Germany's Obsession With Heavy Fighters: Messerschmitt Me 410 Hornet

In this video, we talk about the Messerschmitt Me 410 Hornisse (Hornet), a World War 2 heavy fighter made as an improvement of the Messerschmitt Bf 110. We talk about the concept of the heavy fighter and why just about every country before the war was designing and producing heavy fighters. We also talk about why they were often rather disappointing in combat and how Germany came to this realization during the Battle of Britain.
We then talk about the attempted improvements to the Bf 110 before the Me 410, the Me 210 and the Me 310, that utterly failed. We also talk about how the Me 410 performed in combat and how it, like many other heavy fighters, were then relegated to other roles, like Night Fighter, Reconnaissance, Bomber, Ground Attack, etc. We conclude with what Germany should have done with their resources instead of the Me 410, like making something similar to America's P-38 Lightning or their own Dornier Do 335.
Link to video on bomber escorts: • The "Flying Coffin" Tu...

[@loopwithers]

In 1976 I excavated the wreck of an Me 410 which had been damaged by flak as it attacked London at night. It became increasingly uncontrollable and crashed in a vertical dive into a garden in Frimley, Surrey. The two crew were aged eighteen and nineteen. One jumped out with his parachute but was killed in the blast from the explosion as the plane hit the ground moments later. They have graves in the nearby war cemetery.

[@patmann9363]

Thanks for the info.

[@loopwithers]

@@patmann9363 Thanks. Just to clarify, the previous activity and behaviour of the 410 prior to crashing was detailed by a chain of Civil Defence spotter stations which each made records of the plane as it was followed by them. I didn't just make that bit up. I stopped excavating when I came to the strata level where I found the young pilot. Suddenly, as a fifteen year old, I learned a whole lot about war.

[@MrNaKillshots]

Interesting insight.

[@annoyingbstard9407]

As a fifteen year old you dug a hole 60ft x 60ft and at least 20ft deep, then lifted out an aircraft? Did you build the first fusion reactor in the afternoon?

[@loopwithers]

@@annoyingbstard9407 No, I didnt have to. From the tip of its nose to the main wing flaps was compressed into a depth of about four feet. The plane went in almost vertically at high speed, exploding as it hit the ground. Mechanical gear control mechanisms from the wing spar and paintwork were like new but were embedded in the few inches above the pilot's remains. The Imperial War Museum curated all the items I recovered and confirmed the aircraft and crew

[@molochi]

The idea that using 2 engines for more performance works, IF you don't sabotage the idea by doubling or tripling the weight. Lightnings and Mosquitos were great.

[@thethirdman225]

So was the Beaufighter.

[@wrathofatlantis2316]

No it didn't work, because hit and run and speed proved less versatile than turning capability (in the gun and prop era), and with turn performance being increasingly center stage by 1944, only the P-38 proved capable in turns enough, while the poor roll was only mitigated at medium high speed in the later J models.

[@thethirdman225]

@@wrathofatlantis2316 *_"No it didn't work, because hit and run and speed proved less versatile than turning capability (in the gun and prop era), and with turns performance being increasingly center stage by 1944, only the P-38 proved capable in turns enough, while the poor roll was only mitigated at medium high speed in the later J models."_* Yet by the time the J model was introduced the USAAF had less and less interest in using the P-38 as a bomber escort. It simply didn't have the agility for anything approaching dogfighting and its engine management systems were just too complex for high intensity fighting. The USAAF was still using the P-38 in early 1944 but it was being slowly phased out in favour of the P-51. This was not just for reasons of cost. All the American types in WWII were what is known as 'energy fighters'. They were best suited to 'zoom and boom' tactics, rather than swirling dogfights and this was true to the end of the war. Unless you were flying a Gloster Gladiator or a CR42, you were likely flying an energy fighter. The problem with the P-38 was that its dive performance was simply not up to scratch and its tactical Mach number was limited to .68 (not very high) which was hardly ideal for an aircraft which needed to use diving as a major part of its combat tactics. The addition of manoeuvring flaps didn't really do anything more than improve controllability. It didn't improve manoeuvrability or dive _speed._

[@lancerevell5979]

Lesser maneuverability can be mitigated by "Zoom and Boom" tactics, as our P-40 and Wildcat pilots did vs. the Japanese Zero.

[@wrathofatlantis2316]

@@lancerevell5979 F4F USN pilot on 27-09-42 (Justin Pyke interview "Zero or Hero"? Drachinifeld yt channel): 1h 1 minute: "Zero pilots have generally poor fighter tactics. If they would chop their throttle they could just sit on our tail." (Which means turn) Zero pilots maneuvered mainly in the vertical plane, and when not using hit and run they would use a twisted looping maneuver called the Hinero-Komi. IJ Navy doctrine was dead set against turns, and this remained true to the end. Intelligence reports from both Chinese and US sources point this out: "Japanese NAVY pilots refuse to dogfight." This was not the case of the Japanese ARMY pilots, who did turn, and this established the myth for Navy pilots. While turning no doubt happened with the Zero (breaking horizontally was routine, but is not "real" turnfighting, which I define as two consecutive 360s to the same side, 3 separate P-51 vs 109 dogfights going into 90X 360...), the idea the Zero EAGERLY turned is a myth that shows how poor WWII aviation historical research really is... Justin Pyke is a specialist in intelligence archive research, and the accounts of first hand witnesses, from a variety of intelligence archive sources, paint a completely different picture of Japanese Navy fighter use. Previous assumptions were largely based on US tests of captured Zeroes.

[@BrianS1981]

The Luftwaffe wasn't helped by Herman Goring being over it either. His inability to manage an organisation was legendary along with his Dunning-Kruger effect.

[@englishpassport6590]

Gorings half brother was a Jew which explains his lack of commitment to the Nazi cause.

[@RocketHarry865]

Not helped with his Morphine addiction. Before the Munich Putsch he actually did a good job in organizing the Sturmabteilung. But then he got shot in the Putsch and got addicted to the morphine that was used to treat the pain from the injuries and the surgery.

[@englishpassport6590]

Also his brother was jewish@@RocketHarry865

[@nk_3332]

The real (and very secret) change between the Battle of France and the Battle of Britain was the availability of 100 - 120 octane avgas to the British. The US had developed a method of catalytic cracking and catalytic reformation, basically taking larger chains and breaking them, or taking smaller chains and adding them together. Therefore they could make avgas from heavier weight crude fractions rather than refining it to get what little was available. The Germans were flying with 80 - 90 octane, the US and UK were flying with 100-120 octane gas

[@TheOrdomalleus666]

For the uninitiated: what does that change?

[@nk_3332]

@@TheOrdomalleus666 Grossly oversimplified, you can run the engines a lot harder for longer.

[@chrisstrawn4108]

@@TheOrdomalleus666 the higher the Octane rating = the greater the resistance to pre-detonation. This means you can run significantly higher boost from the engine's supercharger. More boost = more power. The Germans tried to crutch their inability to produce higher Octane by inventing Nitrous Oxide (even today this is a common hot-rodding trick-- check out any Fast & Furious movie) and water-methanol injection. Neither is as effective nor can be stored in sufficient quantity onboard to make more than a super-quick and done power burst. Higher Octane means more power the whole time airborne if needed.

[@chuckschillingvideos]

@@TheOrdomalleus666 More power and more reliability.

[@tyo8663]

The Ju-88 could pretty much fulfil the role. Upgrading it's engines would have been a better use of resources than producing another type. They manufactured way too many types of aircraft instead of concentrating on numbers. Plus the '88 was very versatile.

