Me-410 vs Mosquito combat
 

Has anyone encountered any account of Mosquito vs Me-410 air to air combat? If so, how did it turn out. Is there any British or American assessment of a captured example, as they did with single-engined fighters?

Re: Me-410 vs Mosquito combat
 

I have on my website of an account of a Me410 and Mosquito although the latter was the hunter vs. a head to head combat. This end in the loss of RKT Wilhem Schmitter.

http://aufhimmelzuhause.com/id101.htm

Re: Me-410 vs Mosquito combat
 

There were loads with the V/KG 2, I & II/KG 51 combats being the prime example. I wrote about this in Flypast. However, if you are talking about dogfighting, as most were at night, this didn't occur

Re: Me-410 vs Mosquito combat
 

Yes, I was aware of the ones where the Me-410 was essentially acting as a bomber and was shot down by a nightfighter, but it is the dogfight I was interested in. I suspect you will turn out to be right that this never happened, but hope springs eternal.

Re: Me-410 vs Mosquito combat
 

My account of the first successful Mosquito combat with an Me 410 over Britain (13-14 July 1943) was published in Vol 3 of 'The Blitz: Then and Now Vol 3' by After The Battle. The Mosquito crew picked up the Me 410 over the Straits of Dover and pursued it all the way up the East coast to Felixstowe, Suffolk, finally shooting it down from 25,000 feet. As Chris states, there were no real dogfights at night. The Me 410 was considered relatively easy prey for Allied long-range escort fighters in daylight.

Re: Me-410 vs Mosquito combat
 

Hello Chris,

May I ask for a reference to the specific FlyPast issue which contains this article? It appears it's worth looking into :)

Regards,

Paul

Re: Me-410 vs Mosquito combat
 

Paul
It was in their Luftwaffe Special Last year and entitled 'Hornets over England'
Chris

Re: Me-410 vs Mosquito combat
 

This captured one was tested :
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...eston_1944.jpg

Re: Me-410 vs Mosquito combat
 

Chris,

Thank you very much, I will look that up.

Paul

Re: Me-410 vs Mosquito combat
 

Hello Chris,

I have now read your article, thank you very much for directing me to it! The extracts from Luftwaffe logbooks were particularly interesting. I have a couple of questions:

Were the Me 410’s barbette guns effective? In the article, return fire by Me 410 gunners is mentioned twice, without any results. I had been under the impression that the Me 410 had better defensive armament than many other Luftwaffe types, but this appears to be incorrect.

Do you know of any source that discusses the overall numbers of sorties flown and bombs dropped by V./KG 2 and I./KG 51 against Britain? It appears that this effort, desultory as it was, might have been greater in scale than the Ju 88 missions on the Eastern front at this time. That underlines the point that Steinbock taken as a whole was a remarkable waste of effort!

Regards,

Paul

Re: Me-410 vs Mosquito combat
 

Paul
I would have thought that such barbettes were more effective as a warning as opposed to actually shooting a jinking target down.
I do not have such figures-don't forget II/KG 51 as well
Chris

Re: Me-410 vs Mosquito combat
 

Chris,

Thank you for your reply. The ineffectiveness of the barbettes throws an interesting light on the persistent Luftwaffe interest in such equipment. Perhaps they should have stayed away from this technical innovation altogether.

ArtieBob's recently published part 2 of the Ju 88 book has statistics on II./KG 51 losses in Steinbock - 17 combat and 4 non-combat. I think other data will be harder to find, so I'll keep looking!

Regards,

Paul

Re: Me-410 vs Mosquito combat
 

The ineffectiveness of the barbettes throws an interesting light on the persistent Luftwaffe interest in such equipment. Perhaps they should have stayed away from this technical innovation altogether.

Was any bomber defensive armament — any type, any nation — all that effective, aircraft by aircraft? Or did it only come into its own in big formations?

Re: Me-410 vs Mosquito combat
 

Of course much depends how one define effective but IIRC Do 217s of KG 2 shot down or crippled several night fighters.

