Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Noir on November 04, 2010, 03:23:37 AM
-
2x12.7mm + 2x20mm as default + a 2x20mm pod ? thats it? People will stick to the 110 for ground attack :bolt:
-
Me410?
2x7.9mm, 2x20mm, 2x13mm (tail)*
2x7.9mm, 2x20mm, 2x500kg, 2x13mm (tail)*
2x7.9mm, 2x20mm, 2x20mm, 2x13mm (tail)*
2x7.9mm, 2x20mm, 2x20mm, 2x20mm, 2x13mm (tail)
2x7.9mm, 2x20mm, 2x30mm, 2x13mm (tail)*
2x15mm(?), 1x50mm, 2x13mm (tail)
+4xWGr-2 rockets (wings)
(*my proposal for AH)
Are there more?
Mind you that those bombs are internal so they contribute only weight, not drag.
I guess they never got the six tube rotary rocket launcher in belly compartment to function properly?
http://www.cockpitinstrumente.de/archiv/Dokumente/ABC/m/Messerschmitt/Me%20410/Me%20410%20A-1%20U4%20Wa%20Bk%205.pdf
-C+
-
I guess they never got the six tube rotary rocket launcher in belly compartment to function properly?
Me 410 B-1 W.Nr. 425416 which was equipped with a six shot revolving WGr 21 rocket launcher. Tested on February 3rd 1944 the experiment ended in failure after the rockets blew the nose panels off the aircraft!
Being a failure, it was obviously dropped in care of crew safety and functionality.
(http://www.warbirdphotographs.com/LCBW8/Me410-29f.jpg)
(http://www.warbirdphotographs.com/LCBW4/Me410-B1-40s.jpg)
-
Me 410 B-1 W.Nr. 425416 which was equipped with a six shot revolving WGr 21 rocket launcher. Tested on February 3rd 1944 the experiment ended in failure after the rockets blew the nose panels off the aircraft!
Being a failure, it was obviously dropped in care of crew safety and functionality.
(http://www.warbirdphotographs.com/LCBW8/Me410-29f.jpg)
(http://www.warbirdphotographs.com/LCBW4/Me410-B1-40s.jpg)
:O Man, if that thing had worked it would have been beast!
-
I'm just hoping they include the 50mm cannon, even tho it wasn't used much it would still be fun to down bombers with it.
-
These are the option between different versions that I could find:
Messerschmitt Me-410 A-1 - Fast bomber
Messerschmitt Me 410 A-1/U-1 - Reconnaissance version
Messerschmitt Me 410 A-1/U-2 - heavy fighter (Additional equipment container 151a WB )
Messerschmitt Me 410 A-1/U-3 - single fighter
Messerschmitt Me 410 A-1/U-4 - heavy fighter (Additional equipment 5 cm gun BK-5 )
Messerschmitt Me 410 A-2 - fighter version (discontinued series)
Messerschmitt Me 410 A-2/U-4 - fighter version (discontinued series, additional equipment 5 cm gun BK-5 )
Messerschmitt Me 410 A-3 - Reconnaissance version
Messerschmitt Me 410 A-3/U-1 - Reconnaissance version
Messerschmitt Me 410 B-1 - fast bomber (series discontinued)
Messerschmitt Me 410 B-1/U-2 - heavy fighter (discontinued series, additional equipment container 151a WB )
Messerschmitt Me 410 B-1/U-4 - heavy fighter (discontinued series, additional equipment 5 cm gun BK-5 )
Messerschmitt Me 410 B-2 - fighter version
Messerschmitt Me 410 B-2/U-2 - heavy fighter (Additional equipment container 151a WB )
Messerschmitt Me 410 B-2/U-4 - heavy fighter (Additional equipment 5 cm gun BK-5 )
Messerschmitt Me 410 B-2/R-2 - heavy fighter (Additional equipment container WB 108)
Messerschmitt Me 410 B-2/R-3 - heavy fighter (Additional equipment container WB 103)
Messerschmitt Me 410 B-2/R-4 - heavy fighter (Additional equipment module (Waffenpack) WP 151a)
Messerschmitt Me 410 B-2/R-5 - heavy fighter (Additional equipment Waffen-Einbau 151 V - foursome MG-151/20 built the bomb-bay))
So the bomber and fighter versions were a bit different.
-C+
-
13mm tail gun!!!! You can kill with that
-
I'm just hoping they include the 50mm cannon, even tho it wasn't used much it would still be fun to down bombers with it.
Heard the 50mm was virtually useless and the crews would have to get in close to the bombers for the gun to be effective, which negated the whole purpose of the gun which was to keep the Me 410 crew out of range of the bomber's guns.
ack-ack
-
So the bomber and fighter versions were a bit different.
-C+
Figure the "standard" armament is 2 7.7mm mg and 2 20mm cannon. The other variants carried the additional guns in the bomb bay.
So, the fighter would be pure fighter. No place to carry bombs. Although I did find reference to 4 ETC 50 bomb racks fitted under the wings between the fuselage and the engines.
wrongway
-
Heard the 50mm was virtually useless and the crews would have to get in close to the bombers for the gun to be effective, which negated the whole purpose of the gun which was to keep the Me 410 crew out of range of the bomber's guns.
ack-ack
Yeah I heard the same, but it seems in the game that we have a few weapons that didn't perform well in real life but see good use in AH. I think because AH is a combat sim instead of a flight sim, that is the big reason behind it. Simple things that caused big problems during the war (gun jamming or wing icing for example) are omited in game in order to maximize the fun factor. I guess what I'm trying to say is: IMHO the things that really hurt the 50mm in real life would probably be a non-issue in AH. Just my .02 :airplane:
-
Yeah I heard the same, but it seems in the game that we have a few weapons that didn't perform well in real life but see good use in AH. I think because AH is a combat sim instead of a flight sim, that is the big reason behind it. Simple things that caused big problems during the war (gun jamming or wing icing for example) are omited in game in order to maximize the fun factor. I guess what I'm trying to say is: IMHO the things that really hurt the 50mm in real life would probably be a non-issue in AH. Just my .02 :airplane:
One of the bigger examples of what you're talking about in game is the B-25H. It is used for more effectively and the problems that plagued the 75mm gun system aren't modeled in the game, which is why it is so effective in AH.
ack-ack
-
A 30mm set with MK103s would be nice but Bk5 has incredible damage if it hits.
