Jump to content
Avimimus

So... Me-410 variants? I'm curious.

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Asgar said:

Having the 410 without the 50mm would be a bit disappointing. I'm gonna keep hoping for the best ;)

Having the 410 with the 50mm cannon would be even more disappointing, considering real-life experience:

50mm001-001.jpg

50mm002-001.jpg

50mm003-001.jpg

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is actually more optimistic than some accounts I've read.

 

There's a pretty scathing excerpt from a Russian report comparing the Bk-5 to the NS-45 on airwar.ru: http://www.airwar.ru/enc/fww2/me410.html

 

“The BK 5-caliber gun of 50 mm, being a tank gun adapted for installation on an airplane, is of no interest, with the exception of the automatic electro-pneumatic reloading system. At a rate of fire of 40 rounds/min and an initial speed of about 500 m/s, the gun has a weight together with automatic reloading units of 592 kg, while the domestic NS-45 cannon of 45 mm caliber with a firing rate of 270 rounds/min and an initial speed of 795 m/s has a weight of 3.5 times less, that is 168 kg. 40 rds/min effectiveness to conduct aimed fire single shots only. The effectiveness of high-explosive cannon shells BK 5 under the action of the airplane structure (fuselage aircraft "Boston"), revealed tentative shots, slightly superior to the action of the projectile gun NS-45 ... ".

 

This doesn't mean that I still don't want it. It'd be fun to test it against ships and ground targets and pretend to be a very fast and slightly psychotic Panzer III...

(besides, most of my favourite aircraft are favoured because they partly represent bad ideas.)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Avimimus said:

That is actually more optimistic than some accounts I've read.

 

There's a pretty scathing excerpt from a Russian report comparing the Bk-5 to the NS-45 on airwar.ru: http://www.airwar.ru/enc/fww2/me410.html

 

“The BK 5-caliber gun of 50 mm, being a tank gun adapted for installation on an airplane, is of no interest, with the exception of the automatic electro-pneumatic reloading system. At a rate of fire of 40 rounds/min and an initial speed of about 500 m/s, the gun has a weight together with automatic reloading units of 592 kg, while the domestic NS-45 cannon of 45 mm caliber with a firing rate of 270 rounds/min and an initial speed of 795 m/s has a weight of 3.5 times less, that is 168 kg. 40 rds/min effectiveness to conduct aimed fire single shots only. The effectiveness of high-explosive cannon shells BK 5 under the action of the airplane structure (fuselage aircraft "Boston"), revealed tentative shots, slightly superior to the action of the projectile gun NS-45 ... ".

 

This doesn't mean that I still don't want it. It'd be fun to test it against ships and ground targets and pretend to be a very fast and slightly psychotic Panzer III...

(besides, most of my favourite aircraft are favoured because they partly represent bad ideas.)

The size, and rof difference may come from the fact that the ns45 shoots a 45x185mm and the bk5 shoots a 50x419mmR.  It’s a little like comparing .50ae to .50bmg.  The 45mm was designed to go after bombers, the 50mm for tanks

Edited by Hajo_Garlic
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/2/2019 at 1:29 AM, Avimimus said:

I think the biggest question is whether we get an Me 410A-2 or an Me 410B-2... the B-2 is a later model with more options, but the A-2 would be useful over a longer period of time and there is an A in England.

You won't get A2 because not a single one was ever build. I am not sure but i think A1 and B2 are pretty much the same planes, they just removed bomb racks in B2. We could pretty much get A1 and B2. Just like they did with Fw190 A8 that can be turned into F8. If you pick mod with bomb rack, you are A1, if you remove them, you are B2. This way we can get a bomber version of me410 and destroyer version. If not, then A1 would be the best option i guess, you have bombs, 50mm gun or 2x 20mm. B2 just gives you 4x 20mm or 2x 30mm but no bombs.

