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
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.