From Tony Williams' book:
MG151/20 Mine power 236, MV 700 m/sec, ROF 12 Gun pwr 204, ME 29,400
Mk108 Mine power 580, MV 505 m/sec, ROF 10, Gun pwr 580, ME 42,100
mk103 mine power 990, MV 860 m/sec, ROF 7, Gun pwr 693, ME 122,000
Bk5 Muzzle energy(joules) ME 643,000
-C+
-
I like to rehash this quote from Galland (General der Jagdflieger 1941-1945, also 104 kill ace) when the BK5 is brought up...
"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."
-
Screw the BK5, the real damage will be the 2x Mk103 or the 6x (or 8x) MG151/20 loadouts!
-
"I like to rehash this quote from Galland (General der Jagdflieger 1941-1945, also 104 kill ace) when the BK5 is brought up..."
Does not matter in game. No jams modelled and we constantly shoot to kill up to 1k with 20mms. That makes Bk5 at least 1.5k sniper weapon -even without the telescopic sight.
I'd hate to be stuck in a dogfight carrying it, however.
-C+
-
By the last few months of the war, most BK5 equipped Me410's were used as anti-tank a/c against the Russians.
-
By the last few months of the war, most BK5 equipped Me410's were used as anti-tank a/c against the Russians.
And that, brings up another awsome reason for having the 410. P.O. GV'ers!!! :x :cheers:
-
Isn't this the forum to discuss planes we actually have? :neener:
-
Isn't this the forum to discuss planes we actually have? :neener:
Nope. It is the place to discuss the technical aspects of any unit. Discussing is not wishing for.
-
You're always so serious Sir......... :cheers:
Nope. It is the place to discuss the technical aspects of any unit. Discussing is not wishing for.
-
Info about different 30mm projectiles: http://www.xs4all.nl/~robdebie/me163/weapons15.htm
-C+
-
Here are some.
U2: 2xMG151/20 (B-2)
ME-410-B.U4 U4: 1xBK5
ME-410-B.R2 R2: 2xMK108
ME-410-B.R3 R3: 2xMK103
ME-410-B.R4 R4: 2xMG151 Gunpod
ME-410-B.R5 R5: 4xMG151
ME-410-B.R4U2 U2R4: 2xMG151+2xMG151 Gunpod
ME-410-B.U4R4 U4R4: 1xBK5+2xMG151 Gunpod
ME-410-B.R2R4 R2R4: 2xMK108+2xMG151 Gunpod
ME-410-B.R3R4 R3R4: 2xMK103+2xMG151 Gunpod
ME-410-B.R4R5 R4R5: 2xMG151Gunpod+4xMG151
ME-410-B.M5 M5: 6x Wfr.Gr.21
ME-410-B.U2M5 U2M5: 2xMG151+6xWfr.Gr.21
ME-410-B.U4M5 U4M5: 1xBK5+6xWfr.Gr.21
ME-410-B.R2M5 R2M5: 2xMK108+6xWfr.Gr.21
ME-410-B.R3M5 R3M5: 2xMK103+6xWfr.Gr.21
ME-410-B.R5M5 R5M5: 4xMG151+6xWfr.Gr.21
ME-410-B.U2R4M5 U2R4M5: 2x2MG151+6xWfr.Gr.21
ME-410-B.U4R4M5 U4R4M5: 1xBK5+2xMG151+WGr.
ME-410-B.R2R4M5 R2R4M5: 2xMK108+2xMG151+WGr.
ME-410-B.R3R4M5 R3R4M5: 2xMK103+2xMG151+WGr.
ME-410-B.R34x50SC R3: 2xMK103+4xSC 50
ME-410-B.8x50SC 8x SC 50
ME-410-B.1x250SC 1x SC 250
ME-410-B.2x250SC 2x SC 250
ME-410-B.1x500SC 1x SC 500
ME-410-B.2x500SC 2x SC 500
ME-410-B.1x250AB 1x AB 250
ME-410-B.2x250AB 2x AB 250
ME-410-B.1x500AB 1x AB 500
ME-410-B.2x500AB 2x AB 500
ME-410-B.12x50SC 8x SC 50 + 4x SC 50
ME-410-B.2X250SC4x50SC 2x SC 250 + 4x SC 50
ME-410-B.1X500SC4x50SC 1x SC 500 + 4x SC 50
ME-410-B.TORPEDO B5 Standard: 1x Torpedo
-
Void,
Can you add columns:
1. Feild Modifiction kit. (R) Ruestsaetze (field) and Numbers of aircraft outfitted.
2.Factory Modification. (U) Umruest-Bausatze (factory) and Numbers of aircraft outfitted.
3. Primary Factory release version and Numbers of aircraft outfitted.
You might get an idea based on numbers of primary factory versions which one we will get. And the A1/U4 with the BK 5? Will we also get the ZFR 4a sight a Revi16b with the angled telescopic viewer mated to it just below center POV? I'm not sure how previlant the ZFR 4a was. Most photos of variants looks like they only have the Revi16b.
