Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Dan216TH on March 30, 2009, 08:08:08 PM
-
Could this be added? just a thought
http://www.panzertruppen.org/luftwaffe/cazas/me2106.jpg
-
Would have to be the 410, not the 210.
-
moin
im completly for the 410, especialy for this version...
(http://www.luftarchiv.de/bordgerate/bk5_me410.jpg)
cu chris3
-
Must be a very secret one, Chris :D
-
I'm all for the 410, but I think m00t & Lusche should be forced to fly the 210 (or at least, try to). :D
-
+1
-
I'm all for the 410, but I think m00t & Lusche should be forced to fly the 210 (or at least, try to). :D
lol
-
210 had a lot of problems that the German couldn't get worked out. But i believe the Hungarians made some modifications on it and developed the 210C or D (I for get which one). Any how, the 410 was the develop from the 210 in which Germany used. So on with the 410.
+2,3,4 or where i stand
-
If and when the 410 is added I will fly no other plane... :noid
-
moin
me too :).
@lusche what do you mean??
cu chris3
-
Because the "picture" you posted shows only "WARNING - Restricted area"
(http://www.webpromotor4u.com/no.gif)
-
His pic was probably a 410 A1/U4. I ran across a good shot of it on google images that gave me the same "warning" pic when I tried to view it. Here's a similar photo of the same variant if it was-
(http://img250.imageshack.us/img250/368/me410a111s7ir.jpg)
Oh and
[treize's standard 410 photo]
(http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff92/sjjackson/Me410B17.jpg?t=1238672408)
[/treize's standard 410 photo]
-
moin
oh....i saw the pictur i have posted but now ist gone/restricted....
maybe thay have a problem with posting pictures i found on google... :huh
cu
-
A Hungarian Me-210C would be way cool. :aok
-
Guys the 210 is out of the question. that thing had so many problems. the brother of this plane is of couse the 410 which is :aok
-
Me410A-1/U1...
"At the beginning of the war our tanks could only open fire from a distance of 800 yards if they wanted to be sure of the results, while our latest types were in a position to combat enemy tanks from a distance of 3000 yards. The Jagdwaffe alone had not developed along these lines. They still had to close in to 400 yards before they could use their weapons effectively.
From this consideration arose the order for fighters and destroyers to use a large-caliber long-distance cannon against the American bomber formations. The result was as follows: an Me-410 destroyer, equipped with [the] armored-car cannon KWK 5, weighing 2000 pounds (!), was reconstructed as an automatic weapon with a magazine holding about 15 shells, [with] a rate of fire [of] about one shot per second. It was possible to fly with this monster sticking 3 yards out in front; firing was possible, too, although the cannon jammed hopelessly after about five shots. One could even hit something, not at 1000 or 3000 yards' distance, but at the most from 400 yards! Beyond that all chances of a hit were spoiled by having to fly the aircraft. Nothing was gained, therefore, and firing was reduced to single shots. We used to say ironically that we only had to shatter the morale of the bomber crew by a few artillery shots, then we could ram the Mustangs and Thunderbolts with our gun barrel.
From The First and the Last by Adolf Galland.
Sounds like a superb weapon, eh? :lol
-
Messerschmitt Me 210/410 in action has the 50mm load out at 21 rounds. it is a bit vague about what other guns were retained in this configuration, saying initially all other guns being removed then continuing on with;
"The later production variant retained its normal forward firing armament along with the installation of the heavy BK 5 cannon"
So, 1 50mm cannon, 2 20mm MG151 cannon, and 2 7.9mm MG17 machine guns.
wrongway
-
For all the reasons to get the 410, the 50mm isn't tops on my list!
This plane would actually pull me out of the C205 most of the time!
-
I'm pretty sure I've seen an era diagram showing the 50mm loaded with at least a pair of small caliber MGs. I sure hope they give us a third optional trigger, if 50+20+7.9 is one of the loadouts. Make it so only a player who maps the third trigger would see any change in the game..
-
Guys the 210 is out of the question. that thing had so many problems. the brother of this plane is of couse the 410 which is :aok
Obviously not the Hungarian 210-C. But it may be closer to the 410 than to the original 210.
-
Priority has to be for the 410.
-
Im all for a 410
-
bump....
-
I think the i requested the 210 before,
didn't it have a 37mm cannon later considered obsolete for destroying tanks so they upgraded it with a 75mm cannon that worked sorta like a huge revolver?
-
I think the i requested the 210 before,
didn't it have a 37mm cannon later considered obsolete for destroying tanks so they upgraded it with a 75mm cannon that worked sorta like a huge revolver?
No and not really.
Never had a 37mm. It could be equipped with the BK5, 50mm cannon that had a 21 round cylindrical magazine.
There were actually quite a few weapons combinations available. Mixes of 30mm, 20mm, 15mm, and 7.6mm's
wrongway
-
I think the i requested the 210 before,
didn't it have a 37mm cannon later considered obsolete for destroying tanks so they upgraded it with a 75mm cannon that worked sorta like a huge revolver?
You're thinking of the Hs129.
-
You're thinking of the Hs129.
Yup.
-
No and not really.
Never had a 37mm. It could be equipped with the BK5, 50mm cannon that had a 21 round cylindrical magazine.
There were actually quite a few weapons combinations available. Mixes of 30mm, 20mm, 15mm, and 7.6mm's
wrongway
While the BK5 might be interesting and fun,my main interest in the A/C is the Mk103 30mm.
It was capable of defeating armour,used tungsten core ammo and has M/V in excess of the hispano.
Then add in the explosive power of the Mk108 and you have 1 devastating weapon... :devil
-
MV in excess of 50cal, even.
-
While the BK5 might be interesting and fun,my main interest in the A/C is the Mk103 30mm.
It was capable of defeating armour,used tungsten core ammo and has M/V in excess of the hispano.
