# What of the Me 410?



## Udet (Mar 14, 2005)

I do think it would be interesting to gather as much opinions as possible and to debate further on the actual capabilities of the late Luftwaffe Zerstörer.

To some extent, I do believe the allies (victors) have applied the Me 410 a typical prescription following their purest style: "it was simply no match against any of our planes. Period." I am sure it was more complex than the classical victor´s formula.

I totally agree it came to life too late, facing very capable single engine enemy fighters (P-51s, P-47s, Spitfires, etc.) and perhaps the raw materials and laborforce devoted to produce the rough 1,400 planes would have been instead better to produce more Fw190Ds and even jets.

From the few books focused on the Me 410 I´ve read, it was reported the crews praised the model, it was very fast, manouverable (not more than most single engined enemy planes though) and it could carry a typhoon of fire in its nose which had an extraordinary design.

Furthermore, it brought the Luftwaffe back in kind of significant numbers over England in 1944, that proves to some extent it was a totally capable plane.

With the sole exception of the Ju88, which receives due credit by the allies as a plane with superb manouvering and success, most twin engined German fighters are regarded as bunk by the allies, while the bulk of their twin engined toys are, of course, regarded as marvels (i.e. Mosquito and P-38)

For example, on a one vs. one combat, do you think the Me 410 was "no match" say for the P-38 Lightning?

The specs, while not showing everything, illustrate the the Me 410 is kind of similar to the Lightning.


What are your thoughts?¿


----------



## Erich (Mar 14, 2005)

it was an excellent bomber interceptor replacing the Bf 110G-2 during 1944 as long as Allied fighter esscorts were not present.

that is about all I can say about it though knowing it did a fair job over England in the night interceptor role on the Fernenachtjagd missions when the RAF and US bombers flew back to English bases under fair weather night conditions with KG 51 and 54.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 14, 2005)

As much as I love the Me-410 (One of my favourites!) I do not think it would be a match for the P-38L. The Lightning was far more manouverable, better roll rate, better climb and dive rate, and faster.


----------



## GT (Mar 15, 2005)

As we all know, the Me 410 Hornisse was intended to replace the Me 210. The Me 410 was the result of trying to produce a Zerstörer after the failure with the Me 210. Me 410 was better than to any twin-engine German Zerstörer but it couldn't not hold its own against Allied fighters. Many Rüstsätze were produced for example an installment of guns up to 50 mm caliber and W Gr 21 rockets .

The main variant was the Me 410-B series (C, D, H did not enter operational status). Me 410 was withdrawn from combat by the end of 1944 because of the need to produce fighters. As only merely 1 160 a/c had been built when the production of the Me 410 ceased in Sept 1944 it made no important role in the air war over Germany.

Me 410 in combat

The night of 13-14 July 1943, FL/Lt Bunting, 85 Squadron flying a Mosquito XII on a night interception patrol shot down a Me 410 the a/c turned over on its back and dived vertically into the sea. It was the first Me 410 to be destroyed over Britain. Two nights later another was shot down by 85 Squadron. On 29 July a 3rd fell to the guns of the Mosquito from 256 Squadron and all 3 Me 410s was from VGruppe/KG 2.

22 Feb 1944, Hptm. Eduard Tratt the highest scorer Zerstörer pilot claiming 38 a/c in the air, 26 on the ground, 24 tanks, 312 trucks and 33 anti-a/c guns took over command of II./ZG76 in Sept 1943 and he made an foolhardy single-handed attack on a bomber formation near Nordhausen/Harz and was of course killed in the process, the escort FW 190s and Bf 109s from JG300 was unable to help him. The only eye-witness was Oblt. Prokopp who was killed a short time later when his Me 410 was rammed by a P-47.

13 May 1944 , One of the most disastrous missions for II./ZG76 was when they was jumped by 20 P-51s and 12 a/c were written of, many aircrews was lost and the US bomber force flew on unhindered to Poznan. Obefelwebel Wolfgang Martin rammed a B-17 with his damaged Me 410 after ordering his crew to bale out.

2 July 1944, I./ZG76 had notable mission when together with I./ZG 1 (Me 110) and II./JG 27 (Bf 109G) destroyed 45 a/c in a big air battle over Budapest, 34 were bombers and 8 were claimed by I./ZG76 without loss. 
The Me 410 proved also to be quite a formidable adversary for the Mosquito's in the baby blitz 1943-1944 and one of the last units to operate the Me 410 was IV./ZG26 based in Norway.

http://www.ww2.web64.dk/fly/images/ger/images/me410.jpg

Cheers
GT


----------



## CharlesBronson (Mar 15, 2005)

Profiles of operational Me-410s


----------



## Erich (Mar 15, 2005)

geez old 1970's profile publication profiles. Bogus as can be. no ZG 26 or 76 Destroyer with the BK 5cm had red spinners with white. Overall they were much darker grey in colour and besdies ZG 26 did not exist in the autumn of 1944 the unit had gone over to single seat Fw 190A's. Another note the Danish clog is way too big for the engine nacelle

sorry to be so bold


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 16, 2005)

Had the 210 been the 410, it might have had an impact, though it was never a match for the P-38.

Aside from as a night-fighter, I really don't see what role this plane was to fill. It was not capable of holding its own against allied fighters, and it was not really designed as a dedicated ground attack plane.

In my opinion, had one of the Tank designs, such as the FW187 or Ta154 (but perhaps done in metal?) were the superior twin engine fighter designs. Fortunately, Messershmitt was in better with the Nazi's and his product always got preference.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## kiwimac (Mar 16, 2005)

Me-410

Type: Two-seat tactical aircraft for fighter, attack and recon duties plus specialized variants

Origin: Messerschmitt AG

Models: A and B series

First Flight: December 1942

Engine: (A) Two Daimler-Benz DB 603A inverted liquid cooled V12
Horsepower: 1,750 hp ea.

(B) Two Daimler-Benz DB 603G inverted liquid cooled V12
Horsepower: 1,900 hp ea.

Dimensions:

Wing span: 16.4m (53 ft. 7.75 in.) Length: 12.45m (40 ft. 10 in.)
Height: 3.10m (14 ft. 0.5 in.) Wing Surface Area: N/A

Weights: Empty: 6,150kg (13,560 lbs.)
Maximum: 10,650kg (23,483 lbs.)

Performance:

Maximum Speed: 620km/h (385 mph) Initial climb: 650m/min

Range (with full bomb load): 1,447 miles (2330 km)
Service Ceiling: 32,800 ft. (10,000m)

Armament:
Two remotely controlled powered barbettes on sides of fuselage each housing one 13mm MG 131

And

Internal weapons bay housing various combinations of weapons ranging from 7.92mm MG 17 machine guns, MG 151's, Mk 108 30mm cannon, BK5 50mm cannon with 21 rounds all the way up to 210mm rockets in a rotary tube configuration (tested, but poor results prevented front-line use).

Or

Two 1,102 lb. (500kg) Bombs

And

External Racks for two 1,102 lb. (500kg) Bombs

Plus

Two Ruestatz external packs housing Mg 151, Mk 108 or Mk 103 cannons were fitted to some variants

Avionics:

SN-2 Lichtenstein Radar on Me 410A-2/U-2 Night Fighter

FuG 200 Hohentwiel ASV (air/surface vessel) Radar on Me 410B-6 Anti-Shipping variant.


Source http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/me410.html 

=======================================






P-38 J lightning

Specifications (P-38J):

Engine: Two 1475hp Allison V-1710-111/113 V-12 piston engines

Weight: Empty 12,800 lbs., Max Takeoff 21,600 lbs.

Wing Span: 52ft. 0in. (15.84 M)
Length: 37ft. 10in. (10.39 m)
Height: 9ft. 10in. (2.77 m)

Performance:

Maximum Speed at 25,000ft: 414 mph (666.2 km/h at 7620 m)
Service Ceiling: 44,000 ft (13411 m)
Normal Range: 450 miles (724 km)

Armament:

One 20-mm cannon in nose
Four 12.7mm (0.5 inch) machine guns

Two 1600 lb. bombs

Source: http://www.warbirdalley.com/p38.htm


Kiwimac


----------



## Erich (Mar 16, 2005)

there was never a Me 410 night fighter. They flew as ferne-night fighters with KG 51 and 54 over England at night without any avionics except using British serachlights and fires of cities along their routes of attack.

E


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 16, 2005)

This may well be the case - but as a day fighter it was seriously lacking. As a nightfighter, it seems to have potential.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 16, 2005)

Sure Kiwi, gets stats for the J and not the L


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 16, 2005)

The late J model had superior performance over the L model (which weighed more).

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## CharlesBronson (Mar 16, 2005)

Or I am seeing bad or there is a BK-3,7 potruding of this Me-210A?






this seems to reinfoce the 6 x 210mm WRG 21.


----------



## Erich (Mar 16, 2005)

it's a Hungarian test piece that was used in the southern sphere-Reich. Yes a 3.7cm


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 17, 2005)

RG_Lunatic said:


> The late J model had superior performance over the L model (which weighed more).
> 
> =S=
> 
> Lunatic



The L was more manoeverable and could reach 443mph.


----------



## Erich (Mar 17, 2005)

back on topic, can we please ? put the P-38 varinats in another thread.

flying very dark grey-black Me 410's, Ritterkreuzträger Dietrich Puttfarken and his 5./KG 51 would attack RAF 4 engine bombers on their way back to base. On the night of April 11/12, 1944 he and his bordfünker shot down 3 bombers. Shortly after on the 22/23rd of April 1944 he again shot down 2 RAF bombers but in return was shot down, his Me 410A-1, coded 9K+MN smashing into the ground near Cambridge

Erich ~


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 17, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> RG_Lunatic said:
> 
> 
> > The late J model had superior performance over the L model (which weighed more).
> ...



Sorry Erich... I gotta reply, if Cheddar wants to continue it we can start a new thread....

Chedder - The P-38L was almost identical to the late model P-38J, the main difference being the L had two more fuel tanks, one on the outside of each engine in the wing. They had the same engines, they had the same power assist ailerons, they had the same dive-recovery flaps, etc... But the J model was a fair bit lighter, and that made it equally fast, more manuverable, and gave it a faster climb.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## CharlesBronson (Mar 17, 2005)

Another Me-210 with very heavy armament was the Hungarian made Me-210 Ca-1 wich have a 40mm Bofors L/60 AA gun mounted below front fuselage. 

This very powerful weapon was can shoot masive 1,1 kilogram HE-T shells at 811 meters per second or 1,3 AP shells a 805 m/s .
The rate of fire was 120 rpm . It was manually loaded by the rear gunner with 4 round clips, and it carry 7 clips plus 1 one already inserted in the cannon.






This particular version scored some victories against B-24 and soviet bombers, mostly Il-4 and tu-2.


----------



## Udet (Mar 17, 2005)

I do think the Me 410, along with the Butcher Bird, has perhaps the most sinister looks of any plane of the war.

Have you seen photos of the Asian Paper Wasp? An insect which is very aggressive; that is what the Me 410 looks resemble in my perception.

As I did say, I am convinced the Me 410 could certainly not outmanouver a single engine USAAF or RAF fighter, but it did not imply at all it was a piece of cake.

I recall a veteran of the USAAF telling me of a "famous" ace of the USAAF who got killed in combat with a Me 410. Sadly i do not recall the name.

The few books where i ve read info on the Me 410 are all wanting in my opinion.

For example, the B version of the Me 410 carried more powerful engines than the P-38, having two 1,900 hp DB engines. The Me 410 was somewhat heavier, not extremely signifcant though.

Erich sent me a message once telling me Fritz Stehle is one pilot who was a succesful Me 410 Zerstörer pilot (ended flying the Me 262 in the last weeks of the war).

While I find all the info here interesting, i still think the Me 410 is some sort of a "gap" in the assessment of aircraft who saw action over Europe in the war.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 17, 2005)

I think one thing is clear, Germany would have been better off without the 110/210/410. For every 110/210/410 built it could have had two Bf109's. Had the engines not been wasted in these planes, they might have allowed Tank to pursue a proper liquid cooled design. The concept of the 110 as a long range day fighter was hopelessly flawed. Other planes could have been adapted or designed specifically to fill the night fighter role.

=S=

Lunatic

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 18, 2005)

I disagree to an extent. The 110 became a great nightfighter, and while the 210 wasnt terribly great, the 410 was superb. I agree that it would have made more sence for the production of Fw-190's/Bf-109's at the later stages of the war however.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 18, 2005)

cheddar cheese said:


> I disagree to an extent. The 110 became a great nightfighter, and while the 210 wasnt terribly great, the 410 was superb. I agree that it would have made more sence for the production of Fw-190's/Bf-109's at the later stages of the war however.



Yes it became a superb night fighter, but there were other planes that could have filled that role, or a dedicated night fighter could have been developed. Furthermore, most 110/210/410's were not night fighters. The project was generally a waste of resources, in particular the somewhat scarce DB engines. One of Germany's big problems in aircraft design was trying design one plane to perform too many mission types.

Again, I have to wonder what might have come out of the FW factories if they'd also been able to design some DB powered planes early in the war? Tank designed the FW190 around the BMW radial only because he had no choice, Messerschmitt had a lock on all DB inlines - many of which were wasted on 110/210/410's.

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 18, 2005)

Yes I agree with all those points. Tank could have made some great aircraft with use of the DB-605, heck, even the Italians created some great fighters with the use of it.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Mar 18, 2005)

There was a bunch of good germans single and twin engine fighters that should be cancelled due this"engine sharing" problem.

For example :

FW-187: 

This aircraft was equipedd with the little ( 19,7 liters) Jumo 210GA de 700hp, but his design was keeping in mind the DB series.
Even so underpowered this slender aircraft can reach 530 K/h (A-0 series)
The V6 flew with a pair of DB600Aa of 1075 hp, the 32,7 liter Mercedes engine was a huge change for this figther and push it to the amazing at time ( 1939) 636 Km/h.












Other good aircraft ruined by the low DB-601 production was the fast He-100


----------



## cheddar cheese (Mar 19, 2005)

Yep. I think both the Falke and the He-100 would have faired better in combat than the planes that were ordered instead of them (Me-110, Me-109)


----------



## Udet (Mar 19, 2005)

Does anyone happen to know the name of any "famous" or noted USAAF ace who was reported getting shot down and killed by a Me 410?

An interesting question would be: why do the allies claim to have had marvelous twin-engined fighters (P-38 and Mosquito), while from the bulk of their reports all German twin-engined fighters get prescribed the "no match against our fighters" formula.

In view of all the manipulations the allies have conducted on so many matters and issues of the war, I do think doubt is necessary as well on the Me 410.

That the Me 410 might have had high losses can be very true (fundamentally on daylight Defense of the Reich duties), but that is another story. That does not make it hopeless.

The fact the Me 410 put the Luftwaffe back over England in significant numbers in 1944 can be very revealing, don´t you think?

So (i) it was either not that easy for Mosquitos or for any other allied fighters to caught at all, or (ii) perhaps the allies also manipulate their alleged "total saturation" of air space over France and the Channel in 1944 allowing swarms of Me410s to fly, cross the Channel and conduct their tasks over the island, or (iii) had such air saturation been so brutal, as depitced, the allied pilots might not have been that effcient in intercepting.

I agree with RG there however; it was how I opened this thread. The materials, engines and laborforce devoted to produce the rough 1,400 Me410s could have delivered the Germans, at least, 2000 more single engine fighters.


----------



## Anonymous (Mar 19, 2005)

I would say in excess of 2800 more single engine fighters. Adding in the failed 210 and later 110's, and we are talking something on the order of 6000 more single engine fighters.

Can you give some details on this overwhelming success of the 410 over Britain in 1944? How many planes did they shoot down? How many did the loose? How many such sorties were accomplished?

=S=

Lunatic


----------



## Chocks away! (Mar 20, 2005)

But all these planes gave a good account of themselves as night fighters/heavy fighters


----------



## Chocks away! (Mar 20, 2005)

GT said:


> As we all know, the Me 410 Hornisse was intended to replace the Me 210. The Me 410 was the result of trying to produce a Zerstörer after the failure with the Me 210. Me 410 was better than to any twin-engine German Zerstörer but it couldn't not hold its own against Allied fighters. Many Rüstsätze were produced for example an installment of guns up to 50 mm caliber and W Gr 21 rockets .
> 
> The main variant was the Me 410-B series (C, D, H did not enter operational status). Me 410 was withdrawn from combat by the end of 1944 because of the need to produce fighters. As only merely 1 160 a/c had been built when the production of the Me 410 ceased in Sept 1944 it made no important role in the air war over Germany.
> 
> ...


 He did all that in an me 410? There should be more imformation on 410 aces around


----------



## Erich (Mar 20, 2005)

just to make it perfectly clear, there was never a Me 410 night fighter. the a/c was used for intruder work and there is a difference....the a/c was never fitted with night fighter radar and used on operations

E ~


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jul 27, 2005)

A 50 mm gun armed Me-410B-2 inspected by russian pilots.






Eduard Tratt managed to shoot down 5 P-38 while flying the Me-410A-1


----------



## vanir (Jul 27, 2005)

I heard the 410 was at its core an attempt to recover from the failure of the 210 as a replacement for the 110. Apparently the 210 was unstable suffered design flaws. But the 410 did well in Hungarian service.

I agree the Fw 187 should've been put into service, it fit the specification of a long range fighter that Willy Messerschmitt never believed in and comfortably outperformed the 109B-D of the day.

The 410 certainly looks good though, do they come in a nice electric blue?


----------



## Udet (Jul 28, 2005)

Have you noticed the nose of the present day USAF A-10 is kind of similar to that of the Me 410? Coincidence?


Mr. Charles Bronson certainly brought up an interesting issue: Eduard Tratt shot down 5 P-38´s in combat. This could add strenght to my view the Me 410 was a capable fighter, and not the "dunkin´ donut and coffee" depitced by the allied ghoulies.

Sadly, I could not recall nor find the name of a noted USAAF ace who got shot down and killed by a Me 410.

You know, you can easily find the kind of typical interview of some USAAF or RAF ace, the old man with a HUGE smile on his face -perhaps one more of relief to recall his days as flier and continue realizing he did not die during the war- telling the interviewer:

"I never ever saw a Me 410, because those of my group who went ahead surely wiped them all out".  

As I said on this thread, the few articles, books and webpages focused on the Me 410 are wanting. Perhaps it is a plane that has nothing much to be discussed about.


----------



## Erich (Jul 28, 2005)

going back a posting or two, it should read for the July 2, 44 missions II./ZG 1 as it had Bf 110G-2's with the rocket launchers and 4 2cm cannon fitted not I./ZG 1 which was fitted with JU 88C's and by later 44 had left it's pilot,crew personell to trade in for Fw 190A's.

The Pic by CB shows a 410 that was used against Soviet armor and MT in the ground support role as the 5cm Bk weapon no longer used agasint US heavies....


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jul 28, 2005)

Erich said:


> going back a posting or two, it should read for the July 2, 44 missions II./ZG 1 as it had Bf 110G-2's with the rocket launchers and 4 2cm cannon fitted.



Some Me-410B used a rotative 210mm, 7 shooter, gatling-like rocket launcher in the front bomb bay.






In fact the Me-410 used every weapon in the Luftwaffe arsenal, but the BK-7,5.


----------



## Erich (Jul 28, 2005)

the rotating rocket launcher was a complete failure and enver used in action. It actually tore the nose right off the a/c during testing.

If anything was the multi-useage of different 2cm setups sometimes with the noted watering can idea of 8 forward firing 2cm's plus the twin Br 21cm rocket set-ups under each wing.

II./ZG 26 was first set up with the Me 410A in the bomber interceptor role in October 1943 followed by I gruppe. III./ZG 26 was basically decimated twice over flying the Bf 110G-2's. ZG 76 was later to have the Me 410's especially during the later part of 44 on the Ost front firing Bk 5cm weapons and the Mk 103 3cm against Soviet vehicles, armor and positions


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 29, 2005)

CharlesBronson said:


> Erich said:
> 
> 
> > going back a posting or two, it should read for the July 2, 44 missions II./ZG 1 as it had Bf 110G-2's with the rocket launchers and 4 2cm cannon fitted.
> ...



Woah...!


----------



## Jabberwocky (Jul 29, 2005)

Its the .357 Magnum Express of the aviation world**

Now, you have to ask yourself one question. 
Do you feel luck, punk? Well, do 'ya?



































**i.e. Too big, too heavy and no use at all


----------



## plan_D (Jul 29, 2005)




----------



## CharlesBronson (Jul 29, 2005)

> the rotating rocket launcher was a complete failure and enver used in action. It actually tore the nose right off the a/c during testing.



I ve read that the problem with that mounting was in moment of shooting it, the enormous rocket blast and flash blinded the pilot, and burn in some degree the dural estructure of the aircraft s nose.

Aniway it probably was no too accurate.


----------



## Erich (Jul 29, 2005)

the rotating carriage at it's point of connection in the front literally dissolved/snapped and jammed up the rotating mechanism causing the unit to be unable to fire and destroying the nose, tearing it off/cracking the supports. Would of been suicidal in combat with an operative crew at this tender stage......

see you guys in a couple days

E ~


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jul 29, 2005)

Aha...copy that.

Some pics of the Me-410B-2/U-2 wich installed 4 x 20 Mg-151 in the bomb bay in support of the 2 fixed Mauser in the nose.







Loading the rockets.






Closer look to the cannons.


----------



## cheddar cheese (Jul 30, 2005)

Nice pics! 8)


----------



## CharlesBronson (Nov 16, 2005)

Me-410 B-2 R-2, note the twin 30 mm MK-103 and the telescopic gunsight used to engaged the bombers at relative long distances, in adition it carry the normal 2 x Mg-151 and 2 x 7,92 mm machineguns.....now that is firepower..  






Some profiles ( I hope dont get battered by Erich 8) )


----------



## Erich (Nov 16, 2005)

CB there is debate with the idea that these later war 410's engaged Soviet ground targets, there was no reason to fly with Mk 103's as bomber killers as they were not exceptionally good, but in the anti-tank role, the Hs 129 proved itself repeatedly with the 3cm Mk 103


----------



## CharlesBronson (Nov 16, 2005)

Those Me-410 was deployed in Czchekoslovakia in 1944, belonging to the II/ZG 76. All the info I got.

The intended target...? I think bombers but not sure....right now.


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Nov 18, 2005)

The Me-410 was good at taking down bombers, and destroying ground forces. Though because the aircraft had liquid-cooled engines, they would be more vulnerable to ground fire, because liquid cooled engines were more vulnerable than air-cooled radials to damage. The Me-410, using the mk-103 30mm cannon, could fire from a long distance using telescopic gunsights, and protect itself, and its considerable size and vulnerable engines, from defensive fire of the bombers. While in the ground attack role, it would innevitablly be exposed to ground fire, both small arms and weapons from 20mm, to up to heavy flak. I would have used the Me-410 as a home defence interceptor, rather than ground attack aircraft, using the ground attack Fw-190's, more suited to the role, to the "schlact" (slaughter, if i remember right) missions. just my thoughts.


----------



## book1182 (Nov 18, 2005)

I agree. Would be a great bomber destroyer and I would have used it as a night fighter. Where any used like that?


----------



## Erich (Nov 18, 2005)

the unit with a Reich defence band of red was used on the ost front, the Mk 103 proven as an anti-tank and MT destroyer agasint the Sopviets earlier in the Hs 129 form. the sight had already proven itslef with ZG 26 when used againat the 4 engine heavies and also as in the same role as the pic indicates, the Bk 5 was used agasint Soviet armor thrusts. this wa all short term as ZG 76 was basically dissolved of the 410's and proved cadre for existing JG's and also had formed JG 76 of it's own flying Fw 190's 

sure we can state the Me 410 was a better bomber interceptor but reality was shown otherwise, the units to shore up bleeding anti-tank staffeln


----------



## Erich (Nov 18, 2005)

book :

no night fighters but intruders. There is a difference.............some success by pilots of II./KG 51 flying Ferneeinsatz over England


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Nov 18, 2005)

They were most likely proven as better anti-tank platforms, because as interceptors they werent given the proper fighter cover to allow them to accell at what have been a very successful interception career i would wager.


----------



## Erich (Nov 18, 2005)

the days of the Zerstörer were over in July of 44 only defended by Bf 109G's of JG 27. 

ZG 76 was moved from Ansbach in April of 44 to Prag-Gbell and Rusin till July 10, 44 and then to the defence of Vienna against the 15th AF but were slaughtered. From the 30th of July the unit was moved to Powunden and then Seerappen and finally Grossenhain in November 44 finally outfitting to Fw 190A-8's

so the unit actually performed anit-tank duties then air defence and then back to anti-tank duties with the 410.


----------



## Aggie08 (Nov 19, 2005)

The pics on the earlier pages surprised me, it's alot bigger than it looks from a side view.

The Nazis had very creative weapon ideas. Some of them are pretty scary, but some of them are really ridiculous. You name it, it seems like they've tried it. The scariest on the Hornisse would have to be the 50mm cannon...good lord, was that used on anything else? Besides a freakin battleship?


----------



## CharlesBronson (Nov 19, 2005)

> The scariest on the Hornisse would have to be the 50mm cannon...good lord, was that used on anything else? Besides a freakin battleship



Actually was the antitank gun Pak 38 with electric primer and auto loading, it was feeded with a 22 round endless belt. The ciclic rate was 50 rpm.