-
Sorry. I am unable to do that Bustr.
-
Me-410
Variants
A-1
SC 50 German HE bomb The A-1 was the first production version of the aircraft. It was armed with two MG 17s and two 20 mm MG 151 cannon in the nose, and one MG 131 in each of the rear firing barbettes.
The Me 410 had a dedicated bomb bay (or weapons bay) close to the front of the aircraft. In the A-1 it was used to carry either one SD 1000 bomb (1000kg/ 2,200lb) or eight SC 50 bombs (50kg/110lb) bombs in the bomb bay with four more under the wings.
This bomb bay was the key to the aircraft’s versatility. Many later versions used it to carry extra guns.
A-1/U1
The A-1/U1 was a reconnaissance version. The two nose mounted MG 17s were removed and a camera (either the Rb 20/30, Rb 50/30 or Rb 75/30) placed in the bomb bay.
A-1/U2
The Me 410 was equipped with a wide variety of different guns. Different weapon kits could be placed in the bomb bay. The A-1/U2 Zerstörer had two 20mm MG 151/20 cannon mounted in a Waffen Behälter 151A (Weapons Carrier or Container 151) mounted in the bomb bay.
A-1/U4
A bomber killer armed with the very heavy 50mm BK 5 cannon mounted in the bomb bay. Only 21 rounds could be carried for this gun, so although the first prototype of this model had all other guns removed, the production version carried the same guns as the standard A-1.
A-2
This was the second main production series. The basic A-2 was built as a Zerstörer. The forward firing MG 17s were removed from the nose and two 30mm MK 103 cannon were mounted in the bomb bay.
A-2/U1
A reconnaissance version, similar to the A-1/U1
A-2/U2
This was a night fighter variant, with radar aerials mounted on the nose.
A-2/U4
A bomber killer similar to the A-1/U4, based around the same BK 5 cannon.
A-3
The A-3 was a dedicated reconnaissance aircraft. The bomb bay was adapted to take a pair of Rb 20/30, Rb 50/30 or Rb 75/30 cameras.
B-1
The B series appeared in early 1944. The most significant change was the use of the DB 603G engine, giving 1,900 hp. The B-1 was a fast bomber similar to the A-1. It had strengthened landing gear to cope with the heavier engine, and could take two 300 litre/ 79.25 gallon drop tanks under the wings. The nose mounted MG 17s were replaced by two 13 mm MG 131s. The maximum bomb load was the same as the A-1 at 2204lbs/ 1000 kg.
B-1/U2
This was a Zerstörer, with the same standard guns as the B-1 and two 20 mm MG 151 cannon mounted in a WB 151A weapons container.
B-1/U4
Another Zerstörer variant. Here the forward mounted guns were all replaced by a 50mm BK 5 cannon, supported by two 20 mm MG 151 cannon mounted in a WB 151A weapons container.
B-2
The B-2 was a Zerstörer that appeared with a bewildering array of different combinations of guns. Sources suggest the following main versions of the
B-2/U-1 and U-2.
B-2/U-1
This version had the stand armaments and two 20 mm MG 151 cannon mounted behind the bomb bay.
B-2/U-2
This had the MG 17s removed from the nose, and replaced by one of three weapons packs in the bomb bay:
B-2/U-2/R-2: Two 30mm Mk 108 cannon
B-2/U-2/R-3: Two 30mm Mk 103 cannon
B-2/U-3/R-5: Four 20mm MG 151 cannon
B-2/U-3
Rather more straightforward was this anti-shipping version. It was armed with one torpedo under the fuselage and a part of 30mm cannon in the weapons bay. The two forwarding firing MG 131s were removed to make room for the FuG 200 Hohentwiel search radar.
B-2/U4
Similar to the A-1/U4 and A-2/U4, this version had a 50mm Mk 5 cannon installed, as well as a pair of 30mm cannon in the weapons bay.
B-3
This was a reconnaissance variant, carrying a pair of either the Rb 20/30, Rb 50/30 or Rb 75/30 cameras. The forward guns were reduced to the two MG 151s.
B-5
The B-5 was a torpedo bomber. It was armed with a BT-Körper (bomb-torpedo missile) mounted on the port side of the fuselage and FuG 200 Hohentwiel search radar. The B-5 was also used to test out a variety of experimental weapons systems.
B-6
An anit-shipping reconnaissance aircraft, with FuG 200 search radar, and two 30mm Mk 103 cannons mounted under the fuselage.
B-7 and B-8
The B-7 and B-8 were proposed day and night reconnaissance versions. Neither reached production, and nor did any of the later versions.
C
This was a proposed series based on one of the DB 603JZ, BMW 801TJ or Jumo 213 E/JZ engines. No prototypes were ever completed.
D
The D series would have been a night fighter, equipped with Lichtenstein radar. Parts of the wing would have been made from wood, one of the few materials not in short supply in Germany towards the end of the war.
H
This version would have been based on the DB 603G engine and given extended wings. Work had started on the first prototype but was incomplete at the end of the war"
-
Was the DB603G actually produced?
-
About engines:
http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/archive/index.php?t-51.html
-C+
-
I guess that's a no?
-
I guess that's a no?
The only thing it mentions is:
Oh yes, the DB 603G was planned for several a/c, especially for the Me 410. And, in many references that you might look at today you will see notes that say the Me 410B was powered by the DB 603G. But, already in a meeting in June 1943 DB made the point that the Me 410 couldn't possibly be powered by the DB 603G before Dec. 44; and as you know, the Me 410 stopped production in Sept. 44.
