# What if the Me210 was operational in 1942?



## wiking85 (Jun 1, 2013)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Me_210

Historically the Me 210 was disaster of a project that resulted in the Bf110 having to be reintroduced until it successor could be fixed in late 1943. This cost German lots of aircraft lost in production time and as a result of having to constantly retool between types. Having an obsolete aircraft in service from 1942 on (the Bf110) also didn't help. So what if whatever the issue was with the Me210 could have been worked out in time to get it as functional as the historical Me 410 later was...but in April 1942 when it was supposed to have been in service?
What would it mean for the night fighter, figher-bomber/ground attack, bomber destroyer, and various other roles is was to fill?
For one thing there would be at least 1000 more total aircraft available by 1943 than there was historically available without the historical setbacks of this type; there would be overall more of this type of aircraft by the end of the war than just the historical Bf110+Me210/410 models by several thousand IMHO. It would also be much more effective in its roles than the Bf110 was and would appear before it had lost its usefulness, saving a number of pilots that would otherwise be lost flying less useful aircraft past 1941 like the Bf110.
Thoughts?

Edit:
From another post on this aircraft by Stona:
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/technical/me-210a-1-article-10723.html


> The scramble to fix the Me 210,finally resulting in the Me 410 cost Messerschmitt AG 38,000,000 Reich Marks. There was a period,at the height of the war,when more than 4,000 Messeschmitt workers were literally standing around with nothing to do. The initial modifications,slats,fuselage extension etc cost 3,400 man hours per aircraft. The debacle even cost Willi Messerschmitt his job. After the Me210 fiasco he was only responsible for design and development.
> Truly an awful aeroplane,but they did fix it.
> 
> 
> ...

Reactions: Useful Useful:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 1, 2013)

As a night fighter (with, for 1942/43, proper electronics gear), one can imagine an useful airplane. One shortcoming would be the need for additional 2000 DB-601s/605s in 1942/43, if the envisioned 1000 additional airframes really can be built.


----------



## davebender (Jun 1, 2013)

> What would it mean for the night fighter, figher-bomber/ground attack, bomber destroyer, and various other roles is was to fill?


Me-210 was perfect for long range light bomber and recon missions. With cancellation of Bomber B program I think Me-210 would have gotten those missions.

Initially there would have been no night fighter version. It's possible one would have been developed. It's equally possible more Ju-88s would have been completed as night fighter aircraft rather then as light bombers and recon aircraft. Meanwhile Me-210 would become the Luftwaffe schnell bomber backbone.


----------



## davebender (Jun 1, 2013)

1942 Germany had a surplus of Jumo 211 engines and DB605 engine had unresolved technical glitches. I wonder if Me-210 light bomber units might have been powered by 1,340hp Jumo 211F engine.


----------



## wiking85 (Jun 1, 2013)

davebender said:


> 1942 Germany had a surplus of Jumo 211 engines and DB605 engine had unresolved technical glitches. I wonder if Me-210 light bomber units might have been powered by 1,340hp Jumo 211F engine.


I don't see why not with a little bit or reengineering.


----------



## Civettone (Jun 1, 2013)

I am convinced it would have been a war winner. 
Don't worry about the extra costs. Having one standard design as heavy fighter, night fighter, light bomber, heavy attack aircraft, medium-range recon, ... would simply production. The design could effortlessly be upgraded with DB 605 and then DB 603 and thus stay in production until the arrival of the Me 262, Ar 234 and/or Do 335 series. This would result in a massive production rationalisation and thus increase of total numbers.

Kris


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 1, 2013)

The Me-210 with Jumo-211F indeed seem like interesting idea (availability-wise), though the performance should suffer due less power available than with DB-601F on board. The intercooled 211J should offer the same power as DB-601F under 2 and above 4 km of altitude, both engines operating on 'Steig Kampflesitung' (30 min rating). Of course, the 601F still has the 'Start Notlesitung' (5 min rating) from early 1942 on, and the intercooler on the 211J means some additional drag. It would be interesting to know whether the Jumo-211F/J was ever cleared for 'Notleistung' at altitude - manual allows only for 'Start', at zero altitude (help!)?
All in all - engines are better spent on bomber Ju-88 than on bomber Me-210?

Chart with Jumo-211F power (gray; thick line for 'St Kmpflst'); DB-601E (green), and 211J (red) lines are for 'Steig Kampflesitung'.


----------



## stona (Jun 1, 2013)

Civettone said:


> I am convinced it would have been a war winner.
> Kris



I don't believe so. It wasn't that good an aircraft and in the context of overall aircraft production from 1943 onwards the numbers would not have made a significant difference faced with the overwhelming numerical and qualitative superiority of the opposition. 

It might have rationalised production to some extent but the RLM kept changing its mind about what it wanted the Me 210 to be. This in itself confused the production process.

It wouldn't have altered the balance of air power in the east and would have gone into the mincer, along with all other Luftwaffe types, in the west.

There really was no wonder weapon that could have altered the outcome of the war. The Me 210 certainly wasn't one.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## pattle (Jun 1, 2013)

I can't really see that the Me410 would of helped the German's much. As a bomber it's load was too small to be much more than nuisance bomber, and it wasn't going to survive over Britain by day in this role, not that this was the German's priority in 1942 anyway. Me 410's would have been useful escorting JU52's across the med and things like that, but I think in most other roles there were better planes.


----------



## wiking85 (Jun 1, 2013)

pattle said:


> I can't really see that the Me410 would of helped the German's much. As a bomber it's load was too small to be much more than nuisance bomber, and it wasn't going to survive over Britain by day in this role, not that this was the German's priority in 1942 anyway. Me 410's would have been useful escorting JU52's across the med and things like that, but I think in most other roles there were better planes.


It would have been useful in the West as a bomber killer by day and night, night intruder, and of course over the ocean as a torpedo bomber and fighter escort for long range naval uses (think bay of Biscay where the Ju88 fighter was slaughtered). In the East it would have been useful as a day or night bomber, plus would have ground attack uses, especially using cluster bombs. It could go after 'hot' targets that the Ju88 was too slow for and could have functioned better as a tank buster than the Ju88P or Hs129 later in the war.


----------



## stona (Jun 1, 2013)

Messerschmitt thought that it was capable of the various roles above and some. It even produced drawings of more than a dozen sub-types. Most never got built.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## Civettone (Jun 1, 2013)

There is a lot of debate about how good the Me 210/410 was. Personally, I think it would have been equal to the Mosquito, which is IMHO the best plane of WW2, if it had appeared a bit earlier and in larger numbers. It was rather succesful as an nocturnal intruder over England just as the Mosquito was: flying at speed and at large altitude it is very difficult to intercept. Apparently, it was a more accurate dive bomber than the Stuka; something which is difficult to merely fathom: better than perfect? It was definitely a better bomber aircraft than the Ju 88: faster, more accurate (in dive) and bigger internal payload. It would also have been a superior night fighter as the standard Ju 88 nightfighter up to early 1944 was the Ju 88C, which couldn't even manage 500 km/h. The only thing that neither the Me 210/410 nor Mosquito could do, was fighter vs fighter. As a bomber destroyer with BK 5 it was _kolossal_.

Just some thoughts on that.
Kris


----------



## DonL (Jun 1, 2013)

Civettone said:


> There is a lot of debate about how good the Me 210/410 was. Personally, *I think it would have been equal to the Mosquito*, which is IMHO the best plane of WW2, if it had appeared a bit earlier and in larger numbers. It was rather succesful as an nocturnal intruder over England just as the Mosquito was: flying at speed and at large altitude it is very difficult to intercept. Apparently, it was a more accurate dive bomber than the Stuka; something which is difficult to merely fathom: better than perfect? It was definitely a better bomber aircraft than the Ju 88: faster, more accurate (in dive) and bigger internal payload. It would also have been a superior night fighter as the standard Ju 88 nightfighter up to early 1944 was the Ju 88C, which couldn't even manage 500 km/h. The only thing that neither the Me 210/410 nor Mosquito could do, was fighter vs fighter. As a bomber destroyer with BK 5 it was _kolossal_.
> 
> Just some thoughts on that.
> Kris



Do you realy believe what you are writing?
For a reference I advise this book:
[ MESSERSCHMITT BF 110/ME 210/ME 410 AN ILLUSTRATED HISTORY BY MANKAU, HEINZ](AUTHOR)HARDBACK: Amazon.de: Heinz Mankau: Bücher

The performance of the Me 210 was bad/worse compare to the Me 110, Beaufighter and especially to the Mosquito,* it's top speed with the same engines was slower then the Me 110.*
Every mission that include some fighter duty or recon at daylight would end in a disaster and the Me 210 would be shot down like hot turkeys, as we have seen in real-life from Me 110 missions at daylight since 1942, also as a nightfighter that would be *slower* then a ME 110 nightfighter, you can't imagine something special, more the opposite.

performance comparison:

B110F2 mit DB601F 2x1350ps
top speed: 570km/h
climb: 6000 m in 9 min
6,75t takeoff weight as Zerstörer

Me210A-1 mit DB601F 2x1350ps
top speed: 565km/h
climb: 6000m in 13 Minuten
9,69t takeoff weight as Zerstörer

Bf110G-2 mit DB605B 2x1450ps
top speed 595km/h in 6100m
climb: 6000 m in 8 min
7,79 t takeoff weight as Zerstörer

Me210Ca-1 mit DB605B 2x1450ps
top speed 580 km/h in 6500m
climb: 6000m in 11,5 min
9,706t takeoff weight as Zerstörer

Even if we compare the Ju 88 G6 with Jumo 213E engines and MW 50 and *no* nightfighter equipment, it was equal from speed to the ME 410 both at 630-640 km/h. And the ME 410 was shot down as heavy fighter against the heavy bomber at defending of the Reich, like hot turkeys from the escort fighters.

The ME 210 had two advantages compare to the ME 110 more range and a small bombay for 1000kg, but with worse performance.
To claim the ME 210 would be better then the Ju 88 is simply to my opinion absurd, because as nightfighter, it would be slower or equal in performance to the Ju 88 with much less endurance and with less	armament.
As daylight bomber it would only be faster as the Ju 88 with only the 1000kg in the internal bombay, with external racks it would be euqual fast with less endurance and less bomb capacity. Also the ME 210 would be much too slow to operate successful as daylight bomber at the West and with very little impact with only 1000kg bomb capacity. 



> Having one standard design as heavy fighter, night fighter, light bomber, heavy attack aircraft, medium-range recon, ... would simply production.



The only german design that could do all this duties with success from the performance datas (except light bombing) was the FW 187, because it had the performance and speed to match with the Moussie and other single engine fighter, and wouldn't be only an other hot turkey to be shot down as the ME 410 and ME 110 had shown in real-life from 1942 and forward.


----------



## davebender (Jun 1, 2013)

> standard design as heavy fighter, night fighter, light bomber, heavy attack aircraft, medium-range recon, ... would simply production


An aircraft which can do a little bit of everything excels at nothing. Germany should have learned this lesson with Me-110.

1942 German Recon Aircraft Production.
.....567 x Ju-88
.....79 x Me-110.
646 total.

1942 German Light Bomber Production.
.....2,270 x Ju-88

Me-210C was well suited to these roles without modification and we are talking about quite a few aircraft. So that's where I would start. After 2,000 Me-210C are in service then RLM can consider other possible aircraft roles. Or else Germany can build light bomber version like hot rolls so the Heer can expect air support on a regular basis. Me-210C bomber was fast enough that it could perform many missions without escort on Russian front (i.e. where most European combat took place).


----------



## DonL (Jun 1, 2013)

davebender said:


> An aircraft which can do a little bit of everything excels at nothing. Germany should have learned this lesson with Me-110.
> 
> 1942 German Recon Aircraft Production.
> .....567 x Ju-88
> ...



There was no need for a light bomber at 1942 and forward for the LW.
There was a need for a capable long range escort fighter to escort the LW bomber or anti ship a/c's at the Mediterranean, the Atlanrtic, Norway and Bay of Biscay, also for a fast recon and an a/c what was able to intercept a Moussie at day and night.
Where is the f.. need for a light bomber?


----------



## altsym (Jun 1, 2013)

There were some 109 nightfighters which had the specific task of intercepting Mossies.. the LW need more of these 109's, radar guided, throughout western Europe. I feel the need was strong for light bombers, like the Me 210. The could have adopted night bombing missions. They were small and nimble enough to get in and out. Granted there would be some losses but that's the cost of war.


----------



## davebender (Jun 1, 2013)

Long range / fast cruising speed / dive bomber. Me-210C with 1,000kg in bomb bay is a good weapon for destroying bridges, logistical centers, command posts, airfields, communications centers, artillery batteries, trains etc. which short range Ju-87D cannot reach. 

With 2,420 liters of internal fuel plus 2 x 500kg bombs Me-210C also offers some potential to attack strategic targets such as factories and power plants.


----------



## Civettone (Jun 1, 2013)

davebender said:


> An aircraft which can do a little bit of everything excels at nothing. Germany should have learned this lesson with Me-110.


Okay. But everybody here is so enthusiastic about the Ju 88 and Mosquito. I am merely saying that the Me 210/410 could do what these aircraft did. Sometimes better, sometimes worse. 




DonL said:


> Every mission that include some fighter duty or recon at daylight would end in a disaster and the Me 210 would be shot down like hot turkeys, as we have seen in real-life from Me 110 missions at daylight since 1942, also as a nightfighter that would be *slower* then a ME 110 nightfighter, you can't imagine something special, more the opposite..


Sure, the Bf 110 was a better fighter than the Me 210.
Don, with all respect, but I think you are missing my point. I am saying that the Me 210/410 design should have been the standard light bomber/nightfighter/recon/Zerstorer of the Luftwaffe instead of producing both Bf 110, Me 410 and Ju 88. War economics dictate that standardisation of production hugely increases production. Plus, it simplifies logistics and maintenance.

And I did say that none of them are good against other fighter aircraft. But I do remember seeing what the Me 410 was able to do against the B-17s when caught without escort fighters. In one sortie, 10 were shot down without any Me 410 losses. I assume that your response to that is that this is useless when the P-51s appear and I will agree with you. But up to early 1944, the Me 210/410 would have been very succesful. This is an issue of concept: the heavy fighter was on its way out. But we cannot state that the LW should have expected American fighter planes flying all the way to Berlin.



> Even if we compare the Ju 88 G6 with Jumo 213E engines and MW 50 and *no* nightfighter equipment, it was equal from speed to the ME 410 both at 630-640 km/h.


No Ju 88G6 with Jumo 213E engines was ever built, so its maximum speed is pure conjecture. I know an unarmed Ju 88S with Jumo 213A engines could reach 611 km/h. 



> To claim the ME 210 would be better then the Ju 88 is simply to my opinion absurd, because as nightfighter, it would be slower or equal in performance to the Ju 88 with much less endurance and with less	armament.


I fail to see what is absurd about it. Equivalent to the Me 210 would be the Ju 88C which never reached 500 km/h. The Me 210 had a top speed of 565 kmh, equal to that of the Bf 110F (570 kmh) but would not have needed external fuel tanks like the Bf 110, thereby making it ultimately faster than both the Bf 110F and Ju 88C. So again, is this really that absurd? 

[quoteAlso the ME 210 would be much too slow to operate successful as daylight bomber at the West and with very little impact with only 1000kg bomb capacity. [/quote]I was more seeing it as a tactical bomber. As a strategical bomber both were insufficient. But what I do know is that the Me 210 would be able to defend itself better than the Ju 88A.




> The only german design that could do all this duties with success from the performance datas (except light bombing) was the FW 187, because it had the performance and speed to match with the Moussie and other single engine fighter, and wouldn't be only an other hot turkey to be shot down as the ME 410 and ME 110 had shown in real-life from 1942 and forward.


Definitely not. The Fw 187 was a light twin-engined fighter. It did not have sufficient room to house both radar and radar operator and a strong armament. It was a good fighter aircraft but definitely not worth the cost of two engines. The only advantage it had over the Bf 109 was its range. No one in 1939 expected that would be a problem just one year later over the coast of Britain. 

Kris


----------



## Civettone (Jun 1, 2013)

davebender said:


> Long range / fast cruising speed / dive bomber. Me-210C with 1,000kg in bomb bay is a good weapon for destroying bridges, logistical centers, command posts, airfields, communications centers, artillery batteries, trains etc. which short range Ju-87D cannot reach.
> 
> With 2,420 liters of internal fuel plus 2 x 500kg bombs Me-210C also offers some potential to attack strategic targets such as factories and power plants.


I think the British Mosquito has shown sufficiently what a light bomber can be worth. 
And Dave, you forgot the function of pathfinder and intruder, very important!