[@quanloikid1]

My father was a navigator and member of the 856th Bomb Squadron, 492nd Bomb Group (Heavy). He and the pilot, both from Rochester, NY, were the only survivors of his B-24 on the June 20th mission to the Oil refineries at Politz. The other 9 planes in the squadron were all shot down by rocket and cannon fire of the 410 Hornets. The 492nd was eventually withdrawn from action as being the B-24 group with the highest losses in WWII. The mission was commemorated by Randy Greene in the painting, "Into a Hornet's Nest." The pilot's son became a General and commanded Nato Air Forces. After Vietnam service with the 1st Cavalry Division (AM) as a combat medic, I went to medical school and became a pediatric neurologist. The 410 was very effective from my family's point of view. Doc, 1/5 Cav RVN 69-70.

[@hawnyfox3411]

About 20+ years ago, I almost bought a house @ North Pickenham & even back then, I knew of this "infamous" mission that you speak of - Bear with me, as I'm typing purely from memory alone here - (I live nearby base, BTW). It took only around 13 minutes from FULL B.24 formation, to completely annihilated & trashed into the Baltic Sea Anyone who mocks or underplay the Me.410, is, quite frankly, an idiot = For those reading this, remember... By late '43 the Germans could NOT envisage ANY single-engined Allied Fighter plane (bar Recon') turning up & rocking up over Berlin, or, anywhere that today, we would regard as the former East Germany (it's Postwar name) Only the advent of Rolls Royce engined variant of the P.51 Mustang "changed the game" & made Me.410 redundant Back in late 1943 no-one could've really envisaged this & besides.... THE as in THE very first USAAF 8th AF raid on Berlin did NOT take place, until 6th March 1944 (quite late in the war) Think about it - barely a year left to go (before end of WW.II in the E.T.O) & it's THE 1st U.S raid on Berlin. So those poor UN-ESCORTED B.24 Liberators flew from North Pickenham to the far end of the (German side) of the infamously cold Baltic Sea, but were decimated entirely from start to finish in just 13 minutes, as in 13 minutes !! Basically, a bloodbath - The shockwaves WERE felt all around North Pickenham, as I've read countless accounts of men who WERE posted there, soon after this event, only to learn of their predecessor's fate & an EMPTY BASE Eventually, later, the 491st B.G took the place of the 492nd who were disbanded, as thereafter, it was regarded as a 'jinx posting' for anyone sent to North Pickenham - Today the base is a Winf Turbine farm, mostly... And the "Blue Lion" Pub still remains, tho' it WAS shut down circa 2013 (for good) but locals complained, so it was re-instated by a local couple, the new landlord being a local M.P - Prior to it's closure in 2013 there was a LOT of 8th AF memorabilia, including a Stars/Stripes Flag that was flown over a captured town (Germany) IIRC, the B.24 nicknamed "Sknappy" was a rare survivor - dropped out of formation & flew to Sweden www.forcedlandingcollection.se/USAAFe/USAAF105-440706-boulderbuff.html Another, besides "Sknappy", was nicknamed "Boulder Buff" = I've provided a link above, her diversion to Sweden Many of these planes ARE remembered by local folks who have aviation interests & including both the 491st & 492nd Bomb Groups & yes, there IS a memorial in the village to the fallen of those two units .

[@cartersmith8560]

did you go into cambodia in may 1970 ? Shakeys Hill ?

[@vcv6560]

Loss rates like that, after D-Day when air superiority was at least on its way to being established reminds me of a remark from "The Guns at Last Light." US casualties (of course mostly ground forces) were higher in the last full month of war (April 45) as the month of the Normandy landing the prior June.

[@rickriede2166]

Germany did not as stated "need more single engine fighter's" They had plenty as production ramped up faster and faster as the war progressed. What they really needed and sorely lacked was trained pilots, experienced ones being lost to attrition. Secondly and just as importantly they desperately needed FUEL You cant fly without fuel.

[@markbrandon7359]

BS at the battle of Britain much of it's fighter core was made up of Me110's which were of little value against Spitfires.

[@wrathofatlantis2316]

​@@markbrandon7359Yes, the 1930s was full of assumptions only speed and hit and run mattered, not turn fighting, which is why almost everyone fell for the heavy fighter nonsense. Only the P-38 barely made it work, because you could turn it very well in a series of short "spurts". It could match the two German types when doing that, and in right turns (or left turns above 250 mph) it might even out-do the 109.

[@Alex-qc6wk]

I was about to comment this. The same with the "if only they produced more Pz IV's instead of messing about with heavier designs". All well and good, but you need skilled people to actually crew all of that stuff. And the materials and fuel to actually make it happen.

[@wrathofatlantis2316]

@@Alex-qc6wk The German fuel output peak was 2% of the US fuel output in WWII... Japan 1%. It puts things in perspective if you think quantity over quality would have helped... And despite all the uninformed babble about German tank quality, everything they did in that domain made sense: More fragile quare cut gears saved a huge amount of wear on limited tungsten tooling, and they came up with excellent rear face hardening on the armour plates, for the best resistance to the first hit at the expense of subsequent hits, despite a lack of some alloys. Heat treatment was what mattered. By the end, the Panther with improved final drives was vastly better than anything else in the world, especially in mobility and maneuverability compared to the Sherman...

[@lancerevell5979]

​​@@wrathofatlantis2316During WWII, the amount of fuel used in Great Britain for civilian use only was greater than the entire fuel production of Germany. They never had enough fuel for their needs. A huge strategic error on Germany's part.

[@leestewart72]

Bf-110 was a great aircraft, just misplaced at first. It made a great ground attack aircraft and bomber interceptor/night fighter.

[@rickcentore2801]

On June 20, 1944 the 492nd Bomb Group was attacked by ME-410s on the mission to Politz. Fifteen Liberators were lost. (My father's airplane was one of them.) Along with machine guns and cannons, air to air rockets were also utilized by the Hornets.

[@rossdavis397]

interestingly in all the comments there is no mention of the very fast agile heavy fighter available early in the war , The focke wulfe 187 of which only seven were built.

[@edwardmelvin9184]

I agree. I always thought that the 187 was a missed opportunity.

[@markos3396]

I think the bf 110 and 410 is a bit misunderstood here. These planes weren't just designed to be heavy fighters but also ground attack aircraft, that's why the Germans called them "Zerstörer" which means destroyer, providing close air support for ground troops they bombed the enemy while also being able to shoot down enemy bombers. Sure they never performed well in dogfights, but they surly proved themselves as bomber hunters, the night fighters had great success whilst in daylight they still performed better at shooting down bombers than single engine fighter thanks to their ability to carry more guns and being more robust they could take more abuse.

[@MGB-learning]

Great video

[@chrishartley4553]

I was under the impression that the Me 310 was a high altitude fighter variant with extended wing tips. The Germans knew about the development of the B-29 and obsessed over its high service ceiling. How this panic would lead to the various Höhenjäger projects would make a good topic for a video. Me 410B-5 and B-6 were both anti-shipping variants with the suitable aerial arrays, and the B-5 adapted for carrying torpedos. There are photos of the few B-6s built. And because of the anti-shipping radar get mistaken for night fighters. I am not sure they were ever operational. I could easily be wrong though. I think there is some debate on whether a night fighter variant-with those stags antler Yagi aerials- ever flew. The Me 410 was used in night intruder roles over the UK but never carried radar. Which would have made it an easier target for Mosquitos.

