What of the Me 410?

[CharlesBronson]

Pictures of the 13 mm defensive barbettes system...simple isnt ?




The handweel and gunsight in the rear gunner cockpit.

[Udet]

Great photos Charles...

As you might recall the allies also claim that besides having made a crappy plane 100% uncapable of dealing with single engined enemy fighters, the remote controlled barbette system for the MG 131s proved "failures".

[CharlesBronson]

Well.. the B-17 had 12 defensive Mgs and still get shoot down, so the effectiveness of defensives MGs are always relative. The Me-210/410 system was complicated to manufacture and insume a lot of copper for his electric motors, but wasnt particulary bad.

[Udet]

Charlie, i agree, but my point was not in the direction of suggesting the Me 410 could not be brought down if attacked from the rear entering the area of fire of the defensive MG 131s...rather what i meant is i have read opinions that say the remote controlled barbettes proved a failure, referring to the idea of a system that simply did not work, that was useless...unless proven otherwise sounds like allied crap to me of course.

You know allied rear gunners are "fearsome shooters" while German rear gunners either "do not hit a thing" or "use inadequate weapons".

[CharlesBronson]

You know allied rear gunners are "fearsome shooters" while German rear gunners either "do not hit a thing" or "use inadequate weapons".

Here is an P-38 ace who might not agree, James M. Morris

On 7 July 1944 he was about to down an Me-410 when the German plane turned the tables and shot him down. He parachuted safely from his aircraft, was subsequently captured by the enemy and spent the remainder of the war as a POW.

His highest scoring day came while he was flying P-38 serial# 42-67871 Squadron code: LC-G, however his normal mount was P-38 serial# 42-67717 Squadron code: LC-E which he named "My Dad / Til We Meet Again

Capt. James M. "Slick" Morris

[Udet]

Carlitos:

Thanks again for another interesting photo; i was re-reading the thread as it got commenced a while ago...so that is the USAAF "ace" who got shot down when trying to shoot the so-called piece of cake eh...

Have you noted this tendency Carlitos? Is it possible we are before some kind of "psychology of the defeated" or the mindset acquired by the guys who belong in the defeated side? Very probable.

I have never read any book, article or paperwork where a British or USA pilot might come close to suggest that attacking any German plane -or a flight of them- fitted with defensive armament could be a dangerous task...ever.

It is only German pilots commenting on the dangers of attacking the boxes of heavy bombers with their huge number of .50 cal guns -which was very true-...but have you heard of any accounts say of British fighter pilots commenting it could be dangerous to attack a formation of Ju 88s, Do 17s or He 111s during 1940?....of course you have not...because they prefer to omit it...and the number of Hurricanes and Spitfires either shot down or forced to disengage by the defensive MGs of German bombers was not necessarily low as i had the chance to discover.

Yes, by 1940 the Luftwaffe did not rely on the defensive fire of its bombers to face interception, rather they thought more about the speed and manouverability of their bombers to ensure some degree of safety in the event of fighter attack (of course -just in case- they knew their bombers were not faster than the fighters of the enemy), but still the German bombers, especially the Ju 88 and Do 17 which denied the crew access to the fuselage- made very well protected trenches against fighter attack. Think of some kind of "fox-hole" were several machine guns could be manned, as the crew was located only in the nose area of the plane...but this could be material for another discussion.

Thanks Carlitos.

[WEISNER]

This kite could have well benifited by a redesign of the cockpit canopy and the use of Dual rear MG's, simmular in design to the Bf110 or Ju88 rear defensive guns.
I do not know what this mess of a system weighed used by the 210-410? but I would guess cockpit mounted guns would have saved alot of weight, Materials and also the drag caused by the twin barbetts.
This system was complicated and unreliable to say the least.
The Me 410A-1's of II./ZG26, that were used for high altitude interceptions during 1944, did away with this mess alltogether..... And had the Barbetts removed and faired over, and no second crew member was carried.
Does anyone know, or venture to guess upon the total weight of the rear firing gun mechanism, guns, wiring harness and motors, sights and all other related items?
Kevin

[Juha]

Udet wrote“…but have you heard of any accounts say of British fighter pilots commenting it could be dangerous to attack a formation of Ju 88s, Do 17s or He 111s during 1940?....of course you have not...”