Kris


----------



## davebender (Jun 1, 2013)

Amen. Don't expect an outstanding long range day fighter aircraft to excel at every mission the Luftwaffe performs. 

Fw-187 was perfect for bomber escort and long range recon. Probably also great for daytime interception of enemy bombers. Leave well enough alone.


----------



## wiking85 (Jun 1, 2013)

DonL said:


> There was no need for a light bomber at 1942 and forward for the LW.
> There was a need for a capable long range escort fighter to escort the LW bomber or anti ship a/c's at the Mediterranean, the Atlanrtic, Norway and Bay of Biscay, also for a fast recon and an a/c what was able to intercept a Moussie at day and night.
> Where is the f.. need for a light bomber?


The Me210/410 had a bigger internal bomb bay than the Ju88, was cheaper, lighter, and faster. It filled all the roles the Ju88 played beter except as a medium bomber (though the Ju88 was way too vulnerable for that by 1944 anyway and needed to be replaced in 1943 by the Ju288 ). The Ju88-S was alright as a medium bomber, but suffered from having externally mounted bombs. The Me410 was a superior speed bomber to the Ju88 in any configuration, which was the Ju88's intended role in the first place, though it was forced to become a medium bomber by circumstances in 1940-44 and the failure of the Bomber B project.

So for what it was the Me210/410 would have pretty much replaced the Ju88/188 after 1942, as it did almost everything better than the outdated 1935 design of the Ju88.


----------



## wiking85 (Jun 1, 2013)

davebender said:


> Amen. Don't expect an outstanding long range day fighter aircraft to excel at every mission the Luftwaffe performs.
> 
> Fw-187 was perfect for bomber escort and long range recon. Probably also great for daytime interception of enemy bombers. Leave well enough alone.



By 1944/45 the answer for bomber destruction was the Me262, not the Me410. Also the Do335 would have and should have taken over from the Me410 in most ways by 1945 until a sufficient jet powered bomber existed.


----------



## davebender (Jun 1, 2013)

I agree but that isn't the issue.

Me-210C could have entered mass production by mid 1942. At least a year before U.S. heavy bombers became a major concern. So interception of heavy bombers during daytime should not have been considered as a possible Me-210C mission.

I would expect Me-210C to get the relatively small mission for air defense of Bay of Biscay ILO JU-88C. They get to slug it out with RAF Beaufighters and ASW bombers. Me-210C has endurance required for this mission and it's probably more then a match for 1942 versions of Beaufighter.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wiking85 (Jun 1, 2013)

davebender said:


> I agree but that isn't the issue.
> 
> Me-210C could have entered mass production by mid 1942. At least a year before U.S. heavy bombers became a major concern. So interception of heavy bombers during daytime should not have been considered as a possible Me-210C mission.
> 
> I would expect Me-210C to get the relatively small mission for air defense of Bay of Biscay ILO JU-88C. They get to slug it out with RAF Beaufighters and ASW bombers. Me-210C has endurance required for this mission and it's probably more then a match for 1942 versions of Beaufighter.



If the design was right from the get-go, then it would enter combat in April 1942 and production in late 1941.


----------



## DonL (Jun 1, 2013)

> Sure, the Bf 110 was a better fighter than the Me 210.
> Don, with all respect, but I think you are missing my point. I am saying that the Me 210/410 design should have been the standard light bomber/nightfighter/recon/Zerstorer of the Luftwaffe instead of producing both Bf 110, Me 410 and Ju 88. War economics dictate that standardisation of production hugely increases production. Plus, it simplifies logistics and maintenance.
> 
> And I did say that none of them are good against other fighter aircraft. But I do remember seeing what the Me 410 was able to do against the B-17s when caught without escort fighters. In one sortie, 10 were shot down without any Me 410 losses. I assume that your response to that is that this is useless when the P-51s appear and I will agree with you. But up to early 1944, the Me 210/410 would have been very succesful. This is an issue of concept: the heavy fighter was on its way out. But we cannot state that the LW should have expected American fighter planes flying all the way to Berlin.



This is *one* single duty where the ME 410 was average to good, but nothing what the FW 190A Sturmgruppen couldn't do with only one engine.
The main duty would be, what the ME 110 did from 1941 till 1943 at daylight, heavy fighter and escort fighter with less performance then the ME 110 and the Moussie and the Beaufighter as superior opponents as heavy fighter. So you have said it in your post, the ME 210 was worst as a fighter then the ME 110, what will be the results as heavy fighter and escort fighters over the several oceans?



> No Ju 88G6 with Jumo 213E engines was ever built, so its maximum speed is pure conjecture. I know an unarmed Ju 88S with Jumo 213A engines could reach 611 km/h.



Sorry typo from me Jumo 213A: Speed 625 km/h without MW 50, radar antenna and flame damper
Source: Flugzeug Handbuch Junkers Ju 88 G6



> I fail to see what is absurd about it. Equivalent to the Me 210 would be the Ju 88C which never reached 500 km/h. The Me 210 had a top speed of 565 kmh, equal to that of the Bf 110F (570 kmh) but would not have needed external fuel tanks like the Bf 110, thereby making it ultimately faster than both the Bf 110F and Ju 88C. So again, is this really that absurd?



Here is something to debate.
First we have to estimate some performance datas.

B110F2 mit DB601F 2x1350ps
top speed: 570km/h
climb: 6000 m in 9 min
6,75t takeoff weight as Zerstörer

Me210A-1 mit DB601F 2x1350ps
top speed: 565km/h
climb: 6000m in 13 Minuten
9,69t takeoff weight as Zerstörer

Bf110G-2 mit DB605B 2x1450ps
top speed 595km/h in 6100m
climb: 6000 m in 8 min
7,79 t takeoff weight as Zerstörer

Me210Ca-1 mit DB605B 2x1450ps
top speed 580 km/h in 6500m
climb: 6000m in 11,5 min
9,706t takeoff weight as Zerstörer

The ME 110 nightfighters with antennas and flame damper could reach something about 520-540km/h depending on the engine (DB 601F or DB 605) so we have a speed drop about 50 km/h. If we look at the ME 210 we would have 515-530km/h as a nightfighter.
This is not that much away from the 480km/h of the Ju88 C-6 with antennas and flame damper.
Source: Flugzeug Handbuch Junkers Ju 88 C-6. 
The Ju 88 C-6 could carry with "Schräge Musik" 2900Liter internal fuel and had the heavier arnament.
I concede that the ME 210 would be better then the ME 110 through arnament and range and better to the Ju 88 C-6 through speed.
We will come back to this issue later, but I want to say that the ME 210 would be outclassed at every specification from a Ju 88 with Jumo 213A engines and the further development of the G series.



> I was more seeing it as a tactical bomber. As a strategical bomber both were insufficient. But what I do know is that the Me 210 would be able to defend itself better than the Ju 88A.



I agree partly, because the Ju 88 was an amazing anti ship a/c, was also capable to 100% diving and what is to me essential it has more range and load capacity as the ME 210 and would be equal at speed with external racks.
Also I want to advise that Junkers was the much more sophisticated a/c factory and I have serious doubts that Messerschmitt would be able to produce 15000 ME 210/410.



> Definitely not. The Fw 187 was a light twin-engined fighter. It did not have sufficient room to house both radar and radar operator and a strong armament. It was a good fighter aircraft but definitely not worth the cost of two engines. The only advantage it had over the Bf 109 was its range. No one in 1939 expected that would be a problem just one year later over the coast of Britain.



Sorry Civettone with all respect here you are wrong.
My source is: Focke-Wulf Fw 187. Der vergessene Hochleistungsjäger: Amazon.de: Dietmar Hermann, Peter Petrick: Bücher

I want to mention, that this book is basing on primary sources from the RLM and Focker Wulf.

1. Page 42: The FW 187 V4 (first twin seater) was developed as heavy fighter, destroyer and the *primary goal as nightfighter*
RLM record from 21.12. 1937 development as nightfighter and order as nightfighter (FW 187 V4, the base of all 4 A0 preproduction a/c's)
The Fw 187 V4 and the 4 A0 preproduction a/c''s had absolutely the same radio equipment then the Bf 110 and the FW 187 V6 was equiped with 4 x MG 151. Also I want to mention that the FW 187 V2-V3 and V4 and V6 were the RLM test carrier for the new MG 151 and all a/c's were equiped with different setups. 

2. Page 103
The RLM was interested for a FW 187 as destroyer and *nightfighter* at May 1942. At 20 July FW received an official order to deveolp the FW 187 as destroyer and nightfighter with DB 605 engines. This order had priority 2 at the FW factory, even a higher priority then the high altitude project FW 190 C. At August 1942 FW released the official specification of the FW 187 C destroyer and nightfighter basing on the FW 187 A0 and the Prototype FW 187 V5 which was flying from 1939 to 1942 with DB 601 engines.

Official specification:

Fw 187 - destroyer/nightfighter from 1942

Wingspan: 15,3
Wing area: 30 qm
Length: 12,45
crew: 2 (200 kg)
empty weight: 5600 kg
take off weight: 8200 kg (with 1 x 1000 kg Bombe)
engine: DB 605 
estimated range with internal fuel: 1200 km 
estimated range with internal fuel and 900 Liter drop tank: 2100km 

Performance: 
682 kmh at 7.000m altitude (at 6.620 kg), 658 kmh at 7.000 m with 1000 kg bomb capacity at external racks
547 kmh (at 6.620 kg)at SL
climb rate at SL: 13,0 m/s at 8.200kg (with 1000kg bomg capacity) , 18,0 m/s bei 6.620 kg
climb: 6000m in 5,7 Minuten (with 6.620 kg),
armament:
4 x 151 / 20 with 250 bullets each - fixed to the front
2 x 131 with 450 bullets each - as "Schräge Musik"
1 x MG 81 with 750 bullets - flexible to the back
in summaryt: weapons 392 kg; munition 306 kg)
loading:
maximal 2.000 kg
1 x 1000 kg + 2 x 500 kg or
1 x 1000 kg + 4 x 250 kg or
10 x 50 kg bzw. 10 x AB 23 / 24

If we look at the official specification of the FW 187, it would be at 630 Km/h with antenna and flame damper and around 600-610 km/h with antenna, flame damper and external drop tanks for 2100km range.
To be very strict here, I don't favorite the FW 187 as the only nightfighter of the LW, between the the Me 110/ Ju 88 C-6 and the Ju 88 G6, but to my opinion the FW 187 as a tandem nightfighter with the Ju 88 C-6, would be much better then the combination ME 110/Ju 88 C-6 or only the ME 210 as the only nightfighter. The FW 187 nightfighter could intercept all enemy intruder, hunt Moussie nightfighter, could be a nightfighter intruder to GB.
Also it would be the much better escort fighter,daylight recon, light bomber with a 1000kg bomb and the speed of roundabout 650 km/h and night intruder, also it could intercept Moussies which couldn't any LW a/c at daylight.

@ Civettone

To my opinion the combination of the FW 187 and Ju 88 in service (1939/1940) would be *much much much* better then only the ME 210/410 in service since 1942.


----------



## pattle (Jun 1, 2013)

Regardless of how good the Me410 was at destroying unescorted B17's and B24's the fact remains that eventually they were escorted and the USAAF was always going to realise the need for escorts with or without large numbers of Me410's to prove the point and once the escorts appeared the Me410 was just hopeless. The Luftwaffe had much better aircraft on the drawing board that could have fulfilled the roles suggested for the Me 410 such as purpose built night fighters, jet fighters, jet bomber/ recon planes, Ju388 and Ta 152, they should have put their resources into building these rather than the Me410.


----------



## DonL (Jun 1, 2013)

altsym said:


> There were some 109 nightfighters which had the specific task of intercepting Mossies.. the LW need more of these 109's, radar guided, throughout western Europe. I feel the need was strong for light bombers, like the Me 210. The could have adopted night bombing missions. They were small and nimble enough to get in and out. Granted there would be some losses but that's the cost of war.



Do you have some source about Bf 109 nightfighter?

To my knowledge not even a single Bf 109 was ever developed as a nightfighter with radar antenna.
Only FW 190A and ME 262 were the only singleseater a/c's of the LW with antenna and nightfighter capacity.

The only Bf 109 as nightfighter were the "Wilde Sau" fighter without any radar and only capable to fight with the help of the AA spotlight over major citys.
The only BF 109 Moussie hunter to my knowledge, are daylight fighters with GM1 intoduced at the end of 1941 beginning 1942 with very little success.


----------



## wiking85 (Jun 1, 2013)

pattle said:


> Regardless of how good the Me410 was at destroying unescorted B17's and B24's the fact remains that eventually they were escorted and the USAAF was always going to realise the need for escorts with or without large numbers of Me410's to prove the point and once the escorts appeared the Me410 was just hopeless. The Luftwaffe had much better aircraft on the drawing board that could have fulfilled the roles suggested for the Me 410 such as purpose built night fighters, jet fighters, jet bomber/ recon planes, Ju388 and Ta 152, they should have put their resources into building these rather than the Me410.


In the 1942-early 1944 period the Me210/410 is good because of taking on the roles of multiple aircraft, thus expanding production through standardization, while increasing survivability of some aircraft in certain roles (namely the bombing role, ground attack, maybe bomber destroyer thanks to heavier armament, and heavy fighter for bay of Biscay fighting). It would have also allowed the outdated Bf110 to retire on time, while allowing the Ju88 to focus on the roles it did best and perhaps letting the improved night fighter version to appear earlier.

Beyond that hopefully it saves pilots in the long run by increasing the survivability of their aircraft and increasing the number of aircraft to fly, thus allowing more pilots to rotate out of combat and not have to fly fatigued machines, thus reducing accidents and those losses. Beyond that, it then reduces the panicked actions of the RLM in decision making, and hopefully creates room in production and planning for more rational phasing in of new types once the Me210/410 becomes outmoded. By 1944 it would hopefully be phased out in favor of better aircraft for its functions, while being retained and enhanced for its remaining roles (tactical bombing IMHO).


----------



## davebender (Jun 1, 2013)

Long range recon and light bomber roles require at least 200 aircraft per month. The entire production of a relatively large aircraft factory. You won't gain additional economy of scale by producing Me-210C at additional factory complexes.


----------



## DonL (Jun 1, 2013)

> In the 1942-early 1944 period the Me210/410 is good because of taking on the roles of multiple aircraft, thus expanding production through standardization, while increasing survivability of some aircraft in certain roles (namely the bombing role, ground attack, maybe bomber destroyer thanks to heavier armament, and heavy fighter for bay of Biscay fighting). It would have also allowed the outdated Bf110 to retire on time, while allowing the Ju88 to focus on the roles it did best and perhaps letting the improved night fighter version to appear earlier.



I disagree the LW had enough bomber aircrafts. Ju 88, He 111, Do 217, Do 215/17, HS 123, HS 129, ME 110 with external racks.
Also you totaly underestimate the loading of a twin seat FW 187.



> Beyond that hopefully it saves pilots in the long run by increasing the survivability of their aircraft and increasing the number of aircraft to fly, thus allowing more pilots to rotate out of combat and not have to fly fatigued machines, thus reducing accidents and those losses. Beyond that, it then reduces the panicked actions of the RLM in decision making, and hopefully creates room in production and planning for more rational phasing in of new types once the Me210/410 becomes outmoded. By 1944 it would hopefully be phased out in favor of better aircraft for its functions, while being retained and enhanced for its remaining roles (tactical bombing IMHO).



I totaly disagree, because the performance of the ME 210 was worse to the ME 110 and it would suffer much more losses then the ME 110 at any daylight mission.


----------



## altsym (Jun 1, 2013)

DonL said:


> Do you have some source about Bf 109 nightfighter?
> 
> To my knowledge not even a single Bf 109 was ever developed as a nightfighter with radar antenna.
> Only FW 190A and ME 262 were the only singleseater a/c's of the LW with antenna and nightfighter capacity.
> ...


Sorry, ground radar guided. 1./NJGr 10 Moskito hunter as flown by Friedrich-Karl Müller was pretty succesful, 109's of 2./Erg.JG 2, BF 109G-6(14?)/ASN of 4./NJG 11, sported the FuG 217 Neptun antenna's on the fuselage wings. I think they would have been more successful if they utilized these types of aircraft more.


----------



## pattle (Jun 1, 2013)

I think the thing with the Me410 was that it only really existed to justify the whole Me110 and Me210 program.


----------



## wuzak (Jun 1, 2013)

altsym said:


> Sorry, ground radar guided. 1./NJGr 10 Moskito hunter as flown by Friedrich-Karl Müller was pretty succesful, 109's of 2./Erg.JG 2, BF 109G-6(14?)/ASN of 4./NJG 11, sported the FuG 217 Neptun antenna's on the fuselage wings. I think they would have been more successful if they utilized these types of aircraft more.



