# Me410 effective as a light bomber?



## wiking85 (Mar 13, 2015)

I can't find much about the Me410's role as a bomber, other than some night bombing of Britain, as most seemed to have been used as bomber destroyers. How effective was it or would it have been as a daylight light bomber/ground attack aircraft?


----------



## GregP (Mar 13, 2015)

I think of it as a slightly better Bf 110. It wasn't a bad light bomber at all in the absence of modern fighters but, if they were around, it needed surprise to be effective. The Me 410 would be much the same albeit slightly better at defending itself. Not sure the difference would mean increased survivability, though.


----------



## davebender (Mar 13, 2015)

Me-410 carried almost twice as much internal fuel and fuel tanks were better protected.
Me-410 had 1,000kg bomb bay. Me-110 had no bomb bay.
Me-410 had dive brakes and proper dive bomber sight. Me-110 had neither.
Me-410 had armored cocoon around crew similar to Ju-88. Me-110 crew protection was more like a fighter aircraft.
.....I would hazard a guess Me-410 was structurally stronger as it was designed to dive bomb whereas Me-110 was only a fighter / recon aircraft.
Me-410 had state of the art remote barbettes to protect rear. Me-110 had hand operated machinegun(s).
Thanks to superior aerodynamics Me-410 was considerably faster even when both aircraft were powered by similiar DB605A engines.

Me-410 was a newer design and probably had a multitude of small improvements (over Me-110) which aren't obvious from paper specifications.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Mar 13, 2015)

And yet it couldn't carry a worthwhile bomb load to England unless it flew with the bomb bay doors ajar! Pelz didn't want it and tried to foist it onto Galland who did, but only modified as a day fighter.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## wiking85 (Mar 13, 2015)

stona said:


> And yet it couldn't carry a worthwhile bomb load to England unless it flew with the bomb bay doors ajar! Pelz didn't want it and tried to foist it onto Galland who did, but only modified as a day fighter.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Steve



Source on Pelz rejecting it?


----------



## GregP (Mar 13, 2015)

Like I said, a slightly better Me 110 that did not have much better survivability. It was 11.5% faster when it really needed another 20 mph and had no better maneverabilty or survivability.

I'd rather have an Me 410 than an Me 110, but would prefer a different plane altogether if I had a choice.

It's sort of like choosing between a short aword and a long sword in a field war when the other side has crossbows.


----------



## dedalos (Mar 13, 2015)

stona said:


> And yet it couldn't carry a worthwhile bomb load to England unless it flew with the bomb bay doors ajar! Pelz didn't want it and tried to foist it onto Galland who did, but only modified as a day fighter.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Steve


 
So it was unsuitable as a strategic bomber? Really? WHAT A SURPRISE!!!! An aircraft designed as a heavy fighter/light bomber, did not Carry enough bombs for the strategic role. What a failure from his designers!!!!


----------



## dedalos (Mar 13, 2015)

GregP said:


> Like I said, a slightly better Me 110 that did not have much better survivability. It was 11.5% faster when it really needed another 20 mph and had no better maneverabilty or survivability.
> 
> I'd rather have an Me 410 than an Me 110, but would prefer a different plane altogether if I had a choice.
> 
> It's sort of like choosing between a short aword and a long sword in a field war when the other side has crossbows.



Davebender answered you but you insist with your unsupported views

The Me 410 was the hardest german aircraft to intercept at night
It had a penetration speed of 580km/h with bombs, almost the max speed of Bf110G clean
You said it needed it 20 mph more. Give its Db603s C3 fuel and you have more than 20mph additional speed. It s not Me 410s failure the unavailability of C3 fuel
If it remained in production past summer 44 would have 603s with annular radiators for even more speed.
It had no better surviability when some fools employed it as day interceptor in the presence of thousands of American escort fighters
On the easten front, as a attack /light bomber aircraft would be unstopable
As a recce was vastly superior to the 110 , being a hard target even in the west when flown with GM1.
Not to mention its vastly more space for development in comparison with the 110
The 410 was a very good aircraft, with very good performance, good armor and armament, but needing careful piloting
Today it has a bad fame just because it was used in a role that it had not a chance to succed


----------



## wiking85 (Mar 13, 2015)

How about its potential utility on the Eastern Front, where the Allies didn't dominate the skies with fighters nearly to the same degree and the He111 could operated in daylight even as late as 1944?


----------



## GregP (Mar 13, 2015)

Hi dedalos,

I said I wouldn't choose it as a light bomber and I wouldn't. You might notce that role is the title of this thread ... *light bomber*.

If you disagree, by all means ride one into the fray. I never mentioned it as a fighter or a night fighter. As either it was a bit better than the Bf 110, but not all that much. It might be worth remembering that Bf 110 was a very good night fighter, one of the better in the war. From my point of view, wars aren't won by night fighters, good though they may be. Necessary? Yes. Game changers? No.

I think your views aren't exactly mine, but mine aren't exactly unsupported either. Perhaps we read different books on the effectivness of the Me 410? Ya' think? It was better than the Bf 110, but no war winner. The Bf 109 and Fw 190 have MUCH better claims to that title than either the Bf 110 or the Me 210 / 410 ever will.

While the Bf 109 may be the best fighter ever built in terms of its effectiveness, the Bf 110 / Me 410 will never amount to much in history except as a mediocre aircraft that the Germans would have been better off replacing with a rather neglected Focke-Wulf design or something else entirely. 

Good aircraft? Yes, and good flight characteristics, too. Good combat aircraft? Depends on which side you ask. The winning side never thought much of it and still doesn't.


----------



## pbehn (Mar 13, 2015)

GregP said:


> . As either it was a bit better than the Bf 110, but not all that much. It might be worth remembering that Bf 110 was a very good night fighter, one of the better in the war. From my point of view, wars aren't won by night fighters, good though they may be. Necessary? Yes. Game changers? No.


The Bf110 performed very well in the BoB as a light bomber/ground attack A/C the problem was only one squadron was trained in this speciality. This is discussed at length by Bungay in "The most dangerous enemy" I cant see the 410 being better but the Bf110 was badly used in the BoB in my opinion, perhaps on the eastern fron its time had passed though.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Mar 13, 2015)

The Bf 110 was shown to require a fighter escort of its own during the BOB in all the account I read. It performed very well when not intercepted, as most aircaft that aren't intercepted do if the crews are well-trained, and the Luftwaffe was. The BOB spelled the end of the Bf 110 as an unescorted heavy fighter in the presence of modern fighter opposition. 

That's not exactly a stellar perfoamnce.


----------



## pbehn (Mar 13, 2015)

GregP said:


> The Bf 110 was shown to require a fighter escort of its own during the BOB in all the account I read. It performed very well when not intercepted, as most aircaft that aren't intercepted do if the crews are well-trained, and the Luftwaffe was. The BOB spelled the end of the Bf 110 as an unescorted heavy fighter in the presence of modern fighter opposition.
> 
> That's not exactly a stellar perfoamnce.



I was not talking about it being used as a heavy fighter but as a light bomber. The LW did perform some surprise low level raids in the early days of the BoB they caught the RAF completely by surprise but as I said only one squadron was trained to do it. I agree completely with its performance as a fighter, but as a light bomber it could have been used much more effectively.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## davebender (Mar 13, 2015)

Almost 500 Me-110s operated as recon aircraft. Presumably they did well in that role also.

However I'll still take a Me-210C or Me-410 for any type mission over the older Me-110.


----------



## pbehn (Mar 13, 2015)

davebender said:


> Almost 500 Me-110s operated as recon aircraft. Presumably they did well in that role also.
> 
> However I'll still take a Me-210C or Me-410 for any type mission over the older Me-110.



I was just saying that early in the war the Bf110 had some success in ground attack but only one squadron was tained or used to do it. Obviously any later aircraft should be better, the issue is making the decision to use it as a ground attack light bomber and then training the crews to do it.


----------



## GregP (Mar 13, 2015)

To be fair, the Bf 110 DID have some successes when unintercepted missions resulted in surprise. That probably holds true for most of the war. Not being seen while still having a punch is a good combination.


----------



## stona (Mar 14, 2015)

wiking85 said:


> Source on Pelz rejecting it?



Minutes from meetings at the RLM.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## stona (Mar 14, 2015)

dedalos said:


> So it was unsuitable as a strategic bomber? Really? WHAT A SURPRISE!!!! An aircraft designed as a heavy fighter/light bomber, did not Carry enough bombs for the strategic role. What a failure from his designers!!!!



Who said anything about a strategic bomber? Maybe you should read before your fingers type.

It wasn't a very good bomber. It was a jack of all trades and a master of none, for which the blame lies firmly with the RLM's ever changing requirements.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## wuzak (Mar 14, 2015)

davebender said:


> Thanks to superior aerodynamics Me-410 was considerably faster even when both aircraft were powered by similiar DB605A engines.