Then add in the explosive power of the Mk108 and you have 1 devastating weapon... :devil
Ditto, Mk103 would the weapon of choice for the 410. :devil
-
Then again 6x20mm's sounds like fun,and IIRC they have around 1700 rounds of ammo. :devil
-
1700 is for the 7mm MG.. 250rpg and 350rpg for the 151/20 guns (so maybe ~1500 total for a 6x20mm), 500rpg for the MG131. 100 rpg for the 103 and 22 for the BK5.
-
Yes moot,but I thought that it was 350x4 and 250x2 which would be 1900 rounds.
Then again I may have miss read that. my grade 3 edumacation only goes so far. :P
-
It could be like you remember.. I've only seen the numbers for the 4x20mm.
-
As far as I can tell from Green's "Warplanes of the Third Reich" (a great tech reference, but mind-numbing to read), it's probably 350 rpg for the two upper MG 151's, and 250 rpg each for the four MG 151's in the bomb bay (Assuming two Waffen-behälter containers).
So 1700 rds of 20mm?
We need to send up a flare for Lusche :)
-
CT, I thought the upper guns held 250 rds and the Waffen-behater had 350 rds.
Either way it's a boatload of ammo,just what I need with my shooting abilities.
-
On top of that it could also carry a 2x MG15120 gunpod under the belly, for 8x 20mm cannons.
-
I'd like to see the 410 in the game. Please, HTC? :)
-
Me410 should have a lot of armament options when it is added. I wonder how many HTC can include and if there is a technical limitation to that?
-
IIRC the 8x20 was a one-off field mod. Another mod we could really use would be the gunner and equipment removed.
Karnak, I think some of the bombers' bomb loads are more numerous than the 410's configurations (or maybe not!)..
A1 "Schnellkampf": 2xMG17(1000rpg), 2x151/20(350rpg), Stuvi 5B sight. 1xSD1000 or 8xSC50(inside)+4xSC50(wings).
A1/U1: (reconnaissance, doubt we'll get this one): 2x151/20(350rpg), Revi C/12D sight.
A1/U2 "Auxiliary destroyer": 2xMG17(1000rpg), 2x151/20(350rpg), 2x151/20(200 or 230rpg), Revi C/12D sight.
A1/U4: 2xMG17(1000rpg), 2x151/20(350rpg), BK-5 (22rounds), Revi C/12D sight.
A2: 2x151/20(350rpg), 2xMK103(?) - Apparently this one was canceled.
B1 "Schnellkampf": 2xMG131(600rpg), 2x151/20(350rpg), Stuvi 5B sight.
B1/U4: 2x151/20(200 or 230rpg), BK5 (22 rounds).
B2 Destroyer: 2xMG131(600rpg), 2x151/20(350rpg), 2x151/20(200 or 230rpg), Revi 16B sight, 2x500kg.
B2/U1: "standard loadout and:" 2x151/20(__), (same sight as B2 I guess?)
B2/U2/R2: 2x151/20(350rpg), 2xMK108..
B2/U2/R3: 2x151/20(350rpg), 2xMK103..
B2/U2/R5: 2x151/20(350rpg), 4x151/20..
B2/U3 Anti-shipping: "1 torpedo", "and a part of 30mm cannon in the weapons bay" (huh?)
B2/U4: BK5, 2x "30mm" !
B3 Recon: 2x131 and 2x151/20(350rpg), Revi 16B.
B5 Torpedo bomber: 1xBT-Körper (bomb-torpedo missile) mounted on the port side of the fuselage, I guess because the bomb bay was occupied (guns?).
B6 Anti-shipping recon: some Fug200 radar ballast, 2xMG131, 2xMG151/20, and 2xMK103. - Apparently only experimental.
B models have option for 2x80gal drop tanks.
All models with 300rpg on the MG131 barbettes. There's optional rockets on the wings as well.
So yeah, that's a lot of options in the hangar.. Red one's kinda redundant with the 110G2, grey ones are recon versions which we probably can ignore since they add useless ballast.
The Stuvi gunsight takes up a lot of space:
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3394/3429501657_9b8e86d0e3.jpg)
Also note at least one glass partition is covered.
-
IIRC the 8x20 was a one-off field mod. Another mod we could really use would be the gunner and equipment removed.
Karnak, I think some of the bombers' bomb loads are more numerous than the 410's configurations..
A1 "Schnellkampf": 2xMG17(1000rpg), 2x151/20(350rpg), Stuvi 5B sight.
A1/U1: (reconnaissance, doubt we'll get this one): 2x151/20(350rpg), Revi C/12D sight.
A1/U2 "Auxiliary destroyer": 2xMG17(1000rpg), 2x151/20(350rpg), 2x151/20(200 or 230rpg), Revi C/12D sight.
A1/U4: 2xMG17(1000rpg), 2x151/20(350rpg), BK-5 (22rounds), Revi C/12D sight.
A2: 2x151/20(350rpg), 2xMK103(?)
B1 "Schnellkampf": 2xMG131(600rpg), 2x151/20(350rpg), Stuvi 5B sight.
B2 Destroyer: 2xMG131(600rpg), 2x151/20(350rpg), 2x151/20(200 or 230rpg), Revi 16B sight, 2x500kg.
B3 Recon: 2x131 and 2x151/20(350rpg), Revi 16B.
All with 300rpg on the MG131 barbettes.
And the BK5 also was an option for the B-2. I don't remember where I saved the info on the MK103 loadouts... There's obviously more, because IIRC the 6x20mm was a factory package.
B2/U2/R5 was the factory 6x20mm package.
-
Yep going thru it all now..
-
sexiiiiiii
-
I don't think it was so much a "1-off" as much as it was simply not used much. It could carry the gunpod like the 110 could, and like the 190As could under each wing, but like both other planes didn't do it so often.
The 219 carried 2 twin-gun packs under the belly (one behind the other, I think), so it was just a matter of performance price vs. what the plane could already carry internally.
Hell I'd pay perks to have the optional 2-gun pod :D
-
Someone posted the source and IIRC it said the pilot had the ground crew modify his plane for it.. I can't recall if it actually said one-off, but if it did, it might have been ambiguous in that it could mean the crew or book author didn't know of anyone else who used the configuration, or if it was actually an improvised/custom mod. Do you remember if there was a factory code for it?