Define "pretty successful".


----------



## altsym (Jun 1, 2013)

wuzak said:


> Define "pretty successful".


----------



## davebender (Jun 1, 2013)

Provide DB603 engine program with proper funding. DB603 engine enters mass production during 1941.

DB603 powered Ju-188 replaces Ju-88 during 1942. 

The new Junkers bomber version will have a proper bomb bay. Otherwise Me-410A will get light bomber contract and former Ju-88 plants will license build the Me-410. I think that message will cause desired Ju-188 design change.

If DB603 powered Ju-188 meets specifications then Me-410A design gets shelved. Just one more possibly good aircraft that never enters mass production.

Me-110 night fighter production will end when Ju-188G night fighter variant enters mass production.


----------



## wuzak (Jun 1, 2013)

altsym said:


>



And are all those Mosquitoes?

As far as I can tell, he got one Mosquito.


----------



## DonL (Jun 1, 2013)

davebender said:


> Provide DB603 engine program with proper funding. DB603 engine enters mass production during 1941.
> 
> DB603 powered Ju-188 replaces Ju-88 during 1942.
> 
> ...



You are dreaming and far from realistic and I have told you this more then one time! 
The realistic mass production for a capable DB 603 was 1942 and introduction to frontline fighters at beginning 1943.
You should stay on the facts and the realistic technical capable possibilitys.


----------



## mhuxt (Jun 1, 2013)

I'm pretty sure the Mossie claimed by Muller actually escaped, assuming he made his claim on 23 August 1944.


----------



## altsym (Jun 1, 2013)

wuzak said:


> And are all those Mosquitoes?
> 
> As far as I can tell, he got one Mosquito.


30 night victories ( and three unconfirmed) claimed in 52 missions. Pretty successful. There should be one Moskito in there somewhere


----------



## CORSNING (Jun 1, 2013)

To answer the original question dramatically. The Mosquito project would have been stepped up and......well that would be that.


----------



## wuzak (Jun 1, 2013)

altsym said:


> 30 night victories ( and three unconfirmed) claimed in 52 missions. Pretty successful. There should be one Moskito in there somewhere



Didn't really need Bf 109s to shoot down Lancasters and Hallifaxes. BF 110s and Ju 88s are more than up to that task.

You stated:



altsym said:


> Sorry, ground radar guided. 1./NJGr 10 *Moskito hunter* as flown by Friedrich-Karl Müller was pretty succesful



So, not all that successful as a "Moskito hunter".


----------



## rinkol (Jun 1, 2013)

I think there are two further points that are worth keeping in mind:

1. The Me 410 was apparently more heavily armoured than most of its contemporaries - this would have been particularly useful in ground attack and anti-bomber roles.

2. The British pilot, Eric Brown, wrote up accounts of aircraft that he tested in his books "Testing for Combat" and "Wings of the Luftwaffe". He was not impressed by the handling of the Me 410, referring to it as a "knife-edger". I suppose it is possible that the aircraft he tested may have not been properly configured, but I understand that at least some senior Luftwaffe personnel thought the Ju 88S to be preferable in the bombing role.

One could probably make a case that a version of the Ju-88 that was closer to the original concept should have been produced - this could have reached service more quickly and would have had definite advantages in the reconnaissance and fighter roles. The Ju 88 S and G, at least to some extent, did mark a reversion to the original configuration.


----------



## wuzak (Jun 1, 2013)

CORSNING said:


> To answer the original question dramatically. The Mosquito project would have been stepped up and......well that would be that.



Indeed.

For a bt of perspective - B.IV series i was faster than Me 210. B.IV series ii with ejector exhausts was much faster (~30mph). That is before the Me 210 sprouted radar antlers.

B.IV series ii is within a few mph of the later Me 410, which had the DB 603.

W4050 was tested with the Merlin 61 in 1942. PR.IXs and B.IXs were made in small numbers in 1943. They were replaced with PR.XVI and B.XVIs on production lines later in that year. A B.XVI with Merlin 76/77s could cruise (max lean) faster than the Me 210 could go (without radar).


----------



## DonL (Jun 1, 2013)

CORSNING said:


> To answer the original question dramatically. The Mosquito project would have been stepped up and......well that would be that.



I agreee, the ME 210 only in service instead of the Ju 88 and ME 110 would have made thinks even more worse for the LW. The only real match for the Moussie was the FW 187, because it was the only a/c, which was 50 km/h faster with the same engines then the Bf 109 from primary source.
There was not a single a/c in german development (except the He 100 with evaporation cooling), which was faster then a Bf 109 with the same engines!


----------



## altsym (Jun 1, 2013)

wuzak said:


> Didn't really need Bf 109s to shoot down Lancasters and Hallifaxes. BF 110s and Ju 88s are more than up to that task.
> 
> You stated:
> 
> ...


That isn't my term. That's the name that was coined for Müller mount.


----------



## wiking85 (Jun 1, 2013)

davebender said:


> Provide DB603 engine program with proper funding. DB603 engine enters mass production during 1941.
> 
> DB603 powered Ju-188 replaces Ju-88 during 1942.
> 
> ...


 
The historical Ju188 variant had the same bomb bay as the Ju88, but had more external bomb racks. IIRC its bomb bay was even sealed and used for extra fuel.


----------



## Civettone (Jun 2, 2013)

Dave, wouldn't a DB 603 powered Ju 188 fly exactly like a standard Ju 188A with Jumo 213A? And as a nightfighter it would be probably a bit slower than the lighter Ju 888G-6. None of these were faster than the Me 410.

Also, I think the Me 410 could be produced in larger numbers than the Ju 88/188 which is paramount.

Kris


----------



## OldSkeptic (Jun 2, 2013)

A wicked thought, it would have been great from the British point of view if it was available earlier. 
Since it was so useless and killed so many German crews that it was worth its weight in gold ... to the Allied side that is.


Hard to believe that Messerschmitt, after the great 109, the good (and very under rated) 110 and (later) the superb 262 designs could come up with anything so bad as the 210 and the later 410 (a 210 with half the problems fixed, sadly just not the worst ones).

Not quite a Bolton Paul Defiant ... but close.


----------



## stona (Jun 2, 2013)

There were no successful Mosquito hunters and some well known "experten" who claimed to be were mistaken or proveably lying.

The Bf 109 was not in any sense a good night fighter which is why of the 1000s of aircraft that flew with the "Nachtjagd", including "wild boars" so few were of that type. There are obvious problems with the work load on one crew member but the most serious impediment was a lack of endurance.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## stona (Jun 2, 2013)

All those who seem to believe that the Me 410 might have been ideal as Germany's fast bomber might like to hear the opinion of Peltz, the "General der Kamfflieger", expressed in a meeting at the RLM on 12th November 1943. He had been ordered by Goering to bomb England. Pelz stated that he saw "no value" in the Me 410 and would prefer to have the Ju 88 S. It is always worth noting the opinion of the men who actually had to carry out operations, not, like us, from the comfort of an armchair.

It is also worth noting the opinion of von Lossberg who stated, on the record, on 20th August 1943, that the Nachtjagd would prefer the Ju 188 over the Me 410 and the He 219 over both. At the same meeting both Rowehl and Baumbach express views that the Ju 188 is superior to the Me 410 from a flying point of view and is the better aircraft.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Civettone (Jun 2, 2013)

stona said:


> All those who seem to believe that the Me 410 might have been ideal as Germany's fast bomber might like to hear the opinion of Peltz, the "General der Kamfflieger", expressed in a meeting at the RLM on 12th November 1943. He had been ordered by Goering to bomb England. Pelz stated that he saw "no value" in the Me 410 and would prefer to have the Ju 88 S. It is always worth noting the opinion of the men who actually had to carry out operations, not, like us, from the comfort of an armchair.


There is nothing strange about this: the Ju 88 was the better strategical (nocturnal) bomber of the two. And that is why they chose the Ju 88S as the standard Schnellbomber. 
But overall, the Me 410 was better at its different tasks. The Ju 88 was superior in payload, turn rate and range, the Me 410 in speed, construction rate, armament, climb rate and dive attacks. I find the latter qualities to be more convincing, once outside the role of strategic night bomber. 



> It is also worth noting the opinion of von Lossberg who stated, on the record, on 20th August 1943, that the Nachtjagd would prefer the Ju 188 over the Me 410 and the He 219 over both. At the same meeting both Rowehl and Baumbach express views that the Ju 188 is superior to the Me 410 from a flying point of view and is the better aircraft.


This was mainly because of the higher landing speed of the Me 410 which made it less suited for night operations than the Ju 88/188. The latter was also easier to fly.
But this aspect is of limited value. With every new generation fighter planes the landing speed and complexity of their controls increases. If we were to follow pilots' concerns, we would still be flying Curtiss Hawks or Hawker Harts today.

Kris


----------



## stona (Jun 2, 2013)

Civettone said:


> This was mainly because of the higher landing speed of the Me 410 which made it less suited for night operations than the Ju 88/188. The latter was also easier to fly.
> Kris



This has nothing to do with the concerns of pilots. Safe and relatively easy handling were pre-requisites of a night fighter of this era. From 1939-45 the Nachtjagd suffered 4,800 aircraft destroyed or damaged 10%-60% in action and 6,200 to other causes, mainly accidents. Well over half the losses were not as a result of enemy action.

The difficult handling characteristics of the Me 410 (Brown's description was "knife edge") made it far less preferable as a night fighter than other types and this is what Von Lossberg was stating. It is easy to make comments on pilot's concerns from the comfort of an armchair. We are not likely to be one of the 3,800 night fighter pilots killed or missing in action, or the 1,400 wounded.

The Me 410 had some heavy weight political backing but most at the business end, with the notable exception of Galland, didn't want it.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Njaco (Jun 2, 2013)

DonL said:


> Do you have some source about Bf 109 nightfighter?
> 
> To my knowledge not even a single Bf 109 was ever developed as a nightfighter with radar antenna.
> Only FW 190A and ME 262 were the only singleseater a/c's of the LW with antenna and nightfighter capacity.
> ...



Not quite. While not as 'famous' at the time as the day fighters, there were a few Jagdgeschwaders in late 1939/early 1940 that had Nacht stafflen utilizing Bf 109Ds such as 10(N)./JG 26. 
Jagdgeschwader 26

But as far "being developed" I don't believe even the 410 or the 88s were developed strictly for the purpose of night-fighting. It just became one of their uses.


----------



## fastmongrel (Jun 2, 2013)

I have never understood why the Hugarians were happy with the 210C version when the LW were so unhappy with the version they had. Was the 210C the same as the 410.


----------



## Njaco (Jun 2, 2013)

Same reason I guess as the Finns and the Buffalo.


----------



## DonL (Jun 2, 2013)

> But as far "being developed" I don't believe even the 410 or the 88s were developed strictly for the purpose of night-fighting. It just became one of their uses.



To my knowledge there was no ME 410 nightfighter ever at any NJG. To my knowledge there were some official tests with the ME 410 as nightfighter, but no ME 410 flew ever a combat mission as nightfighter to my knowledge.

And yes the ME 110 and Ju 88 were not developed as nightfighters, you can only say the Ju 88 G series was truly developed for the nighfighter tasks.



> I have never understood why the Hugarians were happy with the 210C version when the LW were so unhappy with the version they had. Was the 210C the same as the 410.



To my knowledge yes, except the engines. The hungarian ME 210C1 had the same new longer fuselage and all other new modifications, but was flying with DB 605 and not DB 603 engines.


----------



## stona (Jun 2, 2013)

Njaco said:


> But as far "being developed" I don't believe even the 410 or the 88s were developed strictly for the purpose of night-fighting. It just became one of their uses.



The Ju 88 and Bf 110 and others were developed as night fighters. They were distinct variants equipped specifically for that role. The Me 210/410 never was developed in a night fighter variant.

The Bf 109s you mentioned were ground controlled and in that sense were equipped, with Peilgerat IV, for a night fighting role. They enjoyed little success during the early stages of the night time aerial battle. Whilst not developed as night fighters they were what was a state of the art night fighter at the time ( 1940).

Cheers

Steve


----------



## stona (Jun 2, 2013)

DonL said:


> To my knowledge yes, except the engines. The hungarian ME 210C1 had the same new longer fuselage and all other new modifications, but was flying with DB 605 and not DB 603 engines.



Correct, the Hungarians also removed much of the armour and reduced the forward facing armament to 2 x MG 151/20s. According to the original licence agreement half of the Hungarian built aircraft were to be handed to the Luftwaffe. A total of 302 Me 210 were built by Dunai Repulogepgyar RT near Budapest and about 100 , much less than half, seem to have ended up with the Luftwaffe. The Germans gave the Hungarian built machines a higher combat rating than their own!

An unexpected bonus for the allies of the Me 210 fiasco was the effect on production of the Bf 109 E (production run ended March '41) and Bf 109 F at Regensburg. _Between October and December 1941 not one Bf 109 left the finally assembly lines at Regensburg. _

Cheers

Steve


----------



## davebender (Jun 2, 2013)

http://www.econ.yale.edu/growth_pdf/cdp905.pdf
I doubt that. During 1939 the Ju-88 was largest German aircraft program. About 50% of total German airframe production workers made Ju-88s. 

Economy of scale paid off by 1942. Ju-88 production cost dropped below RM 150,000. Less then the price of most U.S. made fighter aircraft.

Me-210C / Me-410A would require three years to achieve similar production efficiency. The delay would be fatal for 1942 Germany. They have no choice but to keep making dirt cheap Ju-88 variants.

IMO Ju-88 was a great airframe (except for lame bomb bay). It just needs more powerful engines during 1942 to remain competitive.


----------



## tyrodtom (Jun 2, 2013)

davebender said:


> http://www.econ.yale.edu/growth_pdf/cdp905.pdf
> I doubt that. During 1939 the Ju-88 was largest German aircraft program. About 50% of total German airframe production workers made Ju-88s.
> 
> Economy of scale paid off by 1942. Ju-88 production cost dropped below RM 150,000. Less then the price of most U.S. made fighter aircraft.
> ...



There you go comparing the values of wartime currencies again. Germany's official exchange rate for the mark wasn't based on reality.


----------



## Civettone (Jun 2, 2013)

stona said:


> This has nothing to do with the concerns of pilots. Safe and relatively easy handling were pre-requisites of a night fighter of this era. From 1939-45 the Nachtjagd suffered 4,800 aircraft destroyed or damaged 10%-60% in action and 6,200 to other causes, mainly accidents. Well over half the losses were not as a result of enemy action.


If so many were destroyed in accidents, I guess they did not really take easy handling in consideration, did they? My point is that everyone wants an easy-to-fly and -maintain aircraft. But eventually docile flying planes are replaced by more tricky hotrods. Or do you think a Eurofighter is as easy as a Spitfire? Or again, what was to be the definite Luftwaffe nightfighter? The Me 262. Do you think that was easy to land at night? Fact of the matter is that the Me 410 was not as easy to fly as the Ju 88, but it was considered to be good enough to be put into production. And why not, its performance was clearly superior to that of the Ju 88.



> The difficult handling characteristics of the Me 410 (Brown's description was "knife edge") made it far less preferable as a night fighter than other types and this is what Von Lossberg was stating


Be careful about these opinions. Brown may have been negative about the Me 410. He is also the guy who said the Swordfish was the best torpedo bomber of WW2. On the Me 210 and 410, there were also German pilots who were enthusiastic about them. Kaufmann for instance, he even liked the original Me 210A! 

Also, you mention this book from Mankau. I don't have any of my books with me, but here is what it says on the book description: "More powerful engines and a number of design changes saw this aircraft produced from 1943 to 1944 under the designation of Me 410, and as such the type gave an excellent accounting of itself in service with the Luftwaffe. " And yet, you use this book to criticize the Me 410. 



> The Me 410 had some heavy weight political backing but most at the business end, with the notable exception of Galland, didn't want it.


All this talk about political motives ... unfounded. I have heard more stories than I can bear. Now on Messerschmitt, then on Junkers, next Heinkel, ... Conspiracy theories are usually the result of inadequate knowledge of the subject. A bit like how man believed thunder meant the gods were fighting.

Kris


----------



## Civettone (Jun 2, 2013)

davebender said:


> Me-210C / Me-410A would require three years to achieve similar production efficiency. The delay would be fatal for 1942 Germany. They have no choice but to keep making dirt cheap Ju-88 variants.
> 
> IMO Ju-88 was a great airframe (except for lame bomb bay). It just needs more powerful engines during 1942 to remain competitive.