In fact I have read a BoB book which tells on survey of c. 80 ex- BoB pilots on German air gunners, their opinions varied from poor to very good. One opinion which stuck into my memory was :”I’d say that they were rather good, they shot me down twice.” Or something like that.

Juha

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Just a comment on that. Udet you asked if he read the accounts of the BoB pilots who said it could be dangerous to attack Ju-88sDo 17s or He 111s during 1940?

Lets me honest here, It does not matter who you are attacking in 1940. British, American, Germany, French, Japanese. It is combat, it could be dangerous to attack anyone. It is dangerous!

[the lancaster kicks ass]

of course you're gonna get some saying it's dangerous- but you'll get more saying it wasn't i mean look at the raids in the north from Norway without fighter cover, they were absolutely decimated...........

[Glider]

First of all back to the thread. What has always interested me is that the Germans abandoned the Me210 as it was to difficult to handle and gave them to the Hungarians who liked them.
Who was right, who was wrong? ideas anyone?

[CharlesBronson]

It is only German pilots commenting on the dangers of attacking the boxes of heavy bombers with their huge number of .50 cal guns -which was very true-...but have you heard of any accounts say of British fighter pilots commenting it could be dangerous to attack a formation of Ju 88s, Do 17s or He 111s during 1940?....of course you have not...because they prefer to omit it...and the number of Hurricanes and Spitfires either shot down or forced to disengage by the defensive MGs of German bombers was not necessarily low as i had the chance to discover.

Yes, by 1940 the Luftwaffe did not rely on the defensive fire of its bombers to face interception, rather they thought more about the speed and manouverability of their bombers to ensure some degree of safety in the event of fighter attack (of course -just in case- they knew their bombers were not faster than the fighters of the enemy), but still the German bombers, especially the Ju 88 and Do 17 which denied the crew access to the fuselage- made very well protected trenches against fighter attack. Think of some kind of "fox-hole" were several machine guns could be manned, as the crew was located only in the nose area of the plane...but this could be material for another discussion.

Your statemest are very true, but you have to take account of the armament used in that time as a defensive mean for the Luftwaffe bombers en 1940, was the MG-17 7,92mm, as good it was the rifle caliber ammunition cannot actually compite with a .50 12,7mm Browning loaded with API ammo like the ones in the B-17 and B-24 formations. If they were armed with 13 mm MG ( only few aircraft had it in 1940 the Me-210 and the Do-217) the things wre different.

Thanks Carlitos

De nada che.

First of all back to the thread. What has always interested me is that the Germans abandoned the Me210 as it was to difficult to handle and gave them to the Hungarians who liked them.
Who was right, who was wrong? ideas anyone?

Honestly dont know, maybe the automatics leading edge slats and the more powerful DB-605A engines used in the Hungarian A/C wre superior to the original german design.

40 MM Bofors Me-210Ca only 4 were made.




Pictures form Me-210 in Etkwinglung & Einsatz /Waffen Arsenal- Me-210/410 in action/ Squadron signal.

[Udet]

Originally Posted by Juha

In fact I have read a BoB book which tells on survey of c. 80 ex- BoB pilots on German air gunners, their opinions varied from poor to very good. One opinion which stuck into my memory was :”I’d say that they were rather good, they shot me down twice.” Or something like that.
Juha

Juha, hello.

May know what book is that? Not that i not believe what you say as i have first hand accounts of RAF veterans who have told me of mates flying Hurricanes that got killed while attacking Ju 88s and Do 17s.


Lord Lanc, now your comment:

"of course you're gonna get some saying it's dangerous- but you'll get more saying it wasn't i mean look at the raids in the north from Norway without fighter cover, they were absolutely decimated..........."

Just like many times the boxes of heavy bombers of the USAAF littered the German landscape with charred remains of B-17s and B-24s and crewmen body parts after attacked by units like JG 1, JG 11 or IV. (sturm)/JG 3.

