Spindash64

110's vs 410's

with the recent C-6 zerstorer renewing interest in the German heavies, I feel like this is as good a time to ask as any:

 

is there even a reason to fly the 410's at all?

 

it's common knowledge than in raw performance, the higher BR Me-410's are inferior to the A-1 variant, the lightest and fastest. But in terms of performance, the 110G-2 seems to be almost as fast, and much better climbing.

 

this wouldn't be an issue if the 410 had better firepower or more options, but...

 

the best options of the entire 410 line are more or less matched by the 110G-2 alone:

 

50mm models are more sluggish than the 37mm carrying 110

U2 models are much higher BR than the MG151 toting zerstorers

max bomload of the 110 is 250kg higher due to the 410's lacking wing bombracks

 

 

 

...so, I guess this turned into a discussion about just the G-2 as far as the 110 line, but it really does seem to outclass the rest of the german twin engine fighters by that much, sans the Pfeils. This doesn't feel historical. I mean, I know that the 110's continued production until 45, due to problems with the 210, but the 410's shouldn't be seemingly WORSE than the plane they were meant to replace. MAYBE it's historical and the main draw of the 410 was better range? but even that feels like a stretch

  • Upvote 2
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Spindash64 said:

 

is there even a reason to fly the 410's at all?

 

it's common knowledge than in raw performance, the higher BR Me-410's are inferior to the A-1 variant, the lightest and fastest. But in terms of performance, the 110G-2 seems to be almost as fast, and much better climbing.

 

NOPE. Standard B1 is better than A1. 

And B1/u2 (4x20 mm + 2x 13 mm) is the best of them as heavy fighter in air-to-air role.

+ Me410s has remote controled 2x 13 mm in the tail, which have much better field of fire (Bf110s gunner has huge blind spot) and in short range (300-400 m) causes more damage than 7.92 mm. 

The problem is that the increase in performance and firepower is disproportionately small to the increase in BR. 

 

Quote

 

this wouldn't be an issue if the 410 had better firepower or more options, but...

 

the best options of the entire 410 line are more or less matched by the 110G-2 alone:

 

50mm models are more sluggish than the 37mm carrying 110

U2 models are much higher BR than the MG151 toting zerstorers

max bomload of the 110 is 250kg higher due to the 410's lacking wing bombracks

 

In TankRB / combined forces, Bf110 G2 is better option than Me410s. For AirRB this is not so obvious.

 

 

Quote

...so, I guess this turned into a discussion about just the G-2 as far as the 110 line, but it really does seem to outclass the rest of the german twin engine fighters by that much, sans the Pfeils. This doesn't feel historical. I mean, I know that the 110's continued production until 45, due to problems with the 210, but the 410's shouldn't be seemingly WORSE than the plane they were meant to replace. MAYBE it's historical and the main draw of the 410 was better range? but even that feels like a stretch

 

The main reason why Bf110 remained in production for so long was because Bf110 was very reliable platform as nightfighter:

- easy / convenient to fly (which takes on a new meaning at night)
- easy radar assembly in the nose section
- great possibilities of mounting frontal armor (on the contrary cockpit of Me410 was very vulnerable)
- durable / suitable for hard landing (nightime again)

 

As a fast, light bomber or heavy daytime bomber killer Me410 was objectively better and in 1944 eventually replaced Bf110.

 

Edited by Einherjer1979
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your whole post on here hinges on whether you mean the AFs or GFs mode.

 

If the former, I would say there is little reason to play the Bf 110s or Me 410s. While they're both capable families in RB AFs, the single engine meta prevails in RB AFs.

 

In RB GFs, this is very different. The absence of markers means twins with decent maneuverability (as is the case with these two types) can compete with single engine fighters reasonably.

 

Henceforth I will work under the presumption that your post refers to RB GFs:

 

3 hours ago, Spindash64 said:

is there even a reason to fly the 410's at all? 

 

it's common knowledge than in raw performance, the higher BR Me-410's are inferior to the A-1 variant, the lightest and fastest. But in terms of performance, the 110G-2 seems to be almost as fast, and much better climbing. 


I would say the Me 410A/B-1s and the B-6/R3 are the three Me 410 variants worth using for RB GFs.