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Nov 20, 2005)

Damn that was a vicious weapon to put on an aircraft. But then again, the germans were known for there innovation, and when the time comes for innovative ideas, no need to hold back. You can really tell they werent even trying, employing jets first, the vengeance weapons (V1/V2) super railway cannons, truly astounding aircraft designs, and tanks (tiger,panther,king tiger) all amazing, though not without there flaws of course.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 20, 2005)

Erich said:


> ZG 76 was moved from Ansbach



I am stationed at that airfield. That is where I fly Blackhawks out of everyday. A lot of the old buildings still exist. You can still see the original grass strip and the underground bunkers, and tunnels as well as some underground hangers still exist. I will have to take some photos and start a thread about it.


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 20, 2005)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Erich said:
> 
> 
> > ZG 76 was moved from Ansbach
> ...


That would be cool to see Alder


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 20, 2005)

Will have to go around and take some pictures. I should be able to on Tuesday and Wednsday. I am not flying on those days.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 20, 2005)

Okay out of my better judgement I am not going to post pics of my post now out of OPSEC reasons. Layouts of military instalations are not the thing to be posting. I will see if I can find some old WW2 pics of the post though and start a thread on that.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Nov 20, 2005)

Udet said:


> I recall a veteran of the USAAF telling me of a "famous" ace of the USAAF who got killed in combat with a Me 410. Sadly i do not recall the name.



The only info regarding this incident that I have found is about the P-38 ace James M. Morris who was shot down by the dfensive rear Mg-131 when he was attacking a Me-410 over Germany the 7th July 1944.

Morris wasnt killed only slightly wounded and it bailed out and became POW. Morris was credited with 7,33 victories.

This incident is mentioned in the Ospreys books "P-38 aces of the ETO/MTO" and the Squadron signal "Me-210/410 in action" 

http://usaaf.com/8thaf/aces/morris.HTM

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 20, 2005)

I am sure there were more kills by Me-410s now whether they were famous or not is debatable.


----------



## Erich (Nov 20, 2005)

ZG 26 and 76 histories need to be written, the problem is most of the veterans of the two Geschwaders were KIA in the war. 7-7-44 there was a contingent of Me 410's that attacked 8th and 15th AF but were slaughtered, claiming maybe 7 kills total through the very heated aerial engagement. This date JG 300 and JG 3 SturmFw's shot down nearly 55 US heavies


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 20, 2005)

Hmm good source of info as allways Erich.


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Nov 21, 2005)

The Me-410's were, like all Zerstorers, vulnerable to single enging allied escort fighters. Shouldnt say single engined, since the P-38 posed just as big a threat as the P-51 and the P-47. The -410 would have been good against unescorted bombers, blowing apart the formations with large rockets, and sending in waves diving and climbing, diving and climbing, mixed with head on attacks and horizontal diving would have torn B-17s and B-24s to shreds. Fortunatly for the allies, the escorts were around most of the time to tear into the -410's, strictly limiting the amount of kills they could acheive.


----------



## Erich (Nov 21, 2005)

the 8th AF Jugs and the 354th fg Stangs were the Zerstörer killers in winter of 43 till March of 44 when the 410 was being phased out slowly and moved to the lower Reich.

I have a friend Del harris of the 8th AF 353rd fg who flew a Jug and he tells of many missions jumping the Bf 110G-2's and the Me 410's as they que'd up for a quick rocket attack by staffel. Both German craft were slow and highly unmanueverable, Del's Jug buddies easily got within the ranks of the twins and blew them apart.

Literally the only time for success would be along the great miles of bomber streams and hopeful no US escorts were in the area, a most rare occassion where victories by the twins were duly noted in November-December 43 and into January 44 when they fell off abruptly, and were then sporadic. One of the most successful missions operated by ZG 26 and 76 was October 14, 43 with 23 kills.

ZG 26 alone on December 11, 43 had 8 kills
ZG 26 alone on December 22, 43 had 14 kills

January 11, 44 a huge aerial battle, 19 B-17's claimed by ZG 26 and 76, not to cover any of the twins in the NJG's that flew this day mission.

March 6, 44 II./ZG 26 alone claims 10 B-17's in their Me 410's.

April 11, 44 II./ZG 26 claims 10 B-17's and III./ZG 26 claims 9 B-17's.

May 29, 44 ZG 26 claims 15 B-24's

Against the US 15th AF on July 2, 44 -- ZG 76 claims 13 B-17's

♫


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Nov 24, 2005)

Good information. The mustang and P-47 would rip apart an Me-410 or Bf-110. they were slower, much less manvouverable, sitting ducks for the Later P-51'a and P-47s. One thing about the P-51B though with only four 12.7mm machine guns, it might have some trouble bringing down one of the big aircraft, would require more hits than the D and later models. Obviously the P-47 never had this problem, sporting double the armament of the P-51B.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 24, 2005)

It just depends on where you hit on the aircraft.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Nov 25, 2005)

Another sucessfull Me-410 pilot.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 26, 2005)

Nice pic there.


----------



## carpenoctem1689 (Nov 29, 2005)

That was a nice pic. Damn i love that BK.5 cannon, just so...damn cool. Looks like the killer it is, and must have sounded pretty wicked when Fros opened up with that thing on those B-17s. 
Does anyone have footage of the effects of a BK5 on an aircraft?


----------



## Gnomey (Nov 29, 2005)

I have this but is just a pic of the weapon itself...


----------



## KraziKanuK (Nov 29, 2005)

Has this link to a 410 site been posted?

http://detailsite.tripod.com/410/410framespage.htm


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 29, 2005)

Cool link.


----------



## Erich (Nov 29, 2005)

I see my good friend Bernd Willmer copied and pasted the Me 410 manual almost in entirety which I own........dang wish I had the scanner and digi cam since I could post the MG 151/20 2cm fittings and ammo feeds


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 2, 2005)

Mail it to me Erich...... I cant promise that you would get it back though.....  

Just kidding with you Erich.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 22, 2007)

Pictures of the 13 mm defensive barbettes system...simple isnt ?







The handweel and gunsight in the rear gunner cockpit.


----------



## Udet (Jan 22, 2007)

Great photos Charles...

As you might recall the allies also claim that besides having made a crappy plane 100% uncapable of dealing with single engined enemy fighters, the remote controlled barbette system for the MG 131s proved "failures".


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 22, 2007)

Well.. the B-17 had 12 defensive Mgs and still get shoot down, so the effectiveness of defensives MGs are always relative. The Me-210/410 system was complicated to manufacture and insume a lot of copper for his electric motors, but wasnt particulary bad.


----------



## Udet (Jan 22, 2007)

Charlie, i agree, but my point was not in the direction of suggesting the Me 410 could not be brought down if attacked from the rear entering the area of fire of the defensive MG 131s...rather what i meant is i have read opinions that say the remote controlled barbettes proved a failure, referring to the idea of a system that simply did not work, that was useless...unless proven otherwise sounds like allied crap to me of course.

You know allied rear gunners are "fearsome shooters" while German rear gunners either "do not hit a thing" or "use inadequate weapons".


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 22, 2007)

> You know allied rear gunners are "fearsome shooters" while German rear gunners either "do not hit a thing" or "use inadequate weapons".



Here is an P-38 ace who might not agree, James M. Morris   










> On 7 July 1944 he was about to down an Me-410 when the German plane turned the tables and shot him down. He parachuted safely from his aircraft, was subsequently captured by the enemy and spent the remainder of the war as a POW.
> 
> His highest scoring day came while he was flying P-38 serial# 42-67871 Squadron code: LC-G, however his normal mount was P-38 serial# 42-67717 Squadron code: LC-E which he named "My Dad / Til We Meet Again




Capt. James M. "Slick" Morris


----------



## Udet (Jan 22, 2007)

Carlitos:

Thanks again for another interesting photo; i was re-reading the thread as it got commenced a while ago...so that is the USAAF "ace" who got shot down when trying to shoot the so-called piece of cake eh...

Have you noted this tendency Carlitos? Is it possible we are before some kind of "psychology of the defeated" or the mindset acquired by the guys who belong in the defeated side? Very probable.

I have never read any book, article or paperwork where a British or USA pilot might come close to suggest that attacking any German plane -or a flight of them- fitted with defensive armament could be a dangerous task...ever. 

It is only German pilots commenting on the dangers of attacking the boxes of heavy bombers with their huge number of .50 cal guns -which was very true-...but have you heard of any accounts say of British fighter pilots commenting it could be dangerous to attack a formation of Ju 88s, Do 17s or He 111s during 1940?....of course you have not...because they prefer to omit it...and the number of Hurricanes and Spitfires either shot down or forced to disengage by the defensive MGs of German bombers was not necessarily low as i had the chance to discover.

Yes, by 1940 the Luftwaffe did not rely on the defensive fire of its bombers to face interception, rather they thought more about the speed and manouverability of their bombers to ensure some degree of safety in the event of fighter attack (of course -just in case- they knew their bombers were not faster than the fighters of the enemy), but still the German bombers, especially the Ju 88 and Do 17 which denied the crew access to the fuselage- made very well protected trenches against fighter attack. Think of some kind of "fox-hole" were several machine guns could be manned, as the crew was located only in the nose area of the plane...but this could be material for another discussion.

Thanks Carlitos.


----------



## WEISNER (Jan 22, 2007)

This kite could have well benifited by a redesign of the cockpit canopy and the use of Dual rear MG's, simmular in design to the Bf110 or Ju88 rear defensive guns.
I do not know what this mess of a system weighed used by the 210-410? but I would guess cockpit mounted guns would have saved alot of weight, Materials and also the drag caused by the twin barbetts. 
This system was complicated and unreliable to say the least.
The Me 410A-1's of II./ZG26, that were used for high altitude interceptions during 1944, did away with this mess alltogether..... And had the Barbetts removed and faired over, and no second crew member was carried.
Does anyone know, or venture to guess upon the total weight of the rear firing gun mechanism, guns, wiring harness and motors, sights and all other related items?
Kevin


----------



## Juha (Jan 23, 2007)

Udet wrote“…but have you heard of any accounts say of British fighter pilots commenting it could be dangerous to attack a formation of Ju 88s, Do 17s or He 111s during 1940?....of course you have not...”

In fact I have read a BoB book which tells on survey of c. 80 ex- BoB pilots on German air gunners, their opinions varied from poor to very good. One opinion which stuck into my memory was :”I’d say that they were rather good, they shot me down twice.” Or something like that.

Juha


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 23, 2007)

Just a comment on that. Udet you asked if he read the accounts of the BoB pilots who said it could be dangerous to attack Ju-88sDo 17s or He 111s during 1940?

Lets me honest here, It does not matter who you are attacking in 1940. British, American, Germany, French, Japanese. It is combat, it could be dangerous to attack anyone. It is dangerous!


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jan 23, 2007)

of course you're gonna get some saying it's dangerous- but you'll get more saying it wasn't i mean look at the raids in the north from Norway without fighter cover, they were absolutely decimated...........


----------



## Glider (Jan 23, 2007)

First of all back to the thread. What has always interested me is that the Germans abandoned the Me210 as it was to difficult to handle and gave them to the Hungarians who liked them.
Who was right, who was wrong? ideas anyone?


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 23, 2007)

> It is only German pilots commenting on the dangers of attacking the boxes of heavy bombers with their huge number of .50 cal guns -which was very true-...but have you heard of any accounts say of British fighter pilots commenting it could be dangerous to attack a formation of Ju 88s, Do 17s or He 111s during 1940?....of course you have not...because they prefer to omit it...and the number of Hurricanes and Spitfires either shot down or forced to disengage by the defensive MGs of German bombers was not necessarily low as i had the chance to discover.
> 
> Yes, by 1940 the Luftwaffe did not rely on the defensive fire of its bombers to face interception, rather they thought more about the speed and manouverability of their bombers to ensure some degree of safety in the event of fighter attack (of course -just in case- they knew their bombers were not faster than the fighters of the enemy), but still the German bombers, especially the Ju 88 and Do 17 which denied the crew access to the fuselage- made very well protected trenches against fighter attack. Think of some kind of "fox-hole" were several machine guns could be manned, as the crew was located only in the nose area of the plane...but this could be material for another discussion.



Your statemest are very true, but you have to take account of the armament used in that time as a defensive mean for the Luftwaffe bombers en 1940, was the MG-17 7,92mm, as good it was the rifle caliber ammunition cannot actually compite with a .50 12,7mm Browning loaded with API ammo like the ones in the B-17 and B-24 formations. If they were armed with 13 mm MG ( only few aircraft had it in 1940 the Me-210 and the Do-217) the things wre different.



> Thanks Carlitos



De nada che.










> First of all back to the thread. What has always interested me is that the Germans abandoned the Me210 as it was to difficult to handle and gave them to the Hungarians who liked them.
> Who was right, who was wrong? ideas anyone?



Honestly dont know, maybe the automatics leading edge slats and the more powerful DB-605A engines used in the Hungarian A/C wre superior to the original german design.

*40 MM Bofors Me-210Ca only 4 were made.*







Pictures form Me-210 in Etkwinglung Einsatz /Waffen Arsenal- Me-210/410 in action/ Squadron signal.


----------



## Udet (Jan 23, 2007)

Juha said:


> In fact I have read a BoB book which tells on survey of c. 80 ex- BoB pilots on German air gunners, their opinions varied from poor to very good. One opinion which stuck into my memory was :”I’d say that they were rather good, they shot me down twice.” Or something like that.
> Juha




Juha, hello.

May know what book is that? Not that i not believe what you say as i have first hand accounts of RAF veterans who have told me of mates flying Hurricanes that got killed while attacking Ju 88s and Do 17s. 


Lord Lanc, now your comment:
_
"of course you're gonna get some saying it's dangerous- but you'll get more saying it wasn't i mean look at the raids in the north from Norway without fighter cover, they were absolutely decimated..........."_

Just like many times the boxes of heavy bombers of the USAAF littered the German landscape with charred remains of B-17s and B-24s and crewmen body parts after attacked by units like JG 1, JG 11 or IV. (sturm)/JG 3.

Note i am not suggesting German bombers could deal with a swarm of attacking fighters, just like the heavy-bombers of the USAAF who put to test their funny theory of bombers with lots of defensive guns being 100% capable of defeating fighters...they got slaughtered big time (we´ve throughly discussed this in the past ).

Even more impressive is something i heard that in terms of defensive performance in the event of enemy fighter attack the Luftwaffe fared clearly better during 1940 when compared with the deeds of the allied heavy bombers over Europe during 1943.

What i am saying is simple Lanc: the RAF history writers are not less full of crap than their USAAF allies. They have omitted the fact attacking the German bombers during 1940 was a dangerous venture...better if not mentioned; ask anyone with mild knowledge on the aerial warfare over Europe regarding defensive gunners and an automatic thought will emerge: B-17 rear gunners shooting down "countless" German fighters. Crap.

As i said, German bomber doctrine did not feature defensive armament as the main element to repel enemy fighter attack, again: speed and manouverabiliy would be placed above defensive armament. Still, they fitted their bombers with several defensive machine guns that were perfectly capable of destroying the available RAF planes.

And you bet it was certainly difficult to a Hurricane Mk. I pilot to catch up with a Ju 88 A that had delivered its bombload as the medium bomber was manouverable and the speed difference between the Hurri and the Ju 88 was not that critical...~480 km/hr (Ju 88) vs. ~540 km/hr (Hurricane Mk. I).

It is also depicted on several accounts that the Bf 110s in Reichsverteidigung duties during 1944 could "hardly catch up with the USAAF heavy bombers...", i do not think the Hurricane saw itself in what you´d call a very comfortable position when trying to intercept the Ju 88 during 1940.

Many RAF fighter pilots got tricked by German bomber pilots in Ju 88s, who managed to escape back to France.

Think of a B-17 being highly manouverable and capable of making 620 km/hr after having delivered the bombs against the 685 km/hr of most late Bf 109 models...but it was not like that, it was a clumsy massive metallic tube uncapable of manouvering that had many many guns to boost the morale of the poor guys inside.

It is probably because of this fundamental difference that German bomber crews did not return from mission claiming to have destroyed "hundreds" of attacking RAF fighters, unlike the USAAF guys who after every mission over the Reich would claim numbers of German fighters brought down in such magnitude the issue has now become funny as they got brainwashed they were fully capable of fighting off German fighter attack with their .50 cals.

Carlitos, tus comentarios:

_"Your statemest are very true, but you have to take account of the armament used in that time as a defensive mean for the Luftwaffe bombers en 1940, was the MG-17 7,92mm, as good it was the rifle caliber ammunition cannot actually compite with a .50 12,7mm Browning loaded with API ammo like the ones in the B-17 and B-24 formations. If they were armed with 13 mm MG ( only few aircraft had it in 1940 the Me-210 and the Do-217) the things wre different."_

I know; but the MG 17 was more than enough to destroy the Spitfire and the Hurricane who were also fitted with rifle caliber ammo only: the .303 cal which by the way remained in service until the very end of the war.
There was a Spitfire Mk. I B fitted with the Hispano cannons but they were too few and more importantly their armament did not work.

Even Mr. Tony Williams on his website refers to the defensive armament of German bombers as : "poor defensive armament..."

DerAdler: i agree with your words, the point being the allies do not mention it...so if they do not mention it what does it mean? That intercepting German bomber formations was danger free? Or that it was as difficult as it was for German fliers during 1944 but it will make the war record to look not so neat?

That was mildly off-topic...but Sir Glider has raised some good points...the Hungarian ally retained their Me 210s in service almost until the end...

Cheers!


----------



## Juha (Jan 23, 2007)

Hello Udet
the book is Richard Hough and Denis Richards: The Battle of Britain. Coronet edition 1990 ISBN 0 340 53470 2.
Exact location p. 156 note**, in fact the study was based on opinions given in 1988 by some 100 surviving BoB pilots. 40 rated the quality of German bomber gunnery good or excellent, 32 thought it average and 30 poor. In text on that page is a short note of a combat where gunners of a tight formation of Dorniers shot down two British fighters and in the note is mentioned a combat in which 9 He 111s shot down three out of the first six attacking Hurricanes.

HTH
Juha


----------



## Udet (Jan 23, 2007)

Juha, thank you very much; looking forward to reading it.


----------



## Glider (Jan 23, 2007)

I saw an interview with a BOB veteran who was asked this question. His reply was very simple, 
'I was shot down once by an He111 gunner and had to make an emergency landing when hit by a Do17, so they cannot have been that bad. It could have been me of course but I survived the war so logic says I was at least average.'
I think that says it all.

Its interesting to speculate how the Germans would have fared if they had a plane like the Wellington. There is no doubt that twin gunned powered turrets are better than single hand held guns as used by the Germans in BOB.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 23, 2007)

Yea , but still it had the shitty rifle caliber Mgs.


*Information about operational use of the Me-410.*


----------



## Erich (Jan 23, 2007)

CB what is the source listed please ? it's wrong anyway in a big way. II./ZG 26 did not have Me 210's in the fall of 1943, they moved the antiquated Bf 110G-2's out for the newer sleeker me 410A's and still put the fat dual rocket launchers under each wing but they did have an advantage as the nose and belly trays could house more 2cm weapons systems


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 23, 2007)

The source is "Me-210/Me-410 in action" Squadron Signal Publishing.


¿And what about the rest of it ?  I mean the losses/victories and all that.


----------



## Erich (Jan 23, 2007)

I am going to have to pull the book out. ........... . I think there are more mistakes within


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 23, 2007)

> Im Einsatz sind vor allem bei der Verwendung der so genannten BK/M.Gr. bemerkenswerte Erfolge erzielt worden; so hat z. B. eine Gruppe von 53 Me 410 A-1/U4, die je Waffe mit 36 Schuss ausgerüstet waren, *mit der BK 5 bei 6 Feindflügen im Zeitraum vom 22. Februar bis 11. April 1944 insgesamt 129 Stück der B-17 "Fortress" Bomber und 4 Stück der B-24 "Liberator" bei nur 9 Eigenverlusten abgeschossen.* Bei Boden Schussversuchen an einer He 111 mit der Spr.G. "M" (0,350 kg Sprengstoff) wurde der Rumpf mit einem Treffer in zwei Teile zerlegt. Auch bei viermotorigen Maschinen genügte ein Treffer, wie die Abschüsse von 9 "Fortress" Bombern aus etwa 800 m Entfernung am 9. und 11. April 1944 bewiesen.




My german is poor, so my translation could be wrong. in Bold.

"In the period of time between 22 February to 11 april of 1944 the Me-410A1 /U4s equipped with the 50 mm BK-5s destroyed 129 B-17s and 4 B-24s with 9 own losses"


If true is a amazing victory-losses rate. 


Source:

Luftwaffe [LuftArchiv.de - Das Archiv der Deutschen Luftwaffe] 2.WK


----------



## Erich (Jan 23, 2007)

impressive if true but doubtful. ZG 76 used the Bk 5cm on the Ost front as ground attack and had terrible issues with it. ZG 26 and only small portions and am not sure when they say 53 unless it is the total ZG 26 had for the lengthy time period. 29 bombers yes but not 129 destroyed. It was already proven by II./ZG 26 that the forward firepower of the 6 20mm's was ultimate for destroying the Viermots plus not having the big heavy nosed cannon when you are trying to escape US P-47/P-51's. 
another reason why I think this may be a typo error from the German docs is that ZG 26 and ZG 76 were only receiving Me 410's in March of 44. II./ZG 26 had the Me 410 as early as September/October of 43 while the rest of the gruppen of ZG kept the Bf 110G-2 as did the whole of ZG 76. The 53 number would be a fat gruppe of destroyers with the long rod if true.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 23, 2007)

Thanks for the comments Erich.

My translation wasnt bad after all. 8)


----------



## CPWN (Jan 23, 2007)

CharlesBronson said:


> There was a bunch of good germans single and twin engine fighters that should be cancelled due this"engine sharing" problem.
> 
> For example :
> 
> ...



Can't see the image. Update some form google. 


























He100 is fast. But it's too small that can't carry more equipment and only could be installed the DB601. Otherwise He100's maneuverability seems not good.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 24, 2007)

Wrong topic man...this is for Me-210/410, if you want to discuss about the FW-187 and He-100 better go to: 


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HY2kNGzW_Mg_


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBjuRexnbPQ_


----------



## Soren (Jan 24, 2007)

Didn't the fastest version of the Me-410 do around 640 km/h ?


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 24, 2007)

Yes , the Me-410B variants with the DB-603G 1900 hp engines. (without the 50 mm cannon off course)


----------



## Udet (Jan 25, 2007)

WEISNER said:


> This kite could have well benifited by a redesign of the cockpit canopy and the use of Dual rear MG's, simmular in design to the Bf110 or Ju88 rear defensive guns.
> I do not know what this mess of a system weighed used by the 210-410? but I would guess cockpit mounted guns would have saved alot of weight, Materials and also the drag caused by the twin barbetts.
> This system was complicated and unreliable to say the least.
> The Me 410A-1's of II./ZG26, that were used for high altitude interceptions during 1944, did away with this mess alltogether..... And had the Barbetts removed and faired over, and no second crew member was carried.
> ...



How come it was complicated and unreliable? From the very little information i´ve had available on model, i read no complains at all from the pilots who flew the Hornisse.

The MG 131 rear defensvie system as shown in Charlie´s photo does not seem to be what you´d call a complicated system...surely more "complicated" than a simple gun mount manually handled by a rear gunner...but complicated to such extent it was not possible to be maintained and/or repaired by ground technicians seems quite excessive.

I have yet to find evidence from crews that would tell the system was crap.

Ah, from all photos i have from ZG 26 and ZG 76 during 1944...in absolutely all photos where the fuselage area of the plane appears i can see the MG 131 in place, meaning i have not seen any photo showing the Me 410 in combat units without the defensive gear. If you have any photos to share illustrating this fact, they´d be very much appreciated.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 25, 2007)

I saw only one of that aircraft with no defensive armament in that squadron. It seems to be the exception not the rule.








And what would had more benefits? a spare 15 km/h or a couple defensive guns ? probably it go up to the pilot s preferences.


----------



## Udet (Jan 25, 2007)

Charlie, hello.

Good photos as usual from your part.

While it seems that in fact the first photo shows a Me 410 with no MG 131s fitted, the second one does...or what was the purpose of the second pic?

Cheers!


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 25, 2007)

The second pic shows one a/c from the same squadron, the purpose was to show that not ALL aircraft had the MG-131 removed (in fact I think that those were only a few)


*Some combat histories of the Ekdo 25*


























*Eduard Tratt*:








Sources:

Me-410 in combat, Krzystoff Janowicz/ Kagero.


----------



## Soren (Jan 25, 2007)

The Me-410 on the first pic has still got its defensive armament, you just can't see it for the wing. 

I hae never heard that the defensive armament was stripped - sounds odd.


----------



## Denniss (Jan 25, 2007)

CharlesBronson said:


> Yes , the Me-410B variants with the DB-603G 1900 hp engines. (without the 50 mm cannon off course)



Your somewhat wrong here as the DB603G never saw production. The Me 410 used DB 603A or the DB603AA with better altitude performance (probably via larger supercharger).


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 25, 2007)

Thanks, is so hard to find a reliable source, I ve taken from this:








The lack of MGs is not well apreciate in that pic, but there is others in the Squadron Signal book, I try to get those.