The Me 210 was designed with ease of production in mind. The Ju 88 was criticized and almost shelved for being too difficult to produce. They did manage to simplify the production and yes, large scale production did enhance production. There is no reason to assume that the Me 410 needed another 3 years of production optimalisation. The learning curve is a valuable guideline but it is not a set rule. Its impact depends from product to product. Also, I do not know any figures on manhours for the Me 410 production, but I can assume it was easier to produce due to its production-minded design and the fact that it was smaller and lighter than the Ju 88. 
Also, the Ju 88 did get the best engines. It received BMW 801Ds and Jumo 213As. Result was the Ju 188A-F and Ju 88G, all of which stayed well under the 600 kmh mark. The Ju 88 night fighter was a stopgap and only stayed in service because its successors, the He 219 - underpowered - and Ju 388 - no engines - failed. The Ta 154 was to be the successor of the Bf 110. Also a failed design. In hindsight, they should have gone for the easy solution: the Me 410. But in 1943 they could not have foreseen the problems with the He 219, Ju 388 or Ta 154.
Btw, the Me 410 as a night fighter with two radar sets, aerials and Schraege Musik had a projected speed loss of 20 kmh. So that would mean a max speed above 600 kmh. It was the only one which could replace both the Bf 110 and Ju 88 as nighfighter. Instead, the RLM went for a dual solution: a point-defence NF and a long-range/intruder NF. A waste of resources. 

For these reasons, I still believe the Me 210C/410A augmented by the only true strategic bomber: the He 177 - once operational, until then the He 111 and Do 217 - would be the most cost-effective solution. And that is what I meant when I said it was a potential war winner: in WW2 the combination of quality _and_ quantity won the war. 
Kris


----------



## stona (Jun 2, 2013)

Civettone said:


> If so many were destroyed in accidents, I guess they did not really take easy handling in consideration, did they? My point is that everyone wants an easy-to-fly and -maintain aircraft. But eventually docile flying planes are replaced by more tricky hotrods. Or do you think a Eurofighter is as easy as a Spitfire? Or again, what was to be the definite Luftwaffe nightfighter? The Me 262. Do you think that was easy to land at night? Fact of the matter is that the Me 410 was not as easy to fly as the Ju 88, but it was considered to be good enough to be put into production. And why not, its performance was clearly superior to that of the Ju 88.
> 
> Be careful about these opinions. Brown may have been negative about the Me 410. He is also the guy who said the Swordfish was the best torpedo bomber of WW2. On the Me 210 and 410, there were also German pilots who were enthusiastic about them. Kaufmann for instance, he even liked the original Me 210A!
> 
> ...



They did take handling characteristics into account for aircraft to be operated at night, hence von Lossberg's comments. It is telling that the Me 410 was NEVER developed as a night fighter.... QED.
The possibility of developing the Me 210/410 as a night fighter was investigated by Hauptmann Werner Streib. He received three aircraft for assessment. In the end the type was killed off as a night fighter not because of its handling characteristics, but because Goering himself objected to the alterations which would be required to the canopy and nose.

If you imagine that there was no political aspect to German (or anyone else's) aircraft production you are being very naïve. It is something that I have had an interest in for thirty years and the pettiness of the political in fighting almost beggars belief.

Gernot Croneiss, I assume you know who his father was, recalled.

"Messerschmitt's position at this point in time (1942) was that it was the sole aircraft producer in the German Reich that did not stand under the direct influence of the RLM. Heinkel, for example, because of the problems with the He 177, had to go the same way. The problems with the Me 210 for the RLM were hence an opportunity to put Messerschmitt down. All this naturally took place with the full approval of Goering, who allowed Milch and Lucht a free hand to eliminate the chaos at Messerschmitt after production of the Me 210 had been stopped by order of the RLM".

Ted Oliver's, not my clunky translation!

Milch's personal antipathy to Willi Messerschmitt is well documented and dates back to his time at Lufthansa. Don't imagine that this did not influence the relationship between the two men and Messerschmitt AG and the RLM.
One of the results of the Me 210 debacle was the removal of Messerschmitt from his directorial duties and Croneiss' elevation as chairman of the board. Croneiss was also Betriebsfuhrer (works head) of the AG and GmbH amongst other things.


Cheers

Steve


----------



## Civettone (Jun 2, 2013)

Don't get me wrong. All this inter-service fighting and scheming, I know that existed. But I would not call this _political_. I have heard stories about Milch hating Messerschmitt because his friend died on board of a Messerschmitt? Oh please ... Also, all these stories about the Fw 187 or He 100 being rejected for again political reasons. It is this kind of reasoning that I object to and which I believe is mere speculating because of a lack of information. "Why was the He 277 not built? I don't know ... it must have been Goering who opposed it!" 

There was a power struggle between companies to get the most contracts, and for instance, Willi was much better at lobbying than the others. But this happened everywhere. Fact remains that all major companies were awarded contracts from beginning of the war til the end: Heinkel, FW, Messerschmitt, Henschel, B&V, Arado ... 

As to the Me 410 ... I think the Me 410 was never used as a night fighter because the Ta 154 and He 219 or Ju 388 were destined to become the next night fighters. There was not even a prototype of a night fighter. Not a single Me 410 received a radar set. KG 51 did carry out succesful nocturnal intruder missions over England in 1944. What does your book say about Goering's motives to forbid testing the Me 410 as a night fighter?

Kris


----------



## Denniss (Jun 2, 2013)

stona said:


> A total of 302 Me 210 were built by Dunai Repulogepgyar RT near Budapest and about 100 , much less than half, seem to have ended up with the Luftwaffe.


Hungarians built a total of 377 Me 210 of which 105 were delivered to the Luftwaffe.


----------



## stona (Jun 2, 2013)

Denniss said:


> Hungarians built a total of 377 Me 210 of which 105 were delivered to the Luftwaffe.



Depends whose figures you quote. I agree with the 105 (give or take two or three), the other one is debateable. I think the 302 is from Peter Schmoll who quotes a Romanian researcher whose name evades me at the moment. In any case it's not worth arguing over the detail 

Cheers

Steve


----------



## stona (Jun 2, 2013)

Civettone said:


> As to the Me 410 ... I think the Me 410 was never used as a night fighter because the Ta 154 and He 219 or Ju 388 were destined to become the next night fighters. There was not even a prototype of a night fighter. Not a single Me 410 received a radar set. KG 51 did carry out succesful nocturnal intruder missions over England in 1944. What does your book say about Goering's motives to forbid testing the Me 410 as a night fighter?
> 
> Kris



The RLM had no idea what it wanted as a night fighter. It changed opinion with bewildering frequency. There were numerous programmes running concurrently. Even DonLs' beloved Fw 187 nearly rose like Lazarus from the dead to fulfil the role. 

Goering didn't forbid testing of the Me 410 as a night fighter. There was an official assessment of its potential in the role. I have no idea if Goering was aware of this or not. Streib's report included the need for extensive modifications to the nose and canopy which Goering vetoed at a meeting with Lucht, Milch and others at the RLM.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## davebender (Jun 2, 2013)

I don't doubt it. However even a well designed new aircraft type needs at least a year to work up production process to full efficiency. 1942 Germany cannot afford to immediately discontinue Ju-88. Nor can they afford to discontinue Me-110 night fighter as Me-210C had no night fighter variant production ready.

Hungary really liked Me-210C. Smartest thing might have been to assist that nation in building a decent size Me-210C factory during 1941. Capacity of at least 100 aircraft per month. Let Hungarian factory work out Me-210C production glitches during 1942. Meanwhile Luftwaffe has a year to evaluate aircraft performance and, if desired, design Me-210 night fighter variant. Then 1943 Germany can, if desired, retool some Me-110 and/or Ju-88 factories for Me-210C.


----------



## mhuxt (Jun 2, 2013)

Civettone said:


> KG 51 did carry out succesful nocturnal intruder missions over England in 1944.


 
KG 51 also picked up a small number (on the order of half a dozen, IIRC, but going from memory here so caveat emptor) of night-time kills over occupied Europe, but as you say not using radar, more like Wilde Sau.


----------



## Civettone (Jun 2, 2013)

davebender said:


> I don't doubt it. However even a well designed new aircraft type needs at least a year to work up production process to full efficiency. 1942 Germany cannot afford to immediately discontinue Ju-88. Nor can they afford to discontinue Me-110 night fighter as Me-210C had no night fighter variant production ready.


At a certain point, the Ju 88 was going to be replaced. In the end, it stayed in production through its improved version til the end. Same story for the Bf 109, or on the Allied side, the Spitfire, LaGG-3/5/7 or Yak-1/3/9, or for the Panzer III and IV. It is indeed a very difficult to choice to switch production, because it means a production loss of several months. Sure, production could start soon enough, but it will take a long time before optmum production rates are achieved. 
When it comes to replacing the Ju 88 with the Me 210/410, I agree that it might not have been worthwhile. I think it would be possible in 1941, maybe in 1942, but no longer in 1943 when Ju 88 production had expanded. Up to 1944 Germany had excess production capacity, so it could start production elsewhere while keeping the old production going. Problem there is the lack of skilled workers. It needs time to train enough of them. This would have been possible up to 1942, but not in 1943/1944. 



stona said:


> Goering didn't forbid testing of the Me 410 as a night fighter. There was an official assessment of its potential in the role. I have no idea if Goering was aware of this or not. Streib's report included the need for extensive modifications to the nose and canopy which Goering vetoed at a meeting with Lucht, Milch and others at the RLM.


Was this about the Me 210 or the Me 410? I have seen a Messerschmitt draft on the required modifications of the Me 410 and these do not include those changes. Even more weird is that the Ju 88G had a completely modified nose and canopy. 

Kris


----------



## davebender (Jun 2, 2013)

That isn't true.

1930s Germany was surprisingly slow to build weapon plants. For example Nibelungenwerk tank plant (RM 65 million. 320 vehicles per month) construction didn't begin until September 1939. DB601 engine factory at Genshagen was small (RM 20 million. 220 engines per month) until expansion began during 1940. That's why Germany had hardly any tanks worthy of the name prior to 1942 and it was impossible to build a second fighter type powered by DB601 engines during 1939.

1930s Soviet Union spent their military budget on factories to produce tanks, artillery and aircraft. 1930s Germany spent over RM 1 billion on battleships, heavy cruisers, aircraft carriers and large fleet destroyers. It's pretty obvious who got the best value for their money.

Due to stupid spending decisions during 1935 to 1938 German weapons production capacity didn't catch up with demand until 1944. By then it was too late to matter.


----------



## Civettone (Jun 2, 2013)

No, I am very right and I have German and Allied reports to back it up. Up to early 1944 many factories only used part of their floor capacity and only employed single shifts! Also the working week was only gradually increased, I think they introduced the 60 hour week only in 1943, and even then, it was not a general measure. Also, Germany was the only country in the world with an excess capacity of jigs and tools production. Finally, there was a lack of standarisation and rationalisation which was never fully resolved due to obstruction from party leaders and Gauleiter.* Also the military did not fully understand the dynamics of war economy, and I also sense that many on this board do not fully grasp the importance of simplifying production in order to produce larger numbers. We all love to ravel on this or that fighter version with 5 mph gain in a dive or a few lbs extra boost... But war is a meat grinding slugfest: it's numbers which matter because usually there is not enough qualititve difference between weapons (though sometimes it exists). 

(*This and much more you can find in for instance, Richard Overy's publications on the German war economy. Or Adam Tooze's Wages of Destruction for a compelling read. Then there is Speer's Inside the Third Reich and the USSBS reports.)

Kris


----------



## delcyros (Jun 3, 2013)

1942.

Honestly, who wants the Me-210 debugged if You may also debug the Jumo-222a instead in this timeframe (or, alternatively accept initial 2000hp derated performance) and hence, aquire Ju288A instead to replace bf110, me-210, ju88, ju188, do-217 and he111?

The only aspect where I can imagine a Me210 will be better suited to (even against a BMW801 driven -288) is CAS. Smaller target size, more armour and sufficient front central space to mount a bigger antitank gun. You would probably prefer a Hs129 for CAS.


----------



## stona (Jun 3, 2013)

Civettone said:


> Was this about the Me 210 or the Me 410? I have seen a Messerschmitt draft on the required modifications of the Me 410 and these do not include those changes. Even more weird is that the Ju 88G had a completely modified nose and canopy.
> Kris



You tell me  

Streib performed his assessments early in 1942 and reported in May 1942. The new designation Me 410 started to appear in official documents around September 1942 so strictly speaking the tests were done using three modified Me 210s.

Petrick and Stocker published loads of Messerschmitt proposals for various versions of the Me 410 in their book "Me 210/ Me 410 Hornisse". Some of them are almost ridiculous and should not be confused with actual plans for workable aircraft. They are more akin to concept drawings.
This sort of thing from slightly later.












Today we'd call then cut 'n' paste jobs!

Streib was reporting on what was actually needed by the Luftwaffe to make a workable night fighter, not what Messerschmitt was proposing. To say that there was a lack of trust between the RLM and Messerschmitt AG, particularly Messerschmitt himself, in early 1942 would be something of an understatement.

Edit. There may well have been a political aspect to Goerings objection. Despite the Luftwaffe's lack of enthusiasm for the Me 210/410 as a fast bomber Goering was very keen on this role for it.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## davebender (Jun 3, 2013)

Problem is German chose to debug neither. 1930s Germany needs to make some production decisions and stick with them. 

If DB601 / DB605 is to be primary German fighter engine then build enough engine factories to match airframe production.
If DB603 program begins then push it to completion. Otherwise DB603 program is cancelled without ordering prototypes.
If 2,000hp Jumo 222a program begins then push it to completion. Otherwise program gets cancelled without ordering prototypes.
Ditto for Me-210 / Me-410 light bomber.


----------



## Denniss (Jun 3, 2013)

The value of 377 Me 210 built by the Hungarians originates from German Bundesarchive/RLM data. They somehow kept track of the hungarian production.
AFAIR they also built some Me 210D recons (included in the 377)


----------



## Njaco (Jun 3, 2013)

> The Ta 154 was to be the successor of the Bf 110. Also a failed design.



Civetone, why was this a failed design? The Ta 154 failed because of the landing gear (half of the prototypes were lost this way) and the other problem was the bonding glue and we know why. What about the _design _was a failure? It still tested out faster than the 219.


----------



## stona (Jun 4, 2013)

Njaco said:


> It still tested out faster than the 219.



But not quick enough to intercept RAF Mosquitos, a large part of its raison d'etre 

Cheers

Steve


----------



## davebender (Jun 4, 2013)

Small numbers of pathfinder aircraft flying @ 25,000 feet would be tough to intercept at night even if flying @ 200mph.

What is this obsession with intercepting pathfinder aircraft? Getting in the bomber stream and ripping up heavy bombers was by far the most successful night fighter tactic.


----------



## stona (Jun 4, 2013)

davebender said:


> What is this obsession with intercepting pathfinder aircraft?



Goering was probably the only man who could have answered that question 

Cheers

Steve


----------



## tyrodtom (Jun 4, 2013)

The pathfinders dropped flares to mark the targets, and kept remarking the target throughout the night. 
Without them Bombers Commands accuracy probably would have fell back to early war standards.


----------



## stona (Jun 4, 2013)

Most Pathfinder squadrons were equipped with heavies, though just over half of 8 Group sorties were flown by Mosquitos. 5 Group had its own Pathfinders, including Mosquitos too. Much of the "backing up" was done by aircraft in Main Force squadrons, usually Lancasters. When a master bomber was introduced to try and control and adjust the bombing over the target he almost invariably flew in a Lancaster.

The Mosquito could of course perform many other roles with relative impunity. The Mosquitos of 100 Group flew everything from radio counter measures to Serrate and intruder missions. Nuisance raids, meteorological flights and much more were also carried out by this most versatile aeroplane. This must have irritated the Luftwaffe and it seems good old Hermann. The Luftwaffe never matched it.

Then there are the day time operations. Precision raids, anti shipping, reconnaissance, the list goes on and on.

Cheers

Steve

C


----------



## davebender (Jun 4, 2013)

Catching Mosquitoes during daytime is a job for Me-109s and Fw-190s. And they are perfectly capable of doing so with good ground control.


----------



## stona (Jun 4, 2013)

davebender said:


> Catching Mosquitoes during daytime is a job for Me-109s and Fw-190s. And they are perfectly capable of doing so with good ground control.



They didn't enjoy much success though. By coincidence I have just been looking at the career of Herman Graf. His single victory over a Mosquito was the only one recorded by Jagdgruppe Sud/JG 50. He himself describes how on most occasions the pilots of JG 50 saw nothing but the disintegrating clouds of anti aircraft fire where a Mosquito had once been.
Intercepting a Mosquito in a Bf 109 may have been possible in theory but the practice was somewhat different.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## mhuxt (Jun 4, 2013)

Steve,

Do you have a date for Graf's claim? Not sure I've ever found one, thought it was ahead of the special units being formed.

