The Defiants guns could fire forward. The turrets guns could be brought down on each side of the pilot and then they were automatically slaved into a interruptor gear. That had to be disconcerting for the pilot though, and was just 4 .303's.
Defiant - WI results of Cabinet meeting
- Thread starter merlin
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Edgar Brooks
Senior Airman
One correction:- the Spitfire prototype was designed to F.37/34E, not F.10/35 (for which nothing was tendered, possibly because it called for 6, preferably 8 cannon.) For F.37/35, Supermarine's tender was the Type 312, which was to carry 4 Oerlikon 20mm cannon, but it was cancelled.
On Sept 27th., the Ju.88s did not get through to London, in fact they (L/Kg77) turned back, since all of their escorts had been previously engaged. Their second (afternoon) raid, with their remaining two Gruppen, fared no better, since they were intercepted by 30-40 Hurricanes Spitfires. In all that day the Germans lost 19 x 109s, 21 x 110s 17 bombers; the RAF lost 29. None of the targets were hit, so it's totally untrue to say that they got through to London, and back. Should you refuse to believe it, read "The Most Dangerous Enemy."
On the Defiant, the interrupter gear was to ensure that the guns didn't hit part of the airframe, when fired; it did not stop them hitting the propeller, so it was only really safe for the guns to be elevated above the arc of the prop, when firing forward.
The Defiant proved that dinosaurs still lived, in the corridors of the Air Ministry; the concept didn't die with that a/c, since there was insistence, in some quarters, that the Mosquito should carry a turret.
Edgar
On Sept 27th., the Ju.88s did not get through to London, in fact they (L/Kg77) turned back, since all of their escorts had been previously engaged. Their second (afternoon) raid, with their remaining two Gruppen, fared no better, since they were intercepted by 30-40 Hurricanes Spitfires. In all that day the Germans lost 19 x 109s, 21 x 110s 17 bombers; the RAF lost 29. None of the targets were hit, so it's totally untrue to say that they got through to London, and back. Should you refuse to believe it, read "The Most Dangerous Enemy."
On the Defiant, the interrupter gear was to ensure that the guns didn't hit part of the airframe, when fired; it did not stop them hitting the propeller, so it was only really safe for the guns to be elevated above the arc of the prop, when firing forward.
The Defiant proved that dinosaurs still lived, in the corridors of the Air Ministry; the concept didn't die with that a/c, since there was insistence, in some quarters, that the Mosquito should carry a turret.
Edgar
davebender
1st Lieutenant
Oberstleutnant Walter Grabmann states otherwise in a first hand account.
.....extract.
By the time the bombers reached London they were guarded only by weak Zerstorer forces. Concentrated attacks over London by superior numbers of British fighters drew away the last forces escorting the bombers (Ju-88s). And so, for example, the 13 aircraft of ZG76 (I led this formation myself) found ourselves in a defensive circle over London for more then twenty minutes and during this time we were engaged by several British fighter squadrons. We sustained no losses while in the defensive circle.
The power station target was located in a bend of the Thames. Given the huge RAF numerical superiority I doubt the Ju-88s could bomb accurately. I suspect their bombs ended up in the river. Hence the power station did not report being bombed.
.....extract.
By the time the bombers reached London they were guarded only by weak Zerstorer forces. Concentrated attacks over London by superior numbers of British fighters drew away the last forces escorting the bombers (Ju-88s). And so, for example, the 13 aircraft of ZG76 (I led this formation myself) found ourselves in a defensive circle over London for more then twenty minutes and during this time we were engaged by several British fighter squadrons. We sustained no losses while in the defensive circle.