[@paint4r]

From what I can see, the B5 and B6 were both used for daytime home defense, but with their radar removed. I have a book (German Fighter Aircraft of WWII 1939-45 by Thomas Newdick) that says as much but it doesn't list a source for that bit of information. The B6 was in limited use with frontline units by the end of the war but not many were built. The B5 was still in testing by the end of the war, but the book says it saw combat, although not the intended anti-shipping role. I couldn't find a source online for production numbers per variant. I agree that would be an interesting video topic, the Ta 152 is one of my favorite planes of any time period.

[@alanpennie]

I suppose radar wasn't necessary for intruder missions

[@allgood6760]

Thanks for this 👍✈️

[@liamoliverdarroch6482]

Cool vid.

[@gort8203]

Heavy fighters are all over KZbin lately, as if there is a special on or something. It was not the original heavy fighter concept that was misguided, it was the way Germany executed it. It is true that in the interwar period a twin engine fighter could be just as fast or faster than a single engine fighter while carrying heavier guns and more fuel. This is what drove the design of the Lockheed P-38. But unlike the BF-110, the P-38 was not weighed down with a gunner and tail guns as if it were a light bomber. The weight and drag of an extraneous crewmember and equipment is what made the Bf-110/210/410 uncompetitive against single engine fighters. Designs like the P-38, F7F, and Dh Hornet performed well because they were configured as fighters rather than light bombers. The mistake made many times is thinking that you have to design a multirole aircraft instead of a fighter if you want your fighter to be able to drop bombs when it is no longer need for air superiority. Actually, just design a good fighter, and you can still hang bombs on it. Design it as half bomber and you only get half a fighter, with the same amount of bombload, so what have you really gained.

[@thethirdman225]

Yes but the P-38 was a _qualified_ success as a fighter. I. Some ways it did very well. But as an escort fighter, compared to enemy single engine types, it was less successful. Not as bad in the escort role as the Bf-110 but not ideal. It really depended on what it came up against and what conditions it was used in. In one-v-one against single engine types, it suffered from several problems. It lacked agility and had poor dive performance. It was also much more complicated to fly than any single engine type then in US service and cost a lot more to build. As a long range interceptor, it worked well in the Pacific. But that role didn’t really exist in the European theatre. That’s why it was in only limited use in the fighter role by mid-1944. The much-vaunted de Havilland Hornet was not used in WWII.

[@wrathofatlantis2316]

@@thethirdman225 True. Later models P-38s did perform better, but were less used in Europe than the Pacific. Horizontal turning turned out to break hit and run attacks, so it became more common, and most twins would have been increasingly left out in Europe by 1944-45 (as were the no flaps heavier later Spitfires, not just because of their range). Little known is that the Japanese Navy remained stuck on hit and run all the way to the end, a recent discovery by intelligence historian Justin Pyke. The P-38 could make brief very sharp turns in a quick series, and that helped it.

[@thethirdman225]

@@wrathofatlantis2316 Yes but it was much more complicated to fly and there were more practical solutions. That's the point I'm making.

[@wrathofatlantis2316]

@@thethirdman225 Yes, but diving issues aside, it was also much more complicated to make. The diving limitations meant you got less for twice the building cost. It did make sense over long stretches of water, since the pilot was costlier and more range was needed. It paid off in a way...

[@thethirdman225]

@@wrathofatlantis2316 I'd agree with all of that.

[@williamashbless7904]

210/410’s had some sexy lines to them. Heavy fighters were a concept that seemed good leading up to war, but just failed in their intended role.

[@thethirdman225]

In German service, yes. In British service, no. The British heavy fighter concept was much better executed than was the German concept. That’s why they had two of the best heavy fighters of the war: the Bristol Beaufighter and the de Havilland Mosquito.

[@williamashbless7904]

@@thethirdman225 I won’t argue that both Mosquito and Beaufighter were not great planes, but they weren’t really fighters. The Beau ended up being an amazing attack plane and the Mossie excelled at photo recon, nightfighting, pathfinding, etc, etc.

[@thethirdman225]

@@williamashbless7904 *_"I won’t argue that both Mosquito and Beaufighter were not great planes, but they weren’t really fighters."_* Both were very successful night fighters so I suppose it depends on what manner of fighter operation you're talking about. I agree that they were not what you would use for interception or air superiority work but with the exception of the Mosquito bomber variants they were still performing fighter missions. The Mossie was every bit as adept at thigs like anti-shipping as the Beaufighter.

[@Sam_Green____4114]

The Beaufighter and the Mosquito was extremely successful twin engine heavy fighters !

[@Gute_Laune_Goy]

not really

[@ChristianMcAngus]

Yes, if you want to make a succesful ww2-era 2 engine piston fighter, you want to make it single pilot and light as possible, eg. Whirlwind, Lightning. Although single engine fighters are just a far more efficient use of expensive aircraft engines.

[@stevecastro1325]

Thank you for filling in to the details about just how the heavy fighters were not Wunderwaffe that Mustache Boy wanted them to be.

[@firstcynic92]

Faster but less agile aircraft can take on more agile but slower fighters. It just means you have to play to your own strengths and away from your opponents. Specifically the faster fighters need to use "boom and zoom" tactics. From a higher altitude they blast through the enemy and then speed off, reforming their formation to do it again.

[@wrathofatlantis2316]

That's exactly the assumption they went with in the 1930s, and it was proven wrong in WWII. The twins all got slaughtered because they could not turn, and the P-38 barely managed because it could. Making horizontal turns traps your target at a steady range, because reversing the turn is fatal, and by turning continuously no one outside the circle can draw aiming lead to hit you. By contrast, the high closure rate of hit and run is easily broken by the slightest turn, so it practically requires an unaware target that cooperates by going straight, which means it required firing at point blank range at the very last moment for it to work... Me-109s in the West stuck with hit and run far too long (due to Eastern Front experiences), and by 1945 everyone was turning most of the time except the most obsessive hit and run pilots of the entire War: Japanese Navy pilots in their Zeroes, N1Ks and J2M3s! That the Japanese Navy studiously avoided turns is a recent discovery by historian Justin Pyke, who scoured intelligence archives for actual first hand observations. Just because the aircraft could turn (in Allied captured tests) does not mean that is necessarily how it was used...

[@samuelgordino]

​@@wrathofatlantis2316I have to ask, are you saying the japoneses used the Zero as a hit and run fighter??? That's the exact opposite of all the books, videos and interviews I have seen about it. All say the main tactic early in war was turn and fight and by mid war change to boom and zoom.

[@lancerevell5979]

​@@samuelgordinoAnd, the P-40 and Wildcat pilots used Zoom&Boom against the more agile Zero, precisely because the Zeros and Hayabusas coild out-turn them.

[@frankmcgowan9457]

​@@lancerevell5979 At low speeds, yes, the Zero was more maneuverable. At high speeds, though, the American aircraft were functionally more maneuverable because their controls were lighter. At least, that is what I've been seeing lately.

[@samuelgordino]

@@lancerevell5979 exactly but in the comment I responded the opposite was claimed!

[@i-a-g-r-e-e-----f-----jo--b]

That was interesting, thanks! I thought the heavy fighter concept was a big Goring idea? Me262s is what Germany needed (a twin engine fighter, lol), in 1942.

[@2011Kestrel]

I have a thing for twin engine twin tailed aircraft - the aesthetics really appeal to me. Despite their shortcomings, the ME 110 is one of my favourite aircraft.

[@grendelgrendelsson5493]

That's a great picture of a Gloster F9!