What exactly is the 2 gun pod? In the bomb bay, or behind it, or on the wings? You're talking about the 410, right? The 110G2 has that same behind-the-bomb bay extra pair of guns, IIRC.
-
There doesn't seem to be any reason to have the Me410A. The engines are no different and all its gun loadouts are matched by some B model's. Its lighter weight (if they really did beef up the frame for the planned DB603G) and/or bomb loadout options might make it worthwhile, or it could spread out the loadout options, if there's not enough room in the hangar for all the different configurations. If we try and remove redundant configurations to narrow down the options, we can pick pick them so that we get:
A lightweight cfg: The B1 (2x131 + 2x20mm), or B2/U2/R2 (2x20mm + 2x108). The A1 is the same as the B1, but with MG17s instead of MG131s. Ironically, both the A1 and B1 which people might pick to dogfight with, have that Stuvi gunsight.
A clean MK103 cfg: The B2/U2/R3 (2x103 + 2x20mm).
A 6x20mm cfg: The B2/U2/R5.
A BK5 cfg: The B1/U4 (lightest of the BK5 loadouts) with BK5 + 2x20mm, which probably walls up some of the glass cockpit since the BK5 is in the nose for this one. The B2/U4 would be the next BK5 cfg to include (2x103+BK5) since it's a more useful loadout than A1/U4 (2xMG17+2x20mm+BK5) for roughly the same weight.
Maybe a maximum firepower config.. : The B2/U4 (2x103 + BK5 in the belly) for strongest instantaneous firepower, which actually isn't that strange a combo, since they might have similar ballistics (835 and 860 m/s resp.). In a total firepower metric, it's by far either the B2/U2/R3 (a pair of 103s and 20mm's) or the B2/U4 (only if "30mm" means the MK103). That's just 12% less total firepower than a fully gunned 110G2 (4x20+2x30).
A torpedo cfg: B2/U3 with 1 torpedo and a pair of 30mm's, either MK108 or MK103.
Then there's options for drop tanks, WGr21 rockets (4x), and 50kg bombs on the wing pylons, which are on their separate section in the hangar selection. The only complication is the internal bombs, which ought to look like the 110G2's options, maybe adding something like 1/3 or 1/2 more options to the gun package options.
-
I don't think torpedos were ever used. Much like testing it on a 190, but not using it, I don't think we should see it on the 410.
Somebody (Pyro? Skuzzy?) has mentioned an upper limit on ord options. Anybody recall WHAT that limit was? I think it was in relation to the p47s or some other plane, that the comment was typed.
-
4klbs limit. The Stuka is right on it, and the Lancaster too with one single bomb at 4klbs.
There's two configs with a torpedo. The B2/U3 and the B5. The B5 sounds experimental. Do you know for sure which one (or both) was just in trials?
-
I don't mean the size of the bomb. I mean the number of different arming options the game can physically handle before it stops working.
-
Do you remember if it was the combinations, or options total?
-
I don't think it was so much a "1-off" as much as it was simply not used much. It could carry the gunpod like the 110 could, and like the 190As could under each wing, but like both other planes didn't do it so often.
Someone posted the source and IIRC it said the pilot had the ground crew modify his plane for it.. I can't recall if it actually said one-off, but if it did, it might have been ambiguous in that it could mean the crew or book author didn't know of anyone else who used the configuration, or if it was actually an improvised/custom mod. Do you remember if there was a factory code for it?
It was a single, specially modified, Me-410B, of II/ZG 26, flown by Lt Rudi Dassow.
-
There doesn't seem to be any reason to have the Me410A.
I think the A would be available mid-war Moot, might have a chance to run when necessary.
-
The A looks like it could have all its options fit in the hangar.. That's a good point. It would most likely ease the load off the B's loadout options, too.
It was a single, specially modified, Me-410B, of II/ZG 26, flown by Lt Rudi Dassow.
That's the one.. There was a comment about the guys in the report that made it sound like the configuration was considered "excessive". Dassow died in late summer of 44, so that's a rough ballpark timeframe for the mod. Somewhere between early 44 and late August 44. Actually, no later than sometime in July because ZG26 was disbanded in late July.
-
Wait,did the 410 have 6x20mm?
-
The 410B-2/U2/R5, yep.
Removing the gunner, barbettes and their ammo would save at least ~350lbs, maybe 400-500. That's without knowing how much the aiming assembly weighs.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3541/3431398731_59dae8d64d_o.jpg)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3626/3431404303_f161731a8c_o.jpg)
-
Do you remember if it was the combinations, or options total?
I don't remember. That's why I asked. Could have been either, or both.
-
IIRC there is a hardpoint limit,{16} that would include DT,rockets,bombs,torps and guns.
this would posibly be why the vader isn't in game...
I see no reason not to have both the A and B models and as for the torps,I'll have to research that as to wether or not they were used in combat.I do know they had a dedicated naval attack sq. just not sure they used torps.
PS: I'm glad to see all this interest in the Me410,it's a muderous machine... :devil
-
Hardpoints only, not gun modules?
-
Hardpoints only, not gun modules?
IIRC the hard points include gun modules but this is second hand imfo.
Hopefully this will have no effect on the addition of the 410,BTW I cant find a single documentation on the use of torps,it appears that it was desperation on the Germans part to develope this feature and it never made front line service.
-
Can you give the ref for no operations with the torps?
Do you remember who you got the hard point/gun module info from?
Another view of how much weight could be saved from removing the gunner and all equipment as was common in at least one unit.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3575/3432967162_92f90b485a_o.jpg)
It's all about 350lbs without everything between the operator and MG131s themselves (ammo incl.).. probably 500lbs total.
-
HTC doesn't "do" field mods. We'd get one with the tail guns. I'd probably never use 'em, myself.
-
Iunno, I think considering they're MG131's it could be useful to have someone gun for you.