That's not very concrete. It suggests none were used, but that's based on a prediction 1.5 years before the actual timeline was speculated. 1.5 years is a long long time for things, especially if production is ramping up, slowing down, etc.
It merely suggests the answer is "no" but I wouldn't say it's definite.
EDIT: FYI I don't know myself, either.
-
Yeah, I should have bought that bloody Mankau/Petrick book when I had the chance.
-
I did some more online research today. Seems that the 410A had the DB 603A. The DB 603G was never ready so they 410Bs that were produced had the DB 603A or DB 603AA engine.
"The Me 410B-series was largely the same as the A-series, but replaced the 7.92 mm MG 17 with 13 mm MG 131. The originally planned 1,900 hp (1.397 kW) DB 603G engine was cancelled in early 1944 so all Me 410Bs used DB 603A or DB 603AA engines."
Meaning the same engine as the 410A.
http://www.worldlingo.com/ma/enwiki/en/Messerschmitt_Me_410
Sources cited as:
Caldwell, Donald & Muller, Richard (2007). The Luftwaffe over Germany: Defense of the Reich. London: Greenhill Books. ISBN 978-1-85367-712-0
Hess, William N. (1994). B-17 Flying Fortress: Combat and Development History. St. Paul, Minnesota: Motorbook International. ISBN 0-87938-881-1
Stocker, Werner & Petrick, Peter (2007). Messerschmitt Me 210 / Me 410 Hornisse/ Hornet. Midland Publishing. ISBN 1-85780-271-3
Scutts, J. (1994). Mustang Aces of the Eighth Air Force. Oxford: Osprey Publishing. ISBN 1-85532-447-4
Though, I cannot attest to any accuracy for any of them.
-
Cheers, thanks for that.
There's a couple other statements above I'm a bit leery of, namely BK5 and twin 30mm armament, and BK5 410s used vs tanks. Never heard of either of those things before.
-
Scherf, I have that loadout listed too,but the 30mm are the Mk108's not Mk103's{Planes of the Luft.}
However like you I've never heard of them used against tanks either,perhaps the poster was mistaken the 410 for the 129.
to answer the 603 G question,it appears the 603A and 603AA's are correct,however some were ASM engines and quite possible some AASM engines,the AASM I'd have to look into further but MB lists those as "in production".
:salute
-
Thanks morf - were those 30mms in place of the "regular" 20mms, or were they in the weapons bay along with the BK5, with the 20mms still in place?
-
I would think they were some sort of ventral gunpod, like on the He219 or something?
I'm about to post a suggested weapons list, but it's long. Just wanted to add I agree about the "used against tanks" comment -- I think that's a very misleading bastardization of comments about the BK5's origins (it originally being a "tank" gun). There is some pure speculation that the Mk103s were used against soviet tanks because the Hs129 used that gun as well, but I think that's a totally confused statement because the Hs used a Mk101.
Overall I think that the idea is hogwash.
-
Okay... Not to dismiss any of the fine contributions so far, but as far as its inclusion into AH the stuff posted so far is hard to read through. It's redundant and includes stuff like prototype torpedoes and photo recon that have no real place in the AH model.
I'm proposing a "What SHOULD it have" thread from this point on. I've put a lot of thought into this, and I think it gives us the best combination of capabilities and the least cluttered hangar screen as we squint horribly to read the fonts on what we want on our loadout. Keep in mind, you add the 10 million different experimental options and you'll never see them in the hangar!!
What I broke it down as (Skip down to the bold to go straight to it):
4 categories:
1) Main loadout
2) bomb bay
3) wings
4) Centerline
Scroll down below for my list, but a little of my logic WHY before that:
1) Since the only main difference between the A and B is the 7mm vs 13mm MGs (seeing they both used the same engines), I would suggest the "main loadout" have both options. No reason, you say? Well in scenarios with timelines or setups with specific timing issues, it might come into play. Or if people want more peashooters to help "walk" rounds to a target and tap the cannons, etc.
2) For the bomb bay, you had guns on "trays" and bombs on "platters" and they would simply be mounted on the bomb bay. That's right, the bombs weren't on racks, they were on a platter that was then inserted. I'm hoping HTC can do this so that you get to choose bombs or guns but not both (as was historic). Naturally it could carry some bombs, but I think we all like the guns options so we need a good choice there as well. I don't think it should have a BK5 simply because the gun was totally rubbish and didn't work. Historically it was produced, but effectively it was worse than simply loading the plane with 20mm and 30mm cannons (every source so far backs this up). In-game it would be so overpowering as to be a laugh. There were MANY options, however, the common themes follow a certain pattern. I've listed what, IMO, are the more common, more regular, more proven loadouts that we'd actually use in the game.
Example of 2x20mm "tray": http://i5.tinypic.com/499vgcw.jpg
Example of the 4x20mm "tray" load: http://img250.imageshack.us/img250/5691/me410b245wz0.jpg
Example of 2x Mk103 (diagonal muzzles on 103): http://www.cockpitinstrumente.de/archiv/Dokumente/ABC/m/MK%20103/MK%20103/Bilder/Me%20410%20B-2%20U%201/001.jpg
3) The 410 could carry the same WGRs as the 110, but could also carry a newer setup specific to the 410.
2x each wing: http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/3503/me410b2u23om.jpg
3x each wing: http://i18.tinypic.com/491m0cj.jpg
I don't know how MANY used this, but I've seen at least a few pictures. However, unlike the 110 I don't think it could carry bombs. It carried these on the centerline. I don't know about drop tanks either, as it apparently had a 1500mi range (might not have been needed?).
4) The belly would be capable of a pod similar to the 110G (but rounded more): http://i10.tinypic.com/2ak9tgg.jpg
It could also carry 4x 50kg bombs on 4 small racks.