I also added a reply to an ancient thread of yours up in "aircraft requests" re: Hudson markings.


----------



## Civettone (Jun 4, 2013)

Njaco said:


> Civetone, why was this a failed design? The Ta 154 failed because of the landing gear (half of the prototypes were lost this way) and the other problem was the bonding glue and we know why. What about the _design _was a failure? It still tested out faster than the 219.


First of all, the landing gear is also part of the design. Second, the Ta 154 did not fail because of the glue issue. That is a common myth which just gets repeated in every book. It is nonsensical when you stop and think about it. 
No, the Ta 154 was a lost cause. Those prototypes which were completed, were tested by a special night fighter unit (I think ErprobungsKommando 154) and was generally considered unsatisfactory. Erich will know more about this. He told me the Ta 154 had some problems, the biggest being tail heavy. 




davebender said:


> What is this obsession with intercepting pathfinder aircraft? Getting in the bomber stream and ripping up heavy bombers was by far the most successful night fighter tactic.


Dave, killing those pathfinders is the most important thing. What is the ultimate goal of the night defences? To shoot down bombers? No, to protect the targets. Taking out the pathfinders will significantly decrease the accuracy of the bombings. And that is what matters.

Kris


----------



## Aozora (Jun 4, 2013)

stona said:


> The Mosquito could of course perform many other roles with relative impunity. The Mosquitos of 100 Group flew everything from radio counter measures to Serrate and intruder missions. Nuisance raids, meteorological flights and much more were also carried out by this most versatile aeroplane. This must have irritated the Luftwaffe and it seems good old Hermann. The Luftwaffe never matched it.
> 
> Then there are the day time operations. Precision raids, anti shipping, reconnaissance, the list goes on and on.
> 
> ...



The other problem with the Mosquito was that by mid-1944 the "nuisance" raids of the Light Night Striking Force were highly effective and highly disturbing: by early 1945 Mosquitoes were attacking Berlin with 4,000 lb bombs; many Mosquitoes were flying two sorties in one night.


----------



## davebender (Jun 4, 2013)

I agree but unless RAF bomber losses reach unacceptable levels they will keep coming back whether they hit anything or not.


----------



## davebender (Jun 4, 2013)

By mid 1944 Allied ground forces were driving to Warsaw and the Rhine. Compared to that catastrophe (from German point of view) Allied bombing raids hardly mattered.


----------



## tyrodtom (Jun 4, 2013)

davebender said:


> By mid 1944 Allied ground forces were driving to Warsaw and the Rhine. Compared to that catastrophe (from German point of view) Allied bombing raids hardly mattered.



I don't know what your definition of "driving "is Dave, but D-Day was June 6, 44, and the Allies didn't cross the Rhine in force till March of 45.
Then the Russians approached Warsaw in August 44, and "regrouped" for 2 months.


----------



## riacrato (Jun 5, 2013)

Intercepting a mosquito-like aircraft on a reliable basis would've only been possible with jet-powered (and/or possibly rocket assisted) aircraft anyways. Day or night. If the Me 210 / Ta 154 / He 219 become a real success, what stops the RAF from equipping the Mosquito with Griffon engines (which were at the time barely needed for Spitfires anyways)? Just one (obvious) of many likely modifications.

More abstractly speaking: Using the same technology, it will be very hard or close ot impossible to build a plane B that can reliably intercept a plane A unless said plane A was a big blunder, which we know wasn't the case.


----------



## wuzak (Jun 5, 2013)

riacrato said:


> Intercepting a mosquito-like aircraft on a reliable basis would've only been possible with jet-powered (and/or possibly rocket assisted) aircraft anyways. Day or night. If the Me 210 / Ta 154 / He 219 become a real success, what stops the RAF from equipping the Mosquito with Griffon engines (which were at the time barely needed for Spitfires anyways)? Just one (obvious) of many likely modifications.
> 
> More abstractly speaking: Using the same technology, it will be very hard or close ot impossible to build a plane B that can reliably intercept a plane A unless said plane A was a big blunder, which we know wasn't the case.



de Havilland did look at using the Griffon - but I am not clear as to whether it was the DH98 Mosquito or one of the Super Mosquito proposals (DH101 or DH102?).

The thinking was that the performance improvement would be minimal. So I would assume it was for a Super Mosquito.

I would think that without a bigger airframe with a bigger bomb bay the Mosquito wouldn't be able to make the most of its extra load carrying capability. And also the range would suffer due to the extra thirst of the Griffons.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 5, 2013)

There were a number of proposals for Mosquito derivatives. In November 1941, DH proposed the "DH.99", later redesignated the "DH.101", fast heavy bomber to the Air Ministry. The DH.101 was apparently something like a scaled-up Mosquito that was to be powered by twin Napier Sabre 24-cylinder inline engines, used on the Hawker Typhoon, driving contrarotating propellers. It was informally referred to as the "Sabre Mosquito". 

The DH.101 was to carry a 7,260 kilogram (16,000 pound) bomb load to Berlin at a top speed of 692 KPH (430 MPH). However, the Sabre development program was troubled and DH was told they would have to make do with the Griffon, Rolls-Royce's next-generation successor to the Merlin. That configuration did not have clear advantages over the existing Mosquito and so the idea was dropped in April 1942. The Air Ministry then tossed around the notion of an improved "DH.102 Mosquito II" with two-stage Merlins, but de Havilland couldn't come up with a design concept that was particularly exciting, and that line of investigation was dropped in turn at the end of 1942. 

However, during 1942, DH had begun a private investigation of a single-seat fighter based on the Mosquito. The "DH.103 Hornet", as it would be known, was intended for the Pacific theater, where the great ocean spaces demanded long range, meaning a big fighter with a large fuel capacity. Air Ministry interest seemed muted and the DH.103 was shelved for a time, but excitement over the concept picked up in the spring of 1943, leading to an order for two prototypes in June 1943 under Specification "12/43". nevertheless, administrative disinterst had delayed the introduction of the hornet by at least a year. It is quite arguable that it could have been entering squadron servicein mid 1944, if the need had been ther. and at 470mph with the manouverability of a mosquito and 4 x 20mm cannon, it would have been a very dangerous and effective aircraft. 


The first prototype performed its initial flight on 28 July 1944, with Geoffrey de Havilland JR at the controls. The prototype was in the air only 13 months after the beginning of the detailed design effort. The first flight was troublesome -- the undercarriage didn't want to retract and the aircraft suffered from serious tail buffeting -- but the problems were worked out. Performance exceeded predictions, with a top speed of 780 KPH (485 MPH) and a blazing climb rate of 1,370 meters (4,500 feet) per minute. A production order followed. 

The Hornet was powered by twin Rolls-Royce Merlins, which unlike the Merlins fitted to the Mosquito were "handed", with a "Merlin 130" on one side and a "Merlin 131" on the other, both rated at 1,515 kW (2,030 HP) and fitted with Hydromatic four-blade variable-pitch propellers. The engine radiators were fitted in the leading edge of the wings inboard of the engines. Like the Mosquito, the Hornet had tailwheel landing gear, with the main gear retracting back into the engine nacelles and a semi-retractable tailwheel. 

The fighter was armed with four 20 millimeter Hispano cannon, fitted under the nose. The pilot sat under a backwards-sliding bubble-type canopy. The second prototype and production aircraft were fitted for underwing stores, including two 909 liter (200 Imperial gallon / 240 US gallon) drop tanks; or two 450 kilogram (1,000 pound) bombs; or eight RPs; or two 225 kilogram (500 pound) bombs and four RPs. Since the production aircraft were fitted with operational kit, they were heavier and so slower than the prototypes, but not by much, with a top speed of 760 KPH (472 MPH).


----------



## wuzak (Jun 5, 2013)

parsifal said:


> The DH.101 was to carry a 7,260 kilogram (16,000 pound) bomb load to Berlin at a top speed of 692 KPH (430 MPH).



I believe that the 16,000lb load was, in actual fact, only 6,000lb.

A bomber carrying 16,000lb would have been quite a bit bigger!

Pity that the Vulture program couldn't continue. Its problems could have been sorted out before the Sabre's were, and may have provided de Havillands and Hawkers (P.1005) with suitable alternative engines. I wonder if teh V-3420 ever came into consideration in the UK, as well.


----------



## stona (Jun 5, 2013)

mhuxt said:


> Steve,
> 
> Do you have a date for Graf's claim? Not sure I've ever found one, thought it was ahead of the special units being formed.
> 
> I also added a reply to an ancient thread of yours up in "aircraft requests" re: Hudson markings.



Only the same as Bergstrom. Victory 203, June 1943, in the Groningen area. I think that it may have been in early July, after the arrival of the specially finished and GM-1 equipped 109s but before the unit was fully operational. In either case this would indeed be ahead of the formation/designation of JG 50 of in August.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## DonL (Jun 5, 2013)

riacrato said:


> Intercepting a mosquito-like aircraft on a reliable basis would've only been possible with jet-powered (and/or possibly rocket assisted) aircraft anyways. Day or night. If the Me 210 / Ta 154 / He 219 become a real success, what stops the RAF from equipping the Mosquito with Griffon engines (which were at the time barely needed for Spitfires anyways)? Just one (obvious) of many likely modifications.
> 
> More abstractly speaking: Using the same technology, it will be very hard or close ot impossible to build a plane B that can reliably intercept a plane A unless said plane A was a big blunder, which we know wasn't the case.



I disagree, every FW 187 built and developed further on the different DB engines (with the same radiators as the the Me 110) could intercept a Moussie day and night. It is weather a myth nor uimpossible from the hard facts we have.


----------



## stona (Jun 5, 2013)

DonL said:


> I disagree, every FW 187 built and developed further on the different DB engines (with the same radiators as the the Me 110) could intercept a Moussie day and night.



But they didn't.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## DonL (Jun 5, 2013)

What has this to do with this claims?



> *Intercepting a mosquito-like aircraft on a reliable basis would've only been possible with jet-powered (and/or possibly rocket assisted) aircraft anyways. Day or night.* If the Me 210 / Ta 154 / He 219 become a real success, what stops the RAF from equipping the Mosquito with Griffon engines (which were at the time barely needed for Spitfires anyways)? Just one (obvious) of many likely modifications.
> 
> *More abstractly speaking: Using the same technology, it will be very hard or close ot impossible to build a plane B that can reliably intercept a plane A unless said plane A was a big blunder, which we know wasn't the case.*



They are wrong from a technology-based viewpoint totaly equal if the FW 187 was developed or not, the claims are wrong!


----------



## cimmex (Jun 5, 2013)

The Ta154 was designed as Mosquito hunter and also named unofficially “Moskito”. I wonder why this plane shared absolutely nothing with the Fw187. Why develop a complete new plane when a design was already there that could fulfil this task?
cimmex


----------



## DonL (Jun 5, 2013)

You are aware, that the RLM *ordered* the FW 187 nightfighter/destroyer from FW at July 1942?
You are also aware, that the FW 187 was an all metal a/c and the Ta 154 was a compound design with al ot of wood? 
Also the requirements of the Ta 154 from the RLM were other requirements through wood, range and armament and the requirements were from late 1942.

After this book:
Dietmar Hermann: Focke-Wulf Nachtjäger Ta 154 „Moskito“ – Entwicklung, Produktion und Truppenerprobung. 

the development of the Ta 154 from design beginning to the first flight in 9 month would have been impossible without the experience of the FW 187.


----------



## mhuxt (Jun 5, 2013)

stona said:


> Only the same as Bergstrom. Victory 203, June 1943, in the Groningen area. I think that it may have been in early July, after the arrival of the specially finished and GM-1 equipped 109s but before the unit was fully operational. In either case this would indeed be ahead of the formation/designation of JG 50 of in August.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Steve


 
Thanks for that - I've never been able to find anything more than "June, Gronigen", same as I've never been able to find anything approaching a loss which matches.

The claim certainly doesn't appear in the Tony Wood list, although Graf's claims later in '43 do.


----------



## Aozora (Jun 5, 2013)

DonL said:


> I disagree, every FW 187 built and developed further on the different DB engines (with the same radiators as the the Me 110) could intercept a Moussie day and night. It is weather a myth nor uimpossible from the hard facts we have.


 
Again with the theoretical performance of the Fw 187 - seems to me this subject has been chewed over, digested and regurgitated every time someone mentions "Mosquito or P-38". 

Fact: the Fw 187 did not get into production, with or without various DBs.

Fact: Exactly ONE Fw 187 flew with DB601s.

Fact: Over 7,000 Mosquitos were built. 

How many Mosquito bombers were shot down? 108 plus 88 written off. 
How many sorties were flown by bombers, day and night over Europe? 29,963 May '43 to May '45. 
How many Mosquitos were shot down by the various interceptors sent up against them? (Estimated) 80-90?
How many Fw 187 sorties against Mosquitos? 0.
How many Mosquitos were shot down by Fw 187s? Zero, nil, none, the big 0.


----------



## stona (Jun 5, 2013)

There is no evidence that an OPERATIONAL Fw 187 fighter would have had a large enough speed advantage over a Mosquito flying at altitude to enable consistently successful interceptions. 

As far as I can tell only two DB 601 powered Fw 187 were ever completed (V5 (test bed for hot cooling experiments) and V7 (originally a record attempt project, later converted to B-0, retaining the werknummer 1977) so I've no idea what you are basing your assumptions on. Neither of these would bear much resemblance to a service aircraft.

The only versions approximating service aircraft were the A-0s of the Factory Protection Staffel, some later sent to Vaerlose, and they were powered by Jumo engines and unlikely to bother a Mosquito.

Whatever the RLM ordered in July 1942 (and the RLM had decided that the Fw 187 might fulfil the roles of night fighter and high altitude interceptor once fitted with DB 605 engines) the Fw 187 programme was axed on 31st August 1942 and Focke - Wulf ordered to stop all work on the type. 

Not one single aircraft was built as a result of the RLM's development contract of 20th July, actually a series of eight individual contracts. This is not strictly speaking a production order. Three mock ups were started as of about 4th August.

20th July to 31st August that's how long a glimmer of hope for the type existed. 

Again I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## wuzak (Jun 5, 2013)

It wasn't just a matter of having faster aircraft. The Luftwaffe had, in 1942 and 1943, aircraft that had, in theory, higher performance than Mosquito bombers and PR aircraft. But they still struggled to make interceptions.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 5, 2013)

To have a large number of successful intercepts you need to have a good margin of performance, a small one won't do. While 20mph is 20mph an interceptor that can do 220 vs a bomber doing 200 is still a bit different than an interceptor doing 340 vs a bomber doing 320mph. From the same distance away it takes the same time to catch the bombers but the intercept (chase) takes place over a much bigger area. Max Speed is pretty much useless until the planes get very close together. Max continuous power or 30 minutes rating speeds are more useful, but they burn fuel at a large rate. Pilots did abuse (ignore) time limits at times but that is no way to plane either an intercept network/strategy or a bombing/evasion campaign.


----------



## wiking85 (Jun 5, 2013)

stona said:


> There is no evidence that an OPERATIONAL Fw 187 fighter would have had a large enough speed advantage over a Mosquito flying at altitude to enable consistently successful interceptions.
> 
> As far as I can tell only two DB 601 powered Fw 187 were ever completed (V5 (test bed for hot cooling experiments) and V7 (originally a record attempt project, later converted to B-0, retaining the werknummer 1977) so I've no idea what you are basing your assumptions on. Neither of these would bear much resemblance to a service aircraft.
> 
> ...



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Mosquito#Specifications
The 1942 Mark II Mosquito fighter version had a 366mph top speed, which given as the 1940 version of the FW187 that has been suggested having around >380 mph speed, there shouldn't be problem catching it.

In 1943 the faster bomber version appeared (Mark IV):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Mosquito#Variants


> The B Mk IV had a maximum speed of 380 mph (611 km/h), a cruising speed of 265 mph (426 km/h), ceiling of 34,000 ft (10,360 m), a range of 2,040 nm (3,280 km), and a climb rate of 2,500 ft per minute (762 m).[97]



By this point the FW187 would have had the more powerful DB605 and could beat that speed on both ends.



> In October 1943 it was decided that all B Mk IVs and all B Mk IXs then in service would be converted to carry the 4,000 lb (1,812 kg) "Cookie", and all B Mk IXs built after that date were designed to allow them to be converted to carry the weapon.The B Mk IX had a maximum speed of 408 mph (656 km/h), a cruising speed of 250 mph (402 km/h), ceiling of 36,000 ft (10,970 m), a range of 2,450 nm (3,940 km), and a climb rate of 2,850 feet per minute (869 m).


Again, still catchable by a late 1943 single seat DB605 powered FW187 during the day. At night it would be a different story of course, as the FW187 is not able to match that with radar gear and a second seat.


