Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: moot on March 04, 2011, 04:54:07 PM
-
Can anyone with Stocker & Petrick's book say if there's clear enough evidence that you couldn't possibly fit anything inside the bay with the BK5? Because a number of sources list (e.g.) the B-2/U4 variant as carrying both a BK5, and MK103's and/or MG151/20's *. Or does it definitely show/mention the MK 103 and/or MG 151/20 as subbed for the baseline MG 131 or 151/20 above the bay?
I've yet to see a single pic with even a hint of MK 103 muzzle brakes visible in the fuselage gun barrel exits that are above the bomb bay.
*e.g. Kagero book page 65, bottom of last paragraph in english column: "At Koenigsberg-Devau, aloft went rocket-armed Me 410s also equipped with BK 5s and extra 20mm and 30mm cannons."
-
(http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f147/Wmaker/BK5.jpg)
http://www.cockpitinstrumente.de/archiv/Dokumente/ABC/m/Messerschmitt/Me%20410/Me%20410%20A-1%20U4%20Wa%20Bk%205.pdf (http://www.cockpitinstrumente.de/archiv/Dokumente/ABC/m/Messerschmitt/Me%20410/Me%20410%20A-1%20U4%20Wa%20Bk%205.pdf)
-
Yeah and that's what Im thinking. There's no room in there to fit the 103s, just assuming they're the same size as the MG 151/20 together with mounting structure. It takes up the whole bay, so the only way the aircraft would carry 103s is either putting them in place of the upper 131 or 151 guns, or below the fuselage in a pod like our 110G2 gets for the 4x151/20 package. There's such a package mentioned and pictured in books, but none of them show it used for MK 103s.
The same illustration with MK 103s instead of BK5 in yours:
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5015/5497681965_4fde651243_z.jpg)
BK5 from another angle:
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5013/5498275668_cd41741662_o.gif)
The belly pod:
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5015/5497681793_145e5bcdbb_o.gif)
And another instance of how common are inconsistencies from book to book:
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5251/5497681871_a5cc725798_o.gif)
...
Unless "30mm" means MK 108s which might not be visible from outside if put where the basic MG 131 / MG 151/20 go.
-
I think that's somebody getting confused with the 2x mk108 gunpod.... (edit: I know that's a 2x20mm pod in the pictures but I seem to recall mention of a 2x30mm pod as well)
Definitely NOT the mk103s and the BK at the same time.
-
There are two pics in Squadron/Signal's Messerschmitt Me210/410 in action, pgs 38 & 39, that show the gun ports for the 20mm MG151 and 7.9mm MG17s respectively.
Found on the web:
MG151 ports
(http://img250.imageshack.us/img250/368/me410a111s7ir.jpg)
Both MG151 and Mg17 ports:
(http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/weapons/guns/me410.jpg)
Both?:
(http://ww2db.com/images/air_me410_3.jpg)
(http://www.airwar.ru/image/idop/fww2/me410/me410-9.jpg)
(http://www.cockpitinstrumente.de/archiv/Dokumente/ABC/b/Bordwaffen/Bordkanonen/Bordkanone%20BK%205/Bilder/Me%20410%20A-2%20U4%20BK%205/005.jpg)
Look Here (http://www.cockpitinstrumente.de/archiv/Dokumente/ABC/b/Bordwaffen/Bordkanonen/Bordkanone%20BK%205/flugzeug%20bordkanone%20bk%205.html). I have no idea what it says.
edit: it's the rest of the page wmaker's schematic is on.
Anyway, with all the other configurations of gun packages that were carried in the bomb bay, two or four MG151s, two MK108s and, for that matter, just bombs, I don't see why they would necessarily omit the other guns.
wrongway
-
A minor hijack if I may. I have drawings of AR-234's with the forward facing gun pods that they used for a night fighter unit & some other instances.
On one drawing it stated that later information had been received that the pods were much smaller than pictured.
Do you have any information that the smaller pod may be as you have shown? I have pictures of similar pods on 110 night fighters
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/ar234b1-2.jpg)
-
Lyric, I think you lost me. IF I understand correctly: The pictures posted at the top of this thread are 2x MG151/20 gunpods similar to that on the Bf110G and similar to the wing pods for Fw190As.
Totally different beast, I think.
If you check out the link I posted back when the vote was still ongoing:
http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/7614/u4wb151loadinggo9.jpg
(found here: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,299596.msg3841510.html#msg3841510 )
You will see that even 2x MG121 pods came in many different sizes. I think maybe something like this is what they put on that Ar234, especially considering they could half-recess it into the ventral cut-out area. Maybe they modified the case to blend better?
EDIT: Wrongway: I don't think the "standard guns" were really removed much. It seems they were left in place regardless of the other loadouts. I would think you are right in that they were still there.
Whether they loaded them or not? Considering the terrible reliability of the BK5 I would guess "Yes" so they could press the attack if the gun jammed.
-
Lyric, I think you lost me. IF I understand correctly: The pictures posted at the top of this thread are 2x MG151/20 gunpods similar to that on the Bf110G and similar to the wing pods for Fw190As.
Totally different beast, I think.
If you check out the link I posted back when the vote was still ongoing:
http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/7614/u4wb151loadinggo9.jpg
(found here: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,299596.msg3841510.html#msg3841510 )
You will see that even 2x MG121 pods came in many different sizes. I think maybe something like this is what they put on that Ar234, especially considering they could half-recess it into the ventral cut-out area. Maybe they modified the case to blend better?
EDIT: Wrongway: I don't think the "standard guns" were really removed much. It seems they were left in place regardless of the other loadouts. I would think you are right in that they were still there.
Whether they loaded them or not? Considering the terrible reliability of the BK5 I would guess "Yes" so they could press the attack if the gun jammed.
Got it. :aok
-
My latest request for loadout options for when Aces High gets the Me410...
You may recall a similar thread here: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,299596.msg3840243.html#msg3840243
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
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 (maybe... rare but used... willing to take it or leave it in my list here)
2x 20mm MG151/20 with 200/230 rpg (depending on source)
4x 20mm MG151/20 with ??? rpg
2x 30mm Mk108 with ??? rpg
2x 30mm Mx103 with 100 rpg
1x BK5 with 22 rpg
3) WINGS
empty
4x WGr.21
2x Drop tanks (not sure about this one -- don't see much reference to it)
4) CENTERLINE
empty
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)
A little of my logic WHY:
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'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
2x each wing: http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/3503/me410b2u23om.jpg
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.
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.
Edited and updated now, originally from the linked thread above.
-
Moot,
I believe the R3 gunpack contains 2 Mk103's this could be mounted under a BK5 equipped 410!
You'd have to look carefully to see the muzzle breaks at the wouldn't protrude in front of the nose.
I'd have to look them all up but the gunpods came with 2x20mm,4x20mm,2xMk103 and 2xMk108,any of which could be mounted under pretty much any of the variants. This would make a 4x30 mm possible!!!
hope that helps
:salute
-
I think that's somebody getting confused with the 2x mk108 gunpod.... (edit: I know that's a 2x20mm pod in the pictures but I seem to recall mention of a 2x30mm pod as well)
Haven't run into it yet. I've got the second Petrick book ordered. Dunno if I'll get the first one anytime soon though, hopefully that's not where the answer to this mystery is hidden.
Definitely NOT the mk103s and the BK at the same time.
I can't see anything fitting with the BK in the bay. Even the WB151 and MK 103 mounts look like they fill it up.
Wrongway Thanks for the pics and links. I'd forgotten about that cockpitinstrumente.de website.
I don't understand what you mean:
Anyway, with all the other configurations of gun packages that were carried in the bomb bay, two or four MG151s, two MK108s and, for that matter, just bombs, I don't see why they would necessarily omit the other guns.
If you mean why they'd leave out the "standard" guns (above the bomb bay, let's call em cockpit guns for simplicity's sake), common sense reason could be simply to save weight. Is that what you mean?
The reason I'm asking the OP question is that I don't really see how you could have BK5 + 20mm + 30mm. Either:
30mm means MK 108 (short barrel, smaller gun overall) and: they were put in one of those four positions you see above the BK5 in that last face-on pic, or in a pod like the one in my above 3d and 4th pics.
30mm means MK 103 (way bigger, muzzle breaks, etc) and: they'd have to have showed up on some pics (never seen any) or been referred to (never seen that either), or they're in a belly pod. IIRC the 190A-8 or -9 had such pods.. But I don't remember seeing these myself for the 190A, and definitely never seen yet a 103 belly pod for the 410, either in picture or in writing.
-
A minor hijack if I may.
Yep :)
Do you have any information that the smaller pod may be as you have shown? I have pictures of similar pods on 110 night fighters
Not yet but I don't see why not. Will keep it in mind, thanks. Do you know what gun's in that Ar 234 pod?
Lyric, I think you lost me. IF I understand correctly: The pictures posted at the top of this thread are 2x MG151/20 gunpods similar to that on the Bf110G and similar to the wing pods for Fw190As.
Yes
Totally different beast, I think.
but I expect you'd need different pod from the MG151 one (might look just as pod-ish, but structure would most likely be different) for 103s. Important, because where else are you going to put 103s if the bay's occupied? To answer this one you need to gather as much clear evidence that either supports or eliminates possible explanations.
You will see that even 2x MG121 pods came in many different sizes.
Yes E.G. the 4x151 bomb bay configuration's referred to as "two WB151A" mounts.
EDIT: Wrongway: I don't think the "standard guns" were really removed much. It seems they were left in place regardless of the other loadouts. I would think you are right in that they were still there.
Not guaranteed. I've seen reference to removing "standard" guns and leaving extra guns. I'll have exact references for this later but take my word for it for now, it's in the books.
Whether they loaded them or not? Considering the terrible reliability of the BK5 I would guess "Yes" so they could press the attack if the gun jammed.
Sounds consistent with mostly negative BK5 anecdotes
My latest request for loadout options for when Aces High gets the Me410...
You may recall a similar thread here: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,299596.msg3840243.html#msg3840243
Edited and updated now, originally from the linked thread above.
Disagree for sensible reasons I'll detail in the main 410 thread.
Hey Morf,
I believe the R3 gunpack contains 2 Mk103's this could be mounted under a BK5 equipped 410!
You'd have to look carefully to see the muzzle breaks at the wouldn't protrude in front of the nose.
Morf look at the BK5 position as mounted. Then at the MK 103 bomb bay mount assembly. You can't fit em both in there. If you see those muzzle brakes sticking out of the nose, it means they're either in the bay or in the top gun positions (basically at pilots feet). But you can't have anything added to BK5 in the bomb bay (I'm open to explanations e.g. special dual purpose MK103+BK5 mount in bomb bay, but I've never seen anything even hinting at it), and I've yet to see a single picture where it even sorta looks like there's 103 muzzle brakes in the cockpit gun ports. I haven't yet gotten down to actually drawing a scaled MK 103 on top of the "cockpit" guns schematic, but that might be a way to rule them out for sure. The only option left's the most plausible one (IMO): a belly pod.
I'd have to look them all up but the gunpods came with 2x20mm,4x20mm,2xMk103 and 2xMk108,any of which could be mounted under pretty much any of the variants. This would make a 4x30 mm possible!!!
Alright, I'm all ears.
Back to work..
-
There's no way you could, and I don't recall ever hearing about a 2x mk103 pod... Not like the wb151, at any rate. You cannot have the muzzle brakes on the Mk103 recessed. They have to stick out, otherwise the gasses expelled would be dangerous. It's very clear whenever a plane has a mk103 installed, as you always see that diagonal muzzle brake.
-
Yeah that's what I meant- I've never seen anything just barely sticking out from cockpit gun ports like 103 muzzle brakes would need to be to go unnoticed.
The 103 pod for the 190A that I vaguely remember is a single gun pod, one per wing. But it'd more likely be a double-gun pod for the 410 belly pod position, so maybe two 190A pods stuck together with a new pod shell. I have no idea how it actually works.
-
I honestly think it's a wild goose chase. Not the first time. Those 2 guns take up the entire bomb bay. They didn't put them in ventral gun packs. It's not exactly a compact solution to a lack of firepower. Plus if the BK5 was loaded and the default 20mm/13mm there was already a backup plan (plus the optional ventral WB151).
Doesn't make sense, doesn't add up, no record of it... I think it's a mistake, plain and simple, based on all the above.