 

While the /U4 can be used, the 50mm is a mediocre option. Its fire rate is excessively slow and the damage it does makes it lackluster compared to the MK 103 boasted by the Hs 129 and B-6/R3 as well as the 37mm offered by the Hs 129 and Bf 110G-2.

 

3 hours ago, Spindash64 said:

max bomload of the 110 is 250kg higher due to the 410's lacking wing bombracks

 

From what I gather, this limit has more to due with the Me 410s lacking things they should have--not that they didn't have them.

 

3 hours ago, Spindash64 said:

...so, I guess this turned into a discussion about just the G-2 as far as the 110 line, but it really does seem to outclass the rest of the german twin engine fighters by that much, sans the Pfeils. This doesn't feel historical. I mean, I know that the 110's continued production until 45, due to problems with the 210, but the 410's shouldn't be seemingly WORSE than the plane they were meant to replace. MAYBE it's historical and the main draw of the 410 was better range? but even that feels like a stretch

 

As noted above, there were many reasons the Bf 110 soldiered on--and even had a little known H variant made (though to a large extent, these were essentially just "late model" Gs). Chief among these reasons were: the Bf 110 was a relatively forgiving design with decent versatility and developmental potential; it was already in production; what it offered was reasonable throughout the war.

 

As for the Me 410s: in general, the Me 410s were rebranded Me 210s. Though there were differences, the 410 was a direct derivative of the 210 that was renamed explicitly to throw off ties from the notorious 210--which had encountered serious problems. The Me 410s were good aircraft and capable in their own right, but by the time they were around, the war had changed in its scope and direction. What the Me 410s were intended for and what they found themselves in was a different world.

 

Here's a documentary that talks about both the Bf 110 and Me 410s:

 

Unlike some other documentaries, this one is actually worth something.

medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Spindash64 said:

but the 410's shouldn't be seemingly WORSE than the plane they were meant to replace. MAYBE it's historical

 

It is not. Someone made a thread about it but pretty much nothing has changed:

 

 

Edited by Chomusuke1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

according to the datasheets, the B models have a worse rate of climb than the A models, though. the B is slightly faster, but I'm not sure if the trade off is fully worth it

medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Spindash64 said:

according to the datasheets, the B models have a worse rate of climb than the A models, though. the B is slightly faster, but I'm not sure if the trade off is fully worth it

 

Tiering is what really holds the Bf 110G back.

medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, warrior412 said:

 

Tiering is what really holds the Bf 110G back.

on the contrary, I find the 110G to be very competitive at 3.7. Axis fighters, while horrible teammates in their willingness to help attackers, DO provide an excellent job of altitude superiority, giving you time to pummel tanks or to climb yourself

 

 

Also, are the extra 20mm and option for Gr 21's on the U2's worth the upped BR and lack of bomb bay? At least for the B-1 vs the B-1/U2?

medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Spindash64 said:

on the contrary, I find the 110G to be very competitive at 3.7. Axis fighters, while horrible teammates in their willingness to help attackers, DO provide an excellent job of altitude superiority, giving you time to pummel tanks or to climb yourself

 

BR 3.7 is not what limits it, it’s a good BR. Being a Tier II is debilitating though—that robs it of a ton.

 

2 minutes ago, Spindash64 said:

Also, are the extra 20mm and option for Gr 21's on the U2's worth the upped BR and lack of bomb bay? At least for the B-1 vs the B-1/U2?

 

The rockets are good when they hit but are hard to place, being spaced so far out on the wings.

medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the place where BF110-G2 really shines is in tank RB . It might be the best overall CAS plane . 

 

Good:

 

*Plane handling and aiming 

This is the biggest advantage over Me410/FW190F8 . You can outturn many fighters or atleast offer them some fighting until teammates get to kill it . Also aiming with large bombs is easy - it does not affect plane performance no so much. 

 

*Powerful standart arment 2x M108 (if 37mm pod) or MG151 (if bombs )

*Nice bomb loads + 37mm gunpod option

*2 engines mean many times you can still make it back to airport

*Gunner got 2x 7.62mm , it does not look good but its much better than 13mm on Me410 

 

Bad:

 

Top speed near ground is around 480Kmh. So its quite slow. 

 

At the moment 37mm gun with 66 rounds is best because 50mm guns(on Me410) are slow firing and low ammo(22 rounds) . The better version of 50mm is on Me262 but it sits at 6,7BR .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.