-
HTC doesn't "do" field mods. We'd get one with the tail guns. I'd probably never use 'em, myself.
I'll still make a case for it.. The paddle blade props for the 47s weren't field mods were they? Many of the things we have in the game aren't authentic.. not just stuff like changes for standardization like no tinted gunsight reticles on luftwaffe stuff, but e.g. being able to take DTs without filled internal tanks. That's the player's prerogative.. I think this is the same. It's not a mod that adds anything novel, it's just a substraction. Seems less "custom" than e.g. the canopy cfg on the 109s. Unless I'm wrong on that one and those were totally factory decisions independent of pilot feedback.
On the other hand, HTC seem to have ignored for some reason (maybe a totally valid one, not saying otherwise) that e.g. the 190A5 could have the cowl MGs removed. It's too bad, I can't think of any reason to not give players that kind of freedom, for such a low coding cost. When e.g. the P47s have so many options, or some 109s have an option for a difference of something like just 50 rounds of 20mm.
-
M00t, any of that info useful?
-
Yeah it's sitting in a browser tab while I add it to my notes and come up with another questionnaire :P
I have some other info gratefully shared by Scherf that gives a good perspective on what the 410 would be like in AH, that I have to crunch down before posting.
I still have to figure out how the guns all fit in there, instead of just taking for granted the configurations quoted on websites and books.
-
The A looks like it could have all its options fit in the hangar.. That's a good point. It would most likely ease the load off the B's loadout options, too.That's the one.. There was a comment about the guys in the report that made it sound like the configuration was considered "excessive". Dassow died in late summer of 44, so that's a rough ballpark timeframe for the mod. Somewhere between early 44 and late August 44. Actually, no later than sometime in July because ZG26 was disbanded in late July.
It was in March 1944, when the II Gruppe was re-equipped with 410A-1/U4 (it wasn't a B, I was mistaken): Dassow didn't like the 50mm and asked to be allowed to mount 8 MG151/20. So, I guess it operated in Spring-Summer 1944.
PS: I'm glad to see all this interest in the Me410,it's a muderous machine... :devil
It's a sexy one... I hope we'll get it soon! :t
EDIT: Moot, if you're looking for the gun configurations, I have the Squadron Signal book about the 410, I'll post some drawing... tomorrow, it's too late now! ;)
-
Yeah it's sitting in a browser tab while I add it to my notes and come up with another questionnaire :P
I have some other info gratefully shared by Scherf that gives a good perspective on what the 410 would be like in AH, that I have to crunch down before posting.
I still have to figure out how the guns all fit in there, instead of just taking for granted the configurations quoted on websites and books.
If you're really nice, I'll post up a diagram from the book which shows all the different gun locations. :D
-
Hehe. I have a couple of diagrams already, but if you have a definitive one that illustrates e.g. what cfg excluded what other cfg, that'd be great :)
It was in March 1944, when the II Gruppe was re-equipped with 410A-1/U4 (it wasn't a B, I was mistaken): Dassow didn't like the 50mm and asked to be allowed to mount 8 MG151/20. So, I guess it operated in Spring-Summer 1944.
Thank you. Did it detail how they stuck the 8 guns in there? Two in the nose, 4 in the bay, and the 2 gun pack behind the bay?
-
Hehe. I have a couple of diagrams already, but if you have a definitive one that illustrates e.g. what cfg excluded what other cfg, that'd be great :)
Thank you.
Depends.... now about that sugar :D
-
Hehe. I have a couple of diagrams already, but if you have a definitive one that illustrates e.g. what cfg excluded what other cfg, that'd be great :)
Thank you. Did it detail how they stuck the 8 guns in there? Two in the nose, 4 in the bay, and the 2 gun pack behind the bay?
Nope, the book doesn't detail it, but my guess is the same as yours, a combination of U2/R4 and U2/R5 configs; the only other viable option, I think, was to put 2 of the cannons in wing roots... looking at the drawings, I don't know if you could put the 2 gun pack behind the bomb bay with the shell ejection ports right in front of it.
EDIT: As promised, here's a collage of drawings from the Squadron Signal book with some of the weapons configurations:
(http://i244.photobucket.com/albums/gg32/gianlupo/Me-410panoply1.jpg)
(http://i244.photobucket.com/albums/gg32/gianlupo/Me-410panoply2.jpg)
Happy Easter! :)
-
You mean B2/U1? (edit- looks like there's some inconsistencies) That's the one the refs I have say have a 2x20 behind the bay. One way to rule out this combo would be to see the blueprints for each. If there's no way to fit those two configurations together (e.g. the 4x20 in the bay blocking the rear 2x20's barrels), it leaves a pair of MG151s mounted in the nose next to the normal ones, instead of the MG17s. Otherwise they custom fabricated it and that definitely wouldn't work with HTC's criteria. Too bad there's no picture, it'd make it easier than just guessing.
And the 410B's factory packages (e.g. B2/U1 and B2/U2/R5) definitely were available since this was in early-mid 44, so that can't be ruled out either.
EDIT: As promised, here's a collage of drawings from the Squadron Signal book with some of the weapons configurations:
(http://i244.photobucket.com/albums/gg32/gianlupo/Me-410panoply1.jpg)
(http://i244.photobucket.com/albums/gg32/gianlupo/Me-410panoply2.jpg)
Happy Easter! :)
Grazie :)
-
As you know, Moot, some upgrades became factory and depot-level standards. Certain changes were "standard" ones. On the other hand, pilots just chucking gear off a plane in the hope of making it fly better, is what HTC does not cater to. VVS pilots hacking metal panels off of their IL2s and sticking a guy in the open hole with a tail gun is a field mod. Swapping out hurr1 guns for 2x20mm in VVS hurricanes is a field mod. Removing standardized parts from a plane because a small number of pilots want the cowl guns removed is a field mod.
However, the 190Gs had the cowl guns removed as a standard, but this was to counteract the weight of flying with 2 underwing drop tanks and a centerline bomb. It wasn't for dogfighting considerations.