-
The R3 gunpod was a rustaz{sp}pak and it mounted under and behind the bombay so you wont see the muzzle brakes sticking out like you would on a 410 with the Mk103 in the bombay location.Certainly with a BK5 the bombay is full and there's no room.
Now whether or not they stuck the R3 pack on either the 103 or BK5 equipped A/C is another matter.
Moot,1 of those PDF's you were so kind to send me clearly states the different gunpack,and this is not to be confussed with the WB151 which is a completely different gunpack and was installed inside the bombay!
The 1 of 8x20mm 410 used 4 internal 20mm and a gunpack with 4x20mm for a total of 8x20mm!
:salute
-
Yep :)Not yet but I don't see why not. Will keep it in mind, thanks. Do you know what gun's in that Ar 234 pod?
Yes but I expect you'd need different pod from the MG151 one (might look just as pod-ish, but structure would most likely be different) for 103s. Important, because where else are you going to put 103s if the bay's occupied? To answer this one you need to gather as much clear evidence that either supports or eliminates possible explanations.
Yes E.G. the 4x151 bomb bay configuration's referred to as "two WB151A" mounts.
Not guaranteed. I've seen reference to removing "standard" guns and leaving extra guns. I'll have exact references for this later but take my word for it for now, it's in the books.
Sounds consistent with mostly negative BK5 anecdotes
Disagree for sensible reasons I'll detail in the main 410 thread.
MG151/20 Moot.
-
I'll get back to this all when I'm back with the living....... :)
-
The R3 gunpod was a rustaz{sp}pak and it mounted under and behind the bombay so you wont see the muzzle brakes sticking out like you would on a 410 with the Mk103 in the bombay location
No, you would.. If you mean it was a pack with 2x mk103 in it. These are LOOONG guns. So long they couldn't stick them in the 109 series. You could not have them in a pack without the barrels showing unless that pack was a very very long one. On top of that you cannot have these guns mounted with the muzzle brakes shielded by the exterior of the craft or some covering.
Massive amounts of blowback shot out up and down from the muzzle brake. They placed it outside on every installation I've seen, be it 190a gunpod (which were smoothed over aerodynamically) to 262s to 410s and even the Ho229 had them protruding.
It is a characteristic of the Mk103. You would see it every time it was ever carried. Necessity of the design.
-
Well in 410 squadron signal it clearly states,the 410B2/U2/R2 and R3 and R5 2mk108,2mk103 and4x151/20mm as the Rustsatz available.There's also reference to this same gunpack in 410 Kagero,so I suspect that those are fairly good references.
I realize the difference between the Mk108 and Mk103 30mm but I still think I trust the sources above.
:salute
-
Yes, the rustsatz with Mk103s is internal though. It's not a gunpod. Somebody's confused here, and it may be me... But I thought you were saying the Mk103s were in a ventral gunpod like the WB151. To that I say no, but to the "tray" insert that fits into the bomb bay, I say of course, yes.
-
The thing is that there's mention at least once in two different books that the B2/U4 carried BK5+103. I can't completely rule out that the 103 wasn't fit in the top rack of guns. The 103 could fit in the 151/20's place, but it doesn't really look like there's enough room for its ammo where the MG151 and MG17 ammo is. Between the pilot's and gunner's seats. One pic makes it look like there's definitely no room for it, and another like there could be. It's like the one of those two schematics are wrong on that detail - how much distance between the two seats.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5218/5500757759_8ecaebd9f4_o.jpg)
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5299/5501283110_7e524feeb6_o.jpg)
#51 and 53 are ammo bins and chutes.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5220/5500734101_8940c0647f_z.jpg) (http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5220/5500734101_4958ea6242_o.jpg)
You can see there could be room for a 103 where the 151 is (outside position). Looks like some stuff would have to be moved. My hunch is it wouldn't be done, or at least not without a lot of hassle. See another view of the top guns, from below, here:
http://www.swannysmodels.com/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1237171925/61#61
-
Given that it's also mentioned in a few books that 109K4s have 2x20mm cowling guns above the engine along with the 30mm hub gun, I would say the same thing: There's no evidence, there's no physical room, it's a mistake.
I know I know...
But you're putting the burden on proving it existed on yourself. The burden is on those authors, and they don't meet the burden of proof IMO.
-
Well that still leaves a 103 belly pod. The only custom fit I've seen so far is a pair of MG17s between a pair of bomb bay 151s and the standard 131 and 151 cockpit guns.
-
The R3 gunpod was a rustaz{sp}pak and it mounted under and behind the bombay so you wont see the muzzle brakes sticking out like you would on a 410 with the Mk103 in the bombay location.
Morf can you say where you saw this?
The 1 of 8x20mm 410 used 4 internal 20mm and a gunpack with 4x20mm for a total of 8x20mm!
That's my guess too. Either that, or a 151 replacing the cockpit MG131/MG17s + R5 in the bay. But did you read this somewhere or are you guessing like I am?
-
Moot to be honest it's a sumation on my part,they had a 4x20mm rustpak and they had the WB151 which was installed into the bombay. Whether Dassow's had 4,20's with the 4 pack or 2x20mm plus Wb151 plus the 4x20mm rustaz I cant say for sure as I've never seen a picture of Dassow's 410.
Oh and Krusty,I'm sure I'm not confussed but you may be the Rustaz paks were ventral mounted,R2,R3 and R5 were all mounted behind the bombay on the fuselage,the WB151 gunpod was mounted in the bombay.
-
Morf R2/R3/R5 are almost definitely in the bay. From what I'm reading, R4 is the only external pod. WB and WT packs discerned in yellow:
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5056/5503871181_9fe3b31b06_o.gif)
Squadron p34
No sweat on this one I think. All the books are all inconsistent with each other about half the time (e.g. in blue). My impression is that the authors simply didn't think it these little details mattered. Either that, or the situation at the time was just that big of a mess: Luftwaffe orders to do things a certain way, and crews+pilots doing things totally differently which then shows up in records, ambiguity that's left for historians to read and interpret depending on which records they get their hands on.
There's a few contradictions to internal R2/R3/R5 pods and external R4 pod, but all things considered it's the most credible interpretation. Especially considering the difference between WB/WT. If that little detail hadn't been mentioned we'd still be guessing. What a mess.
-
The 8-gun pack was not with a 4x gunpod. Those don't exist. They had the 2 defaults, the tray with 4 below that, and a 2x WB gunpod underneath the belly. 8 total.
-
Let's agree on standard names so we don't add to the mess in the books. Let's say cockpit, bay, and belly guns. The guns weren't really in the cockpit but it'd make it clear what's meant.
-
In light of Hitech's saying he doesn't want to prevent mix-matching of loads as long as they were valid loads, would you still disagree with the following?
1) MAIN
2x 7.9mm MG17 with 1000 rpg and 2x 20mm MG151/20 with 350 rpg (and 2x 13mm MG131 "tail guns" with 500 rpg)
2x 13mm MG131 with 600 rpg and 2x 20mm MG151/20 with 350 rpg (and 2x 13mm MG131 "tail guns" with 500 rpg)
2) BOMB BAY
empty
8x50kg
2x250kg
2x500kg
1x1000kg (maybe... rare... take it or leave it)
2x 20mm MG151/20 with 200/230 rpg (depending on source)
4x 20mm MG151/20 with ??? rpg
2x 30mm Mk108 with ??? rpg
2x 30mm Mx103 with 100 rpg
1x BK5 with 22 rpg
3) WINGS
empty
4x WGr.21
2x Drop tanks (if existed?)
4) CENTERLINE
empty
4x 50kg (on shackles that disappear when bombs not loaded)
1x 2x20mm MG151/20 gunpod with 200 rpg
On a foot note, has anybody run across what was loaded on the outboard wings? Did they actually have DT mounts? Or was it just the WGrs and nothing else?
P.S. If you disagree, moot, why? Show your work :D Is it that I have left something out? I earnestly disagree with the suggestions to arbitrarily break up the A and B for fighter vs bomber roles, so other than that I've tried to get the most mainstream packages into 1 "ah plane suggestion"
-
Wanted to keep this stuff for the main thread but..
First of all I see more than enough reasons to split into A and B: A full range of historical, fun and non-redundant loadouts. A 410 model in both midwar and late war. So right away my loadouts will look different, e.g. peashooter MG on 410A, MG131 on B model.
The 1000 kg bomb can only be a certain type. I'm not sure which one but there was variety of 1 ton bombs and IIRC only one fits. Also there's mention that the bombs would be slightly ajar if you tried to fit in at least some of the half ton bombs. There's mention a few times (and never explicit contradiction as far as Ive seen) that 1800kg bomb was fitted too, and at least 1 mention of 2x1000kg. I need more time to figure this one out from literature.
The drop tanks were fitted to models as early as.... IIRC A-2 variants. So I think this one (being so innocuous tactically and making what I expect is so little difference since internal tanks were so large already) is safe to make available to all AH models.
4xWgr21 yep, and IIRC 15cm rockets I've only seen on Me 210s.
Putting 2x151/20 on centerline as a pod is a good idea. Even if it could give some loadouts I've never seen like bombs@bay + pod@belly, I think it fits exactly with HT's given philosophy. I could be wrong but thats what it looks like to me. I was gonna say there's one potential problem - I didnt remember seeing guns anywhere but on the right hand gun column, but now I remember 109 gondies, so that shouldn't be a problem.
I don't see why single model makes more sense. The two planes are pretty much identical save for stronger undercarriage on the B model. Which you might prefer for a lighter Me410A as single model, but then continuing this criteria means we don't get the B model's options and that's where most of the fun toejam is.
Yes DTs were outside the engines, but now that you mention it I don't visually remember the exact attachment gizmos.
damn.. looking at it now with the "gondola" pack in a separate column, it's all so simple compared to the mess of historical notes I'm still not done compiling so I could "show my math".... KISS
-
Also you can't fit all those bomb bay cfg's in AH's standard 6 slots per loadout column. And there's only 3 columns. So even if we agreed on a single model, you would lose about half of the loadout variety due to hangar selection constraint
edit... Krusty you sneaky little bast'd.. I see what you did there. :lol
-
It seems there were 30 single seaters made, and although it's not clear if GM1 was actually used nor if the planned 4,000 lbs weight reductions were actually implemented, there seems to be reports of multiple pilots of II./ZG26 who gave their opinion (ie it saw squadron use) of the plane - dislike of no defensive guns. Other changes: antenna mast deleted, 80 kg ballast in rear fuselage, fuel tank in rear part of crew compartment, rear end of canopy faired over, and reportedly just 20kph difference at altitude although that's also not clearly with/without GM1. The aircraft were flown with and without WGr rockets.
I have one pic of this plane and there's another one (you can clearly see faired-over turrets) in the Mankau/Petrick book.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5257/5511673288_5715a4933a_o.jpg)
...
Also you can't fit all those bomb bay cfg's in AH's standard 6 slots per loadout column. And there's only 3 columns. So even if we agreed on a single model, you would lose about half of the loadout variety due to hangar selection constraint
There might not be such a limit. The B-29 and Ju88 have 7 slots for their bombs.
-
You beat me to it, many things have more than 6 options. There was never a limit to any particular SLOT, so to speak. There was an overall limit on the number of options you could give to any given plane -- but if I recall that limit was increased right around the time we got the B-25s.
-
I don't see why single model makes more sense. The two planes are pretty much identical
That is why it makes sense....
Aside from stripped down field mods like you list with the rear guns and second crew removed, what specific loadouts were you thinking as the fun ones, to paraphrase?
Assuming a basic stock frame, not lightened, without all the weapons removed, etc.
P.S. As for the 1000kg, yes, I know that's a special small finned version -- but naturally that small-finned version would be the one added to AH for the 410 in this scenario.
-
Fun loadouts is probably all but a few of em.. I'm going to list em here and argue a bit, then finish up the research work and post everything in a new thread.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5213/5511886089_30d90dcb7c_o.gif)
WT=belly
WB=bomb bay
-A = 2x
-V = 4x
FDL = turrets
You can't fit all the loadouts in one model.
There's no reason to not split em up. There's no extra work that I can see other than extra weight for stronger undercarriage. And a bit of cosmetic work if we get the single seater.
-
I don't think you should have the turrets removable, any more than you should on the 110G or the Ju87 or the A-20G.