----------



## DonL (Jun 5, 2013)

My point is very easy and based on hard technical data's and facts!

1. The FW 187 V5 showed, that the FW 187 had absolutely no problems to absorb the bigger engines DB 601. This a/c flew for over two years without any problems at flight characteristics or g-limits. The alltime quarrel, the FW 187 was in need for a major redesign for the DB engines is simply bogus. 

2. The three FW 187 A0 were flying from 1940-1944 at several places many combat missions fully equiped and armed with (4 x 7,92 MG and 2 x 2cm FF) without any problems and were stationed many years at a flight school at Denmark. So there were no problems with the a/c and it's flight characteristics and performance at combat missions.
The FW 187 A0 full equiped and armed (4 x 7,92 MG and 2 x 2cm FF):

weight 5300kg 
top seed: 525 km/h at 4600m altitude 
2x Jumo 210G engines (730PS each).

Please explain to me your arguments why it was possible for the Bf 110 B-G:

B110B-01 with Jumo 210G 2x730ps
top speed: 455km/h
climb: 11m/s
6,2t takeoff weight as Zerstörer

B110C1 with DB601A 2x1100ps
top speed: 540km/h
climb: 6000 m in 11 min
6,7t takeoff weight as Zerstörer

B110F2 with DB601F 2x1350ps
top speed: 570km/h
climb: 6000 m in 9 min
7,0t takeoff weight as Zerstörer

Bf110G-2 with DB605B 2x1450ps
top speed 595km/h in 6100m
climb: 6000 m in 8 min
7,79 t takeoff weight as Zerstörer

to increase it's top speed from 455km/h with Jumo engines to 540 km/h with DB 601A, to 570km/h with DB 601F, to 595 km/h with DB 605A's and a weight gain of 1500kg with normal radiotors.
So where are the technical arguments or evidences, that a FW 187 couldn't perform with the equal capacity of performance?

The engines and radiators of the FW 187A0 and Bf 110 B were equal, also the weight gain of the Bf 110 B to the Bf 110 G-2 is equal to the calculations of the FW 187 C from 1942.

To me there is absolute no technical argument, that the FW 187 couldn't do the same performance jumps as the Bf 110, or even better, because the FW 187 had the better aerodynamics as shown from the FW 187 A0 compare to the Bf 110 B with the same engines and radiators.

If we look at the Bf 110 B and FW 187 A0 and their radiator configuration, you can easy estimate, that there are the same possibilty to reduce the drag of the FW 187 as to the Bf 110 C.














for comparation the Bf 110 C 








So if we look at the performance increase of the Bf 110 B to C to F to G, we can very easy estimate the performance increase of the "several developed" FW 187 and to me, there is till now, not a single technical argument or evidence, that this would be more difficult for the FW 187, more the cotradict through her much better aerodynamics!
And everyone can do the calculation on it's own, of the increased performance of the FW 187.


----------



## mhuxt (Jun 5, 2013)

wiking85 said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Mosquito#Specifications
> The 1942 Mark II Mosquito fighter version had a 366mph top speed, which given as the 1940 version of the FW187 that has been suggested having around >380 mph speed, there shouldn't be problem catching it.
> 
> In 1943 the faster bomber version appeared (Mark IV):
> ...


 
There would have been as good as no F.IIs over occupied territory in daylight until about April 1943, and then only under cloud cover. The Bomber and PR variants over Europe from 1941 (PR) and 1942 (Bomber) were both 380 mph or above in service.

The 1943 Bomber / PR was the IX, 408 mph, or the VIII, 413 mph.

Again, all so much woulda coulda shoulda.


----------



## DonL (Jun 5, 2013)

> *Again, all so much woulda coulda shoulda.*



Wrong, it based on hard technical facts and datas!


----------



## wiking85 (Jun 5, 2013)

mhuxt said:


> There would have been as good as no F.IIs over occupied territory in daylight until about April 1943, and then only under cloud cover. The Bomber and PR variants over Europe from 1941 (PR) and 1942 (Bomber) were both 380 mph or above in service.


Can you provide some numbers to show that the Bomber variant had that speed in 1942 AND was operating in any sort of numbers?
Also was that speed fully decked out with bombs and fuel or without bombs?


----------



## Aozora (Jun 5, 2013)

DonL said:


> Wrong, it based on hard technical facts and datas!



Wrong - it based on paper projects that didn't fly, didn't reach the mock-up stage and certainly didn't catch Mosquitos, P-38s, Spitfires, Me 210s, Tiger Moths or Polikarpov Po2s.


----------



## DonL (Jun 5, 2013)

Aozora said:


> Wrong - it based on paper projects that didn't fly, didn't reach the mock-up stage and certainly didn't catch Mosquitos, P-38s, Spitfires, Me 210s, Tiger Moths or Polikarpov Po2s.



So the FW 187 A0 didn't fly? 
The FW 187 V5 didn't fly?
The Bf 110 B, Bf 110C, Bf 110F, Bf 110G-2 all didn't fly with the posted performance datas?

I'm sick to your national biases and protection of the mythical Moussie and P38!
Show me technical arguments that the FW 187 couldn't do the same performance jumps as the Bf 110.
Your argumentation is bogus on a technical base! The technical datas and flights of the FW 187 A0, V5 and Bf 110 B, Bf 110C, the Bf 110F, the Bf 110G-2 are proving the contradict!


----------



## parsifal (Jun 5, 2013)

> Again, all so much woulda coulda shoulda


.

you could add....."but didnt". 

In my book that either makes the germans incredibly stupid, or, the claims being made here are bogus.

Im happy with either answer.....


----------



## wiking85 (Jun 5, 2013)

parsifal said:


> .
> 
> you could add....."but didnt".
> 
> ...


I think the incredibly stupid and lacking foresight fits the guys that made the decision perfectly: Goering and Udet. Goering was so wedded to the concept of a heavy 'destroyer' aircraft that when the FW187 couldn't be effectively shoe-horned into that role, he had no use for it and his catspaw in the Technical Branch, Udet, killed the project; its a testament to the quality of the aircraft that it soldiered on as a project despite this, but due to the pressures of war and Milch wanting to maximize existing production, rather than add in a new type, it was never to be after being passed over the first time.


----------



## Aozora (Jun 5, 2013)

DonL said:


> I'm sick to your national biases and protection of the mythical Moussie and P38!



Over 7,000 Mosquitos were built and 10,000 plus P-38s. Not so mythical. 

How many DB605 powered Fw 187s were built? Something like -er- none. So which aircraft was _mythical_? 

Neither the Mosquito or the P-38 need "protection", but the Fw 187 gets lots of it at every _conceivable_ opportunity.

BTW how many aircraft did the operational Fw 187A-0s of the Industry Protection Flight shoot down in two years? *One* _confirmed_ Spitfire, although one pilot claimed to have shot down several aircraft...


----------



## DonL (Jun 5, 2013)

Where are your *technical *arguments?
I'm still waiting


----------



## stona (Jun 5, 2013)

The A-0 did fly but with 528kph at 6,000m wouldn't have troubled a Mosquito which was significantly faster. It also took the Fw 187 A-0 something over ten minutes to climb to 6000m during which it would be travelling at a much lower speed whilst it's target flew away

The Fw 187 was shoe horned into the heavy fighter role, that's precisely what the A-0 was, hence two crew. V4 was the prototype for the A-0 pre-production series. In the first paragraph of specifications it is clearly defined.

"In keeping with its design role of heavy fighter............."

Even assuming that some of the projected figures, or even figures from the two DB 601 equipped test aircraft, could miraculously and for the first time in aviation history be transferred to a fully armed and equipped production version in front line service the speed advantages given would still be marginal for successful interceptions.

Since this never happened I'd suggest "woulda, shoulda, coulda........but never did" is about right.

All the rest is "sound and fury signifying nothing" as a bloke from just up the road from me once wrote. 

Cheers

Steve


----------



## mhuxt (Jun 5, 2013)

wiking85 said:


> Can you provide some numbers to show that the Bomber variant had that speed in 1942 AND was operating in any sort of numbers?
> Also was that speed fully decked out with bombs and fuel or without bombs?


 
The speed numbers come from original data sheets which Mike Williams posted on this board. Don't know what you mean by "any sort of numbers" for the 1942 variant. It equipped 105 and later 139 squadrons, so those are the numbers which the Fw 187 woulda coulda shoulda intercepted but didn't. The weight-related data are on the data sheets.


----------



## DonL (Jun 5, 2013)

stona said:


> *The A-0 did fly but with 528kph at 6,000m wouldn't have troubled a Mosquito which was significantly faster. It also took the Fw 187 A-0 something over ten minutes to climb to 6000m during which it would be travelling at a much lower speed whilst it's target flew away
> *
> The Fw 187 was shoe horned into the heavy fighter role, that's precisely what the A-0 was, hence two crew. V4 was the prototype for the A-0 pre-production series. In the first paragraph of specifications it is clearly defined.
> 
> ...



The next post that did not base on technical facts!
I have shown my facts and datas, with up to 100 posts here in this forum, with hard technical facts, you are doing nothing then babbling without technical arguments. 
Your agenda is shown on the first passage, because that isn't the issue.

The issue at this thread was the claim, the Moussie could only be intercepted from german jet a/c's, what is simply bogus from technical hard facts.

Provide arguments rather then babbling!


----------



## stona (Jun 5, 2013)

DonL said:


> Provide arguments rather then babbling!



What are your figures for the A-0? I took mine from Hermann and Petrick's book. At least you can console yourself that an Fw 187 going flat out at 6,000m would be slightly faster than a cruising Mosquito.

This is of course for an aeroplane that actually flew, unlike all the paper projects you keep quoting.

Aozora, Wolfgang Stein is the only man with a confirmed victory in the Fw 187, as you say, a Spitfire.
Kurt Mehlhorn was credited with "several" victories by "Der Condor", the Focke-Wulf in house magazine, which published an obituary. It doesn't specify what he was flying when he achieved these unconfirmed victories. Hardly an authoritative source anyway!

Cheers

Steve


----------



## DonL (Jun 5, 2013)

stona said:


> What are your figures for the A-0? I took mine from Hermann and Petrick's book. At least you can console yourself that an Fw 187 going flat out at 6,000m would be slightly faster than a cruising Mosquito.
> 
> This is of course for an aeroplane that actually flew, unlike all the paper projects you keep quoting.
> 
> ...



1.The FW 187 A0 is the base with Jumo engines! 
As also the Bf 109 B, Bf 110B, Ju87 A, He 112B etc. were the base to all other further developed a/c's with bigger DB engines.
Were the Bf 109 E, F, G; the Bf 110 C, F, G, the Ju 87 B,C , D all paper designs?

The FW 187 V5 was the prove that the FW 187 had not a single problem with the DB 601 engines.

2. I have shown the performance increase and weight increase of the Bf 110 B to G and Bf 110 design was to the same requirements as the FW 187 V4/ A0 design.
Where are your technical arguments against the performance increase of the FW 187?
I have shown the estimations of educated piston aircraft engineers, that worked with this a/c for over 4 years with countless datas and testflights.

Your paper design arguments (The FW 187 wasn't a paper design, 8 were flying) and comparison of the FW 187A0 with the Moussie shows only, that you have no technical arguments against the FW 187, not a single.

It's only babbling and smoke grenades, because for your national biases it is impossible to concede, that the german had a design that could match with the performance of the Moussie and P38.

Provide technical facts as I have provided in all my posts (look at my post 107) and stop the babbling without technical arguments!


----------



## Kryten (Jun 5, 2013)

Without this aircraft being accepted for service and used in meaningful numbers there is no way to know if it was any good or not, what is known is the aircraft was not accepted for service, that's quite telling all by itself!


----------



## stona (Jun 5, 2013)

DonL said:


> Provide technical facts as I have provided in all my posts (look at my post 107) and stop the babbling without technical arguments!



I notice you don't now dispute the figures I gave for the A-0. I guess you took the time to look them up for yourself. That was the only version that ever flew in anything approaching a service environment.

I don't give a tinker's cuss for technical arguments and projections of _aircraft that never flew._ 

I don't doubt that Germany could have theoretically produced an aircraft to match the Mosquito.

What you seem to find hard to swallow is the FACT that IT DID NOT until the development of its jet aeroplanes. 

Cheers

Steve


----------



## pattle (Jun 5, 2013)

I think people are often influenced to much by an aircrafts looks and how they sound on paper rather than the reality associated with them, for this reason the British love the Westland Whirlwind and the Germans love the Me410 and FW187.


----------



## DonL (Jun 5, 2013)

> I don't give a tinker's cuss for technical arguments and projections of aircraft that never flew.



That shows your agenda, the FW 187 wasn't a projection or paperdesign it flew from primary sources from 1937 till 1944 and educated piston aircraft engineers which developed the FW 190, showed the performance of a developed FW 187.
And to be honest I believe them 100 times more then every national biased slasher, that can't provide any technical facts.



> I don't doubt that Germany could have theoretically produced an aircraft to match the Mosquito.



Wrong it was practically developed!


----------



## stona (Jun 5, 2013)

DonL said:


> Wrong it was practically developed!



Well it can't be any version of the Fw 187 that actually flew in anything approaching a service environment as I've already show that the A-0 lacked the performance to match the Mosquito.

Answer these three questions if you would please.

Which aircraft was the developed Mosquito killer ?

When did it enter service ?

How many Mosquitos did it shoot down?

Cheers

Steve


----------



## DonL (Jun 5, 2013)

1.The FW 187 A0 was the base with Jumo engines!
As also the Bf 109 B, Bf 110B, Ju87 A, He 112B etc. were the base to all other further developed a/c's with bigger DB engines.
Were the Bf 109 E, F, G; the Bf 110 C, F, G, the Ju 87 B,C , D all paper designs?

The FW 187 V5 was the prove that the FW 187 had not a single problem with the DB 601 engines.

2. I have shown the performance increase and weight increase of the Bf 110 B to G and Bf 110 design was to the same requirements as the FW 187 V4/ A0 design.
*Where are your technical arguments against the performance increase of the FW 187 simular to the Bf 110B to G*?
*Was the Fw 187 developed from the scratch to the 35Liter advertisement of the RLM after Dietmar Hermanns book yes or no?*
I have shown the estimations of educated piston aircraft engineers, that worked with this a/c for over 4 years with countless datas and testflights.


----------



## Tante Ju (Jun 5, 2013)

stona said:


> I don't doubt that Germany could have theoretically produced an aircraft to match the Mosquito.
> 
> What you seem to find hard to swallow is the FACT that IT DID NOT until the development of its jet aeroplanes.



Uhm, there is a _Hornet _in that ointment which you might find hard to swallow.


----------



## stona (Jun 5, 2013)

DonL, you keep repeating yourself but you haven't answered my three simple questions.

Answers please!



Tante Ju said:


> Uhm, there is a _Hornet _in that ointment which you might find hard to swallow.



And how many Mosquitos did the Me 210/410 shoot down? To compare that aircraft's tale of woe with the Mosquito seems pretty pointless.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Tante Ju (Jun 5, 2013)

stona said:


> And how many Mosquitos did the Me 210/410 shoot down?



It is about as relevant as asking how many Me 410 the Mosquitos did the shoot down... not really the measure of performance for light/fast bombers IMHO.



> To compare that aircraft's tale of woe with the Mosquito seems pretty pointless.



What 'tale of woe' did the Me 410 had, if I may ask? Both were capable and well thought out light bombers IMHO, though the Mosquito seems to be waaay overhyped to me.


----------



## DonL (Jun 5, 2013)

stona said:


> Well it can't be any version of the Fw 187 that actually flew in anything approaching a service environment as I've already show that the A-0 lacked the performance to match the Mosquito.
> 
> Answer these three questions if you would please.
> 
> ...




You see it is very easy to answer your question.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 5, 2013)

pattle said:


> I think people are often influenced to much by an aircrafts looks and how they sound on paper rather than the reality associated with them, for this reason the British love the Westland Whirlwind and the Germans love the Me410 and FW187.



a slight difference, if you please. The Whirlwind did stay in service as a combat aircraft for 1 1/2 - 2 years AFTER both it and it's engines went out of production. Granted it only flew with two squadrons but if it was as bad as it's detractors say why keep it flying at all? Surely the pilots (who all loved it) and ground crews could have been better used manning "better" aircraft? Very few air forces were using what were 1940/41 aircraft in 1943 in *unmodified* form in daylight. This would be like the Germans still using two squadrons of Bf 109E jabos in 1943. 

I actually rather like the Fw 187 and think it got a bit of a bum deal, but I also think that too many "paper" airplanes are bandied about and the number of aircraft that actually meet or exceeded their designers "predictions" are equaled or exceeded by the number of aircraft that didn't. This goes FOR ALL COUNTRIES.