 

I wonder if they will add weapon jamming :) it could be kind of fun, it would be really OP gun that turns everything into a fireball but you have a  big chance of it getting jammed after 1-2 shots.

 

 

On 12/2/2019 at 5:55 AM, Avimimus said:

At a rate of fire of 40 rounds/min and an initial speed of about 500 m/s, the gun has a weight together with automatic reloading units of 592 kg

In the "M. Grhiel, Deutsche Flugzeugbewaffnung bis 1945" it says 45/min, 920m/s and 520kg. Also: http://www.eeoda.de/2009/0905_FB2_BK-5.pdf

It's hard to imagine this gun being just 500m/s... especially if tactic was to attack bombers from 750-1000m. Other source i found says 860m/s, your source is really weird tho, 500m/s is just shitty. There is no way this gun was that slow.

12 hours ago, Hajo_Garlic said:

The 45mm was designed to go after bombers, the 50mm for tanks

Where did you get that from? I never heard about me410 used in anti tank role (was there even AP ammo for Bk5?), they had 50mm minengeschoss ammo. I wonder tho if with me410 we can finally get minengeschoss modelled.

Edited by InProgress

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rheinmetall was given a contract in 1943 to adapt the 50 mm KwK 39 tank gun, from the Panzer III tank, for aerial use in the twin-engined Me 410 Hornisse bomber destroyer.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/2/2019 at 2:38 AM, NZTyphoon said:

Having the 410 with the 50mm cannon would be even more disappointing, considering real-life experience

I think real life experience was pretty good. It was one hit one kill weapon, you could fire from 750-1000m before gunners can fire at you, 53 me410 shot down over 130 heavy bombers with lose of 9 me410 in just 6 missions. It was probably the best thing to fight heavy bombers, problem was enemy fighter cover that would destroy me410 easly and that jamming. But if you get lucky and it wont jam and there is no cover (or 109 and 190 will take care of that), you should be just fine. And in il-2 we don't have (?) jamming so it may be the most OP plane against bombers.

 

Bad real life experience comes from having no pilots, bad training, not enough planes, fuel, ammo, being overrun. Not because plane or weapon was bad, except that jamming thing which was a problem, but if you have 50 planes and can fire from 700m with great accuracity, even if it jam after 2 shots, you can still shoot down quite a lot of planes. It's better to have these 2 shots than shooting tons of 20mm ones that may not kill even one bomber. Like i said, 130 kills with 9 deaths, with bad jamming gun, that's impressive. Now imagine if it would actually work how intended.

 

 

My wish for BoN career is that we can actually get missions in me410 when they are send on specific missions to attack bomber formations with no cover, instead "Fly your 2 engine plane with 4 others with heavy gun and bunch of 50mm shells and get intercepted by cover of 12 P51".

Edited by InProgress
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, InProgress said:

In the "M. Grhiel, Deutsche Flugzeugbewaffnung bis 1945" it says 45/min, 920m/s and 520kg. Also: http://www.eeoda.de/2009/0905_FB2_BK-5.pdf

In this link, it would have been nice (and professional) to substantiate this „quote“:

 

Quote:
”Especially with the use of the 5 cm M –shell remarkable results have been made; a group of 53 ME 410 A1/U4 planes -each equipped with a BK-5- has shot down 129 B-17 “flying Fortresses” and 4 B- 24 “Liberators” in six flights between 22 Februari and 11 April 1944

 

Put like this and without proper reference (being nice) it just sounds like the usual yarn. I mean, they alone would have been like everything the whole JV44 ever was. (Edit: five times JV44!) In six flights. Glad the 8th AF never noticed.

Edited by ZachariasX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, InProgress said:

My wish for BoN career is that we can actually get missions in me410 when they are send on specific missions to attack bomber formations with no cover, instead "Fly your 2 engine plane with 4 others with heavy gun and bunch of 50mm shells and get intercepted by cover of 12 P51".