I think they should be a stock option because that's how the plane was designed and built. Nor would I really like to see removing the MG131s in the nose of the B for the same reason. You can't up a P-38 with just the 20mm, and you can't up a spitfire with just the cannons. In the spirit and standards already set in place I would like to see the stock loadout be more standard.
EDIT: Although, you do bring up a couple good points, like mixing DTs and rkts and mixing wb151t and 4x50kg... I could live without mixing the bombs and gunpods, because they're normally mutually exclusive mission profiles, but the DTs+WGrs is a good addition.
Other than that (at least so far on your work in progress) they're the same loadouts with the exception of the removed MGs on the B and the lighter MG17s on the A. I think you can fit all the loadouts on one plane.
Same as the P-38G and Spit5 and Fw190A5 can be planes in the EWA I think that either 410A or 410B is a candidate for the MWA.
-
1- 30 of those single seater A's were built. Did the turret-less 110G & co have that many built, as model variants dedicated to them? The single seater A's weren't field conversions. And they existed only as 4x151. That's another thing to figure out- if they "should" be only as 4x151, then you (general you) need to figure out how to exclude that config from the rest of the A configurations.
2- The 131's were removed for some models. Same with MG 17s. One of the best e.g.'s is the first U4's: they had the BK5 only.
3- There's a standard model up there: MG17 or 131 + MG151 and nothing else on the rest of the plane.
4- DT+rockets is probably a mistake, I'd made the above thing a while back. I'm pretty sure they've got the same attach point. Yep they do.
5- A single model 410 probably couldn't get into MW without losing MK103 and BK5. Literature says BK5 operational no earlier than Feb 44. MK 103 as late as June 44. It's not going to be a LW hotrod and probably not all that hot in MW either, especially without MK103 and BK5, but then you not only have that restriction but also the single model loadout restrictions. Unless you make em stretch out into a dozen+ slots for internal. Or put internal items into "centerline". All that just to keep it as a single model .... for what reason again?
Show me how you fit all the bombs and guns in one plane. You can't without losing bombs, or guns.
-
I hope all of this work means a 410 finds a foothold in the next plane. :salute
-
No kidding.. I'm still not done figuring it all out (what gunsights for what model, which configurations had which cockpit glass panel configurations... same deal with exhaust shrouds, armored windscreen..), and I don't even have the two best books on the plane.
-
No kidding.. I'm still not done figuring it all out (what gunsights for what model, which configurations had which cockpit glass panel configurations... same deal with exhaust shrouds, armored windscreen..), and I don't even have the two best books on the plane.
I have dreams of the G.55, Me410 and Beaufighter being introduced at the same time. It will never happen (at least until every American variant is modeled :cry), but I guess I can dream.
-
Don't take this the wrong way, I do enjoy the discussion so if I seem argumentative or anything, it's unintentional:
1- 30 of those single seater A's were built. Did the turret-less 110G & co have that many built, as model variants dedicated to them? The single seater A's weren't field conversions. And they existed only as 4x151. That's another thing to figure out- if they "should" be only as 4x151, then you (general you) need to figure out how to exclude that config from the rest of the A configurations.
30... out of over 1000 made. And they didn't leave the factory that way, I bet. Hence, field conversion (even if at the depot or squad level). It goes against the general HTC philosophy so far as we have seen it.
Unless you make em stretch out into a dozen+ slots for internal. Or put internal items into "centerline". All that just to keep it as a single model .... for what reason again?
Show me how you fit all the bombs and guns in one plane. You can't without losing bombs, or guns.
You don't need dozens of slots for the bomb bay/internal setup. They're the same setups over and over. Most of the differences you list are non-standard weight removal type suggestions.
A number of 190As also flew without MGs in the nose. Heck this was the standard on the 109G series to make up for the weight of the DT plumbing. However, on the A it was still a nonstandard setup more like a field mod.
While I won't deny it would be cool to have the best of the best, for the 410 it was never a spitfire. I would personally be fine with one that did not allow us to remove the basic guns package as long as we get the plane itself.
EDIT: I will state for the record: It is the additions that interest me, rather than the subtractions.
-
Krusty I just told you they came from the factory that way. Not field mods. You've decided this variant can't be allowed without even having any evidence whatsoever that it fails your own criteria.
30... out of over 1000 made
That's about the same proportion as the other variants. EG B2/U2 there were only about 50 of those. Yet that's where the most variety is.
Only one of the loadouts are possibly non standard - B2/U2 with MG131 removed. Everything else is from the factory.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5134/5512333375_476ea73baa_o.gif)
The only other thing non standard in there is the A1/U3 which would probably need its own .plane model, not because it's non standard but because it's got an extra fuel tank where the gunner would be and only flew with 4x20 IIRC, and having it along with the rest of the A model variations means a player could take the bombs or non-A1/U3 options with the FDL delete. So I guess you get your wish on that one without having to show how your wish makes sense.
B2/U2 without MG131s is the only 'delete' option in there, and it was done, and HT's "loadout philosophy" is consistent with the way it was done. An actual field mod would be the quad MG17s a B2/U2/R5 used which had to be bootstrapped, unlike everything in configs I've suggested.
Not removing the 131s on U2/R2 means players will have mixed 13/20/30 mm ballistics.
Not offering the basic bombless "standard" options means players have to ditch a couple of bombs, which isn't good for score, regardless how little or much it matters to you. You don't design a game to inherently screw over a player's score.
There's no particular variant name for the bomber configs, many bombers were switched to destroyer and vice versa. Some if not all B6's went from anti-shipping to Air-Sea rescure ops to destroyer. All A1 and B2 variants were ordered for conversion to /U2 standard in May 43. It was a poopstorm of configs almost the whole time.
4x 50kg (on shackles that disappear when bombs not loaded)
Did they? How's that not a "weight removal type suggestion"?
You don't need dozens of slots for the bomb bay/internal setup. They're the same setups over and over.
They're pretty much the same as you suggested (which doesn't add up either- why have both MG17 and MG131 as options?), and if you put them into a single plane with HTC's 3 column setup you do end up nearer a dozen than just 6 or 7.
While I won't deny it would be cool to have the best of the best, for the 410 it was never a spitfire.
??
I would personally be fine with one that did not allow us to remove the basic guns package as long as we get the plane itself.
That's a non argument. What are you saying, that the pilots didn't do this? Or that because you wouldn't do it, that that trumps the historical choice many pilots/crews made, and trumps what AH players might want to do? Again, what's the reason that it "must" be a single model? Why give players less historical choice rather than more?
-
Krusty I just told you they came from the factory that way. Not field mods.
Sorry 'bout that.. It's been a long day and I'm rather tired.
You didn't explicitly say built where, at whose factory, and for what reasons. Just "these weren't field mods" which I didn't really know how to take.
I'll reply to the rest of your post there later on, right now can't think very well.
Frankly I like the plane as a whole. Picking it apart looking for the lightest version goes against the actual plane that I want included in the game. It would be like trying to get a P-47M added before we have a D40 or even D11.
-
"Just "these weren't field mods" which I didn't really know how to take."
Uh... That they weren't field mods? I don't have all the info yet. Hopefully I can dig it up by this weekend cause I'm starting to get tired of making so little progress on this.
I'm not picking the 410 apart. Where am I doing that? On the contrary I'm trying to work out how to get the most out of it, starting with the most common and most fun authentic configurations. If we stick to picking only configs that were A) authentic and most common and B) fit inside the hangar without contradicting each other (ie allowing "non-factory" configs because of the AH hangar constraints), we might not get more than a handful of the 410's historical, useful, and fun variety. Which is the Me 410's main attraction.
What configuration 410 isn't in the last tentative hangar selection I posted above? This is what I'm trying to get at. Tell me that straight up and we won't be going in circles anymore.
I don't see how the proverbial 47M Me 410 configuration is stepping on the D11's toes. The early variants of both A and B are there: a pair of machineguns and a pair of 20mm cannons. The most common and popular variants are there too: both early and late BK5 cfg's (BK5 on its own and BK5 with 131+151 in the nose), all of the bomb bay guns cfg's (2x and 4x 20mm, MK103 and MK108), as well as the WT pod for someone who wants to keep extra firepower with his bombs at the cost of a worse CoG (WT pack is .... actually now that I look I notice the WT can't be combined with bombs because the bay doors are totally in the way..).. and on top of whatever exact range of gun choices end up being feasible with the HTC hangar format, there's a whole range of bombs too. DTs and rockets are totally unrestricted.
Really I don't see how it's not already pretty far into accommodating a max of options.
-
Bumping an older thread:
Looks like the DTs take the same place the WGrs would. Kind of hard to tell, but looks like they're in the same spot (rather than inboard and outboard of each other)
(http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/aircraft-picture-requests/80692d1231906676-me-410-njaco-004.jpg)
(http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/aircraft-picture-requests/80675d1231890339-me-410-me410a1-ii_zg26.jpg)
-
There's another pic where you clearly see the rockets attached on probably the exact same spot relative that iron cross.
Not the pic I remember, but you can almost estimate the attach point..
(http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s58/tapakeg/his_me410b2u23om.jpg)
It's not clear enough.. That black area almost looks like the iron cross - if so, the attach point for these rockets is different.
(http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s58/tapakeg/me410_wgr21_a.jpg)
-
Damn, the links I used are broken already.
-
Okay, let's try that again... different links here.
One of the broken images above was gun cam footage of a 410 being shot down, showing the placement of the rockets from directly behind. It's interesting to note how wide these DTs or WGrs have to be placed to get outside of those oil radiators.
I could not locate a copy of that image so I went about it another way. I think now they actually may exist side by side.
For general reference, here's the asisbiz link I got these from this time:
http://www.asisbiz.com/il2/Me-410/Me-410-Mixed/pages/1-Me-410A-Hornisse-03.html
If you look at another closeup of the WGr 21s you see where they are relative to the cross markings. They seem to stop just halfway into the cross.
(http://i814.photobucket.com/albums/zz63/krustacious/Me410%20scans/1-Me-410A2-Hornisse-weapons-W_Gr_42-rockets-01.jpg)
Now we look at the drop tank hookup: It appears to also start midline of the cross, but it goes inward instead of out. They could be placed side by side, it looks like.
(http://i814.photobucket.com/albums/zz63/krustacious/Me410%20scans/1-Me-410A-Hornisse-03.jpg)
Very interesting!
Although it seems the DTs were rarely used, but I did read a description or two about using them to escort bombers from around Finland somewhere over to bomb northern UK.
As a random aside: I forgot it had dive brakes, until I saw this and remembered!
(http://i814.photobucket.com/albums/zz63/krustacious/Me410%20scans/th_Messerschmitt-Me410-Cutaway.jpg) (http://s814.photobucket.com/albums/zz63/krustacious/Me410%20scans/?action=view¤t=Messerschmitt-Me410-Cutaway.jpg)
-
Pretty compelling, but probably need clearer pictures of the actual mounts rather than going by paint, and/or service manuals where you can see these little attach points under the wing in detail. EG it's not clear that in the above pics the DT's outer pair of support twigs aren't on the same attachment hardware as the WGr's inner twigs. If they are, then we'd have to see in some manual that the hardware in the wing could take both at the same time.
-
Fair point, and one I was pondering. However given the functionality they were taking from the Bf110 that it was replacing, I'd be inclined to believe both were an option at the same time... at least until further info becomse available (which I have not been able to find online).
I did find an interesting comment on 12oclockhigh forums:
For what it's worth, the first step to gaining ANY accurate understanding about the Me 210 is tearing out any reference to it by William Green, and by the many who followed the general tenor of his comments, and dumping it in the nearest garbage can.
For instance, he comments on page 610 of "The Warplanes of the Third Reich": "Me 210 V1, ..., when it made its initial flight on September 5, 1939 with Dr.-Ing. Hermann Wurster at the controls. This initial flight was considered to be successful only as much as its pilot succeeded in landing the prototype in the condition in which it left the ground.... The root cause of its unpleasent behaviour was believed to be the tail assembly, and the prototype was promptly returned to the experimental shop where the tail, with its endplate fins and rudders, was removed and replaced by an entirely new assembly comprising an inordinately large, centrally-mounted vertical surface, and a tapered tailplane of increased span. ... With this modification, the Me 210 V1 resumed flight testing on September 23, 1939."