In a 190A, pulling out the cowl guns saves you very little weight. You save more weight by leaving off the outer guns.
-
The cowl guns removed has a factory package number in "Il2". I don't see what the point is of arguing for cowl or outer guns, when the real choice is removing both.
The rest of my points stand..
-
IL2 not exactly the bastion of historical accuracy :P
-
No, but then I don't see any reason not to investigate all the not-disproven possibilities that pop up.
That cfg's from 1942 on a 190A-4"/U1".
And the 6x20mm ranks second in max continuous firepower (calculated with tony william's formula), though not in burst firepower. Then again it's got the largest ROF and would have the full glass cockpit to boot.
-
The hardpoints limit thing is kinda hard to figure out. As far as what it is exactly, it's definitely not the max number of combinations, because the 47N has 4x6x5 possible combos. Not the number of objects either, because the Ju88 has 20 in a single bombload option. It might simply be the number of options you can click on/display in the hangar, because at a glance the highest I see is 15 options on e.g. the P47N. There'd be much more than that with one 410 model, if we wanted to have as many gun options as possible. Quick a dirty simulation of the 410B in AH's hangar is something like this, ignoring the bomb options in the bomb bay for now..
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3306/3436356482_6a2636882c.jpg)
Ordered by firepower.
Since the A model never had the B's large choice of guns, it might make sense to, in a hypothetical AH, give the A all the bomb options that wouldn't fit with the B (which is pretty much everything except the vanilla B1). The A model reportedly could carry all of these:
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3663/3435497747_7751ffe5cb.jpg) (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3663/3435497747_380069ae6d_o.png)
It's not clear if any of those bombs went on the wingroot racks you can see at the top right in this pic:
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3364/3433080697_830103dd4c_b.jpg)
Working it out so that the 410A would have as many of these bombs while leaving as many gun loadout options as possible could look like this:
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3315/3436431196_a8d1f8a0f6_o.png)
Which covers all the bombs and gun options in 6 choices, which is convenient because that's exactly how many you can fit in one AH hangar column. It also gives an option for nothing but a BK5, which might be worth it for the weight saved: The BK5 is ~1000lbs without its ammo, a pair of MK103 (410B-2/U4) and their ammo weigh ~1000lbs, and a pair of MG151s and MG17s and their ammo add up to a little over 600lbs. That's the difference between the two choices at the bottom of the above pic.
Everything else - the drop tanks, WGr21 rockets, and 4x50kg bombs - goes on the wings, so there's no conflicts there. All of these guns, ordnance, and everything else together add up to about 10 options, so there's no risk of breaking the 16 option limit.
So that answers your question Karnak :lol This is with just a generic A and B model. If HTC just make duplicate models to "create" Me410A-x and Me410B-x variants (like we have for the 109Gs), there doesn't seem to be anywhere near as much complexity to figure out for each model. There's no apparent differences between the A and B in the literature, so in the game the differences between the A and B variants would only be the guns. So maybe HTC could just call em 410A and 410B. The only benefit in making different A1, A2, B1, B2 models would be historical accuracy (hair splitting in this case), and 30 more skin slots. There's already 30 of em with a generic 410A and 410B.
There were also some other loadouts on the B5, which I'm not sure whether it was more than an experimental model:
- 2 BT 400 bomb-torpedoes
- (up to) 6 BT 200 bomb-torpedoes missiles
- 1 SC 1800 bomb
- 1 LT 5b torpedo or 1 LT 5i torpedo
Were also tested on the B5:
- SB 800 RS (rolling bomb)
- SB 1000/410 low drag bomb
- L 10 (LT 950) gliding torpedo
The B2/U3 also carried a single torpedo along with a pair of MK103 and a radar in place of the nose MGs. That one was certainly operational.
Apparently the A2 was cancelled because the MK103 wasn't ready. Not sure if that means the single BK5 armament (A2/U4) as well.
-
You mean B2/U1? (edit- looks like there's some inconsistencies) That's the one the refs I have say have a 2x20 behind the bay. One way to rule out this combo would be to see the blueprints for each. If there's no way to fit those two configurations together (e.g. the 4x20 in the bay blocking the rear 2x20's barrels), it leaves a pair of MG151s mounted in the nose next to the normal ones, instead of the MG17s. Otherwise they custom fabricated it and that definitely wouldn't work with HTC's criteria. Too bad there's no picture, it'd make it easier than just guessing.
And the 410B's factory packages (e.g. B2/U1 and B2/U2/R5) definitely were available since this was in early-mid 44, so that can't be ruled out either.
Grazie :)
You're welcome! :) Anyway, regardless of how those guns on Dassow's plane were mounted, I highly doubt such combo could make it in the game, since it was the only plane modified.
As for the bomb racks under wings, they should be for 50kg bombs only, but I'm not putting my hand on a fire for this....
-
As for the bomb racks under wings, they should be for 50kg bombs only, but I'm not putting my hand on a fire for this....
Your hand won't be burned in this case ;)
-
Phew! :D
-
I haven't found a full three view-type drawing yet, so maybe those racks for the 4x50kg were set one pair at the wingroot, and another further out. It says 6 ETC at the bottom of that German document, but that could be just in the A-3's case.
-
I think the 410 would be a good add to the inventory.
-
At 2:38 in this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zvkbIJWSRI), you can see 4 ETC racks under the wingroots. So that's probably where the 50kg bombs went. One less mystery.
Is the bomb bay see-through like that (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opiamByFWNI#t=1m14s&fmt=18), from the factory? Anyone know?
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSrIn84Q8LM heres a good look at some zetstorers
-
Thanks for that link. Was interesting to watch.
-
There's more of those on youtube...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waUPuAvZjwo A modern mockup of LW mechanics checking out a static Me410. A good look at the shape of the leading edge slats. They're pretty long on the top end.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xk4Aiscs3jM vintage footage, including a visual of the trailing radiator flaps matching the flaps' motion. Also in this one (IIRC) a good look at the flaps' shape. They almost look like slotted flaps. I've never seen real 109s' flaps in video, but someone who has could say whether the 410's are the same and so whether they're plain or slotted type.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zvkbIJWSRI A composite of these various vids, with maybe a couple of other quick segments.