 

I dream of night recon missions where the whole point is not to see any enemy planes. Hours of playing hide and seek in the clouds to drop beneath the cover and observe what can be seen in the murk.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, InProgress said:

Where did you get that from? I never heard about me410 used in anti tank role (was there even AP ammo for Bk5?), they had 50mm minengeschoss ammo. I wonder tho if with me410 we can finally get minengeschoss modelled.

Edited 4 hours ago by InProgress

As milo said, I’m talking about the cannon, not the aircraft. The 410 didn’t attack tanks as far as I’m aware (outside war thunder)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Read Caldwell: the flight crews campaigned to have it removed. If that is a sign of a superior weapon, then I am a little puzzled.

 

45 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

Quote:
”Especially with the use of the 5 cm M –shell remarkable results have been made; a group of 53 ME 410 A1/U4 planes -each equipped with a BK-5- has shot down 129 B-17 “flying Fortresses” and 4 B- 24 “Liberators” in six flights between 22 Februari and 11 April 1944

 

That might have been a touch optimistic (politely). One 410 unit accounted for 130 bombers in 6 operations?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Hajo_Garlic said:

If we get the bk5 fingers crossed to see the 262 with the similar cannon some day.

262 was never fitted with the gun, only projected with an MK 214A

6 hours ago, InProgress said:

Where did you get that from? I never heard about me410 used in anti tank role (was there even AP ammo for Bk5?), they had 50mm minengeschoss ammo. I wonder tho if with me410 we can finally get minengeschoss modelled.

well, i don't know if it was used in the role, but there certainly is AP ammo for it and even HVAP, since the BK-5 is an adapted KwK 39 from the Panzer III, which was fitted with an pneumatic loader.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Asgar said:

262 was never fitted with the gun, only projected with an MK 214A

 

And Wilhelm Herget was less than enthusiastic about its usefullness after having flown it with JV44.

Edited by sevenless

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Asgar said:

well, i don't know if it was used in the role, but there certainly is AP ammo for it and even HVAP, since the BK-5 is an adapted KwK 39 from the Panzer III, which was fitted with an pneumatic loader.

It depends on, what was adapted. KwK sometimes were adapted AT guns with smaller shells, so you could not have used the one with the ammunition of the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, sevenless said:

 

And Wilhelm Herget was less than enthusiastic about its usefullness after having flown it with JV44.

well the original gun design it was derived from was better (MG 213) so good in fact that every Allied nation copied it after the war :D Hello ADENs etc. 

 

  

3 minutes ago, Yogiflight said:

It depends on, what was adapted. KwK sometimes were adapted AT guns with smaller shells, so you could not have used the one with the ammunition of the other.

same caliber actually, 50x419mmR

so theoretically, if you're a Zerstörergeschwader and your airfield is threatened to be overrun by Allied ground forces just get some 50mm APCR and pop some Shermans :D

Edited by Asgar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, InProgress said:

You won't get A2 because not a single one was ever build. I am not sure but i think A1 and B2 are pretty much the same planes, they just removed bomb racks in B2. We could pretty much get A1 and B2. Just like they did with Fw190 A8 that can be turned into F8. If you pick mod with bomb rack, you are A1, if you remove them, you are B2. This way we can get a bomber version of me410 and destroyer version. If not, then A1 would be the best option i guess, you have bombs, 50mm gun or 2x 20mm. B2 just gives you 4x 20mm or 2x 30mm but no bombs.

 

Are you sure about that? The sources I've read state that the main difference between the A and the B variants was the model of engine used. They also state that the A2 designation was applied to the aircraft in the fighter role (even if they were broadly similar or even converted from the A1).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

 

Are you sure about that? The sources I've read state that the main difference between the A and the B variants was the model of engine used. They also state that the A2 designation was applied to the aircraft in the fighter role (even if they were broadly similar or even converted from the A1).

nah, they wanted to make a new engine for the B but the development was cancelled in 44, all they did was adding a better super charger turning the DB 603 A into a DB 603 AA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Asgar said:

well the original gun design it was derived from was better (MG 213) so good in fact that every Allied nation copied it after the war 😄 Hello ADENs etc. 