His comments are accurate in only 2 matters of fact, the designation of the a/c and the name of the test pilot. Everything else is wrong, wrong, wrong! Having in my possession a fairly respectable collection of Me 210 test flight reports, I can state the following with a better than even chance of being accurate: The first test flight was actually on 2 Sep 39 (5 Sep 39, Green's date for the 1st flight was actually the date of the report on that flight and the 2nd flight on 4 Sep 39), and V1's tail unit does not appear to have been changed to the single vertical unit during its lifetime. The V1 completed its 11th test flight on 22.9.39 -- amazing, since it was still supposed to be getting its single tail at this time. Yes, there were a few problems on that first set of test flights; but, in a report on 15.9.39, Wurster said, "At present no essential changes are required. The minor complaints listed in the flight report were remedied." Amongst the problems mentioned were: The a/c was tail heavy, the ailerons and rudders were overbalanced, the stability about the vertical axis was weak, plus many others consistent with a/c first flights. They corrected the CofG problem by putting a 4 degree sweepback on the main spar of the outer panels. They would have problems with everything else to try to correct the weak stability about the verical axis. This would only be corrected when a longer fuselage was fitted to V17, and this a/c flew in Nov 41.
But, remember that the experienced pilots like Johannes Kaufmann, who I mentioned in an earlier thread, were eager to fly the short-fuselaged Me 210 operationally, and were disappointed when it was, instead, withdrawn.
Found here:
http://forum.12oclockhigh.net/showpost.php?p=24532&postcount=10
-
Page 308 of the Mankau/Petrick book captions an Me 410 with four MG 151 barrels visible from its bay as
[...] four MG 151s in an MK 103 weapons pack [...]
And later on that same page: In order to increase firepower for the auxiliary Zerstorer planes, units installed additional MG 151/20s in the Me 410. As these installations were homemade, they were afforded no conversion kit designations. We are not sure where some authors have come up with designations such as B2/U2/R4. Prompted by these installations, the RLM initiated formal development. There was a heavy version of the the quad pack the units flew with. The test center derived both a heavy and a light version from this, with work being done in July 1944. Partly as a result of the Me 410's cancellation, the quad pack was probably never fully developed, and the only ones extant were the conversions the units undertook. The following versions are known to have existed:
2x MG151/20 under the fuselage of the B2/U2 ["WT-151"]
2x WB-151A side by side in the bomb bay
Quad pack in the bomb bay with bulged nose compartment of the B2/U4
Quad pack in the bomb bay with flat nose compartment of the B2
It is not known how extensively the field units modified their A1/U2, A1/U4, or B2/U2, and B2/U4 airframes, nor are accurate numbers available
So... That takes care of some of the strange payloads (e.g. 4x MG17 + 6x MG151 "B2/U2/R5") and explains their variety - some bay-mounted 20mm's barrels sticking more or less further out from it, the 8x20mm and 4xMG17 "homemade" cfg's..
...
p. 321 You have in the schematics table that goes with a conversion kits list from Messer. AG, drawings for the DTs and rockets that put them both in the same spot. It does list the WGr kit as 2x 3 rockets.
-
Also the picture this book paints is a lot like everything else of what I've read on late war German air force... It was chaos and it seems pretty much everyone was bootstrapping things left and right.
Even as early as back when the 410 design was being hashed out.. They wanted it to have counter rotating engines like the P-38, but the industrial bits for it were disrupted by the Allies.
-
"It does list the WGr kit as 2x 3 rockets."
Don't you mean 2x2rockets?
-C+
-
Nope.. Up to now I'd seen nothing but 2x2 in pictures and schematics, and only 2x3 when the rockets were 15cm and this on an Me 210 picture. But this reference is to a document dated May 15 1944, and it lists+depicts the rocket kit as 2x3.
(http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s58/tapakeg/p320-321_6-14-15.jpg)
"Vorhanden"
Also listed as Vorhanden is a choice of ..
2x BT 400
1x LT 950
1x SC 1800
1x BT 1800
1x Qu-Rost
Listed as "Boden" under "Ausbau" column, for 97 kg extra weight (sounds like that's the attachment eqpt for these) and "Bis 30" kph penalty which I assume stands for "more than" 30 kph.
-
Ok, interesting, although I have only seen 2x2 configurations of WGr21 in pictures.
Also Gerät X4 listed. Google returned "noodle extension" as a first match for X4 but I take it rather means Ruhrstahl X4... :lol
-C+
-
I have never seen an installation like that. Doesn't even LOOK like rockets. Looks like 50kg bombs, almost.
I wonder if it was a test configuration that never actually made it. Only footage I have ever seen on guncam film or in photos (in flight or on ground) has been the same attached pair of tubes like the 110. We've seen they don't physically bump into each other in the real photos. Question is does that still make them exclusive to each other, or not, as configured in real use? Any actual notes/commentary in the book about how such setups were used against US bombers?
-
Nope.. Up to now I'd seen nothing but 2x2 in pictures and schematics, and only 2x3 when the rockets were 15cm and this on an Me 210 picture. But this reference is to a document dated May 15 1944, and it lists+depicts the rocket kit as 2x3.
(http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s58/tapakeg/p320-321_6-14-15.jpg)
"Vorhanden"
Also listed as Vorhanden is a choice of ..
2x BT 400
1x LT 950
1x SC 1800
1x BT 1800
1x Qu-Rost
Listed as "Boden" under "Ausbau" column, for 97 kg extra weight (sounds like that's the attachment eqpt for these) and "Bis 30" kph penalty which I assume stands for "more than" 30 kph.
Vorhanden= "Available"
Im Entwurf= "Under development" or "Planning"
In this case, all options were marked as of 15.5.44 (May 15, 1944).
I need to look it up, but I do believe I've seen a picture of a 410 carrying 6x WgR21's. (2x3 per wing). There may be a significant jump in the speed penalty (would be a decrease to the current penalty listed under "geschwindigkeits-verlust of 20KpH), or even the way the tubes are rigged by the groundcrews, who would have been used to lining the 2x2 system, which explains the existence of fewer examples of photos of it. Pilots may have felt it was too much penalty for a relatively hard-to-shoot/ unproven weapon, and carried the 2x4 configuration instead, or none at all. Remember, they would have had to deal with a longer exposure time in a slower/larger aircraft around escorts... so, one wonders if you'd strap the full possibilities to your airframe, especially considering the rockets were so difficult to aim historically, and you retained a speed penalty even after firing off the rockets.
Sidenote:
Geschwindigkeits-verlust= "velocity lost"
Bis= "twice" generally, so that might equate to the penalty per wing, and bis=x2.
Ausbau can mean a crapload of things depending upon usage...I think in your usage it means "conversion" though I could be wrong. Snailman would be the source on that.
Boden= "ground"
-
"so, one wonders if you'd strap the full possibilities to your airframe, especially considering the rockets were so difficult to aim historically, and you retained a speed penalty even after firing off the rockets."
Push the jettison button and off they go, just like a pari of ext tanks...
-C+
-
But that was for emergency use :D
Moray, if they were in triangle configuration you're thinking of the smaller diameter WGr15s (I think that was the designation). I've seen the photo of the test configuration of those. They weren't used, just tested.
-
I'm not done with the book. It's 350 pages.
Yep 2x2 is all I've seen in pictures. I've seen 3x2 (not 2x3) on a 110 where there's an extra pair of WG21s under the fuselage.. looked like it was below the cockpit (probably was - as far as you could work with the mortar angle). I've seen 2x3 but those were 15cm, not 21. The diagrams in Mankau stick em together (though that's only because the attach twigs are drawn so short) and that does make it look like they're only communication sketches, not precise documentation sketches; but on the other hand the pictures of DT/twin rockets aren't clear enough to make a case and again you'd have to see a pic with both DT & WG21s to know that the attach points could support both at the same time.
2x2*50kg are also in the table, they look roughly similar -- it's only a communication sketch.
I wonder if it was a test configuration that never actually made it.
Why would it be listed as available if it's only a test configuration? You've got pre-production status for other items - "Draft", "Mockup built", "In construction".
Any actual notes/commentary in the book about how such setups were used against US bombers?
There's no historical section in the book, only descriptions of the planes themselves. I'll keep an eye out for passing references.
Ausbau column has what looks like eqpt removed to install a given conversion kit, and in other cases it'll say "bomb bay" if the kit is installed there.
Bis like 'bis' street numbers yep, but why would it be there for a kit item that's mostly single items? So I reckon it's more likely "more than" or "up to".
Someone shine the Lusche signal.
In Etwurf... This one can't be taken for granted and unfortunately that prolly goes both ways - both items listed as 'available' and items listed as 'under construction' might not be. I'm pretty sure I've seen the bomb bay 45min GM1 tank mentioned as used in the field, and the book says as much, and I'm pretty sure I've seen mention of that famous bombbay/nose-mounted 6xWG21 rotary as having gone into field use but with no records of how that worked out. Also the table is missing all the gun packs originating from field mod, which show up in so many pictures: 2x and 4x20mm in the bay, 2x20mm under the fuselage.
... I sure wish the 4x MK108 is one of those 'under construction' that did make it to field use.
Also the LT 950 torpedo listed as available from Messer. AG despite it otherwise being referenced to, as far as I've seen yet, only for the "cancelled" Me 410 naval warfare subvariants.
Anyone know what Qu-Rost is?
I'm curious why R4M are absent in this panoply.
(http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s58/tapakeg/p319_800x.jpg)
(http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s58/tapakeg/p320_800x.jpg)
(http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s58/tapakeg/p321_800x.jpg)
(http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s58/tapakeg/p322_800x.jpg)
-
In the Werknummer tables you have prod batches bracketed e.g. from 420001 to 420041, labeled "von 420001 bis 420041". So the 'bis' in the speed penalty column prolly means "up to" X kph loss.
-
Careful Moot. I see signs of Me-410 disease much similar to my Beaufighter disease. Scares me how many books ended up on the shelf in the quest for info :)
-
I bought the Mankau book last week and earlier this week bought the Stocker one too even though I don't have the cash for it. :uhoh Even paid for express delivery.
I am trying to do ZG 26 history right now..
-
Is that the long sought late cockpit variant I see in those sketches drawn over the early model cpit?
-C+
-
I'm not sure, because as Krusty pointed out these sketches look like only communication sketches, not precise blueprint sketches... But those do look like a sketch elsewhere in the book for the Me 410 C. I've got my hands full now, but I'll show a pic of it later.
-
Re: "Bis" = "up to" that's right. I can't help on Qu-Rost, that doesn't ring a bell. My German is very rusty.
re: R4Ms: this plane was mostly removed from combat by the time R4Ms were appearing on 190Ds and Me262s. The R4Ms were really more of a last-minute thing, from what I recall.
-
Qu Rost is external rack. Click for full size
(http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s58/tapakeg/birds/410/me410-15May1944_x800.jpg) (http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s58/tapakeg/birds/410/me410-15May1944.jpg)
(http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s58/tapakeg/birds/410/externalbombrack_x415.jpg) (http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s58/tapakeg/birds/410/externalbombrack.jpg)
-
Above I meant to write that Qu Rost is the external rack for 4x50kg.
The 410C nose shape
(http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s58/tapakeg/birds/410/p311_1k.jpg)
Using the technical guidelines for the Kampfzerstorer (bomber destroyer/heavy figher) from 7 August 1942 as a basis, Messerschmitt began development of a follow-on to the Me 410 with the designation Me 410 C. In Feb '43 the Me 410 entered into that circle of aircraft that would be powered by the fighter/heavy fighter standardized engine with forward radiators. It was established in March that the DB 603 G would form the basis of this powerplant. It was planned in June that production of the Me 410 using the standardized powerplant would begin on 1 January 1945, and defelopment of the Me 410 with standardized powerplant was considered a closed matter.
The new C series was also to have had a new forward fuselage with redesigned cockpit and DF installation.
The D would have used the same nose shape, and have ~20m wingspan. The front end of the canopy ahead of the cockpit looks more like the He 219's.
