Talk:Messerschmitt Me 410 Hornisse

message: Holy smokes this page is in the need of an update... consider it started.
--Evil.Merlin 20:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Did RAF really use this plane in action? I don't think it should be in operators list if they just flew tests with captured planes and filled a museum with it. --Hamarainen (talk) 20:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I removed RAF and added Hungarian Air Force to operators. --Hamarainen (talk) 11:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a source for Hungarian units using the 410? They had the Me 210C, why should they need the Me 410 ? --Denniss (talk) 13:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw Hungary listed as primary users in the info box so I thought it was forgotten from operators list. Quick googling for "Me 410 hungary" didn't give any definitive answer but Hungary as operator might be a mixup with 210 and 410 indeed. --Hamarainen (talk) 14:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Operators 

message: I understand RAF flew test flights with this aircraft well into 1946 but no data of that testing is available. Anybody know if these are available anywhere? If not, why is that?
Further remarks: 
- The .50 cal mg in American bombers was effective beyond 1000 yds when fired rearwards from defensive positions. The problem was scatter so the wording could be different in the article, "not very effective" could be more appropriate.
- There seems to be inflated focus on Bk5 when ever Me410 comes up in discussion but quite early on it was clear even to top brass that Bk5 was no the best way to go. Even the Romanian versions were better with smaller cannons (which were too tested by the Germans)and the ultimate armament for bomber interception by Me410 was actually dual Mk103. This weapon had the range, ROF and hitting power to devastate bombers beyond 1000 yds range but 800 yds was more common engagement range for MK103. While the 6 MG151/20 armament was very good with increased hit probability, it had a shorter engagement range (400 yds)which was problematic due defensive fire. Mk103 was recommeded over Bk5 even by Adolf Galland.
- Why does to text claim 410 was an elusive target and goes on to describe when the first one was shot down? Does not sound too elusive to me. If there is nothing to support the claim of elusiveness simply leave it out. However there is no point to have the first downed 410 on British soil either if the point is not to show it was merely an easy target. Of course you could balance this by stating that Eduard Tratt shot down 5 P38 Lightnings while flying a Me410. (http://www.luftwaffe.cz/tratt.html) 
- It has to be noted that during American daylight raids the 410 was the best plane to carry the quad underwing rocket tubes which were very effective in breaking up bomber formations, but in turn made the plane vulnerable to enemy fighters. There is unfortunately no data as what was the armament configuration used when Me410 had a decent K/D ratio when not. I presume the rocket tubes were a major factor since they degraded speed and maneuverability in situation when even the single engine fighters had trouble to survive. The employment of this aircraft in such situation does not really give correct picture of its capabilities while its derivative in British service, the DH Mosquito, was mainly used at night and accompanied by slower and more numerous heavy bombers which made more sense to intercept by the Nachtjäger units than the fast Mosquitos which were fewer in numbers, had less crew and less bombload.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by FockerWulfer (talk • contribs) 08:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  RAF test reports? 

message: How the hell did the machine guns on this thing work? You have 1 guy controlling 2 separate machine guns with a LOT of swivel on them. How do you even aim something like that?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.158.68.199 (talk) 15:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Defensive armament

message: Substituted at 23:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Aside from the Me 310 article having no references at all, it doesn't have much content and it seems unlikely that it ever will. I think it'd be best to merge that article into Messerschmitt Me 410#Design and development and create a redirect. ☽Dziban303 »» Talk☾ 11:38, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Messerschmitt Me 310]] 

message: I notice that under "Specifications" - "Performance" that the Maximum Speed given for the Me 410 is lower than the speed given for its Cruise Speed.
Since I do not know the actual specifications of this aircraft, I did not just switch them, since it is possible that one of them is correct, and one is completely wrong, hence a different speed needs to be given in one category.
I suggest that the Editor take a look at this and adjust the numbers.
James
202.44.210.87 (talk) 23:17, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Not reversed, you have missed the second maximum speed entry of 624 km/h at alt vs the 1st entry at sea level. Sadly no alt is given for (maximum) cruise speed. --Denniss (talk) 00:10, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Max Speed and Cruise Speed reversed? 

message: Despite the article regarding the Cosford Me410, this aircraft was stored in the tech training hanger at Cosford in 1967. 2A02:C7D:465B:1200:FCE7:3B17:5D9C:AD82 (talk) 13:22, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  ME 410, Cosford