Me 410 bomb bay configurations

[Krusty]

I'm posting another response so as to isolate this comment from the rest of the discussion.

Moot:

You've been very generous in time and effort, no doubt about it. However you seem to go out of your way to combatitively post responses to things you mis-read or take the wrong way.

For example:

"Why no mk108? It's easy enough to load them up."

this was not aimed at you. It was a rhetorical question. It was an example of one of those fascinating questions that I was posting about. I was saying learning these things is the fascinating part. I was NOT asking you to answer it for me, and I think that should have been clear in the context of the post I made. IMO the answer would come from the discussion, from the thread. You seem not to get any context in half the posts I make.

I'm sorry if it seems I go off on "endless posts" but IMO I'm trying to walk YOU from a to z buddy. You're having so much trouble understanding what I post that I feel the ever present need to go over the same ground until you get my original meaning. I think I'm going to stop trying to do that at this point. It seems to be making things just as worse as your responses to me are. I'm sorry that has happened, but it's only half my fault. Other half lies with you as well.

That said, I do assure you I try not to get too upset about such things on the forum and I do thank you for your contributions.

[moot]

Theres no high horse.  There's just you wrong 75% of the time, and anytime someone doesn't point it out as carefully as if talking to a kindergarten kid, you get real bothered.

Why does even Hitech call it the Krusty BS unit?  Because you BS Krusty.  I'm not pissed off, I haven't changed, I don't ride a horse, I'm not picking on you, or any of the other bogus excuses you find for not simply posting references and arguing the damn facts.

So like I said, I quit.  I just don't care anymore.  No interest.

[Charge]

This seems to be the blast tube in 109s MK108 installations:

http://www.lonesentry.com/ordnance/30-mm-mk-108-a-3-aircraft-machine-gun.html

I'd think that it is possible to mount these guns to either geometry, to that of MK103, and that of WB151, because it is so compact -although I guess it cannot be mounted very forward because of weight so somekind of blast tubes are a necessity as the cannons need to be close to CoG. That is not because of its weight itself but the combined weight of both cannon and ammo.

And as the hub cannon is not "calibrated" the blast tube is likely to be rigidly fitted to barrel and as such it also fits 410 mounting.

Also in IL-2 the MK108 bird has tubes that look something like this. But I don't buy that armament option unless I see more solid proof.

-C+

[moot]

There's nothing else I've found but the two 4xMK108 design sketches I posted above from Mankau or Stocker, or any of the other books I've got -  Mushroom/Squadron/Kagero/Militaria.

Maybe the actual documentation for that meeting where Galland asks for MK108s in 1943 (or 42) has some useful details that Mankau left out.

[Krusty]

HT was in a mood. I was correct. It was a thread about bombers' speed and effectiveness in WW2 vs AH.

I've even had Pyro rip into me in a P-39 dispersion thread, but... guess what? I was still right. He still fixed the bug after ripping into me about it. I even shut up others trying to jump on the "insult krusty" bandwagon by showing screenshots taken offline about size of target vs .target command in the same thread. No response other than a slight note in the next update about a week later, fixing a bug (no further response from the forum).

Doesn't mean I'm wrong, just because somebody on HTC staff has a bad day here or there.

Moot, your saying "you're wrong 75% of the time" is better described as "Moot misreads krusty 50% of the time and thinks Krusty is wrong instead". You think I'm wrong more than I actually am, is my point. I'm going to take note and not get sucked into seemingly endless roundabouts with you, as you mentioned, so hopefully this will be lessened going forward. I do hope all involved will have less headaches.


Back to the subject at hand, I was looking over something and read one of our older threads about the 4x 20mm tray and the factory modification. The famous photo can be seen here:



I understand it was first a field mod, then a factory mod. Which is this? Field or factory? I'm asking because of that big bulge. It would seem to preclude adding the external WB151, because the barrels only have so much clearance on a smooth belly.

See here for gunpod clearance:
http://i10.tinypic.com/2ak9tgg.jpg

Now, from the story of the first 4x gun tray, the pilot in question was unhappy with the BK5 so he got permission to load up on 20mm guns. Is this "bulge" simply left over because he was working on a frame that came initially with that BK5?