2 examples:
http://www.warbirdphotographs.com/LCBW5/Me410-2s.jpg
http://luftwaffefighters.co.uk/410/me410-4.jpg
Naturally the fighter versions would not carry these to hit bombers, but when tasked with bombing something it was clearly one of the options. This does not get in the way of the bomb bay, you'll note, so I've separated it from that weapons list. Because they are mutually exclusive to the mission at hand, I think we can pull "double duty" and have both options on the same selectable plane in the hangar.
NOTE: All of these include 2x 13mm MG131 "tail guns" with 500 rpg each.
1) MAIN
2x 7.9mm MG17 with 1000 rpg and 2x 20mm MG151/20 with 350 rpg
2x 13mm MG131 with 600 rpg and 2x 20mm MG151/20 with 350 rpg
2) BOMB BAY
empty
8x50kg
2x250kg
2x500kg
1x1000kg
2x 20mm MG151/20 with 400 rounds (total, I think?)
4x 20mm MG151/20 with ??? rpg
2x 30mm Mk108 with ??? rpg
2x 30mm Mx103 with 100 rpg
3) WINGS
4x WGr.21
6x WGr.21
4) CENTERLINE
4x 50kg (on shackles that disappear when bombs not loaded)
1x 2x20mm MG151/20 gunpod with 200 rpg (based on other gunpod and bf110G gunpod)
I think this gives us maximum coverage from Schnellbomber to Zerstorer. It would be just as useful as a mossie or a p-38 in regards to ground attack AND heavy fighter. You might commonly see the gunpod with the 2x20mm tray, but that doesn't stop you from loading it with the 2x30mm or the 4x20mm trays. You suffer for it with weight and drag, but it lets you customize what you want. And yes, there are accounts of 8x20mm (2 main, 4 tray, 2 gunpod) and witnesses to its use in combat. Yes the missions did carry 2x 30mm and 2x 20mm gunpods sometimes (at least from what I've read they did on night fighter missions) so all these combinations were used.
It has taken quite a while to compile and type this up. I hope people find it helpful, or at least inspiring.
EDIT: P.S. I just realized the text on the 3-rocket setup says 15mm, not 21mm... Anybody know if this was done for 21mm also?
-
Ran across this... Very interesting. I pulled the ammo counts from this, so that's why I didn't have the missing values in the previous post.
It starts really getting interesting on Page 6....
Page1 (http://i814.photobucket.com/albums/zz63/krustacious/Me410%20scans/pg1.jpg)
Page2 (http://i814.photobucket.com/albums/zz63/krustacious/Me410%20scans/pg2.jpg)
Page3 (http://i814.photobucket.com/albums/zz63/krustacious/Me410%20scans/pg3.jpg)
Page4 (http://i814.photobucket.com/albums/zz63/krustacious/Me410%20scans/pg4.jpg)
Page5 (http://i814.photobucket.com/albums/zz63/krustacious/Me410%20scans/pg5.jpg)
Page6 (http://i814.photobucket.com/albums/zz63/krustacious/Me410%20scans/pg6.jpg)
Page7 (http://i814.photobucket.com/albums/zz63/krustacious/Me410%20scans/pg7.jpg)
Page8 (http://i814.photobucket.com/albums/zz63/krustacious/Me410%20scans/pg8.jpg)
Page9 (http://i814.photobucket.com/albums/zz63/krustacious/Me410%20scans/pg9.jpg)
Page10 (http://i814.photobucket.com/albums/zz63/krustacious/Me410%20scans/pg-10.jpg)
Page11 (http://i814.photobucket.com/albums/zz63/krustacious/Me410%20scans/pg-11.jpg)
Page12 (http://i814.photobucket.com/albums/zz63/krustacious/Me410%20scans/pg-12.jpg)
Page13 (http://i814.photobucket.com/albums/zz63/krustacious/Me410%20scans/pg-13.jpg)
Page14 (http://i814.photobucket.com/albums/zz63/krustacious/Me410%20scans/pg-14.jpg)
-
There is some pure speculation that the Mk103s were used against soviet tanks because the Hs129 used that gun as well, but I think that's a totally confused statement because the Hs used a Mk101.
The Hs129 used both MK101 and MK103.
-
Ah, that might explain that specific link, then.
Thoughts on the proposed selection (2 posts up)?
-
Naturally the fighter versions would not carry these to hit bombers, but when tasked with bombing something it was clearly one of the options. This does not get in the way of the bomb bay, you'll note, so I've separated it from that weapons list. Because they are mutually exclusive to the mission at hand, I think we can pull "double duty" and have both options on the same selectable plane in the hangar.
NOTE: All of these include 2x 13mm MG131 "tail guns" with 500 rpg each.
1) MAIN
2x 7.9mm MG17 with 1000 rpg and 2x 20mm MG151/20 with 350 rpg
2x 13mm MG131 with ??? rpg and 2x 20mm MG151/20 with 350 rpg
2) BOMB BAY
empty
4x50kg
2x250kg
2x500kg
1x1000kg
2x 20mm MG151/20 with 400 rounds (total, I think?)