-
It reads like the 8x20mm config never existed. Dasso is reported in particular, at a time when the top brass were discussing which gun package could make the 410 more useful. This is at a time when the BK5 had teething troubles with its ammo belt - a few prototype/production iterations were needed before a reliable solution was eventually found, and when the MK103 suffered delay after delay as well (manufacturing quality, industrial sites damaged, hi-alt temperature problems, more mfg quality problems). It's at this time that the quad-20mm field mod is brought up and a standardization team is put on the job. In weighing the attractiveness of the quad-20mm package, Dasso's AAR/anecdotal performance is described: alongside other ZG26 Hornets, he hoses down bombers and lights them on fire where BK5-equipped Hornets either miss or hit for no damage (poke a hole like duds).
There is no clarification in Mankau for these loadouts:
- MK 108 "R2". Mankau/Petrick themselves say they wonder where the other authors of Me 410 literature found this and other "conversion kits". Nowhere in Mankau is such a 2x108 package mentioned, nor do I recall seeing a single pic of this config. It only shows up in Janusz Ledwoch's book on p.14 described in Czech (?) and in a recap table p.29 as "Me 410A-2/R2". And considering the other nomenclature errors (will explain this one in a separate post), Ledwoch did what everyone except Mankau did: took field mods and gave them official designations. So the question is where he found evidence of MK 108s equipped in the bomb bay.
- The WG21 revolver. Famously reported to have blown off the test platform's fuselage panels, in Mankau you find it described this way, in a report dated either the same day or one day after the reported test's failure: In the planning point of attack tactics against bombers it is mentioned that whole salvos can be fired from the launcher into the formation; the seven barrel weapon is now available.
Emph added -- typo or .. ?
Then at the end of this same book you have a table that lists a six barrel revolver as still in development.
- The external fuselage "WT151" (this designation never used in Mankau) pod that looks like a direct "copy-paste" of the one found e.g. on the 190A (2nd-last row on this page (http://www.luftarchiv.de/bordgerate/waffen.htm)) - probably ignored by Messerschmitt development teams because it's basically a duplicate of internal WB151A pod (2x151/20) at a major cost in speed... So why was this thing ever used when there was the internal /U2 hardware? Scrounging? Or so they could put bombs in the bay? In this last case, the drawings found in the literature would have to be wrong: they illustrate the WT151 barrels as in the way of opening the bomb bay.... Unless the bomb bay opening action retracted the doors upwards at the same time as it rotated them open (they don't, see this vid at 1'04" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zvkbIJWSRI)). So this one can probably be ignored, it serves no purpose.
- The BT400 and LT950 torpedoes are listed in the Messerschmitt table at the end of the Mankau book as available. There's no details given on these two, other than : In a planning point on toss bombing using the TSA steep-angle bombsight it was established that the 410 is probably capable of making torpedo attacks at wavetop altitudes if we have electronic range-finding eqpt avail. to us. Test with reducing the trajectory have been carried out with very positive results. It depends on using the fins presently found on air dropped torpedoes and finding a way to attach the ["Lufttorpedo"?] body. It seems that this can be accomplished in short order.
This page (http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/l10.html) says the glider part (at least) of the LT950 was first used in '43 and over 300 were produced. This page (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Abwurfmunition_des_Zweiten_Weltkrieges) (German, no English version) seems to say that no BT torpedoes saw action. The BT400's own page (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombentorpedo_BT_400) isn't clear. The LT950's own page (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blohm_%26_Voss_L_10) neither. There's one picture of an Me 210 (DI+NF WNr 0194) "near Gdynia (Gotenhafen-Hexengrund), 1942" carrying one, on p.30 of K. Janowicz' Kagero book.
-
Well we know of the 1 famous example of 8x MG151/20s, so I'd be willing to think they weren't devoting much thought to something already tried and true.
I don't think they were for use with bomb loadouts. Too much drag, probably. I would imagine such a possible setup would only be for closed-door armament loadouts (i.e. gun tray inserts). As you say I also think the barrels might get in the way of the opening doors.
However, the doors do rotate inwards, not just down and out. They swing in and fold up along side the bombs. This can be seen in photos and diagrams.
(http://www.asisbiz.com/il2/Me-410/Messerschmitt-Me-410/images/1-Me-210A1-Hornisse-weapons-six-SC50-bombs-01.jpg)
They pivot about halfway in it looks like (like old style garage doors) and if you look at that photo you'll see the end result on the rear fuselage edge isn't projecting too bad from the lower wing:
(http://www.asisbiz.com/il2/Me-410/Messerschmitt-Me-410/images/1-Me-210A-Hornisse-05.jpg).
Now, how far it swings out WHEN rolling back? I don't know. I can imagine it could get in the way of the gun pod.
-
- MK 108 "R2". Mankau/Petrick themselves say they wonder where the other authors of Me 410 literature found this and other "conversion kits". Nowhere in Mankau is such a 2x108 package mentioned, nor do I recall seeing a single pic of this config.
Now THIS is an interesting observation. The Mk108 was fast on the road to becoming the main Luftwaffe weapon of choice, on all planes from bomber hunters (Fw190s) to fighters (109s). Almost all new planes I can think of had them, Ta152s, Do 335s, He162s, 262s, any number of twin engined planes.
I can't imagine they would overlook the main choice of bomber busting when looking to outfit these planes.
Logically speaking, there are 2 options: They did, or they didn't.
If they did use 30mm, photos may simply be luck of the draw. Example:
(http://www.asisbiz.com/il2/Me-410/Messerschmitt-Me-410/images/1-Me-410-Hornisse-01.jpg)
Are those empty 20mm gun ports? Or are there 30mm behind them? The 30mm were rather short.
The diagrams, the loadouts, the finer details (drawings, number of rounds per gun, etc) all speak towards "they were used" but the photos suggest it's not quite so clear. Seeing empty gunports on the nose is not common, as you mention.
If they did NOT, why not? Was there some mechanical reason not to? Why ignore the best most dangerous weapon in the arsenal (not counting the Mk103 in all its teething problems) when these planes were taking up WGr21s and 6x or 8x 20mm... Why ignore the 30mm?
Fascinating thought, either way.
P.S. Is this some sort of funky 30mm installation here?
(http://www.asisbiz.com/il2/Me-410/Messerschmitt-Me-410/images/1-Me-410-Hornisse-11.jpg)
Might just be a misleading photo. Doesn't look like the typical 20mm barrels. Looks like it could be Mk108s, but they would have to be pushed all the way up to the front of the doors to stick out that far. I seem to recall the drawings had them further back in the bomb bay on a tray.
-
I wonder why the guy standing next to that internal bomb rack is holding a piece of ammo belt of a MK103...
http://www.cockpitinstrumente.de/img/Mun%203%20Sammlung%20MK%20103%20108%20131gross.jpg
-C+
-
I wonder why the guy standing next to that internal bomb rack is holding a piece of ammo belt of a MK103...
http://www.cockpitinstrumente.de/img/Mun%203%20Sammlung%20MK%20103%20108%20131gross.jpg
-C+
Are you sure it's not MG151/20?
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/weapons-systems-tech/36309d1299757668t-mg-151-20-shell-colors-151_20-steering.jpg
I don't know the relative size vs a man's hand, but they look a little the same.
-
The MK103 fired a 30x184B round.
The MG151/20 fired a 20x82 round.
A hand is typically 3" to 4" (75mm to 100mm) across 4 fingers.
-
He might be holding it for an MK103 gun on another plane nearby.
Krusty Dasso is the pilot who was reported as having got 8x20mm in previous threads and wherever else in cyberspace this story was repeated. In Mankau his plane armament is clearly described as 6x20mm.
If by not devoting much time and thought, you mean Generalluftzeugmeister Milch and General der Jagdflieger Galland and all the other xmas tree brass going back and forth between themselves, and every now and then with Goering himself, and Hitler once or twice, for months on end about how to arm the Me 410.. Yeah. The "tried and true" [2x AP-MG + 2x 20mm] wasn't good enough and neither was [+ WB151] nor WG rockets. They're even explicitly referred to as "stopgap" solutions. Neither the BK5 nor MK103 were tried and true till ~mid 44. So yes they were devoting much time and thought in what gun packages to choose and how to get (and I quote) "Messerschmitt's pedantic pace" to implement what they demand when they demand it. Not only was this the norm for gun packages, but for the overall bomber/destroyer strategy too.
MK108 - actually it is mentioned once in Mankau: the field crews ask via Galland (or another one of the officers who're more in touch with the field) for a twin or quad 108 setup. No answer given and never mentioned after that. The modern day diagram in Ledwoch shows just a pair of holes in the bay doors, no barrels. *
diagrams, the loadouts, the finer details (drawings, number of rounds per gun, etc) all speak towards "they were used" but the photos suggest it's not quite so clear. Seeing empty gunports on the nose is not common, as you mention.
1) Diagrams can't be trusted, they could be the same mistakes and typos as elsewhere in the literature (even in Stocker/Petrick 2007 there's a number of typos on critical words like WB151R instead of WB151A).. On the original documents in Stocker you see this:
(http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s58/tapakeg/birds/410/me410-15May1944_c1.jpg)
Not only is there a scribbled 3 that looks like an 8 in "103", but it also coincides with the #2 spot, IE "R2".
2) What loadouts and drawings and number of rounds per gun, etc? All of these can only be taken at face value if you see the original documents they were based on. The literature is too full of typos and other mistakes. You say so many things support their being used, and then provide no evidence. You have to give references, otherwise it's just speculation on top of speculation.
3) * Empty gun ports could be MK108s, or they could be unarmed planes. Even the barbettes were sometimes delivered and/or flown empty due to shortages.
4) Funky like what? None of the 30mm luftwaffe weapons are consistent with the pic.. No such And I don't remember the 108 ever being used with barrel extensions for their own sake, and these definitely don't match normal 108 barrels. They look like it, but they're just too long by a little. What would you extend their barrels like that for? I remember something about MK108s being designed with short barrels for durability reasons... (yep, see here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MK_108_cannon#Disadvantages)). The pictured barrels are a much better match for 151/20 barrels and Occam's agrees.
There's an MK 213/30 (http://www.wehrmacht-history.com/luftwaffe/armaments/30-mm-mk-213-30.htm), and I can't remember the other experimental weapons, but no book mentions any of em (not even the crappy ones where E.G. they list the 410B as using the DB 603G) at some point (except MK 101 for the Bf 110). Either way for the purposes of an AH Me 410 they don't matter. If they existed they weren't documented.
-
Krusty Dasso is the pilot who was reported as having got 8x20mm in previous threads and wherever else in cyberspace this story was repeated. In Mankau his plane armament is clearly described as 6x20mm.
Ah-hah. I wasn't sure of the name. It's not just on the Internet mind you. The 8-gun setup has been mentioned in several books, generally not going into as much depth as the one you've been ready, though.
If by not devoting much time and thought, you mean [...]
No, I think you might have missed my point. I meant that if there were some previously unknown or unmentioned reason as to why the Mk108 could NOT be carried, or why the decision was made NOT to arm them, when they were plentiful and effective, THAT would be the fascinating part. Why no mk108? It's easy enough to load them up.
Even the 410D diagrams you show, it looks like they have them in schrage muzik as well as in the gun bay. So what was so different about the 410A/B?
And questions like that...
Diagrams can't be trusted,
While I generally agree with this pessimistic notion (I'm a bit of one myself), I think that wholesale discounting of all of them does nothing to help the situation. Have you personally gone through German archives and pulled up first hand the documents in original penned letters, to translate? No. We rely on the books to do that for us.
Some are more thorough than others, but they don't just wake up and decide "today I'm going to fabricate loadouts for a plane from WW2"... I think the root was some form or chart or report or something that existed. You cannot discount all forms and charts and diagrams. You may refute them, though.
To answer your other questions: Charts, technical drawings, etc, all from other threads we've had on the subject. I can't pull up the threads just now (stupid AH forum search function) but stuff you've seen before no doubt.
-
Oh, and the guns looked funny because they had a thick base, went down to a normal barrel width, then grew slightly thicker again (muzzle brake, or just gas dispersion vents maybe?). Doesn't resemble the straight-barrel Mg151/20 at all.
-
"I don't remember the 108 ever being used with barrel extensions for their own sake, and these definitely don't match normal 108 barrels."
Not a longer barrel because that would mean also changes to gun to withstand greater pressures which is impossible for such a light weight gun -so they could be merely blast tubes. One reason to use them would be to extract the gun blast from bomb bay. If the blast tube comes with a some standard length if would be possible that they did not shorten it at all but kept it in full length to have the muzzle blast as far away from fuselage as possible. I seriously doubt that you can fire such weapon in a closed space like 410's bomb bay without some kind of blast extraction. The 410C sketch just does not have them drawn to make a clear distinction that those guns are MK108s.
