having in my possession a fairly respectable collection of Me 210 test flight reports, I can state the following with a better than even chance of being accurate: The first test flight was actually on 2 Sep 39 (5 Sep 39, Green's date for the 1st flight was actually the date of the report on that flight and the 2nd flight on 4 Sep 39), and V1's tail unit does not appear to have been changed to the single vertical unit during its lifetime. The V1 completed its 11th test flight on 22.9.39 -- amazing, since it was still supposed to be getting its single tail at this time. Yes, there were a few problems on that first set of test flights; but, in a report on 15.9.39, Wurster said, "At present no essential changes are required. The minor complaints listed in the flight report were remedied." Amongst the problems mentioned were: The a/c was tail heavy, the ailerons and rudders were overbalanced, the stability about the vertical axis was weak, plus many others consistent with a/c first flights. They corrected the CofG problem by putting a 4 degree sweepback on the main spar of the outer panels. They would have problems with everything else to try to correct the weak stability about the verical axis. This would only be corrected when a longer fuselage was fitted to V17, and this a/c flew in Nov 41.

But, remember that the experienced pilots like Johannes Kaufmann, who I mentioned in an earlier thread, were eager to fly the short-fuselaged Me 210 operationally, and were disappointed when it was, instead, withdrawn.

Found here:
http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/showpost.php?p=24532&postcount=10

[moot]

Page 308 of the Mankau/Petrick book captions an Me 410 with four MG 151 barrels visible from its bay as

[...] four MG 151s in an MK 103 weapons pack [...]

And later on that same page:

In order to increase firepower for the auxiliary Zerstorer planes, units installed additional MG 151/20s in the Me 410.  As these installations were homemade, they were afforded no conversion kit designations. We are not sure where some authors have come up with designations such as B2/U2/R4.  Prompted by these installations, the RLM initiated formal development.  There was a heavy version of the the quad pack the units flew with.  The test center derived both a heavy and a light version from this, with work being done in July 1944. Partly as a result of the Me 410's cancellation, the quad pack was probably never fully developed, and the only ones extant were the conversions the units undertook.  The following versions are known to have existed:

2x MG151/20 under the fuselage of the B2/U2 ["WT-151"]
2x WB-151A side by side in the bomb bay
Quad pack in the bomb bay with bulged nose compartment of the B2/U4
Quad pack in the bomb bay with flat nose compartment of the B2

It is not known how extensively the field units modified their A1/U2, A1/U4, or B2/U2, and B2/U4 airframes, nor are accurate numbers available

So... That takes care of some of the strange payloads (e.g. 4x MG17 + 6x MG151 "B2/U2/R5") and explains their variety - some bay-mounted 20mm's barrels sticking more or less further out from it, the 8x20mm and 4xMG17 "homemade" cfg's..


...
p. 321 You have in the schematics table that goes with a conversion kits list from Messer. AG, drawings for the DTs and rockets that put them both in the same spot.  It does list the WGr kit as 2x 3 rockets.

[moot]

Also the picture this book paints is a lot like everything else of what I've read on late war German air force... It was chaos and it seems pretty much everyone was bootstrapping things left and right.

Even as early as back when the 410 design was being hashed out.. They wanted it to have counter rotating engines like the P-38, but the industrial bits for it were disrupted by the Allies.

[Charge]

"It does list the WGr kit as 2x 3 rockets."

Don't you mean 2x2rockets?

-C+

[moot]

Nope.. Up to now I'd seen nothing but 2x2 in pictures and schematics, and only 2x3 when the rockets were 15cm and this on an Me 210 picture.  But this reference is to a document dated May 15 1944, and it lists+depicts the rocket kit as 2x3.



"Vorhanden"

Also listed as Vorhanden is a choice of ..
2x BT 400
1x LT 950
1x SC 1800
1x BT 1800
1x Qu-Rost
Listed as "Boden" under "Ausbau" column, for 97 kg extra weight (sounds like that's the attachment eqpt for these) and "Bis 30" kph penalty which I assume stands for "more than" 30 kph.

[Charge]

Ok, interesting, although I have only seen 2x2 configurations of WGr21 in pictures.

Also Gerät X4 listed. Google returned "noodle extension" as a first match for X4 but I take it rather means Ruhrstahl X4...   

-C+

[Krusty]

I have never seen an installation like that. Doesn't even LOOK like rockets. Looks like 50kg bombs, almost.

I wonder if it was a test configuration that never actually made it. Only footage I have ever seen on guncam film or in photos (in flight or on ground) has been the same attached pair of tubes like the 110. We've seen they don't physically bump into each other in the real photos. Question is does that still make them exclusive to each other, or not, as configured in real use? Any actual notes/commentary in the book about how such setups were used against US bombers?

[MORAY37]

Nope.. Up to now I'd seen nothing but 2x2 in pictures and schematics, and only 2x3 when the rockets were 15cm and this on an Me 210 picture.  But this reference is to a document dated May 15 1944, and it lists+depicts the rocket kit as 2x3.

(Image removed from quote.)

"Vorhanden"

Also listed as Vorhanden is a choice of ..
2x BT 400
1x LT 950
1x SC 1800
1x BT 1800
1x Qu-Rost
Listed as "Boden" under "Ausbau" column, for 97 kg extra weight (sounds like that's the attachment eqpt for these) and "Bis 30" kph penalty which I assume stands for "more than" 30 kph.

Vorhanden= "Available"
Im Entwurf= "Under development" or "Planning"

In this case, all options were marked as of 15.5.44 (May 15, 1944).

I need to look it up, but I do believe I've seen a picture of a 410 carrying  6x WgR21's. (2x3 per wing).  There may be a significant jump in the speed penalty (would be a decrease to the current penalty listed under "geschwindigkeits-verlust of 20KpH), or even the way the tubes are rigged by the groundcrews, who would have been used to lining the 2x2 system, which explains the existence of fewer examples of photos of it.  Pilots may have felt it was too much penalty for a relatively hard-to-shoot/ unproven weapon, and carried the 2x4 configuration instead, or none at all.  Remember, they would have had to deal with a longer exposure time in a slower/larger aircraft around escorts... so, one wonders if you'd strap the full possibilities to your airframe, especially considering the rockets were so difficult to aim historically, and you retained a speed penalty even after firing off the rockets. 

Sidenote:
Geschwindigkeits-verlust= "velocity lost"
Bis= "twice" generally, so that might equate to the penalty per wing, and bis=x2.
Ausbau can mean a crapload of things depending upon usage...I think in your usage it means "conversion" though I could be wrong.  Snailman would be the source on that.
Boden= "ground"

[Charge]

"so, one wonders if you'd strap the full possibilities to your airframe, especially considering the rockets were so difficult to aim historically, and you retained a speed penalty even after firing off the rockets."

Push the jettison button and off they go, just like a pari of ext tanks...

-C+

[Krusty]

But that was for emergency use 


Moray, if they were in triangle configuration you're thinking of the smaller diameter WGr15s (I think that was the designation). I've seen the photo of the test configuration of those. They weren't used, just tested.