4x 20mm MG151/20 with ??? rpg
2x 30mm Mk108 with ??? rpg
2x 30mm Mx103 with 100 rpg
3) WINGS
4x WGr.21
6x WGr.21
4) CENTERLINE
4x 50kg (on shackles that disappear when bombs not loaded)
1x 2x20mm MG151/20 gunpod with ??? rpg
Overall I think those options look reasonable. It is true that you can make combinations out of those that most probabaly weren't used together but I don't either think it really matters. It's just a the nature of the Aces High's hangar loadout-system. There are combinations that can be loaded to the P-47 that I understand weren't used operatinally. I do disagree with the exclusion of the BK5. It was produced in big enough numbers and wouldn't really be the only weapon option in AH that does better than it did historically (NS-37 for the IL-2 is a good example of this). I think pyro said once that he didn't wan't to add large calible cannons to things like the Mosquito because it would be overpowering against bombers. So it could be that Pyro doesn't want to include it either, don't know. IMO it really isn't a problem considering the limitation of the gun and the performance limitations of the Me410 as a platform.
I've read the same thing about the DB603Gs and therefore also think that A and B models can be modelled using different loadouts.
Regarding rest of the list, couple observations:
- 2xSC500s (general puropose, the ones AH is modelling) didn't fit in the bay with doors fully closed, 2xSD500s did.
- Don't remember seeing a thing about the SC1000 in the bay, any pics, links, sources?
- 8 SC50s could be loaded to the bay.
Pic:(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/8_SC50s.jpg)
-
You're always so serious Sir......... :cheers:
epic image here :rofl
(http://blog.linux.gen.nz/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/ysosrs.jpg)
-
2x 13mm MG131 with ??? rpg
the nose mounted MG131s of the B-model had 600rpg.
2x 20mm MG151/20 with 400 rounds (total, I think?)
These had 230rpg, so 460 rounds total according to a Mushroom book. That primary source you posted indeed says 400 rounds.
-
- Don't remember seeing a thing about the SC1000 in the bay, any pics, links, sources?
See loadout options on "Page 6" posted by Krusty. Only the (smaller by dimensions) PC 1000 is listed.
-
See loadout options on "Page 6" posted by Krusty. Only the (smaller by dimensions) PC 1000 is listed.
Thanks! I wonder how much was it used.
Seen the SC1000 in person, it's one big bomb.
SC1000:
(http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/images/lrg0153.jpg)
PC1000:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b3/Pc1000rs.jpg)
The PC1000 indeed does look quite a bit slimmer.
(http://sturmovik.webzdarma.cz/images/l_aircraft/bomb3.jpg)
1- SC 1800,
2- PC 1400 "Fritz",
3- SD 1000 "Esau",
4- C 1000 "Hermann",
5- SC 1000,
6- AB 500,
7- BM 1000 G - Mine,
8- SC 2000,
9- PC 500RS "Pauline",
10- AB 250,
-
About those 8x 100kg... I thought I was reading it wrong. I thought they meant 8, counting the 4 external. I subtracted those 4 because I was dividing internal/external loads.
I'm very impressed they fit like that!!
So, modify my post to say 8x 100kg on the bomb bay!
EDIT: It's also possible there are different loadouts for the bomb-bay insert guns. Like the 109 hub gun, they might have loaded more or less depending on available room or weight.
P.S. I did go back and edit the post just to change that bomb load and fill in a couple of ammo listings.
-
Thanks! I wonder how much was it used.
The PC 1000 was rarely used in general. It was to be used against concrete bunkers, iron bridges, armored ships and subterranean facilities up to 8m deep. Given the nature of most 410 bombing sorties as well as lack of a proper bombsight (minimum drop alt allowed for the PC 100 was 1000m), it could have been even rarer than total Luftwaffe numbers do indicate:
Average monthly usage 1943/44
50-70kg SC & SD bombs: 175,523
250kg SC & SD bombs: 32,720
500kg SC & SD bombs: 5,219
1000kg SC bombs: 528
1000kg PC bombs: 91
SC bombs >1000kg: 69
PC bombs >10000kg: 51
-
As an additional thought: I disagree with splitting up the -A and -B. They're almost entirely identical. Splitting a plane up only for its weapons load is something HTC has not done yet. I think it's a bit redundant. If we can get the options to fit on one, why not just have that one? We now have the option for CMs to disable specific weapons loadouts in the SEA, right? I think that, coupled with a smart weapons selection list, is all we need.
Splitting it up A vs. B just makes an arbitrary choice "this was a fighter, that was a bomber" when both performed both jobs. Imagine the whines and outcries coming to the forums "Where's my 30mm on the 410B!??!? It had them!" and "Why can't I have bombs on my 410A?" -- it might be humorous at first but it would get tiring.
I think (for me) I mostly don't like assigning a role to them arbitrarily. It would be like saying the P-38L can only have guns and the P-38J can only have rockets and bombs.
-
The PC 1000 was rarely used in general.
I did not know any of that when I added it. I suppose it does not belong. Seems a very specific weapon.
-
Thanks again Krusty. Those loadouts are for the A or the B? (Sry, didn't see posts above)
I think there's more info in the public domain for the A, although I don't think I've seen anything with a top speed for Notleistung (2750 rpm and 1.4 ata).
I dunno though, seems almost unfair not to let folks at least try the 50mm blunderbuss. That would mean a B variant, with some rough tweaking to be done by HTC for weight and the like. Engines apparently would be the same, as would fuel, etc.
Can't see the 50mm being used against GVs much, since the shells were, so far as I know, HE.
Hehehe, first copule of weeks will see a lot of "Flight of the Valkyries" stuff...
-
I think that you could name the plane in-game either the A or the B. There were an additional 270 or so (my memory is fuzzy) Me-210s built by the Hungarians, but these were built to the 410 standard. They had the longer, deeper fuselage, the outer wing slats. I don't know about the dive brakes. They had similar horsepower engines. These were the "fixed" version of the 210, that had it continued according to plan would have been named the 210D. The 410 was really a name change for appearances' sake, so I've read, but was essentially taking the 210D improvements and repackaging them. These Hungarian "Me-210Ca"s would have had 7mm guns as did the 410A.