[@user-tf1rq9vg1j]

Looftvafe (L-Look, Looft-va-fay) You are great in your research and presentation. This is just a polishing up of your delivery. ;)

[@RichardGoth]

My late godfather flew in the Free French airforce - he had a lot of respect for the 410 especially the radar equipped versions

[@Jaeger_89]

If those resources had been pushed into perfecting the 262 and the Ta-152, the air war would have been a lot harder for the allied bombing squadrons. Like it was said in the video, not a war winning effort, but definitely harder. Germany embraced the future of warfare with their early war blitzkrieg and combined arms tactics, but clung a lot to failed concepts in other areas...

[@VinceVilmosToth-bb6rg]

Back In the day the former Royal Hungarian Airforce commissioned as well as Kingdom of Hungary manufactured Me-210 too. By their terms it was a "Destroyer" class warplane.

[@sim.frischh9781]

The Germans HAD a plane comparable to the Lightning: the Focke-Wulf FW 187 "Falke", but they decided it wasn´t the right kind of plane for their "Zerstörer" doctrin.

[@RedXlV]

Yep, the Luftwaffe was unable to grasp the idea that a heavy fighter doesn't need a tail gunner, and thus saw the Fw 187 as an unwanted "intermediate" between the Bf 109 and Bf 110 instead of as a replacement for the 110. Even saddled with the Jumo 210 engines, it was clearly superior to the Bf 110. Even the few Bf 110 pilots who got an opportunity to fly the Fw 187 agreed.

[@dantejones1480]

The Ju 88 can fulfill this role without the need for the time and resources of a new design.

[@loopwithers]

Although the 110 was formidable in 1939 and 1940, by the end of the Battle of Britain and certainly by 1943 the 110 was much easier to destroy by the latest British attack aircraft. By 1944, once the USAF became fully operational with their Mustangs as well, it was not a good time to fly over Britain in a 110. Coming in with a new design made sense. Unfortunately (for their crew), the 410 was not sorted out and refined by the time it was brought to battle

[@josephstabile9154]

Well, not quite. By the time Jumo 213s were quantity available for Ju-88, long-range interceptors were in place, making Ju-88s non-survivable as daylight interceptors. And 213s would be prioritized for needed altitude improvements in single seat Fw-190. 1942-1943 time frame--THE opportunity to shut down daylight bombing-- would have employed Ju-88s with Jumo 211s, providing significantly lower climb rates/intercept times and top speeds viz. 410s. German lack of everything was starting to limit German ability to overcome; holding the line was not the winning option. Strategic alloying ores, sufficient high octane fuel production, new & old technology lead times, limited production capacities under increasing demands, decentralization due to bombing, manpower were ALL biting hard well before 1944. The ingenious work-arounds could really not overcome the numbers game that was already taking major toll. I put it in a sentence in my first post: timing is everything. But, in the case of U.S. & U.S.S.R., having everything practically made timing irrelevant.

[@clementevaldez1271]

Beautiful and very sleek design....

[@and15re1]

My favorite mass produced heavy fighter

[@kewlwarez]

The ME 410 was just Germany's attempt to save face over the fact that the Hungarians actually fixed the ME 210 when they license produced it.

[@falloutghoul1]

I know the Hungarians used the Me 210-Ca1, which can fit either bombs or a 40mm gun. They quite liked it.

[@apis_aculei]

No obsession but sober calculation. Heavy fighter was only one role that included the destroyer concept. As a multi-role fighter, destroyers were used very successfully as fighter bomber , scouts and long-range fighters over Russia, the Mediterranean and North Africa. By the way, the Bf 110 was the most successful night fighter of WW2.

[@mikehimes7944]

*sad p-61 noises*

[@samuelgordino]

​@@mikehimes7944The P-61 appeared too late in the war. It didn't had a real impact.

[@annoyingbstard9407]

One has to take claims of German “kills” with a huge pinch of salt at pilots were clamouring for glory and claims were then “adjusted” first by the Luftwaffe then by Goebbels’ propaganda ministry. If the bf110 was successful it wasn’t because it was a good plane it was simply because of an abundance of targets as hundreds of bombers flew over Germany almost every night.

[@mikehimes7944]

@@samuelgordino sorry, I should have clarified that my joke was about the p-61 never getting a chance to show off.

[@samuelgordino]

@@mikehimes7944 that makes more sense 😁👍

[@paulm1365]

I would have liked to see a Northrop F15 Reporter armed with 20mm canon in a redesigned fuselage removing the camera bays. It would not have been as fast as the Tigercat but it would have outranged any two engine plane I can think of with extremely high cruise performance.

[@stilgar2007]

"Germany seemingly remained committed to the concept", this applies to a lot of their issues in WWII.

[@BokoDisraeli]

Part of the issue the Luftwaffe faced during the BoB was that the RAF kept back their stocks of 100 octane avgas in Britain and the introduction of improved propellers on Spitfires. The air war over France had been very equal and let the Germans grow complacent with the early model 109’s and 110’s.

[@markbrandon7359]

3 things made the spitfire a great fighter, #1 they wanted to add another MG but the wing was too small so they widened it (elliptical wing) this improved it's lift and turning radius. #2 the new wing would shudder when the G forces were about to tear the wings off so even a rookie pilot was able to push his plane to the limit. #3 a tech was standing along side a Spit that just started the engine he was hit in the face with a blast of exhaust he reasoned this could be used as propellant so they designed new exhaust manifolds that pointed back this increased the Spits speed

[@DavidOfWhitehills]

​@@markbrandon7359The shudder warned of an imminent stall, not that the wings were about to fall off.

[@markbrandon7359]

@@DavidOfWhitehills Not according to the expert in the Doc I watched, have you ever flown a Spit?

[@DavidOfWhitehills]

@@markbrandon7359 Bad news: not all docs give a shit whether what they say is true or not. For moneymaking reasons. You might try googling "Spitfire wing shake" Or just read Wikipedia about Spitfires. I've flown Spitfires as much as you have.

[@Pushing_Pixels]

@@markbrandon7359 It was more than 3 things. OP is right that better props and higher octane fuel made a big difference to performance. A bigger difference than the small amount of thrust they got from the exhaust.

[@scootergeorge7089]

I notice the Lockheed P-38 was not mentioned. America's top two aces flew the Lightning. A d the P-47, while single engine, was quite heavy.

[@soulsphere9242]

He did talk about the P-38...

[@RoyalHungarianAF]

You can find a video about the Hungarian Me 210 Ca-1 in my channel.

[@bificommander7472]

Me 210 seems like a counterpoint to the "if it looks right, it'll fly right" idea.

[@frankmccann29]

Excellent. I remember when I was a kid realizing how serious this mistake Germany made. Nothing that flies can take a. 50. Armor didn't work and they're too slow.. They were chewed up.

[@bradleyl3]

How was the 410 in the ground attack role?

[@konekillerking]

😢 p-47 feelings hurt. We escorted too.

[@kevinoliver3083]

The were no operational Me 410 nightfighters (that's why you couldn't find any pictures of them). The Me 410s deployed over the UK were fast bombers. And suffered only a slighter lower loss rate than the Do 217s, Ju 88s, and Ju 188s, they were supposed to replace.

[@russkinter3000]

Does anyone know how effective those two rear firing guns were on ME 410s?