The power station target was located in a bend of the Thames. Given the huge RAF numerical superiority I doubt the Ju-88s could bomb accurately. I suspect their bombs ended up in the river. Hence the power station did not report being bombed.
woljags
Staff Sergeant
a very interesting post but i have to agree that not developing the whirlwind properly by correcting its faults was a missed option for the RAF also why didn't they use Mosquito's in fighter form sooner as an option with cannons fitted they would have made short work of the bombers with hurricanes and spits as cover
michaelmaltby
Colonel
Despite its ineffective design, the Defiant had an impressive number of kills to its credit during the 1939-40 interval. I read somewhere that it was the leading scorer in the RAF for that interval -- which I find hard to believe. Does anyone know what the Defiant scorecard 1939-40 actually was?
MM
MM
- Thread starter
- #26
wooljags:
They would need to have ordered the mosquito much earlier than they did, and many didn't want to order in the first place. As it was on Dc 29, 1939 the Air Ministry accepted De Havilland's proposal, and on Mar 1, 1940 a contract was placed for fifty bombers. The Company despite any official interest allowed for the installation of 4 x 20 mm cannon in the design, so that towards the end of 1940 the contract was amended to 20 bombers and thirty fighters.
The first fighter prototype therefore flew May 15, 1941, entering service with Fighter Command as a night-fighter in May 1942.
They would need to have ordered the mosquito much earlier than they did, and many didn't want to order in the first place. As it was on Dc 29, 1939 the Air Ministry accepted De Havilland's proposal, and on Mar 1, 1940 a contract was placed for fifty bombers. The Company despite any official interest allowed for the installation of 4 x 20 mm cannon in the design, so that towards the end of 1940 the contract was amended to 20 bombers and thirty fighters.
The first fighter prototype therefore flew May 15, 1941, entering service with Fighter Command as a night-fighter in May 1942.
Edgar Brooks
Senior Airman
I'm not really interested in what a Luftwaffe pilot (not renowned for their recognition abilities) says; the intercepting fighters reported wading into a defensive circle over Swanage (which is on the south coast,) and others had a huge dogfight over East Sussex (which is nowhere near London.) In the afternoon, out of an estimated 300 aircraft, about 20 got through.
Edgar
Not wishing to hijack the thread but if I may, I would like to clarify the identities of the first RAF squadrons engaged and the total confirmed Luftwaffe losses in daylight operations against the UK on 27 September 1940 in three attacks on London and one on Bristol.
Against Bristol:
1 x Ju88 ( recce flight) and 3 x Bf 110s.
Against London:
13 x Ju 88s, 13 x Bf 110s (including that of the ZG76 Adjutant) and 9 Bf 109s.
A total of 39 aircraft in all which makes it the fourth or fifth highest number of daily Luftwaffe combat losses over Britain during the period 10 July - 31 October 1940.
The first combat of the day began shortly after 09.00 hrs (UK time) when elements of No.1(RCAF) and 303(Polish) squadrons engaged a force of approximately twenty Ju 88s with an escort of sixty plus Bf 109s a few miles south of Gatwick.
I could include here a commentary of the entire day's operations but due to its length and complexity I would probably incur the wrath of the moderator for not only hijacking the thread but for also using up too much bandwidth etc!!
Information for this post taken from official German and British records.
Cheers
Dave
Against Bristol:
1 x Ju88 ( recce flight) and 3 x Bf 110s.
Against London:
13 x Ju 88s, 13 x Bf 110s (including that of the ZG76 Adjutant) and 9 Bf 109s.
A total of 39 aircraft in all which makes it the fourth or fifth highest number of daily Luftwaffe combat losses over Britain during the period 10 July - 31 October 1940.
The first combat of the day began shortly after 09.00 hrs (UK time) when elements of No.1(RCAF) and 303(Polish) squadrons engaged a force of approximately twenty Ju 88s with an escort of sixty plus Bf 109s a few miles south of Gatwick.
I could include here a commentary of the entire day's operations but due to its length and complexity I would probably incur the wrath of the moderator for not only hijacking the thread but for also using up too much bandwidth etc!!
Information for this post taken from official German and British records.