-
^^^^
-
The B2/U3 also carried a single torpedo along with a pair of MK103 and a radar in place of the nose MGs. That one was certainly operational.
Yes the B2 was operational but I havent been able to find a single source of the use of the torp.I thought maybe in the black sea as they patroled there and were credited with several ships but no mention was made of a torp being used.Again I think it was desperation on the LW's part and can be safely set into the realm of the torp carrying 190's,great idea but never used in combat.
I believe that by this time airbourne torps were an outdated idea,why use 1 when stand off weapons were being developed.... as in the Fritz....
-
Hey... Maybe when HTC models and adds the Me410, they can add this -U1 Rutzatze (sp?) :
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3604/3462490017_22a76eb505.jpg)
:D
-
We could of had the 410 by now if people would have voted for it instead of the B25, I voted for the 410, I've been wanting that plane for awhile, right now the 110 is by far my favorite German plane, and I'm sure the 410 would be even better.
-
Six Wgr-21
http://www.luftwaffepics.com/LCBW4/Me210-30.jpg
Torpedo
http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/XbmstAosGCqf3CngxWT3kg
-
Those aren't 210s, they're 150mm's. Compare:
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3649/3462837871_1d54f2820a_o.png)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3630/3462837759_414956e03e_o.png)
-
Rutzatze (sp?) :
Rüstsätze
A terrible word to spell and to pronounce for everyone learning German ;)
-
Somebody (Pyro? Skuzzy?) has mentioned an upper limit on ord options. Anybody recall WHAT that limit was? I think it was in relation to the p47s or some other plane, that the comment was typed.
When the B-25H was introduced, I made mention of the fact that the 10X5" HVAR armament was missing as an option. Skuzzy replied that between the caliber .50, 75mm, and bombs, the B-25H had maxed out the number of armament configuration options. I believe its 16 total weapon types, but I could have remembered incorrectly. Perhaps you could search for the forum thread.
[EDIT] Saw that Morphiend answered this already...
-
Lusche - Thanks.
Stoney - So it's number of actors, not just number of types of weapons? Cause now that you mention it, the P38L has just 7 types of actors in its loadouts, and yet it doesn't show the rockets in the wings 1:1. The same way large bomb loadouts on e.g. the Ju88 don't visually display the actual number of bombs in the bay (e.g. the 20x 50kg loadout), or as you say the 25H... which only has 8+6 50cals, a 75mm, and three types of bombs... Huh... That still doesn't add up to 16 as the limit. I don't get it.
Anyway, the 410 wouldn't break that limit if HTC divided the loadouts into A and B historical (but otherwise duplicate) variants. It'd be cool to have that limit repaired so (I assume) common loadouts like the 10x5" for the 25H could show up though. I suppose there's a lot of other historical configurations that might not have been feasible because of this.. That's a shame.
-
Stoney - So it's number of actors, not just number of types of weapons? Cause now that you mention it, the P38L has just 7 types of actors in its loadouts, and yet it doesn't show the rockets in the wings 1:1. The same way large bomb loadouts on e.g. the Ju88 don't visually display the actual number of bombs in the bay (e.g. the 20x 50kg loadout), or as you say the 25H... which only has 8+6 50cals, a 75mm, and three types of bombs... Huh... That still doesn't add up to 16 as the limit. I don't get it.
The way I understand it, there can be 16 different weapons on the aircraft. Each caliber .50 counts as one weapon. On the B-25H, you've got 14(?), plus the cannon, and the bomb load, for 16 total weapons. I may have misunderstood the way that all works, and obviously HTC could provide the actual mechanics of it, but something like what I described.
-
Those aren't 210s, they're 150mm's. Compare:
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3649/3462837871_1d54f2820a_o.png)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3630/3462837759_414956e03e_o.png)
Cool!
-
bump
all that aside I will focus this thread for the 410 not the 210
-
Fixed that pic posted above...
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3635/3448985222_ff49c34184_b.jpg) (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3635/3448985222_56f16cd0e1_o.png)
A very nice cutaway of the Me410.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3621/3437567804_86b1185354_b.jpg) (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3621/3437567804_01e17bf1e2_o.png)
Note the size of the air brakes.. Not all that big. The flaps are really not too big either, even accounting for the trailing radiator flaps' added area.
-
so dam sexi
-
Hey... Maybe when HTC models and adds the Me410, they can add this -U1 Rutzatze (sp?) :
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3604/3462490017_22a76eb505.jpg)
:D
I'm pretty sure that's for the 262, not the 410...
-
Yes. Just something interesting I stumbled onto.
-
Yes. Just something interesting I stumbled onto.
Shameless bump..... :devil
I thought since HTC has shown us some pretty new things I should bring this aircraft back for some attention!! :aok
I'd be like :x if this was added.
:salute
-
I still have to break down the weights to see where, more or less, the 410 weighs in at when light/heavy.
-
Would anyone happen to know how well the ME410 would do in A2A engagements?
What would it’s best quality happen to be in that regard?
-
I'd say something like a 110 with sharper handling (heavier and moderately worse wingloading, but slightly better powerloading, flaps the same area as the 110's, leading edge slats), and stronger guns. The 6x20mm package speaks for itself... The MK103s will probably be cumbersome, but I expect that their hitting power (~95% the NS-37's, x2 guns) and ballistics (dunno about dispersion, but fly as straight as 50cal/hispanos) make up for it. So for A2A, it should characteristically be something like the 152 - constrained agility leaving not much room for error, but jackpot anytime you can work out a solution. Compared to the general trend we know right now between Luftwaffe, RAF, and US fighters, it should fit right in.