 

  

same caliber actually, 50x419mmR

so theoretically, if you're a Zerstörergeschwader and your airfield is threatened to be overrun by Allied ground forces just get some 50mm APCR and pop some Shermans 😄

 

Germany afaik phased out production of APCR ammo early during the war. Tungsten was in extremely short supply and needed more for more critical stuff like machining tools.

 

Regular 50mm AP would be more than adequate anyway for killing most WW2 tanks from the side/top.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, =RvE=Windmills said:

 

Germany afaik phased out production of APCR ammo early during the war. Tungsten was in extremely short supply and needed more for more critical stuff like machining tools.

 

Regular 50mm AP would be more than adequate anyway for killing most WW2 tanks from the side/top.

i'm gonna asume that you're talking about 50mm only here, since Tigers, Panthers and pretty much everything that was in service but the end of the war used APCR when they could get their hands on it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Asgar said:

when they could get their hands on it

 

I think the point is that the Germans couldn't get their hands on it due to the blockade. I have heard that they stopped making APCR after 1942, except for the 5.0cm PaK38 as it remained the most common AT gun even into 1945, but I don't have a reliable source for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well, again, if they stop making APCR in '42, why did they develop APCR rounds for the long barrel 75 and 88 weapons that were only developed and entered service during and after that time. It's something i never heard about and it wouldn't really make sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Asgar said:

well, again, if they stop making APCR in '42, why did they develop APCR rounds for the long barrel 75 and 88 weapons that were only developed and entered service during and after that time. It's something i never heard about and it wouldn't really make sense.

 

The reality is a bit more complex. APRC rounds were kept in service and production for the smaller guns like 5cm which could not do without it, for the long 75s and 88s it was developed, and a small number were made but in reality it was not used. IIRC for the 8,8 L/71 only about 5000 Pz40 were made, which is about one round for every gun made. Not that the long 8,8 would need it. 😄

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, VO101Kurfurst said:

Not that the long 8,8 would need it. 😄

Not really, except they wanted to shoot through a tank, to hit the one behind it, too.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, III./JG7-MarkWilhelmsson said:

I don't think they would go so far as to give us a gun for the plane that was specifically made to take on 4-engined heavy aircraft that don't exist in the game. 

 

The main reason behind not implementing this gun in the game possibly is, that the unit which flew those planes (IIRC ZG26) never operated from within the boundaries of the BoN or BoBP map. I am pretty sure we get a 410 version which was used by example by KG 51 or other units which operated from within France.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, III./JG7-MarkWilhelmsson said:

I don't think they would go so far as to give us a gun for the plane that was specifically made to take on 4-engined heavy aircraft that don't exist in the game. 


The A-8 has the equipment it used to take on the 4 engine bombers, increased cockpit and canopy armor, 21cm rockets, 30mm cannons, same for the D-9 and Me 262 with the R4M rockets

 

15 minutes ago, sevenless said:

 

The main reason behind not implementing this gun in the game possibly is, that the unit which flew those planes (IIRC ZG26) never operated from within the boundaries of the BoN or BoBP map. I am pretty sure we get a 410 version which was used by example by KG 51 or other units which operated from within France.


In Bodenplatte we got the added pylons for the P-38 which afaik was used by units in Italy, the P-51 got 150 octane fuel which only was used by planes based in England.

Edited by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

In Bodenplatte we got the added pylons for the P-38 which afaik was used by units in Italy, the P-51 got 150 octane fuel which only was used by planes based in England.

 

True, we will see. My crytal ball certainly isn´t any better as everyone else´s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

The A-8 has the equipment it used to take on the 4 engine bombers, increased cockpit and canopy armor, 21cm rockets, 30mm cannons, same for the D-9 and Me 262 with the R4M rockets

Or the MK108 for the early 109 G6 on Kuban.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Yogiflight said:

Or the MK108 for the early 109 G6 on Kuban.