Cheers
Dave
davebender
1st Lieutenant
Mosquitoes flying in 1940 would be powered by the same 1,030 hp engines that powered early model Spitfires. What sort of performance would you expect with 2,060 total hp? Bear in mind that the German Me-110C4 was considerably lighter in weight and had slightly more engine power.
A correction to my earlier post regarding Luftwaffe losses in the four raids against the UK on 27 September. While trying to do three things at the same time I made an error in the numbers of Bf110s lost in the raids against Bristol and London.
There were actually eight lost against both targets during the course of that day.
The nine losses against Bristol were:
Ju 88A-5(F) 4U+RL of the 3.(F)/123 near Bristol at 09.40 hrs
Bf 110D-3 S9+DA of the Stab ErpGr.210 near Cranbourne Chase at 12.00hrs
Bf 110D-3 S9+JH of the 1./ErpGr. 210 at Kimmeridge at 11.45hrs
Bf 110D/0 S9+DK of the 2./ErpGr.210 near Iwerne Minster at 12.00hrs
Bf 110C U8+FK of the 2./ZG26 at Fishponds near Bristol at 11.45hrs
Bf 110C U8+GL of the 3./ZG26 at Radstock at 11.45hrs
Bf 110C 3U+IM of the 4./ZG26 near Arne at 11.45hrs
Bf 110C 3U+DS of the 8./ZG26 near Wareham at 11.45hrs
Bf 110C 3U+FT of the 9./ZG26 at Piddletrenthide at 11.45hrs
This leaves the thirty losses in the attacks against London as being:
Bf 109E-1 of the 9./JG3 near Gushmore at 15.40hrs
Bf 109E-1 of the 5./JG27 near Selmeston at 09.25hrs
Bf 109E-4 of the 6./JG27 near Aylesford at 12.40hrs
Bf 109E-1 of the Stab II./JG52 near Hollingbourne at 13.00hrs
Bf 109E-4 of the 4./JG52 near St Nicholas at Wade at 15.40hrs
Bf 109E-1 of the 4./JG52 near Sandwich at 15.40hrs
Bf 109E-1 of the 4./JG52 near Petham at 15.45hrs
Bf 109E-1 of the 5./JG52 near Tenterden at 12.50hrs
Bf 109E-4 of the 8./JG54 near Canterbury at 12.05hrs
Ju 88 3Z+DH of the 1./KG77 at Cudham at 11.05hrs
Ju 88 3Z+HK of the 2./KG77 near Dorking at 09.30hrs
Ju 88 3Z+IK of the 2./KG77 in Channel off Lydd at the low water mark at 09.40hrs
Ju 88 3Z+BL of the 3./KG77 at East Grinstead at 09.20hrs
Ju 88 3Z+CL of the 3./KG77 near Horsmonden at 15.30hrs
Ju 88 3Z+EL of the 3./KG77 f/landed near Faversham at 15.40hrs
Ju 88 3Z+DC of the Stab II./KG77 at Penshurst at 15.30hrs
Ju 88 3Z+DN of the 5./KG77 in Channel off St Leonards at 16.00hrs
Ju 88 3Z+GN of the 5./KG77 in Channel off Beachy Head at 16.00hrs
Ju 88 3Z+HN of the 5./KG77 in Channel off Bexhill at 16.00hrs
Ju 88 3Z+DP of the 6./KG77 at Chiddingstone at 15.30hrs
Ju 88 L1+DR of the 7./LG1 in sea off St David's Head at 18.45hrs
Ju 88 L1+BR of the 7./LG1 in sea off St David's Head at 18.47hrs
Bf 110C L1+XB of the V./LG1 at Hailsham at 09.50hrs
Bf 110D/0 L1+BH of the 13./LG1 in Channel off Sandwich 09.40hrs
Bf 110D/0 L1+CH of the 13./LG1 at Ashdown Forest at 09.40hrs
Bf 110C L1+CK of the 14./LG1 near Heathfield at 09.50hrs
Bf 110D/0 L1+BL of the 15./LG1 next to Gatwick aerodrome at 10.00hrs
Bf 110C L1+GL of the15./LG1 at Horam Manor Farm at 09.50hrs
Bf 110C L1+LL of the 15./LG1 at Oxted at 09.45hrs
Bf 110D-3 M8+XE of the Stab ZG76 in sea off Hastings at 10.00hrs
Note: It is possible that the times given for the two 7./LG1 Ju 88 losses at 18.45 and 18.47 may be incorrect as the relevant column in the German document is badly worn and difficult to read (the original appears to have been creased) so it is likely that the times should read 16.45 and 16.47.