-C+
-
"I don't remember the 108 ever being used with barrel extensions for their own sake, and these definitely don't match normal 108 barrels."
Not a longer barrel because that would mean also changes to gun to withstand greater pressures which is impossible for such a light weight gun -so they could be merely blast tubes. One reason to use them would be to extract the gun blast from bomb bay. If the blast tube comes with a some standard length if would be possible that they did not shorten it at all but kept it in full length to have the muzzle blast as far away from fuselage as possible. I seriously doubt that you can fire such weapon in a closed space like 410's bomb bay without some kind of blast extraction. The 410C sketch just does not have them drawn to make a clear distinction that those guns are MK108s.
-C+
Yes of course. I've just never seen such extensions for the 108. Do you have any examples? Text or pictures. In particular I'm curious what the design looks like, that accomodates the issue mentioned in the wikipedia article, "disadvantages" section.
The 410C sketch isn't the only one with 108s. You've got pretty clear communication sketches for the 4x108 bomb-bay package where you can see they are staggered, and that means barrel extensions. It's in the May 15th 1944 page I posted further above.
Oh, and the guns looked funny because they had a thick base, went down to a normal barrel width, then grew slightly thicker again (muzzle brake, or just gas dispersion vents maybe?). Doesn't resemble the straight-barrel Mg151/20 at all.
I don't see it. They look like normal 20s with some shadows on the barrels.
I'm not pessimistic, it's a clear trend. You've got negligible typos (e.g. labeling a muzzle-braked MK103 "MK 108" on a diagram), and you've got meaningful errors like the MK108 "R2" thing that gets repeated and quickly taken for granted. And since these "R2" books don't give their bibliography for that specific piece of info (eg annotated like a wikipedia article) but only general bibliography at the back of the book, there's no choice but to take everything they say with a grain of salt.
The "not devoting much time/thought" bit was for you saying that the 8x or 6x or 4x 20mm configs weren't given much attention. They were because that aspect was what had the most potential for returns, to make the 410 worthwhile in their POV.
On the 108, I don't know why they didn't use it. I don't know either what the figures are - ie I don't have evidence either way that it was as available as you say it ought to have been. In Feb 44 MK108 production is 1500, with 1750 expected in March. I don't know how that sizes up with usage for all other MK108 platforms.
By early June they're saying that BK5 won't be required at previously expected rates, that 15/mo will be enough. That's down from Galland's demand for 150 per month in mid/late Nov 43. In July 44, right around the time that the 410 is starting to be ignored and then canned within 2mo's time, the consensus is that all weapons are only stopgaps to the MK103. All of ZG26 and 76 are to convert to MK103. Bohlan says he's convinced the quad 20mm will make it to production in time. Nowhere in this desperate search for a solution is the 108 mentioned.
Around the same time, or a little earlier, another general consensus is that the 110 should be dedicated to night fighter duty while the 410 carries daytime duties. It could just be one more stupid nazi brass blunder. Like I said the 108 came up at least a year earlier and if the meeting notes are anything to go by, the request was ignored.
Why no mk108? It's easy enough to load them up.
Why weren't any MK 108 field mods made? If it's so easy and it wasn't done, then maybe the field didn't have access to them. This'd be consistent with a top level directive excluding Me 410 crews from the MK 108 pool.
While I generally agree with this pessimistic notion (I'm a bit of one myself), I think that wholesale discounting of all of them does nothing to help the situation.
Krusty please stop the uplifting bulltoejam. The only wholesale discounting is pointing out that books that're supposed to be precise references but don't fact-check themselves and are full of typos, aren't credible. There's no connotations to this plain statement, it's only stating the plain facts: they are not reliable for these details. When you've got someone who can't even tell the difference between an MK 108 and an MK 103 despite the freakin muzzle brake sticking out as plain as a boner in spandex, I think you need help writing such a book as one focused on the Me 410 and Me 410 details.
Have you personally gone through German archives and pulled up first hand the documents in original penned letters, to translate? No. We rely on the books to do that for us.
Have you bought and scanned the books I have? No. So you rely on the people that do it for you and call it out when they're right or wrong. Like on the bomb bay doors or on the MG 151/20 barrels that aren't quite clearly MG 151/20s. These guys are supposed to have been researching this plane for tens of years and still they make bonehead mistakes like these. While even someone "normal" like me would know better and make it clear in the book, that this or that thing is "not clearly "this or that" to the author".
Some are more thorough than others, but they don't just wake up and decide "today I'm going to fabricate loadouts for a plane from WW2"
What's the difference?? The result is the same. It doesn't matter what the inside of a black box is, only what it consistently outputs. Green and anyone who based their work on Green will consistently say that the 410B had 603G's. Ludwoch and whoever wrote the Squadron Signal book consistently say that there was such a thing as MK 108s and that it was called "/R2". Stocker himself ends the book with a few diagrams and where you've got a WB151A with the funny german "A" square shaped, he labels it "WB151R". WTF is that? All of a sudden there's this thing called WB151R? How does it not occur to you after going thru 100s of docs where it's called "A", that this final doc is no different except the "A" was shaped funny?
... I think the root was some form or chart or report or something that existed. You cannot discount all forms and charts and diagrams. You may refute them, though.
Or you do both when the source of those diagrams have a track record for getting it wrong. And you certainly don't go to HTC and tell em you want an Me 410 that's loaded with MK 108s because some modern day diagram has em. Or an Ar 234 with tail guns because "so many" books rendered them that way.
Another freakin endless discussion because someone needs to be walked thru things A thru Z. I quit.
-
IMO those are MK103s. The muzzle brakes are angled so that they are hard to see from that b&w pic but IMO they are there.
(http://www.asisbiz.com/il2/Me-410/Messerschmitt-Me-410/images/1-Me-410-Hornisse-11.jpg)
-
Unless both barrels are angled / / like this... Also... Look at where the bay doors and barrels meet. What's making those visually black areas ? That looks like it could be some kind of paste, e.g. gap filling. That'd be consistent with how much thicker the barrels look near the fuselage.
-
I'd say that they are not MK103s. It seems that they cannot be assembled that close to each other.
http://www.cockpitinstrumente.de/archiv/Dokumente/ABC/m/MK%20103/MK%20103/Bilder/Me%20410%20B-2%20U%201/001.jpg
http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/650/a1mk103pressurediagramnh0.jpg
That particular picture looks like a standard WB151 assembly.
http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?4758-Messerschmitt-Me-410-weapons-handbook.
-C+
PS. See the electrical schematic in the end of this PDF. It seems that at least the electrical systems were built to accommodate also the MK108.
http://www.cockpitinstrumente.de/archiv/Dokumente/ABC/m/Messerschmitt/Me%20410/Me%20410%20A-1%20U4%20Wa%20Bk%205.pdf
MK108 is not mentioned at all in schematics for B2:
http://www.cockpitinstrumente.de/archiv/Dokumente/ABC/m/Messerschmitt/Me%20410/Me%20410%20B-2%20U-1%20Wa.pdf
In this PDF you can also see how the muzzle brakes were commonly angled to direct the blast away from fuselage and windows.
-
Unless both barrels are angled / / like this...
Yeh, the muzzle brakes are angled towards the camera. The muzzle brake is a separate piece that is screwed on to the barrel. It can be in different position depending on the screw thread.
(http://img224.imageshack.us/img224/3687/mk103oq0.jpg)
(http://www.cazadoresnocturnos.com/wiki/images/thumb/4/4f/Mk103-2.jpg/300px-Mk103-2.jpg)
(http://complete109.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/mk10330mmcannon.jpg)
(http://www.vrbacky.com/Fw190/FW_Images/Vyzbroj/MK_103.jpg)
(http://forum.valka.cz/files/thumbs/t_30_mm_mk_103_baumaffe_113.jpg)
(http://img120.imageshack.us/img120/1463/mk103wt7.jpg)
-
I'd say that they are not MK103s. It seems that they cannot be assembled that close to each other.
Yeh, I think you're right Charge.
-
Definitely 151/20's :)
(http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s58/tapakeg/birds/410/p131b1.jpg)
(http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s58/tapakeg/birds/410/p131b2.jpg)
Now if you guys can find just one plane with 108s.. Nice find on the electrical circuits.
-
Even Stocker's definitely questionable on technical specifics: It says the Flak 18 is a 30mm weapon more than once. Along with "WB151R" and probably other mistakes.
That said, on Stocker page 39:
The MK 103 was also to be tested in the Me 410 during fall 43 and again it was fitted by Deutsche Lufthansa workshops. Another weapon to be tested for the 410, the MK 108, suffered delays and other problems. The promised 300 units fell short as did the deliveries of MK 103
"Erich" from LEMB and other forums says that no 108s were used operationally (only test groups), and that some short barrel 103s were tested that fit within the bay.
-
Any idea what this configuration is?
http://en.valka.cz/files/4_128.jpg
15mm 151s or why do the blast tubes extend that far? Also could be just incorrectly reinstalled blast tubes upon restoration.
Not according to this source: http://www.thomasgenth.de/html/me_410_cosford.html
***
I found a picture of a captured 410 B6 which seemed to have the wide spaced gun openings and I thought of presenting that as a potential MK108 bird but it appears it just had its MK103s removed.
http://www.warbirdphotographs.com/LCBW4/Me410-B6-63s.jpg
I believe this is the same bird with MK103s in place.
http://www.palba.cz/forumfoto/albums/userpics/10145/Me_410_B6.jpg
-C+
-
I've only ever seen that B6 referred to as using MK 103s, yep.
I don't know about 151/15s where those (apparently) incorrectly placed blast tubes are.. I think that /15's are mentioned a few times in Mankau. IIRC they only come up as a suggestion while they brainstormed about possible weapon configurations, and then they're never mentioned again.
-
Moot.... With ALL due respect... get off your high horse. I never said they didn't devote time to the 20mm gun options. I think it's quite obvious they did and I didn't say otherwise. I was talking about lack of Mk108s, not lack of 20mms.
Again, as I said you missed my point entirely and did not get anything I said. And you're picking fights over misreading what I said.
I will conceded that the barrels are 20mm with funky shadows, but even Charge agreed they looked different, so it was an honest mistake.
This 30mm Mk108 revelation is quite interesting, and may change how some folks (myself included) feel about the Me410. Don't get me wrong I'd still like to see it in game, even without 30mm options, but it is still interesting nonetheless.
-
I'm posting another response so as to isolate this comment from the rest of the discussion.
Moot:
You've been very generous in time and effort, no doubt about it. However you seem to go out of your way to combatitively post responses to things you mis-read or take the wrong way.
For example:
"Why no mk108? It's easy enough to load them up."
this was not aimed at you. It was a rhetorical question. It was an example of one of those fascinating questions that I was posting about. I was saying learning these things is the fascinating part. I was NOT asking you to answer it for me, and I think that should have been clear in the context of the post I made. IMO the answer would come from the discussion, from the thread. You seem not to get any context in half the posts I make.
I'm sorry if it seems I go off on "endless posts" but IMO I'm trying to walk YOU from a to z buddy. You're having so much trouble understanding what I post that I feel the ever present need to go over the same ground until you get my original meaning. I think I'm going to stop trying to do that at this point. It seems to be making things just as worse as your responses to me are. I'm sorry that has happened, but it's only half my fault. Other half lies with you as well.
That said, I do assure you I try not to get too upset about such things on the forum and I do thank you for your contributions.
-
Theres no high horse. There's just you wrong 75% of the time, and anytime someone doesn't point it out as carefully as if talking to a kindergarten kid, you get real bothered.
Why does even Hitech call it the Krusty BS unit? Because you BS Krusty. I'm not pissed off, I haven't changed, I don't ride a horse, I'm not picking on you, or any of the other bogus excuses you find for not simply posting references and arguing the damn facts.
So like I said, I quit. I just don't care anymore. No interest.
-
This seems to be the blast tube in 109s MK108 installations:
http://www.lonesentry.com/ordnance/30-mm-mk-108-a-3-aircraft-machine-gun.html
I'd think that it is possible to mount these guns to either geometry, to that of MK103, and that of WB151, because it is so compact -although I guess it cannot be mounted very forward because of weight so somekind of blast tubes are a necessity as the cannons need to be close to CoG. That is not because of its weight itself but the combined weight of both cannon and ammo.