Re: Me-410 vs Mosquito combat
 

Sure, there were successes but I have wondered whether the gunners in a night bomber (e.g. a Lancaster) were more useful as look-outs, triggering evasive action, than as armed defenders.

Re: Me-410 vs Mosquito combat
 

The gunners were certainly not very effective in destroying enemy fighters in high numbers, but they forced the attackers to develope other tactics or weapons to evade the field of fire of the gunners. The German night fighters for example developed the "Schräge Musik" armament that enabled them to fire at the bombers without being shot at by the tail gunner. Interesting is that the Allied night fighters did not use this tactic, probably because they never encountered bombers as heavily armed as the Lancaster or Halifax?

Compared to "Schräge Musik" that initially was a field modification which found its way to the industrial production, the barbettes of the Me 410 are in my opinion typical for the German "overengineering" of certain technical aspects.

Re: Me-410 vs Mosquito combat
 

IIRC RAF thought after WW2 that if there was any reasonable benefit (when compared to the weight penalty and the cost of a rear turret) of the rear turret it was mostly from the gunners acting as look-outs and because of the appearence of rear-warning radars they dumped the rear turret. On the other hand USAF kept them, maybe at least partly because of their daytime experiences. The only post-WW2 aircombat fought in the Finnish airspace was between an US RB-47 and two Soviet MiG-17s.

Re: Me-410 vs Mosquito combat
 

Of course, in considering the effectiveness of gunners in bombers, one must also consider the claims the gunners made versus the real damage they did. For example, on the first USAAF 8th AF raid on Lille in 1942, gunners were credited with 102 Germans shot down. The real answer was 2. But the USAAF and the RAF considered it important to give these credits even though, via ULTRA, the Commanders knew them not to be true. So, was it important for the bomber crews, and the public at large, to feel gunners were being effective? Likely so, and no bomber commander would have considered removing the guns!

Positive propaganda and illusions of success are more important in wartime than the truth.

Re: Me-410 vs Mosquito combat
 

As did the Soviets, come to think of it.

And, in reply to John, I read a book by Bill Gunston where he suggested that as more RAF bombers were lost by engine damage than injury to the pilot, statistical logic would have suggested removing the crew's armour and protecting the engines instead. The problem was that the crew had strong feelings about the matter and the engines didn't.

Re: Me-410 vs Mosquito combat
 

Hello Nick,

I am glad to have sparked a discussion! I am firmly of the view that defensive armament was quite effective, but only if it was sufficiently powerful and accurate, hence my focus on the specific effectiveness of barbettes. The MG 131 machine guns in the barbettes were much more powerful than the MG 81s used on previous German bombers, but it appears that the barbettes could not be controlled by the gunner with sufficient precision.

The most obvious counter-example, of bombers with powerful and accurate defensive armament, is the American heavy bomber force. There are several examples from the Pacific theatre of Japanese fighters suffering significant losses at the hands of small formations of B-24s. Similarly, Liberators and Fortresses held their own against the lower-performance Italian fighters in the Mediterranean. I’ll dig out some relevant figures when I have the time to consult books.

Even the British heavy bombers, with just one effective turret armed with 4 rifle calibre machine guns, inflicted significant losses on German night fighters. In fact, I think Theo Boiten might have some statistics that illustrate this point!

To briefly comment on the later experiences of the USAF and the Soviets, I think that the key point, especially in the case of the Soviets, is that their bombers had cannon armament. The Soviet AM-23 cannon was a very different weapon from a .303 Browning! For a while, the AM-23 and its predecessors enjoyed something of a range advantage over contemporary fighter guns, so they retained their utility.

Regards,

Paul

Re: Me-410 vs Mosquito combat
 

Hello Juha,

Thank you for mentioning a case of which I was not aware. Do you know of any good sources which describe KG 2's encounters with night fighters? This is not something I have read about in detail before, so any hints would be helpful.

