07.05.2008, 23:21
Assuming with Hunin's help I have some of the development of the Me-410 clear, if I may...
The A-2 and B-2 were always intended as heavy fighters (again the difference is rated altitude between these variants although it seems the B-series had slightly lesser take off performace than the A in most cases). These models were employed slightly differently to the A-1 and B-1 or at least that was the manufacturer intention, and remained heavier airframes throughout the mission, they were heavy ground attack models and didn't rely on speed as much. In their bomber-destroyer version (A-2/U4 and B-2/U4), these wouldn't have been the quickest climbers in an interception run, but look out when they finally get there. The other thing was versatility, by the B-2/U2R3 subtype a couple of MK-103 plus a pair of MG-151/20 and MG-17 was a nice compromise on attack and interception so both duties could be performed, it was probably as good a bomber killer as the Bk.5 only with slightly less range capability, but was still good for ground attacks the next morning. Converted A-1 and B-1 "schnellbombers" didn't have this problem, they had been converted as improvised bomber-destroyers full time.
interjection: for general information the DB-603Aa engine has a rated altitude of 7.3km and a take off output of 1670PS with the same low altitude climb characteristics of the 603A. The 603E has a take off of 1800PS and a 7km altitude rating, with again similar low altitude climb performance as the 603A (source: wikipedia I think). In the end this means they all have about the same load capacity, the E motor a bit more, the Aa slightly less but both these latter engines will pull like a locomotive at 7km altitude and give a Mark IX Spitfire something to really worry about (something very few twin engine planes can lay claim to).
Quote:Do the references to the Bk5 being mounted in the bomb bay preclude some of the armament options we have?The Bk.5 armament didn't get into the physical space of the standard armament, though the MG-17 machine guns were mounted lower and bomb bay space could in fact be increased slightly by their removal. The anti-tank gun was a neat package with a rotary magazine holding 21 rounds, that fitted nicely into the weapons bay compartment. The reason the frontal armament was deleted on the A-1/U-4 was mostly tied in with how, when and why they were modified, which was a matter of sending the 410A-1 (and B-1) stukas back to the Messerschmitt factory where they were converted to Reich Defence duties. No other equipment such as external bomb racks were removed, just the frontal standard armament, so these were actually the fastest climbers and pursuers of the bomber-destroyers in the type.
The A-2 and B-2 were always intended as heavy fighters (again the difference is rated altitude between these variants although it seems the B-series had slightly lesser take off performace than the A in most cases). These models were employed slightly differently to the A-1 and B-1 or at least that was the manufacturer intention, and remained heavier airframes throughout the mission, they were heavy ground attack models and didn't rely on speed as much. In their bomber-destroyer version (A-2/U4 and B-2/U4), these wouldn't have been the quickest climbers in an interception run, but look out when they finally get there. The other thing was versatility, by the B-2/U2R3 subtype a couple of MK-103 plus a pair of MG-151/20 and MG-17 was a nice compromise on attack and interception so both duties could be performed, it was probably as good a bomber killer as the Bk.5 only with slightly less range capability, but was still good for ground attacks the next morning. Converted A-1 and B-1 "schnellbombers" didn't have this problem, they had been converted as improvised bomber-destroyers full time.
interjection: for general information the DB-603Aa engine has a rated altitude of 7.3km and a take off output of 1670PS with the same low altitude climb characteristics of the 603A. The 603E has a take off of 1800PS and a 7km altitude rating, with again similar low altitude climb performance as the 603A (source: wikipedia I think). In the end this means they all have about the same load capacity, the E motor a bit more, the Aa slightly less but both these latter engines will pull like a locomotive at 7km altitude and give a Mark IX Spitfire something to really worry about (something very few twin engine planes can lay claim to).