Similar bulges on BK5 setups:
http://img250.imageshack.us/img250/368/me410a111s7ir.jpg
http://www.knowledgerush.com/wiki_image/7/70/Me_410_with_BK50.jpg

This would also seem to exclude the external gunpod from use with the BK5 entirely.

I'm thinking the bulge in the first pic above was the field mod. I'm thinking the factory mod 4x tray might have had the standard smooth bay (like the 2x Mk103 and the 2x WB151 internal have), which would still theoretically allow the gunpod. Have you seen anything else regarding the 4x loadout? Or is it extremely rare?

However, for the most part it is looking like that even as a theoretical "possibility" that the external pod isn't really valid in terms of AH loadouts. I'm thinking now, after reading a lot of this stuff in these recent threads, that it doesn't belong on a possible AH 410. Thoughts?



P.S. The more I read/learn, the more interesting this plane is, but the less weapons loadouts it has for in-game use.

[Megalodon]

My latest request for loadout options for when Aces High gets the Me410...

2x Drop tanks (not sure about this one -- don't see much reference to it)

[Slade]

AR-234's with the forward facing gun pods

Wow.  That would be a BLAST to fly. +1

[STEELE]

I would think the 410 would be high on the list, since it only lost to the B29 by a handful of votes (and I'm not so sure how well the Florida votes were counted     

[Krusty]

I'm still curious if the 4x 20mm tray had the bulge that the field mod from the BK5 had or if it was smooth.


It would seem that some of the options I listed in a prior braekdown are no longer valid. With the many new revelations it changes what might be in-game now. I had broken it down to "wings" and "belly" separately before but with the loss of the gunpod there's little reason to do that now.

Main:
1) 2x MG17 7mm + 2x MG151/20 20mm (plus 2x Mg131 tail guns)
2) 2x MG17 7mm + 2x MG151/20 20mm (plus 2x Mg131 tail guns)
(Optional below. I'm still not for these, but Moot raised the point)
3) 2x MG17 7mm + 2x MG151/20 20mm (no tail guns)
4) 2x MG17 7mm + 2x MG151/20 20mm (no tail guns)

Wings:
1) empty
2) 4x 50kg
3) 4x WGr 21
4) 2x DT
5) 4x 50kg + 2x DT
6) 4x 50kg + 4x WGr 21

Bomb Bay:
1) empty
2) 2x MG151/20 20mm tray
3) 4x MG151/20 20mm tray
4) 2x Mk103 30mm tray
5) BK5
6) 8x50kg
7) 2x250kg
8) 2x500kg
9) 1x1000kg

This compacts the weapons options, makes them a bit more realistic, reduces the number of "weapons tables" down to 3 which is more standard, and probably represents a better picture of the real thing.


P.S. 1x1000kg wasn't all that common but was used. Perk it if need be, but it would be nice.

EDIT: Maybe add a bomb bay option for 4x 20mm tray that includes 2x 20mm gunpod, to replicate the total 8x 20mm option? Instead of 20mm gunpod link it to this 1 specific loadout?

Edit2: I'm not totally for it, but on the "Main" you could also add a 2x 20mm MG151/20 option, no tail guns, no MGs. I'm not precluding that.


EDIT3: Whoops, my bad left out the BK5. Fixed.

[Krusty]

Perhaps that external WB gunpod wasn't so rare?

We see it on 4 possibly 5 different craft:











It is possible the last one (I found that online) is the same as one of the 4 above, but it's hard to tell

Maybe it really ought to be included as an option? Surely 3 different units across different dates signifies it was more than just a test setup.


And, interestingly enough we see at least 2 were field fitted with 4x 20mm trays:




I still would like to see one from the factory to see if it also had the bulged bomb bay (I currently think it's a leftover from the BK5 setup, after the BK5 was removed)

P.S. Interesting footage of how the speed brakes deployed here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlIxLJTiphI&feature=player_detailpage#t=162s

Not what I was expecting. They rotating in and out, collpasing sideways.
If that link doesn't work, the full clip is here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlIxLJTiphI&feature=related
jump to 2:42 position.

[Charge]

I'd say that R4 gunpod is not any rarer than any other gun configuration apart from default set of MGs and 151/20s. Maybe other configurations were preferred due to increased drag of R4 configuration, but at least it quite easy to remove if the aircraft is needed for other duties.