[@BobSmith-dk8nw]

The thing with the Germans and Heavy Fighters is that they had a very real use for them as Bomber Destroyers. Originally the 110's had been thought of as Long Range Escorts but they were so unmaneuverable that they couldn't deal with single engine fighters. The problem though with using them as Bomber Destroyers - was simply that Germany was being over whelmed and thus they couldn't protect them from the American Escorts. Now - Galland - remarked about the P-38 that it was like the 110. Here with the two engines, using the ailerons to roll the aircraft - it's role rate was too slow for both planes. The thing with the P-38 though - was that it had counter rotating propellers - driven by counter rotating Engines. Here - what the knowledgeable P-38 pilot could do - was to _Blit_ his engines. What he'd do was rapidly accelerate then decelerate the outboard engine in a turn. This rapid increase in the torque of that engine - would rotate the aircraft. This enabled P-38's to out maneuver Spitfires on occasion. The problem with doing that though - is that this took a good degree of skill - as you didn't want to over rotate the aircraft. Given the problems they had in Northern Europe with those Allison 1710's a lot of the young, inexperienced P-38 pilots were afraid of the aircraft. Tony LeVier en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_LeVier Lockheed's Chief Test Pilot came to Europe, sorted out a lot of the P-38's problems and gave demonstrations to the P-38 units as to just what the aircraft could do in the hands of a very good pilot. They made up a bunch of kits to fix some of the P-38's problems but the RAF thought the C-54 aircraft transporting them - was an Fw-200 and shot it down ... For the mass trained pilots the more advanced ergonomic controls of the P-51 made it a lot easier to fly than a multi-engine _prewar_ aircraft (and they were cheaper) so the long range escort role in Europe was taken over by the P-51. In the Pacific - they didn't have the engine problems and Lindbergh helped tune the engines to make them more fuel efficient - but the big thing was that it had *_TWO_* engines. In the Pacific they were flying over either jungle or water. If they came down in the water - a Catalina might spot them and pick them up - but - if they came down in the jungle - they were dead. So - the pilots in the Pacific fucking loved the P-38 with it's two engines. You can see that preference for twin engines in Navy Jet Fighters which is why the Navy flies the twin engine F-18 and the Air Force the single engine F-16. Could the Germans have made Counter Rotating Engines for their heavy fighters? I don't know. The thing with those Allison 1710's was that they had been *_designed_* so that by flipping the crank shaft - they could make the engines counter rotate. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allison_V-1710#Versatility_and_reversibility_of_rotation You couldn't do that with a Merlin. I don't know about the DB-605's but I'm not aware of the Germans having done that. I don't know of any German Aircraft that had Counter Rotating props.. .

[@womble321]

Btw the problem was the Luftwaffe trying to use the bf110 as an escort fighter. Had they used them correctly they could have been devastating in 1940.

[@womble321]

They should have used them to raid fighter airfields carefully timed just before a bombing raid. Or even during a raid when the fighters were trying to climb to hit the bombers. Then used them when fighters low on fuel were returning to base.

[@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935]

They devestated the wehraboo's favourite mass murdering side😝

[@gort8203]

But the 100 was designed to be an escort fighter, so you have to forgive the Luftwaffe for trying to use it that way. They learned the plane could not compete with single engine fighters, so they would have been better of with more 109s in place of the 110s. That would have been more devastating.

[@fonesrphunny7242]

Just visually, I really like the 210/410. Same with the Junkers 288/388. Can't quite put my finger on it, but it's probably because of the cockpit design.

[@andrewcox4386]

P38, Whirlwind, Beaufighter, Mosquito, Hornet, Tigercat - all twin engined heavy fighters which could match single engined types, provided tgey played to their strengths & didn't try to get into turning fights with more nimble types.

[@miketrusky476]

The lightning could out turn any German or Italian fighter, it was not as fast in a dive but was faster in level flight. Feathering one engine it could out turn a ZERO, THIS slowed it making it a good target , but when there were other lighting in the air a zero would be come a good target 8f it came back to try a kill. The tactic was used to great effect in the Pacific. The lighting was fighting against war trained pilots at the bringing of the war with no battle experience. AT wars end Japan was building fighters that, THEY SAY, "WE'RE DESIGNED TO Shoot P38s down". Not any other American plane.

[@andrewcox4386]

@@miketrusky476 Only the later versions with the powered ailerons & manoeuvre flap extension. The early versions were fast but couldn't match single engine types in a dogfight.

[@peebeedee6757]

@@miketrusky476 Tail flutter in a dive was a big disadvantage in the Lightning, the resulting reduced speed made them vunerable to German fighters and I doubt it could out turn a Bf.109. If you couldn't dive away in a dogfight you had your hands tied.

[@tomwoggle9411]

Oh yes, let's talk about the German 'obsession with heavy fighters": - Messerschmitt Bf 110, 6170 built. - Me 410, 1189 built. - Fw 190, 19500 built - Bf 109, 33300 built B-17: 12731 built B-24 18188 built Avro Lancaster, 7377 built De Havilland Mosquito 7781 built. P-38, 10037 built. Looking at those numbers the German 'obsession' with these two German heavy fighters doesn't quite seem as clear and obvious anymore now, does it? Especially when considering not only the bombers that they were meant to intercept were built in FAR greater numbers, but also the American 'obsession' with their heavy twin engine fighter P-38 built over 10000 times somehow seems to have been much greater as well. Not to mention the extreme extend of the German 'obsession' with their Bf 109 built almost 5 times as often and the Fw 109 built over 3 times as often as the Bf-110.

[@rothotborski]

Since the engines of the Do-335 are pretty distant from each other, there wouldn't be a lot of advance in case of manoeuvrability to expect, this is just a change axle of the weight distribution - to get good results you have to put as much weight as possible near the center of gravity. As far as I know in Europe the P-38 didn't perform well either...

[@marselangjo2201]

Theyre not as distant as you may think. The second engine ( rear) is placed right behind the cockpit and conected to the engine with a driveshaft. Id say theyre about the same distance from the center as in Bf110/410. The reason the Dornier cant turn well is because it weighs double the amount if not more of other heavy fighters and it has the size of an F15 or Su27. Humans look like mice next to it.

[@AndrewGivens]

It seems the big problem with the twin-engine fighters was in the insistence that they have a rear gunner for self-defence. That's where all the excess weight really came from. More efficient twin-engine fighter designs included the aforementioned Lightning and the Whirlwind (a plane which was unfortunately sabotaged by the change in propellers for the production variants, but otherwise had the right stuff). Even the successful Beaufighter was only a success as a night-fighter and maritime fighter; otherwise it was very much a fighter-bomber, thanks to the two crew layout and weight issues attendant with it. It was never used as a long-range escort at all, sensibly. (But then British Air Ministry thinking was different to that of the Germans'.) I understand that the Bf-110 was a useful fighter-bomber for ground strike missions in the Mediterranean theatre - as long as it avoided enemy single-seaters like Tomahawks or Hurricanes. Maybe if it had been used exclusively for low-level sneak attacks on Chain Home stations and fighter bases ahead of bomber streams during the Battle of Britain it would have a less terrible reputation?

[@philipv4613]

Wow cool airplane! It’s like a German mosquito. Questions: 1) any surviving 410’s? 2) rear facing matching guns: Is this a single pilot airplane? Was there a gunner ? A copilot who controlled the rear facing MG’s? Did they have elevation and or outboard anglar control? Or were the fixed reward firing? 3) what was the ballistics performance like on the 50mm cannon? Did it have a flat enough trajectory to be a bomber thunker? Any recorded air to air victories with the 50mm in combat?

[@matiastorres1510]

There's a surviving 410 in the Smithsonian, there was a gunner, the reward gun had elevation and angular control idk the exact limits, and the 50mm cannon was adapted from the 50mm KwK 39 so had a pretty flat trajectory. There was supposedly 129 air kills with the 50mm but thats from wikipedia and the dude didn't cite his source so idk.