----------



## Udet (Jan 25, 2007)

Soren said:


> The Me-410 on the first pic has still got its defensive armament, you just can't see it for the wing.
> 
> I hae never heard that the defensive armament was stripped - sounds odd.



Soren right...that´s precisely why i said on my last posting: "while it seems that in fact..." -regarding the presence of the MG 131s in the Hornisse shown in Charlies pic-. Interesting comment, it could be indeed possible the photo was taken from such an angle the wing hid the machine guns...a matter of milimiters maybe...


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 25, 2007)

There was some Me-410 without that armament, I have not the book right now but I had see it.


----------



## YakFlyer (Jan 26, 2007)

The German Destroyer concept is probably best presented in the machine they never had, the Mosquito.
By the time the 410 was ready, it was too late, it was no longer required as the hunter, but merely the prey, as the range of Allied single engine escorts increased. 
Surely, the concept of multi eng escort fighters was a failure. 
Although, before the outbreak of war, it was the only way to provide long range bomber protection.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 26, 2007)

Dont think so, the mosquito was designed as a fast bomber and then adapted to other roles.

The Me-210/410 family was designed from the start to be a multirole "schnellkampf" or fast battle aircraft, wich involves divebombing, horizontal bombing, escort, fighter and recce missions.

*Night intruder Me-410.*


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 28, 2007)

This is firepower: Me-410B with 2x 13mm MG plus 6 x MG-151 20mm, 2 in the nose, 2 in the bomb bay and two more in ventral emplacement. Some aircraft also carried 4 o 6 210mmm rocket launchers.


----------



## Udet (Jan 28, 2007)

Any similarities?

The nose of the A-10 has always reminded me the Me 410. The nose of the A-10 seems of course somewhat more streamlined, but we talk about a plane that was designed ~30 years after the Luftwaffe´s Hornisse.


----------



## Udet (Jan 28, 2007)

More to compare...


----------



## Udet (Jan 28, 2007)

And...


----------



## donkeyking (Jan 29, 2007)

Is this Me410's one of leading-edge slats or flap?
and who can tell me what's functions in Me410?
many thanks


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 29, 2007)

And what about this, it dwarfed the 30mm gun...







Sorry Donkey I cannot see your picture. The functioning of the slats were very simple, at low speeds it deployed by his own weight an at high speed the aerodinamic pressure pushed it backward inside the wing leading edge.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 29, 2007)

And for those who still have doubts... ( people of little faith  )


----------



## Erich (Jan 29, 2007)

CB your one posting of the Me 410 pic with the underbelly waffen pod was pretty standard equipment. 6 2cm weapons ........... ouch


----------



## Denniss (Jan 29, 2007)

Erich said:


> CB your one posting of the Me 410 pic with the underbelly waffen pod was pretty standard equipment. 6 2cm weapons ........... ouch



Wasn'it more standard to have four MG 151 in the bomb bay or was this only a late field conversion ? Dragwise it'll be better than with an additional underbelly weapons pod. It somewhat looks like the pod used on the Bf 110.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 29, 2007)

Yeap, I think that you mentioned earlier. There was at list one armed with 8 MG-151s.


----------



## Erich (Jan 29, 2007)

there were at least 4 different 2cm conversions sets.

Dassows was unusual or at least claimed to have that many 2cm weapons but it really did not matter as he knew how to close in with the US bombers to score a kill and yet fell while flying a Fw 190A. fighter to fighter was not his forte' in combat experience


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 30, 2007)

In some list Dassow figure is 12 viermots, most of them (if not every) were shot down with the Me-410.

This B-2 have no ventral pod and 4 Mausers in the bomb bay.


----------



## Udet (Jan 31, 2007)

Charlie, thanks for the info. So you are correct, there were some cases when pilots decided their ships should not have the defensive MG 131s, but everything will certainly indicate such cases were rare.

Now the case of the Me 410 pilot whose ship had 8- 2cm. cannons...of course that meant a typhoon of fire would be unleashed. But what could the purpose of such configuration have been? Four MG 151/20s was more than enough to carry on with the mission of gutting bombers.

Possibly to stay more time in the air attacking several boxes on their way to targets, as indicated to pilots by radar stations?

A 2 second burst of all 8 cannons would be more than sufficient to pulverize a B-17 or B-24...so it sounds like the most logic explanation, stay in the air for longer periods of time to charge against several formations.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 31, 2007)

> Now the case of the Me 410 pilot whose ship had 8- 2cm. cannons...of course that meant a typhoon of fire would be unleashed. But what could the purpose of such configuration have been?




Probably to put a lot of explosives and AP shells in the air in the little time as possible giving no chance to the bombers gunners aim.



> Four MG 151/20s was more than enough to carry on with the mission of gutting bombers.




Teorically yes..but I think they felt that spare firepower wont hurt, specially if you face a lot of B-17s wich was ( in opinion of the german pilots ) the hardest airplane to bring down in the western Front.




> A 2 second burst of all 8 cannons would be more than sufficient to pulverize a B-17 or B-24...so it sounds like the most logic explanation, stay in the air for longer periods of time to charge against several formations.



The stay on the target area depends also of the ammo supply and range but yes with 8 guns shooting at 750 rpm each gaves a teorical rate of 6000 rpm :...wich means 100 bullets per second, wich means 200 round fired in 2 seconds...


----------



## Erich (Jan 31, 2007)

full on firepower to destroy the victim with the least amount of time so you could set up for another rear attack/side attack


----------



## Udet (Jan 31, 2007)

Erich do you have any guncamera footage showing Me 410s getting shot down by allied fighters? Although my collection of guncamera films is large i have none of the Me 410 getting hit...


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 31, 2007)

Here you got one, not correctly named by the way... 







Source.


----------



## Erich (Jan 31, 2007)

no sorry I do not have any gun cam of 410's getting popped.


----------



## Udet (Jan 31, 2007)

Good pic Charlie! (I saw that book in a store once, but if i recall correctly it had a different cover?)

I would like to see a guncamera film showing a Me 410 getting intercepted and hit; guncamera can be very helpful. I would like to see what a Me 410 pilot attempted to do when knowing an enemy fighter was closing in...

Pretty much like the case of the G-6/R6 version of the 109. I was so used to read the bomber hunter configuration (with the MG 151/20 cannons under the wings) was a "sitting duck" if intercepted by any of the contemporary allied fighters, i can say i had bought the story..until i saw guncamera footage of the model getting intercepted.

The films showed lots of cases when the heavier 109 manages to evade the tailing allied fighter, even after having swallowed hits from the enemy´s guns.


----------



## Civettone (Feb 1, 2007)

Those 20mm gondolas only reduced speed by 9 mph so I think it's all very much exaggerated. 

Kris

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Erich (Feb 1, 2007)

ah but then add the four Br 21cm's and their mortar launchers.

the 410 just like the overloaded Bf 110G-2 was a sitting duck to US escort fighters. Overall speed was increased, armor and visibility in the Me 410 variants and it thus proved to be a very effective bomber destroyer in the fall of 43 till it's removal in 44 and the ZG's became single engine JG units to add to the many for Reich defense .. . ........ ...


----------



## Udet (Feb 1, 2007)

Erich, as i have commented in the past regarding the Hornisse, possibly one of the most abhorrent mistakes ever commited by the Germans during the war was to keep the zerstörern in front line service beyond the second halfd of 1943.

During the last 12 months of their operations, ZG 26 and ZG 76 swallowed both the material and human resources that could have put at least two additional Jagdgescwadern -of four gruppen each- in the air to greet the allied air forces (not including the man and material that served in the several kampfgruppen during 1944 that could have been available to enable even more jagdgeschwadern).

But with this i do not mean i agree the Me 410 was such a doomed prey when confronting enemy fighters. Hopefully someday i might come across guncamera footage.


----------



## Erich (Feb 1, 2007)

Udet I have the complete losses listing for all of ZG 26 and 76 for the war. Pretty sad truly the twin engine crews got snuffed during 1944 especially by Allied Mustangs/T-bolts


----------



## Lt. Mereel (Feb 1, 2007)

Didnt the P-38 take some down too?


----------



## Udet (Feb 9, 2007)

Erich, hi

I have parts of loss listings for the ZG...but since you have the whole package, the loss ratio was...?


----------



## Udet (Feb 11, 2007)

I´ll be damned. Look at what i just found in a russian webpage regarding the performance of the remote-controlled MG 131 barbetes on the Me 410; first found it in my russian search engine and luckily the webpage has its english area. 

You might find this of interest:

Me-410 - Heavy Fighter - Luftwaffe


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 11, 2007)

Nice site. Some obvious statements by the russians.

a) _*The quality of the assembly of instruments, electrical equipment, and wiring remained high up till the end of the war, thus significantly contributing to trouble-free operation of special equipment.*_


Enough said. 


*While evaluating the Me 410 from a tactical point of view, Lieutenant Colonel Magon pointed out that the modern Soviet Yak-3, Yak-9U, and La-7 fighters outperformed the Messerschmitt where speed and maneuverability were concerned.*

Yes.. and if a put my hand in a river I going to get wet, the mission of this subvariat was to engage bombers at high altitude not doghfighting.


_*At the same time, the Me-410B-2 was a threat to all types of Soviet series-produced bombers, the Tu-2 included, due to its high capabilities*._


Not only soviet, also the B-24, B-17 and everything, the 50 mm minengranate carry 350 grams of high explosive so it could disable any aircraft made during the ww2.



> at sea level 507
> at altitude 624



Nice data, it is interesting that with the 50 mm gun (wich weights 540 kg) and 2 MG-151, the plane still can surpassed the 600 km/h barrier.


----------



## YakFlyer (Feb 11, 2007)

One could best sum up the abilities in the Zestorer, in two allied aircraft, the P-51, and the Mosquito. The story of the Zestorer must be considered a failure, certainly in day-time ops. It is all very well saying that they were not designed to tangle with single engine fighters, but what if one appears in combat, you have no choice. They had no ability dogfighting. The Mosquito and the '51 did the two jobs so sucessfully, that the Zestorers failed with doing at once.


----------



## Jank (Feb 11, 2007)




----------



## Civettone (Feb 12, 2007)

> It is all very well saying that they were not designed to tangle with single engine fighters


I don't know if that's true. How can any fighter be designed not to tangle with single-engined fighters. Most countries only had single-engined aircraft as fighters... 

The way I see it is that the Bf 110 was deprived of its qualities when it was ordered to stick closely to the bombers it had to protect. When properly used - that is in what Americans call a BnZ attack - the Bf 110 was more than a match for the Spitfire and definitely better than the Hurricane.

Also later against the Russians the Bf 110 did what it was supposed to until replacement by the Me 210 was due.
Kris


----------



## Udet (Feb 12, 2007)

Excellent comment Civ.

That sounded as if there were areas of German airspace where access to single-engined fighters was banned. "Twin-engined fighters only".

German planners certainly made fateful decisions regarding military production but of course they knew what kind of planes would the Me 410 encounter when airborne in the year 1944.

I do not know if you read this thread from its beginning Civ but my point is the actual performance of the Me 410 remains a mistery, and might eventually remain as such.

I have commented German planners made a terrible mistake in maintaining the _Zerstörergruppen_ in service from the second half of 1943 and through the whole 1944. Why a mistake? Not because the Hornisse was a piece of crap against anything that was not a bomber like most accounts suggest, rather my viewpoint has different grounds; *it was a huge mistake due to the resources a ZG demanded to remain operational*.

ZG 26 and ZG 76 did not justify their existance during the 18 months comprising the period of time between summer 1943 and the end of 1944.

When one gets to know further about the fuel crisis of the Luftwaffe during the last 12 months of the war it can only be wondered what the hell were the guys in the OKL thinking...that scarce and precious fuel in the tanks of the Me 410s during 1944could have been used -at minimum- to dramatically increase the number of sorties flown by the jagdgeschwdern in Reichsverteidigung.

Civ...lose one Me 410 in combat, say, the 2 guys are KIAs; on the other hand lose one Bf 109 or Fw 190, the pilot (one guy) also a KIA.

2 vs 1: a 100% casualty rate in the case of the Me 410. Another reason to affirm with confidence it was a gruesome mistake to keep the Hornisse in service during such period.

The fuel again...what a single Me 410 swallowed during one sole mission could have put how many Bf 109s or Fw 190s in the air?

If ZG 26 and ZG 76 remained operational during 1944 with the human and material resources both units swallowed, two _jagdgeschwadern_ of four gruppe each could have been made operational to greet the 8th AF.

The argument the Me 410 endured high losses is almost meaningless if presented to prove the plane was a fat turkey if confronted with allied fighters. The whole Luftwaffe took high losses but we know the Bf 109 G-6 or the Fw 190 A-8 as fighters, had no problem in dealing with anything the enemy threw at them.

The OKL knew what was in store for 1944. They were totally aware a huge aerial battle was in the horizon; even more intense than it was during 1943.

Disband the ZGs, reduce the production of twin engined fighters to only maintain an adequate night fighter force to take care of the RAF bombers.
Cancell the production of bombers. Convert all bomber crewmen to fighter pilots. All these steps should have been taken when 1943 was ending.

It is not daring to affirm no less than 5 jagdgruppen -four gruppe each- could have spawned from such measures. In addition to the JGs we know today, we would be speaking about JG 666, JG 777, JG 1000, JG 2000 and JG 3000....and of more horrific losses the USAAF would have had to take, and possibly of a significant protraction of the conflict.

Cheers!


----------



## Udet (Feb 13, 2007)

Charlie...I agree with you.

I have to admit i was surprised to read such comments on the Me 410 if you take into account it´s the russians speaking. 

It is one of the very rare times when i´ve come across an allied account that confirms German aircraft retained high quality workmanship until the very end of the war, even if the Me 410 ended production in late 1944.

I have met a German pilot and i asked if he had to endure the consequences of "poor workmanship" in his Bf 109 when flying combat missions during 1945, a flat no was his response.

Charles have you come across any videos of Me 410 in test flights firing their nose ordnance? I have not...but i´d love to. 

I have films Bf 109 -possibly made for propaganda purposes- where the 109 is firing the nose cannon and both MG 131 and the fire burst is quite impressive. So i would like to see a Me 410 firing its nose kit of six 2cm cannons, a hurricane of fire sounds like modest...


----------



## Civettone (Feb 13, 2007)

Udet, I've read it from page 6 (as you suggested).
I still have some sympathy for the RLM keeping the Zerstörer in production because the situation in 1943 was still promising for aircraft with long-range interceptors with a heavy armament who do not have to fear escort fighters. And the fuel issue wasn't going to be decided on the use of those few Me 410s. I'm also not concerned about the rear gunner getting killed. The real reason why I'm against the Me 410 was that you could build 4 Bf 109s in the same time frame. That's really the key issue in my book.

I disagree with stopping bomber production. Germany still needed an offensive air weapon, at least against the Russians. Also, converted bomber pilots were rarely good fighter pilots (though good Sturm pilots). And what are you going to do with the rest of the bomber crews? And what if you restore air superiority over Germany? Build the bomber force up again? I think that will prove to be impossible, and then the fate of Germany is sealed in any case because the enemy could stop building interceptors and stick to bombers and escort fighters. And then you can start all over again...

Kris


----------



## Udet (Feb 14, 2007)

Those few Me 410s? What about the Bf 110s of II./ZG 1 taking part in daylight missions during the summer of 1944? And what about the twin engined planes serving in the _zerstörergruppen_ during the whole 1944?

In January 1944, the whole zerstörerverbande had ~290 planes (Bf 110s, Ju 88s and Me 210s).

Are you sure on the "few Me 410s" part? stab., I., and II./ZG 26 maintained
~80 zerstörer in strenght during the summer months of 1944. 

80 planes might seem a tricky number...even if half the number of planes were serviceable that would mean 200,000 liters of fuel to put them in the air. 

How many Bf 109 G-6s would you put in the air with 200,000 liters of fuel? Answer= 500.

500 Bf 109 G-6= 500 pilots
40 Me 410 A = 80 men (pilot-rear gunner).

So during the summer of 1944, a critical moment in the aerial battle over the Reich, 80 men were consuming the fuel that could have put 500 single engined fighter pilots in the air to deal with Mustangs and heavy bombers.

Does this sound like efficiency to you?

Me 410 A-1 =5000 liters (internal fuel)
Bf 110 =1270 liters (internal fuel)
Bf 109 G-6 =400 liters (internal fuel)

A single Me 410 A-1 with fuel tanks loaded swallowed the fuel of a flight of 12.5 Bf 109s.

As late as in december 1944, IV./ZG 26 and II./ZG 76 continue to have ~90 zerstörer in strenght.

Along with the fuel consumption issue, i too did mention the fact of the engines and fuselages that could instead have been utilized to produce more Bf 109s and other fighters.

Nowhere did i suggest the "fuel issue was decided on the use of those few Me 410s". I was referring to the whole twin engined fighters deployed for daylight combat missions.

From the numbers i am presenting here it is more than clear the zerstörergruppen swallowed fuel that could have helped either increasing the number of sorties of the available jagdgeschwadern or in creatind new single engined fighter units; not to decide the issue but certainly to have an impact.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 14, 2007)

Nice data and numbers Udet.



> Charles have you come across any videos of Me 410 in test flights firing their nose ordnance? I have not...but i´d love to.



I got some of the Me-410 flying, not firing, I keep on the search for it.


----------



## Civettone (Feb 15, 2007)

Udet;

- there's no shortage of rear gunners, especially not when taking the Ju 87 and other bombers out of production. Let's stick to pilots, ok?

- Fuel production dropped below the fuel consumption in June 1944. So up to that time there were no Bf 109s being grounded because of the Me 410. Up til that time the Luftwaffe got something like 200,000 ton a month. I think that puts your 200 ton into perspective.

- you mention 5000 l internal fuel but you know just as well as I do that you don't need to fill them up all the way. The Me 410 could fly at least three times as far as a Bf 109. So bring back that 200,000 liters to 75,000...

Kris


----------



## Morai_Milo (Feb 15, 2007)

> Are you sure on the "few Me 410s" part? stab., I., and II./ZG 26 maintained ~80 zerstörer in strenght during the summer months of 1944.



Zerstörergeschwader 26

StabZG26/I./ZG26/II./ZG26 (month end)
May - 5/20/50 > 75
June - 2/33/39 > 74
July - 3/15/19 > 37
Aug - 3/74/0 - 77
Sept - 4/48/nil - 52

Only in Aug did the units come near to 80 a/c, total.



> As late as in december 1944, IV./ZG 26 and II./ZG 76 continue to have ~90 zerstörer in strenght.



IV./ZG26 went from 1 410 at month beginning to 12 at month end and II./ZG76 went from 57 at month beginning to 37 410s at month end for Dec 1944.

Zerstörergeschwader 76


----------



## Erich (Feb 15, 2007)

you have posted what was suppose to be in the gruppen but what they had serviceable would be an interesting counter, ZG 26 was getting wipped by US escorts from the skies in 44 until they became cadre for other single engine units.
I am not in total agreement with M.H.'s website on several other units portions but it is understandable with errors, everything is that way


----------



## Udet (Feb 15, 2007)

Civettone said:


> Udet;
> 
> - there's no shortage of rear gunners, especially not when taking the Ju 87 and other bombers out of production. Let's stick to pilots, ok?
> 
> ...



Civ:

I will rephrase my idea.

The core of this notion is the widely known fact Germany was not a rich nation in terms of natural resources and men.

Germany faced critical shortages of so many materials and items, like fuel, during the last year of the war having maintained the _Zerstörergeschwadern_ in service to carry on with daylight missions in during the last part of 1943 and virtually through the entire 1944 -_Reichsverteidigung_-was a horrifying mistake.

Germany was facing the air forces of three main enemies: USAAF, RAF and VVS, although in my view the most fundamental air force was the USAAF hands down-, something that for practical purposes is about *impossible*. 

It is in view of such a clear situation of disadvantage Germany could not afford to continue allocating material resources (raw materials for engines and spare parts, weapons, ammo, fuel, etc.) and workforce for producing more twin-engined fighters and *BOMBERS* (!) during 1944.

I am sure you know these facts Civ so i have to say i disagree to read you consider the _zerstörern _should remain in service even for the last part of 1943 when escorts did not yet attain the necessary range to protect the bombers during the whole bombing run. But what makes me feel nearly shocked is to read you think Germany should have continued producing bombers during 1944...

German planners knew perfectly well what was coming regarding aerial combat over the Reich. They had the necessary time to have the strategy revamped but instead decided to put it all in the dustbin and simply continued producing aircraft that were no longer necessary for the Luftwaffe. Terrible mistake and they paid accordingly.

1944 would have been, as it occured, a brutal year in European skies, and Germany could have had far more single engined fighters with the required pilots to batter the USAAF. 

Had Germany disbanded all the ZG and most of the KG by the end of 1943, converting all pilots and the bulk of the crews to single engined fighter pilots and there is this chance the USAAF would not even dare to mention the overhyped Mustang preferring to keep it in a low profile.

*In terms of raw materials a Me 210 or 410 could spawn a couple of Bf 109s. *

It is difficult for me to understand anyone might fail to see how terrible that can be for a small nation with limited access to resources that is waging a war against a large common enemy. 

I know a Me 410 and Bf 110 had a pilot and rear gunner Civ; so what´s your point? All those who performed as radio operator/rear gunners during 1944 could not be trained to become single engined fighter pilots?

Every guy who died as rear gunner during 1944 on a Me 410 or Bf 110 represented a pointless loss.

Also your comment bomber crews do not make good pilots is odd; how come? I agree not everyone has the talent to become a fighter pilot -or to perform any profession you can think of-, but how is it being a bomber crewman makes you unfit for becoming a Bf 109 or Fw 190 pilot? I know of a large number of cases of bomber crewmen who not only flew in He 111s as gunners, bombers or radio operators they also became aces flying in BF 109s or Fw 190s.

Your second point on the last posting: I neither said nor suggested single-engined fighters were staying on the ground because the Me 410s were stealing their fuel Civ -although it is not daring to affirm such a thing indeed could have happened after the summer of 1944-.

My point was just to illustrate how inclined to waste the German style of waging the aerial war was during late 1943 and through the whole 1944. Wasteful. Wasteful to death.

A complete mess and lack of efficiency in terms of resources management. Instead of the rough 80 Me 410s serving in any ZG during mid 1944 the Luftwaffe could have had 160 Bf 109 G-6/AS or G-10s Civ. 

160 Bf 109s? We are nearly talking about a complete geschwader. How come you can not see this?

Well, i know my father does not need to fill the whole tank of his car to keep it going. But do you have any copies of formats that might show how many liters were being dispensed into a Me 410 before mission?

Ok Civ. 75,000 liters of fuel will help you putting 187 Bf 109s to go up and gut P-51s, P-47s and P-38s.

187 Bf 109s -or Fw 190s- can represent a Jagdgeschwader with the stab., three gruppen and the _Ergänzungsgruppe_.

187 Bf 109s or Fw 190s that never came to life because raw materials, assembly facilities and workforce were instead being allocated to produce Me 410s, Bf 110s and bombers... bloody messy planning from the German part.

Do you agree it was wasteful Civ?


----------



## Morai_Milo (Feb 15, 2007)

What is the use of all these extra 109s/190s when there is not enough trained and qualified pilots to fly them?

The JGs already did not have enough fuel so the fuel saved from the disbadoning of the ZGs would only give extra fuel to the already existing JGs. The extra 109s/190s would be still short of fuel.


----------



## CRASHGATE3 (Feb 15, 2007)

Guys...an excellent thread on the Me410....thanks.
You may be interested in this pic I took a few days ago at the Royal Air Force museum at Cosford
Sorry no history but the sign said Me410A-1/U2 and the markings were 3U (in black) + C (in red on white band) C(in black)


----------



## Udet (Feb 15, 2007)

Morai_Milo said:


> What is the use of all these extra 109s/190s when there is not enough trained and qualified pilots to fly them?
> 
> The JGs already did not have enough fuel so the fuel saved from the disbadoning of the ZGs would only give extra fuel to the already existing JGs. The extra 109s/190s would be still short of fuel.




The disbandment of all ZGs is one factor, and the other is the disbanding of several KG.

Focusing on the critical year of 1944: Germany produced ~2,050 bombers (He 111, Ju 88, Ju 188 and He 177 plus a handful of other types), plus ~800 Me 210s/Me 410s and even ~110 Bf 110s. Tell me of anything significant these planes achieved during 1944.

~2,960 ships, all of them machines with 2 engines. With a serviceability rate of 50% for all those planes produced during 1944 you seriously believe only "some extra fuel" could have been given to the "existing JGs"?

More than that in fact for it would have helped having fuel for JGs that did not even come to life. Think of the math...if the fuel of one single Me 410 A-1 or B-1 could put *a staffel of single-engined fighters *up in the air, then you can try to figure out the issue with all those thousands of twin engined planes the Luftwaffe was no longer requiring during 1944 but that were produced and saw service.

All those men, planes and fuel stupidly lost during the Baby Blitz of the first months 1944 over England...you are not going to deny it was a stupid commitment of men and war materiel and fuel are you? Want to check the number of sorties flown by the ~490 bombers that took part in that senseless "campaign" to come up with a figure of fuel consumed?

The "extra" Bf 109s and Fw190s i am referring to could indeed have been more than 2,000 machines for the second half of 1944 with sufficient pilots to fly them in combat. So add 2,000 planes to the known order of battle of West/Reich Luftwaffe between jul-december 1944.