Hello John,

You are right to an extent, but it can be safely said that it is not possible to win a war with "illusions of success" :) . The fact that the 8th and 15th Air Force bombers could inflict constant, if relatively minor, losses on German fighters is in fact a demonstration of the enormous degree of US technical superiority during the war. No other combatant could hope to achieve anything similar, the Augsburg raid by Lancasters in 1942 being just one illustration of the very heavy losses experienced on daylight raids. To put it explicitly, the USAAF had the equipment to do almost anything it wished, even in 1942. It was only when the 8th set itself extraordinary objectives, like bombing Schweinfurt, that it suffered unbearable losses. The RAF and especially the Luftwaffe would never have been in that position in the first place, since they did not posess the numbers of high-quality aircraft that US industry could produce.

Regards,

Paul

Re: Me-410 vs Mosquito combat
 

Hello Paul
Ulf Balke: Der Luftkrieg in Europa Teil 2 (1990). It is the second part of the Balke's excellent history of the KG 2.

HTH
Juha

Rawnsley & Wright, in "Night Fighter", describe several encounters Mosquito vs. Me410
 

Rawnsley was John "Cat Eyes" Cunningham's radar operator.
HTH, Richard

Re: Me-410 vs Mosquito combat
 

Richard: You had me confused until I noticed you had changed the title-perhaps you should have said that in the text?

Paul: When you talk about KG 2, are you must talking V/KG 2? A good book is Simon Parry's Intruders over Britain-a latter chapter covers the missions. I have listings of all losses and kills plus combat reports. Trouble is there were very few German survivors

Re: Me-410 vs Mosquito combat
 

Have to take issue with:

To put it explicitly, the USAAF had the equipment to do almost anything it wished, even in 1942. It was only when the 8th set itself extraordinary objectives, like bombing Schweinfurt, that it suffered unbearable losses.

In 1942 it could do "anything it wished" - except bomb Germany
In 1943 it could do "anything it wished" - except when it bit off more than it could chew - Schweinfurt etc
In the second half of 1944 it really could do anything it wished. The achievement was great but not as straightforward or predestined as you think

Regards

Martin

Re: Me-410 vs Mosquito combat
 

Hello Juha,

Thank you, I will look up Balke in the next couple of months.

Hello Richard,

Thank you for the tip!

Regards,

Paul

Re: Me-410 vs Mosquito combat
 

Hello Chris,

I started off talking about V/KG 2, but I am wondering about all of KG 2 now, on the specific subject of their succeses against night fighters. That book looks like it will be very useful, thank you. It is great that this part of the air war has been thoroughly researched! As in the case of the bombing campaign, I wonder what the Germans were trying to achieve with these small-scale intruder operations. They might have been quite useful on the Eastern front, against the technologically inferior Soviet air force, but in the West these missions were almost suicidal, as you noted.


I have sent you a PM.

Regards,

Paul

Re: Me-410 vs Mosquito combat
 

Hello Martin,

Thank you for your thoughts, glad to get more members interested! You are correct to point out that the operational limitations on the Eighth disappeared only gradually, as it increased in strength and received escort fighters. However, my point stands in the sense that even in 1942, the Eighth had technical capabilities which no other belligerent would fully match until the end of the war, especially the P-38F and B-17F.

I suggest that the phrase "bit off more than it could chew" is a succinct explanation of the main problem the USAAF experienced, which was over-optimistic and insufficiently detailed planning. They could have inflicted great damage on the German war effort as early as autumn 1942, but they used their forces ineffectively.

I would argue that USAAF effectiveness was significantly over-determined, since the USA was the world's dominant industrial power during the war. Measured by airframe weight or total horsepower, US aircraft production far exceeded that of any other power, so it is difficult to argue that the Axis could have resisted this force succesfully, once it was correctly deployed.

Regards,

Paul

Re: Me-410 vs Mosquito combat
 

"the Eighth had technical capabilities which no other belligerent would fully match until the end of the war, especially the P-38F and B-17F."

Depends on which capabilities you mean, really. The P-38 exchanged some of the agility of a single-engined fighter for greater range, the B-17 was much better armed for defence than a Lancaster but at the expense of bomb load. The USAAF in Europe did become very well equipped for its chosen method, daylight attack, just as the RAF finally acquired an unmatched capability for night bombing.