[@sergeipohkerova7211]

From a diagram I saw, the rear gunner faced backward and controlled both rear facing blisters with a single joystick. Twisting it up and down would move gears and rods to rotate the two turrets up and down, but if he wanted to shoot left or right and at angles, only the gun on the appropriate side would move, ie, gunner wants to shoot something off to his left, so he moves his joystick to the right, and the turret to his left turns while the turret to his right doesn't engage unless he wants to shoot straight up and down or to the right.

[@prowlus]

There is a surviving me-410 in raf cosford

[@PeteCourtier]

RAF Hendon museum has one.

[@seeingeyegod]

@@sergeipohkerova7211 that always seemed like such a cool system to me, but I guess in practice it probably wasn't very effective.

[@user-gj1np8zd5t]

The basic flaw of most twin engine heavy fighters...really interceptors was weight and the insistance of adding defensive as opposed to offensive firepower. The key to heavy fighters.. ie twin engine fighters/interceptors was light weight compared to horsepower and enough forward firepower.... read multiple cannon and machine guns to rapidly take down a heavy bomber in a single pass. The only successful twin engine heavy fighters I am aware of that came out of the second world war were the Mosquito and the P 38. Ironically neither was designed as a fighter. The Mosquito was originally designed as a fast light bomber and indeed it excelled at this. But it also excelled at many other roles including precision ground attack night fighter interceptor able to shoot down V1 flying jet bombs photo recon etc.while generally unable to go head to head with top line German fighters it was difficult for zgerman fighhters to catch it The P38 was originally designed to be a high altitude bomber interceptor with a top speed of 400 mph and a rapid climb rate. It came along early used a lot of new tech and was a hot complex aircraft that entered production early before several problems were ironed out. These problems combined with sub optimal utilization made the early models less than satisfactory in the ETO. Most problems were resolved by the H model and the J models made it a first rate airplane. Used properly in the Pacific the P38 came into its own. It shot down more Japanese planes than any other Allied fighter. After Lindburgh demonstrated proper mix boost and throttle settings it had enormous range vital in the enormous distances in the Pacific . Properly flown it was more than a match for the Japanese planes. Bong and Mcguire certainly demonstrated that.

[@wbertie2604]

The 110 was originally intended to be a family with a light bomber and recon derivative, much like French multiplace aircraft. To that extent, France was more obsessed with heavy fighters. The UK and Japan also developed them, as did Italy. It's more that the USA and USSR were initially outliers in not having them circa 1940.

[@johnpalmer5131]

It never ceases to amaze that bad ideas often perpetuate in times of war…

[@vcv6560]

Not just in war...the Lockheed F104 'Widowmaker' comes to mind.

[@mpetersen6]

Heavy fighters really only made sense in on application. Bomber interceptors. And more in the night fighter role than daylight. The exception is the P-38 which performed very well in the Southwest Pacific.

[@gort8203]

The P-38 was not really the exception, it was the correct execution of the concept, and the Bf-110 and successors was the flawed execution. A heavy fighter that is not burdened by extraneous crewmembers and equipment can perform escort, just as the P-38 did. The Dh Hornet was the correct execution of the concept, and the designers of the Me-410 Hornet should have been embarrassed by the Dh Hornet.

[@molochi]

The allies (eventually) protected their bombers with an advancing screen of fast and nimble fighters. It's odd that Germany wasn't able to screen and defend their bomber destroyers with a similar tactic.

[@Parocha]

They did. They usually assigned heavily armed and armored FW-190s to attack bombers, while lighter BF-109s were instructed to protect them from the bomber escorts

[@thethirdman225]

@@Parocha In this case, I think the Fw-190 would not have been considered a heavy fighter in the sense that this video means.

[@frankmcgowan9457]

German fighters did not have the range to precede the bombers all the way to their target. Neither did American fighters until the P-38 was available in quantity in early 1943. The P-47 and P-51 czme later anc each extended the range. At the stage of ths war when Gernan bombers were used offensively, they were chiefly used as extended range artillery over relatively short ranges. The 109s could accompany the He-111. During BOB, Germany's first attempt at "strategic bombing," the ranges became too long for the 109. Every nation's fighter aircraft shared similar failings except Japan. The Zero had range because the Pacific required range. The United States had the advantage of massive industrial capacity well outside the reach of any enemy coupled with its entry into the war being delayed 2 years from its outset. Those advantages allowed US aircraft companies information from combat to guide developnent, time to improve or replace aircraft types and capacity to produce massive quantities. Britain and Germany fought tge war with fighter aircraft designed in the mid 1930s while America large,y fought with newer types.

[@Parocha]

@@thethirdman225 nope.. but it was a similar tactic.

[@alangledhill6454]

If you are talking about the battle of Britain the Germans initially did this, but the British ordered their pilots to avoid the fighters and concentrate on attacking the bombers. This led to the bomber crews demanding and getting close escort. Later in he war the Americans had enough fighters to both screen ahead and provide close escort.

[@mandoprince1]

When talking about heavy fighters being used as bombers, the Bristol Blenheim is a really bad choice of aircraft to use as an illustration. It was the opposite, a bomber which was adapted for use as a stop gap heavy fighter pending the development of more suitable aircraft.

[@shelliecarlson7015]

Didn't Hitler want the 262 to be mainly a bomber. Allocating like, a quarter of the 262 production to fighter rolls?

[@George_M_]

The irony is, via jets, the multiengine, large, multirole plane was indeed the future. Just not with the tech or vision of the time. How like everything they did with military tech.

[@michaelnaisbitt7926]

Never understood the thinking in aircraft design in lare 30s and throughout the war particularly with the concept of the rwo crewsd so called fighters like the blackburn skua boultan paul defiant Me 110 Me 310 and 410 IF YOU INCREASE the weight of airfram preformance suffers thats why the Lightning was successful the S,M 91 abd 93 adopted rhe same principle and may have worked if produced early enough power to weight ratios always wins

[@stephengardiner9867]

It is a good looking aircraft but it was simply wasted resources in its envisaged role. Had it been developed as more of a multi-role aircraft, it might have ended up as more of a parallel to the British Mosquito (night fighter, recon platform, fighter bomber, maritime attack...) BUT still it was NOT the interceptor that the Germans so desperately needed late in the war. The best warplane is merely a paperweight (or an inviting target) if it lacks well trained and experienced aircrew. These were increasingly "thin on the ground" at this stage of the war for Germany. The few "experten" (sp?) remaining could not hope to halt the avalanche of allied fighters and bombers.

[@ThatsMrPencilneck2U]

The USAAF learned that having fighters sweep out ahead of the bomber was a lot more effective than flying close escort. Close escort fighters were sitting ducks, for the defenders, denying all the strengths of heavy fighters. This is why the ME 110 fared so poorly during the Battle of Britain. Perhaps, the FW 187 would of fared better, but bad tactics usually trump superior equipment.

[@thethirdman225]

Not strictly true. The American escort fighters were arrayed at different altitudes and different proximities to the bomber ‘boxes’. On very long range missions, there could be as many as four handovers to different fighter groups, flying different fighter types. All of those different types had different performance characteristics.