I suspect that the four 151/20 cannon config did need the bulge, not necessarily that big, but that size was already available from BK configurations and it had to do. If you look at the pictures closer you notice that in 4 cannon assembly the center cannons are fitted slightly lower than in WB kit that is fitted in bay. I suspect that the support structure for the guns and shell ejection configuration needed more space than was available in standard bay doors.

-C+

[Krusty]

You can draw a straight line across all 4 barrels, I think. They look all on the same plane to me.

The question then is how do you break these up. I tried giving 4 categories once (i.e. hangar list option) but the more I think about it the more you have to simplify that. I'm guessing it has to be limited to 3 option lists (columns in the hangar).

Keep in mind HTC isn't going to limit you to only historic combinations, as long as they were real possibilities (i.e. bombs and rockets on 110Gs for town attack when those were never used on the same mission historically, and so forth, i.e. bombs and rockets on P-51 when historically they never carried both at the same time).

With that in mind it "looks" like the external WB151 would clear the bulge on the 4x gun tray. Assuming (big guess) the factory versions were smoother or reduced the bump you would have even more clearance. I don't think it would be mutually exclusive to say the external gunpod interfered with the other guns options and vice versa.

It also looks like it doesn't get into the bomb bay area, and it looks like it's centered between the ETC bomb racks. That means you could theoretically load the external 50kg bombs and this gunpod, and anything in the bomb bay.

Again, theoretically speaking. I know this wasn't done in the war, but I'm trying to mentally compile a list of options

Main:
1) 2x MG17 7mm + 2x MG151/20 20mm (plus 2x Mg131 tail guns)
2) 2x MG131 13mm + 2x MG151/20 20mm (plus 2x Mg131 tail guns)
3) 2x MG151/20 20mm (plus 2x Mg131 tail guns)*
(Optional below. I'm still not for these, but Moot raised the point)
4) 2x MG17 7mm + 2x MG151/20 20mm (no tail guns)
5) 2x MG131 13mm + 2x MG151/20 20mm (no tail guns)
6) 2x MG151/20 20mm (no tail guns no MGs)

Wings:
1) empty
2) WB151 2x MG151/20 20mm gunpod
3) 4x 50kg
4) 4x WGr 21
5) 2x DT
6) 4x 50kg + 2x DT
7) 4x 50kg + 4x WGr 21
8) WB151 gunpod + 2 WGr 21
9) WB151 gunpod + 4x 50kg
10) WB151 gunpod + 4x 50kg + 4x WGr 21

Bomb Bay:
1) empty
2) 2x MG151/20 20mm tray
3) 4x MG151/20 20mm tray
4) 2x Mk103 30mm tray
5) BK5
6) 8x50kg
7) 2x250kg
8) 2x500kg
9) 1x1000kg

*= I've read more accounts of them removing the MGs with heavier guns load (i.e. BK5), so I've been swayed to add this


My concern here is that we're up to 10 items on the external stores list, and I haven't even started including the options for DT with gunpod, DT+gunpod+bombs, dt+bombs. etc...

That's a lot of hangar space taken up on the screen!

Suggestions?

[HighTone]

Is this one of those "it's German and has lots of cannons so we need it" threads is it?

Kidding... no need to flame.


Plane looks fun with any loadout.


Ki-45/102 +1

[Krusty]

[Charge]

I don't know about the four gun bay configuration and WB151. It is possible that the WB barrels would clear the bulge enough to enable it to be fitted but it would be interesting to see such configuration listed somewhere in official document or even a picture.

Maybe it would clear the configuration listings to make a clear distinction between version so that the plane is either a A or B. That would drop out some of the armament options of course, but we can't have them all in any case (if we ever get the plane to begin with...).

Main:
2) 2x MG131 13mm + 2x MG151/20 20mm (plus 2x Mg131 tail guns)

Wings:
1) empty
4) 4x WGr 21
5) 2x DT

Bomb Bay:
1) empty
2) 2x MG151/20 20mm tray
3) 4x MG151/20 20mm tray
4) 2x Mk103 30mm tray
5) BK5
6) 8x50kg
7) 2x250kg
8) 2x500kg
9) 1x1000kg

How about that? That would make the variant effectively a B but I'm not sure it those were historically authentic options for B.

-C+