As the Germans, do you use the Me410 and similar?

[vimhawk2]

Just getting a few Me410 groups in my game and not tremendously impressed so far. The main question is of course their need for two engines. It seems to me (correct me if I'm wrong) that engines are the biggest choke point in German production, so that if an aircraft is going to use two, it had better be really good. So yes, Me410s do have the firepower and can kill bombers. But they also get killed relatively easy themselves (and in my limited experience crash on their way back to base a lot), and most importantly are they that much better to justify the double engine commitment? Of course they have the range as well.

So the question is do people use them, or go "all in" on them, or just a few?

Actually same question for the Fw190Fs, which I thought would need 500 jabos in the pool for me to change out their groups, but it seems now I have over 500 109Gs again, I can change the 190Fs to that (and then to something else if required).

[cohimbra]

Personally I go all-in with single engine a/c, equipping some JG with extra cannon but not much of them.
Me 410 and Bf 110 are fine at the initial stage of the war but when allied fighters came in they took horrible, horrible losses.

About Fw 190F/G you don't need 500 jabos in pool, as the co-axis a/c they need 500 Bf 109G-6 in pool to change .

[Orm]

I keep all the two-engine fighters. I like to have them to destroy bombers if, or when, US make raids to deep so that there is a window when the bombers are without escort. Some of them I equip with rockets to break up the bomber groups, and some with extra guns to destroy the bombers.

I think they do their work splendidly.

[mark dolby]

Hi.
I use them as historically envisaged as bomber destroyers when no effective fighter opposition is expected. I do reduce the amount being produced to about 3-4 lines combined.
The best use I find for them is in stab flights based near the main bomber routes and use them to pick off the damaged bombers that try to return home. The longer endurance of the 410 makes them especially useful in this role. The victory tally of these pilots can really rise high.
Don't be afraid to switch them to other types if you need engines. All depends on your preferred choices in the end.

Mark.

[vimhawk2]

Thank you for all the good advice. It seems that it can work with and without. But I'm sure that if I keep them I will get over excited by trying to kill as many bombers as possible and get them shot down in droves. Plus has anyone else noticed this thing about them crashing a lot on their way back to base? Of course it's probably just that they might get damaged a lot and have a long way to fly back.

[vimhawk2]

... but I do like the idea of having them in the small units to pick off stragglers.

[Orm]

Plus has anyone else noticed this thing about them crashing a lot on their way back to base? Of course it's probably just that they might get damaged a lot and have a long way to fly back.

I've noticed that. However, I have also noticed that a lot less of them gets shot down by US heavy bombers when comparing with one-engine fighters.

Although FW 190F also seem able to take a few hits from the US heavies.

[vimhawk2]

The Fw190F has a higher armour rating than fighters, presumably due to is "jaboness" (although the G doesn't have this). Many many years ago I played USAAF, and the Fw190F was your single engine bomber attacker. I'm sure you could also arm it with rockets. But in this game, unless I read it wrong, you can't add extra cannon or rockets to the jabos. I'm sure this is accurate, but it just feels wrong for me, having spent so many hours playing USAAF (and considering it was running on a C64 disk drive, it did take quite a while to play!)

Also, as you say about damage taken, if the 410s can take more damage from bombers than the single engined, then it's another argument in their favour (when escorts aren't around of course!) Do you have the single engine fighters on bounce bomber, while the 410s on direct attack? If so the difference is even more marked.

[vimhawk2]

... or maybe after the contact has actually been established, when calculating damage to attacking fighters it doesn't matter whether it was direct or bounce?

[simovitch]

... or maybe after the contact has actually been established, when calculating damage to attacking fighters it doesn't matter whether it was direct or bounce?

It does matter what tactic you are using. The game takes into account the relative direction and speeds of the attacker and defender planes to determine how many gun platforms come into play and how effective they will be. The bounce will have a more lethal advantage over direct approach, but it will take longer for the bouncer to get into position which reduces the chance to ever make contact in the first place.

[JeffroK]

As an Allied player I love coming against the Me410. Easy targets for all Allied fighters, no way I am sending bombers outside the escort range.
Plus it chews up 2 engines and I dont know if it draws extra resources due to its size.

Seems like the Luftwaffe players enjoy playing the Allied AI.

[Orm]

As an Allied player I love coming against the Me410. Easy targets for all Allied fighters, no way I am sending bombers outside the escort range.
Plus it chews up 2 engines and I dont know if it draws extra resources due to its size.

Seems like the Luftwaffe players enjoy playing the Allied AI.

You can see the Me 410 as insurance against the Allied player keeping his bomber within escort range. If he does not, then the Me 410 is there to collect.

Without the 2-engine fighters, the deep raids is something that might be worth it for a human Allied player.

[vimhawk2]

As a matter of interest, do those operating Me410 use direct bomber or bounce bomber doctrine. Do you notice a significant difference, in both or either of casualties suffered and casualties caused?

[mark dolby]

Hi.
I always set my dedicated bomber destroyer units on bounce bomber. It won't matter if they are hunting stragglers but when combating a bomber box it will reduce the damage taken. Only downside is if USAAF fighters are present they can at least keep those units away from the bombers and often bounce them.
But you weren't going to use them near escorts were you!

And as an aside I always have the single engine non loaded units on bounce fighter.
Mark.

[vimhawk2]

Hi Mark, many days later I only just registered that last thing you said (slow in my old age!)

"...as an aside I always have the single engine non loaded units on bounce fighter."

What do you describe as a "non-loaded" unit? Is this a type that doesn't have a load rating, or simply any fighter not currently equipped with rockets or extra cannon?

Incidentally regarding fitting these extras, it doesn't seem restricted to certain types, so what are the rules? I could of course be seeing things but it seems to me that some units with a certain aircraft type can fit rockets or cannons, while other units with the same aircraft can't. At least I think that's the case, I'm nowhere near the game at the moment.

[cohimbra]

If i remember well all Bf 109 and Fw 190 can be loaded with rockets or extra cannon but not co-axis a/c (this is true also for double engines a/c)

[mark dolby]

Hi.
Using the term 'loaded' is a bit wrong? I get this term from the board game Airforce by Battleline/AH. It referred to planes carrying bombs/rockets/gun pods and put restrictions on manoeuvrability/speed just the same as this game does.
Carrying that extra ordnance on a single engined aircraft puts it at a severe disadvantage vrs the USAAF escorts so try to keep them focused on the bombers.
The Germans referred to the 109G6R6 as the 'Kanonvogel' or Gunbird (roughly).

Mark.