What if the Me210 was operational in 1942?

[stona]

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

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

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

Cheers

Steve

 

[riacrato]

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

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

 

[mhuxt]

Mhuxt, the list includes nf and recon mosquitos.

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

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

 

[mhuxt]

Hi Juha,

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

 

[mhuxt]

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

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

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

 

[stona]

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

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

Cheers

Steve

 

[stona]

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

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

8 x 50 Kg not for dive bombing.

2 x SC 250s

1 x SC 500

Or a Mosquito!!!

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

Cheers

Steve

 

[parsifal]

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

 

[OldSkeptic]

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

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

But the Mossie claims seem to conflict with known evidence.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[beitou]

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

 

[Greyman]

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

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

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

 

[OldSkeptic]

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

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

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

 

[parsifal]

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

 

[OldSkeptic]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Shortround6]

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

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

It started design as a bomber though.

 

[wuzak]

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

It started design as a bomber though.

Correct.

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

 

[Greyman]

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

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

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

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

 

[stona]

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

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

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

Cheers

Steve

 

[mig2830]

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

Hi Aozora,

Can you tell the source for this info?

Thanks

 

[wuzak]

Hi Aozora,

Can you tell the source for this info?

Thanks

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