[@stscc01]

Those tactics for the USAAF escorts only worked because of their vast superiority in numbers. 10:1 was not unusual in 1944/45 over Germany. If the enemy fighters are equivalent in numbers, you can't do fighter sweeps miles away from the bombers you're supposed to protect. But there were so many Allied fighters in the air that they coujd easily afford to allocate quite large numbers to fighter sweeps and have enough aircraft left to fly cover for the bombers. The Luftwaffe in 1944/45 was a joke, lacking fuel and well-trained pilots. The few remaining aces were mostly flying on the Eastern Front against the Soviets, or were flying in units like JV44 with the new jets. The average Luftwaffe pilot was a 19-year-old that had very inadequate training and no experience whatsoever. Those guys had to be very lucky to survive their first sorties...

[@RemusKingOfRome]

Goering got a woody for HF. Heavy Fighters could have worked with turrets armed with cannons but no one though about this.

[@Cavethug]

You do realize that an argument could be made the the most effective fighters today are heavy fighters. The F-111, F-14, and F-22 could all be considered heavy fighters, as they're heavier than their single engine brethren, and they all have twin engines. The difference between a piston engine and a jet engine simply being that they don't need the same spacing since there's no prop.

[@_DK_-]

Expanding on this; The F-15, F-14, Su-27 and F-22 are the heavyweights to their respective F-16, F/A-18, MiG-29 and F-35. In all cases, the heavy fighters have higher performance, capacity and capability for the air to air role. Size matters as it is critical for determining things such as space and power available for avionics, aerodynamic efficiency and weapon carrying.

[@paint4r]

I think calling the German concept of the Zerstörer inherently flawed is fair, but what's flawed is the concept itself in German doctrine, not the specific aircraft in this category. For example, the Bf 110 got slaughtered in the Battle of Britain but it performed excellently as a night fighter and in various other roles. I believe the Ju 88G was even better as a night fighter, but you didn't talk about the various "other" German heavy/night fighters. Even in the daytime, heavy fighters could perform well intercepting allied bombers up until they had escorts, which wasn't fully until Big Week in February '44, during which the 110s and 410s got slaughtered again because of course they did. Even then, these could perform well in other roles like ground attack or reconnaissance. It's not as if the Germans were alone in investing into this concept. The British had real success stories with the Beaufighter and the Mosquito. I think the Beaufighter especially is very similar to the Bf 110, but it has a great reputation (rightfully so). It was a superb night fighter and naval striker, and nobody says it was bad because it couldn't dogfight single-engine fighters. If the British escorted bombers or intercepted escorted enemy bombers with Beaufighters, they would have fared similarly to the Germans using the Bf 110/410 in the Battle of Britain and in Big Week, respectively. It was German doctrine that failed the 110 in the Battle of Britain, and they learned from their mistakes, the hard way. In the case of attacking bomber formations with escorts, the allies had been unable to fully escort for 4 years, so the first time came as a very costly surprise for the heavy fighter force. The Bf 110 and other German heavy fighters get a bad rep where they really don't deserve it. They got their nose bloodied a few times but overall they were still highly versatile machines, effective in their own right.

[@maultasche668]

Wasn't the Me 262 also a heavy fighter? Two engines, 4 canons and rockets

[@sebastianthomsen2225]

😉👍

[@johncraig7823]

Yet the 110 did shoot down 1/3 of the British fighters shot down! But I agree single engine fighter with drop tanks is a proper choice. Plus you could put bigger fuel tanks inside the fuselage & burn off that fuel 1st.

[@womble321]

Thing is we assume the Germans regarded the 110 and Stuka as a failures. They absolutely did not do so. They realised they were miss used.

[@womble321]

Last comment they had far more ammo for the machine guns I think they used tracer then switched to cannon when on target.

[@HaVoC117X]

Furthermore it was leading the score bord in killing british bombers at night.

[@KapiteinKrentebol]

0:32 What plane is this?

[@atilllathehun1212]

Gloster F9-37, prototype only

[@KapiteinKrentebol]

@@atilllathehun1212 Thanks!

[@paulricketts1089]

...Goring had the Heavy Fighter bug...........

[@whyjnot420]

Fast vs. agile... just written a little differently.

[@darthbigred22]

Just saying the US top ace was a P-38 pilot, Uncle Sam made it work but we've never been too hip on turning be it cars or planes.

[@genekelley7579]

🛑🛑 This has to be a “Dumb Question “? But why did it take the Battle if Britain for the Germans to figure out, that the BF110 was not capable handling Single Engine Fighters, when they had ME109, that they should have been doing “mock dogfights” with, prior to the war?? The performance of any Twin Engine Fighter shouldn’t have been a surprise to the Luftwaffe in the early years, if they were doing their “due diligence”. 🤷‍♂️

[@HotelPapa100]

Hitler certainly was no strategic genius, but the overemphasis on the heavy fighter has to be laid maily at the feet of Göring.

[@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935]

Strangely quiet about America's pre-war best, the Bell YFM1 Airacuda.

[@mpetersen6]

The Airacuda would have been an unmitigated disaster in actual use.

[@Parocha]

@@mpetersen6despite that, it’s a beautiful airplane 😊

[@gort8203]

Why call it the best, when America certainly didn't think that of it and cancelled it. The P-38 was America's heavy fighter.

[@jacobmccandles1767]

What German Zerstorer needed to be successful was *130 octane gasoline.* The Mosquito had it, the ME-410 did not. Thank God they never got it!

[@kiereluurs1243]

There is no 'god'. Now you know.

[@jacobmccandles1767]

@@kiereluurs1243 okay, well, you did your duty for the day: I still believe, and you've been an ass to someone. Guess we can both be happy. CHEERS!

[@oleriis-vestergaard6844]

The additive to put in high octane petrol the germans bought in america for octane 100 and 110 but the Stock was almost gone in late 1944 - the american company was DUPONT ( that also sold zyklon B gas ) So yes it big buisness to wage a war

[@jayartz8562]

Too late but the DeHavilland Hornet and Grumman Tigercat may have rescued the twin engine fighter concept.

[@thethirdman225]

The British, Americans and Germans (and even the Soviet Union) all had different concepts of how a heavy fighter should be employed. The British did it the best, the Americans slightly less well and the Germans did it the worst. The de Havilland Mosquito and the Bristol Beaufighter were both very successful. Their analogues in the Luftwaffe, the Bf-110 and the Me-210/410 were not nearly as successful. The 110 made up for that by being an excellent night fighter. In that role, the concept of the heavy fighter actually works.

[@wrathofatlantis2316]

It's an interesting question, but at least the Tigercat was almost the size and cost of a Ju-88 or B-25 bomber, and longer than the A-20...

[@jayartz8562]

@@wrathofatlantis2316And way,way faster than all of them

[@lancerevell5979]

​@@wrathofatlantis2316 F7F Tigercat was 45' 7" long. A-20 Havoc was 48' long.

[@wrathofatlantis2316]

@@lancerevell5979 I stand corrected :)

[@josephstabile9154]

Timing is everything. If the first iteration of the Bf-110's replacement had been the 410, instead of the 210, the early daylight bomber offensive may have failed due to prohibitive losses. With 4-8 20mm cannons, or 20 & 30mm cannons, and rockets, the 8th AF would have found insurmountable losses, because fighter escort was at least a year away. By the time the 410 was operationally significant, U.S. long range escort was in place, making 410 losses unsupportable. BTW, if introduced earlier, the 410 would also have given Allies major intercept problems in all its other non-bomber intercept roles. Yessiree, timing is everything. Applies to much of which is post-1941 Luftwaffe. Some of the bad decision making can be laid at Hitler's door. But, other poor decisions can easily be shown to be driven by personality dislikes by Gen. Milch, unrealistic RLM priorities, political infighting, and Nazi hubris. Little Germany isn't gonna beat the world when so many stupid decisions are made, going all the way back to before 1939. Long range, high altitude superiority, more horsepower--who needs 'em? Radar--shmadar! The list could go on and on. What comes of putting a provincial-minded corporal in absolute charge.

