Me410

[Karnak]

So it does not make anybody else wonder how the hell an aircraft that weights more than other aircraft of similar class and while it is smaller i.e. more of its weight is divided into smaller area is also more fragile??

Has anybody ever lost the outer wing section of its wing? I always lose the whole wing if it is hit. Something's gotta be screwed in damage model.

I don't want it to be an uber ride and I don't have a problem it being a brick in maneuvers but I DO have problem with its damage model.

-C+

How much of did its engines weigh compared to the engines in the Bf110, P-38 or Mossie?  I am suspecting most of that extra weight is in the engines.

[GScholz]

DB 605A = 1,667 lb

DB 603A = 2,030 lb

[GScholz]

With the same engines:

Bf 110C-4 (DB 601) empty weight: 9,921 lb

Me 210 - long fuselage (DB 601) empty weight: 15,586 lb

---

Bf 110G-2 (DB 605) empty weight: 12,346 lb

[chris3]

As I've posted in other posts about the 410.  Do some research.  The Luftwaffe pulled it from bomber interception
when long range escorts showed up.  The 210/410 combination was a failure by LW standards.  The LW considered
cancelling production of the BF110 until the 210/410 came into operation.  Their performance was so poor the LW
did not cancel 110 production and kept on building the 110.

This is the 410.....barely mediocre at best.  The only think it has a big guns.  If that is the case the Mossie clobbers the 410.
We have several twin engined aircraft here that are a great deal better.  And we had them before the 410 arrived.

This is becoming like fan voting for the all-star team.  Ya get what ya want but not the best.  And then are disappointed with
the result.

moin
Thats not the complet true.
the 410 was a good destroyer layout and it worked god for bomber interzeption antil the longrange escorts arive. the 410 is the basic layout from messerschmitt the 210 was a desing to save material and that coused alot of problems.
after the longrange escorts arifed the battelfield the destroyer can t be used anymore the 110 of course too. the only reasen thay build the 110 longer was that the 410 couldnt be used as nightfighter. so after droping the bomber destroyer taktik the 410 lost her jop in the LW.

the 410 here in game is a real nice bird, i loved to fly the 110 and now i get my 110 with more power. i love it :-).

cu christian

[BaldEagl]

The P-38 is the only twin engined aircraft in AH that I really count as a full fledged fighter.  The Mosquito is almost there and the Bf110G-2 isn't too far behind.

The 110C-4b is a better fighter than the 110G-2.

[Krupinski]

The 110C-4b is a better fighter than the 110G-2.

I'd take the 110G-2 over the C-4b any day just because of the extra speed/climbing ability.

[bangsbox]

So what's the max range I can kill a buff with the bk5? I know I killed 2 to day at 2k. And heard someone say 3k but can a luck shot hit at 4-6k.... if I start shooting at an air strip can it be used like a b25/75mm at shoot from 6/7k?

[titanic3]

So what's the max range I can kill a buff with the bk5? I know I killed 2 to day at 2k. And heard someone say 3k but can a luck shot hit at 4-6k.... if I start shooting at an air strip can it be used like a b25/75mm at shoot from 6/7k?

Yes it will. I was doing jousting matches with it in the DA with squaddies. It will keep going until it hits something. Of course, anything past 3K is pure luck if you hit it. I was landing close hits at around 2K in a merge on the deck. It's a laser up to 600yards then it starts dropping rather fast.

[stahls08597]

The reason I think that it would have made more sense to put a beaufighter in the game was because unlike the 410 the beaufighter actually saw a lot of service in the war. The 410 was considered a failure back then and I have to agree.

[chris3]

moin

why everyone thay that the 410 was a failure? the 210 was but the 410 was good in its roll far better as a 110 in its rol untill longrange escortes came.

cu christian

[Krusty]

Keep in mind when you compare the fighting capabilities of the 110 we have in-game, it is overmodeled in the roll rate. Same with the hurricanes. They were not so good in reality.

As for the 410: I tried it out offline. I was sadly disappointed in the loadout options. No external 50kg? No INTERNAL 50kg? No gunpod? And yet the rarely used droptanks are in. It's strange which choices they made, but IMO that is why it's not going to change much. It can't be a "better" bf110G if it doesn't have the jabo capabilities and flexibility. It won't be the mission plane without much bombs.

I was also very saddened by the view out the side gunner positions. You cannot see at all. The design was built to allow shooting underneath the tail from a rear lower angle. Looking at photos the gunsight was wide enough to see past the fuselage. The gunner would just push their head up against the glass and use that closest eye to aim. Here we have a massive frame blocking view and the gunsight itself is too close in so that the fuselage blocks any view downward.


And what's with the glacially slow aim time on the gunner positions? I don't know of ANY gunner position in any other plane that moves so slowly.

[Debrody]

As I've posted in other posts about the 410.  Do some research.  The Luftwaffe pulled it from bomber interception
when long range escorts showed up.  The 210/410 combination was a failure by LW standards.  The LW considered
cancelling production of the BF110 until the 210/410 came into operation.  Their performance was so poor the LW
did not cancel 110 production and kept on building the 110.

This is the 410.....barely mediocre at best.  The only think it has a big guns.  If that is the case the Mossie clobbers the 410.
We have several twin engined aircraft here that are a great deal better.  And we had them before the 410 arrived.

This is becoming like fan voting for the all-star team.  Ya get what ya want but not the best.  And then are disappointed with
the result.

Sir, respectfully, i disagree with that.
Im deeply disappointed with this aircraft. And exactly cause of the research i seen.

Lets start with its top speed. 325 mph at sea level with the lightest setup. Its the same as the hungarian produced Me-210Ca (powered by DB605Ds). Seen WMaker's and Moot's research in this topic, they mentioned 337-340mph at sea level and zirka 385 at the best altitude (with the cleanest, lightest setup, of course).

Turn rate. At 20500 pounds, (2*20mms, 25% fuel) this aircraft has the wingloading of 52 pounds/square feet (calculated from the 390 sq feet wing area). Its the same as the P38, so i expected about the same instanteous turn rate without flaps. Try it, and you will feel the enormous difference. The instanteous turn rate is at the 190F8s level, nowhere close to the P38. Of course, i expected the sustained turn rate to be much worse (no fowler-wonders, worse power-to-weight ratio), close to the jug-level. At 20500 lbs, the 410 has an about 10% better wing loading than the D-40 jug, yet its a total failure. Especially sine the 410's flaps look huge, almost like an F4u.
This thing just cant fit into my little brain.

The handling, climb rate, roll rate, dive performance is exactly what i expected.

[Karnak]

Debrody,

Wasn't that 337-340mph only obtained by calking the seams?  That wasn't something that was done to the production 410s, just that test machine as I recall.

[Debrody]

Could you give me some further explanation about that, please?
Not sure what "calking the seams" stands for, maybe using sinked rivets or polishing the welds? Also that must be something super effective, adding 22-25mph to the top speed while the 2 300l DTs only cause a 10mph penality.

[GScholz]

Filling the seams and holes to make them flush with the surface. However, if it managed 337+ mph while filled and polished running on DB 605s...