Re: Me-410 vs Mosquito combat
 

You are right that these aircraft were technical compromises, Nick. What made them exceptional is that they had turbosuperchargers for their engines, the B-2 model on the B-17F and the B-13 on the P-38F, as far as I remember. The two-stage supercharger on the Lancaster's Merlin 22 was essentially a generation behind this technology. Partly as a result of this, the USAAF could routinely operate at high altitudes, which the bombers of other air forces could not do.

This doesn't mean that the American aircraft were perfect, far from it. Bomber Command aircraft had a variety of modern electronic equipment towards the end of the war, including H2S and Monica. The problem is that this superiority in radar and associated technology could not compensate for the absence of a performance margin, as became clear when the Germans began to home on RAF electronic signals.

Regards,

Paul

Re: Me-410 vs Mosquito combat
 

Hello Paul
Merlin 22 had a two-speed supercharger not a two-stage. The 60 series Merlins were the first Merlins with two-stage superchargers.

Re: Me-410 vs Mosquito combat
 

Hello Juha,

Thank you for correcting my glaring error. It does reinforce my overall point, since the one-stage Merlins had much worse altitude performance than the American engines fitted with turbosuperchargers.

Since we are discussing the subject, do you happen to know a source that lists the critical altitudes for various Second World War aero engines? Various books that I have suffer from inconsistencies, as well as clearly inaccurate conversions from metric to Imperial units.

Regards,

Paul

Re: Me-410 vs Mosquito combat
 

Not really but one good place to start is http://www.enginehistory.org/ especially the Model Designations of U.S.A.F Engines (http://www.enginehistory.org/ModDesig/SecI.pdf). In it there is info on the US engines and so also on those Merlin versions produced by Packard. Remember that a static engine has lower critical altitude than a fast moving one so it is important to know if the ram effect is taken in the account or not, also the boost level has effect on the FTH and if in slightest doubt, the imperial-metric and vice versa conversions should be checked by calculating them by oneself.

Re: Me-410 vs Mosquito combat
 

Didn't the P-38 have turbocharger problems?

Re: Me-410 vs Mosquito combat
 

Juha,

Thank you, this is a very helpful list! Since I am not an engineer, I am not at all sure to what extent the various data account for the ram effect. The basic data, especially for Soviet engines, usually lists just horsepower-altitude combinations, sometimes with the boost level also provided.

On the specific issue of boost, I am looking for a reliable conversion table. Here is a link to one I've found - http://www.fittings.com.tw/news/Pres...on%20Table.pdf

Taking this table and using the late-war Bf 109G as an example, its boost pressure of 1.42 ata should be equal to 1044.5 mm Hg. How does that translate into the British measure of lb./sq.in ?

Regards,

Paul

Re: Me-410 vs Mosquito combat
 

Hello Kutscha,

It did, of two kinds as far as I know. First, the turbochargers did not always provide the same power for each engine, creating a problem of assymetric thrust. Second, there were problems with the low ambient temperatures at high altitudes. While these issues were significant, they shouldn't obscure the fact that the P-38 was the first effective long-range escort fighter used by the Allies, making an extremely important contribution to victory in the Mediterranean from December 1942 onwards.

Regards,

Paul

Re: Me-410 vs Mosquito combat
 

Paul, this should help answer your question,
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/att...t-pressure.jpg

Re: Me-410 vs Mosquito combat
 

Kutscha, you seem to have lost the attachment to your message. Thank you for your help!

Re: Me-410 vs Mosquito combat
 

I was afraid of that happening Paul.

Do an image search for 'equivalent boost pressure conversion chart'

Re: Me-410 vs Mosquito combat
 

No problem, looks like I got it - see ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/engines/228489d1363748979t-ata-inches-hg-equivalent-boost-pressure.jpg

It is a fairly low resolution image, but I have got the gist of it. I will have a crack at a couple of caluclations this evening.

Regards,

Paul