 

That's already there, though in reality no G-6s in the East had MK 108s until 1944.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

That's already there, though in reality no G-6s in the East had MK 108s until 1944.

The point was equipment we have in game, that was introduced IRL for fighting heavy bombers, so we don't really need it in game, but it is nice to have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Yogiflight said:

The point was equipment we have in game, that was introduced IRL for fighting heavy bombers, so we don't really need it in game, but it is nice to have.

 

Ah yes, I see what you mean now. :salute:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Asgar said:

It's something i never heard about and it wouldn't really make sense.

 

Germany was plagued throughout the war with lack of direct access to rarer metals. From the records I've seen, the 5.0cm PaK38's ammo stockpiles never had more than 10% APCR between 1940-1942.

 

Also, APCR loses velocity faster than APC rounds. I wouldn't wonder that they would be a worse candidate than just APC rounds in such a platform. Maybe not though.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reproduced these pictures that are included in the book "Battles with the Luftwaffe" by Jane's. First shows the installation of a twin 20m pod under the belly, and I guess the caption is wrong, as it would be 4x20mm and not six, unless the MGs were also replaced by cannons.

The second pictures shows a pair of Mustangs caught on camera by the rear gunner as he watched them come for the kill as his guns were out of service. He did get shot down but survived.

IMG_20191204_080619.jpg

IMG_20191204_080646.jpg

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for posting that Ricky.  I’d be interested to know what the color scheme was on those Mustangs.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, SYN_Ricky said:

Reproduced these pictures that are included in the book "Battles with the Luftwaffe" by Jane's. First shows the installation of a twin 20m pod under the belly, and I guess the caption is wrong, as it would be 4x20mm and not six, unless the MGs were also replaced by cannons.

 

IMG_20191204_080619.jpg

 

You are right, the caption is wrong: W.Nr. 420625, 3U+AP of 6./ZG 2 was armed with 6 x 20mm MG 151/20 (outlined in red) plus 3 x 13mm Mg 131 (outlined green). It was an Me 410 A-1/U4 that was converted to a B-1/U: 3U+AP was shot down and destroyed on 13 July 1944.

 

 

me410420625.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Feathered_IV said:

Thanks for posting that Ricky.  I’d be interested to know what the color scheme was on those Mustangs.  

 

Yeah, I wonder that too, seems pretty unusual.

57 minutes ago, NZTyphoon said:

You are right, the caption is wrong: W.Nr. 420625, 3U+AP of 6./ZG 2 was armed with 6 x 20mm MG 151/20 (outlined in red) plus 3 x 13mm Mg 131 (outlined green). It was an Me 410 A-1/U4 that was converted to a B-1/U: 3U+AP was shot down and destroyed on 13 July 1944.

 

 

me410420625.jpg

Ok, I missed the fact that the two MG (13mm and not 7.92) ports are in the front part of the nose. So it's indeed 6x20mm and 2x13 mm, must be quite lethal!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, SYN_Ricky said:

 

Yeah, I wonder that too, seems pretty unusual.

 

Maybe those Bodney bluenosers in P51 B/Cs? In summer 44 for the first time near Berlin? ZG 26 was at Koenigsberg-Neumark (now Poland), so that would fit the general location.

 

http://www.americanairmuseum.com/media/16295

 

media-16295.jpeg?itok=HulKPxYy

 

HA8504-FP1.jpg

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SYN_Ricky said:

 

Yeah, I wonder that too, seems pretty unusual.

Ok, I missed the fact that the two MG (13mm and not 7.92) ports are in the front part of the nose. So it's indeed 6x20mm and 2x13 mm, must be quite lethal!

 

Provided you actually got the opportunity to point it at an enemy :) 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...