Cheers
Dave
There were actually eight lost against both targets during the course of that day.
The nine losses against Bristol were:
Ju 88A-5(F) 4U+RL of the 3.(F)/123 near Bristol at 09.40 hrs
Bf 110D-3 S9+DA of the Stab ErpGr.210 near Cranbourne Chase at 12.00hrs
Bf 110D-3 S9+JH of the 1./ErpGr. 210 at Kimmeridge at 11.45hrs
Bf 110D/0 S9+DK of the 2./ErpGr.210 near Iwerne Minster at 12.00hrs
Bf 110C U8+FK of the 2./ZG26 at Fishponds near Bristol at 11.45hrs
Bf 110C U8+GL of the 3./ZG26 at Radstock at 11.45hrs
Bf 110C 3U+IM of the 4./ZG26 near Arne at 11.45hrs
Bf 110C 3U+DS of the 8./ZG26 near Wareham at 11.45hrs
Bf 110C 3U+FT of the 9./ZG26 at Piddletrenthide at 11.45hrs
This leaves the thirty losses in the attacks against London as being:
Bf 109E-1 of the 9./JG3 near Gushmore at 15.40hrs
Bf 109E-1 of the 5./JG27 near Selmeston at 09.25hrs
Bf 109E-4 of the 6./JG27 near Aylesford at 12.40hrs
Bf 109E-1 of the Stab II./JG52 near Hollingbourne at 13.00hrs
Bf 109E-4 of the 4./JG52 near St Nicholas at Wade at 15.40hrs
Bf 109E-1 of the 4./JG52 near Sandwich at 15.40hrs
Bf 109E-1 of the 4./JG52 near Petham at 15.45hrs
Bf 109E-1 of the 5./JG52 near Tenterden at 12.50hrs
Bf 109E-4 of the 8./JG54 near Canterbury at 12.05hrs
Ju 88 3Z+DH of the 1./KG77 at Cudham at 11.05hrs
Ju 88 3Z+HK of the 2./KG77 near Dorking at 09.30hrs
Ju 88 3Z+IK of the 2./KG77 in Channel off Lydd at the low water mark at 09.40hrs
Ju 88 3Z+BL of the 3./KG77 at East Grinstead at 09.20hrs
Ju 88 3Z+CL of the 3./KG77 near Horsmonden at 15.30hrs
Ju 88 3Z+EL of the 3./KG77 f/landed near Faversham at 15.40hrs
Ju 88 3Z+DC of the Stab II./KG77 at Penshurst at 15.30hrs
Ju 88 3Z+DN of the 5./KG77 in Channel off St Leonards at 16.00hrs
Ju 88 3Z+GN of the 5./KG77 in Channel off Beachy Head at 16.00hrs
Ju 88 3Z+HN of the 5./KG77 in Channel off Bexhill at 16.00hrs
Ju 88 3Z+DP of the 6./KG77 at Chiddingstone at 15.30hrs
Ju 88 L1+DR of the 7./LG1 in sea off St David's Head at 18.45hrs
Ju 88 L1+BR of the 7./LG1 in sea off St David's Head at 18.47hrs
Bf 110C L1+XB of the V./LG1 at Hailsham at 09.50hrs
Bf 110D/0 L1+BH of the 13./LG1 in Channel off Sandwich 09.40hrs
Bf 110D/0 L1+CH of the 13./LG1 at Ashdown Forest at 09.40hrs
Bf 110C L1+CK of the 14./LG1 near Heathfield at 09.50hrs
Bf 110D/0 L1+BL of the 15./LG1 next to Gatwick aerodrome at 10.00hrs
Bf 110C L1+GL of the15./LG1 at Horam Manor Farm at 09.50hrs
Bf 110C L1+LL of the 15./LG1 at Oxted at 09.45hrs
Bf 110D-3 M8+XE of the Stab ZG76 in sea off Hastings at 10.00hrs
Note: It is possible that the times given for the two 7./LG1 Ju 88 losses at 18.45 and 18.47 may be incorrect as the relevant column in the German document is badly worn and difficult to read (the original appears to have been creased) so it is likely that the times should read 16.45 and 16.47.