Note i am not suggesting German bombers could deal with a swarm of attacking fighters, just like the heavy-bombers of the USAAF who put to test their funny theory of bombers with lots of defensive guns being 100% capable of defeating fighters...they got slaughtered big time (we´ve throughly discussed this in the past ).

Even more impressive is something i heard that in terms of defensive performance in the event of enemy fighter attack the Luftwaffe fared clearly better during 1940 when compared with the deeds of the allied heavy bombers over Europe during 1943.

What i am saying is simple Lanc: the RAF history writers are not less full of crap than their USAAF allies. They have omitted the fact attacking the German bombers during 1940 was a dangerous venture...better if not mentioned; ask anyone with mild knowledge on the aerial warfare over Europe regarding defensive gunners and an automatic thought will emerge: B-17 rear gunners shooting down "countless" German fighters. Crap.

As i said, German bomber doctrine did not feature defensive armament as the main element to repel enemy fighter attack, again: speed and manouverabiliy would be placed above defensive armament. Still, they fitted their bombers with several defensive machine guns that were perfectly capable of destroying the available RAF planes.

And you bet it was certainly difficult to a Hurricane Mk. I pilot to catch up with a Ju 88 A that had delivered its bombload as the medium bomber was manouverable and the speed difference between the Hurri and the Ju 88 was not that critical...~480 km/hr (Ju 8 vs. ~540 km/hr (Hurricane Mk. I).

It is also depicted on several accounts that the Bf 110s in Reichsverteidigung duties during 1944 could "hardly catch up with the USAAF heavy bombers...", i do not think the Hurricane saw itself in what you´d call a very comfortable position when trying to intercept the Ju 88 during 1940.

Many RAF fighter pilots got tricked by German bomber pilots in Ju 88s, who managed to escape back to France.

Think of a B-17 being highly manouverable and capable of making 620 km/hr after having delivered the bombs against the 685 km/hr of most late Bf 109 models...but it was not like that, it was a clumsy massive metallic tube uncapable of manouvering that had many many guns to boost the morale of the poor guys inside.

It is probably because of this fundamental difference that German bomber crews did not return from mission claiming to have destroyed "hundreds" of attacking RAF fighters, unlike the USAAF guys who after every mission over the Reich would claim numbers of German fighters brought down in such magnitude the issue has now become funny as they got brainwashed they were fully capable of fighting off German fighter attack with their .50 cals.

Carlitos, tus comentarios:

"Your statemest are very true, but you have to take account of the armament used in that time as a defensive mean for the Luftwaffe bombers en 1940, was the MG-17 7,92mm, as good it was the rifle caliber ammunition cannot actually compite with a .50 12,7mm Browning loaded with API ammo like the ones in the B-17 and B-24 formations. If they were armed with 13 mm MG ( only few aircraft had it in 1940 the Me-210 and the Do-217) the things wre different."

I know; but the MG 17 was more than enough to destroy the Spitfire and the Hurricane who were also fitted with rifle caliber ammo only: the .303 cal which by the way remained in service until the very end of the war.
There was a Spitfire Mk. I B fitted with the Hispano cannons but they were too few and more importantly their armament did not work.

Even Mr. Tony Williams on his website refers to the defensive armament of German bombers as : "poor defensive armament..."

DerAdler: i agree with your words, the point being the allies do not mention it...so if they do not mention it what does it mean? That intercepting German bomber formations was danger free? Or that it was as difficult as it was for German fliers during 1944 but it will make the war record to look not so neat?

That was mildly off-topic...but Sir Glider has raised some good points...the Hungarian ally retained their Me 210s in service almost until the end...

Cheers!

[Juha]

Hello Udet
the book is Richard Hough and Denis Richards: The Battle of Britain. Coronet edition 1990 ISBN 0 340 53470 2.
Exact location p. 156 note**, in fact the study was based on opinions given in 1988 by some 100 surviving BoB pilots. 40 rated the quality of German bomber gunnery good or excellent, 32 thought it average and 30 poor. In text on that page is a short note of a combat where gunners of a tight formation of Dorniers shot down two British fighters and in the note is mentioned a combat in which 9 He 111s shot down three out of the first six attacking Hurricanes.

HTH
Juha

[Udet]

Juha, thank you very much; looking forward to reading it.