The BK5 is pretty much a one-shot kill on anything that flies, at the cost of two tons of gun+ammo. No idea about the dispersion HTC will model, but given that it's a ~1shot/sec gun and that it's got a pretty huge kinetic energy (~10 times the average AH cannon, twice the NS-37's) for a muzzle velocity about the same as 50cal/Hispanos, it should be fairly flat and most accurate. By comparison, the 25H's 75mm has twice the kinetic energy but only 2/3s the muzzle velocity. The BK5 should fly at least as far as the NS37 (~1.5-2K).. Hopefully as far as the Ostie's round - it has less kinetic E and muzzle velocity than the NS-37 but is allowed to fly 3K out or so.
Accessorily, the 410 has see-thru cockpit on the lighter gun packages (2 separate sections gradually covered as muzzle flash increases.. see the pics up-thread), dive brakes, and visibility should be about as good as the 110's. It has rear guns, but those are probably at least as ineffective as the 110's. It looks like there's a see-through pane of glass separating the bomb bay (right in the nose) and cockpit floor.. I don't know whether that'll be modeled, and if HTC will model the substantial instabilities of flying with that open. It would make for a really big exploit for lead shots.
-
That is all I need, Kazaa and Moot in 410's.. :(
-
quick & dirty speed chart in context
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3305/3660496242_c2d3b0a584_o.png)
The 110's in standard black and red. The 410's mil and wep are pretty much guessed. But that should be the ballpark.
-
the 410 has almost identical weight loading, hp loading, to the p-38, so even though it's slower (draggier) I'd expect it to at least be somewhat capable as a fighter.
-
Would anyone happen to know how well the ME410 would do in A2A engagements?
What would it’s best quality happen to be in that regard?
Like the 110 and the 210, would be outclassed by the majority of single engine fighters we have in the game.
ack-ack
-
I'm doing the math with the bits of info I have, and it looks like it might be as porky as the 110. The powerloading on anything heavier than a MG131+MG151 equipped 410 is about as bad as the 110, and the wingloading is up there with the P38, which is pretty bad if you imagine a P38 with no counter-props and slotted flaps.
-
You want pork, try flying a 190 in a dogfight!
Doesn't matter how "bad" it is, it'll still be "great"! :aok
-
These are the weights worked out from AH and historical docs. "Empty" weights are for a plane with no fuel and basic guns but no ammo and no ordnance. "Dogfight" is weight with 25 or 50% fuel (all planes carrying about the same fuel-time), light guns and enough ammo to make ~ half a dozen A2A kills, provided you don't miss. E.G. the Mossie with ~1000 .303 rounds and something like 400 20mm rounds, or the 410's 6x20 with only 175 rpg. The BK5 loadout isn't what you'd dogfight with, but it's there for perspective anyway. The 410 figures are optimistic: there will be more weight added for gun-carrying structures.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3326/3663582132_7bc6fe6bbf_o.png)
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2551/3662779277_d9b5c929b1_o.png)
-
That can't be right.... 700 rds of MG151/20 doesn't equate to 700lbs...
In AH right now:
1x 20mm round = 0.486 lbs (times 700 rds = 340.2 lbs)
1x 30mm round = 1.3 lbs
1x 13mm round = 0.18 lbs (times 1200 rds = 96 lbs)
So the A-1 would have 436lbs, not 700lbs extra weight.
The 6-20mm version would have 972lbs.
Unless I'm missing something else, where's the extra weight from?
-
700 odd pounds are the guns+ammo. I removed guns, ammo, and fuel from a basic 410A, and then added 25% fuel (444kg) and the different gun loadouts + their ammo.
2xMG131+ammo+2xMG151+ammo=
74.8 195.36 184.8 298.76 = 753.72
6xMG151+2000 rounds=
554.4 853.6 = 1408
The figure that bothers me is the 410 weighing in at just about the same as a 110 in disarmed trim.
-
Moot, where do you have the 410 numbers for the speed vs. alt chart from?
-
This doc. Page 10.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3555/3663936022_25bc3826a3_o.png
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3657/3663133099_da75313712_o.png
What I labeled as MIL is for a 9.5 ton Me410 at 1.3ata and 2500rpm. The line labeled wep is a curve made from three points listed as top speed from Warplanes of the Luftwaffe. 315@SL, 388@22kft, 373@26kft.
Do you have better info?
-
The 110G has, what? 1350hp per engine? The 410 has almost 1800hp per engine. That's similar weights, but going from 2700hp total to 3600hp... I'd say that alone will make up for the weight.
As you show the MOSS and 110G have similar empty weights, but can still be jinked around the sky on occasion. I don't think anybody's going to say it'll compete with a spit16 (but then 90% of the planes in this game can't anyways), but it'll give US rides a run for their money, and maybe some other nations as well.
-
Like the 110 and the 210, would be outclassed by the majority of single engine fighters we have in the game.
ack-ack
AKAK, would you say the same for the Mossie?
-
This doc. Page 10.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3555/3663936022_25bc3826a3_o.png
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3657/3663133099_da75313712_o.png
What I labeled as MIL is for a 9.5 ton Me410 at 1.3ata and 2500rpm. The line labeled wep is a curve made from three points listed as top speed from Warplanes of the Luftwaffe. 315@SL, 388@22kft, 373@26kft.
Do you have better info?
Thanks! Do you have the complete document? like Points 12 and 13 on the 2nd pic?
P.S.
No, I have no infos at all, unfortunately.
-
Yes, here (http://dasmuppets.com/public/moot/OneWeekStuff/Me-410.rar).
-
AKAK, would you say the same for the Mossie?
That the Mossie was outclassed by most single engine fighters as well? Yes.
ack-ack
-
For fun I modded moot's chart and added what should be a fairly accurate speed chart for a Mosquito FB.Mk VI with Merlin 25s and ejector stacks. I also took off the MIL power lines as they aren't really relevant.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3538/3664362438_6d2a44bcb3.jpg?v=0)
As to the idea that a Me410 could be thrown around the sky as competition for a Spit XVI, I think you are dreaming. One of the few combat accounts I have read that involved the Me410 was an encountered in Italy. Two Spitfire Mk IXs (probably Merlin 66 powered LF.Mk IXs) attacked a Me410 PR aircraft. The Me410 saw them coming and dived away, gaining distance. The Spitfires dove after, but after a short chase just above ground one gave up and turned away. The other Spitfire was more determined and kept after the Me410 as the rear gunner emptied his guns at the slowly gaining Spitfire with no effect. Once in range the Spitfire easily dispatched the Me410.