----------



## Civettone (Jun 5, 2013)

Don, I believe that the Fw 187 would have made an excellent (although too costly) fighter. But I doubt it would be a suitable night fighter: it could not carry a radar operator plus the required double radar sets. 
Of course an enlarged Fw 187 could be designed, and I guess that is what Tank was working on in 1944, but at that point it seems pure conjecture as to what this what-if version derived from another what-if version would have been like.

Kris


----------



## stona (Jun 5, 2013)

The answer to question two is incorrect. Fw 187 did not enter service in 1939. None were accepted by the BAL which I would suggest was the criteria for "entering Luftwaffe service".

The answer to question three is ZERO because your hypothetical developments never happened. Your hypothetical speed advantage was never tested.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## stona (Jun 5, 2013)

Tante Ju said:


> What 'tale of woe' did the Me 410 had, if I may ask? Both were capable and well thought out light bombers IMHO, though the Mosquito seems to be waaay overhyped to me.



You are kidding aren't you. I know you are well aware of the saga of the Me 210/410 development. You also know that Me 410 was a new designation introduced for the modified Me 210 in an attempt to distance it from the earlier debacle. The Me 210 was ordered in 1938 for heaven's sake and was being described as "a nail in Udet's coffin" by the time of his suicide in November 1941. To describe the project as "well thought out" seems to be stretching the meaning of the phrase somewhat.

The Me 410 might have been a decent light bomber but was developed in a variety of roles and half heartedly for the most part. The late obsession with fitting ever larger calibre cannon in the nose illustrates this well.

If it was such a well thought out bomber why did those in charge of Luftwaffe bombing forces not want it? Pelz expressed this opinion on several occasions and on the record.
I've not seen any evidence of anyone in Bomber Command saying such things about the Mosquito.

Was the Mosquito over hyped? An aircraft that carried out many roles and in Bomber Command service flew 39,795 sorties for 260 losses, a rate of 0.65%. Show me another aircraft on any side that comes close.

If it is over hyped why did the Luftwaffe develop an almost obsessional need to deal with it? The figures show that it never did. 

Those Mosquitos flying two sorties a night, delivering 8,000lbs or ordnance with impunity sure as hell got up someone's nose!

Cheers

Steve


----------



## davebender (Jun 5, 2013)

PBY seaplane was about the easiest possible aerial target yet it survived recon missions most of the time. Seems to me any 300+ mph recon aircraft would be tough to kill using WWII technology. Not impossible but most are going to escape even if interceptors are flying Me-262.


----------



## tyrodtom (Jun 5, 2013)

The PBY was flying a completely different type of recon mission that a PR Spitfire, or Mosquito.
The PBY was looking to something, anything, over a mostly empty ocean. When it found anything, if it couldn't leave the area, it hopefully could hide in the clouds.
The PR Spitfire and Mosquito was sent over known enemy strongholds, over heavily defended airspace, etc. It's only protection, high or low, was it's speed.


----------



## stona (Jun 5, 2013)

I should have stipulated the ETO and not assumed that as understood, my mistake. I don't know what the loss rates were for the PBYs or other Pacific reconnaissance types (I don't know a lot about the PTO period!), but it's not a valid comparison for the rather obvious reasons posted above.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## pattle (Jun 5, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> a slight difference, if you please. The Whirlwind did stay in service as a combat aircraft for 1 1/2 - 2 years AFTER both it and it's engines went out of production. Granted it only flew with two squadrons but if it was as bad as it's detractors say why keep it flying at all? Surely the pilots (who all loved it) and ground crews could have been better used manning "better" aircraft? Very few air forces were using what were 1940/41 aircraft in 1943 in *unmodified* form in daylight. This would be like the Germans still using two squadrons of Bf 109E jabos in 1943.
> 
> I actually rather like the Fw 187 and think it got a bit of a bum deal, but I also think that too many "paper" airplanes are bandied about and the number of aircraft that actually meet or exceeded their designers "predictions" are equaled or exceeded by the number of aircraft that didn't. This goes FOR ALL COUNTRIES.



I don't think the Whirlwind was a bad aircraft even though it had it's share of problems, but I think the answer why the British didn't develop it further is a similar one to why the Germans shouldn't have developed the Me110 any further, lack of potential and lack of need.


----------



## DonL (Jun 5, 2013)

pattle said:


> I don't think the Whirlwind was a bad aircraft even though it had it's share of problems, but I think the answer why the British didn't develop it further is a similar one to why the Germans shouldn't have developed the Me110 any further, lack of potential and lack of need.



Ho w do you want to develop the Bf 110 any further? It was suited with DB 605 engines. You can't get any better performance, the ME 210 was the "further" development.
If you have a typo, the FW 187 was constructed from the scratch to carry the DB engines, the Whirlwind was constructed to the Peregrine engines and died with the engine, because it was not possible to suit Merlins without a *major* redesign. More or less a new a/c.


----------



## davebender (Jun 5, 2013)

IMO small internal fuel capacity was a greater Whirlwind shortcoming. 

Fw-187 and Me-210 didn't have that problem. Both aircraft carried generous amounts of fuel. So did British Mosquito.


----------



## wuzak (Jun 5, 2013)

DonL said:


> Ho w do you want to develop the Bf 110 any further? It was suited with DB 605 engines. You can't get any better performance, the ME 210 was the "further" development.



Don, I think you misread what he said.

Pattle's words were "why the Germans should *not* have developed the Me110 any further".

That is, he is saying that development of the Me 110 should have been cancelled around 1941/42.


----------



## wuzak (Jun 5, 2013)

DonL said:


> Which aircraft was the developed Mosquito killer ? *FW 187*



Don, the FW 187 was never developed beyond the pre-production A-0s. There were projected variants that may have been able to cope with the Mosquito, but they were never developed. Other aircraft were developed or deployed to counter the Mosquito, but the Fw 187 wasn't one of them.




DonL said:


> When did it enter service ? *1939, wasn't developed further through political reasons and a totaly brainless RLM at this time.*



As Stona has already pointed out, it didn't exactly see service. It did service trials and some factory protection detail. That's it.




DonL said:


> How many Mosquitos did it shoot down? *Hard to estimate*



Impossible to estimate.




DonL said:


> a FW 187 that will reach top speeds between (620km/h/Db 601A; 660km/h/DB 601F and 682km/h/Db 601A) a lot, because it had the speed advantage



How much is that speed advantage?

B.IV with Merlin 20-series - 380mph (611km/h) top speed - 1942
B.IX with Merlin 70-series - 408mph (656km/h) top speed - 1943
B.XVI with Merlin 76/77 - 419mph (674km/h) top speed (without bomb, 408mph with 4000lb bomb) - 1944.

Top Mosquito speed - W4050 @ 439mph (706km/h) in 1943.

The Merlin RM.17SM was tested (accidentally) at 2380hp @ 3300rpm, +30psi boost in 1943. Eventually rated at 2100hp @ c.12-15,000 (IIRC).

That is to say, there was some scope for improving the Mosquito's performance.


----------



## Civettone (Jun 5, 2013)

stona said:


> Was the Mosquito over hyped? An aircraft that carried out many roles and in Bomber Command service flew 39,795 sorties for 260 losses, a rate of 0.65%. Show me another aircraft on any side that comes close.
> 
> If it is over hyped why did the Luftwaffe develop an almost obsessional need to deal with it? The figures show that it never did.
> 
> Those Mosquitos flying two sorties a night, delivering 8,000lbs or ordnance with impunity sure as hell got up someone's nose!


I agree that the Mosquito is one of the best aircraft of WW2. But I do feel you are creating a hype even when you say you are not. It is only natural that less Mosquito bombers were shot down than heavy bombers. But there were never more than 200 Mosquitoes operational, so their use was limited, at least as a conventional bomber. The Mosquito was fast but when carrying its 'cookie' its performance (and handling) dropped significantly. Thus, as a bomber, it was not that invincible as often portrayed. Its real strength was as as a reconaissance aircraft and night fighter. Unlike the Me 410, it was totally unsuited as a tactical bomber. The Mosquito hardly carried any armour which made it very vulnerable against Flak, especially at low altitude. Also, woonden structure tend to catch fire easily. The Mosquito had important structural limitations due to its wooden construction. It was unable to make high G manoeuvres without its wings falling off. 
Compare that with the Me 410 which was one of the strongest planes built, capable of dive bombing at an angle of 70 degrees, and strongly protected by armour. Not saying the Me 410 was superior to the Mosquito, but I do feel that both had their strengths and weakneses. 

Kris


----------



## pattle (Jun 5, 2013)

wuzak said:


> Don, I think you misread what he said.
> 
> Pattle's words were "why the Germans should *not* have developed the Me110 any further".
> 
> That is, he is saying that development of the Me 110 should have been cancelled around 1941/42.



You are right I was saying development should have been cancelled, the Me 210, 410 and Fw187 saga is not like the Me262 saga where a great opportunity was missed.


----------



## pattle (Jun 5, 2013)

Civettone said:


> I agree that the Mosquito is one of the best aircraft of WW2. But I do feel you are creating a hype even when you say you are not. It is only natural that less Mosquito bombers were shot down than heavy bombers. But there were never more than 200 Mosquitoes operational, so their use was limited, at least as a conventional bomber. The Mosquito was fast but when carrying its 'cookie' its performance (and handling) dropped significantly. Thus, as a bomber, it was not that invincible as often portrayed. Its real strength was as as a reconaissance aircraft and night fighter. Unlike the Me 410, it was totally unsuited as a tactical bomber. The Mosquito hardly carried any armour which made it very vulnerable against Flak, especially at low altitude. Also, woonden structure tend to catch fire easily. The Mosquito had important structural limitations due to its wooden construction. It was unable to make high G manoeuvres without its wings falling off.
> Compare that with the Me 410 which was one of the strongest planes built, capable of dive bombing at an angle of 70 degrees, and strongly protected by armour. Not saying the Me 410 was superior to the Mosquito, but I do feel that both had their strengths and weakneses.
> 
> Kris



The Mosquito carried out some of the most daring and successful low level pin point tactical bombing missions of the second world war, most of which could not have been done by any other aircraft.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 5, 2013)

davebender said:


> IMO small internal fuel capacity was a greater Whirlwind shortcoming.
> 
> Fw-187 and Me-210 didn't have that problem. Both aircraft carried generous amounts of fuel. So did British Mosquito.



You are confusing the Whirlwinds role. 
It carried 20 gal less than a Typhoon and considering that the Whirlwind had 1770hp worth of engines and not 2200hp so the fuel works out about right. The Whirlwind had wing about 76% the size of the one on the Fw 187, 64% of the size of the one on a Me 210 and 55% the size of a Mosquito. It was never intended to be, nor was it ever going to be, a two seat night fighter or long range intruder/bomber, anymore than a Typhoon would be a two seat night fighter or long range intruder/bomber. The Typhoons wing was 11% bigger than the Whirlwinds. The Typhoon had a tare weight 490lbs more than a Whirlwind. 
The Whirlwind was a twin but it was a _very_ small twin. *IF* it had been developed it would be more a rival for the Typhoon than the Mosquito or any other _TWO_ seat twin.


----------



## Aozora (Jun 5, 2013)

Civettone said:


> I agree that the Mosquito is one of the best aircraft of WW2. But I do feel you are creating a hype even when you say you are not. It is only natural that less Mosquito bombers were shot down than heavy bombers. But there were never more than 200 Mosquitoes operational, so their use was limited, at least as a conventional bomber. The Mosquito was fast but when carrying its 'cookie' its performance (and handling) dropped significantly. Thus, as a bomber, it was not that invincible as often portrayed. Its real strength was as as a reconaissance aircraft and night fighter. Unlike the Me 410, it was totally unsuited as a tactical bomber. The Mosquito hardly carried any armour which made it very vulnerable against Flak, especially at low altitude. Also, woonden structure tend to catch fire easily.



Evidence for any of these statements - I mean real documented evidence, not some opinionated website?



Civettone said:


> The Mosquito had important structural limitations due to its wooden construction. It was unable to make high G manoeuvres without its wings falling off.



Ditto How many Mosquitos were lost because their wings fell off carrying out high-g manoeuvres? Remember documented evidence please.

I do wish you people would show some evidence to back up your opinions, otherwise they are nothing but opinion: as it is this thread is not about the Mosquito, but here are some facts:

Fact: 108 Mosquito bombers were shot down by *all* German defences in 2 years of operations (+ 13 Mosquitos lost during daylight bombing ops +88 written off): 29,936 sorties. How many sorties did Me 210/410s carry out over Britain? How many were shot down?







Fact: Approx 50 Mosquitos of *all* types were shot down by German night fighters in two years (Kurt Welter alone claimed 35, but that's a whole other story)






Fact: over 4,000 tons of bombs were dropped on Berlin alone by Mosquito bombers in 1945. How many tons of bombs did Me 210/410s, the precision dive bomber, scatter all over Britain?


----------



## mhuxt (Jun 5, 2013)

Aozora said:


> Fact: Approx 50 Mosquitos of *all* types were shot down by German night fighters in two years (Kurt Welter alone claimed 35, but that's a whole other story)


 
What book is that Mossie kill list from, Aozora?

Will have to do some cross-checking...


----------



## Aozora (Jun 5, 2013)

mhuxt said:


> What book is that Mossie kill list from, Aozora?
> 
> Will have to do some cross-checking...



Gebhard Aders, _History of the German Night Fighter Force 1917-1945_, page 245.


----------



## mhuxt (Jun 5, 2013)

Aozora said:


> Gebhard Aders, _History of the German Night Fighter Force 1917-1945_, page 245.


 
Ahhh.

Many thanks for that - Aders knows his stuff. Will a-have to go snooping. I believe he'll be working from BAMA claims documentation, probably Fliegergemeindschaft (sp?), maybe Nonnemacher/Ring, for '45. 

Some interesting stuff in there, thanks again.


----------



## mhuxt (Jun 5, 2013)

Aozora said:


> Gebhard Aders, _History of the German Night Fighter Force 1917-1945_, page 245.



Another question, if I may - can you tell me what the notes 1, 2 and 3 say? (Against two of the claims by Welter and one by Becker.)


----------



## mhuxt (Jun 5, 2013)

Here's the matches I was able to make.

Green = Matches to a bomber loss
Purple = Matches to a loss other than a bomber
Green = Possible match, difficulty with time or date
Black = Highly unlikely to match to a loss, given location of loss or type of Mossie lost, or both
Red = No match or possible match found.



Edit: Red lines through 27/28 5 1944 and 22/23 12 1944 should be yellow.


----------



## Aozora (Jun 6, 2013)

mhuxt said:


> Here's the matches I was able to make.
> 
> Green = Matches to a bomber loss
> Purple = Matches to a loss other than a bomber
> ...



Thanks for that, very interesting.

Note 1: Welter had seven Mosquito kills credited between 25 July and 4 September while serving with 1./NJGr 10.

Note 2: Welter shot down a total of 35 Mosquitos.

Note 3: Two kills with three minutes.

According to Smith and Creek, _Me 262 Volume Three_ (Classic Publications 2000):

the Mosquito claimed by Becker on 21/22 March 1945 was most likely to have been from 692 Sqn.

6/7 April a Mosquito, probably from 305 Sqn, was claimed by Lt. Herbert Altner of 10./NJG 11


----------



## parsifal (Jun 6, 2013)

Id love to hear from Erich regarding the claims versus actual losses of Mosquitoes. 

Great work guys, very intersting


----------



## mhuxt (Jun 6, 2013)

Couple notes:

Gebhard Aders is a first-class researcher, who uses a variety of original sources to produce quality work. The list in his book is no doubt meant to represent RAF night bomber Mossies shot down by LW night fighters. There are other Mossies, in other roles, which were shot down both by night fighters and by other LW aircraft. At last count, I had about 156 Mossies total shot down air-to-air by the Luftwaffe.

Re: the sources Aders uses. As noted above, they are generally original, or close second-hand (own research, etc). That said, original documents are prepared by fallible human beings, who make copying errors, switch dates, mis-transcribe data, etc. It's worth pointing out that Aders has Mueller's claim in May, not in August as in most casees. Someone, somewhere, has changed an 5 into an 8 or vice-versa. To judge by the photo of the tailfin of Mueller's aircraft which was posted on this board (in this thread?) a few days ago, I'd say it's Aders who has it right, and The Rest Of The World who has it wrong. 

All that is a short way of saying that the black and red lines in my post above are in no way intended to pooh-pooh Aders' research, or the experiences of the flyers themselves. Take the comments I made at face value - I just can't find anything in my database which matches the claims marked in red, either on the night in question, or a couple of nights either way.