[@neiloflongbeck5705]

That's assuming they picked the 410 as it ended up and the RLM hadn't added extra functionality that ruined performance. But it would have been better to just go for the 262.

[@josephstabile9154]

@neiloflongbeck5705 Yes, but I don't think they could have put the 262 into service anywhere as quickly as the 410. We are dealing with hypotheticals, and Nazi misfeasance. DB603 development was lagging, but DB605 might have cut the mustard in the interim. 410 was known technology, but 262 was introducing new concepts, which always takes longer. Also, a new hurdle was trying to achieve practical service without crucial alloys. This delayed engines until a work-around for turbine blade burnout was obtained.

[@neiloflongbeck5705]

@@josephstabile9154 the Finns supplied Germany with nickel, they and the Greeks have the largest supplies outside of Russia. It was one of the reasons why the Nazis didn't want to lose Finland during the war. As for development timescales, where there is a will there is always a way. This is why the British army got the Sherman Firefly.

[@josephstabile9154]

@neiloflongbeck5705 So, I can agree that Germany was not OUT of strategic alloys in '43; the shortages of them were bad, causing more work-arounds, causing more developmental delays. Albert Speer stated that, in April '45, ALL Germany's remaining strategic alloys could fit in a broom closet. Nazi will was not wanting, IMO. But, as history showed, in spades, Germany could not will its way to victory. It did almost will its way back into the Stone Age and Armageddon annihilation, though. Now, there's a helluva development time fail to ponder. BTW, nickel was severely rationed right after BoB, to the point where percentage in a/c engine valves dropped from 60+% to 8%, causing burnt valves, which caused detonation, which caused reduction in boost pressures which caused performance declines, which negated hard won air superiority, which increased losses & lower serviceability & more strain on infrastructure, and more time expended in figuring the problem, & then necessary work arounds. Sound like a bit of for the want of a horse shoe nail, doesn't it? RAF wondered until '45 why German octane production (not fuel prodution; that was never sufficient) was surplus to authorized boost pressures. It was insufficient alloys! Insufficiency meant limiting supercharging boost pressures, inferior valves, bearings, spark plug electrodes, etc., etc. I'm sure this is painting a picture. The wonder is that Germany stayed as competitive as it did. But, no mistake, handwriting wasn't just on the wall, it was everywhere by '42, the year that doomed the Axis.

[@justacomment1657]

they also could have gone with the tanks design... but willy 'I get my will Messerschmitt' was neck deep in some verry dark and brown places inside the RLM...

[@martindice5424]

I can think of NO other aircraft designed for war which has a nose mounted bombay. The awful Sturmvogel (the bomber aberration of the Me 262) had an external nose position but… In what mirror universe did the designers think this was a good idea? 🤔😂😂

[@thethirdman225]

All German fighters were required to be able to be fitted with bomb racks. It was not Hitler’s idea, _vis a vis_ the 262. It was an RLM requirement.

[@jeffscherer2136]

I mean we kind of do heavy fighters again. F15s are called missle trucks and 5th gens are fighters.....

[@adamrodaway1074]

I see your Hornisse and raise you a DH Hornet.

[@emaheiwa8174]

Heavy fighters were such a waste of time and money.. Flying wings deserved more attention

[@kamaeq]

By your entire logic the Japanese Zero was the greatest fighter of WW2. FWIW, a heavy fighter beat the crap out of no fighter for escorting bombers. In the defense, the 410 and other heavy fighters were for use against bombers while single engines dealt with escorts.

[@toomanyuserids]

Heavy fighters...in an era when an F-15E could lug two B-17s - not the bombload, the loaded planes - we think of an F-35 or F-16 as 'light'

[@toomanyuserids]

Of course we think of an 8000 ton ship as a 'frigate'

[@LoneStarMillennial]

I think of the F-35 as a failure, and the F-15 the pinnacle, and F-16 the penultimate, of American jet fighter technology.

[@jacobmccandles1767]

​@@LoneStarMillennialdon't listen to Pierre Sprey's nonsense.

[@adamrodaway1074]

Though I would say that there are still what I’d call heavy fighters around e.g. Mig31

[@bIackfeather]

​@@LoneStarMillennialThere's a reason why everyone is lining up to buy F-35s...

[@user-us9nq7gw8z]

Was Goering obsessed with the heavy fighter concept. Not Hitler!

[@terraflow__bryanburdo4547]

Despite their emphasis on twin engine fighters, Germany couldnt even match theMosqito or P38, lol.

[@jacobmccandles1767]

Because Germany lacked 130 octane fuel.

[@HaVoC117X]

True.... They simply outclassed them with the m262 and Do 335.

[@Dreska_]

'literally a flying tank' what

[@slimrummy4616]

I always liked the me110 /410

[@FromaTwistedMind]

Luftwaffe.... "We've just made the perfect heavy fighter". RAF / Mosquito..."Hold my pint"! 😡

[@geesehoward700]

so the 410 "heavy fighter" had most of the same roles as the "multipurpose" Bristol Beaufighter? okay.

[@markos3396]

The 110 and 410 were actually classified by the Germans as destroyer aircraft which could basically do multiple tasks, from bomber to ground attack to recon and so on...

[@geesehoward700]

@@markos3396 sorry, i was trying to say that there was no difference between the uses of the german planes 110-410 and the allies aircraft and the failure of planes like the 110 was more from using them in certain roles they simply weren't suited to.

[@masbeetleboy9169]

Ironically the Germans did have a superlative twin engine fighter towards the end of the war, the Me-262. Yeah I know that this doesn't count, but it kind of makes a person think.

[@cuddlepaws4423]

A fighter that needs a fighter escort ??? WTF 🤣🤣The Germans seemed to have an obsession with heavy fighters , as well as heavy tanks . If in doubt make it heavier . They even put a tank gun on it ! They could have called it the Ostrich or the Moa ( both could fly as well as the 410 ) or even the Tetradactyl ( which was more of a heavy glider , but was still developed by Germany 😵‍💫😵‍💫) .

[@kevanhubbard9673]

The 210,310 and 410 all look the same.All 3 are much more modern looking than the 110.

[@Purvis-dw4qf]

Thanks for the video- you are Germany wasted a lot of resources on many different aircraft and other weapons.

[@HaVoC117X]

GERMANYs OBSESSION.... man I can take those pseudo history no more. Look how many single engine fighters Germany built and compare them to the number of destroyers. 34000 bf 109 to 5500 bf 110... Yeah that most be obsession. What about Mosquito, P38, Hornet, Tigercat..... Same with tanks. Germany built over 55000 tanks and spgs. 2500 of them Tigers and Elefants...... Germanys obsession with heavy tanks.... FACE PALM

[@Sacto1654]

In short, the Luftwaffe chose the *WRONG* heavy fighter design. Had they gone with the Focke-Wulf Fw 187 fitted with DB 601 and eventually DB 605 engines, it would have resulted in a plane capable of 420 mph and long range, a plane that would have been a scourge against American bombers and would have been a difficult target for even the P-47 or P-51 to shoot down.

[@stoop25]

Germans missed a trick by not developing the FW 187. That was the heavy fighter they needed.

[@thethirdman225]

The Fw-187 would not have made any difference. Despite the closeness of the battle, the Germans were on a hiding to nowhere in the Battle of Britain.