I'd suggest just naming if "Me410" in the hangar.
(edit: I mean no A, no B, just Me410)
Or, were you talking about something else?
-
All sounds good to me, could lead to some neat Hungarian skins, don't know if we have one yet.
-
The 75mm on the B25 is HE aswell, and its pretty effective
-
Me-210s built by the Hungarians, but these were built to the 410 standard. They had the longer, deeper fuselage, the outer wing slats. I don't know about the dive brakes. They had similar horsepower engines.
The Hungarian Me210Ca-1s had DB605s instead of the DB603s that Me410 had. There's quite a clear difference in power output (2x1475ps vs. 2x1750ps).
-
I thought they had upgraded the engines?
Well, at least one of the webpages I got this stuff from was wrong, then. I was reading up on it earlier in the morning.
-
IIRC they built 61 A models with the BK5 so if only an A model was made I can see a call for the 50mm.
To answer about the Mk108's,yes in a waffen pack like the 4x20mm or 2x20mm. Some B models had 4x20mm internally,these usually had the 2x20mm waffen added and I think this is where the 8x20mm could be a possibility.Although I've only heard that Lt Rudi Dassow of II./ZG26 with permission from Obstlt Karl Bohm-tettlebach got his equipped with 8x20mm's instead of the BK5 which he hated.
-
While I agree that Bk5 seems to be a synonym with 410 that that itself would require it to be included to give a common presentation of Me410 I'd still prefer having 2xMk103s over it if we could only get the other.
I think that the problem with Bk5 was that while it was a hefty steel pipe it was still prone to all kinds of vibrations. In smaller scale it could vibrate in airstream and more so it could also develop sympathetic vibrations at certain engine revolutions which would certainly ruin the accuracy. Generally it is a good idea to put a long barrel to a gun to achieve decent muzzle velocities with the minimum of recoil but there will be problems if the barrel is not properly supported. As a hindsight I'd argue that by finding a proper length for the barrel or putting almost all of the barrel inside the fuselage, if not to reduce all the vibration effects, the remaining vibration effects could be controlled and much of the accuracy regained. But that is just the weapon accuracy. Flying in bomber's turbulence and taking aim from 1k+ out would still make a successful long range shot a stroke of luck.
Of course if properly modeled in game it would still be a decent weapon from closer ranges as, say, 800yds (with max range up to 1.5k) but Mk103s would be very good (if not better) from that range too.
BTW the picture text in one of Krusty's pics said the 210 used a 40mm Bofors. Interesting.
-C+
-
While I agree that Bk5 seems to be a synonym with 410 that that itself would require it to be included to give a common presentation of Me410 I'd still prefer having 2xMk103s over it if we could only get the other.
I think that the problem with Bk5 was that while it was a hefty steel pipe it was still prone to all kinds of vibrations. In smaller scale it could vibrate in airstream and more so it could also develop sympathetic vibrations at certain engine revolutions which would certainly ruin the accuracy. Generally it is a good idea to put a long barrel to a gun to achieve decent muzzle velocities with the minimum of recoil but there will be problems if the barrel is not properly supported. As a hindsight I'd argue that by finding a proper length for the barrel or putting almost all of the barrel inside the fuselage, if not to reduce all the vibration effects, the remaining vibration effects could be controlled and much of the accuracy regained. But that is just the weapon accuracy. Flying in bomber's turbulence and taking aim from 1k+ out would still make a successful long range shot a stroke of luck.
Of course if properly modeled in game it would still be a decent weapon from closer ranges as, say, 800yds (with max range up to 1.5k) but Mk103s would be very good (if not better) from that range too.
BTW the picture text in one of Krusty's pics said the 210 used a 40mm Bofors. Interesting.
Other thing that comes to mind is any kind of phugoid or directional instability which causes a swaying motion of steady amplitude. That would make aiming a nightmare. Anyways, I totally agree that MK103 far, far more versatile loadout off course. They aren't even comparable really. When AH gets Me410 and if the BK5 is included I might try it air to air couple times for fun but after that it's 4x20mm or MK103s almost everytime. But BK5 equipped Me410 was produced in numbers and certainly would be something that AH hasn't yet seen. In that context, I think it would be a welcome loadout.
That reference to 40mm Bofors sure is interesting. I have to admit that I know next to nothing about AAA guns and it made me wonder what the heck is Bofors 39M? Is it the same basic Bofors 40mm that was widely used in the war which was known in Finland as 40 ItK 38? A '39 model of it or something? I'm somewhat skeptical about it because I couldn't find anything on that specific model name and it seems that Germany didn't produce 40mm Bofors under licence.
EDIT/Doh! I should read better before I post. The caption talks about Hungarian Me210s, not German planes. Hungary indeed did produce Bofors' 40mm AAA gun under licence. Very interesting indeed!/EDIT
(http://i18.tinypic.com/491m0cj.jpg)
-
It also sez "in all likelihood, only four have been built" :P
-
Just had a look at one of my 410 doccos, it lists BK5 on the A1/U-4.
-
BTW anybody who's collecting info on the 410 and wants any of the stuff I've managed to scrounge should PM me their email addys and I'll send along some pdfs which seem pretty useful.
-
Found this this morning (before the voting results).
Shows a better angle of the one-behind-the-other bomb racks (had seen a pic before, couldn't find it to show in this thread until now)
Scans also from the pilot handbook, shows diagrams for the internal guns and loading, as well as some other nice stuff.
Here's the bomb rack pic:
http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/7614/u4wb151loadinggo9.jpg
-
Just something that some may have missed. The LW canceled productioin of the Bf110 in anticipation of the 210, later the 410.