Cheers
Dave
Last edited:
davebender
1st Lieutenant
Are you sure the light bombers of ErpGr.210 employed the huge belly fuel tank (i.e. Me-110D)?
Jabberwocky
Staff Sergeant
Maybe the Merlin XII is a better engine candidate than the Merlin II/III?
Merlin XII was certified at the end of 1939 and production began in very early 1940. The engine gave 1175 hp at +9lbs boost and 15,000 ft.
Its not inconceivable that an earlier Mosquito could feature 2350 hp, rather than just 2060 hp. If this is the case, its not too far down from the 2560 hp that the early Merlin 21 powered Mosquito marks featured.
The Merlin 21 was initially limited to +12 lbs boost and around 1280 hp. This was increased to +14/+16 hp (1460/1435 hp depending on altitude) during 1942.
The early Mosquito Mks with Merlin 21s at +12 lbs had top level speed performance somewhere between 355 and 375 mph, depending on fit out and other modifications.
Having less engine power and a single stage, single speed engine (Merlin III or Merlin XII) is obviously going to affect the performance of the aircraft. This will be particularly notable as altitude increases.
However, there is an interesting 1942 test (comparing matte and smooth paint finishes) of a Mosquito Mk II with Merlin 21s at just 8.5 lbs boost. Looking at a Merlin XX power chart, this level of boost would give approximately 1150 hp at 12,000 ft in MS gear and 1100 hp at 18,000 feet in FS gear. This is not too far at all from a theoretical Merlin XII powered aircraft.
The tested Mk II had a top speed of 368 mph with the smooth finish and 358 mph with the matte finish. Both of these speeds are in FS gear.
There is also a test of a Merlin 21 powered B Mk IV with multi-stub exhausts at +9lbs, giving about 1210 hp. Top speed at MS was 375 mph, at FS was 380 mph. Exhaust stubs were reckoned to add 13-15 mph to the aircraft's top speed.
Given these tests, its not out of the realm of possibility that a Merlin XII powered Mosquito could make somewhere between 350 and 360 mph, perhaps slightly more.
This would be consistent with the relationship between the Spitfire and the Mosquito through the war. Unladen, the Mosquito was generally 5-10 mph faster, at all altitudes, when fitted with similar engines to the Spitfire.
Shortround6
Major General
A problem with a squadron service Mosquito in the summer/fall of 1940 is that the prototype would have had to be flying in 1939. In 1939, without 100 octane fuel, the Merlin was good for 880 hp at take-off. Power increased with height until 16,250 ft. Take- off and low altitude performance would have been on the dismal side. Granted by the time of the BoB the Merlin had been cleared for 12lb of boost instead of 6lbs but that was not a sure thing when the decision to go into production would have had to have been made. A partial solution would have been the Merlin X engine. With it's two speed supercharger it offered better take-off and low altitude performance. Unfortunately, bomber command had them so tied up that no fighter ever got one.
In 1940 you still have the problem of the Drum feed Hispano. The Beaufighter got around it by using the rear seater to change drums in flight (same solution was used by the Me 110). The second crewman in the Mosquito would have had to be able to get access to the rear of the guns for reloading. Not impossible but a further complication.