Hypothetical scenario: the sturmkinder flying Fw 190 A-8/R8s of IV (sturm)./JG 3 or II. (sturm)/JG 4 are provided with top cover flight of 300 Bf 109 G-6/AS on every mission flown...give the USAAF 7 or 8 episodes of dimensions identical to that of the Kassel raid of the poor devils of the 445th BG in one month and believe me, the guys in the USAAF will not be sure whether to continue the aerial war.

Such 2,000 single-engined ships will consume much much less fuel than half the total of bombers produced by Germany during 1944.

I have table lists with production and deliveries of bombers and twin-engined fighters to KG and ZG for every month of 1944 and it is clearly seen it was a 100% wasteful kind of war management from the german part.

Training of German pilots was sufficient to produce the type of pilots necessary to fly the planes for the second half of 1944; certainly training programs and schedules were shortened but that a pilot was "green" does not mean he was "ill-trained" as it has been conviniently presented by the allies.

Chances are you are not yet convinced producing Me 210s/410s and Bf 110s during 1944 was a foolish thing; you can be sure whatever your approach might be, it will be proven it would have been wiser to instead produce only single-engined fighters.

(i) Raw materials.
(ii) Workforce.
(iii) Number of engines.
(iv) Crew.
(v) Ground crews/maintenance (technicians, mechanics, armorers, etc.)
(vi) Fuel.

In conclusion: 2 engined planes are more expensive (raw materials and workforce) and tale more time to be produced.

A large nation, with a large territory -distant from where the fight is-, and with open access to the natural resources and raw materials of vast regions like the USA could afford planning and organizational mistakes...Germany could not but did...


----------



## Gimmeacannon! (Feb 16, 2007)

Looks like this thread has been going on a loooong loooong time, I think I may be unique among the members discussing the me 410 because I have actually crawled through the only surviving Me410 in anything like a complete condition.
I worked at Cosford as a volunteer in the late 70's early 80's with the Society there and for something like eighteen months cleaned tidied and examined the aircraft as much as possible, since then she has been to St Athan where her engines were actually run by the technicians there and ahd some work done before coming back to Cosford.
As I see it having sat in the rear fuselage directly forward of the turret mechanism for the rear firing weapons the aircraft could have well done without it and its extra weight, all you see on the outside is a couple of blisters and two gun barrels but inside is a bloody great piece of electrically driven machinery weighing about a ton.
It is very complicated and heavy and why they persisted with it I dont know because unless the target was directly behind and some distance away only one gun could be fired, a pair of 13mm machine guns in the rear cockpit would have been more efficient and would double the firepower plus save a massive amount of weight behind the main wing which could only improve handling and stability.


----------



## Gimmeacannon! (Feb 16, 2007)

The Me410 at Cosford is a A1/U2 and was captured at Vaerlose in Denmark and was then flown to Schleswig then on to Farnbourough on 13th October 1945.
On 28th December 1945 it was flown to Brize Norton and in August 1946 was allocated to 76 MU Wroughton for museum storage, for some years she was in storage at the German Air Force Equipment Centre at No 4 MU Stanmore Park.By 1960 she had been moved to RAF Fulbeck then in 1961 was moved to RAF Cosford for storage.
She is fitted with DB603A-2 engines and her Werk Nummer is 420430.


----------



## CRASHGATE3 (Feb 16, 2007)

Thanx for filling in the details on the Me410 at Cosford.
I didnt have much time to read all the info...too busy taking pix !!
I would have loved to get in the cockpit though !


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 16, 2007)

Udet said:


> ......
> Hypothetical scenario: the sturmkinder flying Fw 190 A-8/R8s of IV (sturm)./JG 3 or II. (sturm)/JG 4 are provided with top cover flight of 300 Bf 109 G-6/AS on every mission flown...give the USAAF 7 or 8 episodes of dimensions identical to that of the Kassel raid of the poor devils of the 445th BG in one month and believe me, the guys in the USAAF will not be sure whether to continue the aerial war.........



Thats assuming that the escorting fighters were not in a position to intercept those fighters, or were outnumbered to the extent they couldn't stop them. That was a rare and infrequent event.

As Erich mentioned in multiple threads, the twin engined "bomber killers" that flew in daylight were meat on the plate for the allied fighters. Even for the P38's.


----------



## Udet (Feb 16, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> Thats assuming that the escorting fighters were not in a position to intercept those fighters, or were outnumbered to the extent they couldn't stop them. That was a rare and infrequent event.
> 
> As Erich mentioned in multiple threads, the twin engined "bomber killers" that flew in daylight were meat on the plate for the allied fighters. Even for the P38's.



Incorrect. I am assuming any kind of escorts available in the USAAF are in the area.

Instead of 40, 50, 60 or 70 Bf 109s flying top cover for the _sturmgruppen_ no less than 300 escorts could have been available *on every mission flown* if German planners had bothered to attempt putting their stuff together.

I repeat no less than 300 and even 400 Bf 109 G-6/AS against whatever number of the overhyped Mustangs you might want to come up with. Say 350 German escorts against what...500 P-51s? 

7 or 8 "Kassels" per month; do not forget the guys of the 445th BG did belong in a side that is not good at swallowing high losses.


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 16, 2007)

Udet said:


> Instead of 40, 50, 60 or 70 Bf 109s flying top cover for the _sturmgruppen_ no less than 300 escorts could have been available *on every mission flown* if German planners had bothered to attempt putting their stuff together.



Thats just all the more potential targets for the 8th, 9th and 15th AF fighters to go after.



> I repeat no less than 300 and even 400 Bf 109 G-6/AS against whatever number of the overhyped Mustangs you might want to come up with. Say 350 German escorts against what...500 P-51s?



The P51 is overhyped? 



> 7 or 8 "Kassels" per month; do not forget the guys of the 445th BG did belong in a side that is not good at swallowing high losses.



And youre assuming that the Luftwaffee would not be taking losses? If anything, the Germans had little capacity to replenish pilot losses.


----------



## Udet (Feb 16, 2007)

syscom:

The Luftwaffe will of course take losses, but those men would have been lost in battle flying single-engined fighters and not twin-engined crafts much less bombers.

The capacity of the USAAF to replace their dead has too been greatly exaggerated; again, the USA was not a tyranny where the lives of their men in the frontlines meant less than feces.

Are you going to deny that during the last part of 1943 the USAAF could not yet feel bold enough to claim victory was "imminent" in the air?

Several huge blows suffered by the USAAF in a brief period of time during 1944 and you put them to tremble.

Ahh and yes the P-51 is bigtime an overhyped plane.


----------



## kiwimac (Feb 16, 2007)

No matter how good a single-engined fighter is, there is one 'theatre' where the twin is better and that is night-fighting. I agree that the Luftwaffe's general staff could have done better by disbanding the day twin units but I'm not certain about the night ones, which I think leaves us in the position of having perhaps enough fighters to combat the USAAF but not enough to combat the RAF at night.


----------



## Udet (Feb 16, 2007)

Kiwi i completely agree with you, but if you notice i did say the production of twin-engined planes continues to maintain an adequate _nachtjagdverbände_.

Even in that respect the Germans behaved messy and disorganized...again -sorry for getting so repetitive- during the critical year of 1944 the NJGs had Ju 88 C, Bf 110 G, He 219 A and Do 217s as night fighters!!! Why so many types of planes during a time of critical shortages and urgent necessities? Why not only one type? Standardization, optimising of scarce resources!


----------



## kiwimac (Feb 16, 2007)

Oh, I agree udet, I agree. Perhaps they should have stuck with the JU 88c or developed somewhat the HE 219 but one or (at the most) two would have been better than the 4 or so that they actually had, including some poor souls in 109Es for goodness sake!


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 17, 2007)

Udet said:


> The Luftwaffe will of course take losses, but those men would have been lost in battle flying single-engined fighters and not twin-engined crafts much less bombers.



The LW did not have the capacity to replace the pilots. No fuel for training meant the LW was on borrowed time.



> The capacity of the USAAF to replace their dead has too been greatly exaggerated; again, the USA was not a tyranny where the lives of their men in the frontlines meant less than feces.



By the end of 1944, the US had more pilots than they knew what to do with. While the US was constantly expanding the size of the AAF, the LW was pretty much static.



> Are you going to deny that during the last part of 1943 the USAAF could not yet feel bold enough to claim victory was "imminent" in the air?



The allies didn't have the air battle won untill middle 1944.



> Several huge blows suffered by the USAAF in a brief period of time during 1944 and you put them to tremble.



And the question is whether the LW could make good on its loss's. The US could.



> Ahh and yes the P-51 is bigtime an overhyped plane.



Jealous of it?


----------



## Udet (Feb 18, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> The LW did not have the capacity to replace the pilots. No fuel for training meant the LW was on borrowed time.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



syscom, have a nice weekend.


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 18, 2007)

Udet said:


> syscom, have a nice weekend.



Its actually a good weekend here. Im preparing the garden for the veggies to plant next week.

Now answer my comments/questions.


----------



## Erich (Feb 18, 2007)

small note, the idea of the LW not having the manpower/pilots is incorrect, the biggest set back was fuels, with a/c parked haphazardly on the fields making some pretty easy picking for US ground strafers. Sys as your questions are aimed at Udet I will say no more .....


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 18, 2007)

Erich said:


> small note, the idea of the LW not having the manpower/pilots is incorrect, the biggest set back was fuels, with a/c parked haphazardly on the fields making some pretty easy picking for US ground strafers. Sys as your questions are aimed at Udet I will say no more .....



Erich, you have to admit that as the fuel situation got worse, the number of hours the student pilots received for training got less and less.

From reading your posts in many different threads, I'm of the opinion that through 1944, the LW was still staffed with many competant pilots. Yet couldn't "grow" because so many students or low hour pilts were being shot down by allied fighters.

And since you are quite informed on the subject, please join in.


----------



## Erich (Feb 18, 2007)

the eagerness was there and not at all from a 'nazi' point of view but for the defense of the homeland. so many crewmen were in the units that on the Ost front due to the fuel consumption problem they were given a K 98 and or a Panzerfaust and sent to the front lines. the case is true for both day and night fighter guys. and yet the oddity went on till the last day of the war: experimentations whether outside or in underground bunker facilities to perfect new and strange forms of aviatic flight


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 18, 2007)

The replacement pool of pilots that the Jagdgruppen had to choose from was increasingly under-experienced novices who had never even fired their guns....

I remember reading recently in the Green Hearts/Dora book that Dortenmann went to the training staffel and took a few flights with some replacements, and came away ed and undermanned, as some pilots proficiency were so poor they couldnt hold standard formations together...

Fuel was a bigger problem, but the number of ZERO combat hour pilots of the luftwaffe that perished on their "maiden voyage" is staggering... Many brave youth took off simply to surrender their lives in the hope of doing their part for Mother Germany...

Giving the civilians that much longer to escape the Russians...


----------



## Civettone (Feb 18, 2007)

I lose sight of this topic for a day ... and already two pages to read through ... So sorry if I'm repeating what some of you guys have already said, I'm just going to give a short reply to Udet's comments.

So Udet, 
my posts were to counter your arguments. The Me 410 was very succesful against the heavies as long as there were no escort fighters. But I have my own reasons to be against Zerstörer, and that is the production reason. So I simply disagree with the reasons that you provide, even though I can agree on your conclusion of cutting production of the Me 410. 

Your main argument is fuel. Up to June 1944 the Luftwaffe used a third of its fuel in the Reichsluftverteidigung. Less Me 410s would mean more fuel for Bf 109s, that's true (Although I could argue the same thing for less Fw 190s...) but fuel wasn't the key issue here. The Germans didn't lose the Battle over Germany because of a lack of fuel.

They lost it because of a lack of well trained pilots. That makes your point of increasing Bf 109 production rather moot. If the German planes that were available to the Germans during Big Week were flown by pilots with the American number of flight hours Big Week would not have been the success it turned out to be. 

Kris


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 18, 2007)

lesofprimus said:


> part for Mother Germany...



Its the Fatherland my friend....


----------



## lesofprimus (Feb 18, 2007)

> The Germans didn't lose the Battle over Germany because of a lack of fuel.


U'll find quite an argument here with that statement pal... Pilots sat on the tarmac watchin enemy fighter bombers fly overhead, because they had no fuel to intercept them... Fuel was waaaay more important than pilot proficency at the end of the War...


> Its the Fatherland my friend....


Thats why I didnt say motherland...


----------



## Civettone (Feb 18, 2007)

Lesofprimus, the battle was already fought and lost by June 1944 when consumption overtook production. The attack on the chemical and synthetic oil industry just sealed its fate as there was no more hope of turning the odds no matter what planes or pilots were available.

Kris


----------



## Udet (Feb 19, 2007)

Erich said:


> small note, the idea of the LW not having the manpower/pilots is incorrect, the biggest set back was fuels, with a/c parked haphazardly on the fields making some pretty easy picking for US ground strafers. Sys as your questions are aimed at Udet I will say no more .....



Erich you are right when you affirm the fundamental shortage endured by the Luftwaffe during the last year of the war was fuel.

I have neither suggested nor affirmed the Luftwaffe suffered shortages of pilots; there were some brief periods of time in early 1944 when such a thing came close to happen though.

My point here Erich is that in addition to the fighters that fought in the several JGs in the west, much more single-engine fighters planes could have been in frontline units to slam the USAAF; you know many many top-ranking officers and pilots in the Luftwaffe would say over and over again "we need more fighters, more fighters or we are lost!!!"


----------



## Udet (Feb 19, 2007)

Les:

I have also read Hans Dortenmann´s account, but also i have the chance of hearing Luftwaffe vets that the training of the rookies coming to serve in combat, although indeed shortened, it was sufficient and that several of them rookies scored their first kills real fast.


----------



## Hunter368 (Feb 19, 2007)

lesofprimus said:


> U'll find quite an argument here with that statement pal... Pilots sat on the tarmac watchin enemy fighter bombers fly overhead, because they had no fuel to intercept them... Fuel was waaaay more important than pilot proficency at the end of the War...



That could a very interesting thread right there Dan. Some good debates on that one.


----------



## Udet (Feb 19, 2007)

Civettone said:


> I lose sight of this topic for a day ... and already two pages to read through ... So sorry if I'm repeating what some of you guys have already said, I'm just going to give a short reply to Udet's comments.
> 
> So Udet,
> my posts were to counter your arguments. The Me 410 was very succesful against the heavies as long as there were no escort fighters. But I have my own reasons to be against Zerstörer, and that is the production reason. So I simply disagree with the reasons that you provide, even though I can agree on your conclusion of cutting production of the Me 410.
> ...




Civettone:

I have not doubts the Me 410s were a nightmare if intercepting a box of heavy bombers lacking fighter protection.

But as i said, i have yet to find undisputable evidence it was "piece of cake/sitting duck" when confronting enemy fighters. I insist: the fact the Me 410s took high losses in action does not mean it was a piece of junk if entering combat with enemy fighters, or do you disagree with this view?

Seeing the record of Major Eduard Tratt is one can be informed he shot down 3 P-38s in the same combat mission, one at 12:50 hrs, the second at 13:00 hrs and the third at 13:10 hrs. How would that be possible when flying a "sitting duck"?

Also interesting to note is that another enemy fighter he shot down flying the Hornisse on February 10, 1944 was a P-38 above 7,000 meters. 

7,000 meters? That is what you´d call significant altitude.

I do not care how good Tratt might have been as pilot; put the most skilled and experienced fighter pilot in the cockpit of a "sitting duck" (is there an accepted definition for what a sitting duck is?) and i am sure his chances will be scarce to say the least....

I am sure syscom will burst out and say _"those were just claims and not precisely kills..."_

I am referring to efficiency in the management of human and material resources. You can not deny Germany behaved like a rich spoiled wannabe lady when the hard facts were proving otherwise, and that is the idea apparently being missed here.

Now, there must be something i have missed here for i thought you had said to me you believed the twin-engined fighters were still necessary for Germany during 1943? In the last posting you said _"i have my own reasons to be against zerstörer, and that is the production reason"._

Well, isn´t it production reasons what i am trying to bring forward here to illustrate the German mismanagement of their resources? The 2 Daimler-Benz engines fitted to a Bf 110 or Me 410 would have helped producing two Bf 109s.

Finally you are right: fuel is extremely important.

Even if we know how things happened, meaning things did not happen in a different manner, is that i ask you:

You really believe the raw materials to produce the fuselages, engines, equipment and spare parts for the bombers that carried out Unternehmen Steinbock could not instead have been allocated to produce Bf 109s and/or Fw190s? Now add the fuel the ~550 bombers that comprised the assambled force consumed during the rough 5 months the operation lasted. Finally add the number of pilots and crewmen that were lost during such operations.

This is just one example of the idea i am trying to get through here.


----------



## Udet (Feb 19, 2007)

syscom:

Germany could have had much more fighters with the proper pilots to man them available to put an even more terrible fight against the USAAF.

If Germany had, say, 500 serviceable fighters available to confront the heavy bombers in the first months of 1944 as part of _Luftflotte Reich_, they could have had 1000, no sweat. 1000 fighter pilots, with the pilots and fuel to put them in the air.

My point being they failed to do what was necessary to achieve such goal. 


Also you are not getting my point: even if the USAAF had an apparent capacity to replace its dead, such ability has been greatly overstated, but you should know it, as i strictly referr to the kind of political entity the USA is.

Just as it happens today, during world war two the USA was already the type of nation not good at bearing losses. Even if having the necessary replacements, sufficient in both numbers and quality, the USA does not know very much what to do when their men commence dying in huge numbers.

I am amazed to discover you and me agree on something: it was not until late 1944 when the USAAF could commence believing final victory could be attained.

If during the first half of 1944, the USAAF had suffered the types of losses of 1943, i doubt they would be willing to continue paying the price.


----------



## Gimmeacannon! (Feb 19, 2007)

Agreed, Britain and Germany along with other European countries had become accustomed to the idea of losing thousand of men in a very short time, 60 thousand dead in one day on the Somme, thousands more in a few days at Paschendale.
Britain has always had something to shoot at and being shot at in return and it is in our conditioning to expect death and disaster in wartime, but America has never had a war on its own doorstep or had its cities reduced to rubble in one night with thousands dead in the space of 12 hours such as happened to Cologne , Dresden and Hamburg.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 19, 2007)

Off topic but the fact that the US has not had a war on its door step is wrong.

War of 1812
War Against Mexico
The American Civil War

In the American Civil War, Americans (northerners and southerners) died by the thousands on the battlefield. Look up the great battles of that war and there were a whole lot of them. Many with 20,000 or more casualties per side.

Okay sorry about that, lets get back to WW2.


----------



## Gimmeacannon! (Feb 19, 2007)

Hopefully I am going for an afternoon out next week to visit my 'old girl' at Cosford and take loads of photos of her, a friend who works there is 'escort' while I spend a lot of time around and in the Me 410.
I am taking two SLR's and plenty of film and hope to remove the access panel on the port side just above the trailing edge to give me a shot at the large mechanism that controls the two barbette guns in the rear fuselage and also hope to get some decent photos of the cockpit interior.
My friends boss is away next week so we will have plenty of time to do the job so will let you know how I get on,

regards.


----------



## Gimmeacannon! (Feb 19, 2007)

War of 1812
War Against Mexico
The American Civil War

But these are ancient history and nobody remembers them, plus they were all 'cowboy' dustups and didnt include the kind of massive forces of men or machinery that Europe had to contend with, admitted they lost a lot of men on Iwa Jima and other places and did an excellent job of keeping the momentum going where lesser nations would have given in and sued for peace.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 19, 2007)

Gimmeacannon! said:


> Hopefully I am going for an afternoon out next week to visit my 'old girl' at Cosford and take loads of photos of her, a friend who works there is 'escort' while I spend a lot of time around and in the Me 410.
> I am taking two SLR's and plenty of film and hope to remove the access panel on the port side just above the trailing edge to give me a shot at the large mechanism that controls the two barbette guns in the rear fuselage and also hope to get some decent photos of the cockpit interior.
> My friends boss is away next week so we will have plenty of time to do the job so will let you know how I get on,
> 
> regards.



Yes please do take pictures and post them!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 19, 2007)

Gimmeacannon! said:


> But these are ancient history and nobody remembers them, plus they were all 'cowboy' dustups and didnt include the kind of massive forces of men or machinery that Europe had to contend with,



Cowboy Dustups? You really dont know much about American History do you? In the American Civil War it was divisions upon divisions facing each other with cannons and the first machine guns in use. Ever heard of the gatling gun? There were litterally 10,000s of men and in some cases over a 100,000 men on the battle field during the major engagements. Aprox. 618,000 men were killed in the Civil War which lasted 4 years. Thousands of men were killed on the Battle Field every day in that war. 

It was no 'cowboy' dustup!

Besides who does not remember it? It was still fresh in the minds of the population of the United States who still had veterans of the war living. It is still remembered today and in some parts there are still sentiments about the war.

It was not ages ago and long forgotten as you say....


----------



## Civettone (Feb 19, 2007)

Udet said:


> If Germany had, say, 500 serviceable fighters available to confront the heavy bombers in the first months of 1944 as part of _Luftflotte Reich_, they could have had 1000, no sweat. 1000 fighter pilots, with the pilots and fuel to put them in the air.


1000 badly trained fighter pilots = more targets for the Americans to practice their gunnery.



> My point being they failed to do what was necessary to achieve such goal.


They needed to train their pilots better instead of producing more fighters. The extra production capacity could then have gone to the army which never abandoned training.



> the USA does not know very much what to do when their men commence dying in huge numbers.


Are you saying the Americans wouldn't be able to deal with high losses? I hope not because then you apparently don't know much about American resilience and war history but more about racial prejudism.

Kris


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 19, 2007)

Udet said:


> Civettone:
> Seeing the record of Major Eduard Tratt is one can be informed he shot down 3 P-38s in the same combat mission, one at 12:50 hrs, the second at 13:00 hrs and the third at 13:10 hrs. How would that be possible when flying a "sitting duck"?



Do you have a date this occured?



> Also interesting to note is that another enemy fighter he shot down flying the Hornisse on February 10, 1944 was a P-38 above 7,000 meters.



Any pilot who catches a superior plane by surprise, will have a good chance of shooting it down. This kill was the excpetion, not the rule.




> I am sure syscom will burst out and say _"those were just claims and not precisely kills..."_



I will check the monthly loss report for the USAAF if you give me the date the action occured.



> .... You really believe the raw materials to produce the fuselages, engines, equipment and spare parts for the bombers that carried out Unternehmen Steinbock could not instead have been allocated to produce Bf 109s and/or Fw190s? Now add the fuel the ~550 bombers that comprised the assambled force consumed during the rough 5 months the operation lasted. Finally add the number of pilots and crewmen that were lost during such operations.



Actually I agree with you on that.


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 19, 2007)

Udet said:


> If during the first half of 1944, the USAAF had suffered the types of losses of 1943, i doubt they would be willing to continue paying the price.



Nope. Loss's would be high but the P38's and P51's would simply shoot down more Germans, undoubtably killing or wounding quite a few.

The US had a training program (system is a better description) to make good the loss's. The LW didnt.


----------



## Udet (Feb 19, 2007)

Civettone:

Do you know how many planes, bombers and fighters alike -RAF and USAAF- such ill-trained, ill-fated, ill-omened, misleaded, misguided, doomed German fighter pilots shot during 1944 alone?


Syscom:

The dates for Major Tratt´s kills you are asking me are February 11, 1944 in the case of the 3 P-38s, and February 10, 1944 for the P-38 shot down above the 7,000 meter altitude.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Feb 19, 2007)

> The dates for Major Tratt´s kills you are asking me are February 11, 1944 in the case of the 3 P-38s




Date and time of the kills.

-11.2.1944 12:50 P-38 Stab II./ZG 26 
-11.2.1944 13:00 P-38 Stab II./ZG 26 
-11.2.1944 13:10 P-38 Stab II./ZG 26 


He also had another triple kill day over the city of Durkirk in 1940 when he downed 3 Hurricanes while Flying the underrated Me-110C, remarkable.


----------



## Erich (Feb 19, 2007)

I will ask my contact further but the US 20th fighter group lost 8 P-38's on 11 February 44..........


----------



## Udet (Feb 19, 2007)

Charlie and Erich: thanks for the input.


----------



## Udet (Feb 19, 2007)

Gimmeacannon! said:


> Hopefully I am going for an afternoon out next week to visit my 'old girl' at Cosford and take loads of photos of her, a friend who works there is 'escort' while I spend a lot of time around and in the Me 410.
> I am taking two SLR's and plenty of film and hope to remove the access panel on the port side just above the trailing edge to give me a shot at the large mechanism that controls the two barbette guns in the rear fuselage and also hope to get some decent photos of the cockpit interior.
> My friends boss is away next week so we will have plenty of time to do the job so will let you know how I get on,
> 
> regards.



Excellent!

hey cannon, did you see the photo showing a diagram of the remote controlled MG 131 guns? It looks very simple, but you stated it seems very complicated...


----------



## Civettone (Feb 19, 2007)

Udet said:


> Civettone:
> 
> Do you know how many planes, bombers and fighters alike -RAF and USAAF- such ill-trained, ill-fated, ill-omened, misleaded, misguided, doomed German fighter pilots shot during 1944 alone?


Yes, I do, just like everybody else who has access to German and American loss lists, and I'm not impressed. 

