What of the Me 410?

[Breizh]

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]

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

 

[rank amateur]

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...

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]

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]

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
Me 410 Uffz Ahrens, Werner Uffz Frühwald Leopod Grafenwörth (6 km südlich)
2./I./ZG 76:
Me 410 ???????? Uffz Brömme, Gerhard Jetzelsdorf
Me 410 Ofw Westerhof, Josef Uffz Blasche, Gerhard Höbersbrunn(-bach?)/Krems
Me 410 Ofw Rothbart, Hans Uffz Kroth, Albert Maria Ponsee
3./I./ZG 76:
Me 410 Lt Heinz, Arnold Gfr Schneider, Raimund Fels/Kollersdorf (7 km südlich)

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

Also difficult to conceptualize the statistics because the non-flak/non fighter operational loss % was Higher than the 51. The net conclusions one can rightfully extract from a 'loss to sortie' comparison is that a.) the $$ effect of P-38's was that it was more than twice the cost for the airframe, a little more for pilots, b.) the ETO got far less 'result to $$' in both aircraft destroyed in the air and ground per sortie than the P-51.

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.