The notable thing here is that the Spitfire chased it down in a long tail chase and that the barbettes were completely ineffective. The Spitfire would not have been able to chase down a P-38J/L or a daylight Mosquito Mk VI.
-
I have no idea how they figured those barbettes were a good idea, in the design phase.
I don't get how the 410 would be slower than the 110 like that, below 10k. That blue line should have an indentation at 15k, considering it's there for the MIL curve.
As far as competing with mkXVI.. I'm not picking any argument here, but Krusty said it wouldn't compare and I don't remember anyone saying otherwise. A mossie or 1/2 ammo 110G will give a spitIX its money's worth, if flown right. I mean they have a much better margin to compete in than e.g. a 152, IMO. Whereas the 152 is restricted to forcing the spit to spill its E and then pound it with BNZ, the 110 and Mossie can easily compete with the IX on its own terms, for a few revolutions.
If you change the chart I posted above to include the basic 410 (2x50cal + 2x20mm) and put it in dogfighting trim (500 .50, 350 20mm, plenty!), it has better wingloading and powerloading than a mossie. It beats all the twins on that paper chart. Whether the estimated figures are accurate (this 131+151 is probably the closest, it's straight from historical docs) and whether they'd translate well in practice is another story (e.g. zero clues on departure behavior), but IMO it makes a compelling case for the 410 as a pretty viable dogfighter.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3664/3664486580_9f7bd4a151_o.png)
I'm not trying to play luftwaffle with paper figures. This is how it appears to me.
-
moot,
The Spit IXs in my story would, in AH, be best represented by the Spitfire Mk XVI or Spitfire Mk VIII.
That is what a lot of people don't get about the Spit IX. We have a mid-1942 Spit IX that has nothing like the performance of the mid-1943 and on Spitfire Mk IXs.
In fact, the modeling on the Spitfire Mk XVI in AH is that of a Spitfire LF.Mk IXe, not a Mk XVI.
-
Yep I know, I'm not arguing history. Those pilots flew overloaded and much less disposable planes, didn't have as much stick and trigger time as us, didn't have furballing conditions, had only one life, etc. What I mean is that the AH XVI isn't representative (popularity aside) of the average opponent you run into in the arena. It's far to one side of the scale, so neither the 410 nor almost any other in the plane set can really compete.
Do you know what the AH mk IX engine is rated at?
-
What do you mean "rated at"? HP? Boost?
It is a Merlin 61 at +15lbs boost and, I think, 1565hp. However, it is blown for high altitude.
-
It is interesting to note the spits had to chase in a "prolonged tail chase" to get near it.
But, as noted, nobody said it could compete with a spit16. Then again, my point was "not much can!" -- so that's not an important comparison. Compared to non-spits, it would be quite an interesting (and IMO somewhat formidable, if flown with 2 20mms only) plane to come up against.
-
I imagine the Me410 did something like 330-340 on the deck.
-
Moot,
From a non-scientific eyeball of the wing arrangement, I'd say the low-speed stability in the roll axis will be marginal, due to wing taper. Those skinny, pointy wingtips should be susceptible to tip stalls faster than a lot of other aircraft. Also, I'd expect somewhat sluggish aileron response due to the higher aspect ratio and what appears to be limited area for the ailerons. On the other hand, it should climb really well, with the extra power and the high aspect ratio. I'd also expect that if your numbers are correct, it should accelerate very well too.
But, its simply got too much wing area to be a real hotrod in the speed category. I would expect a marked increase in top speed at sea level versus the 110 though.
-
Thanks Karnak & Stoney :)
Do you think the roll stability will be much worse than the other twins too? The wing taper looks similar to my layman eyes.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3575/3552185538_c7a4891853_o.png)
-
I see one fighter and 6 bombers. :devil
-
First, thanks Moot for the complete document. I really appreciate it. :aok
Secondly, I am almost shocked how slow actually the 410 is according to that document. Granted the chart only displays MIL power, but still, we are talking of a DB603A here which should make at least as much power on MIL as a 605A on WEP. But still the 410 is much slower than a 110 at the same power level.
I wonder what sucks all those HP up. Is it that much draggier than the 110?
-
I see one fighter and 6 bombers. :devil
6 big fish, 1 small fish :D
My pleasure BM. Those barbettes probably took something like 10-15mph off the top speed. There's only the antenna mast to obviously spoil aerodynamics, other than that. The 603A's MIL output is supposed to be 1680hp, over the 605A's 1475hp on WEP. So the overall frame's shape must be the culprit.. It seems strange to me because, to me at least, it looks slippery enough. More than the 110. It's also strange because the 410 was supposed to deliver better speed than the 110. It doesn't add up at all that there'd have been so much noise about the 210/410's excessive instability, but not such a shortcoming as equal or minimal speed improvement over the 110, everywhere but at high altitude. If you also consider Karnak's anecdote, where the PR 410 still has the barbettes, it seems hard for that "top speed @ SL" figure from Warplanes of the Luftwaffe not to be wrong. Then again it's just an anecdote. The 410's dive might've been fast and early enough to compensate for as slow a natural top speed as 315mph @ SL.
-
We also don't know the altitude of the final chase as it did happen over land, not over the sea.
-
If they add the 410 which i have been waiting forever to see if they add it would be the best bomber killer in the game with a 50mm cannon. No daoughtabout it.
-
Eduard Tratt flew Me 410s. He got 38 victories before his death in 1944, including five P-38s. In addition he claimed 24 tanks and 26 aircraft destroyed on the ground. The Me 410 must have been competitive.