I didn't want to react to everything you said because I'm still hoping for a certain ground on which we can agree on. But in that case, it's better not to quote me as having said the Me 410 was "a nightmare/piece of cake/sitting duck". I said nothing of the sort. But costing three times as much as a Bf 109 I do wonder if it has enough advantage over single-engined fighters to warrant its production.

If you want me to agree that you can have many more Bf 109s for the cost and fuel consumption of the Me 410, and that you'll shoot down more aircraft with these Bf 109s than with the (fewer) Me 410s, I wholeheartidly agree! 

I'm just stating that this won't change a thing! The Luftwaffe was going down, no matter what, it dug its own grave back in 1943 (or even back in the thirties). If you really want to change something, put a quarter of your fighters in training schools and hope they'll start delivering well-trained pilots before it's too late. 

All the other stuff about fuel, Bf 109s, Me 410s and even Me 262s is academic. Nice to discuss but close to irrelevant. 

Kris


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 19, 2007)

Yes, the P38's took a beating that day.

He must have been a great pilot roughing up some rookies.

Either way, a kill is a kill.

But how often did the 410 come up on top of a P38/P47/P51?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 20, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> Yes, the P38's took a beating that day.
> 
> He must have been a great pilot roughing up some rookies.



So if a Luftwaffe pilot shot down an USAAF fighter the USAAF pilot had to be a rookie huh?


----------



## Hunter368 (Feb 20, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> So if a Luftwaffe pilot shot down an USAAF fighter the USAAF pilot had to be a rookie huh?



Good point Chris. Nothing like a little national pride to make a person bais.

Many good German pilots were shot down by poor Russian pilots, UK pilots, American pilots and the same in reverse.

As a pilot certainly I would of been afraid of fellow enemy aces, but they were few. I would of been most worried about being shot down by the hordes of average pilots they a person just can't see every single one of them or watch every single angle.

Ace on Ace kills I would think would be some what less common then Ace killing average pilot or average pilot killing Ace. That all being said Ace on Ace kills certainly happened and Aces did count for a vast number of total kills acheived by all AF's.

So to be to the point the P-38 pilot certainly could of been an Ace or solid vet pilot he certainly did not "have" to be a rookie (but he might of been who knows, kill is a kill).

I don't think many people would argue that they would sooner fly a 410 than a P-38/47/51 but certainly 410's would of achieved "some" kills vs better planes. Not saying the 410 was a bad plane it just was not built as a air superiority fighter.

Saying or comparing the 410 to a P-38/47/51 (you are comparing apples to oranges) and saying it sucked as a fighter is like comparing a FW190 to a P-61/C-47/B-17 and saying the 61/c-47/B-17 sucked as fighters (yes I am streching it just to make a point, you are comparing apples to oranges).

The 410 was not built as a air superiority fighter so don't compare it to them.


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 20, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> So if a Luftwaffe pilot shot down an USAAF fighter the USAAF pilot had to be a rookie huh?



The 410 was inferior to the P38 in every respect. If the 410 had success's it was due to the P38 being ambushed, or more likely, a rookie or bad pilot making a mistake and paying for it.

Just like in the PI when you had a P26 getting lucky and shooting down a Zero. 

Either way, the number of -410 kills over any allied fighter was limited.


----------



## Erich (Feb 20, 2007)

back to Eduard's claims of 3 P-38's. I am very doubtful but .......... my letter via e-mail went out 5 minutes ago. and I am going to write a former P-38 pilot fo the 20th fg in about the same time frame shortly about this February 44 date op. 14 P-38's were claimed by JG's, II./ZG 26-3 by Tratt and even by Bf 110G-4 night fighter, 1 claim by NJG 102 a training unit. there was a total of 8 P-38's lost...

more to come. 20th fg damaged 2 Me 410's on the mission

let the beatings continue in full earnest


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 20, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> The 410 was inferior to the P38 in every respect. If the 410 had success's it was due to the P38 being ambushed, or more likely, a rookie or bad pilot making a mistake and paying for it.



No it could have been flown by a good pilot. I will leave it at that...


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 20, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> No it could have been flown by a good pilot. I will leave it at that...




A good pilot making a mistake that gets him shot down is ultimatly, a bad pilot.


----------



## Civettone (Feb 20, 2007)

That Me 410 pilot was a Major, so that would make him one of the best Me 410 pilots.

I'm drawing this from memory so I could be off, but I seem to remember that the Me 410 units shot down 70 heavies with the loss of just 8 of their own. That was of course before the American fighters started to interfere.

On paper, it's also clear that the Me 410 fighter didn't better the P-38 in any way.
Kris


----------



## Erich (Feb 20, 2007)

this thread is going in circles guys. II./ZG 26 most likely mixed it up with the P-38's of the 20th fg as the unit was the only one besides the 55th fg that operated the Lightning . The 55th fg was not really in combat with bomber protection on the date. other US fighter groups were operating the P-47 except for the 355th which had the P-51 as well as the Pioneer Mustang group from the 9th AF, the 354th fg which claimed 13 kills this February op.
my email contact from the 20th fg is out till the 28th of the month but I wrote a former P-38 pilot vet from the group and he should respond by this eve if he is at home.

Kris the ZG's and the NJG's this date shot down 0 heavy bombers but claimed 3 P-38s from Tratt and like I said a NJG 102 pilot claimed another P-38. 2 B-17's were claimed downed by Fw 190A's of Sturmstaffel 1, 1 from I./JG 11, 1 from I./JG 26 and 1 from II./JG 26.
This matches exactly with US 8th AF bomber losses. 14 P38's claimed which is incorrect and 4 P-47's and 2 P-51's, the latter P-47/P-51's I would have to check up on ........
Luftw twin engine losses were 6 destroyed and 6 with damge of under 60 %.

now let the jesting continue


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 20, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> A good pilot making a mistake that gets him shot down is ultimatly, a bad pilot.



No I am saying that just because they were Luftwaffe does not mean that they did not have good pilots...

And as for good pilots that make mistakes. It happens. I have flown with many good pilots who made mistakes and almost got us killed. Its called being human. You make mistakes too syscom...


----------



## Erich (Feb 20, 2007)

here we go from Art of the 20th fg

ERIC, WE LOST 8-P-38S ON THIS DATE, INCLUDING A DEPUTY GROUP COMMANDER WHO BROKE A LEG, BUT MANAGED TO EVADE THROUGH SPAIN, WITH FRENCH AND ANOTHER US PILOT. UNDER CONTINIOUS BOUNCE, MOST RAN OUT OF FUEL, MADE IT BACK OVER FRANCE AND BAILED OUT.

THIS DAY, MYSELF AND A LARGE GROUP OF REPLACEMENT PILOTS ALSO ARRIVED.

ART

I asked him whom bounced the 38's in my second note a moment ago


----------



## Hunter368 (Feb 20, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> A good pilot making a mistake that gets him shot down is ultimatly, a bad pilot.



Syscom you are a very smart person but that is a silly comment.

Muhammad Ali is the best boxer to ever live. His record was 56 wins (37 by KO) vs 5 losses. So using your logic the fact Ali had even 1 loss makes him a bad boxer?

Using your logic then ever single fighter pilot shot down in WW2 is a bad pilot?

WOW then that means almost ever single (99%) Ace of note was really a bad pilot. Well I guess all those medals they were given by their countries are for nothing, those pilots really fooled their leaders in believing all those planes they shot down really does not mean you are a good pilot just lucky or something.

So does that mean it is easier to be a "good pilot" the less combat you see? I mean if you never see combat you never will get shot down right? So the more flights you have, more combat you have the higher percentage chance you are going to turn out to be a bad pilot right?

So Sugar Ray Leonard is a bad boxer also? I mean he had 36 wins (25 by KO) but he still had 3 losses and 1 draw so if he lost a fight he is a bad boxer right?

Syscom that post was very silly naive and thats being polite. As Chris said you make mistakes also and that post of your is an example.


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 20, 2007)

Hunter368 said:


> Syscom you are a very smart person but that is a silly comment.
> 
> Muhammad Ali is the best boxer to ever live. His record was 56 wins (37 by KO) vs 5 losses. So using your logic the fact Ali had even 1 loss makes him a bad boxer?
> 
> ...




Big difference between war and civilian endevours


----------



## Udet (Feb 20, 2007)

Erich:

Under continious bounce? Sounds like if they were not flying planes that were capable of dealing with the bouncers! 


Hunter and Adler:

I urge you to consider the possiblity that mr. syscom ain´t human. He most probably came to earth in a meteor or alien craft.


----------



## Civettone (Feb 20, 2007)

Ok, back on topic then. Did the Me 410s ever shoot down around 70 heavies with around 8 losses of their own?


Armed with a couple of MK 103s, it must have been a fantastic bomber destroyer.

Kris


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 20, 2007)

Udet said:


> I urge you to consider the possiblity that mr. syscom ain´t human. He most probably came to earth in a meteor or alien craft.



8)


----------



## Erich (Feb 20, 2007)

no but I am a definate non-human ! 8) 

Kris that would be a total negative. At most the ZG's probably popped some 35 bombers but had at least a dozen of their a/c shot down. will have to do a look see through my ZG data files.

here is the info from 79th fs/20fg from Mr. Edwards in response to my query.........the plot thickens gents

11 February, 1944 will always be remembered as one of the darkest days in squadron history. Charged with providing cover for the rear section of 240 B-17 Flying Fortress bombers during their time over the target and until relieved during their return, the 20th Fighter Group were led into action by Lt. Colonel Robert Montgomery. Taking off at 1002, the pilots rendezvoused with the bombers over Bonn, Germany at 1145 and escorted them to the target and back as far as Neuchateau. From the point of rendezvous onward the 20th's P-38s were constantly bounced by small units of enemy single engine fighters. At 1235 they were relieved by a group of P-47 Thunderbolts.

Several flights dove to ground level and strafed targets of opportunity, including several factories in Germany, buildings at enemy airfields, flak towers, two radar stations, coastal fortifications, three locomotives and a flak ship. Ground fire was intense from nearly all these targets.

Yellow Flight, lead by Captain Robert Meyer, and Blue Flight, led by Lieutenant Merle Nichols, were bounced by three pairs of Messerschmitt Me-410s. Meyer scored a number of hits upon one of these aircraft and it was seen going into a steep, diving turn with smoke pouring out of its right engine. The pilot was believed to have been hit and was either killed or severely wounded. The aircraft would be scored later as a "probable." Lt. Nichols damaged another Me-410 during this encounter and during the flight back to King's Cliffe damaged two locomotives and a parked Me-109 at an airfield near the French-Belgian border. Lt. Bench damaged a Heinkel He-111 at the same airfield.

The mission was costly for the 20th Fighter Group, as eight of their forty-eight pilots sent out were lost. All of the pilots in the 79th Squadron's White Flight did not return, as well as two other 79th pilots and an additional two pilots from the 77th Squadron's White Flight. Of the eight two lost their lives, Lt. Donald Cooper; who had engine trouble during the return flight and was forced to bail out of his aircraft, and Lt. Joseph Minton of the 77th Fighter Squadron. All others except Lt. Col. Montgomery (who managed to evade despite suffering major injuries,) were captured and became prisoners of the Third Reich for the duration of the war.

Upon arriving back at King's Cliffe the Fightin' 79th was told to "stand down" for reorganization. As fate would have it twelve fresh replacement pilots reported for duty the next day. 79th C. O., Capt. Jackson told these new pilots to get in all the practice they could and to continue familiarizing themselves with the P-38. On 20 February Capt. Jackson himself was shot down and became a POW.

Cheers!


----------



## Hunter368 (Feb 20, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> Big difference between war and civilian endevours



That is true but we are talking about humans being perfect.....that does not happen I don't care who you are or what you do.

I see this every day in my job. I am a Logistics Manager and I see millions of "actions" every year. (actions could be anything from data entry to receiving to shipping) I don't care who you are, the more actions you do the more mistakes you make. Sure some people are better than others but no one and I mean no one is mistake free.

So I don't care if it was or civilian endevours humans are still doing it and no human is perfect. So my examples I gave you are 110% valid, they prove that no human is perfect.

You were being bais b/c some 410 shot down a P-38 .......so you said the P-38 pilot had to been a rookie. No he did not "have to" be a rookie, he might of been sure but no one will know. 

Like I said in my other post no one should be comparing a 410 to a P-38/47/51 anyways. 410 was not intended as a superiority fighter so why would anyone compare the two.


----------



## Erich (Feb 20, 2007)

well why you guys decipher who was the better craft and pilot I am going to try and download exerpt from the official history which was just sent to me from pilot friend Art. it is a bit crooked but reveals little known details. Evidently ZG Bf 110G-2's were also trying to attack the P-38's as well as Me 410's and the Bf 109G's. Talk about chaos ........... let's see what I can do with this thing.




yeah right .......


----------



## kiwimac (Feb 20, 2007)

The 410 was, in some ways, a useful aircraft. It was fast, packed a good punch and could, generally, look after itself in a fight. But was it the best use of scarce resources?

Would the RLM been better advised to put their money into FW-190s which packed much the same punch and which were better able to defend themselves AND cost less on a per aircraft basis?


----------



## Udet (Feb 20, 2007)

Erich is it true most people -veterans and historians- of the many fighter and bomber groups of the USAAF cut their losses suffered in the ETO?

Meaning most know what their actual losses were but researchers, historians, scholars are presented with figures that have been deliberatedly manipulated.


----------



## Udet (Feb 20, 2007)

Kiwimac, the use of resources is one of my point in this discussion; curiously it has only been super-mega syscom that has agreed on the issue.


----------



## Erich (Feb 20, 2007)

Udet no I would not agree with that, now for an example but do not want to get OT from the thread design.

when my cousin was KIA on 26 November I went right to the German source -JG 301 diaries, REschke and a couple of other vets of the JG as well as directly to the 445th bg and 491st bg historians, paid the monies a received files of paper work over 2 inchs thick in both cases. went through everything that I could point a stick at. the 491st lost 16 B-24's, the 445th lost 5 B-24's, exactly matched the JG 301 kills confirmed. At first as it was a very black day for JG 301 with over 50 Fw 190A's shot down at least 30 pilots killed or wounded some incredible scoring was claimed ----------- over 50 US heavy bombers, soon after gun cam films were searched through, eye witness accts and the the B-24's cleaned over the amount of "kills" was reduced to the 21.

the acct by the 20th fg vet for Feb 11, 44 is going to take some work sadly ......


----------



## Erich (Feb 20, 2007)

let me get to Kiwi's thoughts ............. pound for pound the Luftw. needed a full on bomber killer and the Me 41A and B variants were the hot ticket. If you would look at the arms details of the cannon fitted in the configurations you would see that the Me 410 a/c carried the full load of arsenal to make it happen against the US bomber formations. But their demise was the all inclusive US escort fighters ~ P-47 and P-51's

Udet antoehr battle sis the 445th over kassel on 27 Septmeber 44. although it has been constantly mentioned the B-24 group loast 28 B-24's indeed they lost 30 according to the kept 445th bg records and attested in some very graphic details by the surviving crewmen. All 3 Fw 190A-8 Sturmgruppen attacked from the rear and because of the nature of this beast flying slightly low and upward at speed and then through and off right or left, almost every Fw 190 pilot thought he had shot down a B-24. Some 56 B-24's were claimed destroyed with 24 shot out of formation - HSS - 6 P-51's were also claimed but in reality 1 was shot down.
32 Fw 190A-8 and SturmFw's were hit with 60-100 % damage and at least another 6 with under that 60 % figure of damages.
with regard for speeding through with an attack from the rear we must take into account that it would only take several seconds for each pilot to attack, sight in and fire and be gone with the air battle only taking a few minutes to transpire . . ........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 20, 2007)

syscom3 said:


> Big difference between war and civilian endevours



Good thing you were not in the military then either you would not survive a day or a lot of mothers and wifes would be recieving visits from chaplins.


----------



## Hunter368 (Feb 20, 2007)

LOL


----------



## Civettone (Feb 20, 2007)

What was the maximum speed of the Bf 110G Zerstörers?


Kris


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Feb 20, 2007)

This is just off the top of my head and therefore could be wrong but I believe the Max Speed for the Bf-110 were 350 mph (563 kph) at 22,950 ft (7,000m).


----------



## Gnomey (Feb 20, 2007)

Yep that is right.

http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/LRG/bf110g.html


----------



## Civettone (Feb 20, 2007)

Gnomey, the site you refer to also categorises the Bf 110G as a night fighter. I want to know what the max speed of the Zerstörer is, so without the heavy electronics and the drag of the antenna's.

If it's 563 km/h, then that would be surprising regarding it's slower than the Bf 110C and barely faster than the heavier Bf 110G-4 Nachtjäger.

Unfortunately all the data I have of the Bf 110G are pointed at the NJ version.
Kris


----------



## Udet (Feb 20, 2007)

The 563 km/hr figure is for the Bf 110 fitted with the DB 601 engines (the C version).

The G version did receive the more powerful DB 605 B engines used in the _zerstörern_. As far as i can recall, empty weight of the G version did not vary much when compared with the previous F version.

So a clean G version as used during daylight action against USAAF should have been somewhat faster than 563 km/hr.


----------



## Udet (Feb 20, 2007)

Erich:

Do you really agree the Me 410 was a necessary item? It made a fearsome bomber destroyer, ok.

But would you say ZG 76 performed better in the bomber killing role if compared with the Bf 109 G-6s of JG 1 and JG 11 protecting northern Germany against the heavy bomber formations?


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 20, 2007)

Udet said:


> Kiwimac, the use of resources is one of my point in this discussion; curiously it has only been super-mega syscom that has agreed on the issue.



What is a "super-mega"?

Udet, you make a rational argument for moving the LW pilots into the fighters. But that only holds for 1943 and part of 1944. 

But once the allies pilot training program and P51/P38 deployments began in earnest, there was nothing the LW could do. The arithmatric of attrition was tilted heavily in the Allies favor.


----------



## Udet (Feb 20, 2007)

Super-mega? You. Or is there anyone else who could be called that? Remember i´ve come to the conclusion you are not human but some outerspace life form sharing part of its life with us here.

To business:

I hope my colleagues here do not miss the point as i am not putting the whole blame on the Me 410 for having wasted men and material that could instead have been put to a much much better use against the USAAF.

The Bf 110s still serving in daylight missions, and the unusually high number of bombers produced during 1944 with more than 2,000 bombers made. The number gets dwarfed when put by the side of the USA heavy bomber production figure for 1944 alone with some 15,000 machines.

Knowing the number of heavy bombers produced by the USA alone during 1944 makes German planners look even more unwise. What could ~2,000 bombers achieve for Germany during 1944? So when i say "unusually high" i am referring to the critical situation of Germany during such year.

I will not get tired of saying how come there are people who fail to see how unnecessary the Me 410 was...



_"But once the allies pilot training program and P51/P38 deployments began in earnest, there was nothing the LW could do. The arithmatric of attrition was tilted heavily in the Allies favor."_

Partially correct. Now, why do i say partially? Simple, USAAF losses remained heavy during the first half of 1944...also not forget that as late as in October 1943, the losses of USAAF pilots and crews at the hands of the Luftwaffe were so high even a nation with a large pool of replacements was confronted with the notion of not being capable to continue accepting such loss ratio.

So if the outnumbered and overstretched Luftwaffe proved capable of pushing them guys of the USAAF to begin wondering whether to continue accepting the death toll, think again of what could have been achieved if Me 210/410-Bf 110 production is cancelled and bomber production gets dramatically cut prior to the end of 1943....at minimum all that fuel the Steinbock raids swallowed during the first months of 1944 goes to the Jagdwaffe that could have had more fighters to face the oncoming aerial onslaught.

Civettone rightfully strikes back and says not every rear gunner or bomber crewman will become a fighter pilot -no one by the way suggested such a thing-; ok, i give him that...but what about the pilots of the ~500 bombers that comprised the force to unleash the Steinbock business?

Convert them to fighter pilots, and if only half of them show the skills to become a decent fighter pilot you have 250 pilots...it is a four gruppen geschwader.

As for the rest of the guys who were bomber crews, send them to man the Flak defences of the Reich where they would habve been of greater help.

Of course during such time the Luftwaffe was sustaining the losses that in the end would erode its combat potential; it was a gradual process of losses that in the end would bleed the Luftwaffe and not a sole event such as the one called "Big Week".

"Big Week" is another dish comprising the mythology menu of the allies; there are others that are not necessarily related to air combat: the Brits and their "triumph" at Arras during Fall Gelb, and the US Army and its fairy tales of the "Siege of Bastogne" that includes a "gallant stand" against overwhelming odds that in reality were everything but overwhelming.


Erich another question. Why did you say Eduard Tratt´s claims of 3 P-38s are doubtful?

The response from the FG person might seem to support the notion Tratt´s claims have grounds right?


----------



## Erich (Feb 20, 2007)

the Me 410 was needed in addition to the single engine 109/Fw's of Jg 1 and 11, 26, 2 and other Reich defense units. the time of most vulnerability for twin engines including the nf force during daylight missions was forming up in staffel and Geschwader strength to form an attacking force and this is when they were attacked many times or before even firing off their 210mm rockets.
Single engine fighters could not do it alone as proven by the Bf 109G which was not enough even in numbers to take down the heavies, the Fw 190A was a more suitable gun platform and Bf 110G-2 and Me 410's even more so but were sluggish because of the overweight of another crewman, more fuel, more weapons and ammo.

As to Tratt you do not have the rest of the story ............ yet. he may have shot down 1 P-38 but I do not believe 3. It appears that 109's and possibly 190's caught the P-38's in the dive and zoom attacks. there is no doubt a flight of P-38's also tangled with Me 410's shooting down two destroyed and 2 damaged. If I can get this mission report from the official 20th fg history you will see what I mean even in a distorted form... I feel Tratt and those in II./ZG 26 flying heavily laden cannon armed bomber killing Me 410's did not have the means to engage the P-38's in a fair dogfight. Again I am trying to piece this together where you can make your own decision


----------



## Udet (Feb 20, 2007)

Ok, Erich thank you very much for the valuable info on Major Tratt´s combat record.


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 21, 2007)

Udet said:


> Partially correct. Now, why do i say partially? Simple, USAAF losses remained heavy during the first half of 1944...also not forget that as late as in October 1943, the losses of USAAF pilots and crews at the hands of the Luftwaffe were so high even a nation with a large pool of replacements was confronted with the notion of not being capable to continue accepting such loss ratio.



But in Jan 1944, the P51 and P38 production was in high gear and pilots were there to fly them. And that doesnt count the newer models of the P47 with drop tanks. The US had so much industrial capacity, that loss's could be made good.



> Convert them to fighter pilots, and if only half of them show the skills to become a decent fighter pilot you have 250 pilots...it is a four gruppen geschwader.



Thats only 250 pilots..... the US was producing that many every week. Don't forget if the loss's in the ETO were abnormally high, then pilots earmarked for the PTO and CBI would be diverted to this theater. 



> "Big Week" is another dish comprising the mythology menu of the allies; there are others that are not necessarily related to air combat: the Brits and their "triumph" at Arras during Fall Gelb, and the US Army and its fairy tales of the "Siege of Bastogne" that includes a "gallant stand" against overwhelming odds that in reality were everything but overwhelming.



The big week was a contributor to the decline of the LW, not the sole cause. It just so happened that the P51's and P38's gave the LW no respite anywhere over Germany, and wore them down by attrition.


----------



## Udet (Feb 21, 2007)

Erich, do you have the maximum speed figure for last G version of the Bf 110?


----------



## Civettone (Feb 21, 2007)

Remember ... the day fighter Bf 110G !!!




Kris


----------



## Udet (Mar 3, 2007)

I was provided with a maximum speed figure of 595 km/hr for the Bf 110 Gs flying daylight missions during 1944.


----------



## Erich (Mar 3, 2007)

no I do not have the max for the Bf 110G


----------



## Denniss (Mar 3, 2007)

Monogram Close-up 18 Bf 110G:
A G-2 is quoted with 465 km/h at sea level and 561 km/h at 5.8 km.
A G-4 with FuG 202 with 426 and 510 at the same alts.
Armament is listed as 4xMG 17, 2x MG 151, MG 81Z and Rüstsatz M1 (dual MG 151 belly gun pack)
Max Endurance range at 6km is given as 900km for G-2 and 880 for G4 on internal fuel, 1300/1270 with 2x300l drop tanks.

All speed values are given as maximum combat speed at sea level and at critical altitude of 5.8 km. The only given critical altitude in engine data is climb and combat power with 5.8 km. Probably these speed values are for climb and combat and not max speed with take-off and emercency power.


----------



## Udet (Mar 6, 2007)

Denniss said:


> Monogram Close-up 18 Bf 110G:
> A G-2 is quoted with 465 km/h at sea level and 561 km/h at 5.8 km.
> A G-4 with FuG 202 with 426 and 510 at the same alts.
> Armament is listed as 4xMG 17, 2x MG 151, MG 81Z and Rüstsatz M1 (dual MG 151 belly gun pack)
> ...



It should not be that difficult to find the proper performance data if you keep in mind we are referring to the Bf 110. It was not a rare plane, and saw service in significant numbers during the war.

So, if the data Deniss posted is correct, then it means the Bf 110 of 1944 did not observe any improvements when compared with the Bf 110s that saw service during 1940 over England? 

I mean, i am quite confident when affirming the Bf 110 had absolutely nothing to do in daylight combat service during 1944, it is just it´d be stunning to discover Deniss information is correct.