The Me 410 used the more powerful DB 603, not the DB 605s of the Bf 110.

I don't think the Me 210 with DB605s was significantly faster than the Bf 110.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Denniss (Mar 14, 2015)

Me 210 was heavier, eating up almost all aerodynamic speed gains. The dive bombing requirement probably caused an excessive structural strengthening and additional weight.


----------



## Glider (Mar 14, 2015)

I see the Me410 as an equivalent of the Mosquito VI as a strike aircraft not a bomber and in that role it could have done quite well. Unfortunately the war situation was against it.


----------



## Koopernic (Mar 14, 2015)

wiking85 said:


> How about its potential utility on the Eastern Front, where the Allies didn't dominate the skies with fighters nearly to the same degree and the He111 could operated in daylight even as late as 1944?



The Me 410 entered service with the Luftwaffe in Early 1943, it was capable of 387 mph. Few allied fighters were much faster below its critical altitude. 

Earlier, in June 1942, saw production of the improved Me 210A-1 "long" mainly made out of reworked Me 210A0/A1 airframes. This was the version that had the handling problems fully fixed. Tests the V16 and V17 prototypes had already proven the solutions. Fixes included a longer tail, slats, extra elevator trim tab, round instead of square intakes, dive brakes moved.

Comment is often made of the fact that it was little faster than the Me 110G with the same engines. It did however have a substantial internal bomb load (500kg/1100lb, in some circumstances 1000kg/2200lb) and so was not slowed when carrying bombs. It also had almost 66% more range. In combat the high G forces usually prevented the Me 110 observer from aiming his guns let alone reloading them. Long magazines and power assist solved this.

At the time of its entry into service the Me 210A1 "long" and new production Me 210C (plus Hungarian built Me 210Ca1) were as fast or faster than the P-40F and Spitfire V then in service. Only the Spitfire IX coming into service at the same time was as fast. As can be seen had the Me 210 entered service a year earlier as had been intended it would have been difficult to impossible to deal with and stolen a march. The delay seems to have cost it the opportunity of being selected for the massive investment into mass production.

When carrying a pair of general purpose bombs e.g. 2 x SC 500 the bomb baby doors bulged ajar slightly. There was no issue with the smaller semi armour piercing bombs such as the SD250, SD500, SD1000. The solution was the specially designed SB1000/410 bomb, an oval shaped 'parachute bomb. (The parachute was tiny, only about few inches, it served to replace fins and slowed descent enough to stop the explosives from spilling out on impact prior to detonation). Remember the Mosquito also needed specially cropped bombs to carry 2000lbs and it needed a specially bulged bomb bay to carry a 4000lb bomb. Perhaps bulged bomb bay doors was also a solution for the Me 410. Experiments on external 1200kg (3000lbs) and 1700kg(4000lb) bombs was also carried out successfully.

One of the envisaged roles of the Me 210/410 was the replacement of the Ju 87 and Ju 88 in the dive bomber role. It might have been a potent anti shipping weapon as a dive bomber and as a torpedo carrier (it could carry torpedos but was never deployed in that role)

It seems to have done well as a 'light bomber' in the East doing what light bombersd are meant to do, attack military formations, supply lines (columns of trucks) etc. In this case 8 x 50kg/110lbs bombs were often used. It could also dive bomb.

German engine builders and and airfrma builders generally had one hand tied behind their back, the lack of a fuel equal to allied 100/130 cost them at least 10%-20% power and 10mph or more speed.

Because of the delays and the resultant limited production it was never fully developed. The powerful new engines in the 2200+ hp class coming on line in late 1944 might have seen it come alive. As it was just over a year after entering service the Ar 234 Jet started flying its first reconnaissance missions.

The aircrafts reputation is undeserved, it was misused or used in such small quantities it stood no chance. The British never exposed the Beaufighter to German fighters. It was used far out to sea, on hit and run coastal raids with an escort and at night.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Gixxerman (Mar 14, 2015)

For me it comes down to circumstances that apply to several of the later better German types.
Regardless of their qualities they were up against allied defences/aircraft that were often very similar in ability but they were just heavily outnumbered.

It's a bit like the tank situation, generally the Germans tried to counter much heavier numbers facing them with superior spec.
6,000 or so Panthers verses 50,000+ T34's 40,000 M4 Shermans.
Or Rommel in North Africa.

No matter how multi-role or capable you just can't hope to win with limited numbers facing such over-whelming well equipped supplied opponents.

The surprise is (in my view) how 'well' they did in the face of such odds.

My view is the Me410 (or the Me210c) were very impressive cleverly designed aircraft (once the bugs of the earlier me210 had been worked out) but ultimately, like the jets etc etc just too late in too few numbers to make any real difference to anything but the ultimate toll in lives lost before final defeat.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## davebender (Mar 14, 2015)

How do you define excessive? 

Me-210/Me-410 was a dive bomber. It had to be strong enough to pull out of a near vertical dive without ripping wings or tail off.


----------



## gjs238 (Mar 14, 2015)

Were Me-210/Me-410 really going to go "vertical"?


----------



## wiking85 (Mar 14, 2015)

gjs238 said:


> Were Me-210/Me-410 really going to go "vertical"?



No, but 90 degree dives were out for all aircraft by the time it was introduced anyway due to risks of ground fire. The Bf110 was able to be accurate in a 60 degree glide, which the Me410 was capable of. The Fw190F was capable of 90 degree dives, but stuck to 60 degree glides for the same reason.


----------



## Denniss (Mar 14, 2015)

No, only the Ju 87 was able to do this and was designed along this requirement.
Many other german bombers were plagued with extra weight and other problems from the dive bombing requirement.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Mar 14, 2015)

Gixxerman said:


> For me it comes down to circumstances that apply to several of the later better German types.
> Regardless of their qualities they were up against allied defences/aircraft that were often very similar in ability but they were just heavily outnumbered.
> 
> It's a bit like the tank situation, generally the Germans tried to counter much heavier numbers facing them with superior spec.
> ...



The Panther is a good example. It actually required half the man hours to produce than the Panzer Mk IV despite using 50% more steal. It was rushed into service and initially suffered reliability problems though these were mostly solved within the year. It was however effective as a military vehicle and gave the Germans an advantage. One problem which hung around was a intermediate drive which used straight cut gears instead of herring bone gears as might be seen on the lighter Sherman. This was a gear cutting tooling issue. The solution the Germans came up with incidentally was a planetary gearbox on the last mark of panther though not quite mass produced. Aircraft such as the Ju 288 had the spars pressed out in one stamping operation but it didn't come together because of delays with the Jumo 222 engine (it took both sides 6 years to debug a piston engine, hence problems with Sabre, Jumo 222, R-3350). These issues of obtain tooling and machine tools and setting up factories.

So if you introduce a technically superior product you might have to put up with initial maintenance issues.

Ramping up Me 410 production in 1943 would have seemed unattractive even if it was technically the best aircraft. Fw 190F and 109G were doing a good job in the ground attack role, the Ju 88 series with BMW801 engines seemed fast enough to handle the night fighter role, the jets were tantalisingly close (though elusive) and the V weapons were promising as well.

In addition there had been ongoing controversy over the Ta 154, He 219 and Fw 187. All were competitors to some degree with the Me 210/410. With the benefit of hindsight only the Fw 187, despite limitation due to its small size, had a chance of making a difference by being ready in large production numbers.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Koopernic (Mar 14, 2015)

The Me 210/410 was designed to carry the Stuvi 5B dive bombing sight. As the pilot dove onto the target it continuously computed the impact point and moved the reticule making it easy to adjust the aim. The short nose helped keep the target in view at shallow dive angles. The Me 210/410 also had armoured glass window between the pilots legs to give him a 'helicopter' style view for lining up the target. This kind of bombsight was used also in the latter Ju 88, often for shallow 22 degree dives and also late modle the Ju 87 for near vernicle dives. I would imagine the minimum dive angle was determined by the view over nose. There was an attachment, the BZA "Bomb Ziel Automat" which automated this device even further.


----------



## wiking85 (Mar 15, 2015)

Koopernic said:


> Ramping up Me 410 production in 1943 would have seemed unattractive even if it was technically the best aircraft. Fw 190F and 109G were doing a good job in the ground attack role, the Ju 88 series with BMW801 engines seemed fast enough to handle the night fighter role, the jets were tantalisingly close (though elusive) and the V weapons were promising as well.
> 
> In addition there had been ongoing controversy over the Ta 154, He 219 and Fw 187. All were competitors to some degree with the Me 210/410. With the benefit of hindsight only the Fw 187, despite limitation due to its small size, had a chance of making a difference by being ready in large production numbers.



If that's the case, why make the Me410 at all? Or the He-219/Ta-154? Wouldn't it have made more sense to build just the Fw187 and drop the Me410, Ta154, and He219 to focus on the Ju88 for night fighting, Fw187 for bomber interception/long range escort/air superiority, and Fw190 for light bombing?


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 15, 2015)

In some cases it is politics. In other cases, such as the Me 410, it _may_ be due to plant capacity and tooling. How much of the tooling for the 210 could they use for the 410? How long before the 410 could be made in reasonable numbers? 
There was no tooling for the Fw 187. a few, mostly hand built prototypes, same for the Ta-154, at least until 1944. what was the availability of the engines? 

These are all considerations when trying to pick which plane to order in addition to best performance.


----------



## davebender (Mar 15, 2015)

Almost any aircraft is theoretically able to be accurate in a 60 degree dive under ideal conditions with expert pilots and no enemy air defenses.

Ju-87, Ju-88 and Me-410 could achieve results with average pilots under realistic wartime conditions. That's the difference between purpose built CAS aircraft and jury rigging aircraft not designed for the CAS mission.


----------



## tyrodtom (Mar 15, 2015)

davebender said:


> Almost any aircraft is theoretically able to be accurate in a 60 degree dive under ideal conditions with expert pilots and no enemy air defenses.
> 
> Ju-87, Ju-88 and Me-410 could achieve results with average pilots under realistic wartime conditions. That's the difference between purpose built CAS aircraft and jury rigging aircraft not designed for the CAS mission.



The Luftwaffe considered the Ju87 the cornerstone of their CAS mission in early WW2, a very important factor in the success of their Blitzkrieg. They were supposedly NO average pilots flying Stukas, they were the elite.

Do you think they changed their requirements that much when they deployed the Ju88 and Me410 ?


----------



## gjs238 (Mar 15, 2015)

tyrodtom said:


> The Luftwaffe considered the Ju87 the cornerstone of their CAS mission in early WW2, a very important factor in the success of their Blitzkrieg. They were supposedly NO average pilots flying Stukas, they were the elite.
> 
> Do you think they changed their requirements that much when they deployed the Ju88 and Me410 ?



Wish we could have that attitude today with the A-10.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Mar 15, 2015)

davebender said:


> Almost any aircraft is theoretically able to be accurate in a 60 degree dive under ideal conditions with expert pilots and no enemy air defenses.
> 
> Ju-87, Ju-88 and Me-410 could achieve results with average pilots under realistic wartime conditions. That's the difference between purpose built CAS aircraft and jury rigging aircraft not designed for the CAS mission.



DB,

The steeper the dive angle the smaller the error variables become. Pure vertical (90') means only wind needs to be accounted for (and the lower the release altitude the smaller that variable becomes).

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## Koopernic (Mar 15, 2015)

Shortround6 said:


> In some cases it is politics. In other cases, such as the Me 410, it _may_ be due to plant capacity and tooling. How much of the tooling for the 210 could they use for the 410? How long before the 410 could be made in reasonable numbers?
> There was no tooling for the Fw 187. a few, mostly hand built prototypes, same for the Ta-154, at least until 1944. what was the availability of the engines?
> 
> These are all considerations when trying to pick which plane to order in addition to best performance.



Politics was a part.

The Me 210 (and its competitor the Arado 240) grew out of a requirement to replace the Me 110 and a perception that such an aircraft could also take on many of the roles of the Ju 87 and Ju 88. Because it was perceived as an improved Bf 110 it possibly didn't get the oversight it needed and well over 1000 were ordered of the plan with full commitment to production tooling and plant before the test flight.

The lead designer was Professor Woldemar Vogt. It's said however that Professor Messerschmitt personally intervened in the design process, using his power as a Director, to remove the slats and shorten the tail, presumably to try and increase performance. The Me 210 and Ar 240 had new more highly racked wing profiles presumably to reduce form drag and compressibility drag which would have had less benign stall characteristics anyway. 

Whether or not the bad blood between Erhardt Milch and Messerschmitt had a part to play is hard to say. The animosity was certainly expressed verbally and Messerschmitt went broke.

It lead to jigs and tooling for the 1000 aircraft being largely useless and a production planning disaster as Me 110 and He 111 production had been stopped in anticipation of the Me 210 replacing the Me 110 and the Ju 88/188 taking over He 111 role. The Luftwaffe did pay RM600 million (equal to 600 aircraft) for essentially zero aircraft but this did not cover Messerschmitt's costs.

The Fw 187 started as a private venture in the wake of Focke-Wulfs loss to Messerschmitt's Bf 109 in the fighter competition. The Fw 187 was seen as a way of getting back into the fighter plane market, presumably with a unique product (a two engine aircraft designed to fight single engine units).

The Fw 187 had its champions but never seemed to gain enough traction, much effort seemingly put into engineering it to conform to the Zerstoerer concept which compromised its ability to compete with single engine aircraft.

The He 219 arose out of an advanced 470mph ejection seat bomber called Heinkel P.1065. Due to its complexity it was rejected by the Luftwaffe and its designer (Robert Lusser who designed the Me 109 and Fi 103 V1 flying bomb) was sacked. The simplified He 219 was the replacement.

Heinkel managed to get the powerful head of the night fighter force to fund the He 219. The choice had been between the Fw 187 night fighter with twin seats and the He 219. The He 219 was chosen as the Fw 187 was seen as too small to carry necessary radio equipment. This despite the fact that the He 219 would need advanced new engines not yet in production: DB603, Jumo 213 or Jumo 222.

That was the end of the Fw 187 whose potential as a long range very high speed daylight fighter and photo recon was apparently not appreciated.

The Ta 154 arose out of the perceived weaknesses of the Fw 187 and Me 410, the desire to take advantage of the great production capacity of Jumo 211 engines and to gain the advantages of the British Mosquito concept. The Ta 154 would have a large versatile bomb bay, use available engines, used wooden construction.

Unfortunately a Ta 154 with two 1450hp single stage supercharger equipped Jumo 211N/P running of 87 octane can't complete with a Merlin with two stages producing 1800hp and using 100/130. Adolf Galland assessed the The focke-wulf Ta 154 Moskito with Jumo 211 as unable to deal with the DeHaviland Mosquito.

The Ta 154 would have to wait for the Jumo 213 engine. (It was also slated for BMW two stage 4 speed BMW 801R). So delays while the engine was developed.

Furthermore Focke-Wulf were not experienced in the kind of stressed skin plywood construction used by DeHaviland. They had different woods and glues.

When a prototype Jumo 213 Ta 154 belly landed due to engine failure the crew were killed though the cabin looks intact though partially shattered. Kurt Tank was compelled to offer to build the crew cabin out of metal.

The Germans should have just stayed with building transports and trainers out of wood unless someone like the Hortens, who knew what they were doing, were involved.

Shortly thereafter Kurt Tank, in his capacity as director, cancelled the project. He was actually charged with sabotaging the war effort by a factory official and cursorily investigated. I'm sure they could have gotten the aircraft working, eventually.

The He 219 kept getting cancelled and reinstated. The Nachtjagt clearly liked it.

So the problem was that the Ta 154 needed a Jumo 213 class engine anyway and was thus delayed, don't know if the equivalent DB603A was ever considered. The He 219 worked with the DB603 engine but really needed advanced versions of it. When production of the Jumo 222 was scheduled for September 1944 one purpose was for the He 219.

Given the lack of suitable engines the He 219 and Ta 154 were mostly fairy tales till at least mid 1944.

The Me 410 just didn't have the power it needed to be a P-38 or DeHaviland Mosquito, nor did the Ta 154 or the He 219. Given their engine issues no German twin engine aircraft could compete with the Mosquito unless the Germans compromised airframe size; that means Fw 187 to me.

This is a rough chronology of what might have been.

June 1943, Me 410 with DB603A, 1750hp.
March 1944, Me 410 with Jumo 213A, 1750hp but more jet thrust. The Jumo 213A is being introduced on the Ju 188A at this time.
October 1944, Me 410 with Jumo 213A with Increased boost, 1900hp, as used on Fw 190D9
November 1944, Me 410 with jumo 213A with MW50 with 2100hp as used on Fw 190D9 at that time.

Also possible in late 1944 was the 1800hp DB603E using B4 fuel and the 2260hp DB603EM using C3+MW50. Delayed due to bombing and C3 shortages.

Jan/Feb 1945 Me 410 with Jumo 213F using C3 fuel 2240hp or Jumo 213E using B4+MW50 about 2050 to 2240hp. Both engines had two stage superchargers. The E differed in having an intercooler. Both engines were entering service in the Fw 190D12/D13 and Ta 152H. The first 200 engines suffered supercharger gearbox issues that were corrected.

Note the Jumo 213 was on the verge of being released for 2.0 ata boost so power levels of between 2240hp and 2300hp were becoming available even on the Jumo 213A irrespective of supercharger set type.

March 1945 Me 410 with DB603LA about 2260hp with two stage supercharger.
April? 1945 Me 410 with DB603L about 2400hp with two stage supercharger and intercooler.

Sometime Mid 1945 Jumo 213EB, I think around 2500hp. Beyond that 2600-2800hp for the Jumo 213J and DB603N.

The Me 410 might have been interesting again around Feb 1945 with two stage superchargers and around 2250hp.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## rank amateur (Mar 16, 2015)

I wonder if it wouldn’t have been worthwhile for the RLM to come up with a conversion simular to the one made to the Mosquito B MKL IV in order to permit the ME 410to transport larger bombloads internally without to much extra detrimental effects to speed and range. Perhaps a 1500 kg bomb could also be converted?
Seems to me that this would be a serious contender/complementr for the JU88 s


----------



## GregP (Mar 16, 2015)

I think it could have been a good plane and probably flew like one, but it was employed somewhat incorrectly for what it was. A lot of that might also have been the war situation, meaning they needed it to do a job which was not it's primary design mission.

Look at the Bf 110. It flew peasantly, performed well for a big twin, but was simply not up to mixing it with modern single-seat fighters in a daylight sky. In the end it turned into one of the best night fighters of the war, and easily the best night fighter for Germany. Night fighter wasn't it's primary design mission, but it adapted quite well.

The Me 410 could easily have done the same with other missions. But when it came into service, the primary need was to stem the tide of 1,000-plane raids over the motherland, and it wasn't quite up to doing that. Then again, neither were the single-seaters, so it is perhaps forgivable that the Me 410 didn't find a big niche there either.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 16, 2015)

> Koopernic said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...


----------



## gjs238 (Mar 16, 2015)

GregP said:


> I think it could have been a good plane and probably flew like one, but it was employed somewhat incorrectly for what it was. A lot of that might also have been the war situation, meaning they needed it to do a job which was not it's primary design mission.
> 
> Look at the Bf 110. It flew peasantly, performed well for a big twin, but was simply not up to mixing it with modern single-seat fighters ina daylight sky. In the end it turned into one of the best night fighters of the war, and easily the best night fighter for Germany. Night fighter wasn't it's priomary design mission, but it adapted quite well.
> 
> *The Me 410 could easily have done the same with other missions. But when it came into service, the primary need was to stem the tide of 1,000-plane raids over the motherland, and it wasn't quite up to doing that.* Then again, neither were the single-seaters, so it is perhaps forgivable that the Me 410 didn't find a big niche there either.



*RE: Me-410 interceptor*
But the Allies changed the rules.
The heavy twins were armed-up to intercept the bombers, but the Mustang showed up to the party and ruined all the fun (for the Me-410 and other twins.)


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 16, 2015)

Page from another website with different Me 410 bomb bay arrangements, I have no idea how many of them actually flew. 

Me 410 bomb bay configurations

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## kool kitty89 (Mar 17, 2015)

GregP said:


> Look at the Bf 110. It flew peasantly, performed well for a big twin, but was simply not up to mixing it with modern single-seat fighters in a daylight sky. In the end it turned into one of the best night fighters of the war, and easily the best night fighter for Germany. Night fighter wasn't it's primary design mission, but it adapted quite well.
> 
> The Me 410 could easily have done the same with other missions. But when it came into service, the primary need was to stem the tide of 1,000-plane raids over the motherland, and it wasn't quite up to doing that. Then again, neither were the single-seaters, so it is perhaps forgivable that the Me 410 didn't find a big niche there either.


But was it worth even developing the Me-210 or 410 with that mix of requirements involved compared to a couple more task-specific designs? (the Ju-88 airframe adapted to a variety of roles very well and for a heavily armmed, long range/endurance day fighter, something closer to the P-38 or Fw-187 would have made much more sense)

There's been mixed arguments on whether the Bf-110 made a better night fighter than the Ju-88, but if the latter really did make more sense on the whole, simply dropping Bf-110 production and focusing on manufacturing other types would make much more sense. (sheer volume production of a proven design already tooled up was the main -non political- reason for pressing on with the Bf-109 over the He-100, so the same logic would apply here)

I'm not actually sure the Fw-187 would be in the same boat though, given its size and twin engine (nacelle based) layout, it should have been able to be modified to accept a wider range of engines than its single-engine counterparts and being small/light compared to other twins (and bombers) would have still done fairly well with relatively mid-power engines. (Jumo 211s would have been the most straightfoward conversion from the originally intended DB-600s, but allowing for variants using a variety of DB, Jumo, and perhaps BMW engines would have given it a big advantage in flexibility -more akin to the Ju-88) Hell, even Bramo 323s might have been an interesting choice, at least for a low-alt ground-attack variant. (probably fare much better against enemy fighters than the GA Ju-88 variants or Hs-129 -even with a heavy cannon pod- ... actually, it probably would have done better than the Jumo 210 powered Fw-187 too, at very least in terms of acceleration and climb -drag impacts on level speed would be less straightforward to guess)





Koopernic said:


> Heinkel managed to get the powerful head of the night fighter force to fund the He 219. The choice had been between the Fw 187 night fighter with twin seats and the He 219. The He 219 was chosen as the Fw 187 was seen as too small to carry necessary radio equipment. This despite the fact that the He 219 would need advanced new engines not yet in production: DB603, Jumo 213 or Jumo 222.


For radar to be fitted, they'd probably have had to use an under-fuselage/nose position like the p-38, except with a much bulkier radar arangement with antenna antlers and likely more significant performance loss. (but also able to practically include a second crew member and still likely be lighter and better performing than the 219 -let alone available earlier)

Whether or not the Ju-88 made a better night fighter platform altogether is another matter, though.



> That was the end of the Fw 187 whose potential as a long range very high speed daylight fighter and photo recon was apparently not appreciated.


Not to mention a potentially heavy centerline armament, though given the small fuselage likely would have meant using cheek blisters or pods under the chin (or both) at least for mk 108s. (carrying the Me-262's 4-cannon armament would have been outstanding, but a mix of 30 and 20 mm guns like the Ta-154 would have been good too, and 4x MG-151s earlier on would be great as well -or even 4x MG-FF/M prior to the 151/20 becoming available -4x 20 mm also would have partially offset the disadvantage over the Bf-110 in terms of re-loading drums in-flight)






> June 1943, Me 410 with DB603A, 1750hp.
> March 1944, Me 410 with Jumo 213A, 1750hp but more jet thrust. The Jumo 213A is being introduced on the Ju 188A at this time.
> October 1944, Me 410 with Jumo 213A with Increased boost, 1900hp, as used on Fw 190D9
> November 1944, Me 410 with jumo 213A with MW50 with 2100hp as used on Fw 190D9 at that time.
> ...


Wouldn't the MW/50 equipped DB-605s at least be better off than the Jumo 211Js employed on the Ta-154 historically? 





tomo pauk said:


> The Ta-154 with BMW 801D should be a decent performer IMO.


Again, what about the DB-605? (especially the high alt versions) Yes, there's always the Bf-109 logistial priority issue but if it's a sheer matter of having something functional or not ... but we're talking hypotheticals here and (potentially) ignoring political/doctrine specific pitfalls.

The advantage of the 801 I can see would be higher max continuous power than the 605, provided WM/50 is implemented. (same reason the 605+WM/50 was unattractive on the 190 -the high alt models still seem like they might have been worth the trade-offs though, potential gain in range/endurnace too, and mounting space for a motorkannone, but that's getting into a whole other topic with alternate Fw-190 variants)



> Hmm - how about a DB-603E on B4 plus MW 50?
> Though, I'd try and install every DB 603 I can find on the Fw 190


 And there you go into the topic of diverting engines to the 190 as well, granted with the more universally advantageous 603. (that airframe seemed to be one of the most sensible places to be puting 603s as well as 213s, and the 603 allowed for a centerline cannone mounting as well)

The DB-605 AS(M) still seems like a useful candidate too, though, especially in as far as matching/beating the Mustang above 20,000 ft. (compared to using the 801, not the 603 or 213)


Hmm, though the 603 might have been worth considering for Ju-88 night fighters too. (though given the altitudes usually used by British bombers, allotting more 801s to Ju-88s and 603s to Fw-190s would have been more sensible)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GregP (Mar 17, 2015)

I don't think the Me 410 development was worth the results achieved ... but I have hindsight. If faced with the task in the situation that was there who can say what decision anyone ELSE might have made ... especially considering the general reputation of Willy Messerschmitt.

Sure, the Me 210 was a failure, but MANY planes turned from flops into success by small changes. Any of us might have given Willy another chance, given his record of DOING it.


----------



## wiking85 (Mar 17, 2015)

What sort of performance would the Me410 have been looking at had the Db603N gotten into service with C3 fuel?
Daimler-Benz DB 603 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> DB 603N (prototype with two-stage supercharger, C3 fuel)
> Power (max): 2800 PS (2762 hp, 2059 kW) at 3000 rpm at sea level
> Continuous: 1930 PS (1904 hp, 1420 kW) at 2700 rpm at sea level





GregP said:


> I don't think the Me 410 development was worth the results achieved ... but I have hindsight. If faced with the task in the situation that was there who can say what decision anyone ELSE might have made ... especially considering the general reputation of Willy Messerschmitt.
> 
> Sure, the Me 210 was a failure, but MANY planes turned from flops into success by small changes. ny of us might have given Willy another chance, given his record of DOING it.


Sure, but it was misused for what it was designed for and of course the war circumstances prevented it from achieving its potential. Without material restrictions and strategic bombing wrecking industry the Me410 would have had significantly better performance.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 17, 2015)

kool kitty89 said:


> ...
> Again, what about the DB-605 [on Ta-154]? (especially the high alt versions) Yes, there's always the Bf-109 logistial priority issue but if it's a sheer matter of having something functional or not ... but we're talking hypotheticals here and (potentially) ignoring political/doctrine specific pitfalls.



The fully rated DB 605A would indeed make more power than Jumo 211 J/N/P at most of altitudes, especially above 5 km. Eg. at 5.7 km (18700 ft) the 605A does 1350 PS, vs. 1180-1200 PS of the 211 N/P. The Jumo 211R seem to be a hi-alt variant (different S/C gearing), sacrificed 100-150 PS of take off power, but was supposed to have 1220 PS at 7100 m, where the DB 605A managed ~1140 PS. The 211R does not seem to see much (any?) service, since the Jumo 213A was entering production service by late 1943/early 1944.

So indeed - the DB 605 makes plenty of sense for the Ta-154, especially the hi-alt versions (AS, ASM, D).

I'll try to throw some discussion re. alternative engines for the Fw-190 in another thread.




> Hmm, though the 603 might have been worth considering for Ju-88 night fighters too. *(though given the altitudes usually used by British bombers, allotting more 801s to Ju-88s and 603s to Fw-190s would have been more sensible)*



Agreed re. bolded part.


----------



## davebender (Mar 17, 2015)

If we take air force press releases at face value there were no average pilots flying any combat aircraft for any nation.

Back in the real world there were plenty of average pilots flying military aircraft including Ju-87s. And it wasn't just a German problem.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 17, 2015)

The "average pilots" were all flying transports and the poor pilots were washed out in training and became Navigators and Bombardiers.



Which does help explain a few things

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## spicmart (Mar 17, 2015)

Comparison: DB 603N ~ 2800 PS
Jumo 213J ~ 2600 -2700 PS

being of almost the same weight (I think) the 603N has the edge over the 213J in that race.
Is that right?


----------



## wiking85 (Mar 17, 2015)

Shortround6 said:


> The "average pilots" were all flying transports and the poor pilots were washed out in training and became Navigators and Bombardiers.
> 
> 
> 
> Which does help explain a few things



AFAIK they raided the training schools for the highly experienced pilots to fly transports, while navigators and bombardiers were highly prized; in fact early on fighter pilots were the worst pilots, as the bombers got the best.


----------



## gjs238 (Mar 17, 2015)

Then there is the story of SBD pilot, Stanley "Swede" Vejtasa. During the Battle of the Coral Sea he was attacked by three A6M2 Zero fighters; he shot two of them down and cut off the wing of the third in a head-on pass with his wingtip.

Vejtasa's skill thus having been clearly demonstrated, he was transferred to fighters; in October 1942, he shot down seven enemy aircraft in one day.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 18, 2015)

spicmart said:


> Comparison: DB 603N ~ 2800 PS
> Jumo 213J ~ 2600 -2700 PS
> 
> being of almost the same weight (I think) the 603N has the edge over the 213J in that race.
> Is that right?





wiking85 said:


> What sort of performance would the Me410 have been looking at had the Db603N gotten into service with C3 fuel?
> Daimler-Benz DB 603 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Around 700 km/h? Problem with both 603N and 213J is that they are way too late to matter.
Both engines were making just above 1900 PS at ~10 km. 



> Sure, but it was misused for what it was designed for and of course the war circumstances prevented it from achieving its potential. Without material restrictions and strategic bombing wrecking industry the Me410 would have had significantly better performance.



Not sure that any realistic increase in performance of the Me-410 would not be matched by increased performance of Allied fighters. With that said, use of Me-410 in the day fighter role was a self-inflicted wound.


----------



## Koopernic (Mar 18, 2015)

kool kitty89 said:


> > But was it worth even developing the Me-210 or 410 with that mix of requirements involved compared to a couple more task-specific designs? snip
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Koopernic (Mar 18, 2015)

tomo pauk said:


> > The 2-stage Mossies were minority, most of them used 1-stage Merlins, and Jumo 211 engines were almost there, especially the Jumo 211N/P.
> >
> > snip
> >
> ...


----------



## davebender (Mar 18, 2015)

I doubt that. 

Transport pilots flew multi engine aircraft over long distances in weather conditions which would have grounded Ju-87s and Me-109s.


----------



## tyrodtom (Mar 18, 2015)

I've read several Luftwaffe pilots biographies, In more than one it was mentioned that the flight students with the higher grades were chosen for Stukas.
I'm talking about the early WW2 time period.

You've got to admit it takes a certain type of pilot, one with extreme self confidence, to be able to stand a aircraft on it's nose and concentrate on a accurate bomb drop.

I guess it's time for me to start searching thru some old books.


----------



## Koopernic (Mar 19, 2015)

davebender said:


> I doubt that.
> 
> Transport pilots flew multi engine aircraft over long distances in weather conditions which would have grounded Ju-87s and Me-109s.



A lot of transport pilots were in fact flight instructors doing two roles every time the a supply crisis developed. They were murdered in droves over the airborne assault over Holland, Crete, The Demyansk pocket resupply, Stalingrad and over the Mediterranean attempting to supply Rommel.

The Crete and Mediterranean losses were due to enigma decrypts, the Stalingrad losses due to difficult conditions.

It's been argued by John Mosier in "The Blitzkrieg Myth" that the losses of instructors in Holland to AAA and of landed Ju 52 was so severe it may have cost the Germans the battle of Britain. Mosier blames the limitations and inefficiency of the Ju 52 to a large part.

I believe there is a saying "Amateurs study Tactic's, professionals study logistics"


----------



## Milosh (Mar 19, 2015)

tyrodtom said:


> I've read several Luftwaffe pilots biographies, In more than one it was mentioned that the flight students with the higher grades were chosen for Stukas.
> I'm talking about the early WW2 time period.
> 
> You've got to admit it takes a certain type of pilot, one with extreme self confidence, to be able to stand a aircraft on it's nose and concentrate on a accurate bomb drop.
> ...



Not only the Ju87 but also the Bf110.

This also might be the reason Luftwaffe single engine fighter pilots felt it was beneath them to do ground attack.


----------



## wiking85 (Mar 19, 2015)

Koopernic said:


> A lot of transport pilots were in fact flight instructors doing two roles every time the a supply crisis developed. They were murdered in droves over the airborne assault over Holland, Crete, The Demyansk pocket resupply, Stalingrad and over the Mediterranean attempting to supply Rommel.
> 
> The Crete and Mediterranean losses were due to enigma decrypts, the Stalingrad losses due to difficult conditions.
> 
> ...



Mosier has been widely panned as a source by professional historians; plus he's an English professor, not a historian.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Mar 19, 2015)

Koopernic said:


> I tend to blame the inferior German fuels and a failure to complete their high altitude engine program such as the DB627 and DB628 which were DB601 and DB605 with independent two stage superchargers by the time the Merlin 61 appeared. The Germans had inferior engines from 1942 onwards to mid 1944 and stood no chance in my opinion.


2-stage doesn't seem to be the breaking point here really. A good (large) single stage unit can work quite well, though inter/aftercooling and/or water injection is just as important. The DB 605-AS models compared relatively favorably with the 2-stage merlins as it was, the problem was getting the AM/ASM models out rather late. (the AM models compared rather favorably with the low/medium altitude tuned 2-stage Merlins too, and significantly better than the single stage ones)

German engines already made up the difference in fuel quality with fuel injection and larger displacement engines. Use of C3 fuel did help as well, granted, but cases where engines were specifically optimized for that tended to outright outperform comparable American and British counterparts.

In the case of DB engines, the barometrically controlled variable speed supercharger helped efficiency too. (having the waste heat end up dissipating in the fluid coupling rather than into the manifold is significant -mechanically linked supercharger gearing would mean limiting boost pressure via engine RPM or throttle position -the latter simply choking the supercharger intake and ending up with lower pressure, but still overheated air)

From what I gather, the bigger problem with the DB-605 was bearing and lubrication issues. (that affected reliability more than power, though, but the overall problems likely contributed to delays in up-prating the engines -structrual concerns can be the limiting factors regardless of fuel or supercharger performance)



> There is a lot of flexibility with engine arrangements on the Fw 187 and one reason it missed production was shortages of the DB600 series engines. However with the DB601 or DB605 it promised stunning speed compared to the Me 109 that might have been enough to deal with the Mosquito.


Even with the DB-600 shortage, it was an odd move to perform testing with the Jumo 210 rather than 211. (or, rather, not so odd to use the 210 at all, but to target it for production AND not test the 211 at all) Even with the 211's limitations, it might have made the Fw 187 the fastest, best climbing, and possibly best turning fighter in the BoB. (probably not the best roll rate, though the 109, Spitfire, and Hurricane all had problems with heavy ailerons at high speeds)




> The up engined versions were the Ju 88R, a Ju 88C with BMW801 engines and the improved airframe Ju 88G1 (BMW801D), the Ju 88G6(Jumo 213A) and the Ju 88G7(jumo 213E) the latter, the G7 could do over 400mph in virtue of its two stage superchargers and perhaps more if it had of been fitted with MW50 etc. As the engines improved once modest airframes became competitive.


Somewhat less useful when you're targeting British bombers in the 18,000 ft range, though. High power at 15-20k feet is the envelope they needed. (which fits both the single stage 801 and 603 quite well)



> The Luftwaffe liked ventral gun packs on its night fighters, they were concerned to avoid disturbance of the pilots night vision by gun flash.


So for the Fw 187: remove the nose armament, install the AI radar in the nose, and the cannons in a belly pack.



> Jumo 211 development was abandoned in favour of the reengineered Jumo 213 which was offering a solid 2100hp and promising as much as 2600-2800hp and was doing so with a two stage supercharger and an impressive 200kg jet thrust. I believe they didn’t just want to match the mosquito but to exceed it.


Trying to do that in wood was the real problem. The BMW 801, DB-603, or Jumo 213 would all ave fit well on a Mosquito-beating night fighter. (though DB-605s or even Jumo-211s might have managed that on a smaller twin like the Fw-187)



> I suspect 605 engine was too small by 1945, there was the two stage L that might keep the Me 109 going a bit longer but its usefull days were numbered.


Perhaps more limited by the 109 itself, mated exclusively to Messerschmitt fighters (and a handful of Italian fighters) greatly limited the design's potential usefulness.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 19, 2015)

The Db 605 was certainly not too small for 1945. It's displacement and RPM were comparable with RR Griffon. The ASM/D and upcoming L versions were giving plenty of power.



Koopernic said:


> The single stage Merlins were producing around 1460-1500 by 1942 around the time the Merlin 61 came in. This is as much power as the Jumo 211N would have been producing two year latter in 1944.



1460-1500 HP was not power at ~18500 ft, but at 10-12 kft. (power chart)
If we want to compare engines in bombers, the 30-60 min power makes more sense. It was 1200-1000 HP for the Merlin 20s from SL up to 20000 ft, the Jumo 211J was making the same power from SL up to ~6.1 km (~20000 ft!).



> The Mosquito with single state Merlins used the two speed Merlin 23 and 25. The Merlin 25 at 18 psig produced 1620hp (1943) and produces almost the same power as the Merlin 66 (1700hp). The second stage and intercooler gains you 80hp (5%) in return for a 120kg / 20% increase in basic engine weight. Additional penalties apply in drag and weight to account for the larger radiator that cools the intercooler.



It would be helpful if you'd list also the altitudes for respective power values  The Merlin 20 series doing 1600 Hp is doing that near the sea level.
The second stage intercooler gain you power at altitude. Above ~19000 ft, the 2-stage Merlin was making 400-500 HP more than Merlin 20s. That's maybe 30-40% more. The really high-alt Merlin 70 will do 1475 HP at 23250 ft, the Merlin 20 series about 900 HP at that altitude. 
Or, we can compare the DB 605AS/ASM/D with the 2-stage (but not intercooled) 605L - at 10 km, the 605L was making 1280 PS, vs. around 900 for AS/ASM/D.



> The Mosquito was quickly fitted with two stage Merlins for when the mission required it: Photo reconnaissance and Path finding or Marker bombing. Essentially if the mission went much above 15000ft.



That hammers home one thing - a timely 2-stage DB 605 would've been a major boon for the Axis, at least on short term.



> The 1460hp DB603A you refer to is a 920kg 44Litre engine as opposed to the 740kg Merlin albeit the Merlin is likely no as fuel efficient at that setting. The Ta 154 with the DB603A or its Junkers equivalent the Jumo 213A might have been adequate to deal with basic Mosquitos but certainly not the Ta 154 with the Jumo 211N.
> Remember a night fighter has flame dampers, radar antenna, unusual gun packs. Dealing with a path finding mosquito needs to take this penalty into account.



Good point re. cluttered night fighter vs. a reasonably streamlined bomber, though the night bombers also have flame dampers. Hence I've proposed the Ta-154 with BMW 801D engines, it would have had some 2 x 300 HP advantage vs. most of bomber Mosquitoes and almost all NF Mossies. Granted, some drag would be added with switching to the radial.
Re. DB 603A vs. 1-stage Merlin - there ain't such thing as a free lunch. A big heavy engine will usually give considerably more power than a small engine. 


> Likewise a Ta 154 on a bombing mission over the UK needs a good cruising speed advantage. More streamlined British radar also extracted less speed penalty. Furthermore the RAF might at any time switch to two stage Merlins for missions above 15000ft for a more decisive advantage.



The LW night bomber over UK does not have radars and gun openings to slow it down, the RAF NF will still have gun openings. Almost all of NF Mossies are with Merlin 20 series (1-stage). Of course, if a good engine can be installed in the bomber, even better.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Mar 19, 2015)

tomo pauk said:


> That hammers home one thing - a timely 2-stage DB 605 would've been a major boon for the Axis, at least on short term.


Puting the DB-603 supercharger on the DB-605 from the start (ie starting production with both A and AS models in parallel) in 1943 would have been a big enough deal on its own. Or even considering larger/high alt supercharging on the late model 601s. That's probably more important than intercooling, water injection, or 2-stage developments.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 20, 2015)

Big supercharger really boosted the performance of the DB 605 line, bringing the hi-alt power to the level of 2-stage Merlin (though the 70 series was still the king of hi-alt). The MW-50 helped with low- and mid-alt power since it allowed for much increased boost. The inter-cooler, with or without conjunction with MW 50, would also come in handy. 

In a thread that was here some months ago, I've suggested using the DB-601E as a basis for new engines with following improvements (some can be used together, some cannot): big supercharger from DB 603A (for 1943), intercooler (for late 1942), 2-stage S/C (late 1943), increase in RPM to 2800 (like the 601N and eventually 605; in 1943), MW 50 (winter of 1943/44). 

The S/C of the 601E was 260mm diameter, 75% efficient, 363 m/s tip sped; for 603A respective values were: 295mm, 77% and 378 m/s.


----------



## Denniss (Mar 20, 2015)

Problem wit the DB 601E was either its use of expensive bearings (of which germany had a shortage) or internal construction details prevented them from using much higher boost. May have also been a combination of both.
AFAIR 2800 rpm were already possible above critical alt.
And yes, DB should have tried much earlier to put a larger diameter supercharger on 605 to create an experimental high alt engine and present it to the Luftwaffe and RLM guys. They would then have Bf 109G-6/G-14 for the East Front and G-6/AS and G-14/AS for the West Front. This would then face the allies with Bf 109s at a similar power level compared to their P-51s.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 20, 2015)

Denniss - care to elaborate a bit on those intricaties of the DB 601E?

On topic: original data for the Me-410: link.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Mar 21, 2015)

tomo pauk said:


> Big supercharger really boosted the performance of the DB 605 line, bringing the hi-alt power to the level of 2-stage Merlin (though the 70 series was still the king of hi-alt). The MW-50 helped with low- and mid-alt power since it allowed for much increased boost. The inter-cooler, with or without conjunction with MW 50, would also come in handy.


Given the mustangs were mostly powered by Merlin 61 and somewhat lower alt optimized 66 equivalents, the performance of the 70 series isn't quite as relevant ... or at least necessary to match/beat. (and the fact the Mustang featured a mix of engines like that points to the better high alt performance envelope of the 61 still not being worthwhile enough to sacrifice power down low)



> In a thread that was here some months ago, I've suggested using the DB-601E as a basis for new engines with following improvements (some can be used together, some cannot): big supercharger from DB 603A (for 1943), intercooler (for late 1942), 2-stage S/C (late 1943), increase in RPM to 2800 (like the 601N and eventually 605; in 1943), MW 50 (winter of 1943/44).
> 
> The S/C of the 601E was 260mm diameter, 75% efficient, 363 m/s tip sped; for 603A respective values were: 295mm, 77% and 378 m/s.


If nothing else, they should have been experimenting with larger/higher alt optimized supercharger arrangements on the 601 line itself, before the transition to the 605. (higher alt tuned 211s would have been useful too, but given most applications it was adopted for, there's less express incentive for that over focusing on the 213 ... compared to say, if something like the Fw 187 had adopted the 211)


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 22, 2015)

kool kitty89 said:


> Given the mustangs were mostly powered by Merlin 61 and somewhat lower alt optimized 66 equivalents, the performance of the 70 series isn't quite as relevant ... or at least necessary to match/beat. (and the fact the Mustang featured a mix of engines like that points to the better high alt performance envelope of the 61 still not being worthwhile enough to sacrifice power down low)



I'd say those were equivalents of Merlin 66 and Merlin 63, not 61  Merlin 70's series were installed in a number of Spitfires and Mosquitoes.



> If nothing else, they should have been experimenting with larger/higher alt optimized supercharger arrangements on the 601 line itself, before the transition to the 605. (higher alt tuned 211s would have been useful too, but given most applications it was adopted for, there's less express incentive for that over focusing on the 213 ... compared to say, if something like the Fw 187 had adopted the 211)



The sooner Jumo gets the 213 in production, the better chances are for the LW pilots in 1944 (of course, bolt the 213s on the Fw 190s). With fully working BMW 801D, DB 605A/603A and availablity of Jumo 213A from late 1943 on, there is no much appeal on the 'fighter version' of the Jumo 211.


----------



## Milosh (Mar 22, 2015)

kool kitty89 said:


> Given the mustangs were mostly powered by Merlin 61 and somewhat lower alt optimized 66 equivalents, the performance of the 70 series isn't quite as relevant ... or at least necessary to match/beat. (and the fact the Mustang featured a mix of engines like that points to the better high alt performance envelope of the 61 still not being worthwhile enough to sacrifice power down low)



The P-51B/Cs were almost equally split between the V-1650-3 (1950) and V-1650-7 (1790) engines.
With the introduction of the P-51C-5-NT onto the Dallas production line and the P-51B-15-NA in the Inglewood production line, the Packard V-1560-7 engine was adopted as standard.

All P-51D/Ks used the V-1650-7 (9600) engine.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Mar 22, 2015)

tomo pauk said:


> The sooner Jumo gets the 213 in production, the better chances are for the LW pilots in 1944 (of course, bolt the 213s on the Fw 190s). With fully working BMW 801D, DB 605A/603A and availablity of Jumo 213A from late 1943 on, there is no much appeal on the 'fighter version' of the Jumo 211.


211 seems like it was always a supplemental engine ... not the best in any class, but produced in large numbers and more reliable and easier to maintain at times. But yes ... bombers, transports and other aircraft that don't need the likes of the 801 would make the most sense there. (4-engine bombers using 211s would have been useful ... had they been developed -the few 4-engine heavy bomber/transport aircraft that did appear were a bit too large for the 211 to work on ... and lack of a more modern replacement for 2/3 engine transports like the Ju-52 -I wonder if the He-111 would have handled reasonably well adapted into the dedicated transport role)



Milosh said:


> The P-51B/Cs were almost equally split between the V-1650-3 (1950) and V-1650-7 (1790) engines.
> With the introduction of the P-51C-5-NT onto the Dallas production line and the P-51B-15-NA in the Inglewood production line, the Packard V-1560-7 engine was adopted as standard.
> 
> All P-51D/Ks used the V-1650-7 (9600) engine.


It's the 1650-3 powered aircraft that showed the more noticeable high-alt performance edge over the contemporary 190As or DB-605AS/ASM (or DB-603A). The 1650-7 powered Mustangs would be tuned more into the optimal performance range of the existing German designs, if not a bit lower in the case of the 605 AS and Jumo 213.


----------



## GregP (Mar 23, 2015)

The P-51's needed to be tuned to the actual bombing altitude of the 1,000-plane raids, not the Luftwaffe's top fighters. Their job as escort was to protect the bombers, not get higher than the highest German fighters. If the Luftwaffe was diving through the formation, they were already higher and enough P-51's had to STAY with the bombers so they would not be abandoned to what German fighters were left.

The -3 or -7 didn't matter much to the mission, just to individual fighter vs. fighter situations.

The -7 P-51D could get to over 41,000 feet, and if they had a "high cover" force, it had 500+ miles to get that high at cruise speed and, if there WAS a need and a mission element for P-51D's to get way up high, then they were probably there when they needed to be there. Any combat at 35,000+ feet in WWII was a 2.8 - 3.1 g thing that went downhill very fast. There were no hard breaks or the hard-breaking pilot would stall and fall several miles before recovering. About all they could do was to make gentle turns or a roll and dive. They surely weren't doing much climbing fighting, Lufbrey circling, or "dogfighting" at those altitudes.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Mar 23, 2015)

GregP said:


> The -7 P-51D could get to over 41,000 feet, and if they had a "high cover" force, it had 500+ miles to get that high at cruise speed and, if there WAS a need and a mission element for P-51D's to get way up high, then they were probably there when they needed to be there. Any combat at 35,000+ feet in WWII was a 2.8 - 3.1 g thing that went downhill very fast. There were no hard breaks or the hard-breaking pilot would stall and fall several miles before recovering. About all they could do was to make gentle turns or a roll and dive. They surely weren't doing much climbing fighting, Lufbrey circling, or "dogfighting" at those altitudes.


Yes, that was kind of my point a while back regarding (in practical operational terms) the somewhat lower critical altitude tuning of the -7 fit the useful performance envelope for needed power better. Service ceiling was still plenty high, and cruise performance was fine up high, but the peak power was a bit lower down. (where it was more often most useful)

Likewise, suggestions regarding the need for LW fighters to be tuned significantly above the P-51D's critical altitude seem unnecessary. (aside from specialized high alt recon aircraft, but the Germans usually employed their limited supplies of turbochargers for that) Mostly in regards to the DB-605AS/ASM's altitude performance.


----------



## GregP (Mar 23, 2015)

Yes. It seems the "high altitude war" in th ETO gradually worked its way downward as accuracy became more important than high-altitude bombing did.


----------



## Shortround6 (Mar 23, 2015)

The "Powers That Be" in most of the countries building planes in WW II _anticipated_ the altitudes to keep going up. However the problems with gun heating, crew heating (and health) and other equipment freezing and the slow development of pressure cabins (yes they had them but many of the early ones were almost impossible to bail out of) all combined, along with the reduced bombing accuracy from high altitudes ( and increased cloud) tended to put a _practical_ limit of combat altitudes. 
This is on top of any engine development problems. 
The "anticipated" part means that they were often planing/buying things 2-4 years before actual combat use. Changing a V-1650-3 to a V-1650-7 is pretty much just using a different gear ratio/s to the supercharger so design development is almost nil and contracts can be changed in very short order to suit actual combat conditions (it could still take the US weeks if not several months to get the planes/engines from factory to front lines). 

Now look at it the other way.

_WHAT IF,_ the Germans had mounted a big supercharger on the DB605 almost from the start and stuffed it into the 109Gs with Pressure cabins in 1942?? 
The "technology" was nothing out of the ordinary or extreme. Granted the Germans did have trouble with the DB 605 and up-rating in 1942 but it is not a great stretch. 

What kind of engines (and aircraft or modified aircraft) would the British and Americans have been howling for use in late 1943 and 1944?


----------



## GregP (Mar 23, 2015)

Good question,Shortround.

Had the Germans gotten into very high altitude capabilitiers, my question would be whether to ignore them and bomb from 20 - 25,000 feet anyway or have the escorts we had anyway but develop dedicated high-altitude engines for the high-cover mission aircraft. Likely they would have developed the high-altitude capability and I'm thinking supercharger - turbocharger combination since that is what we did hsitorically in the P-38 and P-47.

However, there is also nothing wrong with adopting a variant of the Hooker 2-stage supercharger used on the Merlin, but tailored to the engines we were developing/using. A 2-stage Allison or a development effort on the V-1650 come to mind, and well as development of the high-atitude boost on the R-2800. The development on the V-1650 makes the most sense. Late in the fray they did run the V-1650-19 with a hydraulically variable supercharger drive, but the war was essentially over/winding down and jets were coming down the pike on high priority.

I really don't see needing a new engine ... just a better boost system, and it would not be that big of a stretch. It was more a matter of need and the resources. Had we needed the altitude capability, I am certain it would have been forthcoming with existing engines.

But, that's just my thoughts on it. 

In reality, they might have developed a special high-altitude engine that was a completely new item. That would be a real stretch since developing the existing engines was NOT a quick project for the V-1710 or R-2800. The ONLY reason it was relatively quick for the Merlin is that Rolls-Royce had already developed the Merlin and we were just tooling up for it, not inventing it.

I don't think a new, high-altitude engine was going to be fielded in 1942 - 1943 if required in 1941 but, again, perhaps one of the abandoned engines could have been made to work given sufficient resources and priority. I also donlt think it would have been specified any earlier than 1941 by the U.S.A., but the UK might have had a specific need before that time.

I have never had much like for the Hispano-Suizas as far as a fighter engine goes, and do not believe it could have been made a lot more powerful and altitude-capable simultaneously; the quality was good but the engine was not comparable to other engines' power levels. The Russian engines were OK, but nothing to write home about ... yet they fielded several very high-altitude prototypes. I have no feel whatsoever for the possibilities of a Soviet high-altitude engine development making its way out of the Soviet Union, but doubt it would have been adopted in any case. I am unaware of any South American or Canadian high-altitude fighter engines that could have been developed, either. That leaves development of the existing engines or variants of same.


----------



## stona (Mar 23, 2015)

GregP said:


> Yes. It seems the "high altitude war" in th ETO gradually worked its way downward as accuracy became more important than high-altitude bombing did.



Throughout 1944 the 8th Air Force bombed from ever higher altitudes. Statistics from the 8th AF's ORS support this.







This, despite the fact that the same report makes clear the increased accuracy achieved from lower altitudes.






Maybe the fact that in the September to December 1944 period a large majority of US bombing was done on H2X through cloud, with very low accuracy, only 1 bomb in 500 landing within 1000' of the target and an average circular error of 2.6 miles, had something to do with a failure to reduce the bombing altitudes. This was also the end of the ludicrous pretence by some American commanders that they were precision bombing.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## GregP (Mar 23, 2015)

I was thinking that we mostly bombed from 20,000 feet to 28 - 30,000 feet and you just showed it to be correct. Most of the P-51 escort reports I have read go from about 18,000 feet to about 25,000 feet or so, maybe a touch higher, but very few.

But we avoided bombing from above 30,000 feet due to inaccuracy.

Most of the Luftwaffe high-altitude fighters had service ceilings way above 25,000 feet, as did ours, even running the V-1650-7. If I were bombing from 23,000 feet, I'd ignore Luftwaffe fighters that were flying at 35,000 feet or send in some advance high-altitude escorts to clear them out and at LEAST render them occupied. I'd be much more worried about Lyftwaffe fighters flying at 20,000 to 25,000 feet since they would be in position for repeated attacks instead of a dive through the formation and then gone.


----------



## drgondog (Mar 23, 2015)

GregP said:


> The P-51's needed to be tuned to the actual bombing altitude of the 1,000-plane raids, not the Luftwaffe's top fighters. Their job as escort was to protect the bombers, not get higher than the highest German fighters. If the Luftwaffe was diving through the formation, they were already higher and enough P-51's had to STAY with the bombers so they would not be abandoned to what German fighters were left.
> 
> *Mostly true Greg - but typical escort altitude for 1st and 3rd Division B-17s was 28-30K for high cover, with the other two squadrons in an escort group at different locations by directives of CO*
> 
> ...



If you haven't read the Pearls of Wisdom published by 8th FC in May 1944 it will give you insight to fighter escort tactics practiced after Eaker left and Doolittle took over 8th BC.

German interceptors did try to lure escorts into chasing a few diving fighters but mostly this was taken care of by dispatching a flight, maybe section while the rest of the Squadron maintained position.


----------



## Koopernic (Mar 23, 2015)

stona said:


> Throughout 1944 the 8th Air Force bombed from ever higher altitudes. Statistics from the 8th AF's ORS support this.
> 
> Maybe the fact that in the September to December 1944 period a large majority of US bombing was done on H2X through cloud, with very low accuracy, only 1 bomb in 500 landing within 1000' of the target and an average circular error of 2.6 miles, had something to do with a failure to reduce the bombing altitudes. This was also the end of the ludicrous pretence by some American commanders that they were precision bombing.
> 
> Steve



The problem with saying the Americans is inaccurate in daylight high altitude bombing is in the understanding of the data. When a computing bombsight was used it could be deadly accurate, good enough to hit a moving ship with a stick of bombs.

However a big box formation of B-17s and B-24 following a lead bombardier covers hundreds of feet of airspace in width and depth and this is why a great many bombs fall outside a 500ft radious circle. In many case of course the Americans were after a big target: something like a dock works, steal works, BMW engine plant covers hundreds of meters and a spread of bombs over hundreds of meters is actually desirable.

It was accurate and the Germans noted themselves that the USAAF was far more destructive than bomber command in terms of production. The USAAF destroyed a lot more machinery that simply could not be replaced, whereas the victims and survivors of Area Bombardment and Firebombing could be evacuated from the rubble to live arduous and uncomfortable lives elsewhere.

On those days the USAAF was able to use their optical bomb sights, perhaps 30%-50% of the of the time depending on time of year, they were extremely destructive and fairly accurate. When they used the British methods of radar bombing their accuracy was very poor and the poor accuracy statistically dilutes their achievement in optical bombing in good conditions.

On those days they may as well have just dumped their bombs in an outlying field, spared themselves some FLAK damage and turned back.

There were of course a multiple methods: radar bombing could work well in coastal areas if the city had rivers and lakes and there was the use of aids such as Oboe, GEE-H and the American Micro-H. The latter were surprisingly inaccurate in field use given their very high accuracy in tests. 

Systems such as Micro-H and Gee-H could control perhaps 50 bombers at once and guide them to better than 100 yards though the bombs spread over 20 times that distance. One opperations report has Micro-H spreading its bombs over 5 MILES.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (Mar 24, 2015)

Getting of subject, but US bombing in formation in the ETO was SUBSTANTIALLY more accurate when bombing was done on the cue of a lead bombardier (bomb aimer to the Brits). From late 1943 until the end of the war this became SOP for the US air forces in Europe.
I've already posted this somewhere, in a more relevant thread, but here it is again.






This report was the foundation of the reason for the change to 'bombing on cue'. It also guessed at why this method was so much more accurate.







Accuracy when bombing visually in good conditions was always decent, and actually improved as time went by. Bombing 'blind' on radar was always inaccurate, a problem not just for the Americans. Bomber Command bombing in poor conditions on blind marking, often on sky markers when ground target indicators were obscured, was often just as bad.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## kool kitty89 (Mar 24, 2015)

GregP said:


> Good question,Shortround.
> 
> Had the Germans gotten into very high altitude capabilitiers, my question would be whether to ignore them and bomb from 20 - 25,000 feet anyway or have the escorts we had anyway but develop dedicated high-altitude engines for the high-cover mission aircraft. Likely they would have developed the high-altitude capability and I'm thinking supercharger - turbocharger combination since that is what we did hsitorically in the P-38 and P-47.


If a major threat had materialized in that altitude range, the XP-38K and XP-47J would have likely seen more interest due both to the added all-around performance and particularly their high service ceilings. For either to be really practical, they'd need to have dive recovery flaps fitted given how close to critical mach they'd be at high altitude.

That would even be relevant if high flying jets had become an earlier (let alone common) threat. P-47J more so there given the higher level top speed and mach limits over the P-38. Both could fly several thousand feet above the Me 262's ceiling as well, so could potentially bounce lower flying jets with diving attacks. (granted that's assuming identical 004 engines, not some hypothetical 003 -let alone HeS 006 powered alternate arrangement -and either way the P-38 and P-47 would be riding though critical mach with semi-controlled dives likely requiring flaps to recover)


Lack of cockpit pressurization would be a problem, though. (the P-47 was fairly highly regarded for pilot comfort from what I recall -in terms of instrument configuration, seat position, overall cockpit space, heating and noise levels, so altitude sickness issues might have been more tolerable as well)


----------



## wuzak (Mar 24, 2015)

Koopernic said:


> The problem with saying the Americans is inaccurate in daylight high altitude bombing is in the understanding of the data. When a computing bombsight was used it could be deadly accurate, good enough to hit a moving ship with a stick of bombs.



At what altitude, speed?

How many bombs in the stick and how many hit the ship?




Koopernic said:


> Systems such as Micro-H and Gee-H could control perhaps 50 bombers at once and guide them to better than 100 yards though the bombs spread over 20 times that distance. One opperations report has Micro-H spreading its bombs over 5 MILES.



What is Micro-H?


----------



## stona (Mar 24, 2015)

Statistically hitting a ship, never mind a moving ship, even in ideal conditions would be very lucky. Only about 1 in 4 bombs fell within 1000' of the aiming point (best case scenario). How big is your ship?

Bombing blind (10/10 cloud) on H2X 42% of American bomb pattern centres were more than 5 miles from the aiming point. Only 5.6% of bombs fell within a mile of the aiming point. That kind of margin of error was not unusual when bombing 'blind'. I don't have the Bomber Command statistics to hand, but they would be no better.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## GregP (Mar 25, 2015)

And we have consensus again!

Hey Bill, I Googled the book above you mentioned and get not much. It would be good if these theings were available for general purchase. 

Do you know of it for sale?

Most of what I know about WW2 tactics comes from WW2 fighter pilot talks about same. Their tactics seem to change with theater of operations and mission, probably about as expected, but any book of fighter tactics in the actual war would be nice to read if coming from pilots in the war. Not interested in books about tactics by non-pilots.


----------