And as the hub cannon is not "calibrated" the blast tube is likely to be rigidly fitted to barrel and as such it also fits 410 mounting.
Also in IL-2 the MK108 bird has tubes that look something like this. But I don't buy that armament option unless I see more solid proof.
-C+
-
There's nothing else I've found but the two 4xMK108 design sketches I posted above from Mankau or Stocker, or any of the other books I've got - Mushroom/Squadron/Kagero/Militaria.
Maybe the actual documentation for that meeting where Galland asks for MK108s in 1943 (or 42) has some useful details that Mankau left out.
-
HT was in a mood. I was correct. It was a thread about bombers' speed and effectiveness in WW2 vs AH.
I've even had Pyro rip into me in a P-39 dispersion thread, but... guess what? I was still right. He still fixed the bug after ripping into me about it. I even shut up others trying to jump on the "insult krusty" bandwagon by showing screenshots taken offline about size of target vs .target command in the same thread. No response other than a slight note in the next update about a week later, fixing a bug (no further response from the forum).
Doesn't mean I'm wrong, just because somebody on HTC staff has a bad day here or there.
Moot, your saying "you're wrong 75% of the time" is better described as "Moot misreads krusty 50% of the time and thinks Krusty is wrong instead". You think I'm wrong more than I actually am, is my point. I'm going to take note and not get sucked into seemingly endless roundabouts with you, as you mentioned, so hopefully this will be lessened going forward. I do hope all involved will have less headaches.
Back to the subject at hand, I was looking over something and read one of our older threads about the 4x 20mm tray and the factory modification. The famous photo can be seen here:
(http://img250.imageshack.us/img250/5691/me410b245wz0.jpg)
I understand it was first a field mod, then a factory mod. Which is this? Field or factory? I'm asking because of that big bulge. It would seem to preclude adding the external WB151, because the barrels only have so much clearance on a smooth belly.
See here for gunpod clearance:
http://i10.tinypic.com/2ak9tgg.jpg
Now, from the story of the first 4x gun tray, the pilot in question was unhappy with the BK5 so he got permission to load up on 20mm guns. Is this "bulge" simply left over because he was working on a frame that came initially with that BK5?
Similar bulges on BK5 setups:
http://img250.imageshack.us/img250/368/me410a111s7ir.jpg
http://www.knowledgerush.com/wiki_image/7/70/Me_410_with_BK50.jpg
This would also seem to exclude the external gunpod from use with the BK5 entirely.
I'm thinking the bulge in the first pic above was the field mod. I'm thinking the factory mod 4x tray might have had the standard smooth bay (like the 2x Mk103 and the 2x WB151 internal have), which would still theoretically allow the gunpod. Have you seen anything else regarding the 4x loadout? Or is it extremely rare?
However, for the most part it is looking like that even as a theoretical "possibility" that the external pod isn't really valid in terms of AH loadouts. I'm thinking now, after reading a lot of this stuff in these recent threads, that it doesn't belong on a possible AH 410. Thoughts?
P.S. The more I read/learn, the more interesting this plane is, but the less weapons loadouts it has for in-game use.
-
My latest request for loadout options for when Aces High gets the Me410...
2x Drop tanks (not sure about this one -- don't see much reference to it)
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/410wingtanks2.jpg?t=1304190049)
-
AR-234's with the forward facing gun pods
Wow. That would be a BLAST to fly. +1
-
I would think the 410 would be high on the list, since it only lost to the B29 by a handful of votes (and I'm not so sure how well the Florida votes were counted :bolt:
-
I'm still curious if the 4x 20mm tray had the bulge that the field mod from the BK5 had or if it was smooth.
It would seem that some of the options I listed in a prior braekdown are no longer valid. With the many new revelations it changes what might be in-game now. I had broken it down to "wings" and "belly" separately before but with the loss of the gunpod there's little reason to do that now.
Main:
1) 2x MG17 7mm + 2x MG151/20 20mm (plus 2x Mg131 tail guns)
2) 2x MG17 7mm + 2x MG151/20 20mm (plus 2x Mg131 tail guns)
(Optional below. I'm still not for these, but Moot raised the point)
3) 2x MG17 7mm + 2x MG151/20 20mm (no tail guns)
4) 2x MG17 7mm + 2x MG151/20 20mm (no tail guns)
Wings:
1) empty
2) 4x 50kg
3) 4x WGr 21
4) 2x DT
5) 4x 50kg + 2x DT
6) 4x 50kg + 4x WGr 21
Bomb Bay:
1) empty
2) 2x MG151/20 20mm tray
3) 4x MG151/20 20mm tray
4) 2x Mk103 30mm tray
5) BK5
6) 8x50kg
7) 2x250kg
8) 2x500kg
9) 1x1000kg
This compacts the weapons options, makes them a bit more realistic, reduces the number of "weapons tables" down to 3 which is more standard, and probably represents a better picture of the real thing.
P.S. 1x1000kg wasn't all that common but was used. Perk it if need be, but it would be nice.
EDIT: Maybe add a bomb bay option for 4x 20mm tray that includes 2x 20mm gunpod, to replicate the total 8x 20mm option? Instead of 20mm gunpod link it to this 1 specific loadout?
Edit2: I'm not totally for it, but on the "Main" you could also add a 2x 20mm MG151/20 option, no tail guns, no MGs. I'm not precluding that.
EDIT3: Whoops, my bad left out the BK5. Fixed.
-
Perhaps that external WB gunpod wasn't so rare?
We see it on 4 possibly 5 different craft:
(http://i814.photobucket.com/albums/zz63/krustacious/Me410%20scans/me410_gunpod1.jpg)
(http://i814.photobucket.com/albums/zz63/krustacious/Me410%20scans/me410_gunpod2.jpg)
(http://i814.photobucket.com/albums/zz63/krustacious/Me410%20scans/me410_gunpod3.jpg)
(http://i814.photobucket.com/albums/zz63/krustacious/Me410%20scans/me410_gunpod4.jpg)
(http://i814.photobucket.com/albums/zz63/krustacious/Me410%20scans/me410_gunpod5.jpg)
It is possible the last one (I found that online) is the same as one of the 4 above, but it's hard to tell
Maybe it really ought to be included as an option? Surely 3 different units across different dates signifies it was more than just a test setup.
And, interestingly enough we see at least 2 were field fitted with 4x 20mm trays:
(http://i814.photobucket.com/albums/zz63/krustacious/Me410%20scans/me410-4pack1.jpg)
(http://i814.photobucket.com/albums/zz63/krustacious/Me410%20scans/me410-4pack2.jpg)
I still would like to see one from the factory to see if it also had the bulged bomb bay (I currently think it's a leftover from the BK5 setup, after the BK5 was removed)
P.S. Interesting footage of how the speed brakes deployed here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlIxLJTiphI&feature=player_detailpage#t=162s
Not what I was expecting. They rotating in and out, collpasing sideways.
If that link doesn't work, the full clip is here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlIxLJTiphI&feature=related
jump to 2:42 position.
-
I'd say that R4 gunpod is not any rarer than any other gun configuration apart from default set of MGs and 151/20s. Maybe other configurations were preferred due to increased drag of R4 configuration, but at least it quite easy to remove if the aircraft is needed for other duties.
I suspect that the four 151/20 cannon config did need the bulge, not necessarily that big, but that size was already available from BK configurations and it had to do. If you look at the pictures closer you notice that in 4 cannon assembly the center cannons are fitted slightly lower than in WB kit that is fitted in bay. I suspect that the support structure for the guns and shell ejection configuration needed more space than was available in standard bay doors.
-C+
-
You can draw a straight line across all 4 barrels, I think. They look all on the same plane to me.
The question then is how do you break these up. I tried giving 4 categories once (i.e. hangar list option) but the more I think about it the more you have to simplify that. I'm guessing it has to be limited to 3 option lists (columns in the hangar).
Keep in mind HTC isn't going to limit you to only historic combinations, as long as they were real possibilities (i.e. bombs and rockets on 110Gs for town attack when those were never used on the same mission historically, and so forth, i.e. bombs and rockets on P-51 when historically they never carried both at the same time).
With that in mind it "looks" like the external WB151 would clear the bulge on the 4x gun tray. Assuming (big guess) the factory versions were smoother or reduced the bump you would have even more clearance. I don't think it would be mutually exclusive to say the external gunpod interfered with the other guns options and vice versa.
It also looks like it doesn't get into the bomb bay area, and it looks like it's centered between the ETC bomb racks. That means you could theoretically load the external 50kg bombs and this gunpod, and anything in the bomb bay.
Again, theoretically speaking. I know this wasn't done in the war, but I'm trying to mentally compile a list of options
Main:
1) 2x MG17 7mm + 2x MG151/20 20mm (plus 2x Mg131 tail guns)
2) 2x MG131 13mm + 2x MG151/20 20mm (plus 2x Mg131 tail guns)
3) 2x MG151/20 20mm (plus 2x Mg131 tail guns)*
(Optional below. I'm still not for these, but Moot raised the point)
4) 2x MG17 7mm + 2x MG151/20 20mm (no tail guns)
5) 2x MG131 13mm + 2x MG151/20 20mm (no tail guns)
6) 2x MG151/20 20mm (no tail guns no MGs)
Wings:
1) empty
2) WB151 2x MG151/20 20mm gunpod
3) 4x 50kg
4) 4x WGr 21
5) 2x DT
6) 4x 50kg + 2x DT
7) 4x 50kg + 4x WGr 21
8) WB151 gunpod + 2 WGr 21
9) WB151 gunpod + 4x 50kg
10) WB151 gunpod + 4x 50kg + 4x WGr 21
Bomb Bay:
1) empty
2) 2x MG151/20 20mm tray
3) 4x MG151/20 20mm tray
4) 2x Mk103 30mm tray
5) BK5
6) 8x50kg
7) 2x250kg
8) 2x500kg
9) 1x1000kg
*= I've read more accounts of them removing the MGs with heavier guns load (i.e. BK5), so I've been swayed to add this
My concern here is that we're up to 10 items on the external stores list, and I haven't even started including the options for DT with gunpod, DT+gunpod+bombs, dt+bombs. etc...
That's a lot of hangar space taken up on the screen!
Suggestions?
-
Is this one of those "it's German and has lots of cannons so we need it" threads is it?
Kidding... no need to flame.
Plane looks fun with any loadout.
Ki-45/102 +1
-
(http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQgbKmf6ccWFZ7WIYW0TRPgzu_jhePEfWahKvE5yYHko1-dKWT4pmco7g)
-
I don't know about the four gun bay configuration and WB151. It is possible that the WB barrels would clear the bulge enough to enable it to be fitted but it would be interesting to see such configuration listed somewhere in official document or even a picture.
Maybe it would clear the configuration listings to make a clear distinction between version so that the plane is either a A or B. That would drop out some of the armament options of course, but we can't have them all in any case (if we ever get the plane to begin with...).
Main:
2) 2x MG131 13mm + 2x MG151/20 20mm (plus 2x Mg131 tail guns)
Wings:
1) empty
4) 4x WGr 21
5) 2x DT
Bomb Bay:
1) empty
2) 2x MG151/20 20mm tray
3) 4x MG151/20 20mm tray
4) 2x Mk103 30mm tray
5) BK5
6) 8x50kg
7) 2x250kg
8) 2x500kg
9) 1x1000kg
How about that? That would make the variant effectively a B but I'm not sure it those were historically authentic options for B.
-C+
-
That would be a totally arbitrary division, though. The A and B were identical in loadouts except one had 7mm fixed forward guns and the other had 13mm. They had all the exact same options for loadouts, the exact same engines and performance. The B was intended to have better engines but they never materialized so it carried on with the previous engines.
Splitting it up A vs B doesn't really do anything, just makes an arbitrary division.
The gunpod was rumored to be used on at least one plane that had the 4-pack in the bay, but this may have been debunked. Although it was debunked as not being common, and the photos I showed above indicate otherwise, so once again it's a possibility.
While it would be rare, no doubt, we again get to the issue of how to lay it out in the hangar. I really think it can be done in a single hangar option (i.e. Me410B, and just invclude the 7mm option for the 410A for free).