Final note re: Welter. It's hard to know whether he was claiming in good faith, a serial mythomaniac, or a victim of "salted" data prepared by a couple of post-war researchers. (They included bogus data to see which of the people they gave their work to were passing it on without permission.) Either way, it's highly unlikely he actually got anywhere close to 35 Mossies. Martin Middlebrook managed to match three of his claims, IIRC. Ten claims by Welter for Mossies appear in Tony Wood's lift of LW claims for the last five months of 1944, only one has an Anerkennungsnummer, signifiying approval. Two are VNE/ASM (= not proven, but not rejected), the rest have no notation.

The most definitive answers will come with the Second Edition of the Nachtjagd War Diaries, or with Erich's book.


----------



## riacrato (Jun 6, 2013)

Mhuxt, the list includes nf and recon mosquitos.



stona said:


> There is no evidence that an OPERATIONAL Fw 187 fighter would have had a large enough speed advantage over a Mosquito flying at altitude to enable consistently successful interceptions.


This. DonL, I understand the FW 187 is one of your favourites and I am sure it would've made a great aircraft. I can see it having an advantage in a one-on-one situation versus a Mosquito due to it being more nimble. But to reliably intercept you'd need a speed advantage of, say, 50-60 km/h at least-


----------



## stona (Jun 6, 2013)

A lot of claim analysis finally comes down to opinion. There are a lot of erroneous and illegible entries in the incomplete German records which don't help. Obviously a man like Welter (and there are several others in the same category) is not here to defend himself. Out of a sense of fairness I would say his claiming is at the very least suspicious and leave it at that. There is a risk of the thread getting even more diverted otherwise 

As far as the Fw 187 entering service. Someone would have to dig in the records for the various invoices but I doubt they'd have much luck. The Germans loved an invoice, you should see the knots they tied themselves in over re-conditioned aircraft which contained some new parts!
The RLM _acted_ as if it owned the A-0s, stipulating for example what was to happen to them in later development contracts. The partially completed airframes and possibly some of the Vs may well have been owned by Focke-Wulf.
In any case none were transferred to the Luftwaffe.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## Juha (Jun 6, 2013)

Hello mhuxt
Very interesting indeed but does the yellow line mean "Possible match, difficulty with time or date"? 

Juha


----------



## Juha (Jun 6, 2013)

Civettone said:


> I agree that the Mosquito is one of the best aircraft of WW2. But I do feel you are creating a hype even when you say you are not. It is only natural that less Mosquito bombers were shot down than heavy bombers. But there were never more than 200 Mosquitoes operational, so their use was limited, at least as a conventional bomber. The Mosquito was fast but when carrying its 'cookie' its performance (and handling) dropped significantly. Thus, as a bomber, it was not that invincible as often portrayed. Its real strength was as as a reconaissance aircraft and night fighter. Unlike the Me 410, it was totally unsuited as a tactical bomber. The Mosquito hardly carried any armour which made it very vulnerable against Flak, especially at low altitude. Also, woonden structure tend to catch fire easily. The Mosquito had important structural limitations due to its wooden construction. It was unable to make high G manoeuvres without its wings falling off.
> Compare that with the Me 410 which was one of the strongest planes built, capable of dive bombing at an angle of 70 degrees, and strongly protected by armour. Not saying the Me 410 was superior to the Mosquito, but I do feel that both had their strengths and weakneses.
> 
> Kris



Hello Kris
I must disagree with this, besides normal low-level bombing and fighter-bombing attacks already mentioned Mossie was also the main strike a/c of Coastal Command during the last part of war, making devastating rocket and cannon attacks on heavily defended convoys and harbours.

Juha


----------



## stona (Jun 6, 2013)

I'd just add that for a well thought out light bomber the Me 410 really was a LIGHT bomber.
The bomb bay would normally carry 2 x 250 kg bombs of any type but could only carry 2 x 500Kg bombs if they were the narrow bodied type, like the armour piercing SD 500. They did shoe horn 2 x SC 500s in but in this case the bomb bay doors could not be closed completely with what the Luftwaffe described as "a negative impact on airspeed and range." I'd suggest that it is debateable just how well thought out that was.

Range was already one of the issues raised by Pelz who considered it inadequate for the bombing of England which both Hitler and Goering had ordered. That presumably was with the bomb bay doors closed.

Why we are comparing this aircraft, which after years of development was still not really fit for purpose with an aircraft like the Mosquito is a mystery to me.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## riacrato (Jun 6, 2013)

We are comparing it because they were of a similar kind (in many aspects). Valid, no? Noone is denying the Mosquito was a more succesful aircraft.

Let's not forget that the Me 410 was conceived as multipurpose aircraft, with one role being that of a light bomber for the air support role. The main armament used for that were SD250 or AB250. Of which the Me 410 could carry two. A completely adequate armament for this role imo.


----------



## mhuxt (Jun 6, 2013)

riacrato said:


> Mhuxt, the list includes nf and recon mosquitos.
> 
> This. DonL, I understand the FW 187 is one of your favourites and I am sure it would've made a great aircraft. I can see it having an advantage in a one-on-one situation versus a Mosquito due to it being more nimble. But to reliably intercept you'd need a speed advantage of, say, 50-60 km/h at least-


 
Quite so, thanks for pointing that out, had missed it.


----------



## mhuxt (Jun 6, 2013)

Hi Juha,

It basically reflects me trying to take in all possibilities, including recording errors, transcription errors, etc. In those two cases, there's a loss on the previous night which I can't account for, so there might be an issue with the loss having been recorded on 15/16, not 16/17. In the other case, re: time, I've a loss on that date with no apparent cause, but the Mossie is listed as having been on an "evening intruder", whereas the LW claim was around dawn, again according to the info I have.


----------



## mhuxt (Jun 6, 2013)

stona said:


> Out of a sense of fairness I would say his claiming is at the very least suspicious and leave it at that. There is a risk of the thread getting even more diverted otherwise
> Cheers
> Steve



Heheh, fair enough. "De mortuis, nihil nisi bonum".

For what it's worth, apart from return fire from bombers under attack (two Mossies lost), I have 46 Mossies of all types shot down at night by the LW, looking forward to the books I mentioned.


----------



## stona (Jun 6, 2013)

mhuxt said:


> Heheh, fair enough. "De mortuis, nihil nisi bonum".



Certainly, unless there is unequivocal proof of fraud which doesn't exist in his case. I do have an opinion but that I'll keep to myself 

Cheers

Steve


----------



## stona (Jun 6, 2013)

riacrato said:


> Let's not forget that the Me 410 was conceived as multipurpose aircraft, with one role being that of a light bomber for the air support role. The main armament used for that were SD250 or AB250. Of which the Me 410 could carry two. A completely adequate armament for this role imo.



It was originally conceived as a dive bomber and medium range heavy fighter. The Germans had a habit of moving the goal posts repeatedly which had a serious effect on aircraft production. At the time it was conceived it was designed to carry 50Kg and 250 Kg bombs so you have a fair point. Unfortunately dive bombing proved impossible with a load of eight SC 50s as they invariably failed to release.
This load would prove hopelessly inadequate later, particularly for raiding the UK mainland. 

8 x 50 Kg not for dive bombing.







2 x SC 250s











1 x SC 500






Or a Mosquito!!!






The only difference is that the Mosquito was designed as a bomber but was also developed as a superb heavy fighter capable of many roles whereas the Me 210/410 was a compromise from the outset due to RLM/Luftwaffe doctrine.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## parsifal (Jun 6, 2013)

I thought the Mosquito was originally designed as an unarmed PR aircraft. In 1941 the idea that they might carry bombs was added.....or am i wrong on that.


----------



## OldSkeptic (Jun 6, 2013)

Civettone said:


> I agree that the Mosquito is one of the best aircraft of WW2. But I do feel you are creating a hype even when you say you are not. It is only natural that less Mosquito bombers were shot down than heavy bombers.
> Kris



That a lot of claims about both the Mossie and the 410. I'll leave it to others to comment on the 410's, except to note that production was cancelled in Aug '44, because so many were shot down by Allied fighters.

But the Mossie claims seem to conflict with known evidence.



> (1)But there were never more than 200 Mosquitoes operational, so their use was limited, at least as a conventional bomber. (2) The Mosquito was fast but when carrying its 'cookie' its performance (and handling) dropped significantly.
> Thus, as a bomber, it was not that invincible as often portrayed. (3) Its real strength was as as a reconaissance aircraft and night fighter.



What Command and what year do you mean? Mossies were used in Bomber Command (bombers [direct and distraction raids], pathfinders and intruder night fighters).
Coastal Command used them for anti-U-Boat and anti-shipping.
Fighter Command used them for day intruder operations and night fighters.
2nd Tactical Airforce used them as day intruders.
Plus recon and all sorts of support stuff (even as comms relays and so on).

At April 1945 Bomber Commands order of Battle was 359 Mosquito bombers across various Groups, plus 93 night fighters in 100 group. That number of bombers was about the same size as a normal BC Group.
There were 217 in 8 Group alone.



> (4) Unlike the Me 410, it was totally unsuited as a tactical bomber. (5) The Mosquito hardly carried any armour which made it very vulnerable against Flak, especially at low altitude.



The most numerous Mossie variant produced was the Mk VI, the fighter bomber version. So the British rather disagreed about it's unsuitability for low level operations.

Naturally it all depends on what you define as 'tactical'. If you take a broad definition as low level operations, especially where there is flak, then you have:
Fighter Command intruder operations. Bomber Command low level operations (of various kinds, day and night, inc attacks on night fighter airfields). Coastal Command operations. 2nd TAF operations.
Weapons included, internal and external bombs, rockets, 57mm cannon and the normal 4x20mm, 4x.303 in the VI fighter bomber version.

Armour varied according to the version. With fighters and fighter/bombers having more than the pure bombers. The most heavily armoured was the Tse Tse version (57mm cannon) with an extra 900lbs in armour. This was later removed to improve performance in Coastal Command operations.

There is no evidence (in fact quite a lot of counter evidence) that it was any more vulnerable to flak than any other comparable aircraft. Its composite composition was very strong, affording a high degree of protection just by itself and (taking the Banff strike wing as an example) many got home even after multiple 20mm and even 37mm hits (from flak or fighters).

So the British were very content to use it in large numbers in the low level role (of all types) and replaced other types (eg Beaufighter) as fast as they could.



> (6) Also, woonden structure tend to catch fire easily.


There is no evidence that it caught fire any more than aluminium ones did. After all aluminium burns extremely well, particularly at the temperatures produced by a fuel fire.



> (7)The Mosquito had important structural limitations due to its wooden construction. It was unable to make high G manoeuvres without its wings falling off.



Excluding some cases of sabotage and improper glue application (all quickly tracked down and fixed, including an execution for treason). 
In bomber, low level and fighter roles again there is no evidence that its wings were weaker than any other comparable type.
In fact (taking the Banff strike wing again as an example) late models carried 100 (UK) gal tanks and 4 x rockets on each wing.
It was a single piece, composite construction, hence was very strong as evidenced by the fighter operations and ever increasing load factors of bombers.
Late model bombers were carrying 4,000lb bombers plus 200 (UK) gals in external fuel for example.

Low level rocket, bomb and gun attacks and dogfighting fighters all required high G manoeuvres, on which there were no limitations (that I am aware of) placed.

So all in all, whether in high or low level applications (across the different types with different engines), The Mossie could carry more bombs, with a longer range, was faster, could carry a wider range of weapon types and, unlike the 410, could hold its own against single engined fighters.


----------



## beitou (Jun 6, 2013)

Can you give an account of what the execution for treason was about? I've never heard about that before and would be very interested, thanks.


----------



## Greyman (Jun 6, 2013)

OldSkeptic said:


> Low level rocket, bomb and gun attacks and dogfighting fighters all required high G manoeuvres, on which there were no limitations (that I am aware of) placed.



RAE figures give 7.65 positive 'G' and 4.65 negative 'G' for a Mosquito at 19,200 pounds. These are 'ultimate strength factors' and not the results of actual destruction tests. Generally, in practice aircraft can exceed these ultimate factors by a small margin before major airframe failure - but the airframe is probably going to be permanently damaged.

The margin is small enough (and keeping in mind basic +/-10% production variances) that it's definitely not something to bet your life on. That said, after tactical trials of the Mosquito, the AFDU report concluded that due to the upright seating of the pilot in the Mosquito, the weak link in pulling hard manoeuvres was the pilot, not the airframe.


----------



## OldSkeptic (Jun 6, 2013)

Comes form the Banff Strike wing book. In Feb 1945 Mossie folded a wing, investigations showed that the ailerons had been (very) improperly constructed.

Further police investigations traced it to an Irish inspector at th Standard Motor Company who had links to the IRA. He was later executed for treason.

Now whether or not this was just a total stuff up (though there had been major work done to weaken the wing) and the person was a scapegoat, or whether they really were a saboteur is impossible to say.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 6, 2013)

The Mosquito was noted for its strength. This arose because of its unique laminar timber construction, not in spite of it.


----------



## OldSkeptic (Jun 6, 2013)

Greyman said:


> RAE figures give 7.65 positive 'G' and 4.65 negative 'G' for a Mosquito at 19,200 pounds. These are 'ultimate strength factors' and not the results of actual destruction tests. Generally, in practice aircraft can exceed these ultimate factors by a small margin before major airframe failure - but the airframe is probably going to be permanently damaged.
> 
> The margin is small enough (and keeping in mind basic +/-10% production variances) that it's definitely not something to bet your life on. That said, after tactical trials of the Mosquito, the AFDU report concluded that due to the upright seating of the pilot in the Mosquito, the weak link in pulling hard manoeuvres was the pilot, not the airframe.



Yes G metering tests showed typically they were in the 3-4 Gs, though the samples were very small and not across all areas of operation. 
I'd imagine the FBs on strike missions at a max of 4-5Gs, because typically they were coming in at a shallow angle (25-35 degrees) for rocket attacks in the 250mph region.

This of course is preferable in heavy flak areas (and necessary for rocket attacks). Trouble with dive bombing is that it gives the gunners a near perfect no deflection target.

Interestingly the highest Gs recorded were by Spitfire IX (+10, -5.8) nothing else came close, the +10G pull out (in a diving turn) did damage the plane, though he got back ok. Overall the Spit, Typhoon and Mustang were the outstanding types in terms of G and max speed achieved (in a dive). 
One Mustang pilot (in a test) deliberately tried for a max G pull out and got to between 9-10G, with no damage (though it was known that for later and heavier versions G limit did decrease, especially when heavily loaded of course).


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 6, 2013)

parsifal said:


> I thought the Mosquito was originally designed as an unarmed PR aircraft. In 1941 the idea that they might carry bombs was added.....or am i wrong on that.



The RAF couldn't seem to make up their minds what they wanted it to do. There was a first order for 50 airframes, how the airframes were divied up between bomber, fighter and PR changed a number of times. 

It started design as a bomber though.


----------



## wuzak (Jun 6, 2013)

Shortround6 said:


> The RAF couldn't seem to make up their minds what they wanted it to do. There was a first order for 50 airframes, how the airframes were divied up between bomber, fighter and PR changed a number of times.
> 
> It started design as a bomber though.



Correct.

It was designed from the outset as an unarmed bomber. The RAF couldn't see much use for an unarmed bomber, but thought it could be useful as a PR aircraft. So that is what was developed first.


----------



## Greyman (Jun 6, 2013)

OldSkeptic said:


> Yes G metering tests showed typically they were in the 3-4 Gs, though the samples were very small and not across all areas of operation.
> I'd imagine the FBs on strike missions at a max of 4-5Gs, because typically they were coming in at a shallow angle (25-35 degrees) for rocket attacks in the 250mph region.
> 
> This of course is preferable in heavy flak areas (and necessary for rocket attacks). Trouble with dive bombing is that it gives the gunners a near perfect no deflection target.
> ...



The highest I've seen is a pre-war destruction test of a Hurricane that made it to 15 Gs.


----------



## stona (Jun 7, 2013)

parsifal said:


> The Mosquito was noted for its strength. This arose because of its unique laminar timber construction, not in spite of it.



Which is why a lot of Scandinavian sports halls are constructed with laminated woods. As one engineer told me "it's stronger than steel."

I'm not an architect and only have his word for that 

Cheers

Steve


----------



## mig2830 (Jun 14, 2020)

Aozora said:


> 6/7 April a Mosquito, probably from 305 Sqn, was claimed by Lt. Herbert Altner of 10./NJG 11



Hi Aozora,

Can you tell the source for this info?

Thanks


----------



## wuzak (Jun 14, 2020)

mig2830 said:


> Hi Aozora,
> 
> Can you tell the source for this info?
> 
> Thanks



His post was 7 years ago, and he hasn't been on the site in 2.


----------

