What of the Me 410?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules


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.
 
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.

 
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!
 
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.
 
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.
 
CharlesBronson said:
Yes , the Me-410B variants with the DB-603G 1900 hp engines. (without the 50 mm cannon off course)
Click to expand...

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).
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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...
 
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.
 
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.

 
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.

 
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.
 

Attachments

  • A-10 2.JPG
    20.5 KB · Views: 320
  • Me 410.JPG
    4.3 KB · Views: 261
More to compare...
 

Attachments

  • Me 410-3.JPG
    14.3 KB · Views: 360
  • A-10-3.JPG
    25.5 KB · Views: 266
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

A
The Myth of the British "Fixing" The Corsair
2 3 4
Replies
62
Views
2K
EwenS
E
W
What if the Me109Z instead of Bf110?
Replies
11
Views
938
Admiral Beez
A
T
P-47 roll rate - a bit of new (to me) info
Replies
1
Views
145
Shortround6
S
Effectiveness of the P-38
6 7 8
Replies
145
Views
7K
Thumpalumpacus
S
Why did the Me 109 roll and turn so bad at speed?
5 6 7
Replies
134
Views
6K
GregP
Menu
Log in
Register