What's the most bomb options in the hangar so far? How many options does the P-47 have, or P-51, etc? I know some of those planes have a lot of combinations! Once we know our maximum limits (so far) it might be easier to make a suggested hangar list.
-
I mean that eg. it may turn out that A did not use MK103s operationally and that is the load-out that I'm most interested in and thus I suggested B.
If we'd get a AB hybrid or both with slightly different load-outs that is fine with me, of course.
-C+
-
From the looks of it they all shared the same loadouts interchangably. There was no "this only on that, these only there" and so forth. The only weapons difference was the fixed MGs in the nose under the pilot's feet going from 7mm to 13mm.
-
Did some checking in the hangar. Plenty of craft have up to 7 items and it's possible you can fit more (it wasn't totally cramped).
B-29: even with this behemoth blocking the view it still has 7 options on the left side.
F4us: 7 items in the center
Ju88: 7 items left
Moss6: 6 items left
P38: 7 items center
P47: 7 items center, 6 items left, 4 right
Typh: 7 items left.
So it's quite possible to have at least 7 or 8 (counting 1 for "blank," remember?) on each list in the hangar.
We might even push 9 depending how far back the plane is placed in the hangar view, giving more floor room.
I would really hate to see the 410A/B split up for an arbitrary discrimination (like saying one is a fighter the other is a bomber). It would prevent a lot of useful ground attack combinations for AH purposes.
So, even removing the semi-rare 1000kg single bombload, that puts the bomb bay options at 8 (counting "empty") and the wings options at... well... there's the problem.
You've got to allow the rockets and bombs together, since we have that also on 110G. You'll need to allow the gunpod with either as well, or all 3. Then there's the issue of the DTs.
If you can split the gunpod off by itself, or perhaps the DTs off by themselves.... Maybe separate the belly hardpoints from the outer wings, it's much easier and cuts down on the options.
Big "IF" you can get 4 columns of options in the hangar.
So, trimming the 1000kg bomb (which pains me) and the DTs (rare but useful sometimes in AH! this also pains me) we get them down to 8 items each list.
Main (right column?):
1) 2x MG17 7mm + 2x MG151/20 20mm (plus 2x Mg131 tail guns)
2) 2x MG131 13mm + 2x MG151/20 20mm (plus 2x Mg131 tail guns)
3) 2x MG151/20 20mm (plus 2x Mg131 tail guns)*
(Optional below. I'm still not for these, but Moot raised the point)
4) 2x MG17 7mm + 2x MG151/20 20mm (no tail guns)
5) 2x MG131 13mm + 2x MG151/20 20mm (no tail guns)
6) 2x MG151/20 20mm (no tail guns no MGs)
Wings (center column?):
1) empty
2) WB151 2x MG151/20 20mm gunpod
3) 4x 50kg
4) 4x WGr 21
5) WB151 gunpod + 4x 50kg + 4x WGr 21
6) WB151 gunpod + 2 WGr 21
7) WB151 gunpod + 4x 50kg
8) 4x 50kg + 4x WGr 21
Bomb Bay (left column?):
1) empty
2) 2x MG151/20 20mm tray
3) 4x MG151/20 20mm tray
4) 2x Mk103 30mm tray
5) BK5
6) 8x50kg
7) 2x250kg
8) 2x500kg
Now, adding the 1000kg back only adds 1 entry, but adding the DT back adds: DT, DT+WB151, DT+WGr21, DT+50kg, DT+WB151+50kg, DT+WB151+WGR21, for a total of 6 more items (topping out in the mid teens! far too many for a single column!)
You see the problem with that. If you split off the DT and the WGR21 then you'd only need 3 options (DT, Rkt, none) since so far there's no proof they could be carried in combination.
Then the belly options would just be WB151, 50kg, both, or none. That takes 14 options down to 2 columns of 7 total.
I sent a quick e-mail to HTC to ask a hypothetical about the most any one column can have. Will see what they say.
-
I also stumbled across a corrupted scan from some book that was used on these forums in a past discussion. I'd saved it. It's half a page and the first half is on the opposite side (vertically split). No doubt some scanner malfunction because the halves line up normally if you do it by hand.
Anyways, here's a crop, unaffected by the bad scanning process. It seems to indicate that even with the bulge the guns have a bit of clearance.
(http://i814.photobucket.com/albums/zz63/krustacious/Me410%20scans/me410_gunpod6.jpg)
-
Just a quick photoshop overlay:
(http://i814.photobucket.com/albums/zz63/krustacious/Me410%20scans/me410_gunpod6b.jpg)
-
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/410bk5and30mm-1.jpg)
the Night fighters also had BT-400 and/or LT-950 torpedos and put the drop tanks back Ju-300's
-
eh - night fighters?
Which unit?
-
I think it is impossible to fit both BK5 and MK103 in the bay at the same time. Maybe MK108 in upper weapon compartment replacing MG151/20s and BK5 in bomb bay but not MK103s...
-C+
-
No Mk108s on Me410s.
Also, the torps were tested only. Never used. The Mk103 took up the room the BK5 occupied. They could not be loaded together.
Plus what's a night fighter got to do with it? (and what is a night fighter doing with DTs when it has a range of 1500 mi without DTs?)
-
eh - night fighters?
Which unit?
Units
V./KG 2, 14./KG 2, II./KG51, KG54, III./NJG 1, I./NJG 5
-
Scherf, you may be thinking traditional night fighter. While they did not have radar onboard, they were used as night fighters the same way 190s, 109s, earlier 110s were -- by flying at night and killing stuff. So in that regard, yes night fighter.
Traditional sense? Not so much and you'd be right to question it.
There's also a mission recounting where a pilot in the baby blitz dropped his bombs and was flying home and spotted a lancaster returning home below him. He nosed down and HOed it. I believe it went down a little while later, creating a fireball (I'd have to go back and re-read this to be sure). A couple of others would fly over to UK bases, drop bombs, then circle around waiting for all the night-bomber returning to bases. They'd swoop in and shoot them down on final pattern. A number doing this were lost to Mossie night fighters, but it still happened :)
-
No Mk108s on Me410s.
Also, the torps were tested only. Never used. The Mk103 took up the room the BK5 occupied. They could not be loaded together.
Plus what's a night fighter got to do with it? (and what is a night fighter doing with DTs when it has a range of 1500 mi without DTs?)
Is that your judgement? Do drawings only work for you?
I didn't say nightfighters had drop tanks, I said to put them back on your list. but since you mention it...
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/410torps.jpg)
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/410torps2.jpg)
just cause
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/410108s.jpg)
-
I think I've made a goof...
I've been listing the MG change going from 2x 7mm to 2x 13mm in the cockpit. This being the change from A to B.
Is that supposed to be 4x 7mm to 2x 13mm?
-
Is that your judgement? Do drawings only work for you?
I didn't say nightfighters had drop tanks, I said to put them back on your list. but since you mention it...
Ah, I think that clears up what you meant a bit.
I didn't remove the DTs because they weren't used. I only removed them because it increased the item count far too much to fit in the hangar. Given that the range on internal fuel is far more than even the 110G we have now, I figured they were the least important. They only came into play on super long range missions where they escorted Fw200 Condors, from what I've read. Most times the internal storage was more than enough.
Now, as for your drawings: Some of those are just wrong and some are just hypothetical combinations. I'm not saying I "only believe drawings" -- this is from the discussion so far in this and other recent threads. It's also been discussed on other forums from other games and in model-building communities as well.
Where it says Mk108s you can clearly see the drawing is depicting Mk103s (very different guns). Mk108s weren't used, but Mk103s were. No argument there, I think it's just a typo. Moot showed how those typos seem to get started.
The 410 was INTENDED to be used as a night fighter but the radar never showed up. It was not fitted. What *was* fitted was anti-shipping radar, to help locate surface vessels and to navigate over oceans. It was not a night fighter contact-following radar system. It was to help in navigation during the night sweeps over the channel, is my guess, or to help attack shipping. This FuG200 was used but night fighter airborne-intercept radar was not.
Here you can see a picture of one being built/repaired with the FuG 200 installed:
http://www.asisbiz.com/il2/Me-410/Messerschmitt-Me-410/images/1-Me-410B6-Hornisse-captured-with-FuG200-radar-1944-02.jpg
-
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/410108s1.jpg)
(http://www.warbirdphotographs.com/LCBW5/Me410-B-11s.jpg)
(http://i836.photobucket.com/albums/zz281/Megalodon2/410108s-1.jpg)
-
Well I double checked and the handbook says 2x 7mm, but there are a number of diagrams and even some photos suggesting 2 additional 7mm guns. I guess they must be relatively rare, or perhaps the holes aren't gunports. Cameras? Air vents needed for the additional guns?
Seems to stem from pictures of the 4x20mm plane.
http://i814.photobucket.com/albums/zz63/krustacious/Me410%20scans/me410-4pack2.jpg
It matches the diagrams here:
http://i814.photobucket.com/albums/zz63/krustacious/Me410%20scans/me410_gunpod6.jpg
But this other ones doesn't have such holes:
http://i814.photobucket.com/albums/zz63/krustacious/Me410%20scans/me410-4pack1.jpg
So it must not be additional 7mm guns.
Megalodon, I'm not sure if that one picture is intended to show that the plane really did carry Mk108s or not. It's making a major mistake. The image clearly shows the Mk103 muzzle brakes and the Mk103 cannon layout and setup and keeps calling them Mk108s. It's not the first time. Such mistakes have been made (in reverse) on the 109K-4 as well.
The pictures and the facts show the Mk103 was used, but the Mk108 was not.
Mk108, short stubby thing found on Fw190A8 wings:
(http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTKC8GCEtwftNv3XT0vmOW8_F4JoNFZeyItvRoqlDbD3Daoi2gabFq8q05r)
Mk103, high powered long barreled ALWAYS has distinctive muzzle brake (part of the design):
(http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSMmfm87DvoBe-CnWKey1KF8UFYtZgqw3BD8CJggXReeBpI7vQ32RFckw)
-
Recent find today: What if the 410 had counter rotating props?
Kurfurst (yes, him) asked on LEMB a while back:
I thought the 410B had 603E engines, which AFAIK is quite similiar in concept to the DB 605AS, ie. 603A + 603G supercharger = 603E...? Right?
The response from member name felix99, citing his source:
A good question, Kurfürst. If you check the report extract from the GL/C Chef meeting of 3 Jun 43, p. 116, of the 110/210/410 book, you will see the following: "(The GL/C Chef) confirms the weeks-old decision to initially power the Me 410 with the DB 603A, followed by the DB 603A and D. Starting on 1 January 1945 the Me 410 will convert to the standard fighter/heavy fighter engine in the form of the DB 603 G/K and rapid-change variable pitch propeller. (General Vorwald stated that) the DB 603 E/F has been ruled out for both the Me 410 and the He 219."
The two items in brackets are as stated in the original report on the meeting. And, in case anyone isn't aware of this, note that the 2nd letter for each engine is the counter-clockwise propeller rotation version of that engine. So, the 603A rotates the propeller clockwise, and the 603D is the 603A with the propeller rotating counter-clockwise.
I think that with counter rotating props it would have given the design a noted edge, even if overall specs weren't too great. Similar to the P-38.
So far the only photos I noticed are both same-handed. Anybody know if the counter-rotating setup was ever used?
-
I think someone cited earlier in this thread the the 410 was originaly designed to have counter rotating engines, but due to supply shortages and the allied bombing campaign they axed it to make things easier.
-
"I think that with counter rotating props it would have given the design a noted edge, even if overall specs weren't too great. Similar to the P-38."
What do you mean a noted edge? It slightly improves certain stall characteristics but its not a miracle maker. Did they put counter rotas in Mossie, Beau etc etc? No.
Such feature would not have made 410 any "better" than it was, IMO. Maybe it would have helped 210 to overcome its stability problems but those were ironed out in other means in 410.
-C+
-
The RAF rejected handed engines for the Mosquito because it would complicate logistics and the only benefit they saw was a small reduction in the pilot's workload. The Mosquito's successor, the Hornet, did have handed engines.
-
Are we adding this plane? lol
-
Are we adding this plane? lol
"We" aren't, but hopefully HTC does at some point.
-
Charge, I mean in stalling and behavior, not overall performance. Same as the P-38. That kind of edge.