In 1940 you still have the problem of the Drum feed Hispano. The Beaufighter got around it by using the rear seater to change drums in flight (same solution was used by the Me 110). The second crewman in the Mosquito would have had to be able to get access to the rear of the guns for reloading. Not impossible but a further complication.
davebender
1st Lieutenant
If there were a 1940 flight competition I don't see how the Mosquito could win. The Whirlwind is superior in every way except endurance. Of course the Whirlwind is superior to the Defiant also so anything is possible.
Mustang nut
Banned
- 200
- Jun 14, 2011
The Defiant was superior to the Mosquito and the Whirlwind during the BoB because it was in service. If the whirlwind was sorted and available in numbers it would have made a big difference I am sure, as may the mosquito, but they wernt. If you jump two years during WW2 almost any plane is superior to that fielded by the opposition.
davebender
1st Lieutenant
Westland Whirlwind (fighter) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
What if the RAF provided more money for the Peregrine engine program? I think the Whirlwind could have been in mass production during 1940.
It appears to me the Whirlwind had the same problem as the Fw-187 and He-100. Lack of engines.
What if the RAF provided more money for the Peregrine engine program? I think the Whirlwind could have been in mass production during 1940.
Edgar Brooks
Senior Airman
It wasn't money; it was capacity. Peregrines could only be built at the expense of Merlins, so the Air Ministry would lose two Spitfire or Hurricane engines for every Whirlwind built. The Mosquito won, also, on two counts; being made of wood, it could be built in furniture factories (in my home town,) using presently redundant woodworkers, and Westland were needed to build Spitfires/Seafires. Performance of the Whirlwind fell off with height, which became crucial once the RAF was flying into Europe, and, another consideration was that the fuel was not transferable between wings, so one engine out caused all sorts of problems.
Edgar
Edgar
davebender
1st Lieutenant
Germany could have built another DB601 engine plant during the late 1930s to provide engines for the Fw-187 and He-100. Britain could have built a dedicated Peregrine engine plant during the same time frame. It's just a matter of how nations decide to spend their military budget. Make the Whirlwind a priority and that Peregrine engine plant will get built.
davebender wrote:
"Are you sure the light bombers of ErpGr.210 employed the huge belly fuel tank (i.e. Me-110D)"
If this query was directed at me as a follow on to my post about 27 Sept Lw losses over the UK then I'm a bit confused as I made no mention whatsoever as to whether or not they were fitted with the belly tanks. Anyway and be that as it may, for this operation the D-0/B S9+DK W.Nr.4270 and crewed by Fw Fritz Ebner (pilot) and Gefr.Werner Zwick (observer/gunner) was not fitted with the long belly tank but was fitted with an ETC bomb carrier instead. The D-3 S9+DH was also fitted with an ETC bomb carrier as was presumably the other D-3, S9+JH.
Briefly, the D series were:
The D-0/B was the first of the fighter-bombers of the D series and as such had their 'Dackelbauch' fuel tanks removed to allow for the installation of an under-fuselage ETC 500/IX bomb carrier. The D-0/B also had provision for the carriage of a pair of underwing drop tanks and an auxiliary oil tank under the rear fuselage.
The D-1 was originally intended for the reconnaissance role but this was changed and the few (73 airframes) that were built became D-1 'long-range' fighters without the 'Dackelbauch' fitted but with provision for the externally carried fuel and oil tanks.
The D-2 was exactly the same as the D-0/B and could be fitted with either a 'Dackelbauch' or an ETC 500/IX and/or the externally carried fuel and oil tanks.
The D-3 was designed specifically not to be able to carry the 'Dackelbauch' fuel tank but could be fitted with the ETC 500/IX and/or under wing tanks and external under fuselage oil tank.