----------



## Civettone (Mar 6, 2007)

Is Monogram data reliable?

To me it is also strange that the G-2 would be slower than the C-1 though it had much stronger engines.

Kris


----------



## Erich (Mar 6, 2007)

loaded or unloaded ? ..... for comparisons on the Bf 110. arms changed as well with different cannon fits in the G-2 version and then you have the G-4 Nachtjäger with again more fits this time radar developments. In any case it might be a point though moot how terrible the Night fighter version was on tackling the US heavy bombers in the winter of 43-44 with radar aerials and in some cases with additions of the twin Br 21cm mortars under each wing, such as in NJG 5

E ~


----------



## Breizh (Mar 31, 2007)

Does anyone have more info on the 8x MG151/20 configuration, and how many Me410s used it?
How commonly were MK103s used ?

Thanks in advance.


----------



## Lucky13 (Apr 1, 2007)

Luftwaffe had 72 Aces flying twins. How many of them flew the 410? Great thread by the way!


----------



## CharlesBronson (Apr 1, 2007)

> Does anyone have more info on the 8x MG151/20 configuration, and how many Me410s used it?
> How commonly were MK103s used ?
> 
> Thanks in advance.




8 x MG 151 goes like that:

2 in nose (internal)

4 in bomb bay

2 in unberbelly pod.

The MK 103 was used in pairs in the bomb bay, usually aimed by a ZFr 4 scope gunsight.


----------



## FalkeEins (Apr 4, 2007)

..this should answer a lot of the questions - or at least provide some clues - to some of the points raised in this thread...due in the next month or two from Classic/Chevron - I have one or two small pieces in the book, pilot bios and other general text input....

Classic/Chevron were great people to work for too, unlike some outfits I could mention...


----------



## Udet (Apr 4, 2007)

Falke, hello.

Interesting book. Do the parts you already read covered any opinions of the pilots who flew the Me 410 regarding combat with USAAF fighters?


----------



## Erich (Apr 4, 2007)

Neil is this an English publication or ?

as to 8 2cm weapons they were all housed in the nose. 4 directly front over the top of one another and 4 in a row in the lower portion of the nose with the bay hinged downward for access.


----------



## Udet (Aug 29, 2007)

Lucky so far i can only tell about Major Eduard Tratt, whose victories over three P-38s flying his Me 410 were discussed here.

I was forgetting Fritz Stehle, who converted to jet fighter pilot (Me 262) and also attained the "ace" category flying the jet.


----------



## Erich (Aug 29, 2007)

Fritz Stehle is still a mystery but one of the top destroyer pilots, his accts are covered in haphazard style in a couple of books. I believe that Fritz was also an ace first with the Bf 110G-2 into the Me 410 which he was more successful with while in II./ZG 26. he may still be alive, my German contacts lost track of him years ago.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 29, 2007)

GT said:


> Me 410 in combat
> 
> 
> 13 May 1944 , One of the most disastrous missions for II./ZG76 was when they was jumped by 20 P-51s and 12 a/c were written of, many aircrews was lost and the US bomber force flew on unhindered to Poznan. Obefelwebel Wolfgang Martin rammed a B-17 with his damaged Me 410 after ordering his crew to bale out.
> ...



I would also have to hold as a question mark a 355th loss on 28 May, 1944 near Zerbst. A ZG26 pilot, Uffr Stryzak claimed a Mustang in Zerbst area but don't know if he was flying a Me 410 for sure?

I honestly don't know how well a Me 410 Should compete, given an equal quality pilot, but know it did not fare well against any USAAF Fighter percentage wise.


----------



## Erich (Aug 29, 2007)

Bill I think you have the info already but the website by GT for 7-7-44 is quite incorrect on the Me 410 losses, I have all of ZG 26 and 76 losses. 28 May 44 ZG 26 I. and II. gruppe were both flying the Me 410A/B. Only III./ZG 26 stayed with the Bf 110G-2 till disbandment 

13 May 1944 II./ZG 76 lost no a/c that date. Big error ! it was II./ZG 26 which lost 7 Me 410A-1's in combat. 4th staffel lost 1 and 6th staffel lost 6. Like I said I have the losses confirmed ! martin of 4./ZG 26 was killed as well as his R/O Schann over Burschen coded 3U+LM.

20 June 1944 II./ZG 26 lost 11 Me 410A's and B's.

21 June 44 was even worse


----------



## Udet (Aug 29, 2007)

Erich, yes. I have also been told Oberstleutnant Stehle is the type of veteran which has refused to speak about the war; we might never know his reasons for sure.

It is most likely Stehle has drawn attention for several reasons: he flew almost from the beginning of the war, until the very end...more than 5 years of combat service is a record that deserves all respect and honors; chances are the very last air-to-air kill of the Luftwaffe belongs in his personal score; also he is a jet ace, something that will of course attract historians and researchers, but just like Stehle, how many other thousands of German veterans, many that already passed away plus many more that might still be out there, will simply not talk about the war...we could not tell.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 29, 2007)

Erich said:


> Bill I think you have the info already but the website by GT for 7-7-44 is quite incorrect on the Me 410 losses, I have all of ZG 26 and 76 losses. 28 May 44 ZG 26 I. and II. gruppe were both flying the Me 410A/B. Only III./ZG 26 stayed with the Bf 110G-2 till disbandment
> 
> 13 May 1944 II./ZG 76 lost no a/c that date. Big error ! it was II./ZG 26 which lost 7 Me 410A-1's in combat. 4th staffel lost 1 and 6th staffel lost 6. Like I said I have the losses confirmed ! martin of 4./ZG 26 was killed as well as his R/O Schann over Burschen coded 3U+LM.
> 
> ...



Erich - any details surrounding Stryzak's award? Christensen and Barger broke into a diving covey of 109s flying high cover. Barger heard to say he is OK, Christensen buried where he crashed at Zerbst rifle range and ZG26 only score that is reasonably close to Cristensen crash site- about 40 miles from bounce location.

Roger on the info from 12och.. 

sometimes I wonder on the completeness of current records of summer 1944. I still haven't found a matching loss for dad's 109 that he chased into the ground near Mulhausen on 28 July - after a B-24 blew up one of them.. that is two losses that never showed up - and is confirmed by gun camera film, including crash debris, and his wingman?


----------



## Erich (Aug 29, 2007)

Udet -yes I must agree with sadness, as it would give us all a true reality check

Bill let me check references/data


----------



## CharlesBronson (Aug 29, 2007)

> Lucky so far i can only tell about Major Eduard Tratt, whose victories over three P-38s flying his Me 410 were discussed here.



E. Tratt claimed five P-38 destroyed.



> as to 8 2cm weapons they were all housed in the nose. 4 directly front over the top of one another and 4 in a row in the lower portion of the nose with the bay hinged downward for access



Ok, thanks.


----------



## Erich (Aug 29, 2007)

CB I wonder if Tratt even got 3 P-38's personally........... not to discount but that is a rarity indeed in a twin engine, maybe a S/E but

yes Bill nothing is concrete with LW losses or claims/kills, too much lost. some records are even buried and gone forever. Woods claims listing is something but I would not rule out inaccuracies as to times and pilots and locations.


----------



## drgondog (Aug 29, 2007)

Erich said:


> CB I wonder if Tratt even got 3 P-38's personally........... not to discount but that is a rarity indeed in a twin engine, maybe a S/E but
> 
> yes Bill nothing is concrete with LW losses or claims/kills, too much lost. some records are even buried and gone forever. Woods claims listing is something but I would not rule out inaccuracies as to times and pilots and locations.



Erich - of course the claims inaccuracies occurs in both sides - even the work that you and I did together highlights that. The example for my father was that he was one hour off on his encounter report - there were several examples of that in just the April 24 Mission

That is just one of the huge difficulties in pin pointing who downed whom on a particular day and place


----------



## CharlesBronson (Aug 31, 2007)

> CB I wonder if Tratt even got 3 P-38's personally........... not to discount but that is a rarity indeed in a twin engine, maybe a S/E but



Well, I am not saying that I have sureness, but that was the figure, he also claimed five hurricanes while flying the Bf-110.


----------



## Erich (Aug 31, 2007)

I went back to the report by the 20th and they got jumped by Bf 109G's and this is what was the result, Tratts score is ridiculous, 4 P-38's on one mission hardly.


----------



## Breizh (Dec 31, 2007)

Erich said:


> as to 8 2cm weapons they were all housed in the nose. 4 directly front over the top of one another and 4 in a row in the lower portion of the nose with the bay hinged downward for access.


Hello Erich,

Can you post or PM me a reference for this configuration?

Thanks.


----------



## Crumpp (Dec 31, 2007)

This may help somewhat, Me410 Kennblatt.


----------



## Kurfürst (Jan 1, 2008)

Very nice find Crumpp, thank you for sharing! I`ve always wonder what power the figures given the Mankau book were understood for, this clears it up!

Thanks again.


----------



## Crumpp (Jan 1, 2008)

Your welcome. Hope you all enjoy it! 

For everyone:

If you get the chance or feel the need, donate a buck or two to the WWII fighter Aircraft Foundation please!

WWII Fighter Aircraft Foundation


----------



## Micdrow (Jan 1, 2008)

I converted the pages by Crumpp into an easier pdf file for those that wish to view it that way.


----------



## Crumpp (Jan 1, 2008)

Thanks!


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 1, 2008)

the max speed is 590 km/h, commonly the max speed is inicated in over 620 km/h, i suppose that 9.5 tons configuration is not clean or free bomb bay, true ?


----------



## Crumpp (Jan 1, 2008)

I think it is climb and combat power performance.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 2, 2008)

we need a Deutsch speaking


----------



## Udet (Jan 2, 2008)

That´s some brilliant piece of documentation Herr Crumpp.

It adds strenght to some points i discussed in the past with regard to fuel tank capacity for the Me 410 (ie. priceless fuel was being alloted in large numbers to keep the Me 410s of ZG 26 and ZG 76 in operations for 1944).


----------



## Soren (Jan 2, 2008)

Crumpp said:


> I think it is climb and combat power performance.



Yup, thats what it says


----------



## Crumpp (Jan 2, 2008)

> we need a Deutsch speaking



Got it. I might have some experience with German aircraft.....

All though when it takes a month to figure out where the left or right handed waffengeber is located because none of the native speakers can agree on what the waffengeber actually is on the aircraft.

edit - It's the master solenoid for synchronization of the FW190 fuselage weapons.



> Yup, thats what it says



Thank you Soren. Your effort is appreciated.

All the best,

Crumpp


----------



## Crumpp (Jan 2, 2008)

> That´s some brilliant piece of documentation Herr Crumpp.



Enjoy it!

Once again, don't forget a dollar or two to the Fighter Aircraft Foundation when you get that big tax refund!


----------



## Breizh (Jan 3, 2008)

Thanks for those Crumpp 

Does anyone have documentation of the 8x20mm configuration?


----------



## Freebird (Jan 3, 2008)

Udet said:


> I hope my colleagues here do not miss the point as i am not putting the whole blame on the Me 410 for having wasted men and material that could instead have been put to a much much better use against the USAAF.
> 
> The Bf 110s still serving in daylight missions, and the unusually high number of bombers produced during 1944 with more than 2,000 bombers made. The number gets dwarfed when put by the side of the USA heavy bomber production figure for 1944 alone with some 15,000 machines.
> 
> ...



Udet, you are correct on this point. The Germans made the same mistake as the British did in 41/42 of trying to build too many bombers and not keeping air superiority as the highest priority. 

Looking from the British point of view, the disaster in Malaya in '41 was mainly because of a lack of air support, the situation would have changed dramaticly if they had another 200 - 300 Hurricanes. Yet at the same time they were losing 150 - 200 bombers / month in the ETO. (1000+ aircrew!) Because Portal Harris were in control of Bomber Command the RAF, still with the pipe dream of the "Trenchard" doctrine, bombers were heavily produced at the expence of fighters. 

The Germans have the same problem, Hitler's desire to strike back at Britain is the main reason that the Me 262 was first pushed as a jet (if I am not mistaken.) The Luftwaffe should have concentrated on fighters as air defence much earlier, air superiority should always be the #1 priority.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 3, 2008)

I speak German. I can take a crack at some translations. I cant do them immediatly however. Once things die back down at work and the hollidays are all over and done with I can take a look at the stuff.


----------



## HoHun (Jan 3, 2008)

Hi Vincenzo,

>the max speed is 590 km/h, commonly the max speed is inicated in over 620 km/h, i suppose that 9.5 tons configuration is not clean or free bomb bay, true ?

It's for 9500 kg flying weight with no external loads. The text notes "If 4 x 50 kg bombs are carried externally, speeds are reduced by 10 km/h."

11300 kg is the permissible maximum take-off weight, 9300 kg stated as the "average return flight weight".

The speeds in the graph are for climb and combat power (permissible for 30 min), while often top speeds are listed for emergency power (typically permissible for 5 min).

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Hawksley (Jun 1, 2008)

Hi
I am trying to find a photogaph of Lt Wolfgang Wenning II./KG51.
Both he and Fw Gustav Delp(W/Op)were killed on 27/04/44 when in collision
with an Airspeed Oxford, near Frankton Rugby. 

thanks,
Mike.


----------



## drgondog (Jun 1, 2008)

GT said:


> 13 May 1944 , One of the most disastrous missions for II./ZG76 was when they was jumped by 20 P-51s and 12 a/c were written of, many aircrews was lost and the US bomber force flew on unhindered to Poznan. Obefelwebel Wolfgang Martin rammed a B-17 with his damaged Me 410 after ordering his crew to bale out.



GT - do you have more details on this one?

Two flights of the 354FS of the 355th FG bounced a force of approximately 20 Me 410's attacking the B-17 force short of Posnan.. for claims of 8-2-1 and awards of 6-1-4 Me 410s in the Landsberg area east of Berlin.

The 357FG shot down three near Grunberg

That doesn't quite square with the described "20 Mustangs" but the area sounds right.. any more details?


----------



## Kruska (Jun 1, 2008)

Hello drgondog,

Wiki says:

Moderately successful against unescorted bombers, a considerable number of kills against USAAF day bomber formations were achieved. Unfortunately for the Luftwaffe, the Me 410 was no match in a dogfight with the lighter Allied single-engine fighters such as the seven-ton P-47 Thunderbolt or the even lighter P-51 Mustang.

In the Spring of 1944 the Me 410 formations encountered swarms of Allied fighters protecting the bomber streams and their successes against escorted bombers were often offset by their losses. An example of this on 6 March 1944 saw sixteen Me 410s shot down in return for eight B-17s and four P-51s (which were destroyed by Bf 109 and Fw 190 fighters escorting the Me 410s).

The following month on 11 April II.ZG 26's Me 410s accounted for a rare success, downing ten B-17s without any losses. However the units luck ran out. During the course of the same raid their second sortie was intercepted by P-51s which destroyed eight Me 410s and three Bf 110s. Sixteen crewman were killed and three wounded

Regards
Kruska


----------



## drgondog (Jun 1, 2008)

on April 11 the 4th and 355th FG's hurt Me 410's in the Stettin and Pyritz area plus destroyed about 5 more "Ju188/88's" which might have been Me 410's.

In Wood's and Butler's Luftwaffe Awards list there is a May 28 claim by a ZG26 pilot on a Mustang which could very well fit the loss of Lt Barger of 354FS near Zerbst. He was last seen chasing several Me 109s along with his wingman Christensen - but the location of the crash better fits the Me 410 award than any of the Me 109 scores.

If an Me 410 snuck up on a Mustang it could sure shoot it down easily.

The 355th had several good days over Me 410's including April 11, May 12 and July 7. In each of those days multiple Ju 88's and 188's were also shot down - possibly mis identified Me 410's.

Unlike the many other 8th AF FG that encountered and shot down Me 110/210in the fall 1943 and winter 1944, the 355th Fg only shot down or damaged a grand total of 3-1-1 Me 110/210's but scored awards for 25-2-7 Me 410's and 7-2-1 Ju 88/188's... basically on four missions.


----------



## drgondog (Jun 1, 2008)

lesofprimus said:


> The replacement pool of pilots that the Jagdgruppen had to choose from was increasingly under-experienced novices who had never even fired their guns....
> 
> I remember reading recently in the Green Hearts/Dora book that Dortenmann went to the training staffel and took a few flights with some replacements, and came away ed and undermanned, as some pilots proficiency were so poor they couldnt hold standard formations together...
> 
> ...



I was going through this older thread with interest when these coments popped up.

In my studies fo 355 air losses I found that 60% (25) of those lost in air to air (or suspected of lost in air) had less than 10 combat missions. 30% (12) had less than 30 missions. Three were Flight leaders (of the remaining four) and one was a Group Exec on the fifth Group mission of the war.

No Group CO, Group Ops, Squadron CO's, Squadron Ops or any aces were shot down by enemy air.

Even with an average flying time greater than their LW replacement pilot counterparts, it was the new guys that got whacked..


----------



## drgondog (Jun 1, 2008)

Erich said:


> no but I am a definate non-human ! 8)
> 
> Kris that would be a total negative. At most the ZG's probably popped some 35 bombers but had at least a dozen of their a/c shot down. will have to do a look see through my ZG data files.
> 
> ...



I just took a look at the Macrs to get a better sense of the losses.

White Flight was bounced by ~ six Me 410s and in turn bounced Me 110s.

The clash took place north of Birkenfeld. As the 410's went through the formation from out of the sun, 2Lt Smutko chased them to the deck. He was not seen to be shot down but crashed north of Birkenfeld.

One other was hit in one engine in that pass (2Lt Keithley), he dropped to the deck and later radioed that he was returning home. He was hit by a flak battery near Moncornet and spun in.

Lt Hanzo was hit by a 190 just at R/V with the Jug Group and 2Lt Sands was hit by either 109s or 190s near Chateau d'Ardennes. Only one P-38 was suspected of going down to the Me 410s (Smutko). 

All the rest went down in the Chateau d'Arvennes, Epioux, St.Aignon, Valenciennes area far west of Birkenfeld/Idar Oberstein area (about 80- 140 miles).

I've got some work to do to research the location of the ZG26 claims..

Tratt's three awards were at Idar Oberstein, "SQ-SR", and "SP-RP" but I'm not sure where those references are. A 3.//NJG 102 pilot was also awarded a P-38 at Idar Oberstein at the same time as Tratt. I suspect this was Smutko - no altitude given. Idar Oberstein is about 20 mi due east of Trier and about40 miles west/sw of Frankfurt where the clash started at 1235

The 13 P-38 awards were pretty evenly divided - 4 to twin engine, 4 to 109s of JG3 and 5 to Fw 190s of JG2 and JG26.

Since only 8 were lost, and one of the 8 seemed to have been damaged in the 410/110 fight, but later shot down by flak at Moncornet limping home - I suspect that only one of the 3 awards to Tratt (at best) were valid... and it would be either Tratt or the NJG 102 Me 110 pilot on the deck shooting down Smutko.

This is on the assumption that the Me 410s did NOT pursue the P-38s from Germany into eastern France and belgium.. but based on times of Tratt's claims it is certain he did not.


----------



## Maximowitz (Oct 6, 2008)

Hawksley said:


> Hi
> I am trying to find a photogaph of Lt Wolfgang Wenning II./KG51.
> Both he and Fw Gustav Delp(W/Op)were killed on 27/04/44 when in collision
> with an Airspeed Oxford, near Frankton Rugby.
> ...



Bump!

In an associated search any information about Lt Dietrich Puttfarken of 5/KG51 would be much appreciated. Do any photographs of the KG51 intruder ME410's exist?


----------



## olbrat (Oct 7, 2008)

Out of curiosity, could the Me410 have been used in the "fast bomber" capacity like the Mosquito? That is to say, accomplish unaccompanied lightning raids? Would it have had sufficient payload? Could Germany have sent it raiding in England to draw off resources and aircraft used over the continent?

Also, for speculation, how would such an aircraft have fared in the Pacific? I know it probably wouldn't have done well against Corsairs and Lightnings, but with it's range, firepower and payload, would it have done a good job as a night fighter against B29's, for example? Just curious.


----------



## HoHun (Oct 7, 2008)

Hi Olbrat,

>Out of curiosity, could the Me410 have been used in the "fast bomber" capacity like the Mosquito? That is to say, accomplish unaccompanied lightning raids? 

Yes, though performance and capabilities were not exactly identical. Against England, which had a highly concentrated air defense system, daylight missions (even low-level raids) would not likely have succeeded, however.

On the other side, it would have been hampered by the lack of a level bomb sight. There were plans to fit one for use by the gunner, but due to the cockpit layout this was a difficult task.

>Would it have had sufficient payload?

Probably yes, though not as much as the Mosquito.

>Could Germany have sent it raiding in England to draw off resources and aircraft used over the continent?

I doubt it. Allied response would only have been aggressive enough to obtain a favourable exchange ratio, making the enterprise un-economic for the Luftwaffe.

>Also, for speculation, how would such an aircraft have fared in the Pacific?

As Allied or as Japanese type? 

>I know it probably wouldn't have done well against Corsairs and Lightnings

Due to its high speed, it probably wouldn't have been quite such a clear case compared to the Hellcat, though.

>but with it's range, firepower and payload, would it have done a good job as a night fighter against B29's, for example? Just curious.

I don't think a night fighter version was ever developed, but if you'd consider it for Wilde Sau operations, it might have been a good night fighter type. I'm not sure how it compares to the Irving in that role, though.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Njaco (Oct 7, 2008)

> Out of curiosity, could the Me410 have been used in the "fast bomber" capacity like the Mosquito? That is to say, accomplish unaccompanied lightning raids? Would it have had sufficient payload? Could Germany have sent it raiding in England to draw off resources and aircraft used over the continent?



I believe the Luftwaffe did just that with the Me 410s of SKG 10 and later used Ju 88s.


----------



## olbrat (Oct 8, 2008)

Thanks HoHun, NJACO -

I suppose it could have been successfull in the PTO in a strike-fighter role something like the Bristol Beaufighter.

Does anyone know if Beaufighters directly combated the 110/210/410 aircraft in the ETO? If so, how did they compare?


----------



## Njaco (Oct 8, 2008)

That sounds like a good idea for a seperate thread. Might get some good responses. I personnaly can't think of any outstanding action between the types.


----------



## Maximowitz (Mar 27, 2009)

olbrat said:


> Out of curiosity, could the Me410 have been used in the "fast bomber" capacity like the Mosquito? That is to say, accomplish unaccompanied lightning raids? Would it have had sufficient payload? Could Germany have sent it raiding in England to draw off resources and aircraft used over the continent?



They did use it like that. See Simon Parry's excellent book "Intruders Over Britain" for details of the exploits of KG2 and KG51 during '43-'44.


----------



## Sweb (Mar 27, 2009)

My 2-cents is I always thought with a couple BMW801s on it that would have been a phenomenal close air support machine or a real problem for bomber formations. Round engine fan, here. Seriously, no twin will ever out-perform a single engine design. Great rate-of-roll is fun to watch but short turning radius is where the money's at. This takes into account all other things being equal with a prime emphasis on experienced piloting. Heavier twins just didn't have the nimbleness of the single engined types. Their only advantage was against bigger machines. I thought the 110, 210, 410 and 262 were profoundly misused designs and wartime Germany suffered accordingly.


----------



## tomo pauk (Mar 28, 2009)

A huble disagreement in a single vs. twin debate:

The 1st time Mosquito was rolled out of factory, it was faster then the contemporary Spitfire. If we then calculate in the combat radius payload, second crew member, it´s certain who wins in comparison. 
Also, let´s not forget the P-38, the plane that could take at any single-engined opponent. Esp. if we take a look at the Pacific war staistics.
As for the ´where the money is´ thingie, the boom zoom tactics effectively negated the turn radius as the key in air combat. It was the speed, firepower structural strength that counted. 
While I also think that instead of 110-210-410 range the germans could build much better planes, please note that 110 could take against any opposition atleast untill late 1941, providing usage of boom-and-zoom.
The 262 was concieved in a belive that one jet engine is not sufficient to give superior speed for a plane with heavy armament. Since that was the true, 262 was not a failure. 
Some of the twins that could compete with single engine fighters were the Fw-187, Westland Whirlwind and Gloster F.9/37.


----------



## davebender (Mar 28, 2009)

I suspect it performed just fine in that role. Just as the previous Me-110 did. The problems begin when you attempt to use a light bomber like the Me-110 and Me-410 as a day fighter.


----------



## drgondog (Mar 28, 2009)

Sweb said:


> My 2-cents is I always thought with a couple BMW801s on it that would have been a phenomenal close air support machine or a real problem for bomber formations. Round engine fan, here. Seriously, no twin will ever out-perform a single engine design. Great rate-of-roll is fun to watch but short turning radius is where the money's at. This takes into account all other things being equal with a prime emphasis on experienced piloting. Heavier twins just didn't have the nimbleness of the single engined types. Their only advantage was against bigger machines. .



So sweb, the Me 262 with its crappy rate of turn will not out perform a P-40, a Spit or Mustang?

A P-38 out dueled by the Zero? or P-40 or Hurricane?

an F7F totally outclassed by say a P-47 or P-51 in air combat?

An F-15 at a disadvantage to an F-86?

I would suggest tha Roll is probably more important than turn, all else being equal.

But the point is that rarely was the twin matched up to the single 'with all else being equal' - the closest might be a P-38L versus a 109G/K


----------



## drgondog (Mar 28, 2009)

Sweb - I totally agree the comments that LW missed too many decisions on their twins.. in reflection the only USAAF twin fighter was the 38 and the F7F was only USN bird purchased and deployed in WWII.


----------



## Njaco (Mar 30, 2009)

Found something interesting in that Squadron/Signal book.

There is a pic of a crashed 210 and the caption states: "A Me 210Ca-1 night-fighter of 5/1. Night Fighter Squadron, known as Bagoly or Owl Squadron...."

Erich, do you know anything about this Hungarian unit, possibly?


----------



## Maximowitz (Mar 30, 2009)

Njaco said:


> Found something interesting in that Squadron/Signal book.
> 
> There is a pic of a crashed 210 and the caption states: "A Me 210Ca-1 night-fighter of 5/1. Night Fighter Squadron, known as Bagoly or Owl Squadron...."
> 
> Erich, do you know anything about this Hungarian unit, possibly?




I guess you missed this thread.

The Me 210 Ca-1 in Hungarian Service

All you'll ever need to know, Csaba is the leading authority on the Ca-1 and a really nice guy, he signed my copy.


----------



## Njaco (Mar 30, 2009)

Thanks Max! Didn't know about that thread!


----------



## Magister (Mar 30, 2009)

_I would suggest that Roll is probably more important than turn, all else being equal._

drgondog, would you ascribe this as a significant reason for the P-47's success in attacking or escaping attacks?


----------



## drgondog (Mar 31, 2009)

Magister said:


> _I would suggest that Roll is probably more important than turn, all else being equal._
> 
> drgondog, would you ascribe this as a significant reason for the P-47's success in attacking or escaping attacks?



would. Ditto Fw 190. Both excellent in many respects but a superior roll enables rapid changes of direction and reversals to disengage or acquire an advantage


----------



## Breizh (May 22, 2009)

Does anyone know for sure if the Me 410B-2/U4, equipped with 2xMK103 and a BK5, was used operationally?

Thanks.

[edit] MK 103 + BK 5 is almost certainly one of those bogus reports in modern literature.


----------



## Breizh (Apr 13, 2011)

Erich said:


> CB I wonder if Tratt even got 3 P-38's personally........... not to discount but that is a rarity indeed in a twin engine, *maybe a S/E *but


 Can anyone say what "S/E" refers to? Single-Engined fighter? Another book gives pretty compelling hints that the 410s that Tratt cie were flying on that day weren't regular 410s.

I'm still looking for references for the 8x20mm configuration given by Erich. It sounds like the same kind of gun placement as the extra pair of MG 17s as illustrated for an Me 410B-2/U2/R5 on page 37 of the Squadron Signal book.

Thanks.


----------



## drgondog (Apr 14, 2011)

Erich do you have the ZG26 and ZG76 morning losses/damaged for July 7 - ie the 8th AF attacks all around Leipzig?


----------



## rank amateur (Apr 14, 2011)

Udet said:


> The disbandment of all ZGs is one factor, and the other is the disbanding of several KG.
> 
> Focusing on the critical year of 1944: Germany produced ~2,050 bombers (He 111, Ju 88, Ju 188 and He 177 plus a handful of other types), plus ~800 Me 210s/Me 410s and even ~110 Bf 110s. Tell me of anything significant these planes achieved during 1944.
> 
> ...


 
Hindsight is usually 20/20. I have a few remarks here.

1 It takes time to seize production of one type of aircraft and retool for another. You dont just turn a switch and the productionlines for the me 410 start popping out me 109's; 
2 Big Week was 20 to 25 februari? I would wager a bet that most planes that were used on either side came of the productionline in 1943
2 Even the mentioning that the outcome of the war might be any other than an overwhelming victory for Germany was pretty close to suicide in the beginning of 1944 (and for that matter also at the beginning of '45). In the beginning of 1944 the Luftwaffe was stil a force to be reckoned with. 
3 Apart from the airwars in the west, there were other battles to fight where a dedicated bomber was more than a luxuary; 
4 More than a few bomber and Zerstörer pilotes were submitted to flying single engined fighterplanes but usually without sufficient training which meant they were next to useless. This becomes even more painfull when you consider that it takes more training to fly a multi engined aircraft.
5 In 1944 Albert Speer became responsible for aircraft production. He must have done a formidable job because production rose to un unprecedented level. Unfortuately the fuel production did not keep the same track.


----------



## peterpro (May 16, 2012)

Well actually it was a combination of the R4 kit(2 MG151/20 gunpod) and the R5 kit (4 MG151/20 in the bomb bay).In the Me-410 mod for IL-2 it is possible to use this configuration in the Me-410B under the R4/R5 configuration.


----------



## Michi (Jul 15, 2012)

Can any someone shed some lights on the followings:

1.)
19440702:
It's about the Airbattle over Budapest.
On this date the U.S. Airforce lost 45 a/c, of whom 34 a/c were 4-engined bombers.
Of the 34 4-engined 8 were shot down by the Me 410 of *I./ZG 76.*


> Der mit der Messerschmitt Me 410 augestatten I./ZG 76 gelang im Verbund mit Me 109 der II./JG 27 und mit Me 110 des II./ZG 1 am Sonntag, dem 02. Juli 1944 ein sich nie mehr wiederholender Schlag gegen die U.S. Airforce.
> An diesem Tag gelang es der Luftwaffe in der Luftschlacht über Budapest 45 alliierte Flugzeuge abzuschießen, darunter waren 34 4-mot Bomber. Die I./ZG 76 konnte 8 Boeing B-17 oder B-24 ohne eigene Verluste abschießen.



My questions:
How many Me 410 were involved??
How many Me 110 were involved??
How many Me 109 were involved??
Are the numbers mentioned above correct??
Which units (and their strength) of the U.S. Airforce were involved??
Any flight logs or after battle reports existing about this airbattle??


2.)
19440708:
On this day 7 Me 410 were shot down in the Airspace over Lower Austria by allied fighters:
*1./I./ZG 76:*
Me 410 _1stLt Hirschfelder, Dietrich_ _Sgt Rieder, Günter_ @_Tulln_
Me 410 _2ndLt Pestel, Karl_ _Sgt Wenz, Ernst_ @_Mollersdorf_
Me 410 _Sgt Ahrens, Werner_ _Sgt Frühwald Leopod_ @_Grafenwörth (6 km south)_
*2./I./ZG 76:*
Me 410 _????????_ _Sgt Brömme, Gerhard_ @_Jetzelsdorf_
Me 410 _MSgt Westerhof, Josef_ _Sgt Blasche, Gerhard_ @_Höbersbrunn(-bach?)/Krems_
Me 410 _MSgt Rothbart, Hans_ _Sgt Kroth, Albert_ @_Maria Ponsee_
*3./I./ZG 76:*
Me 410 _2ndLt Heinz, Arnold_ _Pvt Schneider, Raimund_ @_Fels/Kollersdorf (7 km south)_


> An diesem Tag wurden 7 Messerschmitt Me 410 im niederösterreichischen Luftraum von alliierten Jägern abgeschossen.
> 1./I./ZG 76:
> Me 410 Olt Hirschfelder, Dietrich Uffz Rieder, Günter Tulln
> Me 410 Lt Pestel, Karl Uffz Wenz, Ernst Mollersdorf
> ...



My questions:
Who was the missing pilot in this list??
Which allied fighter units were involved??
Any flight logs or after battle reports existing about this??




MfG Michi


----------



## GregP (Jul 15, 2012)

The specs say:

1. Me 410A-1: Empty: 16,585 lbs; Normal: N/A; Max: 24,772 lbs; 2 * 1,750 HP; Power Loading at Max: 6.1 lbs / HP.; Max Speed: 388 mph; Rate of Climb: 2,133 fpm; 2 * 7.92 mm MG + 2 * 12.7 mm MG + 4 * 20 mm MG 151 cannons.

2. P-38J: Empty: 14,107 lbs; Normal: 17,500 lbs; Max: 21,612 lbs.; 2 * 1,425 HP; Power loading at Normal Weight: 5.5 lbs / HP.; Max Speed: 435 mph; Rate of Climb: 3,150 fpm; 4 * 12.7 mm MG + 1 * 20 mm cannon. 97° per second best rate of roll; 83° per second at 300 mph, both at 10,000 feet. Rate of climb ans max speed were at military popwer and were considerably better at War Emergency Power. Up tp 4,750 pfm climb was available at WEP and the speed went up by some mph, too.

Looking around on the web I can find empty weights for the Me-10A-1 from 13,448 lbs up to 17,598 lbs, with no two sources seeming to agree. Can’t find a “Normal” weight for it, just empty and max. The Me-410 was a pretty good night fighter from the descriptions and had some success against daylight bomber streams, but the daylight successes were mostly offset by losses to Allied single-engine fighters. The Me-410 was no match for Allied single engine fighters. The Me-410 was not highly regarded as a fighter, though it handled easily with no vices, but was not in the same category as a single-engine fighter. It simply rolled, pitched, and yawed more slowly than the single-engine competition. It WAS well armed and had some success, but not a lot. From the summer of 1944 the Me-410, despite being Hitler’s favorite bomber destroyer, was taken from defense of the Reich duties and put into a reconnaissance role.

The P-38 was a match for most single-engine opponents and the late model J and all L models could roll with most of the opposition easily. The P-38 was the mount of the most successful two pilots from the U.S.A. and is highly regarded here as a fighter.

In the ETO, P-38’s flew 130,000 sorties with a 1.3% overall loss rate. While ETO P-51’s posted a 1.1% overall loss rate, the P-38’s suffered from poorly thought-out tactics in the period before Allied air superiority in Europe. In the PTO the P-38’s shot down more than 1,800 Japanese aircraft.

As a fighter, the P-38 absolutely outperformed the Me-410. It had a good success rate in aerial combat and a very good safety record. It was faster, climbed better, and was much more maneuverable. I cannot think of a category where the Me-410 was better than the P-38 Lightning.

Personally, I like the Me-410 Hornisee, but not as well as a P-38.


----------



## davebender (Jul 15, 2012)

Some Me-410 light bombers assigned to KG2 and KG51 performed night intruder missions over England during the fall of 1943. That's as close as the Me-410 got to being a night fighter aircraft.


----------



## GregP (Jul 15, 2012)

I hear you Dave, but some sources seem to disagree with your contention. In any case, it was mentioned at night as a night fighter in a few places. That alone makes me think it did the duty even if infrequently.

Perhaps not, I can't say. The information available on the Me-410 is nowhere near as abundant as for the P-38, and so we have to read what we can get about it for the most part.

Where did you get your information that the Me-410 was NOT used as a night fighter? I'm curious, not trying to put you on a spot. Your conviction implies you may have a good source for Me-410 data; that's all. Cheers.


----------



## davebender (Jul 15, 2012)

From the "experts" on this forum. 

"Intruders Over Britain" by Simon Parry describes some Me-410 intruder operations. However I have yet to read an account of Me-410 aircraft equipped with AI radar and other such standard night fighter equipment. Nor have I seen a picture of an Me-410 equipped with radar antenna.


----------



## GregP (Jul 15, 2012)

It's OK with me, but the experts on this forum, me included ... if so, are not sources.

I'll refrian from posting about Me-410 night fighter missions while I look for more info on the plane, but it has to come from somehwere as a source.

Just rumors won't do ... at least for my curiosity. Cheers.


----------



## Erich (Jul 15, 2012)

holy baloney I totally forgot about this long lost thread and need to do some answering, I have all the losses for the Me 410 units as termed by Freiburg archivs. ZG 26/76 in any cas; e the 410 was never deemed a night fighter but as Dave pointed out a Night Intruder from KG 51 abnd KG 54 following BC back to base and a special incident with huge B-17 losses back to England when the B-17 units returned to base after dark.

Michi will try and follow up on your questionaire as my cancer meds have kept me down the last 2 weeks pretty severe.

Tratt was flying an Me 410A-1


----------



## GregP (Jul 15, 2012)

Hi Erich,

As I stated, I LIKE the me-410, but want more hard info on it before making and comclusions about it.

Aerodynamically, it LOOKS like it should fly well and it was definitely armed morem than adequately. Should have been faster with the horsepower at mid-weights.


----------



## mhuxt (Jul 16, 2012)

Tony Woods' lists have a few nocturnal claims made by KG 51 over France in mid-44, apparently they were being used as Wilde Sau fighters.

Also, German historian Gebhard Aders ("History of the German Night Fighter Force") once posted this on a German-language board:

Und in Venlo gab es 1944 für kurze ein dem NJG 1 unterstelltes Versuchskommando 410, das Mosquitojagd betreiben sollte - wegen Erfolglosigkeit aufgelöst. 
Gruß 
G. Aders

LuftArchiv.de - Das Archiv der Deutschen Luftwaffe

My translation - "For a short time in 1944 there was an Me 410 experimental unit attached to NJG 1 in Venlo, which was supposed to hunt Mosquitos - it was disbanded due to lack of success."

I also have never seen a pic of a 410 with radar other than air-surface stuff for locating sea vessels. Hard to prove a negative though.


----------



## Oreo (Jul 16, 2012)

I just read the whole thread through. I have a high admiration for the Me 410. I have to think that much of its troubles arose from its circumstances. Its max clean speed of 388-400 mph placed it in the same category as the early P-38's, but without turbochargers, its altitude performance fell off. Obviously the P-38 had no rear gunner and heavy rear gun set up, saving who-knows-how-much weight compared to the 410. It also seems to me that the 210 / 410 must have been designed specifically with the remote rear MG's in mind, therefore the cg of the aircraft was built to carry this system. Depending on just how far behind the center of lift the heavy gun emplacement was located, it may have caused some serious trouble in the weight and balance department to remove the entire assembly and the gunner. I honestly don't know how much weight would come out of there, but my gut guess is that it would be somewhere in the neighborhood of 1,000 lbs, more or less, when everything associated with the rear gunner were removed. The weight reduction would help climb, altitude, and maneuvering abilities, but would the change of cg be to great to overcome? 

In order to get this otherwise great machine to match the performance of a P-38J, it would need turbochargers, removal of rear gunner and gun system, and possibly a few other refinements. With the 1,900 hp engines, I can't help thinking it could have been done. Possibly the 3-blade props were not able to fully absorb the 1900 hp, either-- maybe 4-bladers could have helped.

One alternative history story I wrote had to do with drop-tank equipped single-seat Me 410's escorting Ju 390's and He 274's over Washington, Philedelphia, and New York. In my scenario, the Reich had captured Spain, Portugal, the Azores, and Bermuda. Fanciful stuff, of course. But when we start going down the what-if pathway all kinds of interesting things can happen. I do think the Me 410 could have cleaned up better than it did. If Germany hadn't been so battered in the air by the time it arrived, it may have contributed more in many roles. It was a true multi-role aircraft, much like the P-38 or Mosquito in that regard, and could have been developed even better.

One other note, in regards to the rear gunner. Robert Johnson, in his book "Thunderbolt", tells the account of attacking an Me 410. I don't recall the outcome of the encounter, whether he killed it or not, (don't have the book here), but I recall him saying he pressed right in there aggressively to down it, but was met by a stream of rounds from the rear gunner, whom Johnson admitted he had forgotten about. From that encounter it seems that the 410 rear gunner was sometimes underestimated in the heat of the moment, but not to be ignored.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 16, 2012)

Erich said:


> holy baloney I totally forgot about this long lost thread and need to do some answering, I have all the losses for the Me 410 units as termed by Freiburg archivs. ZG 26/76 in any cas; e the 410 was never deemed a night fighter but as Dave pointed out a Night Intruder from KG 51 abnd KG 54 following BC back to base and a special incident with huge B-17 losses back to England when the B-17 units returned to base after dark.
> 
> Michi will try and follow up on your questionaire as my cancer meds have kept me down the last 2 weeks pretty severe.
> 
> Tratt was flying an Me 410A-1



Erich - I think you may be referring to the 7 B-24s shot down at dusk after trailing them back from a mission... (IIRC) but I will have to dig a little to confirm the date and actual losses.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 16, 2012)

GregP said:


> In the ETO, P-38’s flew 130,000 sorties with a 1.3% overall loss rate. While ETO P-51’s posted a 1.1% overall loss rate, the P-38’s suffered from poorly thought-out tactics in the period before Allied air superiority in Europe. In the PTO the P-38’s shot down more than 1,800 Japanese aircraft.
> 
> *Greg - the ETO comparisons are tricky between the P-51 and P-38 in that the P-38 had a far lower loss count (not rate) to flak (because it didn't do much in the airfield strafing role) than the 51. It engaged far less in the air to air role, and had far less success per sortie than the 51 in both ground and air credits.
> 
> ...



It is also interesting regarding the top end performance figures for the P-38J and L. Although Mike Williams' site has only two P-38L test reports the top end for a common mission load out (no external fuel) in the 18,000 pound range was 426 mph at WEP at ~25,000 feet. I have never been able to find the source for Lockheed's various stated 443 mph dash capability? My calcs have the P-38 drag rise ~ 8% at 425/25K feet, while the P-51D is around 6% at 440... which is the prime reason I cited to Lightning on the other forum for the P-38 decided lack of success against the P-51 in the post war Bendix races. I can get a P-38L to 440 with 4000 hp at 25K w/o considering tip speed loss for props...(theoretically) but I haven't seen any test results to compare actual against theoretical.

Additionally, the P-38J-25 and above did have excellent Sustained roll rates over earlier models, it was sluggish in the initiatl roll rate according to the Reports from the Joint Fighter Conference, thereby negating (somewhat) its excellent sustained roll performance when an adversary lived long enough to reverse.

I do very much like the looks of the Me 410. Had it not been for availability of P-38 and P-51 for escort, it probably would have been hugely effective against B-17s and B-24s.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 16, 2012)

Oreo said:


> One alternative history story I wrote had to do with drop-tank equipped single-seat Me 410's escorting Ju 390's and He 274's over Washington, Philedelphia, and New York. In my scenario, the Reich had captured Spain, Portugal, the Azores, and Bermuda. Fanciful stuff, of course. But when we start going down the what-if pathway all kinds of interesting things can happen. I do think the Me 410 could have cleaned up better than it did. If Germany hadn't been so battered in the air by the time it arrived, it may have contributed more in many roles. It was a true multi-role aircraft, much like the P-38 or Mosquito in that regard, and could have been developed even better.
> 
> *Why would an Me 410 conceivably be selected to escort anything against the US from Bermuda? (it absolutely could not get halfway across the Atlantic from Spain/Azores). I haven't read your operational scenario but why do we think that it would not be even worse for the 410 against the P-38/P-47/F4U/F6F/P-51 ?? over the US? FW 190 would be far better choice of escort and how do you supply Bermuda unless you have totally annihilated USN and all land based USAAF bombers, USN torpedo and dive bombers?*
> 
> One other note, in regards to the rear gunner. Robert Johnson, in his book "Thunderbolt", tells the account of attacking an Me 410. I don't recall the outcome of the encounter, whether he killed it or not, (don't have the book here), but I recall him saying he pressed right in there aggressively to down it, but was met by a stream of rounds from the rear gunner, whom Johnson admitted he had forgotten about. From that encounter it seems that the 410 rear gunner was sometimes underestimated in the heat of the moment, but not to be ignored.



The only claim against any single vertical stabilizer twin for Bob Johnson was an Me 210 (destroyed credit) on January 30, 1944 near Lingen. He has no claims for a 'distinct' Me 410 although it would be easy to mistake the two.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 16, 2012)

Would the Me 410 fighter be more comparable to a Mosquito FB VI or FII?

About the same size and weight, and about the same speed.


----------



## Erich (Jul 16, 2012)

Bill and others the major intruder raid over England was April 22, 1944 by 15 Me 410A's against B-24's of the 2nd Bomb division, so yes Bill you were on the mark, my mistake


----------



## davebender (Jul 16, 2012)

The Me-410 was a light bomber. That's why it performed best at low altitude. If it had been designed to operate as a pathfinder @ 30,000 feet (i.e. like most Mosquitoes) it probably would have gotten different engines.


----------



## stona (Jul 16, 2012)

davebender said:


> The Me-410 was a light bomber. That's why it performed best at low altitude. If it had been designed to operate as a pathfinder @ 30,000 feet (i.e. like most Mosquitoes) it probably would have gotten different engines.



Hungarian built Me210s,with their lighter armament,armour and DB 605 A engines would be an exception. 
GM-1 equipped versions flew with the Luftbeobachtungsstaffeln (don't you just love those compoumd nouns!). Fitted with a 300l drop tank under each wing they flew at high altitude above the US bomber formations reporting their numbers,position and course. They performed this role well into 1944. There is only one recorded loss,by Luftbeobachtungsstaffel 3 on 11 February 1944 which would certainly imply that they had adequate high altitude performance to evade the US escorts.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## davebender (Jul 16, 2012)

I think Germans make up such words just to keep the English speaking world confused. 

What version of the DB605 engine powered Hungarian built Me-210Cs? Restrictions were lifted during the fall of 1943 so it may have been powered by DB605ASM engines (with MW-50 injection).


----------



## Erich (Jul 16, 2012)

personally I am rather doubting the use of the ASM type engines till spring of 44 installed in the Bf 109G-6/AS, the 210 by then was out of the question, and by late June due to losses both ZG 26and 76 were going to at least the trasnsfer slowly of eliminating the T/E stock for a new paper name(s) and Bf 109G's for Reich defense.

slightly Ot but you all have seen the pics of the Hungarian bomber killer 210 with the single 3.7cm and triple rocket launchers under each wing ?


----------



## davebender (Jul 16, 2012)

No I haven't. Is there a web site with these pictures?


----------



## Erich (Jul 16, 2012)

not sure Dave but Squadron Signal softback on the craft I believe has a couple pics under a ? test Kommando ? anyone confirm this please .............


----------



## Crimea_River (Jul 16, 2012)

Yup, here she be. From Squadron Signal Me 210/410 In Action.


----------



## davebender (Jul 16, 2012)

Pretty late in the war. So what type DB605 engines power that aircraft?


----------



## Crimea_River (Jul 16, 2012)

2 other pictures of the same aircraft appear in Petrick and Stocker's book on the Hornisse. Captions state that these mods were commenced on 3 March 1944 so the engines might have dated to much earlier than October. No mention of engines but Hungary only produced a total of 270 Me210Ca-1's of which 100 were delivered to the LW. Some sources on the net say all were powered by 605B's but I've not been able to verify this in any of my references so far except to say that the Mushroom series book states the spec sheet for the Ca-1 as powered by the 605B with no other notes.


----------



## mhuxt (Jul 16, 2012)

davebender said:


> The Me-410 was a light bomber. That's why it performed best at low altitude. If it had been designed to operate as a pathfinder @ 30,000 feet (i.e. like most Mosquitoes) it probably would have gotten different engines.


 
I'm not sure what you mean by this. The 410's best speed was at about 6400 m, roughly 21.000 feet. The B.IX Mosquito bomber with two-stage superchargers did best at 26,000 feet. The FB.VI, the most numerous Mossie, with single-stage Merlin 25s (standard fit for the FB.VI from July 43) did best at 13k ft, only about 15 mph more than it did at 5k feet.

Given a choice, as a Mossie fan I'd much rather encounter a 410 low than high.


----------



## Oreo (Jul 17, 2012)

"Why would an Me 410 conceivably be selected to escort anything against the US from Bermuda? (it absolutely could not get halfway across the Atlantic from Spain/Azores). I haven't read your operational scenario but why do we think that it would not be even worse for the 410 against the P-38/P-47/F4U/F6F/P-51 ?? over the US? FW 190 would be far better choice of escort and how do you supply Bermuda unless you have totally annihilated USN and all land based USAAF bombers, USN torpedo and dive bombers?"

As I said, it was alternative history, and quite wildly speculative. In this scenario, the Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe had wiped the map of the USN and RN, putting them drastically on the defensive, with the two purpose-built KM carriers, and six carriers converted from cargo ships, Bismark, Tirpitz, et. al working together in concert to starve the UK of fuels and destroy their shipping. The hopped up and cleaned down Me-410 escort fighters were capable in my scenario of P-38-like performance, and only experten familiar with the type were selected for this mission, the purpose of which was to force the US to keep good combat groups on the east coast when they could have been used elsewhere. My scenario had over half the Me 410's destroyed in combat, along with a goodly number of the bombers, but He-who-ordered-such-dastardly-things thought it was worth it to bring home the war to the enemy. My scenario did have the KM carriers fielding the redoubtable Fw 190T-6, which was used to replace all other types of carrier aircraft in the KM. It was capable of interceptions, escort, dive-bombing, surface strike with either rockets, torpedos, or heavy cannon packs, and reconnaissance. Basic armament was two MG 13's in the engine cowling and two MG 151/20's in the wing-roots. Wings folded upward, and span was increased by approximately a meter. Landing gear was strengthened, as were other crucial components. By having all one type of aircraft on a carrier, spare parts and maintenance issues were extremely streamlined. Performance clean was in the Hellcat range, approx. 380 mph max speed. The single-seat escort Me 410's flying from Bermuda featured the same basic armament as the Fw 190T, and the bomb bay was fitted with a self-sealing fuel tank, as well as the space behind the pilot's seat previously used by the gunner.

The bombers, with range well exceeding 4,000 miles, took off from the Azores and met up with the escorts about 200 miles off shore before dawn, heading over the targets right around dawn. My scenario had interceptions, successful and unsuccessful, by P-38's, P-47's, P-63's, and P-61's.

All fanciful of course. I know it never could have happened. But I found it entertaining to suppose it might have.


----------



## stona (Jul 17, 2012)

davebender said:


> What version of the DB605 engine powered Hungarian built Me-210Cs?



The book I was para-phrasing (Schmoll's "Nest of Eagles") simply says that the Hungarians replaced the DB 601 F engine with the DB 605 A engine when production at Dunai Repulogepgyar RT began at the "end of 1942". It only states the A series,not a specific sub type. It also says they were fitted with the GM-1 boost system (not MW 50) which makes sense as this was specifically to increase performance at altitude.
Cheers
Steve


----------



## Njaco (Jul 17, 2012)

According to "Squadron/Signal: Me 210/410 in Action" - pg 18;



> One Me 210 A-0 (radio code PN+PD WrNr 2100105) was re-engined with 1,475hp DB 605B engines *without *MW 1 Methanol injection. This aircraft served as a pattern aircraft for the Me 210 (in Hungarian service - my underline).... the aircraft was to be built in 2 variants, the Me 210C-1 and Me 210Ca-1.....Other than the engines, the Hungarian produced variants were the same as the modified Me 210As being assembled by Messerschmitt.


----------



## stona (Jul 17, 2012)

They weren't the same as the German produced ones in other respects. Most obviously both the armament and armour changed. I'll post the details later rather than going from memory. 

They certainly did not use the MW 50 boost system (Squadron got that correct) but the GM-1 system. 
I know the GM-1 injection system could be easily converted to use MW 50,it was deliberately fitted to some later G series 109s with this express intention,but would have to check if this worked the other way around.

The GM-1 system works to increase performance at altitude which is why it was fitted to these aircraft. 

Cheers
Steve


----------



## davebender (Jul 17, 2012)

That cannot be true.

Me-210 A0 would be a pre-production aircraft with the short fuselage. Only about 95 Me-210A were built with short fuselages and they were all built in Germany. By July 1942 the Me-210 had a longer fuselage (Me-210C) which fixed the handling problems. Manfred Weiss (i.e. Hungary) built the Me-210C powered by locally built DB605 engines. However I have no idea which model(s) of the DB605 were built at Manfred Weiss.


----------



## Njaco (Jul 17, 2012)

If you see the quote I posted, I did omit the lines referring to lengthened fuselage, etc. ( hence the "......") I was focusing on the engines. My bad.


----------



## davebender (Jul 17, 2012)

Manfred Weiss produced armored combat vehicles in addition to aircraft and aircraft engines. I'm starting to think the entire Hungarian munitions industry consisted of a single factory complex. 

43M Zrínyi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Denniss (Jul 17, 2012)

Hungary built 377 Me 210C, 105 of which were sent to Luftwaffe duty.
They were probably known as Me 210C-1 in Hungarian service and Me 210 Ca-1 in Luftwaffe service (the small a was a german designation for foreign-produced aircraft and I doubt the Hungarians would have used it).
The Me 210C was built with DB 605B engines, those also powered the Bf 110G. B-version are A-engines with different engine/prop rpm ratio.
Mtt actually assembled 155 production A-1 and B-1 with short tail + 106 that were assembled but waiting for the long tail + several hundred more fuselages that went directly into storage. Most of the surviving short-tail A/B may have been rebuilt with the long tail (148 rebuilt aircraft reported but includes the 106 waiting for long tail). Additional 36 A-1 and 16 C-1 were built in Germany from stored components but with long tail. Almost 500 Me 410A were built from stored Me 210 fuselage components.


----------



## davebender (Jul 17, 2012)

Sounds like the Me-410A never actually entered mass production.


----------



## Erich (Jul 17, 2012)

the A was used in numbers by both ZG 26 and ZG 76 for two units on their US bomber hunts


----------



## stona (Jul 17, 2012)

Thank you Denniss. Kovacs Lajos,who has researched Hungarian production extensively believes that only 270 Me 210 Cs were produced,he agrees that about 100 were delivered to the Luftwaffe. Some were returned by the Luftwaffe to the Hungarians in 1944.

Me 210 A-0 (W.Nr.2100105) did indeed serve as the pattern for the Hungarian Me 210 C-1. 

The armament did vary from German versions.The _full_ armament of the Hungarian heavy fighter version (C-1) was 2xMG 151/20 and a 36M 40mm Bofors cannon. Triple 140mm mortar tubes were carried under the wings.
This is different to the version employed by the Luftwaffe's Luftbeobachtungsstaffeln which carried only 2xMG 151/20s and only the standard 8mm armour plating. All the extra armour fitted to German versions was not installed.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## davebender (Jul 17, 2012)

> full armament of the Hungarian heavy fighter version (C-1) was 2xMG 151/20 and a 36M 40mm Bofors cannon. Triple 140mm mortar tubes were carried under the wings.


I've never understood the purpose for such a weapons mix.

A twin engine aircraft can carry 4 centerline mounted 20mm cannon (in fuselage sides). If that won't knock the enemy down then you aren't hitting the target. Add 140mm mortar tubes and you will just miss the target with larger projectiles.


----------



## Denniss (Jul 17, 2012)

davebender said:


> Sounds like the Me-410A never actually entered mass production.


Messerschmitt Me 410
All listed as "Neubau" were built from scratch without using stored Me 210 fuselages. The Me 210 production numbers are from the military archive Freiburg, they may have some roome for interpretions but it seems a/c for Hungary and Germany were separately counted by the RLM.


----------



## davebender (Jul 17, 2012)

Interesting that Me-410 new builds did not begin until November 1943. So German Me-210 / Me-410 production lines were shut down about 18 months. Milch probably thought he had the project killed until Hitler or Goering gave him a direct order to restart production.


----------



## rinkol (Jul 17, 2012)

At the time there was interest in using large calibre guns to attack bombers from outside the effective range of their defensive guns. A number of Me 410s were fitted with a 50 mm gun, but the effectiveness was hampered by the general difficulty in aiming, the limited ammunition supply, and a tendency to jam. Moreover, the considerable weight became a serious liability with escort fighters becoming ever more numerous. For the anti-bomber role, the R4M rocket turned out to be a much better bet, but came too late to have much effect.

Elsewhere, the Soviets made fairly extensive use of 37 mm guns for air-to-air combat and a 37 mm gun had been fitted to the P-39.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jul 17, 2012)

This has been a pretty interesting thread fellas, well done.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 17, 2012)

rinkol said:


> Elsewhere, the Soviets made fairly extensive use of 37 mm guns for air-to-air combat and a 37 mm gun had been fitted to the P-39.



there are 37mm guns and there are 37mm (or 40mm) cannon. 

The American 37mm gun weighed about 96KG. the most common Russian 37mm weighed about 170KG, a 40mm Bofors gun was around 440KG.


----------



## Oreo (Jul 18, 2012)

Weren't Bofors 40mm cannons primarily used as ground or ship-based anti-aircraft guns? And weren't they designed in Sweden (a neutral country) but used by practically every nation in the war?


----------



## stona (Jul 18, 2012)

It's worth pointing out that rockets and mortars on late war German aircraft weren't really intended to shoot down the bombers,though this would be a happy side effect were it to happen. The intention was to break up the formation making the individual bombers much safer targets.
A pilot could score points for a "Herrausschuss",seperating a bomber from its formation. He got two points for seperating a four engined bomber,only one less than shooting it down. Forty points theoretically got him a Knight's Cross. This is a reflection of the importance placed on disrupting the defensive formations of the bombers.

I've been looking at some pictures of the large calibre weapons fitted to Me 410s (in Petrick and Stockers's Me210/Me410 book) and they don't look nice. Enormous weapons which must have had a catastrophic effect on the handling of the aircraft which,in a cleaner conformation,was quite good.

Cheers
Steve


----------



## davebender (Jul 18, 2012)

A few 20mm mine shell hits are likely to cause enough damage to make that happen.


----------



## stona (Jul 18, 2012)

The psychological effect of a weapon can be as important as its physical effect. This was certainly the case with the air to air rockets.
The best example of this,whilst not in an air to air context,is napalm.
Steve


----------



## Erich (Jul 18, 2012)

actually the advent of the R4M was to shoot down bombers and well as the formations due to the fact that each wing carried a minimum of 12 rockets up to ............... 20 plus on piston as well as jet A/C. the Me 410 probably in effect had the widest range of LW cannon assortment known in the war. a perfect weapons base actually but as mentioned performance was driven off due to this fact.

side note: a book on ZG 76 and it's ops with the Bf 110G-2 and Me 410A and B is in the works


----------



## davebender (Jul 18, 2012)

I suspect a hit by even a single 20mm mine shell is bad for aircrew morale. It would certainly get my attention.


----------



## Erich (Jul 18, 2012)

yes about a 3 foot hole but lets realize this was from late June 44 onward after the Zerstörers had done what they could and almost time for the famed ZG units to become S/E JG's


----------



## davebender (Jul 18, 2012)

That doesn't sound right. 

I would expect a 3 foot hole from a 3cm mine shell. 20mm mine shell hole is probably more like 6 inches in size. Still plenty big for aircrew to notice and it's available much earlier then the 3cm Mk108 cannon.


----------



## Erich (Jul 18, 2012)

3-6 ft for a 3cm Minengeschoss HE/I, 3ft or less for a 2cm minengschoss 1944-45 HE/I. Mine rounds were not developed before 1944 for A/C.................. guncam footage shows this


----------



## stona (Jul 18, 2012)

It's not about the physical effect of the ordnance. The psychological effect,which many have tried and failed to quantify,has more to do with perception and anticipation than reality.
Many Bomber Command survivors are convinced to this day that the Germans fired pyrotechnic shells,the so called "scarecrows",to disconcert them but there is no evidence for this. 
Steve


----------



## davebender (Jul 18, 2012)

6 ft hole is an incredible amount of damage for one shell. If the weapon was that good why didn't Germany develop it 5 years earlier?


----------



## Erich (Jul 18, 2012)

Steve the pyros were actually priovedn to be from the Incendiary blue rounds/Glimmspur of the LW NF's SM installation.

Dave no idea why not developed much earlier, the content of the 3cm M round was strengthened even further as 1944 ended and did you know the contents within the 3cm could actually cause the aluminum skin of the Allied bombers to burn and with that all sorts of nasty fuze settings to burst upon hitting or penetrating the bomber and then exploding.

back to the Me 410, the machines were not equipped with the M rounds till almost out of service but figure a Me 410B variant with standard 6 forward 2cm weapons, that is extreme firepower for which an Allied bomber is going to have trouble withstanding.


----------



## davebender (Jul 18, 2012)

I hope Allied intelligence officers kept that information from bomber aircrew. If I knew the enemy had a weapon that powerful I would be too scared to take off.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 18, 2012)

Development of the Mine shell was a bit tricky. It required the forming of the thin wall body by special methods. A conventionally manufactured shell body that thin with a nose fuse would have buckled upon firing and possibly come apart in the gun or upon leaving the muzzle. According to some people the importance of the method used to make the mine shell is reflected in the Rheinmetall logo. It is not enough to have an idea. The idea must be able to be manufactured and manufactured in quantity and at an acceptable price. 


Allied bomber crews took off knowing the Germans had 88mm, 106mm and 128mm anti-aircraft guns that could blow wings off or fuselages in half. A 30mm mine shell, no matter how powerful, wasn't really in the same league.


----------



## Oreo (Jul 22, 2012)

Ok, so what is the difference between a mine shell and a regular explosive round? Maybe I'm missing something here, but didn't the 20mm rounds of all nations have the ability to fire explosive rounds, from the very beginning of the war? If not, then what rounds were the Hispanos, Rheinmetals, Mausers, etc. firing if not explosive rounds? Armor piercing?


----------



## Denniss (Jul 22, 2012)

Shell (projectile) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 22, 2012)

Oreo said:


> Ok, so what is the difference between a mine shell and a regular explosive round? Maybe I'm missing something here, but didn't the 20mm rounds of all nations have the ability to fire explosive rounds, from the very beginning of the war? If not, then what rounds were the Hispanos, Rheinmetals, Mausers, etc. firing if not explosive rounds? Armor piercing?



A mine shell, in 20mm size, could carry about twice the explosive of a normal HE shell. This had advantages and disadvantages. The thinner shell walls allowed more room for explosive but provided less shell fragments. Most (all service?) mine shells did not carry tracer components. Mine shells have poor penetration, granted most of the time this is not a big deal with fast acting fuses but the shell body of the mine shell is more likely to bend/break up/split open trying to penetrate thick stuff if the fuse doesn't function. 
Mine shells were also only used for the first couple of years in low velocity guns. That is a relative term but a 10% increase in velocity requires about a 20% increase in propellant and a higher chamber pressure. It took a while for the manufacturing process to get the mine shell body to stand up to high velocity firing without buckling. 
Mine shells improved the combat effectiveness of the German MG/FF (M) and the MG 151 but the were not an _UBER_ shell that made all other 20mm shells/guns obsolete.


----------



## Timppa (Jul 22, 2012)

> Most cannon shells were made by drilling a hole through a solid steel projectile, to make room for the chemical contents. This led to heavy, thick-walled shells which only contained around 8-10% HEI by weight. In a typical 20mm shell weighing 120g, this meant that only around 10g was HEI mixture. The Germans developed a new type of shell made by drawing from a disk of steel, just as cartridge cases are made. These projectiles were thin-walled and much lighter overall, yet had far more room for chemicals. Their large capacity led to them being called "mine shells", or Minengeschoss (M-Geschoss for short). The standard 20mm M-Geschoss weighed only 92g yet held 18-20g of HEI chemicals, doubling the blast/incendiary effect. It was not always better than the traditional heavy shell (it depended on where it hit) but was usually more effective. An additional benefit was that the light weight permitted a higher muzzle velocity, reducing the time of flight.



IDEAL WW2 FIGHTER ARMAMENT


----------



## Erich (Jul 22, 2012)

yes rounds of 2cm and 3cm also had Incendiary as well as Tracer, this the case of Glimmspur used for LW night fighters in forward arms but especially for the twin to single SM installation. there is actually much in the way of text on the Minengeschoss on the net just need to search it out. LW rounds for the m shell had special colored markings usually colored bands at the base of the round indicating the special ingredients beyond the normal yellow body of the HE round.


----------



## davebender (Jul 22, 2012)

HE shells varied so widely that you really need to look at them individually.

22g HE filler for 2cm Flak38.
18g HE filler for typical MG151/20 and MG FF mine shell.
6 to 11g HE filler for Hs.404 20mm shells.

I have read that 6g was typical for WWII Hs.404 shells and 11g typical for post WWII. Does anyone have more specific information?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 22, 2012)

When did the Mineshell for the 2cm Flak38 show up and how many were made and issued? 

According to Tony William's book the British HE Mk 1.z projectile had either 10.5g Pentolite or 10.2g Tetryl. The US HEI MK 1 had 7g Tetryl + 4.3g of incendiary. 

British had a SAPI projectile that had about 8-9 grams of incendiary filler if I recall right. ( a standard HE or incendiary shell body with with a hardened steel cap screwed in where the fuse normally would go.) 

6 grams of HE in a 130 gram HE projectile sounds way too light but may be correct for a HE tracer round. Please note that the German 20mm HET for the MG 151 had around/between 3.7 to 4.4 grams of filler depending on source and if shell has HE -T or HEI-T. And that is for 117 gram projectiles. Many 20mm shells had the HE capacity cut _roughly_ in half when a tracer element was added.


----------



## davebender (Jul 22, 2012)

2 cm Flak 30/38/Flakvierling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> Brandsprenggranatpatrone mit Zerleger
> 22 g total (HE and incendiary)
> Nose fuze, no tracer, with self-destruct. Lack of tracer and high density of incendiary allows heavy filling load.


A German mine shell would normally be listed as "Minengeschosspatrone". I think this is just normal HEI for the large 20 x 138mm B cartridge.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 22, 2012)

Still doesn't tell us when it showed up. The is a British manual of light German AA and AT guns published in Dec of 1942 that lists 8 different rounds for the Flak 30 38. This round is not one of them. Now this round could have been being issued in Nov and it was too late to change the manual but I would doubt that this round was in use in 1941 or before. SO we don't know if it was late 1942 or 1943 or the spring of 1945. 

I would also question the Wiki description. Every other round uses tracer burn through for the self destruct ( so live fused ammo doesn't fall on friendly troops/civilians) yet this round does not. While it is possible to design a 20mm fuse that will self destruct without using tracer burn through it makes for a larger, more complicated fuse. take out the coma and the description would be saying there is no self destruct.


----------



## davebender (Jul 22, 2012)

Is that true for rounds normally employed against ground targets as the 2cm Flak 38 was?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 22, 2012)

As far as I can find out, yes. 

Why complicate the ammunition supply with more types of ammo than you really need? The self destruct doesn't function until around 2000 meters which is far enough for any practical ground firing.


----------



## Erich (Jul 23, 2012)

that is not true for LW dayfighters, will be back with more specifics after chemo treatments ................ about tracer


----------



## Denniss (Jul 23, 2012)

Mine ammo had the same colour as standard LW HE ammo - yellow. It just had an *M* stamped inside the yellow. A green band above the yellow was for self-destructive fuze (Zerleger), a red band below yellow was for standard tracer, a dark red band below yellow was for glow tracer.


----------



## Erich (Jul 23, 2012)

to add to Dennis's posting the 2cm M round RDX/mixed with powdered Aluminum which boosted the blast effect by 30 %

US translation was the RDX/Cyclonite-Hexagen; which is cycle-trimethylene-tetramine which is 1.3 to 1.4 times more powerful than TNT.

Penthrite was the base for the 2cm HE round as well as the newer 2cm M HE round but later replaced with the HE component and Aluminum powder which was termed as : HA 41 = an HE/I round.

One 2cm M-Geschoßpatroae 151 m. Zerl had filler of 18.6 Nitropenta or HA 41 and this varied as the war progressed to heavier amounts of internal content and more explosive fuzes. Eval tests showed that 18 rounds were needed to bring down 1 US heavy bomber. (obviosuly directed to the major internal parts - inner engines and fuel tanks). late war 2cm rounds weighed in more than 104 grams and had hydro-static fuzes which were intended to be fired and detonate the fuel tanks.

colored bands at the base of the fuze were to differentiate between the 2cm rounds as well as the colored bodies.

for the body of both 2cm and 3cm Minengeschoss rounds :

yellow bodywas standard for HE
Blue bodyall over was an INCENDIARY ROUND, USED FOR NIGHT FIGHTERS
Grey body overall was a practice round

following 4 had yellow body but different colored bands at the top under the fuze

red ring was round with tracer
dark wine red ring was round with special night tracer
green ring was round was self-destroying including fuze
blue ring was round (HE/I)


----------



## Denniss (Jul 24, 2012)

Just another add-on:
The main body color was definded by the main component/shell type, all other rings are add-ons to the main shell type. Main color black is missing, used for AP rounds.
Overall blue color does not specify a usage for night fighters, just a marker for an incendiary round.
The red/dark red rings for standard/night (glow) tracer were always at the bottom, below the main shell color


----------



## razor1uk (Jul 24, 2012)

Erich said:


> not sure Dave but Squadron Signal softback on the craft I believe has a couple pics under a ? test Kommando ? anyone confirm this please .............


As far as I know, the triple racked '21' set ups were deemed much too degrading to A/C performance (both in loaded and unloaded forms) and apart from propaganda perposes, weren't used operationaly against bombers - hence why only a few kits were built as R&D, most likely they were returned to more normal dual Wr.Gr.21 set ups.



donkeyking said:


> Is this Me410's one of leading-edge slats or flap?
> and who can tell me what's functions in Me410?
> many thanks


since no one replied to you Donkeyking, they are the to do with the radiator system just like on 'F' (or later) model 109's - themostatically auto adjusting to provide optimal coolant temperature for its adjacent engine.



CharlesBronson said:


> And for those who still have doubts... ( people of little faith  )


It might have been said a page or two later, but whom ever printed that caption must be blind, inept, seriously having a bad day or just plain missed it. 
The port side barbette' is clearly visible pointing downwards - you can see the MK's ejection port angled say around H-70 deg-ish; just around the rear bottom of the the trench coated guy on the wing.



peterpro said:


> Well actually it was a combination of the R4 kit(2 MG151/20 gunpod) and the R5 kit (4 MG151/20 in the bomb bay).In the Me-410 mod for IL-2 it is possible to use this configuration in the Me-410B under the R4/R5 configuration.


For which IL-2 version and by what group - HSFX, SAS, UP, DBW... etc? 
While an avid IL-2 fan, and I appreiciate the tie in to one of the best WW2 combat sims, I don't think that is evidence itself, just a '1946' style-a-like 'what if'/'if they could have'. Apologies for appearing to jump on you, this isn't meant to be a mauling... lol


----------



## stona (Jul 24, 2012)

Re: Barbettes.
I have copies of documents proposing the development of the Me 410 put forward by the Messerschmitt Projektburo,Oberammergau,dated 15 May 1944.
There are more than forty proposed variants (including various bomb loads) and every single one of them features the barbettes.

None feature external gun pods despite being pure fantasy. 

My favourite is a night fighter designated "Me 410 III" and features four upward firing cannon (schrage musik) two between the crewmen and two about halfway down the fuselage. It also features the ubiquitous barbettes and four forward firing cannon in the nose. I'd be surprised if they could have got it off the ground!

Cheers
Steve


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 24, 2012)

Let me guess. this "official" document also lists either 500 or 1000 rpg for the cannon too?


----------



## peterpro (Jul 24, 2012)

Well the mod itself has received many significant updates lately and it i suggest a visit to sas1946 for further details.However i have been quite interested in this pequliar loadout (r4/r5) and i would like to know more about it.


----------



## Erich (Jul 24, 2012)

triples as you will notice on Hungarian A/C only I know of NO LW A/C with this installation though there was a experiment with 4-inline launchers under the belly.

Steve back on the other page yes correct the blue bodied round of 2cm not for LW NF use only just mentioned that it was used by them with the dark red colored band at the base. have a round actually coming from Germany with this configuration.


----------



## Maverick93 (Aug 7, 2014)

Hey everyone! 

I am grandson of Fritz Stehle and after some intense research i finally managed to find something about his time during is service in WW2 in this forum! 
Unfortunately he never spoke until his death about his time/experiences so the most of the information I found where on the Internet. 
I know this doesn't suit in this thread but could somebody tell me more about his time during war and maybe some books as reference? Especially Erich looks like you might know a few things  

Have a nice day!

Regards from Germany

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## mhuxt (Aug 8, 2014)

Hi Maverick,

If you've not already seen it, have a look at this file of Luftwaffe Officers, your grandfather's ranks and appointments are in there:

http://www.ww2.dk/Lw Offz - S-Z - Apr 2014.pdf


----------



## Erich (Aug 8, 2014)

Maverick send me a private bitte. am most interested in your Opa's service in ZG 26 and JG 7. Also the Kracker archiv as well for a possible background history Fritz Co'd 2./JG 7 for a time as well


----------



## vikingBerserker (Aug 8, 2014)

Welcome aboard Maverick, you are correct Erich knows a few things


----------



## Crimea_River (Aug 8, 2014)

And so will we when his book comes out!


----------



## MN Warbirder (May 4, 2017)

I agree with this last assessment - way, way too late in the game Germany realized it needed more effective bomber interceptors. It tried to develop these quickly, and the design inventiveness and variety they showed was/is incredible, but the inability to do the rest of the tasks involved in addressing the problem - e.g., produce enough of the most effective designs and put enough capable pilots in them - was also evident. In terms of approach, the Me 109 or Fw 190 certainly seems to have been their "best bets" in hindsight, perhaps also the 262 if it had been able to be produced sooner, and in much greater numbers. But the sheer number and variety of designs developed really is amazing.

Re: Interceptor twin engined prop designs' failings vs. single-engine ones, the issue was shared by the US as well but thanks to the P-38's better overall design (IMO), as well as the outcome of the war, it is heralded as a classic. Nevertheless many retroactively see the continued use of the Lightning in Europe as a comparative misallocation of resources vs. other US fighter designs which were much cheaper to produce and maintain, and as effective (or more so) in combat. That said, the P-38 had it's advantages and was the 8th AF's best-available fighter escort until the advent of the P-47 and later the Merlin-engined P-51s. After replacement for the escort role, the decision makers involved likely felt that sunk cost dictated a re-purposing of the plane pilots and crews for ground attack missions was the most prudent thing to do. In the Pacific things were different and the P-38's footing as a uniquely capable fighter for that theatre stayed obvious through to end of hostilities, though even there the P-51 began to displace it in '45.

As to the Me 410, I can only say that Lt. Royal D. Frey - were he alive today - would probably disagree with those who say it was no match for a P-38, as he was shot down by one in February 1944 over Germany. And even moreso, everyone involved in USAAF Mission 311 would likely have a similarly fearful view of the effectiveness of the Me 410. 

That said, the performance numbers for each are what they are, and the Luftwaffe did what it did surely for good reasons. Probably IS safe to say Germany should've done more to prioritize production to the designs that had the best combination of economy and performance, but I see their decisions as perhaps inevitable, given their faith in design superiority vs. quantity in general (one could say this about their approach to tanks as well, for example). Ironically the U.S. military industrial complex also seems to be adopting this strategy today as opposed to the strategies of the Russians and Chinese.


----------

