So another option in terms of fighter armament:
https://translate.google.com/transl....org/wiki/Scotti/Isotta_Fraschini&prev=search
Without the details on the weight and ROF Scotti made a lighter, faster firing 12.7mm HMG than the Breda-SAFAT one from 1933 on. It couldn't be synchronized, but if you have the motor cannon mount and one in each wing you'd have a hard hitting HMG against any fighters of WW2, especially with the German HEI-T round already developed for their 13mm HMG, but without the weight penalty of the Breda as well as a better rate of fire to really take advantage of the belt feed extra ammo and avoid the problems of low rates of fire in aerial combat. Plus apparently unlike the Breda it had an open bolt design which didn't overheat as quickly.
Like every device, it has it's pros and cons. If indeed it was lighter (and smaller) - perhaps install 2 per wing for 4 guns total?
As always - API all the way for HMGs
So what was the point of the entire argument about the Breda HMGs? The MG FFs were already superior by far in their killing ability due to their HE content and adding the 90 round drums, even with the weight penalty, only further makes them a better option if all you care about is individual round killing capacity. At that point you could even remove the regular MGs from the nose mount and use the Scotti HMGs in the motor cannon installation for added hitting power.
I prefer a situation with greater firepower vs. a situation with lower firepower.
The HMG firing API adds armor-piercing feature to the firepower. so we might kill enemy pilot instead of have him slightly wounded by shell fragments. Also means retaining ability to fire at enemy once the 90 rd drum is emptied somewhere over Midlands.
Ok? They had still had 4 attachment points for heavy bombs even if they could only fill 3 of them at a time to keep the loaded weight to a reasonable limit.
My point was you can't transition that hard from one very wide section to a narrow one that quickly in an aircraft. If you are going to have one that has a reasonable weight and aerodynamic profile you need to restrict the internal size of the bomb bay and fuselage diameter. If you go up to Do217 size for big bombs then you need Do217 sized engines to maintain performance.
I will not narrow down the aft part of bomb bay. You can note that 250+500 kg bombs side-a-side are narrower than 500+1000 kg.
Same as Do-217, the Ju-88A-1 and A-5 was wide enough to carry 4 rows of 50 kg bombs.
Manual, especially pg. 31.
Reduced to 2 rows with A-4 and it's offsprings.
A quick perusal of Wiki shows the introduction of the Me 110 D-1 with 900 liter/238 gallon drop tanks and an 85 liter oil drop tank. These were available should the Luftwaffe decide to utilize them. The drop tanks for the Me 109 E were 300 liter/79 gallon tanks. Could the Me 109 E variants handle the heavier 900 liter tanks?
Even if 900L can be carried, once the tank is dropped the user might found himself much further away from the friendly base than it has fuel for to return. For combat missions, fighters usually carried 50-100L extra of fuel in drop tanks for each 100L they held in internal tanks