Cheers
Dave
"Are you sure the light bombers of ErpGr.210 employed the huge belly fuel tank (i.e. Me-110D)"
If this query was directed at me as a follow on to my post about 27 Sept Lw losses over the UK then I'm a bit confused as I made no mention whatsoever as to whether or not they were fitted with the belly tanks. Anyway and be that as it may, for this operation the D-0/B S9+DK W.Nr.4270 and crewed by Fw Fritz Ebner (pilot) and Gefr.Werner Zwick (observer/gunner) was not fitted with the long belly tank but was fitted with an ETC bomb carrier instead. The D-3 S9+DH was also fitted with an ETC bomb carrier as was presumably the other D-3, S9+JH.
Briefly, the D series were:
The D-0/B was the first of the fighter-bombers of the D series and as such had their 'Dackelbauch' fuel tanks removed to allow for the installation of an under-fuselage ETC 500/IX bomb carrier. The D-0/B also had provision for the carriage of a pair of underwing drop tanks and an auxiliary oil tank under the rear fuselage.
The D-1 was originally intended for the reconnaissance role but this was changed and the few (73 airframes) that were built became D-1 'long-range' fighters without the 'Dackelbauch' fitted but with provision for the externally carried fuel and oil tanks.
The D-2 was exactly the same as the D-0/B and could be fitted with either a 'Dackelbauch' or an ETC 500/IX and/or the externally carried fuel and oil tanks.
The D-3 was designed specifically not to be able to carry the 'Dackelbauch' fuel tank but could be fitted with the ETC 500/IX and/or under wing tanks and external under fuselage oil tank.
Cheers
Dave
davebender
1st Lieutenant
Messerschmitt Bf 110 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Bf 110 D-1 Long-range Zerstörer, modified C series airframes with Dackelbauch belly tank.
Bf 110 D-1/R2 Long-range Zerstörer, removed Dackelbauch tanks and replaced with wing mounted 900 L (240 US gal) drop tanks.
Bf 110 D-2 Long-range Zerstörer, two wing-mounted 300 L (80 US gal) drop tanks and centerline mounted 500 kg (1,100 lb) ETC 500 bomb rack.
Bf 110 D-3 Long-range Zerstörer, lengthened tail for rescue dingy. Either two wing-mounted 300 L (80 US gal) or 900 L (240 US gal) drop tanks could be fitted. 500 kg (1,100 lb) ETC 500 was optional.
Now I see...
The original Me-110D1 was a Me-110C with the large Dackelbauch belly tank added. The belly tank didn't work well so long range versions of the Me-110 switched to using a pair of 900L wing mounted drop tanks. However the Me-110D designation was retained rather then reverting back to the Me-110C designation.
It appears to me a Dackelbauch belly tank would prevent installation of the 3cm Mk101 cannon. That's the main reason I didn't think ErpGr.210 would use Me-110Ds.
Bf 110 D-1 Long-range Zerstörer, modified C series airframes with Dackelbauch belly tank.
Bf 110 D-1/R2 Long-range Zerstörer, removed Dackelbauch tanks and replaced with wing mounted 900 L (240 US gal) drop tanks.
Bf 110 D-2 Long-range Zerstörer, two wing-mounted 300 L (80 US gal) drop tanks and centerline mounted 500 kg (1,100 lb) ETC 500 bomb rack.
Bf 110 D-3 Long-range Zerstörer, lengthened tail for rescue dingy. Either two wing-mounted 300 L (80 US gal) or 900 L (240 US gal) drop tanks could be fitted. 500 kg (1,100 lb) ETC 500 was optional.
Now I see...
The original Me-110D1 was a Me-110C with the large Dackelbauch belly tank added. The belly tank didn't work well so long range versions of the Me-110 switched to using a pair of 900L wing mounted drop tanks. However the Me-110D designation was retained rather then reverting back to the Me-110C designation.
It appears to me a Dackelbauch belly tank would prevent installation of the 3cm Mk101 cannon. That's the main reason I didn't think ErpGr.210 would use Me-110Ds.
