# Best medium bomber, 1939



## Oreo (Jul 28, 2008)

Here's a poll to see if you're awake. If you vote, please tell why you chose it. And no, if I didn't include it, don't thrash me. Some of these bombers did not see service, or much. I will try to post all relevant types, but I know I'll forget some. We're talking about best in terms of most capable of doing their job and surviving. In some cases, we may not have much evidence to go on.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 28, 2008)

You did not make a poll for people to vote...

You love polls don't you?


----------



## Oreo (Jul 28, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> You did not make a poll for people to vote...
> 
> You love polls don't you?



Sorry, Adler, I was making the poll but it was an open-book test and it took a while so there was a delay. I was trying to be super thorough, as no matter how careful I am something always seems to slip through the cracks. . . . .


----------



## timshatz (Jul 28, 2008)

Love the Ju88. Not only a great bomber, but a heavy fighter, night fighter, interdiction aircraft. You name it. Head and shoulders above the rest in versatility and general ability as an aircraft.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 28, 2008)

In the 1939 I will have to go with the Ju 88. At that time it was faster than a lot of its oposition, very maneuverable and a very versatile aircraft. It remained a very versatile and good aircraft for the remainder of the war.


----------



## Oreo (Jul 28, 2008)

And you will be interested to note, Adler, that I chose a Deutch kampf fleugzeug for my selection. The Do 17Z was, I think, the best medium bomber in squadron service in 1939. I struggled with putting the Ju 88 on as it was barely in service, but knew I'd catch it if I didn't include it. The Ju 86 was phasing out of service; if I included it, I would have to include the Ju 88. But I think the Do 17Z, which hit hard in Poland, was a sturdier bomber than the Ju 88's of the time. However, I think the Ju 88's overtook the Dornier designs shortly after that, until the advent of the 217.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 28, 2008)

I am not very fond of the flying pencil. Yeah it was good at the time, but it was overpassed very quickly and became very obsolete very quickly as well. The Ju 88 lived on and got better...


----------



## Oreo (Jul 28, 2008)

Well, you may all be right. Perhaps I was wrong. Can't change it now.


----------



## Oreo (Jul 28, 2008)

However, I anticipate seeing some Wellington fanatics before we're done. . . .


----------



## Oreo (Jul 28, 2008)

My choice of the Do 17 had to do with its abilities in 1939, not later, however I see your point, and really the Ju 88 probably had the edge even then. Some accounts I was reading thought the Do 17Z was the best bomber of the B.o.B. but then I can't even find that reference now I'm looking for it. I probably should have voted for something else.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jul 28, 2008)

The LeO 451 was pretty good.

Also, how about the Do 215, or would that be counted under Do-17?


----------



## Thorlifter (Jul 28, 2008)

I'm torn between 3. The Ju-88, the He-111, and the Wellington. So I'll go with...........uh.........um............The Ju-88 due to its versatility.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 28, 2008)

In 1939 the Ju 88 was still a much better aircraft. Better airframe, better performance...


----------



## Oreo (Jul 28, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> The LeO 451 was pretty good.
> 
> Also, how about the Do 215, or would that be counted under Do-17?



Blast!  I knew I was forgetting something-- the Frenchies! And, yes, the LeO was a good plane by all accounts. Not sure if it was in service in 1939 or started in 1940. Yes, a good plane. Very capable.


----------



## parsifal (Jul 28, 2008)

Quick performance comparison of Ju88 and Wellington


Source Wiki

Wellington
General characteristics

Crew: six 
Length: 64 ft 7 in (19.68 m) 
Wingspan: 86 ft 2 in (26.26 m) 
Height: 17 ft 6 in (5.33 m) 
Wing area: 840 ft² (78.04 m²) 
Empty weight: 18,556 lb (8,417 kg) 
Max takeoff weight: 28,500 lb (12,927 kg) 
Powerplant: 2× Bristol Pegasus Mk. XVIII radial engine, 1,050 hp (783 kW) each 
Performance

Maximum speed: 235 mph (378 km/h) 
Range: 1,805 miles (2,905 km) 
Service ceiling 18,000 ft (5,486 m) 
Rate of climb: 1,050 ft/min (320 m/min) 
Wing loading: 34 lb/ft² (168 kg/m²) 
Power/mass: 0.08 hp/lb (0.13 kW/kg) 
Armament


Guns: 8x .303 Browning machine guns: 
2 in nose turret 
2 in tail turret[7] 
2 in waist positions [8] 
Bombs: 4,500 lb (2,041 kg) bombs 

Ju 88 (Data for A-4)

Specifications Ju 88 A-4

General characteristics

Crew: 4 
Length: 14.36 m (47 ft 2⅞ in) 
Wingspan: 20.08 m (65.88 ft) 
Height: 5.07 m (16.63 ft) 
Wing area: 54.7 m² (587 ft²) 
Loaded weight: 9,000 kg (20,000 lb) 
Max takeoff weight: 14,000 kg (30,865 lb) 
Powerplant: 2× Junkers Jumo 211J [33] liquid-cooled inverted V-12, 1,044 kW (1,420 PS, 1,401 hp) each 
Performance

Maximum speed: 475 km/h (295 m) at 5,300 m (17,388 ft) 
Range: 2,300 km (max internal fuel) (1,429 mi) 
Service ceiling 8,500 m (26,900 ft) 
Armament


Guns:

3-6 machine guns, either MG 15, MG 81, MG 81Z or MG 131 (some carried one MG FF cannon in the nose)[34] 
Bombs: Max load 2,005kg (4,420 lb)

Ten 50kg (110 lb) bombs internally + four 250kg (551 lb) bombs externally. 
Two 500kg (1,105 lb) externally. 
Four 500kg (1,105lb) bombs externally.[


----------



## parsifal (Jul 28, 2008)

In terms of performance, I dont think there is any doubt, the Ju88 is superior to the Wellington. It is arguable that the geodetic constructi8on of the Wimpy was superior to the s6tandard monocoque construction of the Ju-88, but it was also labour intensive for construction


----------



## Oreo (Jul 28, 2008)

Yes, but do you have the one other major "statistic" that needs to be compared: The "How-many-bullet-holes-can-it-return-to-base-with" statistic, which I believe the Wellington would win.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jul 28, 2008)

So would the He 111, but was the Wellington tougher than the 111?


----------



## Oreo (Jul 29, 2008)

kool kitty89 said:


> So would the He 111, but was the Wellington tougher than the 111?



Not sure, I think so. For one thing, Wellington had radial engines, which do not have the vulnerable liquid cooling system of the He 111. Anything else being equal, air-cooled over liquid cooled meant more resilient to bullets.


----------



## HoHun (Jul 29, 2008)

Hi Oero,

>For one thing, Wellington had radial engines, which do not have the vulnerable liquid cooling system of the He 111. 

Hm, after the Air Battle of Heligoland Bight in December 1939, when the Luftwaffe had intercepted a formation of Wellingtons, the German fighter pilots concluded that the British bomber was highly vulnerable and poorly protected. It also seems to have burned rather easily, but I figure the early model Wellingtons might not have had seal-sealing fuel tanks yet.

With regard to the often claimed superiority of the radial engine, I'd love to see some operational statistics that actually prove it. In my opinion, RAF Bomber Command is the most likely source for such figures as they operated subvariants of the same type equipped with V engines or with radial engines.

Here is a current disucussion of the topic: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/engines/engine-survivability-13581.html

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)


----------



## Juha (Jul 29, 2008)

Hello HoHun
IIRC Wellingtons got the self-sealing fuel tanks only after the debacles of 1939 and also the beam mgs, in 39 they had 6 mgs, in nose, ventral and tail twin turrets. The beam mgs replaced the rather useless ventral turret.

Also Ju 88A-4 was a later version, got into service IIRC in mid-1941. In Sept 39 A-1 was just coming into service, 1200 hp Jumo 211B-1 engines and 3 7,92mm MG 15 mgs, 1800-2000kg max bomb load, I'n not absolutely sure on the max bomb load.

Juha


----------



## kool kitty89 (Jul 29, 2008)

Here's a good page on the Ju-88 Junkers Aircraft of WWII


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 30, 2008)

Oreo said:


> Yes, but do you have the one other major "statistic" that needs to be compared: The "How-many-bullet-holes-can-it-return-to-base-with" statistic, which I believe the Wellington would win.



And you will prove this how?


----------



## Oreo (Aug 2, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> And you will prove this how?



Well, part of my point I was making was that it is hard to prove and almost impossible to quantify. That was why I made the little quip about it being a statistic, and why I made the little "winky" face after it, because I understand full well that there is no such statistic, only anecdotal evidence. just trying to be funny! And evidently not succeeding!


----------



## Supermarine-SpitfireMkXIV (Aug 15, 2018)

The Ju 88 was like a german mosquito.


----------



## Glider (Aug 15, 2018)

The Wellington gets my vote. For 1939 it had a good performance very similar to the He111 but had a much better defence and was more flexible


----------



## vikingBerserker (Aug 15, 2018)

I think the Ju-88 was am amazing aircraft, but in 1939 it was still having technical issues and IIRC there were only a dozen in service when Poland was invaded due to these issues.

I'd lean towards the PZL-37, good range with a decent bomb load.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Aug 15, 2018)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> And you will prove this how?



Like this perhaps? And, yes, the aircraft returned to base from an operational mission looking like that.







I'm only a decade late with this response!

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------