The 210 and 410 performed so poorly that the LW reinstated production of the 110. Willie was almost shot lol.
It is a nice looking aircraft, but more or less ended up being a target.
-
Bf 110 production was never cancelled and the Me 410 took over the daylight heavy fighter role from the 110G in 1943. The 110 continued on as a night fighter. In addition to destroying several bombers, daylight heavy fighter ace Eduard Tratt shot down five P-38s flying the Me 410 from October 1943 until his death in March 1944.
-
Bf 110 production was never cancelled and the Me 410 took over the daylight heavy fighter role from the 110G in 1943. The 110 continued on as a night fighter. In addition to destroying several bombers, daylight heavy fighter ace Eduard Tratt shot down five P-38s flying the Me 410 from October 1943 until his death in March 1944.
By the summer of 1944, Me 410 units were being removed from the Defense of the Reich duties and production was being phased out. Remaining Me 410s were then used as recce aircraft and by April of 1945, most Me 410s were encountered as single night fighters.
Against unescorted bombers, the Me 410 enjoyed a modest success but when the bombers were protected by escorts, Me 410 successes against the bombers were quite offset by their losses. One example is a mission where 16 Me 410s were shot down in return 8 B-17s and 4 P-51s (the Mustangs were shot down by Bf 109s and FW 190s that were escorting the Me 410s).
ack-ack
-
I don't know how relevant such comparisons are when aircraft performance is considered.
At that time any German plane in German airspace was more or less a target due to odds and the fact that when you are taking off and gaining alt you already have planes that are more numerous and higher that you. IMO Me410 is very much comparable to Mossie but with the situation it was introduced in it was not the most optimal aircraft even if the idea of a heavy interceptor made sense as such. Eg. FW190 could bring similar weapon effect to bear on bombers but if you lost it you only lost half the material than if you lost a Me410. In a war of attrition it is best to minimize the material losses if you know they will inevitably happen so the change in role of Me410 does not necessarily tell about how deficient the design was, but a correct change in strategy in use of that particular airframe in that strategic situation. Hell, they even made those slow NF 110Gs to fly against bombers in daytime... talk about ridiculous and desperate strategy there. A stupid practice which ended quickly when losses started to mount after many experienced NF aircrews were already lost. :P
Technically there was not a task a FW190 could not do, including carrying an SC1000 but FW190 had to carry MK103s in external pods as 410 could carry them all internally with less drag penalty and thus with little penalty to speed and also with less penalty to overall maneuverability. If there is something to point out then of course FW could not carry Bk5 (no matter how useless it was in practice).
In a better strategic situation and with adequate escorts and proper tactics the Me410 would have been a very capable interceptor.
-C+
-
In a better strategic situation and with adequate escorts and proper tactics the Me410 would have been a very capable interceptor.
-C+
Against unescorted bombers it could have been but like the Bf 110, if the bombers had escorts the Me 410 was nothing more than just fodder for the single engine fighters that out classed the Me 410 towards the end of the war. I also disagree that the Me 410 and the Mosquito are comparable aircraft, at least performance wise. The roles that both planes were used in might be comparable but that's where it ends.
ack-ack
-
I'm surprised at our learned membership. Half of you are arguing the 410's uselessness to win an intelectual sparring match. The other half are arguing to defeat your personal forum adversary by denegrating a possible future game addition.
After all of these years we know the realities of the MA and flourish in it's challenges with just about anything.
1. Whats good about this thing?
2. What Mischief can we turn it to in the MA?
3. Why shouldn't HiTech give it to us?
4. Do any of you want this ride or should all of you get rooms together and finally consumate your marraiges?
Man I missed the boat on a fortune in salt selling to you guys. I swear all of you would sink the Titanic on purpose just to have something to squablle about.
<First Mate> - Captain someone blew a hole in the ship.
<Captain> - I told you not to let the Aces High convention onto this ship.
<First Mate> - They promised this year no getting wasted, throwing keyboards or banging things on the walls.
<ack-ack> - Hmmmm, did I remember to tell Charge he bought a live WW2 surplus 88 from me????...Hmmmm...now who else can I sell these to.......hmmmm Hajo!
-
I thought they had upgraded the engines?
Well, at least one of the webpages I got this stuff from was wrong, then. I was reading up on it earlier in the morning.
There's conflicting info all over the place as far as the 410 is concerned. In books and in internet resources.
I hope you guys remember there were a few other 410 threads before this one, probably with useful info. E.G. on why it'd be worth splitting the 410 into A and B, performance estimates (with math shown), various interesting bits, etc.
I think this
But BK5 equipped Me410 was produced in numbers and certainly would be something that AH hasn't yet seen. In that context, I think it would be a welcome loadout.
trumps this
Imagine the whines and outcries coming to the forums "Where's my 30mm on the 410B!??!? It had them!" and "Why can't I have bombs on my 410A?"
The top interest is adding valuable content to the game; uninformed whines are not pertinent. A smaller version of the B25H would be such a valuable content, esp. if it comes bundled with as many other features as the 410 would bring. It's because the A and B were identical that it's ok to use that sameness as a bridge to including more useful and historical guns and bombs than the game's limitations (max number of weapons per model) would otherwise allow.
I remember doing the math for relative power of the gun loadouts, for 1 round bursts (snapshots), 1 second bursts (saddled up killshot), total ammo power (ground attack or A2A bomber destruction endurance), and IIRC (excluding BK5 cfg's) the 6x20mm was almost tied with the 2xMG151 + 2xMK103 for total ammo power, but the 103 was clearly better for 1 round burst power. I can't remember what it came up to on a 1-second burst basis.
-
Look who comes out of the woodwork..................... ...... :airplane: