# Me 410 Rockets?



## beaupower32 (Aug 19, 2009)

Can anyone explain what this is. Looks like a rocket launch tube. these are the only 2 pictures i have seen, and it looks like its a rotary type launcher. Also, does anyone have any documents on this.


----------



## Erich (Aug 19, 2009)

a failure, the rotary mortar principle when fired tore the nose of the 410 right off. obviously dropped in care of crew safety and functionality


----------



## beaupower32 (Aug 19, 2009)

Thanks for the info Eric, I sure would hate to have that sitting under me.


----------



## Maximowitz (Aug 19, 2009)

Erich is bang on the money. That is Me 410 B-1 W.Nr. 425416 which was equipped with a six shot revolving WGr 21 rocket launcher. Tested on February 3rd 1944 the experiment ended in failure after the rockets blew the nose panels off the aircraft!

Whoops.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Aug 19, 2009)

Timing is everything.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 19, 2009)

Yep...that was one of those ideas that were just a little ahead of thier time...


----------



## Airframes (Aug 20, 2009)

Light blue touch-paper and retire.....permanently!!


----------



## Maximowitz (Aug 20, 2009)

That said the '410 had probably the most diverse array of weapon packages ever tried on a Luftwaffe aircraft. No photon torpedo though.


----------



## beaupower32 (Aug 20, 2009)

Maximowitz said:


> That said the '410 had probably the most diverse array of weapon packages ever tried on a Luftwaffe aircraft. No photon torpedo though.



Should have mounted sharks with lazer beams under the wings.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 20, 2009)

Dunno...I thought the Ju88 had quite a few different weapons configs...


----------



## B-17engineer (Aug 22, 2009)

here ya go


----------



## Maximowitz (Aug 22, 2009)

Very nice Mr B17!


----------



## vikingBerserker (Aug 22, 2009)

Dam, that's a bigass rocket!


----------



## Maximowitz (Aug 22, 2009)

vikingBerserker said:


> Dam, that's a bigass rocket!




There's a quote by a KG51 pilot using those rockets for the first time in Dierich's "History of KG51", I'll dig it out later.


----------



## B-17engineer (Aug 22, 2009)

No Problem. It's not good but explains the idea in a brief explanation.


----------



## Maximowitz (Aug 22, 2009)

B-17engineer said:


> No Problem. It's not good but explains the idea in a brief explanation.




Yup. All good in theory but less so when you have a bunch of P51's lining up behind you.


----------



## Maximowitz (Aug 22, 2009)

From Kagero "Me 410 In Combat"

Commanded by Maj. Klaus Haberlen, I./KG 51's baptism of fire took place on September 6th, 1943, when ten rocket firing Me 410's were up with the WGr 21-rocket racks suspended under their wings. The Germans set out to make contact with an American bomber formation that was flying to Stuttgart, and when in the Schwarzwald region, they encountered over 200 B-17's. Hptm. Winkel wrote later:

_"For the several preceding years we had been bomber pilots who were expected to reach their target and drop our bombs there accurately. Now we were to fight using an entirely new type of weapon that we had no knowledge of, and neither did fighter pilots. We were to fight enemy bombers. We had no practice in aiming at targets of the B-17 type. So we flew closer and launched our rockets from a long distance. I could see the missiles flying fast forward and describing a ballistic curve. Dead silence fell on the radio - each one of us was looking what was to happen next. At some point a huge ball of fire blew up amongst the enemy formation, sending it down to the ground. I guess all of the pilots and radio-operators shouted of joy at one time because for a few moments I only heard one great shout!"_

Not from Dierich's book.. faulty memory there!


----------



## B-17engineer (Aug 22, 2009)

Wow good stuff! Thanks for sharing!


----------



## Maximowitz (Aug 22, 2009)

A pleasure Mr B-17. Shortly after that action Hptm Winkel had to make an emergency landing after one of his engines was knocked out by return fire. He survived for further adventures though..

.. don't ask. I could bore you to tears with KG 51 stuff.


----------



## Breizh (Apr 18, 2011)

Can anyone explain this, from p.139 Mankau 2003:


> 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.


What does this refer to if not the bomb-bay mounted revolver pictured in the first post?


----------



## Erich (Apr 18, 2011)

it implies nothing, KG 51 did not receive special treatment with a rotating multi-barrel rocket system. No-one did. In fact KG 51 was late on acceptance of the single or twin under wing rocket system compared to the use by 110G-2 equipped and later II./ZG 26 which received the Me 410A firstly. the Destroyer gruppen found success's with the rockets slim and knew full well that this would only cause chaos in the US bomber ranks but that chaos was hope would throw the aim off of the US air gunners as the 110's and 410's closed with the bombers so they could get in close enough with 2cm and 3cm cannon. the big worry as mentioned was US escorts in 43 composed almost entirely of P-47's. Even with the LW test Kommando and all their array of rockets it was found range was not good enough and accuracy never that accurate even when in the final stages of the war the R4M's were being produced.


----------



## Breizh (Apr 18, 2011)

Thanks Erich.. So the quoted bit about a seven barrel (only ever seen 6 barrel revolvers myself - is that a typo?) weapon being available is just someone blowing hot air in that meeting on February 4th '44? You mention only single and twin wing rockets, does that mean the _triple_ (per wing) WG21 configuration was never used? As #6 in attached pic.






Also the "R2" twin MK 108 bomb bay configuration reported in a few of the books on the Me 410: Somewhere near the middle of the Me 410 "chronicles" in Mankau 2003 you've got mention of field crews asking for twin or quad MK 108, and then at the end of the same book a table with quad MK 108 "in development". So were MK 108s never fitted in the Me 410's bay for field ops? Is the report of 2xMK108 in the bomb bay just a misread of the second pic below - misread of the "3" as an "8" in #2 "MK103"?





Same question for torpedoes ... They're listed as "available". Was the LT 950 ever used operationally by the Me 410, even once?


----------



## Erich (Apr 19, 2011)

6, 7 and 8 barreled in the nose was pure experimentation, in fact I beleive the leader of the fighters Addi Galland thought it was a great idea, more expllisve power to bear on the US bomber forces but again through the testing the wepaon would vibrate so badly it would cause severe damged to the nose superstructure, and thus not even being an accurate weapon even with the multi-barrel gatling gun effect. seems to me it would purely be a crew enlightening weapon only. the same idea though with more success was ZG 26's use in the filed/air of the 5cm BK weapon. a terrible weapon if accurate against US Heavies but to steer away safely from US escorts ? .......... not a chance in the world. At some stage in 44 ZG 76 used this long thing against Soviet armor.

singles or twins -rockets which was the standard under each wing, this revolved around experimentation in the ZG's of course what is the recommendation in the booklets produced now and war time were carry overs by the ZG's this is what they thought or wished for but never happened in reality. triple rocket launchers were too heavy that was found easily enough when engaged by US fighters from the rear, the Me 410 never stood a chance nor the older Bf 110G-4 armed in similar fashion with heavy cannon and underwing rockets.

as far as I can observe neither the A or B multi-variants of the 410 ever had 3cm Mk 108's in service only by the test Kommando's, they did have shortened barreled MK 103's installed with muzzle brakes in the lower nose housing. the ballistics were far from effective against the US bomber formations and as a result though again ZG 26 and 76 used many different combination's of this 3cm and 2cm weapons packages the 2cm seemed to be the preferred weapon of choice in 4-6/8 combination's in the nose, under the nose and the waffen pod in the belly.

By the summer of 44 it was all over for twin engines the pilots off to single engine JG's which they really knew nothing about to engage fighter vs fighter activities, the ZG crews had been wiped off the face of defense of the Reich in repeated almost daily engagements with the bombers, not that the bomber gun fire was the problem but being chased and or broken up attacks by the P-47 and later P-51 fighter pilots


----------



## Crimea_River (Apr 19, 2011)

People hearing and repeating rumours of new weapons would not be uncommon at that time. If the rotary rocket launcher was experimental, it's possible word spread, right or wrong, that it would be available after testing. I think's it's totally plausible that those on the front lines tried to bolster their optimism of gaining the upper hand by soon-to-be-had enhancements to their equipment.


----------



## Breizh (Apr 21, 2011)

Thanks Erich. 
One very last thing: you include "8" in the 2cm gun configurations. I thought that had been definitely ruled out in earlier discussion? Mankau only vaguely says on page 149 that an Me 410 was "modified with six MG 151s" - Do you or does anyone know what documentation this 8x2cm configuration and/or Mankau's report originated from? It could clear up once and for all what the exact configuration really was.


----------



## Maximowitz (Apr 21, 2011)

I can confirm the 4 MG 151 configuration, I'll post an RAF AI crash report from 1944 here when I get home from work. As for 8 - it's possible. The Me 410 could mount a bewildering configuration of weapons, often improvised at unit level.

The report shows 4 MG 151, plus 2 MG 17's and the usual 2 MG 131's in the barbettes.


----------



## Maximowitz (Apr 21, 2011)

Courtesy of Mike Harrison and the sources he got it from..


----------



## Erich (Apr 21, 2011)

Paul thank you for the scan

lets realize Gents that ZG 26 and ZG 76 were always experimenting with different cannon combination's.

wish I could post a drawing diagram from an official Me 410 arms manual but alas 

~ an often seen mount is thus: two 2cm in the nose-on the two sides, the clear glacis plate in the nose is removed and an armor plate installed, the MG 131's in the nose may be removed and often they were to lighten the load, they were not needed or removed and the fairings were not puttied or taped over. In the lower nose section two 2cm MG 151/20's. In the Belly a waffen pod of two 2cm MG 151/20's. so you have 6 2cm weapons as a "standard" fit for the most part in ZG 26 units that I have noted. 

~ It would also be possible to add an additional two 2cm MG 151/20's to either side of the two already in position in the lower nose bay but the nose itself with the container of all 4 cannon would be modified to accept them, an enlarged and slightly bulged fairing applied. there are photos of this configuration without the Belly waffenpod installed, so literally all cannon were up front to smooth out the lines of an already slow cumbersome Zerstörer.

hope this is understandable ? am working from a mobil PC and data/texts is not right on top of me.

as for Pauls scan with explanation of the Me 410 Intruder with the inclusion of the two extra drop tanks the slowness of the crate was obviously increased but the intruder needed the wide range to seek out prey. In this config it would of been hard to seek out a daylight flying B-17 and of course it would be as right known dogmeat for US escort fighters.


----------



## mm-2 (Jun 1, 2011)

Erich,

Forgive me if I overstep my own limits here, but I have a thought about that bulge.

The first person to have the 4x20mm bomb bay setup was unhappy with the BK5. He got permission to modify his ride to take a 20mm battery instead. If you look at BK5 setups they have this bulge. I imagine this has to do with the factory-installed placement of this gun. Now, in the field he replaced it, but the bomb bay was still the same. I'm guessing the bulge is not due to the 4x 20mm battery, but a leftover artifact from the original configuration.

I've read that the 4x20mm was also started as a factory production run. I would love to see photos of these, to see if they have a smooth bomb bay or not. I imagine they would, but photos seem hard to find, no?


----------

